scjr 17, no. 1 (2022): 1-3 per jarle bekken paul’s negotiation of abraham in galatians 3 in the jewish context (berlin: de gruyter, 2021), hardcover, 316 pp. jason hensley jhensley@gratz.edu gratz college, melrose park, pa 19027 when paul wrote his letter to the galatians, he wove together many disparate parts of the hebrew bible. he alluded to isaiah’s servant songs. he spiritualized the narrative of hagar and sarah. he referenced traditions about abraham, the promises made to him, and the akedah (the binding of isaac). this raises the question regarding how much of paul’s theology, and specifically, his use of abraham’s narrative, was developed solely by paul and how much was based upon what had already been taught by other jews? in other words, how much was paul building upon the foundation of what was already understood by some jewish teachers, and how much was he creating his own schema? paul’s negotiation of abraham in galatians 3 in the jewish context deftly contributes to the body of literature that attempts to answer these questions. it focuses solely on paul’s argument in galatians 3 about abraham’s faith and justification and compares paul’s line of reasoning with writings from philo that have not previously been compared to paul’s writings. within galatians, paul uses abraham as an example of a model follower of god. though some galatians believed that they should live according to law (3:2), paul argues that this was not the case with abraham. according to paul, abraham was taught the gospel and was justified via faith in that gospel (3:8). he was then given a set of promises that extended to his offspring, whom paul identifies as jesus, and then to those who “belong to christ” (3:29). all of these blessings were given because of his faith and not because of his obedience to the law. some may read paul’s words as radical and anti-jewish and thus see them as paul’s attempt to undermine any jewish influence on the church in galatia. bekken, however, attempts to situate this discourse within jewish tradition itself: “a comparison of paul with philo with regard to their rationale for the mediation of the law may indicate that paul’s argument would not perhaps have been conceived to be so idiosyncratic in a jewish context as scholars have surmised” (233). hensley: bekken’s paul’s negotiation of abraham 2 bekken’s comparison between paul and philo begins in chapters one and two with his examination of philo’s understanding of abraham. many times, philo describes abraham as the model proselyte, as one who turned from idols to serve the one god (34–37). crucially, in discussing abraham and in seeing him as a model proselyte, philo emphasizes abraham’s “piety” and “nobility of birth,” in opposition to a genealogical relationship to his descendants (38). while this does not “mean that the ethnic differences disappear,” it does mean that philo saw spiritual character and thought as more important than physical lineage (40). in this way, philo set out abraham as an example to those who were not jews but who could become jews via conversion. they could follow abraham’s example by modeling his character. these proselytes join abraham’s family: “the proselytes receive a jewish identity in terms of character traits they share with abraham as their model convert…[philo] never speaks about the converts in terms of ethnic language such as abraham’s descendants or ethnos” (62). in chapter three bekken discusses philo’s interpretation of abraham’s belief in genesis 15 and his obedience in the akedah in genesis 22. philo sees a relationship between belief and obedience and interprets them in light of one another (75). in chapter four bekken considers philo’s understanding of genesis 26:5, in which god states that abraham kept his laws. philo argues against the idea that abraham followed the law of moses, which bekken suggests was the “conventional jewish position on abraham,” and instead posits that abraham followed a law of nature (96). bekken then turns to paul and his exposition of galatians 3 in chapter 5. when considering paul, he produces textual evidence that suggests that paul’s discussion of abraham initially began with his discussion of the galatians’ receipt of the spirit (129–30). this context is crucial as it suggests that just as philo saw abraham as the model proselyte, paul said abraham’s receipt of the spirit was an example to the galatians, and he too eventually presented abraham as the model proselyte (172). it is also noted that paul’s style of argumentation finds similar styles in philo’s writing (139). paul too links genesis 15 and genesis 22 (181). repeatedly, bekken builds upon the initial foundation of philo’s interpretation of abraham, noting that paul’s line of reasoning, while unique to paul, has echoes in philo’s exposition. the final chapter of the book, chapter six, contains a summary and conclusion. overall, bekken is highly successful in demonstrating a connection between both paul’s style and exposition in galatians 3 and philo’s writings about abraham. the study presents a wealth of information and dives deep into the texts. the material presented is thoughtfully weighed and conclusions are balanced. with that said, perhaps one of the only suggestions for improvement in the book would be in the study’s organization. the two-fold division of the material is beneficial in clearly navigating philo’s interpretation versus paul’s interpretation. nevertheless, the sections do not parallel one another. the material discussing philo spans four chapters, while the material discussing paul spans one. if the sections were parallel, however, with one chapter noting philo’s approach to a particular topic and then a corresponding chapter about paul describing paul’s approach, it would perhaps 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) make the arguments clearer. outside of this small suggestion, the book is an incredible resource in that it argues powerfully for a jewish foundation in a book that some read as anti-jewish. this foundation provides a strong basis for situating galatians within jewish thought and therefore as a book that must be interpreted in that light. scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-2 emma o’donnell polyakov the nun in the synagogue: judeocentric catholicism in israel (university park, pennsylvania: pennsylvania state university press, 2020), xii + 242 pages david m. neuhaus neuhaussj@gmail.com pontifical biblical institute, 91004 jerusalem emma o’ donnell polyakov states at the beginning of the fascinating book she has written that it “explores encounters along the border between christianity and judaism” (6). at the center of the study is what the author has termed “a judeocentric catholic phenomenon in israel” (4). the book integrates two genres, short biographical narratives, which present portraits of people with riveting stories to tell, and longer analytical pieces, which gingerly tease out possible theoretical explanations. the result is a good read that gently weaves together personal confidences and sociological, anthropological, and historical insights regarding the holocaust, the state of israel, and contemporary catholicism, and that focuses on jewish-catholic relations before and after the second vatican council. significantly, the author does not hide the fact that most catholics in israel are palestinian and generally have no judeocentric tendencies at all. she does refer quite fairly to opposing christian positions on the israel-palestine conflict held by palestinian liberation theologians who protest israeli policies of occupation and discrimination. she insists that she is not taking sides but rather documenting a fascinating phenomenon on the margins. she has chosen to study a group of catholic religious, monks and nuns, men and women, who have immersed themselves in jewish life in israel. within this group, there is an important and distinct subset, jewish converts to catholicism, who insist that they are still jewish and feel at home in israel. she sets out to encounter them, to listen to them, and to report on their reflections and their struggles to integrate their catholic faith with their deep sense of solidarity with the jewish people. in an astute analysis of philosemitism and its relationship with antisemitism, the author distinguishes judeocentricity from these more classic forms of obsessive focus on jews. she also distinguishes this phenomenon from the better-known neuhaus: polyakov’s the nun in the synagogue 2 forms of christian zionism, particular in its evangelical manifestations. her subjects study jewish texts and traditions, deepen their own spiritual lives in living interactions with jews in israel and, as her captivating title suggests, frequent synagogues and bring their insights into their lives in the church. they each attempt to capture what it is that draws them to live a relationship of profound attraction to the jewish people and contemporary judaism, when for centuries many of their coreligionists felt only anger and even disgust at the mere mention of the word “jew.” the author navigates sensitively on a yet untraced path that takes her subjects from the church to the synagogue and back again. she does not offer simplistic analyses that would invariably betray the sophisticated reflections of those she interviewed. among them are sister paula, a jewish survivor of the shoah who ended her days as a catholic benedictine nun in israel and who never allowed one identity to negate the other, and sister anne-catherine, a french sister of our lady of sion and teacher of judaism and rabbinic texts who tirelessly worked for greater interreligious understanding. the reader gets to know numerous other figures, who polyakov always presents respectfully and without imposing an artificial theological or existential coherence on their complex lives. this book is mostly impressionist and respectfully allows readers to make up their own minds about the issues discussed. this is a book that challenges the “either-or” of religious identity without promoting any kind of syncretism. one of the many themes treated with wisdom and nuance is the tension between mission (trying to convert jews to christianity) and dialogue (opening up to the other in an acceptance of her otherness). the reader is reminded on every page of how much jews and christians share and yet how much they might indeed differ. polyakov shows how her subjects experience life at the very place of the separation of the ways, a place that tears the human soul as it refuses to conform to a separation that would be for some of them a betrayal of a double belonging. these subjects hold catholicism and judaism together within themselves without suppressing the differences, however painful that can be. the author observes about one of her subjects, “the condition of not belonging is exactly where she belongs” (160). in conclusion, i would like to point out one element in this book that might have broad relevance for the vibrant dialogue between catholics and jews that has been progressing since the second vatican council. it is marginal to the main thrust of this book but i found it remarkable nonetheless. many of the protagonists in the book, who share with the author their uncompromising and passionate love for the jewish people, for judaism, and for contemporary jewish life in israel express their awareness of the ongoing tragedy of the palestinian people. indeed, it is riveting that many of these men and women, judeocentric catholics, include in their prayer, reflection, and conversation an ardent intercession that justice and peace might come to israel / palestine. indeed, they seem to be saying that today, a true love for the jewish people should never obscure the hope that the palestinians might know freedom, justice, and peace. scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-3 kevin p. spicer, ed. and martina cucchiara, trans. the evil that surrounds us: the wwii memoir of erna becker-kohen (bloomington: indiana university press, 2017), viii + 174 pp. martin menke mmenke@rivier.edu rivier university, nashua, nh 03060 this slender, accessible volume—a diary with an introduction and annotation by the editors / translators—is a rich contribution to the literature and scholarship on the relationship between german catholics and german jews during world war ii. for many years, scholarly interest has focused on the actions or inaction of bishops and other leaders of the church. further, much of the shoah survivor literature has focused on individuals who went underground in berlin or in occupied territories in western and eastern europe. this important diary provides evidence of the relationship of lay german catholics from modest backgrounds and of clergy largely at the parish level with a jewish woman, erna becker-kohen, who was married to a catholic, gustav becker, and who herself converted to catholicism in 1936. erna’s diary covers the years from 1937 to 1963. she writes that after 1933, she, gustav, and their son silvan face discrimination, though as a jewish-christian couple their treatment was comparatively milder than that faced by jews not in mixed marriages. once the war begins in 1939, however, the family suffers increasing restrictions, especially erna (who despite converting is still considered a jew by the nazis). she loses ration coupons and other benefits to which gentile christians are entitled. while she is not required to wear the yellow star, this exemption is increasingly less helpful as discrimination and persecution of jews becomes more common at the grass-roots level. the becker family, however, feels the pain of discrimination most when trying to find a vacation spot in nazi-ruled germany that will not take as guests members of a mixed marriage. the family seeks a place in which to find normalcy, if only for a short time. menke: spicer and cucchiara’s the evil that surrounds us 2 in berlin and in frankfurt, the home of her mother, erna finds catholics and especially catholic clergy willing to provide her, a jew who converted to catholicism, with counsel and guidance. others, however, including secular clergy, monks, and sisters, are too imbued with religious or racial antisemitism to see her as a vulnerable christian with a young son. in a convent in berlin-schlachtensee, a sister has her and her son ejected because she refuses to live under the same roof as these jews. arrested in her apartment, erna manages to argue her way out of the fabrikaktion in berlin that gave rise to the rosenstrasse protest. subsequently gustav and erna decide that erna and silvan need to leave berlin. they make their way to austrian tyrol, where they hope to find shelter in small mountain villages. without legal papers, without any right to food rations, to health care, or to the housing entitlements provided to evacuees from allied air raids, erna and silvan must find individuals who are willing to shelter them. the bishop of innsbruck and other clergy support erna. they prepare her for confirmation and help her find shelter. despite the bishop’s efforts, however, some of the catholic institutions and private homes at which they call refuse to help them. erna and silvan experience the full spectrum of catholic responses. some christians were willing to risk their own lives, to share their own meagre rations, and to provide shelter even in the most cramped quarters without any consideration of recompense. other catholics provide them with adequate shelter but also seek to profit from doing so. some extort what they can from the persecuted without showing any real concern for their welfare. some who initially helped them soon lose their courage and ask erna and silvan to move on after a day or two. after all, those caught sheltering jews risk a death sentence or removal to a concentration camp. the spectrum of catholic actions (or inactions) for persecuted jews is wide. spicer and cucchiara also demonstrate erna’s struggles with her catholic faith. although there is no evidence erna converted out of expediency, she often questions her faith and seeks reassurance from clergy and from lay catholics. she seeks to discuss her doubts with individuals who could help her to dispel them while respecting the authenticity of her quandaries. in the edited diary, it seems she does not encounter anyone who dismissed her questions as unimportant or irrelevant. in practice, erna is demonstratively catholic. in several places where she finds shelter with silvan, she organizes marian devotions and other celebrations for children. she even risks detection by engaging local children to prepare these events with music and flowers. erna expresses no hostility or ill-will toward family members and others who remained jewish. she misses those who emigrated successfully and mourns those who perished in the shoah. facing one hardship after another, erna eventually learns her husband has been sent to a labor camp near halle for refusing to renounce his wife and child. she enlists a relative in switzerland to provide material relief to her husband. in the end, all three survive the war, although gustav’s health is damaged beyond repair and he must spend two years in bed recovering from musculoskeletal injuries which shorten his life. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) while evidently a faithful catholic, in her diary erna often bitterly complains about those, especially catholics, who refused to help her. perhaps understandably, she seems to lack an appreciation of the risks taken by those who might help her. similarly, in post-war entries, she expresses great bitterness toward those who remained supporters of nazism. spicer and cucchiara preface this edited diary with an excellent introduction. they alert the reader to the challenges of understanding catholic-jewish relations during the nazi era, to the complexities of nazi persecution of those it considers jews, and to the diverse expressions of christian faith in this period. they also engage scholarly debates about persecution and rescue of jews in an even-handed way. their fluid, clear, and readable translation assists the reader in understanding erna’s story. a gripping volume, it will be of interest to a popular audience and is suitable for undergraduates. it will also be valuable to scholars for highlighting the complexity of christian identity and of jewish-christian relations during the shoah. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review thomas g. casey and justin taylor, eds. paul’s jewish matrix (rome: gregorian and biblical press, 2011), paperback, 386 pp. matthew v. novenson, university of edinburgh this conference volume, co-edited by thomas g. casey and justin taylor (the latter a contributor as well), brings together essays from a 2009 symposium on the topic “paul in his jewish matrix,” hosted by the cardinal bea centre for judaic studies at the pontifical gregorian university in rome. the occasion for the conference was pope benedict xvi’s recognition of 2009 as the year of st. paul, the 2000-year anniversary of the birth of the apostle. among the contributors to the volume, rome and leuven are especially well represented, followed closely by jerusalem, with a few other italian and american scholars as well. the book’s twelve chapters, in order, are as follows: karl p. donfried, in “paul’s jewish matrix: the scope and nature of the contributions,” briefly summarizes and responds to each of the eleven essays that follow. e. p. sanders, in “paul’s jewishness,” programmatically outlines a number of essentially jewish aspects of paul’s upbringing, identity, and worldview. serge ruzer, in “paul’s stance on the torah revisited: gentile addressees and the jewish setting,” argues that paul’s ostensibly anti-torah statements reflect pre-christian intra-jewish debate about the proper purpose of the torah. antonio pitta, in “paul, the pharisee, and the law,” argues that paul’s jewish background was particularly pharisaic but cautions against the use of paul’s letters as a source for pharisaism. pasquale basta, in “paul and the gezerah shawah: a judaic method in the service of justification by faith,” explains paul’s use of the exegetical rule of gezerah shawah (i.e., verbal analogy) in citing gn 15:6 and ps 32:1-2 in romans 4. adriana destro and mauro pesce, in “the heavenly journey in paul: tradition of studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) a jewish apocalyptic literary genre or cultural practice in a hellenistic-roman context?” argue that paul’s ascent to the third heaven in 2 cor 12:1-4 is an example of a panmediterranean religious practice widely attested in ancient jewish, christian, and pagan texts. emmanuel nathan and reimund bieringer, in “paul, moses, and the veil: paul’s perspective on judaism in light of 2 corinthians 3,” explain how certain lexical and grammatical ambiguities in 2 cor 3:7-18 have enabled supersessionist accounts of pauline theology. didier pollefeyt and david j. bolton, in “paul, deicide, and the wrath of god: towards a hermeneutical reading of 1 thess 2:14-16,” survey various text-critical and exegetical strategies for dealing with an ostensibly anti-jewish pauline text and favor a theological-hermeneutical solution that gives priority to god’s salvation over god’s wrath. shaye j. d. cohen, in “from permission to prohibition: paul and the early church on mixed marriage,” argues that the patristic interpretation of 1 cor 6-7 as a prohibition of mixed marriage is a deviation from paul’s logic, and that paul himself permits his believers to marry non-believers. daniel r. schwartz, in “‘someone who considers something to be impure—for him it is impure’ (rom 14:14): good manners or law?” argues that paul’s discourse on vegetarianism in rom 14 agrees with most ancient halakhah that kashrut is artificial, that pure and impure statuses are conferred by torah, not by properties inherent in the foods. justin taylor, in “paul and the jewish leaders at rome: acts 28:17-31,” argues, against a common supersessionist interpretation, that the character paul at the end of acts, like paul himself in rom 9-11, envisions a future restoration of the people of israel in the homeland. paula fredriksen, in “judaizing the nations: the ritual demands of paul’s gospel,” argues, against the common trope of a law-free gentile mission, that paul does in fact obligate his gentile believers to keep torah, at least to the extent that they must renounce their ancestral gods and worship the jewish god exclusively. it was only a generation or so ago that scholarly gatherings of this ecumenical variety were exceedingly rare. we are fortunate to live in an age when leading jewish, catholic, protestant, studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr and nonreligious scholars of religion are able and willing to collaborate in forums like the one represented by this book. the book itself is a valuable contribution to the lively current discussion of paul and judaism. as often happens in conference volumes, the contributions do not all follow the same template. some are broad and programmatic, while others are very specific and exegetical. the quality of the various essays is a bit uneven, but generally of a high standard. at least one of the essays was previously published elsewhere, and several summarize research published in fuller form elsewhere, but these fit the remit of the book very well. other essays break interesting new ground. for instance, ruzer’s essay on intrajewish controversy about the purpose of torah, schwartz’s essay on the artificiality of kashrut in ancient halakhah, and taylor’s essay on “eschatological realism” at the end of acts all do very interesting, creative work, much of which was persuasive to the present reviewer. the editors’ decision to invite donfried, an eminent authority on the subject matter of the book, to write a critical interaction with each of the component essays, has yielded a nice cornerstone chapter, although it might have been better placed at the end of the book after each contributor had had his or her say. i noticed rather more typographical errors than are typical in academic books in the field—evidence, perhaps, of a rapid turnaround from conference to publication. in any case, these cosmetic faults are easily forgiven in a book whose contents generously repay reading. one hopes that it will find a wide distribution and readership. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review peter schäfer the jewish jesus: how judaism and christianity shaped each other (princeton and oxford: princeton university press, 2012), hardcover, xvii + 349 pp. mark nussberger, independent scholar in his latest book, peter schäfer, one of the world’s foremost scholars of rabbinic judaism, makes his own contribution to the ongoing reconceptualization of ancient jewish-christian relations, in part responding to the work of scholars such as daniel boyarin and adiel schremer. according to schäfer, “we have all learned by now that the old model of the ‘parting of the ways’ of judaism and christianity needs to be abandoned in favor of a much more differentiated and sophisticated model, taking into consideration a long process of mutual demarcation and absorption” (p. 84). his main thesis, as the subtitle of the book indicates, is that one should understand the two “sister religions” (p. 1) of “judaism” and “christianity” not as “static entities forever confronting each other,” but rather as “vital, dynamic forces in constant exchange with each other” (p. 271). schäfer develops his “more differentiated and sophisticated model” by focusing in the first seven chapters on “debates about the rabbinic concept of god, his unity and uniqueness, and his relationship with other (prospective) divine powers” (p. 8). in the two concluding chapters, he shifts away from rabbinic debates about “monotheism” to texts that reflect specifically upon the jewish messiah, both as endangered infant (in the palestinian talmud) and suffering servant (in pesiqta rabbati), in light of christian conceptions of jesus. contrary to what one might expect upon first reading the title the jewish jesus, schäfer’s topic is by no means jesus, the first-century c.e. jew. rather, that seemingly innocuous studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) phrase encapsulates a provocative argument: not only did jewish ideas such as “wisdom” (hokhmah) and the “word” (logos) influence early christology (as is commonly recognized), but also “certain jewish groups”—tapping into “theological possibilities inherent in ancient judaism”— “elevated figures such as adam, the angels, david and above all metatron to divine status, responding... to the christian elevation of jesus” (pp. 10 and 17, emphasis added). in turn, other jews—the rabbis who became the dominant and normative voices of the tradition—rejected such “(semi-)divine powers” (p. 10), at least in part to distance their own nascent community from early christian groups (e.g., pp. 53–54). schäfer discerns evidence for those jewish rivals to jesus, and thus for the existence of minim (“heretics”) both within and outside emerging rabbinic judaism, through a close historicalcritical reading of rabbinic texts. in pointed contrast to the recent work of daniel boyarin and moshe idel, schäfer places great hermeneutical weight on his distinguishing between the palestinian and babylonian sociohistorical contexts of this varied literature. the palestinian jewish community, living under roman rule, “witnessed christianity in statu nascendi, that is, during its [extended] birthing process” (pp. 214–15). most palestinian sources “are dealing with less specified and more amorphous [christian theological] ideas that are still emerging and have not yet crystallized into their final form” (p. 81). babylonian jews, on the other hand, living under sassanian rule as a “rather privileged minority” (p. 140), are confronted with a more developed form of christianity against which they articulate more explicit polemics. the babylonian talmud and elements of the hekhalot literature (like the david apocalypse and 3 enoch) even presuppose “knowledge of the new testament as a canonic[al] text” (p. 81). “differences matter” for schäfer (p. 1), whether distinctions between palestine and babylonia, or— despite the evidence of “mutual absorption” (p. 84) and “constant exchange” (p. 271)—the boundaries between early judaism and ancient christianity. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr schäfer’s most compelling examples of the significance of the distinction between palestine and babylonia concern rabbinic discussions of the davidic messiah and the high angel metatron. regarding the former, schäfer persuasively argues (pace boyarin) that the rejection of r. aqiva’s interpretation of daniel 7:9 in the babylonian talmud (b. sanh. 38b) evinces a more distinct polemic against christianity “in its very essence” (p. 81) than the rejection of a “two powers” heresy in an earlier palestinian text that also refers to daniel 7:9 (mekhilta derabbi ishmael, ba-hodesh 5 and shirata 4). with respect to metatron, schäfer observes that “most if not all of the unquestionable metatron traditions—that is, traditions referring to the angel metatron as a potential divine or semidivine being threatening the unique position of god in heaven—appear only in the bavli and the hekhalot literature” (p. 138). the latter texts reached their final form in the sixth or seventh century (or even later), after the ecumenical christian councils that defined orthodox trinitarian theology. schäfer concludes from the provenance of those texts, as well as from the structural similarities between metatron traditions such as 3 enoch and expressions of early christology like phil 2:6–11 and heb 1:1– 4, that the figure of metatron is “an answer to the new testament’s message of jesus christ” (p. 143). the jewish jesus is a rich and thought-provoking book to which this brief review cannot do full justice. judging from schäfer’s frequent use of undefined, technical vocabulary such as sugya, petiha, and baraitha, his intended audience seems to be those already familiar with the study of rabbinic texts. however, non-specialists, even advanced undergraduates and graduate students, should not be deterred from grappling with his nuanced arguments for the complexity of ancient jewishchristian relations. from schäfer’s insightful analyses of rabbinic biblical interpretation in various midrashim and his examination of artifacts such as babylonian incantation bowls to his discussion of binitarian (and trinitarian) theologies in light of diocletian’s reform of the roman imperial hierarchy, there is much of interest here for scholars of ancient judaism studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 8 (2013) and ancient christianity, as well as for historical theologians and biblical scholars. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review f.j.e. boddens hosang establishing boundaries: christian-jewish relations in early council texts and the writings of church fathers jewish and christian perspectives, vol. 19 (brill: leiden and boston, 2010) geoffrey d. dunn, australian catholic university this revised doctoral dissertation seeks to examine christian relations with or treatment of other religious groups, particularly jews, by considering church legislation about jews in the years after christianity became an accepted and favored religion early in the fourth century. christian canonical legislation has not had much influence on studies of this relationship. this makes the idea of this book a valuable one, for canonical material does reflect real concerns rather than merely theological ones (without wishing to disparage the latter). this approach in turn brings a fresh look at questions of how dynamic judaism was in the centuries after the destruction of the temple in 70 and the parting of the ways between judaism and christianity. the argument seems to be that looking at theological literature alone has led scholarship to a stalemate. the first chapter summarizes scholarship on these two questions. the trouble with brief summaries of extensive scholarship is that the subtlety of argument can be lost, and that is the case here. further, having spent several pages canvassing scholarship on these two questions, the author does not take a position. the scholarship is summarized but never really engaged. the various chapters that follow consider some early christian synods (elvira in chapter one, laodicea in chapter two, the apostolic canons in chapter three, and various gallic synods studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) of the fifth and sixth centuries in chapter four). there is extensive background information in each chapter, along with archaeological evidence. this is helpful for someone with no background knowledge of early christianity. however, the backgrounds, although very interesting, are so extensive that the main purpose of each chapter, which is to examine what the canons produced by synods say about jews and christians, tends to get lost. what is the relevance of that information for the promulgation and interpretation of the canons? thus, in the chapter on elvira, discussion starts on p. 23, but it is not until p. 40 that we get to the canons. even though that continues until p. 75, it is not as substantial as it first appears. for example, canon 49 is about trying to stop christian farmers from having their lands blessed by jews. most of the discussion is about blessings and not enough about the canon itself and what it says about jews. this seems to be a volume full of excursuses. the background is not related to this material on the canons and is often superfluous and gratuitous. in particular, why do we get material on the cappadocians in chapter two (on the synod of laodicea)? they came from an area far from laodicea (anatolia is a large area densely populated with christians in late antiquity). there is a lengthy discussion about gaul in the final chapter. while the author says that the canonical texts will be placed in that historical context (p. 125), there is little interaction between the context and the texts. in the third chapter we are presented with the apostolic canons, where the presumption is made that they reflect some synod. the material concerning jews is slight and the chapter is fleshed out by first considering the anti-judaic or antijudaizing homilies of john chrysostom simply because he came from antioch, where this document may also be from. this could be helpful if some real connection between the two existed, but the author acknowledges in the conclusion to the chapter that there are also parallels with the synod of laodicea. yet even this claim of some relationship between the documents from the two cities is a dubious one. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr in the introduction the author says that he will re-read early christian anti-judaic literature in the light of the canonical legislation. however, because of the way this author presents the material (theological writings and archaeological data first, canonical legislation second), this does not happen except too briefly in each chapter’s conclusion. the conclusions to each chapter are thought-provoking and insightful, although far too concise to fulfil the objective established in the introduction. there are minor weaknesses. the use of patrologia latina or patrologia graeca when there are more recent and better critical editions of ancient works and an inconsistency of referencing (e.g., p. 19 nn. 60 and 61) shows a lack of scholarly maturity. indeed, that some works are referenced with their latin titles and others by their english ones (e.g., p. 24) suggests too much dependency upon variations found in secondary literature and not enough independence of writing. calling the didache (p. 25 n. 75) a document of a meeting is inaccurate. sometimes the apostolic canons is in italics (p. 53) and sometimes it is not (pp. 46, 53). the claim made on p. 129 that the bishop of arles was made primate is misleading, in that he was actually made metropolitan over several provinces. as well, the claim that patroclus was bishop of narbonne is simply wrong; that was hilary. patroclus was the bishop of arles. this is an interesting topic for a monograph and one well worth a thorough and detailed examination. while this volume may be of use to someone who knows little about early christianity, it fails to be what is needed as an investigation into early canonical material on the relationship between jews and christians and in relating that material to the wellsurveyed body of literature. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): fisher r1-2 schoolman, the changing christian world fisher r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr leonard a. schoolman the changing christian world: a brief introduction for jews (woodstock, vt: jewish lights, 2008), paperback, viii + 163 pp. reviewed by eugene j. fisher, saint leo university the title of this insightful book for the educated lay reader could just as easily have been the changing jewish world: a brief introduction for christians. in describing for jews the similarities and differences between christian and jewish theological and moral positions and the historical memories that have framed them, rabbi schoolman goes into almost as much detail on judaism as he does with regard to the various christian positions (catholic, mainline protestant, and evangelical). schoolman, who for eighteen years was national director of programs for the union for reform judaism, is the director of the center for religious inquiry at saint bartholomew’s church in new york and founding director of the center for theological studies at christ church cathedral (episcopal) in houston. he is well-qualified to present his intended jewish readership with a fair, balanced, and informed understanding of the beliefs of christians, which he does admirably. schoolman argues that because of the doctrine of original sin put forth by augustine, jews and christians have differing views of human nature, with christians taking a more grim view of human nature as “inherently sinful,” and jews having a more optimistic view of humanity’s innate goodness (p. 24). for christians, jesus’ redemptive sacrifice is the solution to this problem of the human condition; jews do not think there is a problem that needs solving. schoolman begins with the bible and explains how both jews and christians can and have read it literally (as in a literal interpretation of the creation in genesis), or less literally and more open to biblical scholarship and re-interpretation of the ancient texts in the light of recent insights into them. schoolman presents varied understandings of jesus through this bi-focal lens in a way that is quite fair to both traditions. he also emphasizes at some length that christians have drawn notions of a resurrection of the bodies of all humans at the end of time, a final judgment, and a rectification from its jewish roots. however, christians have tended to define and describe what will happen with speculative details that are missing from the jewish tradition, which has never lingered overmuch on what will happen at the end of time beyond the assertion of a bodily resurrection and judgment. it is in this light that he asks the question “are we still waiting for the messiah?,” which indeed we both are, whether defined as a coming or a return (p. 77). after offering a basic understanding of the diversities and commonalities between (and within) contemporary judaism and christianity, schoolman takes up key issues in the relationship today, such as christian efforts to convert jews and the state of israel. he has an excellent chapter on protestant churches and trends in american christianity and one on church / state issues. he concludes with thoughts on what the future may hold. the book contains “a glossary of christian terms,” a bibliography, and suggestions for further reading. review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): fisher r1-2 schoolman, the changing christian world fisher r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the main problem i have with the text as an introduction for jews is his unrelievedly, and i think inaccurately stark assertion that “judaism and christianity view the human condition totally differently” (p. 23), a dichotomy that colors much of his presentation. it flows from his presumption that original sin permeates all of christianity in monochromatic fashion, with perhaps the exception of a few, unnamed individuals. i would like to engage with schoolman in dialogue on this for a moment. first, in catholic tradition it is simply not true to say that all humans (save jesus and mary) are born sinful. catholicism represents not some or just a few christians, but its largest single portion, so catholic teachings are not irrelevant for this issue. in modern catholic teachings, all humans are born without sin. at one time schoolman could have argued otherwise, because of the idea of limbo, where children too young to have sinned were consigned to a pleasant afterlife but without direct exposure to god. limbo was necessary when most catholics did have the idea that all humans are inherently tainted with original sin. but it was never a doctrine, much less a dogma, just a logical necessity if one took a stringent view of augustine’s writings. today, however, because the church in fact has a nuanced, not literalist understanding of augustine, the idea of limbo has been officially rejected (put, as i cannot resist saying, in limbo). the catholic church teaches that children too young to have sinned go directly to heaven. there is no inherent, evil taint in their nature. contrary to schoolman’s presentation, all are born totally innocent and good, whether christian or non-christian. the catholic church does believe, though, that like adam and eve, all of us are fallible and have, along with our natural attraction to the good and the doing of good, a tendency to do evil. without god’s grace sooner or later all of us will do something against god’s will, despite our natural goodness and likeness to god, just as did adam and eve. nobody is perfect, as i think schoolman and i can agree. nobody resists all temptations to the attractions of what he and i agree is evil, in a greater or lesser way. indeed, though schoolman inexplicably fails even to mention this, probably to protect his erroneous absolute dichotomy, jewish tradition agrees with catholic (and much other christian) teaching on this core point. in judaism, humanity is described as having not only a yetser ha-tov (tendency toward the good) but also an equally strong yetser ha-ra (tendency toward evil). intriguingly, the yetser ha-ra can result in positive creations, but more often in wrongs committed against others. hence, one of judaism’s most solemn holy days is yom kippur, the day of atonement or repentance (in hebrew teshuvah), when the entire jewish community, not just a few, is required to participate. catholics can best understand this as a combination of good friday and confession. but jews, no less than christians, are required to repent and make retribution, since jews, no less than christians, believe that human nature is such that humans will, inevitably, sin. so the difference is not “total” and what we have in common is worth exploring, rather than simply writing off, as schoolman does. scjr 13, no. 1 (2018): 1-3 franz posset johann reuchlin (1455-1533): a theological biography (berlin / boston: walter de gruyter, 2015), p. xxv + 917 lawrence e. frizzell lawrence.frizzell@shu.edu seton hall university, south orange, nj 07079 franz posset, the first scholar to make full use of the johann reuchlin archives, has presented in english a major study of the great german intellectual and lay theologian of the european renaissance. there is a special focus on his publications and correspondence as a theologian; posset is less interested in reuchlin’s work as a doctor of canon and civil law and diplomat. posset demonstrates that reuchlin’s theological interests shaped his views of jews and judaism. he was committed to the study of scripture and learned hebrew because he “wanted to find the original true meaning of the word of god in the scriptures” (p. 29). he was engaged in a “life-long search for the hebrew truth of the sacred scriptures” (p. 29). his motivations were diverse. at the core “is his catholic and biblical spirituality which includes a sense of justice and is decisively formed by his training in law, both secular and ecclesiastical” (p. 48). these interests do not reflect an attempt to enhance the credibility of judaism per se. rather, he sought to appropriate jewish knowledge into a catholic context: “in his reading, jewish books were instrumental in solidifying catholic doctrine of christ and the holy trinity” (p. 41). nonetheless, these views had contemporary relevance. reuchlin opposed “unlawful confiscation” of jewish books and undertook to study not just biblical and rabbinic sources but roman law concerning jews. he insisted that jews were to be treated with kindness (in fulfillment of the command to love one’s neighbor), for they were not slaves but fellow citizens (pp. 46-47): “as a catholic theologian, reuchlin wanted to do justice to jews as fellow human beings who happened to be of a different school of thought (latin secta)” (p. 41). typical of his time, young reuchlin journeyed far for his studies. he learned greek and studied law at the universities of paris, orléans, poitiers, and basel. in 1482 he travelled to rome as legal councilor in preparation for the foundation of the university of tübingen, where he taught languages. his interests in jews and judaism grew over time. his first study of hebrew began in 1486 with a jewish frizzell: franz posset’s johann reuchlin (1455-1533) 2 teacher. during a visit to florence in 1490, reuchlin met pico della mirandola who introduced him to kabbalah. during later trips to italy, reuchlin began to purchase hebrew commentaries on the bible and grammars. reuchlin took up the question of jewish suffering. in his missive from 1505 (an open letter, written in response to an unknown nobleman’s question), he asked “why are jews in exile (misery) for so long?” past scholars interpreted this as a typical polemical text of the time. however, this interpretation is rejected by posset. writing following the long reign (1440-93) of emperor frederick iii (who expressed a “benevolent attitude toward the jews” [p. 241]), reuchlin’s response was intended not to prompt a disputation but to support friendly discussions between jews and christians. it was therefore written as a series of “talking points.” he listed the following issues, which were likely commonly raised by christians against jews: 1.) the jews’ present exile is much longer than the babylonian captivity, so the jews’ sin must have been greater. 2.) misdeeds are punished to the third and fourth generation, but this exile has been much longer. 3.) jews do not know the reason for their punishment because god has made them obdurate. he goes on to discuss the collective nature of the jews’ sins, above all, the sin of blasphemy originally committed by their forefathers against the true messiah. however, posset argues, he wrote not to convert or attack jews. while convinced of the truth of his catholic faith, these are for “private conversations, to be used as ‘talking points’ but not as ‘accusation points’” (p. 246). about 1504, a jew named johann pfefferkorn converted to christianity and became associated with the dominicans in cologne. because he was married he remained a layman, but he set as his goal the conversion of the jews. in 1509 he published “the enemy of the jews” and the “easter booklet.” posset says he misunderstood reuchlin’s missive and thought it was intended to promote conversion of jews, leading him to quote from it in his works. because of this, reuchlin “clarified his position and his opposition to pfefferkorn’s claims” (p. 249). pfefferkorn believed reuchlin betrayed him, and there remained animosity between them throughout their lives. their disputes dragged in many scholars on both sides, with some resorting to nasty ad hominem polemics. pfefferkorn was aided by the dominicans of cologne, with prior jacob van hoogstraeten acting as an inquisitor and bringing charges against reuchlin that eventually reached rome. the ultimately successful charge against reuchlin was not that he committed heresy but that his book eye glasses (written against pfefferkorn’s “hand mirror”) was “scandalous and offensive to the pious ears of christians” because it unduly favored the jews (pp. 808, 875). during the prolonged debate about reuchlin’s work, there were unsavory attempts to influence pope leo x. (ironically, though pope leo x criticized reuchlin for seemingly favoring the jews, he also granted daniel bomberg in venice the privilege of printing the talmud [p. 876].) it seems that jews were not involved in the dispute between reuchlin and pfefferkorn. however, josel of rosheim in alsace (circa 1480-1554/5) was appointed by maximilian to be the official speaker for all the german jews. in his memoirs josel praised reuchlin’s wisdom and the risks he took. he noted in par 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) ticular the seemingly miraculous efforts reuchlin made to secure the return of confiscated jewish books (p. 866). reuchlin interacted with many great humanists of his time, so the thorough research of posset and the full indices should encourage researchers to consult this biography for details about both friends and enemies of this great scholar. thirty-one illustrations (some in color) plus a chronology, bibliography, and indices of personal names and biblical references enhance the value of the book for those interested in european intellectual history of the time and in reuchlin’s contemporaries. posset received the msgr. harry c. koenig prize of the american catholic historical association for this book. he deserves our congratulations and our gratitude for writing in english! studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review ruth hacohen the music libel against the jews (new haven and london: yale university press, 2011), hardcover, xvi + 507 pp. jonathan m. hess, university of north carolina at chapel hill in all the festivities, performances, and critical discussions surrounding the 200 th anniversary of richard wagner’s birth in 2013, the antisemitism of wagner’s notorious 1850 essay “judaism in music” has certainly not been ignored. indeed, if anything, the celebrations of 2013 have focused new attention on wagner’s attitudes toward jews and judaism and the relationship between his antisemitism and his operas. but few journalists or critics have grasped the extent to which this infamous tirade against jewish infiltration into the quasi-sacred terrain of european classical music might be far more than just a challenge for how we are to come to terms with wagner, his politics, and his cultural legacy. as ruth hacohen demonstrates, wagner’s polemics against jewishness in the musical world rest on a long and deep tradition in western culture of setting jewish noise in opposition to christian harmony, on a “music libel” against the jews that charges jews with producing noise in a christian world governed by harmonious sounds. wagner may be an extreme example but he is also typical of the way european musical culture has celebrated itself by identifying its jewish others with offensive noise. other critics might explore this problem by investigating the genealogy of wagner’s treatise, locating intellectual-historical precursors and tracing influences over time in a linear fashion. hacohen undertakes a much more ambitious project in the music libel against the jews. trained as a musicologist, she examines a truly staggering array of materials: oratorios by g. f. handel; dramas by g. e. lessing; heinrich heine’s poetry studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) and short fiction; operas by fromental halévy, giacomo meyerbeer, and wagner; ethnography of the frankfurt jewish ghetto; george eliot’s daniel deronda; thomas mann’s doctor faustus; the works of arnold schoenberg; and the nazi blockbuster film jud süß. this severely truncated list can only gesture at the wealth of the materials hacohen analyzes in her 507-page study. working chronologically and focusing her gaze largely on german, french, and british material, she creates a subtle, complex, and multifaceted narrative that brings to light the rich and intricate natures of the texts she puts under her critical microscope. she exposes both the ongoing unease over jewish noise constitutive of much western musical culture and the dramatic changes that occur, starting in the mid-eighteenth century, as the sonic worlds of jewish and christian culture begin to collide and interact to create a new, shared sonic sphere. hacohen is eager to explore the broad contours of the history she is studying “beyond [the] intentions and reflections of its protagonists” (p. 12), and in this spirit, she traces not a linear history of ideas but the “imagined constructions and reconstructions” (p. 363) undergirding the music libel against the jews. hacohen’s goal is not to explore historical causality but to uncover a deep structure in western thought and culture, a project she theorizes in her epilogue with reference to freud’s theory of trauma. emblematic of this approach is the fascinating encounter she stages in her fifth chapter between elliot’s daniel deronda and wagner’s parsifal—an imagined interaction that did not take place, but, she insists, could have. and she also reflects explicitly at times on her own complex personal investments in this project, as an israeli academic whose mother was a refugee from hitler’s germany. hacohen proves herself a master-interpreter of the material she studies and is equally at home discussing eighteenthcentury oratorio as she is offering a close reading of george eliot or studying the sonic world of nazi film. the result is a book that is truly interdisciplinary and one that will be mined in years to come for its provocative thesis, its rich and complex studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr narrative, and its in-depth analyses of the individual works it studies. hacohen writes beautifully, and often passionately, creating an argument that draws tremendous vitality from its close readings and analyses of music, literature, ethnographic texts, etc. indeed, each of her paragraphs is truly a pleasure to read. to be sure, the music libel against the jews is not— and does not want to be—a conventional history, and students or scholars in quest of a simpler and easier-to-read historical narrative might choose instead to turn to david conway’s jewry in music: entry to the profession from the enlightenment to richard wagner (new york: cambridge university press, 2012). but both in its historical scope and in the range of cultural materials it studies, conway’s book is far more limited than hacohen’s work, and it lacks the methodological creativity of the music libel against the jews. despite its beautiful prose, hacohen’s book can be difficult to read at times. those unfamiliar with the materials she analyzes may wish for more background information to frame her close readings, and her commitment to working so rigorously with the material she studies sometimes prevents her from posing and grappling with some of the questions her book poses implicitly. what role did other “others” play in the christian musical imagination, perhaps alongside or at times in place of the jews? how might one integrate, say, the nineteenthcentury craze with “gypsy music” into her narrative, or the nascent interest in non-western forms of music that emerged in modern europe? hacohen focuses primarily (and appropriately) on central and western europe. but how might analysis of the soundscape of eastern europe complicate the history she constructs for us? along these lines, one also has to wonder about nineteenth-century america, where both german and jewish musicians played crucial roles in creating a culture of classical music. of course, these are all questions raised by hacohen’s fascinating study and ultimately peripheral to it. this beautifully written book is a major accomplishment that cannot be ignored by scholars and students in musicology, jewish studies, european history, or jewish-christian relations. scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-3 kati ihnat mother of mercy, bane of the jews: devotion to the virgin mary in anglo-norman england (princeton: princeton university press, 2016) hardcover, xii + 299 pp. ruth nisse rnisse@wesleyan.edu wesleyan university, middletown, ct 06459 the dichotomy in the title of kati ihnat’s mother of mercy, bane of the jews perfectly captures the problem she seeks to address: where does the anti-judaism that appears in different genres of writing about mary originate, and why and how do anglo-norman authors rework and refine this material? this forcefully-argued book focuses for the most part on english monasteries from roughly 1066-1154 because, as ihnat emphasizes, benedictine monks were by far the most creative proponents of marian devotion. it is in english monastic liturgy and records that we first find the innovative daily little office of mary, the doctrine of mary’s immaculate conception, and the feast of mary’s conception. the marian miracle collections also first emerged from this cultural-devotional moment, the transition from anglo-saxon to anglo-norman rule. in her introduction, ihnat moves to connect the various aspects of the marian cult to the “hermeneutic jew,” the famously abstract figure who, by adhering to a superseded old law, serves to show christians the path to correct and incorrect devotion (p. 6). she further clams that looking for “‘real jews’ behind their fictional counterparts is a trap” in the religious materials that she examines (p. 13). while this may be a reasonable choice given ihnat’s circumscribed monastic setting, it also points to a larger methodological problem with drawing such a sharp distinction between the jews of monks’ narrative imaginations and the jews who had migrated to england with the normans and lived just miles away in some cases. the depth of ihnat’s scholarship on the many aspects of marian devotion in english monasticism is breathtaking. each of the first three chapters––on liturgies and feasts, on theology, and on miracle collections––offers illuminating accounts of mary’s growing importance to the thinkers defining christianity in the twelfth nisse: ihnat’s mother of mercy, bane of the jews 2 century. not surprisingly, anselm of canterbury is at the center of much of this story as philosopher, polemicist, and author of the famous affective marian prayers that raised mary to a role in salvation interdependent with christ’s. the works of anselm and his disciple eadmer likewise stress mary’s power as an intercessor with jesus and her role as the merciful mother of a strict son. one of the most fascinating texts that ihnat discusses with regard to mary’s powers is the work of another of anselm’s disciples. honorius augustodunensis’s sigullum de beata maria is the first commentary on the song of songs to imagine the text as a dialogue between mary and jesus on divine love. here, following her death and assumption, mary becomes queen of heaven and oversees the supersession of the old law by the new and ultimately the conversion of the jews. the marian miracle collections, or “hagiographies,” that ihnat considers in the third chapter are the purest expression of mary’s intercessory role. in these tales (many closely connected to monastic liturgical practices), mary intercedes, for example, to save a clerical devotee from marriage or to protect monks who promote the controversial feast of the conception. this genre, which the monks translated into sermons for a general public, leads ihnat to the subset of miracles displaying mary’s special enmity toward jews. in her fourth chapter, “enemies of mary,” ihnat explains that the jew in these stories represents unbelief and impiety, the opposite of good christian devotion. to this end, she interprets a sequence of eight such miracle stories, some with much older analogues, in which a perfidious jew or group of jews insults mary, jesus, or their images. the most popular story in these english sources, as she points out, is the “jewish boy.” in its basic elements, a little boy takes communion with his christian friends, leading his father to throw him into an oven, but mary rescues him from the flames. it appears, with variations, in sermons by herbert of losinga and honorius and in the famous marian miracle collection by william of malmesbury. a prolific historian and hagiographer, william is the central figure in ihnat’s approach to these legends since he used his great literary talents to create versions of these tales that heightened their emotional force. william ratchets up the viciousness of the jews and the helplessness of their victims in order to demonstrate the great triumphs of mary. ihnat’s book is about mary and how english monastic writers of the period situated jews in their development of her cult. as she makes clear, their polemics in the miracle stories were meant not to create new “discourses” about jews but rather to exalt and explain mary’s unique role in christianity (p. 182). however, at several points her argument approaches incoherence because of her ambivalence about how “real” english jews might figure in her narrative about mary. she postulates the monks’ awareness of contemporaneous jews when a particular aspect of a marian tale, like jewish moneylending or royal protection, demands it. however, she never speculates on deeper connections between the worlds of twelfth-century monks and actual jews. the conclusion comes as something of a surprise, then, when she addresses thomas of monmouth’s life of william of norwich, the source of the first ritual murder, as a text that stands between william of malmesbury’s marian miracles and the ritual murder accusation that led 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) to the burnings of jews at blois in 1171. following david nirenberg and miri rubin, ihnat characterizes these later events as violent afterlives of marian texts. yet even as she emphasizes the violence of such crucial moments when christians and jews interacted, she underplays this possibility at other moments. the “real jews,” with their own texts and practices, were there in the earlier times and places covered in this study. the question lingers: according to the monks, which jews so infuriated mary? mother of mercy is invaluable for its originality and evocation of anglonorman monastic piety. as for ihnat’s approach to the “bane of the jews,” it is sure to spark welcome debate. the aryan jesus: christian theologians and the bible in nazi germany studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): sherman r1-3 heschel, the aryan jesus sherman r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 susannah heschel the aryan jesus: christian theologians and the bible in nazi germany (princeton and oxford: princeton university press, 2008), hardcover, xvii + 339 pp. reviewed by franklin sherman, muhlenberg college (emeritus) susannah heschel, professor of jewish studies at dartmouth college, gives us in this volume the fruits of her decade-long research in german ecclesiastical and university archives, tracking down the story of one of the leading expressions of the "german christian" movement. this was the "institute for the study and eradication of jewish influence on german church life" (institut zur erforschung und beiseitigung des jüdischen einflusses auf das deutsche kirchliche leben), dedicated to removing all traces of judaism in christianity. based at the university of jena (although not officially a part of it), the institute was founded in may 1939, and dissolved in late 1945. its director and guiding spirit was walter grundmann, professor of new testament at the university, under whose leadership the institute held numerous conferences and workshops involving scholars, pastors, and church leaders from all over germany. heschel traces in meticulous detail the origin and history of the institute as well as grundmann's own career. as early as february 1933 he had published a monograph, "god and nation: a protestant contribution to the aims of national socialism and to the interpretation of [alfred] rosenberg" (the prominent nazi racial theorist). concerning adolf hitler, grundmann wrote: "in this man there is nothing disunited. he is in himself completely one, completely simple, completely pure. we also know that the power of such a clear and truthful man does not derive from the earth, but rather out of that higher world that the master, jesus christ, called the kingdom of heaven" (p. 190). and this appeared already in 1933! affiliation with the institute was based on the following criteria: “1. every candidate for membership has to prove that he has a thorough knowledge of racial theory and the laws of heredity. 2. the test can only be passed if it demonstrates that the candidate clearly recognizes the fundamental, unbridgeable antagonism between the jewish religion and christian faith and can substantiate that the recognition of this antagonism decisively influences his scholarly and practical work” (p. 80). one study group sponsored by the institute devoted itself to the differences between aryan and semitic religiosity. another undertook to prepare a de-judaized hymnal, which was published in 1941. hymns written by non-aryans or implying weakness or passivity were omitted, as were hebrew terms such as "hallelujah." the institute also published a de-judaized version of the new testament and a de-judaized catechism. other projects were thwarted by the paper shortage during the war. review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): sherman r1-3 heschel, the aryan jesus sherman r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 heschel's book is painstakingly researched and documented. the bibliography includes some 700 books and articles, including more than 70 by grundmann alone. her prose is vivid and carries the reader along in the manner of an unfolding novel. there is some repetition, probably due to the incorporation of some of her earlier articles on the subject, and a topic is sometimes treated partly in one chapter and partly in another. there are also detailed expositions of selected themes, such as the nazification process in the university of jena as a whole, which serves as a case study for what took place in many german universities. the university of jena had a distinguished intellectual history, especially in the period of romanticism and german idealism. however, it was particularly susceptible to the nazi ideology. already in 1930, the newly appointed professor of social anthropology, a well-known racial theorist, chose as the theme of his inaugural lecture, "the causes of the racial deterioration of the german volk." adolph hitler was in attendance—the first and last time, according to heschel's sources, that he ever visited a university (p. 208). in 1933, a state agency for racist measures was established, and karl astel, a distinguished professor of medicine at the university, was appointed as its head. this agency collected the names of some 300,000 thuringian citizens suspected of having congenital diseases and who thus were candidates for sterilization. later, a professor of pediatrics at the university was appointed director of a children’s euthanasia center in a nearby town. the jena theological faculty found its special role in this process by undertaking to demonstrate that, contrary to much opinion, christianity and national socialism as a whole were not incompatible with one another. christianity, for its part, had long since proclaimed the insidious nature of the jews. now it was prepared to undertake a thorough revision of its theology and practice in the light of völkisch ideology. a 1937 letter of recommendation from the rector of the university to the provincial authorities regarding a candidate for the professorship of systematic theology, heinz eisenhuth, speaks volumes: "eisenhuth is an unconditionally reliable member of the party who is loyal to the führer and the movement from his innermost convictions. he works with great earnestness to promote the essential insights of national socialism in his discipline" (p. 219). eisenhuth was appointed, and he later served as academic director of grundmann’s institute. after the war, grundmann managed to reinterpret the purpose of the institute in such a way as to escape condemnation in the denazification program. he served thirty more years as a new testament scholar and teacher, publishing prolifically and gaining an international reputation. his career is comparable in this respect to that of gerhard kittel, his doctoral advisor, whose nazi affinities only came to light long after his "theological dictionary of the new testament" had become a standard reference work. this is an important and in many ways a chilling book, showing the consequences of a radical effort at coordination (gleichschaltung) of christ and culture. in terms of method, one notes that heschel’s acknowledgments include an unusually large number of friends and colleagues, both german and american, to whom she is indebted, and she speaks of many seminars and conferences in which her ideas had been worked out and her research tested. in that sense, susannah heschel’s book is a model of collaborative scholarship, something still rare in the humanities as compared to the natural sciences. it should be added that the book is richly illustrated, showing key persons, places, and events that provide the context for the narrative. i do have one caveat or caution regarding the book's title. it might be taken to imply that all of the scholars heschel deals with believed that jesus literally was an aryan. walter grundmann himself did, positing that jesus was descended from the non-jewish populations settled in galilee after the assyrian conquest. others, not accepting studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): sherman r1-3 heschel, the aryan jesus sherman r 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 that hypothesis, believed that jesus was aryan in effect, if not in fact. he was an aryan-like hero whose manly virtues stood out all the more against the background of the jews with whom he had to deal. this, they maintained, is the jesus whom the church must recover and preach today. a video of prof. heschel discussing her research for this book in a lecture at boston college can be found at http://frontrow.bc.edu/program/heschel. http://frontrow.bc.edu/program/heschel. scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-3 malka simkovich the making of jewish universalism: from exile to alexandria (london: lexington books, 2017), hardcover, xxx + 185 pp. matthew goldstone mgoldstone@ajrsem.org academy for jewish religion, yonkers, ny 10701 malka simkovich’s the making of jewish universalism explores the development of universalistic themes in jewish literature from exilic works preserved in the hebrew bible through texts dating to around the turn of the millennium and likely authored in an alexandrian milieu. she breaks with previous scholarship which either highlighted jewish particularism with respect to christian universalism or identified significant universalistic trends already in biblical and postbiblical jewish literature. by contrast, she argues that employing a more refined spectrum of universalistic paradigms enables us to see critical nuances between late-biblical, post-biblical, and late-second temple sources connected to the alexandrian jewish community. in her introduction, simkovich reviews the relevant scholarship, outlines the trajectory of the book, and proffers a definition for universalism. criticizing previous studies for lacking “a single, widely accepted definition of universalism” or for not clarifying how to define universalism, simkovich says universalism means that non-israelites / non-jews have access to a relationship with the god of israel “without demanding that they convert or participate in the israelite community as a jew” (pp. xviii-xix). simkovich makes the case for why universalism should be opposed to conversion (i.e., joining the people of israel), but a stronger argument for the strengths of her particular definition would have bolstered her thesis. simkovich distinguishes between two types of universalism: “universalized worship,” in which everyone worships the israelite god but “distinguishing aspects of judaism are preserved, and ethnic boundaries between the nations remain intact,” and “ethical universalism,” in which “distinctive aspects of judaism are dissolved, and the religious and ethnic boundaries between the nations fall to the wayside” (p. xxii). the bulk of the book is then divided into four parts; the first three each contain two chapters and the last part contains only one. in all but this goldstone: simkovich’s the making of jewish universalism 2 last part, she moves chronologically from biblical prophetic literature to texts from the greco-roman period (334 bce – 118 bce) to works of the first century bce. her fourth part includes a summary of the argument. overall, the book presents an interesting thesis but has a number of issues that partially obscure the force of the argument. part one of the book revolves around four different models of relationships between israelites and non-israelites in biblical prophetic texts: 1) subjugation – israel dominates the other nations; 2) standard-bearing – the nations remain distinct but they acknowledge the israelite god; 3) naturalized nations – foreign nations are absorbed into the israelite community; and 4) universalized worship – the nations worship the israelite god but do not lose their distinct identity. only in this last category does simkovich see a strong move towards actual universalism. however, it is not entirely clear why the standard-bearing model does not also reflect a type of universalism. similarly, the nuanced distinction between this model and the universalized worship model is difficult to grasp. after this introduction to these four models, in chapter one simkovich explores the first three in selected texts: the subjugation model in obadiah and amos 9:7-15, the standard-bearing model as exemplified in isaiah 2:2-4 and 40-55, and the naturalization model in zechariah 2:10-17. she then shifts to the universalized worship model as manifest in isaiah 56, daniel 4, and zechariah 14. here simkovich highlights a few key points, such as that isaiah removes the particularist nature of sabbath observance by encouraging foreigners to observe the day without an expectation of assimilation and that daniel 4 and some psalms envision a type of universalism not just in the remote future, but also in “the author’s present day” (p. 36). part two contains two chapters, a short chapter on the war scroll, 4qberakhot, and greek esther, and a comparatively lengthy chapter on the universalized worship model in other second temple period works. this latter chapter presents some important claims but has a few issues that complicate the picture. for example, simkovich compares the two main recensions of the book of tobit, suggesting that the first does not envision conversion to judaism while the second does. however, the key lines in the translations of these versions she uses are almost identical – “then the nations in the entire world will all be converted [epistrépsousin]” – making it difficult to see the difference (pp. 70-71). on a related note, when discussing a passage from joseph and aseneth, simkovich asserts that “there is no explicit mention of conversion in this scene,” though there seem to be many hints in this direction: aseneth’s name is changed, it is asserted that many nations will take refuge in her with god, and she will shelter people who trust in god (p. 73). additionally, when examining material from philo, simkovich claims that philo’s eschatological vision in vit. mos. 2.43-44 both requires and does not require conversion (pp. 78; 90fn57 and fn62). she concludes part two with the observation that “some jewish writers were adapting greek literary concepts of homónoia to their jewish eschatologies and worldviews” and the summary point that unlike biblical literature, which imagined universalist worship in the distant future, post-biblical literature saw this in 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) the immediate present (pp. 82-83; however, see her discussion of daniel and psalms noted above). part three of the book focuses on the emergence of ethical universalism. after a short fifth chapter on philo’s “radical allegorizers,” simkovich in chapter six offers a key part of her argument. she examines the sentences of pseudophocylides and the third sibylline oracle in order to demonstrate that both contain elements that express ethical universalist thought. this chapter presents important claims but has a few puzzling features. according to simkovich, the third sibylline oracle ignores the core signifiers of jewish identity (sabbath, circumcision, and dietary laws) but does refer to the exodus from egypt and the revelation at sinai, topics that she otherwise claims are missing or downplayed in ethical universalist sources (pp. xxiv, 118). simkovich also suggests that the use of the term strépsas (“turn”) in the oracle, rather than metánoia (“conversion”), implies that conversion is not required (p. 121). however, the cited translation employs the english word “converted,” and simkovich does not mention whether the term metánoia is used with any regularity in the non-universalistic texts. lastly, simkovich hypothesizes a connection between ethical universalistic themes that “lie at the foreground of stoic thought” and the jewish works she analyzes, but her claim that “in all likelihood, the currents of influence moved in both directions” is not sufficiently supported (p. 122). despite these subtle issues, in chapter six she makes the significant argument that universalistic elements in second temple jewish sources appear primarily in those works associated with jewish writers in alexandria. part four of the book summarizes simkovich’s conclusions and spells out the implications of her claims. overall, the making of jewish universalism is an important work for those interested in the development of second temple-period jewish literature and especially in those works composed in alexandria. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review jorge mario bergoglio and abraham skorka on heaven and earth: pope francis on faith, family, and the church in the twenty-first century translated by alejandro bermudez and howard goodman (new york: image, 2013), xvi + 236 pp. jean-pierre ruiz, st. john’s university ny what would have been the fate of this book if jorge mario bergoglio, s.j. had not emerged on the loggia of st. peter’s basilica on march 13, 2013 as francis, the 266 th bishop of rome? it might perhaps have gone the way of his eminence and hizzoner: a candid exchange (new york: morrow, 1989), the book co-authored by the late roman catholic archbishop of new york cardinal john o’connor and his jewish friend, the equally outspoken former mayor of new york edward i. koch. in that volume, now long out of print, the two public figures opined in print about a wide range of matters, about many of which they agreed to disagree, modeling both civility and good humor in a city where such encounters by leaders in the public square might have been expected to generate far more friction and heat than light. this new book, on heaven and earth, was first published in spanish in 2010, three years before the archbishop of buenos aires became pope. it was quickly translated and rushed onto bookstores’ shelves for readers around the world who were eager to learn all they could about the first successor to the see of peter from the americas. the book’s co-authors are cardinal bergoglio and his close friend rabbi abraham skorka, rector of the seminario rabinico latinoamericano “marshall t. meyer.” quite unlike his eminence and hizzoner, where the cardinal and the mayor took on issues such as the press, education, abortion, race, and housing in separate side-by-side portions of the book’s chapters, the texture of on heaven and studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) earth is more cordial but no less candid. readers are given the impression that they have been invited into the rabbi’s office or the archbishop’s study to overhear the wide-ranging giveand-take in which each is thoughtfully attentive to what his dialogue partner is saying. the twenty-nine topics—ranging from god to the devil, from atheists to religious leaders, and including prayer, guilt, death, euthanasia, the elderly, same-sex marriage, science, education, politics and power, communism and capitalism, globalization, money, and poverty—also include considerations of the holocaust, of argentina in the 1970s, of the spanish conquest of the americas, and of socialism and peronism. these are introduced with a chapter by skorka, “how we experience dialogue” (pp. vii-xii) and another by bergoglio, “the façade as mirror” (pp. xiii-xvi), in which each shares with readers both the process of dialogue and the product that is the fruit of their close friendship. skorka explains, “we let the conversations flow spontaneously as opposed to following written agendas. as such, giving expression to our intimate conversations in book form meant that we had to take turns strengthening the bonds between us. we have transformed our dialogue into a group conversation, exposing our souls” (pp. xi-xii). the book’s title is somewhat misleading: it is not as “pope francis” that bergoglio is speaking, because it was written before his election to the see of rome. yet those who are seeking to understand both the pope’s substance and style will find that it echoes concerns that were shaped during his ministry in argentina. for example, his recurrent critiques of clericalism and careerism among priests and bishops come to mind when, in the chapter on politics and power (pp. 133-139) he warns, “when the priest imposes himself, when in some way he says, ‘i am the boss here,’ he falls into clericalism” (p. 138). in the same chapter, the future pope muses, “one good thing that happened to the church was the loss of the papal states, because it is clear that the only thing that the pope holds is a third of a square mile. but when the pope was studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr a temporal and spiritual king, there was a mixing of the intrigue of the court and all of that. do they mix now? yes, now they still do, because there are ambitions in the men of the church; there is, sadly, the sin of careerism” (p. 150). this is an eminently accessible book, not a volume with appeal restricted to academics alone. that being said, the cordial and unaffected quality of the conversations that leave their traces in its pages is as much a matter of substance as it is of style, the informal and straightforward style that has been a signature feature of pope francis’ demeanor during his pontificate. for those who will mine the pages of this book for clues to understanding bergoglio’s agenda vis-à-vis catholic-jewish relations, it is not only the depth of his friendship with rabbi skorka that is a clear indicator of how much this matters to him, but also the extent to which the archbishop and the rabbi understand how important it is for the church to reckon with the shoah (pp. 176-190). to that end, bergoglio agrees that the vatican archives pertaining to the shoah should be opened: “they should open them…and if we were wrong in something we will be able to say, ‘we were wrong in this.’ we do not have to be afraid of that. the objective has to be the truth” (p. 183). for readers who are unfamiliar with the history of jewish immigration to argentina, beginning in the 1880s, and with the considerable impact immigrants had in the “stirr[ing] of the social conscience of argentina” (p. 204), on heaven and earth offers a suggestive sketch. skorka and bergoglio likewise candidly address the antisemitism that characterized the argentinian church (pp. 203-204). it is perhaps the rush to make on heaven and earth available in english translation that explains instances where that translation occasionally fails in terms of its successful rendering of idiomatic ways in which spanish expresses specific turns of phrase in the realm of religion. for example, in a sentence where bergoglio is discussing the promise god made to abraham, the translators render “se establece una alianza” as “an alliance is established” (p. 2). “covenant” would have been the more accurate translation of the spanish “alianza.” in another studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 9 (2014) case, where in the original spanish bergoglio admits to the presence in his own family of “cierta tradición puritana,” the english uses “puritan” to render “puritana” instead of the more accurate “puritanical” (p. 72). and anyone familiar with medieval philosophy and theology will be surprised to see “santo tomas de aquino” become “saint thomas of aquinas” (p. 6). yet these are fairly minor quibbles, inasmuch as they do not prevent the reader from appreciating either the tone or the substance of the lively dialogue between the rabbi and the archbishop. unlike his eminence and hizzoner, which is now appropriately relegated to the shelves of those who are curious about an era in new york city’s history that has come and gone, on heaven and earth deserves the attention of anyone who is seriously interested in the promising state of catholic-jewish relations at this juncture of the twenty-first century, during the pontificate of the first bishop of rome from the americas. were the jews a mediterranean society? reciprocity and solidarity in ancient judaism studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): cook r1-3 schwartz, were the jews a mediterranean society? cook r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 seth schwartz were the jews a mediterranean society? reciprocity and solidarity in ancient judaism (princeton and oxford: princeton university press, 2010), hardcover, x + 212 pp. reviewed by michael j. cook, hebrew union college-jewish institute of religion (cincinnati campus) in this erudite and sophisticated volume, seth schwartz argues that jews' social relations in greco-roman antiquity were animated by a core tension between hebrew biblical values and eastern mediterranean exchange-based reciprocity. he claims that the jewish biblical corpus (preeminently the torah) prescribed a radically anti-mediterranean vision for israelite society. the bible assured that the need would rarely arise when people would have to rely on the personal generosity of their neighbors. therefore, charitable donations would never deteriorate into dependency-generating gifts. instead, all israelites should support their fellows, leaving behind some of their harvest, giving the poor a percentage of agricultural production, providing interestfree loans, periodically canceling debts, etc. these would all be done with the intention that not humans but god alone was honored. reciprocity was thus conceptualized less in terms of relations between humans than between god and israel. by contrast, “mediterraneanism” was generated by specifically human relationships such as patronage, vassalage, friendship, debt slavery, social dependency, and euergetism (donations for urban public benefit were reciprocated by displays of honor, loyalty, and memorialization). schwartz therefore asks how well integrated could the jews have been in eastern mediterranean society of the late seleucid and early roman periods if their biblical values were ostensibly so strongly opposed to the widely accepted reciprocal-normative system and if institutionalized reciprocity was so very hard to circumvent? in exploring jews’ abilities to accommodate these tensions, schwartz applies an ethnographic prism to three corpora of writings seldom used by social and cultural historians: the wisdom of ben sira (180 b.c.e.); late works of josephus (end of the first century c.e.); and the jerusalem talmud (reflecting jewish life ca. 300 c.e.). schwartz chooses these texts to demonstrate not an evolutionary development of jewish stances on these issues but, instead, successive attempts to adapt to altered social and political realities. he concludes that in all these periods many jews were more deeply involved in eastern mediterranean bonds of reciprocity and honor than we might ordinarily expect given the torah's utopian anti-reciprocity orientation. in schwartz’s analysis, ben sira pessimistically views human obsession with gift exchange, institutionalized reciprocity, and honor. however, he also insists that only the wise (i.e., the pious torah-observant jews) can best navigate and manage these evils. josephus in his jewish antiquities and against apion allows that jews in some locales absorbed the reciprocity-based norms typical of greco-roman cities. nonetheless, he claims that jews in jerusalem remained starkly opposed to these norms, subordinating politics, commerce, and benefaction to the demands of biblical piety. by the time of the jerusalem talmud, schwartz argues that most jews review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): cook r1-3 schwartz, were the jews a mediterranean society? cook r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 had completely internalized roman norms, even though rabbis generally preached resistance to these practices. full, indeed magnificently rich definitions are offered for each of the technical terms schwartz regularly employs ("euergetism," "honor," "benefaction," "memorialization," etc.). however, for the most part these extended definitions surface in the book somewhat sporadically and usually belatedly; often the fullest explications are delayed. this problem may send readers scurrying to the well-done index to locate where the fullest definition may be found. since the needed definitions surface in due course anyway, these rewarding paragraphs might have been more productively shifted earlier for handier access to a detailed, glossary-like opening chapter. schwartz anticipates that some readers will be uncomfortable with his operating on too high a level of abstraction, given his use of technical, sometimes theoretical sociological categories. however, the clarity of his writing greatly helps the reader to understand his argumentation despite some lingering ambiguities. at the most basic level, schwartz’s argument would be strengthened by clarification as to whether the torah’s anti-reciprocity stance was a deliberately intended opposition (i.e., ab initio) to mediterranean norms or merely exerted this impact inadvertently. further, granted that schwartz wishes to concentrate on three later sources from the grecoroman period, some readers may nonetheless sense a disorienting chronological disjunction, or a lack of a tight-enough “fit,” between the earlier time-frame of most biblical writings and the later era which is schwartz’s central focus. ben sira, josephus, and the palestinian rabbis were addressing contemporaneous practices and tendencies, but most biblical texts (above all the torah) antedated by far the time-period schwartz addresses. for such readers, schwartz has not sufficiently demonstrated that the mediterraneanism that ben sira deplored was altogether consistent with—i.e., that it had maintained itself in a tight-constant configuration from—the earlier days, when the torah and most other biblical works were being composed and consolidated. for schwartz to apply biblical dicta to later times requires a fuller demonstration that the bible was viewed as prescriptive for, and actually adhered to by, jews in eras long post-dating biblical materials. a strategic means of bridging this chronological disjunction would have entailed a deeper, wider, more detailed demonstration of the degree of abiding adherence by jews to the biblical mindset over the centuries preceding and leading up to ben sira’s day. to be sure, schwartz does wrestle with the spectrum of contrasting viewpoints on some of these complex chronological issues and earnestly attempts to work through them. that he does so to some extent suggests that he could have done the same but more so in order that ben sira not seem to enter the stage in medias res to the extent he does. this would have aided readers to solidify their bearings before schwartz moves to the later texts. schwartz's analyses of ben sira and the jerusalem talmud are extraordinarily engrossing and compelling. as for josephus, schwartz admits that josephus’s motives differ between his earlier work the jewish war and his later works jewish antiquities and against apion. schwartz also recognizes josephus’s proclivity for exaggeration. yet schwartz raises surprisingly few doubts about the credibility of josephus’s insistence that jerusalem's jews rejected greco-roman reciprocal norms. in this, he is influenced by the dearth of archaeological evidence that might challenge this conclusion. we are indebted to schwartz for his herculean triumph analyzing themes and parts of texts hitherto largely ignored. he has dared to traverse dense, unlit fields, enabling us to discern, even if through a glass darkly, the rough contours of what was previously unseen or overlooked. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): cook r1-3 schwartz, were the jews a mediterranean society? cook r 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 readers of this volume will never again study ben sira, josephus, and the jerusalem talmud without benefiting from schwartz’s insights. his comprehensive exploration of jewish social integration into the eastern greco-roman world is thus most strongly welcomed as indispensable for all future research. scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-3 matthew s. goldstone the dangerous duty of rebuke: leviticus 19:17 in early jewish and christian interpretation supplements to the journal for the study of judaism 185 (leiden: brill, 2018), hardcover, xv + 279 pp. kengo akiyama akiyama@csus.edu california state university, sacramento, ca 95819 in his revised and expanded nyu dissertation, matthew goldstone traces the ways in which the levitical command to rebuke (lev 19:17) was variously understood by jews and christians in antiquity. the monograph includes an introduction, three main parts which are subdivided into eight chapters, a conclusion, a bibliography, and three indices. goldstone begins with an introduction to a few key elements involved in the act of rebuke. he then prepares the reader for the wide range of interpretations of the verse by drawing on william empson’s and robert alter’s works that highlight the values of literary ambiguity and tensions along with their concomitant hermeneutical challenges (pp. 2-3). since ancient jewish interpreters viewed lev 19:17 as a scriptural mandate, they were compelled to try and work out just how they should—if they could at all—rebuke one another in a way that at once fulfilled the will of god and preserved goodwill among the community’s members. as goldstone situates lev 19:17 in its literary context, he details the ambiguity and tension generated by the three clauses, namely, 19:17a (“you shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart”), 19:17b (“reprove your kinsman”), and 19:17c (“but incur no guilt because of him”). while the ambiguity might be artful, those who were concerned with its application—real or imagined—found themselves in a quandary. the rest of the book sets out to elucidate how subsequent interpreters grappled with lev 19:17. in part 1 (chapters 1-3) goldstone surveys a number of second temple jewish sources. using james kugel’s famous distinction between moral and judicial dimensions of rebuke, goldstone catalogs how diverging interpretations of lev 19:17 often emerge depending on whether one read this verse in light of the following akiyama: matthew s. goldstone’s dangerous duty of rebuke 2 verse (lev 19:18) or the preceding verse (lev 19:16). he examines the dead sea scrolls (1qs, 4q477, and the damascus document) and the gospels (matt 5, luke 6) in chapters 1 and 2 and shows how the authors of each differently conceptualize the relationship between rebuke (lev 19:17) and love (lev 19:18). whereas the scrolls posit love as the “proper motivation for rebuke,” the gospels pit love and rebuke against each other on the assumption that true love obviates the need for reproof (p. 64). he discusses jewish wisdom traditions in chapter 3. these authors all read lev 19:17 in tandem with the prohibition of malicious speech (lev 19:16). the view in proverbs is that only the wise are worth rebuking. it also calls into question the value of reproof because of the “danger of excess speech and particularly slander” (pp. 68-69). ben sira exhibits a more positive attitude toward reproof and extends the obligation to include the foolish, albeit with a caution against breaking the silence too quickly. the author of the testament of gad maintains that what distinguishes rebuke from slander is not the kind of action but the person to whom the act is directed. truth-telling is proper rebuke only when the offended party directly addresses the offender; otherwise, it slides into the treacherous territory of “misdirected reproof, a form of slander (p. 83). he moves in part 2 (chapters 4-6) to tannaitic literature which evidences rabbinic anxieties about the adverse effects of rebuke. the principle conclusion here is that by and large the early rabbis were not in favor of rebuke because of its potential for destabilizing interpersonal relationships. he first analyzes sifra and sifre devarim respectively in chapters 4-5. instead of fleshing out the procedural details of rebuke, rabbis in both texts question the possibility of enacting rebuke in the first place. the anonymous / unattributed portion of sifra insists on the importance of rebuke but expends as much energy warning against its excess (i.e., reproof to the point of embarrassing the rebuked, which would put the rebuker in the wrong). the attributed portion further stresses the unrealizable duty of rebuke (pp. 103-06). in the same vein sifre devarim marginalizes rebuke by dwelling on its interpersonal ramifications and draws on the struggle of the master rebuker, moses: if even moses struggled to fulfill the demands of lev 19:17, what hope is there for everyone else (p. 135)? in part 3 (chapters 6-8) goldstone, considering how later christians and jews responded to the command to rebuke, is interested in cautiously probing a “shared cultural space” between sassanian rabbis and christian monks. he introduces christian monastic tradition in chapter 6, specifically the egyptian desert fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. some monks were wholly committed to the practice of rebuke, except they shifted the object of rebuke from others to the self. rather than externalize their anger and publicly correct others, they preferred to chastise themselves into silence, which was for them a mark of true humility (pp. 160-63). in seeking self-perfection this way, these monks effectively sidelined the obligation to rebuke others (p. 168). he turns to the babylonian talmud in chapter 7 and to tanḥuma yelammedenu literature (a midrashic text from the postclassical period) in chapter 8, which in this case reworks an earlier talmudic passage. unlike sifra, which presents the view 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) that rebuke is important but unfeasible, rabbis in the talmud assert that rebuke is perfectly possible but undesirable because humble self-restraint trumps rebuke. goldstone suggests that this jewish inward turn during this period—the juxtaposition of inward humility and outward reproof—is best understood against the backdrop of early christian monasticism. conversely, tanḥuma endorses the practice of rebuke by downplaying its dangers and re-positioning its crucial importance, even highlighting the sin of refraining from rebuke (p. 215). here, goldstone culls evidence from qur’anic sources that seem to mirror jewish practice (pp. 232-35). in his conclusion he summarizes the main thrust of his thesis and considers various social factors that affected attitudes toward rebuke. then he revisits the greco-roman idea of parrhesia (a form of truth-telling), which he registers in the introduction, and maps his foregoing observations onto the wider developments in the greco-roman world. overall, this is a solid scholarly work that showcases shifting attitudes toward the duty of rebuke in jewish and christian antiquity. goldstone brings together a nice array of early traditions, and the broadly comparative perspective is welcome. further, the book is mostly free of technical language and remains highly readable throughout. one is struck, however, by some unevenness in the analysis. for instance, while goldstone names a few socio-historical factors that pushed for (or resulted from) particular interpretations of lev 19:17 in later chapters, hardly any attention is paid to this dimension in part 1. moreover, the book points out fascinating instances of cross-fertilization, especially between early islamic and rabbinic traditions, but the broader historical implications are (understandably) scarcely worked out. lastly, although goldstone pays careful attention to various manuscripts and attendant text-critical issues, it is not always clear why certain texts or eras were chosen and others excluded (i.e., were these the only ones available or the most representative?). none of these takes away from book’s insights, but they do call for a pause in places. given the need for and the difficulty of truth-telling not just in antiquity but also today, goldstone takes the reader on a delightful tour of just how some ancients who took rebuke as a serious ethical duty navigated the space between its promises and perils. the state of the global catholic-jewish dialogue studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): pawlikowski cp1-4 pawlikowski, state of the global dialogue pawlikowski cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 the state of the global catholic-jewish dialogue john t. pawlikowski, osm, catholic theological union presented at the john cardinal cody colloquium, march 16, 2010 recently the global catholic-jewish dialogue has experienced considerable tension, particularly over certain decisions made by the vatican. while some of these tensions which focused on the bishop williamson affair and the pope's revision of the tridentine good friday prayer have subsided, a residue remains that will require continued frank discussions. this afternoon, in the brief time i have, i will not recite these controversies which have received much press attention. rather, i will focus on several more positive developments. the first positive event is certainly pope benedict xvi's january 17 th visit and address at the main synagogue in rome this year. three aspects of his talk are especially relevant for the advancement of catholic-jewish relations today. the first is his emphasis on the ongoing nature of the jewish covenant. he spoke of the covenant in the present, not the past tense. this is in line with the vatican ii document nostra aetate and with several important statements made by pope john paul ii. it also repeats the basic thrust of the pontifical biblical commission's 2001 document, the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible. pope benedict, then cardinal joseph ratzinger, wrote a very laudatory introduction to this document in his capacity as head of the vatican's congregation for the doctrine of the faith. this papal re-emphasis on the ongoing validity of the jewish covenant is particularly relevant given the perspective advanced over the past several years by the late cardinal avery dulles and his supporters. the perspective of cardinal dulles has been that nostra aetate did not settle the issue of the post-christ event status of the jewish covenant and that we must bring back into play the passages from the letter to the hebrews with their apparent invalidation of the jewish covenant─despite the fact that nostra aetate ignored these passages, clearly establishing romans 9-11 as the foundation for a contemporary theology of the church's relationship with the jewish people. cardinal walter kasper, in private conversation, has indicated that the pope's january 2010 remarks definitely show that cardinal dulles's view is not the perspective of benedict xvi. in this speech at the synagogue in rome, benedict xvi addressed another issue that has plagued his papacy. previous to this address, while he has strongly denounced the holocaust and all forms of antisemitism, he had been ambiguous at best on the issue of catholic complicity in the shoah, tending to describe its ideology as fundamentally anti-religious. in this speech he made his own the often-quoted words of pope john paul ii first spoken in the liturgical ceremony for the new millenium held in rome on the first sunday of lent 2000 and then repeated that may in a message placed in the historic western wall in jerusalem by the pope during his visit to jerusalem. this statement expresses repentance for catholic collaboration with antisemitism over the centuries, including during the nazi era. though it would have been preferable, in my judgment, if the pope had said this in his own words, particularly given his german background. nonetheless, his embrace of john paul's statement of repentance represents his first real step towards acknowledging catholic complicity in this regard. conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): pawlikowski cp1-4 pawlikowski, state of the global dialogue pawlikowski cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 finally, the pope's positive reference to the 2001 pontifical biblical commission's document, along with his citation of jewish religious sources, helps to restore a positive thrust to the catholic-jewish dialogue. those in catholic leadership who have been espousing the view of cardinal dulles have tended to dismiss all documents subsequent to nostra aetate (i.e., this document from the biblical commission, the 1974 and 1985 documents from the holy see's commission for religious relations with jews, and the many speeches of pope john paul ii) as merely pastoral statements and not part of what they term "settled doctrine," a canonically dubious term. by referring to this 2001 pontifical biblical commission document, pope benedict has given new status to it and, by implication, also to the other documents that have been dismissed by those championing the dulles perspective. such documents are clearly important in understanding the basic theological relationship between the church and the jewish people in the eyes of pope benedict xvi. the second important development on the international scene is the passage, in july 2009, of a major new interreligious statement by the international council of christians and jews at its conference at the konrad adenauer stiftung in berlin. this document, several years in the making through international consultations of scholars and people active in the christian-jewish dialogue, was signed by representatives from twenty-eight countries in a solemn ceremony in berlin. it is meant as a further development and updating of the historic document issued in the summer of 1947 by representatives from nineteen countries who met in seelisberg, switzerland, to examine the implications of the holocaust for christian-jewish relations. the seelisberg document had ten major points; the berlin statement has twelve. titled a time for recommitment: jewish-christian dialogue 70 years after the war and the shoah, this document also differs from the 1947 text in that it outlines responsibilities for both the christian and jewish communities as well as responsibilities incumbent on all religious traditions. the points of the seelisberg statement addressed only the christian community. while lengthier discussions are included in the latter part of the document, the twelve points of berlin read as follows─ responsibilities incumbent upon the christian community: 1) to combat religious, racial and all other forms of antisemitism; 2) to promote interreligious dialogue with jews; 3) to develop theological understandings of judaism that affirm its distinctive integrity; 4) to pray for the peace of jerusalem. responsibilities incumbent upon the jewish community: 5) to acknowledge the efforts of many christian communities in the late 20th century to reform their attitudes towards jews; 6) to re-examine jewish texts and liturgy in the light of these christian reforms; 7) to differentiate between fair-minded criticism of israel and antisemitism; 8) to offer encouragment to the state of israel as it works to fulfill the ideals stated in its founding documents, a task israel shares with many nations of the world. responsibilities incumbent upon both the christian and jewish communities and others: 9) to enhance interreligious and intercultural education; 10) to promote interreligious friendship and cooperation as well as social justice in the studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): pawlikowski cp1-4 pawlikowski, state of the global dialogue pawlikowski cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 global society; 11) to enhance dialogue with political and economic bodies; 12) to network with all those whose work responds to the demands of environmental stewardship. the iccj berlin document is not intended as a final statement but rather as a stimulus for further discussion around the world. a conference on its implications has already taken place in latin america and others are planned for sweden, for eastern/central europe and for here in chicago next november at catholic theological union. 1 the final global development that i would highlight in this brief presentation is the theological. several projects are underway to move the discussions in the christian-jewish dialogue into the mainstream of christian theological discussion and hopefully into the maintsream of jewish religious reflections as well. on the christian side, several important efforts are currently underway. at the katholieke universiteit leuven (belgium) a three year project on paul and judaism is coming to a close. this project has focused on collecting and integrating the vast amount of new material developed by pauline scholars over the past several decades which is transforming, in a positive direction, paul's understanding of judaism and its torah tradition. this is a monumental shift in thinking about paul and judaism. it is part of the equally groundbreaking scholarship on the parting of the ways that carries great implications for both christian biblical and systematic scholarship. its findings will eventually be published in book form. another major project was launched following the 2005 commemoration of the fortieth anniversary celebration of nostra aetate at the gregorian university in rome. co-sponsored by boston college, the catholic university of leuven, catholic theological union and the pontifical gregorian university in rome 2 ─with the stated support of cardinal walter kasper─this project has been examining a metaquestion entitled: how might we christians in our time reaffirm our faith claim that jesus christ is savior of all humanity, even as we affirm the jewish people's covenantal life in god.? primarily a catholic effort, but with some protestant and jewish participation, this consultation will shortly release, in book form, the substance of its discussions held in italy, leuven, the university of notre dame and the swedish theological institute in jerusalem. the world council of churches has also launched an effort to examine the implication of interreligious dialogue for christian theological self-identity. this process will involve a consultation with each of the wcc's major dialogue partners. the consultation with regard to judaism will take place in late june in istanbul immediately prior to the annual meeting of iccj in that city. the results of this process will be presented to the wcc leadership at its meeting in 2011. finally, i would mention the ongoing work of the central committee of catholics and jews which has met in germany for over twenty years under the leadership of professor hanspeter heinz. the committee has issued important papers on many key theological issues in the christianjewish relationship, including a 2009 statement against mission to the jews which has caused considerable controversy in germany. all of these efforts, if successful, will change profoundly the christian theological understanding of judaism and the jewish people, and in turn because the relationship with judaism has been so central to christian theology (especially christology), it will also profoundly change christian 1 for more details about this iccj document see studies in christian-jewish relations, volume iv, 2009. 2 st. joseph’s university in philadelphia is now also a co-sponsor. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): pawlikowski cp1-4 pawlikowski, state of the global dialogue pawlikowski cp 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 self-understanding. there are also implications for jewish self-identity, though to a lesser degree, since judaism has never defined itself as the replacement for christianity. however, the question of whether jews, from the jewish perspective, can affirm a theological validity for christianity certainly presents a considerable challenge to jewish scholarship today. scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-4 matthias henze mind the gap: how the jewish writings between the old and new testament help us understand jesus (minneapolis: fortress press, 2017), 248 pages simon j. joseph simonjoseph@humnet.ucla.edu university of california, los angeles, ca 90095 jesus was jewish. while this historical truism seems obvious to biblical scholars and historians, jesus’ jewishness still represents something of a disconnect, or perhaps even a “gap,” in the knowledge of the average christian. for many, jesus may have been nominally jewish, but he is more commonly regarded as the honorary founder of christianity. in mind the gap, a book about “the jewish world of the new testament” (p. 181), matthias henze attempts to correct this distorted perspective by focusing on the intertestamental literature of second temple judaism, that is, the “gap” between the old and new testaments. borrowing the phrase from the london underground’s caution to “mind the gap” between the platform and oncoming trains, henze develops this concept of a literary-theological “gap” in our understanding of the historical context of early christianity by focusing on a number of specific themes and topics—particularly messianism, demons, exorcism, the law, and resurrection—that are indispensable to understanding the ministry of jesus in the new testament. the book is divided into two parts. part i (“mind the gap! reading between the old and new testament”) has two chapters and contains henze’s brief review of the history of ancient israel and the writings of the “old testament.” part ii (“the jewish jesus”) has five chapters focusing on the most significant themes of intertestamental literature. in chapter 3 (“jesus, the messiah of israel”), for example, henze explores the origins of jewish messianism in the intertestamental period, highlighting jesus’ identification as “anointed / messiah,” or “christ(os),” within its jewish literary-theological context. the new testament writings were written to proclaim, if not to prove, that jesus was the messiah of israel. they did joseph: matthias henze’s mind the gap 2 so by appealing to the “old testament’s” prophetic corpus as well as to more recent writings like the book of daniel and the enochic book of parables, both of which refer to a heavenly and / or human-like figure ultimately identified as the son of man. henze also explores the significance of the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, in particular, 4q521 (“the messianic apocalypse”) and 4q246 (“the son of god text”) from qumran (pp. 68-85). 4q521 refers to the “heavens and the earth” listening to “his [god’s] messiah” and describes the eschatological blessings of the messianic age in a way reminiscent of jesus’ acts of healing during his ministry as seen in luke. henze suggests that it was “originally composed somewhere else and then brought to qumran” and so may not “express the beliefs of the community” (p. 173). this may well be the case, as many texts found at qumran were not written there, but one might also ask why a text preserved, collected, and copied by qumran members would not “express the beliefs of the community.” in chapter 4 (“in a world of demons and unclean spirits”) (pp. 87-114), henze carefully shows how belief in demons and unclean spirits arose not from the “old testament” period of ancient israel but from the intertestamental “gap” period when jewish scribes were influenced by the enochic writings. this illuminates how the new testament writers could presuppose, if not take for granted, their audience’s recognition of the reality of a densely populated demonic world. in an important discussion focused on jesus’ relationship to the mosaic law in chapter 5, “did jesus abolish the law of moses?” (pp. 115-46), henze clarifies the terminology of “torah” as instruction, teaching, and / or law. he shows that the concept of torah was being developed and interpreted in jewish literature of this time. he suggests that the matthean jesus affirms and “fulfills” the law even while his interpretation (or torah!) could challenge others’ interpretations of torah. in chapter 6 (“the resurrection of the dead and life in the company of angels”) (pp. 147-79), henze reviews a number of texts, including daniel 12:1-3, 2 maccabees 7, psalms of solomon 17, 1 enoch 51, and 4 ezra 7, which discuss the increasingly common belief in eschatological resurrection. he traces the development of this belief beginning in the relatively early texts of daniel and 2 maccabees, where resurrection is “a promise that is made to a specific group and in response to a concrete historical crisis” but is not made to “all of israel, let alone [to] humanity in general” (p. 168). he notes a later shift to a “less restricted” promise, so that by the first century ce it becomes “a fixed part of jewish end time expectations.” each of these chapters represent excellent summaries and distillations of scholarly consensus on the significance of specific texts and themes in early judaism. in an epilogue, henze explores the broader implications of jesus’ jewishness (“what difference does it make that jesus was a jew?”), identifying three common “objections” he encounters in his public lectures. the first is that there is simply “too much judaism” in his presentations (p. 183). since henze’s focus on jesus’ jewishness undercuts any assumption that jesus was “christian,” christian audiences sometimes feel like henze is trying to take jesus away from them. henze counters this by pointing out that he wants to make people “increasingly aware of the jewish world of jesus” and “realize that jesus was at home in the judaism of 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) first-century ce israel” (p. 184). a second objection arises from the non-canonical status of the intertestamental literature. henze effectively counters this objection by pointing out that many more texts were produced by jewish scribes than are contained in the old or new testaments and that it is important to be aware of this creative literary output. the third and most problematic response that henze encounters is the theological objection that focusing on jesus’ jewish context somehow undermines the uniqueness of jesus and the christian faith as divine revelation (pp. 186, 189). henze suggests that this theological objection stems from an ancient but inappropriate use of comparison in order to “underscore the superiority of the new testament” which, “in an extreme form,” leads to replacementtheology or supersessionism (p. 190; emphasis in original). having responded to these common objections, henze outlines three major challenges facing “christian readers” today: (1) “to become familiar with the rich trove of jewish texts”; (2) “to stay clear of the traps of supersessionism and of other ideologies that denigrate judaism”; and (3) “to be mindful of the distinction between jesus and his followers…and christianity as an independent religion” (pp. 193-94). one can hardly object to any of these laudable goals. henze’s challenges could serve as a foundation for the christian reader to engage in deep and meaningful discourse and reflection on the christian tradition. yes, jesus was jewish, but “there is something unsettling about coming to realize that [jesus]…was not a christian but a jew” (p. 2). there is, indeed. the jewish jesus does make (some) christians uncomfortable. why? because remembering jesus’ jewishness leads to asking questions like: did “we” christians get jesus right? why did (do) jews “reject” jesus? and why are “we” (christians) not jews, like jesus? these questions can be historically and theologically destabilizing to people of faith. that is why they are either resisted, ignored, or, more commonly, answered with apologetic responses like “the jews rejected jesus” (because they were stiff-necked, blind, and / or hard-hearted) and / or jesus “abolished” and / or “replaced” the (curse of the) jewish law. that is also why it is essential that the rhetorical appeal to jesus’ jewishness, while perhaps comforting within an inter-religious or inter-faith context, should continue to challenge and enlighten jewish-christian dialogue. to be sure, a major theme of mind the gap is that “jesus adhered to and practiced a specific form of judaism” (p. 182; emphasis in original), that is, second temple judaism. but given the great variety within second temple judaism, we still need to ask what kind of jew jesus was within this complex cultural milieu. for most biblical scholars, this means reconstructing an “historical jesus,” that is, a hypothetical reconstruction of the life, teachings, beliefs, and activities of the jesus of history. henze insists, however, that this is not a “historical jesus” book. henze is “not concerned with the historical jesus,” but rather chooses to focus “on jesus as we read about him in the four gospels and in the letters of paul” (p. 11). while this pronounced interest in the jesus of the gospels is understandable given henze’s literary focus and his presumed (christian) audience, it does raise the issue of the relationship between the jesus of the gospels and the jesus of history. the joseph: matthias henze’s mind the gap 4 jesus of the gospels, after all, is a “christian” jesus—a jesus shaped by the theological and ideological interests of an emergent, nascent “christianity.” and it is precisely within the pages of the new testament that a dichotomous opposition between jesus and judaism was first inscribed as “gospel.” to simply re-present the jesus of the gospels is to run the risk of re-inscribing that very same dichotomous opposition. to be fair, henze’s goal here is simply to help general readers understand the gospels’ representation of (the jewishness of) jesus within second temple judaism. moreover, that audience is presumed to be christian, as is evident in the book’s subtitle about how “jewish writings” help “us” understand jesus. it would seem, then, that the modern (christian) reader is in a bit of a quandary—willing to recognize that jesus was jewish, but not entirely sure how to reconcile the jewish jesus and the christian christ. we cannot expect henze to solve this ancient dilemma. it is enough that he destabilizes assumptions, answers objections, and challenges facile theological dogmas even while he leaves christians with the inherent tension and ambiguity of a jewish jesus. biblical scholars will find much of this volume expertly articulated (albeit covering familiar territory), while many christian readers will find mind the gap to be a courageous exploration of the social, political, and theological contexts of the new testament. insofar as the meaning(s) of texts are best understood in their original cultural contexts, mind the gap provides readers with the most assured results of contemporary scholarship on early judaism. it also effectively counters unhelpful tendencies toward supersessionism within christian theology by illustrating the close and even intimate relationships between second temple jewish literature and early christian texts. it is precisely this kind of methodological intervention, and its attendant discomfort, that holds the greatest potential for genuine jewish-christian dialogue. accessible, readable, and personable, mind the gap is authoritative without being overly technical. it may well be the most useful introductory book for undergraduates, seminary students, and general readers trying to understand the literary, historical, and theological contexts of the new testament writings about jesus. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ray and elukin cp1-4 ray and elukin, introduction ray and elukin cp 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr jonathan ray, georgetown university and jonathan elukin, trinity college “was there a „golden age‟ of christian-jewish relations?” conference at boston college, april 2010 the papers collected here were written in response to a specific question: was there a golden age of jewish-christian relations? 1 the contributors each offered a different period of history (and location) as a possible golden age. all of the contributors, however, were careful to recognize the deeply problematic nature both of the question and of their individual responses in their papers or the discussions that followed. the term “golden age,” of course, evokes nostalgia for a lost world of great accomplishments in literature, art, economics, or politics. most nations have cultivated the memory of some kind of golden age. the idea itself was first articulated in hesiod‟s works, and then picked up by virgil and ovid. 2 before turning to the specific discussions of the golden ages offered in the papers, we should reflect for a moment on the implications of using the idea of a golden age in any historiographical analysis. hesiod‟s outline of successive ages following a golden time was only one of several ancient ways of imagining the division of time and history. historians in the ancient greek and roman worlds, in general, were rather flexible about periodization, with some favoring a kind of cyclical quality to the flow of history. the conception of a golden age, however, had a long life before it in western culture as a compelling shorthand for an unrecoverable, glorious past. it has survived despite jewish and christian historical thinking that was linear and forward-looking. the structure of time in the hebrew bible itself did not incorporate the idea of a golden age. time in the bible was largely linear in following the movement of the children of israel through time. 3 true, the human experience began in eden, but the moments of paradise were fleeting and the memory of eden was always tainted with man‟s exile. the voice or voices of the hebrew bible seemed to push eden to the margins as they articulated a sense of time moving first to the exodus of the children of israel from egypt and then to the establishment of the temple, exile, and the hope of a messianic redemption. for the israelites and later the larger communities of jews who identified with them, the golden age, if they even thought of such an image, was in the future, not the past. 1 the “was there a „golden age‟ of christian-jewish relations?” conference was hosted by the center for christianjewish learning at boston college in april 2010. 2 harry levin, the myth of the golden age in the renaissance (indiana university press, 1969). lawrence besserman, “the challenge of periodization: old paradigms and new,” in lawrence besserman, ed., the challenge of periodization: old paradigms and new perspectives (garland, 1996), 3-28. john collins, “cosmology: time and history,” in sarah iles johnston, ed., religions of the ancient world: a guide (harvard university press, 2004), 66. 3 amnon raz-krakotzkin, “jewish memory between exile and history,” jewish quarterly review 97, 4 (fall 2007): 530-543. cf pp. 535-6 on the seeming absence of the idea of progress in rabbinic ideology of history as well as interesting comments on the jewish internalization of christian historical values when they embraced secular historical approaches. introduction to conference proceedings studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ray and elukin cp1-4 ray and elukin, introduction ray and elukin cp 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr that indifference to a classical sense of a golden age as imagined by hesiod persisted in the more complicated historical thinking of christianity. the new testament, followed by eusebius and augustine, constructed a past that was largely divided between the time before the incarnation and the time that followed it. christians were waiting for the end of time and salvation. even if there were past ages that had achieved great things, those times paled in comparison to the truth of salvation. the fundamentals of christian periodization remained relatively stable through the middle ages. even the complicated tri-partite scheme of historical time created by the medieval mystic joachim of fiore was still focused on the age of grace that would come before salvation. it was not a religious culture of nostalgia—except in the negative sense that many christians looked back in reverence to the sufferings of the early christian martyrs. in the post-biblical jewish historical tradition, we look in vain for advocates of the idea of a golden age. the interest in what we might consider history in the post-second temple period was extremely narrow in any case, as yerushalmi has noted. 4 the apocalyptic sentiments of most jewish sectarian groups of the first century pretty much ensured that a golden age would not be satisfying or meaningful. these groups, including the early christians, were focused on the imminent end of society and the beginning of a messianic age. josephus, who was perhaps closest to the classical historical tradition, did not try to contrast the tragedies of the jews under the romans with an idyllic past. perhaps the priestly class, from which josephus came, looked back with longing to the days of the temple, but such longing was not coherent enough (or given the disruption of the destruction of the temple) able to shape a historical narrative around it. the rabbis were interested in certain aspects of history—the rituals of the temple, for example, or if they understood it as history, the accounts of the torah. but in their eyes, scripture was more a coded text that revealed truths about contemporary rituals and values rather than a systematic account of the “national” past. later medieval texts that grappled with historical events in ways that seemed analogous to christian historical accounts did not wander into fantasies of a golden past even as they recorded past events. 5 just as the idea of a golden age flourished in the historiography of 17 th -century dutch history or early modern spanish literature, so, too, did jewish historians find their own golden age. the scholars of the 19 th -century wissenschaft des judentums were infatuated with the cultural glories of iberian jewish life under islam. 6 that period, and to some extent, the convivencia that seemed to survive under christian spain as well, became the touchstone of a golden age for modern jewish historians. 7 it certainly has never been really challenged by subsequent jewish historians, or rather, no other period has been consistently designated a golden age. each of the papers collected here makes that challenge in different ways. eliya ribak, for example, suggests that relations between jews and christians in 4 th through 7 th -century byzantine 4 yerushalmi, zakhor: jewish history and jewish memory (schocken 1989). an interesting point to pursue is how yerushalmi might account for the fact that the trauma of the destruction of the temple did not produce a historical sensibility when the expulsion from spain purportedly did. for a response to yerushalmi on this last point, see robert bonfil, “jewish attitudes toward history and historical writing in pre-modern times,” jewish history 11 (spring 1997): 7-40. 5 among these texts i include sefer yossipon, chronicle of ahimaaz, and the various crusade chronicles. 6 ismar schorsch, “the myth of sephardic supremacy,” leo baeck institute yearbook 34 (1989): 47-66. 7 so too does the idea of convivencia which carries something of the same charge: see reflections on the idea of convivencia in jonathan ray, “beyond tolerance and persecution: reassessing our approach to medieval convivencia” jewish social studies 11 (winter 2005): 1-18. alex novikoff, “between tolerance and intolerance in medieval spain: an historiographic enigma” medieval encounters 11 (2005): 7-36. maya soifer, beyond convivencia: critical reflections on the historiography of interfaith relations in christian spain,” journal of medieval iberian studies 1 (2009): 19-35. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ray and elukin cp1-4 ray and elukin, introduction ray and elukin cp 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr palestine were remarkably free of violence or animosity. the two communities shared a common material culture to the extent that without explicit epigraphic markers, it was virtually impossible to distinguish jewish or christian sites from each other. such common material culture, ribak argues, suggests the absence of real friction between the two traditions. in a later period, margaret jennings tries to identify christian valorization and acceptance of jewish religious influences in the art of a medieval french cathedral. she sees this as a marker of a golden age of tolerant relations between the two communities and traditions. jonathan ray offers a nuanced discussion of the age of convivencia in christian spain that raises the question of who benefited from the putative golden age and what were the costs to individual jews or the jewish community. magda teter‟s essay reminds us that there may be paradoxes to any purported golden age when it comes to jews. kings who embody the early modern polish golden age, may be more severe on jews making it difficult to transfer these historical periods whole scale into jewish periodization. miriam bodian offers, perhaps, the fullest discussion of a golden age—that of the experience of religious tolerance and acceptance in 17 th -century amsterdam when jews came to be largely accepted as just another category of non-believer who had to be tolerated rather than a specific kind of outsider subject to particular disabilities. finally, yaakov arieli identifies the continuing interfaith dialogue of the 20 th and 21 st -century as one strand of a modern golden age when certain christian denominations and jewish interlocutors broke through traditional boundaries to establish some kind of real, albeit limited, dialogue of mutual acceptance. it should go without saying that the idea of a golden age is not a precise or very meaningful historical label. thus, trying to assess whether any historical period was such a time for jewishchristian relations is fraught with problems. even the terminology of periodization is problematic. are we using jewish or christian/secular schema to focus on a particular time? for example, are we talking about the entire period of the middle ages—however that is defined either in christian, secular, or jewish terms? 8 in general, are we talking about one region, kingdom, or territory? and, of course, what is particularly golden about such a putative golden age? do we judge an age golden by the level of jewish culture, the degree of acculturation of jewish communities, the absence of violence between jews and christians, the lifting of legal restraints on the jewish community, or demonstrated friendships and communal interaction? do we need a specific combination of these elements to reach a golden level? does it have to be golden for an entire society or just a golden age for jews? (or for all jews?) 9 what this collection of papers suggests, however, is that there is still a historiographical impulse to identify and define a golden age of jewish-christian relations. that in itself is interesting and worthy of reflection. why are we still trying to understand the past in this way? moreover, bringing all these disparate periods together suggests that no single golden age stood apart from the rest or was without potential problems of definition. jonathan ray has pointed out those problems in his discussion of convivencia. miriam bodian has recognized that the tolerance experienced by the jewish community in holland came at the cost of the community policing and punishing its own members. jewish historians may still be searching for a golden age, or may feel that their readers still desire a 8 patricia skinner, “confronting the „medieval,‟ in medieval history: the jewish example,” past & present 181 (2003): 219-247. there is a massive literature on periodization in jewish history writing, but it primarily centers around the question of when does modernity begin. i am working on an essay that examines the question of earlier periodizations. 9 the papers presented here raise some of these concerns. in ribak‟s paper, for example, the common material culture of jews and christians may have reflected the weakening of a distinctive jewish identity in the wake of the destruction of the temple and the late rise of rabbinic judaism as argued by seth schwartz. in jennings‟ paper, as well, we are not sure that the artists behind the cathedral‟s sculptures and images suggested jewish interpretations on an intellectual level apart from any larger and more critical social attitudes. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ray and elukin cp1-4 ray and elukin, introduction ray and elukin cp 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr golden age. ultimately, seeing all these periods juxtaposed against each other in this collection may help shake us out of this manichean worldview of a jewish past caught between times of persecution and a golden age or ages of tolerance. we may begin to see each age as a spectrum that contained both these qualities. scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-5 elena procario-foley and robert cathey, eds. righting relations after the holocaust and vatican ii (new york: paulist press, 2018), paperback, xxvi + 334 pp. jay moses pastorjaym@sbcglobal.net hope presbyterian church, wheaton, illinois 60189 at a time when our distance from the groundbreaking encyclical nostre aetate and vatican ii increases, and when the expressions of dignity towards groups constituting “the other” are dangerously deteriorating, the task of remembering and building upon the work of those who have made historic contributions toward the reconciliation of estranged groups is paramount. rev. dr. john pawlikowski, through his tireless efforts in jewish-catholic relations, is certainly one of those names. the collection of essays in the edited volume righting relations after the holocaust and vatican ii both highlights pawlikowski’s half-century of work and offers sophisticated discussions of many salient topics in contemporary relations. it is suffused with a commitment to the ethical imperative of the imago dei we are in constant danger of losing. the book, edited by robert cathey from mccormick theological seminary and elena procario-foley from iona college, is divided into three thematic sections (ethics and theology, holocaust studies, and interreligious studies) in an attempt to encompass the areas in which pawlikowski’s work has had great influence. for the most part these divisions help frame this collection of discussions, though some contributors venture outside this frame. a review of a collection of such diverse material is a complex enterprise, but in the case of this work, the fruits it yields and the wisdom it contains is well worth the attempt. the first section collects a group of essays under the theme of ethics and theology. it includes discussions of the framework and foundations of pawlikowski’s thought. drawing on theologians such as karl barth and peter hodgson and ethicists such as reinhold niebuhr and emmanuel levinas, the contributors demonstrate pawlikowski’s lifelong examination of concepts such as “love of neighbor as self” and “the common good.” two chapters specifically highlight important theological insights and emphases in his work: cathey’s chapter “pawlikowski’s christology as challenge to reformed christology” and michael s. kogan’s chapter “welcoming jesus home.” building on pawlikowski’s ideas moses: procario-foley and cathey’s righting relations 2 (like many of the contributors), cathey helpfully formulates some theses in jewish-christian dialogue regarding the place of jesus, and with it, an adequate christology. he helpfully highlights two observations from pawlikowski’s writings. first, a focus on the incarnation offers the best option for developing a christology that allows for continued covenantal inclusion of the jewish people. second, the challenge in christology is to integrate the interiority of christian experience with the exteriority of historical awareness, or, as pawlikowski states it, to affirm the “presence of the kingdom within human consciousness and in history,” which includes viewing jesus in his historical context (p. 24). in the post-nostra aetate world, there have been many (mostly christian) attempts to build theological bridges between early christianity and ancient judaism. some have found it useful to explore jewish liturgical sources when considering the christ event (and especially themes of sacrifice and atonement). others have found bridges of interreligious understanding in different forms of a prophetic christology that sees similarities in jewish and christian hermeneutics. pawlikowski has been unique in his emphasis on one area that might seem to be the last place of constructive dialogue between the two traditions: the presence of god within the human (i.e., the incarnation). cathey helpfully extrapolates from recent theologians the basic if counter-intuitive contribution by pawlikowski: only the incarnation leaves room for the continued place of judaism within christianity’s theology; others approaches yield scenarios of christian triumphalism and fulfillment. speaking within his own presbyterian context, cathey quotes from a recent document “‘in our time’: a statement on relations between the presbytery of chicago and the jewish community in metropolitan chicago.” (he was one of its authors.) he recognizes the gifts of the jewish tradition to christianity and finds room for christians to value and explore a living judaism. such interaction “humbles…reminds…preserves…grounds…provokes…sustains…and awakens christians to our relationship and bond with jews” (p. 40). “welcoming jesus home” by kogan, a jewish philosopher and theologian, considers what constitutes an adequate christology for christian-jewish dialogue. kogan has written extensively on jewish views of religious pluralism and takes pawlikowski’s challenge for a new jewish “place” for jesus in jewish history and understanding seriously. accepting pawlikowski’s suggestion of the incarnation as a fruitful place, kogan writes, “i am suggesting that jesus’ role for a judaism willing to re-admit him would be as a ‘son of man’, a representative human being who reveals the divinity in all of us humans. he shows us clearly who we are” (p. 89). exploring the incarnational impulse of a divine-human mutuality, he continues, “i am writing to jews. i believe that if we focus on the issue of the dual nature we share with jesus, this could be a bridge between our two faiths, as long as we remember that what is true of him is true of all of us. every ‘son of man’ possesses divine as well as human aspects” (p. 90). kogan encourages current jews to take the insights of “second temple expressions” of jesus’ unique godconsciousness as a mirror needed for all of “the divine aspects of every person.” he powerfully concludes that “jesus was a jew, one of our own. he should no longer remain a stranger to our, and his, jewish faith” (p. 92). kogan’s chapter 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) demonstrates the richness of including jewish partners in christian theological dialogue. the next series of chapters is focused around the study of the holocaust. contributors consider its causes, sociological context, and present relevance. pawlikowski’s keen ethical thought and call for responsibility (perhaps partly a reflection of his polish-american identity) have made him relentless in grappling with the theological implications of the event. the authors touch on such subjects as pedagogy (carol rittner), memory (katharina von kellenbach), and “righteous gentiles” (stephen leonard jacobs). the following two chapters touch upon important applications of holocaust studies in our day. in “the ethics of interfaith post-holocaust engagement,” victoria barnett examines the intersection of two areas at the foundation of pawlikowski’s work: genocide studies and interreligious dialogue. barnett starts by pondering the dangers of generalizing such specific tragedies as the holocaust to glean universalized, interreligious principles: “would an expansion detract from or even undermine the specific nuances of the jewish-christian relationship? with regard to holocaust history, does such engagement open the door to distortion, false analogies, or even minimizing the nature of the holocaust?” (p. 142). nonetheless, barnett cautiously affirms the venture, and after an initial affirmation of the specificity of the holocaust, concludes that what can be learned for the sake of interfaith engagement is the role of historic tragedies in the stories of different peoples. for different religious traditions to truly engage each other in the context of the real world, participants must begin the “examination of a long and painful theological history” (p. 148). interreligious dialogue can be a tool for reconciliation when discussions about historic ethical failure are used to “open the way for theological and ethical reflection” (p. 150). in this way interreligious dialogue can aid an exploration of the historical causes of conflict and their partial resolution, while theology can aid an ethical exploration. this type of approach to interreligious dialogue can already be see in dialogues between american christians and the native americans, between sikhs, hindus and muslims on the indian sub-continent, and between orthodox christians and muslims in the middle east and turkey. the excavation of theologies and ideologies used to encourage violence, oppression, ethnic cleansing, and genocide can benefit from the inclusion of lessons learned from jewishchristian dialogue (especially regarding the holocaust). flowing naturally from this insight is the contribution by mehnaz m. afridi, “muslim memory and righting relations with the other.” though pawlikowski has spent much of his life working for reconciliation and better relations between jews and christians, afridi shows that his insights have broader relevance. writing of muslims’ examining conflicts with the jewish community, she draws on pawlikowski’s views of the so-called “imaging” of the other present among christians in nazi germany: “i focus on the word imagine because so much of the ‘religion on the [muslim] street’ stems from political and historical memory and myths” (p. 157). she continues in regards to muslim perspectives on the holocaust: “the holocaust was minimized and relativized because of the parallels made to palestinian suffering and the many wars in the middle east. the imagi moses: procario-foley and cathey’s righting relations 4 nation of such myths can lead to more distance and less understanding” (p. 162). like pawlikowski’s confession of christian complicity in the teaching of contempt, mehnaz adopts a “model of deep self-critique” and recognizes that “muslims were not innocent or pure during the advent of islam nor in the treatment of minorities” (p. 169). she also remarks that “accepting the deep holes within one’s theology and accepting responsibility for past and present acts of violence” is a practice worthy of emulation and respect. this chapter, the only one not by a jew or a christian, offers a powerful demonstration of a form of metanoia. the final section, interreligious studies, contains relatively more diverse material. this final grouping seeks to focus specifically on the roman catholic contribution to jewish-christian relations. found here are chapters spanning pawlikowski’s interest in the reform of liturgy (ruth langer), the role of jewish participation in vatican ii (susannah heschel), and the survival of jewish identity within a majority non-jewish world (carmen m. nanko-fernandez and jeanpierre m. ruiz). two other chapters within this section, “nostra aetate, omnia mutantur: the times they are a-changing” by amy-jill levine and “learning from the other: the nostra aetate trajectory our time” by mary c. boys, encapsulate well the current state of jewish-christian relations. amy-jill levine, a prominent jewish voice in jewish-christian dialogue today, gives an incisive examination and critique of changes in the catholic church’s presentation of judaism. after listing many positive features in catholic statements over the last few decades, she notes the presence of some troubling oversimplifications and distortions. for example, she finds this view present: “jesus was killed because he was nice to women, eschewed purity, dined with tax collectors, condemned slavery, and offered free medical care” (p. 233). she charitably sees presentations of judaism as a negative foil to presentations of jesus as “not based in hatred but as primarily indicators of educational failures.” many of her critiques echo more detailed explorations in her work the misunderstood jew: the church and the scandal of a jewish jesus (2007). here, as there, she reveals shortcomings of liberation theology when applied to the ancient jewish / early christian period. her strongest remarks are reserved for her review of the annotated footnotes of the bible translation promoted by the u.s. conference of catholic bishops, the new american bible revised edition (from 2011). after a few comments on specific passages of jewish-christian importance, she confesses that the annotations are at best “uninformed” (p. 338) or, stated more baldly, “do damage” (p. 242). she encourages christians to learn from jewish traditions when interpreting the old and new testament. despite these critiques, her attitude is hopeful, and she also offers constructive guidance. boys recounts the fascinating stories of two converts to catholicism, john oesterreicher (a convert from judaism) and karl thieme (a convert from lutheranism). boys emphasizes the importance of these men’s life experiences in shaping their theological views and in influencing their participation in catholic discussions of judaism. oesterreicher’s traditional jewish upbringing gave him an intimate understanding of catholic misconceptions of and contempt for jews and 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) judaism and led him to challenge church teachings. thieme’s experience of life under nazism and lutheran background gave him great sensitivity regarding bigotry, contempt, and hatred for jews found within christian theology. both had intimate familiarity, one with jewish life, the other with christian contempt, that prompted them to try to challenge traditional anti-jewish teachings. the theological breakthrough for both focused upon their new readings of romans 9-11, which has emerged as a major focus of contemporary christian theologies of judaism. nonetheless, change was not immediate, especially for prominent topics such as evangelism. boys states that “it is misleading to think that the church can simply flip a theological switch” to change such long seated perspectives of the religious “other” (p. 299). on many issues, the changes begun by the daring drafters of nostre aetate have only slowly born fruit. boys prophetically turns her gaze from the past to our present and sees a missed opportunity to learn from issues raised at vatican ii today, a time of heightened “aversion to difference” and “reversion to tribalism.” there is a wisdom relevant to today in the discussions held many years ago. there is a consistently high level of sophistication in these chapters, a sharing of gifts gleaned from decades of hard work in jewish christian dialogue. it is heartening to realize that the presence of jewish contributors to this theological discussion, all honoring the work of john pawlikowski, is something that would have been unlikely 25 years ago, let alone with such palpable feelings of trust and friendship across the religious divide. yehezkel landau, in one of the last chapters, underscores pawlikowski’s contribution: “as ethnic and religious loyalties assert themselves in increasingly polarized ways, all people of faith must join forces to safeguard human dignity and equality, the imperative that john rightfully insists remain central in our minds, hearts and actions” (p. 321). scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-6 gavin d’costa catholic doctrines on the jewish people after vatican ii (oxford: oxford university press, 2019), hardcover, 240 pp. + xiv ruth langer ruth.langer@bc.edu boston college, chestnut hill, ma 02467 this review has been expanded from the version originally published here to incorporate the author's more detailed comments in an invited panel presentation “catholic doctrines on the jewish people after vatican ii: a panel discussion with gavin d’costa” at the society for post-supersessionist theology annual meeting (november 2020). i. in 2014, gavin d’costa published vatican ii: catholic doctrines on jews and muslims (oxford: oxford university press), a study of the teachings of the second vatican council about jews and muslims. in a forum on this volume, i raised several critiques, including that d’costa had largely ignored–and even dismissed as “nondoctrinal”–the significant post-conciliar developments in catholic teachings about jews, stopping with the often inchoate openings made at the council.1 with this volume, d’costa turns to these post-conciliar teachings, working with his characteristic densely-argued systematic methodology through the various documents about jews and judaism issued by popes, vatican offices, and occasionally national bishops’ bodies. he analyzes not only what have emerged as authoritative catholic teachings about jews but also probes their boundaries, identifying trajectories that he expects or hopes will manifest themselves in the future. the volume is therefore not only retrospective but also constructive in its study of doctrine and an enormously important contribution. the opening words of the book’s preface signal this change in focus. d’costa writes, “this book presupposes that doctrines matter and that doctrines that matter 1 ruth langer, “a jewish response to gavin d’costa: vatican ii: catholic doctrines on jews and muslims,” louvain studies 40 (2017): 274-75. langer: gavin d’costa’s catholic doctrines on the jewish people 2 most always give rise to further doctrines. doctrines are fecund.”2 thus, as he explains, the biblically grounded doctrine that “surfaced” without elaboration in vatican ii’s lumen gentium 16 and nostra aetate 4 that god’s covenant with the jews is “irrevocable” was only first applied to contemporary, post-biblical jews by saint pope john paul ii in 1980. “unfolding” this doctrine has been a difficult process and is still ongoing. over these years, further “doctrinal trajectories, …all deeply contested,” have also become important (vii). the volume’s five substantive chapters map and analyze the evolution of the central claim and its emerging trajectories up through the 2015 publication of “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’ (rom 11:29)” from the vatican’s commission for religious relations with the jews. chapter one directly addresses the doctrine of god’s irrevocable covenant with the jews. the pre-conciliar understanding had been that this covenant was revoked and superseded. this had wide implications for catholic teachings about jews. consequently, the new affirmation of god’s covenantal relationship also unsettles other received teachings and creates the trajectories d’costa then develops in the book. this chapter discusses two crucial meta-trajectories. validating only biblical judaism fails to engage with jewish self-definition, as called for by the 1974 “guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate, no. 4.” a specific acknowledgment that post-biblical, i.e., rabbinic and hence contemporary, jews remain in this unrevoked covenant enters papal pronouncements first in 1980. its reiteration by subsequent popes and in official documents, d’costa says, generates enough cumulative authority to “count for…a development of doctrine” (20). the chapter concludes by addressing the language of supersessionism and fulfillment. d’costa grounds this argument in the doctrinal requirement that all catholics are required to assent to the truth that all salvation comes through jesus christ, who is the jewish messiah and the embodiment of the fullness of god’s truth. therefore, those who assert that god’s covenant with the jews is irrevocable must understand that this covenant is ultimately fulfilled through jesus christ. “soft supersessionism,” he says, “is necessary to catholicism” and is “best called ‘fulfilment’ to avoid confusion” (25-26). chapter one lays the theological groundwork for subsequent chapters, in which d’costa moves progressively more deeply into unpacking the intersection between living jews and today’s judaism, and specific aspects of the unrevoked covenant and its fulfillment in christ. chapter two considers the “ceremonial laws, the religious practices deriving from the mosaic covenant” (27). though jettisoned by the early church as not salvific, they are today recognized by catholics as central to jewish covenantal life. how might catholics reconcile the irrevocability of this covenant with the universal saving mission of christ and the church? d’costa argues that a “fulfillment thesis” best resolves this dilemma (55). god desired the existence of rabbinic judaism and its teachings, at least until the church’s mission 2 note, though, “doctrines can develop, but they cannot contradict previously held teachings. that is error, not development” (34). 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) to the gentiles is complete. at least until then, jews who cannot accept the christian message are “invincibly ignorant,” meaning that they are not sinners, culpable for their remaining outside the church (39-43, 48, 54, 58-61). d’costa also explores a related trajectory: the church, he says, can now accept the jewish ceremonial practices of groups like hebrew catholics and messianic jews; “judaizing” is no longer a sin (53). unlike many rethinking christian theologies of judaism, d’costa observes that assertions about god’s irrevocable covenant with the jews that ignore questions of the land of israel “will sound hollow” (65). he therefore devotes chapters three and four to this often politically and theologically fraught issue. he examines first the evolution of catholic teachings about the biblical land promises themselves and then the question of how these apply in today’s political reality. he argues that the trajectory of catholic post-conciliar teachings points to the logic and possibility of “a minimalist theological endorsement of the land of israel as part of god’s promise to his people” that he calls “minimalist catholic zionism.” this position is theologically and theoretically rigorous and consistent with magisterial teachings, cautious in its assertions, but also neutral in addressing israeli and palestinian points of conflict (67-68, 141-42). he recognizes that current “socio-political problems” may make it “nearly impossible” for the church publicly to teach this position. nonetheless, his argument, he says, is grounded in “theological truths,” and “catholics officially believe in miracles” (114). ii. jews asking for serious catholic engagement with the covenantal role of the land in judaism can sincerely applaud the incremental progress d’costa’s study enables while respecting the limits placed by his characteristic careful engagement with catholic doctrine. however, d’costa does not find authoritative catholic teachings that similarly address jewish concerns about missionary activity. d’costa turns in his fifth chapter to a key question that has arisen in dialogue in recent decades as a corollary of the catholic validation of jewish covenantal life. a pillar of catholic self-understanding is that the church has a missionary mandate to bring all of humanity to christ. however, if god’s covenant with the jews is irrevocable and hence saving for them, are jews to be the object of evangelism? for jews, this is a critical question with a painful history. d’costa begins by demonstrating that he has heard and sought to internalize the historical jewish communal perception of mission as seeking the extinction, immediate or ultimate, of the jewish people. for jews, genocide lurks, even on those occasions when the jewish objects of mission are not murdered. d’costa therefore asks, “can christian mission be credible in the shadow of the shoah?” (144). d’costa seeks to harmonize this ethical concern with the magisterium’s explicit teachings, discussed at length, that jews are indeed included in the mandate to evangelize all peoples (164-83). however, because of both this history and langer: gavin d’costa’s catholic doctrines on the jewish people 4 god’s irrevocable covenant with israel there must be a modified manner of christian witness.3 d’costa proposes a path forward that accounts for the mandates that catholics include jews in their mission (or witness) and that they do so in a way that is indeed credible in the wake of the shoah. his key suggestion is that, because of the irrevocable covenant, this witness and the hoped-for conversion resulting from it must not eradicate jewish identity (151). in other words, the church must no longer be complicit in genocide or in lesser forms of violence, including against jewish identity, which must remain intact. how can mission not threaten jewish identity? d’costa points to specific cases, past and present, where jewish and christian identities have been merged, where the jewish covenant was “contained” within christianity. the most important model was the jewish christ-followers of the early church, before judaizing became heretical (181-82). the earliest followers’ distinct missions to jews and to gentiles could be revived, he suggests. today’s messianic jews and hebrew catholics are similarly jewish followers of christ. discussion about the implications for the church and for the jewish community about recognizing this distinct ecclesia ex circumcision are in their infancy, d’costa indicates–and indeed, his discussion here, though anticipated earlier in the book, is comparatively brief (183-186).4 iii. as a jew, i find this trajectory quite troubling and challenging to our dialogic process of reconciliation. d’costa is sensitive to the historical pain that christian mission has caused the jewish community. however, as long as mission shapes christian thinking about jews, it creates a barrier to deep christian-jewish interreligious understanding. i recognize that mission has explicit new testament authority and is central to christian self-understanding. but competing for adherents undermines dialogue. a prerequisite for authentic dialogue is the establishment of a safe space in which the participants seek to understand the other’s otherness. they seek mutual understanding rather than probing for weaknesses in the other so as to change them. otherwise, because participation in dialogue today is voluntary, it becomes something to avoid. historically, power imbalances made interreligious encounters with christians situations of danger for jews; today jews are freer to walk away. “mission” does not conceptually accommodate legitimate religious competition let alone co-existence. d’costa suggests here that a solution to the catholic conundrum might be found by a focus on categories of people who already straddle the boundaries between our communities. jews who accept christ or catholics who live culturally 3 witness, not mission, is the correct term, because mission applies to situations where christians are dispelling false gods or idols (151). however, the practical difference is minimal. an invitation to conversion still motivates the witness, if more subtly. 4 d’costa discusses the impact this process might have on the recovery of the early christian community’s jewish roots, particularly in the realm of liturgy (185). scholarly understandings of the nature of jewish liturgy in the first centuries of christianity have been evolving in recent decades; christians asking this important question need to be alert to the state of jewish liturgical studies. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) jewish lives preserve a jewish identity acceptable to today’s church. their jewishness, he says, remains. however, this would be a catholic definition of what proper jewish identity entails. it would not meet the powerful formula for crosscommunal understanding expressed first in the vatican’s 1974 “guidelines”: that catholics “must strive to learn by what essential traits jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience.”5 in other words, d’costa’s lifting up those inhabiting the boundary between jewish and christian identity as jews ignores the traditional halakhic and even liberal jewish definitions of jewish identity. who is a jew? what constitutes jewish identity? as d’costa knows, there is no single answer to these questions. jewish identity is a complex amalgam of ethnicity, culture, peoplehood, and religion. these mix and play out in myriad ways. one normally becomes a jew by birth. conversion to judaism is like adoption or naturalization into this extended family. for those born as jews, the elements identified by western culture as “religion” are part of a larger familial / ethnic culture. fundamental jewishness is not dependent on their choice to believe, or, say, to eat jewishly. neither chicken soup nor speaking hebrew makes one a jew. (conversion does require active affirmation of jewish religion though.) just as catholic doctrine understands baptism to be a one-time irrevocable sacrament, valid independent of actual faith, judaism teaches that anyone born or naturalized into the jewish community irrevocably retains a “jewish identity.” in this sense, de jure, jews who adopt another religion do remain jews, indelibly.6 but the reality is not so simple. both jews and catholics historically have grieved (and more) over boundary crossers who left their communities, labelling them apostates, while welcoming those who join them as converts. our age of dialogue, spiritual seeking, and intermarriage challenges us all to accept, de facto, those leaving our communities with (greater) equanimity and validation of personal choice. if a jew can become a catholic, then a catholic can become a jew. this challenges the concept of indelible identity. it is here that our different understandings of identity create confusion, though. to jews, the catholic who becomes a jew should become culturally, ethnically, and religiously a jew. straddling the boundary suggests that the conversion, the naturalization, is incomplete. most jews project this understanding onto jews who become christians, even if they retain culturally jewish identity markers. classically, apostate jews were considered sinners and banished from jewish society (though legally they were still de jure jews). today, instead, we respect their free 5 commission for religious relations with the jews, “guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate, no. 4,” (rome, december 1, 1974), preamble (https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/guidelines). 6 this is a very complex topic whose nuances shift with historical circumstances. this understanding emerged in the era of the crusades in response to christian missionary pressures and is mostly still the decisive understanding. for a detailed analysis, see itzhak brand, “a jew who has sinned: nationality, society, and religion – a tripartite halakhic analysis [hebrew],” in jewish identity, ed. asher maoz and aviad hakohen (tel aviv university law faculty, 2014), 13-47, here 17-19 (https://law.tau.ac.il/sites/law.tau.ac.il/files/media_server/law_heb/law_society_culture/books/zehut_yehudit/ishakbrend.pdf). https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/guidelines https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/guidelines https://law.tau.ac.il/sites/law.tau.ac.il/files/media_server/law_heb/law_society_culture/books/zehut_yehudit/ishakbrend.pdf https://law.tau.ac.il/sites/law.tau.ac.il/files/media_server/law_heb/law_society_culture/books/zehut_yehudit/ishakbrend.pdf langer: gavin d’costa’s catholic doctrines on the jewish people 6 choice, considering their jewishness nominal unless they choose to repent and return. d’costa mentions jewish theologian michael wyschogrod’s challenge to paris cardinal jean-marie lustiger. wyschogrod asked how lustiger understood himself to be a jewish cardinal (184, n. 106).7 wyschogrod did not challenge the authenticity of lustiger’s christianity; rather, he wondered if lustiger, with his christian faith, could possibly agree to live a life defined by jewish law (halakhah), not as exterior cultural acts but as religious acts commanded by god. without this connection to torah, any jewish identity markers, while they may be culturally jewish, are no longer religiously so. any ethnic subgroup within the church has analogous cultural identity markers. think of an irish wake or an italian sunday dinner. thus, a hebrew catholic is religiously a catholic, even if she eats kugel or prays with a tallit. however, a catholic who becomes a jew must theologically choose a life according to torah and some version of the rabbinic interpretations of it. for the vast majority of the jewish community, that includes an understanding of god and god’s expectations that is other than the key teachings of christianity or islam. for the vast majority of the jewish community, acceptance of jesus as god incarnate and as the messiah whose death and resurrection enabled an otherwise unattainable salvation from sin are the key markers of being a christian. “jewish religious identity” embeds a different set of beliefs about god and messianic expectations incompatible with christian creeds. thus, there is still work to do. jews might be comfortable with no active christian mission or with a deferred mission. but christian support for groups that seek to convert jews religiously while retaining jewish culture is, if anything, more insidiously threatening to jewish existence than overt active mission. to invoke the late sir rabbi jonathan sacks, it is when we honor the “dignity of (each other’s) difference” that we truly affirm one another. iv. the brevity required for a review does not do justice to the nuances and complexities of d’costa’s arguments throughout this volume. this is a courageous book, taking on several of the largest looming, and unresolved issues arising from the implications of the teachings of vatican ii and subsequent vatican documents of various degrees of authority. as he concludes, “these are modest findings and fragile arguments” (190). nevertheless, they are arguments about crucial issues, and any further contributions to catholic discussions about god’s irrevocable covenant with the jews or the trajectories that arise from this affirmation will need to engage deeply with d’costa’s discussions. 7 michael wyschogrod, “a letter to cardinal lustiger,” in abraham’s promise: judaism and jewishchristian relations, ed. kendall soulen (grand rapids, mi: eerdman’s, 2004), 202-210 (original publication as “letter to a friend,” modern theology 11 [1995]: 165-171). 1 scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-9 considering the baptism of edgardo mortara in the context of catholic teachings and rituals then and now paul turner paultu1@me.com cathedral of the immaculate conception, kansas city mo 64105 catholics regard baptism as the doorway to salvation. faithful parents proudly present their infant children for baptism as a testimony of their own belief and of their desire to share it with the next generation. baptism is the fruit of evangelization, even within families. when the baptism of an infant does not take place, traditional catholics fear not only the loss of family customs and rituals, but the ultimate salvation of the child, with whom they yearn to share life not only in this world, but in the next. catholics feel concern then even for infants outside their religious family. to understand the actions that such concerns prompt and the desperation that they imply, it helps to take a broader view of the baptismal ritual, a celebration steeped in proud ceremony, but most of which may be discarded in the case of an emergency. edgardo mortara’s baptism by a maid in his parental home in 1852 was not typical, but it was licit. in order to understand this historical event and similar contemporary situations, this essay addresses the ritual and theology of baptism before and after the second vatican council. normal catholic baptism in the nineteenth century the catholic baptism of a child in the mid-nineteenth century usually took place at a local parish church. the pastor typically conducted the ceremonies under the approving eyes of parents and godparents. he may have baptized several children of different parents in the same ceremony. most of these babies would have been younger than one year because parents were expected to have their child baptized “as soon as possible.” 1 in practice, baptism took place so soon that 1 “de sacramento baptismi rite administrando” 39, the roman ritual in latin and english with rubrics and plainchant notation: the sacraments and processions, trans. and ed. philip t. weller, turner: considering the baptism of edgardo mortara 2 some mothers recovering from childbirth remained at home in bed. a mother’s absence from the baptism strengthened the role of godparents, especially of the godmother, who tended the child throughout the ceremony. infant baptism in the catholic church evolved partly from a high infant mortality rate generating a realistic fear that every newborn was in danger of death. baptism promised eternal life for those who might not long survive earthly life. yet, athwart this fear, a typical baptism awaited a sunday when a priest could administer its full ceremonies. in rare circumstances when the death of the child seemed imminent, someone else administered the sacrament minimally and privately. normally, though, a baptism was quite complex. at the beginning of the ceremony, the priest stood at the door of the church, wearing a cassock, surplice and purple stole. he asked the infant, “what are you asking of the church of god?” the incongruity of asking an infant this question gives pause until one realizes that the baptism of infants derived from more ancient ceremonies for the baptism of adults. the question resembles the question peter asked cornelius in the acts of the apostles 10:29, “may i ask, then, why have you summoned me?” 2 the thirteenth-century pontifical of the roman curia had the bishop pose this question to those wishing to enter the catechumenate, 3 and it remained in the nineteenth-century catholic baptismal ceremonies for adults and for children. here and in other similar places the ritual instructed the godparent to respond on behalf of the child. after this brief dialogue, the priest blew three puffs of air from his mouth onto the face of the infant. having first addressed the child, the priest then commanded the unclean spirit within to yield to the holy spirit. with his thumb the priest traced the sign of the cross on the infant’s forehead and breast, addressing the child once again. finally the priest prayed to god for the infant’s present and future protection. holding a small vessel of salt, the priest addressed the mineral, exorcizing it, and then he asked god to sanctify it. addressing each infant by name, the priest placed “the salt of wisdom” on the child’s tongue to enhance the prospects of eternal life. 4 the priest offered more prayers and exorcisms, alternating his form of address between god and the unclean spirit. the priest then placed his hand on the child’s head. he placed the left end of his stole over the child and led the infant into the church. there the priest prayed the creed and the lord’s prayer with the godparents. before entering the baptistry, he addressed and exorcized the unclean spirit within the child. the priest licked his thumb and traced saliva on the mouth, ears and nose of the infant. he commanded that the child’s ears and nostrils be volume i (boonville: preserving christian publications, inc., 2007). hereafter, roman ritual. all translations from latin are mine. 2 new american bible, revised edition (used throughout). see paul turner, the hallelujah highway: a history of the catechumenate (chicago: liturgy training publications, 2000), p. 160. 3 “ordo ad cathecuminum faciendum” 1, pontifical romain au moyen-age: le pontifical de la curie romaine au xiiie siècle, ed. michel andrieu, studi e testi 87, p. 513. 4 “ordo baptismi parvulorum” 7, roman ritual. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) opened. he asked the child to renounce satan, and the godparent responded. he anointed the child with the oil of catechumens, speaking again directly to the infant. he wiped off excess oil with a cotton ball. just before entering the baptistry, the priest exchanged his purple stole for a white one. the godparents followed him to the font. the priest asked the child by name to profess faith in the trinity, and the godparent responded. in a climactic moment, the priest asked the child by name, “do you wish to be baptized?” 5 the godparent answered affirmatively. the priest poured baptismal water over the child’s head in the form of a cross three times, once at each mention of the persons of the trinity, addressing the child by name while carefully reciting the formula, “i baptize you in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit.” 6 alternatively, the priest could baptize by triple immersion instead of pouring. while the godparent held the child, the priest dipped his own thumb into chrism oil and traced the cross on the crown of the child’s head while asking god to anoint the child with the chrism of salvation. the priest took a cloth and dried his thumb. he then placed a white linen cloth over the child’s head and asked the child to carry it unstained to the judgment seat of christ. he presented a lighted candle to the child or the godparent, while exhorting the infant to protect this baptism by keeping god’s commands. the priest then dismissed the child: “go in peace, and may the lord be with you.” the ceremony for adult baptism was even more involved. in practice, many priests baptized adults with the rite of baptism for children because it was comparatively simpler. noteworthy, though, is how the adult ceremony treated the baptism of a jew. after the renunciation of satan and the profession of faith in the trinity, having traced the sign of the cross on the forehead and breast of the catechumen, the priest issued this command to a jew: “turn away from jewish faithlessness. renounce the hebrew superstition.” 7 the candidate made no response; the priest simply pronounced this command. the importance of baptizing the significance of baptism can be traced to the teaching of jesus christ, who explained to nicodemus, “no one can see the kingdom of god without being born from above…. no one can enter the kingdom of god without being born of water and the spirit” (jn 3:3, 5). at the end of his ministry, jesus commanded his disciples, “go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit” (mt 28:19). from the first christian pentecost when peter began to preach repentance, forgiveness, and the gift of the holy spirit, “those who accepted his message were baptized.” (acts 2:41). although the new testament gives no concrete evidence for the bap 5 “ordo baptismi parvulorum” 18, roman ritual. 6 “ordo baptismi parvulorum” 19, roman ritual. 7 “de baptismo adultorum” 10, roman ritual. turner: considering the baptism of edgardo mortara 4 tism of infants or children, it describes the baptisms of such great numbers that their inclusion may perhaps be inferred. clear testimony of the baptism of infants arises from the earliest christian centuries in writings such as those of irenaeus and origen, based on a combination of jesus’ openness to children and to the natural impulse of parents to share the necessities of life with their children. 8 in time and until well into the twentieth century, church law and catechesis came to stress ever more strongly the absolute necessity of baptism. baptism was called “the necessary means for obtaining eternal salvation.” even if one failed to receive it through no fault of one’s own, “salvation is not obtained.” in the case of unbaptized children, only martyrdom would ensure them eternal salvation. 9 because so much was at stake with baptism, the church has permitted even those who were not ordained priests to administer the sacrament in exceptional circumstances. if christ had said that baptism is necessary for salvation, and if christ had commanded his followers to baptize all nations, and if someone was in danger of not receiving baptism, many catholics sensed the imperative to baptize those who otherwise may not have received this “necessary means” for salvation. in the case of emergency infant baptisms, the lengthy ceremonies were reduced to the bare essentials. 10 the roman ritual in force between the council of trent and the second vatican council teaches, “in danger of death, a non-solemn baptism may be administered by anyone having observed the proper matter, form and intention.” 11 if the child survived, a priest supplied the rest of the ceremonies at the church as soon as possible. 12 anyone could administer baptism, even a nonbeliever, but the church recommended a specific hierarchy of preferred ministers: a priest, a deacon, a subdeacon, a cleric, a layperson, a man, and then a woman, unless for the sake of decorum a woman was preferred, or if among those present, a woman knew the baptismal formula and method better than any man there. 13 in the nineteenth century, under normal circumstances, this is how baptisms took place. under normal circumstances, a child was baptized at the request of parents. however, an additional exception pertained to the emergency baptism of non-christian children: “an infant of unbelievers is licitly baptized even when parents are unwilling, whenever it is considered that the child’s life is in danger, as long as it can be reasonably foreseen that the child will die before attaining the use of reason.” 14 8 paul turner, ages of initiation: the first two christian millennia, (collegeville: the liturgical press, 2000), cd-rom chapter two, “emerging ritual patterns.” 9 summa theologiae moralis iuxta codicem iuris canonici, de sacramentis, ed. h. noldin and a. schmitt (innsbruck: fel. rauch, 1934), p. 56. 10 “de sacramento baptismi rite administrando,” 28, roman ritual. 11 “de sacramento baptismi rite administrando,” 16, roman ritual. 12 “de sacramento baptismi rite administrando,” 28, roman ritual. 13 “de sacramento baptismi rite administrando,” 28, roman ritual. 14 “de sacramento baptismi rite administrando,” 24, roman ritual. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) the baptism of edgardo mortara in 1852 anna morisi, a catholic teenager employed in the jewish mortara home in bologna, performed an emergency baptism on one-year old edgardo mortara. 15 she kept her action secret. in 1858 vatican officials learned of the baptism and took the child from his home in bologna to be raised a catholic in rome. 16 an international sensation ensued. in order to contrast the 1852 ritual with a hypothetically similar situation today, this article focuses only on the baptism itself, not on the neuralgic issues concerning the taking of the child. even so, testimony from various investigations of the mortara baptism revealed so many inconsistencies that even the first sentence of this paragraph is controversial. when did the event take place in 1852? anna remembered it in the early wintry months of the new year, but edgardo’s doctor, pasquale saragoni, said that the child took ill in august. 17 was it an emergency? anna believed that the child was dying, but doctor saragoni denied that the illness was that severe. 18 how old was anna at the time? she said that she was 14, but her baptismal certificate shows that she was 18. 19 how did the baptism take place? anna had been hired to help tend the children in the mortara household. when edgardo fell ill, she feared that he was dying. helpless to restore the handsome child to better health, she waited for his parents to leave the room, fetched a glass of well water, wet the fingers of her right hand, let several drops fall on the boy’s head, and baptized him. 20 however, edgardo’s father testified that anna was never alone with the child. 21 his mother said the same. 22 did anna perform the baptism correctly? she says that she learned the method from cesare lipori, the local grocer. 23 but he denied meeting her, teaching her how to baptize, or having anything to do with the baptism. 24 furthermore, without a witness, it was impossible to ascertain whether or not anna used the correct words and poured water over edgardo’s head at the required time. 25 15 david i. kertzer, the kidnapping of edgardo mortara (new york: alfred a. knopf, 1997), pp. 4041, 47, 218. 16 according to anna, when a second child in the family fell ill, anna’s friend, an older servant named regina bussolari, suggested that anna baptize that child. anna refused, admitting to another person for the first time that she had already baptized edgardo, and that he had survived. bussolari denied having any knowledge of this conversation. the vatican claimed to have learned of the baptism either from regina or from marianna bajesi of bologna, who testified that regina shared the information with her (kertzer, 207, 210-211, 148). 17 kertzer, 206. 18 kertzer, 97, 216. 19 kertzer, 206. 20 kertzer, 206. 21 kertzer, 203-204. 22 kertzer, 216. 23 kertzer, 206. 24 kertzer, 94, 209-210. 25 kertzer, 231. turner: considering the baptism of edgardo mortara 6 did anna have the right intention? although she at first said that she did not know what she was doing, 26 she later stated that she intended to make the child a christian. 27 indeed, according to the office of the inquisition, which had interrogated her earlier, anna stated that she intended to baptize edgardo according to “the custom of the church.” 28 a laywoman could baptize a jewish child without parental consent in the nineteenth century only under certain conditions: if she determined that the child was in danger of death, if she had no recourse to an available priest or deacon to perform the ceremony, if she used the correct words, if she performed the correct actions, and if she had the right intention. if one believes that the laywoman in question fulfilled all these conditions, then the jewish boy was baptized a christian. however, because of divergent testimony, the fulfillment of those conditions is unclear in the case of edgardo mortara. emergency baptism today today, for many reasons, the situation would be different—though not completely so. the catholic church’s baptismal rites for children and for adults were both revised on the authority of the second vatican council. in the revised ceremony for children, the priest or deacon who presides addresses the child infrequently, and never when needing a response. he addresses the parents and godparents instead. the minister never directly addresses the unclean spirit nor inanimate objects such as salt. exorcisms have been omitted from the ceremonies for children or recast as prayers of protection addressed to god. 29 the lengthy ceremony of adult baptism now unfolds on distinct occasions into several different stages of initiation. the first of these, the rite of acceptance into the order of catechumens, opens with the time-honored question, “what do you ask of god’s church?” 30 the same ceremony then may include an exorcism and renunciation of false worship, wherever such practices are widespread, “whether in worshiping spiritual powers or in calling on the shades of the dead or in using magical arts.” 31 the catholic bishops of the united states have chosen to leave the use of this renunciation to the discretion of the diocesan bishop. 32 this is precisely the section where the previous ritual included the renunciation of judaism. that itself has been completely removed. 26 kertzer, 49. 27 kertzer, 208. 28 kertzer, 148. 29 see, for example, “the rite of baptism for children,” in the rites (collegeville: liturgical press, 1990), 49a and b: “prayer of exorcism and anointing before baptism,” 380-381. 30 “the rite of christian initiation of adults”, the rites, ¶48, 55. 31 “rite of christian initiation of adults,” ¶70, p. 66. 32 “rite of christian initiation of adults,” ¶33 §2, p. 44. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) the removal demonstrates the impact of the council’s declaration on the relation of the church to non-christian religions, nostra aetate. its treatment of jews includes this statement: “although the church is the new people of god, the jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by god, as if this followed from the holy scriptures. all should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of god they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the gospel and the spirit of christ.” 33 following their own advice, the bishops approved a revised liturgical order of adult initiation that provides a spiritual path for jewish converts to christianity, without demanding that they ritually repudiate their original religion. still, the church retains its belief that baptism constitutes a new covenant, one that fulfills the promises of old. this belief honors the jewish covenant, while building anew upon its themes and images. 34 the church still advises an abbreviated ceremony for a child in danger of death. 35 omitting the other rites, the person administering the sacrament “pours water (not necessarily blessed but real and natural water) on the head of the child and pronounces the customary formula.” 36 if no priest or deacon is available, “any member of the faithful, indeed anyone with the right intention, may and sometimes must administer baptism.” 37 thus, the former hierarchy, preferring, for example, men rather than women to administer emergency baptism, has been abolished. however, the introductory comments still include this note: “if the child is in danger of death, it is to be baptized without delay; this is permitted even when the parents are opposed and even when the infant is the child of non-catholic parents.” 38 nonetheless, the urgency would not be felt today in the same way as in the past. in the mid-nineteenth century, catholics believed that the only way to salvation was through baptism. however, the second vatican council considered prospects differently. according to its dogmatic constitution on the church, “those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of christ or his church, yet sincerely seek god and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.” 39 or, as the catechism of the catholic church has it, “god has 33 “declaration on the relation of the church to non-christian religions,” 4. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html. 34 turner, “the amen corner: jewish dialogue and christian liturgy.” worship 90 (may 2016): 196204. 35 “rite of baptism for children,” 21, p. 372. 36 “rite of baptism for children,” 21, p. 372. 37 “christian initiation: general introduction” 16, the rites, p. 8. 38 “the rite of baptism for children,” 8 §1, p. 368. 39 dogmatic constitution on the church, lumen gentium, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html, 16. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html turner: considering the baptism of edgardo mortara 8 bound salvation to the sacrament of baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” 40 the fear of perdition without baptism spread under the banner that infant baptism cleansed the child from original sin. the church still teaches this, but not before calling baptism “the door to life and to the kingdom of god” and “the sacrament by which its recipients are incorporated into the church and are built up together in the spirit into a house where god lives.” 41 the church places emphasis more on the corporate fruits of baptism than on its cleansing powers. the rites of baptism still mentions original sin in two alternative prayers, both called an “exorcism,” though they address god, not an unclean spirit. 42 some lay catholics have performed “emergency baptisms” when there has been no emergency. for example, anecdotally, if catholic parents delay the baptism of a newborn out of a desire to let the child choose a religion later in life, a catholic grandparent may decide to baptize the child without informing the parents or acquiring their consent. the baptism, though illicit and ill-advised, is valid. the child has irrevocably become a christian. the church still holds that baptism “seals the christian with the indelible spiritual mark” of belonging to christ. 43 baptism cannot be repeated, nor can it be erased. a hypothetical edgardo how, then, would the church consider the baptism of a post-vatican ii edgardo mortara? the catholic church would still permit anna morisi to baptize edgardo under certain conditions. however, the questions that surrounded the preconciliar edgardo would still haunt the presumptive postconciliar case. was the child in danger of death? was no priest or deacon available? did the adult use the right words? did she perform the correct actions? did she have the right intent? without an affirmative answer to each of those conditions, the validity of the baptism would be questioned. and what if anna had been right about edgardo’s condition? what if the infant edgardo had died? in a pastorally conscious church, aiming to quell the concerns of parents, if an edgardo today had died after a doubtful emergency baptism, many pastors would give the child the benefit of the doubt—especially if the parents seeking consolation were christians. however, in the case of jewish parents, if it seemed more pastorally astute to reassure them that such a baptism was invalid because of a defect, the same action could produce a different pastoral approach in the case of death. 40 catechism of the catholic church 1257, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm. 41 christian initiation: general introduction, rite of christian initiation of adults, 3-4. 42 “the rite of baptism for children,” 49a and b, pp. 380-381. 43 catechism 1272. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) in addition, if jewish parents, upon learning of the secret emergency baptism of their child, objected to any attempt to raise the child as a christian, the catholic church today would surely honor their wishes, due to the increased respect for judaism that has flowed from the reforms of the second vatican council. still, the facts remain. if a teenage catholic girl found herself the only person available at a time when she discerned that the jewish child in her care was at the very point of dying, even without informing the child’s parents or attempting to ascertain their approval, could she baptize? would such a baptism be valid? the post-vatican ii rite of baptism for children still answers yes. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review robert aleksander maryks the jesuit order as a synagogue of jews: jesuits of jewish ancestry and purity-of-blood laws in the early society of jesus. studies in medieval and reformation traditions 146 (leiden: brill, 2010), xxxiii + 281 pp. dean phillip bell, spertus institute for jewish learning and leadership in this highly engaging and remarkably erudite book, robert maryks examines the evolution of discriminatory purity-ofblood laws within the jesuit order beginning at the end of the sixteenth century (legally by the fifth general congregation in 1593). in contextualizing this development, maryks offers a useful background that examines the experience of conversos from the late fourteenth until the middle of the sixteenth century in spain, with special attention to the purity-of-blood laws and the broader anti-converso politics of the period. he lavishes important attention on early legislation and discussions of the mid-fifteenth century (with detailed focus on the works of alonso de cartagena and alonso de oropesa) and the further developments from the middle of the sixteenth century (with attention to the purity-of-blood statutes of archbishop silíceo and the defense of those statutes by the judge, bishop, and inquisitor diego de simancas). the increasing concern with purity of blood and the growth of anti-converso sensibilities throw into sharp contrast the observation that christians of jewish ancestry played prominent roles in the first generations of the order and the initial antidiscriminatory approach of the jesuits, which maryks casts as an act of bold resistance to religious and political currents of the day. in chapter 2, maryks examines the pro-converso policy of the early jesuit order. noting that tensions still highlighted relations between old and new christians within studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) the order, maryks reviews ignatius of loyola’s own jewish interests (theological and later proselytizing), his run-in with the inquisition and suspicions of marranism, as well as the converso stock of many of the early and closest members of his circle and successors. early jesuit leadership, maryks contends, valued the spiritual and educational suitability of candidates over their lineage. in some of the bitter struggles for power within the order, especially after loyola’s death in 1556 and the election of diego lainez in 1558 as second superior-general, however, anticonverso accusations and discussions surfaced. in some cases, an endorsement of anti-converso legislation appears to have been a means by which some tried to mask their jewish ancestry. the discrimination against jesuits of jewish lineage gained momentum after the death of superior general francisco de borja in 1572. an italo-portuguese anti-converso lobby rose to prominence, with support from the newly elected superior general everard mercurian. maryks ties the discussion over converso background to broader political developments within the church, including an anti-roman movement by iberian jesuits, known as memorialistas. maryks focuses important attention on what he terms a converso-phobic memorial apparently authored by benedetto palmio, which reviewed and at times recast a good deal of the early history of the order. the election of claudio acquaviva in 1581 further cemented the image of the converso character of the memorialistas. in this context and elsewhere, some cast the society as a “synagogue of jews,” criticizing the early leadership and orientation. throughout the book, maryks evinces remarkable facility with the texts, carefully analyzing both their language and arguments, and an impressive ability to contextualize them by focusing on specific developments as well as broader issues. in the final chapter, maryks examines the pro-converso writings and jesuit opposition to purity-of-blood discrimination in the last quarter of the sixteenth and into the seventeenth century, with particular emphasis on antonio possevino, pedro de ribadeneyra, diego de guzmán, juan de mariana, and garcia studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr girón de alarcón. possevino, for example, argued that lineage distinctions were vestiges of paganism and contradicted the jesuit tradition. further, he asserted that jesuits of jewish descent were among the society’s most effective and learned members. while possevino agreed that many jewish converts had returned to judaism, he did not believe this could justify a prohibition against admitting other conversos to the christian faith. the volume concludes with two helpful appendices—the memorial of benedetto palmio (1523-98) and pope nicholas v’s humani generis inimicus (1449), which opposed the 1449 purity-of-blood legislation and freely admitted and accepted all faithful converts, even from judaism, as good catholics. maryks has crafted a scholarly and exciting volume that explores a fascinating theme with care and sophistication. simultaneously, maryks provides a nuanced account of the development of the early jesuit order and a broader history of key themes in early modern political and religious history revolving around the status and activities of conversos. this is a remarkable book that will be of great interest to a diverse range of scholars from many different fields of study and research. scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-3 ari finkelstein the specter of the jews: emperor julian and the rhetoric of ethnicity in syrian antioch (berkeley: university of california press, 2018), hardcover, xvii + 251 pp. h. a. drake drake@history.ucsb.edu university of california, santa barbara, ca 93106 “specter” is an ominous word, calling to mind james bond villains and things that go bump in the night. so it is a bit of a surprise to see it on a book about the fourth-century roman emperor julian’s dealings with the jews, which were fairly positive. julian is, after all, the emperor who proposed to rebuild the temple in jerusalem, which had lain in ruins since the first century. but specter is just the right word for this book, because ari finkelstein’s aim is to show how julian constructed an image of “judeans” that he could use to encourage his fellow hellenes (the people we usually call “pagans”) to oppose his former co-religionists, the christians (who paid him back by labeling him “the apostate”). finkelstein’s focus is on the nine months julian spent in the eastern metropolis of antioch, from july 362 to march 363. this was the longest period he stayed in any one place during the nineteen months of his brief reign as emperor (from december 361 to march 363). finkelstein aims to make two inter-related points. first, he wants to show the prominent role played by jews in this ancient city, where they had lived since its founding more than seven centuries earlier. second, he emphasizes the influence of julian’s stay in antioch on his thinking and his style of argumentation. for both points, finkelstein makes meticulous study of texts julian wrote in antioch, especially against the galileans (julian’s derogatory term for christians), which finkelstein describes as “ground zero” for understanding the emperor’s relationship with jews (p. 45). in the last part of that work, which survives only in fragments, julian held up judeans as examples not only to christians (whom he painted as renegade jews) but also to his fellow hellenes. given the long history of conflict between jews and greeks, why julian did this is a complicated story, one that finkelstein unpacks with great skill. his views rest on the intensive effort drake: ari finkelstein’s the specter of the jews 2 made some forty years earlier by bishop eusebius of caesarea to separate “jews” from their “hebrew” ancestors. by arguing that the patriarchs in genesis lived prior to the emergence of judaism, eusebius could claim they were not just non-jews but even proto-christians. this stripped the jews of their heritage and left them as “ghosts” that julian could use later for his own purposes (p. 56). another influence on julian was neoplatonism, whose adherents recognized the jewish god, to the point of sometimes equating him with their own creator god. but most important of all, finkelstein argues, is the strong impression made on the emperor by the prominent and respected role played by jews in antioch’s social, cultural, and religious life. finkelstein draws on a number of methodological approaches, including the ways that different groups’ use of space define a city and shape communal identity. what most captures his attention is the growing body of scholarship dealing with ethnicity. the roman empire, he writes, was “a world that defined itself ethnically,” and one that defined an ethnos as a people that shared the same ancestral laws, the same god or gods, and, especially, the same land (p. 55). this explains julian’s preference for the term “judeans,” for this linked jews to the land of judea and provided them with a consistent historical record that “galileans” could no longer usurp. it dovetailed with his concept of the empire as a collection of ethnicities presided over by a deity assigned to each of them by the demiurge. blood sacrifice was also a part of julian’s program, and the importance he attached to this ritual performed for the welfare of the empire partly explains his ambitious plan to rebuild the temple in jerusalem. finkelstein devotes all of chapter six to this project, which is also treated in an appendix on the “letter to the community of jews” attributed to julian. while the authorship of the letter has been contested, finkelstein concludes it has an authentic core that shows how julian’s plan to rebuild the temple only took shape while he was writing against the galileans. this chapter illustrates the strengths and the weaknesses of finkelstein’s laserlike focus on the influence of antioch’s jews on julian’s thinking. after such an intensive discussion, readers might well want to know about the building project itself and the controversies around its aborted construction. however, such information is not directly linked with finkelstein’s project and so it is left out. although we learn about the “ghost” of judaism in chapter 3, the “specter” of the jews does not appear until the last sentence of the book’s conclusion (“julian’s resurrection of the specter of the jews had serious unintended consequences” [p. 134]). in a similar way, the tantalizing mosaic discovered on the floor of a fourth-century synagogue in hammat tiberias only shows up in a footnote to p. 97, even though its depiction of the sun god is used on the book's jacket. finkelstein recognizes that julian was raised a christian and formally remained one into adulthood (p. 19). however, the christian matrix of julian’s thinking, especially about the role of priests and the role of charity, is left out, even though he gives attention to the model of a jewish priesthood (ch. 5). all of these omissions are justifiable, and they contribute to the strength of finkelstein’s argument. at its core, his book is a study of texts and the power of 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) texts, and the skill with which finkelstein conducts it more than makes up for his inattention to topics that are discussed in just about any other study of julian. the word set free: presenting the new testament in its first century context studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): harrington cp1 harrington, the word set free harrington cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 the word set free: presenting the new testament in its first century context daniel j. harrington, sj, boston college school of theology and ministry panel: christopher leighton, david michael, celia sirois presented at the center for christian-jewish learning, boston college, january 27, 2010 to pay tribute to daniel j. harrington, s.j. for his many contributions to help bridge the historic chasm between judaism and christianity—and to mark the 2009 publication of his book the synoptic gospels set free: preaching without antisemitism—the center for christian-jewish learning sponsored this colloquium. it opened with a presentation by daniel harrington, s.j. three panelists—dr. christopher leighton, fr. david michael, and celia sirois—with academic and pastoral experience in the north american context, engaged with fr. harrington, each other and the audience to explore the pastoral and educational implications of harrington’s presentation and book. view the video presentation at: http://frontrow.bc.edu/program/harrington2/ conference proceeding http://frontrow.bc.edu/program/harrington2/ studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review alon goshen-gottstein and eugene korn, eds. jewish theology and world religions (oxford & portland, oregon: littman library of jewish civilization, 2012), hardcover, xiv + 344pp. michael marmur, hebrew union college – jewish institute of religion conferences yield many published volumes but few coherent works. the book under review deserves to be regarded as such for its cogency, quality, range, and focus. in june 2005 scholars convened at the university of scranton to discuss the contemporary theological implications of the jewish encounter with the religions of the world. fourteen of these scholars, many of them from the first rank in their respective fields, have contributed twelve chapters, and alon goshen-gottstein has provided important reflections both at the book’s opening and at its conclusion. the three parts of the book denote distinct modalities by which the encounter between judaism and other religions is broached. the four chapters under the heading “philosophical perspectives in jewish pluralism” constitute an excellent contribution to the burgeoning literature on this topic. three essays are included in the middle section, each relating in its own way to “judaism and the other.” the last section of the work, on “judaism and world religions,” offers two essays on classical approaches to christianity and one each on islam, hinduism, and buddhism. avi sagi’s “justifying interreligious pluralism” is part of a wider exploration of the question of pluralism which has engaged him in recent years. he offers a penetrating critique of the concept of religious exclusivism and makes an important distinction between radical and moderate pluralism. considering the implications of what he terms “religious loyalty” and the studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) extent to which pluralism is compatible with jewish tradition, sagi’s short article is an invaluable survey in english of some of his key philosophical insights into this question. while toleration is in his view more conducive to the worldview of a traditional jewish believer, sagi ends his article by stating that “[e]ndorsing pluralism…requires a religious revolution and while it exacts a heavy price, it is pluralism rather than toleration that is compelling to the contemporary jews living in a modern democratic world” (p. 85). paul b. fenton trawls centuries of jewish tradition to provide a fascinating examination of “islam in jewish thought and faith.” eschewing the usual rehearsal of islamic influences on jewish philosophy, he considers instead the ways in which islam is presented in a wide variety of jewish sources. alon goshen-gottstein’s essay on “encountering hinduism – thinking through avodah zarah” is a remarkable exploration of a rarely-considered topic. he concludes that “if religion is measured by its transformative power and in accordance with the core components that make any belief system a ‘religion’, it is clear that hinduism must be acknowledged as a full ‘religion’ and is immune to the classical jewish charge that it is avodah zarah” (p. 297). yehuda gellman’s article is perhaps the most overtly and literally theological in the book. he offers a compelling analysis of buddhist concepts of divinity, proposing a method of interpretation to “enable a traditional jew to perceive a holy source in buddhist consciousness” (p. 316). throughout the work a distinct ideological agenda is expressed. goshen-gottstein avers that there is more at stake than the development of an appropriate approach to other religions, for “[o]ur own view of other religions is a function of how we view judaism and how we view our place in history” (p. 37). he calls for transcending “those forms of identity construction that have made suffering, difference and competition the cornerstones of identity” (p. 37). for him and for other contributors to the volume, this theological rapprochement studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr with other religions is part of a great process of reconstruction necessary for the revival of judaism in our time. the book is characterized by a refusal on the part of most of its contributors to hide behind a posture of scholarly disinterest. thus, for example, ruth langer ends a survey of attitudes to the nonjew in liturgy by stating her belief that “[a] world which perpetuates only oppositional understandings of the other is one in which tragedies will continue to occur” (p. 186). if there is anything written in this book with which i would take issue, it is not within its chapters, all of which demonstrate depth and quality. rather, it is the claim made on the dust jacket that the contributors to the volume represent a range of denominational affiliations. in fact this range would seem to be quite circumscribed. to this reviewer it appears that the book might more accurately be termed a modern orthodox exploration of jewish theology and world religions. this appellation suits the overwhelming majority of the contributors (even those who are quite unorthodox orthodox jews). only occasionally, however, does the theological orientation of the authors present a challenge. eugene korn’s assertion that “traditional jews and faithful christians are nearly alone today in western culture when they assert traditional core moral values” (p. 213) seems to consign religious liberals and others to the purgatory of relativism in a somewhat over-polemical manner. offering important insights on such issues as idolatry, pluralism, and the prospects for future interreligious encounter, goshen-gottstein, korn, and others have produced a work of true quality. the book constitutes a significant contribution to a profound development taking place in judaism—the attempt by those keeping faith with their tradition to engage with the faith of the other. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): garroway r1-2 bachmann, anti-judaism in galatians? garroway r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr michael bachmann anti-judaism in galatians? exegetical studies on a polemical letter and on paul’s theology (trans. robert l. brawley; grand rapids, michigan: william b. eerdmans, 2008), paperback, xiii + 234 pp. reviewed by joshua d. garroway, hebrew union college-jewish institute of religion, los angeles this translation of bachmann’s 1999 german volume features six loosely-organized essays addressing knotty exegetical issues in galatians. the first and second studies deal with the expression erga nomou, or “works of the law”; the third tackles the relationship between abraham and the law in gal 3:15-29; the fourth the “mediator” in gal 3:20; the fifth paul’s allegory of sarah and hagar in gal 4:21-31; and the sixth the “israel of god” in gal 6:16. through these investigations, bachmann aims to discredit the prevailing view of galatians as the locus classicus for paul’s supposed anti-judaism. bachmann’s response to the title question, in other words, is me genoito—heavens, no. first, a word about the translation: brawley faced quite a challenge because bachmann’s german style is dense and difficult. rather than simplifying the original to produce crisper and clearer prose, however, brawley has opted for a faithful translation. the resulting text successfully conveys the complexity of bachmann’s thought, but it also makes for difficult reading. the sentences are long and frequently marked by unusual constructions or word order, as well as numerous dependent, appositive, or parenthetical clauses. in some cases, readers may find themselves revisiting a sentence several times in order to understand it. a few sentences proved impenetrable to me. (i noted, too, many peculiar uses of the exclamation mark.) those who brave the demanding prose will be rewarded with rich exegesis. bachmann is methodical and thorough. every argument is developed meticulously from beginning to end and supported by extensive engagement with (primarily german) scholarship. his interpretations are generally fresh and provocative, too. for example, he sees erga nomou as the “regulations of the law,” the halakhot, rather than as particular actions aimed at fulfilling the law. the difference between these alternatives is slight but crucial, according to bachmann, because it means paul does not view observance of the law as inherently evil, sinful, or undesirable; the law simply cannot save as faith can. bachmann also takes the unconventional view that the plurality mentioned by paul when describing the delivery of the law through a mediator in gal 3:20 refers to the recipients of the law—i.e., the israelites—and not to the supposed providers of the law— i.e., angels, demons, etc. there is thus no reason to doubt that paul thought the law came directly from god at sinai. as for the allegory in gal 4:21-31, which is usually read as an opposition between things jewish (e.g., slavery, flesh, sinai, the present jerusalem) and things christian (e.g., freedom, spirit, promise, the jerusalem above), bachmann sees in sarah and hagar a contrast between freedom and slavery. the purpose of the biblical allusion is to admonish paul’s mostly gentile audience from returning to their former enslavement, not to compare judaism to slavery straightforwardly. finally, bachmann bucks the majority of interpreters when review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): garroway r1-2 bachmann, anti-judaism in galatians? garroway r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr it comes to the “israel of god” in gal 6:16. paul’s prayer at the close of the letter is not for the church-qua-israel but for all jews, christian or not, because it is they who constitute god’s authentic israel. the studies vary in their persuasiveness. the discussions of erga nomou and gal 3:20 are convincing, but less so the reading of the sarah/hagar allegory. the aspect of bachmann’s work which i would have liked to have engaged the most, however, is conspicuously absent. even if one were to accept all of bachmann’s interpretations, the answer to his title question may not be as obvious as he supposes. bachmann himself concedes that “anti-judaism” is “not a particularly clear concept itself” (p. xi). however, he never considers competing definitions of the term, clarifies his own definition, or provides criteria by which one might determine whether or not a particular text exhibits anti-judaism. a chapter addressing these issues is in order. bachmann’s paul, at least as he appears in galatians, does indeed seem less critical of jews and judaism than generations of readers have made him out to be: paul retains for jews their role as god’s elect people israel; he considers the law to be a holy expression of god’s will and not antithetical to the promise; and he never suggests that performance of works is inherently sinful or bad. but do these views absolve him of the charge of anti-judaism? perhaps, perhaps not. after all, bachmann’s paul still opposes particularly “jewish” works like circumcision quite vehemently; he rejects the idea that salvation is possible apart from christ; he supposes that the law has been obviated in the wake of christ; and he describes adherence to jewish ways, at least in some sense, as slavery. are these views indicative of anti-judaism? again, perhaps, but perhaps not. without a thorough discussion of what anti-judaism means, it is difficult to discuss the applicability of the charge to paul. despite this shortcoming, the exegetical strength of bachmann’s essays should ensure their abiding value as an important resource for interpreters of paul and galatians. it is thus a benefit that their translation into english has now made them available to a wider readership. scjr 13, no. 1 (2018): 1-3 anders runesson divine wrath and salvation in matthew: the narrative world of the first gospel (minneapolis: fortress press, 2016), hardcover, xxxii + 513 pp. boris repschinski boris.repschinski@uibk.ac.at university of innsbruck, 6020 innsbruck, austria anders runesson has been working in matthean studies for many years. the present volume is the result of over twenty years of engaging with matthew’s gospel, and it is one of the most important matthean studies published in recent memory. the reason for this is that runesson attempts a paradigm shift for the interpretation of matthew. he proposes to read the text entirely “from within a jewish interpretive culture” (p. 63) in order to show that it would be misleading “to call this text a ‘christian’ text” only because it is included in a later collection of christian texts (p. 203). runesson dispenses with labels current in more recent scholarship such as “jewish-christian” or “christian-jewish.” the book is divided into two parts of unequal length, each containing four chapters. part i deals with judgment and salvation for israel, and part ii deals with the same topics for the nations. the parts are preceded by an introduction which lays out runesson’s project. runesson first points out the centrality of the topic of divine judgment for any religious text from the mediterranean world of the period in shaping the “identity and social practices of a religious group (p. 2). he goes on to claim that matthew’s approach to judgment and salvation is one of several possible expressions of second temple judaism. this means that the text has to be understood from within a jewish perspective. runesson then explains his decision to discuss separately israel and the nations. he makes the methodological choice to concentrate on matthew’s narrative world, which he complements with historical-critical observations. the strictly jewish interpretative horizon leads runesson finally to claim that the matthean group demanded circumcision from all male adherents, even gentile proselytes. part i opens with a chapter containing a discussion of the different times when divine judgment will take place according to matthew: in this world, in the world to come, or in the final judgment. the following chapter forms the heart of the first part. it deals with matthew’s criteria for judgment. what are the grounds for divine judgment of jews, and what are the criteria for access to the eschato repschinski: anders runesson’s divine wrath and salvation 2 logical kingdom? runesson examines eight criteria: sin and guilt, obedience and righteousness, vicarious righteousness, repentance and forgiveness, pistis in the sense of faithfulness, jesus, works of the law, and covenant and grace. within these criteria runesson argues that judgment revolves around the observance of the complete jewish law of which jesus was an authoritative interpreter. in the end, salvation comes down to the law’s “salvific efficacy” (p. 329). in chapter 3 he goes on to connect these results to views found among various contemporaneous jewish groups. particular attention is given to various groups within jewish leadership circles. runesson’s careful analysis is designed to ward off claims that matthew endorses any sort of replacement theology in which the jewish people are rejected in favor of a gentile-only christian church. part i ends with a short chapter summarizing the results so far. part ii begins with a chapter on the role and function of non-jews in matthew’s narrative world. despite some exceptionally benevolent gentiles, matthew basically endorses separation between jews and gentiles since gentiles do not possess the torah, as implied by mt 18:17. the following chapter deals with the time of judgment of the nations, although the evidence in matthew remains sketchy. but with respect to the final judgment runesson argues for a separate judgment for gentiles subsequent to the judgment of israel. the criteria for judgment of the gentiles are laid out in the following chapter. runesson divides the gentiles into three groups: those who do not join israel but submit to jesus as messiah, proselytes who join god’s people israel, and outsiders who never join israel but are benevolent and merciful towards disciples of jesus. the last group runesson sees reflected in mt 25:31-46. again, a summary provides a final chapter for part ii. there can be no doubt that runesson has produced an erudite book that needs to be read by every serious student of matthew’s gospel. some of runesson’s discussions are truly remarkable. they make valuable contributions to scholarship. particularly impressive is the very fine discussion about the complete and continuing validity of jewish law and the way it is configured in terms of criteria of judgment. with fascination i also read through runesson’s analysis of the relationship between the destruction of the temple and the death of jesus. he argues that the temple’s destruction is not seen by matthew as divine punishment for the jews’ rejection of jesus; rather, the destruction becomes the rationale for the death of jesus. yet reading matthew as an entirely jewish work comes at a cost. when runesson reduces the role of jesus to the perfect teacher of the torah, the christology of the gospel is shortchanged. telling is the discussion of mt 19:16-22, where runesson concludes that the rich young man is to follow the teaching of jesus. yet does not the call to sell his property and to follow jesus challenge runesson’s view that matthew’s jesus is a (mere) teacher of torah and indicate something about the status of jesus? likewise, does not 19:21 imply that the law itself is lacking? runesson’s claim that the “criteria of judgment are intertwined with the message of jesus rather than the person of jesus” seems to neglect matthew’s christological claims (p. 147). telling, too, is the fact that runesson pays 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) little attention to the infancy narrative, which includes high christological claims and is bolstered by fulfillment quotations. finally, runesson’s reading of matthew separates the gospel entirely from its earliest reception history as a core text of a (largely gentile) christian church. the claim that matthew presented gentiles as outsiders to the matthean community is difficult to explain given the prominence of this text among second century gentile christians. the book would have benefitted from more careful proof reading. sometimes it is repetitive, even within the same paragraph. it is demanding reading for those with older eyes, especially the excellent footnotes, and the print is of poor quality. it is demanding, too, in its erudition and complexity of argument. but it is extremely rewarding reading even for those not fully convinced by runesson’s arguments. it is sure to influence matthean scholarship for years to come. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review robert w. jenson and eugene b. korn, eds. covenant and hope: christian and jewish reflections (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 2012) franklin sherman, muhlenberg college (emeritus) this formidable book is really two volumes in one, growing out of two scholarly projects led by the editors in their capacity as co-directors of the institute for theological inquiry, an undertaking of the israel-based center for jewish-christian understanding and cooperation. the first project, on “covenant, mission, and relation to the other,” provided the essays in the first half of the book, and the second, on “hope and responsibility for the human future,” those in the second half. the contributors are leading christian and jewish scholars from the united states and israel. co-editor robert jenson provides the opening chapter in the “covenant” section, posing the question, “what kind of god can make a covenant?” in a closely reasoned essay, he reviews and emphatically rejects the traditional notion of the impassibility of god, à la aristotle’s “unmoved mover.” a god who makes covenants must be a god who can communicate with humans, and who can act within time. such a god, paradoxically, can be “both the author of the history he makes with creatures and one or more of the dramatis personae of that history” (p. 8). thus far, jenson, as a christian theologian, feels that his jewish co-participants in the project could agree (though maimonides would not; his god retains aristotle’s impassibility). but jenson goes further, arguing that even the “triunity” of god can be jewishly understood. what divides christianity and judaism is not the theological question of the inner life of god, but rather the historical question of jesus’ studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) resurrection. it was the experience of jesus as risen that led the first christians to identify him as the incarnate logos. one wonders what the responses of the jewish participants were to jenson’s essay, but there are no references to it in the jewish essays in the book. david novak, a veteran of christian-jewish dialogue, discusses the question of whether a christian mission to the jews is legitimate or even requisite from a christian standpoint, and correspondingly, the question of whether jews, as part of their covenant duties, are called to seek converts from among the gentiles. in both cases, he recommends a stance of welcoming converts, but not actively proselytizing for them. naftali rothenberg of the van leer jerusalem institute urges, in the manner of rabbi joseph soloveitchik, that jewish-gentile collaboration be seen as grounded not in a theological convergence but in a cooperative endeavor to fulfill the ethical requirements of the noachic covenant. shlomo riskin, head of the israeli study center that supported the project, offers a survey of biblical and rabbinic understandings of the other, i.e., the non-jew. he seeks for “gates and drawbridges,” as he puts it, in what has often been viewed as a fortified wall between the two (p. 97). the venerable jewish philosopher and theologian michael wyschogrod, in a highly idiosyncratic essay, proposes that since covenant implies kingship, the state of israel should declare itself a davidic monarchy, meanwhile appointing a “regent” to symbolize the absence of an actual king (p. 142). the roman catholic biblical scholar bishop richard sklba, in his chapter in this section, considers the question of whether there is just one, unitive covenant including both jews and christians, or two covenants, one for each community. he opts for joseph ratzinger’s / pope benedict xvi’s view of “unity in tension,” i.e., “one covenant...realized in the plurality of covenants” (p. 70). the protestant scholar gerald mcdermott likewise sees the covenant as “a differentiated plan of blessing in which god relates in different ways to gentiles and jews” (p. 19). studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr eugene korn, in his introductory essay to the second half of the book, notes that the abrahamic covenant, with its charge to “be a blessing,” implies that the jewish people are challenged to play a role in universal history, not just in their own history. the same, he asserts, is true for christianity, which can be seen as another instrument for the fulfillment of this charge. neither is well served by what korn calls a “withdrawal theology” (p. 149). alan mittleman, in a masterly essay on “messianic hope,” employs gershom scholem’s distinction between apocalyptic / utopian messianism and a more realistic form. the former anticipates a catastrophe that breaks the frame of human history, whereas the latter envisions goals that are in principle attainable and thus motivates human action toward those goals. among the exponents of a realistic messianism whose thought mittleman reviews, that of the jewish kantian philosopher hermann cohen is of special interest. cohen viewed the idea of the messianic age as denoting a historical consummation that can only be approached asymptotically: it is always getting nearer, but never fully arrives. we can move towards an axis of perfection, but will never intersect it—a notion that should induce a healthy dose of self-criticism and self-restraint in both revolutionaries and reformers. deborah weissman, a leader of interfaith endeavors in jerusalem, offers a case study of zionism as an instance of realistic hope: its mission was that of “translating the traditional jewish longing for redemption into human agency” (p. 266). its intense devotion to re-gathering the people and renewing the land had, and has, a messianic fervor. as a counterbalancing note of realism, she quotes the familiar saying from the early rabbinic text pirke aboth (sayings of the fathers): “it is not incumbent on you to finish the task; but neither are you free to desist from it.” the other essays in this section include those of r. r. reno on “the antinomian threat to human flourishing,” miroslav volf on “god, hope, and human flourishing,” douglas studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 8 (2013) knight on “hope and responsibility,” and darlene fozard weaver on “moral agency, sin, and grace.” both parts of the book make weighty contributions to the issues with which they deal. scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-3 naim stifan ateek a palestinian theology of liberation: the bible, justice, and the palestinian conflict (maryknoll: orbis press, 2017), paperback, xix + 172 pages todd walatka twalatka@nd.edu university of notre dame, notre dame, in 46556 naim ateek is founder of the sabeel ecumenical liberation theology center and an influential figure in the field of palestinian liberation theology. a palestinian theology of liberation offers a synthesis of themes in many of his previous works as well as a more detailed demonstration of his reading of scripture. it expresses his passionate and prophetic plea for the oppressed palestinian people in the holy land against dangerous and destructive religious ideologies. it represents a committed and uncompromising defense of non-violence as the only way forward toward genuine peace. finally, it condemns systemic injustice and the failure of so many christians throughout the world to attend to the suffering of the palestinian people. however, it is also structurally shaped by a supersessionist theological vision. ateek’s first chapter articulates the fundamentally anti-colonialist and antizionist perspective of palestinian liberation theology. chapter two offers an historical account of the palestinian people, and chapter three describes the 1948 palestinian nakba (catastrophe) as a human trauma, as an attempt to undermine palestinian cultural and social identity, and as a challenge to faith, particularly in the face of biblical defenses of zionism. chapter four offers his analysis of important historical events of the last seventy years, including the holocaust, the six day war, and the first intifada. chapters five through eight contain his constructive theological proposal. after a brief discussion of jesus christ as liberator (chapter 5), ateek offers a lengthy engagement with the old testament (chapter 6), a call to understand the bible in light of christ and the commandment of love (chapter 7), and a vision of a just peace as central to christian faith and to any resolution of the palestinian-israeli conflict (chapter 8). the final two chapters offer an account of the work of the sabeel center (chapter 9) and a clear synopsis of the major themes of the book (chapter 10). walatka: ateek’s a palestinian theology of liberation 2 the core antagonist of the book is what one might call “settler theology,” a theology which proclaims an exclusionary vision of the land of israel and erases any claim of the palestinian people to their homeland. ateek writes, “one of the many features of this [zionist] enterprise has been the use of the bible as a tool to claim that the land of palestine belongs solely to the jewish people. such a claim is historically false and theologically unfounded. liberating the scriptures from zionism means understanding that the person of jesus christ reveals a loving god who desires the liberation of all people” (p. 11; my emphasis). a prominent theme of the book is his distinction between “inclusive” and “exclusive” religiosity and between a “tribal” and a “universal” conception of god (p. 81). this distinction is key to ateek’s reading of the bible, for it buttresses the theological and political critiques he presents, though it also ends up representing a form of supersessionism. ateek celebrates certain texts in the old testament (such as jonah, ezekiel 47, and selected psalms, among others) on account of their supposed inclusivity and universalism. however, he views much of the old testament as overly exclusivist. in response to texts about violence and conquest, such as the destruction of the amalekites, for example, ateek is quite bold: “they are not morally edifying; they do not contain a word from god to us. rather, they reflect primitive human understanding as well as the prejudice, bigotry, and racism of tribal societies. categorically, in no way do they reflect the love of god for all people as revealed to us in jesus christ” (p. 48). expanding out, it is unclear if his theology makes any room for the distinctiveness of the jewish covenant, historically or today. he argues that the torah is generally exclusionary (p. 81) and that leviticus fails to be genuinely inclusive of non-jews (p. 64). to underscore the pervasiveness of these points, he often simply lists texts—without discussing their context—to exemplify such exclusionary thinking within the biblical and jewish traditions (pp. 56-58) and then contrasts them with the teachings of jesus, presented as a model inclusive figure (pp. 90-92), and of paul, presented as rejecting the ongoing relevance of the mosaic law (pp. 93-96). these sections are particularly problematic, as one is left with the impression of the biblical and later jewish traditions as inherently xenophobic and exclusionary. in terms of the new testament, the jewishness of jesus is not denied, but it also does not play any substantial, positive role. more generally, ateek presents much of the jewish religious tradition as illegitimate and superseded. that ateek also finds a theological inclusivism in a text such as jonah (the “heart of old testament theology” and the old testament’s theological climax [pp. 76, 79]), does little to weaken his overarching supersessionist approach. most of those committed to improved jewish-christian relations will have a strongly negative response to the book. i recognize, as i noted, that it has serious exegetical and theological problems. nevertheless, ateek’s book provides a challenge to readers who are deeply committed to both god’s enduring covenant with the jewish people and to the affirmation of god’s preferential love for the vulnerable, ostracized, excluded, and oppressed. do our theologies stand in service of exclusion and palestinian dispossession? are our theologies shaped by genuine empathy for the plight of the palestinian people? what tools do we have for inter 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) preting scripture in a way that promotes true peace? one, of course, would want to ask many questions to ateek in return: what of the enduring jewish covenant? what of jewish longing for their homeland over the centuries? ateek’s theological proposals reflect his attempt to interpret the bible as liberatory for the palestinian people and as supportive of justice and peace for all people. his commitment to non-violence is particularly noteworthy in this regard. his proposals also reflect the dangers and messiness of forging a theology in the midst of the israeli-palestinian conflict. his work is deeply problematic in certain ways, and yet it positively calls for an uncompromising commitment to a vision of god who “wills that people live in justice and love, in mercy and forgiveness, in peace and reconciliation” (p. 41). scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-4 gavin d’costa catholic doctrines on the jewish people after vatican ii (oxford: oxford university press, 2019), hardcover, 240 pp. + xiv yujia (sam) zhai yujia.zhai@bc.edu boston college, chestnut hill, ma 02467 gavin d’costa’s latest book offers a richly informative and deeply inviting presentation of a catholic approach to christian-jewish relations. it is dogmatically-oriented, historically-grounded, and dialogically-informed. along with revisiting some of the perennial questions of christian-jewish relations, such as the salvific status of the jewish covenant and catholic missions to the jewish people, this book also breaks new ground in catholic theology. d’costa takes up issues that have largely been sidelined by most catholics, such as the theological status of the land and the state of israel as well as the theological significance and ecclesial status of hebrew catholics and messianic jews within the church. this book contains an impressive amount of research in sources across religious traditions and historical periods. it effectively creates a virtual symposium of catholic and jewish voices, providing readers with an immersive and lively learning experience. also featured in this book are the meticulous methodological exposition of the varying degrees of authority in catholic magisterial pronouncements and an argument for their logical consistency in spite of their apparent contradictions, hallmarks of d’costa’s many writings. one of the major accomplishments of this book is that it breaks new ground in catholic thought regarding the theology of the land and even the state of israel. the way d’costa articulates what he calls a “minimalist catholic zionism” exemplifies a promising and concrete paradigm for future christian-jewish dialogue (6768). d’costa emphasizes his faithfulness to catholic belief, seeking continuity with biblical hermeneutics and magisterial teachings. he is also committed to learning from jewish perspectives, taking into consideration not only elements of jewish beliefs but also the history of jewish existence among christians and in the land of israel. this “minimalist catholic zionism” is not simply ancillary to catholic anti-supersessionist theology but a major new development. for example, one of d’costa’s proposals is that the temple of jerusalem, were it to be rebuilt in the land of israel, would deserve catholics’ “reverence and respect,” even as catholics zhai: gavin d’costa’s catholic doctrines on the jewish people 2 do not regard such restoration as religiously “significant” (101). drawing on established doctrinal precedents, d’costa envisions the church of the future to be open to unprecedented ways of embodying and living out its dual affirmations both of christ as the universal savior and of the jewish covenant as irrevocable. furthermore, d’costa argues that catholics should acknowledge the possible relevance of the state of israel to the religious link between the land and the jewish people, while cautiously avoiding any theological pronouncement on the political state itself. impressively, in addition to examining the development of official catholic teachings through a series of magisterial statements in order to discover a doctrinal “trajectory,” d’costa also directly consults the writings of jewish thinkers such as michael wyschogrod for theological insights, thereby paving the way for a comparative theological endeavor in developing a catholic zionism. another important achievement of this book is the comprehensive demonstration that, ever since vatican ii, official church teachings have consistently upheld two key positions simultaneously: that jesus christ is necessary for the salvation of everyone, without exception, and that jews who do not believe in christ remain in a saving covenantal relationship with god. d’costa is concerned that many participants in christian-jewish dialogues have failed to represent accurately what he views as the church’s official positions by downplaying, if not outright denying, teachings regarding the necessity of belief in jesus christ and the church’s obligation to universal mission. to address this, d'costa shows that the church's missionary obligation is asserted not only in the supposedly conservative magisterial statements, such as dominus iesus (2000), but also in church statements more well-received by jews, most notably the recent vatican statement “gifts and calling” (2015). accordingly, he says, theologians who are widely regarded as opposing active mission to the jewish people, such as cardinal walter kasper, actually maintain the necessity of mission, as long as mission is properly understood as “witness” instead of coercive proselytization. similarly, he says, contrary to popular beliefs, benedict xvi’s decision to restore the earlier good friday prayers in the extraordinary form of the mass was not a call to proselytization. marshalling these and other examples, d’costa argues that people’s misunderstanding of catholic teaching regarding mission is a result of a lack of terminological clarity, which d’costa’s analyses and evaluations help clean up considerably. in doing so, d’costa also seeks to defuse the long-standing antagonism between catholics and jews surrounding “mission.” further, through a careful reading of church statements and theologians’ writings he tries to show that the idea of mission as witness is not as divisive within the church as many have thought. if d’costa is correct, there is an implicit challenge to jewish dialogue participants to find a way to respect these catholic doctrines instead of dismissing them as detrimental to catholic-jewish relations. while d’costa attempts to reconcile these and many other existing theological tensions in christian-jewish relations, an important issue left unresolved is the extent to which christians’ unorganized, untargeted “witness” of their faith before jews should, or should not, include the desire for the conversion of jews to the 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) christian faith. due to theological, historical, psychological, and many other reasons, the majority of jews will likely find a christian desire to convert them inherently repugnant, even if this does not include coercive or targeted efforts. the issue regarding proselytization versus uncoerced “witness” is about the “how” of christian evangelization, whereas the issue regarding whether christians should desire jews to become christians is the more fundamental issue about the “what” and “why” of christian evangelization. on this issue, d’costa’s book does not offer substantial clarity regarding the relationship between mission, witness, and conversion. rather, the ambiguity of this relationship is at times magnified in d’costa’s discussion. for instance, by promoting the principle that any “possible conversion” of jews “must not eradicate jewish religious identity,” d’costa may simply intend to remove an obstacle for jews who desire to follow jesus (187). however, this principle of compatibility can also lead to the possibility of hebrew catholics’ and messianic jews’ serving as alternative forms of targeted institutional effort to solicit jewish conversions. thus, d’costa’s portrayal of hebrew ecclesia as one form of christian “witness” among many lacks consideration of its inherent jewishness-oriented (“hebrew”) and highly institutional (“ecclesia”) characteristics which can introduce considerable complications to christian-jewish relations. moreover, d’costa quotes the 2015 vatican statement which admits that how jews can be saved “without confessing christ explicitly [...] remains an unfathomable divine mystery” (165). d’costa recognizes that many catholic theologians, out of humility before this “unfathomable” mystery of god, say catholics should not attempt to convert jews, even as they publicly give witness to their christian faith and express their christian identity. however, it is unclear why d’costa dismisses this position and instead urges catholics to take initiatives to evangelize to the jews with a respectful yet adamant desire for their conversion in this world, arguing that “even if the jewish ‘coming in’ happens at the end times, whatever that means, logically that does not determine anything about the historical mission to jews before the end times” (172, emphasis added). likewise, some readers may object to d’costa’s defense of the term “invincible ignorance,” though d’costa helpfully clarifies that invincible ignorance refers to an objective human intellectual and existential condition and is not meant as a derogatory or exclusivist term (38-44). in fact, as d’costa argues, the term “invincible ignorance” can temper another more ancient and more offensive term, pōrōsis (hardening) (58-60). furthermore, “invincible ignorance” serves as a much-needed clarification of the meaning of economic or “soft” supersessionism. it allows for the possibility of the continuing “teleological” validity of the jewish covenant. it is no longer “dead and deadening” but rather truly irrevocable in the positive sense, even as its rituals and ceremonies are no longer salvifically efficacious from the christian perspective (43, 54). on the other hand, this clarification of theological language, while certainly necessary, may not be a sufficient solution to the problem the term is meant to address. while d’costa successfully delineates one trajectory of magisterial teachings concerning the inaccessibility of christian convictions to the jewish people, equally worthy of consideration are other trajectories also present in church statements over the centuries suggesting that christians are also zhai: gavin d’costa’s catholic doctrines on the jewish people 4 responsible for acknowledging their own limitations in developing and expressing their soteriology and missiology. thus, d’costa’s understanding of invincible ignorance appears to be unbalanced, as he focuses almost entirely on the invincible ignorance of jews with regard to christian faith, but rarely addresses catholic ignorance of the profound jewish covenantal relationship with god. in other words, catholics also carry a kind of ignorance that is at least partially parallel to the jewish “ignorance” of jesus (“gifts and calling” 31). overall, this rewarding book demonstrates d’costa’s solid theological and historical research, faithful commitment to catholic doctrinal integrity, and humility and openness as an experienced participant in christian-jewish dialogue. it will serve as a very beneficial resource not only for scholars and students in christianjewish relations, but also for anyone who is interested in gaining insights into the dogmatic inner-working of the catholic church, even as one may dispute some of the specifics of d’costa’s arguments and findings. mark 11:16: a status quaestionis studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): dennert cp1-7 dennert, mark 11:16 dennert cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 mark 11:16: a status quaestionis brian c. dennert, loyola university chicago presented at the john cardinal cody colloquium, march 16, 2010 the account of jesus' demonstration in the temple (traditionally labeled, "the cleansing of the temple") 1 in mark 11:15-19 raises a host of questions. how does this account relate to the johannine episode (jn 2:13-22)? does it describe an action of the historical jesus or is it a creation of the community? if historical, does mark preserve the intention of the historical jesus or reinterpret the event's significance? what does the incident teach concerning the attitude of jesus (and/or the early followers of jesus) towards the temple? why does mark "sandwich" this event between the cursing and the withering of the fig tree in his "three-day scheme" of jesus' entry into jerusalem? 2 in the midst of these questions, mark 11:16 ("and he would not permit anyone to carry a vessel [skeu'o"] through the temple"), a verse unique to his gospel and almost universally recognized as enigmatic, receives minimal attention. in part due to their preference for matthew over mark, 3 early commentators tended to overlook this verse in their discussions of the temple demonstration, focusing their comments on harmonization with the other gospel accounts of the incident, moralistic applications to the life of the church, or the polemic value of the incident. 4 for example, origen quotes the verse in 1 as discussed below, this traditional title presumes a certain interpretation of the event; thus, this paper will refer to the event as the "demonstration" rather than "cleansing." 2 on day one, jesus enters into jerusalem and looks around the temple before departing (mk 11:1-11). on day two, jesus curses the fig tree in the morning and then performs this demonstration in the temple (mk 11:12-19). on day three, the disciples notice the cursed fig tree has withered, and jesus teaches on faith and prayer (mk 11:20-26). 3 reasons for the preference of matthew over mark include the belief of apostolic authorship for matthew but not mark, the fact that most of mark is contained in matthew, the more logical arrangement of matthew that seemed to make it easier to use in practice, the "greater intelligibility and consistency" of the presentation of jesus in matthew as opposed to the "mystery and enigma" of christ in mark, and, eventually, augustine's comments that mark abbreviated matthew (r. h. lightfoot, the gospel message of st. mark [oxford: oxford university press, 1950], 2-6). the first commentary on mark appears to be by victor of antioch in the fifth century, who lamented the fact that no one had made a commentary on mark before him; see sean p. kealy, mark's gospel: a history of its interpretation (new york: paulist, 1982), 7-30 for the interpretation of mark in the first five centuries. this causes discussion of mark in the fathers to be a daunting task, requiring inquiry into commentaries and homilies on matthew as well (particularly in origen, augustine, and chrysostom), as noted in thomas oden and christopher hall, mark (rev. ed.; accs nt 2; downers grove, ill.: intervarsity, 2005), xxxii-v. 4 my online search of the biblia patristica (http://www.biblindex.mom.fr/; 4 march 2010) yielded only two references from the unverified archives of biblia patristica (john chrysostom, anna, 3; and jerome, tract. marc. 9), with no references to v. 16 in oden and hall, mark, 153. examination of the reference in chrysostom, anna, actually shows no comment on mark 11:16; in his discussion of the incident elsewhere, he argues that jesus twice cleansed the temple (hom. jo. 23 [npnf 1 80-81]; hom. matt. 67 [409]) and uses it to show the jews rejecting god and rejecting jesus even when he comes to them, leading to god's rejection of them now (adv. jud. 6.7.5-6 [fc 68:174]; jud. gent. 4.3 [fc 73:203]), a line of interpretation also found in other fathers (e.g. justin, dial. 17 [anf 1:203]). for jerome's comments, see note 6. origen's quotation of it (see note 5), along with its likely appearance in the diatessaron (32.56, following mark 11:17 [anf 9:92]) shows awareness of the verse in the early church. augustine seemed more concern with harmonizing the markan account with the matthean and johannine accounts than explaining mark 11:16 in harmony of the gospels, 2.67-68 (npnf 1 6:159-161); he gives an allegorical application of the johannine account conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): dennert cp1-7 dennert, mark 11:16 dennert cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 discussing the differences between the gospel accounts but does not comment on it. 5 jerome makes a moralistic application, noting that jesus prohibited all vessels from being carried while the church in his day tolerated the presence of impure vessels (vasa). 6 the lack of focused attention on this verse continued through the middle ages and the reformation 7 pseudo-jerome makes no comment, 8 and bede sees jesus' actions in forbidding the carrying of vessels used for the purchase of merchandise as a symbol for the casting out the wicked and refusal to let them enter again. 9 among the reformers, calvin remarks that jesus shows zeal for the temple in not tolerating anything "inconsistent with religious services." 10 in contemporary discussions, a fixation on the question of historicity of the temple incident often overrules careful examination of this verse 11 because its presentation of jesus bringing to a halt all activity in the massive temple area seems historically problematic. 12 even attempts at in tract. ev. jo. 10 (fc 78:216-217). in another use of the markan account of the temple incident, ambrose notes that the quote from isaiah shows a desire by god for the gentile nations in spir. 2.10.101 (npnf 2 10:127). 5 origen quotes mark 11:16 in comm. jo. 10.15 (anf 9:392) to show the discrepancy in all four accounts of the incident but does not make any sort of allegorical comment on it, focusing his attention more on allegorical meaning in john and matthew in his exposition (comm. jo. 10.15-18 [anf 9:392-399]) and discussing the allegorical sense of luke's focus only on the sellers in hom. luc. 38 (fc 94:157-158). 6 jerome, tract. marc. 9 (fc 57:182). also see his similar use of the incident in epist. 125.20 [npnf 2 6:251-252] and comm. matt. 16.20 [fc 117:235-23]). 7 the four commentaries on mark produced between 650-1000 ce (kealy, mark's gospel, 31) do not appear to advance the discussion on v. 16 (see notes 8 and 9), with the only comment on the phrase in aquinas' catena aurea by bede (see note 9). commentators between 1000-1500 ce continued the trend of limited discussion on mark, often relying on insights by chrysostom and making pastoral applications while skipping over portions of mark discussed in matthew (kealy, mark's gospel, 39-43). moving to the reformation, martin luther's discussion highlights the violent aspect of this act of christ that was in line with the mosaic law but would not be proper for today; jesus showed zeal for the temple but does not give an example for christians (luther's works, [ed. jaroslav pelikan; 55 vols.; st. louis: concordia, 1957], 22:221-228). 8 see michael cahill, the first commentary on mark: an annotated translation (new york: oxford university press, 1998), 86, which is his english translation of exposition evangelii secundum marcum [ccsl 82; turnhout: brepols, 1997]). 9 see thomas aquinas, ed. catena aurea: commentary on the four gospels collected out of the fathers by st. thomas aquinas (trans. john henry newman; 4 vols.; oxford: james parker, 1874; repr. london: st. austin press, 1997), 2:228. this comment furthers the moralizing trajectory. 10 john calvin, commentary on harmony of the gospels (trans. william pringle; 3 vols.; edinburgh: calvin translation society; repr. vol. 17 of calvin's commentaries; grand rapids: baker, 2005), 14. calvin comments on the incident harmonize the gospel accounts (pp. 7-15), but he does make a specific comment on v. 16 on p. 14. 11 the view proposed in e. p. sanders, jesus and judaism (philadelphia: fortress, 1985), 61-70, that this event was a key incident leading to the death of jesus has loomed large in discussion of the historical jesus. for recent (and differing) reevaluations of this contribution of sanders, see paula fredriksen, "gospel chronologies, the scene in the temple, and the crucifixion of jesus" and stephen hultgren, "the incident in the temple as the occasion for jesus' death: meeting some objections," in redefining first-century jewish and christian identities: essays in honor of ed parish sanders (ed. fabian e. udoh; notre dame, ind.: notre dame university press, 2008), 246-282, 283-296. for defenses of the historicity of this event differing from sanders' proposal, see richard bauckham, "jesus' demonstration in the temple," law and religion: essays on the place of the law in israel and early christianity (ed. barnabas lindars; cambridge: cambridge university press, 1988), 72-89; craig a. evans, "jesus' action in the temple: cleansing or portent of destruction?" cbq 51 (1989): 237-270; and p. m. casey, "culture and historicity: the cleansing of the temple," cbq 59 (1997): 306-332. for objections to the historicity of this event, see george w. buchanan, "symbolic money-changers in the temple?" nts 37 (1991): 280-290; david r. j. miller, "the (a)historicity of jesus' temple demonstration: a test case in methodology," sbl 1991 seminar papers (sblasp 30; ed. d. j. lull; atlanta: scholars, 1991), 235-252; and david seeley, "jesus' temple act," cbq 55 (1993): 263-283. 12 those who see the event as based on a historical occurrence (see list in note 11) often argue that the demonstration was minor, not a complete seizure of the temple. however, not all see the markan description as historically unlikely. in an attempt to reconcile the markan and johannine accounts, lightfoot concludes that the markan placement of the account at the end of jesus' life seems correct but the johannine account illuminates details studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): dennert cp1-7 dennert, mark 11:16 dennert cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 understanding mark on a literary level have difficulty grasping the meaning of this puzzling verse, 13 with most contemporary explanations of this verse occurring within discussions of the meaning of the temple demonstration in light of the jewish context of jesus’ ministry and the markan context of the incident. three primary proposals have emerged regarding the meaning of jesus' demonstration in the temple and, thus, the meaning of this comment: purification of the temple, messianic action, and proclamation of destruction coming to the temple. 14 purification of the temple the traditional understanding of this event is that of jesus purifying or cleansing the temple from misuse, as he exhibits zeal for the temple by bringing purity. this view is still widespread, with various explanations on the exact nature of jesus' protest. many argue that jesus seeks to stop the commercial activities that have overrun the temple, as the temple should be a place of prayer and not a place of commerce. 15 while the location of the protest in the court of gentiles is not explicit, some have argued from this inferred location and the quotation of is 56:7 in mark 11:17 that this commercialization obstructed its intended use as a place for the gentiles to pray; therefore, jesus shows concern for gentiles to have access to god. 16 other proposed reasons for the protest include the suggestions that jesus opposed practices recently introduced by caiaphas, 17 the expansions to the temple done by herod, 18 or commerce that hindered the ability of the poor to present sacrifices while giving the merchants a profit so large that they needed containers to carry it. 19 the most common explanation of this view is that jesus' prohibition of carrying a vessel through the temple in verse 16 (dienevgkh/ skeu'o" diav tou' ijerou') enforces laws against using the temple as a "thoroughfare" (m. ber. 9:5; b. ber. 54a; josephus, ag. ap. 2.106); thus, jesus opposed the profanation of the sacred place. 20 in addition to implementing these and meaning, with the result that "the statement in mark that the lord allowed no one to carry a vessel through the temple [11:16] may imply that his supporters seized and guarded the entrances and exits of the temple" (gospel message of st. mark, 78). 13 in his reader response commentary, bas m. f. van iersel notes "jesus' last action [11:16] is mentioned without further elaboration and is an anticlimax for the reader" (mark: a reader response commentary [trans. w. h. bisscheroux; sheffield: sheffield academic, 1998], 357). seeley, who argues against the historicity of the event, fails to discuss 11:16 in his "jesus' temple act," as noted in casey, "culture and historicity," 306-307. many contemporary commentators seem dependent on the reference to m. ber. 9:5 given in str-b, 2.27; see the discussion of the "purification of the temple" view in this paper and note 20. 14 these views are by no means exclusive, as the examination will show; see note 52. 15 e.g. n. q. hamilton, "temple cleansing and temple bank," jbl 83 (1964): 365-372; bauckham, "jesus' demonstration," 72-89; and hans dieter betz, "jesus and the purity of the temple (mark 11:15-18)," jbl 116 (1997): 455-472. 16 e.g. william l. lane, the gospel according to mark (nicnt; grand rapids: eerdmans, 1974), 406; d. e. nineham, mark (philadelphia: fortress, 1978), 406; and casey, "culture and historicity," 312, paralleling the comments of lightfoot, gospel message, 62-64. see rebuttal on this emphasis in r. t. france, the gospel of mark: a commentary based on the greek text (nigtc; grand rapids: eerdmans, 2002), 445, n. 60 or sanders, jesus, 68-69, who notes that the place of the incident is "not determinative but coincidental." 17 v. eppstein, "the historicity of the cleansing of the temple," znw 69 (1978): 42-58. for critique, see evans, "destruction," 268-269. 18 adela yarbro collins, mark (hermeneia 55; minneapolis: fortress, 2007), 527-530. 19 see casey, "culture and historicity," 310-311, 313-314. for a response to casey's view, see david seeley, "jesus' temple act revisited: a response to p. m. casey," cbq 62 (2000), 56. 20 see c. e. b. cranfield, the gospel according to saint mark: an introduction and a commentary (rev. ed.; cambridge: cambridge university, press, 1974), 358; nineham, mark, 300-304; morna d. hooker, a commentary on the gospel according to st. mark (bntc; london: a & c black, 1991), 268; douglas r. a. hare, mark (westminster bible companion; louisville: westminster/john knox, 1996), 142-143; daniel harrington and john donahue, the gospel of mark (sp 2; collegeville, minn.: liturgical, 2002), 328, 332; and casey, "culture and historicity," 309. this understanding is likely what buchanan means by saying that 11:16 "is an isolated halachic recollection, different from studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): dennert cp1-7 dennert, mark 11:16 dennert cp 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 rules, some see jesus extending the realm of these regulations from the temple into the court of the gentiles. 21 in this view, the term skeu'o" could refer to moneybags 22 or receptacles for carrying supplies like wine, flour, and oil used in sacrifices and sold at a profit by the current temple leadership. 23 the most common objection to this view is that the commercial activities occurring in the temple were necessary for the sacrificial cult to function and the payment of the temple tax; 24 impeding the commercial activity would therefore hinder the offering of prescribed sacrifices and the purpose of temple worship. furthermore, upon closer examination, the rabbis and josephus do not offer proper parallels, as the rabbis forbid entering and do not mention a vessel, and josephus speaks about the temple (naov"), not the court of the gentiles (ijerovn in mark 11:16). 25 finally, the proposed meanings for skeu'o" within this view remain questionable. 26 messianic action some scholars who view the demonstration as a cleansing further state that this behavior is an act of the messiah. 27 perhaps cecil roth has most adeptly argued this point, drawing upon zechariah 14:21: "every cooking pot in jerusalem and in judah will be holy to the lord of hosts so that all who sacrifice may come and use them to boil the flesh of the sacrifice. and there shall no longer be traders 28 in the house of the lord of hosts on that day." 29 thus, jesus makes all vessels cultic vessels with his action, with the result that people could not take the vessels out of the temple. furthermore, jesus' action corrects the misapplication of this text that prevented gentiles from being present in the temple area by showing that "merchants" not "canaanites" is the proper interpretation of this verse. texts such as hos 9:15, mal 3:1, and psssol 17-18 indicate an expectation that the messiah will bring cleansing to jerusalem in preparation for the kingdom of god. 30 however, although matthew references zec 9:9 in his account, mark has no explicit remark the ordinary gospel material, and probably added later" ("symbolic money-changers," 281). this also appears to be the view of eduard schweizer, as he comments that v. 16 tones down jesus' protest to show it only as reformation of the temple management, with the original protest a stronger word of warning (the good news according to mark [trans. donald h. madvig; atlanta john knox, 1970], 231-233). 21 casey, "culture and historicity," 310; robert h. gundry, mark: a commentary on his apology for the cross (grand rapids: eerdmans, 1993), 643; and collins, mark, 530. or, as lightfoot notes, the disregard for the court of the gentiles renders unclean the whole building (gospel message of mark, 63). 22 j. massyngberd ford, "money 'bags' in the temple (mk 11, 16)," bib 57 (1976): 249-253. 23 bauckham, "jesus' demonstration," 78. 24 see sanders, jesus and judaism, 62-65; and jacob neusner, "money-changers in the temple: the mishnah's explanation," nts 35 (1989): 287-290. 25 e.g. james r. edwards, the gospel according to mark (pntc; grand rapids: eerdmans, 2002), 342. 26 e.g. gundry, mark, 642; and france, gospel of mark, 445 n. 48. 27 this idea receives mention in lightfoot, gospel message, 67-68, but without the references given below. a brief discussion of this possibility also occurs in hamilton, "temple cleansing," 372. 28 or "canaanites," as noted in nrsv. 29 cecil roth, "the cleansing of the temple and zechariah xiv 21," novt 4 (1960): 174-181. this view also appears in david catchpole, "the triumphal entry," in jesus and the politics of his day (ed. e. bammel and c. f. d. moule; cambridge: cambridge university press, 1984), 319-334. 30 e.g. richard hiers, "purification of the temple: preparation for the kingdom of god," jbl 90 (1971): 82-90; nineham, mark, 300; and lane, gospel, 406. for these and other references in the hebrew bible and second temple texts, see evans, "destruction," 248-256. buchanan adopts a similar position in arguing for the symbolic nature of the event in "symbolic money-changers." studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): dennert cp1-7 dennert, mark 11:16 dennert cp 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 connecting the incident to this text or any other suggested above. in addition, the description and the entry of jesus in the temple on the previous day in mark 11:11 contradicts mal 3:1, which speaks of a sudden entry into the temple ("see, i am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple" [nrsv]). 31 the parallel with zec 14:21 also seems imprecise, as the text does not show jesus commandeering common vessels for sacred use because he prohibits carrying them "through" not "out" of the temple. 32 in addition, these texts often speak of a protest against the priesthood, while mark explicitly presents jesus as confronting the moneychangers, not the priests. 33 sign of destruction the significance of the buying and selling activity for the sacrificial system and payment of the temple tax has led some to view this action less as a cleansing and more as an omen or sign of the temple's destruction. according to influential work of e. p. sanders, the historical jesus indicated the replacement of the temple with a new one through his symbolic action, which was a minor demonstration in the temple. therefore, this protest was not against the current practices in the temple. 34 the idea of cleansing conveyed in verse 16 is a later interpretation of the church. 35 however, one wonders why mark would include a later addition if the incident symbolized the destruction and replacement of the temple, an issue mark elsewhere shows interest (13:1-2). 36 william telford has argued that mark does in fact present this action as a sign of the destruction of the temple, as the withering of the fig tree interprets this event and points to the destruction of the temple, a view supported by numerous other scholars. 37 in this interpretation, the skeu'o" of mark 11:16 is a liturgical vessel, the meaning of the word in approximately one-third of its appearances in the lxx. 38 thus, prohibiting the trade in the temple impedes the offering of sacrifices, 39 with the cessation of activity in the temple pointing to the coming end of activity in the temple, including sacrifices. 40 the quotation of jeremiah would confirm this idea of the imminent end to the temple and termination of sacrifices, and the 31 william m. watty, "jesus and the temple—cleansing or cursing?" exptim 93 (1981-1982), 236. 32 gundry, mark, 643. seeley further notes that the dispute concerning the meaning of zech 14:21 during jesus' time renders it unlikely that jesus' actions would be based on it ("jesus' temple act," 268). 33 seeley, "jesus' temple act," 266-267, though bauckham, "jesus' demonstration," 75, suggests that the priests or levites acted as moneychangers. 34 sanders, jesus and judaism, 61-90, esp. 75. 35 ibid., 364 n. 1, where he notes that this description would not fit the jerusalem temple. also see schweizer, good news, 233. 36 this would be particularly true if the gospel dates after the destruction of the temple in 70 ce. cf. evans, "destruction," 237-243, 247-248, who uses this as an argumentation for its historicity and collins, mark, 527, who notes that v. 16 is likely a pre-markan tradition that may trace back to the historical jesus. 37 william r. telford, the barren temple and the withered tree (jsntsupp 1; sheffield: jsot press, 1980), 92-92, n. 102. see also werner h. kelber, the kingdom in mark: a new place and a new time (philadelphia: fortress, 1974), 100-102; william m. watty, "jesus and the temple," 235-239.; edwards, gospel, 341-345; and joel marcus, mark: a new translation and introduction (2 vols.; ab 27; new york: doubleday, 2000-2009), 2:790-793. 38 see c. maurer, "skeu'o"," tdnt, 7:359, and noted in kelber, kingdom, 100 and telford, barren temple, 92-93, with josephus, ant. 18.85; and j. w. 1.39 as other examples. while noting that context is determinative for the meaning of skeu'o", collins, mark, 530 see the temple context as pointing to these vessels as liturgical. see note 49 for more discussion. 39 bruce d. chilton, the temple of jesus: his sacrificial program within a cultural history of sacrifice university park, pa.: pennsylvania state university, 1992), 111-115; and edwards, gospel, 342-343. 40 e.g. herman c. waetjen, a reordering of power: a socio-political reading of mark's gospel (minneapolis: fortress, 1989), 182; and bradley chance, "the cursing of the temple and the tearing of the veil in the gospel of mark," bibint 15 (2007): 271. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): dennert cp1-7 dennert, mark 11:16 dennert cp 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 quotation from isaiah shows that prayer, not sacrifice, is now proper. 41 jostein ådna advances the argument of this position, noting that mark presents jesus as ending the sacrificial system through his atoning death, 42 with jacob neusner holding that jesus replaces the daily wholeoffering with the rite of the eucharist. 43 this sharp polemic against the temple may have led matthew and luke to omit this verse. 44 this third view has its share of difficulties. a common argument notes that impeding the commercial trade is a strange way to object to the sacrificial cult; jesus could have made his protest clearer through a more direct attack on the cult rather than this obscure way often lost on interpreters. 45 in addition, neusner notes that "no jew of the time [could] have understood the meaning of the action of jesus," as the action only makes sense in light of the establishment of the eucharist, 46 raising the question of whether jesus would perform an action that observers not only could not comprehend but would misinterpret as a complete rejection of the torah. 47 while this objection is more problematic for the historical jesus than the markan jesus (cf. mark 7:1-23, esp. 19c), one wonders if mark's readers, who often need jewish customs explained, would detect that this protest is against the sacrificial cult if mark makes no comment on the connection of the commercial practices to the sacrificial system. 48 further, it is surprising that the markan jesus does not make a more explicit comment or prediction on the destruction of the temple if this event signaled the end of sacrifice and the destruction of the temple; it seems too subtle in light of the fact that mark later explicitly mentions the temple's destruction (13:1-2). 49 since mark uses skeu'o" in a non-liturgical sense in 3:27, and the word appears in a nonliturgical sense in the majority (two-thirds) of its occurrences in the lxx, it is not a technical term. the context does not necessitate that it refers to liturgical vessels, nor is there a modifier designating it as liturgical as in hb 9:21 (tav skeuvh th'" leitourgiva"). 50 finally, the use of is 56:7 41 jostein ådna, "jesus' symbolic act in the temple (mark 11:15-17) :the replacement of the sacrificial cult by his atoning death," gemeinde ohne tempel = community without temple: zur substituierung und transformation des jerusalemer tempels und seines kults im alten testament, antiken judentum und frühen christentum (ed. beate ego, et al; tubingen: mohr, 1999), 469-470. 42 ibid., 471-473 43 neusner, "money-changers," 287-290. he notes that the disciples would comprehend this replacement only after his death, as the temple incident prepared them to understand this replacement. 44 telford, barren temple, 82. 45 hamilton, "temple cleansing," 372; gundry, mark, 643, 675; hare, mark, 142-143, as well as the comments in evans, "destruction," 247-248. pace telford, who argues that there "was no more effective means of stopping the flow of sacrifices than by seizing the vessels in which gifts and offerings were received and carried by the priests (on behalf of the worshippers) through the various temple courts to the altar" (barren temple, 93). 46 neusner, "money-changers," 290. according to neusner, jesus and his disciples would be the sole ones to understand his actions, as only they had the context of the last supper to comprehend the replacement of the daily whole offering with the eucharist (see ibid., 289-290). neusner's proposal recalls a comment made by lightfoot, who notes that mark "wishes his readers to draw the same lesson from the cleansing as from the lord's words at the last supper. on each occasion the lord … is concerned with one aspect of the arrival of the messianic … namely the universalization of the jewish worship of god" (gospel message, 66-67). 47 as neusner remarks, "[o]nly someone who rejected the torah's explicit teaching concerning the daily whole offering could have overturned the tables" ("money-changers," 289). 48 gundry, mark, 675-676. 49 as gundry notes, "without a pronouncement of judgment, stopping the traffic looks reformative" (mark, 675). also see the comments in evans, "destruction," 238; and buchanan, "symbolic money-changers," 248. while the withering of the fig tree could be the "commentary" on the event, one might expect an explicit indication, such as mark 7:19c on the food laws, particularly if the prophecy had come true. 50 while noting the use of skeu'o" for liturgical vessels in the lxx, maurer labels the use of the word in mark 11:16 as "any vessel that can be carried" ("skeu'o"," 7:362). a similar designation of skeu'o" as a general word for an object used for any purpose appears in w. l. lane, "vessel, pot, potter, mix," nidntt, 3:913; and bdag, 927, both of which further comment that an explicit statement or context can show it to be a cultic vessel. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): dennert cp1-7 dennert, mark 11:16 dennert cp 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 does not point to the replacement of sacrifice with prayer, as prayer often goes with sacrifice. 51 because of these difficulties with the destructive imagery of the event itself alongside of its placement sandwiched within the withering of the fig tree account, some have proposed that the primary meaning of the action was purification, with it also foretelling the destruction of the temple through the markan placement. 52 conclusion therefore, commentators frequently have overlooked mark 11:16 and other concerns have overruled careful attention to this verse, rendering this verse overdue for thorough examination. the explanations of this verse within the three major proposals to the markan jesus' demonstration in the temple noted above reveal three key details an explanation of this verse must consider. first, an interpretation must explain why the term skeu'o" appears as the object of jesus' prohibition. second, one must address the fact that the prohibition regards carrying "through" (diafevrw; dia), as opposed to entering or exiting, the temple. third, the location of this prohibition in the temple (ijerovn) would also appear to be an important aspect in understanding the actions of the markan jesus. in addition to these details, the explanation of 11:16 must connect to the wider meaning of mark's description of jesus' demonstration, such as the driving out of sellers and buyers, the overturning of the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who sold doves, the quotations from isaiah and jeremiah in verse 17, and the placement of the temple incident sandwiched within the account of the withering of the fig tree. while this verse might obscure the historicity and meaning of the event in the life of the historical jesus, deeper consideration of 11:16 may help disclose mark's intention in reconstructing or creating this event, perhaps at variance with the understanding of matthew and luke, the similar account in john, or the historical jesus—or possibility in continuity with one or all of them! therefore, this overlooked verse may be a key to understanding the meaning of the incident in mark's gospel and even the perspective of the historical jesus towards the temple; further attention to it could yield benefits for those interested in biblical studies, the historical jesus in his jewish context, and jewish-christian relations. 51 bauckham, "jesus' demonstration," 83-84. 52 see ben witherington iii, the gospel of mark: a socio-rhetorical commentary (grand rapids: eerdmans, 2001), 315-316; and robert h. stein, mark (becnt; grand rapids: baker academic, 2008), 515. a synthesis of the views also occurs in "harmonization" accounts, as lightfoot notes that jesus' actions shows his regards for jewish actions, while john's account points to it being a "sign" of the coming destruction of the temple and the lord's death (gospel message, 69). for an attempt to combine elements of many proposals, see n. t. wright, jesus and the victory of god (minneapolis: fortress, 1996), 413-428, 490-493, esp. 417-418. scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-3 daniel joslyn-siemiatkoski the more torah, the more life: a christian commentary on mishnah avot (leuven: peeters, 2018), 394 pp. noah benjamin bickart nbickart@jcu.edu john carroll university, university heights, oh 44118 as a professor of jewish studies at a catholic university, my major challenge is to enable my students to see judaism not only as the ancient context from which jesus and christianity emerged but as a living tradition which has developed alongside christianity through the present. even when students reject all the negative connotations of supersessionism, in their theological chronologies they view christianity as a later development and thus as a replacement of an earlier judaism. to my students i have often argued (admittedly simplistically) that the mishnah (or the tannaitic oeuvre) ought to be seen as the “new testament” of rabbinic judaism. the rabbis claim both to be in full continuity with biblical and pre-rabbinic judaism while in many other regards they are forging a new religious path. it has become fashionable in recent years for jews to write commentaries on the new testament not simply as dispassionate scholars who happen to be jewish but as jewish scholars reading christian writings as jewish literature for, among others, contemporary jewish readers. marc zvi brettler and amy-jill levine’s the jewish annotated new testament (first published in 2011) has pride of place in this regard. as such, daniel joslyn-siemiatkoski's new explicitly christian commentary on tractate avot from the mishnah, the more torah, the more life, represents the same kind of approach from the other direction. after an introduction to the tractate and to his approach, much of the book presents joslyn-siemiatkoski’s adaptation of a classical rabbinic genre, the verseby-verse commentary. each section opens with an english translation of the h. albeck text, followed by “jewish interpretations” and then “christian resonances.” this structure allows for a clear presentation of what the author terms a “comparative theology approach,” which “does not appropriate the text for its own purposes but dwells within its meanings” (p. 4). as such the goal of the commentary is neither the search for rabbinic influences on christianity nor for bickart: joslyn-siemiatkoski’s the more torah, the more life 2 parallels between rabbinic and new testament texts. rather, the goal is for christian readers to learn something about this text at the center of the rabbinic cannon, and, perhaps more importantly, to enrich their own religious life by encountering and taking seriously the religious claims found therein. joslyn-siemiatkoski’s treatment of the first mishnah in the tractate (1:1) is a microcosm of his book as a whole. he begins with an analysis of the pericope's structure and basic meaning, helpfully situating it within the context of avot specifically and within rabbinic judaism more broadly. in a thoughtful study of the term “torah” (he wisely resists the hopelessly-loaded term “law”) he carefully presents the crucial rabbinic claim regarding the transmission of a dual torah, that is, the oral torah alongside the written torah. drawing the (presumably christian) reader into rabbinic discourse, he explains the degree to which decisions about halakha (rabbinic law) stand at the core of the rabbis’ project and how rabbis develop their own body of law as a bulwark against violating biblical commandments. in sum, this section is an excellent short presentation of the core concepts and ideologies of rabbinic judaism. the “christian resonances” section which follows continues in this vein, presenting both similarities (e.g., a focus on a chain of tradition) and differences (e.g., the notion that gentile christians need not follow all the torah's prohibitions and commands) with apostolic christianity. here, as he does throughout the “jewish interpretations” sections, the author relies on a number of later rabbinic, medieval, and modern commentaries, especially the two medieval recensions of the work known as avot d'rabbi natan. this is helpful, in that it displays the breadth of the commentarial literature within the tradition. however, it also risks muddying the proverbial waters. religious texts have meanings for generations long after they were written, but they are products of a particular time and place. at times joslyn-siemiatkoski’s reliance on later commentaries obscures the original sense of the mishnaic text. jewish studies, at least in the classic wissenschaft des judentums sense, has sought to divorce the canonical texts from later interpretations. this commentary, on the other hand, does not. another flaw in the commentary section is the author’s failure to adequately describe the oral process by which the mishnah, including avot, was created and transmitted during the classical rabbinic period. the mishnah is a distinctively oral “text.” it was redacted in order to be memorized and then recited, first in the disciple-circles of roman and byzantine palestine and later in the larger academies in sassanid babylonia. one cannot adequately discuss the content of avot without first treating its form. there is a major difference between jews and christians in this period, between the hyper-textuality of the church fathers and the pervasive orality of the rabbis. over all, these are minor critiques. this commentary should be on the shelves of scholars of the new testament and patristics, and sections of it could profitably be assigned to courses on the early church. most importantly however, this is a text which can help contemporary christian audiences to understand something 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) about judaism’s most important post-biblical text simultaneously from the perspective of a rabbinic insider and fellow (christian) traveler. i warmheartedly recommend it. scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-3 steven nadler menasseh ben israel: rabbi of amsterdam (new haven and london: yale university press, 2018), hardcover, 298 pp. david h. price david.h.price@vanderbilt.edu vanderbilt university, nashville, tn 37235 steven nadler’s menasseh ben israel is pure biography. after an artful recreation of the surprisingly generous eulogy by menasseh’s nemesis in life, rabbi saul mortera, nadler narrates his fascinating and truly historic life in a straight plotline from the ordeals of menasseh’s father fleeing the grip of the portuguese inquisition to menasseh’s premature death while returning to amsterdam from his unsuccessful mission to negotiate the readmission of jews to england. nadler writes largely for a general reader and does not interrupt the story with academic explication of the historiography of his subject or his own methodology. the resulting portrait is an appealing and historically-meaningful emblem, thankfully shorn of tedious moralistic superscriptions or subscriptions, a biography that allows the reader to witness a complex historical development—the dramatic improvement in christian-jewish relations in seventeenth-century europe—through the portrayal of the prodigious accomplishments of its protagonist. nadler is able to let history tell its own story in this case because the trajectory of menasseh and his amsterdam community, “the new jerusalem,” embodies the revival of sephardi culture in western europe and beyond. given the significance of amsterdam and its rabbi, and given the lucid and compelling storyline, this biography would be an ideal place for anyone to begin an exploration of the remarkable history of judaism in early modern europe, especially the innovations in christian-jewish relations. in a sense, menasseh became an “apostle to the gentiles” (the epithet coined by cecil roth) by accident. from the very beginning of his career, he saw himself as a rabbi serving the newly arriving marrano immigrants in amsterdam as they returned to the practice of judaism and tried to deepen their understanding and observance of their ancestral faith. to serve this community, which grew with astonishing speed, as well as others throughout europe and soon the americas (he once aspired to emigrate to recife, brazil), menasseh established the first jewish printing house in amsterdam, thereby laying the foundation for what would be one of the most illustrious jewish printing centers of all time (pp. 39-57). although price: steven nadler’s menasseh ben israel 2 eventually his publishing would support ashkenazi communities as well, he initially focused on the “portuguese jews,” producing works in spanish (and hebrew) in order to explain the basics of judaism and to deliver standard jewish prayer books, bibles, volumes of the talmud, and other materials for their use. an unintended result was that his works were also accessible and appealing to christian scholars. the first volume of his conciliador (1632), an attempt to explain inconsistences in the bible written explicitly to help spanish-speaking jews return to their faith, immediately attracted many christian readers interested in jewish approaches to the bible. though initially surprised by his christian readership, he soon embraced it and began composing works with both christian and jewish readers in mind in addition to some intended primarily for christian scholars, with some of them published in latin. christians even collaborated on some of his subsequent publications, including a printing of the mishnah, and several of his works were dedicated to prominent christians (p. 135). for christian europe, menasseh became the most prominent jewish voice of the age. a steady stream of visitors called on him in amsterdam and many more corresponded. henrietta maria, queen of england, famously attended the talmud torah synagogue for his sermon in 1642 (p. 109). the only contemporary jew with a comparable impact on the christian world was the venetian rabbi leon modena (1571-1648), who wrote the exceedingly influential historia de gli riti hebraici (the history of the jewish rites), initially for presentation to james i of england, originally published in italian (paris, 1637), and frequently translated and printed in other european languages, including english. menasseh’s most significant adventure was his journey to london to promote the readmission of jews to england, a land from which they had been banished since 1290. in this effort, he tapped the interest of christian millenarians who were inclined to support readmission in order to fulfill a christian interpretation of prophecy that, before the second coming of christ could occur, jews would be scattered to every corner of the world (based on deuteronomy 28:64 and 30:1-5). other english supporters of the initiative, however, were interested because of the great commercial success of amsterdam and the amsterdam sephardi. menasseh stayed in london for two years (late september 1655-early october 1657) as the guest of the english government while his proposed terms for readmission were debated. to support that initiative, he published several works, including his powerful defense of judaism, a vindication of the jews (1656). the work remained influential for over a century, and no less a figure than moses mendelssohn would translate it into german as late as 1782. during the negotiations, the existence of a tiny clandestine community of sephardic traders already residing in london was exposed (p. 205). fortunately, despite high levels of anti-jewish activism, the community was allowed to continue practicing quietly, partly on the grounds that the expulsion of 1290, as a royal decree, was deemed invalid. in the end, however, oliver cromwell was not able to muster sufficient support for a legislated (and regulated) readmission according to menasseh’s proposed terms. the sephardic rabbi, though now a celebrity in england, departed for amsterdam in low spirits from the denouement and also distraught over the recent death of his son samuel. he died on 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) 20 november 1657 before reaching his home. in his magnificent biography of menasseh (1932; 2nd ed. 1945), cecil roth contended that menasseh’s intervention should not be seen as a historical failure, for the jewish community in england was able to grow somewhat more naturally without parliamentary sanction from the commonwealth and arguably more securely since in the restoration of the monarchy charles ii repealed legislation under the commonwealth. although it is not acknowledged as such (apart from the occasional endnote on a specific topic), roth’s biography is the solid foundation for this new version. nonetheless, even if it offers no major revisions of roth’s portrayal, nadler’s work renders roth’s obsolete in large measure because he has successfully integrated the scholarship of the intervening half-century. this reader says farewell rather wistfully to roth’s scholarly gem but also welcomes nadler’s worthy replacement wholeheartedly. its literary elegance graces a magisterial command of history. brothers estranged: heresy, christianity, and jewish identity in late antiquity studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): langer r1-3 schremer, brothers estranged langer r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 adiel schremer brothers estranged: heresy, christianity, and jewish identity in late antiquity (oxford and new york: oxford university press, 2010), hardcover, xx + 272 pp. reviewed by ruth langer, boston college adiel schremer‟s brothers estranged: heresy, christianity and jewish identity in late antiquity represents the latest contribution to academic discourse about rabbinic attitudes to early christianity, the identity of the minim, and the construction of separate jewish and christian identities. the uniqueness of schremer‟s volume derives from the set of well-defined methodological guidelines that he limns for himself. he applies sociological theories about identity formation to the late antique rabbinic construction of social boundaries. he carefully applies these only to the earliest rabbinic texts, which he reads critically in order to identify later accretions and to avoid drawing conclusions based on these additions. he also deeply questions the presuppositions by which other scholars read the rabbinic traditions, suggesting that their questions have been shaped by christian culture, thus generating gratuitous interpretations of the texts as responses to christianity instead of considering other alternatives. schremer seeks to read his carefully selected texts through internal jewish lenses and thus to come to a sharper analysis of the degree to which early rabbinic judaism was indeed constructed in dialectic with christianity. the book presents a series of interrelated studies, some more persuasive than others, that either add to our understanding of the issues addressed or, at the very least, undermine our confidence that scholars might have clarified them previously. schremer first argues that the destruction of the temple in 70 ce precipitated a crisis in jewish socio-political identity. he argues that the defeat led jews to doubt god‟s ability to act in history and hence also the value of remaining part of the jewish community. rabbinic texts express this jewish doubt obliquely by projecting it onto the nations of the world. the rabbinic construction of minut was a response to this socio-political reality that stigmatizes those who seek to separate themselves from the jewish community. “minut” and “minim” thus are badly and inadequately translated as “heresy” or “heretics,” as this language incorrectly confines the discussion to matters of religious doctrine. indeed, schremer suggests that language that may seem theological is actually cloaking other, more significant issues. thus, the rabbinic concern with those denying god‟s power is always paired with a concern about social separatism (p. 62). the category of minut was applied only to jews, albeit to jews accused of undermining divine authority in various ways. this category came to include christians, but initially applied more to those accepting divinities instead of or in addition to god, such as gnostics or those who worshiped the roman imperial cult (chap. 2). schremer later emphasizes that no tannaitic reference to minim necessarily applies to christians (pp. 79, 86 and chap. 4 passim). review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): langer r1-3 schremer, brothers estranged langer r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 schremer presents minut as a construction of the rabbis in order to define deviance and create boundaries. minim are “jews who left the confines of the jewish community and became as nonjews” (p. 71). rabbinic discourse about the minim thus focuses on regulating contact with them in order to create this “otherness.” in this context, schremer focuses on an analysis of tosefta hullin 2:19-20 and its regulation of various sorts of social contacts with minim (such as matters of food, books, trade, marriage, education, and medicine). he also dates this act of construction to the early second century (chap. 3). these claims lead schremer to a discussion of t. hullin 2:20-24, which does refer to the followers of jesus. he claims that this text concerns “whether the followers of jesus should be considered, too, [among the] minim” discussed in the previous passage, and that the tosefta‟s answer is “yes” (p. 88). however, the nature of the tosefta‟s examples suggests that the differences between the two communities were so minimal that the boundary needed to be constructed. relying on the attributions to specific rabbis, schremer dates this text to the second century, along with the vast majority of tannaitic references to minim. this reveals an attempt by the rabbis to present the christians as “other,” labeling them minim because they were challenging the social identity of the jews (p. 94). this was also the time when, he says, romans recognized christianity as a distinct religion (p. 96). the rabbinic act, he points out, was not an act of “parting” but an act of “exclusion.” “from the point of view of early rabbinic sources, the concept of the „parting of the ways‟ is misguided and inapplicable: it presupposes two equal parties, and this is a deeply christianizing notion” (p. 98). the early rabbis thus regarded the christians as minim, separatists, who had left israel (chap. 4). schremer rejects as “christianizing interpretations” the common understanding that the reason for this separation was christianity‟s dogma or renunciation of jewish law (p. 144). only christian texts make these claims. rabbinic texts that appear to polemicize against christianity could equally well be directed against the roman imperial cult and power. romans, for instance, referred to their emperor as a “son of god.” schremer‟s final chapter argues that rabbinic objection to christianity was not a driving force in their discussions of rome, even after constantine. he points out that rabbinic literature, including piyyut, reflects a growing recognition that the transformation of the empire from paganism to christianity was an extended process, so rome remains for the rabbis almost entirely a political category. however, the rabbis ceased to consider christians to be minim as they were now seen as gentiles, not as members of a jewish heretical movement, allowing the possibility of toleration and even, as schremer‟s title suggests, a sense of estranged brotherhood (p. 141; chap. 5). thus, the brotherhood here is not the prior condition, as suggested in much christian-jewish discourse, but the end result of the development of christianity into a gentile religion. as i have presented it, this narrative arc is coherent and plausible, and the work is a significant contribution to the topic. i believe that my summary reflects schremer‟s intentions. unfortunately, though, the book required careful editing by someone knowledgeable in the field to resolve inconsistencies and logical leaps. for instance, in his introduction, schremer says his fundamental question is, “what was the role that christianity occupied in the formation of rabbinic judaism?” (p. 11). in the conclusion, this question has become, “what troubled the rabbis about the minim?” (p. 144). the two could easily have been brought together, but schremer does not do so. the logical leaps appear primarily in his detailed arguments. i noted at least three in his discussions of the birkat haminim. for instance, he argues plausibly that the malkhut zadon (arrogant empire) documented first in geniza texts of the malediction refers to rome. this then indicates (in a discussion that took me many readings to sort out) that the much earlier attested concluding blessing of the prayer “who humbles the arrogant” was also anti-roman and hence studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): langer r1-3 schremer, brothers estranged langer r 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 fits the larger context that schremer has established for the rabbinic response to judea‟s defeat (p. 59). however, his suggestion that the rabbis removed christians from the category of minim (p. 141) ignores entirely one of the best attested elements of the language of this prayer from precisely the period of the christianization of the empire, its explicit naming of notserim (nazareans, or christians), always paired with minim. (in the first discussion, schremer cites my article with uri ehrlich, which presents the textual evidence. see “the earliest texts of the birkat haminim,” hebrew union college annual 76 [2006]: 63–112. see also my forthcoming book, cursing the christians?: a history of the birkat haminim [oxford, 2011].) the discerning reader of my summary will find evidence of additional problematic points. schremer‟s methodological contributions to the topic are important, his critiques of other scholars (especially daniel boyarin) deserve attention, and his proposed solution, especially his argument that christianity did not play a major role in the shaping of rabbinic judaism, may well be correct. scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-3 ofri ilani in search of the hebrew people: bible and nation in the german enlightenment (indiana university press, 2018), x + 224 pp. aya elyada aya.elyada@mail.huji.ac.il hebrew university of jerusalem, jerusalem 9190501 in his book, in search of the hebrew people: bible and nation in the german enlightenment, ofri ilani sets out to explore a fascinating cultural and intellectual phenomenon: the intensive and multifaceted engagement of biblical scholars, philosophers, and poets in enlightenment germany with the history of the ancient hebrews (the term commonly used for biblical israelites). that the book focuses on germany in the second half of the eighteenth century is, of course, not a coincidence. during this time the german universities became the leading centers of european biblical scholarship. using critical methodologies and tools from modern fields of research such as geography, anatomy, linguistics, and ethnography, german biblical scholars, headed by johann david michaelis, sought to distance themselves from the orthodox tradition of textual exegesis of previous generations. instead, they sought to introduce a new kind of interpretation of the sacred scripture: a historical-ethnographic exegesis, based on scientific, “objective” research. moreover, during the second half of the eighteenth century, modern german nationalism began to consolidate, a process that gained clear expression in both political writings and german literature of the time. as ilani convincingly demonstrates, important poets and philosophers of early german nationalism, most notably johann gottfried herder and friedrich gottlieb klopstock, adopted the ancient hebraic model of nationhood as a poetical, cultural, and political paradigm. they located in the bible the foundations of a particularistic nationalism, which could effectively counter the universalistic values of the french enlightenment. this model of a hebraic theocracy was used to justify a firm bond between religion and the public-political sphere. moreover, these scholars and men of letters aimed to position the hebrews as “alternative ancients,” a substitute to the classical, namely latin and greek, models, which were identified with french philosophy and literature. elyada: ilani’s in search of the hebrew people 2 the scholarly fields of academic biblical scholarship and of literature and philosophy were closely intertwined. they were characterized by mutual influence and fertilization, and it is not always possible to clearly demarcate the boundary between them. together they turned the german-christian culture of the enlightenment era into a fertile soil for this engagement with the history of the hebrew people, and both fields are the focus of the present book. however, ilani does not limit himself to a detailed, comprehensive description of the main issues that stood at the center of this discourse, such as the origins of ancient israel, the mosaic laws, the hebrews’ poetry, and the conquest of the land of canaan. he further seeks to explore the meanings that were given to the story of the hebrew people in eighteenth-century germany within the framework of broader discussions concerning religion and statehood, war and morality, law and justice, and nationalism and ethnicity, topics which preoccupied german scholars of the time. the outcome is an interesting and insightful book, which sheds new light on a little-known chapter in the history of christian hebraism as well as on central concerns in the scholarly discourse of the german enlightenment. ilani’s book stands out for its wide scope and its thematic richness. while focusing on a clearly defined topic—writings on the hebrew people during the german enlightenment—the author examines every issue discussed in the book against the backdrop of broader political, social, and cultural contexts. drawing on a rich corpus of primary sources, ilani presents us with a thorough and original analysis of works that were written by renowned figures of the german enlightenment, such as herder and michaelis, as well as by lesser-known or relatively marginal scholars of the time. the wide variety of authors and sources allows the author to explore diverse notions about the ancient history of the hebrews that were found in germany in the second half of the eighteenth century and to present a nuanced and insightful depiction of the discourse. the book follows important trends in recent historical research, first and foremost, the reappraisal of the place of the bible in the german enlightenment. earlier studies illustrated secularizing tendencies of the late-eighteenth century that encouraged a negative attitude toward the bible, leading to its marginalization and even exclusion from enlightenment culture. as opposed to this view, more recent works, such as jonathan sheehan’s the enlightenment bible (2005), illustrate a continued interest in the bible throughout the enlightenment era, even if this interest was manifested in new approaches to interpretation. in his book, ilani offers another example of this reappraisal by focusing on the politicalnational readings of the bible which characterized broad circles of the german enlightenment. this adds another layer to present-day research, which has focused on literary and cultural readings of the sacred text during the enlightenment. finally, this book makes an important contribution to the existing research on political hebraism, especially with regard to the influence of the biblical story of the hebrews on the consolidation of a national consciousness in eighteenth-century europe. research in this field usually focuses on england and the netherlands during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and pays far less attention to germany of the enlightenment era. ilani’s book is undoubtedly an 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) important step toward filling this lacuna. above all, in search of the hebrew people is a fascinating book, and it will be of interest to scholars and lay readers alike. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review holger m. zellentin rabbinic parodies of jewish and christian literature (tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2011), hardcover, 275 pp. loren r. spielman, portland state university holger m. zellentin’s monograph rabbinic parodies of jewish and christian literature takes on a notoriously slippery topic— ancient humor. thankfully, and with some success, zellentin restricts himself to one explicit form of humor, the parodic satire, leaving other forms of rabbinic humor, e.g., irony, for others to contend with (p. 6). the satiric parodies that zellentin discusses are found primarily in palestinian and babylonian rabbinic texts from the fourth, fifth, and six centuries ce. as parodies, all of these passages “imitate extant texts…along with some of their literary devices and their message” (p. 15). these rabbinic parodies also provide a “counter-song” to their imitated text, targeting either the texts themselves or their interpreters as objects for satire (p. 14). the book as a whole argues convincingly that satiric parody is “a literary technique that is firmly embedded in the established rabbinic genres such as the talmudic sugya, the midrashic sermon, and midrashic exegesis” (p. 5). by “embedded,” zellentin means that satirical parody occurs at every level of rabbinic interaction with text. in order to better demonstrate this point, zellentin organizes his book according to three different “modes” of satiric parody. the first mode consists of “intra-rabbinic parodies” which occur at the redactional layer of rabbinic texts and target aspects of the same text in which they are found. “inter-rabbinic parodies” are also found at the redactional layer of rabbinic texts, but differ from “intrastudies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) rabbinic parodies” because the texts that they target were produced by other groups or communities of rabbis. usually, but not exclusively, zellentin uses the term “inter-rabbinic parody” to refer to babylonian texts that parody stories produced by palestinian rabbis. lastly, zellentin discusses “external parodies” which target the texts of non-rabbinic groups, including contemporary christians and their literature (p. 25). chapter one identifies an extended passage found in the babylonian talmud (b. b. metzi’a 97a) as a rather sophisticated example of “intra-rabbinic” or “redactional” parody. in this passage, a humorous story about the babylonian sage rava, who accidentally sells himself to his students, appears not only to respond to, but also to imitate and to satirize, an earlier legal discussion about ownership (which mentions, in fact, this very same sage). anyone familiar with a talmudic sugya might easily recognize this particularly self-reflective and self-critical aspect of the babylonian talmud. zellentin’s discussion of this redactional strategy as parody, however, provides some context for this oft-noted reflexive feature of the rabbinic literary tradition and establishes that the rabbis of the babylonian talmud had a profound and deep-seated familiarity with satirical parody. in chapter two, zellentin demonstrates that parody is not a solely babylonian rabbinic enterprise. here, he takes up a comical story about a drunkard in leviticus rabbah (the palestinian rabbinic midrash on leviticus). in this story (lev. rab. 79:5-6), a drunkard’s sons leave their father in a pit to die in order to sober him up. but through a simple twist of fate, these same sons end up supporting their father’s excessive drinking habits in perpetuity. the message of this tale clearly works against the staunchly temperate views about alcohol in the rest of the chapter, a unit which zellentin identifies as a “temperance sermon” (p. 53). yet the story also “imitates and satirizes the themes and particular features of the temperance sermon” and therefore meets the two major qualifications of satirical parody (p. 76). studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr chapter three investigates the well-known story of bar hedya, a palestinian dream interpreter, as an instance of “interrabbinic parody” (b. berakhot 56a-b). through a close literary analysis zellentin reveals that this text from the babylonian talmud satirizes a passage about dream interpretation in the palestinian talmud—the so-called palestinian “dream book”— in order to target palestinian rabbinic ideas about dreams and their interpretation. therefore, zellentin argues, satirical parodies in rabbinic literature sometimes target other rabbinic communities and may help us to better understand the relationship between babylonian and palestinian rabbis. chapters four and five will be of the most interest to the readers of this journal. zellentin here turns his attention to “external” or “exegetical” parodies”—i.e., rabbinic texts that imitate and satirize non-rabbinic texts. zellentin suggests that when these rabbinic parodies imitate the gospels and other new testament texts, they do so with the primary intention of satirizing contemporary christians. though they reference and allude to foundational christian texts, he claims, these rabbinic parodies actually target the practices and interpretations of christians living in palestine and sassanian persia during the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries ce. both these chapters discuss rabbinic texts that parody sections of the sermon on the mount. chapter four examines the story of imma shalom, rabban gamaliel’s sister, and her claim for equal inheritance (b. shab. 116a-b). zellentin suggests that this story—which rather explicitly refers to syriac versions of the christian gospels—targets contemporary christian ideas about physical and spiritual inheritance rather than jesus’ teachings in the sermon. a similar argument continues in chapter five which covers the famous story of shimon bar yochai, a second century ce palestinian rabbi, and his retreat to a cave with his son (gen. rab. 79:5-6). this story, zellentin argues, targets passages from the gospel of mathew (6:25-7; 10:28-30) in order to satirize contemporary christian ascetic practices. studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 9 (2014) in these two chapters, zellentin engages directly with the question of whether the rabbis of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries ce were familiar with christian literature and culture. references to jesus or christianity are rare in palestinian rabbinic texts. some scholars argue palestinian rabbis completely ignored or deliberately omitted any mention of contemporary christianity. arguing against this view, the author’s interpretation of these two rabbinic parodies of the sermon on the mount suggests that some babylonian rabbis not only had “first hand or mediated familiarity with christian foundational texts” but that they were also aware of their “contemporary patristic or popular interpretations” (p. 141). though palestinian rabbinic discourse on christianity is “more implicit and allusive” (p. 172), zellentin suggests that palestinian rabbis also satirized, albeit in less explicit ways, christian texts and practices. zellentin displays an impressive familiarity with both jewish aramaic and syriac christian texts in these chapters. where he is able to demonstrate that rabbinic texts, such as the story of imma shalom, imitate vocabulary or structural elements from specific passages from the peshitta and other syriac versions of the new testament, his argument for rabbinic familiarity with christian texts and stories seems particularly sound. on the other hand, the author’s claim of a palestinian rabbinic parody of the gospel of matthew in the shimon bar yohai story, where these signs of imitation are less clear, is somewhat less convincing. as a whole, the book has much to offer. by far the most noteworthy aspect of zellentin’s book is its attention to parody as a literary technique. this focus on specific texts, rather than a more nebulous concept or theme, distinguishes it from other treatments of jewish-christian relations in late antiquity. in addition, zellentin covers methodological questions in a brief yet exacting manner, providing excellent summaries and references to scholarly debates regarding the redaction of rabbinic texts, the self-reflective nature of rabbinic literature, and the question of rabbinic interaction with external groups. finally, studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr his suggestion that parodies may target more than just texts and also satirize contemporary christian dogma provides new and interesting readings of some well-known rabbinic stories. this book is an academic monograph which, though written for scholars of late antiquity, contains a few excellent introductory sections about methodological issues in the study of rabbinic literature that might be appropriate for students in upper level religion courses as well. the book would be a welcome addition to any university or seminary library. but as with many other books in this series, the price probably prohibits most from purchasing personal copies. a lethal obsession: anti-semitism from antiquity to the global jihad studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): leighton r1-3 wistrich, a lethal obsession leighton r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 robert wistrich a lethal obsession: anti-semitism from antiquity to the global jihad (new york: random house, 2010), hardcover, 1184 pp. reviewed by christopher m. leighton, institute for christian & jewish studies in a lethal obsession: anti-semitism from antiquity to the global jihad, robert wistrich has assembled a mind-boggling amount of data and chronicled a pattern of anti-jewish hostility that makes unmistakably clear the resilience and adaptability of this worldwide pathology. renowned for his book antisemitism: the longest hatred and the pbs series of the same name, wistrich, a professor of modern european history at hebrew university in jerusalem, is an exceptionally qualified guide through this treacherous landscape. although the subtitle of wistrich‟s book indicates a panoramic view, the overwhelming bulk of the book addresses the problems of antisemitism in the wake of wwii. he begins by exploring the european christian culture that “incubated” an ideology of hate (p.79). however, he gives little attention to the historical and literary contexts that sparked christian anti-judaism, and his sketch of the transition from the new testament period to the patristic period suffers from a lack of engagement with important scholarly studies (e.g., robert wilken, john chrysostom and the jews: rhetoric and reality in the late 4th century. university of california press: berkeley and los angeles, 1983; and paula fredriksen, augustine and the jews: a christian defense of jews and judaism. doubleday: new york, 2008). instead, he focuses on mythic constructs that captured the medieval european imagination. this judeophobia cast the jews as a deicide people and accused them of seeking to undermine christendom. wild allegations were etched into the popular culture, especially chimerical images of a jewish population in blind pursuit of power and global control. these conspiratorial fantasies revealed the demonic depths to which the jews were said to go in repeating the murderous behaviors of their ancestors. accusations of blood libel, host desecration and well-poisoning that spread the bubonic plague were cited as evidence of a satanic jewish plot by those opposed to god and god‟s church. this is a sweeping survey that largely recapitulates the pioneering work of joshua trachtenberg (the devil and the jews: the medieval conception of the jew and its relation to modern antisemitism. second ed. jewish publication society: philadelphia, 1993), but the analysis lacks the morphological precision of gavin langmuir (toward a definition of antisemitism. university of california press: berkeley and los angeles, 1990). wistrich‟s main contribution is his demonstration of the fluidity of this mythic structure and its persistent manifestation around the world in the twentieth century. even though the supernatural elements dissolved in the waters of secularism, the conspiratorial pattern that enshrines jews as ineradicably „other‟ was sustained through a pseudo-scientific account of “blood purity” (p. 106) that initially emerged during the spanish inquisition. the move to define the jewish people in terms of an immutable identity was a shift away from the traditional christian view. no longer were jews regarded as a people that could be redeemed through conversion. this development set the stage for a racist ideology in which jewish identity is construed as genetically review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): leighton r1-3 wistrich, a lethal obsession leighton r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 determined, a biological formulation that undergirded the nazi eliminationist ideology. yet the mutation of traditional anti-judaism into modern antisemitism raises unsettled and unsettling questions: to what extent did the third reich represent a tradition continuous with the christian legacy of anti-judaism? to what degree is julius streicher, the nazi propagandist, accurate in his assertion that the third reich invented nothing that had not been espoused previously by christians (p. 94)? with special attention directed to eliminationist expressions of antisemitism, wistrich then gives his readers a global tour of the post-wwii era. the evidence that he marshals to document the intractable and pervasive (a word he repeatedly uses) character of antisemitism is overwhelming. it is especially unnerving that there is so little repetition in its nine hundred pages. of particular concern to wistrich is the recasting of traditional anti-jewish tropes into an antizionist platform that has garnered support in many places, not only in the middle east but africa, latin america, and asia. the global dissemination of antisemitism comes into sharp focus in his thirteenth chapter, “bigotry in the united nations.” although wistrich‟s narrative is one-sided in his defense of israel, these pages nonetheless ought to foster serious doubts among those who endorse the un as a trustworthy and balanced arbitrator in the region. in this chapter, wistrich considers how the un moved from its support of two independent states, israel and palestine, in 1947 to its indictment of zionism as racism in its infamous 1975 resolution 3379. the dramatic shift in the assessment of israel at the un occurred in the 1960s along with the influx of often hostile, newly independent african nations, the disproportionate numerical weight of countries from central and south america, and mounting opposition from the communist bloc. within an increasingly hostile international climate, the un provided a respectable forum in which to promote the proposition that “zionism equals racism, equals colonialism, equals occupation, equals dispossession” (p. 491). wistrich notes that “a third of all critical resolutions passed by the un human rights commission during the past forty years have been directed exclusively at israel. by way of comparison, there has not been a single resolution even mentioning the massive violations of human rights in china, russia, north korea, cuba, saudi arabia, syria, or zimbabwe” (p. 487). the branding of israel as an “international outlaw” and “an apartheid enemy of humanity” continues to be endlessly repeated within un circles and among a broad network of ngos, including respectable organizations such as human rights watch, amnesty international, and christian aid (p. 489). the final segment of wistrich‟s book documents the spread of antisemitism within the islamic world. among western exports, the polemical vitriol embodied in works such as the protocols of the elders of zion has been widely disseminated and enthusiastically consumed. while wistrich cites problematic passages within the koran and explores the disturbing embellishments of more recent muslim leaders, it is the fusion of christian and muslim conspiratorial fantasies that he says is especially toxic. wistrich analyzes the combustible properties of this mixture by breaking down the compound elements of hamas‟ charter and hezbollah‟s platform. the book brings readers to the nadir of contemporary antisemitism when wistrich maps the contours of this obsession in the proclamations of iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad. his yearning for an apocalyptic confrontation in which the forces of good finally crush the forces of evil reveals a pathological quest that wistrich fears will end in monumental devastation. the proverbial jewish telegram reads: “start worrying. details to follow.” wistrich has packed the details into this tome and provided reasonable grounds for high anxiety. what wistrich does not provide is a contextually nuanced analysis of antisemitism, one that differentiates the divergent roles that antisemitism plays around the globe and the varied uses to which this animus is put. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): leighton r1-3 wistrich, a lethal obsession leighton r 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 nor does wistrich offer readers the rhetorical tools to decipher the language of antisemitism. it is misleading to draw a straight line from the anti-jewish excesses of st. john chrysostom to the death camps in auschwitz. in a similar way the polemical accusations in the koran do not lead inexorably to the antisemitic rants of islamists or the genocidal fantasies of iran‟s most militant mullahs. wistrich suggests that the genocidal impulse of antisemitism is immutable, and this assessment ends up enshrining jews as an eternal target. he pays little attention to some of the more promising educational and social changes over the past five decades that have done much to hold this noxious legacy in check. there are important scholarly and popular initiatives that have exposed the dangers of antisemitism and offered constructive guidelines for action, especially among christians and jews. political and religious leaders in the west have tools to dismantle some of the most deadly anti-jewish teachings. these triumphs, however limited, do not factor into wistrich‟s account. as a result of these omissions, the reader learns little about the resistance that our religious and educational communities can successfully mount. in the face of a global obsession that so readily turns lethal, wistrich‟s readers will need to look elsewhere if they hope to combat the forces of despair. scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-4 amy-jill levine and ben witherington iii the gospel of luke (new york & cambridge, uk: cambridge university press, 2018), paperback, x + 715 pp. gary gilbert ggilbert@cmc.edu claremont mckenna college, claremont, ca 91711 no other work of the new testament, perhaps with the exception of paul’s letters, has been the subject of more study and more disagreement as to its treatment of jews and judaism than the two-volume gospel of luke and acts of the apostles. does the author hold out the possibility for ongoing engagement and inclusion of jews, or does the author view them as cut off from their covenant and salvation? does the gospel present jews in general and jewish leaders in particular as disobedient and venal, or does the author value jewish institutions and genuinely hope for the repentance of all persons, including jews (a common theme for luke)? for such difficult questions, it is hard to imagine two scholars better suited to address them than amy-jill levine and ben witherington iii. the pair address these issues and many others in their commentary on the gospel of luke. the book combines historical critical analysis and contemporary theological and social reflections. it is valuable to scholars and also accessible to nonscholars. the authors, both new testament scholars, come to this work from significantly different backgrounds. levine is a jewish feminist agnostic woman and witherington is a methodist evangelical man. while such divergent characteristics could in less capable hands yield an ugly disputation, here their professional and personal backgrounds and commitments enhance the depth of their analysis. the authors are not interested in creating a debate, but a conversation, where they can talk to one another and reason together. on many points, the authors share a common understanding. in those cases, the book reads as if it were written by a single author, without including contrasting views. they agree, for example, that jesus himself did not speak in a way that could be considered anti-jewish. on other points, however, the authors express amicable yet significant disagreement, including “whether the charge (of anti-judaism) can be laid at luke’s feet. ben [witherington] says the charge is inappropriate. amy-jill [levine] finds that luke can be read, and certainly has been read, as having anti-jewish views” (p. gilbert: levine and witherington’s the gospel of luke 2 329). these disagreement are presented side-by-side and in each author’s name, without an attempt to resolve their differences or identify the “correct” interpretation. in so doing the authors open up rather than foreclose the possibility for a constructive discussion. each book chapter covers a chapter of the gospel. after presenting the nrsv translation (with occasional suggestions for alternative translations), the authors offer an exegetical commentary on sub-sections of each chapter. the writing is clear and free from extensive scholarly apparatus, and the book includes just enough by the way of footnotes (and a twenty-page bibliography) to provide the interested reader with guidance for further study. at times the book has an almost midrashic quality (e.g., “a third reading,” “or it could mean,” “alternatively,” “or perhaps”), offering a series of possible readings without judging which is the correct one. alongside the narrative commentary, the volume includes supplemental sections marked “a closer look,” which contain extended discussions of historical and redactional topics, and “bridging the horizons,” where the authors probe how the ancient text can speak to present-day issues. while the volume covers the entire gospel, it devotes considerable space to the treatment of jews and judaism and how christian writers, ancient and modern, have interpreted these texts. despite these disagreements, the authors are united in their commitment to correct many traditional christian (mis)understandings about jews and judaism. throughout the commentary, they take time to explain (to a presumably primarily christian readership) jewish practices and traditions (e.g., sabbath, ritual purity, gender and legal testimony, the temple), and in so doing refute various antijewish interpretations. for instance, in the story of the woman with osteoporosis (lk 13:10-17), the authors reject the traditional christian view that jewish society would have marginalized such a woman and that jesus remedied this inequity. the authors note that such a triumphalist interpretation is itself disabling (p. 369). the story is about the defeat of satan and not a critique of judaism or of the synagogue (p. 372). parables receive particularly close attention. the authors note how these multivalent words ascribed to jesus “have been used by scholars...to set up judaism as a negative foil over and against which jesus and christianity can appear worthwhile. such readings are not only dependent on and promulgators of anti-jewish teaching, they are not necessary in order to find profound meaning in the parables” (p. 374). time and again the authors critique modern interpreters who speak of jews as slaves to a wrathful god and encumbered by works-righteousness (p. 426), who denigrate jewish culture (p. 421), who misrepresent or misunderstand the practices of ritual purity (pp. 390, 421, 491), or who ascribe negative characteristics such as blindness to jews (p. 418). their criticisms extend even to such respected theologians as dietrich bonhoeffer and karl barth for pernicious associations they made between judas and jews (pp. 58285). while the authors provide a sustained critique of anti-jewish readings, there are some rare misses. in discussing the different ways that jews and christians read scripture, the authors approvingly cite a 2002 statement by the pontifical 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) biblical commission which notes that “the christian, in the light of christ and in the spirit, discovers in the text an additional meaning that was hidden there” (p. 663). this reference to a “hidden meaning” invisible to jews evokes the image introduced by paul in 2 corinthians of jews wearing a veil over their eyes when they read scripture. the commission, however well-intended, evokes the theme of jewish blindness that became a staple of ancient and medieval christian polemic and does not offer the benign interpretation it is given here. levine and witherington deserve our thanks for producing a commentary that is insightful and sensitive to these issues. one can only hope that readers will heed the authors’ advice not to ignore or neutralize the problematic nature of the text, but “to determine how to address a text that is open to supersessionist interpretations” (p. 404) and to recognize that “the negative stereotypes of jewish theology and practice need to be challenged” (p. 411). they even dip their toe into the turbulent waters of the israeli / palestinian conflict. when commenting on jesus’ condemnation of jerusalem, the authors quite calmly and sensibly call upon their christian readers to become better informed about the modern situation and to hear these words and seek a path of “mutual recognition of both jewish and palestinian claims to the land, and for peace” (pp. 383-84). while the analysis of both authors deserves careful consideration, i (a jewish reader) ultimately find levine’s description of luke’s emphasis on discontinuity and willingness to engage in anti-jewish views more convincing. as noted in the commentary, luke’s soteriology dispenses with observance of jewish practices and traditions and values loyalty to jesus above all (p. 448). it is fair to say that luke views the correct posture of worship to be prostrating oneself at jesus’ feet rather than sacrificing at the temple (p. 473). even if we acknowledge that the gospel speaks in a voice of prophetic critique and that jesus offers words of forgiveness, it is hard to see any validation for or ongoing engagement with disbelieving jews. god’s community and future hope for salvation rests with members of “the way” (i.e., nascent christianity). this does not mean that jews cannot participate, but not as jews. the volume does not settle the question of whether the gospel is or is not anti-jewish. that is not its intention, and such a task may not even be possible. perhaps a more fruitful approach to the gospel would be to question the appropriate or legitimate limits of interpretation. the authors touch upon this issue by noting “the claim that luke is anti-jewish gets no traction from many readers who are invested in the sanctity of the sacred text” (p. 329). the statement comes off as an axiom, without explaining why it is true or whether it should be true. is it not possible to imagine that a religiously committed christian reader could acknowledge certain passages as problematic or even wrong and still hold it to be sacred and authoritative? many contemporary jews find all manner of objectionable statements in the torah (e.g., the approval of slavery; claims that sexual relations between two men is an abomination) but continue to value the text for personal and spiritual guidance. it would have been interesting to have the authors explore this issue more fully. gilbert: levine and witherington’s the gospel of luke 4 reading the back and forth between levine and witherington reminded me of a story told about rabbi simcha bunim of przysucha who carried two slips of paper, one in each pocket. on one he wrote, “for my sake the world was created”; on the other he wrote, “i am but dust and ashes.” he would take out each slip of paper as necessary, as a reminder to himself of his (and humanity’s) complex nature. perhaps we might think of the commentary as a way for christian readers to remind themselves of the spiritual nourishment available from the gospel but also of the text’s darker side. like rabbi simcha’s slips of paper, the commentary offers both spiritual affirmation and criticism. these features are not in competition with or do negate each another, but help the reader to explore the complexity of the text and the responsibility that one has as a reader. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review john connelly from enemy to brother: the revolution in catholic teaching on the jews, 1933-1965 (cambridge, massachusetts and london: harvard university press, 2012), 376 pp. john borelli, georgetown university connelly writes at the end of his introduction, “the way to nostra aetate was not straight, but involved bends in the road, snags, and repeated detours along well-worn but ultimately circuitous paths of anti-judaism” (p. 10). this is exactly what he expertly demonstrates by looking in great detail at the lives and interactions of a host of jews and christians in the three decades preceding the declaration’s promulgation. doing so, he provides the most significant account to date of how the 1965 conciliar text came to say what it eventually said about jews and their relation to the church. connelly’s major, but not only, contribution is bringing to light especially what happened in the circle of german-speaking theologians and bible scholars. here he found the debates and then the revolution in seeing jews not as enemies but as elder brothers, first in the reflections of theologian karl thieme as he focused on the letter to the romans. connelly tells the story with drama and excitement and makes available much new information for those who cannot access the extensive german sources as well as other archival materials. an important question for a study of this intensity is where to begin. the roots of anti-judaism in catholic teaching and theology run deep into the early centuries. anti-judaism is found throughout the reformation and early enlightenment. bruno bauer published die judenfrage in 1843, which more accurately translates as “the problem of the jews,” but even the studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) inspirational reformer edmund burke offered an anti-jewish interpretation of the french revolution in 1790. connelly chose to begin his study in 1933, the year hermann muckermann, a promoter of eugenics, was forced by nazis to resign the directorship of the kaiser wilhelm institute for being insufficiently pro-nazi. it was also the year catholic theologian karl adam began to consider adolf hitler an ally in bringing protestants and catholics together in a united germany. a trail-blazer for a more inclusive christian church, he earlier had dejudaized mary from “hateful energies and tendencies that we condemn in full-blooded jews” (p. 19). (karl rahner and yves congar later honored him in a festschrift in 1951.) this was the year racism became a doctrine of totalitarian germany. it was the year dr. albert niedermeyer fled his medical practice after rejecting eugenics and sterilization, but judged the nazi boycott of jews a sign of divine justice when pius xi proclaimed 1933 a holy year of the redemption. in 1933, bishop johannes maria gföllner declared it impossible to be a good catholic and a good national socialist, though mainly because of nazi radical antisemitism, which he contrasted with a justifiable anti-judaism. above all reasons, it was from about 1933 that “a small band of catholics, mostly émigrés of jewish or protestant origin, began staging a vigorous opposition to racism and racist antisemitism” in various places (p. 34). they were soon to be overtaken by hitler’s legions, and then continued working in concert after the war during the two decades up to and including the second vatican council. individuals and groups played a prominent role in changing catholic views of jews in the decades before the council. connelly describes the road to the “freiburg circle,” which began publishing the freiburger rundbrief in 1948. he also gives some attention to a french-speaking circle that included paul démann, a brother of sion and originally a hungarian jew, who began publishing cahiers sioniens in 1947 with fellow converts geza vermes and renée bloch. vermes and démann would eventually return to jewish life, but they first studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr made contributions to improving catholic views of jews right up to the convening of vatican ii. démann might well have influenced cardinal achille liénart to write a pastoral letter, “la question juive et la conscience chrétienne,” for lent 1960. (liénart later led the takeover of vatican ii from curia control by speaking from the board of presidents and making the motion for a point of order at the beginning of the first general congregation on october 13, 1962.) among french speakers, one must include the converts jacques maritain and his wife raïssa, and their inspiration, the beggar novelist, léon bloy (whom pope francis is known to quote). french speakers also included the jewish scholar jules isaac and those christians and jews in his circle, l'amitié judéo-chrétiènne de france, founded in 1948 with its journal, sens. also, there was a fribourg / basel contingent that included thieme as well as charles journet, a regular correspondent with maritain. paul vi, pope during the last few years of the council, acknowledged that both influenced him and asked for their interventions on the text of nostra aetate. in the swiss circle of those whose views and interventions influenced the deliberations were protestants oscar cullmann and karl barth, jewish philosopher ernst ludwig ehrlich, and the dominican jean de menasce, a convert from judaism. the names are many and the biographies and intersection of lives are complicated. wandering among these circles and eventually finding refuge from nazism at seton hall university in new jersey is john m. oesterreicher, a jewish convert to catholicism, who then returns to these circles, first in consultations after the war and then as a peritus working on nostra aetate. connelly devotes well-spent time tracing the journey of oesterreicher. it is oesterreicher’s narrative of the development of the document that most english speakers know. connelly recounts his flight across europe and then his radical change from a jewish convert managing the pauluswerk in vienna, a missionary outreach to jews, with its publication die erfülling, to his post-conciliar support for christian zionism. studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 9 (2014) by telling and retelling their stories and those of many more, connelly widens the narrative on how vatican ii came to say what it did about jews. he begins with early twentieth-century racism and catholic attitudes toward it, the rise of nazism among the german people, catholic efforts to combat racism and antisemitism, and the complicated aspects of the papacies of pius xi and xii with regard to what was happening to jews in europe. connelly weaves in the story of the attempted 1938 encyclical on racism and antisemitism of pius xi, telling of the pope's personally enlisting the american jesuit and champion of interracial justice, john lafarge, to lead the effort, and then asking jesuit minister general wlodimierz ledóchowski for additional help. ledóchowski assigned austrian jesuit gustav gundlach, an expert on the church’s teachings on the jews to work with ryan. one need only consult gundlach’s entry on “antisemitism” in the 1930 lexikon für theologie und kirche to see the problem. their only partially enlightened efforts, shaped by an implicitly anti-jewish theology, were subverted by the ambivalent ledóchowski. he somehow held up the text and brought in others to revise it, for he feared that it might misrepresent the benefits of national socialism over communism and anger hitler. we do not know for sure which draft the ailing pius xi might have seen, for it was destroyed with his personal papers following the election of pius xii. evidence indicates that it would have been an obstacle for the framers of nostra aetate. the heart of connelly’s book then comes in the sixth of his nine chapters, “conversion in the light of auschwitz,” when he shows that karl thieme led the way in giving a positive reading to the letter to the romans, especially chapters 9-11. this is where connelly traces the crucial events that put the right people in conversations that yielded insights that later shaped the council, such as the “emergency” meeting in seelisberg in the summer of 1947 and a series of other meetings leading to the dutch msgr. anton ramselaar’s convening international symposia at apeldoorn in the netherlands. (ramselaar worked parallel to msgr. johannes willebrands and his catholic conference on ecumenical questions—both studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr protected by the dutch bishops.) what resulted from these discussions were two related insights: a positive insight, that romans affirmed that judaism still has a role in salvation, and a negative insight, that any distinction between antisemitism and anti-judaism no longer held after auschwitz. thieme’s conclusions influenced others, especially oesterreicher, and would be presented by others because he succumbed to cancer in july 1963, well before a draft made it the council floor. a chapter on new christian understandings of the jewish covenant with god serves as a prelude to connelly’s chapter on vatican ii. it is here that he identifies the new and contending perspectives with which a growing number of christians and jews wrestled in the first two decades after the war. the chapter is relevant to discussions today. connelly does not cite latin sources, and his account of the draft “on the jews” lacks precision that the acta and other conciliar sources provide, though he had access to the minutes of the secretariat, usually in french. even when he cites the 1928 suppression of the priestly organization amici israël because of its remarkable condemnation of racial antisemitism in a decree issued by cardinal rafael merry del val, then secretary of the holy office, he uses german sources. (cardinal bea would later refer indirectly to this earlier official precedent.) a strength of connelly’s work—providing a solid account of how the conversion both of individuals and of their ideas is revealed by german sources—is a weakness when retelling the conciliar story about the draft that others do more precisely using the acta and other official sources. some may find his final chapter, on continuing disputes over a catholic mission to the jews, the most provocative. it is most current for relations between christians and jews fifty years after the council in naming the lingering problems, offenses, misunderstandings, and unresolved questions from the council. nostra aetate was in many ways the barest of beginnings for the catholic church in re-defining relations with jews. however, the story of the declaration (managed skillfully by studies in christian-jewish relations 6 scjr 9 (2014) cardinal bea and assisted by jan willebrands and the bishops, consultors, and staff of the secretariat for promoting christian unity), as a conciliar exercise, unavoidably took on a life of its own. before a first draft was shared with the council fathers there were calls by bishops and theologians, missionaries and others to include others, especially muslims. while the fourth paragraph on the jews remains the heart of the final text, the declaration managed to accomplish considerably more for interreligious relations. with so much detail, so many lives discussed and so many conversations and writings woven into connelly’s narrative, a few mistakes are unavoidable. the decree of the holy office suppressing amici israël was not a “papal” act, though pius xi approved it (pp. 96-97, 100). connelly is under the impression (p. 101) that pius xii might have published the draft encyclical on the deceased pius xi’s “desk.” precedent not content would have dictated against it. the benedictine abbot leo rudloff, brought on the secretariat by bea to chair a working group, was not a convert (p. 179). pope john xxiii did not request the draft that would eventually became nostra aetate. bea met with him, three months after both had been visited by jules isaac, and bea recommended that the secretariat facilitate relations of jews with the church during the council preparations (pp. 240-1). oesterreicher did not author singly any of the secretariat reports and eventual drafts (p. 243). actually, gregory baum prepared by himself the first report for february 1961. by then, oesterreicher (not in july 1960 [p. 236]) and rudloff were appointed to the secretariat, the latter, being an abbot and thus a council father, could chair the working group of four, with george tavard as the fourth. (tavard once remarked that they were called “the american commission,” though none of them were born in america. rudloff spent half his time at weston priory in vermont and half in jerusalem as abbot of dormition monastery.) others joined in the drafting work as the council unfolded and the modi of bishops were received at various stages. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 7 www.bc.edu/scjr most of these are small points. the contribution of connelly in tracking the evolution and revolution in catholic thinking in the decades leading up to the council and nostra aetate, especially among the german speakers, but also among others, is a great accomplishment. this is a very important book, written with style and insight, and now a valuable resource for understanding the history of christian-jewish relations in the twentieth century and nostra aetate. 1 scjr 13, no. 1 (2018): 1-12 luther, lutherans, and jews: looking to the second five hundred years 1 peter a. pettit peterpettit@muhlenberg.edu muhlenberg college, allentown, pa 18104 martin luther’s anti-jewish record and its legacy we begin with the awareness that the topic of luther and the jews is hardly a new one. some of luther’s contemporaries were troubled by the invective he poured out on a people with whom he was not personally well acquainted. 2 it can be argued that luther’s own writings on the jews were not especially influential over subsequent centuries, 3 yet it is clear that his attitudes and the influence of his theological paradigms helped to shape the familiar modern forms of anti-judaism. among jewish communities, it was luther’s anti-jewish recommendations that were best known, prompting fr. edward flannery’s famous metaphorical observation: the blood-stained pages that christians have torn from their history books have been memorized by jews. 4 when the architects and propagandists of nazi’s proposed final solution needed them, luther and his writings stood ready to be exploited, and they were. 5 sadly, they have continued to be trumpeted by neonazis and other bigots down to our own day. 1 i am grateful to the institutions and hosts whose invitations prompted these reflections and the specific research on which they are grounded. please see the endnote for a complete list. in each venue i was warmly welcomed and enjoyed the reward and stimulation of lively discussion, leading to my own growth and the continual focusing, sharpening, and clarifying of the ideas. all remaining diffuseness, dullness, and murkiness are, of course, my own responsibility; further correction and improvement by the readers will be most welcome. 2 see hans hillerbrand, “introduction,” in the annotated luther, vol. 5, christian life in the world, ed. hans hillerbrand (minneapolis: fortress press, 2017), 443. see also brooks schramm, “introduction,” and kirsi i. stjerna, “introduction,” in martin luther, the bible, and the jewish people: a reader, ed. brooks schramm and kirsi i. stjerna (minneapolis: fortress press, 2012), 5, 24. 3 see johannes wallmann, “the reception of luther’s writings on the jews from the reformation to the end of the 19 th century,” in stepping-stones to further jewish-lutheran relationships: key lutheran statements, ed. harold h. ditmanson (minneapolis: augsburg, 1990), 120-136. 4 edward h. flannery, the anguish of the jews: twenty-three centuries of antisemitism, a stimulus book (mahwah, nj: paulist press, 1985), 1. 5 see “the handbook of the german christians (1933),” in a church undone: documents from the german christian faith movement, 1932-1940, selected, translated, and introduced by mary m. solberg (minneapolis: fortress press 2015), 163-200, esp.: thesis 20 of the church of saxony (175); the pettit: luther, lutherans, and jews 2 to their credit, many lutheran churches – particularly in germany and north america – have recognized the effects of luther’s writings and denounced them. on the occasion of luther’s 500 th birthday in 1983, building on a succession of lutheran-jewish dialogues both internationally and in many regional churches, the lutheran world federation issued a call to its member churches to delve more deeply into the issues. 6 that 500 th anniversary provided ample opportunity for a closer examination and assessment also by many scholars. in the resulting give and take, debates about what seemed for a long time to be a shift in attitude from the “early luther” to the “later luther” have swirled around historical, theological, psychological, and rhetorical factors. important distinctions have been drawn between his attitude toward jews and his attitude towards judaism, showing a greater continuity throughout his career in his antipathy to jewish belief and practice. 7 beyond the scholarly debates, however, the churches have recognized an undeniable moral obligation to renounce the defamation and abuse that luther heaped on the jewish people and their religion. lutheran and christian remediations the evangelical lutheran church in america – my own church home – in 1993 voted to address the issue and in 1994 it issued its declaration to the jewish community. 8 the declaration has taken its place among a wide range of christian statements addressing not only luther’s vitriol but also the longer history of christian anti-jewish hermeneutics and theology. substantial and valuable collections of these statements have been published in both english and german. 9 they exposition of “the german prophet” by anna ilgenstein-ratterfeld, who casts hitler as the antitype of luther (179-198, esp. 196-198); and, “godesburg declaration,” §3a (445-446). see also susannah heschel, the aryan jesus: christian theologians and the bible in nazi germany (princeton: princeton university press, 2008), esp. 81, 173-174; and doris bergen, “storm troopers of christ,” in betrayal: german churches and the holocaust, ed. robert p. ericksen and susannah heschel (minneapolis: fortress press, 1999) 47. 6 “in christ hope for the world,” proceedings of the seventh assembly, lwf report no. 19/20 (geneva: lutheran world federation, 1985), 255-256; excerpted in a shift in jewish-lutheran relations? a lutheran contribution to christian-jewish dialogue with a focus on antisemitism and anti-judaism today, lwf documentation no. 48, ed. wolfgang grieve and peter prove (geneva: lutheran world federation, 2003), 199-200. 7 see schramm, “introduction,” 9. 8 “declaration of the evangelical lutheran church in america to the jewish community,” in bridges: documents of the christian-jewish dialogue, volume two: building a new relationship (19862013), a stimulus book, ed. franklin sherman (mahwah, nj: paulist press, 2014), 81-82; available online in pdf format at http://elca.org/faith/ecumenical-and-inter-religious-relations/interreligious-relations/jewish-relations. 9 franklin sherman, bridges: documents of the christian-jewish dialogue, vol. 1: the road to reconciliation, and vol. 2: building a new relationship, a stimulus book (mahwah, nj: 2011-2014); die kirchen und das judentum, band 1: dokumente von 1945 bis 1985, ed. rolf rendtorff and hans hermann henrix (munich: chr. kaiser, 1988), band 2: dokumente von 1986 bis 2000, ed. hans hermann henrix and wolfgang kraus (paderborn/gütersloh: bonifatius, 2001), and band 3: dokumente von 2000 bis heute, ed. hans hermann henrix and reinhold boschki (online publication at https://www.nostra-aetate.uni-bonn.de/kirchliche-dokumente/online-publikation-die-kirchen-undhttps://www.nostra-aetate.uni-bonn.de/kirchliche-dokumente/online-publikation-die-kirchen-und-das-judentum 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) present a common set of reflections that are now widely recognized and noncontroversial. i frame them in five “rs” (with due recognition to mary boys, who published her 6 rs simultaneously with my first work on these, though we never consulted one another about them. 10 i am sure that many who teach these matters have developed similar frameworks): repent of the harm done to jews by the church and christian rulers and societies over centuries repudiate the teaching of contempt and adversus judaeos hermeneutics that have characterized christian theology and catechesis reaffirm god’s irrevocable covenant with israel, understood as the jewish people rediscover the jewish roots of christianity, including the jewish characters of jesus and paul recommit to partnership with the jewish people in opposition to antisemitism and in common work for justice and peace, for a righteous society, for what has come to be referenced in many jewish-christian dialogues as “tikkun olam” the work of remediation in regard to luther’s controversial theology and combative style has also occupied lutherans in recent decades in relation to the roman catholic community. one element of that process of dialogue and theological rapprochement offers a meaningful contribution to lutheran-jewish relations. in 1999 the vatican’s council for promoting christian unity and the lutheran world federation signed a joint declaration on the doctrine of justification (jddj). 11 in luther’s writings, the opponents of the gospel were frequently an undifferentiated agglomeration of “jews, turks, heretics, and papists,” 12 all of whom he saw as claiming righteousness based on works and thus implying that “christ died in vain” (gal 2:21). this violated his doctrine of justification, which is the “first and chief article” of faith, the “ruler and judge of all other christian doctrines” in luther’s theology and the reformation (jddj 1). roman catholics, das-judentum). see also the online research collection of statements and documents at dialogika (http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements). 10 mary c. boys, has god only one blessing, a stimulus book (mahwah, nj: paulist press, 2000), 248. 11 the lutheran world federation and the roman catholic church, joint declaration on the doctrine of justification, english-language edition (grand rapids, mi: wm. b. eerdmans publ. co., 2000), available online in pdf format at http://elca.org/faith/ecumenical-and-inter-religiousrelations/bilateral. 12 schramm, “introduction,” 215, n. 14, relates, “the german linguist, dietz bering, has demonstrated that luther’s polemical vocabulary utilized against the jews, the pope, and the turk is essentially identical.” schramm references bering’s “gibt es bei luther einen antisemitischen wortschatz? zur widerlegung einer politischen legende,” zeitschrift für germanistische linguistik 17 (1989): 137-61; and the critique of him by osten-sacken, martin luther, 26-27. https://www.nostra-aetate.uni-bonn.de/kirchliche-dokumente/online-publikation-die-kirchen-und-das-judentum http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements http://elca.org/faith/ecumenical-and-inter-religious-relations/bilateral http://elca.org/faith/ecumenical-and-inter-religious-relations/bilateral pettit: luther, lutherans, and jews 4 as “papists,” were thus branded with the “legalist” and “pelagian” labels and portrayed as fundamentally opposed to the truth of luther’s gospel. the joint declaration and the three decades of dialogue the preceded its adoption fashion a common ground for the different lutheran and roman catholic emphases in the doctrine of justification. roman catholic emphases on human responsibility and the renewal of the justified in righteous living are affirmed by the lutheran church alongside the lutheran emphases on the sufficiency of god’s grace and the dangers of hubris and self-justification; so, too, the roman catholic church affirms core lutheran emphases alongside its own distinctive theological formulations. the respective, mutual condemnations of the council of trent and the lutheran confessions on these points are formally set aside in light of the joint declaration. in taking this step, the lutheran community implicitly also has addressed the theological content of luther’s opposition to judaism, which also centered on justification. luther was convinced that jews relied on their own works and the performance of the law to gain a right relationship with god. if the descendants of luther’s “papists” can be understood more generously and less polemically in their dialectical construal of grace and faithfulness, perhaps the descendants of luther’s “jews” can also be engaged in fresh ways. my colleague in bonn, andreas pangritz, and his teacher, friedrich-wilhelm marquardt, have challenged the jddj because it still asserts that “christ has fulfilled the law and … has overcome it” (§31). this, they argue, reinforces the fundamentally anti-jewish stance of christian self-understanding and leaves the church in its age-old supersessionist posture. in their view, by reaching common agreement on this characterization of christ as the solution to the “problem” of the law, lutherans and roman catholics tragically and inexcusably reinforce the church’s anti-judaism for a new ecumenical era. pangritz writes, “lutherans and roman catholics agreed in an anti-judaic understanding of justification by faith alone without works of the law…. it seems to me that the joint declaration has not taken account of the new perspectives on paul. therefore, it is not helpful in jewish-christian relations.” 13 while i grant that he is correct to note that the full assertion of jddj is that christ “has overcome [the law] as a way to salvation” (§31), i would draw a different conclusion regarding the larger issue. the jddj’s sentence addresses a christian neuralgia, not a jewish error. only those who think that jews believe that the law saves will read this as antijewish. they are mistaken in what they think, though, because jews do not believe that the law saves (if “saving” is even a meaningful category for the jewish community). jews do live by torah, but they are not saved by it. their sustaining relationship with god is established by god’s will and power, embodied both in the choosing of abraham and in the exodus and expressed throughout centuries as a 13 andreas pangritz, personal e-mail communication, june 28, 2017. pangritz points to the quoted phrase in §31 and notes: “in the appendix (sources) it explains: ‘according to pauline doctrine this refers to the way of the jewish (!) law as a path to salvation.’” 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) covenantal commitment to be israel’s god. no longer one among the many peoples of a world of babel, they are the people descended from abraham and sarah, called out by god to be a blessing. no longer the people of pharaoh as slaves in egypt, they become israel, the people of god, and the life of torah is given to characterize their life as god’s people. torah thus is no more the redemptive force which makes that faithful life in torah possible than “love one another” is the redemptive force that makes christian life in christ possible. the problem, then, lies not in the text of jddj, but with thinking that “[the law] as a way of salvation” refers to judaism. it is true that luther suffered from this misunderstanding, like virtually all of his contemporaries and not a few people today – perhaps even some of the authors of jddj. however, in jddj, lutherans have acknowledged that luther similarly misunderstood, or at least exaggerated, the degree to which the roman catholic hierarchy promoted law as the way to salvation. jddj specifically takes a step back from – or beyond – that mischaracterization, while allowing for differences in emphasis between lutherans and roman catholics. in that regard, rather than as a model for presenting paul’s understanding of the law, this statement can also be taken as a precedent for respecting another difference, here between the jewish emphasis on torah as the way of life and the lutheran emphasis on the grace by which god through faith makes any people the people of god (gal 3:6-9; rom 3:28-4:25). to return to the focal issue of lutheran responses to the church’s anti-jewish heritage: the churches have indeed reflected on the past and on changed realities in the present, expressing their contrition and desire for reconciliation with the jewish people. that is what the first five r’s of the past several decades have achieved. but their backward glance and spiritual audit only achieve so much. harold ditmanson, the prominent american lutheran interfaith leader who assembled “key lutheran statements” as stepping stones to further jewishlutheran relationships, said in his introduction to that collection in 1990: there is little gain in fixing sole or major responsibility on luther. that oversimplifies the problem…. the difficult task of reconsidering the traditional theology of replacement must be carried forward because we have come to recognize the unstable character of a position that is limited to or aims primarily at the goal of defusing antisemitism and treating jewish neighbors with respect and justice. 14 in the spirit of ditmanson’s wise counsel, i would suggest that there remain before us three more rs, beyond the five that have already shaped jewishchristian relations over the past half-century and more. the three additional rs will occupy the balance of this study. 14 harold ditmanson, stepping stones, 12-13. pettit: luther, lutherans, and jews 6 remaining remediations: reformulate, recognize, and reconcile the first remaining r is to reformulate christian theology. various individuals, over half a century now, have contributed elements of such reformulation. it seems to me, however, that the individual efforts have not yet coalesced into a christian theology that fully relinquishes the adversus judaeos hermeneutics which gave rise to the teaching of contempt. friedrich-wilhelm marquardt and paul van buren still stand as the pre-eminent figures in attempting to articulate such a theology most fully. 15 their work has been with us now for several decades and i wonder how many of the seminaries include them in the core curriculum – or at all? in the american context, the significance of this omission is not restricted to arcane theological studies. the fundamental dynamic of adversus judaeos hermeneutics is a splitting of human community and religious thought into dichotomies, so that understanding christianity requires first that one understand how it is not judaism. rosemary radford ruether’s classic article demonstrated that the splitting of prophetic speech is a key strategy of the adversus judaeos tradition. when early church theologians actualized the words of isaiah and jeremiah, amos and hosea, and other prophets of biblical israel, they taught that all the condemnations and judgment fall on the jews, while all the promises and restoration come to the church. 16 ”they taught” – and the church learned too well; the dynamic of splitting has become a hallmark of the western christian theological tradition. it is foundational to its understanding of sin and violence. whether with jung we want to go farther and suggest that it is fundamental to the structure of the human self, i will leave to others. for the church it is enough to recognize that its structures of theology can easily endorse such a pernicious worldview. “anathema sit” – it is condemned. how much of ecclesiastical history is littered with that comprehensive judgment? that splitting is also now the american experience in terms of race and religion. the black lives matter movement calls out systemic racism and there is a documented upsurge in religiously targeted bigotry and violence. it was in many ways the church and its supersessionist habits that taught americans how to in 15 on marquardt, see von elend und heimsuchung der theologie: prolegomena zur dogmatik (munich: chr. kaiser verlag, 1988) and andreas pangritz, “friedrich-wilhelm marquart: a theological-biographical sketch,“ in theological audacities: selected essays, friedrich-wilhelm marquardt, ed. andreas pangritz and paul s. chung, princeton theological monograph series (eugene, or: pickwick publications, 2010), esp. the bibliography in footnote 69, p. 248. on van buren, see a theology of the jewish-christian reality, 3 vols.: part 1: discerning the way; part 2: a christian theology of the people israel; and part 3: christ in context (san francisco: harper & row, 1980, 1983, 1988). 16 rosemary radford ruether, “the adversus judaeos tradition in the church fathers: the exegesis of christian anti-judaism,” in essential papers on judaism and christianity in conflict: from late antiquity to the reformation, ed. jeremy cohen (new york: new york university press, 1991), 174189. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) stall white supremacy as a structural tool of power. 17 the model can work with any group. when we begin with the dichotomy between “our” righteousness and “their” unrighteousness, our selective attention begins to see only the unrighteousness in the other. with any degree of power we can then impose an imperial definition on the other as categorically unrighteous, and soon a whole segment of humanity has become alienated from what we consider human. and once “they” are less than human, or other than human…. in trying to address this, i have to make an important distinction. on the one hand, christian faith teaches that there is no way to eradicate the sinfulness of this tendency. that is: no theology, no doctrinal purity, no new scholarship, no courageous confession will disentangle christians entirely from sinfulness. people will continue to live with the tendency to use everything – and particularly religion – to advance ourselves at the expense of others and in defiance of god. mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. an essential part of confession, however, is a commitment to the amendment of life, an earnest effort to live differently from what previously led to sinful acts. and in that regard that there is much to be gained from the new perspectives on paul. 18 one of the particular insights of that scholarly endeavor, also underway now for more than a half-century, is that paul recognized the emergent christian faith as the “new kid on the block.” unlike the circumstances in later christendom and even now in a post-christian era, it was not judaism that needed to be justified or affirmed. paul knew for certain the dignity and value of the jews before god, that “to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises” (rom 9:4 nrsv). what did need explaining was this new experience of the god of israel working outside the community to offer covenantal life to the gentiles. “or is god the god of jews only?” as he asks in romans 3:29. paul’s career is marked throughout by his struggle to show how god’s gracious will, which jews knew in the faithfulness of abraham and redemption from slavery in egypt, also now extends to gentiles in the faithfulness of christ and redemption from slavery to sin. or, as the evangelische kirche in deutschland said in its synod in november 2016: “the trust in god’s promise to israel and the confession of jesus christ belong together. the mystery of god’s revelation encompasses both.” 19 gentiles became the vast majority in the church very quickly after paul’s time and so it remains. when the church realizes that god brought gentiles into covenantal life not in a zero-sum victory over israel but as an outworking of 17 see james h. cone, the cross and the lynching tree (maryknoll, ny: orbis books, 2011) and willie james jennings, the christian imagination: theology and the origins of race (new haven: yale university press, 2011). 18 for distinctively lutheran perspectives within the voluminous bibliography on this intellectual movement, see the new perspective on paul, ed. david c. ratke (minneapolis: lutheran university press, 2012). 19 the evangelical church in germany, “…‘he keeps faith forever.’ (psalm 146:6): a declaration concerning jews and christians as witnesses of god’ faithfulness,” §3, http://www.ccjr.us/dialogikaresources/documents-and-statements/protestant-churches/eur/1402-ekd-2016nov9. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/protestant-churches/eur/1402-ekd-2016nov9 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/protestant-churches/eur/1402-ekd-2016nov9 pettit: luther, lutherans, and jews 8 god’s commitment to israel, then the paradigm christians can offer the world will change. the focus of the christian challenge and calling will be able to shift. no longer will the church feel compelled to defend its truth against assault by another’s falsehood; it will be freed to seek the meaning of christian truth as it relates to god’s faithfulness to those who do not share that understanding of truth. it will be able to shift from honing the ability to convince others to be christian to clarifying for the christian community itself and for others just who christians are and how they engage with a pluralistic world. that has implications for reformulating all of christian theology, not as piecemeal modifications but from the core outward. 20 a second r that remains is the recognition that “the land” is integral to the promise to israel and bears intrinsic meaning for the jewish people. this is a fraught arena in the context of contemporary geopolitics and internal christian diversity. by no means can the church simply say that god gave the land to israel and therefore the current state of israel is uniquely sanctioned by the divine will. neither, though, can it say simply that present-day israel has nothing to do with the jews as a covenantal people of god and nothing to do with the promises of god to israel in scripture. to be frank about it, the christian community over history has not exactly been expert at working out the theological meaning or righteous management of political sovereignty. the long history of pre-modern christendom as a religiopolitical project brought very mixed outcomes. as the modern mentality emerged in autonomous nation-states, the separation of church and state that partly reflects luther’s two-kingdom theology has not improved the record very much. the oppressiveness of pre-modern imperialism and subsequent colonialism has simply given way to a rampant modern individualistic humanism in which the church has become nearly irrelevant. and now the capacity to engage seriously with the dangers of both models is smothered by the urgency of a conflict between them, as though they are the only choices. the church needs to re-examine the biblical witness to discern a more promising path for political society. part of that re-examination will deal with the creator of heaven and earth making promises of land and progeny and sovereignty to a particular people, israel, but not exclusively to that people. “are you not like the ethiopians to me, o israel? did i not bring up israel from egypt, and the philistines from caphtor, and the arameans from kir?” asks the lord through the prophet amos (9:7). again, and in this regard, “can god be the god of jews only? is [god] not the god of gentiles also?” (romans 3:29). the bible suggests a dialectic between the particularity of israel’s experience and the divine commitment to all people and the whole of creation. somewhere in that dialectic dwells a salutary framework of recognition that does not confer the privilege of exceptionalism; the present challenge is to articulate it judiciously. 20 for an example of the usefulness of the deus absconditus tradition, see my “christ alone, the hidden god and lutheran exclusivism,” word & world 11:2 (spring 1991): 190-198. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) i would suggest that such a framework casts god’s work with biblical israel as a paradigm of god’s will for all nations, extending the promises and privileges of god’s favor to other nations without removing them from israel. previous efforts to apply the model of israel more widely have typically taken the course of universalizing and spiritualizing, so that israel’s particularity loses its meaning. but there is nothing in scripture to suggest that god’s favor, extended to other nations, requires the eclipse of israel’s blessings. it is the same as with redemption: the promise to gentiles need not, and indeed cannot, eclipse the covenant with israel. when god called israel into nationhood it was with the expectation that the earth had a place on it for them; so too with the philistines and the arameans. and so with all nations – when god calls any nation into existence in history it is with the expectation that they will have a place on the planet. thus, on the one hand, israel retains its particularity in its paradigmatic role as the indispensable scriptural model; on the other hand, under god’s creative and providential power, every nation – including now the palestinian nation – enjoys a divine dignity that stands together with israel’s. 21 thus, my first two rs that remain for remediating the church’s anti-jewish heritage: reformulating theology and recognizing the integral place of land in the biblical covenant. as we approach the third remaining r, reconciliation, it will be helpful to take one more backward glance: at the context in which luther’s vitriol was catalyzed into fuel for the “final solution to the jewish question.” the jewish question that nazism sought to “solve” was a nineteenth-century question, originally put to the jewish people. it was, in fact, put directly in the form of twelve questions to the “assembly of jewish notables” convened by napoleon in 1806. 22 taken together, napoleon’s set of questions asked whether jews could live as loyal citizens of the empire. the question is ironic in retrospect, since jewish people had, for more than a thousand years, effectively lived as loyal citizens of dozens of different political entities across europe, north africa, and the middle east, successfully adapting themselves to local circumstance in myriad ways. with the rise of the modern nation-state, the old question presented itself in a fresh way. once again, both in their explicit reply to napoleon and in their accommodation to the polities not only of france but of every european country and the united states and virtually everywhere they lived, jews have presented the answer in the affirmative. indeed, it was the highly successful integration of the jewish community into modern german society that made it both the convenient target and the incredulous victim of nazism’s genocidal condemnation. tragic as that irony is and complicit as many lutherans were in exploiting it, the jewish answer to the old question nevertheless seems to be well established. in 21 see my “theologizing about zionism,” christian century 134:18 (august 30, 2017): 20-25. 22 baruch mevorah, “assembly of jewish notables,” encyclopaedia judaica, ed. michael berenbaum and fred skolnik, 2 nd edition (detroit: macmillan reference usa, 2007), 2: 599-602. pettit: luther, lutherans, and jews 10 the past half-century lutherans, along with many others, have acknowledged that truth. yet there is a new “jewish question,” i would suggest. this question confronts not the jews, but the churches first and then more generally the western society which the churches have so deeply shaped. it is the church, in the person of augustine, who first framed the categorical otherness of jews in theological terms, and it is the church in concert with christian rulers throughout the medieval period, who expanded that otherness to characterize jews as religious, social, economic, and political aliens. in so doing, christians have bequeathed to western culture a broad sense of unease and discomfort with jewish identity. this reaches beyond the specific foundational issues in christian hermeneutics and theology to which the first two of the remaining r’s, reformulating theology and recognizing the place of the land in the biblical witness, are addressed. it moves to the level of the arguably subconscious place that jews have taken in the western christian worldview – a place that david nirenberg has well documented in his expansive book on antisemitism. 23 this new jewish question is my third and final remaining r. it asks whether christians and other members of western liberal democracies can reconcile with the jewish people as a normal part of their worldview and society. more particularly, can they remove the stigma of the alien that has attached to the jewish community, allowing for the particularities of jewish identity without fearing it as a subversive force? can they normalize jews in a worldview that also still leaves a distinctive jewish identity intact, not having to erase it in a bland universalism or post-ethnic sensibility? where are the resources, theologically and communally, that will enable engagement with jews as real neighbors, unburdened by the rhetorical and metaphysical roles the west has required them to play for so many centuries? this issue of reconciliation, the third remaining r, awaits further attention. in many ways, it is a question more for therapy than theology. in the case of individual psychic and emotional ghosts, we know that analyzing and understanding where they came from is only a first step; working out the catharsis and developing new emotional patterns without their neurotic interruptions is a longer, more complicated, more embodied and holistic process. so, too, with the ghosts of jews that have been conjured collectively over centuries. we engage the process only partially through the intellect, for it requires also the shaping of new experiences, the commitment to building real relationships, the cultivation of respect and regard, the hard work of better communications. luther was speaking in sacramental terms when he commended such engagement as “the mutual conversation and consolation” of the community. 24 it is the experience of god’s presence and the discernment of truth not in liturgical rites or discursive proclamation, but in human interaction. luther himself had lit 23 david nirenberg, anti-judaism: the western tradition (new york: w. w. norton, 2014). 24 martin luther, “smalcald articles,” in the book of concord: the confessions of the evangelical lutheran church, ed. robert kolb and timothy j. wengert (minneapolis: fortress press, 2000), 319. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) tle interaction with jews in sixteenth-century wittenberg; the opportunities for encounter that he did have were burdened both by his own theological conundrums and by cultural norms that had been centuries in the making. his record is not the place to turn for a shining example of what is needed now. but in the “better judgment” of his full theological project, there remain resources for lutherans and others to use in moving forward. 25 conclusion: seeking new horizons of the lutheran heritage the church’s complicity in the shoah shattered christian illusions about the benign purity of long-standing theological models and opened up a self-critique precisely at the point of the church’s central confessional claims. how deeply does the adversus judaeos hermeneutic shape the formulations of central symbols like the creeds, ecclesiological claims to be the “new” or “true” israel, affirmations of fulfillment in regard to god’s promises to biblical israel, and christological images (to name but a few of the more obvious loci for reconsideration)? can the central theological article of the reformation, such as justification by grace through faith, with its corollaries of the faithfulness of god, the hiddenness of god, and the freedom of the gospel, guide lutherans, especially, in developing a new hermeneutical pattern that will carry the church beyond supersession and separation to affirm christian continuity with and relationship to the jewish community? the statelessness of europe’s jews under nazism and their vulnerability to the resulting dehumanization cast the state of israel and the “landedness” of god’s promise to biblical israel and its modern jewish progeny in a particular light. that bleak period also stands as a continuing challenge to any christian defense of a purely supranational community as an adequate protector of human rights. what relationship shall now be discerned between land and people in the biblical and historical witness of the people israel to their national identity? can the reformation emphases of sola scriptura and the sola gratia, rather than closing off others’ insights, open a way to understanding a living word and abundant grace that shape and empower different peoples with diverse and particular vocations as witnesses to god’s ultimate sovereignty? the globalized community and instantaneous communications technologies of our times afford ample opportunity to engage with jews in their authentic, kaleidoscopic self-expression even for those who have little occasion to encounter jews in person. how long can false, fabricated projections of jewish identity, which have cultivated antisemitic animus and a diffuse gentile discomfort with jews and judaism, stand before the complex human realities that are now availa 25 see eric gritsch, martin luther’s anti-semitism: against his better judgment (grand rapids, mi: wm. b. eerdmans publ. co., 2012) and the 2016 pamphlet by the evangelical lutheran church in america’s consultative panel on lutheran-jewish relations, “luther and contemporary interreligious relations,” available online in pdf format at http://elca.org/resources/ecumenical-andinter-religious-relations#interreligious. http://elca.org/resources/ecumenical-and-inter-religious-relations#interreligious http://elca.org/resources/ecumenical-and-inter-religious-relations#interreligious pettit: luther, lutherans, and jews 12 ble on our many screens? the reformation carried a conviction that the gospel always comes to people from outside themselves and that critical reason is a partner with holy scripture in discerning truth; can these build courage in individual christians to open their senses and their hearts to a community too long obscured by doctrinal denunciations and rejected as essentially anachronistic? with these questions i can offer here only hints of the particular ways in which lutheran themes and theology might open the church to new horizons in its relationship with the jewish people and with judaism. other christian communities will contribute their own resources, and the jewish community will be a critical, indispensable interlocutor in the process. as the next 500 years of the lutheran witness rise ahead, lutherans can turn the tools of their theological tradition toward fashioning effective responses to the remaining challenges bequeathed by luther and the longer church tradition he conveyed, and fashion a new lutheran heritage of engagement with jews and judaism. endnote: herewith the colleagues and communities whose welcome engagement contributed to this article: my primary theological partner of the past half-dozen years at the shalom hartman institute, dr. marcie lenk; my co-teacher in the 2017 minicourse of the institute for jewish-christian understanding of muhlenberg college, ms. jude-laure denis, and her posse and thought partners at power northeast in allentown pa; the kripke center of creighton university and its director, prof. ron simkins, as well as prof. leonard greenspoon, beth el synagogue, and st. michael’s lutheran church, all of omaha; the international council of christians and jews, its president, dr. philip cunningham, and the 2017 annual conference program co-chairs, ms. liliane apotheker and the rev. barbara rudolph, as well as my co-presenter, prof. andreas pangritz; luther crest community, allentown pa, and its chaplain, the rev. virginia heimer; pairs of the southeastern pennsylvania elca synod and its convener, the rev. john kerr; the brother john g. driscoll professorship of iona college, new rochelle ny, and its incumbent, prof. elena procario-foley, along with her partners in the shared roots, divergent paths program from the westchester chapter of the american jewish committee and my co-presenter, dr. malka simkovitch; the institute of judaeo-christian studies at seton hall university and its director, fr. lawrence frizzell; the religion studies department of muhlenberg college and its chair, prof. william gruen; and, finally, my peer reviewers and editor at scjr. scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-3 norbert reck der jude jesus und die zukunft des christentums: zum riss zwischen dogma und bibel: ein lösungsvorschlag (stuttgart: matthias grünewald verlag, 2019), 182 pp. katharina von kellenbach kvonkellenbach@smcm.edu st. mary’s college of maryland, st mary’s city, md 20686 norbert reck is well-known in germany for his writings on post-holocaust roman catholic theology and jewish-christian relations. most recently he coordinated the collaborative project of the “gesprächskreis juden und christen beim zentralkomitee der deutschen katholiken” [discussion group of jews and christians at the central committee of germans catholics]. the group produced von abba bis zorn gottes [from abba to the wrath of god] (patmos 2017), which moves alphabetically through a variety of topics in order to dislodge anti-jewish tropes. in der jude jesus und die zukunft des christentums, he links the failure of christianity to address anti-judaism more broadly with its loss of credibility in europe. he argues that the eradication of theological anti-judaism is a matter of christian survival rather than mere decency and propriety toward the jews after the shoah. the vitality and integrity of christian doctrine and practice is at stake. addressing the roots of anti-judaism can revitalize christian observance in germany where church membership hovers just around fifty percent and weekly worship attendance is in the single digits. how did this happen, he asks, and how is it connected to theological anti-judaism? to understand the seeds of this crisis, reck turns to the 19th century. the first three chapters chronicle the rise of historical consciousness that ruptured the unity between dogmatic theology and biblical exegesis, which increasingly embraced the historical critical method. the christ of faith and the historical jesus were pulled apart, as scholars and their audiences critically examined both “what happened” and also how the creation, the exodus, the virgin birth, the miracles, and the resurrection could have occurred in history. in the united states, this tension led to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and the rise of protestant fundamentalism, with its creationism and dogged resistance to natural science and history. in europe, the von kellenbach: norbert reck’s der jude jesus 2 bible was “demythologized” and stripped of wonder and enchantment. many left the churches and retreated into skepticism and secularism. the historical realization that jesus was born a jew, taught as a jew (within the matrix of second temple judaism), and died as a jew prompted three responses. first, it could be ignored, as jesus was appropriated and molded in the image and likeness of the particular community that heard his message. second, his jewishness could be used as foil and antithesis to enhance and clarify conflicts and antagonisms important to the christian interpreter, such as militarism or pacifism, modernism or anti-modernism, clericalism or anarchy, or hypocrisy or legalism. against such jewish backgrounds the christian message always shines. reck proposes a different path that accepts the jewishness of jesus as relevant and meaningful rather than random and extraneous to the christian faith. the jewishness of jesus is more than an accidental ethnic identity but constitutive of an unfolding covenantal story that began when g-d liberated the slaves from egypt and asked the people of israel to pledge their children to the observance of covenantal obligations from generation to generation. the centrality and continuous retelling of this covenantal story provide the clues for healing the rift between history and dogma in christianity. following foucault’s discourse analysis, reck reclaims the exodus as the underlying matrix of stories about the messiah, about the meaning of sacrifice, and of miracles such as jesus’ walking on water. foucault’s “discourse analysis” is the bridge that reck uses to traverse the dichotomies of “jewish” and “christian,” this-worldly and other-worldly, political and spiritual, temporal and eternal, and historical and dogmatic truths. paul tillich’s dynamics of faith rather than foucault’s discourse analysis may have offered a better bridge, but the point is well taken: “faith” is necessarily and always expressed in symbolic language and described in myths that are, as tillich put it, “symbols of faith combined in stories about human-divine encounters” (dynamics of faith 1957, 56). as “discourse,” reck says, the truth of faith becomes dialogical, contextual, embodied, and pluralistic rather than dogmatic and apodictic. dogmatic truth emerged because the christian church decontextualized, de-historicized, and de-temporalized the story of jesus christ. this did not happen in the jewish interpretative tradition, which continued to look to history as the place where g-d is revealed, wrestled with, and sought after. the stories of faith come alive in their telling and retelling in the beit midrash [houses of learning] and in the family where stories are transmitted. by contrast, the church developed an understanding of faith as assent and acceptance of stories as truth. for instance, the story of the virgin birth turned into dogma that must be swallowed whole without questioning and understanding. this, reck points out, no longer works in modern democratic societies, where people have the choice to leave rather than be forced to “believe” stories whose meanings they no longer understand. the cognitive dissonance created by critical thinking and historical consciousness can no longer be ignored by clergy and academics, who have indeed learned to decode the symbolic language of dogmatic theology back in seminary. the recognition of the jewishness of jesus compels several shifts. it brings the jewish tradition of story-telling into the church now conceived of as an assembly 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) of mature, responsible, and thoughtful people who work out the presence and meaning of god through the canon of biblical stories. the recovery of jewish his/story reminds the christian church that the will of god shall not only be done in heaven but also on earth, in the form of concrete obligations to do justice and to live responsibly in particular places. miracle stories, such as jesus’ walking on water, are not to be “believed” as improbable historical events but rather seen as invitations to trust the power to reach for the extraordinary and to defeat doubt and despair. reck proposes a theocentric christianity following the jewish storyteller from nazareth who announced the impending kingdom of g-d with its vision for justice and unceasing care for the neighbor, the sick, and the destitute as the unchanging core of truth in christianity. releasing jesus from anti-judaism, reck concludes, the church will find his powerful stories to articulate and facilitate new conversation among people about their faith and fears and their hopes and desires for more justice and meaning in this, concrete, historical moment. scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-14 gavin d’costa catholic doctrines on the jewish people after vatican ii (oxford: oxford university press, 2019), hardcover, 240 pp. + xiv philip a. cunningham pcunning@sju.edu saint joseph’s university, philadelphia, pa 19131 this review was adapted from an invited panel presentation “catholic doctrines on the jewish people after vatican ii: a panel discussion with gavin d'costa” at the society for post-supersessionist theology annual meeting (november 2020). i would like to frame my discussion of gavin d’costa’s book catholic doctrines on the jewish people after vatican ii by recalling an iconic moment that occurred twenty years ago. during the great jubilee of 2000, pope john paul ii publicly offered a memorable prayer twice in the month of march. the first occasion was on march 12, the first sunday of lent, during a “mass of pardon” at saint peter’s basilica in the vatican. this unprecedented liturgy, the pope said in his homily, was an opportunity “for the church, gathered spiritually round the successor of peter, to implore divine forgiveness for the sins of all believers … based on the objective responsibility which christians share as members of the mystical body, and which spurs today's faithful to recognize, along with their own sins, the sins of yesterday's christians, in the light of careful historical and theological discernment.”1 among the misdeeds that the pope and curial leaders confessed were “sins against the people of israel.” two weeks later, on march 26, in jerusalem the pontiff prayed in jewish fashion by inserting a written text of the same prayer into the crevices of the western wall. it is arguably one of the most moving scenes in the catholic and jewish “journey of friendship”2 of the past decades. the prayer read: 1 john paul ii, “homily at the day of pardon mass,” march 12, 2000, §3. http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/homilies/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20000312_pardon.html 2 francis, “address to the chief rabbis of israel,” may 26, 2014. http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/may/documents/papa -francesco_20140526_terra-santa-visita-rabbini-israele.html http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/homilies/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20000312_pardon.html http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/homilies/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20000312_pardon.html http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/may/documents/papa-francesco_20140526_terra-santa-visita-rabbini-israele.html http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/may/documents/papa-francesco_20140526_terra-santa-visita-rabbini-israele.html cunningham: gavin d’costa’s catholic doctrines on the jewish people 2 god of our fathers, you chose abraham and his descendants to bring your name to the nations: we are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the covenant.3 notice that the prayer is structured according to catholic penitential practice:  confession of sin (“sins against the people of israel”)  expression of remorse (“deeply saddened by [past] behavior”)  plea for forgiveness (“asking your forgiveness”)  a firm purpose of amendment (“we … commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the covenant”). the fact that john paul solemnly confessed these sins in st. peter’s basilica, and then signed, sealed, and personally delivered this commitment at the remnant of one of the retaining walls of the second temple gave his prayer a transcendent spiritual potency and gravity, one that surpasses mere written statements. it was a profound, public act of contrition and of reparation.4 i believe it imposes a grave responsibility on catholic theologians as expressed by rabbi irving greenberg: “no statement, theological or otherwise, should be made that would not be credible in the presence of the burning children.”5 john paul’s prayer, as indeed his entire pontificate, contributed to the development of post-nostra aetate catholic doctrine and praxis in the service of building relationships with jews. gavin d’costa’s book is part of a vast reform in the catholic community that has been unfolding since the second world war. i agree totally with his statement that “the catholic church while cautious is quite radical and innovative in this field [of christian relations with jews]. it is constantly pushing forward the boundaries” (13). it is an amazing fact that since nostra aetate in 1965, catholic leaders have spoken positively about jews and judaism, expressing ideas that literally have never appeared before in church history. d’costa writes that catholic ecclesial texts “provide a kind of guide rope into … uncharted territory.” his “constructive theological suggestions” are based on how he follows these guide ropes, though he recognizes that “others find these guide ropes leading elsewhere” (13). this respects the rich variety of theological methods used in the catholic community. 3 john paul ii, day of pardon mass: confession of sins against the people of israel, march 12, 2000 and “prayer at the western wall,” march 26, 2000. http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paulii/en/speeches/2000/jan-mar/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000326_jerusalem-prayer.html 4 the catechism of the catholic church, §1491. see also §1451. 5 irving greenberg, “cloud of smoke, pillar of fire: judaism, christianity, and modernity after the holocaust” in eva fleischner, ed., auschwitz: beginning of a new era?: reflections on the holocaust (new york: ktav, 1977), 23. http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2000/jan-mar/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000326_jerusalem-prayer.html http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2000/jan-mar/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000326_jerusalem-prayer.html 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) out of the many themes d’costa addresses, i will focus here on three alliteratively phrased topics: (1) doctrines, dogmas, and declarations; (2) christology and covenanting; and (3) conversion or conversation? 1. doctrines, dogmas, and declarations d’costa writes, “nostra aetate is a declaration that further illuminates and exegetes lumen gentium. on its own, it is not a doctrinal document” (14).6 since doctrine usually is understood as something the church authoritatively teaches, and since nostra aetate was overwhelmingly approved by a worldwide council of catholic cardinals and bishops in union with the pope (96% voted in favor), this seems to be a rather idiosyncratic assertion especially in the light of these considerations out of many other possibilities:  cardinal augustin bea, who oversaw the composition of nostra aetate and guided its progress through the council’s procedures, wrote one year after its promulgation that “it is the church herself who is speaking through … a document of the council, in which she is evidently teaching in a solemn and universally binding way … [a] conciliar document … is a manifestation of the most solemn teaching of the church’s magisterium.”7  there are many papal addresses that attribute determinative authority to nostra aetate. for example, john paul ii, soon after the beginning of his papacy in 1979, reviewed key points in nostra aetate and stated: “it is on the basis of all this that we recognize with utmost clarity that the path along which we should proceed with the jewish religious community is one of fraternal dialogue and fruitful collaboration.”8 it is important to note that it was nostra aetate that determined for the pope the catholic church’s future orientation toward jews.  cardinal kurt koch, the president of the commission of the holy see for religious relations with the jews, commented in 2013 on the priestly society of saint pius x, which had publicly rejected the teachings of nostra aetate: “if a group does not accept the council … it should ask itself whether it is catholic.”9 in this case, assent to nostra aetate was among the factors that determined whether a religious order was in communion with the catholic church. 6 see also his discussion on p. 9 that maintains that conciliar declarations only “reflect” the doctrinal teaching found in conciliar constitutions, 7 augustine cardinal bea, the church and the jewish people: a commentary on the second vatican council’s declaration on the relation of the church to non-christian religions (new york: harper and row, 1966), 9, 11. italics added here and in the following points. 8 john paul ii, “address to the representatives of the jewish world organizations” (march 12, 1979). http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1979/march/documents/hf_jpii_spe_19790312_org-ebraiche.html 9 servizio informazione religiosa, january 15, 2013. http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1979/march/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19790312_org-ebraiche.html http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1979/march/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19790312_org-ebraiche.html cunningham: gavin d’costa’s catholic doctrines on the jewish people 4 in support of a non-doctrinal status for nostra aetate, d’costa cites in a footnote a 2005 print interview with ilaria morali who argued that the declaration has no “doctrinal value” because “it was [only] conceived as a practical appendix to the lines dictated by lumen gentium” (9, fn. 26). the chronology of the development of nostra aetate makes it virtually impossible that it was written to elucidate lumen gentium.10 it was primarily a response to the shoah. relatedly, d’costa cites the 1985 special synod of bishops as stating that “declarations were employed to illustrate and further reflect on dogmatic constitutions.” however, what the synod actually said was: “special attention must be paid to the four major constitutions of the council, which contain the interpretative key for the other decrees and declarations. it is not licit to separate the pastoral character from the doctrinal vigor of the documents.” in other words, the synod states that the four conciliar constitutions provide “the interpretive key” to understanding conciliar declarations, not that declarations were written in order to illustrate constitutions. in addition, note that the final quoted sentence undercuts morali’s attempt to diminish nostra aetate as merely “practical.” contrary to the notion that the second vatican council was merely a “pastoral council” with no doctrinal import, orthodoxy and orthopraxis are inseparable. as a leading scholar of the history of the council, john w. o’malley, has written, “vatican ii is a pastoral council by means of its teaching, its doctrine … vatican ii was pastoral by being doctrinal.”11 i am left with the question of what definition of doctrine could possibly exclude a conciliar declaration as doctrinal in contrast to a conciliar constitution. the question is important because nostra aetate, §4 contains crucial statements not found in lumen gentium (or gaudium et spes). these include that “jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by god, as if this followed from the holy scriptures,” that the church “decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-semitism, directed against jews at any time and by anyone,” and that catholics should engage in biblical and theological studies as well as … fraternal dialogues” with jews. these are not simply matters of orthopraxy but also of orthodoxy since action and belief are inextricable. 10 see, e.g., philip a. cunningham, norbert hofmann, and joseph sievers, eds., “appendix 1: drafts leading to the declaration nostra aetate,” in the catholic church and the jewish people (new york 2007), 191-200; giovanni miccoli, “two sensitive issues: religious freedom and the jews,” in giuseppe alberigo and joseph a. komonchak, eds., the history of vatican ii, vol. 4, church as communion: third period and intersession, september 1964-september 1965 (maryknoll, ny/leuven, belgium: orbis books/peeters, 2003), 135-165; john m. oesterreicher, the new encounter between christians and jews (new york: philosophical library, 1986); and john w. o'malley, what happened at vatican ii (cambridge, ma/ london, uk: belknap press, 2008). 11 john w. o’malley, “deconstructing and reconstructing a cliché—vatican ii as a ‘pastoral council,’” in vladimir latinovic, gerard mannion, and jason welles, eds., catholicism opening to the world and other confessions: vatican ii and its impact (new york: palgrave macmillan, 2018), 2021. see also in herder korrespondez spezial: konzil im konflikt – 50 jahre zweites vatikanum, october 2012: bernd jochen hilberath, „kontinuitat oder bruch?: fur eine angemessene hermeneutik des zweiten vatikanischen konzils“: 5-9; and rainer bucher, „nur ein pastoralkonzil?: zurn eigenwert des zweiten vatikanischen konzils“: 9-13. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) the question of the doctrinal status of nostra aetate also relates to d’costa’s insistence that the declaration only speaks of biblical israel as covenanting with god and not of rabbinic or present-day judaism, a reading with which i disagree (15-18). while it is true that it does not explicitly state, as john paul ii later did, that jewish covenantal life was “never revoked by god,” one wonders how it would be possible for either the drafters or the council fathers not to have had living jews in mind given the recent occurrence of the shoah. there was certainly public debate in 1964 about what the declaration would say about conversionary missions toward jews, and the church’s responsibility toward contemporary jews was a prominent theme in the council’s sessions on september 25, 27, and 28, 1964.12 furthermore, john connelly has chronicled how the drafters of nostra aetate grappled with how to describe jewish identity. they eventually used the phrase “stirps abrahae” (stock of abraham). connelly observes: “this new formulation was embedded in a draft relying more heavily upon paul’s letter to the romans than previous versions, making clear that the promises made to the ‘stock of abraham’ remained in force in postbiblical times (‘theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises’), and that god continued to love this people in the present (‘god holds the jews most dear for the sake of their fathers’). for the first time, the church unequivocally recognized that the covenant made with the jews remained valid: the use of the present tense to refer to the jews’ ‘sonship’ was itself revolutionary.”13 what other conclusion can one draw from the doctrinally authoritative text of nostra aetate, §4 than that jews, never divinely “rejected or accursed,” continue to abide in covenant with god? 2. christology and covenanting d’costa sketches three different ways in which the magisterial claim that the “covenant with israel is irrevocable” could be interpreted (29-30). the first is that “israel’s covenant is transferred to the new israel,” the church, i.e. supersessionism. the second is that jewish covenanting is not abrogated but is non-salvific until jews embrace christ. when this happens, god’s irrevocable promises to israel will be fulfilled. hence, d’costa calls this the “fulfillment position.” d’costa describes the third interpretive option as follows: 12 see patrick t. brannan, trans. philip a. cunningham, ed., “nostra aetate deliberations.” https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate 13 john connelly, from enemy to brother: the revolution in catholic teaching on the jews, 1933 1965 (cambridge, ma/ london, uk: harvard university press, 2012), 261. see further chapters 7 and 8. note also the judgement of one of nostra aetate’s drafters that its “recognition of the spiritual status of jewish religion is the most dramatic example of doctrinal turn-about in the age-old magisterium ordinarium” (gregory baum, “the social context of american catholic theology,” proceedings of the catholic theological society of america 41 [1986]: 87). for baum, the belief that jews were an accursed people met the criterion of vincent of lérins for normative catholic teaching: it was held “ubique, semper et ab omnibus”—everywhere, always and by everyone (commonitorium, §6. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm). its repudiation by nostra aetate, therefore, represented for baum a reversal of ordinary magisterial teaching. https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm cunningham: gavin d’costa’s catholic doctrines on the jewish people 6 [b]iblical jews, as well as rabbinic jews, are in an irrevocable covenant that is sufficient [for salvation] in itself, for god instituted this covenant, is faithful to it, and he is followed faithfully through this covenant. the jewish covenant per se is sufficient for salvation. therefore, there are dual covenants that are salvific and inaugurated by god. i will call this the dual covenant position (30). i agree with d’costa that the “dual covenant” model is unacceptable in catholic magisterial teaching. d’costa prefers the “fulfillment” option. however, i would insist that “covenant,” in the words of rabbi norman solomon, “is a metaphor for a relationship, not the name of a unique metaphysical object.”14 this leads to a better, fourth option that coheres with catholic ecclesiastical texts. d’costa mentions it in passing but dismisses it somewhat off-handedly. if the dual covenant approach is indeed problematic for catholics because judaism is left “ontologically unrelated to christ,” what if it is maintained that “all salvation is from christ, even within … judaism” (23-24)? d’costa remarks that if this were the case, then, “logically it would be better for jews to become christians than remain jews if the salvation within judaism came from christ” (23). i do not find this logic persuasive. since “being saved” is not a pressing issue for jews as it is for christians, why should they feel a need to become christian simply because christians think that christ jesus is involved in jewish covenantal life? (to put this logic in reverse, if from their perspective jews assess my righteousness according to the noahide laws, why would i feel impelled to abandon christianity?) in my view, the river of catholic doctrinal development is flowing toward the fourth approach, which i will call christians and jews as “co-covenanting companions with the divine word.” let me spell it out with a series of statements: 1. it is christian dogma that god is triune. the three who are one are always involved in everything that god does. 2. it is christian dogma that the word of god was incarnated in the first-century jew, jesus of nazareth, who was crucified and raised. (this is what christians mean by “christ.”) due to the “hypostatic union” (to employ chalcedonian language), the glorified jesus participates in everything the word of god does today. 3. it is christian dogma that christians covenant with the one god of israel (since marcionism was rejected). 4. it is now catholic doctrine that jews also covenant with the one god. 5. therefore, from a christian perspective, the holy one with whom jews covenant must indisputably be the same one god whom christians know as triune, even though god has not been revealed to jews in that way. 14 norman solomon, “covenant” (paper presented at sacred heart university, fairfield, ct, december 4, 2001), §3. https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/center/conferences/solomon.htm. https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/center/conferences/solomon.htm 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) 6. therefore, from a christian perspective, the three who are one (including the word united with the glorified jesus) are all dynamically active in israel’s covenanting with god. i want to stress that points five and six above articulate christian theology; jews would not be expected to conceive of god in the christian trinitarian manner, or to put it another way, jews are not participants in the christian revelation.15 nonetheless, by virtue of the intimacy of living in covenant with god, christians must conclude that the divine word and spirit are dynamically at work in jewish covenantal life. this means, to use d’costa’s language, that jews are ontologically in relationship with the glorified jew jesus, the one whom christians believe is hypostatically united with the divine word since the incarnation. indeed, christians might say that the intimacy between the people of israel and the god of israel has been intensified by virtue of the “christ event.” the incarnation's import for israel continues since today jesus continues to live in glory united with the divine word. this logic undergirds paragraph §24 in the 2015 statement of the commission of the holy see for religious relations with the jews, “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’ (rom 11:29): a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of nostra aetate, no. 4”: god revealed [god]self in his word, so that it may be understood by humanity in actual historical situations. this word invites all people to respond. if their responses are in accord with the word of god, they stand in right relationship with [god]. for jews, this word can be learned through the torah and the traditions based on it. the torah is the instruction for a successful life in right relationship with god. whoever observes the torah has life in its fullness (cf. pirqe avot ii, 7). by observing the torah the jew receives a share in communion with god. in this regard, pope francis has stated: “the christian confessions find their unity in christ; judaism finds its unity in the torah. christians believe that jesus christ is the word of god made flesh in the world; for jews the word of god is present above all in the torah. both faith traditions find their foundation in the one god, the god of the covenant, who reveals himself through his word. in seeking a right attitude towards god, 15 here let me express my great discomfort with applying the traditional christian terminology of “invincible ignorance” or “inculpable ignorance” to jews. an early discussion of the concept is found in the summa theologiae of thomas aquinas (written around 1270) while considering whether ignorance is a sin: “now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know” (ia iiae q.76 a.2). d’costa’s suggestion that the rabbinic tradition has put almost all jews into the state of being “unable to know” christ is a benevolent effort to hold jews blameless for their “good faith” rejection of the gospel (43). nevertheless, this language is to me redolent of the kind of “boasting” that paul repudiates in romans 11. such arrogance has no place in a dialogical relationship and serves to impede the theological humility christians need to be open to jews’ experiences of god in their revelatory tradition. it would be better to speak of the distinctive self-disclosures of god to jews and christians. cunningham: gavin d’costa’s catholic doctrines on the jewish people 8 christians turn to christ as the fount of new life, and jews to the teaching of the torah” (address to members of the international council of christians and jews, 30 june 2015).16 the words italicized above have unmistakable salvific cadences. as the same document says elsewhere, “that the jews are participants in god’s salvation is theologically unquestionable” (§36). in addition, the word of god is seen in the underlined text as not simply imparting data but as extending an invitation to relationship. from the catholic perspective, all relationships with god that are so intimate as to be described as covenantal are the result of the activity to the word of god, whom christians believe is “hypostatically united” with the crucified and raised jesus. this catholic understanding of jews and christians as “co-covenanting companions” must be distinguished from d’costa’s second option of a “dual covenant” approach. that the word of god is present and active in israel in the torah as well as united with christ is not a dual covenantal model since, as already said, everything that the word does is done in ontological unity with the glorified christ.17 the catholic recognition of the living presence of the word of god in both the jewish and christian communities gives added profundity to the consistent call of popes john paul ii, benedict xvi, and francis for ever-deepening and sustained catholic dialogue with jews. for example, benedict xvi wrote in 2011 that “after centuries of antagonism, we now see it as our task to bring these two ways of rereading the biblical texts—the christian way and the jewish way—into dialogue with one another, if we are to understand god’s will and his word aright.”18 his wording that understanding god’s will and word aright requires that both jewish and christian interpretive approaches be studied is striking. in his 2014 apostolic exhortation evangelii gaudium, pope francis wrote, “god continues to work among the people of the old covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which 16 http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-lebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/en.html.) 17 in fn. 6 on p. 31, d’costa correctly states that ma gisterial teaching rejects the dual covenant view as he has described it. however, he goes on to assert that an unpublished doctoral dissertation “successfully shows that cardinal walter kasper and mary boys propound this erroneous view.” it is remarkable that this judgment of propounding doctrinal error is relegated to a footnote that provides no direct evidence from either kasper or boys. note that kasper, previous president of the commission of the holy see for religious relations with the jews, has explicitly written the opposite: “[t]he document dominus iesus does not state that everybody needs to become a catholic in order to be saved by god. on the contrary, it declares that god's grace, which is the grace of jesus christ according to our faith, is available to all. therefore, the church believes that judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the jewish people to god's irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because god is faithful to his promises” (“dominus iesus,” address delivered at the 17th meeting of the international catholic-jewish liaison committee, may 1, 2001: https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kasper/kasper01may1-1; emphasis added). the italicized phrase clearly does not leave jewish covenanting with god “ontologically unrelated to christ” (24). 18 benedict xvi, jesus of nazareth, part two, holy week: from the entrance into jerusalem to the resurrection (san francisco: ignatius press, 2011), 33 http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/en.html http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/en.html http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/en.html https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kasper/kasper01may1-1 https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kasper/kasper01may1-1 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) flow from their encounter with his word. for this reason, the church also is enriched when she receives the values of judaism. … [t]here exists as well a rich complementarity [between jews and christians] which allows us to read the texts of the hebrew scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of god’s word.”19 his first sentence particularly resonates with the conception of christians and jews as co-covenanting companions with the divine word.20 the activity of the divine word in both communities is why the dialogue between catholics and jews is so important as a locus theologicus. this explains why literally every one of the dozens of catholic ecclesiastical texts on jews and judaism since nostra aetate calls for dialogue with jews and for its deepening. d’costa should consider that a description of christians and jews as co-covenanting companions, both deeply engaging with the word of god, contributes better than a fulfillment model to “genuine brotherhood with the people of the covenant.” 3. conversion or conversation? finally, i would like to comment on d’costa’s chapter 5, “catholic mission to the jewish people?” by recalling a revolutionary sentence in nostra aetate, §4: “this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.” i call this sentence “revolutionary” because a call for catholicjewish theological dialogue was literally unheard-of in pre-vatican ii ecclesiastical texts. the experience of the past 55 years demonstrates that the ensuing and deepening dialogue has established this new locus theologicus for catholic theology. it establishes that interpersonal and intercommunal relationships are key for a postshoah catholic theology of relations with jews. the question d’costa considers is “if the jewish covenant given by god is irrevocable, is [a conversionary] mission to the jewish people still valid?” (6). d’costa says yes, i say no. 19 francis, “evangelii gaudium: apostolic exhortation on the proclamation of the gospel in today's world” (november 24, 2013), §249. http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html 20 this perspective does not make jews into “anonymous christians,” a phrase coined but then later set aside by karl rahner. while a discussion of rahner’s work is beyond the scope of this paper, it is important to note that post-nostra aetate ecclesial documents indicate that catholics “must strive to learn by what essential traits the jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience” (commission of the holy see for religious relations with the jews, “guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate [n. 4],” 1974, preamble. http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-lebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/en3.html). they cannot be content with simply seeing aspects of their own traditions as defining the other, but rather, in the words of cardinal kasper, appreciate jews as like “a sacrament of every otherness that as such the church must learn to discern, recognize and celebrate” (“address on the 37th anniversary of nostra aetate”: https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/kasper/wk02oct28). http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/en3.html http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/en3.html http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/en3.html https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kasper/wk02oct28 https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kasper/wk02oct28 cunningham: gavin d’costa’s catholic doctrines on the jewish people 10 d’costa writes, “it is not possible to find salvific grace outside [better: not involving] christ; and while jews may participate in salvation as jews, that participation can only be understood by catholics with reference to jesus christ” (167). i agree. however, to me the question is not whether there is a catholic “mission” to jews, but rather in what that mission consists. in pursuing this question, prenostra aetate ecclesiastical texts will be of limited help since none of them imagined that the sui generis relationship with jews led to any other options for engaging with them apart from conversionary missions. d’costa is quite correct when he writes that vatican documents use important terms—such as evangelization, witness, mission, proclamation—inconsistently. note, though, that when given a choice among various usages, d’costa tends toward the most restrictive reading, writing, for example, “i will use ‘evangelization’ only in [the] narrow sense, unless specified otherwise” (149). i follow the ecclesiastical “guide ropes” differently and submit that: (a) the mission of the church toward jews is dialogue, (b) in dialogue christians always witness to their faith in christ, not with persuasive intent but to mutually share and receive the gift of our respective faith relationships with god, and (c) this dialogue fulfills the church’s evangelizing mandate with respect to jews. on the last point, i would not call this an “exception” for jews from the church’s general duty to proclaim christ, but rather a necessary consequence of our “‘intra-religious’ or ‘intra-familial’ … sui generis” relationship.21 the developments starting with the second vatican council make clear that the mission of the church toward and with jews is dialogue. first, on september 28, 1964, at the council, archbishop patrick o’boyle of washington, d.c. stated: “if we [imply …] we are guided by the definite, conscious intention of working for [jews’] conversion, we set up a new and high wall of division, which makes any fruitful dialogue impossible. … it would therefore be better for us to remain within the limits of our knowledge and respect the hidden ways of divine providence.”22 the desire for dialogue with jews was reiterated by several council fathers.23 since the final text of nostra aetate, which was composed after major public debate of these issues in the summer and fall of 1964, makes no mention of conversionary hopes (unlike in an earlier, draft), it is reasonable to conclude that when the council fathers overwhelmingly approved nostra aetate they were well aware that they were affirming that dialogue with jews was the church’s priority toward them. second, the vatican became more aware of the corollaries of nostra aetate when tommaso federici, consultant to the commission for religious relations with the jews, presented at the 1977 meeting of the international catholic-jewish liaison committee a “study outline” on “the mission and witness of the church.” he wrote, “the temptation to create organizations of any kind … to ‘convert’ jews is to be rejected … once the spiritual identity of the one and the other is guaranteed 21 see crrj, “gifts and calling,” §20. 22 https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate/v21964sept29b#oboyle 23 see brannan and cunningham, “nostra aetate deliberations.” https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate/v21964sept29b#oboyle https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate/v21964sept29b#oboyle 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) [in dialogue], there must be mutual esteem and respect (theological as well), and the conviction that every growth and bettering in the spiritual field comes about with the other's contribution.”24 this reiterated the council’s preference for dialogue but also made explicit the necessary respect for jews’ religious integrity, which later and more authoritative texts would reinforce. third, within a few months of his election, pope john paul ii, after reviewing key points in nostra aetate, stressed that: “it is on the basis of all this that we recognize with utmost clarity that the path along which we should proceed with the jewish religious community is one of fraternal dialogue and fruitful collaboration” (mar 12, 1979). later at the great synagogue of rome, he made this “fraternal dialogue” contingent on respect for the other’s religious convictions. he said, “no one is unaware that [our] fundamental difference from the very beginning has been the attachment of us catholics to the person and teaching of jesus of nazareth, a son of your people … but this attachment is located in the order of faith, that is to say in the free assent of the mind and heart guided by the spirit, and it can never be the object of exterior pressure, in one sense or the other. this is the reason why we wish to deepen dialogue in loyalty and friendship, in respect for one another's intimate convictions.”25 fourth, the wisdom of recognizing that a commitment to catholic-jewish dialogue required the abandonment of the long history of efforts to convert jews became evident in an episode that occurred in the united states in the first decade of this century (see 175-77). in response to news that some christian groups were about to launch conversionary campaigns aimed at jews, the consultation of the u.s. bishops’ committee on ecumenical and interreligious affairs and the national council of synagogues decided in 2002 to discuss why this did not seem to be an interest of the catholic church. the resulting dialogue document, “reflections on covenant and mission,” vetted by the bishops’ office of doctrine, stated, “a deepening catholic appreciation of the eternal covenant between god and the jewish people, together with a recognition of a divinely-given mission to jews to witness to god's faithful love, lead to the conclusion that campaigns that target jews for conversion to christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the catholic church. … catholics participating in interreligious dialogue [are] … witnessing to their own faith in the kingdom of god embodied in christ, [which is] a form of evangelization, a way of engaging in the church's mission.”26 however, in 2009 the bishop’s offices of ecumenical and interreligious affairs and of doctrine prepared a “clarification,” stating, “though christian 24 https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/educational-and-liturgical-materials/classic-articles/federici1977 25 “address at the great synagogue of rome” (april 13, 1986), §5. italics added. http://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/jp286apr13 26 delegates of the u.s. bishops’ committee on ecumenical and interreligious affairs and the national council of synagogues, “reflections on covenant and mission.” c ontrary to d’costa’s fn. 48 on p. 159, the document is on the usccb website at: https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/jewish/upload/reflections-on-covenant-and-mission.pdf https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/educational-and-liturgical-materials/classic-articles/federici1977 http://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/jp2-86apr13 http://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/jp2-86apr13 https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/jewish/upload/reflections-on-covenant-and-mission.pdf https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/jewish/upload/reflections-on-covenant-and-mission.pdf cunningham: gavin d’costa’s catholic doctrines on the jewish people 12 participation in interreligious dialogue would not normally include an explicit invitation to baptism and entrance into the church, the christian dialogue partner is always giving witness to the following of christ, to which all are implicitly invited.”27 the possibility that catholic-jewish dialogues could be the occasion for catholics to invite jews to receive baptism stunned both jews and catholics. all the major american jewish organizations and movements wrote a unanimous letter to the bishops’ conference to explain that they would have to withdraw from dialogue if this was to be the catholic understanding of it. they wrote, “[o]nce jewish-christian dialogue has been formally characterized as an invitation, whether explicit or implicit, to apostatize, then jewish participation becomes untenable.”28 for a time, the vibrant catholic-jewish dialogue in the united states seemed poised to collapse over this issue. d’costa calls this “an important development in doctrinal clarity … even if of limited authority” (177). however, he does not continue with the narrative of events, which actually challenge his views. he omits the response of the bishops who led the usccb at the time. within a matter of weeks, they took the unheardof step of excising the language of implicit and explicit invitations from the “note” and stated that “jewish-catholic dialogue, one of the blessed fruits of the second vatican council, has never been and will never be used by the catholic church as a means of proselytism—nor is it intended as a disguised invitation to baptism.”29 far from positing, as d’costa writes, “a theological rationale for mission to the jewish people” (177), the episode actually reinforced the priority of dialogue in which catholics give witness to their faith in christ that is not concealing conversionary intent. fifth, the pontificate of pope benedict xvi had rocky moments in terms of catholic-jewish relations. these included a controversy over his revised good friday prayer for jews in the tridentine rite and the lifting of the excommunications of four bishops of the priestly society of st. pius x, one of whom turned out to have denied the shoah in interviews. just before benedict’s visit to the great synagogue of rome in january 2010, a cartoon in the italian jewish newspaper pagine ebraiche by enea riboldi depicted him as crossing the tiber from the vatican to the synagogue on a tightrope, holding a balancing rod with the words “conversione” and “dialogo” on opposite ends.30 whatever degree of uncertainty pope benedict may have felt was apparently resolved when in a 2011 book he favorably quoted the abbess hildegard brem who wrote, “in the light of romans 11:25, the church must not concern herself with the conversion of the jews, since she must wait for the time fixed for this by god, ‘until the full number of the gentiles come in’ (rom 11:25).” benedict went 27 “a note on ambiguities contained in reflections on covenant and mission,” june 18, 2009. the unredacted original version can be found at: https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/conversion/njil09aug18 28 https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/conversion/njil09aug18 29 https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/jewish/upload/statement-of-catholic-principles-for-catholic-jewish-dialogue-2009.pdf, §3. 30 the artist was enea riboldi and the cartoon appeared in pagine ebraiche, january 2010, 4. https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/conversion/njil09aug18 https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/conversion/njil09aug18 https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/jewish/upload/statement-of-catholic-principles-for-catholic-jewish-dialogue-2009.pdf https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/jewish/upload/statement-of-catholic-principles-for-catholic-jewish-dialogue-2009.pdf 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) on to say that, “in the meantime, israel retains its own mission. israel is in the hands of god, who will save it ‘as a whole’ at the proper time.”31 as emeritus pope, benedict wrote, “to israel, therefore, there was not and still is not a mission, but rather the dialogue about whether jesus of nazareth is ‘the son of god, the logos.’”32 around the same time, he also wrote, “as far as humans can foresee, this dialogue within ongoing history will never lead to an agreement between the two interpretations: this is god's business at the end of history. for now it remains to both sides to struggle for the proper insight and to reverentially respect the perspective of the other side.”33 sixth and finally, the current pontiff pope francis has spoken about his many experiences, unique for a pope, of religious dialogue with jews, especially his numerous conversations over the years with fellow argentine rabbi abraham skorka. in an interview about the personal significance of making friends across religious lines, francis stated: there was a basis of total trust, and because we knew in our conversations— and i want to highlight that—neither of us negotiated our own identity. if we had, we would not have been able to talk. it would have been a sham. ... and the friendship grew, always maintaining our respective identities. ... it is very important because my religious life became richer with his explanations, so much richer. ... and i began to further understand the [scriptural] revelation, and he further understood the christian stance. it developed from our own identities and that's really nice. ... and neither of us attempted to convert the other.34 very notable here are the number of times that francis stresses the need to respect the religious identity of the dialogue partner. it is clear that having extensive theological dialogue with jews has allowed francis to discern that the locus theologicus of dialogue requires that conversionary thoughts be set aside. it should be noted that the overall post-conciliar doctrinal trajectory that catholics should eschew missionizing jews and let god “carry out [god’s] universal plan of salvation in ways that only [god] knows”35 has prompted important jewish 31 benedict xvi, jesus of nazareth, part two, holy week: from the entrance into jerusalem to the resurrection (san francisco: ignatius press, 2011), 45, 47; emphasis added. see also cardinal kurt koch: “the most profound reason why there cannot be any organised mission to the jews has in turn been expressed by st paul when he proceeds from the conviction that not only salvation comes from the jews, but also that in the ‘time of the gentiles’ god entrusted israel with a specific individual mission” (“christians called to be faithful to abraham’s heritage,” [may 24, 2012] http://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kurt-cardinalkoch/koch2012may24). 32 benedict xvi, “not mission, but dialogue,” herder korrespondenz, december 2018: 14; emphasis added. 33 benedict xvi, “reply to rabbi ari folger,” august 23, 2018. http://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope/benedict-2018aug28 34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4xu3i3ki9q; emphasis added. this video was produced by the elijah interfaith institute as part of its “make friends” series. 35 crrj, “gifts and calling,” §42. http://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kurt-cardinal-koch/koch2012may24 http://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kurt-cardinal-koch/koch2012may24 http://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope/benedict-2018aug28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4xu3i3ki9q cunningham: gavin d’costa’s catholic doctrines on the jewish people 14 responses. this is evident in a 2015 statement by an international group of orthodox rabbis. they wrote, “now that the catholic church has acknowledged the eternal covenant between g-d and israel, we jews can acknowledge the ongoing constructive validity of christianity as our partner in world redemption, without any fear that this will be exploited for missionary purposes.”36 in sum, the question of the proper “institutional” mission of the catholic church toward the jewish people has become a vital one in the wake of the shoah and of the second vatican council. whatever guidance the tradition can provide is conditioned by the uncritiqued claim that jews were a sui generis people as the only people under a divine malediction. nostra aetate’s rejection of that idea has enabled catholics to see jews as sui generis for a different reason: they are cocovenanting companions with whom catholics must dialogue. conclusion catholic doctrines on the jewish people after vatican ii is the latest fruit of d’costa’s invaluable work on jewish-catholic relations and specifically on doctrinal developments in the historical catholic tradition. his research complements other methods of theological inquiry, and he contributes to the constant pushing forward of the boundaries that is needed to enact the catholic church’s commitment to (in john paul ii’s words) “genuine brotherhood with the people of the covenant.” 36 center for jewish and christian understanding and collaboration, “to do the will of our father in heaven: toward a partnership between jews and christians,” §3. https://www.cjcuc.org/2015/12/03/orthodox-rabbinic-statement-on-christianity/ https://www.cjcuc.org/2015/12/03/orthodox-rabbinic-statement-on-christianity/ the aryan jesus: christian theologians and the bible in nazi germany studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): heschel/spicer cp 1 heschel & spicer, the aryan jesus heschel/spicer cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5th the aryan jesus: christian theologians and the bible in nazi germany susannah heschel, dartmouth college kevin p. spicer, stonehill college presented at the center for christian-jewish learning, boston college, april 12, 2010 on april 12, 2010, following the april 11 th observance of holocaust remembrance day, susannah heschel addressed the theme of her 2008 book, the aryan jesus: christian theologians and the bible in nazi germany. heschel’s book examines the membership and activities of the institute for the study and eradication of jewish influence on german religious life. based on years of archival research, heschel shows that during the third reich this institute became the most important propaganda organ of german protestantism, exerting a widespread influence and producing a nazified christianity that placed antisemitism at its theological center. members of the institute formed a community of like-minded nazi christians who remained active in germany’s post-war years. kevin spicer, c.s.c., associate professor of history at stonehill college, responded to heschel's remarks with a discussion of several german theologians who attempted to adapt catholic teachings to national socialism during the nazi regime. view the video of susannah heschel’s presentation and kevin spicer’s response: http://frontrow.bc.edu/program/heschel conference proceeding http://frontrow.bc.edu/program/heschel studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr ccjr annual meeting proceeding eschatology and the ideology of anti-judaism john connelly, university of california at berkeley this talk grows out of a lengthy study about the path the catholic church took to undo the ideology of antijudaism. 1 at its heart are a small group of catholic intellectuals, mostly converts, who pushed forward this change, beginning in the 1930s and extending to the second vatican council, which concluded in 1965. ideology is a coordinated system of ideas that acts to shape as well as limit thought. people adhere to ideology without full awareness of its elements and their interrelation. 2 ideology can develop power beyond their conscious control. i will have more to say about its precise contours below, but anti-judaism featured a central assumption that jews had lost touch with god and were destined to suffer a history of punishment until, at the end of time, they finally turned to christ, the “jewish messiah.” i am not saying that all christians consciously assented to these ideas; from the little research that has been done on catholic anti-judaism across borders, it would seem to have varied from region to region. the idea that jews had “killed god,” for instance appears to have been much stronger in east central europe in the interwar period than it was in north america. still, as exemplified by the antiracist jesuit john lafarge, when catholics did turn their mind to the “jewish question” in the 1930s, anti-judaism is what 1 john connelly, from enemy to brother: the revolution in catholic teaching on the jews (cambridge, ma: harvard university press, 2012), 2 for general guidance on the subject, see terry eagleton, ideology: an introduction (london: verson, 1991). studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) they found in tradition as well as interpretations of scripture. 3 and that severely limited engagement in favor of jews by those guided by christian thought. i want to start my discussion of the power of this ideology in nazi-occupied lithuania at the end of the winter of 1943, just before the liquidation of a ghetto the occupiers had created at the small town of swiecany, a place with mixed population: jewish, polish, lithuanian. the jew batya weksler pleaded with the christian pole emilia waszkiniel to take her infant son jakub and raise him as her own. waszkiniel was afraid. after all, people giving shelter to jews faced the death penalty. also, she and her husband were very poor. they did not even have their own apartment. but weksler insisted. “you are a christian,” she said. “you believe in jesus. jesus was a jew. rescue this jewish infant in the name of the jew in whom you believe.” waszkiniel agreed and one night received the child huddled in a blanket. she explained why thirty-six years later in a conversation with this child now grown into a man, her son romuald, a catholic priest: “i couldn’t not take you. that would have been like renouncing my faith. i said to myself: if you believe in jesus emilia, then you have to save this child.” 4 emilia waszkiniel was a pious woman. pious women, pious christians, are not so rare in eastern europe. why did not more see the jew christ in the jews being taken to their deaths? why did not more see a special relation between their savior and jews facing extinction? 3 thus lafarge, presumably otherwise well-meaning, found himself in thrall of key components of anti-judaism, ironically and tragically, in the midst of composing an encyclical against racism (it was never released). see connelly, from enemy to brother, 98-101. 4 dariusz rosiak, człowiek o twardym karku. historia księdza romualda jakuba wekslera-waszkinela (wołowiec: wydawnictwo czarne, 2013), 34-35. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr in fact what we often see and hear in reminiscences of jews who survived is indifference, callousness and occasional hostility on the part of christians. not only did they not see christ in jews, often they hardly saw a neighbor, a neighbor toward whom the most basic christian teaching should have applied: teacher which commandment in the law is the greatest? he said to him, “you shall love the lord, your god, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. this is the greatest and the first commandment. the second is like it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (mt 22: 37-39 nab). in the story in which jesus speaks to the question: who is my neighbor, the answer is that “neighbors” are ethnic others. returning to wartime europe. consider the recollection of jehoszua zoberman, town councilor and head of a sporting club in sandomierz in southeastern poland. here is what struck him in reminiscing in 1946 the attack upon jews in the ghetto in sandomierz perpetrated on 17 november 1942 by the ss as well as ukrainian and polish police: “three thousand living beings murdered by a few hundred ruffians in clear sight of the entire non-jewish population, and no one tries to stop it, no one stands up for us, all of us unfortunate, alone, condemned to death—that is our fate. that is our fate.” 5 poles feel justifiably aggrieved when people treat christian antisemitism as simply a polish story. it was not simply a polish story. memoirs from places as different as hungary, bosnia, and bohemia reveal this same sort of indifference that we see in sandomierz. jews were lowest on any scale of 5 michał grynberg and maria kotowska, eds., życie i zagłada żydów polskich 1939-1945. relacje świadków (warsaw: oficyna naukowa, 2003), 229. studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 9 (2014) obligation that people felt toward neighbors. they faced greater indifference than any other population in europe. here is a recollection from the acclaimed hungarian dissident and author, george konrád, of his return in 1945 to berettyóújfalu, the small eastern hungarian town from which the other jews (including two hundred classmates) had been taken to auschwitz the previous summer. “the townspeople,” he recalled, “had generally made no comment about the jews being carted off. some had even laughed at the sight of old people struggling with their bags, and indeed they were laughable, thinking they would have need of their things, their familiar pillows and blankets, when what was awaiting them was the crematorium. the fact that they were loaded onto trains was met with the same indifference as news from the front or draft notices or the appearance of bombers over the town on a sunny morning: they were all so many historical events over which one had no control. it was the indifference that comes of an acceptance of fate mingled with fear and perhaps relief.” 6 we hear very similar sentiments from the czech jewish survivor heda kovaly, who went back to the village where her grandmother had lived: i did not visit the farm. it had been taken over by strangers after the war. my grandmother’s cottage looked neglected. everything in it seemed even smaller than before. a kind old neighbor let me in and showed me where everything had happened. “see?” she said. “here’s where your grandmother set down her cup of coffee just before the germans came. and here she sat with me for a while and i told her, ‘mrs. bloch, don’t be afraid…’” i know there was nothing anyone could do. but they were taking away an 86-year old grandmother to a horrible death, and the village where she had lived all her 6 george konrád, a guest in my own country. a hungarian life, translated by jim tucker and edited by michael henry heim (new york: other press, 2007), 103. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr life, where everybody loved her, had just looked on. the only thing anyone had had to say was, “mrs. bloch, don’t be afraid…” 7 during the war the citizens of sarajevo, bosnia (part of the fascist independent state of croatia) banded together to protect each other: muslims, catholic croats, and orthodox serbs. the serbs were under grave threat and faced genocidal policies in many other places under ustasha rule. however, the city’s ten thousand jews perished almost entirely. 8 my thesis is that this indifference rested upon a deep substratum of belief, shared even by people who had become “post-christian,” but which was exceptionally strong in in places like poland and lithuania. in many cases, christians agreed with joshua zoberman: suffering was the jews’ fate. why? because they had killed god. this widespread belief among christians was never made formal by the church’s teaching authority, but still, it was widely accepted from the early days of the church, and over the centuries grew into a formidable ideology. my book details the path taken by catholic (and more generally christian) theology to break with this ideology, with this history of anti-judaism, with the idea that the fate of jews was suffering. the break took place two decades after the end of world war ii in the fall of 1965, when catholic bishops approved the declaration nostra aetate, which was among the documents promulgated at the second vatican council, an event meant to bring the church “up to date” in the modern age. 7 heda margolius kovaly, under a cruel star: a life in prague 19411968, translated by helen epstein (london: holmes and meier, 1989), 66. 8 for an excellent account of these and many other matters, see emily greble, sarajevo, 1941–1945: muslims, christians and jews in hitler's europe (ithaca, ny: cornell university press, 2011), 114-115. studies in christian-jewish relations 6 scjr 9 (2014) there were many other statements, for example on religious liberty, or the place of the church in the world, but this one was arguably the most contested. nostra aetate dealt with the church’s relation to non-christian religions and part four was about the jewish people. i contend that the change the bishops voted on was not automatic, but involved struggle, both moral and intellectual, to deconstruct the old and replace it with the new. what was the structure of this old belief, that we call anti-judaism? it had three interlocking, mutually supporting components. first: anti-judaism denies the jewishness of christ, projecting christ as somehow outside judaism, as in fact an anti-jewish christian. second, it says the jews are destined to suffer for killing christ, and third, that until jews become christian this suffering will continue. the last point was often taken to be eschatological. the punishment would cease at the end of time, when jews would massively recognize christ as messiah, thus opening the way to the last days, the parousia, christ's second coming, when the world would finally be redeemed. the recognition of the need to accomplish this task imposed upon the church a mission to the jews, so that jews finally say yes to the jewish messiah. at vatican ii in the 1960s, undoing the first two components was relatively easy. scripture makes the jewishness of christ and his family and friends clear. let us go back to emilia waszkiniel. she may have been uneducated but she knew that jesus was jewish. did the jews kill christ? the scriptural basis for the claim that they did is matthew 27:25, in which “all the people” proclaimed that the blood of christ would be upon them and their children. cardinal bea, the head of the secretariat charged with formulating the new language that went into nostra aetate, could undo this charge relatively easily. the crowd in matthew 27, which was not identified as jewish let alone israel, could not speak for all jews, most of whom were not even in judea, and had never heard of christ. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 7 www.bc.edu/scjr it was the third component, the eschatological one that imposed an enduring mission on the church, which caused real difficulty, almost making any statement about the jews at vatican ii impossible. the issue culminated in a crisis of the spring and summer of 1964, a point at which a team of theologians at the heart of my study had been at work for about three years and arrived at a draft that seemed sound. yet unbeknownst to them, advisors close to pope paul vi took this draft and added new wording: “it is also worth remembering that the union of the jewish people with the church is part of the christian hope. the church waits with unshaken faith and deep longing for the entry of that people into the fullness of the people of god established by christ.” the hope, in essence, of these words was that one people would absorb another. the new text was supposed to be secret, yet soon it became the topic of news stories all over the world; protests were registered from the american jewish committee and b’nai b’rith. most effective in drawing attention to the problem were the words of abraham joshua heschel. “if faced with the alternative of conversion or death” heschel was “ready to go to auschwitz at any time.” 9 one might wonder: why all this fuss? there was no talk in the new wording of active mission to the jews let alone forced conversion. the statement reflected a vague hope, making reference to a passage in paul’s letter to the romans that seems to refer to the end of time. it pronounced an eschatological vision and was about as distant and unreal as one can imagine. why be so sensitive about something that was supposed to occur at the edge of historical time? it would seem that this prayer was not a direct threat to anyone. let us return to the war years to see where heschel’s intuition came from. why did he connect this eschatological 9 “ecumenism: what catholics think about jews,” time, september 11, 1964. studies in christian-jewish relations 8 scjr 9 (2014) vision with auschwitz? what does conversion have to do with murder? the issue for heschel, i think, was not active mission but rather the vision of jews implicitly contained in the statement. note that reference in the new wording was not to individual conversions but to the union of the whole jewish people with the church. that is, the church hoped not that some or many jews would turn to christ but that all jews without exception would do so: jews as “israel.” a people was supposed to cease being a people. according to how jewish identity is understood, it meant that the church looked forward to a moment when the jewish people as such would cease to exist. christians are not jews. therefore the church’s dearest hope involved the end of judaism. in this old perspective, simple jewish existence, far from a blessing, was a stumbling block, forestalling redemption. the basis of christian anti-judaism was thus about far more than the accusation that jews had killed god [deicide], it was about tying god’s hands and delaying redemption of the world, by virtue of the jews’ simple existence. i think heschel felt that this vision of the jews, as destined to cease existing had helped make auschwitz possible. thus the link between christian eschatology and the nazis’ final solution. this interpretation has some historical justification, but requires further empirical research. i mentioned earlier that what was striking in the behavior of christians was indifference. the point is that this old view of the jews as destined to disappear not only encouraged, but justified massive indifference and indeed occasional complicity of christians during the holocaust. we know that the penalties for assisting jews in poland were severe: death for oneself and one's family. nonetheless, some poles did assist jews; the number in warsaw is estimated to have been between 70,000 to 90,000. 10 however, 10 this is the estimate of gunnar paulsson, who believes that some 28,000 jews were hiding in warsaw before the outbreak of the 1944 uprising. see studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 9 www.bc.edu/scjr recollections we possess from those who acted out of christian motives suggests that they had to overcome inner resistance. one jew who escaped majdenek was refused shelter by a pole who said the following: “if god takes no pity on your people, how can you expect pity from a human being?” another recalled being told by a neighbor after the war why she had brought the gestapo to her mother’s hiding place: “it was not hitler who killed the jews. it was god’s will and hitler was his tool. how could i stand by and be against the will of god.” a polish inmate of birkenau told a jewish fellow prisoner: “you jews have crucified christ and that is why a curse is upon you, an eternal curse.” 11 individual polish priests helped jews with great courage, but by and large the polish clergy preached disdain for jews, in sermons dating from before the war. 12 the jesuit stanislaw musial, who studied the attitude of the polish catholic hierarchy during the war, found “nothing, no trace of compassion or concern. this is terrifying.” 13 it was dangerous to shelter jews, but it was also dangerous to shelter other poles, for example soldiers of the home army, yet poles did so with abandon. 14 christians who did assist jews had two options: either to ignore anti-judaic teachings going back to the early church, or to involve gunnar s. paulsson, secret city: the hidden jews of warsaw (new haven, ct: yale university press, 2002), 5. 11 nechama tec, when light pierced the darkness: christian rescue of jews in nazi-occupied poland (new york: oxford university press, 1986) 137. 12 emmanuel ringelblum, polish-jewish relations during the second world war, edited by joseph kermish and shmuel krakowski (evanston, il: northwestern university press, 1992), 206. the polish catholic church has not opened its archives to permit deeper study of these questions. 13 the historians dariusz libionka and jan grabowski reached similar conclusions based on extensive research. see jan t. gross with irena grudzińska-gross, golden harvest: events at the periphery of the holocaust (new york: oxford university press, 2012), 112-13. 14 jan t. gross, “a tangled web: confronting stereotypes concerning relations between poles, germans, jews and communists,” in jan t. gross, istvan deak and tony judt, eds., the politics of retribution in europe (princeton, nj: princeton university press, 2000), 74-130. studies in christian-jewish relations 10 scjr 9 (2014) themselves in cognitive dissonance. in my book i assert that those most likely to organize help and, in some cases rescue jews before and during the war were those least likely to know about traditional theology, people who cared little or not at all for eschatology or deicide, but instead fell back upon basic teachings of love of neighbor or corporal works of mercy. these people had not been and indeed could not attend the seminaries where the complexities of theology were taught; in france, germany, austria, poland and hungary, christians at the forefront of organizing assistance for jews were women. 15 one of those remarkable figures i would like to mention is the german dr. gertrud lucker (1900-1995), born in liverpool as jane hartman, and then raised by german parents. in 1934 she converted from protestantism to catholicism and became a catholic pacifist. from 1939 she was involved in helping german jews escape to switzerland, and focused specially on the rescue of jewish children. in late 1942, a fellow catholic denounced luckner, and the gestapo arrested her in march of the following year on the train from freiburg to berlin with rm 1,000 intended for rabbi leo baeck and the jewish community in berlin. after weeks of interrogation luckner was sent to hard labor at ravensbrück, and finally liberated 3 may 1945 by the red army while on a death march. i will return to her because she played a key role in efforts at christian-jewish reconciliation in the post war years. i noted that luckner had a doctoral degree, but it was in social work, not theology. there were those who took academic theology seriously and tried to develop a response to nazism and nazi antisemitism that was fully informed by the catholic and christian tradition, yet they found themselves involved in a growing schizophrenia. these were tiny handfuls of intellectuals, most converts, who operated beyond the borders of nazi germany (some were german refugees) in austria and switzerland and france from about 1934. they were active in the struggle against nazism but also against 15 connelly, from enemy to brother, 42. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 11 www.bc.edu/scjr racism in the church. their intellectual contributions, evidence of their struggle, is contained in a number of little known journals as well as a few books. 16 of this number i would like to focus on two. first: johannes oesterreicher (1904-1993), a catholic priest of jewish origin, once a left wing zionist, who considered himself a missionary to the jews, and in fact ran the mission to the jews of the diocese of vienna in the 1930s. as a person of jewish origin he was unusually sensitive to the racism of this time, especially when he saw it entering the church. in this period a number of influential catholic thinkers argued that baptized jews were second-class christians because they still carried genetic matter that had been damaged by their people’s rejection of christ. the second figure is the amateur theologian and author karl thieme (1903-63), originally a man of the left (spd) and also a convert, yet unlike oesterreicher from protestantism. both men were deeply learned, but also argumentative and hard-headed. because they moved freely across a number of kinds of borders in their lives (religious, cultural, political) i call these converts border crossers. as people who had just crossed the border into catholicism they were determined to be fully orthodox, yet as people who had left much of their past behind, they were not afraid to think in new ways. wherein lay their schizophrenia? one the one hand they rejected racism and the idea that jews were inferior. they rejected (unlike most european christens of their time) all discrimination, including quotas meant to limit numbers of jews in certain professions; they likewise rejected talk of encouraging jewish emigration. on the other hand, they found themselves captive to precisely the 16 the journals include die erfüllung, wiener politische blätter, der christliche ständestaat, and gerechtigkeit, all published in vienna between 1933 and 1938. studies in christian-jewish relations 12 scjr 9 (2014) mindset that concerned abraham joshua heschel: they desperately wanted jews to join the church. but why? for what sake? it was for the sake of eschatology, a script they thought was given by paul’s letter to the romans. in oesterreicher's view human history was approaching an end, and jews had an important role to play. by massively converting to christianity, they would help bring about christ’s second coming, and with that an end to the monstrous evils of nazism. “when the stiffneckedness of israel toward christ is broken and it speaks its faithful ‘yes,’” oesterreicher wrote in 1937, “a springtime of joy will come over the earth.” 17 if israel had only accepted christ during his time on earth, then god’s kingdom would have been realized then and there. 18 in 1938 thieme and oesterreicher were expecting an apocalyptic cataclysm. from his perch in basel, thieme watched refugees desperately make their way to neutral switzerland and wrote oesterreicher (himself a refugee in paris), that this was “only the ‘beginning of the birth pangs.’ next year they will come in earnest…what we have before us is ‘advent’ after all! therefore stand up and lift your heads because your redemption is near! we cannot repeat this often enough!” 19 they imagined the travails of history, including the problems of their age as pushing the world toward that moment. among those travails was antisemitism. “anti-semitism, sated as it is with the meanness and malice of the human being,” oesterreicher wrote in 1936 “remains a judgment sent by god. would that jewry understood this judgment.” 20 antisemitism was a form of redemptive suffering, and redemptive suffering was crucial to the catholic tradition, something to be 17 johannes m. oesterreicher, “die juden und das reich gottes,” die erfüllung 3 (june 1937), 99. 18 ibid., 98–99. 19 thieme to oesterreicher, letter of december 2,1938, thieme papers, institute für zeitgeschichte, munich, germany, ed 163/59. 20 “gericht und erneuerung,” die erfüllung 4 (november 1936), 185. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 13 www.bc.edu/scjr expected to overcome unredeemed human existence; it was shared by god himself in the person of jesus christ. suffering was an evil and a good, but above all it was a necessity. the eschatological mindset was not an isolated obsession of a few but seemed to impress the entire coterie of catholic intellectuals in paris at this time. it grew as the war approached. when ribbentrop and molotov signed their pact in august 1939, jacques maritain—perhaps the century’s most influential catholic thinker—wrote his friend the later cardinal charles journet that the “beast is revealing itself more and more.” he knew that the pact meant “war and catastrophe” but “from a spiritual point of view it will illuminate the consciences and gain the church fighters for liberation.” journet told maritain of a visit he had just received from the eminent philosopher dietrich von hildebrand (like oesterreicher a refugee from central europe). despite the impending war hildebrand was not “dejected.” 21 in a book condemning racism and antisemitism published in paris in 1940 (with a foreword by maritain) oesterreicher used similar language, writing that “the night that has fallen over the world is the night of the anti-christ. once more the beast of the apocalypse has risen from the sea.” 22 21 letters of 26, 29 august 1939. journet-maritain: correspondence, vol. 2 (1930–1939), edited by pierre mamie and georges cottier (fribourg: editions universitaires fribourg, 1997), 876–877. on maritain's apocalyptic view see richard francis crane, passion of israel: jacques maritain, catholic conscience and the holocaust (scranton, pa: university of scranton press, 2010), 35-68. 22 he identified the monster who had risen as the “symbol of the antichristian empire, the imperialist power, which claims to be the ‘god of the present,’ and directs its power against god…the second beast that comes from the earth symbolizes the false prophet, who seeks to brace the power of the first. it is racial madness which serves to subjugate the peoples…but john also knows that the days of the beast are numbered.” john m. oesterreicher, racisme, antisémitisme, antichristiaisme: documents et critique, traduit de l’allemand (paris: éditions du cerf, 1940), 197, and john m. oesterreicher, rassenhass ist christenhass: hitlers judenfeindlichkeit in zeitgeschichtlicher und in heilsgeschichtlicher sicht. dokumente und kritik (klagenfurt: hermagoras/mohorjeva, 1993), 15960. studies in christian-jewish relations 14 scjr 9 (2014) if the jews did not share this insight into deeper truths of the age, that was their fault. “no one can approach the jewish question of our day without expressing disappointment and sorrow,” karl thieme wrote in 1937, “that, by and large, judaism did not see in the persecutions of recent years—in harmony with the constant warnings of the prophets a reason for self-examination and conversion to god and his anointed.” 23 thieme wrote this not in a purposely anti-judaic screed, but in the first concerted catholic critique of antisemitism to appear in history. jacques maritain felt so embarrassed by the teaching of penalty resting upon the jewish people that he prefaced his own essay opposing antisemitism (based in a famous talk he gave in paris in 1937) with the following caveat: “if these pages are seen by jewish readers, i hope they will agree that as a christian i could only try from a christian perspective to understand the history of their people.” maritain would have preferred to strike a more brotherly tone, but catholic theology appeared to leave no other choice. when he gave the essay as a talk in paris, there were those who “took as personal ‘reproaches’ what was only a statement of the consequences of the drama of calvary regarding the relation of israel to the world.” he continued: i should like to add that such words as “penalty” or “punishment” which we are obliged to use when we seek to elucidate human matters from the viewpoint of divine conduct of history, must be deprived of any anthropomorphic connotations… the jews (i do not mean the jews individually, but the mystical body of israel at the moment when it struck 23 catholic association for international peace, ed., the church and the jews: a memorial issued by catholic european scholars, translated by gregory feige (washington, d.c.: paulist press, 1937), 14. the authors were karl thieme and waldemar gurian and the editor was johannes oesterreicher. the statement was supported by leading european catholics, including dietrich von hildebrand and jacques maritain. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 15 www.bc.edu/scjr against the rock) the jews at a crucial moment chose the world; they have loved it; their penalty is to be held captive by their choice. prisoners and victims in this world which they love, but of which they are not, will never be, cannot be. 24 maritain was arguing that a curse rested upon israel, but somehow exempted individual jews. what this self-contradictory, eschatologically tinged thinking meant for the church as whole, in europe at least, was that it lacked a language to confront nazi antisemitism. we see this tragically in that period’s popes, especially pius xii, who did not speak out against persecution of the jews. why do so if the jews were cursed by god, meant to turn to christ at the end of time? yet the characters i study, though staunch opponents of the nazi regime, likewise failed to find a language that would unequivocally express solidarity with the jews. that was not for lack of courage. in 1939 and 1940 oesterreicher broadcast weekly sermons into the reich from an émigré austrian radio station in paris. he called hitler an unclean spirit that must be exorcised, unlike the pope spoke out clearly about nazi crimes in poland and identified the perpetrators as well as victims by nationality, and attempted with friends to get the vatican to release german soldiers from their oath to hitler. he was deeply frustrated at the vatican's failure to condemn hitler and called pius xii “timid,” all but accusing him of appeasement with fascists (for example in spain). in 1940, oesterreicher barely eluded the gestapo in paris, and then had a hair-raising escape to lisbon through the pyrenees with others hunted by the germans, finally landing in manhattan later that year. 24 jacques maritain, redeeming the time, translated by harry lorin binsse (london: the centenary press 1943), 125 and 133. studies in christian-jewish relations 16 scjr 9 (2014) in the book i argue that lack of sympathy or engagement or courage was not the issue. the absence of a language, despite many words, written and spoken, was. somehow, condemnation of antisemitism on the part of nazism’s christian opponents was vitiated by the insistence that to be saved, jews really had to become christians (and of course it was only when they had that the institutional church in much of europe became truly active on their behalf, that is with organization and directives). even in the eyes of catholics who opposed hitler, the only real cure for antisemitism was baptism. let us return to the 1964 crisis. at that point john oesterreicher was himself at the vatican. in 1961 he had been taken on as theological advisor to the bishops. at the council it was indeed the bishops who voted and therefore figure prominently in histories of the event. but they did not have expertise. therefore experts produced draft statements—a bit in the way that speechwriters anticipate and formulate the thoughts of politicians. the bishops wanted statements that would be theologically unimpeachable. for the most part they wanted a strong statement against antisemitism. we know this because in archival records of their deliberations the word auschwitz keeps coming up, and so does the name rolf hochhuth. hochhuth was the german playwright who portrayed pius xii as unconcerned about the killing of the jews. the bishops felt embarrassed by the historical record (despite all defensiveness), and they did not want the church to continue its silence. the bishops also knew, or more accurately, believed, that the church could not suddenly reverse course on things catholics had been taught for many centuries. (though as noted above: the old teaching had never been formulated in an encyclical or teaching of the magisterium.) the church lived by tradition. so it was oesterreicher and two other priests in september 1964 who had to go back to the drawing board to replace the language that suggested that the jews must join the church at the end of time. here is what they came up with: studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 17 www.bc.edu/scjr “the church awaits the day, known to god alone, when all peoples will address him in a single voice and serve him shoulder to shoulder.” there is an eschatological vision here, (based in the minor prophet zephaniah), and in keeping with a new reading of romans 11 (in particular the closing lines where the apostles asks: “who has known the mind of god”) there is also a recognition that scripture does not provide a timetable or script about how christians must imagine the final unity of humankind. there is no mention in this document of conversion or mission. the new language seems simple yet it grew out of decades of intellectual and moral struggle. it was neither easy nor automatic and could not result from simple good will. someone had to explain in terms of scripture why what had been taught for generations about the jews was wrong, implicitly if not explicitly. the fact of the shoah had not suddenly suggested to christians that jews did not need to become christians en masse. i give the example in the book of robert brunner, a swiss pastor at the forefront of efforts in christian-jewish reconciliation, who asked in the summer of 1945, whether there could be a mission to the jews after auschwitz and the death of six million jews. his answer was: of course there must be; if there had been more mission before the war, perhaps auschwitz would not have happened. john oesterreicher and karl thieme felt the same way at this point. yet, in 1950, thieme made an about-face, and changed his views about judaism so radically that he sensed this as a new conversion, an umkehr. suddenly he was saying that jews were pleasing to god as jews. how did he reach this view? the answer is that he did something almost unheard of before the war: he actually talked to jews. i have in mind martin buber, with whom he had a lively correspondence, but also ernst ludwig ehrlich, the rabbis of bern and geneva and many more. he began to understand what insistence on conversion sound like to jewish ears: it was not a path to salvation but spiritual death, the extinguishing of judaism. interestingly, studies in christian-jewish relations 18 scjr 9 (2014) christians began talking to jews not out of a feeling of guilt, but out of a sense of being victims of nazism. karl thieme justified his radical change by turning to the one statement in the new testament where the author explicitly tells followers of christ what to make of the fact that most jews did not accept christ as messiah (statements in acts or the gospels are not as direct). he focused on paul’s letter to the romans, sometimes called paul’s testament, probably his last letter and regarded as a summation of his thought and teaching. for centuries the elements of this letter that thieme and other theologians now turned to had been neglected, or read in radically different ways (especially the eschatology). how did he spread the word? now i return to the former inmate of ravensbrück mentioned above, gertrud luckner. in 1948, luckner founded the freiburger rundbrief with the intention of combatting antisemitism. the freiburger rundbrief was a biyearly printed in thousands of copies and sent to catholic and protestant parishes throughout the lands where german was spoken (it was also practiced ecumenism), but to fill it with ideas that christians would take seriously she needed theology. good intentions did not suffice. for this she turned to karl thieme in nearly by basel and took him on as theological advisor. they gradually created a platform (based largely in romans) and spread the message, opposed by many but also supported, for example by oesterreicher at seton hall university in the united states or paul démann in france. but as i said earlier the work was not easy, the new views were not popular; tensions built even among proponents of a new vision, for example between thieme and oesterreicher, who broke over mutual suspicions (especially thieme’s view that oesterreicher thought of him as less than orthodox). they ceased communicating in 1960 and were not reconciled before thieme died in 1963. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 19 www.bc.edu/scjr still, in 1964, when oesterreicher had a hand in drafting a new text for nostra aetate, he drew upon words formulated by his friend in the 1950s, giving the church a language with which to break with the missionary perspective that had been oesterreicher's own. the vision of the end of time in nostra aetate (based in words of the minor prophet zephaniah) was formulated by karl thieme in 1954 for an ecumenical congress in evanston, himself perhaps drawing on the work of karl barth and moses maimonides (thus truly ecumenical). but most of the new statement on the jews in nostra aetate was based in romans, just as had been the vision of the freiburger rundbrief. thus the new teaching ratified in 1965 responds to the deeper structure of antijudaism. concluding thoughts this article has involved issues with deep moral stakes, in particular why an institution that claims to preach morality lacked language to condemn perhaps history’s greatest crime while it was occurring. yet, i hope i have not been moralistic or moralizing; that i have not made assumptions about what people should or should not have done 70 odd years ago, judging them with the benefit of hindsight, claiming that had i been around with my wisdom all problems would have been solved. instead what i hope i have done is not write a script for the past, but rather revealed a deep level of belief that shaped morality and to some extent structured conscience. rather than writing a script for the past i have identified a script in the past, a script that christians once wrote for jews, in which jews were scheduled in the future to behave not as free human actors but as unwitting accomplices in creating a world in which there was no more judaism. would it be a “triumph of god,” abraham joshua heschel asked the jesuit gustave weigel in 1964, “if the scrolls of the torah were no longer taken out of the ark and the torah no longer read in the synagogue, our ancient hebrew prayers in which jesus himself studies in christian-jewish relations 20 scjr 9 (2014) worshipped no more recited, the passover seder no longer celebrated in our lives, the law of moses no more observed in our homes? would it really be ad majorem dei gloriam to have a world without jews?” 25 heschel was envisioning the ultimate results of a world in which jews suddenly entered the church. as we know a world without jews was also the vision of german national socialism. i do not say that the church collaborated in or desired the holocaust, but this congruence in ultimate vision left it without a language to speak out unequivocally against antisemitism. that was especially so given the corollary of the church’s eschatological hope that jews would enter the church at the end of time. until that point they were supposed to suffer for the supposed crime of rejecting christ. antisemitism seemed willed by god to produce this outcome. i call it a schizophrenic situation, a situation of attempting to embrace the sin (antisemitism) while rejecting the sinner (nazism: both pius xi and pius xii were deeply disdainful of nazism and viewed it as dangerous heresy). please note that we do not know how widespread this view was before vatican ii among rank and file catholics. i sense that it was stronger in central europe than in north america, but that is an impression based in partial readings of catholic journals from the period. finally, if nostra aetate is authoritative, why are there continued questions about god's covenant with the jews, for example after pope benedict xvi’s good friday prayer for the little-used latin rite in 2008? i argue in the book that nostra aetate continues to form the point of reference for the church, as seen in the “correction” of benedict's prayer 25 abraham joshua heschel, moral grandeur and spiritual audacity: essays, susannah heschel, ed., (new york, farrar straus and giroux, 1996), 246 studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 21 www.bc.edu/scjr almost immediately released by walter cardinal kasper (then president of the church’s commission for religious relations with the jews), and the pope’s accession to kasper’s comment. 26 the issue requires continued study. eschatology is not the first explanation for christian anti-judaism, yet in some senses it is an ultimate one. often we see theological arguments invoked to back up other agendas. a christian antisemite of the 1930s might have resented jews as rivals in business or scholarship, but argued in theological terms, projecting jews as reprobate, as condemned by god. some christian missionaries carried out their mission to the jews—and others—with little concern for the eschaton; their primary goal may have been to save souls. but when one has accounted for such motivations for antisemitism and anti-judaism, for the idea of jewish deficiency, one is left with the idea, as karl thieme still wrote in the early 1950s (in the so-called schwalbach theses), that the jews’ destiny was to become christian. and that was where abraham joshua heschel made his intervention. this christian belief was a smoldering ember that remained after the rest of anti-judaism has been deconstructed (as cardinal bea did at vatican ii); and only waiting for stimulation to blaze anew. it involved the presumption of “knowing” that jews destined to disappear completely in historical time, of wishing for the end of judaism, even if put off to a moment no one can imagine. 26 “wenn der papst nun von der bekehrung der juden spricht,” kath.net, february 7, 2008, www.kath.net/detail.php?id=18969 (accessed july 15, 2011); john borelli, “troubled waters: catholic-jewish relations in the united states have grown strained,” america, february 22, 2010, 20–23. 1 scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-16 christian mission to the jews revisited: exploring the logic of the vatican document “the gifts and calling of god are irrevocable”1 christian m. rutishauser provinzialat.hel@jesuiten.org swiss jesuit province, 8001 zurich, switzerland introduction the 2015 vatican document the gifts and calling of god are irrevocable2 (g&c) presented systematic theological reflection on the relationship of judaism and christianity and thus triggered a new dynamic for today’s jewish-catholic dialogue. the relationship between the two traditions determining this dynamic emerged within the current catholic struggle to articulate an adequate theology of religions.3 encouraged by the conciliar declaration nostra aetate to recognize the elements of truth within the various religious traditions (na 2), catholic theology today struggles to judge them as a whole and to relate to them from an ecclesial point of view. g&c expresses what can best be described as an inclusivist theology, one which preserves the superiority of its own tradition while admitting the possibility of lesser truths in others. thus, it defends the universal claim to salvation in christ jesus and sets itself apart from pluralists’ acceptance of all religious truths as equal. despite its affirmation of interreligious dialogue, though, g&c preserves a missionary mandate to lead people to the christian faith. mission to the jews, though, has been one of the sensitive issues in jewish-christian dialogue in recent 1 an initial version of this essay was presented at “fulfilling the promise of a new relationship: an academic roundtable on christian-jewish relations,” sponsored by the institute for catholic-jewish relations, saint joseph’s university, philadelphia (january 2019). 2 commission for religious relations with the jews, “the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable” (rom 11:29): a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholic–jewish relations on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of “nostra aetate” (no.4), http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jewsdocs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html. 3 johannes becker, catholic engagement with world religions: a comprehensive study (new york: maryknoll, 2010); werner löser, bausteine für eine theologie der religionen: blicke und schritte über die grenzen (würzburg: echter, 2016). http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html rutishauser: christian mission to the jews revisited 2 decades, even if rarely addressed explicitly. this article asks if this christian commitment to mission is applicable to judaism, and in what sense g&c deals with this question. lying behind the inclusivist theology expressed in g&c are a number of important vatican documents. dialogue and mission (1984)4 and dialogue and proclamation (1991)5 present dialogue about the search for religious truth, on the one hand, and evangelization or mission, on the other hand, as two complementary paradigms for relationship with other religious traditions. they belong together, but each also has its own integrity. the framework of dialogue leads to the discipline of comparative theology which brings individual aspects of different traditions into conversation with each other. mission, in contrast, though shaped dialogically in that it appreciates the truths of other religions, integrates these truths through the inculturation of the gospel. the 2000 vatican document dominus iesus explicitly affirmed this inclusivist theology of religions as official catholic doctrine.6 when it appeared, david berger and some other jewish theologians questioned whether and how this theology of religions classified judaism.7 cardinal kasper’s published response pointed out that “catholic-jewish relations are not a subset of interreligious relations in general, neither in theory nor in practice.”8 in other words, among world religions, christianity has a unique relationship to judaism. dominus iesus, kasper implied, also defends this unique relationship between judaism and god against a pluralistic approach. judaism should, as it were, stand on the side of the church over and against the religions of the world. how is this to be understood? can catholics ultimately classify judaism within an inclusivist theology of religions, but in a particularly close relationship to christianity? is christianity surrounded by religious traditions like concentric circles, where judaism is closest, then islam follows, and then other religions? while for jews, the jewish relationship to christianity may be theologically analogous to other interreligious relationships, the explanations in g&c 20 clearly state that, from an ecclesiastical perspective, the jewish-christian relationship is indeed sui 4 pope john paul ii, “the attitude of the church towards the followers of other religions: reflections and orientations on dialogue and mission (pentecost 1984), https://www.pcinterreligious.org/pciddocuments. 5 pontifical council for interreligious dialogue and the congregation for evangelization of peoples, “dialogue and proclamation: reflection and orientations on interreligious dialogue and the proclamation of the gospel of jesus christ” (rome, 19 may 1991), https://www.pcinterreligious.org/pciddocuments. 6 congregation for the doctrine of the faith, “declaration dominus iesus on the unicity and salvific universality of jesus christ and the church,” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html. 7 david berger, on dominus jesus and the jews, delivered at the 17th meeting of the international catholic-jewish liaison committee, new york, may 1, 2001, https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/berger.htm. 8 walter cardinal kasper, “dominus iesus,” delivered at the 17th meeting of the international catholicjewish liaison committee, new york, may 1, 2001, 2, https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/kasper_dominus_iesus.htm. https://www.pcinterreligious.org/pcid-documents https://www.pcinterreligious.org/pcid-documents https://www.pcinterreligious.org/pcid-documents https://www.pcinterreligious.org/pcid-documents http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/berger.htm https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/berger.htm https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/kasper_dominus_iesus.htm https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/kasper_dominus_iesus.htm 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) generis; it is of a different mode than the church’s relationship to other religious traditions. this is not simply a question of relative distance. because judaism already answers god’s salvific initiative, it stands in an unrevoked covenant with god. judaism qualifies as a faith tradition, a genuine response to god, as opposed to the world religions that are human-generated beliefs.9 through seven paragraphs (14-20), g&c unfolds what is stated more implicitly in the conciliar declaration nostra aetate. according to na 1, world religions are to be understood as answers to the great questions of humankind, but na 4 says that the church encounters judaism when she ponders her own mystery.10 in defining the nature of the jewishchristian relationship, though, g&c 37 also emphasizes that judaism and christianity are not two parallel ways of salvation. thus, here too, there is no simple pluralism. the determination of the content of the sui generis relationship between christianity and judaism will govern how mission towards jews is to be understood. two jewish documents reacted to g&c: a statement of a group of orthodox rabbis, to do the will of our father in heaven: toward a partnership between jews and christians (2015)11; and a statement endorsed by the conference of european rabbis and the rabbinical council of america (both orthodox), between jerusalem and rome: the shared universal and the respected particular, reflections on 50 years of nostra aetate (2016).12 beyond all else, both respond positively. they value the fact that judaism is recognized as an independent religious tradition and that the church recognizes that jews stand in a “never-revoked covenant” with god. (g&c 35-39) introduced into discussion by pope john paul ii, the theological term “neverrevoked covenant” has been widely discussed and has become the concept employed to describe the continuing special relationship between god and israel with its historical dignity in the postbiblical age. however, reacting to g&c in his essay grace and vocation without remorse published in 2018, emeritus pope benedict 9 walter cardinal kasper, “dominus iesus,” 2. 10 this language points to a continuity with tradition, for across the centuries, the church knew that she had a special relationship with judaism. jews were always distinguished from pagans, heretics and schismatics. see francis a. sullivan, salvation outside the church?: tracing the history of the catholic response (mahwah nj: paulist press, 1992), 14-102. unfortunately, when it treated the essence of the church in lumen gentium, the council did not reflect on this constitutive bond to judaism. but that lumen gentium, in its description of the relationship of the church to the peoples, does not specifically mention judaism (lg §1, 7), does not mean that judaism is simply subsumed under them. in the light of the tradition mentioned here, as well as of nostra aetate and its ecclesiastical reception, judaism clearly occupies a special status. 11 published december 3, 2015 at http://cjcuc.org/2015/12/03/orthodox-rabbinic-statement-on-christianity/. to do the will was published a week earlier than the vatican text but can to be considered a reaction to it for the vatican worked on its text for more than two years and some of the authors of to do the will were informed about this work in process. 12 http://www.jcrelations.net/between_jerusalem_and_rome_-.5580.0.html. http://cjcuc.org/2015/12/03/orthodox-rabbinic-statement-on-christianity/ http://cjcuc.org/2015/12/03/orthodox-rabbinic-statement-on-christianity/ http://www.jcrelations.net/between_jerusalem_and_rome_-.5580.0.html rutishauser: christian mission to the jews revisited 4 seems dissatisfied with this and considers the language of “never-revoked covenant” to be provisional and imprecise.13 for him, god “reestablished” the sinai covenant in the new covenant through jesus christ.14 thus, apparently, only the abrahamic covenant (gen 15:17) maintains its full meaning for judaism today. but were the sinai covenant transformed into the covenant of the new testament, it would be impossible to affirm either the rabbinic tradition and thus today’s judaism, or the principle of god’s irrevocable establishment of the covenant. christian mission to the jews revisited pope emeritus benedict’s challenge to this fundamental premise has significant implications for the catholic theology of religions as applied to jews. how the different covenants reported in the bible are related to one another has implications for understanding the special relationship between christianity and judaism and thus for our topics: the church’s understanding of both dialogue and of mission. on dialogue: church documents explicitly invite catholics to enter into dialogue with the rich jewish tradition of interpreting scripture. the 2001 document of the pontifical biblical commission, the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible15 is a milestone in this respect. the context of pope francis’ 2013 discussion in evangelii gaudium 249 of complementarity between jews and christians shows that he had in mind precisely the communities’ two traditions of textual interpretation.16 g&c, though, goes beyond dialogue through biblical hermeneutics. it presents a systematic theological determination of the positive relationship between judaism and christianity. the orthodox jewish response to this is mixed. to do the will also makes theological statements that assess christianity positively within a jewish understanding of human history. between jerusalem and rome, however, makes no theological assessment of christianity. it repeatedly stresses “theological differences,” and rejects discussing them. it seems to perceive theological dialogue as the systematic classification and elimination of incompatible and irreducible elements from both faith traditions. thus, dialogue that extends beyond interpretation of scripture and mutual social concerns is problematic and threatening to its authors and signatories. between jerusalem and rome focuses instead on a dialogue of common values and actions, coherent with g&c 48-49.17 however, it implicitly 13 benedikt xvi.-joseph ratzinger, “grace and vocation without remorse: comments on the treatise de iudaeis,” communio 45 (spring 2018): 168, 180-184, available at https://www.ccjr.us/images/ratzinger_grace__vocation_without_remorse_-_english.pdf. this is the official english translation of the original german article published in july 2018. 14 “grace and vocation,” 184. 15 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html. 16 http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html. 17 as is well known, the contemporary questioning of theological dialogue in jewish orthodoxy, particularly in the united states, goes back to rabbi joseph b. soloveitchik’s reflection “confrontation,” tradition 6, no. 2 (1964): 5-28. https://www.ccjr.us/images/ratzinger_grace__vocation_without_remorse_-_english.pdf https://www.ccjr.us/images/ratzinger_grace__vocation_without_remorse_-_english.pdf http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) acknowledges that ethical, social, and political questions can never be completely detached from theological ones. every dialogue therefore indirectly negotiates theology too. christian mission is the central issue here, though. the question of mission to the jews was first raised in the post-conciliar context at the 1977 meeting of the international liaison committee (ilc). the catholic speaker for the vatican, tomaso federici,18 explained that christian mission follows the biblical and prophetic call to bring god’s name to all nations, and is hence a task that christians and jews share (i.a.1-9). he then distinguished mission, witness, and proselytism. any proselytism that exerts moral, ethical, psychological, or physical pressure is incompatible with the nature of the christian proclamation of faith as understood by the church. in fact, federici argued against mission to the jews (ii.a.11-17). above all, his ethical argument found consensus among the catholic and jewish participants.19 a broader theological debate on this subject only arose more than twenty years later. it was ignited by the 2002 american document reflections on covenant and mission, issued by a consultation of the national council of synagogues and delegates of the bishops’ committee for ecumenical and interreligious affairs.20 its premise is that jews are already in covenant with god, and this covenant is neverrevoked. thus, jews are already answering god’s call and, like christians, work towards the kingdom of god. the document explicitly states that this covenant includes redemption from bondage, gracious election, sanctification, and all the gifts that paul enumerates in the letter to the romans (9:4f.). its decisive claim is that: the term mission, in its proper sense, refers to conversion from false gods and idols to the true and one god, who revealed himself in the salvation history with his elected people. thus mission, in this strict sense, cannot be used regarding jews, who believe in the true and one god.21 thus, not mission but dialogue determines the jewish-christian relationship. reflections on covenant and mission was fiercely contested by right-wing catholics, most prominently by cardinal avery dulles, but it served nonetheless as a cornerstone in the post-nostra aetate process toward renewed theological thought. its argumentation recalls the statement of the jewish philosopher, franz rosenzweig. he accepted that christ was the way to the father and no one comes to god but through him, but stated that jews had been with the father long before 18 https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/educational-and-liturgical-materials/classicarticles/federici1977. 19 hans hermann henrix, “weichenstellungen in katholischen positionen – von nostra aetate bis zu papst benedikt,” in das heil der anderen: problemfeld “judenmission,” ed. hubert frankemölle and josef wohlmuth, qd 238 (freiburg/ basel/ vienna: herder, 2010), 20-21. 20 http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-andinterreligious/jewish/upload/reflections-on-covenant-and-mission.pdf. 21 roman catholic reflections, section “evangelization and the jewish people.” https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/educational-and-liturgical-materials/classic-articles/federici1977 https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/educational-and-liturgical-materials/classic-articles/federici1977 http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/jewish/upload/reflections-on-covenant-and-mission.pdf http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/jewish/upload/reflections-on-covenant-and-mission.pdf rutishauser: christian mission to the jews revisited 6 christians.22 seven years after the american debate, in 2009, when pope benedict was criticized for permitting the tridentine rite’s good friday intercession for the jews because it would reintroduce praying for their conversion, the central committee of catholics and jews in germany published the statement mission to jews no – jewish-christian dialogue yes.23 it similarly formulates that the jews will reach salvation without an explicit confession of christ or baptism because they are in the never-revoked covenant with god (iii.3). it also teaches that god’s plan of salvation is a mystery and jews and christians will be brought together only in eschatological time. even more, precisely the jews’ “no” to christ made possible the mission among the gentiles and thus led to the church, necessary for the salvation of mankind (cf. rom 11:11). in his own writings, cardinal walter kasper, who presided over the vatican’s commission for religious relations with the jews from 2001 to 2010, reacted both to the controversy over the relationship of the biblical covenants as well as to that over christian mission to jews. adam gregerman, in his detailed analysis of kasper’s theology,24 demonstrates that kasper presents the old covenant of god with the jews as positive and salvific. this can be understood as consistent with a line of argument that includes thomas aquinas, who teaches in his sentences that, as sign of the old covenant, circumcision eliminates original sin.25 according to kasper, the new covenant does not substitute for the old covenant, but the new covenant is superior because it is more universal; it therefore fulfils the old covenant. consequently, jews should be led to the new covenant, even if this means something different from the mission and conversion required for non-jews. mission, he says, also includes the right and duty to bear witness to one's own convictions of faith in the universal truth of jesus christ. kasper argues that christians should be allowed today to bear witness in this way, but only with consciousness of the controversy and irreconcilable points of view between jews and christians, and with great sensitivity for the historical injustices done to jews by christian mission. in 2010, cardinal karl lehmann also spoke to the question of mission to the jews and summarized his reflections in ten points.26 these included that a specific 22 letter to rudolf ehrenberg on november 1, 1913, in: franz rosenzweig, der mensch und sein werk. gesammelte schriften: briefe und tagebücher, vol. 1 (den haag: nijhoff, 1979), 134-135. 23 https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/conversion/zdk09mar9. 24 adam gregerman, “the desirability of jewish conversion to christianity in contemporary catholic thought,” horizons 45 (2018): 4-24. 25 whereas aquinas attributes salvific meaning to circumcision in his sentences, he does not do so in his summa. on the development of his stance, see richard schenk, “covenant initiation: thomas aquinas and robert kilwardby on the sacrament of circumcision,” in ordo sapientiae et amoris. image et message de saint thomas d’aquin à travers les récentes études historiques, herméneutiques et doctrinales: hommage au professeur jean-pierre torrell op à l’occasion de son 65e anniversaire, ed. jeanpierre torrell, carlos-josaphat pinto de oliveira (fribourg: university press, 1993), 555–593. on aquinas, the old covenant and israel, see matthew a. tapie, aquinas on israel and the church: the question of supersessionism in the theology of thomas aquinas (eugene or: pickwick, 2014). 26 cardinal karl lehman, “‘judenmission’ hermeneutische und theologische überlegungen zu einer problemanzeige im jüdisch-christlichen gespräch,” in das heil der anderen: problemfeld https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/conversion/zdk09mar9 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) mission to jews does not belong in the missionary theology of the roman catholic church, even if the church historically encouraged or forced jewish baptism. according to the church’s renewed theology about judaism after vatican ii, israel’s separation from salvation is only partial and temporary. its salvation is anchored in the never-revoked covenant, though, for lehmann, language of equivalent paths to salvation is also problematic. lehmann believes that in view of the permanent differences between jews and christians, new methods must be found to express the jewish-christian relationship. evangelization among jews is not among them. these us and european debates, including cardinal kasper and cardinal lehmann’s contributions, made very clear that mission to the jews cannot be subsumed under the mandate to mission among the nations. this awareness left its traces in g&c. god’s guidance of jews and christians as mentioned above, g&c rejects understanding judaism and christianity as parallel means of salvation. at the same time, it avoids teaching that the neverrevoked covenant lacks salvific value. the fact that judaism participates in salvation is of great consequence in its discussion of mission to the jews. paragraph 36 teaches: from the christian confession that there can be only one path to salvation, however, it does not in any way follow that the jews are excluded from god’s salvation because they do not believe in jesus christ as the messiah of israel and the son of god. such a claim would find no support in the soteriological understanding of saint paul, who in the letter to the romans not only gives expression to his conviction that there can be no breach in the history of salvation, but that salvation comes from the jews (cf. also jn 4:22). god entrusted israel with a unique mission, and he does not bring his mysterious plan of salvation for all peoples (cf. 1 tim 2:4) to fulfilment without drawing into it his “first-born son” (ex 4:22). from this it is self-evident that paul in the letter to the romans definitively negates the question he himself has posed, whether god has repudiated his own people. just as decisively he asserts: “for the gifts and the call of god are irrevocable” (rom 11:29). that the jews are participants in god’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery. this paragraph provides the necessary background for paragraph 40’s disavowal of targeted mission to the jews. there we read: “judenmission,” ed. hubert frankemölle, josef wohlmuth, qd 238 (freiburg/ basel/ vienna: herder, 2010), 165-167. rutishauser: christian mission to the jews revisited 8 the church is therefore obliged to view evangelization to jews, who believe in the one god, in a different manner from that to people of other religions and world views. in concrete terms this means that the catholic church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards jews. the document here takes up cardinal kasper’s language denying any institutionalized mission to the jews, which he coined and used for the first time in the debate generated by dominus iesus, writing: thus mission, in this strict sense, cannot be used with regard to jews, who believe in the true and one god. therefore–and this is characteristic‒[there] does not exist any catholic missionary organization for jews. there is dialogue with jews; no mission in this proper sense of the word towards them.27 the terms “missionary organization for jews” or “institutionalized mission” require elucidation. they translate the german term judenmission which echoes the history of jewish mission as it arose in the 19th century among some protestant churches. it is a colonialist understanding of mission, motivated by the conviction that jews have to believe in jesus christ before the history of salvation can come to its completion.28 eschatological thinking determines its horizon. in the catholic church of that time, only one institutionalized initiative arose to evangelize the jews with this eschatological motivation, namely the sisters of zion, founded by the jewish convert théodore ratisbonne in 1842. in the transition to a new theology of judaism after the shoah, though, the sisters abandoned their missionary commitment and placed themselves at the service of dialogue with jews, becoming its pioneers. the nineteenth-century mission, of course, had earlier roots, but it was not institutionalized in the same way. from the middle ages to early modernity, the catholic mendicant orders systematically sought to convert jews, this in spite of the doctrine of the double patronage of the popes who were supposed to protect jews and christians from each other.29 indeed, seeking baptism of jews and their integration into the church remains catholic practice today. this is in spite of the 1970 ordinary rite’s good friday intercession, replacing the tridentine rite’s prayer for jewish conversion, that petitions god to “grant [jews] to advance in love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant.”30 g&c 40 consequently continues with an affirmation that christians must be able and allowed to testify to jews about their faith. it states: 27 walter kasper, “dominus iesus…”, 3. 28 on the history of the term see cardinal karl lehman, “‘judenmission’…, 146-158. 29 thomas brechenmacher, der vatikan und die juden: geschichte einer unheiligen beziehung (münchen: beck, 2005), 12-26. 30 solemn intercession vi, at http://www.ibreviary.com/m/preghiere.php?tipo=rito&id=541. http://www.ibreviary.com/m/preghiere.php?tipo=rito&id=541 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) while there is a principled rejection of an institutional jewish mission, christians are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in jesus christ also to jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive manner, acknowledging that jews are bearers of god’s word, and particularly in view of the great tragedy of the shoah. what does g&c intend by mission in a “different” and a “humble and sensitive manner”? does this mean that if there is no institutional mission to jews, individual catholics still have a personal one to them? cardinal christoph schönborn seems to suggest this direction when he both speaks out against proselytism, but also, following paul, wants to proclaim the gospel to the jews. he says, “…this mandate must be carried out in the most sensitive way, cleansed of all un-christian motives. prayer, the offering of life, tokens of unselfish love and above all recognition of jewish identity should win ‘the goodwill of all the people’ (acts 2:47) for the disciples of jesus…”31 in any case, g&c leaves no doubt about its claim for universal salvation and truth in jesus christ. it rejects that the church in any way replaces israel, while affirming clearly that the new covenant in christ is better than the old covenant. the old covenant finds its fulfilment in the more universal new covenant. we need to ask, though, whether we can go beyond expressing merely an ambivalent and dialectical stand about, on the one hand, the mystery that god guides the jewish people collectively through history, and, on the other hand, god’s call to christians to integrate individual jews into the church? does the call to christian mission exist only in a tempered manner, with consideration for the fact that jews are already in covenant with god? no evangelization of the jews to answer this, we will need to examine more deeply section 6 of g&c titled, “the church's mandate to evangelize in relation to judaism” (40-43). it contains elements that will aid us to deepen our reflection. we begin by reviewing the relevant new testament texts for this “mandate to evangelize” and their historical contexts. the author of the epistle to the ephesians argues for what luke calls in acts a “people for his [god’s] name” (15:14),32 chosen in christ from the gentiles just as god had chosen the jews.33 ephesians was written to christ-believing jews who have to learn that gentiles are called and chosen by the messiah too. eph 1-2’s 31 reported in “karfreitagsfürbitte: israelitische kultusgemeinde beendet dialog,” katholische nachrichten (vienna, 17 april, 2008), http://www.kath.net/news/19574. english translation from the tablet (uk), available at https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/pasttopics/good-friday-prayer/schonborn08mar29. 32 bible quotations follow the new revised standard version. 33 maria neubrandt, “‘ein volk aus nichtjuden’ (apg 15,14): die bleibende erwählung israels und die erwählung aus den völkern im lukanischen doppelwerk,” in das heil der anderen. problemfeld “judenmission,” ed. hubert frankemölle and josef wohlmuth, qd 238, (freiburg, basel, vienna: herder, 2010), 297-310. http://www.kath.net/news/19574 https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/pasttopics/good-friday-prayer/schonborn08mar29 https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/pasttopics/good-friday-prayer/schonborn08mar29 rutishauser: christian mission to the jews revisited 10 central message is that there should be no enmity between the jewish and gentile communities.34 however, even if all are to become one body in christ and, through him, the hostility between jews and other peoples will be overcome, it is, from the beginning, not a matter of a single, undifferentiated people of god. to paraphrase gal 3:28, jews and greeks, men and women, remain differentiated, side by side, while also being one in christ. paul too, argues with his fellow jewish christ-followers for a mission to the gentiles, leading to the emergence of gentile christian communities. in these pauline congregations, christian jews and christian gentiles worship together for some time, but a distinction remains. the torah, with its demarcation between the purity of israel and the impurity of the nations, has not been abolished, but this demarcation has shifted. gentile christians are now in covenant with god too; it is pagan gentiles who remain outside. what became the church did not emerge out of judaism in the sense that christianity separated from judaism. it was never an offshoot, or the result of schism. rather, what we today call the church originated among the proselytes who gathered around judaism.35 it was a gentile church from the beginning, alongside jews and other messianic movements within judaism. another crucial new testament text must be mentioned: rom 11. as is well known, paul, in his epistle to the romans, attempts to express a kind of messianic theology of history. by chapters 9-11, he aligns jews and people from the nations to one another. he concludes his reflections with a synthesizing metaphor, the famous olive tree parable. many understood paul to depict jews who do not follow jesus as the broken off branches of the tree and gentile christians as the grafted-in wild ones. but contemporary exegesis has revised this view and further differentiated the elements of the parable. abraham is the root and christ the trunk of the olive tree.36 moreover, as mark d. nanos clarifies, paul mediates between, not two, but four different groups: jews who reject jesus as messiah, jews who accept him but are not open themselves to mission among the gentiles, jews like paul who are christ followers and open to universal messianic mission, and gentile christians, that is, people from the nations, who attend the synagogue and accept jesus as the messiah. at stake and disputed is the status of this last group. nanos’ close reading of the olive tree parable shows that paul speaks not about the elimination or falling off of the original branches, but about their breaking, that is, their being cut and bent to the side so as to graft in the wild branches (11:17ff). the gentile christians are thus grafted in next to the original olive branches; this is physically painful for them. paul urges the gentile christians, who do not have to convert to judaism because god is a god of all nations (cf. isa 25:6; 65:7; acts 13:47; 15:17), not to 34 norbert baumert and irma maria seewan, israels berufung für die völker: übersetzung und auslegung der briefe an philemon, an die kolosser und an die epheser (würzburg: echter, 2016), 180281. 35 rupert feneberg, “die gründung der heidenchristlichen gemeinde in mt 28,16-20,” in das heil der anderen. problemfeld “judenmission,” ed. hubert frankemölle/ and josef wohlmuth, qd 238, (freiburg, basel, vienna: herder, 2010), 274-280. 36 maria neubrand, “‘eingepfropft in den edlen ölbaum’ (röm 11,24): der ölbaum ist nicht israel,” biblische notizen, neue folge 105 (2000): 61-76. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) assert superiority over those jews who cannot comprehend that the god of israel is opening to the nations though the messianic movement (11:18). according to nanos, even if these jews do not share paul's approach, god does not reject them. they are hardened through the cut necessary for the grafting, according to paul’s metaphor. later however, they will come to understand that the messianic mission among the gentiles and the extension of election among them is god-given (11:25ff). this is paul’s hope. nowhere, however, does he stop gentile christians from bringing their faith in christ to the jews who are hardened and cannot consent to paul's project, argues nanos. 37 finally, we must consider mt 28:16-20, the baptismal command of the resurrected christ. when jesus commands his disciples to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit” (28:19) to whom are they to go? the traditional and common church reading of this text never hesitated to claim that the jews are to be counted among the peoples mentioned here too. but the matthean christ speaks from a jewish perspective and therefore intends the gentiles when he speaks of “all nations.” contemporary exegetes increasingly accept this interpretation. that matthew 10 narrates an earlier sending of the disciples through jesus, explicitly addressed only to the house of israel, supports this.38 the two related missions seem to be complementary. in between, the gospel tells of the death and resurrection of jesus, exactly the event that establishes the new covenant. in this, matthew continues his pattern of repeatedly distinguishing these two groups of addressees.39 it is noteworthy that pope em. benedict/joseph ratzinger refers to mt 28 when he argues against mission to jews, calling instead for dialogue. in a short essay in the herder correspondence, he interprets this passage in such a way that the risen lord’s order to missionize and baptize applies only to the nations and not to israel; he spoke as the jewish messiah looking to the world of nations. “for israel, therefore, there was and is no mission, but a dialogue about whether jesus of nazareth is the ‘son of god, the logos’,” benedict writes.40 but of course, this statement only calls for dialogue instead of mission insofar as jesus christ is not the only and imposed content of dialogue, and only insofar as judaism is recognized in its neverrevoked covenant with god beyond the question of christology. but we saw that ratzinger asserted in his communio article that the doctrine of the never-revoked covenant is problematic as the basis for dialogue. therefore, one may doubt whether benedict’s call for dialogue with the jews is indeed a dialogue in the common sense, where partners meet on equal terms and freely decide on its form and contents. on the other hand, benedict indeed opposes traditional mission to the 37 mark d. nanos, reading romans within judaism: collected essays, (eugene or: wipf and stock, 2018), vol. 2, part iii, “‘broken branches’: a pauline metaphor gone awry? (rom 11:11-24),”112152. 38 feneberg, “gründung...,” 262-274. 39 compare the stories of the multiplication of the loaves. there is one in chapter 14 for the jews where twelve baskets of bread are left over and another for non-jews from the nations in chapter 15 where seven baskets remain. 40 joseph ratzinger – benedikt xvi, “nicht mission, sondern dialog,” herder korrespondenz 12 (2018): 14. rutishauser: christian mission to the jews revisited 12 jews. he argues in jesus of nazareth that after christ’s resurrection a “time of the gentiles” dawned in which the nations should be evangelized. he argues, turning to the gospel of luke and acts and quoting bernard of clairvaux as source of the tradition that the conversion of the jews does not have to be taken care of during the time of the nations, because it will be accomplished by god in due time.41 g&c 36 quotes bernard to the same effect. to summarize the exegetical and theological discussion relevant for understanding section 6 of g&c: the arguments presented about the debates on evangelization among jews and the contemporary exegesis of relevant new testament passages provide sufficient and systematically grounded justification for delegitimizing a traditional christian mission to the jews, whether collective or individual. a way to express this clearly would be for the church to celebrate this new and deepened understanding liturgically. it should rename and redesign the feast of the conversion of paul. it is no longer appropriate to celebrate paul’s conversion from judaism to christianity, as he remained consciously jewish during his entire life; rather the church should celebrate paul’s christological redirection.42 this january 25th feast could be renamed the calling of paul, with a corresponding adaptation of the texts of the mass. in addition, the church should restore the feast of circumcision of our lord jesus on the octave day of christmas, on january 1. when the liturgical reform of vatican ii suppressed this feast in 1969, it prevented catholics from celebrating the god’s covenant with the jews and the fact that jesus was born and lived under the law (gal 4:4). this feast could underline the importance of the old covenant and its continuing significance for christians.43 ecclesia ex circumcisione? g&c thus perceives that theological reflections, renewed appreciation of judaism, and exegetical research indicate that a traditional mission to jews is no longer possible. at the same time, it holds fast to jesus’ universal claim to salvation. consequently, the text in section 6 reflects on what evangelization means when applied to judaism. §41 states that jesus “calls his church from both jews and gentiles.” and §43 recalls: “it is and remains a qualitative definition of the church of the new covenant that it consists of jews and gentiles, even if the quantitative proportions of jewish and gentile christians may initially give a different 41 joseph ratzinger – pope benedict xvi, jesus of nazareth, part ii, holy week: from the entrance into jerusalem to the resurrection, trans. philip j. witmore (san francisco: ignatius press, 2011), 4345. 42 daniel boyarin not only depicts paul as a messianic jew with a complex relationship towards torah but also discusses his way of constructing ethnic and gender identity, which is formative for jewish and christian self-understanding still today. daniel boyarin, a radical jew. paul and politics of identity (berkeley: university of california press, 1994), 1-38. 136-157. 43 christian rutishauser, den christlichen glauben denken: im dialog mit der jüdischen tradition (münster: lit, 2016), 233-248; jan heiner tück, “beschneidung des herrn: warum papst franziskus eine lücke in der katholischen gedenkkultur schliessen sollte,” communio 47 (2019): 123-136. 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) impression.” this leads to the question of what kind of importance and meaning jesus would and could have for jews and judaism. if not a traditional christian mission, then what? we cannot ignore that the historical jesus worked entirely within the framework of the jewish people and turned to his fellow brothers and sisters. the original followers of the risen one were an inner-jewish movement; the new testament understands the crucified and the risen one as the messiah, king of the jews (john 19:1-16). this is something that christians have tended to forget, but it was raised by jewish scholars. in the nineteenth century, abraham geiger presented pioneering research on jesus being a jew of his time.44 in the face of nazi ideology, leo baeck not only recalled jesus as a jew, but also read the writings of the new testament as documents of jewish faith history.45 the gospel of matthew arose in a jewish context and is clearly an inner-jewish scripture. g&c therefore references the gospel of matthew explicitly when it speaks of jesus’ importance for judaism saying: he [jesus] gives his disciples a share in this call in relation to god’s people of israel (cf. mt 10:6) and then as the risen lord with regard to all nations (cf. mt 28:19). thus the people of god attain a new dimension through jesus, who calls his church from both jews and gentiles (cf. eph 2:11-22)… (41) following paul’s theology in rom 11, g&c 36 also trusts in the mysterious guidance of god, who will save israel in due course, leading to a convergence of the two communities at the eschaton. describing the intermediate period of history, paul speaks both of jealousy between the church and the jews (rom 11:14) and of the role of jewish disobedience in bringing the gentiles to christ (rom 11:31). but, along with his mission to the gentiles, paul also struggles to bring jews to accept jesus as the messiah. he woos his jewish brethren and would even like to be “cut off from christ” for their sake (rom 9:3). he calls christ the one who brings redemption “to the jew first and also to the greek” (rom 1:16; cf. eph 2:17). above all, however, he acknowledges a fundamental division of labor: peter should bring the gospel to the jews, while he himself is mainly sent to the gentiles (gal 2:7). the jews are thus clearly among the addressees of the resurrection message after jesus' death. therefore, g&c names explicitly that the church’s consisting of jews and gentiles is part of the essence of the church, that there is an ecclesia ex circumcisione and an ecclesia ex gentibus. however, g&c draws no conclusion from this 44 susannah heschel, abraham geiger and the jewish jesus (university of chicago press, 1998), 76105, 127-161. 45 leo baeck, das evangelium als urkunde der jüdischen glaubensgeschichte (berlin: schockenverlag, 1938); translated as “the gospel as a document of the history of the jewish faith,” in judaism and christianity, trans. walter kaufmann (philadelphia: the jewish publication society of america, 1958), ch. 2. rutishauser: christian mission to the jews revisited 14 dual form of the church regarding the missionary mandate jesus gives to his disciples. the church’s dual nature, though, can become a key for our exploration of precisely this question of mission. that the church exists in two forms means that the universal significance of jesus christ differentiates itself. lk 2:32 says that jesus is “a light for revelation to the gentiles and for glory to your people israel.” he reveals and establishes the new covenant for the gentiles, but what could be his significance and the glory for jews? or phrased differently: what significance could jesus christ have for jews, the ecclesia ex circumcisione, that means something other than integrating them into the existing church, the ecclesia ex gentibus? or just very simply: how would the ecclesia ex circumcision look? in approaching this sensitive question, let us keep in mind five premises: 1. like for paul, for g&c, the time of history is first and foremost the time of the gentiles. traditional mission to the jews is not institutionally or individually appropriate for catholics in this time. 2. the jews are already in a salvific covenantal relationship with god. 3. if the christian universal claim focuses on matters of salvation, then it must take into consideration that the salvation of individuals depends not only on their belonging to a community of faith, but also–and more essentially– on their ethical behavior and actual acts of faith. 4. the second vatican council adopted a declaration dedicated solely to establishing the right to religious freedom, dignitatis humanae. this must also be valid in the jewish-christian relationship. a jew or a christian must always be granted the freedom to convert. 5. systematic theology must also take into consideration that christian mission in the past inflicted much injustice on jews. beyond these premises, and before christians answer what jesus could mean to jews, they should listen to jews’ own answers. if christians should contribute, they are well advised to articulate further questions. might the meaning of jesus to jews consist entirely of an invitation to dialogue with christians? might it be possible for jews to recognize the church not only as a community that participates in the noahide covenant, but also as one that is in a covenant that has its foundation in jesus christ and in the new testament? or following the logic of paul, might jews be asked to accept that god has chosen through jesus a people out of the nations? or does the meaning of jesus for jews consist in retrieving jesus as a figure of jewish history, as happened among scholars of the wissenschaft des judentums in the nineteenth century,46 or as is done by jews today when reading the nt as a first-century witness to jewish history? would jews’ finding meaning in jesus result in joint study, not just of the hebrew bible, but also of the new testament? just as christians are beginning to learn about the jewish exegetical tradition of the oral torah, might not jews similarly seek to encounter the christian twofold bible, the old and new testaments, with their theological and spiritual exegetical traditions? would jews’ finding meaning in jesus result in a more fully 46 walter homolka presents an overview of the jewish research on jesus in modernity in walter homolka and magnus striet, christologie auf dem prüfstand (freiburg/ basel/ vienna: herder, 2019), 15-70. 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) fledged, fully mutual dialogue? what happens, though, if some of the christians or some of the jews in dialogue are moved and transformed existentially? of course, conversion occurs in a variety of forms and cannot be ignored.47 advocacy for religious freedom means that the church cannot prevent christians who want to convert to judaism from doing so. nevertheless, it should argue in response that according to pauline theology, such conversions bring no benefit. in addition, from a christian perspective, christian converts to judaism would not have to cancel their relationship to jesus of nazareth but would have to transform it. however, if jews in an existential and spiritual dialogue feel addressed by the new testament message or by jesus christ, they should not convert to the church, for it is an ecclesia ex gentibus. christians should know that the distinction between jews and gentiles is a constitutive category of faith.48 jews who discover jesus for themselves should continue to pursue their own vocation and form a distinct community, an ecclesia ex circumcisione. neither the church nor rabbinic judaism should put obstacles in the way of jews who feel addressed by the new testament. both should trust in the mysterious guidance of god in history. one may conclude that this discrete ecclesia ex circumcisione would keep the torah, including circumcision as the premier sign of the covenant for males, keeping shabbat etc., and therefore witnessing the never-revoked covenant. they would express their faith in freedom and fidelity to the torah, in appreciation of christianity, but not in conflict with judaism. the two communities are related to each other, but distinct, as g&c 43 underlines. keeping this possibility open challenges all those involved in dialogue to the highest degree. the christian “no” to mission today would open the way for an ecclesia ex circumcisione, just as the jewish “no” to christ jesus once was factor in the rise of the church as ecclesia ex gentibus. can and should anything be said about the nature of the ecclesia ex circumcisione? here again, this is not the task of the church, especially not in light of history and the probability that it would be misunderstood as a new form of christian mission. the church must instead continue her independent path of self-conversion. christians have no active role, then, except to learn to read holy scriptures together with jews with completely new eyes, especially for the new testament. all vatican documents invite this. through this process, one result of which is this article, christians discover that jesus has a different mission for his people than for the nations. 47 schalom goldman, jewish-christian difference and modern jewish identity: seven twentieth-century converts (lanham/ boulder/ new york/ london: lexington books, 2015). goldman portrays seven persons converting either from judaism to christianity or the reverse. each has a unique selfunderstanding whose logic has no common denominator. some identify completely with their newly chosen tradition; others claim double identities in very different forms. a more systematic reflection on (jewish-christian) conversion is david pollack, “was ist konversion?,” in treten sie ein! treten sie aus! warum menschen ihre religion wechseln, regina laudage-kleeberg and hannes sulzenbacher, eds. (berlin: parthas, 2012), 38-45. 48 there is a vicariate of hebrew speaking catholic communities in israel where some members are of jewish origin. http://www.catholic.co.il/index.php?lang=en http://www.catholic.co.il/index.php?lang=en rutishauser: christian mission to the jews revisited 16 in summary: for the majority of communities, for jews and christians alike, the formula “mission no, dialogue yes” is the compass. the church renounces of any form of missionary activity, as also one of the most recent documents of the conference of the german bishops states.49 dialogue in its existential sense is the adequate way of witnessing christ to jews from a catholic perspective. dialogue is not a sociological strategy but a consequence of faith. dialogue is a theological paradigm: dia logos, through word and encounter, conversations and friendship. these are the ways of god. at the same time, jews and christians must create a space and be open for god’s providence, may it be in history or at the eschaton. both faith communities must listen to the calling of god again and again. a community of the few may come into being, that traditional christian language calls ecclesia ex circumcisione. it existed in the past and could exist again. such a community would be an alternative to what we know nowadays as “jews for jesus” or “messianic jews” in so far as it would be guided by the same principle: mission no, dialogue yes.50 49 “‘gott wirkt weiterhin im volk des alten bundes’: eine antwort der deutschen bischofskonferenz auf die erklärungen aus dem orthodoxen judentum zum verhältnis von judentum und katholischer kirche” (würzburg, january 29, 2019), https://dbk.de/fileadmin/redaktion/diverse_downloads/presse_2019/2019_-020a-stellungnahme-zujuedisch-orthodoxen-erklaerungen.pdf. 50 the convert daniel rufeisen sought to create a jewish-catholic community. see my forthcoming “oswald shmuel aaron daniel rufeisen: jüdisch-christliche differenz und identität,” jerusalemer theologisches forum 43 (2019). https://dbk.de/fileadmin/redaktion/diverse_downloads/presse_2019/2019_-020a-stellungnahme-zu-juedisch-orthodoxen-erklaerungen.pdf https://dbk.de/fileadmin/redaktion/diverse_downloads/presse_2019/2019_-020a-stellungnahme-zu-juedisch-orthodoxen-erklaerungen.pdf studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review david rudolph and joel willitts, eds. introduction to messianic judaism: its ecclesial context and biblical foundations (grand rapids: zondervan, 2013), paperback, 335 pp. yaakov ariel, the university of north carolina at chapel hill the messianic judaism movement appeared on the scene in the early 1970s, stirring much interest and controversy. unlike most previous jews who embraced christianity and eventually lost their jewish identity, the more assertive and independent minded messianic jews have considered it within their right to establish congregations that are intended for jewish believers in jesus and preserve jewish practices. they created their own cultural and religious environments, combining evangelical theology and morality with jewish identity, symbols, customs, and loyalties. the movement has succeeded in building a niche for itself within the larger evangelical world and throughout the years gradually gained the respect of the more inclusive elements in the jewish community. in the 2000s-2010s, a new generation of messianic jewish intellectuals has further developed the theological independence of the movement and its scholarly enterprises. introduction to messianic judaism serves as a declaration of the movement’s scholarly coming of age. merely a few years earlier, such a literary endeavor would not have been possible. the volume gives voice to the intellectual interest and self-perceptions of the group. messianic jews have seen themselves as heirs of the first disciples of jesus. they often refer to these early jewish adherents as “messianic jews,” which also establishes the legitimacy of modern believers as a proud jewish presence within the body of christ. the book represents such notions and comes to draw a connection between the contemporary and early believers. studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) the book is divided into two parts. the first deals with the contemporary realities of the messianic jewish community. twelve messianic scholars and leaders explore various theological, communal, missiological, and ethical challenges of the current movement. the authors include stuart dauermann, david rudolph, and mark kinzer, leaders of hashivenu, a new movement within messianic judaism that calls for greater independence from traditional christian theology and from earlier missionary approaches that marginalized judaism. a number of articles, including those of kinzer, daniel juster, and jennifer rosner, explore the relations of messianic jews to both the jewish and christian worlds and the kind of dialogues in which messianic jews should be engaged. the second part contains articles by mostly evangelical scholars, almost all of them not from the messianic community, that relate to early christianity, the new testament, jewish communities of believers in jesus, and early christian attitudes towards judaism and jewish law. messianic jews take special interest in such matters as they are strongly connected to their historical perception of the place of jewish believers, and of judaism in general, within the church. the articles reflect certain common approaches to the study of early christianity, the new testament and second temple judaism. scholars such as daniel harrington, darrell bock, todd wilson, and scott hafemann take the view that passages in the new testament point to the existence of vibrant jewish christian communities in the early generations of christianity. they also question some long held assumptions about supersessionist or antijewish sentiments in christian sacred texts. one can, perhaps, question if the two sections, so different in their historical foci and methodologies, really belong in one volume. however, the book as a whole is a remarkable achievement. it brings together a large number of high-level essays on two important and timely topics and provides a very useful resource to scholars, students, and interested readers both within the messianic jewish community and among the general public. i strongly recommend it. scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-3 adi ophir and ishay rosen-zvi goy: israel’s multiple others and the birth of the gentile (oxford studies in the abrahamic religions; oxford and new york: oxford university press, 2018), hardcover, viii + 333 pp. malka z. simkovich msimkovich@ctu.edu catholic theological union, chicago, il 60615 the hebrew bible’s 416 references to the goyim, the foreign nations, underscore the theme of israel’s standing among the gentiles as one of its central concerns, both in terms of israel’s immediate present and, in later biblical literature, in terms of the coming eschatological age. while the biblical prophets speak of these goyim as people who, like israel, have the potential to live in a state of divine favor by acknowledging israel’s god, the rabbis would later use the word goy not to denote a foreign nation but a foreign gentile individual, and one who represents the paradigmatic other. the complex history behind this shift is the subject of adi ophir and ishay rosen-zvi’s outstanding recent study, goy: israel’s multiple others and the birth of the gentile, which argues that the rabbis constructed a binary between the jew and the non-jew which did not exist in the biblical and post-biblical second temple periods. reading midrashic stories regarding rabbis and gentiles which other scholars have seen as illustrating the very blurring of these boundaries, ophir and rosen-zvi argue that the rabbis sought to establish firm lines in order to separate their community from others by establishing a clearly defined other. according to ophir and rosen-zvi, the widespread presumption that the foreign nations are capable of entering a state of divine favor is first called into question in ezra-nehemiah, which links inherent impurity to the “people of the lands” who came into conflict with the judean returnees from babylonia. while the authors of ezra-nehemiah view the judean returnees as holy and able to be purified, these outsiders were considered inherently impure and defiled. during the few centuries that followed, most jewish writers would not make use of this distinction or speak pejoratively of the goy as a generic, gentile other. instead, authors such as the writer of the second century bce letter of aristeas highlight the distinct separateness of the jews and at the same time acknowledge that all of the nations simkovich: ophir and rosen-zvi’s goy: israel’s multiple others 2 among the gentiles are likewise separate and distinct, a concept which is taken for granted in the writings of philo and josephus. by recognizing the unique character of every nation, these authors do not conceive of the goy as a paradigmatic nonjew, since such a paradigm assumes an essential sameness of the gentiles. while some second temple texts, like greek esther, do present israel as clashing with all other nations, these texts leave little room for placing a foreigner into the category of goy. even texts which speak of individual foreigners as coming into conflict with individual jews do not construct generalizations about the foreign nations. paul first transformed the concept of nations (ethnē in greek) from peoples distinctive in their ethnic and geographic identities into a collective “mass of individuals” who, upon entering the christian community, are both no longer gentiles as before and yet at the same time are called to identify themselves as non-jews (p. 164). these individuals are linked to one another in the process of christianismos, by which they become believers in jesus christ and members of this new covenantal community (pp. 168–170). this process, in turn, led to the diminishment of ethnē as a differentiating marker and gave rise to a new binary between christians and non-christians. the rabbis would likewise establish and stabilize a binary between israel, as both the collective and the individual, and the goy, as both the collective and the individual. this new binary would allow the rabbis to construct a framework for self-reflection, since “the gentile’s perspective is the only human point of view that is external to halakhic law and from which [halakhic law] can be grasped as a whole” (p. 243). as god receded into the background of rabbinic discourse, the goy became the means by which the rabbis “turned discourse into a mechanism for the production of proliferative, multiple, distinctions, in which the gentile pays a decisive...role” (pp. 243-44). this is a remarkably well-researched study, but some questions remain. i did not see, for instance, a fully developed response to christine hayes’s views that the israel-goy binary was synchronic rather than diachronic and that some aggadic texts serve to blur, rather than to define, these boundaries. i also wondered why ophir and rosen-zvi did not more fully treat examples of individual gentiles in second temple literature who stand as foils against or as ambassadors of the jewish people, such as the figure of achior in judith 5–6, and whose roles might serve to enhance or complicate their thesis. furthermore, the authors label texts as universalizing / particularizing and generalizing / individualizing, introducing categories that were not used by jews in the greco-roman world and that buttress a sharper dichotomy than actually existed. i therefore wonder whether the term “mutation” (p. 18) should be used when contrasting rabbinic treatments of the goy with earlier ones. because the authors’ argument hinges on second temple sources and the absence of a binary goy paradigm, i expected a more expansive treatment of these sources and a developed argument that the absence of a term denotes the absence of a cultural concept. what the authors have achieved here is an extraordinarily complex and impeccably researched analysis of early jewish conceptions of gentiles. i am certain that ophir and rosen-zvi’s book will serve as an exceptional resource for any scholar interested in how jews in the second temple and rabbinic periods cultivated their 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) religious identities. the footnotes alone make a major contribution, demonstrating the authors’ familiarity with scholarship on all subjects relating to their topic. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review pamela patton art of estrangement: redefining jews in reconquest spain (university park, pennsylvania: the pennsylvania state university press, 2012), hardcover, xi + 206 pp. tom nickson, courtauld institute of art if francisco franco’s death in 1975 reopened a debate on spain’s christian-jewish relations, then the events and publications that coincided with the quincentennial of 1492—the year of columbus’ landing in america, the conquest of granada, and the expulsion of jews from spain—represent the moment when that reassessment really began to take on an international dimension. twenty years on, in art of estrangement pamela patton contributes to that reassessment with a wideranging, scholarly, accessible, and sumptuously illustrated account of the role of visual culture in articulating those relations. she examines “the potential of visual imagery to enrich modern understanding of the place and perception of jews in the christian kingdoms of medieval spain during the twelfth through mid-fourteenth centuries” (p. 6), for the first time locating that visual culture in its proper european context. broad in scope yet authoritative and rich in detail, patton’s study will for a long time provide an entry point into the visual culture of medieval spain for students, scholars, and anyone interested in christian-jewish relations. patton opens by sketching a broad historical panorama from the twelfth to the fifteenth century, noting the common mismatch between the evidence of texts and images, and utilizing jeremy cohen’s critical concept of the “hermeneutical jew.” chapter two, “topos and narrative: new signs and stories for iberian jews,” then traces the earliest attempts to develop a visual lexicon with which to represent jews, one typically indebted to northern european stereotypes, even if these studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) sometimes seem to be resisted. amongst these are figures of church and synagogue in the version of the bible made ca. 1197 for king sancho vii of navarre (pp. 51-53), in which ecclesia is shown on the right (the proper sinister side), rather than on the left, as is more common. patton quite reasonably concludes that this may represent “confusion” on the artists’ part, although more is possibly at stake given that the same reversal is found on the south transept portal at lincoln cathedral and in a number of english manuscripts. in the next chapters, patton analyzes the particularly iberian inflections of representations of jews and judaism. in “shaping the jewish body in medieval iberia” (chapter three), she examines material ranging from scribal doodles to the very finest court manuscripts, exploring the relationship of these images to contemporary theological debates. “jews and muslims in the iberian christian imagination” (chapter four) then considers the conflation of jewish and muslim identities and includes an important discussion of representations of ethnicity. finally, chapter five, “the cantigas de santa maría and the jews of castile,” focuses on miniatures in the two most heavily illuminated volumes of the cantigas, the collection of marian miracles and songs compiled under alfonso x in the thirteenth century. despite the range of art of estrangement, patton rightly and repeatedly emphasizes the importance of contextualizing the production of images. for instance, if the cantigas were indeed painted in the 1270s and early 1280s in seville— conquered only in 1248—then they were produced in the midst of a community of first and second generation settlers that included many jews, as well as christians (and their books) from northern spain and beyond. throughout her study, patton also convincingly argues that images of jews not only reflected contemporary christian attitudes but also articulated and produced them. yet many of the examples she cites are found in manuscripts that were seen only rarely, and by very few, while more public images, such as the elegant figure of synagoga in the thirteenth-century west portico of leon studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr cathedral, are not discussed at all. this makes it all the more regrettable that it is only in her final chapter that patton properly explores the question of who would have viewed these images, or if they should be considered as survivors and witnesses to a much wider visual (and oral) culture that is now lost. her argument that few besides alfonso x could have seen the cantigas miniatures (p. 142) illustrates why this matters. an important corrective to many earlier studies, it has significant implications for our assessment of the resonance of these images, not least in light of a recent and intriguing suggestion by david nirenberg that the cantigas were partly intended to defend alfonso x’s politics against charges of jewishness. 1 yet indications that someone selectively scratched out devils in the florence manuscript (e.g., fols 3r and 7r) suggests that someone did look very closely at the cantigas miniatures, perhaps at the same moment that new and clumsy miniatures were added in the fourteenth century. occasionally, patton’s appropriately cautious approach to sensitive material seems to limit her insights. once or twice she alludes to the comic potential of the cantigas, rightly perceiving that “conflict among spain’s religious minorities was not always conceived or conducted on a lofty plane” (pp. 93; see also p. 155). this idea is never developed, however, despite what we know of the importance of humor then (and now) in defining and demeaning jewish identity. to recognize the presence of humor in these images is certainly not to condone it. however, to ignore it impoverishes our understanding of complex visual and oral cultures. with such a wide-ranging book some readers will also inevitably quibble with other details. i would question, for instance, the suggestion that the christian conquests of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries extended christian control over thousands of new jewish subjects (p. 9). most jews and christians seem to have left muslim territories following the invasion of the 1 “discourses of judaizing and judaism in medieval spain”, la corónica 41 (2012): 218. studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 8 (2013) hardline almohads in the 1140s. i also regret that patton did not extend her discussion to include the critical century after 1349, when christian-jewish relations in iberia were even more radically redefined following the black death and subsequent persecution of jews. but this is perhaps unfair: this book already covers a remarkably wide range of periods, media, and regions with tremendous authority. it is precisely its combination of range, rigor, and wonderful images that makes the art of estrangement so impressive and so important. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): soloff r1-3 frankel and mendelsohn, protestant-jewish soloff r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr jonathan frankel and ezra mendelsohn, editors the protestant-jewish conundrum (studies in contemporary jewry, vol. xxiv) (new york: oxford university press, 2010), hardcover, vii + 295 pp. reviewed by emily d. soloff, american jewish committee this volume from the institute of contemporary jewry at hebrew university offers a fascinating symposium on protestant-jewish relations. the eight main essays include close examinations of topics such as: the issues roiling mainline protestant / jewish relations in the last decade; developments in german protestant theology; and evangelical / jewish efforts to rebuild the jewish temple in jerusalem. the strength of the book lies in the diversity of its topics. the essays are penned by jewish and christian academics and have extensive footnotes pointing to additional material. these essays are followed by additional essays and book reviews on various subjects including anti-semitism, zionism, and israel and the middle east. while the additional material is wideranging, the brevity of the symposium essays left this reviewer wanting more. since presbyterian church (usa) activity regarding israel has had and will continue to have an impact on other christian churches as well as on the jewish community, “the presbyterianjewish impasse” by christopher m. leighton of the institute for christian & jewish studies in baltimore serves as a critical centerpiece of the book. it is essential reading for those working in the field of jewish / christian relations. leighton maintains that difficulties in presbyterian-jewish engagement have serious political implications for the united states as americans continue to struggle with the challenges of living in a religiously pluralist world. he begins with an analysis of the controversy regarding the pc (usa)‟s support for a messianic jewish congregation, which provides a backdrop for resolutions dealing with the israelipalestinian conflict. he is critical of the presbyterian embrace of both liberation theology and an exclusivist palestinian narrative that, he believes, has led to “serious misrepresentations” and lack of “diplomatic balance” in presbyterian overtures and documents (p. 115). leighton understands the seductive power of christian belief in love as the right response to end violence. he recognizes the painful challenge the middle east poses to isaiah‟s vision of a peaceable kingdom. what, leighton asks, “are christians to make of their own affirmations if love does not conquer all?” (p. 117). he concludes his analysis with the 217 th general assembly in 2006. without deep theological study and a paradigm shift in the church‟s relationship with the jewish community, leighton anticipates continued conflict. otherwise, leighton suggests, the pc (usa) will lose the opportunity to make a positive impact on the middle east. (while he could not foresee the events of the 218 th ga in 2010, his prediction of continuing conflict over one-sided resolutions came true there as well, even though similar overtures had been rejected by previous general assemblies.) review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): soloff r1-3 frankel and mendelsohn, protestant-jewish soloff r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr muhlenberg college professor peter a. pettit‟s analysis in “the passion of the christ and its ramifications with reference to the protestant churches and christian-jewish relations” explores the influence of meta-narratives on religious responses, including not only the mel gibson film but other life experiences, such as the conflict between israelis and palestinians. because protestants are deeply influenced by individual narratives of palestinian suffering and deprivation, pettit suggests that such narrative questions as “where does this fit in the story of your life and faith?” replace what he calls the more traditional cognitive and semiotic responses “how do you understand that?” or “what does this mean to you?” (p. 83). yaakov ariel of the university of north carolina at chapel hill provides a valuable historical overview in “the one and the many: unity and diversity in protestant attitudes towards the jews.” he describes a dynamic relationship with a plurality of views. lively exchanges have “helped both communities define their boundaries and construct their self-image.” explaining the importance of the relationship for jews, ariel writes, “protestantism has exercised much influence in determining popular opinions,” affecting national policies and the “civil status of jews” (p. 16). susannah heschel of dartmouth college analyzes the tortured re-evaluation process that continues among academics and pastors in the german protestant church since the shoah in “confronting the past: post-1945 german protestant theology and the fate of the jews.” heschel remains pessimistic about long-term reconciliation as some in the church urge a “turn away from christian examination of its anti-judaism and increasingly toward an affirmation of christian identity” (p. 65). in his essay, “the attitude of the world council of churches (wcc) toward the israelipalestinian conflict,” haim genizi of bar-ilan university looks at the wcc‟s evolution from political neutrality to criticism of israel and political support for the rights of palestinians. he traces the many influences on that change including: wcc‟s support for national liberation movements and the rights of oppressed minorities; a deep theological ambivalence about judaism from some member churches; and the influence of arab clergy and christian missionaries in arab countries. mark silk of trinity college traces the weakening of the alliance for civic causes like alleviating poverty and stopping religious discrimination between jewish and mainline protestant organizations and the evolving relationship of jews with evangelical christian supporters of israel in “the protestant problem(s) of american jewry.” silk suggests jews will continue to “navigate between the scylla of mainline hostility to israel and the charybdis of evangelical supersessionism” (p. 137). noting that “nothing remains the same for long in american religious life,” timothy p. weber from fuller theological seminary traces the rising “market-share” and political influence of evangelical christianity in “american evangelicals and israel: a complicated alliance” (p. 142). there is no single, monolithic evangelical view on the rights of palestinians and the possibility of a two-state solution, though weber maintains that pre-millennial dispensationalist leaders and their views are more widely known than divergent views. motti inbari of the university of north carolina at pembroke, in “„universal temple‟? jewishchristian collaboration in plans to reestablish the holy temple in jerusalem,” offers a quick history of protestant millenarian beliefs. he focuses mainly on the several jewish groups that favor jewish sovereignty over the temple mount and the support they receive from protestant fundamentalists. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): soloff r1-3 frankel and mendelsohn, protestant-jewish soloff r 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr for those new to the field, ezra mendelsohn‟s introduction lays out some of the essential questions raised in the book. these include: “is it possible to revise the old, entrenched notions of christianity as having „superseded‟ judaism…?” and “how to resolve christian beliefs in the superiority of their religious tradition with the need for tolerance in a new, post-holocaust world?” (p. 5). for those who have closely followed this series, volume xxiv marks the end of an era with the retirement of mendelsohn and the death of frankel (touchingly remembered in the introduction). mendelsohn expresses hope that the new, young israeli-trained editors will live up to the challenge of presenting such valuable research regarding jewish / christian relations. can catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation? studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers in jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college can roman catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation? jon d. levenson harvard university volume 1 (2005-2006): pp. 170-185 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art19 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 170-185 levenson, “can roman catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?” 171 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art19 1. introduction the document on the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible, issued by the pontifical biblical commission (pbc) in 2001,1 which john r. donahue, s.j., has aptly dubbed “the stealth missive from the vatican,”2 surely demands much more attention than it has commanded. it constitutes a major milestone in roman catholic thinking about the jews and their bible and the vexing question of how the church is to relate to them. it also raises the question of just how far one religious community can go in affirming the legitimacy of another community—a thorny one, to be sure, and one that many involved in the quest for interreligious understanding are not inclined to ponder. because the burden of my discussion will subject the document to critique and point out places where i think its logic fails, i want at the outset to express appreciation for it and, in particular, briefly to draw attention to two points at which, in my judgment, it marks a noteworthy change—and from the jewish point of view, a change for the better—over historic christian positions. the first concerns the fact that jews, or at least jews who are religious in a traditional sense, continue to pray for 1 pontifical biblical commission, the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible (boston: pauline books and media, 2002). in general, note must be taken of the important translation corrections to this document in charles h. miller, “translation errors in the pontifical biblical commission’s the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible,” biblical theology bulletin 35 (2005): 34–39. i thank professor richard j. clifford, s.j., for bringing miller’s piece to my attention. 2 john r. donahue, s.j., “joined by word and covenant: reflections on a recent vatican document on jewish christian relations,” http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/ resources/articles/donahue.htm (consulted june 1, 2006). this was the msgr. george a. denzer lecture, given at huntington, mar. 16, 2003. and expect the arrival of the messiah. in classical christian theology, this was a sad thought that reflected poorly on the jews, for if the messiah had come—and what could be more typical of the gospel than the announcement that he had?— then surely these prayers and expectations are in vain and testify only to the spiritual blindness and hard-heartedness of the once chosen people. so much for the traditional attitude, still found among many christians, of course. now compare this statement from our text: insistence on discontinuity between both testaments and going beyond former perspectives should not, however, lead to a one-sided spiritualization. what has already been accomplished in christ must yet be accomplished in us and in the world. the definitive fulfillment will be at the end with the resurrection of the dead, a new heaven and a new earth. jewish messianic expectation is not in vain. it can become for us christians a powerful stimulant to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. like them, we too live in expectation. the difference is that for us the one who is to come will have the traits of the jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us.3 now, anyone can see that what this paragraph expresses is ancient and orthodox christian doctrine: the messiah has come, he is jesus, he has already “accomplished” his mission, and he will come back. but the very fact that he needs to come back at all implies that “the definitive fulfillment” lies in the future, for all is not finished. “the resurrection of the dead” and the institution of “a new heaven and a new earth,” both of which are central to jewish eschatology as well, have not yet happened. and the awareness of this generates that revolutionary seven-word sentence: “jewish messianic expectation is not in vain.” in place of the model of christians living joyfully in realized 3 pbc, the jewish people, 60. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 170-185 levenson, “can roman catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?” 172 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art19 eschatology but jews living in tragically unrealizable eschatology, this paragraph speaks of jews and christians together living in expectation of a realm very different from the current world order. the second of the two points on which i see the document making a noteworthy change relates to the question of jewish biblical interpretation, that is, the way jews have traditionally understood the book that christians, for very good christian reasons, call “the old testament.” here, we must bear in mind that much of the jewishchristian debate over the past two millennia has taken place on the battlefield of biblical interpretation, and even modern historical criticism of the bible, for all its claim to have transcended tradition, has often served as just the latest installment of this ongoing controversy.4 a particularly pungent christian image of the jews’ alleged blindness when it comes to the bible can be found in paul’s second epistle to the corinthians: 12since, then, we have such a hope, we act with great boldness, 13not like moses, who put a veil over his face to keep the people of israel from gazing at the end of the glory that was set aside. 14but their minds were hardened. indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in christ is it set aside. 15indeed, to this very day whenever moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; 16but when one turns to the lord, the veil is removed. 17now the lord is the spirit, and where the spirit of the lord is, there is freedom. 18and all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the lord as though reflected in 4 see jon d. levenson, the hebrew bible, the old testament, and historical criticism: jews and christians in biblical studies (westminster/john knox press, 1993), especially chapters 1 and 2. a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the lord, the spirit. (2 cor 3:12–18, nrsv) the key point for us in this densely allusive and intertextually complex passage is that it presents the mind of the jews as hardened, sclerotic if you will, with the result that when they read “the old covenant,” they do so through a barrier that prevents them from seeing clearly. the point is to fault the jewish tendency to read the torah (i assume that is what is meant by the “old covenant”) in a non-christological fashion and to attribute this to a profound spiritual flaw. that attribution once enabled christians to inflict enormous suffering on jews. contrast that passage from 2 corinthians with this one from the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible: . . . christians can and ought to admit that the jewish reading of the bible is a possible one, in continuity with the jewish sacred scriptures from the second temple period, a reading analogous to the christian reading which developed in parallel fashion. both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. consequently, both are irreducible.5 in my judgment, this is the most extraordinary affirmation in the entire document. the statement that declared that “jewish messianic expectation is not in vain” relies, as we have seen, on orthodox christological expectation. but behind this second affirmation there is a clear reliance on modern historical-critical thinking and its awareness of historical contingency and the communal particularity of 5 pbc, the jewish people, 62. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 170-185 levenson, “can roman catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?” 173 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art19 interpretation. once we have attained such awareness, we cannot deny that both the classical jewish and classical christian interpretations depend on the conventions of reading of their times, that both are, in a sense, midrashim, not simply the literal or plain sense (what western christians have traditionally termed the sensus literalis and jews, the peshat).6 this means that these two systems of interpretation derive from a type of interpretation that is to some degree at odds with those types that strive to place the passage within its most immediate literary or historical context. the implication is that what validates interpretation is “the vision of their respective faiths,” and not simply the intentions of the biblical authors themselves, authors who, i must stress, lived before the emergence of either christianity or rabbinic judaism. this, in turn, implies that judaism and christianity are systems, and one cannot turn to this verse or that in order to score points for one’s own religion at the expense of the other. instead, the systemic reality, the architectonic structure, of each tradition must be a given for its interpreters of sacred scripture. this is what i take the text to mean when it says, perhaps too cryptically, “both are irreducible.” 2. true inter-religious dialogue vs. autonomous pluralism this awareness of communal particularity and the absence of a master perspective that validates our respective visions carry with them a corollary danger. this is 6 the “plain sense” is, of course, anything but plain in the sense of selfevident. on the contrary, exegetes have argued over it with reference to almost every verse from the time they began questing after it about a thousand years ago and into our days. still, it does have a certain interreligious character to it, and scholars do not depend on the divergent theological structures of judaism and christianity to identify it. in this, it differs to a very large degree from the “midrashic” senses on which both judaism and christianity are, each in its own way, based. the danger of relativism, which prompts one to say that each vision is true for the person who has it, indeed that every vision is true for whoever experiences it, and specifically that all religions are equally valid and all putative witness to the truth of one’s own religious tradition is but self-expression in support of private opinion. many years of experience in jewish–christian dialogue have convinced me that there is something in the very nature of interreligious dialogue that pushes toward just such relativism (though these days the push needn’t be very strong, given the prevalence of relativism in western culture). i also have the sense that many jews are quite comfortable with such religious relativism (probably more so than most christians), since for them the objective of jewish–christian dialogue is simply to reach the point where each partner in dialogue pronounces the other’s tradition to be altogether valid: judaism for the jews, christianity for the christians—end of story. i question, though, whether it is wise for a religious minority to dismiss the question of truth so readily. after all, if the degree of truth is actually the same in all religious traditions, why should anyone make the special sacrifices required of a minority tradition if it is to survive and thrive in an open society? this is a question that jews have long had to ask, and it is one that, given the current cultural situation, serious christians need to ask as well. the deep involvement of roman catholic tradition in the legacy of medieval philosophy is for its adherents a bulwark—substantial, though i suppose not impregnable— against religious relativism, the danger of which pope john paul ii clearly articulated in his encyclical letter, fides et ratio (1998). “rather than make use of the human capacity to know the truth,” wrote the late pontiff, “modern philosophy has preferred to accentuate the ways in which this capacity is limited and conditioned”: studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 170-185 levenson, “can roman catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?” 174 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art19 this has given rise to different forms of agnosticism and relativism which have led philosophical research to lose its way in the shifting sands of widespread scepticism. recent times have seen the rise to prominence of various doctrines which tend to devalue even the truths which had been judged certain. a legitimate plurality of positions has yielded to an undifferentiated pluralism, based upon the assumption that all positions are equally valid, which is one of today's most widespread symptoms of the lack of confidence in truth.7 john paul ii’s words define, it seems to me, the parameters within which the document on the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible must chart its course. on the one hand, the document acknowledges “a legitimate plurality of positions,” giving up the totalistic claim that the church alone has correctly interpreted the jewish bible, whereas the jews have not. on the other hand, it speaks from the standpoint of roman catholic doctrine, and not from the agnosticism, relativism, and “lack of confidence in truth” against which the late pope warned. what it seeks to do is to provide a catholic validation to the jewish people and their understanding of their bible—not a view from nowhere, not a description of jewish views of the matter, but a position in consonance with catholic teaching, as the pbc understands it. the reader may be rather irritated to see me point out that a document authored by a body that has the word “pontifical” in its title seeks to speak from fidelity to roman catholic teaching. so what else is new? i do so, however, to draw attention to the fact that a document like this can never fully satisfy those who believe in an autonomous pluralism. by that term, i refer to the position that holds that religion a 7 http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/ hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html, consulted mar. 21, 2006. must never pronounce on religion b in its own name and in accordance with its own norms, but must instead speak of religion b only in the latter’s terms or in the supposedly neutral terms that, borrowing thomas nagel’s phrase, i above called “the view from nowhere.”8 in my experience, a belief in autonomous pluralism is, in fact, quite widespread among us practitioners of interreligious dialogue.9 in jewish– christian dialogue, one sees a good example of it in the common reluctance of christian participants to use the term “old testament,” though that is the traditional christian term and makes eminent sense in the context of the traditional christian doctrine of scripture. it is not, as i have pointedly argued, a term that makes sense in a jewish context or in a context defined by historical criticism, which necessarily seeks to place the anthology in question in the context of its authors, all of whom lived before anybody ever heard of christianity and its new testament.10 when christians speak of the “tanakh” (a jewish term) or the “hebrew bible” (a relatively new term that reflects the historical-critical commitment to religious neutrality), they inevitably raise the question in the theologically attuned reader of whether what they say will be christian at all. and if christians are not willing to speak in christian terms, then there can be no jewish–christian dialogue. what results may be a more comfortable and relaxed exchange, but jewish–christian dialogue it will not be. 8 see thomas nagel, the view from nowhere (new york: oxford university press, 1986). 9 on the problems with autonomous pluralism, see gavin d’costa, “the impossibility of a pluralist view of religions,” religious studies 32 (1996): 223–32. 10 see levenson, the hebrew bible, especially pp. 1–32, and christopher r. seitz, word without end: the old testament as abiding theological witness (grand rapids: eerdmans, 1998), 61–74. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 170-185 levenson, “can roman catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?” 175 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art19 on the other hand, if christians are not open to the new perspectives that come from interreligious dialogue and from historical criticism, they will freeze themselves in traditional postures that will seem increasingly desiccated and ultimately indefensible to themselves and others. fortunately, the roman catholic church distanced itself from such a posture more than six decades ago and remains open both to historical criticism of its bible and to interreligious conversation. it is between fidelity to historic catholic teachings and openness to these new realities that our document must chart its perilous course. 3. “additional meaning” or two discrete senses? other scholars, more knowledgeable in early christianity than i, have discussed and critiqued the pbc document in some detail.11 instead of retracing their steps, i shall focus on these larger hermeneutical and theological issues. one of the keynotes of the entire document is that the new testament is deeply and inextricably dependent on the old testament and cannot be understood apart from it. at one point, for example, the text goes so far as to say that in the acts of the apostles, “the kerygmatic discourses of the church leaders ... place the events of the passion, resurrection, pentecost and the missionary outreach of the church in perfect continuity with the jewish scriptures.”12 that claim might at first seem to warm the cockles of the hearts of those christians closed to historical criticism, such as biblical fundamentalists, but the document also openly 11 see especially roland e. murphy, “the biblical commission, the jews, and scriptures,” biblical theology bulletin 32:3 (summer 2002): 145– 49; amy-jill levine, “roland murphy, the pontifical biblical commission, jews, and the bible,” biblical theology bulletin 33:3 (fall 2003): 104– 13; and the work of john r. donahue referred to in n 2, above. 12 pbc, the jewish people, 34. acknowledges differences and historical changes. it notes, for example, that the roman catholic old testament includes books that are not found in the jewish bible and that the relative weighting of subsections of the two canons is different.13 for the jews, “the law [to use the problematic term that the document prefers] was at the center,” whereas “in the new testament, the general tendency is to give more importance to the prophetic texts, understood as foretelling the mystery of christ.” indeed, in the context of a discussion of paul’s letters to the galatians and to the romans, our document goes further, claiming that “he [that is, paul] shows that the law as revelation predicted its own end as an institution necessary for salvation.”14 quotations like these have a disconcerting ambiguity about them. does the pontifical biblical commission mean to say that acts actually does present the christian kerygma “in perfect continuity with the jewish scriptures” or only that acts wants to do so? does it mean that paul “shows that the law . . . predicted its own end” or only that paul argued that “the law . . . predicted its own end”? are we, in other words, dealing with a historical description of ancient authors’ claims or with normative truth incumbent upon all roman catholics and presumably perceivable by outsiders as well? if the latter, then the cockles of the hearts of those archtraditionalists and fundamentalists are rightly warming up. and, more importantly for our purposes, the effort to validate the jewish understanding of scripture, one of the key points of the document, will have to be scrapped. despite this odd ambiguity, it seems to me that most of the time, the document of the commission recognizes the existence of a gap between the new testament 13 ibid., 48, 41. 14 ibid., 35 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 170-185 levenson, “can roman catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?” 176 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art19 interpretation of the old, on the one hand, and the “plain” or contextual sense of the old testament and the jewish interpretation of the tanakh, on the other (of course, the plain sense and the jewish interpretation are not the same thing either, as we shall soon see). its strategy is to uphold both, as we hear in this sentence: “it cannot be said, therefore, that jews do not see what has been proclaimed in the text, but that the christian, in the light of christ and in the spirit, discovers in the text an additional meaning that was hidden there.”15 or, as joseph cardinal ratzinger, now pope benedict xvi, points out in his preface, “the christian hermeneutic of the old testament, admittedly very different from that of judaism, ‘corresponds nevertheless to a potentiality of meaning that is really present in the texts.’”16 the great question this all presents, then, is, how do these meanings relate to each other? alas, the idea of an “additional meaning” given “in the spirit” seems to reflect the old idea that jewish exegesis is literal and carnal, whereas christian exegesis is transcendent and spiritual—not a very secure foundation for a christian validation of jewish interpretation! to be sure, the term “additional” does not necessarily mean “higher” or “more profound,” but it is hard to see how an additional meaning discovered through the activity of the spirit can possibly be put on the same plane as a meaning that any rational person can readily see. so, the implication remains that the jewish reading, though “a possible one,” as the document puts it, is also a spiritually shallow one, at least in comparison with the fuller meaning, the sensus plenior, available to christians alone. however 15 ibid, 61. 16 ibid., 17, quoting the pontifical biblical commission’s the interpretation of the bible in the church (1993). unpalatable that implication may be to jews and to jewish– christian dialogue, perhaps the structure of christian faith requires that it be retained. perhaps the only alternative is the relativism that pope john paul ii rightly faulted in fides et ratio. i say “perhaps” because i am interested in hearing roman catholic theologians address the issue. and here i must underscore my earlier point that judaism, too, cannot allow itself the easy way out that is relativism. if the christian hermeneutic augments the sense of scripture available to jews in an important way, as the document affirms, then clearly the latter cannot really mean that the “kerygmatic discourses” in acts are “in perfect continuity with the jewish scriptures.” for whatever continuity there is would subsist only in that “additional meaning” discovered through the spirit and not in the more generally available meaning that even jews can find. and the same thing would be true of the statement that paul “shows that the law as revelation predicted its own end as an institution necessary for salvation.” if paul really showed that in ways that anyone not graced by special revelation can see, then surely there is something very, very wrong with the jews, who, it must be frankly acknowledged, still do not see it. in both these cases and others as well, the pbc document seems unwilling to consider in any depth the possibility that the distinctively christian understanding of the old testament may actually violate both the contextual sense and the jewish interpretation (which, again, are often different from each other). it is one thing to affirm the existence of multiple senses of scripture. it is something very different to say that the fuller meaning is in no serious tension with the more basic meaning, or to put it in classical jewish terms, that the derash does no violence at all to the peshat. on this point, i prefer the stance of those classical medieval jewish commentators who combined a fully traditional commitment to talmudic law with an open studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 170-185 levenson, “can roman catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?” 177 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art19 acknowledgment that the exegesis by which the law was ostensibly derived is not the peshat, not the more limited contextual sense, the meaning available, that is, whether one knows of rabbinic literature or not. and these same commentators pursued the contextual sense with a passion that must have been energized by their spiritual lives; it is unlikely to have been merely an academic exercise. a striking example can be seen in the exegesis of exod 23:2, which i can rather too literally render thus: “you shall not follow the multitude for evil purposes, and you shall not testify in a biased way so as to tilt the verdict in favor of the multitude.” in the talmudic interpretation, this injunction has to do with judicial process. it forbids a jewish court to condemn a person in a capital case when those judges voting for condemnation exceed those voting for acquittal by just one; but if the majority exceeds the minority by two or more, then one must decide with the majority for condemnation. in other words, condemnation in a capital case requires a supermajority.17 it is not hard to see that the use the rabbis thus made of these words for their own halakhah (normative jewish law) involves a number of dubious assumptions—dubious, that is, according to a strictly contextual reading of exod 23:2. for nothing in the verse speaks of capital cases, it is by no means obvious that its injunctions are directed at judges, or that the “multitude” of which it speaks means a majority of one, and not two, or three, or a hundred. lest this observation seem like a distinctively modern one, i must quote the words of the torah commentator par excellence, rashi, who lived in northern france in the 11th century: “regarding this verse, there are many midrashic interpretations by the sages of israel [that is, the ancient rabbis], but the language of the verse is not explained 17 b. sanh. 2a. properly in them.” after carefully giving the talmudic interpretation that i have just summarized, rashi goes on to say, “and i say, in order to explain it properly, its interpretation is this: if you see wicked people perverting justice, don’t say, ‘since they are the majority, i shall incline after them.’” in other words, one must not allow the inclinations of the majority to deflect one from speaking out for justice. now, anyone who knows anything about rashi knows that his intention here is not at all to overthrow rabbinic law, to which he was scrupulously dedicated; after all, he also wrote an enormously influential talmudic commentary, a staple of the talmudic curriculum to this day. he was, in other words, anything but a medieval jewish equivalent to a protestant committed to sola scriptura, the authority of scripture apart from tradition. rather, his objective in a case like this, it seems to me, is to address the verse in two distinct frameworks. the first is that of normative rabbinic law; the second is the peshat, the contextual sense, a newer sense gaining in prestige in rashi’s lifetime and even more so thereafter. for the first sense, the rabbinic midrashim, the classical non-contextual interpretations, are valid, in fact, normative; for the second, they are wrong and distracting. to ask bluntly which interpretation rashi thought was right and which he thought was wrong would be simplistic, for it would fail to reckon with the polyvalence of scripture in traditional judaism. shall we say, to adopt the words of the pbc, that rashi thought the rabbis had “discover[ed] in the text an additional meaning that was hidden there”? on the contrary, the rabbinic meaning was the standard one in rashi’s culture; it was anything but “hidden.” the sense that rashi pursued with a special passion was the peshat, a less-known way to interpret the familiar scriptural texts in his time. furthermore, studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 170-185 levenson, “can roman catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?” 178 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art19 i suspect (though i don’t know for sure) that rashi did not think the rabbinic meaning of exod 23:2 was really “there” in a hidden or any other way. rather, the implication of his comments like the one i just read is that the rabbis used the verse as a peg upon which to hang the halakhah that they inherited through oral torah, not through a limited contextual reading of the written torah. if so, it was what the rabbis call ’asmachta’ be‘alma’, a mnemonic device. shall we say that the rabbinic interpretation, to adopt the words of pope benedict’s preface, “nevertheless corresponds to a potentiality of meaning that is really present in the texts”? to this question, i would answer that if rashi’s interpretation is correct, the rabbinic interpretation is not really present in the texts at all. it becomes present only when the text migrates from one framework to another, from the framework that stresses the literal meaning of the words and the immediate context of the verse to the framework that stresses halakhah and the ultimate unity of the written torah and the oral torah. the midrashic interpretation is not an additional meaning within the framework of pashtanut, the pursuit of the immediate contextual sense, and the peshat, the immediate contextual sense, is not an additional meaning within the framework of rabbinic midrash. we are not, in the first instance, adding senses; we are adding interpretive frameworks, and the ongoing jewish tradition is heir to both these frameworks and others as well. i wonder whether roman catholic theology could make a similar move. instead of speaking of “a potentiality of meaning that is really present in the texts” or “an additional meaning that was hidden there,” what if our document had spoken of two discrete senses of the old testament, one derived from the framework of the more immediate old testament context and one derived from the christian midrashim that developed as the early church sought to harmonize its own counterpart to oral torah (that is, the gospel) with the scriptures, which in the earliest years of the church meant, of course, only the jewish scriptures? what i am suggesting is along the lines of the approach of the presbyterian biblical scholar, brevard s. childs, who speaks of “the discrete testimony of the old testament” and “the discrete testimony of the new testament” within “theological reflection on the christian bible.”18 to my mind, untutored in catholic theology, this does not seem very different from what the pbc proposes in the document under discussion, to be sure, but it does remove the implication that biblical texts can exist and be interpreted in the absence of a larger hermeneutical framework, with various meanings “really present” in the text itself or “hidden there.” it also removes the implication that the jewish reading, while “possible,” is thinner than the christian reading, which alone reveals the “fuller meaning.” after all, if the “plain sense” were thinner or emptier, would rashi, his jewish successors, and subsequent medieval catholics and reformation protestants who followed in his footsteps have been so eager to uncover and develop it? finally, i should add that the approach i am suggesting also raises another stimulating theological question: what is the religious use of the peshat, that more immediate contextual sense? once christians cease to read genesis, leviticus, joshua, and ecclesiastes exclusively through a christological lens, what should they make of those books? how should they deploy them in their christian spiritual life? needless to say, an analogous question arises for jews, the question of the religious value of the peshat.19 to speak of multiple senses, as i have and as anyone aware of the legacy of medieval jewish or christian biblical interpretation must, is to raise at least by implication the 18 brevard s. childs, biblical theology of the old and new testaments: theological reflection on the christian bible (minneapolis: fortress press, 1992), 95–322. 19 see uriel simon, “the religious significance of the peshat,” tradition 23:2 (winter 1988): 41–63. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 170-185 levenson, “can roman catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?” 179 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art19 larger question of how the various legitimate senses of scripture are related to each other—a very nettlesome issue for both communities and for anyone, religious or secular, who does not want pluralism to degenerate into relativism. if both jews and christians can authentically derive spiritual meaning from an understanding of the text that is not peculiar to their own traditions, then surely we are entitled to speak of the tanakh/old testament as constituting to a limited degree a bond of commonality between the two communities. i say “to a limited degree” because neither community rests purely on that immediate contextual sense and both necessarily bring to bear larger frameworks that the other community does not share. a more truthful statement would therefore be that the scriptures that are common to the two traditions constitute both a source of closeness and a source of distance between them.20 they open up the possibility of jews’ and christians’ learning from one another while at the same time limiting that possibility and drawing attention to the distinctive claims of these two scripturally based communities. but even this element of distinctiveness and mutual exclusiveness, even this distancing, can be a source of closeness in its own paradoxical way. for the jewish and the christian midrashim, different as they are in so many ways, also have profound points of contact,21 and living in the tension between peshat and derash is a sine qua non for both thoughtful jews and thoughtful christians. indeed, we might 20 on the problems with seeing the tanakh/old testament as constituting an element of commonality alone, see my critique of “dabru emet: a jewish statement on christians and christianity” in jon d. levenson, “judaism addresses christianity,” in religious foundations of western civilization, ed. jacob neusner (nashville: abingdon press, 2006), 581– 608, especially 591–98. 21 see james l. kugel, traditions of the bible: a guide to the bible as it was at the start of the common era (cambridge, mass.: harvard university press, 1998). go further and note that the contact is especially strong between judaism and roman catholic christianity in that both affirm traditio alongside scriptura as a source of truth and thus must deal with the tension that inevitably results. 4. projecting christian categories onto judaism now, i would like to return to a sentence from the pontifical biblical commission’s document that i quoted earlier. speaking about paul’s letters to the galatian and the roman churches, the commission writes, “he [that is, paul] shows that the law as revelation predicted its own end as an institution necessary for salvation.”22 once one emends that verb “shows” to “argues” or “wants to show,” as i suggested one should, the statement is, alas, still problematic within the context of jewish–christian dialogue. for one thing, from a jewish point of view, it can hardly be said that the torah—a much better word in this context than “law”—is necessary for salvation. if the rabbis thought that were the case, they would hardly have spoken, for example, so warmly of the possibility of deathbed repentance. “one person gains eternal life over many years,” goes a statement in the talmud; “another gains it in a single hour.”23 but there is something even more misleading in the implication that judaism believes that “the law [is] an institution necessary for salvation.” for the normative rabbinic teaching is that gentiles are not obligated by the commandments of the torah, but only by seven very basic commandments that do not derive from sinaitic revelation. on that point, judaism and christianity would be in broad agreement; neither believes gentiles ought to observe the torah. the problem only arises if the church claims to be 22 pbc, the jewish people, 35. 23 b. avod. z. 17a. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 170-185 levenson, “can roman catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?” 180 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art19 israel, as its older, supersessionist theology suggested. for in the hebrew bible and rabbinic judaism alike, the torah is israel’s inheritance alone and israelites alone are obligated to practice it. how paul saw this issue is a matter of great controversy among scholars of the new testament and not something i would be bold enough to address here. my point, rather, is that the pbc ought to have taken notice of the fact that at least the hebrew bible does not claim that the observance of the torah is necessary for the salvation of non-israelites and that the rabbinic tradition likewise maintains that the righteous of all nations have a portion in the world-to-come. so doing would have helped the pbc avoid the mistake of projecting a christian view of salvation onto the first testament of the christian bible. the commission might also have noted that both in biblical and in subsequent jewish tradition, salvation is not the sole, perhaps not even the dominant, motivation for the observance of torah. it has been said that different religions don’t just provide different answers; they also ask different questions. it is very dangerous to project the soteriological focus of christianity onto non-christian religions. the same tendency to place the law within the framework of soteriology underlies this passage: the law did not bring with it a remedy for sin, for even if he recognizes that the law is good and wishes to keep it, the sinner is forced to declare: “for i do not do the good i want, but the evil i do not want is what i do” (rm 7:19). the power of sin avails of the law itself to manifest its destructiveness all the more, by inciting transgression (7:13). and sin produces death that provokes the sinner’s cry of distress: “wretched man that i am! who will rescue me from this body of death?” (rm 7:24). thus is manifested the urgent need for redemption.24 24 pbc, the jewish people, 80. this paragraph, essentially a running paraphrase of a passage from romans 7, occurs in the new testament part of the section on “the human person: greatness and wretchedness.” what is striking to me is that the preceding old testament part does not mention the torah at all.25 and yet the observance of torah, the keeping of the divine commandments, is often seen in the hebrew bible as ennobling, that is, as augmenting human greatness and defeating human wretchedness, and as a force of sanctification, not at all, as paul would have it, as an incitement to transgression. nor in the hebrew bible is human nature so fallen and disfigured by sin that no one can perform the commandments of the torah or otherwise obey the will of god. as deuteronomy puts it, “no, the thing is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to observe it” (30:14). “the thing” here is the mitzvah, the commandment, the instruction of god to israel (v. 11). in rabbinic judaism, this line of thinking continues to develop. it bears mention that whereas paul sees torah as enslaving (rom 4:21–5:1), the rabbis tend to see it as liberating. this is not to say that merely observing the commandments of the torah defeats sin and exempts the practicing jew from the need for redemption. on the contrary, the rabbis were well aware that its practitioners (certainly including themselves) sin frequently and thus stand in need of repentance and god’s grace, without which repentance would be fruitless. the difference between paul and the rabbis (who, of course, mostly lived after him) has to do with the nature of the remedy for sin. it is, in other words, the dispute between torah and gospel.26 my point here is not to claim that christians should take the jewish position 25 ibid., 71–76. 26 among the many works on this vast subject, see e.p. sanders, paul and palestinian judaism: a comparison of patterns of religion (philadelphia: fortress press, 1977). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 170-185 levenson, “can roman catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?” 181 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art19 on this or any other matter, abandoning gospel for torah. on the contrary, were we to take each other’s positions, we would shed our identities and therewith destroy the possibility for authentic dialogue. for when judaism is the subject, we would talk like jews; when christianity is the subject, we would talk like christians. my point, rather, is that a document on the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible needs to be aware of the questions of framework and interpretive context that i have been stressing. it needs to confront the differences between the old and new testaments on those old chestnuts of torah, sin, and redemption and to recognize that the new testament understandings of those issues are in tension not only with judaism but with the old testament as well. in my judgment, its section on the old testament view of “the human person: greatness and wretchedness” is heavily colored by the new testament section on the same subject, thus submerging “the discrete testimony of the old testament” into “the discrete testimony of the new testament.” this not only yields a very doubtful harmony of the testaments but also deprives the church of a biblical perspective that it might possibly find worthy of development and appropriation. 5. israel’s chosenness and the church’s particularity the torah is not the only major item in the hebrew bible and rabbinic judaism with which the document of the pbc shows considerable uneasiness. another is the whole issue of israelite or jewish particularism—that is, the idea of israel as god’s chosen people.27 we first hear of this singling out on god’s part even before israel has come into existence, indeed before the word “israel” has crossed the biblical 27 on this subject, see jon d. levenson, “the universal horizon of biblical particularism,” in the bible and ethnicity, ed. mark g. brett (leiden: brill, 1996), 143–69. narrator’s lips, when a mesopotamian of no particular pedigree or note is commanded to leave his homeland and go to an unnamed land, where he is to become “a great nation” and “a blessing” (gn 12:1–3). the last verse of this passage reads as follows: i will bless those who bless you and curse him who curses you; and all the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you. (gn 12:3)28 the verse presumes the existence, and thus the legitimacy, of both insiders and outsiders, that is, both of those who belong to the “great nation” to descend from abraham and those who do not. nothing here implies that part of abraham’s charge is to make the outsiders into insiders, and nothing here implies in the least that the outsiders are under a curse of any sort. on the contrary, gn 12:3 explicitly holds open the possibility that the outsiders may be blessed—and blessed by reference to abraham at that. now let us compare what the pbc document says about genesis 12:3: the plan of god is now revealed as a universal one, for in abraham “all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (12:3). the old testament reveals how this plan was realized through the ages, with alternating moments of wretchedness and greatness. yet god was never resigned to leaving his people in wretchedness. he always reinstates them in the path of true greatness, for the benefit of the whole of humanity.29 28 this translation is taken from tanakh: the holy scriptures (philadelphia: jewish publication society, 1988/5748). 29 pbc, the jewish people, 75–76. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 170-185 levenson, “can roman catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?” 182 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art19 in this interpretation, the singling out of abraham—or, if you will, jewish particularism—is strictly subordinated to a universal mission. the alternative for the descendants of abraham is either to mediate blessing to “the whole of humanity” or to live “in wretchedness.” that israel’s own special status can have validity apart from this putative universal mission does not occur to the authors of the pbc document. and note that it presents this univocally universalistic interpretation not as a christian one, but as that of the old testament itself. in its view, even “the old testament reveals how this plan was realized through the ages.” the notes that the commission’s document sounds here have analogies in judaism, but i wish it had noted that some texts in the hebrew bible see the reason god chose the people israel to lie not in a universal mission but in something very different, a love affair. consider this text from deuteronomy: 6for you are a people consecrated to the lord your god: of all the peoples on earth the lord your god chose you to be his treasured people. 7it is not because you are the most numerous of peoples that the lord set his heart on you and chose you—indeed, you are the smallest of peoples; 8but it was because the lord loved you and kept the oath he made to your fathers that the lord freed you with a mighty hand and rescued you from the house of bondage, from the power of pharaoh king of egypt. (dt 7:6–8)30 the verb chashaq, translated here as “set his heart on,” carries a connotation of passion, even erotic passion. elsewhere in deuteronomy, for example, it is used of the israelite warrior who espies “among the captives a beautiful 30 also quoted from tanakh. woman” whom he desires (chashaqta) and wishes to marry (dt 21:11). this notion that god has a love affair with israel (whether his love is consistently requited or not) is richly attested in the prophets and in rabbinic literature; indeed, it underlies the classic midrashic interpretation of the song of songs. and love affairs, it seems to me, cannot be explained in rational, instrumental terms; they are not simply items in some larger universal plan. their validity is not dependent on their mediating something to outsiders. they have integrity in their own right. why does the document of the pontifical biblical commission so stress the notion of a universal plan “for the benefit of the whole of humanity” in choosing abraham and so neglect god’s passionate and unmotivated love for the people israel? here again, the answer would seem to lie in an eagerness to discover a deep continuity between the two testaments of the christian bible. note the following statement: from the earliest times, the church considered the jews to be important witnesses to the divine economy of salvation. she understands her own vocation as a participation in the election of israel and in a vocation that belongs, in the first place, to israel, despite the fact that only a small number of israelites accepted it.31 if i understand this passage correctly, its point is that the church, far from rejecting the jewish people, is simply doing what they are supposed to have been doing all along, carrying out a christian vocation that, alas, “only a small number of jews accepted.” (this tendency to recast the election of israel in the image of christian mission is connected with the fact that in the pbc document, as amyjill levine aptly puts it, “judaism appears generally 31 pbc, the jewish people, 95. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 170-185 levenson, “can roman catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?” 183 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art19 xenophobic while the church is universal.”32) if the election of israel has integrity of its own apart from some larger universal vocation, however, then the claim that the church, by carrying out its vocation, is simply participating in the election of israel would be cast in grave doubt. i am not, please note, arguing that the church should adopt the classical jewish understanding of israel, only that it should acknowledge the sources of that understanding in the old testament and not subordinate the old testament to the new quite so hastily and quite so thoroughly. that a christian document would try to find things in the old testament that point to the new is readily understandable. but what about the things in the old testament that do not point to the new? this issue of the chosenness of the jews bears on the question of the anti-jewish materials in the new testament. in the penultimate page of the pbc document, one finds this claim: “in the new testament the reproaches addressed to jews are not as frequent or as virulent as the accusations against the jews in the law and the prophets.” here again, the purpose is a noble one, to counter those who wish to use these “reproaches” “as a basis for anti-jewish sentiment.”33 but i wonder whether things said internally, by ancient israelite authors, really do have the same meaning they have when made externally, by early christian writers. does the fact that some african americans use the n-word to refer to each other mean that there is no anti-black sentiment involved when a white uses the same word? obviously not, for the community in which the discourse takes place is a key ingredient in its interpretation. when a community like the early church, which claimed to be the people of god and heir to the promises of israel, criticizes the jewish people, 32 levine, “roland murphy,” 107. 33 pbc, the jewish people, 218. this surely is not quite the same thing as the intramural critique found in the torah and the prophets. in this, i cannot agree strongly enough with an observation of professor levine’s. “matthew and john are writing to people who do not see themselves as members of the group being excoriated,” she writes. “new testament polemic is not comparable to jeremiah, and as long as it is read so, the true difficulties these texts pose to jewish–christian relations will never be honestly addressed.”34 a rough roman catholic analogy might go like this: both catholics and noncatholics have been highly critical of the handling of the priestly sex scandals that have rocked the catholic church in recent years. but when the criticism comes from people who have no particular desire to see the catholic church survive and who think its mission is now carried on better by other groups anyway, then the criticism has a very different import. again, i think the pbc document would have been better served by a more robust acknowledgment of the particularism of the church itself, which, given its rooting in the hebrew bible, inevitably led to a collision with judaism. indeed, we can go further. rather than attempting yet again to squeeze the church into a model of universal community in contradistinction to the putative exclusivism and xenophobia of judaism, the pbc document would, in my estimation, have been better served by reflecting on what george lindbeck calls “the nature of the church as israel.”35 to be sure, this carries with it the risk of supersessionism, as lindbeck keenly recognizes. but, as he points out, losing the ancient christian practice of “seeing the church in the mirror of old testament israel”36 also carries risks, to which i think 34 from an unpublished response cited in donahue, “joined.” 35 george lindbeck, “the church as israel: ecclesiology and ecumenism,” in jews and christians: people of god, ed. carl e. braaten and robert w. jenson (grand rapids: eerdmans, 2003), 78–94, here 80–82. 36 ibid., 81. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 170-185 levenson, “can roman catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?” 184 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art19 the pbc document has, in fact, succumbed. as lindbeck sees it, yesterday’s supersessionism and today’s shallow universalism (or, in more contemporary parlance, “being inclusive”) are, paradoxically, closely linked. “supersessionism generated a communally impenitent triumphalism that has contributed not a little to reducing peoplehood to an individualism for which church membership is increasingly, even for roman catholics, a matter of changeable personal preference rather than lifelong communal loyalty.”37 if the catholic church is to combat that widespread and culturally prestigious reduction and the concomitant loss of identity, it needs to approach the understanding of israel in both testaments of its bible with more openness and more humility than the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible displays. for the difference between judaism and christianity is not the difference between particularism and universalism. it is the difference between two particularisms, each of which makes, in its own way, universal claims. 6. is full validation of the other’s interpretation possible? in his own comments on the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible, the late father roland murphy, one of the finest old testament scholars of his generation, asks, “what is missing here?” the answer: “a feeling for the old testament.” “there is,” he goes on to say, “a certain tone missing in the document of the pbc— call it wonderment, awe, admiration, that is present in the old testament text it studied.”38 the reason for this deficit, it seems to me, is precisely the eagerness of its authors to present the old testament as exactly that—the older of the 37 ibid., 93. 38 murphy, “the biblical,” 147. two testaments in the history of christian scriptural revelation. the key words in its title are thus those last four, “in the christian bible.” the amount of wonderment, awe, and admiration one can feel when contemplating the old testament is, to some degree, inversely proportional to the amount of wonderment, awe, and admiration one feels in contemplating the new, for the two collections are not, as the pbc document fully recognizes, the same, and, as i have argued here, their messages are to a not inconsiderable degree at odds with one another. the old testament of the church, the tanakh of the people israel, and the hebrew bible of historical-critical reconstruction are, as i noted at the outset, components of separate and discrete systems. there is, to be sure, fruitful overlap among the systems, and modern biblical scholarship has shown that that a community can enrich its understanding of its own book by considering the contexts of the other systems and the insights these other contexts generate. but in the last analysis, roman catholic interpretation, in order to be roman catholic interpretation, will have to place the book in question within a context that is foreign both to judaism and to historical-criticism. for that reason, catholicism cannot ever fully validate jewish biblical interpretation, any more than judaism could ever fully validate catholic biblical interpretation, or historical criticism could ever fully validate the characteristic interpretive moves of either catholicism or judaism. what members of each community can strive to do, however, is to be attentive to the texts they interpret and to the systemic dimensions of their interpretive work and thus aware of their own preconceptions of what those texts ought to mean. i must not omit to note an asymmetry between the jewish and the catholic situations. in the case of judaism, there is no compelling theological reason to be concerned with catholic biblical interpretation (it may be unwise for studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 170-185 levenson, “can roman catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?” 185 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art19 jews not to be concerned with it, but that is another matter). in the case of current catholic teaching, by contrast, involvement with jewish readings of the tanakh would seem necessary. here i refer to the observation of pope john paul ii at the synagogue in mainz, germany, in 1980: “the encounter between the people of the old alliance, which has never been abrogated by god, and that of the new alliance is a dialogue internal to our church.”39 one product of that encounter, i would add, is a renewed appreciation of the old testament apart from its harmonization with the new testament, and this, in turn, ought to bring in its train a heightened sense of the tension between the theological visions of the two collections. that heightened sense of tension carries with it the potential to undermine christian faith, but if pope john paul ii’s point about the “dialogue internal to our church” is correct, the risk is unavoidable. when christian theology is projected onto the hebrew bible, as it is to a large degree in the pbc document, that dialogue can only be stillborn. 7. conclusion as i come to the end of my discussion, i am keenly aware and even a bit troubled that i have concentrated on what i see as the weak points in the document on the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible. so before i conclude, i should like to reiterate a few of the reasons that i value the document. one is that it combines a deep reverence for scripture with openness to historical-critical study. as a jew, i appreciate the key fact that the document speaks to christians in a christian voice and does not rest content with merely surveying the historical record. it thus cannot be accused of what i have 39 quoted in henry wansbrough, “the jewish people and its holy scripture in the christian bible,” scripture bulletin 32:2 (july 2002): 50, from documentation catholique 77 (1980): 1148. elsewhere called the “historicist evasion,”40 yet at the same time it avails itself of historical research abundantly and does not retreat into the hermetic world of self-referential traditionalism. this is refreshing in an age in which believers too often dismiss scholarship and scholars too often dismiss belief (i am speaking of traditional religious belief, of course; secular scholars of religion have no lack of beliefs, even axiomatic presuppositions, of their own). another reason for my appreciation is that the document takes the theological affirmations of the church with the greatest seriousness, even when confronting the painful legacy of christian antijudaism. it resists the temptation to take the easy way out that reduces judaism and christianity to their putative lowest common denominator or seeks to affirm the legitimacy of each tradition for its own community alone without reference to the universal claims that each makes. here again, it avoids the scylla of speaking from some imagined traditionneutral perch and the charybdis of absolutizing its own tradition. if the document is not altogether successful, that is largely because what it has attempted is very big and very worthwhile indeed. 40 levenson, the hebrew bible, 82–105. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review sina rauschenbach judentum für christen: vermittlung und selbstbehauptung menasseh ben israels in den gelehrten debatten des 17. jahrhunderts. (berlin: de gruyter, 2012), vii + 344 pp. david h. price, university of illinois, urbana-champaign sina rauschenbach's book, which is a revision of her 2010 habilitationsschrift for the university of constance, meticulously analyzes menasseh ben israel's strategies for mediating jewish thought for christians, mainly by comparing the latin versions to the spanish originals for several of his publications. she also offers a comprehensive and highly illuminating account of the christian reception of menasseh's works, an effort that is especially valuable for the works that pertain to menasseh's england mission in the 1650s. menasseh ben israel, the prolific sephardic author and publisher, was read so avidly by christian scholars that cecil roth fittingly dubbed him “an apostle to the gentiles.” initially, menasseh's principal concern was to serve conversos returning to orthodoxy in the netherlands and elsewhere. for that purpose, he established a publishing house in amsterdam—the very first to print hebrew there—that specialized in bibles, prayer books and religious tracts. soon, his press produced books for ashkenazi communities as well. one of his own early writings in spanish—the conciliador of 1632-51—attracted a large readership among christians, especially once its first volume was translated into latin in 1633 by his friend dionysius vossius, son of the renowned scholar gerardus vossius. as menasseh surely knew from his ever-expanding circle of christian acquaintances, the conciliador possessed great studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) relevance to christian biblical scholars since it attempted to reconcile apparent inconsistences in passages of the hebrew bible. moreover, the book's methodology of compiling rabbinic and medieval jewish commentary on problematic passages had the additional attraction of making a very large selection of jewish scholarship easily available to christians. remarkably, menasseh also included several christian theologians among the authorities. the latin translation of this work achieved a kind of celebrity status for him among christian scholars from all over europe. thereafter, leading scholars of the age corresponded or conferred in person with the famous rabbi (caspar barlaeus, robert boyle, jan amos comenius, hugo grotius, isaac la peyrère, rembrandt, petrus serrarius, antonio vieira, and vossius being among the many). following the success of conciliador, menasseh frequently conceptualized his theological tracts for simultaneous reception among jews and christians. in 1635 he published a study of biblical portrayals of creation in latin only, de creatione problemata xxx. this tract clearly expresses specifically jewish concepts of messianism, albeit concepts that were fascinating to christian millenarians, yet also comments on a few theological doctrines, such as purgatory (which menasseh concludes does not exist), that were relevant only to christians. in de resurrectione mortuorum libri iii (1536), which appeared in both spanish and latin, he treated a fierce controversy in contemporary judaism, initiated by the tragic figure uriel da costa, that was also of interest to christian theologians: the nature of the soul and of life after death. subsequent works, also produced in spanish and latin versions, continued to connect jewish and christian theological concerns (de termino vitae and dissertatio de fragilitate humana), entertaining such christian questions as the doctrine of predestination (which he rejects) and original sin. more famously, in the 1640s, menasseh became a significant source for new christian speculation on the possibility that native americans descended from the lost tribes of israel and that their ingathering would initiate the end of time. after antonio de montezinos reported finding a tribe adhering to “jewish” studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr practices in the andes, menasseh sent a french translation of montezinos' account to the english millenarian john dury. in his miqwe yisrael...esperança de israel (1650), a work immediately translated into latin and, then, english, menasseh printed and interpreted the report from a jewish messianic perspective, even though his analysis was addressed to christian readers. owing to the keen interest of english millenarians, this ultimately set the stage for menasseh's most significant intervention in the christian world, his attempt to promote readmission of jews to england under oliver cromwell's commonwealth. his famous mission to england in 1655 was the context for the composition of the vindication of the jews (originally published in latin), his classic defense of judaism. rauschenbach's study is a comprehensive assessment of menasseh ben israel's remarkable career with one important exception. the history of sephardi returning to judaism during menasseh's generation is not a central interest of this book, which results in the relative neglect of a few major works, such as his thesouro dos dinim (1645-7) and his spanish translation of the pentateuch (humash o cinco libros de la ley divina, 1655). this is also true for most of the hebrew publications, especially the bible in hebrew, as well as his editions of the talmud. i might add that all of these works were also certainly intended partially for christian scholars, some of which were even produced with christian patronage. rauschenbach mentions them, but does not undertake any discussions of these important efforts. the treatment of the english mission offers an exceedingly valuable textual history of his intervention, but it does not attempt to explain or appreciate menasseh ben israel's long-term contributions to the successful resettlement of jews to england. rauschenbach seems to view the effort as having been entirely fruitless since, after all, menasseh was unable to negotiate a charter for resettlement. yet she does not directly challenge the portrayals advanced by other scholars (roth and david katz, for example) who see historical advantages arising from his intervention. a fresh assessment of the relative significance of studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 8 (2013) religious (especially millenarian) and economic motivations of the english, a point of disagreement in the historiography on the whitehall deliberations on readmission, would also have been useful. these are very minor issues, in fact, matters arguably beyond the scope of this outstanding and insightful study. in the event that german is an impediment, the author has also published a succinct english version of the key elements of chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5 in jewish quarterly review 102 (2012), 561-88: “mediating jewish knowledge: menasseh ben israel and the christian respublica litteraria.” scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-2 alon goshen-gottstein luther the anti-semite: a contemporary jewish perspective (minneapolis: fortress press, 2018), softcover, xvi + 98 pp. stephen burnett sburnett1@unl.edu university of nebraska, lincoln, ne 68588 alon goshen-gottstein, a jewish scholar with extensive experience in interfaith education, has written an unusual book on luther. he proposes that the study of luther’s antisemitism can be used as a vehicle for furthering dialogue between jews and christians. more broadly, luther’s views can aid analysis of where religions can “go wrong,” especially when they express hostility toward religious others. he devotes roughly half of the book to evaluating luther from several different perspectives: luther as jews perceived him (chapter 2), luther within his historical context (chapter 3), and the internal coherence of luther’s anti-jewish views within his theological framework (chapter 4). it is in the latter chapter that goshen-gottstein creates a “model” for evaluating where religious traditions generally can “go wrong” (p. 23).the criteria that he uses to evaluate luther’s antijudaism includes “lack of contact with jews and no meaningful firsthand knowledge of jews”; “wrong and misleading knowledge and information”; “personal hurt and offense as a consequence of deep religious engagement”; “personal trauma and personal fears”; “theological and scriptural foundations”; “protecting christian identity”; “the apocalyptic dimension”; and “disappointment with lack of jewish conversions.” he dismisses three further reasons for luther’s anti-judaism as lacking plausibility: “failing health”; “acceptance of prevailing opinions”; and “jews as stand-ins for papists” (pp. 26-48). the two remaining chapters contain goshen-gottstein’s thoughtful application of these factors to extremist groups of modern israeli jews. he uses two examples: the arson attack on the pilgrimage church at tabgha (the traditional site of jesus’ feeding of the five thousand) and some jews praying anti-christian versions of traditional jewish prayers (pp. 5457). finding these repugnant, he seeks in the book to apply reciprocally the lessons learned from luther’s antisemitism to these present-day jews. burnett: alon goshen-gottstein’s luther the anti-semite 2 goshen-gottstein’s intended audience is interfaith educators like himself. he assumes a readership who acknowledge the legitimacy of other faiths and consequently condemn proselytism and missionizing of any kind (pp. 68, 88-89). he emphasizes the importance of interreligious contacts and friendships in order to replace false information and views with true ones, though he acknowledges such contacts by themselves are not inevitably successful (p. 70 n. 17). he understands biblical interpretation in the service of theological creativity as an activity requiring both tentativeness and a willingness to acknowledge the possibility of multiple interpretations (p. 83). luther serves as an example for him. while luther viewed his refusal to countenance the validity of jewish biblical interpretations as the logical result of his theology, goshen-gottstein calls it a “failure of theological nerve” (p. 37). goshen-gottstein’s portrayal of luther within his own place and time, and the role antisemitism played in his life, reflects an engagement with good contemporary scholarship on the subject. his insights into the personal factors in luther’s turn against jews, such as his personal trauma from the failed “dialogue” with rabbis in wittenberg in 1526, are fair ones, even if luther’s actual response to the conversation was disproportionate. however, his treatment of luther is at times superficial and misleading. to begin with, the three factors that he cavalierly dismisses as implausible—luther’s failing health, his acceptance of prevailing opinions on jews, and his purported use of jews as stand-ins for papists—are actually all relevant to some degree for the fateful shift in his attitude toward jews, or at least in the way luther expressed himself. for example, luther expressly said in his famous galatians lectures of 1531 that the papists are “our jews” (luther’s works, vol. 26, p. 207). he repeatedly made the unflattering comparison throughout his mature works between the “jews then” and the “papists now” to explain the maladies of the catholic church. while the author admits that some present-day jews consider christianity to be idolatrous and express this forcefully in prayer, he is unwilling to acknowledge fully that luther was aware that jews believed this in his day (pp. 30, 54-55). interested readers should take goshen-gottstein’s evaluation of luther’s antisemitism as at best a starting point for their study, not the final word on the subject. goshen-gottstein’s luther the anti-semite is thought-provoking and to my knowledge unique for his efforts to make luther’s antisemitism into a kind of diagnostic tool for examining and predicting when religious traditions can turn hostile or even violent toward others. his prescriptions for identifying potential sources of conflict between judaism and christianity and possibly between other religious traditions are helpful for beginning fruitful conversations across religious lines. the book makes a contribution to the literature of interfaith dialogue, and especially the jewish-lutheran dialogue, rather than to scholarship on luther and the jews. scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-3 shaul magid, ed. and jordan gayle levy, trans. the bible, the talmud, and the new testament: elijah zvi soloveitchik’s commentary to the gospels (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2019), hardcover, xii + 427 pp. benjamin e. sax bsax@icjs.org institute for islamic, christian, jewish studies, baltimore, md 21204 in the bible, the talmud, and the new testament: elijah zvi soloveitchik’s commentary to the gospels, shaul magid and jordan gayle levy aim to provide the english-reading public new insights into the possibilities for jewish-christian dialogue through an english translation of soloveitchik’s commentary to the gospels, qol qore. the soloveitchik name is familiar to anyone who studies jewish thought because of the family’s generations of distinguished talmudists, though elijah zvi (1805-1881), and especially this work, are far less well-known. in the forward to this volume, the president of yale university, peter salovey, not only discusses the theological impact of the soloveitchik dynasty, but also shares that he is, in fact, a descendent of elijah zvi, who is his great-great-great grandfather. salovey expresses his pride that his relative set the parameters for a “difficult dialogue” in the nineteenth century, which, he argues might even be considered a template for further interreligious engagement. as a traditionalist molded in the lithuanian tradition, soloveitchik’s affirmation of christianity is worth consideration, especially since he was arguably more radical than even his liberal peers. this translation may even capture the zeitgeist of our contemporary cultural moment. there has been a noticeable uptick in academic work on jewish-christian dialogue, including the publication of the jewish annotated new testament in 2011. given the recent success of television programs like shtisel and unorthodox, there also appears to be popular interest in ultra-orthodox and hasidic communities. soloveitchik’s views on judaism and christianity may finally garner attention of those working in interreligious dialogue. while it was not uncommon in the nineteenth century for eastern european jews to write about christianity, most did so in response to missionary activity. soloveitchik’s work stands apart because of his attempt to affirm christianity. the sax: magid and levy’s the bible, the talmud, and the new testament 2 absence of source material makes the task of understanding his position challenging. levy does not have full access to soloveitchik’s original writing and so magid must turn to soloveitchik’s intellectual milieu to piece together a story of translation and reception. this volume focuses specifically on soloveitchik’s commentaries on the books of mathew and mark. he allegedly also wrote a commentary on the other book of the synoptic gospels—luke—but it appears no longer to exist. there is no existing hebrew text of his commentary on mark either, but levy is able to draw upon a french translation by rabbi lazare wogue, a colleague of soloveitchik’s, published in 1870 in paris. for his commentary on the book of matthew, levy draws upon an undated hebrew edition as well as one published by a protestant mission in 1985, though he suggests it was written in the 1870s. complicating matters further, magid explains that we do not know which new testament soloveitchik consulted in his commentary. it could have been a german or a french edition, or possibly hebrew, or even nehemiah solomon’s yiddish edition, which was intended to convert jews. magid and levy believe that he most likely consulted a hebrew translation, so they compared the commentary to a hebrew translation by the noted lutheran theologian and hebraist, franz delitzsch (1813-1870). even though magid did not find evidence that soloveitchik consulted delitzsch’s translation, or was even familiar with his work, “given their shared interests in judaism and christianity, as well as delitzsch’s stellar reputation among many jewish scholars,” magid infers, “it is likely that he was familiar with it” (12). levy’s translations of soloveitchik’s commentaries sound appropriately rabbinic, which make soloveitchik’s views on christianity all the more poignant. conceding the possibility that soloveitchik may have consulted delitzsch’s translation, levy draws on the delitzsch hebrew english gospels in her translation of new testament texts. translating a translation of sacred texts may give some scholars pause. as in most jewish translations of sacred texts, in soloveitchik’s qol qore we find a pedagogical impulse toward some kind of acculturation. in this way, i wonder if levy's translation is intended to teach something about living a religious life without the conventional borders separating christianity and judaism. soloveitchik makes clear in his preface that despite claims to the contrary, judaism and christianity—and specifically their sacred texts the talmud and the new testament—are not mutually exclusive. in fact, one goal of his commentaries was to demonstrate how these traditions are equally true. this position was radical even for many nineteenth-century jewish reformers and proponents of the wissenschaft des judentums, who sought to highlight the basic jewishness of jesus, albeit for polemical purposes. even though antisemitism bedeviled most of nineteenth-century europe, magid argues that there is little to no evidence that soloveitchik engaged with the jewish-christian polemics of his time. likewise, he did not publish opinions on the missionary activities of christians in eastern europe, most notably the efforts of the famed british hebraist and missionary alexander mccaul (1799-1863), or even engage with eastern european jewish defenses against mccaul. in magid’s view, soloveitchik’s qol qore may have stood against the 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) anti-talmudic missionizing efforts of the midto late-nineteenth century. his commentary sought to reorient readers toward a non-messianic jesus, whose life and teachings, when read through a rabbinic lens, may even sound maimonidean. take, for example, his long commentary to mathew 12:2, “the perushim [pharisees] saw this and said to him: ‘look! your disciples are doing what is not to be done on shabbat.” here, soloveitchik cites maimonides, the babylonian talmud, the gospel of luke, leviticus, and exodus, in addition to supplying an etymology of the word “sabbath” in hebrew, english, german, russian, and polish. he makes the case that jesus not only “did not permit … the desecration of the sabbath, or even the rabbinic prohibitions,” but also he did not seek to change the day from saturday to sunday (169). note as well soloveitchik’s view on the resurrection of jesus, which for him is a christian misreading of the text, since, as in maimonides’ interpretation of the term, resurrection merely points to the immortality of the soul. in soloveitchik’s view, jesus was a proto-maimonidean who advocated for the unity of god and was thus a good rabbinic jew. one might generalize that the nineteenth century in europe was marked by the setting of boundaries: geographically, theologically, and politically. since the writings of aristotle and euclid, setting boundaries has consumed much of what is called religious thought or theology. read in this context, soloveitchik’s commentaries are indeed radical. and yet he appears to demand little of his orthodox jewish community, while at the same time demanding something much greater from his christian neighbors: judaizing jesus means taking away his messianic status, which, as it turns out, many christians are unwilling to do. the ability to set boundaries discloses power. interreligious dialogue often reflects cultural and political power in boundary settings: who is in or out, what ideas are appropriate or inappropriate, etc. honest dialogue, indeed engagement, requires some acknowledgment that any religious faith, especially that of biblical or theistic orientation, perforce engenders some intolerance, possibly even some prejudice. religious knowledge, after all, is privileged knowledge. recognizing this, soloveitchik sought to broaden the scope of what was considered privileged in order to reconcile “these two enemy sisters,” judaism and christianity (49). his voice, then, should be welcomed into our interreligious conversations, and we should be grateful for magid and levy’s attention to his work. 1 scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-21 guilt and the transformation of christian-jewish relations1 katharina von kellenbach kvonkellenbach@smcm.edu st. mary's college of maryland, st. mary's city, md 20686 guilt as defilement, pollution, impurity what happens when attention is shifted from forgiveness to guilt, from reconciliation to sin? guilt and forgiveness, sin and redemption are often mentioned in the same breath, which tends to elide the reality and experience of guilt. the language of guilt is built around two metaphors that articulate the condition of being guilty as either a pollution, stain, or defilement that must be purified, or as a weight and burden that can be transferred, lifted, born, and carried away. these metaphors are universal and rooted in our bodies. all of the world’s religions offer rituals of purification to alleviate the weight and stain of trespasses against the sacred order and moral boundaries of communities.2 traditional religious rituals of purification use water (e.g., baptism, mikveh, ganges river), blood (e.g., animal sacrifices, eucharist), fire and smoke (e.g., fire sacrifice, smudge sticks, sweat lodge) to remove impurities caused by transgressions against the sacred order. purification rituals provide the procedures by which the symbolic and sacred order is renewed and recreated after violations against god and neighbor. the correlation of washing and spiritual or moral purification is well established in the history of religions, including christianity. social psychologists have recently retested this hypothesis and found that secular contemporaries feel physically dirty when they are reminded of moral wrongdoing. called the macbeth effect after shakespeare’s gripping portrait of lady macbeth’s obsessive attempts to wash off the blood of guilt, several studies have confirmed a correlation between a perceived need for physical cleansing and the memory of moral wrongdoing.3 both the new testament and the hebrew bible use imagery of pollution and defilement that must be purified. water and sacrificial blood are the preferred methods of purification. the new testament interprets the passion of christ as a purifying sacrifice, his blood cleanses sin and guilt. so, for instance hebrews: “if 1 this essay is based on the 2019 krister stendahl memorial lecture delivered in stockholm, sweden. 2 mary douglas, purity and danger: an analysis of concept of pollution and taboo (new york: routledge, 1966). 3 chen-bo zhong and katie liljenquist,. "washing away your sins: threatened morality and physical cleansing." science 313, no. 5792 (september 8, 2006): 1451-52. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1130726. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1130726 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1130726 von kellenbach: guilt and transformation 2 the blood of goats and bulls, with the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is purified, how much more will the blood of christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself without blemish to god, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living god” (heb 9:1314)! christ’s blood washes away sins and he dies so that “that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds” (titus 2:14). in baptism, “you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified” (1 cor 6:11) and in the eucharist, the “blood of jesus christ his son cleanses us from all sin” (1 john 1:7). sacrificial blood and sacred water are universal detergents to cleanse spiritual and social violations of the social and symbolic order. in the hebrew bible, trespasses against god’s divine ordinances must be expiated by rituals of purification, often involving the entire community. unless the culprit is punished, the entire community is implicated in guilt by association, which pollutes the land, undermines social cohesion, and obstructs relations with god: you shall not pollute the land in which you live; for the blood pollutes the land, and no expiation can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it. you shall not defile the land in which you live, in which i dwell; for i the lord dwell among the israelites (num 35:33-34). on the biblical paradigm, it is the entire community that is implicated and under obligation to respond, prosecute, and punish the culprit. only some people in a community are guilty but all are responsible. until the community vindicates the victims by imposing the rule of law, the pollution of moral violation spreads. while this may sound like ancient tribal blood feud customs, this imagery is regaining relevance in contemporary discussions of political crime and atrocities.4 the holocaust, for instance, implicated everyone who was not circumcised or a member of the jewish community. complicity is a form of pollution, silence and indifference are signs of collusion. guilt as weight and burden the second metaphor for guilt involves weights and burdens that must be born or can be lifted. the scapegoat ritual is the most prominent text that suggests that the sins of the community are transferred and carried into the desert in order to rid individuals and the community of personal and communal guilt: then aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of israel, and all their transgressions, all 4 martha grace duncan, romantic outlaws, beloved prisons: the unconscious meanings of crime and punishment (new york, new york university press, 1996). 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness by means of someone designated for the task. the goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness (lev 16:20-22). this ritual visualizes sin and guilt as a burden that can be loaded and eased. it is from this process of garbage removal that we also derive the associative field of gehenna, the hebrew word for hell, which, some have argued, refers to the garbage dump outside of the walls of jerusalem, where smoldering flames slowly consumed the stinking detritus of human consumption. garbage disappears by common design, we no longer perceive and acknowledge its existence. but in reality, it has not vanished, even though it has lost its value and right to exist. that which has been thrown away smolders and stinks in fiery pits and foul landfills. christ as sacrificial scapegoat carries away the weight of iniquity and disposes humanity’s sins in some remote corner of the universe. is that how reconciliation can work? what happens to the remainders of guilt? we must question this imagery on ecological, moral, and spiritual grounds, and consider the possibility of toxic super fund sites in the realm of historical evil. guilt may not disappear down hidden drainage pipes and or on the backs of waste management scapegoats, but require intentional bioremediation and composting. the history of christian anti-judaism is a case in point. before the holocaust, anti-judaism established and sustained christian triumphalism, but after the murder of six million jews in the heart of european christendom, the teaching of contempt became a liability. the holocaust made christian anti-judaism odious. but although many church bodies rushed to declare antisemitism a “sin against god” (wcc 1948) and “denial of the spirit and teaching of our lord (wcc 1946), antisemitism’s role and function, shape and history, remained obscure, unknown, and vague. the question of guilt is instructive here. whose guilt is it anyway? from the start, many christians, and certainly the nazis, blamed jews and judaism for all of the misfortune in the world. anti-judaism is built upon the charge of the murder of christ, a charge that looms large and extends into supposedly secular antisemitic propaganda. anti-jewish tropes picture jews as persecutors of christ, who entrap the innocent and corrupt the christian world. because the jews called the blood of christ upon their own heads, whatever legal, political, and physical violence came their way was deserved. god himself, according to this teaching, rejected and punished this people. this collective guilt spreads to the entire people of israel, living then and there, or here and now. punishing the jews became a righteous and christian duty. der stürmer, a crude and pornographic anti-semitic propaganda publication of the nazi party, routinely ran caricatures of the cross to convey its message that “the jews are our misfortune (unglück).” a looming jewish face watches the crucifixion of an aryan-looking christ (figure 1), and in one von kellenbach: guilt and transformation 4 case, of a naked female figure, “ecce germania.”5 as christ-killers, the jews also threaten the survival and well-being of germania. despite their pretense of scientific racism, nazi antisemitism used the christian trope of collective guilt for the conspirational entrapment of the son of god to authorize violence against the jews. this allowed nazi authorities to recruit willing collaborators from among german, austrian, polish, ukrainian, french, and dutch christians. the final solution, on that view, completed the rejection by god himself, who condemned this people into exile. contrary to the wcc’s claim that antisemitism was in “denial of the spirit and teaching of our lord” (wcc 1946), the christian story was routinely used to mobilize antisemitic violence. 5 der stürmer front page, january 1939, united states holocaust memorial museum collection, gift of virginius dabney, https://www.ushmm.org/propaganda/archive/der-sturmer-january-1939/ (accessed january 27, 2020). figure 1. front page of der stürmer, january 1939 https://www.ushmm.org/propaganda/archive/der-sturmer-january-1939/ 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) this projection of guilt was at the heart of the christian teaching of contempt, and constituted, as rosemary radford ruether put it, “the left hand of christology.”6 the guilt of the jews was hammered home in sermons and sculpture, art and architecture, scholarly treatises, and popular pamphlets: jews were guilty of killing christ, guilty of persecuting the prophets, guilty of disobedience, guilty of blindness, guilty of arrogance, and guilty of refusing to fade into oblivion. israel was cursed for its guilt, deprived of its covenant, banished from its land, dispersed into exile, and condemned to abjection at the hands of the church, the new israel.7 as much as the christian churches needed and wanted to disassociate from the genocidal violence of the holocaust, they were not immediately ready to renounce jewish guilt. consider the declaration on jewish question issued by the council of pastors of the confessing church (reichsbruderrat) in 1948. this statement was supposed to redress the silence about the holocaust in the original “declaration of guilt” in stuttgart in october of 1945. the 1948 declaration affirms the jewishness of jesus, and repudiates singular guilt attributions to the jews for his death. but in the second and fifth point, the declaration reiterates israel’s supposed rejection of its vocation and god’s punishment of the people of israel as a warning and exhortation for the new israel, the church: (2) in crucifying the messiah, israel has rejected its election and vocation. all of humankind has repudiated the christ of god in this event. we are all coguilty for the crucifixion of christ. therefore, the church is not allowed to stigmatize the jews as solely guilty for the cross of christ… (5) standing under the judgment of god, israel confirms the irrefutable truth and reality of the word of god, to the continuous admonition of his church. that god cannot be mocked is the silent sermon of the jewish fate, as a warning to us and as an exhortation to the jews to consider conversion to the one, in whom alone rests their salvation. 8 three years after the military defeat of nazism, representatives of the confessing church, who had split from the state-controlled german evangelical church over the aryan paragraph, could not stop blaming the jews for their own misfortune. at their meeting in 1948, they continued to hold the jews accountable for their own punishment as a natural consequence of their rejection of christ. this position remained ascendant long into the 1960s, when jewish theologian richard rubenstein encountered it in his visits with german church representatives, including those who were arguably sympathetic to jews, such as dean heinrich grüber, who had run the church relief office in berlin during the war for non-aryan christians and jews, called the “pastor grüber bureau.” grüber was as “woke” as any 6 rosemary radford ruether, faith and fratricide: the theological roots of anti-semitism (new york: seabury press, 1974). 7 meyer, barbara u. “structures of violence and the denigration of law in christian thought.” studies in christian-jewish relations 13(1) (2018): 1-21. 8 reichsbruderrat, wort zur judenfrage. (1948). freiburger rundbriefe. http://www.freiburger-rundbrief.de/de/?item=934 (accessed november 4, 2019). http://www.freiburger-rundbrief.de/de/?item=934 http://www.freiburger-rundbrief.de/de/?item=934 von kellenbach: guilt and transformation 6 german clergyman at the time and traveled to jerusalem as the only german to testify against adolf eichmann. but in his conversations with richard rubenstein, he also interpreted jewish suffering through the lens of divine punishment for the betrayal and rejection of christ. for rubenstein, such theological meaning-making proved that antisemitism was deeply ingrained in the mythic structure of christianity itself: even when christians assert that all men are guilty of the death of the christ, they are asserting a guilt more hideous than any known in any other religion, the murder of the lord of heaven and earth...the best that christians can do for the jews is to spread the guilt, while always reserving the possibility of throwing it back entirely upon the jews. there is no solution for the jews…9 the discussions and eventual renunciation of the “deicide charge” occurred over the course of the 1960s. the first church to disavow the deicide charge as a “tragic misunderstanding” was house of bishops of the episcopal church in the usa in 1964.10 their statement explains: “to be sure, jesus was crucified by some soldiers at the instigation of some jews. but this cannot be construed as imputing corporate guilt to every jew in jesus’ day, much less the jewish people in subsequent generations.”11 a year later, in 1965, nostra aetate, widely acclaimed as the moment of “sea change” in jewish-christian relations, was passed overwhelmingly by the second vatican council in rome: true, the jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of christ; still what happened in his passion cannot be charged against all the jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the jews today. although the church is the new people of god, the jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by god, as if this followed from the holy scriptures.12 the attribution of jewish guilt is the corner stone on which the election of the gentile christian church was built. it establishes the reason for god’s rejection and replacement of the people of israel. it grounds jewish abjection and exile. for all of its irrationality, it took enormous internal theological debate and political pressure to renounce the idea that every jew, at every point in history and everywhere, could be held personally accountable for the death of christ. without retributive reasoning, christian contempt and violence loses a key argument. if god has no reason to punish the jews, then christians lose the reason to curse and consign jews to hell. the official retraction of jewish guilt allowed the churches to consider the 9 richard rubenstein, after auschwitz: radical theology and contemporary judaism (indianapolis: the bobbs-merrill company, 1966), 57. 10 franklin sherman, bridges: documents of the christian-jewish dialogue (new york: paulist press, 2011), vol. 1, 59. 11 sherman, bridges, vol. 1, 59. 12 sherman, bridges, vol. 1, 168. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) theological integrity and religious vitality of rabbinic judaism. only then did the churches recognize the infliction of suffering on jews as culpable history. the purification of memory when pope john paul ii spoke of the “purification of memory” to guide the millennial celebrations in the jubilee year 2000, he invited the church to come to terms with culpable histories, including the crusades, the inquisition, the slave trade, colonialism, and the holocaust.13 when pope john paul ii prepared the church for the great jubilee of the year 2000 in his apostolic letter tertio millennio adveniente (1994), he introduced the concept of the purification of memory: she [the church] cannot cross the threshold of the new millennium without encouraging her children to purify themselves, through repentance, of past errors and instances of infidelity, inconsistency, and slowness to act. acknowledging the weaknesses of the past is an act of honesty and courage which helps us to strengthen our faith, which alerts us to face today's temptations and challenges and prepares us to meet them.14 this concept was reiterated in subsequent documents, such as the bull incarnationis mysterium (1998), which similarly wrestled with “the weariness which the burden of two thousand years of history could bring with it” and affirmed: “first of all, the sign of the purification of memory; this calls everyone to make an act of courage and humility in recognizing the wrongs done by those who have borne or bear the name of christian. ... because of the bond which unites us to one another in the mystical body, all of us, though not personally responsible and without encroaching on the judgment of god who alone knows every heart, bear the burden of the errors and faults of those who have gone before us. yet we too, sons and daughters of the church, have sinned and have hindered the bride of christ from shining forth in all her beauty.”15 purification is key to renewal, evocatively expressed in the image of the young, virginal, untouched bride. this image of purity is problematic not only for its sexual 13 pope john paul ii, incarnationis mysterium, §11 bull of indiction of the great jubilee of the year 2000, (november 1998), http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/docs/documents/hf_jp-ii_doc_30111998_bolla-jubilee_en.html (accessed august 16, 2016). international theological commission, memory and reconciliation (december 1999), §5.1. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html (accessed july 17, 2017). 14 pope john paul ii, apostolic letter, tertio millennio adveniente of his holiness pope john paul ii, 1994. https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jpii_apl_19941110_tertio-millennio-adveniente.html (accessed july 17, 2017). 15 pope john paul ii, incarnationis mysterium, §11. http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/docs/documents/hf_jp-ii_doc_30111998_bolla-jubilee_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19941110_tertio-millennio-adveniente.html https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19941110_tertio-millennio-adveniente.html von kellenbach: guilt and transformation 8 politics but also for its implicit erasure of the old. the call to “clean house” and purify the church all too often means “whitewashing” or, worse, “sweeping the dirt under the rug.” metaphors of composting, on the other hand, affirm the messy materiality of the past and enrich the existing imagery of washing and waste removal. composting the remainders of wrongdoing requires patience and strategic engagement. the etymology of the word is derived from the latin compositum (later compostum) which the oed defines as “(a) composition, combination, compound, (b) literary composition, compendium, as well as (c) a mixture of various ingredients for fertilizing or enriching land, a prepared manure or mould.”16 it is the exact opposite of purity, which is defined as “the state or quality of being free from extraneous or foreign elements, or from outside influence; the state of being unadulterated or refined.” purity is white and clear, immaculate and untouched, while compost is rich, dark, smelly, and blended. we do not emerge from guilt untouched and clean but rather richer, deeper, darker beings. our dirt does not disappear, but enriches the ground that can bring forth new life. it is comparable to the dark chaos that grounds god’s creativity, along the lines of catherine keller’s reading of genesis’ tehom in her book face of the deep. as keller affirms, “rather than marching forward and abandoning the traditions that have failed us (and which have not?) we recycle. we generate new ones from the debris.”17 the old is never innocent, and that is as true for individuals as for religious heritages and national histories. age, inevitably, accumulates breakage and malfunction, failure and debris. by envisioning purity in the image of the virgin, the untouched bride, “dressed in a simple robe of white linen, the finest linen, bright and pure,”18 we devalue processes of maturation and ripening. by contrast, symbols such as fermented wine or leavened bread could be used to envision a purity that is inclusive of fermentation, ripening, and transformation. wine gets better with age. sour dough transforms bland flour into flavorful bread. using metaphors of purity derived from fermentation endorses the digestion of the old, broken, discarded, and guilty into something richer and more complex. the purity of compost is complex and diverse. its goal is not the total complete destruction, absorption, and integration of difference and otherness. the fermentation of shameful remainders creates useable histories. the revolution proclaimed by nostra aetate rested on the deliberate denial of centuries of christian anti-jewish teachings. nostra aetate did not mention the history of christian anti-jewish persecutions nor the churches’ silence and complicity in the holocaust.19 it proposed two pathways to move beyond violence and contempt in the past, both of which are problematic because they erase memory. in paragraph 3, which aims to reset the relationship between the church and islam, the document calls on both parties to forget: 16 oxford english dictionary, online, third edition, (2007), s.v. compost. 17 catherine keller, face of the deep: a theology of becoming (new york: routledge, 2003), 194. 18 pope john paul ii, incarnationis mysterium, §11. 19 eugene fisher, “catholic teachings on jews and judaism,” in mary boys (ed.), seeing judaism anew: christianity’s sacred obligation (lanham, md: rowman littlefield, 2002), 254. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between christians and moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding. on behalf of all, let them together preserve and promote social justice, moral values, peace, and freedom.20 the text, by not naming specific “quarrels and hostilities” obfuscates political accountability and moral agency. quarrels and hostilities break out seemingly without agents. such language conceals the ideas and institutions that exert power and act strategically to influence and control communities. without critical analysis of history, the call to forget serves to suppress memories of theological and political conflict that demand critical reflection and institutional change to enable reconciliation after violence. paragraph 4 recasts the relationship between the church and israel and invokes a very different memorial strategy. here (in 4.2) the reader is repeatedly exhorted to remember: the church…remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the new covenant to abraham's stock. …the church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the old testament through the people with whom god…concluded the ancient covenant. nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the gentiles. …the church keeps ever in mind the words of the apostle about his kinsmen. …she also recalls that the apostles...21 who decides which memories are to be invoked and which ones are to be overlooked? numerous commentators have noted that paragraph 4 makes no reference to the shoah or to centuries of anti-jewish violence across european christendom.22 furthermore, the text glosses over centuries of church teachings on the jews. it is remarkable, as john pawlikowski pointed out, that the council disregarded the entire dogmatic body of church doctrine and instead chose to justify the renewal of the relationship with the synagogue on a radical return to the pauline roots: examining chapter four of nostra aetate we find scarcely any reference to the usual sources cited in conciliar documents: the church fathers, papal statements and previous conciliar documents. rather, the declaration returns to romans 9 -11, as if to say that the church is now taking up where paul left off in his insistence that jews remain part of the covenant after the resurrection despite the theological ambiguity involved in such a statement. without saying 20 sherman, bridges, vol. 1, 168. 21 sherman, bridges, vol. 1, 168. 22 stuart rosenberg, the christian problem: a jewish view (new york: hippocrene, 1986), 194. von kellenbach: guilt and transformation 10 it so explicitly, the 2,221 council members who voted for nostra aetate were in fact stating that everything that had been said about the christian-jewish relationship since paul moved in a direction they could no longer support. . . . given the interpretive role of a church council in the catholic tradition this omission is theologically significant. it indicates that the council fathers judged these texts as a theologically inappropriate resource for thinking about the relationship between christianity and judaism today.23 nostra aetate cleans the slate by sweeping centuries of supersessionist doctrine, liturgy, law, and art under the rug. for selective memory to shift attention to elements of the tradition that express new insight while deemphasizing others that conflict with renewal is certainly legitimate. but what happens to the elements that have been repudiated and excised? can we simply wipe away the metaphorical dirt of wrong-doing and wrong-teaching by declaring, as nostra aetate did, that “no foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people”?24 strategic silence not only fails the victims of ideologies of contempt, whose suffering remains unacknowledged, but also the perpetrators, whose faith must be transformed. unless the refuse created by a theological revolution such as nostra aetate receives further treatment, the uncanny threatens to return.25 rituals of purification as clarification contrition occurs when a changed perspective meets factual knowledge. dialogue creates relationships of trust and respect, while learning produces insight that compels revision of stereotypes and recognition of misrepresentations. the more christians engaged in dialogue with jews, the more they learned about jewish religious teachings and the conditions of life under christian rule. antisemitism is generally imperceptible to its beholders, because it is hard to distinguish fact from fiction, distortion from accurate representation, defamation from truth. discernment of one’s own limitations requires external perspectives. only in meeting the other do we perceive ourselves. maybe for the first time in christian history, christians were willing to listen to jews, learn from jews, and accept criticism by jews.26 the best scholarship on the history of antisemitism in general, and on antijudaism in christian history in particular is often conducted by jewish historians, 23 john pawlikowski, “reflections on covenant and mission,” crosscurrents (winter 2007), 71. 24 sherman, bridges, vol. 1. 168. 25 tania oldenhage, parables for our time: rereading new testament scholarship after the holocaust (new york: oxford university press, 2002). 26 nostra aetate is one of the earliest examples of jewish representatives’ public interventions in internal church matters, as for instance, when abraham joshua heschel announced in the media that he would rather go to auschwitz than be subjected to christian missionary efforts. since then christian churches have come to anticipate and respond more constructively to jewish criticism, as for instance in the oberammergau passion play controversies, the carmelite convent in auschwitz controversies, or sanctification of edith stein. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) sociologists, psychologists, etc. as long as christian theologians, exegetes, and historians are not willing to listen and learn, engage and absorb this body of knowledge, they feel little urgency to engage in self-critical analysis of the scriptural, doctrinal, liturgical, and cultural traditions of christianity. it is not enough to express abhorrence at antisemitism; its meaning and impact on jews and christians throughout history must be studied. what then shall be done with the shameful remainders of anti-judaism, such as martin luther’s crude and vulgar anti-jewish rhetoric, especially his late tractate on the jews of their lies (1543). is it to be considered marginal and secondary to his theological genius, or central to his theology in its crudity and vulgarity? most christians are unaware of his words, which cannot fail to shock, especially in the post-holocaust world. how do we deal with this disturbing mixture of exquisite theological truth and abhorrent hate speech? martin luther does not stand alone, as there are other respected church fathers, medieval mystics, and church leaders who penned vile texts and vicious caricatures, as historians robert chazan and david nirenberg have shown in distressing detail.27 can we simply excise the passages and traditions that denigrate, degrade, and dehumanize the jews? how seriously must we take martin luther, when he advises german authorities: first to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them… second, i advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed… third, i advise that all their prayer books and talmudic writings…be taken from them… fourth, i advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb… i wish and i ask that our rulers who have jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy towards these wretched people… they must act like a good physician who, when gangrene sets in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow…deal harshly with them, as moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand, lest the whole people perish. 28 these words were cited and celebrated on november 9, 1938, when 267 synagogues burned across german lands, 7,500 jewish businesses were looted, 91 jews were killed, and 90,000 jews were arrested, interned or deported, while jewish cemeteries, hospitals, schools, and homes were vandalized. the following day, on november 10, 1938, wittenberg marked the 455th birthday of martin luther with a parade that passed by the destroyed synagogue. and on november 15, 1938, the bishop of thuringia, martin sasse distributed a reprint of luther’s text under 27 robert chazan, from anti-judaism to antisemitism (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2016); david nirenberg, anti-judaism: the western tradition (new york: w. norton, 2014). 28 martin luther, “on the jews and their lies, 1543.” translated by martin h. bertram. in luther’s works vol. 47: the christian in society iv, edited by franklin sherman, 121-306. (philadelphia: fortress press, 1971), 268-271. von kellenbach: guilt and transformation 12 the revised title: “on the jews: away with them.”29 in the foreword, he wrote: “on november 10, the birthday of martin luther, the synagogues in germany are burning. in response to the murder of the diplomat von rath by jewish hands, the economic power of the jews is finally broken which crowns the fight for the liberation of our people, which is blessed by god.”30 such direct historical continuity between theological history and political reality, between verbal and physical violence, is especially appalling. not everyone agreed, but what sermons did roman catholic and reformed christians listen to when they went to church on the sunday after the pogrom?31 we know that some protestant ministers and catholic priests were arrested by the gestapo for condemning the violence and preaching solidarity with the synagogue.32 but the vast majority chose to remain silent, and their silence became assent and acceptance of the violent purge of the german christian nation. after the defeat of hitlergermany, the christian churches were eager to distance themselves from the violence by emphasizing the secular nature of antisemitism and nazism. even the inaugural meeting of the iccj (international council of christians and jews) convened as an emergency meeting on antisemitism in seelisberg, switzerland in 1946, skirted the issue of the churches’ complicity: in spite of the catastrophe which has overtaken both the persecuted and the persecutors, and which has revealed the extent of the jewish problem in all its alarming gravity and urgency, antisemitism has lost none of its force, but threatens to extend to other regions, to poison the minds of christians and to involve humanity more and more in grave guilt with disastrous consequences. the christian churches have indeed always affirmed the anti-christian character of antisemitism, but it is shocking to discover that two thousand years of preaching the gospel of love have not suffice to prevent the manifestation among christians, in various forms, of hatred and distrust toward the jews.33 29 topographie des terrors/gedenkstätte deutscher widerstand. ed. überall luthers worte: martin luther im nationalsozialismus. exhibition catalogue. berlin: 2017, 117-127. 30 überall luthers worte: martin luther im nationalsozialismus. exhibition catalogue. berlin: 2017, 117; christopher j. probst, demonizing the jews: luther and the protestant church in nazi germany (bloomington: indiana university press, 2012), 138-141 31 many excellent historians both in the united states and in germany have examined facets of church complicity and resistance, collusion and opposition, among them doris bergen, richard steigman-gall, kevin spicer, manfred gailus, olaf blaschke, victoria barnett, michael phayer, carol rittner, antonia leugers, clemens vollnhals, beth a. griech-polelle etc. 32 victoria barnett, for the soul of the people: protestant protest against hitler (new york: oxford university press, 1992), 139-144. for biographies, visit the online exhibit on the protestant church resistance: https://de.evangelischer-widerstand.de/html/view.php?type=biografien. (november 11, 2019). for the catholic resistance, ulrich von hehl, priester unter hitlers terror: eine statistische und biographische erhebung (paderborn: schöningh verlag, 1998). 33 ten points of seelisberg, 1947, sherman, bridges, vol. 1, 342. cf. https://www.ccjr.us/dialogikaresources/documents-and-statements/ecumenical-christian/seelisberg (accessed november 10, 2019). 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) while seelisberg marked the beginning of a change of heart (contritio cordis) for the christian participants, they were not (yet) prepared to seek, speak, or confront the truth (confessio oris). it is simply not true that the christian churches have “always affirmed the anti-christian character of antisemitism.” wishful thinking bends the facts to conform to desires for moral innocence and flawless integrity. such desires for moral purity are and must be disrupted by facts, empirical research and historical knowledge. the christian participants of this iccj meeting faced, maybe for the first time in christian history, a morally empowered and politically energized jewish counterpart. some of the jewish attendees, such as the french historian jules isaac, had lost their families in the holocaust. they were in no mood to coddle the conscience of their christian partners and used their intellectual acuity and moral authority to compel a more truthful confrontation with the christian tradition. “moved by the suffering of the jewish people” begins the text, and “in the course of frank and cordial collaboration between jewish and christian members, both roman catholic and protestant, [the commission] were (sic) faced with the tragic fact that certain theologically inexact conceptions and certain misleading presentations of the gospel of love, while essentially opposed to the spirit of christianity, contribute to the rise of antisemitism.”34 jules isaac was one of the lead authors of the ten points of seelisberg, and he wanted more than vague niceties: “we have the firm hope that they [the church] will be concerned to show their members how to prevent any animosity towards the jews which might arise from false, inadequate or mistaken presentations or conceptions of the teaching and preaching of the christian doctrine, and how on the other hand to promote brotherly love towards the sorely-tried people of the old covenant.”35 for the first time in christian history, animosity towards jews was declared a problem. this point deserves repeating: before 1945, respectable christian theologians felt no shame teaching and preaching contempt for the jewish people and religion. it was only after the final solution of the jewish question, that rabid denunciation and defamation of jews and judaism became problematic and shameful. the destruction of european jewry forced christian theologians and church leaders to consider the role of triumphalism and supersessionism in the genocidal violence unleashed by nazism. the german churches went first, not least for political reasons. in 1980, the rhineland synod unambiguously acknowledged “christian co-responsibility and guilt for the holocaust—the defamation, persecution and murder of the jews in the third reich.”36 global lutheranism similarly felt under pressure for its denomination’s national origins and proximity to the land of the perpetrators.37 franklin sherman describes the national assembly of the evangelical lutheran church in american (elca) in 1993, in which the rev. john stendahl brought forth a resolution to renounce luther’s antisemitic writings, which occasioned vigorous debate and resistance, “in which some maintained that 34 iccj, sherman, bridges, vol. 1, 341. 35 iccj, sherman, bridges, vol. 1, 341. 36 rhineland synod, 1980, sherman, bridges, vol. 1, 136. 37 cf. the title von gott reden im land der täter, edited by katharina von kellenbach, björn krondorfer, norbert reck, (darmstadt: wissenschaftliche buchgesellschaft, 2001). von kellenbach: guilt and transformation 14 such an apology was both unnecessary and unseemly. but when proponents of the measure read out some of luther’s hateful words, the delegates—most of whom had been completely unaware of this aspect of their heritage—were shocked into voting overwhelmingly for the preparation of such a statement.”38 the members of the assembly, writes john stendahl, “seemed stunned to hear such words from luther. the motion and then the amended resolution both passed with overwhelming support.”39 as alana vincent points out in her analysis of jewish-christian statements on the holocaust, lutheran churches across the globe were particularly sensitive to guilt by association.40 two years later, in the spring of 1994, the national assembly of the evangelical lutheran church of american (elca) adopted a resolution that read: “in the spirit of that truth-telling, we who bear his name must with pain acknowledge also luther’s anti-judaic diatribes and the violent recommendations of this later writings against the jews. as did many of luther’s own companions in the sixteenth century, we reject this violent invective, and yet more do we express our deep and abiding sorrow over its tragic effects on subsequent generations.”41 luther’s words, and their direct implication in subsequent political events, made such disavowals unavoidable. for other churches, anglican, methodist, baptist, roman catholic, the links were less straightforward. their statements, vincent criticizes, merely deplore “the actions of individuals in order to protect the doctrinal positions of the church,” and “gloss over issues in their own theology by perpetuating the narrative of anti-semitism as a particularity of lutheranism.”42 christian anti-judaism is not a peculiar lutheran theological issue, and antisemitism is not a peculiar german national issue. but luther’s german nationality made this guilty legacy undeniable. for ecclesiological reasons, roman catholic statements generally avoid explicit guilt confessions since the church is considered the body of christ, and therefore intrinsically holy and pure. only the “sons and daughters of the church” act in sinful ways and accrue guilt.43 hence, “we remember” (1998) expresses remorse for the holocaust on behalf of unspecified agents: “the catholic church desires to express its deep sorrow for the failures of her sons and daughters in every age.”44 compared to nostra aetate of 1965, much progress had been made in the way of accepting christian accountability. but since the purity and integrity of doctrine must be preserved for reasons of ecclesiology, it becomes harder to explicitly 38 franklin sherman, “the road to reconciliation: protestant church statements on christian-jewish relations,” in seeing judaism anew: a sacred obligation, p. 244 39 e-mail from rev. john stendahl, november 1, 2019. 40 alana vincent, “rituals of reconciliation: how consideration of rituals can inform readings of catholic-jewish dialogue after the holocaust,” in mariane moyaert ed. interreligious relations and the negotiation of ritual boundaries: explorations in interrituality (cham: palgrave macmillan, 2019), 183-184. 41 “declaration of the evangelical lutheran church in america to the jewish community,” sherman, bridges, vol 2, 81. 42 alana vincent, “rituals of reconciliation,” 183-184. 43 julia enxing, schuld und sünde in der kirche: eine systematisch-theologische untersuchung (stuttgart: grünewald verlag, 2019). 44 we remember (march 1998), sherman, bridges, vol 2, 256. 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) name the theological changes that must be enacted in order to confront supersessionism and triumphalism. official church proclamations and declarations, whether catholic or protestant, are necessary but not sufficient to implement changes to theological language, liturgical practice, and scriptural interpretations. constructive work of theological reform must follow general statements of condemnation. the overall theological, exegetical, liturgical, and pedagogical narrative of israel as the people of the “old testament,” who were promised but rejected jesus as the messiah must change. the gentile church has not replaced carnal israel. instead, the emerging story of the parting of the way validates post-biblical rabbinic judaism as an alternative response to the destruction of the temple in jerusalem in 70 ce, which ended sacrificial worship as mandated in the torah, and allowed the jewish community to maintain its devotion to the god of israel inside and outside of the land of israel. instead of rivalry and supersession, the new story values learning in dialogue and difference. the theological recognition of the jewishness of jesus creates new theological insights and allows for surprising discernment and discovery.45 far from destroying christianity, repentance invigorates and renews. but this work has not penetrated all christian denominations or arrived in all parishes and pews. far from it, and we would deceive ourselves to assume that supersessionism and anti-judaism have lost their force. furthermore, the new media landscape has created new vectors for the distribution of antisemitic traditions. for instance, martin luther’s on the jews and their lies is readily available on amazon. indeed, it is “recommended” and ranked #5 in “lutheran christianity.”46 “frequently bought together list” with this title are antisemitic canards, such as henry ford’s “the international jew” in four volumes, as well as the talmud unmasked. in their “customer reviews,” readers are pleased to receive “forbidden knowledge” that confirms their antisemitic sentiments. hence, official church statement may no longer have any control over the messages that people choose to embrace. repentance is not about repairing the past but about building a different future. this means foremost that christian theology must adjust itself in such a way that judaism comes into view as more than christian prehistory. without the synagogue, there is no christian future. this insight is particularly salient in germany, where the jewish community was destroyed and almost all synagogues were burnt to the ground. it was this near-extinction that shocked a segment of the german churches and population into the realization that a jewish presence is desirable and 45 norbert reck, der jude jesus und die zukunft des christentums: zum riss zwischen dogma und bibel, ein lösungsvorschlag (ostfildern: matthias grünewald verlag, 2019). barbara meyer, the jew jesus in christian memory (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2020). 46 https://www.amazon.com/jews-their-lies-martin-luther/dp/1593640242 (accessed december 12, 2019) von kellenbach: guilt and transformation 16 necessary for theological, political, and cultural reasons.47 there is no viable christian future without jews. theologically, this is more than mere “philosemitism,” a pejorative term that refers to the smothering embrace by the overbearing religious majority, which is cause for alarm for diasporic minority jewish communities. dresden take the example of dresden. shortly after reunification, the people of dresden organized a movement to rebuild the iconic cathedral of dresden, known as the frauenkirche (figure 2).48 the frauenkirche had remained a pile of rubble for the duration of the german democratic republic, a reminder of the bombing of dresden that created a fire storm and leveled the city (figure 3).49 one year after the collapse of the gdr, as a result of grass roots organizing by the nonviolent resistance movement that had often met in church basements, the “call from dresden” went out asking for international donations to rebuild the church from the rubble. the architectural challenge of separating, cleaning, and reusing 20,000 cubic feet of debris was one thing; the international response to the fundraising appeal, especially from great britain whose royal airforce had laid waste to dresden on february 13-14, 1945 was another. of the 230 million euros needed for the reconstruction, 100 million came from private donations from germany, britain, the usa, and other countries. the two-ton golden cross was fully paid by the “british people and the house of windsor” and created by british goldsmith alan smith, whose father had flown the mission against dresden. 47 peter von der osten sacken, “the revival of the jewish people within christian consciousness,” in michael signer, humanity at the limit: the impact of the holocaust experience on jews and christians (bloomington: indiana university press, 2000), 79-84. 48 dresden frauenkirche, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/dresden_frauenkirche (accessed january 27, 2020). 49 frauenkirche ruins and luther monument in 1958, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/dresden_frauenkirche (accessed january 27, 2020). figure 2. dresden frauenkirche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/dresden_frauenkirche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/dresden_frauenkirche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/dresden_frauenkirche 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) the reconstruction of the cathedral of dresden was billed as a project of reconciliation. the pile of stones was cleared in 1994 and by 2005, eleven years later, the cathedral was rededicated in its original splendor. but several people on the organizing committee, including the protestant pastor siegfried reimann, tied the reconstruction of the cathedral to the rebuilding of the synagogue. they wanted to link the ruins of the church to the obliteration of the synagogue of dresden. built by renowned architect gottfried semper in 1840, the synagogue was burnt to the ground on november 9, 1938, its stones dispersed and used for street and infrastructure projects. the star of david was saved by a brave local fire fighter, who climbed on the roof, took down the star and hid it. the destruction of these two religious houses of worship was connected, and the reconstruction of one made the absence of the other more visible. there was almost no jewish community left in dresden. when i visited the jewish community in dresden in 1986, we were greeted by a huddle of elderly survivors, who gathered in a barren apartment to serve coffee and cake. this jewish remnant kept a low profile in east germany, and had no money to build a synagogue. but the fund raisers for the reconstruction of the church decided to link it with the synagogue. monies that flowed to one were also dedicated to the other. for instance, the newspaper die zeit reported in 1999 that the german american biologist günther blobel donated his nobel prize money to the fund to rebuild frauenkirche as well as the synagogue.50 while the reconstruction of the church cost 250 million euros, the construction of the synagogue cost a mere 20 million. and yet, this price tag could never have 50 anja limperis, “ein treuer freund dresdens: warum nobelpreisträger günter blobel für die frauenkirche und die synagoge spendet.” die zeit, 45/1999. https://www.zeit.de/1999/45/ein_treuer_freund_dresdens . (accessed november 10, 2019.) figure 3. frauenkirche ruins and luther monument in 1958 https://www.zeit.de/1999/45/ein_treuer_freund_dresdens von kellenbach: guilt and transformation 18 been paid by the jewish community. when the original synagogue was built in 1840, there were over 6,000 jews registered in the city. by 1933, there were still 6,000 jews, but by 1945 that number had dwindled to 250. when the wall came down in 1989, there were 49 jews left in dresden. after unification, the community was revitalized and challenged to absorb soviet jewish immigrants, who were granted residency to settle in germany (in competition with israel). germany was eager to grow its jewish community. with excitement, the president of the jewish community of dresden, roman könig, announced that the congregation had grown to 220 members by the mid-1990s. but 220 jewish members could not afford building a synagogue for 20 million euros. when the association “bau der synagoge e.v.” was founded, the president of the jewish congregation served on its board, as did the protestant landesbishop of saxony volker kress, the roman catholic bishop joachim reinelt, and the minister president of the free state of saxony, kurt biedenkopf. church and state had decided to build a synagogue in dresden. but pastor reimann wanted this to be more than a political affair of the state. he wanted to generate popular support. in march 1999 the catholic periodical tag des herrn reported on a fund-raising event attended by sixty people from “society, church, and culture.” the newspaper summarizes pastor siegfried reimann’s speech thus: every donation counts, everyone should decide how much they can contribute. we cannot expect that everybody donates 1000 marks, but maybe 50 are possible. because one thing is obvious: the small jewish community cannot pay the money that will be needed… we should not forget that it is not the fault of the jews that they no longer have a synagogue. the destruction of the synagogue, as well as the persecution and the murder of the jews, is a past that we must all bear together, although we were not personally involved. we must give a response to this history. this is a chance to approach this subject on a personal level and to remember this past atrocity. this is true for each individual, as well as organizations, banks, and businesses. reimann reminded everyone that the dresdner bank was originally a jewish establishment…51 the construction of the neue synagogue was presented as a ritual of penitential restitution. sure enough, the dresdner bank increased its donation, up from their original pledge of 50,000 euros. the fund-raising group successfully collected the money necessary to call for architectural submissions. the jewish community chose the design that was ranked third by the commission, which combined a bunker-like cube structure on the outside, that projects strength and stability, with a lofty interior of iron chain curtains, creating a tent-like feeling. its modernist design 51 holger jakobi, “in dresden wird eine neue synagoge gebaut, wort des herrn. vol 49, no 10 (march 3, 1999). https://www.tdh-online.de/archiv_1996_bis_2007/artikel/4939.php. (accessed november 10, 2019.) https://www.tdh-online.de/archiv_1996_bis_2007/artikel/4939.php 19 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) expresses strength and permanence on the outside and fleeting vulnerability on the inside (figure 4).52 on november 9, 1998, sixty years after the semper synagogue was torched, the ground was broken in the same place in a ceremony that commemorated the pogrom of 1938. exactly three years later, on november 9, 2001, the synagogue was dedicated and the jewish community moved in. these rituals of commemoration and restitution turn guilt into the ground of new beginnings. where november 9, 1938 stands as a day of infamy that separated church and synagogue, it was turned into a day of shared memory and commitment to solidarity in 2001. by 2002, the association “bau der synagoge e.v.” reconstituted itself as the “freundeskreis synagoge e.v.” to keep raising funds for the upkeep of this monumental new building, which the fledgling jewish community could still not afford.53 by 2013, the congregation had grown to 700 members and installed the 29-year-old, german born and trained rabbi, alexander nachama.54 penance is a perpetrator-centered activity. building the neue synagoge in all of its modernist splendor served german christian desires for atonement. their actions, no matter how generous, will never return the dead or repair the rupture. dresden’s destroyed jewish community will never rise from the ashes. the architectural design of the synagogue indicates this radical discontinuity. while the cathedral was rebuilt on the basis of the original plans and with the previous materials, the synagogue is a bold, fortified, twisted cube. but for all of the “impure” 52 the neue synagogue in dresden, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/new_synagogue_(dresden) (accessed january 27, 2020). 53 https://www.freundeskreis-synagoge-dresden.de/freundeskreis. (accessed november 10, 2019.) 54 jüdische gemeinde dresden, http://jg-dresden.org. (accessed november 10, 2019.) figure 4. the neue synagogue in dresden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/new_synagogue_(dresden) https://www.freundeskreis-synagoge-dresden.de/freundeskreis http://jg-dresden.org/ von kellenbach: guilt and transformation 20 self-serving motivations, the church activists’ commitment to connect the rebuilding the frauenkirche with the construction of a new synagogue also set powerful signals against supersessionism. for the first time in christian history, the future of jewish religious life became integral to the christian presence in the public sphere. on the jewish side, despite well-deserved suspicion and doubt, the persistence and consistency of penitential restitution, albeit always a minority position, is acknowledged.55 rituals of penitential restitution are performed without reference to sincerity of the emotion or state of mind. its power rests in its enduring performance. when the reparations agreement between west germany and israel, known as wiedergutmachungsabkommen, was signed in 1952, riots broke out inside and outside of the knesset, the parliament of israel. the german term for reparations, “making good again,” alone was enough to drive 15,000 people into the streets of jerusalem to protest the payment of blood money. and this deal, while politically necessary for diplomatic reasons, was not at all popular among the german public either. the majority of german tax payers resented reparations payments as they struggled to rebuild war-torn cities and a ravaged economy. civil servants, judges, and administrators made the process of filing claims for stolen property, pension funds, and insurance claims a humiliating nightmare for survivors. german resistance to restitution and reparation was massive and wide spread, though considerably better than what survivors encountered in austria and other european countries, where violence greeted their attempts to reclaim their homes (e.g., the pogrom in kielce, poland). while the treaty to pay reparations to the jewish claims conference and the state of israel was made primarily for expedient reasons of diplomacy rather than moral repugnance or repudiation of antisemitism, the depth and degree of engagement changed over time. restitution is now more actively embraced by individuals, businesses, organizations, and municipalities than at earlier times. those who choose to accept the obligations of the past find reparations a worthwhile investment in the future. germany has worked hard to turn itself into a welcoming place for jews, not despite but because of its past. dresden is one such example, important to note not least because the former east germany is increasingly characterized by images of xenophobic, racist, nationalist, and antisemitic demonstrations. the rise of the right-wing party afd and the pegida movement shape the media perception of the former east germany as the unrepentant part of germany, which is hostile to foreigners, muslims, and jews.56 the presence of these movements is as much a reality of re-unified germany as the citizens’ initiative that built and sustains the neue synagogue. there is vandalism, as well as need for permanent police presence in front of jewish institutions in germany, which is both disconcerting and reassuring to people who live, work, and pray in these buildings. the recent terrorist attack on 55 karin vogelsang, “verlässliche partner,” jüdische allgemeine, (june 26, 2017). https://www.juedische-allgemeine.de/gemeinden/verlaessliche-partner/ (accessed november 10, 2019.) 56 afd alternative for germany is a rightwing party that was founded in 2013. pegida emerged in demonstrations in dresden in 2014 and purports to mobilize patriotic europeans against the islamization of the occident. https://www.juedische-allgemeine.de/gemeinden/verlaessliche-partner/ 21 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) the synagogue in halle on yom kippur exposed security flaws and confirmed the need for vigilance and protection. jewish life in germany is far from normal, and there is much to feel ambivalent about. the reality of absence is a constant reminder of the horrors of the past. for instance, the jewish cemetery of dresden was one of the largest in saxony, with over 3000 graves. who shall maintain it? it is volunteers of organizations, such as action reconciliation, the children and grandchildren of perpetrators, who weed the graves, maintain the fences, and clean up after vandalism.57 the holocaust has made the task of maintaining jewish cemeteries a christian obligation across europe. the transformation of guilt into penitential restitution commits the church to the future of the synagogue, however that may turn out to be. this rapprochement between church and synagogue might well have happened without the destruction of european jewry. but in the aftermath of this cataclysmic rupture, acceptance of responsibility for “the longest hatred” becomes the starting point of christian theology and practice. recognition of guilt (contrition), commitment to truthful accounts of anti-judaism (confession), and consistent practice of solidarity (satisfaction) can digest this poisonous legacy and turn its toxic remainders into new ground for a christian theology of respect for the jewish other. 57 action reconciliation was founded in 1958, and was one of the few organizations that operated in both east and west germany, straddling the cold war divide. https://www.actionreconciliation.org/about-us/history/germany/ (accessed november 10, 2019.) https://www.actionreconciliation.org/about-us/history/germany/ https://www.actionreconciliation.org/about-us/history/germany/ scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-4 paula fredriksen when christians were jews: the first generation (new haven and london: yale university press, 2018), hardcover, 261 pp. philip a. cunningham pcunning@sju.edu saint joseph’s university, philadelphia, pa 19131 paula fredriksen is the author of several earlier, highly-regarded volumes, including from jesus to christ: the origins of the new testament images of christ (2nd ed., 2000); augustine and the jews: a christian defense of jews and judaism (2008); and most recently, paul: the pagans’ apostle (2017). her latest book is a study of the first four decades of what would become christianity, focusing on the years between the execution of jesus around 30 c.e. and the destruction of the second temple in 70 c.e. after a few opening pages in which she offers a marvelously concise summary of the historical backdrop of the time of jesus, in the first chapter she considers his travels as a charismatic preacher of the imminent kingdom of god. she argues that the johannine itinerary in which jesus is a regular presence in jerusalem is to be preferred over the synoptic accounts that have him in jerusalem only on the passover when he died (except for luke 2). she likewise claims that the activities of the first believers that the crucified one had been raised also occurred in jerusalem. her proposal that jesus was a familiar figure in jerusalem raises the question, examined in chapter 2, as to what made the passover on which he was crucified different from all his earlier festival celebrations in the city. as fredriksen puts it, “we must account both for pilate’s and caiaphas’s initial inaction [to jesus for several years when he was announcing that god’s kingdom was at hand], and for their eventual response: the arrest and execution of jesus and of jesus alone [and none of his disciples]” (p. 66; emphasis in original). she wonders if “jesus may have shifted the time frame of his prophecy, from soon to now. … was that passover in jerusalem to be the last before the kingdom came?” (pp. 68-69; emphasis in original). although in this reconstruction of admittedly scanty evidence, the authorities did not consider jesus to be a violent threat himself (hence his follow cunningham: fredriksen’s when christians were jews 2 ers were not also rounded up), it was the unpredictability of the throngs crowded into jerusalem for the passover that prompted them to execute the very popular jesus: “the restive pilgrim crowds in the city—enthusiastically celebrating jesus, proclaiming him the messiah, stirred up especially on this passover by jesus’ naming it as the date of the kingdom’s advent—would have already sealed his fate” (pp. 72-73; emphasis in original). perhaps an entourage of several hundred people accompanied jesus to jerusalem and hailed him there in messianic terms (p. 90), a demonstration that would surely alarm the city’s leaders. in chapter 3 she addresses how the crucified jesus became “the christ.” his unexpected death, fredriksen states, totally perplexed his followers: “if jesus were dead, how could his prophecy [about the kingdom’s arrival] be true? if jesus’ prophecy were true, how could he be dead?” (p. 75). jesus’ traumatized admirers were able to move beyond this conundrum after becoming convinced that he had been raised: “resurrection both resolved this dissonance, and reinforced the prophecy. if jesus were raised, then the kingdom must truly be at hand” (p. 75). turning to the various new testament “appearance narratives,” fredriksen describes a limited period of time during which “his followers continue to experience the risen jesus” (p. 79). although the resurrection of a single individual was not among the apocalyptic expectations current in late second temple judaism, for this first generation of jesus’ followers, says fredriksen, their experience “was for them meaningful as the first of a cascade of anticipated endtime events” (pp. 86-87). his followers initially stayed in jerusalem, the site of god’s holy mountain where all the nations were expected to gather when the kingdom dawned: “for jesus’ followers in these heady weeks of serial resurrection appearances, time now balanced at the very edge of the end. to be any place other than jerusalem, simply made no sense” (pp. 92-93). then the appearances ceased and the endtime had still not come. having already begun to reread israel’s scriptures in unprecedented ways, the first generation concluded that they were not meant to sit and wait: “they themselves would continue jesus’ mission to prepare israel—because clearly, in light of the kingdom’s delay, all israel had yet to be reached” (p. 101; emphasis in original). thus, they turned to the diaspora, where more jews lived than in the biblical homeland. in her reading of a key pauline verse, fredriksen in chapter 4 considers the rsv’s translation of romans 1:4 to be misleading. it is not his resurrection that has shown that jesus is the son of god, rather jesus will be revealed as the messiah when all the dead are raised upon his return as a triumphant davidic figure. the apostles of jesus, announcing all this in the jewish diaspora, were startled to discover that the pagan gentile “god-fearers” found in some hellenistic synagogues were eager to learn more. jesus had left no instructions for such an eventuality. so the apostles improvised. reinterpreting “the expectation that, in the end, the nations too would renounce their false gods and worship the one true god alongside of israel … [they] welcomed these pagans into their new assemblies” (p. 142). however, they insisted that they disassociate themselves completely from their former gods and rituals: “by committing to israel’s god alone, they were no longer pagans: … they were eschatological gentiles. what 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2019) greater confirmation that the times were fulfilled, that the kingdom of god was truly at hand?” (p. 142; emphasis in original). in chapter 5, fredriksen explores the social impact of these developments. whereas jews who joined the jesus movement “did not ‘convert’ so much as make a lateral move within judaism,” pagans who were baptized into the movement “could no longer worship their native gods, the gods of their families and of their cities. they had to commit exclusively, these apostles taught, to the worship of the god of israel” (p. 150). the potential for the significant destabilization of urban greco-roman religious pluralism was great: “allegiance to the jesusassembly for the pagan … required a much more radical form of judaizing than the synagogue had ever requested … what if the gods, insulted and angry, struck back? and what if pagan neighbors, anxious and angry [after some disaster such as an earthquake], struck at the synagogue, the obvious source of this disruptive new movement?” (p. 151). fredriksen then refocuses on jerusalem. jesus’ followers had a “ringside seat, in 39-40 c.e., for a totally unanticipated confrontation, a battle of the gods” (p. 162) when caligula ordered a statue of himself to be placed in the jerusalem temple. for the jesus community, “all the signs converged … now was the time of jesus’ return … with great power and glory, gathering his elect, ruling over the nations, raising the dead, establishing the kingdom” (p. 167). caligula’s assassination avoided a certain jewish revolt against rome, but a few decades later, as the first generation of jesus’ believers was dying off, that war finally erupted, in 66 c.e. apocalyptic fervor again flared up and in the conflagration of jerusalem the original jesus-assembly disappeared. in her concluding epilogue, fredriksen makes a number of important points, characteristically coining several masterful turns-of-phrase. she observes that she has “avoided using the terms ‘christian’ and ‘church,’” which too easily invoke images of a separate religion that grew hostile to judaism: “but in its founding generation—which was committed to the belief that it was history’s final generation—members of this movement were traditionally observant jews. paul included. (and … so was jesus.)” (p. 185). to illustrate the diversity of late second temple judaism, she suggests that one “imagine the torah as widely dispersed sheet music: the notes were the notes, but jews played a lot of improv. the gospels, too, are a genre of jewish scriptural improvisation” (p. 185). to understand the “divinization” of jesus by paul and others, she stresses that in the ancient world “divinity” and “humanity” were not understood in modern binary categories: “for jews as for the pagan contemporaries, divinity was constructed and construed along a gradient that spanned heaven and earth. the very architecture of the universe—earth at the center, then the moon, then the five planets and the sun, then the realm of the fixed stars—articulated these grades. special humans were divine. … back in the mid-first century, when christians were jews, jesus was high on the cosmic gradient, but he was nonetheless human” (pp. 186-187). cunningham: fredriksen’s when christians were jews 4 in an upturning of much earlier scholarship, fredriksen convincingly argues that paul, peter, and james were all agreed: “as long as god-fearing pagans, once immersed ‘into christ,’ took the step to radically judaize their cultic life, worshiping only israel’s god and shunning their own gods and their former idols, they were ‘in’” (p. 188). they were “eschatological gentiles,” non-jews devoted exclusively to israel’s deity at the end of days. finally, in her closing paragraphs, fredriksen wryly notes that she disputes her own book’s title: “‘christians’ is an anachronistic term for this first generation, and therefore a distorting one. ‘christianity’ conjures images of bishops and doctrines, of creeds, of ordered theology … not [a community that is] unstable, vibrant, energetic, conflicted, even impatient, glowing with charismata on time’s edge. if we use ‘christian’ of this first generation, we pull them out of their own context, domesticating them for ours” (p. 191). this is probably the biggest lesson that the book imparts. while one can argue with some of the details of her historical reconstruction (e.g., did jesus really say that a certain passover was the specific time of the kingdom’s coming? can one just accept acts’ contention that resurrection “appearances” ceased without more analysis of the relevant narratives?), the developmental trajectory that fredriksen describes is compelling and filled with rich insights and suggestions. when christians were jews deserves a wide readership and will reward careful study. ignatius of antioch and the parting of the ways: early jewish-christian relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): vuong r1-2 robinson, ignatius of antioch vuong r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 thomas a. robinson ignatius of antioch and the parting of the ways: early jewish-christian relations (peabody, ma: hendrickson publishers, 2010), paperback, xiv + 285 pp. reviewed by lily vuong, valdosta state university in his study of ignatius of antioch, thomas robinson explores jewish-christian relations in the late first to the early second centuries of the common era and argues against the current trend in scholarship that reads the phenomenon of the “parting of the ways” of christianity from judaism as a much more complicated process that extended beyond the second century ce. against scholars such as daniel boyarin, judith lieu, paula fredriksen, and annette reed, he suggests that the distinctions between judaism and christianity were much sharper and that the boundaries of self-understanding more solid. in chapter one, robinson critiques modern interpretations of ignatius that question his authority as the leader of the church in antioch and portray him as peripheral to the development of the early church, and attempts instead to reconstruct a portrait of ignatius that is reflective of the wider world in which he lived. in robinson’s view, those in this wider world saw christianity as distinct and separate from judaism. in order to make his case, robinson explores the social, cultural, political, and religious environment of antioch from its founding as seleucid antioch to the time of ignatius, examining in particular the role and status of jews. in his second chapter, robinson builds his argument by examining christianity and christian conversion in antioch in terms of religious competition and increased tensions between jews and christians and concludes that ignatius’ letters fit in well with the situation in antioch. in chapter three, robinson turns directly to ignatius’ church and his role as bishop of antioch. against scholars including walter bauer, christine trevett, and william schoedel, who question ignatius’ authority and attribute his arrest to opposition within the church, robinson argues for what he deems a more “natural reading” of his letters, namely, that ignatius was indeed the bishop and that his church was unified and supported him in his role as leader (p. 96). it is in this chapter that robinson reexamines the much debated identity of ignatius’ opponent(s). unconvinced that there were separate christian assemblies in the antioch church, robinson cautiously argues against the two-group hypothesis (judaizers and docetics), although he offers no suggestions for attempting to determine the identity of ignatius’ opponent(s). instead, robinson states that the nature of ignatius’ letters does not allow for such a precise determination and argues, perhaps overly simplistically, for a context in which ignatius understood his world: “one is either in the bishop’s church or outside of it, one is either on god’s side or on the side of the prince of this world” (p. 125). robinson examines arguments put forth for the cause of ignatius’ martyrdom based on various religious and ethnic tensions (gentile-jewish, internal jewish, and jewish-christian) in antioch in his fourth chapter. highlighting the influence of the maccabean revolt and events such as the roman civil war, caligula’s attempt to place his statue in the jerusalem temple, and the review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): vuong r1-2 robinson, ignatius of antioch vuong r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 jerusalem council, robinson reevaluates and critiques strongly the general trend in recent scholarship toward what he describes as the “muting” of the tensions between jews and christians through scholars’ reinterpretation of stories of conflict from the “realm of reality to the realm of rhetoric” (p. 149). in his fifth chapter, robinson, in his close examination of p. n. harrison and willard swartley’s study on ignatius’ vocabulary, continues his critique of scholars who have excessively diminished the differences between judaism and christianity. robinson argues that the traditional view championed by j. b. lightfoot, that ignatius’ martyrdom was the result of antichristian persecution, was incorrectly challenged and dismissed by those following harrison and swartley, who were persuaded by the argument that the martyrdom was the result of internal conflict in the church. in his final chapter, robinson examines jewish and christian identities and boundaries during ignatius’ time. contrary to recent trends that view terms such as “christianity” and “judaism” as problematic and inaccurate, robinson emphatically reminds his readers that these terms were the very “crucial labels by which ignatius defined his world” (p. 204). in a final discussion, robinson returns to the question of the “parting of the ways” by evaluating six approaches to the relationship between judaism and christianity and concludes that in reality in ignatius’ world there existed one judaism and one christianity and that the boundaries between jews and christians were significant and clear. while robinson’s reexamination of recent scholarship on the question of the “parting of the ways” is important and his attempt to reign in unfounded readings of ignatius’ world is necessary, his critiques often read as reactionary and seem as extreme as those he wishes to critique. this moves the conversation far away from the cautious and balanced reading he emphatically seeks. for instance, in his argument for the use of the terms “christianity” and “judaism,” robinson strongly argues for their continued employment and makes a fair point that the discussion of proper terminology has become “too unwieldy” (p. 205), resulting in more problems than clarity. however, he goes on to argue that the decisive factor for determining self-definition should not be based on a particular label or term, but rather on whether or not such a group had a separate and distinct understanding of its identity, since, as robinson states, “the debate is really simply a debate about words” (p. 206). robinson’s assertion about proper terminology also leads him to interesting conclusions about image versus reality in ignatius’ letters. he writes against those who argue for distinguishing between image and reality and suggests instead understanding image as reality. in this way, ignatius’ “boundary-marking terms” are not simply perceptions or images but rather define and therefore, in his view, create reality; in this way, perception is reality and reality is perception (p. 228). in this scenario, robinson interprets ignatius’ extreme distinction between jews and christians as ignatius’ reality. but what of the reality of the world in which ignatius lived? it is quite one thing to argue that ignatius’ distinction between jews and christians reflects what ignatius thought of his world, but it is quite another thing to suggest that ignatius’ thoughts are representative of the reality of all those who lived in close proximity in time and place to him. the very fact that ignatius must make an argument for the distinctions between jews and christians is enough evidence to allow for a reading that emphasizes that the boundaries were not as clear as ignatius would have liked. while robinson’s analyses and important observations may not bring the debate on the “parting of the ways” to any definitive conclusions, there is no doubt that his study will contribute to the important discussion on jewish and christian relations and self-definition and to our understanding of ignatius in general. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): teter cp1-8 teter, rethinking the “golden age” teter cp 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr rethinking the “golden age”: jewish-christian relations in pre-modern poland magda teter, wesleyan university presented at the “was there a „golden age‟ of christian-jewish relations?” conference at boston college, april 2010 “was there ever a golden age in jewish-christian relations?” the question is loaded, for “a golden age” is an ideal. how is this ideal established, and by whose standards is it assessed—our own, or the standards of the time? the question is wrought with dangers of anachronistic expectations. “golden age” meant different things to different generations of scholars and readers, and historically jewish-christian relations were as complicated as any area of historical study. what we may most likely find is eras of fairly harmonious coexistence, but even that “coexistence” has to be seen within its own historical context, without projection of our own modern ideals of coexistence (and even modern ideals are incongruent with reality). in his essay, jonathan elukin asked more specifically, “what makes a golden age?” is it economic prosperity? is it intellectual exchange between jews and christians? those aspects of jewish-christian coexistence may not overlap. in poland, for example, for a number of complex reasons, the levels of intellectual exchange were low in comparison to italy, or the dutch republic, but polish jews did prosper economically in the pre-modern period. historical reality, as historians like to say, is much more complicated for a “golden age” to ever exist, and the topic of jewish-christian relations, their idealization or demonization, has been an ever-present area of scholarly debates, changing over the decades of modern historical research. the earliest modern historians of the jews, both the maskilim and the wissenschaft scholars, saw little possibility for a “golden age” in jewish-christian relations. engaged in two projects, one affirming jewish identity and the other pushing for emancipation, the acquisition of civil and political rights, they sought to distance themselves from the past, which they presented as a history of almost incessant suffering and persecution. for the maskilim, reacting to what they saw as “obscurantism” of contemporary jews in german lands, the “golden age” lay not in christian lands, but in medieval muslim domains, where, as they saw it, a balance between jewishness and external learning existed. christian lands, on the other hand, because of their treatment of jews, facilitated insular postures of the jewish community, so criticized by jews and christians in the era of emancipation. for leopold zunz, jewish history “from constantine to charles v” was a “mournful recital,” “replete with endeavors on the part of the [jews‟] enemies to exterminate them.” 1 zunz called for “justice” “not derision,” for “love,” “not oppression,” “to bring atonement” in the modern era. 2 for heinrich graetz, writing in the middle of the nineteenthcentury, the potential “golden age”—that “atonement for the sins of a thousand years”—was the ideal of the french revolution. 3 1 leopold zunz, the sufferings of the jews during the middle ages, trans. albert löwy and george alexander kohut (new york: bloch publishing company, 1907), 90. 2 zunz, the suffering of the jews, 91. 3 quoted in salo wittmayer baron, "ghetto and emancipation," menorah journal 14 (1928): 515. conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): teter cp1-8 teter, rethinking the “golden age” teter cp 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr it was only with salo baron‟s groundbreaking essay “ghetto and emancipation” that some of these earlier assumptions about jewish history in christian europe began to break down. baron‟s plea “to break with the lachrymose theory of pre-revolutionary woe,” to refocus the study of jewish history away from the narrative of incessant suffering, and “to adopt a view more in accord with historic truth,” helped open up some new questions of jewish-christian relations, and of jewish life in both modern and pre-modern eras. 4 over the subsequent decades, baron‟s call resulted in studies that have complicated the monochromatic view of jewish past in christian lands by examining jewish views of christians. the new studies also provided a new, more textured view of jewish life in the ghettos, and, critically, “out of the ghettos,” where in fact most pre-modern jews lived. 5 while western jewish historiography denied the possibility of a “golden age” for jews in christian europe, let along jewish-christian relations, jewish historiography of eastern europe and poland did in fact adopt the idea of a “golden age.” closely trailing the polish historiography and adopting from it the concept of the “golden age,” jewish historians used the idea to describe a “golden age” of jewish culture, or, a “golden age of polish history;” still, they certainly did not see the phrase as appropriate to describe jewish-christian relations. simon dubnow, in his seminal history of jews in russia and poland, talked about a “zenith.” according to dubnow, at the time when “the sephardim of turkey were approaching the end of their brilliant historic career, and were gradually lapsing into asiatic stupor…the ashkenazim of poland, with a supply of fresh strength and the promise of an original culture, were starting out on their broad historic development.” 6 for dubnow the hallmark of the “zenith” was polish jewish autonomy, as well as the “high-water mark of rabbinic learning;” but for him, “a humane and lawful attitude [among christians] toward the jews was out of question” because “medieval ideas had already taken such deep root in the polish people.” 7 still, according to dubnow, this “highwater mark” of jewish culture and autonomy coincided with “the golden age of polish history,” 4 baron, "ghetto and emancipation," 526. see also a compelling essay by david engel on baron‟s views of the modern era, david engel, "crisis and lachrymosity: on salo baron, neobaronianism, and the study of modern european jewish history," jewish history 20, no. 3 (2006). 5 see for example, roberta curiel and bernard dov cooperman, the venetian ghetto (rizzoli, 1990); jürgen heyde, ""ghetto" and the construction of jewish history: the case of the polish-lithuanian commonwealth. considerations about a research project," kwartalnik historii zydów, no. 4 (2004);debra kaplan and magda teter, "out of the (historiographic) ghetto: jews and the reformation," sixteenth century journal 40, no. 2 (2009);benjamin ravid, "from geographical realia to historiographical symbol: the odyssey of the word ghetto," in essential papers on jewish culture in renaissance and baroque italy, ed. david ruderman (new york: new york university, 1992); stefanie b. siegmund, the medici state and the ghetto of florence: the construction of an early modern jewish community, stanford series in jewish history and culture (stanford, calif.: stanford university press, 2006); kenneth r. stow, "the consciousness of closure: roman jewry and its ghet," in essential papers on jewish culture in renaissance and baroque italy, ed. david ruderman (new york: new york university press, 1992); david berger, the jewish-christian debate in the high middle ages: a critical edition of the nizzahon vetus, vol. 4, judaica, texts and translations (philadelphia: jewish publication society of america, 1979); jacob katz, exclusiveness and tolerance: studies in jewish-gentile relations in medieval and modern times (oxford: oxford university press, 1961); israel yuval, "ha-nakam ve-ha-klalah, ha-dam ve ha-`alilah: me-`alilot qedushim le-`alitot dam," zion 48, no. 1 (1993); israel jacob yuval, shene goyim be-vitnekh : yehudim ve-notsrim dimuyim hadadiyim (tel-aviv: `alma `am `oved, 2000); israel jacob yuval, two nations in your womb: perceptions of jews and christians in late antiquity and the middle ages, the s. mark taper foundation imprint in jewish studies (berkeley: university of california press, 2006); leone modena and mark r. cohen, the autobiography of a seventeenth-century venetian rabbi: leon modena's life of judah (princeton, nj: princeton university press, 1988). 6 simon dubnow, history of the jews in russia and poland, trans. i. friedlander (bergenfield (n.j.): avotaynu, 2000), 28. 7 dubnow, history of the jews in russia and poland, 29, and ch. iv. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): teter cp1-8 teter, rethinking the “golden age” teter cp 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr which ended in 1586 with the death of king stefan batory, “the valorous and enlightened hungarian duke.” by the time he died, dubnow argued, “the polish populace was already inoculated with the ideas of the „catholic reaction‟ imported from western europe.” 8 dubnow placed the responsibility for the end of the “golden age of polish history,” and thereby also for the beginning of the decline of polish jewry, on the catholic church, the “catholic reaction,” the “jesuits, who managed to obtain control over the education of the growing generation, and inoculated the polish people with the virus of clericalism,” and finally, on king sigismund iii, a “devout” catholic, who despite “the jesuit influence, continued the traditional role of jewish protector.” 9 majer bałaban concurred, the golden age for poland and for jews ended with the reign of “king sigismund iii vasa,” “a devout catholic, brought up by a warsaw jesuit and influenced by his confessors.” 10 sigismund iii, bałaban wrote, was “cold and closed…to the jews” whose appeals to the king, especially in cases of accusations of sacrilege or ritual murder, were ineffective. 11 the views of the “golden age” in poland held by generations of polish historians were shaped by their quest to explain the collapse of the polish state in the eighteenth century. polish historiography of the nineteenth and early twentieth century focused on the political history of the state and dubbed the period of the country‟s greatest geographic expansion in the late fifteenth and in the sixteenth-centuries, as the “golden age of polish history.” already in 1813, joachim lelewel marked the beginning of polish decline to 1586, the year of king stefan batory‟s death. 12 throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth century, while scholars representing two historiographic schools, the cracow school, with michał bobrzyński, wacław sobieski, stanisław kutrzeba, and the warsaw school, with tadeusz korzoń, władysław smoleski, adolf pawiński, et al., offered different explanations for the state‟s collapse, they all hailed poland‟s “golden age.” 13 the cracow school, very critical of the polish past, tended to blame polish political system: nobles‟ democracy that turned into anarchy with its abuse of “liberum veto.” scholar w. kalinka, for example, wrote: “poles are the causes of their own collapse…the misfortunes, which befell on us then and later are an atonement deserved by our nation.” 14 some blamed the “counterreformation.” 15 the warsaw school, in contrast, facing criticisms and attacks from the tsarist regime, noted foreign influences in the demise of poland and defended polish democracy. already joachim lelewel argued that the demise of poland was not because of its republican system as others had argued. strong monarchy was not a guarantee of success; indeed a strong monarch could not save spain. the reasons for decline lay elsewhere: geographic location “between three despots,” “jesuitism,” and the “egoism” of the wealthy. 16 a member of the 8 dubnow, history of the jews in russia and poland, 39-40. 9 dubnow, history of the jews in russia and poland, 41-42. 10 majer bałaban, historja żydow w krakowie i na kazimierzu: 1304-1868, 2 vols. (cracow: krajowa agencja wydawnicza, 1991), vol. i: 165-166. 11 bałaban, historia żydow w krakowie, vol. i: 166. 12 maria wierzbicka, "joachim lelewel (1786-1861)," in historycy warszawscy ostatnich dwóch stuleci, ed. aleksander gieysztor, jerzy maternicki, and henryk samsonowicz (warsaw: czytelnik, 1986). 13 jerzy maternicki, kultura historyczna dawna i współczesna: studia i szkice (warszawa: państwowe wydawnictwo naukowe, 1979). 14 quoted in maternicki, kultura historyczna dawna. 15 wacław sobieski, nienawiść wyznaniowa tłumów za rządów zygmunta iii-go (warsaw: nakładem stefana dembego, 1902). 16 wierzbicka, "joachim lelewel (1786-1861)." studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): teter cp1-8 teter, rethinking the “golden age” teter cp 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr warsaw school, władysław smoleński complained about “scholastic torpor” caused by “the counter reformation,” which he blamed for poland‟s decline. 17 just as both polish and jewish historians blamed “catholic counter reformation” for poland‟s decline, they also shared their sympathetic, sometimes romantic view of king sigismund august, the last of the jagiellonian dynasty, whose reign marked the “high-points,” or “the golden age,” of polish history, and their disdain for sigismund iii vasa (1588-1632), “the counter-reformation king.” both polish and jewish historians saw king sigismund iii‟s reign as the beginning of poland‟s “silver age,” leading to the country‟s rapid decline that was to end with the disappearance of poland from the map of europe at the end of the eighteenth century. 18 for majer bałaban, sigismund august was a man of the renaissance, not free of fault but “free from religious prejudice,” who sought to “please everyone.” 19 he was sympathetic to “religious dissidents,” and jews, too, “found justice and support in him.” 20 all scholars noted the king‟s weakness, mostly in his personality; he was “melancholy,” not a man of “deed,” bałaban wrote, and his indecisiveness allowed catholicism to strengthen at the time when religious reforms were taking place. 21 but the king was “an enlightened patron of the renaissance,” who, though a catholic, “contributed to religious toleration.” 22 according to salo baron, “sigismund augustus‟ reign was one of the happier periods of jewish sojourn in east-central europe.” 23 sigismund iii vasa, on the other hand, “a devout catholic and a firm adherent of the aims of the counter-reformation,” until recently, became a symbol of reaction, and “the beginning of the commonwealth‟s decline toward destruction.” 24 in jewish historiography that image of a king devoted to catholicism goes back to the seventeenth-century jewish chronicles of the chmielnicki uprising in 1648-1649. the jewish chronicler nathan nata hanover wrote that during the reign of king sigismund iii, “a righteous and upright man,” “the religion of the pope gained strength in the 17 discussed in maternicki, kultura historyczna dawna. see also, władysław smoleński, wiara w życiu spoleczeństwa polskiego w epoce jezuickiej (warsaw: ludowa spoldzielnia wydawnicza, 1951);władysław smoleński and andrzej wierzbicki, przewrót umysłowy w polsce wieku xviii: studia historyczne, 4wyd. ed., klasycy historiografii (warszawa: państwowy instytut wydawniczy, 1979). 18 see, e.g., edward opalinski, sejm srebrnego wieku, 1587-1652: między głosowaniem większosciowym a liberum veto (warsaw: wydawnictwa sejmowe, 2001). 19 bałaban, historia żydow w krakowie, vol. i: 139. 20 bałaban, historia żydow w krakowie, vol. i: 139. 21 bałaban, historia żydow w krakowie, vol. i: 139-140. for baron, sigismund august was “more gifted than his father,” but “his passionate nature led him to devote much of his time and energy to hedonistic pursuits, and at crucial moments he neglected important public affairs.” salo wittmayer baron, poland-lithuania 1500-1650, vol. 16, a social and religious history of the jews (new york, london, philadelphia: columbia university press and jewish publication society of america, 1976), 29. norman davies, god's playground: a history of poland, vol. i: the origins to 1795 (oxford, new york: clarendon press, 1982), 144-145. 22 baron, srhj vol. 16, 31-33;bernard d. weinryb, the jews of poland: a social and economic history of the jewish community in poland from 1100 to 1800 (philadelphia: jewish publication society of america, 1973), 123. 23 baron, srhj vol. 16, 33. ludwik gumplowicz maintained that all decrees and privileges issued by king sigismun august “were imbued with the same spirit of liberalism and free-thinking.” ludwig gumplowicz, prawodawstwo polskie wzgledem żydów (cracow: j.m. himmelblau, 1867), 42-43. 24 baron, srhj vol. 16; davies, god's playground, vol. i: 439;mirosław korolko, klejnot swobodnego sumienia: polemika wokół konfederacji warszawskiej w latach 1573-1658 (warsaw: instytut wydawniczy "pax", 1974), ch. vi; daniel stone, the polish-lithuanian state, 1386-1795, vol. 4, history of east central europe (seattle: university of washington press, 2001), 131. sobieski, nienawiść wyznaniowa. for a new, revised portrayal of sigismund iii, henryk wisner, rzeczpospolita wazów: czasy zygmunta iii i wladyslawa iv (warszawa: wydawnictwo neriton instytut historii pan, 2002), 191-192. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): teter cp1-8 teter, rethinking the “golden age” teter cp 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr kingdom of poland.” 25 modern jewish historiography marked sigismund iii‟s reign, as “the onset of the vigorous counter reformation,” a turning point for the decline of polish jewry as well, only exacerbated by the mid-century violence of the chmielnicki uprising and the wars with sweden. 26 for some historians the “happy” epoch of jewish existence in poland as was experienced under the jagiellonian kings was never to return. this view has been more recently challenged, as recent scholarship has demonstrated that jews recovered from and flourished after the crises of the mid-seventeenth century—that flourishing was manifest especially in jewish culture, rabbinic scholarship, and economic activity. 27 just how complex these historiographic assumptions are can be illustrated by the treatment of anti-jewish accusations by the two kings both polish and jewish historiography consider iconic and indicative of the state in which poland-lithuania found itself, sigismund august and sigismund iii vasa, the first thought to be a friend to jew and dissident alike, and the second “cold and reserved” who would lend no ear to jews in trouble. in the spring of 1556, a christian woman and a servant in a jewish household, dorota łazęcka, was accused of stealing the consecrated wafer during the easter season and delivering the wafer to jews in a small polish town of sochaczew. on april 23, 1556, she was burned at the stake just a day after her arrest, and jews were charged with desecration of the host by “stabbing and torturing” it. one of the jews, dorota‟s employer and a beadle in the synagogue, was executed by burning on may 15, three others, two weeks later, on june 1. it was the first documented trial for host desecration in poland, and it took place at a volatile moment in european history, less than a year after the diet of augsburg had accepted the confessio augustana, and de facto recognized lutheranism. 28 for dubnow, papal nuncio to poland, luigi lippomano, was to blame for the trial. sent “by the inquisitor on the throne of st. peter [pope paul iv],” lippomano, dubnow argued, “conceived the idea of firing the religious zeal of the catholics by one of those bloody spectacles which the inquisitorial church was wont to arrange occasionally ad maiorem dei gloria.” 29 king sigismund august “was shocked,” dubnow wrote, “by these revolting proceedings which had been engineered by the nuncio lippomano.” 30 the king was “quick to grasp that the bottom of the absurd rumor concerning the „wounded‟ host lay a „pious fraud,‟ the desire to demonstrate the truth of the eucharist dogma in its catholic formulation.” 31 salo baron also claimed that sigismund august “did not believe any of these accusations,” and pointed to the decree king sigismund 25 nathan nata hannover, yeven mezulah (toronto: ozarenu, 1990), 16; nathan nata hanover, abyss of despair (yeven metzulah) the famous 17th century chronicle depicting jewish life in russia and poland during the chmielnicki massacres of 1648-49, trans. abraham j. mesch (new brunswick (usa), london: transaction books, 1983), 27. 26 baron, srhj vol. 16, 76. 27 see, e.g., moshe rosman, "dimuyav sel bet yisrael be-polin ke-merkaz torah ahare gezerot tah-tat [the image of poland as a center of torah learning after the 1648 persecutions]," zion 51, no. 4 (1986); moshe rosman, "dubno in the wake of khmel'nyts'kyi," jewish history 17, no. 2 (2003); murray jay rosman, the lords' jews: magnatejewish relations in the polish-lithuanian commonwealth during the eighteenth century (cambridge, ma: harvard university press, 1990). 28 this trial is discussed in detail in chapter five of my sinners on trial: jews and sacrilege after the reformation (cambridge, ma: harvard university press, 2011). 29 dubnow, history of the jews in russia and poland, 37-38. 30 dubnow, history of the jews in russia and poland, 38. 31 dubnow, history of the jews in russia and poland, 38. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): teter cp1-8 teter, rethinking the “golden age” teter cp 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr august issued in january 1557 that forced all such anti-jewish trials be adjudicated in a special tribunal in the presence of the king himself or his representatives. 32 these accounts are if not wrong, then at least misleading. dubnow was incorrect in giving lippomano such a leading role in the affair. lippomano was not the prime instigator, although he did take advantage of the sochaczew case to accomplish his own political and religious goals. 33 the negative reaction to the affair ascribed to king sigismund august stems from these historians‟ focus on later developments in the sochaczew affair. on june 8, 1556 king sigismund august wrote a letter, addressed to stanisław borek, sochaczew‟s city captain, calling for full and proper investigation of the case, for release on bail of the arrested jews, and a return of the property to the arrested jews and to other jews who may have fled the town. 34 the letter arrived, and had even been dispatched, too late. the jews had been executed on june 1. this was not the only, or the first, letter dispatched by the king in this case. on may 4, after dorota‟s execution, the king had sent another letter, expressing “horror and the pain of our soul” occasioned by the news about “that woman, dorothea lazezka [sic] who having taken the sacrosanct body of god and our savior jesus christ into her impure mouth and then having removed it secretly, had given it to the perfidious jew bieszko szkolnik.” 35 the king admitted, echoing protestant rhetoric, that “although our god is in heaven, and the hands of the impious cannot violate [him],” it is not appropriate for a christian king to allow “the mystery of our faith” to be profaned and contaminated by “the audacity of the perfidious and wicked people.” 36 he ordered interrogation of the captured jews, bieszko, michałek, socha, and joseph to discover “what they did with the sacred sacrament.” 37 he demanded that they then be appropriately punished for their crime, their property confiscated. 38 the officials followed these instructions and the jews were burned at the stake, a whole week before the king‟s second letter calling for a “careful investigation,” for release of the imprisoned jews on bail, and return of their confiscated property. the second letter perhaps startled the officials involved in the trial who must have been under the impression that they were following directives from the king, dispatched in a letter of may 4. 39 jewish historians either ignored the first letter, or, possibly, did not know about it. instead, they reported the king‟s subsequent, if belated, reaction, while placing most of the blame for the affair on church officials. this narrative, though, fit the image of king sigismund augustus they held. perhaps more complex is the case of king sigismund iii, the “cold” and reserved king, unresponsive to jewish pleas. here, too, the jewish historians‟ narrative seems to overlap with that by polish historians. dubnow, for example, agreed with the early polish historians who emphasized the rise of “catholic reaction” and “intolerance” under sigismund iii. baron, whose work is much later and understandably more nuanced, did give credit to sigismund iii for his “relatively friendly policies” that “seem to have amazed jews themselves who must have been greatly alarmed when this pupil of jesuits was elected to the polish throne.” 40 but baron still linked this king‟s reign to the rise of anti-jewish literature and accusations. 41 32 baron, srhj vol. 16. 33 on this, see magda teter teter, sinners on trial, chapter five. 34 asv a.a. 4352, 72v, also in wojtyska, ed. aloisius lippomano (1555-1557), 422-423, a424. 35 asv a.a. 4352, 8r, also in wojtyska, ed. aloisius lippomano (1555-1557), 413-414, a422. 36 asv a.a. 4252, 8r, and wojtyska, ed. aloisius lippomano (1555-1557), 413. 37 asv a.a. 4252, 8v, and wojtyska, ed. aloisius lippomano (1555-1557), 414. 38 asv a.a. 4252, 8v, and wojtyska, ed. aloisius lippomano (1555-1557), 414. 39 asv a.a. 4352, also in wojtyska, ed. aloisius lippomano (1555-1557), 413-414, a422. 40 baron, srhj vol. 16, 142. 41 baron, srhj vol. 16, 85-105, 143-163. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): teter cp1-8 teter, rethinking the “golden age” teter cp 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr king sigismund iii was a complex figure. a son of a lutheran father and a catholic mother, a student of jesuit teachers, he wanted to strengthen royal power that was waning in poland. in 1605, king sigismund iii issued a decree ordering jews expelled from the royal city of bochnia, a declining, salt-producing city just 40 km east of cracow. the decree arrived five years after a host desecration trial of two christian men in the spring of 1600. their trial became freighted with political consequence, its full scope evident only in 1605, when king sigismund iii issued the decree of expulsion of the jews. 42 many jews moved to a nearby private town of wiśnicz, owned by a prominent nobleman. the expulsion, an unusual act for poland, was touted by a local writer as a unique success that had joined a list of late-medieval expulsions from imperial cities, among them wittenberg, nuremberg, and strasbourg. 43 twenty-five years after king sigismund iii had expelled the jews from bochnia, the same king defended jews against similar charges in przemyśl. 44 the king established a commission to examine the proceedings of the trial, and then, when the committee reported problems, issued a decree condemning all the councilmen, magistrate, and jurors in przemyśl for conspiring to jeopardize the findings of the royal commission. in disrespecting his official “with insolent words,” they dishonored his own person, the king claimed, and thus were guilty of contempt of his authority, for which they were to be punished. 45 king sigismund iii‟s treatment of this host desecration trial in przemyśl, so different from the one in bochnia over two decades earlier, might seem perplexing. this king, seen by historians and contemporaries as the monarch responsible for the success of the counter reformation, would not have ignored the “gravity of this horrendous crime against divine majesty.” the king‟s transformation came from the concern with royal power. in bochnia, the royal authority had not been ignored. though the city officials had wanted to execute promptly the two christian men accused there of stealing the wafer, they agreed to wait for the royal decree before proceeding, and pushed for expulsion of the jews through appropriate channels of power. since in bochnia it took years to accomplish this goal but this approach was effective, officials in przemyśl did not want to wait years to achieve the goal of expelling jews, no secret to either christians or jews. 46 in their zeal to expel the jews, they ignored the existing legal frameworks and power structures. refusing to wait for the king‟s verdict and refusing to transfer the case to the palatine‟s proper jurisdiction, they committed an act of rebellion against the king. as a long-term legacy, beyond the penitential prayer recited annually in the local synagogue, in 1633, the sejm passed a constitution reaffirming legal parameters of magistrate and palatine jurisdiction, both in general and, more specifically, in criminal cases involving jews. these measures were certainly not undertaken out of sympathy for jews and they did not save moszko szmuklerz‟s life. they were intended to protect and reaffirm the king‟s authority and power. the three trials, one in sochaczew in 1556 under king sigismund august, and the two, in bochnia and przemysl under king sigismund iii, underline the complexity of jewish-christian relations. surely, there was no “golden age” in jewish-christian relations in poland, but jewish 42 this trial is discussed in detail in chapter six of my sinners on trial. 43 jan achacy kmita, ein send breief [sic] abo list od żydow polskich do messyasza, który iako żydzi wierzą w kraiu siedzi czekaiąc czasu przyścia swego (n.p.: n.p., after 1610), b3 verso. this work has been misdated by bibliographers who, like karol estreicher, dated it for 1601. the text, however, mentions both the expulsion of jews from bochnia, which took place in 1605-6, and from a nearby town of uście, which took place in 1610. 44 for a full discussion of the trial, see teter, sinners on trial, chapter seven. 45 amprz 824, 29. 46 schorr, żydzi w przemyślu, 252. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): teter cp1-8 teter, rethinking the “golden age” teter cp 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr christian relations in poland, and elsewhere, were far from the dark picture offered by many historians. even in the account of the anti-jewish trials that complexity clashes with existing historiographic stereotypes. the reign of king sigismund august may not have been the happiest, nor was the reign of the “counter-reformation” king sigismund iii the beginning of a dark period in jewish-christian relations. the trials encapsulate political transformations of the legal status of jews in poland, as their security increased in private domains and decreased in royal towns. official documents, especially court records, by their nature, provide mostly materials relating to conflict, picturing a trail of uneasy coexistence between jews and christians; friendly relations between jews and christians seldom found their way to court records. if they did, it was only as a background of stories of conflict, or because these relations were in face considered illegal. sometimes, paradoxically, anti-jewish literature and church legislation reveal closer relationships between jews and christians by explicitly prohibiting them. 47 in 1623, in poznań, for example, a jewish man was forced to defend himself in court, having been accused of having sexual relations with a christian woman. 48 in 1748, a jew abram michelevicz and a christian woman, paraska danilovna, were tried in mohilev. the two “were secretly living together in marriage,” an illegal act at the time. 49 such sexual relations between jews and christians were frequent, despite being punishable, at least in theory, by death. the surviving court cases illustrate problems with questions about the existence of a “golden age.” such trials document certain intimacy, or at least perception of such intimacy, between jews and christians. and yet, they are also evidence of social discomfort with such situations and even persecution. “golden age” it was not, but within proper investigation of historical context one can unpack a compelling, textured, and complex set of relationships between jews and christians, evidence of both coexistence and conflict. it was historians who chose to emphasize one or the other. but an honest examination of both the “good” and the “bad” aspects of jewishchristian relations beyond the simplistic views of “the age of persecution” and “the golden age,” with mutual understanding of disagreements and errors, will result in what bishop sklba dubbed the “maturation” of jewish-christian relations. 47 on this see in more detail, magda teter, jews and heretics in catholic poland: a beleaguered church in the postreformation era (cambridge; new york: cambridge university press, 2006). and, kaplan and teter, "out of the (historiographic) ghetto." magda teter, "'there should be no love between us and them': social life and bounds of jewish and canon law in early modern poland," in early modern poland: borders and boundaries, ed. adam teller and magda teter, polin (oxford; portland, or: littmann library of jewish civilization, 2009). 48 akta miasta poznania i 2250, archiwum państwowe w poznaniu, 151-152. 49 the case and other similar cases are discussed in detail in my jews and heretics in catholic poland, chapter four. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review jesper svartvik and jakob wirén, eds. religious stereotyping and interreligious relations (new york: palgrave macmillan, 2013), hardcover, xvi + 298 pp. jennifer peace, andover newton theological school this edited volume was developed in the wake of an international conference in lund, sweden held in april of 2011 and co-hosted by the centre for theology and religious studies at lund university and the swedish theological institute in jerusalem. svartvik and wirén, the editors of the volume and organizers of the original conference, have assembled a compelling collection of essays focused on relations among jews, christians, and muslims that circle around a common commitment to “oppose stereotyping and prejudice” (p. ix). the twenty-two contributions by international scholars (both seasoned and emerging) come from a richly diverse range of disciplinary backgrounds including religious studies; theology; philosophy; history; international relations; islamic theology; comparative literature; jewish studies; peace and conflict studies; ethics; psychology; biblical studies; and interreligious studies. they are organized into five sections: part i begins with “methodological considerations”; part ii covers “christian-muslim relations”; part iii covers “jewish-christian relations”; part iv covers “israeli-palestinian relations”; and part v presents “case studies.” as the disciplinary diversity of the authors suggests, this volume includes a wide range of creative entry points to the conversation about religious stereotyping and interreligious relations. while each essay merits engagement beyond the capacity of a single review, the contribution of the volume as a whole lies in the invitation of the editors (svartvik and wirén) to consider the particular contexts and cases of interreligious studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) interaction included in the collection through the lens of religious stereotyping. each chapter adds data (from france, nigeria, scandinavia, the us; from film, literature, and news media; from sources both sacred and secular; and from contexts both contemporary and historical) to the ways that religious communities and beliefs have been a source of both healing and harm to others. beyond descriptive discussions, each chapter implicitly or explicitly offers constructive clues to how we might mitigate harm and enhance healing between religions. in his excellent introductory chapter, svartvik notes that making generalizations is a necessary “cognitive shortcut” (p. 2) that we all employ. however, he distinguishes this from harmful negative stereotyping which fails to consider both group variability and the range of overlapping group identities we can occupy at the same time (e.g., sibling, spouse, parent, teacher, muslim, etc.). an important insight in this chapter is that personal encounters, a mainstay of interreligious work, are not sufficient to break down prejudices because “we tend to change our beliefs about the individual much faster than we change our beliefs about the group” (p. 5). in other words, individuals who contradict our prejudices will just be categorized as “atypical” and can perversely serve to reinforce the stereotypes we hope to dismantle. the perhaps misleading section heading “methodological considerations” contains four diverse chapters with different contributions to make. james haire identifies distinct models of public theology. pamela sue anderson and werner jeanrond explore the complex relationship between love and stereotyping. finally, jan hermanson engages gordon allport’s book the nature of prejudice for its enduring lessons. part ii, on “christian-muslim relations,” contains six chapters detailing particular contexts but with a shared emphasis on perceptions of the religious “other” and the role of religion in the public square. mona siddique challenges us to think about the assumptions underlying our definitions of public vs. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr private spaces as well as secular vs. religious spaces. blandine chélini-pont uses her chapter to ask whether “religion produces more or less stereotyping and prejudice than any other system” (p. 76). mohammad fazlhashemi’s chapter “occidentalism” explores the influence of this tradition on muslim thinkers while comparing and contrasting it with orientalism. kristian steiner focuses our attention on representations of muslims and of islam in two swedish evangelical newspapers between 2006 and 2007. jakob wirén moves the conversation to consider stereotypes embedded in christian theology. the final chapter in this section, by thaddeus umaru, zooms in on the dire consequences of religious stereotyping in northern nigeria. several of the essays in part ii, on “jewish-christian relations,” have a strong historical bent, from raymond cohen’s focus on the trajectory of modern catholic-jewish relations to johanna van wijk-bos’ discussion of “partiality” or chosenness in the hebrew bible. in addition, gunnar haaland surveys portrayals of jews and judaism in various children’s bibles in scandinavia. mark godin uses a statement from the presbyterian church in canada to critique what he calls “interfaith monologues,” referring to frequent statements that many christian denominations and other groups issue to articulate their stance towards another religious tradition. in an essay that may have been better paired with hermanson’s essay in part i, deborah weissman again takes up allport’s nature of prejudice, this time to raise questions related to particularism and universalism. categories shift in part iv from an emphasis on religious identity and interreligious relations to an emphasis on national identities and political relations. “israeli-palestinian relations” includes three chapters that focus on the palestinian kairos document (yohanna katanacho); christian discourse about the israeli-palestinian conflict (peter pettit); and views of arabs in halakhic discourse in israel (ophir yarden). all three highlight the consequences of generations of stereotyping, studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 9 (2014) prejudices, and discrimination on relations among and between israelis and palestinians. the final section of the book includes three case studies: one related to jud suss, the 1940 film commissioned by nazi minister of propaganda joseph goebbels to promote antisemitism (erik hedling); the second focused on the artless jew, a 2001 book by kalman bland (alana vincent); and a third focused on a homophobic sermon delivered by a pentecostal minister in sweden that raises questions about the lines between free speech and hate speech (linde lindkvist). as with any edited volume, some contributions are stronger than others. the dense, well-researched studies may appeal more to academics than practitioners, but the implications of the research are relevant for all those who work across religious lines to improve relations. the coherence of the volume comes more from the shared focus on stereotyping than the organization of the sections. i found myself wishing the chapters were grouped according to analytical or thematic headings rather than static descriptive categories. however, these are small concerns in light of the rich contextual narratives that are at the heart of so many of the contributions in the volume. i am grateful to the editors and participants in the original conference for making their scholarship available to a wider audience. scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-3 ben c. blackwell, john k. goodrich, and jason maston, eds. reading mark in context: jesus and second temple judaism (grand rapids: zondervan, 2018), 286 pp. nicholas a. elder nick.elder@marquette.edu marquette university, milwaukee, wi 53233 reading mark in context is a collection of thirty essays that sequentially interprets passages in mark with specific reference to relevant second temple jewish texts. the volume includes a foreword by n. t. wright that notes its dual purpose, which is to (1) introduce the reader to jewish texts from the second temple period and (2) provide a “running commentary” on mark in light of those texts (pp. 14– 15). preceding the collection’s thirty essays is an introduction from the editors that serves several functions. first, they briefly review historical jesus scholarship in order to highlight the importance of non-canonical second temple jewish texts for understanding jesus as he is presented in the gospels. second, they identify the kind of readers that the volume is primarily intended for, namely beginning to intermediate students who are evangelical. third, it offers an introduction to the second temple period with reference to major events and writings. as a whole, the collection of essays is well-balanced. each contribution is approximately seven pages long and is evenly divided between an introduction to a second temple jewish text and an interpretation of mark in light of that text. a broad swath of second temple literature is represented, including the letter of aristeas, the psalms of solomon, 4 ezra, the book of jubilees, 1 maccabees, 2 maccabees, and various texts from qumran, philo, josephus, rabbinic literature, and the enochic corpus. as is the case with any collection, the contributions vary in strength. in what follows i will highlight two particularly notable essays before commenting on the collection as a whole. in her essay “the letter of aristeas and mark 7:1–23: developing ideas of defilement,” sarah whittle interprets mark 7, in which jesus discusses moral and ritual impurity, in light of the letter of aristeas. whittle introduces aristeas before turning to the interpretation of dietary laws from leviticus 11 and deuteronomy elder: blackwell, goodrich, and maston’s reading mark 2 14. she shows that for aristeas “moral values [are] embodied in the dietary rules” (p. 111). for example, the author explains that mice are not suitable for consumption because they are destructive and damaging. in general, aristeas promotes ritual practices by offering moral rationales for them. while mark takes the connection between moral and ritual purity in a different direction than aristeas, namely by stating that moral purity is prioritized over ritual observance, the latter is an interpretive comparandum for the former. both mark and aristeas find a connection between moral and ritual purity. this essay is strong in its introduction to and interpretation of aristeas on its own terms and also in demonstrating its value for illuminating the gospel. sigurd grindheim, in “sirach and mark 8:27–9:13: elijah and eschaton,” similarly sets two traditions in conversation with one another without privileging one over the other. in grindheim’s case the traditions are concerned with elijah. having addressed introductory issues related to sirach, grindheim offers sirach 48:1–11 as a text that reveals second temple jewish expectations of elijah’s eschatological role, largely based on malachi 4:6. grindheim is careful to note that in sirach, as in other second temple traditions, “the coming of elijah did not have anything in particular to do with the messiah, but it had everything to do with what god was going to do at the end of time” (p. 135). sirach has a high view of elijah and his eschatological function. drawing on the tradition, grindheim says elijah’s presence at the transfiguration in mark 9 tells the reader something about the gospel’s own eschatological expectations. moreover, given that elijah has nothing to do with a messianic figure in sirach but is eschatologically significant in his own right, the markan interpreter is better able to perceive the gospel’s “muting” of elijah at the transfiguration (p. 133). mark has “reduced elijah to a silent extra” and funneled both messianic and eschatological expectations into jesus. both of the essays reviewed here situate the gospel within its second temple jewish context. the strongest contributions to the collection accurately represent the second temple jewish text, note that text’s relevant distinctive features, and then juxtapose these with a passage from mark without making the gospel the standard by which the second temple jewish text is judged. some essays in the volume, however, appear simply to be using a jewish text as a negative foil to mark. their contrasts appear designed to reflect what the authors view as superior (read: christian) value systems. for example, jeffrey w. aernie writes, “unlike the rigid corporate boundaries developed in the rule of the community, the defining boundaries around the community of jesus’s followers are extremely porous” (p. 148). in the conclusion to his essay comparing mark 10:32–52 with the rule of the congregation, john k. goodrich writes, “the rule rewards knowledge, skills, and piety, stressing the priority and preeminence of those with greater status, beginning with the priest and messiah. mark’s gospel, on the other hand, promotes servant-style leadership rooted in the messiah’s own self-giving” (p. 172). while not all the essays in this volume, nor even the majority of them, are characterized by this sort of rhetoric, it is common enough in several essays to be notable. this leads to another critique of the collection. the contributors are, for the most part, new testament scholars with secondary interests in 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) second temple judaism. for nearly all of them, mark is the ultimate text of inquiry; the jewish texts are valuable primarily as aids to the interpretation of mark. while this is not necessarily a problem in and of itself, it might have been productive also to enlist scholars who specialize in second temple judaism and then to have them study the gospel. this would “flip the script”, so to speak. despite these two critiques, the collection as a whole accomplishes its intent well. it serves as an excellent introduction to a wide variety of early jewish texts and traditions and productively situates mark within its second temple jewish context. the text would serve very well in an upper-division new testament course at an evangelical university or seminary. i envision a syllabus in which essays from the collection are paired with primary source readings from the second temple jewish texts and markan pericopae that they address. for this reason alone, the text should be on the bookshelf of new testament educators teaching in evangelical contexts. scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-3 jason m. olson america’s road to jerusalem: the impact of the six-day war on protestant politics (lanham, md: lexington books, 2018), hardcover, xliii + 235 pp. walker robins robinsw@merrimack.edu merrimack college, north andover, ma 01845 repeated throughout jason m. olson’s america’s road to jerusalem is an ambitious claim—that israel’s victory in the 1967 six-day war reshaped american religious life by empowering the evangelical wing of american protestantism at the expense of the mainline denominations. olson contends that the outcome of the war vindicated evangelicals’ biblical literalism, giving evangelicals “the leverage they needed” to reverse decades of mainline protestant dominance and “lead america’s religious culture once again” (p. xi). in this way, olson argues, the impact of the six-day war was comparable to the 1925 scopes trial, which had heralded the temporary victory of modernist mainline protestants over fundamentalists and evangelicals in leading american religious culture. these are expansive claims, with potentially significant implications for the study of post-wwii american protestantism. in actual execution, however, america’s road to jerusalem has a much narrower focus, offering an examination of american protestant attitudes towards a variety of issues related to the arab-israeli conflict, as expressed in a handful of protestant periodicals between roughly 1966 and 1973. olson’s analysis rotates at an oft-dizzying pace between five different protestant perspectives. he identifies three within mainline protestantism: social gospellers, christian realists, and liberation theologians. olson uses the term “social gospellers” (an anachronism that olson acknowledges) to describe ecumenically-minded liberal protestants—the kind found in the leadership of the national council of churches and listed on the masthead of the christian century. prior to 1967, such mainliners had been the most active in dialogue with jewish organizations like the american jewish committee and the most accepting of judaism as a religion. inclined towards internationalism and pacifism in foreign robins: jason m. olson’s america’s road to jerusalem 2 affairs, though, the social gospellers tended to be more questioning of jewish nationalism. these views contrasted with those of the christian realists, who asserted the validity of both the jewish faith and jewish nationhood. believing that jewish sovereignty was essential to the survival of the jewish people, realists like reinhold niebuhr and carl hermann voss had been at the forefront of protestant support for zionism and israel since the 1940s, working through organizations like the american christian palestine committee. close intellectually and institutionally to the realists were liberation theologians (olson also uses this term somewhat anachronistically) like john c. bennett, who argued that the gospel charged christians to identify with oppressed classes and communities and to work to overthrow oppressive systems. prior to 1967, these liberation theologians tended to follow the christian realists in defending israel as a needed haven for oppressed jews. olson’s analysis also focuses on two main divisions within the evangelical wing of american protestantism—the new evangelicals (as represented by billy graham) and the fundamentalists (as represented by carl mcintire). while the new evangelicals and fundamentalists had a number of sometimes divergent priorities, olson argues that both rooted their understanding of israel in literalist interpretations of the bible. in particular, many adhered to the interpretive system known as premillennial dispensationalism, which held that jews had a covenantal right to the land of israel and that prophecy pointed to the restoration of jewish control of the land—especially jerusalem—as part of god’s plan for history. while such interpretations had not translated into active political support for israel prior to 1967, they had encouraged many evangelicals to affirm jewish nationhood and sovereignty in israel and to anticipate the jewish state’s role in the future fulfillment of prophecy. as olson notes, the outcome of the six-day war—in which israel conquered east jerusalem, the west bank, the gaza strip, and the golan heights from jordan, egypt, and syria, and brought hundreds of thousands of palestinians under military occupation— alternately challenged and reinforced these varied protestant perspectives. it immediately strained the relationship between the social gospellers and american jews, who were stunned when their partners in dialogue did not come to israel’s defense. it pushed the liberation theologians to increasingly identify with the palestinians as an oppressed people and to support the palestinian national cause. this, in turn, contributed to a growing rift between liberation theologians and the dwindling number of christian realists, who defended israel’s actions as both legitimate and necessary to its self-defense. most significantly for olson, though, the outcome of the war “vindicated” the evangelical wing’s dispensationalist reading of the bible by bringing territory roughly corresponding to the biblical israel—including the old city of jerusalem—under israeli control. as noted above, olson’s central claim is that this vindication of dispensationalist interpretations of the bible allowed american evangelicals to recover a cultural dominance they had lost in the 1920s. while many evangelicals certainly seized onto the events of 1967 as confirmation of their reading of the bible, there are a number of problems with olson’s more ambitious claim that speak to larger issues in the work. first, olson’s framing of his argument is often ahistorical and 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) contextually flat. the work repeatedly refers to evangelicals attaining preeminence “once again,” phrasing that suggests an immutable evangelicalism, existing in continuity from the 1920s to the 1960s (p. xi). (the work’s frequent recourse to anachronistic terminology is another example of this.) second, america’s road to jerusalem does not provide the evidence—or, really, the kind of evidence—needed to make an argument about the ascendance of evangelicalism in american culture. as noted above, in actual execution, the work is focused quite tightly on examining protestant attitudes towards israel in periodicals like the christian century and christianity today. third, the work does not acknowledge or engage the wealth of historiography on postwar american evangelicalism relevant to its main argument. instead, it only engages scholarship on american christian zionism. here, too, there are problems, though, as the work includes a number of misleading claims about its own place in that scholarship. for instance, olson states in the introduction that no previous scholar has “combed the pages of christianity and crisis to examine how the arab-israeli conflict caused such a conflict” among mainline protestants (p. xiii). however, caitlin carenen’s the fervent embrace (new york: new york university press, 2012)—which does appear in olson’s bibliography— does just that. altogether, america’s road to jerusalem reaches for an ambitious argument that it is simply not prepared to make. in doing so, it misses an opportunity to develop fully the more modest, focused arguments that it could. catholicism and the roots of nazism: religious identity and national socialism studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): ruff r1-2 hastings, catholicism and the roots of nazism ruff r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 derek hastings catholicism and the roots of nazism: religious identity and national socialism (new york: oxford university press, 2010), hardcover, xv + 290 pp. reviewed by mark edward ruff, saint louis university derek hastings’ succinct volume on the roman catholic roots of national socialism marks a qualitative leap forward in our understanding of the religious identity of this extreme right-wing movement during its protean years in munich. the title promises a sensational expose, and to his credit, hastings does not deliver. what he provides instead is a highly nuanced and often dense work of intellectual history, in which the author painstakingly reconstructs the networks of priests, right-wing intellectuals, and early nazi ideologues that worked together on behalf of the nazi cause for a small number of years in the cultural capital of bavaria. hastings argues that the formative years of the nazi movement, 1920-1923 in munich—he labels this the party’s prehistory—were characterized by an often explicitly catholic orientation. the movement was rooted not primarily in prewar kulturprotestantismus but in the reform catholicism that came to prominence in munich after the turn of the century. finding a nexus among catholic university students, fraternities, and young professionals, reform catholics (such as josef müller, who founded his reformverein, or karl muth, the publisher of hochland) were driven by their criticisms of ultramontanism and political catholicism. highly rigorous in their own religious practices, these critics derided the superficiality, speciousness, frivolity, and lack of openness of many of the catholics they found in the center party (and later in the bavarian people’s party) and in the church hierarchy. what was necessary, they argued, was religious renewal that would stem secularism and reinvigorate the german nation. such ideas, hastings maintains, eventually found their way into notions of “positive christianity,” that sought to transcend confessional divisions in germany and, more famously, underlay the nazi party platform of 1920. more ominously, reform catholics showed a strong openness to racist and eugenicist ideas. muth’s hochland even profiled the religious thought of houston stewart chamberlain and extolled the racism of arthur de gobineau. that this outlook took root in munich was no accident. catholics in the bavarian capital, though registering high rates of attendance at mass, were notably lax in their support for political catholicism and the vereinswesen (tradition of ancillary organizations) so characteristic of rhenish and westphalian catholicism. even in the late 19 th century, support for the center party in munich was less than half that in other catholic regions of germany. by 1924, hastings notes, 80% of munich catholics were voting for parties other than the center party and the bavarian people’s party. the presence of earnest catholics open to the racial ideas of the day and seeking alternatives to political catholicism led to a relatively easy symbiosis between the early nazi party and the heirs of reform catholicism after the first world war. hastings highlights the roles played by ernst thrasolt, a student influenced by müller, and franz schrönghammer, a devout catholic review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): ruff r1-2 hastings, catholicism and the roots of nazism ruff r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 who postulated an apocalyptic struggle between the eternal german and the eternal jew in his 1918 book, the coming reich, and contributed to a new journal, auf gut deutsch (published by the catholic poet, playwright, and friend of hitler, dietrich eckhart). this catholic support, hastings notes, was necessary for the incipient nazi party to survive in an overwhelmingly catholic region like munich and to differentiate itself from the various völkisch organizations in munich rooted loosely in protestantism or the occult. membership drives among bavarian catholics, spearheaded by a small number of priests and monks, led to a three-fold increase in membership in the nazi movement between 1920 and the fall of 1923. the parish priest josef roth, the musicologist and monk alban schachleiter, and the priest lorenz pieper emerged as leading propagandists for the party. they delivered fiery speeches bearing titles such as “can a catholic be a nazi?” and published articles in the nazi newspaper, the beobachter. they delivered eulogies on behalf of albert leo schlageter, a deeply religious catholic ultranationalist and a member of a catholic fraternity in munich who had been executed by the french for terrorist activity in the ruhr. schlagleiter’s eulogy and the catholic membership drive appear to have been decisive in the recruitment of many young catholic men, including heinrich himmler. yet this symbiosis did not survive the beer hall putsch of 1923. hastings attributes this to the increased influence of protestants with strong anti-catholic tendencies in the movement, most notably erich von ludendorff. by 1923 and 1924, hitler had come to understand himself as a messianic figure called by providence to bring about the salvation of the german nation. prayers once offered for hitler were now offered to him. as nazism evolved into a political religion characterized by an often rabid anti-catholicism, its founders preferred to expunge the movement’s catholic roots from the historical record. the stage was set for the persecution of the church later in the 1930s. hastings challenges positions held by both critics and defenders of the roman catholic church. in emphasizing the religious identity of the early nazi movement, he significantly departs from those who saw mystical, occult movements such as the thule society as the dominant influence on national socialism. in emphasizing national socialism’s catholic origins, he provides a corrective to richard steigmann-gall’s focus on nazism’s roots in liberal protestantism. the title notwithstanding, hastings makes clear that his book is not so much “an examination of catholics per se, or of the catholic church as an institution, but of the role played by individual catholics— both clergy and laity” (p. 6). not once does he descend into facile armchair moralizing. this is a work of serious scholarship, one that greatly enhances our understanding of connections between the early nazi movement and early twentieth century reform catholicism. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ariel cp1-18 ariel, interfaith dialogue and the golden age ariel cp 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr interfaith dialogue and the golden age of christian-jewish relations yaakov ariel, university of north carolina at chapel hill presented at the “was there a „golden age‟ of christian-jewish relations?” conference at boston college, april 2010 the second half of the twenthieth century has witnessed unprecedented transformations in the relationship between the western christian and jewish communities. at the center of the developments stood a movement of interfaith dialogue and reconciliation, serving as a catalyst that helped to bring about many of the changes. beginning hesitatingly at the turn of the twentieth century, the dialogue between jews and non-jews gained more ground in english speaking nations in the decades between the two world wars. the movement of interfaith reconciliation advanced considerably in the years after world war ii, and reached a "golden age" in the late 1960s and 1970s, when an unprecedented momentum for reconciliation and dialogue between the faiths flourished in europe, america, israel, and other countries. despite occasional setbacks, this movement of reconciliation helped to improve the relationship between christians and jews in an unprecedented manner, and on a worldwide scale. dialogue and reconciliation: the beginnings of a movement the early attempts at interfaith dialogue between christians and jews began in america in the latter decades of the nineteenth century, mostly on the initiative of liberal protestants. in addition to cooperating over civic issues, a number of jewish and christian clergymen invited each other to give talks in their congregations. such interactions often took place on a sporadic basis and usually entailed personal friendships between jewish and christian religious leaders. more significant for future developments were the interfaith conferences, which liberal protestants organized and in which liberal as well as more traditionalist rabbis took part. 1 one of the more special occasions in the early history of interfaith dialogue and reconciliation was the world parliament of religions (wpr), which convened in chicago, in 1893, in conjunction with the world columbian exposition. it brought together protestants, catholics, and greek orthodox christians, as well as jews, buddhists, hindus, baha‟i, muslims, native americans, and representatives of other faiths as well. 2 it offered jewish religious leaders, such as alexander kohut, isaac m. wise, kaufmann kohler, emil g. hirsch, and marcus jastrow, an opportunity to present their views to a non-jewish audience and make a case for judaism. while emil g. hirsch, a reform rabbi from chicago, spoke about the need to overcome parochial differences and create one world religion, other jewish representatives used the occasion to defend 1 for examples of such encounters, see lawrence g. charap, "accept the truth from whomsoever gives it: jewishprotestant dialogue, interfaith alliance and pluralism, 1880-1910," american jewish history, volume 89, number 3 (september 2001) 261-178. 2 on the world parliament of religion, see marcus braybooke, pilgrimage of hope: one hundred years of global interfaith dialogue (new york: crossroad, 1992). conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ariel cp1-18 ariel, interfaith dialogue and the golden age ariel cp 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr judaism against what they considered to be erroneous and degrading christian views. in the wake of the wpr, some liberal jewish and protestant religious leaders further engaged in dialogue. rabbi hirsch and his protestant colleague, jenkins lloyd jones, a unitarian minister and an architect of the wpr, were particularly committed to interfaith dialogue, for the most part demonstrating respect towards each other‟s faiths. 3 while the wpr gave judaism a voice, and put its representatives on the podium with other leaders of world religions and in spite of some attempts at pursuing the dialogue, its long-range effects were more limited. in theory, the unprecedented conference reflected a sense of respect for and recognition of all religions. however, at this stage, even the protestant liberal activists who presided over the wpr did not really view non-protestant religions as equal to their faiths. 4 influenced by theories of religious evolution, which prevailed in the late nineteenth century, liberal protestants had put their faith at the top of the religious evolutionary ladder. 5 in spite of their relative openness to dialogue and their more critical reading of their own sacred scriptures, liberal christians before world war i held to a triumphalist vision of christianity, which they saw as a faith destined to eventually become the world's all-encompassing religion. additionally, the protestants who participated in the wpr were among the most liberal christians at that time, in some ways ahead of their time. the liberals who led the event drew fire from more conservative protestants, who strongly objected to theological dialogues with nonprotestants on seemingly equal terms. 6 in the conservative protestant view, only those persons who had accepted jesus as their savior would be "saved" and could expect eternal life. the conservative protestants, who were organizing at that time as a “fundamentalist” camp, in opposition to the liberals, insisted that protestants should look at members of other religious traditions exclusively through missionary lenses and concentrate on spreading the christian gospel among non-christians instead of wasting precious time and resources on dubious dialogues. 7 influenced by a more literal reading of the bible, conservative protestants saw special merit in evangelizing the jews. they were not alone—numerous western christian groups in europe and america were busy propagating christianity among the jews all over the globe. 8 christian missionary activity caused much resentment among jewish leaders, who viewed the missions as a demonstration of christian contempt towards judaism and jews. a number of jewish religious leaders in germany, britain and america of the late nineteenth century were busy defending judaism against what they considered to be unjustified defamation resulting from the unwillingness of christians to relate to judaism as a legitimate faith. 9 however, reform jewish participants in 3 charap, “accept the truth,” the jewish encounter with protestant america (urbana: university of illinois press, 1990), 130-132. 4 cf. martin e. marty, modern american religion, vol. 1, the irony of it all, 1893-1919 (chicago: university of chicago press, 1886), 17-24. 5 on the prevalence of such theories, see, for example, eric j sharpe, comparative religion: a history (chicago: open court, 1986) 47-71; j. samuel preus, explaining religion: criticism and theory from bodin to freud (new haven: yale university press) 1977. 6 cf. marty, modern american religion, 1, 22. arno c. gaebilein, christianity or religion? (new york: our hope, 1912). 7 for example, arno gaebelein, christianity or religion? 8 yaakov ariel, evangelizing the chosen people: missions to the jews in america 1880-2000 (chapel hill: university of north carolina press, 2000) 9-78. 9 for example, yaakov ariel, "christianity through reform eyes: kaufmann kohler's scholarship on christianity," american jewish history, volume 89, number 2 (june 2001) 181-192. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ariel cp1-18 ariel, interfaith dialogue and the golden age ariel cp 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the dialogue, on their part, also promoted a triumphalist jewish vision of the future according to which judaism stood at the top of the religious evolutionary ladder and would gradually become the one universal world religion. already at this early stage, certain characteristics of the dialogue were laid out. many of the issues discussed were not spiritual or theological, yet the dialogue between jews and non-jews was entrusted to clergymen. representing judaism and the jewish community in dialogue with representatives of other faiths would become an important component of rabbis' work in europe and america and would add to the prestige of the rabbinate. rabbis, including those serving as leaders or functionaries of jewish organizations, would become the representatives of judaism and jewish causes vis a vis other faiths as well as society at large. another feature of the dialogue that revealed itself was that willingness to meet with jewish representatives and dialogue with jews did not necessarily mean that christians accepted judaism as a religion equal to their own, or that jews gave up on triumphalist elements of their faith, to say nothing about generations-old bitterness towards christianity and christian attitudes towards judaism. christian participants in the dialogue would continue to be representatives of liberal wings of their faith, while most jewish participants at this early stage of the dialogue were reform rabbis or rabbis of the “historical school,” or the fledgling conservative movement. yet, contrary to a prevailing myth, orthodox rabbis and communities were also dialoguing with christians. 10 while some attempts at dialogue took place in continental europe, developments there were be more limited and the achievements of the early dialogue, as limited as they were, took place in the english speaking world. while the very attempts at dialogue during that period should be viewed as a form of good will, it seems that both jews and christians were not yet ready for such a transformation. matters changed in the following decades. systematic dialogue during times of tragedy: the 1920s-1940s attempts at dialogue and cooperation in the english-speaking world took a new turn in the 1920s, leading to more permanent results. following world war i, the triumphalist notions of both protestants and jews began to erode, and a number of liberal protestant and jewish thinkers would begin offering each other an amount of recognition and appreciation. there was also an advancement of a more systematic and institutionalized dialogue. in 1924, roman catholic, protestant, and jewish activists in the united states established the committee on good will. the motivation for the creation of the committee was more social than theological and had to do with the rise of hate groups in the public life of english-speaking nations, a reality that alarmed roman catholics and jews, who were often targets of such attacks, as well as some liberal protestants who were also concerned. 11 similar attempts were taking place in other englishspeaking countries. the first national council of christians and jews (nccj) was formed in england in 1924, even before the establishment of the american nccj in 1928. 12 while the committee on good will concentrated on fighting bigotry, the nccj concentrated its efforts on improving the relationship between jews and christians and acted as a major vehicle for dialogue between representatives of protestant churches and the roman catholic church and 10 for example, charap, "accept the truth from whosoever gives it." 11 benny kraut, “a wary collaboration: jews, catholics, and the protestant goodwill movement,” in between the times: the travail of the protestant establishment in america, 1900-1960, edited by william r. hutchinson (cambridge: cambridge university press, 1989) 193-230. 12 on interfaith dialogue in britain, see marcus braybooke, a history of the council of christians and jews (london: vallentine mitchell, 1991); dan cohn-sherbok, the future of jewish dialogue (lewiston, new york: edwin mellen press, 1999). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ariel cp1-18 ariel, interfaith dialogue and the golden age ariel cp 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr jewish religious leaders. in these institutionalized efforts, protestant participants came from mainline churches associated with the federal council of churches of christ in america, in which conservative churches did not take part. while interfaith dialogue did not bring about, at this time, a full recognition of judaism, it offered, in the english-speaking countries, permanent frameworks and started a process that eventually would bring about mutual recognition as well as improvement in the relationship between christian and jewish communities of faith. this more amiable spirit points to a more open and tolerant atmosphere in the english-speaking world. it should also be attributed, at least in part, to the influence of the old testament or hebrew bible on the english mind. the avant-garde role of english-speaking nations is evident when looking at the deteriorating relationship between christians and jews in continental europe during the period. while the interfaith dialogue progressed, the developments in the relationships between christians and jews were far from ideal. during the 1920s and 1930s, virulent antisemitism progressed all over the globe. even in english-speaking countries a number of christian groups and individuals joined in attacking jews, blaming them for the world's problems. this included french speakers and afrikaners in canada and south africa, although many of the defamers were english speakers. one of the most noted american roman catholic clergymen during the period, father charles coughlin, a pioneer of radio preaching, used his radio program as a vehicle to attack the jews and blame them for the troubles of the age. 13 the catholic coughlin was not alone, as a number of protestant leaders and laymen also blamed the jews. henry ford, sr. financed the distribution of anti-semitic publications, including an english translation of the protocols of the elders of zion, a fabricated document according to which the jews were conspiring to take over the entire world. 14 protestant ministers who promoted a reactionary political agenda, such as gerald l. k. smith, included attacks on jews in their rhetoric. 15 the rise of organized anti-jewish rhetoric and policies brought jewish organizations to institutionalize their involvement with interfaith dialogue. realizing that building a good relationship with christian groups was of utmost importance, they turned it into one of the items on their agenda. groups such as the american jewish committee, american jewish congress, canadian jewish congress, world jewish congress, the board of deputies, or the anti-defamation league, made it their business to engage in interfaith dialogue, their leaders serving as representatives in interfaith forums. christian representatives in the dialogue were often sympathetic to jewish feelings. however, they did not necessarily represent their denominations as a whole. while opposed to bigotry, the mainstream christian denominations of the time, not to mention the more conservative churches, were far from recognizing judaism as a legitimate faith. for the most part, the standing of mainstream churches at that time was that while christians should treat jews benevolently, judaism was not equal to christianity and could not offer its members spiritual comfort, moral guidelines, and salvation for their souls. not only conservative groups, but mainstream christian churches as well, continued their efforts at evangelizing jews. not surprisingly, the missions became a major issue brought up whenever christians and jews dialogued. from the jewish point of view, christian attempts at evangelizing jews were a stumbling block to a relationship of trust and goodwill. they could not accept the idea that christians 13 jay p. dolan, the american catholic experience (garden city, new york: image books, 1985) 403-404; mary christine athans, the coughlin-fahey connection: father charles e. coughlin, father denis fahey, c.s.sp., and religious anti-semitism in the united states, 1938-1954 (new york: peter lang, 1991). 14 neil baldwin, henry ford and the jews: the mass production of hate (new york: public affairs, 2001). 15 on gerald l. k. smith and the jews during the period, see glen jeansonne, gerald l. k. smith, minister of hate (new haven: yale university press, 1988). on the rise of anti-semitism in america during the period, see leonard dinerstein, antisemitism in america (new york: oxford university press, 1994) 48-149; frank e. eakin, what price prejudice: christian antisemitism in america (new york: stimulus, 1998), 95-100. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ariel cp1-18 ariel, interfaith dialogue and the golden age ariel cp 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr could sincerely express respect towards jews while at the same time seeking to convert them away from their ancestral faith. committed to an improvement in the relationship between christianity and judaism, christian participants in the dialogue would begin distancing themselves from the efforts to evangelize jews. 16 an early proponent of a new liberal attitude that recognized judaism as a legitimate religious tradition was the unitarian minister john haynes holmes of the community church in new york. 17 holmes, who advocated a progressive social and political outlook, became a close friend of steven s. wise, an independent reform rabbi who shared holmes' social agenda. as early as the late 1920s the influential minister was relating to judaism as a religion that deserved respect and as a faith able to offer its adherents spiritual content and moral guidance. 18 a more systematic promotion of the same opinions was offered by reinhold niebuhr, one of the leading protestant theologians in the english-speaking world between the 1930s and 1960s. his was a groundbreaking outlook, on the part of a central christian figure, that offered recognition and acceptance to judaism as a religious tradition equal in worth to christianity. niebuhr, who grew up in the german-american evangelical church, worked for a number of years as a minister in a working-class neighborhood in detroit. in the course of his work, he encountered socially-active jewish religious leaders and visited jewish congregations. rejecting the triumphalist christian protestant attitudes that had prevailed before world war i, he concluded that jews had high moral standards and social consciousness and were therefore not in need of the gospel. consequently, he militated against the propagation of the christian gospel among the jews. niebuhr's attitude, which he expressed as early as 1926, signified a revolution in christian protestant thinking about jews and judaism. with few exceptions, mainstream protestant theologians and church councils followed a traditional christian line, constructed by the church fathers in the early centuries of christianity. having rejected their messiah, the jews lost their position as the covenant people, god's first nation. according to that view, god's promises to israel were inherited by the christian church, and judaism, as a separate faith from christianity, had no reason to exist except as a group holding witness to the triumph of christianity. niebuhr pioneered an approach that accepted the legitimacy of a separate jewish existence alongside christianity and the idea that jews, holding a valid religious tradition of their own, did not have to convert to christianity. his pioneering outlook posed an alternative to traditional christian attitude towards judaism. moving to serve as a professor at union theological seminary in new york, where he advocated a neo-orthodox theology of “christian realism,” the socially progressive niebuhr founded christianity and crisis, a journal promoting christian social activism. niebuhr became a supporter of zionism and in the early 1940s helped found the christian council for palestine, which mustered american christian protestant support for the establishment of a jewish state in what was then british palestine. 19 16 kraut, “a wary collaboration: jews, catholics, and the protestant goodwill movement,” 210. 17 see, for example, john haynes holmes, judaism and christianity (new york: community pulpit, 1928); stephen wise, challenging years: the autobiography of stephen wise (new york: c. p. putnam, sons, 1948), picture on p. 169. holmes spoke at the 25th anniversary of the free synagogue in new york. 18 on the friendship between holmes and wise, see stephan s. wise: servant of the people, selected letters, edited by carl hermann voss (philadelphia: the jewish publication society of america, 1969), 125, 143, 159; john haynes holmes, the sensible man's view of religion, 174-175. 19 on niebuhr and his attitude toward jews, the idea of missionizing them and the zionist movement, see reinhold niebuhr, “the rapprochment between jews and christians,” christian century, january 7, 1926, 9-11; reinhold niebuhr, “jews after the war,” nation, february 21, 1942, 214-16; february 28, 1942, 253-55. see also dan rice, “reinhold niebuhr and judaism, journal of the american academy of religion 45 (march 1977), 101-146; egal studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ariel cp1-18 ariel, interfaith dialogue and the golden age ariel cp 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr during the same years, a number of jewish thinkers also developed more open attitudes on the relationship between judaism and other faiths. in the years following world war i, the triumphalist classical reform jewish theology of the late nineteenth century weakened considerably, if it did not disappear completely. a younger generation of reform thinkers opened up to christianjewish equality as never before. few followed stephen wise when he called upon jews to adopt jesus as one of their own, or mordecai kaplan's reconstructionist theology, which suggested that jews give up on their claim to be the chosen people and move to bless god for having chosen them together with all other nations. 20 but like some of their christian counterparts, a number of jewish thinkers were more open to further recognition and dialogue. growing recognition following world war ii holmes' and niebuhr's positions were a minority opinion, the majority of mainline christians not yet accepting the stance adopted by the progressive ministers, but matters changed after world war ii. the spirit created by the war, including the camaraderie that developed between jewish and non-jewish soldiers serving in the armed forces during the war, as well as between jewish, protestant, and catholic chaplains, helped change the relationships between the faiths. the struggle against nazism made racist anti-semitism significantly less acceptable in polite western societies, and such virulent forms of anti-jewish agitation decreased significantly in europe and america during the post-war years. the social and economic changes that came about in the years following the war were also congenial to progress in the relationship between the faiths. in america, canada, britain and elsewhere, many jews moved from the working class and immigrant quarters into the middle classes and suburbia. to a growing number of christians, jews seemed like ordinary law-abiding middle-class citizens, not to be blamed for social, political, or economic problems. 21 the new atmosphere, which spelled more acceptances, brought about changes on the theological level as well. more protestant thinkers followed reinhold niebuhr in advocating the idea that jews were not in need of the christian gospel and had a vital religious tradition of their own to sustain them. during the 1950s-1960s, pro-dialogue groups within mainline churches, such as the presbyterian church usa or the united methodist church, gained the upper hand, and a growing number of protestant denominations decided that they had no more interest in allocating money and manpower to evangelizing jews. in new york, a presbyterian and jewish congregations shared the same house of worship, serving as both the village presbyterian church and the village temple. in the atmosphere created by such an experiment there was less room for the traditional christian replacement theology and the missionary agenda. 22 feldman, “reinhold niebuhr and the jews,” jewish social studies 46 (summer/fall 1984), 292-302; richard wrightman fox, reinhold niebuhr: a biography (new york: pantheon books, 1985); egal feldman, “american protestant theologians on the frontier of jewish-christian relations, 1922-1982,” in anti-semitism in american history, edited by david a. gerber (urbana: university of illinois press, 1986), 363-85; eyal naveh, “the hebraic foundation of the christian faith, according to reinhold niebuhr,” judaism 41 (winter 1992), 37-56. 20 on wise's controversial sermons, see michael a. meyer, response to modernity: a history of the reform movement in judaism (new york: oxford university press, 1980) 302. on kaplan and the early reconstructionist movement, see richard libowitz, mordecai m. kaplan and the development of reconstructionism (new york: edwin mellen press, 19830; mel scult, judaism faces the twentieth century: a biography of mordecai m. kaplan (detroit: wayne state university press, 1994) 21 glazer, american judaism, 106-128. 22 ben merson, “the minister, the rabbi and their house of god,” collier's, february 17, 1951, 27, 36-37. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ariel cp1-18 ariel, interfaith dialogue and the golden age ariel cp 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr paradoxically, the cold war enhanced the atmosphere of interfaith reconciliation as it helped legitimize middle class religious expressions in all their varieties, including judaism, in the american, and, at times, european public arenas. the united states and its western allies were engaged during the 1950s in an intensive global struggle and ideological debate with communism. participation in religious life became equated with the "american way." in america, jews participated in the spirit of the age, building hundreds of suburban synagogues, architecturally in line with the tastes and values of the period. dwight eisenhower, whose presidency took place during the period, expressed the new mood when he stated that he expected good americans to be church or synagogue goers. judaism became, in the 1950s, one of the three “public religions” of america. 23 dialoguing between jews and christians intensified and took a variety of forms. in new york, for example, jewish, protestant, and catholic clergymen operated a radio program together. the scope of participation in the dialogue also enlarged considerably during the period. while at the turn of the century attempts at systematic dialogue were carried out mostly by representatives of the liberal wings of judaism and christianity, interfaith dialogue in the 1950s reached the mainstream of the religious communities. in new york, for example, cardinal francis spellman, the roman catholic leader of the archdiocese of new york, made interfaith dialogue and reconciliation between the faiths a high priority. in britain, clergymen of the church of england, such as james parkes (1896-1981), were active in organizing christianjewish meetings and theological exchanges, expressing recognition and approval of judaism. on the jewish side, leaders and activists of the reform and conservative movements played a major role in the reinvigorated dialogue. orthodox jewish leaders were more reluctant to take an active part in the dialogue, although in a number of countries, including britain, france and south africa, they were often the major, if not the only, rabbinical representatives. influenced by the opinions of yosef dov soloveichik, many orthodox institutions and leaders (but not all) asserted that while civic cooperation between members of different faiths was acceptable, theological give and take was forbidden. ultra-orthodox jews would not take part in the dialogue. christian and jewish religious leaders also participated in mutual political interfaith initiatives. the most remarkable interfaith activity of that kind took place in the context of the american civil rights movement. 24 they encountered in such groups many familiar faces, white protestants and catholics, as well as black leaders and activists, most of them clergymen. 25 the mutual efforts created at times personal friendships and a sense of camaraderie. 26 the improved relationship between the faiths made open anti-semitism in western societies less culturally acceptable, but more covert forms of anti-jewish sentiments still ran strong. a sociological survey conducted at the initiative of the anti-defamation league in the early 1960s discovered that prejudices against jews were prevalent among the majority of christians in america, and were especially strong among members of the more conservative christian groups. members of groups taking part in the dialogue with jews were relatively more tolerant. 27 23 glazer, american judaism, 106-28); will herberg, protestant, catholic, jew (new york: anchor books, 1960). 24 stuart svonkin, jews against prejudice: american jews and the fight for civil liberties, (new york: columbia university press, 1997). 25 clayborne carson, "the politics of relations between african-americans and jews," blacks and jews: alliances and arguments (new york: delacorte press, 1994) 131-143; murray friedman, what went wrong?: the creation and collapse of the black-jewish alliance (new york: free press). 26 cf. susannah heschel and abraham joshua heschel, "introduction" in moral grandeur and spiritual audacity, edited by susannah heschel (new york: noonday press, 1996). 27 charles y. glock and rodney stark, christian beliefs and anti-semitism (new york: harper torchbooks, 1966). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ariel cp1-18 ariel, interfaith dialogue and the golden age ariel cp 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the advancement of the dialogue during the 1960s-1970s the 1960s marked an important turning point in the relationships between jews and christians in western societies and beyond. the movement of interfaith dialogue, which began gaining momentum already in the 1950s, was strongly enhanced in the mid and late 1960s by revolutionary developments in the relationship between the religious faiths that had taken place on an international level. the changes were brought about in part by the rise of a christian ecumenical movement, which revolutionized the relationship between different christian churches and between christianity and other faiths as well. in 1948, representatives of mainline protestant churches gathered in amsterdam and established the world council of churches (wcc). the aim of this global ecumenical institution was christian cooperation, reconciliation and, as an ideal, unity. the ecumenical spirit it promoted eventually affected interfaith relations as well. 28 in its early days the wcc was composed primarily of mainline, mostly national, protestant churches, but its membership grew to include greek orthodox, middle eastern, and third-world churches as well. while in its early years the wcc promoted missions among jews, the commitment of the member churches, and of the organization as a whole, to such an agenda declined sharply. by the 1960s-1970s, most churches affiliated with the wcc changed their approach, abandoning missions, and emphasizing instead dialogue and recognition. 29 the most profound breakthrough on a global scale in interfaith relations that strongly affected the relationship between the religious communities in america occurred during and following vatican ii, the roman catholic general council that convened intermittently between 1962 and 1965. the council was initiated by pope john xxiii (1881-1963), who wished to reform the church, change its relationship to contemporary culture, and bring about an historical reconciliation between the roman catholic church and other faiths. the council attempted to put to rest some of the old hostilities between the different christian churches, as well as between christianity and other religions, and promoted an atmosphere of forgiveness and acceptance. in its first stages, the council concentrated on inner reform and intra-christian relationships. the council, its significance, and the potential for jewish-christian relations were not lost on jewish leaders and a number of jewish organizations lobbied for the inclusion of judaism and the jewish people in the council‟s agenda for reconciliation. the anti-defamation league and the american jewish congress, for example, sent representatives to rome to keep in touch with the council and its leaders. golda meyer, israel‟s minister of foreign affairs, also tried to send an envoy to the council, but was rejected. influenced by the developments in the relations between the faiths prior to the council, a number of catholic bishops and dignitaries, who devoted their careers to the advancement of catholic-jewish relations, such as monsignor john m. oestrreicher (19041993), were instrumental in advancing the reconciliatory agenda regarding the jews. 30 among other initiatives, he served in effect as a liaison for jewish representatives at the council. toward its very last sessions, vatican ii came out with an historic resolution on the relationship between christianity and judaism. among other things, it stated: "the church…cannot forget that she received the revelation of the old testament through the people with whom god in his 28 r. m. brown, the ecumenical revolution (london: burns oates, 1967); l. e. dirk, the ecumenical movement (new york: world council of churches, 1969); marcus braybrooke, inter faith organizations, 1893-1979 (new york: edwin mellen press, 1980). 29 "first assembly of the wcc, amsterdam, holland, 1948, the christian approach to the jews," in helga croner (ed.), stepping stones to further jewish-christian relations (new york: stimulus books, 1977), 72-85. 30 a convert who emigrated to the u.s.a. from austria, john m. oestreicher founded at seton hall university an institute for jewish-christian relationship. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ariel cp1-18 ariel, interfaith dialogue and the golden age ariel cp 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr inexpressible mercy concluded the ancient covenant…the jews should not be presented as rejected or accused by god." 31 the document also warned against the accusation of deicide, the claim that the jews collectively and in all generations were responsible for the killing of jesus, whom the christian tradition has viewed as the messiah and the son of god. 32 the resolution was revolutionary, opening a new phase in jewish-christian relationships and serving as a stepping stone for further dialogue and additional declarations on the part of christian churches in their relation to jews. 33 the catholic church's declaration, which represented the opinions of the church‟s elite of the mid-1960s, influenced not only the attitudes of the ranks and file of roman catholics around the globe. it also gave impetus to the relations of protestant groups and, to a much lesser extent, orthodox churches. a number of protestant churches as well as ecumenical groups followed vatican ii in issuing statements that came to clear the air in relation to the jews, including a denial of the deicide charge. some of these statements went much further theologically than that of the vatican ii council in their attempt to bring about reconciliation with the jewish people. 34 during and after vatican ii, liberal protestants proclaimed—sometimes more emphatically than the vatican ii document—that the jews were not guilty of the murder of jesus. among the first protestant groups to issue such a statement was the synod of bishops of the episcopal church in the united states: the charge of deicide against the jews is a tragic misunderstanding of the inner significance of the crucifixion. to be sure, jesus was crucified by some soldiers at the instigation of some jews. but, this cannot be construed as imputing corporate guilt to every jew in jesus' day, much less the jewish people in subsequent generations. simple justice alone proclaims the charge of a corporate or inherited curse on the jewish people to be false. 35 the national council of the churches of christ in the u.s.a., an ecumenical, largely liberal organization, to which conservative protestant denominations have taken exception, issued the following statement: “especially reprehensible are the notions that the jews, rather than all mankind, are responsible for the death of jesus christ, and god has for this reason rejected his covenant people.” 36 both protestants and catholics were motivated, at least in part, by a sense of guilt over the historical role of christian anti-jewish accusations in bringing about the mass murder of jews during world war ii. numerous christian thinkers reached a realization that nazi hatred of jews 31 croner (ed.), stepping stones to further jewish-christian relations), 1-2. 32 on the council and its attitude toward jews, see arthur gilbert, the vatican council and the jews (cleveland: world publishing company, 1968). 33 cf. croner, ed., stepping stones; helga croner, ed., more stepping stones to jewish christian relations (new york: stimulus books, 1985). 34 see such declarations as croner, ed., stepping stones to further jewish-christian relations and the theology of the churches and the jewish people: statements by the world council of churches and its member churches (geneva: world council of churches, 1988). 35 croner, ed., stepping stones to further jewish-christian relations, 87. 36 croner, ed., stepping stones to further jewish-christian relations, 87. for similar statements in the 1970s and 1980s, see helga croner (ed.), more stepping stones to jewish-christian relations, 86. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ariel cp1-18 ariel, interfaith dialogue and the golden age ariel cp 10 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr had been fed by ages of anti-semitic incitement stemming from christianity's adverse and hostile attitude towards judaism and jews. 37 one immediate result of the new atmosphere in interfaith relationships affected missions. the roman catholic church as well as mainline protestants churches decided to shut their missionary enterprises among jews. 38 they were influenced in no small measure by the strong jewish objection to the missionary activity which jews continuously voiced in the midst of the evolving dialogue. missions and recognition, jews insisted, did not go hand in hand. in addition, a new attitude gained more ground, in christian liberal circles, towards the jewish heritage. the position reinhold niebuhr advocated as early as the 1920s became much more accepted by liberal christian thinkers. it was developed further during the 1960s and 1970s with great vigor by liberal protestant theologians, mostly in english speaking countries, such as roy a. eckardt, paul m. van buren, and franklin littell, as well as by catholic thinkers such as david tracy and john t. pawlikowski. 39 for the most part, the liberal segments of western christianity gave up on the claim to be the sole possessors of the road to salvation. they accepted the idea that other churches and even non-christian religions could offer moral guidelines and spiritual meaning to their adherents, judaism not excluded. evangelizing the jews remained the declared agenda of the more conservative protestant churches that did not take part in the dialogue, such as the lutheran church-missouri synod or the southern baptist convention. 40 the conservatives have continuously insisted that christianity is the only viable religion and only its adherents have truly found the path to salvation. such has also remained the position of most orthodox, middle eastern and third world churches. a growing number of protestant and catholic theologians came to characterize judaism as a religious community in covenant with god. in america, these have included paul ricoeur, a. roy eckardt, paul m. van buren, and franklin h. littell, to name just a few of the more noted ones. 41 this outlook, which places judaism on an equal spiritual and moral footing with christianity, became the province of liberals in english-speaking countries more than of european and thirdworld christians. within german protestantism, for example, this attitude has developed in a slower and more limited fashion, while in the third world churches it was completely rejected. 42 the new climate of interfaith dialogue embodied a greater degree of mutual recognition and legitimacy, motivating a keen christian attempt to eradicate prejudices against the jews and establishing a new basis for a relationship between the faiths. having acquitted the jews of deicide, the years-old accusation of having killed jesus, liberal protestants and catholics went a step further to clear the atmosphere of hatred that this and other similar charges had created. 37 for example, franklin littell, the crucifixion of the jews (new york: harper and row, 1975); rosemary ruether, faith and fratricide: the theological roots of antisemitism (new york: seabury press, 1974). 38 on the debates within the lutheran churches, for example, see arthur gilbert, “new trends in the protestant mission to the jew,” conservative judaism 19 (spring 1965), 51-56. 39 littell, the crucifixion of the jews; roy a. eckardt, elder and younger brother: the encounter of jews and christians (new york: scribner's, 1967); paul m. van buren, discerning the way: a theology of the jewish christian realities (new york: seabury press, 1980). 40 bruce j. lieske, witnessing to the jewish people (st. louis, missouri: board for evangelism, the lutheran church, missouri synod, 1975), esp. 11-17, 46-48. 41 see, for example, franklin h. littell, the crucifixion of the jews; a. roy eckardt, jews and christians: the contemporary meeting (bloomington: indiana university press, 1986); paul van buren, a theology of the jewishchristian reality, 3 vols. (san francisco: harper and row, 1980, 1983, 1988). the french-born paul ricoeur labored for many years at the university of chicago. 42 charlotte klein, anti-judaism in christian theology (philadelphia: fortress press, 1978). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ariel cp1-18 ariel, interfaith dialogue and the golden age ariel cp 11 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr in the late 1960s, protestants and catholics systematically examined textbooks that had been used in their religious schools and removed passages with anti-semitic overtones or that drew a negative portrait of the jews. a 1972 survey found that the charge of deicide had almost disappeared from christian textbooks in america. 43 not only liberal churches, but conservative ones as well became more sensitive to the manner in which they presented jews in their publications. this does not mean that the old accusations against jews disappeared in christian popular culture. for example, jews have continued to be portrayed as the slayers of jesus or as the motivating cause behind his death in musical and theatrical works, such as passion plays. in jesus christ superstar, a stage production of the 1970s, the jews cry out: “crucify him, crucify him.” in the 2000s, mel gibson‟s film, the passion of the christ, which adopts the narrative and message of traditional passion shows, presented the jewish crowd as demanding the crucifixion of jesus from an innocent roman governor. such negative presentations of jews, which have gone on for long centuries, and have deep cultural roots, have not been easy to eradicate. no less daring than clearing the textbooks of negative images of jews have been theological works carried out by liberal christian theologians who undertook to examine the corpus of christian writings in order to acquire a more profound understanding of the ideas and claims that had produced the negative images of the jews. a number of christian theologians, historians, biblical scholars, and writers have traced the negative attitudes adopted toward the jews in the early centuries of christianity, or to theologians in the middle-ages and the reformation. 44 christian theologians have dealt with the significance of the holocaust for christianity. 45 though sensitive to the suffering that had been the lot of the jews, christians tried to ascribe a universal significance to the murder of millions of innocent people, prompting at times an uneasy feeling among jewish participants in the dialogue. 46 perhaps the most impressive development that followed the interfaith dialogue has been the growing curiosity among christian thinkers, scholars, clergymen, and students about jewish history and texts. many christian scholars have come to view judaism as a tradition worth studying, among other things because it sheds light on the history of christianity. christian and jewish scholars have, since the 1960s, paid increasing attention to the jewish origins of christianity. since the 1960s a number of influential scholars have pointed to the jewish roots of the christian tradition. turn of the twenty-first century scholarship of early christianity tends to speak about rabbinical judaism and christianity as two traditions that developed during the same 43 gerald strober, portrait of the elder brother (new york: american jewish committee and the national conference of christians and jews, 1972). 44 for example, rosemary ruther, faith and fratricide: the theological root of antisemitism (new york: seabury press, 1974); james carroll, constantine's sword: the church and the jews (new york: houghton mifflin company, 2001); john t. pawlikowski, christ in the light of the christian jewish dialogue (new york: paulist press, 1982). such studies often defended the new testament against the charge of anti-semitism, claiming that negative attitudes towards jews do not appear in the scriptures, but only in later church commentaries on the new testament. see david flusser, “jewish-christian relations in the past and present,” judaism and early christianity (tel aviv: siffriat hapoalim, 1979), 454 (hebrew). 45 for one of many examples, see alice l. eckardt and a. roy eckardt, long night's jouney into day (detroit: wayne state university press, 1988). 46 eva fleisher, auschwitz—beginning of a new era: reflections on the holocaust (new york: ktav, 1977); abraham j. peck (ed.), jews and christians after the holocaust (philadelphia: fortress press, 1982); stephen r. haynes, reluctant witnesses: jews and the christian imagination (louisville, kentucky: westminster john knox press, 1995), 120-140; alan l berger, harry cargas and susan nowak, eds., the continuing agony: from the carmelite convent to the crosses at auschwitz (new york: global publications, 2002). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ariel cp1-18 ariel, interfaith dialogue and the golden age ariel cp 12 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr period, emerging from the same cradle. 47 christian scholars have increasingly taken an interest in the study of jewish history, thought, mysticism, and religious law from the post-biblical period to the present. jewish studies have become part of the curriculum at protestant and catholic theological seminaries, at times taught by jewish scholars who have studied at rabbinical seminaries or jewish or israeli universities. in divinity schools, theological seminaries, and departments of religious studies, "old testament theology" has often changed into "hebrew bible" and christian students have come to read biblical hebrew in the sephardic pronunciation prevalent in modern-day israel. the openness on the part of christians towards the study of judaism has affected american and european universities, and at times, asian universities as well. hundreds of christian and secular universities have incorporated the study of judaism as a discipline of study during the same period. but not only theologians and academicians participated in interfaith dialogue. in the atmosphere of reconciliation that developed in the aftermath of the vatican council, numerous regional groups of christians and jews organized, mostly in the american continent and europe. liberal and mainstream protestants of various denominations, together with roman catholics and, at times, greek orthodox and even (albeit rarely) monophysite churches have formed meeting groups with jews, discussing issues of mutual concern, and engaging in interfaith community projects. at times, communities would invite each other to visit their sanctuaries and participate as observers in the services. visiting other communities of faith has become a standard feature of sunday school curricula in liberal jewish and christian communities in america. 48 likewise, it became quite usual for protestant or catholic congregations to pay visits to jewish synagogues during services. until the 1960s, synagogues had been exclusive jewish territories, with non-jews showing little interest in visiting jewish houses of worship. in the 1980s and 1990s, this reality changed, and synagogues became attractive to non-jews, who, in groups or as individuals, began visiting synagogue services in relatively large numbers. while some of the visitors have come at the invitation of jewish friends and others have come as part of interfaith visits or study tours, many have come out of curiosity or in search of a new community of faith. in the open market of religions of the latter decades of the 20th century, especially in the united states, judaism has become, almost in spite of itself, an option that many spiritual seekers, most of them from educated middle-class christian backgrounds, have seriously considered. by the turn of the 21 st century, tens of thousands of christians have come to celebrate passover seders, often in communal events organized by their churches. in many countries, christians have organized councils of christians and jews, affiliated with the world council of christians and jews, which was established in the dialogue era of vatican ii and has national councils throughout the world affiliated with it. 49 although the interfaith dialogue has had remarkable achievements in decreasing negative stereotypes and improving relationships between jews and christians, it would be wrong to describe the attitude of mainstream christianity toward the jewish people as merely that of amity and friendship. jewish observers have noted that official recognition did not necessarily equal full acceptance, while others have complained that old anti-jewish sentiments have at times been 47 for example, jon d. levenson, the death and resurrection of the beloved son: the transformation of child sacrifice in judaism and christianity, (new haven: yale university press, 1995). 48 an example would be the midrasha in durham, north carolina. 49 see william w. simpson and ruth weyl, the international council of christians and jews, (happenheim: international council of christians and jews, 1988); iccj news, no. 27 (autumn/winter 2002). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ariel cp1-18 ariel, interfaith dialogue and the golden age ariel cp 13 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr replaced by anti-israeli ones. 50 during the same years of the rapid advancement of dialogue and reconciliation, especially after the 1967, many liberal christians have become pro-arab, strongly criticizing israeli policies. ironically, the same churches and organizations that take part in the dialogue and have come to recognize judaism as a legitimate faith have become supporters of anti-israeli lines. this has become increasingly evident since the 1970s, as liberal christian groups and organizations, including the world council of churches, developed a strong commitment to national liberation movements, identifying the israelis as oppressors. 51 in addition, many christian denominations have realized that their middle eastern co-religionists were mostly arabs. in the latter decades of the twentieth century, churches in the third world have gained greater influence in international church councils, such as the world council of churches, thus exercising influence on american and european christian opinions as well. 52 the relations of liberal christian churches towards jews since the late 1960s can be defined therefore as somewhat paradoxical—offering judaism growing recognition but objecting to the jewish state and its policies as well as to the political agenda of jewish organizations on middle-eastern issues. christian denominations, however, have often spoken with different voices. within the same churches, there are theologians committed to dialoguing with jews and christian-jewish reconciliation, who strive to build an appreciation for judaism in their communities. the same churches also include activists and theologians who are concerned over palestinian rights, view israel as an oppressor, and who do not necessarily take interest in christian-jewish relationships. jewish representatives in the dialogue, especially during the 1960s-1970s, have often seen it as their mission to include israel on their agenda and to try to convince the non-jewish participants in the dialogue of the importance of the land of israel for the jewish people as well as the well-being of the jewish state. in that, they were not always successful. conservative christian dialogue with jews the relationship between conservative protestants and jews developed along somewhat different lines than the relationship between jews and liberal christians. the conservatives as a rule were more hesitant to join official dialogue groups, yet jews and conservative evangelicals have found less official means of dialogue and the attitudes of conservative evangelicals towards the jews have also undergone huge transformations throughout the twentieth century. as with liberal and mainstream christians, the attitudes of conservative evangelical protestants toward the jews have reflected the nature of this segment of christianity, its faith, and agenda. a major component of the evangelical theology is the belief that only those individuals who undergo a personal religious experience of conversion in which they accept jesus as their savior will be saved and granted eternal life. evangelical protestants are therefore committed to spreading the christian gospel world-wide. in evangelical eyes, granting legitimacy to the religious beliefs of others is an act of neglect towards them, and so conservative evangelicals do not lend themselves easily to dialoguing with representatives of other faiths. in their vision, all humanity should convert to christianity in it evangelical interpretation. conservative evangelicals 50 cf. judith hersheopf banki, christian responses to the yom kippur war: implication for christian jewish relations (new york: american jewish committee, 1974); michael lerner, the socialism of fools: antisemitism on the left (oakland: tikkun books, 1992). 51 see, for example, c. m. king, the palestinians and the church, 1: 1948-1956 (geneva: world council of churches, 1981); larry elkin, enduring witness: the churches and the palestinians (geneva: world council of churches, 1985). 52 see r. j. zwi weblowsky, “jewish-christian relations: new territories, new maps, new realities,” in otto d. kulka and paul r. mendes-flohr (eds.) judaism and christianity under the impact of national socialism (jerusalem: zalman shazar center for jewish history, 1987), 531-6. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ariel cp1-18 ariel, interfaith dialogue and the golden age ariel cp 14 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr look upon the christian bible as the message of god to humanity and as the source of authority on how to live a christian life. they have stood for what they have perceived as a literal interpretation of the bible, historically opposing more progressive schools of biblical studies. many in the evangelical camp subscribe to a pre-millennialist messianic hope in the second coming of jesus and his thousand-year reign on earth. in contrast to traditional christian claims to be "true israel," most evangelicals have viewed the jews as historical israel and the object of biblical prophecies about a glorious future, when the messiah arrives and israel is restored to its land. evangelical christians have welcomed the rise of the zionist movement and the jewish waves of immigration to palestine as "signs of the time," indicators that the current era was ending and the apocalyptic events were about to begin. 53 they have seen in the establishment of the state of israel preparation of the ground for the eventual building of the kingdom of god on earth. the arab-jewish war in 1967 had a very different effect on evangelical-jewish relationship than on liberal christian-jewish attitudes. for evangelicals, the war in which israel conquered the historical parts of jerusalem, served as a proof that israel was indeed born for a purpose, that the messianic times were near and that the jewish people would play a crucial role in the events of the end times. their support for israel increased throughout the 1970s-2000s, and they have become an important component of the pro-israel lobby in america, and other countries with growing evangelical populations. while some jews have been suspicious of conservative christians, viewing them as a threat to an open pluralistic society, and many others resented evangelical missionary activities, a number of jewish leaders and activists came to appreciate the conservative christian support. some liberal jewish and christian observers have pointed to the problematic elements of the conservative evangelical relationships with the jews. evangelical conceptions of the jewish people, though not lacking in warmth and goodwill, are not free of negative stereotypes. evangelical christians believe that until the jews accept jesus as their personal messiah they remain in a state of spiritual and moral deprivation. according to the evangelical understanding, judaism cannot grant salvation to its believers, nor can the observance of its precepts have any value or serve any purpose after christ's death on the cross. 54 a number of evangelical authors have expressed frustration that the jews had not accepted jesus as the messiah when he first appeared. had they done so, the kingdom of god upon earth would have come into being already then. the primary means for conservatives to express their faith that jews were still destined for a central role in god's plans for humanity has been to invest time and efforts in evangelizing them, as well as engage in acts of good will and welfare among jews. in conservative protestant writings, the jews often had been portrayed as the perpetrators of secular ideological and political movements such as communism, socialism, or secular humanism, which, in the conservative view, had aimed to destroy christian civilization. until the 1970s, evangelicals and jews did not really have too many opportunities to encounter each other, a fact that contributed to the perpetuation of stereotypes on both sides. 55 a study by sociologists commissioned by the anti-defamation league in the early 1960s pointed to more anti-jewish prejudices among conservative evangelicals than among liberal protestants or roman 53 cf. yaakov ariel, evangelizing the chosen people: missions to the jews in america, 1880-2000. 54 for example, timothy p. weber, living in the shadow of the second coming, (chicago: university of chicago press, 1990). 55 cf. a popular book circulated in evangelical circles, leonard c. yassen, the jesus connection: to triumph over antisemitism, with introduction by billy graham (new york: crossroad, 1986). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ariel cp1-18 ariel, interfaith dialogue and the golden age ariel cp 15 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr catholics. 56 however, a similar study initiated by the anti-defamation league in the mid-1980s showed a drastic decline in the extent of such prejudices among the conservatives. 57 this change should be accounted for by the increased evangelical interest in and involvement with jewish and israeli affairs since the arab-israeli war in 1967 and the subsequent increase in information available to evangelicals on these topics. while evangelicals have not seen judaism as a religion offering its adherents spiritual meaning or eternal salvation, scholars of this camp have also joined in searching for the roots of christianity in second temple judaism. a number of conservative institutions, such as wheaton college, have included judaic studies in their curriculum. evangelical students have visited israel, at times participating in archeological digs there. 58 conducted periodically by evangelical churches, colleges, bible schools, and pro-israel groups, visits to israel have become common features of evangelical life. while evangelicals warmed up to jews, jewish warming up to evangelicals was slower, with many jews still viewing evangelicals suspiciously. the messages of evangelical missions to the jews, and the glorified role jews play in evangelical eschatology and imagery brought about an evangelical-jewish movement: jews, who have adopted the evangelical protestant faith, yet have wished to retain their jewish identity. 59 the rather assertive movement of messianic jews or jewish believers in jesus has become an important agent in shaping the evangelical-jewish relationship. missions too are agents of shaping evangelical opinions on jews and israel, distributing material on israel among evangelical christians, and lecturing on israel in churches, and organizing tours to that country. ironically, missions to the jews and the messianic-jewish community serve as pro-jewish interest groups within the larger evangelical community, promoting support for israel and requesting a high priority to evangelization efforts among the jews. while messianic jews have strived for recognition as legitimate jews, mainstream jewish organizations have refused, as a rule, to dialogue with such groups. although conservative protestants do not recognize the legitimacy of a religious faith not founded upon the acceptance of jesus as a savior, and although jews are committed to safeguarding their continued existence as a unique community, there have been some attempts at evangelical-jewish conversations. 60 as a rule, evangelical leaders who have participated in the dialogue did not represent missionary organizations, but rather voices of intellectuals and academics within evangelical christianity. on the jewish side, participants included leaders of jewish organizations, often coming from conservative jewish groups, including orthodoxy. among the organizations established in america in the 1980s to further understanding between conservative christians and jews is the holy land fellowship of christians and jews, founded by the orthodox rabbi yehiel eckstein. eckstein has emphasized the importance of the holy land and the state of israel to jews and evangelicals alike and viewed support for israel as a common 56 charles y. glock and rodney stark, christian beliefs and anti-semitism (new york: harper torchbooks, 1966). 57 lynne lanniello, “release for press,” anti-defamation league, new york (8 january 1986). 58 cf., for example, copies of the periodical the jerusalem perspective. cf. also robert lindsey, a new approach to the synoptic gospels (jerusalem: dugit publishing house, 1971). 59 arnold g. fruchtenbaum, hebrew christianity: its theology, history and philosophy (grand rapids, michigan: baker book house, 1974); david a. rausch, messianic judaism: its history, theology and polity (new york: edwin mellen press, 1982). 60 a. james rudin and marvin r. wilson (eds.), a time to speak: the evangelical jewish encounter (grand rapids, michigan: eerdmans, 1987); marc tanenbaum, marvin r. wilson and a. james rudin, evangelical and jews in conversation on scripture, theology, and history (grand rapids, michigan: bacher book house, 1978). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ariel cp1-18 ariel, interfaith dialogue and the golden age ariel cp 16 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr basis for cooperation and understanding between the two groups. the holy land fellowship has collected increasing amounts of money for helping in the immigration and absorption of jews in israel. right-wing orthodox jews, too, have come to appreciate the conservative evangelical political agenda. rabbi daniel lapin from seattle founded in 1991 a group called toward tradition, "a national coalition of jews and christians seeking to advance the nation toward traditional, faith based, american principles of limited government, the rule of law…free markets, a strong military, and a moral public culture. 61 orthodox rabbis like lapin decided that they have more in common with conservative christians than with liberal ones. establishing such new organizations, rabbis like eckstein and lapin have created alternative dialogue groups unaffiliated with older, more institutionalized mainstreams ones. they have not been the only ones to pursue such a course. enlarging the scope of the dialogue between the late nineteenth century and the 1960s, the interfaith dialogue took place almost exclusively among christians, and between christians and jews, and concentrated on improving the relationship between the two religious traditions. in 1893 jewish rabbis sat side-by-side with hindu, buddhist, and moslem delegates at the world parliament of religions, but until the latter decades of the twentieth century there were no systematic attempts at continued dialogue between jews and members of non-christian faiths. this reality was altered in the 1960s through the 2000s. while most christian groups continued to see their relationship with the jewish community as a major item on the interfaith agenda, they wished to dialogue with representatives of other faiths as well. during the 1980s-2000s, dialogue with moslems became a major item on the christian, and to a somewhat lesser extent, the jewish interfaith agenda. christian and jewish leaders engaged more and more of their energies dialoguing with moslem leaders. such a dialogue was not an easy one. for many moslems, including those not from the middle east, jews have been associated with israel and were the supporters of a country that they often resented. especially for liberal christians, such a dialogue became urgent in the wake of the september 11, 2001 attack on the world trade center. for some of them, such a dialogue gained precedence over dialoguing with jews. in a number of christian churches, different activists, holding at times to opposing views, prefer to dialogue and promote rapprochement with either jews or moslems. although a number of jewish religious leaders raised their voice against the vilification of islam and the harassment of moslems in america, moslem leaders have often trusted christian representatives more than jewish ones. 62 during the 1980s-2000s, new modes and forums of what could be called alternative interfaith dialogue developed between jews and non-jews. a solid pro-israeli attitude on the part of jewish representatives in the more official dialogue groups has characterized the interfaith dialogue since the 1940s and intensified in the late 1960s in the wake of the 1967 war. however, in the early 1980s, in the wake of the israeli war in lebanon, a number of jews, in britain, the united states, and elsewhere, founded alternative forms of dialogue in which jewish leaders, who became critical of israeli policies, came together with christian and moslem critics of israel, attempting to promote peace negotiations or safeguard civil rights in israel and its occupied territories. 63 alternative forms of dialogue grew throughout the 1990s-2000s, correlating with larger 61 www.towardtradition.org 62 yigal schleifer, "no dialogue, only mutual distrust," the jerusalem report (september 23, 2002) 16-17. 63 on such gatherings, see otto maduro, ed., judaism, christianity and liberation (new york: orbis books, 1991). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ariel cp1-18 ariel, interfaith dialogue and the golden age ariel cp 17 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr developments within the jewish community in america, britain and other countries. on the jewish liberal side, a growing discontent with the older established representative bodies gave rise to the creation of new, alternative ones. the new israel fund, for example, has placed itself as an alternative to the veteran united jewish appeal, as a jewish fundraiser for israeli causes. it is no coincidence that the new israel fund has offered support to a number of "alternative" interfaith dialogue groups in israel. many of the participants in such activities in israel are immigrant rabbis from english speaking countries, who are affiliated with all jewish religious denominations. conclusion as the interfaith dialogue heads into the 21st century, one can look back at over a century of christian-jewish dialogue and reach some conclusions. essentially a liberal christian initiative, christians taking part in the dialogue in its early stages did not wish to resolve old-time issues. but they were willing to address current jewish-christian concerns and offer a forum to jewish and christian representatives. interfaith dialogue grew into an unprecedented movement of christian-jewish reconciliation in the decades following world war ii. at the turn of the twentieth century, the dialogue came to include discussions between jewish, christians, and representatives of other religious communities as well. while the interfaith dialogue affected the christian and jewish communities at large, it remained overwhelmingly the domain of ministers, priests, nuns and rabbis who became the official spokespersons of their communities, representing their issues, and interests. interfaith dialogue reached its zenith in the 1960s-1970s, when impressive unprecedented achievements were made in improving the relationship between christianity and judaism. this movement has, at least on the theoretical level, put to rest old accusations and animosities, bringing about more correct and tolerant relationships between the communities. centuries-old christian accusations against judaism and jews and unfavorable stereotypes were removed from sermons, textbooks, and scholarly works. for the most part, these changes took place consciously among liberal christians, although they influenced some conservative groups as well. during the 1960s-1980s, a number of christian theologians expressed an unprecedentedly generous understanding of the relationship between christianity and judaism, offering theoretical frameworks to the changes, while various councils and groups produced unprecedentedly reconciliatory statements. the dialogue has been somewhat less successful, from a jewish point of view, when its agenda turned towards the israeli-arab conflict. many liberal christians refused to tie pro-israeli sentiments with reconciliation between the faiths. paradoxically, just when the dialogue reached a historical peak bringing an unprecedented improvement in the relationship between christians and jews, it also reached a crisis. christian groups that showed willingness to transform and reverse their opinion on judaism and jews refused to accept what seemed to them as a noncritical jewish enchantment with the state of israel. at the turn of the 21st century, some jews and non-jews alike created alternative dialogue groups, in which they have voiced their more critical opinions. while interfaith relations have progressed dramatically, they have not brought about a full reconciliation between jewish and christian groups, with pockets of bitterness and suspicions remaining unresolved. not all catholics and protestants, even members of mainstream churches, have accepted the legitimacy of judaism. a series of more conservative western churches developed more positive assessments of jews, but on their own terms, which do not correspond with the liberal christian paradigm. some groups have not altered their opinions. still, the studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ariel cp1-18 ariel, interfaith dialogue and the golden age ariel cp 18 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr developments since the 1960s give room to optimism. at least in western countries, christianjewish relations have progressed remarkably. scjr 17, no. 1 (2022): 1-4 kevin p. spicer and rebecca carter-chand, eds. religion, ethnonationalism, and antisemitism in the era of the two world wars (montreal: mcgill-queen’s university press in association with the united states holocaust memorial museum, 2022), 405 pp. beth griech-polelle griechba@plu.edu pacific lutheran university, tacoma, wa 98447 this volume of essays, the result of two large-scale academic meetings, explores the role that christianity has played in the rise of ethnonationalism throughout early-mid 20th century societies. the project is ambitious, as the contributors cover areas ranging from germany to finland to the united states of america. each author examines relationships between the so-called volksgemeinschaft (german for an ethnonational community) and christianity used as a tool of either inclusion or exclusion in the community. the one consistent thread in the examination of christianity and ethnonationalism is the inclination of many christians and ethnonationalists to alienate and ostracize jews from “their” society. the chapters are helpfully arranged according to the editors’ criteria. the contributors to part one introduce theorists who disseminated themes of ethnonationalism and antisemitism. building on this theme, the authors in part two relate instances of both protestant and catholic leaders’ opting to support their countries’ ethnonationalist policies. part three offers readers some small degree of hopefulness with essays demonstrating how there were critics of ethnonationalism in various religious institutions and leadership positions. they often attempted to lessen the impact of ethnonationalism in their nations primarily by refusing to allow governments to combine religion and nationalism into a toxic mix. each part reminds historians that the combination of religion, ethnic identity, and antisemitism were a constant in the vast majority of the cases included in this volume. part one takes readers on a journey into the world of christian ethnonationalist theorists who, between world war i and world war ii, laid foundations for leaders and members of ethnonationalistic organizations. the three essays in this part cover american protestant political activist george deatherage, italian esoteric spiritualist julius evola, and reactionary european catholics. what could these very disparate people have in common? they all shared the fears that christian-based society was being threatened. charles r. gallagher argues that for deatherage, his fear of bolshevism, and more specifically “judeo-bolshevism,” pushed him to griech-polelle: spicer and carter-chand’s religion, ethnonationalism 2 found the american nationalist confederation in 1937 to combat “jewish” influences on american christian society. reactionary catholics, in an overlapping time frame, also believed the longstanding myth that jews plotted world domination. as nina valbousquet shows, they spread the forged document the protocols of the elders of zion as “proof” that everything that was deemed “bad” in modern society was emanating from a jewish threat. peter staudenmaier shows how julius evola likewise tapped into the traditions of attacking jews as the propagators of discord in italian and more broadly aryan christian civilization. although evola’s theories were more layered and complex that deatherage’s or the reactionary catholics’, all of these serve as prime examples of hostile and exclusionary views toward jews in christian-dominated societies of the time. part two takes readers on a journey that begins in germany of the 1920s and early 1930s, where catholic parish priests in the diocese of mainz in some cases openly opposed the idea that catholics could be national socialists. despite intimidation and threats of violence, kevin p. spicer, writing about the period before hitler’s seizure of power, reveals that some parish priests clearly understood that national socialist ideology was incompatible with catholic teachings. unfortunately, many of the catholic bishops and cardinals were not willing to take a firm stand on this issue, thus leading to a missed opportunity for the german catholic church to oppose the growing nazi party. this essay flows neatly into susannah heschel and shannon quigley’s essay. they underscore the attempts by theologians such as heinz weidemann to “sanitize” the bible, thus eradicating its “jewishness.” in the minds of men such as weidemann, christianity needed to be revamped as a masculine, aggressive, fighting religion (specifically fighting against the threat posed by the jews). the institute for the study and eradication of jewish influence on german church life was able to print its dejudaized gospel for a popular audience, depicting jesus as an aryan fighting against the pernicious influence of jews. much like spicer’s essay, here we see how educated elites, in this case theologians, were working to convince ordinary german christians that it was possible to reconcile christianity with national socialism. in much the same vein, rebecca carter-chand’s research reveals the ways in which much smaller denominations in germany had to negotiate both internal politics with regard to nazi policies as well as to address their international connections abroad. carterchand’s essay shows how some of these religious minority groups used their position to reach accommodations with the nazi regime, once again underscoring how aryan racial designations could be combined with christianity to offer inclusion in the nazi ethnostate. the book next shifts to chapters on finland and the independent state of croatia. in the case of finland, paavo ahonen and kirsi stjerna show how lutheran church leaders championed antisemitic publications that had permeated finnish society in the wake of the world war i. in particular, the antisemitic writings came to influence political decision-making in finland, revealing the extent of the finnish lutheran clergy’s ability to label jews as enemies of protestant finns. next, danijel matijevic illustrates the relationship between the catholic church and the 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) ustasha regime in the newly-created independent state of croatia before and during wwii. in croatia’s case, unlike in finland, a very ethnicallyand religiouslydiverse population had co-existed. however, he argues that the new government leaders were willing to go to any extremes in order to eradicate the diversity, thus creating a monoethnic state. unfortunately, the catholic leadership often worked closely with the new political leaders, particularly targeting serbian orthodox people for a “double conversion,” i.e., a religious conversion to catholicism and an “ethnic” conversion turning them into croatians. matijevic writes that the catholic church leadership in croatia placed the idea of the nation above all else and, in so doing, compromised the moral authority of the church. part three opens with the only essay that portrays jewish agency in the face of such discrimination and physical violence. sara han’s work examines one school in nazi berlin, the hochschule fuer die wissenschaft des judentums, as a place of perceived—albeit temporary—protection for many jewish students. the hochschule offered german jewish students in berlin the only opportunity to continue their higher education in nazi germany. many university students and professors came to regard the school as a refuge from the attacks and discrimination against german jews. the school closed in 1942, but in the time of its existence a new culture of education had emerged that many survivors took with them if they were able to emigrate abroad. the next essay shifts the focus to western ukraine and to a greek catholic metropolitan andrey sheptytsky. sheptytsky, recently named as “venerable” by pope francis, took the theological resources of the greek catholic traditions and tried to offer an alternative to ethnonationalism and antisemitism. through his writings but also through his organization to save jewish children’s’ lives, sheptytsky shows that for christians there was an alternative to the toxic mixture of ethnonationalism, christianity, and antisemitism. unlike so many of the earlier examples in this work, sheptytsky encouraged an inclusive patriotism, preaching it as a christian virtue to love one’s country and to love one’s neighbor. sheptytsky was also clear-eyed in that he recognized that “neighbor” did not come with a specific ethnicity or religion. the next author ionut biliuta discusses romania, well-known to most holocaust scholars as a place of terrible anti-jewish violence. however, through careful examinations of state archives as well as through personal interviews, he uncovers the role of some romanian orthodox parish priests who defied their government and attempted to treat jews humanely, offer them protection, and work against their destruction. many of these would-be rescuer priests were later persecuted by soviet-era authorities and many of their lives ended tragically. in the case of romania, we once again can see that the genocide of the jews was not inevitable and that there were christian leaders who rejected ethnonationalism and its path toward genocide. the final two essays in part three return us to the basic theme of widespread christian support for national socialism. samuel koehne’s essay examines the protestant fundamentalist group the korntal brethren in germany. the brethren recognized national socialism as un-christian, neo-pagan, and a “political religion” founded on concepts of race. the brethren remained firm in their griech-polelle: spicer and carter-chand’s religion, ethnonationalism 4 commitment to using love as a bridge to repair what they viewed as a broken society. they used their own theology, much the same way metropolitan sheptytsky did, to argue against ethnonationalism and antisemitism. the final essay by victoria barnett examines the international protestant ecumenical movement’s response to nazism and antisemitism of the 1920s and 1930s. barnett’s work shows us that many in the ecumenical movement worked for solidarity with jews. however, their support for pacifism and for international peace, as well as their knowledge of the kirchenkampf in nazi germany, often trumped their willingness to denounce nazi anti-jewish policies. despite this failing, there were also ecumenical attempts to rescue successfully persecuted jews, leaving behind a mixed legacy for the protestant ecumenical leaders. the book ends with an afterword by doris bergen, who provides readers with an exceptional overview of the major themes encountered in the essays. bergen’s essay also provides insights into future areas of scholarship, particularly with her challenge to scholars to research the roles that women played in all of these areas. bergen’s essay poignantly reminds us that christianity, ethnonationalism, and antisemitism combined in a lethal way in the 1930’s and 1940’s, that this dangerous mixture still exists in today’s society, and that this should encourage further research. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ribak cp1-18 ribak, bright beginnings ribak cp 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr bright beginnings: jewish christian relations in the holy land, ad 400-700 eliya ribak, birkbeck college, university of london presented at the ―was there a ‗golden age‘ of christian-jewish relations?‖ conference at boston college, april 2010 this paper shows that christian and jewish relations in the holy land between the fourth and seventh centuries, according to the archaeological evidence, were characterized by peaceful coexistence. written sources 1 suggest that until the seventh-century persian invasion, the three provinces of byzantine palestina enjoyed overall peace. occasional jewish and (especially) samaritan rebellions disturbed this general tranquility but these were successfully put down. despite evidence indicating periodical natural disasters, such as earthquakes and droughts, both textual and survey data suggest that the byzantine period was a time of prosperity and of population—and settlement—expansion. in these terms, the period appears to mark the highest point in the history of the region until the twentieth-century. this only serves to highlight the question of whether this peace extended to inter-communal and inter-personal relations. this work uses archaeological evidence and analysis to investigate the nature of intercommunal relations on the level of everyday life. the basis of this paper is a comprehensive catalogue of excavated byzantine sites in palestina. the compilation was possible due to the many published excavations of byzantine sites in modern israel and jordan. i will be using this evidence to look at several indications of interaction between the two communities. i will first look very briefly at textual evidence for jewish-christian relations and then go on to look at the archaeological evidence. i will discuss religious architecture and decorations, burials and site distributions. i will also look at secular evidence for religious identity and chronology. as will be demonstrated below, despite revolts by jews and samaritans, as well as anti-jewish polemics by church fathers, the archaeological record shows peaceful and amicable christian-jewish relations. 1 see for example: בימי רומא וביזנטיוןיונה מ' תש"ו -ב תל אביב ואבי-א תולדות היהודים בארץ ישראל בתקופת המשנה והתלמודתשט"ז -אלון ג' תשי"ג ירושלים )ההיסטוריה של ארץ ישראל( (07-047התקופה הרומית ביזנטית: תקופת המשנה והתלמוד והשלשון הביזנטי ) 5891הר מ"ד )עורך( ירושלים p. schaefer, the history of the jews in antiquity: the jews of palestine from alexander the great to the arab conquest (1995). ם ירושלי ארץ ישראל מחורבן בית שני ועד הכיבוש המוסלמי, ב: הממצא הארכיאולוגי והאומנותי ברס ד' ואחרים )עורכים( תשמ"ה e. m. smallwood, the jews under roman rule (1981). 077-000 577 קתדרה,גפני י' תשס"ב 'ארץ ישראל בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד: חקר שנות דור, השגים ותהיות' conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ribak cp1-18 ribak, bright beginnings ribak cp 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr brief textual review anti-jewish views developed very early in church history. beginning with the church fathers, the destruction of the temple was utilized as confirmation for the thesis that mosaic law had been abrogated and replaced by the christian faith. the unwillingness of jews to accept jesus was seen as a crime against god. 2 in the fourth century, chrysostom continued to disparage judaism. he presented the jews as perverting the will of god because they continued to follow their laws and refused to accept jesus and the changes he had wrought. in his sixth and seventh sermons against the jews, chrysostom ridicules them for continuing to follow their laws when their legitimacy had been destroyed with the temple and its priesthood. chrysostom does not stop there, however, and the virulence of his sermons against the jews in antioch is notable. 3 these early sources have been used by some scholars to paint quite a bleak picture of jewishchristian relations in antiquity. 4 even so, other scholars have interpreted chrysostom‘s homilies as a deterrent to christians wishing to participate in jewish rites, rather than an attack on the jews themselves. this indicates quite the reverse of the normal understanding of hostile christian-jewish relations and shows a possible christian fascination with jews. 5 these sources, therefore, provide a confusing and conflicting picture of the relations between christians and jews in the byzantine period. one wonders to what extent these homilies and polemics influenced common christians and what impact this had on their relationships with their jewish neighbors. our ignorance is of particular concern when we examine evidence for these relations at their very beginning. the fourth century sees jewish communities and organized christian communities co-existing for the first time and is a critical area of study if we wish to understand the development of jewish-christian relations throughout history. we turn therefore to archaeological evidence to try to clarify the picture. religious structures the most obvious and most important type of archaeological evidence for the presence of religious communities is their religious structures. the catalogue 6 includes 46 structures identified as jewish synagogues and 139 structures identified as christian churches. it also includes four additional structures, the identification of which is contested and unclear. it might be expected that two distinct religious groups (jews and christians) would also have two distinct types of religious structures—or at least distinguishing features that would prevent any problems of identification. this is not the case, however, and it is perhaps surprising that only four religious structures have defied classification. it is, in fact, remarkable that many structures have been 2 justin, dialogue with trypho, xii and xxiii. 3 i. sandwell, religious identity in late antiquity: greeks, jews and christians in antioch (cambridge, 2007), 85. 4 see for example: l. v. rutgers, making myths. jews in early christian identity formation (2009). 5 a. meeks and l. wilken, ―jews and christians in antioch in the first four centuries of the common era” sbl sources for biblical study 13 (1978): 30-35 6 e. ribak, ―religious communities in byzantine palestina: the relationship between judaism, christianity and islam, ad 400 – 700‖, bar international series 1646 (2007): 189-558. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ribak cp1-18 ribak, bright beginnings ribak cp 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr firmly identified with one of the religious groups given that the structures retain so many similar features. it is very difficult to differentiate structures identified as jewish synagogues and churches. both may be halls, basilicas, or rooms in secular structures (see figure 1), yet there are some differences. no cave or centralized structure was used as a synagogue, although these were used as churches and churches show a greater range of sizes. burial is another defining characteristic. any house of worship containing a grave is probably a church, but most churches did not contain graves. however, basilicas with three rows of columns are far more likely to be synagogues than churches (see figure 1). many more churches had apses and triple apses are found only in churches (see figures 2 and 3), while synagogues appear to have had a single entrance more often than those identified as churches (see figure 4). only synagogues show a different number of entrances at different stages in their structural history. many synagogues were lined with benches and very few structures identified as churches contained benches (see figure 5). although both synagogues and churches contained bemas, the existence of two bemas may be an indication that a structure was a synagogue. thus, although very similar, there were structural characteristics that may enable us to recognise a synagogue from a church and to recognise features typical of synagogues or churches where they occur in a structure of another sort. figure 1. basic plans left to right: open hall, two-aisled basilica, three-aisled basilica, centralized octagon, centralized cruciform figure 2. basic apse types left to right: single semi-circular external apse, single semi-circular internal apse, single external rectangular apse, and single rectangular internal apse studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ribak cp1-18 ribak, bright beginnings ribak cp 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr figure 3. apses in relation to flanking structures left to right: single semi-circular external apse flanked by two rooms, single semi-circular internal apse flanked by two rooms, triple semi-circular external apse, and triple semi-circular internal apses figure 4. basic types of entrance configuration left to right: single entrance, double entrance, and triple entrance figure 5. bench layout left: single benches, right: stepped benches this evidence indicates that any structures claimed by their excavators as synagogues or churches cannot be positively identified as such if they lack any of these distinguishing features. it is very likely that architectural features alone will never provide all the evidence necessary to ascertain the religious identity of every religious structure of this date in this area. this lack of differentiation between the religious architecture of the two religious groups shows how much jews and christians in byzantine palestina had in common. it is, therefore, necessary to examine other characteristics of these buildings in order to seek differences and similarities between the places of worship. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ribak cp1-18 ribak, bright beginnings ribak cp 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr mosaic floors the most popular surviving form of decoration of religious buildings, mosaic floors, provides the most plentiful evidence for comparison between churches and synagogues. a detailed study 7 of the different motifs in the mosaic floors of churches and synagogues shows that the frequency of each of the patterns in each of the religious structures is similar. this may suggest either that they carried no additional religious meaning or that this meaning was acceptable to all of the groups concerned. geometrical motifs were very popular in religious structures. geometric designs could, of course, carry religious symbolism—such as crosses formed from intersecting circles, a common early byzantine motif. however, most geometric designs found on mosaics in palestina seem to lack such symbolism. they are found in the majority of churches and only slightly less in synagogues. figure 6. geometric mosaic detail from the synagogue at hammat tiberias the use of plant motifs exhibits a similar trend. again, we see a clear similarity in the patterns in the two religious structures. the motifs presumably carried no specific religious meaning or one that was acceptable to all of these religious groups. animal motifs appear to be less frequently used but occur more frequently in churches than synagogues. 7 e. ribak, ―religious communities in byzantine palestina: the relationship between judaism, christianity and islam, ad 400 – 700‖, bar international series 1646 (2007): 50-61. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ribak cp1-18 ribak, bright beginnings ribak cp 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr figure 7. plant motif from the heptapegon church mosaic figure 8. lion detail in the hammat tiberias synagogue mosaic depictions of objects are the least popular of all the motifs discussed but appear slightly more in churches than synagogues. it appears that while churches and synagogues used geometric and plant motifs extensively in their mosaic floors, animal motifs and depictions of objects were used more in churches than in synagogues. they may be seen as replaced, in part, with portraits and depictions of biblical stories in jewish synagogues. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ribak cp1-18 ribak, bright beginnings ribak cp 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr figure 9. baskets detail in the kursi church mosaic clear religious affiliation can be found in the use of religious symbols in the mosaic floors. the clearest religious symbols on the floors may be divided into crosses and the jewish symbols of the menorah, ark of the law, shofar, lolav, ethrog, and incense shovel. not surprisingly, crosses appear only in churches, but they also occur only in a small number of churches. more than half of the mosaic floors in synagogues include jewish symbols. figure 10. jewish religious symbols detail in the mosaic floor at hammat tiberias synagogue as can be seen above, motifs used in the religious structures in byzantine palestina are repeated so often that in the 1940s avi-yonah concluded that the mosaicists worked from similar pattern-books throughout the region. these pattern books, said avi yonah, were used to decorate buildings belonging to both christians and jews. 8 the analysis so far appears to confirm avi-yonah‘s conclusions and pattern-books may well explain these similarities. although it can be seen that specific patterns in relation to the use of mosaic art do emerge to distinguish the different religious structures, it can clearly be seen that these patterns are very subtle. much like the architectural evidence, they will probably not allow us to identify the 8 m. avi-yonah m. ―mosaic pavements in palestine (a summary)‖ qdap iii (1934): 60-73 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ribak cp1-18 ribak, bright beginnings ribak cp 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr religious identity of most structures alone. a puzzling feature of these mosaic floors, iconoclastic damage, can shed more light on the relationship of the two religious groups. iconoclasm one of the most mystifying features of the mosaic floors in byzantine palestina is the damage found in a number of them. what is of particular interest is that only a minority of mosaic floors were left after iconoclast activity with gaping holes where animals and human figures used to be. at the majority of them, destroyed images were replaced with geometric or plant motifs, tesserae, or mortar. this clearly indicates a continued use of the religious structures. figure 11. detail of duck damaged by iconoclast activity in the kursi church mosaic this raises the question of why only these synagogues and churches suffered iconoclast damage. if the reason was centralized policy, then why were no more than a minority of buildings affected? there were, after all, many floors in churches and synagogues featuring human and animal figures. the answer may lie in the location of the religious structures. the majority of the mutilated floors appear to be located in judea and around jerusalem (beth loya, ein hanniya, asida, shokko, shilo, na‘aran, ein duk, and susiya). two are in the galilee (meroth and kursi) and one is in modern jordan (mehin). that is, seven out of the eleven religious structures with mosaic floors that suffered iconoclast damage are found in the same area. it is unlikely that this is coincidence. that this group includes five churches and two synagogues suggests the possibility that at least some of this iconoclasm was a local phenomenon shared among jews and christians. if this was a product of yazid ii‘s ban of living images, then his rule cannot have been effective across his territory. it seems more plausible that this phenomenon was a local movement and that the communities using the religious structures were responsible for the iconoclasm. furthermore, there is no reason why this iconoclastic episode must be later than the byzantine period. this suggests that a dislike of depicting human and animal figures in places of worship may have been shared among jews and christians in judea and the galilee. if so, this implies a common religious movement among jews and christians based on a shared theological view and is the first time that such a movement has been identified using archaeological evidence studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ribak cp1-18 ribak, bright beginnings ribak cp 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr alone. this further suggests that the jewish and christian communities were on amicable terms, in this case possibly even engaging in a shared theological decision. this could mean that the mutual influence of christians and jews went beyond mere architectural or decorative elements and actually touches on interpretation of a religious law common to them both. in this particular instance it may actually indicate ideas and concepts that have coevolved in the jewish and christian communities in palestina, although one community actively influencing the other in this regard cannot be ruled out. it may even imply that religious debate took place between jews and christians in palestina in such a way as to enable common theological views to be reached. inscriptions and names another informative feature of mosaic floors is the many inscriptions that have been found in them. recorded inscriptions are in three main languages: greek, aramaic, and samaritan. greek is found in churches and synagogues, for example in the church at magen and the hammat gader synagogue. aramaic inscriptions are found in synagogues, for example in the synagogue in hammat gader. it appears that the two religious communities shared the greek language but that jews also used other languages for religious inscriptions. linguistic, cultural, and ethnic affinities create social groups. 9 that greek was shared by both jews and christians in byzantine palestina is possibly indicative of the ease of communication between them and could hint at the possibilty of a closer inter-communal relationship than might otherwise be apparent. these inscriptions also show that it is usually impossible to distinguish between jewish and christian worshippers using the names in the inscriptions. semitic names appear in churches (for example, the name zachariah on a dedication inscription in the church in shilo) as well as in jewish synagogues, such as hanninna in the beth shean synagogue. greek and latin names also appear in both churches, for example at the church at magen and synagogues, as at beth shean. 10 the use of language by the two communities can be explained in two ways. the first is that these two groups were, as suggested above, culturally similar to one another in many respects. another (although not opposing) possible explanation is that jews and christians may have also interacted with each other to a greater extent than written sources imply. it is possible that dedication inscriptions mentioning semitic names in churches do not indicate that these christians have semitic origins. these inscriptions may show that these jews were involved with the christian community for reasons of trade, politics, protection, personal or family friendships, or local connections—for example as inhabitants of the same area or even village. this may have been the case in the latin and greek names in jewish synagogues. support for this explanation may be found in a ten-line aramaic inscription from the synagogue at hammat gader. this mentions five greek names: hoplis, proton, salostis, proros, and potis, and a semitic name: haninna. but the title comes in the inscription is followed by one of the greek names. 11 sukenik argues that the use of this title in the dedicatory inscription indicates 9 for a discussion see for example: f. barth, ethnic groups and boundaries: the social organization of cultural difference (1969), 10-16. 10 m. avi-yonah , ―mosaic pavements in palestine (a summery),‖ qdap iii (1934): 60-73. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ribak cp1-18 ribak, bright beginnings ribak cp 10 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr that the synagogue was built no later than the first half of the fifth-century. as according to the theodosian code, jews were no longer allowed to have senior positions in the byzantine administration after 438 ad and to carry titles such as comes 12 . however, a simpler explanation may be that the comes proros was a christian official who wished to make a contribution to the jewish synagogue for personal, religious, business, or political reasons. once we have examined the religious structures themselves, a study of their distribution in the landscape can provide us with additional information about christian-jewish relations. the overall distribution of excavated religious structures site distribution is based on the catalogue of published byzantine sites 13 (see map 1) plotted on a map of byzantine palestina. these distributions suggest that most areas of palestina contained a mixture of jews and christians. these groups were usually not confined exclusively to particular areas, but lived side-by-side. however, the exact mix of religious communities varied from area to area and the clustering of churches and synagogues suggests that a few localities were mostly jewish or christian. palestina tertia seems to have had a smaller jewish community than the other provinces to judge from this evidence, while palestina secunda was perhaps the most ―mixed‖ of the provinces. religious structures of more than one religious group were found in nine settlements in byzantine palestina: capernaum, sepphoris, beth yerah, beth shean, caesarea, tiberias, zur natan, jericho, and ashkelon. out of these only five were major roman towns: beth shean, caesarea, tiberias, jericho, and ashkelon. the rest were rural settlements: capernaum, sepphoris, beth yerah, and zur natan. thus, although it would be tempting to reach the conclusion that religious groups mingled only in major cosmopolitan settlements, this is not shown by these distributions. the fact is both towns and small rural settlements show evidence of co-existence. 14-11 ,ת"א ן, הכתובות הארמיות והעבריות מבתי הכנסת העתיקיםעל פסיפס ואבתשל"ח נווה י' 12 18,ג קובץסוקניק א"ל 'ללא כותרת' תרצ"ה 13 ibid., 189-558. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ribak cp1-18 ribak, bright beginnings ribak cp 11 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr map 1. distribution of excavated churches and synagogues in byzantine palestina c-church, s-synagogue, ss-samaritan synagogue, m-monastery having examined the religious structures of the jewish and christian communities in the holy land, it is appropriate to compare them with churches and synagogue of the same period elsewhere in the byzantine empire. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ribak cp1-18 ribak, bright beginnings ribak cp 12 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr comparison to religious structures in the byzantine empire a brief study 14 into the architectural and decorative characteristics of religious structures in the byzantine empire outside of palestina found no major differences between churches and synagogues in the rest of the empire and those found in palestina. 15 the use of a single apse or niche in byzantine synagogues, as compared to the triple apses and apse flanked by two rooms in those in palestina may indicate the greater influence of church architecture on synagogues in palestina. however, possible hints of church architecture can be seen in the design of other early byzantine synagogues, as can be seen in the case of the ‗synthronon‘ at sardis. moving away from religious evidence into semi religious evidence, we will now examine jewish and christian burials. burials burials took place in two contexts in byzantine palestina 16 : in or near religious structures or in cemeteries without religious structures. burials in religious contexts are found in churches and monasteries but not in synagogues. burials in more secular contexts are found in cemeteries, burial caves, and individual graves near settlements. it is probably safe to assume that most burials at churches and monasteries were those of christians and these were employed here in an effort to identify local christian burial customs and then attempt to establish any differences between christian and jewish burial practice in byzantine palestina. a detailed comparative analysis 17 between burials in definably christian and more ―secular‖ contexts, outside the scope of this paper, provides no new light on the difference between the burial customs and practices of jews and christians. christian symbols do appear to indicate the religious identity of the individuals using them and this appears to hold true in burials as well as in other contexts. however, no jewish symbols were found in burial contexts and nothing, apart from the most obvious forms of christian symbolism, can be seen to provide us with information about the religious identity of the buried individuals. this may be an indication of the extent to which the different religious communities used similar burial customs—so much so that currently no methods are available to distinguish them from one another. secular evidence for religious identity religious structures and burials are not the only way for us to ascertain the presence of the different communities in the landscape of palestina by means of archaeological evidence. it may be possible to fill in the many blanks left by using so-called ―secular‖ evidence to recognize religious identity. unless one credits the evidence of religious symbols on portable artifacts, secular domestic contexts in byzantine palestina often produce, at best, ambiguous evidence for the religious identity 14 e. ribak, ―religious communities in byzantine palestina: the relationship between judaism, christianity and islam, ad 400 – 700‖, bar international series 1646 (2007): 34-41. 15 ibid., 63-72. 16 ibid., 189-558. 17 ibid., 172-186. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ribak cp1-18 ribak, bright beginnings ribak cp 13 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr of those who lived in them. it is also true that symbolism is not always as clear-cut as might be imagined. specifically ―religious‖ artifacts or religious symbols were often acceptable in more than one religious context. christians can in principle (and could in the byzantine period) use virtually every ―jewish symbol‖ to symbolize christianity. 18 in secular domestic contexts, animal bone studies (when available) may provide the best indicator of the presence of jewish and non-jewish communities because of jewish dietary laws. unfortunately, the number of detailed and reliable animal bone studies is small. nevertheless, brian hesse and paula wapnish have shown that settlements with known jewish populations did not engage in pig farming. this demonstrates, they suggest, that the social identity expressed in dietary law regarding pig-consumption is archaeologically recoverable. 19 this seems a possible way of evaluating the degree of correlation between religious symbols on artifacts and religious identity. another reliable tool for distinguishing jewish presence are miqves (jewish ritual baths), but these are only found infrequently in domestic structures. however, the majority of secular sites have neither animal bone study nor miqves to indicate religious affiliation. 18 see for example: s. fine, art and judaism in the greco-roman world: toward a new jewish archaeology (2005), 146-163. 19 b. hesse and p. wapnish. ―can pig remains be used for ethnic diagnosis in the ancient near east?‖ in n.a. silberman and d. small, eds., the archaeology of israel: constructing the past and interpreting the present (1997), 241-251. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ribak cp1-18 ribak, bright beginnings ribak cp 14 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr map 2. church and synagogue distribution and artefactual evidence c-church, s-synagogue, ss-samaritan synagogue, m-monastery, c-artefactual evidence for christians, j-artefactual evidence for jews/samaritans studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ribak cp1-18 ribak, bright beginnings ribak cp 15 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the analysis 20 , which is outside the scope of this paper, appears to show a connection between the symbols decorating the artifact and the religion of the people who used it. anomalies do occur, but no more than can be explained by a close relationship between religious communities. despite the small number of animal bone studies, a correlation between symbols and animal bone evidence is apparent. this has clear implications for the study of byzantine palestina. the evidence from qasrawet, jalame, capernaum, shiqmona, bethany, gezer and tarshiha suggests that christians and jews may well have lived together in the same settlements. however, it should be stressed that artifacts carrying religious symbols are not enough in themselves to indicate a place of worship. all this might show is that persons of a particular religion were at a site. it is interesting to note that in palestina secunda this artifactual evidence appears to ―echo‖ the evidence of religious structures regarding the distribution of the religious communities. this correspondence may encourage greater confidence in using artifactual evidence in this way. in the case of capernaum, both artifactual and religious evidence indicates a jewish and christian community. horbat kanaf shows both religious and artifactual evidence for jewish occupation. tiberias shows religious evidence of christian and jewish groups and artifactual evidence for christians. beth-yerah also shows evidence for christians and jews or samaritans, although artifactual evidence supports a predominantly christian identity, rather than a jewish/samaritan one. in mishmar haemek, religious and artifactual evidence both indicate a christian community. in beth shean, there seems to have been both jewish and christian communities from both types of evidence. the most interesting results of artifactual analysis perhaps occur where the religious structures and artifactual evidence imply different interpretations. in the northern galilee, bar‘am and gush halab seem to have been jewish settlements but we find artifactual evidence for the presence of christians. this further ―breaks up‖ the cluster of evidence for jewish settlement in the area. jalame may be added on this basis to the ―beth shean‖ group of settlements. as both jewish and christian artifactual evidence was found in jalame, this is perhaps another indication of coexistence between christians and jews in the beth shean valley. unlike the situation in palestina secunda, the artifactual evidence from palestina prima tends to alter the picture derived from examining religious structures. in judea, there were very few synagogues but artifactual evidence indicates that jews are likely to have lived in the area. the existence of a jewish community is also suggested by artifactual evidence at beth goverin, bethany, and near amaos. this may indicate a jewish minority in the predominantly christian region of judea. without this artifactual evidence it would be easy to say that there were no jews in judea, apart from the north-eastern negev, yet this was clearly not the case. in the northern sharon, there is ample evidence that the inhabitants of the ramat hanadiv villa were christians. it is located near caesarea—a settlement that, as we have seen, had both a jewish and a christian population. artifactual evidence of jews was also found in samaria. whereas churches were found in samaria, there is no evidence of jewish synagogues in the region. so artifacts provide the only archaeological evidence for the existence of both jews and christians in this area. 20 e. ribak, ―everyday artifacts as indicators of religious belief in byzantine palestina‖ in k. dark, ed.,secular buildings and the archaeology of everyday life in the byzantine empire (2004), 123-132. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ribak cp1-18 ribak, bright beginnings ribak cp 16 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr in palestina tertia, artifactual evidence supports the picture derived from religious structures even more completely. in horbat rimon, both artifactual evidence and a synagogue demonstrate a jewish community. in nessana, artifactual and structural evidence equally attest a christian community. at a-lagon, a church and artifacts indicate that the fort was manned by christians. overall, artifactual evidence does not change the picture of the distribution of religious and ethnic communities in palestina tertia outlined above on the basis of religious structures alone. it can be seen, therefore, that artifacts may indicate religious identity in byzantine palestina but that this consolidates, rather than overturns, the general picture derived from religious structures regarding the composition and distribution of the religious communities of byzantine palestina. having examined the religious and secular archaeological evidence available in the holy land, we will now conclude this study by looking at the chronology of the sites to get a picture of exactly when these sites were used. chronology the most problematical aspect of archaeological research in byzantine palestina is chronology. complete reliance on the excavator‘s dating, even for comparatively well-dated sites, is seldom possible. only in those cases where sealed finds are reported and the site is dated using them, or where scientific methods such as radiocarbon dating are employed, is it possible to rely upon the excavators‘ conclusions. however, in many cases excavators say only that they base their dating on ―stratigraphical analysis‖ without giving more details, even in what are apparently intended to be ―final reports‖ of excavations. it is difficult to treat these sites without suspicion if nothing more is known about this alleged analysis and it cannot be examined and commented on by other scholars. this leaves us few trustworthy site-chronologies that may be used in the study of byzantine palestina. most of these sites are dated by finds in their foundations, providing a terminus post quem for construction. the sum of these results may be expressed in the following graph: studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ribak cp1-18 ribak, bright beginnings ribak cp 17 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr graph 1. tpqs for the foundation of religious structures although this is a relatively very small number of sites compared to the total of 286, these tpq construction dates can be seen to provide an interesting spread of dates for byzantine synagogues. one has a tpq to the first-century and one in the mid-roman period, but the rest are spread from the third to the fifth centuries. four synagogues have a third-century tpq, six have a fourth-century tpq and seven have a fifth-century tpq. unfortunately, even fewer churches have good tpq dating. nevertheless, the spread of tpq dating for churches is very interesting. one church is designated as having a ―post roman tpq,‖ two churches have a fourth-century tpq, six have a fifth-century tpq, and one a sixthcentury tpq. in addition, an anomaly presents itself in the shape of a religious structure with no obvious designation as either a church or a synagogue, or perhaps even a very early mosque that was constructed after the beginning of the seventh-century. it is worth noting that whereas four synagogues have tpq dates in the third-century, there are no churches with similar data. churches begin to appear in byzantine palestina after the beginning of the fourth-century, when an increase in the number of synagogues can also be seen. a steady increase in the number of churches and synagogues constructed after the fifth-century is also clear, the number of synagogues going from six to eight, whereas the number of churches rising from two to three. this can be seen to support the idea of the continuity of both religious communities in byzantine palestina. according to these data, no synagogues were built after the fifth-century, whereas churches were built after the beginning of the sixth-century. the beginning of the construction of churches in palestina after the beginning of the fourth-century does not appear to have hindered in any way the construction of jewish synagogues. rather, the increase in numbers of both churches and synagogues at the same time seems to indicate two thriving communities. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ribak cp1-18 ribak, bright beginnings ribak cp 18 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr conclusion architecture, mosaics and burials indicate no significant variation in practice between christians and jews in palestina. nor can one identify a discrepancy in the range of wealth between these two communities, although of course some churches attracted greater patronage from imperial and official sources. this is in contrast to the inferences drawn by scholars such as cyril mango, who argue that the wealthy were christian officials, clergy and major landowners, whereas jews were largely barred from official service. 21 the obvious prosperity seen in jewish synagogues and domestic settlements show that jews as well as christians clearly grew prosperous in palestina. this refutes the suggestion that only christians enjoyed the fruits of the empire‘s wealth and, if this derived—even in part—from agriculture it also attests not only the productivity of the region but also probably the existence of wealthy jewish landowners. the settlement distribution data show that the landscape of palestina contained jews and christians living side-by-side, sometimes in the same settlements. there were some mostly christian and mostly jewish areas, but even these contained representatives of the other religious groups, at least in the towns. this residential co-existence provides a context for the relations seen so far and may further support the pattern of peaceful co-existence indicated by analysis of the excavated religious structures and burials. the limited chronological data for the construction of structures in byzantine palestina confirms the general impression of prosperity and population expansion. the construction and reconstruction of churches, synagogues, and secular structures peaks in the fourth and fifth centuries, just as wealth and population numbers also rise during these centuries. this may demonstrate the extent to which the peaceful relations and co-existence of the religious communities of palestina were beneficial to its prosperity and well-being of those who lived within the provinces. texts record revolts by jews and samaritans against byzantine rule, as well as virulent diatribes by christians against jews in palestina and its surroundings. the archaeological record, however, shows exactly the opposite: peaceful and amicable jewish-christian relations. indeed a veritable golden age. 21 c. mango, byzantium: the empire of new rome london, (1980), 32-59. scjr 13, no. 1 (2018): 1-5 joshua ezra burns the christian schism in jewish history and jewish memory (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2016), hardcover, ix + 293 pp. anders runesson anders.runesson@teologi.uio.no university of oslo, 0315 oslo, norway few questions have engaged scholars involved in jewish-christian dialogue more than the problem of the so-called parting of the ways. when, where, and, most importantly, how and why did jews and christians go their separate ways? these types of questions cannot easily be reduced to a modern fixation on origins, assuming that historical reconstruction would automatically result in ready-made authoritative conclusions for consumption in the contemporary world. for more than a millennium and a half, jews and christians have made normative claims about one another, drawing on historical assertions about the earliest period of interaction, which were meant to cement boundaries, maintain difference, and solidify identity through distance. modern historical scholarship, when disentangled from the normative constraints of religious communities, has problematized many of these traditional claims that have sustained distinct boundaries and identities. new historical scenarios have emerged, which more fully take into account the available source material. this, in turn, has opened up new horizons for jews and christians today to understand one another for who they are, based on a more realistic assessment of the past. history is still an important tool in inter-religious conversations, although it is considered now from a more hermeneutically informed perspective. it is in light of such developments that professor burns’ book, based on his 2010 yale university dissertation, may be approached, as he seeks to “document a misunderstood chapter of the jewish experience in antiquity” (p. 17) with the aim of writing a history from the jewish side of the schism with what became christianity (p. 12). for burns, there is more than history at stake here, as he writes “as a jew committed to [his] religion and to the collective welfare of [his] people.” it is his express hope that his historical work will provide a foundation for the theological dialogue between jews and christians, which he understands as a vital conciliatory effort of key importance to both religions (cf. p. 15). runesson: joshua ezra burns’ the christian schism 2 the introduction begins with an interesting prelude discussing the infamous paris trial of the babylonian talmud in 1240 (pp. 1–18). the prelude cleverly places burn’s own work—which is aimed at understanding history beyond the perspectival constraints of the rabbinic texts—in a historical context in which jewish authorities have long recognized that the talmudic perception of jesus cannot be understood as historically accurate. as burns prepares his readers, “we must dare to confront the inadequacies of what we think we know about the other even if at risk of revealing discomforting truths about ourselves” (p. 18). to make his task manageable, burns delimits his study geographically to roman palestine and chronologically to the period between the first and the third centuries ce. the chapters that follow describe a logical sequence of exemplary clarity. in order to ask a question at all, one needs to understand what the question itself assumes, and how it controls the investigation it triggers from within. thus, in chapter 1 burns critically reviews how the topic of the parting of ways has been treated historically, from f. c. baur onwards (“the parting of the ways in contemporary perspective”; pp. 19–60). highlighting the social embeddedness of academic discourse, burns concludes this section by stating his intention to distinguish between the “facts of the past” and their selective representation in the rabbinic record (p. 54). all players must be set on a “common dialogical plane.” for burns, the groups designated minim by the rabbis, including those he calls “jewish christians,” must be understood as “legitimate jewish actors” if historical reconstruction is to be the goal (p. 60). important for the rest of the book is the recognition, now a growing consensus, that the rabbis did not control the jewish community at this time, and that their construction of and perspective on the minim was just that: their construction and their perspective. for burns the interaction between the early palestinian rabbis and their contemporary christian neighbors should be studied as an inner-jewish affair: “the only christianity of which the rabbis knew was the type practiced by jews” (p. 55). to solidify this claim, in chapter 2, “jewish identity in classical antiquity: critical issues and approaches to definition,” burns deals with definitions of jewishness (pp. 61–99). here, burns offers criteria which could be said to constitute a sine qua non for maintaining a jewish identity. the core convictions, founded on torah and expressed in practices understood to uphold jewish ancestral customs, included “circumcision, sabbath observance, kashrut, and, until 70 ce, patronage of the temple cult” (p. 99). within these parameters, burns acknowledges the existence of considerable diversity based on local customs linked to shifting emphases on (intertwined) religious and ethnic aspects of jewish identity. in chapter 3 burns turns to the question of how different types of christianity related to (his reconstruction of) the above-mentioned “minimum requirements” of jewish identity, enabling him to judge whether or not any or all of these cultural expressions should be understood as jewish (“early christian negotiations with jewish identity,” pp. 100-58). he settles on identifying two main types of christianity. the first is represented by paul, or rather, by receptions of paul. aligning himself with the approach of the so-called new perspective on paul, re 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) ferring to scholars such as j. d. g. dunn, burns argues that the pauline gospel, influencing mainly the roman west, demonstrates a break with jewish identity. the second type of christianity was one that, while not in conflict with the pauline gospel, took it for granted that it did not apply to jesus followers who were jews. their views are represented in the gospel of matthew, the didache, and the pseudo-clementine literature, or, rather, a part of the recognitions dependent on a late second-century source (1:27–71; p. 150), all of which he locates in the roman east (palestine and western syria). the authors and readers of these texts were all of jewish descent, and they interpreted their identity as a form of judaism. it was this specific form of jewish christianity that the tannaim encountered, the implications of which burns discusses in chapter 4, “reading christianity as a jewish heresy in early rabbinic texts” (pp. 159–208; cf. esp. pp. 172, 181, 207– 08). importantly, burns locates these jewish believers in jesus in both churches and synagogues, thereby opening up for analysis of the interrelationship between jesus followers and rabbinic groups on the one hand, and jewish and non-jewish jesus followers on the other. as burns rightly notes, the story of these jewish believers in jesus represents “a lost chapter in the history of the jewish people” (p. 159). tannaitic literature provides “the earliest surviving jewish witnesses to christianity as testaments to a schism not yet resolved but certainly well underway” (p. 160). from an early rabbinic perspective, which did not know of the non-jewish forms of christianity predominantly existing in the roman west, the first signs of the schism (late-first to early-third centuries) were subtle, since the rabbinic heresiological process took place within a (galilean) worldview in which christians were seen as (misguided) fellow jews (cf. p. 163). this understanding also implies a clear demarcation between jewish and non-jewish christ followers, an overall picture reinforced by patristic evidence. finally, in chapter 5, “shifting demographics and the making of a schism” (pp. 209–52), burns traces developments of the emerging schism into the fifth century, when, he argues, the split between “christian” and “jew” was complete. one contributing factor to this perception of separate identities was the increasing influence of the amoraim over jewish society. they sought the authorization of the patriarchs to appoint local judicial agents, leading to the implementation of rabbinic halakhah on a larger scale than had hitherto been possible (cf. pp. 214 ff.). the overall trajectory of increased rabbinic influence in jewish society meant, over time, the marginalization of jewish followers of jesus in jewish communities. this happened at the same time as non-jewish forms of christianity came to dominate the religious landscape also of the roman east, including palestine, leaving the jewish believers in jesus very little conceptual—and institutional—space (cf. pp. 222, 239). as a result, these remaining jewish believers in jesus, burns suggests, would likely have given up on their ancestral practices and assimilated into (gentile) christian communities. and with that the schism would become complete. runesson: joshua ezra burns’ the christian schism 4 the book ends with an epilogue (pp. 253–54), a bibliography (pp. 255–88), and an all-too-brief index (pp. 289–93). there is no question that this study is an important contribution to scholarship, even though some aspects of the book are, in this reviewer’s opinion, in need of further work (see below). in addition to several of burns’ astute detailed observations, it is easy to agree with the overall picture of a schism, which took place in phases, was dependent on shifting demographics, and led to a marginalization of jewish jesus followers from emerging rabbinic judaism and from nonjewish (orthodox) christianity. in fact, this type of development has been suggested before, but from an archaeological perspective. contrary to assertions made by burns regarding a supposed lack of archaeological remains related to christ-followers in galilee (p. 53), the overall pattern of this historical reconstruction can be said to be corroborated by different types of approaches and source materials. (see a. runesson, “architecture, conflict, and identity formation: jews and christians in capernaum from the 1 st to the 6 th century,” in religion, ethnicity and identity in ancient galilee: a region in transition. edited by j. zangenberg, h. w. attridge, and d. martin [tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2007] 231-57. for studies of the archaeological remains, see, e.g., s. l. matilla, “capernaum, village of naḥum, from hellenistic to byzantine times,” in galilee in the late second temple and mishnaic periods. vol. 2: the archaeological record from cities, towns, and villages. edited by d. a. fiensy and j. r. strange [minneapolis: fortress, 2015], 217–57; y. tepper and l. di segni, a christian prayer hall of the third century ce at kefar ‘othnay [legio]: excavations at the megiddo prison [jerusalem: iaa, 2006].) while the book is well written, there are some terminological issues threatening to obscure the message the author seeks to convey. among these, burns’ choice of “christian,” “jew,” and “jewish christian” is unfortunate. speaking of jewish christians is problematic, as these people self-identified, and were also identified by the rabbis (so burns argues) as jews. further, using “christian” during this early period communicates a sense that “christianity” was, in all its diversity, something other than “judaism”, an assumption which is demonstrably incorrect, and one which burns, indeed, argues against. perhaps such terminological choices are also behind the somewhat unsatisfactory treatment in chapter three of paul and the “pauline gospel.” while it is of course legitimate to choose one’s interpretive approach, the new perspective has been thoroughly critiqued over the last fifteen years or so, most prominently by scholars now identified as working inside the paul-within-judaism perspective. the situation is not helped by the fact that the latter perspective receives very little discussion. burns ignores major studies that would have challenged his reconstruction (e.g., kathy ehrensperger, paul at the crossroads of cultures: theologizing in the space-between [london: bloomsbury, 2013]; paula fredriksen, “judaizing the nations: the ritual demands of paul’s gospel,” new testament studies 56 [2010] 232–52.) indeed, burns’ construction of two forms of christianity, one related to paul and the other to matthew (and those with similar views), seems, despite the author’s assurances to the contrary, to functionally 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) reproduce the old and problematic paradigm dividing christianity into jewish christianity and gentile christianity, obscuring complexities such as blurred boundaries, shared practices, and interlinked identities. burns’ claim that it is possible that jewish believers in jesus could be found in both synagogues and churches, leaving traces in the texts of other jews and (non-jewish) christians, respectively, is important and addresses key issues in current debates. to develop this claim further, scholarship on ancient synagogues needs to be addressed more comprehensively, both in order to define the nature of these institutional settings and, more specifically, to validate some of the claims and their socio-institutional implications. these limitations should not, however, take away from the overall impression of the book; it certainly has potential to contribute significantly to scholarly discussions as well as to jewish-christian dialogue. in both settings, burns’ study highlights how important it is for those seeking a fuller understanding of ancient jewish life not to be bound by narratives told by those intent on establishing the normative status of some forms of judaism while marginalizing others. burns appropriately ends his book, commenting on the common ground for jews and christians that his study has revealed: “should we hope to overcome the misgivings of those of our predecessors who wished to efface that common ground, we must strive to remember what the authors of the christian schism so diligently labored to forget” (p. 254). rabbi joseph soloveitchik™s ‚confrontation™: a reassessment studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers in jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college a reassessment of rav soloveitchik’s essay on interfaith dialogue: “confrontation” marshall j. breger columbus school of law, catholic university of america volume 1 (2005-2006): pp. 151-169 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art18 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 151-169 breger, “a reassesssment of rav soloveitchik’s essay on interfaith dialogue” 152 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art18 introduction1 we recently passed the fortieth anniversary of rabbi soloveitchik’s magisterial essay on interreligious dialogue, confrontation.2 rabbi soloveitchik (1903-1993) was the leading modern orthodox religious authority in america during his lifetime and his religious opinions and rulings are still considered authoritative by american orthodoxy. that he is called the rav (the rabbi) by many reflects this high standing. his 1964 essay on interreligious dialogue has defined the orthodox community’s approach to dialogue with other religions, in particular roman catholicism. indeed, many in the orthodox community have viewed the essay as a legal decision or psak halacha3 and some have referred to it as the “soloveitchik line.”4 three years ago rabbi eugene korn provided a probing reassessment of that essay in a symposium on the question of interfaith dialogue sponsored 1 i want to thank claire morisset for research assistance, and rabbi jack bemporad and a.g. harmon for their careful reading of an earlier version of the text. 2 rabbi joseph b. soloveitchik, “confrontation,” tradition 6/2 (1964): 5ff., available at http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/ cjrelations/resources/articles/soloveitchik/. 3 as are clearly the piskei halacha of rav moshe feinstein. see david ellenson, “a jewish legal authority addresses jewish-christian dialogue,” american jewish archives 52/1-2 (2000):112ff. one should note on this point david hartman’s description of the rav’s essay “as a rare theological responsum carrying the weight of a halakhic decision. none of r. soloveitchik’s other theological writings were understood to have the authority of halakhah” [david hartman, love and terror in the god encounter: the theological legacy of rabbi joseph b. soloveitchik (woodstock, vt: jewish lights, 2004), 132]. 4 norman solomon, “the ‘soloveitchik line’ on dialogue” in dan cohnsherbok ed., problems in contemporary jewish theology (lewiston, ny: e. mellen press, 1991), 225. by boston college.5 that reassessment in turn brought forth further comments.6 below are some of my own reactions to this ongoing debate. soloveitchik’s essay presents a complex argument based on a moral anthropology embedded in an interpretation of the biblical account of the creation of man.7 the article develops three paradigms of human nature. the first paradigm is that of man as a natural creature.8 in that state, “[h]e fails to realize his great capacity for winning freedom from an unalterable natural order and offering this very freedom as the great sacrifice to god, who wills man to be free in order that he may commit himself unreservedly and forfeit his freedom.”9 the second paradigm presents man in the confrontational or normative state.10 he separates himself from nature and “discovers an awesome and mysterious domain of things and events which is independent of and disobedient to him.… in the wake of this discovery, he discovers himself.” as a result of that self-discovery and its opposition with “a non-i outside,” the divine norm is born: “‘and the lord god commanded the man.’”11 5 eugene korn, “the man of faith and religious dialogue: revisiting ‘confrontation’ after forty years.” http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/metaelements/texts/center/conferences/soloveitchik/korn_23nov03.htm. rabbi korn has since published an updated version, “the man of faith and religious dialogue: revisiting ‘confrontation’,” modern judaism 25/2 (2005):290-315. 6 http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/center/conferences/ soloveitchik/#2 7 “confrontation,” 5-17. 8 ibid., 5-9. 9 ibid., 7. 10 ibid., 9-13. 11 ibid., 9. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 151-169 breger, “a reassesssment of rav soloveitchik’s essay on interfaith dialogue” 153 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art18 finally, the third paradigm is that of reciprocal confrontation, based on readings of the relationship between adam and eve and jacob and esau,12 at this level, man finds himself confronted again. only this time it is not the confrontation of a subject who gazes, with a sense of superiority, at the object beneath him, but of two equal subjects, both lonely in their otherness and uniqueness, both opposed and rejected by an objective order, both craving for companionship. this confrontation is reciprocal, not unilateral. this time the two confronters stand alongside each other, each admitting the existence of the other. an aloof existence is transformed into a together-existence.”13 from this theological understanding of the development of human nature soloveitchik concludes that the faith experience is private and incommunicable. building on that argument he determines that proposals for interreligious dialogue are analytically flawed and should be proscribed. eugene korn, in turn, suggests that sociological and philosophical changes in western society since the writing of “confrontation” warrant a reassessment of the proscription against interreligious dialogue, especially in light of the catholic church’s abandonment of its doctrine of supersession. this paper will examine first the structural logic of soloveitchik’s argument. it will then explore the intellectual and sociological background and assumptions which undergird his approach. finally, i briefly discuss what i see as the virtues of interreligious dialogue. 12 ibid., 14. 13 ibid. 1. soloveitchik’s argument a. the suggestion that interreligious dialogue is flawed because belief is incommensurable. according to one view, in “confrontation” soloveitchik is making an epistemological argument that faith claims are ultimately incommensurable and must be taken for what they are, faith claims.14 thus he states: “the great encounter between god and man is a wholly personal private affair incomprehensible to the outsider”15 and “the divine message is incommunicable since it defies all standardized media of information and all objective categories.”16 perhaps this approach reflects soloveitchik’s analogy to the encounter between adam and eve where soloveitchik explains that “the closer two individuals get to know each other, the more aware they become of the metaphysical distance separating them.”17 he further tells us that this is true “even to a brother of the same faith community.”18 we must be clear that when soloveitchik refers to incommensurability he is actually talking about a limited class of religious language. he appears to be arguing that the language of religious claims is a language whose words “refer to what can only be known to the person speaking; to his immediate private sensations.”19 the only way this could 14 ibid., 18-19. 15 ibid., 24. 16 ibid., 15. 17 ibid. 18 ibid. 19 ludwig wittgenstein, philosophical investigations (new york: macmillan, 1953), sec. 243 at 89e, says it is akin to a private “diary about the recurrence of a certain sensation.” see also, sec. 258 at 92e and the reference to “private sensations.” studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 151-169 breger, “a reassesssment of rav soloveitchik’s essay on interfaith dialogue” 154 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art18 make sense is if soloveitchik were referring to the religious sensory experience itself, and not to jewish theology or even the “life form” of judaism, to use a wittgensteinian term. the issue of the possibility of a “private language” is extremely controversial and has engendered considerable philosophical literature.20 ludwig wittgenstein argued against the possibility of a private language in his 1953 book philosophical investigations.21 as stewart candlish has written, “[t]he essence of the argument is simple. it is that a language in principle unintelligible to anyone but its user would necessarily be unintelligible to the user also, because no meanings could be established for its signs. … the conclusion is that it is impossible for a private linguist to establish and maintain a rule for the use of an expression, so that meaning is unobtainable in a private language.”22 at best, wittgenstein seems to suggest that the private language concept might be available for the recordation of speech that refers to an individual’s own sensations.23 the opportunity of applying any kind of ‘private language’ to religious claims, however, has been critiqued by kai nielsen who argues that even if religious language reflects a distinct “form of life”24 (which suggests that no one but a 20 see, e.g., john v. canfield, ed., the philosophy of wittgenstein, vol. 9: the private language argument (new york: garland, 1986), especially the essays by ayer (p. 1), kenny (pp. 130 and 208), and anscombe (p. 316). 21 see note 19. 22 stewart candlish, “private language argument,” in edward craig ed., the routledge encyclopedia of philosophy (london: routledge, 1998), vol. 7: 693-698. 23 wittgenstein, sec. 243 at 88e-89e. 24 kai nielsen, “wittgensteinian fideism,” philosophy 42 (1967): 193: “the different modes of discourse which are distinctive forms of life have a logic of their own.” believer can criticize a particular religion), this does not preclude our asking about the coherence of the concepts involved and about the reality of what its members have conceptualized. as nielsen points out, “the need to start from ‘inside’ need not preclude the recognition of clefts, inconsistencies, and elements of incoherence in the very practice (form of life).”25 some, like david berger, have tried to salvage soloveitchik’s notion of incommensurability by suggesting that while the “intellectual apprehension” of faith, in contrast to the “personal experience” of faith, can be communicated, such communication “is pitifully inadequate.”26 in contrast, others like rabbi irving greenberg argue that [i]n matters doctrinal and theological, all religions spoke their own private language. it would be a violation of the spiritual-theological intimacy between the religious community and god to share the content of the internal conversation with members of another faith. translating the categories of faith into terminology comprehensible to believers of another tradition would be a betrayal.27 thus, jews can ‘talk’ the language of jewish theology to jews, but not to christians. 25 nielsen, 205-206. 26 rabbi david berger, “revisiting ‘confrontation’ after forty years: a response to rabbi eugene korn,” available at: http://www.bc.edu/ research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/center/conferences/soloveitchik/ berger_23nov03.htm. 27 irving greenberg, for the sake of heaven and earth: the new encounter between judaism and christianity (philadelphia: jewish publication society, 2004), 13. i fail to understand the concept of betrayal here. indeed, it would seem that much of greenberg’s theological work performs this “translation” function. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 151-169 breger, “a reassesssment of rav soloveitchik’s essay on interfaith dialogue” 155 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art18 i fail to understand, however, why a faith experience cannot be dissected and discussed. even if i experience god in a chariot trailing clouds of glory, why am i incapable of describing that experience, however inartfully? nonetheless, berger’s point, even if true, is essentially irrelevant to our discussion of the possibility of dialogue. what we normally understand as theological dialogue is not the comparison of mutual personal faith experiences but rather the discussion of principles of faith. the delegitimation of substantive theological dialogue, as will be noted later, must be based on different grounds. if perceptions of faith cannot be communicated between different communities of faith, are we to argue that a member of one faith community cannot lecture or write about his faith to a member of another faith community? remember, soloveitchik himself gave his famous lecture “the lonely man of faith”28 to a catholic audience. obviously he was concerned with communicating with his audience. to carry the point further, if issues of faith are incommensurable, what do we say about the work of scholars like harry wolfson who wrote on the church fathers,29 travers herford who wrote on the pharisees as well as the talmud,30 or george foot moore who studied judaism in the age of the mishnah?31 28 rabbi joseph b. soloveitchik, the lonely man of faith (new jersey: jason aronson inc., 1965) 29 harry austryn wolfson, the philosophy of the church fathers (cambridge: harvard university press, 1964). 30 r. travers herford, the pharisees (boston: beacon press, 1962) and talmud and apocrypha and a comparative study of the jewish ethical teaching in the rabbinical and non-rabbinical sources in the early centuries (london: soncino press, 1933). 31 george foot moore, judaism in the first centuries of the christian era, the age of the tannaim (new york: schocken books, 1971). as to greenberg’s suggestion of betrayal, restated by shalom carmy as the view that no “refined person would ‘dialogue’ explicitly with friends and acquaintances about his most intimate family relations,”32 i see this as an argument about propriety, not impossibility. i would suggest that the propriety would depend on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. b. the relationship between the “community of the many” and the “community of the few.” in large measure, i suspect soloveitchik’s concern was that any dialogue between the majority religion (christianity) and the minority religion (judaism) would not be a dialogue between equal subjects, but between a majority lording it over a minority. he appears to believe that in any dialogue with christians, jews as a minority religion will not receive what they expect from others, “recognition not as objects, but precisely as subjects of faith.”33 he seems to suggest that such encounters can only come out badly for jews. thus, we can best comprehend soloveitchik’s understanding of interfaith dialogue as a claim regarding disputations – that is to say a dispute between two sides with a winner and a loser. the long and lachrymose history of such dialogue between jews and christians34 would 32 shalom carmy, “’orthodoxy is reticence’ – taking theology seriously,” http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/center/conferences/ soloveitchik/sol_carmy.htm. 33 leon klenicki, “the jewish religious traditions” in george f. mclean & john p. hogan eds., ecumenism and nostra aetate in the 21st century 35, 37 (washington, d.c.: john paul ii cultural center, council for research in values and philosophy, 2005): 37. 34 see for example hyam maccoby, judaism on trial: jewish christian disputations in the middle ages (rutherford, nj.: fairleigh dickinson university press, 1982) which describes disputations in paris in 1240, barcelona in 1263, and tortosa in 1413-14, on pp. 19, 39 and 82 respectively. the barcelona disputation included nachmanides. see studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 151-169 breger, “a reassesssment of rav soloveitchik’s essay on interfaith dialogue” 156 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art18 certainly support this view. as irving greenberg suggests, in soloveitchik’s understanding, the result would be “a distortion in which the views of the minority – that is, jews – would be placed on a procrustean bed and would be stretched and cut to the measure of the majority faith.”35 i do not understand contemporary efforts at interreligious dialogue in that sense. interreligious dialogue is not a debate to determine whose view of god is correct or “better.” rather, it is an effort at understanding – understanding the “other” religion and its theological basis. such interconvictional dialogue, i would argue, can lead to “fruitful engagement in the meeting of diverse religious communities.”36 but it is clear that “a prime element in fruitful encounter must be the location of actual belief differences.”37 for jews this is especially important because it means providing an accurate description of the concepts of judaism and where they differ from christianity. this, i might add, will often require assisting christians to understand that many of their historically enshrined stereotypes of jewish law and theology do not reflect what jews actually believe. such dialogue is far from an attempt to reconcile differences. the essential point of korn’s position regarding interfaith dialogue is the distinction between dialogue and disputation. he likes the former and will have nothing to do with the latter. that distinction, it seems to me, is really one of motive and nothing more. certainly one can understand why korn would argue that jews should not enter into discussions about religion with persons seeking to convert them. at a minimum (in soloveitchik’s terms) such conduct shows a complete lack of “mutual respect.” nonetheless it is unclear robert chazan, barcelona and beyond: the disputation of 1263 and its aftermath (berkeley: university of california press, 1992). 35 greenberg, 13. 36 james van mcclendon and james m. smith, understanding religious convictions (notre dame, in: univ. of notre dame press, 1975), 175. 37 ibid. to me why the motive for making a statement has anything to do with the truth of that statement. if this point is correct then korn’s (and soloveitchik’s?) opposition to dialogue is a matter of taste, not a matter of analytic truth. now i have to be fair. i don’t know if christians want to enter the dialogue simply in an attempt to understand the other religion and its theological base. perhaps they want to convince me or to convince themselves of the superiority of their faith system. so be it. or to put it another way, why do i care? if i can learn something about the nature of the world or the nature of the human spiritual longing while they are trying to score points, it’s their problem. now i would not have said that during the middle ages when judaism was in an empirically inferior position to christianity. perhaps then i would have worried that my coreligionists (or even i, myself) would have lost heart in the interreligious dialogue and passed over to the other “team.” but that was then and this is now. c. an assessment of the inequality of the relationship between various religions my reading of “confrontation” suggests that in soloveitchik’s view, the deep theological structure of christianity is antagonistic to judaism and christianity would not be christianity if it did not treat jews as unequal. although he does not use these terms, one can argue that soloveitchik’s approach to the status of the catholic-jewish relationship is essentialist and determinist. it is as if soloveitchik understood the relationship between judaism and christianity in ontological terms, as a relationship in which the inequality is immutable, as though the negativity were rooted in necessary christian doctrine. by this i mean that they reflect in some sense a moral anthropology – one studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 151-169 breger, “a reassesssment of rav soloveitchik’s essay on interfaith dialogue” 157 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art18 fixed and incapable of essential or transformative change.38 and that being the case, soloveitchik’s stricture against interfaith dialogue is absolute and not contingent on either history or sociology. one can well understand why soloveitchik, steeped as he was in jewish history and religious thought, would hold this view. further, as korn notes, soloveitchik wrote in 1964, one year before vatican ii and the stream of theological reevaluations undertaken by the catholic church. prior to this development, the church was wedded to the teaching of contempt,39 buttressed by a doctrine of supersession which stated that whatever value judaism had ended with the coming of christianity. that position is no more. consider but one text, the 2002 pontifical biblical commission document, the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible.40 it is official church teaching with a preface by cardinal joseph ratzinger, at the time head of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith and now pope benedict xvi. that document states, “without the old testament the new testament would be an 38 see ruth halperin-kaddari, “tav lemeitav tan du mi-lemeitav armalu: an analysis of the presumption,” edah 4/1 (2004), available at http://www.edah.org/backend/journalarticle/4_1_kaddari.pdf. it is interesting that halperin-kaddari associates such a view with the rav in her analysis of the talmudic presumption of tav lemeitav tan du milemeitav armalu that a woman would rather be married to a bad husband than remain single, baba qamma 110b-111a. she reviews the various understandings of that concept. she notes that the rav took a relatively “strict” view of tav lemeitav, appearing to base his analysis on an ontological understanding of the “essence” of the gender distinction which has, in his own words, “nothing to do with the social and political status of women in antiquity.” the presumption, he suggests, is not based on psychology, but “is an existential fact.” it may be that soloveitchik approaches the relationship of the “community of the many” and the “community of the few” in a similarly determinist way. 39 jules isaac, the teaching of contempt: christian roots of antisemitism (new york: holt, rinehart and winston, 1964). 40 available at: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/ pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html. incomprehensible book, a plant deprived of its roots and destined to dry up and wither.”41 and consider this statement: “jewish messianic expectation is not in vain. it can become for us christians a powerful stimulant to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. like them, we too live in expectation.”42 following romans 11:1,43 the document elaborates and reaffirms that the jewish people have an eternal, unbreakable covenant with god, as indeed do numerous church documents published after vatican ii. faced with this evidence of recent history, one can take either of two approaches. one can remain skeptical of catholic intentions and argue that one should not really believe that this doctrinal transformation is sincere or will last. for such persons their required threshold of proof means that as a practical matter they will never accept the church’s bona fides in this area. there are adumbrations of this approach in the comments to korn’s paper by erica brown44 and aryeh klapper.45 i believe that (writing before vatican ii) soloveitchik’s opposition to 41 ibid, preface. 42 ibid., §21. 43 “what i am saying is this: is it possible that god abandoned his people? out of the question! i too am an israelite, descended from abraham, of the tribe of benjamin.” (new jerusalem bible) 44 “political correctness cannot be bought at the price of historical dignity. rethinking the proselytization of jews is still not enough to bring us to authentic dialogue about our belief systems.” erica brown, “the unresponse,” http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/center/ conferences/soloveitchik/sol_brown.htm. 45 “what one pope has done, another can put asunder – i will never forget hirsch goodman, in the august 2001 issue of jerusalem report, explaining that the peace of oslo had become entrenched in palestinian hearts to the extent that it was irreversible. the vatican’s grudging and belated diplomatic acceptance of the israeli state is to my mind far from an acknowledgment of the jewish right to our homeland.” aryeh klapper, “revisiting ‘confrontation’ after forty years – a response to rabbi eugene korn,” http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/ texts/center/conferences/soloveitchik/klapper_23nov03.htm. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 151-169 breger, “a reassesssment of rav soloveitchik’s essay on interfaith dialogue” 158 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art18 interfaith dialogue drew on a suspicion “that a strong conversionist impulse lurked behind christian dialogue efforts” and a fear “that a tidal wave of interfaith interest might sweep many jews into the bosom of the church.”46 the second approach, shared, i believe by both eugene korn47 and david berger48 (but not made explicitly) is that 46 greenberg, 13. 47 eugene korn (see note 5) points out: the critical distinction between the respectful hearing of the religious voices of others and doctrinal disputation untangles the paradox of r. soloveitchik's private conversation with christian religious thinkers, whose insights he integrated into his religious weltanschauung, and his rejection of formal interfaith dialogue on theological subjects. the former posed no threat to the validity of his faith, while he assumed that the latter was targeted at undermining jewish faith commitment. to employ the favorite technique of r. soloveitchik's brisker tradition, there are two concepts of theological discourse: one is authentic dialogue, which is free religious expression that is governed by the legitimacy of difference and mutual respect; the other is polemical disputation, which is futile in its illogic and objectionable in its triumphalism. 48 david berger (see note 26) argues: [a]s much as theological propositions can be conveyed, as much as even religious emotions can be partially expressed, that which ultimately commits a person to god or a faith community to its particular relationship with god remains essentially private, leaving not only a lonely man of faith but a lonely people of faith – a nation that dwells alone. since rabbi soloveitchik believed that untrammeled interfaith dialogue presumes to enter into that realm, he declares it out of bounds. even though dialogue among believers concentrating on social issues has a religious dimension, it does not presume to enter that innermost realm, and its value therefore outweighs its dangers. if i am correct, then even theological discussion that knows its place would not be subject to the most radical critique in “confrontation,” and in this general sense i am in agreement with dr. korn. berger continues: but it is critically important to recognize that the incommunicability of the ultimate religious commitment is not the totality of rabbi soloveitchik’s argument. the very fact that he goes beyond that point lends credence to the view that he did not mean it as an all-encompassing delegitimation of any theological discussion. if he did, there would have been little reason to go further. but he does go further, and here his argument moves from the extreme rhetoric of philosophical absolutism to the penetrating, soloveitchik’s injunction against dialogue should be understood as a prudential point about the wisdom of dialogue rather than a normative argument asserting the impossibility of dialogue. on this view one would recognize that the intellectual and sociological context has changed in fundamental ways in the forty years since “confrontation” was written, and that these changes cannot help but have an effect on the force of soloveitchik’s conclusions. while i am certainly sympathetic to this approach as a way of salvaging soloveitchik’s views in the light of historical change, nowhere does soloveitchik say some dialogue is acceptable by certain people under certain circumstances. while he does set down four conditions for interfaith dialogue,49 a fair reading of the essay suggests that in soloveitchik’s view these conditions cannot ever be met. pragmatic, prescient insights that make “confrontation” an essay of ongoing relevance. 49 i quote from “confrontation”: first, we must state, in unequivocal terms, the following. we are a totally independent faith community. we do not revolve as a satellite in any orbit. nor are we related to any other faith community as “brethren” even though “separated.” . . . . [p. 21]. second, the logos, the word, in which the multifarious religious experience is expressed does not lend itself to standardization or universalization.… [i]t is important that the religious or theological logos should not be employed as the medium of communication between two faith communities whose modes of expression are as unique as their apocalyptic experiences . . . . [pp. 23-24]. third, we members of the community of the few should always act with tact and understanding and refrain from suggesting to the community of the many, which is both proud and prudent, changes in ritual or emendations of its texts…. interference with and non-involvement in something which is totally alien to us is a conditio sine qua non for the furtherance of good will and mutual respect [pp. 24-25]. fourth, we certainly have not been authorized by our history, sanctified by the martyrdom of millions, to even hint to another faith community that we are mentally ready to revise historical attitudes, to trade favors pertaining to fundamental matters of faith, and to reconcile “some” differences [p 25]. see also korn’s discussion [see note 5] of these conditions. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 151-169 breger, “a reassesssment of rav soloveitchik’s essay on interfaith dialogue” 159 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art18 d. the danger of syncretism one of the fears soloveitchik expressed was the danger of syncretism, that is, the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing religious principles, or practices, by incorporating elements of one religion into another. this concern has some basis in reality. many of the less sophisticated proponents of interreligious dialogue point to the overlapping roots of judaism and christianity and move rapidly to the idea that common origins means a common belief. many politicians refer blithely to the judeo-christian tradition to promote religious tolerance and the full integration of jews into american society. this ecumenism can easily lead to a subjectivism by which all religions (or at least all abrahamic religions) are seen as essentially equal – each being as good as the next. on this view, “all religions are diverse symbolic objectifications of the same basic spiritual experience and intimation of ultimate being.”50 alternatively the search for a common core can result in a dilution of one’s own distinct religious doctrine. i once learned political theory with the magisterial john plamenetz, who notwithstanding his erudition managed somehow to make thinkers as disparate as hegel, rousseau and kant come out as slightly eccentric english liberals. something similar could result from untrammeled interreligious dialogue. and indeed if you read a book like faith transformed: christian encounters with jews and judaism51 it is obvious 50 tamar ross, “reflections on the possibilities of interfaith communication in our day,” edah 1/1 (2000):5 at http://www.edah.org/ backend/journalarticle/ross.pdf. she goes on to say, “[m]y exposure to any rival religion can teach me something about our common core, thus increasing the potential for correction and refinement of my own particular truth. in that event, interfaith encounters become mutually enriching and the existence of diverse religious expressions mandates cooperation and mutual respect” (p. 5). 51 john c. merkle, ed., faith transformed: christian encounters with jews and judaism (collegeville, mn: liturgical press, 2003). that engaging jewish theology has affected the theological thinking of many christian scholars. but it need not be the case. it depends on the person and the character of the “dialogue.” orthodox judaism recoils at either of these possibilities of syncretism and insists on the uniqueness of the jewish religious “project” asserting that existentially the jews are a “people who dwell alone.” this negative reaction to anything that smacks of common beliefs may be a key to understanding the orthodox “mood” on dialogue.52 e. how do you divide the sacred from the profane in civic life? as is well known, while soloveitchik proscribed what he calls theological dialogue, he did allow, and indeed encouraged, coalitions of interfaith groups to discuss and act on social welfare issues. thus soloveitchik has noted: as a matter of fact our common interests lie not in the realm of faith, but in that of the secular orders. there, we all face a powerful antagonist, we all have to contend with a considerable number of matters of great concern. the relationship between two communities must be outer-directed and related to the secular orders with which men of faith come face to face. in the secular sphere, we may discuss positions to be taken, ideas to be evolved, and plans to be formulated. in these matters, religious communities may together recommend action to be 52 i recently saw a production of hyam maccoby’s “the disputation.” while not vouching for its historical accuracy, no one watching theodore bikel’s presentation of nachmanides would worry about disputations ineluctably leading to syncretism. see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/29/ar 2005092900586_3.html. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 151-169 breger, “a reassesssment of rav soloveitchik’s essay on interfaith dialogue” 160 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art18 developed and may seize the initiative to be implemented later by general society. 53 indeed, that has been the stated position of the modern orthodox community.54 given soloveitchik’s general proscription i find this “waiver” puzzling. certainly, as a theoretical matter one cannot separate secular activity for the common good from its theological underpinnings. this is true of judaism and from what i can see from teaching at the catholic university of america for roman catholicism as well. the extraordinary emphasis on “hesed” at my law school (where law review editors sign up for their stint at homeless food preparation) stems from their understanding of catholic mission. ironically, soloveitchik recognized this. in a footnote in “confrontation,” he wrote, “the term ‘secular orders’ is used here in accordance with its popular semantics. for the man of faith, this term is a misnomer. god claims the whole, not a part of man, and whatever he established as an order within the scheme of creation is sacred.”55 this makes it difficult to work out the boundaries of common welfare activities from religious interaction. 53 soloveitchik, “confrontation,” p. 24. 54 see rabbinical council of america, “statement adopted by the rabbinical council of america at the mid-winter conference, february 3-5, 1964,” tradition 6/2 (1964): 28-29: any suggestion that the historical and meta-historical worth of a faith community be viewed against the backdrop of another faith, and the mere hint that a revision of basic historic attitudes is anticipated, are incongruous with the fundamentals of religious liberty and freedom of conscience and can only breed discord and suspicion. such an approach is unacceptable to any self-respecting faith community that is proud of its past, vibrant and active in the present and determined to live on in the future and to continue serving god in its own individual way. only full appreciation on the part of all of the singular role, inherent worth and basic prerogatives of each religious community will help promote the spirit of cooperation among faiths. 55 soloveitchik, “confrontation,” note 8. as but one example, consider the state of israel, a topic for which the jewish community may well most desire wider public political support. putting secular zionism aside, it is passing certain that zionism from an orthodox perspective is based on theological tenets – as but one example, some affirm that the establishment of the state of israel is the beginning of the “dawn of our redemption.”56 indeed, soloveitchik himself has argued for the religious, that is to say halakhic (if not messianic) status of the jewish state in kol dodi dofek.57 conversely, while sympathy for israel after world war ii was clearly based on christian sympathy (if not guilt) after the holocaust, doctrinal acceptance by christians, whether catholic or evangelical, turns on their understandings (albeit differing) of christian theology. how can one create a religious coalition on behalf of israel while ignoring religious doctrine? the same is true, if not less obvious, with religious coalitions for social justice, protection of the environment or other aspects of tikkun olam. f. soloveitchik and the “soloveitchik line” in trying to understand the varieties of meanings drawn from the text in “confrontation” regarding interreligious dialogue, one is reminded of karl marx’s adage, “all i know is that i am not a marxist.”58 the fact is that while numerous scholars claim to follow soloveitchik’s teaching, they 56 the hebrew is reishit tzmichat ge’ulatinu, which translates more accurately as the beginning of the flowering of our redemption. the term comes from a prayer for the state of israel drafted by chief rabbi yitzhak herzog in 1948. the phrase is considered central to our understanding of religious zionism, which views the creation of the state of israel in eschatological terms. 57 joseph b. soloveitchik, kol dodi dofek: listen my beloved knocks (jersey city, nj: ktav, 2006) 58 “letter from friedrich engels to conrad schmidt” (aug. 5, 1890), in dona torr, ed., karl marx and friedrich engels, correspondence 18461895 (london: m. lawrence, 1934), 472. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 151-169 breger, “a reassesssment of rav soloveitchik’s essay on interfaith dialogue” 161 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art18 interpret the meaning of his proscription against interreligious dialogue in radically different and at times contradictory ways.59 marc b. shapiro, citing david hartman, suggests that the proscription is against “some sort of organized, presumably official, meeting,” between members of each religion.60 the concept calls to mind the medieval disputation and the sad history of jewish-catholic relations to which they testify.61 but those disputations were not necessarily “official” in the sense that the debaters were authorized to represent their faiths. indeed, while the church has official theologians, it is not clear that judaism has any such “office” within its hierarchy. in marked contrast david berger suggests that “[i]t is… friendly theological discussion and not religious disputation”62 that is forbidden because such “friendly” discussion would, as soloveitchik says, create pressures “to trade favors pertaining to fundamental matters of faith, and 59 in that regard we should remember the cautionary note of marvin fox, that “there are writers who claim to know the rav’s unexpressed inner thoughts, his unspoken aims and purposes, his conscious and unconscious motivations, and who offer accounts of his thought based on this supposed secret knowledge. there is in this style of interpretation a level of presumptuousness which is not only tasteless, but also profoundly and inexcusably misleading.” marvin fox, “the unity and structure of rabbi joseph b. soloveitchik’s thought,” tradition 24:2 (1989): 45-46. 60 marc b. shapiro, “’confrontation’: a mixed legacy,” n.1, http://www.bc. edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/center/conferences/soloveitchik/ sol_shapiro.htm. hartman speaks of an “official political meeting of ‘representatives’ and ‘spokesmen’” as opposed to “students who are studying together in university or theological colleges, or people wanting to study talmud or new testament thought or thomas aquinas or maimonides together” [hartman, love and terror, 157-58]. 61 see note 34. also hershel reichman, “the cardinals’ visit: thoughts of a rosh yeshiva,” the commentator (yeshiva univ.), feb. 17, 2004: http://www.yucommentator.com/media/paper652/news/2004/02/17/editorials oped/the-cardinals.visit.thoughts.of.a.rosh.yeshiva-607709.shtml 62 see note 26. to reconcile ‘some’ differences.”63 i suppose there is a legitimate fear that propensity and intellectual intimacy (that is to say “friendly” discussion) will lead to a “rounding of the edges” that distinguish judaism from the “other.”64 this is the danger of syncretism that i discussed above. others have suggested that soloveitchik used the term “religious dialogue” to include not only “discussing with priests the gospels – their theology, but also... discussing the torah – which is our theology” including discussions of torah-u-maadah65 (the combinations and intersections of jewish and secular studies). further, jeremy wieder analyzes “interfaith dialogue” as referring to two faiths trying to engage in reconciliation. as he suggests, this, by definition, requires each side, as the rav formulates it, “to trade favors pertaining to fundamental matters of faith.” when the rav speaks of “religious dialogue” (as opposed to “social dialogue”) he refers not to information sessions about faith matters, but to dialogue, a conversation which presumes genuine “give and take” between the participants. if a jew were to give a lecture about some aspect of jewish faith or halakha to a non-jew, even if the non-jew were to ask questions (thereby engaging in “dialogue” in the common use of the term), he 63 soloveitchik, “confrontation,” p. 25. 64 some, like david berger, have criticized reciprocity: see david berger, “statement regarding the new york times ad by dabru emet,” (sept. 14, 2000): http://www.ou.org/public/statements/2000/betty25.htm. see also “dabru emet: a jewish statement on christians and christianity” at: http://www.icjs.org/what/njsp/dabruemet.html. 65 one might consider the marked contrast in heschel’s position in reuven kimmelman, “rabbis joseph b. soloveitchik and abraham joshua heschel on jewish-christian relations,” edah 4/2 (2004):1-21 at http://www.edah.org/backend/journalarticle/4_2_kimelman.pdf. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 151-169 breger, “a reassesssment of rav soloveitchik’s essay on interfaith dialogue” 162 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art18 would not be engaging in interfaith dialogue but in interfaith monologue.66 thus, describing an officially denominated “open dialogue” between chief rabbis and cardinals brought together by the world jewish congress, the jewish participants explained their participation by stating that “because there were no exchanges of views beyond the prepared papers, it did not formally qualify as theological dialogue.”67 consider what is being suggested. give and take is dialogue and therefore forbidden; separate lectures are not. and if the audience asks questions? if the lectures are on point-counterpoint topics? these distinctions are so formal as to be ultimately differences without a distinction. to further muddy the waters, david hartman suggests that soloveitchik’s fear is not the fact of interfaith dialogue but the concern that the wrong type of person will undertake it.68 hartman reads soloveitchik as intending “confrontation” as “a political responsum that addresses the issue of public and politically charged discussions between judaism and christianity as institutions. it is a response to the way jews are to survive in an open society that offers both intellectual riches and the frightful reality of assimilation.”69 as many have pointed out, soloveitchik's work is replete with references to christian theologians. what soloveitchik fears, hartman suggests, is the “westernized jew” who “may well 66 jeremy wieder, “the cardinals’ visit: differing thoughts of another rosh yeshiva,” the commentator (yeshiva univ.), mar. 18, 2004: http://www.yucommentator.com/media/paper652/news/2004/03/18/editorials oped/the-cardinals.visit.differing.thoughts.of.another.rosh.yeshiva633447.shtml. 67 nacha cattan, “cardinals meet for a dialogue with top rabbis” forward (jan. 23, 2004). 68 i owe this interpretation of “hartman on soloveitchik” to daniel rynhold, “the philosophical foundations of soloveitchik's critique of interfaith dialogue,” harvard theological review 96/1 (2003): 101-106. 69 hartman, love and terror, 156-57. acquiesce in the subjugation of judaism to universal categories that will eliminate its numinous faith element.”70 this view is reinforced by walter wurzberger who argues the prudential position that “only properly qualified specialists should devote themselves to the study in depth of non-jewish theologies.”71 wurzberger (and i believe, soloveitchik) considers that dialogue is a dialectical process in the sense that “various particular formulations of religious truth are but inadequate attempts to appropriate a higher but rather elusive religious truth.”72 soloveitchik rejects this view as indeed he should. but analytically at least, wurzberger had it wrong. if it is true that the study of other theologies (and in particular theologies that have arisen against the context of judaism) can teach us something about our own faith, it need not be because we are “modif[ying] or correct[ing] [religious faith] in the light of another system.”73 the desire to understand the other is not an effort to extract “an essence of religion … from a variety of religious affirmations.”74 this i believe is one of the root weaknesses of soloveitchik’s approach. in fairness, i should note that lawrence kaplan urges a more nuanced view of this distinction. he points out that soloveitchik “is careful never to speak of ‘the secular orders’ or ‘the secular sphere.’ he speaks of ‘the public world of 70 rynhold: 106. 71 walter s. wurzburger, “justification and limitations of interfaith dialogue,” in walter s. wurzburger & eugene b. borowitz, judaism and the interfaith movement (new york: synagogue council of america, 1967), 12. david rosen tells us that the late pinchas peli cites to a specific conversation he had with soloveitchik affirming this view, david rosen, “orthodox judaism and jewish-christian dialogue,” at http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/center/conferences/ soloveitchik/sol_rosen.htm. 72 wurzburger, 13. 73 ibid. 74 ibid., 14. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 151-169 breger, “a reassesssment of rav soloveitchik’s essay on interfaith dialogue” 163 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art18 humanitarian and cultural endeavors,’ of ‘areas of universal concern,’ or ‘socio-cultural and moral problems.’”75 kaplan suggests that for the line between permissible and impermissible interfaith dialogue is not between interfaith dialogue in “the realm of faith” and interfaith dialogue in the “secular sphere.” it is between two types of religious interfaith dialogue. the rav, that is, was opposed to interfaith religious theological dialogue ‘concerning the doctrinal, dogmatic, or ritual aspects of faith,’ for those aspects represent the individual, unique, and private side of religion, but he supported interfaith religious humanitarian dialogue concerning socio-cultural and moral issues, for such dialogue was grounded in religious categories and vales that represent the universal and public side of religion.76 the distinction kaplan suggests is more fully developed in a document styled “on interfaith relationships” that soloveitchik drafted some years after “confrontation” to guide the practice of rabbis belonging to the rabbinical council of america.77 there soloveitchik states: we are … opposed to any public debate, dialogue or symposium concerning the doctrinal, dogmatic, or ritual aspects of our faith vis-à-vis ‘similar’ aspects of another faith community. … when however, we move from the private world of faith to the public world of humanitarianism and cultural endeavors, communication among the various faith communities is desirable and even essential. we are ready to enter into dialogue on such topics as war and peace, poverty, freedom, man’s moral values… civil rights, etc., which revolve about the 75 lawrence kaplan, “revisionism and the rav: the struggle for the soul of modern orthodoxy,” judaism 48/3 (summer 1999): 305. 76 ibid., 306. 77 ibid., 309. religious spiritual aspects of our civilization. discussion within these areas will, of course, be within the framework of our religious outlooks and terminology.78 g. the anti-dialogue “mood” the wide variety of “understandings” of soloveitchik’s text suggests that whatever its original meaning, it has come to mean something “more” on the orthodox street. the ban on dialogue has been extended way beyond intellectual discussion to include, if not a ban on contact, then anything that might be viewed as recognition. this is clear from the remarkable controversy over the visit of a delegation of cardinals to the yeshiva university beis midrash (study hall) in january 2004.79 the cardinals did not come to debate or even to lecture, they came to watch. even so, the backlash among the yeshiva world was extreme with many commentators referring to a violation of soloveitchik’s ruling.80 and when the cardinals visited again in march 2005, a student protest petition led the yeshiva administration to request that they come without their vestments81 and not enter the study hall.82 78 joseph b. soloveitchik, “on interfaith relationships,” rabbinical rec. (february 1966), also available at “joseph b. soloveitchik, ‘confrontation’” in norman lamm and walter s. wurzburger eds., a treasury of “tradition” (new york: hebrew pub. co., 1967), 78-80. emphasis added. 79 a sparse account can be found in daniel j. wakin and laurie goodstein, “in upper manhattan, talmudic scholars look up and find cardinals among the rabbis,” new york times, jan. 20, 2004: b5. 80 reichman; ari fridman, “cardinals visit again amid student pressure against,” the commentator (yeshiva univ.), mar. 8, 2005: http://www.yucommentator.com/media/paper652/news/2005/03/08/news/ca rdinals. visit.again.amid.student.pressure.against-883249.shtml?page=1. 81 i do not speak to the halakhic question here but relay an anecdote told me by george weigel, the author of a magisterial biography of john paul ii. weigel relates that when john paul was planning his history studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 151-169 breger, “a reassesssment of rav soloveitchik’s essay on interfaith dialogue” 164 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art18 in a 1951 supreme court case analyzing the level of deference courts should afford administrative agency decisions, justice frankfurter famously tells us that congress did not articulate a specific level of deference, but instead set a “mood.” 83 in reviewing the wide (and often contradictory) range of understandings of “confrontation,” the only way we can reasonably interpret the “soloveitchik doctrine” is that it reflects a “mood” (or hashkafa) rather than an analytic parsing of the concept. doing so may provide a useful way of approaching the text. for one, it explains the views of those commentators who have stressed soloveitchik’s context-oriented methodology. further, it focuses the discussion on what is happening in the orthodox world today. finally, it resolves the question of whether korn’s vision has moved considerably from the concerns and making visit to rome’s main synagogue, some congregants requested (or demanded) that he should not come with his papal vestments. when the chief rabbi of rome, elio toaff, raised this, the pope responded that if he were visiting as a private citizen then such a stricture could be easily followed. however, the entire point of the exercise was for him to visit as the head of the roman catholic church and, as such, he was required to wear his vestments. the point is worth pondering. 82 fridman. one student suggested that the presence of the cardinals in the beis midrash would be “emotionally distressing.” more resources can be found in a former yeshiva university student’s blog, at http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2004/03/cardinals-in-beis-midrashrundown-of.html. 83 universal camera v. n.l.r.b.,340 u.s. 474,487 (1951) (frankfurter, j.): it is fair to say that in all this congress expressed a mood. and it expressed its mood not merely by oratory but by legislation. as legislation that mood must be respected, even though it can only serve as a standard for judgment and not as a body of rigid rules assuring sameness of application. enforcement of such broad standards implies subtlety of mind and solidity of judgment. but it is not for us to question that congress may assume such qualities in the federal judiciary. insights of the essay.84 while one can make an argument either way, if one accepts my view that the essay articulates a “mood” or skeptical approach to relations with christianity, the question is a non-issue. 2. interreligious dialogue & christianity a. why are orthodox jews so cautious about interaction with christianity? it is difficult to understand the refusal to engage in dialogue with christianity, be it formal or informal, as reflecting anything other than a deep insecurity of judaism in the theological arena.85 one senses that behind all this animosity to talking with christians is some kind of psychological need – a desire to show that as a people we don’t need them anymore. this view is reinforced by erica brown’s suggestion that it is a denial of what she calls “historical dignity” to talk with them.86 as reichman pointed out, “millions of jewish martyrs demand no less of us.”87 i can certainly understand this attitude which is validating both to those who decry dialogue and to the jewish people, 84 see edward breuer’s comment: “i do not think that dr. korn’s desire to affirm the desirability and importance of interfaith dialogue can be fairly rooted in rav soloveitchik’s essay” [“revisiting ‘confrontation’ after forty years: some comments,” at http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/metaelements/texts/center/conferences/soloveitchik/sol_breuer.htm ]. 85 i suppose it could also include a judgment by jews that christians do not deserve to have jews speak openly with them about judaism. this may be because of past christian sins against judaism and that it is not appropriate or some would say “dignified” for rabbis to talk with church officials (see following note). one commentator has suggested that a meeting between clerics and rabbis (let alone dialogue) is inferentially forgiving the church for past sins and goes so far as to ask “whether we jews today have the moral license to forgive the church for sins committed against the jews in the past” [reichman, see note 61]. 86 brown, “the un-response,” see note 44. 87 reichman, see note 61. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 151-169 breger, “a reassesssment of rav soloveitchik’s essay on interfaith dialogue” 165 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art18 but it is hardly a normative rule. and indeed, from a prudential perspective we should remember that even if it is validating, it is validating only to ourselves. the fact that we will not talk to christians certainly does not make them feel that they have been put in their place. to the extent that christians feel an obligation to jews because of the historical record, it is hard to believe that that sense of christian “guilt” is in any way increased because of the jewish refusal to engage in dialogue. some have further argued that even if the changes that have occurred since world war ii in christian thought and practice deserve full credit, the “conditions making for present amity may not persist.”88 indeed, some have suggested that it will take a number of generations before jews can trust this christian volte-face and respond positively.89 while i agree with shalom carmy that “[t]he 20th century … has been exceptionally hard on prophets of inevitable progress in human relations[,]”90 that is at best an argument to prudence in dialogue but not an absolute ban. i suppose one could argue that it is possible to learn what is valuable about the “other” without talking to them. presumably one can read books or listen to tapes. but surely if you have overcome the general objection that one should spend one’s spare time learning torah rather than learning about the other then limiting personal contact seems an artificial constraint. at a popular level the ignorance of christianity in israeli circles is breathtaking, as is the lack of engagement at any level, be it cultural, political, let alone theological. while it is likely true that israeli jews do not have historical insecurity in dealing with the church, they often show an equally unfortunate lack of respect for other religious traditions. 88 carmy, see note 32. 89 ibid. see also klapper, (note 45). 90 carmy. b. the role of christianity in judaism one thing is clear. while christianity has recognized judaism as a source of christian self-understanding, no such correlative urge is felt in jewish circles. more and more, christian seminaries offer courses in judaism. i know of no similar courses in christianity or the early church at jewish theological seminary or yeshiva university. at a recent gathering at the catholic university of america, an eminent cardinal spoke with pride of his havruta (learning partnership) in talmud study and urged joint talmud study by christian and jewish scholars to better understand the life of jesus. very few jewish scholars seek similar joint study of the gospels to better elucidate the world of the early rabbis. this negativity towards christianity exists across the board not only in the yeshiva world, but in a more nuanced manner, in modern orthodoxy as well. deborah weissman suggests the situation is different in israel.91 i am surprised to learn it. at best, israelis remain ignorant of any but the most extreme caricatures of christianity. uri bialer reports that “the current curriculum of the state education system refers to jesus at best once and then only cursorily. the state religious education system makes no mention whatsoever.”92 too often the treatment of christians in israel approaches, at times, “the practice of contempt.” recent articles tell of religious jews spitting on an armenian archbishop and a crucifix during a religious procession and 91 deborah weissman, “the perspective of an israeli educator,” at: http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/center/conferences/ soloveitchik/sol_weissman.htm. 92 uri bialer, cross on the star of david, the christian world in israel’s foreign policy, 1948-1967 (bloomington, in: indiana univ. press, 2005), ix. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 151-169 breger, “a reassesssment of rav soloveitchik’s essay on interfaith dialogue” 166 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art18 numerous verbal and physical assaults on christian clergy.93 in 1995 a religious soldier sprayed gunfire at a church in haifa, claiming, according to the jerusalem post, that “it was a shame that he had to explain in court his motive for the shooting, which he said was self explanatory and written in torah. his motive, he said, was to destroy all idols….”94 while this attitude reflects a significant issue in jewish sociology (and thought) regarding the status of the non-jew, the insularity it reflects is heightened by the refusal to dialogue. while, as seen below, there may be some flexibility at the level of institutional leadership, other than david rosen there are precious few orthodox rabbis in israel or america who engage in interfaith anything, let alone dialogue with christianity and i won’t even speak of islam.95 c. the chief rabbis’ initiatives in recent years the vatican has entered into official dialogue with a group of israeli rabbis organized by the chief rabbinate of israel (both ashkenazi and sephardic). this 93 steven erlanger, “spitting incident fuels debate on intolerance – jerusalem examines its religious divide,” international herald tribune, oct. 19, 2004: http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/18/news/journal.php; also his, “many faiths but little tolerance in jerusalem,” international herald tribune, oct. 20, 2004: http://www.iht.com/articles/ 2004/10/19/news/journal.php; abigail radoszkowicz, “interfaith leaders issue plea for mutual respect,” jerusalem post, oct. 27, 2004, in news; amiram barkat, “christians in jerusalem want jews to stop spitting on them,” haaretz, dec. 10, 2004: http://www.haaretz.com/ hasen/pages/shart.jhtml?itemno=487412;. these articles describe this and similar incidents. see also, the editorial, “jerusalem’s disgrace,” haaretz, dec. 10, 2004: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ shart.jhtml?itemno=487472&contrassid=1. 94 i owe this reference to david berger. the article is “soldier who shot up church sent for psychiatric evaluation: suspect says he was destroying idols,” jerusalem post, may 28, 1995: 12. 95 the remarkable mordecai froman, the rav of tekoa in judea, is a notable exception. dialogue has been undertaken by the “joint commission of the chief rabbinate of israel’s delegation for relations with the catholic church and the holy see’s commission for religious relations with the jews.” there have been five meetings, two in jerusalem and three in rome which have included visits to the vatican and audiences with the pope.96 a wide variety of issues were on the table for discussion. these have included subjects including the sanctity of human life and family values; the relevance of central religious teachings in the holy scriptures we share, for contemporary and future society; a shared vision of social justice and ethical conduct; and respect for human life. the sacred character of the holy places in jerusalem was also discussed.97 96 a preliminary meeting took place on june 5, 2002, for which no official statement was made. the texts of four joint statements that have been issued from subsequent meetings can be found at the vatican’s website at: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/subindex/index_relations-jews.htm. in addition to the above, pope benedict xvi published on october 26, 2005 a letter commemorating nostra aetate: http://www.vatican.va/ holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_ 20051026_nostra-aetate_en.html. see too david rosen, “nostra aetate, forty years after vatican ii: present and future perspectives:” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations -jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20051027_rabbi-rosen_en.html. 97 see “statement to the press from the meeting of the bilateral committee of the holy see’s commission for religious relations with the jews and the chief rabbinate of israel, oct. 17-19 2004”: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relationsjews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20041019_rabbinate-israel_en.html : jerusalem has a sacred character for all the children of abraham. we call on all relevant authorities to respect this character and to prevent actions which offend the sensibilities of religious communities that reside in jerusalem and hold her dear. we call on religious authorities to protest publicly when actions of disrespect towards religious persons, symbols and holy sites are committed, such as the desecration of cemeteries and the recent assault on the armenian patriarch of jerusalem. we call on them to educate their communities to behave with respect and dignity towards people and towards their attachment to their faith. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 151-169 breger, “a reassesssment of rav soloveitchik’s essay on interfaith dialogue” 167 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art18 while it has been suggested that the agenda items have been carefully worded to escape the strictures of soloveitchik’s position, any suggestion that the agenda items are not impregnated with theological considerations is, at best, caviling. the documents are drenched with a religious anthropology and if anything make short shrift of the view that the faith community can talk about family values or social justice without god. the israeli chief rabbinate, of course, unlike american modern orthodoxy, has never viewed itself as “under” rabbi soloveitchik’s legal authority. furthermore, to my knowledge, the chief rabbinate has never provided a halakhic analysis of the rationale for these meetings. perhaps they viewed them as self-evident! nonetheless, this deepening engagement and its obviously theological character significantly undercuts the practical force of the so-called soloveitchik prohibition. the reasons for the willingness or the apparent willingness of the israeli rabbinate to “engage” the vatican may be in part political – in some sense they represent the state of israel. it may, of course, reflect a different halakhic reading of the sources, a point well worth further analysis. however, their position reflects to some extent a jewish selfconfidence that comes from jewish sovereignty. the israeli rabbinate, whatever their halakhic views regarding interaction with non-jews, finds it hard to accept soloveitchik’s overriding fear that the “community of the many” will necessarily manipulate and control the “community of the few.” dr. deborah weissman suggests that the insecurity this refusal reflects does not really exist in israeli orthodox circles.98 figures like chief rabbi she’ar yashuv cohen of haifa, head of the chief rabbinate’s committee on relations with the vatican, have felt it easier to engage in interreligious dialogue than their american orthodox colleagues. following a meeting with the latin, 98 see note 91. greek, and armenian patriarchs, she’ar yashuv cohen noted, “both sides understand that there is to be no attempt to change the other’s opinions. ever since the pope’s recent ruling against missionizing jews, this has become much easier.”99 this is understandable. zionist ideology tells us that the creation of a jewish state will eliminate the unequal relationships with other nations and religions. and israeli jews do not experience any such inequality in their daily life. thus for israelis the grounds for soloveitchik’s fear of religious dialogue no longer exist. and indeed because of this majority status, even though there is significant negativity to christianity in israeli culture, the political and rabbinic leadership may well feel freer to interact with christian clerics, if only, for “reasons of state.” 3. where do we go from here? it should be obvious that the orthodox jewish community’s response to “confrontation” has been more sociological than theological or philosophical. the essay has been interpreted by the orthodox rabbinate to apply to a far greater range of activities than soloveitchik actually discussed in his essay and is used to validate a general attitudinal approach by orthodox judaism – one that is broadly antagonistic to a wide range of interactions with the catholic church. the ways in which “confrontation” has played out in the orthodox world reflects the sociological and psychological needs of a community both traumatized by the holocaust and increasingly self-assertive (if not triumphalist) with the rise of the state of israel and the uniquely successful integration of jews into american political life. some kinds of activities have been approved – largely social and political issues in which the jewish community had a deep concern. but when the jewish community was 99 “rabbi & mks upgrade israel-christian relations,” arutz sheva, jan. 24, 2005: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=75808. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 151-169 breger, “a reassesssment of rav soloveitchik’s essay on interfaith dialogue” 168 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art18 interested in such joint action, it made no difference that the basis for the social and political coalition was in its underlying nature theological. this attitude is reflected in the almost extreme skepticism regarding catholic-jewish relations of many of the orthodox commentators to korn’s essay.100 the comments are permeated with a sense that the church can turn on a dime and revert to its outdated supersessionist theology. there is also a frankly surreal approach to the place of jews in the modern world. it is as if we are the center of the universe and make judgments as independent actors without reference to the view of others. while that happy state may come to pass at the end of days, until then we remain “in” history, not outside it, and must accommodate to it or suffer the consequences. it is unfortunate that those who would forbid full engagement with other faith-based communities neglect the costs of such parochialism. to the extent to which dialogue helps us to better understand the belief system of the “other,” we come to better understand ourselves. indeed, it is, i think, a truism that every social and intellectual movement develops, at least in part, because of some human or social need. many scholars have suggested “that the nazis did draw their popular support from people who felt morally outraged by the social order around them.”101 100 carmy (note 32); klapper (note 45); brown (note 86). 101 barrington moore, jr., injustice: the social bases of obedience and revolt (white plains, n.y.: m. e. sharpe, 1978), 417. the social composition of national socialist membership was drawn disproportionately from “the rural farmers and small-town middle classes” [stanley g. payne, fascism (madison: univ. of wisconsin press, 1980), 58]. a more nuanced view of “the attraction of the successful fascist movements for millions of peasants and workers” can be found in walter laqueur, fascism: past, present, future (new york: oxford university press, 1996), 45. see also alan s. milward, “fascism and the economy,” in walter laqueur ed., fascism – a reader’s guide (berkeley: univ. of california press, 1976), 385: “[t]he propensity to join methodism responded to a need of the english peasants to find a place in a rapidly industrializing society.102 and sabbatarianism in the 17th century can be understood as a response to the political instability and social revolt reflected in what many historians have termed the general “crisis of the seventeenth century.”103 so by understanding the belief system of the other we understand better the variety of ways in which human beings respond to the social and psychological forces that beset them. in so doing, we tease out yet another thread of the tapestry of mankind, and we learn more about the manifold creatures of god. the value of interfaith dialogue is not simply that it assists our understanding of the human tapestry. it has practical benefits to the jewish people as well. if we accept that christians are attempting to revise their historically pejorative theological understanding of judaism, why should a fascist part was determined more by psychological considerations than by social class”. 102 elie halévy, the birth of methodism (chicago: univ. of chicago press, 1971), 64-65. see also julia stewart werner, the primitive methodist connexion: its background and early history 30-50 (madison, wis.: univ. of wisconsin press, 1984). for a sociological analysis of the emergence of methodism, see e.p. thompson, the making of the english working class (new york: vintage books, 1963), 350-400. 103 the term comes from e.j. hobsbawm, “the crisis of the seventeenth century,” in trevor aston, ed., crisis in europe, 1560-1660 (new york: basic books, 1965), 5-58. see stephen sharot, messianism, mysticism, and magic: a sociological analysis of jewish religious movements (chapel hill: univ. of north carolina press, 1982), 110. we should note that the great historian of the sabbatean movement, gershom scholem, rejects this analysis of sabbatarianism as “simplistic[,]” see gershom scholem, sabbatai sevi: the mystical messiah 1626-1676 (princeton, nj: princeton univ. press 1973), 1. but more recent scholarship considers scholem’ s view that the lurianic kabbalah was “the central factor in the use of sabbatarianism” as a flawed analysis suggesting “that the sabbatean movement was a result of the forces of change that already existed in the jewish community, rather than its cause.” see matt goldish, the sabbatean prophets (cambridge, ma: harvard univ. press, 2004), 168-69. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 151-169 breger, “a reassesssment of rav soloveitchik’s essay on interfaith dialogue” 169 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art18 we not assist them by providing accurate understandings of jewish theological doctrine? whatever else it may prove to be, proactive interfaith dialogue today is not the zero-sum game of a disputation or a covert effort at conversion but a chance for jews to eliminate stereotypes and dispel misperceptions by presenting an accurate view of jewish belief. furthermore, the reality is that we face the possibility of a war of civilizations between the west and islam (indeed, some believe that war is at hand). unless we are of the despairing view that religion can only be a source of human fratricide (think thirty years’ war), we should be searching for every possible modality by which religion can serve a transformative role – and serve as a source for peace between nations and, indeed, civilizations. while one might respond that coalitions oriented toward the delivery of social services satisfy that need and are sufficient unto the day, relationships based on calculated self-interest are far different than relationships based on authentic engagement. we are engaged, as well, in a cultural war in our own country. while it may be an exaggeration to say that “the barbarians are at the gates,” there can be little doubt that many persons of faith have more in common with each other in america than with secular society. abraham heschel understood this well: [t]here is another ecumenical movement, worldwide in extent and influence: nihilism. we must choose between interfaith and inter-nihilism. cynicism is not parochial. should religions insist upon the illusion of complete isolation? should we refuse to be on speaking terms with one another and hope for each other’s failure? or should we pray for each other’s health, and help one another in preserving one’s respective legacy, in preserving a common legacy?104 most adherents of the “soloveitchik doctrine” allow interfaith coalitions under narrow restrictions: they must deal only with politics or the delivery of social services. in my view this kind of narrow interaction, however, fails to capture the human and spiritual synergies that could come from the full and vibrant interaction of all those who claim themselves as “children of abraham.” 104 abraham joshua heschel, “no religion is an island,” union seminary q. rev. 21/2/1 (january 1966): 119. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review anna sapir abulafia christian-jewish relations 1000-1300: jews in the service of medieval christendom (harlow, england: pearson, 2011), paperback, xxiv + 262 pp. devorah schoenfeld, loyola university chicago abulafia’s new work investigates the legal and literary trope of jews as slaves, serfs, or servants in the latin christian world during the high middle ages. this trope, as abulafia shows, mediates between two contradictory impulses in medieval christian thought: on the one hand the sense that jews ought to be protected because they represent something important in the christian past, or are an important part of god’s plan of salvation, or are in their subjection an important reminder of the truth of god’s promises; and on the other the feeling that their very existence is dangerous to the unity and stability of christendom. the trope of jewish servitude, as abulafia shows, is a tool that christian thinkers developed for navigating between these two ideas about jews and for finding them a role and a place in their society. one of the fascinating and powerful insights of abulafia’s work is just how multivocal and ambiguous a trope this was, and how many different purposes it could be made to serve. the trope of jewish servitude was used to protect jews from persecution because they served a practical necessity. alternatively, it was used to argue that jews should be tolerated because they possess the virtue of being “prepared to serve,” which pope alexander ii argued was a virtue possessed by jews and not muslims (p. 139). rulers who did not wish to tolerate jews to the same extent could use the same trope to expel those who were not performing any particular service, as did england’s king henry iii in 1290, or to simply assert it as their right to use the jews as an expendable resource by expelling them and taking their money, as did philip iv of france studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) in 1306. when used by christian theologians the trope of jewish servitude was a way to justify toleration of jews in a subordinate status, sometimes to pressure them to convert, as rupert of deutz argued, or to make it possible to solicit their help with rabbinic scholarship as an alternative source for studying the hebrew bible. as abulafia shows, a paradox of this trope is that even when used explicitly to protect the jews it could add another layer of anti-judaic thinking. one fascinating example of this is bernard of clairvaux’s argument that jews should be tolerated because, by serving the christian world as moneylenders, they keep christians from themselves becoming moneylenders and thus committing the grave sin of usury. he argues for jewish toleration but in the process situates the sin of usury as both particularly horrific and particularly jewish. the first two chapters of the book lay out the tensions around jewish toleration in medieval christendom and their origins. the first deals with the argument for toleration, based primarily on the views of augustine, and the second deals with the argument for exclusion, focusing on the views of pope gregory the great. the middle chapters, which form the heart of the book, take a close look at legal documents from germany, france, england, and the latin mediterranean (such as spain and italy) to see the various ways that the idea of jewish servitude was implemented in practice. servitude, as abulafia points out, does not necessarily mean subordination, and there were times when the trope of jewish servitude gave jews a position of privilege over many christians in their society, as when fredrick ii of germany used it to indicate that he would regard any attack on “his” jews as an attack on himself. yet the uses to which this trope was put continually varied, even, as abulafia shows, within the reign of a single king. the concluding two chapters look at the role of the trope of jews as servants in two of the most horrific kinds of anti-jewish persecutions in the medieval period: the massacres of jews during the crusades and the blood libels and the destruction studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr they caused. during the crusades, the trope of jewish servitude could be used to distinguish jews from muslims by those (such as bernard of clairvaux) who wished to protect jews while urging warfare against the islamic world. in the blood libel, conversely, fictional stories about jewish violence were made to serve christian theological needs in ways that had terrible consequences for real jews. one counter-narrative that runs throughout is the jewish response to this trope, which abulafia finds in jewish legal, pietistic, and liturgical texts. many medieval jews did not see themselves as servants of christendom at all, but rather as dialogue partners, with the ability to reject christian uses of their scholarship and to respond to christian anti-jewish polemics with a polemic of their own. abulafia’s focus on the trope of jewish servitude leads to some particular emphases in her reading of legal codes. she frequently touches on the question of whether or not jews were permitted to hire non-jewish servants or own jewish slaves, which is important in thinking through the question of what jewish servitude meant, since prohibiting jews from owning slaves was a way of defining jewish status as itself servile. the book is written in an engaging, accessible style, although it might not be appropriate for undergraduates because of the background in judaism and in medieval history that it assumes. it is recommended for advanced students and anyone who is interested in one of the formative tropes of medieval jewish-christian relations. scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-4 gavin d’costa catholic doctrines on the jewish people after vatican ii (oxford: oxford university press, 2019), hardcover, 240 pp. + xiv david fox sandmel dsandmel@adl.org anti-defamation league, new york, ny 10158 this review was adapted from an invited panel presentation “catholic doctrines on the jewish people after vatican ii: a panel discussion with gavin d'costa” at the society for post-supersessionist theology annual meeting (november 2020). this is an impressive and significant book, but before engaging its substance, i want to offer a few words about the perspective i bring to this task. the most obvious but also the most important point is that i am neither a catholic nor a christian nor, for that matter, a theologian. i am a liberal rabbi and though i have an academic degree in judaism and christianity in antiquity, much of my career has focused on what i might call interreligious advocacy rather than academia. as an outsider, then, on several levels, i am particularly grateful for the clarity with which d’costa leads the reader through the complicated interplay of history, documents, levels of authority, and other matters related to the establishment of doctrine within the catholic church. i concur with d’costa’s assertion that “methodologically jewish voices cannot be the basis for catholic doctrine” (13). thus, as a purely theological or religious matter, i would not offer an opinion about whether supersessionist, fulfillment, or dual covenant theologies best reflect the teaching of the magisterium. i do believe, however, that it is appropriate to ask questions about the practical implications of doctrine when it has the potential to impinge directly on my life and the life of my community. catholic doctrine becomes my concern when it adversely affects the way that catholics view jews and judaism and especially when it leads to behavior by the church or by individuals that is detrimental to the jewish community, as has been the case in the past. in light of that history, the exploration of neuralgic topics like supersessionism, covenant, the land and state of israel, and mission demands great sensitivity. in regard to the land and state, this sensitivity must extend not just to jews but also to palestinians and others. i commend dr. d’costa for the care and awareness with sandmel: gavin d’costa’s catholic doctrines on the jewish people 2 which he addresses all these issues, especially when he knows his conclusions may be controversial or even offensive. when i raise questions below about possible practical implications of some of d’costa’s conclusions (many of which the author himself acknowledges), these should not be seen necessarily as critiques of the conclusions themselves, but rather as an attempt to move the discussion beyond the understandably theoretical nature of the book. for the remainder of this review, i will focus attention on a few aspects of d’costa’s discussion of supersessionism. d’costa draws a distinction between soft supersessionism and fulfillment. i follow the logic of d’costa’s preference for the term “fulfillment” over “replacement” or “rejection” because of the supersessionism implied by the latter, and i appreciate his admission that even “fulfillment” might be supersessionist in a “loose sense” (26). i do wonder whether using the term “fulfillment” might inadvertently serve to obscure its inherent soft supersessionism and thus the problem of supersessionism itself. i suggest that preserving “supersessionism” with a modifier such as “exclusive” and “inclusive” (or “extrinsic” and “intrinsic,” to use the language of john paul ii1) might be more precise and also more instructive as a theological concept, inasmuch as it demands that the terms be unpacked and explained. similarly, regardless of whether he uses the term “fulfillment” or “supersessionism,” d’costa does not shy away from the view that there is some fundamental “lack” in the jewish covenant, even if it has enduring value after jesus (178). though of course i do not consider my tradition to lack anything, as dabru emet states, there are “irreconcilable differences” between jews and christians; we make conflicting truth claims. at the same time, we know that general knowledge of nostra aetate is spotty in the church and the idea that judaism is lacking, in its hard supersessionist sense, still persists. in the book, this “lack” is carefully couched in the author’s broader positive and respectful approach to jews and judaism which is integral to his theology. he therefore offers an affirmative alternative to the negativity of replacement supersessionism. and yet perpetuating that idea judaism is lacking still makes me uneasy; it would need to be taught very carefully in order not to reinforce old ideas. one of the perennial topics of discussion, and frustration, at jewish-catholic consultations is the need to better inform jews and catholics about how relationships have developed since 1965. in his discussion of the “efficacy” of biblical / jewish “ceremonial” law in light of the enduring covenant, d’costa raises the possibility that at some point the church may have to define which “cultic acts” are, in fact, effective (27). even if this question is an inevitable outcome of d’costa’s argument, in practical terms it strikes me as perhaps a step too far. on what basis are cultic acts deemed to be effective? what is the status of those that do not meet the standard? equally problematic is the comment that “christians have an enormous amount to learn from the religious practices of rabbinical judaism when their practices and beliefs derive 1 address to the great synagogue of rome, april, 13 1986. https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paulii/jp2-86apr13 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) from the covenant never revoked” (56, emphasis added). finally, d’costa understatedly points out that “identifying which forms of contemporary judaism have these characteristics is problematic; this question has not been adequately addressed” (187). this raises the possibility that the church might at some point decide that one form of judaism is (forgive me!) kosher while another is treyfe (non-kosher). once again, i do understand how this arises from d’costa’s line of thinking, but i have to question the appropriateness of the church’s deciding which expressions of judaism are covenantal. in this regard, the discussion of the “ceremonial law” reflects either a misunderstanding of jewish categories or (and?) the overlay of christian / catholic categories on the mitzvot that do not reflect classic jewish self-understanding. from a jewish perspective all 613 mitzvot are equally authoritative and covenantal; the fact that some mitzvot cannot be observed for circumstantial reasons (e.g., the destruction of the temple) does not change their essential authoritative status. furthermore, there remain what might, in this view, be considered “non-ceremonial” mitzvot that are observed by jews today and that are understood to be integral to the covenant. since “ceremonial” is not a jewish category, how would the church decide which laws are “ceremonial” and which are not? if this distinction is catholic, it is not methodologically sound to apply it to the jewish tradition. in the same passage cited above, d’costa writes, “the vatican has consistently developed conversations with religiously practicing jews and not those who identify as jewish who may be secular, atheist, or agnostic” (13). this is not entirely accurate and draws attention to another terminological problem. the international jewish committee for interreligious consultations (ijcic, of which i currently serve as vice-chair) is the official dialogue partner of the vatican’s commission for religious relations with the jews on behalf of the global jewish community. ijcic is a consortium of jewish religious and non-religious communal organizations. some, though not all, in the orthodox jewish community avoid what they consider to be “religious” dialogue, based on their reading of joseph soloveitchik’s 1965 article “confrontation.”2 there has also been a discussion among jewish studies scholars of late about the appropriateness of the term “religion” and even the term “judaism” when applied to jews and their traditions.3 delving into the various meanings of the words “religion” and “judaism”—and “christianity” for that matter—might be a fitting agenda for future jewish-catholic consultations. one of the underlying concepts in the book is that “the full authority of the magisterium stands behind the biblical teaching that the covenant with biblical israel, god’s people, is irrevocable.” the differences between the preand post 2 see this boston college symposium, “rabbi joseph soloveitchik on interreligious dialogue: 40 years later” (2003). https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/center/conferences/soloveitchik/index.html 3 see for example, daniel boyarin, judaism: the genealogy of a modern notion (new brunswick, nj: rutgers university press, 2018). https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/center/conferences/soloveitchik/index.html https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/center/conferences/soloveitchik/index.html sandmel: gavin d’costa’s catholic doctrines on the jewish people 4 vatican ii church do not reflect “doctrinal discontinuity”; rather, “the epistemological presuppositions of each group differ” (188). by contrast, it is common in the jewish community to refer to nostra aetate as heralding a “sea-change” or a “copernican revolution” in the church, perhaps because, as d’costa himself notes, jews “are not wedded to any theories of continuity that catholic scholars might hold regarding the magisterium” (viii). after reading this book, i wonder if the language of “change” and “revolution” represents a jewish perspective rather than a shared one. this book provides a comprehensive synthesis of catholic thinking on the most significant questions raised by vatican ii regarding jews and judaism: what are implications of the claim that god’s covenant with the jews is irrevocable, and how does that claim co-exist with the belief that “all salvation causally comes from jesus christ”? the “modest findings and fragile arguments” (190) offered here point toward approaches that demand further discussion among catholics themselves and between jews and catholics, especially if the discussion becomes more practical. i have given some example of this above; there are certainly others, especially the matter of mission, that could prove quite contentious. this raises another question that is admittedly beyond the scope of this book: in light of the relationship with the jews that has developed in the years since nostra aetate, what role, if any, would the awareness of jewish sensitivities play in how the church might proceed from theory to practice on such matters? this is a rich, informative, fascinating, and provocative book that will be accessible to both specialists and students. while d’costa prizes doctrinal continuity, he also demonstrates how much the thinking of the church has developed since nostra aetate. scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-3 matthew j. thomas paul’s ‘works of the law’ in the perspective of second century reception (wunt ii 468; tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2018), softcover, xvi + 269 pp. thomas d. mcglothlin tmcglothlin@caj.ac.jp christian academy in japan, tokyo 203-0013, japan what were the “works of the law” rejected by paul in favor of justification by faith? according to adherents of the so-called “old perspective on paul,” looking back to the protestant reformers’ interpretation of the apostle, “works of the law” are any and all human acts involving moral effort, regardless of the specific legal code guiding that effort. by practicing these works, one attempts to earn salvation from god—a futile and unnecessary undertaking, because salvation is a gift from god, received through faith. by contrast, adherents of the “new perspective on paul” argue that “works of the law” are more specific. the “law” is the torah, and the “works” are the observance of food laws, circumcision, and festivals. those who practice these works seek to demonstrate their connection with jews rather than gentiles. for christians, paul says, they are no longer necessary because, for some reason (proponents differ significantly here), these jewish particulars have been set aside for gentile followers of jesus. matthew j. thomas approaches this question through a study of early reception history. second-century christian authors provide valuable evidence, he argues, because they lived within the “living memory” of the apostles and those who knew them (pp. 4-8). if there was a generally understood definition of these “works of the law” within the christian communities of paul’s day, thomas reasons, it is likely that authors within living memory of that time would understand (or at least not significantly misunderstand) the correct meaning of the term. unfortunately, the surviving second-century authors rarely discuss “works of the law” explicitly. thomas therefore carefully distinguishes between three categories of texts, each with its own heuristic value. category a (justin martyr, irenaeus) is defined by (1) evident conflict regarding law or works with “jewish parties” (a term thomas consciously leaves ambiguous), (2) demonstrable use of mailto:tmcglothlin@caj.ac.jp mcglothlin: matthew j. thomas’ paul’s ‘works of the law’ 2 galatians and romans, and (3) direct use of the phrase “works of the law” or citations of pauline verses that do so. category b (ignatius, diognetus, melito) fulfills criteria (1) and (2) but not (3). category c (didache, barnabas, aristides) has only (1). thomas also includes short excurses on second-century fragments and the evidence available for the views of ebionites, marcion, and ptolemy. his goal is to prioritize direct discussions (category a) without ignoring circumstantial evidence (b and c). thomas begins by introducing the modern dispute over the phrase “works of the law,” summarizing the views of luther, calvin, bultmann, and douglas moo (representatives of the “old perspective”) and e. p. sanders, james d. g. dunn, and n. t. wright (representatives of the “new perspective”). thomas next moves to the early christian sources. he poses the same three questions to each author or text: what works of what law? what does practice of those works signify? why are those works not necessary for christians? thomas discerns important patterns. when “law” is rejected, it is consistently the mosaic law given at sinai. when specific practices are rejected, they are jewish practices of circumcision (even though circumcision was commanded before sinai), calendar observances, food regulations, and sacrifices. (many texts clearly distinguish between this rejected category of law and good works more broadly.) all view these works as demonstrating an identification with the jewish community. on why they are unnecessary for christians, though, there is far less consistency. suggestions include that they were never intended to be observed literally (barnabas), or that the biblical prophets rejected them and suffered persecution as a result (ignatius), or that they were directed to angels and not god (aristides), or that they were tailored by god for a particularly hard-hearted people—the israelites after the golden calf—and are therefore unnecessary for those transformed by christ (justin, irenaeus). thomas judges the most important motif, however, to be that of christ the lawgiver of the new covenant. the fundamental disagreement, then, concerns whether or not jesus is the jewish messiah. from all this data, thomas synthesizes an “early perspective” on works of the law and concludes that the modern “new perspective on paul” is closest to this “early perspective” regarding the referents of “works of the law” and the significance of practicing them. as for the reasons given for rejecting these practices, thomas finds wright’s covenantal view closest to that found in the second-century sources. nevertheless, he suggests that pauline scholarship would do well to explore more deeply the second-century theme of christ as the new lawgiver implicit in the phrase “law of christ” (e.g., gal 6:2). thomas’ readings are careful, nuanced, and conversant with secondary scholarship. he is aware that he is investigating a topic that was not the primary focus of many of the early authors. i found his readings of individual texts to be strong and his concluding synthesis thought-provoking. the following are some of the questions this study raised for me. first, if there was general consensus on the referent and significance of “works of the law,” why did early christians give such diverse reasons for rejecting them? for post-reformation polemics, the important point is that these sources did not 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) reject the necessity for salvation of good works outright. but for this period itself, the diverse and often frankly strange arguments offered by christian sources for rejecting practices like circumcision—especially in the earliest texts like barnabas—invites further analysis. second, what, precisely, is the value of the “living memory” time period? thomas wisely avoids claiming that these authors are correct on any specific point simply because of when they lived. he is looking instead for broader patterns, shared assumptions, and repeated topics of debate (second-century smoke that can help locate first-century fire). yet irenaeus, whose place within the “living memory” of the apostles is important to thomas’ argument, appeals to apostolic living memory to support his claim that jesus lived until close to the age of 50 (against heresies 2.25.5-6). some have used this datum to dismiss the value of any notion of a living apostolic tradition whatsoever, which surely goes too far. nevertheless, given the role of living memory in framing this study, acknowledgment of this issue by thomas would have added important nuance. third, what is the significance for thomas’ argument of the fact that irenaeus (category a) appealed to and used justin (the only other category a source)? the “early perspective” on the works of the law in its most coherent, developed form, then, might basically be justin’s perspective, which was then adapted by irenaeus. this is not to deny the value of the circumstantial evidence provided by the other, earlier texts, especially on the referent and significance of “works of the law.” it is only to note a limitation of the fully-developed synthesis, particularly on the controverted question of why these works are unnecessary for christians. this limitation is, of course, a product of the available evidence, from which thomas has successfully gleaned what information can be had on “works of the law.” 1 scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-10 the enduring controversy over the mortara case david kertzer david_kertzer@brown.edu brown university, providence, ri 02912 when i published my book on il caso mortara in 1997 i could never have imagined that, prompted by the publication of the book, over two decades later the case would receive such wide public attention and be the cause of renewed religious polemics involving catholics and jews. 1 at the time i wrote the kidnapping of edgardo mortara, the events had been largely forgotten, at least outside limited jewish circles, and even there not much was known about it. in writing the book, in fact, one of the issues i addressed, albeit briefly, was why a historical event of great political consequence, one that at the time attracted such intense interest from california to germany, and that involved the french emperor and pleas to the american president, had been so thoroughly forgotten. 2 most of all i reflected on the fact that with very few exceptions, italian historians had ignored the case and indeed most knew nothing about it when in fact it played a significant role in the key italian drama of the nineteenth century, the unification of italy. 3 the latest round of polemics came to a head in early 2018 with the publication in first things of an article, “non possumus,” by the dominican romanus cessario, professor of theology at boston’s st john’s seminary, defending pius ix’s decision to send the papal police to seize the six-year-old edgardo from his jewish family and remove him into a church institution. 4 in responding to critics of that piece, cessario suggests that my own account of that history was tendentious, writing: “if catholics are to respond effectively to david kertzer’s allegations in the kidnapping of edgardo mortara…. evaluation of pope pius ix’s actions … should be based on the most accurate detailing of the facts that political, legal, and religious history can provide.” what he suggests is the most accurate “detailing of the facts” comes from publication of an english edition last year of what is said to be the authentic account written by edgardo mortara him 1 a version of this article was given as the keynote address to the annual meeting of the council for centers on jewish-christian relations at providence college on november 4, 2018. 2 david i. kertzer, the kidnapping of edgardo mortara (new york: knopf, 1997). the book has now been published in eighteen languages. 3 the most notable exception being gemma volli’s series of articles on the mortara case published in 1960 (gemma volli, “il caso mortara,” rassegna mensile d’israel, terza serie, vol. 26, no. 1/2, pp. 29-39; no. 3, pp. 108-12; no. 4, pp. 149-57; no. 5, pp. 214-21; no. 6, pp. 274-79.) 4 cessario, romanus, o.p., “non possumus,” first things, february 2018, https://www.firstthings.com/article/2018/02/non-possumus. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2018/02/non-possumus kertzer: the enduring controversy over the mortara case 2 self of the controversial events surrounding pius ix’s actions. 5 i will later turn to that text, but i would first like to put all this in a larger historical framework. indeed, one of the key elements of the enduring mortara controversy has been the continuing failure to agree on the basic facts of the case, apart from any evaluation of whether what the principal players did was right or wrong, good or bad. it is true that some of the facts may never be fully known. in my book, i describe how from the very beginning, from the day that edgardo was taken from his home in 1858, two competing narratives of the events developed and were spread by partisans. defenders of the church told of a boy who within hours of being liberated from his jewish family saw the miraculous effects of his baptism work their wonders, as he begged the policeman who took him to rome to stop at churches along the way so that he could kneel and pray to the madonna. in this narrative, when edgardo’s parents came to visit him in the house of the catechumens in rome, he begged the rector to prevent them from returning, feeling threatened by them. on the other hand, the narrative that quickly appeared in the liberal and the jewish press of the time told of a small child violently torn from his father’s arms who went screaming into the police wagon, a child who when his parents visited him in rome’s house of the catechumens begged them tearfully not to leave without taking him home to his brothers and sisters in bologna. the logic behind father cessario’s premise seems on the face of it to be strong. english-speaking readers now have the account written by edgardo mortara himself of what happened to him, so past doubts about the events in question can be laid to rest. his first things essay appropriately appears in the form of a review of that book, newly published by the ignatius press of san francisco. 6 what apparently neither father cessario nor the editors of ignatius press realized was that what they published was a significantly altered version of what edgardo actually wrote, in spanish, in the 1880s. i detail some of this in the piece i published last spring for the atlantic and won’t go into that story here. 7 but let’s assume that a fully faithful translation of the actual text prepared in the 1880s by mortara had been published. how should we view the facts presented by the protagonist of the case himself? from early on, edgardo became one of the main composers of the narrative of what had happened to him at a young age. he would base much of his career as a preacher on crafting a stirring narrative of religious redemption as he traveled from country to country, the famous edgardo mortara, over whom a pope and an emperor once fought, revealing his true account of that dramatic tale. 5 cessario, romanus, o.p. “romanus cessario replies,” first things, april 18, 2018, https://www.firstthings.com/article/2018/04/letters. 6 messori, vittorio, kidnapped by the vatican? the unpublished memoirs of edgardo mortara (san francisco, ignatius press, 2017). 7 kertzer, david i., “the doctored ‘memoir’ of a jewish boy kidnapped by the vatican,” the atlantic, april 15, 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/edgardo-mortara-doctoredmemoir/554948/. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2018/04/letters https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/edgardo-mortara-doctored-memoir/554948/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/edgardo-mortara-doctored-memoir/554948/ 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) one of the earliest indications we have of the story that edgardo told of his redemption from his jewish family comes in a letter he wrote to pius ix in 1871 paying homage to the pope on the 25 th anniversary of the his pontificate. there he tells the pope of his great feeling of gratitude: “i know very well, and others know too, all i owe to you for freeing me from the insanities of the synagogue [dalle insanie della sinagoga]… but god’s enemies, who are the enemies of yours and mine, saw in this only a reason for attacking your holiness with violent furor, to injure you, to scorn you, to insult you, and so the most noble and heroic actions came to be made to look bad, and reciprocated with the cruelest and most vile sarcasms.” mortara then went on to blast the founders of the new italian state which had only the year before seized rome from the pope to make it italy’s capital, denouncing the “perverted, iniquitous, foolish liberators of italy who know not what they are doing.” he told the pope that the nation would be “infinitely happier and more pleased” to remain under his rule. 8 accounts of mortara’s sermons in his far-flung travels in the last decades of the nineteenth century, which he apparently gave in six different languages, offer some insight here. he gave a series of sermons during lent in 1897 in venice’s san marco basilica and subsequently had them published as a booklet. he waited until his last sermon to share his personal tale. “i will end,” he said, by satisfying your legitimate curiosity…. i was baptized by a young catholic girl when i was still a child and gravely ill living in the bosom of my jewish family and educated in the religion of my parents. i was ignorant of the fact that god’s grace had touched and redeemed me. six years later, the fact came to light, and pope pius ix…faithful to the tenets of divine law believed it his duty to place me, under his tutelage, in the heavenly nectar of catholic truth. he entrusted me to the director of the neophytes, then to the canons regular, to which order i belong today. much noise was made in my name and about my baptism. pius ix had to suffer much at the hands of the great and the little, as he used to say. but he remained firm, and firm i remained as well, firm in the grace that accompanied me. to all the temptations, the caresses, the flatteries of my relatives and strangers i responded: i am christian, and i want to die a christian. from that time grace persuaded me of the divinity of the [christian] religion. today i am convinced of it for another reason as well, because i have studied my religion and the others, and i would give my life to swear that only the catholic religion is true. 9 8 a handwritten draft of edgardo mortara’s letter is found in the historical archives of the canons regular, at san pietro in vincoli in rome, fascicolo n. 7839, mortara, pio d., bozza — “una canzone a pio ix – 25 o del ponteficato – 1871.” i would like to thank the late alessandro visani for his help with work in the archives of the canons regular in rome and in gubbio. 9 mortara, pio maria, sintesi delle conferenze tenute nella basilica patriarcale di s. marco e nella chiesa di s. moisè in venezia dal p. d. pio m.a mortara, canonico regolare lateranense, dottore in teologia—missionario apostolico (venezia, tip. patriarcale già cordella, 1897). a copy of the booklet is found in the historical archives of the canons regular, at san pietro in vincoli in rome, a8936. an outraged, combative review of the pamphlet can be found in the april 1897 issue of il corriere israelitico, written by rabbi giuseppe cammeo. kertzer: the enduring controversy over the mortara case 4 as part of his efforts to use his inspiring story not only to convert the jews but also to bring wayward catholics back to the church, edgardo travelled later that same year to the united states. hosted shortly after his landing with a sympathetic catholic community in brooklyn, he hastened to meet with new york’s archbishop to get support for his work. archbishop michael corrigan, the son of irish immigrants to newark, new jersey, was less than pleased to encounter the famous jewish convert, and, for reasons that will soon become clear, turned him down. but having done so he was nervous. at the time, the american church came under the responsibility of the congregation for the propaganda of the faith in rome, and, as corrigan would write, he was worried that his actions might be cast in a negative light. in writing to cardinal mieczysław ledóchowski, prefect of the congregation of propaganda fide, shortly after mortara’s visit, he explained: “as rev. mortara is in the hands of these three or four priests, whose sympathies i do not enjoy, i have reason to suspect that some report will be sent either to the vatican or to the s[acred] congregation [of propaganda fide] regarding the matter. for this reason it is best that your most reverend eminence knows the true state of affairs.” 10 the american archbishop’s letter, dated december 17, 1897, is worth quoting at some length. he wrote it in italian: your eminence, the priest e[dgardo] levi mortara, well known in europe and beyond, arrived within the past few days in new york. he came to visit me and spoke to me of establishing missions for italians and preaching in the churches of the city and outside it. i did not think it opportune to grant him the necessary permission, for i know from experience that it is very difficult to establish italian missions, and i know how difficult it is to keep those already existing going.… in addition, i do not think it prudent for rev. mortara to go around preaching here and there, because the jewish colony of new york is quite powerful both in political influence and in wealth, and it has friendly relations with catholics. if the above-mentioned priest were permitted to go around preaching, not only would the old stories end up being repeated in the newspapers, which would produce such a great outcry, and make such a bad impression in america to the detriment of the church, but moreover the catholics would lose the sympathy and the support of the jewish colony, which would certainly not look kindly on the granting of such a privilege to such a priest. 10 the italian historian giovanni pizzorusso discovered the corrigan letter in the propaganda fide archives in rome (nuova serie, vol. 332 (1905), ff. 126r-127v) and published the text, written in italian, in his 1998 article, “il caso mortara: due libri e un documento americano,” il veltro xlii, 1-2, pp. 134-41. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) archbishop corrigan concluded by telling the cardinal that before writing he had discussed the matter with the apostolic delegate to the united states (there was no nuncio then, given the lack of diplomatic relations with the u.s.), and the papal delegate “fully approved my ideas.” a couple of weeks after the new york archbishop wrote his letter, edgardo himself penned a letter, again offering himself as the definitive source of any accurate account of his story. mortara’s letter was occasioned by one he had received from isaac feibel, a jew in louisville, who wrote to him after reading graetz’s, now classic, then new history of the jews. 11 feibel was apparently troubled by graetz’s statement that in being taken from his parents and “brought up in the ways of catholicism; he eventually learned to curse his parents and his race.” mortara wrote his reply to feibel in english: you will readily admit that as i am the person spoken of in “gratz’s history of the jews” i can be more truly relied upon to give the particulars of my life than those whose minds were doubtlessly biassed [sic] by jewish predjudices [sic]. i was born in bologna italy, where there existed a law forbidding the employment of christian servants by those of the jewish faith. this law of the state my parents violated and had naturally to suffer the consequences. it was not against my wish that i left my home knowing full well that a refusal to do so would be a resistance to law and authority. pius ix was king of italy and in carrying out the above named law to its logical consequences was acting with all due authority as has been testified to in the high court of bologna in 1859. … against the calumnious and offensive statement made by gratz, that i learned to curse my parents i must solemnly protest. and on the contrary i assure that i have always had the deepest & most devoted attachment for them, never forgetting that jesus christ the true messiah never abolished the ten commandments of god. 12 there are many aspects of mortara’s handwritten letter that are striking, but let me just cite one. it involves one of the first bones of contention in the mortara case at the time. did edgardo leave his parents and siblings sobbing and distraught, or did he go happily. here mortara states: “it was not against my wish that i left my home knowing full well that a refusal to do so would be a resistance to law and authority.” i leave to readers the question of whether this first-person recollection is credible. edgardo was six years old at the time. having been rebuffed by the archbishop of new york, mortara began a several-months-long trip through many american cities, eager to preach and inspire his listeners with his account of how he had been saved by divine intervention and rescued from his jewish family. in philadelphia in march, he gave an inter 11 herman graetz, history of the jews, vol. 5, philadelphia: jewish publication society, 1895, pp. 700-1. 12 the original of mortara’s letter is to be found in the american jewish historical archives in new york city. kertzer: the enduring controversy over the mortara case 6 view to the local catholic newspaper. that the world was still paying attention is evident from the fact that the text of the interview was picked up by the press in europe as well. the version published by the semaine religieuse, the weekly publication of the lyon diocese in france, introduced the interview by heralding the fact that here was the person who could provide a true account of what had happened: “this is what he tells the reporter of the catholic standard, who asked him for the true story of his entry into the catholic church, as opposed to the imaginary fiction given by jewry and accredited by all of the world’s masonry.” in his philadelphia interview, after telling his story of what led the servant to baptize him, mortara asserted that in the weeks before the papal police seized him word of his baptism had already begun to spread: “when i learned that i was catholic, a strange impulse took hold of me, and i desired not to remain any longer in my parents’ home, wanting to receive a catholic education. my parents were practicing jews, and did not want to listen to me.” he continued: i was then only seven years old [he was six], and the laws of the papal states forced me to comply with my parents’ wishes. it was not long before the pope heard my exceptional case spoken of and of my parents’ energetic opposition. he invited them to end this opposition; he insisted saying that, since i had been baptized, he was obliged to take care of my catholic education. in this period the temporal power of the pope was at its full extent; my parents acquiesced. i went to rome; but i was not, as it was said at that time, forced to do so. mortara continued his story, recalling that his parents came to rome in an unsuccessful effort to get him to return home. he said that a friend of the family was present at one of these meetings and tried to convince him to go back to his family, using the argument: “the fourth commandment commands you to obey your father and your mother.” to which, mortara claims to have replied, “there are three other commandments that relate to my duties to god.” edgardo at that time would have recently celebrated his seventh birthday. hammering the point home, the french catholic article ended its account by citing the conclusion of the philadelphia catholic publication. these are the “declarations made by the ‘young mortara’ now around fifty years old; he is certainly more credible, when he speaks of that which regards him, than all the anticatholic journals gathered in one masonic whole.” 13 in fact, much of mortara’s account of what had happened to him is pure fiction. the story of his learning of his baptism weeks before the police arrived to take him is invention, as of course is the account of his desire to leave his parental home to become catholic. the scene of his arguments with his parents over his desire to leave home is fictitious, as is his entire description of the pope’s efforts to convince his parents to let him go. the moving scene of the family friend cit 13 semaine religieuse du diocèse de lyon, mars 1898, pp. 306-7. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) ing the ten commandments is similarly an invention. in fact it would have been unthinkable for the papal authorities to allow a jewish family friend into the house of catechumens to see him. we know much of this thanks to the several hundred pages of testimony about these events taken in early 1860 as part of the trial of the inquisitor on charges of kidnapping edgardo. in those records, we find lengthy testimony given by almost all of the principals involved in the taking of edgardo from his family, including his father, his mother, the policeman who removed him from his parents, and indeed of the inquisitor himself. in fact, this is a historical case where we have an excellent documentary record of what happened, available for anyone to consult in the state archives of bologna. we also have many hundreds of contemporaneous documents on the case to be found both in the vatican secret archives and in the historical archives of the jewish community of rome. a decade after mortara’s visit to the united states, catholic journals in europe were still reporting his own inspiring, first-person accounts of his story. a long narrative in the 1908 bulletin of a french catholic mission dedicated to the conversion of the jews avidly reported on mortara’s latest telling of his story. it began by emphasizing the huge impact that the taking of the little boy had on the fate of the church. although the pope was acting in accordance with church and civil law at the time (which of course were one and the same in the papal states), the journal explained, “the enemies of the pope were looking for a pretext to take away his crown and his temporal domains. this incident accelerated the evolution of political events, and the princes, rising up against the lord and against his christ, provoked the people to break the yoke of the pontifical theocracy.” the mission bulletin then returned to mortara’s own account, which, as he frequently did, he gave using the third person, in recollecting his early encounters with the pope after his arrival in rome: “sometimes, seeing the boy at his feet, the innocent cause of the uprising of hell, [the pontiff] cried out amidst his tears, ‘do you see this child here! the great and the small wanted to tear his soul away from me, but i said to all: “no, i cannot: non possumus! to surrender a soul would be a great crime.”’” and so, reported mortara, recollecting after half a century these scenes in his first weeks in rome, “neither the tender entreaties of my dear parents, nor the most attractive promises succeeded” because “grace never abandoned me.” “my response was always the same: i am christian! if my parents would only become christian too, then i would return to my family.” the article concluded with what it described as mortara’s plea: “as the anniversary of my deliverance from the kingdom of darkness coincides with that of the brilliant triumph of the immaculate virgin, i ask for prayers at our lady of lourdes; prayers for me, for my dead parents, for my brothers who are still jews, so that there fall from their eyes the thick veil that prevents them from recognizing the divine redeemer.” 14 14 “association de prières en faveur d’israël, résumé du 3 e trimestre de l’année 1908.” annales de la mission de n.-d. de sion en terre sainte, bulletin n. 121 (paris, devalois, 1908), pp. 9-14. kertzer: the enduring controversy over the mortara case 8 the recent polemics i now turn to the recent polemics over the mortara case, again looking especially at how the actual historical facts of the case have been distorted. even before steven spielberg’s announcement of his plan to make a film based on my book drew new attention to the story, alfred uhry’s play based on the book triggered angry reaction from some of the usual suspects among the defenders of the church of pius ix (read: the church before it took a wrong turn with the second vatican council). 15 in a piece titled, “fact or fiction: it’s catholic bashing just the same,” the catholic league reacted to the book and play by charging: “whether it’s based on fact or fiction, or whether it’s portrayed on the stage or on the screen, the catholic bashers are a busy lot these days. they are as good at twisting the facts as they are at developing fictional accounts. truth doesn’t matter. what matters is results.” 16 a similar script has been followed by the many bloggers of a similar persuasion in reacting to the spielberg announcement of the planned film. as a typical passage in one of these puts it: the mortara case fell into obscurity shortly after the initial hubbub, except within jewish circles, where it remained a cause celebre. it was obscure, that is, until the anti-catholic jewish historian david kertzer published a book many feel is badly biased on the subject in 1997. … kertzer has written other hateful screeds alleging that catholic popes played a significant role in the “rise” of anti-semitism in europe in the 19 th and 20 th centuries and also in the rise in fascism in the 20s and 30s. 17 i could multiply my examples of such invectives, many referring to mortara’s own account of what had happened to him as the one accurate account of the case, comparing my own account unflatteringly to it. 18 it is from this conservative matrix within the church—identified with the opponents of pope francis—that the publication of what is represented as mortara’s own memoir sprang. its italian language publication in 2002 by vittorio messori, a man who coauthored books with both popes john paul ii and benedict xvi, was little noticed outside italy. 19 he offered the book as a direct response to my own, again 15 alfred uhry’s play, edgardo mine, was performed at hartford stage in hartford, connecticut in 2002 and at the guthrie theatre in minneapolis in 2006. 16 https://www.catholicleague.org/fact-or-fiction-its-catholic-bashing-just-the-same/ 17 “a blog for dallas area catholics”, https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2016/06/23/stevenspielberg-set-to-make-anti-catholic-diatribe-as-next-film/. 18 among many examples, see “the truth about edgardo levi-mortara,” found on the web site of our lady resistance, dating to 2014: http://ourladysresistance.org/antipope-francis.html. not surprisingly, some of these right-wing catholic sites are openly anti-semitic. for an italian example, see “caso mortara: la verità e la propaganda,” https://www.ariannaeditrice.it/articolo.php?id_articolo=58128. “the jewish director steven spielberg is preparing a ‘colossal’ about the life of don pio edgardo mortara, which is being predicted to be only the latest of the many jewish propaganda films produced in hollywood.” 19 vittorio messori, “io, il bambino rapito da pio ix.” il memoriale inedito del protagonista del ‘caso mortara’ (milan, mondadori, 2005). https://www.catholicleague.org/fact-or-fiction-its-catholic-bashing-just-the-same/ https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2016/06/23/steven-spielberg-set-to-make-anti-catholic-diatribe-as-next-film/ https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2016/06/23/steven-spielberg-set-to-make-anti-catholic-diatribe-as-next-film/ http://ourladysresistance.org/antipope-francis.html https://www.ariannaeditrice.it/articolo.php?id_articolo=58128 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) claiming that the account he was publishing by mortara himself would offer the fully accurate story. in an interview in italy’s leading newspaper, il corriere della sera, following his book’s italian publication, messori criticized those of us who had not relied on mortara’s account, saying that we ignored it “because the ‘true’ mortara, not the one used as a polemical weapon, never mattered to anyone.” 20 yet dismissing what attempts to be as accurate an account of the events that a historian can achieve on the grounds that it does not take mortara’s own account as the gold standard is to fail to recognize that no account of the case is more partisan, and more constructed post facto, than that offered by mortara himself. as i mentioned earlier, in my recent atlantic article i detailed both the ways in which messori altered what mortara actually did write in the text that ignatius press recently published, and the ways in which mortara’s l880s original text itself misrepresents the history, so i won’t repeat myself here. but let me offer one example, for those who may not have been following the recent polemics. i refer here to the way ignatius press has been advertising the book: kidnapped by the vatican? the unpublished memoirs of edgardo mortara. the publicists seize on a passage that indeed messori makes much of in his lengthy introduction to the book, writing in their catalog copy for the book: “after several failed attempts to persuade his parents to enroll him in a local catholic school, in 1858 pope pius ix had the boy taken from his family in bologna and sent to a catholic boarding school in rome.” in fact, no such attempts to persuade his parents to enroll edgardo in a local catholic school were ever made. again, this is pure fiction, invented by mortara himself. 21 as you can imagine i have found these continuing attacks on my mortara book to be upsetting. but i believe they may also be evidence of something much more important than my own ruffled feathers. when the italian edition of my mortara book came out two decades ago, it was reviewed in l’avvenire, the most important catholic newspaper in italy, published by the italian church hierarchy itself. i could not have been more pleased with the review: despite the notoriety of the case, the story of edgardo mortara had not, until today, been object of specialized studies…. kertzer reconstructs that event 20 “non diffamate pio ix il mio santo rapitore,” interview by aldo cazzullo of vittorio messori, corriere della sera, 13 giugno 2005. a few days later, the same paper published a lengthy response to messori in the form of an interview with elèna mortara, a descendant of the mortara family and author of writing for justice: victor séjour, the kidnapping of edgardo mortara, and the age of transatlantic emancipations (hanover: dartmouth college press, 2015). the article is titled “il nostro avo bambino rapito e plagiato da pio ix” (corriere della sera, 17 giugno 2005, p. 35). 21 it is notable that father massimo mancini, an italian dominican friar, in his recent piece on his fellow dominican pier gaetano feletti, the bologna inquisitor who directed the taking of edgardo, points out this error in mortara’s account. he quotes the trial testimony of feletti himself to the effect that edgardo’s parents only first heard of the alleged baptism when the carabinieri arrived at their home to remove edgardo (mancini, massimo o.p. “pier gaetano feletti e l'affare mortara.” pp. 42137 in dominikaner und junen/dominicans and jews, ed. by elias h. füllenback o.p. and gianfranco miletto (berlin, de gruyter, 2015)), pp. 426-27. http://www.vittoriomessori.it/blog/2014/04/21/non-diffamate-pio-ix-il-mio-santo-rapitore/ kertzer: the enduring controversy over the mortara case 10 in a manner that carefully attends to the motives of both sides…. the episode has been reconstructed with great finesse by david kertzer, who recalls the great pain of the family, but also brings to light the strong personal tie that was established between pius ix and the jewish boy. the pope kept him near him with paternal affection and closely followed the course of succeeding events…. kertzer’s book reveals the capacity to analyze catholic motives and behaviors that were truly not easy for the jews to understand…. and then, in its final paragraph, the review sums up: “in short, kertzer’s book efficaciously also shows how the historical analysis of painful events can contribute to promote a better reciprocal understanding between christians and jews.” 22 pardon me if i end on this immodest note. but i think it worth pondering the contrast between this 1997 church view of the telling of the mortara story, and the reactions we are seeing today. are there forces now acting within the catholic church in opposition to pope john paul ii’s plea in the millennial year of 2000 for the church and the sons and daughters of the church, to come to a “cleareyed” understanding of the church’s past? of course, there were always some in the church who resented anyone—and here catholic authors like garry wills and jim carroll were likely to be especially castigated—reporting unflattering aspects of church history, and always some who rejected interreligious respect and understanding. but it is hard not to wonder whether the opponents of the sea change that the second vatican council represented have not now taken up the mortara case and fashioned it into a weapon to be used by those who see themselves as defenders of the true church. 22 agostino giovagnoli, “‘rapito’ da pio ix,” avvenire, 29 marzo 1997, p. 20. microsoft word doetzel.doc studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers in jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college “branches of that good olive tree:” 21st century liturgical challenges and possibilities audrey doetzel, nds center for christian-jewish learning at boston college volume 1 (2005-2006): pp. 127-150 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 128 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 introduction on october 28, 1965 when vatican council ii – through the promulgation of nostra aetate – began the process of addressing the church’s relationship with jews and judaism, the council fathers recognized the importance of the declaration and the depths to which this new teaching would reach. when they began section §4 on jews and judaism by remembering “the bond that spiritually ties the people of the new covenant to abraham’s stock,” they spoke of this remembering as a searching into the mystery of the church.1 aware that the church and its liturgy are inseparably linked within the mystery of god and revelation, the vatican commission for religious relations with the jews, in its 1974 and 1985 documents, began expanding nostra aetate’s immediate liturgical concern for care “in the preaching of the word of god.” they directed the church’s attention to the links between christian and jewish liturgy, demanded caution in dealing with liturgical explanations and with translations of and commentaries on biblical texts, and began addressing problematic liturgical expressions and representations of jews and judaism in greater detail.2 various national episcopal conferences developed related documents to apply these directives in their local contexts.3 1 in this paper, as a member of the catholic christian community, my primary focus is on liturgy as experienced in roman catholic christianity. however, i also occasionally simply refer to christianity and christian liturgy as a way of acknowledging that similar liturgical problems are being faced and efforts made by a majority of mainline christian denominations, as the paper by e. byron anderson in this volume attests. 2 see guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration, nostra aetate (§4), 1974, ii, and notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church, 1985, v, 23. 3 see, for example: “jewish roots of christian teaching and worship,” “jewish prayer and liturgy,” “presentation of jesus’ passion,” and these documents acknowledged the need for theological reparation for the injustices and violence done to the people and faith of judaism. they recognized as well the injustice christianity had done to itself – to its inner spiritual and psychological health – by incorporating into its collective self-identity the denigration of a people and a faith, while depriving itself of a full appreciation of the richness of its ancient roots. aware of the power of the church’s liturgical expressions to educate, form and transform, church leaders knew that it is primarily through liturgy that the faith identity of christians is shaped, nurtured and affirmed – for better or for worse – with an innate capacity for inclusion of and reverence for the “other” or with an innate propensity for exclusion and triumphalism. the church marks the fortieth anniversary of nostra aetate at a time when the confluence of religious, political, intellectual and cultural movements are rendering the early years of the new christian millennium a time of unparalleled “density.”4 david n. power warns about the liturgical temptation during times like this: the greatest danger threatening liturgical reform is that of a retreat into the past, or a retreat into abstract universalism. it is one to which churches succumb when “catechesis and liturgy” in within context: guidelines for the catechetical presentation of jews and judaism in the new testament (1986), jointly developed by the secretariat for catholic-jewish relations of the usa national conference of catholic bishops, the adult education department of the usa catechetical conference, and the interfaith affairs department of the anti-defamation league; and god’s mercy endures forever: guidelines on the presentation of jews and judaism in catholic preaching (1988), by the u.s. bishops’ committee on liturgy. 4 in this paper i consider a historical moment “dense” if it is a period in which there is a significant confluence of events and changes, whether negatively conflictual or positively inspiring and challenging. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 129 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 they find themselves doomed to silence by the inability even to face, let alone make any sense of, current reality.5 given the density of the present historical moment and the gravity of power’s warning, it behooves the church, during this next post-nostra aetate decade, to take a more comprehensive overview of recent developments in liturgical theology and liturgical history and consider their implications for the liturgical life of the church in the 21st century. therefore, this paper is in two parts. part one serves as a prefatory foundation to underpin and inform the observations and liturgical explorations that follow. it begins with some representative voices informing us about today’s understanding of the richly pluriform action of liturgy. then, after briefly tracing the effects of the church’s attention or inattention to both continuity and change in its liturgical expression during four significantly dense historical times, it proceeds to identify four events or movements that i consider major contributors to the density of the present historical moment. part two begins by outlining a three-point focus for 21st century liturgical transformation. this serves as the lens through which i explore new liturgical possibilities relating mainly to the liturgical year and to the adventchristmas cycle. part one the pluriform action of liturgy in their communal liturgical moments christians are most uniquely themselves before god and the world. here their 5 see david n. power, “response: liturgy, memory and the absence of god” in worship 57 (1983): 328 for this message power presented at the 1983 meeting of the north american academy of liturgy. manner of singing the songs and telling the stories of the central mysteries of their faith both profoundly shapes and is shaped by their theology, their spirituality, and their moral/ethical views and actions. it is through the liturgy, the primary collective praxis of their belief, that christians commit themselves to these stances and declare them publicly to the world. nothing else in the life of the church so vividly expresses its ecclesial identity. though it is first and foremost a living ritual directed toward the experience and glorification of god and the sanctification of humanity, the pluriform liturgical action also expresses the church’s theology – not through speculative abstraction, but by gesturing to god and the world through communal symbol, ritual and cultic acts how christians know god and the world.6 already in the fifth century, prosper of aquitaine expressed the reciprocal relationship between liturgy and theology through which they mutually derive from and shape each other with his saying, lex orandi, lex credendi (the church believes as she prays). literature from the patristic era – particularly about mystagogic catechesis7 which derived theological understanding of the sacraments directly from what was spoken, symbolized and enacted through the liturgy – illustrates that liturgy as enacted rites served as the primary source for theology.8 today’s 6 see e. byron anderson and bruce t. morrill, eds., liturgy and the moral self: humanity at full stretch before god (collegeville, mn: the liturgical press, 1998), ix. 7 the term “mystagogy,” derived from the language of the mysteries (mysterion), refers to the introduction of the uninitiated to the knowledge and effective celebration of the mysteries. “mystagogic catechesis” is a continued reflection with the newly initiated christians fostering a deeper understanding of their salvation in christ. the teaching leads from their new sacramental experience to a fuller comprehension of the meaning of now being an integral part of the church. 8 see kevin w. irwin, context and text: method in liturgical theology (collegeville, mn: the liturgical press, 1994), 3-10. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 130 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 conversations between theologians and liturgists not merely affirm this tradition, but increasingly emphasize the need for the church to acknowledge this vital interactivity whereby liturgy serves as a “locus of theology.” it is a living means whereby revelation is transmitted.9 though it would do violence to liturgy to reduce it to a didactic act, it is nevertheless the case that, since the beginning of the christian era, liturgy and learning as catechesis have together formed the praxis (reflective action) through which the faith of the community is informed, reflected upon and nurtured. kennedy neville and westerhoff affirm this when they state: liturgy nurtures the community of faith through celebrative symbolic acts of faith. catechesis nurtures the community of faith through mindful attempts to communicate and reflect upon the story (myth) which underlies and informs these acts of faith….the life of faith and the community of faith cannot exist without both. and faithful life implies their integration.10 also intrinsically interrelated at the heart of christian life are liturgy and spirituality. kevin w. irwin observes: spiritually implies how one views all of life from the perspective of christian revelation and faith and how one’s life values and actual daily living are shaped by that revelation, enacted in the celebration of the liturgy. 9 see a. stenzel, “les modes de transmission de lá revelation” mysterium salutis, l’église et la transmission de la revelation, vol. 3 (paris: cerf, 1969), 161. 10 gwen kennedy neville and john h. westerhoff, learning through education (new york: the seabury press, 1978), 91. spirituality thus relies on and is nurtured by both liturgy and prayer.11 this interrelationship is integrally related to the formation of christian affections as understood by don saliers. he speaks of “deep affection” as “a basic attunement which lies at the heart of a person’s way of being and acting.”12 uniting prayer, belief and ethical action, he sees liturgical practice as cultivating these deep affections, orienting the christian’s praise and gratitude to god toward an overflow in love and care of neighbor. like irwin, saliers introduces a third term into the lex orandi, lex credendi relationship. irwin speaks of it as lex vivendi (law of living), and saliers as lex agendi (law of ethical action). both imply an internal, conceptual link between liturgy and ethics indicating that liturgical practice profoundly influences the moral and ethical transformation of persons and society.13 historical expressions of liturgical continuity and change this multi-dimensional breadth of catholic liturgical life is due, at least in part, to the church’s ability – beginning in its foundational period – to simultaneously incorporate both continuity and change in its ritual and cult. throughout its history, the church’s identity-consciousness and its concern for efficacy have provoked it to value the conservation of memory and the maintenance of tradition while simultaneously nurturing vision and incarnating new liturgical expressions as inspired or demanded by changing 11 irwin, context and text, 312. 12 don e. saliers, the soul in paraphrase: prayer and religious affections (new york: seabury press, 1980), 4-9. 13 see anderson and morrill, liturgy and the moral self, 4-13. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 131 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 theological understandings, political/social realities and cultural practices.14 the church’s originating period – during which the earliest christian communities searched for vocabulary and ritual to express in public worship the newness accomplished in jesus – was dense with competing jewish movements and an emerging diversity of opinions regarding the relationship between the followers of jesus and judaism. the sociological forces related to identity, membership and boundaries became even more complex as the newlyforming community was affected by the jewish rebellion against rome, the destruction of the temple, a growing diaspora of jews and christians, and an increasing gentile presence within the christian community. although there was a great diversity of practices as these communities searched for an identity in new times and places, the ”christologization” of the community’s worship remained closely related to jewish patterns of worship – be it the sabbath, baptism, prayer or the meal – while also expressing radically new content through the creation of new texts and the improvisation or adaptation of prayers, symbols and rituals.15 this pattern of continuity and improvisation also marked the patristic era, a dense period during which christianity struggled for survival, respectability, and, ultimately, political power while also engaged in intense internal theological disputes, especially in relation to christological doctrine. kevin irwin speaks of this period as 14 in 1963 the second vatican council expressed this in sacrosanctum concilium, §4 as follows: “this council also desires that…the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.” 15 see charles perrot, “worship in the primitive church,” 1-9, and pedro fames scherer, “creative improvisation, oral and written, in the first centuries of the church,” 22-23, in mary collins and david power, eds., concilium – liturgy: a creative tradition (new york: the seabury press: edinburgh: t & t clark ltd, 1983). the era during which “we learn that it is liturgy as enacted rites that serves as the primary source for theology.” while ensuring that the liturgy continued in conformity with apostolic tradition, textual or ritual fixity gave way as contemporary controversies and local circumstances demanded change, evolution and development. “[t]he lex orandi reflected a living theology and supported a response to liturgy in christian living… [it was] an era during which variety in liturgical ritual and in theological meaning flourished.”16 however, it has been when the church’s liturgical expression either lost essential elements of the tradition or failed to dynamically evolve and develop that its liturgy has fostered decline and decay rather than vitality and development in the life of the church. this was apparent particularly during medieval times and in the post-tridentine era. the medieval period, fertile with ecclesiastical, intellectual, social, political and artistic movements, saw the rise of great religious orders and movements. yet, many of its liturgical accretions and practices failed to express a living theology, its emphasis on systematizing theology to a great extent divorced theology from the church’s liturgical rites. the conception of the eucharist was individualized, the validity of the sacraments was restricted to a minimum of matter and form, and the official ministers of the socially constituted church largely displaced the congregation in its liturgical role. the liturgy was rendered an action done for the community rather than the community’s expression and celebration of its faith. consequently, at the time of the reformation, a liturgy lacking authenticity and theological accuracy was in great need of reform. unfortunately, the roman catholic world’s defensive concern to counteract the reformers and to unify the church blinded it to its liturgical need for both continuity with tradition and creative response. 16 irwin, context and text, 7-10. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 132 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 the concern for liturgical uniformity and rubrical precision, bolstered by tenacious legalism, served to divorce lex orandi from lex credendi in the post-tridentine church. some of the effects of this divorce are still apparent in the life of the church today. the density of the present historical moment viewed in relation to effective ecclesial liturgical expression, the density of the present time can be attributed to four main events or movements: the shoah and the church’s theological and pastoral response to this tragedy; an increasing pluralist sensibility within the christian community; the increasingly dangerous potential of the alliance between religion and violence; and expressions of ecclesial compassion gradually transforming a stance of triumphalism. the shoah and nostra aetate, §4. the magnitude of the horror of the shoah and the challenge it presents to liturgical expression is effectively expressed in the thought of johann baptist metz, for whom: auschwitz is the paradigmatic case of an interruption in history, a meaningless surd which cannot be encompassed by any system of thought…it can be brought within the horizon of christian faith and hope only by means of narratives which transform us as they irritate our present horizon of understanding and hope, as they call us to hope with and for those without hope…nurturing this hope…also moves us toward more radical action.17 17 james matthew ashley, interruptions: mysticism, politics, and theology in the work of johann baptist metz (notre dame, indiana: university of notre dame press, 1998), 126. this tragic failure of humanity compelled the church’s most courageous voices, prior to and during vatican council ii, to acknowledge the danger and sinfulness of its supersessionist under-belly and its triumphalist, absolutist path. driven by a moral imperative, their repentant search into this moral and theological failure resulted in the articulation of nostra aetate, §4. on march 13, 2005 cardinal walter kasper referred to this declaration as revolutionary. its two epoch-making resolutions – which recalled the church to its jewish roots, and which affirmed god’s unrevoked covenant with the jewish people – renounced theological anti-judaism and the supersessionist substitution theory that had been current since the second century. since then, ecclesial and scholarly dialogues focusing on history and theology, and new exegetical approaches to scriptural scholarship, have radically diminished the anti-judaic interpretations of previous influential scholarship. yet, kasper indicated that the church is only “at the beginning of the beginning” in these efforts to re-read scripture and history in light of the shoah and in the theological reformulations needed, especially in the areas of christology, soteriology and evangelization.18 the encounter with pluralism. the 21st century finds the church part of a religiously and culturally diverse global community, vastly different from the more circumscribed experiences of previous centuries when faiths were ritualized in smaller worlds with a homogenous vision and common values. this increasing historical and pluralist consciousness, while presupposing a larger unity (e.g., of species, historical interaction, national identity, etc.), acknowledges that real persistent differences prevail 18 cardinal kasper’s remarks were part of his keynote address on “the need for theological discussion in the catholic-jewish dialogue” at a celebration of the 40th anniversary of nostra aetate: catholic-jewish relations in theological dialogue, march 13, 2005, washington, dc. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 133 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 between people, their views of life, and their ways of acting. at vatican council ii the church anticipated this encounter with pluralism, not only in nostra aetate, but also in its declaration on religious liberty (dignitatis humanae) and in the pastoral constitution on the church in the modern world (gaudium et spes).19 this new world, polycentric in its horizons of interpretation, is compelling the church to find ways to present anew the grand narrative of its faith. while remaining faithfully rooted in the past, this new retelling of the christian story must transcend the past and include the ‘other’ in a manner that values without marginalizing or denigrating. this challenge can be perceived negatively through the lens of relativism, or it can be construed positively as, for example, in current efforts in comparative theology,20 which encourages theologians rooted in their own traditions to receive light and insight from that “ray of truth which enlightens all” that may be found in the religion, way of conduct and life of the “other” (cf., na, §4). in this challenge the church can look to the vision exemplified by the late pope john paul ii. in october 1986, in observance of the international year of peace, and again in january 2002, in the wake of the september 11th terrorist attacks and the war and tensions in afghanistan, pakistan, and india, he called the heads of the great religions to gather in assisi to pray together for peace, each according to its own creed. to people throughout the world these initiatives spoke of spiritual courage, implicit respect for each religion, and the message that religion must never be used to incite hatred and violence. 19 see dignitatis humanae, §15 and gaudium et spes, §2. 20 i refer to the work of such scholars as francis x. clooney, sj, former professor of comparative theology at boston college and recently appointed parkman professor of divinity and professor of comparative theology at harvard university; and james l. fredericks of loyola marymount university. see, for example, j.l. fredericks, faith among faiths: christian theology and the non-christian religions (mahwah, nj: paulist press, 1999). the alliance between religion and violence. these positive efforts for interfaith relationship and understanding acknowledge the potential, in all religions, for a dangerous, dark alliance between religion and violence. the recent profusion of serious academic publications addressing this reality21 witnesses to the global dimension of this alliance, which underlies the current escalation of religious extremism, the interaction between religion and stateorganized murder in the twentieth century, and the continuing appeal and potential for using religion to incite war. this danger is evident not only in the very overt global rise of religious terrorism, but also in the more subtle, often undeclared reliance on religion to provide political identities and give license to vengeful ideologies. the ability of religion to demand passionate and exclusive allegiance and to forge collective identity over against the “other” demands that serious attention be given to the national conflicts, racial hatreds, and ethnic divisions marking the current historical moment. an ecclesial turn from triumphalism to compassion. pope john paul ii’s jubilee year call for a “purification of memory” in the church and his lent 2000 prayer for 21 examples include: mark juergensmeyer, terror in the mind of god: the global rise of religious violence (berkeley/los angeles/london: university of california press, 2000); charles kimball, when religion becomes evil (harpersanfrancisco, 2002); omer bartov and phyllis mack, eds., in god’s name: genocide and religion in the twentieth century (new york/oxford: berghahn books, 2001); leo d. lefebure, revelation, the religions and violence (maryknoll, ny: orbis books, 2000); willard m. swartley, ed., violence renounced: rené girard, biblical studies and peacemaking (telford, pa: pandora press u.s., 2000); joseph h. ehrenkranz and david l. coppola, religion, and violence and peace (fairfield, ct: sacred heart university press, 2000); regina m. schwartz, the curse of cain: the violent legacy of monotheism (chicago/london: the university of chicago press, 1997); gil bailie, violence unveiled: humanity at the crossroads (new york, ny: the crossroad publishing co., 1995). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 134 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 forgiveness at the foot of the cross add a significant element to the present confluence of events. never in the history of christianity has the leader of the church so publicly and comprehensively acknowledged the sins of its past and its need for expiation and forgiveness. his very demeanor at the western wall in jerusalem when he placed in a crevice of the wall the prayer asking for forgiveness from the “god of our fathers” and expressing a new commitment “with the people of the covenant,” declared a turning point in the church – a turn away from a stance of power and triumphalism to a humble following of the gospel call to compassion, reconciliation, justice, and peace. the density of the current historical moment confronts the present life and the future of the church with challenges and possibilities of unprecedented proportions. it behooves the church to recall the 1980 words of pope john paul ii, which he repeated again in 1989 on the 25th anniversary of the constitution of the sacred liturgy: “a very close and organic bond exists between the renewal of the liturgy and the renewal of the whole life of the church.”22 to remain true to its tradition and to maintain spiritual credibility and vitality, the church must look seriously at its liturgy and consciously opt for responsible and creative development and change. the church neglects this challenge at its own peril. part two focus for 21st century liturgical transformation in the immediate post-nostra aetate years, liturgical attention focused mainly on much-needed problem solving, liturgical pruning and damage control – especially in relation 22 pope john paul ii, letter: “dominicae cenae,” 13: aas 72 (1980): 146; pope john paul ii, apostolic letter, “vicesimus quintus annus,” origins 19 (1989/90): 17ff. to the problematic use of scriptural texts and preaching, rituals and prayers during the lenten and paschal seasons. these efforts need continued attention. however, if our newly-developing theological, spiritual and moral-ethical understandings – as informed by the theological dialogue as well as by the events of 21st century life – are not to remain mere intellectual abstractions or vague intuitions and aspirations, the church needs to expand its liturgical vision and imagination. hence, the latter part of this essay will begin to explore new liturgical possibilities in response to three specific challenges: 1. lessons christianity is learning from the shoah; 2. a renewed appreciation of jesus’ incarnation as true man within a specific people and culture; and 3. a call to exegetical responsibility in the christian use of prophetic material from the hebrew scriptures. 1. lessons from the shoah in a june 9, 2005 address to jewish delegates, pope benedict xvi affirmed the ongoing need to be attentive to the profound implications of the shoah: [r]emembrance of the past remains for both communities a moral imperative and a source of purification in our efforts to pray and work for reconciliation, justice, respect for human dignity and for that peace which is ultimately a gift from the lord himself. of its very nature this imperative must include a continued reflection on the profound historical, moral and theological questions presented by the experience of the shoah.23 a brief exploration of three implications of the shoah follows. 23 pope benedict xvi, june 9, 2005, “address to delegates of the international jewish committee on interreligious consultations.” studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 135 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 a. the need for an ethics of biblical interpretation while still joseph cardinal ratzinger, in his 2001 preface to the pontifical biblical commission’s the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible, pope benedict highlighted the fact that “[i]n its work the biblical commission could not ignore the contemporary context, where the shock of the shoah has put the whole question under a new light.” observing that a new respect needs to emerge, he drew attention to the study’s declaration “that the jewish reading of the bible is a possible one, in continuity with the jewish sacred scripture from the second temple period, a reading analogous to the christian reading which developed in parallel fashion” (§22). he went on to say that “[the study] adds that christians can learn a great deal from a jewish exegesis practiced for more than two thousand years,” concluding that “this analysis will prove useful for…the interior formation of christian consciousness.”24 these words from the church’s newly-elected leader indicate that, in face of the shoah, a retreat into abstract universalism – the caution signaled earlier in the words of david power25 – is not a liturgical option. the pope’s statement about “the interior formation of christian consciousness” benefiting from jewish exegesis calls for concretizing the lessons learned. the need for ongoing vigilance regarding supersessionism, anti-judaism and antisemitism is a given in our preaching, prayer and use of scripture. but this affirmation of the continuing validity of jewish interpretation calls the church further with regard to its respect for and use of this primary interpretation. 24 joseph cardinal ratzinger, “preface” to the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible, pontifical biblical commission, feast of the ascension, 2001. 25 see footnote 5. b. the need for a more comprehensive understanding of our universe of moral obligation pope john paul ii’s post-shoah words and actions, which depicted anti-semitism as a violation of human dignity and a person’s inalienable human rights, were frequently universalized and extended to all human beings. his constant message that each human being possesses an infinite dignity that commands unconditional respect is considered by many a prime characteristic of his papacy. it extends the christian’s universe of moral obligation beyond national boundaries, beyond race, and beyond religion. that this message was universally understood and taken to heart was amply proven by the manner in which the “people of the world” were present and paid tribute to karol wojtyla at the time of his death. ongoing post-holocaust study and reflection on the divine-human relationship is extending this universe of moral obligation by insisting that no aspect of creation lies outside its parameters. an increasing number of systematic and moral theologians are expressing convictions about a selflimiting, vulnerable god becoming more dependent on a human community entrusted with co-creational responsibility and power. they find solid ground in church statements such as pope john paul ii’s laborem exercens and numerous national episcopal social documents that highlight this co-creatorship theme. john pawlikowski, the holocaust scholar and moral theologian who has addressed this at greatest length, speaks of a compelling rather than a commanding god who, in the process of creational salvation, is utterly dependent upon the human community. pawlikowski holds that “[t]he holocaust and…succeeding genocides have taught us that god will not, perhaps even cannot, effect the full redemption of that part of divine power he has graciously shared with humankind unless human beings assume their appointed role of co-creators.” studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 136 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 however, it is imperative that the strength of this conviction be heard against the backdrop of his equally strong caution that unless this understanding of co-creatorship is accompanied by a heightened sense of dependence and humility, “the potential for goodness and love inherent in the new consciousness will become a reality that is one long nightmare of hate and destruction.”26 christian-jewish study and dialogue on the themes of messiah and messianic era also contribute to this increasing emphasis on the responsibility of co-creatorship. works such as jonathan sacks’ recent publication on ethics of responsibility extend to all of humanity the tikkun olam obligation to heal the world’s fractures and the messianist obligation to help realize the prophetic ideal of justice and peace.27 c. the need for a deeper understanding of the power of symbolism and its effective use in public ritual any student of the third reich is aware of the important role symbolism and public ritual played in the implementation of the nazi systematic plan of action. their public liturgies were an essential part of the nazi effort to forge social cohesion, determine public values, and ensure impassioned commitment and support. an alienated and frustrated weimar germany was effectively revitalized, not merely by rational ideologies, but by the presentation of new symbols capable of releasing the vitalistic energies of the people – albeit in a destructive rather than a constructive moral manner. 26 see pawlikowski, “liturgy and the holocaust,” 171-175. 27 jonathan sacks, to heal a fractured world: the ethics of responsibility (new york: schocken books, 2005). see also my review essay, “nostra aetate, §4, the rabbis, and the messianic age” in this volume. people and societies need symbols and rituals. drawing attention to western society’s gradual separation of vitalistic creativity from religion, pawlikowski addresses the danger of this growing one-dimensionality. he stresses the urgent need for a new moral sensitivity engendered by a symbolic encounter with a loving god. he insists that the “ritual containment” or inherent power of worship can set out a new overarching moral framework for a society which presently lacks the symbolic bonding needed to effectively realize its co-creational responsibilities. the potent religious symbolism currently being generated by religious fanaticism has created an even more urgent need for new symbols of transcendence to release the vitalistic energy of communities seeking effective moral commitment.28 the shoah confronts us with new inscrutable questions of theodicy and the mystery of human suffering. the observations of theologians and spiritual masters on these immense questions vary. however, there is considerable consensus about the need to provide sacred rituals which release the ability to mourn, to express grief, and to lament. to simply console or silence with conceptual solutions is a dangerous option. referring to the need for healing and controlling emotions in times of mass human destruction, pawlikowski observes: “uncontrolled vitalistic energies in such settings can easily lead to further death and destruction through retaliation. yet, the pain of the experience must be released. lament can play a crucial role in releasing, yet containing, such energies.”29 johann baptist metz insists that our suffering and the suffering of others should turn us toward god, crying out, complaining, calling god to account, 28 see john t. pawlikowski, “liturgy and the holocaust: how do we worship in an age of genocide?” in christian responses to the holocaust: moral and ethical issues, ed. donald j. dietrich (syracuse, ny: syracuse university press, 2003), 168-176. 29 ibid., 175. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 137 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 and expecting a response. it is the spirituality of suffering unto god – “which exposes us to the full force of suffering in history but does so in the light of the good news of a god who has promised to hear and respond compassionately to the cries of those who suffer – that bursts our theological systems and ignites our questions anew, but now directed most primordially toward god, in the language of prayer.” this “poverty of spirit,” especially when effectively ritualized within the believing community, empowers the suffering worshipper with apocalyptic hope and expectation.30 in the shadow of the history of jewish suffering it is imperative that inappropriate liturgical martial imagery and triumphalistic expressions of power about jesus the christ be carefully critiqued. this observation applies also to ecclesial imagery and symbolism. post-holocaust christological reflection, informed by the perception of a god participating in human suffering and depending on the human community for co-creation, perceives vulnerability as a mark of “godliness.” this modified perception of an omnipotent god applies also to god incarnate. in the shadow of the holocaust, jesus the christ is more appropriately perceived through the imagery of vulnerability and compassion, than through symbols of triumph and power.31 his life and teaching, as reflected in the gospels, affirm this modified depiction. peter c. phan, in “jesus as the universal savior,” elaborating on the fact that words are unavoidably embedded in socio-political and cultural contexts, also questions the appropriateness of the continued use of words such as “unique,” “absolute,” and “universal” in relation to jesus as savior. emphasizing today’s need for a christian message of humble service and compassionate love, he cautions about the church’s 30 see ashley, interruptions, 126-128. 31 see, for example, jürgen moltmann, the crucified god (new york: harper and row, 1974). continued use of words about christ which connote to others “arrogance, exclusiveness, and self-absorption.”32 2. incarnation: jesus as true man the doctrine of the incarnation is one of christianity’s central foundational beliefs. downplaying this aspect of the christian tradition – an extension of the jewish belief that the god of creation is personally involved in human history – would destroy what has constituted for centuries the very heart of christianity. from its earliest beginnings, one of christianity’s major challenges was its attempt to harmonize a diversity of christological formulations. the basic issue regarding the transcendent immanent god being fully god and fully human attained its classical expression, after five centuries of passionate debate, at the council of chalcedon in 451 ce: “therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same son, our lord jesus christ, at once complete in godhead and complete in manhood, true god and true man.”33 this doctrine asserts the real humanity of jesus: that as true man he was a particular man, part of a particular people, at a particular time and place. god incarnated, not simply in a human being, but truly as man. however, as the historical development of christian creeds illustrates, an early de-judaization of the dogmatic content of christian belief, keeping pace with an increasingly supersessionist christian self-definition, progressively distanced jesus from his real humanity within a specific 32 see peter c. phan, “jesus as the universal savior,” in seeing judaism anew: christianity’s sacred obligation, ed. mary c. boys (new york/toronto/oxford: rowman and littlefield publishers, inc., 2005), 134. 33 emphasis added. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 138 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 people, history and culture.34 coupled with the fact that greek philosophy was the privileged form of reflection on incarnation, ahistorical categories and an ontological focus on divine and human natures shifted away from the concrete person, jesus of nazareth, to an impersonal or pre-personal jesus whose ground of existence was not in himself as man, but in the logos. the result has been a christology tinged with docetism, with jesus’ divinity getting in the way of his being recognized as thoroughly human. perceptions of jesus’ manhood – perhaps predominantly though not exclusively on the popular level – have mainly been as an outward form only or as a superhuman being incarnated in generic human nature. to the question: “was jesus of nazareth really human (i.e., true man)?” the typical christian response continues to be prefaced with a hesitant “yes, but…” time-honored interpretations of chalcedon’s teaching put a dimmer on jesus’ real humanity, removing him from his people, culture and time. in a similar manner mary the mother of jesus – her dignity enhanced by being proclaimed mother of god – is exalted as virgin mother according to the flesh. following nicea she is honored in terms primarily related to divinity, messianism and salvation. after chalcedon, the woman who as mother of true man must surely be true woman, is presented within a robust theology through increasingly refined language. abstract nouns and metaphors define the nature of her being as light, tabernacle, temple, etc., and the real humanity of mary, like the real humanity of jesus, is increasingly alienated from her people, time and culture. with nostra aetate, §4 – and vatican documents that have further developed its teaching – the church has begun to reinsert jesus into his historical, social and cultural 34 see, for example, kendall r. soulen, the god of israel and christian theology (minneapolis: fortress press, 1996), 32-33, 49-52. context. addressing the jewish roots of christianity, the vatican commission for religious relations with the jews stated in 1985: “jesus was and always remained a jew…jesus is fully a man of his time, and of his environment – the jewish palestinian one of the first century, the anxieties and hopes of which he shared. this cannot but underline…the reality of the incarnation….”35 at a 1997 vatican symposium, while reaffirming that the jewish people “are the people of the covenant,” pope john paul ii declared: the scriptures cannot be separated from the people and its history…that is why those who regard the fact that jesus was a jew and that his milieu was the jewish world as mere cultural accidents, for which one could substitute another religious tradition from which the lord’s person could be separated without losing its identity, not only ignore the meaning of salvation history, but more radically challenge the very truth of the incarnation and make a genuine concept of inculturation impossible.36 after 1500 years the true man of chalcedon is being allowed to emerge in this anemnesis of the church which recalls jesus as true man within his people, time and culture. at the same time the church is understanding and valuing, as an integral part of its history and identity, abraham, moses and the prophets and the spiritual patrimony it shares with the people and faith of judaism. this was most recently reaffirmed by the newly-elected pope benedict xvi: 35 notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church, iii, 12. 36 pope john paul ii, address to a vatican symposium on the roots of anti-judaism in the christian milieu, october 31, 1997. (emphasis has been added.) studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 139 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 the council confirmed the church’s conviction that, in the mystery of the divine election, the beginnings of her faith are already found in abraham, moses and the prophets… at the very beginning of my pontificate, i wish to assure you that the church remains firmly committed, in her catechesis and in every aspect of her life, to implementing this decisive teaching… i am convinced that the “spiritual patrimony” treasured by christians and jews is itself the source of wisdom and inspiration capable of guiding us toward ‘a future of hope’ in accordance with the divine plan (cf. jer 29:11).37 3. prophets and prophecy: ethically responsible scriptural exegesis unlike the jewish canon in which the prophetic writings rank second to the centrality of the torah, the christian canon has since its beginning attributed greater importance to the prophetic texts. the current sunday lectionary illustrates this hermeneutical perspective with its very disproportionate use of prophetic passages in comparison to its use of other hebrew scripture texts.38 as it draws attention to this distinction between the jewish and christian ranking of the prophetic writings, the 2001 pontifical biblical commission document, the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible, makes four major observations that call for serious consideration when decisions are made regarding the church’s liturgical use of scripture. given the importance of these observations, along with the fact that present-day christian liturgical practice frequently reflects a lack of awareness of or inattentiveness 37 pope benedict xvi, address to delegates of the international jewish committee on interreligious consultations, june 9, 2005. 38 the study of the sunday lectionary by michael peppard in “do we share a book? the sunday lectionary and jewish-christian relations” in this volume clearly bears out this observation. to the principles and cautions expressed, i choose to quote them in detail: a. regarding the christian conviction that the fulfillment of the eschatological prophetic promises has already begun in jesus the christ: what distinguishes early christianity…is the conviction that the eschatological prophetic promises are no longer considered simply as an object of future hope, since their fulfillment had already begun in jesus of nazareth, the christ. it is about him that the jewish scriptures speak, in their whole extension, and it is in light of him that they are to be fully comprehended (§ 11). b. regarding the validity and primacy of the jewish reading of the bible: [some new testament texts: e.g., rom 5:14; 1 cor 10:6; heb 9:24; 1 pt 3:21] speak of typology and of reading in the light of the spirit (2 co 3:14-17). these suggest a twofold manner of reading, in its original meaning at the time of writing, and a subsequent interpretation in the light of christ (§ 19)…. although the christian reader is aware that the internal dynamism of the old testament finds its goal in jesus, this is a retrospective perception whose point of departure is not in the text as such, but in the event of the new testament proclaimed by the apostolic preaching. it cannot be said, therefore, that jews do not see what has been proclaimed in the text, but that the christian, in the light of christ and in the spirit, discovers in the text an additional meaning that was hidden there (§ 21)…. christians can and ought to admit that the jewish reading of the bible is a possible one, in continuity with the jewish sacred scriptures from the second temple period, a reading analogous to the christian reading studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 140 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 which developed in parallel fashion. both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. consequently, both are irreducible (§ 22)…. [christian efforts to address problematic allegorical and typological interpretations of the old testament] gave rise in contemporary theology, without as yet any consensus, to different ways of reestablishing a christian interpretation of the old testament that would avoid arbitrariness and respect the original meaning…(§ 20). c. regarding the notion that old testament prophecies are foretelling future events relating to jesus: it would be wrong to consider the prophecies of the old testament as some kind of photographic anticipations of future events. all the texts, including those which later were read as messianic prophecies already had an immediate import and meaning for their contemporaries before attaining a fuller meaning for future hearers….the original task of the prophet was to help his contemporaries understand the events and the times they lived in from god’s viewpoint. accordingly, excessive insistence, characteristic of a certain apologetic, on the probative value attributed to the fulfillment of prophecy must be discarded. this insistence has contributed to harsh judgments by christians of jews and their reading of the old testament: the more reference to christ is found in old testament texts, the more the incredulity of the jews is considered inexcusable and obstinate (§ 21). d. regarding jewish messianic expectation: what has already been accomplished in christ must yet be accomplished in us and in the world. the definitive fulfillment will be at the end with the resurrection of the dead, a new heaven and a new earth. jewish messianic expectation is not in vain. it can become for us christians a powerful stimulant to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. like the jews, we too live in expectation. the difference is that for us the one who is to come will have the traits of the jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us (§ 21). though the notion of messianic prophecy is acknowledged as historically and theologically complex and ambiguous, it continues to be indiscriminatingly supported and used in a dubious manner even by clergy and liturgists committed to the new teachings developing from nostra aetate, §4. this is particularly apparent during the advent season when the choice of lectionary readings, their interpretation in homilies and homiletic guides, the content of euchological prayers,39 and the lyrics of hymns combine to present two critically problematic claims: that the prophets pointed out jewish failure as the people of god, and that they foretold the coming of jesus as messiah in response to this failure. in the process the prophets are inadvertently transmuted into proto-christians. patricia k. tull, in “’isaiah ‘twas foretold it’: helping the church interpret the prophets,” outlines how the b cycle choice of lectionary readings for the four sundays immediately before christmas illustrates this pattern, which is both unbiblical and unfortunate for the jewish-christian relationship. the radical cut and paste approach to the isaiah passages, the lack of ordering by canonical or historical sequence, the arbitrary juxtaposition of genres and historical periods, the manner of pairing the prophetic passages with new testament texts all 39 euchology is the term frequently used to refer to the liturgical prayers led or recited by the presider. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 141 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 combine to present a sinful and depressed israel repentantly wishing and waiting for jesus to come and save it.40 making ethical and principled liturgical decisions in its use of the texts it shares with jews and judaism demands a three-fold attentiveness on the part of the church: 1. to the meaning of the text in the light of christ; 2. to the text’s meaning and message in its historical context; and 3. to the use and meaning of the text for jews and living judaism today. in this effort the observations of daniel patte in ethics of biblical interpretation can serve as a guide.41 patte respects the polysemic, multi-dimensional nature of the scriptural text, the observation that the reinterpretive impulse is inherent in the prophetic books themselves, and the fact that the inexhaustible potential of scripture has enabled it to adapt and support simultaneous diverse interpretations for successive generations. he warns about and rejects the kind of dogmatic exclusivity which absolutizes the claims of any one interpretation. he urges respect for multiplicity in interpretation, while remaining mindful of both the richness and the dangers of reinterpretation. commenting on patte’s call for interpretive tolerance, tull further testifies to the importance of this inclusive approach and notes its reciprocal demands: [a]ttention to the originating setting enables readers to approximate more closely the impact of a text on its first audience, to understand better the issues the text was made to address, and to avoid anachronisms. yet the insistence that the text be read only in terms of its original context easily falls prey to…the assumption that there is 40 patricia k. tull, “’isaiah ‘twas foretold it’: helping the church interpret the prophets” in ed. tod linefelt, strange fire: reading the bible after the holocaust (new york: new university press, 2000), 195-199. 41 daniel patte, ethics of biblical interpretation: a reevaluation (louisville, kentucky: westminster john knox press, 1995). only one “best” interpretation of a biblical text, that the validity of one reading strategy necessarily cancels out the validity of all others. in that sense, those who discredit jewish interpretation because it does not see jesus in the hebrew scriptures, and those who discredit christological interpretation because it does, have more in common with one another than one might at first think, since both fail to take seriously, in their own terms, competing interpretations.42 exploring new liturgical possibilities these challenges and possibilities facing the church forty years after the promulgation of nostra aetate present new possibilities for its liturgical life – particularly in its efforts to probe the depths of its mystery in relation to the “good olive tree” of biblical judaism and its “sibling branch.” the following outline of questions and suggestions is a beginning effort to stimulate conversations regarding possible creative responses to the liturgical challenges outlined above. it is proposed, not simply for the sake of novelty via shallow or superficial innovations, but in an attempt to be faithful to the church’s tradition which calls, particularly during dense moments of history, for the revitalization of its liturgy through the two-pronged process of conserving memory and nurturing new vision. this limited effort focuses primarily on considerations about the church’s liturgical cycle and the advent-christmas period within that cycle. 1. viewing the liturgical year throughout its history the church’s annual liturgical cycle has never been static or set in stone. its historical evolution has expressed the progressive development of its understanding of the mystery of christ – the central event 42 tull, “isaiah ‘twas foretold it’,” 204. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 142 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 represented in the church’s celebration of seasons and feasts. the liturgical year is a living spiral progression which, unlike a static repetitive cycle, propels the church towards the future in expectation of the fullness of the kingdom of god. this parousia, or awaiting and expectation of newness, was already at the heart of the early christians’ cry of marana tha, come lord jesus. in view of the challenges of the 21st century, an attentive and expectant church might ask itself the following questions regarding its feasts and liturgical seasons. a. concerning triumphalism, co-creation, theodicy and suffering • do any of the church’s current feasts honoring christ and/or the trinity43 still include expressions of triumphalism and power, or inappropriate martial imagery which might inspire or condone violence? • as it marks these feasts, what is the nature of the artwork and the lyrics of hymns used in its liturgical and paraliturgical expressions? • does the church perhaps need to reconsider the appropriateness of celebrating christ as king as the 43 according to liturgical studies such as the church at prayer, edited by aimé georges martimort (collegeville, mn: the liturgical press, 1991), the seven feasts of our lord currently observed in ordinary time were instituted at various points in history – from the feast of the triumph of the cross, which originated in the 4th or 5th century, to the feast of christ the king, which was established in 1925 by pope pius xi as a vehicle for his spiritual teaching in the encyclical quas primas. the feast of the trinity evolved from the 7th through the 12th centuries in response to efforts to expound trinitarian theology. the feasts of corpus christi (1247) and the sacred heart (second half of the 17th century) were established in response to veneration generated by the visions of two nuns, juliana of mont-cornillon and margaret mary alacoque. see pp. 97-107 in martimort. cyclical spiral of the church year prepares to lead its people into a new advent season? in view of having faithfully come to the end of one cycle and in anticipation of the newness the spiral promises, would a celebration of the faithful god of the covenant perhaps be more consistent with the church’s new emphasis on “the covenant never revoked”? • or, at the end of the liturgical year, in place of a primary focus on the judgment of humanity by god at the end of time, might the church’s liturgy help humanity grasp the magnitude of the consequences of its call to co-creatorship – i.e., that it has the capacity to either responsibly embrace and nurture creation, or to totally destroy creation and annihilate humanity itself? could an annual feast focusing on creator and creation incorporate into its ritual the three-fold call: to value all of creation as gift entrusted to our use and care; to claim our power as co-creator and to use it responsibly; and, to humbly acknowledge our human dependence upon god? perhaps, following a century of genocides, a focus on wisdom active in creation could help inspire appropriate liturgical expressions in face of this awesome capacity and responsibility. • how and at what points in the liturgical cycle might we appropriately present a self-limiting god, or a god whose incarnation speaks of vulnerability and compassion? • how adequately do the church’s feasts (and seasons) respond to today’s complex questions of theodicy and the mystery of (mass) human suffering? can we perhaps find new depictions of god and/or studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 143 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 jesus that would help us probe this mystery? these new depictions could serve as a basis for liturgical rituals to be used at times of serious loss and intense suffering in a manner which would allow overt expressions of sorrow, lamentation and grief. this would demand the creation of appropriate symbols, rituals and prayers, and would also encourage the church to recover strands from its biblical tradition which it has either ignored or whose full message and range of emotion have been effectively contained within “safe” parameters. books such as lamentation and job, and select passages from the prophets and the psalms come to mind. • how appropriate are our expressions and depictions of the suffering of jesus in his passion? do they convey the self-limitation and vulnerability of a suffering god, or do they at times come uncomfortably close to a gibsonesque expression of a super-man, able to bear unrealistic torture and loss of blood, or a macho depiction of the warrior jesus portrayed in today’s increasingly popular apocalyptic novels?44 are we prepared to critique our feasts in this manner, and perhaps modify their symbolism or create new more appropriate expressions? what criteria does the church need to establish to determine the intelligibility, both within its tradition and within the reality of the 21st century world, of such new or modified liturgical expressions? 44 this recent trend is attested to by such news columns as: david d. kirkpatrick, “the return of the warrior jesus” in new york times, april 4, 2004; nicholas d. kristof, “jesus and jihad” in new york times, july 17, 2004. b. concerning jesus’ jewish humanity • in view of the church’s post-vatican ii acknowledgment of jesus as true man: i.e., that he “was and always remained a jew…fully a man of his time, and of his environment – the jewish palestinian one of the first century, the anxieties and hopes of which he shared;”45 and in view of its acknowledgement and new appreciation of the spiritual patrimony it shares with the people and faith of judaism, is the church prepared to assess how effectively its liturgical cycle reflects the jewishness of jesus and this shared patrimony? • the heritage we share – through jesus – with jews and judaism, includes the heritage of holiness. might we embrace the ancestors of jesus, who are also our ancestors, by including them among the holy ones who in the context of our liturgical calendar witness to the overarching mystery of jesus? finding the way to do this with integrity and respect for the jewish concept and expression of holiness would help restore continuity with a liturgical practice that has been part of the church for centuries. in his apostolic letter tertio millennio adveniente pope john paul ii expressed his desire that the new roman martyrology, as revised and updated by vatican council ii, be published as part of the great jubilee of 2000.46 it is still a little known fact that the new roman martyrology contains many names – of patriarchs, prophets and kings – familiar to us from the scriptures we share with judaism. murray watson, a canadian 45 notes, iii, 12. 46 it would appear that this was not unrelated to his year 2000 pilgrimage during which he visited, to the extent that he was able, the holy places of jesus’ and our ancestors. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 144 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 priest and doctoral candidate in scripture studies, has recently brought this to the attention of the canadian church in his essay, “figures from the hebrew scriptures in the new roman martyrology.” he notes that the roman martyrology is the descendent of many local martyrologies dating back to the first centuries of christianity. the byzantine and coptic martyrologies have also long numbered the great figures of the hebrew scriptures among the men and women of exemplary holiness now believed to be with god. commenting on the 2001 publication of the new roman martyrology, watson says: celebrating the lives and deeds of our jewish ancestors in faith is no longer a “fringe” concept, reserved for a few groups involved in jewishchristian dialogue – it is shown to be eminently orthodox and mainstream. it is in keeping with a very ancient instinct in christianity, which recognizes that christianity cannot be artificially severed from judaism, but is organically and necessarily joined to the faith of our “elder brothers and sisters,” during whose long history god consistently raised up many people of profound holiness. the example of their lives remains relevant, and their heavenly intercession remains tremendously valuable.47 it is, of course, imperative that our efforts to “embrace the ancestors” through our liturgical calendar be done in a manner which does not impose the christian category of sainthood on them, but which celebrates them precisely as holy women and men of judaism who through their faithfulness testified 47 murray watson, “figures from the hebrew scriptures in the new roman martyrology,” national bulletin on liturgy, 35, no. 171, 225-231. to the faithfulness, holiness and unity of the creator. aware of the need for appropriate euchological prayers to effectively celebrate the jewish ancestors of our faith, watson prepared and offered to the canadian church, for its consideration, the following draft of a preface which would acknowledge the jewish holy figures: father, all powerful and ever-living god, we do well always and everywhere to give you praise and thanks. in ancient times, you formed a chosen people for yourself, to be the sign and instrument of your loving providence. through abraham and sarah, isaac and rebekah, jacob and rachel, through all the prophets and holy ones of israel, you revealed your glory and justice, and called all people to embrace your covenant of life. as we honor ……… today, we gratefully recall that fruitful olive tree which in the fullness of time bore jesus christ our savior, a child of israel and the fulfillment of your promises. we praise you, lord, for these holy ancestors and their witness of faith. together with those who longed for his coming and heralded his presence48 we sing forever to your glory …49 48 unfortunately this still reflects an expression of fulfillment tinged with supersessionism. my suggestion would be to simply replace “those who longed for his coming and heralded his presence” with “them”. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 145 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 • as we seek ways to celebrate, with integrity, our shared heritage by including the holy ones among our jewish ancestors in our liturgical calendar, we are also confronted with the question of whether the jewish identity of jesus, mary and jesus’ earliest followers is adequately and respectfully reflected through our liturgical calendar, whether that be through feast days such as jesus’ circumcision and his presentation in the temple, or through a portion of or an entire liturgical season which is specifically attentive to this aspect of our heritage. 2. attending to the advent-christmas cycle the advent-christmas cycle is a critical liturgical period for a christianity intent on a serious reformation of its theological self-definition and its relationship with jews and judaism. the central theological themes of this cycle – incarnation, eschatology, messiah, messianic era and messianic prophecy – are among the most prominent themes in the christian-jewish dialogue. they have both overtly and subtly played a dominant role in shaping the christian supersessionist mindset. the church’s post-vatican ii renewed emphasis on jesus’ incarnation as true man – i.e., as a jewish man, at a specific time, within a specific people, environment and culture – has opened a new window on the advent (and perhaps the immediate pre-advent) season. this would appear to be an appropriate time to focus back on the heritage of jesus (recalling that it is our heritage as well): his ancestry, the judaism which shaped his life and teachings, the cultural and political context which impacted his personal 49 included in a january 19, 2004 letter from murray watson 2004 to sr. mary jane goulet, csc, episcopal commission for liturgy, canadian conference of catholic bishops. destiny and the destiny of judaism itself, including an increased diaspora and two new sibling branches emerging from the ruins of a destroyed temple. a. concerning the image of darkness and supersessionist fulfillment • might the church reconsider the nature of its advent emphasis on a people walking in darkness in order to allow its liturgical expressions help us to understand what it meant that jesus incarnated as a child of second-temple israel, that he was a jewishpalestinian child of “the first century, the anxieties and hopes of which he shared?”50 how might the church more accurately and fittingly convey the “darkness” of that time and its effect on the patrimony of jesus? • could the church benefit from a brief liturgical period preceding advent which would call it to focus on the holy time and patrimony it shares with rabbinic judaism? the annual liturgical cycles of both judaism and christianity enable their “faithful” to walk their holy time together. these annual cycles have the potential to help us more adequately affirm our belief that jews and christians live in the same holy time which begins with the “original blessing” in creation and ends in the fullness of god’s reign. christianity’s pre-advent season, falling between rosh hashanah and the beginning of advent could conveniently lend itself to some shared holy time with our jewish brothers and sisters.51 if we were to begin our 50 notes, iii, 12. 51 a liturgical period such as this was first suggested by dr. peter a. pettit, director of the institute for jewish-christian understanding, muhlenberg college, at the 16th national workshop on jewish-christian relations, houston, tx, october, 1999. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 146 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 liturgical year (or preface its beginning) in this manner, would we not be acknowledging liturgically what we are trying to say theologically? if our preadvent catechesis, liturgical guidelines and homiletic notes challenged us to find ways to preach and teach about the meaning of this shared time, would this not profoundly instill the realization that this is the same holy time which jesus himself walked – the holy time which creates our intrinsic bond with the people and faith of judaism? this liturgical acknowledgment of a covenanting living judaism, while underscoring our close relationship within the covenant, would also guard against a supersessionist tainting of our advent message of fulfillment. • is the church prepared to critique and modify as needed its beautiful and popular paraliturgical practices, which in many places and cultures have become integrated into its liturgical year and practice? these include the much-loved advent wreath practice (in which a lit candle is added on each of the four advent sundays culminating in the lighting of the christ candle), the colorful jesse tree (on which images of hebrew scripture personages prefiguring and preparing for god’s ultimate manifestation in jesus are progressively hung during the four advent weeks), and the popular advent windows which are used in a similar manner. each practice can very readily, though not necessarily, convey the message that the light (of jesus) replaced the darkness (of the jews), and that the jews served merely as a prefiguration and preparation for the new people of god. the lyrics of many traditional advent hymns contribute to these familiar supersessionist advent overtones and – given the appeal this season has for children – subtly and deeply begin to shape understandings and attitudes at a very young, impressionable age. is the church prepared to critique and modify these practices and hymns, and in doing so effectively bring into the pew, home and school its new theological teachings? b. concerning the hebrew prophets • the advent use of the prophetic writings could provide the church with an exceptional opportunity to begin putting this teaching into practice. this would imply a firm intent to avoid using the prophetic readings in a manner which presents the prophets as proto-christians who excoriate the sinful jews and foretell the coming of the light of jesus to redeem them from their darkness. the church’s advent liturgies of the word would be considerably enriched if the worshipping community would consistently hear – in tandem with the christian concept of messianic prophecy which informs its theology of fulfillment – the original and current jewish understanding of prophecy. also a valid and prime christian interpretation, this concept of prophecy focuses on the formation of a social conscience, sensitizing its hearers to the injustices and sufferings of the time, and calling them to responsible action. at times the church could consider receiving this interpretation during its liturgies directly from a representative of the jewish faith.52 52 post-vatican ii efforts by liturgists and scholars include commendable efforts to provide a variety of homiletic helps aimed at presenting a more accurate understanding of prophets and prophecy. most draw on effective exegesis and also attempt to contextualize the prophetic messages historically. unfortunately these publications, which mainly follow the selections and pattern imposed by the lectionary, provide too studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 147 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 • expanding its understanding of prophecy in this manner would add a robust dimension to the advent message. this is true particularly for the advent eschatological theme which calls the church to anticipate and prepare for the age to come. this anticipation of the fullness of the kingdom demands active preparation for it – a preparation which the prophetic message can effectively inspire and direct. the prophets’ critiques of the practices, values and attitudes of their time are still valid today and they can continue to direct and energize the ecclesial community in its efforts to be a responsible co-creator of a just and peaceful world. the recent statement by the pontifical biblical commission that the “jewish messianic expectation…can become for us christians a powerful stimulant to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith,”53 can inspire the church to consider advent as an opportune time to join hands with members of our sibling jewish faith who are waiting, praying and working with similar hopes and expectations. it is surely not mere coincidence that, beginning with the message of nostra aetate, §4, both christian and jewish efforts toward a reconciled and transformed relationship inevitably end up voicing the hope that we actively join in this waiting and that we work together for tikkun olam (to heal/mend the world).54 fragmented and incomplete an overview of prophetic history and of the theology of prophetic literature to be of sufficient help in this regard. 53 cited above in §3, “prophets and prophecy: ethically responsible scriptural exegesis.” 54 for examples of a series of statements which bear out this observation see my review essay, “nostra aetate, §4, the rabbis, and the messianic age” in this volume. • in such joint christian-jewish advent efforts and reflections the church could also benefit from work currently being done by jewish scholars on the theme of tikkun olam,, such as jonathan sacks’ to heal a fractured world: the ethics of responsibility. sacks speaks of god inviting human beings to become his partners in the work of redemption by helping to build a just society – “a human world, without hubris (the attempt to be more than human) or nemesis (a descent into the less-than-human).” distinguishing between prophetic peace of religious unity (which will be achieved in the age to come) and rabbinic peace of religious diversity, he introduces the concept of darkhei shalom, “the ways of peace.” an active mandate rooted in “the threads of our common humanity” and in our present religiously and culturally pluralist reality, it is a call to together transcend injustice and violence in view of a here-and-now civic peace that goes beyond mere tolerance. the message of darkhei shalom can help concretize the prophetic message in the present “crooked timber of humanity” while living in hopeful anticipation of the messianic age.55 dare we begin to imagine how such a concrete grounding of the church’s advent expectation and hope could help restore the full meaning of incarnation and help rescue the annual celebration of its mystery from the secular and materialistic captivity in which it is increasingly held captive? • such an active joint engagement with the prophetic message during advent could also provide the opportunity to engage in dialogue regarding the understanding and experience of sacrament. while refraining from imposing the christian concept of 55 sacks, to heal a fractured world, 17-29, 71-83, 97-112. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 148 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 sacrament on jewish experience and understanding, joint reflection on the experience of two peoples – reconciled after centuries of intense alienation and animosity – working together in partnership to help bring healing and reconciliation to the world, can help break open the “sacramental” sense of an incarnate symbol which has the potential of effecting what it signifies. in this context a comparative theological conversation could engage the christian incarnational and transformative understandings of sacrament with the jewish understanding of a god acting within and through a history transformed through tikkun olam and darkhei shalom. the church’s sacramental theology could only be enriched through such an engagement with its sibling branch rooted in the same biblical tradition of “that good olive tree.” conclusion a creative and courageous liturgical imagination faithful to our rich liturgical heritage is needed to help recast christianity’s foundational story as it is informed by the church’s post-vatican ii theological understandings. in this effort the 21st century church has the advantage of having learned from the liturgical renewal that rapidly sprang to life immediately after the last council. this precipitous response by a church, which had been trapped for too long in a concept of liturgy as a static set of detailed rules applied to a universal church,56 frequently lacked the guidance needed 56 this is not to deny the forward thrust contained in pius xii’s liturgical encyclical mediator dei (november 20, 1947), and the universal efforts of the more than century-long modern liturgical movement which significantly contributed to shaping the schema for the liturgy presented to the vatican ii council fathers. in spite of also benefiting from the biblical movement, which helped provide depth and authenticity, the church’s pre-vatican ii liturgy still retained much of the circumscribed rubrical mentality stemming back to the 16th century. see, for example: to help balance the claims of received tradition with the creativity inherent in a believing and worshipping church. reaction to what was perceived as a “cult of spontaneity” resulted in experts writing books and prescribing rituals to serve as starting points for liturgical change. the 21st century church has now had the opportunity to step back and reaffirm the need to have descriptions and codifications of worship celebrations grow out of the practice of believing communities, while faithfully drawing on the wealth of memory preserved in the received tradition. such attention to communal kairos57 moments of grace generates liturgies which both faithfully convey that which is remembered and effectively express that which needs to be new. it distinguishes between what is merely an ideology of creativity, mirroring a consumer culture’s taste for the novel, and what is a mature social process of change through which individual creative acts are responsibly integrated into the public tradition as expressions of worship and celebrations of the revealing and saving actions of god.58 to symbolically ritualize a mystery which transcends our ability to fully comprehend yet invites our sustained reflection on its profound depth calls for engaging the broad spectrum of gifts with which a faith community is blessed. renewal efforts can benefit from the wisdom expressed by such voices as those of john henry newman and pope john paul r. kevin seasoltz, new liturgy, new laws (collegeville, mn: the liturgical press, 1980), 6-16. 57 kairos is an ancient greek word for a time of grace or salvation, a right or opportune moment. in the new testament it refers to ‘the appointed time’ in the purpose of god, and in theology it implies the soteriological dimension of time in which christians experience the presence and saving power of christ. 58 see joseph gelineau, “tradition – invention – culture”, 10-18, and mary collins, “obstacles to liturgical creativity”, 19-26, in eds. mary collins and david power, concilium – liturgy: a creative tradition (edinburgh: t & t clark ltd; new york: the seabury press, 1983). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 149 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 ii. both had an innate sense of the role artists play in the interpretation and expression of mystery. newman, insisting that “the eye of the soul [must] be formed in us,” was aware that before faith is credible to reason, it must be credible to the imagination. his many sermons and writings emphasized that faith begins, not in the work and the concept, but in the image and the symbol.59 more than a century later, pope john paul ii in his 1999 “letter to artists” spoke of the artistic vocation as a “divine spark” not to be wasted but to be developed and “put…at the service of their neighbor and humanity as a whole.” his words evoke the church’s tradition of sensus fidelium as he speaks of the contribution artistic service makes to the renewal of a people: there is therefore an ethic, even a “spirituality” of artistic service, which contributes in its way to the life and renewal of a people…this prime epiphany of “god who is mystery” is both an encouragement and a challenge to christians, also at the level of artistic creativity. from it has come a flowering of beauty which has drawn its sap precisely from the mystery of the incarnation…every genuine artistic intuition goes beyond what the senses perceive and, reaching beneath reality’s surface, strives to interpret its hidden mystery. the intuition itself springs from the depths of the human soul, where the desire to give meaning to one’s own life is joined by the fleeting vision of beauty and of the mysterious unity of things…every genuine art form in its own way is a path to the inmost reality of man and of the world. it is therefore a wholly valid approach to the realm of faith, which gives human experience its ultimate meaning.60 59 see especially newman’s various essays on the idea of the university. 60 letter of his holiness pope john paul ii to artists, easter sunday, april 4, 1999, §3,4,5,6. the church’s effort to creatively transform and renew its liturgical expressions calls for a concerted effort to incorporate in its rituals and symbols the intuitive expressions of its artists. post-vatican ii developments in the church’s theology and praxis, along with the complex challenges inherent in global society today, also call for earnest attention to the total sensus fidelium – the sense of the total body of the faithful, which is seeking more adequate responses to the cognitive dissonances generated by the realities of the present time. new questions and understandings arising from a fundamental level are disrupting previous states of cognitive equilibrium and are seeking to be expressed through new and more adequate responses to the world. history has shown that the church’s ortho-praxis often precedes its ortho-doxy – that the body of the faithful often finds itself acting truly long before it knows how to formulate how or why it is acting truly. this intuitive pre-formulated insight into the mysteries of god and of life finds its most effective means of expression through our liturgical symbols and rituals. it is therefore important that this voice of the faithful is provided with liturgical opportunities to focus and to speak. this recalls cardinal walter kasper’s observations about pope john xxiii at vatican council ii: “[h]e had an instinctive sense for what was in ferment and in a state of flux in the church, and he had the courage to officially assist these concerns to achieve a breakthrough.”61 a like instinct and courage is required in the church today to assist the voice of its sensus fidelium to help break through the present ferment and state of flux and help carry our rich liturgical tradition into the future with authenticity and integrity. this will ensure fidelity as well to the goal so explicitly stated in the council’s constitution on the sacred liturgy: 61 kasper, “the need for theological discussion,” 2005. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 127-150 doetzel, “branches of that good olive tree” 150 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art11 mother church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. such participation by the christian people as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people” (1 pet 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism. in the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true christian spirit.62 this limited effort to help generate new conversations has been an exercise of hope for the 21st century church in its need for living liturgical expressions charged with the significance of christ – liturgies which also provide a fuller revelation and realization of the mystery of the church’s relationship with “that good olive tree.” the hope is that the church during this complex and challenging time will not be inhibited by fear of error which resorts to rigid authoritative planning and a premature setting of limits, but that it will seek to be creatively energized by the grace of truth gestating in the present historical moment waiting to be brought to communal liturgical expression. 62 sacrosanctum concilium (1964), §14. scjr 13, no. 1 (2018): 1-3 anthony le donne and larry behrendt sacred dissonance: the blessing of difference in jewish-christian dialogue (peabody: hendrickson publishers, 2017), paperback, xi + 269 pp. ruth sandberg rsandberg@gratz.edu gratz college, elkins park, pa 19027 anthony le donne, a protestant professor of new testament at united theological seminary in dayton, ohio, and larry behrendt, a jewish (and jewishlyknowledgeable) software engineer and attorney, chose to engage in an honest and sustained interfaith dialogue with each other. following this, they chose to share their interfaith exchanges by co-writing a book about their experiences as dialogue partners. the book covers four topics: how personal backgrounds shape our identity; how the desirability of reinforcing or lowering community borders plays a role in determining our level of interaction with those outside of our religious tradition; the impact of the holocaust on jewish-christian dialogue; and how the attitude we bring to our relationships with others, which they call “posture,” can influence how well or how poorly the dialogue may proceed. the book begins with two essays, in which each presents his own thoughts on the topic without sharing them with the other. this is followed by a transcript of their actual dialogue, which includes discussion of their reactions to the other’s essay. this structure makes the book easy to follow, and the writing style is quite engaging. while some people involved in interfaith dialogue prefer to focus on the commonalities and similarities between judaism and christianity, le donne and behrendt believe that it is just as important to face their religious differences and to learn not just how to understand what separates them, but to be able to appreciate the differences. unlike other books on jewish-christian dialogue, their work does not discuss the mechanics of dialogue (i.e., models one might use) or theories of dialogue. instead, it gives the reader an intimate glimpse into how two individuals with differing religious identities can succeed in listening to each other with respect, even when not agreeing with each other. sandberg: le donne and behrendt’s sacred dissonance 2 larry behrendt makes an important point that jewish-christian dialogue has an inherent “asymmetry,” since jews are such a small minority compared to the over two billion christians in the world (p. xxxvi). in addition, as a member of a minority that faced near-extinction in the holocaust, he expresses some of the fears that jews face. these include the threat to jewish survival posed by christian efforts to convert jews; the fear that the christian misinterpretation of the new testament that led to the deicide charge and contempt for jews may still exist in christianity today; and the ultimate fear that the christian anti-judaism that existed for centuries in the past could lead to another holocaust. behrendt makes a striking remark that jews wish for nothing more than “to be left alone” (p. 240), but that the trauma of the holocaust forces jews into dialogue, if only for damage control and self-preservation. anthony le donne takes a very different stance. as a christian, he focuses primarily on the many criticisms he has of his fellow christians. he is quite open about what he sees as the problems that still remain within christian thinking and that prevent better relations with and views of jews. he states repeatedly that many christians who genuinely like jews may still have anti-jewish views; that most christians have never met a jew and know virtually nothing about them; that christians are completely unaware of how threatened jews feel; that christians are abysmally ignorant about the holocaust and know nothing of the role christianity played in the holocaust; that the christian ideal of eliminating all borders and having universal peace through christ does not allow for alternative forms of salvation; and that most christians know nothing about martin luther’s anti-jewish teachings (le donne only learned about them in college). the two partners do speak about wanting to move beyond the common perception in jewish-christian dialogue that jews are (were) victims and christians are (were) perpetrators, but their discussions do tend to reveal that these perceptions are present even in their dialogue. behrendt admits that he often takes a defensive posture in the discussion because he does not want to see jews be in a “defeated” position once again. le donne responds by saying that the ideal outcome should be a “win-win” for everyone, but that this requires christians to give up the long-held notion of triumphalism (p. 209). anthony le donne also challenges behrendt about behrendt’s strong stance as an advocate for the lgbt community, which can be a dialogue-stopper for those who are more conservative in their religious outlook. behrendt counters by pointing out to le donne that le donne’s equally strong support for pacifism can also end the dialogue with those who feel that sometimes military action is the only way to prevent genocide. it is quite impressive that these two friends share so much of their deeply personal feelings and beliefs, and that they remain close friends in spite of their many differences. nevertheless, what is revealed in their book is the reality that jews and christians have not yet come to terms with the holocaust and centuries of christian anti-jewish teaching and contempt. behrendt and le donne both insist that jews and christians need to remember these tragedies together, not separately. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) the title of the book captures the essence of this intimate portrait, for both see their encounters with each other as sacred, even when the subject becomes uncomfortable or unresolvable. even dissonance can be sacred, if the intention of the dialogue partners is to create a greater sense of understanding. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review peter ochs another reformation: postliberal christianity and the jews (grand rapids, mi: baker academic, 2011), 288 pp. christina smerick, greenville college peter ochs, a jewish theologian long involved in jewishchristian relations, uses a pragmatic philosophical framework, based on charles peirce, and his own critique of the dyadic structure of modernist thought, to examine postliberal christian theologians, both in the us and great britain, with regard to “non-supersessionism.” supersessionism is the doctrinal teaching arguing that christianity is a new covenant between god and humanity, which replaces the covenant found in torah between god and the jewish people. postliberal thought, ochs argues, in its rejection of dyadic thinking, also rejects supersessionism as unnecessarily binary and undeserving of a full picture of the god of abraham, isaac, jacob, and jesus. he focuses on the theologians george lindbeck, robert jenson, stanley hauerwas, john howard yoder, daniel hardy, and david ford. ochs’ main point is that postliberal theologians hold that the church need not turn from the gospels or from the history of church doctrine in order to reject supersessionism. ochs attributes this sea change in understanding christian doctrine to a new, third epoch in the history of judeo-christian relations. this epoch, that of “postliberalism,” is one of “relationality that invites both critical reason and a reaffirmation of scriptural revelation” (p. 4). he approaches a fuller articulation of this epoch logically, albeit via a “theo-logic” that refuses exclusion and binary oppositions in favor of a pattern of thought that seeks to be reparative and thus guided by a “relational (and thus non-dyadic) logic of inquiry” (p. 11). this relational logic studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) cannot emerge from the merely human but must reveal itself in and as the word of god. thus, the key term throughout the work is repair: ochs reads all postliberal theology through the lens of repair, redemption, and/or correction within the life of the church universal. in so doing, he builds a convincing case that repair is believed to be possible by these theologians, and that part of this reparative work is the healing of the theological, historical, and soteriological rift between judaism and christianity. as each theologian begins his analysis of how reparation may take place within the body of christ, each is led to suggest that this reparative work must extend to the people of israel as well. not merely denominational or historical schisms within the church, but the gulf between the claims of christianity and the attitude toward judaism conveyed by centuries of church fathers can and must be healed, and can only be healed by god’s redemptive actions. ochs then proceeds to analyze a series of postliberal theologians, uncovering in their work a return to a deep inductive reading of scripture, a keen sense of the brokenness of the church, and the need for repair. while the methodologies of each theologian, and even the foci of their studies, may differ, he argues that postliberal thought takes place along these lines. furthermore, ochs finds that a theologian’s work leads to non-supersessionism as long as it follows the trajectory of postliberal thought. when one abandons non-dyadic logic and falls back into essentialist claims and strict boundaries, supersessionism rears its head, almost in spite of the intentions of the theologian in question (such as yoder). conversely, when a theologian transitions from making pragmatic truth claims for his/her particular faith community to making universal truth claims, we again find supersessionism present (as in the works of milbank, he argues). in ochs’ reading, american postliberal theologians tend to focus upon christology. british postliberal theologians focus more upon the work of the holy spirit. whereas american studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr theologians tend to reject supersessionism on scriptural grounds (and out of a concern for a hermeneutics of sola scriptura), british theologians, in ochs’ reading, see the source of repair for the church in the power and presence of the holy spirit (pp. 168, 190). (ochs makes an important aside here, noting that american tendencies to focus on scripture mean that they are less comfortable in dialogue with muslims. they are more comfortable engaging jews, with whom they share a sacred text.) as a non-theologian, i was struck by och’s claim for an implied assumption underlying all postliberal theology of the notion of wholeness and re-integration (thus implying a prior integration), reflected in a millennial hope that harmony and unity would occur in this world prior to the in-breaking of messiah (for the first or the second time). there is little sense of the value of the broken, the non-integrated, as perhaps part of the world god made, rather than as a situation that needs to be fixed. while surely working for justice and the healing of rifts is as much a part of the call of christ as any personal salvation, such an approach ignores the still-mutilated body of christ-resurrected; it fails to acknowledge that the language of unity, wholeness, and integration has a distinctly modernist flavor. ochs is incisive in pointing out moments in modern thought that seem to cling to a cartesian hope for the ‘lever’ point, for certainty, and for unity of knowledge. however, this same longing for unity seems to underline this work. a clear distinction between the desire for union that is part of modernist thought (and therefore looked upon with suspicion by postliberal theologians) and this continued longing for unity articulated in ochs’ reading of these theologians is not immediately apparent. nevertheless, this is a masterful reading of postliberal theology. ochs presents each theologian sympathetically, providing the general reader with an introduction to their work, while simultaneously providing much food for thought for the theologically educated reader. while the use of symbolic logic in the introduction may be difficult for the general reader, once studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 8 (2013) one enters into the inaugural chapter, one quickly feels welcome and at home. ochs’ careful, sparing use of rabbinic literature provides a helpful contrast, as he models alternative approaches to reading scripture that find resonance with postliberal techniques. one leaves this work feeling that one has truly learned something—be it a better understanding of postliberal theology, a more nuanced interpretation of nonsupersessionist thought, or a clearer sense of the history that undergirds all theological attempts. ochs shows that postmodern thought is not relativism per se, but rather as alwaysalready aware and a confession of one’s relativity to god, time, and cosmos. scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-2 karma ben johanan a pottage of lentils: mutual perceptions of christians and jews in the age of reconciliation (hebrew) (tel aviv: university of tel aviv press, 2020), soft cover, 460 pp. deborah weissman debbiew@netvision.net.il international council of christians and jews a new book in hebrew about the changes in the relations between jews and christians in the contemporary age should be a cause for celebration. to some extent, this book is that. but it falls short of expectations and i would suggest that the book be at least partially revised if it is to appear in english. the author is a young israeli researcher now based in berlin. her title is taken from genesis 25:34 and the reference is to rabbinic depictions of jacob and esau as symbols of judaism and christianity. the cover design is a powerful representation of jacob and esau from a series of photographs called “bible stories” by the israeli photographer, adi ness. in the first half of her book, ben johanan opens up for the hebrew reader the dramatic story of the significant changes which have taken place in the 20th and 21st centuries within christian and specifically catholic theology vis-à-vis judaism and the jewish people. focusing on the second vatican council, pope john paul ii and joseph ratzinger—later pope benedict xvi—this material is relatively familiar to the english-reading public, but perhaps contains more theological depth than is usual in historical surveys. ben johanan is to be commended for her interest in, and grasp of, nuanced christian theology. of particular interest to hebrew readers may be the christian theological responses to the holocaust and the key role in promoting the dialogue played by jews who converted to christianity, such as gregory baum, john oesterreicher, and the french ratisbonne brothers. (the name ratisbonne may be familiar to some because it is the name of a prominent christian monastery in jerusalem.) knowing the name torquemada from the spanish inquisition, jews may think that jewish apostates have always been adversaries and hostile to the faith they left, but in this book we see that some actually sought to build bridges between the two faith-communities. weissman: karma ben johanan’s a pottage of lentils 2 the writing in this volume is refreshing and fascinating, and it is accessible to readers who do not deal directly with these issues. clearly, the author has done extensive research. however, it is disappointing to find typographical mistakes, incorrect transliterations (especially of names of people), and misattributions of denominational identifiers. but the problematic section of the volume is its second half, which is about christians and christianity according to orthodox judaism. the jewish material presented is both philosophical and halakhic (legal). there are extensive essays on the anti-christian attitudes of harav abraham isaac hakohen kook and his son, harav tzvi yehudah kook. other orthodox leaders are discussed who continued in this vein, but conspicuous by their absence are, for example, the dissenting italian-jewish voices from the 19th century like shmuel david luzatto and elijah benamozegh. as far as the later 20th and 21st centuries are concerned, i.e., after nostra aetate, there is no mention of some of the orthodox rabbis in israel and abroad who are leaders in the jewish-christian dialogue. the late lord rabbi jonathan sacks appears in a footnote. rabbis of the british commonwealth and many european rabbis from france, germany, and scandinavia with long traditions of dialogue with their christian colleagues are not in this book. rabbis irving (yitz) greenberg, david rosen, and the late david hartman, who have thought seriously about christianity and who were and are extensively involved in jewish-christian dialogue, are each mentioned only a few times, and the spouses of the first two (also both active in interreligious affairs) are not mentioned at all. the author’s decision to limit herself only to orthodoxy is somewhat surprising, as if they are the only truly authentic jewish voices. this decision partially accounts for the lack of women in the book, although there are orthodox women as well as catholic sisters (e.g., from notre dame de sion) who could have been mentioned. ben johanan seems to feel that the more open or tolerant voices are better known and that her task was to highlight the mainstream and leave the avantgarde or the pioneers for a later study. to take a model from another field with which i am familiar, imagine a researcher writing 30-40 years ago about jewish feminism. it would be a disservice to the readers if he or she confined the research to the responses of the mainstream orthodox rabbinate, and omitted the rabbinic vanguards (among them rabbi greenberg). i am suggesting that jewish-christian dialogue within orthodoxy is in its nascent stages, similar to jewish feminism in the 1980s. but non-orthodox jews have been involved in such dialogue for close to a century. the israeli public should be exposed to these facts. “mutual perceptions of christians and jews in the age of reconciliation” is a broad title for this very focused work, in light of the focus on orthodox jews alone. the book presents the reader with a pessimistic view of the state of jewish-christians relations. in my opinion, this reinforces negative stereotypes that many israelis hold to begin with. the question remains whether the lacunae will be filled in a later edition or translation of the work. scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-3 samuel goldman god’s country: christian zionism in america (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2018), hardcover, vi + 242 pp. joseph williams joseph.williams@rutgers.edu rutgers university, new brunswick, nj 08901 christian zionism in america initially emerged during the colonial era with the arrival of the puritans, and it persists to this day as a formidable political force in the united states. over the intervening years, the prospect of a jewish return to the “holy land” has captured the imaginations of a strikingly diverse set of american christians. these include theologically liberal and theologically conservative supporters, along with both prominent political and religious leaders and countless women and men in the pews. the ever-changing political and religious milieu in the colonies and in the united states also helped foster numerous iterations of christian zionism, as proponents articulated a wide array of justifications for, and anticipatory visions of, a jewish state. considering the complexity and sheer scope of this history, it should come as no surprise that most scholarly assessments of christian zionism in the united states isolate very specific facets of the story. samuel goldman has clearly spent significant time poring through primary sources as well as the relevant secondary literature. yet he makes it clear right from the start that offering a thoroughly novel interpretation of the history of american christian zionism was never his primary goal. rather, goldman hopes to improve americans’ religious literacy on the topic and thereby enhance the quality of public discourse. much of his research complements and reinforces the best existing scholarship on christian zionism in the united states. the signal contribution of god’s country involves goldman’s skillful narration of the full history of american christian zionist thought stretching from the 1600s through the present. whereas goldman makes the history of christian zionist thought accessible to the general reader, he also writes with at least one specific audience in mind, namely, more secular-minded academics who view explicitly religious forms of williams: goldman’s god’s country 2 support for the nation of israel as nothing more than a holdover from “the benighted past” (p. 12). on the contrary, his analysis stresses christian zionism’s long history as a respected expression of “political theology.” god’s country illuminates how this discourse flourished in the mainstream of american political life for centuries, and how overlooking this history will inevitably lead to an underestimation of christian zionism’s appeal in the present. goldman takes direct aim at several widespread but inaccurate assumptions. a number of contemporary observers of the movement, for instance, reflexively associate christian zionism with prominent figures on the religious right, and with the strain of end-times prophecy interpretation called premillennial dispensationalism that has informed many evangelicals’ perspectives on jews and israel. whereas premillennial dispensationalism grew out of the teachings of john nelson darby in the nineteenth century, goldman leaves no doubt that other forms of christian theology supported a robust tradition of christian zionist thought dating back to puritan new england. and despite the tremendous amount of attention paid in recent decades to vocal supporters of israel such as the evangelical pastor john hagee, much of the pro-zionist action in american public life over the course of the twentieth century emanated from liberal protestant circles. written primarily as an intellectual history of christian zionism, goldman parses the thinking of major figures ranging from increase mather to jonathan edwards, william blackstone, reinhold niebuhr, and jerry falwell, not to mention multiple lesser-known religious leaders. throughout, he acknowledges the seemingly ubiquitous israel-themed references that were used to describe god’s activity in the colonies and new nation. but goldman also consistently stresses the fact that such analogies did not automatically “make new england or north america a substitute for the promised land of the bible” (p. 45). time and time again, he argues, prominent voices drew direct connections between ancient israel and north america without relinquishing a commitment to jewish restoration and a jewish state. and by the mid-twentieth century an emphasis on the “judeochristian” underpinning of american society helped buttress the religiosity of americans in the face of “godless communism” even as it reinforced for many the perceived spiritual ties linking the u.s. with the state of israel. while it is less clear how many rank-and-file parishioners carefully fused notions of america-asisrael and america-for-israel, goldman successfully underscores the continual presence of prominent pro-zionist christian voices in american public life. in the concluding chapter goldman chronicles the recent past and highlights several crucial developments: widespread fears on the political left that an “‘american theocracy’ would pursue doomsday policies rather than world peace,” a noticeable decline in support for israel in certain evangelical circles coupled with a reduced emphasis on end-times prophecy, and the rapid global spread of christian zionism (p. 174). goldman’s treatment of these topics is regrettably brief, and given his historical focus, he does not explore in any detail the practical significance of the book’s findings for contemporary political and legal thought. however, his observations shine a bright spotlight on key twenty-first century developments deserving further analysis in future studies. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) in sum, god’s country convincingly demonstrates just how mistaken it is to view contemporary christian zionism as solely the province of wild-eyed prophecy enthusiasts. in succinct, well-written prose, he calls readers’ attention to key figures and turning points without ever losing sight of the complex interplay of theology and politics or the fine-grained distinctions that frequently existed within various pro-zionist christian communities. interested observers as well as academics whose research intersects with christian zionism will benefit from his nuanced exploration of christian zionism in america. jewish-christian dialogue: drawing honey from the rock studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): boys r1-2 berger and patterson, jewish-christian dialogue boys r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 alan l. berger and david patterson, with david p. gushee, john t. pawlikowski, and john k. roth jewish-christian dialogue: drawing honey from the rock (st. paul: paragon house, 2008), paper, vii + 317 pp. reviewed by mary c. boys, union theological seminary this book consists of six chapters by jewish scholars alan l. berger and david patterson, followed by a transcript of responses to the manuscript of three christian conversation partners (an evangelical, a catholic, and a mainline protestant) from a three-hour discussion with the authors. despite the honey in its subtitle, the book guides its readers along a very stony path of dialogue, focusing principally on the tragedies of the historical encounter of judaism with christianity, the seemingly inextricable link between christian identity and supersessionism, problematical aspects of christian theology, and the status of the relation between the two traditions after auschwitz. the authors view early christianity not as a branch of judaism but as a “breach of judaism” (p. 30). they question whether christianity can define itself in other than supersessionist terms, that is, without setting itself in opposition to judaism: “whether by conversion or by extermination, the christian aim—in keeping with christian tradition—has been the elimination of the jews” (p. 54, italics in original). much of this book might be read as a sort of lament, a cri de coeur, against the sins of christians against jews. the authors acknowledge the importance of the jewishness of jesus and see paul as the “first to de-judaize jesus and his teachings” (p. 77). they argue that the mythic elements of the gospels were transformed as they were recast in terms of later christian doctrine. because christianity is a religion grounded in belief, it “must also insist that others affirm the belief” (p. 92). the combination of creeds and doctrine—which are “unintelligible to jews” (p. 92)— with political power starting in the fourth century resulted in the systematic oppression of jews: “because judaism is precisely what christianity replaces, anti-judaism had to become a defining feature of christianity” (p. 95). (in the concluding dialogue, david gushee refers to his reading of the manuscript as taking a “guilt bath” [p. 196].) the fourth chapter, on theological issues, offers a number of points that the authors see as differentiating judaism from christianity. what christians see as necessary for salvation, the human sacrifice of the one who is also divine, is “alien and abhorrent” to jews” (p. 105). further, they claim, christian behavior follows from belief, whereas jewish belief derives from behavior. christians, moreover, hold that those who do not believe in jesus christ are condemned to eternal damnation, in contrast to a far more inclusive jewish perspective. since christians believe that persons are justified by faith alone, they are not obligated to study their sacred texts or to learn the languages of those texts. unlike jews, who emphasize tikkun olam (improving this review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): boys r1-2 berger and patterson, jewish-christian dialogue boys r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 world), christians look to the next life: “christians labor to get into god’s kingdom, whereas jews labor to get god into this kingdom” (p. 109, italics in original). later, they criticize both the vatican’s we remember (a statement on the holocaust from 1998) and dabru emet (“a jewish statement on christians and christianity” from 2000) as “fraught with peril” (p. 156) and misleading or simplistic. the conversation with the christian interlocutors ranges over a series of topics, including forgiveness, the state of israel, conversion, and relations with muslims. they discuss mel gibson’s passion of the christ, and the controversy unleashed by the film figures prominently in the book as a whole. (in their conclusion they argue that it is the “most recent example of how seamlessly antisemitism emerges when christianity first ignores then denies its jewish origins” [p. 251].) gushee, pawlikowski, and roth offer some diplomatically phrased challenges to the authors’ understandings of christianity. had the authors taken these up as a basis to rework aspects of their manuscript, they would have significantly enhanced the book. there is indeed much to lament about christian denigration of judaism and the vilification and, too often, persecution of jews. the shoah looms as the great question about lived christianity. dialogue has yet to make a major impact in the churches in any depth. but will this book advance relations between jews and christians? will it help christians to confront our history? i think not, and it grieves me to say so. the book’s major flaw is its caricature of christian theology. given the tremendous diversity of theological perspectives, their repeated assertions that “christians believe” in a particular idea (about messianism, resurrection, etc.) distort the breadth and depth of christian thought. the margins of my book are filled with comments in which i noted frequent over-simplifications and distortions of christianity. some generalizations show a lack of familiarity with contemporary scholarship. for example, they ought to have reviewed the abundant literature on the lengthy and complex process by which christianity became distinct from judaism. similarly, they ought to have explored recent scholarship on paul that situates him in the broader context of the roman empire. finally, the claim that christian doctrine is simply “unintelligible” to jews is belied by the writings of some contemporary jewish scholars (p. 92). like many of my christian colleagues, i believe that critical re-evaluation of our history with the jewish people is an ethical obligation. this must then lead to a serious and sustained reevaluation of christian theology. in this way, we can build better relationships with jews. i am therefore sympathetic with the heartfelt cry of the authors. when they refine their arguments, their passion will have far greater impact. scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-2 ruth sheridan the figure of abraham in john 8: text and intertext (london: t & t clark, 2020), hardcover, xv + 452 pp. jeffrey s. siker jeffrey.siker@lmu.edu loyola marymount university, los angeles, ca 90045 ruth sheridan, a research professor at western sydney university in australia, has been publishing on the topic of jews and the gospel of john for nearly a decade. the present volume is in many ways a continuation of her previous work. this includes her monograph retelling scripture: the jews and the scriptural citations in john 1:19-12:15 (leiden: brill, 2012) and chapters in two edited volumes, how john works: storytelling in the fourth gospel (2016) and john and judaism: a contested relationship in context (2017). methodologically, she employs comparative literary analysis, especially structuralist and post-structuralist readings, as opposed to traditional source or redaction criticism that was the dominant approach of past generations of biblical scholars. in retelling scripture (a revision of her 2010 doctoral thesis) sheridan argued that john uses scripture in order to lead an ideal reader to a negative characterization of “the jews.” in the figure of abraham in john 8 sheridan develops her literary analysis with particular appeal to the work of roland barthes, the french literary critic, whose most influential work included the 1967 essay “the death of the author.” sheridan is thus concerned not with authorial intent of the fourth gospel (which is inaccessible) but with the rhetorical strategies the author employs to construct an understanding of abraham and “the jews” in john 8. her most original contribution is not so much in how john develops an understanding of abraham in relation to “the jews” but in her adopting a resistant reading of john that seeks to rehabilitate the jewish voice in the text over john’s pejorative depiction of “the jews.” by meticulously exploring the many intertextual allusions to abraham in john 8, sheridan examines metaphors of the “seed of abraham” (in relation to slavery and sin), the “works of abraham,” and the “seeing and rejoicing” of abraham, all overtly developed in john 8. in each instance she presents a detailed description of these motifs in the hebrew bible, pseudepigrapha, writings by philo and josephus, the dead sea scrolls, the new testament, and rabbinic literature. her subsequent intertextual reading of abraham in john 8 results in a positive self siker: ruth sheridan’s the figure of abraham in john 8 2 affirmation of “the jews” as the children of abraham who benefit from father abraham’s vicarious merit. this positive jewish embrace of father abraham thus presents a resistant reading and hence a counter-narrative to the historically christian obsession with john’s portrayal of “the jews” as children of the devil (8:44). one of the strengths of the book is sheridan’s insistence on reading john 8 as a literary whole, which results in her firm anchoring of the narrative within the traditions associated with the festival of sukkot. she also has clearly mastered virtually all of the secondary literature on abraham in early jewish and christian literature (including the present reviewer’s 1991 book disinheriting the jews: abraham in early christian controversy), and she presents extensive summaries and appropriate critiques of the relevant secondary literature. at times her detailed discussions of the various abraham traditions from the hebrew bible through other early jewish and christian literature amount to more trees than one can reasonably absorb in search of a forest. however, for a nearly exhaustive presentation of abraham traditions related to the “seed,” “works,” and “seeing” of abraham in antiquity, this is the best resource. her extensive exegetical work is solid. i do however question how important it is for her to adopt barthes’s “death of the author / birth of the reader” approach for reading john. what struck me as perhaps the most ironic aspect of this is that sheridan gives no attention to what appears to be john’s reference to the actual death of the author (the beloved disciple) in john 21:20-23. surely it is possible for more historicist and more literary critical approaches to be mutually fruitful ways of investigating texts. sheridan’s work is another important contribution by a jewish scholar of early christianity to a deeper understanding of contested readings of john in light of the history of christian anti-judaism. in this regard her work is very much in keeping with the work of one of her mentors, adele reinhartz, whose book befriending the beloved disciple: a jewish reading of the gospel of john (2002) provides a model of a resistant reading of john from a jewish perspective. sheridan has ably found a more positive voice of “the jew in the text,” and it is to be hoped that this will result in still greater understanding and mutuality among jews and christians in our own age. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review neta stahl jesus among the jews: representation and thought (london and new york: routledge, 2012), hardcover, xii + 234 pp. james crossley, university of sheffield jesus among the jews brings together scholars from across jewish studies to look at receptions of jesus, from the earliest jewish understandings through medieval debates up to contemporary israeli uses, covering rabbis, messiahs, philosophers, theologians, poets, and artists. essay titles are relatively self-explanatory and they include: daniel boyarin, “a jewish reader of jesus: mark, the evangelist”; michael swartz, “the magical jesus in ancient jewish literature”; avigdor shinan, “where is jonah from?”; adam gregerman, “celsus’ jew and the theological threat from christianity”; moshe idel, “abraham abulafia: a kabbalistic ‘son of god’ on jesus and christianity”; elchanan reiner, “from joshua through jesus to simeon bar yohai: towards a typology of galilean heroes”; matt goldish, “the salvation of jesus and jewish messiahs”; pawel maciejko, “jacob frank and jesus christ”; yitzhak melamed, “‘christus secundum spiritum’: spinoza, jesus and the infinite intellect”; warren zev harvey, “harry austryn wolfson on the jews’ reclamation of jesus”; leora batnitzky, “jesus in modern jewish thought”; glenda abramson, “the crucified brother: uri zvi greenberg and jesus”; neta stahl, “‘we left yeshu’: on three twentiethcentury hebrew poets’ longing for jesus”; and amitai mendelsohn, “jesus of the sabra thorns: the figure of jesus in israeli art.” what is clear throughout is that jewish-christian and jewish-western interaction and construction have always been diverse, including blurred “religious” boundaries, accommodation, engagement, influence, wariness, and/or polemical distancing, and all the while showing how the figure studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) of jesus says something broader about jewish engagements with changing social, political, and historical contexts. whether intended or not, there is a chronological development that seems to run throughout the volume, from the earlier engagements with more elevated and messianic presentations of jesus to more ethical, political, and existential constructions of the “jewish jesus” in modernity and postmodernity. as a volume like this does not typically aim for comprehensiveness in historic representations, a more detailed essay providing an overview could have brought out some of the overall trends and tendencies in jewish receptions of jesus. for this reviewer at least, certain related questions came to mind (some of which were touched upon in individual essays). was the influence of liberal protestantism, the burgeoning quest for the historical jesus, and william wrede’s claim that jesus’ messianic status as an early christian creation so pervasive in modern (non-jewish) study of jesus that messianic questions came to be seen as later christian accretions, thereby “setting free” the jewish jesus of history? (maybe this chronological development partly explains why jacob taubes had to return to messianic questions in order to present paul as a revolutionary figure?) i am not suggesting that this modern shift away from claims about jesus’ messianic and elevated identity is necessarily the whole story or even correct; indeed, a case for precursors to the modern “jewish jesus” might be found as far back as the gospels, as one contributor, daniel boyarin, has implied in the detailed discussions in his essay. but certainly an essay looking at general patterns, continuities, and discontinuities would have helped this already stimulating collection. nevertheless, the individual essays are all fascinating in their own right and clearly presented, and collectively the wide-range of essays provides genuine insights into the interaction between changing constructions of jesus and cultural contexts. the decision to include scholars and theologians alongside artists and poets in the essay topics was particularly important in this respect. the diversity and chronological range will mean that scholars in studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr jewish studies and biblical studies, as well as interested outsiders, will inevitably learn something new. what is particularly notable to this reviewer is how this sort of interdisciplinary work could be a model for the developing field of reception history of biblical texts and characters. such collaborations illustrate how biblical texts and figures (whether specifically jewish or christian) have played a central role in the history of ideas, which is especially important given that these texts and figures are still typically overlooked outside faculties and departments of religion, theology, and biblical studies. and, rather than asking the individual scholar to overstretch, what this version of interdisciplinary collaboration can do is to bring scholars together from different areas and play to their strengths, and thereby contribute to a broader understanding of the role of the bible in historical and cultural change. in terms of a volume such as this one, it would be intriguing to see what could be done in the future by widening the debate further still to include, and bring into discussion, other receptions of jesus (or indeed other figures and texts), most obviously in traditions associated with the qur’an and islam. there is also obvious potential for the discussion of politicized constructions of jesus in relation to the nation-state and modernity as presented in this volume (by batnitzky, abramson, and stahl, for example) to be brought into fruitful dialogue with the related research. for example, work by halvor moxnes, susannah heschel, ward blanton, shawn kelley, and others on nineteenthand twentieth-century christian thinkers and historical jesus scholars raise similar questions. it is a fitting testimony to an engaging collection such as jesus among the jews that it can so easily generate bigger ideas about, and stimulate creative developments in, the fields of biblical studies, jewish studies, and religion. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): burns r1-2 sandgren, vines intertwined burns r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr leo duprée sandgren vines intertwined: a history of jews and christians from the babylonian exile to the advent of islam (peabody, mass.: hendrickson publishers, 2010), paperback, xxvi + 838 pp. with cd-rom reviewed by joshua ezra burns, marquette university though there have been numerous scholarly studies on the common origins of judaism and christianity, there has yet to be a definitive historical treatment of the subject. in his textbook vines intertwined: a history of jews and christians from the babylonian exile to the advent of islam, leo sandgren undertakes the ambitious task of narrating a coherent history of the two religious traditions on the basis of their theoretical conceptions and implementations over the roughly 1,300-year span between the fall of the kingdom of judah and the rise of islam. as stated in his introduction, the author’s aim is to present something more than a pair of parallel histories of the two sibling religions during their early centuries of coexistence. by emphasizing, rather, the inherent interconnectedness of the early jewish and christian religious communities throughout this period, sandgren seeks to demonstrate how each helped define the other during the early centuries of the common era, and how each informed the other’s unique theological and social views. he pursues this argument through a series of topical discussions tracing the respective evolutionary trajectories of the jewish and christian communities with particular attention to their points of intersection. he thereby argues that what emerged from antiquity were not two distinct religious communities but two culturally proximate communities who “shared common interests and the mutual needs for survival” by virtue of their common cultural heritage (p. 7). the success of sandgren’s project is subject to debate both in respect to its premises and its results. continuing critical efforts to demonstrate the commonalities between early judaism and early christianity have yielded results too numerous and too diverse to be reconciled with a single, monolithic analytical principle. sandgren’s attempt, therefore, to conform these results to his particular historical narrative is bound to privilege certain critical assumptions over others. in general, sandgren seems to locate himself squarely in the camp of the sort of conciliatory (and often apologetic) discourse on the jewish context of the apostolic church that has dominated new testament scholarship since the holocaust. this is not, of course, a bad thing. but focusing on efforts to demonstrate the common ground shared by jews and christians in antiquity entails the marginalization or exclusion of scholarship predicated on other equally valid analytical grounds. for example, his effort to avoid labeling the early jewish followers of jesus as christians or even as jewish christians ignores the issue of whether the individuals in question regarded themselves as jews, and, if so, in what sense. in fact, one is left to wonder what sorts of beliefs these so-called “jewish believers” actually professed aside from their likewise illdefined devotion to jesus. these questions, of course, engage issues of historical interpretation far more complex than sandgren chooses to acknowledge. needless to say, ambiguities of this nature sometimes undermine the general integrity of his historiographical method. review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): burns r1-2 sandgren, vines intertwined burns r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr sandgren’s attempt at comprehensiveness exhibits its greatest weakness in respect to the literature and culture of the early rabbinic sages. here, the author relies primarily on the methodologically questionable and, frankly speaking, outdated work of jacob neusner, whose much-criticized efforts to remove ancient judaism from historical discussion have been the source of significant misunderstanding among scholars of early christianity. in his efforts, therefore, to relate the practice of the jewish religion in antiquity to the contemporaneous practice of christianity he tends to analyze the former on the basis of the latter, adopting a paradigm of comparative religious phenomenology largely removed from the context of history. when he does try to situate persons or developments within the early rabbinic movement in specific historical contexts, it is almost exclusively in reference to parallel developments in the christian tradition. in fact, his most elaborate and arguably most incisive discussions of judaism during the flourishing of the rabbinic movement are based not on the copious rabbinic documentation but on the relatively scarce christian and roman imperial documents on the jews. as a result, the net effect of sandgren’s portrait of early rabbinic judaism is skewed heavily toward those of its facets mirrored in contemporaneous christian practice and thought. in fairness, sandgren’s general inattention to emerging scholarship on the history and culture of the early rabbinic movement is not unpardonable. indeed, it is difficult to fault a textbook author for failing to account for every current scholarly debate on the many and diverse topics covered in a work, let alone one of such impressive scope. one could single out similar deficiencies in virtually any area of discussion to which the author applies his heuristic lens. controversial issues such as the causes of the maccabean revolt, the attitudes of jesus and paul toward the jewish religion, and the nature of constantine’s conversion are treated with the economy of space appropriate to sandgren’s broad-based treatment, yet without attention to the diverse critical opinions expressed in the more nuanced treatments of these subjects that appear to inform a great deal of his narrative. his attempt to be comprehensive in a project of this scope makes what is already a massive tome positively cumbersome to navigate. one is left to wonder, therefore, whether sandgren’s project is too much for one historian to manage, at least between the covers of a single book. to be clear, i neither mean to suggest that sandgren’s project is fundamentally flawed, nor his synthesis inaccurate or misleading. often, his points of critical reference represent the very best of scholarship in the fields through which he pursues his narrative. his presentation is erudite, his writing style fluid, and, above all, his unique expertise thoroughly and judiciously applied. i would not hesitate, therefore, to recommend his work to the reader seeking an informed and accessible overview of the topics he discusses. it seems to me, however, that sandgren’s book will find its greatest utility in precisely those situations where one must acquire a great deal of general knowledge yet with minimal attention to its sources. i might recommend vines intertwined as a textbook for an undergraduate course, although i hesitate to advise anyone to condense over a thousand years of jewish and christian history into a single academic term. perhaps, then, it would work better as a companion to a sequence of courses on early christianity predicated on the laudable principles of contemporary interreligious understanding espoused by the author in his introduction. from a critical standpoint, however, the manifold subjects and often complex interpretations sampled by sandgren would be better approached through a range of historiographical objectives more diverse than those utilized here. 1 scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-31 the new covenant jeremiah 31:30-33 (31:31-34) in jewish interpretation1 alon goshen-gottstein gogo@elijah-interfaith.org the elijah interfaith institute, kesalon, 90976, israel the challenge the christian part of the bible is known as “the new testament.” the term echoes a prophecy in jeremiah 31, the one and only occurrence in the hebrew bible of the term “new covenant,” also rendered as “new testament.” the eucharist, the foundational ritual of christianity, similarly echoes this prophecy in jeremiah, again affording this verse a place of prominence in the economy of christian appeal to the hebrew bible and in its own self-understanding.2 explicit appeal to jeremiah 31 appears only in hebrews 8, in a clearly supersessionist context, in which the superiority of the covenant concluded by jesus is contrasted with the earlier covenant.3 while scriptural appeal to jeremiah 31 in the new testament is not overwhelming,4 and while some of the references to the new covenant may be 1 the verse numbering follows rabbinic bible editions. english language editions list these verses as 31-34. 2 luke 22:20 and 1 cor 11:25 reference the term “new covenant,” without quoting jeremiah. the association with jeremiah is reasonable, as it is the only appearance of the term in the hebrew bible. commentators naturally associate the two. in theory, however, the reference to “new” could be independent of the verse in jeremiah, and may therefore not rely on it. other versions of the institution of the eucharist do not refer to the covenant as “new,” thereby making the appeal to jer 31 unnecessary. see mark 14:24 and matthew 26:27. 3 2 cor 3:6 seems also to be influenced by jer 31, in light of the combination of motifs, that includes reference to the new covenant and the writing on the heart. the reference to the spirit may be due to the crossover between jer 31 and ezek 36, as we note below with reference to several jewish authors. the problem of the apparent lack of centrality of covenant to paul’s thinking and strategies for working with or around this issue are discussed in two essays in the concept of the covenant in the second temple period, ed. s. porter and j. de roo (leiden: brill, 2003). the first is stanley porter, “the concept of the covenant in paul” (269-286) and the second is james dunn, “did paul have a covenant theology? reflections on romans 9:4 and 11:27” (287-307). 4 jack lundbom, jeremiah: a new translation, with commentary and introduction (new york: doubleday, 2004) speaks of the paucity of reference to the new covenant in the new testament. the only explanation he offers is based on g.e. wright who attributes it to legalistic connotations that the authors sought to avoid. this is in contrast to contemporary jewish authors. the explanation is problematic for its complete disassociation of the new testament from its jewish background, for the way it projects the law-faith dichotomy on to all strands of the new testament, and for its facile identification of covenant and law. my own presentation of decline in the centrality of the notion of covenant in later jewish sources (not including in qumran literature) provides a much more plausible goshen-gottstein: the new covenant jeremiah 31 2 understood independently of it,5 one cannot deny the foundational status this text has had in the long history of christianity’s self-understanding as a fulfillment of biblical prophecies.6 the centrality of this text in christianity leads us to ask the question of what place the prophecy in jeremiah occupied in the history of jewish interpretation, and more broadly: what uses for the term “new covenant” may be found in jewish sources? the question is relevant in the context of jewish-christian learning and mutual understanding in one of two potential ways. the first is whether jewish interpretation is in any way influenced by christian interpretation, either imitating it, refuting it or intentionally ignoring it. the second is what can be learned about fundamental approaches to scripture and to the religious and spiritual life in judaism through the history of the verse’s interpretation. whereas the former question is specific to this verse, the latter question would approach this verse as an important, but by no means exclusive, illustration of jewish concerns as they are projected upon the reading of scripture. whereas the first question is focused on christianity and readily enters the realm of polemics, the second leads to an internal jewish history of interpretation, devoid of specifically christian associations. a significant contribution to the study of these questions has already been made by richard sarason.7 sarason studies two groups of texts, rabbinic and medieval. regarding the first group, he notes the sparsity of interpretation of these verses in rabbinic literature. the verses are interpreted in line with classical rabbinic concerns and follow the typical patterns of midrashic intertextual reading.8 he also notes that early rabbinic interpretations are free of polemical uses and do not show any awareness of christian interpretations. by contrast, the medieval uses, both those of jewish-christian polemical literature and those of the commentarial tradition, are heavily informed by christian uses and set out to protect a jewish view that opposes abrogation of the torah and its replacement by christianity.9 sarason analyzes polemical uses in detail and even provides a thematic chart of key arguments raised in the polemic and their spread across the different polemical works.10 unsurprisingly, sarason’s fundamental guiding question is to what extent jewish interpretation is aware of and responding to christian interpretation. a polemical context is to a large extent unnatural, as it leads to distortions in terms of what matters most to an interpretive tradition. the polemical concern with the account. if the appeal to covenant in the eucharistic institution is not read as a chapter in israel’s covenant history, then in fact there is no problem for which to account. new testament usage would then be completely in line with contemporary jewish usage. 5 in a more fundamental way, the very suitability of “covenant” as a way of describing the early church, in its relation to classical judaism, has been called into question by ellen juhl christiansen, the covenant in judaism and paul: a study of ritual boundaries as identity markers (leiden: brill, 1995). 6 see lundbom, excursus 5 “the new covenant in the new testament and patristic literature to a.d. 325,” 474-482. 7 richard sarason, “the interpretation of jeremiah 31:31-34 in judaism,” in when jews and christians meet, ed. jakob petuchowski (albany: suny press, 1988), 99-123. 8 ibid, 101 ff. 9 ibid, 103-9. 10 ibid, 116-7. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) other overtakes the inherent interest in scripture and its message. the present essay acknowledges sarason’s valuable work in viewing jeremiah 31 through the polemic lens. my own focus, by contrast, will be upon uses of the verse that reflect development of ideas, not directly indebted or opposed to christian usage. i am interested in understanding the relative importance, or lack thereof, of “new covenant” in the history of jewish usage, extending up to the 20th century. i am interested in the application of the term “new covenant” in later jewish literature, also independently of jeremiah 31. and i am interested in how both the verses in jeremiah and the usage of the term are developed in later judaism and in jewish spirituality. seen through these lenses, a completely different set of data emerges than the one surveyed by sarason through a polemical lens. it is different chronologically, thematically, and above all experientially. yet, this very difference also makes it a new potential meeting-point for jewish-christian sharing. once the concerns of jewish spirituality and a more personal application of “new covenant” are recognized, a new conversation can open up between jews and christians, one not founded on the polemics of the proper interpretation. a common scriptural anchorpoint allows the two traditions to relate to spiritual experiences across their differences. jeremiah 31 key motifs and covenantal context robert carroll comments on our passage: the exegesis of vv. 31-34 is straightforward and the interpretation of the piece would be simple were it not for the fact that many commentators insist on reading 31:31-34 as “one of the profoundest and most moving passages in the entire bible”…this christian appreciation of a minor and prosaic hope for the future, often identified with the new covenant of the new testament …while irrelevant for the meaning of the text, complicates the treatment of the section, because there is a large literature devoted to its interpretation from the viewpoint of christian theology.11 carroll makes us aware of how different theological lenses will lead to differing appreciation of this passage. if jews do not attribute to our prophecy a special position, that is because they do not see it through theologically charged lenses. the different ways in which jews and christians read this passage, even in nonpolemical contexts, make us aware of the different theological baggage brought to it by the respective readers. let us consider now the different elements in the oracle and how they would be picked up by jews and christians. behold, the days come, saith the lord, that i will make a new covenant with the house of israel, and with the house of judah; not according to the covenant that i made with their fathers in the day that i took them by the hand to bring 11 robert carroll, jeremiah: a commentary (london: scm, 1986), 612. goshen-gottstein: the new covenant jeremiah 31 4 them out of the land of egypt; for as much as they broke my covenant, although i was a lord over them, saith the lord. but this is the covenant that i will make with the house of israel after those days, saith the lord, i will put my torah (law) in their inward parts, and in their heart will i write it; and i will be their god, and they shall be my people; and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying: “know the lord”; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the lord; for i will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will i remember no more.12 let us consider the different elements in the prophecy. it is made with reference to both kingdoms—judah and israel, and promises a new covenant to both.13 it references a covenant made in egypt, in stark contrast to the exodus narrative, where the covenant was concluded in sinai and no covenant was made in egypt.14 it assumes the earlier covenant was broken and exhibits a new strategy for achieving god’s goals for israel. rather than trying time and again to urge proper human behavior, and rather than a series of covenantal commitments that is reflected in successive renewals of the covenant,15 it envisions a radical change in human nature as the eventual means for fulfilling the covenant.16 the divine solution to this failure is a change in human nature. the covenant will be written upon hearts, ostensibly making fulfillment of its commandments beyond the realm of human free will. this is not the only biblical prophecy to this effect. a close parallel is found in ezekiel 36:25-28, a text that is often quoted in the history of interpretation alongside with jeremiah 31.17 the text, then, only makes theological sense if we consider it as part of the longer trajectory of covenantal thinking. the covenant is contingent on human behavior and is therefore subject to the failure of human disobedience. to speak of a “new covenant” is therefore deeply engrained within a particular theological mold. the new covenant is a strategy for fulfilling the law, by inscribing it on hearts, not a means of transcending or abrogating it. the fulfillment of the covenant appeals to what rolf rendtorff has referred to as the “covenant formula,” 12 jer 31:30-33, jps translation. 13 this double reference is considered sufficiently problematic to lead some scholars to omit it from the oracle. see william mckane, a criticial and exegetical commentary on jeremiah (edinburgh: t and t clark, 1996), 818. see also lundbom, 466. 14 all biblical commentaries consulted assume these are one and the same and that the covenant of the exodus is none other than sinai. an alternative view emerges from the teachings of rabbi shmuel berezovsky, presented below. 15 see deut 29; josh 24:25; 2 kgs 23:3. a covenantal view of history also informs a christian reading of how the covenant shifts from jews to christians. the violation of the covenant by making the golden calf invalidates the covenant, requiring the covenant brought about by jesus. see lundbom, 481. the fundamental logic of successive covenants is maintained, but a different covenantal succession is put forth, replacing that proposed by the hebrew bible. 16 while this is the most common understanding of the oracle, some interpreters offer a less ra dical reading, in which the terms designate spiritual opening without assuming transformed human nature. see mckane, 826. 17 also relevant, in this context, is deut 30:6. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) affirmation of god’s relationship with israel as god and people.18 the covenant is tied to knowledge of god, a knowledge that is now engrained and does not require teaching. finally, there is the promise of forgiving of sins, either as part of the promise of concluding a new covenant that replaces the older one that led to sin, or as a direct outcome of the knowledge of god. it is important to appreciate this text in the context of covenantal theology, inasmuch as this holds the key to its history of interpretation, and allows us to appreciate where and why appeal to this text is scarce. it is also important to consider the various elements of this prophecy. let it be stated clearly—there is not a single interpretation, either jewish or christian, that relates to all the elements of the prophecy. every appeal is selective relating to some elements, while ignoring others. one reason for the partial application of the prophecy is that both for later jewish tradition and for christian tradition, this prophecy is no longer appreciated against the background of covenantal theology. while never rejected and while some lip service is paid to themes of covenantal thinking, in fact both religious systems no longer privilege covenant as the central structuring religious ideal. this accounts for the relatively low place that this prophecy occupies within the new testament, despite the common assumptions of the conceptual centrality of the notion of “new covenant” and for the low place it occupies in the history of jewish interpretation, as i shall presently suggest. both judaism and christianity emerge as distinct religious traditions at a point in time in which “covenant” has given way to other conceptual organizing principles. the history of how this came to be and how this plays out in second temple literature is beyond the scope of the present study. at least in part it is a historical response to the very theological pressures that led the prophets to give up on the covenant as currently practiced and to envision a new future covenant, involving the remaking of the human heart and of israel’s relationship with god. the historical response would have been to reshape the understanding of jewish religion, featuring key ideals, israel, torah and more, and to downplay the centrality of the covenant as an organizing principle. in what follows i shall present some of the ways in which the category of “new covenant” has taken shape in the history of jewish thought and interpretation. these are all predicated on the loss of the overall significance of “covenant” as a structuring category. accordingly, the prophecy in jeremiah is simply one prophecy among hundreds of future oriented prophetic visions.19 it does not hold any particular status within the overall economy of biblical prophecies, as viewed by jewish authors, largely because the problem it seeks to solve no longer takes center stage, having been largely resolved through a shift in the theological centrality of covenant. this 18 rolf rendtorff, the covenant formula: an exegetical and theological investigation, trans. margaret kohl (edinburgh: t&t clark, 1998). 19 some attempts have been made among modern commentators to see the prophecy as non eschatological, despite its opening “days are coming.” see mckane, 826. see further georg walser, “jeremiah 38:31-34 (mt 31:31-34): the history of the t wo versions and their reception,” in xiv congress of the ioscs (helsinki: 2010), 371. the later jewish usage described below also neutralizes the eschatological dimension of the oracle. goshen-gottstein: the new covenant jeremiah 31 6 does not prevent later uses of new covenant from drawing out important implications from jeremiah’s oracle. in order to appreciate the passage and its eventual reception in both religious traditions, we do well to identify the points of novelty. the first point of uniqueness is, of course, that this is the only place in the hebrew bible where we encounter the term “new covenant.” what makes this covenant new and in what way is it different from the old covenant? two main points have been identified. the first is that the covenant is written on the heart directly, rather than mediated by an outside teacher. it is thus more interior.20 consequently, it is also more individual.21 each person has the ability to receive the covenant directly. the second point concerns the reference to forgiveness of sins.22 in studying the history of interpretation of the passage in both traditions, it is worth considering which elements receive more of an echo in which tradition. granted that no tradition picks up on all the exegetical cues, we can nonetheless make a broad generalization. because the passage is more central to christians, they will pick up on more elements. all the elements identified as novel fit well within a christian framework and therefore will be amplified by later christian tradition. this would obviously be true for the forgiving of sins.23 for jewish tradition, for which the prophecy is of lesser significance, we can expect less amplification of the oracle, and consequently fewer elements will be carried through the history of interpretation. from what follows we see that the theme of forgiveness of sins receives almost no amplification. one of the contributions of the present article is to demonstrate the many ways in which the notion of new covenant is associated with individualization and interiorization by later jewish authors. the sources studied in the present essay are all based on rabbinic tradition, which in terms of its self-understanding makes a great leap between the hebrew bible and the traditions captured in the classical sources of talmudic and midrashic literature. this makes a study of second temple views of the covenant irrelevant, from the perspective of later rabbinic authors. the key point to acknowledge here is that in rabbinic literature the covenant and covenantal thinking play a very minor role.24 some scholars have suggested that the overall decline in covenantal thinking 20 carroll, 611. 21 lundbom, 469. 22 lundbom, 470. 23 see mckane, 822. 24 some scholars have put forth suggestions regarding equivalencies to covenantal thought in rabbinic sources, thereby suggesting a continuity of basic aspects of covenantal theology into the rabbinic period. see reuven kimelman, “the shema liturgy: from covenant ceremony to coronation,” in kenishta: studies of the synagogue world, ed. j. tabory (bar ilan university press, 2001), 9-105; and jon levenson, sinai and zion: an entry into the jewish bible (minneapolis: winston press, 1985), 82-86. while such attempts are important in terms of affirming continuity across different historical periods of jewish literature, they should not obscure the fact that “covenant” has ceased being a fundamental structuring notion of jewish religion. whatever it represented can and has been represented through other conceptual configurations. when it comes to a discussion of biblical prophecies of the covenant, this historical transition must not be minimized. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) in rabbinic judaism is due to the significance of the covenant for emerging christianity.25 i reject such an approach on multiple grounds. in principle, i am skeptical of the polemical-historical reconstruction that reads the history of ideas and the history of interpretation of rabbinic sources as a response to developments on christian ground.26 in the case at hand, one would have to demonstrate the centrality of covenant to early christian thinking and to argue that it was so central that it led the rabbis to abandon the category. i am not aware of a successful demonstration of the first part of the argument, quite apart from my principled rejection of the second part. no one has argued that rabbinic, or later jewish, interpretation of jer 31 is conditioned by christian reading of the verse, or more specifically, that the minor role this verse plays in later jewish interpretation is due to the major role it plays in christian interpretation. if jer 31 is not important to jewish interpretation this is nothing to do with its importance for christian interpretation. in fact, as already noted, it may be less significant even for christians than one often considers, given the sole explicit citation in the new testament. be that as it may, it is not important for jewish interpretation because covenantal thinking has already declined and so one promising solution to the difficulties of the covenant falls on ears that are no longer receptive to the problem. jer 31, then, becomes one of hundreds of biblical prophecies, each receiving some attention in the history of interpretation, but in no way a central or defining prophecy that shapes later interpretation. as it has no constitutive role in later interpretation, it is open to multiple applications, in line with the need of the interpreter and in response to some, but never all, of the signals that emerge from the biblical text. jeremiah 31 in jewish interpretation the big picture before considering various applications of jer 31 in the history of jewish interpretation, let us consider the big picture. this can be summed up in two statements. 1. jer 31:30-33 plays a very minor role in the history of jewish interpretation.27 2. given that, there are some fascinating and inspiring interpretations that emerge in association with this verse. these interpretations reflect broader concerns of jewish thought and therefore provide a window into ongoing concerns of jewish thought and spirituality. they are in many ways distinctly jewish and therefore provide a counterpoint to christian applications of the verse. as such, they illustrate fundamental differences between jewish and 25 w.d. davies, the gospel and the land: early christianity and jewish territorial doctrine, (sheffield, 1994), 107-8. 26 alon goshen-gottstein, “polemicomania: reflections on jewish-christian polemics as reflected in scholarship on rabbinic interpretation of the song of songs,” jewish studies 42 (2004): 119-190 [hebrew]. 27 lundbom, 474, claims the idea of the new covenant undergoes no further development in judaism following qumran. while the present article argues for the opposite, lundbom’s partial statement nevertheless tells us something important about the relative lack of centrality of the oracle. goshen-gottstein: the new covenant jeremiah 31 8 christian approaches to scripture and to religion, even as they can provide moments of mutual illumination and inspiration. let me first provide the factual basis that leads to the first statement. i make it based on a study of multiple textual databases. direct references to jer 31 are few, several dozen at most. expanding search criteria to include not only the biblical citation but also the term “new covenant” yields a slightly larger crop of sources, but still fairly small in size. the popular bar ilan database lists just over 140 occurrences in the entire corpus of jewish literature it covers. the dbs database brings the figure up to over 200, reflecting on the term “new covenant” rather than on the actual uses of jeremiah 31. searching for “new covenant” in the most extensive, though not necessarily most important, database, otzar hachochma, we find further occurrences of “new covenant,” again several dozen, but no significant expansion of the approach to or scope of use of jer 31. in other words, there is certainly a history of interpretation and the term “new covenant” does receive some interesting treatment, but these do not convey a sense of the importance or centrality of either. moving to specifics—it is striking that jer 31 on the new covenant receives no mention in either talmud. in tannaitic midrashim we find one single citation, in a very covenant conscious commentary on lev 26, where covenant is the guiding conceptual notion. this passage in the sifra,28 cited by rashi, amounts to an intertextual reference to covenant, and does not indicate any special importance. jer 31 does appear in some later midrashim.29 its appearance is routine and no special charge is attached. if we fast forward to the other end of the historical spectrum, it is interesting to note that a messianic visionary like rabbi a.i. kook cites jer 31 only once in his entire corpus.30 even this citation is not part of his active prophetic reflections on israel and its destiny. in other words, what seems to us an important component of an eschatological vision is nearly completely absent from the messianic reflections of a thinker who does not shy away from citing and amplifying various biblical eschatological voices.31 that the history of interpretation, front and back, allots such a minor position to the prophecy of the new covenant in jeremiah, leads us to look more carefully at the types of interpretation and usage. clusters of usage a typology of appeals to jeremiah 31 it will be useful to consider the different kinds of materials that relate to jeremiah 31, in order to appreciate their relative importance. 1. commentaries on jer 31. their relevance goes without saying, but cannot offer perspective on the relative importance of the verse from a broader perspective. 28 sifra, behukotay 1, 2, 6. 29 song of songs, rabba 1:4; pesikta derav kahana bahodesh 21; tanhuma yitro 13; tanhuma ekev 11. sarason, 101, observes that the exegesis of jer 31 is not primary and only serves as prooftext for the exegesis of other texts. 30 see discussion below. 31 for example, isa 56:7 is quoted numerous times in his corpus. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) 2. polemical literature. this is the body of literature described by sarason. i refer first and foremost to dedicated polemical anti-christian literature. since jer 31 is alluded to in some versions of the establishment of the eucharist, polemics against the eucharist end up targeting the verse.32 another aspect of anti-christian polemic is related to the question of abrogation of the law. jewish polemicists, notably don isaac abravanel, argue against a reading of the verse that could be understood as abrogation of the law.33 writing the law on the heart does not mean the law (torah) is no longer relevant. it is only an assurance for its observance. this theme is echoed by various authors, who make the distinction between renewing the covenant and the giving of a new torah, which would supersede and abrogate the old one.34 clearly, these concerns are polemical and stem from a response to christian, possibly also to muslim, claims. the polemical context also includes reference to sabbateans, who are also seen as espousing a new torah, in lieu of the old torah.35 the very question of whether jer 31 should or should not be understood in relation to the enduring validity and relevance of the torah and its commandments is most commonly formulated over and against a christian background. sometimes a polemical context frames an agenda that allows for the advancement of religious thought. the question of jer 31 and the permanence of the torah, a non-issue from the biblical perspective and a significant issue from the polemical perspective, does give rise to some interesting formulations regarding the future torah, as we shall see below. 3. the liturgical context. a third context in which we find allusions to the new covenant in jer 31 is the liturgical context. i have noted several liturgical poems that allude to it, as an expression of eschatological hope. one of the brief poems recited following the avoda of yom kippur, in the ashkenazi rite, asks of god to conclude with israel a new covenant.36 rabbi yehuda halevi also includes this aspiration as part of a broader series of eschatological hopes,37 as do various other prayers.38 these liturgical expressions demonstrate how the prophecy is taken up in religious imagination, unencumbered by additional burdens, polemical, philosophical or otherwise. it remains a promise to look to, a hope for the future, a way of reconfiguring the relationship that offers a new bright future for the relationship. that the prophecy finds liturgical expression shows its enduring significance.39 that it appears in a relatively small number of such poems is one more sign of it not being a central and dominant prophecy.40 32 for example, profiat duran, kelimat hagoyim, kitve pulmus leprofiat duran, ed. ephraim talmage (jerusalem: merkaz shazar, 1981), 31. 33 see, for example, abravanel to jeremiah 31. 34 this polemical tradition finds a clear expression in isaac troki’s chizuk ha’emunah, chapter 29. see also citation from sefer haberit hashalem, in the following note. 35 pinchas eliyahu horowitz, sefer haberit hashalem, 1:20, 31. 36 the poem begins titen acharit le’amecha. 37 see the concluding lines of kiyemei hane’urim. 38 see yozer for parashat hahodesh: hu nikra rosh verishon. 39 see also moshe chayim luzatto’s prayer, sefer 515 (תקט"ו) tefilot (jerusalem, 1979), prayer 7, 40. 40 this raises the question of what prophecies have achieved a major role in shaping religious imagination and which have only attained a secondary role, such as the one here described for jer 31:30 goshen-gottstein: the new covenant jeremiah 31 10 4. the pietistic context. a fourth context accounts for many of the uses described below. it emerges from pietistic and mystical literature of the past 400 or so years. it is not only far removed from awareness of christian usage. often, it is also detached from jer 31. in these contexts “new covenant” takes on a life of its own, independently of its original scriptural moorings. understanding the new covenant let us consider now how jer 31 has been understood in jewish interpretation. one cannot speak of only one meaning attributed to the prophecy. the beauty of the interpretive process lies in the wealth to which it gives rise. there is, however, one fairly dominant interpretation, that is echoed time and again in the course of the history of interpretation. this is the interpretation offered by nahamanides (d. 1270): and the eternal thy god will circumcise thy heart. this following subject is very apparent from scripture: since the time of creation, man has had the power to do as he pleased, to be righteous or wicked. this [grant of free will] applies likewise to the entire torah-period, so that people can gain merit upon choosing the good and punishment for preferring evil. but in the days of the messiah, the choice of their [genuine] good will be natural; the heart will not desire the improper and it will have no craving whatever for it. this is the “circumcision” mentioned here, for lust and desire are the “foreskin” of the heart, and circumcision of the heart means that it will not covet or desire evil. man will return at that time to what he was before the sin of adam, when by his nature he did what should properly be done, and there were no conflicting desires in his will...it is this which scripture states in [the book of] jeremiah, behold, the days come, saith the eternal, that i will make a new covenant with the house of israel, and with the house of judah; not according to the covenant that i made with their fathers etc. but this is the covenant that i will make with the house of israel after those days, saith the eternal, i will put my law in their inward pars, and in their heart will i write it (jer 31:3032). this is a reference to the annulment of the evil instinct and to the natural performance by the heart of its proper function. therefore jeremiah said further, and i will be their god, and they shall be my people; and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying: “know the eternal.” for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them (jer 31:32-33). now it is known that the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth (gen 8:21) and it is necessary to instruct them, but at that time it will not be necessary to instruct them [to avoid evil] for their evil ff. one likely factor in the determination of the place a prophecy achieves is its liturgical recitation as part of the cycle of haftarot. while the earlier part of jer 31 serves as the haftarah for the second day of rosh hashana, the verses under discussion are not part of any haftarah and are never read publicly in the synagogue. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) instinct will then be completely abolished. and so it is declared by ezekiel, a new heart will i also give you, and a new spirit will i put within you; and i will cause you to walk in my statutes (ezek 36:26-27). the new heart alludes to man’s nature and the [new] spirit to the desire and will.41 jer 31 is cited along with several other biblical passages, from deuteronomy and from ezekiel, all of which point to the notion of abolishing free will in the future or rather the spontaneous alignment of human will with the divine will.42 this is the point—it is not the law that is abolished; it is free will that is abolished. this lies at the heart of nachmanides’ interpretation.43 accordingly, jer 31 is read within a context that is significantly different than the original biblical context. for the prophet, this prophecy must be appreciated within the context of covenant history. this covenant history is particular to israel, a fact underlined by the dual reference to the house of israel and the house of judah. it is built on the relationship of god and people and broader humanity is not part of its purview. nachmanides resituates the prophecy within a broader context that is in fact universal, pertaining to all of humanity. the violation of the covenant is itself contingent on human free will, which in turn reverts to the biblical creation story. thus, it is not the covenant that is reconfigured but creation itself. what jeremiah offers us, then, is a rectification of the sin of adam, rather than the violation of israel’s covenant. nachmanides does not spell out the universalistic implications of his reading. these may be further obscured by the periodization he offers. there seems to be a threefold division of time—the time of creation, the time of torah, and the days of messiah. as the latter two are typically considered through the prism of israel’s spiritual reality, the passage may readily be understood with reference to israel. however, the implications for all of humanity are obvious even in the concluding phrase—man, the human person as such, will naturally do what is right. or as one scholar puts it, the oracle describes the harmony of human and divine wills.44 jer 31, then, is a prophecy of the restoration of human nature, not of israel’s covenant.45 though resituating the prophecy, there is no doubt that nachmanides has gone to the core of the message of this passage in jeremiah. in fact, his commentary can serve as a yardstick for evaluating all commentaries, both jewish and christian, in relation to how faithful they are to this core message of the abolition or transformation of free will. christians are able to claim some degree of fulfillment of jeremiah’s prophecy without this fundamental change of human nature. similarly, we find jewish commentators who draw other lessons from jeremiah’s prophecy, 41 trans. charles chavel, vol. v (new york: shilo, 1976), 341-2. 42 the relationship between jeremiah and deuteronomy, and the former’s theological advances in relation to the latter, take up considerable scholarly attention. see among others, mckane, 825; carroll, 614. 43 an understanding shared by many biblical commentators, such as von rad. see lundbom, 470. 44 mckane, 820. 45 nachmanides’ interpretation is echoed in rekanati and rabbenu bechayei to deut 30. it also appears in akedat yitzchak, noach, 14th gate. the position in nuanced in abravanel’s commentary to jeremiah, in order to maintain a degree of free will. it is further softened in the commentary of r. meir leibush malbim. goshen-gottstein: the new covenant jeremiah 31 12 though these lessons need not be construed as precluding the teaching highlighted by nachmanides. the following lessons are drawn by two 19th-century teachers, one of whom was teacher to the other. the natziv, r. naftali zevi yehuda berlin,46 makes the following observation in his torah commentary. commenting on lev 26:9—i will uphold my covenant with you—he first cites rashi’s allusion to jer 31, and dismisses it as derash, in other words, not conforming to the plain sense of the verse, according to which violation of the covenant has not even been mentioned by scripture. rather: covenant is the foundation (or principle) of faith,47 and the verse states that by the fact that they will succeed and grow, disproportionately in relation to the nations of the world, “my covenant”, that is faith that god is with them, will be established and strengthened. so that the nations of the world will also recognize and know god’s kingship.48 the natziv offers a reading of what “covenant” means. it is an expression of faith in its fullness and reality. such faith serves as testimony for others. in a manner equivalent to nachmanides, the universal potential of covenant emerges from an analysis of the meaning of israel’s particular covenant. while the natziv does not comment directly upon jer 31, extending this commentary to jeremiah (clearly within the scope of his interpretation, as he refutes rashi who cites it) would mean that the future covenant is the attainment of the fullness of faith. knowing god fully, as jeremiah prophecies, would be understood as attaining the fullness of faith and recognition of god being with israel, also as a model for all of humanity. rabbi a.i.kook (d. 1935) was a disciple of the natziv. i have already noted that he references jeremiah only once in his extensive, and often eschatologically oriented, oeuvre. here is how the passage is refracted: god’s true love, once firmly established in the heart, will be an eternal covenant, so that it will not move away from their hearts for all generations. and this is the new covenant that the prophet ezekiel stated god will establish with the people of israel, which will not be violated, that is: establishing the nature of love in the heart, just as the collective holiness [arising from] god placing his name on the nation as a whole was established, so and with even greater force, god will establish the nature of love upon the hearts of god’s people, so that it will not be moved away from their hearts and the hearts of their children, and children’s children, to all eternity.49 46 1816-1893. dean of the famous volozhin yeshiva and important commentator on torah and rabbinic literature. 47 citing exod 31:16, in other words, the meaning of the sabbath as berit olam, an eternal covenant, is that it is a source and foundation of faith. 48 ha’amek davar, lev 26:9. 49midbar shur, 30th derush. 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) rav kook cites the term “new covenant.” he attributes it to ezekiel. however, despite the thematic similarity between the prophecies of jeremiah and ezekiel, it is only jeremiah who speaks of a new covenant. rav kook has written from memory and made a crossover between the two prophets. he offers us a kind of history of covenant, in two critical steps. the foundational step was the initial founding of the relationship. it is not referred to as a covenant, though the context would support it. it is the entering into a relationship, in which god places his name upon the people. this establishes the nature of israel’s holiness. holiness and association with god, however, are not sufficient. we know this because the covenant has been violated and israel has sinned. the change in human nature, prophecied by jeremiah (along with ezekiel) is in fact a privileging of love over holiness. the change in human nature, the knowledge of god of which jeremiah speaks, is the engraving and establishing of love in the heart, for all generations. this alone guarantees the successful realization of god’s covenant and his relationship with israel. this is a beautiful rendering of jeremiah’s prophecy. it takes into account the promise of a changed human nature, along with the knowledge of god and faithfulness to the covenant. these are understood in light of the principle of love, not articulated in scripture, but certainly a creative and appropriate way of reframing its message. needless to say, christian interpretation would feel very much at home in such a refraction.50 the problem of the “new covenant” as noted, the term “new covenant” appears only once in the hebrew bible. therefore, every occurrence of the term is, in fact, indebted to jeremiah. this, however, is very misleading in terms of the meaning and usage of the phrase. the distinction between phenomenon and terminology is crucial. in terms of terminology, jer 31 is the only occurrence of “new covenant.” however, in terms of phenomenology it is one particular instance of the broader phenomenon of dealing with the failure or breakdown of an earlier covenant by the remaking of an additional, successive new covenant. covenant is a serial phenomenon. israel’s covenantal history is a series of successive covenants: sinai, fields of moav, shekhem, etc. one possible, and likely, understanding for the need for repeated covenant-making is the breaking or violation of an earlier covenant that is replaced by a later one. certainly, this is the explicit logic of jer 31. rabbinic sources from the middle ages onwards repeatedly appeal to the strategy of making a new covenant where a previous one has failed, in order to account for repeating covenants, 50 this passage is typical of the methodology of midbar shur, where rav kook posits some fundamental spiritual distinction in light of which he constructs a reading of history or scripture. rav kook is replicating a methodology of halachic lamdanut and how it posits distinctions to understand phenomena, into the spiritual realm. the distinction between holiness and love is, to the best of my knowledge, a novel one. rav kook would have been familiar with the christian distinction between law and love, itself part of the interpretive baggage brought to the reading of jer 31. his is an internal and much more positive way of making an analogous distinction. goshen-gottstein: the new covenant jeremiah 31 14 whether in human relations51 or in israel’s relationship with god. increasingly, these are referred to as “new covenant”. the term has caught up with the phenomenon. a new covenant is a covenant that reinstates, extends, and upholds the earlier one, following failure or other problems associated with the earlier covenant. what this means, then, is that there is a proliferation of usage of “new covenant” beginning in the middle ages and continuing up to contemporary rabbinic usage. none of it reflects the vision of jer 31, even though it draws on the same language.52 moreover, the logic of this “new covenant” is quite the opposite of jeremiah’s. jeremiah offers a strategy for keeping the notion of covenant in place, but totally revamping its conditions. the covenant does not rely on human effort, obedience, and action. the rabbinic usage described here continues the alternative biblical approach. it refers to human efforts to reestablish the covenant or to divine responses to such human actions in the language of jeremiah. this requires us to apply care in our appeal to later uses of “new covenant.” on the one hand, many of the applications are not really relevant to our concerns. on the other hand, they offer us an interesting way in which later jewish thought puts forth a new category, casting new meanings into the largely defunct category of “covenant”. consider the interpretation of r. shlomo ephraim of luntschitz53 in his keli yakar to lev 16. the entry of the high priest into the holy of holies on yom kippur is viewed as making a new covenant, with particular emphasis on the first two of the ten commandments.54 a later hassidic author, shmuel bornsztain,55 in his shem mishemuel,56 appeals to the notion of renewing the covenant repeatedly in his interpretation of shekalim, the coin donated annually to temple worship. god’s love is ever-present in the heart. the annual giving is an awakening of dormant love, a making of a new covenant with god. in both instances, there is no description of failure or violation of the covenant that precedes the concluding of a new covenant. rather, renewing the covenant functions as a hermeneutic principle in light of which a particular mitzva is understood. as such, it describes human initiative and faithfulness, the attempt to live a full spiritual life, in terms of a new covenant. the need for recurring covenant need not assume violation of the covenant.57 the renewal may be accounted for purely on grounds of the dynamics of “religious 51 see, for example chizkuni to gen 26:28. 52 the roots of the phenomenon may be much more ancient. it may be that already in qumran we find use of “new covenant’ along the lines described in this passage, which do not reflect jeremiah’ s vision. see d.n. freedman and david miano, “people of the new covenant,” in the concept of the covenant in the second temple period, 7-26, especially 22 ff. 53 1550-1619. rabbi in prague and torah commentator. wrote the celebrated keli yakar commentary. 54 similarly, s.r. hirsch’s commentary to lev 16 highlights the notion of renewing the covenant, as yom kippur is the day on which the broken sinai covenant was reestablished. 55 1855-1926. second rebbe of sochatchov dynasty, known for the hassidic commentary on the torah shem mishemuel. 56 on torah portion mishpatim. 57 that does, however, remain a default position. see, for example, nachmanides’ commentary to exod 34:27. 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) erosion,” if one might call it that.58 the shem mishmuel offers the following explanation for the need of a new covenant, as described in deut 29:9 ff. the reason for why moses had to conclude a new covenant with israel and did not content himself with the covenant concluded at sinai....for the entire matter of concluding a covenant is not requited when the minds are clear and the hearts are open. rather it is like the parable of two lovers who go far from one another, and they fear lest their love will cool off and will be forgotten, with the passage of time. [they therefore] conclude a covenant that will not change with the time-bound changes and spatial distance. similarly israel required concluding a covenant for this reason. for in the desert, where they were fed by manna, dwelling in the shadow of the clouds of glory and seeing the divine with their eyes, they were attached to god. and moses was concerned lest when they come to the land, and engage in sowing and reaping as, is the custom of the world, their love will cool off and will be slowly forgotten. he therefore concluded with them a covenant so that the love will not change as circumstances change.59 the author goes on to enumerate even more radical circumstances, associated with the later covenant, that could threaten israel’s love and that therefore require a covenant as a form of protection. this is a fascinating text in that it offers an alternative theory to that of biblical covenant -making. this alternative theory is in itself a sign of some distance from biblical thinking. remaking the covenant is not based on its prior violation. the need for restoration is built into the fabric of religious life. as in the reading of rav kook, covenant is related to love. whereas for rav kook, covenant is the fulfillment of love, for the shem mishemuel, covenant is the protection against the erosion of love. love is the core, and covenant the external protecting sheath. were it not for the fear of distance and cooling off of the lovers’ love, there would be no need for covenant.60 how concluding a new covenant functions as a way of expressing renewed religious zeal and commitment is noted in the following passage, from the celebrated shene luhot haberit of isaiah horowitz.61 58 from a completely different angle, we find a hassidic understanding of the ongoing need for covenant-making, not in terms of relational dynamics, but in terms of the parties to the covenant. t he original covenant remains intact for israel. however, converts were never part of the original covenant. the souls of converts require a later covenant. see tif’eret shlomo on purim. 59 shem mishemuel, devarim, jerusalem, n.d., 219. 60 it is fascinating to note how close, virtually identical, this teaching is to a contemporary christian articulation of the relationship between love and law, echoing an earlier teaching of kierkegaard. see raniero cantalamessa, life in christ: a spiritual commentary on the letter to the romans, liturgical press, collegeville, 2002, chapter 8. while the shem mishemuel is likely oblivious of christian attacks on judaism in light of the law, if we substitute “law” for “covenant” in his teaching, we emerge with a teaching to that of fr. cantalamessa. 61 1555-1630. popularizer of mystical tradition and author of an enormously popular work shene luhot haberit. goshen-gottstein: the new covenant jeremiah 31 16 i heard a story of a group of pious individuals (hassidim), who came together in sincerity and holy piety, and they were ten all in all, a divine community,62 an entire community. and they [took upon themselves to] add, every day and every night, holiness, without limit, in torah study, fulfillment of the commandments and piety. and they came together to conclude a new covenant with the lord our god, to serve him wholeheartedly, to learn and teach, to keep and observe and fulfill, the written torah and the oral torah, the protections [for the law] and the stringencies, whatever is mentioned by all legal decisors, former and latter. and following that they practiced the ways of holiness, abstinence and purity, without limit. and they concluded a covenant of faith, facing god, on this matter. and do not query what does it mean to conclude a new covenant, as we are already sworn from mount sinai, and we already have concluded covenants, as stated in the torah (exod 34:10; deut 5:2; josh 9:6). for we find such a matter with reference to the pious kings of the house of david, in king ezekiah (2chr 29:10), and king osaiah (2kgs 23:3), and similarly you will find with reference to the men of the great assembly, when they returned to israel from babylonia, as it is narrated in the book of ezra (10:3) and nehemiah (10:1). “happy is the people that act in this way, happy is the people for whom the lord is god” (ps 144:15). and until this very day, if they make an offering63 to do so, to come together in one union, and to conclude a covenant of faith to the dweller on high64 they gain merit for themselves and for others, and the divine presence dwells amongst them.65 scripture remains a living force that is always capable of generating spiritual rejuvenation. what the shelah offers us is a condensed history of biblical covenantmaking and its potential application in the lives of any community. the term for such application is a “new covenant.” he even offers us a conscious self-reflection on the legitimacy and need for new covenant-making. scripture begets piety. it is noteworthy that the process described herein is communal. it relates to a choice community of pious individuals who support each other in becoming a community of pious practice. the quote from ps 144 might suggest that they in fact stand in for the entire people, or at least realize the potential that is available for the people at large. covenant-making is, then, a form of piety. in all this there is no echo of jer 31, except for the choice of term. this covenant-making is not a foreshadowing of the future new covenant. the same author will later on offer us a glimpse of such foreshadowing. for the most part, this “new covenant” is the linguistic expression of the biblical phenomenon of covenant-making as a continuous serial activity, now applied to the life of a choice community of volunteer pious individuals. 62 allusion to num 14:27, which provides the prooftext for ten as the minimal halachic quorum for a public. 63 mitndavim. could also be rendered—volunteer. in other words—make a voluntary offering, beyond what is demanded by law. 64 the hebrew features a rhyme: veya’asu berit emunah leshochen meonah. 65 shelah, tractate yoma, perek derch chayim tochechat musar. 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) the historical trajectory of covenant-making moves from the entirety of the people of israel to small communities of pious. the next step in the trajectory is the move to the individual, with covenant-making, a new covenant, as a feature of individual piety. individualizing the covenant one of the important changes that occurs, largely as a result of this expanded use of “new covenant” is the individualization of the covenant. there are biblical covenants between individuals, as well as between god and chosen individuals. however, the covenant, that provides the framework for all later references to the covenant, is the sinai covenant, israel’s collective covenant with god.66 it is therefore interesting to observe a process of individualization of that covenant. the process of making a new covenant shifts from the collective to the individual. the language of covenant enters the domain of piety and spirituality, describing the efforts of individuals towards god, and in certain cases also the depth and intimacy of relationship with god following their action. very little of this, however, flows from jeremiah’s prophecy. making a new covenant is a step in the struggle against human weakness, the evil inclination of which nachmanides spoke, not an act of surrendering all human efforts to the exclusive power of god. one of the earliest uses of “new covenant” in such a personal context comes from the mystical diary of r. joseph karo (d. 1575).67 r. joseph karo had a personal “magid,” a mystical, otherworldly, spiritual guide, which for him was a personification of the mishna. his book magid mesharim records instructions and conversations of this magid. one of the passages records the date and goes on to describe the day: the day of the circumcision (literally: covenant) of the child...even though you have much separated your thought from me, i will return to you as it was originally, so that you may know the fullness of my goodness, compassion and mercy. and the first days will fall away and now i will make with you a new covenant and return to you the joy of my salvation and with a generous spirit i will support you,68 so long as you remain attached to me, to my awe, to my mishnayot, and do not separate your thought from me for even a moment, and return and build what you have destroyed.69 we note that the objective covenant-making in the form of circumcising his son leads to the subjective experience of his own receiving of a new covenant. such a covenant is necessitated by what is described as karo’s having removed himself 66 the covenant with abraham may be seen as part of this broader covenantal movement. i would not include the covenant with noah within the same conceptual framework, even if it is the first covenant concluded by god with humanity. 67 on this, see r.j.z. werblowsky, joseph karo: lawyer and mystic (philadelphia: jps, 1977). 68 echoing ps. 51:14. 69 magid mesharim, ki tavo. goshen-gottstein: the new covenant jeremiah 31 18 and his thoughts from exclusive attachment to god. the initiative is god’s. it is he who concludes the new and highly personal covenant. however, this covenant does have its particular requirements of r. karo, namely his continued attachment to god, to the mishna, and the discipline of constant remembrance of god. it is important that this personalized covenant is an interior mystical experience. the same is true for the following text attributed to the ba’al shem tov (d. 1760), founder of the hassidic movement. the besht, as he is known, offers mystical intentions, kavanot, for immersion in the ritual bath, mikveh. he first describes a series of divine names that the person performing the immersion concentrates upon, corresponding to his reality in the physical structure of the mikveh. he then orients his heart to ask of god that he should receive holiness and purity in his thought, voice and speech: “and if he performs these intentions, even if he falls to the ground seven times,70 he will arise, as well as if he goes seven degrees backwards,71 god will heal him and will conclude with him a new covenant that will not be broken, and then a spiritual stature will illuminate his soul”.72 mystical intentions lead to a personal relationship with god. following human efforts at purification and sanctification there is a promise for personal healing, illumination and a new covenant. as in the previous text, it is god who concludes the covenant, not the individual. god does so following the efforts and intentions of the individual. there is an opposite trajectory, wherein the individualization of the covenant is means of expressing personal commitment and initiative. in the same way as a covenant is concluded with the passage of time, be it on an annual basis or as circumstances change, so the making of a new covenant can express zeal, commitment, and intentionality of the individual, in his spiritual quest. if the previous quotes presented god as the one who concludes the covenant, the following passages portray covenant-making as a form of human initiative, equivalent to repentance, commitment, and spiritual regeneration. the hassidic teacher, r. aharon roth73 (d. 1947) describes a person’s morning routine as follows: when he wakes up in the morning he is a literally a new creature, and he must therefore accept upon himself a new covenant every day, to serve god with total self-dedication74 because the commitment of the previous day to be strong in prayer is not effective for the prayer of tomorrow, for a person’s evil inclination is renewed daily, just as a person is renewed daily and becomes a new creature.75 70 allusion to prov 24:16. 71 allusion to 2kgs 20:9. 72 this text appears in various citations. the present one is taken from the commentary of r. levi yitzchak of berdichev, in his kedushat levi, on tractate avot. 73 1894-1947. founder of a hassidic dynasty that is prominent in jerusalem and a noted mystic. 74 mesirut nefesh. 75 imrei aharon, p. 12. the notion appears several times in his corpus, as a designation of renewed human efforts in god’s service. in ma’amar avoda shebelev, section 16 on kidush hashem, however, 19 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) the need for a new covenant is as basic as the new day. covenant-making is therefore synonymous with new beginnings and fresh commitment.76 while the personalization of the covenant may be inspiring in and of itself, this is largely a devaluation of the covenant, which no longer functions as a broader frame for the relationship, nor as an expression of the particularity of a relationship. a new covenant is simply a way of expressing rededication and new commitment. in another source, the famous mashgiach of the mir yeshiva, r. yerucham, describes the spiritual practices of the kabbalist alexander ziskind (d. 1794), author of yesod veshoresh ha’avoda. the latter is described as repeating in mantralike style his willingness to suffer martyrdom, to sanctify god’s name, and his repeated acceptance of the torah’s yoke. this is repeated hundreds and thousands of times. r. yerucham queries the need for such repetition, and explains it as “every repetition was as if he now accepted it upon himself as if it was new. not a moment had passed and he already felt the need for a new acceptance, for a new covenantmaking between himself and god.”77 covenant-making is synonymous with a new resolution and its time span is a moment only. the need for covenant-making is religious consciousness. if the biblical need for covenant-making was justified by particular events, and if biblical commentators considered certain annual commandments as expressive of a spirit of covenantal rejuvenation, the present applications of the term view the need for covenant-making as a direct expression of religious consciousness and its fragility. daily changes in consciousness or the momentary transitoriness of religious awareness stand in for long term relational considerations. covenant-making becomes a form of almost perpetual dedication to one’s relationship with god.78 covenant and new revelation the history of interpretation is a history of selectivity. given the wealth of elements in jeremiah’s prophecy, we find some amplified, while others are ignored. this is as true of jewish interpretation as it is of christian readings of the verse. with the decline in the theological context of covenant, later readers relate to elements in the prophecy, other than covenant. the reference to placing the torah in the heart (v. 32) relates to a central concern of rabbinic thought—the study of torah. much of the attention of later generations focuses on the study of torah and the meaning of jeremiah’s prophecy for torah study, rather than for covenant. we also find reference to “he will become a new creature, and god will conclude with him a new covenant from now on, to bring him close to the shekhina of his glory.” 76 other units of time could be considered in similar light. this is one dimension of meaning imbued by s.r.hirsch in the celebration of shabbat. see his commentary to lev 23:15. 77 yerucham levovitz, da’at torah (jerusalem, 2002), part 2, 73-74. 78 for a halakhic expression of the same attitude, though not with the same frequency, see reshimat shi’urim of r.j.b. soloveitchik, nedarim 8b. renewing the covenant is identified with taking an oath in god’s name, as a means of driving oneself to further commitment to the commandments. here we have a personal application of renewing the covenant within a framework that preserves the fundamental association of covenant and commandments. goshen-gottstein: the new covenant jeremiah 31 20 the dual emphasis on placing the torah in the heart and the lack of need to teach one another about god leads to some reflections on torah study. the phenomenology of study includes the attempt to retain what was learned and the challenges of forgetting the studied torah. these are thematized in numerous rabbinic passages. this is one context within which our prophecy is appreciated.79 it is worth noting that the rabbis are concerned with the study of torah. they do not relate to the knowledge of god, readily available in the future described by jeremiah. this is a significant omission,80 inasmuch as it points to the autonomy of torah study and how it is not understood as a means to the knowledge of god. 81 as noted, most references to “new covenant” apply the concept to the phenomenon of repetitive covenant-making. i have found only one text that situates jeremiah’s prophecy in a context that could be described as realized eschatology. the following passage, again from the shelah, does not draw practical consequences for piety or individual behavior, as did the previous quote. rather, it offers a reading of normative practices relating to the festival cycle, situating them all in an eschatological context. each of the festivals draws its meaning by pointing to a future eschatological reality made present in the festival. within this context we also find the following reference to jer 31. all additions of holiness, as these are understood in light of the secret meaning of the additional sacrifices (musaf) offered on festival days, allude to the future. the new moon...the secret of the musaf of shabbat is the world [to come], all of which is shabbat; and the secret of passover is that during passover israel was redeemed and so during passover they will be redeemed in the future...and shavuot is the time of the giving of the torah, [points to] future additional knowledge through a new covenant and the earth will be filled with knowledge.82 the passage goes on to list other festivals, all of which are appreciated through an eschatological perspective. the shelah does not state explicitly that shavuot is the time of historical covenant-making, which would lend it the quality of renewing the original covenant, a theme that can indeed be found in hassidic literature. rather, he relates it to the future covenant, from which the present draws its 79 see sources cited by sarason. 80 yishai chasida, beurei hachasidut lenach (jerusalem: mossad harav kook, 1980), 371, cites kedushat levi of r. levi yitzchak of berditchev, to the effect that the future miracles will lead to a greater knowledge of god, compared to the exodus. he attaches this to the notion of a new covenant, thereby creating an exception to the statement i just made. however, examination of the kedushat levi on passover reveals that r. levi yitzchak is exegeting isa 51:4 and the rabbinic gloss in vayikra rabba 13:3. he makes no reference whatsoever to covenant, or to j eremiah, in line with the virtual lack of interest in this verse in hassidic commentaries. 81 i elaborate on this in my forthcoming in god’s presence: a theological introduction to judaism (tentative title). 82 shene luchot haberit, torah or, pinechas. 21 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) meaning.83 the association with shavuot points attention to one of the important and usually overlooked elements of jer 31—the inscribing of the torah on the heart. the intuitive association of shavuot with a new future revelation allows us to recognize how jesus’ disciples could make a similar association, leading to the emergence of the christian feast of pentecost, with its particularity. the structure is the same. for the christians it has been actualized in a particular point in time. for jews, it remains a future vision. because jeremiah’s prophecy is centered in such a future-oriented vision, the juxtaposition to shavuot is a suggestive association of ideas, by no means common or representative. ideas have the potential of being actualized, as this one is in the christian context. it is up to reception history and broader circumstances to profile and to give wide currency to ideas. such a contextualization of jeremiah as we find in the shelah remains an isolated case. this may be largely due to the fact that it is homiletical, lacking any practical consequences. it is part of a broader view of festivals seen in an eschatological lens, lacking any practical directives. in fact, it does not proffer meaning on the festivals, but on the musaf sacrifice. the concern is limited in scope and so is its contribution to any sense of developing a realized eschatology of jeremiah 31. jeremiah 31 clearly implies a new and different kind of torah. what is the relationship between this torah and the torah we now possess and know? this is, as we already saw, a matter that lies at the heart of the jewish-christian controversy, with reference to the abrogation of the torah, a notion read by christian interpreters into this prophecy, and vehemently rejected by jewish commentators and polemicists. i have, nevertheless, found one text that addresses this issue, though without any reference to the jewish-christian polemic. we saw above that the shelah includes in his description of piety also observance of stringencies and laws that were put in place to protect biblical, foundational laws. this is in contrast to the italian kabbalist moshe david vali,84 who relates to jer 31 as a return to the pristine torah, prior to its protection.85 the matter of hedges and boundaries that were made to the torah by its sages in every generation. the reason [for this] is because of the heart of stone and the evil inclination that has the upper hand, and so that the generations should not transgress a proper prohibition of the torah. however, at the time of redemption, when the heart of stone will be removed and the evil inclination will be removed, one will no longer need such hedges at all. and there will be great relief for israel, who will only take care to keep the torah in its plain intention, 83 it is worth noting that the only two references to jer 31 in the oholey yaakov of rabbi yakov friedman (d. 1956) are in two homilies on shavuot, thereby bringing to light such eschatological dimensions of the festival. 84 1697-1776. italian commentator and mystic. famous as the teacher of rabbi moses hayim luzzato. 85 vali was, among other things, a polemicist against christianity. the following passage shows no awareness of alternative christian readings. it should be noted, however, that it is excerpted from a larger discussion, for which no reference is provided. goshen-gottstein: the new covenant jeremiah 31 22 things as they are, without any fence to a fence to keep distance from the prohibition, because the heart will be pure and straight and will not sin. and this is the matter of the prophecy [of jeremiah, cited here], which seems, god forbid, as though it will be a new torah...but the novelty will be to remove from them all the hedges that were needed initially when they were taken out of egypt...but in the future when all evil will be turned to good, and the torah will be written and sealed in israel’s heart, each one according to his own level, when there will be no obstacle on their end, then they will no longer need these hedges, [further citations from jeremiah]...when evil will be eliminated from the world, and all will perform [the commandments]out of love and not out of fear, and there will no longer be a need for the hedges, so that his fear should be upon us, so that we not sin.86 there may be a particular interpretation underlying this passage. god says, i have placed my torah upon their hearts. this could give rise to an interpretation that distinguishes god’s torah from the man-made protective hedges. the change of human nature, that is fundamental to jeremiah’s commentary, is related to the placing of torah in the heart. the antinomian associations that christians might apply to the torah and its commandments are limited to the human part of the torah. the torah itself, in this reading, is not given to battle the weaknesses of the evil inclination. its purposes, one assumes, are broader, possibly cosmic and theurgic in scope as a kabbalist might believe, thereby drawing a meaningful distinction between the divine and human portions of the torah. only the latter are an outcome of the fault of human weakness and the evil inclination. they will, therefore be abrogated at the time of redemption. vali’s reading of jer 31 relates to most key elements—torah, placing in the heart, knowledge of the heart, and forgiveness of sins. the one element that does not receive specific attention is the covenant, the new covenant. the following text, also from vali, completes the picture. behold, the days come, saith the lord, that i will make a new covenant with the house of israel, and with the house of judah. it is already known that at the time of the giving of the torah god removed the foreskin from the yesod, so that the lights of the torah itself could emerge from it and spread among all israel. however, on account of the sin of the golden calf the foreskin once again gained hold upon the holy yesod, as it did originally, and the internal lights could not emerge from it, only the exterior ones, and even they could not enter the hearts of israel properly, because due to the sin of the golden calf all of israel became uncircumcised of heart, and they therefore sinned always and annoyed their creator. however, in the future god will once again remove the foreskin from the holy yesod, and also remove the foreskin from the hearts of israel, and therefore the lights of the torah will be able to emerge from the 86 sefer halikutim (jerusalem, 1998), 23. 23 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) holy yesod and enter the hearts of israel, for there will be no longer any obstacle, neither on the side of the beneficiary nor on the side of the recipient. and this is the secret of “i will make a new covenant with the house of israel, and with the house of judah [verse cited in full]”.87 this commentary brings covenant, berit, back to center stage. it also provides a window into what happened to covenant in the course of the history of jewish thought. as i have already suggested, the relative lack of importance of our prophecy is a function of the overall decline in the place of covenant in the economy of jewish theology. one of the outcomes of this decline is a transformation of the meaning of berit among kabbalists. rather than the framework for israel’s relationship with god, the term took on a different meaning, derived from its association with the covenant par excellence, the only one that remains central to jewish practice—circumcision. because one particular covenant is still practiced, circumcision and covenant became synonymous. this led to the term berit serving as one of many epithets of the ninth sefira within the kabbalistic system of divine emanations, the sefira whose anthropomorphic correspondent is the male organ. “covenant,” berit, became a designation for the sefira of yesod. nearly all uses of berit in kabbalistic and hassidic literature resort to this use, with no reference or association to its original and broader biblical context. vali’s commentary draws the kabbalistic understanding back to the biblical sphere, relating it to biblical concerns, as these are expressed in jer 31. he offers us a re-reading of jer 31, in light of kabbalistic understandings of berit. “covenant,” berit, is integrated into this understanding as the grounds for revelation of the torah, one of the elements of the prophecy. significantly, the passage is taken out of the context of the exodus, and read in relation to sinai. the passage assumes two dimensions of foreskin, a symbol for evil, impurity and the “other side,” both expansions of the original foreskin associated with the ritual of circumcision. the one is the circumcision of the heart, already a biblical expansion of the notion of circumcision, and its related foreskin.88 the other is the cosmic foreskin, which is the natural correlate of the divine yesod. it expresses the recognition of a cosmic battle of good and evil, as taught in the kabbalistic system. the result is that fulfilling the promise of jer 31 does require a new berit, namely revelation of the yesod, along with the ensuing transformation of human heart and novel understanding of the torah. the way in which the exodus has been transposed to sinai is but one way in which jeremiah is reconfigured in accordance with emphases and conceptual structures that inform the worldview of the later interpreter. the following section provides us with further instances of such reconfiguring in hassidic literature. 87 moshe david vali, marpe lashon: commentary on jeremiah (jerusalem, 2003), 226. 88 deut 10:16. goshen-gottstein: the new covenant jeremiah 31 24 reconfiguring jeremiah one of the expression of the lack of centrality of the jeremiah prophecy is its virtual lack of echo in hassidic literature. a survey of the hassidic corpus shows no concern with any of the elements of the prophecy.89 in what follows, i present two exceptions to this claim, both by authors who are well versed in the bible, and whose teachings therefore convey in some way the impact of biblical concerns. for the most part, hassidic authors stand in continuity with rabbinic concerns. hence the lack of interest in the covenant. both authors presented here relate to jer 31 multiple times, and for one of them it is a key prooftext for larger theological edifices. both the repeated appeal and the qualitative use of the verse suggest a departure from the norm in hassidic literature and in most of jewish tradition. such departure is best accounted for as a consequence of consistent exposure to the bible as a primary study text, a fact that fits the profile of both authors. the biblical message is reworked and integrated within the broader conceptual framework of the respective hassidic articulations. the first of the two authors is r. nathan of nemirov, whose magnum opus likutey halachot is a tour de force of hassidism, homiletics, and commentary on all aspects of the canon.90 r. nathan contextualizes jer 31 within a broader historical scope. one aspect of this is relating earlier redemptions to the future redemption and its association with the messiah. reading jer 31 in relation to the messiah requires importing a concept that is not in the passage, but is a reasonable move if we consider the eschatological perspective as a whole. both jews and christians eventually make this association at some point.91 accordingly, r. nathan contrasts earlier redemptions with the future redemption. earlier redemptions 89 there is one brief mention of the new covenant in sefat emet to matot 1898, where he speaks of god concluding a new covenant that will not be violated. the text thus brings together new covenant and inviolability. this could echo jeremiah, which, however, is not explicitly cited. the text does go to the core concern of jeremiah and to what gives rise to the notion of a new covenant—maintaining the covenant in the face of its violation. 90 on this work, see alon goshen-gottstein, “halakhah and the spiritual life: an introduction to ‘likkutei halakhot,’ by r. nathan sternhartz of nemirov,” in amihai berholz, ed., the quest for halakhah (tel aviv: yediot aharonot, 2003), 257-284 [hebrew]. dates 1780-1844. to a large extent, rabbi nathan is the person responsible for the survival of breslav as a religious movemen t following the death of r. nachman, in the absence of an alternative rebbe. author, redactor, and community organizer, he laid the foundations for the community’s long-term survival. 91 note, however, that messiah is not the one who concludes or launches a covenant. messiah provides the time period within which jer 31 is understood, but is not active in the new covenant, in the same way as jesus is in relation to inaugurating a new covenant. it would seem that once the eschatological perspective was individualized in the person of messiah, jer 31 could have yielded more active readings of messiah concluding the new covenant, possibly in the same way that moses concluded the sinai covenant. it may be that there are internal breaks in the system that prevent this. it could be that defense mechanisms against the notion of abrogation of the torah prevented the development of an idea of messiah as giving a new torah, over and against the one given in a covenant by moses. 25 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) were followed by subsequent exiles.92 messiah brings tikkun to its completion, and leads to full return to god. jer 31 serves as proof for complete return.93 more central to r. nathan’s concerns is contextualizing the knowledge of god and the reference to torah in jer 31 within his own schemata of knowledge and revelation. one of these relies on r. nachman of breslav’s kabbalistically-based teaching regarding a future revelation of the torah from a higher source within the divinity.94 jer 31 is read in light of this understanding. this revelation of torah amounts to revealing the secrets of the torah. revealing this higher torah has its correlation in the recipients. these will be at a point of purification in which they will be able to receive the new revealed teaching and never transgress the torah.95 if the plain sense of jeremiah assumes a transformation of human nature, an understanding mostly upheld in the course of interpretation, as we noted in nachmanides’ commentary, r. nathan provides a new context for obedience to the torah. rather than divine intervention and refashioning of human nature, r. nathan envisions a gradual process of purification that occurs throughout the ages. in fact, such purification could occur even without the torah, by virtue of the teaching, example, and presence of zaddikim. in the same way that the torah was not given to the world immediately, it could have, in theory, also been given later, once the world had been adequately purified to attain the obedience and attunement appropriate for the higher revelation of the torah. torah and zaddikim function autonomously as well as synergistically, reinforcing one another. the divine plan deemed it necessary to reveal a lesser dimension of torah, in response to human nature, postponing the eventual fullness of torah to the messianic future. yet, this messianic revelation will be founded upon the gradual purification and perfection of human nature, resulting in the state expressed in jeremiah 31. a second construct within which jer 31 is appreciated relates to the notion of ezah, advice. an important teaching of r. nachman of breslav, r. nathan’s teacher, who provides the theoretical foundations for his work, relates to the notion of advice. wisdom manifests in the capacity to find advice, insight, a liberating understanding by means of which one can help oneself and others overcome the challenges of reality, and in particular one’s evil inclination. the fullness of understanding torah finds expression in the fullness of ezah, insight. affirming the classical topos of the unchangeability of the torah, r. nathan defines the novelty of the messianic torah, described in jer 31, as the ability to derive complete and whole insights and personal teachings.96 the perfect fulfillment of the torah is not a function of the lack of what r. nathan would refer to as the evil inclination, and which he would recognize as germane to jeremiah’s prophecy. it is an outcome of the fullness of advice, by means of which one can overcome it. compared with the 92 a point made already in the midrash. see mechilta, masechta deshira 1. 93 likutey halachot, orach hayim, massa umatan, 4. 94 see likutey moharan i, 13b. it is worth noting that r. nachman is alone among hassidic authors in developing this concept, even though it has zoharic foundations. all references to the term in hassidic literature are in breslav literature. 95 likutey halachot, orah hayim, birkat hareach ubirkat hoad’ah, 4. 96 likutey halachot, hilchot techumin 5. goshen-gottstein: the new covenant jeremiah 31 26 previous understanding, relating to the manifestation of the higher torah, this understanding profiles the application of the future teaching in relation to the individual. we have here one more aspect of the individualization of jer 31, not in terms of the personal making of the covenant, but in terms of the broader availability of a higher teaching that equips each and every individual to overcome the battle with the evil inclination. this is achieved by means of identifying and implementing the advice needed for him personally. what messiah brings to the world is the depth of infinite advice, such that evil cannot overcome. the second hassidic author is contemporary. this is r. shmuel berezovsky, grand rabbi of the slonim dynasty.97 rabbi berezovsky’s darchei no’am is a collection of his weekly teachings drawn from two decades of preaching. rabbi berezovsky is a reader of the bible, something which is fairly uncommon in hassidic circles. this has had a direct consequence on his integrating the idea of covenant into his hassidic thinking. the outcome is a fresh approach to biblical covenantal sources, now read through hassidic eyes.98 because rabbi berezovsky has no tradition of interpreting the covenant to which to appeal, other than the roundabout workings of covenantal terms and sources in kabbalistic and hassidic literature, what we find is a series of original reflections that bring together exegesis, hassidic spirituality and his own interpretive intuitions. the result is a novel contribution to jewish covenantal thought. within the scope of his teachings, jer 31 occupies a very central place. the verse is commented upon dozens of times in his corpus. the main lesson drawn by him concerns the making of a covenant as israel left egypt, a fact not found in the torah and for which rabbi berezovsky can only rely upon jeremiah. this, in turn, allows him to develop multiple readings of the meaning of the exodus in light of a covenantal understanding. of all the elements that jer 31 could provide, the one that is most important for him, and probably least important for the history of interpretation, is the very fact that there was a covenant concluded at the exodus. however, the juxtaposition of that covenant with the new covenant does lead to some significant observations regarding the new covenant, and to these i now turn. there is much in common between the darche noam’s reading of jer 31 and that of r. nathan. for both, the verse is to be understood in the context of torah and its revelation. both downplay the change in human nature, the main message of jeremiah. however, given the centrality of covenant to rabbi berezovsky’s thinking, this leads to a much fuller integration of jer 31 and its message both in terms of torah and its revelation and in terms of covenantal thinking. furthermore, r. nathan’s appeal to covenant juxtaposes past and future, much as jeremiah’s 97 born 1936. has been serving as its leader since 2000. influential in contemporary israeli politics through membership in the torah council of sages of agudath israel. he is a contemporary mystic and creative exegete, as can be gleaned from the passage under discussion. 98 i have devoted a study to this. see alon goshen-gottstein, “rediscovering the covenant: the contemporary hasidic thought of rabbi shmuel berezovsky of slonim,” in be-ron yahad: studies in jewish thought and theology in honor of nehemia polen, ed. ariel mayse and arthur green (boston: academic studies press, 2019), 118-154. 27 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) prophecy does. r. berezovsky, by contrast, introduces a long historical development, the present continuous, israel’s exile, suffering and process. this provides the bridge from the covenant at the exodus to the new future covenant. situating the future new covenant on an axis of historical continuity provides it with a relevance beyond that of an eschatological prophecy. not much can be done with an eschatological prophecy, except for waiting for it to come to be. if, however, the new covenant is constructed in the here and now, it provides meaning to the present. the new covenant can then become part of the aspiration, and possibly even of the active construction, of the faithful in the here and now. the new covenant functions as a point of reference by means of which one can point to development and growth in religion. the radical transformation of heart envisioned by jeremiah gives way to taking stock of multiple ways in which judaism has changed and grown through the ages. these are then situated on the axis between the initial and the future covenants. in the future there will be a new covenant, because during exile so many qualities and new forces were added to israel that have not yet been revealed, and in order to bring them into manifestation the previous covenant is insufficient, but one requires a new covenant of the “soul coming close,”99 in order to effect redemption, for only it can reveal and bring into manifestation what was contained in potential in israel.100 the context is historical and the history is focused on exile not simply as a time of suffering but as a time of growth. following a pattern similar to the shelah cited above, a new covenant is needed because there has been growth and development in the torah. one particular expression of such growth is found in the following passage: the entire description of the song of songs is, “all night long on my bed, i yearned for the one my heart love, i yearned for him, but found him not” (song 3:1). this is a description of someone whose heart burns and is torn by the intensity of longing,101 a description of someone who in the midst of distance and exile—on my bed at night—“in times that i dream that your bondage might end, i become like a lute for your songs.102 and even though this pain is immeasurable, the pain of the father who exiled his sons and of the children who were exiled from their father’s table,103 this pain leads to burning longing, and the intensity of longing is far greater than when they are together. this fire that is present in the song of songs exists only when she yearns for her husband, and the heart is torn by longing. and had we not had exile, where would we have had such a song as the song of songs? these yearnings of exile lead to a 99 echoing ps 69:19, a verse echoed in the famous poem for friday night, lecha dodi. 100 tazria hahodesh תשסה. 101 song 5:6-8 is here cited. 102 citing r. yehuda halevy’s “won’t you ask after, o zion.” 103 bavli berachot 3a. goshen-gottstein: the new covenant jeremiah 31 28 new relationship between god and israel, a relationship that did not previously exist, and that will be renewed at the time of redemption. (here jer 31 is cited again.) all this is built by the yearnings of exile, from the power of the fire of the song of songs...this fire of the faithful of israel whose heart burns with yearning and is torn by yearning is the fire through which god will rebuild the future building.104 from this the collectivity of israel will be built. from this will be built the spirit of messiah. this is the essence of exile that purifies israel. the yearning that it brings about leads israel to a very high level, to a new covenant, a renewed relationship between god and israel, to an exalted degree that did not previously exist. in light of this, the day on which the temple was destroyed is the day during which the first step of preparation for redemption began, the first step in the long journey that prepares and leads israel towards the revelation of the light of messiah. on this day israel went into a long journey of dark exile, a journey that lasts already thousands of years, during which the internal essence of the people of israel is purified and distilled. on this day a new period in the relationship between god and israel was begun, a period of the fire of yearning of the song of songs, that did not previously exist.105 the history of suffering is really a history of burning love, a constructive internal transformation, a constructive act by means of which israel, its future relationship with god and the light of messiah come to be. the positive reading of history, as a consequence of suffering, read in light of covenant history and its future realization, finds a different expression in the following teaching that emphasizes the light of torah and its knowledge, not only the burning and yearning heart. the purification that israel underwent changes the face of the world. when israel went into the last exile, torah developed to an extreme that did not previously exist. new treasures of torah opened, that were not previously revealed, in the manifest torah106 and in the hidden torah, the tannaim, the amoraim, the yeshivot, the methods of learning that shine the light of torah that came down to the world. the more the purification through suffering increased, so the light of torah grew and became greater. it is close to two thousand years that the wellsprings of the light of torah flow and expand with no limit, until our very days, in the expansion of yeshivot, and the flowering of the world of torah in a marvelous way, that did not exist in times of old....through the rebuke and the suffering of exile a new covenant was concluded with israel, a new relationship was formed between god and israel, a 104 citing the nahem prayer of tisha be’av. 105 masei .תשסח 106 in other words: halacha, commentaries and all non-kabbalistic aspects of the torah. 29 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) new light, a light of the torah that did not previously exist, and was revealed in the last exile through the purification of suffering.107 it is noteworthy that new covenant is presented here as already in effect. the flowering of torah learning is in fact a realization of a new covenant, concluded through the suffering of history, and realized in its midst. it is noteworthy that in this construction, the continual revelation of torah does not take on messianic coloring. still, the messianic focus of covenantal thinking is a centerpoint of rabbi berezovsky’s thought. considering the motivation for jeremiah’s prophecy, rabbi berezovsky’s discourses allow us to revisit the very logic that informs the new covenant. the idea of a new covenant came into being as a response to failure to observe the original covenant. it was articulated by a prophet who foresaw the exile, but had not yet lived it, nor seen its long term fruits. rabbi berezovsky has. as he looks upon judaism, in the course of millennia of development, he sees faithfulness, love, dedication, learning, creativity, and an intensity of longing for a higher reality of love. the historical view that contrasts past and present failures with a new reality, where god acts in place of humans who have failed, comes up against an alternative view, where the exile, itself a historical response to the situation described by jeremiah, has actually produced a reality that not only has remedied the original fault, but that in its own way is already the new covenant. this leads to an entirely new historical construct, wherein the new covenant emerges as a part of a long historical process, characterized by suffering on the one hand and spiritual growth on the other. the challenge seems to be the same as jeremiah’s. the concept is taken from jeremiah. but the application is novel and in fundamental ways the opposite of what was intended by jeremiah. jeremiah is recast into a new structure that at one and the same time undermines his historical solution and fulfills his ultimate vision. rabbi berezovsky himself does not consider that the achievements of exile make the vision of the new covenant redundant. they lay foundations for it, they anticipate it, but ultimately the spiritual reality of the future covenant is not only unknown; its reality is in formation, and therefore dependent on the present moment, that is on our present spiritual efforts. a new covenant is...an entirely different covenant. what is this covenant? this is a secret that has not been revealed to anyone, as it says “you will do awesome deeds beyond our highest expectations.”108 and as it is stated in the akdamot poem: a glory that cannot be expressed by lips, and has not been heard or seen by prophetic visions. and why has no one seen or heard it? because the suffering of exile is the building stones of the new covenant and its form remains dependent on the faithfulness of the faithful people. this new future covenant is, after all, a new creation, and in order to capture it one requires other eyes and other ears...in order to contain the future redemption one requires a new 107 ki tavo .תשעה 108 isa 64:3, translated in line with the homily’s reading. goshen-gottstein: the new covenant jeremiah 31 30 creation, and prior to that one cannot imagine it....all that the prophets prophecied....still does not express the new covenant that will be in those days...and the entirety of the long exile that remains unfathomable is intended to make israel worthy of the new covenant.109 the purpose of the new covenant, then, is no longer simply obedience to god’s commandments. if there is a promise of a new covenant, it must be so much greater than the best of judaism that rabbi berezovsky sees, a sight that was not itself available to jeremiah. significantly, proclaiming the mystery comes at the expense of profiling jeremiah’s own vision of universal knowledge of god, inscribed upon everyone’s heart. it is not this vision that drives rabbi berezovsky’s future covenantal aspirations. what that new covenant will be remains a mystery, an elevated expectation, a future dream. but this dream is alive and occupies an important place in his dreams, his teaching and his theology. for him, then, the idea of a “new covenant” is a living and vital idea. concluding reflection: keeping jeremiah 31 relevant in concluding our discussion i would like to pose the question of what this survey has taught us that might help us in keeping jeremiah’s promise relevant. this question is particularly significant in light of the low place it occupies in jewish consciousness on the whole, as witnessed by the sparsity of its history of interpretation. some of the developments we have encountered can help us reconsider the promise and its enduring significance for our religious thought. one thing we learn from the history of interpretation is that the importance of the verse does not lie in itself or in its original meaning. its meaning is continually crafted anew, and is recast in new contexts. the promise of a new covenant in view of the failure to keep the original covenant is of little interest, first because the covenant’s significance has declined and more importantly because it offers the believer a hope with which he can do nothing but wait for its eventual fulfillment. the same holds true for reading the prophecy against the background of adam’s sin as a promise for transcending human free will. it remains an interesting idea. it lacks, however, any real spiritual power for the believer. for the prophecy to have meaning it must be approached as something that is relevant to the life of the believer. needless to say, reading it from the perspective, or from the belief that it has been realized and that we are living in the era of the new covenant does, in fact, make the prophecy meaningful for the christian believer, a source of orientation and direction of living in the present. in considering how the prophecy has been made present in the course of jewish usage, i note two points. the one is the historical recasting, especially as developed by rabbi berezovsky. the new covenant is part of an ongoing process. it provides meaning to suffering. it also frames religious growth and spiritual development. it is shaped by the believing community and emerges as the unknown and mysterious 109 va’era תשעב. 31 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) outcome of present day faithfulness. it is, then, a goal, a point of anticipation, a force that structures religious imagination and experience. the second element that has emerged from this survey is the individualization of the covenant. the covenant and the process of making a new covenant is not only the lot of the people as a whole, nor is it limited to a remote eschatological future. covenant becomes part of present-day individual relationship with god. one side of this relationship is commitment, oath and dedication, undertaken at the instigation of the believer. the other side is divine initiative, made manifest as special relationship, largely in response to prior human effort. a new covenant in the life of the individual is a new step in spiritual growth, intimacy in relation to god, the power of rejuvenation, and ultimately the recognition of god’s dwelling with the believer.110 especially in light of the kabbalistic understanding of berit, a covenant, especially a new covenant, can function as a means of intimacy, bonding and creativity. these are available to the individual and are part of his or her religious experience in the here and now. jewish tradition tells the story of loss of the conceptual centrality of “covenant”, quite apart from any theological discussions relating to its enduring validity, in the face of its violation. along with this main line of the narrative, a second narrative emerges. in this line, the covenant is reclaimed, recast, and gains a new life, more real, more personal, and more intimate. drawing these two lines of development together, one may claim that covenant, and in particular jeremiah’s prophecy, takes on spiritual vitality when it is not relegated to some future messianic point, relative to the collective. rather, as the covenant is made individual, it is also celebrated in the here and now, in every day, and as some would have it, at every moment. this gives covenant, as it is recast in this context, a new vitality, keeping the old notion alive, fed by hopes of a future renewal, made present in the life of the believer. covenant emerges as the bond of the individual and the community with the god to whom one had previously been unfaithful. in this narrative a “new covenant” is a message of hope, available in faith in the here and now.111 110 see in particular ramhal’s prayer, above note 39 and the text from shelah yoma. 111 i am very grateful to fr. lukasz popko of the ecole biblique of jerusalem for his review of this essay and some helpful suggestions. when life came to a standstill due to coronavirus, he allowed this research to continue by providing me with needed texts and references for research. scjr 13, no. 1 (2018): 1-2 nina caputo and illustrated by liz clarke debating truth: the barcelona disputation of 1263, a graphic history (new york, ny: oxford university press, 2016), 256 pp. paola tartakoff tartakoff@gmail.com rutgers university, new brunswick, nj 08901 debating truth: the barcelona disputation of 1263, a graphic history brings to life one of the most momentous jewish-christian disputations of the middle ages, the public debate between nahmanides (rabbi moses ben nahman, c. 1195–1270) and the jewish convert to christianity friar paul (pablo christiani, d. 1274) that was convened in barcelona in 1263 by king james i of aragon (1213–1276). at this disputation, which was attended by throngs of onlookers including secular and lay leaders, friar paul showcased a new method for trying to convert jews to christianity: he sought to demonstrate the truth of christianity on the basis of passages from rabbinic literature. nahmanides, arguing largely from a defensive position, challenged christiani’s interpretations. the barcelona disputation has fascinated generations of historians, especially because both hebrew and latin accounts of the disputation survive. the hebrew account was penned by nahmanides; the shorter anonymous latin account was produced at the court of king james. these two narratives recount a similar sequence of themes, but not surprisingly they differ in their judgments about who won specific arguments and the debate as a whole. in his detailed description, nahmanides celebrated his boldness and his perception of his superior knowledge and acuity. the latin description, by contrast, claimed that friar paul easily vanquished his jewish interlocutor. together, these two narratives have enabled scholars to compare a jewish and a christian perspective on the disputation, gaining greater insight into their authors’ aspirations. the contradictions between these two texts have presented challenges, however, for determining what actually happened. debating truth does a splendid job of conveying the complexity of the barcelona disputation itself as well as the complexity of attempting to reconstruct this important event. roughly following the format of other volumes in oxford tartakoff: caputo and clarke’s debating truth 2 university press’s graphic history series, the volume unfolds in five parts, each of which provides a fresh point of entry for considering these subjects. part i is a masterfully illustrated, five-chapter graphic adaptation of the disputation. the first three chapters closely follow nahmanides’ account, quoting or paraphrasing much of the dialogue. chapter four dramatizes the latin account. chapter five focuses on the aftermath of the disputation, including nahmanides’ journey to the land of israel. liz clarke’s meticulous drawings enrich readers’ understanding and appreciation of the developments they depict. action-packed and expressive, they clarify the tone of many utterances and vividly portray the various settings, from the royal court and its surroundings to jerusalem and acre. the remainder of the book provides readers with resources for the study of this period. part ii presents carefully annotated english translations—many of them new—of primary sources relevant to the barcelona disputation. these documents include the hebrew and latin accounts of the disputation, letters that king james i sent to the jews of his kingdom, a letter that nahmanides wrote to his son upon his arrival in jerusalem, and selected canons on the jews from the fourth lateran council of 1215. this well-organized collection of texts enables readers to consult the sources on which the graphic novel is based. part iii narrates important background information that is essential to a fuller understanding of the disputation. it discusses the place of iberia in medieval christendom, the life of king james i, the history of the jews who lived in spain, and the role of disputation in medieval culture. concise and illustrated with attractive maps, this section is easily accessible to undergraduates. part iv surveys the historiography of the barcelona disputation, starting with the history of the production and transmission of the hebrew and latin accounts of the disputation, continuing through early modern and late-nineteenth century developments, and including a discussion of recent approaches. most compellingly, this section also recounts the process of making debating truth, laying bare how history continues to be rewritten and, in this case, visually reimagined as well. illustrations grace this section of the book, too, showing readers medieval manuscripts and illuminations, as well as draft and discarded drawings for debating truth. part v completes this rich volume with lists of additional resources and questions for further research as well as a glossary. lucid, erudite, and imaginative, debating truth is a valuable resource for teaching undergraduates and graduate students about medieval history, jewishchristian relations, and historical methods. students and instructors alike will welcome its compact and engaging format, which harnesses the visual power of graphics to maximum effect. scjr 17, no. 1 (2022): 1-7 gerald r. mcdermott, ed. understanding the jewish roots of christianity: biblical, theological, and historical essays on the relationship between christianity and judaism (bellingham, wa: lexham press, 2021), 264 pp. peter zaas zaas@siena.edu sienna college, loudonville, ny 12211 the papers in this volume were all presented at a conference held in september 2019 under the auspices of the institute for anglican studies at beeson divinity school, samford university in homewood, alabama. the conference was convened by gerald mcdermott, then the anglican chair of divinity at beeson (he has since retired), and it represents a serious attempt to reassess christianity’s debt to judaism. all of the conference presenters are represented in the volume. although scholars’ religious confessions do not necessarily dictate their approach to scholarly research, it is worth noting here that the preponderance of scholars in this conference and in this volume teach and / or preach at beeson or other institutions of higher theological learning, almost all of them on the evangelical end of the protestant / anglican spectrum. of the five jewish contributors, three (if i count correctly) are messianic jews. listing these affiliations is by no means an attempt to undermine the contributions of the evangelical and messianic jewish contributions which make up the bulk of this volume. it is, instead, intended to emphasize the collection’s refreshing character; many of the readers of this journal will not have encountered a serious attempt to understand christianity’s indebtedness to judaism as evangelical scholars understand those terms. this writer found himself needing to wrestle with theological approaches that were entirely new to him, although admittedly he is not particularly versed in the subtleties of christian theology. i was struck by the worldhistorical quality of (the exceedingly rare) conferences and volumes like this one; they are a clear example of how academic discussion can change the world. one general concern this writer has, if i need to articulate a concern, is a certain failure on the part of a number of the contributors to this volume to define what judaism is before attempting to characterize christianity’s relationship to it. only matthew thiessen (mcmaster university) deals seriously and critically with the zaas: mcdermott’s understanding the jewish roots of christianity 2 difficulties in knowing what “judaism” is in his essay “did jesus plan to start a new religion?” (18-32). many of the authors of these essays identify judaism with the religion of the hebrew bible or with the temple-centered cultus which came to an end at about the time of the publication of the canonical gospels. that that form of “judaism” reached its fullest flowering at about the same historical moment as did nascent christianity is not of great moment to most of these authors. the interconnectivity between christians in the patristic period, say, and of rabbinic judaism (an interconnectivity which certainly existed and certainly went both ways) is not much considered here. so the relationship being explored in this volume, mostly but not exclusively, is the relationship between jesus, his immediate followers, and the authors of the books of the new testament on the one hand, and either the religious messages of the hebrew bible or of the temple-centered judaism practiced while the second temple stood. this latter form of judaism came to an end with the destruction of the temple, living on in the nostalgic memory of many jews, who largely formed a new non-sacrificial religion out of the crushed stones of the old. mark gignilliat (beeson divinity school) in “how did the new testament authors use tanak?” offers a strong recommendation for the puissance of the tanak. he writes, “without [the tanak] the new testament would not even exist. it would have no substance. it would not even be” (16). gignilliat outlines a christological argument for the divine character of the tanak, and, to make his point, draws on the work of karl barth and his students. the essay is a significant statement of an orthodox theologian’s appreciation of the importance of the hebrew bible, although it is not about the relationship between christianity and judaism (nor does it claim to be). it does offer a nice personal anecdote about the importance of the hebrew bible to one of the author’s students. in his essay “did jesus plan to start a new religion?” mentioned above, thiessen answers his title question in the negative and deals, uniquely among these essays, with a consideration of the thorny questions involved in defining “religion,” “new religion,” “judaism,” and “christianity.” he examines jesus’ views on such topics as temple (22-25), ritual purity (25-27), and sacred time (27-30). he concludes that “the gospel writers are consistent in depicting jesus as seeking to observe these aspects of the jewish law and using generally accepted legal argumentation to defend any actions deemed controversial” (31). that thiessen’s own statement will be viewed as largely non-controversial by most of the readers of this review is a mark of how scholarship in both historical jesus studies and study of second temple judaism has evolved in our time. david rudolph (the king’s university) argues in his essay “a new freedom from—or end to—jewish law” (33-50) that the question whether paul urged jews to abandon the laws of the torah must be answered in the emphatic negative. arguing from a series of texts in which paul legislates for his audience (his epistolary audience in the case of 1cor 7:17-20; his literary audience in the case of acts 15:22-29 and 21:17-26), rudolph concludes that “paul lived as a torah-observant jew and taught fellow jews to remain faithful to israel’s laws and customs” (50). 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) for rudolph, “judaism” is “torah-observance,” although this is not a definition he offers explicitly. donald moffitt (st. andrews university) in “jesus’ sacrifice and the mosaic logic of hebrews’ new-covenant theology” (51-68) argues, contrary to some prominent nt scholars, that the notion of sacrifice in the letter to the hebrews is dependent on biblical ideas of sacrifice, not antithetical to them. matthew s. c. olver’s (nashotah house) “missed and misunderstood jewish roots of christian worship” (69-103) might be seen as an extension of moffitt’s argument, viewing sacrifice as the shared space, not the dividing line, between jewish and christian worship. olver (refreshingly) acknowledges four “false paths” in the comparative study of jewish and christian liturgy and offers his own correctives: 1) judaism in the second temple period was not monolithic (72); 2) the very idea of worship was altered substantially between that period and our own (73); 3) our knowledge of jewish liturgical practice in the formative years of classical judaism is still poor (73-74); and 4) modern scholars tend to confuse the ancient synagogue with the modern church (74-75), a confusion which continues to plague modern comparisons of jewish and christian liturgies. he makes the similarly refreshing point as well that the influential relationships among christian and jewish liturgies went both ways (70). isaac oliver (bradley university) in “the parting of the ways—when and how did the ekklēsia split from the synagogue” (104-27) argues against assigning a definitive date or event for any kind of decisive division of christian and jew and notes that the texts held in highest regard in the churches were written well before any kind of split occurred. for paul, christ’s crucifixion healed a split, but it was the split between jew and gentile, not jew and christian. yet paul did not anticipate that this healing would create a new split between jews and “christians,” a term which oliver refuses to use of the earliest generations of jesus’ followers (107 n. 7). oliver considers that both the ancient and modern categories of “messianic jews” test the concept of the parting of the ways, a point mark kinzer will make a few essays later. the ancient category of torah-observant followers of christ was challenging for both synagogues and churches; the modern category of jews who accept the messiahship of jesus has found a relatively comfortable pew in the churches but not in the synagogues. both ancient and modern groups need to fit into any explanation of how jews and christians found themselves to be different worshipping communities in the first place (126-27). oliver’s comment in his penultimate footnote is a fitting summary for the entire volume: “the joint collaboration represented by the various essays gathered in this volume, composed by gentile christians and messianic jewish scholars, is a remarkable achievement in itself” (127 n. 73). eugene korn (center for jewish-christian understanding and cooperation, jerusalem) offers an essay “from constantine to the holocaust—the church and the jews” that concisely summarizes the development of the “teaching of contempt” as the dominant strain in christian theology about jews from the early centuries of christianity to luther. he also documents those christian thinkers who offered a less hostile understanding of the perseverance of the jews (129-36). korn zaas: mcdermott’s understanding the jewish roots of christianity 4 illustrates his points with images of ecclesia et synagoga and the judensau from strasbourg, paris, and wittenberg as well as exemplary (and extremely painful) texts from the church fathers and luther. he summarizes the “copernican turn” (147) in christian theology regarding jews and judaism after the holocaust, as well as providing a useful summary of jewish thinkers since the middle ages, from maimonides to samson raphael hirsch, who found a positive place for christians and christianity in god’s world (138-44). korn notes that contemporary judaism is no more monolithic than ancient judaism with regard to the religious other: “jews remain divided today in their theological valuations of christianity and the extent to which they are willing to endorse active cooperation” (147). however, he concludes on a positive (and shakespearean) note: “today, mutual christian-jewish appreciation is no longer only a distant fantasy—and it is this amity that is stuff of which messianic hopes are made” (147). in “post-holocaust jewish-christian relations—challenging boundaries and rethinking theology,” jennifer m. rosner (the king’s university) covers some of the same ground as did eugene korn in the previous essay, but focuses on two 20th-century theologians, karl barth (probably the dominant theological presence in this volume) and franz rosenzweig. rosner quotes stephen haynes to underscore the importance barth places on the jewish people in his theology, noting that it “had the kind of influence on protestant theology that ‘nostra aetate’ has had on catholic thinking about israel (150). despite his positive influence, though, barth continues in the tradition of denying the authenticity of non-christian judaism after the time of jesus. overlooking the continuing obedience of the jewish people to the torah, barth “seems to want jewishness without judaism” (154). in contrast to barth’s failure to assign a positive role to contemporary jews in god’s schema, rosner notes rosenzweig’s positive attitude toward (gentile) christianity because of its historical rootedness in judaism. christians express their devotion to the god of israel spiritually, while jews express their “redemptive vocation” in their obedience to the mitzvot (158). in the concluding section of her essay, rosner summarizes the work of a cadre of theologians, including thomas torrance (15960), elliot wolfson (161-62), and michael wyschogrod (162-63) before turning to the work of mark kinzer, whom she considers to have taken “a final step to link judaism and christianity, fusing them together in the way that he suggests they are represented in the new testament” (164). for her, kinzer connects israel and jesus but avoids barth’s error by celebrating the authenticity of the jewish theological tradition itself. rosner ends her essay with an approving nod to john paul ii’s statement that judaism is “intrinsic” to christianity and then extends it: “in sum, if judaism is intrinsic to christianity, then no doctrine of christian theology can be understood without reference to judaism and the jewish people” (168; emphasis in original). in “anglicans and israel—the (largely) untold story,” sarah lebner hall (gordon-conwell theological seminary) recounts the influence of evangelical anglicans on the evolving attitude of the british government to the idea of a jewish homeland in palestine. she starts with the support offered to theodore herzl by the rev. william hechler, whose behind-the-scenes advocacy paved the way for the 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) balfour declaration (180-82). were it not for a serious interest in bringing christianity (back?) to the jews, the zionist history of the 20th century would have been altered considerably. mark kinzer (congregational rabbi emeritus, president emeritus of messianic jewish theological institute) offers “messianic judaism—recovering the jewish character of the ekklēsia,” wherein he expresses his goal: “the recovery of the jewish character of the ekklēsia in the present and the future” (184). for kinzer, messianic judaism not only offers jews an authentic way to be jewish, but it offers the christian ekklēsia an authentic way to be christian. kinzer considers a wrong turn to have been taken in the kind of mainstream underpinnings of contemporary christian-jewish dialogue (the kind represented by this journal). he quotes philip cunningham with disapprobation (and, to my mind, unfairly) for viewing the parting of the ways as god’s will, rather than as some kind of world-historical error. (kinzer quotes cunningham’s seeking shalom: the journey to right relationship between catholics and jews, 199-200 [185-86].) for kinzer, this schema is a wrong turn, for it created a situation in which jews-in-christ, to borrow paul’s term, have no authentic way to express their belief in jesus’ messiahship as part of their judaism other than to join a gentile movement (186-87). the parting of the ways was tragic, not providential, and kinzer is doing his best (in this essay and elsewhere) to undo it. as kinzer sees it, it led in the 2nd century ce to a conflict between “three corporate characters in the drama rather than merely two”: the wider jewish community, the jewish members of the ekklēsia, and the emerging gentile christian church (190). in antiquity, those jews who wanted to remain both jewish and christian found themselves at odds with the authority structures of both groups. the wrong turn represented by the parting of the ways bears, for kinzer, bitter fruit in the modern era, where messianic jews still find themselves at odds with non-messianic ones (or ones for whom the messiah is someone other than jesus of nazareth), although they find themselves more accepted by christians than formerly. he traces the history of modern messianic judaism, including catholic outreach to hebrew catholics that has spanned the papacies of john paul ii, benedict xvi, and francis and has involved the leadership of the late cardinal jeanmarie lustiger, an outreach which kinzer views in a highly positive light. in his conclusion, kinzer notes that what is at stake in the contemporary reevaluation of christian-jewish relations, in which he believes the messianic jewish movement plays a crucial role, is the “opportunity [for the ekklēsia] to rediscover her jewish roots and to recapture her jewish character” (200; emphasis in original). kinzer ends his essay with a confessional statement (unique among the essays in the volume) in the form of an extended metaphor: “something extraordinary has occurred in recent centuries among jews who believe in jesus. through them an exit ramp may lead off the highway of schism, with signs pointing back to the road not taken long ago. may all members of the ekklēsia be blessed with eyes to see, ears to hear, and hands to turn the wheel” (200). archbishop foley beach (primate of the anglican church in north america and rector of holy cross anglican church in loganville, georgia) contributed a zaas: mcdermott’s understanding the jewish roots of christianity 6 chapter entitled “christian churches—what differences does the jewishness of jesus make?” he reminds his readers, as he reminds his parishioners, of various aspects of jesus’ jewishness, that he was born “in the midst of judaism” (203), that he “was raised in a jewish family who practiced their faith” (203-05), and that he “lived the lifestyle of a religious jewish man” (205-06). jesus’s jewishness impels his modern-day followers in a variety of ways. there should be no antisemitism at all; modern christians should want to learn about the jewish roots of their faith; they should value the “jewish bible—the old testament” (207); they “should seek to understand [jesus’] teachings in light of his hebrew background” (208); they “should seek to share jesus with our jewish friends” (210); and they should recognize their indebtedness to the jewish people. archbishop foley ends his essay by repeating the common arboreal metaphor, that christians are “only the branches grafted into the historic tree of judaism” (211; see my discussion of this metaphor below). gerald mcdermott, who convened the conference and edited the volume, sums up many of these themes in “christian theology—what difference does this make?” (213-22). mcdermott summarizes (rather more succinctly than i have here!) all of the essays in the volume, up to foley beach’s admonition that the jewishness of jesus impels all of his followers to repudiate antisemitism in all of its forms (218). mcdermott suggests an extension to beach’s admonition, namely that “there would be no christians without the jewish people. worse yet, we would still be in our sins and the realm of death without the god of israel and his jewish people, who brought him and is the way of salvation to the world,” (218, referring to 1 cor 15:17). furthermore, to mcdermott, ignoring jesus’ jewishness renders meaningless the terms “christ” (218) as well as “jews” (218-19), “law” (219-20), and “kingdom,” (220-21), all terms essential to the christian message. mcdermott ends his essay, and the volume, on a high and clear note: “by exploring the history and faith of the people whom god loves, we will learn more about god himself” (222). i am a jewish scholar who seeks historical and not religious truth in my research. i found much to quibble about in a number of these essays, but i was more than a little surprised to find that these quibbles were across the board and not concentrated on those authors whose religiousness i found most foreign to my own. i learned a great deal from every essay, and every essay left me enthusiastic to find opportunities to discuss these issues further. i found a certain variation in what each author thought “judaism” was or is: is judaism the religion of the hebrew bible? the temple-based cultus of the time of jesus and paul? is it a living tradition or merely an ancient one? these are questions not entirely ignored by all of the essayists in this volume, but a number of the essays would benefit from a reconsideration of these questions, at least in the opinion of this reviewer. i also suggest that we should free ourselves of the arboreal metaphor by which we have become used to describing the relationship of judaism and christianity, a pauline metaphor which pokes its shoot through the earth a little too frequently here and everywhere else. judaism and christianity, at least in the way those terms are used by many modern christians and jews, are not root and branch. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) if we need to keep planting trees in israel, then we need to start describing judaism and christianity as branches on the biblical trunk, a metaphor which admittedly has its own problems. perhaps we should just say that judaism and christianity each emerged from the religious genius of the hebrew bible, finding overlapping ways of understanding the god of israel. metaphor aside, understanding the jewish roots of christianity brings home to me both the difficulties and the pleasures of apprehending the opinions of scholars for whom the texts they are dealing with are living texts. the difficulty, and it is a significant difficulty, is that living texts can resist historical exegesis, and that resistance can create an impasse in conversation. but i suggested at the beginning of this review that the symposium from which these essays are taken and the essays that are herein published, represent a world-historical event (a kairos?), that is, an impressive and provocative gathering of minds and hearts that has the potential to effect so much change. we must thank the editor mcdermott and the institutions that supported this conference and this publication and enthusiastically encourage all the contributors to carry on their work. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review john connelly from enemy to brother: the revolution in catholic teaching on the jews, 1933-1965 (cambridge, massachusetts and london: harvard university press, 2012), 376 pp. maria chiara rioli, scuola normale superiore (pisa) among scholars of modern jewish-catholic relations, john connelly's book from enemy to brother: the revolution in catholic teaching on the jews, 1933-1965 has rightly gained wide attention. connelly, professor of history at the university of california berkeley, drew on bulletins, journals, and books issued from the thirties to the sixties and sources stored in archives at seton hall university (john oesterreicher’s papers) and in munich (karl thieme’s papers), vienna, and washington. the book explores, through a chronological approach, the shift that occurred in catholic attitudes toward the jews and the move away from a long tradition of catholic antijudaism and antisemitism toward new, more positive views. connelly reconstructs this fundamental change, tracing an international network of protagonists who contributed, before and during the second vatican council, to ideas that shaped the council’s declaration nostra aetate on non-christian religions (particularly chapter 4, on the jews). he mainly focused on groups of catholics who, since the thirties and in opposition to nazism, had developed new reflections on christian-jewish relations in europe and the united states. among them, connelly devoted his attention particularly to converts to catholicism from judaism and protestantism (primarily johannes m. [john] oesterreicher, but also gregory baum, leo rudloff, and paul démann). studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) connelly's thesis is precisely that without the contribution of these converts, the church could not have arrived at a reconsideration of its position in relation to the jewish world. although the phenomenon of conversions is being considered with growing interest by scholars (not only those studying the modern age), many focus on biographies, and the historical narrative of networks connecting the converts, clergy, and intellectuals is still limited. one of the most convincing parts of the book is the analysis of the major role some converts played in pushing to change catholic teachings about jews and judaism. following this process, connelly compellingly illustrates their contributions. he defines them as “border-crossers”: “the great majority of catholics who wrote on the race question [about whether jews were a race and not able to become catholics] were jewish converts, and virtually every figure of note in the catholic battle against antisemitism was a convert....the irony of conversion, of crossing a border supposedly with no return, is that one never entirely leaves the point of origin. and the scandal of racism was that those expecting security in the new catholic homes were told that they remained alien, ‘in fact’ racially jewish” (pp. 63-64). this connotation of the converts as people living along cultural and religious borders between communities is thoroughly examined in the book. the book begins with a stunning survey of the racist views of prominent early twentieth-century catholics, among them leading theologians, many denying that even baptism could fully make jews into catholics. the author then analyzes some christian voices against first racism and then against nazi persecution of the jews. in particular, connelly describes a memorandum prepared by thieme, oesterreicher, and waldemar gurian in 1937, in an effort to obtain an official pronouncement by the holy see against antisemitism and in favor of the jews. approaching the decade before the second vatican council, connelly highlights the personal “journey” accomplished by studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr some of these converts in a process of rediscovery of the jewish origins of the church (p. 189). this spirit inspired the foundation by oesterreicher of the institute for judeochristian studies at seton hall university in 1953, and especially the influential apeldoorn initiative beginning in 1958 to rethink christian theologies of judaism (and christian readings of scripture) before the council. in the last chapter of the book, connelly sums up some of the main revisions of the conversionist attitude that for centuries had marked the behavior of catholic institutions and congregations toward jews. starting from a mission intended to get jews to convert to catholicism, oesterreicher, thieme, and others moved the church toward a mission of self-redefinition and ressourcement, with new attitudes toward the jews and to the church’s own jewish roots. scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-2 ronald kronish the other peace process: interreligious dialogue, a view from jerusalem (new york: hamilton books, 2017), 179 pp. michael b. mcgarry mcgarry@paulist.org the paulist center, boston, ma 02108 following his coexistence and reconciliation in israel (2015), in the other peace process: interreligious dialogue, a view from jerusalem rabbi dr. ronald kronish has brought together the distillation and summation of his life’s commitment to interreligious dialogue in service of peace in israel / palestine. while his earlier edited volume assembled an impressive lineup of scholars and interreligious participants in israel / palestine, in his new book kronish himself describes dimensions of peacemaking in that beautiful but distressed region. kronish writes with accuracy and evenhandedness. he brings to his narrative an american belief in religious freedom, pragmatism, respect for every person, and hopefulness. beginning with his biography, kronish describes his optimistic, reform-judaism zionism. he learned much from his well-known father, rabbi leon kronish, as well as from his well-rounded education at brandeis university. his text shows that he is aware of, and sensitive to, the varieties of jewish life in israel today, including those jews who are secular, traditional, reform, conservative, mizrachi, sephardi, ashkenazi, recent immigrants from the former soviet union, and ultra-orthodox. (while kronish writes with care, non-jews may find such a diverse array bewildering.) furthermore, kronish is well aware of the different expressions of christianity and islam in israel. his nuanced awareness helped him to inform various dialogue partners who may not be aware of such differences themselves (pp. 85ff.). finally, kronish very succinctly and accurately explains the palestinian arab identity for those who have not had the benefit of living in israel. as he notes, it is “impossible to understand palestinian arabs merely in ethnic or national terms” (p. 56). (one distinctive group of palestinian arabs that deserve fuller coverage are the druze.) this multifaceted and complicated mosaic of religious communities in israel provide the rich background for the heart of kronish’s story: how people from different ethnic, religious, and mcgarry: kronish’s the other peace process 2 national backgrounds were able to join together in order both to speak their truths and to listen to those of others. after describing these various communities, kronish then discusses the programs which he personally designed and directed through the organization he founded, the interreligious coordinating council in israel (icci). kronish situates these programs within a short review of the arab-israeli “peace process,” focusing primarily on the political process. this is a good primer for those who have not studied the process. within the political context, kronish proposes a very important distinction between peacemaking and peacebuilding: “peacemaking is the work of the lawyers, politicians and diplomats. the goal of [this] is to create peace treaties…peacebuilding, on the other hand, is the work of rabbis, imams, priests, educators…[who] bring people together to enter into dialogical and educational processes that are aimed at helping people figure out how to live in peace with each other” (p. 44). it is toward this latter goal that kronish and the icci have devoted decades of work. in particular, kronish makes a singular contribution to thoughtful consideration of the place of dialogue and religion in the arab-israeli conflict in “lessons learned” (pp. 109-60). in a very real sense, then, the other peace process is a learner’s manual about how to conduct interreligious, intercultural, and intergroup engagement. while i wholeheartedly recommend the other peace process, i do offer a few critical comments. first, while a small issue, kronish repeatedly writes of “the pope’s apology” to the jews (e.g., p. 102). neither the vatican nor john paul ii has ever used that word in such a context. rather, the pope has said he “regrets” past instances of catholic hostility toward jews. secondly, i believe that kronish underestimates the importance of a common language. while recognizing that dialogue would be enhanced if both sides spoke arabic or hebrew, often the recourse to english necessarily limits the participation on either side of the conversation. some of the programs which the icci ran were most successful when they took place in the north of israel among religious leaders (alas, all men) because they could speak a common language (in this case, hebrew). in this regard, the kedem program on interreligious dialogue offers a fascinating example. third, i would have liked to have seen kronish pay attention to the historical and intercultural contributions to the concept of “dialogue” itself. for some dialogue partners–both in israel and the west bank–living in, or coming from, cultures that do not necessarily share western values and norms, a barrier emerges. this makes it all the more difficult, for it is always a challenge to appreciate how different groups and cultures approach topics such as identity, self-disclosure, selfcriticism, and collective (the current word is “tribal”) personality. these caveats aside, in his work kronish models the kind of humble and selfcritical self-understanding so crucial to interreligious dialogue. his story, and especially his discussions of many quite interesting icci programs, oscillates between learning and teaching, between listening and speaking, and between acting for justice and speaking one’s truth. for those interested in conducting interreligious or intercultural dialogue, kronish offers a very useful handbook. scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-3 george hunsinger, ed. karl barth: post-holocaust theologian? (london: bloomsbury t&t clark, 2018), xi + 171 pp. david novak david.novak@utoronto.ca university of toronto, toronto, on m5s, canada since his death in 1968, the great swiss-protestant theologian karl barth has probably been the subject of more books and articles than any other contemporary religious thinker. this fact attests to barth’s great and well-deserved influence on thinkers who include not just his fellow protestants but many others, including nonchristians. in my own case, as a jewish student studying to become a rabbi, i first heard barth’s teachings from his eldest son markus, who was my teacher of new testament at the university of chicago in the early 1960’s. (i was also privileged to briefly meet the great man himself when he spoke at princeton university in 1962.) i mention this because i first learned of barth’s respect for judaism when his son and chief disciple once scolded me for quoting aristotle in a term paper when, as he put it, “you should have quoted the talmud!” thus, whenever i read barth’s magnum opus, church dogmatics, i discover (especially in the sections in fine print, where his exegetical skills are most visible) that his interpretations of the hebrew bible not only sound rabbinical but even have parallels in the talmud and other rabbinical writings. that is because both barth and the rabbis were most carefully reading scripture as the word of god, which is scripture’s message speaking to the present situation of those hearing it as such. lutheran theologian george lindbeck, who was influenced by both barth and wittgenstein (especially his philosophy of language), once said that christianity and judaism have the same vocabulary but different conceptualities. that same vocabulary is scriptural. (interestingly, the great jewish theologian joseph soloveitchik had it precisely backward when he argued that jews and christians speak totally different languages.) barth not only respected judaism but was a defender of living jews. he opposed nazism in both word and deed, seeing it above all as an assault on jesus’ jewish brethren and hence on christ himself. both his respect for judaism and his defense of jews were thoroughly grounded in his theology. while some statements novak: hunsinger’s karl barth: post-holocaust theologian? 2 in his church dogmatics seem anti-jewish, his rhetoric nevertheless often resembles a type of critical exchange among those basically speaking the same communal language. (a parallel can be found in new testament accounts—especially in the gospel of matthew—of jesus’s debates with the pharisees; neither side capitulates to the other nor resorts to the insults like those used by jesus against the sadducees and the zealots.) this book contains nine essays. some are focused on the holocaust and postholocaust theology, while others are broader, covering related topics such as religious pluralism and the second vatican council. in several of the essays the authors argue that barth did not consider judaism to be another religion, totally apart from christianity, like islam or hinduism. in “karl barth’s influence on catholic theology about judaism,” philip rosato successfully demonstrates that barth was quite critical of nostra aetate, which characterized judaism as “another religion.” for barth, their interrelationship is much more complicated. the issue of the relationship between the two religions is raised by the editor george hunsinger, a reformed theologian, in his preface. he says that he believes “what david novak has described as ‘soft supersessionism’ is required by the inner logic of the christian faith” (p. ix). that is, “the old covenant is not replaced by the new, but it is fulfilled, extended, and supplemented, while also fundamentally confirmed in christ.” this position he attributes to barth. hunsinger’s statement presents an issue common to all the essays in this volume. the authors argue against the scylla of a portrayal of barth as a modern-day marcionite, repudiating the jewishness of jesus and his church. this type of repudiation led christians to accept or ignore the kind of virulent antisemitism that led to the holocaust. simultaneously, all of them mutatis mutandis avoid the charybdis of presenting a philosemitic barth. barth has been criticized for his views on jews and judaism. the jewish historian daniel jonah goldhagen, in his popular 1996 book hitler’s willing executioners, strongly indicts him. he characterizes barth as “a bitter opponent of nazism ... despite his own deep-seated anti-semitism” (quoted on p. 15). in his introduction to “karl barth’s sermon for advent 2, 1933” (reprinted in chapter 2), john michael owen persuasively shows that goldhagen’s judgment of barth is simplistic. goldhagen did not give “a coherent and fair picture of barth’s attitude and actions with regard to the jews of germany between 1933 and 1945” (p. 16). the rest of the essays in this volume variously attempt to defend barth from claims like those of goldhagen, though not to the point of hagiography. they all address themselves to two main questions. one, was barth an antisemite? two, did barth denigrate judaism in order to elevate christianity? thus all the essays deal in some way with the relation of anti-judaism and (racial and secular) antisemitism. on the one hand, it seems impossible for antisemites not to be opposed to judaism as well. it is this religious tradition, passed on by their jewish ancestors, that gives living jews this hated identity. on the other hand, anti-judaism does not necessarily lead to antisemitism. christian supersessionists are anti-jewish, viewing non-christian jews as seriously in error, and often even as opponents of christianity. it is the task of christians, believing that “superior” christianity now supplants 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) “inferior” judaism in the divine economy, to show the jews their error through proselytism. usually, that kind of proselytizing is fiercely opposed to antisemitism (and rejected by antisemites as presumably too favorable to the jews). however, and what is crucial to note here, is that barth was opposed to proselytizing jews because it seemed to him to be a form of christian triumphalism at the expense of the jews. for barth, neither christians nor jews should be triumphalist at the expense of the other. the theological error of this kind of triumphalism is that it denies both christian and jewish sinfulness before god, thereby rejecting the salvation that can come only from god and not from human self-righteousness. therefore, barth was neither antisemitic nor even anti-jewish, as a number of the essays show, with much deep thinking and wide erudition (especially, but not exclusively, the essay of derek woodard-lehman, “saying ‘yes’ to israel’s ‘no’: barth’s dialectic supersessionism and the witness of carnal israel”). owen argues that goldhagen and others seem to have misjudged barth as antisemitic or anti-jewish or both, based partly on barth’s own admission that he had an “aversion” or “allergy” to jews (though he also admitted it was “totally irrational” and a source of shame) (p. 15-16). this mistaken impression might derive from an uncritical reading of his most extended treatment of judaism and the jews in his church dogmatics (especially ii:2), which was written in the early 1940s. further, while there is no doubt barth should have been more sensitive to what was happening to the jews in europe, his actions speak louder than his words. accusations like goldhagen’s are belied by the fact that while writing this volume, as eberhard busch has shown so well, barth, at considerable risk to his own life, was helping jews escape from the nazis. (this was confirmed to me personally many years ago by swiss-jewish philosopher jacob taubes, who described himself as “barth’s only jewish student.”) barth’s clandestine acts during world war ii are consistent with his heroic public pro-jewish acts before and afterward the war. this slim but rich volume demonstrates that barth’s life and work remain relevant, especially for the complicated jewish-christian relationship. it reflects barth’s hope that this unique relationship will endure until the coming of the kingdom of god, or, in jewish liturgical terms, until the time when all humanity will become “one bond” (agudah ahat). microsoft word mastrocinque_oneill.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): r3-4 attilio mastrocinque, from jewish magic to gnosticism r3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art13 attilio mastrocinque, from jewish magic to gnosticism (tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2005), paper, xiii + 253 pp. reviewed by corry o’neill, university of virginia attilio mastrocinque argues that the current sentiment of scholarship concerning what constitutes ‘magic’ in jewish and christian antiquity is generally anachronistic compared to how the ancients themselves (judeo-christian, greco-roman, and mesopotamian) would have understood the term he accomplishes this through an exhaustive presentation of the evidence concerning the divine (and often diabolical) snake in a variety of mediterranean and mesopotamian religious and magical systems, including, but not limited to, marcionite, ophite, gnostic (christian and nonchristian), hebrew, chaldean, and (orthodox) christian systems. though the aspects he presents concerning the magical and religious symbol of the snake are vast, some points of special emphasis include the snake as chnoubis and chnum, the breaker of the giants, the leontocephalous (lion-headed) god, the divine worm, the ouroboros (the snake eating its own tail), leviathan, the dragon, the digamma (with a greek numerical value of 6), and the serpent in the garden of eden (both as ‘orthodox’ christians and gnostics understood it). the symbol of the snake, both in its universality and in its particularities, becomes for mastrocinque a measuring-stick by which we might judge 1) the degree to which the religious/magical cultures in question have embraced or rejected syncretism with other proximate cultures; 2) the possible lines of transmission of or opposition to magic, at least insofar as the use of the symbol of the snake is concerned; and 3) the general views of each of these cultures upon magic, both in terms of a) relative acceptance or rejection and in terms of b) what constituted ‘magic.’ needless, to say, for mastrocinque to make such an appraisal, he must establish that the snake is of such central and universal importance to mediterranean and mesopotamian magical systems that it has the capacity to serve as such a measuring stick. indeed, the presentation of his evidence, by and large, seems to accomplish this. in his final chapter, mastrocinque states that the aim of his presentation has been to establish that gnostic magic, based upon the ‘traditions of the chaldeans,’ “was in fact the gnostic religion” (p. 204). having said this, he realizes that such a statement is bound to lead to some confusion for sake of the ambiguity of the terms ‘gnostic’ and ‘magic.’ in his opening pages, mastrocinque already addressed the current controversy in the definition of ‘gnosticism,’ which he defines, for the purposes of his present study, as “a synonym for the heresies addressed by irenaeus and related heresies of a similar nature” (pp. 4-5) [italics ignored]. concerning the second term, ‘magic,’ he offers a variety of possible definitions each particular to a time, culture, and point of view. of particular interest to mastrocinque is the point of view of the ‘roman christian church,’ which understood magic to be the ‘work of demons.’ therefore, in opposition to the more neutral view of magic by the greco-roman cultures and in direct hostility to gnostic heretics so-called, (orthodox) christians came to view magic as demonic, the contrary term to ‘miracle,’ and polytheistic. to put it more accurately, however, as mastrocinque review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): r3-4 attilio mastrocinque, from jewish magic to gnosticism r4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art13 points out, ‘magic’ was a blanket condemnatory term that always connoted that activity practiced by the heretics. hence, magic was condemned as heretical, and heretics were condemned as practitioners of magic. christians, however, came to embrace classical literature and philosophy; therefore, the domain of magic was eventually considered to be a rather small feature within greco-roman religiosity and culture at large. such an inherited definition of magic, mastrocinque argues, is with us today and is the main hue that colors contemporary scholarship on the matter. therefore, if we are to understand the way in which the ancients understood magic, we must lay aside our own constructs and must not, “claim that we are using an [sic] universal category of evaluation, because this universal category does not exist” (p. 210). mastrocinque has a masterful command of the evidence. indeed, one of the major contributions of his book is the archaeological evidence, as of yet largely ignored, he brings to bear upon the subject, namely gnostic gems and lamellae. unfortunately, it is not always an easy matter to intuit toward what end he is presenting this evidence, and the content of the concluding chapter comes as some surprise. hence, this book might be somewhat impenetrable to the uninitiated. nevertheless, his synthesis of the evidence is compelling and his conclusions, as modest as they may be, are an insightful and necessary critique of what might be called a scholarly disdain concerning the subject of magic in antiquity. celebrating holy week in a post-holocaust world. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): r11-12 henry f. knight, celebrating holy week r11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art24 henry f. knight, celebrating holy week in a post-holocaust world (louisville, ky: westminster / john knox press, 2005), paper, xix +172 pp. reviewed by richard e. mccarron, catholic theological union at chicago in february 2006, the united states conference of catholic bishops’ committee on the liturgy newsletter reviewed the “correct presentation of jews and judaism in liturgical preaching and catechesis” in anticipation of lent and holy week (45–46). that cursory and timid account highlights the need for well-grounded and sustained reflection like that provided by knight. associate professor of religion and chaplain at the university of tulsa, knight seriously challenges christian pastors, preachers, and religious educators to think and celebrate holy week in a way accountable to the “covenantal wholeness of our faith” (16) and the memory of the shoah. this book is pastoral in intent and audience, reflecting careful hermeneutical and theological grounding. knight, ordained in the united methodist church, invites his readers “to limp” with him through holy week, the annual celebration of the passion, death, and resurrection of jesus that opens with passion/palm sunday and concludes with easter sunday. chapter one sets out this root metaphor of limping, drawn from jacob’s struggle with the ish: the christian journey through holy week must be, he argues, one wounded by centuries of contempt and violence and always cognizant of the horror of the shoah. knight proposes two hermeneutical strategies. the first, reading midrashically, enables pastoral ministers to overcome the supersessionism inherent in the way christian traditions have wielded typology. recalling the medieval acronym pardes via michael fishbane (p. 13), knight distinguishes the open narrated world of midrash from the closed typological meta-narrative. what christians need in holy week is a logic of plenitude (p. 12) that takes the gaps, spaces, and implicit questions of the gospels seriously. the second hermeneutical strategy is reading post-shoah, a hermeneutic of solidarity with the victims. he frequently invokes that all interpretation and practice must be credible “in the presence of burning children” (from irving greenberg). he calls for honest interpretation and recognition of the interruption of all hermeneutical enterprises in view of the holocaust. the subsequent chapters engage these hermeneutical strategies as knight follows the passion narrative of matthew with the chronology of holy week. he admits that the choice of matthew is somewhat arbitrary, but the gospel’s midrashic style appeals to knight. after attending to the text, knight offers sample liturgical celebrations to demonstrate what is at stake if a community begins to celebrate holy week in a post-holocaust world. knight helps pastors to see the subversive quality to jesus’ entry into jerusalem as an important frame to the week. the sample liturgy suggests a “midrashic” reading of matthew’s passion, which involves interrupting the proclamation of the narrative with pointed questions and comment. he takes up bruce chilton’s work to offer a fresh reading of the so-called last supper and a reappraisal of the relationship of jesus to temple sacrifice. he places strong emphasis on the significance of watching through the night, the “agony in the garden.” it is a night filled with review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): r11-12 henry f. knight, celebrating holy week r12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art24 even more anguish since the shoah. in chapter five on the crucifixion (good friday), knight confronts the theologies of atonement and expiation that underlie most christian liturgies and the ways that the passion narratives are usually interpreted. this is a particularly evocative chapter that should be read by anyone stepping into the pulpit or ambo on good friday. it begs more theological development, but there is enough here that will make a reflective practitioner realize that there are problems with the way christian theology avoids the “crisis of belief” evoked by innocent suffering and attempts to give intrinsic meaning to suffering. after consideration of the stillness and mourning of saturday, knight limps to the garden with the marys to find a disturbed tomb, which he emphasizes is first and foremost a “thoroughly jewish place” (p. 135). the final two chapters relate the experience of easter to this wounded journey to the garden and note the open-ended quality to the resurrection and the ongoing christian journey. a select bibliography, scripture index, and subject and author index conclude the work. while the sample liturgies are helpful as more concrete examples of what holy week might look like if we take the author’s contentions seriously, most of them are rather didactic. the trouble, as knight recognizes, is that the orders of worship found in contemporary liturgical resources are still permeated with supersessionism (p. 94) and troubling typology. those who are bound to use such texts—as for example roman catholics are with regard to the lectionary and roman missal—can use knight’s suggestions to chasten preaching, deliberate musical choices, and structure evenings of reflection prior to or after holy week to engage a more honest reflection. as denominations consider fashioning wounded or limping liturgies of holy week, all pastoral ministers need to take knight’s summons seriously. what can a catholic learn from the history of jewish biblical exegesis? studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers in jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college what can a catholic learn from the history of jewish biblical exegesis? gary a. anderson university of notre dame volume 1 (2005-2006): pp. 186-195 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art20 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 186-195 anderson, “what can a catholic learn from jewish exegesis?” 187 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art20 1. introduction the publication of the pontifical biblical commission's document, the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible, is a landmark achievement. i can still remember reading an account of its appearance in the new york times several years ago in which its contents were summarized. at the very head of that article was the observation that both jews and christians await the coming of the messiah, the jews await his first coming while christians await the second.1 in one sentence this document had pulled the rug out of a number of supersessionist readings of the old testament in which christians had long argued that hopes of jewish messianism were completely fulfilled in the new testament. in this essay i would like to take up the document's challenge that the christian church take seriously the exegetical traditions of the jewish tradition and focus my remarks on the theme of how judaism has understood the biblically-grounded motif of israel's election.2 in brief, it will be my contention that the church has much to gain by appreciating how jews understand their own calling. before turning to that, a few preliminary remarks are in order. though the document makes some rather farreaching proposals about how the old testament should be viewed by the christian reader, it is not the case that a christian reading is ruled out tout court. the tragic impact of the shoah or the holocaust has dramatically heightened christian sensitivity to judaism and the jewish scriptures. "it may be asked,” our document declares, "whether christians should be blamed for having monopolized the jewish bible 1 the jan. 18, 2002 article by melinda henneberger was titled: "vatican says jews' wait for messiah is validated by the old testament." 2 unfortunately, i have found the document's own account of the election of israel to be a bit weak. and reading there what no jew has found. should not christians henceforth read the bible as jews do, in order to show proper respect for its jewish origin?" the document continues: in answer to the last question, a negative response must be given for hermeneutical reasons. for to read the bible as judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in jesus as messiah and son of god.3 this paragraph should be particularly interesting to the catholic reader because of the inextricable link it makes between scripture and tradition.4 although this is both a defensible and commendable position, it would seem to provide a considerable obstacle for the christian who wishes to make use of the jewish exegetical tradition, for it is precisely that tradition that explicitly excludes faith in jesus 3 pontifical biblical commission, the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible, (boston: pauline books and media, 2002), §22. 4 see §10-11. the document declares that "christianity has in common with judaism the conviction that god's revelation cannot be expressed in its entirety in written texts [§10]." and it continues by drawing upon a couple of citations from the second vatican council’s dei verbum: scripture is defined as the "word of god committed to writing under the inspiration of the holy spirit"; but it is tradition that "transmits to the successors of the apostles the word of god entrusted by christ the lord and by the holy spirit to the apostles, so that, illumined by the spirit of truth, they will protect it faithfully, explain it and make it known by their preaching" (dv 9). the council concludes: "consequently, it is not from sacred scripture alone that the church draws its certainty about everything which has been revealed," and adds: "that is why both – scripture and tradition – must be accepted and venerated with the same sense of devotion and reverence” (dv 9). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 186-195 anderson, “what can a catholic learn from jewish exegesis?” 188 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art20 as a viable exegetical option. now one might predict from such a vantage point that there would be little utility in the ongoing exegetical traditions of judaism for the christian reader. but here is where our document offers a surprise. though it resists quite strongly the notion that a jewish reading must necessarily become the reading of the church, it does not rule out the possibility that jewish readings may well be of some theological assistance to the church. indeed my language is much too weak here when i say it allows for some possible utility. "the christian can and ought to admit [emphasis is mine]," the pbc declares, "that the jewish reading of the bible is a possible one, in continuity with the jewish sacred scriptures from the second temple period, a reading analogous to the christian reading which developed in parallel fashion."5 and, significantly, it is precisely this quotation that attracts the attention of then cardinal joseph ratzinger in his preface to the document. it is my firm opinion that the ongoing tradition of judaism offers a treasure trove of insights from which christians can profit. in this way the living tradition of judaism has a degree of revelatory value for the christian community. let me illustrate this by considering the way in which the bible has construed the office of the prophet. 2. the office of the prophet the common assumption of many readers of the bible is that the prophetic office is one that conveys to the human community the judgments of god. perhaps the most famous scriptural exemplar of this understanding is that of isaiah 6. in this chapter, isaiah finds himself standing amid the gathered divine council as it deliberates over the fate of the human community below. god then asks, "whom shall i send? who will go for us?" to this isaiah replied, "here am i, 5 §22. send me." then follows the message that isaiah is to deliver to the people of israel. the movement in this passage is distinctively from the heavenly to the earthly realm. no doubt one reason this image of the prophet has proven so popular in modern scholarship is its natural link to the concerns of the social justice movement. the stirring lines of amos – “let justice roll down like a mighty river” – were a point of inspiration for martin luther king jr. to be prophetic in the contemporary parlance of the church means to convey some point of incisive social criticism against the powers that be. the prophet is a mediator of the heavenly standards of justice. yet, the biblical prophet had another important side to his job description. he not only conveyed the verdicts of the heavenly high court to the people who resided below, but he also conveyed the prayers and concerns of the israelite community to the god who dwells above. to the average reader this notion of the prophet's responsibility may seem a bit odd. we can understand why god would need human messengers to convey his word to us. after all, we are limited, finite creatures who require outside sources for our knowledge of the world. but is god similarly in need of a human intermediary? one would think the answer would be an emphatic "no!" yet, within the literary world of the bible god is frequently depicted as having this precise need.6 the classic instance of this, to which we shall return, is the tale of the golden calf in exodus 32. no sooner has the covenant been formally set in motion than israel violates one 6 the classic article that articulates this aspect of the prophetic task is: yochanan muffs, "who will stand in the breach? a study of prophetic intercession," in his volume, love and joy. law, language and religion in ancient israel (new york: jewish theological seminary, 1992), 9-48. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 186-195 anderson, “what can a catholic learn from jewish exegesis?” 189 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art20 of its most important stipulations. as a result, god becomes extraordinarily angry: 9: and the lord further said to moses, "i see that this is a stiff-necked people; 10: now, let me be, that my anger may blaze forth against them and that i may destroy them; and make of you a great nation." the striking line here, of course, is the request that moses step aside so that god may bring this project of electing the nation of israel to a temporary halt ("… now, let me be"). why does god seek moses' permission? why wouldn't god simply proceed to judge israel according to the nature of her deeds? isn't this within his rights? for some reason, god leaves himself open to the intervention of moses. and moses loses no time in making the most of this opportunity: 11: but moses implored the lord his god, saying, "let not your anger, o lord, blaze forth against your people, whom you delivered from the land of of egypt with great power and with a mighty hand. 12: let not the egyptians say, `it was with an evil intent that he delivered them […] 13: remember your servants, abraham, isaac, and israel, how you swore to them by your self, and said to them, `i will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven, and i will give to your offspring this whole land of which i spoke, to possess for ever.'" 14: and the lord renounced the punishment he had planned to bring upon his people. here moses makes two points. first, that god's reputation will suffer considerable damage should he put an end to the people he has acquired at such great cost; and second, that god really has no right to act in the way he has proposed since he would then be violating his own solemn vow. according to the logic of moses' prayer, god had tied himself to israel in such a way that he cannot extricate himself. in response to this prompting on the part of moses, god relents and rescinds his decree. moses as the quintessential prophet has intervened and turned the wrathful hand of god away from israel. 3. misreading jonah the fact that israel's prophets were charged with the responsibility to speak on behalf of israel was not lost on the thought of the rabbis. indeed, in an oft-cited text from the mekilta de-rabbi ishmael we can see how deeply ingrained this sensibility was.7 thus you find that there were three types of prophets. one insisted upon the honor due the father as well as the honor due the son, one insisted upon the honor due the father without insisting upon the honor due the son; and one insisted upon the honor due the son without insisting upon the honor due the father. the midrash begins by dividing the prophets into three groups: those that stand up for the honor of both father and son, that is god and israel, and those that insist only on the honor of the father (god) or the son (israel). jeremiah will represent the first group. jeremiah insisted upon the honor due the father and honor due the son. for thus it is said: "we have transgressed and have rebelled; but thou hast not pardoned" (lam 3:42). here jeremiah begins by rebuking israel by acknowledging her rebellious nature but then turns to rebuke 7 i will cite from the edition of jacob lauterbach, mekilta de-rabbi ishmael (philadelphia: jewish publication society, 1976), vol i: 8-10. i have altered the translation slightly. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 186-195 anderson, “what can a catholic learn from jewish exegesis?” 190 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art20 god for not acknowledging israel's repentance.8 because jeremiah upheld both the honor of god and israel, he is rewarded: therefore his prophecy was doubled as it is said: "and there were added besides unto them many like words" (jer 36:32). the second prophet to be considered is elijah. elijah insisted upon the honor due the father, but did not insist upon the honor due the son, as it is said: "and he said, i have been very jealous for the lord, the god of hosts" (1 kgs 19:10). and thereupon what is said? "and the lord said unto him: go return on your way to the wilderness of damascus; and when you arrive, you shall anoint hazael to be king over aram; and jehu the son of nimshi you shall anoint to be king over israel, and elisha the son of shaphat of abel-meholah you shall anoint to be prophet in your place (1 kgs 19:15-16). the expression "in your place", can have no purport other than: i am not pleased with your prophesying. according to the rabbis, elijah has protected the honor of god by taking his word of judgment against israel at face value. but because he did not step forward to speak on behalf of israel, god brings elijah's career as a prophet to an end. elisha is raised up with the hope that he will speak against god on behalf of israel. the last prophet to be examined is jonah: jonah insisted upon the honor due the son but did not insist upon the honor due the father, as it is said: "[the word of the lord came to jonah son of amittai: 'go at once to nineveh…] but jonah rose up to flee unto 8 in the eyes of pre-modern interpreters, the book of lamentations was written by the prophet jeremiah. tarshish from the presence of the lord" (jonah 1:3). what is written about him? "and the word of the lord came to jonah a second time, saying" (jonah 3:1). […] r. nathan says: jonah made his voyage only in order to drown himself in the sea, for thus it is said: "and he said unto them: take me up and cast me forth into the sea" (jonah 1:12). it is not clear at first glance what is going on in the jonah text. according to the midrash, jonah knows that the warning he is appointed to deliver to the ninevites will have its effect. the ninevites will amend their ways and god's initial decree will be overturned. why does this offend jonah? because he knows that israel will not be so amenable to the prophetic decrees that she will hear from her great prophets and as a result will be sent into exile twice: first in 721 bce when the kingdom of assyria will do the dirty work (and nineveh was located in assyria) and then again in 587 bce when the babylonians will be the culprits. jonah finds this an untenable situation since there is no possible way for him to defend israel. hence our midrash concludes, jonah resolves the problem by fleeing from before the face of god. better to uphold the honor due to the son (israel) than to the father (god). it must be emphasized that this midrash does not represent the "plain-sense" of our text. this midrash is so consumed with the conventional role of the prophet as spokesman for israel that it overrules what the text itself it about. 9 however, it is striking to compare this rabbinic 9 in my view, a better solution to the problem of the book of jonah has been proposed by the prominent israeli biblical scholar uriel simon (jonah: the traditional hebrew text with the new jps translation (philadelphia: jewish publication society, 1999). he argues that the principal concern of the book is with a fundamental principle of theology: how is the principle of justice to be understood in relationship to the principle of mercy? for jonah the problem with god is that he too easily studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 186-195 anderson, “what can a catholic learn from jewish exegesis?” 191 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art20 misreading with another misreading that many contemporary christian scholars have assumed. operating under the assumption that the book was written in the post-exilic period (and there are good linguistic reasons to see the matter this way), they argue that the book's main concern is to combat the rising xenophobia during the early post-exilic era.10 israel's status as the chosen nation had so ossified into a position of privilege, these scholars claim, that the book of jonah was written to demonstrate that there were indeed individuals outside of israel who were righteous, indeed even more righteous than israel. the difference between this jewish reading and the standard christian approach is striking. in the jewish reading the role of israel is so exalted that a prophet can go so far as to stick a thumb in god's eye to protect it whereas in the putative christian reading the role of israel is so suspect that any concern for the genealogical purity of the israelite people becomes the occasion for a prophetic diatribe. now as stated above, i think that both views diverge from the simple sense of the biblical book itself. however, i want to consider in more detail the "strong reading" that the jewish tradition has offered us. what i would like to suggest is that the mekhilta has offered us a meaning that arises out of the "simple sense" of what defines the prophetic office but relies on mercy and so overlooks the profound evil that the ninevites have committed and will commit again in the future. for the author of the book, however, it is not within the ken of any mortal being to know how god conducts the proper calculus regarding the relation of mercy to justice. all we are to know is that mercy is stronger than justice and to pray that god will incline to that stronger trait. 10 see, for example, the introductory material and annotations in two well respected study-bibles: the new oxford annotated bible with the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books (new york: oxford, 1991), 11861188; and the catholic study bible (new york: oxford, 1990), 1137-39. is not itself the "simple sense" in its present deployment. this is by no means an odd thing in the history of exegesis, i.e. that the midrash shows all the right instincts but has applied them in the wrong place. what i would like to suggest is that the high valuation of israel that is assumed by the mekhilta can be of considerable value to the christian reader. in order to substantiate that claim, it will be useful to consider the role of israel in the book of psalms. 4. all israel i would like to consider two psalms, 14 and 53. as soon as one casts a quick glance over them one notes something unusual. they seem to be identical! however, another point has troubled readers. the psalm begins with the complaint of an individual but ends with a prophecy of the salvation of all israel (v. 7). the curious change from an interest in the individual to that of the community at large has long been recognized as resulting from the editorial work of a later scribe. indeed, it fits in well with a marked tendency of the final redactor of the book of psalms to bring the theme of israel's eschatological redemption to the fore. given the fact that the book of psalms has been "shaped" so as to allow an eschatological reading to emerge, it is not at all surprising that jewish readers of psalm 14 have found in this "late addition" something of a key to the whole. the most famous of all medieval jewish interpreters, rabbi solomon son of isaac, widely known by his acronym as "rashi," illustrates this well. rashi is cognizant of the fact that psalm 14 will reappear later in the psalter as psalm 53, but asks why there are these two psalms that bemoan the human predicament but conclude in a resounding affirmation of god's pledge to restore israel. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 186-195 anderson, “what can a catholic learn from jewish exegesis?” 192 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art20 the first psalm, rashi reasons, is about the destruction of the first temple and the hope for the rebuilding of the second. the second psalm is about the destruction of the second temple and the hope for another in the messianic age. in this way, rashi keeps his gaze focused on the past, but he does so in a way that is reminiscent of israel's lived liturgical life for the dates of the destruction of both the first and second temples are memorialized on the same day, the 9th of av. so it is fitting that these tragic events that are typologically related to one another in the jewish tradition be memorialized in two psalms that look almost identical to one another. however, there are other jewish readings of the two psalms. rabbi david kimchi (d. 1235) chose to follow a less historical path than rashi. he understood the subject of the psalm not as israel in the 6th century living under the shadow of the babylonian invasion but rather as the jewish people who abide perennially in exile.11 kimchi writes with respect to psalm 14: "this psalm is also about the exile. the fool says in his heart: 'there is no god.' the fool is the king of the foreign nations in whose power israel resides. he considers in his heart when he harms israel … that there is no god, no judge, no arbiter in the world who will repay a person according to his deeds."12 for kimchi, of course, these kings of foreign nations were the rulers of spain, france, and germany where many jews in his day lived and suffered periodically from 11 it is worth noting that the encyclopedia judaica has two different entries on the subject of the exile, one that details the historical circumstances that led to the devastation of the province of yehud in 587 bce – it can be found under the heading "exile" – and another on the existential plight of the people israel living in the wider diaspora of the gentile world – this entry is found under the hebrew word for exile, "galut." 12 david kimhi, perush ha-shalem al tehillim (jerusalem: mossad harav kook, 1967), 34. persecution. here the psalmist's prayer that god redeem israel is echoed in the siddur, or jewish prayer book. for on every shabbat and during the major festivals, the jewish people routinely turn to god and pray that he fulfill his promise to restore his people israel so that they may enjoy the presence of god in jerusalem. for kimchi, then, this psalm is not about a moment in israel's distant past, but is emblematic of her present state as an exiled people living under the shadow of possible persecution. if augustine was able to actualize the psalter in a christian way by understanding the voice of the psalter as the totus christus13 – the "whole christ" meaning head and members – we could say that judaism makes a similar move in understanding the voice of the psalter as the totus israel. 5. jesus unites his voice with that of israel one might think that reading the psalm in this way would only be of interest to jews. however, we christians should recall that what we know of the last hours of jesus' life is heavily mediated by the book of psalms. indeed, if one removed all the events that are tied to a psalm in matthew's account of the passion, there would be almost no story to tell.14 the most important of these words from the psalms are the last ones jesus speaks: "eli, eli, lama sabachtani, my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?" [mt. 27:46]. as all are aware, these words come from the opening lines of psalm 22. 13 on the concept of the totus christus in augustine, see the fine essay of maria boulding in exposition of the psalms 1-32 (the works of st. augustine; hyde park, ny: new city press, 2000), 50-65. 14 my selection of matthew is somewhat arbitrary. one could conclude the same thing from mark or luke. on the subject of the use of the psalms in the passion narratives, see raymond e. brown, the death of the messiah (new york: doubleday, 1994), ii: 1452-1465. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 186-195 anderson, “what can a catholic learn from jewish exegesis?” 193 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art20 much ink has been spilled in recent years in trying to enter the mind of jesus, efforts that are not of much service here. the point of the matthean text is not so much the inner psychology of jesus, but the adoption of a specific scriptural voice: the voice of the righteous sufferer, a voice well known in the psalter and other second temple jewish literature. though it is true, from the perspective of systematic theology that jesus' experience of god-forsakenness on the cross is something that allows him to represent all humanity before the father, it should be emphasized that the primary historical referent of jesus' cry is that of a righteous sufferer within israel. it is matthew's insight that through the voice of this specific man of israel the cry of all humanity is heard. michael wyschogrod has aptly noted that the old testament prophets and servants of god always emerge from and return to israel, no matter how universal their particular theological interests may be.15 and this israelcentric perspective is not only present on the cross but also on the lips of the disciples during the days just prior to christ's ascension. note the question they put to jesus in acts 1:6-8: so when they had come together, they asked him, "lord is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to israel?" he replied, "it is not for you to know the times or periods that the father has set by his own authority. but you will receive power when the holy spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in jerusalem, in all judea and samaria, and to the ends of the earth." though these devoted followers of jesus had clearly seen the crucifixion as the negation of jesus' messianic pretensions, after the resurrection they came to learn that it was rather the precise moment of the substantiation of those 15 see his article, "incarnation," pro ecclesia 2 (1992): 208-215. claims. yet even from this enlightened perspective, the disciples cannot let go of the idea that the vindication of jesus by the father must have its primary referent turned toward the plight of israel. and jesus does nothing to dissuade them from that view. when the disciples ask jesus if he is going to bring in his kingdom, it is important, as robert jenson observes, to note closely what he does not say.16 jesus does not announce that their hopes for a restored israel are misplaced, nor does he introduce any other sort of pietistic fudge: "well, it really isn't that kind of kingdom, you see, it’s more spiritual." no, there is nothing of this – the kingdom of god still takes its bearings from the scriptures of israel. god's mighty act of salvation will go through israel outwards toward the nations. so when jesus cries out "my god, my god why have you forsaken me?" there is explicit evidence in the new testament that obliges us to see jesus as uniting his voice to that of forlorn israel. as christopher seitz has observed, the words jesus speaks when he enters fully into "that far country" are not new words expressive of his unique emotional state, rather they are old words, used words, words that jesus had been taught in synagogue.17 i would assume that my comments so far ought to be, if not somewhat pedestrian, at least non-controversial. they are the result of taking seriously the jewish character of the historical figure of jesus of nazareth. in the theological circles in which i travel, there seems to be an emerging consensus that taking the jewishness of jesus seriously is only to the gain of the theological enterprise. 16 robert jenson, “toward a christian theology of israel,” pro ecclesia, 9 (1999): 49. 17 christopher seitz, seven lasting words: jesus speaks from the cross (louisville, ky: westminster john knox, 2001), 33. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 186-195 anderson, “what can a catholic learn from jewish exegesis?” 194 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art20 6. moses' prayer of intercession christologically [re-]considered if we can see that jesus assumes this representative role on the cross, we can perhaps read the story of moses' intercessory prayer in exodus 32 in a new light. here the high view of israel that we have been tracing has clear benefits for high christology. as the jewish biblical scholar, yohanan muffs has argued brilliantly, moses is not simply an exemplary being standing before god. in fact, he represents part of god to god. he assumes a part of the divine personality such that – and here i am going slightly beyond what muffs has said – one cannot properly pick out the full characterization or identity of god by only attending to what the subject identified by "god" in the story says. "god allows the prophet to represent in his prayer his own attribute of mercy," muffs declares, "the very element that enables a calming of god's [angry and vindictive] feelings."18 because the prophet is a necessary, non-negotiable element in the rendering of the identify of god, the midrash can go so far as to say that god wept when moses was ready to hand over his soul to death: "god said, who will stand against me on the day of my wrath (cf. ps 94:16). this means, who shall protect israel in the hour of my anger? and who will stand up in the great eschatological war for my children? and who will speak up for them when they sin against me?"19 if we attend carefully to the theological sensibility of this midrash, the basic framework of the christological mystery should come into focus. on holy thursday we witness the christ's dark night of the soul as he enters the garden of gethsemane in order to plumb the depths of our "godforsakenness." when he utters his words of dereliction 18 muffs, "who will stand in the breach?": 33. 19 from midrash tanhuma as cited in muffs, "who will stand in the breach?”: 33. on the cross, he ties himself to all humanity through the specific voice of forlorn israel. thus, when god wills to raise this man on easter sunday he is not simply electing to raise him; rather, in the act of raising jesus from the dead, god commits himself to raising all those who will join themselves in faith to him, the jew first and then the gentile. robert jenson frames the matter in his characteristically laconic fashion: while jesus is in the grave the father faces a dilemma, he can either "have his son and us with him into the bargain, or he can abolish us and have no son, for there is no son but the one who said, 'father forgive them'."20 certainly one of the reasons that the early church labored so hard to make sure that jesus was fully man was so that this representative aspect would be efficacious. as gregory of nazianzus put the matter, "what has not been assumed cannot be healed." if we were to paraphrase jenson we could say: the god of israel faces a dilemma at the base of mt. sinai when israel chose to violate the terms of the covenant and fall from his good graces. he can either have his prophet and israel with him into the bargain, or he can cast israel aside and have no moses, for there is no moses but the one who has tied his fate to that of israel. god, of course, can do nothing of the sort; for should god reject israel, moses argues, he would be rejecting something of himself. 7. conclusion in this essay i have asked the question whether a christian can read the bible as the jews do. if we mean by this following the lead of judaism in every detail the answer 20 robert jenson, systematic theology (new york: oxford univ. press, 1997), vol. 1: 191. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 186-195 anderson, “what can a catholic learn from jewish exegesis?” 195 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art20 is obviously no. for one thing, the linkage between the bible and tradition is inseparable in judaism; the written torah can never be divorced from oral torah. but if we follow selective, but central themes such as the doctrine of “all israel,” i think the answer can be yes. what i have tried to show is that god commits himself to israel in a way that is deeply analogous to how he commits himself to jesus christ. indeed, in this respect, i simply follow the lead of michael wyschogrod who has argued that: “… the jewish people, as a people, in some degree and in some form is the dwelling place for god in the world. … this is the utter seriousness of the election of israel. god has decided to tie himself to a people, to a people defined by a body, by the seed of abraham, sarah, isaac and jacob, and this people, who constitute a physical presence in the world, are at the same time the dwelling place for god in the world."21 to the degree that we understand the metaphysical importance of israel's existence, to that same degree we get a better purchase on the identity of the person of christ and his relationship to israel and the world. and this is the reason the old testament takes the office of the prophet so seriously. the prophet must represent israel before god, because israel represents god's mission to the world. when moses dies, the midrash reveals, god weeps over what might happen should the world lack such an intercessor. it is as though god requires some second agent in order to render his full identity. he is one even as he is two. one could approach the figure of christ in gethsemane in a similar fashion. as he struggles over the course of his mission ("if it be your will, take this cup from 21 wyschogrod, "incarnation": 212-13. me") the fate of all humanity stands in the balance. we rejoice with the angels that christ does not forsake his designated role and abides by the will of his divine father. the god-man who voices this consent is the same god-man who will assume our state of godforsakenness on the cross. and in this close nexus between the identity of god and his prophet we get a glimpse something of what christian theology has attempted to explore in the mystery of the trinity. it is the very two-ness of the son and the father during the passion that will impel the christian tradition to ponder the complexity of god's oneness. from this deep pondering will emerge the doctrine of the trinity. the pontifical biblical commission makes a bold claim when it asserts that the christian reader can be instructed by post-biblical jewish reflections on the bible. due to its brevity it did not illustrate in any concrete form how this might be the case. in this essay i have tried to show how israel's own understanding of her election and her prophets provides a good occasion for the christian reader to be so tutored. just as israel was to represent god's purposes in his larger created order, so too was god's son. it is perhaps no accident that both israel and jesus bear the title of god's first-born son.22 22 see exod 4:22 and mark 1:11 and parallels. scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-5 gavin d’costa catholic doctrines on the jewish people after vatican ii (oxford: oxford university press, 2019), hardcover, 240 pp. + xiv bruce d. marshall bmarshal@mail.smu.edu southern methodist university, dallas, tx 75205 this review was adapted from an invited panel presentation “catholic doctrines on the jewish people after vatican ii: a panel discussion with gavin d'costa” at the society for post-supersessionist theology annual meeting (november 2020). since vatican ii no more important work has appeared by a catholic theologian on the jews and judaism than gavin d’costa’s catholic doctrines on the jewish people after vatican ii, together with its predecessor volume on the council itself, vatican ii: catholic doctrines on jews and muslims (2016). among the many merits of d’costa’s work is precisely that he treats the church’s relation to the jewish people and judaism as a doctrinal matter, rather than seeing it only as a pastoral, political, catechetical, or public relations issue. for catholics it is all the latter, no doubt, but first of all it is a doctrinal matter, one that poses difficult questions about the coherence of catholic teaching, as d’costa sees clearly. there is much to discuss in this remarkably stimulating book, but here i will focus on the issue of doctrinal coherence, which d’costa rightly sees as basic. our own time has seen a remarkable development of doctrine within catholicism, which d’costa’s two books carefully document. taken together, lumen gentium, nostra aetate, and subsequent papal teaching establish as normative catholic doctrine the proposition that god’s covenant with the jewish people “has never been revoked,” in john paul ii’s momentous phrase. put positively, the god known to and worshipped by the church maintains with the jewish people today, and until the end of time, the covenant made with their forefathers according to the flesh, the covenant attested with great clarity and force by the christian scriptures. any catholic must assume this is an authentic development of doctrine, given the highly, and in some respects supremely, authoritative sources from which it comes. at the same time, lumen gentium, nostra aetate, subsequent papal teaching, the christian scriptures, and the catholic tradition from early on teach that god desires every human being to enter the one church of christ—the roman catholic marshall: gavin d’costa’s catholic doctrines on the jewish people 2 church—by faith and baptism, and, accordingly, that the church’s mission to proclaim the gospel is truly universal, extending to every human being. how can this be? the two teachings, both of which now have the status of normative catholic doctrine, are apparently incompatible. god’s abiding covenant with the jews seems to deny the uniqueness and universality of the saving work of christ, enacted by his church, and the universal reach of god’s call to faith in christ and baptism into his church seems to deny his abiding covenant with the jews. prominent figures in the church, from popes on down, insist first on one, then on the other, to the alternate dismay of those especially concerned with each. thus the problem of doctrinal coherence in this area posed for catholics after the council. d’costa attends closely to it in the present book, especially in chapter 2 and from a different angle in chapter 5. for a catholic, recognizing in both doctrines authentic teaching given to the church by god, the question cannot be whether the two cohere. it can only be how they cohere. as d’costa shows, however, this is not easy to say. inability to offer a convincing explanation—in the first place to ourselves—of how our doctrines fit together is a grave problem. despite our readiness to congratulate ourselves on our tolerance for ambiguity or our embrace of paradox, the human mind loathes contradiction, and flees it. at best it takes great and continuing effort to hold onto beliefs of whose opposition we have become clearly aware, even when we also believe that the two can in fact be reconciled, though we do not presently know how. our normal course is simply to ignore one of the conflicting beliefs, generally without admitting to ourselves that we are doing this. most catholic writing on the jews and judaism since vatican ii follows just this urge to flee contradiction, with the church’s consistent teaching on the absolute universality of her own divine mission usually the doctrine allowed to disappear into the shadows. d’costa, to his great credit, confronts the matter head on. the apparent conflict of doctrines here does not depend, it is important to note, on the traditional christian claim that the “ceremonial” laws of the old testament—circumcision is the paradigm—have since the coming of christ become not only “dead” (mortua) but “death-dealing” (mortifera), and thereby incompatible with covenant fidelity to the god known to the church. the appearance of contradiction is therefore not alleviated by dispensing with this traditional teaching. nostra aetate 2 itself holds that the catholic church “rejects nothing that is true and holy” in the belief and practice of any non-christian religion, while at the same time insisting that the church’s mission to join every human being to her own life through faith and baptism extends to the adherents of these religions. the church can therefore affirm that the “ceremonial” practices of traditional judaism are not “death-dealing,” but holy and life-giving, without at all denying that she has a divine mandate to call everyone committed to these practices, as to those of hinduism or buddhism (recalling the cases central for na 2), to full catholic life by faith and baptism. the great difference that sets the jewish people apart from the catholic point of view is the certainty that the practices, not only of biblical israel but of traditional judaism, are not only “true and holy,” but given by god as a necessary means by which the jewish people will remain until the end of time a discreet and 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) visible sign to all the nations, the covenant people bound by the unrevoked calling made to the patriarchs and their descendants forever. d’costa makes a strong case that the mortifera teaching, while strongly attested in the western tradition, does not rise to the level of catholic doctrine, particularly in a way that would rule out any non-culpable practice of traditional judaism. in fact catholic doctrine, long before vatican ii, seems to allow for this. the way is thus open in catholic teaching for the embrace, even within the church, of at least some traditional jewish practices. this is important, as we will see in a moment, but as d’costa recognizes it does not by itself untie the apparent knot of doctrinal conflict with which he and i are alike concerned. to that problem d’costa offers, if i read him correctly, two distinct solutions. one of these turns on the notion of the permissive will of god. this approach, while suggestive and thought-provoking, is, i think, unconvincing. the other solution turns on the reality of hebrew catholics (as distinguished from messianic jews), that is, the reality of a small community of jews fully converted to catholicism by faith in christ, baptism, and eucharistic life who continue to engage in traditional jewish practices that enable them to be recognized as jews within the catholic church. here, i think, d’costa proposes a genuine solution to the doctrinal problem, an account of the coherence of catholic teaching on the unrevoked covenant with the jewish people and the universal mission of the church. serious difficulties remain, but they are of a practical, rather than a logical and conceptual, kind. catholic teaching seems to say that god wills two incompatible things; this is the core of the doctrinal conflict emerging in the wake of vatican ii. god wills that every human being enter the visible communion of the catholic church by faith and baptism (while granting that for reasons beyond their control, and thus through no fault of their own, many do not in fact do this). god also wills that the jewish people remain in unrevoked covenant with him forever. to that end he wills that they keep the torah and so, it appears, that they remain always outside the catholic church. toward the end of his second chapter d’costa argues that this conflict can be defused by seeing here not two wills (or more precisely, willings) of god that would as such enter into opposition with each other, but one willing, and one permission. the willing, or as d’costa puts it, “positive will,” is that every human being enter the catholic church (60-61). the permission, or “permissive will,” is that the jewish people keep the torah, which almost always means remaining outside the catholic church, often in sharp opposition to it, though this can and does happen without fault on their part. thus we have in this case a positive divine willing and a mere divine permission, and so no conflict at the heart of the divine will. the idea of divine permission or a permissive will brings up difficult issues about how to understand willing in god, but it is nonetheless standard in catholic theology. i do not think, though, that it can be applied to the unrevoked covenant with the jewish people now taught by the church. for this there are basically two reasons. (1) in the bible the election of israel, god’s establishment of his covenant with the jewish people, seems unmistakably to be a positive act rather than a mere permission: “the lord set his heart in love upon your fathers and chose their descendants after them” (deut 10:15). if this very covenant remains unrevoked, then marshall: gavin d’costa’s catholic doctrines on the jewish people 4 it is as much a positive divine act of love now as it was at the call of abraham or at the ford of the jabbok. (2) as typically understood, the notion of a permissive will is introduced specifically to help understand the presence of evil in god’s good creation. everything good in creation is actively or positively willed and given by god. evil—specifically the malum culpae, the moral evil attributable to free creatures—is not willed by god, but in some mysterious way permitted.1 large questions loom here, of course, but since god’s covenant with the jewish people and their observance of it are obviously not evils, but great goods of salvation history, they cannot be understood as simply permitted by god. so far the apparent conflict of divine willings remains. the conflict would go away, however, if traditional jewish practice were possible within the catholic church in a way that clearly maintained both the unrevoked covenantal identity of jews inside the church and their full embrace of catholic liturgical and sacramental life, the life of the one church of christ. this, d’costa argues, is not merely a possibility, but an actuality, visible in the lives of hebrew catholics today. i think he is right about this, and it is of great importance that a gentile catholic makes this argument, and that others join him. even if there were no hebrew catholics, the requirements of catholic doctrine would be satisfied just in case the following two conditions obtain. (1) the jews are included in the church’s mission in the name of christ, which thereby remains truly universal (given that this mission must be carried out in the “non-proselytizing” way d’costa describes in detail in chapter 5). (2) any jew who becomes a catholic is fully able to stand visible within the church as belonging to the people god set apart from the nations, thereby bearing continual witness to god’s unrevoked covenant with this people. on this second point d’costa’s argument that the mortifera tradition does not express a requirement of catholic doctrine becomes particularly important. if correct it shows, at least in principle, that traditional jewish practices needed to maintain the distinct identity of the covenant people can exist within the church, together with full commitment to the church’s sacramental life. were there no hebrew catholics this might seem like a purely imaginary, even fantastic, scenario. but present-day hebrew catholics, some of whose writings d’costa discusses, have dared to live in a way that makes it real. if this is right many daunting questions arise, even if these are of a practical rather than a doctrinal nature. most jews regard the very idea of a christian mission that in some way includes them as at best indifferent to, if not deliberately aimed at, the extinction of the jewish people. the catholic church insists, on the contrary, that she completely rejects all antisemitism and persecution of the jews, and is irrevocably committed to the flourishing of the jewish people out of obedience to the will of god, whose covenant with this people is a gift he will never take back. 1 for this reason i think it’s quite important to distinguish, with scotus, between god “willing not” (nolle) and “not willing” (non velle), that is, between god willing that a state of affairs s not obtain (in which case it infallibly fails to obtain), and god neither willing that s obtain nor willing that it not obtain. the latter is divine permission. the phrase “permissive will,” while common, is unavoidably confusing; it’s better to distinguish between will and permission in god. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) this response to worries about mission usually leaves jewish listeners unmoved, including some who have already commented on d’costa’s book. as d’costa himself argues in the last chapter, jewish wariness on this score is quite understandable. the catholic church, charged to proclaim the gospel of christ to every creature, will always be made up overwhelmingly of gentiles. the only hope that jews might come to believe that this mass of gentiles has their good at heart is not simply for them to say so, but manifestly to promote the flourishing of jews at the heart of their own religion—that is, within the church. thus the great importance of living hebrew catholics for d’costa’s argument. this leads one to wonder whether hebrew catholics can reasonably be expected to bear the tremendous weight this resolution of the church’s apparent doctrinal conflict places upon them. they constitute an immeasurably small fraction of world catholicism, visible only to those who expressly look for them. their place within the church’s overall understanding of her responsibility to the jewish people today is at present unclear and in need of strenuous reflection. gavin d’costa has taken a long step in that direction, which is among the reasons to welcome, and be grateful for, his most recent book. microsoft word janowski_kessler.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): r1-2 janowski & stuhlmacher, the suffering servant r1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art12 bernd janowski and peter stuhlmacher, eds. the suffering servant: isaiah 53 in jewish and christian sources translated by daniel p. bailey (grand rapids and cambridge: eerdmans, 2004), paper, 520 pp. reviewed by edward kessler, centre for the study of jewish-christian relations, cambridge most the essays in this collection were delivered as lectures in tübingen in the 1990s and were translated in 2004 thereby making the volume widely accessible to the english-speaking world. the essays are generally fine examples of german biblical scholarship, each with copious footnotes. the volume tends towards the technical, requiring detailed knowledge of the field, and consequently will be of more interest to the specialist rather than general reader. nevertheless, because of the popular nature of the theme, a book on the suffering servant is likely to result in a wide audience. some of the contributions are particularly relevant to the study of jewish-christian relations. stefan schreiner, for example, examines the jewish apologetic response to christian interpretations in an insightful study of isaac ben abraham of troki’s sefer hizzuk emunah. although a karaite, isaac’s interpretations illustrate the rabbinic emphasis on the suffering servant as representing the people of israel. schreiner shows that isaac had knowledge not only of rabbinic interpretations of scripture but also a detailed grasp of christian interpretations of isaiah 53. a remarkable feature of sefer hizzuk emunah is its lack of polemic. schreiner uncovers not a polemical exchange in 16th poland-lithuania but rather an intensive and also respectful debate. another noteworthy contribution is the paper by eminent scholar, martin hengel, who examines pre-christian interpretations of isaiah 53. hengel examines a variety of greek and hebrew sources and disagrees with the assumption, common among scholars today, that the passage was uninfluential in pre-christian jewish interpretation. he makes the convincing argument that jewish interpreters developed the view of a suffering and atoning eschatological messianic figure on the basis of interpretations of isaiah 53. this, he suggests, provided the context for the jewish followers of jesus to appeal to jewish tradition in their reflection on his atoning death. hengel’s argument is implicitly opposed by another contributor, jostein adna who examines the well-known targum of isaiah and suggests, not wholly convincingly in the opinion of this reviewer, that the interpretation offers no evidence of jewish reaction to christian exegesis. the contributor acknowledges that the targum emphasises the theme of a triumphant messiah in the aramaic translation/interpretation rather than a suffering figure we find in the biblical text. however, adna cannot find any evidence to suggest this can be traced to an anti-christian motive. review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): r1-2 janowski & stuhlmacher, the suffering servant r2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art12 it is also worth mentioning two essays on patristic interpretations of the suffering servant. the first, by christoph markschies, looks at a variety of christological and typological interpretations noting that in the early centuries a jewish framework is maintained by christian interpretations, with examples taken from justin martyr and aphrahat, but in later centuries the commentators wholly reject the idea that the divine nature of christ could have suffered. according to markschies, this demonstrates that christian interpreters had become distant from the jewish environment. the second study by daniel bailey examines the role of isaiah 53 in justin martyr’s dialogue with trypho. bailey’s study provides further evidence in support of markschies’ argument. justin states that it was largely “gentiles who believe in the suffering messiah” indicating, in bailey’s view, a historical reality. this not only sheds light on the diversity of christianity in the second century but also impacts on early christian-jewish relations. a notable feature of both essays on patristic interpretations is the authors’ willingness to take seriously the encounter with contemporary judaism. whilst it is commonplace for new testament scholars to engage judaism in a genuine manner – note the scholarly work on ‘jesus the jew’ and the ‘new perspective on paul’ in the last couple of decades, for example – this is less common in patristic scholarship. both bailey and markischies are to be commended for respecting jewish exegesis alongside the christian, avoiding the temptation to use jewish sources as a foil. in the words of markschies, “today we can interpret the text properly only by having both jewish and patristic exegesis as conversation partners…” in sum, this volume analyzes isaiah 53 in tremendous detail. since the suffering servant plays a unique role in christian theology, readers should be grateful to the editors. the jewishness of jesus and christian-jewish dialogue: a colloquium in honor of joep van beeck, s.j. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): tobin & mallow cp1-8 tobin & mallow, the jewishness of jesus tobin & mallow cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 the jewishness of jesus and christian-jewish dialogue: a colloquium in honor of joep van beeck, s.j. tributes thomas h. tobin, s.j., loyola university chicago jeffry v. mallow, emeritus, loyola university chicago presented at the john cardinal cody colloquium, march 16, 2010 on march 16, 2010, at the john cardinal cody colloquium at loyola university, chicago, seven scholars honored former john cardinal cody chair, dr. frans josef (joep) van beeck, s.j., on the occasion of his 80 th birthday. entitled the jewishness of jesus and jewish-christian dialogue, the colloquium paid tribute to van beeck’s 1988 cody lectures and his subsequent book, loving the torah more than god: toward a catholic appreciation of judaism (loyola press, 1989). his book was the winner of the 1989 alpha sigma nu book award. along with loving the torah more than god, van beeck’s notable works include christ proclaimed: christology as rhetoric (paulist press, 1979) and the series god encountered: a contemporary catholic systematic theology (liturgical press). now retired and living in the netherlands, van beeck taught at boston college from 1968 to 1985, when he was appointed the john cardinal cody professor of theology at loyola university, chicago. he was an active participant in and resource for the catholic-jewish dialogue begun in chicago by the late joseph cardinal bernardin. the cody colloquium opened and concluded with tributes to van beeck by two close friends, thomas h. tobin, s.j. (loyola university, chicago) and jeffry v. mallow (emeritus, loyola university, chicago). the tributes by tobin and mallow follow. ____________________ joep van beeck: towards a catholic appreciation of judaism thomas h. tobin, s.j. as we begin this colloquium honoring joep van beeck, s.j. on the occasion of his 80 th birthday, i am both honored and delighted to speak about this jesuit who was my fellow member in the theology department here at loyola. from 1985 to 2002 joep was the john cardinal cody professor of theology. during the years when he and i lived together in one of the smaller jesuit communities, i got to know him best and came greatly to respect both his work and his friendship. we often read each other’s work before it was published. he used to try to spiff up my rather laconic prose style (too few words), while i tried to de-baroque his. i think we both benefited from the exercise. i certainly know that i did. in the margins of one of my typescript pages, he conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): tobin & mallow cp1-8 tobin & mallow, the jewishness of jesus tobin & mallow cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 wrote, ―the author may know what this page means, but this reader certainly does not.‖ upon reading over the page, i concluded that he had been too generous. the author did not know what it meant either! let me turn to joep’s work. in a presentation as brief as this, i can do little justice to the quality and extent of joep’s contributions to theology. but i do want to make several remarks about what one might call the ―character‖ of his work, those qualities that marked virtually whatever he wrote. in this regard, i want to begin by noting that, although he studied theology as a young jesuit, joep did not have a doctorate in theology. his doctorate was in literature, and his dissertation was an annotated edition of the poems and translations of sir edward sherburne (1616-1702). it is not accidental that joep’s first major work in theology is entitled christ proclaimed: christology as rhetoric. second –and this is perhaps not widely known—joep played the violin, and played it quite well. both these pieces of information, i think, are helpful in understanding the character of joep’s contributions to theology. anyone who has read christ proclaimed, or his magnum opus, god encountered: a contemporary catholic systematic theology, or any of his other shorter works cannot but be struck by the breadth of joep’s reading. there are, of course, the usual theological suspects such as athanasius, gregory of nyssa, augustine, anselm, aquinas, calvin, luther, barth, tillich, von balthasar, and rahner. but joep’s books are also filled with references to literature, to aeschylus and sophocles, seneca and tacitus, dante and boccaccio, chaucer, shakespeare and goethe, john donne and george herbert, wordsworth and tennyson, flannery o’connor and albert camus. and joep would never forgive me for omitting one of his favorite authors, the english novelist and philosopher iris murdoch. but joep seldom simply quotes these writers. he quotes them to make a point. there is immense learning here, but more importantly learning put purposefully to work. one of those purposes, i think, is joep’s conviction that literature and, more broadly the humanities generally, provided an access to the thickness and density of human experience and to profound reflections on that experience. reading joep’s work is sometimes not an easy task. this is not because joep does not write well. he does. it is because often what he writes involves a close, sophisticated, and insightful reading of a text, not simply of a text in theology, but as often as not of a literary text. this also gives his theology a kind of panoramic character. one is taken for a ride in often unexpected directions and treated to unexpected views, views which as a matter of fact turn out to be important for understanding both some aspect of human experience as well as how that experience is touched by the finger of god. this gives to joep’s theology a deeply humane character. it also gives to his work a historically oriented character. writers and thinkers from the past become real interlocutors and teachers, and so joep’s theology becomes one that takes seriously not only the density of human experience but also its historical character. these writers were not fools, and we would be fools to think they were. this way of doing theology also highlights several other aspects of joep’s work. the first is one that joep himself writes about in the preface to the first part of volume 2 of god encountered. he is describing the differences in approach between himself and david tracy, for whom he clearly has immense respect. he describes the difference between himself and tracy as one in which tracy expects more from the critical approach to religion and culture favored by modern social science than joep does. conversely, joep describes his own approach as one in which he gets absorbed by the aesthetics of it all first and then thinks about it later. it is certainly not that joep is uncritical, but rather that he is first appreciative and then critical within that context. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): tobin & mallow cp1-8 tobin & mallow, the jewishness of jesus tobin & mallow cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 a bit later on the same page, joep characterizes his own work as a theologian as someone who is one among many in a particular community of worship groping for intellectual integrity. i will return to this last point shortly. 1 the second aspect is joep’s impatience with method and hermeneutics. here i think it is important to describe at least a bit more closely in what that impatience consists. joep certainly thinks that it is important to be conscious and intentional about what one is doing theologically. in that sense, he thinks that method indeed is important. as a matter of fact, much of the first volume of god encountered is about method. but he also thinks that one discovers how to think theologically by trying it out, by actually thinking theologically and then reflecting on what one has done and how it could be done better. what he has little patience for is theology which never seems to get beyond method, that is forever concerned with how theology ought to be done but never gets around to actually doing it. a third important aspect of joep’s work has to do with where he places himself as he does theology, what the proper context is in which and from which theology develops. for joep this context is one of worship, especially that of the eucharist. the context for theology is this doxological essence of the church. and it is from this doxological essence that other aspects of theology such as soteriology, ethics, and eschatology are developed. the worship of the church, which is its present access to the actuality of god is mediated through christ’s perfect worship. and this central role of christ is representational, that is, one which invites the participation of believers. indeed the church is that participation of believers. in one way or another, this central reality of worship becomes the context out of which theology develops. the context from which theology develops is one that is at the center of the life of the church and from which the theologian tries to understand and make sense of that central mystery and its consequences. 2 by way of conclusion, but also as an introduction to the topic of this colloquium in joep’s honor, i want to return to the fact that joep is a violin player. in 1988 joep gave the fourth annual john cardinal cody lectures. these were published the next year as a book entitled loving the torah more than god: towards a catholic appreciation of judaism. joep’s own words, i think, say something important about him and about his concerns: by treating the subject matter of this book, however, i acknowledge that i do not have only theological reasons for choosing zvi kolitz’ story and emmanuel levinas’ commentary. i have personal ones too. when i first read these modern jewish writings, they revived deep and lasting memories in myself, memories from the days when i was an eleven and twelve year old boy in the hague, in the netherlands: the embarrassing sight of the yellow stars below the left lapels of the overcoats of sad, fearful, and unspeakably distantlooking people in the streets in the early war years; the anti-jewish slogans on billboards and the reports on anti-jewish measures in newspapers; the swift, menacing arrests and deportations of silent, seemingly uncomplaining jewish men, women, and children in our streets. most painfully of all, at least for me personally, i recall the dreadful late afternoon of wednesday, november 25, 1942, when, as a boy of twelve, a few days before my father’s birthday, i walked back home in tears, having found the front door of the house of the kindly old gentleman who was my violin teacher secured by means of a seal whose significance we had come to understand only too well. his name was samuel schuyer. 1 see god encountered 2.1.xv–xvi. 2 see god encountered 1.145–294. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): tobin & mallow cp1-8 tobin & mallow, the jewishness of jesus tobin & mallow cp 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 he was the first jew i was privileged to meet and learn from, and thank god, not the last. 3 a bit earlier in the book, joep wrote of samuel schuyer: the first lecture contained passages of a rather more personal nature. the reader will notice that one of them still occurs in the introduction. samuel schuyer was born in the the hague, on september 9, 1873, into a family of musicians. he received his training in violin, bassoon, and theory at the royal conservatory of his native city. after an early career that involved positions as principal bassoonist in a variety of places as well as a european tour as a bassoon soloist, he became first assistant concertmaster at the french opera in the hague, and subsequently concertmaster at the opera of ghent, in belgium. after a short stay in paris, he returned to the hague, where he became very active as a violinist and teacher, and occasionally also as a composer. he was sixty-nine years old when, in late november 1942, he was taken from his apartment and transported to the transit camp at westerbork. on december 8, 1942, he was put on the train to auschwitz, where he was killed on the day of his arrival, december 11, 1942. may he live in peace. 4 those words say a great deal about the jesuit whom we are honoring today. and what they say says a good deal about why we are honoring him, certainly for his contributions to theology but also for his contributions to a very important and honest dialogue between catholics and jews. ____________________ moving beyond the superficial: a secular jew and a jesuit in dialogue jeffry v. mallow i am not now, nor have i ever been, a member of the jesuit order. this will not be a piece on theology. i wouldn’t dare. instead, i will describe to you how i came to know joep van beeck. it began with a collaboration: he as the researcher, i as his translator. it developed into an adventure—in fact, a detective story. and it culminated in a friendship between a catholic priest and a secular jew. let me first define the term ―secular jew,‖ which may sound like an oxymoron–like jumbo shrimp, white chocolate, or civil divorce. the christian model which separates faith from peoplehood—german protestant, american catholic, et cetera—does not fit judaism. a jew is a jew, from orthodox to atheist, as long as he or she does not convert to another religion. 5 conversion is akin to giving up citizenship in the jewish people. for us, ―jews for jesus‖ is the real oxymoron. for secular jews, the house of worship is a synagogue even though we don’t set foot into it. jews tend to deal with their distress at the conversion of their co-religionists with humor, all of which is based on the notion that no matter how hard they try, they never quite get it. here’s an example: a jew comes to a priest and asks to be converted. the priest agrees, but only if the jew can demonstrate his knowledge of the catholic faith. the priest asks, ―where was our lord born?‖ the jew says, ―philadelphia.‖ the priest, astonished at the answer, asks the jew to try 3 loving the torah more than god, 5. 4 ibid., xv–xvi. 5 this is not precisely the case for some orthodox sects. because they do not recognize conversion they hold that, according to halakhah, jewish law, a jew always remains a jew. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): tobin & mallow cp1-8 tobin & mallow, the jewishness of jesus tobin & mallow cp 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 again. ―pittsburgh.‖ the priest says, ―you know nothing of our faith, and i simply cannot convert you. jesus was born in bethlehem.‖ the jew replies, ―i knew it was pennsylvania.‖ joep understands the fundamental difference between judaism and christianity. it is a central theme of his 1989 cody lectures and book, loving the torah more than god: toward a catholic appreciation of judaism. in it, he notes that the term ―judeo-christian tradition‖ is used by christians, but not by jews. loving the torah is designed not only to inform christians about the deeper connections of christianity to judaism, but about what is fundamentally and insuperably different. joep’s goal is to lead christian-jewish dialogue away from the well-meaning but superficial, ―let’s see what we share in common,‖ to the difficult but essential, ―let’s see what we cannot share in common.‖ i met joep as he was preparing the cody lectures on which loving the torah is based. a colleague told me that a priest needed a yiddish translator. i said, ―say what?‖ and so we met. joep had read a transcript of a radio lecture given in the 1950s by the french-jewish philosopher emanuel levinas. levinas compared judaism to christianity, and not to the credit of the latter. briefly, he described judaism as a religion of responsible adults, partners with god, and christianity as a religion of irresponsible children, with god as the parent. if i can be forgiven the presumption of a physicist paraphrasing a description by a theologian of the claims of a philosopher, here is how joep articulates levinas’ three charges. the first is that of replacement theology: christians see their religion as a fulfillment of its precursor, judaism, rather than acknowledge judaism on its own terms. what christians call the old testament, jews call the bible. to quote joep, ―what is the matter is a very problematic conviction that lies at the root of the christian tradition...in the relationship between judaism and christianity there prevails not mutuality but a fundamental asymmetry.‖ 6 the second, the centrality of redemption in christianity removes the sense of responsible partnership central to judaism. in joep’s words, ―ever since the theme of redemption became the center of the christian faith...western christianity has tended to believe in god as savior....[the] development has tended to reduce the relationship between god and humanity to an opposition between human frailty and sinfulness vs. divine power and mercy...humanity comes to cast itself in the role of child, alternately requiring punishment and leniency...the transcendent god is cast in the role of humanity’s parent, sometimes stern, at other times indulgent.‖ 7 the third is that christians view the injustice in the world as unavoidable evil, and thus in some sense excusable. therefore they mystify it by the vicarious suffering of christ for humanity’s sins. to quote joep, ―it allows human beings to get off the hook by dint of piety and sacrament.‖ 8 these three features: replacement, redemption, and mystification, says levinas, are at the root of christian persecution of jews; furthermore, they are the hallmarks of an immature faith, as contrasted with the mature faith of judaism, which has none of the three. levinas took as his starting point a story written in 1946 by zvi kolitz: yossel rakover’s appeal to god. yossel is a jew in the last stages of the warsaw ghetto uprising. he knows that he will soon be killed, and he initiates a confrontation with god. following are some quotes from the story: 6 loving the torah more than god, 3. 7 ibid., 44. 8 ibid., 50. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): tobin & mallow cp1-8 tobin & mallow, the jewishness of jesus tobin & mallow cp 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 you say, perhaps, that we have sinned, o lord? it must surely be true. and therefore we are punished? i can understand that too. but i should like you to tell me—is there any sin in the world deserving of such punishment as the punishment we have received? i want to say to you that now, more than in any previous period of our eternal path of agony, we the tortured, humiliated, buried alive, and burned alive, we the insulted, the object of mockery, we who have been murdered by the millions, we have the right to know: what are the limits of your forbearance? i should like to say something more: do not put the rope under too much strain, lest, alas, it may snap. the test to which you have put us is so severe, so unbearably severe, that you should—you must—forgive those members of your people who, in their misery, have turned from you. the murderers themselves have already passed sentence on themselves and will never escape it; but may you carry out a doubly severe sentence on those who are condoning the murder. those that condemn murder orally, but rejoice at it in their hearts those who meditate in their foul hearts: it is fitting, after all, to say that he is evil, this tyrant, but he carries out a bit of work for us for which we will always be grateful to him! but those who are silent in the face of murder, those who have no fear of you, but fear what people might say (fools! they are unaware that the people will say nothing!), those who express their sympathy with the drowning man but refuse to rescue him—punish them, o lord, punish them, i implore you with a doubly-severe sentence! 9 these are perhaps shocking statements. the first three take god to task. the second three indict gentiles—christians—for their indifference to and complicity in genocide. as joep told me, no serious christian could encounter the kolitz story and the levinas lecture and not confront the issues it raised. hence the cody lectures and the book. it is here that the translations of the zvi kolitz story play an important part. there were two textual traditions surrounding the story: one claiming that the original was in english which appeared in an american collection of holocaust fiction entitled tiger beneath my skin: stories and parables of the years of death, and later translated into yiddish and published in die yiddishe tsyatung. the second textual tradition claimed that the original was in yiddish in die yiddishe tsaytung, translated into english (tiger beneath my skin). the original yiddish version was republished in a literary journal in israel, die goldene keyt. this was subsequently translated into german, hebrew, and french. the french translation was the one used by levinas. the question confronting us was, which of the two was the authentic text, the english or the yiddish? or did it matter? were they substantially the same? the problem was that we didn’t have a copy of di yiddishe tsaytung. joep began with the assumption that the english version was the original. he based this on an ambiguous remark by kolitz in an israeli journal, which seemed to suggest that. so although all joep had was the english in tiger beneath my skin, he was not willing to use it for the cody 9 ibid., 23-26. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): tobin & mallow cp1-8 tobin & mallow, the jewishness of jesus tobin & mallow cp 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 series until he had compared it with the yiddish version in di goldene keyt. thus he left open the possibility that the yiddish version was the original. that’s where i came in. i translated that yiddish version. and we got a surprise. the yiddish version in di goldene keyt was substantially longer than the english version in tiger beneath my skin. it contained extra passages which joep first assumed had been added as the story made its way from di yiddishe tsaytung to di goldene keyt. if, in fact, the extra text was added, this frontal attack on christianity, harsher even than the attacks in tiger beneath my skin, such as the ones i quoted earlier, was unforgivable. the passages seemed to be a deliberate attempt to provoke confrontation with christians. furthermore, if these were not the original words of kolitz, then levinas, using the french translation of the yiddish from di goldene keyt, was inadvertently basing his critique in part on things that kolitz had not written. after loving the torah was published, joep learned that back issues of di yiddishe tsaytung were available in a library in buenos aires. after we obtained an original copy of the story, the question confronting us was: which version was in di yiddishe tsaytung, the shorter one in tiger beneath my skin or the longer one in di goldene keyt? after translating the story from the newspaper, we discovered that the extra passages were in fact in the original. the translation must have been from yiddish to english, from di yiddishe tsaytung to tiger beneath my skin. kolitz himself later confirmed this to joep. thus, the truth was the opposite of our original hypothesis: rather than adding into the original the harsher passages—sin enough—whoever had translated the version from di yiddishe tsaytung into the english of tiger beneath my skin had committed a worse sin: eliding the original passages, presumably to avoid confrontation with christians. our translation of the original story—the full text—from di yiddishe tsaytung was eventually published in the fall 1994 issue of the american catholic journal cross currents. our revised version included the offending passages and matched in all essentials the yiddish version in di goldene keyt. joep’s interpretation had been insightfully correct when he had regarded even the weaker text, the one in loving the torah, as a serious indictment of christianity—yet kept open the possibility that what we thought were additions might have been in the original. we can surely indict the translator for an act of appalling intellectual dishonesty. but let us examine the motive behind the act: the desire to avoid confrontation. this is a quintessential example of what has often been wrong with catholic-jewish dialogue, or interfaith dialogue in general: the fear of giving offence, the hushing up of fighting words. the approach is: let’s see what we share in common, rather than let’s see what we don’t. joep would have none of it. for him dialogue was either honest or a waste of time. in loving the torah he asks that christians and jews open themselves to real learning from each other, that they take the risk of giving offence on their way to mutual understanding. following are two quotations from loving the torah. in the first, joep summarizes the book─ i.e., his resolution of the challenges posed by levinas: we have reviewed three dubious developments. it is not difficult to recognize in them three principal causes of friction between christianity and judaism, all of them pointed out and criticized by levinas. the first—christianity’s status as an established religion— accounts for the fact that the christian concept of fulfillment got misinterpreted as displacement of judaism. the second—dependency as a widespread characteristic of the christian style of believing—accounts for the prominence of the salvation theme in christian believing, at the expense of the theme of moral responsibility for humanity in the studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): tobin & mallow cp1-8 tobin & mallow, the jewishness of jesus tobin & mallow cp 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 world. the third—salvation by substitutionary atonement—accounts for the tendency, excoriated by levinas, to mystify suffering and thus justify it. from the point of view of christian, catholic theology, and in the name of the gospel and the great tradition of the undivided christian church, we have to say that on all three counts, the type of christian faith that levinas rejects is one that deserves to be rejected. in demanding (1) that judaism be respected in its own integrity, (2) that faith in god be construed, not as an assurance of divine indulgence to comfort the immature, but as a divine call to disciplined maturity, and (3) that the suffering of the innocent not be mystified and thus justified, levinas is simply asking christians to be true to their own deepest tradition. 10 then in the final passage of the book, joep speaks of his hopes: and so, finally, i come to the extreme of buoyancy to which i promised i would carry my theological reflections about the relationship between jews and christians. could it be that the taste for humane, disciplined civilization that catholic christianity has in common with judaism somehow already underlies the vigorous interest so many jews take in being involved, in a variety of ways, in such a deeply christian and especially catholic venture as a catholic university? 11 i flatter myself that in this he includes me. joep and i have become good friends. we have dealt with some difficult theological and ethical questions whose answers separate catholics and jews—and we did not and will not reach an accord on them. there are simply some unbridgeable differences. jews believe that life begins when the kids go off to college and the dog dies. there are also some lesser, albeit still unbridgeable differences. joep and his compatriot professor adriaan peperzak have extolled at some length the superiority of dutch coffee. when i think of coffee i think of insomnia and acid reflux. but one thing joep never brought into question was my identity as a secular jew. over twenty years ago, joseph cardinal bernardin initiated an outreach project in chicago in the form of catholic-jewish dialogue groups. ours exists to this day. joep was one of our speakers. following joep’s example, we have moved beyond the superficial. we have dealt with some, albeit not all, of the tough questions. that task will not be completed until the messiah comes—or comes again. 10 ibid., 78. 11 ibid., 83. facing the perpetrators: questions for german theology after 1945 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1 (2007): r1-2 krondorfer, et al, facing the perpetrators r1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art9 björn krondörfer, katharina von kellenbach, norbert reck, mit blick auf die täter. fragen an die deutsche theologie nach 1945 [facing the perpetrators: questions for german theology after 1945] (gütersloh: gütersloher verlagshaus, 2006), 317 pp. reviewed by hanspeter heinz, universität augsburg the question, “where was god?” was central to pope benedict xvi’s theological reflections of during his visit to auschwitz. a focus on the experience of the victims first provoked jewish, and then christian scholars too, to pose radical questions about god. this violent shaking up of presumptions about an almighty, loving god led to the first phase of the “theology after auschwitz” (moltmann, sölle, metz). the counterquestion, first asked ten years ago, was “where was the church? how were christians complicit in auschwitz through words, actions or lack of awareness?” this inaugurated the second phase of the “theology after auschwitz,” which focused on the perpetrators, almost all of whom were baptized. this ethical question (which the pope did not mention), calls for deeper reflection about guilt and sin, and also for an active and energetic change in the church. the confession of universal guilt made publicly by pope john paul ii in st. peter’s in 2000 to purify the historical conscience of the church needs to be concretized by naming the persons responsible and by clearly voicing an opinion about their words, deeds, and failures. only in this way, according to this volume’s authors, can the burden of history be dealt with, so that it will not be like a fire smouldering under the carpet, continuing to pollute the air and suffocating any effective change. this volume is the first to document the questionable reflections of 20th century german theologians on “the church and the nazism” and the first to make public the church’s questionable pastoral care of the nazi criminals. in order to establish the facts, the extensive documentation was sorted through and critically analyzed. krondörfer, a protestant scholar, examines here autobiographies of 40 protestant theologians that were published years or decades after the war but incorporated no sign of self-criticism. reck, a catholic theologian, employs empirical sociological methods to study eight exemplary but noteworthy catholic authors; but with the help of more recent theologians, he also expresses a normative view about some of these authors’ publications. employing empirical and normative methods, von kellenbach, a protestant theologian, examines the pastoral care offered by the protestant church (primarily) for the reconciliation of the perpetrators with god. the authors are all of the generation born after 1960, that which was shaped by the new politics towards eastern europe, by the first signs of reconciliation with poland, as well as by the influence of the film “holocaust.” they were the first who paid attention to the suffering of the victims. the authors notice that only a very few of the generation of theologians who lived as adults under hitler reflected after the war on their actions and failures in a self-critical way – in contrast to a number of historians during the fifties (p. 139, n. 110). more often, they presented themselves as victims: of the lost wars, of propaganda and nazi-terror, of the bombing and the victors’ occupation. apologetically, they asked for understanding, claiming that they were not heroes but rather could not have acted otherwise. krondörfer calls this suppression of primary guilt the secondary guilt. in his analysis, reck also works out a theological reason. those men (rahner, guardini et al.) considered the primary sin of their generation to be the tyranny of review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1 (2007): r1-2 krondorfer, et al, facing the perpetrators r2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art9 modernity that placed humans over god, and not its anti-semitism or nationalism. they called for a breaking away from atheistic modernity and a return to the christian faith. this one-sided ascription of guilt only regarding god displaced any acknowledgement of guilt regarding human suffering (p. 192f.). on the other hand, the hitler youth generation (ratzinger, metz, et al.) strongly “condemned, yet neglected a closer scrutiny” of the nazi era (p. 209). but because they loyally sought to protect their own relatives and theology instructors and only declared “others” as responsible, the concrete guilt of the perpetrators remained unexamined and “it was consigned to the collective sense of shame”(p. 209). reck, in his final remarks, establishes that certain representatives of the present generation of theologians are the first to break unequivocally with the silence of the perpetrators. the work has not yet been done. therefore, it is also valid for christian theology that one who wants to accept responsibility within one’s own tradition must be prepared to call what is wrong wrong, and what is evil evil, identifying the perpetrators and their deeds by name (p. 221). just as the unprocessed trauma of the victims is transmitted to subsequent generations, so too their unprocessed guilt continues to affect history, finding expression for most germans even today in a strong sense of guilt instead of their being freed for conversion towards a new future. even more shocking than these errors of theology is von kellenbach’s contribution, “the practice of reconciliation,” about the great missionary efforts to reintegrate the perpetrators into their church, profession and society. the nazi criminals condemned to death received holy communion without their manifesting any sign of confession or regret (with the single exception of göring [p. 266]). in peace with their consciences and god, they were to go bravely to the gallows. such pastoral, charitable and legal aid – even help in escaping – was also offered to inmates of prisons and internment camps. nervously, at hour zero, the churches sought to close the door on the nazi era and to begin anew in a christian era. but all this happened at the price of forging solidarity with the victims (jews, homosexuals, gypsies, communists). another stumbling block: post-war theologians, “warning about old testament vengeance” (p. 282), asserted that confessions of guilt should be addressed only to god, not to the victim. instead, they urged christian forgiveness. yet mercy without justice, without just punishment, injures anew the dignity of the victims (p. 271). von kellenbach joins the american philosophers claudia card and susan neimann in rejecting the ethic of kant who measures guilt only according to the will of the perpetrator and not according to the atrocities that the victims had to suffer (pp. 270-273). she rightly says this “practice of reconciliation” is the lowest point in the churches’ experience and teaching of atonement. this book is an easily read and thoroughly researched documentation of the mistakes of german theologians and church leaders during and after the nazi period. beyond this, these theological reflections are an invitation today finally to process guilt and sorrow, so that they will no longer influence the history of the descendents of the perpetrators and victims. this study is to be recommended not only to theologians, but also to teachers of religion and history, and not only in germany. this phenomenon of victim mentality deludes all groups, institutions and nations who were in their own ways entangled in the horrors of world war ii. translation: felicitas samtleben, stadtbergen; ruth langer, scjr scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-2 jon w. sweeney, ed. jesus wasn’t killed by the jews: reflections for christians in lent (maryknoll: orbis books, 2020), paperback, 128 pp. chava bahle rabbichava@gmail.com at this moment, the united states is in upheaval. against the backdrop of a global pandemic was the killing of george floyd, a black man, by three white police officers, one of whom crushed floyd’s neck as he lay handcuffed and helpless. a bystander captured on video the nearly nine minutes it took for floyd to die. the video went viral and engendered waves of mass protest and civil disobedience across the country and around the world. much of the nation is taking a hard look at the realities of white privilege and the injustice of systems rooted in oppression. we look into the abyss of racism, and then into the mirror: the picture is not pretty. to create lasting change, the abyss must be made plain before we can turn to repair. other recent acts of violence—two deadly attacks on synagogues in 2018 (in pittsburgh) and 2019 (in poway, california)—spurred the writing of this book. they were carried out by men influenced by anti-jewish ideas, with their racial, religious, and political threads, now so pervasive on the internet. the authors of the fourteen essays in the edited volume jesus wasn’t killed by the jews: reflections for christians in lent look into the abyss of historical and contemporary anti-judaism. many are renowned, and they include christian scholars, both catholic (such as mary boys, bishop richard j. sklba, and massimo faggioli) and protestant (such as walter brueggemann and greg garrett), as well as jewish scholars (such as abraham skorka and amy-jill levine) who contributed an introduction, a chapter, and an afterword. the text is divided into two sections, entitled “foundations” and “progress.” the authors look at anti-judaism from different vantage points and issue calls for deep personal and communal redress of systemic “othering” of jews by christians and in christianity. specifically, they ask christian readers to grapple with their tradition’s supersessionism and teachings of contempt. this book, while similar to others by both christians and jews challenging anti-judaism, also addresses praxis. the authors offer pastoral and spiritual practices to help christians face and overcome this history. though not formally devotional, it is intended for readers as a lenten reflection. this is not only because bahle: jon w. sweeney’s jesus wasn’t killed by the jews 2 violent manifestations of anti-judaism often occurred on good friday, when historically some christians attacked jews, but also because lent is a time of penitence. the authors issue a call for repentance and express the liberative hope that comes from being honest with oneself and one’s religious tradition about that tradition’s dark places. the authors challenge christians to read texts critically, with an awareness of their own (unquestioned) assumptions and the distorting effects misunderstandings have had on christians’ views of jews for many centuries. sweeney offers guidance for a non-supersessionist lectio divina, as is appropriate for the days of lent, and for celebrating holy week in “spiritual practices on ash wednesday” and “caution about maundy thursday passover seders.” sandy eisenberg sasso, in “what do we say to our children?,” touches on an underexplored topic: how do we foster in children a strong identity and cultivate epistemological humility? richard lux offers the clearest chapter-length unpacking of supersessionism i have read in “supersessionism / replacement theology.” some of the chapters are more scholarly. brueggmann’s “israel is my firstborn son” and wes howard-brook’s “why we need to translate ioudaioi as ‘judeans’” call for some background and seem less accessible to lay readers. this creates some unevenness in the book. this book will be especially valuable for jewish and christian seminarians and clergy. sadly, rabbis are being called upon to address public acts of anti-judaism, and this book will provide a deeper understanding of history and theology. it will give christians as well an awareness of the history of anti-judaism and its practical manifestations today and encourage them to struggle with their own views. for them, this book will not feel comfortable. some of the critiques are difficult to read, and that is precisely why this text is important. ultimately that difficult message, presented here largely by christians and not by jews, is necessary before we can have hope for the future. scjr 13, no. 1 (2018): 1-3 r. alan culpepper and paul n. anderson, eds. john and judaism: a contested relationship in context (atlanta: sbl press, 2017), softcover, xix + 442 pp. michael g. azar michael.azar@scranton.edu university of scranton, scranton, pa 18510 in this volume, r. alan culpepper and paul n. anderson have gathered essays considering how john’s “gospel and its author(s) and their community were related to judaism” (p. xviii). aware of the often internecine relationship between judaism and christianity, they write that they intend to motivate readers “toward the greater goals of knowledge and truth in the service of wholeness of life, religious devotion, and reconciliation and common purpose between christians and jews” (p. xix). some essays are quite specific in their purview, while others present surveys. as such, the collection succeeds as a broad and diverse introduction both to john and to first-century judaism. the book is divided into four parts. in part i (“introduction”), tom thatcher (“recent research and future questions”) introduces the status quaestionis in regard to john’s relationship to judaism. he also summarizes the sixteen contributions. jan g. van der watt (“‘is jesus the king of israel?’: reflections on the jewish nature of the gospel of john”) more specifically surveys both john’s portrayal of jesus as israel’s awaited king and his vilification of those who dissent from that association. part ii (“john as a source for understanding judaism”) includes three essays, by craig r. koester (“the gospel of john as a source for first-century judaism”), catrin h. williams (“john, judaism, and ‘searching the scriptures’”), and harold w. attridge (“john, the jews, and philosophy”). together, these essays consider a topic often overlooked in examinations of “john and judaism”: the ways john reveals the diversity of first-century jewish history, hermeneutics, and hopes, especially features not preserved by later rabbis. a major point of interaction for all of the essays of part iii (“reappraising john’s relationship to judaism and jewish christianity”) is the work of j. louis martyn. adele reinhartz (“story and history: john, judaism, and the historical imagination”) nicely captures the importance of martyn’s work, even among his azar: culpepper and anderson’s john and judaism 2 detractors (reinhartz included). jonathan bernier (“jesus, ‘αποσυνάγωγος, and modes of religiosity”) adopts martyn’s basic understanding of the ἀποσυνάγωγος passages but moves the less official “parting” forward to the time of jesus. craig a. evans (“evidence of conflict with the synagogue in the johannine writings”) looks at the risk of synagogue expulsion evidenced in the other johannine writings. joel marcus (“johannine christian and baptist sectarians within late first-century judaism”) defends martyn’s thesis through a parallel comparison of the relationship between “johannine christians” and the followers of the baptist and pharisees. lori baron (“the shema in john’s gospel and jewish restoration eschatology”) examines john’s adaptation of the biblical prophets’ erstwhile reaction to exile, especially ezekiel. the next two essays— william r. g. loader (“tensions in matthean and johannine soteriology viewed in their jewish context”) and r. alan culpeper (“matthew and john: reflections of early christianity in relation to judaism”)—compare john’s and matthew’s varied relationships with jewish tradition. jörg frey (“toward reconfiguring our views on the ‘parting of the ways’: ephesus as a test case”) explores john’s “break” with judaism as a geographically specific event, occurring in ephesus but not necessarily in other centers of early christianity. part iv (“reading john as jews and christians”) steps back from primarily historical considerations to consider the “hermeneutical implications of reading john’s presentation of the jews in a modern context” (p. 35). reimund bieringer (“anti-judaism and the fourth gospel fifteen years after the leuven colloquium”) surveys some trends in scholarship since the 2000 colloquium in leuven on “anti-judaism in the fourth gospel.” paul n. anderson, in perhaps the most commendably bold essay of the collection (“anti-semitism and religious violence as flawed interpretations of the gospel of john”), strives not merely to defend john against the charge of antisemitism but to establish the gospel’s positive place in jewish-christian relations. ruth sheridan (“seed of abraham, slavery, and sin: reproducing johannine anti-judaism in the modern commentaries on john 8:31–34”) surveys modern commentaries on these verses. noam e. marans (“the place of john in christian-jewish relations fifty years after nostra aetate”) considers the important roles played by biblical exegetes in contributing to our understanding of ancient texts in the period after vatican ii. r. alan culpepper (“afterword: what have we learned? where do we go from here?”) concludes by summarizing the contributions and briefly considering future avenues. these essays strike a nice balance of in-depth analyses and broad summaries. in many ways—both implicitly and explicitly—the collection updates the work of reassessing john’s place with regard to judaism that started in the mid-twentieth century and culminated in the leuven colloquium. while the collection largely succeeds at its goals, a few oversights that have sometimes hindered johannine scholarship on “the jews” still linger here. many essays in this collection (especially anderson and van der watt) rightly challenge the overly-broad claim that john is too “hostile” to contribute positively to our understanding of judaism. however, the view that john did little 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) for later christian interaction with judaism than simply pass on a “virus of hostility” deserves to be challenged as well (p. 352, quoting culpepper). no author makes a significant attempt to understand john’s impact in christian-jewish interaction between the first few generations of christianity and the modern period (cf. bieringer’s observation, p. 262). rather than investigate any aspect of the intervening period closely—particularly in the eastern christian world, which is overlooked entirely—the collection broadly paints the gospel as having “fueled anti-jewish and often anti-semitic attitudes, hostility, and violence” (p. xviii). such generalizations regarding christian history too easily neglect important resources for reassessing john’s, and later christians’, relationships to judaism. without stereotyping, and so dismissing, late-antique and medieval writers as simply gentile appropriations of originally jewish texts, one could appreciate more fully that “boundaries of jewish practice were not always well defined,” even after the first century (p. 75, quoting koester). had the authors adopted more nuanced approaches to the reception of john, this collection would succeed even more strongly at its stated goals of contributing to both “understanding” among those in the church, synagogue, and academy and “corrective action” (p. 352, quoting culpepper) toward anti-jewish and anti-christian appropriations of scripture (cf. anderson’s comments, p. 278). for an academic study, this is an accessible volume. footnotes and the use of unexplained technical terms are minimal, yet the authors commendably uphold a high level of scholarly sophistication. scjr 17, no. 1 (2022): 1-3 philip a. cunningham maxims for mutuality: principles for catholic theology, education, and preaching about jews and judaism (new york and mahwah, nj: paulist press, 2022), 113 pp. leo d. lefebure ll253@georgetown.edu georgetown university, washington, dc 20057 philip a. cunningham is both a respected scripture scholar and a longtime veteran of efforts to improve jewish-catholic relations. in this engaging book he pulls together lessons he has learned over many years of engagement in this area, which has become all the more important in recent years with the resurgence of antisemitism in the united states and in many other places around the world. cunningham continues the dominant paradigm in the united states for improving jewish-catholic relations since the second vatican council, in which catholics acknowledge and apologize for many centuries of vilification and mistreatment of jews and strive to be more knowledgeable about jews and judaism and more respectful in words and deeds. he reviews conciliar, papal, and other authoritative catholic statements that condemn antisemitism and supersessionism and that admonish catholics to study and dialogue with jews in an atmosphere of respect and to work with jews to foster shared values. cunningham offers an excellent overview of a wide range of materials that foster an overall tone of harmony and mutual appreciation among dialogue partners. he calls attention to multiple dangers that catholics face; of his ten maxims, six are framed in the negative: “you shall not” or “you are not competent.” cunningham’s scholarship is impeccable, and his recommendations are based on a deep knowledge of both the jewish and catholic traditions. he seeks to address a broad audience of “catholic educators, preachers and theologians” (xiv), and he offers many helpful resources in the areas he addresses. the limitation of his discussion is that he does not devote much attention to some of the most pressing and conflicted issues in jewish-catholic relations. in my experience as a priest in catholic parishes in the chicago, new york city, and washington, dc, metropolitan areas, the most important and pressing challenge for ordinary catholics regarding relations with jews involves marriages lefebure: cunningham’s maxims for mutuality 2 between a catholic and a jew. i have participated with a rabbi in a joyous celebration of a jewish-catholic marriage where both families were accepting of the union; i have listened to a jewish bride tell me through her tears that some members of her family were rejecting her because she was marrying a catholic; i have heard an undergraduate student at georgetown university state that his parents raised him to be both jewish and catholic. the catholic church today acknowledges the legitimacy and validity of catholic-jewish marriages, and catholic priests regularly preside at them. some rabbis agree and also participate in such ceremonies, but others are fiercely opposed to these unions on the basis of traditional jewish teaching and object to catholic priests’ officiating at them. in my experience in parishes, this is the area in which catholics most urgently seek guidance about relating to jews. it is also one of the most difficult issues for clergy to discuss, both between catholics and jews and also among jews themselves. cunningham is silent on this issue, but it poses the question of what mutuality means with regard to interreligious marriage and what maxims might be appropriate. in my experience as an educator teaching at georgetown university, including its campus in doha, qatar, one of the most pressing areas of student concern in jewish-catholic relations involves the israeli-palestinian conflict and, especially for catholics, the place of palestinian catholics amid the ongoing struggle. here again catholics hear a variety of conflicting jewish voices, some seeking catholic support for the policies and actions of the government of israel and others calling for catholic criticism of these same policies and actions. cunningham quite properly calls the reader’s attention to the long and tragic history of christian hostility to jews, but he has little to say about catholic-jewish relations in israelpalestine since the end of the second world war. palestinian catholics have a distinctive experience of living under jewish rule, and they have repeatedly asked catholics elsewhere to pay attention to their situation. often they feel neglected in discussions of catholic-jewish relations, and cunningham’s discussion continues this pattern. he does refer the reader in passing to another volume where he has discussed the land of israel. again, the value of mutuality presents a challenge: if mutuality is a value to be promoted and fostered, then it is important to listen to palestinian catholic experiences of suffering and to include these in the process of understanding and shaping of jewish-catholic relationships. cunningham notes that in many areas of the world, including the global south, catholics live in areas where there are few jews, and he expresses concern about the importance of bringing the lessons of jewish-catholic dialogue to them (25). in my experiences among catholics in countries in the global south with large muslim populations, one of the first and most pressing questions that i have repeatedly been asked concerns how catholics should view the israeli-palestinian conflict. catholics in these countries hear strong criticisms of the actions of the government of israel from their muslim neighbors and want to know how to respond as catholics. in many circles, criticism of the government of israel intertwines with traditional antisemitism, but i have known many catholics in the global south who do not want to be antisemitic but who are critical of the government of israel. there is a vigorous debate concerning the relation between criticism 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) of the government of israel and traditional antisemitism. simply to condemn antisemitism without offering catholics a perspective on the israeli-palestinian conflict risks leaving catholics in the global south (and beyond) in a state of perplexity. for example, in addition to noting that the holy see established diplomatic relations with the state of israel in 1993 (11), it would be helpful to review the statements and actions of popes and other catholic leaders expressing solidarity with both israelis and palestinians and proposing principles for addressing the israeli-palestinian conflict. these could include pope john paul ii’s visit both to the western wall and to the dheisheh palestinian refugee camp; pope benedict xvi’s visit to the yad vashem memorial and aida refugee camp; and pope francis’s invitation to the presidents of both israel and the palestinian authority to come to rome to pray for peace. while cunningham does not offer maxims for addressing these controversial relationships in an atmosphere of mutuality, in the areas he does discuss he does offer very helpful guidance for developing harmonious relations. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review christoph ochs matthaeus adversus christianos. the use of the gospel of matthew in jewish polemics against the divinity of jesus (tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2013), softcover, xviii+410 pp. daniel j. lasker, ben-gurion university of the negev the new testament is not a part of the literature which can normally be found on what has become known colloquially as “the jewish bookshelf,” despite the fact that its authors were mostly, if not all, jewish. in fact, many rabbis interpret the prohibition on reading the books of heretics as including the new testament, hoping to prevent jewish attraction to christianity. yet, obviously, jews have read the new testament over the years and have reacted to it in various ways. one group of especially close readers of the christian scriptures consisted of jewish polemicists who took upon themselves the defense of judaism and the refutation of christianity. they prepared themselves for this task by reading their opponents’ scriptures which they then analyzed in order to undermine christian doctrines. the present book describes in detail how medieval jewish authors, over the course of 700 years (from the ninth to sixteenth centuries), used the gospel of matthew for the purpose of refuting christianity in general and the divinity of jesus in particular, or as the book title succinctly puts it, “matthew against christianity.” the works ochs discusses are the anonymous the account of the disputation of the priest (translated into hebrew as the book of nestor the priest); jacob ben reuben’s the wars of the lord; joseph ben nathan official’s the book of joseph the zealous; the anonymous nizzahon vetus; ibn shaprut’s touchstone; profiat duran’s disgrace of the gentiles; and isaac of troki’s studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) faith strengthened. in these works, ochs asserts, matthew is the most cited new testament book. why did jewish polemicists focus on matthew? or, more specifically, why focus on matthew, more than other books of the new testament, such as the pauline epistles? ochs, who wrote this work originally as a university of nottingham dissertation, points out two main reasons for jewish interest in matthew. first, “matthew played a vital role for christian theology and development of the christian dogma as the exegetical basis and defense of jesus’ divinity by means of the incarnation” (p. 7; emphasis here and below in the original). second, matthew links its narrative intrinsically with the hebrew bible, making it an “easy target” for jewish polemicists (pp. 9-10). furthermore, “historically, the gospel of matthew functioned as [a] bridge over which the jewishchristian discourse was mediated” (p. 318); and “[e]ven nowadays the jewish-christian dialogue continues to be mediated to a large exten[t] by the interpretation of the gospel of matthew, which in particular is focused on the jewish context of the book and its author” (p. 319). the author obviously believes that the importance of matthew is not coincidental (i.e., simply as a result of its placement as the first gospel). from the few citations above, one can see that although this book deals with intellectual and textual history, ochs’s concerns go beyond the strictly academic aspects of the subject. his examination of the jewish use of matthew, and the ties between matthew and the hebrew bible, consists not only of recording passages and arguments but also of evaluating the cogency of such arguments, thereby, in a sense, grading the jewish polemicists on their performance. he also comments on the similarities between jewish readings of matthew, on the one hand, and internal medieval christian doctrinal debates and modern academic criticism, on the other hand. in his summary, he suggests it would “be more beneficial for the jewish-christian debate to not merely use scripture to corroborate or confound (metaphysical) beliefs but to argue truly from scripture” (p. 338). a change in perspective “would studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr liberate the entire interfaith dialogue” (p. 339). given the subjects which jews raised in their reading of matthew, ochs concludes: “christians and jews have debated each other precisely in those areas which they have most in common” (p. 340). the possibility that a detailed analysis of jewish criticisms of matthew might serve as a basis for greater interfaith understanding and mutual appreciation seems unlikely. medieval jewish polemicists were interested in matthew not as a bridge to christianity but as a source of convincing argumentation that christian doctrine as they knew it was not consistent with christian sources and, therefore, should be rejected by christians themselves. they did pour over the gospel text not for spiritual reasons but for apologetical ones. as ochs demonstrates so well, the polemicists obviously adduced only those passages of the new testament which supported their goal of undermining christianity, not selections which would seem to vindicate christian doctrines (pp. 320-325). thus, when the late fourteenth-century shem tov ibn shaprut presented his readers a full translation of matthew into hebrew, he did so with the adjuration that it never be copied in the absence of his critical notes; jews were not supposed to be interested in matthew in any context other than polemical. despite his remarks about interfaith issues, ochs’s efforts are devoted mostly to medieval texts. the result is a very comprehensive and useful work, presenting all the relevant sources in the hebrew originals and with precise english translations and analyses, accompanied by copious annotation. he is a thorough scholar and commands the whole range of the scholarly literature on the polemics (although one might question his choice of some of the secondary literature which he considers authoritative, especially concerning karaites). he is not reluctant to challenge views held by others, including occasionally those of this reviewer. unfortunately, like the literature it studies, matthaeus adversus christianos tends to be a repetitious book. the author is aware of this, but his goal of discussing every important text in chronological order restricts his studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 9 (2014) freedom of discussion. it is also regrettable that the book is marred by multiple typographical errors, especially in the hebrew texts. in the past decades, jewish and christian scholars have contributed to new understandings of medieval controversial literature, which is often maligned for its shallow argumentation and offensive methods of presentation. polemical works are now being analyzed in the context of the overall picture of the interreligious relationship, which was not one of unmitigated antagonism and violence. this book, then, is one more important contribution to the ongoing effort to broaden and deepen our appreciation of jewish-christian theological interchanges in the middle ages. 1 scjr 13, no. 1 (2018): 1-20 “to defend the citadel of its faith from all assaults”: hermann adler and the london society for promoting christianity amongst the jews robert h. ellison ellisonr@marshall.edu marshall university, huntington, wv 25755 in a sermon preached in london’s bayswater synagogue on april 25, 1868, the rev. dr. hermann adler, who would later become chief rabbi of the british empire, 1 lamented that “immense sums are spent, year after year, by societies for promoting christianity among the jews, in turning bad jews into worse christians.” 2 he was not the only one to express this sentiment. 3 well into the twentieth century, the phrase appeared in the jewish chronicle, london’s leading jewish newspaper, 4 and jews and gentiles alike alleged that people who came under the influence of such groups too frequently turned out to be “imposters,” “false” or insincere converts, and even “profligates” guilty of the “most shameful immoralities.” 5 1 see geoffrey alderman, “adler, hermann (1839–1911), chief rabbi.” oxford dictionary of national biography (henceforth odnb) (september 23, 2004), on line, retrieved october 20, 2018. 2 hermann adler, a course of sermons on the biblical passages adduced by christian theologians in support of the dogmas of their faith (london: trübner & co, 1869), 2. 3 the jewish chronicle published a great many similar pieces. some were the newspapers’ own articles; others were letters to the editor; and still others were excerpts of articles from publications like the edinburgh news, the morning chronicle, and the pall mall gazette. the number of these publications suggests the extent of the criticisms leveled at such societies from virtually their earliest days. an entire periodical, the faithful missionary, started in 1847, “had for its object to expose the fraudulent methods of the london society for promoting christianity among the jews” (isidore harris, “the anglo-jewish press. its story briefly told,” the jewish chronicle [november 24, 1916]: 24). 4 some of these articles directly cited adler as the source of the phrase. see, for example, “week by week” (january 8, 1909: 9), and pieces by “mentor” published on october 29, 1909 (“in the communal armchair,” 7) and november 16, 1928 (“codlin’s the friend,” 9). other uses that did not acknowledge adler appeared as early as december 11, 1891 (“notes of the week,” 6) and as late as august 26, 1921 (i. livingstone, “conversionist activity. a plea for action,” ii). 5 henry handley norris, the origin,… of the london society for promoting christianity amongst the jews…(london: j mawman, 1825), 56; zailick solomon, an exposure of hypocrisy and bigotry and a strenuous vindication of the israelites: in an address to the members of a society formed for promoting christianity amongst the jews,… (london: e justins, 1822), 13; “on the london society for converting the jews,” the british critic 11 (1819): 26, 30; “missions to the jews,” westminster ellison: “to defend the citadel of its faith from all assaults” 2 adler might have had any number of “societies” in mind. according to an encyclopaedia of missions published in 1891, at least fifteen organizations for “conversionists” 6 were active in victorian britain. the list includes the british society for the propagation of the gospel among the jews, the jewish mission of the presbyterian church of england, the barbican mission to the jews, the jewish mission of the church of scotland, and the ladies’ association for the christian education of jewish females. 7 adler’s phrasing, however, appears to single out the most prominent of these, the london society for promoting christianity amongst the jews. founded early in the nineteenth century, it still exists today as the church’s ministry among jewish people. this group, hereafter referred to simply as “the society,” is the subject of this article. 8 the society had its roots in the london missionary society under the leadership of joseph samuel christian frederick frey, a jewish convert to christianity who became a prominent and controversial figure in missionary work on both sides of the atlantic. 9 in 1808, a separate organization was launched, “the london society for the purpose of visiting and relieving the sick and distressed, review 125, no. 249 (1868): 170; tobias goodman, an address to the committee of the london society for promoting christianity among the jews,… (london: w. day, 1809), 27. 6 the jewish chronicle often used this term. see “a.w.”’s response in one of the society’s in-house publications, “the jewish chronicle and the conversionists,” jewish intelligence… (october 1, 1863): 246-9. 7 “jews,” in the encyclopaedia of missions…, vol. 1, ed. edwin munsell bliss (new york: funk & wagnalls, 1891), 509-11. 8 studies of english judaism frequently mention the society, but it is the primary focus of relatively few works. the only book-length treatments were written by officers of the society and thus take a rather sympathetic view. see, for example, thomas d. halsted, our missions: being a history of the principal missionary transactions of the london society… (london: william macintosh, 1866) and w. t. gidney, the history of the london society for promoting christianity… (london: london society for promoting christianity amongst the jews, 1908). later articles, however, are somewhat more critical. r. h. martin, for example, has asserted that while the society may have “performed a very important function for poor jewish immigrants as an early welfare agency,” internal divisions over doctrine and missionary strategies led to its “failure” as an “interdenominational” or “panevangelical” group (“united conversionist activities among the jews in great britain 1795-1815: pan-evangelicalism and the london society for promoting christianity amongst the jews,” church history 46, no. 4 [1977]: 438, 51, 52). robert michael smith goes even further, arguing that victorian-era attempts to convert the jews “failed miserably” and noting the irony that “the sephardim, almost completely ignored by the society, converted to christianity in large numbers, while the ashkenazim, among whom the society concentrated its weapons, had so few converts as to make the society's efforts meaningless” (“the london jews' society and patterns of jewish conversion in england, 1801-1859,” jewish social studies 43, no. 3/4 [1981]: 275). 9 joseph samuel levy (b. germany 1771) took the name christian frederick frey upon his baptism into the lutheran church in 1798. he arrived in england in 1801. a sexual-misconduct scandal in 1816 caused him to leave england for america, where he resumed his missionary work with such organizations as the american society for meliorating the condition of the jews (asmcj). see his autobiographies: the converted jew: or memoirs of the life of joseph samuel c.f. frey… (boston: samuel t. armstrong, 1815); narrative of the rev. joseph samuel c.f. frey… (new york: w b gilley, 1817); and judah and israel… (new york: d. fanshaw, 1841), 1-145. see also george l. berlin, “joseph s. c. frey, the jews and early nineteenth century millenarianism,” journal of the early republic 1, no. 1 (1981): 27-49; david max eichhorn, evangelizing the american jew (middle village, n.y.: jonathan david, 1978), 18-26; lee max friedman, early american jews (cambridge, mass: harvard university press, 1934), 96-112. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) and instructing the ignorant, especially such as are of the jewish nation.” its mission soon proved to be as unwieldy as its name, and, after some reorganization, it was launched anew the following year as “the london society for the promotion of christianity amongst the jews.” this was slightly revised to “the london society for promoting christianity amongst the jews,” the name it held for the rest of the nineteenth century. its denominational affiliations changed as well: at first, both anglicans and dissenters contributed to the work, but following disputes over financial management and other issues, the dissenters withdrew in 1815; from that point forward, in the words of a report published that year, the society would be “conducted on the principles of the established church.” 10 scholars have studied many aspects of the work of the society, but not its sermons, the focus of this article. this is despite the fact that in recent decades, sermon studies has come into its own. 11 however, even in the renaissance of that field, almost no attention has been given to interfaith preaching, a source that sheds significant light on jewish-christian relations. as a point of entry into that conversation, this article will address three dimensions of the topic: sermons delivered by preachers speaking on the society’s behalf; those delivered by adler in an effort to keep the jewish community from succumbing to the conversionists’ influence; and pamphlets and books that, in turn, sought to challenge adler’s views and offer additional arguments in support of christian views. the society’s sermons to christian audiences the society’s sermons to christian audiences largely followed the prevailing conventions of the day in style and content. an introduction to the scripture text on which the discourse was based was followed by an exposition or explanation of that text, often divided into several main points, or “heads.” their concluding application suggested changes in belief or behavior that should take place in light of what the congregation had learned. little marked the sermons as specifically baptist, congregationalist, or anglican. their common goal was speaking on behalf of the society and they are all best described as “broadly evangelical.” 12 of interest here are matters of rhetoric rather than doctrine or theology; this article 10 gidney, history of the london society, 52. see also halsted, our missions, 18-21; martin, “united conversionist activities,” 444-50; smith, “london jews’ society,” 275-78. halsted’s appendix listing preachers reflects this change. 11 see robert h. ellison, “some reflections on the field of sermon studies,” the journal of religious history, literature and culture 1, no. 1 (2015): 32-41. recent major studies of christian and jewish preaching include the oxford handbook of the early modern sermon, ed. peter e. mccullough, hugh adlington, and emma rhatigan (oxford: oxford university press, 2011); the oxford handbook of the british sermon 1689-1901, ed. keith a. francis and william gibson (oxford: oxford university press, 2012); and marc saperstein, agony in the pulpit: jewish preaching in response to nazi persecution and mass murder: 1933-1945 (cincinnati, oh: hebrew union college press, 2018). 12 for a discussion of victorian homiletic theory, see robert h. ellison, the victorian pulpit: spoken and written sermons in nineteenth-century britain (selinsgrove: susquehanna university press, 1998), 18-32; “the tractarians' sermons and other speeches,” in a new history of the sermon: the nineteenth century, ed. robert h. ellison (leiden; boston: brill, 2010), 15-57. ellison: “to defend the citadel of its faith from all assaults” 4 will examine how the preachers crafted their messages for various audiences to increase our understanding of how the society attempted to achieve its goal of “promoting christianity amongst the jews.” preachers representing the society delivered sermons to christians on a range of occasions. its “flagship” discourses were the “anniversary sermons,” delivered during the annual meetings that took place each may. 13 there were no set topics or other required parameters; the 1817 “rules and regulations” simply stated that “two anniversary sermons shall be preached at such times and at such places of worship, connected with the church of england, as the committee may think proper.” 14 topics were drawn from both old testament messianic texts and new testament missions-related verses. romans was by far the most popular source, with significant numbers of sermons drawn from isaiah and luke as well. these passages are a mix of the more and less predictable. as we might expect, most of the sermons on luke come from chapter 2, where we read proclamations from the angels and simeon that the infant jesus is “a savior,” a “light for revelation to the gentiles, and for glory to your people israel” (luke 2:11, 32). similarly, the discourses on romans focus largely on chapters 10 and 11, where paul expresses his “heart’s desire…that [the jews] may be saved” and prophesies that “all israel” will in fact “be saved” after “the fullness of the gentiles has come in” (romans 10:1; 11:25-26). the sermons on isaiah, however, do not address well known passages such as 7:14—“behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name immanuel”—and 53:5—“but he was wounded for our transgressions…and with his stripes we are healed.” instead, verses discussed in the anniversary sermons include 40:1-2—“comfort ye, comfort ye my people…”—and 64:1-4—“…men have not heard…what [god] hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.” whatever the text under consideration might have been, a notable feature of these sermons is the extent to which they present the society as the fulfillment of god's prophetic plan. in his 1819 anniversary sermon, the staffordshire rector edward cooper stated that “the conversion of the jews to christianity,” as envisioned by paul in romans 11 and elsewhere, was “the avowed, and exclusive object pursued by the society.” 15 thomas tattershall, a priest from liverpool, said much the same thing in 1839, stating that god wants to restore his “blessings” to the jews and that the society exists “for the express purpose of furthering…this part of the will of the most high.” 16 several who preached in the intervening years suggested that the society was succeeding in its purpose. in 1814, henry ryder, dean of well’s cathedral in 13 halsted, our missions, appendix b, 11-13 lists the anniversary sermons and preachers from 18091858. 14 the ninth report of the committee of the london society for promoting christianity amongst the jews, read at the general meeting, may 9, 1817 (london: a macintosh, 1817), viii. 15 “eleventh anniversary sermon by the rev. e. cooper,” in the eleventh report of the london society for promoting christianity amongst the jews… (london: a. macintosh, 1819), 7. 16 thomas tattershall, a sermon preached at the episcopal jews' chapel… (london: a. macintosh, 1839), 7. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) somerset, 17 preached an anniversary sermon applying luke 24:34, “father, forgive them; for they know not what they do,” to the jews as well as to the roman soldiers, stating that “they were the men who forced pilate…against his will to consent to the execution” and that they took upon themselves “an exclusive share in the deed” when they declared “his blood be on us, and on our children.” he goes on to say that jesus is still interceding for “the modern jew,” but he “cannot be reached without a distinct establishment expressly appropriated and suited to his case.” the society, naturally, is just such an organization, and it is “under [its] auspices” that the jews will find employment, have access to “useful and religious education,” and—most importantly—“be converted and brought to a saving knowledge of the truth.” 18 in their sermons on isaiah, george stanley faber and thomas t. thomason took much the same approach. in 1822, faber, rector of long newton in county durham, 19 preached an anniversary sermon on isaiah 60:1-5. in faber’s view, the conclusion of this passage— “thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the gentiles shall come unto thee”—refers to events that will take place very close to the end of the age: the jews will be converted to christianity en masse, and will bring “the great unreclaimed mass of the gentiles…into the church” with them. a logical question to ask, then, is when will this time come? faber acknowledges that while “no man can be absolutely certain as to the exact year,” we can “safely pronounce the conversion and restoration of the jews to be near at hand.” this can be seen, he suggests, in increased missionary work among the christians and a corresponding “intense curiosity” about spiritual matters among the jews. faber gives the society a good deal of credit for these developments, asserting that the “very existence” of an organization “whose special object is to evangelize the house of judah in every quarter of the globe” is one sign that “that the hand of god is now specially stretched forth upon the earth.” 20 thomason, chaplain of the east india company and the anniversary preacher for 1828, made his focus on the society explicit from the start, stating that the organization “whose object we are now assembled to promote…completes the circle of missionary exertions, which so honourably distinguishes the present age.” he offers even higher praise a few pages later, asserting that if one were to compare “the present state of the christian world, with what it was before the formation of this society…we have abundant cause to thank god and take courage” that their labors would continue to bear fruit. those efforts will succeed, he says, because “they are paving the way for the accomplishment of prophecy.” his 17 see mark smith, “ryder, henry (1777–1836), bishop of lichfield and coventry.” odnb (september 23, 2004), on line, retrieved september 9, 2018. 18 henry ryder, a sermon preached at the parish church of st. bride’s… (london: b. r. goakman, n.d.), 4, 9-10, 11, 22. 19 see g. c. boase, “faber, george stanley (1773–1854), church of england clergyman and religious writer.” odnb (september 23, 2004), on line, retrieved september 9, 2018. 20 george stanley faber, the conversion of the jews to the faith of christ… (london: hatchard, ogle, duncan, & co, 1822), 26, 31, 47, 49. ellison: “to defend the citadel of its faith from all assaults” 6 text for the sermon, isaiah 30:18, includes the prophecy, “ …blessed are all they that wait for him.” this “they,” he says, refers not only—and perhaps not even primarily—to the people of israel, but rather to christians, and specifically to the members of the society, who are, he says, “workers together with god.” consequently, their work is bound to thrive; faber and thomason respectively end their sermons with the promises that “god, even our own god, shall give us his blessing” and that “in god’s own good time, your labour shall not be in vain.” 21 one of the lengthiest discussions of the society’s work appears in the 1847 anniversary sermon preached by william dalton, a priest in the west midlands town of wolverhampton. dalton explicitly divides his discourse into “a brief exposition of my text,” to be followed by the “actual appeal in behalf of [the] society.” the exposition is not noticeably different than those found in other anniversary sermons in its interpreting its text, here daniel 12:1-3, to motivate the assembled to strive for “the conversion of the jewish people to the saving knowledge of the great and gracious messiah.” 22 dalton’s appeal, however, is unusual, perhaps even unique. like faber and thomason, he commends the society’s missionaries for being “pre-eminently faithful in the declaration of the grace of god,” but he does not stop there. he goes on to discuss the society’s income, educational endeavors, numbers of missionaries and converts, and the presence it has established overseas, especially “in the city of david.” 23 this information is generally provided in the society’s annual reports; by including it here as well, dalton may, strictly speaking, be going beyond the parameters of a sermon, which traditionally focuses on the exposition and application of a scripture text. it may not, however, be an entirely inappropriate approach, as it gives supporters an additional means of being informed about the details of the society’s work. the society’s sermons to jewish audiences jewish and christian clergy in the nineteenth century addressed members of other faiths in various contexts, including friendly pulpit exchanges. 24 the society, though, wanted jews to come to them. one history noted that “courses of sermons to the jews” were preached in “the episcopal chapel, ely place, and other church of england places of worship in london, and also at bristol, chatham and sheerness.” 25 two venues were devoted exclusively to the society’s outreach to the jews. the jews’ chapel was established in 1809, in the spitalfields area of london. 21 thomas t. thomason, sermon preached at the parish church of st. paul, covent garden… (n.p., n.d.), 3, 5, 10, 23; faber, the conversion of the jews, 52. 22 william dalton, a sermon: preached at the parish church of the united parishes of christ church, newgate street… (london: b. wertheim, 1847), 6, 26. 23 dalton, a sermon, 29-35. 24 mirela saim, “the modern renewal of jewish homiletics and the occurrence of interfaith preaching,” in a new history of the sermon: the nineteenth century, ed. robert h. ellison (leiden; boston: brill, 2010), 457-88. 25 gidney, history of the london society, 39. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) each week, three different kinds of addresses were delivered there to jewish audiences: “a sermon…every sunday evening…a lecture on the epistle to the hebrews every wednesday evening, and an exhortation on friday.” 26 once a quarter, there would also be “demonstration lectures,” discourses intended to prove the “lord jesus christ to be the true messiah.” 27 the lectures were also published with the hope that they would be “extensively distributed among the jews” and become “a powerful instrument in the hands of god for extending the redeemer’s kingdom.” 28 in july 1814, the society opened the episcopal jews’ chapel in bethnal green to complement the jews’ chapel. while the target audience in spitalfields was jews who had not yet made the decision to convert, the chapel in bethnal green offered christian worship. in an anniversary sermon delivered in may 1813, shortly after the duke of kent laid the chapel’s foundation stone, francis randolph 29 set forth his—and presumably the society’s—vision for the chapel: i see a building erected unto holiness; a temple dedicated unto jehovah, in whose ritual, duties, and ordinances, the offering of judah and jerusalem shall be pleasant unto the lord; and wherein, hailing their true messiah…the jews shall follow the christians in transports of joy, and cry out, hosannah to the son of david…and where, both shall elevate their praises in one harmonious tone of rapturous gratitude, and sing, salvation to our god. 30 the sermons at bethnal green continued for many years: sermons to the jews were preached at least into the late 1830s; the last anniversary sermon delivered there took place in 1860. 31 the discourses at spitalfields, however, were somewhat short-lived, discontinued due to issues concerning ecclesiastical governance. frey, one of the early preachers there, proved either unable or unwilling to seek anglican ordination, and his association with it ended in 1816. 32 parish officials were also apparently unwilling to “license” the building itself, and in 1816 or 1817, steps were taken to “dispose of it” altogether. 33 there is not a great deal of evidence concerning how many jews were present at these services, or why they chose to attend. the society’s first two reports gave estimates of 50-100 and 200-500 people; after that, no numbers appear at 26 halsted, our missions, 33. 27 gidney, history of the london society, 39. 28 “origin of the london society,” the jewish repository, or monthly communications respecting the jews, and the proceedings of the london society 1 (1813): 149. 29 see g. le g. norgate, “randolph, francis (1752–1831), church of england clergyman.” odnb (september 23, 2004), on line, retrieved september 9, 2018. 30 francis randolph, a sermon preached at st. clement danes, strand... (london: b. r. goakman, 1813), 28-29. 31 edward bickersteth, the way of christ prepared... second edition, (london: j. duncan, 1838); gidney, history of the london society, 327. 32 gidney, history of the london society, 57; frey, narrative, 168-69. 33 ninth report, 21-22. ellison: “to defend the citadel of its faith from all assaults” 8 all, replaced by “well attended,” “a considerable number,” “a respectable congregation,” and other less than precise words. 34 the statements preserved concerning motive come from the society and its critics, not from the attendees themselves, and thus may need to be viewed with caution. the society, for example, asserted that the lectures and sermons stirred spiritual “interest” and “inquiry” in the jews, suggesting that such interest was also what first drew them to attend. 35 many critics, on the other hand, maintained that the society appealed to jewish self-interest rather than their souls. bribery is often listed among the unjust practices the society allegedly employed to achieve various goals, 36 including increased attendance at chapel services. 37 both, of course, may be true. whatever the exact numbers and motivations, sermons were preached with jews present. most of the sermons were either never published or have been lost; the ones we do have allow us to infer how society preachers addressed both converted and unconverted jews. the ways in which the preachers speak both to and about their jewish audiences are key features of these texts. andrew fuller 38 began his november 19, 1809 spitalfields sermon by acknowledging that he had “some peculiar feelings on account of the audience, part of which, i am given to understand are of the house of israel.” he speaks kindly about the jews at the beginning of the sermon, noting the spiritual “debt we owe to that distinguished people”; addresses them directly throughout; and makes an earnest appeal to them at the end, declaring “o! ye children of israel, our hearts [sic] desire and prayer to god for you, is, that you may be saved.” 39 the following year, also at spitalfields, john ryland 40 likewise acknowledged that he was preaching to “both you that believe in jesus, and you of the seed of abraham”; two-thirds of the way through the sermon, he states, “let me earnestly entreat the candid attention of the descendants of abraham.” he sometimes speaks in the third person, with phrases such as “i request the jews also to consider,” but these statements are outweighed by direct address. he declares that “all true christians long for your salvation” and says “i urge you to enquire, how can you hope for the pardon of sin, who do not look for a suffering messiah, to 34 extracts from the society’s annual reports are given in frey, narrative, 158, 59, 60, 73, 204. 35 frey, narrative, 165; halsted, our missions, 35. 36 “a daughter of israel,” letter to mr. frey of the soi-disant jews’-chapel, spitalfields… (london: l. alexander, 1810), 4; “the liverpool meeting of conversionists,” the jewish chronicle and hebrew observer (december 30, 1864): 4; norris, the origin,… of the london society, 451; solomon, an exposure of hypocrisy and bigotry, 27; “the conversionists again,” the voice of jacob (march 17, 1843): 131; “doings of the conversionists,” the voice of jacob (august 18, 1843): 219; s. hoga, “the faithful missionary,” the jewish chronicle (august 20, 1847): 228. 37 harvey w. meirovich, “ashkenazic reactions to the conversionists, 1800-1850,” transactions & miscellanies (jewish historical society of england) 26 (1974): 7; “a peep into the missionary efforts,” the jewish chronicle (october 27, 1854): 86. 38 see e. f. clipsham, “fuller, andrew (1754–1815), baptist minister and theologian.” odnb (september 23, 2004), on line, retrieved october 20, 2018. 39 andrew fuller, jesus the true messiah… (london: black, parry, and kingsbury, 1810), 3, 31. 40 see e. f. clipsham, “ryland, john (1753–1825), baptist minister and theologian.” odnb (september 23, 2004), on line, retrieved october 20, 2018. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) make real and lasting atonement?” he concludes with a mention of both groups, anticipating the day that “millions of redeemed jews, millions of saved gentiles, shall then unite in the everlasting song, ‘worthy is the lamb that was slain…’” 41 similarly, in an 1837 sermon preached in the episcopal jews’ chapel, edward bickersteth 42 said that he wanted to address the jews in his audience with the same “plainness” and “spirit of love” with which he spoke to christians. he warns them of the danger of such sins as “self-righteousness,” “covetousness,” observing the “traditions of men,” and especially “unbelief in the son of god.” in each case, he discusses the sin from the perspective of the hebrew scriptures, and appeals to them to set aside the “stumbling-blocks” that are keeping them away from god. he ends by focusing not on the consequences of leaving the blocks in place, but rather on the “blessed fruits of their removal.” once they are gone, he says, they will be replaced by “revival and healing,” “comfort and peace,” and “gladness and glory.” his final appeal is that both “jews and christians” will “shine forth over all the earth.” 43 thomas raffles 44 took a rather different tone. the published version of the claims of jesus of nazareth examined, a sermon he preached in the spitalfields chapel on august 19, 1810, contains something of a disclaimer or “content advisory.” “if any jew,” he wrote: casting his eye over this sermon, should deem some of the expressions contained in it too severe, the author entreats that he will not regard language (which, however true, had he written under less powerful impressions, might have been more mild) as at all affecting the general argument; but only dwell upon that which, in the estimation of every candid reader, would be regarded as cool and dispassionate reasoning. raffles had good reason to be concerned. he had no way of knowing, of course, whether jews would read his printed text, but he was well aware that “children of israel” were in the spitalfields chapel that day. his tone is the antithesis of fuller’s and bickersteth’s. when he speaks to the christians in the audience about the jews, he speaks of their “deplorable state of degradation and guilt.” when he addresses jews directly, he says they are “miserable and degraded”; accuses them of “licentiousness,” pride,” “prejudice” and “malignity”; and states that anyone who “refuses to believe, forfeits his rank in the creation of god, and is no longer worthy the name of a rational and intelligent being.” most of his exposition of luke 7:19, in which john the baptist’s disciples ask “art thou he that should come, or look we for another?,” is deliberate, methodical, and logical, but 41 john ryland, eight characteristics of the messiah… (london: b. r. goakman, n.d.), 4, 20, 21, 23, 25, 30. 42 see john wolffe, “bickersteth, edward (1786–1850), church of england clergyman and evangelical leader.” odnb (september 23, 2004), on line, retrieved october 20, 2018. 43 bickersteth, the way of christ prepared, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. 44 see alexander gordon, “raffles, thomas (1788–1863), congregational minister.” odnb (september 23, 2004), on line, retrieved october 20, 2018. ellison: “to defend the citadel of its faith from all assaults” 10 language such as this is anything but “cool and dispassionate.” it would most likely have worked against his purpose, calling into question his earnestness and compassion for the jews and actually reducing the likelihood that they would respond to his appeal to “turn and seek the lord your god.” 45 we have no evidence for language of this sort in ryland, fuller and bickersteth’s preaching in the same context. adler’s course of sermons adler’s attitude toward the society and its sermons was consistent with some of his contemporaries. in mid-century, david woolf marks 46 responded to conversionary pressures in sermons entitled “conduct without principle” (october 31, 1846) and “on the doctrine of the advent of messiah” (may 1, 1858). he was not in favor, he wrote, of using the pulpit to “attack the religion of a brother man,” or of raising issues that were likely to “encounter considerable prejudice and opposition.” if, however, “genuine principles of religion are concerned…nothing ought to restrain us from adopting and defending them.” when jewish preachers challenge or refute the “conversionists” from the pulpit, they are not “indulging the remotest idea of propagandism”; rather, they are “discharging [their] imperative duty” to uphold the doctrines that have been “revealed by god” and warn their people against embracing those that have been “merely…inferred by mortal man.” 47 simeon singer 48 expressed a similar view in a 1901 sermon delivered in the new west end synagogue. he notes that “tolerance is a vital part of the jewish character and teaching,” probably as a result of the “centuries of oppression and persecution” that the jews had had to endure. consequently, he asserts that there is seldom any “moral victory” to be gained by “crushing” people, or “by forcing them to any outward or verbal acceptance of your views, however precious they may be to you.” 49 this echoes the 1885 words of the rev. j. polack of the prince’s road synagogue in liverpool, who made an important distinction between the messenger and the message: while it is imperative that no harsh thought should dwell in our minds and no offensive word escape our lips in regard to persons, i deem it absolutely es 45 thomas raffles, the claims of jesus of nazareth examined… (london: b. r. goakman, 1811), 4, 8, 12, 28, 31, 32. 46 see m. epstein, “marks, david woolf (1811–1909), rabbi and hebrew scholar.” odnb (september 23, 2004), on line, retrieved october 20, 2018. 47 david woolf marks, sermons preached on various occasions, at the west london synagogue of british jews (london: r. groombridge and sons, 1851), 59; marks, sermons preached on various occasions at the west london synagogue of british jews, (london: trübner, 1885), 67-68. 48 see “singer, simeon (1848–1906), rabbi.” odnb (september 23, 2004), on line, retrieved october 20, 2018. 49 simeon singer, the literary remains of the rev. simeon singer: sermons (london: g. routledge, 1908), 236, 239. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) sential…that principles which we reject should be frankly considered, and their inconclusive and irrational character, if necessary, clearly established. 50 adler strikes much the same tone in a course of sermons. he begins the first address by reminding his audience that “judaism is not a proselytizing faith,” that it “seeks neither to make converts nor to attack other creeds, believing as it does that ‘the sincere and virtuous professors of every religion may hope to enjoy future bliss’.” he does, however, reserve the right to respond when threatened or attacked, to “defend the citadel of its faith from all assaults” and to not “allow one single member of [his] flock to stray from the fold.” 51 adler’s defensive strategy, as outlined in his fourth sermon, can be summed up in two words: text and context. to determine the proper meaning of a “disputed” verse, interpreters must set aside “the anglican version,” whose authors, he says, “were swayed by dogmatic preconceptions.” they should instead use “a translation, composed by a scholar, thoroughly versed in the hebrew tongue,” or—even better—consult “the original” language. they must also look past “the passage as it stands by itself” and consider the surrounding material as well. in so doing, they “will find, that all the superstructure which had been erected upon it…will shake from its foundation, and crumble into dust.” 52 in the same sermon, adler acknowledges that he cannot “consider all the passages of scripture which are brought forward by christian theologians in support of their dogmas.” 53 his discussions are nonetheless wide-ranging: numbers, deuteronomy, hosea, micah, zechariah, and ecclesiastes all receive at least some mention, with isaiah and daniel gaining perhaps the most attention. he begins with isaiah 7:14, “behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” “virgin,” he asserts, is a mistranslation; the hebrew word almah “simply denotes a young woman, one who is either marriageable or already married.” the context is significant as well, as isaiah’s mission in this passage is to reassure ahaz, king of judah, that the attacks being waged on him by the kings of syria and israel would not succeed. properly interpreted, then, the word translated “virgin” is not a prophecy of mary, but rather a reference to “the young wife of the prophet himself.” in adler’s view, it was she who would “bear a son, whom she was to call immanuel, this name being intended to indicate the protection which the lord would grant the nation.” 54 he then applies his two-part exegesis to isaiah 9:6-7—“for unto us a child is born…”—and isaiah 52-53’s “suffering servant” passages. he asserts that christian interpretations of these texts are based on mistranslations: “mighty god,” for 50 j. polack, “the unity of god,” the jewish pulpit 9 (1885): 104. 51 adler, course of sermons, 1. compare his june 29, 1895 sermon, “jew and gentile,” and his june 23, 1891, “the ideal jewish pastor,” preached at his installation as chief rabbi (in anglo-jewish memories and other sermons [london: george routledge and sons, 1909], 80-94, 279-88). he does not allude to the society or other christian missionaries, but acting as a “defender of the faith” would be one of the defining characteristics of his tenure as chief rabbi. 52 adler, course of sermons, 49. 53 adler, course of sermons, 48. 54 adler, course of sermons, 16-19. ellison: “to defend the citadel of its faith from all assaults” 12 example, should instead be rendered “mighty hero”—a human reference, not a divine one—and that the pronoun in 53:8 is plural rather than singular, reading “for the transgression of my people were they stricken,” so the verse cannot be taken as a prophecy of christ. 55 a study of the context will then reveal the proper identity of the hero and the people who were stricken. the verses before and after isaiah 9:6 “speak distinctly of the campaign which the king of assyria, sennacherib, is about to undertake against jerusalem.” “deliverance” from these attacks would come during the reign of hezekiah, “the future king of judah.” in addition to being a “mighty hero,” hezekiah would be “a perpetual, constant father,” the “devoted benefactor of his people,” and a “prince of peace” under whose rule judah would enjoy a time of “tranquillity.” adler says this latter designation is especially unsuited to jesus, who said he “came not to send peace, but a sword.” applying it to hezekiah, however, would be consistent not only with the interpretations set forth by “our most ancient and valued commentators,” but also with what he believes is the “unanimous” position of christian grammarians like wilhelm gesenius (17861842). 56 adler holds that inaccurate readings of isaiah 52 and 53 began with the gospel writers themselves, who crafted their work “in such manner as to tally with the prophecies” presented there. to use “a homely but expressive simile,” he says, “the foot was cut so as to fit the shoe.” a proper interpretation reads these texts not in isolation, or as part of a preconceived agenda, but rather as part of isaiah’s discussion of israel’s captivity beginning in chapter forty. these chapters are indeed prophetic, but they speak of a nation, not an individual. adler understands israel to be the “servant of the lord”; the people’s “sufferings and degradation were necessary for the accomplishment of his mission,” but their “glorious exaltation in the latter days” will draw “the nations of the world…to put their faith in the one and only god.” 57 adler begins his discussion of daniel in sermon vii and devotes all of sermon viii to the eschatological vision at the end of chapter 9. he says that it has received more attention, by both jewish and christian commentators, than virtually any other passage. his task, then, is to sort through the “mass of interpretation which these few verses have called forth” and “treat the subject in as simple manner as possible.” here too he seeks the most accurate meaning of key words and phrases, placing them in their proper historical context. the terms “most holy” in verse 24 and “prince” in verse 25, for example, always refer to “part of the temple” and a person “invested with temporal authority”; they, therefore, cannot “apply to the nazarene.” 58 55 adler, course of sermons, 23, 30. 56 adler, course of sermons, 21, 24, 25; executive committee of the editorial board and joseph jacobs, “gesenius, heinrich friedrich wilhelm,” http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6636gesenius-heinrich-friedrich-wilhelm. 57 adler, course of sermons, 27, 31. 58 adler, course of sermons, 104, 105, 117. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6636-gesenius-heinrich-friedrich-wilhelm http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6636-gesenius-heinrich-friedrich-wilhelm 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) adler argues that the christian views of daniel’s entire timeline—70 weeks, divided into periods of 7, 62, and 1, with the final week itself broken into two parts—are similarly untenable. the “various hypotheses” they have constructed are, he says, grounded in historical inaccuracies and misunderstandings of hebrew grammar, and there is no satisfactory way “to make chronology tally with their explanation of the prophecy.” all the difficulties can be resolved, however, by reading the passage through a jewish lens. adler proposes that it “most probably…refers to the persecutions and oppressions which israel was destined to endure at the hands of the cruel and fanatic antiochus epiphanes.” its purpose, then, was to “encourage the jews to remain faithful to their god” and to assure them that there would eventually come a time when “their sufferings would be at an end, their iniquity pardoned, the piety and righteousness of old re-established, and the holy of holies again anointed.” this time did in fact come, but not with the birth and death of jesus of nazareth. rather, the prophecy was fulfilled “in the renewed dedication of the temple by judas maccabeus, and the reestablishment shortly afterwards of the independence of israel.” adler concedes that, “owing to our uncertain comprehension of biblical chronology, absolute numerical precision seems almost unattainable,” but he remains convinced that this interpretation is much more accurate than any christian view. 59 it is important to note these sermons are not direct responses to sermons preached on behalf of the society. adler seldom discusses precisely the same passages addressed in those sermons, he makes no allusions to the society after the first few pages of the volume, and while he often mentions “christian theologians” and “christian expositors,” he does not refer to any contemporary figures by name. the closest we have to an actual point-counterpoint is a “demonstration sermon” preached by an s. newton in the jews’ chapel on august 30, 1812 60 and sermon vi in adler’s volume, delivered on june 6, 1868. adler does not explicitly refer to newton, but fruitful comparisons can nonetheless be made, as both take psalm 110 as their primary scripture texts, and both were preached to jews. early in his sermon, newton suggests that jews and gentiles would agree that “a reference to the psalms, is a reference to decisive authority, and that whatever was really written in the 110 th psalm is true and ought to be believed.” 61 i suspect adler would concur, and that may very well be their only point of common ground, for the two preachers expressed very different views on what was “really written” there. the disagreements begin with the very title of the psalm. newton calls it “a psalm of david, a title which, for the most part, remains undisputed.” 62 adler, however, disputes it, asserting that it “most probably…does not signify a psalm of 59 adler, course of sermons, 110, 14, 20. 60 s. newton, “the eleventh demonstration sermon…,” the jewish repository, or monthly communications respecting the jews, and the proceedings of the london society 1 (1813): 15-18, 52-57, 9094. 61 newton, “eleventh,” 16. 62 newton, “eleventh,” 16. ellison: “to defend the citadel of its faith from all assaults” 14 david, but for (concerning) david.” 63 the italicized words are short but crucial, as the reading adopted here will drive the interpretation of the entire psalm. if david is taken to be the author, then the psalm can be viewed as messianic; if he is the object, then it is concerned with his own times. this is precisely the difference we see in these two sermons. to newton, for example, both uses of the word “lord” in verse 1—“the lord said unto my lord…”—signify the divine, the former referring to jehovah, the latter to the “lord of david.” 64 adler, on the other hand, takes the second instance as “my master,” a word that “simply denotes superiority.” 65 newton goes on to argue that the other “truths contained in the text…are applicable only to jesus christ,” 66 a claim that adler regards as easily falsifiable. jesus, he says, could not be “a priest forever after the order of melchizedek” because he never performed the priestly duties of “perform[ing] divine service and offer[ing] sacrifices,” nor could he be the warrior mentioned in the final verses, because “no record…exists of battles which the nazarene fought.” in short, what newton frequently refers to as the “plain” reading of the text is not self-evident to adler at all. the traditional christian exegesis, he says, is rife with “absurdities and errors”; only focusing on david rather than on jesus will result in “a satisfactory explanation of the psalm” and “sweep away the dogmatic cobwebs with which [it] has been covered in the process of ages.” 67 responses to adler a course of sermons received several reviews, published in both jewish and christian periodicals; according to the jewish chronicle, the volume “achieved the remarkable success of attracting to itself a whole page in the british museum catalogue wherein to describe the various replies it evoked.” 68 one such notice could be described as a nonpartisan move: the jewish chronicle for december 2, 1870 printed an excerpt from a review in a newspaper called the north wilts herald, which was likely published in wiltshire, a county bordering berkshire, oxfordshire, and other regions of southwest england. the reviewer was evidently a christian, writing that “we do not, and cannot, take our stand side by side with dr. adler—for to do so would be apostacy from our lord.” he nevertheless commended adler for his “scholarship and general ability,” and recommended— albeit “upon the principle of learning from an enemy”—the “perusal of this carefully prepared and measured statement of differences between jews and christians, as set forth by a pious and enlightened authority in the synagogue.” 69 63 adler, course of sermons, 83. 64 newton, “eleventh,” 17. 65 adler, course of sermons, 80. 66 newton, “eleventh,” 16. 67 adler, course of sermons, 79, 81, 82, 89. 68 “the new chief rabbi,” the jewish chronicle (june 5, 1891): 11. 69 “the rev. dr. h. adler's sermons,” the jewish chronicle (december 2, 1870): 7. 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) most of the other reviews, however, fell along largely sectarian lines. an 1869 piece by one of the jewish chronicle’s own reviewers, for example, commended adler for his “courage and good sense,” the “sharp conciseness in his style,” and his ability to combine “the fervor of a preacher with cool acumen worthy of a lawyer.” the sermons address an issue which “seems hitherto not to have received, in this country at least, the full consideration which is its due,” leading the reviewer to praise them as “a valuable addition to anglo-jewish literature.” 70 positive comments appeared in the chronicle as late as 1921, over fifty years after the publication of the sermons. an article entitled “the new testament in synagogue classes” includes a letter in which j. h. hertz, who succeeded adler as chief rabbi, lauded his predecessor for publishing an “altogether admirable” and even “priceless” book. 71 one review from a christian perspective came from the society itself, in the form of a “reply” published in the jewish intelligence. the reply is divided into two parts, each one addressing what the reviewer, one rev. w. ayerst, saw as one of adler’s major errors. in the first, published on february 1, 1870, ayerst focuses on the trinity, accusing adler of ignoring the many passages in the old testament “which shew so clearly that the jews of old believed in a ‘plurality in the unity of the godhead’.” the following month, he wrote on the atonement, which adler had called a “repugnant” and “monstrous” idea. he asserts that it is rather “in exact accordance with the law of moses,” and that “ancient orthodox doctrine” attests to the coming of “a suffering as well as a glorious messiah.” ayerst’s entire rebuttal, in fact, rests not on adler’s disagreements with christian teaching, but on what he sees as his rejection of his own faith. as he puts it at the very beginning of his reply, “if dr. adler is right, the ancient fathers of that church [i.e. judaism] erred grievously; if they were right, dr. adler is greatly in the wrong.” 72 people not associated with the society reviewed adler’s book as well. one appraisal appeared on june 1, 1869 in the scattered nation, a short-lived periodical founded and edited by carl schwartz, a jewish convert to christianity. the reviewer described the sermons as “well-written but very superficial” works, that failed to present “one single new objection.” they might, he suggested, even work against adler’s purpose by spurring “a spirit of inquiry among the jews,” which would do “the cause of christ a very great service.” 73 an even less charitable assessment appeared the following year in the british quarterly review, a well-established publication addressed to evangelical and nonconformist readers. the writer acknowledged that it was “right that he should confirm and establish his flock in their ancient faith” but criticized his methods of doing so, accusing him of unfairly framing “the arguments of his opponents with 70 review of a course of sermons, by h. adler, the jewish chronicle (july 2, 1869): 9. 71 “new testament in synagogue classes. the chief rabbi's explanation,” the jewish chronicle (november 25, 1921): 15. 72 w. ayerst, “the christianity of the old testament. being a reply to ‘twelve sermons’ by dr. hermann adler,” jewish intelligence… 36 (1870): 31, 33, 49, 56. 73 review of a course of sermons, by hermann adler, ph.d., the scattered nation 4 (1869): 151. ellison: “to defend the citadel of its faith from all assaults” 16 a direct view to the convenience of knocking them down again.” adler’s arguments, the reviewer asserted, were so “feeble” and unoriginal that it would be a great surprise “if this work should seriously disturb any christian, or contribute much to the establishment of his own congregation in the faith of their fathers.” 74 the sermons elicited several pamphletand book-length responses as well. in 1879, ten years after adler published his collection, the scottish minister paton james gloag 75 used the pulpit of blythswood church in glasgow to deliver the baird lectures, an annual event endowed in 1873 for “the illustration and defence of the vital truths” of christianity and “for the exposure and refutation of all error and unbelief.” 76 in a supplement included with the published texts, gloag called adler’s work “a valuable series of discourses” by a “distinguished jewish minister” and noted that they “will be frequently adverted to in these lectures.” 77 “frequent,” however, may be an overstatement, as he mentions adler fewer than twenty times in 366 pages, usually without detailed discussion, and mostly only in this supplement, not in the lectures themselves. the volume then, can hardly qualify as a close examination of adler’s work. other publications, however, focused exclusively on adler. the anonymous 1870 on some points of dispute between jews and christians takes up each of his sermons in turn, giving detailed attention to the first two but petering out towards the end. like ayerst, the reviewer asserts that “the plural meaning of elohim…was acknowledged by the jewish fathers” and that the “principle of vicariousness can be found in the fifty-third chapter of isaiah” and states that any jew who denies the messianic significance of isaiah 7:14—“the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son”—“rejects the highest meaning of his own scriptures.” he goes beyond ayerst, however, to appeal to passages from the christian scriptures as well. he notes, for example, that matthew 1:22-23 speaks of jesus’ birth as the fulfillment of isaiah’s prophecy, attempts to show that “an argument, with reference to the messiahship of jesus” can be “constructed from his own statements,” and maintains that the whole of the new testament affirms vicariousness. “from the exclamation of john the baptist,” he writes, “to the last chapter of the revelation,…the sufferer is the divine son, and the atonement is 74 review of a course of sermons preached in bayswater synagogueand an examination of twelve sermons by dr. adler, british quarterly review 52 (1870): 257-58. the reviewers’ assertions that adler was more derivative than innovative may not be entirely without merit. just as the society preachers offered fairly conventional interpretations and applications of their scripture texts, adler’s refutation of their arguments is grounded in a long history of jewish thought. some of the statements he makes in a course of sermons, for example, are virtually identical to those found in works such as the nizzahon vetus, “a virtual anthology of ashkenazic polemic in the twelfth and and thirteenth centuries” (david berger, the jewish-christian debate in the high middle ages [philadelphia: the jewish publication society of america, 1979], 17). for a discussion of the texts to which adler refers, see berger’s translation and commentary on pp. 102-05, 114-16, 132, 160-65, 277-78, 282-83, 290, 307-09. 75 see james lachlan macleod, “gloag, paton james (1823-1906, church of scotland minister and theologian.” odnb (september 23, 2004), on line, retrieved october 20, 2018. 76 james baird, “the baird trust”: deed of trust (glasgow: the university press, 1873), 11. 77 paton j. gloag, the messianic prophecies (edinburgh: t. & t. clark, 1879), 38. 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) made by god himself.” 78 for both reviewers, pointing out the flaws in adler’s sermons is not an end in itself, but a means to a spiritual goal: ayerst hopes that his readers, like the psalmist, will ask god to help them see “wondrous things out of [his] law”; the author of some points concludes with an appeal to “investigate [christianity’s] claims honestly, earnestly and patiently” and to “ponder the question, whether one who lived, and laboured, and taught, and died as jesus did, could have done so to propagate error and falsehood.” 79 two other pamphlets, also published in 1870, respond to adler’s explicit invitation to engage those who disagree with him, in his fourth sermon, he discusses deuteronomy 18:15, “the lord thy god will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him shall ye hearken.” he rejects the notion set forth by matthew henry, author of the wellknown exposition of the old and new testaments (1708-1710), that the verse is a messianic prophecy and “boldly [challenges] every professor of the christian faith to tell [him] where it is stated that the prophet, like unto moses, was to declare a new revelation.” 80 this statement is quoted in the anonymous analytical review of twelve sermons, a seventy-three page pamphlet which, like some points, examines each of adler’s discourses in turn. the title page makes distaste for adler evident from the start, stating that the sermons are “compounded of rabbinical orthodoxy and rationalistic aberration.” the attacks continue throughout the text itself, as the author accuses adler of “perversity,” insincerity, taking passages out of context, engaging in “groveling, tortuous misapplication” of the scriptures, and “loathingly strain[ing] at a ‘gnat’” while “swallow[ing] with perfect ease a ‘camel,’” the same condemnation jesus issues of the scribes and pharisees in matthew 23. 81 this combative tone shows the same “animus” that is attributed to adler on the title page; it also makes the word “analytical” somewhat ironic, as the author’s prevailing rhetorical strategy seems to be employing pathos rather than logos, making his case through inflammatory language rather than reasoned discourse. adler’s challenge is also taken up in the wonderful word “jah,” a reference to a “remarkable and mysterious name” for god that, according to its author edward poulson, 82 appears only “forty-nine times in the bible, twice in exodus, forty-three times in the psalms, and four times in isaiah.” poulson attempts to re 78 on some points in dispute between jews and christians… (london: longmans, green, reader, and dyer, 1870), 1, 20, 23, 44, 46. 79 ayerst, “the christianity of the old testament,” 57; on some points in dispute, 78. 80 adler, course of sermons, 50, 54. 81 analytical review of twelve sermons… (london: william macintosh, 1870), 15-16, 32, 48, 69. 82 thanks to susan hoyle, malcolm shifrin, and timothy stunt for responding to inquiries about poulson submitted to the victoria email list. he was apparently associated with the “strict,” or “strict and particular,” baptists, an evangelical group known for “restricting” the observance of communion to those who had been “baptised by immersion as believers,” and for teaching that salvation was available only to a “particular,” preordained group of people rather than the entire world (“who are the strict baptists?,” http://www.sbhs.org.uk/membership/strictbapt/). several other works, such as the crimes of atheism… (1886), similarly illustrate his penchant for engaging in religious discussion and debate. ellison: “to defend the citadel of its faith from all assaults” 18 fute adler by asserting that moses did in fact “declare a new revelation,” one that disclosed the triune nature of god. his evidence includes the plural nature of the world “elohim,” the idea that the phrase “the angel of the lord” refers to god in bodily form, and the view that the three men who appeared to abraham in genesis 18 “personified the triune jehovah.” he then extends his argument beyond the pentateuch, asserting that prophecies of the messiah and allusions to the trinity can also be found in such books as 1 kings, psalms, isaiah, daniel, and hosea. 83 a course of sermons was clearly the inspiration for this fifty-page pamphlet, but poulson can credibly claim, as he does on the same page where he accepts adler’s challenge, that his “motive in writing is not to address my remarks to any individual personally, but strictly to principles for the vindication of the truth of scripture.” his primary principle seems to be that interpretations should be derived from “the plain literal testimony of the law and the prophets.” without such testimony, especially as it attests to “the most holy trinity of three distinct…persons in one undivided jehovah,” the scriptures would, in poulson’s view, be reduced to “a mass of confused contradiction and heathen mythology.” 84 while allusions to adler are present throughout the text, literal exegesis is in fact the dominant concern. poulson’s position, like adler’s, is certainly open to debate, but it is developed rationally and in some detail, with none of the vitriol and ad hominem attacks that characterize the analytical review. many of these responses received reviews of their own. the author of a “literary notice” in the methodist london quarterly and holborn review called some points “an admirable answer to some of the salient points of attack” raised in adler’s sermons. 85 j. c. s. kroenig, identified in the byline as “curate of holy trinity, hull,” praised the analytical review in an 1872 article in the hebrew christian witness and prophetic news. he stated that the book “effectually disposed of” adler’s sermons and recommended it “to all interested in the question.” 86 several british periodicals and an american journal called the old testament student reviewed gloag’s book, 87 but the only one to treat it as a response to adler was a half-page notice in the july 15, 1879 issue of the jewish chronicle. the review is rather charitable, recognizing gloag as “an eminent and 83 edward poulson, the wonderful word "jah." …(london: houlston and sons, 1870), 6-8, 12-14, 20-22, 44-45. 84 poulson, the wonderful word "jah," 6. 85 review of on some points in dispute…, london quarterly and holborn review 33 (1870): 504. 86 j. c. s. kroenig, “what is christianity? introduction,” the hebrew christian witness and prophetic news 4, new series (1872): 50. 87 review of the messianic prophecies, by paton james gloag and the hebrew utopia, by walter f. adeney, british quarterly review 70, no. 140 (1879): 541-43; “the baird lecture for 1879, and ‘the hebrew utopia’,” the wesleyan-methodist magazine 4, sixth series (1880): 134-39; review of the messianic prophecies. being the baird lecture for 1879, by p.j. gloag, the united presbyterian magazine 23, new series (1879): 465-66; “messianic prophecy,” the old testament student 3, no. 6 (1884): 217-18. 19 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) scholarly scotch divine” and commending “the fair and dignified spirit…in which the volume is couched.” 88 according to this article, even adler himself had joined the ranks of the respondents, having “commenced a series of discourses at his synagogue, in which he defends the interpretations in his printed volume of sermons and gives the jewish explanation of the several other texts adduced by dr. gloag in support of christian evidence and christian doctrine.” 89 a discussion of these talks would have been an excellent way of bringing the conversation full circle, but it appears that they have not survived. conclusion in april 1927, someone identified only as a. lyons mentioned adler in a letter to the editor of the jewish chronicle. it appears that adler had tried to distance himself from a course of sermons, asking lyons not to remind him of his “youthful indiscretion.” when and why adler would have made such a statement is uncertain. lyons, however, clearly disagreed with this assessment, writing that it is “an admirable little work, now very scarce, and i am glad to possess a copy.” 90 adler’s book is no longer scarce, as it is now available to all via the hathitrust digital library and the internet archive. i would argue, moreover, that it was neither “youthful” nor “indiscreet.” adler, was, after all, nearly thirty years old when he delivered the sermons. by that time, he had earned a ph.d.; been the principal of jews’ college, a rabbinical seminary in london; and served as the minister of bayswater synagogue for five years. he had also gained a positive reputation in the jewish community. his “considerable talent and ability” had been recognized as early as 1859, the year in which he took “his degrees at the london university with great honour.” 91 a few years later, in 1863, the jewish chronicle and hebrew observer noted that the bombay gazette had hailed him as a man of “real and profound learning”; 92 several other articles and letters to the editor published before he delivered a course of sermons took note of the earnestness and eloquence of his preaching. 93 88 “the baird lecture for 1879,” the jewish chronicle (july 25, 1879): 13. 89 “the baird lecture for 1879,” 13. 90 a. lyons, “biblical ‘christological’ passages,” the jewish chronicle (april 1, 1927): 48. 91 “consecration of the new synagogue at swansea,” the jewish chronicle and hebrew observer (october 7, 1859): 5. 92 “refutation of colenso’s arguments,” the jewish chronicle and hebrew observer (march 27, 1863): 6. 93 “abstract of a sermon (delivered by mr. hermann adler, on the first day of new year, at the new synagogue),” the jewish chronicle and hebrew observer (september 28, 1860): 5; “sermon by dr. hermann adler,” the jewish chronicle and hebrew observer (october 3, 1862): 4; “birmingham.—special service,” the jewish chronicle and hebrew observer (november 7, 1862): 5; “the fire at monastir and the bayswater synagogue,” the jewish chronicle and hebrew observer (october 2, 1863): 6; “sermon at the free school,” the jewish chronicle and hebrew observer (april 13, 1866): 5; “jews’ college,” the jewish chronicle and hebrew observer (december 13, 1867): 5. ellison: “to defend the citadel of its faith from all assaults” 20 i also do not see a course of sermons as untoward or inappropriate in any way. he published the collection only after being asked to do so by “a great number of my own congregation, as well as by other members of the jewish community.” 94 as he notes in the preface, the sermons had been preached to defend the faith from outside attacks, especially those waged by the society; they are not offensive, either in the sense of “going on the offense” to win converts to judaism, or in the sense of “likely to offend” his hearers and readers. he does call out and seek to correct what he believes to be erroneous teaching by his christian counterparts, but he does so without the animosity and strident tone we see in some of his critics. the fact that he had critics shows that adler had positioned himself within an ongoing conversation taking place in the pulpit and the press. this conversation continues to be significant today; the intersection of jewish-christian relations and sermon studies—not just in victorian england, but in a range of locations and time periods—is a topic that can be more fully and fruitfully explored. 94 adler, course of sermons, iii. scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-3 jeremy cohen a historian in exile: solomon ibn verga, shevet yehudah, and the jewish-christian encounter (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2017), hardcover, viii + 248 pp. rebecca rist r.a.c.rist@reading.ac.uk university of reading, reading rg6 6ah, united kingdom this timely book explores crucial themes within the sixteenth-century shevet yehudah (the scepter of judah), a compilation of accounts of persecutions of the jews by the jewish writer solomon ibn verga and completed and edited by his son. each chapter, divided into sub-headings, examines a theme in the context of late medieval jewish-christian relations. chapters 1-5 draw on previous articles of jeremy cohen; the book contains three useful tables, endnotes and a bibliography. in chapter one, “religious debate and disputation,” cohen argues that shevet yehudah aims “to downplay the theological issues of the jewish-christian debate wherever possible” (p. 33). in chapter two, “tortosa,” he shows the work’s purpose is not to analyze doctrinal issues but to display character interaction in order to highlight that for judaism to survive, jews must be able to deal with a sophisticated non-jewish culture. it therefore “yields a picture reflecting ibn verga’s own interests and agenda far more than what actually transpired at the disputation in tortosa in 1413-14” (p. 62). in chapter three, “talmud and talmudists,” he argues the author 1 deliberately focused “on the impact of the talmud on the character and typical behaviors of the jews,” and was not just limited to refuting christian polemics (p. 65). further, he argues that the depiction of talmudists must be understood within a long tradition of christian criticism of halakhic scholars. cohen, in his fourth chapter “anti-jewish libels,” discusses the shevet yehudah’s avoidance of the theological underpinnings of various libels historically 1 throughout this review i will refer to the author in the singular, although i recognize that determining authorship is difficult and there may well have been more than one author. rist: cohen’s a historian in exile 2 aimed against jews, concentrating instead on the depictions of characters who critique the charges. he argues in chapter five, “martyrs and martyrdom,” that the author’s “interest in martyrdom is considerably less than among other historical writers of his generation” (p. 128). cohen also notes that although the author took liberties in representing fiction as history, he anchors his work in political and social realities. in chapter six, “conversos and conversion,” he examines differences in the portrayal of forced and voluntary converts, which he sees as grounded in the author’s own personal history. cohen then critically assesses the nature of the spanish “convivencia” (p. 147). in chapter seven, “the author and his work: purpose and structure,” cohen explores tensions between natural and supernatural causation and between theological doctrine and practical relativism in the work. he analyzes the work’s structure, focusing on its “interior signposts” and “exterior brackets” (pp. 16575) and the importance of chapter seven of the shevet yehudah to its overall meaning. he considers the work’s postmodern flavour, the author’s deliberate internalization of the viewpoint of a non-jewish “other,” and his yearning for a post-polemical age of mutual appreciation. he also looks to ibn verga’s context, including both the effect of early modern humanism on his thought and affinities to fifteenth-century writers profiat duran, isaac nathan, and don isaac abravanel, who shared his cultural background and experiences. cohen seeks answers to pertinent questions about the shevet yehudah and the author’s reasons for writing. he explores the tension between jewish theological doctrine and the author’s practical relativism. he convincingly argues that the author aimed to show the reason for the jews’ suffering throughout history and the complex nature of the opposition between judaism and christianity. he emphasizes the work’s importance in the wider context of perennial questions about jewish identity and the appropriateness of religious or racial categories. cohen provides sound insights into the author’s appreciation of religiouslygrounded antagonism and his attempts to improve jewish-christian relations. he demonstrates his desire to keep on the right side of christian rulers, along with his belief that secular powers such as kings and popes are agents of divine providence who often act better than other protagonists. he also shows that the author viewed attempts to convert jews futile since they will remain true to their faith. we are presented with a convincing picture of an author relatively uninterested in historical accuracy, conservative, idealistic, critical yet witty, and determined to remain jewish. his views can be difficult to determine since he appears to express his ideas through a mix of jewish and christian voices. another strength is the discussion of historiography. the works of distinguished scholars who have contributed to our understanding of shevet yehudah, such as neuman, dan, schlűter, funkenstein, baer, yassif, ben-shalom, lasker, schreckenberg, limor, yovel, bonfil, nirenberg, gross, katz, fram, and hacker, are all explored in relation to the book’s main themes. cohen draws important conclusions about shevet yehudah: its uniqueness; its ambiguity; its internal criticism; its practicality; its complex structure; its lack of theology; its association with not just sixteenthbut fifteenth-century jewish writ 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) ers; its aim “to entertain, edify, and delight” (p. 39); its message of hope over catastrophe; its view that judaism depends not on theological instruction “but resides in jews’ conditioned nature as jews” (p. 140); and its desire to understand jewish history rationally and empirically. three overriding elements give the work “programmatic unity” (p. 161): how to understand and react to christian hatred of jews, how to explain jewish suffering, and how to determine religious boundaries between these two communities. cohen skilfully engages the research of many of the distinguished scholars who have written about the work. he also breaks new ground. drawing on his earlier research on the hebrew crusade chronicles and ideas of jewish martyrdom, he argues that the stories of suffering contained in shevet yehudah similarly draw on the collective trauma of jewish communities. they are there in order to instruct and to empower contemporary jews to build a better future. cohen also draws on his earlier work on the friars, for example, when discussing the incendiary preaching of vincent ferrer (p. 36, p. 42, p. 58, pp. 61-2, p. 116). there are weaknesses, particularly when discussing the medieval papacy. the interpretation of the legislation of innocent iii (p. 20) lacks nuance. although it had the effect of oppressing jewish communities, the pope’s own correspondence reveals that it was not intended to cause jews physical harm. also potentially misleading is the statement that when a pope declared that the jews’ stubborn observance of the law demonstrated their love for god, not hate, “the pope strays from the traditional teachings of the church” (p. 26), since paulineaugustinian theology taught that, although the jews erred in not accepting the old testament, they were still the people of the old covenant. the book occasionally lacks focus (e.g., the section “the guardian of israel never sleeps” [pp. 103-16]), and sometimes gives the impression of having been hurriedly produced. a book of larger scope, which explored not just particular themes but the shevet yehudah as a whole would have been a valuable if enormous enterprise, and also would have resulted in a much longer book. nevertheless, jeremy cohen’s book is an important addition to the field of jewish-christian relations. i look forward to the publication of the complete text, solomon ibn verga, the scepter of judah, trans. yosef hayim yerushalmi, ed. jeremy cohen (in press). scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-3 samira k. mehta beyond chrismukkah: the christian-jewish interfaith family in the united states (chapel hill: university of north carolina press, 2018), paperback, xii + 260 pp. laura yares yareslau@msu.edu michigan state university, lansing, mi 48824 in recent decades sociologists of contemporary american judaism along with stakeholders in the american jewish community have been preoccupied by rising rates of jews who choose to marry non-jewishly identified partners. citing connections between two-religion families and declining levels of jewish religious practice and affiliation, critics have described interfaith marriage largely in terms of a problem to be solved. in july 2019, israeli education minister rafi peretz offered an extreme formulation of this critique by describing intermarriage as a “second holocaust,” a statement met with condemnation by many american jewish groups.1 that increasing numbers of american jews marry non-jewishly identified partners is, however, a demographic reality of american judaism. in 2015, the reconstructionist rabbinical college, the rabbinical training institute for the reconstructionist movement, controversially responded to this new demographic reality with the announcement that it would no longer ban entry to rabbinical students with a non-jewish partner. president deborah waxman stated that just as they expect their students to “model commitments to judaism in their communal, personal and family lives,” so they “witness jews with non-jewish partners demonstrating these commitments every day.”2 on the question of jewish interfaith 1 kadari-ovadia, shira, danielle ziri, and the associated press. “intermarriage among diaspora jews is ‘like a second holocaust’ israel’s education minister says.” haaretz, july 9, 2019. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-s-education-minister-says-intermarriage-is-like-a-secondholocaust-1.7486330. (accessed september 13, 2019). 2 markoe, lauren. “first rabbinical school to allow students with non-jewish partners.” washington post, september 30, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/first-rabbinical-schoolhttps://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-s-education-minister-says-intermarriage-is-like-a-second-holocaust-1.7486330 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-s-education-minister-says-intermarriage-is-like-a-second-holocaust-1.7486330 https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/first-rabbinical-school-to-allow-students-with-non-jewish-partners/2015/09/30/7e6b449e-67b7-11e5-bdb6-6861f4521205_story.html yares: samira k. mehta’s beyond chrismukkah 2 marriage, there is a discernable tension between the policy pronouncements and handwringing of academic and communal jewish leaders and the textured realities of interfaith lives as they are lived by jews and their non-jewish partners. in beyond chrismukkah, samira k. mehta addresses this tension directly, combining analysis of prescriptive materials from communal institutions, messages about interfaith marriage presented in popular culture, and the realities of interfaith lives. utilizing data garnered through archival research, seven years of oral history interviews, and ethnographic fieldwork, mehta analyzes the nuanced realities of couples, parents, and children who share jewish and christian heritages and traditions. while a number of other works have offered ethnographic treatments of american jewish interfaith marriages,3 mehta employs a broader framework to analyze accommodation strategies used by both jewish and christian partners. situated between cultural studies and ethnography, beyond chrismukkah focuses on the ways in which interfaith marriages have been described both in popular culture and by religious institutions. mehta traces the connections between institutional pronouncements and the processes of accommodation employed by interfaith families to negotiate family relationships, celebrate holidays, and raise children. she offers in her first chapter a broad analytical survey of 20th century prescriptive literature on interfaith partnerships produced by christian and jewish organizations and denominations, noticing the diverse cultural and ideological dynamics that have influenced the various positions espoused at institutional levels (such as feminism and concerns for jewish survival). in chapter two she analyzes depictions of christian-jewish interfaith families in popular culture between 19701980. mehta theorizes that this decade in particular saw the formulation of “key tropes” of interfaith marriages that have supplied durable images of married jews and christians, from the romanticized bridget loves bernie to the less hopeful stories of the way we were and annie hall (pp. 51-54). in chapter three she moves to the early decades of the twenty-first century, focusing on jewish moves towards more positive outreach to interfaith-families, particularly in the context of the reform movement and in the wake of its landmark 1983 decision to consider children of jewish fathers as fully jewish according to the movement’s interpretation of halakhah (jewish law). in the remaining chapters mehta presents ethnographic analyses of jewish-christian interfaith family lives. chapter four is particularly valuable, for mehta offers a nuanced portrait of interreligious, interracial, and multiethnic christian-jewish families that draws careful attention to barriers faced by to-allow-students-with-non-jewish-partners/2015/09/30/7e6b449e-67b7-11e5-bdb66861f4521205_story.html (accessed september 13, 2017) 3 laura limonic, kugel and frijoles: latino jews in the united states (detroit, michigan: wayne state university press, 2019). keren r. mcginity, still jewish: a history of women and intermarriage in america (new york: new york university press, 2019). keren r. mcginity, marrying out: jewish men, intermarriage & fatherhood (bloomington, indiana university press, 2014). jennifer a. thompson, jewish on their own terms: how intermarried couples are changing american judaism (new brunswick, new jersey, rutgers university press, 2014). https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/first-rabbinical-school-to-allow-students-with-non-jewish-partners/2015/09/30/7e6b449e-67b7-11e5-bdb6-6861f4521205_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/first-rabbinical-school-to-allow-students-with-non-jewish-partners/2015/09/30/7e6b449e-67b7-11e5-bdb6-6861f4521205_story.html 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) jews of color and multiethnic heritages in institutional jewish settings. chapter five focuses on the titular “chrismukkah” – the synthesis of hanukah and christmas during years when the jewish holiday coincides roughly with december 25. in this chapter, mehta considers the strategies employed by parents to explain and celebrate the dual religious heritages of their children. beyond chrismukkah offers a holistic presentation of christian and jewish interfaith partnerships that acknowledges the agency of both partners, as well as the popular cultural forces that shape their dual religious lives. the book as a whole is oriented toward the questions that jews and scholars of judaism have raised about interfaith partnerships, rather than those of their christian communal and academic counterparts. undoubtedly, the topic of interfaith marriage looms relatively larger on the jewish communal agenda, both because of halakhic prohibitions against marrying non-jews as well as twentieth-century concerns about jewish survival, especially in the wake of the holocaust. readers in search of data on christian interfaith partners may therefore find less material in this book than those with interests in jewish issues and partnerships. similarly, the book focuses on cultural rather than theological strategies of adaptation between interfaith couples, again, perhaps, reflecting the praxis-oriented dimensions of american judaism. by mehta’s own admission, the book also concentrates on cis-gendered heterosexual marriages and does not include data on non-marital partnerships and on transgender and lgbtq families. however, these issues of framing and audience by no means detract from the quality of the analysis and mehta’s contributions to the literature on the topic. beyond chrismukkah intertwines the stories of jews, christians, their children, and their families with historical data on the cultural production of images that have at once celebrated and denounced their unions. it offers a sympathetic and nuanced window into the pluralism of interfaith lives and appropriately foregrounds the voices of the partners in the analysis of the ethnographic material. beyond christmukkah would be a valuable addition to courses on american religion and its various pluralisms, as well as on contemporary judaism and christianity. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr peer-reviewed article praying the psalms and the challenges of christian–jewish relations: dietrich bonhoeffer and thomas merton jeremy worthen, south east institute for theological education dietrich bonhoeffer and thomas merton are two of the most enduringly influential figures from twentieth-century christianity, and their overlapping lives were bound up with what might be counted among its pivotal events. although merton came to appreciate bonhoeffer’s writings in his later years, they also represent very different traditions and contexts: bonhoeffer the academic theologian, lutheran pastor and participant in the german resistance; merton the catholic monk, passionate contemplative and voluminous spiritual writer. nonetheless, there are intriguing parallels and overlaps, and two of these provide the context for this article. first, both sought through their published writings to foster the renewal of praying the psalms as a central spiritual and liturgical practice for christian life, drawing on their own deep commitment to it. second, both engaged with emerging challenges in christian–jewish relations in ways that have subsequently been perceived as insightful and prophetic by some but also as ambivalent if not seriously flawed by others. the aim of the article is to explore how far their practice of praying the psalms may have shaped and been shaped by their involvement with issues in christian–jewish relations, with attention to significant differences as well as parallels. it is hoped that this might contribute to a fuller appreciation of the place of bonhoeffer and merton within the narrative of christian– jewish relations in the central decades of the twentieth century, while also illustrating the complex interaction between spirituality, ethics and hermeneutics in this area. studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) bonhoeffer on praying the psalms in 1939, bonhoeffer published life together, a summary of the teaching that had inspired his leadership of the community preparing for ordained ministry at finkenwalde, and which almost immediately became one of his most popular works. it includes a powerful exposition of the central place that “praying the psalms together” should have for any christian community. 1 bonhoeffer is aware that not all christians find this easy, but he is also firm in saying that the difficulty needs to be accepted and experienced. when people “try to repeat the psalms personally as their own prayer”, they inevitably experience frustration, but rather than giving up on praying the psalms or settling to say only the ones where they experience a comfortable fit, bonhoeffer argues that discomfort here is a critical sign, since the psalms we find it hard to pray “make us suspect that here someone else is praying, not we”—and that someone else “is none other than jesus christ himself. it is he who is praying here, and not only here, but in the whole psalter.” 2 he then proceeds to sketch out three vital points about prayer in the christian life that follow from this cardinal insight: “in the psalter we learn to pray on the basis of christ’s prayer;” “we learn from the prayer of the psalms what we should pray;” “the prayer of the psalms teaches us to pray as a community.” 3 a year later, in 1940, the last book to be published by bonhoeffer in his lifetime appeared: prayerbook of the bible. it reflected the same fundamental approach to the psalms as 1 dietrich bonhoeffer, life together; prayerbook of the bible, dietrich bonhoeffer works vol. 5, ed. geffrey b. kelly, trans. daniel w. bloesch and james h. burtness (minneapolis: fortress, 1996), 53. much of the substance of what he writes about the psalms in both the texts discussed in this section is sketched out in the earlier ‘lecture on christ in the psalms’ given at finkenwalde in 1935; see dietrich bonhoeffer, theological education at finkenwalde, 1935–1937, dietrich bonhoeffer works vol. 14, ed. h. gaylon barker and mark s. brocker, trans. douglas w. stott (minneapolis: fortress, 2013), 386–93. 2 bonhoeffer, life together, 53–54. 3 ibid., 54–58. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr life together in the context of a short overview of this biblical book, touching on more conventional matters of attribution, poetic form and classification. 4 in the section on classification, the longest in a brief text, bonhoeffer shows how to read each type of psalm prayerfully in relation to christ: as words to him, about him, spoken by him. we know that he was also starting to work on a detailed exposition of psalm 119, his “favorite psalm” and a task that he considered “the climax of this theological life.” 5 although he did not live to complete it, enough of it survives for us to see how far it continues the same trajectory sketched out in life together and prayerbook of the bible while also anticipating some of the themes that would be developed at greater length in his final writings. 6 isolated in his prison cell from the christian community whose importance for faithful discipleship he had repeatedly emphasized in his writings, he remained as committed to praying the psalms as he had once urged his students and readers to be: “i read the psalms every day, as i have done for years; i know them and love them more than any other book.” 7 the psalms have a long-standing place in christian worship and prayer, reaching across different periods, regions and traditions in christian history. 8 unsurprisingly for a lutheran, bonhoeffer appealed particularly to luther both for 4 dietrich bonhoeffer, prayerbook of the bible in bonhoeffer, life together; prayerbook of the bible. 5 quoted in editorial comments in dietrich bonhoeffer, theological education underground, 1937–1940, dietrich bonhoeffer works vol. 15, ed. victoria j. barnett, trans. victoria j. barnett, claudia d. bergmann, peter frick and scott a. moore (minneapolis: fortress, 2012), 496 and 569. 6 dietrich bonhoeffer, “meditation on psalm 119, 1939–1940,” in theological education underground, 496–528. 7 bonhoeffer, theological education underground, 113–14. 8 overviews of this subject include william l. holladay, the psalms through three thousand years: prayerbook of a cloud of witnesses (minneapolis: fortress, 1996); bruce k. waltke and james m. houston, with erika moore, the psalms as christian worship: a historical commentary (grand rapids, michigan: eerdmans, 2010); susan gillingham, psalms through the centuries, vol. 1, blackwell bible commentaries (chichester: wiley–blackwell, 2012). studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 9 (2014) his emphasis on the centrality of the psalms for the church’s life and for his sustained interpretation of them as words of and about jesus christ, and therefore the church’s words. this is most explicit in prayerbook of the bible, which includes a number of substantial quotations from luther, indeed concluding with one of these. there was also at least one other important influence. during his visits to different communities of ministerial formation prior to taking up the post at finkenwalde, bonhoeffer had spent time with the anglican community of the resurrection at mirfield in england, and sharing in the cycle of the traditional daily office of western monasticism there made a deep impression on him, with its commitment to regular and frequent recitation of the whole psalter. 9 bonhoeffer was also aware that behind both luther on the psalms and the spirituality of psalm recitation within western catholicism stood the sources of the early church, and in particular the monumental work of augustine of hippo, enarrationes in psalmos, a version of which bonhoeffer kept in his study and whose marginal annotations testify to careful use. 10 what he found in these sources converged profoundly with his guiding vision of the christian life. in an important passage, bonhoeffer spells out that discipleship requires us to recognize that we relate to no one and nothing directly, but only through and with christ: in becoming human, he put himself between me and the given circumstances of the world. i cannot go back. he is in the middle. he has deprived those whom he has called of every immediate connection to those given realities. he wants to be the medium; everything should happen only through him. he stands not only between me and god, he also stands between me and the world, between me and other people and things. 9 editor’s introduction to bonhoeffer, theological education underground, 54–55. 10 editors’ afterword to bonhoeffer, prayerbook of the bible, 179–80. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr he is the mediator, not only between god and human persons, but also between person and person, and between person and reality. 11 it should be no surprise, therefore, that bonhoeffer’s understanding of christian prayer should be ecclesial participation in the prayer of christ, rather than some independent religious activity of our own. 12 nor should it be surprising that he was drawn to pre-modern traditions of scriptural interpretation— including interpretation of the psalms—that found christ in the faithful reading of every text. it would perhaps be equally true to say, however, that his forceful advocacy of “praying the psalms together” at such a critical point in his own life and in the history of his country stemmed at least in part from a sense that it was in such praying that christians could nurture and celebrate this sustaining vision of christ the mediator in all situations, a vision he regarded as vital for meeting the challenges that disciples of christ were facing day by day in nazi germany. bonhoeffer on the psalms and the challenges of christian– jewish relations evaluations of bonhoeffer’s response to the persecution of jewish people under hitler have differed markedly, from the presentation of him as someone deeply concerned about their plight and ultimately moved by this to put his own life directly at risk in joining the resistance to the verdict that there were serious gaps and flaws in both his thinking and his actions. 13 how might bonhoeffer’s commitment to praying the 11 dietrich bonhoeffer, discipleship, dietrich bonhoeffer works vol. 4, ed. geffrey b. kelly and john d. godsey, trans. barbara green and reinhard kraus (minneapolis: fortress press, 2003), 93–94. 12 ibid., 153. 13 e.g., eberhard bethge, “one of the silent bystanders? dietrich bonhoeffer on november 9, 1938,” in friendship and resistance: essays on dietrich bonhoeffer (geneva: wcc publications, 1995), 58–71; stephen r. haynes, the bonhoeffer legacy: post-holocaust perspectives (minneapolis: fortress, 2006); victoria j. barnett, “dietrich bonhoeffer’s relevance for post-holocaust christian theology,” studies in christian– studies in christian-jewish relations 6 scjr 9 (2014) psalms be relevant to our understanding here? perhaps the first point to be made is the relatively obvious one that bonhoeffer was writing the three texts referred to in the previous section at a critical time for everyone caught up in nazi germany: the invasion of the sudetenland, the intensification of antisemitic persecution, the beginning of the second world war. this was also a time when bonhoeffer himself was grappling with questions relating to his own vocation—whether to oppose the regime from abroad or from within germany, and how far such opposition might lead him down paths of secrecy, deceit and support for violent action. clearly, for him prayerful reading of the psalms was something of urgent importance to communicate and commend to christians struggling alongside him to be faithful to christ in the midst of all this. indeed, prayerbook of the bible was the last book bonhoeffer was able to publish, and the one that brought him into the most immediate trouble with the authorities—despite its appearing to be no more than a short devotional treatise on a much-loved book of the bible. 14 although we cannot know for sure why it attracted such attention, it is clear enough that at the very least bonhoeffer was rowing against the tide in which hitler wished german christianity to be caught up—away from the old testament and away from any kind of positive evaluation of things associated with judaism. his approach to the old testament as a whole resolutely refused to give any quarter either to the more forthright antisemitic repudiations of the first part of the christian canon on the grounds of its overlap with the jewish bible, or to the more subtle and apparently respectable analyses of allegedly primitive and inferior elements within it. 15 in a bible study of ezra and nehemiah given at finkenwalde in 1936, bonhoeffer taught his students that “the church of god is jewish relations 2:1 (2007): 53–67, http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/view/1402 (accessed august 28 2013). 14 editor’s introduction to bonhoeffer, prayerbook of the bible, 143. 15 martin kuske, the old testament as the book of christ, trans. s. t. kimborough (philadelphia: westminster press, 1976). http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/view/1402 studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 7 www.bc.edu/scjr one both then and today.” 16 there could be no division between jew and gentile, israel and church in responding to the word of god: faithful israel at the time of ezra and nehemiah can be called the church of god, just as the faithful church today can be named as israel. a year earlier, in another bible study, focusing this time on king david in the books of samuel, he asserted: “the people of israel will remain god's people for eternity, the only people who will not pass away, for god has become their lord. god has taken up dwelling and built his house among this people. the church, the true israel is promised.” 17 the final sentence indicates clearly enough bonhoeffer's lack of awareness if not indeed concern regarding what would now be termed the supersessionist character of much traditional christian teaching, yet the first two were nonetheless singled out for hostile comment by a progovernment journalist in 1936. 18 bonhoeffer's canonical hermeneutic was perceived as a piece of intellectual resistance to state ideology and in particular to its antisemitism. the particular relevance of bonhoeffer’s commitment to praying the psalms in this context lies in the space it opened for such theological positions to become embedded in daily spiritual practice. the bible study on king david, for instance, focuses on the relationship between david and christ, summing this up at one point in these terms: christ “is before david, he bears david, and he himself is the root of david. findings: david bears christ within himself according to both person and office. christ is in david.” 19 while bonhoeffer is writing about david in the books of samuel, however, he also has an eye on david as the paradigmatic writer of the psalms, 16 dietrich bonhoeffer, “bible study on ezra and nehemiah: the reconstruction of jerusalem, finkenwalde, april 21, 1936,” in theological education at finkenwalde, 930. 17 bonhoeffer, “bible study: king david, finkenwalde, october 8–11, 1935,” in theological education at finkenwalde, 885. 18 editor's note to bonhoeffer, “king david,” in theological education at finkenwalde, 893. 19 bonhoeffer, “king david,” in theological education at finkenwalde, 873. studies in christian-jewish relations 8 scjr 9 (2014) noting that for the new testament writers, “christ was really present in the words of david.” 20 the relationship mediated through christ in praying the psalms is therefore not only with the contemporary christian community but also with their ancient writers and thereby with the whole community of israel in the old testament; christ “bears” david as david “bears” christ. that relationship is expressed and affirmed every day of the christian's life in the discipline of psalm recitation. at one point in prayerbook of the bible, bonhoeffer asks: “who prays the psalter?” his answer is: “david (solomon, asaph, etc.) prays. christ prays. we pray.” christ is at the center: he dwells in david, even as david “remains himself”, and he dwells also in us. 21 as bonhoeffer had argued in life together, the mediation of christ in relationships protects and preserves the unique humanity of each person while also uniting us in profound and unbreakable communion. 22 to read the psalms in prayerful identification with christ is therefore to find one's identity in relation to all who make up the body of christ, including the saints of the old testament, without any absorption or erasure of the distinctiveness of each person. as a spiritual practice it therefore resists the assumption of irrevocable distance between us and the “world of the bible” promoted by some modern biblical interpretation, even as it also resists any naive assimilation of the biblical world to our own and the detachment of the biblical text from the real human beings who wrote it down and preserved it. 23 bonhoeffer’s desire in 1940 to devote his energies as a writer to a meditative study of psalm 119 might also be viewed as arising in part from a concern that positions in theological 20 bonhoeffer, “king david,” in theological education at finkenwalde, 872. 21 bonhoeffer, prayerbook of the bible, 159–60. 22 bonhoeffer, life together, 31–44. 23 cf. jeremy worthen, ‘praying the psalms in the name of christ: christian-jewish relations since vatican ii and a pre-modern spiritual tradition,’ in interpreting the ‘spirit of assisi’: challenges to interfaith dialogue in a pluralistic world, ed. maria diemling and thomas j. herbst (canterbury: fisc, 2013), 235-51. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 9 www.bc.edu/scjr hermeneutics with a decisive bearing on ethical and political activity be embedded in spiritual practice. a debate had been taking place within german protestant theology during the second half of the 1930s about the relationship between law and gospel, and in particular the place of the law of moses in christian preaching and teaching. 24 this was during a period when torah scrolls were publicly burned and those who revered them increasingly persecuted. jewish faith identified the torah, the law, as the center of the canon of scripture; traditional christian polemic presented jewish adherence to traditions of torah observance as stubborn and willful blindness to the gospel of grace. in his writings on the psalms, bonhoeffer gives no space to that polemic, without diluting his christocentric focus. already in discipleship, for reasons that were primarily about his diagnosis of the situation within german christianity, bonhoeffer had sought to overcome a simplistic opposition between law and grace, between faith in god and obedience to god’s commandments. 25 the surviving text of his ‘meditation on psalm 119’ shows him determined to hold together an understanding of the law ‘in christ’ and an affirmation of the law given to israel as divine gift within the prayerful recitation of this psalm. thus he stresses the inseparability of deliverance from egypt—divine salvation—from life ‘within’ (rather than ‘under’) the law; the goodness of life on earth as space for this life of grace within the law to unfold; and the irrevocability of god’s covenant which includes the gift of god’s commandments. these themes are to be the matter of christian prayer day by day, week by week. 24 see for instance the record of the “disputation on preaching the law” that took place at finkenwalde in 1936, including gerhard ebeling's theses and bonhoeffer's questions, in theological education at finkenwalde, 774–81; the first editorial note sets out the background here. the continuing importance of the issue is indicated by bonhoeffer's “theological position paper on the primus usus legis” and “exposition on the first table of the ten words of god,” both written during the war, in conspiracy and imprisonment, 1940–1945, dietrich bonhoeffer works vol. 16, ed. mark s. brocker, trans. lisa e. dahill and douglas w. stott (minneapolis: fortress, 2006), 584–601 and 633–44. 25 e.g. bonhoeffer, discipleship, 59 and 115–20. studies in christian-jewish relations 10 scjr 9 (2014) as already noted, it is difficult to locate any critique of traditional church teaching about jews and judaism in bonhoeffer's work, or, correspondingly, any recognition of the theological significance of jewish existence in the present. his commitment to praying the psalms might have opened a daily space for affirming through identification with christ the christian's mediated relation to israel before christ and enduring participation in the gifts once given, yet there is no unambiguous evidence that such mediated relation might extend also to jewish people in their contemporary situation. bonhoeffer’s sermon on psalm 58 in 1937 sought to enable the confessing church in its present political struggles to identify through christ with the cries of david as voiced in ancient israel for justice and the overcoming of god’s enemies. 26 bonhoeffer was evidently prepared to find room in the spirituality of psalm reading for the voices of those in the present who were deeply and consciously engaged with life in all its ethical and political complexity and its tragic suffering. could there be room for distinctively jewish voices also? the nearest we can come to any evidence for this is bonhoeffer's brief, enigmatic comment on the events of kristallnacht to the finkenwalde brothers in november 1938: “in the last few days, i have thought much about ps. 74, zech. 2:8, rom. 9:4–5 and 11:11–15. that leads deeply into prayer.” 27 the other biblical references are of course important, not least for the way they show bonhoeffer’s participation in a much wider movement in the later 1930s and 1940s of rereading romans 9–11 as a critical text for christian resistance to antisemitism. 28 yet there is something at once more personal and more distinctive in the citation of psalm 74, which bonhoeffer 26 dietrich bonhoeffer, meditations on psalms, ed. and trans. edwin robertson (grand rapids, michigan: zondervan, 2002), 53–66. 27 bonhoeffer, theological education underground, 84. 28 e.g., karl barth, “the election of the community,” in church dogmatics ii/2, ed. g. w. bromiley and t. f. torrance (edinburgh: t & t clark, 1957), 195–305, a text originally published in 1942; joseph bonsirven, joseph chaine, henri de lubac and louis richard, israël et la foi chrétienne (fribourg: éditions de la librairie de l’université, 1942). studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 11 www.bc.edu/scjr annotated in his bible with a date, something he did nowhere else—the date of kristallnacht. 29 the verse against which we wrote it was 8b: “they burned all the meeting-places of god in the land.” that short note suggests that when bonhoeffer prayed psalm 74 after kristallnacht, he prayed it with and for the jewish people: he allowed himself to become identified with them, because he gave his voice to speak with them to god. “o god, why do you cast us off forever?”, the psalm begins. who are “we” here? for bonhoeffer, as we have seen, the answer can never be merely “some ancient israelites,” but nor can it be simply “me.” it is always: the community that hears the word of god, then and now, joined in christ, in whom i also am united with them and thereby able to pray with them. here, however, we find a hint—no more than a hint, it must be acknowledged—that the circle of mediated relations in prayerful reading of the psalms might be extended to include the jewish people, israel today as well as israel in the past, thereby opening up a new kind of solidarity. this would certainly fit with bonhoeffer’s famous comment recorded by bethge: “only those who cry out for the jews may also sing gregorian chants.” 30 it must nonetheless be acknowledged that if indeed bonhoeffer's response to kristallnacht led so “deeply into prayer” that it broke open the circle of mediated relations to others through identification with christ to include his jewish contemporaries as those with whom and for whom he was praying in the psalms, it has left no obvious trace in his subsequent writings. merton on praying the psalms merton published two works specifically on the psalms: bread in the wilderness in 1953, and a short pamphlet a few years later, praying the psalms, aimed at christian 29 editors’ afterword to bonhoeffer, theological education underground, 573. 30 there has been some question about the dating of this statement; see editors’ afterword to bonhoeffer, life together, 125. studies in christian-jewish relations 12 scjr 9 (2014) laity. 31 both reflect in part the growing influence of the liturgical movement in north american roman catholicism in the post-war period, encouraged by the papal encyclical mediator dei of 1947, and the way that its search for a renewal of worship out of the sources of the first christian millennium coincided with the emerging fusion of patristic scholarship and contemporary theology in what became known as the nouvelle théologie in europe. the attempts of the liturgical movement in the roman catholic church at this point to reinvigorate the communal daily office, comprised in large part of psalm recitation, naturally intersected with attempts to recover the early christian tradition of psalm interpretation found above all in augustine, from whose great work on the psalms mediator dei quoted towards the beginning of its section on the daily office: “god could not give a greater gift to men...[jesus] prays for us, as our priest; he prays in us as our head; we pray to him as our god...we recognize in him our voice and his voice in us.” 32 what merton says about the psalms in these two texts from the 1950s belongs very much within this wider context, and it should come as no surprise that he cites mediator dei in both directly. 33 merton dedicated bread in the wilderness to jean daniélou, a french dominican associated with the nouvelle théologie, and draws on his distinction between typology and allegory in patristic exegesis to explain and defend the kind of identification between the ancient writers of the psalms, christ our high priest and the church in every age on which, as we have already seen, the christian practice of praying the psalms in christ had depended. 34 yet we can also hear 31 thomas merton, bread in the wilderness (london: catholic book club, 1953); praying the psalms (collegeville, minnesota: liturgical press, 1956). 32 mediator dei: encyclical of pope pius xii on the sacred liturgy, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_pxii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html (accessed august 10 2013), § 144, citing augustine’s exposition of psalm 86 (psalm 85 in vulgate numbering). 33 e.g., merton, bread, 38–39; praying the psalms, 16–17. 34 e.g., merton, bread, 20–27 and 58–60. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 13 www.bc.edu/scjr in these texts concerns that are more specific to merton and intersect with his other writings from the period. bread in the wilderness in particular relates the praying of the psalms to two interlinking themes that run through his work as a whole: the call to contemplation, and losing and finding the self. merton writes at some length about the relationship between liturgy and contemplation before sketching out an understanding of praying the psalms as participation in christ’s passage from death to resurrection. 35 a focus on the paschal meaning of all christian worship was characteristic of much of the work of the liturgical movement at this point, but merton articulates this in terms of entering the darkness of contemplation as integral to praying the psalms within the church’s daily services. at one point, deploying the language of eucharistic change in catholic tradition, he refers to “a kind of transubstantiation” taking place when christians pray the psalms, and then explicates this in terms of “god’s discovery of himself in his own psalm.” what merton has in mind here is that the prayer in which christians come to participate by praying the psalms in christ is a prayer that belongs within the life of the holy trinity, flowing from the sending of the son and the spirit into the world. recognizing this becomes “a new awakening to our own divine sonship.” 36 in a later chapter, he uses more conventional and ecclesial language to describe the discovery that “there is so to speak ‘one mystical person,’ after all, chanting the psalms:” christ sings them in us, and we are united with the whole church in every age by singing them in him. while quotations from augustine are used to show such insights are rooted in authoritative tradition, we also hear the distinctive accents of the twentieth century when merton concludes that by sharing in the psalms in this way “we are melted down to become a ‘new creature’ with a new identity, a higher ‘personality,’” and speaks of “the discovery of our true selves, our own inviolable and individual beings united without 35 merton, bread, 1–19; cf. praying the psalms, 14. 36 merton, bread, 67–69. studies in christian-jewish relations 14 scjr 9 (2014) confusion in the one mystical person...” 37 merton was to become highly influential in enabling the “the discovery of our true selves”, familiar enough as a motif in twentieth-century existentialism, psychology and appropriation of the religious traditions of the east, to be reread against the traditions of christian mysticism and thereby find a secure home in christian spirituality. his works on the psalms come from a pivotal period for the synthesis he was forging here and suggest it was forged day by day in his praying of them with his community. through his extensive journals, we can track the profound personal engagement with the practice of praying the psalms that underpins merton’s relatively slender published output on this subject. for instance, in 1949 he writes of chanting a psalm in the night office: “i felt as if i were chanting something i myself had written. it is more my own than any of my own poems.” he develops this reflection, however, towards the territory of identification and union that was discussed in the previous paragraph: “this is the secret of the psalms. our identity is hidden in them. in them we find ourselves and god. in these fragments he has revealed not only himself to us but ourselves to him.” 38 six months later, the discovery remains fresh: “i am sorry that it has taken me so long to begin to discover the psalms. i am sorry that i have not lived in them.” 39 after more than twenty five years, he is still finding new insights in the psalms he has been praying continually throughout that time; it is not a practice that grows stale or that he associates with an earlier phase of his christian life. 40 37 ibid., 86–87. 38 thomas merton, entering the silence: becoming a monk and writer, ed. jonathan montaldo, journals of thomas merton vol. 2 (san francisco: harpersanfrancisco, 1996), 383–84. 39 ibid., 420. 40 thomas merton, learning to love: exploring solitude and freedom, ed. christine m. bochen, journals of thomas merton vol. 6 (san francisco: harpersanfrancisco, 1997), 170. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 15 www.bc.edu/scjr merton on the psalms and the challenges of christian-jewish relations merton, like bonhoeffer, has attracted contrasting evaluations in terms of his contribution to overcoming christian anti-judaism and developing a more constructive christian approach to relations with judaism. 41 there is, however, one aspect of merton’s response to the challenges of christian– jewish relations that has no obvious parallel in bonhoeffer. there are a handful of occasions when he appears to claim a personal identification with judaism that is bound to strike us, with hindsight, as somewhat questionable. on the one hand, it can be read as an expression of merton’s passionate enthusiasm for the causes and people that engaged his attention at any particular point, and indeed of the widely recognized “ventriloquial” tendency of his correspondence in particular. 42 on the other hand, it can also be heard as a collapsing of distinctions and a refusal to recognize the otherness of judaism, reflecting the historic inability of christianity to acknowledge the positive value of jewish life as something inherently inassimilable to the church. 43 for our purposes, however, what is particularly interesting is the way that in at least three of these cases, the strange kinship with living judaism claimed by merton clearly has some kind of relationship to his reading of the psalms. indeed, a close examination of these texts suggests that we need to understand this identification as both arising from and feeding back into the processes of spiritual identification that, as we have seen in the preceding section, merton learnt from the western catholic tradition of psalm interpretation and was developing in distinctive ways. 41 for a range of views on merton and judaism, see the essays assembled in beatrice bruteau, ed., merton and judaism: recognition, repentance, and renewal: holiness in words, (louisville, ky: fons vitae, 2003). 42 rowan williams, a silent action: engagements with thomas merton (london: spck, 2013), 66. 43 karl a. plank, “the eclipse of difference: merton’s encounter with judaism,” in merton and judaism, ed. bruteau, 67–82. studies in christian-jewish relations 16 scjr 9 (2014) the first of these three passages occurs in merton’s journal entry for 24 october 1957, which begins: “one has either got to be a jew or stop reading the bible.” 44 it is an arresting statement, and merton used it together with the first paragraph of his entry here for a passage in conjectures of a guilty bystander, published some years later in 1965. 45 although merton could appeal to the famous comment of pius xi from 1938 that “spiritually, we are all semites,” it is not entirely clear what he really has in mind when he says one has to “be a jew” in order to read the bible. he writes that “the new testament is the fulfillment of the old, not its destruction. the fulfillment of the promises made to abraham, the promises abraham believed in.” it would seem that at least part of what he is trying to do here is argue that the traditional promise–fulfillment exegesis of christianity in fact leaves no room for christian anti-judaism (contrary to many more recent commentators who find a direct connection between the two). it is likely, moreover that one of the things in his mind here is the defense of typology he had encountered in daniélou’s work, as mentioned above, which contrasted it (positively) with allegory precisely in that the reality of the “type” remains and is not dissolved or obscured by that which it foreshadows. fulfillment, on this basis, cannot mean “destruction” of what it fulfills but rather must sustain and affirm it as ineradicably real and true. yet the question that arises from any such perspective is what part the continuing existence of the jewish people has to play in the “fulfillment of the promises to abraham.” at this point, merton aligns himself with a succession of christian thinkers struggling with antisemitism in the first half of the twentieth century—including barth, maritain, berdyaev and bloy—who found christian theological meaning in jewish suffering, as the ground for eliciting specifically christian concern to address that: “hence, the terrible 44 thomas merton, a search for solitude: pursuing the monk’s true life, ed. lawrence s. cunningham, journals of thomas merton vol. 3 (san francisco: harpersanfrancisco, 1996), 127–28. 45 thomas merton, conjectures of a guilty bystander, second edition (london: sheldon press, 1977), 13. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 17 www.bc.edu/scjr mystery of the persecution of israel in our time. salus ex judaeis. [salvation comes from the jews.] christ crucified again in his people ‘according to the flesh.’” 46 in the final part of this dense journal entry we can also see something rather different taking shape in merton’s thought, and it is surely significant that it does so in relation to the psalms. he reprises his opening statement to ask: “how can we sing the psalms, or understand them, if we are not jews?” 47 if we need to “be a jew” to read the bible, surely we must be jews to sing the psalms—the practice that for merton is at the heart of the church’s daily prayer. he is aware that there is a conventional contrast in christian literature, reaching back to 2 corinthians 3, between jewish reading of shared scriptures “according to the flesh” and christian reading “according to the spirit”, yet now finds something unsatisfactory about this: “yes, but one can get too far away from the suffering and yearning of israel in the flesh and these are inseparable from the spirit. i think for example of koestler and the zionists.” this is clearly a point that stayed with him, for he reiterates it in his entry for the next day, together with a third claim about the need for jewish identification on the part of christians: “the psalms—they are something special when read through zionist glasses. as i say, one has to sing them as a jew, or not at all.” 48 we cannot say with confidence whether it was the juxtaposition of praying the psalms with reading koestler’s thieves in the night that prompted merton to reflect on some of the core issues for twentieth-century christian engagement with judaism and anti-judaism in october 1957, or whether it 46 merton, search for solitude, 127; merton was evidently reading bloy, including le salut par les juifs, in 1941; see thomas merton, run to the mountain: the story of a vocation, ed. patrick hart, journals of thomas merton vol. 1 (san francisco: harpersanfrancisco, 1995), 386. 47 merton, search for solitude, 128. cf. merton, praying the psalms, 12: to appreciate the psalms, “we must be, to some extent, ‘orientals.’” 48 merton, search for solitude, 128–29. studies in christian-jewish relations 18 scjr 9 (2014) was rather that reflection which led him to dwell on the juxtaposition, but the two are clearly related. because he was committed to praying the psalms in christ day by day, he connected potentially speculative questions about israel and the church to the meaning embedded in this spiritual practice. similarly, when his keeping abreast of modern fiction prompts him to become aware of the reality of zionism and what is happening in the state of israel, he immediately wants to ask: what happens if i let this perspective into the way i read and pray the psalms? what if i allow the contemporary realities of judaism to be expressed in my appreciation of the church’s old testament, to let them stand as that which seeks fulfillment alongside that which brings it as inseparable dimensions of divine revelation in the present? the otherness of the zionism he reads about in koestler awakens an awareness not just of the otherness of jewish experience since the new testament but also of the otherness of ancient israel, and a sense that the two are connected in such a way that if christians are to feel their way into the “flesh” of their old testament, without which there can be no new and no “spirit,” then they will best be able to do that by nurturing an imaginative empathy with jews in the world today: hence “one has either got to be a jew or stop reading the bible.” crucially, as the entry develops this identification no longer centers on jewish suffering somehow figuring the suffering of christ but rather on how jewish living—including the return to the land of israel— continues to express the promise made to abraham. merton’s openness to learning about and from living judaism is expressed most powerfully in his correspondence. yet here the troubling but powerful motif of a personal identification with judaism emerges still more sharply. writing in 1961 to one of the leading intellectuals for the american left, erich fromm, who was himself jewish though had long since ceased to be observant, of “this great insidious force that has the whole world by its neck,” merton breaks off from his analysis of resisting violence in a nuclear age to exclaim: studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 19 www.bc.edu/scjr the situation certainly makes the psalms we chant in choir each day most eloquent. erich, i am a complete jew as far as that goes: i am steeped in the experience of bafflement, compunction and wonder which is the experience of those who have been rescued from tyranny, only to renounce freedom and in confusion and subjection to worse tyrants, through infidelity to the lord. 49 clearly for merton as for bonhoeffer, praying the psalms was not something detached from the struggle for peace and justice in the world; rather, it was a place where prayer for that struggle could be made, where in the light of prayer that struggle could be interpreted and where strength could be renewed to sustain it. in christ, the words of ancient israel become our words: both would agree on that, but it is only merton who could leap from that point to saying “i am a complete jew as far as that goes”—to identifying with what he perceives as a characteristically jewish way of holding together the reality of freedom as divine deliverance and the reality of slavery as a state to which we keep returning. “this is still the clear experience of the jews, as it ought to be of the christians, except that we are too sure of our freedom and too sure we could never alienate it.” 50 here as in an important passage on antisemitism in conjectures of a guilty bystander, merton rather uneasily straddles two different registers of christian discourse about judaism: one which discerns in christian anti-judaism a tragic inoculation against self-criticism, a refusal to accept that christians can be faithless and disobedient because that is a fate projected onto judaism; and the other which seeks to characterize judaism since the new testament in terms of the history of god’s faithless and disobedient (if still beloved) people. 51 the context within his correspondence clearly indicates, however, that it is his prayerful, thoughtful, questioning 49 thomas merton, the hidden ground of love: letters on religious experience and social concerns, ed. william h. shannon (london: collins flame, 1990), 317. 50 ibid., 317. 51 merton, conjectures, 165–68. studies in christian-jewish relations 20 scjr 9 (2014) reading of the psalms as a central spiritual practice that provided him with the space to begin articulating the first perspective, a radically new insight for twentieth-century christianity, even as it struggles to emerge from the shadow of the second, which has its roots in much older polemic. a final example of the tendency to identification with judaism can be found in a letter to abraham heschel from 1964, where merton referred to “my latent ambitions to be a true jew under my catholic skin.” 52 the context of the letter is the drafting by the second vatican council of the document that would become nostra aetate, arguably the single most influential statement by any christian body on christian–jewish relations. merton had corresponded with heschel occasionally during the early 1960s, but it was after a visit from him to merton’s abbey in 1964 that they became effectively allies in trying to influence the text of what was emerging from the council to express as fully as possible the need for a new era in christian–jewish relations. they both feared that an originally strong and positive statement was in danger of becoming irreparably weakened at the revision stage, and merton’s comment comes after receiving news from heschel that seemed to confirm this was indeed happening. the difficulty with merton’s “ambitions to be a true jew” is not so much perhaps about the elision of distance, which needs to be understood much more broadly in the context of both merton’s thinking and his personality. it is rather that here as in the letter to fromm there appears to be a close association between being jewish and experiencing suffering, in such s way that suffering virtually defines the jewish experience and the jewish condition. these ambitions, merton writes, “will be realized if i continue to go through experiences like this, being spiritually slapped in the face by these blind and complacent people of 52 merton, hidden ground, 434. on the many areas of overlap between the thinking of merton and heschel, see padraic o’hare, “abraham heschel and the catholic heart,” studies in christian-jewish relations 2:2 (2008): 13–18, http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/view/1418 (accessed august 28 2013) http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/view/1418 studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 21 www.bc.edu/scjr whom i am nonetheless a ‘collaborator.’” not only, therefore, does merton appear to identify jewish experience as suffering; he seems to think that his own experience of suffering (and exactly what hardship has been inflicted on him in his hermitage?) entitles him to a share in this jewish identity he has thus constructed. of course, we are reading a letter written in the heat of the moment, and it clearly was a moment of great anger and sorrow for merton to think that such a historic opportunity to acknowledge past wrongs and move towards truth and reconciliation in christian–jewish relations might be lost. once again, however, even at such a time as this we find merton trying to articulate a special kind of empathy with present jewish experience in close proximity to a reference to praying the psalms. so he concludes this brief and impassioned letter: “the psalms have said all that need to be said about this sort of thing, and you and i both pray them. in them we are one, in their truth, in their silence. haec fecisti et tacui, says the lord, of such events.” 53 “these things you have done and i was silent”—merton is quoting from psalm 49:21, in the vulgate translation (psalm 50:21 in the hebrew bible). once again, merton finds the light in which present events can be understood in his prayerful reading of the psalms and thereby the strength not to be overcome by adversity or to accept apparent defeat. more than that, however, he finds there explicitly what we suggested was only at most hinted at in bonhoeffer, a site of shared prayer and therefore a place of communion: “in them we are one.” hence when he writes again to heschel close to a year later, he can close the letter by saying: “i would appreciate you remembering me in your prayer before him whom we both seek and serve. i do not forget you in my prayer. god be with you always.” 54 as in the previous two examples, merton’s provocative opening about claiming a jewish identity in fact unfolds into something much 53 merton, hidden ground, 435. 54 ibid., 435. studies in christian-jewish relations 22 scjr 9 (2014) more like solidarity: that christians—or this christian at least— cannot be christians without jews, that christians must ask for jewish people to be with them so that they can understand and live the fullness of their own, distinctive vocation. it is not clear, however, that merton could have reached that point without decades of praying the psalms, of daily opening up his own identity to a new identity “in christ” that encompassed the whole church of god and also kept touching on israel, indeed could not let israel go. conclusion bonhoeffer and merton can be seen as transitional figures in the history of christian–jewish relations in the twentieth century. bonhoeffer's theological engagement with judaism is essentially indirect, reverberations from his mortal struggle against national socialism and its claims on the life of the church in germany. merton, by contrast, becomes directly concerned both with what might be wrong about traditional christian doctrine with regard to judaism and with what might be learned from the encounter with living judaism today. for both of them, however, that engagement is interwoven with their practice of praying the psalms. it was a practice that inclined them to cherish israel and all that they associated with it, as bound up, however obscurely, with the mystery of christ in which they had died and been raised to new life and in which they were daily renewed through their reading of the psalms. at pivotal moments for their own involvement with judaism—kristallnacht in 1938, the discussions in 1964 of what would become nostra aetate—they turned to the psalms in order to speak truth to god in prayer in solidarity with others. for merton, that solidarity consciously came to include his jewish contemporaries; perhaps, though only implicitly and hesitantly, for bonhoeffer too. praying the psalms opened a space for them where, in their different times and circumstances, the spiritual, hermeneutical and ethical dimensions of christian–jewish relations could intersect and inform each other, since for them the psalms were at once the words of israel, the words of christ and the words of the church, which studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 23 www.bc.edu/scjr they were also called to render their words today in the midst of pressing questions and difficult struggles, their daily bread in the wilderness. microsoft word doetzel_tikkunolam.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): re1-7 review essay: dorff; levine; sacks re1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art15 reviewed by audrey doetzel, nds, center for christian-jewish learning at boston college elliot n. dorff, the way into tikkun olam (repairing the world) (woodstock, vermont: jewish lights publishing, 2005), paper, xiv + 287 pp. robert n. levine, there is no messiah and you’re it: the stunning transformation of judaism’s most provocative idea (woodstock, vermont: jewish lights publishing, 2003), paper, viii + 170 pp. jonathan sacks, to heal a fractured world: the ethics of responsibility (new york: schocken books, 2005), paper, viii + 280 pp. developments since nostra aetate, §4 in 1985 the vatican commission for religious relations with the jews, in its efforts to further develop and expand the new teachings on jews and judaism begun in the vatican ii declaration nostra aetate (na), stated: attentive to the same god who has spoken, hanging on the same word, we have to witness to one same memory and one common hope in him who is the master of history. we must also accept our responsibility to prepare the world for the coming of the messiah by working together for social justice, respect for the rights of persons and nations and for social and international reconciliation. to this we are driven, jews and christians, by the command to love our neighbor, by a common hope for the kingdom of god and by the great heritage of the prophets.1 in this teaching, the commission effectively merged the reference to the messianic era in na, §4 with the call in its own 1974 “guidelines” for joint social action. immediately following its statement that god “does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues,” na had gone on to say: “in company with the prophets…the church awaits that day, known to god alone, on which all peoples will address the lord in a single voice and ‘serve him with one accord’….” the “guidelines” had later outlined a vision of joint social action: “love of the same god must show itself in effective action for the good of mankind. in the spirit of the prophets, jews and christians will work willingly together, seeing social justice and peace at every level – local, national and international.”2 in merging the two, the commission’s 1985 document conveyed the message that it is the joint responsibility of christians and jews to help make the messianic era a reality. with the beginning of the new christian millennium, this call to joint responsibility was significantly reinforced and advanced by local jewish-christian efforts and through formally sponsored international programs. for example, in the hope of helping to promote the christian-jewish relationship in the third 1 “notes on the correct way to present jews and judaism in preaching and teaching in the roman catholic church,” ii, §11. 2 “guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate, no. 4,” iv. review essay nostra aetate, §4, the rabbis, and the messianic age studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): re1-7 review essay: dorff; levine; sacks re2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art15 millennium, a group of christians and jews from new jersey, usa presented a resolution to pope john paul ii which read in part: we, christians and jews, mindful of the gift of human dignity and hope for a new heaven and a new earth each singular life has received from our common creator, resolve to hear again and act upon the profound and resonant cries of the ancient prophets for mercy, compassion, peace, liberty, justice, and righteousness: that together – we, christians and jews – take upon ourselves the alleviation of poverty, misery, violence, and ignorance from all of humanity in the third millennium.3 in great britain the british progressive rabbis, in cooperation with a vatican delegation and in consultation with the council of christians and jews, marked the new millennium with an international conference to explore the theme, “the theology of partnership.” their expressed hope was to heighten awareness and to further advance jewish-christian partnerships based on shared ethical values and directed towards contributing to the welfare of humanity on a global basis. various other statements which further reinforced this vision and hope followed, such as dabru emet: a jewish statement on christians and christianity (september 10, 2000),4 reflections on covenant and mission (august 12, 2002),5 and a sacred obligation: rethinking christian faith in relation to judaism and the jewish people (september 1, 2002).6 contributing to this ongoing reflection are three noteworthy new-millennium books. authored by prominent rabbis in the united states and great britain, they help communicate and explicate developing jewish thought in relation to messiah, messianism and the messianic era, to the teaching of tikkun olam, and to an ethics of social responsibility. the books are: rabbi robert n. levine’s 2003, there is no messiah and you’re it: transformation of judaism’s most provocative idea; rabbi elliott dorff’s 2005, the way into tikkun olam (repairing the world); and rabbi sir jonathan sacks’ 2005, to heal a fractured world: the ethics of responsibility. these three publications have great potential to help allay concerns expressed over the past decade by jews and christians committed to the dialogue relationship. sensing that post-vatican ii developments have reached a plateau, a new impetus has been sought to effectively move this maturing interfaith effort into its next stage of development in a responsible manner. this search has included the hope to broaden the base of involvement, particularly among the younger generation whose leadership is needed to ensure this new relationship’s future. it would appear that this intensifying focus on responsible jewish-christian partnership in view of the messianic age is providing a direction for this new phase. this effort can benefit considerably from works such as the three publications which this essay will now briefly review. 3 this joint resolution was presented on november 18, 1998 by representatives of the julius and dorothy koppelman holocaust/genocide resource center at rider university. for the entire resolution, see sidic xxxii, 1 (1999): 23. 4 this eight-part statement, initiated and supported by the national jewish scholars project, was authored by dr. peter ochs, dr. david novak, dr. tikva frymer-kensky and dr. michael signer. it has been signed by a large number of rabbis and jewish scholars of various institutional affiliations internationally. part eight of the statement enlarges on the theme: “jews and christians must work together for peace and justice,” and includes the statement: “…our joint efforts…will help bring the kingdom of god for which we hope and long.” see http://icjs.org/what/njsp/dabruemet.html . 5 this joint statement, meant to facilitate further dialogue, was drafted by the consultation of the national council of synagogues and the bishops’ committee for ecumenical and interreligious affairs, usccb. the jewish part of the text, “the mission of the jews and the perfection of the world,” ends by suggesting “a joint agenda for christians and jews” and includes the invitation: “why not join together our spiritual forces to state and to act upon the values we share in common and that lead to repair of the unredeemed world?” see www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/interreligious/ncs_usccb120802.htm 6 this document by the christian scholars group on christian-jewish relations, an association of twenty-one protestant and roman catholic scholars, offers ten statements to christians, the tenth of which enlarges on the theme: “christians should work with jews for the healing of the world.” this statement includes: “as violence and terrorism intensify in our time, we must strengthen our common efforts in the work of justice and peace to which both the prophets of israel and jesus summon us.” see www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/sites/partners/csg/sacred_obligation.htm . studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): re1-7 review essay: dorff; levine; sacks re3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art15 the rabbis and their writings rabbi robert n. levine, a much sought after speaker and media guest, is senior rabbi of temple rodeph sholom, the largest synagogue on manhattan’s upper west side. in september 2005 he was installed as the 58th president of the new york board of rabbis, which includes the orthodox, conservative, reform and reconstructionist branches of judaism and which attempts to bridge potential polarizations due to ideological and philosophical differences. in this role levine is representative and spokesman for mainstream jewry on a variety of issues. his book, the very title of which cannot help but be provocative in the jewish world, is a serious study of jewish identity as it surveys the evolution of the concept of messiah in judaism. there is no messiah and you’re it is an informative account, accessible to a wide range of readers, of the nature and power of the messianic ideal throughout jewish history. in its sixteen chapters levine draws on the bible, the talmud, rabbinic sources and modern-day scholars to trace the enduring power of a messianic vision in spite of myriad challenges which have included: the often calamitous effects of false messiahs who tended to emerge particularly during desperate times in jewish history; the 19th century inward turn by eastern european hasidism; and the western european experience of an emancipated people loyal to their state during the period of the enlightenment. he surveys as well the evolution of the concept from that of a personal messianic leader to that of a messianic era in which the political and social conditions are such that the demands of sinai and the prophetic promises are fully realizable. levine writes with a vision of hope which inspires his readers to actively work for messianic change instead of passively anticipating it. his message is to resist being caught in our own brokenness and the brokenness of the world, and to embrace instead our messianic potential to heal the world and to be a partner in co-creation. it is unfortunate that continuous repetition of the title message throughout the book distracts considerably from the quality of the book’s content and message. lengthy repetitive filler at the conclusion of each chapter unfairly contributes to a simplistic impression of an informative and inspiring work eminently worthy of attention and appreciation. rabbi elliot n. dorff, a conservative rabbi with a phd in moral theory, is a prolific writer on jewish law, thought and ethics. he is rector and distinguished professor of philosophy at the university of judaism, visiting professor on jewish law at the ucla school of law, and visiting professor at the jewish theological seminary of america. a leading spokesperson for ethics in conservative judaism today, he is vice-chair of the conservative movement’s committee on jewish law and standards. many of his papers and rabbinic letters have formulated the stance of the conservative movement on such topics as end of life issues, cloning and stem cell research, human sexuality and poverty. it is with this rich background and experience that dorff, in the way into tikkun olam (repairing the world), explores the roots of the beliefs and laws which form the basis of the jewish commitment to improve the world. dorff presents tikkun olam as the goal jewish tradition sets for life, providing for jews both personal and collective mission and meaning. though deeply rooted in religious beliefs and laws, it is a goal instinctively understood by religious and secular jews alike. dorff probes the rich roots of tikkun olam by exploring its “why” and “how” through a work in three parts: tikkun olam in theory; tikkun olam for individuals and society; and tikkun olam within families. he begins with an overview of the term’s development over time, exploring related jewish terms and concepts which throughout the history of judaism expressed the duties and acts which jews today increasingly speak of as tikkun olam. drawing on a variety of sources to convey the significance of these acts in classical judaism, he moves on to briefly engage the critical question of the relationship between religion and ethics. his exploration of the theory and practice of tikkun olam in jewish social interactions includes: the ethics of speaking, the duty and proper limits of helping the poor, jewish thought and law on redeeming captives, the duties of providing health care and emotional support to the sick, and communal support to those celebrating weddings and mourning the death of loved ones. turning to the inner circle of the family, he draws studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): re1-7 review essay: dorff; levine; sacks re4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art15 ancient and medieval sources into modern day conditions and opens an effective dialogue between them as he addresses spousal, filial and parental duties. one misses in dorff’s work a treatment of care of the environment, interfaith relations, and business dealings. this omission is explained by the fact that the book is one of a major series of fourteen books intended to provide an accessible, basic introduction to judaism. the series provides opportunities for adults to interact with sacred texts as they relate to some of judaism’s most important concepts. “judaism and the environment,” “money and ownership,” and “the relationship between jews and nonjews’ each constitute a separate volume in this a way into… series. after having been exposed to dorff’s erudite command of jewish texts and his practical wisdom regarding the nature of human beings and the ways of the world, the reader may wish to further benefit from his book, to do the right and the good. in this 2002 publication, which received the national jewish book award, he deals specifically with judaism’s commitment to social equality. indicating that many laws and theological tenets of torah reveal social justice as a central jewish principle, he applies this observation to poverty, war, intrafaith and interfaith relations, family and privacy. he includes as well a comparison of jewish social ethics with christian and american belief systems today. rabbi sir jonathan sacks, one of the most eminent religious scholars of our time, has been chief rabbi of the united hebrew congregation of great britain and the commonwealth since 1991. this great religious thinker, distinguished author, and much sought after speaker has received honorary degrees from universities throughout the world. after completing his first ten years as chief rabbi – during which his leadership focused on a program of jewish renewal and continuity – in september 2001 (ellul 5761) he expressed his vision for the next phase of his chief rabbinate. the vision was that of jewish responsibility which challenged his community to not wait for something to happen, but to join hands to make it happen.7 now, through his book to heal a fractured world: the ethics of responsibility, the entire international interfaith community is able to hear this same voice on a topic of interest to jews and non-jews alike. considering his work as “a jewish voice in the conversation of humankind, (p.14)” sacks has chosen to present his vision and message in as simple and readable a style as possible. his success in this enables a broadly-based readership to access the many subtleties and complexities which enrich this inspiring text. sacks presents his understanding of the ethics of responsibility in three parts: the call to responsibility, the theology of responsibility, and the responsible life. bringing together law and theology, biblical interpretation and philosophical reflection, general principles and specific examples, narrative and analysis, he sets out judaism’s key concepts of social ethics. these include justice, charity, sanctifying the holy name, the ‘ways of peace,’ and ‘mending the world.’ in presenting the theology underlying these ethical concepts, he addresses such theological themes as divine and human initiatives, the holy, monotheism, faith, and evil. one need only glance at his generous chapter end-notes to appreciate the wide-ranging authorities he draws on, both from within judaism as well from other faiths and cultures. as he presents his understanding of how these ethical concepts affect the life one lives he makes an impassioned plea for a world of justice and compassion. calling on all of humanity to reclaim its innate moral goodness, he pleads for a return to the true purpose of religion – that of a partnership with god in the work of ethical and moral living. his fundamental message is that life is god’s call to responsibility. while levine traces developments within judaism through the evolving concept of messiah and messianism, sacks traces an evolution within the bible itself – an evolution from a controlling to an empowering presence of god. this movement from divine initiative to human endeavor is a shift of responsibility, the progression of which he traces through the several covenants between god and humanity and through the three-fold division of the books of the bible. for sacks biblical time is “an arena 7 for sacks’ september 2001 open letter to british jewry, “from renewal to responsibility,” see his website at www.chiefrabbi.org . studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): re1-7 review essay: dorff; levine; sacks re5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art15 of growth and development” in which a unilateral act on the part of god (the noahide covenant) progresses to a nation being born through a peoples’ free assent to covenantal terms (the sinaitic covenant), and in which god speaks first to humans (torah), then through humans (nevi’im), and finally human beings turn to speak to god (ketuvim). it is a time in which a father is empowering his child and the child is growing into an adult. the works of these three authors enrich and complement one another as they engage jewish sources to articulate judaism’s call for human partnership with god to help realize the ideal world, the messianic era. however, it is the concept of tikkun olam which most obviously unites these voices coming from the reform, conservative and orthodox denominations within judaism today. while dorff’s entire book focuses on this theme of “repairing the world,” sacks and levine each devote a chapter specifically to the development of this concept within lurianic kabbalism. the very title of sacks’ work evokes sixteenth century safed and rabbi isaac ben solomon luria’s teaching of shevirat ha-kelim (‘breaking of the vessels’) and the scattered fragments of light which need to be gathered up, the light released, and the fractures healed. luria’s teaching focused, not on the messiah as a single person, but on the entire people israel involved in realizing the vision of the messianic age through daily acts of mending the world’s fractures. sacks considers tikkun olam a most compelling metaphor for shaping moral imagination today. however, he is careful to distinguish between luria’s mystical and spiritual idea of tikkun olam, with its emphasis on the individual’s relationship to god, and modern judaism’s focus on human actions directed toward healing the sufferings and injustices of the world. in their effort to present a jewish social vision for today, these three rabbinic voices speak as one in decrying a passive, resigned stance in face of human injustice, need and suffering. sacks confronts this most directly right at the outset. his second chapter, “faith as protest,” is an unequivocal challenge to the marxist belief that religious faith anaesthetizes and reconciles people to their condition, thus preserving an unjust status quo. if the written word were audible, sacks’ writing would resonate at its loudest when he counters marx’s hostility to judaism with: judaism is not a religion that reconciles us to the world. it was born of an act of defiance against the [injustices of] the great empires of the ancient world…the religion of israel emerged out of the most paradigm-shifting experience of the ancient world: that the supreme power intervened in history to liberate the powerless. it was in and as the voice of social protest that the biblical imagination took shape (p. 18). all three authors also address the universalization of this jewish “voice of social protest.” levine focuses on this universalization while discussing developments during and after the enlightenment when jews in western europe were accepted as fully participating citizens in their countries, and their messianic hopes extended to “the nations” to an unprecedented degree. dorff notes this enlightenment shift as well. it is included in his explanation of the series of concentric circles of jewish responsibility as depicted by classical jewish sources: that jews’ primary duties are to themselves and their family, then to their local community and the wider jewish community, and ultimately to the world at large. he further observes that post-enlightenment developments have been such that jews now seek for society as a whole, not merely fairness and equity, but as much of the ideal as possible. while the message of jewish responsibility to be a blessing to the whole of humanity resounds throughout sacks’ book, it is significantly intensified in his chapter on “responsibility for society.” here he draws specific attention to the covenant with noah which, according to sacks, “tells us that, prior to our particular commitment to this faith or that, this culture, nation, civilization or that, we are human beings, cast together in a fate which grows more interconnected with every passing century, each passing year” (p. 125). sacks expands on this, indicating that “[t]he willingness non-coercively to share our several traditions of moral insight is, in a religiously plural culture, an essential part of the democratic conversation, indeed of societal beatitude” (p. 126). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): re1-7 review essay: dorff; levine; sacks re6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art15 each author’s personal universalized concern and hope is most profoundly conveyed when he addresses the specific “brokenness” of our present age. dorff does this in a more general manner in his closing “forward” when he refers to illness and disease, struggles with infertility, starvation and homelessness, unjust distinctions in the application of procedural and substantive justice, conflict in the modern state of israel, hostility and war. sacks keeps the realities of our present fractured world before the reader throughout his book through his generous use of examples, anecdotes and stories. if one recalls his ample illustrations, presented with sensitivity, concern and compassion, while reading levine’s compelling chapter on the legend of the golem, one appreciates even more the appropriateness of this striking metaphor which warns of the unpredictable potency of many present-day human achievements, be they technological developments, the harnessing of nuclear energy, or genetic manipulation. it is already too obvious that, once unleashed, their power quickly extends beyond the control of their human creators. given that each of these jewish leaders is active in local, national and international interfaith efforts, it is of particular interest to note how they situate jesus in their treatment of messianism and the messianic age. dorff ends his book with isaiah’s vision of the ideal society, respectfully noting the christian assertion that isaiah is describing jesus. referring also to the christian belief in the second coming, he concludes simply: “jews just think that he was not the messiah in the first place – a rabbi, a good teacher and preacher, but not the messiah” (p. 249). levine, on the other hand, devotes an entire chapter to jesus, before embarking on an extended exploration of a series of dysfunctional, failed messiahs who have dotted the jewish historical landscape. he respectfully raises the question: “who was the real jesus?” – acknowledging that “no one will be able to answer it with any certainty” (p. 17). he situates jesus in the complex, deeply troubling atmosphere of his day, locating him outside of the political establishment, publicly unaffiliated with any of the major groups. his assumption is that “jesus put himself squarely in the prophetic tradition,” but that “he clearly is a very different kind of prophet” (p. 20). highlighting the need to distinguish the “dream” of paul from the “dream” of jesus (p. 24), he views jesus’ message, not as one of dire apocalyptic warning and judgment, but as a gentler message of morality and justice in preparation for “the time when god’s kingdom will be established on earth (p. 21). jewish-christian learning and dialogue today while highly recommending these books to a readership at large, i believe they deserve special attention from faculty developing curricula and courses for interfaith study, particularly at the undergraduate level. jewish and christian students exploring together a theme embracing the messianic era, tikkun olam, and an ethics of responsibility would be introduced to a topic central both to the early “parting of the ways’ and to an emerging focus in today’s jewish-christian interfaith efforts. they would be introduced as well, in an accessible yet scholarly manner, to a broad spectrum of jewish biblical, rabbinic, classical and modern-day sources. the challenge for those responsible for the christian component of such an interfaith course will be to identify today’s christian authors and publications which draw on christian biblical, classical and modern-day sources to set forth in a substantive yet accessible manner the evolving christian understanding of messiah, the messianic era and social responsibility. a similar course would also be appropriate for adult jewish-christian study at the synagogue-parish level. underlying my unqualified recommendation of the three authors reviewed in this essay is the fact that their lives bring the message of social responsibility off the written page. even a superficial reading of rabbi sir jonathan sacks’ book impresses upon the reader the fact that the highest priority of this chief rabbi – whose daily agenda includes accommodating the demands of local, national, and international media, politicians and religious leaders – is clearly one of reaching into the fractures of real lives and real events in a timely and healing manner. upon entering the temple led by rabbi levine one quickly senses its mission expressed as “embodying a strong commitment to purposeful jewish living and the pursuit of human dignity.” levine’s own professional and personal commitments include being a rabbinic studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): re1-7 review essay: dorff; levine; sacks re7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art15 adviser to the jewish fund for justice, a national, publicly-supported foundation that acts on the historic commitment of the jewish people to tzedakah (righteous giving) and tikkun olam (repair of the world). he has also provided leadership in the american jewish call to action which urged the bush administration to assert the moral and political leadership needed to end the atrocities and genocide in darfur. rabbi dorff applies his extensive background in ethics and law in the arena of real life when human rights struggles with issues of poverty, end-of-life questions, sexuality, infertility, and genetic research reveal some of the deepest fractures in modern society. after being on its board of directors since 1985, dorff now serves as president of the jewish family service of los angeles whose more than sixty services include drug and alcohol abuse programs, shelters for battered women and children, and housing for the homeless. in one of his concluding chapters rabbi sacks observes: “there are textbooks and there are text-people. we learn virtue less by formal instruction than by finding virtuous people and observing how they live” (p. 239). if our academic institutions, especially those pioneering programs in joint christianjewish learning, effectively incorporate the classic rabbinic interpretation of the words, “we will do; then will we understand,” the future of the jewish-christian relationship will be assured of the kind of leadership which, rooted in the deepest values of the jewish and christian traditions, which will help bring an ethics of responsibility into today’s fractured world. microsoft word wyschogrod_cunningham.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): r5-6 michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise r5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art14 michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations edited and introduced by r. kendall soulen. (grand rapids and cambridge: eerdmans, 2004), paper, xiii + 253 pp. reviewed by philip a. cunningham, center for christian-jewish learning at boston college this volume is a collection of eighteen essays by the eminent orthodox jewish philosopher and theologian, michael wyschogrod. some, spanning the 1960s through 1999, are published here in english for the first time. besides assembling this valuable compilation, editor r. kendall soulen provides a fine introduction to wyschogrod’s thought as well as helpful prefatory comments to each article. the book has two sections: judaism and jewish-christian relations. both jewish and christian readers will learn a great deal about judaism from wyschogrod’s essays. topics considered in the book’s first section include: the oneness of god, sin and atonement, the land, and faith and the holocaust. wyschogrod’s understanding of judaism is predicated on his conviction that the five books of the torah were given by god to moses as god’s gift to the people of israel, whom god loves “as no other” (p.28). thus, he holds that jews must be “believing” or “good” jews by obeying god’s will for israel as expressed in the commandments and repenting when they inevitably fall short. a characteristic feature of wyschogrod’s perspective is his emphasis on the physical, corporeal nature of god’s choice or election of israel: israel, whatever else it may also be, and it is many other things, is first and foremost a community of family, of kinship, of descent from abraham, of blood communion. … there is therefore no idea that encompasses israel because israel is, at it were, an idea incarnated in the flesh of a people. … [circumcision] is a cutting into the flesh, the organ of generation, leaving a permanent mark in the flesh of a people that thereby embraces the covenant with its flesh (p. 129). this “carnal election of israel” means that “god did not choose a community of faith but a people of the flesh, the descendants of abraham, isaac, and jacob,” thereby confirming that the human person is both soul and body (p. 99) and even suggesting that, “if the human body can resemble god, then there must also be a physical aspect to god’s being” (p. 171). it is this physicality of israel’s life with god that, for wyschogrod, explains why being jewish is “not just a religious but also a national identity” (p. 45), and why the land of israel is so important to jews, even though their “nationality” is not dependent on being physically present on its soil (p. 100). it is also why israel knows “a god who enters the human world and into relationship with humanity by means of speech and command” (p. 42) and who is quite different from the non-corporeal and immutable deity of greek philosophy and its heirs (pp. 32-35). several times, wyschogrod stresses “the contrast between the secular and religious attitudes” (p. 54, see pp. 113-115), sometimes seeming to dichotomize them. one might suspect that his frequent distinctions between “believing” and “secular” jews means that only orthodox jews are “believers” and reform or conservative jews, even if people of faith, are “secular.” such a review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): r5-6 michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise r6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art14 construal would not be consistent with the impression given in his essay, “a theology of jewish unity,” but in this particular volume he doesn’t consider if the differing halakhic practices of “liberal” judaism might nonetheless be expressions of belief. this apparent dichotomization may steer wyschogrod away from directly engaging the postenlightenment historical consciousness in relation to his understanding of jewish “faith.” does jewish “belief” demand the ahistorical conviction that the torah mitzvoth (commands) are direct expressions of god’s will, with any thought of human influences on the text’s composition being relegated to the realm of the “secular”? this seems odd given wyschogrod’s claim that “israel does not abandon the domain of history” (p. 98) and his affirmations of “the indwelling of god in the people israel” in history (p. 170). this concern no doubt stems from the experience of my own roman catholic community, which has been grappling for some time with the implications of a historical consciousness for its understanding of the scriptures. for example, at the turn of the twentieth-century catholic teaching insisted on the mosaic authorship of the pentateuch under god’s dictation. but by the turn of the twenty-first century it could state that “holy scripture, inasmuch as it is the ‘word of god in human language,’ has been composed by human authors in all its various parts and in all the sources that lie behind them” (pontifical biblical commission, “the interpretation of the bible in the church” [1993] i,a). in short, how does jewish “orthodoxy that does not reject modernity but tries to combine faithful [“believing”?] torah observance with secular education” (p. 155) really respond to the challenge of a historical consciousness? in the book’s second part, christians will especially be struck by wyschogrod’s application of his ideas about god’s presence in the flesh of the people israel to christian faith in the incarnation of jesus: “the christian teaching of the incarnation of god in jesus is the intensification of the teaching of the indwelling of god in israel by concentrating that indwelling in one jew rather than leaving it diffused in the people of jesus as a whole” (p. 178). readers will also find his reading of the apostle paul to be insightful. christians will particularly appreciate wyschogrod’s willingness to take christianity’s truth-claims seriously, as when he writes: the nations, as represented by the church, seek the god of abraham. this is a fact that has never sufficiently impressed itself into the jewish consciousness. … access to this god is only through a covenant by means of which a people becomes the people of god; once this is perceived, the church arises as the people of a new covenant. christianity, therefore, expresses the longing of those not included in the covenant with israel for election by the god of israel (p. 185). among his most thought-provoking essays is “a letter to cardinal lustiger,” the son of polish jews. wyschogrod argues that the cardinal’s statements that he still considers himself to be jewish after his baptism means that he should therefore be torah observant, even if “such a decision would cause problems both for the church and for jews” (p. 210). a brief review does not permit a full discussion of the issues that wyschogrod raises, but at a minimum one must ask if it is really possible to take the demographic context of first-century mixed churches of jews and gentiles and simply transpose it into the twentieth or twentieth-first centuries as if the intervening two millennia were irrelevant to a community’s self-understanding. the fact that such questions arise demonstrate that this is an important and stimulating book. it is “must reading” for everyone studying the field of christian-jewish relations and is highly recommended for jewish and christian readers alike. after eden: church fathers and rabbis on genesis 3:16-21 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): r13-14 hanneke reuling, after eden r13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art25 hanneke reuling, after eden: church fathers and rabbis on genesis 3:16-21 (leiden: brill, 2006), hardcover, 390 pp. reviewed by helen spurling, university of cambridge this book, part of brill’s jewish and christian perspectives series, is a revised doctoral dissertation examining rabbinic and patristic exegesis of genesis 3:16-21. reuling gives detailed analysis of a selection of rabbinic and patristic sources in order to investigate two main hypotheses. first, she asks, “do church fathers and rabbis hold fundamentally different evaluations of human life or should we modify this notion?” (p. 341). secondly, she questions whether, in their exegesis of the primordial decrees of genesis 3, the jewish and christian traditions focus on the arduous nature of human life “after eden.” reuling contributes a valuable assessment of patristic and rabbinic views on procreation, sexuality, labour, mortality and corporeality, giving not only detailed analysis of the sources in their own right, but drawing attention to where rabbinic and patristic exegesis is similar or divergent in its discussion of genesis 3:16-21. the book begins with a brief outline of the history of scholarship on the subject of the encounter between jews and christians in their biblical exegeses. this is followed by a nuanced presentation of the main issues for consideration in the analysis of a potential encounter between the two traditions, and an outline of the methodology used by reuling in analysing the sources. in particular, reuling considers texts and authors from the fourth and fifth centuries, as a means of comparing rabbinic and patristic exegesis of genesis 3:16-21 from a broadly similar time period. the analysis of genesis 3:16-21 begins with an examination of the biblical verses in the versions used by church fathers and rabbis, including discussion of textual problems and assessment of the differences between the different versions. the source analysis is divided into five chapters. the first three chapters focus on patristic exegesis, examining didymus the blind and ambrose of milan as representatives of the alexandrian approach to exegesis, john chrysostom from the school of antioch, and augustine of hippo from the latin tradition. reuling provides a useful introduction to the exegetical approach and theological perspective of these authors, and her choice of authors reflects the necessary consideration of not only a specific time period, but also geographical location, language and style. reuling properly analyzes these sources in relation to their own specific contexts, examining the church father’s place within their exegetical school or tradition, and the relationship of the writings of the church father to other patristic authors and writers such as philo. in this way, reuling brings out the differences and similarities between the various traditions of these church fathers within patristic circles before making any systematic comparison with the ideas found in rabbinic sources. chapters four and five of the source analysis focus on rabbinic exegesis with assessment of genesis rabbah and aboth de-rabbi nathan (versions a and b). given that reuling wished to focus on the fourth to fifth centuries, the choice of aboth de-rabbi nathan is problematic, although reuling herself acknowledges this. scholarship dates this text from the 3rd to the 8th centuries, yet, if reuling was willing to consider a text that could have a final redaction in the 8th review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): r13-14 hanneke reuling, after eden r14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art25 century, there are other rabbinic texts that would perhaps have been preferable to include in the study that have more detail on the verses in question. for example, the recensions of tanhuma, or pirke de-rabbi eliezer. as with examination of the patristic literature, the analysis of the sources focuses on discussion of the texts within their own context and reuling relates the traditions in genesis rabbah and aboth de-rabbi nathan to the wider transmission of the tradition in rabbinic sources. the investigation of the rabbinic sources takes place on three levels: examination of the specific exegesis of genesis 3:16-21; consideration of the themes arising from this exegesis; and finally the significance of the exegesis of these verses in the interpretation of genesis 3 as a whole. in the introduction to genesis rabbah, reuling addresses the approach to the comparative aspect of her study. she suggests that the most profitable comparison will examine not just the specific interpretations of the verses in question, but would focus on “a pattern of debated issues” (p. 223) and comparison of the assumptions behind the rabbinic and patristic exegesis. this approach considers not only shared interpretations and the distinctiveness of each tradition, but also firmly establishes the place of the examined traditions in the overall perspective of the text in which they are found. the assumption underlying this analytical approach is that there is a redactional perspective in rabbinic texts, which allows for examination of the place of specific exegesis of genesis 3:16-21 in terms of its significance for the overall themes of a rabbinic text. indeed, reuling states in a balanced way “genesis rabbah is both a collection of interpretations and an editorial statement about the first book of the bible” (p. 229). this multi-level perspective is reflected in the conclusions drawn by reuling. on the wider thematic level, reuling draws a contrast between the theological views of rabbis and church fathers, particularly, the patristic view of adam as a type for humanity who transgressed only to be redeemed by jesus, in contrast with the rabbinic focus on moses and sinai, but also the contrast in approach and style. similarities on the broader thematic level include the extensive discussion in both sets of literature on the future restoration. in relation to the specific exegesis of genesis 3:16-21, reuling notes that there is a basic difference in the understanding of sexuality and procreation, labour and corporeality in the two traditions, but this must be seen against the background of a pluriformity of tradition. reuling notes similarities on the issues of gender and mortality, and overall a particularly close affinity between the exegesis of john chrysostom and the rabbis. on the whole, with regard to the first hypothesis, reuling notes that “the heritage of patristic and rabbinic genesis-interpretation embodies this intricate relationship of similarity and divergence” (p. 341). the second hypothesis is refuted as the onerous nature of human life “after eden” is found to be only one of many interpretations. after eden is a valuable contribution to the study of the exegetical encounter between church father and rabbis both for its specific study of genesis 3:16-21, which has not previously been considered in its entirety in comparative analysis, and for the example set by the methodological approach used in the examination of the sources both in their own context and in comparison with the “opposing” exegetical tradition. scjr 16, no. 1 (2021): 1-3 james bernauer, s.j. jesuit kaddish: jesuits, jews, and holocaust remembrance (notre dame, in: notre dame university press, 2020), hardcover, xxx + 187 pp. martina cucchiara cucchiaram@bluffton.edu bluffton university, bluffton, oh 45817 in this excellent volume, james bernauer, s.j., the kraft family professor of philosophy emeritus and former director of the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college, offers “a meditation on the drama of the holocaust and the jesuits” (xvii). grounding his analysis in the jesuit spiritual practices of “the examination of conscience and the discernment of spirit,” bernauer focuses on the uncovering of “fragments that are essential for the evolution of a more comprehensive perspective on the holocaust and the jesuit order’s relation to it” (xvii-xiv). it is bernauer’s abandonment of a grand narrative which makes this book so valuable. this freed the author to analyze this topic from different angles through a variety of lenses, which in turn illuminate fresh approaches to the study of the catholic church and the holocaust. in the first of five chapters, bernauer focuses on the papacy, in particular on pope john paul ii and his crucial role in advocating a new relationship between jews and christians. as a witness of nazi crimes and jewish suffering in war-torn poland, the pontiff issued a grave summons to the catholic church and to catholics to take “stock not of everyday failures but rather of epochal depravity” (2). after retracing john paul ii’s pilgrimages to nazi death camps, the synagogue of rome, and yad vashem in israel, the author highlights the catholic church’s statements on the holocaust, including “we remember: a reflection on the shoah” published in 1998 by the vatican’s commission for religious relations with the jews. although bernauer does not deny the statement’s major flaws, he argues for its intrinsic value because in it, the catholic church expresses sorrow for its failures, admits the guilt of catholics, and repudiates racism and antisemitism. bernauer, a jesuit, focuses on the society of jesus, which has yet to issue such a statement. he makes clear early on that “one of my goals of this volume is to establish the need and rationale for such an apology” (xxii). he continues making his case in chapter two with an examination of the jesuits’ longstanding hostility toward jews. although the jesuit founder ignatius of loyola supported pope paul iv’s 1555 anti-jewish edict “cum nimis absurdum,” he welcomed jewish converts cucchiara: james bernauer’s jesuit kaddish 2 into the ranks of his new movement. but within a few short decades the jesuits yielded to ecclesiastical and political pressures and banned the admission into their ranks of catholics of jewish and muslim descent. the jesuits’ attitude toward jewish heritage thus shifted from “one of honor to that of shame,” and the chapter examines the consequences of this change (26). bernauer argues that alongside the familiar tropes of christian antisemitism, jesuit antisemitism also revealed itself in a “distinctive dialect…that might be described as asemitism” (27). asemitism purported to disavow violence against jews but advocated christians’ extreme indifference toward them. it was a desire for jews’ invisibility. readers no doubt will welcome bernauer’s careful attention to the nuances of catholic views of jews. but they also may find that asemitism does not capture fully jesuits’ antisemitism, because far from being indifferent to jews or rendering them invisible, some jesuits took an active part in the catholic church’s creation and magnification of the ubiquitous antisemitic image of the “dangerous jews” in the modern era. bernauer continues this examination of the construction of the catholic fantasy of the jew in chapter three. specifically, he focuses his superb analysis on the intersection of the catholic church’s moral teachings and antisemitism. here the author applies the lens of sexuality studies to gain deep and nuanced insights into the “more subtle de-structiveness” of catholic moral teachings on sexuality (51). bernauer makes a convincing case that the pathology that “seemed to flourish in modern religious culture’s charting of sexuality” became “the source of one of christianity’s own greatest weaknesses in its encounter with nazism” (53). these weaknesses manifested themselves in a number of ways, such as in the principal christian struggle of the soul against the body, in which jews came to represent an excessive and sinful carnality. catholic teachings on sexuality thus had some overlap with later genocidal attacks on jews, because long before christians abandoned jews in the third reich, catholic teachings on the carnality of jews already had “reduced them to an animal level, a status that would soon come to be reflected in the forms of nazi torture” (61). other catholic moral teachings abetted nazism, which included the fostering of obedience and submissiveness and the cultivation of a state of oppressive pessimism and pervasive sinfulness. in this context, nazism either became an ally of christians in the pursuit of moral renewal or offered an escape from a suffocating sexual code. bernauer demonstrates here the profitability and need for innovative, fresh approaches to the study of the catholic church under nazism, and his sophisticated analysis in this chapter is a high point of the book. the author also should be commended for showing a welcome sensitivity to gender and women throughout the volume, which still is rare in works on the catholic church under nazism. chapter four shifts to the jesuit righteous whose autonomous judgment and courageous actions during the holocaust set them apart from the majority of their brethren and helped them overcome the church’s traditional hostility toward jews. bernauer posits “that the righteous have not yet found their place on the landscape of our moral imagination,” which perhaps is the case because the righteous bring the catholic church’s abject failure during the holocaust into sharp relief (99). he examines the “spiritual insurrection” of jesuits like father pierre chaillet, who 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) have been recognized by israel as righteous among the nations (78-85, and a helpful appendix provides brief biographies of all the jesuits honored by the state of israel). but bernauer also casts his net wider and examines the righteous actions of jesuits not on this list, such as father friedrich muckermann and father augustin rösch. the author especially is interested in the spiritual source of these jesuits’ positive attitudes and actions toward jews and judaism, which he argues probably was “a special respect for the jewish scripture that they had studied seriously and prayed over earnestly through the years” (69-70). bernauer ends his study in chapter five with a discussion of ignatian spiritual exercises and then proposes “a jesuit statement of repentance as a spiritual response to the analyses of this volume” (103). the statement represents a fitting conclusion to this superb volume. while the book is most insistently addressed to members of the society of jesus, it is far from parochial and achieves a breadth and depth that will speak to a broad audience of scholars. scjr 16, no. 1 (2021): 1-3 carol rittner and john k. roth, eds. advancing holocaust studies (new york: routledge, 2021), softcover, xiii + 198 pp. josey g. fisher jfisher@gratz.edu gratz college, melrose park, pa 19027 advancing holocaust studies is a riveting collection of essays by world-renowned scholars in the field, reflecting on both their personal journeys and the professional lenses through which they see their research, teaching, and writing. through these individual voices, the reader is presented not only with the complexity of the field as it has evolved but indications about its future directions. the collection is an outgrowth of a conference “critical junctures: ethical challenges of holocaust studies,” held during united states holocaust memorial museum’s twenty-fifth anniversary observance in 2018. conference coordinators carol rittner and john k. roth later joined with eleven colleagues to explore further these issues and collaborate on this volume. the scholars include alex alvarez, debórah dwork, robert p. ericksen, wolf gruner, sara r. horowitz, lisa moses leff, edward t. linenthal, wendy lower, jonathan petropoulos, robert a. ventresca, and james e. young. the editors’ prologue prepares the reader for their unique approach, as you “meet authors who are like characters in a story. learning and teaching about the holocaust are the story; each of the book’s contributors has a part in it” (8). each scholar discusses a life experience that helps the reader to understand their commitments to the field and to its future. james young recalls the german family who rescued him in 1976 when, as a young backpacker, he was haplessly without lodging on a cold, wet night. bonding through their common interests in world war ii, they took him to a small village on the baltic sea where he learned the tragic fate of the s.s. cap arcona and two other ships. filled with 8,000 concentration camp inmates, the ships were mistakenly bombed by the royal air force, assuming they carried nazi troops. local villagers had rescued survivors and then collected bodies for burial as they washed up from the sea, but neither the dead nor the villagers’ involvement had been honored. only oral tradition recorded the whole story. a simple stone monument “that concealed much more than it remembered, would nonetheless be a revelation to me, my first holocaust memorial epiphany” (64). young’s lifetime study of memory and memorialization has followed. fisher: rittner and roth’s advancing holocaust studies 2 for social historian debórah dwork there was a direct connection—her aunt was the sole family member remaining in lodz when the nazis invaded. she asked why there was only limited scholarly explorations of daily life like her aunt had experienced, especially of the lives of jewish children. her research for children with a star (1991), including her use of primary sources, was considered a new dimension in holocaust studies at that time. however, for dwork these questions continue to serve as a “compass” for how she approaches both the history and its teaching (75). what will we remember of how it happened and how it was experienced, of people’s decisions and choices? what can we learn that will enable us to decode our world and have it shape our understandings and responses? other contributors cite formative connections as well. alex alvarez grapples with a difficult history when discussing his german family members, including a grandfather who served in the german air force during world war ii. wolf gruner, growing up behind the iron curtain in east germany, recalls being kicked out of school in tenth grade for his “fascist” ideas. jonathan petropoulos was raised with stories of his greek father’s childhood during the occupation. all speak of early and complex imprints. for robert ventresca and robert erickson, it was necessary to confront challenges to idealized views of the past. erickson, growing up in a family of lutheran pastors, describes his initial immersion in intellectual history: i expected to find german professors—heirs to the best university system in the world at that time—smart enough to see the flaws in nazi ideology, even if not all would take the risk of open opposition. i expected to find german professors of theology—heirs to the protestant reformation and the strongest theological tradition of their day—morally and spiritually acute enough to reject nazism, even if they were not ready to follow the path of a dissenting dietrich bonhoeffer (145). as he grew to see insidious roots of antisemitism within the christian tradition, his research focused on church leaders’ betrayal of these ideals and the complicity of formerly idealized religious institutions with nazism. ventresca, noted biographer of pope pius xii, writes that explaining the pope’s silence during the nazi era remains one of the most significant challenges for holocaust studies in the 21st century: questions about pope pius xii’s spiritual authority and political influence in a time of war and genocide haunt me as a catholic and motivate me as a historian... [it is] a vast and complex task that requires untangling, to the extent possible, the snarled threads of theology, religious identity, culture and politics (116). while ventresca was raised in a post-nostra aetate world, in his early education he learned little about these difficult questions. his subsequent work grapples with 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) them. doubting that opening the vatican archives will lead either to pius’ vilification or exoneration for his wartime actions, ventresca is concerned that any oversimplification will make it possible to avoid hard questions: given the pope’s spiritual authority, were prudence and impartiality in a time of extreme humanitarian crises consistent with the judgement and action expected, even demanded, of the vicar of christ? to my thinking, the answer to those questions is a resounding no. as a historian who is also a practicing catholic, i cannot shy away from my responsibility (121). rittner and roth have provided us with a provocative examination of contemporary holocaust studies, showing both doors which have opened and those yet to be unlocked. all thirteen scholars raise current concerns that demand ongoing historical probing and further application to a world still fraught with racism, immorality, and genocide. perhaps what is most memorable about this unique anthology is the contributors’ self-reflections and discussions of how their personal experiences brought them to their research, and how their views have evolved through time. they encourage us, whether student or scholar, to be aware of our own lenses and our own journeys. such deep connections will inevitably advance the field in both breadth and depth. 1 scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-18 pope john paul ii’s encounters with polish jews stanislaw krajewski stankrajewski@uw.edu.pl university of warsaw, 00-927 warszawa, poland introduction currently, the general public as well as scholars are reassessing the pontificate of pope john paul ii. one of its significant weaknesses was his toleration of sexual abuses within the church, which took place in dioceses throughout the world, including his native poland. by contrast, many individuals praise how he left the traditional confines of vatican walls and traveled to countries throughout the world. likewise, many people appreciate his successful outreach to jews that is seen as a significant change in catholic-jewish relations. john paul met with jews on many occasions during his visits to various countries. wherever he visited, he always attempted to meet with representatives of the local jewish communities. this resolve reveals his unique outlook toward jews in comparison with previous popes, which ensued, at least in part, from his personal contacts with jews over the years. the polish pope welcomed jewish delegations to the vatican. one of the first meetings he had as a pope was with his schoolmate, jerzy kluger, the son of the head of the jewish community in wadowice, the native town of the pope. he began to regularly meet his friend who had survived the shoah and settled in rome when he made his ad limina visits to rome as bishop and then archbishop of krakow.1 the pope’s last meeting with a group of visitors, on january 18, 2005, just several weeks before his death, was with a delegation of 130 jews. it was on that occasion that rabbi jack bemporad, the director of the center for interreligious understanding of new jersey, said, “no pope has done as much or cared as much about creating a brotherly relationship between catholics and jews as pope john paul ii.”2 this assessment is highly enthusiastic, but not untypical for jews involved in a deeper dialogical relationship with the roman catholic church. other jews might have been less excited, but the fact is that these meetings were remarkable. without precedent, the pope’s pilgrimage to the holy land was treated by the vatican as a state visit. likewise, the visit to the synagogue in rome on april 13, 1 the relationship is well described by darcy o’brien in the book the hidden pope: the untold story of a lifelong friendship that is changing the relationship between catholics and jews the personal journey of john paul ii and jerzy kluger (ny: daybreak books, 1998). 2 jewish telegraphic agency, “john paul ii meets large jewish group in vatican,” january 19, 2005, https://www.jta.org/2005/01/19/archive/pope-john-paul-ii-meets-large-jewish-group-in-vatican. https://www.jta.org/2005/01/19/archive/pope-john-paul-ii-meets-large-jewish-group-in-vatican krajewski: pope john paul ii’s encounters with polish jews 2 1986, was also an epoch-making event. the atmosphere during these visits was friendly and warm. it is not possible to question their significance without ill will. interestingly, some conservative theologians have questioned one of the pope’s most famous utterances made during his 1986 visit to the rome synagogue. namely, the pope said to the jews present, “you are our dearly beloved brothers and, in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers.”3 the pope must have taken the term “elder brothers” from the polish romantic poet adam mickiewicz, who had used that term to refer to jews over one hundred years earlier.4 in the twentieth century, most poles (including me), during their secondary education, studied mickiewicz’s poetry and writing. while the statement seems sufficiently obvious, some commentators attempted to weaken it by stressing the alleged significance of the words “in a certain way.” such individuals argue that the pope had no intention to refer to jews as “elder brothers” officially, and those who had literally understood the phrase were mistaken. one can easily refute this claim by merely referring to the fact that the pope publicly again repeated the same statement, with no hesitation.5 in this article, i attempt to describe and analyze the meetings that the pope had with polish jews in poland. i am uniquely prepared to discuss these meetings because i am the only jew, and possibly the only person alive, who participated in all 3 john paul ii, address at the great synagogue of rome, april 13, 1986, https://www.ccjr.us/dialogikaresources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/jp2-86apr13. 4 in the 1848 text, “skład zasad,” mickiewicz wrote, “izraelowi, bratu starszemu, uszanowanie, braterstwo, pomoc na drodze ku jego dobru wiecznemu i doczesnemu. równe we wszystkim prawo, which means “to israel, the elder brother, respect, brotherhood, assistance in its way to eternal and worldly good. equal rights in every respect,” mickiewicz, dzieła, vol. 12, ed., s. kieniewicz (warszawa : czytelnik, 1997), 10. mickiewicz took the term probably from one of his mentors, a messianic visionary, andrzej towiański, also a polish émigré in paris. this source of the term provides a convincing argument that it is wrong to criticize the pope, as is sometimes done, for the alleged reference to the recurrent biblical motive of the primacy of the younger sibling, that is, the church over the jews. 5 in poland, this polemic has been going on since 2009. in an interview for a catholic weekly, father waldemar chrostowski expressed his great satisfaction at the statement by the then editor-in-chief of l’osservatore romano that it was no longer correct to refer to jews as “elder brothers,” idziemy 43 (october 25, 2009), 4. this position was criticized by zbigniew nosowski, who wrote, “still elder brothers,” idziemy 45 (november 8, 2009), 38, and by father alfred wierzbicki, who remarked that the pope’s words were more binding than those of a vatican journalist, idziemy 46 november 15, 2009, 38. in a paper analyzing the polemic, marek nowak, op, presented a theological argument in favor of the “elder brothers” thesis, saying that it is a way to express the permanence of the covenant with israel. on this point, see nowak, “starsi bracia czyli trwanie przymierza,” in żydzi i judaizm we współczesnych badaniach polskich, vol. 5, ed. k. pilarczyk, (krakow: polska akademia umiejętności, 2010), 327343. nowak quotes several subsequent statements by the pope expressing the same idea without relativizing it. see pope john paul ii, crossing the threshold of hope (ny: alfred a. knopf, 1994, p. 99), in which he writes that it is correct to look to “the jews as our elder brothers in the faith.” in a reply to nowak, chrostowski maintained that the “elder brother” formula is incorrect because it ignores the discontinuity introduced by rabbinic judaism with respect to the biblical judaism. see chrostowski, “żydzi jako “starsi bracia” chrześcijan. markowi nowakowi w odpowiedzi,” in: żydzi i judaizm we współczesnych badaniach polskich, vol. 5, 345-360. it is worthwhile to note that even in 2020 all the individuals above continue to be active in poland. chrostowski is the chairman of polish theologians, nosowski is a co-chair of the polish council of christians and jews (ccj), nowak is on the board of the polish ccj, and wierzbicki is a professor at the catholic university in lublin. https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/jp2-86apr13 https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/jp2-86apr13 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) of these meetings. there were three of them: in 1987, 1991, and 1999. my approach is not merely personal. i have been actively involved in christian-jewish dialogue in poland since the 1980s. at the same time, i have also been engaged in the academic study of the issues pertinent to this dialogue.6 the first visit of john paul ii to poland (1979) as pope, john paul’s first of nine trips to poland was the most influential, the most revolutionary, and the most memorable. forty years ago, every aspect of his visit was new. as archbishop of krakow, he was not widely known because the government-controlled media dedicated no coverage of him. the government censored the media, and the internet did not exist then. in the 1970s, bishop karol józef wojtyła (later pope john paul ii) belonged to a catholic intellectual circle that was close to broader oppositional intelligentsia circles. it is through these circles that i heard about bishop wojtyła. yet, i had not met him, and until the day of his election as pope, i would not have been able to recognize him. everything changed when he was elected pope, and the communist authorities could no longer ban his presence from public life. his sheer presence began to undermine the walls that encircled us in the communist-controlled public sphere. when the pope came to poland, millions went to welcome him, and this very fact caused the powerful and unexpected liberating experience of the possibility of freedom; being together to greet the pope opened to us a vast amount of possibilities that we could only barely imagine. crowds amassed in the streets. the feeling of solidarity was palpable. this experience was crucial to the process leading a year later to the establishment of the trade union “solidarity,” which was de facto a massive anticommunist movement. there was no specific outreach to polish jews during this first visit. yet, even at this point, i knew that wojtyła had contacts with the leaders of the jewish community in krakow. i also soon learned that following the 1968 antisemitic campaign in poland, bishop wojtyła insisted on using the occasion of visiting a church in krakow’s kazimierz district to enter a synagogue of that formerly jewish neighborhood and be present while jews were gathered for prayer.7 his approach helped me to be present in a crowd engaged in a catholic devotion. while no direct jewish dimension was present during the pope’s first visit, i could only describe its significance by invoking biblical terms. namely, the situation seemed to have a messianic dimension. i mean messianic in a broadly jewish sense, not in the christian one. i felt that this visit had initiated a breakthrough, a redemptive social change, a transformation that would reveal the noblest aspects of 6 i have functioned as a jewish dialogue partner to official church institutions and committees since the mid-1980s, and co-chair of the polish council of christians and jews since the founding of the council (initially under another name) in 1989. since the mid-1990s, i have also been a professor of philosophy at the university of warsaw, studying and teaching, among other things, the philosophy of dialogue and interfaith relations. 7 see jacek moskwa, droga karola wojtyły, tom 1, na tron apostołów 1920-1978 (warsaw: świat książki 2010), 315. krajewski: pope john paul ii’s encounters with polish jews 4 humanity. no later visit of the pope had that aura, not even a shadow of it, at least for me. and this sort of messianic touch was present, at least to me, more broadly during the first period of the original “solidarity” movement (1980-1981). using the term messianic in this connection is very unusual and controversial. the presence and later complete disappearance of that dimension, that today feels unbelievable or like a bad joke, constitutes a separate subject, not to be continued here. the gesture (1983) before the first meeting between the pope and polish jews took place in 1987, the pope made a gesture during his second visit in 1983. on june 18, 1983, following a visit to the memorial at the pawiak prison that had served as a place of torture during the world war ii german occupation, the pope stopped and left his car when he passed the warsaw ghetto monument. he approached the monument, knelt, and prayed for a few moments. the event had not been prearranged; it was outside the official itinerary. it seems that it was a spontaneous act, a gesture that probably came to his mind as an appropriate one when, at pawiak, he was paying tribute to the victims of the second world war. the famous rapoport monument, unveiled in 1948, is officially designated as the “monument to the heroes of the ghetto.” i find this title improper. it suggests that the heroes are to be remembered, and the others, that is, the overwhelming majority of the jewish victims, are somehow less important and less worthy of memory. nevertheless, the monument has always been a focal point for the commemorations of all the victims of the shoah. so, it was natural for the pope to stop there. in 1983, the site had an additional significance for me. two months earlier, in april, the state as well as independent polish groups marked the fortieth anniversary of the warsaw ghetto uprising. there were two commemorations: the official one that included government representatives, leaders of jewish institutions, and foreign jewish guests; and an alternative one, created by us, the illegal-solidarity and a group of oppositional jewish activists that were associated with the underground solidarity leaders. marek edelman, the surviving leader of the ghetto uprising and, recently, a solidarity activist, supported the unofficial commemoration, but the police did not allow him to participate.8 when i learned of the pope’s gesture, i considered it as a support for the unofficial commemoration. perhaps my interpretation was stretched, but such feelings came naturally; we felt the pope was on our side even though the communist government tried to present his visit as an expression of support for the regime. 8 the two commemorations are presented at the core exhibition in polin, the warsaw museum of the history of polish jews. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) tomasz tomaszewski photographed the pope’s stop at the warsaw ghetto uprising monument, and he later published the photo in his book, remnants, a collection of interviews with polish jews conducted by his wife.9 the picture of the pope in red attire kneeling at the monument is analogous to the 1970 gesture of west germany’s chancellor willy brandt. yet, despite the visual similarity, the intention and the meaning of the pope’s act was utterly different. brandt sought to admit german guilt. the pope wanted to show his solidarity with the victims. however, for us poles, it was clear that he alluded to neither polish nor christian guilt. the book, remnants, recounts the standard explanation, the gesture “symbolized for poles and jews alike the pope’s desire for reconciliation between the two groups.”10 as i will discuss below, the pope expressed his attitude on this issue in 1987. the pope’s gesture before the warsaw ghetto monument was the first specifically jewish element during john paul’s visits to poland. still, the pope made another gesture before this time during his first visit. on june 7, 1979, when he visited the auschwitz-birkenau camp, he stopped at the memorial plaque in hebrew alongside those in polish and russian and stressed the importance of what it symbolized. yet, this action was momentary and only a tiny part of a long and detailed ritual at the camp, during which the jewish aspect was otherwise absent. in 1983, the jews were the focus of the pope’s gesture when he knelt before the warsaw ghetto memorial. perhaps, at this time, the idea of a meeting between him and polish jews occurred to him. the first meeting (june 14, 1987) on the last day of the pope’s third visit to poland, he met with a jewish delegation in warsaw in the residence of the primate of poland on miodowa street. i was a generation younger than my colleagues that included dr. szymon datner, a respected historian and honorary president of the religious union of the mosaic faith,11 mozes finkelstein, delegation chair and chairman of the union board, adam flecker, a representative of the union’s szczecin branch, michał białkowicz, a union office official, czesław jakubowicz, a union representative from its cracow branch, who had initially met the pope when he was the archbishop of krakow, and zygmunt nissenbaum, a polish jew living in switzerland who, a few years earlier, had attempted to restore several jewish cemeteries in poland. none of my colleagues are alive today. 9 malgorzata niezabitowska, remants. the last jews of poland (ny: friendly press, 1986), 261. 10 ibid., 260. 11 in polish, związek religijny wyznania mojżeszowego. created in 1949, it was completely controlled by the government agency urząd do spraw wyznań (office for denominational affairs) even though most of the funding for its activities came from the american joint distribution committee. in 1987, it consisted of sixteen local congregations. in 1992, after the political transformation, its rather peculiar name was changed when the union was transformed into związek gmin wyznaniowych żydowskich w rp or the union of jewish religious communities in the republic of poland. krajewski: pope john paul ii’s encounters with polish jews 6 the atmosphere was sublime. our chairman, szymon datner, captured this fact by quoting from psalm 117 and psalm 118 and then expressing how “proud, happy, and grateful” we were to be present at the meeting.12 there was a feeling that it was a critical and historical event. “it is no exaggeration,” continued datner, “to ascribe to this event a historical dimension.” reflecting on this experience, today, i believe this feeling was unjustified since it did not have a significant impact on christian-jewish relations in poland; still, the fact remains that it was the first such meeting in poland. to me, it felt perfectly natural. the pope seemed energetic and enthusiastic; all of us smiled; everyone seemed relaxed. such an atmosphere was not to be felt during the later meetings, neither by me nor, i assume, by others. cardinal franciszek macharski in the presence of archbishop henryk muszyński, the chair of a recently established sub-commission of the polish episcopate for dialogue with judaism, introduced us to the pope. i presented the pope with a book, time of stones, by my wife, monika krajewska, which featured photographs of polish jewish cemeteries. composed of artistic black-and-white photographs and quotations from poetry, both biblical and contemporary, it was a unique book on the polish market at that time.13 i had hoped that it would make an impression on the pope. indeed, he examined several pages with keen interest. i vividly remember my feeling of an authentic connection to the pope. despite the religious differences, we were connected in a way that seemed to me essential, deep, and lasting. there existed several links that are not easy to pinpoint. one had to do with the christian-jewish relationship in general and especially in poland, another with our experiences of post-war poland, and still another with the importance of the shoah and world war ii, again with a particular reference to poland. the polish intellectual ethos also united us, despite the denominational differences. perhaps, the common denominator of all these points was due to our shared polishness. i was polish in a way similar to him being polish. and my older jewish colleagues could feel something similar, although probably in a significantly more limited way. this shared polishness introduces a difference between me and the non-polish jews together with those jews of polish origin who do not share either the polish cultural background or the experience of the post-war polish realities.14 this difference is real, even though many might ignore it. in important ways, it may be ignored. for example, during various meetings, the pope functions primarily as the head of the church rather than a polish priest, and the jews as members of the house of israel rather than members of a specific national culture. yet, at that particular 1987 meeting, the polish dimension was overriding. despite that feeling of togetherness, i had ambivalent feelings when listening to the pope’s address. there was no time to express my doubts; no real exchange 12 these words and the next quote are my translation of datner’s utterances available in the report published in “kalendarz żydowski 5749/1988-89”, the calendar and yearbook published by the religious union of mosaic faith, 1988, p. 182. 13 the book czas kamieni (warsaw: interpress, 1983) had been completed in 1981 during the thaw of solidarity. it appeared only in 1983, in four languages, polish, english, french, and german. a revised english version, a tribe of stones, appeared in 1993. 14 on this point, see poland and the jews. reflections of a polish polish jew (cracow: austeria, 2005). 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) followed. the pope’s speech was improvised. on the official vatican website, it exists in polish and italian only.15 here is an english translation: address of john paul ii to the representatives of the polish jewish community first of all, i would like to thank you for this meeting which has become part of my program; it recalls many memories, many experiences of my youth, but certainly not only of mine. these were good and later dreadful, dreadful memories and experiences. be assured, dear brothers, that the poles and this polish church were nearby and watched the horrifying reality of the premeditated, total annihilation of your nation in a spirit of profound solidarity with you. the threat against you was also a threat against us. the latter was not carried out to the same extent as there was no time to do so. it was you who suffered this terrible sacrifice of devastation. you suffered it also, one could say, for the others intended for devastation. we believe in the purifying power of suffering. the more atrocious the suffering, the greater the purification. the more painful the experiences, the greater the hope. i think that the israeli(te) nation today, perhaps more than ever before, is at the center of attention of the nations of the world. above all this is because of that terrible experience itself, and also because through it, you have become a great voice of warning to all humanity, all nations, all the powers of this world, all systems and even every person. more than anyone else, you have become such a redemptive warning. i think that in this way you carry out your particular vocation, that you still prove to be heirs of that election to which god is faithful. this is your mission in the contemporary world to peoples, nations, all humanity. the church, and in this church, all peoples and all nations, feel united to you in this mission. they give prominence to your nation, your suffering, your devastation, when they wish to speak to men, to nations, to humankind with a voice of warning. in your name, the pope also speaks this warning. the polish pope has a special relationship to all this because, together with you, he was living all that in a certain way in this land. this is just a thought that i wanted to share with you and to thank you for having come here for this meeting. there have been many meetings with your 15 see the polish original at https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/pl/speeches/1987/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19870614_comunita-ebraica.html. and the italian version at https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/speeches/1987/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19870614_comunita-ebraica.html. the polish text was also published in wiara i odpowiedzialność. religia. społeczeństwo. historia. kultura 8 (1987), and in kalendarz żydowski 5749/1988-89 (warsaw, 1988), 182-183, the calendar and yearbook published by the religious union of mosaic faith. https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/pl/speeches/1987/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19870614_comunita-ebraica.html https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/pl/speeches/1987/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19870614_comunita-ebraica.html https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/speeches/1987/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19870614_comunita-ebraica.html https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/speeches/1987/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19870614_comunita-ebraica.html krajewski: pope john paul ii’s encounters with polish jews 8 kinsmen in different countries of the world. for me, the visit to the synagogue of rome last year, the first after so many, many centuries, was unforgettable. i particularly value this present meeting in poland; it is especially meaningful for me, and i think it will be particularly fruitful. it will help me and the whole church to become more aware of what unites us, as my predecessor just said, in the realm of the divine covenant. this is what unites us in the contemporary world, in the face of the great tasks that this world places before us and before the church in the field of justice and peace among nations. this is in accordance with your biblical word, “shalom.” i thank you for the words spoken in the spirit of the sacred scripture, and in the spirit of faith in the same god, who is both yours and ours, the god of abraham. and to you, to the few heirs of the great israeli(te) community in poland, apparently once the largest in the world, i offer the greeting of peace and my respect. shalom! 16 the main message at the beginning of this address is clear: the church and the poles, in general, confronted the murder of jews with “profound solidarity.” however, this statement is wrong. it was not the case that the sermons in the churches were exclusively pro-jewish. testimonies of that era and historical research reveal a great deal of indifference and antisemitism. friendly gestures did exist, but they were not the norm. perhaps the memories of jewish survivors are too painful to recall the positive words, but hostility was easily encountered and defined the atmosphere in poland for jews. since this is a fact, how can we understand the pope’s words? most probably, he tried to express his personal feelings about the shoah and his sentiments during the war. i see no reason to question this. it is a moving testimony of his solidarity. still, one must ask if it is correct for him to extend this attitude to the whole church of that time and the entire polish people. the additional thesis he expressed is equally as strong: “the threat against you was also a threat against us.” when i heard it, i immediately perceived it as highly inappropriate. not only because of the blackmailers who were looking for hidden jews to extort money from and then report to the germans. what came to my mind first was the fundamental difference between fates. after all, the situation of karol wojtyła differed significantly from that of his jewish classmates and other jews. only the polish elites were endangered similarly as jews. the pope portrayed a picture of the possible mass murder of all poles as if it were a reality, and only the 16 i am grateful to sue throckmorton for her assistance with the translation. an english translation has been published on the site of the centre for dialogue and prayer in oświęcim (that is, auschwitz), see http://cdim.pl/1987-06-14-john-paul-ii-address-to-jewish-leaders-in-warsaw,1769. however, this translation is not completely faithful to the original, and in order to substantiate my analysis i prefer to use my own translation. to indicate the inaccuracies let me offer two examples: first, the use of the present tense rather than the original past tense in the sentence in the first paragraph, about the polish and church’s solidarity with the murdered jews; second, the use of the term “the nation of israel” rather than “israeli” or “israelite” nation, the adjectival form of the original. http://cdim.pl/1987-06-14-john-paul-ii-address-to-jewish-leaders-in-warsaw,1769 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) lack of time made this other mass murder impossible. again, he may have expressed the perception of the danger he felt because of the terror of the german occupation. yet, to present this as a fact as if the fates of jewish and non-jewish poles were the same, constitutes an unjustified move. even in the hell of auschwitz, the jewish inmates, who were fortunate enough to survive the initial selection, lacked rights that others had, at least in theory, such as the right to correspond or to receive parcels. the pope expressed his solidarity and his identification with the jews attending the meeting, and in doing so, the difference of fates disappeared. one might also perceive the pope’s words as an attempt to “christianize” the shoah. this objection often appears in jewish criticism of the church’s dealings with the legacy of the shoah. in the late 1980s and early 1990s, jewish commentators regularly made similar critiques during the auschwitz carmelite convent controversy. i find that such accusations are often made without proper justification. the polish pope certainly was aware of the relevant facts. he did not want to christianize the shoah but instead attempted to place the jewish tragedy in a framework that would reveal its universal significance. this act, in itself, should not be reproached. in fact, we all do something like this in one way or another. at the meeting, the pope described the horror of the shoah by presenting it through the lens of a christian theology of suffering. he spoke about the “sacrifice of devastation.” the polish term wyniszczenie translates as devastation; at the one end of its semantic field, it signifies “emaciation” and, at the other, “annihilation.” according to the pope, the tragedy was also present for the others “intended for devastation.” common in war-time poland was the perception that the poles were next in the queue to go to the gas chambers after the jews. in addition, the pope expressed another idea that jews were the innocent victims who served as substitute victims for other possible victims of evil. he theologizes the shoah. he suggests that god has chosen jews to suffer in the place of humanity. as a result, jews “have become a redemptive warning.” he states that it was a way of fulfilling the jewish mission resulting from the biblical covenant. and he declares the church’s solidarity with jews in that it feels “united with you in this mission.” this interpretation was challenging for me to accept, despite the feeling of unity that was so palpable. yet, while i do not share this christian interpretation, it might serve a useful purpose. at the very least, it stresses the continuity of the election of israel. while many jews would not be pleased by the pope’s interpretation, i do not think it is inherently wrong. the idea of the plight of jews being the litmus test for the health of the whole society is not uncommon among jews and is related to the pope’s approach. much more problematic is another aspect of his theology of suffering. he put it in the most explicit terms, “we believe in the purifying power of suffering. the more atrocious the suffering, the greater the purification. the more painful the experiences, the greater the hope.” such understanding comes close to an apotheosis of suffering, which may be theologically attractive to christians, but seems overly simplistic to me. suffering might produce positive results, but often it does not. against the papal claim, i believe that there is no guarantee that a redemptive quality will emerge from suffering. the statement relates to a theological position but does not express empathy. the ordeal of the krajewski: pope john paul ii’s encounters with polish jews 10 victims was virtually ignored. as rabbi irving greenberg has queried (and this applies equally well to some jewish interpretations of the shoah): would you be able to state your interpretation while looking at the bodies of children burning in a camp crematorium? if not, it would be better to refrain from theologizing and remain silent. when i heard the pope’s remarks, i reacted with similar feelings expressed above. over time, my feelings grew stronger. yet, i did not immediately articulate them. i was fascinated by john paul and, above all, i much appreciated his respect for judaism and jewish experiences. after several years an additional interpretation emerged. the most divisive discrepancy, that is, his attitude to suffering, could be viewed from my perspective in a way that would drastically reduce the theological opposition. namely, i could interpret suffering not as meaningful as such, which could justify the tragedy at the root of the suffering, but as a challenge. the theology of suffering may differentiate jews from christians—and this difference remains rather theoretical than practical as hardly anyone desires to suffer—but challenges are often common to all of us. emil fackenheim’s famous formulation of a 614th commandment (added to the traditional 613) forbids a jew to abandon judaism since doing so brings a posthumous victory to hitler. i believe this formulation aptly describes a prevailing attitude among jews. we can interpret the words of the pope similarly. when he sees a “redemptive warning” in our suffering in which we “prove to be heirs of that election, to which god is faithful,” it can be seen as a challenge to remain faithful. thus his words do not necessarily need to be seen as an affirmation of suffering but rather as an appeal for jews to remain faithful to the covenant. one more point struck me in the pope’s speech. he avoided the term “jew” and used “israeli(te)” instead. i felt his calling us wspólnota izraelska or israeli(te) community was strikingly inappropriate.17 even those of us polish jews who felt a strong bond to the state of israel were not israelis. in fact, we often felt the need to oppose the israeli envoys who were ready to treat us as a sort of incomplete israelis. the pope’s language could also suggest that he regarded the word “jew” as pejorative, anachronistic, or shameful. yet, i did not draw this conclusion since i knew that he did use the name on other occasions. for example, at our second meeting, in 1991, he used the words “jew” and “jewish community” even though he also repeated his 1987 term, “israeli(te).” how can we interpret his language? perhaps it expressed a pro-zionist attitude? maybe it did, but i suspect that it was primarily a way to stress the biblical dimension of our identity. “israel” would mean “the house of israel” rather than “the state of israel.” this interpretation is consistent with the general framework of the meeting in that only the representatives of the religious jewish community were invited; the leaders of the numerically stronger secular organization were ignored. 17 whether the adjective “israeli” or “israelite” serves as a better translation is debatable. the plain meaning is “israeli,” but here it rather means “belonging to the house of israel,” so, perhaps, “israelite” is more proper. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) the visit that did not materialize before turning to the second meeting, it is worthwhile to describe a failed opportunity for an additional meeting. in their preparation for the pope’s 1991 journey to poland, vatican envoys asked the polish jewish community whether it would be possible to arrange for the pope to visit the nożyk synagogue in warsaw. the attempt was confidential. i learned about it some ten years later, when father professor michał czajkowski, then the co-chair of the polish council of christians and jews, and i visited the nuncio, archbishop józef kowalczyk. in 1991, the vatican representatives approached rabbi pinchas menachem joskowicz, the chief rabbi of poland, about the visit. in 1988, joskowicz had been nominated for the chief rabbinate and poland was still under communist rule. the appointment resulted from an arrangement between the polish government with prominent american jews. in particular, rabbi chaskel besser, a bobover chassid who spoke beautiful polish and had a broad education, represented the lauder foundation in these discussions. rabbi besser much desired to assist jewish religious life in poland and, in addition to joskowicz, sent rabbi michael schudrich, then a conservative rabbi, to poland. later, schudrich became the chief rabbi of poland. i met rabbi joskowicz in mid-1988 when i joined rabbi besser on a visit to the center of the chabad movement in brooklyn. at this point, it was already agreed that joskowicz would go to poland. joskowicz was a polish jew and a survivor of auschwitz, who now lived in israel and had not recently functioned as a rabbi. he was a chassid, with no secular education, so he represented a traditionalist approach to judaism. his traditionalism was not problematic for the jews attending the synagogue in warsaw. they were all traditionally educated before the war and only later pursued secular careers, often in the army. it was only after 1968 that some of them returned to active jewish life. for them, orthodox judaism was the only variety they knew, so they did not question a rabbi stemming from such an environment. by contrast, for my generation, a rabbi with no secular education was hardly an appropriate choice. we could relate to him in some respects, but cultural differences between us made it difficult to attain a deeper understanding. the characteristics of the rabbi are highly relevant to the topic at hand. not surprisingly, when he was asked about the prospect of the papal visit to the synagogue, he refused. he replied that there were not enough jews in warsaw. “who would be sitting in the pews?” he asked. in his opinion, the assimilated, nonreligious jews were not the right audience. was this the reason or just a pretext? i suspect that the idea of a priest, let alone a pope, in the synagogue seemed too much for him. he probably was afraid that the visit would not be condoned by the israeli ultraorthodox leaders who were his main point of reference. at that time, no one else knew about the initiative. no one else was asked because the leadership of the church assumed then—and this is still mostly the case—that their partners were primarily rabbis. this presumption was a mistake. the misunderstanding of the role of rabbis in judaism is common among catholics. they assume that a rabbi is equivalent to a priest in the church, which is a highly krajewski: pope john paul ii’s encounters with polish jews 12 misleading perception. while there are rabbis who are spiritual leaders with significant authority, generally, a rabbi is employed by a community as an expert in the field of religious law. in our case, it was even more complicated because the community had little to do with rabbi joskowicz’s nomination. he was brought to poland by a government agency at a time when the government and the political system it represented began to disappear. the rabbi’s gratitude to the government of the “polish people’s republic” published in the jewish calendar and yearbook for 5750, or 1989-90, well-illustrated this situation. on behalf of jews, rabbi joskowicz thanked the government for its “assistance to bring a spiritual leader to the jewish community.”18 the source of his position is thereby clearly indicated. ironically, by the time the calendar went into effect, the government and the “polish people’s republic” were no longer in existence. i am not claiming that the jews who attended the synagogue did not accept the rabbi. however, i do believe that if the vatican representative had consulted with the leadership of the community, it would have given a different answer. i assume that the president of the union’s board, dr. paweł wildstein, and the majority of the synagogue members, would have been in favor of the pope’s visit. i am quite sure that they would have asked me to help prepare the visit because, despite the generational gap, we were cooperating closely. i was already active in the polish council of christians and jews, which i helped to establish. the council was not approached. in the end, the missed opportunity could be blamed not only on rabbi joskowicz but also on the leadership of the catholic church. the second meeting (1991) on june 9, 1991, the second meeting took place in the residence of the apostolic nuncio instead of the nożyk synagogue. again, it was held on the last day of the pope’s visit. without attributing too much to this fact, one might interpret the meeting with jews as not of the highest priority for the polish organizers. i am confident that if it were not for the pope’s determination, other possible meetings would have taken place rather than the jewish one. at the same time, there is no reason to believe that the meetings with jews were of top priority for him. more probably, they ware rather like an addendum to the main program. in the jewish delegation, there was one more person of my generation, konstanty gebert, a well-known journalist. mozes finkelstein, who had been present at the 1987 meeting, also joined us again. by then, dr. datner had passed away. another leader of the union, retired colonel, dr. paweł wildstein, joined along with two other persons, szymon szurmiej, the chairman of the secular, formerly communist-dominated, social-cultural association of jews in poland, and michał friedman, another retired colonel and then the chairman of the association of the jewish historical institute, who was also a noted translator of yiddish and hebrew 18 kalendarz żydowski almanach, 5750, 1989-1990 (warsaw: the religious union of the mosaic faith), 199. 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) literature into polish. while religiously educated, friedman did not attend synagogue. unlike in 1987, this time, non-religious jewish leaders were included. this step was a significant development because, after all, the distinction between more and less religious jews is of no fundamental importance in our tradition, even though it may be of practical importance. archbishop henryk muszyński introduced us. michał friedman spoke on our behalf. he expressed our feelings saying that “with the entire polish nation, we share joy and pride because our compatriot stands at the head of the church.”19 friedman noted that the pope understood so well “the complexity of polish-jewish relations,” and stressed the creativity of jewish life in poland and the contribution of jews to polish culture and polish military efforts. he also praised the pastoral letter of the polish episcopate of november 30, 1990. he proclaimed that antisemitism is especially harmful to poland; indeed, “today it is nothing other than antipolonism.” friedman attributed antisemitism to a lack of education, and displayed his erudition by quoting shemot rabbah, “woe to the house that has windows open to darkness.” he also said that while the shoah is a crucial reality for us, poland is for us more than a cemetery. finally, he expressed the hope that vatican-israel relations would be normalized. during this meeting, the pope was weaker than in 1987, and the atmosphere was not as elevated as before. the lack of equal enthusiasm was also due to the general circumstances of the visit. the pope was unsatisfied with the developments in free poland after 1989. under democracy, the church was not as dominant as he would have hoped. similarly, he feared that liberal values were taking root. in a recently published diary, a catholic friend remarked that “poland was experiencing a bourgeois revolution and [the pope] spoke as if it was a counterreformation.”20 nevertheless, the authority of the pope remained unsurpassable. the pope was tired, but he spoke longer than before, this time using notes. the address was much more standard. first, he said that he always meets with representatives of jewish communities because we are uniquely linked by faith. next, he expressed satisfaction that he could meet polish jews “on polish soil,” and mentioned the “glorious and tragic past” of polish jews. then he quoted verbatim a central point of his 1987 address, “i and the overwhelming majority of poles were helplessly watching the horrific crime against the jewish people, sometimes without the full knowledge of the events” in the “spirit of profound solidarity with you. the threat against you was also a threat against us. the latter was not carried out to the same extent as there was no time to do so. it was you who suffered this terrible sacrifice of devastation. you suffered it also, one could say, for the others intended for devastation.” the pope reaffirmed his previous point but did not repeat the theology of suffering. this change of approach made the claim somewhat less problematic, but i 19 see kalendarz żydowski-almanach, 5753, 1992-1993 (warsaw: the religious union of the mosaic faith, 1992), 171-172 (author’s translation). 20 tadeusz sobolewski, dziennik. jeszcze jedno zdanie (warsaw: wab, 2019), 272. krajewski: pope john paul ii’s encounters with polish jews 14 am unable to say whether this was the pope’s intention. he then stressed his solidarity with the november 1990 pastoral letter of the polish episcopate by quoting from it, “the same land, which for centuries was the common fatherland of poles and jews, of blood spilled together, the sea of horrific suffering and injuries shared, should not divide us but unite us. for this commonality cries out to us, especially the places of execution and, in many cases, common graves.”21 the pastoral letter restated the teachings of nostra aetate and quoted extensively john paul ii, including the claim, “the threat against you was also a threat against us.” the pastoral letter also made other claims regarding the second world war. it tried not to ignore the facts of collaboration, but how it was handled struck me as ineffective. while it did say, “we express our sincere regret for all the incidents of antisemitism, which were committed at any time or by anyone on polish soil,” it also said, “we are especially disheartened by those catholics who, in some way, were the cause of the death of jews. they will forever gnaw at our conscience on the social plane. if only one christian could have helped and did not stretch out a helping hand to a jew during the time of danger or caused his death, we must ask for forgiveness of our jewish brothers and sisters.” the suggestion implied by this formulation was that the indifference to the fate of the jews was exceptional, and this is a grossly misleading claim. the pope did not address this point nor other issues discussed in the pastoral letter. instead, he said that the shoah emboldened “the nations of christian civilization” to remove anti-jewish “prejudices and other expressions of antisemitism.” finally, he reaffirmed that the teachings of the second vatican council must continue to be introduced into the life of the church. at the brief meeting afterward, he said that the establishment of the state of israel was an act of historical justice. still, the situation was such that the general normalization of the vatican-israeli relations could not yet be achieved. the atmosphere at the meeting was amicable, so the appeal of the pastoral letter repeated by the pope that “the blood spilled together, the sea of horrific suffering …should not divide us but unite us,” was received with sympathy. yet, it is clear that to say “should” is easy, but to act according to it is not. the memory of the shoah remains divisive, and a considerable effort and the courage to face the dark realities are needed to diminish the division. at that time, neither the pope nor anyone in the leadership of the polish catholic church sensed the depth of the tensions between polish jews and christians. a few years later, the writing of jan gross would unleash them by uncovering the tortured history of collaboration and antisemitism among christian poles toward their polish jewish neighbors under the national socialist occupation.22 21 see https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/other-conferences-of-catholic-bishops/polish1990. 22 see jan tomasz gross, neighbors: the destruction of the jewish community in jedwabne (princeton, nj: princeton university press, 2001), originally published in polish as sąsiedzi: historia zagłady żydowskiego miasteczka (sejny: fundacja pogranicze, 2000). https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/other-conferences-of-catholic-bishops/polish1990 https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/other-conferences-of-catholic-bishops/polish1990 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) our 1991 meeting contributed to the emerging respectability of jews and, in particular, religious jews in poland. in that period, meeting with the pope provided an instant, if momentary, nobility. this fact was of crucial importance for the process that i call “de-assimilation,” or the move opposite to assimilation, a gradual reappropriation of a stronger jewish identity of one sort or another.23 for some people of my generation, this process began in the 1970s and expanded in the 1980s. in the early 1990s, it increased even more when we started to enjoy political freedom. many individuals in catholic intellectual circles were interested in the jewish culture and religion, and this was also helpful. similarly, the outreach of the pope toward jews significantly enhanced the process of de-assimilation because it meant the main-streaming of jewish presence, culture, and religion. in turn, such a positive atmosphere made it easier for poles of jewish heritage to see involvement in jewish public life as a respectable option for them. the third meeting (1999) the third meeting was different from the previous ones. it was a public gathering at the umschlagpltaz monument in warsaw, marking the place from which 300,000 jews had been deported to be murdered in treblinka death camp. the jewish delegation was inside the memorial. it included many people, from marek edelman, who had been a commander during the warsaw ghetto uprising, to people of the post-war generation headed by jerzy kichler, the chairman of the board of the union of jewish religious communities. crowds of people made any exchange hardly possible. the pope was weaker. still, he read a remarkable prayer for the jewish people. the words of this prayer were later printed as small leaflets together with the 1986 photograph of john paul ii warmly greeting rabbi elio toaff in the rome synagogue. a jewish publisher from switzerland supported the printing of more than one million copies of the leaflet, which were distributed at appropriate occasions over many years.24 the meeting could have had a much more significant impact had it not been for an unexpected event that took place on the same day in the building of the polish parliament. rabbi joskowicz approached the pope and asked for the removal of the large cross from the area adjacent to the auschwitz camp. a former inmate in 23 in the 1990s, i used the term “de-assimilation” in “jewish de-assimilation in poland: a personal perspective,” in bulletin sidic (service international de documentation judéo-chretienne), 32:2 (1999), 7-11. a more comprehensive description is contained in my article, “my wszyscy z niej: dezasymilacja polskich żydów,” in co się dzieje z polskim społeczeństwem? księga jubileuszowa dedykowana profesorowi ireneuszowi krzemińskiemu, ed., urszula kurczewska, małgorzata głowania, wojciech ogrodnik, and dominik wasilewski (warsaw: wydawnictwa uniwersytetu warszawskiego, 2019), 297-309. 24 at the polish site of the notre dame de sion, https://sion.pl/modlitwa-ojca-swietego-jana-pawla-iiw-intencji-narodu-zydowskiego/, it is stated that “the prayer was written at the request of mr. steven goldstein, whose parents were jews from cracow, who paid for the printing of a million copies of the prayer juxtaposed with the photograph of john paul ii meeting with rabbi toaff in the synagogue in rome. they were distributed before the day of judaism in 2001.” according to barbara sułek-kowalska (personal letter) the whole action was made possible due to sister dominika zaleska, nds, and was coordinated by bishop stanisław gądecki. https://sion.pl/modlitwa-ojca-swietego-jana-pawla-ii-w-intencji-narodu-zydowskiego/ https://sion.pl/modlitwa-ojca-swietego-jana-pawla-ii-w-intencji-narodu-zydowskiego/ krajewski: pope john paul ii’s encounters with polish jews 16 auschwitz, the rabbi said, he “could still hear the crying of the children.” polish media televised the incident live, and it completely overshadowed the subsequent meeting at the umschlagplatz. many jews were embarrassed not so much by the contents of the appeal as by its form. in clumsy polish, the rabbi said, “i ask mr. pope to give a call to his people to take this cross away from the camp.”25 the very term “mr. pope” was bad enough. to make it even worse, the rabbi was gesticulating in a way that might be perceived as threatening to the pope. he was appealing rather than threatening, but antisemites used a photograph taken at the scene to demonstrate so-called jewish attacks on the pope and christianity. a few days later, the rabbi lost his position and returned to israel. the pope’s prayer at umschlagplatz is noteworthy. i am grateful for it but wish to comment upon it. it begins, god of abraham, god of the prophets, god of jesus christ. you in whom all is included, you towards whom everything moves, you, who are the end of everything. hear our prayers for the jewish people, whom you still consider dear because of their forefathers.26 the stress on the phrase “because of their forefathers” might be perceived as critical of present-day jews because it can imply that they are not worthy of cherishing. however, this language is precisely the traditional jewish way of describing the situation. we are not supposed to see ourselves as worthy. it is only due to the merit of our ancestors that we benefit. i see no reason why the pope cannot use this insight. the very fact that the pope describes jews as “still” cherished and dear to god is essential and positive. what the pope said next is not entirely clear to me because two versions exist. the shorter one, included in the text of the leaflet, says, awaken in them a constant and ever-more-vital desire to follow your truth and your love. the more extended version27 that the pope probably uttered on june 11, 1999, reads: grant them deep awareness of belonging to one human family, created by you and supported by you. 25 see new york times, june 2, 1999. for a thorough exploration of the cross at auschwitz and the related carmelite convent controversy, see carol rittner and john k roth, eds, memory offended: the carmelite cross controversy (westport, ct: praeger, 1991), especially 117-134. 26 prayer of pope jp ii for the jewish people, see http://cdim.pl/prayer-of-pope-jp-ii-for-the-jewishpeople,1822. 27 see http://nauczaniejp2.pl/dokumenty/wyswietl/id/652 (author’s translation). http://cdim.pl/prayer-of-pope-jp-ii-for-the-jewish-people,1822 http://cdim.pl/prayer-of-pope-jp-ii-for-the-jewish-people,1822 http://nauczaniejp2.pl/dokumenty/wyswietl/id/652 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) awaken in them a constant and ever-more-vigorous desire to follow your truth and your love. grant them the ability through human solidarity to move beyond prayer to practice social justice, assisting others in their search for you. allow each of its members to build community, according to your redemptive plan, through personal honesty, correctness of morals in private and public life, and respect for life and family. no matter the exact version, i can concur with all of these prayers. then the pope invoked the specific jewish mission: assist them, so that their search for justice and peace may reveal to the world the power of your blessing. this prayer is an acceptable way of expressing the jewish mission. for some jews, it may sound problematic because the traditional christian interpretation links the goal with the sacrament of baptism. an individual could detect this hope in the pope’s words. however, i believe that john paul did not mean anything of this sort. as the next sentence reveals, before he explained his understanding of the jewish mission, he first expressed his empathy for the victims of the shoah, which was particularly relevant because of where he recited the prayer: support them, so that they may know love and respect from those who still do not understand the extent of their sufferings, and from those who in solidarity and concern share in the pain of the wounds that have been inflicted on them. and then comes the sentence that i understand as an appreciation of a distinct jewish path of life, separate from that of christians: remember their new generations, so that they may continue to be faithful to you and remain open to your transcendence, by exemplifying the special mystery of their vocation.28 the very phrase “the special mystery of their vocation,” is profound.29 for the pope, the jewish mission has a universal aim. i concur entirely with his words, help their testimony make humankind understand that your plan of redemption includes all humanity and that you are the beginning and the ultimate goal for all peoples. amen. 28 the phrase in italics belongs to the longer version and is not included in the text of the leaflet. 29 unfortunately, this part, present in the text of the leaflet, is shortened in the english version at the site of the auschwitz centre for dialogue and prayer. there the text ends with “remember about the new generations, about young people and children, so that they understand that your plan of redemption includes all humanity and that you are the beginning and the ultimate goal for all peoples. amen.” krajewski: pope john paul ii’s encounters with polish jews 18 the prayer is perfectly appropriate for the occasion. in a place that memorializes the murder of the overwhelming majority of polish jews, the pope spoke words affirming a supra-historical value of jewish existence, its unique character apart from christianity, and its deep connection to the lives of all human beings. the pope’s prayer presents jewish life as a mission that is of fundamental importance not only for jews but for the entire world. i find that all the doubts and objections regarding john paul’s attitude toward jews and judaism lose their power, given the prayer at the umschlaglplatz. one can only repeat the striking words, “pope john paul ii was indeed the pope of the jews.”30 popes benedict xvi and francis have continued the approach begun by john paul ii. at the same time, poles, in general, received the pro-jewish message of the polish pope in a highly ambivalent way. the prayer has impacted some poles, but those who continue to be antisemitic still claim that they are following the pope’s teachings. the appropriation of john paul by virtually all currents within the polish catholic church makes his actual teachings about jews and judaism almost irrelevant. however, i trust that the time will come when his genuine attitude toward jews will become a model for catholics in poland and beyond. 30 this was said in the present tense by rabbi jacques bemporad after the reception in the vatican in 2005. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): jennings cp1-10 jennings, the cathedral of bourges jennings cp 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the cathedral of bourges: a witness to judeo-christian dialogue in medieval berry margaret jennings, boston college presented at the “was there a „golden age‟ of christian-jewish relations?” conference at boston college, april 2010 the term “golden age” appears in several contexts. in most venues, it both attracts and inspires controversy: is the golden age, as technology claims, the year following a stunning breakthrough, now available for use? is it, as moralists would aver, a better, purer time? can it be identified, as social engineers would hope, as an epoch of heightened output in art, science, literature, and philosophy? does it portend, in assessing human development, an extended period of progress, prosperity, and cultural achievement? factoring in hesiod‟s and ovid‟s understanding that a “golden age” was an era of great peace and happiness (works and days, 109-210 and metamorphoses i, 89-150) is not particularly helpful because, as a mythological entity, their “golden age” was far removed from ordinary experience and their testimony is necessarily imaginative. in the end, it is probably as difficult to define “golden age” as it is to speak of interactions between jews and christians in, what jonathan ray calls, “sweeping terms.” and yet, there were epochs when the unity, harmony, and fulfillment that are so hard to realize seemed almost within reach. an era giving prominence to these qualities seems to deserve the appellation “golden age.” still, if religious differences characterize those involved, the possibility of dissonance inevitably raises tension. although golden ages in such highly charged circumstances can be real, they are probably going to be brief, pointed, and poignant. this paper details a period of this type; it maintains that by examining a single artifact—the cathedral of st. etienne— which rose at a specific time and place—bourges-en-berry between 1195 and 1235—one can gather convincing evidence of a short but “golden age” in jewish-christian relations. positing any kind of jewish-christian “golden age” in western europe during the medieval centuries may seem somewhat foolish in light of what happened to jews between 1240 and 1492: expulsions, forced conversions, social and political ostracism, deprivation of income and comparable economic oppression, accusation of and prosecution for so-called “crimes” against christians, periodic rampages by crusaders, and other attacks—both physical and mental— which functioned as insults to judaism. these disastrous—often criminal—events escalated in violence and frequency from the preaching of the first crusade (1095) onwards and, because of their arbitrariness, their ability to engender a sense of powerlessness, and their capacity for inspiring anger and disgust in future generations, they tend to overwhelm any other vision of the medieval period. the horrific nature and bloody outcome of some attacks obscures the fact that they did not exist in all places or at all times. it also vitiates any appreciation for the points where interaction between the two communions resulted in respectful understanding. from the skeptics‟ perspective, certain twelfth-century initiatives, like the jews' consultative role in scriptural interpretation, 1 their participation in dialogues and scholastic disputations that sincerely explored 1 hugh and andrew of st. victor frequently sought out and seem to have carefully considered the biblical interpretations made by jewish exegetes; see b. smalley, the study of the bible in the middle ages (notre dame, in, conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): jennings cp1-10 jennings, the cathedral of bourges jennings cp 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr theological difference as well as their functioning as instructors in hebrew 2 have no favorable aspects. fortunately, one cross-cultural, long-standing, and almost invariably positive interchange has recently been explored and affirmed: the influence of jewish culture on early christian, byzantine, and ultimately medieval art. 3 texts as varied in time of composition and content as the vienna genesis and the duke of bedford's book of hours clearly show this influence; illuminations in the manuscripts of caedmon's poetry and the aelfric paraphrases, as well as paintings by william de brailles, exhibit a christian revisionist view of the same material. 4 architectural decoration was also affected by judaic tradition. the nave vault of the church at saint savin sur gartemps, for example, uses continuity and movement patterns that are unconventional in christian iconography and may point to an earlier pictorial model of jewish origin. 5 in the saint savin sequence, the two giants who cling to the roof of noah's ark (as they also do in the murals of the church of st. jean baptist de chateau-gontier) are undoubtedly the og and sihon described in the pirke of rabbi eleazar, a well-known component of hebraic apocryphal literature. 6 admittedly, the apparently midrashic elements at saint savin are limited to the ceiling frescoes. the jewish influences on nearby st. etienne at bourges are much more pervasive; there the message conveyed by design and decoration reflects a respectfully integrated weltanschauung. this extraordinary cathedral, begun in 1195—just one year after chartres—and essentially complete some forty years later, is a masterpiece of gothic architecture, 7 an imaginative fusion of northern engineering and southern spatial unity whose every aspect contributes to the sense of unstructured spaciousness. 8 the soaring verticals of the nave arcade are pointed to and echoed in the elevation of the inner aisle 9 and the great church‟s immense pyramidal shape is dramatized by light entering at three levels of height and in three planes in space from the outer wall to 1964), 149-95. also informative is h. hailperin, rashi and the christian scholars (pittsburg, 1963) and g. dahan, les intellectuals chritiens et les juifs au moyen age (paris, 1990), particularly part 3. 2 "especially before the era of the crusades, the disputation was a more or less friendly conversation between jewish and christian intellectuals eager for a firsthand knowledge of each other's faith" (m. r. cohen, under crescent and cross [princeton, 1994], 143-44). g. dahan characterizes the milieu surrounding these interchanges as "ouverte," or open, "ou les relations entre chretiens et juifs sont normales" except for a few crises; see his la polimique chritienne contre le judaisme au moyen age (paris, 1991), 21. a good survey of the disputation process is found in norman roth, medieval jewish civilization: an encyclopedia (new york, 2003), 212-18. perhaps the most positive view is expressed by j. elukin, in living together, living apart: rethinking jewish-christian relations in the middle ages (princeton, 2007), 64-88; elukin mentions instruction in hebrew on p. 67. other scholars discern no rapprochement, as in j. cohen, "scholarship and intolerance in the medieval academy," american historical review 91 (1986), 599600. 3 mira friedman has joined a long list of scholars who have studied the vienna genesis; her comments on the duke of bedford's book of hours can be found in “the tower of babel in the bedford book of hours,” studies in bible and visual arts, 111-17 (www.etf.cuni.cz/~prudky/otculture/o-content.pdf.); see also the first footnote in m. friedman, "l'arche de noe de saint savin," cahiers de civilisation medievale 40 (1977), 124. the cooperative ventures of jewish and christian artisans between 400 and 700 c. e. is discussed in this volume by eliya ribak; vivian mann‟s uneasy communion: jews, christians, and the altarpieces of medieval spain (new york, 2010) concentrates on the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. 4 m. friedman, “l‟arche de noe” (as in note 3), 129-30. 5 ibid., 123. 6 friedman notes that other midrashic texts also contribute to discussions of these giants in ibid, 127. 7 j-y. ribault, un chef d'oeuvre gothique: la cathedrale de bourges (paris, 1995). 8 j. h. acland, medieval structure: the gothic vault (toronto, 1972), 103. 9 these architectural features are studied at length in j. fitchen, the construction of gothic cathedrals (oxford, 1961); w. swaan, the gothic cathedral (garden city, n.y., 1969); c. wilson, the gothic cathedral: the architecture of the great church, 1130-1530 (new york, 1990); and d. kimpel, r. suckale, et al., l'architecture gothique en france, 1130-1270, trans. f. neu (paris, 1990). http://www.etf.cuni.cz/~prudky/otculture/o-content.pdf studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): jennings cp1-10 jennings, the cathedral of bourges jennings cp 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the inner aisle to the nave vessel itself. 10 a web of fine vertical lines fosters the eye's movement upward to the clerestory; at the same time, "the suppression of the transept unifies the internal axis so that there is no impediment to the focus upon the altar." 11 no jarring variations in style mar the regularity of the exterior, which culminates in five carved doorways on the western end. beginning at the right as one faces them they are dedicated to st. ursin, st. stephen, the last judgment, mary the virgin, and st. william de donjon, the bishop who spearheaded the cathedral‟s construction. 12 like several other structural elements at st. etienne, these portals are a testimony to the complex set of circumstances—some historical, some sociological, some fortuitous—which allowed the great church to rise, both physically and intellectually, in an epoch mutually advantageous to jews and christians. this positive atmosphere was fostered, wittingly or unwittingly, by the french monarchy. in 1100, bourges-en-berry, a prosperous urban center, had become part of the french royal domain when king philip i purchased it from viscount eudes arpin. 13 some thorny incidents involving jews marked the following reigns, culminating in the series of financial maneuvers executed by philip augustus (philip ii) which impoverished them. 14 since they now seemed worthless, the king expelled them in 1182, hoping thereby to win popular support for himself and to replenish his treasury by taking possession of their property. 15 it is certainly possible that the jews of bourges could have been affected by this expulsion order. nevertheless, given that the city is in central france, far from paris, and that areas well to the south remained significantly more civil to jews throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries than those in the north, 16 whether the edict was accompanied by draconian enforcement and irreparable social damage is uncertain. in any case, the king recognized the fiscal irresponsibility of his action and repealed the expulsion order in 1198. 17 except for philip's eighteen campaigns to have "his" jews returned from neighboring duchies and baronages, 18 and his interventionist policies which subjected their economic activities to registration and audit, 19 the three decades following their return were comparatively peaceful for the jews. the king valued the capital funds he could extract from them and the revenue which flowed from the requirement that all monetary transactions had to bear a royal 10 j. bony, french gothic architecture of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (berkeley, 1983), 220. the importance of light in gothic architecture is a major focus of o. von simson, the gothic cathedral: origins of gothic architecture and the medieval concept of order (new york, 1956); cf. m. hurlimann and j. bony, french cathedrals (new york, 1967), 12. 11 acland, medieval structure (as in note 8), 103. 12 since the north tower fell in 1506, damaging the virgin doorway and destroying the one on the far left, its original subject is not certain (t. bayard, bourges cathedral: the west portals [new york, 1976], 4-5). william de donjon's appearance in the clerestory, his canonization in 1218, and his significance in the life of william of bourges, however, suggest that the original and the present subjects are identical. 13 r. branner, the cathedral of bourges and its place in gothic architecture, ed. shirley prager branner (cambridge, mass., 1989), 8-9. 14 l. b. glick, abraham's heirs: jews and christians in medieval europe (syracuse, 1999), 158. 15 e. benbassa, the jews of france: a history from antiquity to the present, trans. m. b. debevoise (princeton, 1999), 16-17. 16 w. c. jordan, the french monarch and the jews: from philip augustus to the last capetians (philadelphia, 1989), 255. 17 benbassa, the jews of france (as in note 15), 16. 18 between 1198 and 1231, eighteen such accords of non-retention were signed; see benbassa, the jews of france (as in note 15), ibid. 19 glick, abraham's heirs (as in note 14), 161-62. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): jennings cp1-10 jennings, the cathedral of bourges jennings cp 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr stamp; that these government policies were gradually making jews indentured servants was not publicly explored. 20 during a comparable time span, that is, throughout most of the twelfth century and into the thirteenth, the church‟s attitude remained officially protective, although there were points of friction. 21 the jews‟ staunch resistance to conversion, for instance, prompted some negative measures: in 1179, pope alexander iii interdicted the construction of new synagogues. also, when regal decrees made it impossible for jews to collect either money owed to them or interest thereon, funds realized from the seizure and sale of jewish possessions were allowed by the church to finance crusades. 22 nevertheless, the papal bull sicut judaeis, first promulgated by pope calixtus ii in 1120, was reissued in 1199. 23 although it initially had applied only to rome, by the end of the twelfth century and because of numerous reiterations and adaptations, the bull now extended to most of western europe. 24 it forbade forced baptism, arbitrary physical or fiscal punishment, violation of jewish rites and sanctified places, and disturbance of customary relations. . this ecclesiastical "charter of rights" had a sort of lay counterpart in france in the constitutio of 1218-19 which seemed to stabilize the financial health of the jewish community. 25 although the constitutio was annulled in november 1223, shortly after philip's son, louis viii, attained the throne, louis's own death in 1226 delayed his projected series of debt restructurings. these adjustments, incidentally, would have had a radically negative impact on lenders, most of whom were jews. 26 this period of almost benign neglect, paralleling that of the construction of bourges cathedral and extending into the era of its decoration, continued with some intermittent difficulties for jews until 1234, when louis ix took control of the kingdom. dynastic records indicate the reign of louis ix began in 1226. he was, however, only twelve at that time and his mother, blanche of castile, acted for eight years as regent. 27 the queen mother had considered some initiatives relating to credit in 1227 and was party to the 1230 treaty of melun, where the crown and the leading barons of the kingdom abolished the obligation to pay off the interest on debts previously contracted with jews. 28 still, blanche has been described, perhaps euphemistically, as "a capable ruler respected by the jewish community for her sense of justice, " 29 a statement which—even if only partially accurate—indicates that she did not condone anything comparable to the overt persecutions that marked her son's long ascendancy. in bourges itself, a small but vibrant jewish community had been in place for several centuries; it flourished especially in the twelfth when jews all over europe gravitated toward the cities. 30 although efforts to demonize the jew in the popular imagination had been underway in neighboring 20 benbassa, the jews of france (as in note 15), 16-17. 21 ibid., 15. a useful overview is provided by robert chazan, ed., church, state, and jew in the middle ages (new york, 1980). 22 benbassa, the jews of france (as in note 15), 18. 23 william chester jordan, "princely identity and the jews in medieval france," in from witness to witchcraft: jews and judaism in medieval christian thought, ed. jeremy cohen (wiesbaden, 1996), 266. 24 glick, abraham's heirs (as in note 14), 120. 25 jordan, "princely identity and the jews· (as in note 23), 267. 26 glick, abraham's heirs (as in note 14), 163-64. 27 blanche's mercurial existence at court is well explicated in g. sivery, blanche de castille (paris, 1990); cr. glick, abraham's heirs (as in note 14), 164. 28 glick, abraham's heirs (as in note 14), 166 and benbassa, the jews of france (as in note 15), 17-18. 29 glick, abraham's heirs (as in note 14), 164. 30 jordan, the french monarch and the jews (as in note 16), 53. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): jennings cp1-10 jennings, the cathedral of bourges jennings cp 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr germanic areas from shortly after the millennium, 31 they had not yet taken root in berry. there was no history in berry of accusations of ritual murder like those that led to the almost complete destruction of the jewish communities in blois (1171) and pontoise (1179). 32 the conflicting demands of justice and feudal rights, the latter prevailing, which resulted in the massacre of the jews of bray in champagne (1192), were not pressing issues. 33 the area seemed likewise untouched by the burgeoning anti-semitism of northern france, where the peace and prosperity of jews began to erode as christian authors like gautier de coincy (1177-1236) implied that, because they hated the virgin, jews were the source of various innuendos about her chastity. 34 the animosity displayed by de coincy—which, as it spread, gradually gave rise to more serious irritations between adherents of the two religions—was demonstrably absent in early thirteenthcentury bourges. witness to this state of affairs is given by simon de sully, archbishop of bourges, who turned a blind eye toward the newly constructed synagogues in his diocese, an action apparently supported by local congregants. when pope honorius iii, in a may 19, 1221 letter addressed to simon, demanded that these synagogues be destroyed, the pope fully expected that protests by christians would ensue; hence, he instructed the archbishop to invoke ecclesiastical censures against the faithful without possibility of appeal. 35 by 1233, unfortunately, the toleration that characterized the 1220s and early 1230s was probably under grave threat. in a letter to the archbishops and bishops of france, pope gregory ix fulminated against those lords who exacerbated the situation of jews "by means of hunger and thirst, by the privations of prison and intolerable tortures of the body." 36 jewish-christian interaction and the mutually advantageous relationships thus developed were further undermined by 1236 when the same pope commanded that the archbishop-elect of bourges curb the depredations of marauding crusaders and attain proper satisfaction for the crimes perpetrated against jews as well as for the goods stolen from them. 37 but 1236 is already beyond a crucial point in the timeline of construction and decoration at st. etienne. possibly as early as 1208, william of bourges, who was born into judaism, had converted to christianity, and become a deacon at the growing cathedral. 38 a noted teacher and rhetorician, he gathered about him a number of people who described themselves as christian hebraists and who seriously studied jewish tradition and the hebrew bible. this group could have been well placed to exercise some influence over the chapter at bourges, the chapter being the assemblage of clerics who administered the fabric fund and employed the architects and 31 a. c. gow, the red jews: anti-semitism in an apocalyptic age, 1200-1600 (leiden, 1995), 2-3 and 26-33. 32 benbassa, the jews of france (as in note 15), 19. 33 glick, abraham's heirs (as in note 14), 160. 34 the collections entitled miracles of our lady repeated these accusations; see w. c. jordan, "marian devotion and the talmud trial of 1240," in religionsgespriiche im mittelalter, ed. bernard lewis and friedrich niewohner (wiesbaden, 1992), 69-70. 35 "pervenit ad audientiam nostram, quod judei in tue diocecesi habitantes, synagogas de novo contra sanctiones canonicas construere presumpserit, ideo fraternitati tue per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus, si ita est, synagogas ipsas facias demoliri, fideles si qui se opposuerint, per censuram ecclesiasticam appellatione postposita, compescendo"; quoted in s. grayzel, the church and the jews in the xiiith century (philadelphia, 1933), 168. bourges was not unique in its support of jewish and christian social relations; see elukin, living together (as in note 2), 75-88. 36 quoted from glick, abraham's heirs (as in note 14), 157. 37 grayze1, the church and the jews (as in note 35), 229. 38 g. dahan, ed., guillaume de bourges: livre des guerres du seigneur et deux homilies (paris, 1981), 7-12. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): jennings cp1-10 jennings, the cathedral of bourges jennings cp 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr masons. 39 among deacon william's surviving works is a text that he described as the "libri bellorum domini contra judeos et contra hereticos." 40 therein, heretics are actually attacked much more vehemently than jews, and scholars describe the book‟s format as closer to "testimony" than to diatribe. 41 if one compares this treatise with other treatises having similar aims, deacon william‟s seems moderate; comparing it with other treatises written by converted jews, it seems mild. 42 in exhibiting these qualities, the wars of the lord (terminus a quo: 1225 or earlier) may at least partially reflect the tenor of jewish-christian relations at the time when bourges' great church was rising. in the text, william obviously feels free to demonstrate his knowledge of rabbinic learning and of the hebrew language; he even points to difficulties in translation which can occur through misunderstanding its vowel usage. 43 each of the first thirty chapters (constituting eighty-five percent of the work) begins with a biblical citation transliterated from the hebrew and then explicated; often reference is made to other scriptural texts. in some cases, the nuances proposed are taken from the patrology and, in others, from rabbinic sources. 44 despite its bellicose title and the fact that william repeats and even amplifies several of the standard accusations of the anti-jewish polemic, his text adopts intellectual positions frequently at variance with the adversarial tracts of the era. he makes clear that the inflammatory characterization "perfidia" refers only to lack of belief. he theorizes that jews are in the shadow of truth, not the shadow of error; he laments that they are satisfied with merely literal interpretations, thereby giving them status as exegetes. 45 more pointedly, the text's use of rabbinic literature and its focus on hebrew scripture and vocabulary as an enrichment of discussions about the infancy narratives, the transfiguration, the passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of christ, and other elements of christian catechesis communicate a tone of respect. it is reminiscent of the respect accorded to judaic interpretations of the scriptures in the works of hugh and andrew of st. victor. 46 one wishes that the somewhat tolerant stance demonstrated by the wars of the lord could be emblematic of an era marked by moderating tensions between christianity and judaism. unfortunately, both the hoped-for era and entente were short-lived. in 1236, another jewish convert, nicholas donin, presented pope gregory ix with a list of thirty-five indictments of rabbinic judaism. 47 three years later, the pope ordered that talmuds be seized. 48 on march 3, 1240, louis ix organized a disputation, 49 put the entire talmud on trial, and, as predetermined, the trial 39 branner, the cathedral of bourges (as in note 13), 13. several groups of christian hebraists existed in france even into the sixteenth century; see francoise secret, "notes sur les hebraisants chretiens et les juifs en france," revue des etudes juives 126 (1967), 417-33 and 129 (1970), 223-37. 40 dahan, guillaume de bourges (as in note 38), 66. 41 the basic methodology of "testimony” texts involves explication of and argumentation from the scriptures, usually the hebrew scriptures; see dahan, la polemique (as in note 2), 58. 42 dahan, guillaume de bourges (as in note 38), 42 and b. blumenkranz, "judische und christliche konvertiren im judisch-christlichen religionsgesprache des mittelalters,” in miscellanea medievalia, 4 (berlin, 1966), 264-82. 43 between veycare and vaiecra, for example, in chapter 5, "de nativitate domini," in dahan, guillaume de bourges (as in note 38), 109. 44 chapters xxiii and xxx clearly illustrate this methodology, although every chapter is touched by it. dahan (guillaume de bourges [as in note 38], 336) provides a list of rabbinic sources used by william of bourges. 45 for specific references, see ibid., 42. 46 from studying jerome, andrew had concluded that jews had a vibrant and long-lived tradition of biblical interpretation and were, therefore, a useful source of information about the old testament. his jewish teachers confirmed him in this attitude; see smalley, study of the bible (as in note 1), 169-72. 47 glick, abraham's heirs (as in note 14), 194. 48 quoted in grayzel, the church and the jews (as in note 35), 241. 49 benbassa, thejews of france (as in note 15), 18. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): jennings cp1-10 jennings, the cathedral of bourges jennings cp 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr concluded with the talmud‟s condemnation. 50 in june 1242, approximately ten thousand talmudic manuscripts were burned. 51 this event entrenched both christians and jews, making fruitful interaction almost impossible. in 1251, even in once-tolerant bourges, the synagogue was ransacked and "the books of the law consigned to the flames." 52 it is difficult to come to terms with the reversal of fortune, the inversion of feeling, and the demise of communication represented by the attack on the synagogue. less than half a century earlier, and especially in the years between 1210 and 1235, the cadre of christian hebraists and their well-known leader seem to have insured the respectful portrayal of judaism exemplified in several of bourges' iconographic programs. that once vibrant interreligious dialogue—to paraphrase henrik karge— resulted in the jewish “accent” which permeates st. etienne‟s glass and stone. 53 of course, art historians correctly maintain that it is difficult to find a gothic church of any significant dimension which does not have, as part of its decoration, representatives of the hebrew scriptures. veritable catalogues of patriarchs, kings, priests, and prophets were carved into the archivolts of many cathedrals, and life-size or larger-than-life-size statues commemorating the same groups were consistently placed in prominent positions. 54 indeed, the twenty-two old testament figures who gaze serenely at worshipers entering chartres by its royal portal 55 might have been duplicated at bourges, a circumstance now unverifiable because of the huguenot depredations of may 1562. with rare exceptions—like the abraham on the north transept's central portal at chartres, who, in caressing isaac and standing on a ram, encapsulates the genesis narrative (22:1-13)—these scriptural personae were understood to be important because they related typologically to events in the life of christ or to the development of the christian church. this is not the perspective developed at bourges where typology is only rarely invoked as a way of interpreting the meaning of personages from the hebrew scriptures. much more descriptive of what happens there is the term “contrapuntal” which, like counterpoint in a musical composition, highlights by means of juxtaposition or contrast. the contrapuntal relationship between jewish and christian elements in the iconography is clearly demonstrated in the early thirteenth-century glazing of both the ambulatory and the upper clerestory. that the ambulatory windows were designed before 1210 by bishop william in collaboration with deacon william may be sufficient explanation for the fact that their narratives relate contrapuntally in developing the theme of “rapprochement.” dunlop discusses the composition and placement of each grouping thoroughly contending that “as the arc of the ambulatory draws the windows on each side closer and closer to each other, so the theme of rapprochement 50 glick, abraham's heirs (as in note 14), 198; see ibid., 293 for references to the numerous scholarly discussions of this event. what might be termed a "transcript" of this "trial" has been translated by m. braude in conscience on trial: three public religious dispensations between christians and jews in the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries (new york, 1952), 33-68. 51 the jews were probably able to bribe walter of sens to intervene and prevent the book burning; when walter fell ill and died, there was no other recourse. see glick, abraham's heirs (as in note 14), 200. 52 ribauit, un chef d'oeuvre gothique (as in note 7), 91 and jordan, the french monarch and the jews (as in note 16), 147. 53 h. karge, "die kathedrale von toledo," kritische berichte 20 (1992), 16-28. 54 except for the cathedral of beauvais, whose great height created so unstable a structure that the nave was never completed and the choir collapsed in 1284, gothic cathedrals were invariably decorated with jamb statues which functioned typologically. "everywhere links are established between the old and the new testaments: around christ the teacher, and christ the judge, are grouped the precursors; around the virgin, her ancestors of the flesh and of the spirit; ... everything is presented in the form of the great doctrinal truths with which the unfolding of human history is stamped, by which it is unified" (j. bony, french cathedrals [london, 1954], 17). 55 m. stokstad, art history (new york, 1995), 554. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): jennings cp1-10 jennings, the cathedral of bourges jennings cp 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr intensifies.” 56 the message of each set of windows is the same: the old law of the hebrew scriptures is not abolished but rather enriched by the new law of the christian scriptures. in the “nouvelle alliance” window which flanks the high altar, counterpoint is discernible within the window as well as with the corresponding window (the window of the passion) on the altar‟s other side. at the apex of the “nouvelle alliance” is jacob‟s blessing of ephraim and manasses, joseph‟s sons by the egyptian aseneth who were adopted by their blind grandfather in gen 41:5052. the polysemous quality of the scene in which jacob crosses his arms so that his right hand rests on the head of the young man on his left frequently engaged christian exegetes who identified manasses (the older son) with the jews and ephraim with the gentiles. firmly establishing the counterpoint is the label “joseph: filii: isaac” which proclaims that, although these are joseph‟s sons, the situation depicted is neither tragic nor unique. their great grandfather, isaac, had also switched birthrights in favoring his younger son, jacob, over his older son, esau and, while there was trepidation on jacob‟s part about his reception by his brother, ultimately there was harmony between them. 57 in addition, the identical nature of the sons‟ familial status—both have been adopted—and their equality in size and posture can serve as a reminder to all who gaze on them of the necessity for according respect to each. symbolized vividly in this window is the expectation that christianity does not overwhelm jewish tradition; rather, it unites with it, suggesting that the barriers raised by religion can be overcome. the judeo-christian interchange at bourges is further signaled in the very large windows of the upper clerestory which are devoted, on one entire side, to david, moses, and the major and minor prophets and, on the other, to the apostles, disciples (barnabas, cleophas, and silas), and an unnamed bishop, possibly william de donjon, great friend of deacon william. although its sequencing of the apostles is the standard one found in matt 10, mark 2, and luke 6 and it follows acts 1:13 in omitting judas iscariot, the latter catalogue is discontinuous as it interposes barnabas between james and matthew. it is also difficult to determine why cleophas and silas are placed before the bishop at the end. on the other hand, the windows depicting the great figures from the hebrew scriptures—their names spelled here as they appear in the cathedral‟s windows—indicate a sure knowledge of hebraic tradition. david and moses, the king and the lawgiver, stand at the fountainhead of prophecy, followed by isaias, jeremias, ezechiel, daniel, and the minor prophets. it is noteworthy that the sequencing of the minor prophets does not follow that of the vulgate; the latter places osee, before joel, and amos, habacuc between naum and sophonias, and ageus before zacharias and malachias. in bourges‟ upper clerestory, ageus precedes joel and osee, amos stands between naum and sophonias, and habacuc is at the end, a clearly non-canonical succession. the fact that equal time is accorded to both old and new testament figures is at stunning variance with what happens in other medieval cathedrals and is neither ambivalent nor condescending. rather, at bourges, the realization that the household of god is built upon the foundation of the prophets as well as the apostles is, contrapuntally, certainly affirmed this affirmation, however, is not restricted to the stained glass since it is also conveyed by the other aspects of the decoration. 58 several features of the latter clearly project a respect for judaism. the bosom of abraham, which is portrayed in two of the great windows and is a very 56 i. dunlop, the cathedrals’crusade: the rise of the gothic style in france (new york, 1982), 107. 57. the list includes hilarius (pl 9.588), ambrose (pl 17.988-89), jerome (pl 23.1079), augustine (pl 34.820, pl 36.719, and 1022), paulinus of nola (pl 61.283), and peter comestor (pl 198.1415) as well as several citations in cassiodorus, isidore of seville, and haymo of auxerre. 57 genesis 27: 1-45; cf. ribault, un chef d’oeuvre gothique (as in note 7), 102. 58 dunlop, the cathedrals’ crusade (as in note 56), 107. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): jennings cp1-10 jennings, the cathedral of bourges jennings cp 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr significant carving in the central (last judgment) portal, is particularly important in this regard. here, the emphasis seems to be on a paradoxically specific, yet inclusive, understanding of kinship. it was initially conceptualized as the bond of the flesh in judaism where abraham is patriarch and with whom yahweh seals his covenant on three occasions in gen 15, 17, and 22. but, a second type of kinship arises in the early thirteenth century—kinship of the spirit. thus, the bosom is not just a reminder of the bond of the flesh; it also indicates abraham‟s spiritual paternity as well as the cohesiveness and brotherhood of all the elect. 59 since the saved who are depicted in the carving on the central doorway have no identifying attributes, father abraham may hold in his bosom both those with kinship of the flesh as well as kinship of the spirit. perhaps the most significant illustration of what can be called a golden age of judeo-christian interaction at bourges occurs in the thirty-two spandrel sculptures which flank three of the great medieval doorways: fifteen concentrate on the creation, fall, and cain/abel narratives, seventeen detail the story of noah. previously, their unusual selection of subjects and disconcerting sequence puzzled iconographers. recently, it has been indisputably proven by laurence brugger that both the order and the content of most of these carvings relate, not to the canonical scriptures, but to the pirke of rabbi eleazar, the midrash bereshit rabbah, the book of jubilees, the vita adae et evae, and the targum of pseudo-jonathan, and even to a very early version of the zohar, a compilation providing comments of a mystical nature on the tanakh. as was demonstrated in the wars of the lord, these texts were certainly familiar to deacon william since he used them consistently in his book. 60 in addition, what was not done at bourges is powerful testimony to concern for the feelings of members of the jewish community. the stoning of st. stephen, in the middle register of the tympanum just right of the last judgment, accurately reflects the narrative from acts 7, but omits the conical hats and hate-filled faces that characterize the executioners in an antiphonary from st. peter‟s in salzburg (1160), in miniatures from the breviary of seckau (1170), in bronze reliquary figures from halberstadt (1220), on the stephen doorway at chartres and in the tympanum of breisach, both dated about 1230. at bourges, no depiction of christ‟s passion contains sneering or gloating jews. synagoga is not pushed by demons into hell as she is at amiens (ca. 1235), and jews are not seized, presumably for the same purpose, as they are at autun (1130) and bamberg (1230). most tellingly, on bourges‟ last judgment portal, hell mouth is stuffed—not with phrygian-capped condemnati as in illustrations from the hortus deliciarum of herrad of landsberg (1185) or in illuminations from a bible moralisée of ca. 1233—but with figures whose headdress suggests that they might be a king, a queen, a pope, and a friar! a final illustration of the contrapuntal relationship between judaism and christianity which fosters respect for both traditions at bourges can be found in the north doorway of the present cathedral. resituated there is a sculpture extracted from bourges‟ romanesque church which is usually identified as a “virgin enthroned” because of the oversized, hieratically posed mother and child who occupy the central position. six pillar-like structures surround this doorway, three on each side, but only the ones adjacent to the aperture have been carved into human form. controversy has swirled around the identification of these figures. yet, given the visual evidence, 59 j. baschet, “medieval abraham: between fleshly patriarch and divine father,” modern language notes 108 (1993), 755. 60 l. brugger, “‟hebraii dicunt‟: le soubassement de la façade occidentale de la cathedrale de bourges,” cahiers archeologiques 41 (1993), 111-33 and l. brugger, la façade de saint etienne de bourges, civilisation medievale, 9 (poitiers, 2000). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): jennings cp1-10 jennings, the cathedral of bourges jennings cp 10 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr they most likely signify queens from the house of david. 61 in that case, queens would surround another queen, both contrapuntally, in positions of honor. whatever the final determination of their status, these portrayals, which relate to some aspect of judaism, are unquestionably sympathetic. how does one account for william of bourges‟ success in incorporating judaica at bourges? a comparatively benign political and social climate and the growing influence exerted by the christian hebraists may certainly be telling factors. perhaps one could also suggest that william felt secure as he advanced in age. the jewish community flourished at bourges in the era of the cathedral‟s construction. 62 for various reasons it was somewhat protected by the church and not consistently harassed by the crown and/or by non-jews. in addition, its traditions were honored within and studied carefully by a significant christian group. in his mature years, then, william of bourges did not need to define himself against judaism. he could openly advocate what his book and the windows in the ambulatory suggested: that both traditions had to be respected and, given this respect, a golden age of reconciliation might be within reach. history testifies to the tragic demise of this noble aspiration, but the cathedral still stands as a witness to the judeochristian dialogue that existed in medieval berry. 61 a. n. smith, “twelfth-century sculpture and the cathedral of bourges” (ph. d. diss., boston university, 1974), 1057. 62 dahan, guillaume de bourges (as in note 38), 8. 1 scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-21 the vatican’s role in the finaly children’s kidnapping case1 david i. kertzer roberto benedetti david_kertzer@brown.edu roberto.benedetti24@gmail.com brown university independent scholar providence, ri 02912 perhaps no case more fully reflects the tensions between the roman catholic church and europe’s traumatized jews in the wake of the shoah than that of the young finaly brothers and the obstacles faced by their surviving kin in recovering them. the years of struggle by the surviving finaly family members to reclaim the children, hidden in an underground network of convents and monasteries in france and the spanish basque country, was a result of centuries-long attitudes in the church toward jews and a doctrine of the power of baptism and jewish damnation that ill-accorded with the modern secular state. while many books, documentary films, and a multitude of studies have been published on the finaly case, the role of the pope, the vatican secretariat of state, and the holy office was little known and little understood before the opening in 2020 of the vatican archives covering this period. so sensitive has the subject remained, and so defensive the reaction in certain quarters of the vatican, that barely a week after kertzer’s publication in late august 2020 of the first results to come out of the vatican archives on the finaly case, l’osservatore romano, the semiofficial daily newspaper of the vatican, a paper of great visibility in italy, published a full-page rebuttal. it argued that if the finaly boys were not returned to their surviving family members following the holocaust, it had nothing to do with the official church, much less with the pope or the holy office. the resistance, it was claimed, was rather due to renegade clergy who disobeyed the clear directives of the vatican authorities to have the children returned.2 as we will document in these pages, thanks to the recent opening of the vatican archives for the papacy of pius xii, the active role of the pope and the vatican 1 this is a significantly revised version of an article by david kertzer, which lacked source citations, that was published as “the pope, the jews, and the secrets in the vatican archives,” the atlantic, august 27, 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/the-popes-jews/615736/. kertzer would like to thank cullen murphy of the atlantic for the editorial attention he gave to that earlier publication, and to the two anonymous readers of this article for studies in christian-jewish relations for their helpful suggestions. 2 matteo l. napolitano, “per una nuova democrazia storiografica,” l’osservatore romano, september 4, 2020, 4. for background on the vatican paper and the holocaust, see susan zuccotti’s “l’osservatore romano and the holocaust,” holocaust and genocide studies 17:2 (2003): 249-277. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/the-popes-jews/615736/ kertzer and benedetti: the vatican’s role 2 in the finaly affair can now be demonstrated, the doctrinal logic behind their intervention made clear, and the evolution of these efforts over the course of the events clarified. all this sheds light not simply on one particularly prominent case, but on the larger phenomenon of the fate of thousands of jewish children who were protected in catholic institutions or by catholic families while their parents were taken to the german death camps. how many of these were baptized and never made aware of their jewish identity or of the existence of surviving kin will never be known. the jewish orphans fritz finaly, a medical doctor, was thirty-seven and his wife, anni, was twenty-eight when the germans came for them. having escaped from austria following its annexation by nazi germany in 1938, they had hoped to flee to south america, but like so many desperate jews at the time, they found it impossible to get passage there. settling in 1939 in a small town just outside grenoble, in southeastern france, they did their best to make a life for themselves, although fritz finaly’s ability to practice medicine was hampered by the antisemitic laws installed by marshal pétain’s collaborationist vichy government following the german conquest of france in 1940. in 1941, robert, the finaly’s first child, was born, followed by gérald fifteen months later. despite a mounting official campaign against the jews in france, the finalys had both boys circumcised, in accordance with jewish law.3 in february 1944, aware of the intensifying gestapo roundups of jews in their area, the finalys placed their two boys in a nursery in a nearby town. they confided the boys’ whereabouts to their friend marie paupaert, asking her to look out for the children should anything happen to them. four days later, the germans arrested anni and fritz. the couple was transported to auschwitz, never to be seen again. terrified by what had happened to her friends and fearing that the germans would come looking for the children next, marie took the two boys to the convent of notre-dame de sion, in grenoble, hoping that the nuns would hide them. deeming the children too young for them to care for, the sisters took them instead to the local municipal nursery school, whose director, antoinette brun, middle-aged and unmarried, agreed to look after the boys. 3 among the significant earlier works on the finaly affair are: jacob kaplan, l’affaire finaly (paris : cerf, 1993); moïse keller, l'affaire finaly: telle que je l'ai vécue (paris: librairie fischbacher, 1960); jean-claude larronde, l'affaire finaly au pays basque (bayonne: elkar, 2015); germain latour, les deux orphelins: l'affaire finaly, 1945-1953 (paris: fayard, 2006); joyce b. lazarus, in the shadow of vichy: the finaly affair (new york: peter lang, 2008); catherine poujol and chantal thoinet, les enfants cachés: l'affaire finaly (1945-1953) (paris: editeurs berg international, 2006); catherine poujol, l'église de france et les enfants juifs: des missions vaticanes à l’affaire finaly (1944-1953) (paris: presses universitaires de france, 2013); wladimir rabi, l'affaire finaly: des faits, des textes, des dates (marseille: editions du cercle intellectuel pour le rayonnement de la pensée et de la culture juive, 1953). 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) a little less than a year later, in early february 1945, with france now under allied control, fritz finaly’s sister margarete, who had found refuge in new zealand, wrote to the mayor of the town outside grenoble where fritz had lived to learn the fate of her brother and his family. when she heard what had happened, she immediately secured immigration permits for the two boys to join her in new zealand. margarete wrote to mademoiselle brun to thank her for taking care of her nephews and to ask for her assistance in arranging for their travel. to margarete’s dismay, brun’s reply was evasive and made no indication that she would help return the children to their family. at the same time, concealing her knowledge of the existence of any finaly relatives, brun convinced a local judge to name her provisional guardian of the boys, now aged three and four.4 the following year, the family made another attempt to have the boys returned, this time by confronting brun in person. besides margarete, fritz had two other sisters—one, hedwig rosner, was living in israel and the other, louise, like margarete, was in new zealand. fritz also had an older brother, richard, who had remained in vienna and perished in the holocaust. but richard’s wife, auguste, had escaped to safety in britain. auguste now traveled to grenoble and on the morning of october 25, 1946, appeared on brun’s doorstep. it had been fritz’s wish, his sister-in-law told brun, that if anything happened to him and anni, his sisters would look after their nephews. she pleaded with brun to show pity on the family that had been so recently torn apart. to auguste’s shock, brun grew hostile. “to all my prayers and pleas,” the boys’ aunt recalled later, “she had only a pitiless response, and she kept constantly repeating: ‘the jews are not grateful.’ she would never give the boys back, she said.”5 for many more months, margarete tried every possible avenue to retrieve her nephews. she sent pleas to the local mayor in france, to the french foreign minister, and to the red cross. at margarete’s urging, the bishop of auckland sent a request through the archbishop of westminster to the bishop of grenoble, asking him to look into the matter. in his reply, in july 1948, the bishop of grenoble explained that he had had a long talk with mademoiselle brun, but she had remained firm in her refusal to give up the children to their jewish family. 6 he made no offer of help himself, perhaps influenced by the fact that he had learned what no one in the family yet knew: that brun, four months earlier, had had the two boys baptized. this meant that under canon law, the boys would now be considered by the church to be catholics, and under longtime church doctrine, they could not be returned to 4 a good chronology of the basic events of the finaly case, as previously known, is found in catherine poujol’s “petite chronique de l'affaire des enfants finaly,” archives juives 37:2 (2004): 32-51. 5 traduction déclaration de mme auguste finaly, february 24, 1953, aav [archivio apostolico vaticano], arch. nunz. parigi, b. 861, fasc. 815, ff. 27r-28r. all of the vatican archival documents cited in this article—from the aav as well as the secretariat of state archives and the archives of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith—from the years of pius xii’s papacy (1939-1958) come from files first opened to scholars in march, 2020. 6 samester liston, bishop of auckland to mme. fischel, auckland, french translation of original, august 12, 1948, with copy of letter from aleandre caillot, bishop of grenoble, to cardinal griffin, archbishop of westminister, london, july 25, 1948, aav, ar ch. nunz. parigi, b. 861, fasc. 815, f. 22r. kertzer and benedetti: the vatican’s role 4 their jewish family.7 when the family learned of the baptism, it turned for help to a jewish family friend who lived in grenoble, moïse keller. frustrated by the difficulty of effectively fighting their cause from the other side of the world, the sisters in new zealand then decided it would be best if fritz’s sister in israel, hedwig, took the lead. with keller’s help, the finaly family took the case to court, but over the next years brun resisted a series of court orders giving hedwig rosner custody of her nephews. although the catholic press would later present brun as having become a surrogate mother to the finaly boys, the children throughout these years were living not with her but in a variety of catholic institutions. the boys later recounted that they saw brun for brief visits only a couple of times a year. shielding the boys from the authorities, the nuns assisting brun had arranged by 1952 to place them under fictitious names in a catholic school in marseilles. the boys by now were ten and eleven. a newly discovered, unsigned vatican document in the secretariat of state files for the finaly case, coming from unspecified church sources in grenoble, offers insight into these months, noting that in july 1952 a local court had confirmed hedwig rosner’s guardianship of her nephews and ordered brun to give the boys up to rosner’s representative, moïse keller. again, brun refused. the document notes, “her attitude, motivated by her conscience because of the fact that the boys are christian, is approved by his excellency cardinal [pierre-marie] gerlier [archbishop of lyon, the archdiocese of which grenoble is a part].” at this time, too, mother antonine, the superior of the boarding school associated with the notre-dame de sion convent, took on the leading role in keeping the children hidden. she was supported, according to the account provided to the pope from grenoble, “by the directives of his excellency cardinal gerlier.”8 in november 1952, the local french court decided to stay its order for mademoiselle brun to produce the finaly boys, pending a decision by the grenoble court of appeals scheduled for january 1953. by this time, cardinal gerlier was growing uneasy about the position he found himself in. the press had gotten hold of the story. now, as he wrote to the pope in mid-january 1953, he feared what the press reaction would be should the appeals court rule against mademoiselle brun and the church: 7 on the catholic doctrine of baptism at the time, see “battesimo,” in enciclopedia cattolica, vol. ii (rome: sansoni, 1949), 1004-1045. the discussion of baptism of jewish children is found on 1030 1031 8 “affaire finaly,” handwritten document, february 23, 1953, aav, segr.stato, anno 1950/54, privati, posiz. 2079, ff. 345r-346v. the religious order of notre dame de sion was founded in france by a baptized jew in the nineteenth century with the special mission of praying for and assisting in the conversion of jews (“notre dame de sion,” dizionario degli istituti di perfezione, vol. vi, monachesimo urbano [rome: edizioni paolini, 1980], 430-432); marina caffiero, “miracles de conversion au xixe siècle. le cas d’alphonse-marie de ratisbonne, entre dimension subjective et contexte de la politique de rome à l’égard des juifs, ” in p. ferruta, m. dumond, p. tollet, eds., entre judaïsme et christianisme. les conversions en europe, de l’époque moderne à l’apparition de l’antisémitisme politique (paris: peeters, 2017), 61-76. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) the seriousness of the problem results notably from the fact that a profound agitation of public opinion is being created and growing around this affair. the jewish press, the anti-christian press, and many of the major neutral papers are seizing on this question. the communists of grenoble are getting involved as well. the archbishop then came to the key question for which he was seeking guidance from the pope and the holy office: “in these conditions, should one be advised to refuse, come what may, to return the children, who belong to the church by their baptism and whose faith, in all likelihood, would scarcely be able to resist the influence of the jewish milieu were they to come back?” the matter, concluded the archbishop, is “extremely urgent.”9 the holy office and the mortara case the holy office, one of the major congregations that make up the roman curia, was founded as the congregation of the roman and universal inquisition in the sixteenth century as part of the church’s battle against heresy. by the early twentieth century, now referred to simply as the holy office, it continued to operate as the vatican body responsible for ensuring adherence to official church doctrine. for centuries, one of its functions had been to ensure that jewish children who were baptized did not fall into the mortal sin of apostacy by returning to their jewish faith. although it was considered illicit to baptize a child against parental wishes, once a child was baptized, whether licitly or illicitly, the baptism, if performed according to the proper ritual formula, was considered valid. a century earlier, another such case had caught the world’s attention. in 1858, the holy office and the pope at the time, pius ix, learned that a six-year-old jewish boy in bologna, italy, had apparently been secretly baptized by the family’s illiterate teenage christian maid, who said she feared the boy was dying. they instructed the police of the papal states, of which bologna was then part, to seize the child, whose name was edgardo mortara. the boy was sent to the house of the catechumens in rome, the church institution established in the sixteenth century for the conversion of jews and muslims. while jews throughout the lands in which the pope ruled as king had long lived in fear of just such a fate for their children, times were changing, and the abduction of edgardo set off a worldwide protest. despite the pressure, the pope refused to release the child. edgardo mortara would become a monk and travel through europe and america, preaching in several languages and seeking to convert jews.10 the church’s position on baptism remains 9 “note demandée par sa sainteté au cardinal archevêque de lyon,” n.d. [but close after january 8, 1953 and before january 29, 1953], aav, segr. stato, anno 1950/54, privati, posiz. 2079, ff. 343r344r. 10 see david i. kertzer, the kidnapping of edgardo mortara (new york: knopf, 1997). kertzer and benedetti: the vatican’s role 6 unchanged today: "an infant of catholic parents or even of non-catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.”11 reclaiming jewish orphans in the immediate postwar period the finaly case was not unlike that of edgardo mortara. both involved the baptism of young jewish children without family knowledge. both involved the long-held church doctrine that such children, now considered catholic, must not be raised by jewish families. yet in mid-twentieth century europe, in the wake of the holocaust, much had changed. nearly two thirds of europe’s jews had been murdered. thousands of jewish orphans were scattered around the continent. many of them had been hidden in convents, monasteries, and churches, as well as by catholic families. in june 1945, the major french children’s relief organization estimated that in france alone some 1,200 jewish children remained in non-jewish families or institutions. it was thought that a much larger number were scattered across poland, the netherlands, and other countries.12 to the jews of europe who had survived and to the jews in america who looked on, the idea that thousands of those orphaned children might be lost to their families and to the jewish people provoked fear and resentment. the recollection of cases like that of edgardo mortara had instilled a special sense of suspicion toward a church whose very doctrines stood in the way of the return to their jewish families of any children who had been baptized.13 for pope pius xii, who read cardinal gerlier’s plea for guidance in january 1953, the issue was not a new one. on september 21, 1945, the secretary-general of the world jewish council, leon kubowitzki, had come to see him to make two requests. first, he asked the pope to issue a public declaration denouncing antisemitism. “we will consider it,” replied the pope, although he would not in the end make any such declaration. the jewish leader then came to his second request, asking the pope’s help in ensuring that the jewish orphans of the holocaust living in catholic countries be returned to the jewish community. “we will give it all our 11 https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib4-cann834-878_en.html. on the history of the forced baptism of jewish children, see marina caffiero, battesimi forzati (rome: viella, 2004) [published in english as forced baptism, trans. lydia cochrane (berkeley: university of california press, 2012)]. 12 a good overview of the situation is provided by michael marrus, “the missing: the holocaust, the church & jewish orphans” commonweal (january 13, 2006), 11-16. 13 aside from the finaly case, several similar cases from the immediate postwar years have been examined. see, for example, nahum bogner, “the convent children: the rescue of jewish children in polish convents during the holocaust.” yad vashem studies 27 (1999): 235-85; joel s. fishman, “the anneke beekman affair and the dutch news media,” jewish social studies 40 (1978): 3-24; katy hazan, “récupérer les enfants cachés: un imperative des œuvres juives dans l’après guerre.” archives juives 37:2 (2004), 16-31; michael marrus, “the vatican and the custody of jewish child survivors after the holocaust,” holocaust and genocide studies 21:3 (2007), 378-403. https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib4-cann834-878_en.html 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) attention,” replied the pope, asking that his visitor send him “some statistics” on the matter.14 several months later, on sunday, march 10, 1946, the pope received another distinguished jewish visitor, the polish-born chief rabbi of israel, isaac herzog. herzog’s visit came as part of his mission to help locate the missing jewish orphans of the holocaust. the two religious leaders conducted their hour-long conversation in english and french, apparently with some latin thrown in. the rabbi tried to describe for the pope the enormity of the catastrophe which had befallen europe’s jews and called on him as pontiff to stand up and atone for the sins of christianity toward the jews which had made the catastrophe possible. he then turned to the main reason for his visit, which was to tell the pope what a great assistance it would be if he would issue a public plea to the catholic clergy of europe, calling on them to reveal the location of orphaned jewish children who remained in the hands of catholic institutions and catholic families. “at present,” said the rabbi, “every child means for us a thousand children, after the great catastrophe that has befallen our people, whereas for the christian church with its millions of believers any addition such as this is of little value.” expressing sympathy for the disaster that had befallen the jews of europe, the pope said only that he would have the matter looked into and asked the rabbi to provide him with a detailed memorandum on the subject.15 what the pope did next has not, until the recent opening of the vatican archives, been fully known.16 herzog returned to the vatican on march 12 with the memorandum the pope had requested and was directed to the secretariat of state. following the death of his initial secretary of state, cardinal luigi maglione, in 1944, pius xii had taken the unusual step of not appointing a successor, instead dividing the work between maglione’s two chief deputies, domenico tardini and giovanni battista montini. it was montini, the future pope paul vi, to whom the pope would later entrust the management of the finaly case. in the eyes of both montini and the pope, one man was viewed as the secretariat of state’s expert on 14 marrus, “the missing,” 14. a vatican file detailing kubowtizki’s visit to the pope and its aftermath is found at aav, segr. stato, anno 1945, istituti, posiz. 181. 15 this description is based on the account of herzog’s son, who accompanied him on the trip: ja’akov herzog (ed.) mas’a ha-hazalah [journey of rescue] (jerusalem, 1947), 14. we thank joel fishman for bringing this publication to our attention, and providing this english translation of the hebrew. the account given of this meeting in rabbi shmuel hacohen’s later study (yechid be-doro: megilat chayav shel ha-ga’on rabi itschak aizeek ha-levi herzog rosh rabanei israel [the only one in his generation: a life chronicle of the learned rabbi isaac halevi herzog, chief rabbi of israel] (jerusalem: keter, 1980)), offers a rather different view of how the chief rabbi experienced his encounter with the pope: “with a handshake, the chief rabbi departed from the pope. during his departure from the office those who had escorted him, who were waiting outside, observed that the rabbi was very pale. and when they approached him, they could easily see that he was seized with severe shivering. when the rabbi and his escorts left the vatican district, the chief rabbi asked a man from the jewish community to bring him immediately to a mikveh [a ritual bath] because he felt a need to immerse himself in purifying water.” again we are indebted to joel fishman for this reference and this translation. 16 an earlier look at these events, with only limited access to the relevant vatican archives, can be found in andrea tornielli and matteo l. napolitano, pacelli, roncalli e i battesimi della shoah (milan: piemme, 2005), 51-71. kertzer and benedetti: the vatican’s role 8 jewish questions. this was monsignor angelo dell’acqua, and it was dell’acqua with whom the rabbi was directed to meet that day.17 in a long memo, dell’acqua tells of the meeting and reviews the rabbi’s reasons for requesting papal help in facilitating the jewish children’s return. “the children in question,” said the rabbi, “are in large part orphans (their parents were killed by the nazis), found especially in poland; others, however, are also in belgium, holland, and france.” the rabbi, reported dell’acqua, asked the holy father or, if not the pontiff personally, the vatican to issue a public call for the release of the children. “that,” the rabbi told him, “would immensely facilitate our task.” after reporting the rabbi’s request, dell’acqua offered his advice on how the pope should respond to what he called this “rather delicate problem.” he began by ruling out any public statement by the pope or the vatican. “nor would i suggest responding with a document of the secretariat of state directed to the chief rabbi because it would certainly be exploited by jewish propaganda.” rather, the best course, advised dell’acqua, was to instruct the papal delegate in jerusalem to offer a generic verbal reply, saying that it would be necessary to look into each case individually. the delegate should put nothing in writing. this the pope ordered done.18 following this initial response, the pope directed domenico tardini, secretary of the congregation of extraordinary ecclesiastical affairs, to forward rabbi herzog’s request of the pope to the holy office for its opinion. rabbi herzog’s plea to the pope read in part: 17 dell’acqua’s negative views of jews are examined in david i. kertzer, “the pope, the jews, and the secrets in the vatican archives,” the atlantic, august 27, 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/the-popes-jews/615736/. for more on dell’acqua, see enrico galavotti, “dell’acqua, angelo,” dizionario biografico degli italiani (2015), https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/angelo-dellacqua_(dizionario-biografico)/; mauro lanfranchi, il diplomatico che sorrideva: profilo biografico del cardinale angelo dell’acqua (casciago: arti grafiche varesine, 1997); and alberto melloni, ed., angelo dell’acqua (bologna: il mulino, 2004), especially the following chapters: mauro velati, “dell’acqua minutante nella segreteria di stato in tempo di guerra,” 89-118; and enrico galavotti, “dell’acqua sostituto e la politica italiana (1953-1967),” 119-160. 18 angelo dell’acqua, memorandum, march 18, 1946, asrs [archivio storico della segreteria di stato-sezione per i rapporti con gli stati], aa.ee.ss. [congregazione per gli affari ecclesiastici straordinari], pio xii, parte asterisco, stati ecclesiastici, pos. 575*, ff. 2542-2543. dell’acqua’s proposed text of the instructions to monsignor hughes in jerusalem is found at ff. 2544-48, dated march 16, 1953. in discussing what should be done about the jewish orphans taken in by catholic institutions and catholic families, it adds the caution: “in the meantime, some of said children might have been regularly baptized, which would, as a consequence, impose …the serious obligation of providing for their catholic education.” in rabbi herzog’s account of this meeting he says he was told that if he knew of any cases of jewish children in catholic institutions which refused to give them up, he could turn to the vatican for help, but only on condition that herzog personally would go and investigate such cases. as for the request that the pope address a letter to church officials calling on them to give up the holocaust orphans taken in by church institutions, “it must be noted with sorrow that the request of the publication of an epistle to the heads of churches was not honored” (herzog, journey of rescue, 16). https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/the-popes-jews/615736/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/the-popes-jews/615736/ https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/angelo-dell-acqua_(dizionario-biografico)/ https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/angelo-dell-acqua_(dizionario-biografico)/ 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) the requested order by your holiness to those who have these children under their care would, without doubt, have as a result their immediate restitution…..we know that hundreds have already been returned to the homes from which they were removed. there are, however, a large number who have not been returned. for example, in poland alone it is estimated that there are at least 3,000 jewish children in monasteries and in private catholic homes. it is not necessary for me to insist on the importance that these children have for judaism and for the jewish people. we have lost one million two hundred thousand children in the recent holocaust…. for the reduced people of israel, each one of them is equal to a thousand. a favorable response by your holiness would represent a great act of good will, a magnanimous gesture toward the most martyred of all peoples….19 the holy office discussed herzog’s plea at a session held on march 27 and 28, 1946, and issued the following decision: regarding the jewish children i: if possible, do not respond, because every response would be distorted and abused. in order not to respond, one could say orally—if they should insist— that the matter is under study, that inquiries are being made, statistics: and more time is needed. ii: those baptized cannot be given up. iii: for those not baptized who have no relatives, it is not the jewish community that has the right to request them and to educate them. the church has them in its care: it has saved them corporally, and it has the right to educate them and save them spiritually. iv: if they have relatives, standum sacris canonibus. v: if they are already of the age of reason and have refused baptism, it is certainly not on these grounds that they should be abandoned.20 apparently unaware of the holy office decision, the nuncio in paris, angelo roncalli (the future pope john xxiii), wrote on august 28, 1946, to domenico tardini.21 roncalli’s letter was prompted by a visit the previous month by france’s 19 herzog’s plea is found in tardini’s report to cardinal marchetti selvaggiani, segretario, sant’offizio, march 22, 1946, acdf [archivio della congregazione per la dottrina della fede], r.v. 1946 n. 13, protocollo 118 / 1946, fasc. 1, ff. 1r-2v. it appears that tardini’s letter to the holy office was drafted by dell’acqua (asrs, aa.ee.ss., pxii parte asterisco, stati ecclesiastici, pos. 575*, f. 2540). 20 acdf, r.v. 1946 n. 13, protocollo 118 / 1946, fasc. 1, ff. 15r -19r. 21 for recent scholarsahip on domenico tardini, see raffaella perin, “tardini, domenico,” dizionario biografico degli italiani, vol. 95 (2019), https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/domenicohttps://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/domenico-tardini_(dizionario-biografico) kertzer and benedetti: the vatican’s role 10 chief rabbi, isaac schwartz, asking for help in securing the release of jewish holocaust orphans to jewish institutions dedicated to this purpose. although the finaly case is not cited specifically, it certainly fell in the category the rabbi was concerned about. despite the explicit instructions of the french episcopate against the practice, roncalli wrote, the heads of some catholic institutions had baptized the jewish children they had sheltered. following the rabbi’s request that he investigate the matter, roncalli directed the secretary general of the french episcopate to consult other members of the french church hierarchy and report back. “according to his personal opinion,” reported roncalli, “which coincides with that of the most eminent cardinal archbishop of paris [emmanuel suhard], it is more opportune for the children in question to be consigned to israelite institutions that are reclaiming them, in order to avoid a violent reaction on the part of the jews, a reaction that would extend beyond the borders of france and which would be echoed in all of the anti-catholic press, and especially the communist press.” roncalli added that he was attaching the responses to their query sent in by cardinal gerlier, archbishop of lyon, and by monsignor guerry, archbishop of cambrai, “both of which agree, in substance, with the opinion of cardinal suhard, though raising the possibility of some exceptions.” to this roncalli added: as cardinal suhard speaks, in his letter, of having raised the matter with his holiness last march, and that the holy father put off the decision pending having some theologians study the question, permit me to refer the above to your most reverend excellency, with the request to courteously advise me if the holy see intends eventually to impart some norm in this regard, or if it is desirable to leave the decision to the prudent judgment of these most excellent bishops.22 roncalli’s letter was sent on to the holy office, and on september 17, 1946, cardinal marchetti-selvaggiani, secretary of the holy office, communicated the results of its discussion to tardini. the reply, which the pope would soon review, is worth quoting at length: with its note dated the 5th of this month, your most reverend excellency transmitted to this supreme sacred congregation the report…dated august 28 of this year, together with the relative attachments, in which the most excellent apostolic nuncio in france expounded on the request of the heads of the french jewish community, aimed at obtaining the cooperation of the church so that the jewish children, who during the german occupation were tardini_(dizionario-biografico); and sergio pagano, ed., domenico tardini. diario di un cardinale (1936-1944). la chiesa negli anni delle ideologie nazista e comunista (cinisello balsamo: edizioni san paolo, 2020). 22 angelo roncalli, paris, to domenico tardini, august 28, 1946, asrs, aa.ee.ss., pxii parte asterisco, stati ecclesiastici, pos. 575*, ff. 2552-2553. https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/domenico-tardini_(dizionario-biografico) 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) entrusted to catholic institutions and families in france, are now given up to jewish institutions. in this regard, i bring your excellency’s attention to the fact that the general question concerning requests of this kind was subjected to examination by the most eminent fathers of this supreme [congregation] in the plenary session of …march 27 of this year in conformity with the august orders of the holy father communicated to me…on march 22 of this year. in that session the most eminent fathers decided that, if possible, no response should be given to the request of the chief rabbi of jerusalem; in any case, if it proved necessary to say something on the subject, that had to be done orally, given the danger of abuse or distortion that could result from anything written on the subject coming from the holy see. eventually one should say that the church has to undertake inquiries and ascertainments to judge case by case, it being evident that children who had been baptized could not be entrusted to institutions that were not able to guarantee them a christian education…. the decision of the most eminent father and the criteria, set out here, were referred to the holy father in the audience of this past march 28 and his holiness deigned to give it his august approval. it seems to me, therefore, that one could give a reply in conformity with the above-mentioned criteria to the apostolic nuncio in france. indeed, the holy office reply bears the handwritten note on top, dated september 23, 1946, “eas. [ex audientia sanctissimi, instructions from an audience with the pope] communicate the holy office response to the nuncio.” five days later, tardini did just that, sending the holy office instructions to roncalli in paris, including the prohibition on allowing baptized jewish children to be released into an environment which would not guarantee their christian education. “the decision of the most eminent fathers, and the criteria articulated by them,” tardini concluded in his letter to roncalli, “were referred to the holy father in the audience of march 28 and his holiness deigned to accord it his august approval.”23 the following year, pius xii was consulted regarding a new case of baptized jewish children, this time children being held in a convent in rome itself. it involved a jewish woman who, in 1944, presumably during the german occupation of the city in the first months that year, had taken refuge with her two small sons in the franciscan missionaries of mary convent on via della balduina in rome, a bit north of vatican city. at some point in the months she was there, she agreed to baptism for herself and her two children. the following year, after liberation, the woman left the convent, initially by herself. quickly returning to her jewish faith, 23 cardinal marchetti-selvaggiani, holy office, to tardini, september 17, 1946, asrs. aa.ee.ss., pxii, parte asterisco, stati ecclesiastici, pos. 575 *, ff. 2556-2557; tardini to roncalli, september 28, 1946, asrs, aa.ee.ss., pxii, parte asterisco, stati ecclesiastici, pos. 575*, ff. 2557-2558. kertzer and benedetti: the vatican’s role 12 she called on the nuns to let her take back her two children, now ages five and nine. the nuns refused. the case was brought to the pope’s attention by rome’s vicegerent, the chief assistant to the cardinal vicar of rome who had traditionally been charged with oversight of rome’s jews, with a note dated november 5, 1947. the note offered the details above and then added, “a few days ago the signora returned in via balduina with the representatives of the jewish orphanage, insisting on having her children. the nuns gave an evasive response; now they ask for instructions.” the matter was brought to pius xii for a decision the next day. the document recording the pope’s decision reads: audience of 6 november 1947 the holy father, all things considered, said to respond as follows: “considering that the rights of the church to protect the faith of the children in question could not be exercised due only to the greater force of those who could impede it, one can give the two children back, reprimanding the mother for her disloyalty and declaring to her that she does not have the right to disturb the conscience of the two children from the possession of the true faith to which she herself freely gave them.” in short, from pius xii’s perspective, the church was reluctantly returning the children to their mother only due to the threat of force (presumably by italian authorities). a final note added that the pope’s instructions were communicated to the vicegerent of rome on november 10, 1947. together with this material was a copy of the holy office march 27, 1946 decision, cited above.24 the pope, the holy office, and the finaly case on january 17, 1953, the pope sent cardinal gerlier’s urgent request for guidance on the finaly affair to the holy office for its opinion. although the pope was the titular head of the congregation of the holy office, the cardinals who composed it, along with the cadre of theological consultants who advised them, met separately and then sent their recommendations to the pope for his approval.25 a holy office note discovered in the newly opened archives, presumably written by one of the consultants, offered some historical background: “according to the practice of the holy office up until the suppression of the papal states in 1870, jewish children baptized without their parents’ permission were not returned.” given the sense of urgency conveyed by cardinal gerlier, the holy office took up the finaly matter 24 acdf, r.v. 1946, n. 13, protocollo 118/1946, fasc. 1, ff. 25r, 26r-27r. 25 for details on the structure and functioning of the holy office, see niccolò del re, la curia romana. lineamenti storico-giuridici. terza edizione nuovamente rifatta ed aggiornata (roma: edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1970), 89-101. 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) immediately. as was customary, the cardinals turned first to their group of consultants for advice. the church, the consultants advised, should make all possible efforts to prevent the finaly children from being returned to their jewish family. should the french court case decide against mademoiselle brun and grant guardianship to the boys’ aunt, the newly accessible document reads, “one must delay its execution as long as possible, appealing to the court of cassation and using all other legal means.” should the final court ruling then go against the church, the consultants wrote, “advise the woman to resist … unless the woman were to sustain serious personal damage and one were to fear greater damages for the church.”26 the cardinal secretary of the holy office then wrote directly, in french, to cardinal gerlier, giving the holy office ruling. the document reads as follows: the dangers for their faith, should they be returned to this jewish aunt, requires careful consideration of the following consequences: 1: by divine right, these children were able to choose, and they have chosen the religion that assures the health of their soul; 2: canon law recognizes for children who have attained the age of reason [age seven] the right to decide their religious future; 3: the church has the inalienable duty to defend the free choice of these children who, by their baptism, belong to it.27 what this meant, the holy office advised gerlier, was spelled out in the opinion the consultants had offered, which it appended. meanwhile, in france, mother antonine, afraid that the upcoming court ruling would go against them, had her sister take the finaly boys to a catholic boarding school in bayonne, more than 500 kilometers from grenoble, near the spanish border. there she had the boys registered under false names. her fears proved prescient. on january 29, 1953, the court of appeals ordered the arrest of mademoiselle brun for failing to produce the boys. brun would remain in prison in grenoble for the next six weeks. informed that the police were now looking for the boys and afraid that they would not be safe as long as they remained in france, mother antonine made her way to bayonne to discuss the matter with the local bishop. two days after this visit, the boys disappeared. shortly after that, mother antonine, charged with kidnapping, was herself imprisoned. the photograph of her arrest and the mystery of what had happened to the finaly boys triggered many months of intense public interest in the case, in france and beyond. over the next 26 tardini to cardinal alfredo ottaviani, pro-segretario, s. offizio, january 17, 1953, with attachments including cardinal gerlier to pius xii, january 14, 1953, and deliberations of s. offizio, january 19 and 21, 1953, acdf, r.v. 1946, n. 13, protocollo 118/1946, fasc. 1, ff. 30r-34r. 27 cardinal pizzardo, secretary, sant’uffizio, to cardinal gerlier, lyon, january 23, 1953, aav, segr. stato, anno 1950/54, privati, posiz. 2079, ff. 39r-41r. kertzer and benedetti: the vatican’s role 14 weeks, more monks and nuns were arrested and imprisoned, charged with participating in a clerical underground that had spirited the boys across the spanish border into the heart of spain’s basque country.28 on february 24, in the wake of the french court decision and the arrest of mademoiselle brun and mother antonine, the holy office informed the pope that it had sent cardinal gerlier a new letter with the directive “to hold off as long as possible, that is up to when other more serious reason might advise a different line of conduct.” the holy office, using one of the anti-jewish themes common within the church for many decades, went on to inform the pope that “the jews, tied to the masons and the socialists, have organized an international press campaign” around the case. in the face of this campaign, it complained, the reaction among france’s catholics had been woefully weak, with only two of the catholic periodicals having “energetically raised their voice in defense of the rights of the church.” in the wake of the arrests, cardinal gerlier had agreed to negotiations with jacob kaplan, interim chief rabbi of france, to find a way out of the crisis. in its february 24 report, the holy office added its own cautious support for the negotiation. given the situation they now found themselves in, with the church much criticized in the press and an increasing number of catholic clergy imprisoned, something must be done, the cardinals advised, to bring the case to an end. at the same time, the holy office insisted, any agreement requiring the boys’ return to france would have to meet two conditions. first, the children had to be placed in a “neutral” educational institution “in such a manner as not to get in the way of the boys’ practice of the catholic religion.” second, guarantees had to be given that mademoiselle brun, mother antonine, and all the others charged with kidnapping either be absolved of the charges or amnestied. the holy office also suggested that monsignor montini speak directly with the french foreign minister, who happened to be visiting rome, about the case. it also called on montini to send instructions to cardinal gerlier through the nuncio in paris. finally, it advised that in whatever action gerlier took, no mention be made of the role being played behind the scenes by the vatican “so as not to compromise the holy see in such a delicate and sensational dispute.”29 the following day, monsignor montini wrote back to the cardinal secretary of the holy office, informing him that the pope had accepted their advice. montini reported that he had already spoken with the french foreign minister and sent the nuncio the instructions to agree to a settlement as long as it accorded with the holy office requirements. following his conversation with the pope, montini had added a clause to the language proposed by the holy office to make it even clearer that the children could only be returned if the continuing practice of their catholic religion were guaranteed. the agreement, he told the nuncio, could only be reached “after having taken the opportune precautions to ensure that they [the boys] are not prompted to become jews again.” montini added a final instruction in his coded 28 “affaire finaly,” handwritten document, february 23, 1953, aav, segr. stato, anno 1950/54, privati, posiz. 2079, ff. 345r346v. 29 sant’uffizio, february 24, 1953, aav, segr. stato, anno 1950/54, privati, posiz. 2079, ff. 362r-364r. 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) telegram to the nuncio: “e’ bene che s.o. non apparisca” [“it is well that the holy office not be visible”].30 as the pope had recently notified angelo roncalli that he was being appointed a cardinal and would become patriarch of venice, there was at the time only an acting nuncio in paris, giacomo testa. around the time that testa received montini’s instructions, he was visited by israel’s ambassador to france. the ambassador came on behalf of his government to ask the pope to issue a public plea to all catholics to assist in finding the finaly boys and to disassociate himself from the monks and nuns who had hidden them. “i observed,” wrote the papal emissary in reporting the conversation to montini, “that he dared to ask too much. the holy see might be able to support an agreement, but only if certain guarantees were given with respect to the little ones’ faith. it would never disassociate itself from and publicly condemn those who, it must be supposed, acted out of the righteousness of conscience.”31 the following days saw intense negotiations between the priest deputized to represent cardinal gerlier and the church, on the one hand, and rabbi kaplan, on the other. receiving a draft of the proposed agreement in early march, the pope called on his expert on jewish affairs, monsignor dell’acqua, to prepare an analysis. the finaly affair, dell’acqua advised, had stirred up a fierce press campaign against church authorities in france, and so finding a way to bring it to an end was crucial. and yet, he concluded, the proposed agreement did not provide the guarantees the church was looking for. “in all likelihood,” dell’acqua wrote, “the court proceedings in course will finish in favor of the judaic thesis and the two young boys will end up in the hands of the jews who, with ever greater ruthless obstinacy, will force a ‘jewish’ education on them, with the resulting humiliation (at least in the eyes of a part of the wider public) of the catholic church.” any agreement, thought the monsignor, had to ensure the boys’ ability to continue their catholic education. “if, then, the jews do not observe the commitment they assumed”—here dell’acqua added in parentheses, “which is likely”— “the fault will then be theirs and the church will always be able, with reason, to charge them with hypocrisy.” 32 the pope too was unhappy with the agreement that the negotiators had reached in france. cardinal alfredo ottaviani, assessore of the holy office, had brought 30 montini, to nunziatura apostolica, parigi, february 25, 1953, aav, segr. stato, anno 1950/54, privati, posiz. 2079, ff. 367r-368r. 31 giac. testa, paris, to montini, february 27, 1953, aav, segr. stato, anno 1950/54, privati, posiz. 2079, ff. 7r-v. 32 dell’acqua, march 2, 1953, aav, segr. stato, anno 1950/54, privati, pos. 2079, ff. 60r-62r. tellingly, andrea riccardi, one of the historians most energetic in casting pius xii and those around him as great friends of jews, in quoting another example of dell’acqua’s negative characterization of italy’s jews (“notes de la sécrétairerie d’etat,” december 29, 1943, actes et documents du saint siège, vol. 9, n. 487), while acknowledging that his note was “infelice” [unfortunat e], adds immediately in parentheses that dell’acqua “in the following years is known as a positive and human man, a friend of john xxiii” (andrea riccardi, l’inverno più lungo. 1943-44: pio xii, gli ebrei e i nazisti a roma (rome: laterza, 2008), 95. kertzer and benedetti: the vatican’s role 16 the text in mid-march to show the pontiff.33 “a positive approval cannot be given” reads the cardinal’s handwritten note of what the pope told him, bearing the purple stamp marking an official papal decision. the agreement, thought the pope, did not offer sufficient assurances that the boys would not come under jewish influence and revert to their parents’ religion. that said, and recognizing the public-relations disaster that the church faced if no agreement were to be reached, the pope sought to place responsibility for the deal on cardinal gerlier.34 as a result of these discussions with the pope, montini wrote again to the acting nuncio in paris on march 16. after pointing out the holy see’s unhappiness over the lack of sufficient guarantees provided in the draft agreement, montini added: “if however the cardinal, considering the circumstances, believes he is able to assume responsibility for the execution of the agreement, the holy office does not oppose it and will give promised support for finding the boys.”35 at the same time, the head of the liberal branch of judaism in france, rabbi andré zaoui, came to rome to plead on behalf of the finaly family. although he was presumably eager to see the pope, it was monsignor dell’acqua he got to see, a meeting the monsignor then reported on in a memo for pius xii. the vatican, the rabbi had told dell’acqua, would be performing an act of “charity” in helping return the finaly boys. “i responded,” the monsignor informed the pope, “that it was not a matter of charity but a question of principle and therefore of justice. the two boys, being catholic, have some rights. the catholic church not only has rights with respect to them, but duties that it must fulfill.” as he got up to leave, the rabbi countered that the jewish community also had rights and responsibilities. “not, however,” dell’acqua told him, “of the same kind as those of the catholic church.”36 after hearing from cardinal gerlier that he could get no further concessions from the jewish side and that prolonging the concealment of the finaly boys would prove disastrous for the church in france, the pope reluctantly—the latin expression “aegre” is used in the official record of the pope’s decision—gave his approval to the agreement.37 on march 23, montini sent a telegram to the nuncio in madrid informing him of the decision and advising the clergy to help find and return the finaly children.38 33 on the purview of the holy office, the roles of its various positions, and its personnel at the time, see annuario pontificio, 1952 (vatican city: tipografia poliglotta vaticana, 1952), 804-806. 34 acdf, r.v. 1946, n. 13, protocollo 118/1946, fasc. 2, ff. 8r-24r, march 10 and 14, 1953. 35 montini to nuncio, paris, march 16, 1953, aav, segr. stato, anno 1950/54, privati, posiz. 2079, f. 16r. 36 dell’acqua, march 12, 1953, aav, segr. stato, anno 1950/54, privati, posiz. 2079, f. 383r. 37 montini to ottaviani, march 23, 1953, acdf, r.v. 1946, n. 13, protocollo 118/1946, fasc. 2, f. 32r. 38 aav, segr. stato, anno 1950/54, privati, pos. 2079, f. 409r. 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) return to judaism hopes that the agreement would lead to the speedy return of the boys were soon to be disappointed. although the nuncio in madrid met with spain’s cardinal primate to let him know of the vatican’s desire for the boys to be returned, it seemed that neither the spanish clergy nor, for its own reasons, the spanish government was in any rush to have them found. the spanish monks hiding the boys, cardinal gerlier wrote rome, were still claiming that the pope was not eager to see them returned. in april, this prompted another telegram to the nuncio in madrid: “cardinal gerlier reports that the local spanish religious authorities where the finaly brothers are found are said to declare that the guarantees contained in gerlier’s agreement are insufficient and would not agree to the return of the children without an order from the holy see.”39 in an accompanying note for the pope, dell’acqua stressed the “importance that the holy see not appear directly. it is necessary to be attentive not only to the effects in france but also in the other catholic and noncatholic countries. if in some way it appeared that the boys were being returned due to the direct intervention of the holy see, that might, at least in some countries, be judged unfavorably.”40 in other words, church traditionalists familiar with catholic doctrine might have a hostile reaction to the pope himself calling for the return of the boys to their jewish family. in an effort to deflect attention from any church responsibility for the continuing concealment of the finaly children in spain, dell’acqua, with the pope’s approval, drafted an article to be placed in a swiss newspaper. it was not the “religious” aspects of the case that were preventing the boys’ return, it asserted, but political issues, “insofar as the two boys can consider themselves to be refugees who have invoked the right of exile.” on april 28, montini sent the text of the article to the nuncio in bern, with the instruction that he “examine how to have the press of that nation publish the news contained in the note, obviously without them knowing its origin.”41 still the boys could not be found. as part of the agreement he had reached with cardinal gerlier in march, rabbi kaplan had remained silent, but on june 5, under growing pressure from france’s jewish community, he called a news conference. high church officials, he charged, had never publicly condemned the baptism of the finaly children and the church had taken no action to discover their whereabouts from the priests and nuns who knew where they were. he had been promised their return, said the rabbi, but now, many weeks later, catholic clergy were still hiding them.42 39 no date [but in response to april 13, 1953 letter from cardinal gerlier], aav, segr. stato, anno 1950/54, privati, posiz. 2079, f. 86r. for the views of the spanish basque monks hiding the finaly brothers, see larronde, l’affaire finaly. 40 dell’acqua, april 16, 1953, aav, segr. stato, anno 1950/54, privati, posiz. 2079, f. 88r. 41 montini to mons. mario brini, incaricato d’affari, nunziatura apostolica, berna, april 28, 1953, aav, arch nunz. svizzera, b. 213, ff. 364r-366r. 42 poujol, “petite chronique,” 14. kertzer and benedetti: the vatican’s role 18 “the attitude of the spanish authorities,” complained the french ambassador to the vatican, as a vatican secretariat of state record of the conversation reveals, “remains less than clear. while the minister of foreign affairs seems to be favorable to the desired solution, those under him come up with various pretexts to avoid the conclusion.”43 indeed, the excuse that the spanish officials repeatedly gave for their inaction was that it was spanish basque monks who were hiding the finaly boys and they did not want to further inflame the government’s already tense relations with that region. on june 22, the french ambassador followed up with a memo to montini, which montini in turn quickly forwarded to the nuncio in madrid: “the governor of saint-sébastian [in the center of spain’s basque region] continues to think…that the spanish basque clergy have the last word and that ‘without a formal order from rome, the boys will remain in the shadows’.” the french government, reported the ambassador, found the church’s failure to abide by the terms of cardinal gerlier’s agreement for the return of the finaly boys a matter of growing concern.44 four days later, a greatly relieved french ambassador telephoned the secretariat of state and got through to dell’acqua: the finaly boys had just been handed over at saint-sébastian to germaine ribière, the woman who had been shuttling back and forth across the border on cardinal gerlier’s behalf, trying to find them. the boys had already crossed the border into france. 45 as the saga approached its final chapter, the battle over the finaly boys took on a new complexion. from the vatican perspective, while it had agreed to the children’s return, it had not agreed to have them abandon their catholic identity. pius xii, reacting to press reports that the boys’ aunt, who had left her husband and her own children behind in israel to retrieve her nephews, was planning to bring them back with her to israel, authorized a news story to be planted by the holy office in a roman catholic newspaper. a journalist at the vatican’s own l’osservatore romano was charged with drafting it; the final text was edited by members of the holy office.46 the article was published in il quotidiano on july 9. any claim that the accord reached between cardinal gerlier and the finaly family would permit taking the finaly boys to israel and becoming jewish, it explained, was erroneous. “the free will of the two boys, who have declared their wish to remain catholic, is protected by the agreement. thus they have the full right to profess and practice catholicism, without being exposed to any pressure direct or indirect….it is clear that the prospect of the two boys’ ‘reeducation’ to judaism would be in contrast with these premises.” the article continued by taking a swipe at france’s jewish community. although french church authorities had maintained their word, the article stated, 43 june 4, 1953, aav, segr. stato, anno 1950/54, privati, posiz. 2079, f. 416r. 44 montini to gaetano cicognani, madrid, june 22, 1953, aav, arch. nunz. madrid, b. 1037, fasc. 5, ff. 529r-v. 45 dell’acqua, typed sheet, june 26, 1953, stamped ex audentia ss.mi 29 giu. 1953, aav, segr.st. titoli, anno 1950/54, privati, pos. 2079, f. 217r. 46 dell’acqua, july 8, 1953, stamped ex audientia ss.mi 8 lug. 1953, aav, segr. stato, anno 1950/54, privati, posiz. 2079, f. 426r; typed draft of article, with many handwritten edits at ff. 429r-430r. 19 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) the press in recent weeks had been filled with sarcastic remarks about how long it was taking the church to locate the two boys. “even the chief rabbis lent themselves to these harmful suspicions with words that, apart from every other consideration, betrayed the most absolute lack of recognition for all that catholics had done in these years for the jews, running the risk of the most serious personal dangers and without asking for anything, simply out of christian charity.”47 on july 19, monsignor montini followed up by writing to the new nuncio in paris, monsignor paolo marella. “some newspapers,” he informed the nuncio, “are reporting that the finaly brothers will soon be taken to israel to be reeducated in judaism. that is in contrast with the agreements that cardinal gerlier concluded some time ago.” he instructed the nuncio to call the cardinal’s attention to this fact and to report back on his response.48 six days later, hedwig rosner, having been awarded legal guardianship of her two nephews, boarded a plane with the boys and flew to tel aviv. what should the pope do now? dell’acqua offered a suggestion. the jewish press, he wrote on july 29, was casting the outcome of the finaly affair as a victory. “i wonder if it isn’t the case,” dell’acqua proposed, “of having an article prepared for civiltà cattolica [the vatican-overseen jesuit journal] to unmask the jews and accuse them of disloyalty.”49 the pope apparently thought this worth considering, at least in some form. two days later, therefore, montini prepared a message to the nuncio in paris, complaining about cardinal gerlier and asking for his opinion on whether going ahead with the proposed article would be a good idea. the conclusion of the finaly affair, wrote montini, “had inflicted a serious blow to the church’s rights and also to its prestige in the world.” meeting a few days later, the holy office supported the idea that some public action was called for, advising the pope to instruct cardinal gerlier to lodge an official protest.50 yet in the end, following the advice of the nuncio in paris that an article such as the one being proposed would be widely read as a condemnation of the action of the french episcopate, and especially of cardinal gerlier, the plan was dropped. monsignor montini did, however, send a written protest in late september to the french government through its ambassador to the vatican. the holy see, wrote montini, could only “express its great regret for the solution that was given to this affair without considering the religious interest of the two baptized youths. it likewise expresses the fear that these boys’ catholic education will come to be compromised, contrary to the spirit of an agreement signed by the representatives of the family and those of the ecclesiastical authorities, and to which the latter have remained faithful.”51 47 “il caso dei due giovani finaly è ormai definitivamente chiuso,” il quotidiano, july 9, 1953, clipping at aav, segr. stato, anno 1950/54, privati, posiz. 2079, f. 428r. 48 montini to mons. marella, paris, july 17, 1953, aav, arch. nunz. parigi, b. 861, fasc. 815, f. 290r. 49 dell’acqua, july 29, 1953, aav, segr. stato, anno 1950/54, privati, posiz. 2079, f. 198r. 50 montini to mons. marella, paris, august 31, 1953, aav, segr. stato, anno 1950/54, privati, posiz. 2079, ff. 302r-v, 303r-v. a final version of montini’s letter was dated september 1, 1953, found at ff. 304r-v. 51 montini to ambassade de france près le saint siège, september 26, 1953, aav, segr. stato, anno 1950/54, privati, posiz. 2079, original draft at ff. 306r-v, subsequent draft at ff. 308r-v. kertzer and benedetti: the vatican’s role 20 the pope, the vatican, and the jews in the aftermath of the shoah anni and fritz finaly had made it to within months of the allied liberation of france when the gestapo seized them and sent them to their death. while the danger to france’s jews would soon pass, the horrors of the holocaust were slow to move the roman catholic church to consider its own history of antisemitism or the role it played in making the mass murder of europe’s jews possible. pope pius xii was undoubtedly horrified by the nazis’ slaughter of europe’s jews, but he had never as pope or, earlier, as the vatican’s secretary of state, complained about the sharp measures taken against the jews as one catholic nation after another introduced repressive laws against them (among them, italy in 1938, france in 1940). the only complaint pius xii ever made about italy’s antisemitic laws was the unfairness of applying them to jews who had converted to catholicism. he never acknowledged any link between the centuries of church demonization of the jews and the ability of people who thought of themselves as catholics to murder jews. the fact that mussolini’s regime relied heavily on church publications and church history—its newspapers and magazines filled with references to the measures popes had taken over the centuries to protect “healthy” christian society from the threat posed by the jews—to justify its antisemitic laws led to little rethinking of church doctrine or practice during his papacy.52 the newly available documents on the finaly affair have revealed how little impact the holocaust had on the vatican’s view of its proper course of action. while they show occasional allusions by the pope and those around him to the suffering recently experienced by the jewish people, these expressions of sympathy did not translate into any special concern for the wishes of the finaly boys’ murdered parents or for the finaly family survivors who sought to take the children in. what comes through clearly in reading the newly accessible vatican records is the conviction that what mattered above all else were the prerogatives of the church: the belief that, given church doctrine about baptism, and the importance of saving souls, the performance of that simple ceremony, even against a family’s wishes, gave the church the right to claim the children. it was the same belief that motivated the monks and nuns who kept moving the boys around, under fictitious names, from one church hiding place to another. the determination of the pope and the men of the curia to prevent the finaly family from gaining custody of the children was tempered not by concern for the boys’ surviving family members or for the jewish community in the wake of the shoah. rather, it was affected by the french state’s ability to imprison members of the catholic clergy involved and, especially, by bad press, a worry constantly highlighted by cardinal gerlier in his increasingly urgent pleas to rome. gerlier 52 on the fascist regime’s regular citation of church authorities to justify its antisemitic campaign, see david i. kertzer and roberto benedetti, “the italian catholic press and the racial laws,” holocaust and genocide studies 35:2 (2021), in press. for a comparative study of the use by both the italian fascist regime and german third reich of church precedents for this purpose, see david i. kertzer and gunnar mokosch, “in the name of the cross: christianity and anti-semitic propaganda in nazi germany and fascist italy,” comparative studies in society and history 62:3 (2020), 456-486. 21 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) especially feared unfavorable press coverage because it was, as he repeatedly reminded the pope and the holy office during these months, weakening the church’s political position in france and its efforts to convince the postwar french government to give state recognition to catholic parochial schools. it would only be after pius xii’s death that church attitudes toward the jews would change in a meaningful way. this was thanks to his successor, john xxiii, who convened a vatican council devoted in part to rooting out vestiges of medieval church doctrine on the jews.53 the culmination of those efforts came only after pope john xxiii’s death, when, in 1965, the second vatican council issued the remarkable declaration, nostra aetate. reversing long-held church doctrine, the declaration called on the faithful to treat jews and their religion as worthy of respect. both of the popes responsible for overseeing this historic change—pope roncalli and pope montini—had been intimately involved in the vatican efforts in the finaly affair, in which, following centuries-long practice, efforts were made to prevent the jewish children who were baptized against their family’s wishes to be returned to their family. how this may have affected the thinking of john xxiii and paul vi as the matter of dramatically altering church attitudes to jews was considered at the second vatican council remains yet to be examined. 53 on the pervasiveness in the italian church and the vatican of antisemitism from the time of the origins of modern antisemitism in the last two decades of the nineteenth century through the middle of the twentieth century, see, inter alia, david kertzer, the popes against the jews (new york: knopf, 2001); and, most recently, nina valbousquet, catholique et antisémite: le réseau de mgr begnini, 1918-1934 (paris: cnrs editions, 2020), and ulrich wyrwa, come si crea l’antisemitismo. la stampa cattolica italiana fra otto e novecento: mantova, milano, venezia (florence: giuntina, 2020). the death of jesus watson, the “johannine prayer” watson 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college the “johannine prayer” that never really was m urr ay k . wat s on s t . p e t e r ‟ s s e m i n a r y volume 6 (2011) http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): watson 1-12 watson, the “johannine prayer” watson 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr if one had consciously set out to create a prayer that would sum up in its words the repentance of post-shoah christianity—an invocation that would communicate the contrition of jesus‟ followers for centuries of anti-semitic words and actions—one could hardly have expressed that intention so eloquently or with such evident, broken-hearted passion as in the following lines: we recognize today that many centuries of blindness have veiled our eyes, so that we no longer see the beauty of your chosen people and no longer recognize the features of our firstborn brother. we know now that the mark of cain is on our forehead. over the course of centuries our brother abel has lain in blood we have spilled because we forgot your love. forgive us for the curse which we unjustly placed on the name of the jews. forgive us for crucifying you a second time, for we knew not what we were doing ... 1 in modern jewish-catholic dialogue, very few prayers (with the possible exception of the prayer “for the conversion of the jews” from the tridentine good friday liturgy) have been so widely reprinted and discussed. perhaps no address to the divine has been so influential in capturing the spirit of interfaith commitment and theological re-thinking that led to vatican ii‟s landmark 1965 declaration nostra aetate. the prayer is 1 “pope john xxiii, prayer of penance written shortly before his death on june 3, 1963,” as reprinted in zev garber, “do not hurt them,” ed. henry j. cargas, holocaust scholars write to the vatican (westport, ct: greenwood press, 1998), 51-52. attributed to the final weeks of a beloved and ground-breaking pope, john xxiii, seeking to atone liturgically for the innumerable sins of catholics against their jewish sisters and brothers. as the pope lay dying, it was claimed, he had scribbled the draft of a “prayer of repentance” which he intended to have recited in all the catholic churches of the world—an intention that was, unfortunately, thwarted by his death not long afterward. the poignancy of the words captured the imagination of many who respected and loved pope john, and who saw in the account an accurate expression of the pope‟s love for the jewish people, and his desire to begin redressing the wrongs of which they had been victims for much of christian history. the full extent of the influence of this particular prayer is today difficult to measure accurately. for more than forty years, it has circulated in several forms and been reprinted in both erudite and popular publications, in many different languages. indeed, it continues to be quoted authoritatively, even very recently 2 : [french :] nous sommes aujourd‟hui conscients qu‟au cours de beaucoup, beaucoup, de siècles, nos yeux étaient si aveugles que nous n‟étions plus capables de voir la beauté de ton peuple élu, ni de reconnaître dans leur visage les traits de nos frères privilégiés. nous 2 as a merely indicative sample of the dozens of english books which attribute this prayer to john xxiii: dennis prager and joseph telushkin, why the jews?: the reason for antisemitism (new york: simon & schuster, 1985), 109; joseph telushkin, jewish literacy: the most important things to know about the jewish religion, its people, and its history (new york: william morrow & co., 1991), 471; benjamin blech, the complete idiot’s guide to jewish history and culture. 2 nd ed. (indianapolis: alpha, 2004), 146; robert a. michael, a concise history of american antisemitism (lanham, md: rowman & littlefield, 2005), 207; taylor marshall, the crucified rabbi: judaism and the origins of catholic christianity (dallas: saint john press, 2009), 14; shalom goldman, zeal for zion: christians, jews, and the idea of the promised land (chapel hill, nc: university of north carolina press, 2009), 196, etc. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): watson 1-12 watson, the “johannine prayer” watson 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr comprenons que le signe de caïn soit inscrit sur notre front. au cours des siècles notre frère abel était couché ensanglanté et en pleurs par notre faute, parce que nous avions oublié ton amour. pardonne-nous la malédiction que nous avions injustement attribuée à leur nom de juif. pardonne-nous de t‟avoir crucifié une deuxième fois, en eux, en ta chair, parce que nous ne savions pas ce que nous faisions. 3 [italian:] siamo oggi consapevoli che per molti e molti secoli i nostri occhi erano tanti ciechi da renderci incapaci di vedere ancora la bellezza del tuo popolo eletto... 4 noi comprendiamo che il marchio di caino è scritto sulla nostra fronte. nel corso dei secoli nostro fratello abele giacque insanguinato e in lacrime per colpa nostra, perché avevamo dimenticato il tuo amore. perdonaci per le maledizioni che abbiamo ingiustamente attribuito al loro nome di ebrei. perdonaci per averti una seconda volta crocifisso in essi, nella loro carne... 5 [spanish:] reconocemos ahora que muchos, muchos siglos de ceguera han tapado nuestros ojos de manera que ya no vemos la hermosura de tu pueblo elegido, ni 3 jean-william dereymez, le refuge et le piège : les juifs dans les alpes, 1938-1945 (paris: harmattan, 2008), 220, fn. 77; hélène bart-lukas and olivier boruchowitch, et l’homme créa l’enfer: témoignage sur l’antisémitisme en pologne (brussels: éditions luc pire, 2002), 122; nathan weinstock and micheline weinstock, pourquoi le carmel d’auschwitz?‎ (brussels: éditions de l‟université de bruxelles, 1990), 100. 4 giovanni caprile, il concilio vaticano ii: cronache del concilio vaticano ii. vol. 5 (rome: la civiltà cattolica, 1969), 294; sergio quinzio, la speranza nell’apocalisse (milan: edizioni paoline, 2002), 162. see also orazio la rocca, “giovanni xxiii: prego per gli ebrei”. la repubblica (december 20, 2008), 47; online at: http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2008/12/20/giovannixiii-prego-per-gli-ebrei.html 5 giuseppe centore, lettura poetica dell’ebraismo. vol. 1: il canto di gabila (naples: edizioni scientifiche italiane, 1994), 29. reconocemos en su rostro los rasgos de nuestro hermano mayor. reconocemos que llevamos sobre nuestra frente la marca de caín. durante siglos abel ha estado abatido y en lágrimas porque nosotros habíamos olvidado tu amor. perdónanos que en su carne te crucificásemos por segunda vez; pues no sabíamos lo que hacíamos. 6 [german:] wir erkennen heute, dass viele jahrhunderte der blindheit unsere augen verhüllt haben, so dass wir die schönheit deines auserwählten volkes nicht mehr sehen und in seinem gesicht nicht mehr die züge unseres erstgeborenen bruders wiedererkennen. wir erkennen, dass ein kainsmal auf unserer stirn steht. im laufe der jahrhunderte hat unser bruder abel in dem blute gelegen, das wir vergossen, und er hat tränen geweint, die wir verursacht haben, weil wir deine liebe vergaßen. vergib uns den fluch, den wir zu unrecht an den namen der juden hefteten. vergib uns, dass wir dich in ihrem fleische zum zweitenmal ans kreuz schlugen. denn wir wussten nicht, was wir taten. 7 [portuguese:] a marca de caim está gravada na nossa testa. ao longo dos séculos, nosso irmão abel jazeu no sangue que lhe arrancamos e derramou lágrimas que lhe causamos por havermos esquecido 6 ana martos, pablo de tarso: apóstol o hereje? la inquietante verdad sobre la identidad del auténtico fundador del cristianismo (madrid: nowtilus, 2007), 142; see also: mario satz, el judaismo: 4,000 años de cultura. biblioteca de divulgación temática 18 (barcelona: montesinos, 1982), 121. 7 from: “bischof müller: holocaustleugner raus aus dem klerikerstand”; online at: http://www.regensburg-digital.de/bischof-muller-holocaustleugnerraus-aus-dem-klerikerstand/06022009/ ; see also: http://www.hagalil.com/nizza/johannes-23.htm; “johannes xxiii il papa buono der gute papst”; online at: http://www.christ-imdialog.de/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=892 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): watson 1-12 watson, the “johannine prayer” watson 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr vosso amor. perdoai-nos, senhor, pela maldição que falsamente atribuímos ao seu nome de judeus. 8 indeed, the italian actor guido roncalli (no relation to pope john) offered an interpretive reading of this particular prayer for the public on december 21, 2008 at the roman monastery of santa cecilia in trastevere, as part of a concert called “roncalli reads roncalli,” which included recitations from a selection of pope john‟s writings. well past the year 2000, the “prayer of repentance” was being cited as one of the most forward-thinking examples of the late pope‟s magisterium concerning catholic relations with jews. its impact and inspirational quality are impossible to deny. the unfortunate fact, however, which has become more and more clear with the passing years, is that this beautiful and stirring prayer is not, in fact, from the pen (or even the mind) of john xxiii, as many authors have maintained (and continue to assert). it is, sadly, a forgery, a literary invention, and recent research seems quite certain as to its original source. this prayer first appeared in january 1965, as part of an eleven page article by “f.e. cartus” in commentary magazine. the article, entitled “vatican ii & the jews,” was a detailed insider account of much of the politicking that was taking place behind the scenes at vatican ii during the lengthy process of debate and revision of the council‟s intended “declaration on the jews.” this document (which would become, in its final form, nostra aetate) was one of the most theologically and politically controversial documents on the council floor, opposed by powerful conservative blocs of bishops, and by middle eastern religious and political leaders, who saw in it either an unscriptural “exculpation” of the jews, or a subtle ecclesiastical legitimization of the still-young jewish state of israel. in 8 james a. haught, perseguições religiosas (rio de janeiro: ediouro publições, 2003), 154. explaining pope john‟s personal desire for a new catholic approach to judaism, cartus wrote: “john's own conception of the essentials of such a document may be gauged by the act of reparation which he composed three months before his death in 1963 and which he originally intended to have read aloud in all roman catholic churches of the world on a fixed date: [text as cited above]…it is against this superb christian statement, with its acknowledgment of past injustices, its recognition of false accusations, and its affirmation of the intrinsic value of judaism, that the various drafts of the document on the jews must be measured.” 9 the note identifying the author, however, raised eyebrows (and questions) from the beginning: “f.e. cartus is the pseudonym of a roman catholic observer who has watched developments at the ecumenical council closely” (19). on december 21, 2008, the italian historian-journalist andrea tornielli addressed the ongoing questions surrounding the famous “johannine prayer” in an article in the italian newspaper il giornale. 10 in it, tornielli said: an entire page of yesterday‟s la repubblica revealed an exceptional “unpublished fragment” of john xxiii, a “prayer for the jews” that “the good pope”—at that point on the verge of death—was said to have written, acknowledging the faults of christians who (so the text read) bore on their foreheads “the mark of cain.” speaking of guido roncalli‟s previously-announced public performance of the prayer that evening in rome, tornielli wrote: 9 cartus, “vatican ii & the jews,” 21. 10 “la falsa preghiera del papa buono,” il giornale (december 21, 2008); online at: http://www.ilgiornale.it/cultura/la_falsa_preghiera_papa_buono/2112-2008/articolo-id=316012-page=0-comments=1 (my translation from the original italian text). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): watson 1-12 watson, the “johannine prayer” watson 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr what a shame, however, that the “prayer” is a falsehood, repeatedly denounced and, what is more, [this has all been] well known for many, many years. [it is] an apocryphal work, of which no original hand-written copy exists, and the details of whose origins are uncertain. it was first brought to the attention of the public by the exjesuit malachi martin (writing under a pseudonym) in 1965, and has been declared to be totally inauthentic by all of john xxiii‟s collaborators, starting with his secretary, bishop loris capovilla, who has been the attentive and faithful custodian of the papers of the pope from bergamo…it is [allegedly] an important and unsettling text, which inexplicably “was forgotten about for 45 years.”…in reality, there was a reason—and a wellfounded reason—why it was forgotten. “it is a fake; john xxiii had nothing to do with that prayer,” bishop capovilla explained to il giornale, “and when it was first brought to people‟s attention, it was promptly denounced.” the whole story was reconstructed…by jesuit father giovanni caprile in la civiltà cattolica (june 18, 1983), on the basis of papers preserved in the archives of bergamo‟s “john xxiii foundation.” there we discover that the first to publish this apocryphal work (with no indication as to its source, and no one to vouch for its authenticity) was the journal of the american jewish committee, in an article signed by a certain “cartus”—a pseudonym of the ex-jesuit malachi martin. for decades, this latter figure has been the focus of the main suspicions concerning the fabrication of the [apocryphal prayer]. capovilla, who had already denounced the text at the time, is even more emphatic today: “it is pure invention, and it is a shame that people could ever have considered authentic a prayer which does not correspond to the spirit or the style of pope john, who would never have allowed it to be said that christians bear „the mark of cain‟ 11 on their foreheads. roncalli‟s texts have been intensively studied and published, and there is no trace of this prayer in the pontiff‟s papers. none of those who quote it have ever been able to produce evidence of its authenticity—an authenticity which is negated by the text itself.” 12 11 a biblically sensitive reader will, of course, recall that, in the original reference (gen 4:15), the “mark of cain” is not so much a mark of condemnation or punishment as a mark of divine protection from harm that could be inflicted by others: “and the lord put a mark on cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him”. it is interesting to note that other authors use this imagery of the “mark of cain” to speak about the guilt of those involved in perpetrating the shoah, and the stigma it has left on subsequent generations: “along with the tropes of original sin, inherited guilt, and scapegoating, second-generation perpetrator narratives take up a further allusion to biblical guilt and marking, that of the mark of cain…cain is thus doubly marked—as both perpetrator and as the protected charge of the lord. the mark of cain has customarily been seen „as a brand or stigma meant to identify, humiliate and punish the criminal cain‟ (mellinkoff, 1), a physical marking that…is meant to distinguish him visually from the rest of mankind. thus the notion of cain‟s mark is one in which the perpetrator is unable to escape recognition for his crime; he must live its legacy constantly, for he signifies it with his very body. at the same time, however, by virtue of this very mark, he is able to evade punishment for his misdeed. he lives in a suspended state, for his crime is neither overlooked nor absolved; nor is he able to do penance, be forgiven, and carry on with his life. stigmatized in this way, the criminal thus signifies a guilt that cannot be resolved and a criminal past that is perpetually present, neither entirely forgotten nor forgiven.” (erin h. mcglothlin, second-generation holocaust literature: legacies of survival and perpetration [rochester, ny: camden house, 2006], 26). for more on this topic, see: ruth mellinkoff, the mark of cain (berkeley, ca: university of california press, 1981). 12 the 1983 caprile article highlights both internal and external criteria which, together, argue conclusively against the authenticity of the text. among the internal criteria are a number of expressions which are clearly untypical of john xxiii‟s style and vocabulary (“blindness has closed our eyes,” “the curse when we unjustly pronounced,” etc.) (567). the external criteria focus on the total absence of any form of this prayer in the pope‟s writings, which have been extensively catalogued and examined by scholars in the decades since since his death. apparently, pope john was in the habit of having any of his private prayers “vetted” by the office of the apostolic penitentiary before perstudies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): watson 1-12 watson, the “johannine prayer” watson 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr twenty years before tornielli, however, msgr. john oesterreicher, one of the pioneers of jewish-catholic reconciliation, had himself forcefully rejected the “cartus” article: the most alarming examples of “disclosures” which, for want of better information, are accepted by many as authentic reports, are the pilgrim by m. serafian, and an article on the history of the declaration on the jews, entitled “vatican ii and the jews” (commentary, january, 1965) by the same author. he is an ex-jesuit, malachi martin, this time using another pseudonym, f.e. cartus. the article contains a prayer ascribed to pope john that has had wide currency, though everyone who knew the pope‟s mind and style is convinced that it was fabricated. moreover, mr. martin has in all these years refused to offer any proof of the prayer‟s authenticity, a photocopy of the original, for instance. nor did he ever reveal how he came into the possession of the alleged prayer of pope john [which cartus claimed was found among the pope‟s personal papers only after his death] …the prayer reads as a careful composition. the pope‟s style, however, was unassuming, conversational rather than literary. no one i know had ever heard pope john speak in a similar vein. i, myself, had had a long audience in which he told me how he viewed his role in the history of catholic-jewish relations…in not a single instance did he utter words that bore the slightest resemblance to the alleged prayer. why am i so adamant in rejecting the prayer? first, i would not want to base the new christian-jewish encounter, indeed, any relationship, on a lie. second, i consider the prayer harmful to jews. in my opinion, mitting their publication; the files of the penitentiary have no record of any such text received from the pope (568). phrases like “the beauty of your chosen people” and of “the features of our privileged brethren” are intended to beguile, not to honor jews. they bespeak flattery rather than love. it treats jews as immature, needing assurance and approval, when they should be given the justice and esteem that are their due. it is not meanspirited to distrust a former jesuit and priest, at odds with his church, when he publishes an alleged vatican secret in an influential jewish journal! by having the pope say: “we bear the mark of cain on our brows” (incidentally, the mark of cain is not a brand of guilt, but a sign of protection), “our brother abel has lain in the blood we have shed,” and “forgive us for crucifying you a second time,” the prayer locks christianjewish relations into a paternalistic frame rather than reshaping them in a new spirit. by using such language, the tendency of the prayer seems to be the opposite of the conciliar declaration. while the declaration rejects the collective guilt of the jews, the prayer lays a universal guilt on christians, even those of today, for the wrongs and sufferings inflicted on jews by one or another christian generation of the past. here, truth and fairness have given way to sensationalism. there are other unanswered questions. if pope john really considered the prayer a kind of testament, a message to the whole church, why did he not see to its publication during his lifetime? further, if mr. martin held the prayer to be of vital importance, as he says he did, why did he wait a year and a half to publish it? one need not wait for an answer; the questions themselves divulge that “we have been had.” 13 13 john m. oesterreicher, the new encounter between christians and jews (new york: philosophical library, 1986), 155-56. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): watson 1-12 watson, the “johannine prayer” watson 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr for a text that is almost certainly a counterfeit, the “johannine prayer” has truly taken on a life of its own. following upon its publication in commentary in january 1965, it was then taken up and quoted by bishop john s. quinn (who had been one of the council periti) in a speech in chicago, which was reported by la documentation catholique: “les milieux du vatican ont confirmé le 7 septembre l‟existence et l‟authenticité d‟une prière composée par jean xxiii quelques jours seulement avant sa mort et dans laquelle le pape demande pardon à dieu pour toutes les souffrances que l‟église catholique a fait subir aux juifs. l‟existence de cette prière qui, selon les intentions de son auteur, aurait dû être récitée dans toutes les églises, avait été annoncée récemment au cours d‟une conférence à chicago par mgr john s. quinn, qui fut un des experts du concile.” 14 only a month later, however, la documentation catholique was forced to publish an embarrassing retraction, admitting that the original source of their report had been a dutch newspaper, de tijd, whose march 18, 1965 edition had 14 documentation catholique (october 2, 1966, col. 1728). translation: “vatican sources confirmed on september 7 the existence and authenticity of a prayer composed by john xxiii only a few days before his death, in which the pope begs forgiveness of god for all the sufferings that the catholic church has made the jews endure. the existence of this prayer, which was intended by its author to be recited in every church, had recently been announced during a lecture in chicago by bishop john s. quinn, who was one of the council experts.” the 1983 caprile article in la civiltà cattolica suggests that quinn was aware of a link between martin and the text, but that it was precisely because quinn (as a peritus himself) knew of martin‟s “insider” status at the secretariat for christian unity that he was willing to give credence to the claimed attribution, assuming martin had received it through vatican channels: “fu la persuasione che il martin avesse ricevuto il documento dal segretariato, che spinse mons. quinn ad accreditarlo a sua volta.” (566) carried an article—itself based on the commentary article of two months earlier: le fait même de publier la chose sous un pseudonyme aurait dû mettre en garde. mgr quinn, qui est de chicago, fit sienne cette prière (en toute bonne foi, on peut le croire) et en parla à une réunion interconfessionnelle. aucun bureau du vatican ne peut avoir confirmé l‟authenticité de cette prière, qui n‟existe ni à la pénitencerie apostolique, ni dans les écrits, tant imprimés qu‟inédits, du pape jean xxiii. mgr loris capovilla, qui est le dépositaire de ces derniers, dément sans hésiter l‟authenticité de cette prière. l‟examen attentif du texte fait d‟ailleurs apparaître qu‟elle est étrangère au style et au vocabulaire du regretté pontife. 15 a november 11, 1966 article in the rhode island herald (page 9) further confirms this judgement: msgr. loris capovilla, the late pope‟s secretary, was vehement in denying that the pontiff had composed [this] prayer…the vatican never acknowledged the existence of the prayer. it appeared in italy for the first time recently when it was printed by “this italy,” a small catholic magazine published in venice. shortly thereafter it was published by ansa, the italian news agency, and comments from vatican sources quickly followed… 15 translation: “the very fact of publishing this [prayer] under a pseudonym should have put us on our guard. bishop quinn, who is from chicago, adopted this prayer (in all good faith, we believe), and spoke about it at an interdenominational meeting. no vatican office could have confirmed the authenticity of this prayer, which exists neither at the apostolic penitentiary, nor in the writings of pope john xxiii, whether printed or unpublished. bishop loris capovilla, who is the guardian of those papers, rejected the authenticity of this prayer without hesitation. a careful examination of the text highlights, furthermore, that it is foreign to the late pontiff‟s style and vocabulary.” (documentation catholique [november 6, 1966], cols. 1908-9). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): watson 1-12 watson, the “johannine prayer” watson 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr msgr. capovilla, issued a firm denial. “this prayer doesn‟t exist either in the archives or in the late pope‟s private papers,” he said, and some “international elements” in the text provide evidence that the prayer was not written by john. “in order to pay a compliment to the jews it wasn‟t necessary to insult all christians by stating they carry „cain‟s mark.‟” 16 malachi martin‟s role in this entire affair is fascinating. an irish-born jesuit scholar, and former professor of the pontifical biblical institute in rome, martin worked on the staff of cardinal augustin bea, whose secretariat was responsible for preparing the drafts of a conciliar document on judaism. martin was thus in a privileged position to have contacts inside the vatican, and apparently enjoyed playing the game of “informer” regarding the church‟s inner affairs, for both journalists and jewish leaders. with regard to jewish-catholic matters, martin was a friend and colleague of both rabbi abraham heschel, and of zachariah shuster, who was an ajc staffer in france, reporting on european jewish matters. personally sympathetic to jewish concerns about the direction of vatican ii vis-à-vis judaism, martin apparently chose to provide information to the ajc, keep them abreast of key discussions and directions in catholic circles during the council, and enable them to lobby more effectively: less overtly, shuster found other ways to obtain restricted information, and even copies of secret documents. he developed a clandestine source of information, a “mole” within cardinal bea‟s secretariat. this secret agent was an irish jesuit, malachi martin, a voluble, larger-than-life figure variously referred to as “forest,” “pushkin,” and heschel‟s “young friend” in 16 my thanks to father james massa and his staff at the usccb‟s secretariat for ecumenical and interreligious affairs for their kindness in providing a copy of this article from their files. shuster‟s confidential reports and transcripts of transatlantic phone conversations. martin, a highly educated old testament scholar at the pontifical institute in rome, was sympathetic to the jewish position. he held degrees in ancient semitic languages and biblical archeology from the university of louvain and had studied at oxford and the hebrew university in jerusalem. martin also knew modern hebrew, arabic, and several european tongues. with a mixture of motives, lofty and ignoble, martin became close to heschel and shuster. he enjoyed their company immensely, especially when they vied with each other in telling jokes in yiddish. heschel felt close to martin as well, confiding details of his childhood in poland, the privations of his student years in berlin, and his immigration to the united states. martin primarily advised the ajc on theological issues, but he also provided logistical intelligence and copies of restricted documents. 17 similarly, a 1966 article by joseph roody in look magazine finally unveiled the identity of the “mystery man”: the american jewish committee‟s intellectual monthly, commentary, had offered a most bleak report on the council and the jews by the pseudonymous f.e. cartus. in a footnote, the author referred the reader to a confirming account in the pilgrim, a 281-page book by the pseudonymous michael serafian…the cassock had come off the double agent who could never turn down work. pushkin, it turned out, was michael serafian in book length, f.e. cartus for the magazines, and a 17 edward k. kaplan, spiritual radical: abraham joshua heschel in america, 1940 – 1972 (new haven, ct: yale university press, 2007), 243. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): watson 1-12 watson, the “johannine prayer” watson 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr translator in the secretariat for christian unity, while keeping up a warm friendship with the ajc. at the time, pushkin-serafian-cartus was living in the biblical institute, where he had been known well since his ordination in 1954…for the journalists, the young priest‟s inside tips and tactical leaks checked out so well that he could not resist gilding them every now and then with a flourish of creative writing. 18 much of the documentation supporting the martin— cartus identification has been collected and presented online, on the traditionalist (and brutally anti-jewish) blog of maurice pinay. 19 the evidence, then, seems relatively conclusive: the much-touted “prayer of repentance” has its genesis, not in the mind of john xxiii (who was, however, genuinely committed to repairing anti-jewish tendencies in catholicism), but in the somewhat dubious backroom finagling of a catholic scholarpriest who may have believed that “planting” this text would lead catholics to a deeper reflection on the dark side of their interactions with jews. if his intention was to spark conversation and thought on that topic, then martin‟s subterfuge must be judged something of a success. more than forty years after its initial appearance, this prayer continues to be cited and recited in many contexts, notwithstanding the doubts that have clung to it since its publication: “while the prayer is apocryphal (no trace 18 joseph roddy, “how the jews changed catholic thinking,” in look magazine (vol. 3, no. 2; january 25, 1966); text online at: http://www.fisheaters.com/jewsvaticanii.html 19 http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/06/malachi-martin-americanjewish.html of it has been found in john‟s papers), widespread acceptance of its attribution reflects john‟s known regret and concern.” 20 if this line of investigation effectively debunks the socalled “johannine prayer,” have we really lost something of significance? certainly, the papal authority claimed for this text gave it a veneer of theological acceptability that, at least initially, ensured its relevance and widespread circulation. in the mid-1960s, to hear a pope speak in such terms was (or would have been) dramatic, novel and thought-provoking. but fortyfive years later, the slow maturing of jewish-catholic relations means that such literary or theological “crutches” are no longer necessary—especially when they are demonstrably forgeries. more significant (because more real) is the well-known “prayer of repentance” prayed as part of the historic “liturgy of repentance” which john paul ii presided over in st. peter‟s basilica on sunday, march 12, 2000. that prayer was originally composed in the context of the great jubilee celebrations, and was meant to embody the spirit of contrition for secondmillennium sins called for by the pope in his 1994 apostolic letter tertio millennio adveniente (as the third millennium approaches). 21 two weeks later, it would be that same prayer 20 irving (yitzchak) greenberg, “cloud of smoke, pillar of fire: judaism, christianity, and modernity after the holocaust,” in: steven t. katz, shlomo biderman and gershon greenberg, eds., wrestling with god: jewish theological responses during and after the holocaust (new york: oxford university press, 2005), 505. 21 “this then is one of the tasks of christians as we make our way to the year 2000. the approaching end of the second millennium demands of everyone an examination of conscience…on the threshold of the new millennium christians need to place themselves humbly before the lord and examine themselves on the responsibility which they too have for the evils of our day …these sins of the past unfortunately still burden us and remain ever present temptations. it is necessary to make amends for them, and earnestly to beseech christ's forgiveness.” (§§34, 36, 34; italics in original) studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): watson 1-12 watson, the “johannine prayer” watson 10 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr that the pope placed between the stones of the western wall, as part of his jubilee pilgrimage to israel. while both of those prayers are today well-known and widely reprinted, a much less familiar (though arguably equally significant) papal prayer for the jewish people is one composed in polish by pope john paul in late 1999, apparently at the request of jewish and catholic leaders in the pope‟s native poland. reprinted by our sunday visitor on page 4 of its january 10, 1999 edition, the english translation of the text reads: god of abraham, the prophets, jesus christ, in you everything is embraced, toward you everything moves, you are the end of all things. hear the prayers we extend for the jewish nation which—thanks to its forefathers—is still very dear to you. instill within it a constant, ever livelier desire to deepen your truth and love. help it, as it yearns for peace and justice, that it may reveal to the world the might of your blessing. succor it, that it may obtain respect and love from the side of those who do not yet understand the greatness of suffering it has borne, and those who, in solidarity and a sense of mutual care, experience together the pain of wounds inflicted upon it. remember the new generations of youth and children that they may, unchangeably faithful to you, uphold what remains the particular mystery of their vocation. strengthen all generations, that, thanks to their testimony, humanity will understand that your salvific intention extends over all humankind, and that you, god, are for all nations the beginning and the final end. amen. according to the sunday visitor article, polish religious leaders “[saw] it as a way to spur dialogue and help dispel lingering anti-semitism in the country. a million copies of the prayer were printed by a jewish publisher in poland in late december.” 22 inasmuch as the “johannine” prayer is inauthentic, this genuine prayer marks a real milestone in references to jews in catholic piety and clearly lays the foundation for the year 2000 declaration of repentance. today, we have no need of doctored documents to express the very real contrition of catholicism (and other christian churches) for the sins of their past. the twin sins of antisemitism and anti-judaism have been largely repudiated by official church structures and spokespersons, 23 although the 22 frank j. coppa, who reproduces the text of this prayer on pages 310 and 311 of his book the papacy, the jews and the holocaust (catholic university of america press, 2006), further states that this prayer is now recited annually in poland, as part of that country‟s yearly day of reflection on the jews and judaism. 23 “the late cardinal [john] o'connor, the former head of the catholic archdiocese of new york, was a student of history and was familiar with man‟s inhumanity to man. the cardinal must also have had some knowledge of jewish customs, since he wrote letters a few days before yom kippur in september 1999 to a number of prominent jews in new york. in these letters the cardinal asked for forgiveness and apologized to the jewish people for the pain inflicted upon them by christians throughout history.” (seymour fiedler, the orphans among us: the history of anti-semitism [bloomington, in: 1 st books, 2004], xi). “meeting with an international delegation from jewish organizations in the vatican, pope john paul ii endorsed a statement yesterday drawn up three months ago acknowledging that some aspects of catholic teaching and practice had fostered anti-semitism and outlining plans for combating its reemergence in eastern europe…the prague statement branded anti-semitism „a sin against god and humanity,‟ and said that the church should repent for the anti-semitism that had found a place in catholic thought and behavior.” (peter steinfels, “pope endorses statement on anti-semitism,” new york times. december 7, 1990, a10). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): watson 1-12 watson, the “johannine prayer” watson 11 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr dark legacy of hatred of jews continues to lurk in some quarters, and occasionally re-surfaces in ugly and painful ways. the vatican and its official bodies, the world council of churches, various national episcopal conferences and groups of christian leaders have forcefully reiterated the responsibility of christians for the past, and their commitment to a very different future. taken together, their statements, resolutions and actions provide a much more credible, reliable and enduring foundation than the single prayer so often attributed to pope john. the words may not have been those of papa roncalli, but there is no questioning the authenticity of john xxiii‟s personal sorrow for the tremendous suffering of the jewish people, and his commitment to transforming the jewish-christian relationship, liturgically, theologically and structurally. it was john who, after his brief 1960 meeting with jules isaac, resolved to address “the jewish question” at vatican ii and, although he never lived to see the council‟s final fruits, nevertheless certainly set a new trajectory for catholicism which (despite occasional backsteps) continues to unfold today in many lifegiving ways. in a certain sense, to impute to pope john praise for something he did not do risks diluting the praise he has rightfully received for so much that he did do during his brief but revolutionary papacy. 24 as his close collaborator cardinal augustin bea wrote after the pope‟s death: “…the church has not failed to deplore the failings of her sons and daughters, begging forgiveness for all that could in any way have contributed to the scourge of anti-semitism and anti-judaism. may these wounds be healed forever!” (pope benedict xvi, address at the great synagogue of rome, january 17, 2010; english translation at: http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/main/shownews/id/8810 ) 24 see, for example, the enumeration of significant johannine actions relative to judaism and jewish-catholic relations, in pinchas lapide‟s the last three popes and the jews, 306-44. it is—and will remain—to john xxiii‟s great credit that he sensitized himself to this centuries-old problem, and grasped its overall importance. he was the one who, by an entirely personal decision, removed from the good friday liturgy the expression pro perfidis judæis, which had been the source of so many misunderstandings. taking an even further step, he personally entrusted [to bea and his colleagues] the task of preparing a suitable schema for the council. when, in one of the most decisive moments in this matter, i had delivered to him an overview of such a document, i received—only a few days later—a precious sheet of paper, written entirely by his own hand—which said: “[i have] read with great attentiveness this report of cardinal bea‟s, and i fully appreciate [literally “share”] its seriousness, and the responsibility for an intervention on our part.” it is therefore, first of all, to john xiii that we should be grateful, and to the greatest degree, if this schema has been able to be presented to the council. 25 and malachi martin? the man at the center of the mystery died in july 1999 26 , apparently without ever admitting (at least publicly) to his role in the whole affair. his later writings were, as the new york times characterized them, “enlivened by an atmosphere reminiscent of john le carré,” and the onetime biblical scholar lived the remainder of his life surrounded by swirling claims of international intrigue, conspiracy theories and ecclesiastical corruption. perhaps martin, as a vatican insider, was gratified by the circulation and influence of his pseudo-johannine prayer. perhaps he was pleased to hear pope john paul ii speak words strikingly similar to those martin 25 in civiltà cattolica 1964, vol. ii, 219-220, as quoted on page 569 of the article by caprile (my translation from the italian original). 26 “malachi martin is dead at 78; author of books on the church,” in new york times. july 30, 1999, a17. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): watson 1-12 watson, the “johannine prayer” watson 12 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr himself had once penned. we may never know if it was something of an innocent game for then-father martin, or a more cynical ploy to sway official churchdom, and perhaps influence the council‟s deliberations. if, in the end, those “centuries of christian blindness” have largely yielded to a new age of openness and clearer vision, there is no question that much of the credit belongs to the beloved pope from bergamo. and if “pope‟s john‟s prayer” has made any contribution to that transformation, if it achieved any genuine and lasting good, then perhaps we can smile indulgently to think that—just for once— the “voice” of that italian pontiff spoke with a kerry brogue. 1 scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-25 fossilized jews and witnessing dinosaurs at the creation museum: public remembering and forgetting at a young earth creationist “memory place” dustin nash dustinnash@muhlenberg.edu muhlenberg college, allentown, pa 18104 introduction 1 since opening in may 2007 in petersburg, kentucky, the creation museum has defined itself as a “$27 million, high-tech masterpiece.” 2 the facility is the brainchild of ken ham, co-founder and president of the christian apologetics ministry answers in genesis (or aig). as such, it represents his decades-long desire to erect a museum that would challenge a secular, evolutionary description of our planet’s natural history. 3 in its place, the creation museum argues that science, when properly understood, aligns with the biblical account of god’s creation of the cosmos. this claim stands at the heart of young earth creationism: a particular religio-scientific ideology and counter-cultural movement that claims god created the earth and all life upon it a little less than 6,000 years ago. 4 1 examination of the creation museum by my students in the course “proving the unprovable: religion, science, and the ‘unknown’ in modernity” from 2016-2017 greatly advanced the research that supports the present study. i wish to cite them by name in thanks for their insights and probing questions: lauren brinkman, michael colasurdo, faryd daza, colin deitch, steven di preta, michael dougan, nathan emrick, brianna ennis, ariana feliziani, evan giannetti, devin goldsmith, daniel hanna, jared hildreth, sarah hunter, benjamin katz, emily lax, stephen lederkramer, jocelyn lengen, alexander mack, maxwell marcus, ari matlick, delsin mayne, arianna mesrobian, christian nazare, patrick palmer, raquel rotem, brent siegel, benjamin solomon, jon stoerrle, and liana zaino. 2 “creation museum fact sheet,” creation museum media kit, accessed april 4, 2018. https://creationmuseum.org/press/#. 3 ken ham, introduction to journey through the creation museum (green forest, ar: master books, 2016), 7. 4 howard j. van till, “creationism,” in encyclopedia of science and religion, ed. j. wentzel vrede van huyssteen, vol. 1 (new york: macmillan reference, 2003), 187-190. doi: 10.1163/22112685_eco_c1462. on the creation museum as a site of cultural reproduction, see lindsay marie barone, “the new pulpit: museums, authority, and the cultural reproduction of young-earth creationism” (phd diss., university of wisconsin-milwaukee, 2015), 1-88. the young earth creationist ideology of the museum draws heavily on the enterprise of “creation science,” which can be traced to the work of morris and moore in the 1960s and 1970s. ronald l. numbers, the creationhttps://creationmuseum.org/press/ https://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2211-2685_eco_c1462 https://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2211-2685_eco_c1462 nash: fossilized jews and witnessing dinosaurs 2 the present study will show that, beyond its missionary agenda, the creation museum represents a potent memory place that provides institutional legitimacy to a young earth interpretation of the past. furthermore, examination of the memory that the facility constructs reveals a notable silence with regard to jews and jewishness. this quiet is all the more significant in light of the museum’s structural allusions to the theological system of dispensationalism, as well as the broader interest that christian communities have held regarding the place of jews in the divine plan for history since antiquity. in contrast to the absence of jews, representations of dinosaurs pervade the site. close analysis reveals that aig’s rhetorical emphasis on these terrible lizards within its totalizing narrative of time has created a surprising discursive connection between the site’s representation of jews and dinosaurs. put simply, the jewish people come to embody fossils of a bygone age at the creation museum, rather than the expected ancient reptiles. 5 “the evidence is in the present…but what happened in the past” 6 the precise number of museums or attractions within the united states devoted to creationism is difficult to ascertain. as linville notes on his website “contemporary creationism,” this is due to the fact that they are often small in scale with frequent openings and closures. 7 nevertheless, bielo’s digital catalogue lists roughly thirty seven facilities of this type, with the first installations dating to the 1970s. 8 aig’s creation museum stands out as the largest and most well-funded of these sites built to date. 9 moreover, the museum’s website claims ists: from scientific creationism to intelligent design (cambridge: harvard university press, 2006), 268-285. 5 the museum’s depiction of jews as “fossils” echoes the british historian arnold j. toynbee’s controversial assessment of judaism’s continued presence in the world in his a study of history, the first three volumes of which were initially published in 1934. for more on his claim that jews constitute “fossils” of a distinct “syriac society” see arnold j. toynbee, a study of history, vol. 2 (london: oxford university press, 1945), 234-248. 6 placard text, “the evidence is in the present…but what happened in the past,” dig site, creation museum, petersburg, ky. 7 “creation museums, field trips, & zoos,” contemporary creationism, accessed april 2, 2018, http://contemporarycreationism.com/creation-museums/. this website represents a digital resource that accompanies linville’s research project “the creation of myth and meaning in young earth creationism.” for an additional list of such sites from an anthropological perspective, see https://www.materializingthebible.com/. “materializing the bible” represents a digital scholarship project directed by bielo of miami university on bible-based attractions throughout the world. 8 “creation museums,” materializing the bible, accessed april 2, 2018, https://www.materializingthebible.com/creation-museums.html. this total does not incorporate museums dedicated to the bible without assertion of a form of creationism. the museum of the bible in washington, d.c. represents such a space. for more on this site, see candida r. moss and joel s. baden, bible nation: the united states of hobby lobby (princeton: princeton university press, 2017). alternatively, barone counts thirty four creation museums in their 2015 study. barone, “the new pulpit,” 7. regarding the ever-changing nature of this count, note that the institute for creation research plans to open a newly constructed “discovery center” in dallas, texas in 2019. “icr discovery center,” accessed april 2, 2018, http://www.icr.org/discoverycenter. 9 on the associated attraction ark encounter, which opened in the summer of 2016, see james s. bielo, ark encounter: the making of a creationist theme park (new york: nyu press, 2018). http://contemporarycreationism.com/creation-museums/ https://www.materializingthebible.com/ https://www.materializingthebible.com/creation-museums.html http://www.icr.org/discoverycenter 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) that more than 3.5 million people have visited the facility since its opening a little over a decade ago. this number, along with the construction of new exhibits and the initiation of annual spanish language tours, bears witness to the museum’s growing popularity and cultural significance in the united states. 10 this status would seem to rest on the experience that visitors enjoy at the site, especially in its main exhibit, the walk through history. displays within this section of the museum span more than twenty named rooms accessed by strictly guided movement. each room presents a sub-claim that supports the creation museum’s larger thesis, and therefore must be consumed by patrons in order. this embodied argument begins in the initial rooms of the exhibit by raising epistemic questions about the material evidence of an ancient earth, while also stressing the historical reliability of the christian bible: “the evidence is in the present…but what happened in the past?” 11 butler has cogently shown that such rhetorical questions, and the doubt that they imply regarding mainstream scientific conclusions, is a fundamental component of the museum’s rhetoric. thus, in their present context such statements simultaneously seek to elevate a “social constructionist critique of scientific knowledge” while also asserting “biblical inerrancy as ‘fact.’” 12 the walk through history then shifts to discuss the ways in which contemporary societies have pushed a biblical worldview from mainstream culture. this claim is made manifest by the physical representation of a wrecking ball with the words “millions of years” sitting in the rubble of a collapsing church, whose windows play videos depicting the pastor’s family engaging in drug use, watching pornography, and contemplating abortion (figure 1). figure 1. the “millions of years” wrecking ball destroys a christian church in the culture in crisis room. photograph by dustin nash. 10 “record crowds as creation museum celebrates 10 th anniversary: two new large exhibits to open by memorial day weekend,” last modified may 26, 2017, https://answersingenesis.org/about/press/2017/05/26/record-crowds-creation-museum-celebrates10th-anniversary/. “ark encounter and creation museum to host día latino for spanish-speaking guests,” accessed november 13, 2018, https://creationmuseum.org/press/ark-encounter-and-creationmuseum-host-d%c3%ada-latino-spanish-speaking-guests/. 11 placard text, “the evidence is in the present…but what happened in the past,” dig site, creation museum, petersburg, ky. 12 ella butler, “god is in the data: epistemologies of knowledge at the creation museum,” ethnos 75, no. 3 (2010): 234. doi: 10.1080/00141844.2010.507907. https://answersingenesis.org/about/press/2017/05/26/record-crowds-creation-museum-celebrates-10th-anniversary/ https://answersingenesis.org/about/press/2017/05/26/record-crowds-creation-museum-celebrates-10th-anniversary/ https://creationmuseum.org/press/ark-encounter-and-creation-museum-host-d%c3%ada-latino-spanish-speaking-guests/ https://creationmuseum.org/press/ark-encounter-and-creation-museum-host-d%c3%ada-latino-spanish-speaking-guests/ https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2010.507907 nash: fossilized jews and witnessing dinosaurs 4 it is only after passing through this emotionally loaded environment that visitors move back thousands of years through the time tunnel from the present day to the moment of creation. an ever-repeating film dramatizes this event in the six days theater, complete with computer generated affects and an epic, symphonic score. the structure of the main exhibit changes at this stage in accordance with the notion of an eternal divine plan, organizing the remaining rooms to fit a schematized vision of history divided by particular events. the facility entitles these temporal fault lines “the 7 cs.” 13 displays dedicated to the first four cs (creation, corruption, catastrophe, and confusion) follow, portraying the stories of adam and eve, cain and abel, noah’s flood, and the tower of babel (figure 2). figure 2. adam names the animals and meets eve for the first time in the creation-garden of eden room, while noah supervises workers in the catastrophe-ark construction room. photographs by dustin nash. the final three cs (christ, cross, and consummation) formed only a cascade of placards outside the main exhibit’s final room during my initial fieldwork at the site. however, this is no longer the case. the creation museum opened new exhibits dedicated to these cs on memorial day 2017. 14 featuring original artwork, these rooms dramatically portray the life, death, and future return of jesus. the exhibits described above have elicited significant scholarly interest. in its most popular forms, much of that focus has centered on scientific critiques of the museum’s claims regarding evolution. bill nye’s public debate with ken ham in 2014 at the creation museum and “the science guy’s” resulting popular book undeniable: evolution and the science of creation exemplify this confrontational approach. 15 however, other researchers have sought to understand the 13 journey, 10. 14 “new exhibit opening memorial day weekend,” creation museum, last modified may 25, 2017, https://creationmuseum.org/blog/2017/05/25/new-exhibit-opening-memorial-day-weekend/. 15 bill nye, undeniable: evolution and the science of creation (new york: st. martin’s griffin, 2015). https://creationmuseum.org/blog/2017/05/25/new-exhibit-opening-memorial-day-weekend/ 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) museum from the standpoint of its cultural function and rhetorical strategies. 16 the present study continues this line of investigation by questioning the creation museum’s relationship to public memory. the creation museum as memory place the subject of public memory offers a productive lens for examining the creation museum, due to its outward form and rhetorical goals. in place of the static and unified notion of the past that the term history elicits, researchers in a variety of disciplines have turned to memory as a way to understand the “multiple, diverse, mutable, and competing accounts of past events” that can take shape between (or within) particular social, cultural, or historical collectivities. 17 indeed, scholars are now in agreement that while individual cognitive processes play a role in memory, the act of remembering “takes place in groups.” 18 the modifier public in public memory designates the rhetorical positioning of group memories within those contexts for which they will do the most work for a particular collective. 19 public memory is also notable for the way in which contemporary concerns activate it, as groups selectively mobilize a past in order to make meaning out of the present. 20 in this way, public memories construct shared narratives that maintain the boundaries of collective identities. 21 16 for example, see stephen t. asma, “risen apes and fallen angels: the new museology of human origins,” curator 54, no. 2 (2011): 141-163. doi: 10.1111/j.2151-6952.2011.00078.x; barone, “new pulpit”; butler, “god is in the data,” 229-251; julie anne duncan, “faith displayed as science: the role of the ‘creation museum’ in the modern american creationist movement” (master’s thesis, harvard university, 2009). doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2007942; casey ryan kelly and kristen e. hoerl, “genesis in hyperreality: legitimizing disingenuous controversy at the creation museum,” argumentation and advocacy 48 (2012): 123-141. doi: 10.1080/00028533.2012.11821759; linville, “the creationist motb”; john lynch, “‘prepare to believe’: the creation museum as embodied conversion narrative,” rhetoric & public affairs 16, no. 1 (2013): 1-27. doi: 10.14321/rhetpublaffa.16.1.0001; david w. scott, “dinosaurs on noah’s ark? multi-media narratives and natural science museum discourse at the creation museum in kentucky,” journal of media and religion 13 (2014): 226-243. doi: 10.1080/15348423.2014.971570; jeffrey steller, “the creationist tales: understanding a postmodern museum pilgrimage,” in the changing world religion map, eds. stanley d. brunn and donna a. gilbreath, 5 vols. (dordrecht: springer, 2015), 25412561. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-9376-6_133; susan l. trollinger and william vance trollinger, jr., righting america at the creation museum (baltimore: johns hopkins university press, 2016). 17 kendall r. phillips, introduction to framing public memory, ed. kendall r. phillips (tuscaloosa: the university of alabama press, 2004), 2. the notion that history and memory comprise completely separate activities is, nevertheless, contested. see marita sturken, tangled memories: the vietnam war, the aids epidemic, and the politics of remembering (berkeley: university of california press, 1997), 3-6. 18 carole blair, greg dickinson, and brian l. ott, “introduction: rhetoric/memory/place,” in places of public memory: the rhetoric of museums and memorials, eds. greg dickinson, carole blair, and brian l. ott (tuscaloosa: the university of alabama press, 2010), 5-6. see also maurice halbwachs, on collective memory, ed. and trans. lewis a. coser (chicago: university of chicago press, 1992), 43. 19 blair, dickinson, and ott, “introduction,” 6. 20 blair, dickinson, and ott, “introduction,” 6-9; alan j. lambert, laura nesse scherer, chad rogers, and larry jacoby, “how does collective memory create a sense of the collective,” in memory in mind and culture, eds. pascal boyer and james v. wertsch (cambridge: cambridge university https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2011.00078.x https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2007942 https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2012.11821759 https://dx.doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.16.1.0001 https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15348423.2014.971570 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9376-6_133 nash: fossilized jews and witnessing dinosaurs 6 the social nature of public memory also links this idea in an intimate fashion to the concept of place, as differentiated spaces are needed in order to structure and communicate shared memories beyond the level of the individual. first popularized in nora’s les lieux de mémoire, continued research has shown that museums, preservation sites, battlefields, and memorials function as especially potent “memory places.” 22 in fact, survey data reveals that americans regard museums as particularly authoritative sources on the past. 23 in their role as memory places, therefore, museums of all kinds function to provide a sense of authenticity to the memories that groups maintain, and define the boundaries of identities tied to those memories. 24 they accomplish this feat by proposing “a specific kind of relationship between past and present that may offer a sense of sustained and sustaining communal identification.” 25 the visitor, as a result, comes to view the present and its meaning as connected in a knowable way to a “significant past.” 26 museums wield considerable political power to shape this memory of the past by selecting, displaying, and guiding the patron’s sensory experience of it. 27 as the previous section’s description of the creation museum shows, the site fits the criteria of a memory place on each account. first, trollinger and trollinger have compellingly analyzed the ways in which the museum’s vision of the past is a product of the designers’ understanding of contemporary american culture, especially in the way that it makes the present knowable as a product of christian moral decline. 28 an emotional overtone is an unambiguous element of this message’s rhetoric, with the museum associating young earth creationism press, 2009), 195-196; paul ricoeur, “from ‘memory – history – forgetting,” in the collective memory reader, eds. jeffrey k. olick, vered vinitzky-seroussi, and daniel levy (oxford: oxford university press, 2011), 478; sturken, tangled memories, 1. 21 jan assmann, moses the egyptian: the memory of egypt in western monotheism (cambridge: harvard university press, 1997), 14-15; jan assmann and john czaplicka, “collective memory and cultural identity,” new german critique 65 (1995): 130. doi: 10.2307/488538; robert bellah et al., “from habits of the heart: individualism and commitment in american life” in the collective memory reader, eds. jeffrey k. olick, vered vinitzky-seroussi, and daniel levy (oxford: oxford university press, 2011), 229-230; blair, dickinson, and ott, “introduction,” 9; halbwachs, collective memory, 46; lambert et al., “sense of the collective,” 194-195; sturken, tangled memories, 1. 22 pierre nora, “from lieux de mémoire to realms of memory”, in realms of memory: rethinking the french past, vol. 1, ed. pierre nora (new york: columbia university press, 1996), xvii; blair, dickinson, and ott, “introduction,” 24; james e. young, the texture of memory: holocaust memorials and meaning (new haven: yale university press, 1993), 6-7. 23 roy rosenzwerig and david p. thelen, the presence of the past: popular uses of history in american life (new york: columbia university press, 1998), 105-108; scott, “dinosaurs on noah’s ark,” 228. 24 elizabeth crooke, museums and community: ideas, issues and challenges (new york: routledge, 2007), 129; margaret m. gold, “windows on the eternal: spirituality, heritage and interpretation in faith museums,” in the changing world religion map, eds. stanley d. brunn and donna a. gilbreath, 5 vols. (dordrecht: springer, 2015), 2537. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-9376-6_132. 25 blair, dickinson, and ott, “introduction,” 27. 26 blair, dickinson, and ott, “introduction,” 27. 27 blair, dickinson, and ott, “introduction,” 25-30. on the similarly partisan character of memorial monuments, see young, texture of memory, 15. 28 trollinger and trollinger, righting america, 36-63. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/488538 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9376-6_132 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) with notions of divine love, scientific rigor, and the comfort of a purposeful life. at the same time, numerous exhibits imply a connection between the theory of evolution and moral relativism (figure 3). 29 figure 3. the entry to the culture in crisis room evokes the feeling of a threatening urban alleyway, including low lighting and magazine covers plastered on a faux brick wall. references appear among the collage of images to euthanasia, “the abortion pill,” “gay marriage,” and prayer in school. following displays and placards explain that these negatively perceived issues are a byproduct of mainline christian leaders abandoning belief in the bible’s historical accuracy. photograph by dustin nash. second, the facility rhetorically communicates that message through organized walking and the selective display of objects in a form that embodies the classic natural history museum experience. 30 therefore, although the creation museum’s lack of an accessioned collection prevents it from meeting the standards for accreditation by the american alliance of museums, its outward form allows it to participate in the authority that contemporary american society attaches to these memory places. 31 the extent to which designers have done this in order to intentionally oppose prevailing secular scientific views on cosmology and evolution highlights the facility’s place within an emerging global phenomenon of “tactical museology.” this term refers to a process by which certain groups around the world today are invoking, and thereby challenging, the authority of the museum 29 asma, “risen apes,” 146-148; kelly and hoerl, “genesis in hyperreality,” 132. 30 scott, “dinosaurs on noah’s ark,” 234; trollinger and trollinger, righting america, 16-25. for more on the preformative elements of this experience, see jill stevens, “embodying sacred history: performing creationism for believers,” the drama review 56, no. 1 (2012): 99-104. 31 asma, “risen apes,” 146; kelly and hoerl, “genesis in hyperreality,” 125. on eligibility for the american alliance of museums, see “eligibility criteria,” american alliance of museums, accessed april 12, 2018, http://www.aam-us.org/resources/assessment-programs/accreditation/eligibility. on whether or not this is disingenuous appropriation, see kelly and hoerl, “genesis in hyperreality,” 138-140. cf. trolliinger and trollinger, righting america, 60-63. http://www.aam-us.org/resources/assessment-programs/accreditation/eligibility nash: fossilized jews and witnessing dinosaurs 8 idea in order to counter official narratives that their societies’ established institutions tell. 32 thus, it is clear that while official aig statements define the creation museum’s audience as global and its purpose as missionary, the site functions above all as a powerful memory place for the american young earth creationist community. in this role it provides institutional authenticity to interpretations of the past and present that legitimate a young earth creationist identity by allowing members of the group to collectively remember a shared biblical past as an element of their own group’s history. 33 in other words, this is a space that confirms an already established identity; it does not change it. the museum’s situated character as a place supports this interpretation of its function, for as crooke notes people are unlikely to visit such an institution “unless they consider themselves members of the communities the exhibitions represent. non-members would not have the cultural knowledge to interpret the collections or the social experience to feel at ease in the spaces where the exhibitions were held.” 34 engaging in the planning necessary to visit a memory place, as well as the cost to do so, represent additional factors that make visiting a site such as the creation museum an intentional act. 35 a 2014 gallop poll found that more than four in ten americans affirmed the statement “god created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.” 36 these findings reveal the potentially broad appeal of an institution that legitimates a young earth memory of the past. yet, it is also important to note that the way in which the creation museum links its particular scientific and historical arguments to contemporary social issues suggests that its functional horizon as a memory place may extend well beyond those who actively assert such a position on the planet’s age. indeed, it frames its antievolutionist claims within a much broader framework of the “persistent moral disputes, commonly referred to as culture wars.” 37 as trollinger and trollinger summarize, the museum’s displays and associated aig media “speak on any and all topics of the day: the status of the united states as a christian nation, gay marriage, the role of women, racism, climate change, public education,” and more. 38 the creation museum, moreover, depicts the debate surrounding these issues as a monolithic binary, and its own position as morally righteous. 39 however, despite the fact that the public continues to view the culture wars in the united states as the opposition of two comprehensive worldviews, sociologists and others have 32 gustavo buntinx and ivan karp, “tactical museologies,” in museum frictions: public cultures/global transformations, eds. ivan karp et al. (durham: duke university press, 2006), 207-218. 33 barone, “new pulpit,” 22; stevenson, “embodying sacred history,” 94-96. 34 crooke, museums and community, 129. 35 blair, dickinson, and ott, “introduction,” 26. 36 frank newport, “in u.s., 42% believe creationist view of human origins,” accessed april 17, 2018, http://news.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx. 37 eric orion silva, “neutralizing problematic frames in the culture wars: anti-evolutionists grapple with religion,” symbolic interaction 37, no. 2 (2014): 226. 38 trollinger and trollinger, righting america, 149. 39 trollinger and trollinger, righting america, 149. http://news.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) recently noted that the boundaries between the two camp’s culture warriors are in reality “neither static nor uniform.” 40 analysts have therefore begun to focus more strongly on the work that is done to structure and perpetuate these conflicts, viewing the battle lines as cultural products in-and-of themselves. 41 consequently, despite its “totalizing rhetoric,” the creation museum can foster support from individuals that may otherwise be agnostic to its historical claims by associating them with more widely held conservative “social values, norms, and beliefs.” 42 one significant sub-set of this broader “memory audience” may be american evangelical christians. the lack of a single institutional framework or shared creedal statement, however, has made evangelicals a notoriously difficult population to define. as a particular religious tradition within the larger web of contemporary protestant christian communities, bebbington has provided a useful summary of four characteristics that have marked “evangelicalism” since the 18 th century. these include “conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed; activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; biblicism, a particular regard for the bible; and what may be called crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of christ on the cross.” 43 an individual’s relationship to these ideas, to say nothing of their multiform interpretation, may vary widely. nonetheless, the creation museum clearly emphasizes each of these four characteristics. first, lynch has thoroughly demonstrated the way in which the creation museum’s main exhibits, and the forced linearity of the rooms’ connected discourse, “hews closely to the protestant conversion narrative.” 44 as for activism, the facility’s mission statement makes its interest in spreading the gospel explicit when it asserts that one of the museum’s goals is to “equip christians to better evangelize the lost through a combination of exhibits, research, and educational presentations that uphold the inerrancy of the bible.” 45 this statement also reflects the museum’s biblicism, which manifests in the ultimate authority that it gives to the bible concerning knowledge of the past. finally, the expanded exhibits dedicated to the final three cs (christ, cross, and consummation) bear witness to the site’s crucicentrism. with these conjunctions of interest in mind, and the composite and contingent nature of identities related to social movements, it becomes quite clear that there are a sizeable number of american citizens and others for whom the 40 james davison hunter, culture wars: the struggle to define america (new york: basicbooks, 1991), 42-43; silva, “neutralizing,” 228. 41 michael ian borer and adam murphree, “framing catholicism: jack chick’s anti-catholic cartoons and the flexible boundaries of the culture wars,” religion and american culture 18, no. 1 (2008): 110, no.13. 42 trollinger and trollinger, righting america, 149; shoon lio, scott melzer, and ellen reese, “constructing threat and appropriating ‘civil rights’: rhetorical strategies of gun rights and english only leaders,” symbolic interaction 31, no. 1 (2008): 8. 43 david w. bebbington, evangelicalism in modern britain: a history from the 1730s to the 1980s (london: routledge, 1988), 16. see also the summary of bebbington’s characteristics in mark a. noll, american evangelical christianity: an introduction (oxford: blackwell publishers, 2001), 13. 44 lynch, “prepare to believe,” 16. 45 “creation museum main theme and mission statement,” creation museum media kit, accessed may 5, 2016. https://creationmuseum.org/press/. https://creationmuseum.org/press/ nash: fossilized jews and witnessing dinosaurs 10 creation museum is well situated to institutionally validate components of their existing identity as a memory place. with this inner-communal function and broader audience in mind, it is necessary to point out that, as olick writes, “memory-makers don’t always succeed in creating the images they want and in having them understood in the ways they intended.” 46 the selective enterprise of museum display is not semantically univocal. both unintentional and strategic choices made in this process can have significant, rhetorical implications. therefore, an analysis of the memory that the creation museum constructs, outside of the official narrative that aig presents regarding it, is necessary. to that end, consideration of what the museum chooses to forget or remember reveals a connection between the representation of jews and dinosaurs. forgetting jews as part of the christian past in a facility dedicated to the bible and history, the absence of jews from the creation museum’s memory of the christian past is immediately noticeable. nevertheless, this silence is not wholly unexpected. the museum is, after all, an explicitly christian institution. visitors would be justified in the expectation that the museum will limit textual or visual representations of jews and jewishness to those instances in which they serve the needs of the larger christian narrative. yet, the empty spaces created by the absence of jews leaves definable shapes. the result is a clear message regarding the irrelevance of judaism for the museum’s memory of the christian past. furthermore, in those few cases in which references to jewishness do occur, the representation aligns with the message that the overarching silence communicates. to put it simply, jews constitute peculiar, but nevertheless ossified remnants of an ancient past that serve no theological function within the public memory that the creation museum constructs. the systematic avoidance of jews at the museum is noteworthy due to the interest that christian communities have traditionally held with regard to that people’s place within the divine plan of history. as the ways began to part between judaism and christianity in the centuries following jesus’ death, augustine of hippo presented what would become a dominant framework for understanding the role of jews within christian sacred history in ca. 400 ce. summarizing his views in contra faustum, he writes that “[jews]…still prove useful to the church in a particular condition of servitude, either in bearing witness, or in proving some truth.” 47 this quote reflects augustine’s doctrine of witness, which claims that the jews’ continued presence in history was a byproduct of their didactic and conformational function with regard to christian faith. 48 in light of the prevalence 46 jeffrey k. olick, introduction to states of memory: continuities, conflicts, and transformations in national retrospection, ed. jeffrey k. olick (durham: duke university press, 2003), 7. 47 augustine, contra faustum 12.24. see also sara lipton, dark mirror: the medieval origins of anti-jewish iconography (new york: metropolitan books), 5. 48 paula fredriksen, augustine and the jews: a christian defense of jews and judaism (new york: doubleday, 2008), 321-324. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) of adversus iudaeos rhetoric in christian literature of his age, augustine’s doctrine is notable for the space it creates for jews alongside christians as they travel together through time. 49 that space is necessarily of a lower status, however, as the position assumes the falsity of jewish claims to a continued covenant with god. 50 centuries later, reformed theology’s move towards scripture as the sole source of doctrine introduced a number of approaches that continued to question the place of jews and judaism within christian sacred history. these new formulations, nevertheless, continued to assume that the covenantal structure that jesus fulfilled also defined god’s relationship with jews. moreover, debate remains to this day among those interested in so-called “federal theology” about the place and meaning of the mosaic covenant between the “covenant of works” and the “covenant of grace” that are supposed to make up “the grand relational framework” that allows for a bond between a holy god and a sinful humanity. 51 the theological system of dispensationalism, on the other hand, has yielded an entirely different paradigm for understanding the continued existence of jews and judaism within the divine plan of history. generally viewed as originating in the writings and preaching of john nelson darby (1800-1882), but popularly disseminated in the united states at the beginning of the twentieth century by the scofield reference bible, dispensationalism lacks a unified creedal statement of belief. 52 this fact has made it difficult to define, similar to evangelicalism. in light of this issue, as well as diachronic and synchronic variations in the term’s use, sweetnam has proposed a polythetic definition of dispensationalism that includes five overlapping fields of stress: 1. a commitment to evangelical doctrine. 2. a commitment to a literal biblical hermeneutic. 3. a recognition of distinction in manifestations of divine dealing with mankind, which insists on the uniqueness and importance of both israel and the church in the divine plan. 4. an expectation of the imminent return of christ in the rapture. 5. an emphasis on apocalyptic and millennial expectation. 53 among these “stresses,” number three is most important in the present context. this point indicates dispensationalism’s historiographic hermeneutic, which cites particular biblical passages in order to assert that a series of distinct ages form all of human history. according to this schema, the jews retain a separate covenant 49 fredriksen, augustine, 263-264. 50 fredriksen, augustine, 260-289 51 r. michael allen, reformed theology (london: bloomsbury, 2010), 43. 52 arnold d. ehlert, a bibliographic history of dispensationalism (grand rapids: baker book house, 1965), 5. 53 mark s. sweetnam, “defining dispensationalism: a cultural studies perspective,” journal of religious history 34, no. 2 (2010): 198. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9809.2010.00862.x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9809.2010.00862.x nash: fossilized jews and witnessing dinosaurs 12 with god as the heirs of israel, and their actions in the present and the future will aid in bringing about the second coming of christ. 54 the important role that this interpretation gives to jews in the divine plan for history has helped facilitate a revolution in what ariel terms “the historical dynamics of christian-jewish relationships.” 55 indeed, sweetnam writes that “dispensationalism’s inherent bias towards philo-semitism has been one of its most visible manifestations and has been at the root of its most influential political interventions.” 56 although the term dispensationalism does not appear in official sources regarding the creation museum, the site proposes a periodization of human history that alludes to this theological perspective. as previously mentioned, special placards inform visitors of their passage through distinct phases in time entitled “the 7 cs” within the walk through history. this alliterative schema links the past, present, and future as a continuous and interconnected story. in this way, they reinforce a young earth creationist identity. while unique to the creation museum, the 7 cs nevertheless echo the seven defined ages of christian eschatology within the theological system of dispensationalism, especially in the form popularized by the scofield reference bible. dispensations the 7 cs (according to the scofield reference bible) 1. innocency [eden to the fall] creation 2. conscience [adam to noah] corruption 3. human government [noah to abraham] catastrophe 4. promise [abraham to moses] confusion 5. law [moses to jesus] christ 6. grace [the church age] cross 7. kingdom [jesus’ reign] 57 consummation both schemas divide history into seven parts. 58 additionally, they point specifically to creation, adam’s fall, noah’s flood, the coming of jesus, and the messiah’s future return as epoch defining events. however, the lists diverge in the space given to the “past” from the time of noah to jesus. the 7 cs remain completely silent with regard to the biblical patriarchs or even moses. indeed, the entirety of israelite and jewish history up to the birth of jesus receives no explicit attention, whereas this period includes three distinct dispensations in the scofield 54 yaakov ariel, an unusual relationship: evangelical christians and jews (new york: new york university press, 2013), 73-75; gary dorrien, “evangelical ironies: theology, politics, and israel,” in uneasy allies: evangelical and jewish relations, eds. alan mittleman, byron johnson, and nancy isserman (lanham: lexington books, 2007), 40. 55 ariel, unusual relationship, 11. 56 sweetnam, “defining dispensationalism,” 205. 57 ehlert, dispensationalism, 83; trollinger and trollinger, righting america, 45. 58 it is necessary to note that other sources include different numbers of dispensations. 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) reference bible. 59 as a result, the 7 cs effectively erase the memory of judaism from the totalizing story of the past that the creation museum tells. this erasure goes beyond the 7 cs, as it stands in the background of other representational choices. for instance, the creation museum restricts its coverage of hebrew scripture to genesis 1-11. this is sufficient text for the museum to cover several well-known biblical stories. however, chapters 11-12 of genesis are also the moment when the text narrows its story from the descendants of all humans to the particular lineage of israel. the history through which visitors walk in the creation museum’s main exhibit, therefore, extends into a mere eleven of the fifty chapters that the hebrew bible’s first book contains, to say nothing of the remainder of that corpus. from the standpoint of the museum’s explicit apologetic goals, focusing on these chapters is pragmatic, since mainstream views of history and science raise the most questions with regard to these stories’ historicity. however, the result is that the creation museum “pays virtually no attention to ancient israel…” 60 if the museum’s overall design as a memory place urges visitors to remember a biblical past as their own, then its structure also compels them to collectively forget the israelite heritage of the hebrew bible. when depictions of jews and jewishness do appear in the creation museum, their representation continues the narrative of a fossilized people with no contemporary theological meaning. this is clearest in the display devoted to figures from the “old testament” in the biblical authority room (figure 4). figure 4. isaiah, moses, and david appear side by side in the biblical authority room. the neighboring scene depicts john and peter peering into jesus’ empty tomb. the displays silently elide the centuries of israelite and jewish history that separate these old and new testament figures. photographs by dustin nash. the museum physically portrays only three men in this setting: isaiah, moses, and david. the absence or presence of particular visual elements within this tab 59 trollinger and trollinger, righting america, 46. 60 trollinger and trollinger, righting america, 48. nash: fossilized jews and witnessing dinosaurs 14 leau aligns with the larger narrative regarding jews and judaism that the museum implies. first, the lack of any definable sign of regal identity in the depiction of king david communicates volumes. the figure sits with his head uncrowned and downturned, almost melancholy, playing his lyre. despite what the accompanying placard states, this is david the psalmist, not david the king. this representation sublimates the biblical memory of a davidic kingdom, wiping away any notion of a territorial jewish state as part of messianic expectations. moreover, with no future jewish kingdom to rule, the creation museum relegates david and his descendants solely to the past, with no continuing theological function in the present. the depiction of david, therefore, correlates directly with the 7 cs displacement of ancient israelite history, but stands dissonantly against the notion within dispensationalism that israel holds a separate covenant with god. just as david has no crown, moses has no commandments. at the time of my research at the creation museum, moses’ arms were empty in the display, as figure 4 illustrates. this does not appear to have always been the case. the companion book journey through the creation museum shows that at the site’s opening, moses held two stone tablets emblazoned with the text of the ten commandments in hebrew. 61 yet, examination of the photograph reveals that the hebrew text was written in the square aramaic script, or ktav ashuri, including masoretic vowel points. the square aramaic script did not come into use for hebrew until after the babylonian exile, while the masoretic scribes’ addition of vowel markers dates to the common era. 62 moses’ original tablets in this display, consequently, contained striking anachronisms in script, which did not go unnoticed by the museum’s critics. 63 it appears that the creation museum initially removed the tablets in order to address this criticism, which left a noticeable hole that the uncomfortable position of moses’ empty hands made all the more apparent. tablets have since returned to the display, but the stones that the figure holds are now blank, conveniently avoiding potential epigraphic issues. 64 nevertheless, regardless of the varied reasons for the tablets’ removal and modification, their current lack of text powerfully communicates the absence of a covenant between the jewish people and god. the nonexistence of such a relationship defines moses and the revelatory core of jewish tradition as artifacts of the past, analogous to the display’s representation of david. unlike david and moses, isaiah stands out for what he does have: a modern tallit gadol. similar to the changes that moses has experienced since the muse 61 journey, 37. 62 for more on the introduction of the square aramaic script, see angel sáenz-badillos, a history of the hebrew language, trans. john elwolde (cambridge: cambridge university press, 1993), 113. 63 ben stanhope’s critical blog entry that included this subject appears to have elicited multiple online responses from the staff of aig. however, none of these address the issue of the tablets’ anachronistic hebrew script. see ben stanhope, “a seminary student visits the creation museum: 27 million dollars of bad exegesis,” remythologized, last modified august 1, 2014, http://benstanhope.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-seminary-student-visits-creation.html. see also linville, “creationist motb.” 64 susan trollinger, personal communication, march 24, 2018. http://benstanhope.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-seminary-student-visits-creation.html 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) um’s opening, the companion book journey through the creation museum shows that isaiah originally lacked the jewish prayer shawl. 65 indeed, if the presence of pointed square aramaic script on moses’ tablets is historically inaccurate, then the appearance of this garment upon a late 8 th century bce judahite is equally so. such fringed textiles developed as distinct ritual objects no earlier than the second temple period. 66 furthermore, although depictions of a few new testament characters and ark laborers wear kippot, isaiah and his tallit constitute the clearest portrayal of jewishness in the entire walk through history. upon first glance this depiction seems far from negative, considering that isaiah represents an important prophet within both jewish and christian tradition. indeed, isaiah is graced with such representation at the museum precisely because he is considered a true witness to divine revelation. however, isaiah’s tallit implies more negative connotations as well. above all, placing a modern tallit on the ancient prophet situates that ritual garment in the past, making it possible to read its contemporary styling as evidence of a static, or legalistically rigid, judaism. in addition, the paucity of other figures marked clearly as jewish within the main exhibit means that the representation implied by isaiah comes to symbolize jews and jewishness as a whole. by association with this figure, then, the museum transports all modern jews back in time, making them merely the physical remnants of a distant past. moreover, as linville notes, the combination of a tallit and scroll in the display evokes a recognizable image of jewish worship. 67 this is not the torah, however. the resulting connection transfers true piety from moses’ “law” (which is absent in the display) to faith in the messiah that christian tradition considers the “scroll of isaiah” to describe. 68 consequently, despite the confluence of visual jewish markers, the representation of isaiah actually erases any notion of a present or future jewish tradition, as contemporary symbols are either defined as the echoes of a distant past or appropriated as christian. this examination of what the museum selects to forget with regard to jews and jewishness, and what it chooses to remember, reveals a rhetorical alignment. the silence and the sound converge to depict jews as fossils: that is, material remnants of a bygone age with no contemporary theological significance. this depiction appears thoroughly disengaged from a dispensationalist perspective on the role of the jewish people in history, despite signs of this system’s organizational influence on the site. a desire to avoid explicitly aligning the museum with dispensationalism is understandable in light of aig’s character as a parachurch organization. such a specific connection might implicate the museum in the ongoing theological rifts between christian denominations, thereby alienating 65 journey, 37. 66 shaye j. d. cohen, the beginnings of jewishness (berkeley: university of california press, 1999), 30-34; ronald l. eisenberg, the jps guide to jewish traditions (philadelphia: the jewish publication society, 2008), 380. 67 linville, “creationist motb.” 68 placard text, “the prophet isaiah,” biblical authority, creation museum, petersburg, ky; linville, “creationist motb.” nash: fossilized jews and witnessing dinosaurs 16 potential visitors. but if a separate jewish covenant is written out of the story that the museum tells, what about other theological frameworks such as the doctrine of witness? why is it that jews are left as insignificant material remnants of the past at a site that unambiguously asserts the designed, created, and purposeful nature of all space and time? examination of other portions of the site indicates that the surprising answer to this question lies in the very things that the creation museum most wants its visitors to remember as part of the christian past: dinosaurs. remembering dinosaurs as part of the christian past mainline american protestant denominations have theologically engaged with a variety of models to reconcile the idea of an ancient earth with the text of genesis 1 since the late 19 th century. 69 however, the fossil record and its traditional interpretation remain challenging for any notion of the bible’s “real historical character,” which constitutes a central tenant of young earth creationism. 70 the core of this problem lies in the bible’s apparent silence concerning dinosaurs and these creatures’ nature as material, paleontological facts. nevertheless, the creation museum website unambiguously declares that “creationists love dinosaurs and dinosaur bones because they confirm the truth of the bible.” 71 the evidence of this love is blatantly obvious at the museum, with representations of dinosaurs bombarding visitors from the moment one enters the parking lot (figure 5). 69 numbers, creationists, 7. 70 george m. marsden, understanding fundamentalism and evangelicalism (grand rapids: william b. eerdmans publishing company, 1991), 4-5. 71 “dinosaurs and dragons,” accessed june 1, 2018, https://creationmuseum.org/dinosaurs-dragons/. https://creationmuseum.org/dinosaurs-dragons/ 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) figure 5. examples of dinosaurs and other ancient reptiles found at the creation museum. in the upper left hand image, the silhouette of a stegosaurus greets visitors at the main gate. the recreation of a fully articulated triceratops skeleton stands in buddy davis’ dino den in the upper right hand image. in the bottom row, what appears to be a tsintaosaurus and dilophosaurus stand together in the main hall, where displays of dinosaur fossils such as the middle image also appear. in the lower right hand photo, a pteranodon perches above the entry to the “dragon hall bookstore.” photographs by dustin nash. although official aig statements and literature connect this emphasis on dinosaurs to a host of practical and apologetic concerns, analysis shows that the creatures serve a specific function within the memory that the site constructs by bearing witness to the truth of christian scripture. yet, with a dispensational perspective set aside, the museum’s emphatic remembrance of dinosaurs with this purpose disinherits the jewish people’s claim to this older, albeit problematic, function in christian history. within conventional scientific thought, dinosaurs represent an ancient group of terrestrial vertebrates, the non-avian examples of which went extinct roughly sixty five million years ago. however, as a symbol and cultural artifact, dinosaurs are alive and well. the idea that newly discovered fossils from western europe were the remains of extinct reptilian creatures that lived prior to the appearance of humans first arose in the 19 th century. 72 since that time, although interest in these animals has waxed and waned to the rhythm of popular culture and scientific discovery, dinosaurs have nevertheless occupied a role that mitchell defines as “the 72 josé luis sanz, starring t. rex! dinosaur mythology and popular culture (indianapolis: indiana university press, 2002), 2. nash: fossilized jews and witnessing dinosaurs 18 totem animal of modernity.” 73 by this, mitchell means that dinosaurs arose as symbolic animals first in the modern era, that their very existence epitomizes modern notions of time as both deep and progressive, and that they play important ritual roles within the structures that erect and maintain modern identities. 74 dinosaurs are, nevertheless, more than symbolic. as noble notes in his study of these creatures’ popular and scientific representation, they are also “natural beings.” 75 dinosaurs are, thus, monstrous and yet not monsters; they are imagined yet also real. this liminal identity has made dinosaurs “amenable to both scientific investigation and public wondering.” 76 they were, as a result, the ideal object to embody the civilizing goals of modern public museums at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries. 77 the effect of this marriage between dinosaurs and public museums is that these creatures have become emblematic of science in general and evolution in particular. 78 the popular association of dinosaurs with evolution is not lost on those that espouse a young earth creationist identity. for instance, at the beginning of his expansive, creation-oriented survey of dinosaurs and the field of paleontology, clarey laments that contemporary scientists “actively twist the truth to convince people that dinosaurs are ‘proof’ of evolution.” 79 ham reiterates this idea in his booklet what really happened to the dinosaurs?, in which he writes that these animals are used “more than almost anything else to indoctrinate children and adults in the idea of millions of years of earth history.” 80 behind each of these statements lies a key assumption of aig and the creation museum: the notion that “science actually confirms biblical history…” 81 thus, both clarey and ham would agree that their issue lies not in science, but rather in what they perceive as “bad science.” 82 there is strong interest at the creation museum, then, in defining young earth creationism as more scientific than the practices of mainstream researchers. the hyper-prevalence of dinosaurs at the site supports this goal, due to these animals’ symbolic nature as especially affective embodiments of science. 73 on the rise and fall of public interest in dinosaurs at the end of the twentieth century, see stephen jay gould, “dinomania,” in dinosaur in a haystack: reflections on natural history (new york: harmony books, 1995), 221-224; w. j. t. mitchell, the last dinosaur book (chicago: the university of chicago press, 1998), 77. writing in 1998, mitchell suggests that the dinosaur’s function in this role may actually be in irreversible decline as a byproduct of cultural over-determination. mitchell, last dinosaur book, 85. 74 mitchell, last dinosaur book, 77. 75 brian noble, articulating dinosaurs: a political anthropology (toronto: university of toronto press, 2016), 18. 76 noble, articulating dinosaurs, 13. 77 tony bennett, the birth of the museum: history, theory, politics (london: routledge, 1995), 47. 78 mitchell, last dinosaur book, 82, 137; larry a. witham, where darwin meets the bible: creationists and evolutionists in america (oxford: oxford university press, 2002), 182. 79 tim clarey, dinosaurs: marvels of god’s design (green forest, ar: master books, 2015), 12. 80 ken ham, what really happened to the dinosaurs? (hebron, ky: answers in genesis, 2007), 1. 81 “the creation museum: main theme and vision statement,” creation museum media kit, accessed may 5, 2016. http://creationmuseum .org/press/. 82 on the idea that evolution constitutes “bad science,” see jason lisle, “evolution: the antiscience,” last modified february 13, 2008, https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evolution-the-anti-science/. https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evolution-the-anti-science/ 19 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) moreover, once viewed from this perspective, the didactic function of dinosaurs that originally served the theory of evolution can be applied to a creation model of earth’s origins. dinosaurs become “missionary lizards” as a result, aiding in the spread of what davis describes as the “young-earth creationist gospel.” 83 an emphasis on countering the evolutionist use of dinosaurs constitutes aig and the creation museum’s explicit discourse surrounding the animals’ frequent appearance in official writings and at the site. however, the structure and representation of dinosaurs within the creation museum indicates that they are also being portrayed as uniquely significant witnesses to the truth of the biblical account, both in body and in vision. in this way, the memory of dinosaurs provides legitimacy to the young earth creationist past that the museum constructs. mobilizing dinosaurs in this way, moreover, parallels augustine of hippo’s apologetic use of jews and jewish tradition in his response to faustus the manichaean’s critique of catholic christianity in the early fifth century. 84 rather than seeing the use of jewish scriptures as evidence against the morality or truth of the church, as faustus claimed, augustine argued that jewish scripture and the contemporary social position of the jewish people bore positive witness to the truth of christianity and the inherent connection between the old and new testaments. 85 in an analogous fashion, the creation museum remembers the very things most commonly cited as evidence against a young earth interpretation of earth’s history (i.e. dinosaurs and fossils) as witness to its accuracy. the depiction of dinosaurs as serving this function is especially visible within and around the museum’s main exhibit. thus, visitors approaching the entrance to the walk through history do not see recreated scenes of episodes from genesis, but rather dinosaurs (figure 6). figure 6. two young tyrannosaurs stand next to a human child in a scene outside the entry to the main exhibit. photograph by dustin nash. 83 buddy davis, “how can we use dinosaurs to spread the creation gospel message?” last modified february 14, 2008, https://answersingenesis.org/gospel/evangelism/how-can-we-use-dinosaursto-spread-the-creation-gospel-message/. see also barone, “new pulpit,” 80. 84 fredriksen, augustine, 214. 85 fredriksen, augustine, 235-259. https://answersingenesis.org/gospel/evangelism/how-can-we-use-dinosaurs-to-spread-the-creation-gospel-message/ https://answersingenesis.org/gospel/evangelism/how-can-we-use-dinosaurs-to-spread-the-creation-gospel-message/ nash: fossilized jews and witnessing dinosaurs 20 two young animatronic tyrannosaurs stand beside children playing happily in an idyllic garden scene. towering over the adjoining wall, an unspecified sauropod sweeps its long neck over visitors as it eats vegetation (figure 7). figure 7. a sauropod of unknown species eats vegetation across from a display of tyrannosaurs and children in the entryway to the main exhibit. note that the dinosaur stands atop a series of iron age proto-aeolic capitals. photograph by dustin nash. the companion book to the creation museum states that the function of this introductory scene is “to challenge people right from the start of their museum experience about the coexistence of dinosaurs and people.” 86 the juxtaposition of humans and dinosaurs in the display, however, has deeper implications. the aig website, official publications, and placards within the creation museum consistently claim that god created dinosaurs along with other land animals on day six of creation, prior to adam and eve. 87 dinosaurs, accessible in the present through their material remains, are thus made unbiased contemporary observers of the human past. and in the museum’s perspective, the human past equates with the biblical narrative. therefore, even before entering the first room, displays invite the visitor to view dinosaurs as the foremost non-christian witnesses to biblical truth and to remember them as part of humanity’s past. once inside the main exhibit, depictions of fossils construct an inclusio that brackets the intervening rooms at their beginning and end. this emphasis on material remains defines the visual rhetoric of the first room, labeled dig site. a life-size display of two paleontologists working together to expose the skeleton of what appears to be a dromaeosaurid dinosaur, perhaps a deinonychus or utahrap 86 journey, 16. 87 ham, dinosaurs, 8; bodie hodge, “why don’t we find human & dinosaur fossils together?” last modified november 1, 2007, https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/humans/why-dont-we-findhuman-dinosaur-fossils-together/. for more on the broader young earth creationist view of dinosaur origins, see clarey, dinosaurs, 11-12; guide to dinosaurs (eugene: harvest house publishers, 2015), 14; brian thomas, dinosaurs and the bible (eugene: harvest house publishers, 2013), 9-13. https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/humans/why-dont-we-find-human-dinosaur-fossils-together/ https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/humans/why-dont-we-find-human-dinosaur-fossils-together/ 21 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) tor, stands at its center. a bible rests at the side of one excavator, creating a physical association between the bones and christian scripture. however, with the exception of this one book, there is no other reference to the bible within the room. instead, the fossilized remains of the ferocious theropod dominate the space (figure 8). figure 8. two paleontologists, one a creationist and the other an evolutionist, excavate a fossil at the center of the dig site room. photograph by dustin nash. at the end of the walk through history, visitors encounter the well-preserved skeleton of a full-grown allosaurus, which the museum names ebenezer (figure 9). although a different species, there are links between this dinosaur and that of the dig site room. figure 9. ebenezer the allosaurus. photograph by dustin nash. nash: fossilized jews and witnessing dinosaurs 22 these are the only two representations of full dinosaur skeletons within the main exhibit. as fossils, these objects point to the remnants of those creatures that remain accessible to us today. however, while the place of the dromaeosaur within biblical history remains superficially undetermined, the allosaurus’ is patently clear. its display blends with that of the flood geology room, which asserts that a past cataclysmic global flood provides the best explanation for the geological and paleontological record. how we, today, came to look upon the skeleton of this deceased allosaurus is therefore obvious within the memory of the past that the museum constructs. as the placard before the dinosaur states, it died alongside most other dinosaurs and became fossilized as a result of noah’s flood: “ebenezer is only one example of what occurred on a global scale to billions of creatures. except for those on noah’s ark, all of the dinosaurs, other land creatures, birds, and humans died in the global catastrophe.” 88 this knowledge redefines the meaning of the skeleton in the first room, making both animals’ deaths witnesses in the present to the accuracy of the bible’s description of the past. portrayals of dinosaurs within the walk through history build on the rhetorical frame that the skeletal remains create by focusing on the creatures as living witnesses to the biblical narrative as well. in moving from the dig site room to the adjoining starting points room, the “word” of the dinosaur’s bones becomes “flesh” in a life-size depiction of the animal in all its terrifying glory (figure 10). figure 10. the menacing dinosaur in the image above greets patrons as they enter the starting points room. the associated placards, which describe conflicting creationist and evolutionist interpretations of when the animal died, clearly associate it with the skeleton in the preceding dig site room. photograph by dustin nash. related signage uses the dinosaur as a symbol for judging between “man’s word” and “god’s word.” 89 in this comparison, the creature’s life and death represent a witness to the truth of the bible. moving deeper into the main exhibit, dinosaurs also feature prominently within the video shown in the six days theater. as adam and eve look upon the 88 placard text, “what happened to ebenezer?,” facing the allosaurus, creation museum, petersburg, ky. 89 placard text, “starting with god’s word, starting with man’s word,” starting points, creation museum, petersburg, ky. 23 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) garden of eden in the film’s final moments, the necks of what appear to be brachiosauruses become visible above the trees. the creatures’ existence within paradise makes them literal eye witnesses to biblical history in a way that repeats in subsequent rooms. thus, in the garden of eden room, a hadrosaur and ankylosaur of undetermined species look on as adam names animals, in accordance with genesis 2:19-20. a large therapod dinosaur eats leaves from a tree deeper within the room as well, directly above the human couple (figure 11). figure 11. dinosaurs grazing in the creation-garden of eden room. photographs by dustin nash the following cave of sorrows room argues that adam’s sin of disobedience shattered the utopian world of human and dinosaur cohabitation that the creationgarden of eden room displays. in its place, the visitor confronts a graphic scene of dinosaur-on-dinosaur violence (figure 12). figure 12. the animatronic display that appears in the image above graphically illustrates the development of dinosaur predation following adam’s sin. photograph by dustin nash. nash: fossilized jews and witnessing dinosaurs 24 according to the multiple signs associated with this display, adam’s sin released death and predation into the world. therefore, this creature’s clear predator identity links and confirms the relationship between biblical history and the present world order, in which certain animals are needed to remove the weak and the diseased “to keep the fallen world functioning despite sin.” 90 finally, in the voyage of the ark room, dioramas of life inside that vessel during the flood show juvenile hadrosaurs in stalls alongside other animals. an animatronic noah explains that, although he knows them as dragons, dinosaurs were brought aboard the ark two-by-two according to their ‘kind,’ similar to all other land animals. 91 as a result, these creatures were also living witnesses to this defining event of the biblical past. indeed, the museum contends that legends of dragons and other mythological beasts from around the globe constitute faded human memories of interactions with these animals’ postdiluvian ancestors, before their eventual extinction. therefore, whereas visitors encounter silence when looking for jews at the creation museum, they confront a thundering roar with regard to dinosaurs. there would be no reason to read this correlation as causative, however, if not for the function that the museum’s displays rhetorically define for the ancient reptiles within the young earth memory of the past that the site constructs. the facility’s insistent portrayal of dinosaurs as witnesses to the truth and historical accuracy of christian scripture has left no functional space for jews and jewishness to reside within an all-encompassing narrative of time. conclusion the preceding analysis indicates that a series of discrete choices made in constructing the creation museum’s young earth memory of the biblical past has produced an unlikely, and perhaps unintentional, rhetorical connection. to put it simply, jews and dinosaurs have traded places. in order to avoid staking a position within a contentious theological debate, the museum presents a narrative that removes jews from an otherwise dispensational vision of history. at the same time, the site’s overriding discursive interest in appropriating dinosaurs as symbols of scientific authority has led to an argument that asserts the creatures’ function as witnesses to biblical truth: a dinosaurian doctrine of witness, if you will. there is, consequently, no space left within this purposeful narrative of time for jews, leaving them as an inconvenient relic whose place in space and time is undetermined. this conclusion begs the question of how such a public memory 90 placard text, “carnivores,” corruption-cave of sorrows, creation museum, petersburg, ky. 91 animal ‘kinds’ are an important concept for aig and the creation museum. according to genesis 1, god created every plant and animal “according to its kind” ( -lĕmînô). this terminology re ; למינו peats in genesis 6:20-22 in description of the “kinds” of animals that noah is instructed to take aboard the ark. creation scientists define the practice of categorizing fossilized and living creatures into created kinds as “baraminology,” from the hebrew terms for “to create” (ברא; bāraʻ) and “kind” ,bodie hodge and georgia purdom, “what are ‘kinds’ in genesis?,” last modified april 16 .(mîn ;מין) 2013, https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/what-are-kinds-in-genesis/. https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/what-are-kinds-in-genesis/ 25 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) may affect its audiences’ perceptions of, or relations with, jews in the future. any answer proposed at this time, however, would be speculative at best. nevertheless, i would argue that alarm should be raised whenever we observe jews being collectively forgotten. the suffering servant: isaiah 53 in jewish and christian sources studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1 (2007): r3-4 janowski & stuhlmacher, the suffering servant r3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art10 bernd janowski and peter stuhlmacher, eds., daniel p. bailey, trans., the suffering servant: isaiah 53 in jewish and christian sources (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 2004), paper, 520 pp. reviewed by edward kessler, center for the study of jewish-christian relations, cambridge most the essays in this collection were delivered as lectures in tübingen in the 1990s and were translated in 2004, thereby making the volume widely accessible to the english-speaking world. the essays are generally fine examples of german biblical scholarship, each with copious footnotes. the volume tends towards the technical, requiring detailed knowledge of the field, and consequently will be of more interest to the specialist rather than general reader. nevertheless, because of the popular nature of the theme, a book on the suffering servant is likely to result in a wide audience. some of the contributions are particularly relevant to the study of jewish-christian relations. stefan schreiner, for example, examines the jewish apologetic response to christian interpretations in an insightful study of isaac ben abraham of troki’s sefer hizzuk emunah. although a karaite, isaac’s interpretations illustrate the rabbinic emphasis on the suffering servant as representing the people of israel. schreiner shows that isaac, a kariate, had knowledge not only of rabbinic interpretations of scripture but also a detailed grasp of christian interpretations of isaiah 53. a remarkable feature of sefer hizzuk emunah is its lack of polemic. schreiner uncovers not a polemical exchange in 16th poland-lithuania but rather an intensive and also respectful debate. another noteworthy contribution is the paper by eminent scholar, martin hengel, who examines pre-christian interpretations of isaiah 53. hengel examines a variety of greek and hebrew sources and disagrees with the assumption, common among scholars today, that the passage was uninfluential in pre-christian jewish interpretation. he makes the convincing argument jewish interpreters developed the view of a suffering and atoning eschatological messianic figure on the basis of interpretations of isaiah 53. this, he suggests, provided the context for the jewish followers of jesus to appeal to jewish tradition in their reflection on his atoning death. hengel’s argument is implicitly opposed by another contributor, jostein adna who examines the well-known targum of isaiah and suggests, not wholly convincingly in the opinion of this reviewer, that the interpretation offers no evidence of jewish reaction to christian exegesis. the contributor acknowledges that the targum emphasises the theme of a triumphant messiah in the aramaic translation/interpretation rather than a suffering figure we find in the biblical text. however, adna cannot find any evidence to suggest this can be traced to an anti-christian motive. it is also worth mentioning two essays on patristic interpretations of the suffering servant. the first, by christoph markschies, looks at a variety of christological and typological interpretations noting that in the early centuries a jewish framework is maintained by christian interpretations, with examples taken from justin martyr and aphrahat, but in later centuries the commentators wholly reject the idea that the divine nature of christ could have suffered. according to review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1 (2007): r3-4 janowski & stuhlmacher, the suffering servant r4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art10 markschies, this demonstrates that christian interpreters had become distant from the jewish environment. the second study by daniel bailey examines the role of isaiah 53 in justin martyr’s dialogue with trypho. bailey’s study provides further evidence in support of markschies’ argument. justin states that it was largely “gentiles who believe in the suffering messiah” indicating, in bailey’s view, a historical reality. this not only sheds light on the diversity of christianity in the second century but also impacts on early christian-jewish relations. a notable feature of both essays on patristic interpretations is the authors’ willingness to take seriously the encounter with contemporary judaism. whilst it is commonplace for new testament scholars to take seriously the encounter with judaism – note the scholarly work on ‘jesus the jew’ and the ‘new perspective on paul’ in the last couple of decades, for example – this is a less common in patristic scholarship. both bailey and markischies are to be commended for taking seriously jewish exegesis alongside the christian avoiding the temptation to use jewish sources as a foil. in the words of markschies, “today we can interpret the text properly only by having both jewish and patristic exegesis as conversation partners…” in sum, this volume analyses isaiah 53 in tremendous detail. since the suffering servant plays a unique role in christian theology, readers should be grateful to the editors. particularity, incarnation, and discernment: bonhoeffer™s "christmas" spirituality studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):68-76 dahill, “particularity, incarnation, and discernment” 68 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art5 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college “particularity, incarnation, and discernment: bonhoeffer’s ‘christmas’ spirituality” lisa e. dahill trinity lutheran seminary 2/1 (2007): 68-76 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art5 studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):68-76 dahill, “particularity, incarnation, and discernment” 69 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art5 then it may be said of us as well as of those shepherds: not only “they returned again” to all the old bitter distress, but also “they praised and rejoiced in god for all that they had heard and seen, as it had been told to them,” in the midst of all personal anguish, in the midst of the world’s night, in the midst of war...1 so too for us, in a dark time… 1. introduction “spirituality” is a much contested term.2 for the purposes of this essay i will simply outline key dimensions of bonhoeffer’s spirituality: his understandings of the formation of the person; of community and spiritual practice; and of particularity and discernment. bonhoeffer’s is a christian spirituality, so i will describe it as such. i am especially interested in questions of how spirituality sustains resistance. and i am naming his a “christmas” spirituality both simply from noticing how central advent/christmas feasts are for him (in translation of letters, etc., from 1940 on – much more than lent/easter) and from the sense that his is a spirituality marked by deepening incarnation precisely 1 dietrich bonhoeffer, conspiracy and imprisonment: 1940-1945, ed. mark s. brocker, trans. lisa e. dahill, dietrich bonhoeffer works (hereafter abbreviated dbwe), vol. 16 (minneapolis: fortress press, 2006), i/47, p. 108. 2 a burgeoning scholarly literature exists on the definition of spirituality, both within and beyond the christian context i myself inhabit. see, e.g., elizabeth a. dreyer and mark s. burrows, eds., minding the spirit: the study of christian spirituality (baltimore: johns hopkins university press, 2005); arthur holder, the blackwell companion to christian spirituality (malden, ma/oxford: blackwell publishing, 2005); philip sheldrake, ed., the new westminster dictionary of christian spirituality (louisville: westminster/john knox press, 2005). for a range of studies of spirituality stretching far beyond the christian context, see the world spirituality series (21 volumes) published by crossroad (new york). into jesus’ poverty, emptiness, need, particularity, otherness – and the joy and mercy and intimacy of following. 2. formation of the person all his life bonhoeffer resisted absolute principles or claims of “universality” in theology or ethics. for him, a christian understanding of the human person is necessarily particular: “the person in concrete, living individuality.”3 far from some general human nature grounding individual personhood, it is the experience of running up against some other, he believes, that draws a person into the incarnational ethical-social arena where authentic personhood is formed. he describes this experience of encounter with another (divine or human) using the images of barrier (schranke) or boundary (grenze). this barrier of another person’s concrete and separate being confronts the individual with a reality alien to his or her own, drawing the person into what bonhoeffer calls the state of “responsibility,” or ethical demand for some response. such encounter is what creates the personhood of the individual. he writes, “[any given] individual exists only in relation to an ‘other’....for the individual to exist, ‘others’ must necessarily be there.”4 bonhoeffer characteristically expresses this using the language of encounter between ‘i’ and ‘you.’ for bonhoeffer, the ‘you’ is any other self who confronts the ‘i’ as a barrier: “by recognizing a you, a being of alien consciousness, as separate and distinct from myself, 3 bonhoeffer, sanctorum communio: a theological study of the sociology of the church (sc), dbwe 1, german ed. joachim von soosten, english ed. clifford j. green, trans. reinhard krauss and nancy lukens (minneapolis: fortress press, 1998), 45. 4 ibid., 51. italics are bonhoeffer’s. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):68-76 dahill, “particularity, incarnation, and discernment” 70 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art5 i recognize myself as an ‘i,’ and so my self-consciousness awakens.”5 social forms – such as patriotic mass hysteria or romantic fusion – distinguished by feelings of euphoric unity, the blurring of personal boundaries, and long-term instability, are the antithesis of true gemeinschaft; they are forms of what bonhoeffer calls masse. in such enmeshed relationships, in which neither party perceives themselves or the other on a deep level as truly separate, no authentic formation of personhood in bonhoeffer’s sense can occur. thus, any relational or social systems that insist on the fusion or merger of selves, or the submersion of individual personhood into the life of a community, are alien to both authentic community and authentic personhood: “god does not want a community that absorbs the individual into itself, but a community of human beings. in god’s eyes, community and individual exist in the same moment and rest in one another.”6 for all his pioneering grasp of the social as an intrinsic category of christian experience and thought, he intends no degrading of individuality, the integrity, 5 ibid., 70f. in his introduction to this volume, clifford green points out the analogies and distinctions between bonhoeffer’s and martin buber’s usage of these terms. although buber’s i and thou (ich und du) was published in 1923, well prior to bonhoeffer’s completion of his dissertation, bonhoeffer nowhere cites the volume. and although both authors would concur in the usage of i and you “resisting the objectification of persons” generally, nevertheless buber’s emphasis is one of intimacy between i and you, whereas bonhoeffer “stresses the ‘other’ as boundary and barrier to the self; he emphasizes ethical encounter rather than intimacy.” green, “editor’s introduction,” sc 5f. green notes that for bonhoeffer, “the other transcends the self in ethical encounter – indeed, the human you is a form and analogy of the divine you in precisely this present otherness. this personal-ethical model of transcendence, which is found throughout bonhoeffer’s theology, distinguishes him clearly from buber.” ibid., sc 5-6. 6 ibid., 80. italics are bonhoeffer’s. uniqueness, and mystery of every created person; in fact, he argues that such individuality can be most truly grasped only in community, and vice versa.7 on the heart of this created individuality as an essentially god-directed “solitude,” he writes, “the holy spirit of the church-community is directed as a personal will toward personal wills, addressing each person as a single individual [and] leading that person into ‘solitude’” [before god. this] solitude of the individual…is a structure of the created order, and it continues to exist everywhere [as the spirit’s gift]....one’s faith and prayer takes place in this singularity and solitude.”8 it is important to note as well that for bonhoeffer, this individual integrity is grounded and preserved by human embodiment.9 this christian appreciation of the body, like his focus on relationality and the world, reflect his lutheran heritage and point toward trends in later 20th century theology and feminism. they are in line with his emphasis on concreteness as well, the body being, one might say, the very concreteness of the person heror himself. 7 in fact, he repeatedly warns against any dissolving of personhood into relational “fusion”: “whatever kind of unity of will exists, one must never conclude any kind of unity of the willing persons in the sense of fusion; this is impossible considering all that has been said....between us lies the boundary of being created as individual persons” (sc 56). he will continue developing these motifs of the singularity of the human person, with increasing emphasis on the role of jesus christ as precisely the boundary mediating human relationships, in both discipleship (dbw 4) and life together (dbw 5). 8 ibid., 161, 162, and 181. italics are bonhoeffer’s. 9 ibid., 268f. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):68-76 dahill, “particularity, incarnation, and discernment” 71 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art5 3. community of “persons” and spiritual practice(s) in life together, we see how bonhoeffer takes these notions of personhood grounded in the encounter between i and thou into a more explicitly christian discourse in the 1930’s. he asserts that even in the closest christian community we do not have immediate access to one another, but all relationships take place only through the mediation of christ, who stands “between” each person and every other.10 this corresponds to his earlier conception of the human person as an “i” created by encounter with the schranke or grenze of the “you,” whose otherness is a barrier running up against the divine other. thus what he first conceptualized in philosophical terms he is now able to articulate in the personal language of his own experience of jesus christ: that i relate to any other person only through or by means of christ who is the living boundary between us, who stands between human beings and mediates their relationships. the philosophical concept of the boundary, partaking of divine alterity in its person-forming power, has taken on flesh and shape as jesus christ himself, the one whose voice and gaze and touch bonhoeffer now knows personally. he is the mediator, the mittler, the mitte. the person-forming grenze has become the one forming us as christians and as community. this christ-mediation of reality means that the only immediate relationship a person has is with god. in discipleship, bonhoeffer describes how the radical call of christ severs a person from his or her immediate relations, 10 bonhoeffer, life together (lt), german eds., gerhard ludwig müller and albrecht schönherr, english ed., geffrey b. kelly, trans. daniel w. bloesch and james h. burtness, dbwe 5 (minneapolis: fortress press, 1996), 41, 43ff. note that bonhoeffer uses the terms mittler and mitte nearly interchangeably in reference to christ’s role in mediating (or at and as the center of) reality. those bonds in which the person’s created individuality was submerged, i.e., in which social enmeshment made free personhood impossible. hear these words as written in 1937, in the midst of a highly enmeshed and idolatrous social/political/religious order. he writes, jesus’ call itself already breaks the ties with the…surroundings in which a person lives. it is not the disciple who breaks them; christ himself broke them as soon as he called. christ has untied the person’s immediate connections and bound the person immediately to himself.11 throughout his life bonhoeffer insists that christ alone is the one through whom christians encounter reality – real reality, not nazi reality: god, one another, the world, even oneself. thus for him jesus christ functions both as the means of healthy self-differentiation and, simultaneously, as the bridge or link opening persons to reality in all directions. “he is the mediator, not only between god and human persons, but also between person and person, and between person and reality.”12 and this has consequences for how communities are structured and the concrete ways their members treat one another: anytime a community hinders us from coming before christ as a single individual, anytime a community lays claim to immediacy, it must be hated for christ’s sake. for every unmediated natural relationship, knowingly or 11 bonhoeffer, discipleship, german ed. martin kuske and ilse tödt, english ed., geffrey b. kelly and john d. godsey, trans. barbara green and reinhard krauss, dbwe 4 (minneapolis: fortress press, 2000), 93. the entire section of “discipleship and the individual” (d 92-96) develops this theme of christ’s mediation of reality. 12 ibid., 94. italics are bonhoeffer’s. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):68-76 dahill, “particularity, incarnation, and discernment” 72 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art5 unknowingly, is an expression of hatred toward christ, the mediator, especially if this relationship seeks to assume a christian identity.13 again these words have clear political resonance with the nationalistic, blood/volk-rooted “immediacy” of the nazi world made even more sinister by its cloaking in christian categories: all of this is to be hated; a christian’s allegiance is to christ alone. thus for bonhoeffer, christian spiritual practices of attending to christ and following him at all costs are means of living a radically counter-cultural life in a profoundly antihuman culture. he is able to see to the heart of christianity’s subversive spiritual potential precisely in returning to the core of the tradition itself: insisting on the heart’s undivided attentiveness to jesus christ as he is encountered in the word for me, in the community, in the hymns and music of the tradition, in the sacraments, and as he is concretely incarnate in every “thou,” not only christian “thou’s,” and in the world. people sometimes hear discipleship as a “difficult” spirituality, hard, how can i give everything up to follow christ alone…? yet in 1937, in a church enmeshed and captive to a vicious cultural-political idolatry and finding no way out, these are words of astonishing power. there is a way out of this enmeshment, this all-consuming idolatry of nazi construction of reality: for bonhoeffer jesus’ call breaks through all that, shatters all immediacy, breaks all enmeshment, and really does invite christians into a whole new reality. for alcoholics in the gutter, for women captive to domestic violence and despair, for christians in nazi germany, for any christians who feel themselves or their world captive to powers that are sucking the very life out of them, bonhoeffer’s spirituality is good 13 ibid., 94f. news. it breaks the spell of demonic power to receive the divine word breaking through, making all things new, and giving people a lifeline: hope and courage to follow a risky new way. to do so requires practice – practices! – of listening and discerning and following, and it requires others, community, a different world to live in together; and for bonhoeffer this way is not grim at all compared to the world hitler rules, or even the world of his own tyrannical ego. this is the way of goodness, of beauty, of intimacy and humor and trust, in a world ruled by madmen: the way of transforming intimacy with god and other human beings, growing capacity for listening to god and turning away from every other voice, radical allegiance to christ in the face of all the world’s (or his own life’s or church’s) idols, commitment to “the most defenseless brothers and sisters of jesus christ” in the real world: in short, a fundamental re-orientation to reality. personal and communal prayer is the heart’s movement out of bondage and fear and disorientation, being embraced in reality. prayer in and of itself is the heart of resistance, not “prior” to real resistance or something ancillary, a selfish luxury.14 it is what grounds a person in reality itself, namely (for bonhoeffer) jesus christ so intimately and powerfully present to each person, and simultaneously saturating and redeeming the whole world. without prayer, resistance is hopeless; but prayer itself is already resistance and opens a different world created by god. the practices of christian life provide the means by which authentic resistance, and an alternate vision of reality, can be sustained in the world. thus a foremost strategy of bonhoeffer’s resistance to evil is that “arcane discipline”: the practices of daily prayer, 14 see my essay, “bonhoeffer and resistance to evil,” in the on-line journal of lutheran ethics, july 2003. http://www.elca.org/scriptlib/dcs/ jle/article.asp?aid=59. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):68-76 dahill, “particularity, incarnation, and discernment” 73 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art5 scripture reading, community worship, and confession – radical truth-telling – by which he and his finkenwalde seminarians lived in a very different reality than the one proclaimed in nazi pulpits, nazi newspapers, nazi newsreels. these practices of faith nourish the profound levels of discernment, vision, hope, and courage that can make resistance possible in the world over the very long haul.15 and this living attentiveness to jesus christ and encounter with him is not only interior. finkenwalde was an experiment in monasticism that expanded all the way to the front lines of the war, the heart of the conspiracy, the grimmest and most “godless” and dangerous places one might ever imagine. and this is all part of his deepening incarnation, this christmas spirituality. for in good lutheran-incarnational tradition, bonhoeffer sees christ as the reality of both god and the world, the one in whom both god and world are truly known. notions of the world or of god that attempt to consider these in separation from one another, or without taking full account of the other and of their union in christ, are “abstractions.”16 in christ we are invited to participate in the reality of god and in the reality of the world at the same time, the 15 for more on bonhoeffer’s spiritual practices, particularly as these nourished his resistance, see geffrey b. kelly and f. burton nelson, the cost of moral leadership: the spirituality of dietrich bonhoeffer (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 2003). 16 bonhoeffer, ethics, german eds. ilse tödt et al., english ed. clifford j. green, trans. reinhard krauss et al., dietrich bonhoeffer works volume 6 (minneapolis: fortress press, 2005), 48ff. for more on bonhoeffer’s understandings of “concreteness” and “abstraction,” see mark brocker, the community of god, jesus christ, and responsibility: the responsible person and the responsible community in bonhoeffer’s ethics (ph.d. diss., university of chicago, 1992), 199ff. one not without the other. the reality of god is disclosed only as it places me completely into the reality of the world. but i find the reality of the world always already borne, accepted, and reconciled in the reality of god....[the purpose of christian life] is participating in the reality of god and the world in jesus christ today, and doing so in such a way that i never experience the reality of god without the reality of the world, nor the reality of the world without the reality of god.17 thus bonhoeffer names “correspondence with reality” as a key touchstone of responsible ethical action.18 if jesus christ is the reality of all things for christians, then there is no fear and no need for self-protection; we are free to pursue truth and justice no matter the cost, with christians or nonchristians, for the movement deeper into christ in prayer opens precisely thus ever more deeply into all that is: god and world, one reality.19 4. particularity and discernment the emphasis on the particular and the concrete shapes bonhoeffer’s theological project from beginning to end, making him skeptical, as we have seen, of any sorts of universalizing programs or absolutist ethics which would deny the essential variety and concreteness of human life. for instance, his critique of “cheap grace” is formulated as precisely an attack on “grace as doctrine, as principle, as system....forgiveness of sins as a general truth.” as such, it is the “denial of god’s living word, denial of the incarnation of the word of god.”20 what is good or right or the will of god 17 ethics, 55. italics are bonhoeffer’s. 18 ibid., 261-69. 19 ibid., 55ff., esp. 58. 20 discipleship, 43; cf. also 53. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):68-76 dahill, “particularity, incarnation, and discernment” 74 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art5 cannot, for bonhoeffer, be deduced from on high or “formulated as a general principle” to be applied to any and all human contexts.21 rather, the good must be discerned over and over for every new circumstance: “[w]ith every new day, therefore, the question arises, how, today, here, in this situation, can i remain and be preserved within this new life with god, with jesus christ?”22 and this essential need for discernment extends even to god. what we think of as “god” is likely to be a projection of our culture, our repressed parental images, longing for some omnipotent validation of ourselves. even god can’t be known in advance, or assumed; those great prison insights on the coming of age of the world, of living without the deus ex machina, vulnerable with god at the hands of a god-less world, stripped of familiar comforting images and notions of “god” that are idols of our own privilege – these move this christmas spirituality to the very depths of the incarnation, into the cross. in the letter bonhoeffer writes to eberhard bethge from prison for his birthday, august 28, 1944, he says, “the god of jesus christ has nothing to do with what god, as we imagine god, could do and ought to do. if we are to learn what god promises and fulfills, we must persevere in quiet meditation on the life, sayings, deeds, sufferings, and death of jesus.”23 because the will of god cannot be defined in advance by means of general theological, ethical, or spiritual principles, bonhoeffer’s lifelong emphasis on concreteness necessarily 21 sc 168. 22 ethics, 323. this quote from the ethics is typical of bonhoeffer’s later thinking, showing how this emphasis on particularity and concreteness continues throughout his life. 23 bonhoeffer, letters and papers from prison (lpp), new enlarged edition, ed. eberhard bethge, trans. reginald fuller et al. (new york: macmillan publishing co., 1971), 391. fosters a spirituality radically dependent on discernment, practiced anew in every new situation.24 this becomes most explicit in the conspiracy, where a reliance upon mature discernment makes possible new ventures of public responsibility that may have seemed incredible to him in earlier years of his life.25 “intellect, cognitive ability, and attentive perception of the context come into lively play here.”26 24 all this emphasis on concreteness and particularity could open bonhoeffer to charges of relativism, of envisioning a universe in which there are no ultimate truths, but always only merely conditional or provisional ones, different for each individual, shifting over time or in different relational or historical settings – a world unable to hear the word of god as that echoes through the centuries from an impossibly alien time and place. how then does the concrete relate to the universal? on this see his extensive treatment of the relation of the ultimate to the penultimate (ethics, 146-70). in brief, he correlates the realm of the ultimate with justification and that of the penultimate with sanctification. the justifying word of god in which (or whom) we and the world are created, named, loved, redeemed, and borne desires always to be made flesh in the penultimate realm of time and space. without its concrete embodiment in the penultimate (sanctification), it remains an abstraction; yet without that ultimate vision (justification), there is no hope or animation for the penultimate realm on its own. to merely expect people to break free by themselves, without the word of grace, is condemning and despairing law, while to preach merely ultimate vision without its concrete embodiment in real situations of brokenness is cheap grace and an abandonment of people to their misery in real life. 25 in his primary explication of discernment, which he terms prüfen, that is, “probing” or “examining” the will of god, he writes, “[the will of god is] not a system of rules that are fixed from the outset, but always new and different in each different life circumstance….heart, intellect, observation, and experience must work together in this discernment. this discernment of the will of god is such a serious matter precisely because... knowing the will of god is not at our human disposal, but dependent entirely on god’s grace; and, indeed, because this grace is and wants to be new every morning.” ethics, 321. 26 ibid, 323f. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):68-76 dahill, “particularity, incarnation, and discernment” 75 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art5 one of the great and most insidious forms of distraction from the living presence and discerned call of jesus christ is, for bonhoeffer, the tendency of religious people in particular to think in terms of their own judgments of “good” and “evil.” from his 1933 lectures on creation and fall through his ethics, he over and over insists on the inapplicability for the christian life of such categories of evaluation. in fact, the very first lines of his ethics center precisely here: those who wish even to focus on the problem of a christian ethic are faced with an outrageous demand – from the outset they must give up, as inappropriate to the topic, the very two questions that led them to deal with the ethical problem: “how can i be good?” and “how can i do something good?” instead they must ask the wholly other, completely different question: “what is the will of god?”27 further, he describes the attempt to categorize reality into moral spheres as the primal temptation itself. this is the voice of the serpent promising “you shall be like god” precisely in knowledge of good and evil. christian reflection is not to place such labels on ourselves, one another, or aspects of reality itself according to some abstracted system of evaluation. the faithful christian stance is one of discernment and obedience to the voice of christ who alone reveals what is real and who alone is the content of the good.28 this frees the christian from both arrogation to 27 ibid., 47. 28 he develops this insistence on the priority of discernment of the actual will of god, as opposed to judgment according to schemes of good vs. evil, especially in his section on correspondence with reality (ethics, 261-69). ultimately christian discernment means learning to perceive the real revealed by and in jesus, and as his call opens to us our particular vocation in every new concrete situation. this means that an important aspect of the practice of discernment for bonhoeffer is simply oneself of the divine capacity for judgment and slavish subservience to social, religious, or self-imposed rules and moral systems. this discernment calls upon the best possible use of one’s intellect, judgment, and conscience29 and places them in the service of prayer and faithfulness. and in a lovely essay written in the same period, he seems to be proposing gratitude as a positive criterion of discernment. he writes: …that for which i can thank god is good. that for which i cannot thank god is evil. but the determination whether i can thank god for something is discerned on the basis of jesus christ and his word. jesus christ is the limit [boundary] of gratitude. jesus christ is also the fullness of gratitude; in him gratitude knows no bounds. it encompasses all the gifts of the created world. it embraces even pain and suffering. it penetrates the deepest darkness until it has found within it the love of god in jesus christ. to be thankful means to say yes to all that god gives, “at all times and for everything” (eph. 5:20). gratitude is even able to encompass past sin and learning to live in relationship with jesus christ: to pay attention to where and how he reveals himself to us, to learn to distinguish his voice from others’ voices and remain within earshot, to turn “toward” him and not be distracted by competing demands, etc. 29 bonhoeffer develops his understanding of the conscience primarily at ethics, 276-83. this is an extremely interesting section positing the conscience as “the call of human existence for unity with itself” (276, also 281) and “a warning against the loss of one’s self” (276). as such, it is an invaluable tool of discernment and, significantly, it is specifically not to be surrendered in service to others. rather, “the call of the conscience to unity with oneself in jesus christ” in any and all concrete situations remains of paramount importance (282). studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):68-76 dahill, “particularity, incarnation, and discernment” 76 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art5 to say yes to it, because in it god’s grace is revealed – o felix culpa! (romans 6:17).30 one might say that bonhoeffer considers gratitude a (if not the) mark of the well-discerned christian life, as discernment of and faithfulness to one’s actual, constantlyevolving, concrete vocation allows a person to rest continually in gratitude even in the midst of evil and suffering. it is a fruit of that immersion in christ alone which gradually releases people from the habitual human tendency toward placing categories on reality: “good” or “evil.” and this reliance on discernment pushes bonhoeffer’s incarnational spirituality farther than many christians find comfortable: not only into risk and danger and sacrifice, but even potentially into guilt. jesus himself in the gospels breaks boundaries of us and them, in and out, even making himself unclean; and those following him too may find themselves incarnate in situations where no option seems pure, becoming incarnate even in the guilt of one’s time and people, and trusting that the call of christ is freedom somehow for even morally condemnable action in highly ambiguous territory. confinement of moral thought to predetermined categories of good and evil makes complex and living discernment impossible and may, by for instance ruling out from the outset the elimination of hitler, contribute to the entrenchment of even greater evil. neither the maintenance of personal innocence nor concerns for one’s own safety or privilege have ultimate significance; what matters for the christian is the attempt to stay close to jesus christ 30 bonhoeffer, “on the gratitude of the christian,” conspiracy and imprisonment: 1940-1945, german eds. jørgen glenthøj et al., english ed. mark s. brocker, trans. lisa e. dahill, dbw 16 (minneapolis: fortress press, 2006), 490. for more specifically on gratitude and discernment in bonhoeffer see my essay, “probing the will of god: bonhoeffer and discernment,” dialog 41/1 (spring 2002): 42-49. incarnate in our messy painful world and follow wherever he leads. 5. conclusion bonhoeffer’s, i assert, is a “christmas” spirituality, an incarnate spirituality immersed in the complexity and particularity and messiness of the world – where the god who becomes flesh lives. in his writings he is not primarily interested in the triumph of easter but in the deepening incarnation precisely into god’s own poverty, darkness, emptiness – and joy, mercy, sweetness, love – met for christians in jesus christ. in a world today where christians in our context too often tend to see ourselves in the place of the victor, the divine agent, the conqueror in the name of “god,” his is a refreshingly humble and open perception of divine reality, curious about the world as it is and eager to find precisely in the faces and alterity of every other the very face of god. “who is jesus christ for us today?”31 not the lord to be worshiped from afar, but the jewish brother whose birth and life and death and call invites dietrich into the heart of his world – into guilt and martyrdom – and into the beauty and createdness and ecstasy and polyphony of all that is: this is his god. 31 lpp, 279. 1 scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-18 the mortara affair and the question of thomas aquinas’s teaching against forced baptism matthew tapie matthew.tapie@saintleo.edu saint leo university, saint leo, fl 33574 introduction in january 2018, controversy over the mortara affair remerged in the united states with the publication of dominican theologian romanus cessario’s essay defending pius ix’s decision to remove edgardo mortara, from his home, in bologna.1 in order to forestall anti-catholic sentiment in reaction to an upcoming film, cessario argued that the separation of edgardo from his jewish parents is what the current code of canon law, and thomas aquinas’s theology of baptism, required.2 for some, the essay damaged catholic-jewish relations. writing in the jewish review of books, the archbishop of philadelphia, charles chaput, lamented that cessario’s defense of pius revived a controversy that has “left a stain on catholicjewish relations for 150 years.” “the church,” wrote chaput, “has worked hard for more than 60 years to heal such wounds and repent of past intolerance toward the jewish community. this did damage to an already difficult effort.”3 in the 1 on june 23rd, 1858, pope pius ix ordered police of the papal states to remove a six-year-old jewish boy, edgardo mortara, from his home, in bologna, because he had been secretly baptized by his christian housekeeper after allegedly falling ill. since the law of the papal states stipulated that a person baptized must be raised catholic, inquisition authorities forcibly removed edgardo from his parents’ home, and transported him to rome. see david kertzer, the kidnapping of edgardo mortara (new york: vintage, 1998); romanus cessario, “non possumus,” first things (february 2018): 55-58. cessario’s essay is a review of the english translation of edgardo mortara’s memoir by vittorio messori, kidnapped by the vatican? the unpublished memoirs of edgardo mortara (san francisco: ignatius press, 2017). kertzer argues that the documentary evidence contradicts the reports in the 1888 memoir. see his essay, “the kidnapping of edgardo mortara: the continuing controversy,” studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-10; kertzer, “edgardo mortara’s doctored memoir of a vatican kidnapping,” the atlantic, april 15, 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/edgardo-mortara-doctored-memoir/554948/. 2 cessario, 56. 3 archbishop charles j. chaput, “the mortara affair, redux,” jewish review of books, 29 2018, https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/2979/mortara-affair-redux/. tapie: the mortara affair 2 words of a member of the mortara family, the incident remains “an open wound…something we still discuss at every passover.”4 others criticized particular theological claims of cessario’s essay, citing aquinas’s teaching against forced baptism of jewish children.5 indeed, both cessario and his critics appeal to aquinas to argue for and against pius ix’s decision to remove edgardo mortara. however, this contemporary debate has overlooked the fact that the question of aquinas’s teaching on forced baptism was at the center of a rather extensive theological exchange between the mortara family, and the vatican’s papal counsel in 1858. soon after edgardo was abducted, the mortara family, with the assistance of the jewish community in rome, submitted a formal document that argued that the child must be returned because the church, according to aquinas, prohibits baptizing children of unbelievers without the consent of their parents. the mortara family’s document appealed to the same teachings in aquinas cited by critics of cessario. yet the papal counsel’s refutation also appealed to aquinas’s teaching in order to defend the decision to separate edgardo from his parents. that aquinas’s teaching is cited as the authority for, and against, the return of edgardo to his family in the 1858 exchange, and on both sides of the contemporary debate, raises questions about the interpretation of aquinas’s teaching on forced baptism as it relates to the mortara affair. how do the authors of the mortara and vatican documents interpret aquinas’s teaching against forced baptism? what were the key questions on forced baptism as these related to aquinas’s teaching? how do scholars in the contemporary discussion understand aquinas’s teaching to apply to the mortara case? this essay attempts to clarify the key questions on aquinas’s teaching in the debate between the mortara family, and the papal counsel. without attention to the 1858 exchange, the contemporary debate lacks an understanding of the questions in the dispute as these relate to aquinas’s theology, as well as the significance of aquinas’s teaching against forced baptism of jewish children. i hope to show that identification of these questions is a helpful first step in evaluating the significance of aquinas’s teaching for the contemporary discussion. the essay is organized in three parts. first, i analyze the arguments of the mortara family’s plea, and the papal counsel’s reply, with attention to how the authors of the documents interpret aquinas’s teaching against forced baptism. how are aquinas’s texts used in the arguments for, and against, pius ix’s decision? i argue that two key questions were at the heart of the dispute: the question of licit or lawful baptism, and the question of valid baptism. in the second part of the essay, i examine use of aquinas in contemporary arguments about the mortara affair. the 4 eléna mortara, the great-granddaughter of edgardo’s older sister, said that edgardo’s kidnapping has always been an open wound for the family. anna momigliano, “why some catholics still defend the kidnapping of edgardo mortara,” january 24, 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/01/some-catholics-are-defending-the-kidnapping-of-a-jewish-boy/551240/. 5 nathaniel peters, “grace builds upon and doesn’t destroy nature: on first things, baptism, and the natural family,” public discourse, january 15, 2018, http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/01/20884/. i discuss the other scholars who appealed to aquinas below. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) essay details how contemporary thinkers employ aquinas’s texts in their arguments, and what questions they understand as central to the discussion. i then show that the contemporary discussion could benefit from a close examination of aquinas’s teaching as interpreted by both sides of the 1858 dispute. finally, i discuss two eighteenth-century cases in which roman jews appealed to aquinas’s teaching to defend their parental rights. i conclude with a brief summary of aquinas’s argument against forced baptism of jewish children. i. aquinas in the mortara’s syllabus and papal counsel’s reply soon after edgardo was abducted, the mortara family submitted a two-part document to the holy see, pro-memoria e sillabo (referred to hereafter as promemoria and syllabus). the document, which cited numerous theologians, including aquinas, set forth theological and legal arguments for the return of edgardo mortara.6 however, the papal counsel’s refutation of the mortara family’s document, entitled brevi cenni e reflessioni (referred to hereafter as brevi cenni), also appealed to aquinas in order to defend pius’s decision to remove edgardo from his parents.7 in this section, i analyze the arguments of the pro memoria and syllabus, and brevi cenni, with attention to how the authors of the documents interpret aquinas’s teaching against forced baptism. i show that two questions were at the heart of the dispute between the parties: the question of licit or lawful baptism, and the question of valid baptism. the pro-memoria and syllabus was written with the assistance of the jewish community in rome, which had become familiar with canon law.8 the eight-page section, entitled, pro-memoria functioned as an introduction to the major fifty-page section of the document, the syllabus, which sought to persuade the vatican to release mortara. with the exception of a few parts of the pro-memoria, the entire document is written in latin. rabbis among the roman jewish community assembled and included antecedent cases of forced baptism that involved jewish families. these cases were then organized along with the largest part of the document, the syllabus, which citied theologians and canon lawyers as authorities. “to persuade the church to release edgardo, they believed, it was necessary to show that ecclesiastical law and precedent were on their side, and this could be done only by 6 i rely on the dissertation analyzing these documents written by sharon stahl, the mortara affair, 1858: reflections of the struggle to maintain the temporal power of the papacy. saint louis university (proquest dissertations publishing, 1987). the mortara document and the vatican reply are part of the archives of the pontificate of pius ix, which were released in 1967, and housed in the vatican archives. pro-memoria e sillabo may be found in fondo pio ix, oggetti vari, n. 1433, “mortara edgardo”; and brevi cenni e reflessioni in the files of the secretary of state. see segretario di stato, anno 1864, rubrica 66 (ebrei), fascile 1, 2, 3. 7 brevi cenni e reflessioni is an abbreviated title for “a brief explanation and reflections on the promemoria and syllabus humbly presented to his holiness, pope pius ix, concerning the baptism confirmed in bologna on the child edgardo, son of the jews salomone and marianna mortara.” brevi cenni was distributed to papal nuncios, church representatives, and friends of the church throughout europe who were requesting that the vatican help them mount a more effective defense of pius ix’s actions. kertzer, 146. 8 the name of the author (or authors) of the plea is unknown. tapie: the mortara affair 4 experts in ecclesiastical law and church history.”9 in addition to the citation of church authorities, the mortara family’s plea included three appendices: edgardo’s birth certificate; a medical report certifying that edgardo’s illness at the time of his baptism was not life-threatening; and the text of a 1639 church decision in a case of forced baptism. the main argument of the document is that the child must be returned because the church, according to aquinas, does not allow children of unbelievers to be baptized without the consent of their parents. “with almost talmudic logic, the work argued that…that since the church does not allow the children of ‘infidels’ to be baptized without parental approval, edgardo should be returned to his family. and it relied heavily on the teachings of medieval scholar and dominican priest saint thomas aquinas.”10 within three months of edgardo’s kidnapping, the jewish community of rome had produced a rather extensive theological argument against forced baptism of jewish children, with aquinas as the “major authority.”11 as kertzer observes, “the star witness in the syllabus, was thomas aquinas, who argued that a son should be considered a part of his father and under his authority.”12 indeed, the document written by the mortara family’s counsel appealed to the same teachings in the summa theologiae cited by contemporary critics of cessario’s article. the mortara family’s syllabus then sought to reinforce aquinas’s arguments against forced conversion of jewish children with numerous citations of dominican theologians, and canon lawyers. the document also cites scholars who base their arguments against baptism invitus parentibus (without the consent or against the wishes of the parents) on aquinas’s writings. four main arguments are first introduced in the pro-memoria, and then followed by citations of canon lawyers and theologians throughout the fifty-page syllabus.13 the arguments can be summarized as follows: 1) it is not the custom of the church to baptize children of unbelievers invitus parentibus; 2) the church has no authority over the children of unbelievers; and 3) the baptisms of infidel children invitus parentibus, are invalid.14 in this section, i do not examine the texts of aquinas cited by the authors of the syllabus. i only indicate where themes in the syllabus correspond to aquinas’s texts.15 for the first argument, the document appeals to all three of the places in aquinas’s corpus in which he treats the topic of forced baptism: summa theologiae iiii 10.12; iii 68.10; quodlibetales questiones 2.4.2.16 the texts are used to argue 9 stahl, 1. kertzer, kidnapping, 145. 10 netty c. gross, “baptism by force,” jerusalem post, january 7, 1994. 11 stahl, 47. 12 kertzer, kidnapping, 144. kertzer echoes the observation first made by stahl. 13 the document is organized based on author, and does not list the arguments in order. stahl, 46. 13 stahl, 47. 14 stahl, 47. 15 i will say more about aquinas’s arguments against forced baptism of jewish children near the end of section three. 16 stahl, 49. citations of thomas aquinas in the latin are from leonine opera omnia: opera omnia iussu impensaque leonis xiii. p.m. edita (rome 1882). english translations are based on the benziger edition of the summa theologica unless otherwise indicated. summa theologica, trans. fathers of the 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) that according to the natural law, a child is under the care of the parents before it has the use of reason.17 support for aquinas’s position is then reinforced with appeals to the following theologians: the french dominican theologian, john capreolus (1380-1444); the dominican cardinal juan de torquemada (13881468); the french dominican theologian, durandus of saint-pourçain (12701334); the french dominican theologian, and patriarch of jerusalem, pierre de la paludanus (1275-1342); the italian physician and scholar marsilius of padua (1275-1342); and the italian dominican theologian, and canon lawyer, ambrosius catherinus (1484-1553).18 the possibility that the forcibly baptized would later leave the faith is also stressed by a number of these theologians cited by the mortara family. “for when the baptized child came to adulthood he could easily move away from that which he had done out of ignorance, against the will of those who had care over him.”19 the syllabus argues that: “an ‘infidel child’ will not likely be encouraged in the new faith by the infidel parents, and so would abandon the faith and commit apostasy.”20 this problem was originally addressed in canon 57 of toledo iv.21 the longstanding concern is mentioned by aquinas in ii.ii 10.12 as one reason for the custom not to baptize children of unbelievers against the will of their parents. the english dominican province (new york, 1947). citations of the summa will appear in the text and notes as: ii.ii 10.8 ad. 1. “ii.ii” stands for secunda secundae, or part two of the second part of the summa, and “iii” stands for the tertia pars or third part of the summa; “10” stands for question 10; and “8” for the article; “obj.” stands for an objection in an article; and “ad.” for reply objection. 17 in ii.ii 10.12, aquinas argues baptizing children of unbelievers invitus parentibus “is against natural justice. for a child is by nature part of its father: thus, at first, it is not distinct from its parents as to its body, so long as it is enfolded within its mother's womb; and later on after birth, and before it has the use of its free-will, it is enfolded in the care of its parents, which is like a spiritual womb….” 18 john capreolus, known as “prince of thomists,” was a dominican, who lectured at paris and toulouse. a native of languedoc, he entered the dominican order at rodez, and was regent of studies at toulouse. his main work was a defense of the teaching of aquinas against numerous attacks of henry of ghent, duns scotus, durandus of st-pourçain, william of ockham, and others. see weisheipl, j. a., “capreolus, john,” new catholic encyclopedia, 2nd ed., vol. 3 (gale, 2003), 92-93. juan de torquemada was a spanish theologian who entered the dominican order in 1404. he was a dominican cardinal, “illustrious theologian, defender of papal authority against the conciliarists at basel.” courtney, f. “torquemada, juan de.” new catholic encyclopedia, 2nd ed., vol. 14 (gale, 2003), 112-113. durandus of saint-pourçain was a dominican bishop and scholastic theologian. he was one of the earliest exponents of what came to be called nominalism, which he developed in directions distinct from the teaching of st thomas aquinas. he was censured by a theological commission appointed by the dominican master general. weisheipl, j. a., “durandus of saint-pourçain.” new catholic encyclopedia, 2nd ed., vol. 4, (gale, 2003), 947-949; peter paludanus was a french dominican and became patriarch of jerusalem in 1329. paludanus wrote a concordance to aquinas’s summa theologiae. stahl, 52; see jean dunbabin, a hound of god: pierre de la palud and the fourteenth-century church (oxford university press, 1991). marsilius of padua, well known for his defender of the peace, is often considered a forerunner of the reformers, and modern democracy. the italian dominican theologian and canon lawyer, ambrosius catherinus was appointed bishop of minori in 1546; he was made archbishop of conza in 1552. cooney, j. r. “ambrosius catharinus (lancelot politi),” new catholic encyclopedia, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (gale, 2003), 347. 19 stahl, 52-3. 20 stahl, 47. 21 amnon linder, the jews in the legal sources of the early middle ages (wayne state university press, 1997), 486. tapie: the mortara affair 6 first argument set forth by the mortara’s therefore corresponds directly to a reason listed in aquinas’s article on the topic in ii.ii 10.12.22 the second argument of the mortara’s document is that unbelievers are not subject to the jurisdiction of the church in spiritual matters since they reside outside the church.23 the argument resembles aquinas’s teaching in ii.ii 10.9 ad. 2 on this point.24 the third argument in the mortara’s plea addresses additional reasons why children may not be baptized without consent of their parents, including the necessity of intent, the authority to baptize, and the circumstances of impending death. the argument is that baptism of a child invitus parentibus is invalid since the implied will of a small child before the use of reason is the will of his parents.25 “therefore, if without parental consent a child would be baptized, nothing takes place since there is absent either a direct or an implied will.”26 stahl observes that there are four corollaries to this point on valid baptism: 1) forced baptisms are invalid; 2) there must be intent on the part of the baptized, not simply the lack of an impediment, which would be the case in the baptism of an infant; 3) a qualified person must administer the rite of baptism; and 4) even the circumstances of imminent death does not negate the accepted custom of the church that an infidel child may not be baptized without the permission of his parents.27 regarding the necessity of intention of the recipient, several of these dominicans interpret aquinas to teach that a forced baptism is an invalid baptism precisely because it lacks intent. for the reception of this kind of sacrament, namely baptism, there is required the intention or the will of the one who receives it, the intention or will that is proper or implicit. but in the case of a small son of infidel parents, if such a child would be baptized without parental consent there is no proper will of receiving the sacrament, as is obvious, nor is there an implicit one since he would be baptized without parental consent. whose will is the will of the child? therefore, if it is done in such a way, no baptism would take place.28 22 ii.ii 10.12: “children baptized before they have the use of reason, afterwards when they come to perfect age, might easily be persuaded by their parents to renounce what they had unknowingly embraced; and this would be detrimental to the faith.” 23 stahl, 59-62. 24 ii.ii 10.9 ad. 2: “the church does not exercise judgment against unbelievers in the point of inflicting spiritual punishment on them….” 25 stahl, 63. 26 stahl, 50-51. 27 stahl, 63. 28 durandus cited in stahl, 64; 66-67. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) torquemada is also cited on this point, using similar language: “children in those matters which are part of the divine law either require a true act of the will or an implied act of the will nor ought this to be done, nor if done is it valid.”29 the mortara family’s document then addresses the forced baptisms in cases of impending death, and those who would argue that in such a case, an infidel child must be baptized invitus parentibus. appealing to paludanus, the document states that even when an infidel child is in danger of death, a christian still has no right or power of the child. to act as if one had power or care over the child would violate natural and divine law. in an argument that repeats and extends aspects of aquinas’s rejection (in ii.ii 10.12 ad. 2) of the theological argument that baptizing an infant invitus parentibus is justified in order to save the child’s immortal soul paludanus writes, and if it should be argued against the things which have been said that help is much more to be extended to the danger of eternal death than temporal death but that a child who exists in danger of temporal death is to be aided even against the will of his parents, especially if they wish the contrary out of malice, therefore all the more must help be given to the children of infidels against the danger of eternal death, even when their parents are unwilling. but it has been well replied that help is not to be extended to anyone in corporal danger contrary to the ordinances of the civil law. wherefore, if anyone would be condemned to death, rightfully by a judge, he ought not to be rescued violently. in a similar way, against the ordinance of the natural and the divine law, that the son who is under the care of the parent must not be taken from them so as to be freed from the danger of eternal death, for evil must not be done that good may come about. but this would be the case if an infidel’s son would be removed from his parents to whose care he is subordinated as far as the natural and divine law is concerned. because just as proper water ought not to be taken from someone unwillingly in order to baptize a child, if that one was not willing to give it freely, nor on behalf of money, because this is against justice, so neither ought a child to be removed from his parents for the sake of baptism. ….30 29 stahl, 68. durandus elaborates on this point, which stahl summarizes: “in the case of a child, there must be an implied will, which would be the will of the parents. in the case of infidel parents, however, there is no implied will since the parents do not wish the child to be baptized. and since the will of the father is the will of the child, a baptism of an infidel child would be invalid since there is no intent through the implied will of the parent who is responsible for the child.” “…[i]f such a child were in fact baptized there is no baptism. this is less obvious of itself but is proved all the more because if an adult were raised in such a way that he had heard nothing about the faith and if he were only in original sin, if such a person were sleeping and while sleeping was baptized, it is evident that there is no such baptism, not because baptism finds in his will more of a bar than in the case of the small child because there would be absent the will or intention of receiving baptism. therefore for the reception of baptism is required a personal will of the one receiving it if it is an adult or an implied will if it is a child, and this case was the major one, therefore the conclusion follows.” stahl, 69-70. 30 cited in stahl, 72. i return to aquinas’s handling of this issue below. tapie: the mortara affair 8 finally, some of the authorities cited in the mortara syllabus are also concerned with misinterpretations of aquinas’s teaching against baptism invitus parentibus. stahl thinks the function of italian dominican theologian and canon lawyer, catherinus, in the mortara document, is “to destroy the arguments of those who would interpret thomas to allow the baptism of infidel children, and to repudiate those theologians in the church who have offered their own contrary opinion son this matter.”31 in catherinus’s view, foremost among the misinterpreters of aquinas on forced baptism, is cardinal cajetan. catherinus writes, …i cannot cease being amazed at this contrary teaching of cajetanus that anyone can be baptized against his will. for these children must be thought not to have given consent since their parents have not given consent, whose will is thought to be the will of the children? for just as if the parents’ consent, the child is understood to have consented so similarly the dissent of the children. and let no one say to me if the parents are unwilling, nonetheless, consent and faith can be provided to the children by the church and the officials of the church as we say in the case of christian infants if perchance their christian parents forbid their baptism.32 “one must conclude,” writes catherinus, “that without the will of the parents the children of jews or of any infidels existing outside of the church cannot be baptized, nor if they are baptized is the baptism valid.”33 the papal counsel’s response to the mortara family’s plea consisted of a thirtyfour-page document, brevi cenni, which attempts to refute the syllabus.34 the papal counsel lists the mortara’s assertions, which it counted as five.35 1) the newborn children of jews neither can nor should be baptized against the wishes of their parents. 2) in cases where children, before the age of reason, are baptized invitus parentibus, the baptism is invalid. 3) even if it supposed that such a baptism is valid, the parents still have authority over the child by natural law, and if their child has been taken from them they have every right to demand he be returned. 4) that in the case in question, there is insufficient proof that the maid-servant anna morisi performed the rite of baptism on the child edgardo mortara. 5) because of the above reasons, the mortaras claim the return of their son edgardo. 31 stahl, 57. 32 cited in stahl, 57. 33 cited in stahl, 65. 34 “brevi cenni e riflessioni sul pro-memoria,” cited in stahl, “the mortara affair, 1858.” 35 stahl, 91. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) then the papal counsel lists its own positions, which respond directly to what it understands as the mortara’s five arguments.36 1) the first assertion of the mortaras is true but it does not influence the case in question. 2) the second assertion is, “reckless, false, contrary to the judgements of all the canonists and theologians, and in opposition to the steadfast observances of the universal church, and already condemned by the holy see in many decisions.” 3) the right that the church has over baptized children prevails over the rights of the parents. moreover, the church must keep the child, and see to his education in the faith. 4) in the case in question the church has the full canonical proof of the conferred baptism to the child edgardo mortara by the maids-servant anna morisi and therefore there is no reason nor right to restore the child to parental authority. 5) the church does not accept the claim of the mortara parents to their child. the counsel agrees with part of the mortara’s first point when it states that the church has always been against forced conversions. but a baptism, even if illicit, is still valid, and failing to distinguish these two things is the weakness in the mortara position.37 as kertzer observes, “… though the church could be shown to oppose these forced baptisms, does it necessarily follow that no baptismal ceremony performed on edgardo could have been valid? here the question was more complicated.” 38 the papal counsel’s main argument is that a baptism administered against the will of the parents (illicit) is nevertheless a valid baptism: “in fact all the theologians and canonists demonstrate the validity of such baptism exclusive of the consent of the interpretive will of the parents.”39 the papal counsel then says this is why aquinas advises that the children of unbelievers may not be baptized without their parents’ consent. in the papal counsel’s view, according to aquinas, if they are baptized it is valid and they are then the responsibility of the church.40 the angelic doctor, while he shows with judgements and authority that jewish children should not be baptized against the wishes of their parents, demonstrates, as equally in the places cited in the pro-memoria and in the syllabus, that if there should be baptisms conferred to such children, that baptism 36 stahl, 91-2. 37 stahl argues that rejection of the mortara’s request to return edgardo was based on political concerns about the loss of power due to the unification of italy, and not simply adherence to canon law. stahl, 1-2. 38 kertzer, kidnapping, 145. 39 stahl, 97. 40 stahl, 97. tapie: the mortara affair 10 is confirmed and valid, and that for this reason these sons should not be left in the power of the parents is more certain than certain….”41 the interpretation of aquinas in the exchange between the mortara family and the papal counsel concerned two key questions. the first is whether aquinas holds that forced baptism is lawful or licit. the mortaras argued that aquinas was against baptizing children without the consent of parents. the papal counsel agreed but claimed this point is irrelevant to the case because edgardo had already received a valid baptism. another question is also important to the issue of licit baptisms: does aquinas teach that baptism of jewish children invitus parentibus is lawful in certain exceptions, such as in the case of an infant in danger of death? the second key question that emerges in the exchange between the mortara family and the papal counsel is whether forced baptism of a child of unbelievers is nevertheless a valid baptism. according to the papal counsel, aquinas thinks such a baptism is valid. ii. aquinas in the contemporary discussion of the mortara affair romanus cessario’s argument is that an accurate understanding of the catholic teaching on baptism allows one to see that pius ix’s decision was not only just but an important act of piety, and strength: “in order to forestall wrong and unwarranted interpretations, which may include allusions to child abuse, catholics and other people of good will must acquire a right understanding of baptism and its effects.”42 in cessario’s view, one must look beyond the human pathos of the case to see that what was required by the law of the church, and the papal states, concerned the deeper realities of the power and permanence of baptism, and the logical, political consequences of receiving this sacrament. in the light of this deeper theology of baptism, one can see that the removal of mortara was not a kidnapping at all; it was a relocation of an immortal soul into the christian life, kindly arranged by divine providence.43 cessario’s argument is as follows: 1) an infant in danger of death can be baptized licitly even against the will of non-catholic parents. cessario cites the 1983 codex iuris canonici 868, and explains that § 2 affirms that “an infant of catholic parents or even of noncatholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of their parents.”44 2) baptism seals a person with an indelible spiritual mark that configures a person to christ. 41 stahl, 100. the papal counsel likely has in mind the sed contra of ii-ii q. 10 a. 12: “[jews] would lose the rights of parental authority over their children as soon as these were christians.” i discuss this text below. 42 cessario, 56. 43 cessario, 56. 44 codex iuris canonici (vatican city 1983); cessario, 56. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) 3) the law of the church and the civil law of the papal states require that legitimately baptized children receive a catholic education (expressed today in codex iuris canonici 868 § 2).45 4) therefore, pius ix was right to relocate edgardo from his family and provide him with a catholic education. cessario appeals to aquinas’s theology of baptism in the second premise of his argument; on the point that baptism is indelible.46 for cessario, baptism of an infant against the will of the parents is lawful and efficacious, and if civil law mandated catholic children to be raised by catholics, then it seems to follow that the relocation of edgardo is not an affront to religious liberty but, especially given the difficulty of the situation, and the political pressure faced by pius ix, a courageous commitment to the church’s teaching on the efficacy of baptism. at the end of the day, it was faith that bound pius to give mortara a catholic upbringing that his parents could not. to misunderstand these divine sacramental realities is to leave oneself open to the danger of accommodation to modern liberalism, and anti-catholic sentiment. if one conceives of the mortara case as a kidnapping, one has fallen victim to modern indifference to theological claims, and perhaps anti-catholic prejudice.47 cessario thinks the more important issue is that the mortara affair highlights a theological concern that jewish and christian communities share: “jews and christians alike pledge a higher loyalty that they honor in ways that seem incomprehensible to the world. it is a secularist denial of those higher loyalties that threatens both synagogues and church.”48 several catholic thinkers also emphasize human vs. supernatural elements of the case, insisting that a materialistic view prevents one from seeing the sound theological reasoning behind the decision to remove edgardo. in the postscript to his the unpublished memoirs of edgardo mortara, the italian church historian, vittorio messori, examines mortara’s personal archive, and defends the abduction.49 catholic theologian roy schoeman, claims the case “sits at crossroads of the greatest social transformation of modern times: from a fundamentally religious view of the world to a fundamentally materialistic one. those two views can lead to diametrically opposed conclusions about the mortara case.”50 for these authors, the 45 cessario, 55. 46 cessario does not cite to a text in aquinas but likely has aquinas’s treatment of baptism in mind, which aquinas includes in the tertia pars of the summa theologiae. 47 cessario, 56. in cessario’s view, the mortara case exacerbated anti-catholic sentiment in the united states, and the upcoming film proves that prejudiced manipulation of the mortara case has not disappeared. cessario’s view seems to echo themes in the american catholic reaction to the controversy in 1858, which emphasized that those critical of pius ix were motivated by anti-catholic prejudice. bertram wallace korn, the american reaction to the mortara case: 1858-1859 (american jewish archives, 1957). 48 cessario, 58. 49 messori, 1. 50 schoeman, foreword to messori, vii. anna momigliano observes that both cessario and messori are “making a larger theological argument—about divine doctrine trumping human morality, and about religion taking precedence over civil rights. both cessario and messori are quite explicit about this… tapie: the mortara affair 12 morality of pius ix’s actions in the mortara affair are viewed differently based on whether one accepts the truth of the catholic faith: “in the light of the faith, what the pope did can be seen as not only legally justified but also morally justified; in the darkness of a total rejection of the faith, it appears unconscionable.”51 several scholars and writers denounced cessario’s essay, and briefly mentioned what they understood as the theological issues raised by the case. massimo faggioli criticized cessario’s essay as an example of a catholic traditionalism that ignores the second vatican council’s teaching on the jewish people, religious liberty, and freedom of conscience.52 rod dreher called cessario’s essay shocking, monstrous, and grotesque. “they stole a child from his mother and father! and here, in the 21st century, a priest defends it, saying it was for the child’s own good.”53 dreher claimed cessario’s position is wrong, and asserted that the mortara case is a challenging question, “because christians really do believe that baptism is a permanent thing. we really do believe that christianity is objectively true.” however, the scholars that cited aquinas’s teachings in their response are our main concern. princeton university professor robert george called the piece an embarrassment, and cited aquinas’s teaching: “the taking of the child by force from his parents and family was an abomination and defending it is an embarrassment. the gross, unspeakable injustice of such an action (and of its predicate, namely, baptizing a child against the will of its parents) was well understood by the early and medieval church and was affirmed and explained by aquinas. christians, including popes, can commit, and sometimes have committed, profoundly unchristian acts–and can, and have, committed them in the name of christianity. this, shamefully, was such a case.”54 michael sean winters charged that cessario makes “suspect claims based on a sectarian theological point.”55 he argued that cessario is using a theological principle about grace and baptism to overturn other principles such as the election of israel, mercy, the importance of catholic-jewish relations, and the teaching of john paul ii. cessario’s piece also represents a failure to recognize and respect human dignity: “only a failure to recognize the human dignity of our jewish brothers and sisters can account for the crime then, or for in his book, messori makes a similar point, encouraging a return to a katholischeweltanschauung, or catholic worldview, in which the salvation of the soul is deemed more important than other concerns.” momigliano, “why some catholics still defend the kidnapping.” 51 schoeman, foreword to messori, ix. 52 “cessario’s first things article is an example of the extremism on the side of continuity: it ignores completely the development of catholic teaching on jews and judaism, on religious liberty, and on the freedom of conscience approved by vatican ii, confirmed and repeated by all the popes of the postvatican ii period. it assumes that the catholic magisterial tradition that followed and changed nineteenth-century catholicism is not authentic catholic teaching.” massimo faggioli, “obsessed with continuity: what an essay on the mortara kidnapping confirms," commonweal january 20, 2018, https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/obsessed-continuity 53 rod dreher, “the edgardo mortara case,” the american conservative, january 9, 2018, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-edgardo-mortara-case/. 54 robert george’s comments were cited in dreher’s piece. 55 michael sean winters, “fr. cessario’s edgardo mortara essay is inexcusable,” national catholic reporter, january 19, 2018, https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/distinctly-catholic/fr-cessarios-edgardo-mortara-essay-inexcusable. 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) cessario's attempts to excuse it now.” winters said that cessario’s argument is based in aquinas’s teachings: “…[cessario’s] whole argument is premised on certain thomistic understandings of how grace must work.”56 a few scholars elaborated upon aquinas’s teaching. nathaniel peters argued that although cessario extensively quotes aquinas on the indelible character of baptism, he “passes over aquinas’s treatment of who should receive baptism.”57 peters then cites one of the places in the summa that aquinas takes up the question.58 he cites aquinas’s argument that children who do not yet have free will are under the care of their parents according to the natural law. and he shows that in his reply to the objections given, aquinas makes clear that the natural order ordained by god binds children to the care of their parents. peters argues that for “all the importance of the sacraments, they cannot become an excuse for violating natural justice.” additionally, peters also cites ii.ii 10.12 and argues that aquinas’s reply to objection 3 of article 12 shows that aquinas thinks that even though christian kings and princes may have civil power over jews and other unbelievers it does not follow that they have power to overthrow the order of natural or divine law. holly taylor coolman thinks cessario’s argument is “deeply damaging and misguided.”59 coolman’s response aimed to identify pertinent theological questions raised by the case, with attention to the need for dialogue: “…substantive engagement with the material issues is the very thing we need most.” according to coolman, the first issue the mortara affair raises is that of nature and grace. coolman argued that aquinas’s dictum that grace does not destroy but rather perfects nature implies that the natural bond between parent and child must not be destroyed even for the highest good. coolman argued that aquinas applied this principle when he argued in ii.ii 10.12 that baptisms of jewish children against the wishes of the parents are unjust. in coolman’s view, the mortara case also raises the question of the relationship between church and state, and questions related to nostra aetae. finally, robert miller argued cessario’s piece is “statist” and sets aside the theological questions concerning baptism.60 miller gives cessario the benefit of the doubt that the baptism was lawful and licit. simply because the baptism is licit, it does not follow that the state has a right to remove a child from their parents simply because a child is catholic: “cessario has shown that, assuming the truth of the catholic faith, mortara had a supernatural, theological right to a catholic upbringing and education, with a correlative duty in the church (particularly the pope), to provide him one. that may well be so, but a moral claim (much less a supernatural 56 ibid. 57 peters, “grace builds upon and doesn’t destroy nature.” 58 iii 68.10 59 holly taylor coolman, “the vatican kidnapped a jewish boy in 1858. why are we still talking about it?” america, january 31, 2018, https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/01/31/vatican-kidnapped-jewish-boy-1858-why-are-we-still-talking-about-it 60 robert miller, “the mortara case and the limits of state power: first things should disavow fr. cessario’s defense of pius ix in the mortara case,” public discourse, january 11, 2018, http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/01/20868/. tapie: the mortara affair 14 moral claim) does not, without more, support a moral right in the state to enforce that claim.” in the light of the 1858 exchange, we can see that the question of aquinas’s teaching on forced baptism is more complex than perhaps has been realized. the contemporary discussion of the mortara affair has overlooked difficulties in aquinas. cessario nor his critics have addressed whether aquinas’s teaching considers baptism of an infant near death as a lawful baptism. as we can see from the analysis of the mortara family document, this is one of the questions in the 1858 exchange. additionally, contemporary critics of cessario have not addressed the text cited by the papal counsel that seems to indicate aquinas thinks children should be removed from their parents if they have been baptized: “now it would be an injustice to jews if their children were to be baptized against their will, since they would lose the rights of parental authority over their children as soon as these were christians.”61 does aquinas teach that a forced baptism is nevertheless valid or the corollary idea that jewish parents lose their rights over their children if they are baptized? iii. roman jewish appeals to aquinas’s teaching against forced baptism the mortaras were not the first jewish family to appeal to aquinas’s teaching in defense of kidnappings of their children. according to kertzer, “italy’s jews had become, by sad necessity, expert in canon law on matters affecting them, and especially on the question of forced baptism, the major communities regularly exchanged documents.”62 the jews of the roman jewish ghetto appealed to aquinas’s teaching in at least two other cases. before the mortara affair, roman jewish children and adults were abducted from the roman ghetto and/or coerced into baptism through a variety of means, including “offerings,” which were based on the legal principle, favor fidei (the priority of the faith).63 roman jewish responses to these forced baptisms sometimes 61 ii-ii 10.12 62 kertzer, kidnapping, 144. 63 benedict xiv (r. 1740-1758) added a list of exceptions to the church’s customary prohibition on forced baptism of jews based on two hypothetical cases: a christian who finds a jewish baby in danger of death; and a jewish child found alone in the city outside the ghetto. regarding danger of death exception, benedict said such baptisms were “without a doubt a praiseworthy and meritorious thing.” ambiguity concerning what constituted danger of death meant that the decision was made by the christian doing the baptizing. regarding a child found alone, or abandonment, the pope ruled that although jews enjoy patria potestas (power of a father, or parental rights) over their children, such rights are lost in cases of abandonment. other exceptions state that jewish children could be baptized in the following circumstances: if the jewish parents were absent, and their guardians consented; if the jewish father commanded it, even if the mother were unwilling; or if a jewish convert to christianity made offering of a jewish family member to the church. benedict ruled that jewish converts had the right to offer their relatives on the basis of the legal principle, favor fidei (the priority of the faith). according to kenneth stow, favor fidei was an umbrella principle that expressed the idea of the good of church and state; it protected a wide array of legal and theological needs. the principle had enormous legal force. kenneth r. stow, “the cruel jewish father: from miracle to murder,” studies in medieval jewish intellectual and social history: festschrift in honor of robert chazan, ed. david engel, lawrence h. schiffman, eliot r. wolfson (leiden: brill, 2012), 245-278; see marina caffiero, forced 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) included formal legal pleas submitted to the vatican. in 1713, mazaldo cohen, the three-and-a-half-year-old daughter of sara cohen was taken to the house of catechumens for conversion by sara’s brother-in-law, israel jona, who had himself converted. sara appealed to the congregation with the support of a christian lawyer, francesco maria spannocchi.64 spannocchi argued to the congregation that aquinas prohibited the baptism of small children invitus parentibus, which spannocchi claimed covered both father and mother. the petition argued for the mother’s guardianship, and claimed that her brother-in-law had simply kidnapped her daughter. the rector of the house of catechumens, don crisante cozzi, argued that the child was not kidnapped but came to convert by divine will since the child had made the sign of the cross.65 the final decision was against the mother, sara cohen. after two months of separation from her daughter, sara asked to be baptized at the house of catechumens. in another case, in 1762, stella, who was three, and ester, who was six, were taken from their jewish parents because they had been offered by their jewish grandmother, who had converted. the grandmother also offered the unborn child of the pregnant daughter-in-law, allegrezza, who publicly opposed the offering. the six-year-old and three-year-old were taken by force from their parents’ arms in middle of the night. their defense was handled by a roman lawyer, carlo luti, who represented jews in defense of parental rights cases. luti also appealed to aquinas: “as could be expected, the petition cited the authority of st. thomas and the canonists who prohibited the baptism of children without the consent of the parents.”66 the plea was denied, however, on the basis of concern for the soul of the infant, and what the counsel regarded as failure of parents to guide him: “…when those who by nature should guide him are in disagreement among them, [the infant] should have the church come to his aid by always preferring the sentiment of the person who will assure his salvation with baptism.”67 as is clear from these cases, and the mortara family plea, aquinas’s teaching was viewed by advocates of jewish parental rights as a defense against forced baptism of children. the roman lawyer luti’s plea is representative of the challenge since it highlights that aquinas’s teaching was known but it was ineffective in the face of appeals to higher loyalties or the favor of the faith.68 luti wrote: but if things continue in this manner, we shall soon see the offering of any relative approved, not to mention any jew in the ghetto, and the opinion of st. baptism: histories of jews, christians, and converts in papal rome (los angeles: university of california press, 2012), 119-20; walter pakter, medieval canon law and the jews (verlag rolf gremer, 1988), 319. 64 caffiero, 83. jews of the roman ghetto regularly relied upon christian lawyers because jews could not exercise the liberal professions. 65 caffiero, 84-5. 66 caffiero, 117. 67 caffiero, 121. 68 caffiero, 19. tapie: the mortara affair 16 thomas, which is said to be followed, will have only the honor of being commonly printed in the books, but will be trampled on the more and more when it comes to putting it into practice.69 contemporary reactions to cessario’s essay also view aquinas as opposed to forced baptism of children. however, based on the papal counsel’s appeal to aquinas, it seems there are texts in the summa theologiae that lend support to pius ix’s decision to remove edgardo from his parents. who has the correct interpretation of aquinas? as discussed above, the earlier controversy presents a difficulty. does aquinas teach that baptism invitus parentibus is licit in certain exceptions? is an illicit baptism nevertheless valid, on his terms? to adequately treat aquinas’s thought is beyond the scope of this essay since it requires setting his views in the context of medieval and early modern canon law on forced baptism of jewish children, as well as thirteenth-century theological disputes on baptism invitus parentibus. i have examined aquinas’s teaching in these contexts in another study.70 here, i want to briefly explain why aquinas is cited by both sides in the 1858 debate, and why i think it is misleading to cite aquinas in support of pius ix’s decision to abduct edgardo mortara. toward the end of aquinas’s career, and in part because of the discovery of the talmud, a campaign to take jewish children from their parents emerged. french dominicans in particular sought to remove jewish children so they might be raised as christians. aquinas addressed the question of whether children of jews should be baptized invitus parentibus in ii-ii 10.12 as a response to this controversy. he asks, should the children of jews or other unbelievers be baptized against their parents’ wishes? his answer is negative. but at first glance, it seems aquinas teaches that an unlawful baptism is nevertheless valid, and results in loss of parental rights over the children. this is because he writes, in the sed contra of this article, “now it would be an injustice to jews if their children were to be baptized against their will, since they would lose the rights of parental authority over their children as soon as these were christians.” indeed, the papal counsel interprets this text to mean that aquinas thinks parents lose their rights as soon as their children are baptized: saint thomas himself asserts that the church never had the custom to baptize the sons of the infidels against the wishes of the parents, and, among other reasons, says that since the parents would lose each right on the sons who would be passed to the authority of the church by force of the baptism. however, wrong would be done to the jews, if their children were baptized without their consent, because they would lose the right of paternal power over their children now christians.71 69 caffiero, 120. 70 matthew tapie, “spiritualis uterus: thomas aquinas’s defense of jewish parental rights,” the bulletin of medieval canon law vol. 35, 2018. 71 stahl, 100. 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) however, such a misinterpretation of aquinas’s position is due to inattention to the dialectical style of the disputatio. in the summa theologiae, aquinas carefully list the positions on either side of a question. the “objections” listed in the first part of the article contain the arguments against his answer to a question. then he sets the sed contra, which is opposed to the objections. the sed contra can easily be mistaken for aquinas’s position because the sed contra typically represents something close to aquinas’s position (against baptism of children invitus parentibus). however, it is inadequate on its own since aquinas may only agree with part of it. indeed, it seems the argument that aquinas places in the sed contra is the preferred legal argument of the day against forced baptism of jewish children; but this preferred argument of the day assumed the legal consequences of coerced baptisms in the thirteenth century since it states that parents lose their rights over the children once these are baptized. the papal counsel’s appeal to this notion that parents’ lose their rights only appears in the sed contra, and is therefore a proof text. it is only in his respondeo and replies to objections that one can determine aquinas’s answer to a question. aquinas’s answer is referred to as the respondeo, and it comes after the sed contra; his answer (as well his replies to the objections, which come last) is similar to the sed contra in that he is also opposed to forced baptism of jewish children. but his answer is different in that he presents an elaborate theological defense of jewish parental rights in which he synthesizes the roman legal tradition of patria potestas (parental rights) with the theological concept of the natural law. in aquinas’s day, french dominicans advocated for forced baptism of jewish children for numerous theological reasons, including the argument that those who can baptize jewish children must do so because the immortal souls of the children are in danger. french dominican william of rennes (ca. 1259), who was followed by vincent of beauvais (d. 1264) articulated this view, a view aquinas actually lists in the objections in this article.72 aquinas’s reason for rejecting such theological arguments for baptizing jewish children against the will of their parents is that such practice is “repugnant to natural justice.” natural justice was the equivalent of natural law. “hence it would be contrary to natural justice, if a child, before having the use of reason, were to be taken away from its parents’ care, or to have anything done to it if the parents are unwilling.” for aquinas, forced baptism and stealing children from parents are both contrary to natural justice. additionally, in other texts concerning his theology of baptism, aquinas teaches that a valid baptism requires the intention of the recipient, which implies that a forced baptism without the intention of the parents is an invalid baptism.73 in other words, the dominican theologians cited by the mortara family, and who ask “who’s will is the will of the child?” interpret aquinas correctly when they argue that a forced baptism of a child is invalid on his terms. this, in part, is why aquinas 72 ii.ii 10.12 ad. 2: “[n]no one ought to break the order of the natural law, whereby a child is in the custody of its father, in order to rescue it from the danger of everlasting death.” 73 i.ii 111.2 ad. 2; iii 68.7 ad. 2; iii 64.8 ad. 2. tapie: the mortara affair 18 holds that before the child has use of reason, it can be baptized only if the parents will this.74 i have tried to show that the question of aquinas’s teaching in the contemporary conversation on the mortara affair can be clarified through an analysis of the concerns in the 1858 debate. the difficulty that emerges in this original dispute is that aquinas is claimed by both sides. adjudicating this issue requires specification of two questions in aquinas’s theology of baptism: whether aquinas teaches that baptism of the children of unbelievers invitus parentibus is lawful in certain exceptions, such as danger of death, and whether an unlawful baptism is nevertheless valid, on his terms. in so far as aquinas’s teaching is concerned, the baptism of edgardo mortara, or any child against the will of their parents, is not valid, lawful, or praiseworthy, but a dangerous innovation contrary to the custom of the church and the natural law. after a reading of aquinas’s teaching in the context of the scholastic genre of the disputed question, it is clear that the citation of the sed contra is a proof text for the papal counsel’s position, and not aquinas’s view. the problem with this reading of aquinas is that it misinterprets the sed contra for aquinas’s answer to the question in ii.ii 10.12, and reads the statement out of the context of the rest of his teaching on baptism. the reading also ignores his teaching that baptism of a child against the will of parents, even to save it from spiritual death, is against the natural law. aquinas’s teaching, therefore, denies the rationale for theologies that argue for baptism of children invitus parentibus in danger of death. 74 as i explain in spiritualis uterus, however, the debate among canonists and theologians in aquinas’s time was not on whether a forced baptism could be considered valid but whether forced baptisms could be considered lawful. scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-2 a response to alon goshen-gottstein’s the new covenant jeremiah 31:30-33 (31:31-34) in jewish interpretation philip a. cunningham pcunning@sju.edu saint joseph’s university, philadelphia, pa 19131 i would like to thank alon goshen-gottstein for his stimulating article, “the new covenant jeremiah 31:30-33 (31:31-34) in jewish interpretation.” it is fascinating to see how different jewish thinkers over the centuries have actualized the meaning of jeremiah’s “new covenant” for themselves in their respective times. it is especially intriguing because “covenant” has been a rich subject for conversation between jews and christians in the unprecedented post-world war ii interreligious dialogue. in the interest of encouraging such conversation in scjr, i’d like to share a few ideas that this article brought to my mind, some of which are tangential to its main focus on noteworthy readings of “new covenant” in jewish thought. they are really the kinds of musings that might emerge in an informal chat over libations at the end of the day as topics for future exploration and are not meant as a formal academic “response.” i wonder if a greater distinction needs to be made between the paucity of references to “new covenant” and the small number of explicit mentions of covenant more generally in jewish writings over the centuries. it seems to me that the former is simply explained: it would be self-evident to jewish sages studying torah or talmudic texts that they were not experiencing a time when “they shall no longer teach one another” (31:34) since they were doing precisely that. there really is no need to appeal to a general diminution of covenantal language to account for general jewish disinterest in jeremiah 31. unlike christian readers, who pointed to actual historical events to argue that a new eschatological age—with a reconfigured new covenant—had dawned (e.g., the destruction of the temple or the christianization of the roman empire), jewish interpreters were typically more conscious of oppression in the world. this is why the various atypical jewish mystical and philosophical readings of jeremiah 31 that alon goshen-gottstein presents are so interesting. incidentally, the two traditions’ different perspectives regarding a “realized” or a “futuristic” eschatology also relates to the letter to the hebrews. to me, the “supersessionism” in that epistle is not that judaism is being replaced by christianity, but rather that the former age is in the process of being supplanted by the anticipated world-to-come because of the raising of the crucified one to eschatological life. https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/scjr/article/view/12433 https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/scjr/article/view/12433 cunningham: a response to alon goshen-gottstein 2 i would also love sometime to discuss the suggestion that “both religious systems no longer privilege covenant as the central structuring religious ideal” (p. 5). of course, it’s proverbially hard to prove a negative, and one line of thought i would want to pursue is e. p. sanders’ classic characterization of the entirety of second temple literature as predicated on a pattern of thought that he called “covenantal nomism.” this basic concept has been, i think it’s fair to say, widely accepted by both jewish and christian scholars. it would indeed be interesting to learn how something so consistently defining could be displaced as a central structuring religious concept, especially when (as alan segal argued in a 1985 article) jewish ritual and prayer is replete with covenantal language, even if sometimes implicitly. and whenever my after-dinner conversation scenario unfolds, i’d also want to talk about communal identity and individual identity. in jeremiah 31, the new covenant is written directly on the human heart. “it is thus more interior. consequently, it is also more individual” (p. 6). that is surely one way of actualizing jeremiah, but, particularly since he lived in a culture in which human identity depended on group belonging, his words could also be actualized today along communitarian lines. what lies in the “heart” of a society or religious community? do the people collectively internalize the heart of the holy one? this also involves human free will. could not jeremiah be understood as envisioning that “in the coming days” all israel will voluntarily comport their wills to god’s because of the internalization of the mitzvot? or to put it in later rabbinic language, could this idea be expressed communally as “in the coming days” the yetzer hara will be fully in tune with the fully realized yetzer hatov in all the people? again, my thanks to alon goshen-gottstein for inspiring these ruminations! microsoft word peppard1.doc studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers in jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college “do we share a book? the sunday lectionary and jewish-christian relations” michael peppard yale university volume 1 (2005-2006): pp. 89-102 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art9 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 89-102 peppard, “do we share a book?” 90 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art9 the lectionary: locus for jewish-christian relations1 every three years in the roman catholic liturgy, on the eleventh sunday of ordinary time (year c), the lectionary prescribes readings from 2 samuel 12 and luke 7. the historian walter sundberg recounts an especially poignant experience of these texts in the practical life of a christian community.2 the congregation was enraptured by the drama of the old testament reading, a portion of the david and bathsheba story: deceit, lust, betrayal, indictment, and conviction. what would the homilist do? what was the word of god trying to say to that congregation at that time? but soon, after an unrelated reading from galatians, the readings continued with another dramatic story: the deeply penitent woman who anoints jesus with her tears and perfume. sundberg writes: after hearing 2 samuel, many of us had a sense of being convicted by the law. now after the reading from luke, we were encouraged to identify with an extravagant act of repentance and jesus’ forgiveness.…i was not surprised when, after the service, one person even offered a marcionite reading of divine behavior based on a 1 this essay is revised from the talk i delivered at the conference nostra aetate today at the pontifical gregorian university, rome, sept. 27, 2005. i thank philip cunningham and the center for christian-jewish learning, boston college, for organizing the session and inviting me. i also thank the yale department of religious studies, yale judaic studies, and the graduate student assembly for financial support. the content of this paper was improved by suggestions from joshua garroway, david kelsey, bishop luis del castillo (uruguay), and two anonymous reviewers from scjr. michael signer and adela yarbro collins also offered encouragement during its preparation. 2 this was a lutheran service, not a catholic mass, but the anecdote applies to the roman lectionary as well. in fact, the situation is worse in the roman lectionary, since it includes even less of the context for the old testament story. walter sundberg, “limitations of the lectionary,” word & world 10 (1990):14-20. comparison of the texts: “the god of the old testament kills babies,” he said; “jesus forgives those who weep.” the lectionary had done its disruptive work yet another week.3 this story is anecdotal, of course, but i expect that many have had a similar experience in a sunday assembly. the lectionary frequently propagates a problematic view of the old testament among christians. for this reason, in a 2004 speech to the brazilian conference of catholic bishops, cardinal william keeler mentioned the lectionary among the topics of necessary liturgical reform: the reform of catholic liturgy with respect to its traditionally negative portrayal of jews and judaism is not yet complete. the good friday prayer…has been radically altered….but this does not exhaust the challenges faced by catholic liturgists….numerous questions of selections of lectionary texts abound. often, it is difficult in the juxtaposition of biblical texts to distinguish between a theological relationship of fulfillment, which is the church’s teaching, and supersessionism, which clearly is not.4 it is my opinion that lectionary reform – specifically with regard to the old testament lections – would improve jewish-christian relations in the long term. this opinion rests on two foundational premises: first, a christian’s perception of jews and judaism is frequently intertwined with his or her conception of the old testament. the 2001 3 sundberg, “limitations,” 15. 4 cardinal william h. keeler, “catholic-jewish dialogue: a developing agenda,” at a dialogue sponsored by the brazilian conference of catholic bishops, salvador, brazil, june 7, 2004. <http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/ resources/articles/keeler_agenda_june04.htm>. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 89-102 peppard, “do we share a book?” 91 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art9 document of the pontifical biblical commission (pbc), the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible, upholds this premise, saying that “a study of [the] relationships [between the old and new testaments] is indispensable for anyone who wishes to have a proper appreciation of the links between the christian church and the jewish people” (§19).5 the relationship between the old and new testaments symbolizes the jewish-christian relationship.6 this symbolic link is most explicit for christians who have little or no opportunity for interaction with living, breathing jewish people today. and scholars sometimes forget that, thinking globally, this situation is true for the vast majority of christians. most christians learn about the jews not through social interaction but through their bibles. second, the sunday liturgy of the word is the primary encounter with the bible for catholics.7 the word of god is carried not through the leather binding of the printed text but 5 the text along with explanations of errors in its english translation can be found at <http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations /resources/documents/catholic/pbc2001intro.htm>. 6 consider the words of john paul ii at the synagogue in mainz, nov. 17, 1980: “the first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of god of the old covenant, never revoked by god (cf. rom 11:29), and that of the new covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our church, that is to say, between the first and second part of her bible.” we should be clear, though, that while the relationship of the testaments often symbolizes that of the religions, the old testament should not be understood to exhaust judaism. 7 in the trenchant words of john dominic crossan: “when i first heard the words epistle and gospel they were not parts of a book, but sides of an altar” [a long way from tipperary: a memoir (san francisco: harper san francisco, 2000), 130]. of course, there are exceptions and things have changed since the pre-vatican ii liturgy of crossan’s reminiscence. there are some catholics who study scripture on their own or in small groups, borrowing from the protestant model, and this is fruitful. but for most catholics, most of the time, scripture is encountered through liturgy and that means through the lectionary for sundays and solemnities. through the liturgical binding of the sign of the cross. therefore, reforms of catholic biblical hermeneutics, and concomitantly of catholic perspectives on judaism, are effective to the extent that they are integrated in the liturgical proclamation and interpretation of scripture. the recent pbc document – of which i am very proud as a catholic biblical scholar – reconsiders in often radical ways the interpretation of the old testament. but i fear that the analysis and vision which this document sets forth will not reverberate in the chapels and pews of the catholic church, since only a small number of catholics study the bible and church documents with any regularity.8 the pbc document does not explicitly discuss the lectionary and its role in promulgating the catholic perspective on the jewish people and our shared scripture. this essay attempts to do just that. parallel histories: lectionary reform and the catholic stance toward judaism but first i want to sketch two parallel histories of the last forty years. i begin with a brief history of lectionary reform in the wake of vatican ii. from the council of trent to vatican ii, the roman missal included a one-year cycle of readings for sundays and solemnities. the old testament was almost entirely absent from liturgical proclamation. the crucial point of departure for lectionary reform was the following text in sacrosanctum concilium, promulgated at vatican ii: “the treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of god's word. in this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to 8 documents of the pontifical biblical commission are not very well known among the laity. a professor at yale recently offered a graduate seminar on “contemporary christian theologies of the old testament,” but the professor was unaware of the existence of this pbc document, officially promulgated by the largest christian denomination. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 89-102 peppard, “do we share a book?” 92 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art9 the people in the course of a prescribed number of years” (§ 51).9 the council set up a consilium for implementing the liturgical reforms established in principle by sacrosanctum concilium, and one working group, coetus xi (group 11), had the enormous task of lectionary reform. they organized and executed a review of 1800 years of lectionary traditions, spanning eastern and western christianity, and drafts were reviewed by hundreds of pastors and scholars over four years. i will offer criticisms of and propose changes to this work with great trepidation and no ill will toward their accomplishment. in truth, the criticisms i will offer probably could not have been foreseen. the older “teaching of contempt” for jews had not yet been formally renounced. when coetus xi began its work nostra aetate had not even been promulgated, much less digested and implemented. the group eventually decided on three readings per sunday over a cycle of three years. the readings were organized around the principles of semicontinuous reading and thematic harmonization or correspondence.10 from advent through easter, the principle of harmonization governs the majority of choices. in ordinary time, the synoptic gospels and epistles are read semicontinuously, more or less, and the old testament lections were chosen for their supposed correspondence with the gospel reading. on the whole, the lectionary tried to emphasize the idea of “salvation history,” with a particular focus on the paschal 9 this and other conciliar documents can be found at <www.vatican.va>. other official catholic documents relevant for jewish-christian relations can be found at <http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/cjrelations/resources/ documents/catholic/>. 10 for an excellent introduction and analysis of the sunday lectionary on these points see normand bonneau, the sunday lectionary: ritual word, paschal shape (collegeville, mn.: liturgical press, 1998), 31-55. a detailed account of the lectionary reform is provided in annibale bugnini, the reform of the liturgy 1948-1975, trans. m. o’connell (collegeville, mn: liturgical press, 1990), 406-25. mystery, the redemptive death and resurrection of jesus christ. there is little doubt among biblical scholars that the new lectionary was a vast improvement on what preceded it, especially with regard to jewish-christian relations. many vitriolic new testament passages had been left out of the sunday lectionary and the new weekday lectionary. the old testament had been restored to the liturgies of almost all sundays and solemnities. but within a decade criticisms began to emerge from both scholars and pastors. many critical voices agreed that, while the treatment of the old testament was better than before (which was almost nonexistent), it was still inadequate or even harmful. gerald sloyan was the first catholic scholar to articulate the problems with the treatment of the old testament. the lectionary purported to provide the congregation with “a knowledge of the whole of god’s word.”11 the committee declared that “the treasury of the word of god will be opened up in such a way that nearly all the principal pages of the old testament will become familiar to those taking part in the mass on sundays” (§ 106). nearly all the principal pages of the old testament – really? to such a claim, sloyan had this response in 1977: “if we assume that one of their major intents is to give christian hearers a feel for the whole bible, we must declare the plan a failure.”12 he declared it a failure 11 quotations from lectionary for mass, second typical edition, introduction (washington, dc: united states catholic conference, 1998), § 60. 12 gerald s. sloyan, “the lectionary as a context for interpretation,” interpretation 31 (1977): 138. he followed this up constructively with “some suggestions for a biblical three-year lectionary,” worship 63 (1989): 521-35. sloyan has recently re-stated part of his case in “what kind of canon do the lectionaries constitute?” biblical theology bulletin 30 (2000): 27-35; and “thus faith comes from what is heard (romans 10:17): how much of the bible do people hear?” biblical theology bulletin 32 (2002): 100-06. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 89-102 peppard, “do we share a book?” 93 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art9 because of the brevity of the old testament readings, the “overall absence of biblical robustness,” and “the reduction of the hebrew revelation to something inconsequential apart from jesus christ.” he continued: “a vision allowable in the first century is not to be entertained in the twentieth….it is one thing to affirm that christ is to be found on every page of the bible and another to prove it by a series of narrow correspondences that leaves room for little else.”13 other catholic scholars joined to criticize the choice of scripture texts in the roman lectionary,14 and one of sloyan’s students later completed a dissertation highlighting many hermeneutical problems with the sunday lectionary.15 many protestant scholars imbued the lectionary movement with an ecumenical spirit. horace allen reported on the progress of the “consultation on common texts” (cct) which met to discuss how to appropriate the roman lectionary in protestant christianity. in particular, the cct convened a working group to “provide readings that are more completely representative of the hebrew bible and not simply prophetic or typological.”16 according to allen, the presentation of the relationship of old and new testaments was “the most serious theological question” of lectionary 13 sloyan, “lectionary as context,” 138. 14 for example, eileen schuller, osu, “some criteria for the choice of scripture texts in the roman lectionary,” in shaping english liturgy, eds. peter finn and james schellman (washington, d.c.: pastoral press, 1990), 385-404. a crucial contribution was john t. pawlikowski and james a. wilde, when catholics speak about jews (chicago: liturgy training publications, 1987). for a different perspective, see joseph jensen, osb, “prediction-fulfillment in bible and liturgy,” catholic biblical quarterly 50 (1988): 646-62. 15 regina a. bosclair, “proclaiming salvation: the hermeneutics of six contemporary christian lectionaries” (ph.d. diss., temple university, 1996). 16 horace t. allen, jr., “the ecumenical import of lectionary reform,” in shaping english liturgy, 368. reform.17 many other protestants perceived this problem and addressed it in their scholarship and ecclesial bodies.18 a key locus for the protestant lectionary reforms was the long sequence of ordinary time, which covers over half the liturgical year. i will analyze that sequence later in this essay. during and after the lectionary reform of vatican ii and the protestant responses, another change was developing in mainline christian denominations: inspired by nostra aetate, christian communions were modifying their stance toward judaism. most readers of this journal know the basic outline of this development, so i will merely highlight some points in this process that are germane to my argument. nostra aetate, § 4 states “the jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by god, as if this followed from the holy scriptures.”19 the 1974 vatican commission “guidelines” apply this statement liturgically, saying that “an effort will be made to acquire a better understanding of 17 allen, “ecumenical import,” 379. allen also connected the question to jewish-christian relations: “this issue cuts deeply into that bedrock business of how it is that the christian community receives the hebrew scriptures as the word of god, and by implication, that red-hot business of how the christian community continues to relate to the people of those scriptures, the jews” (379). he added, “one might make bold to say that as this question works itself out so also will certain other questions having to do with the church’s ‘mission’ to the jews [and] its attitude toward that jewish institution known as ‘israel’” (381). 18 some examples are: lloyd r. bailey, “the lectionary in critical perspective,” interpretation 31 (1977): 139-53; arland j. hultgren, “hermeneutical tendencies in the three-year lectionary,” in studies in lutheran hermeneutics, ed. john reumann (philadephia: fortress press, 1979), 145-73; richard nelson, “reading texts in lectionary pairs,” dialog 21 (1982): 95-101; gail ramshaw, “the first testament in christian lectionaries,” worship 64 (1990): 494-510. 19 the documents quoted in this paragraph can all be found at <www.bc.edu/research/cjl/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/>. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 89-102 peppard, “do we share a book?” 94 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art9 whatever in the old testament retains its own perpetual value (cf. dei verbum, 14-15), since that has not been cancelled by the later interpretation of the new testament.”20 as i noted earlier, the relationship between the old and new testaments is here understood as symbolic of the jewishchristian relationship. one concrete way that christians avoid presenting the jews as “rejected” is to communicate the “perpetual value” of the old testament. the 1985 vatican commission “notes” deal specifically with the relationship of the old and new testaments, emphasizing the unity of the divine plan and the precarious situation of typological hermeneutics: typology…makes many people uneasy and is perhaps the sign of a problem unresolved. hence in using typology, the teaching and practice of which we have received from the liturgy and from the fathers of the church, we should be careful to avoid any transition from the old to the new testament which might seem merely a rupture. the church, in the spontaneity of the spirit which animates her, has vigorously condemned the attitude of marcion and always opposed his dualism.21 the united states catholic bishops added two more practical documents to this list, on dramatizations of the passion and the jews in catholic preaching.22 but the most important document for my topic has come only recently, in 20 vatican commission for religious relations with the jews, guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate, § 4, § 2. 21 vatican commission for religious relations with the jews, notes on the correct way to present jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church, § 2, 3-4. 22 the latter, “god’s mercy endures forever” (1988), is very important for the liturgical implications of nostra aetate. it can be found at: <http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/ resources/documents/catholic/nccb_gods_mercy.htm>. 2001, from the pontifical biblical commission (pbc).23 my claim is that this document has yet to be brought into dialogue with the practical implementation of nostra aetate. the document’s main question, set forth in §1, is: “what relations does the christian bible establish between the christians and the jewish people?” but if the bible is mediated mostly through the sunday lectionary, we ought to ask more emphatically, “what relations does the lectionary establish between christians and the jewish people?” the pbc document speaks forcefully and radically at times; some lines seem to be drawn directly from sloyan’s 1977 article on the lectionary. the pbc states: “the old testament in itself has great value as the word of god. to read the old testament as christians then does not mean wishing to find everywhere direct reference to jesus and to christian realities” (§ 21). the most salient moment for the study of the lectionary concerns the notion of fulfillment, and i must quote it at length. the notion of fulfillment is an extremely complex one, one that could easily be distorted if there is a unilateral insistence either on continuity or discontinuity. christian faith recognizes the fulfillment, in christ, of the scriptures and the hopes of israel, but it does not understand this fulfillment as a literal one. such a conception would be reductionist. …jesus is not confined to playing an already fixed role – that of messiah – but he confers, on the notions of messiah and salvation, a fullness which could not have been imagined in advance;…it would be wrong to consider the prophecies of the old testament as some kind of photographic anticipations of future events. all the texts, including those which later were read as messianic prophecies, already had an immediate import and 23 pontifical biblical commission, the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible, 2001. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 89-102 peppard, “do we share a book?” 95 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art9 meaning for their contemporaries before attaining a fuller meaning for future hearers (§ 21). this quotation comes from an official catholic church document, introduced and endorsed by then cardinal ratzinger, now pope benedict. but anyone with even a passing knowledge of the catholic lectionary can see the problem here: the hermeneutical theory and the liturgical practice do not cohere. the pronouncements of the officially sanctioned biblical scholars have not been incorporated into the liturgical proclamation of scripture. this is a problem worth examining, and i will now move toward some specifics. the selection of old testament texts: do we share a book? as stated above, the lectionary committee claims that “the whole of god’s word” and “nearly all the principal pages of the old testament” are proclaimed at sunday mass. is this true? consider table 1, which tabulates the old testament readings (excluding psalm responses) that a catholic who attends sundays and solemnities will hear over the course of three years.24 24 i tabulate the old testament readings from all sundays where the old testament is used and all other holy days of obligation, as observed in my home country (usa). those are christmas, ascension, corpus christi, mary mother of god, immaculate conception, and assumption. i have excluded special vigil readings (since most parishioners only go once each holy day) but included the entire easter triduum. i have only counted one reading from the four christmas options (all four are from isaiah). for sundays or solemnities whose reading is the same each year (e.g., ash wednesday), i have counted that reading all three times, since that is how the congregation experiences it. table 1: frequency of old testament books in sunday lectionary ot book frequency isaiah 49 genesis 21 exodus 16 ezekiel 10 deuteronomy 10 jeremiah 9 sirach 9 wisdom of solomon 8 1 kings 7 joel 6 numbers 4 1 samuel 4 baruch 4 19 books 3 or less 13 books not used total = 189 readings from ot studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 89-102 peppard, “do we share a book?” 96 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art9 the choice of old testament lections can be criticized for some grave imbalances.25 almost half the lections (86 of 189) are from the three books of isaiah, genesis and exodus. moreover, some substantial books are never proclaimed, notably ruth and esther. the representation of the traditional wisdom literature genre (proverbs, job, ecclesiastes, song of songs) is scant, receiving only 6 lections total, while sirach and wisdom of solomon receive 9 and 8 lections, respectively. of the almost 200 lections that a faithful parishioner hears in the lectionary cycle, over 25% are from the prophet isaiah, 49 out of 189. this eclipses the 43 lections from all the other prophets combined. within the prophet isaiah, 27 lections are from deutero-isaiah (or second isaiah), so that this one portion of isaiah still has more lections than any other old testament book. furthermore, only 20% of the isaiah quotations are fixed by liturgical traditions, so this imbalanced representation of isaiah cannot be based substantially on the desire to keep those traditions. when tabulating this data, i recalled a famous quotation from martin buber about jewish-christian relations. in essence, he said that jews and christians share a book and a hope.26 but the lectionary’s choices from the old testament obscure the idea that we share a book. 25 see also the statistics in bonneau, sunday lectionary, 48. for an impressive online collection of lectionary information, see the website of felix just, sj, at <http://catholic-resources.org/lectionary/index.html>. 26 i was unable to find the quotation in its original context, but it is quoted by david rosen as follows: “we have in common a book and an expectation. to you the book is a forecourt; to us it is the sanctuary. but in this place we can dwell together and together listen to the voice that speaks here. that means that together we can strive to evoke the buried speech of that voice; together we can redeem the imprisoned living word.” david rosen, “learning from each other: a jewish perspective” <http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=2369>. still, let’s give the lectionary the benefit of the doubt for a moment. many choices of texts for advent, christmas, lent, and easter are bound by venerated ancient tradition. these seasons have a higher concentration of old testament texts interpreted as predictions. perhaps in ordinary time, when the lectionary is not bound by calendrical or seasonal concerns, the old testament is better represented. table 2 contains a summary of the old testament lections for three years of ordinary time. i divide them into law, narrative, prediction (or fore-telling), exhortation (or forth-telling), wisdom, and other oracles.27 table 2: genres of old testament readings in ordinary time law narrative prediction exhortation wisdom other year a 3 4 12 10 2 3 year b 4 11 12 0 3 4 year c 1 14 7 3 7 2 total 8 29 31 13 12 9 there is not much legal material in ordinary time; and while there is a substantial amount of narrative, the stories are extremely short, usually five verses or less. texts of prediction are still the highest percentage, even in ordinary time. the exhortations of the prophets are not well represented compared to their proportions in the bible, or 27 i have classified the readings according to how they appear to the listener who has not yet heard the gospel reading, as in the context of liturgy. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 89-102 peppard, “do we share a book?” 97 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art9 even the liturgical use of the bible among protestant christians or jews.28 the representation of wisdom literature is not insignificant, but the hebrew wisdom texts are far outweighed by the greek. there are at least three general problems with the choice of old testament lections for christian theology and for jewish-christian relations. first, the current cycle of old testament readings does not adequately portray the identity of god.29 without a good dose of narrative and hebrew wisdom literature, the lectionary omits god’s primary activities as creator and sustainer of israel and the whole world. james sanders argues: lectionaries as usually conceived destroy the bible as…god’s story. god is the principal actor throughout the bible, but christian lectionaries leave the impression for the most part that the whole truth is told in the new testament and that the old testament merely points to it.…lectionaries tend to leave us to think that jesus did it all, whereas all of what jesus said and did pointed to god.30 without a narrative identity of god in the old testament, can the lectionary even be considered trinitarian? or rather, is the worship guided by the roman catholic lectionary guilty of what h. richard niebuhr called the “unitarianism of the 28 it is no wonder that most american catholics assume that the author of “let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream” was martin luther king, jr. instead of amos! 29 on the role of narrative in theology, see hans frei, theology and narrative: selected essays (new york: oxford university press, 1993). 30 james a. sanders, “canon and calendar: an alternative lectionary proposal,” in social themes of the christian year, ed. dieter hiesel (philadelphia: geneva press, 1983), 259. son?”31 these questions bring into focus the challenge of adapting the theocentric bible to the christocentric liturgical year.32 christians and jews share a covenantal commitment to the god of israel, but the christocentric lectionary deemphasizes this fact. it may seem paradoxical, but a more trinitarian lectionary would encourage a better understanding of jews and judaism.33 a lectionary reformed to include more narrative and wisdom literature from the hebrew scriptures would encourage christians to see god as creator, reconciler, and consummator, all in the context of the old testament. second, the lectionary propagates some stereotypes of judaism. the clearest stereotype is that judaism mainly predicts and prepares for christianity. this use of the old testament in the lectionary does not cohere with the recent pbc document or the pontifical documents about judaism that preceded it. i will give examples of this problem in the next section. furthermore, there is hardly any positive legal material offered from the old testament, although many relevant and edifying examples could be found, for example, in deuteronomy, such as dt 24:17-22. 31 h. richard niebuhr, “the doctrine of the trinity and the unity of the church,” theology today 3 (1946), 371-84. see also the brief discussion in sundberg, “limitations,” 14-20. 32 the best chance for a theocentric emphasis in the lectionary is precisely during ordinary time, when the earthly biography of jesus’ life does not govern the readings as strictly. on this conundrum, see the excellent work of fritz west, scripture and memory: the ecumenical hermeneutic of the three-year lectionaries (collegeville, minn.: liturgical press, 1997). 33 the church might also consider more emphasis on pneumatology in the construction of the lectionary, although a discussion of that here would take this essay too far off its topic. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 89-102 peppard, “do we share a book?” 98 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art9 third, the lectionary does not reinforce the idea that we share a book. huge portions of the bible’s core are missing; one scholar laments the neglect of the old testament’s epic stories from joshua to 2 kings. “these bible stories have been shared by generations of jews and christians....it is a shame, therefore, that on sunday mornings the walls of jericho never fall (jos 6:20) and that david’s cry: ‘o my son absalom, my son, my son, absalom!’ (2 sm 18:33) is never heard.”34 this plea is not simply a cry for more “biblical literacy” about famous stories such as these (although that would be a welcome development). the criticism becomes more startling and incisive when one looks for the patriarchs and matriarchs in the lectionary. how can the lectionary committee claim to present a “more representative portion” of the bible without isaac, rebekah, jacob, rachel, leah, esau, and joseph? the omission of the jacob-esau stories is especially troubling for those involved in jewish-christian dialogue, since in recent years, the relationship of these two brothers has been adapted analogically for the purpose of jewish-christian understanding.35 but for the analogical adaptations of this story to take root in the catholic imagination, catholics in the pews first need to hear the original story! in short, if jewish-christian dialogue in part depends on our shared commitment to the bible, then the lectionary hinders our quest more than it helps. the correspondence of old testament and gospel in ordinary time, the old testament readings are chosen out of some supposed correspondence with that day’s 34 sundberg, “limitations,” 18. 35 among many recent examples, mary c. boys, has god only one blessing? judaism as a source of christian self-understanding (new york: paulist press, 2000); and daniel boyarin, dying for god: martyrdom and the making of christianity and judaism (stanford, ca: stanford university press, 1999), 1-6. gospel reading. the way in which the readings correspond is, as the pbc document stated above, symbolic of the jewish-christian relationship. the correspondence of the two testaments is often discussed in simplistic terms: law and gospel or prophecy and fulfillment. i prefer to use the four categories outlined by laurence hull stookey, an american liturgical scholar. having four categories allows us to think beyond a false dichotomy that sees only two kinds of christian texts – those that are supersessionist and those that are not. stookey’s descriptions in their entirety follow in table 3. he states them to analyze typological hermeneutics in the new testament and in the contemporary christian pulpit. for him, the labels a and b refer to the antitype and the type in a relationship of correspondence between two stories. for my essay, a and b stand for the old testament and gospel readings in the roman catholic lectionary. table 3: four possible relationships between ot and gospel readings36 1. revolutionary displacement b is utterly superior to a. b supplants a and reveals the weaknesses and deficiencies in a. b could not have arisen out of a. the emergence of b is an obviating judgment upon a. hence b displaces a. 2. revelationary replacement b is so virtually identical to a as to have been predicted by the existence of a. a “prefigures” b in an obvious way. the emergence of b renders a an obsolete precursor, but b’s role is to fulfill rather than to judge a. b replaces a in every way that counts, without brutally displacing a. 36 adapted from laurence hull stookey, “marcion, typology, and lectionary preaching,” worship 66 (1992), 251-62. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 89-102 peppard, “do we share a book?” 99 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art9 3. evolutionary progress b evolves from a, though b may surprise us in its coming. the emergence of b may even enable us to see a in a new and fuller light. yet b is a progressive evolution and thus is more advanced than a. however, both can exist together without b displacing or replacing a. 4. complementarity b is closely related to a, indeed develops from a, as in the third option. but no judgment is made equating development with positive progress. a and b co-exist as closely linked and complementary entities. in short, category 1 equates to what we often call “supersessionism.” category 4 encapsulates the complementarity of a and b; there is no sense that one is better than the other. but categories 2 and 3 helpfully fill out the areas in between, which in fact is where many of our lectionary pairings reside.37 i have applied stookey’s 37 i acknowledge that, here and elsewhere, it may be misleading to say a text “resides” in an “established” relationship to another text, since there must always be readers and preachers who give these static texts meaning and make them dynamic for new interpretive contexts. indeed, one of stookey’s points is that, even in lectionary churches, preachers play a big role in relating the old and new testaments. nevertheless, the framers of the lectionary play a prior and bigger role by focusing the available interpretations that readers and preachers give to these texts. they are like curators of an art gallery who shape the viewers’ interpretations of the art by their juxtapositions of the works on display. the viewer does have some interpretive freedom, but the curator has established relationships among the works that are difficult to ignore. the preacher, like a tour guide, may help the viewers see things they would not see on their own, but in the gallery of the sunday lectionary, the museum never changes and there are no traveling exhibits. categories to the lectionary in ordinary time, to see what kind of relationships the lectionary establishes when it is not bound by other liturgical traditions. table 4 summarizes the results of using these four categories to classify the correspondence implied by the lectionary in ordinary time.38 table 4: category of correspondence between ot and gospel readings implied by the lectionary in ordinary time cat 1 cat 2 cat 3 cat 4 ambiguous year a 0 9 6 14 5 year b 4 14 5 8 3 year c 1 7 7 14 5 total 5 30 18 36 13 i will provide and explain one example of each category, to give a sense of how they differ. the readings for sunday b-6 exemplify category 1. the gospel reading is mark 1:4045, in which jesus heals a leper. the old testament reading contains two short sections from leviticus 13, which explain laws revealed to moses and aaron concerning lepers. the reading skips over all the nuances of the legal code and, in the end, declares that the unclean leper must live outside of the camp. the actions of jesus are clearly intended to displace the prescriptions of the levitical law. 38 the application of these categories to the lectionary is based on my own judgment. but even if other readers disagree about a few choices, the general trends should hold. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 89-102 peppard, “do we share a book?” 100 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art9 sunday a-21 provides a good category 2. matthew 16:1320 expresses simon peter’s confession, jesus’ calling him the rock of the church, and jesus’ giving him the keys to the kingdom, symbolizing the power of binding and loosing. isaiah 22:19-23 recounts an oracle about a certain eliakim, son of hilkiah, who will receive the key of the house of david, with the power to open and shut with certitude. the keys given to peter have not “brutally displaced” the key given to eliakim, but peter’s keys render eliakim “an obsolete precursor.” eliakim’s key prefigures peter’s, but while the former’s key only functioned for a brief period, the latter’s key has eternal authority. category 3 can be seen in sunday c-17.39 the gospel reading (luke 11:1-13) is luke’s teaching on prayer, including the “our father” and the saying of “ask, seek, knock.” what does the lectionary prescribe from the old testament? the narrative of abraham’s dialogue with god about the fate of sodom (genesis 18:20-32). on one hand, this narrative cannot be reduced to the concept of “prayer.” it is more about “theodicy” or “mercy and justice” than “prayer.” on the other hand, construing this narrative as a “prayer” avoids the blunt fact that sodom was subsequently destroyed! the intercession of abraham was a failure while the prayer of jesus’ disciples will be successful. both types of intercession “can exist together,” but jesus’ teaching on prayer is couched as a “progressive evolution” over abraham’s method. sunday a-18 provides a category 4 example. the gospel is matthew’s parable of the great banquet (14:13-21), in which the invited guests are too busy to attend, and the master extends the invitation to all the marginalized around town. the old testament pairs isaiah 55:1-3, which begins: 39 the peculiarities of this pairing were highlighted for me by nelson, “reading texts,” 99. “all who are thirsty, come to the water! you who have no money, come, receive grain and eat.” the listeners are also promised that “i will renew with you the everlasting covenant.” these readings complement each other. not only does the old testament reading characterize the radical offer of sustenance in jesus’ parable, it also promises to renew the everlasting covenant. the readings “co-exist as closely linked and complementary entities.” in my reading of the pbc document, category 1 is totally discouraged or even forbidden in catholic hermeneutics. category 2 is questionable at best. the document overall prefers some combination of categories 3 and 4. the good news is that over half the pairings in ordinary time are based on categories 3 and 4. but let us not avoid the bad news of how many examples of categories 1 and 2 exist in the lectionary. year b is especially distanced from catholic doctrine, when over half the pairings correspond through category 1 or 2.40 does the catholic church promote such a large discrepancy between doctrine and practice in other aspects of its ministry? what can be done to bring the lectionary in line with current catholic doctrine? reform can begin with either individual selections or the entire sequence of ordinary time. as i mentioned above, the protestant “consultation on common texts” disapproved of many of the old testament lections in categories 1 or 2. they took over much of the roman lectionary from advent through easter, but in ordinary time, they introduced semicontinuous reading of the great old testament narratives. gerald sloyan endorses this also, from a catholic perspective. he gives five reasons for a lectionary that emphasizes semicontinuous reading over typological 40 the gospel of mark, the guiding text of ordinary time in year b, is not particularly supersessionist. the revised common lectionary pairs mark differently, one example of which i provide in the next paragraph. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 89-102 peppard, “do we share a book?” 101 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art9 correspondence: “the earliest tradition, the confusion caused by the brevity and apparent non-relevance of the present first readings, the seeming reduction of the entire testament to a preparation for jesus only, the making available to hearers of a fuller biblical heritage than now, and the possibility that the liturgical churches can be bible churches.”41 to see what one change can do, consider the pairing on sunday b-6, which was my example of category 1. in place of the legal passage from leviticus about lepers, the protestant revised common lectionary substitutes 2 kings 5:1-14, the story of naaman the leper and elisha.42 this change solves most of the problems mentioned so far. it replaces a category 1 pairing with a 3 or 4; it adds some captivating narrative material from a previously neglected part of the old testament; it doesn’t propagate a negative stereotype of judaism; and it narrates the identity of god as sustainer and healer in a jewish context. this is only one possible solution, and i am sure many more creative solutions would arise, if the church gave the opportunity to a team of clergy, liturgists, and biblical scholars. the catholic church does not need to abandon the principle of thematic correspondence or, far worse, the centrality of the paschal mystery in order to reform its lectionary. rather, the changes should develop organically from the church’s own teaching, taking into account the current state of biblical scholarship as already expressed by the vatican’s own chosen scholars (the pbc). the changes will be challenging, beginning from the aforementioned tension between the theocentric bible and the christocentric liturgical year. this tension was already present for reformers of the lectionary and the larger liturgical economy well before the recent pbc document. and now the recent document has complicated the task by reconsidering the role 41 sloyan, “some suggestions,” 530-2. 42 this example was briefly discussed also in stookey, “marcion,” 257-8. of the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible. therefore, reform of the lectionary will require an ability to compromise, that is, to balance the theological centrality of the paschal mystery with the hermeneutical principles articulated by the pbc. but even if coherence between the catholic church’s doctrine and practice is a laborious goal to achieve, it should not be a radical one. and there is no lack of ingenuity in this people of god, over one billion strong.43 conclusion this past year has been filled with celebrations of nostra aetate, a document. it is a document created by human beings that attempts to rectify a long history of human misunderstanding and atrocity. those of us involved in jewish-christian relations know how this document has spawned many other documents which advance its cause. having done research on the impact of nostra aetate, and having learned of the broad effects of the document dabru emet in poland, for example, i would never question the importance and relevance of generating, disseminating and discussing documents such as these.44 they are constitutive and representative of jewish-christian dialogue. 43 at the nostra aetate today conference in rome, bishop luis del castillo suggested that catholics cannot stand by and idly wait for the issues raised in this paper to be resolved by lectionary reform. many dioceses offer brief commentaries on lectionary passages for the laity in advance of each week’s mass. while thoroughgoing reform would be ideal, these brief commentaries could be revised more quickly to cohere with the pbc document’s perspective on the old testament. in addition, i should mention a recent book based on the revised common lectionary: ronald j. allen and clark m. williamson, preaching the gospels without blaming the jews: a lectionary commentary (louisville: westminster john knox press, 2004). 44 see stanislaw krajewski, “dabru emet in poland: a personal account” <http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=1968>. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 89-102 peppard, “do we share a book?” 102 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art9 however, i want to conclude with a quotation from abraham joshua heschel that caused me to reconsider my priorities in jewish-christian dialogue. his words remind me that there is one primary set of documents – the book that we share, the hebrew bible and old testament – whose words unite us in a shared pursuit more than any curial document can. in 1966 heschel commented on the significance of nostra aetate and dei verbum: and finally, one other word as a friend, as a person who prays for the spiritual health and integrity of christians, i am particularly delighted with the new emphasis on the study of the hebrew bible. i think the renewal of biblical studies encouraged by the document on scripture is to me, as a jew, of equal importance. all i would like to see is that the world should open its mind and heart to the words of the prophets, and then there will be no need for documents on jews or others.45 i would extend heschel’s insight to the lectionary: if the lectionary is reformed to represent the old testament more accurately, faithfully, and “lavishly”; if the great narratives and writings are given time to reveal the active identity of god as creator, reconciler, and consummator; and if the prophets are allowed to address the gathered assemblies not only as fore-tellers but also as forth-tellers; then we will not need as much discussion of how to implement nostra aetate. christians will know through their liturgy that they share a book and a hope with the jews. 45 quoted from an interreligious discussion in vatican ii: an interfaith appraisal, ed john h. miller (notre dame: university of notre dame press, 1966), 373-4. scjr 16, no. 1 (2021): 1-4 christopher stroup the christians who became jews: acts of the apostles and ethnicity in the roman city (new haven: yale university press, 2020), hardcover, 240 pp. drew j. strait dstrait@ambs.edu anabaptist mennonite biblical seminary, elkhart, in 46517 luke’s attitude toward and portrayal of jews and judaism in acts remains a contested topic in the history of interpretation. the pendulum swings across a wide range of studies arguing that acts is proor anti-jewish (or for some, even antisemitic). christopher stroup’s the christians who became jews complexifies this debate by arguing that luke identifies “all jesus followers, both jews and nonjews, as jewish” (2). stroup thus seeks to avoid this debate, with its assumption that luke stands outside the jewish community, by assessing luke’s posture toward jews and judaism as if he was involved in an intra-jewish dispute. indeed, for stroup, “followers of jesus do not make up just another jewish community; rather, being a jesus follower is a better way of being jewish…” (2). to substantiate this thesis stroup offers a methodology that is both sophisticated and generative. first, stroup draws heavily on denise kimber buell’s pioneering work on “ethnic reasoning” to animate how ethnic, religious, civic, and cultural identities shape luke’s rhetoric of peoplehood. here, stroup’s work is exemplary in pushing back against generations of scholars who understood christian identity as strictly religious and non-ethnic. second, stroup effectively draws on a recent trend among scholars of acts (such as laura nasrallah, drew billings, and myself) to bring material culture into conversation with luke’s discursive world. because both worlds “participate in the same ethnic discourse,” stroup moves the discussion beyond literary culture and considers the impact of materiality on everyday life in greco-roman civic space (11). the cumulative impact of this methodology is seen in all three goals of the book: (1) to bring acts into conversation with the ways roman-era urban religious activity functioned to classify ethnic identity; (2) to show that acts portrays jews in hybrid and complex ways rather than as an ethnically homogenous group, “the jews”; and (3) to demonstrate how acts portrays paul’s “movements through roman civic landscapes in ways that strait: christopher stroup’s the christians who became jews 2 privilege christians as a unified and legitimate embodiment of jewishness within the polis” (3). in chapter one, stroup presents his views on the authorship, date, purpose, and provenance of acts. here he follows an increasing number of scholars who date acts near the beginning of the second century. while stroup acknowledges the narrative continuity of luke-acts, he also acknowledges the different contexts in which the books were written. for example, the gospel luke uses the word ἰουδαῖος five times (which stroup translates as “jew” rather than as “judean” [12]), while in acts he uses the word seventy-nine times. the prominence of jews in acts, according to stroup, reflects the author’s concern with framing jewish identity in the diaspora, where stroup believes “jewishness” was “more hotly contested” than in the land of israel (19). drawing parallels to elite greeks during the second sophistic, stroup argues that a major purpose of acts is to legitimate christians’ place in the city based “on the way that they honored the god of israel” (20). in this sense, acts is profoundly urban and a discourse embedded in the interrelated and overlapping relationship between subjects’ religious piety, ethnic identities, and the city’s prosperity (22). the chapter concludes with a lively research history on jews and judaism in acts from hans conzelmann (who reads acts as anti-jewish) to jacob jervell (who reads acts as pro-jewish) (23-35). stroup argues forcefully that scholars between these poles reduce christianity and judaism to a theological / religious activity divorced from ethnic reasoning and civic identity. the result is a minimization of the ways luke uses religious activities to legitimate jesus followers’ place within judaism (see 35-39 for examples of this ethnic reasoning within acts). in chapter two stroup brings luke’s list of nations in acts 2:5-13 (the gathering at pentecost) into conversation with roman-era lists by jews and non-jews of other nations. stroup animates the roman imperial dimensions of pompeiian and augustan lists, wherein literary and material representations of conquered ethnē are portrayed as pacified and subordinated to roman power. he discusses virgil’s aeneid but oddly omits the list of nations in the res gestae divi augusti. such ethnic reasoning could also be employed by subordinates, such as philo of alexandria, who remap the empire around jerusalem in the legatio ad gaium in order to promote jewish piety toward ancestral tradition throughout the diaspora (45-46). the sebasteion complex at aphrodisias, on the other hand, lists conquered nations to legitimate its own perceived privileged place in the empire, along with its shared piety toward its ancestral god. indeed, this “hybrid model of ethnic reasoning … was at the same time pro-roman and pro-aphrodisian” (51). similarly, stroup argues that luke’s list of nations presents jews in a hybrid way in order to illuminate ethnic difference among jews while simultaneously legitimating “the jewishness of christian non-jews later in acts” (54). in chapter three stroup argues that the jerusalem council’s ethnic reasoning affirms the jewishness of christian non-jews by employing similar logic to that of the salutaris foundation inscription at ephesus. he justifies this comparative analysis by noting that the inscription was composed within a decade or two of acts’ composition and that both texts take place in an urban context, including ephesus 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) (71; see acts 19:1-41). salutaris, a wealthy roman benefactor, uses artemis, the ephesian council, and the tribal system (even adding a roman tribe to the ephesian tribal structure) to “situate himself as simultaneously ephesian and roman” (80). with similar ethnic reasoning, stroup writes, luke appeals to the authority of israel’s god, the concept of a jewish proselyte, the spirit’s movement, and the authority of james to show that christian non-jews “can be both jewish and whatever else they once were. like the proselytes, their identity is hybrid, but jewish nonetheless” (80). stroup’s final chapter focuses on the relationship between ethnic reasoning and geographical movement through the greco-roman city. to legitimate the power of rome, the salutaris foundation commissioned twenty-nine statues of artemis, ephesian tribes, and roman sebastoi, which were used to regulate artemis’s movement through the city during regular processions. in this way, roman benefactors were able to assert “a visual link between ephesus and its mythic history that emphasized the present power of rome” (101). stroup then turns to acts, and to paul’s travels through lystra, thessalonica, and corinth, wherein paul’s ethnic reasoning asserts the jewishness of christians while positioning certain jews as a destabilizing force in the city. these polemics are both intra-jewish and apologetic, legitimating christian jewishness as the ideal jewish community for the romanera polis. the christians who became jews represents a sophisticated and genuinely innovative approach to understanding acts’ literary representation of jews and judaism. stroup successfully undermines the pervasive binary between ethnic jews and universal / non-ethnic christians, along with the pro/ anti-jewish dichotomy regarding luke’s views by showing that “one can be both jewish and carian, both jewish and cretan, both jewish and roman, or a non-jewish jewish proselyte … and still qualify for the label ‘jew’ in ancient civic space” (129). more provocatively, so-called “‘christian universalism’ should be understood as a particular form of ‘jewish universalism’” (132). the study will also serve as a helpful conversation partner for those doing work on ethnic reasoning in the roman world and for those who use material culture and the epigraphic record for comparative analysis with literary texts from antiquity. i have three minor criticisms. first, i wish stroup would have provided a translation of parts of the inscription from the salutaris foundation. second, stroup acknowledges the wealth of salutaris and roman immigrants at ephesus but does not interrogate how that privilege allowed them to manipulate their social status and ethnic identity. i would like to have heard stroup reflect more on the impact of power, privilege, and social status on ethnic reasoning in the greco-roman world, including its presence or lack thereof in acts. finally, while stroup acknowledges “an incipient supersessionist impulse” in acts, i was left wondering at what point intra-jewish invective materializes into a form of anti-judaism (2, 132)? more nuance is needed here, especially since, as stroup acknowledges, acts is routinely used in the history of interpretation for supersessionist purposes. indeed, ethically speaking, can we separate reception history from luke’s portrayal of jews and judaism in acts? strait: christopher stroup’s the christians who became jews 4 stroup is to be commended for this learned book. all future studies of jews and judaism in acts must engage with it. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): lasker r1-2 berger, persecution, polemic, and dialogue lasker r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr david berger persecution, polemic, and dialogue: essays in jewish-christian relations (boston: academic studies press, 2010), hardcover, xiv + 437 pp. reviewed by daniel j. lasker, ben-gurion university of the negev and boston college over the years, david berger has earned for himself the well-deserved reputation as being one of the most thoughtful and insightful students of the medieval jewish-christian encounter. his works include the seminal the jewish-christian debate in the high middle ages (1979), which incorporates an edition and annotated translation of nizzahon yashan, one of the most significant, and acerbic, medieval jewish anti-christian polemics (the introduction to which is reproduced in this book). yet berger is not solely an uninvolved scholar, and he has taken an active role in contemporary discussions between jews and christians (as well as co-authoring a short polemical treatise against “jewish christianity”). in general, berger advocates a relationship which is respectful but does not require a blurring of theological commitments or reciprocal doctrinal concessions. an important spokesman for american centrist orthodoxy, berger is now the dean of the bernard revel graduate school of jewish studies at yeshiva university, after a long career at brooklyn college. this collection of previously published essays, 22 in number and the product of 45 years of scholarship, advocacy, and introspection, examines numerous historical and current aspects of the jewish-christian encounter. persecution, polemic, and dialogue is divided into two main parts. after a short introduction and an overview of anti-semitism, the longer first part of the book (“the middle ages”) is devoted mainly to “persecution” and “polemic,” whereas the second part (“modern and contemporary times”) examines “dialogue” in its various forms. the articles in the first part include technical investigations of literary borrowings (“gilbert crispin, alan of lille, and jacob ben reuben: a study in the transmission of medieval polemic”), studies on one particular polemical author or text (bernard of clairvaux; peter damian; moses ha-kohen of tordesillas’s ezer ha-emunah), and broad overviews of specific topics (images and destiny of gentiles in ashkenazic literature; new approaches to the study of anti-semitism; the uses of history in the medieval jewish polemic). the second part starts with the views of jesus and early christianity held by the jewish historian and biblical scholar yehezkel kaufman but quickly jumps to such present-day issues as perspectives on dialogue; dabru emet, a jewish response to christian attempts at rapprochement with judaism; and mel gibson’s the passion. demonstrating his erudition, berger treats both the historical and contemporary studies with clarity of expression and sensitivity to the deeper issues involved. in a short review it is impossible to discuss every article or even to give an adequate overview of the entire book, but i would like to write a few words about two essays, one from each part. berger’s discussion of twelfth-century christian anti-jewish polemical literature (“mission to the jews and jewish-christian contacts in the polemical literature of the high middle ages”) is a welcome corrective to the traditional historiography that the jewish critique of christianity is review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): lasker r1-2 berger, persecution, polemic, and dialogue lasker r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr solely a response to the christian mission. even berger himself is not immune to the traditional narrative as he writes in a different context: “jews had no internal motivation for writing polemics against christians; in times or places where christianity is not a threat, we cannot expect jews to be concerned with the refutation of its claims” (p. 79). yet, in the past few decades, more and more evidence has become available that jews did criticize christian doctrines even when not threatened by christian missionaries. berger demonstrates that christians wrote anti-jewish polemics in the twelfth century as a response to a jewish challenge, not as part of an active missionary campaign. the evidence that berger accumulates to support his revisionist view is important for a rewriting of the history of the jewish critique of christianity. berger’s negative response to dabru emet might be read merely as a reflection of the orthodox reluctance to engage in theological dialogue with, or to make concessions to, christianity. that would be too simplistic a reading, however. berger’s concern for historical accuracy, as well as theological integrity, compels him to analyze the weaknesses implicit in the jewish statement concerning christianity. he is troubled by an assumption that dialogue requires theological reciprocity and relativism, while often descending into demands that one side or the other be obligated to hold certain religious beliefs as a pre-condition for fruitful discussions. berger takes judaism, and christianity, much too seriously to justify these almost inevitable by-products of dialogue. thus, despite his evaluation that dabru emet “is in many ways an admirable statement,” he was not willing to be a signatory to it or to endorse it after the fact, as unpopular as that decision might have been in certain circles (p. 392). in light of the high quality of berger’s work, it is too bad that these essays were not updated. thus, articles written before berger published his edition of nizzahon yashan refer to an older, inferior printing which is not easily available (e.g., pp. 213-215). furthermore, despite berger’s general separation of scholarship and apologetics, sometimes his own strong religious convictions are not totally put aside, as in his defense of nahmanides’ account of the disputation of barcelona (pp. 199-208). despite these caveats, this is a very valuable collection. berger sets a very high standard for all of us who would analyze this controversial literature. at the same time, he demonstrates that objective scholars do not have to be neutral when confronted by the existential issues raised by the subject of their inquiries. the mix of historical and contemporary issues raised by this collection demonstrates that david berger’s commitment to both scholarship and theological integrity has been a hallmark of a most productive career. courtesy, confrontation, cooperation: jewish-christian/catholic relations in the united states studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 courtesy, confrontation, cooperation: jewish-christian/catholic relations in the united states mary christine athans, b.v.m., university of st. thomas (mn) presented at the john cardinal cody colloquium, loyola university chicago, march 16, 2010 the original conference proceeding was expanded into the following article, published in the u.s. catholic historian issue on "ecumenism" (spring 2010), pp. 107-134. the author is grateful for permission to reprint the article here. introduction one of my early experiences in jewish-christian relations was an exciting venture in arizona in the 1970s when i served as executive director of a cluster of five protestant churches, one catholic church and two synagogues (one conservative and one reform), known as the north phoenix corporate ministry. my task was coordinating the interfaith activities of twenty-five priests, ministers and rabbis, and involved lay people from the seven congregations. we developed programs in education, social justice, liturgy and communications and became a model for ecumenical/interfaith groups in the west. we grew in remarkable relationships–many of which continue to this day. i preached my first sermon in a synagogue in 1970–and was known as either ―the temple nun‖ or ―the synagogue sister‖ depending on whether i was in the reform or the conservative jewish congregation. weekly, with very few exceptions, we had wonderful wild clergy luncheons! they consisted of prayer, kosher food, business, theological discussion and a lot of laughter. on one occasion, rabbi albert plotkin announced to the group: ―if jesus came to phoenix, arizona, he would not go to any of your churches! he would come to my synagogue! he was a good reform rabbi!‖ after a hearty laugh, we all agreed with him. prior to vatican ii most christians would have been taken aback by such a statement. what is the american experience of jewish-catholic relations? it is only a slice of the larger picture of jewish-christian relations in the united states. therefore, some consideration of protestant-jewish relations is required for context. in this essay i will (1) briefly sketch a tapestry background of jewish-christian relations in the united states to vatican ii; (2) discuss the second vatican council and the significant relationship of catholics and jews as it has evolved in the united states to 1995; and (3) reflect on how jewish-catholic relations in three areas— academia, religious institutional structures, and ―grass roots‖ experiences—have allowed the united states to make unique contributions to the dialogue. a sketch of jewish-christian relations in the united states to vatican ii the early immigration: 1654-1820. jewish-christian relations in the united states are unique in the world. the united states evolved from a protestant vision of pilgrims in 1620 and the conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 puritans in 1630 who believed they were destined to be ―god‘s new israel.‖ catholics arrived in the english colonies as a group when their founders reached the shores of maryland in 1634. jews disembarked in new amsterdam (later new york city) in 1654 and were not welcomed by the dutch. from the outset it was clear that catholics and jews were distinct minorities in a protestant culture. at the time of the american revolution there were only about 3,000 jews and approximately 30,000 catholics in a population of 3,000,000 protestants. 1 although meager in numbers, both catholics and jews fought in the revolutionary war and the war of 1812 and also held some positions of moderate importance in the u.s. government. german and irish immigration: 1820-1880. the predominantly irish and german immigrants who arrived in the united states in the period 1820-1880 consisted largely of those who were seeking opportunities in the new world which were closed off to them in the old. jews who had received citizenship and other rights as a result of emancipation in 1791 during the french revolution found themselves suffering reaction when kings and queens and the pope were restored to their thrones in 1815 and efforts were made to return to the old order. for example, to control the number of jews in bavarian towns, a law was passed to limit the number of jews who could contract legal marriages. this inspired a mass emigration to america in 1836. in the years 18461851, over a million people left ireland due largely to the potato feminine, the majority coming to the united states. 2 according to james o‘toole, almost 800,000 irish and more than 400,000 germans, including a substantial number of german jews, moved to the united states in the 1840s. 3 whereas the earliest jewish immigrants in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries had been both sephardic (spanish speaking) and askenazic (german speaking), many of them in the merchant class, the mid-nineteenth century arrivals from german lands were often artisans, peddlers or operators of dry goods stores. most jews settled in communities rather than on farms, many of them in the growing cities of the eastern seaboard although some ventured to the midwest. they were often accepted as german-americans who practiced judaism, and were welcomed into german-american clubs. congregation mickve israel of savannah, georgia was erected on land given to the congregation as a gift by the city and at the dedication on july 21, 1820, the mayor and the aldermen marched in the procession and played an important part. 4 isaac leeser, a prominent leader in early american judaism attended the dedication of many synagogues and was aware of the presence of non-jews on these occasions. 5 states varied in their acceptance of jews. for example, maryland‘s first state constitution in 1776 required that any office holder profess ―belief in the christian religion,‖ disallowing jews and some deists. prior to 1778, those who denied the trinity could be executed for their disbelief; after that date they would only have their tongues bored through. among other 1 jay p. dolan, the american catholic experience (new york: doubleday, 1985), p. 128 cites 4,000 catholics at the time of the american revolution. jewish sources vary. rufus learsi, the jews in america: a history (new york: ktav, 1972), p. 29 approximates between 2,400-2,700 jews. 2 ibid., 128. 3 james m. o‘toole, the faithful: a history of catholics in america (cambridge: harvard university press, 2008), 9798. 4 joseph l. blau and salo w. baron, the jews in the united states 1790-1840: a documentary history (new york: columbia university press, 1963), iii: 686-687. 5 jacob radar marcus, memoirs of american jews, 1775-1865 (philadelphia: the jewish publication society of america, 1955), ii, 67. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 restrictions, jews were not allowed to serve as jurors or as officers in the militia, and had to pay taxes to support christian institutions. efforts were made as early as 1797 to petition the general assembly for jewish equality, but ―the jew bill,‖ as it was known—allowing for equality for jews in maryland—was not passed until january 5, 1826. jacob rader marcus wrote, ―the catholic bishop of charleston, john england, who never forgot that he had suffered discrimination in his native ireland, gloried in the emancipation of maryland‘s jews.‖ 6 when jews were persecuted in damascus in 1840, a general meeting of citizens was held in charleston, south carolina on august 28 to protest the brutality and one of the speakers was bishop john england. 7 however, north carolina did not allow jews to hold high office until 1868, and new hampshire until 1876. 8 efforts to proselytize jews were common, but did not go without challenge. frequently, crusades for the conversion of jews were organized by jews newly converted to christianity. 9 isaac leeser complained, ―among the many missionaries whom i have met, the converted jews were rascals without exception. to my regret, many of these returned later to the jewish fold. the christian missionaries i found occasionally companionable and well-meaning.‖ 10 in the pre-civil war period anti-catholic nativism was at its height. jewish-christian relations were relatively calm. protestant-catholic interactions became volatile beginning with the burning of the ursuline convent in charlestown, massachusetts in 1834, incited by the revival preaching of the reverend lyman beecher. a convent of the sisters of charity of the blessed virgin mary in philadelphia was burned by anti-catholic nativists may 6, 1844. 11 fuel was added to the fire by nativist propaganda stories of a so-called nun, maria monk, published in a monumental volume the awful disclosures of the hotel dieu nunnery of montreal (1836) which created a storm of controversy. three hundred thousand copies were sold before the civil war. 12 a respected jewish woman in philadelphia, rebecca gratz, perhaps summed it up best in a letter to her brother benjamin in lexington, kentucky, july 12, 1844: the present outlook is an attack on the catholic church, and there is so much violent animosity between that sect and the protestants that unless the strong arm of power is raised to sustain the provisions of the constitution of the u.s. securing to every citizen the privilege of worshipping god according to his own conscience, america will be no longer the happy asylum of the oppressed and the secure dwelling place of religion. she offered very specific directives to the christian clergy of whom she was clearly critical! she suggested that if they would stay in their pulpits and practice what they preached, the goals of religion would be better accomplished: intolerance has been too prevalent as of late, and many of the clergy of different denominations are chargeable with its growth. the whole spirit and office of religion is to make men merciful and humble and just. if such teaching was preached by the pastors to 6 jacob rader marcus, united states jewry 1776-1985 (detroit: wayne state university press, 1989), i: 500-504, 564. 7 blau and baron, iii: 942. 8 blau and. baron, i: 17. see also learsi, 49. 9 blau and baron, iii: 701-773. 10 cited in jacob rader marcus, united states jewry 1776-1985, ii: 108. 11 ann m. harrington, creating community: mary frances clarke and her companions (dubuque, iowa: sisters of charity, bvm, 2004), 53. 12 roy allen billington, the protestant crusade 1800-1860 (chicago: quadrangle press, 1964), 98-108. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 their own congregations and the charge of others left to their own clergy, god would be better served and human society governed more in accordance to his holy commandments. 13 rebecca gratz, prominent jewish woman of philadelphia, who commented perceptively on the nativist riots of the 1840s. photo courtesy of the american jewish archives, cincinnati, oh. although there were occasional episodes of anti-jewish discrimination in this era, the problems were largely hostility and sometimes violence between protestants and catholics. 13 rebecca gratz to her brother benjamin gratz july 12, 1844, american jewish archives, vol. 2 (june 1953), 351. i am grateful to kevin proffit of the american jewish archives in cincinnati for sending me a copy of this letter. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 the growth of reform judaism in the united states is almost synonymous with rabbi isaac mayer wise who arrived from bohemia in 1846. staunchly in the reform tradition, his goal was to ―americanize‖ judaism. in 1854 he began publication of a weekly newspaper in english, the american israelite. by 1873 he founded the union of american hebrew congregations, and in 1875 he opened hebrew union college in cincinnati, ohio for the education of future rabbis. 14 reform jews affirmed a statement in 1885 known as the ―pittsburgh platform‖ which stated: ―we consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to palestine nor sacrificial worship under the laws of aaron...‖ 15 by 1894 the union prayer book, drastically edited with hebrew almost completely eliminated, was being used by people in the pews. that this took place while thousands of eastern european orthodox jews were arriving on the east coast of the united states was a recipe for conflict. immigrants from eastern europe: 1880-1924. the east european immigration during this time was largely catholic, jewish and eastern orthodox. new arrivals came from poland, russia, greece and italy. languages, costumes, customs, and religious practices hitherto unknown in the united states suddenly flooded the major ports of disembarkation on the east coast. during this era of the ―gilded age,‖ and the ―social gospel,‖ protestant americans continued to believe they were the chosen people in a promised land. fear that an invasion of foreigners would ―pollute‖ the environment of a ―christian america‖ contributed to waves of xenophobia culminating in the restriction of immigration in 1924. the word ―anti-semitism,‖ coined by a german journalist named wilhelm marr in germany in the 1870s, is a misnomer in that ―semitic‖ is a designation for a family of languages, not a racial category. it became accepted, however, to describe hatred for jews for racial reasons. antisemitism, as opposed to anti-judaism (discrimination against jews for religious reasons), was in the ascendancy in the nineteenth century—an outgrowth of darwinian thought. there was an emphasis on ―racial purity‖ and the superiority of the nordic and anglo groups. as a result liberal jews who no longer believed or practiced their judaism were not exempt from restrictions. although signs such as ―no irish need apply‖ and similar types of discrimination were felt by other ethnic groups as well, the jews seemed to be in a special category. on one occasion, my father, a teenage immigrant from greece in the early 1900s, wandered into an irish neighborhood in chicago and was attacked by a gang because they thought he was a jew. when he assured them that he was greek and not jewish, they let him go! despite the incident, he married my beautiful irish mother some years later! even educated and wealthy jews were not considered for positions for which they were qualified, were not allowed to belong to exclusive clubs, and were not permitted to buy homes in ―restricted areas.‖ allusions to jewish connections to international monetary conspiracies, socialism, communism and zionism were common. stereotypes of the jew in novels and other popular writings were accentuated during this period. 16 those from the first wave of immigration often tried to distance themselves from newcomers. the ―uptown german jews‖ similar to ―the lace curtain irish‖ found themselves embarrassed by the newly arrived members of their own religious-ethnic groups at the turn of the century. with the pogroms of the early 1900s in russia, and the added influx of refugees, the jewish community accepted the necessity of supporting ―their own.‖ the american jewish committee was founded in 1906 for that purpose. 14 james g. heller, isaac mayer wise: his life, work and thought (new york: union of american hebrew congregations, 1965), 144. 15 nathan glazer, american judaism, 2 nd ed. rev. (chicago: university of chicago press, 1972), 41. 16 john higham, ―social discrimination against jews in america, 1830-1930,‖ in jewish experience in america v, ed. abraham karp (new york: ktav, 1969), 351. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 john higham in strangers in the land reflects on american nativism in the period 1860-1925 with the following helpful distinction: generically, nativism was a defensive type of nationalism, but the defense varied as the nativist lashed out sometimes against a religious peril, sometimes against a revolutionary peril, and sometimes against a racial peril. 17 in the early twentieth century, jews probably exceeded other groups by falling into all three of these categories. jews were targets of the ―100 percent americanists‖ because of their ―race,‖ because of their religion, and because they were frequently identified with liberal revolutionary movements such as socialism and communism. world war i and after-opportunities for cooperation. the idealism surrounding the entrance of the united states into world war i to ―make the world safe for democracy‖ provided a rare instance of protestant-catholic-jewish cooperation. the united effort of the federal council of churches (later the national council of churches of christ, nccc), the national catholic war council (later the national catholic welfare conference, ncwc), and the joint distribution committee (jdc), representing the various jewish groups, was an example to all of the beneficial effects of cooperation. collaborative efforts were made to supply chaplains to the armed forces and find support for refugees. in the post-war period, collaboration continued regarding social justice and labor issues. the social action department of the ncwc and its counterparts in the federal council of churches and the central conference of american rabbis made some progress in the need for reform in labor. 18 a new era in american ecumenical and interfaith life appeared to have begun. as the 1920s progressed, however, tensions increased. the activities of the ku klux klan, a largely protestant organization aimed at blacks, catholics and jews, created fear and mistrust. anti-catholic bigotry erupted during the campaign of 1928 when governor alfred e. smith of new york became the first catholic candidate of a major political party to run for president of the united states. it became evident that nativistic tendencies were still alive and well. the formation of the national conference of christians and jews (nccj) in 1928 19 was a direct response to the interracial and interreligious strife in the 1920s. charles evans hughes helped to bring the group into existence, but the leadership troika consisted of protestant newton d. baker, formerly in woodrow wilson‘s cabinet, catholic carlton j. h. hayes, former ambassador and professor of history at columbia university, and jewish member and industrialist roger strauss. dr. everett clinchy became the first executive director. the goals of the nccj were communication and education. the institution of the religious news service (rns) by the nccj aimed to close the communication gap by countering sensationalistic journalistic accounts of religious issues with objective reports. ―brotherhood week‖ became an annual event. panels of a priest, minister and rabbi traveled to various communities to discuss current religious problems and suggest possibilities for interfaith 17 john higham, strangers in the land: patterns of american nativism 1860-1925 (new york: atheneum, 1974), preface to the second edition, n.p. [2]. 18 glazer, 139. in 1923 they issued a joint statement attacking the seven day week and the twelve-hour day in the steel industry. 19 see ―interfaith at fifty,‖ (special issue), judaism (summer 1978), vol. 27, no. 3. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 cooperation. during world war ii such teams visited military camps, encouraging dialogue among service members. the story of ―the immortal chaplains‖—two protestant ministers, a catholic priest and a rabbi—who gave their life jackets to servicemen on the u.s. troopship dorchester as it was sinking off the coast of greenland february 3, 1943, and then remained on deck praying arm-in-arm as the ship went down became the image of what interfaith might be in the post-war period. 20 the nccj in the first thirty years, however, was mostly a protestant-jewish organization. the papal encyclical mortalium animos (1928) was a specific response by the catholic church articulating its unwillingness to participate in the life and work conference in stockholm (1925) or the faith and order conference in lausanne (1927). believing that it had all the truth, the catholic church found no need to dialogue. if unity was to be attained, it would be because others would see the light and come to rome. the leadership of the ncwc, although representing the u.s. bishops, was caught in ambivalence. they did not feel free to sign interfaith statements of the nccj—even one in the 1930s supporting the papal encyclical quadragesimo anno—for fear of challenging the authority of local bishops. 21 the organization became paralyzed in terms of efforts to speak in a united voice. the non-participation of catholics in the world council of churches (wcc) was made explicit on a local level when cardinal samuel stritch of chicago prohibited catholics from attending the wcc meeting in evanston, illinois in 1954. few could have anticipated that eleven years later the bishops at vatican ii would approve nostra aetate and open up a new era in interreligious relations. the jewish search for jesus. ironically, in the nineteenth century some jewish scholars began to explore the jewishness of jesus and see possibilities for dialogue with christians. with the enlightenment jewish scholars in germany began what samuel sandmel has called ―a jewish reclamation of jesus.‖ 22 abraham geiger (1810-1874), a primary advocate for reform judaism in germany, delivered a series of lectures in frankfurt in 1863-1864 in which he described jesus as part of a distinguished jewish history—―a pharisee who walked in the way of hillel.‖ 23 susannah heschel credits geiger as ―the first jew to subject christian texts to detailed historical analysis from an explicitly jewish perspective.‖ 24 influenced by geiger, joseph klausner published the first modern full-length history of jesus in hebrew yeshu ha-nostri in 1922. jesus is presented as an observant jew. the english translation, jesus of nazareth: his life, times and teachings appeared in 1925 and received criticism and commendation from both jews and christians. klausner stated: 20 see http://www.immortalchaplains.org/story/story.htm. accessed april 22, 2010. 21 maria mazzenga, ―condemning the nazis‘ krystallnacht: father maurice sheehy, the national catholic welfare conference, and the dissent of father charles coughlin,‖ u.s. catholic historian 26(4) (fall 2008): 75-77. 22 cited in matthew hoffman, from rebel to rabbi: reclaiming jesus and the making of modern jewish culture (stanford: stanford university press, 2007), 17. 23 cited in susannah heschel, ―the image of judaism in nineteenth century christian new testament scholarship in germany,‖ jewish encounters over the centuries: symbiosis, prejudice, holocaust, dialogue, eds. marvin perry and frederick. m. schweitzer (new york, peter lang, 1994), 227. 24 hoffman, 37. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 in his [jesus‘] ethical code there is a sublimity, distinctiveness and originality in form unparalleled in any other hebrew ethical code; neither is there any parallel to the remarkable art of his parables. 25 rabbi stephen s. wise, a prominent reform rabbi in the united states, enthusiastically endorsed klausner's work in a lecture at carnegie hall in new york in 1925. he stated emphatically that it marked a first chapter in a new literature—jews writing about jesus. he concluded: "thank god the time has come when men are allowed to be frank, sincere and truthful in their beliefs." 26 liberal christians and liberal jews began a conversation. just as jesus had seemed to be de-christologized by some christians, some liberal jews were convinced that the torah had to be de-legalized. a de-christologized jesus became a proto-reform jew—in fact—a good reform rabbi! there was great optimism that a new universal age was about to appear in america. little did jews in america or around the world realize how their lives would change in the decades ahead. between the world wars. protestants, catholics and jews moved into the 1930s searching for a deeper understanding of their own religious heritages, coupled with a desire to retain their own religious identity in a nation that professed religious pluralism. many protestants, emerging from the battles between liberals and fundamentalists as depicted in the scopes trial, discovered neo-orthodoxy, and were called back to their roots in the sixteenth century, epitomized in the writings of reinhold niebuhr. catholics, still feeling the scars of the ―americanism‖ and ―modernism‖ crises, welcomed the neo-thomistic revival which idealized the thirteenth century. social activist and theoretician msgr. john a. ryan, ―the right reverend new dealer,‖ played a leading role for catholics in this era. jews, many of whom believed the reform movement had become too liberal—especially when shrimp was served at a banquet at hebrew union college!—but were uncomfortable with orthodox jews who seemed unwilling to adapt to the new world, sought out a middle ground in the conservative movement and its offspring– reconstructionism, led by mordecai kaplan. if it had not been for the crash of 1929, resulting in economic depression, the rise of fascism and nazism in europe, and the advent of war, i believe that it is possible that the american experience of the ―triple melting pot‖ popularized by will herberg might have evolved in the 1930s instead of after world war ii. 27 a period of economic depression, however, is always a time to search for scapegoats. the bankers, whom most people assumed to be jewish, became prime candidates. fear of a communist takeover was also heightened, and again the jews were a target. in that volatile atmosphere father charles e. coughlin, the reverend gerald l. k. smith, reverend gerald winrod and other religio-political figures—the so-called ―demagogues of the depression‖—sowed the seeds of hate, suspicion, fear and distrust regarding jews. 28 ―the radio priest‖: father charles e. coughlin. perhaps no one poisoned the atmosphere regarding jewish-christian relations in this era as much as father charles e. coughlin whose radio addresses reached as many as forty million people from detroit, michigan on sunday 25 cited in geza vermes, jesus the jew (new york: macmillan, 1973), 224. 26 cited in david novak, jewish-christian dialogue: a jewish justification (new york: oxford university press, 1989), 78. 27 will herberg, protestant – catholic – jew: an essay in american religious sociology, revised ed. (new york: doubleday, 1960), 32 ff. herberg popularized ruby jo kennedy‘s thesis of the ―triple melting pot‖ which she had published in the journal of sociology (january 1944). 28 see david h. bennett, demagogues in the depression: american radicals and the union party, 1932-1936 (new brunswick, new jersey: rutgers university press, 1969). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 afternoons in the 1930s and early 1940s. coughlin was clearly a ―star‖ on the american scene and many catholics were thrilled to have a young attractive irish-american priest as their spokesman. three times he was on the cover of newsweek, and was treated as a celebrity in other magazines and newspapers. coughlin is credited with popularizing the papal social encyclicals (rerum novarum, 1891, and quadragesimo anno, 1931) supporting the rights of working people. unfortunately, it was later discovered that coughlin‘s own financial dealings contradicted some of what he was saying. coughlin was passionate in his devotion to franklin delano roosevelt in the presidential campaign of 1932 coining the expressions ―roosevelt or ruin‖ and ―the new deal is christ‘s deal.‖ after roosevelt was elected, however, the president did not look to coughlin for advice. rejected, coughlin joined the reverend gerald l. k. smith and dr. francis townsend to form the union party to run congressmen william lemke of north dakota against roosevelt in 1936. this gave coughlin a political platform to blame the jews as both the capitalists and communists who were leading the world astray. after roosevelt‘s re-election, coughlin‘s antipathy toward the jews increased. the impact of coughlin‘s antisemitic and anti-judaic sermons and radio addresses, particularly after 1938, is too lengthy to detail here. 29 important, however, is that in 1938 he discovered the writings of an irish theologian, holy ghost father denis fahey,c.s.sp., who provided him with a ―theological rationale‖ for his own distorted ideas. most disturbing was coughlin‘s fascination in his later years—moving beyond what fahey posited—regarding ―the mystical body of satan.‖ in coughlin‘s letters to fahey, that reference became connected explicitly to the jews. in a letter to fahey, coughlin suggested: ‖perhaps you could find room for a chapter or two relative to the mystical body of satan.‖ the ―radio priest‖ continued: ―to my mind, all those who are not with christ are against him—even the lukewarm; all those who are rejectors of christ are the chief factors in the mystical body of satan.‖ 30 it was the rejection of christ which precluded the possibility of the jew reaching god. coughlin theologized: in my concept of theology it is impossible for individuals or nations to adhere to god under the conditions of fallen nature except through the acceptance of christ…without christ, we can do nothing. judaism, which rejects christ entirely as mediator and the messiah, will devolve according to the teaching above expressed, into practical atheism. 31 some twelve years later coughlin wrote to the irish priest thanking him for an autographed copy of his book the kingship of christ and the conversion of the jewish nation, describing it as a ―wonderful work.‖ coughlin, who by this time had been ―silenced‖ for more than ten years, once again offered fahey a suggestion: ―it is my opinion that we need a book on the mystical body of satan.‖ on the question of the membership in the mystical body of christ and the mystical body of satan, coughlin‘s conclusion is explicated in one of the most telling paragraphs of his missive to fahey: 29 see mary christine athans, bvm, the coughlin-fahey connection: father charles e. coughlin, father denis fahey, c.s.sp., and religious anti-semitism in the united states 1938-1954 (new york: peter lang, 1991). 30 cited in athans, 188. charles e. coughlin to denis fahey, march 5, 1941. emphasis mine. 31 cited in athans, 188-189. coughlin to fahey, march 5, 1941. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 i suppose that by the use of dogmatic logic, we could conclude that all who reject christ must end up by being cut off from the father. definitely, those who have rejected christ beyond all doubt are those advocating the heresy of judaism, which rejects him in person; and the second heresy, which rejects him in word. possibly, the hindus, mohammedans [here the word ―protestantism‖ is hand-written in the margin of this typed letter, with an arrow pointing to this section], etc., have not formally rejected him, either in person or in word, to the extent the others just mentioned above have done. 32 from the progression of the letter, it is clear that the jews fall into a special category vis-à-vis the mystical body of satan because they have directly rejected jesus as the christ. coughlin‘s less severe interpretation regarding hindus and muslims was, apparently in an afterthought, extended to the protestants. the latter had not directly rejected christ so they are ―rescued‖ from membership in the diabolical corporation. fr. charles e. coughlin, whose antisemitic rhetoric poisoned jewish-catholic relations in the 1930s and 1940s. library of congress photo #208456762-1110273. the ―silencing‖ and impact of coughlin. coughlin‘s sympathy for hitler and his description of nazism as ―a defense mechanism against communism‖ even after the u.s. entered world war ii resulted in coughlin‘s weekly newspaper, social justice, having its mailing privileges revoked by the u.s. postal service. president roosevelt sent word to archbishop edward mooney of detroit that, if coughlin was not curtailed, he would be indicted under the espionage act of 1917. although coughlin accepted the directive of his archbishop he confided to fahey that his problems with the hierarchy were related to ―the almost universal ecclesiastical subservience to franklin d. roosevelt who is surrounded by high masons and dominated by crafty jews.‖ 33 32 cited in athans, 192-193. coughlin to fahey, may 27, 1953. 33 cited in coughlin to fahey, march 5, 1941. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 the ―radio priest‖ was silent on political issues after 1942 but continued as pastor of the shrine of the little flower until his retirement in 1966. although he wrote a few small volumes denouncing communism and questioning vatican ii, often with apocalyptic emphases, he lived mostly in seclusion. he died october 27, 1979 in birmingham, michigan. coughlin was a priest and a politician. at times he seemed to be more the latter than the former. although some members of the catholic hierarchy such as george cardinal mundelein of chicago spoke out against his tirades, according to canon law only a diocesan priest‘s own bishop could silence him. in an era when church-state relations were often a source of controversy, catholics were often portrayed as subservient to the vatican without real ―freedom of speech.‖ this may account for the hesitancy of some bishops to criticize coughlin. had coughlin‘s antipathy to the jews been primarily political and economic—because they were bolsheviks or bankers—it might not have infiltrated into the era‘s spiritual mentality. however, in this period already boiling with hatred and suspicion, to present it as a theological question and suggest diabolical conspiracies was to resurrect the concept of ―the demonic jew‖ from the middle ages. 34 this had huge implications especially for catholics who revered ―the thirteenth— the greatest of centuries.‖ in the writings and speeches of coughlin, theological anti-judaism and ―racial‖ antisemitism came together, i believe, not dissimilar to the propaganda of hitler‘s germany. catholics and jews had come to the united states in the same waves of immigration, and had endured the difficult years of arrival together. both had a strong sense of tradition and worship, family, joie de vivre, dietary laws and rejection of interfaith marriage. there was competition and some hostility, but there was give-and-take in the political sphere and a common fear of the nativist enemy. cooperation in world war i and in the 1920s seemed to have opened up new possibilities. in the coughlin era the real polarization of catholics and jews emerged in twentieth century america. the result was that the gospel message, which was meant to be good news, became a source of suffering for jews in america and around the world. it also proved destructive for some christians whose understanding of both judaism and christianity became distorted. coughlin‘s silence was welcomed by many in the summer of 1942. scholars such as msgr. john a. ryan and george schuster confronted coughlin in the pages of commonweal. 35 an nbc-cbs radio broadcast organized by father maurice sheehy of the catholic university of america on november 16, 1938 offered dramatic responses on the part of archbishop john j. mitty of san francisco, catholic layman and former presidential candidate alfred e. smith, and others to coughlin‘s vitriolic krystallnacht speech. the transcript was printed in full in the new york times as a catholic response to jewish persecution in germany. 36 dorothy day spoke out against antisemitism, and columns in the catholic worker supported that view. in may 1939, day and some friends formed the ―committee of catholics to fight antisemitism‖ which included prominent catholics such as the baroness catherine de hueck and chicago catholic activist john cogley. their paper titled the voice was published in direct 34 see joshua trachtenberg, the devil and the jews: the medieval conception of the jew and its relation to modern anti-semitism (new haven: yale university press, 1943). 35 john a. ryan, ―anti-semitism in the air,‖ commonweal 29 (december 30, 1938): 260-262; george n. schuster, ―the jew and the two revolutions,‖ commonweal 29 (december 30, 1938): 262-264. 36 see mazzenga, 71-87. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 opposition to social justice, condemning the antisemitic activities which were rampant at that time. with the coming of the war, however, some of the antisemitism subsided. 37 world war ii and the holocaust. exactly when world leaders knew about the extermination camps is sometimes disputed but certainly by 1942 it was evident in diplomatic circles. many americans found it difficult to believe. recent scholarship, however, provides concrete evidence in newspaper articles, news releases, and diplomatic material indicating that people were being informed. 38 many people—who were either desensitized, or assumed that the press was exaggerating—only yawned. when general eisenhower visited the camps liberated by the allies at the end of world war ii, the pictures and films of emaciated figures amidst piles of dead skeletal bodies gave evidence of the grim reality. it could no longer be denied. the key question for some became: ―if christians had really been christian over the centuries, would the holocaust have occurred?‖ the nuremberg trials in germany (1945-1949) received extensive coverage in the press. the united nations declaration on human rights of december 10, 1948 proclaimed ―the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family‖ and stated that this principle was ―…the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.‖ 39 yet, catholic indifference and even hostility to the establishment of the state of israel in 1948 was painful for many jews. some editorials and articles in america, commonweal and the catholic world describe the holy land as the birthplace of catholic church that should not be given to the jews. 40 l’osservatore romano, the semi-official newspaper of the vatican, the very day of the founding of the state of israel, may 14, 1948, stated: ―modern zionism is not the true heir of biblical israel, but a secular state…therefore the holy land and its sacred sites belong to christianity, the true israel.‖ 41 although scholars and activists such as john lafarge, s.j., john a. ryan and john courtney murray, s.j. made efforts to encourage jewish-christian dialogue in the 1940s and 1950s, the stance of the catholic church was one of separation from other faith groups. even the establishment of the institute for judeo-christian studies at seton hall university in new jersey in 1953 by msgr. john oesterreicher, a convert from judaism, had a conversionist tone in its earlier years. 42 prior to vatican ii, however, the institute and its yearbook the bridge, later titled brothers in hope, proved to be a valuable resource for discussing theological concepts which laid the groundwork for vatican ii. after the initial shock of the extermination camps, americans in the 1940s and 1950s –whatever their religion—seemed to fade into denial. 43 it is noteworthy, however, that will herberg‘s classic protestant – catholic jew first published in 1955 never mentioned either the holocaust or the 37 william d. miller, dorothy day: a biography (san francisco: harper and row, 1982), 319-320. i am grateful to anne klejment for directing me to this information on dorothy day. 38 see robert w. ross, so it was true: the american protestant press and the nazi persecution of the jews (minneapolis: university of minnesota press, 1980); haim genizi, american apathy: the plight of christian refugees from nazism (ramat-gan: bar-ilan university press, 1983); deborah e. lipstadt, beyond belief: the american press and the coming of the holocaust 1933-1945 (new york: the free press, 1986). 39 cited in richard l. rubenstein and john k. roth, approaches to auschwitz: the holocaust and its legacy (atlanta: john knox press, 1987), 246-247. 40 see egal feldman, catholics and jews in twentieth-century america (urbana: university of illinois press, 2001), 95-102. 41 cited in pinchas lapide, the last three popes and the jews (london: souvenir press, 1967), 282. 42 see feldman, 70-80, 169. 43 a recent study by hasia diner, we remember with reverence and love: american jews and the myth of silence after the holocaust 1945-1962 (new york: new york university press, 2009) challenges that thesis. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 state of israel. 44 gradually, a word emerged which described the destructive acts of the final solution. in the late 1950s, the word ―holocaust‖ (jews prefer the hebrew word shoah which means ―destruction‖), became ―synonymous with hitler‘s eradication of the jews.‖ 45 the 1959 film the diary of anne frank presented a poignant and powerful presentation of nazi devastation to the american public. the 1960s. the eichman trial in jerusalem in 1961, at which the chief administrator of the final solution who had fled to argentina was finally put on trial in israel, created a new awareness of the atrocities and once again the inhumanity of hitler‘s germany raised the question: ―who is responsible?‖ the 1963 drama the deputy by rolf hochhuth accusing pope pius xii of moral cowardice and, even worse—indifference to the suffering and death of jews in nazi germany— ignited a fire in the jewish and catholic communities. scholars, both jewish and christian, questioned the historical authenticity of the play, but the emotional response of audiences was vehement. this was occurring while vatican ii was discussing a statement to be made on the relationship of the catholic church to the jewish people. also concurrent with the council in rome were events important for both the civil and religious communities in the u.s. several of these boiled over in the 1960s: civil rights, the vietnam war, the cause of the farmworkers. for many, especially the clergy, the challenge became: ―what is the role of the religious leader in time of moral crisis?‖ priests, nuns, ministers and rabbis marched together to protest the denial of basic human rights. to see rabbi abraham joshua heschel, archbishop iakovos, and bishop-elect james shannon with dr. martin luther king, jr. on the front line in a civil rights rally indicated a new era in interreligious and interracial life. was this one of the consequences of the supposed indifference of pius xii toward the jews in world war ii? the pledge appeared to be that never again would religious leaders be silent. vatican ii and the jews the election of angelo roncalli as pope john xxiii to succeed pius xii in 1958 opened a new window on the world. pope john had a history of sensitivity to the jewish people. as papal nuncio in istanbul he had offered baptismal certificates to jews to aid them in avoiding deportation to the death camps. as pontiff in 1960 he met with the french historian jules isaac, author of the influential volume jesus and israel. isaac shared his research on ―the teaching of contempt‖ and emphasized how church teachings had contributed to the antisemitism of the centuries. 46 shortly thereafter, the vatican set up a commission to study the church‘s relationship with the jews. pope john requested that a document on the jews be part of the work of the second vatican council. 47 the text on jews was originally included in chapter iv of the decree on ecumenism. cardinal augustine bea, s.j. presented the schema to the council on november 19, 1963 and revealed that pope john himself had ordered the preparation of the text and had approved the basic lines of the document before he died. 48 some of the bishops asked that the statement on the jews be included in a separate document because they thought it did not properly fall into the category of 44 see above n. xxiii. 45 lawrence baron, ―the first wave of american ‗holocaust‘ films, 1945-1959,‖ american historical review 115(1): 90. 46 jules isaac, jesus and israel (new york: holt, rinehart and winston, 1971). orig. ed. paris: albin michel, 1948. see also the teaching of contempt: christian roots of anti-semitism (new york: mcgraw hill, 1964). 47 augustine bea, s.j., the church and the jewish people (new york: harper and row, 1966), 22. 48 bea, 23. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 ecumenism (which they defined as uniting all in christ). most of the bishops from arab countries did not want any document at all. between the second and third sessions, the secretariat, headed by cardinal bea, prepared a new draft—the contents of which were widely published in newspapers of various countries. 49 at the council‘s third session, the text presented to the fathers was not the one publicized but another in which the rejection of the charge of deicide had disappeared. special concern was evidenced for the muslims and the section on non-christians was expanded. a great controversy followed in which several influential members of the u.s. hierarchy including francis cardinal spellman of new york, albert cardinal meyer of chicago, joseph cardinal ritter of st. louis and archbishop patrick o‘boyle of washington, d.c. insisted that the statement on the jews not be diluted. in contrast, the patriarchs of the east requested that the entire declaration be dropped. the politics of the middle east were a considerable factor in the revisions, but the declaration was by no means rejected. in the final text article 4 of the declaration of the relationship of the church to non-christian religions (nostra aetate), strongly emphasized the relationship of the church with the people of the hebrew scriptures. the request for forgiveness from those who had been wronged by christian persecution was omitted and there was no reference to the rejection of the charge of deicide. the document did decry the attitudes and episodes of antisemitism which had been common over the centuries: the church repudiates all persecutions against any man. moreover, mindful of her common patrimony with the jews, and motivated by the gospels‘ spiritual love and by no practical considerations, she deplores the hatred, persecutions, and displays of antisemitism directed at the jews at any time and from any source. 50 the document was finally promulgated on october 28, 1965. one need only read nostra aetate to become aware of the complete turnabout in the attitude of the church toward the jews. the basis for a new relationship in the document is clearly scriptural with a strong emphasis on paul‘s letter to the romans. there are no references to the church fathers, (e.g., john chrysostom and his adversos judaeos sermons), or decrees of earlier church councils (e.g., decrees of the fourth lateran council, 1215, mandating that jews mark their clothes with a badge). a new era was beginning in the jewish-catholic dialogue. american bishops at the council fought for religious pluralism, ecumenism, and interfaith dialogue. the unique character of the catholic church in the united states was expressed particularly in nostra aetate, especially article 4 on the relationship to the jews, as well as in the decree on ecumenism, and the declaration on religious liberty. these three documents bore an american stamp and allowed catholics in the united states to breathe a sigh of relief that they could now be recognized as both catholic and american in a religiously pluralistic nation. post vatican ii: four challenges to the doctrinal turnaround canadian theologian gregory baum stated in a lecture to the catholic theological society of america in chicago in 1986: ―it can be argued, i think, that the church‘s recognition of the 49 robert a. graham, ―introduction to the declaration on the relationship of the church to non-christian religions,‖ the documents of vatican ii, ed. walter abbott (new york: america press, 1966), 656-657. 50 abbott, 666-667. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 spiritual status of the jewish religion is the most dramatic example of doctrinal turnaround in the age-old magisterium ordinarium.‖ 51 four elements which inhibited that turnaround had to be confronted: (1) the impact of modernism; (2) supersessionism; (3) ―the criterion of dissimilarity‖; and (4) the concept of ―the aryan christ.‖ although people in the pews would not relate to these categories as named, i believe they had a deep impact on the often unconscious presuppositions of many catholics regarding the relationship of judaism and christianity. the impact of modernism on scripture, ecclesiology and liturgy. in the post-vatican ii period, a question for many catholics newly discovering the bible was: ―will the real jesus please stand up?‖ why had catholics been so unaware of their roots in judaism and of the jewishness of jesus? many did not realize that as a result of the modernism crisis in the catholic church, and the encyclical pascendi dominici gregis (1907), the writings of catholic theologians and scripture scholars had been severely curtailed. scripture scholars were prohibited from using historical critical methods and theologians from using modern philosophical thought to explain catholic theology. with the condemnations of the french scripture scholar alfred loisy and theologian george tyrrell in 1908, catholic scholars ―went underground‖ except in the area of social justice and, to some degree, liturgy. it was not until pius xii promulgated the encyclical divino afflante spiritu in 1943 that catholic scripture scholars were allowed officially to resume research using modern methodologies. this influenced all of the theological disciplines. the emphasis in ecclesiology from the nineteenth century was on the theology of the mystical body of christ. pius xii‘s encyclical mystici corporis, also promulgated in 1943, confirmed that approach. however, a new perspective was developing. the french theologian yves congar, o.p. claims that while it is impossible to pinpoint the origin of the idea, it was between the years 1937-1942 that the idea of the church as ―the people of god‖ was established in catholic theology. theologians rediscovered the church‘s continuity with israel. emphasis on the church‘s historical dimension, and the salvific institution of revelation, culminated also in the rediscovery of eschatology. 52 rediscovering the concept of ―the people of god‖ offered a more inclusive vision and a new perspective on the church which became evident in vatican ii. the renewal of the liturgy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries had been largely a retrieval of the patristic sources. it was the jewish scholar kaufmann kohler, later president of hebrew union college in cincinnati, who in 1893 published an article titled ―uerbe die ursprunge und grundforman der synagogalen liturgie‖ (―about the origins and basic forms of synagogal liturgy‖), 53 and called attention to christian interpolations added to jewish prayers in the apostolic constitutions (books vii and viii). 54 these dealt with liturgical material derived from jewish blessings. the new offertory prayers in the post-vatican ii eucharist reflect this ―rediscovery‖ of the berakah over the bread and the wine. pius xii‘s encyclical mediator dei in 1947 opened up the reform of the liturgy. the ceremonies of holy week were renewed. fasting regulations were modified. the pope allowed change to begin. gregory dix, author of the monumental volume the shape of the liturgy (1945), 55 stated in 1949: ―our understanding of our forms of worship underwent a radical transformation some 51 gregory baum, ―the social context of american catholic theology,‖ proceedings of the catholic theological society of america 41(1986): 87. 52 yves congar, o.p., ―the church: the people of god,‖ consilium, 1 (new york: paulist press, 1964), 14. 53 kaufmann kohler, ―uber die ursprunge und grundformen der synagogalen liturgie,‖ mgwj (1893), 441-451, 489497. 54 john barry ryan, the eucharistic prayer: a study in contemporary liturgy (new york: paulist press, 1974), 10. 55 gregory dix, the shape of the liturgy (london: dacre press, 1945). emphasis mine. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 forty years ago when it finally occurred to someone that jesus was a jew.‖ 56 in the study of scripture, ecclesiology and liturgy, scholars had been curtailed by modernism. by the 1940s, with new horizons opening, the jewish roots of christianity were beginning to emerge. 57 supersessionism. sometimes called ―replacement theology,‖ supersessioniam is the belief that the ―new covenant‖ which god made in jesus had taken the place of the ―old covenant‖ with the hebrews and therefore the original covenant was obsolete. the church, therefore, had taken the place of the jews as god‘s chosen people. this conviction was never defined by the early church, but it became the centerpiece of the relationship between christians and jews for centuries, and was alive and well among both protestants and catholics in the united states. 58 even in more liberal catholic magazines and journals such as the catholic world in the midnineteenth century, and america and commonweal in the twentieth, jews were presented as having been replaced as god‘s chosen people. 59 theodore herzl, the founder of political zionism in the later nineteenth century, wrote in his diary shortly before his death in 1904 that in his interview with pope pius x, he asked the pontiff for support regarding the hope of the jews to return to their homeland. the pope‘s response was: ―the jewish religion was the foundation of our own; but it was superseded by the teachings of christ, and we cannot concede it any further validity.‖ 60 until 1959 the latin prayers of good friday liturgy in the roman rite of the catholic church included a prayer for ―the perfidious jews‖ and an intercession: ―may the lord our god remove the veil from their hearts so that they, too, may acknowledge our lord jesus christ.‖ 61 the criterion of dissimilarity. more common in the protestant tradition, but influencing catholics as well is what became known as ―the criterion of dissmiliarity.‖ it was one of the major presuppositions which rudolph bultmann presented in his history of the synoptic tradition, later popularized by norman perrin. 62 those who accepted this approach believed that what jesus shared with any form of first-century judaism would not disclose his uniqueness. therefore, anything in which jesus and any of the judaisms of his time agreed was automatically ruled out as something that would give insight about him. perrin, in his book rediscovering the teaching of jesus, stated: "by definition (the criterion) will exclude all teaching in which jesus may have been at one with judaism or the early church at one with him." 63 because this method dominated for many years, jesus has not only not been depicted as a jew, but sometimes as the great anti-jewish figure of first-century judaism. why did this approach fall into disfavor? the discovery of the dead sea scrolls in the caves at qumran in 1947 stunned the religious world. it became the catalyst in the fertile field of biblical studies. the scrolls provided extraordinary information about jewish life and thought at the time 56 cited in thomas j. talley, ―from berakah to eucharistia: a reopening question,‖ worship 50 (march 1976): 115. 57 see mary christine athans, bvm, ―judaism and catholic prayer: a new horizon for the liturgy,‖ new theology review 21(4): 48-58. 58 r. kendall soulen, ―supersessionism,‖ a dictionary of jewish-christian relations, eds. edward kessler and neil wenborn (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2005), 413-414. 59 feldman, 13-14. 60 feldman, 37. 61 john m. oesterreicher, ―introduction,‖ brothers in hope (the bridge: judaeo-christian studies) v (new york: herder and herder, 1970), 25. 62 james h. charlesworth, jesus within judaism (new york: doubleday, 1988), 5-6. 63 norman perrin, rediscovering the teaching of jesus (new york: harper and row, 1967), 43. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 christianity was born. jewish, catholic and protestant scholars began working together. they came to appreciate the complex judaism of the first century. a new appreciation of a sense of historical consciousness grew. sociologists and psychologists affirm that no person is unrelated to the world in which he or she lives. we are shaped in large part by family and culture. to understand jesus, therefore, we must set him in his environment of first-century judaism. n.t. wright states: ―texts matter, but contexts matter even more.‖ 64 the criterion of dissimilarity has been dismissed today by most scholars. the aryan christ. german influence in scripture study and the ascendancy of german culture in europe in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were evident in more than literary analysis. artistic portraits of jesus available to people in churches and homes were often those of a blond blue-eyed aryan figure. the influence of darwin and the european focus on the superiority of the germanic and anglo-saxon people influenced artists and painters. alan t. davies describes the nineteenth century effort of some writers who claimed that jesus was not a jew. this so-called ―aryanization of jesus‖ by fichte, renan, h.s. chamberlain and others invaded churches. jesus and mary were portrayed as more german than jew. 65 some of us still have recollections of crowning the statue of a blond blue-eyed mary each may singing with our catholic schoolmates ―o mary we crown thee with blossoms today...‖ jaroslav pelikan offers a fascinating reflection in his volume jesus through the centuries. he asks the following questions: would there have been such anti-semitism, would there have been so many pogroms, would there have been an auschwitz, if every christian church and every christian home had focused its devotion on icons of mary not only as mother of god and queen of heaven but as the jewish maiden and the new miriam, and on icons of christ not only as pantocrator but as rabbi jeshua bar-joseph, rabbi jesus of nazareth, the son of david, in the context of the history of a suffering israel and a suffering humanity. 66 jewish-catholic relations in the u.s.: 1965-1995 there was excitement—almost an element of romance—in ecumenical and interfaith relationships after vatican ii. three areas where this blossomed were (1) academia, (2) religious institutional structures, and (3) local ―grass roots‖ developments. all three are necessary for holistic interfaith growth and development in jewish-christian relations. academia. jewish-christian relations is an intra-disciplinary and interdisciplinary field. within the general area of theology, a knowledge of scripture, church history, systematics, ethics, liturgy, spirituality and pastoral theology are required if one is to become involved in the dialogue. relevant studies in philosophy, sociology, psychology and political science also have a substantial impact on the theological issues under consideration. the challenge is one of both breadth and depth. foundational to the composition of nostra aetate, as mentioned above, was the new research in scripture studies. themes such as the jewishness of jesus (and more recently of mary), jewish 64 n. t. wright, jesus and the victory of god (minneapolis: fortress press, 1996), 489. 65 see alan t. davies, ―the aryan christ: a motif in christian anti-semitism,‖ journal of ecumenical studies 12(4) (fall 1975): 569-579. 66 jaroslaz pelikan, jesus through the centuries: his place in history and in culture (new haven: yale university press, 1985), 20. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 18 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 understandings of ―messiah,‖ a new appreciation of the beliefs and role of the pharisees, differing approaches to covenant, and new interpretations of paul were explored in terms of the new biblical hermeneutics. catholic biblical scholarship blossomed with vatican ii in the writings of raymond brown, s.s., joseph fitzmyer, s.j., roland murphy, o.carm., and others. theologians—protestant and catholic—such as karl rahner, s.j., edward schillebeeckx, o.p., wolfhart pannenberg, jurgen moltmann and walter kasper explored the christological dimensions of the new research. it became clear to christian scholars that knowledge of the talmud and other jewish documents was essential to understanding jesus and the early christian community. these scholarly advances had repercussions in historical and systematic theology (especially christology), ethics and liturgy. a revised version of gregory baum‘s volume the jews and the gospel was published in 1965 with the controversial title is the new testament anti-semitic? that same year father edward flannery published the anguish of the jews: twenty-three centuries of anti-semitism. he reflected sadly: ―it is little exaggeration to state that those pages of history jews have committed to memory are the very ones that have been torn from christian (and secular) history books.‖ 67 these two volumes were responsible for raising consciousness regarding the history of antisemitic behavior of christians over the centuries. three subsequent studies of particular significance by american catholic authors were faith and fratricide by rosemary radford ruether (1974), christology after auschwitz by michael mcgarry, c.s.p. (1977), and christ in the light of the jewish-christian dialogue by john pawlikowski, o.s.m. (1982). these scholars addressed key issues in an effort to understand anew how the christological claims of catholics need not negate the on-going validity of the jewish covenant. as a new consciousness of the holocaust emerged in the mid-1960s, jewish and catholic theologians also probed the questions of theodicy. the attempt at jewish genocide became paradigmatic of evil for moral theologians searching for a new comprehension of the depths to which human beings could descend in human behavior gone radically astray. sociologists, psychologists and literary figures researched and reflected on the shoah and raised questions about ultimate meaning and its impact on the human person. the glock-stark studies on antisemitism in america provided hard data identifying the attitudes of church-going christians regarding jews. viktor frankl‘s man’s search for meaning, and night by nobel laureate elie wiesel, influenced the growing number of catholics and jews in high schools, colleges and adult religious education programs in churches and synagogues. the sisters of sion began the journal sidic (service international de documentation judéochrétienne) in 1967 and founded centers for jewish-christian dialogue around the world. the graymoor ecumenical institute, founded by the augustinians, was re-named to include interreligious affairs broadening its vision. these religious orders had long worked for jewishchristian understanding but with a more conversionist goal. in keeping with the spirit of vatican ii, they rewrote their objectives to be more accepting of their jewish brothers and sisters. catholic universities established chairs and began programs in jewish studies, e.g., rabbi hayim perlmeuter was appointed to the faculty at the catholic theological union in chicago in 1968 to teach courses in judaism; the jay phillips chair in jewish studies was founded at st. 67 edward flannery, the anguish of the jews: twenty-three centuries of anti-semitism, revised ed. (new york: paulist press, 1985), 1. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 19 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 john‘s university, collegeville, minnesota in 1969 to promote jewish understanding on a catholic university campus. centers for dialogue were established, e.g., the jewish-catholic institute at st. joseph university in philadelphia in 1967, the center for judaic studies at the graduate theological union in berkeley in 1968, and the center for jewish-christian learning at the college (now university) of st. thomas in minnesota in 1985. although post-1995, it is noteworthy that as the number of centers multiplied a council of centers for jewish-christian relations (ccjr) was established in 2002. it was founded ―for the exchange of information, cooperation and mutual enrichment among centers and institutes for christian-jewish studies and relations in the united states.‖ there are thirty-two member centers in the usa and canada; twenty-two are associated with catholic universities or religious orders. affiliate members, such as the secretariat for ecumenical and interreligious affairs of the usccb, the national council of synagogues, and about thirty individual members—usually scholars in the field—participate. this network keeps scholars both individually and collectively connected, allowing them to share information on the internet, on the website, through their electronic journal studies in christian-jewish relations and at an annual meeting. the ccjr is a member of the international council of christians and jews, giving it a global dimension. 68 institutions. the bishops returned from vatican ii with a mandate to implement the documents which had been promulgated, including nostra aetate. in 1966 pope paul vi approved the establishment of the office for jewish-christian relations within the vatican secretariat for promoting christian unity. the location was controversial because some jews feared proselytizing by catholics. church leaders, however, believed it was reasonable because jews and christians shared common roots and had a closer albeit sometimes painful relationship far different than that of catholics with hindus or buddhists. by 1974 a commission on the religious relationship with the jews was formed within the secretariat. in 1970 an international jewish committee on interreligous consultations (ijcic) was created. during december 20-23, 1970 six members of the ijcic joined with members of the vatican secretariat for christian unity and agreed upon a memorandum resulting in the international catholic-jewish liaison committee. one of the participants stated: ―for the first time in history representatives of the catholic church and of the jewish community met for discussions at a high official level.‖ 69 succeeding documents from rome evoked differing reactions. ―guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate (no. 4)‖ (january 1975), was positively received. ―notes on the correct way to present jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church‖ (march 1982), was more controversial. while the ijcic acknowledged many positive features in the document, it expressed disappointment that it was published without prior consultation with the jewish community which felt that in some areas it was regressive. the national conference of catholic bishops (today‘s united states conference of catholic bishops) established a secretariat for catholic-jewish relations in 1967. in that same year, 68 i am grateful to philip a. cunningham for this information as well as his article ―jewish-christian relations, centres for the study of‖ in a dictionary of jewish-christian relations, 231. 69 pier francesco fumagalli, ―the international catholic-jewish liaison committee: historical note,‖ fifteen years of catholic-jewish dialogue (roma: pontificia universita lateranense, 1988), xvii. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 20 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 under the leadership of the first executive secretary father edward flannery, the bishops published ―guidelines for catholic-jewish relations‖ in the united states. in 1985, a revision of that document was issued, prepared by flannery‘s successor, dr. eugene fisher, in consultation with the advisory committee. article 6 of the general principles states: proselytism, which does not respect human freedom, is carefully to be avoided. while the christian, through the faith life of word and deed, will always witness to jesus as the risen christ, the dialogue is concerned with the permanent vocation of the jews as god‘s people, the enduring values that judaism shares with christianity and that, together, the church and the jewish people are called upon to witness to the world. 70 diocesan ecumenical commissions, which included jewish-christian relations, were established through the country. activity varied according to the size and energy of the jewish population in a geographical location. the commission in los angeles developed an outstanding priest-rabbi dialogue under the leadership of msgr. royale vadakin and rabbi arthur wolf which became a model for other dioceses. commentaries for catholic clergy on sensitivity to the jews when preaching during holy week were published and available. eventually ecumenical commissions were retitled ―diocesan commission on ecumenical and interreligious affairs‖ to reflect the inclusive nature of the dialogue with the jews, and more recently with muslims and other religious groups. in the 1980s under the auspices of the archdiocese of chicago, the chicago board of rabbis, and the jewish federation of metropolitan chicago, a catholic-jewish scholars dialogue group was formed which continues to be active. jewish organizations on national and local levels expended new energy in cooperation. the interreligious committee of the american jewish committee, under the leadership of rabbi marc tanenbaum and judith banki, and the jewish-christian relations department of the antidefamation league of b‘nai b‘rith, led by rabbi leon klenicki, were among those which worked effectively to promote catholic-jewish relations. from 1973-1999 the national workshop in christian-jewish relations was an opportunity for catholics, protestants and jews to gather in different cities around the u.s.—sometimes annually, sometimes biennially—for lectures, discussion, and celebration to form or renew relationships. dialogue and cooperation at the ―grass roots.‖ commissions and statements can be helpful but will not have genuine influence on the life of the church and the synagogue unless people on the local level are involved. the ―living room dialogues‖ 71 of the 1960s helped catholics, protestants, and some eastern orthodox christians become acquainted and learn about each other. jewish participation followed. this often resulted in collaborative social action and interfaith education. in the early 1970s, some churches and synagogues began to affiliate into clusters to work together for enrichment and the good of the community. one example of such a ―grass roots‖ enterprise was the north phoenix corporate ministry (npcm) in phoenix, arizona. it began in 1966 as a protestant-catholic group, but by 1970 included two synagogues (one conservative 70 ―guidelines for catholic-jewish relations,‖ (washington, d.c.: u.s. catholic conference,1985), publication no. 966. 71 william b. greenspun, c.s.p. and william a. norgren, eds., living room dialogues: a guide for lay discussion catholic-orthodox-protestant (new york: national council of churches of christ and paulist press, 1965). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 21 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 and one reform). 72 it was large enough to have influence in the city (6,800 families in the seven congregations), but small enough to develop warm and solid relationships. we did not want to be an experience of ―tea and crumpets ecumenism.‖ our goal was to build relationships of candor and trust beginning with those wild weekly clergy luncheons. programming began in 1967. i was involved in both the lay council and the clergy council, and in 1970 i was hired full time as executive director. that year each congregation began making a financial contribution monthly to the npcm. a governing board and committee structure was established and we incorporated in the state of arizona. the npcm offered a wide array of programs in which hundreds, even thousands, of the congregants were involved: an education program in the fall—usually ten courses taught by the clergy and others from the congregations at one of the protestant churches; a spring panel forum at one of the synagogues for 1,500 or more people on topics such as ―religion and politics‖ with sandra day o‘connor as a participant, or medical-moral-legal issues with prominent doctors, lawyers and clergy discussing life issues such as genetic engineering, euthanasia, and ―health care—who can afford it?‖ the npcm sponsored and coordinated the community clothing bank in an african-american area of south phoenix, and a pre-school in the santa rita center—both of which included volunteers from all of the congregations. we had an active legislative task force, produced a weekly television program titled the next frontier, had a creative arts festival, youth programs, clergy-lay baseball games to raise money for the st. mary‘s food bank, retreats, dialogue study sessions, pulpit exchanges, and published an annual magazine. we had interfaith liturgies twice a year—on thanksgiving in st. francis xavier catholic church, and a ―spring celebration‖ on the sunday night before passover and easter at beth el synagogue. a worship service in which jews, catholics and protestants can feel comfortable— with no group‘s tradition unrepresented—is not easy to create! 73 each celebration was the result of hard work, including meditation and discussion. rabbis, priests, ministers, nuns, and lay people—especially the choir directors and youth participants—all shared what was deepest in his or her relationship with god, so that we might celebrate that relationship to god and to one another. perhaps in some way that was the ―secret‖ of the corporate ministry. the heart of our relationship was a religious commitment. in 1976 i wrote, ―unless we sometimes come together and pray, and celebrate our relationship to god and to one another, our commitment will lack the depth that our hopes require of it.‖ 74 i still recall a jewish gentleman—a survivor of the holocaust—coming out of a thanksgiving service at st. francis xavier church and saying to me, ―i could hardly believe i was in this huge cathedral-like church with a large crucifix above me and my rabbi was on the altar leading us in the prayers of yom kippur in hebrew, al cheyt shechetanu l’fanecha…‖ (for the sins we have committed before you...) he had tears in his eyes and so did i. 72 beth el congregation, church of the beatitudes (ucc), cross roads united methodist church, orangewood presbyterian church, our savior‘s lutheran church (lca), st. francis xavier catholic church, shadow rock congregational church (ucc), and temple beth israel. 73 see mary christine athans, bvm, ―build trust…then ring the bell!‖ pastoral music (washington, d.c.: national association of pastoral musicians, june-july 1991), 22-25 for a description of the npcm thanksgiving service in november 1976. 74 mary christine athans, bvm, ―ecumenism in the valley of the sun.‖ next frontier (phoenix, arizona: north phoenix corporate ministry, 1976), 13-15. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 22 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 rabbi moshe tutnauer guiding sister m. christine athans, bvm through the hebrew scriptures, beth el congregation, phoenix, arizona, december 1970. courtesy of the arizona republic. the npcm was not just a clergy organization. it had evolved from a strong lay council and a strong clergy group with creative determined personalities on every side. it was an exciting venture of clergy and lay, adults and teenagers who built trust, shared, worked together, laughed, cried, disagreed, and grew in a genuine sense that we were all somehow ―related.‖ members of orangewood presbyterian would refer to st. francis xavier as ―our catholic church,‖ and congregants at cross roads methodist would speak of beth israel as ―one of our synagogues.‖ we never lost our own identities but we were part of a larger family known as the north phoenix corporate ministry. the culminating event each spring was an end-of-the-year party at the convent. some 200 or more of the clergy and involved laity and their spouses would gather to celebrate! we had choices: ―methodist punch‖ or ―episcopal punch‖ for the social hour; kosher chicken or regular chicken for dinner! we always ended up doing israeli dancing—and sometimes the irish jig—in the convent garden! it was a magical time. that collaboration faded by the 1990s. some of its activities folded into other groups due in part to increased demands on families with two spouses working, the decreasing number of clergy— particularly among catholics, and financial demands in a stressed economy. the changing life styles of americans limited the number of volunteers at many churches and synagogues. in addition, what was new and exciting in the post-vatican ii period has become more commonplace. the relationships, however, have never died, and some have carried on to the next generation. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 23 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 jews and christians: a blessing to one another pope john xxiii had initiated the jewish-catholic dialogue but pope john paul ii deepened the relationship. this was due in part to his experience as young adult in poland during world war ii and his pain at losing jewish friends in the shoah. early on in his pontificate, on march 12, 1979, he spoke with representatives of jewish organizations and he stated: in effect, the council made very clear that…while searching into the mystery of the church, it recalled ―the spiritual bond linking the people of the new covenant with abraham‘s stock‖ (nostra aetate, 4). thus it understood that our two religious communities are connected and closely related at the very level of our respective religious identities. 75 perhaps not since the first centuries had some christians reflected so profoundly on their closeness to judaism and what that relationship could mean for both of them. this statement articulated the basis for a new connection hitherto unrecognized. both jews and christians were called to ponder the question: ―what does it mean to be ‗connected and closely related at the very level of our respective religious identities‘‖? pope john paul ii and chief rabbi elio toaff greeting each other at the rome synagogue, april 1986. courtesy of google images. john paul met with the jewish communities in almost every country he visited. his homily at auschwitz in june 1979, and his historic visit to the great synagogue in rome in april 1986 were particularly memorable events for jews and christians around the world. although there 75 eugene j. fisher and leon klenicki, eds., spiritual pilgrimage – pope john paul ii: texts on jews and judasim 1979-1995 (new york: crossroad, 1995), 4. emphasis mine. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): athans cp1-24 athans, courtesy, confrontation athans cp 24 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 were challenging moments in those early years—the situation of the carmelite convent in auschwitz, meetings with yassar arafat and kurt waldheim, the canonization of edith stein— pope john paul still spoke freely of the covenant never revoked. he was convinced that jews and christians must be a blessing to one another and to the world: jews and christians, as children of abraham, are called to be a blessing for the world [cf. gen, 12:2 ff], by committing themselves together for peace and justice among all men and peoples, with the fullness and depth that god himself intended us to have, and with the readiness for sacrifices that this goal may demand. the more this meeting is imprinted with this sacred duty, the more it becomes a blessing also for ourselves. 76 although beyond the scope of this essay, john paul‘s statements and actions post-1995—the document we remember: a reflection on the shoah (1998), his ―confession of sins against the people of israel‖ on the first sunday of lent 2000 as the church was beginning the millennial year, and his trip to the holy land—have all underscored his genuine concern and affection for the jewish people, and his desire to make amends for the anti-judaism of the ages. in his pastoral visit to the united states in 1987, the pope acknowledged the paths which jewish and catholic immigrants had taken in coming to america. he stated, ―…jews and catholics have contributed to the success of the american experiment in religious freedom, and, in this unique context, have given to the world a vigorous form of interreligious dialogue between our two ancient traditions. for those engaged in this dialogue, so important to the church and to the jewish people, i pray: may god bless you and make you strong in his service.‖ 77 in the united states—despite challenges of the past and the present—jewish-catholic relations continue to mature after more than 350 years. 76 fisher and klenicki, eds., 16. 77 fisher and klenicki, eds., 106. resurrection of the body in early judaism and early christianity: doctrine, community, and self-definition studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): r15 claudia setzer, resurrection of the body r15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art26 claudia setzer, resurrection of the body in early judaism and early christianity: doctrine, community, and self-definition (leiden: brill, 2004), paper, xii + 191 pp. reviewed by juan pedro monferrer-sala, university of cordova (spain) the book by claudia setzer admirably describes the development of the belief in resurrection in early judaism and early christianity. in the first chapter, the author studies the concept of resurrection among sadducees and pharisees, using material from josephus, the gospels, acts, and the rabbinic literature to examine how each conceives the idea of resurrection and the symbolic boundaries through which its builds an identity. the second chapter analyzes the idea of resurrection among the first followers of jesus including in the corinthian church. in the third chapter, setzer describes the views of the apostolic fathers and the fourth deals with objections to christianity from mainly celsus and caecilius. these accusations focus on the lack of socio-cultural and political integration within the empire. in the fifth chapter the author discusses the importance of the belief in resurrection in terms of community self-definition, including funerary inscriptions. the sixth chapter deals with christian apologists who defend the belief in the resurrection of the flesh such as irenaeus of lyon (2nd century) and tertullian. according to the jewish writings in the early period, perhaps influenced by persia, the bodies of the dead will rise on the day of the judgement. by the second temple period the idea of the resurrection had developed into a pharisaic dogma, in opposition to sadduceean belief. one noticeable feature is that of the martyrdom, which later influenced early christianity through paul’s writings. paul, who had a similar approach to the rabbis, turned it into a boundarymarker and later christian writers developed it into a new religious framework. thus the idea of resurrection although founded in a jewish framework is deeply influenced by greco-roman belief. the interests of jews and christians, therefore, moved towards fields of different eschatological self-definitions, even though they were both influenced by greco-roman culture. the author, perhaps, should have paid more attention to the relationship, as understood by the rabbis, between the resurrection, ‘ōlām ha-bā’ (“world to come”) and the ‘messianic era’. it would also have been interesting to elaborate on the differences in early christian writings on resurrection, eschatological resurrection, and the resurrection of christ. the resurrection of christ or “first resurrection”, for example, had a great impact in the later byzantine rite such as a mystical proclamation of the triumph of christ over the power of death. but in the byzantine liturgy it is not so much christ’s physical resurrection from the tomb that is celebrated as the resurrection of humanity by his harrowing of hell. an excursus on the so-called ‘apocalypse’ of isaiah (is 24-27) would also have been helpful. this is a splendid publication and a fitting testimonial to one of the several beliefs which were circulating in those early days of the “transition” from judaism to christianity. claudia setzer has produced a well-informed study which represents a fine addition to the growing library of contemporary hermeneutic studies on early jewish and christian writings. review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): bodian cp1-9 bodian, “liberty of conscience” bodian cp 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr “liberty of conscience” and the jews in the dutch republic miriam bodian, university of texas at austin presented at the ―was there a ‗golden age‘ of christian-jewish relations?‖ conference at boston college, april 2010 seventeenth-century amsterdam has often been viewed as a rare beacon of light and tolerance in early modern christian-jewish relations. the monumental synagogue built by the portuguese jews in that city, dedicated in 1675 with great civic fanfare, is still an important tourist site and serves as a permanent symbol of the city‘s long-term attitude of tolerance to jews. much attention has likewise been given to rembrandt‘s richly human treatment of his jewish subjects, which is viewed as emblematic of a wider shift in attitudes in dutch society. 1 these are clichés, of course, though like most clichés they are not without a foundation. the problem is that they simplify a complex reality and imply, misleadingly, that the jews of seventeenth-century amsterdam lived at effortless ease with their neighbors. that was neither the wish of the jews themselves, nor the intention of the christian authorities. in this essay, i will deal with the issues as they affected the first population of jews to settle in the dutch republic (primarily amsterdam), namely the portuguese jews. 2 there is, i think, good justification for this. ashkenazi jews began to arrive in the dutch metropolis only in the 1630s. they soon incorporated separately, dealt with the dutch authorities separately, and, for cultural and socio-economic reasons, maintained a lower profile than the portuguese jews until the eighteenth century. during the ―dutch golden age‖ of the seventeenth century—the period i will treat—it was the portuguese jews, not the ashkenazim, who engaged most intensely with their christian environment. let me briefly describe the early, formative years of interaction between christians and (portuguese) jews in amsterdam, as a jewish community took root and grew. the beginnings in the 1590s are quite obscure. we know that a small number of ―new christians‖ from spain and portugal—descendants of forcibly baptized jews—came to amsterdam in these years for mercantile reasons. their arrival did not stir attention because, at least formally, they had the status of iberian catholics (although their jewish background was no secret). 3 they had apparently not yet organized confessionally even in a private way. it is possible that they harbored the hope of organizing as a jewish community. they were certainly aware of the fact that with the signing of the treaty of utrecht in 1579, the dutch republic 1 for an impression of rembrandt‘s reputation in regard to the jews see susan morgenstein and ruth levine, eds., the jews in the age of rembrandt (rockville, md 1981); michael zell, reframing rembrandt: jews and the christian image in seventeenth century amsterdam (berkeley and los angeles 2002); and steven nadler, rembrandt’s jews (chicago 2003). 2 the low countries had no significant jewish settlement prior to the arrival of these émigrés. 3 see the remarks made by hugo grotius in 1598, in miriam bodian, hebrews of the portuguese nation (bloomingtom 1997), 180-81n. 21. conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): bodian cp1-9 bodian, “liberty of conscience” bodian cp 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr had become a haven for men and women fleeing religious persecution—huguenots, mennonites, and english dissidents, among others. article 13 of the treaty guaranteed that ―each individual enjoys freedom of religion and no one is persecuted or questioned about his religion.‖ 4 but this was more declaration than legislation, and in fact each province remained free to order its religious life as it chose. 5 in the period when ―portuguese‖ began settling in amsterdam, two decades after the treaty was signed, the issue of religious freedom was not at all settled. there was general agreement only on the narrower matter of private belief, or ―conscience.‖ that is, it was universally accepted that a person might privately adhere to a creed that differed from that of the ―public church‖ (i.e., the reformed church). freedom of worship, however—the right to build places of worship and to worship openly in them—was another matter. many in dutch ruling circles felt it was incumbent on dutch non-calvinists to conform outwardly, even to the point of attending reformed services. 6 at the same time, dutch authorities in some places connived to allow dissidents and catholics to practice in their own way more-or-less openly. this by no means implied an acceptance on the authorities‘ part of a general principle of toleration. once jews appeared in significant numbers, the dutch authorities were forced to consider whether a traditionally despised and non-christian group could be integrated into the new republic. consider the view adopted by the legal scholar hugo grotius in 1611. grotius advocated not just freedom of conscience, but freedom of public worship—as long as that worship did not contradict the fundamentals of christian belief. accordingly, when grotius elaborated his views on the status to be conferred on the jews, in a draft of regulations for the jews written between 1614 and 1619, he recommended granting jews the right to practice judaism only in the privacy of their homes. 7 that is, he advocated an exceptional, specific restriction for the practice of judaism. as it turned out, this approach—which in light of practice elsewhere in europe might have seemed natural—was not adopted by dutch authorities. it is a matter of scholarly debate whether it was primarily practical considerations, or primarily a permissive outlook on religious difference, that led dutch authorities to quietly allow the jews to assume a status close to that of non-calvinist christians in amsterdam. undoubtedly, both practical and ideological factors played a role. the pragmatic and commercially astute regents of the netherlands recognized that a community of ―rejudaized‖ new christians could provide key connections with the mercantile centers of their archenemy, spain (to which portugal was annexed at the time), without posing the threat of political subversion. granting these jews exceptional freedoms would ensure their continuing immigration to, and settlement in, amsterdam. as for their outlook, the regents were not without negative ideas that set jews apart from christians of any persuasion. but they were largely unexposed to late medieval judeo-phobia (as was the dutch public in general) and, moreover, they shared with a large segment of dutch society a certain fascination with the descendants of the biblical israelites. 4 e.h. kossman and a.f. mellink, texts concerning the revolt of the netherlands (cambridge 1974), 169-70. 5 on the ambiguity of the union of utrecht, see willem frijhoff, ―religious toleration in the united provinces,‖ in r. pochia hsia and h.f.k. van nierop, eds., calvinism and religious toleration in the dutch golden age (cambridge 2002), 38-39. benjamin kaplan has examined the claims of some dutch writers that freedom of conscience was rooted in netherlands custom or character. but this was national myth-making. see benjamin kaplan, ―‘dutch‘ religious tolerance: celebration and revision,‖ in calvinism and religious toleration, 10-16. 6 jonathan israel, ―the intellectual debate about toleration in the dutch republic,‖ in berkens-stevelinck, israel, and posthumus meyjes, eds., the emergence of tolerance in the dutch republic (leiden1997), 8. 7 hugo grotius, remonstrantie nopende de ordre dije in landen van hollandt ende westvrieslandt dijent gestelt op de joden, ed. j. meijer (amsterdam 1949). this position on the jews reflects a new policy, which i will discuss below. since the christianization of the roman empire, jews had been granted the right to public worship in their synagogues, in any place where they were allowed to settle. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): bodian cp1-9 bodian, “liberty of conscience” bodian cp 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr early on, there was a misunderstanding that revealed a good deal about how dutch authorities would deal with the jews in practice. on yom kippur of 1603—by which time amsterdam‘s ―portuguese‖ were holding jewish services in a private home, led by an ashkenazi rabbi from emden —the rabbi and his son were arrested on charges of receiving stolen goods and circumcising adults. the fact that such accusations had been made and had led to an arrest is not surprising. what is noteworthy is that the charge of circumcising adults (which the rabbi was certainly doing) was dropped, presumably once it was shown that the adults involved were all émigrés of jewish origin, and not dutch converts to judaism. both father and son were released and allowed to continue their activity, and we hear no more about the incident. 8 a legend later circulated among the amsterdam jews about these events, indicating that the arrests excited great anxiety among members of the embryonic community, but that the outcome served to reassure them that their discreet jewish worship was in fact tacitly accepted by the authorities. 9 (it is certainly possible that some money changed hands during the resolution of this case, as it undoubtedly did at later junctures. still, this would have been likely only if public passions were not inflamed.) 10 the population of the portuguese jews of amsterdam grew rapidly after the twelve years truce was signed between spain and the netherlands in 1609, thus ensuring them unhampered trade with iberian ports. the status of the community remained ambiguous and tentative. yet there must have been further tacit agreements between the communal leaders and the authorities. only this can explain how members of the community could have undertaken in 1612 to build a structure that would serve as a synagogue. inevitably, there was a public outcry. particularly vocal was the reformed preacher abraham coster, who had earlier written in his history of the jews (rotterdam 1608) that these ―unclean people‖ sought to establish a public synagogue ―in which they can perform their evil and foolish ceremonies and spew forth their gross blasphemies against christ and his holy gospels, as well as their curses against the christians and christian authorities.‖ 11 only a few months after the contract to build the structure was signed, the city council of amsterdam, faced with complaints, passed a resolution prohibiting anyone ―of the portuguese nation‖ from living in the building which was then under construction, or from practicing in it the ceremonies of their religion, ―on penalty of having the said house or building razed to the ground.‖ 12 despite this, the building was completed and used as a synagogue. to pacify the clergy and maintain appearances, it was arranged that the building would be owned by a christian, who would rent it, in turn, to the jews. 13 (this convenient fiction reflects a pattern that was to repeat itself many times, whereby hostile action initiated by members of the reformed clergy was thwarted discreetly by the magistrates.) while, then technically, the jews enjoyed ―liberty of conscience‖ only in its most limited sense (i.e., the freedom to follow one‘s creed in private), they were in fact being permitted to gather for services in a building widely recognized as a synagogue. 8 see jacob zwarts, ―de eerste rabbijnen en synagogen van amsterdam naar archivalische bronnen,‖ bijdragen en mededelingen van het genootschap voor de joodsche wetenschap in nederland 4 (1928), 168ff.; uri ben aron halevi, narração da vinda dos judeus espanões a amsterdam (amsterdam 1711), 4-5. 9 see bodian, hebrews of the portuguese nation, 20-22. 10 see christine kooi, ―paying off the sheriff: strategies of catholic toleration in golden age holland,‖ calvinism and religious toleration, 87-93. 11 abraham coster, historie der joden…uyt verscheyde autheuren vergadert (rotterdam 1608), unpaginated preface. 12 the city council‘s decision has been published by a.m. vaz dias, ―een verzoek om de joden in amsterdam een bepaalde woonplats aan te wijzen,‖ jaarboek van het genootschap amstelodamum 35 (1938), 185n.1. 13 zwarts, ―de eerste rabbijnen,‖ 209-16 and appendices 260-64; e.m. koen, ―war en voor vie werd de synagoge van 1612 gebouwd?‖ maandblad amstelodamum 57 (1970), 209-12; idem, ―nicolaes van campen als huiseigenaar van de portugees-israelitische synagoge,‖ maandblad amstelodamum 58 (1971). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): bodian cp1-9 bodian, “liberty of conscience” bodian cp 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr such an arrangement was not novel, nor was it confined to synagogues. the fiction adopted for the 1612 synagogue reflected new notions of ―public‖ and ―private‖ worship that grew out of reformation inter-confessional tensions—tensions that had nothing to do initially with jews. it is not generally known that catholics were not allowed to worship openly in amsterdam, so famous for its toleration, until 1795. throughout the northern netherlands, catholics worshipped in schuilkerken, or ―secret churches.‖ these structures were camouflaged by being built in the interior of residential buildings, and congregants were required to enter a side or back door. yet the existence of these churches was public knowledge, fueling protests by neighbors and clerics. magistrates, however, regularly permitted them. such places of worship could be found in france, the german lands, austria, and switzerland. benjamin kaplan has explained this somewhat puzzling phenomenon as a ―cultural fiction‖ that served to reduce the provocative effect of visual symbols of religious dissent: ―by containing religious dissent within spaces demarcated as private,‖ he writes, ―schuilkerken…preserved the monopoly of a community‘s official church in the public sphere.‖ 14 the fact that all native noncalvinists were required to abide by this fiction made its imposition on the jews of amsterdam inherently different from the imposition of ―jewry law‖ elsewhere in europe. by 1614, when the portuguese jews of amsterdam had established a cemetery and when some of them (there were two congregations) worshipped in a building constructed to be a synagogue, the need for written regulations concerning their status was no doubt evident. in 1616, the burgomasters of amsterdam issued a set of regulations—the first official dutch document that acknowledged dealing with persons of the joodsche natie (jewish ―nation‖). it was far from comprehensive. it was, in fact, quite a brief text that primarily addressed a few core anxieties about socio-religious boundaries. the jews, it stipulated, were ―not to speak or write anything (and to ensure that nothing be spoken or written) that may, in any way, tend to the disparagement of our christian religion; not to attempt to seduce any christian person away from our christian religion or to circumcise one; and not to have any carnal relations, whether in or out of wedlock, with christian women or girls, not even those of ill repute.‖ 15 these restrictions (particularly the final one) were by no means strictly enforced. more importantly, though, was what was missing from them. these regulations called for no residential or economic restrictions, and no special taxes on jews. and they said nothing about the autonomous powers of the jewish communal authorities, or the jews‘ right to public worship. this provided considerable flexibility for the jews to establish themselves and negotiate boundaries with dutch authorities in an informal, ongoing way. when the governing body of the province of holland, the states of holland, decided in 1619 to leave the status of the jews in the hands of the municipalities, these meager 1616 municipal regulations became the only dutch regulations specifically pertaining to the jews of amsterdam—indeed the only ones ever to be issued. 16 the laissez-faire attitude of the dutch authorities stood in stark contrast to that of authorities elsewhere in early modern europe, who commonly issued lengthy, restrictive, and often humiliating regulations for jews. in countless ways large and small, the portuguese jews of amsterdam enjoyed an environment that was unusually free of overt hostility. despite the occasional 14 benjamin j. kaplan, divided by faith: religious conflict and the practice of toleration in early modern europe (cambridge, mass. and london, 2007), 176. on such ―clandestine‖ places of worship see ibid., 172-197. 15 hermanus noordkerk, handvesten ofte privilegien ende octroyen…der stad amstelredam (amsterdam 1748), 2: 472. 16 resolutiën van de heeren staten van hollandt ende west-vrieslandt…(n.d., n.p., gemeentelijke archief, amsterdam, arch. 5038, no. 52), 283, 287. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): bodian cp1-9 bodian, “liberty of conscience” bodian cp 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr inflammatory rhetoric of angry reformed clergy, the dutch did not regard the jews as a dangerous, polluting presence. i do not know of a single image by a dutch engraver or painter that represents the jews as demonic and bestial, in the manner that had become so common in the german states. but this should not obscure the fact that the amsterdam jews were a vulnerable minority. as i have already noted, they encountered opposition from time to time, especially from the reformed clergy. they were often able to thwart such hostility by turning to the burgomasters and magistrates who, in the interests of maintaining civil peace and promoting prosperity, protected basic jewish interests. however, the dutch authorities could not entirely ignore accusations against the jews made by the reformed clergy. the predikanten represented the public church and were a powerful force in dutch society. the authorities‘ concern was to balance the needs of a growing jewish community whose presence was desirable with the demands of a clergy clamoring to reign in the ―godless jews.‖ the tensions reflected the more general paradox of ―a confessionally pluralistic society with an official intolerant calvinist church.‖ 17 power relations shifted precipitously in the summer of 1618, as hard-line calvinists (counterremonstrants) defeated the ―moderates‖ (remonstrants) and began taking measures to crush the latter. for a few years the hard-liners suppressed the moderates, by means of arrests, sentences of exile, and the removal of unsympathetic preachers from their pulpits. there was talk of expelling the jews, which must have aroused considerable anxiety among the ―portuguese,‖ but no concrete measures were taken. by 1625, however, the remonstrant camp had regained enough power to challenge the counter-remonstrant leaders. there ensued the first energetic public debate in the netherlands concerning freedom of conscience—a debate in the late 1620s and early 1630s in which both sides sought to formulate theoretical principles. a leading counter-remonstrant, henricus arnoldi, took the narrow view that the republic guaranteed only a private, personal freedom, that the gathering of non-calvinists for services took place not on the basis of any right but only as a consequence of connivance, and that because the jews constituted a danger to society (since they ―insult the name of christ‖), they should not be allowed to settle. the most radical thinker on the other side, simon episcopius, defended freedom of conscience in a much broader sense, defining this concept to include the right of all churches to public practice, and, notably, the right of all individuals to freedom from religious coercion. by 1631, the tide had turned again, with remonstrants wielding the upper hand, ushering in a period of freer public worship for lutherans and remonstrants (at least in amsterdam), and greater security among catholics (who were not, as mentioned above, officially permitted to worship publicly until 1795, ostensibly for political reasons). in 1639, the three existing portuguesejewish congregations merged and the synagogue was enlarged. although the reformed clergy complained about the expansion, no action was taken. indeed, no explicit legal permission was ever granted to the jews to worship publicly, but they were obviously being allowed to do just that. their growing numbers, economic power, and increasing rootedness made it more and more difficult to remember the uncertainty and insecurity of the early years of settlement. by 1675, when the community dedicated the imposing synagogue that stands today, a new generation of communal leaders had come of age. their confidence is reflected in the famous etching of the interior of the new synagogue by romeyn de hooghe, commissioned by the community and embellished with the inscription, ―libertas conscientia incrementum republicae‖ —―liberty of conscience makes the republic thrive.‖ it should be remembered, however, that the celebration 17 the phrase is used by ronnie po-chia hsia, calvinism and religious toleration, 2. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): bodian cp1-9 bodian, “liberty of conscience” bodian cp 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr of freedom of conscience in the etching has nothing to do with the elimination of religious discipline (the exercise of which was taken for granted by all but a few). it was about the freedom of multiple established confessions to co-exist in a single city. only with the increasing diffusion of anti-trinitarian ideas and philosophical criticism of religious traditions in the second half of the seventeenth century did the issue of individual intellectual and religious freedom became a serious topic of public debate. but seventeenth-century secular dutch authorities, under pressure from the reformed clergy, remained firm in rejecting arguments for individual autonomy and in silencing perceived challenges to basic christian beliefs. they did not hesitate to ban books they deemed offensive or subversive, and occasionally imprisoned their authors. the public debate on individual conscience remained a purely theoretical one. 18 thus far, i have tried to sketch the trajectory of relations between the dutch authorities and the portuguese jews in amsterdam in the seventeenth century. i‘d like to look more closely now at how the interests and aims of these jews both differed from and converged with the interests and aims of the dutch regents. unfortunately, we know little about the opinions of the ―men of the nation‖ who did not belong to the economic or intellectual elite. i will focus (as usual, i‘m afraid) on the men who assumed the task of governing or educating the community. the primary aim of these men was not, as it was for the magistrates, maintaining civic peace in the city and in the republic. it was building a viable portuguese-jewish community for a growing population of ex-conversos. by 1602, this could mean only one thing: building a jewish community. 19 in contrast to the situation in most fledgling jewish communities, the task of ensuring that the new community would be recognized as a normative jewish community was a challenge in itself. indeed, achieving this would require an ambitious program of ―rejudaization‖—that is, a program to introduce and establish rabbinic norms among men and women who had been cut off from the jewish world for generations, who had learned to live as catholics, and who had become culturally iberian. the communal leadership accordingly embarked on an intense internal program of indoctrination and education as émigrés continued arriving from the iberian peninsula. many of the émigrés wanted to take part in this collective transformation, at least in the abstract. but most had little idea how far their conception of the law of moses (as iberian crypto-jews referred to their ancestral tradition) had diverged from rabbinic practice and belief. others had become religiously indifferent as a result of the iberian experience. achieving a degree of uniformity of practice meant, for communal leaders and rabbis (who were imported from elsewhere in the early years), wielding both the carrot and the stick. iberian patterns of thinking and behavior were mobilized in order to inculcate rabbinic ones. the rhetoric of ―restoration‖ was adopted to define the act of individual ―return‖ as part of a larger national drama. persuasion was used to tease those who remained at the margins of the community fully into the community. boundaries were drawn, and punishments were meted out to those who 18 my account of the course of events roughly follows israel, ―intellectual debate,‖ 21-36. 19 an early modern community could not exist without a reasonably clear religious identity, and there was no other religious identity around which the portuguese ex-conversos could gain a consensus to organize themselves except a jewish one. this gave the upper hand to activists in the community who wanted to revert to judaism. if the community was to survive, it needed to be recognized as jewish by the dutch authorities as well as by the wider jewish world – which meant they had little choice but to establish their religious life on a halakhic basis. circumstances, then, were at least as important a factor in deciding the character of the community as common will. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): bodian cp1-9 bodian, “liberty of conscience” bodian cp 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr violated the boundaries—by traveling on business to spain or portugal, say, or by challenging a decision of the communal leaders (the parnasim, who together formed the mahamad). certain books were censored for erotic or heterodox content, while others were written to instruct community members on ritual practice. 20 there are ways in which this enterprise mirrored certain measures that became widespread in europe at this time. scholars have given this larger european phenomenon the awkward name of ―confessionalization.‖ simply put, confessionalization meant drawing better-defined theological and communal boundaries and trying to achieve uniformity of belief within a given church. 21 it is much of what the mahamad was attempting to do. indeed, as a disciplining body, the mahamad bore a resemblance to the reformed church council (kerkeraad), which sought to maintain public morality and good order through such measures as banning liquor and closing shops on sundays. many of the matters dealt with by the mahamad were of purely internal interest, but certain matters were known to be of interest to the dutch authorities as well. it was widely believed (not entirely without reason) that the portuguese jews numbered among them ―impious people who should not be tolerated in any good republic,‖ to use hugo grotius‘s phrase—that is, religious skeptics. 22 dutch anxieties about irreligion among the ―portuguese‖ no doubt strengthened the hand of the mahamad in the exercise of its disciplinary authority. 23 the mahamad was thus in many respects a body that fit well into the emerging structures of dutch society. but while the parnasim recognized the importance of the dutch government in allowing them to exercise their powers, they did not understand their powers to be derived from, or legitimized by, the dutch government. like jewish communities elsewhere, the portuguese jews regarded the mahamad‘s powers as deriving from jewish law and, ultimately, from the sinaitic covenant. it was as guardians of a traditional jewish community that the parnasim were seen as empowered to impose the herem (ban) that effectively ostracized a rebellious member of the community. i will not belabor the well-known episodes of uriel da costa, juan de prado, and baruch spinoza, all of whom were put under the harshest form of the ban. if such a ban was partly a response to the expectations of the authorities, the mahamad imposed it in hallowed jewish tradition, invoking language and ritual that were aimed at the hearts and minds of community members. uriel da costa, for his part, may have felt that the communal leaders were the worst of tyrants; but although the parnasim were clearly resented by some community members, da costa‘s view was highly atypical. the notion of individual religious autonomy was largely alien to the collectively-oriented and strongly patriarchal world of the portuguese jews. a person unfamiliar with the seventeenth century world might be prompted to ask how these jews could have sanctioned religious discipline in their own community after their experience of the inquisition. the same question could have been asked of the dutch predikanten, for whom the inquisition was also a familiar part of history. but the prevailing perspective of dutch calvinists and ex-conversos alike was decidedly pre-enlightenment in this period. for the most part, calvinists and jews regarded 20 on the enterprise of ―rejudaization,‖ see bodian, hebrews of the portuguese nation, 96-131. 21 i am using the term ―confessionalization‖ in its primarily religious sense. on the confusion in the use of this term, see benjamin kaplan, divided by faith: religious conflict and the practice of toleration in early modern europe (cambridge, ma 2007), 369n.11, and see the literature on this topic in ibid., 393. 22 jacob meijer, ―hugo grotius‘ remonstrantie,‖ jewish social studies 17 (1955), 429. 23 for a detailed discussion of the mahamad‘s disciplinary actions, see daniel swetschinski, reluctant cosmopolitans: the portuguese jews of seventeenth-century amsterdam (london 2000), 225-277. see also yosef kaplan, ―the travels of portuguese jews from amsterdam to the ‗lands of idolatry,‘‖ in idem, ed., jews and conversos: studies in society and the inquisition (jerusalem 1985), 197-224. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): bodian cp1-9 bodian, “liberty of conscience” bodian cp 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the holy office as an odious institution because it burned decent, pious men and women at the stake. it was altogether another thing—a necessary step taken with all due caution—to remove from one‘s own midst radical skeptics who scorned the very beliefs for which such pious men and women died. it follows that for the portuguese jews, as for many dutch calvinists, ―freedom of conscience‖ was not an ideal. it had great benefits for dissident christians and for dutch society as a whole. but its benefits for jews were indirect. historically, jews in latin christendom had been allowed to worship publicly as jews wherever they were allowed to settle, and this remained true even amid the trials and tribulations of the late medieval period. so while it was true that no one prevented the jews of amsterdam from practicing judaism, neither did anyone in prague, livorno, constantinople, or any other place where jews were allowed to reside. the freedom that truly distinguished the jews of amsterdam—which they seem to have been unable to articulate—was not freedom of conscience, but freedom from the special status of the medieval jew. to illustrate, i‘d like to look at an early hebrew text from amsterdam that touches on the nature of dutch-jewish coexistence. it is found in a rabbinic query by an early rabbi of the portuguesejewish community of amsterdam, sent to a colleague in salonica in 1616. the rabbi opened with the following statement: today a tranquil and secure people dwells in amsterdam, and the officials of the city have sought to expand the settlement and to establish laws concerning it. among these [laws] they have allowed every man to believe in divine matters as he chooses, and each lives according to his faith, as long as he does not go about the markets and streets displaying his opposition to the faith of the residents of the city. and since ―this city is near to flee to‖ [gen. 19:20], conversos of our time, great in number and prominence, have gone there and have entered under the wings of the divine presence. 24 the exuberant sense of novelty the author expressed in this passage could not have been stirred by the simple fact that the government permitted the practice of judaism. as noted, there was nothing novel about governments doing this. the author was most likely joseph pardo, who grew up in salonica and lived for a time in the venetian ghetto—both places where jews lived in autonomous communities and freely practiced judaism. the difference had to do with a departure from the classic mechanism for permitting jews to settle among non-jews in medieval and early modern times. this mechanism was the granting of a privilege—literally a ―private law‖ issued for the jews as a group. in the medieval period, this privilege invariably included special restrictions as well as special taxes. it was granted for pragmatic reasons, and could be (and often was) revoked, or not renewed. it offered limited legal protection based on time-honored custom, but did not inhibit christian governments from using coercion to convert jews, harass them, or expel them. in contrast, the status of the jews in amsterdam, after the initial years, came to resemble that which had been worked out for non-calvinists—about whom the only issue had been whether they should be allowed to worship publicly. the solution to this problem—namely, requiring noncalvinists to worship in churches that looked like private homes—may have seemed like a grievous form of discrimination to catholics and lutherans. but for most portuguese jews, this restriction and a few other restrictions particular to their community were beside the point. they experienced exceptional freedom because they were not bound by a privilege enumerating a 24 abraham ben yosef halevi, sefer ein mishpat (salonica 1896/97), no. 45. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): bodian cp1-9 bodian, “liberty of conscience” bodian cp 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr host of prohibitions unique to them as jews. the author of the passage quoted above makes clear that the only significant restriction on jews or anyone else in amsterdam is that they must keep their religious beliefs private, if they are not calvinists; otherwise, they can go about the markets and streets as they please. the status of the amsterdam jews as essentially just another dissenting religious group (with exceptions, as noted, in a few matters) constituted a significant step toward the normalization of the legal status of european jews, one that was eventually achieved with emancipation. there is an emotional excitement in the passage quoted above that seems connected to the normality a jew could feel walking along the canals of amsterdam. there is no easy way to document the atmosphere of casual acceptance of religious difference that observers of seventeenth-century dutch society noted. willem frijhoff has described it with the phrase ―the ecumenicy of everyday life.‖ 25 for whatever reasons, this ―ecumenicy,‖ this neighborliness toward catholics, collegiants, anabaptists, and so on, expanded to include, in a significant way, the classic outsider in european life. it was a remarkable moment. and the portuguese jews, who had experienced religious repression and coercion in its most extreme early modern european form, must have relished it deeply. 25 see willem frijhoff, ―le seuil de tolérance en hollande au xviie siècle,‖ in homo religiosus: autour de jean delumeau (paris 1997), 650-7. border lines: the partition of judaeo-christianity studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): r7-8 daniel boyarin, border lines r7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art22 daniel boyarin, border lines: the partition of judaeo-christianity (philadelphia: university of philadelphia press, 2004), paper, 373 pp. reviewed by emmanouela grypeou, university of cambridge daniel boyarin’s latest book explores the beginnings of christianity and judaism and the formation of judaism and christianity as two distinct cultural-religious systems. the book is structured in three main parts: part i – making a difference: the heresiological beginnings of christianity and judaism; part ii – the crucifixion of logos: how logos theology became christian; and part iii – sparks of the logos: historicising rabbinic religion. in the preface, entitled “interrogating my love,” he explains how he as a jew is “in love with some manifestations” of christianity and his book shows indeed this loving approach to both judaism and christianity. in summary, he declares that this is a book about “desires for the different other,” about constructed borders, identities and affiliations. the chronological scope of the study covers the period of the late antiquity up to the fourth century. the main argument of the book is that judaism and christianity were not yet fully separated in that period. the blurred borders between judaism and christianity during that time can be exemplified in a notice found in jerome on the sect of the nazoreans, who “are to be found ‘in all the synagogues of the east among the jews’, and who consider themselves both christians and jews but are really ‘neither christians nor jews’” (p. 25). analysing patristic and rabbinic texts from that period he proceeds to investigate under what ideological imperatives the separation took place and how it influenced respectively the formation of christianity and judaism as two separate entities. he claims that the borders between the two were “constructed,” “imposed,” ”artificial,” and “political” and finally enforced by religious experts. in the christian context, these experts were the heresiologists. according to boyarin, the heresiologists produced a totally new form of identity, religion. therefore, he maintains that religion in the modern sense is not a “transhistorical” or “transcultural” phenomenon but an invention of early christianity. a major part of boyarin’s argumentation is based on the works by heresiologists such as justin and irenaeus. he ascribes especially to justin the invention of this new form of identity, which became the christian religion. undoubtedly his argument would have been more compelling if he would have used a wider range of patristic sources of that period and if he would have paid more attention to the diversity of great church christianity in that historical period. according to boyarin, the pressure from the christians led judaism also to form itself as “a church with orthodoxy and heresy” and even succession authority. the succession in rabbinic authority was constructed on the invention of rabbinic orthodoxy as opposed to the heresy of “two powers in heaven.” the rabbis defined themselves as the sole heirs of the torah’s authority as presented in the mishnah at the end of the second century. while christian borders were constructed in order to define a new identity and religion and to exclude all heretics, including the jews, judaism constructed borders in order to exclude christians. review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): r7-8 daniel boyarin, border lines r8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art22 boyarin explains how judaism eventually rejected for its own understanding of identity the category of religion in the christian sense and re-ethnicized its difference from the christians, classifying the christians under the generic “ethnic” label: “gentiles,” thus denying to christians their own acclaimed religious identity. he concludes: “there is now virtually no way that a jew can stop being a jew, since the very notion of heresy was finally rejected and refused to be, in the end, a religion” (p. 224). therefore, according to boyarin, judaism and christianity cannot be studied on the basis of a difference between two religions. although he claims that his approach is primarily historical and not methodological, one of the most interesting aspects of this book is his use of modern theory, such as post-colonial theory (homi bhaba), semantics, discourse as well as post-modern theory, to approach and analyse judaism and christianity in late antiquity. especially homi bhaba’s theory about the hybridity of cultural identification proves to be intriguing for the understanding of early christian orthodoxy in its struggle against heretical groups or of “the other” in general. ultimately, boyarin focuses his argument on logos theology, a pre-christian jewish doctrine that was later appropriated by christian theology and was eventually rejected by the rabbis by the fourth century. boyarin stresses that rabbinic judaism as a historical entity developed in the christian ideological discourse of the byzantine empire. against this background babylonian rabbinic literature rejected the central for byzantine cultural notion of “homonoia” and advocated pluralism. the development of rabbinic judaism and orthodox christianity as two distinct systems was founded in great part on what boyarin calls – following isaac heinemann – the “shattering of the logos.” in rabbinic literature, the oral torah acquired a normative authority, while dissensus became the norm. the textual representation of rabbinic theology was based on the principle that “any verse can have multiple meanings.” accordingly, the postulated monovocality of christian orthodoxy in late antiquity was opposed to the multivalence of rabbinic dialectics as a “representation of the polynoia of the divine word and the divine mind” (p. 191). boyarin argues that this was a development within judaism and “not a transcendental essence” as it is usually seen. in spite of some provocative ideas that would have deserved a more careful study, boyarin’s book presents us with new insights for the study of christianity and judaism in late antiquity and of their interrelationship. admittedly some of his arguments are not new for modern scholarship but still he succeeds in discussing them in an intriguing and challenging way. this book, written in a masterly prose, is in many ways an illuminating study on the interdependence between judaism and christianity in their mutual development as distinct cultural entities. as he concludes: “among various emblems of this different difference remains the fact that there are christians who are jews, or perhaps better put, jews, who are christians, even up to this very day.” (p. 225). microsoft word gottliebvanning_peerreviewed_1 17 14 studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 peer-reviewed article rupert and bekhor shor 1 isaac gottlieb, bar ilan university stewart vanning, independent scholar joseph bekhor shor of orléans was a french tosafist, a student of rashi’s grandson rabbenu tam. his commentary is considered to be the last northern french commentary on the pentateuch to be written in the mode of the peshat, with its stress on literal or straightforward explanation of the text, in place of the traditional midrashic approach. 2 as is well known, twelfth-century northern france is the place where this “dramatic change” took place in biblical interpretation. 3 according to yehoshafat nevo, who published this commentary, bekhor shor was born around 1140 and apparently died around the year 1200. 4 rupert of deutz (c. 1075–1129) was born in liège, belgium, and served as a monk at the nearby abbey of st. 1 the research for this paper was supported by the israel science foundation (grant no. 483/12). 2 for a readable and insightful explanation of midrash and peshat, we suggest the chapters “midrash” by barry w. holtz and “medieval bible commentaries” by edward l. greenstein in back to the sources: reading the classic jewish texts, ed. barry w. holtz (new york: summit books, 1984), 177-211, 213-259. 3 a. grossman, “the school of literal jewish exegesis in northern france,” in hebrew bible/old testament: the history of its interpretation, ed. m. saebø, vol. i/2, the middle ages (gottingen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2000), 323, describes with these words the “new predilection for the plain, literal interpretation of the text (peshat).” 4 yehoshafat nevo, perushe rabbi yosef bekhor shor al hatora (jerusalem: mosad harav kook, 1994), 1. ephraim kanarfogel, the intellectual history and rabbinic culture of medieval ashkenaz (detroit: wayne state university press, 2013), 161, n.137, cites rami reiner’s suggestion that bekhor shor was born in the early 1120s. studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) lawrence for almost forty years. for the last nine years of his life, from 1120–1129, he was abbot of deutz, a benedictine monastery across the rhine from cologne, whence his name. at liège, between the years 1112–1116, he wrote his massive work, de sancta trinitate et operibus eius, a presentation of trinitarian theology as it plays itself out in the salvation-history of the bible. however, unlike in other theological compositions, rupert integrated his exposition into a biblical commentary, consisting of over 2,500 printed pages on practically all the books of the old and new testaments. 5 it is our contention that even though rupert’s work presupposes “an allegorical, that is to say, christological reading of all scripture,” 6 a number of his interpretations show similarities in their content or method of exegesis to those of bekhor shor. it is chronologically impossible for rupert to have borrowed from bekhor shor; if anything, the influence might have run in the opposite direction. the wider question is therefore whether such similarities are evidence for some sort of contact between christians and jews, familiarity of one community with the actual literature of the other, or a tendency to common but unrelated explanations propelled by the spirit of the age. to what extent did rupert know jews? in his day there was no jewish settlement in liège, but he spent from 1092– 1095 in exile in northern france during an ecclesiastical controversy in which he was involved, and later sought refuge in siegburg (1116-1117) and cologne (1119), both in the rhineland. northern france and the rhineland had established jewish communities, and it is most probable that in these places he came into contact with jews. as john h. van engen has demonstrated, several passages in rupert’s commentary 5 john h. van engen, rupert of deutz (berkeley: university of california press, 1983), 82. great length seems to be characteristic of monastic commentaries. see gilbert dahan, “genres, forms and various methods in christian exegesis of the middle ages,” in hebrew bible/old testament, ed. saebø, 197. 6 van engen, rupert, 89-90. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 on the minor prophets, an independent work written between 1121 and 1124, definitely reflect such discussions.7 rupert’s complex engagement with jews and judaism has been dealt with previously in the scholarly literature, which in the main has stressed his polemical content without addressing his methods of interpretation as they relate to jewish exegesis. 8 as we claim in a forthcoming paper, rupert also provided close to twenty explanations in the book of genesis that parallel those of rashi (1040–1105), the father of northern french biblical exegesis in the spirit of the peshat.9 rupert and rashi concur not only in idea but also in style, meaning that rupert’s explanations at times tend toward the literal, something he himself noted from time to time. for example, he introduced a literal reading with the words, iam ipsa litterae vestigia sequamur, “let us now follow the very paths of the letter.”10 this is similar to the exegetical route that rashi declared he was taking. 11 obviously, though, as rashi was no longer alive when rupert wrote these commentaries, any direct influence was one-way. in two of the examples in that paper, though, we note parenthetically that bekhor shor, who was born after rupert’s death, objected to precisely that explanation which had been 7 van engen, rupert, 242. 8 david e. timmer, “biblical exegesis and the jewish-christian controversy in the early twelfth century,” church history 58 (1989): 309-321. m.l. arduini, ruperto di deutz e la controversia tra christiani ed ebrei nel secolo xii, a cura di rhabanus haacke, osb (rome, 1979), 119–121; a. s. abulafia, “the ideology of reform and changing ideas concerning jews in the works of rupert of deutz and hermannus quondam iudeus,” jewish history 7 (1993); 46–63. van engen devotes several pages to “disputes with rhineland jews” (rupert, 241–248). 9“rupert and rashi,” forthcoming in janes 33 (2014). 10 in gen. 5.37, cccm 21, 373. all quotations of rupert’s writings are taken from hrabanus haacke, ruperti tuitiensis: de sancta trinitate et operibus eius, corpus christianorum continuatio mediaevalis vol.21 (turnhout: brepols, 1971). quotations past exodus are taken from cccm 22. 11 as stated by rashi at gn 3:8 and in his introduction to the song of songs. studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 8 (2013) given by both exegetes. here we seek to examine whether bekhor shor’s opposition arose only on the basis of his knowledge of rashi’s commentary, or whether he knew what christians like rupert had said about the bible. almost thirty years ago, sarah kamin raised the possibility of a connection between a comment of rupert on the subject of allegorical interpretation of the bible and equally lengthy remarks of bekhor shor on the same topic. 12 bekhor shor chose to invalidate the allegorical approach of christian exegesis from the very same verses in nm 12:6–8 that both origen (185–254 ce) and rupert had used to prove that the torah is to be explained as an allegory. following kamin’s lead, we will cite further examples from bekhor shor that seem to have similarities with rupert or other christian interpretations. similarity does not necessarily mean borrowing. first, both exegetes could have arrived at similar insights independently, particularly if both tended towards a literal reading of the text. second, rupert might have heard biblical interpretations 13 that originated from earlier jewish sources, and bekhor shor may have cited those very same sources, without having heard them in rupert’s name. for example, rupert might have heard comments on the torah made by r. joseph qara, a contemporary of rashi and teacher of scripture (1060–1130). as bekhor shor himself cites qara some ten times by name, this could explain similar comments found in rupert and bekhor shor. unfortunately, we cannot investigate this possibility, as qara’s commentary on the pentateuch is 12 sarah kamin, “the polemic against allegory in the commentary of rabbi joseph bekhor shor,” in sarah kamin, jews and christians (jerusalem: magnes press, 2008), 89–112 [heb.], rpt. from meḥkere yerushalayim bemaḥshevet yisrael 3 (1984): 367–392. 13 we stress hearing, as there is no evidence that rupert read or knew hebrew. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 5 lost to us, with the exception of several leaves discovered in the “italian genizah.” 14 a third possibility is that both rupert and bekhor shor cite interpretations from earlier christian sources. both samuel poznanski and e. e. urbach assumed that bekhor shor read latin. 15 however, ephraim kanarfogel thinks otherwise: “the single most important factor that limited what jews could receive from their christian surroundings is a linguistic one. ashkenazic jewry as a whole…did not read latin….among the tosafists…it is hard to identify even one figure other than rashbam who had any familiarity with latin.” 16 joseph bekhor shor was among these tosafists. kanarfogel instead puts stock in oral communication as a vehicle through which each side learned about the exegetical methods of the other. 17 it is therefore possible that bekhor shor heard interpretations in the name of rupert or other christians and responded to them. we will now present several examples which seem to show that bekhor shor had some knowledge of christian 14 see mauro perani, “yosef ben simon kara’s lost commentary on the psalms: the imola fragment from the ‘italian genizah’," the words of a wise man’s mouth are gracious (qoh 10,12): festschrift for günter stemberger on the occasion of his 65th birthday, ed. mauro perani (berlin: de gruyter, 2005), 248–395; avraham grossman, “mi-'genizat italia': seridim miperush rabbi yosef kara latora,” pe’amim 52 (1992): 16–36 [heb.]; idem., genuze italia u-ferushav shel rabbi yosef kara lamikra, in hamikra bere’i mefareshav--sefer zikkaron lesara kamin, ed. sara japhet (jerusalem: magnes press, 1994), 335–340 [heb.]. 15e.e. urbach, ba’ale hatosafot (jerusalem: mosad bialik, 1968), 116, cites a comment of bekhor shor from his no longer extant commentary on psalms, preserved in the polemical work sefer yosef hameqanne, in which he criticized a reading of jerome from the vulgate. samuel poznanski, mavo al ḥakhme ẓorfat mefarshe hamikra (warsaw, 1913), lvi, preceded urbach in claiming that bekhor shor knew latin based on the above reference to jerome, and added that bekhor shor notes the translation of the bible into latin in his comment to nm 12:8. 16kanarfogel, intellectual history, 85-87. 17kanarfogel, intellectual history, 103-105. studies in christian-jewish relations 6 scjr 8 (2013) exegesis, perhaps even that of rupert. we base our claim on similarities in the structure, content, or language of bekhor shor’s remarks. 1. dosage necessary from the tree of life gn 3:22-23 and the lord god said, now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever! so the lord god banished him from the garden of eden… 18 ַוּיֹאֶמר ה' ֱאֹלִהים ֵהן ָהָאָדם ָהָיה ְּכַאַחד ִמֶּמּנּו ָלַדַעת טֹוב ָוָרע ְוַעָּתה ֶּפן־ִיְׁשַלח ...ַוְיַׁשְּלֵחהּו ה' ֱאֹלִהים ִמַּגן־ֵעֶדן ָידֹו ְוָלַקח ַּגם ֵמֵעץ ַהַחִּיים ְוָאַכל ָוַחי ְלֹעָלם: rupert: it should be noted that it did not say only, “so that he may not send forth his hand,” but it says “in case by chance he may send forth his hand.” through this it is plainly evident that that tree of life was not as follows: wood, just as any herb is a drug for health. certainly the chance ingestion of a medicinal herb does not bestow eternal good health, but with application and care health is preserved against the chance recurrence of sickness. it says, however, concerning this tree, “in case by chance…he may eat and live forever.” therefore in no way was it necessary to have repeated recourse to the tree as a temporary drug for preserving life (as some think), but once it was taken the body would live forever. 19 18 njps translation used throughout, unless otherwise noted. 19nunc illud notandum quod non dixerit solum, ne mittat manum suam, sed ne forte, inquit, mittat manum suam. plane per hoc liquet, quod non sic fuerit illud lignum vitae: lignum, quomodo est herba aliqua sanitatis medicamentum. siquidem medicinalis herba forte sumpta non perpetuam confert sanitatem, sed studio provisa servatur contra forte redituram infirmitatem. de hoc autem ligno dicit: ne forte…comedat et vivat in aeternum. ergo nequaquam (ut nonnulli arbitrantur) frequentandum erat necessario lignum tamquam perpetuandae vitae transitivum medicamentum, sed semel hoc sumpto viveret corpus in aeternum. (in gen.3.30, cccm 21, 270). studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 7 the version of the vulgate that rupert used read verses 22 and 23 as if they were one: “in order that adam not stretch out his hand and take from the tree of life, god sent him out of the garden.” the latin also adds the word forte, “by chance,” i.e., “in order that adam not stretch out his hand by chance.” why add “by chance,” asks rupert. from this he understands that the verse describes a situation where adam might grab a fruit from the tree of life and with a single bite attain immortality. he therefore rules out the possibility that the tree was a type of medicine to cure illness if taken regularly. it had a magical quality to extend life even if eaten only once. andrew of st. victor (1110–1175), an early christian hebraist, was also aware of these two interpretations, for he writes on this verse: from this scriptural text it is given to understand that he had not yet tasted the tree of life, because if he had once tasted it, he could never have died. certain people however seem to assert that he would ingest from the other trees to alleviate hunger and thirst, but from that one for the weakness of old age, nor would it suffice to take it once; rather it would have to be taken repeatedly in order to extend life. 20 both rupert and andrew first cite the explanation that the fruit of the tree of life could miraculously bestow immortality immediately, and then the understanding that it did not magically give eternal life but was instead a drug that healed sickness, and so would extend life with repeated doses. they both prefer the first idea and reject the second. 20 ex hoc loco scripturae datur intelligi, quod necdum de ligno vitae gustaverat, quia, si semel gustasset, numquam mori potuisset. quidam tamen videntur asserere, quod cetera ligna in remedium famis et sitis, istud vero contra senii defectum sumeret nec semel sumere sufficeret; immo frequenter sumendum, ut vitam continuaret. (andreas a s. victore: expositio super heptateuchum, eds. c. lohr, r. berndt, cccm 53 [1986], 39). studies in christian-jewish relations 8 scjr 8 (2013) bekhor shor (gn 3:22): “also from the tree of life”: the tree of healing, as in, “and if anyone who is bitten looks at it, he shall recover [literally: live]” (nm 21:8), that he would be healed, and as it says regarding the pressed figs: “and they shall spread them on the rash and he will recover [literally: live]” (is 38:21), and like the talmudic expression, “the wound healed” [literally: “lived”]. for anyone who was ill who ate from that tree was healed, and if he was weak, he was strengthened, and if he was old, he returned to the days of his youth. therefore if adam had weakened, he would have eaten from it and been strengthened and returned to the days of his youth. when he would become old again, he would eat again and so on forever. it was not effective at all however for one who was healthy and strong and was not as people think, that one who would eat from it would live forever. this is not so, since if it were so, adam would have eaten after he ate from the tree of wisdom or before, but it would not have helped at all. 21 bekhor shor explains the name עץ החיים, the tree of life, as “the tree of healing,” citing several prooftexts in which the word “life” means “recover.” after the fiery serpents were to bite and kill grumbling israel, god directed moses to make a figure of one, mount it on a pole, and those who had been bitten could look at it and recover/live. (nm 21:8) isaiah calls for healing hezekiah’s life-threatening illness by applying a cake of figs to his rash and promising that “he will recover.” (is , שהוא והיה כל הנשוך וראה אותו וחי: עץ הרפואה, כמו: גם מעץ החיים 21 , וכמו 'חיתה המכה' בתלמוד. וימרחו על השחין ויחיו שאומר בדבילה: נתרפא, וכמ כי אותו עץ כל מי שהוא חולה אם יאכל ממנו יתרפא, ואם תש כחו יתחזק, ואם זקן ישוב לימי עלומיו, ולפיכך אם יהיה אדם בגן עדן כשיזקין ויתיש כחו יאכל ממנו יחזור ויאכל, וכן לעולם, אבל לבריא ויתחזק ויחזור לימי עלומיו, וכשיחזור ויזקין וחזק אינו מועיל כלום, ולא כמו שסוברים בני אדם: שמי שיאכל ממנו יחיה לעולם, אין זאת, דאם כן היה אדם אוכל לאחר שאכל מעץ הדעת או קודם, אבל לא היה .מועיל כלום studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 9 38:21) finally, the talmudic expression (b. niddah 64b) that literally says, “the wound lived” also indicates healing. aside from the similarity of content, we point to the following expressions used by rupert, andrew, and bekhor shor respectively. 1. “in no way was it necessary…(as some think)” 2. “certain people however seem to assert” 3. “and [it] was not as people think” it seems that bekhor shor, rupert, and andrew all drew from a common source. however, there is no trace in previous jewish or christian writings of an interpretation that one need repeatedly to eat from the tree of life; bekhor shor is the first jewish commentator to cite it. thus, it seems more likely that rupert or andrew was the source of bekhor shor’s comment. as in the disagreement about allegory between rupert and bekhor shor which we cited above from kamin’s article, bekhor shor rejects the explanation that the christians prefer. in the present case, he does this on semantic grounds, based on the meaning of ḥayyim in several proof texts as health or recovery rather than life; apparently he seeks to ground his exegesis in the grammar of the text. rupert bases his explanation on the superfluous word forte “by chance” in jerome’s translation, also relying on the literal meaning of the text. both rupert and bekhor shor here exhibit interpretive traits that fall under the rubric of peshat. 2. abraham’s mental abandonment of a return to his homeland gn 12:1 the lord said to abram: “go forth from your native land and from your father’s house to the land that i will show you.” ָהָאֶרץ, ְלָך ֵמַאְרְצָך ּוִמּמֹוַלְדְּתָך ּוִמֵּבית ָאִביָך, ֶאל-ַאְבָרם, ֶלְךַוּיֹאֶמר ה' ֶאל .ֲאֶׁשר ַאְרֶאּךָ studies in christian-jewish relations 10 scjr 8 (2013) bekhor shor: from your native land: although he was no longer there because he had already come to ḥaran, he said to him: remove yourself completely from there so that it should not be any longer your mind to return. and from your father's house: where you are now.22 it might seem that if there is anything distinctive to point out here, perhaps it is bekhor shor’s concern for the inner life or psychology of biblical characters, considered by several scholars to be a trait of his peshat approach.23 abraham’s departure from his native land was to be not only physical but mental as well. bekhor shor’s comment was addressing a legitimate problem: when the lord commanded abraham to leave, he had already left his birth-place ur of the chaldees in mesopotamia, and was now residing in ḥaran in present-day syria. it is from ḥaran that he departed for canaan. why then is he asked to leave his native land? in answer to that question, bekhor shor explains that god was now asking abraham to forget about the comforts and benefits of his original homeland, to divorce himself mentally from that place. a survey of christian exegesis on this verse, even before rupert, enables us to see bekhor shor’s comment in a different light. the glossa ordinaria in the name of walafrid strabo (c.808–849) writes on gn 12:1, “it should be noted that he had already gone out from his land, but then he had gone out in body not in mind and will. perhaps he thought of returning when he (the lord) said to him, ‘go out’.” 24 richard 22 אע"פ שלא היה שם, שכבר בא לחרן, אמר לו: סלק עצמך וממולדתך מארצך שאתה עתה שם. אביך ומבית .גמרי משם, שלא יהא עוד דעתך לחזורל 23 kanarfogel, intellectual history, 146-147. 24 notandum quod iam egressus fuerat de terra sua, sed tunc egressus fuerat corpore non mente et voluntate, habebit enim animum fortisan revertendi, quando dictum est ei: egredere (biblia sacra cum glossis interlineari et ordinaria [venice, 1588], vol. 1). studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 11 of préaux (d. 1131/2) wrote, “moreover it should be known that abram had already gone out from his land when the lord said to him, ‘go out from your land.’ nevertheless the lord urged him that just as in body so he should go out also in mind from the land of his birth.” 25 augustine, bede, and the carolingian authors had commented similarly on this verse. 26 rupert wrote: leave your land and your family etc. why did it not say only, “leave your land,” but added, “and your family,” unless his land was in one place and his family in another? 27 if indeed his land was chaldea, his family was now in ḥaran, that is: it had reached syria in its flight. therefore the fact that the lord said, “leave the land,” and added, “and your family” is the same as if he were to say, just as you have physically left chaldea, do so now also in your mind so that you will never return there, and in addition leave where you now live, ‘leave your family’.” 28 25 porro sciendum est abram iam egressum fuisse de terra sua cum ei diceret dominus: egredere de terra tua. caeterum dominus hortatur eum ut sicut corpore sic exeat et mente de terra nativitatis (ric. de pratellensis: in genesim, book 7; ms lambeth vi, 5 [stegmüller 7284]). 26 augustine, 12:1, de civitate dei 16.16, ccsl 48, 520; bede, gen. 12:12, in genesim 3, ccsl 118a, 168; angelomus of luxueil, gen. 12:1, comment. in gen., pl 115/169a; haimo of auxerre (pseudo-remigius), commentarius in genesim, pl 131/82a; remigius of auxerre, 12:1, expositio super genesim, cccm 136, 104. 27 jerome’s translation of gn 12:1, egredere de terra et de cognatione tua, “leave your land and your family,” has only two elements, rather than the three in the hebrew text—your land, birthplace, and your father’s house. it seems that jerome understood the first two elements as one (hendiadys). njps, cited above, renders in similar fashion. the old jps cites “country, kindred, and father’s house,” following the hebrew literally. 28 egredere de terra et de cognatione tua etc. cur enim non dixit solum: egredere de terra tua sed addidit: et de cognatione tua, nisi quia alibi terra et alibi cognatio eius erat? siquidem terra eius chaldea erat, cognatio autem eius nunc in haran id est in syriam profugiendo devenerat. quod ergo cum dixisset: egredere de terra addidit et de cognatione tua idem est ac si diceret: sicut de terra chaldeorum corpore egressus es, animo quostudies in christian-jewish relations 12 scjr 8 (2013) what all these christian commentators have in common is the use of the words mente or animo (both in the ablative) meaning “mind.” bekhor shor is the sole jewish commentator who echoes this long tradition of christian commentary. further, rupert’s explanation that the first element of the command, to leave his land, referred to abraham severing mental or emotional ties with his homeland, while the second element, “your family,” actually meant leaving his family that was now residing in ḥaran, is found among the christians only in the commentaries of bede (673–735) and rupert. and behold, bekhor shor says exactly the same thing. “he said to him, remove yourself completely from there so that it should not be any longer your mind to return’.” then follows a second lemma: “and from your father's house: where you are now.” all this suggests that bekhor shor may have been influenced by the christian exegetical tradition for this verse. on the other hand, the phrase bekhor shor used in hebrew was “דעתו לחזור.” this is a rabbinic hebrew expression which means “it was his intention to return.” while it is true that the word da’at alone means “knowledge,” a derivative of the verb ידע, “to know,” and hence can in certain contexts be translated “mind,” already in the bible the phrase “ בבלי ” -literally “without knowledge,” bears the mean ,(dt 4:42) דעת ing “without intention.” 29 therefore, the phrase bekhor shor used, “שלא יהא עוד דעתך לחזור” could be translated as, “so that it should no longer be your intention to return.” our translation of bekhor shor’s comment as, “so that it should not be any longer your mind to return,” might have been biased by the christian use of “mente” in this verse. if in fact bekhor shor did not know of the christian comments, it would be dif que sic egredere ut numquam illuc redeas, insuper es hinc, ubi nunc habitas, egredere de cognatione tua (in gen. 5.3, cccm 21, 333-4). 29 francis brown, s.r. driver, and charles a. briggs, a hebrew and english lexicon of the old testament (oxford: clarendon press, 1906), 395, column b, s.v. da’at. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 13 ficult to justify our translation. however, it is quite possible that bekhor shor, knowing the christian comments, did intend a double entendre, choosing a phrase that reflects both the sense of intention as well as the notion of abraham’s abandoning his homeland in mind as well as in body. 30 3. the servant’s oath to abraham gn 24:2 and abraham said to the senior servant of his household, who had charge of all that he owned: “put your hand under my thigh.” ֹ וַ ַחתּתַ ָיְדָך ים־ָנאׂשִ ֹור־לׁשֶ ָכל־אֲ ּבְ לׁשֵ ּמֹ הַ ֹויתּבֵ ְזַקן ּדֹוֶאל־ַעבְ ַאְבָרָהם אֶמרּי .ְיֵרִכי following rashi, who cites the midrash, the common jewish explanation is that the servant placed his hand on abraham’s circumcision, in line with the halakhic requirement that an oath be taken while holding a sacred object such as a torah scroll or tefillin (phylacteries).31 as these sacred objects did not yet exist, abraham made the servant swear on his circumcision. however, bekhor shor, in a comment which shows his originality as a peshat exegete, understood abraham’s words as metaphor: bekhor shor: place your hand and trust underfoot, be subservient to me and under my foot [control], with regard to fulfilling the following oath, and not that he actually placed his hand there [near abraham’s groin]. but the haggadah (genr 59:8) says, “because at that 30 the ambiguous meaning of da’at as both “knowledge” as well as “intention or desire” was discussed by nahmanides on gn 2:9, who preferred to call the tree of knowledge the tree of desire. especially relevant to our discussion is his comment, “therefore it is called ‘the tree of knowledge of good and evil’(gn 2:9) for the word da’at (knowledge) is used in our language to express one’s will, as the rabbis said (b. pesaḥim 6a), ‘this was stated only in a case where he intended to return’ ( לא שנו אלא שדעתו ”.(לחזור 31 or a bible, as in western courts of justice. studies in christian-jewish relations 14 scjr 8 (2013) spot we find the commandment of circumcision.” and the christians say, “because from that spot jesus, their abomination, came out.” we should respond to them, “they do not believe that jesus was born of a man. why then do they not take oaths on the womb of a woman?” 32 bekhor shor’s polemical taunt seems a direct response to rupert’s comment on this verse: rupert: the hebrews have a tradition that he ordered him to swear on his sanctification, that is, he commanded him to swear on his circumcision. but we say that he made him swear on his seed, that is to say on christ, who would be born from it. 33 rupert’s comment is almost a verbatim quote from jerome’s hebraicae quaestiones.34 the latin ex illo (from it) in the phrase qui ex illo nasciturus erat (who would be born from it) is ambiguous. it may refer to the antecedent “seed”; however, ex illo may also be understood as “from him,” meaning from abraham. perhaps bekhor shor understood that the christians were claiming that jesus was born of abraham, to which he responded with derision. in reality, jerome was claiming that christ was to be born of the seed of abraham, which is why the servant placed his hand near abraham’s sexual organ. our explanation of the difference between them presupposes that bekhor shor was citing from a written text. however, it is possible that bekhor shor had heard the chris רגלי, להיות משועבד לי ונתון תחת רגלי לזאת תחתואמונתך ידך נא שים 32 שתעשה לי שבועה זאת; ולא שישים ידו שם ממש. והגדה (ב"ר נט,ח): מפני שיש שם מצות מילה. והמינין אומרים: מפני שמשם יצא ישו תרפותם; ויש להשיבם: הלא לא הורה על ידי גבר לדבריהם, על רחמה של אשה היה להם לישבע! 33 tradunt hebraei quod in sanctificatione sua, hoc est in circumcisione iurare iusserit. nos autem dicimus quod illum adiuraverit in semine suo, hoc est in christo, qui ex illo nasciturus erat; (in gen. 6.39, cccm 21, 417). 34 hebraicae quaestiones in genesim 36, 19-24= ccsl 72, 28ff. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 15 tian tradition about the oath from an oral source. 35 either way, there is an element of potential retort to rupert in bekhor shor’s writing, a feature we have noted in other examples. 4. the function of angels gn 32:2 jacob went on his way, and angels of god encountered him. .בֹו ַמְלֲאֵכי ֱאֹלִהיםְוַיֲעֹקב ָהַלְך ְלַדְרּכֹו; ַוִּיְפְּגעּו bekhor shor: angels of god encountered him: it appears that since these angels did not say anything that needed to be written, they came solely to honor him. they came out to meet him in order to honor him as is done to a man who comes from a distant place. 36 a reader familiar with jewish bible exegesis might be reminded of the verse “'וירא אליו ה, and the lord appeared unto him” (gn 18:1) and rashi’s citation of the midrash that the lord came to pay abraham a visit after he had undergone the rite of circumcision. rashi did not elaborate on this gross anthropomorphism, but nahmanides ad loc. did. abraham, he explains, was sitting at the door of his tent, neither praying, nor beseeching the lord, nor awaiting a prophecy. nevertheless, the lord appeared to him “ְלַמֲעָלה וכבוד לו, as a mark of distinction and honor.” the almighty did not appear in order to command abraham or to inform him of anything, but simply as a reward for fulfilling the commandment of circumcision. and, adds nahmanides, “about jacob as well we read, ‘and angels of god encountered him’ (gn 32:2). they did 35 the introductory phrase tradunt hebraei usually refers to a tradition cited by jerome. 36 המלאכים שלא אמרו דבר הצריך שנכתב, נראה שאלועו בו מלאכי אלהים: ויפג שלא באו רק לכבודו, כאדם שבא ממקום רחוק ויוצאין לקראתו לכבדו. studies in christian-jewish relations 16 scjr 8 (2013) not speak to him or tell him anything; he merited a revelation of angels as a sign that his actions were deemed worthy.” 37 we know to what extent nahmanides relied on the commentary of bekhor shor to the pentateuch for his own exegesis. 38 it seems that nahmanides’ idea that the lord appeared to abraham “as a tribute and honor to him” was taken from bekhor shor’s comment that the angels who appeared to jacob “came solely to honor him, to greet him as a sign of honor, as is done to a man who comes from a distant place.” 39 if all we possessed were rashi, bekhor shor, and nahmanides, this would seem a case of internal jewish exegesis that is midrashic in origin. but in light of rupert’s comments on jacob’s angels we may have to reconsider: rupert: it is not said that an angel appeared to him or that angels appeared to him, which also happened to many people, but it is said that angels of god met him (gn 32:2). this resounds with the distinction of a veteran conqueror whom a heavenly procession came to meet in triumphal glory and to whom in a festive reception it provided a glad show of allegiance. 40 , ... וכן ביעקב אמר "ויפגעו בו מלאכי ְלַמֲעָלה וכבוד לווזה גלוי השכינה אליו 37 אלהים" (בר' לב,ב), ואין שם דבור ולא שחדשו בו דבר, רק שזכה לראית מלאכי עליון. 38 hillel novetsky, “the influences of rabbi joseph bekhor shor and radak on ramban’s commentary on the torah” (m.a. thesis, yeshiva university, 1992). 39 ramban’s originality lies in the application of bekhor shor’s comment about angels to abraham, even though bekhor shor himself did not apply it there (instead he agrees with rashbam that the lord appeared to abraham in the guise of three men). 40 non dictum est quia apparuit angelus vel apparuerunt ei angeli, quod et multis accidit, sed dictum est quia fuerunt ei obviam angeli dei, quod insigne sonat victoris et emeriti, cui pro gloria triumphi pompa caelestis obviam procedens festiva exceptione laetum obsequium praebuerit (in gen. 8.2, cccm 21, 487). studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 17 rupert’s “heavenly procession” which came to meet jacob “in triumphal glory and to whom in a festive reception it provided a glad show of allegiance” sounds very much like bekhor shor’s reference to an honor guard that went forth to greet jacob. once more it seems that rupert and bekhor shor are sharing an exegetical thought. possibly, rupert is the source. as in the first case above, rupert relies on a semantic point in the vulgate: the words fuerunt ei obviam angeli dei, “angels of god met him” is not the same as quia apparuit angelus, “that an angel appeared to him.” once again, rupert anchors his idea in the grammar or semantics of the sentence. bekhor shor makes the same point in the form of a logical deduction from the context: since the torah does not record what the angels said, they apparently did not come to say anything. their very appearance was reward enough for jacob. both styles of explanation, based on grammar or context, are typical of the method of peshat in their stress on a literal understanding. can we be certain that bekhor shor was relying on rupert? did both perhaps arrive independently at a similar understanding? this question, which has to be asked in every case of similarity, is further complicated here by an additional source. midrash rabbah numbers 4:141 records the following comment: the holy one, blessed be he, said to jacob: you are exceedingly precious in my sight, for i, as it were, and my ministering angels came out to meet you when you set out to go to paddan-aram and when you returned. at the time when you set out: what is written? “jacob left beer-sheba…. he came upon a certain place ( ויפגע and the lord was standing beside him…” (gn…(במקום 28:10-13) happy the mortal, said r. hoshaya, who beheld such a thing! the divine king and his attendants standing beside him and guarding him! whence 41 compare the parallels, with variants, in tanḥuma bemidbar 19 and tanḥuma buber bemidbar 22. studies in christian-jewish relations 18 scjr 8 (2013) do we infer that when he came back god met him again? because it is said, “jacob went on his way, [and angels of god encountered him (ויפגעו בו)].” (gn 32:2) this is proof for the angels. 42 perhaps rupert and bekhor shor are both rooted in this midrash. both commentators tried to present the midrashic idea that jacob was honored by attendant angels in a way that was commensurate with a literal approach: the midrashic idea had to be the outcome of language analysis or contextual explanation. from previous examples that we have gathered, we know that rupert sometimes included aggadic ideas which he probably heard from jews, perhaps in the name of rashi; but unlike rashi, rupert never resorted to midrashic rules of exegesis to put across an idea. while he was capable of understanding a midrashic idea, he had no concept of midrashic techniques or hermeneutic rules. in this case the midrash is based on the appearance of the identical predicate in both expressions: encountered ( וויפגע במקוםויפגע –בו מלאכי אלוהים ). for rupert, scripture is the vulgate, and he therefore seeks to express the idea of an angelic honor guard based on the difference between two latin verbs. bekhor shor was of course familiar with midrashic techniques but being a pashtan (one who engages in the peshat), he did not rely on the wordplay of the midrash on these two appearances of “encounter” as the source of this idea. on the contrary, he explains that “he came upon a certain place” (gn 28:11) means “purely by accident.” 43 instead, bekhor shor אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא ליעקב הרבה יקר את בעיני שכביכול אני ומלאכי השרת 42 ובביאתך בשעה שיצאת מה כתיב ויצא שלי יצאו לקראתך בצאתך לילך לפדן ארם יעקב וגו' ויפגע במקום וגו' ... והנה ה' נצב עליו וגו' אמר רבי הושעיא אשרי ילוד אשה שכך ראה המלך ופמליא שלו נצבים עליו ומשמרים אותו ומנין בביאתו .שנאמר (בראשית לב) ויעקב הלך לדרכו וגו' הרי המלאכים דם מתכוין לו, אלא על ידי מקרה אירע לו שבא כל דבר שאין א -ויפגע במקום 43 שם, קורא 'פגיעה', כאדם שפוגע בחבירו על ידי מקרה; וכן יעקב לא נתכווין למקום ההוא, אלא על ידי מקרה בא שם. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 19 roots the idea of an angelic honor guard in his understanding of the narrative; if the angels bore no message, they must have been an honorary entourage. 44 ephraim kanarfogel also notes that “a most interesting aspect of bekhor shor’s exegetical method concerns how he presents talmudic and rabbinic sources not just to accompany peshat interpretations as possible and sometimes preferred options, but as vehicles for putting forward a basic (peshat) interpretation…” 45 in other words, bekhor shor presents talmudic and midrashic interpretations as the outcome of the peshat method itself.46 presenting midrash-like content in the form of rational interpretation is one of the interesting similarities found in rupert and bekhor shor, though as we explained above, each refrained from midrashic hermeneutics for different reasons. perhaps the case of jacob’s angels is an example of this. 5. typology and symbolism in leviticus lv 14:4-7 the priest shall order two live clean birds, cedarwood, crimson stuff, and hyssop to be brought for him who is to be cleansed. the priest shall order one of the birds slaughtered over fresh water in an earthen vessel; and he shall take the live bird, along with the cedar-wood, the crimson stuff, and the hyssop, and dip them together with the live bird in the blood of the bird that was slaughtered over the fresh water. he 44 on the story of the angels, see kanarfogel, intellectual history, 145. 45 ibid., 158-159. 46 for example: on dt 26:2, “you shall take some of every first fruit of the soil,” the rabbis explained that the intention was to bring bikkurim, first fruits, only from the seven species with which the land of israel was blessed (dt 8:8). this teaching, cited by rashi ad locum, was derived from a gezera shava, a comparison based on the identical word, erets, “land,” which appears in both verses in deuteronomy. bekhor shor arrives at the same halakhic determination by explaining the word reshit as “best,” rather than chronological “first,” a meaning which he then supports from a prooftext (am 6:6). he identifies the best fruits as the seven species enumerated at dt 8:8. he thus arrives at the midrashic teaching, not through a midrashic rule, but by a semantic proof. studies in christian-jewish relations 20 scjr 8 (2013) shall then sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the leprosy 47 and cleanse him; and he shall set the live bird free in the open country. תֹוַלַעת ּוְׁשִני ֶאֶרז ְוֵעץ ְטֹהרֹות ַחּיֹות ִצֳּפִרים ְׁשֵּתי ַלִּמַּטֵהר ְוָלַקח ַהֹּכֵהן ְוִצָּוה ֶאת .ַחִּיים ַמִים ַעל ֶחֶרׂש ְּכִלי ֶאל ָהֶאָחת ַהִּצּפֹור ֶאת ְוָׁשַחט ַהֹּכֵהן ְוִצָּוה .ְוֵאֹזב ְוָטַבל ָהֵאֹזב ְוֶאת ַהּתֹוַלַעת ְׁשִני ְוֶאת ָהֶאֶרז ֵעץ ְוֶאת ֹאָתּה ִיַּקח ַהַחָּיה ַהִּצֹּפר ַעל ְוִהָּזה .ַהַחִּיים ַהַּמִים ַעל ַהְּׁשֻחָטה ַהִּצֹּפר ְּבַדם ַהַחָּיה ַהִּצֹּפר ְוֵאת אֹוָתם .ָּׂשֶדההַ ְּפֵני ַעל ַהַחָּיה ַהִּצֹּפר ֶאת ְוִׁשַּלח ְוִטֲהרֹו ְּפָעִמים ֶׁשַבע ַהָּצַרַעת ִמן ַהִּמַּטֵהר bekhor shor (lv 14:4): and he [the priest] slaughters the bird and mixes its blood with running waters, to indicate that the dead one – the “leper” who was considered dead, as it is written: “let her not be as one dead” (nu 12:12) – may now mix with the living and enter into the camp like other men. he [the priest] releases the one bird into the field, to indicate that the leper who sits alone “like a lonely bird upon a roof” (ps 102:8) and was forbidden and restrained from socializing with other people is now permitted to rejoin his fellows, just as the bird that was restrained by man [i.e. the priest] is now released into the field to go off and fly with its fellows. 48 rupert (lv 14:1-7): but two birds are to be offered, “and one,” it says, “[the priest] shall command to be slaughtered in an earthenware vessel over living water…but he will dip the other live one in the blood of 47 njps reads “eruption.” although probably scientifically imprecise, we use the language of “leprosy” here throughout because it provides concise terminology. ושוחט הצפור ומערב דמה במים חיים, לומר שהמת הוא המצורע שהוא חשוב 48 חיים לבא במחנה ולהיות כשאר כמת, דכתיב: אל נא תהי כמת, מתערב עתה עם ה בני אדם, ושולח הצפור האחת על פני השדה, לומר המצורע שהוא יושב בדד כצפור בודד על גג ואסור ונקשר מלבא עם שאר בני אדם, עתה הותר לבא עם חביריו, כמו הציפור שהיתה קשורה בידי אדם ועתה משולחת על פני השדה לילך .ולעוף עם חברותיה studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 21 the slain bird etc.” (ibid. 14:5-6).49 why is this, if not because it is a duty upon the one who is restored to the church to acknowledge christ, because he was crucified or died due to our weakness and lives now due to divine power? for it is as a shadow, at any rate, or as a figure (figura)50 that these two birds are offered,51 but in the truth of reality it is one christ, one and the same, i say, one person of twin substance, crucified in respect to one, as has been previously mentioned, now living in respect to the other, in respect to which “he” also “no longer dies, death will rule no further over him” (rom.6:9). 52 this example is the only one we have not taken from genesis. we include it to indicate that rupert’s commentary on the entire pentateuch should be studied and compared with the work of jewish exegetes. although allegory is a basic device of christian exegesis, rupert alone seems to have explained this particular passage in such a manner. employment of symbolism and allegory is rare in jewish exegesis in general, partly because of its christian associations, partly because of its antinomian tendencies. certainly we should not expect to find it in a commentary which is literal in nature, such as that of bekhor shor. yet, here he explains that the two identical 49 translated directly from rupert. 50 this word indicates a typological explanation, see further, note 67. 51 the shadow also indicates a meaning besides the thing itself, i.e. a typological meaning. rupert uses this word, umbra, to explain the dual meanings of joseph’s dreams, see in gen. 8.21, cccm 21, 506, ll. 784787. 52 sed duo passeres offerendi sunt, et unum, inquit, e passeribus immolari iubebit in vase fictili super aquas viventes…alium autem vivum tinget in sanguine passeris immolati etc. cur hoc, nisi quia oportet eum qui reconciliatur ecclesiae confiteri christum, quia crucifixus vel mortuus est exinfirmitate nostra et vivit nunc ex virtute dei? nam in umbra quidem vel in figura ista duo passeres offeruntur, sed in veritate essentiae unus est christus, unus, inquam, idemque, una geminae persona substantiae, ex altero crucifixus, ut praedictum est, ex altero iam vivus, ex quo etiam ‘iam non moritur, mors illi ultra non dominabitur (in levit. 2.24, cccm 22, 883-884). studies in christian-jewish relations 22 scjr 8 (2013) birds, one destined to die, the other to live, represent one individual, the leper himself, first in his illness and its limitations and later in his healing and its consequences. it must be that bekhor shor understands that to explain the birds as symbolic falls within the realm of peshat, since a mere literal reading ignores the context and scriptural intention in its elaboration of this ritual. for rupert, the motif of one individual who could be considered both living and dead existed already in the case of isaac in his near sacrifice. 53 this view of isaac is to be found in the midrash as well, which notes that “isaac’s ashes are as if gathered on the altar.” 54 christianity therefore saw in isaac a figure of jesus in his crucifixion and resurrection. 55 in the case of the birds of the leper, where one dies and one lives, their identical nature allows for their combination into a symbol of one individual, as both rupert and bekhor shor proposed. unlike bekhor shor, once he has demonstrated that scripture intends a deeper message, rupert does not feel himself constrained to follow a literal approach. if a spiritual lesson can be found, the passage no longer needs to apply to the leper and can refer to jesus alone. this is the antinomian side of christian typology; bekhor shor, in contrast, ties the symbolic explanation to the literal reading and the ritual of the leper. 6. typology and symbolism ii 53 see rupert on gn 22:9, in gen. 6:32, cccm 21, 411; gn 48:3-4, in gen. 9.22, cccm 21, 554-555. 54 j. ta’anit 65a; leviticus rabbah 36:5; cf. b. ta’anit 16a; b. zevaḥim 62a. 55 “christians tend, revealingly, to call it, the “sacrifice” of isaac, as opposed to the jewish term, the “binding” of isaac. jon d. levenson, the death and resurrection of the beloved son: the transformation of child sacrifice in judaism and christianity (new haven: yale university press, 1993), 131.see however chapter 14, “the rewritten aqedah of jewish tradition,” 173-199, in which he discusses midrashic sources where the blood of isaac is related to the blood of the paschal sacrifice. for isaac as the prefiguration of jesus, see p. 200 ff. edward kessler, bound by the bible: jews, christians and the sacrifice of isaac (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2004), also deals with the terms “the blood of the binding of isaac” and “the ashes of isaac,” 127-135. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 23 the previous example illustrated rupert’s use of spiritual, rather than literal exegesis, using mystery, allegory, and moral interpretation. these methods were typical of schools in paris in the twelfth century. 56 in fact, they were part of the four senses of scripture that served all christian interpretation: literal, allegorical, anagogical (i.e. typological), and mystical. aside from the literal meaning, the remaining three methods were not at all typical of jewish exegesis. yet there are signs of contact between christian and jewish hermeneutics. though not common, midrash sometimes considered biblical stories in genesis predictive of later events in jewish history. the most striking is a passage in genesis rabbah which sees the story of abram and sarai in the court of pharaoh (gn 12:1020) as foreshadowing the exodus from egypt: “it went well with abram, etc.” (gn 12:16) …r. phinehas commented in r. hoshaya’s name: the almighty said to our father abraham, “go forth and mark a path for your children.” for you find that everything written in connection with abraham is written in connection with his children: in connection with abraham it is written, “and there was a famine in the land” (gn 12:10); while in connection with israel it is written, “it is now two years that there has been famine in the land.” (gn 45:6) in connection with abraham, “and abram went down into egypt” (gn 12:10); while in connection with israel, “and our fathers went down into egypt.” (nm 20:15) abraham: “to sojourn there” (gn 12:10); israel: “we have come…to sojourn in this land.” (gn 47: 4) 56 dahan, “genres…,” 206. studies in christian-jewish relations 24 scjr 8 (2013) abraham: “for the famine was severe in the land” (gn 12:10); israel: “but the famine in the land was severe.” (gn 43:1) abraham: “as he was about (hikriv) to enter egypt” (gn 12:11) ; israel: “as pharaoh drew near (hikriv).” (ex 14:10)... abraham: “and he proceeded (vayelekh lemasa’av)” (gn 13:3); israel: “these were the marches (mas’e) of the children of israel.” (nm 33:1).57 in the way of midrash, every verse cited from the story in genesis 12 has its mirror image in a verse related to the exodus. moreover, there is always a shared word in the juxtaposed verses, something evident even in the english translation above. here is what rupert wrote on these verses: rupert (gn 12:10-13): but the very surface (facies) of the present historical account rejoices in a clear light and amasses for us mysteries which shine through, with 57 “lemasa’av” and “mas’e” both are forms of the word “masa.” translation based on midrash rabbah, genesis (lech lecha), xl.6, ed. and trans. h. freedman, maurice simon (london: soncino press, 1951), vol. 1, 330-331, with some changes. hebrew text from theodore-albeck edition, vol. 2, 385-386. ס מש' ר' הושעיה אמר ולאברהם היטיב וגו' ויצו עליו פרעה אנשים וגו' ר' פינח הקדוש ברוך הוא לאבינו אברהם צא וכבש את הדרך לפני בניך, ואת מוצא כל מה שכתוב באבינו אברהם כתוב בבניו, באברהם כת' ויהי רעב בארץ בישראל כת' כי זה שנתים הרעב (בראשית מה ו), באברהם כת' וירד אברם מצרימה בישראל כת' כ טו) באברהם כת' לגור שם בישראל כת' לגור וירדו אבותינו מצרימה (במדבר בארץ באנו (בראשית מז ד), באברהם כת' כי כבד הרעב בארץ בישראל כת' והרעב כבד בארץ (שם /בראשית/ מג א), באברהם כת' ויהי כאשר הקריב לבוא מצרימה וגו' בישראל כת' ופרעה הקריב (שמות יד י)...באברהם כת' ויצו עליו לחו בישראל כת' ותחזק מצרים על העם למהר לשלחם (שמות יב פרעה אנשים ויש לג), באברהם כת' וילך למסעיו בישראל כת' אלה מסעי בני ישראל וגו' (במדבר לג א). studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 25 which it is filled. for it is not without purpose that famine forced abram to go down to egypt and pharaoh was chastised because of him; his descendants afterwards similarly would go down to egypt when there was a famine in the same land of canaan and pharaoh was to be chastised with famous plagues because of them. it is not, i say, without divine insight…. “and then abram went up out of egypt, he and his wife and everything that he had, and lot with him to the southern region. now he was very wealthy, owning gold and silver.” (13:1-2) indeed when the people had been allowed to worship their god they went up out of egypt with all that they had according to pharaoh's statement, “take your flocks and herds as you had requested” (ex 12:32), and they were wealthy, owning gold and silver, for they had despoiled the egyptians at the lord's command through moses, that a man should demand from his friend and a woman from her neighbor vessels of silver and gold and garments. 58 “the present historical account” means the literal text; it stands on its own (“rejoices in a clear light”) but also contains a spiritual meaning, the typological one (“mysteries which shine through”). however, where christian writers generally see the typologies of the old testament as pointing towards the new, rupert here parallels the midrash in seeing a patriar 58 verum ipsa facies praesentis historiae iam sereno lumine arridet et translucentia nobis ingerit mysteria, quibus plena est. non enim ab re est, quod abram facta fame descendit in aegyptum et flagellatur pharao propter eum, cuius progenies postmodum itidem facta fame in eadem terra chanaan descensura erat in aegyptum, et flagellandus est pharao plagis notissimis propter eam. non, inquam, absque dei consilio est… et tunc ascendit abram de aegypto, ipse et uxor eius et omnia quae habebit, et loth cum eo ad australem plagam. erat autem dives valde in possessione auri et augenti: etenim permissus cultui dei sui populus ascendit de aegypto cum omnibus quae habebat dicente pharaone: oves vestras et armenta assumite ut petieras, erantque divites in possessione auri et argenti, spoliaverant enim aegyptios iubente domino per moysen, ut postularet vir ab amico suo et mulier a vicina sua vasa argentea et aurea et vest ( in gen. 5.75.8, cccm 21, 338-40). studies in christian-jewish relations 26 scjr 8 (2013) chal story as pointing towards an event in the hebrew bible, in this case the exodus. 59 however, as we have seen several times before, he adopts the midrash’s ideas without its hermeneutics. he does not cite a verse from the life of abraham and compare it to a verse about the exodus which shares a common word. instead he paints the similarity in broad strokes, based on the literal reading of the texts, making reference, as does the midrash, to the most obvious similarity: abraham leaves pharaoh’s palace with many flocks, gold and silver, paid as an indemnity to the forefather; israel leaves egypt with its flocks and with silver and gold vessels which the israelites had borrowed from their egyptian neighbors. while possibly, rupert developed this comparison on his own, it is also possible that he learned the midrash from a jewish informant. in this case we have not found a parallel to rupert in the northern french commentaries, but there is a striking similarity to the comments of a major jewish exegete of the thirteenth century. here is nahmanides’ (1194-1270) comment on this story: nahmanides: “and abram passed through the land.” i will tell you a principle by which you will understand all the coming portions of scripture concerning abraham, isaac, and jacob. it is indeed a great matter which our rabbis mentioned briefly, saying, “whatever has happened to the patriarchs is a sign to the children.” (tanḥuma lekh lekha 9) it is for this reason that the verses narrate at great length the account of the journeys of the patriarchs, the digging of the wells, and other events…in truth they all serve as a lesson for the future….concerning all decrees 60 of the 59 he does the same with the story of abraham, lot, and their inability to live together (gn13:6-8), seeing it as foreshadowing the sojourn of the israelites in the desert and their constant grumbling. see in gen. 5.9, cccm 21, 340-341. 60 chavel (see the following note) translated gezerat as “decisions,” but we changed it to “decrees” to make the sentence clearer, especially in light of studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 27 guardians [angels], know that when they proceed from a potential decree to a symbolic act [ פוַעל אל ְגֵזָרה מכח the decree will in any case be effected….it is for ,[דמיון this reason that the holy one, blessed be he, caused abraham to take possession of the land and symbolically did to him all that was destined to happen in the future to his children. understand this principle. 61 it is well known that nahmanides’ commentary is composed of different modes of interpretation: peshat, derash, derekh haremez, or typology, and derekh hasod, the mystical way. these methods, described by the acronym pardes (peshat, remez, derash, sod), are not some ancient formulation of jewish exegetical technique; the fourfold mode of exegesis has its identical parallel in christian biblical study. 62 in the above comment, it would seem that nahmanides combines typological explanation of the patriarchal stories with a belief in the efficacy of symbolic acts, which he illustrates, in his full comment, from acts performed by jeremiah (jer 1:6364) and elisha (2kgs 13:17). nahmanides’ explanation seems identical to the definition of typology given by julius africanus (c.160-c.240): prophetiae in rebus, “prophecy through things,” funkenstein’s observations, see further. “decrees of the guardians” is a phrase nahmanides took from dn 4:14, ֙ת ִעיִרין .ִּבְגֵזַר֤ 61 ramban (nachmanides) commentary on the torah, trans. charles b. chavel (new york: shilo publishing house, 1971), genesis xii, 6, 168169. 62 menahem haran, “midrashic and literal exegesis and the critical method in biblical research,” scripta hierosolymitana 31 (1986): 33. haran quotes the epigrammatic formulation of a dominican monk, augustinius of dakia: “littera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, moralis quid agas, quid speras anagogia,” which he explains as follows: the literal meaning teaches the occurrences (the eternal reality); the allegory [teaches] in what you should believe; the moral interpretation—what you should do; and the mystical explanation-for what you should hope. these four methods are the equivalent of peshat, derash, remez, and sod. the acronym pardes was first coined by moses de leon, who lived after nahmanides. studies in christian-jewish relations 28 scjr 8 (2013) prophecy based on the events themselves. 63 nahmanides did not take the typological explanation of gn 12 from rupert but rather from genesis rabbah and tanḥuma, both of which he cites. however, he did choose to make a methodological statement about the nature of typology and how it works precisely at the same place where rupert did. 64 further, nahmanides, like rupert, ignores the basis of the midrashic “typology” at gn 12 in apposite verses and identical words, substituting a structural parallel between the events. 65 nahmanides’ statement that the potential decrees of the angels, when symbolically acted out, turn into reality, has a deterministic ring about it, as does christian prefiguration. the key word in nahmanides’ understanding of typology is the word dimyon (translated “symbolic act”) in the quotation above (gn 12:10), which funkenstein claims must be understood as the translation of latin similitudo, a synonym for greek topos or latin figura.66 all of this means that nahmanides’ ideas about typology or remez were influenced by christian thought and vocabulary; the parallels with rupert support this conclusion. it is therefore entirely possible that nahmanides’ reliance on christian exegesis in the thirteenth century might indicate a relationship similar to that between northern french jewish exegesis and christian bible interpretation in the twelfth. 67 7. god as the architect of creation 63 amos funkenstein, styles in medieval biblical exegesis: an introduction (tel aviv, 1990), 57 [heb.]. 64 “this type of exegesis nahmanides applied to scripture, without doubt under the influence of christianity, and he called it remez.” funkenstein, styles, 57. 65 funkenstein, styles, 60. 66 ibid. 67 however, such a conclusion must be modified to accord with the different locations: nahmanides resided in gerona in christian spain, the french exegetes in northern france. was a spaniard in the thirteenth century more likely to borrow from christian exegesis than a french jew in the twelfth? studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 29 to the above six cases, we cite another case of similarity between rupert and bekhor shor. this example, however, differs from all those previously cited, because here rupert’s comment is clearly based on a midrash cited by rashi and bekhor shor’s comment is quite similar to rupert’s. 68 we hope to devote a separate study to these exegetical “cross currents,” which are further evidence of mutual influence between christian and jewish interpreters. the question discussed by rashi and rupert is why the words “כי טוב, ki tov, that it was good” do not appear after god’s activity on the second day of creation. both rashi and rupert offer the identical explanation in their comments on gn 1:7 and gn 1:8 respectively: work which is not yet completed cannot be graced with the expression, “that it was good.” the creation of the firmament (rakia) on the second day had to await the separation of land and water on the third day. in the course of this explanation, rupert (but not rashi) offers the following example: rupert: for what did god as architect intend when he said, “let a firmament be made in the midst of the waters, and let it separate waters from waters?” at any rate that he should make a spacious house of this world, a beautiful house, whose roof, as it were, is this firmament. the roof of a house can be beautiful workmanship, but it is not yet a house, until it is placed over a foundation and walls, and it is not something whole. 69 68 this example is therefore discussed in our forthcoming paper on rupert and rashi. 69 quid enim intendebat ille architectus deus cum dixit: fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum, et dividat aquas ab aquis? hoc utique, ut faceret mundi huius amplam domum, pulchram domum, cuius quasi tectum hoc firmamentum est. et sicut tectum domus pulchrum quidem opus esse potest, sed nondum domus, nisi quando fundamento et parietibus superpositum est, atque idem non totum quid est…( in gen. 1.30, cccm 21, 159). studies in christian-jewish relations 30 scjr 8 (2013) bekhor shor wrote as follows (gn 1:3): at this point the almighty created everything necessary for the world, just as when a man wants to build a house he prepares all that he needs, then he builds his house and puts each thing in its place, then he puts in the moveable items. so the lord prepared all that was necessary for the building on the first day, and he installed the firmament on the second...and when he completed his house he created fish and fowl and reptiles and animals, which are comparable to movables within a house. 70 rupert could not have taken the idea of god as architect from bekhor shor because bekhor shor was born after rupert had completed de sancta trinitate. possibly, both of them were relying on an earlier jewish source, though we could find none. this may mean that bekhor shor heard the idea from christian sources, perhaps cited in the name of rupert. * * * each interpretation of bekhor shor on its own, as well as the one case cited from nahmanides, could be explained as an original thought or as one rooted in the jewish exegetic tradition. all seven examples taken together, when compared to rupert’s explanations, raise the possibility that bekhor shor (and nahmanides) indeed heard christian explanations of scripture and chose to cite those interpretations, sometimes in order to disagree. possibly, bekhor shor was citing earlier jewish exegesis which was also the source of christian comments. it also seems beyond question that rupert utilized jewish ל תיקוני העולם, להבדיל, כאדם שרוצה לבנות עתה ברא הקדוש ברוך הוא כ 70 בית, ומכין כל צרכי ביניינו, ואחר כך בונה ביתו ומשים כל אחד על מקומו, ואחר כך עושה לו מטלטלין, כך הקדוש ברוך הוא תיקן כל צורכי הבניין ביום ראשון; בששי ותיקן הרקיע ביום שני והושיבו על כנו,...ואחר שגמר ביניינו, ברא בחמישי ו דגים ועופות ורמשים ובהמה וחיה, שהם כְמטלטלין בתוך הבית, שִמיטלטלין לכאן ולכאן. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 31 sources in his commentary. it does not seem probable that in each case, rupert and bekhor shor happened upon the same explanations and ideas by chance. on the efficacy of the tree of life, it is entirely possible that the christian tradition was known to bekhor shor, who in effect was reacting to it by choosing one explanation over the other. in the second case, rupert’s comment that abraham was commanded to leave his homeland mentally as well as physically caps a long line of christian writers who explained in that fashion, while bekhor shor is the only jewish source to make this point. the third example, the nature of the oath that abraham administered to his servant, is indeed a polemic. yet it seems to show that bekhor shor was reacting to something that rupert and earlier christians had written. 71 the fourth case, the appearance of angels as an honor guard, first appears in bekhor shor’s comments on gn 32:2, when the angels meet up with jacob. among christian exegetes, rupert is the only source to make a similar comment. both may have adapted an idea that first appears in the midrash to the methods of literal explanation. in the fifth case, bekhor shor understands the slaughtered bird and the one set free as representing the leper who was considered dead and was now restored to communal life. rupert understood the two birds as prefiguring christ who died and was reincarnated. the parallelism of ideas is certainly remarkable. we found no precedent in either christian or jewish exegesis for these interpretations. as rupert completed his works before bekhor shor was active, we must therefore conclude that rupert came up with this idea and bekhor shor adapted it, or else that both came up independently with similar ideas. at this point (example 6), we introduced the topic of typology, used regularly by rupert and, in the thirteenth century, by the spanish jewish commentator, nahmanides (ramban). both offer methodological comments on typology 71 rupert took his interpretation from jerome, see n. 35 above. studies in christian-jewish relations 32 scjr 8 (2013) upon reaching the story of abram and sarai in egypt (gn 12). this similarity highlights the fact that nahmanides used elements of christian typology in his own definition of the term. finally, in the seventh example, the use of an architectural metaphor to describe creation is once again found only in rupert and bekhor shor. the more cases we examine, the more it seems that jews and christians in the twelfth century were aware of each other’s interpretations, and these occasionally found their way into the bible commentaries of both groups. perhaps it was the zeitgeist of the twelfth century, what might be termed cultural congruity, expressed in a mutual interest in literal or peshat exegesis, that made such exchanges more acceptable.72 72 “literal exegesis was emerging there and then as a particular principle of culture that manifested itself beyond the boundaries of religion. as we have already stated, the history of bible exegesis is the history of culture.” (haran, midrashic and literal exegesis, 35.) 1 scjr 16, no. 1 (2021): 1-15 revisiting the parable of the good samaritan maurice ryan lumino@bigpond.com brisbane, queensland, 4007 australia introduction the gospel story of a samaritan who assists the victim of a vicious assault has entered popular consciousness. the parable and its central imagery have lived an extended life in the general community beyond the bible. good samaritan laws in various constituencies provide immunity from lawsuits for any ordinary negligence occurring while rendering aid in emergency situations.1 an inn of the good samaritan was constructed on the road from jerusalem to jerich—initially to sell paraphernalia to tourists—which has been upgraded to a museum dedicated to presenting jewish, samaritan and christian cultural life in israel.2 this museum is an example of how “sacred spaces become intertwined with the history of textual interpretation,”3 which potentially confounds the meaning of the original story. the biblical story has propelled numerous hospitals and organizations such as the good samaritan society4 and samaritan’s purse.5 artworks—most notably by rembrandt6 and van gogh7—present the story visually. the gospel story has introduced to common speech a term for a kind and compassionate person—a good samaritan. politicians have appropriated the image of the good samaritan to further their agendas, especially in debates about social welfare programs and policies 1 brian west and matthew varacallo, good samaritan laws (bethesda: national center for biotechnology information, 2020). 2 yitzhak magen, “the inn of the good samaritan becomes a museum,” biblical archaeology review 38, no. 1 (2012). 3 eric ottenheijm, “the ‘inn of the good samaritan’: religious, civic and political rhetoric of a biblical site,” in jerusalem and other holy places as foci of multireligious and ideological confrontation, ed. pieter hartog, shulamit laderman, vered tohar and archibald van wieringen (leiden: brill, 2020), 276. 4 the good samaritan society is a canadian lutheran social service organization, see: https://gss.org/ 5 samaritan’s purse is an evangelical christian humanitarian aid organization with international headquarters in boone, north carolina, see: https://www.samaritanspurse.org/ 6 rembrandt van rijn, “the good samaritan,” 1863, metropolitan museum, new y ork, see: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/364148 7 vincent van gogh, “the good samaritan,” 1890, kroller-muller museum otterlo, netherlands, see: https://www.vincentvangogh.org/the-good-samaritan.jsp ryan: revisiting the parable of the good samaritan 2 on asylum-seekers.8 commentators have even used the image to explain the popular appeal of reality tv makeover programs.9 this constellation of popular cultural references provides “an interesting instance of a confluence between scripture, proclamation, and cultural appropriation of christian symbols and influence.”10 given its multiple appearances, this parable “has a fair claim to be one of the most culturally pervasive stories found in the new testament.”11 it may also have a fair claim to be one of the most mis-interpreted stories found in the new testament. the meshing of biblical and popular culture has provided potential confusion in the way gospel readers understand this parable. this parable appears only in luke 10:25-37 and is set within a discussion between jesus and a lawyer concerning an answer to a question about what is required to inherit eternal life. the conversation moves to a contentious point of jewish law: who is to be considered a neighbor? in response, jesus tells the story of a helpful samaritan who renders compassionate care to a severely injured victim of a violent criminal gang. at the conclusion of luke’s fictional account, jesus asks the lawyer which person proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the thieves. the lawyer gives the correct response: “the one who showed him mercy.” the following discussion revisits this story of the merciful stranger. it offers a survey of contemporary scholarly literature published for english-speaking audiences which can be employed in evaluating the meaning and significance of this parable. it considers the necessity of a careful and close reading of luke’s parable to avoid adverse interpretations of jews and judaism that have been a feature of traditional christian presentations of the story. traditional christian presentations of the parable of the good samaritan the actions of the samaritan in assisting the wounded victim are described in precise detail in luke 10:34-35. christian leaders in the early church consistently understood the parable to be an allegory: “jerusalem stood for paradise and jericho for the world into which man had fallen by the agency of the demons, whereas the samaritan represented christ.”12 augustine of hippo (354-430), for example, taught that the oil and wine represented the sacraments of baptism and eucharist, the inn represented the church, the robbers were satan and his minions, and the 8 nick spencer, the political samaritan: how power hijacked a parable (new york: bloomsbury, 2018). 9 john mcmurria, “desperate citizens and good samaritans: neoliberalism and makeover reality tv,” television and new media 9, no. 4 (2008): 305-332. 10 harland hultgren, “enlarging the neighborhood: the parable of the good samaritan,” word & world 37 no. 1 (2017): 78. 11 matthew chalmers, representations of samaritans in late antique jewish and christian texts (publicly accessible university of pennsylvania dissertations, 3362, 2019), 35. 12 riemer roukema, “the good samaritan in ancient christianity,” vigilae christianae 58, no. 1 (2004): 57. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) samaritan signified christ.13 while modern readers can be excused for thinking such interpretations are somewhat far-fetched, their legacy endures. popular piety continues to observe that “the real good samaritan is jesus christ himself, who has come into the world to bind the wounds of a broken humanity in the hospital of the church…in the end, we must become like the good samaritan, like jesus christ.”14 despite the persistence of modern popular allegorical interpretations, a consensus has emerged among critical “scholars of all theological stripes…that the samaritan is not jesus.”15 unusually for the gospel parables, this narrative provides a specific geographical location: somewhere along the road from jerusalem to jericho (the only other instance of a geographical reference for a parable is the pharisee and the tax collector in the jerusalem temple in luke 18:10). this geographical reference may have historical plausibility. jericho was known as a place with a high population of priests and officials dedicated to serving the jerusalem temple. these officials were apparently attracted by “the fertility of the jericho region as well as its administrative importance.”16 there existed a “close connection between the temple in jerusalem and the priestly city of jericho.”17 priests and levites were a regular feature on the jerusalem-jericho road as a consequence of their regular rotations to undertake service in the temple. when christians have read, studied and preached this parable, the tendency has been to focus on the avoidance of the injured man by the priest and the levite because they are fearful of corpse contamination: if they touch a corpse, they will 13 roland teske, “the good samaritan (lk 10:29-37) in augustine’s exegesis,” in augustine: biblical exegete, ed. frederick van fleteren and joseph schnaubelt (new york: peter lang, 2001). augustine’s text reads: “a certain man went down from jerusalem to jericho; adam himself is meant; jerusalem is the heavenly city of peace, from whose blessedness adam fell; jericho means the moon, and signifies our mortality, because it is born, waxes, wanes, and dies. thieves are the devil and his angels. who stripped him, namely; of his immortality; and beat him, by persuading him to sin; and left him halfdead, because in so far as man can understand and know god, he lives, but in so far as he is wasted and oppressed by sin, he is dead; he is therefore called half-dead. the priest and the levite who saw him and passed by, signify the priesthood and ministry of the old testament which could profit nothing for salvation. samaritan means guardian, and therefore the lord himself is signified by this name. the binding of the wounds is the restraint of sin. oil is the comfort of good hope; wine the exhortation to work with fervent spirit. the beast is the flesh in which he deigned to come to us. the being set upon the beast is belief in the incarnation of christ. the inn is the church, where travelers returning to their heavenly country are refreshed after pilgrimage. the morrow is after the resurrection of the lord. the two pence are either the two precepts of love, or the promise of this life and of that which is to come. the innkeeper is the apostle (paul). the supererogatory payment is either his counsel of celibacy, or the fact that he worked with his own hands lest he should be a burden to any of the weaker brethren when the gospel was new, though it was lawful for him ‘to live by the gospel’.” augustine, questions on the gospels, 2.19 as cited in c.h. dodd, the parables of the kingdom (glasgow: collins, 1978), 13-14. 14 timothy o’malley, “viewing jesus as the good samaritan,” our sunday visitor (2019). 15 mikael parsons, “the character of the good samaritan: a christological reading,” in let the reader understand: essays in honor of elizabeth struthers mallon, ed. edwin broadhead (london: t&t clark, 2018), 215. 16 joshua schwartz, “on priests and jericho in the second temple period,” jewish quarterly review, 79, no. 1 (1988): 23. 17 schwartz, “on priests and jericho,” 36. ryan: revisiting the parable of the good samaritan 4 be rendered ritually impure and will not be able to participate in the rituals associated with the jerusalem temple. the priest and the levite have traditionally been viewed as representatives of judaism true to torah observance and therefore “appearing as self-righteous…lacking compassion because cultic purity is more important to them than a person in need.”18 for many christian teachers, preachers, and gospel readers, the parable speaks of how jesus’ teaching about god’s kingdom favors (christian) compassion over slavish and outdated notions of (jewish) rules of ritual purity. an example of this kind of influential scholarly commentary is provided by joseph fitzmyer who described the “heartless, perhaps law-inspired insouciance of two representatives of the official jewish cult, who otherwise would have been expected by their roles and heritage to deal with the ‘purification’ of physically afflicted persons.”19 fitzmyer’s supposition of the “law-inspired insouciance” of the priest and levite neatly encapsulates predominant traditional christian interpretations of the parable. it makes the focus of the parable an evaluation of deficient jewish law over and against christian compassion. richard bauckham offers a less pejorative perspective on jewish religion while maintaining the focus of the parable on ritual purity. he distils the dilemma traditionally accepted to be at the heart of the parable: the contest between jewish law and human compassion: “when it confronts a priest with a dead or dying man, it sets up an unusual, halakhically debatable situation, since the commandment that a priest avoid contracting corpse-impurity conflicts with the commandment to love the neighbor. one commandment must take precedence.”20 in a similar way, amyjill levine observes how “in many christian contexts, the samaritan comes to represent the christian who has learned to care for others or to break free of prejudice, whereas the priest and the levite represent judaism, understood to be xenophobic, promoting ritual purity over compassion, proclaiming self-interest over love of neighbor and otherwise being something that needs to be rejected.”21 while clearly not a christian, the samaritan has been used as a cipher employed to assert christian superiority over jewish inadequacy. the compassionate samaritan has been read as a proxy character to justify the replacement of jews and jewish religion by christians and christianity in god’s plan of salvation. looking closely at key story elements these prevailing christian interpretations are challenged by a closer reading of the story. first, the man in the ditch is not dead; no issues of corpse contamination can apply in this fictional account. as john meier observes: ‘if the wounded 18 luise schottroff, the parables of jesus (minneapolis: fortress press, 2006), 137. 19 joseph fitzmyer, the gospel according to luke x-xxiv: a new translation with introduction and commentary (new york: doubleday, 1985), 884. 20 richard bauckham, “the scrupulous priest and the good samaritan: jesus’ parabolic interpretation of the law of moses,” new testament studies 44, no. 4 (1998): 475. 21 amy-jill levine, “go and do likewise: lessons from the parable of the good samaritan,” america magazine, 2014. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) person in luke’s parable is ‘half-dead’ … he therefore posed no immediate danger of corpse impurity to a jewish priest.”22 no torah proscriptions exist concerning priestly care for a person who is “half-dead.” in addition, if luke was alluding to leviticus 21:1 (“no one shall defile himself for a dead person”) for guidance on contact with a corpse, the law applied only to priests, not to levites. this fact, alone, quashes any concerns about corpse contamination that might apply in this parable, since both avoid the injured man, not just the priest. the presence of the levite in the story is an indication that the meaning of the parable is not best located in a consideration of jewish purity laws. in fact, luke does not draw attention to issues of ritual purity in his story at all. unlike a cascade of later christian readers who have focused on this aspect, luke does not mention it. if luke wished to make this a story about ritual purity, we could reasonably expect some narrative clues. luke typically used other literary devices when he intended to highlight issues of ritual purity: “when luke wants to depict a strict and rigorous observation of the law, it is not priests he puts on stage but rather scribes and pharisees.”23 neither scribe nor pharisee is mentioned in this account. luke says nothing in this story to draw a reader’s attention to issues of ritual purity. in any case, the priest is not on his way to the temple—he was “going down that road” (greek, katabaino) (luke 10:31) towards jericho and away from jerusalem, and “so likewise a levite” (luke 10:32). any concern about limiting participation in temple worship due to ritual impurity does not apply in this story since neither man is going to the temple. this story detail has long been noticed by scholars24 but has been generally overlooked in popular readings of the parable. samaritans and jews jews and samaritans were neighbors. according to 2 kings 17, the assyrian conquerors of the northern kingdom of israel settled the samaritans on the conquered land in the late eighth century bce. samaritans established their own torah, their own temple on mt gerizim and their own priesthood. while crucial differences existed, and each group pursued different paths, they did so “in remarkably similar fashion.”25 by the first century ce, relationships between jews and samaritans were strained, but not broken. bohm says, for centuries, tensions “smouldered beneath the surface, and with regard to cultic matters, had grown since hasmonean times.”26 the extent of the conflict between jews and samaritans will be discussed further below. 22 john meier, a marginal jew: rethinking the historical jesus: probing the authenticity of the parables. volume 5 (new haven: yale university press, 2016), 227. 23 michel gourgues, “the priest, the levite and the samaritan revisited: a critical note on luke 10:31-35,” journal of biblical literature 117, no. 4 (1998): 709. 24 charles hedrick, parables as poetic fictions: the creative voice of jesus (peabody: hendrickson, 1994), 105-6. 25 gary knoppers, jews and samaritans: the origins and history of their early relations (new york: oxford university press, 2013), 239. 26 martina bohm, “samaritans in the new testament,” religions 11, no. 3 (2020): 11. ryan: revisiting the parable of the good samaritan 6 several scholars have paid attention to the way samaritans are featured in luke-acts. a foundational scholarly interest focuses on the way echoes of 2 chronicles 28:8-15 may have resounded in luke’s parable of the compassionate samaritan. the chronicler related the tale of how the prophet oded convinced people from samaria to take pity on prisoners who had been carried off from judah and jerusalem by the samaritan army—identified in chronicles as “the people of israel” (2 chronicles 28:8): “they clothed them, gave them sandals, provided them with food and drink, and anointed them; and carrying all the feeble among them on donkeys, they brought them to their kindred at jericho” (2 chronicles 28:15). a consensus among scholars on the specific influence of chronicles on luke’s parable is lacking. the connection of 2 chronicles to the parable was proposed by crossan27 with an extensive development of this idea by spencer.28 others have joined the fray. scheffler29 found nine points of direct similarity between luke’s parable and 2 chronicles 28. kalimi believes “it is reasonable to assume that the story in chronicles was used by the evangelist as a paradigm for his story.” 30 while the existence of a connection between luke and the chronicler has failed to convince everyone, we can say at least that the story in chronicles is consistent with luke’s interest in samaritans. luke’s gospel includes three stories involving samaritans. among the synoptic gospels, luke exhibits an almost exclusive interest in samaritans and samaria. (matthew mentions samaritans only once briefly at matthew 10:5; mark makes no mention.) samaria and samaritans are mentioned numerous times in acts. luke locates this parable in his gospel after a story of jesus being rejected in a samaritan village in luke 9:51-56. interestingly, and against the advice of his trusted disciples, luke’s jesus urges no retaliation when the samaritans do not receive him (luke 9:51-55). and, according to luke, a samaritan is the only one who thanks jesus among the ten healed of leprosy (luke 17:11-19). it should be noted that the samaritan seems to have no difficulty keeping 27 john dominic crossan, in parables: the challenge of the historical jesus (new york: harper & row, 1973), 65. 28 franklin spencer, “2 chronicles 28:5-15 and the parable of the good samaritan,” westminster journal of theology 46, no. 2 (1984): 317-349. 29 eben scheffler, “the assaulted (man) on the jerusalem road: luke’s creative interpretation of 2 chronicles 28:15,” hts theologiese studies/theological studies 69, no. 1 (2013): 1-8. 30 isaac kalimi, the retelling of chronicles in jewish tradition and literature: a historical journey (winona lakes: eisenbrauns, 2009), 63. scholars who argue for the connection between luke and chronicles tend to support the view that this parable can be traced to the literary production of luke, rather than the preaching of jesus. meier, a marginal jew, p. 207 says of 2 chronicles: “this passage may well have supplied luke the artist with the basic material for his literary masterpiece…the parable of the good samaritan is thoroughly lucan on every imaginable level.” this proposition of lukan origin for the parable is robustly contested. for example, levine, short stories by jesus, p. 11 observes “we do not know with certainty if jesus actually told the parables recorded in the gospels.” in response to this issue, she considers there is strong evidence “for thinking he told many, if not most or even all, of the parables recorded in the gospels” (p. 12). stephen curkpatrick, “parable metonymy and luke’s kerygmatic framing,” journal for the study of the new testament 25, no. 3 (2003), 291, provides a lengthy list of scholars who “fail to distinguish between the parables of jesus and the parables of gospels.” without ruling on this issue, the present paper considers the parable presented in luke’s gospel is determinative for claims about authorial intent and expectations amongst the original audience. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) company with nine (presumably) jewish others. nor is there any indication that all ten lepers did not consult the same (presumably) jewish priest. luke includes samaritans in his narrative as natural participants in each setting he describes. the compassionate samaritan is no exception to his literary practice. according to dowling,31 luke inserts stories into his gospel and acts about the restoration of samaritans as a key step in the process that preceded the gentile mission. luke does not actually present the samaritan in his parable or samaritans in general as despised by jews nor as their enemies. he is aware of strains in the relationship between jews and samaritans, but he does not denigrate samaritans. as reinhard pummer points out, the evidence of contact between jews and samaritans suggests that “hostilities occurred only at certain times and only by some groups” and cannot be generalized to all jews and samaritans at all times.32 indeed, jesus travels through samaritan territory on his way to jerusalem (luke 9:56). and the samaritan in the parable is traveling through jewish territory, without remark from luke about the plausibility of this story detail. if antagonism between the two groups was deep and general, such travels could be considered unlikely. such travel arrangements point to a “community of convenience” for neighbors who co-existed in the same vicinity.33 traditional accepted characterisations of samaritans have been challenged by scholars who question the evidence of samaritan “otherness” in the new testament period. bauckham insists “it is crucial not to read the samaritan as though he was a gentile…because a samaritan acknowledges and claims to obey the mosaic law.”34 keddie identifies the samaritan in the parable as an example of the “proximate other”35—a term borrowed from religious studies scholar jonathan smith who used it to identify those who are “too-much-like-us.”36 chalmers thinks that interpretation of “absolute difference” between jews and samaritans is a product of scholarly habits of “both racialized and polemicized readings of the text.” he thinks “the samaritan is better read, along with priests and levites, as a limit concept to regulate the proper behavior of those included within a programmatic restored ‘israel.’” 37 meier argues the addition of a compassionate samaritan fits luke’s theological agenda of presenting the samaritans as a significant step in the process of salvation.38 meier describes the samaritans as “in between or liminal people, neither fully jewish nor fully gentile—though the historical samaritans considered 31 elizabeth dowling, “’to the ends of the earth’: attitudes to gentiles in luke-acts,” in attitudes to gentiles in ancient judaism and early christianity, ed. david sim and james mclaren (london: bloomsbury, 2014): 191-208. 32 reinhard pummer, the samaritans: a profile (grand rapids: eerdmans, 2016), 38. 33 bohm, “samaritans in the new testament,” 11. 34 bauckham, “the scrupulous priest,” 486-7. 35 anthony keddie, “‘who is my neighbor?’: ethnic boundaries and the samaritan other in luke 10:25-37,” biblical interpretation 28, no. 2 (2020): 246. 36 jonathan smith, relating religion: essays in the study of religion (chicago: university of chicago press, 2004), 27-8. 37 matthew chalmers, “rethinking luke 10: the parable of the good samaritan israelite,” journal of biblical literature 139, no. 3 (2020): 543. 38 meier, a marginal jew, 207. ryan: revisiting the parable of the good samaritan 8 themselves ‘israel’.”39 kalimi thinks luke is echoing the belief that despite all that has happened between them, “samaritans have a brotherhood relationship with judeans…and there is hope that in future days they will be united to judea.”40 the presentation of samaritans in antiquity as despised enemies of jews is strongly challenged by an increasing roll-call of scholars. the idea that the parable conveys a state of mutual enmity between jews and samaritans is further confounded by a focus on the injured victim. his identity is not disclosed in the parable. the story does not say the victim is a jew, though this is the guess many interpreters make about his identity. the parable describes him only as “a certain man”—anthropos tis in luke’s original greek (luke 10:30). so, an interpretation of the story as an example of loving one’s enemies is doubtful. as luise schottroff observes, for this to be the case “the text would have to make it clear that the man who was attacked was a jew.”41 the story does not, therefore, offer a view whether the compassionate response of the samaritan constitutes overcoming a cultural barrier. the story does not advocate love of enemies, since the text does not establish that the samaritan and the injured man are, in fact, enemies. we would need some indication from the narrative that the injured man was a member of another cultural group who were identified as enemies of samaritans, for this interpretation to be valid. what is clear from the text is that the samaritan represents a cultural group that shares a commitment to torah, albeit a rival text and interpretation from their jewish neighbors. jews and samaritans worshipped the same god, even if their religious expressions exhibited discernible differences. evidence of the relationship between jews and samaritans from late second temple and early rabbinic literature is inconsistent and contested. no single, definitive image is presented. gary knoppers, after surveying the evidence concerning jewish-samaritan exclusion and conflict, concluded that the “anti-samaritan theory has been dealt a series of serious blows.”42 the addition of “good” to describe the samaritan an evaluation of the adjective, good, in the identification of the helpful traveler reveals some of the inherited bias in the way the story is told and received by christians. the first thing to note in this discussion is that the word, good, does not appear in the biblical text. robbins explains how the use of “good” draws focus away from the meaning and significance of the samaritan’s actions: careful attention to lukan discourse reveals that no adjective for “good” (agathos or kalos) occurs either in the parable or in the interchange between 39 meier, a marginal jew, 223. 40 kalimi, “the retelling of chronicles,” 65. 41 schottroff, the parables, 134. 42 gary knoppers, “mt. gerizim and mt. zion: a study of the early history of the samaritans and jews,” studies in religion/sciences religieuses 34, no. 3 / 4 (2005): 336. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) jesus and the lawyer. rather, the focus is on the response of all of one's body to the needs of others, no matter what the circumstances or who the people might be.43 the traveler is identified by luke as a samaritan but no further adjective is included to indicate the content of his character. the use of good to describe the samaritan comes from readers and editors of the biblical text, not from luke’s account of the story. this adjective, if used in a modern story, would be viewed by an audience as offensive, even inflammatory. as amy-jill levine points out, there is no such thing as a “good catholic hospital” or a “good episcopalian social service organisation.”44 good—used in this way—seeks to divide and contrast: the identification of a “good catholic” or a “good anglican” distinguishes the admirable subject of the story from most catholics or anglicans who would not implicitly be considered “good.” the use of “good” to describe the samaritan can be characterized as a backhanded compliment. these attempts to flatter and grant elevated status contribute to achieving the opposite. backhanded compliments have mixed effectiveness, as people who deliver them “erroneously believe that they will both convey high status and elicit liking but recipients and third-party evaluators grant them neither.”45 researchers refer to backhanded compliments as cryptosemes. a cryptosemic compliment is: a message in communication that is routinely exchanged on the virtue of its good intentions, while closer, mindful scrutiny reveals other obscured dimensions of meaning that subvert the implied praise but go unperceived or ignored by all parties involved. cryptosemic compliments are rooted in deeply internalized, reified notions of what is normal, natural and true and serve as a window into cultural stereotypes and double-standards operating under the veneer of praise.46 the problem with cryptosemic compliments lies not in the verbalized content, but in “the unspoken, ‘mythologized,’ mindlessly taken-for-granted presuppositions underlying the words.”47 it is a face-saving strategy often employed in 43 vernon robbins, “the sensory-aesthetic texture of the compassionate samaritan parable in luke 10,” in literary encounters with the reign of god, ed. sharon ringe and h. paul kim (new york: t&t clark, 2004), 247. 44 amy-jill levine, short stories by jesus: the enigmatic parables of a controversial rabbi (new york: harpercollins, 2014), 80-1. 45 ovul sezer, emily prinsboo, alison brooks, and michael norton, “backhanded compliments: how negative comparisons undermine flattery” (harvard business school, working papers 18-082, 2019): 2. 46 maria malyk, sincere backhanded compliments: exploring social, semiotic and cognitive dimensions of cryptosemic interaction (unpublished doctoral dissertation, school of sociology, rutger s university, new brunswick, new jersey, 2014), ii. 47 malyk, sincere backhanded compliments, ii. ryan: revisiting the parable of the good samaritan 10 conversations involving socio-culturally diverse participants. a telling example occurred with the attempted compliment by senator joseph biden when he described prospective president barack obama on 31 january 2007: “i mean, you got the first mainstream african-american who is articulate and bright and clean and a nicelooking guy. i mean, that's a storybook, man.”48 not surprisingly, many pointed out that being mainstream, articulate, bright, clean and handsome did not make barack obama unique, rare or unusual among african americans. in a similar fashion, the description of a good samaritan, might cause an audience—upon reflection—to ponder the perceptions of cultural stereotypes and double standards that lurk beneath the veneer of praise. the addition of “good” when describing a leading character distracts the reader from attending to the author’s intentions for conveying the meaning of this parable. an evaluation of the appropriateness of the adjective “good” can encourage gospel readers to explore and evaluate more expressive titles for this parable beyond its traditional descriptor, and to consider what difference these alternatives might hold for understanding its meaning. among suggestions are: the compassionate samaritan; from jerusalem to jericho; and the merciful neighbor. the attribution of the word, “good,” to the samaritan functions to promote christian identification with the samaritan and solidify the contrast with the putatively “bad” jews who are bound by a corrupted religion from rendering assistance to a neighbor in need. such interpretations provide yet another example of an occasion when “christians, and especially new testament scholars needed to prove that christianity was superior to judaism….in the age of liberal humanism, in which humanity is the measure of all things, judaism must be proved to produce bad human beings.”49 a common theme in christian new testament scholarship from the nineteenth century was the attempt to “elevate jesus above the world of first-century palestine” and to separate jesus from his own religious and cultural context and to present him “in absolute opposition to his shallow, hypocritical, unspiritual, literal, jewish opponents.”50 the identification of the “good” samaritan requires revision to avoid contributing to this historical misstep. the “good” innkeeper one character in the story often given only cursory treatment is the “good” innkeeper. “for many, the inn and the figure of the innkeeper simply do not play any role in the meaning of the parable.”51 however, the role of the innkeeper is a key to unlocking the puzzles of the parable. inns had become a feature of life in judea since the start of the roman occupation in 63 bce and had become “one of 48 david gregory, “sen. biden apologizes for remarks on obama,” nbc news, 1 february 2007. 49 edward sanders, comparing judaism & christianity: common judaism, paul, and the inner and the outer in ancient religion (minneapolis: fortress press, 2016), 387. 50 shawn kelley, racializing jesus: race, ideology and the formation of modern biblical scholarship (london: routledge, 2002), 71. 51 ernest eck and john van niekerk, “the samaritan ‘brought him to an inn’: revisiting pandoxeion in luke 10:34,” hts: theological studies 74, no. 4 (2018). 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) the most familiar features of the roman imperial road system.”52 members of the upper classes were known to look down on innkeepers. they tended to rely on their own networks of private contacts for accommodation while traveling and were less liable to stay at roadside inns which were the preserve of government employees and merchants required to travel for business. josephus, a member of a priestly family, claimed that female innkeepers could not marry priests under jewish law—an interpretation of leviticus 21:7—“they shall not marry a prostitute or a woman who has been defiled”—that seems unique to him among ancient authors: “he forbade them to wed such women as gain their living by cheating trades and by keeping inns.”53 in antiquity, innkeepers were not highly regarded members of the community. the original audience for the parable might have registered surprise at the ready acceptance by the innkeeper of responsibility to care for the injured man. the ambience of an inn was not conducive to rest or recuperation. the atmosphere of an inn was “coarse, at times even violent. outbreaks of drunkenness were common, as were quarrels, robberies, prostitution and even murders.”54 an account of leaving an injured man in the care of an innkeeper presents a credibility challenge to the parable’s original audience. the innkeeper might not have been expected to act with such selfless commitment towards the injured man. while the innkeeper’s expenses were guaranteed by the samaritan—two denarii down-payment plus an assurance of the balance on his return (luke 10:35)—the innkeeper was required to attend to the man in addition to his regular employment. and, he needed to exhibit trust that the samaritan would honor his word and return to make good any subsequent expenses. the connection between samaritan and innkeeper points to an often-ignored dimension of the parable: the innkeeper also acts in reverse to expectations of the original audience: “the samaritan story works predominantly in relation to the axis of mutual trust between the two characters in 10:35. that axis of trust is part of the shock of the unexpected within the story.”55 if we read the innkeeper as acting contrary to the way the original hearers of the parable expected—then, this may illuminate the roles of the priest, the levite and the samaritan: all characters in the story act contrary to audience expectations, not just the samaritan. the behavior of all three is surprising and contrary to expectations luke’s audience might have held for them. the priest and the levite might have been expected to observe the basic commandment to act compassionately towards the injured man. they did not. the samaritan might not have been expected by an audience to act with compassion. he did not ignore the injured man. 52 ben-zion rosenfeld, “innkeeping in jewish society in roman palestine,” journal of the economic and social history of the orient 41, no. 2 (1998): 136. 53 josephus, the antiquities of the jews. (london: william heinemann), iii, 12, 2. 54 rosenfeld, “innkeeping in jewish society,” 136. 55 bruce longenecker, “the story of the samaritan and the innkeeper (luke 10:30-35): a study in character rehabilitation,” biblical interpretation, 17, no. 4 (2009): 446. ryan: revisiting the parable of the good samaritan 12 luke focuses on this reversal of expectations to energize the story; he does not establish a false opposition between jewish law and christian compassion. the motives of the priest and levite a consideration of the reversal of expectations from all actors in this drama leads us to consider what motivated the actions of the priest and levite in their decisions to avoid the injured man. significantly, the story itself provides little indication of the motives for their actions. this has left gospel readers to fill the blanks, commonly to the detriment of christian attitudes towards jews and jewish religion. gospel readers have access to other plausible explanations besides considerations of ritual purity and lack of compassion to account for the actions of the priest and levite. martin luther king, jr. once preached a sermon where he offered an alternative perspective to the majority view to account for the actions of both. he identified fear as the motivating characteristic in their decision making: so it is possible that the priest and the levite were afraid that if they stopped they too would have been beaten; for couldn’t the robbers still be around? or maybe the man on the ground was just a faker, using a pretended wounded condition to draw passing travelers to his side for quick and easy seizure. so i can imagine that the first question which the priest and the levite asked was: “if i stop to help this man, what will happen to me?” then the good samaritan came by, and by the very nature of his concern reversed the question: “if i do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?”56 king continued his sermon to relate the teachings of the parable to the personal costs involved for a person who assisted african americans in their struggles for justice. king’s insight encourages gospel readers to consider this and other plausible reasons to account for the actions of priest and levite. ruben zimmerman (2008) has summarized the results of socio-psychological researchers who have identified seven reasons why people do not help others in need in emergency situations: 1) diffusion of responsibilities, where others are present and more competent; 2) the bystander effect, where an emergency situation is judged incorrectly; 3) fear of valuation, where helpers believe they are not competent; 4) helper syndrome, to avoid helper burn-out; 5) avoidance of dependence on the helper who possesses superior power to the person in need; 6) socio-biological objections, where helping could interrupt natural systems of competition and adaptation; and, 7) economic objections, where helping is determined to expend scarce resources which could be deployed more efficiently.57 56 martin luther king, on being a good neighbor (stanford: the martin luther king, jr. research and education institute, stanford university, 1962). 57 ruben zimmermann, “the etho-poietic of the parable of the good samaritan (lk 10:25-37): the ethics of seeing in a culture of looking away,” verbum et ecclesia 29, no. 1 (2008): 269-292. 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) these disparate reasons for looking the other way suggest that an individual finding themselves confronting an emergency could decide to act—or not act—for a variety of reasons. and, they further open the possibility that two people encountering the same situation could have chosen the same action for different reasons. judgments about the motivations of the priest and levite are ultimately inconclusive. scarce, if any, narrative clues are provided by the author to account for their actions. but, we can say there are a number of credible reasons for a person not to render assistance to another in need. while none is mentioned or even hinted at in the story, we can say that observance of jewish purity regulations is among the least likely. luke does not offer any clues to account for the actions of the two jewish officials. this is somewhat surprising since luke’s parables are brimming with characters who reveal their inner thoughts at moments of moral crisis. consider the numerous occasions in luke’s parables where the storyteller recounts an interior monologue (the foolish farmer, luke 12:16-20; the unfaithful servant, 12:45; the younger son, 15:17-19; the dishonest manager, 16:3-4; the unjust judge, 18:4-5) or a rhetorical self-address when the character speaks out loud with no one else present, such as the farmer in luke 20:13 who wonders aloud what he should do next. by this literary means, luke invites his readers into the private world of his characters by “frequent use of soliloquy where we are made privy to the inner musings of the characters. luke expresses realistic sympathy for the dilemmas of ordinary human existence.”58 surprisingly then, luke does not include a characteristic soliloquy from either priest or levite: “the characters in the parable of the good samaritan make their thoughts and feelings known only through their actions…we get no glimpse of any of their motivations.”59 the actions of the priest and the levite are paradoxical: “the priest and levite are not blind. they see—and they do not see. in our culture of looking the other way, we have precisely this paradoxical correlation. we see and we do not see. seeing is more than just an objective sensory process.”60 this observation points to the universal application of luke’s story. the narrated event can fit comfortably into any human context: “one does not have to be a jewish priest of levite to ‘pass by on the other side of the road’.”61 luise schottroff offers an insight into the struggle between religious aspiration and human decision-making. she attributes the actions of the priest and levite to “the structural power of sin, which prevents people from really looking, even when they see, and from acting and loving even when they know it is god’s will.”62 gospel readers are free to offer their own conjectures about the motivations of the priest and the levite which do not require them to include pejorative commentary on jews and jewish religion. 58 john donahue, the gospel as parable: metaphor, narrative, and the theology of the synoptic gospels (philadelphia: fortress press, 1988), 126. 59 philip sellew, “interior monologue as a narrative device in the parables of luke,” journal of biblical literature 111, no. 2 (1992): 253. 60 zimmermann, “the parable of the good samaritan,” 291. 61 curkpatrick, “parable metonymy,” p. 302. 62 schottroff, the parables, 136. ryan: revisiting the parable of the good samaritan 14 this parable, like many which luke recounts, reveals life in concrete, complex and realistic focus. sellew thinks the characters in most of luke’s parables are “not heroic by any measure, but they are ultimately plausible and thus successful as characters, because the portrayal of their inner debate brings them to life in such a sudden and unforgettable way. we see ourselves reflected in his little people caught in awkward places. the frantic thoughts and calculations, the desperate attempts to claw out of trouble, these defining moments…could just as well be our own.”63 the priest and levite are literary characters caught in one of those defining moments. these fictional characters come to life because they behave realistically—with notable flaws. sanders says that hypocrisy is a real problem, and “we see these failings around us and in ourselves. but these are human failings, and they are not peculiar to some particular religious system or culture.”64 the priest and the levite in this story are better characterized as flawed humans, rather than as representatives of a flawed religion. they invite the reader—then and now—to identify with them in their situation, as examples of realistic humans caught in an awkward place. they represent any religious person who knows the right and proper thing to do according to their religion’s precepts but, in a given situation for whatever reason, does not do it. their likely motivations are cloaked in ambiguity and complexity. conclusion a refreshed reading of the parable of the samaritan challenges received interpretations of the parable as a contest between christian compassion and jewish law-inspired hard-heartedness. the compelling puzzle in this parable is not about the perceived inadequacies of one religion in contrast to another. jewish religion contains abundant wisdom on the value of compassion. psalm 109:31 reveals god who “stands at the right hand of the needy.” the commandment to care for the stranger in their midst was mentioned more than any other in torah: “the stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the stranger as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of egypt” (leviticus 19:34). the priest and the levite can be expected to be well-versed in the biblical edicts to care for the stranger in need. the priest and the levite are subjects with whom we can identify personally; they are not heroic, but they are plausible. they are not presented as role models for ideal behavior, but they do call the reader to consider their own likely response in a similar situation. on our better days, we can perform what we know is the compassionate, merciful response in awkward situations. unfortunately, only the rare ones among us can do this on every occasion; we see, but we do not see. we learn from luke’s parable that even our religious commitments cannot guarantee we will act with compassionate care on every difficult occasion that presents itself to us. religious commitments did not compel two jewish officials on that day who were fully aware of their lawful responsibilities to aid a neighbor in need. 63 sellew, “interior monologue,” 253. 64 sanders, comparing judaism, 377. 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) luke likes to reverse his reader’s expectations. from the beginning of his gospel, he lauds the divine action in bringing down the powerful from their thrones and lifting up the lowly (luke 1:52). gospel readers could expect to be surprised by the behavior of the samaritan. if we were better informed, we might also be surprised by the behavior of the innkeeper who would not traditionally be known as a benevolent social worker. we should also expect that luke wants his reader to be surprised by the actions of the two jewish officials who pass by the injured man. regrettably, christian readers traditionally have failed to register surprise that four characters in the story act in reverse to expectations, not just one. teachers, preachers, and commentators would profit from keeping in mind kalimi’s observation that “after all, the story under review is a parable or illustrative tale…rather than a historical description.”65 the story should be treated on its merits, attentive to the story elements presented by the author, rather than as a news report or documentary feature. if the author, for example, wanted the victim to be deceased, then he would have indicated that in the story. if the priest was traveling to the temple preparing to lead religious rituals, then that would have been indicated by the author. if purity was a consideration in the process of deciding whether to render assistance, then some indication would have been offered by luke. if jews and samaritans were considered as mutually despised enemies, the author would have drawn the reader’s attention to this. gospel readers who interject wished for elements into the narrative to suit a particular ideological agenda distort the meaning of the story and distract readers from a careful and close reading of the text. this does potential damage to a reader’s understanding and appreciation for a core element of christian teaching, and to a reasonable christian understanding of jews and jewish religion. 65 kalimi, “the retelling of chronicles,” 60. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review robert bonfil, oded irshai, guy g. stroumsa, and rina talgam, eds. jews in byzantium: dialectics of minority and majority cultures (leiden and boston: brill, 2012), hardcover, xvi + 1010 pp. demetrios e. tonias this edited volume represents a comprehensive examination of jewish life in the regions of the eastern roman (byzantine) empire from the time of constantine i in the fourth century to the fall of constantinople to the ottoman turks in the fifteenth century. the previous absence of such a study constituted a serious lacuna in both byzantine and jewish studies, with the notable exceptions of the classic works on the subject by joshua starr, andrew sharf, and steven bowman. the volume is divided into three parts and is composed of thirty-five articles from thirty-one different contributors. part i, “setting the stage,” contains nine articles on the historical experience of jews in the greek-speaking christian east. these articles examine the social, cultural, and economic conditions that impacted jewish life throughout the eastern mediterranean. part ii, “cultural encounters and transmission of knowledge,” is composed of sixteen articles on the literary and artistic traditions of jews in a region known for its iconographic art forms and vibrant textual tradition. part iii, “images,” is comprised of ten articles on the ways in which christians and jews viewed each other and how these perspectives were reflected in their respective traditions (e.g., the genre of byzantine world chronicles, jewish liturgical poetry [piyyut], and christian hagiographic material). one cannot overstate the importance of this volume for scholars of the byzantine empire and judaism. as the editors correctly recognize, the dearth of scholarship on byzantine studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) jewry results from the dim view that western and jewish scholars previously held with regard to byzantium. a quick scan of the footnotes gives an indication of how dependent the present volume is on the previous work of the aforementioned starr, sharf, and bowman, scholarship completed in 1936, 1971, and 1985, respectively. while there has certainly been growth in related research in the years since those works were completed, the present volume goes a long way toward synthesizing the efforts of more recent scholars and that of their predecessors. moreover, it offers both byzantinists and jewish scholars an essential resource. indeed, the editors of jews in byzantium have provided scholars with a research tool which, as an edited volume comprised of articles from scholars of varied backgrounds, is much more comprehensive than the works that preceded it. the book as a whole reflects the challenges associated with any examination of jewish life in the greek-speaking christian east. a common lament among the authors is the paucity of sources, especially jewish ones. as oded irshai notes in his article, apart from “scanty references in fragmentary collections of rabbinical legal rulings, midrashic texts, liturgical poetry, and apocalyptic treatises, our main sources of information on the life and culture of the jews of this period are christian” (p. 20). the authors therefore often rely upon christian sources. as the volume’s subtitle indicates, much of the description of jewish life in byzantium appeared within the context of a jewish minority living in a majority-christian society. the articles of part i chart the subtle and radical ways in which jewish life was transformed as the state shifted from a roman society rooted in the ancient greco-roman religious cult to one that self-identified as a christian roman state and saw itself as a successor to the pagan society which preceded it. despite these changes, jews, although a religious minority, were nevertheless formed by and members of that roman state. of particular note in this regard are the sections on byzantine law and economy, which trace the evolution of jewish life as the state took on a decidedly christian character. throughout, the studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr authors pay close attention to context. for example, they are careful to differentiate between the periods of justinian, heraclius and the later palaeologans, as well as between constantinopolitan jewry, alexandrian jewry, and jews in the northernmost reaches of the empire. the examination of jewish life in byzantium, by definition, is a study of the effects of acculturation. as ambiguous as that term itself is, this ambiguity is amplified by the natural tendency of jews to resist such assimilation. in this regard, the editors have done an excellent job pointing out where jewish life, especially in terms of its literary and artistic expression adopted, adapted, and resisted the surrounding culture. specific articles which discuss jewish poetic expression in the form of piyyut, the confluence of languages in jewish life (both in discourse and worship), and the jewish application of iconography, manuscript illumination, and synagogue decoration all serve to place the historical discussion in its proper context. these articles also demonstrate the uniqueness of byzantine jewish life when viewed against the backdrop of the broader jewish world. another welcome aspect of the book is the presentation of the multicultural tableau of byzantine society. from the seventh century onward, the rise of islam created a third, major cultural force with its own particular influence on jewish thought and life. there is a general concern on the part of the editors and the authors that byzantine jewish life be situated within the broader cultural milieu. thus, the depiction of jews in muslim literary sources is as important as that found in byzantine ones. the sections dealing with the ways in which jews, christians, and muslims portrayed the other as part of their literary and artistic expression underscore the importance of this activity, especially in light of the lack of primary source material on the subject. the volume is a massive yet necessary undertaking. as with any edited volume, the presentation of the material can sometimes seem a bit eclectic and uneven, but the editors studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 9 (2014) nevertheless did a fine job overall organizing the variety of topics into cogent divisions. jews in byzantium is an essential resource for students of the subject and should spur further interest in an important aspect of jewish life that for far too long has languished in the remote corners of byzantine and jewish studies. dietrich bonhoeffer and the evangelical moment in american public life studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1(2007): cp8-12 gushee, “dietrich bonhoeffer and the evangelical moment” cp8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art16 “dietrich bonhoeffer and the evangelical moment in american public life” david p. gushee union university delivered at the conference, dietrich bonhoeffer for our times: jewish and christian perspectives, sponsored by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college, the united states holocaust memorial museum, hebrew college, and the andover-newton theological school, september 17-18, 2006. i write not just as a religious scholar/activist, not just as a christian scholar/activist, not just as a protestant christian scholar/activist, but as an american evangelical baptist protestant christian scholar/activist. while it is good to be clear about one’s identity and context, i cannot speak for all who share that context. but i can reflect on what the witness of dietrich bonhoeffer means to me in these times. i can try to articulate the ways in which what i am trying to teach, write, and do these days reflects my longstanding effort to remain faithful to bonhoeffer’s demanding example— even as i am aware of the inherent danger of attempting to draw inspiration from bonhoeffer for any context outside his own. this leads to one especially important disclaimer: inevitably any effort to read bonhoeffer for his contemporary significance involves making comparisons between interwar and wartime germany on the one hand, and one’s own context, on the other. if one sees similarities, parallels, and possible analogies, it is easy to be misread as equating, say, the united states with nazi germany, or us christians with the deutsche christen. i am not attempting to offer such an equation. but i am attempting to think about the significance of bonhoeffer (a man attempting to be faithful to his christian calling in his own context) for my own efforts to be faithful to my christian calling in my context. the personal context that is most important for me to identify in this essay is my location as an american evangelical scholar-activist. i write in a time when it seems that all eyes are turned to evangelicals, who represent a massive slice of the american religious landscape, who have discovered and exercised their political power in quite visible ways in recent years, and in so doing have terrified many who do not share their/our convictions. this is the “evangelical moment” in american public life. i write during that moment and from within that community, simultaneously as an evangelical loyalist and as an internal critic. my exposition of key themes in bonhoeffer’s life and work must be understood within this context. loyalty: christ above all dietrich bonhoeffer taught and modeled unrelenting loyalty to jesus christ. like it or not, his was a christ-centered theology and ethic. this theme works its way through his writings and his life. this relentless commitment to jesus christ meant that all other loyalties were clearly distinguished from christ, and relativized in relation to christ. no human being, no nation, no ideology, no “race,” no cause of any sort must be confused in any way with the person or conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1(2007): cp8-12 gushee, “dietrich bonhoeffer and the evangelical moment” cp9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art16 mission of jesus christ. nor can the cause of jesus christ be subsumed under some other, totalitarian scheme for organizing society. note the paradox that this rigorous christcenteredness actually left him more concerned, not less, with the plight of his non-christian fellow countrymen, especially the persecuted jewish community, than most of his fellow church leaders. this shows us that it is not enough to be christ-centered, which is a familiar enough slogan in the christian community—it matters quite a bit what kind of christ one is centering upon. this clarity about his loyalties left bonhoeffer far better prepared to resist the siren song of loyalty to race, volk, nation, party, state, and führer than were most german christians. moreover, the more that leaders either of the church or the state attempted to blur or blend or equate these loyalties, the more bonhoeffer resisted. he was equipped with a theological alarm system, one might say, that alerted him to such dangerous syncretism and idolatry and kept him entirely clear of it. karl barth had the same alarm system, rooted in a similar christocentrism. it was this spirit that animated the barmen declaration. today, for a variety of reasons, conservative american evangelicals regularly exhibit confusion about their loyalties. they (we—my people—though, again, i speak as a “connected critic” here) often conflate loyalty to jesus christ with loyalty to the united states of america. they weave together loyalty to jesus christ with loyalty to the president, the party, the troops, the flag, or the nation. they create labels, such as “traditional values” or “conservative values,” or “family values” or “our judeo-christian heritage” that are themselves symbolic of a confusion, even syncretism, of identities and loyalties. it is in part my own loyalty to bonhoeffer’s witness that drives me toward strong resistance to such confusion of loyalties. community: the centrality of the church from his earliest academic work bonhoeffer exhibited great interest in the church. if christ is the “center,” as he said, christ takes form in the church, the community of saints. bonhoeffer’s robust ecclesiology was unusual in his day. the marriage of church and state in europe had weakened and corrupted both. it had certainly co-opted the church to the interests of the state, which became painfully obvious during the nazi years as the church’s integrity was compromised by its loyalty to a radicalized state. bonhoeffer’s writings about the church ultimately amounted to an ecclesiological revolution. he lifted up the centrality of the church as the primary community/polity for christian people, practiced and taught renewed ancient christian practices of study, worship, and fellowship (thus linking the church to its historic heritage), and reminded the church of its allegiance to christ alone. in the end, he supported the abandonment by the church of its cultural privileges and thus had moved towards at least the germinal stage of a post-christendom ecclesiology. such a robust ecclesiology left bonhoeffer far better prepared than most of his peers to resist the extremely corrupt form of christendom that was represented by reichsbischof ludwig müller and the german christian movement. like others in the confessing church, he strongly rejected any tampering by the state with the internal life of the christian churches. he sought to disentangle and clarify the identities marked “german” and “christian” at a time when they were being purposefully entangled by nazi leaders and their allies in the church. one way he did so was by pioneering a new model of seminary training in his work with the underground confessing church seminary at finkenwalde. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1(2007): cp8-12 gushee, “dietrich bonhoeffer and the evangelical moment” cp10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art16 i believe that even though evangelicals have created vast numbers of churches, some of them massive cathedrals of our own age, filled to the brim with people, we have not been particularly strong in our theology of the church. on the one hand, our pietistic individualism creates a “jesus and me” ethos that often weakens any loyalty to the community of faith or any willingness to submit to a disciplined covenantal vision. like christians in bonhoeffer’s time, we retreat into a happy privatized faith. on the other hand, the moral mediocrity of this kind of church leaves us hopeless about the church as the center of god’s redemptive enterprise in the world. and so we turn inward or heavenward in despair, or we turn to the state to enforce the values we can’t seem to advance in our own churches. i believe that the weaker our ecclesiology, the stronger our tendency to confuse the identities “american” and “christian” and to offer excessive loyalties to worldly powers. part of my own loyalty to bonhoeffer is a strong emphasis on, and involvement in, a robust church, beginning with the local church. i have sought to be clear that the primary audience for christian ethical reflection is the church, and the primary task of such reflection is to strengthen our faithful obedience to the concrete teachings and witness of jesus christ. despair: responding to cultural decline like all germans, and many all around the world, dietrich bonhoeffer was deeply troubled by world war i and the cultural and political crisis that afflicted his nation after the war. and yet he never demonstrated any susceptibility to what fritz stern called “the politics of cultural despair.” i think it was because he believed in the interpretation of history offered by biblical revelation, which though realistic about human nature and history is never a counsel of despair. it was this cultural despair—a toxic brew of reaction against secularism, anger related to the loss of world war i, distress over cultural disorientation and confusion, fears about the future of germany, hatred of the victorious powers and of those who supposedly stabbed germany in the back, and of course the search for scapegoats (mainly the jews)—that motivated many germans to adopt a reactionary, authoritarian, and nationalistic ethic that fueled their support for hitler's rise to power. a broadly appealing narrative of national decline (or conspiratorial betrayal) was met by hitler’s narrative of national revenge leading to utopian unity in the fuhrer-state. conservative american evangelicals in recent decades have been deeply attracted to a parallel narrative of cultural despair. normally the story begins with the rise of secularism in the 1960s, the abandonment of prayer in schools, and the roe decision, all leading to an apocalyptic decline of american culture that must be arrested soon, before it is too late and “god withdraws his blessing” from america. while very few conservative evangelicals come into the vicinity of hitler in hatefulness, elements similar to that kind of conservative-reactionarynationalist narrative can be found in some christian right-rhetoric: anger at those who are causing american moral decline, fear about the future, hatred of the “secularists” now preeminent in american life, and the search for scapegoats. the solution on offer—a return to a strong christian america through determined political action--also has its parallels with the era under consideration. it is in part my own loyalty to bonhoeffer’s example that has led me to a rejection of the toxic politics of cultural despair and commitment to a hopeful vision of christian cultural engagement in light of the sure advance of god’s kingdom. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1(2007): cp8-12 gushee, “dietrich bonhoeffer and the evangelical moment” cp11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art16 witness: living for christ in the culture dietrich bonhoeffer was committed to christian moral witness in contemporary culture. while refusing to identify christian morality with any particular social or political program, he did seek to bring the teachings of christ, indeed, the moral tradition of the church as a whole, to bear on a wide range of issues emergent in his day and time. like most scholars who identify as christian ethicists or public theologians, he sought to make a difference in his culture through faithful christian witness. and his focus was not on a public witness that might protect the social privileges of the church, but instead on its solidarity with those in need. the rise and appeal of the german christian movement is impossible to understand apart from the intense desire of at least some german christians to regain greater influence on their own culture. part of the appeal of the supposedly pro-christian nazis (in their early days) was that they promised to support “positive christianity.” they would bring back “traditional” (=christian) values. they would reverse secularism and cultural confusion by restoring a manly christianity to the center of german culture. thus the sa brownshirts marched into the swastika-draped churches for their weddings and ritualizing occasions. worried christian traditionalists could think, with relief, “good, at least the young people are back in church again, communism has been defeated, and the secularists are on the run.” another way to say it is that germany’s christian people were anxious to exercise influence in the culture and avoid social marginalization, and the sign of their renewed influence would be a re-establishment of their historic power and cultural privileges. they were thus susceptible to the false promises of the nazis that christianity would again receive such privileges, and were deceived by the appearance of influence in the form of young men wearing brownshirts occupying their pews. i believe it is apparent that conservative evangelical christians in the us are also anxious to exercise influence in the culture and also concerned to avoid social marginalization over against secularism and other alternative ideologies. thus they are also susceptible to false promises of political leaders who speak their language and throw symbolic crumbs in their direction, promising the political and legal privileging of christian values if not christian faith itself. the desire to make a difference in the culture is then exploited by those who mainly want our votes in order to make a difference in their election campaigns. the cynicism of politicians both then and now is really quite obvious. it is partly my loyalty to bonhoeffer’s model (and awareness of the history of the german church in that era) that leaves me strongly resistant to this model of christian influence on culture and strongly offended by the manipulation of religious language and symbols for political purposes. instead, i seek to bear witness to christian moral convictions while remaining fiercely independent of partisan loyalties and political manipulation. resistance: paying the price to say no to evil it is certainly clear from the cost of discipleship that dietrich bonhoeffer understood that following jesus will be costly. jesus taught a particular way of life that stands in opposition to the practices of most worldly powers. to say yes to jesus is to say no to these powers. such resistance will be costly. it can involve the ultimate cost of laying down one’s life. and of course the enduring power of bonhoeffer’s example is that on this score his life reflected his teachings. from the very first time their lives intersected, he resisted hitler and the pernicious influence of nazism. he resisted in small ways at small cost and then in larger ways at larger costs and finally in a conspiracy that cost him his life. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1(2007): cp8-12 gushee, “dietrich bonhoeffer and the evangelical moment” cp12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art16 the proper pattern is thus established: we follow jesus, come what may. having already renounced the ultimacy of any loyalty other than loyalty to jesus, we are prepared to pursue the path of discipleship (“following after”) where it leads. we do not seek confrontation with the powers, or suffering; we love life, and we are not looking for martyrdom. but having resolved our loyalty issue, and knowing what we know about christ and about this sinful world, we are ready for whatever may come. it is partly my loyalty to bonhoeffer’s model that has inspired me as an evangelical to take what i would call small steps of resistance in our own context. i am deeply grateful to have been able to find a community of fellow evangelicals who share this common vision. sometimes the practices and policies that we resist, such as mass divorce despite its negative effects on children, the routine resort to abortion, or the endless manipulation of human embryos and genes, earn us scorn from the cultural left. other times, such as our refusal to affirm us militarism and especially the justice of the war in iraq; our protesting of us torture of detainees; our working for just policies for the poor and the racially marginalized; and our pressure for protection of god’s creation, we have garnered the angry attacks of powers on the american right. but we interpret the discomfort that flows from our efforts to resist what we know to be wrong as part of the cost of discipleship. this too we have learned from bonhoeffer, and from his lord and ours, jesus christ. scjr 13, no. 1 (2018): 1-4 eugene j. fisher a life in dialogue: building bridges between catholics and jews, a memoir (st. petersburg, fl: mr. media books, 2017), paperback, x + 127 pp. and debbie weissman memoirs of a hopeful pessimist: a life of activism through dialogue (jerusalem and new york: urim publications and ktav publishing, 2017), hardcover, 199 pp. alan berger aberger@fau.edu florida atlantic university, boca raton, fl 33431 these volumes present complementary portraits of the fascinating, groundbreaking, and frequently turbulent careers of two leaders in interfaith dialogue and activism in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. they combine academic insights with personal recollections. while eugene fisher lives in america and debbie weissman lives in israel, they range far and wide geographically in seeking to achieve their goal of tikkun (repair –in so far as is possible) in the post-shoah world. fisher is a catholic scholar educated in both catholic institutions (he has a b.a. from sacred heart seminary and an m.a. in catholic theology from the university of detroit mercy) and secular institutions (he has an m.a. and a ph.d. from new york university in, respectively, jewish studies and hebrew culture and education). he recently retired following a thirty-year career as the first lay associate director of the secretariat for ecumenical and interreligious affairs of the united states conference of catholic bishops. weissman grew up in new york among those who spoke yiddish, and she received a solid hebrew and jewish education (though with little exposure to religious life). she received a b.a. from barnard college and an m.a. from new mailto:aberger@fau.edu berger: fisher’s a life in dialogue and weissman’s memoirs 2 york university. a year spent in israel solidified her commitment to that country and expanded her knowledge of judaism. she went on to earn a ph.d. from the hebrew university of jerusalem. a committed educator and activist, weissman held positions as a teacher of jewish education and women’s studies at the hebrew university and also directed the kerem institute which trains israeli high school teachers. she also served two terms as president of the international council of christians and jews (2008-2014) during which time the iccj redoubled its outreach efforts to interfaith groups worldwide. both fisher and weissman carried out their work amidst major developments in the interfaith world, including the sea-change ushered in by the second vatican council’s promulgation of nostra aetate (na). subsequent church documents extended the insights of na and offered practical guidance for its application. these developments, which many thought impossible, were sources of hope and made possible a vigorous jewish-christian dialogue over the last fifty years. during the last few decades, the authors note, alongside major improvements there were also serious disagreements. these include the canonization of edith stein (1998), the auschwitz convent controversy (1984-1993), the vatican’s failure to open its war-time archives dealing with pope pius xii’s actions during the holocaust, and the highly controversial mel gibson film the passion of the christ (2004). fisher sought to educate catholics about the sensitivity of the subjects dealt with in gibson’s film and reached out to jewish leaders, though he encountered sharp internal dissension about the film in the politically and religiously fractured catholic church. weissman often taught judaism to christians while challenging religious intolerance and patriarchy among certain segments of israeli society. she also spoke out for women’s rights and entered the cauldron of israeli politics with her vigorous support for the oslo accords. fisher recounts his important role as an interpreter of what might be termed “vaticanese.” he helped many to understand the nuanced doctrinal statements and theological pronouncements emanating from the holy see. likewise, he has also helped jews understand the complex vatican bureaucracy. contrary to the perception of the church as a monolithic and hierarchical institution whose views are unhesitatingly accepted by catholics everywhere, he revealed internal tensions between conservative and liberal factions. this has been valuable, as the swirls and eddies of vatican politics can be deeply wounding and confusing to the jewish people. fisher has rightly subtitled his memoirs “building bridges between catholics and jews” because he carefully explains the statements of highranking catholic thinkers in the dialogue such as cardinals william h. keeler and edward idris cassidy. he also draws on scholarly insights of thinkers such as professor philip cunningham. fisher deals forthrightly with seemingly intractable issues. these include the controversy over the canonization of edith stein. she was born jewish, and while she became a nun she was nonetheless murdered by the nazis because of her jewish origins. pope john paul ii publically acknowledged this fact while at the same time claiming that stein was also a catholic martyr. jewish outrage in this matter was widely expressed, perhaps nowhere more clearly than in articles by rabbi 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) david polish and professor adam gregerman, which fisher cites. they saw the move as an attempt to appropriate the shoah for christianity. fisher, however, claims that the inclusion of edith stein has provided an opportunity for catholic teaching materials to “take up the issue of the shoah and the death of the six million” (p. 68). the auschwitz convent controversy, similarly, evoked very different responses by jews and catholics because of their very different histories. the cross, fisher sensitively notes, symbolizes resurrection for christianity and persecution for judaism. that nuns, even cloistered nuns such as the carmelites at auschwitz, were praying for the victims of national socialism was deeply offensive to jews, though it was intended as a mark of respect by the nuns. as fisher recognizes, “the crisis was not over a physical building or a simple cross. it was over the two millennia of history and the meaning of the shoah” (p. 71). the convent was eventually moved following the pope’s intervention, but not before much bitterness and anguish. the controversy over the gibson film exposed the chasm between conservative and progressive forces in the catholic (and christian) world. the united state conference of catholic bishops admirably established guidelines for how passion plays should present jesus’ passion, which gibson ignored. gibson also refused to recognize the authority of na. despite this, fisher interprets the lack of an antisemitic backlash in the wake of gibson’s anti-historical and antisemitic film to na’s legacy, including the rejection of the deicide charge and a positive theology of judaism. this is certainly an important insight. left unexplained, however, is the bishops’ lack of criticism for the gibson film, though it violated every one of the tenets of how to correctly present the passion. debbie weissman is a tireless worker on behalf of interfaith relations, and her efforts extend beyond the abrahamic traditions. she made aliyah in 1972 and was an early advocate for changing attitudes toward women and about gender in orthodox judaism. in addition, she narrates her participation in several world council of churches (wcc) meetings as a guest speaker. in her first wcc conference she interacted with sixty women representing nine different traditions, including wiccans. the wcc is viewed with suspicion by many in the jewish community as hostile to israel. but weissman is determined to open and not close doors. her initiative has not been an easy one and, in fact, some might analogize it to the tale of sisyphus. yet weissman is tenacious. she approvingly cites former israeli president shimon peres who observed: “optimists and pessimists die the same death; they just live totally different lives” (p. 71). weissman describes herself as a “hopeful pessimist.” weissman’s activism extends beyond interreligious relations. she writes about educational, religious, and political issues, including her teaching israel’s first university-level course in jewish women’s studies, her role in founding the jerusalem synagogue kehillat yedidya (which has been at the forefront of advocating for greater women’s roles in orthodox judaism), and her commitment to a two-state solution. weissman’s memoir includes helpful appendices containing a thumbnail history of post-shoah interfaith statements, as well as the ten points of seelisberg berger: fisher’s a life in dialogue and weissman’s memoirs 4 from 1947 and the iccj’s twelve points of berlin from 2009. the latter stresses the importance of differentiating between fair-minded criticism of israel and antisemitism, the need for ongoing interreligious dialogue, and the development of relationships with all those whose work responds to the demands of environmental stewardship. these points illustrate the connection between interfaith and international concerns. i have a long personal connection with fisher. he was my first interfaith dialogue partner at a small college in upstate new york over three decades ago. because of his sophistication and fairness, some joked that one could see an exemplary model of dialogue if one could hear him talking to himself. these two memoirs offer valuable insights into interreligious dialogue, as well as into other issues (such as weissman’s advocacy for women in jewish life). to their credit, both authors are able to show how one can make progress on these issues. the issues they address are vital and, therefore, contentious. they make clear the many obstacles they faced and the need for steadfastness and also a willingness to negotiate and compromise. perhaps the most vital lesson emerging from these two memoirs is the need to become educated about the other, thereby dispelling illusions and ignorance. scjr 16, no. 1 (2021): 1-4 amy-jill levine and marc zvi brettler the bible with and without jesus: how jews and christians read the same stories differently (new york: harperone, 2020), 512 pages michael trainor michael.trainor@acu.edu.au australian catholic university, thebarton, sa 5031 as a university bible scholar and christian educator, i was confident in the breadth of my knowledge of scripture. however, after reading this book i realized there is so much i do not know! because of their remarkable familiarity with the bible and its interpretation, levine and brettler offer valuable insights to christian and jewish readers, whether lay or scholarly. these insights are consistently respectful of both traditions, expansive, and conducive to dialogue. there are three questions that shape the authors’ approach in each chapter: “what did the [biblical] text mean in its original context in ancient israel? how do the new testament authors interpret that text? and how do post-biblical jews from the time of jesus (e.g., the dead sea scrolls, the first-century historian josephus, and the first-century philosopher philo) through the rabbinic and medieval jewish tradition and later christian traditions understand these texts?” (xi). the book’s title also illustrates this approach. the authors treat three subjects equally: the bible, the bible with jesus, and the bible without jesus (x). the authors invite their readers to reflect on biblical texts, starting with their appearance in the tanakh and then later on with their appearance in the new testament and in subsequent interpretations. their agenda is not to reconcile different interpretations of biblical texts but to honor the differences (15). levine and brettler adopt multiple lenses to perform an “act of recovery” (xii), as they call it, making readers more aware of these texts. in light of their backgrounds and teaching experiences, i suspect this reflects the frustration they feel over widespread ignorance even from some christian biblical interpreters and educators about judaism and jewish interpretation. their desire is for jews and christians to “understand each other’s positions and beliefs and at the minimum respectfully agree to disagree” (4). trainor: levine and brettler’s the bible with and without jesus 2 while space limitations do not allow me to offer a comprehensive overview of the book, in the following i offer brief precis of each of the chapters. then i focus on one theme, virginity, that the authors explore in order to illustrate their approach and the contributions that it can make to christian and jewish understanding. chapter 1 offers a summary of different views of what constitutes “the bible” (and its interpretation), highlighting its prominent role shaping religious practice for jews and foreshadowing the new testament for christians. chapter 2 presents a study of prophecy, how it was understood, and what they call its “problem and promise” (41). they discuss how prophecy was viewed in ancient israel until the second temple period (up to ca. 515 bce) and how this provided the context for later nt writers, who were themselves interpreters of prophetic texts (sometimes as proof texts) and used them to understand jesus. sympathetic recognition of the different ways these texts have been read, they say, is good for civil society and religious commitment (60). chapters 3-12, the book’s main chapters, each focus on a particular text or theme, usually from the new testament, and then move backward chronologically to the tanakh in order to recover the original context and meaning. the authors illustrate how the incorporation or borrowing of these texts or themes in the new testament are used to support particular christological viewpoints divorced from their original biblical settings or anticipatory hints of the life, death, and resurrection of jesus. chapter 3 explores the theme of creation. the authors begin with the prologue from john’s gospel (1:1-5) and then reflect on the story of creation from genesis and from later jewish interpretations. chapter 4 treats biblical themes associated with the genesis story of adam and eve including responsibility for the transgression, the forbidden fruit, and (original) sin. even the snake gets a mention! chapter 5 takes up the problem of supersessionism. levine and brettler identify this in hebrews and explicate the implications of identifying jesus as the “eternal high priest after the order of melchizedek” (7:17). chapter 6 focuses on the main injunctions of the sermon on the mount in matthew 5-7. they argue that jesus’ teachings are extensions of commands in the torah rather than antitheses. chapter 7 presents interpretations of biblical themes of sacrifice, blood, atonement, and covenant in order to help christians to freshly understand jesus’ last supper injunction to drink his blood. chapter 8 explores biblical ideas of virginity and their application to mary in matthew’s gospel. the authors illustrate how matthew draws on isaiah and how his prophetic “predictions” became a source of polemic. i shall briefly return to this theme below in order to illustrate the contributions which the bible with and without jesus can make especially to christian understanding of mary’s virginity. chapter 9 discusses isaiah’s suffering servant and how he became a template for jesus’ followers in their understanding of his suffering and death. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) chapter 10 considers the figure of jonah and how he is understood by jews and later by christians. chapter 11 invites deeper consideration of the so-called “cry of dereliction,” the words that mark and matthew place on the lips of the dying jesus: “my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?” they show how the evangelists’ use of this quotation of psalm 22 illustrates how they appropriate and reinterpret the psalm as a prediction of jesus’ fate. chapter 12 concentrates on a prominent but vexing title applied to jesus: “son of man.” the chapter uncovers the rich jewish tradition behind this title as found in genesis, numbers, psalms, and job. before i reflect on the book’s final chapter and its insights for ongoing jewishchristian dialogue and biblical interpretation, let me summarize the contribution which the authors make in chapter 8 to christian understanding of mary’s virginity. the key text is from matthew. the evangelist applies isaiah 7:14 to mary’s pregnancy: “‘look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him emmanuel,’ which means ‘god is with us’” (1:20-23). levine and brettler focus on the hebrew ‘almah in isaiah, which means “a young woman of marriageable age.” this was translated in the septuagint as parthenos, which means “a virgin in the sense of a sexually inexperienced person” (271). the hebrew version was lost to later christian interpreters, who relied on the greek text and its application to mary’s pregnancy. this transposition of ‘almah to parthenos unfortunately led to jewish-christian polemics, as in justin’s dialogue with trypho. matthew’s use of parthenos does not rule out the possibility that mary, who is not yet pregnant (the future tense “shall conceive” suggests this), is still a virgin. at the time of the writing of matthew, jews would have been aware of stories of divine beings’ having sexual relations with humans. mary’s virginity thus would not necessarily have been heard by jews, including by jewish jesus-followers in matthew’s community, as unprecedented. for christians today, this discussion about claims of mary’s virginity in their ancient jewish context can open other ways of thinking about the mother of jesus that move away from a gynecological emphasis that has historically dominated christian interpretation. in the book’s last chapter, levine and brettler suggest several insights that emerge from their work. they acknowledge the importance of reclaiming the original context and setting of biblical texts, the value of working with the original languages, the ethical implications that come from diverse and multiple interpretations, and the rich insights available to jews and christians by learning the meanings of the texts from the other’s tradition. “we have accentuated,” they write, “how christians might increase their appreciation of the ‘old testament’ texts cited in the new testament, as well as how those texts have ongoing meaning in the jewish tradition…. we also want to encourage our jewish readers to see how the various quotations from their own scriptures are used in the new testament, for several of the new testament writers, especially paul, are reading and writing from within their own jewish tradition” (426). trainor: levine and brettler’s the bible with and without jesus 4 the bible with and without jesus deserves a wide readership. it is a scholarly gift that will enhance jewish-christian dialogue and biblical interpretation by jews and christians. scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-3 michal bar-asher siegal jewish-christian dialogues on scripture in late antiquity: heretic narratives of the babylonian talmud (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2019), hardcover, ix + 228 pp. john mandsager mandsage@mailbox.sc.edu university of south carolina, columbia, sc 29208 michal bar-asher siegal’s book, a deserving finalist for the national jewish book award (2019), is an excellent companion to her very well-regarded first book, early christian monastic literature and the babylonian talmud (2013). in this book, bar-asher siegal once again studies the babylonian talmud and demonstrates that its authors had knowledge of early christians and polemicized against their views. while her earlier work focused on the local context of early christian and rabbinic exchange in the sasanian empire, her argument in the present work is both broader, in terms of geography and intellectual exchange, and narrower, insofar as she focuses on a particular set of extremely short dialogues in the babylonian talmud. in this “mini-corpus,” each dialogue includes a min, which she convincingly demonstrates means “heretic” in these cases and which has a semantic range related to christian heresiological discourses (pp. 5-25). the min interprets a biblical verse only to be called a “fool!” by a rabbinic sage, who mocks the heretic for his wrong interpretation. bar-asher siegal argues that the rabbis created these dialogues not as historical records of actual encounters between rabbis and heretics. instead, the rabbis imagine what such encounters might entail and mock and satirize rival theological and exegetical claims. her primary task is to discern “what these stories can teach us of the babylonian talmudic knowledge of christian traditions” (p. 5). this requires the deft and careful examination of biblical interpretation across a wide range of both latin, greek, and syriac christian sources and of second temple-period and rabbinic jewish sources. in each of bar-asher siegal’s examples, she must fill in the gap between the foolish interpretation offered by the heretic and the “correct” interpretation of the rabbi. she argues that the scholar can fill this gap by “drawing on mandsager: michal bar-asher siegal’s jewish-christian dialogues 2 external knowledge in order to better understand the narrative’s content and context” (p. 104). she begins with an introduction to minim stories (chapter 1) and a study of the use of insults, especially the term “fool,” in second temple-period and early christian writings (chapter 2). in each of the following four chapters (chapters 3-6), she considers a single dialogue between a min and a rabbi where the rabbi mocks the heretic for his wrong interpretation of a biblical verse. for example, in chapter 4, she looks at a dialogue from b. berakhot 10a in which a min has a question about how to interpret a verse in isaiah (pp. 109-11). the min says, “it is written: ‘rejoice, o barren one who bore no child’ (isaiah 54:1). because she did not bear is she to rejoice?” in response, beruriah calls this heretic a fool and directs his attention to the end of the verse (“for the children of the desolate shall be more than the children of the espoused”). she then claims that israel shall rejoice because she has not “born children for gehenna,” turning barrenness from a sorrowful burden into joy. as bar-asher siegal summarizes, “the reason for the barren woman’s joy is the presumed nature of the unborn children. these children are likened to the heretic himself, and since they are destined to hell, the mother is happy that they were never born.” this short dialogue raises several questions. why include the min’s question when it is so readily answered by the end of the verse? why does beruriah mock him so strongly, calling him a “fool,” destined for hell? what can this dialogue tell us about how much rabbis knew about competing interpretations of this verse (bar-asher siegal’s overarching question)? bar-siegal asher’s analysis follows these questions by presenting different interpretations of the verse from the targums, philo, tannaitic sources, paul’s letter to the galatians, 2 clement, and pesiqta derav kahana. in galatians 4:21-31, bar-asher siegal argues, paul uses isaiah 54:1 to contrast sarah and hagar in the genesis narrative, contrasting sarah’s miraculous (even non-sexual) conception with hagar’s conception “according to the flesh” (pp. 123-25). “paul reads the verse in isaiah not as a description of two stages experienced by one individual, but rather as a synchronic description of two entities (sarah and hagar), one of whom is a barren woman with multiple descendants.” sarah, then, is the barren woman who rejoices after her nonsexual conception of isaac. for beruriah’s harsh mockery of the heretic in b. berakhot 10a to make sense, bar-siegal asher argues, we must assume that the authors of the talmudic dialogue know that christians interpret the verse in ways similar to paul in galatians (pp. 134-42). the conflict in the dialogue, as in each of the dialogues that bar-asher siegal analyzes, is thus between christians and jews. “the min intends to say: we [christians] are better because we are the sons of the spirit and are not bound by the commandments. beruriah responds: we are better precisely because we do keep the commandments and do not end up in gehenna” (p. 142, emphasis original). bar-asher siegal provides nuanced analyses, relying on a wide range of jewish and christian interpretations of biblical verses, in the other chapters of the book. she presents a dispute over the proper interpretation of amos 4:13, “he who forms the mountains and creates the wind,” in chapter 3; of micah 7:4, “the best of them is like a brier,” in chapter 5; and of hosea 5:6, “he has drawn off from them,” in 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) chapter 6. chapter 3 contains the longest of these min dialogues, from b. ḥullin 87a, which, she argues, remarkably includes two different minim, one “good” and one “bad,” each of whom represents a different christian interpretation of the verse. in this dialogue, “we gain not only knowledge of the rabbinic authors concerning christian traditions, but also of a nuanced view that is willing to present some minim as closer than others” (p. 104). bar-asher siegal’s individual analyses are quite convincing, and the book as a whole offers an innovative method for considering how much the babylonian rabbis knew about christians and forms of christianity. yet, as she is quite aware, connecting the dots from extremely short dialogues in the babylonian talmud to general and specific christian claims about theology and about the hebrew bible and its interpretation requires speculation. as she concedes, “in most cases, the heretic’s words do not expose the full christian argument i claim lies at their foundation” (p. 187). rather, bar-asher siegal must supply that larger christian context. this caution notwithstanding, bar-asher siegal’s introduction of convincing christian hermeneutical arguments opens the door for further investigation of the question, “how much christianity is there in the babylonian talmud?” (p. 191). this book is a welcome and exciting contribution to the study of the babylonian talmud in its late antique contexts. students and scholars of rabbinic literature and early christianity will benefit from the innovative methods and interpretations bar-asher siegal deftly provides in this volume. the misunderstood jew: the church and the scandal of the jewish jesus studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1 (2007): r5-6 levine, the misunderstood jew r5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art11 amy-jill levine, the misunderstood jew: the church and the scandal of the jewish jesus (san francisco: harpersanfrancisco, 2006), paper, 256 pp. reviewed by eugene j. fisher, u.s. conference of catholic bishops, washington, d.c. if you read only one book in jewish-christian relations this year, this is the one to read. amy-jill levine at once provides an insightful overview of the best of contemporary new testament scholarship and a powerful, often witty critique of many of its weaknesses when it comes to dealing with jesus as a jew. in a review of her book in the christmas issue of america, daniel j. harrington, sj, himself a redoubtable new testament scholar whose work over the years has displayed most of the virtues levine wishes to promote in christian scholarship and almost none of the flaws she skewers, admits to finding the book “both challenging and humbling,” since a few of her barbs “hit home to me personally” (195/20 [dec. 18-25]: 24). this is high and gracious praise, well deserved, from one top scholar to another. levine writes from the point of view of an orthodox jew who grew up admiring much about the christians around her and about jesus’ teaching, though not the claims to his divinity, or much about what christians in general mistakenly believe to be jewish beliefs and practices. she sets jesus solidly within the context of his own people and times, dispelling many a pious myth in the process. jesus lived and died a believing jew, reflecting and at times challenging the judaism he loved. the new testament, levine rightly notes, contains polemics against judaism. these reflect more the times and needs of the new testament authors than those of jesus himself. for instance, matthew’s negative portrait of the pharisees served the purpose of downplaying the authority of the jewish leadership in matthew’s time who, like levine, simply did not accept the author’s claims about jesus. jesus is to be understood not as “over against” his people or his faith, but rather as fully a part of them. in so doing, levine argues, one can begin to re-capture the fullness of jesus’ teachings and their continuing challenge to us. as a jewish woman, levine effectively goes after the implicit antisemitism of many “early” christian feminists who sought to play up jesus advocacy of women at the expense of turning the judaism of jesus’ time into a misogynistic, oppressive religion when, in fact, judaism of the period was much more supportive of what we would today call women’s rights than the societies around them. she likewise quite rightly goes after the tendency of much of liberation theology to identify jews as oppressors and judaism as a system that justified oppression, as opposed to jesus who sided with the poor. she rightly traces this through statements of the world council of churches as well as individual (often catholic) authors. levine singles out for praise the 2002 document of the pontifical biblical commission (pbc), the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible. the pbc document noted the great differences in canon and interpretation between jewish and christian understanding of our common sacred texts, and goes on to affirm that both traditions, properly understood, can be valid at the same time. review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1 (2007): r5-6 levine, the misunderstood jew r6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art11 in her final chapter levine summarizes the state of the art in christian-jewish relations with a wonderfully handy alphabet of suggestions. these are equally addressed to church and synagogue, since 21st century judaism, whether orthodox, conservative or reform, has quite a few misunderstandings of christianity of its own. one of these misunderstandings, which levine unfortunately perpetuates rather than challenges (p. 218), is that christians don’t pray to god directly but have to go through an “intermediary,” i.e. jesus. this is incorrect. i pray to god directly all the time. and, in point of fact, since jesus for me is god, i don’t believe he is some sort of being interposed between me and god. levine’s book has some other flaws as well. she is much too dismissive of those scholars who for good reason suggest translating the greek word ioudaioi, in some cases and where appropriate, as “judeans” rather than jews. similarly, she appears to dismiss the efforts of historical-critical scholarship as “merely speculative.” true, there is speculation in all historical scholarship, but that does not mean that it is entirely devoid of solid foundation. finally, while levine is correct that there could have been no universal expulsion of christians from synagogues precipitated by the minim clause in the eighteen benedictions which tradition ascribes to the council of jamnia, there is certainly something historical behind the experience of the johannine community to explain why john speaks about christians being expelled. these, however, are minor flaws in an otherwise truly wonderful and highly readable work. scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-2 mark d. nanos reading paul within judaism (eugene, or: cascade, 2017) paperback, xxv + 188 pp. matthew v. novenson matthew.novenson@ed.ac.uk university of edinburgh, new college, mound place eh1 2lx, uk it has been nearly a quarter-century since mark nanos first made a splash in academic new testament studies with the mystery of romans: the jewish context of paul’s letter (fortress, 1996). that was before nanos even finished his st. andrews ph.d., the research for which became his second monograph, the irony of galatians: paul’s letter in first-century context (fortress, 2002). in the course of these twenty-plus years, nanos has also edited some important collections of essays on the paul and judaism debates, notably the galatians debate (hendrickson, 2002) and, with magnus zetterholm, paul within judaism (fortress, 2015). all the while, he has produced numerous shorter-form journal articles and essays on related topics. it is fitting, then, that cascade press is now publishing nanos’s collected essays in several volumes, of which the book under review, reading paul within judaism, is the first. reading romans within judaism (vol. 2) and reading corinthians and philippians within judaism (vol. 4) have also been published, and reading galatians within judaism (vol. 3) is soon to follow. the thread running through nanos’s body of work is clearly signalled by the titles of these volumes. his major project is to give an exegesis of all the undisputedly authentic letters of paul within judaism. there is an ambiguity, probably deliberate, in the syntax of this phrase. does is mean that the apostle paul stood within (late second temple) judaism? or that nanos’s reading of paul takes place within (modern, twenty-first century) judaism? i think the answer is both. nanos certainly emphasizes the former, historical-critical point. he insists that any talk of paul teaching or practicing christianity is irremediably anachronistic. but the essays in this volume also emphasize the latter, hermeneutical point. in chapter 6, aptly titled “reading paul in a jewish way,” he begins by saying, “to speak of reading paul in a jewish way can allude to the fact that i am a jewish person engaged in historical research on paul… i believe the perspective i bring to the research can be useful to others” (p. 155). novenson: nanos’s reading paul within judaism 2 nanos’s perspective can indeed be useful to others, as is clear from the notes on the places of first publication of the essays here assembled. most of them began as invited addresses, either to learned societies or to significant ecclesiastical gatherings, on the topic of paul and judaism, specifically from nanos’s own perspective as both a jew and a new testament scholar. two of these essays began as addresses at catholic institutions on the occasion of the jubilee year of st. paul in 2008-2009, one at villanova university in philadelphia (chapter 4, “paul and the jewish tradition: the ideology of the shema”) and one at the society of st. paul in rome (chapter 7, “paul and judaism [codex pauli]”). still another (chapter 6, noted above) was an address at the 2015 deutscher evangelischer kirchentag in stuttgart. nanos is a historical-critical exegete, but as these examples illustrate, he has also become an important voice in contemporary jewishchristian dialogue. if the subsequent three volumes of his collected essays comprise exegeses of particular letters, this first volume is programmatic, presenting nanos’s overall research program in a brief two hundred pages. this is clearest of all in the first chapter, by far the longest in the book, “paul and judaism: why not paul’s judaism?” (emphasis nanos’s, and a perfect seven-word summary of his overarching thesis). each of chapters 2 through 6 identifies a point at which exegesis of paul touches on a problem relevant to jewish-christian relations, for instance, chapter 2, “how inter-christian approaches to paul’s rhetoric can perpetuate negative valuations of jewishness—although proposing to avoid that outcome,” and chapter 3, “the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul standing between christians and jews.” when nanos, with a few others, first articulated his paul-within-judaism hypothesis in the mid-1990s, it was a decidedly minority view. nowadays, due in no small part to nanos’s own influence, such an approach is much closer to the mainstream of academic pauline studies. one consequence of this shift, however, is that there is also much more diversity of interpretation among the numerous scholars who now embrace nanos’s watchword paul within judaism. hence even those readers, like the present reviewer, who are sympathetic with nanos’s methodological premises will nevertheless differ with him on many particular points of interpretation, for instance, his supplying the verb “to seek validation” in his translation of rom 2:28-29, or his rendering of erga nomou as “rites of a convention” rather than “works of the law,” or his claim that paul’s assemblies of gentiles-in-christ were located socially within diaspora synagogues. but debates over questions like these are the bread and butter of new testament interpretation, and whatever disagreements there may be, i suspect that mark nanos is gratified to know that we are all now having the conversation that he helped start back in the 1990s. 1 scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-22 following the breadcrumbs: jesus as superfluous to salvation? a catholic search1 peter admirand peter.admirand@dcu.ie dublin city university, dublin, d09 n920, ireland interfaith theological hunger in jewish-christian dialogue: drawing honey from the rock, their 2008 book which candidly and, sometimes bluntly, assessed the current state of jewish-christian dialogue, jewish scholars alan berger and david patterson, ask, “with fear and trembling,” whether jesus, “for the jews, is superfluous to salvation”?2 they are challenging the christian claim that jesus is the sole, unique, universal savior— and the standard christian belief that jesus’ death on the cross was needed to redeem all of humanity from original sin (an issue i will address further below). my contention here is not on the full merit of berger and patterson’s assessments about christianity in the book, which includes solid christian responses and counterclaims from david p. gushee, john t. pawlikowski, and john k. roth. i highlight berger and patterson’s question because it cuts to the heart, not only of jewishchristian relations, but of christian identity.3 to build on their question, i am asking whether the christian belief that jesus is the unique, sole, universal savior of the world (and so all other ways are flawed and insufficient) has not only damaged 1 an initial version of this essay was presented at “fulfilling the promise of a new relationship: an academic roundtable on christian-jewish relations,” sponsored by the institute for catholic-jewish relations, saint joseph’s university, philadelphia (january 2019), with a response from philip cunningham. i thank phil for his comments, and along with adam gregerman, their gracious hosting of us. a subsequent version was then presented at a panel on muslim-christian dialogue (organized by mario aguilar) at the 2nd european academy of religion conference in bologna in march, 2019. this challenged me to ask how a paper originally presented to a select group of jewish-christian dialogue experts would or should be adapted for a panel on muslim-christian dialogue with listeners from a range of backgrounds and beliefs. one area that arose is how the catholic prioritizing of the relationship with jews and judaism appears in a more religiously mixed environment. 2 alan l berger and david patterson, with david p. gushee, john t. pawlikowski, and john k. roth, jewish-christian dialogue: drawing honey from the rock (st. paul: paragon house, 2008), 124 and 180-181. 3 for a scathing critique of berger and patterson’s interpretations of christianity, which she calls “a caricature” and in need of much refinement, see mary c. boys’ review of jewish-christian dialogue: drawing honey from the rock in studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): boys r1-2, https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/scjr/article/view/1569/1422. https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/scjr/article/view/1569/1422 admirand: following the breadcrumbs 2 relations, views, and interpretations of judaism and the jewish people, but has damaged and undermined jesus’ commandment: “just as i have loved you, you also should love one another” (john 13:34).4 has such theological certitude and inflexibility created a christianity very adept at judging and critiquing others while overly confident of its need to protect, defend, and justify its own positions as the only correct ones? in light of more recent church pronouncements, like the 2015 vatican document “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’,”5 i, also in fear and trembling, want to follow a number of (theological) “breadcrumbs” to see where they lead me in light of the church’s orthodox and standing claim of jesus’ unique and universal salvific role, namely: the proclaimed jewishness of jesus; the church’s post-shoah embrace of christianity’s jewish foundations; the church’s distancing from supersessionism6 (and its call to reject what didier pollefeyt labels “christological triumphalism”7); the proclamation of the ongoing validity of the jewish covenant (mentioned by john paul ii in mainz in 1980); and the church’s rejection of systemic, institutional attempts to convert the jewish people.8 in this 4 all biblical translations are from the nrsv, catholic edition. 5 commission for religious relations with the jews, “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’ (rom 11:29): a reflection on the theological questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of ‘nostra aetate’ (no. 4)” (december 10, 2015), http://www.vatican.va/roman_ curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_ doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html. for analysis, see christian m. rutishauser, “christian mission to the jews revisited: exploring the logic of the vatican document ‘the gifts and calling of god are irrevocable’,” studies in christian-jewish relations 14 (2019): 1-16, https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/scjr/article/view/11587; and marianne moyaert, “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’ (rom 11:29): a theological reflection,” irish theological quarterly 83, no.1 (2018): 24-43. 6 understandably, much of the jewish and catholic world were confused (or distressed) by emeritus pope benedict’s remarks that supersessionism cannot be seen as an ancient church belief or tendency, citing, as “evidence” its absence from german theological lexicons. see benedict xvi, “grace and vocation without remorse: comments on the treatise de iudaeis,” communio 45, no.1 (spring 2018): 163-184, https://www.communio-icr.com/articles/view/grace-and-vocation-without-remorse. for helpful commentary and views, see the following link from the council of centers on jewish-christian relations: https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope. see also philip a. cunningham and adam gregerman, “‘genuine brotherhood’” without remorse: a commentary on joseph ratzinger’s ‘comments on ‘de iudaeis,’” studies in christian-jewish relations 14 (2019): 1-29, https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/scjr/article/view/11925/9823. cunningham and gregerman contend that the treatise is “noteworthy in the study of developments in jewish-christian relations” (28). their critically fair analysis helped me be more generous towards benedict’s likely aims and meaning, though his theological oeuvre mostly leaves me pondering and frustrated. 7 didier pollefeyt, “christology after auschwitz: a catholic perspective,” in jesus then & now: images of jesus in history and christology, ed. marvin meyer and charles hughes (harrisburg: trinity, 2001), 229-48. 8 note i am not going to rehash this already well-trod terrain, which i have done, for example, in my “landmines and vegetables: the hope and perils of recent jewish critiques of christianity,” in pathways for interreligious dialogue, ed. vladimir latinovic, gerard mannion, and peter phan (new york: palgrave, 2016), 81-96; and in humbling faith: brokenness, doubt, dialogue: what unites atheists, theists, and nontheists (eugene, or: cascade books, 2019), chapters 3 and 4. see also: didier pollefeyt, ethics and theology after the holocaust (leuven: peeters press, 2018); philip a. cunningham, http://www.vatican.va/roman_%20curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_%20doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_%20curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_%20doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/scjr/article/view/11587 https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/scjr/article/view/11587 https://www.communio-icr.com/articles/view/grace-and-vocation-without-remorse https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/scjr/article/view/11925/9823 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) light, vatican silence towards peter phan’s work on an “interfaith christology” in the joy of religious pluralism9 is also noteworthy. such silence may reveal how vatican assessment of interfaith theological exploration is developing under pope francis. while bread images are rich biblically, sacramentally, and theologically, 10 consider them here also like those in the fairy tale of hansel and gretel; or, shifting the symbol, as the red thread in the myth of ariadne and theseus. such markers are meant to lead one home or serve as a means to escape the maze. in jewishchristian relations, we have encountered (and created) many mazes and we all desperately want to get home, most importantly, together, in a new relationship.11 can i answer “yes” to berger and patterson’s question: is jesus, for jews, superfluous to salvation?, while, at jesus’ vulnerable question to the disciples, “do you also wish to go away?,” echo peter’s reply, “lord, to whom can we go? you have the words of eternal life” (john 6:67-68)? fused from my personal longing for jesus both as god incarnate and as a jewish galilean,12 my hope in a god of love and justice13 despite the problem of evil,14 and my ongoing belief that the two faiths somehow, in some way, are miraculously one even as two,15 i will follow the breadcrumbs to see how and whether i can and should answer berger and patterson’s seeking shalom: the journey to right relationship between catholics and jews (grand rapids: eerdmans, 2015); gilbert s. rosenthal, ed., a jubilee for all time: the copernican revolution in jewishchristian relations (eugene, or: wipf & stock, 2014); alan l. berger, ed., post-holocaust jewishchristian dialogue: after the flood, before the rainbow (lanham, md: lexington, 2014); edward kessler, an introduction to jewish-christian relations (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2010); and mary c. boys, seeing judaism anew: christianity's sacred obligation (lanham, md: rowman and littlefield, 2005). 9 peter c. phan, the joy of religious pluralism: a personal journey (maryknoll, ny: orbis, 2017). 10 see, for example, ched myers, binding the strong man: a political reading of mark’s story of jesus, anniversary edition (maryknoll, ny: orbis, 2008). 11 see, for example, the essays in robert w. jenson and eugene b. korn, eds., covenant and hope: christian and jewish reflections (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 2012). 12 see sean freyne, a jewish galilean: a new reading of the jewish story (london: continuum, 2004). 13 the waters of liberation, postcolonial, and feminist theologies supply the majority of the theological current, purification, and nutrition here. see, for example my “humbling the discourse: why interfaith dialogue, religious pluralism, liberation theology, and secular humanism are needed for a robust public square,” religions 10, article no. 450 (2019): 1-32. 14 for my investigation of theodicy, see my amidst mass atrocity and the rubble of theology: searching for a viable theodicy (eugene, or: cascade, 2012). 15 discussions of the single or dual covenant remain ongoing. see, for example, philip a. cunningham, joseph sievers, mary c. boys, hans hermann henrix, and jesper svartvik, eds., christ jesus and the jewish people today: new explorations of theological interrelationships (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 2011); erich zenger, “the covenant that was never revoked,” in the catholic church and the jewish people: recent reflections from rome, ed. philip a. cunningham, norbert j. hofman, and joeseph sievers (new york: fordham university press, 2007), chapter 8; and john pawlikowski, “the search for a new paradigm for the christian-jewish relationship: a response to michael signer,” in reinterpreting revelation and tradition: jews and christians in conversation, ed. john t. pawlikowski and hayim goren perelmuter (franklin, wi: sheed & ward, 2000), 25-48. as i recognize a plurality of covenants within judaism (the noahide, the abrahamic, the mosaic, etc.), i find it neither essential nor necessary that christians and jews profess the same, single covenant, if that means all aspects, expectations, and thick theological language must be identical. clearly, that is not possible in light of jesus’ professed identity for christians. at the same time, fear of supersessionism or severing the links admirand: following the breadcrumbs 4 question. such an answer, which can only be sketched here, would have profound, perhaps spiritually cataclysmic effects, not only on christology, or related fields of ecclesiology, mission, scripture, and trinity, but also signal whether and how such breadcrumbs lead beyond the jewish-christian context, towards islam and nonabrahamic faiths. initial dots (autobiographical sketches) this section is unequivocally narrative-based and vulnerable. there may be some readers and scholars allergic to such methods, who mistake lyrical language for a dearth of analytical rigor, as if never the twain shall meet. often the most convincing (or at least engrossing) analysis is the one suffused in the personal and confessional. any turn to narrative in an academic article, however, should inflect words and phrases rooted and in dialogue with traditional scholarship, sometimes as explicit references and textual readings, sometimes as echoes, questions, and answers. the method has its risks and drawbacks and demands more of readers to connect, tease-out, and reflect. i cannot follow any breadcrumbs or thread without identifying how i found myself in such interfaith mazes or in connecting more foundational dots or nutritive morsels. it is too personal to hide behind academic jargon and some third-person omniscient vantage point. born in the mid-1970s in a long island town with wellestablished jewish congregations, i knew little of pre-vatican ii views on the “perfidious jews.”16 instead, i knew uri, from israel, then ten-years old like me who also liked basketball and star wars. while i attended catholic primary school, there were jewish kids on my soccer teams, though i only knew them as jason the striker with a strong left foot or elijah (ej) my fellow, solid defender whom i could always rely on to save goals. bracketing my parents’ house on both sides were the silbers and the broidos.17 the silbers have since moved away but i still remember my deep sadness as a teenager when i was told david, the eldest son, then in his early 20s, was battling cancer. his was the first young face i saw preternaturally bald from chemo. fortunately, he survived. before moving, his mother, debbie, knowing of my interest in literature, gave me all her vintage novels of dickens and twain. her kindness, and those books, have remained with me. on the other side were the broidos. in speaking about this article to my mother, she mentioned that while she was pregnant with me, the broidos’ six-year old daughter, nina, pointed and connections between biblical judaism and christianity understandably seeks to bring the covenants as close as possible, if not to overlap at as many points as possible. while there should be a moral thrust that unites all these covenants, it seems reasonable that a god of all peoples and cultures would be comfortable with nuance, some difference, and even contradiction (again, rooted for christians in jesus’ identity and the concept of the trinity). see, for example, michael kogan, opening the covenant: a jewish theology of christianity (oxford: oxford university press, 2008). 16 for analysis and commentary on the changes to this phrase in catholic liturgy, see, for example the comments of judith banki and john pawlikowski, in “praying for the jews: two views on the new good friday prayer,” commonweal (10 march 2008), https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/praying-jews. 17 the names of my parents’ neighbors in this section have been changed to protect privacy. https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/praying-jews https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/praying-jews 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) to my mom’s belly and said to her, “if it’s a boy you’ll have a bar mitzvah but if it’s a girl, you’ll have a bat mitzvah.” at the time, my mom was one of the few christians on the block so she tried to explain this. the girl was incredulous: “are you a gentile?” my mom then told the story to nina’s mother and they both had a good laugh. the broidos moved when i was young so i knew the schneidermans instead. becky, a professional violinist, was hired by the local catholic church to play during the easter triduum masses. as a child, i never considered how she felt as the only jew in a church full of christians shouting (supposedly as jews), “crucify him! crucify him!” i think about that a lot now, though. we were a very traditional, but still post-vatican ii, devout american catholic family. my mother had been in the convent as a novice, with an eldest brother a priest and her elder sister a nun. my accountant father never misses sunday mass. saying the rosary in the living room or on car-trips still echoes in my memory. but there never was a sense of catholic triumphalism or an institutional church without flaws. my mother often quotes her tipperary-born father, speaking about noncatholics, “ahh, all that matters is whether they be good people.” while i grew up in the context of the papacy of john paul ii, papal encyclicals and the documents of the vatican’s congregation for the doctrine of the faith (cdf) never really concerned me until college. church scandals, though, seemed to follow me like the plague. while in the jesuit volunteer corps in santa rosa, our local bishop (with whom i gave a co-homily and who was warm and charming when he had dinner with myself and fellow volunteers) had to resign over an embezzlement and extortion scandal involving a scorned male lover. two pastors at my parents’ local church had to resign for undisclosed reasons. my time at boston college coincided with the cardinal law debacles and protests, and since moving to dublin, ireland in 2004, church scandals from rampant child abuse and pedophilia (with pernicious cover-ups), the magdalene laundries and other statechurch collusion and soul-destroying moral failures have been a ubiquitous and devastating feature.18 the death of the irish catholic church is often mentioned in the irish press, and even in homilies, though with the hope that a kinder, more compassionate, and lay-led church will rise in its wake.19 this is the reality of the church i matured into as a student, then teacher, father, and scholar. while vatican ii may have formed many catholics in the 1970s and 1980s, these church scandals, sadly, have deeply informed my mature catholic outlook. what post-shoah soul searching was for the generation of metz, the child abuse scandal is for many younger catholics, especially those in their 20s and 30s. i place myself (in my early 40s) in the middle, hemmed in by metz’s call for a church to reckon with its past 18 see, for example, fr. tony flannery, responding to the ryan report (dublin: columba, 2009); maeve lewis, “vatican meeting shows a church incapable of holding itself to account,” the irish times (1 march 2019), https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/vatican-meeting-shows-a-church-incapable-ofholding-itself-to-account-1.3810159; and my “the pedophile scandal and its (hoped-for) impact on catholic intraand interreligious dialogue,” in loss and hope: global, interreligious, and interdisciplinary perspectives, ed. peter admirand (london: bloomsbury, 2014), 123–36. 19 father joe mcdonald, for example, published a book, why the irish church deserves to die (dublin: columba press, 2017). recently, he gave the homily at our catholic church (19 november 2019) in rathmines, echoing the statement above but deeply hopeful of a more loving, reborn church. https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/vatican-meeting-shows-a-church-incapable-of-holding-itself-to-account-1.3810159 https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/vatican-meeting-shows-a-church-incapable-of-holding-itself-to-account-1.3810159 admirand: following the breadcrumbs 6 sins (especially in the shoah) and on the other side by the child abuse crisis that speaks of both past and present church failures towards its own members. except for a besieged, defensive mentality, the only other options are to leave the church (which many are doing) or believe with a deeply humbled, interfaith (if not pluralist) outlook.20 as a supporter of liberation theology,21 i wanted to cry when joseph ratzinger succeeded john paul ii as pope. during those dark times, anyone genuinely interested in liberation theology, interfaith dialogue, religious pluralism, feminism, the secular-religious dialogue and partnership (or those like me who embrace them all but needed to find a stable theology job in the midst of the great recession), had to code statements and stifle real questions and views—or someone might challenge your catholic identity. they would care little that you brought your young children to the church every sunday and had a kind of stubborn love for the institutional church that as the people of god, you could see as both beautiful and graceful— and frail, myopic, and misguided. when i voiced this at an academic conference, evaluating john paul’s “mixed” legacy on interreligious dialogue, a “holy,” doubtfree catholic, with saliva on his enraged mouth, questioned whether i was a true catholic. this scholar had invited me to talk amidst a number of papal representatives, thinking i would just sing the deceased pope’s praises.22 my first book was on theodicy, especially grappling with memoirs and witness testimony from the shoah, killing fields, gulags, and dirty wars. this work not only humbled theistic faith but all aspects of religious, communal, and institutional belonging. with a fractured faith (built on a fractured theodicy), i still, however, believed, participated, taught, and witnessed my catholic identity. when pope francis was elected, i was initially skeptical in light of claims made about him during and after argentina’s dirty war which survivor alicia partnoy calls a genocide.23 i feared another instance of elite men in the institutional church placing sacramental access and institutional survival ahead of a deep and unyielding solidarity to the poor, the accused, the broken, and the outcast.24 pope francis has surprised and enlightened me in many ways, though some questions about the catholic church’s role during the government dictatorship in argentina—among other places—remain alive and in need of full outside evaluation. a few more self-indulgent paragraphs: i have five children, currently ranging in age from 5 to 17. the oldest ones have already seen the dying, if not death, of the church, the hypocrisies, the silencing of devoted people. they have heard the 20 this is one of my core arguments in humbling faith. 21 see, for example, my “why liberation theology should be taught in catholic secondary schools.” international studies in catholic education 10 (2018): 156-69. 22 see my “rifts, trust, and openness: john paul ii’s legacy in catholic intra-and-interreligious dialogue,” journal of ecumenical studies 47 (fall 2012): 555-75. 23 see alicia partnoy, the little school: tales of disappearance and survival, trans. lois athey and sandra blaustein (san francisco: cleis, 1986). 24 see, for example, my “how pope francis can purify the church despite a dirty war,” search: a church of ireland journal 36 (autumn 2013):163-78. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) crying of their mother when the church community we helped build was indifferently and tactically quashed because the new pastor, a published novelist who can give theologically-rich homilies, simply did not like children and wanted no children (like my very talented daughter) leading the church in singing the our father; or, god forbid, the little ones would wander out of the pew and up on the altar before i could grab them; or i would have to hold the baby while reading the prayers of the faithful (which i had also written), because she would scream otherwise. the pastor removed the professional and child-friendly leader of song; he made sure the wonderful jesuit priest who came to the parish to do the family mass no longer felt as welcome; and he bullied family mass members he could speak to alone to get his point across. he stayed far away from me after our first—and with him, last—family mass meeting where he promised changes in the future but heard my kind, yet firm account of the history of our group which he was now joining. it was a losing battle, though. he curtly dismissed a 75-year-old widow who devoted most of her week to planning for the family mass, preparing balloons or other props for the children, along with crayons and food. with tears in her eyes, she left, and has never returned. the sacristan, who seemed to spend every minute of his spare time making sure church life was vibrant, was also made to feel unwelcome, and so after years of service, he resigned. no public mention was made of his work or dedication. i tried to fight this with various appeals, but as a fellow colleague and priest told me, “pastors are invincible. just go to a different church.” yet, it was the church my kids grew up in. they wanted to stay, so with the family mass virtually ended, we went to the more popular 6 pm folk mass, a wellknown “institution” in ireland, at the same church. the pastor also tried to bully the folk mass leader, but kevin replied, “any other church will gladly take us in after our forty years plus of history…” so the pastor pulled back. the folk mass usually brings in guest presiders, amazing priests who dedicate their lives to the poor like peter mcverry, or who prophecy deep and radical church reform. two of the priests, while in seminary, had been sexually abused by senior clergy, so when they talk about the child abuse cover up and scandal, there is a heartfelt authenticity and gravitas to their words and proclamations. one of my sons, who had been an altar server at the family mass, agreed to serve at the 6 pm masses so long as the pastor was not there. every sunday we would first check to see who was presiding. my kids had felt the cold stares and angry, blatant glances at them. trying to defend the church felt impossible. they lived and saw the corruption, and i, a catholic theologian, can no longer stomach trying to bribe or force the older boys to go to mass. i cannot be mad at them; their reactions are understandable. i therefore enter berger and patterson’s question with deep spiritual brokenness, humility, and pain, but also hope and longing. to pretend otherwise is to do the question, and my faith, no justice. on recent developments in jewish-christian relations like virgil’s aeneid, i will go en medias res here in this section, with a quick review of some seminal developments in christian-jewish relations, and especially admirand: following the breadcrumbs 8 the catholic church’s evolving institutional views on judaism. some of the key breadcrumbs here include: jesus’ jewishness, which as nostra aetate 4 proclaims, should be celebrated and studied, as should the jewish roots of many of jesus’ early followers and family25; so, too should christians respect and learn jewish ways of reading the tanach, which are also valid26; and rejoice in the ongoing, rich and diverse life of the jewish people, as still beloved of god (not replaced as supersessionism would contend27); the jews, moreover, are the biblical people whose covenant is alive and vibrant, irrevocable, who cannot be blamed for the death of jesus, and most importantly, for whom no systematic, institutional attempt to convert should be undertaken by the catholic church. these are some of the key theological crumbs; the other ones are sprinkled— or dolloped—in the autobiographical section above, namely: the human, ordinary holiness within and among my jewish friends, neighbors and teammates; the wellnoted deep moral frailty, failures and sinfulness of the catholic church (the latter 25 for a recent and lively historical account, see paula fredriksen, when christians were jews: the first generation (new haven: yale university press, 2019); and the review by philip cunningham in studies in christian-jewish relations 14 (2019):1-4, https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/scjr/article/view/11005/9363. 26 helpful here is the pontifical biblical commission, “the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible” (24 may 2001). consider, for example, §87, naming and cautioning about passages in the new testament that could and have been used against jews: “but it must be admitted that many of these passages are capable of providing a pretext for anti-jewish sentiment and have in fact been used in this way. to avoid mistakes of this kind, it must be kept in mind that the new testament polemical texts, even those expressed in general terms, have to do with concrete historical contexts and are never meant to be applied to jews of all times and places merely because they are jews.” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html. 27 jewish theologian adam gregerman, for example, rightly notes how a catholic sense of superiority can remain even when supersessionism is supposedly rejected. see his “superiority without supersessionism: walter kasper and the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable on the status of god’s covenant with the jews after jesus,” theological studies 79 (2018): 36-59. my position here removes any doubt of the theological viability of supersessionism or religious superiority for catholics, so there is not even what gregerman discusses as “good” or “better” covenants, just flawed, broken, humbled, seeking-the-good-covenants. https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/scjr/article/view/11005/9363 https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/scjr/article/view/11005/9363 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) in stark disagreement to the approach approved by john paul ii in “we remember”28); and the burgeoning reality of religious pluralism,29 which does not merely evince the fact of religious diversity but testifies to good, holy people living christlike lives. such are lives of compassion, kindness, and solidarity with the poor and oppressed, challenging institutional injustice, structural sin, gender discrimination (among other kinds), and (with the help of indigenous groups, and more recently laudato si), ecological destruction.30 building upon nostra aetate’s call to study and respect other faiths, particularly judaism, has only been a spiritual and moral boon and aid for christians. christians have benefitted from being exposed to: the acute nuance, humor, and moral thrust of rabbinic writings and biblical interpretation31; the depth and mystery of kabbalah32; holy envy33 when participating in jewish festivals and rituals34; 28 “we remember: a reflection on the shoah” was published in 1998 by the catholic commission for religious relations with the jews, along with a prefatory letter from john paul ii, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en .html. the reflection’s approach, approved by john paul ii and endorsed by then cardinal joseph ratzinger, is to demarcate and so elevate the mystical body of christ (following the writings of pius xii) from those christians who failed to listen and heed church teaching. thus, the church’s essence, is linked to but cannot be adulterated by human individuals in the church who commit sins and hypocrisy. the church itself thus remains sinless. it is not, therefore, the universal church, the one holy apostolic church, who is accountable or should repent and ask for forgiveness for crimes committed by lay and clergy members of the church. this distinction is rarely deemed acceptable by victims, and that in itself demands a different, or better, explanation. see, for example, the editorial “asking forgiveness” in america (25 march 2000), https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/281/editorial/askingforgiveness. 29 see, for example, perry schmidt leukel, religious pluralism and interreligious theology: the gifford lectures‒an extended edition (maryknoll: orbis, 2017). for commentary on this text, see paul knitter and alan race, eds., new paths for interreligious theology: perry schmidt-leukel’s fractal interpretation of religious diversity (maryknoll: orbis, 2019). for my survey of religious pluralism, see humbling faith, chapter 3. 30 it is somewhat of a stretch to cite jesus as an eco-trail blazer as does pope francis, laudato si (may 2015), §98, where “jesus lived in full harmony with creation.” amos oz reminds us of jesus’ problematic cursing of the fig tree in his judas (london: vintage, 2016), 244. see also sarvepalli radhakrisnan’s critique, examined in r.s. sugirtharajah, jesus in asia (cambridge, ma: harvard university press, 2018), 181-182. regardless, pope francis’ laudato si is waking the global catholic church up to the dire truths of climate change and ecological destruction (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html). 31 see, for example, norman solomon, editor and translator, the talmud: a selection (london: penguin, 2009); charlotte e. fonrobert and martin s. jaffee, eds., the cambridge companion to the talmud and rabbinic literature (cambridge, uk: cambridge university press, 2007); elie wiesel, wise men and their tales: portraits of biblical, talmudic, and hasidic masters (new york: schocken, 2003); and emmanuel lévinas, beyond the verse: talmudic readings and lectures, trans. gary d. mole (london: continuum, 2007). 32 alan unterman, ed. and trans., the kabbalistic tradition (london: penguin, 2008). 33 hans gustafson, ed., learning from other religious traditions: leaving room for holy envy (cham, switzerland: palgrave macmillan, 2018). 34 a good overall resource is george robinson, essential judaism, updated edition: a complete guide to beliefs, customs & rituals (new york: atria books, 2016). http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.html https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/281/editorial/asking-forgiveness https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/281/editorial/asking-forgiveness http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html admirand: following the breadcrumbs 10 the profound and challenging diversity of post-shoah jewish theology and philosophy35; and the liberal generosity and trust shown by jewish people, books, and texts36 testifying to and praising christians for deep changes since the shoah, from “dabru emet”37 to the december 2015 “orthodox rabbinic statement on christianity.”38 i would also be remiss if i did not mention the warmth and acceptance of the irish jewish community, and especially the jewish members in the irish and the international council of christians and jews. peter phan’s interfaith christology where should and does this lead us? many readers may know the paths that have traditionally brought down the cdf’s ire and condemnation, especially any explicit support of salvific ways outside the sacramental church. the stories of theologians like jacques dupuis, jon sobrino, and elizabeth johnson are wellknown in catholic theological circles.39 with roads advocating a movement beyond the inclusivist40 approach to religious plurality blocked, some try alternative methods or half-measures, usually out of fear and the desire to avoid losing the label or job title as catholic theologian. many perhaps follow then cardinal ratzinger’s approach and say let us delay such discussions (of judaism and salvation) until the second coming.41 i think such delay is a missed opportunity; an attempt to answer the question shows greater respect towards jesus’ life as a faithful jew. as one way forward, consider the case of vietnamese and american catholic theologian, peter phan. his being religious interreligiously was investigated by the committee on doctrine. the process began officially for phan with a letter 35 see especially steven t. katz, shlomo biderman, and gershon greenberg, eds., wrestling with god: jewish theological responses during and after the holocaust (oxford: oxford university press, 2007). for my analysis, see amidst mass atrocity, chapters 6-7. 36 see, for example, amy-jill levine and marc zvi brettler, eds., the jewish annotated new testament, 2nd edition (oxford: oxford university press, 2017); and debbie weissman, memoirs of a hopeful pessimist: a life of activism through dialogue (jerusalem: ktav, 2017). 37 dabru emet: a jewish statement on christians and christianity, institute for islamic-christian-jewish studies (september 10, 2000), https://icjs.org/resources/dabru-emet. 38 “orthodox rabbinic statement on christianity: to do the will of our father in heaven: toward a partnership between jews and christians,” the center for jewish-christian understanding and cooperation (december 3, 2015), http://cjcuc.com/site/2015/12/03/orthodox-rabbinic-statement-onchristianity/. 39 see, for example, william r. burrows, jacques dupuis faces the inquisition: two essays by jacques dupuis on dominus iesus and the roman investigation of his work (eugene, or: pickwick, 2012). 40 the catholic church’s position, post vatican-ii, can be described as inclusivist. na disavowed exclusivism, especially a phrase like “outside the church there is no salvation.” christian inclusivism maintains ultimate salvation is through the life, death, and resurrection of jesus and in the sacramental life of the church founded by christ. the church also recognizes those acts, beliefs, and ways in other faiths that are holy, though they are not vehicles of salvation in themselves. those religions are partially, not fully true. see david cheetham, “inclusivisms: honouring faithfulness and openness,” in christian approaches to other faiths, ed., alan race and paul hedges (london: scm press, 2008), 63-84. 41 see his essays in joseph ratzinger, pilgrim fellowship of faith. the church as communion, trans. henry taylor (san francisco: ignatius press, 2005). https://icjs.org/resources/dabru-emet http://cjcuc.com/site/2015/12/03/orthodox-rabbinic-statement-on-christianity/ http://cjcuc.com/site/2015/12/03/orthodox-rabbinic-statement-on-christianity/ 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) from the congregation for the doctrine of the faith in july 2005, initiated, he believes, while ratzinger was still prefect and so before william levada succeeded him and ratzinger became pope.42 with frequent citations from dominus iesus,43 the committee cited “ambiguities and equivocations” in phan’s being religious interreligiously, that without proper clarifications, were not “in accord with catholic teaching.” the committee concluded the note by stating that they are obliged as bishops to “ensure that the singularity of jesus and the church be perceived in all clarity and the universal significance be acknowledged in the fullness of truth.”44 as recounted in his the joy of religious pluralism, phan’s approach to such accusations was one of coy delay and careful replies. phan cited his very busy publication, speaking, and teaching load, and with an eye to the justice of the proceedings, he asked for financial compensation to cover any leave from work that would be required to craft a response. he clarified that as a priest he did not need any money, but worried about the precedent if a lay theologian with a family were given a similar ultimatum. phan, though, never fully responded to the cdf, who tried to curb his future publishing. instead, in his 2017 book, the joy of religious pluralism: a personal journey, he published an account of the notifications and an initial apologia for his position. he chose to do this because of pope benedict’s resignation and the election of francis.45 it is fascinating that phan’s book has received little to no public vatican response. on the surface at least, phan delayed a direct response to the vatican and then replied very publicly. in this later book, phan sketches out an interfaith christology and describes the celebration or joy of religious pluralism. interfaith christology, which is part of a deeper awareness and need to do all our theology outside of a closed, insular church, recognizes that we more than ever live in a global, interconnected world. his christology is not simply the study of christ though gospel texts and epistles, a typological reading of the “old testament,” the commentaries of church fathers, and various vatican decrees. rather, he expands christology’s interpretations to include those from all the world’s faiths. such inclusion is not because the view of a buddhist or atheist about jesus supersedes the jesus of, for example pope benedict’s books.46 phan believes jesus as god incarnate is best expressed through a 42 phan, joy of religious pluralism, 2-3. 43 the best multi-authored account of dominus iesus remains stephen l. pope and charles hefling, eds., sic et non: encountering dominus iesus (maryknoll, ny: orbis, 2002). 44 quoted in peter c. phan, being religious interreligiously: asian perspectives on interfaith dialogue (maryknoll, ny: orbis, 2004), 222. 45 for a helpful interfaith assessment of pope francis’ statements on interreligious dialogue, see harold kasimow and alan race, eds., pope francis and interreligious dialogue: religious thinkers engage with recent papal initiatives (cham, switzerland: palgrave macmillan, 2018). 46 see especially, benedict xvi (joseph ratzinger), jesus of nazareth: from the baptism in the jordan to the transfiguration, trans. adrian j. walker (new york: doubleday, 2007); and jesus of nazareth: holy week: from the entrance into jerusalem to the resurrection, trans. philip j. whitmore (new york: paulist, 2011). while also deserving of study, i would argue they are inordinately concerned with a jesus establishing future church doctrines and foundations. the strength of phan’s interfaith christology is to expand the orbit of views, insights, and interpretations of jesus. christology would be lacking if benedict’s interpretations were absent, but they would be anemic if the only or privileged one. i’ve learned as much about jesus from many buddhists and jews as i have from fellow christians. admirand: following the breadcrumbs 12 universal and thus multi-faith and multicultural context. developing such a christology, according to phan, should ideally involve “collaboration” between christians and non-christians.47 there are insights, questions, and challenges that non-christians in particular bring to examining and interpreting the words and actions of jesus, which are often unaddressed or differently evaluated by christians. such an approach is also fruitful in the theological classroom. in my second year undergraduate christology module at dublin city university, my class studies jewish, muslim, hindu, buddhist, and indigenous views of jesus, as well as portrayals of jesus in film, global art, television, novels, and contemporary music, in addition to studies of the gospel, church fathers, theologians, councils, and vatican documents. before reading phan, i never called this method an “interfaith christology,” but said, “no one owns jesus” and if jesus is truly god made flesh, a universal savior, it makes sense to reflect and learn how jesus is interpreted and presented across all faiths and cultures. such an approach also highlights how christologies (like interpretations of god) often reflect individual and cultural identities and priorities. such pluralist christologies, of course, are rooted in plural conceptions of jesus in the four gospels and pauline epistles. for phan, interfaith christology is “essentially a spirit or pneumatological christology consisting in an elaboration on the work of jesus as the christ by virtue of the spirit in bringing about humanity’s union with god and/or human self-realization.”48 much has been written about the overlooked holy spirit pre-vatican ii and the need to seek and praise the spirit of god working beyond expected or named church boundaries and jurisdictions.49 in essence, phan asks us to take trinitarian belief seriously. the one, all-encompassing creator god of love, uniquely and at one historic time only, became incarnate as jesus of nazareth. as importantly, phan stresses how the spirit of god is also teeming and alive in all corners of our universe, reflected in all of creation, in all of life, and in a special way within human beings. as an aside, here i would contend any uniqueness of humanity is rightfully challenged by fields like primatology and pachydermatology (study of elephants), and perhaps astrobiology and astrotheology.50 this truly cosmic sense of god entails a cosmic christ, who cannot be disassociated from the finite few decades of human life lived by jesus of nazareth on this earth but acknowledges that the spirit of christ, suffused in love of the broken and marginalized, in a sacrificial love seeking justice and solidarity, is present and embodied across space and time, regardless of whether the jesus of the gospels is explicitly named and known as such. phan argues that the “foundation stone” in theological explanation with, about, and to non-christians, what we call interreligious dialogue, should be the holy 47 phan, joy of religious pluralism, 92. 48 phan, joy of religious pluralism, 96. 49 see, for example, the careful work of dermot a. lane, stepping stones to other religions: a christian theology of interreligious dialogue (dublin: veritas, 2011). 50 see, for example, peter m.j. hess, “multiple incarnations of the one christ,” in astrotheology: science and theology meet extraterrestrial life, ed. ted peters, martinez hewlett, joshua m. moritz, and robert john russell (eugene, or: cascade books, 2018), 317-329. 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) spirit.51 the point is to see learning, salvific enlightenment, and relations as “reciprocal,” and not uni-directional.52 phan particularly challenges fulfilment theology,53 which (contra gavin d’costa54) is just a kinder and gentler form of supersessionism. phan instead advocates a “kenotic theology of relations among religions,” in which “christianity humbly renounces its claim of ‘unicity’ and superiority over other religions.”55 i contend such is to live our institutional, doctrinal, and communal catholic faith in jesus’ words: “so the last will be first, and the first will be last” (matt 20:16). so, too phan prioritizes: wherever there is a conflict, the kingdom of god–and not the church‒“[is] the ultimate mission.”56 such a path is particularly promising with phan’s suggested addition of two magisteria to catholic teaching and learning; namely, a magisterium of the poor and a magisterium of non-christian believers” which should join the established episcopal, theological, and lay magisteria.57 other theologians contribute in various ways to this conversation. felix wilfred calls us to move beyond not only critiques of interreligious dialogue,58 but also beyond seeing interreligious dialogue merely as a space between distinct beings, sects, and faiths. wilfred pushes us to think in terms of cosmopolitanism. he contends that christianity needs to practice “reverse universality” by being open to what he calls “incoming universality.”59 instead of christianity containing all the truth and solely spreading this truth to make it universal, christians need to be ever more attuned and open to the challenges and truths of other faiths and paths. he thus calls for a rootedness and detachment from one’s religion so that the goodness and universal love of god can be seen as truly spread through time and creation. john thatamanil, similarly calls for the church to overcome its ethos of religious self-sufficiency and to recognize a deeper sense of interreligious learning. imagining he had an opportunity to revise and update nostra aetate, he adds the phrase that love of jesus compels the church to “receive truth and wisdom from those outside the church,” an idea undeveloped in the 1965 seminal document. thatamanil also would have na reference the wisdom of the first nations and 51 phan, joy of religious pluralism, 51. 52 phan, joy of religious pluralism, 111. 53 phan, joy of religious pluralism, 115. 54 see gavin d’costa, “supersessionism: harsh, mild or gone for good?” european judaism 50, no. 1 (spring 2017): 99-107; see also gavin d’costa, paul f. knitter, and daniel strange, only one way?: three christian responses to the uniqueness of christ in a religiously pluralist world (london: scm, 2011); and gavin d’costa, catholic doctrines on the jewish people after vatican ii (oxford: oxford university press, 2019). 55 phan, joy of religious pluralism, 118-119. see also paul f. knitter, ed., the myth of religious superiority: a multifaith exploration (maryknoll, ny: orbis, 2005). 56 phan, joy of religious pluralism, 156. 57 phan, joy of religious pluralism, 42. 58 for such critiques, see muthuraj swamy, the problem with interreligious dialogue: plurality, conflict and elitism in hindu-christian-muslim relations (london: bloomsbury, 2016). 59 felix wilfred, “from inter-religious dialogue to religious cosmopolitanism,” in the past, present, and future of theologies of interreligious dialogue, ed. terrence merrigan and john friday (oxford university press, 2017), 216-232. admirand: following the breadcrumbs 14 expand and nuance nostra aetate’s positive statements on hinduism and buddhism.60 paul knitter, like thatamanil and phan, challenges nostra aetate’s sense of “religious supremacy” and calls the church (with pope francis as a guide) to follow a green dialogue, partnering and focusing on how to restore and save the health of the earth, without being mired in theological squabbles. 61 john pawlikowski, moreover, advocates a non-supersessionist incarnational christology and bravely warns against letting jesus’ singular uniqueness stymie the idea of god within all of us and within all of creation. he calls for allowing such ideas to percolate our theological thinking.62 a similar openness courses through roger haight’s contention that a christian spirituality should “respect and promote pluralism.”63 another key theological breadcrumb is pope francis’ ongoing relationship with judaism, exemplified in his friendship, respect, and co-authorship with rabbi abraham skorka.64 francis can still sometimes slip into supersessionist language and be uncritical of anti-pharisaic tropes in the gospels; however, his repeated praise and practice of interfaith dialogue and his friendship and professional history with rabbi skorka speak more than any document or dogma. bergoglio and skorka are two holy men trying to do the will of god, seeking the good, hoping to lead others to that good, learning and dialoguing with one another, and never attempting to convert the other. such is the essence of a catholic relationship with the sanctity, links, and distinctiveness of judaism. on jesus’ “superfluous,” salvific gift while the advances in jewish-christian relations are laudatory, some christians may wonder: what about the purpose of jesus’ life and death and the question of salvation? what about the emphasis in dominus iesus on jesus as the sole, 60 john j. thatamanil, “learning from (and not just about) our religious neighbors: comparative theology and the future of nostra aetate,” in the future of interreligious dialogue: a multireligious conversation on “nostra aetate,” ed. charles l. cohen, paul f. knitter, and ulrich rosenhagen (maryknoll, ny: orbis, 2017), 289-301. see also his circling the elephant: a comparative theology of religious diversity (new york: fordham, 2020). 61 paul knitter, “nostra aetate: a milestone in the history of religions? from competition to cooperation,” in the future of interreligious dialogue: a multireligious conversation on “nostra aetate,” ed. charles l. cohen, paul f. knitter, and ulrich rosenhagen (maryknoll, ny: orbis, 2017), 50; and especially his without buddha i could not be a christian (london: oneworld, 2017). 62 john t. pawlikowski, “toward a renewed theology of christianity’s bond with judaism,” in the future of interreligious dialogue: a multireligious conversation on “nostra aetate,” ed. charles l. cohen, paul f. knitter, and ulrich rosenhagen (maryknoll, ny: orbis, 2017), 85. see also elena g. procario-foley and robert a. cathey, eds., righting relations after the holocaust and vatican ii: essays in honor of john pawlikowski, osm (mahweh, nj: paulist press, 2018). 63 roger haight, “the christian spiritual vision from the perspective of nostra aetate,” in the future of interreligious dialogue: a multireligious conversation on “nostra aetate,” ed. charles l. cohen, paul f. knitter, and ulrich rosenhagen (maryknoll, ny: orbis, 2017), 94. see also roger haight, the future of christology (new york: continuum, 2007). 64 see, for example, jorge mario bergoglio and abraham skorka, on heaven and earth: pope francis on faith, family and the church in the twenty-first century (new york: image, 2013). 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) unique, and universal savior of the world? does not a full openness to the salvific integrity of judaism undermine, if not annul, belief in christ? how can both ways be viable? as noted, the vatican (especially in the writings of ratzinger) has instructed believers to delay this question of the salvation of the jews until jesus’ second coming. until then, jews and christians should continue on their distinctive, though biblically linked paths. i believe another way is more spiritually and theologically fruitful, though it comes with its own challenges. consider, for example, christology in the franciscan tradition, especially as presented by richard rohr, who draws upon john duns scotus.65 rohr emphasizes how this tradition explains that jesus’ death on the cross was not because god demanded a blood sacrifice, but because a life in solidarity with the poor and outcast often leads to the cross, as martin luther king jr. or oscar romero and others witness. jesus came into the world to further testify to the love of god and one another as the biblical prophets decreed. sometimes, such love demands sacrifice or suffering for others (john 15:13). jesus’ death on the cross was a profound sign of god’s love of humanity. contra an origen, anselm, or athanasius, the cross was not a part of god’s plan to trick any devil, overcome original sin regarding any piece of fruit in a mythological garden, or appease a wrathful, numbers-crunching deity. this interpretation, which i will expand below, can seem to challenge and undermine a book’s worth of scriptural, theological, and doctrinal statements. there is no denying that a major thread runs through new testament christology of a jesus who died for the sins of humanity, as a sacrifice, a paschal lamb, or as mark notes, a son of man, who came to serve and “to give his life a ransom for many” (mark 10:45; see also matt 20:28). john 3:16 may be the most ubiquitous gospel quote: “for god so loved the world that he gave his only son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.” among the letters most likely written by paul, we read: “but god proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners christ died for us” (rom 5:8); “who, though he was in the form of god, did not regard equality with god as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. and being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death— even death on a cross” (phil 2:6-8); and “i have been crucified with christ; and it is no longer i who live, but it is christ who lives in me. and the life i now live in the flesh i live by faith in the son of god, who loved me and gave himself for me” (gal 2:19-20). the literal meaning of these verses seems fairly united and clear. the liturgy reinforces this. the priest echoes the words of john the baptist as he holds up the sacred host: “behold, the lamb of god, who takes away the sin of the world!” (john 1:29). all catholics profess the creed at mass, including the phrase: “for our sake he was crucified under pontius pilate; he suffered death and was buried.” this standard story is buttressed in classical texts like athanasius’s de incarnatione verbi dei or anselm’s cur deus homo, among many others. this 65 see richard rohr, “the franciscan option,” in stricken by god? nonviolent identification and the victory of christ, ed. brad jersak and michael hardin (grand rapids: eerdmans, 2007), 206–12. i also thank an anonymous reviewer for challenging me to expand more on my theological argument, especially regarding “the salvific efficacy of christ.” admirand: following the breadcrumbs 16 theme is foundational to catholic salvific understanding and identity, and again, is at the root of why jesus is argued to be the one and only, unique, universal savior of the world. it is on account of such a sacrifice—for the sins of the world—that jesus cannot be equated with the buddha, and why quranic claims of prophet muhammad as “the seal of the prophets,” or which categorize jesus as special, but still only one of many prophets, are rejected by the church. jesus alone is god incarnate which is why his murder on the cross is of such universal and timeless relevance. more difficult questions my contribution to this conversation is that christianity’s inordinate focus on trying to uphold this narrative of sin and sacrifice has failed to present, and more importantly, to live out the love of christ. excessive focus on jesus’ salvific uniqueness has led to downplaying or dismissing other holy ways of life, most pertinently here, of judaism. it has contributed to (or at least not sufficiently countered) much of the anti-judaism sinfully heaped upon the jewish people by christians. in addition, this explanation of why jesus had to be sacrificed leads to an excessive denigration of humanity as sinful, claiming that we were no different from the humans at the time of the mythical flood. therefore, without jesus’s sacrifice, we were all destined to perdition. this stark language generates a requirement of some divine action to overcome original sin or adam’s fall and is difficult to support today. the idea of tainted humanity with babies born in sin is a pernicious view, never embraced by jews and muslims. such a narrative of god’s demanding sacrifice and blood remains perplexing, if not morally repugnant to many of us today. god, after all, stopped such a useless sacrifice on mount moriah. how can jesus be a second isaac? this telling, moreover, also makes little sense scientifically in light of irrefutable proof that the already morally problematic myth of the garden of eden story66 is a rich and valuable tale, but only a tale.67 could seeing jesus’ life and death instead as a free, unmerited, almost superfluous act ironically render it all the more noble, inspiring, and holy? perhaps, what is most extraordinary about jesus’ death on the cross is precisely that it was not necessary in terms of the salvation of all, though it clearly has guided a moral way of life for billions. the christian belief in jesus’ resurrection also signals both hope in an afterlife context and, more importantly, the demand for justice in a world where genocides and atrocities are met with impunity or silence. 66 while “willful ignorance” was condemned by the greeks, moral responsibility is dependent upon awareness and maturity of the thoughts, words, deeds, intentions, and likely consequences of our actions. it is difficult to attribute any high levels of such moral cognition to adam, and especially to eve (as the biblical text never reveals god explaining the rules to her). more problematically, our humanity is based on our finite struggles to seek and know what is good, in the context of being free within the restrictions and limitations of our finitude. eating of the tree of good and evil would seem necessary, then, for us to be fully human. if so, is (some) disobedience of god needed to be fully human? 67 for helpful analysis, see for example, james kugel: how to read the bible: a guide to scripture, then and now (new york: free press, 2007), 47-57. 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) if this means that god’s path for humanity was already clear and known, was jesus’ entire life, then, theologically superfluous? this seems to be the more important question if i want to state that the jewish way of life in itself is salvific, that jews (like jesus) learned the core moral truths of love of god and love of neighbor in jewish scripture. such would seem to imply it was not fundamentally essential for jesus to come into the world and show (at least) his fellow jews the way. again, such a christology would stress that jesus came freely and without both obligation or salvific requirement to redeem the world. he inspired as many people as he could to turn to god, challenging and refining previous truths, extending the circle of all who are called (here one could talk about a needed, required way), trying to spread the community of god to the far reaches of the earth. as noted, this moral and social justice calling often comes with a price, but jesus was willing to make that sacrifice, even if it could be dismissed as useless, excessive, or superfluous. jesus wanted to remind some, and show others, of a god-infused life. why the majority of jews rejected jesus remains an uncomfortable question. at best, was he just a “failed,” not a “false messiah,” as irving greenberg has argued? was his calling to followers a subtle one, as greenberg also wonders, or was it ultimately directed at gentiles, as michael kogan contends?68 finally, would any humbling of jesus’ universal salvific role have prevented christian triumphalism against the jewish people, let alone against indigenous groups and others? does such humbling dilute or purify contemporary christian identity, belief, and morality? can christians unequivocally accept the jewish way of life as salvifically viable? such a yes to judaism would move catholic christians beyond the inclusivist theology of vatican ii and firmly plant them in the exciting, but confusing area of a “principled” religious pluralism, to borrow from irving greenberg.69 such pluralism is open, celebrating multiple paths to salvation within judaism and christianity, while maintaining differences and the core moral requirements of each. can catholic christians really cross such a rubicon? 68 on jesus as a false not failed messiah, see irving greenberg, for the sake of heaven and earth: the new encounter between judaism and christianity (philadelphia: jewish publication society, 2004), 145-161; and for his comment: “that the resurrection signal had to be so marginal, so subject to alternate interpretations, and the incarnation sign so subtle, as to be able to be heard in dramatically opposing fashions,” see p. 194. on jesus coming predominantly for gentiles, see michael s. kogan, opening the covenant: a jewish theology of christianity (oxford: oxford university press, 2008), 149. in the gospels, jesus is portrayed as thinking his primary and priority mission is to the jews. encounters like the one with the syrophoencian woman, seem to change that. see, for example, my “traversing towards the other (mark 7:24-30): the syrophoenician woman amidst voicelessness and loss” in the bible: culture, community, and society, ed. angus paddison and neil messer (london: t & t clark international, 2013), 157-170. 69 greenberg, for the sake, 208. admirand: following the breadcrumbs 18 conclusion: for our children biblically, the rubicon was crossed long ago, not with the claims of john hick and paul knitter in the now classic 1985 book resulting from their so-called “rubicon conference,”70 but when jesus, told there was someone outside their circle doing miracles in his name, wisely said, “whoever is not against us is for us” (mark 9:38). we have been against ourselves for too long, obsessing over boundary markers, purity, and yes, singularity, uniqueness, and universality. if we praise the jewish life embodied71 and followed by jesus; if catholics call the jewish people beloved of god, acknowledge their irrevocable covenant and make no sustained attempt to convert them, leaving things to some nebulous, purported second coming of the future, then we catholic christians seem to imply the jewish way, too, is endorsed and beloved of god. we hesitate to go further, often out of fear, but the dots and breadcrumbs lead us to a fairly well-formed conclusion. i return to berger and patterson’s question: is jesus superfluous to salvation for jews? out of loyalty and deep love and respect for jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, we christians have mostly clung to an adamant insistence that jews too need jesus. and yet, the murky, mythical haze of the two creation stories of genesis now firmly sit alongside our deeper awareness of darwinian evolution and creation over a span of billions of years. of course, who can deny the existence of sin72 in our fractured, broken, but still important to add, miraculously beautiful, overflowing-with-joy, world? we, however, and certainly our children, should no longer sincerely and unquestioningly speak of blood guilt and demanded sacrifice. jesus, it should be remembered, transcends any meaning of the crucifixion, just as all victims transcend their victimhood and the violence unleashed against them. such statements do not then mean that i now echo paul: “o, death, where is your sting?” (1 corinthians 15:55). why? because despite jesus’ murder and resurrection, death should still haunt us. the murdered victims of auschwitz and treblinka should eternally unsettle us; as should little eleanora, who perished in the gulags of the soviet union.73 we should be ashamed and silenced at the brutal torture and death of the pregnant ernestine kaneza in the rwandan genocide, as recounted in jean hatzfeld’s most recent report, blood papa.74 if we need to peer at so called natural evil, of “landscapes of loss”75 and the billions murdered under an indifferent sky, we can also intone other names. any christian proclamation of 70 the myth of christian uniqueness: toward a pluralistic theology of religions, ed. paul f. knitter and john hick (maryknoll: orbis, 1987). 71 see, for example, jacob neusner, a rabbi talks with jesus, rev. ed. (montreal: mcgill-queen’s university press, 2007); and edward kessler, jesus: pocket giants (stroud, uk: history press, 2016). 72 gary a. anderson, sin: a history (new haven: yale university press, 2009). 73 anne applebaum, gulag: a history (new york: anchor, 2003), 320-21. 74 jean hatzfeld, blood papa: rwanda’s new generation, trans. joshua david jordan (new york: farrar, straus and giroux, 2018), 106. 75 greg beckett, there is no more haiti: between life and death in port-au-prince (oakland: university of california press, 2019), 44. 19 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) jesus as savior must always bear in mind such victims. the need for healing and redemption is both universal and ongoing. again, jesus’ death involved no trick of the devil; there was only another pathetic story of governmental abuse of power, a religious hierarchy fearing a challenge, and most humans, then and now, failing to live and heed the prophetic, covenantal, and biblical message of humility, nonviolence, healing, and sacrifice. betrayal, abandonment (save by the women), torture, and murder by the state echoes throughout time in our past, present, and future. how many have suffered needlessly and uselessly, as lévinas writes,76 or accumulated “useless knowledge” from the suffering they had to endure, as charlotte delbo (contra richard swinburne) warns,77 while we bicker over who is the greatest (luke 22:24), and have the audacity to even question whether another religion (which we christians believe god incarnate practiced!) is indeed genuinely and autonomously holy and salvific? is jesus superfluous to salvation for jews? a crafty (canon) lawyerly answer perhaps could say yes and no, so to be specific: does a devout jew have to profess jesus as the sole, unique, only savior in order to be saved? can one answer “no” without recourse to platitudes like “the mystery of god’s love” or “god works in mysterious ways”? can someone be blissfully unaware of the literalness of jesus, or reject or be unimpressed by claims of jesus’ unique role as a savior,78 and still find salvation through paths and means outside the sacramental church for salvation, which indeed may be pluralist and not uniform? let me return full circle. in my youthful experience on long island, we see fellow human beings, jews, striving to live and be the good, whether as playmates, neighbors, teammates on the soccer team, or as a violinist adding musical pathos to a good friday liturgy.79 of my experiences in dublin, i am not implying the failures of the pastor of my local catholic church are representative symbols, or a synecdoche, of the church’s sinfulness. my local church and the universal church have survived far worse hypocrites and misguided believers. i am simply stating the obviousness of our brokenness, our misty vision, our faulty listening and rash judgments. freud was wrong to claim that fear and neurosis made one cling to god.80 i stand by my teacher, elie wiesel, that it is often harder to believe in god than 76 emmanuel lévinas, “useless suffering,” in the problem of evil: a reader, ed. mark larrimore (malden, ma: blackwell, 2004), 371-80. 77 charlotte delbo, auschwitz and after, trans. rosette c. lamont (new haven: yale university press, 1995), 115-231. 78 i’m thinking here of a non-jewish example: of gandhi praising the sermon on the mount, but citing the gita and buddha as superior. see mohandas k. gandhi, an autobiography: the story of my experiments with truth (boston: beacon, 1957), 136-37. 79 note that aware of amy-jill levine’s critiques, i am not now erasing distinction and echoing galatians 3:28: “there is no longer jew or greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in christ jesus.” see amy-jill levine, the misunderstood jew: the church and the scandal of the jewish jesus (new york: harper, 2007), 125. 80 sigmund freud, the future of an illusion, trans. james strachey (new york: norton, 1989), 62-63. admirand: following the breadcrumbs 20 renounce faith in god.81 remaining catholic is painful while your kids see the church’s mistreatment and dehumanizing of them; while your wife cries in the vestibule because light and goodness seem ripped from a space once full of laughter and joy; where a 75-year-old faithful woman whose life was that weekly children’s mass is curtly dismissed and told she is really not needed. such faith is even more acutely questioned and doubted when we read of the church’s failures during the shoah, in argentina, in rwanda, in chile, amidst the native peoples and the africans and aboriginal people. to believe can often seem impossible while the child abuse scandal continues to unravel with a lot of “business as usual” institutional responses (after perhaps a few mea culpas). these are the real stumbling blocks to faith (1 corinthians 1:23). it is too late for me. again, when jesus asks: “do you also wish to go away?” (john 6:67), i stay rooted to the spot. this is not because i am some peter, some rock (matt 16:18). where else would i go? jesus has touched me in a way no other savior figure has. i can learn all the faiths in the world and it does not budge that core allegiance. this influences why i deeply believe other ways should also be supported, with the jewish way being the easiest, no-brainer choice to commend. of course, it is valid; of course it is salvific. this does not mean the jewish faith and peoples are free from the need for repentance and growth.82 all faiths and humanist ideologies are in need of soul-searching, humility, and reform. what i envision as a jesus of love and compassion, though, outpours from jewish people, texts, and traditions. they both reflect and contribute to similar christian hopes and beliefs. is jesus for the jews, superfluous to salvation? i think i can calmly, lovingly, and hopefully in a christ-like, kenotic way, look my jewish brothers and sisters in the eye, and say yes. can i also gesture to the muslim, the hindu, the buddhist, the sikh, the atheist, and so many other holy, but non-christian people, and say, yes, too? this is the next and ongoing challenge, but judaism is where christians have to begin on such a path for its distinctive historical, biblical, and theological relationship with jewish people, texts, and beliefs. so, why take this stand? when i first publically presented this article as a paper, gavin d’costa rightly raised a perceptive question: based on my argument, why not simply stay agnostic on the question of salvation, both for christians and others? reflecting on his question, i asked myself: why the need to pronounce on what cannot ultimately be known or proved anyway? the catholic church traditionally teaches it is best for us to live a sacramentally faithful and moral life within the church. salvation, at an individual level remains beyond any decision or claim of the church and humanity. it rests solely with (and in) god. such humility is essential, and yet it is more humbling to not 81 elie wiesel, and the sea is never full: memoirs, 1969–, trans. marion wiesel (new york: knopf, 1999), 70. 82 see, for example, the essays in edward feinstein, ed., jews and judaism in the 21st century: human responsibility. the presence of god, and the future of covenant (woodstock, vt: jewish lights, 2007). 21 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) only question one’s own way but to hope and believe in other ways, too. believing and hoping for the salvific power and intrinsic meaning of other ways is an important moral and theological position. it highlights a god of all-encompassing, creative, expansive love, not tied down and limited by any human conception of religions as a negative zero sum game. borrowing the term “multidirectional memory” from michael rothberg (in which honoring the historic injustice of other groups need not detract from your commitment for others to remember and honor your groups’ suffering),83 perhaps we can support a multidirectional, interfaith, salvific hope. again: why take this stance? how can i pass on my own faith to my children without clear boundaries and judgments? none of this is simple or easy, but you’ll still find me at the folk mass this sunday at the catholic church in rathmines. i don’t plan on running off to worship krishna or standing by jesus’ words in the qur’an renouncing any who claim he is more than a messenger of god (5:120). if you push me, i’d say that quranic passage needs to be seen as abrogated by another passage, or read differently. like phan, i am comforted and perhaps inspired because of a perceived friendlier, vatican stance towards interreligious theology, yet i hope my words would be stated even if such conditions become frostier. no one knows who will succeed francis. so, why take this stance? i am thinking of my children. these reflections have really been for them all along. i also think it’s about the future health and integrity of the church, if i can be so bold; and the real task of the community of god, which is to live as if all of creation is truly beloved by its creator, and so promoting deep compassion and solidarity especially to the forsaken and marginalized. none of these religious debates and arguments matter to my children, and i hear similar observations from many of my fellow theologians or religious believers. i don’t think it’s a failure on the next generation’s part or because of some fake news conspiracy or the internet, and video games, or whatever else is blamed as the reasons for a majority of young people in jewish and christian western worlds with diminishing links and connections to institutional faith and religion.84 they are certainly no less kind and compassionate, but are almost too open and accepting of different ways of life. they don’t need to grapple with this arcane and antediluvian “problem” anymore. it would be shameful and inexcusable if one of my progeny or current students have to fear going down this path professionally or spiritually, if the church were to stumble back into a more dominus iesus mentality. the jewish way and the christian way; the jewish covenant(s) and the christian covenant(s); are salvific in themselves, and jesus is both essential and superfluous to salvation for jews. jesus is essential because salvation must pass though love of 83 michael rothberg, multidirectional memory: remembering the holocaust in the age of decolonization (stanford: stanford university press, 2009). 84 pew research center, “young adults around the world are less religious by several measures,” (13 june 2018), https://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/young-adults-around-the-world-are-less-religiousby-several-measures/. https://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/young-adults-around-the-world-are-less-religious-by-several-measures/ https://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/young-adults-around-the-world-are-less-religious-by-several-measures/ admirand: following the breadcrumbs 22 others, especially the downtrodden, opposing political, military and religious corruption, but is superfluous because such moral callings can be heard long before any savior of galilee, and god-willing, long after any death of the church, too. and now we need to see where the breadcrumbs keep going. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr peer-reviewed article “the vatican was for us like a mountain” reassessing the vatican’s role in jewish relief and rescue during the holocaust. settled questions and new directions in research 1 robert a. ventresca, king’s university college at western university introduction among the many contested issues that have animated the seemingly endless debate about the role of pope pius xii and the vatican during the holocaust, few have yielded such widely divergent claims and counter-claims than the question of papal intervention, or lack thereof, on behalf of persecuted european jews. i should clarify that when i speak here of papal intervention i do not mean to engage with that one aspect that has singularly dominated scholarly and popular attention for decades now, namely, the missing papal condemnation of nazism and the holocaust; the “astonishing fact” of “what was 1 an early version of this paper was presented at the international academic conference on holocaust research, “new scholars/new research on the holocaust,” university of toronto, october 6-7, 2014; organized by the chancellor rose and ray wolfe chair of holocaust studies and the centre for jewish studies at the university of toronto, and the government of canada. many thanks to doris bergen, the chancellor rose and ray wolfe professor of holocaust studies at the university of toronto for her constructive comments on the conference paper and to michael marrus, professor emeritus of holocaust studies at the university of toronto for his probing questions, especially vis-à-vis the critical interpretation of terminology used in the relevant primary source material. the author also would like to thank the journal’s anonymous reviewers for their close, critical reading of the draft manuscript and for their many incisive and constructive suggestions. studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) not said,” to borrow from martin rhonheimer. 2 nor is it possible given space constraints to cover all forms of papal intervention that provided some measure of relief and assistance to jews and others—prisoners-of-war, displaced persons— during world war two. 3 accordingly, i will address specifically the competing narratives about the pope’s and the vatican’s role in concrete rescue and relief initiatives on behalf of jews during the holocaust. the use (and sometimes misuse) that has been made of narratives of papal rescue and relief straddle the wartime and postwar era, blurring the lines between historical experience and its framing in postwar memory and in historical interpretation. 4 nowhere is this more evident than in the self-congratulatory narrative attributing to pius xii a decisive role in rescue and relief efforts that was crafted by the vatican itself already before the end of the war. 2 martin rhonheimer, “the holocaust: what was not said,” first things (november 2003): 18-27. 3 one thinks here in particular of the information service established by pius xii in 1939 (the ufficio informazioni vaticano). its mission – under the direct supervision of monsignor giovanni battista montini, the future paul vi – was to gather, catalogue and where possible respond to thousands of requests reaching the vatican during and after the war, mainly by means of personal letters asking for the vatican’s help in finding information on displaced persons and prisoners-of-war. in some places, most of the correspondence to and from the bureau pertained to the fate of jewish residents. in at least one documented case, the correspondence pertaining to the fate of jews was so voluminous that it sparked complaints from local catholics that the information service was showing a decided “partiality” towards jews. see adss 9, # 274, cassulo to maglione, bucharest, 21 july 1943, pp. 410-411 and adss 9, #298, maglione to cassulo, vatican, 20 august 1943, pp. 436-437. on the vatican information service, see see inter arma caritas: l’ufficio informazioni vaticano per i prigionieri di guerra istituto da pio xii (1939-1947), 2 volumes, (vatican city: vatican secret archives, 2004). cf. léon papeleux, l’action caritative du saintsiège en faveur des prisonniers de guerre (1939-1945) (bruxelles-rome, 1991). on cassulo’s role in romania, see john f. morley, vatican diplomacy and the jews during the holocaust, 1939-1943 (new york: ktav publishing house inc.), chapter 4. 4 on questions of memory and historical interpretation in holocaust studies as they pertain to the role of pius xii and the vatican, see the stimulating collection of papers carol rittner and john k. roth eds., pope pius xii and the holocaust (london and new york: leicester university press, 2002). studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr sensitive as they were to a gathering critique of papal inaction on behalf of persecuted jews, senior papal diplomats countered with specific examples of the thousands of jews in rome—perhaps as many as 6,000, they claimed—who had been given “refuge and succor” by the vatican, directly and indirectly, during the german occupation of the city, primarily in the form of material aid, asylum and safe-passage. 5 the claim of papal relief and rescue was made by pius xii himself to deflect the constant entreaties reaching his desk during the war, often from other ecclesiastical authorities, asking the pope to say and do more for persecuted european jews. in a revealing exchange in april 1943 with bishop von preysing of berlin, pius xii referred explicitly to papal financial assistance to jews—the so-called “non-aryan catholics” or jewish converts—who were seeking flight from europe starting from before 1939. “the money was given for love of god,” pius wrote, “and we were right not to expect gratitude on earth. nevertheless, jewish organizations have warmly thanked the holy see for these rescue operations.” 6 the pope was referring here to the relatively small number of jews who had been baptized as catholics, many of them decades earlier, and to the children of intermarriage between catholic and jewish parents; converts whom the church recognized as catholics yet who were being persecuted as jews according to the racial doctrine of nazi and axis states. after the war, the pope and senior advisors saw diplomatic advantage in publicizing widely the many public 5 the claims were made by the under-secretary of state, domenicotardini’s to the taylor mission in march 1945. see rg 59, taylor file, entry 1068, box 9, taylor to the secretary of state , “asylum given to jews by the catholic clergy during the german occupation of rome,” 26 march 1945. the extant documentation does not explain how papal diplomatic officials had come to this number of 6,000. nor does it appear that they were pressed by interested parties, including allied governments, to substantiate the claim with concrete evidence. 6 quoted by friedlander in pius xii and the third reich, and reproduced here in the interview with leiber for look magazine, april 17, 1966, 46. a copy of the original is in adss, 2, #105, pius xii to bishop preysing, vatican, 30 april 1943, 318-327. studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 9 (2014) expressions of jewish gratitude that were manifest in the months after the war’s end. a similar dynamic emerged in the apologetic defense of pius xii in response to rolf hochhuth’s the deputy. to this day, some apologetic commentators, historians and non-historians, continue to make much of the many expressions after the war (and at the time of pacelli’s death in 1958) of jewish gratitude for papal rescue and relief during the holocaust; a selective arrangement of historical fragments comprised of jewish voices from after the holocaust are thereby construed as persuasive vindication of the wartime pontiff’s decision-making. we will turn below to assess the various claims and counter-claims of papal financial and material aid in jewish rescue and relief. it is undeniably true that this subject has received a considerable deal of attention from scholars and in popular media. consider, as one example, the recent and ongoing public controversy over the wartime record of giovanni palatucci, the former italian police official long regarded as a righteous rescuer but now implicated by new research as a potential collaborator in the holocaust. 7 tellingly, legitimate 7 the list of published historical studies is long but a useful summary can be found in susan zuccotti, “pope pius xii and the rescue of jews in italy: evidence of a papal directive?” holocaust and genocide studies, v. 18, n. 2, fall 2004, 255-273. see especially her footnotes for select lists of relevant studies. another useful summary, if somewhat polemical, is zuccotti’s “pope pius xii and the rescue of jews during the holocaust: examining commonly accepted assertions,” in carol rittner and john k. roth, eds., pope pius xii and the holocaust (london and new york: continuum, 2002), 205-220. although the focus is on italy, the various contributions to the “symposium on pope pius xii and the holocaust in italy” in february 2001 are also useful, as published in the journal of modern italian studies, 7 (2) 2002: 215-268. on palatucci, see patricia cohen, “italian praised for saving jews is now seen as nazi collaborator,” the new york times, june 19, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/arts/an-italian-saint-in-the-making-ora-collaborator-with-nazis.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, accessed august 21, 2013; and and her “discredited wartime hero’s backers rebut charges,” the new york times, july 14, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/arts/discredited-wartime-herosbackers-rebut-charges.html, accessed online august 21, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/arts/an-italian-saint-in-the-making-or-a-collaborator-with-nazis.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/arts/an-italian-saint-in-the-making-or-a-collaborator-with-nazis.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/arts/discredited-wartime-heros-backers-rebut-charges.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/arts/discredited-wartime-heros-backers-rebut-charges.html studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr historical investigations into palatucci’s role during the holocaust have quickly evolved (or better yet, descended) into a predictably polemical debate involving pius xii. writing in the vatican’s newspaper l’osservatore romano, the italian historian anna foa acknowledged that it is entirely understandable and appropriate in the course of historical study to continue subjecting what she calls “hagiographic interpretations” of palatucci’s case to heretofore “scarce” historical research. yet foa maintains that his case is really being revisited in order to “mar” the church of pius xii. “[i]n targeting palatucci,” foa suggests, “ the intention was essentially to hit a catholic involved in rescuing jews, a champion of the idea that the church spared no effort to help jews.” this, foa concludes, “is ideology not history.” 8 in short, we can hardly say that the subject has been ignored. the problem is that even sober scholarship seems caught in what we might describe as the polemical vortex of the pius war. consequently, serious students of the subject find themselves working within and perpetuating an adversarial-polemical mode of discourse and analysis. even worse, they often are susceptible to the tendency to which anna foa alludes—proffering ideology or better yet advocacy as opposed to historical interpretation; of blurring the lines between moral judgement and historical evaluation, thereby engaging in speculative, counter-factual discussions of what might have been or what ought to have been instead of what was, and why. 9 one is 8 anna foa, “meant to mar the church of pius xii,” l’osservatore romano, 23 june 2013, http://www.osservatoreromano.va/portal/dt?jsptabcontainer.setselected= jsptabcontainer%2fdetail&last=false=&path=/news/cultura/2013/143q13-il-casopalatucci--da-giusto-delle-nazioni.html&title=to%20strike%20the%20church%20of%20pius%20xii&locale =fr, accessed august 21, 2013. 9 for a consideration of the relationship (notably, the differences) between historical judgement and moral judgement, with specific reference to the controversies over pius xii and the church during the holocaust, see donald j. dietrich, “historical judgement and eternal verities,” society 20, no. 3 (1983): 31-35. further instructive commentary can be found in http://www.osservatoreromano.va/portal/dt?jsptabcontainer.setselected=jsptabcontainer%2fdetail&last=false=&path=/news/cultura/2013/143q13-il-caso-palatucci--da-giusto-delle-nazioni-.html&title=to%20strike%20the%20church%20of%20pius%20xii&locale=fr http://www.osservatoreromano.va/portal/dt?jsptabcontainer.setselected=jsptabcontainer%2fdetail&last=false=&path=/news/cultura/2013/143q13-il-caso-palatucci--da-giusto-delle-nazioni-.html&title=to%20strike%20the%20church%20of%20pius%20xii&locale=fr http://www.osservatoreromano.va/portal/dt?jsptabcontainer.setselected=jsptabcontainer%2fdetail&last=false=&path=/news/cultura/2013/143q13-il-caso-palatucci--da-giusto-delle-nazioni-.html&title=to%20strike%20the%20church%20of%20pius%20xii&locale=fr http://www.osservatoreromano.va/portal/dt?jsptabcontainer.setselected=jsptabcontainer%2fdetail&last=false=&path=/news/cultura/2013/143q13-il-caso-palatucci--da-giusto-delle-nazioni-.html&title=to%20strike%20the%20church%20of%20pius%20xii&locale=fr http://www.osservatoreromano.va/portal/dt?jsptabcontainer.setselected=jsptabcontainer%2fdetail&last=false=&path=/news/cultura/2013/143q13-il-caso-palatucci--da-giusto-delle-nazioni-.html&title=to%20strike%20the%20church%20of%20pius%20xii&locale=fr http://www.osservatoreromano.va/portal/dt?jsptabcontainer.setselected=jsptabcontainer%2fdetail&last=false=&path=/news/cultura/2013/143q13-il-caso-palatucci--da-giusto-delle-nazioni-.html&title=to%20strike%20the%20church%20of%20pius%20xii&locale=fr studies in christian-jewish relations 6 scjr 9 (2014) struck by how often in the scholarship we find a manichean juxtaposition of “supporters” and “defenders” of pius xii pitted against “critics” and “skeptics.” the former make untenable claims that the pope and the vatican played a decisive role in saving several hundred thousand jews during the holocaust. the most exaggerated of these would have it that upwards of 800,000 jews were saved during the holocaust by means of direct or indirect papal intervention. 10 few scholars lend serious credence to this claim given the specious method by which it was derived, not to mention the apologeticpolemical end to which that inflated figure has been used. 11 other claims of papal assistance in jewish rescue and relief are more credible and thus warrant sustained, critical scholarly attention, if only to place them in a properly empirical and interpretative context. my own view at present is that while pius xii and vatican diplomats insistently worked to avoid the explicit public condemnation being asked of the pope, there is evidence to show that the pope and his advisors did encourage or provide tacit approval to papal representatives and ecclesiastical entities around the world to mobilize ecclesial resources—using their own best judgement of the local situation as they knew it—to help those facing persecution. yet the nature and extent of this high-level ecclesiastical support for relief and rescue work varied—we might even say that it waxed and waned—according to time, place, circumstance and even according to the identity of the victims. as we will paul o’shea, a cross too heavy: pope pius xii and the jews of europe (new york: palgrave macmillan, 2011); see especially the introduction. 10 the well-known source for this claim is pinchas e. lapide, the last three popes and the jews (london: souvenir press, 1967) and his three popes and the jews (new york: hawthorn books, 1967), as well as various articles such as “pius xii and the jews,” which was published in 1964 in a viennese periodical precisely to address what he says was hochhuth’s “great injustice” to the memory of pope pius xii. a copy of this article is in the central zionist archives, c2/1976. 11 for an instructive empirical assessment and critique of lapide’s claims, methods and sources, see josé m. sanchez, pius xii and the holocaust: understanding the controversy (washington, d.c.: the catholic university of america press, 2002), 139-140. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 7 www.bc.edu/scjr see, in fact, the plight of “non-aryan catholics” elicited an early, intentional and direct intervention by the holy see, usually working within the framework of a transnational network of ecclesiastical entities, mainly in the americas. as for the plight of the millions of other jews in virtually every part of nazioccupied and axis europe, the vatican’s response conformed to a familiar pattern of self-imposed restraint and self-serving resignation. catholic rescuers on the ground, many of them prelates such as father marie benôit, might count on some modest measure of papal support, usually moral rather than financial. this was hardly tantamount to a policy or a directive of jewish rescue and relief; even less was it evidence of an intentional scheme to furtively mobilize ecclesial resources on a massive scale to help persecuted jews throughout axis europe. to be sure, it was a measure of lifesaving aid just the same. yet, when rescue efforts came to be seen at the vatican as too risky, or papal diplomatic intervention was judged to be futile, then papal support for relief and rescue efforts grew attenuated if not withdrawn altogether. the question remains: how best to evaluate the nature, extent and efficacy of papal aid, quantitatively and qualitatively, so to move beyond the adversarial-polemical trope employed by supporters and critics respectively? was papal rescue and relief “consistent and persistent,” as the jesuit historian robert a. graham once claimed or was it, at best, sporadic…incidental…perfunctory”; and even “tentative, tardy, and ineffective,” as historian susan zuccotti sees it. 12 in seeking for 12 robert a. graham, s.j., “how to manufacture a legend.” pius xii and the holocaust. milwaukee: catholic league for religious and civil rights (1988); susan zuccotti, “pope pius xii and the rescue of jews in italy,” 256. interestingly, and perhaps tellingly, the extant scholarship generally relies little, if at all, on survivor testimony to substantiate or refute claims of papal rescue and relief. it appears that comparatively few survivor testimonials have been recorded from individuals who can speak directly to the question of papal aid. this makes for an incomplete, fragmentary documentary record. further research is needed to ascertain whether more survivor testimonials exist or can yet be recorded that speak specifically of papal rescue and relief. either way, a second line of enquiry might try to account for the comparative lack of direct first-hand accounts of papal resstudies in christian-jewish relations 8 scjr 9 (2014) new directions in research on this contested question, an essential first step is to develop an explanatory framework with the conceptual and linguistic sophistication adequate to understand the complex and variegated forms of papal intervention during and after the war. i refer to these different forms as vectors of papal intervention, each with its own set of assumptions and modalities and often working in relative autonomy from the holy see. one thinks here, for instance, of the work of papal nuncios in such places as budapest, or of individual bishops and religious orders. while they usually acted autonomously to contribute to jewish rescue and relief, often at great personal risk, these individuals and their respective offices and institutions were part of an ecclesial reality and selfunderstanding from which the holy see, and ultimately the pope himself, cannot be divorced. 13 conceiving of vectors of papal intervention in this manner may offer a third way between exaggerated apologetic claims of papal rescue and forced counter-narratives of papal rescue and relief as tangential at best. it allows us to give proper weight to the agency of individual rescuers and institutions while also giving due consideration to the manifold ways in which individual agency was conversely enabled or constrained (according to individual circumstances and choices) within an ecclesiology that understood the hierarchically-ordered “institution” of the church be a corporate reality 14 ; that is, the visible, tangible, cue and relief; something that might be explained, at least in part, by the indirect ways in which papal intervention and aid was effected and, accordingly, perceived by the presumed beneficiaries of such aid. 13 for a persuasive argument to this effect, consider andrea riccardi, l’inverno piú lungo. 1943-44: pio xii, gli ebrei e i nazisti a roma (barirome: laterza, 2008), xiii. 14 the term “corporate” here is used in the traditional sense in which it has been understood in catholic-christian doctrine and practice. the implications of enduring corporative strains in catholic thought in the 20 th century, and more specifically its implications for catholic political and theological attitudes towards jews and judaism before, during and after the holocaust remains largely unexplored. historically, corporatist understandings of the church as a mystical body provided powerful justifications to exclude and marginalize non-christians in society, especially jews. for a fascinating insight into this dynamic in the medieval context, see david nirenberg, “conversion, sex, and segregation: jews and christians in medieval studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 9 www.bc.edu/scjr juridical—if incomplete—expression on earth of the “mystical body of christ”; a synthesis of the “invisible” and the “visible.” 15 let us consider two examples of distinctive vectors of papal intervention at work ostensibly to facilitate jewish rescue and relief. as we will see, each vector reflected particular assumptions and modalities, and thus varied in magnitude and efficacy. the first goes to claims of vatican financial and diplomatic assistance to facilitate jewish emigration before and during the war. the second speaks to some high-profile, if private, vatican diplomatic interventions during the war that sought to spare thousands of jews from deportation. 16 papal diplomacy first became involved in jewish emigration to respond to the dilemma facing so-called ‘non-aryan catholics,’ jewish converts to catholicism. the plight of these converts had been on the radar of ecclesiastical officials in germany, austria and italy for a few years before the start of the war. in fact, the holy see’s first serious attempt to address spain,” the american historical review, vol. 107, no. 4 (october 2002), 1065-1093. 15 it was pius xii who authoritatively defended this conception of the church as the visible, corporeal expression of the “mystical body of christ,” in his encyclical mystici corporis christi, june 1943. see especially mystici corporis, paragraphs 9, 13, 14, 23, 24. it would be instructive to explore further the theological-exegetical implications of pius xii’s teachings on the mystical body of christ, to discern whether or in what ways his defense of this age-old conception of the church as the “visible” embodiment of the “mystical body” may have impacted pius xii’s thinking about jews and judaism, or for that matter about any individual or group who were seen to be “cut off” from the “body” of christ and thus of the church. a useful summary of the theological-ecclesiological dimensions of the “mystical body” teachings, with particular insight into the 20 th century context, see edward p. hahnenberg, “the mystical body of christ and communion ecclesiology: historical parallels,” irish theological quarterly, 70 (2005), 3-30, especially at pp. 11-12. on the reception to mystici corporis, see also avery dulles, “a half century of ecclesiology,” theological studies 50 (1989), 419-42. 16 zuccotti neatly and instructively summarizes the respective claims in her research note “pius xii and the jews in italy,” 255, with detailed notes at 267. studies in christian-jewish relations 10 scjr 9 (2014) the gathering refugee crisis of the latter 1930s—and this by means of the transnational network of ecclesiastical offices and voluntary lay organizations—was motivated by concern for the plight of these jewish converts to catholicism who found themselves persecuted as jews by the fascist regimes yet either unable or unwilling to avail themselves of assistance from jewish refugee and relief organizations. 17 so-called “non-aryan catholics” turned for help to the st. raphael society, a longstanding emigrant aid organization for german catholics. in the mid-1930s, the society established a relief committee for non-aryan catholics empowered with the administrative and material means to facilitate the migration of german catholics of jewish descent. in this work, the society could count on a measure of vatican financial assistance, above all as a conduit for funds being raised by donors around the world, mainly in the u.s. 18 where its substantive financial contribution was limited, other vectors of papal diplomacy were more readily employed. in a series of directives issued between november 1938 and january 1939, then cardinal pacelli instructed papal nuncios and a handful of the most powerful catholic bishops in the americas to do what they could to find financial and logistical means to facilitate the emigration for catholics of jewish descent who were impacted by nazi and axis racial laws. one concrete suggestion made via papal channels was for national and local churches to establish 17 michael marrus, the unwanted: european refugees from the first world war through the cold war (philadelphia: temple university press, 2002), 129-130; 266. a summary of these efforts, in addition to an assessment of the situation at the start of september 1939 was provided to the vatican by father grösser, then general secretary of the raphaelsverein. see adss 6, #57, berlin, 2 september 1939, including annexe i and ii, 129-134. 18 a detailed report of the society’s five years of activity up to 1944 was prepared by father weber for pius xii and is reproduced in adss 10, #316, dated 2 september 1944, 406-412. cf. blet, pius xii and the second world war: according to the archives of the vatican (new york: paulist press, 1999), 142. for a sense of the society’s work with german catholic emigrants up to 1939, see grant grams, “sankt raphaels verein and german-catholic emigration to canada from 1919 to 1939,” the catholic historical review, volume 91, number 1, january 2005, 83-104. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 11 www.bc.edu/scjr committees to aid non-aryan catholics by, for instance, finding teaching positions in major universities, hospitals or other catholic entities willing and able to accommodate qualified refugees. 19 one of the most cited cases of papal intervention on behalf of catholics impacted by fascist racial laws saw the pope intercede directly with the brazilian government to allow the immigration of catholic families who were affected by the racial laws and thus were desperate to leave europe. 20 the brazilian scheme was at best a qualified success, at worst an abject failure; most of the promised visas (some 3,000) were never furnished for those most in need of this lifeline. the vatican was disappointed but took some credit in claiming that by early 1941 it had managed to issue most of the one thousand visas in its possession, with travel costs defrayed thanks to the financial generosity of a group of jewish american 19 adss 6, #3, le professeur schmutzer et le p. strathmann, o.p. au pape pie xii, utrecht, 10 mars 1939, 45-52, in particular pacelli’s circular letters in annexe ii and iv. among the most active of these committees was the us bishops’ committee for catholic refugees from germany (later simply the committee for catholic refugees, to reflect the growing number of refugees from other parts of europe once the war began). for a detailed first-hand account of the us committee’s activities from 1937 to the start of world war two, see the report of the committee for catholic refugees from germany, november 16, 1939. notable committee members included samuel stritch, the archbishop of milwaukee and joseph rummel, archbishop of new orleans and the committee’s chairman. 20 see detailed report from orsenigo to maglione, “immigration of jewishcatholic families to brazil,” september 11, 1939, asv, aes, fasc. 606f, n. 162, prot. 8346/39. for the perspective of the us bishops on the brazilian scheme and related issues pertaining to the emigration of ‘non-aryan catholics,’ see the archives of the national catholic welfare conference, department of immigration, which are housed at the center for migration studies in new york. see especially collection 23, box 75. my thanks to mary brown and the research assistants at cms for their help in facilitating access to these files. for a general survey, see jeffrey lesser, welcoming the undesirables: brazil and the jewish question (los angeles and berkeley: university of california press, 1995). studies in christian-jewish relations 12 scjr 9 (2014) donors. 21 yet the remaining two thousand visas that were to have been distributed by the brazilian ambassador to germany never materialized. the pope’s direct appeal to president vargas was not enough to overcome suspicions about the scheme. brazilian authorities said that they could not be sure that these non-aryan catholics were bona fide converts or whether conversion was a ploy for survival and escape. by november 1941, citing new emigration restrictions, the brazilian authorities informed the vatican that they were suspending the visa immigration scheme. 22 appeals to other governments in latin america to ease their entry requirements to make room for so-called “non-aryan” catholic families from europe also fell on deaf ears. the failure of direct papal intervention on behalf of just a small fraction of baptized catholics illustrates the limited nature and effect of this particular vector of papal intervention, conveyed by means of private diplomatic channels and relying to some extent on the material and political resources of a transnational network of ecclesiastical entities. on the one hand, it speaks to a papal diplomacy that felt empowered and justified in intervening at the highest possible levels on behalf of a relatively small group of jewish emigrants not as persecuted jews per se but as jewish converts; which is to say, as 21 this money came from the united jewish appeal, donated to the vatican in the memory of pius xi. see maglione’s letter to the auxiliary bishop of chicago, sheil, dated december 31, 1939 in adss, 6, #125, 211-212; see note 2. it was in the amount of $125,000 for jewish refugees, given to the pope to be distributed by christian organizations to all jewish refugees, converts or not. the vatican instructed that $50,000 be given to the ncwc’s committee for refugees and a committee devoted to german catholic political refugees, headed by mons. rummel, archbishop of new orleans. the remaining $75,000 was given to european aid organizations, principally the st. raphael society. see adss, 6, #126, vatican, january 4, 1940, 213-214. 22 see adss 6, #419, 524 for letter sent by secretary general of the st. raphael society, menningen, to cardinal maglione on december 27, 1940. definitive word from brazilian authorities that they would not be easing immigration or refugee quotas to deal with the european crisis reached the vatican in mid-1942. see adss 8, #492 for a short note from the brazilian embassy to the secretariat of state, july 15, 1942, 600. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 13 www.bc.edu/scjr catholics who were desperate to leave europe in order to escape an ever-escalating campaign of racial persecution that effectively ignored what the church recognized as their fullfledged membership in the “body” of christ and of the church. yet it was a vector of papal diplomacy that proved to be contingent and qualified both in magnitude and efficacy. it is clear, for instance, that, despite grandiose claims to the contrary, the vatican did not spend “millions” of dollars to secure visas for “jewish” emigrants desperate to leave axis europe by the early 1940s. 23 moreover, when confronted with the footdragging and then the openly expressed doubt of brazilian authorities about the legitimacy of these converts as catholics, the holy see chose to desist in its efforts rather than to confront; to acquiesce and fall back into a familiar pattern of resignation rather than to make the case forcefully, even publicly if necessary, on doctrinal, juridical or humanitarian grounds. of course, this did not stop the vatican from defending its approach and answering repeated calls for papal intervention with the standard if increasingly worn response. when a desperate cardinal innitzer of vienna pleaded with the pope early in 1941 to do something on behalf of the thousands of jews in vienna, many of them baptized catholics, who faced imminent deportation, he was reminded firmly of “all that the holy see has done and is doing for the jews.” pius xii sent the cardinal two thousand dollars to assist nonaryan catholics. 24 innitzer was grateful, but this was hardly the kind of bold and decisive action he expected. the response to 23 so claimed ronald rychlak in his book hitler, the war, and the pope (huntingon, ind.: our sunday visitor, 2000), 203, 365; the claim has been authoritatively rebutted by zuccotti in her contribution to the symposium “pope pius xii and the holocaust in italy,” pp. 244-245. 24 adss, 8, #5, innitzer to pius xii, vienna, january 20, 1941, 78-79. this amount is – by the most approximate of estimates given the limited comparative data available – roughly equivalent to just under $20,000 usd in today’s currency. this is based on calculations made through http://fxtop.com/en/currency-converterpast.php?a=2000&c1=usd&c2=usd&dd=16&mm=04&yyyy=1953 &b=1&p=&i=1&btnok=go%21 (accessed 4/16/2014). http://fxtop.com/en/currency-converter-past.php?a=2000&c1=usd&c2=usd&dd=16&mm=04&yyyy=1953&b=1&p=&i=1&btnok=go%21 http://fxtop.com/en/currency-converter-past.php?a=2000&c1=usd&c2=usd&dd=16&mm=04&yyyy=1953&b=1&p=&i=1&btnok=go%21 http://fxtop.com/en/currency-converter-past.php?a=2000&c1=usd&c2=usd&dd=16&mm=04&yyyy=1953&b=1&p=&i=1&btnok=go%21 studies in christian-jewish relations 14 scjr 9 (2014) the cardinal’s impassioned plea reflected the vatican’s resignation. the undersecretary of the sacred congregation of extraordinary ecclesiastical affairs, monsignor silvio sericano put it plainly when he observed that “there is nothing that can be done.” 25 in a similar way, another vector of papal diplomacy, that of the direct high-level diplomatic approach, was usually reactive and limited in nature, scope and efficacy. this reflected theological and geo-political priorities that ultimately conditioned—that is, limited—the resolve to use papal resources for the care and rescue of european jews. this was made clear in the pope’s appeal to regent miklos horthy, prompted it seems by pressure from the war refugee board and the world jewish congress in june 1944, urging hungarian authorities not to proceed with a rumoured deportation of some 800,000 hungarian jews. in personal and direct terms, pius xii pleaded, if in familiarly veiled and implicit terms, on behalf of the “large number of unfortunate people” who suffered “due to their nationality or race.” so pius xii personally implored horthy “to do everything within your power so that so many unfortunate people would be spared further grief and pain.” 26 the pope’s intervention on behalf of hungarian jews can be said to have worked insofar as it helped to push the authorities to suspend the deportations begun in the summer of 1944. as richard breitman and allan j. lichtman acknowledge, pius xii’s “intervention,” along with that of the “unusually forceful” papal representative angelo rotta, “stung” the hungarian ruler. what remains unclear from the extant documentation—and here is where full and open access to the wartime archives could prove immensely useful—is whether pius xii intervened with horthy of his own accord or 25 adss, 8, #14, innitzer to pius xii, vienna, february 4, 1941, 90-92. sericano’s comment is reported in #33, innitzer to pius xii, vienna, february 28, 1941, 116-119. 26 adss, 10, #243, pius xii to regent of hungary horthy, vatican, june 25, 1944, 328. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 15 www.bc.edu/scjr whether he was either anticipating or responding to what breitman and lichtman call “american encouragement.” 27 we do know that from the holy see’s perspective at the time, and in subsequent years, horthy’s decision in the summer of 1944 to suspend the planned deportations vindicated the pope’s longstanding policy of pursuing diplomatic channels rather than issuing explicit public declarations. at the time, jewish representatives acknowledged and appreciated the pope’s efforts. 28 admittedly, it was a different matter after the war when the motivations and efficacy of papal interventions were subjected to more critical scrutiny. some prominent jewish authorities who had been deeply involved in lobbying efforts to get the pope to speak out on behalf of the threatened jews of hungary, voiced scepticism about pius xii’s practical influence over horthy. 29 logistics of rescue and relief: the case of occupied rome, 1943-1944 if the pope and his diplomatic network had limited influence over foreign governments, and knew it, the same cannot be said about their influence, real and presumed, in italy and especially in and around rome. 30 despite years of diplomatic wrangling with mussolini’s regime on various 27 richard breitman and allan j. lichtman, fdr and the jews (cambridge, mass., and london: the belknap press of harvard university press, 2013), 280. 28 see, for instance, a lengthy memorandum of a conversation between mons. hughes, papal delegate for egypt and palestine, and the grand rabbi of jerusalem, herzog, in cairo, 5 september 1944. it is reproduced at length in friedlander’s pie xii e le 3e reich, 268-277, but a copy of the original is in central zionist archives, jerusalem. herzog here acknowledges and expresses gratitude for the pope’s efforts. see also adss, 10, #357, 446, n. 4 which reproduces part of a report send to the secretariat of state by myron taylor, dated october 31, 1944 from washington based committee for refugees which names pius xii directly, as well as archbishop spellman, for their repeated efforts on behalf of “refugees in danger.” 29 aryeh l. kubovy (leon kubowitzki), “the silence of pope pius xii and the beginnings of the ‘jewish document,’” 16. 30 author, (2013), 100-105. studies in christian-jewish relations 16 scjr 9 (2014) matters, both domestic and foreign, pius xii and his chief diplomats continued to pursue a line of diplomatic engagement. they saw it as the surest guarantee of continued vatican leverage in political matters and, just as important, the continued autonomy of the church in the governance of its internal life. that this leverage, however limited, could be used on behalf of persecuted jews, including children, was evidenced by the vatican’s successful diplomatic efforts, inspired in part by direct appeals to the holy see from the chief rabbi of zagreb, to keep italian and german authorities from deporting to germany some 2,000 to 3,000 jews in croatia. 31 of course, circumstances changed dramatically in 1943 with the fall of mussolini’s regime, the virtual collapse of the italian state and the subsequent occupation of much of italy, including rome, by the germans in 1943-1944. in his classic study of vatican diplomacy, robert graham underscored the highly unpredictable situation in which the holy see found itself after the fall of mussolini’s government. in the span of a year, the vatican was surrounded literally by three different political-military realities: the mussolini regime, german occupiers in 1943-1944 and then allied forces as of june 1944. it is worth noting that despite these changes, the neutrality of vatican territory was largely preserved. 32 in the main, then, the church-state compact to which the vatican agreed in its 1929 agreement with mussolini’s government “held firm,” thereby 31 marrus, the unwanted, 268. insights on this intervention can be gleaned to some degree by the published parts of the vatican’s wartime archives. see in particular adss 8, #431, p. 601. see adss, volume 9, starting with the introduction, especially at p. 32-34 for further detail and also #62, adss 9, p. 139 in which the apostolic visitor at zagreb, marcone, relays to cardinal maglione the “heartfelt thanks” from the chief rabbi of zagreb to pius xii for the holy see’s “effective help” in transferring a group of jewish children from zagreb to turkey. for more general background and further detail, see john f. morley, vatican diplomacy and the jews during the holocaust, 1939-1943 (new york: ktav publishing house inc., 1980), especially chapter 9. 32 one notable exception was the police raid of rome’s basilica of st. paul outside-the walls on february 3, 1944, an extra-territorial complex which offered shelter to refugees, including jews, in 1943-1944. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 17 www.bc.edu/scjr affording the vatican continued leverage and latitude, albeit circumscribed and tenuous. 33 in light of the leverage and latitude that flowed from the vatican’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, historians have concluded that if there was one place where the holy see could maximize its substantial influence and resources on behalf of persecuted jews, surely it was in and around the eternal city itself. 34 predictably, the great argument over whether or to what extent the vatican offered direct rescue and relief to jews during the holocaust has centered on rome under german occupation. i do not intend to revisit the argument here; it has received its share of attention from scholars, journalists and apologetic commentators alike. nor do i intend to enter into a protracted argument about whether or not pius xii or his advisors provided explicit written and/or verbal orders—that elusive “papal directive”—to individuals and institutions in rome and throughout italy directing them to assist jewish refugees. i accept as persuasive and definitive the case made by susan zuccotti that to date no reliable evidence has emerged, written or otherwise, to substantiate the claims of a direct papal rescue order. 35 that said, i also am persuaded by the argument that the variegated structures of papal relief, which were evolving rapidly during the war, were in fact utilized in decisive ways to provide lifesaving relief and shelter to thousands of jews in and around rome, often with the vatican’s limited knowledge 33 robert graham, vatican diplomacy: a study of church and state on the international plane (princeton, n.j.: princeton university press, 1959), 317-318, 323. by virtue of “extraterritoriality” jurisdiction, a number of religious properties in and around rome enjoyed ostensible protection under the auspices of the 1929 treaty. this included major basilicas like st. john lateran and st. paul outside-the-walls, as well as numerous convents, seminaries, hospitals and religious houses. 34 so concludes zuccotti. see her under his very windows: the vatican and the holocaust in italy (new haven and london: yale university press, 2000), and her “pope pius xii and the rescue of jews in italy.” 35 see her under his very windows, and the succinct case she makes in “pope pius xii and the rescue of jews in italy,” 256-257. studies in christian-jewish relations 18 scjr 9 (2014) and tacit support. moreover, it is clear that the vatican’s territorial sovereignty and the preservation of its territorial integrity for the duration of the war furnished vital legal and logistical latitude to rescuers on the ground, in italy and in other parts of occupied europe. in some places, this latitude gave ecclesiastical officials and religious institutions the license to act to the benefit of the persecuted—this included italian and nonitalian jews as well as anti-fascist activists—and the material means to do so constructively. without this license to act or without tangible material means derived even indirectly from vatican or other ecclesiastical resources, much of the rescue work attributed to brave catholic individuals and religious institutions simply would not have been possible. is it feasible or even worthwhile to provide a quantitative evaluation of the vatican’s role in rescue and relief? i believe so, if for no other reason than to inject some empiricism into the discussion and to determine whether or to what extent the vatican leveraged its global connections on behalf of the most vulnerable of hitler’s victims. in this vein, we can agree with an observation made recently by the italian commentator luca possati in l’osservatore romano that the “financial history” of the vatican in world war two remains largely “uncharted” territory. 36 accordingly, one of the goals of future research might be to dissect and disentangle the complicated and largely unexplored nexus between vatican finances during the war and the evolving structures of papal relief. it is a complex and nebulous area of research, presenting numerous challenges related to methods and sources. yet for historians interested in understanding the dynamics of rescue and relief work, it is a promising and indeed essential line of enquiry. as rescuers readily appreciated, the question of how to pay for food, shelter and, where possible, for safe passage was both vital and vexing. in his first-hand account of the work of jewish rescue in italy, former delasem (delegazione per 36 luca m. possati, “the pope’s dollars against hitler,” l’osservatore romano, february 1, 2013 (english edition accessed online august 21, 2013). studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 19 www.bc.edu/scjr l’assistenza degli emigranti ebrei) official settimio sorani recalled that the “most difficult and the most tormented” aspect of rescue work was finding the funds needed for lifesaving assistance. 37 there is good reason, then, to attempt to reconstruct the complicated network by which funds for rescue and relief were raised and distributed, and there from to draw broader conclusions about the vatican’s role during the holocaust and beyond. in its initial phases, the research and analysis presented here seeks to assess the claims made in the extant literature about how much financial and material assistance the vatican provided to assist jewish and non-jewish refugees and displaced persons, along with related claims and debates about where this money came from and how it was used in the course of relief and rescue work before, during and after world war two. 38 following the money trail, as it were—to 37 settimio sorani, l’assistenza ai profughi ebrei in italia (1933-1941). contributo alla storia della delasem (rome: carucci editore, 1983), 150. 38 for the sake of concision, we will refer usually in general terms to vatican finances though it is important to distinguish between the distinctive parts that, taken together, comprised the vatican’s financial apparatus. the main financial entities that managed the vatican’s wealth and investments were the amministrazione per i beni della santa sede (abss), which oversaw what is called the “patrimony” of the holy see (that is to say, its properties, possessions, revenues derived from same. in 1887, leo xiii establihsed the amministrazione pontificia per le opère di religione (aor), whose function was to administer finances (including stocks and bonds) of religious orders and sometimes dioceses in italy (see pollard, money and the rise of the modern papacy, p. xv). note: the aor was reorganized by pius xii in august 1942 as the istitutuo per le opère di religione (ior), commonly understood today to refer to the vatican bank. in 1929, as compensation from the italian state began reaching the holy see following the financial arrangements of the lateran treaty, pius xi ordered the establishment of the amministrazione speciale per la santa sede (referred to simply as the special administration), charged with the responsibility for managing this new source of revenue. bernardino nogara was chosen to lead it; when nogara is referred to as the vatican’s or the pope’s banker, it is in his capacity as head of the special administration. it is important not to conflate these three entities with “peter’s pence” which was a separate source of papal revenue altogether, consisting of the financial donations from catholics around the world directly to the pope. studies in christian-jewish relations 20 scjr 9 (2014) the extent that this is possible—necessarily entails focusing intently on the vatican’s access to a capillary transnational network of catholic institutions and individuals, working in structured coordination with national governments and humanitarian relief agencies, to facilitate relief and rescue. it also means connecting the story of charitable relief to a broader account of the strategic reorientation of papal diplomacy on the eve of the cold war towards an ever-closer and we might say privileged working relationship with the us; not to mention the evolution of a bona fide human rights discourse in catholic doctrine after 1945. 39 on the eve of world war two, the vatican’s international standing and diplomatic influence had vastly increased from the time of benedict xv’s relatively brief but active pontificate (1914-1922). owing to the political acumen and ambition of pius xi and his trusted secretary of state, eugenio pacelli, the holy see faced the onset of war in 1939 with what the historian john pollard aptly describes as a “very healthy and extensive network of diplomatic relationships”; 39 john pollard, money and the rise of the modern papacy: financing the vatican, 1850-1950 (cambridge university press, 2005), 188. the italian historian agostino giovagnoli has argued that american policymakers after the war, favorably impressed by the capacity of papal relief structures to facilitate the collection and distribution of relief in wartime, actually came to prefer the papal relief commission as the privileged conduit of american postwar aid. see his “la pontificia commissione d’assistenza e gli aiuti americani (1945-1948),” storia contemporanea, 9 (1978): 1081-1111; cf. gerald steinacher’s nazis on the run: how hitler’s henchmen fled justice (oxford university press, 2011), chapter 3. for a nuanced and empirical analysis of american catholic contributions to papal relief work, see suzanne brown-fleming, the holocaust and catholic conscience: cardinal aloisius muench and the guilt question in germany (notre dame, ind.: university of notre dame press, 2006), 21. brown-fleming’s detailed study of aloisius muench’s central role in papal relief shows that the american bishop and future cardinal was instrumental in helping to raise million dollars for relief work, mainly from american catholic sources. on the evolution of a language of human rights in catholic doctrine, see john a. onorato, “saving grace or saving face: the roman catholic church and human rights,” dickinson journal of international law (1989) 8:1, 81-100. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 21 www.bc.edu/scjr this included a warming if quasi-official relationship with the roosevelt administration. by contrast, the vatican’s financial and material situation with the coming of war was more vulnerable to political vicissitudes, both domestic and international. this stemmed in part from its physical dependence on mussolini’s italy. in addition, gathering international tensions in the latter 1930s, which saw fascist italy at the centre of the maelstrom, and then the onset of war seriously impeded the flow through italy of financial contributions to papal coffers from the faithful around the world. 40 for all that, we must be careful not to take this characterization of vatican dependence too far. after all, as pollard reminds us the vatican was “rather less financially dependent” on the italians than first appears by the time italy was at war in mid-1940. this owed mainly to the strategic management of vatican finances by benardino nogara, effectively the vatican’s chief banker as of 1929. 41 arguably the single most decisive move nogara made was on the eve of italy’s entry into war, when he negotiated the transfer of the vatican’s foreign assets, including its gold reserve with the morgan grenfell 40 british historian owen chadwick once observed, somewhat exaggeratedly, that the italian government could simply “switch off” the vatican’s supply of water, food and electricity and effectively “bankrupt” the papal government. see chadwick, britain and the vatican during the second world war (cambridge; new york: cambridge university press, 1986), 132 on the state of papal finances, especially donations to peter’s pence, see pollard, money and the rise of the modern papacy, 188. for a recent attempt to reassess the complicated relationship between the vatican and fascist italy, see david kertzer, the pope and mussolini: the secret history of pius xi and the rise of fascism in europe (new york: random house, 2014). 41 on nogara, see pollard, money and the rise of the modern papacy, p. 187 and more generally chapter 9 for more detail about nogara’s activities. we learn from pollard, for instance, that nogara did not always keep the pope or the secretariat of state in the loop about important financial transactions. see also patricia mcgoldrick, “new perspectives on pius xii and vatican financial transactions during the second world war,” in the historical journal, 55, 4 (2012), 1059-1048; corrado pallenberg, vatican finances (london, 1971) and his inside the vatican (london, 1961). studies in christian-jewish relations 22 scjr 9 (2014) bank of london to the u.s. federal reserve. 42 the transfer of these assets meant in effect that, as pollard puts it, the u.s. federal reserve “became the vatican’s major international banker for the duration of the war.” papal officials at the time lauded this transfer of vatican assets into us dollars as a sign of “confidence” in the american currency but also as proof of the “clear-sightedness and spirit of cooperation” between the holy see and the us government. 43 the transfer gave the vatican some much-needed latitude to continue dealing financially with neutral countries (notably to buy swiss francs along with spanish and portuguese currencies) while the fascist state that surrounded the tiny, land-locked vatican city waged its aggressive, destructive (and self-destructive) wars. this financial latitude proved decisive after the fall of mussolini’s crumbling regime in the summer of 1943 and the subsequent german occupation of rome from september 1943 to june 1944. indeed, financial latitude was a veritable life line for relief work in rome and in much of central italy in the last year of the war. against the backdrop of institutional collapse, a ruinous and bitterly divisive war effort, and foreign military occupation, the vatican emerged as a kind of central coordinating agency and advocate for wartime relief especially in and around rome. it received financial aid and material goods--foodstuff, clothing, medicines, etc.—and then organized convoys to distribute material aid to needy areas in and around the city. according to estimates gathered by american and british officials, by 1944 the vatican and related religious institutions were providing approximately 2.75 million meals 42 for more on morgan grenfell, see kathleen burk, morgan grenfell, 1838-1988: the biography of a merchant bank (oxford and new york: oxford university press, 1989). 43 the vatican’s gold reserve in london had an estimated value of $7,665,000; the full scale of the foreign transfer asset has yet to be definitively determined. see chadwick, britain and the vatican, 117 and pollard, money and the rise of the modern papacy, 187. for a sense of vatican perceptions of the transfer, see the letter from monsignor vagnozzi, a member of the apostolic delegation in washington, to the us treasury department in may 1942, in rg 131 (department of justice, foreign funds and control records), box 487. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 23 www.bc.edu/scjr per month in soup kitchens around rome. reports at the time suggest that nogara also wanted to use vatican funds to purchase former italian military planes to be fitted for the delivery of aid, and to provision ships to repatriate refugees and transport foodstuffs and other supplies to italy. 44 however deftly managed the vatican’s finances may have been during the war effort, the scale and diffused nature of the gathering humanitarian crisis greatly exceeded the vatican’s capacity (and willingness, arguably) to use the full range and extent of its finances in order to secure the levels of funding that were adequate to the enormous task at hand. accordingly, financial contributions from external sources, especially in the form of voluntary contributions from catholics around the world to “peter’s pence”—funds donated directly to the pope for his personal use, ostensibly in support of charitable work—became particularly vital to the maintenance of papal relief. by far, the single greatest contribution came from american catholics. according to one report from the british representative to the holy see for 1944, some 5 million dollars in that year alone reached the pope from american catholics. it is said that these funds often were delivered personally to pius xii from high-ranking american prelates, namely new york’s influential archbishop spellman, a close and longtime confidant of pius xii. 45 invariably, the thousands of jews (and others, including prominent italian anti-fascist politicians) who were finding shelter and sustenance in private homes, religious institutions and even in one of the vatican’s properties, if not vatican city itself, benefited from a financial lifeline that was, quite literally, the conduit for food and other precious material aid at a 44 nara, rg 84, entry 2789, records of the political adviser to supreme allied commander mediterranean, general records, box 47, 1944/45: myron taylor to office, 31 march 1945. cf. pollard, money and the rise of the modern papacy, 195-196. 45 pro, fo, 371/50084, annual report of the minister to the holy see, 1944, as cited in pollard, money, 203; cf. j. gollin, worldly goods: pay now, die later (new york, 1971), 462-463. studies in christian-jewish relations 24 scjr 9 (2014) critical juncture. 46 on this point, there is an emerging consensus among students of the subject, even among those disinclined to see very much substance to the claims of papal rescue and relief on behalf of jews. for instance, although she deems it implausible to credit pius xii with any direct involvement in jewish rescue and relief, susan zuccotti allows that vatican efforts to provide food, shelter and clothing to thousands of refugees in rome may have extended to jewish refugees as well. “jews may have been among the recipients” of papal aid, zuccotti concedes. indeed, zuccotti acknowledges that vatican convoys carrying food supplies to religious houses and other institutions in rome during the occupation of the city and after its liberation in early june 1944 included many institutions that were known to be sheltering jews. 47 yet, as zuccotti persuasively concludes, the fact that jewish refugees in rome were among the beneficiaries of papal aid, direct or indirect, does not substantiate an argument for papal rescue and relief that was systematic, comprehensive and sustained; even less does it go to support mythical claims of what one recent popular book on the subject describes as the vatican’s “secret plan” to save jews in rome from nazi persecution. 48 more consequential was the direct assistance offered by catholic religious communities and lay people throughout the city as perhaps as many as 10,000 jews, including many foreign jews who were in rome by this time, sought refuge in monasteries, convents and in private homes. 49 to date no written evidence in the form of a direct order from the pope to religious communities in the city to shelter jews has been found, though some contemporary diaries and postwar 46 pollard, money and the rise of the modern papacy, 195. 47 zuccotti, “pope pius xii and the rescue of jews in italy,” 266. 48 gordon thomas, the pope’s jews: the vatican’s secret plan to save jews from the nazis (new york: st. martin’s press, 2012). 49 see blet, pius xii and the second world war, 217-218. for a balanced and historically informed treatments of the subject, including the estimate of the numbers of jews who found shelter and rescue in and around rome, see andrea riccardi, l’inverno piú lungo. 1943-44: pio xii, gli ebrei e i nazisti a roma (bari-rome: laterza, 2008), and zuccotti, under his very window. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 25 www.bc.edu/scjr memoirs attribute to pius xii spiritual guidance and encouragement in their work to shelter jews and others. 50 by way of more official directives to enable religious institutions to engage in rescue work, pius xii approved the instruction to lift the so-called “barriers of canonical cloister,” so as to allow both men and women to be sheltered in female and male religious houses alike. as is documented in the select publication of the vatican’s wartime archives, the instruction was made in october 1943, on the eve of the infamous nazi roundup of rome’s historic jewish quarter. it is difficult to say for certain that the decision was made specifically with the rescue of jews in mind; regardless, its practical effect was to ease the provision of shelter by the city’s religious institutions at a critical time. 51 the rescue efforts of individuals and organizations connected in one way or another to the church to help save jews points to both the potential capacity and to the limitations of pius xii’s policy of diplomatic engagement. yet ultimately his actions conformed to the well-established pattern of restraint and caution, the practical expression of the avowed policy of impartiality. catholic rescuers could count on some small degree of assistance from the pope. but when rescue work was seen by the vatican as too risky for those involved, and this included the risk of violating the vatican’s self 50 the most systematic and succinct argument against the claims of a “papal directive” for jewish rescue in rome is susan zuccotti, “pope pius xii and the rescue of jews in italy,” 255-273. see too her exchange with ronald rychlak in the “symposium on pope pius xii and the holocaust in italy,” in journal of modern italian studies 7 (2) 2002, 215-268, especially at 247-250. the diaries and memoirs of various religious who helped to shelter jews in rome and who attributed to pius xii moral guidance in this work, even if indirect, merit close but properly critical reading. while insightful to some extent, they do not substantiate claims of anything like a papal directive for jewish rescue. consider, for instance, inside rome with the germans, the diary of mother mary st. luke published under the pen name of jane scrivener (macmillan and co., ltd., 1945). 51 adss, 9, #356, notes de mgr. montini, vatican, october 1, 1943, 496, and #382, notes de la secretariat d’etat, vatican, october 23, 1943, 518. see also blet, pius xii and the second world war, 215. studies in christian-jewish relations 26 scjr 9 (2014) ascribed policy of impartiality, then papal support was either seriously circumscribed or removed altogether. the work of the french capuchin priest father marie-benoît to save thousands of jews in southern france and then in rome at the height of nazi occupation of the city revealed how far pius xii was prepared to go in providing some degree of support for jewish rescue. yet it also speaks to the self-imposed limits of the pope’s commitment to this end; that is, to the contingent and qualified assumptions, magnitude and thus efficacy of one or another of the vectors of papal diplomacy. the story of father marie benoît, whose given name was pierre petuel, is well known. 52 for his rescue efforts on behalf of jews in southern france and then in italy, father benoît came to be known during the war as the “le père des juifs,” “father of the jews.” after the war, he was dubbed father benoît “ambassador of the jews.” 53 benoît’s work may 52 lively accounts of father marie-benoît’s work can be found in a few different sources, starting with his own recollections, p. marie-benoît, “résumé de mon activité en faveur des juifs persecutes (1940-1944),” in livre d’or des congrégations françaises, (paris: drac, 1948), 305-331. another eye-witness version is from fernande leboucher’s the incredible mission of father benoît, translated by j. f. benard (new york: doubleday & company inc., 1969). leboucher worked closely with father benoît in his rescue and relief efforts. for a brief account of her work, see “grateful jews help care for a holocaust ‘guardian angel,’” new york times, september 9, 2001, 8-14. primary documentation pertaining to father benoît’s relief and rescue efforts can be found in the vatican’s adss, confirming papal knowledge of and limited support for the capuchin’s work. see especially volume 9, 393-397; 401-402; 447-449; 465-467; 544545. invaluable primary documentation detailing benoît’s work is at the centre de documentation juive contemporaine (paris). for a more comprehensive look at his life, see the recent biography by gérard cholvy, marie-benôit de bourg d’iré (1895-1990): itinéraire d’un fils de saint françois juste des nations (paris: les ėditions du cerf, 2010) and, most recently, susan zuccotti’s informative père marie-benoît and jewish rescue: how a french priest together with jewish friends saved thousands during the holocaust (bloomington, indiana: indiana university press, 2013). 53 see father benoît ’s report of delasem’s activity, dated july 20, 1944 and reprinted in renzo de felice with robert l, miller, the jews in fascist italy: a history (new york: enigma books, 2001), 756-758; james studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 27 www.bc.edu/scjr have been clandestine but it was no secret in high-ranking clerical circles in rome and indeed at the vatican itself. 54 it is estimated that father benoît helped to rescue upwards of four thousand jews in rome alone. 55 by september 1943, on the eve of the nazi occupation of rome, father benoît had emerged as one of the leaders of the main italian relief committee for jewish refugees, the delasem, an organization that raised funds for relief and rescue work, and worked to procure false identity papers and find shelter for refugees in private homes and religious houses. 56 according to fernande leboucher, who worked closely with benoît, the vatican offered unconditional and unlimited financial support for benoît’s work. the holy see pledged to offer “whatever funds would be needed” for the capuchin’s relief efforts, leboucher maintained, to the tune of several million dollars. 57 according to leboucher, much of the money came from american catholic sources, in fact, as well as from british sources, and was channelled to jewish relief work through american and british delegations at the vatican. it is important to underscore: this was not the vatican’s money as such. even still, the argument goes, various individuals and agencies associated with the holy see, including its war relief offices and the secretariat of state, were material-financial rorty, “father benoît: ambassador of the jews,” commentary, december 1946, 507-513. 54 when benoît met with pius xii in july 1943, he confirmed the approval of the superior-general of the capuchins, father donato wynant a welle (1890-1972), a belgian who was head of the order between 1938 and 1946. see adss, 9, 394, n. 6. 55 this according to the livre d’or, 306. 56 for a brief history of delasem, see sandro antonini and alberto cavaglion, delasem: storia della più grande organizzazione ebraica italiana di soccorso durante la seconda guerra mondiale (genoa: de ferrari, 2000). 57 leboucher, incredible mission, 167-168. she cites the figure of four million dollars, presumably as the dollar figure equivalency at the time she wrote the memoir. studies in christian-jewish relations 28 scjr 9 (2014) conduits that supported delasem’s work on behalf of jews in rome and elsewhere. 58 yet a close reading of the relevant primary sources suggests a much more complicated picture than leboucher’s account conveys. as susan zuccotti notes in her recent study of father benoît’s role in jewish rescue during the holocaust, the financial operations related to delasem’s work in italy and claims that the vatican served as a vital material conduit for that work are a matter of “much confusion.” 59 zuccotti attributes the confusion to efforts after the war by pius xii’s former advisors and confidants, principal among them father robert leiber, to craft a highly selective and predictably favourable narrative of papal aid in jewish rescue. a main thread of the narrative identified the vatican as the source of substantial financial and material assistance to enable jewish rescue during the german occupation of rome (admittedly drawing on funds that had come to the holy see mainly from american catholic sources). writing in 1961 for the authoritative jesuit journal la civiltà cattolica, father leiber claimed that when delasem offices in genoa were closed with the german occupation of the city, the organization gave some 5 million lire to the archbishop of the city, cardinal pietro boetto, who then passed these funds along to a papal diplomatic official in rome. this official in turn channelled the funds to father benoît to be used for jewish rescue and relief in rome. speaking favourably of father benoît’s “tireless” work, leiber argued that by war’s end the capuchin had received some 25 million lire from pius xii for jewish rescue. this was roughly equivalent to just over 2 million dollars in 1961, the year in which leiber’s article was published, (and roughly equivalent to over 15 million dollars today). all told, according to leiber, a conservative estimate of the amount of money provided by pius xii for jewish rescue and relief by war’s end amounted to the equivalent in 1961 of something 58 see father benoît ’s july 20, 1944 report on delasem’s activity, reprinted in de felice, the jews in fascist italy, 757-758. 59 zuccotti, père marie-benoît and jewish rescue, 179, 221. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 29 www.bc.edu/scjr like 4 million dollars, or approximately 31 million dollars in today’s terms. 60 as noted above, this was not the vatican’s money for the most part. leiber readily acknowledged that the major sources of funding were the catholic committee for refugees in the u.s., and american jewish donors. leiber’s operative point, presumably, was that the pope and papal channels were a uniquely effective conduit at a time of war and military occupation, providing both the latitude and the means to receive vital financial aid from abroad, and to distribute it in a timely and efficacious manner. 61 these postwar claims of a substantial and decisive papal role in financing jewish rescue and relief in italy during german occupation sparked immediate retorts from former delasem leaders and father benoît. they objected that father leiber’s account gave a false impression of the scale, scope and motivation of papal aid in jewish rescue and relief. for one, the monetary figures leiber cited were erroneous as were the circumstances by which funds reached father benedetto and delasem in rome. father benoît acknowledged receiving money from delasem in genoa with cardinal boetto as the conduit. but, in the first instance, it was just one million lire, not five million as leiber claimed. moreover, the money did not reach father benoît by means of the papal nuncio in rome; rather, the capuchin travelled to genoa in 60 it should be noted that currency exchange equivalencies such as these can be misleading insofar as they fail to capture what the effective value and purchasing power of money would have been at the time the original funds were spent. in other words, the money father leiber claims was provided for rescue and relief efforts during the war, whatever we might say about the exact dollar amounts, may have gone further in terms of purchasing power at the time than the equivalent in today’s currency. many thanks to my colleague graham broad of king’s university college at western university for his instructive insights in this regard. 61 leiber, “pio xii e gli ebrei di roma, 1943-1944,” p. 452. my calculations are based on information provided by http://fxtop.com/en/currencyconverterpast.php?a=2500000000&c1=itl&c2=usd&dd=25&mm=02&yyyy =1961&b=1&p=&i=1&btnok=go%21 (accessed 8/13/2013) and the cpi inflation calculator at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl (accessed 8/13/2013) http://fxtop.com/en/currency-converter-past.php?a=2500000000&c1=itl&c2=usd&dd=25&mm=02&yyyy=1961&b=1&p=&i=1&btnok=go%21 http://fxtop.com/en/currency-converter-past.php?a=2500000000&c1=itl&c2=usd&dd=25&mm=02&yyyy=1961&b=1&p=&i=1&btnok=go%21 http://fxtop.com/en/currency-converter-past.php?a=2500000000&c1=itl&c2=usd&dd=25&mm=02&yyyy=1961&b=1&p=&i=1&btnok=go%21 http://fxtop.com/en/currency-converter-past.php?a=2500000000&c1=itl&c2=usd&dd=25&mm=02&yyyy=1961&b=1&p=&i=1&btnok=go%21 http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl studies in christian-jewish relations 30 scjr 9 (2014) april 1944 to retrieve the funds personally from the cardinal. father benoît and former delasem leaders, notably settimio sorani, emphatically denied that any money to support their work in occupied rome came directly from the vatican. father benoît did acknowledge receiving financial assistance, to the tune of 98,000 lire, from monsignor antonio riberi from the pontificia commissione assistenza, the papal relief agency established in 1944. 62 yet he specified that this money came after the liberation of rome not during occupation. moreover, the money was intended to alleviate the situation of a small group (probably around 100 or so) of jewish converts-“italian catholic jews,” as father benoît described them—who either could not count on or did not seek material assistance from jewish relief organizations. 63 faced with its own challenges in meeting the needs of a much larger number of jewish refugees in and around rome, and highly suspicious if not contemptuous of converts—especially those whose conversions were recent—the delasem was inclined to regard the jewish converts to catholicism as “foreigners,” if not as “deserters or apostates.” for their part, the converts, many of whom, it was reported, felt fully and truly “members of the church,” found it “humiliating” to turn to jewish organizations for help. fearful that the dilemma might lead some of them to question their new-found faith or, worse yet, “return to the old one,” fathers benoît and weber urged the pope to afford a special measure of support designated “exclusively” for the material and spiritual well-being of converts; it would make them feel that “because they are catholics, they are not excluded from charity, and that there is someone looking out for them.” 64 during the german occupation, however, direct financial assistance from the vatican’s own resources for jewish 62 on the pca, with particular emphasis on the role of american financial aid after the war, see agostino giovangnoli, “la pontificia commissione assistenza e gli aiuti americani (1945-1948),” storia contemporanea, 9 (1978), 1081-1111. 63 quoted by zuccotti, père marie benoît, 195. 64 so wrote benoît and weber in their letter to pius xii, dated 2 september 1944. see adss 10, #315, 403-406. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 31 www.bc.edu/scjr rescue and relief was not immediately forthcoming, when at all. father benoît recalled that when he and several leaders of rome’s jewish community approached monsignor riberi in september 1943 to ask for a loan from the vatican, they were told sharply, “the vatican does not make loans; if it has it, it gives it.” in light of such a response, benoît recalled in later years, “we left with nothing.” 65 for their part, the pope and his advisors were on record at the time, and in subsequent years, contending that the holy see did in fact furnish financial and other forms of material assistance to support the work of father benoît and others. 66 when the vatican’s select wartime archives were published decades after the war, father benoît sought to place the vatican’s documentary record of aid in the context as he recalled living it. referring to the unnamed vatican officials who claimed to have provided him with money and foodstuffs, benoît retorted, “[t]hey also speak of foodstuffs. to whom would they have delivered them?” he went on at great length to contest an emerging quasi-official version of decisive papal support for jewish rescue and relief. as he recalled, “[t]o read the totality of these observations, one would think that the editors wanted to present my activities as a dependency of the vatican… [b]ut it is not exact. i received no mission from the vatican, because i was unknown there…the vatican was for us like a mountain. we were in a hurry.” 67 65 quoted by zuccotti, père marie-benoît, 180. 66 see, for instance, adss 9, #415, vatican, 6 novembre 1943, p. 549 and adss 9, #412, vatican, 9 janvier 1944, 544. 67 quoted by zuccotti, père marie benoît, 182; original is père marie benoît, "mon action en faveur des juifs persecuté à la seconde guerre mondiale," archives des capucins de france (acf), paris, 13 lm 97. father benoît’s perspective casting the vatican’s role essentially as tangential and indirect, if not an obstacle, is corroborated by a number of credible sources. for instance, settimio sorani’s detailed summary report of delasem’s activities in italy after the armistice of 8 september 1943, circulated to british and american representatives to the holy see. settimio sorani, “attitvità della delasem dopo l’8 settembre, 1943,” in rg 59, taylor mission files, “300, jews”, p. 11. reproduced in sorani’s l’assistenza ai profughi ebrei in italia, appendice 43, 291-298, at 295. see studies in christian-jewish relations 32 scjr 9 (2014) under papal cover? vatican sovereignty and latitude for rescue the extant historical record permits us to make two broad observations of the ostensible vatican role in jewish rescue and relief. first, it is clear from the documentation presently available for intensive study that the vatican did not provide significant amounts of direct financial or material aid explicitly for the purpose of jewish rescue and relief. where such direct aid was provided, it was to assist jewish converts to catholicism. these were no less deserving of aid, to be sure, but their situation was unique, as we have seen. at most, the structures of papal relief—which amassed and distributed vast quantities of foodstuffs and other supplies mainly for catholics in need, and which could count upon sizable financial contributions generated by means of a transnational network of ecclesiastical entities and lay organizations—were utilized to provide collateral assistance to an undetermined number of jewish refugees. at the same time, by virtue of its diplomatic impartiality—which preserved the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the vatican and papal representations across europe the vatican could be used to provide vital protected spaces to enable jewish rescue and relief; so too did its financial latitude, greatly increased as we have seen with the transfer of vatican assets to the u.s. in the early part of the war, help in some limited sense to make this work possible. the importance of protected spaces and financial conduits to jewish rescue and relief is aptly illustrated by the scramble in the first half of 1944 to secure money that was desperately needed to furnish assistance to an estimated 3,000 “needy” jewish refugees in the eternal city. 68 this is how also taylor mission files “310 jews.” us relations with the vatican and the holocaust, 1940-1950 collection. nara ii. archives unbound. web. 22 july 2013. gale document no. sc5001137198. 68 see settimio sorani’s detailed summary report of delasem’s activities in italy after the armistice of 8 september 1943, circulated to british and american representatives to the holy see. settimio sorani, “attitvità della delasem dopo l’8 settembre, 1943,” in rg 59, taylor mission files, studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 33 www.bc.edu/scjr settimio sorani of delasem described the situation to british and american officials in late june 1944, adding that his organization’s financial resources were completely depleted. there was urgent need for an immediate and substantial infusion of financial aid from outside italy. the obvious and ready source was the american joint distribution committee (ajdc) which, by means of separate transactions, was prepared to provide delasem with $120,000 (an initial credit of $20,000 was made available in may 1944, with an additional credit to the tune of $100,000 offered for the remainder of the year). the challenge was to get these transferred clandestinely into italian lira (at a time when foreign exchange dealings were severely curtailed by law, if not prohibited altogether) and into the hands of delasem representatives in rome like sorani. 69 delasem officials would use the cash on hand to cover expenses related to rescue and relief efforts in the city. with its territorial integrity and financial latitude preserved, the environs of vatican city were the obvious locus for this clandestine financial operation. sorani and father benoît, working with d’arcy osborne, the british representative to the holy see and harold h. tittmann, jr., the american chargé d’affaires with the u.s. mission, devised a covert scheme to transfer ajdc funds to delasem. it seems clear that the vatican was not involved in any official capacity in the clandestine transfer of funds. the historian michael phayer argues that far from helping, the vatican actually “refused to allow its bank to be used for this purpose.” 70 here again, a careful analysis of the sources argues for a more qualified conclusion. recently, patricia m. mcgoldrick, who has made a “300, jews”, p. 11. reproduced in sorani’s l’assistenza ai profughi ebrei in italia, appendice 43, 291-298. 69 see united states treasury department, documents pertaining to foreign funds control (washington, d.c., 1943); sim c. binder, “practical aspects of foreign property control,” new york university law quarterly review, 19 (1941), 1-30. 70 phayer, pius xii, the holocaust and the cold war (bloomington: indiana university press, 2008). this is yet another area where full opening of the wartime archives may yield some important insights into the holy see’s formal knowledge, if any, of these financial transactions. studies in christian-jewish relations 34 scjr 9 (2014) preliminary study of vatican financial transactions as reflected in select british diplomatic and financial records, offers a persuasive challenge to phayer’s claims of a vatican refusal. mcgoldrick shows that phayer’s claim that the vatican actually tried to block the transfer of ajdc funds intended for the delasem is based on an erroneous conflating of two “quite disparate documents.” 71 what phayer takes to be vatican refusal to allow the transfer of funds actually applies to a different proposed transaction than the one involving ajdc funds. 72 the vatican’s chief diplomats indeed were anxious to avoid seeing vatican finances caught up in questionable and possibly illegal transactions, even if these were for charitable purposes. it is clear that british and american officials were similarly careful to avoid seeing their respective official channels used for risky financial transactions. writing in may 1944 to harold tittmann about delasem’s scheme to access the ajdc credit, d’arcy osborne expressed relief that clandestine financial transactions for jewish relief were removed from british or american channels. with satisfaction, osborne observed that the respective jewish relief organizations would have to settle financial accounts with each other at some future stage, noting “we are no longer concerned or interested in their devious financial operations.” 73 71 mcgoldrik, “new perspectives on pius xii and vatican financial transactions during the second world war,” 1036-1037. 72 mcgoldrik, “new perspectives on pius xii and vatican financial transactions during the second world war,” 1036-1037. to be sure, there was at least one (and probably many others for which we do not have recorded evidence) proposed transaction to which the vatican did object. and this transaction did also involve the proposed transfer to italy of delasem funds from london. the scheme was proposed by an italian count carletti (presumably carlo carletti, an honorary papal guard). to follow the thread of original correspondence, see adss 10, #103, 177179. 73 “310 jews” .d. us relations with the vatican and the holocaust, 19401950 collection. nara ii. archives unbound. web. 22 july 2013. gale document no. sc5001137198. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 35 www.bc.edu/scjr still, neither foreign diplomats nor certain well-placed vatican officials, and arguably not even the vatican’s secretary of state nor the pope himself, were completely averse to using the physical cover of the vatican as a conduit for aid to support jewish rescue. in the end, the cover of a sovereign vatican city with global connections was indispensable to the work of delasem. the pivotal vatican insider was the french monsignor joseph herissèe, who, as a canon at st. peter’s basilica, lived and worked within the confines of vatican city and resided in the santa marta residence where foreign diplomats to the holy see also lived during the war. herissèe has been described as the “leg man” of covert operations to transfer funds gathered abroad to delasem. 74 father benoît considered herissèe an indispensable “intermediary”; a veritable “godsend.” 75 in his account of how the ajdc funds for 1944 made their way to delasem in rome, sorani identified monsignor herissèe as the lynchpin of the clandestine operation. 76 it is almost certain that this clandestine operation took place without the direct knowledge of the pope or his senior advisors, let alone with their approval or encouragement. as we saw above, the secretary of state (like british and american officials) was pronouncedly skittish about any hint of vatican involvement with exchange transactions that skirted the bounds of legality and risked raising the ire of the unpredictable forces that surrounded vatican city. to those who were directly involved in the dangerous work of rescue, the vatican’s reticence smacked of timidity. when angelo donati, a prominent italian jew involved in various rescue and relief schemes, first met monsignor herissèe in august 1943, he asked whether the canon might arrange a meeting with high-ranking vatican officials to discuss the jewish question. 74 see harold h. tittmann, jr. insider the vatican of pius xii: the memoir of an american diplomat during world war two (doubleday, 2004), 190. 75 quoted by zuccotti, père marie benoît, 182. 76 sorani, l’assistenza ai profughi ebrei in italia, 152-153; cf. zuccotti, père marie-benoît, 173-175. studies in christian-jewish relations 36 scjr 9 (2014) herissèe responded curtly that there was little point bothering with “high prelates” since they were “very timid and won’t do anything.” 77 yet the fact remains that immediately after the war, father benoît readily acknowledged that pius xii knew of his rescue work, and that various ecclesiastical entities in rome had been mobilized in some manner or another to facilitate jewish rescue or at least provide much-needed cover especially during the most dangerous period of german occupation. in early july 1945, speaking to the jewish circle of rome on the subject “the jewish christian friendship,” father benoît testified plainly to pius xii’s role in enabling jewish rescue. the capuchin explained that the purpose of his talk was not “to speak of what christians have done for jews, approved, encouraged and helped in every possible way by their supreme head, pope pius xii,” but rather “to show the motives that determined this action.” 78 there may have been more than a tinge of polite diplomacy in this generous assessment; a politic way of promoting goodwill all around during a delicate phase in jewish-christian relations. still, it is clear from the vatican’s published wartime archives and from benoît’s accounts that pius xii did provide some measure of assistance and support for father benoît’s work when the two men met privately in july 1943. 79 not surprisingly, there was an unmistakable air of resignation in pius xii’s response to benoît’s various requests. the pope seemed to think it was futile, for instance, to press the case with german or french authorities to improve the conditions and treatment of jews being held in camps in france; these officials, the pope reasoned, had long been impervious to criticism of their anti-jewish policies, even to vatican intervention. but where the pope and his advisors 77 récit de monsier angelo donati, n.d., cdjc paris, ccxviii-78. 78 conférence donnée par le père marie benoît devant les membres du cercle juif à rome le 08/07/1945 sur l’amitié entre juifs et chrétiens, cdjc paris, 1945, x-90. emphasis added. 79 all of this is recounted in the livre d’or, 309-311, while corroborating official vatican documentation is in the adss, 9, 393-397. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 37 www.bc.edu/scjr thought they could make a difference, they were willing at least to try, albeit in rather attenuated ways. 80 new directions in research how might further study of the contours of wartime papal rescue and relief contribute to our understanding of salient issues in catholic-jewish relations during and after the holocaust? to put the question in narrower terms, how did wartime papal relief efforts, however we might measure and/or assess these, factor into pius xii’s postwar theologicaldoctrinal assumptions and geo-political priorities and strategies? we know that already before the war was over, the pope had turned his mind to the question of the postwar order and the need as he saw it for a re-ordering of the social, political and economic order, both for nation-states and in international affairs. mindful that representatives of the major powers were busily planning for the future of international relations, pius xii added his own voice by acknowledging that an “old world” was passing away and that peoples everywhere longed for “un nuovo mondo,” a new world, to rise from its ashes. 81 in june 1945, in his first major speech after the fall of the third reich, pius xii turned again to articulate his theologically informed geo-political vision, identifying as a chief priority the reconstruction of europe and the evolution of a new world order. 82 this included the promotion of a normative ideal of democratization that effectively sought to marginalize and delegitimize communism within the parameters both of domestic politics and in international 80 adss, 9, #311, le nonce a madrid cicognani au cardinal maglione, madrid, august 24, 1943, 447-449; father marie benoît, livre d’or, 311. 81 from pius xii’s speech of september 1, 1944 reproduced in discorsi e radiomessaggi di sua santità pio xii, sesto anno di pontificato, 2 marzo 19441 marzo 1945 (vatican city: tipografia poliglotta vaticana, 1961), 121-132. 82 see the official version of the speech printed in the acta apostolicae sedis, 37 (1945): 163-165 and reported in the the new york times, “pope sees danger of a new tyranny in europe’s chaos,” june 3, 1945, 1 and 22. studies in christian-jewish relations 38 scjr 9 (2014) affairs. 83 it was a strategy that aimed ultimately at the “moral” rehabilitation of the international order on the eve of the cold war. pius xii’s envisioned “new world” would therefore be defined by a christian-democratic european and international state system; this new world order would in turn serve as a political and spiritual bulwark against the ubiquitous and gathering communist menace. 84 it is not clear where jews and judaism fit, if at all, in pius xii’s “new world” order. tellingly, the pope’s roadmap for postwar reconstruction and rehabilitation contained no explicit acknowledgement or words of comfort for european jews or for the future of jewish life in europe. there were a few familiar references to “crimes committed against mankind,” and to the use of “scientific methods” to eliminate people who were “often innocent.” he even spoke directly and empathetically about the uncertain future facing germany’s “unfortunate youth,” victims, as pius xii, of the hitler state. the absence of any explicit mention of the jews underscored a stubborn unwillingness or inability to grasp (or to acknowledge publicly) the destructive nature and scale of the nazi war against the jews. certainly any hopes were quickly dashed for some sober self-critical reflection about the problem of lingering anti-semitism or the damaging legacy of anti 83 for an example of how the communist/anti-communist dynamic was manifest in the midst of a democratic transition, see the case of italy as discussed in andrea mariuzzo, divergenze parallele: comunismo e anticomunismo alle origini del linguaggio politico dell’italia repubblicana (1945-1953) (soveria mannelli: rubbettino editore, 2010). 84 tara zahra, “’a human treasure’: europe’s displaced children between nationalism and internationalism,” past and present (2011), supplement 6, 332-350, here at 332. for a brief but highly instructive consideration of the relevant historical questions addressed – and often overlooked – in the scholarship on european reconstruction, see mark mazower, “reconstruction: the historiographical issues,” which introduces the special supplement issue of past and present in which zahra’s article appears. see past and present (2011), supplement 6, 17-28. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 39 www.bc.edu/scjr judaism. it reflected the simple fact that pius xii had other priorities, both doctrinal-ecclesial and geo-political. 85 so it was that when leading jewish and catholic figures after the end of the war called upon pius xii to address the lingering legacies of anti-judaism and anti-semitism in parts of european society, they were met with a steady, studied response that such an acknowledgement was unnecessary, superfluous. for the pope and his senior advisors, there was no need for a papal statement to address the thorny question of catholic-christian complicity in the events that led to the holocaust or of the lingering prejudices that continued to threaten jewish survivors. 86 nor was there much practical papal assistance forthcoming to help decimated jewish communities to recover physically and culturally, above all by means of a massive relief effort on behalf of jewish refugees and in the search for jewish children who had survived the holocaust in catholic homes and institutions. 87 85 for an authoritative discussion of the “mental horizons” of the catholic thought on jews and judaism on the eve of the holocaust, see john connelly, from enemy to brother: the revolution in catholic teaching on the jews, 1933-1965 (cambridge, ma: harvard university press, 2012). 86 the most succinct and instructive analysis of this period is provided by michael r. marrus, “a please unanswered: jacques maritain, pope pius xii and the holocaust,” in eli lederhendler, ed., jews, catholics and the burden of history (oxford university press, london and new york, 2005), 3-11. a briefer analysis can be found in marrus, “the ambassador and the pope: pius xii, jacques maritain and the jews,” in commonweal, october 22, 2004, 14-19. for evidence that the pope and some of his most trusted advisors and confidants harbored similar prejudices or at least insensitivities, see the introduction to suzanne brown-fleming, the holocaust and catholic conscience. 87 the role of catholic religious houses in the rescue of jewish children, especially female religious orders in france and poland for instance, is studied in madeleine comte, sauvetages et baptêmes: les religieuses de notre-dame de sion face à la persecution des juifs en france (1940–1944) (paris: harmattan, 2001), and nahum bogner, “the convent children: the rescue of jewish children in polish convents during the holocaust,” yad vashem studies vol. 27 (1999): 235-285. for a concise of the postwar custody issue as it pertains to the vatican, see michael r. marrus, “the vatican and the custody of jewish child survivors after the holocaust,” holocaust and genocide studies, 21 no. 3 (winter 2007): 378-403, here studies in christian-jewish relations 40 scjr 9 (2014) how did assumptions about wartime papal rescue and relief factor into the vatican’s obdurate refusal to rethink its responses to the plight of jewish communities after the war, let alone to engage in a theological-historical reassessment of the papacy’s relationship with jews and judaism? by war’s end the vatican was positioning itself as the chief patron of a functional transnational anti-communism whose priorities aligned little, if at all, with those of jewish and humanitarian relief agencies. in a real sense, the limits of papal aid in jewish relief and survival in the wake of the holocaust were laid bare by these priorities. the lingering influence in theological-ecclesial terms of traditional anti-judaism, coupled with deeply rooted and unresolved suspicions about the continued presence of jews in european social and civic life, left pius xii on the horns of a dilemma that was largely of his making. called during and after the war to address the plight of european jews, the pope and his representatives on limited occasions invoked humanitarian and charitable christian impulses and often acted accordingly, if usually indirectly, to address the material and physical well-being of many jews. yet the absence of a political theology to justify a robust doctrinal defense of the civil rights and social-economic status of jews reinforced geo-political priorities and choices after 1945 that betrayed lingering papal ambivalence about (if not hostility to) the place of judaism and jews in the envisioned new world order that was christian and corporatist in inspiration and organization. 88 at 382. indispensable first-hand insights are provided by gerhart m. riegner, then director of the world jewish congress’s geneva office and one of the central figures of the postwar relief effort. see his memoirs, never despair: sixty years in the service of the jewish people and the cause of human rights (chicago: ivan r. dee, 2006, in association with the united states holocaust memorial museum). some valuable primary documentation on the efforts to locate jewish child survivors, especially those who were in gentile homes, can be found in the central zionist archives, s26/1402. my thanks to sara palmor in jerusalem for her diligent research assistance in locating some of this material. 88 for a brief but highly instructive consideration of the relevant historical questions addressed – and often overlooked – in the scholarship on european reconstruction, see mark mazower, “reconstruction: the historiographical issues.” see past and present (2011), supplement 6, 17studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 41 www.bc.edu/scjr 28. see especially tara zahra, “‘a human treasure’: europe’s displaced children between nationalism and internationalism,” past and present (2011), supplement 6, 332-350, here at 332. scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-4 paula fredriksen when christians were jews: the first generation (new haven and london: yale university press, 2018), 261 pp. sarah tanzer and robert cathey stanzer@mccormick.edu rcathey@mccormick.edu mccormick theological seminary, chicago, il 60615 paula fredriksen’s when christians were jews: the first generation attempts to answer two complex questions: how is it that jesus’ closest followers, jews who saw themselves as the last generation, believing that “the world hovered at the edge of the end of time” because jesus’ resurrection initiated the onset of the fulfillment of god’s promises to israel, became instead the first generation of a community of believers who in succeeding generations would be composed primarily not of jews but of gentiles (6)? how did this first jesus community survive through their “heightened expectations” and “disorienting disappointments” to become focused less on the immediacy of god’s kingdom and more on mission (184)? this book is first and foremost the telling of an engaging story. fredriksen reconstructs and reimagines the history of those followers living between circa 30 ce and 70 ce and their concerns in an attempt to get people to read josephus, paul, acts, and especially the gospels with fresh eyes, thinking about this first generation not anachronistically as “early christians” but as apocalyptic jews. she challenges our preconceived notions not just of the details but especially of the big picture of this remarkable period. fredriksen’s portrait aims at removing the obstacles that historically have blocked attempts to place jesus and his earliest followers fully within the diverse world of first-century judaism. she does this by exploring the problematic nature of the post-70 sources (especially the synoptic gospels) for reconstructing the pre70 jesus movement. she then carefully selects among the sources to help reimagine what might have happened. the sources chosen are not without their problems (see below). part of her approach involves addressing commonly misunderstood aspects of early judaism (e.g., purity; the relationship of various jews and jewish groups to the temple; messianic expectations; etc.) and the problematic ways new testament texts have been interpreted (e.g., paul and jewish law; jesus’ overturning tables in the temple, etc.). she also highlights the misappropriation or even mistranslation of certain labels (i.e., “christian” and “church”). fredriksen observes tanzer and cathey: paula fredriksen’s when christians were jews 2 that these tendencies of reading new testament texts as antagonistic to jews and judaism are the result of later christian anti-judaism cast backward onto this first generation of believers (186). in order to weave the story of this first jesus community together, fredriksen broadly considers the social and political dynamics in roman-ruled jerusalem in the pre-70 period. then she asks a diverse array of questions, allowing her narrative to emerge out of her answers. what were the dynamics in roman-ruled jerusalem in the pre-70 period? what were the attitudes of jesus, his earliest followers, paul, the essenes, and jewish prophets to the institution of the temple? (fredriksen says they were generally positive.) what was the possible immediate cause and context of jesus’ arrest and death? (it was probably intended to avert chaos prior to the passover holiday among the crowds who had already proclaimed jesus as messiah/king.) why would jesus’ followers have reassembled in jerusalem after his death? (it was the location of his resurrection appearances and zion was central to end-time speculation.) what happened when the expected end-time did not arrive? (they persisted in their belief that jesus was the messiah but now insisted that he had to come again to mark the arrival of the kingdom.) the followers’ reinterpretation of jesus as messiah was made easier by the linkage between messianic expectations and end-time scenarios, and also by the variety of contemporary jewish expectations, including some of end-times without a messiah. what prompted the community of jesus’ followers to take its message outside of jerusalem to “all the towns of israel” (matt 10:23), discovering along the way that these towns included not just jews but gentiles? (resurrection appearances had ceased and they sought to emulate and continue jesus’s mission.) finally, what could paul’s “persecution” of this new movement have been all about? (it was a form of community discipline within the synagogue community and it may also have come from a concern that conversions of pagans might provoke hostility from their communities.) fredriksen develops her rich portrait of the earliest jesus community out of these topics and others, explaining how his followers were sustained by fresh interpretation through waves of heightened expectations and crushing disappointments. fredriksen has kept the focus on the big picture—something we often lose sight of—by thoughtfully reconstructing and reimagining what might have been going on in the community of jesus’ followers between 30 and 70. keeping that big picture in view helps us to read and understand the sources better. she corrects common misunderstandings and tries to answer (and not dodge) the difficult questions, always reminding us not to read the later history of christian anti-judaism back into this period. however, for someone considering using the book with beginning students, there are a couple of additional issues to be aware of. because she is carefully and deliberately constructing a narrative different from earlier scholars, there are places in the book where it would be left up to instructors to explain to students how her narrative diverges from traditional interpretations (since students would likely not be aware of them). only in some instances does she mention those traditional narratives. this is understandable, because she is trying to develop a coherent narrative of that first jesus community here. interrupting that regularly to tell the reader what the range of scholarly views are would be 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) confusing and too disruptive. it is helpful that fredriksen uses questions to help the reader to link one part of the narrative to another. however, for beginning students it would a good idea to limit the questions to those that are actually answered in the next part of the narrative. because the narrative can be winding (e.g., as she corrects a misunderstanding or provides a detailed explanation or even as she digresses to explain something important), it would be useful to have more titled subsections and also to provide a more explicit connecting of the dots, showing how and why what she is writing is important for the larger narrative. there is a need for a much clearer understanding of why fredriksen chose some sources and not others to use in reconstructing the history of the first jesus community. that should include a clearer evaluation of the sources and their reliability for this reconstruction as well as their limits. this is especially important for non-specialist readers who may not know that acts and josephus, for example, are often viewed skeptically by scholars (for different reasons). fredriksen does briefly introduce the sources at the start (pages 2-5) and then says a bit more about her use of them as they come up in the book (e.g., she is trying to “peer behind acts” [184]). however, the book needs a more extensive discussion of sources, whether in the text itself or in an appendix. significant theological questions (likely of special interest to christian readers) are indirectly and sometimes directly raised by fredriksen. some of these questions have to do with the identity of jesus christ. since the historical jesus as reconstructed by fredriksen viewed himself as a jew among jews with a mission focused on the fulfillment of god’s promises to israel and not as the founder of a new world religion including jews and gentiles, how do we explain the emergence of very different portraits of jesus in later christianity? what are we to make of the fact that early christians shifted the focus of their movement away from the imminent kingdom that jesus proclaimed (and which did not appear) to the figure of jesus himself as the center of their faith? according to fredriksen and other scholars, the historical jesus did not claim to be god or divine. in fact, historical titles ascribed to him in his lifetime were “son of man,” meaning a human being, or “prophet” (as in luke’s gospel), or “rabbi.” even if jesus was hailed by the crowds as “messiah” when he entered jerusalem, it is not clear what was meant given the diverse meanings of the word in that time; it certainly was not necessarily linked with claims of divinity. and if jesus proclaimed the imminent arrival of a divine kingdom that did not appear, what are christians to make of this frustrated expectation? for example, how might it serve as a reminder of the humanity of jesus whose passion for god’s kingdom exceeded the realities of his times (a common experience of many who struggle to realize visions of a “beloved community”)? other theological questions raised by this text have to do with the eventual emergence of what became christianity, an independent religion often defined in opposition to judaism. fredriksen overturns the common notion that judaism was the parent religion of christianity. she demonstrates the inescapable jewishness of the first followers by showing just how jewish and apocalyptic they were. this has the effect of reminding us that these two religions grew up largely like siblings in the last centuries of the roman empire. tanzer and cathey: paula fredriksen’s when christians were jews 4 when christians were jews is an accessible scholarly book about a complex history, told in a way that is engaging and thoughtfully provocative. it is suitable for undergraduate and seminary students, non-specialists, and those interested in jewish-christian relations. however, fredriksen’s unique and intriguing interpretations, her overall reframing of the narrative, her use of difficult sources, and the head-spinning plot twists and turns in her historical reconstruction make it valuable reading for scholars who are open to a challenge to traditional interpretations. scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-3 deborah hart strober and gerald s. strober confronting hate: the untold story of the rabbi who stood up for human rights, racial justice, and religious reconciliation (new york: skyhorse publishing, 2019), hardcover, xv + 353 pp. emily d. soloff soloffe@ajc.org american jewish committee, chicago, il the long subtitle of this admiring biography may seem excessive to those who have never heard of rabbi marc tanenbaum, the renowned interfaith and civil rights activist of the last century who was called “secretary of state for the jews” (p. 37) and the “foremost apostle to the gentiles” (pp. 174, 331). however, tanenbaum practically invented what it means to work in the field of interreligious engagement, serving as the director of interreligious affairs for more than 20 years at the american jewish committee beginning in 1961. this book was co-written by a husband and wife team who worked with and deeply admired tanenbaum and who also considered him a friend. it is a fascinating read for students, clergy, and laity interested in what some have called the golden age of christian-jewish relations in the united states, the period from the promulgation of the second vatican council’s nostra aetate in 1965, which broke with centuries of christian anti-judaism, through the civil rights coalitions of the 1970s and ‘80s relying on contemporary interviews, oral histories, documents at the jacob rader marcus center of the american jewish archives, and ajc archives, the authors are able to animate momentous events with the hope that the lessons of tanenbaum’s leadership will “inspire those who want to bring about lasting social and political change” (p. x). the key chapters focus on tanenbaum’s work with religious leaders in jewishchristian relations and with african-american and other civil rights leaders, as well as his efforts to rescue jews who wished to leave the former soviet union. the book also includes a chapter on tanenbaum’s complicated relationship with rev. billy graham, the prominent evangelical christian minister, and tanenbaum’s efforts to rescue vietnamese and cambodian refugees after the united soloff: strober and strober’s confronting hate 2 states exited the vietnam war. in the authors’ views, “marc was a strong believer in the separation of church and state but he was also a strong believer in utilizing the intersection of religion and public policy as fertile ground for interreligious understanding” (p. 41). the book provides a window on the dynamics that formed his personality, philosophy, and work ethic from his early family life, to his study at yeshiva university and his ordination at the jewish theological seminary, to his brief stint in public relations, followed by more than six years as head of the synagogue council of america and his long career at ajc. about a third of the book is devoted to the last dozen years of his life, with a focus on his courtship and marriage to his second wife, georgette bennett. while these chapters are highly personal and subjective, they do provide a window on the challenges faced by those trying to maintain a balance between public and private life. the book includes photos of tanenbaum with significant religious leaders and a few family photos. it does not have footnotes but does include a list of people who were originally interviewed for inclusion in the rabbi marc h. tanenbaum oral history archive. it also includes a total of thirteen pages of chapter notes (with both sources and recommendations for further study) and an index. the changing relationship between catholics and jews is a major focus of the book. the authors explain how his arrival at ajc, on the cusp of the momentous changes wrought in catholic teachings at vatican ii, was fortuitous for the young tanenbaum, for ajc, and for jewish relations with christianity in its myriad forms. there is an entire section, some 76 pages, on vatican ii and ajc’s efforts, both publicly and behind the scenes, to convince key prelates of the need to reject the traditional deicide charge against the jews. much of this material will be familiar to students of catholic-jewish relations, but new insights are offered in the close attention given to tanenbaum’s role. the authors show the opposition he faced from diverse jewish groups during vatican ii. tanenbaum and the ajc were attacked by prominent orthodox rabbis who accused them of becoming involved “in areas of theology in which they have no competence.” at the same time, the major association of reform rabbis attacked tanenbaum and ajc for “obsequious appeals” to the vatican which were “insulting to the jewish spirit” (p. 117). tanenbaum worked with other christian groups and leaders. as with vatican ii, he had to overcome skeptics within the jewish community, for example, in his outreach to prominent evangelical rev. billy graham, who visited ajc in 1969 at tanenbaum’s invitation. that meeting led to subsequent communication between graham and tanenbaum and several frank exchanges as well as to joint meetings to discuss scripture, theology, and history. tanenbaum’s important work for racial justice is also included. in 1963 he became involved in the national conference on religion and race. at the conclave, tanenbaum introduced rabbi abraham joshua heschel and rev. martin luther king, jr. tanenbaum would later serve as president of another civil rights organization, the interreligious foundation for community organizations (ifco). however, he resigned from that position in 1969 in response to demands from black students that ifco support their call for reparations and because of their advocacy 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) of civil unrest. continuing his civil rights work, tanenbaum participated in a forum with rev. jesse jackson in 1987 despite demonstrations by jewish extremists. until his death in 1992, tanenbaum continued to strike “a crucial balance between public relations and real dialogue, between advocacy and substantive communication, between diplomacy and authenticity” (p. 308). to the end, he showed “jews how to be in the world” (p. 309). this book does a fine job showcasing his many contributions. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review michal bar-asher siegal early christian monastic literature and the babylonian talmud (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2013), hardcover, vii + 236 pp. holger zellentin, the university of nottingham bar-asher siegal has given a great gift to the scholarly community and to those interested in its debates by displaying more fully jewish-christian relations in the late ancient persian realm of the sasanids. this last and devoutly zoroastrian persian empire saw the flourishing of two prominent religious minorities. it was host to the emergence of eastern, syriac christianity and saw the culmination of classical rabbinic judaism in the formulation of the babylonian talmud. the question bar-asher siegal asks is to what extent the specifically monastic strand of syriac christianity, on the one hand, and babylonian rabbinic judaism (as distinguishable from the palestinian type) on the other, share cultural practices visible in the stories both groups told about holy men. her answer to this question is as richly documented as it is rewarding to read. the book here reviewed amply illustrates that the christian and the jewish stories in question both show a remarkable overlap when addressing topics such as “asceticism, spirituality, and the balance between holy and daily life” (p. 2). barasher siegal manages to present the shared values and the narrative affinities between syriac and rabbinic literary culture at the same time as she maintains the essential distinctness and independent historical depth of both traditions. bar-asher siegal’s most important source, next to the babylonian talmud, is the apophthegmata patrum, the famous “sayings of the desert fathers.” this collection of stories about the coptic skete monks of egypt (who amalgamated studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 10 (2015) cenobitic and eremitic ideals) transformed the face of monasticism, arguably even of christianity itself. from the fourth century onwards, the simple, pragmatic, and often surprising ethical stories about the early desert fathers were avidly translated, collected, edited, rearranged, and most importantly, told and retold throughout the world of christendom, including in the sasanian empire. siegal duly notes that the syriac translations of the sayings “are especially useful to explain the access the composers of talmudic passages might have had to monastic traditions in the persian empire” (p. 41). syriac, i.e. christian aramaic, the vernacular of the persian church, is a language that was almost fully comprehensible to speakers of jewish babylonian aramaic. at this point, the reviewed monograph needs to overcome the difficulties presented by the still poorly understood transmission history of the sayings in syriac. while there is ample evidence for an early translation of the sayings into syriac, a full scholarly evaluation and critical edition of the material remains a desideratum (see especially samuel rubenson, “the apophthegmata patrum in syriac, arabic and ethiopic: status questionis,” parole de l’orient 36 [2011]: 305-313). bar-asher siegal circumvents the philological difficulties by citing from the greek sayings that more clearly predate the babylonian talmud than those of their syriac translations that have thus far been edited. the result of the author’s choice, through no fault of her own, generates a certain imbalance between the volume’s careful and philologically astute treatment of the talmud and its manuscripts and a necessary silence from the syriac versions. reverting to the greek sayings enables bar-asher siegal to realize a study muchneeded at the present time; the richness of her findings will hopefully invite future work both on the syriac sayings and on their potential aramaic affinities with the babylonian talmud. the book begins with a thoughtful consideration of the ways in which rabbinic-christian relations are studied (“christianity in the babylonian talmud: an introductory discussion,” pp. 1-34). bar-asher siegal here notes that existing scholarship studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr (including that of the present reviewer; see pp. 10-11) tends to focus on polemical interactions rather than on aspects of culture shared by both traditions. she seeks to establish a more balanced approach. the second chapter then traces the rise of “monasticism in the persian empire” (pp. 35-64), with a noteworthy emphasis on the flourishing of both monasticism and the church as a whole from the fifth century onwards. this is another topic at times overlooked especially by scholars of judaism. the following two chapters both bear the main title “the apophthegmata patrum and rabbinic literature.” the third chapter, as indicated by the subtitle, on “form, style, and common themes” (pp. 64-100), considers the babylonian talmud in comparison with the sayings along the lines indicated by the subtitle. bar-asher siegal persuasively argues for a wealth of shared concepts attributed to holy men both jewish and christian, ranging from their attitudes towards prayer and emotion all the way to their respective guidelines when using scripture. the most fascinating chapter shifts the comparison between the two bodies of literature towards “narrative,” as indicated by the subtitle of the fourth chapter (pp. 101-32). here, we find several stories, many of which are well known to any talmudist, presented in the completely new light of their affinity with the christian sayings. examples range from the famous story of honi the circle maker (ta‘anit 23a) to resh lakish’s conversion from robber to rabbi (bava metsi‘a 84a). after the more cursory discussion in chapters three and four, the volume then presents the full-fledged analysis of two rabbinic stories. chapter five, “the making of a monk-rabbi: the stories of r. shimon bar yoḥai in the cave” (pp. 13369), presents the famous narrative from the babylonian talmud (shabbat 33b), along with some of its palestinian rabbinic parallels, and shows its affinities not only with hellenistic stories, but also with christian narratives ranging from the sayings to jerome’s the life of paulus the first hermit. the book’s final chapter, “repentant whore, repentant rabbi: the story of eleazar b. dordya” (pp. 170-99) pays tribute to the more playful tendencies of the babylonian talmud as expressed in studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 10 (2015) the story recorded in avodah zarah 17a. impressively, barasher siegal reads this story alongside the sayings, and especially with the story of john the dwarf and the repentant prostitute paesia. with a fine sense for the stories’ ironies, the author shows that both the jewish and the christian stories, respectively, “challenge the established church and the rabbinic model of repentance because they suggest that these can be bypassed” (p. 190). the short “conclusion” (pp. 200-3) briefly recapitulates the book’s major findings and reiterates that barasher siegal sees “no evidence of a hostile attitude in the incorporation of … monastic analogies in the talmudic passages”—a conclusions, she states, that does not contradict “the polemical uses of christian materials identified by other scholars” (p. 202). the volume under consideration is a great step forward in the ongoing revision of the way we understand judaism and christianity in late antiquity. not everyone may agree with the difficult choices its author had to make, such as giving a general prominence to synchronic over more detailed diachronic considerations in the development of both the rabbinic and the monastic literature (see e.g. pp. 25-34 and 100), and placing the philological and thematic emphasis on the talmud over and against the sayings, as spelled out above. yet it is precisely these choices that led bar-asher siegal to write such a concise, comprehensive, readable, and rewarding first study of a largely-overlooked treasure located squarely within–and around—the culture of the babylonian talmud. the book then further demolishes the obsolete paradigm, dominant especially in the second half of the twentieth century, of a sterile separation of the jewish and the christian tradition throughout late antiquity. bar-asher siegal shows the utter inadequacy of considering on their own the narratives about holy men in the sayings of the desert fathers and in the babylonian talmud, and in turn reaps the rich rewards of a comparative study. the volume, agreeably, is also written with as much clarity and verve as the stories it analyzes and is wholeheartedly recommended to anyone wishing to learn (or teach) about the fascinating world of holy men and women of late antiquity, studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr and about the intertwined development of rabbinic judaism, monasticism, and the syriac church. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review george faithful mothering the fatherland: a protestant sisterhood repents for the holocaust (oxford: oxford university press, 2014), hardcover, xvii+270 pp. christopher j. probst, washington university in st. louis mothering the fatherland is a focused and sympathetic study of the life and work of a unique group of women who were so haunted by the holocaust that, in the wake of the second world war, they formed a protestant sisterhood focused on intercessory repentance by the “true” christians of germany for the sins committed by the nation during the third reich. it is an absorbing work of historical theology that is especially significant for the effective manner in which the author situates the theology and practice of the sisterhood in their historical and intellectual contexts and for the author’s thoughtful analysis of the theology of the sisterhood’s co-founder. george faithful argues that the ecumenical sisterhood of mary (ökumenische marienschwesternschaft), which was founded in 1947 by klara schlink (later mother basilea) and erika madauss (later mother martyria), sought to prevent via intercessory prayer the judgment of god on germany, which both believed would come unless the nation repented for its sins, chief of which was its involvement in the holocaust. the idea that germans, much less protestant germans, should repent for the shoah, was not widely shared in the early post-war era. this fact alone makes the sisterhood a fascinating case study. that the sisterhood also exhibited affinities with elements of german pietism and (later) with the charismatic movement enhances the curiosity all the more. studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 10 (2015) as faithful recognizes, many protestants held views that were consonant with some crucial aspects of nazi ideology, including ardent nationalism and antisemitism. during the third reich, a substantial, outspoken minority of protestants avidly and openly supported the nazis in their reprehensible goals concerning the jewish question. even so, open resistance to nazism and secret assistance for jews living under nazi oppression and threat of murder were found among small groups of german protestants. the “büro grüber” (grüber office), based in berlin, provided jews (including jews who converted to christianity) who were under dire threat from the reich with advice about emigration, finding employment abroad, social assistance, legal matters, and educational support. for example, in württemberg (in southwest germany), a group of pastors and parishioners sheltered at least seventeen jewish refugees in sixty church parsonages in a so-called “rectory chain.” though schlink published numerous theological works after the war, including books that emphasized the collective guilt of the german nation for the holocaust, she does not seem to have viewed her work as part of a broader theological discussion that might have included participants in such war-time protestant rescue groups. despite their differences, where the holocaust and jewish-christian relations is concerned, there is a congruence of views between groups such as the büro grüber, the württemberg rectory chain, and the sisterhood. a comparative scholarly study of such groups would be welcome. the most intriguing chapter of the book is titled “schlink’s pseudo-judaic, germanic vision of nationhood,” in which faithful examines, among other things, schlink’s theological outlook on peoples (völker), in particular “germans” and “jews.” faithful finds that schlink’s views of peoples, nations, and ethnicities were derived in the main from the hebrew bible and from (chiefly nineteenth and twentieth century) german views of nationalism. ironically, for schlink, faithful writes, “to be a jew was to be a member of a god-ordained, studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr uniquely blessed people whose long centuries of suffering were over. to be a german was to be a self-professed christian and a gentile. for schlink, jew and german were two mutually exclusive categories, and this, more than any of her ideas, resonated with the worldview of the german nationalists. … that schlink so comprehensively inverted which pole was positive, elevating the jewish people to a status above what even many german nationalists had claimed for germany, marks her thought as definitively anti-nazi” (p. 132). faithful highlights here incisively some of the ironies inherent in the thought of a remarkably unique woman—a philosemitic, antinazi theologian and protestant nun. on occasion, the main argument is hampered by assertions that are a bit too tentative. yet, this is mitigated by succinct chapter conclusions and helpful sub-headings within chapters, both of which make the book very readable. mothering the fatherland will be of interest to anyone engaged in the study of the holocaust, twentieth-century german protestantism, jewish-christian relations, and, more broadly, historical theology in the modern era. caveats aside, this work substantially deepens our knowledge of a previously unknown and fascinating corner of german protestantism. scjr 16, no. 1 (2021): 1-4 daniel g. hummel covenant brothers: evangelicals, jews, and u.s.-israeli relations (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2019), hardcover, 317 pp. caitlin carenen carenenc@easternct.edu eastern connecticut state university, willimantic, ct 06226 in covenant brothers: evangelicals, jews, and u.s.-israeli relations, daniel hummel offers readers a new perspective on evangelical-jewish relations and its impact on u.s-israeli foreign policy. from the beginning, hummel suggests that scholarship that focuses on the apocalyptic nature of dispensational premillennialism’s attitudes toward jews and israel and uses this as a full explanation of jewishevangelical relations is missing a more subtle, and more theologically profound, understanding of how and why evangelicals eagerly turned toward modern jews and the state of israel. hummel’s organization and title come from the two biblical passages that he argues have shaped this relationship more than anything else: genesis 12:3 (when god said to abraham “i will bless those who bless you”), and romans 11 (when paul informs gentile christians that they are but branches grafted onto the jewish olive tree). from these verses, hummel argues, evangelicals, acknowledging that christians and israel “have a shared root, a shared faith, a shared fate,” have adopted a different approach toward jews and engaged in vigorous support of the state of israel (5). hummel then traces the development of “advocacy, organizing, and cooperation” between evangelicals and modern israel and, in so doing, offers a gentle revision to scholarship that insists evangelicals are only focused on the end of times and on the role israel plays in this scenario and ignores the mutuality of the evangelical-israeli relationship and its “covenantal solidarity” (3). with the olive branch analogy offered in the new testament book of romans at the forefront of hummel’s argument, he then organizes the book into three sections: “roots, 1948-1967,” “shoots, 1967-1976,” and “branches, 1976-2018.” starting with the establishment of israel in 1948, hummel argues in “roots” that the legacy of the holocaust and israel’s reality forced evangelicals to take seriously the long history of christian anti-judaism and the centrality of israel to modern jewish identity, and thus to modify approaches to mission accordingly. evangelicals created a “new language of reconciliation” in their relationship to jews (21). using the idea of “witness” to replace “missions,” evangelicals largely abandoned carenen: daniel g. hummel’s covenant brothers 2 aggressive attempts to convert jews to christianity (in part because the state of israel vehemently resisted missionizing and because jews in israel proved generally uninterested in conversion). understanding that support of zionism made the israeli government less hostile to the presence of missions in israel, evangelicals quickly adapted their strategy to show “christianity’s inherent jewishness” (27). they also enthusiastically endorsed jews’ biblical claims to the land. eager to protect their presence, evangelicals devoted energy to supporting religious freedom in israel, de-emphasized conversion, and underscored the connection between judaism and christianity. the later effort aligned with the cold war “discovery” of the judeo-christian heritage and positioned israel and the u.s. as the defenders of judeo-christian civilization. through this, evangelicals could emphasize the “covenantal” relationship between jews and christians while reiterating biblical authority through support of biblical archaeology (which hummel points out nicely aligned with israeli efforts to showcase ancient claims to the land). in the last chapter of the “roots” section, hummel uses a case study of the career of g. douglas young (1910-1980) to show how the modern christian zionist movement embodied these new trends. young established the “overtly proisrael” institute of holy land studies in jerusalem to create “an effective fusion of reconciliationist impulses, judeo-christian thinking, biblical archaeological knowledge, and zionism” (60), and in so doing created a foundational organization in the new evangelical approach to jews and israel. his institute presented prozionist perspectives to evangelical tourists and leaders and was therefore supported by the israeli government. hummel argues that “by positioning the institute as a site of cultural exchange and public diplomacy as well as an educational institution, young bridged interreligious and theological interests with a political agenda,” one that encouraged evangelicals to consider what they could do for israel (67). in hummel’s second section, “shoots,” he argues that in the wake of the 1967 war, the israeli government actively sought support for the annexation of palestinian territories from american evangelicals. much of the world, and certainly liberal american protestants, condemned israeli annexation of east jerusalem. but evangelicals interpreted israel’s land policies as the fulfillment of god’s promise to the jewish people to live in the holy land. the israeli government understood that evangelical support would help secure friendly u.s.-israeli relations and bring u.s. aid. american jewish leaders emphasized the centrality of the land to the notion of jewish peoplehood, and evangelicals, already primed for this connection, embraced support of the jewish state post-1967 as evidence of the continued fulfillment of biblical prophecies. american jewish organizations (particularly the american jewish committee) and the israeli government actively courted the growing evangelical community’s support at both the grassroots and leadership levels. billy graham, arnold t. olson, and w.a. criswell—all evangelical leaders—responded favorably. all de-emphasized conversion and instead focused on understanding the modern state of israel, jewish identification with israel, and the jewishness of christianity (while often ignoring arab perspectives). this approach broke with evangelical views prior to 1967 and reflected increasing interreligious cooperation between evangelical and jewish leaders in the u.s. on behalf of israel. moreover, 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) the active efforts of the israeli government to garner evangelical support showcased a “new israeli public diplomacy effort targeting american evangelicals” (96). this section also shows the extent to which the israeli government, particularly the ministry of tourism, actively sought american evangelical support, through awarding and supporting notable evangelical israel boosters who developed prozionist tourism in israel for american evangelicals that emphasized its “sacred landscape” (122). interestingly, it is in this section that hummel acknowledges that an uneasy tension existed among evangelicals over whether and how to emphasize prophecy fulfillment (represented by the views of hal lindsey) versus the jewishness of christianity (represented by the views of young) in organizing events and holy land tourism to evangelicals. because of this tension, hummel ultimately concludes that “evangelicals remained deeply divided over the theological meaning of israel and the political responsibilities owed to ensuring its security” (127). between 1971 and 1973, cracks in the relationship between israel, evangelicals, and evangelical-jewish relations in the u.s. revealed “a string of interreligious disputes and misadventures” that would continue for some years until the cracks were smoothed over, ultimately culminating in effective political mobilization and in creating the modern evangelical zionist identity (129). in the final section, “branches, 1976-2018,” hummel addresses modern evangelical zionist identity and the ever-closer relationship between israel and american evangelicals. prime minister menachem begin and rev. jerry falwell, “the new faces of the u.s.-israeli relationship and the architects of the christian zionist movement” (159), represent this tightening alliance that has produced, over several decades, phenomenally influential lobby groups like john hagee’s christians united for israel and made support for israel a fundamental pillar of the christian coalition. christian zionists became stanchly pro-israel even during politically-difficult times (the 1982 war in lebanon, for example). hummel argues that this “tectonic” power shift made evangelical support for israel far more unstable and it ignored the emphasis on interreligious dialogue, biblical archeology, and theological innovations that had characterized evangelical support for israel during the “roots” and “shoots” periods. now a new kind of prosperity gospel motivates christian zionist support: a re-emphasis of genesis 12:3 as a promise of material and financial blessings on those who donate to far-right israeli causes (like supporting settler communities in the occupied territories and the 2018 trump decision to move the u.s. embassy to jerusalem). hummel argues that this is not a total rejection of earlier interfaith emphasis. he argues instead that this is a “culmination [of efforts begun in 1948] and a transformation of the christian zionist movement” (187). hummel concludes that “reconciliation highlights the decisive reading of genesis 12:3 at the center of modern christian zionism, and the overriding motif—not of rapture or fire—but of covenant solidarity” (238). it is in this section that hummel’s argument is somewhat less convincing. i recognize the contribution his work makes to a more subtle understanding of jewish-evangelical and u.s.-israeli relations by emphasizing the covenantal nature of carenen: daniel g. hummel’s covenant brothers 4 that relationship and de-emphasizing the sensationalism of premillennial dispensationalism. yet a peeling back of all of the onion layers seems to still reveal an opportunistic motivation for evangelical support of israel, particularly in light of the new evangelical prosperity gospel. despite this, covenant brothers offers a great deal to the study of the intersection of religion, politics, and foreign policy by offering a more intimate and nuanced examination of evangelical motivations and organizations. hummel has mined an impressive collection of primary sources and offers an elegant argument. his prose is clear, direct, and lively, making this book a pleasure to read. heschel™s view of religious diversity studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college h e s c h e l ’ s v i e w o f r e l i g i o u s d i v e r s i t y h a r o l d k a s i m o w g r i n n e l l c o l l e g e volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 19-25 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ kasimow, “heschel’s view of religious diversity” 19 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 19-25 a few weeks before he died in 1972, my teacher, abraham joshua heschel, left the following message for young people: “and above all, remember that the meaning of life is to build a life as if it were a work of art. you’re not a machine. and you are young. start working on this great work of art called your own existence.”1 if what heschel says is true, if one’s life is meant to be a work of art, then heschel’s life was a masterpiece. he was one of the most significant religious thinkers of the last century who, at the same time, was deeply engaged in the social issues of his day. he was a passionately committed jew and an “apostle to the gentiles” who was revered by many christians and considered a tzaddik, a saint, by jews. he was a major figure in both the peace movement opposed to the vietnam war and the civil rights movement, and he worked vigorously to help jews suffering in the soviet union. what stood out about heschel was his ability to speak as a jew, but a jew who could communicate beyond the boundaries of his own religious tradition. the catholic theologian john merkle said it best: "in his own life and works, abraham joshua heschel revealed the supreme importance of god as well as what it is like to live with faith in god."2 in his essay “heschel’s impact on catholic-jewish relations,” eugene fisher, former executive secretary of the secretariat for catholic-jewish relations of the national conference of catholic bishops, writes: 1 abraham joshua heschel, in “carl stern’s interview with dr. heschel,” in moral grandeur and spiritual audacity: essays: abraham joshua heschel, ed. susannah heschel (new york: farrar, straus, and giroux, 1996), 412. 2 john c. merkle, the genesis of faith: the depth theology of abraham joshua heschel (new york: macmillan publishing co., 1985), 26. heschel's work and life, of course, were particularly profound in their influence on american catholics of my generation. his thought spiritually enriched us as his courageous deeds – whether marching for civil rights or against the vietnam war – prophetically challenged us. to many of us in the catholic community active in the 1960s, abraham joshua heschel, along with thomas merton and dorothy day, were perceived as no less than contemporary prophets, searing our souls and enflaming our vision with god's hope for a better humanity. through him we learned to understand, to feel, what it means to say that the bible is the living word of god.3 further, heschel played a major role in shaping the church’s view of judaism. he was the most important jewish voice during the meeting of the second vatican council (1962–1965). heschel spent a great deal of time with augustine cardinal bea, s.j., who, at that time, headed the secretariat for promoting christian unity and was responsible for drafting the church’s revolutionary renunciation of anti-semitism in nostra aetate. heschel even convinced pope paul vi to remove an offensive paragraph that (against cardinal bea’s wishes) called for jews to convert to christianity. after this document came out, heschel said that what was of greatest significance for him was “the omission of any reference to conversion of the jews.”4 3 eugene j. fisher, “heschel’s impact on catholic-jewish relations,” in no religion is an island: abraham joshua heschel and interreligious dialogue, eds. harold kasimow and byron l. sherwin (maryknoll, ny: orbis books, 1991), 111. 4 quoted in “session viii: discussion” in vatican ii: an interfaith appraisal: international theological conference, university of notre dame: march 216, 1966, ed. john h. miller (notre dame, in: university of notre dame press), 373. kasimow, “heschel’s view of religious diversity” 20 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 19-25 heschel was beloved by christians, especially by catholics, for his profound religious thought and for the inspiring way he lived. but what did heschel think of christianity, as well as other traditions? did he feel that judaism was the only true religion? did he feel that all religions are equally valid? how did this committed jewish thinker grapple with the question of religious difference? many christian theologians consider religious diversity to be one of the most important issues of our time. it is now nearly fifty years since the distinguished christian theologian and historian of religion wilfred cantwell smith spoke these words concerning religious diversity: “this is really as big an issue, almost, as the question of how one accounts theologically for evi l– but christian theologians have been much more conscious of the fact of evil than that of religious pluralism.”5 since that time, numerous christian theologians have struggled to arrive at a christian theology of religions that would be consistent with the new awareness of religious diversity. a number of prominent christian theologians who have contemplated the issue of religious diversity speak of three major models: exclusivist, inclusivist, and pluralist.6 traditionally, christians, like believers of many other faiths concerning their religion, have seen christianity as the only true path to salvation and all other paths as false. this is the exclusivist view. 5 wilfred cantwell smith, the faith of other men (new york: the new american library, 1965), 121. 6 alan race, editor of the journal interreligious insight, develops these models in great detail. see his book christians and religious pluralism: patterns in the christian theology of religions (maryknoll, ny: orbis books, 1983). the inclusivist view is more positive about other religions. according to this approach, the grace of christ is present in other traditions; therefore, members of other religions may attain salvation. the inclusivist view, which had advocates in the early church, was developed in great detail by the eminent jesuit theologian karl rahner (1904-1984). rahner, who was very influential in the second vatican council, claimed the christian tradition is "the absolute religion, intended for all men, which can't recognize any other religion beside itself as of equal right."7 however, since god desires to save all human beings, "there are supernatural, grace-filled elements in non-christian religions."8 pope john paul ii, the world’s most famous inclusivist, stated, “respect and esteem for the other and for what he has in the depths of his heart is essential to dialogue.”9 pluralism takes an even more expansive view of other religions. paul knitter, a prominent catholic theologian, has presented the pluralist perspective in a most perceptive and persuasive way: “other religions may be just as effective and successful in bringing their followers to truth, and peace, and well-being with god as christianity has been for christians. . . . only if christians are truly open to the possibility . . . that there are many true, saving religions and that christianity is one among the ways in which god has touched and 7 karl rahner, “christianity and the non-christian religions,” in christianity and other religions: selected readings, ed. john hick and brian hebblethwaite (philadelphia: fortress press, 1981), 56. 8 ibid., 61. 9 pope john paul ii, “to representatives of the shinto religion,” rome, february 28, 1979, in interreligious dialogue: the official teaching of the catholic church 1963–1995, ed. francesco gioia (boston: pauline books, 1997), 218. kasimow, “heschel’s view of religious diversity” 21 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 19-25 transformed our world – only then can authentic dialogue take place.”10 john hick, the best-known exponent of the pluralist position, explains that for the pluralist it is fundamental that one not elevate one’s own religion “as uniquely superior to all the others.”11 this means, among other things, that when we come to metaphysical claims about god we cannot consider a vision of a personal god as superior to an impersonal one. we cannot say that mysticism of personality is superior to mysticism of infinity or that theistic mysticism is superior to monistic mysticism. with regard to sacred texts, the religious pluralist will say that he or she is committed to following the torah or the vedas or the qu’ran or the new testament not because that sacred text is superior to other sacred texts but because it is the sacred text of his or her religious tradition. generally, jewish thinkers have not given the same level of attention to religious diversity as have christian theologians. heschel remains the most significant jewish thinker to address this critical issue. in his essay “no religion is an island,” he presents a radical view of the world’s religions. heschel argues that no religion has a monopoly on truth or holiness and says, “in this aeon diversity of religions is the will of god."12 10 paul f. knitter, one earth many religions: multifaith dialogue and global responsibility (maryknoll, n.y.: orbis books, 1995), 30. 11 john hick, “the next step beyond dialogue,” in the myth of religious superiority: multifaith explorations of religious pluralism, ed. paul f. knitter (maryknoll, n.y.: orbis books, 2005), 6. 12 abraham joshua heschel, “no religion is an island,” in no religion is an island: abraham joshua heschel and interreligious dialogue, eds. harold kasimow and byron l. sherwin (maryknoll, ny: 1991), 14. this statement is certainly open to different interpretations. i believe that it means that heschel accepted the validity of other religious traditions. by saying that religions are the will of god, i believe he means there is also a divine element in these traditions. heschel cites a talmudic source that clearly supports this interpretation. "it is a well-established tradition in jewish literature that the lord sent prophets to the nations, and even addressed himself directly to them."13 according to heschel, "the jews do not maintain that the way of the torah is the only way of serving god."14 long before heschel, the jewish tradition taught that the righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come. heschel cites a rabbinic source that i consider important for our time: “i call heaven and earth to witness that the holy spirit rests upon each person, jew or gentile, man or woman, master or slave, in consonance with his deeds.”15 for heschel, it is less important what religious path people follow than that they show compassion for their fellow human beings. for heschel, “religion is a means, not an end.”16 he says: "the prophets convey to us the certainty that human life is sacred, that the most important thing a person can do is to have compassion for his fellow man."17 the end of religion is to ennoble, to refine, to transform us so that we 13 abraham joshua heschel, the prophets (new york: harper and row, 1962), 226. 14 “no religion is an island,” 19. 15 ibid., 18. 16 abraham joshua heschel, in conversation with patrick granfield, as quoted by granfield in his theologians at work (new york: macmillan, 1967), 78. 17 abraham joshua heschel, in “two conversations with abraham joshua heschel,” transcript of “the eternal light” program, the national broadcasting company, march 19, 1972, part i, p. 8. heschel was interviewed by rabbi wolfe kelman. kasimow, “heschel’s view of religious diversity” 22 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 19-25 really have concern for others – which makes us truly human. this teaching is in keeping with his idea that god's outstanding characteristic is "divine pathos." in heschel’s mind, the ultimate goal of human life is to care about humanity as much as god does. this vision enables him to see the saintliness in many of the christians whom he encountered. in view of heschel’s stress that “diversity of religions is the will of god” and that “the jews do not maintain that the way of the torah is the only way of serving god,” should we then see him as a jewish pluralist? while heschel sees all religions as valid, he does not see them as fundamentally equal. a study of heschel's works reveals that he was quite familiar with some of the primary sources of christianity and islam as well as those of hinduism and buddhism. in his interpretation of these sources, he stresses the unique aspects of each religion, its distinctiveness and particularity. he is critical of certain aspects of asian thought as well as of certain doctrines of judaism and christianity. his critique of other religions suggests that heschel differs from pluralists like hick. while he does not hold that judaism is the only true religion and agrees with knitter and hick that all religious traditions produce saints, he does not see all traditions as equal. they are all valid, but they are not equally valid. for heschel, the most fundamental concept of biblical thought is that god is in search of human beings, that god is a god of pathos who needs human beings and is affected by their actions. heschel’s entire theological structure rests on the assumption that there is a personal god, a god who commands and makes demands on human beings, who is concerned and involved with human beings. heschel has great difficulty with any system of thought that does not involve a personal concept of god. in god in search of man, his most famous work, heschel says the hebrew bible is superior to other sacred texts. heschel states: “the bible is mankind’s greatest privilege. it is so . . . categorical in its demands and full of compassion in its understanding of the human situation. no other book so loves and respects the life of man.”18 heschel then raises the questions, “why does the bible surpass everything created by man? why is there no work worthy of comparison with it? why is there no substitute for the bible, no parallel to the history it has engendered? why must all who seek the living god turn to its pages?”19 heschel responds to his own questions thus: “set the bible beside any of the truly great books produced by the genius of man, and see how they are diminished in stature. . . . other books you can estimate, you can measure, compare; the bible you can only extol. its insights surpass our standards. there is nothing greater.”20 he concludes that “just as it is impossible to conceive of god without the world, so it is impossible to conceive of his concern without the bible. . . . if god is alive, then the bible is his voice. no other work is as worthy of being considered a manifestation of his will.”21 heschel’s elevation of the hebrew bible seems to suggest that he has an inclusivist rather than a pluralist perspective. christian inclusivists like john paul ii would agree with heschel when he states that the aim of dialogue is to overcome “hardness of heart” and to cultivate “a sense of wonder and mystery in unlocking doors to holiness in 18 abraham joshua heschel, god in search of man: a philosophy of judaism (new york: farrar, straus, and cudahy, 1955), 239. 19 ibid., 240. 20 ibid., 240. 21 ibid., 245. kasimow, “heschel’s view of religious diversity” 23 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 19-25 time.”22 but heschel differs radically from christian inclusivists in his opposition to conversion and the creation of a monolithic religious society. and of course his view of the hebrew bible being the greatest religious book is not analogous to the pope’s view that sees jesus as the only source of god’s salvation and therefore sees interreligious dialogue as part of the church’s evangelizing mission. heschel’s view of other faiths, including the aim of dialogue and his opposition to evangelism, is remarkably similar to the view of tenzin gyatso, the fourteenth dalai lama, one of the most loved and respected religious leaders in the world today, who is seen by buddhists as a living incarnation of a buddha. for the dalai lama, as for heschel, the fact that there are different religions is something beautiful that should be celebrated. but religions are not equally valid. the dalai lama believes that from a buddhist perspective one does not attain liberation while still attached to the idea of a permanent self. there is no enduring person, a permanent self, or an immortal soul, as jews and christians claim. for the dalai lama, as for many mahayana buddhists, the buddha had different teachings for different people. from this perspective, other great religious teachers and founders of religions may be seen as bodhisattvas who use skillful means to bring to the world a preliminary teaching such as the concept of a personal savior god. to the question put to him at “the bodhgaya interviews” – “but is it only the buddha who can be the ultimate source of refuge?” – the dalai lama responded: liberation in which “a mind that understands the sphere of reality annihilates all defilements in the sphere of reality” is a state that only buddhists can accomplish. this kind of moksa or nirvana is only explained in the buddhist scriptures, and is achieved only through buddhist practice. according to certain religions, however, salvation is a place, a beautiful paradise, like a peaceful valley. to attain such a state as this, to achieve such a state of moksa, does not require the practice of emptiness, the understanding of reality. 22 abraham joshua heschel, “no religion is an island,” 12. 23 this statement by the dalai lama is not consistent with john hick’s view of other faiths. it seems to me that both the dalai lama and heschel viewed their own traditions as somehow better. both are also deeply committed to their own paths, yet they are opposed to proselytism and make no claim that they have exclusive possession of ultimate truth. i repeat heschel’s statements: “holiness is not the monopoly of any religion or tradition” and that “the jews do not maintain that the way of the torah is the only way of god.” in one of his best-known books, the dalai lama writes in a similar vein when he states: in my own case, i am convinced that buddhism provides me with the most effective framework within which to situate my efforts to develop spiritually through cultivating love and compassion. at the same time, i must acknowledge that while buddhism represents the best path for me – that is, it suits my character, my temperament, my inclinations, and my cultural background – the same will be true of christianity for christians. for them, christianity is the best way. on the basis of my conviction, i cannot, therefore, say that buddhism is best for everyone.24 23 the dalai lama, the bodhgaya interviews, ed. jose ignacio calbezon (ithaca, ny: snow lion publications, 1988), 23. 24 the dalai lama, ethics for the new millennium (new york: riverhead books, 1999), 225–26. kasimow, “heschel’s view of religious diversity” 24 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 19-25 in this book the core message of the dalai lama is the necessity of love and compassion. this is precisely the message of heschel, who claimed that “the greatest heresy is despair of men’s power for goodness, men’s power for love.”25 in the jewish tradition we are commanded to love all human beings because all are created in the image of god. for heschel, as for the great second century sage rabbi akiva, the supreme principle of the torah is “love thy neighbor as thyself.” heschel was very much in love with the jewish tradition. he loved the jewish people. but his greatness lies in his ability to extend this love to everyone and to see the humanity and touch of divinity present in various religious 25 abraham joshua heschel, the insecurity of freedom: essays on human existence (new york: schocken books, 1966), 98. traditions. his love and compassion have brought great healing and great hope to all who have encountered him through the example of his life and the eloquence of his written word. in his unique view of religious diversity, heschel is neither a pluralist nor an inclusivist. i now see him as a jewish interreligious artist who transcends the categories created by christian scholars. heschel was a committed jew, who, on the one hand, was able to affirm and live out the consequences of the fact that no religion has a monopoly on truth or holiness, and, on the other hand, that the hebrew bible is “the only book in the whole world that can never be replaced.”26 26 god in search of man, 240. kasimow, “heschel’s view of religious diversity” 25 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ jesus in the talmud studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1 (2007): r9-10 schäfer, jesus in the talmud r9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art13 peter schäfer, jesus in the talmud (princeton and oxford: princeton university press, 2007), hardcover, xv+189 pp. reviewed by ruth langer, boston college growing from a seminar co-taught with israel yuval at princeton university, peter schäfer’s jesus in the talmud reviews well-trodden territory but derives new and important readings from this familiar evidence. applying contemporary historiographical methods, schäfer offers a convincing explanation of the talmudic texts about jesus. in doing so, he avoids what he criticizes as the excesses of previous discussions of this topic, especially the maximalism of r. travers herford in his christianity in talmud and midrash (london, 1903) and the minimalism of johann meier in his jesus von nazareth in der talmudischen überlieferung (darmstadt, 1978). where herford presumed that every possible source referred to christianity, meier established doubt about the applicability of most of these sources to knowledge about the historical jesus. schäfer shifts the question and asks what knowledge about christianity the rabbinic texts reflect. in this, he accepts the contemporary perception that the redacted rabbinic texts may not precisely transmit the traditions they purport to repeat. instead, they reflect the concerns and world of the redactor(s) as well. schäfer focuses his study by considering only texts that speak about jesus and not all rabbinic references to christianity. this allows him to consider these passages in comparison with other literature, most importantly the gospel narratives themselves. the resultant list of passages derive primarily from the babylonian talmud, i.e., from the text least likely, because of its date and place of redaction, to reflect intimate knowledge of early christianity in the land of israel. indeed, schäfer concludes that the talmudic authors did not have independent knowledge about jesus. what they did have was knowledge of the literature about jesus, from either the gospels themselves or perhaps from the diatessaron, the harmonization of the gospels used by the syrian church until the fifth century. as is obvious to anyone who has encountered these talmudic passages, especially in the form that modern scholarship has retrieved them from manuscripts that predate medieval christian censorship, the talmudic passages about jesus respond to christian traditions about him with parody, inversion, deliberate distortion, and not least with the proud proclamation that what their fellow jews did to this jesus was right: that he deserved to be executed because of his blasphemy, that he will sit in hell forever, and that those who follow his example up until today will not, as he has promised, gain eternal life but will share his horrible fate. (129) schäfer argues that these talmudic passages, when read together, “become a daring and powerful counter-gospel to the new testament in general and to john in particular.” (129) schäfer is not the first to notice the disproportionate attention paid to christianity in the babylonian talmud. however, his explanation is able to draw on our emerging understanding that jewish life in babylonia was culturally embedded in its persian context and consequently shaped in ways distinct from jewish life in the greco-roman west. while jews in the west were increasingly living in the presence of a triumphant christianity, one that increasingly had the review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1 (2007): r9-10 schäfer, jesus in the talmud r10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art13 power to respond to jewish slights, jews and christians in the persian east were both religious minorities in a zoroastrian state. because that state shared a contested boundary with the christian byzantine empire in the west, it suspected the local christians of disloyalty and subjected them to prolonged periods of persecution. christian martyrological texts of this era portray jews as actively siding with the sasanians against the christians. in such a context, talmudic redactors were free to include disrespectful portrayals of jesus in their literature. the issues appearing in the christians martyrologies overlap significiantly with the specifics of the jewish parodies and inversions of the gospel narratives found in the babylonian talmud’s texts: christian women died to preserve their virginity, while the talmud suggests that mary was a harlot, not a virgin; martyrs strove to die on friday and their co-religionists would steal away the corpse to bury it secretly to facilitate their resurrection, while the talmud suggests that jesus’ body was taken from the tomb and buried elsewhere, not resurrected. schäfer presents these conclusions in his final chapter, after taking his readers through a careful reading of the relevant texts. he divides the materials into eight topics, organized chronologically according to the life and death of jesus. in each case, he presents the relevant texts from rabbinic literature (as a whole, not only the babylonian talmud), considers their manuscript variants, and offers his interpretation in dialogue with that of his predecessors and contemporaries, especially his former colleague, johann maier. though occasionally built on not a small degree of speculation, these readings are always plausible and are most often convincing. unevenness appears mostly in the notes, which expand dramatically when they touch on areas on which schäfer has published previously, especially on issues of rabbinic-era mysticism. missing from the volume is an overview of how these texts about jesus intersect with the rest of rabbinic literature’s statements about later christians and christianity. where do they cease to reflect literary knowledge and begin to reflect actual encounters? for jews engaged in jewish-christian relations today, anti-christian texts, especially those in authoritative literature like the babylonian talmud, must be counted among our “difficult texts.” schäfer’s volume does not diminish the difficulty of these passages; indeed, it highlights the degree to which they deliberately slander the holiest elements of the christian sacred narrative. but schäfer does offer us a context in which to understand the composition of these narratives and their introduction into the talmud. these texts become a jewish contribution to a mutual polemic, one that increasingly carried real and dangerous consequences for jews as christianity became the dominant religion of the west. anti-judaism in marcion and his opponents studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers in jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college anti-judaism in marcion and his opponents joseph b. tyson southern methodist university volume 1 (2005-2006): pp. 196-208 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art21 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 196-208 tyson, “anti-judaism in marcion and his opponents” 197 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art21 editor’s note: this article includes material adapted from the author’s recently published book, marcion and luke-acts: a defining struggle (columbia: univ. of south carolina press, 2006), and is used with permission. it also depends on additional material in the same book that provides a detailed argument that the acts of the apostles was written in the first quarter of the second century as a reaction against marcion. this material is too extensive to be included here, but interested readers are invited to assess that argument by consulting the book. in his recent study of early christian theological diversity, bart d. ehrman entertains the possibility that things might have turned out differently and marcionite christianity might have prevailed over all other movements of the second century. he regards its victory as plausible, because “it took what most people in the empire found most attractive about christianity—love, mercy, grace, wonder, opposition to this harsh, material world and salvation from it—and pushed it to an extreme, while taking christianity’s less attractive sides— law, guilt, judgment, eternal punishment, and, above all, association and close ties with jews and judaism—and getting rid of them.”1 then he projects two possible results: this may have opened the doors to heightened hostilities, since marcion seems to have hated jews and everything jewish; or possibly even more likely, it may have led simply to benign neglect as jews and their religion would have been considered to be of no relevance and certainly no competition for christians. the entire history of anti-semitism might have been avoided, ironically, by an anti-jewish religion.2 ehrman finally, however, abandons the scenario of a marcionite victory, on the grounds that romans would not have embraced a religion that stressed its own novelty. 1 bart d. ehrman, lost christianities: the battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew (oxford: oxford university press, 2003), 111. 2 ibid. ehrman adopts the usual characterization that marcion “hated jews and everything jewish” and that his form of christianity was “anti-jewish.” in my judgment, these characterizations need to be nuanced much more carefully and assessed in the light of views expressed by those who did in fact win the day, marcion’s opponents. my interest is in raising the question of anti-judaism both in marcion and in his opponents.3 1. marcion marcion was the best known leader of a non-orthodox christian movement in the early church. irenaeus, tertullian, and other defenders of the proto-orthodox tradition devoted significant attention to the challenges he presented. the precise dates of his birth and death are unknown, but he was probably born in the latter half of the first century c.e. in sinope, on the black sea. it was rumored that his father was a bishop of the church there. marcion had a successful ministry in asia minor, probably beginning early in the second century, and, about the middle of the century, he came to rome, where he was initially accepted but finally condemned for views that rome deemed heretical. the probable time of his death was a few years after 150 c.e.4 3 for other recent assessments of marcion and the jews, see david p. efroymson, “the patristic connection,” in alan davies, ed., antisemitism and the foundations of christianity (new york: paulist press, 1979), 98-117; stephen g. wilson, “marcion and the jews,” in stephen g. wilson, ed., anti-judaism in early christianity (studies in christianity and judaism 2; waterloo, ontario: wilfred laurier university press, 1986), 2:45-58; and his related strangers: jews and christians 70-170 ce (minneapolis: fortress, 1995). 4 marcion is usually thought of as active in the middle of the second century. this dating is based on comments by marcion’s opponents, but close study of the sources shows that marcion’s teachings were known in the east during the first quarter of the second century. the argument is complex, but by way of summary, we should note that from justin we learn that marcion had had an extensive ministry in the east prior to 150 c.e. and that from polycarp we can conclude that his studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 196-208 tyson, “anti-judaism in marcion and his opponents” 198 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art21 marcion took his inspiration from the letters of paul, most notably galatians. he was deeply impressed with paul’s contrast of law and grace and concluded that these must be the domains of two gods. one god is revealed in the hebrew bible as the creator, law-giver, and judge of humankind. this god, thus, is identified with the created order, torah, and the jews, his chosen people. marcion did not question the inspiration or authority of the hebrew bible; he interpreted it literally as the word of the creator-god but not as prophetic of jesus. the second god is the father of jesus christ, completely unknown in this world before the appearance of jesus in the fifteenth year of tiberius caesar (29 c.e.). this is the god of grace, love, and mercy. the work of jesus was to release people from the creator-god and deliver them to the domain of the god of grace. as is well known, marcion and his followers developed the first christian canon, without the hebrew bible but with ten letters of paul and one gospel, which resembled the gospel of luke in today’s nt.5 although marcion’s foes claimed that he “mutilated” the gospel of luke, some modern scholars question this assertion and maintain that marcion’s luke preceded the canonical text we now know.6 teachings were known by 130 c.e (see justin, first apology, 26; see also 1 apol. 58. see polycarp, to the philippians 7:1). indications from the pastorals (e.g. 1 tim 6:20) suggest even earlier dates. we probably will not be far off if we conclude that marcion’s views were known, at least in part and in some locations, as early as 115-120 c.e. for further details, see r. joseph hoffman, marcion: on the restitution of christianity: an essay on the development of radical paulinist theology in the second century [aar academy series 46; chico, calif.: scholars press, 1984]. 5 the ten letters in marcion’s apostolikon were galatians, 1, 2 corinthians, romans, 1, 2 thessalonians, laodiceans (probably our ephesians), colossians, philippians, and philemon. 6 this represents my own position, which is worked out in detail in my marcion and luke-acts: a defining struggle (columbia: univ. of south carolina press, 2006). my study is based on that of john knox, marcionite christianity was so vigorous in the late second century that the number of adherents probably approximated or even outnumbered the proto-orthodox in some places. there is evidence of its survival as late as the eighth century c.e. it is unarguable that marcion’s canon did not include any of the hebrew scriptures and that his theology completely separated the god of jesus from the god of israel. but we will understand him better if we begin where he began. the great berlin scholar, adolf von harnack, who deeply admired marcion, asserted that the gospel of christ constituted the origin and the totality of marcion’s religious life. in harnack’s words, marcion “felt in the gospel the whole force and power of the ‘numinous,’ to use [rudolf] otto’s expression.”7 harnack noted the force expressed in what appears to be the opening of marcion’s antitheses: “o wonder beyond wonders, rapture, power, and amazement is it, that one can say nothing at all about the gospel, nor even conceive of it, nor compare it with anything.”8 harnack stressed marcion’s marcion and the new testament: an essay in the early history of the canon (chicago: univ. of chicago press, 1942), but the contention that the marcionite text of luke was earlier than the canonical text goes back to albrecht ritschl and ferdinand christian baur. see ritschl, das evangelium marcions und das kanonische evangelium des lukas (tübingen: osiander, 1846); baur, kritische untersuchungen über die kanonischen evangelien, ihr behältnisz zu einander, ihren charakter und ursprung (tübingen: l. f. fues, 1847), 391-531. 7 adolf von harnack, marcion: the gospel of the alien god (trans. john e. steely and lyle d. bierma; durham, n.c.: the labyrinth press, 1990), 66. this is a translation of a major part of harnack’s marcion: das evangelium vom fremden gott: eine monographie zur geschichte der grundlegung der katholischen kirche (tu 45; leipzig: j. c. hinrichs’sche, 1921). 8 quoted by harnack, marcion: the gospel, 59. the quotation comes originally from the fourth-century syrian writer, ephrem, an exposition of the gospel, 1. ephrem locates the sentence at the beginning of what he calls, marcion’s “proevangelium,” apparently the same as the studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 196-208 tyson, “anti-judaism in marcion and his opponents” 199 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art21 reading of the pauline epistles as his “point of departure.” “the point of departure for marcion’s criticism of the tradition cannot be mistaken. it was provided in the pauline contrast of law and gospel, on the one side malicious, petty, and cruel punitive correctness, and on the other side merciful love.”9 this observation is confirmed by marcion’s collection of the pauline letters, headed by galatians. irenaeus and tertullian both note this. the latter writes, “the separation of law and gospel is the primary and principal exploit [opus] of marcion. his disciples cannot deny this, which stands at the head of their document, that document by which they are inducted into and confirmed in this heresy.”10 paul’s writings about the justification of sinners through jesus christ must indeed have had a powerful effect on marcion’s religious life. he concluded that the characteristics attributed to the divine in the hebrew scriptures were at fundamental odds with those associated with the divine in the letters of paul. for him there was an irresolvable contrast between a god who enacted laws and judged humans in accordance with their obedience or disobedience of them and a god who justified sinners. marcion was also struck with the contrast between the teachings of jesus and those of the hebrew scriptures, and he could not become convinced that jesus and paul meant to signify the same deity who was known through the hebrew scriptures. these convictions evidently formed the center of marcion’s faith and led him to challenge much that was taken for granted by antitheses. if authentic, this would constitute the longest surviving sentence composed by marcion. 9 harnack, marcion: the gospel, 21; emphasis in original. 10 tertullian, adversus marcionem 1, 19:4. (ernest evans, tertullian, adversus marcionem [2 vols.; oxford: clarendon press, 1972]). apparently tertullian refers here to marcion’s antitheses. cf. tertullian, adv. marc. 2, 2:5; 2, 11:1, 3; 2, 12:1; 2, 17:1. other christians. marcion’s core convictions, which are clearly rooted in the pauline epistles, led him to the further conviction that the god who was revealed by jesus was totally unknown before the time at which jesus appeared. what jesus revealed and paul taught was fundamentally new, unexpected, and unanticipated. at one point, marcion went before the leaders of the church at rome to ask for their understanding of two passages in a text that must have been generally known:11 he also told them a parable: "no one tears a piece from a new garment and sews it on an old garment; otherwise the new will be torn, and the piece from the new will not match the old. and no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed” (luke 5:36-37). no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit (luke 6:43).12 11 the episode is reported in epiphanius, panarion 42, 2 (frank williams, the panarion of epiphanius of salamis [nhs 35; leiden: e. j. brill, 1987]). if this incident is historical, it is impossible to know what text marcion would actually have used. apparently the verses were included in marcion’s gospel, and they are in canonical luke. but it does not seem likely that the roman leaders would have acknowledged marcion’s gospel in a debate that involved his orthodoxy, and, in my judgment, canonical luke is post-marcionite. the only conclusion seems to be that the text in question here must have come from a gospel known both to marcion and the roman leaders. such a text could have served as a source both for marcion’s gospel and canonical luke. on this point, see my marcion and luke-acts, chapter 4. 12 harnack, speaking for marcion, wrote: “when he [jesus] spoke of the two trees, the corrupt and the good, which are able to produce only such fruits as are given by their very nature, he can mean thereby only the two great divine authors, the old testament god, who creates nothing but bad and worthless things, and the father of jesus christ, who produces exclusively what is good” (harnack, marcion: the gospel, 22). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 196-208 tyson, “anti-judaism in marcion and his opponents” 200 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art21 marcion understood these sayings as declarations by jesus that what he revealed was new and, hence, incompatible with what had gone before. the good he equated with the new; the bad with the old. it was apparently these contentions that led the christian leaders in rome to break off relations with marcion and his followers. our ancient sources agree that marcion made a total separation between the religion that jesus and paul espoused and that of the hebrew scriptures. the god of jesus was totally unknown before jesus appeared.13 the god who ruled prior to 29 c.e. knew nothing of jesus or of the second god.14 the revelation of the god of jesus occurred when jesus first appeared, and marcion was willing to date it with precision—in the fifteenth year of tiberius, emperor of rome. this is the first verse of marcion’s gospel, a verse that also appears in luke 3:1. if marcion had known the verse in the lucan form, he would have been impressed with the evangelist’s own precision at this point—“in the fifteenth year of the rule of tiberius caesar, while pontius pilate was ruler of judea, herod tetrarch of galilee, philip, his brother, tetrarch of the country of ituraea and trachonitis, and lysanias tetrarch of abilene, in the time of the high priests annas and caiaphas, god’s word came to john, the son of zechariah, in the desert” (luke 3:1-2). marcion might well have observed that luke found it extremely important to call attention to this very date. but marcion would not have been able to use the lucan phraseology in this form, since it refers to the appearance of john the baptist rather than jesus. the marcionite form combined luke 3:1a with 4:31 and evidently ran: “in the fifteenth year of the rule of tiberius caesar in the times of pilate, jesus christ went down to 13 see tertullian, adv. marc. 1, 9:2. 14 see tertullian, adv. marc. 3, 1:2; 3, 5:1. capernaum, a city of galilee, and he was teaching them in the synagogue.”15 consonant with his conviction that the god of jesus had been totally unknown before the fifteenth year of tiberius, marcion concluded that there could be no connection between jesus and the hebrew scriptures. irenaeus scorned marcion for excluding the hebrew patriarchs—abel, enoch, noah, abraham—from salvation.16 but it was the separation of the prophets from jesus that seemed most unsettling for marcion’s opponents.17 as harnack, in expressing marcion’s views, put it, “christ is all in all and hence also the founder and the perfecter of faith. before him were only false prophets, and after him there is no need of any further revelation but only of a restorative reformation.”18 evidently, marcion stressed a non-allegorical, non-figurative interpretation of the prophets and, indeed, of all the hebrew scriptures. tertullian condemned him for this because it meant that he was in agreement with jews, who likewise denied that the prophets predicted the coming of jesus.19 marcion’s insistence on literal interpretation is especially stressed in a reference by tertullian to isa 7:14; 8:4: appeal next, as your custom is, to this description of christ which isaiah makes, and assert your claim that it in no point agrees. in the first place, you allege, isaiah’s christ will have to be named emmanuel, and afterwards 15 see harnack, marcion: das evangelium, 165*-166*. i refer here to the german edition, which contains harnack’s reconstruction of the gospel of marcion. this section was unaccountably omitted from the english translation. 16 see irenaeus, against the heresies 1, 27:3; 4, 8:1. 17 see, e.g., irenaeus, heresies 4, 34:1. 18 harnack, marcion: the gospel, 67. 19 see tertullian, adv. marc. 2, 21:2; 3, 5:4; 3, 12:1. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 196-208 tyson, “anti-judaism in marcion and his opponents” 201 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art21 to take up the strength of damascus and the spoils of samaria against the king of the assyrians: and yet he who has come was neither known by any name of that kind, nor has ever performed any warlike act.20 but marcion evidently believed in the authority of the hebrew scriptures and accepted isaiah and the other prophets as trustworthy predictors of the future. it follows that the future one predicted by these prophets was not jesus and that such a one had not yet come. that coming is still to be anticipated as a future event, as jews believe.21 if tertullian is right, the distinction between the two christs was, in part, relative to the extent of their functions: “neither for that matter can you establish that suggestion of yours, with a view to distinguishing between two christs, as that the judaic christ was intended by the creator for the regathering out of dispersion of the people [of israel] and no others, whereas your christ has been advanced by the supremely good god for the deliverance of the whole human race; …”22 if christ is all in all, and if jesus revealed a hitherto unknown god, it follows that the god of israel is not to be the object of christian worship. the qualities of this god are at odds with those of the father of jesus christ. but marcion nevertheless accepted the hebrew bible as the book to be identified with this god, in a sense, the book that revealed this god. in this sense it is trustworthy scripture, accurately describing the creator-god, giving a truthful account of history, and containing yet to be fulfilled prophecies. harnack calls attention to the fact that “marcion remained 20 tertullian, adv. marc. 3, 12:1. 21 see tertullian, adv. marc. 3, 6:3; 3, 7:1-8; 3, 8:1-2; 3, 21:1. 22 tertullian, adv. marc. 3, 21:1. true to the jewish-christian tradition in identifying the creator of the world and the god of the jews …”23 but marcion was sharp in his criticism of this god. a creator-god was no more acceptable to marcion than to the gnostics, although he was not interested in describing creative activity in their terms. for him, neither the creation stories of genesis nor the torah as a whole was to be challenged on the grounds of its accuracy but rather in terms of the god portrayed in them. despite his animus against him, tertullian is probably correct in claiming that marcion had deep suspicions about the god of the hebrew scriptures. this god enacted the lex talionis, which allowed for physical retaliation that for marcion was deeply objectionable.24 this god was not consistent: “he forbids labour on sabbath days, and yet at the storming of the city of jericho he commands the ark to be carried round during eight days which include the sabbath.”25 this god was inconsistent on the matter of sacrifices.26 this god was either capricious or lacking in foresight, initially approving and later disapproving certain persons;27 or god repents a previous action, as in the case of saul (1 sam 15:11) or jonah (jonah 3:10; 4:2).28 this god seems not to be omniscient, unaware of the whereabouts of adam in the garden of eden (gen 3:9, 11) or of cain’s murder of abel (gen 4:9-10).29 these considerations strongly suggest that it is simplistic to judge marcion as anti-jewish on the grounds of his 23 harnack, marcion: the gospel, 23. 24 see tertullian, adv. marc. 2, 18:1. 25 tertullian, adv. marc. 2, 21:1. 26 see tertullian, adv. marc. 2, 22:1-4. 27 see tertullian, adv. marc. 2, 23:1. 28 see tertullian, adv. marc. 2, 24:1-2. 29 see tertullian, adv. marc. 2, 25:1, 3. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 196-208 tyson, “anti-judaism in marcion and his opponents” 202 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art21 attitude toward the hebrew bible. apparently he agreed both with jews and proto-orthodox christians that the books in this collection were divinely inspired. nor did marcion question the historical accuracy of these writings or their prophetic power. on these points, marcion’s interpretation of the hebrew scriptures would be consonant with jewish interpretations. he would agree that the hebrew prophets predicted the coming of the messiah and that this figure was not jesus. key to marcion’s interpretation is his insistence on the literal meaning: isaiah (especially in isa 7:14; 8:14) was addressing the people of his own time about the threats from foreign kingdoms; he was not speaking of the coming of jesus. nevertheless, isaiah and all the prophets are trustworthy and authoritative. marcion’s critique of the hebrew bible, thus, was not directed to its authority but to its morality. he saw in these writings, especially in torah, something that fell beneath the teachings of jesus and paul, and the contrasts were so extreme that, although he accepted the divine origin of the hebrew bible, he concluded that the god who inspired these scriptures was not the god revealed in jesus christ. these observations suggest that we should more carefully describe marcion’s attitude toward jews and judaism. it is not sufficient simply to say that he was antijewish, although he was certain that the morality he saw in the hebrew bible was deficient. inevitably he would judge the religion that was based on these writings as inferior to his own. but apparently he would not question its legitimacy or its right to continue after the appearance of jesus. he would pity jews as being kept under the control of the god of creation, but he would regard their expectation of a messiah as fully conforming to the writings of the hebrew prophets. further, his insistence on literal interpretation would, as tertullian himself observed, create a significant compatibility with jews. marcion’s decision to exclude the hebrew bible from the christian canon creates a clear demarcation between christianity and judaism, and in this sense he would encourage his followers to regard the survival of judaism after the time of jesus as legitimate but theologically irrelevant. whether this would have led to a diminished degree of anti-judaism on the part of his followers is, of course, impossible to say, but ehrman is probably correct to observe that “benign neglect” is at least consistent with marcionite principles. 2. marcion’s opponents it is customary to observe that the defeat of marcionite christianity underscored the intimate relationship between the church and judaism. it meant that christians would continue to hear readings from the ot and thus be led to understand the story of ancient israel as part of their own history. it meant that they would be able to see jesus as part of an ongoing history and as a participant in an ancient and vibrant jewish culture. this judgment is certainly correct, but the proto-orthodox victory also had the potential to bring jews and christians into conflict over the interpretation of these texts. if christians believe that the same god who sent jesus christ also sent moses, they must develop some ways to address the apparent differences between their teachings. the gospel of matthew contributed to a resolution of this problem by having jesus use six antitheses: “you have heard …but i say to you” (see matt 5: 21-48). however one interprets the contents of these antitheses, the form suggests that the words of jesus are to be substituted for those of moses. it is also essential that the ot prophets bear witness to jesus. in contrast to marcion’s gospel, the canonical version of luke has the resurrected jesus explain to two of his disciples how the scriptures, including moses and all the prophets, spoke of a suffering messiah and thus studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 196-208 tyson, “anti-judaism in marcion and his opponents” 203 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art21 predicted the coming of jesus (luke 24:26-27). in acts 3:18, peter makes essentially the same observation.30 in what follows i will make use of two second-century texts which, on the one side, oppose marcion and, on the other, express forms of anti-judaism. a. the acts of the apostles (c. 120 c.e.) in my judgment, it was the author of acts, writing about 120 c. e., who first perceived the threat of marcionite christianity. my reasoning behind this judgment is laid out in a recent book, and space does not allow a discussion of the argument here.31 here i want to call attention to some of the major implications of regarding acts as a response to the marcionite challenge. acts answers marcionite contentions point by point. marcion stressed the distance between jesus and the hebrew scriptures, but the author of acts repeatedly showed that paul and the other christian leaders maintained that jesus fulfilled the predictions of the hebrew prophets. marcion claimed that paul was the only apostle, but acts portrays him as at one with peter and the others, even subservient to them on some occasions, and it defines 30 commenting on acts 3:18, f. j. foakes jackson and kirsopp lake, eds., (the beginnings of christianity: part 1. the acts of the apostles [5 vols.; london: macmillan, 1920-33; repr., grand rapids: baker book house, 1979] 4:37), write, “none of the prophets, rather than all of them, made this prophecy, if we confine ourselves to (a) messianic prophecies, (b) the original meaning of these prophecies, or (c) jewish interpretation of these prophecies. but christian interpretation applied to jesus all passages in the psalms and isaiah which refer to suffering.” 31 see my marcion and luke-acts, where i maintain, following john knox, that acts was written in the second century as an anti-marcionite text. see also richard i. pervo, dating acts: between the evangelists and the apologists (santa rosa: polebridge press, 2006). pervo mounts a compelling argument for dating the composition of acts in about 115-25. apostleship in a way that strictly excludes paul.32 marcion called peter and the others “false apostles,” in contrast to paul, but acts not only characterizes them as in total agreement with paul but even goes so far as to attribute to peter the first conversion of a gentile (acts 10:1-11:18). marcion maintained that paul proclaimed a god of grace, who released humankind from the domination of the god of torah, but the author of acts characterized paul as a torahobservant jew and a devout pharisee. marcion taught that jesus brought torah to an end, but acts showed that the apostles and paul agreed that some things from torah were still to be required even of gentile believers (see acts 15:20, 29; 21:25). conceiving of acts as an anti-marcionite text enables us to appreciate the contribution of its author. this author is not simply telling the story of the rise of christianity; he is defining the christian movement in direct opposition to that of the marcionites. his narrative totally revises the marcionite portrayal of the earliest christians. for the author of acts, belief in jesus is in full conformity with the teachings of the hebrew scriptures; torah is not totally dispensed with; jewish traditions are not absolutely jettisoned. yet another major contribution should be considered. marcion’s canon was the first to be devised by a christian and, as a consequence of his theology, it contained no books from the hebrew bible. the acts of the apostles, by insisting on the role of jesus and the apostles in fulfilling prophetic promises, must have paved the way for the hebrew scriptures to become part of the christian bible, as 32 only in acts 14:4, 14 does the author use the term “apostle” for paul (and barnabas). these references constitute exceptions to the rule laid down in acts 1:21-22. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 196-208 tyson, “anti-judaism in marcion and his opponents” 204 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art21 the old testament.33 this is not an issue that the author of acts faced directly, but it is plausible to suggest that without the contribution of this author, the canonical status of the ot would have been far more questionable than it in fact was. an underlying theme of acts is that of promise and fulfillment, a theme that plays a role in christian hermeneutics for centuries. contrary to the marcionite claims, the author of acts makes it clear that the hebrew prophets were not only proclaiming truth but that what they proclaimed pertained to jesus. the forceful and engaging narrative of acts and its use in anti-marcionite controversies late in the second century assured that for proto-orthodox christians the hebrew prophets would forever be bound up tightly with christian proclamation. but the connection between moses, the prophets, and jesus that the author of acts insisted on did not assure a positive relation between christians and jews. on the contrary, this author walks a line that is intended to distinguish his own community from both marcionite christians and contemporary jews. while he elevates moses and the prophets to a high status for christians, he simultaneously denigrates contemporary jews. for the most part, the jewish people in acts are cast in the role of opponents of jesus and his followers. the apostle peter repeatedly accuses them of putting jesus to death. not only do jews reject the message that ostensibly was meant for them, but they frequently oppose the preachers in violent ways. they engage in plots; they incite riots; they bring accusations in roman courts and call for executions. the paul of acts affirms that jews hear the scriptures read to 33 the emphasis on luke-acts is not intended to minimize the significance of other early christian literature. writing from within a different context, the author of the gospel of matthew, for example, surely played a role here as well. them every sabbath, but they do not understand them (acts 13:27). although the early chapters of acts show that jews responded heartily and in large numbers to the christian preachers, much more negative images increase as the narrative progresses. at the end of the book, paul quotes from isaiah to condemn roman jews, and by implication all jews, for their imperceptiveness and disobedience (acts 28:25-28). the author of acts offered the proto-orthodox christians a formidable weapon in the controversy with marcionite christians, but he did little to diminish negative attitudes toward jews. in fact, he probably promoted them. in addition, his insistence on the theme of promise and fulfillment posed a significant problem for later christians, namely how to interpret the ot. our second text illustrates this problem. b. justin martyr, the dialogue with trypho (c. 160 ce) writing several decades after the author of acts, justin illustrates a characteristic way to address the hermeneutical problem. justin knew about marcion but did not give him the same attention that luke, irenaeus, and tertullian did.34 he nevertheless struggled with problems presented by the hebrew scriptures, which seemed to speak in promising terms about israel, despite the fact that it was gentiles who were receiving the fulfillment of the promises. justin’s problem is that of comprehending both past and present under the care of the same god, whose past actions are recorded in the ot and whose present word is given through jesus the christ and in his church. a major part of the problem is how to understand the requirements of torah. 34 justin wrote a book attacking marcion, but it has not survived. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 196-208 tyson, “anti-judaism in marcion and his opponents” 205 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art21 in justin’s dialogue with trypho we have what purports to be a debate between a christian and a jew. justin argues with one trypho, who is portrayed as a learned jewish leader. the debate is very civilized, similar to a philosophical discussion. it is generally admitted, however, that this is not a record of an actual debate and that trypho is probably a fictional character. the dialogue, nevertheless, reveals a great deal about justin’s interpretation of the hebrew bible. in dialogue 8, trypho portrays christianity as turning away from god. he calls upon justin to embrace judaism, and he lists the requirements: circumcision, observance of the sabbath, feasts, new moons; indeed, obedience to the whole torah. trypho understands that the food laws and the observance of passover are obligations of judaism, and that the temple sacrifices were once required. surprisingly, justin is willing to accept these as divine demands, but insists that they are intended only for jews, not for christians. in dialogue 11, he says that christians trust the same god as the jews but they obey a higher law, which was given later, as predicted in isa 51:4-5. he admits that circumcision is a practice that is deeply rooted in the scriptures, but he insists that god intended it for jews alone, in order to mark them off for punishment. he later makes specific mention of the roman prohibition which followed upon the second jewish rebellion against rome (132-135 c.e.) and says that circumcision provides a means of identification, so that jews can be barred from entering the city of jerusalem.35 these requirements—circumcision, sabbath, festivals—were imposed upon jews because of their hardness of heart.36 other jewish practices have resulted from their misunderstanding of scripture. justin claims that this is the 35 see justin, dialogue 9, 16, 92. 36 see justin, dialogue 18, 27, 46. case with the practice of using unleavened bread at passover. although jews understand this commandment in a literal, material fashion, it really refers, says justin, to a command to repent, “to practice other deeds, not to repeat your old ones.”37 many prescriptions in the ot have a typological purpose and so were not understood by jews. the passover lamb, for example, is a type of the crucified christ.38 the flour offering for a cleansed leper is a type of the eucharistic bread.39 circumcision on the eighth day is a type of the resurrection of jesus on the first day of the week (which is both first day and eighth day).40 the twelve bells on the high priest’s robe are types of the twelve apostles.41 in general, justin categorizes the commandments in torah in three groups. first, there are those ethical commands which are universal. he says, “god shows every race of man that which is always and in all places just, and every type of man knows that adultery, fornication, murder, and so on are evil. though they all commit such acts, they cannot escape the knowledge that they sin whenever they do so.”42 second, there are the prophetic passages, i.e., those that typologically refer to jesus the christ. third, are the historical, i.e., those that are intended only for jews. the second group, the one justin labels as prophetic, is the most interesting for our purposes, and the commandments in this group are treated extensively in the 37 justin, dialogue 14 (stephen b. falls, saint justin martyr [fc; new york: christian heritage, 1949]). 38 see justin, dialogue 40. 39 see justin, dialogue 41. 40 see justin, dialogue 41. 41 see justin, dialogue 42. 42 justin, dialogue 93. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 196-208 tyson, “anti-judaism in marcion and his opponents” 206 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art21 dialogue. justin’s strategy here is to show how jews misunderstood these commandments by interpreting them literally. in some cases jewish error results from the hidden nature of the truth, which is part of god’s design. in most cases, however, it is the fault of the jews. it results from a positive effort on their part to distort the scriptures, for which they are culpable. justin lays the blame chiefly at the feet of the teachers. he claims that trypho, and by implication jews in general, have been “instructed by teachers who are ignorant of the meaning of the scriptures.”43 justin maintains, as does the epistle of barnabas, that the scriptures belong to christians, not jews, because only christians understand them.44 jewish teachers, he claims, are “incapable of understanding the truths spoken by god.”45 the charge of misunderstanding of scripture becomes crucial in the interpretation of such passages as isa 7:14. trypho claims that justin has mistranslated this verse: “the quotation is not ‘behold a virgin (parthenos) shall conceive and bear a son,’ but ‘behold a young woman (neanis) shall conceive and bear a son.’”46 trypho further maintains that the verse is a reference to the birth of hezekiah and that the prophecy was fulfilled in the birth and life of this king of judea. he charges that the christian belief in the virgin birth is very close to greek mythology, and he compares it to the birth of perseus to the virgin danae, when “zeus descended upon her in the form of a golden shower.”47 43 justin, dialogue 9. 44 see justin, dialogue 29. 45 justin, dialogue 38. 46 justin, dialogue 67. 47 justin, dialogue 67. in response justin says that the charge of inaccurate translation is a device which the jewish teachers use to discredit christian faith and to advance their own claims. “for whenever there arises in the scriptures an evident contradiction of their silly and conceited doctrine, your teachers boldly affirm that it was not so written in the original text.”48 justin claims to prove that the septuagint (lxx) translation is accurate, but his method for doing so does not include a comparison with a hebrew text, a method espoused neither by trypho nor justin.49 justin’s initial proof is to insist on the conformity of the lxx with christian faith. the sum of his argument is that isa 7:14 reads parthenos instead of neanis, because jesus was born of a virgin and this birth was anticipated by the prophet isaiah. later, he adds another proof. he observes that isaiah says that the birth of the son is to be a sign, but there is nothing extraordinary about a young woman conceiving after sexual intercourse. the integrity of the verse itself, he claims, depends on reading parthenos instead of neanis, for otherwise the sign loses its significance.50 justin is an early representative of an emerging christian tradition of denigrating literal interpretations of ot texts. he identifies such interpretation as jewish, and his method of interpretation is an implicit admission that, for many texts, literal interpretation does not produce an understanding of the underlying unity of ot and nt. he and other opponents of marcion were thus compelled to find different ways to interpret the hebrew scriptures. at the beginning of the third century tertullian is explicit in attacking marcionite and 48 justin, dialogue 68. 49 that neither disputant refers to the hebrew text probably indicates that justin did not know hebrew. 50 see justin, dialogue 84. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 196-208 tyson, “anti-judaism in marcion and his opponents” 207 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art21 jewish literalism.51 he makes a special effort to describe a non-literal method of interpretation: “so from now on i demand that our opponents acknowledge two special cases of prophetic diction. the first is that by which things future are sometimes set down as if they had already taken place.”52 “another form of speech will be that by which not a few things are set forth figuratively by means of enigmas and allegories and parables, and are to be understood otherwise than as they are written.”53 and tertullian cites the example of paul, who [i]nterprets as concerning not oxen but ourselves that law which grants an unmuzzled mouth to the oxen that tread out the corn [cf. 1 cor 9:9], and affirms that the rock that followed them to provide drink was christ [cf. 1 cor 10:4], in the same way as he instructs the galatians that the two narratives of the sons of abraham took their course as an allegory [cf. gal 4:22ff.], and advises the ephesians that that which was foretold in the beginning, that a man would leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife would become one flesh, is seen by him to refer to christ and the church [cf. eph 5:31ff.].54 for tertullian, a literal interpretation of the scriptures is to be regarded as jewish and hence deficient. 51 apparently most early christian writers thought that jewish interpretation was exclusively literal. however, jewish writings of the proto-rabbinical period were quite varied, and many make abundant use of non-literal methods of interpretation. nevertheless, the writings of tertullian and others led christians to avoid literal interpretation of the hebrew scriptures since it would support jewish and marcionite beliefs. 52 tertullian, adv. marc. 3, 5:2. 53 tertullian, adv. marc. 3, 5:3. 54 tertullian, adv. marc. 3, 5:4. 3. conclusion marcion’s predilection for a literal interpretation of the hebrew scriptures has sometimes been explained by his alleged earlier contact with jews in pontus. r. joseph hoffmann goes so far as to say that marcion himself was probably “a convert from the jewish community in pontus.”55 although there is little support for this contention, hoffmann is quite right to conclude, “there is no compelling evidence to support the judgment that marcion’s theology is antijewish in design, and the familiar view that his ‘rejection’ of the ot made him the arch-antisemite of the ancient church is uninformed.”56 marcion evidently was one of the first christians to see that efforts to ground the new faith in the old faced several problems. he certainly is the first known to us to propose a simple if draconian solution to the problems: to regard the hebrew scriptures as valid, accurate, authoritative, and divinely inspired but irrelevant for christian faith. in a sense, this solution freed marcion and allowed him to interpret these scriptures literally. he need acknowledge no obligation to see a pattern of prophecy and fulfillment that would relate christian faith to the hebrew scriptures. marcion’s opponents, however, were convinced not only that the hebrew scriptures were divinely inspired but that there was some kind of underlying unity between them and the story of jesus and the church. the author of acts maintained that the promises of the hebrew scriptures were fulfilled by jesus and the early church. he also made it clear that, for the most part, contemporary jews, because of their rejection of the gospel, were no longer heirs of the promises. beyond his use of the promise-fulfillment motif, the author of acts gave little help to his successors in interpreting the 55 hoffmann, marcion, 29. 56 hoffmann, marcion, 231. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1, (2005-2006): 196-208 tyson, “anti-judaism in marcion and his opponents” 208 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art21 hebrew scriptures. nonetheless, the belief in a basic link between the hebrew scriptures and the early christians meant that interpreters such as justin and tertullian would generally prefer non-literal interpretations. in this way they could maintain the underlying unity of ot and nt.57 the acts of the apostles posed a problem that later christians, such as justin and tertullian, would try to solve. in doing so, they would exemplify a developing tradition of anti-judaism that went far beyond marcion. their claims may be summarized as: (1) the ot belongs to christians, not jews; (2) for many ot texts, literal interpretation, as used by jews and marcionites, is inappropriate and misleading; (3) non-literal interpretation uncovers the true meaning of the ot texts and reveals its underlying unity with the nt. i do not wish to project what might have been the course of history if marcion had been victorious over his opponents. i do think, however, that it is a misreading of history to think of him as the arch-antisemite of the early church. on the contrary, marcion’s insistence on the literal interpretation of the hebrew scriptures potentially created a bond of understanding between him and jews that his opponents could not have achieved. nor did they attempt to do so. although they may have been aware of jewish interpretations, as justin exhibits, they were confident that their own non-literal interpretive methods supported christian faith, as maintained in the acts of the apostles. especially in terms of the claim that the ot belongs to christians and not to jews, we see not only the proto 57 it was not inevitable that later christians would employ non-literal interpretive strategies. the antiochenes of the third and fourth centuries were known to have emphasized the historical value and literal meaning of the hebrew scriptures, and even origen, best known for his use of allegorical interpretation, did not deny that some biblical passages had literal meanings. orthodox rejection of marcionite theology, but also an illustration of early christian supersessionism.58 in brief, the victory of proto-orthodox christianity over the marcionites was a two-edged sword. on the one hand, it secured the retention of the hebrew scriptures for christian study. on the other, it opened the way to an increasingly virulent form of anti-judaism. 58 see heikki räisänen, “marcion and the origins of christian antijudaism: a reappraisal,” in challenges to biblical interpretation: collected essays 1991-2000 (bibint 59; leiden: brill, 2001), 191-205. räisänen (200) wrote: “catholic christianity wrenched the scripture from the jews, reinterpreting it to fit its own experience. covenantal symbols were appropriated by way of spiritualizing interpretation: actual circumcision was replaced with the circumcision of the heart, observance of the law with obedience to moral commands. precisely because it was asserted that the old testament had already spoken of jesus, the continuing existence of judaism as a religion with rival claims to scripture was felt to be a threat; …” note also the conclusion reached by stephen wilson: “putting it simply, it is as if the marcionite said to the jew: ‘keep your god, your scriptures, your messiah, and your law; we consider them to be inferior, superseded in every way by the gospel.’ the catholic said: ‘we’ll take your god, your messiah, your scriptures, and some of your law; as for you, you are disinherited, cast into a limbo, and your survival serves only as a warning of the consequences of obdurate wickedness.’ i would not like to be found defending either view of judaism. …judaism is the loser in either case. whether the marcionite position, had it prevailed, would have led to the same sad consequences as the view of its opponents is hard to say. but it is worth a moment’s reflection.” (wilson, “marcion and the jews,” 58). studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review josef shatzmiller cultural exchange: jews, christians, and art in the medieval marketplace (princeton and oxford: princeton university press, 2013) merav schnitzer, tel aviv university “moments of grace” and “exciting results” were the words rightly chosen by josef shatzmiller to describe the main findings of his fascinating book, cultural exchange: jews, christians, and art in the medieval marketplace (p. 160). shatzmiller sought to uncover new avenues of cultural exchange between jews and christian in the high and late middle ages (ca. 1230 – 1450) in germany, france, england, northern italy, the iberian peninsula, and sicily. by studying the market of pawnbrokers, shatzmiller discovered a deep encounter between jews and christians. it was a sphere in which jews were willing to adopt the aesthetic values of christian society, even when those were in contrast with halakha (jewish law). shatzmiller chose to rely in his study mainly on non-jewish sources, rather than jewish (halakhic) sources, as most of his predecessors did. shatzmiller argues that for a deeper understanding of jewish everyday life scholars must expand the scope of sources they use. in his study he uses a variety of sources, including archival texts (such as legal and administrative writings in latin and vernacular languages) and material and artistic sources (such as illuminated manuscripts and ritual objects, both jewish and christian). shatzmiller describes a process of cultural assimilation in three main stages, with the market place as its first stage. the possession of christian artifacts as pawns led jews, as noted, to adopt the aesthetic values common in christian society. in the studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 10 (2015) highest point of this process, he shows that jewish and christian artists collaborated in both communities. this process has been demonstrated in three parts of the book. the first part (chapters 1-3) focuses on the marketplace and the use of pawns and pledges. numerous artifacts, including christians’ sacred objects, pieces of jewelry, and clothing were daily transferred from christians to jews. this created a daily encounter between jews and christians from all social strata, from the simplest person to kings and bishops. jewish women were active as pawnbrokers in this market. the second part (chapters 4-5) examines the way in which the holding of these objects led to a transformation of aesthetic values in jewish communities. it was reflected in jewish home decorations, garments, and manuscripts. one of the most exciting findings discussed in this part was the discovery of frescoes in the house of one of the most prominent jewish sages of the time, rabbi moshe ben menachem, from the fourteenth century. also known as moses of zurich, he authored a book of halakhic glosses on earlier works, called semak zurich. rabbi moshe’s house was decorated with coats of arms of christian nobles of his area and human figures dancing and riding on horses. in the third part (chapters 6-7), shatzmiller examines the highest point of cultural exchange, artistic collaboration between jews and christians in creating and decorating books, ritual objects, and even the interior of churches (p. 140). it seems that for medieval christians and jews in the period he studied, the quality of the artist was more important than his religion. shatzmiller succeeds in portraying the deep assimilation of a jewish minority into christian society. the picture that emerges in his study is of two communities involved in a lively and friendly interaction, based on mutual trust. christians who deposited their pledges with jews did so out of necessity, but on the whole they trusted the jewish lenders. christians deposited both everyday objects and objects of great value, such as studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr crowns belonging to dukes and kings, gold and silver chalices, sacred books, and ornamented crosses. these objects were entrusted to jews, to be returned as given. it seems that collaboration, neighborliness, and mutual appreciation — mainly among professionals — succeeded in overcoming the differences between religions. even the repeated warnings of church leaders against using ritual objects as pawns shows that the warnings were mostly ignored (p. 37). it is important to note that church leaders’ protests were mainly against jews, who feared that jews would desecrate sacred objects. (for example, jews were accused of feeding their children cookies dipped in wine that was held in chalices.) infrequently, the parties to a transaction went to court, though this was the exception that proves the rule of generally good relations (p. 159). although there were medieval scholars on both sides that opposed the holding of sacred objects, there were other scholars who found solutions to smooth out practical problems, often bending the rules of their religious communities. in germany, rabbi eliezer ben nathan (ra’avan; ca. 1090-1170) claimed that it is not necessary to see the church as a place of worship for christians, since christians, he said, are coming to church primarily for pleasure rather than for worship: “when they visited the church they did so for enjoyment, not out of devotional commitment” (p. 31). his attitude enabled jews to possess cleric’s ritual objects. shatzmiller uncovered such complexity within each community, highlighting similar gaps between ideology (dictated by some religious leaders) and everyday life. his choice to focus on a site of cultural encounter — the marketplace — and not on the lasting implications of this encounter enabled him to offer a broad and deep portrait of this encounter. he contributes to a changing perspective of jewish historiography on medieval jewry. in daily life, it studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 10 (2015) appears that jews did not feel they lived fragile lives as a religious minority in a christian society. although shatzmiller claims that other scholars, among them bezalel narkiss and colette sirat, have dealt with some of the issues he discusses, his study succeeds in painting a rich, nuanced, original, and highly readable analysis of the interactions between the two communities. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review shaul magid hasidism incarnate: hasidism, christianity, and the construction of modern judaism (stanford: stanford university press, 2014), xiii + 288 pp. arthur green, hebrew college my friend and mentor, the neo-hasidic rabbi zalman schachter-shalomi, in searching for a creative and sympathetic jewish way of understanding christianity, often referred to jesus as the rebbe from nazareth. schachter-shalomi, in thinking of christians as hasidim and devotees of a beloved wonder-working rabbi who sometimes went a bit too far (as do other hasidim) in singing his praises, was opening the door to a reconciliation between the two faiths. inspired both by frequent interaction with catholic monastic communities and an important protestant teacher (howard thurman at boston university), this onetime hasid of the lubavitcher rebbe was committed to a deep ecumenism that pushed the borders between sacred languages and faith communities, viewing all of human religion as engaged in a quest for a single truth. of course this perception of jesus as a charismatic rebbe could be shared by a liberal jew or a unitarian. god sent a new message at (what was to become) the turn of the era, one that insisted on love and forgiveness as the essence of his torah. jesus’ original band of hasidim was deeply impressed, even transformed, by that message. but once paul preached jesus to the gentiles, that little group of galilean fishermen was quickly overwhelmed by romans and others who fell in love with the messenger more than with the message, transforming him into a hellenistic deity whose body was to be regularly ingested in a new mystery rite. studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 10 (2015) in either case, the use of hasidism, an eighteenth-century jewish mystical revival movement that is still a powerful current within judaism, as a jewish doorway to understanding christianity remains intriguing. here shaul magid takes it up in a systematic way. the early modern hasidic movement is characterized by intense devotion of disciples to a spiritual master, around whom a community is formed. its theology is deeply immanentist, the presence of god being sought and joyously celebrated throughout creation, rather than exclusively in the study and fulfillment of his law. heartfelt worship and cultivation of the inner life are also characteristics of hasidism’s intense spirituality. this combination of immanence, inward quest, and devotion to the rebbe frequently led the hasidic preachers (whose writings are preserved and studied) to rather strong statements about the presence of god within the soul of each devotee, but especially within that of the rebbe, who is seen as a living embodiment of god’s presence in our midst. can this be called “incarnational” judaism? in a technical sense, it can. the divine presence is embodied in the person of the rebbe. everything he does, down to the way he ties his shoes, is to be seen as having sacramental meaning. yes, the platonic biases against the body still live on the hasidic world, such that the rebbe is seen to have the least coarsely physical of all bodies while still having a body. but even if hasidism is incarnational, surely such a designation is also a provocational act of scholarship. everyone knows that incarnation is the central teaching of christianity, and its use in a jewish context is intended to make a statement. just what statement is magid trying to make, therefore, in his hasidism incarnate? from a strictly scholarly point of view, he is trying to tell us that rigid theological categorizations are not adequate in defining the borders between traditions. for this goal, he does an admirable job in showing aspects of incarnational thinking that exist within judaism. this has ancient roots, perhaps most forcefully expressed in the midrashic comment on psalm 90:1: “moses was half man and half god,” a passage magid surprisingly does not invoke. the enoch / studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr metatron and merkavah traditions are filled with ascents to the heavens and descriptions of the elevated origins of humanity that are redolent of the doctrine of theosis in the surrounding eastern christian culture. in earthbound hasidism, which magid rightly notes was created in a cultural matrix distant from the “christian gaze,” this is often expressed in terms of divine descent into the person rather than human ascent to the heavens (p. 4). but it is most often every jewish soul, or the souls of all the righteous, that contain the divine presence, rather than a single human incarnation. yes, the rebbe is the channel of blessing to the community, surely an intercessor and even a divine / human intermediary, but is he truly a unique incarnation of god? one needs to push the point to find this, and magid does indeed push. he does this best by invoking rabbi nahman of bratslav, whose disciples thought of him as the only rebbe for the ages, and continued to revere him after his death. but nahman is well-known as an outlier within hasidic history. perhaps the most interesting part of magid’s very sophisticated argument is his final chapter, invoking the work of elliot wolfson. there he shows how in judaism the person assimilates to the word of god through the medium of torah, in which god has made himself fully present. the talmud already reads the opening word of the decalogue anokhi, “i am,” as an abbreviation meaning: “i myself wrote and gave [the torah].” this was probably first uttered in the context of ancient jewish-christian polemic. some hasidic sources read it with a different meaning: “i wrote and gave myself,” which is to say that god is verbally present in torah. the jew who engages in torah thus fully partakes of the divine self. but is it fair to call this incarnation? there is no carne here, after all, no flesh. one might coin a term like “inverbation” to characterize this jewish idea, which is widely expressed. the human body, say the kabbalists, has 613 limbs, parallel to torah’s 613 commandments. abraham discovered the torah, which is the divine presence, within himself. but he did so by looking beyond his bodily limbs into those of the spirit, seeing studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 10 (2015) naught but the letters and words of torah. so too the devotee, who is turning away from his own bodily self and entering the word. is that incarnation? i cannot but suspect, therefore, that magid has a bigger goal in mind than just that of comparative theology. in his prior book he invoked schachter-shalomi (and me, to a lesser extent) as representing what he called “post-judaism,” a religious tendency that was ready to transcend all religious barriers in the name of a universal and borderless contemporary spiritual quest. (he also dedicates this book to schachter-shalomi.) once monotheism shifts toward monism, he argued, the oneness of all being also demands the oneness of all faiths. this attempt to show that the lines between judaism and christianity are arbitrary and somewhat erasable appears to be part of magid’s larger project. while schachter-shalomi sometimes said things like that under the influence of perrenialist and integral thinking, i do not believe that was his ultimate intent. i believe it even less so when applied to the ba’al shem tov. that said, this is a challenging, always interesting, and learned book. magid has read widely and brings together periods and figures who are seldom juxtaposed. i learned a great deal from it, both about jewish perceptions of christianity in the twentieth century and about ongoing scholarly disputes around the meaning of obscure and subtle jewish mystical texts. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review yaacov ariel an unusual relationship: evangelical christians and jews (new york university press, 2013), hardcover, x + 307 pp. hillary kaell, concordia university describing evangelicals’ “unusual” relationship with jews and judaism, historian yaacov ariel notes that “in no other instance have members of one community of faith considered another group to hold a special role in the divine course of human redemption and to be their god’s first nation” (p. 245). as ariel shows, the resulting relationship can be contradictory, at times surprising, and thoroughly enthralling. he weaves together various strands of this story from the united states, england, and israel, synthesizing more than a hundred years of history in lucid and readable prose. general audiences and scholars not already familiar with evangelical-jewish relations will find an unusual relationship especially helpful. over the last ten or so years, there have been a number of studies of christian zionism and premillennial theology, including books by shalom goldman, paul merkley, stephen spector, donald m. lewis, and robert o. smith. ariel draws on this work, especially in his sections on israel, zionism, and evangelical political activism, where he does an admirable job of reiterating its main points and bringing together anglo-protestants on both sides of the atlantic. for example, the earl of shaftesbury and william blackstone, nineteenth-century proponents of zionism in england and america respectively, share the spotlight in chapter 4. ariel’s book does not challenge the current scholarship on evangelicals’ relationship to jews, but it does widen its scope by including topics often overlooked. in his discussion of early studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) christian zionists, for example, ariel includes the often overlooked spafford family, holiness christians who started jerusalem’s “american colony” in 1881. another chapter, on contemporary evangelical views of the holocaust, is especially welcome. ariel focuses on a novelistic genre epitomized by corrie ten boom’s the hiding place (1971); it seems a natural place to begin since her book is rarely mentioned in scholarship, though it is enormously popular among evangelicals. ariel’s insightful analysis contextualizes the hiding place within a discourse that solidified during the 1980s, which absolves “true” christians of guilt (viewing nazis as not christians; ariel leaves out the anti-catholic gloss such statements often imply). further—and here ariel is admirably evenhanded on a controversial issue—evangelicals have come to view the holocaust as an impetus to evangelism: the more people accept christ as their personal saviour, the less likely that humankind will perpetrate such an atrocity again (p. 169). future research would do well to build on ariel’s discussion in order to clarify how this genre of holocaust literature fits into evangelicals’ broader discourse about victimhood, including the perception of themselves as victims in “secular” america. ariel’s careful attention to protestant missions also moves this book beyond the usual accounts of christian zionism. this theme will come as no surprise to readers already familiar with ariel’s work; indeed, a fair amount of chapter 6 summarizes material from his award-winning evangelizing the chosen people (2000). the two most innovative chapters on missions (chapters six and seven) cover yiddish missionary literature and messianic judaism (“jewish evangelicals”). the yiddish sources, dating from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, comprise a wonderful archive that has all but been ignored. that said, at times ariel overstates the case, calling its production “amazing” and “remarkable” (and even as rich and creative as non-christian jewish yiddish literature [p. 126]). in fact, this output is not surprising, given the proliferation of missions to the jews in this period and the importance that protestant missionaries place on producing vernacular translations of scripture and tracts. where these sources offer studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr especially valuable insight is the role of jewish converts as translators and go-betweens. also interesting are ariel’s descriptions of the competition between different missions about which translations to promote, as well as the fact that at least some jewish scholars were aware of, and praised, the new testament translations (p. 139). ariel’s chapter on messianic judaism, mainly a review of his earlier work on the topic, builds on the key mediating role of jewish converts as missionaries, translators, and defenders of the “jewish race” against their (often) anti-semitic cocongregants. ariel’s description of messianic judaism as a movement is not especially comprehensive; rather, it reflects a particular vision put forward in the writings of its leaders. indeed, an unusual relationship is fundamentally a book about religious leaders, most of whom are men, and the ideas they espouse or the cultural products they create. it is also, despite some mention in the conclusion of mutuality and exchange, a book about christians’ views of and sometimes encounters with jews. jewish people may react and even shape the encounter to some extent. however, ariel focuses on the “beliefs, messages, language, literatures, and communities, as well as the political agendas, agencies and means, that evangelicals have created to affect the future of the jews” (p. 12, emphasis added). this focus in no way makes an unusual relationship any less compelling; it does, however, signal many avenues for future research. scjr 16, no. 1 (2021): 1-3 tim dowley defying the holocaust: ten courageous christians who supported jews (london: society for promoting christian knowledge, 2020), paperback, xv + 243 pp. rebecca carter-chand rcarter-chand@ushmm.org united states holocaust memorial museum, washington, dc 20024 * the views expressed are those of the author and do not represent those of the united states holocaust memorial museum. stories of rescue during the holocaust are compelling because they present a glimmer of goodness amongst widespread evil. often, they are employed with a didactic purpose to inspire ethical behavior. for jewish survivors in the postwar era, acknowledging rescuers was a way to reaffirm goodness in the world, something “for which it was worth surviving,” as primo levi put it. but at their worst, rescue stories can erase jewish agency, obscure jewish experience, and gloss over historical contingency, emphasizing instead the rescuers’ altruism and courage. works on “christian rescuers” can further distort the history and do a disserve to contemporary jewish-christian relations by presenting them as counterweights to the complicity of many christian institutions, communities, and individuals, as though one cancels out the other. tim dowley’s recent book defying the holocaust (from the publishing arm of the society for promoting christian knowledge) falls into this sub-genre of christian historical writing. through a narrative-driven compilation of rescue stories, the author hopes to illustrate “the diversity, courage, and determination” of the rescuers (2). unfortunately, by defining “christian” in quite narrow terms, the book misses an opportunity to add to our understanding of christianity and the holocaust. dowley begins with a brief introduction, reminding readers that the vast majority of people did not rescue jews during the holocaust, that not all rescuers were christian, and that some “christian” rescuers did not articulate “christian” reasons for their actions. he does not elaborate on christian complicity but he does stress that rescuers were the rare exception. further complicating the ethics of rescue, he writes that some christian rescuers like marion pritchard later admitted to breaking most of the ten commandments while valiantly saving jews. unfortunately, these carter-chand: tim dowley’s defying the holocaust 2 points are not elaborated upon, nor does the author engage the vast scholarly literature on rescue. instead dowley presents ten portraits of individuals whom he believes rescued jews for “explicitly christian reasons” (6). some felt a special kinship with jews or responded to biblical teachings on compassion, love, and justice. in addition to some well-known and celebrated figures like corrie ten boom and her dutch reformed network, dowley presents some lesser-known rescuers such as maria stobtsova, an aristocratic russian émigré in paris who became an orthodox nun at the age of 40. stobtsova spent the war years working with the french resistance in assisting and sheltering jews. dom bruno (born henri reynders) was a belgian benedictine monk who began the war as a military chaplain during the german invasion of belgium. after sustaining an injury, he spent the remainder of the war coordinating clandestine shelter for jewish children. other figures are well known in their home countries but may be new to english-speaking audiences. stanisława leszczyńska was a polish midwife who was arrested in 1943, along with her husband and children, for forging documents for jews. she spent two years as a prisoner and midwife in auschwitz, where she took great personal risk attempting to deliver babies safely. for these efforts she is currently an official candidate for sainthood by the catholic church. it is helpful to consider what function these stories (and similar collections) serve. one function is clearly didactic: it promotes the idea that deep personal piety will result in the moral fortitude necessary to help others in need, even at great personal risk. another unstated function is to give shape to a shared identity of devout christian rescuers, an identity that is juxtaposed not so much with other religious identities but with secular europeans and marginally-practicing christians. after all, during the holocaust most of europe was christian; over 95% of germans belonged to a christian church. but these are not the christians dowley is interested in exploring; his is a narrower category. at the same time, his definition is also broader because it is not bound by national borders, ethnic identities, denominational bodies, or ecclesiastical rank. there are clergy and laity, men and women, protestants, catholics, and orthodox from diverse parts of europe represented in this volume. the fact that it cuts across these distinctions is praiseworthy, especially given how historical writing, much to its detriment, is often done within, not across, these categories. an unexplored thread that connects most of the people profiled in this book is their support for missions to jews. many christians working in these settings fiercely opposed the antisemitism of fascists and showed empathy and solidarity with jews, but they also had connections to organizations or churches that specifically sought to convert jews to christianity. in several chapters dowley also discusses baptisms of jews, the issuance of baptismal certificates, and the instruction of jews in christian teaching and practice (which could help jews pass as christians, though this could of course serve other goals). dowley makes inferences about those jews who “genuinely wanted to become christians” (32), as well 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) as the motivations of individual clergy who undertook this work. the complexities—especially where children were concerned—are not addressed. here is where including jewish perspectives could add nuance and illumination to these stories. despite its compelling story-telling and diverse set of remarkable individuals and wartime settings, this book would have benefited from more engagement with the relevant scholarship to better explain the complicated entanglements of jews and christians in 1940s europe. the impact of yom kippur on early christianity studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): r16-17 ben ezra, impact of yom kippur on early christianity 16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art28 daniel stökl ben ezra, the impact of yom kippur on early christianity: the day of atonement from second temple to the fifth century (tübingen: mohr [siebeck], 2003), paper, xx + 445 pp. reviewed by dmitrij f. bumazhnov, university of tübingen the book is a revised doctoral dissertation and investigates the impact of yom kippur’s ritual, imagery and theology on the christian tradition in the first five centuries. although there have been numerous studies about the influence of yom kippur on various jewish and christian religious practices and beliefs, ben ezra has successfully presented not merely the history of ideas but also the development of the liturgical traditions over this period. this extensive study, which although in some sections appears like a lexicon-article, makes the work of ben ezra an indispensable starting point for further studies on the impact of yom kippur on early christianity. the first part of his book focuses on the second temple and early rabbinic evidence. discussing the description of temple ritual of yom kippur in mishnah yoma, ben ezra observes “a certain ‘individualization’ of yom kippur in the time of the second temple: private confessions were added on top of the high priest’s vicarious confession.” christian and surprisingly enough probably also pagan (e.g. juvenal) eyewitnesses shed light on “the ritual of the people” (praying, fasting, walking barefoot, dancing etc.) in the celebrations of christians (p. 70–77; 273–283), but surprisingly enough probably also pagans (e.g. juvenal, p. 69) after the destruction of the temple. as for the influence of temple ritual in jewish thought and liturgical practice, ben ezra points to allusions of the high priest’s entry into the holy of holies in descriptions of heavenly ascent in the testament of levi, 1 enoch, apocalypse of abraham philo and the hekhalot literature. he argues that this tradition is to be traced in the soteriology and eschatology of the valentinian gnostics through which it influenced the early christian mysticism of clement of alexandria. in jewish apocalyptic literature ben ezra notes the influence of the scapegoat ritual on 1 enoch 10 and 11qmelchizidek where the eschatological triumph over evil is shown with clear allusions to yom kippur, while the scapegoat appears as a personification of the demonic adversary of the lord. of great importance is the figure of melchizedek who in 11qmelchizidek is described as high priest performing a collective atonement on eschatological yom kippur. the author remarks that the apocalypse of abraham 13–14 uses the demonology of ‘az’azel, employed also in 1 enoch, combining the elements from the scapegoat ritual with zechariah 3. “it is through this association of yom kippur with zechariah 3, with its high priest joshua/jesus, that christian jewish thinkers before hebrews justified the high priesthood of the non-levite jesus.” in part two, ben ezra scrutinizes the earliest christian evidences of the reception of yom kippur in early christian writings, in gnostic writings and in early christian mysticism and legend. he suggests that yom kippur was observed by various “jewish christian groups” up to the second century, a thesis which challenges the widespread consensus about the abolition of christian participation in yom kippur because of christ accomplishing a once-and-for-all atonement. basing his thesis mainly on acts 27:9, ben ezra argues that luke, who “does not include interpretations of jesus’ death as atonement and even eliminates them from his source, mark,” did not have “one of the theological reasons to abolish” yom kippur. consequently, he observed it with his community. here ben ezra in my opinion underestimates both the possibility of “the fast” in acts 27:9 being a common reference to the time of the year rather than to observance, and to the renouncing of jewish practice in luke 23:45. review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): r16-17 ben ezra, impact of yom kippur on early christianity 17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art28 in part three, ben ezra focuses on the 3rd–5th century evidence about the christian exegesis of leviticus, christian participation in the jewish fast, and the impact of yom kippur on the autumn festivals encaenia/exaltation of the cross and the ember day of september. ben ezra cites origen, john chrysostom and the canons of apostles that admonish christians not to take part in the jewish fast. while the author is certainly right that the texts in question “provide evidence for the participation of christians in the yom kippur fast” (p. 277), his conclusion that “these three authors felt [threat] from yom kippur’s alternative atonement” needs further support. only origen speaks about it and even then the claim that origen’s (re)interpretation of leviticus 16 and 23 and use of yom kippur “as his hermeneutical key” may be due to other factors than being challenged by christian participation in the jewish festival. similarly, chrysostom’s mocking jewish “templization” of yom kippur rites does not necessarily provide a reason to understand christian “templization” of the eucharist in terms of a response to the jewish challenge, as the author suggest. in my view, the thesis that there is an “interdependence between the polemics against christian participation in the jewish fast and the development of a christian alternative … sacrificial atonement theology” requires further support. finally, ben ezra highlights the christian autumn festivals encaenia/exaltation of the cross and the ember day of september which, in his view, were influenced by the biblical description and contemporary jewish practice of yom kippur. notably in this section, there was a strong correspondence between the bible readings on the roman ember days and on yom kippur. the book gives the impression of overemphasis and overgeneralization, based on scant evidence of christian theological polemic in the 3rd–4th centuries. the central thesis of the author who argues that “christian atonement theology and its festal calendar not only emerged under the influence of yom kippur … but also continued to be developed in light of the ongoing challenge that the contemporary yom kippur posed to christians” is only convincing if restricted to the christian liturgical practices in palestine and rome in the 4th and 5th century respectively. ben ezra’s most impressive achievement lies in his meticulous collection, systematization and historical analysis of a huge amount of material on yom kippur over almost eight centuries, combined with great number of insightful observations of which only a small part could be presented here. having chosen an important and neglected area of the late antiquity religion history, ben ezra has provided an innovative and thought-provoking study which will certainly help sharpen our understanding of jewish-christian relations in this formative period. for the sake of heaven and earth: the new encounter between judaism and christianity studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): r9-10 irving greenberg, for the sake of heaven and earth r9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art23 irving greenberg, for the sake of heaven and earth: the new encounter between judaism and christianity (philadelphia: jewish publication society, 2004), paper, xiv + 274 pp. reviewed by david fox sandmel, catholic theological union & kam isaiah israel congregation, chicago irving greenberg is widely recognized as a provocative thinker and writer on a variety of subjects of great concern to the jewish community, including, but not limited to, jewishchristian relations. this volume consists of seven previously published essays as well as two written specifically for this volume.1 greenberg is sometimes described as a holocaust theologian, a term with which he himself was never comfortable, “for the category seemed to turn the shoah into the ‘god’ of the system, the source of command and obligation. as an orthodox jew, i felt totally commanded by ha-shem and embraced the entire tradition.” nonetheless, he admits “the shoah was the occasion – the adventitious, personal stimulus – but not the essential cause of the needed shift in religious thinking” (p. 29). these words come from one of greenberg’s new essays, “on the road to a new encounter between judaism and christianity: a personal journey,” which, true to its title, is both a spiritual and an intellectual autobiography, charting the evolution of his thought and the influences of personal experience, history, and the writings of others. the two scholars he credits as his most important influences are the protestant theologian reinhold niebuhr and rabbi joseph soloveitchik (p. 5). the latter, a leading orthodox authority, was wary of interreligious dialogue; his view set the standard for much of american orthodox involvement in jewish-christian relations and is still influential.2 greenberg differed with his beloved teacher on interfaith dialogue and some of greenberg’s writings, especially his views on pluralism and jesus, eventually brought him into conflict with the orthodox community and led to his “being brought up on charges of heresy and violations of orthodox disciplines before my rabbinic organization, the rabbinical council of america” (p. 33). though this process was never completed, it was clearly very painful for greenberg. the tribulations he endured may have helped pave the way for the recent increased involvement of orthodox jews in jewish-christian dialogue in north america. in the previously published essays one sees how greenberg has developed the key concepts that define his essential theological question: how are jews to make sense of major historical events? greenberg argues that there is revelation in history, as seen not only in sinai, but also in the emergence of christianity, the destruction of the second temple, the holocaust, and the creation of the state of israel. 1 in addition, there are brief responses to the book by james carroll, david novak, michael novak, mary c. boys, and krister stendhal, as well as a study guide. 2 for more on this subject, see “rabbi soloveitchik on interreligious dialogue: forty years later” (http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/center/conferences/soloveitchik/) and marshall breger, “a reassessment of rav soloveitchik’s essay on interfaith dialogue: ‘confrontation’” in this volume of studies in christian-jewish relations (http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art18). review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): r9-10 irving greenberg, for the sake of heaven and earth r10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art23 the most provocative aspect of this theology for jews, and for christians for that matter, and most relevant for this review, is the concept of covenantal pluralism and, more specifically, greenberg’s treatment of jesus. accepting at face value the reports of the followers of jesus to have experienced the risen christ, he writes “far be it for me as a jew to prescribe for christians or for god what happened in that religious experience” (p. 194). he rejects the view that pluralism is a code word for relativism: “[w]e hold on to our absolutes, however, we make room for the other’s as well” (p. 196). indeed, “[p]luralism is a profound form of imitatio dei… that must lead to partnership – my truth/faith system cannot alone fulfill god’s dream” (pp. 210211). each tradition was shaped in both positive and negative ways by the historical circumstances in which they developed. however, “judaism and christianity were jointly and severally intended to play a part in an infinite creator’s plan to perfect the world” (p. 49). greenberg’s assessment of jesus is probably the most provocative aspect of the book. he describes jesus as a “failed messiah,” a concept that, “to my regret has gone almost nowhere with jews and christians alike…” (p. 32). greenberg offers “failed messiah” as a more positive evaluation than the more common jewish view of jesus as a “false messiah.” there have been many “failed messiahs,” individuals who have helped move the world toward redemption but have not completed the task and thereby must be considered failures. however, most jews are unwilling to grant any religious significance to jesus, while christians will struggle to understand that greenberg intends “failed messiah” as an “honorific.” greenberg is aware of the challenge this poses but notes that other responsibilities have prevented him from pushing his views more aggressively in either community. post-holocaust christian theologians, in an effort to purge christianity of supersessionism have offered different ways of affirming judaism’s covenant with god and its continuing role in the unfolding of god’s plan for humanity. greenberg is among the few jews who have attempted a similar task in regard to christianity. this collection, especially with the new essays, is an important contribution to the dialogue between jews and christians. editor's introduction studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007):1-2 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers in jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college editor’s introduction audrey doetzel volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 1-2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ editor’s introduction 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007):1-2 welcome to issue two of the 2007 volume of studies in christian-jewish relations. the two feature topics of this issue mark two significant events: the centennial year of the birth of abraham joshua heschel, and the sixtieth anniversary of the 1947 seelisberg international conference on anti-semitism. several noted heschel scholars pay tribute to him as “one of the preeminent witnesses to god in the twentieth century” (merkle). their presentations highlight “his distinctive approach to religious diversity” (kasimow), his ability to associate “mystical experience and contemplative prayer with prophetic action” (o’hare), and his affirmation of “the all-embracing presence” of the one god of the sh’ma (merkle). though few today, whether jewish or christian, fail to recognize heschel’s name and contributions, as a scholar and as an activist, many have little or no awareness of “a benchmark in the history of interreligious relations” – the 1947 seelisberg address to the churches (barnett). we are grateful to the three scholars featured in this issue for sharing their research on this little-known event which spoke so eloquently to its times in the immediate aftermath of world war ii. there is no question that this international emergency conference on anti-semitism, and especially its ten theses, served as the foundation of the new relationship developing since then between christianity and judaism. christian rutishauser, sj, provides a comprehensive overview of the conference’s inception, a detailed presentation and analysis of its proceedings, and a perspective on the continuing relevance of its message sixty years later. robert ventresca introduces us to the highly regarded european thinker, jacques maritain. though unable to attend the conference, maritain contributed to its vision and proceedings through the urgent tone of his writings, a tone that was rooted in his awareness of “the place of anti-semitism in the authoritarian and racist ideologies of interwar and wartime europe.” we are also pleased to present here a rich selection of additional articles, conference proceedings, and book reviews, representing some of the best work in our field. the publication of this issue also marks a transition period in the history of this journal. at its sixth annual meeting on october 21-22, 2007, the council of centers on jewishchristian relations appointed as journal co-editors: ruth langer, associate professor of jewish studies in the theology department at boston college, and john merkle, professor of theology at the college of saint benedict and saint john’s university. the entire membership of the council of centers expresses its gratitude to the out-going co-editors, philip a. cunningham and edward d. kessler, whose creative vision and diligent enthusiasm were responsible for the quality of the first two volumes of this journal. for me, as managing editor, it was a privileged opportunity to work with two extraordinary scholars deeply committed to the field of christian-jewish studies and relations. as we welcome ruth langer and john merkle to the editorial board in the capacity of co-editors, i look forward another enriching and challenging experience, confident that the journal will continue to develop in a relevant and scholarly manner. as the new editorial team we have already chosen to recognize the sixtieth anniversary of the state of israel as the feature topic for the 2008 volume and have put out a call for papers on this theme. it is our hope that this will enable scholars on an international level to engage in an exploration of theologies of the land and/or state of israel. for more details on this call for papers, see: call for papers . editor’s introduction http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ 2 http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/scjr/2008cfp-israel.pdf 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-3 jacques kornberg the pope’s dilemma: pius xii faces atrocities and genocide in the second world war (toronto: university of toronto press, 2015), x + 405 pp. david i. kertzer david_kertzer@brown.edu brown university, providence, ri 02912 the defense of pope pius xii (1939-58) for his refusal to publicly condemn nazi germany and its allies for their mass murder of europe’s jews and for the other atrocities they committed finds a rather unorthodox champion in jacques kornberg. taking advantage of the large scholarly literature on the topic, in the pope’s dilemma kornberg systematically examines the pope’s actions during the second world war, placing them in the context of then prevailing catholic theology and papal precedent. on the one hand, he deems the pope a “moral failure” for having adopted a policy of “calculated acquiescence” to nazism. yet, at the same time, he argues that pius xii, like his most recent predecessors, fulfilled his role as pope “in exemplary fashion” (p. 5). kornberg begins the book by examining the precipitous fall in pius xii’s reputation. he links this to rolf hochhuth’s play, “the deputy,” which opened in berlin in 1963, with its charge that the pope knew of the slaughter of europe’s jews but failed to speak out against it. the resulting storm of criticism over pius xii’s papacy came, not coincidentally, as the catholic church was being transformed by john xxiii’s papacy and the second vatican council. to many, pius came to incarnate a medieval church mired in antisemitism and authoritarianism. even after the war, pius never spoke out against antisemitism or acknowledged any church responsibility for the demonization of the jews. his continual selfcongratulations for his self-described heroic efforts in rescuing jews further fed critical views of the wartime pope. in the following chapters, kornberg reviews the evidence not only of pius xii’s wartime behavior, but also of how his two immediate predecessors handled major wartime human rights abuses. he finds that benedict xv (1914-22) failed to condemn either german atrocities against belgians during the first world war or the turkish genocide against armenians. likewise, he points out that while pius xi (1922-39) opposed mussolini’s war in ethiopia, he refused to publicly condemn it once it had begun. from these precedents, he concludes that “papal kertzer: jacques kornberg’s the pope’s dilemma 2 responses to twentieth-century atrocities followed an unvarying pattern” (p. 220). in kornberg’s view, pius xii’s guiding principle, like that of his predecessors, was to avoid condemning catholics for committing war crimes “so as not to alienate them from the church” (p. 235). while kornberg defends pius xii from some of his harshest critics, he gives no comfort to the pope’s most ardent defenders. he demolishes the commonly heard argument that pius xii kept quiet about the unfolding mass murder of europe’s jews out of concern that he would make matters worse for them by speaking out. among the arguments he shreds by a look at the historical evidence is the claim that the case of the nazi deportation of the dutch jews showed that any protests by the pope would be counterproductive. as kornberg argues, pius xii stood by the view even after the war that “german catholics were untarnished by national socialism” and that, indeed, germany’s catholics had “stood firm and resisted the nazis” (p. 26). what most worried him during the war was not the slaughter of europe’s jews but the possibility that if he were to do anything to denounce publicly the genocide he would risk losing the loyalty to the church of catholics who supported the nazis and took part in their crimes. devoting a chapter to poland, where not only jews but many priests and bishops were murdered, kornberg concluded that for pius xii, “it turned out that it was easier … to appease catholics engaged in war crimes by publicly saying nothing, than [to speak up for] catholic victims of war crimes, who demanded he say something” (p. 142). pius xii became expert at expressing lofty sentiments in a sufficiently abstruse way to permit him to deny his comments were aimed as criticism of anyone in particular. the pope, as kornberg rightly states, had no sympathy for nazism. in dealing with hitler, kornberg argues, he was following in his predecessors’ footsteps. all felt more comfortable with authoritarian regimes than with parliamentary democracies and were willing to make deals with any regime in order to win freedoms for the church. here he cites leo xiii (1878-1903) and his dealings with the french republic as an example. kornberg maintains that pius xii should not be judged by human rights principles that influenced catholic thought only after the pope’s death. “the retreat of pope pius xii before radical evil had deep roots in catholic doctrines,” kornberg insists (p. 265). indeed, he argues that pius xii should be judged a success as a pope, “for he steered the roman church intact though stormy seas.” however, kornberg points out that this does not mean accepting the claim, made first by the pope himself, that he merited praise as a moral authority. here, kornberg argues, “an immense gap existed between his claims and reality” (pp. 297-98). the pope’s dilemma offers a useful guide through the enormous literature on pius xii and the second world war published in english, french, and german, as well as a provocative thesis regarding how the pope’s behavior should be judged. a failure to use italian sources—given that this was pius xii’s language and the language of almost all vatican diplomatic correspondence—means that there is likely much to be learned in pursuing kornberg’s aim of penetrating the pope’s mind. yet, for this reviewer, by clearing the ground of baseless claims 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) about the pope, kornberg has helped clarify the highly consequential historical and moral issues at stake in evaluating this controversial pontiff. the church struggle and the confessing church: an introduction to bonhoeffer's context studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):1-20 hockenos, “the church struggle and the confessional church” 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art1 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college “the church struggle and the confessing church: an introduction to bonhoeffer’s context” matthew d. hockenos skidmore college 2/1 (2007): 1-20 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art1 author’s note: significant portions of this essay draw on the introduction and chapter 1 of my book, a church divided: german protestants confront the nazi past (bloomington: indiana university press, 2004). studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):1-20 hockenos, “the church struggle and the confessional church” 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art1 in a recent review of the seventeen-volume dietrich bonhoeffer werke, edited by eberhard bethge and others, church historian andrew chandler writes, “for in the socalled church struggle, bonhoeffer was a striking but marginal figure. he was young, he could not often persuade his elders toward more decisive opinions and measures, he did not much affect events. . . . historians have certainly not found bonhoeffer standing at the heart of the circles of resistance with which he became associated after 1939.”1 and victoria barnett writes in an essay addressing bonhoeffer’s ecumenical vision that “[bonhoeffer’s] controversial stands prevented him from ever becoming a central figure in the confessing church. although he was enormously loved and respected by his students, the rest of the church disregarded him. many confessing christians never heard of bonhoeffer until after 1945.”2 my own research on the confessing church during and after the nazi period confirms these observations. even in the immediate postwar period when confessing churchmen were safely ensconced in the leadership body of the church, some continued to be dismissive of bonhoeffer’s overt political resistance during the nazi period and did not believe that they could learn anything from him. the lutheran bishop of bavaria, hans mesier, for instance, chose not to take part in a 1953 memorial service for bonhoeffer in flossenbürg, bavaria -where the nazis had executed bonhoeffer -on the grounds that bonhoeffer was a political martyr–not a church martyr.3 1 andrew chandler, “the quest for the historical dietrich bonhoeffer,” journal of ecclesiastical history 54/1 (january 2003): 92-93. 2 victoria j. barnett, “dietrich bonhoeffer’s ecumenical vision” the christian century 112/14 (april 26, 1995): 455. 3 renate wind, “a spoke in the wheel: dietrich bonhoeffer and his development into political resistance” (lecture delivered at the graduate theological union, berkeley, california, march 31, 2003). bonhoeffer’s striking albeit marginal role in the german church struggle and his inability to affect significantly the direction of the confessing church was due to many factors, including his young age, his liberal-democratic politics, his absence from germany from october 1933 to april 1935, his vacillating and at times contradictory positions on central issues, his radical theological critique of the nazi state, his friendship with and family ties to christians of jewish descent, and ultimately his willingness to risk his life to destroy hitler’s regime. although this essay is not a detailed study of bonhoeffer’s politics or theology but rather an introduction to “the church struggle” and the various ways that protestant church leaders, pastors, and theologians responded to the policies of the national socialist regime, it does attempt to compare at key moments positions taken by important figures and groups in the confessing church with bonhoeffer’s position on these issues. 1. religious background in 1933, approximately forty-one million germans were officially registered as evangelical (protestant) and twentyone million as catholic from a total population of sixty-five million.4 in contrast to the roman catholic church where the pope played the central role, the german evangelical church (deutsche evangelische kirche, dek) had no single leader and was by no means monolithic. it was not a unified church in the doctrinal sense but rather a federation of independent regional churches (landeskirchen). during the period of the church struggle the evangelical church in germany consisted of twenty-eight autonomous regional churches, which included lutheran, reformed, and united denominations or traditions. 4 statistisches jahrbuch für das deutsche reich (berlin: r. hobbing, 1934), 5-6. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):1-20 hockenos, “the church struggle and the confessional church” 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art1 the lutheran regional churches embraced nearly one half of the protestants and the united regional churches the other half. the united churches, the largest of which was bonhoeffer’s church, the church of the old prussian union, were shaped predominately by lutheran practices and traditions even though they were administered since 1817 as a union of lutheran and reformed.5 the two small reformed regional churches in northwestern germany consisted of four hundred thousand and five hundred thousand parishioners, respectively. less than 1 percent of the total german population was jewish.6 the national socialist revolution in 1933 further exacerbated the divisions among protestants. unlike the catholic church, which signed a concordat with the nazis in 1933, the protestants split into essentially three groups – the ultra-nationalist, antisemitic, and pro-nazi german christian movement; the somewhat oppositional confessing church; 5 the most important administrative union of lutheran and reformed churches took place in prussia in 1817 during the reign of frederick william iii. in addition to the influence of pietism and the enlightenment, the napoleonic consolidation of the approximately 300 german principalities into 30 states with corresponding regional churches contributed to the development of union churches. napoleon’s territorial consolidations brought lutheran subjects under the rule of reformed leaders and reformed subjects under the rule of lutheran leaders. the easiest solution seemed to be the creation of united churches. lutheran confessionalism was too strong elsewhere, especially in bavaria, saxony, and hanover, for unions to take place. see robert m. bigler, the politics of german protestantism: the rise of the protestant church elite in prussia, 1815-1848 (berkeley: univ. of california press, 1972), 37; daniel r. borg, the old-prussian church and the weimar republic: a study in political adjustment, 1917-1927 (hanover, nh: university press of new england, 1984), chap. 1; and eckhard lessing, zwischen bekenntnis und volkskirche: der theologische weg der evangelischen kirche der altpreuβischen union (1922-1953) unter besonderer berücksichtigung ihrer synoden, ihrer gruppen und der theologischen begründungen (bielefeld: luther-verlag, 1992). 6 statistisches jahrbuch für das deutsche reich , 5-6. and the uncommitted neutrals. each of these groups enjoyed support from clergy and laity from all three protestant traditions (lutheran, united, and reformed). of the eighteen thousand protestant pastors in germany, less than one-third were adherents of the german christian movement.7 although the number of pastors who joined the confessing church reached just over seven thousand in january 1934, for most of the period of the church struggle from 1933 to 1945 the number was less than five thousand.8 unfortunately, there are no reliable figures on how many laypersons belonged to the confessing church. approximately 80 percent of the laity were in the middle, subscribing to neither the beliefs of the german christians nor the confessing church. and to complicate matters even further, the intensely antisemitic german christians were divided amongst themselves, as were the pastors in the confessing church. 2. the church struggle the church struggle involved three interwoven dimensions: first, the struggle between the confessing church and the german christian movement for control of the protestant church; second, the struggle between the confessing church and the nazi state over spheres of influence; and third, the conflict within the confessing church between the conservative and radical wings over the nature of the church’s opposition to the german christians and the nazi state.9 7 doris bergen, twisted cross: the german christian movement in the third reich (chapel hill: university of north carolina press, 1996), 178. 8 ernst helmreich, the german churches under hitler: background, struggle, and epilogue (detroit: wayne state univ. press, 1979), 156. 9 willem visser’t hooft, the first general secretary of the world council of churches (wcc), presented a similar interpretation of the church studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):1-20 hockenos, “the church struggle and the confessional church” 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art1 the first dimension of the church struggle was a defensive battle waged by established church authorities such as bishops otto dibelius, hans meiser and theophil wurm and pastor martin niemöller, who grouped together loosely in the confessing church to oppose the ultranationalist pro-nazi german christians.10 the german struggle immediately after the war in “the situation of the protestant church in germany,” gerhard besier, jörg thierfelder, ralf tyra, eds., kirche nach der kapitulation: die allianz zwischen genf, stuttgart und bethel, vol. 1, (stuttgart: w. kohlhammer, 1989), 58-59. for discussions of the concept of the church struggle (kirchenkampf) see, georg kretschmar, “die auseinandersetzung der bekennenden kirche mit den deutschen christen,” in paul rieger and johannes strauss, eds., kirche und nationalismus: zur geschichte des kirchenkampfes (munich: claudius, 1969), 117-21 and klaus scholder, “the church struggle,” in a requiem for hitler and other new perspectives on the german church struggle (london: scm press, 1989), 94-95. 10 there are several excellent studies on the church struggle in english. john s. conway, the nazi persecution of the churches, 1933-45 (new york: basic books, 1968); franklin h. littell and hubert g. locke, eds., the german church struggle and the holocaust (detroit: wayne state university press, 1974); ernst christian helmreich, the german churches under hitler: background, struggle, and epilogue (detroit: wayne state university press, 1979); klaus scholder, the churches and the third reich, vol. 1, preliminary history and the time of illusions, 1918-1934, vol. 2, the year of disillusionment: 1934. barmen and rome, trans. john bowden (philadelphia: fortress, 1987-88); robert p. ericksen, theologians under hitler: gerhard kittel, paul althaus, and emanuel hirsch (new haven: yale university, 1985); doris bergen, twisted cross: the german christian movement in the third reich (chapel hill: univ. of north carolina press, 1996); and robert p. ericksen and susannah heschel eds., betrayal: german churches and the holocaust (minneapolis: fortress press, 1999). in german the literature is voluminous. see the third volume of scholder’s series by gerhard besier, die kirchen und das dritte reich: spaltungen und abwehrkämpfe 1934-1937 (berlin: propyläen, 2001); kurt meier, der evangelische kirchenkampf, vol. 1, der kampf um die “reichskirche,” vol. 2, geschichte neuordnungsversuche im zeichen staatlicher rechtshilfe, vol. 3, im zeichen des zweiten weltkrieges (göttingen: vandenhoeck and ruprecht, 1976-1984); günther van norden, der deutsche protestantismus im jahr der nationalsozialistischen machtergreifung (gütersloh: gütersloher verlagshaus mohn, 1979); christians sought to incorporate the twenty-eight protestant regional churches into a united german evangelical reich church headed by a reich bishop with close ties to hitler. their goal to integrate christianity and national socialism in a racially pure “people’s church” was a direct challenge not only to the autonomy of the regional churches but to lutheran and reformed doctrinal principles as well. thus, in addition to the ecclesiastical dimension of this conflict over who would control the churches administratively, the german christians and confessing church clergy were often tenacious theological antagonists as well. although there were clear and definite distinctions between the theology of the german christians and that of the confessing church, these distinctions should not overshadow the similarities between the mainstream protestant theology adhered to by many confessing clergy and german christian theology. in fact, the nationalism, antisemitism, and anti-communism at the heart of the german christian movement were widely accepted and defended by reputable theologians in university faculties across germany.11 kurt meier, die deutschen christen: das bild einer bewegung im kirchenkampf des dritten reiches (göttingen: vandenhoeck and ruprecht, 1964); günther van norden, der deutsche protestantismus im jahr der nationalsozialistischen machtergreifung (gütersloh: gütersloher verlagshaus mohn, 1979); armin boyens, kirchenkampf und ökumene, 1933-1939: darstellung und dokumentation (munich: christian kaiser, 1969); eberhard röhm and jörg thierfelder, juden, christen, deutsche 1933-45, vol.1, 1933-35, vol. 2, 1935-38, vol. 3, 1938-41 (stuttgart: calwer, 1990-95); manfred gailus, protestantismus und nationalismus. studien zur nationalsozialistischen durchdringung des protestantischen sozialmilieus in berlin (cologne: böhlau, 2001). 11 see leonore siegele-wenschkewitz, “new testament scholarship and the nazi-state: christian responsibility and guilt in the holocaust,” in remembering for the future, vol. 3, ed. yehuda bauer et. al. (new york: pergamon press, 1989), 2717-2727 and her early groundstudies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):1-20 hockenos, “the church struggle and the confessional church” 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art1 a year after hitler came to power the german christians had achieved many of their goals. through a combination of elections and strong-arm tactics they had successfully gained control of all but three of the regional churches, namely those in wurttemberg, bavaria, and hannover.12 established church leaders, who were removed from leadership positions in these regional churches, referred to german christian-controlled churches as “destroyed churches.”13 the lutheran churches in the south and hanover that remained in the hands of the old leadership were thus designated “intact churches.” immediately after gaining control of the destroyed churches, the german christians passed racial legislation, the infamous aryan paragraph, which sought to exclude christians of jewish descent from holding positions in the church.14 german christians as well as many confessing churchmen, in contrast to bonhoeffer, considered christians of jewish breaking book, neutestamentliche wissenschaft vor der judenfrage: gerhard kittels theologische arbeit im wandel deutscher geschichte (munich: kaiser, 1980); also see the collection of essays on various theology faculties edited by leonore siegele-wenschkewitz and carsten nicolaisen, theologische fakultäten im nationalsozialismus (göttingen: vandenhoeck and ruprecht, 1993); the standard in english is ericksen, theologians under hitler. 12 although german christians would continue to hold the reins of power in all but these three churches until 1945, by the end of 1934 the nazi state had begun to withdraw much of its initial support for the movement because of the german christians’ incompetence at subduing opposition from the confessing church. nevertheless german christian pastors remained committed to a racially pure church that synthesized nazi ideology and protestant theology. see bergen, twisted cross, 15-20. 13 klaus scholder, the churches and the third reich, vol. i, 550. 14 ibid, 471. descent, “non-aryans” according to nazi racial legislation, a “grave danger” to the church and german culture.15 the second dimension to the church struggle was the conflict between the confessing church and the nazi state. this conflict is often erroneously conceived as the primary (even the only) struggle.16 it is imperative to understand the church’s opposition to the state for what it really was: occasional critiques by a small group of churchmen against particular state policies, such as the nazi euthanasia program and nazi church policy. bonhoeffer’s early and total opposition to the nazi state made him unpopular with many confessing churchmen. when adolf hitler came to power in january 1933 protestant churchmen across the country shared in the general enthusiasm for his nationalist, anticommunist, and antisemitic rhetoric. the experience of the weimar republic (1918–1933) for most protestant churchmen convinced them of a need for strong national leadership and moral renewal – two prominent platforms in hitler’s campaign. protestant bishops, pastors, and church officials made up a particularly important segment of the group of conservative elites who willingly compromised with hitler when he first came to power.17 in addition to the political support of church leaders, 15 the ninth thesis of the german christian’s guiding principles criticized missions to convert jews to christianity because conversion allowed “alien blood” into the body of the nation. on the confessing church and jewish christians see gerlach, 11-86; gutteridge, 91-151; röhm and thierfelder, juden, christen, deutsche 1933-45, vol. 1, and smid, deutscher protestantismus und judentum 1932/1933, parts vi and vii. 16 friedrich baumgärtel discusses this misinterpretation of the church struggle in wider die kirchenkampf-legenden (neudettelsau: frieimund, 1959) as does conway, the nazi persecution, xvii-xviii. 17 shelley baranowski, “consent and dissent: the confessing church and conservative opposition to national socialism,” the journal of modern history 59 (march 1987): 53-78. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):1-20 hockenos, “the church struggle and the confessional church” 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art1 the prestigious lutheran theologians paul althaus, werner elert, friedrich gogarten, gerhard kittel, and emanuel hirsch lent theological justification to the national socialist revolution.18 thus, alongside far less reputable churchmen in the ultra-nationalist and fanatically antisemitic german christian movement, respectable and influential authorities in the church also applauded the national socialist government. most protestants found nothing incompatible with practicing their faith and supporting hitler. protestant leaders admired hitler’s courage in attacking atheistic leftists and liberals and believed his goals were similar to theirs. even when hitler backed the german christians in the july 1933 church elections and championed their leader, ludwig müller, as the new reich bishop, only a small segment of regional church leaders drew the obvious conclusion that hitler would not let them decide the church’s future, especially when they envisioned a future of strong, independent, and confessionally defined regional churches.19 even after a year of state interference in church 18 see robert p. ericksen, theologians under hitler: gerhard kittel, paul althaus and emmanuel hirsch (new haven: yale university press, 1985); hans tiefel, “the german lutheran church,” 326-37; and lowell c. greene, “the political ethos of luther and lutheranism: a reply to the polemics of hans tiefel,” the lutheran quarterly 26, no. 3 (august 1974): 330-35. 19 for an analysis of ludwig müller’s career see, thomas martin schneider, reichsbischof ludwig müller: eine untersuchung zu leben, werk und persönlichkeit (göttingen: vandenhoeck and ruprecht, 1993). friedrich von bodelschwingh, the conservatives’ candidate for reich bishop, had defeated müller in the church elections in may 1933. but bodelschwingh resigned after serving only one month, on the grounds that he could no longer carry out his tasks when virtually the entire prussian church was under police jurisdiction. as a result of bodelschwingh’s resignation parish elections were held to elect regional and national synods, which in turn would elect a new reich bishop. in the decisive parish elections of july 23, 1933 the german christians, affairs, the majority of churchmen continued to harbor the illusion that hitler was simply misinformed and misled by bishop müller, his church liaison.20 consequently, in 1933 and 1934 there was little evidence of a church–state struggle. church elites directed the bulk of their wrath at the german christians who sought to modify church doctrine in accordance with national socialism and its racial policies. the final dimension of the church struggle was the intense feuding within the confessing church itself, between its radical and conservative wings, which became visible in 1934. whereas the radicals, led by pastor martin niemöller of berlin-dahlem, took a firm stand against the germans christians, the conservatives, especially in the south german churches, showed a willingness to work alongside the more reputable churchmen in the german christian movement. the radicals in the confessing church, it is important to note, were not socially or politically radical; in political and social matters they differed very little from the conservatives, most of whom had supported one of the right-wing political parties in weimar elections. in the context of the persecution now with the active support of the nazi state and party, gained control of all but three of the regional churches. in north germany and much of prussia the association of the german christians with the nazis increased their popularity and helped them win spectacular victories. afterwards, the first national synod elected ludwig müller reich bishop to the cheers of a number of delegates wearing their brown sa uniforms. see shelley baranowski, “the 1933 german protestant church elections: machtpolitik or accommodation,” church history 49 (1980): 298-315. 20 it was a common phenomenon, as ian kershaw shows, for germans to heap blame on hitler’s subordinates and the “fanatics” in the nazi party while maintaining a myth of hitler as an exemplary and virtuous leader. see ian kershaw, the “hitler myth”: image and reality in the third reich (oxford: oxford univ. press, 1987). studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):1-20 hockenos, “the church struggle and the confessional church” 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art1 of the churches by the nazi state, their opposition to hitler’s church policy, however, was decidedly radical. the central issue underlying the struggle between radicals and conservatives during the nazi era was whether the confessing church’s opposition to attempts to incorporate the church into the third reich by force necessarily involved wider opposition to the nazi state. some pastors and church leaders in the niemöller wing of the confessing church believed that it was necessary to publicly protest state laws and decrees that interfered with the church’s control over its administrative, financial, legal, and pastoral offices. state policies that undermined civil liberties but were not directly harmful to the church elicited few condemnations from the pulpit. the same was true of state-orchestrated violence against those perceived to be enemies of the regime, particularly communists and jews. bonhoeffer, to be sure, stood out among these colleagues for his opposition to hitler and nazism from the very start. but his opposition remained undeveloped and restrained until after kristallnacht and the outbreak of the war. moreover, bonhoeffer’s eighteen-month stay in london from late 1933 to early 1935 and his directorship of the illegal seminary in pomerania from 1935 to 1937 meant that he had little influence on the direction of the confessing church. the limited steps he and a few others in the confessing church took prior to 1939 toward political disobedience led to bitter quarrels within the ranks of the confessing church. the rift became so great that no concerted or unified stance was ever possible against the nazi state.21 21 eberhard bethge, “troubled self-interpretation and uncertain reception in the church struggle,” in the german church struggle, ed. littell and locke, 172-75. although there was a political dimension to the divisions in the confessing church, differences in politics were not paramount especially early in the church struggle. the split that first became evident in the confessing church in 1934 was chiefly theological or doctrinal, between lutherans who emphasized different tenets of lutheranism. with the exception of swiss calvinist theologian karl barth and a few german reformed church leaders, the vast majority of confessing church leaders were lutherans who accepted and subscribed in varying degrees to the christian doctrines originating from martin luther and taught by the lutheran church. bonhoeffer’s liberal–democratic leanings as well as his rejection of the orthodox lutheran understanding of church–state relations placed him outside mainstream protestantism and even in opposition to many of his colleagues in the confessing church. most of the leaders of the confessing church were born in the last three decades of the nineteenth century and many were the sons of pastors or raised in traditional protestant households. they experienced the third reich as mature adults. at the beginning of the war in 1939 they were middleaged and well established as theologians or church leaders. theophil wurm (1868–1953), the conservative lutheran bishop of württemberg in southwest germany, was older; he was seventy when the war began. hans meiser (1881– 1956), the arch-conservative bishop of bavaria, and otto dibelius (1880–1967), the postwar bishop of berlinbrandenburg, were both in their late-fifties. martin niemöller (1892–1984), the fiery berlin pastor who spent 1937–45 in concentration camps for his opposition to nazi church policy was in his late forties. the lutherans hans asmussen (1898–1968), hermann diem (1900–1975), hans iwand (1899–1960), walter künneth (1901–1997), and hanns lilje (1899–1977), all of whom engaged vociferously in the debates over church-state relations, were in their thirties when the nazis came to power and between forty-four and studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):1-20 hockenos, “the church struggle and the confessional church” 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art1 forty-seven when the war ended. karl barth (1886–1968), the controversial swiss reformed (calvinist) theologian who clashed frequently with conservatives, was fifty-three in 1939. dietrich bonhoeffer (1906–45), by contrast, was in his late twenties when the nazis came to power and was killed in 1945 before his fortieth birthday. he came from a large, wealthy, and politically liberal family of scholars, scientists, and lawyers. both his best friend and brother-in-law were christians of jewish descent. the birth of the church opposition movement came from these traditional church leaders who were appalled by the german christians’ energetic overthrow of the familiar landmarks of church life. established church leaders, who suddenly found themselves removed from their positions in the regional churches, were naturally upset by the german christians’ actions. the opposition sought to preserve traditional patterns in such matters as voting rights in church elections, the leadership principle within the church, the degree of autonomy allotted to the regional churches, the appointment of church officials, and, the use of church funds. they sought to preserve their former theological and church political positions unchanged and to block any further extension of the german christians’ takeover of church life. 3. the young reformers and the aryan paragraph prior to the establishment of the confessing church, a group of churchmen calling themselves the young reformation movement took a stand against the german christian desire to introduce racial legislation in the churches.22 bonhoeffer took the lead in formulating the theological opposition to this legislation. he and other young reformers wanted to distinguish themselves theologically 22 see peter neumann, die jungreformatorische bewegung (göttingen, 1971), 108-14. from both the german christians and established conservative church leaders. in early april 1933 the nazi state passed a law, the civil service reconstruction law that purged most jews – “non-aryans” according to the legislation – from the civil service. this legislation made no distinction between jews who had converted to christianity and jews who had not. since there were christians of jewish descent in the protestant churches, a tiny fraction of whom (twenty-nine to be exact) were ordained pastors or held ecclesiastical offices and were therefore considered part of the civil service, the question arose of how the church would act towards them.23 not surprisingly the german christians favored adopting the state’s racial legislation and officially excluding “non-aryans” from the pulpits and unofficially from the pews. the young reformers, on the other hand, outright rejected any legislation that would exclude christians of jewish descent from the church. it was however symptomatic of their ambivalence toward nazism that, on the vital question of the place of jews in german society, they compromised.24 first appearances notwithstanding, the young reformers’ rejection of racial legislation in the church, was not a sign of their resolve to oppose antisemitism but rather of their vexation at the german christians’ arrogance for thinking they could willynilly disregard the sacrament of baptism and modify the church’s established policy toward baptized jews in order to accommodate their vision of a racially pure church.25 the 23 kurt meier, kirche und judentum: die haltung der evangelischen kirche zur judenpolitik des dritten reiches (göttingen: vandenhoeck and ruprecht, 1968), 26. 24 an excellent source on attitudes toward the “jewish question” held by prominent protestant church leaders and theologians in 1932 and 1933 is smid, deutscher protestantismus und judentum 1932/1933 (munich: kaiser, 1990). 25 there were exceptions in the church, such as dietrich bonhoeffer. see his “the church and the jewish question,” in edwin h. robertson, ed., studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):1-20 hockenos, “the church struggle and the confessional church” 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art1 young reformers charged that, “organized exclusion [of jewish christians] means an interference with the power of the sacraments. the jewish christian has been accepted into our church through the will of god in the sacrament of baptism. through this baptism he is bound indissoluble to this church, and this church to him.”26 as this quotation indicates, their concern for the integrity of the church’s autonomy rather than humanitarian sympathy for the victims of nazi racial discrimination motivated the young reformers’ protest. confessing churchmen said virtually nothing about the nazi mistreatment of jewish germans who had not converted to christianity. nor did the discrimination against the approximately fifty thousand jewish christians in the secular sphere receive strong condemnation.27 how deeply influenced the young reformers, and later the confessing church clergy, were by anti-judaic christian doctrine and the existing currents of anti-jewish prejudice in german society can be seen from the attitudes of two of their most prominent theologians.28 walter künneth, one of the founders of the young reformation movement and theologian at berlin university, referred to jews as “the people of the curse” and “germ carriers,” and supported “the no rusty swords: letters, lectures and notes 1928-1936, (new york: harper and row, 1965), 221-29. on martin niemöller and antisemitism see robert michael, “theological myth, german antisemitism and the holocaust: the case of martin niemöller,” holocaust and genocide studies 2/1 (1987): 105-22. 26 douglass, god among the germans, 133. 27 the figure fifty thousand is an estimate by julius richter, a missionary and advocate for christians of jewish descent. approximately 200-400 jews converted to protestantism each year from 1900 to 1939, except in 1933 when over 900 jews converted to protestantism. see röhm and thierfelder, juden, christen, deutsche, 192-99. 28 see gerlach, and the witnesses, 11-49. elimination of jewish influence” from germany.29 he defended the right of baptized jews to hold the positions of pastor and church administrator but “the post of bishop and other positions of leadership in the church should be reserved for those of the german race.”30 the young reformers distinction between jews and jewish christians, their acceptance of the aryan paragraph in the secular sphere, and their lukewarm defense of jewish christians within the church were early signs that jews, whether baptized or not, could not count on the church to protect them. another revealing response to this issue was the stance taken by the twenty-seven-year-old bonhoeffer. while he was the most adamant about defending baptized jews against racial legislation imposed by the church, his highly acclaimed april 1933 “the church and the jewish question,” employed traditional anti-judaic language typical of the lutheran churches.31 bonhoeffer was not antisemitic. he did, however, hope for the conversion of jews to christianity since he believed that only through faith in jesus as the messiah was salvation possible. it is worth quoting from bonhoeffer’s text at some length to demonstrate just how deeply ingrained his anti-judaic thinking was: 29 quoted in ruth zerner, “german protestant responses to the nazi persecution of the jews,” in perspectives on the holocaust, ed. randolph l. braham, (boston: kluwer-nijhoff publishing, 1983), 62-63 from künneth’s essay, “the jewish problem and the church” in die nation vor gott: zur botschaft der kirche im dritten reich, ed. walter künneth and helmut schreiner (berlin: wichern, 1934). for further discussion of this essay see röhm and thierfelder, juden, christen, deutsche 1933-1945, vol. 1, 155-59 and smid, deutscher protestantismus und judentum 1932/1933, 364-9. 30 zerner, “german protestant responses,” 62. 31 “the church and the jewish question,” in robertson, no rusty swords, 221-29. also see röhm and thierfelder, juden, christen, deutsche 1935-45, vol. 1, 174-81. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):1-20 hockenos, “the church struggle and the confessional church” 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art1 the church of christ has never lost sight of the thought that the “chosen people” who nailed the redeemer of the world to the cross must bear the curse for its action through a long history of suffering. ... but the history of the suffering of this people, loved and punished by god, stands under the sign of the final homecoming of israel [the jews] to its god. and this homecoming happens in the conversion of israel to christ. ... the conversion of israel, that is to be the end of the people’s period of suffering. from here the christian church sees the history of the people of israel with trembling as god’s own, free, fearful way with his people, because god is not yet finished with it. each new attempt to solve “the jewish question” comes to naught … nevertheless such attempts must be made.32 despite his theological anti-judaism, bonhoeffer distinguished himself from many of his colleagues by opposing implementation of racial legislation in the church and arguing that christians had a responsibility to show christian kindness and charity to all jews by assisting those who suffered as a result of the state’s racial legislation.33 32 robertson, no rusty swords, 226-227. 33 on bonheoffer’s understanding of a christian’s obligation to jews see: röhm and thierfelder. juden, christen, deutsche 1933-45, vol. 1, 1748; gerlach, and the witnesses, 25-30; eberhard bethge, dietrich bonhoeffer: a biography, rev. and ed. victoria j. barnett (minneapolis: fortress press, 1999), 304-23; eberhard bethge, “dietrich bonhoeffer and the jews,” in ethical responsibility: bonhoeffer’s legacy to the churches, ed. john d. godsey and geoffrey b. kelly (new york: edwin mellen press, 1981); smid, 415-56; ruth zerner, “dietrich bonhoeffer and the jews: thoughts and actions, 1933-1945,” jewish social studies 37 (summer and fall, 1975): 235-250; stanley r. rosenbaum, “dietrich bonhoeffer: a jewish view,” journal of ecumenical studies 18 (spring 1981); kenneth c. barnes, “dietrich bonheoffer and hitler’s persecution of the jews,” in betrayal, ed. ericksen and heschel, 11028; robert e. willis, “bonhoeffer and barth on jewish suffering: reflections on the relationship between theology and moral “the church,” bonhoffer declared, “cannot allow its actions towards its members to be prescribed by the state. the baptized jew is a member of our church. thus the jewish problem is not the same for the church as it is for the state.”34 however, based on his understanding of the gospel and his lutheran understanding of the church-state relationship bonhoeffer did not advocate, at that time, direct political action against the state on behalf of jews or jewishchristians. while it is clear that his priorities – like most of his colleagues in the confessing church – were first and foremost the reclamation of the church from the pernicious secular forces attacking it, he had an additional motive in writing “the church and the jewish question” that distinguished his position from many in the opposition. he suggests that the nazi state is an illegitimate state because it is remiss in its duty to maintain law and order.35 as a good lutheran bonheoffer acknowledged that in a world where christians and non-christians alike fail to live according to the gospel in “chaotic godlessness,” that the state, independent of the church, has the right to take action and use force to maintain order.36 he asserts that the church “recognizes the absolute necessity of the use of force in this world and also the ‘moral’ injustice of certain concrete acts of the state which are necessarily bound up with the use of sensibility,” journal of ecumenical studies 24/4 (fall 1987): 598-615; john a. moses, "dietrich bonhoeffer as conspirator against the hitler regime: the motivation of a german protestant revolutionary," war & society 17/1 (may 1999): 25-40; stephen r. haynes, "who needs enemies? jews and judaism in anti-nazi religious discourse," church history 71/ 2 (june 2002): 341-367; and stephen r. haynes, the bonhoeffer phenomenon: portraits of a protestant saint (minneapolis: fortress press, 2004). 34 bonhoeffer, “the church and the jewish question,” 227. 35 john moses’ essay, “dietrich bonhoeffer as conspirator,” is particularly useful on this issue. 36 bonhoeffer, “the church and the jewish question,” 222. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):1-20 hockenos, “the church struggle and the confessional church” 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art1 force.”37 however, the church should not sit by disinterestedly in political affairs. it has the obligation, bonhoeffer insists, to “continually ask the state whether its action can be justified as legitimate action of the state, i.e., as action which leads to law and order, and not to lawlessness and disorder.”38 moreover, when the state oversteps its god-given duty by passing laws that endanger the church’s proclamation, the church has three possibilities: it can remind the state of its duties and responsibilities; it can aid the victims of the state’s misuse of its power; or it can take direct political action against the state. bonhoeffer was disappointed that neither the young reformation movement in 1933 nor the confessing church as a whole in 1934 were willing to act on the first or second of these measures unequivocally. only after kristallnacht and the beginning of the second world war did bonhoeffer himself conclude that that direct political action was a necessity. 4. the barmen declaration even karl barth, who offered frequent advice and direction to many pastors and theologians in the church opposition, was unprepared to urge confessors to defend jews against nazi persecution in the early 1930s.39 he did, however, propose developing an unambiguous theological opposition that would be directed against any theology, whether german christian or orthodox lutheran, which did not acknowledge the infinite qualitative distinction between 37 ibid, 223. 38 ibid, 223. 39 see eberhard busch, unter dem bogen des einen bundes: karl barth und die juden 1933-1945 (neukirchen-vlyun: neukircher verlag, 1996) and mark lindsay, covenanted solidarity: the theological basis of karl barth’s opposition to nazi antisemitism and the holocaust (new york: peter lang, 2001). god and man.40 barth urged the opposition in the lutheran, reformed, and united churches to recognize the unity of their faith through their confession of the exclusivity of jesus christ and the gospel as sources of god’s revelation. motivated by a sense of urgency in the midst of the coordination (gleichschaltung) of the churches by the nazis, churchmen from across germany gathered for the first general confessional synod in barmen in late may 1934. in addition to issuing the famous barmen theological declaration, the delegates elected a leadership body, the reich council of brethren (reichsbruderrat) to direct the national affairs of the confessing church.41 the barmen declaration consists of a preamble, six theses, and a conclusion. each of the six theses begins by quoting scripture followed by an explanation of the passage and a condemnation of error or damnatio. the theological committee designated to draft the declaration for the barmen synod consisted of karl barth; the relatively unknown bavarian lutheran churchman, thomas breit; and hans asmussen, a lutheran pastor and theologian from altona near hamburg. although asmussen was a lutheran, and after the war a rather conservative one, he was influential in 40 karl barth, “the church’s opposition in 1933,” in the german church conflict (richmond: john knox press, 1968), 16. 41 the noteworthy churchmen elected to the (reich) council of brethren were president karl koch of bad oeynhausen near minden, bishop hans meiser of munich, bishop theophil wurm of stuttgart, pastor joachim beckmann of düsseldorf, pastor karl immer of barmen, pastor gerhard jacobi of berlin, pastor martin niemöller of berlin-dahlem, pastor hans asmussen of altona, and pastor hermann hesse of wuppertal-elberfeld as spokesman of the reformed churches. over the next few years the membership of the council of brethren would change dramatically, increasingly including more and more confessing churchmen from the moderate or dahlem wing of the confessing church. see gerhard niemöller, die erste bekenntnissynode der deutschen evangelischen kirche zu barmen, vol. 2, text, dokumente, berichte (göttingen: vandenhoeck and ruprecht, 1959), 204. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):1-20 hockenos, “the church struggle and the confessional church” 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art1 the radical wing of the confessing church and sympathetic to barth’s theology during the church struggle. despite the presence of lutherans on the theological committee, scholars agree that barth was the principal author of the declaration. bonhoeffer at this time was in london preaching and administering the sacraments to german expatriates in two small congregations. although he had very little direct influence on the barmen declaration, his critique of the nazi state in his april 1933 “the church and jewish question” is echoed in the first and fifth thesis of the barmen declaration. “the barmen theological declaration of faith,” as it was officially called, was an attempt to achieve consensus among the three evangelical (protestant) traditions and to reassert or reclaim church independence, particularly theological independence, from the nazi-influenced german christian movement. although there were a significant number of pastors and church leaders from all three traditions – lutheran, reformed, united – who were willing to make doctrinal concessions in order to achieve a consensus in the face of the german christian threat, there was also a powerful group of lutherans, including some of the most respected and world-renowned lutheran theologians in germany, who believed strongly that the theological consensus reached at barmen was an unacceptable dilution of lutheran theology. to be sure, all lutherans present at barmen voted in favor of the declaration. but the number of barmen critics increased when the german christian threat diminished after 1934 and especially after 1945 when confessional unity was no longer an urgent necessity. some lutherans, like erlangen theologian and church historian hermann sasse (1895-1976), opposed barmen because its theological content clashed with the traditional lutheran confessions.42 others, such as paul althaus (1888-1966), a lutheran professor of systematic theology at erlangen university, seemed more agitated by what they believed were barmen’s political implications, particularly a curtailment of the state’s authority. bishop meiser of bavaria exemplifies those who voted for barmen primarily to register their protest against the german christians’ storm-trooper tactics and theological excesses – not because they held the declaration itself in high esteem. many conservative lutherans shared mesier’s strategy and beliefs. after 1934 these lutherans distanced themselves from the declaration; they felt barmen’s revision of core lutheran doctrine was too drastic. they quite rightly perceived that the barmen declaration challenged four of the conservative lutherans most sacred tenets: the law-gospel dialectic, the orders of creation, natural revelation, and the orthodox lutheran understanding of martin luther’s doctrine of the two kingdoms. barmen’s first thesis grounded the church in a theology centered on christ and committed the church’s proclamation to the principle of sola scriptura, based on scripture alone. the second article asserted that christ’s message, which 42 sasse asserted in 1936, “he who recognizes the theological declaration of barmen as a doctrinal decision has thereby surrendered the augsburg confession and with it the confession of the orthodox evangelical church. what is pure and false doctrine, what is and is not to be preached in the lutheran church can only be decided by a synod which is united in the confession of lutheran doctrine, and not an assembly at which lutherans, reformed, consensus united, pietists, and liberals were all equal participants, as was the case in barmen.” see sasse’s essay “against fanaticism,” in hermann sasse, the lonely way: selected essays and letters, vol. 1, 1927-1939 (saint louis: concordia publishing house, 2002). the original german, “wider die schwarmgeisterei,” was published in lutherische kirche (1 aug. 1936): 237-40. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):1-20 hockenos, “the church struggle and the confessional church” 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art1 unites god’s grace and god’s law, had authority in all areas and aspects of life. thesis iii declared that the church’s ecclesiastical structure derived from christ’s message and that neither the church’s structure nor message could be changed to satisfy current political or ideological trends. the fourth thesis stated that the purpose of the church’s ecclesiastical offices was to fulfill the church’s special commission to preach the gospel and administer pastoral care–not for personal advancement or aggrandizement. thesis v acknowledged the state’s divine origins and its right to use force to maintain order; at the same time, it asserted that the church’s message and worldly engagement should remind the state of its ultimate origins in god. finally, barmen vi explained the mission of the church as spreading the message of god’s free grace through its office of preaching. what the barmen declaration did not address was the increasingly prevalent attacks on jews and judaism. of the six theses the two most contentious were the first and the fifth. the first thesis was meant to re-enforce to whom and to what the church must listen, from where the church’s knowledge of god must come, and from what source the church’s proclamation must be derived. according to this fundamental thesis, “jesus christ, as he is proclaimed to us in the holy scriptures, is the one word of god that we have to hear, to trust in life and death, and to obey.” barmen i rejected all claims that the church could proclaim that the message of god’s saving grace could be found in a source other than jesus christ as attested to in the scriptures. barth explained in the late 1930s that the primary aim of barmen i (and the declaration as a whole for that matter) was to tackle the problem of natural theology in general and its crude manipulation by the german christians in particular.43 the vulgar natural theology espoused by the german christians placed the events of 1933, german history, german blood, and even adolf hitler alongside the gospel as revelations of god’s will. walter grundmann, a leader of the german christians in saxony, provided one of the more brazen distortions of natural theology in his explanation of the significance of the nazi insignia for christianity: “the swastika is a sign of sacrifice which lets the cross of christ shine out for us in a new light.”44 directed primarily but not exclusively against this type of theological error, barmen’s first thesis rejected the placing of the swastika next to the cross, the third reich next to god’s reich, or hitler next to christ in church proclamation. thus the rejection of crude natural theology in the first thesis was for barth and many of his supporters, including bonhoeffer, the foundation over which the entire church struggle was to be fought. conservatives, however, detected correctly a challenge not only to the german christian’s blatant heresy of placing hitler next to christ but also a challenge to the long doctrinal tradition of natural theology and natural revelation in christianity, particularly luther’s theory of the divine orders. several highly respected lutheran theologians, including paul althaus, werner elert, friedrich gogarten, emanuel hirsch, and hermann sasse, to name a few, maintained a twofold revelation of god, in jesus christ and in the divine orders (family, state, and volk). they did not, of course, maintain that the two revelations were of equal importance to 43 karl barth, church dogmatics, 5 vols. (edinburgh: t. and t. clark, 1936-62), vol. 2, part 1, 172-82. 44 quoted in jüngel, christ, justice and peace, 23. also see scholder, the churches, vol. 2, 13-14 and susannah heschel, “nazifying christian theology: walter grundmann and the institute for the study and eradication of jewish influence in german church life,” church history 63:4 (dec. 1994): 587-605. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):1-20 hockenos, “the church struggle and the confessional church” 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art1 christians. the revelation of god in jesus christ was always given priority. but the very fact that they took a second revelation in the divine orders with resolute seriousness meant that it was highly unlikely that they could support the barmen declaration unconditionally. sasse believed that barth’s attack on natural theology and the divine orders was a grave mistake because such a critique alienated not only the german christians but the conservative lutherans as well. barth did not mind alienating both german christians and conservative lutherans. he wanted to stress that german christian theology was merely the logical outcome of orthodox lutheranism. since barth saw no adequate way to check or limit the prioritizing of a natural revelation over the revelation of god in christ as attested in the scriptures, he maintained that all natural theologies must be eliminated from church proclamation. barth wrote the declaration, to be sure, with an eye to pleasing certain lutherans as well as reformed churchmen. the lutherans barth wanted to meet halfway, however, were asmussen, niemöller, and their colleagues who sought confessional unity–not conservative lutheran confessionalists like althaus, elert, and sasse. of the six theses, the fifth is most important for an appreciation of the political and theological debates regarding church-state relations. at issue was the degree of authority christians ought to allot the state. conservatives granted it more, radicals less. the authors of barmen v modified the orthodox lutheran interpretation of luther’s doctrine of two kingdoms in order to map out an alternative view of the relation of church and state that would address the totalitarian claims of the nazi state. lutherans, both moderate and conservative, agreed that the state existed by reason of man’s sin. since christians and non-christians failed to conduct themselves in accordance with the dictates of the gospel it was necessary for god to rule the earth by means other than the consoling promise of the gospel. accordingly, god created a second government, the worldly government or regiment (das weltliche regiment), alongside the spiritual government or regiment (das geistliche regiment), in order to preserve life and property in the not yet redeemed world. whereas the holy spirit ruled the church or spiritual kingdom by means of the gospel, the state ruled civil society or the earthly kingdom by means of coercion and force. the two kingdoms within which every christian lived simultaneously were both kingdoms of god. god, however, commissioned them with different tasks, ruled them with different governments, and placed different means at the disposal of the two governments. the task of a church minister was to proclaim the gospel of christ; the task of a state minister was to keep the peace. barmen v did not explicitly challenge this accepted interpretation of luther’s doctrine but it did modify it much the same way as bonhoeffer had done in his 1933 essay. the fifth thesis emphasized the ties between the two kingdoms as much as their separateness when the authors declared the church “... calls to mind the kingdom of god, god’s commandment and righteousness, and thereby the responsibility both of rulers and ruled.” in doing so the church reminded the state that not only was it divinely sanctioned in its role to maintain order but also in its responsibility to the kingdom of god and the word of god. this strongly suggested, although it was never explicitly stated in the barmen declaration, that the honor due the secular authority was contingent on the state’s fulfillment of or at least the genuine attempt to fulfill its god-given task in accordance with commonly recognized christian principles. conservative lutherans denounced this link between the two kingdoms as a departure from orthodoxy. for them, barth’s interpretation undermined the orthodox lutheran distinction studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):1-20 hockenos, “the church struggle and the confessional church” 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art1 between god’s alien work and god’s proper work, between law and gospel, between das geistliche regiment and das weltliche regiment. thus, barmen v limited implicitly the autonomy and authority of the state and in doing so lost the support of many conservative lutherans. for the supporters of barmen, the traditional interpretation of the lutheran confessions provided inadequate doctrinal resources to withstand attempts by the german christians to fuse christianity and national socialism. in view of the german christian heresies, barth and his followers sought not simply to restore the traditional lutheran vision but to revise that vision by restricting the church’s proclamation to god’s word alone. they defined the church as the brethren gathered together to profess jesus christ as the sole mediator between god and man. conservative lutherans, relying on other mediating links between god and man such as the state, accused the radicals of acting like a sect determined to exclude anyone who did not accept and adhere to their unorthodox declaration.45 5. the dahlem resolutions and the schism in the confessing church in late 1934, only five months after barmen, a follow-up synod of the same opposition forces in the confessing church was held in pastor niemöller’s church in the berlin suburb of dahlem. it was a call for battle against the errors of the german christians. the radical wing of the confessing church declared in effect that the leaders of the official reich church had cut themselves off from the christian church as a result of their unconstitutional and unchristian behavior. moreover, the misuse of the legal 45 see in particular sasse’s “against fanaticism,” in the lonely way, 307310. machinery of the reich church by the german christian leaders necessitated the implementation of emergency rights (notrecht) by the confessing church and the replacement of the administrative and governing bodies of the reich church with confessing synods and councils of brethren (bruderräte).46 the resolution called on all parishes: … to accept no instructions from the former reich church government or its administrative offices, and to withdraw from further cooperation with those who continue to obey this church regime. we summon them [the congregations] to follow the instructions of the confessional synod of the german evangelical church and those bodies it recognizes.47 and finally, the dahlem resolution requested the official recognition of the confessing church, its synods, and councils as the legitimate leadership of the german evangelical church by the nazi state.48 in effect, the drafters of the dahlem resolutions declared an outright schism in the church between the confessing church and the reich church controlled by the german christians. in so doing they also caused a rupture between radicals and conservatives in the confessing church. bonhoeffer, who from spring 1935 to summer 1937 ran the confessing church’s illegal seminary in the village of finkenwalde near the baltic sea, captured the essence of the dahlem resolution in his controversial comment in 1936 that “whoever knowingly cuts himself off 46 in addition to the reich council of brethren (reichsbruderrat) elected at barmen, councils of brethren were often elected at the local and regional level to administer to the affairs of the confessing church communities throughout germany. 47 douglass, god among the germans, 261. 48 ibid, 261. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):1-20 hockenos, “the church struggle and the confessional church” 16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art1 from the confessing church in germany cuts himself off from salvation.”49 the dahlem synod brought into the open the divisions that had simmered below the surface at barmen. the dahlemites, on the one hand, argued that the dahlem resolutions were the logical outcome of the theological declaration made at barmen. barmen, they argued, laid out the confessing church’s theology and dahlem its praxis. the authors of the barmen declaration asserted that the gospel of jesus christ was the one word that the church must hear and obey. the dahlemites put this into practice by contending that the basis of the reich church was something other than the gospel and therefore it was their duty as true christians to sever ties with the leadership of the reich church and to erect new laws and bodies that corresponded with the gospel. conservative lutherans, on the other hand, interpreted barmen as a necessary and timely reminder that the gospel and not national socialist politics took priority in the church. the practical implementation of this conservative interpretation of barmen was the removal of radical german christians and a restoration of the old leadership of the regional churches. conservatives’ eagerness to avoid any unnecessary tension with the state guided their actions in the months after the dahlem synod. consequently, the confessing church’s leadership council, the reich council of brethren, split into two distinct leadership bodies; each aimed to implement their interpretation of the mandate given to them at barmen, or in the case of the dahlemites, at barmen and dahlem. on one side, there was the council of the german evangelical 49 dietrich bonhoeffer, “on the question of church community,” april 22, 1936, in a testament to freedom: the essential writings of dietrich bonhoeffer, ed. geffrey b. kelly and f. burton nelson (san francisco: harper, 1990), 173. church (rat der dek), consisting primarily of dahlemites who saw no room for compromise with the german christians or nazi church policies. on the other side, there was the provisional church directory (vorläufige leitung), led by bishop marahrens of hannover and conservative church leaders primarily from the intact churches. leadership of the churches was still solidly divided when the second world war began in september 1939. as the nation geared up for war and the state clamped down on any sign of disloyalty, churchmen were increasingly confronted with conflicts of interest between their political and ideological loyalty to the nazi state and their religious and spiritual loyalty to the church and their ordination vows. whereas the german christians’ readiness to adapt their religious convictions to the national socialist weltanschauung meant they rarely experienced a conflict of interest, pastors in the confessing church continually struggled with how to meet the contradictory demands required of a patriotic citizen and a pious cleric. predictably, responses by the dahlem and conservative wings of the confessing church to the dual demands of the gospel and national socialism diverged considerably in certain instances but only slightly in others. for the most part, the lutherans traditionalists, such as marahrens and meiser, strove to reconcile their political loyalty to hitler and their religious loyalty to the lutheran confessions by maintaining that the state leadership was divinely ordained. they hypocritically charged the dahlem wing of the confessing church as well as extremists in the german christian movement with mixing politics and religion and thus failing to recognize luther’s admonishment to keep the worldly and spiritual kingdoms separate. without a doubt, marahrens and meiser’s support for the nazi regime was certainly more restrained than that of the german christians but their political quietism was no less political. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):1-20 hockenos, “the church struggle and the confessional church” 17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art1 pastors in the dahlem wing of the confessing church distinguished between love for the fatherland and unmitigated support for hitler, making it possible to express their patriotism, even chauvinism, while maintaining that, as the fifth thesis of the barmen declaration stated, christians should not allow the state to become “the single and totalitarian order of human life.” typical of most “opposition” in nazi germany, the dahlemites in the confessing church enthusiastically supported certain facets of nazi rule, opposed others, and toward the rest were indifferent or complacent. but in contrast to the first few years of nazi rule, the nazi regime after 1937 sought total control over individuals and groups in the public sphere and hence also sought to quash even the smallest signs of public dissent. thus, despite their professed allegiance to the fatherland, pastors from the dahlem wing who strove to preach according to the dictates set down in the barmen declaration, which clearly limited the role of the state, were considered enemies of the reich. even kristallnacht failed to spark an outcry by the majority in the confessing church. the official response was silence. some individual confessing church pastors, including niemöller’s replacement helmut gollwitzer and a württembergian pastor, julius von jan, took advantage of germany’s prayer and repentance day (buß und bettag) the following week to protest the nazi orchestrated pogrom but the leaders whose voices carried the most weight– bishops marahrens, meiser, and wurm–made no formal protest.50 although a unified response from the confessing church was virtually impossible, the real stumbling block to 50 röhm and thierfelder, juden, christen, deutsche 1933-45, vol. 3, part 1, 19-61. on gollwitzer and von jan’s sermons, see röhm and thierfelder, 62-68 and 69-92 respectively. also see gerlach, and the witnesses were silent, 141-152; barnett, for the soul of the people, 142-43 an official confessing church protest was not the confessional, organizational, or even political divisions. instead, at the core of this silence was the traditional antipathy towards judaism derived from centuries of lutheran teaching that the jew was a godless outcast who would always be a danger to a christian nation unless he converted to christianity. racial antisemitism was certainly prevalent in the confessing church, but it paled in comparison to anti-judaism, the church’s official doctrine on the jews. according to this doctrine the jewish threat to christian society came not from the jews race or biology but because they rejected jesus christ as the messiah.51 most churchmen from the confessing church put jews and jewish christians in very different categories. it was only members of the latter group – the converts – that the confessing church would even consider defending against nazi racial laws. but these attempts to defend jewish christians were the exception and not the rule and had the effect of legitimizing much of the nazis’ murderous racial policy. by 1939, not only had the state’s persecution of the churches reached new heights but the nazis were clamping down on anyone aiding or abetting any person defined as a jew by the nazis. even if the larger body of the confessing church had had a change of heart – which they did not – assistance to jews would have been extremely difficult and risky. although too late to have a major impact on nazi racial policy, the violence of kristallnacht did spur some individuals to take a more active role in trying to assist their jewish countrymen. with institutional support from the leadership body of the dahlem wing of the confessing church, martin 51 see, franklin littell, the crucifixion of the jews: the failure of christians to understand the jewish experience (macon, ga: mercer university press, 1996). studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):1-20 hockenos, “the church struggle and the confessional church” 18 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art1 albertz, dietrich bonhoeffer, heinrich grüber, hermann maas, and others provided relief and help with emigration for jews and christians of jewish descent.52 barth and bonhoeffer also toned down their earlier anti-judaic explanations for jewish suffering and became pro-active defenders of european jews.53 bonhoeffer’s opposition was more political and consequently more perilous than barth’s. active in resistance work through the ecumenical movement for a number of years he eventually joined the conspiracy against hitler led by admiral wilhelm canaris and major general hans oster in the counterintelligence office of the high military command. during trips abroad he smuggled out information on behalf of the resistance and on a trip to italy, even made contact with the italian resistance. when the gestapo uncovered a plan of the conspirators to smuggle jews out of germany in april 1943 bonhoeffer was arrested and held in tegel prison in berlin. on april 9, 1945, the nazis executed the thirty-nine-year-old pastor and theologian with his fellow conspirators, canaris and oster, at 52 röhm and thierfelder, juden, christen, deutsche 1933-45, vol. 3, part 1, 93-133. gerlach, when the witnesses were silent, 154-162. gerlach emphasizes that the “grüber office” was “explicitly commissioned by the second provisional church administration,” i.e., the leadership body of the dahlem wing of the confessing church after 1936 (p. 155). 53 on barth see eberhard busch, unter dem bogen des einen bundes: karl barth und die juden 1933-1945 (neukirchen-vluyn: neukirchener, 1996), 313-58 and mark lindsay, covenanted solidarity: the theological basis of karl barth’s opposition to nazi antisemitism and the holocaust, 261. on bonhoeffer see, eberhard bethge, dietrich bonhoeffer: a biography, revised and edited by victoria barnett (minneapolis: fortress press, 2000), 607 and kenneth c. barnes, “dietrich bonhoeffer and hitler’s persecution of the jews,” in ericksen and heschel, eds., betrayal, 110-128. flossenburg concentration camp.54 within a month the nazis also executed bonhoeffer’s brother and two brothers-in-law for “antiwar activity.” bonhoeffer’s attitude toward the jews changed in the late 1930s, although he continued to maintain that in their rejection of christ jewish suffering served as a sign to christians of god’s severity. gone from his theology, however, was the traditional lutheran separation between the people of the old testament and those of the new testament. aiding the jews was no longer an act of christian charity, as he had advocated in 1933, but a theological necessity based on the unity of jews and christians in the person of jesus christ.55 when the slaughter of innocent jews and slavs began in earnest in 1941 across eastern europe, fear and prejudice paralyzed the confessing church. soon after the german army began its drive eastward, stories of atrocities against jews filtered back to civilians and churchmen in germany. stewart herman, pastor of the american church in berlin until december 1941, reported in 1943 that “it became definitely known through the soldiers returning from the front that in occupied russia ... jewish civilians – men, women, and babies – were being lined up and machine-gunned by the thousands.”56 bishop wurm had also alluded to the rumors of mass killings in a letter to the reich minister of church affairs dated december 1941.57 despite the prevalence from late 1941 onwards of rumors and eyewitness accounts that mass killings were taking place, the 54 barnes, “dietrich bonhoeffer and hitler’s persecution of the jews,” 124125. 55 ibid, 125-26. 56 stewart herman, it’s your souls we want (new york: harper and brothers, 1943), 208. 57 gutteridge, open they mouth, 238. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):1-20 hockenos, “the church struggle and the confessional church” 19 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art1 protestant church issued only one public condemnation during the holocaust – and this was a partially veiled criticism in october 1943 by the twelfth confessional synod of the church of the old prussian union (bonhoeffer’s church) held in breslau. in its statement to the congregations the prussian confessional synod declared, “the murdering of men solely because they are members of a foreign race, or because they are old, or mentally ill, or the relatives of a criminal, cannot be considered as carrying out the authority entrusted to the state by god.”58 the synod also called on the congregations to show spiritual fellowship and brotherly love to “our non-aryan fellow christians,” i.e., baptized jews. unfortunately this plea went unrecognized by most protestants in all but a few exceptional instances. even bishop wurm, who openly asserted that jews were dangerous and destructive and needed to be combated, sent a letter to hitler protesting “in god’s name” the “persecution and annihilation to which many men and women under german domination are being subjected.”59 tellingly, he could not convince his conservative colleagues, bishops marahrens and meiser to sign the letter with him. as the letter to hitler makes clear, wurm minced no words in expressing his belief that the inhuman treatment of men and women was contrary to god’s commands. be that as it may, it would be a misinterpretation of the private protests of wurm and other church leaders if they were presented as championing the cause of the jews. the notion that antisemitism was justified as long as it stayed within “biblical limits,” as one pastor put it, was widely accepted within the 58 ibid, 248. 59 ibid, 354. the entire letter is translated in app. vi of gutteridge, 353-55. also see david j. diephouse “antisemitism as moral discourse: theophil wurm and protestant opposition to the holocaust,” (paper presented at the 30th annual scholars’ conference on the holocaust and the churches, philadelphia, march 2000). church.60 although never explicitly defined, “biblical limits” seemed to exclude extermination and brutal mistreatment but not the denial of civil liberties or expulsion from germany. 5. conclusions despite many public statements professing church unity, the divisions that racked the confessing church during the church struggle essentially carried over into postwar germany. those who took part in the church struggle, whether as conservatives or dahlemites in the confessing church, tended to carry with them into the postwar period one of two lasting impressions. the church struggle convinced them either of the error in developing a theologically based political opposition to the state, or, conversely that the error was to mount a theological opposition but fail to draw the political consequences of that theology. for the great majority for whom the church struggle provided further evidence of the incompatibility of lutheran theology and political resistance, the end of the war offered the opportunity to restore traditional lutheranism. they regarded the common confession made at barmen in may 1934 to be of great significance for the church struggle but not necessarily for the postwar period. conservatives favored a church-organized denazification of the churches, which for them meant accepting all but the most extreme german christians back into the fold.61 conservative lutherans, including hans meiser, never forgot the criticisms they had to endure from the niemöller wing of the 60 gutteridge, open thy mouth, 120. 61 clemens vollnhals, evangelische kirche und entnazifizierung 19451949: die last der nationalisozialistischen vergangenheit (munich: r. oldenbourg, 1989), 52-60. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):1-20 hockenos, “the church struggle and the confessional church” 20 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art1 confessing church, which accused them of abandoning the barmen declaration and thereby weakening the oppositional front.62 the legacy of the church struggle for conservative lutherans was the unbridgeable gap that had developed between themselves and those they deemed radical sectarians. the dahlemites who conferred such importance on the barmen declaration and its practical application in the dahlem resolutions wanted to carry over the confessional unity into the post-’45 church. the legacy of the church struggle for the dahlemites was that it demonstrated the inadequacy of orthodox lutheran theology to provide the theoretical foundation to resist or oppose measures taken by the state, in particular the state’s racial policy. this reasoning led many from the dahlem wing to advocate fundamental reforms in the postwar church. had bonhoeffer lived he certainly would have joined the dahlemites in their postwar clamor for ecclesiastical and theological reforms. sadly, his death denied the church its most experienced ecumenical leader and perhaps the one voice most prepared to address the church’s guilt toward jews and christians of jewish descent. the respect he had earned within the ecumenical movement from the likes of george bell, the anglican bishop of chichester, and willem visser’t hooft, a dutch theologian and the first general secretary of the world council of churches (wcc), was sorely lacking for many of the confessing churchmen who became the leaders of the postwar church. although it is difficult to say whether bonhoeffer would have abandoned his anti-judaic theology, his writings and lectures in the late 62 these accusations continued after the war. see, niemöller to asmussen, 28 nov. 1946, zekhn-darmstadt 62/539 and bogner to niemöller, 15 mar. 1946, lka nuremberg lkr 1, 102h (new number 303). 1930s and early 1940s indicate that he would have urged the church to acknowledge its complicity in the holocaust and work for reconciliation with jewish survivors. his admonition in the mid-1930s that lutherans were gathering “like eagles round the carcass of cheap grace” and his insistence that “the preaching of forgiveness must always go hand-in-hand with the preaching of repentance” rang even truer in the immediate postwar years.63 although bonhoeffer’s political resistance against the nazi state and his activities on behalf of jews in the early 1940s was far too radical for the meisers and wurms of the postwar church to embrace, many dahlemites such as hermann diem, hans iwand, and martin niemoller developed a christian ethics similar to bonhoeffer’s. he may have remained a marginal figure in the immediate postwar years, however it is a testament to bonhoeffer’s theology and ethics that upon reflection some confessing pastors drew the lesson from the nazi era that, “when christ calls a man, he bids him to come and die.”64 63 dietrich bonhoeffer, the cost of discipleship (new york: touchstone, 1995), 64 and 287-288. 64 ibid, 89. 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-3 sara lipton dark mirror: the medieval origins of anti-jewish iconography (new york: metropolitan, 2014), xxi + 390 pp. eva frojmovic e.frojmovic@leeds.ac.uk the university of leeds, leeds, ls2 9jt, uk this book, long awaited since the author’s magisterial images of intolerance of 1999, is a masterful cultural history, one that moves well beyond simple reductions of imagery to “historical background.” it arises from a need to transcend deterministic histories that see images as transparent “reflections” of a predetermined, often not sufficiently critically interrogated history (p. 9). the author refuses a simple teleology from early medieval (relative) christian tolerance of jews to a late medieval anti-judaism and then finally to modern anti-semitism. the book is not so much about iconography but about epistemology (that is, the history of knowledge and of ideas about knowledge). the book asks less what images mean than “what work [they] do for the culture that created them” (p. 6). in a series of closely argued case studies arranged in chronological order, it traces how significant changes in western medieval visual culture, and the incredibly contested cultural role of vision, led to multiple repositionings of the wrong (i.e., rejected, condemned) kind of vision as “jewish.” the quote marks are deliberate: the author shows that the visual polemics in which figures marked as jewish appear are internal christian debates in which real-life jews, or policies toward jewish individuals and communities, play a secondary role. the relationship between visual images and history is never simple. the book starts with a startling assertion: “for the first thousand years of the christian era, there were no visible jews in western art” (p. 1). actually, lipton notes, biblical figures appear abundantly in medieval western artworks, as one would expect from a culture so closely identified with the sacred scriptures. but because christian theology was focused on the idea that christianity was the successor of and had displaced judaism, it was inconceivable that judaism should continue to evolve. therefore jews in medieval time were seen as entirely separate from biblical israelites. it is only in the twelfth century that contemporary jews appear for the first time, as witnesses to new, miraculous events such as the birth of new saints. these contemporary jews do not reflect anti-judaism. rather, they are valued as independent witnesses to christian truths whose credibility results precisely from their outsider status. frojmovic: sara lipton’s dark mirror 2 the book is as much about seeing as it is about visual signs. and seeing (i.e., vision) was perceived with ambivalence: “christian epistemology would reverberate with this tension between deprecation of reliance on physical vision as inconsonant with faith and longing for direct, visual experience of the divine” (p. 6). lipton argues that in the early middle ages, “the augmented religious role afforded visual experience in high medieval christianity largely explains the new visual prominence of the jew. as the paradigmatic exemplar of the physical vision and its misuse, the figure of the jew became the primary medium through which christians explored and expressed their changing ideas about knowledge, vision, and re-presentation” (pp. 6-7). the book is arranged in seven chronological chapters from approximately the year 1015 to 1500. there is one exception: chapter six is devoted to the question of gender, and the observation made by the author that most of the representations of biblical israelites and contemporary jews were men. the first three chapters cover the period from 1015 to 1220. the fourth and fifth chapters cover the remainder of the thirteenth century and up to the middle of the fourteenth century. the sixth chapter, as already mentioned, deals with the relative absence of jewish women in medieval iconography. the final chapter covers the period from 1350 to 1500. as can be seen, the pace of the book accelerates with each chapter. and it is clear that the research is most focused on the eleventhand twelfth-century origins of long-lived signs such as the beard and the so-called jewish hat. in chapter one, lipton traces the images of the so-called jewish hat back as far as bishop bernward’s second gospel book (ca. 1015). in this manuscript, pointed hats were worn primarily by the three magi. in them, the patron “saw not his jewish subject and neighbors but himself. because the pointed hat signals not jewishness but knowledge and authority, it functions not to distinguish jews from christians but to link the medieval christian bishop to his ancient forerunners, gentile and judean” (p. 39). through an investigation of the appearance of such hats, lipton argues that “living medieval jews were not the main inspiration” for images. also, “the ‘jewish hat’ was not inescapably negative” (p. 44-45). similar to the hat, beards were unstable signifiers. as norms and fashions for facial hair changed, and as the biblical past, no longer in a line of continuity, receded in time, the beard acquired some “fairly exotic connotations: an aura of worldliness, the whiff of the updated past, or a hint of muslim or greek ‘easternness’” (p. 50). the second chapter makes quite a sensational contribution: lipton has identified one of the earliest artistic occurrences of a contemporary jewish figure. he appears first in a christian text and then in a reliquary based on the text. perhaps unsurprisingly, this figure occurs in the writings of rupert of deutz, the early twelfth-century theologian who wrote so fascinatingly about the roles of art in religion and about jewish-christian debate. lipton found that rupert rewrote the life of a sainted archbishop of cologne and invented a jewish friend for the archbishop’s father. when a golden reliquary shrine was sculpted for this archbishop after his death and canonization, this jewish friend acquired a name (aaron the jew) and an image as a dignified figure wearing a pointed hat. the 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) novelty of this figure is that he is neither biblical nor apocryphal, but lived in the present. this jewish friend witnessed the birth of the hero. in a context in which sainthood could be conferred only upon the testimony of witnesses, augustine’s idea of jewish witness, a purely theological concept, was translated into the present. a central theme that lipton has investigated for some time is the controversial role of art in an era of church reform. paradoxically, both reformers and their opponents identified themselves with the ancient hebrews, while denigrating each other and each other’s art as “jewish.” therefore, there is no stable jewish iconography, but only shifting signifiers. chapter three is devoted to the problem of the new christian affective piety of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, which depicted jesus in an increasingly naturalistic, “ugly” way. this posed a problem for the users of images. to teach “correct” devotional viewing, those who found ugly images abhorrent were accused of “jewish” literalism. the polemic, however, was an entirely internal christian one. this undermines explanations of these images as defined by anti-judaism. the work that stands at the center of chapter four is the cathedral at chartres, a “great multimedia monument” (p. 133). lipton sees the cathedral as a mirror of christian society. she concludes that despite the well-known anti-jewish elements in the developing cult of the virgin mary of which chartres was a center, there is no single meaning to figures marked as jewish. she writes, “to see the images of jews at chartres as powerfully anti-jewish requires very selective reading indeed, or wilful disregard of the visual similarity between jewish moneylender and generously forgiving father” (p. 167). the contribution of this book is as much methodological as it is historical. we learn much about method—how to link images, texts, and historical context—and about all the different things that historical context might be to scholars from different disciplines. lipton is adamant that art does not simply reflect a seemingly pre-existing history. she is very aware that, in her own words, “art can affect as well as reflect the culture that creates and views it” (p. 41). in other words, art contributes to the construction of mentalities; it does not just reflect them. in this case, the whole book is devoted to undoing an established history of iconography situating art in a framework of anti-semitism and anti-judaism. while seemingly similar in scope to previous books like h. schreckenberg’s the jews in christian art: an illustrated history (1996), it in fact argues against retrospectively constructing a linear history of anti-judaism from the visual arts. 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-3 herbert w. basser and marsha cohen the gospel of matthew and judaic traditions: a relevance-based commentary (leiden: brill, 2015), xxii + 794 pp. peter zaas zaas@siena.edu siena college, loudonville, ny 12211 for the sake of full disclosure, i should begin with a few words about the oddity of this reviewer’s position. this substantial volume (794 pp.) begins by quoting from a review i wrote of an earlier book by basser. i stated that some readers might find his thought processes difficult to fathom, but i strongly encouraged them to nonetheless study his book. inasmuch as i now expect some snippet of this review to find its way into his next volume, i write with basser’s future readers looking over my shoulder, which is an odd feeling. also, i should note that basser uses my translation of matthew’s gospel as his main english text, with proper attribution. before discussing the content, it is necessary to comment on the authorship of the volume. the cover and title page (and library of congress listing) read “herbert w. basser with marsha b. cohen.” in the preface written by basser alone, he describes cohen as a “co-author” and “more than a mere proofreader” (p. xvii). despite his high praise for her intellectual and literary gifts, he then describes her actual work as mainly editorial, such as helping him organize his writing, especially in his comments to the latter half of the gospel, by suggesting places he might be clearer or provide more definite examples. this volume is a contribution to basser’s field, rabbinic judaism. cohen is an independent scholar with a ph.d. in international relations. without belittling her contribution to this volume in any way, i here follow basser’s lead. he refers to the author of this volume in the first person singular (“i”), and i shall refer to that author in the third person singular (“basser”). the volume is well-organized and gracefully written, and for some of that we must surely owe substantial thanks to cohen. (for a new testament scholar, this topic of authorship is reminiscent of questions regarding multiple authorship of some of paul’s letters: how much is written by paul? how much by silas or timothy?) attempts to characterize herbert basser’s methodology of drawing connections between new testament and rabbinic texts is practically an academic subgenre. nearly all of those who have written critically of this methodology have immense respect for his encyclopedic knowledge of rabbinic texts, and also his zaas: herbert w. basser and marsha cohen’s the gospel of matthew 2 extraordinary literary sensitivity. no one has a greater feel for the poetic nuances of rabbinic language, and basser’s conclusions are worth considering no matter whether one thinks he is being methodologically consistent. this is the greatest value of a basser volume, evident in his previous study of matthew 1-14, the mind behind the gospels (boston: academic studies press, 2009). compared to strack-billerbeck, whose kommentar zum neuen testament aus talmud und midrasch he intends to supplant, basser adds dimensionality to the parallels he adduces by considering their relevance to the study of matthew. he transcends strack-billerbeck’s mainly unadorned listing of similarities between new testament and rabbinic texts, a methodology that samuel sandmel called “parallelomania.” it might be best to describe both of basser’s matthew volumes as imaginative attempts to put the text of the first gospel into conversation with the classical literature of judaism. that description might put them into the same category as bruce chilton’s rabbi jesus and rabbi paul, which reflects both a fertile imagination and an extraordinary grasp of the available textual evidence. the book is too large to review in detail, and some general comments will have to suffice. basser structures his book, as he did the mind behind the gospels, as a commentary. moving chapter by chapter and verse by verse, he imaginatively presents matthew as a sort of dialogue-partner with rabbinic judaism. this dialogue is constructed around an astounding range of sources that offer relevant parallels to the gospel, taken from the hebrew bible (including every biblical book but proverbs, obadiah, zephaniah, and haggai) and rabbinic texts (an astounding range and depth from mishnaic, talmudic, midrashic, targumic, and even mystical sources, including two citations from the zohar and one from sefer yetzirah). basser puts matthew in dialogue with everyone from simeon the righteous to maimonides and beyond, a span of at least 1500 years. mainstream scholars of matthew who use a redaction-critical methodology for study of the gospel—this reviewer included—will wonder how to draw upon basser’s insights. where most matthew scholars see matthew as supplementing the gospel of mark with the q source and his own material, basser says matthew “originated from an older tradition no longer known” (p. 14). matthew himself “was a gifted writer who interpolated his own ideas into the received narratives into his gospel,” following the artful process of “true storytellers [who] never tell, [but rather] show,” leaving their readers “to draw conclusions based upon the descriptive images the storyteller evokes” (p. 15). the evangelist’s approach, in other words, rather resembles basser’s own; he sets an imagined matthew in dialogue with the rabbinic corpus. this approach aims to show that whatever matthew’s messianic beliefs, he inhabits the same world of image and thought of many of the rabbinic sages and their spiritual and literary successors. the approach has some drawbacks. basser is largely unconcerned with the historical settings of both the gospel and the rabbinic corpus. he puts a timeless matthew in dialogue with timeless rabbis, without considering such issues as historical development. he precludes any possibility of matthean influence on rabbinic views, since matthew cannot influence views that always existed. even if, for example, matthew’s views of jewish marriage law seem to reflect tannait 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) ic, as opposed to biblical, views, basser precludes the possibility that matthew could either have influenced rabbinic jurisprudence or reflects a pre-rabbinic view. was it really always the law that a betrothal constituted a legal marriage and could only be dissolved with a get? (p. 37). in other words, such a historical question of where matthew fits in the evolution of jewish law is ignored by basser. on the other hand, basser masterfully presents a treasury of sources and resources, demonstrating areas where matthew’s views parallel those found in non-christian jewish sources. matthew would have greatly enjoyed participating in the table-talk at a heavenly rabbinic symposium, if the rabbis would have been willing to invite him. most scholars will find new insights here, and probably most scholars will also be annoyed at basser’s failure to integrate his views into some kind of historical framework. in our time, we are blessed with an elevated level of interest in new testament sources by self-identifying orthodox jews who are good (or great) textual scholars, amy-jill levine their current doyenne, with zev garber and herbert basser nearly as prominent. such scholars bring together seriousness about living judaism and a mastery of traditional jewish discourse (aggadic, halachic, mystical, and ethical), although of course jewish orthodoxy is by no means a prerequisite for the mastery of traditional texts, nor do all of these scholars bring the same presuppositions to their scholarship. herbert basser has been forthright about his own assumptions in the various projects that have made his work known among scholars of second-temple judaism and its various aftermaths. it would be a good thing if his work were better-known among a wider circle. i myself enjoy the frustration of trying to fit his insights into the scholarly categories i find congenial. an annotated and highlighted copy the gospel of matthew and judaic traditions should be on everyone’s shelf. 1 scjr 14, no. 1 (2019): 1-29 “genuine brotherhood” without remorse: a commentary on joseph ratzinger’s “comments on ‘de iudaeis’” philip a. cunningham and adam gregerman pcunning@sju.edu and agregerm@sju.edu saint joseph’s university, philadelphia, pa 19131 introduction on march 26, 2000, in what is arguably the most iconic moment since the new relationship between jews and catholics began at the second vatican council, pope john paul ii prayed at the western wall in jerusalem. following jewish custom, he inserted the physical text of his prayer of penitence and promise into the crevices of the wall. its final words were: “… and asking your [god’s] forgiveness, we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the covenant.”1 eighteen years later, in the german edition of communio, emeritus pope benedict xvi, joseph cardinal ratzinger, published an article whose title in the english translation is “grace and vocation without remorse: comments on the treatise de iudaeis.”2 in it, he reflects on theological aspects of the new catholicjewish relationship fifty years after the conciliar declaration nostra aetate3 as discussed in a 2015 statement of the commission for religious relations with the jews.4 his choice of title is significant: “comments” underscores both his sense of the tentativeness of his claims and the non-magisterial nature of the article.5 for 1 http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2000/jan-mar/documents/hf_jpii_spe_20000326_jerusalem-prayer.html. 2 communio 45/1 (spring 2018): 163-184. it appeared in the online english edition in january 2019. https://ccjr.us/images/ratzinger_grace__vocation_without_remorse_-_english.pdf. 3 declaration on the relation of the church to non-christian religions, nostra aetate (october 28, 1975), http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html. hereafter na. 4 commission of the holy see for religious relations with the jews (hereafter, crrj), “‘the gifts and calling of god are irrevocable’ (rom 11:29): a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of nostra aetate (no. 4)” (december 10, 2015), http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosicon-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/en.html. hereafter “g&c.” 5 cardinal kurt koch stated in a january 22, 2019 meeting with representatives of the german coordinating council of societies for christian-jewish cooperation and the discussion group “jews and http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2000/jan-mar/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000326_jerusalem-prayer.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2000/jan-mar/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000326_jerusalem-prayer.html https://ccjr.us/images/ratzinger_grace__vocation_without_remorse_-_english.pdf http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/en.html http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/en.html http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/en.html cunningham and gregerman: “genuine brotherhood” without remorse 2 reasons that will become clear below, it is useful to consider benedict’s text with john paul’s historic western wall prayer in mind, hence the title of this analysis. upon its initial appearance, benedict’s “comments” provoked significant criticism from both jewish and christian writers in german-language publications, many charging him with jeopardizing the post-na rapprochement between jews and catholics.6 he published a brief response insisting that he only wanted to “interpret the great promises to israel as being at the same time the hope of the church, [which] represent both what divides us and what unites us.”7 responding to fears that he was encouraging new christian missions to baptize jews,8 benedict explicitly declared that, “to israel…there was not and still is not a mission…”9 a major reason for the generally negative reception of the “comments” is benedict’s often-dense writing style. he frequently uses elliptical language, including the passive voice and pronouns with unclear referents, and presupposes debatable claims from his earlier writings. moreover, the topics he addresses are multi-faceted, burdened with a long history of christian antipathy toward jews, yet they are arising again today in a post-nostra aetate church that has repudiated that antipathy. before we examine his article in detail, it is helpful to establish a central claim. benedict argues both for what is distinctive from and for what transcends judaism10 in the church’s “new covenant” with god in christ, while also upholding the legitimacy of jewish covenantal life.11 his decision to juxtapose two new testament quotations at the end of the article hints at this tension. he quotes paul, who says in romans 11:29 that “the gifts and the calling of god [to israel] are irrevocable,” underscoring benedict’s affirmation of the jewish covenant as rooted in scripture. he places this side by side with a quote from second timothy, reminding the reader just how much is at stake for christian faith in the dialogue: “if we endure, we shall also reign with [christ]; if we deny him, he also will deny us” (2:12). for benedict, christians” of the central committee of german catholics that benedict’s article did not have “magisterial authority, but [was] the position of an individual scholar.” see https://ccjr.us/dialogikaresources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope/dkr-zdk-2019jan22. 6 see the collection of such reactions on the website of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations at “emeritus pope benedict on supersession and covenant,” https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope. 7 “not mission, but dialogue,” herder korrespondenz (december 2018): 13-14, https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope/not-mission-but-dialogue. 8 e.g., walter homolka, “we are not an unsaved people!” die zeit (july 19, 2018): 30: “may [pope francis] completely refrain from any mission to the jews and ignore this writing of benedict!” https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope/we-arae-not-an-unsaved-people. 9 benedict xvi, “not mission, but dialogue” (emphasis added). 10 the terms “judaism” and “jew(s)” used here and henceforth most often refer to rabbinic judaism, the dominant form of judaism that emerged in the post-new testament and post-second temple period. 11 on p. 181 of his communio article, benedict explains that “‘covenant’ is a dynamic reality.” to indicate this dynamism this essay will avoid as much as possible referring to “covenant” as if it were an object to be possessed, preferring instead more active phraseology such as “covenantal life,” “covenanting,” or “to covenant.” https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope/dkr-zdk-2019jan22 https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope/dkr-zdk-2019jan22 https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope/not-mission-but-dialogue https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope/not-mission-but-dialogue https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope/we-arae-not-an-unsaved-people https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope/we-arae-not-an-unsaved-people 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) it is necessary to be faithful to paul’s claim and not to slip into replacement theology. it is also necessary not to undermine christian covenantal legitimacy and distinctiveness, both for christian self-identity itself and for christianity vis-à-vis judaism. this is a difficult balance to maintain, requiring nuance and precision. benedict is aware of this challenge and, in a statement after his article was published, admits to having been only partially successful in meeting it, for he recognizes that there has emerged a “negative…prevailing opinion of my contribution in germany.”12 critical assessments range from measured to harsh.13 nonetheless, benedict usefully identifies several contemporary questions that the post-conciliar rejection of supersessionism raises for christian religious identity. he identifies some core theological issues, offering what he sees as the parameters within which constructive catholic theology about jews and judaism should continue to develop in the future. benedict begins the balancing act by seeking to demonstrate christian continuity with biblical israel and its scriptures. this is unsurprising, for the hebrew bible provides the foundational theological narrative for both communities. he then appeals to the parallel development of rabbinic judaism and christianity after the fall of the temple in 70 c.e. as we will see, the form benedict’s arguments often take is unusual. he repeatedly grounds his claims about the legitimacy of central christian ideas by first establishing the legitimacy of biblical religion and post-biblical / rabbinic judaism. by doing so, benedict essentially inverts the traditional christian zero-sum argument in which christian legitimacy rested on the illegitimacy of judaism. this article will critically engage, section by section, with benedict’s complex and often difficult reasoning and suggest the strengths and weaknesses it offers for deepening the new relationship between christians and jews. it is the result of joint analysis and dialogue about benedict’s “comments” by a jewish professor and a catholic professor who co-direct an academic institute devoted to catholic-jewish relations. while we share some of the concerns found in essays by other commentators (especially regarding benedict’s lack of substantive engagement with jews and judaism; see below), we reject overheated accusations that benedict’s views are motivated by antisemitic or anti-jewish sentiments. on the contrary, we conclude that benedict makes some genuine contributions to jewish-christian relations that deserve serious, dispassionate, and critical study. 1. the theological significance of the dialogue between jews and christians in the first phrase of the opening section, benedict explicitly establishes the context for his comments: “since auschwitz, it has been clear that the church needs to think anew about the question of the nature of judaism” (163). while later 12 benedict xvi, “not mission, but dialogue.” 13 see for example the commentaries by daniel krochmalnik and thomas söding, walter homolka, stanislaw obirek, michael meier, and michael bӧhnke and others at https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope. https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope cunningham and gregerman: “genuine brotherhood” without remorse 4 sections of his article can be rightfully critiqued for ignoring contemporary judaism, here he illustrates a welcome sensitivity to the challenges posed by the shoah, not to humanity, not to the west, not to europe, and not even to generic christians, but to the catholic church directly. this challenge and the consequent church statements about jews and judaism provide the impetus for his article. the title of benedict’s article needs some explanation. his use of the phrase “treatise [from german traktat] on the jews” in this context might be helpfully understood as a systematized “theology” of jews and judaism. he is himself not writing such a treatise but commenting on christian efforts to write them in the past and present. he is frank about what this meant historically. such writings were “often called adversus judaeos and conceived in a polemical context” (166). however, the term “treatise” as he uses it is not inherently positive or negative. he seems to frame his comments at least partially as a response to a 1979 study by franz mussner, traktat über die juden.14 in his book, mussner writes, “‘tractates against the jews’ were written in the time of the church fathers, and the anti-jewish spirit of these tractates has its effects even in our own times.” breaking with this baleful history, mussner argues that “as the churches undertake a comprehensive rethinking of their relationship to judaism, it is appropriate and timely for us to produce a ‘tractate for the jews.’”15 in mussner’s understanding, only after the shoah did the long history of adversus judaeos tractates come to an end, replaced by positive assessments of jews and judaism. importantly, the two opposed types of tractates did not exist concurrently; rather, the hostile stance gave way to the favorable stance chronologically.16 benedict’s use of the phrase “tractate” draws on this discussion, though with two important distinctions from mussner. first, unlike mussner, benedict stresses that judaism, while rooted in the old testament, has undergone a long process of historical and theological development. therefore, “‘judaism’ in the strict sense does not mean the old testament” (164). this is both fair to judaism (which strictly speaking ought to be called “rabbinic judaism”) and to mainstream, non-marcionite17 christianity (which views the old testament as “essentially common to jews and christians” [ibid.]). second, for benedict, anti-jewish tractates do not reflect one (now past) era of church thinking, as mussner had described. on the contrary, for benedict they had and have no theological legitimacy at all. rather, they “reflect the political and social problems of coexistence [and] are well known and have repeatedly led to 14 published in english as franz mussner, tractate on the jews: the significance of judaism for christian faith (trans., leonard swidler; philadelphia: fortress press, 1984). benedict briefly quotes from the book. 15 mussner, tractate, xi. italics in the original. 16 with thanks to anette adelmann for this observation. 17 marcion was a mid-second century christian who argued that the god of israel in the hebrew bible was not the same deity proclaimed by christ. therefore, he insisted that israel’s scriptures were not normative for the church. his excommunication by the church in rome around the year 140 was a crucial decision. the inclusion of the “old testament” in the christian bible has determined christian self-understanding ever since. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) anti-semitic failures” (166). here he radically separates theology from historical circumstance; the latter is what explains anti-jewish statements and antisemitic acts. if, as he argues, judaism was and is theologically legitimate, then any claim to the contrary, such as is found in adversus judaeos texts, is not authentically christian but a reflection of negative secular (“political and social”) influences. it is on these grounds that he praises na §4. in it “the relationship between christianity and judaism is formulated in a decisive way. historical errors are rejected, and the truly authentic content of the christian tradition in matters of judaism is formulated” (168; emphasis added). mussner, in contrast, saw the centuries of christian antisemitism as among the church’s “great sins in history” for which “the church must constantly ask god for forgiveness for this guilt.”18 their tone is quite different: for benedict “antisemitic failures” are “historical errors,” while for mussner, antisemitism “fed the church for centuries”19 and demands theological “reparation.”20 benedict rejects anti-judaism as inauthentic christian teaching because of a defining early christian dispute. he criticizes marcion’s efforts in the second century to sever christian faith from the old testament. facing this challenge, he writes, other christians in that time wisely “excommunicated” marcion, for they believed that the biblical god of israel was also the god of jesus christ (165-66). this decisive move, eventually adopted as the orthodox position, foreclosed all attempts to present judaism and christianity as “two opposing religions.” any claims to the contrary, whether by marcion or others, jeopardize fundamental christian affirmations about the old testament and the god of israel, and therefore about judaism, for the two religions “remain connected through the common foundation of the ‘old testament.’” this has profound implications for the legitimacy of both traditions: “christians and jews worship the same god…. the faith of abraham is also the faith of the christians; abraham is also for [jews] ‘the father of faith.’” the formal rejection of marcion necessarily undermines the legitimacy of any tractates written against the jews (the “adversus judaeos” tradition). according to benedict’s logic, no such claim could reflect an “authentic” christian viewpoint for this would be an unacceptable lapse into marcionism. na precludes this as well (168). benedict’s anti-marcionite stance is also illustrated in his statements regarding rabbinic judaism. he consistently refrains from any negative judgments when writing about judaism and attributes to it integrity and religious legitimacy. such a non-polemical, balanced presentation might seem unremarkable. however, considering the long and widespread christian tradition of hostility to jews and judaism, his introductory presentation of the so-called “parting of the ways” is striking. he narrates the painful and contentious emergence of what became rabbinic judaism and christianity without any criticism of judaism. adopting a historical orientation, he writes that out of a shared biblical foundation, “judaism and christianity 18 mussner, tractate, 252-3. 19 ibid. 20 ibid., 154ff. cunningham and gregerman: “genuine brotherhood” without remorse 6 developed along divergent paths through a difficult process and so formed themselves into two separate communities” (166). eschewing an assessment or comparison of their truth-claims, he simply presents the traditions as “two responses in history to the destruction of the temple and the new radical exile of israel” (164). though he says relatively little about rabbinic judaism as such (see below), his tone is balanced, and his descriptions are accurate. for example, after a straightforward explanation of the development of the christian canon, he makes a parallel observation about the seminal texts of the rabbinic tradition: “in the first centuries after christ, in the mishna and the talmud, [jews’] own way of reading the sacred scriptures was decisively formulated” (165).21 the association of these sometimes contradictory approaches to scripture by jews and christians demonstrates the legitimacy he gives them. this recalls the preface he wrote as president of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith to a 2001 study of the pontifical biblical commission: it is clear that a christian rejection of the old testament would not only put an end to christianity itself as indicated above, but, in addition, would prevent the fostering of positive relations between christians and jews, precisely because they would lack common ground. in the light of what has happened, what ought to emerge now is a new respect for the jewish interpretation of the old testament. on this subject, the [pontifical biblical commission] says two things. first it declares that “the jewish reading of the bible is a possible one, in continuity with the jewish scriptures of the second temple period, a reading analogous to the christian reading, which developed in parallel fashion” (no. 22). it adds that christians can learn a great deal from a jewish exegesis practiced for more than 2000 years; in return, christians may hope that jews can profit from christian exegetical research (ibid.). i think this analysis will prove useful for the pursuit of judeo-christian dialogue, as well as for the interior formation of christian consciousness.22 benedict’s approach in his communio article is especially striking when he discusses the jews’ rejection of christian beliefs. he is not reticent about their opposition: “for jews it is clear that jesus is not the messiah and therefore christians are wrong to invoke their bible” (166). unlike most christians in history who vilified jews for their disbelief, he simply states this reality without apparent anger or resentment: “as we know, only a small part of israel has been able to accept [christian claims], while the larger part resisted [them]” (164). his characterization of the jews’ alternative belief system is stunningly bland: after 70 ce, jews went “some other way” than the christians. there is no indication of his disapproval or 21 later in the article benedict discusses the “‘essence’ of judaism [found in] talmud and mishnah” (184). 22 preface to the pontifical biblical commission (hereafter pbc), “the jewish people and their sacred scripture in the christian bible” (may 24, 2001), http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html#preface. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html#preface http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html#preface 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) criticism despite a profound disagreement about the proper response to the destruction of the temple. likewise, benedict’s explanation for the jews’ rejection of christian claims about jesus accurately reflects the views of most jews then and now: “the messiah brings peace; christ did not bring peace into the world.” this blunt formulation preserves the force of the challenge, and he does not minimize its seriousness. he then presents an explanation for how christian adopted a different concept of messianism. while this constitutes an implicit answer to the jews’ objections, it is not cast as a refutation and he does not deny the novelty of certain christian beliefs. similarly, he recounts paul’s angry response to unbelieving jews in rome in acts 28. despite the rancor of the scene, benedict cites it in order to show the slow “separation of the two communities” (164). this text is indeed relevant to the topic of the “parting of the ways.” benedict uses this scene only to reconstruct this history; he ignores paul’s polemic. from his anti-marcionite position, benedict insists that an authentic theology demands the legitimation of judaism, for such legitimacy is linked to the very nature of christianity itself. importantly, his rejection of hostility to judaism as inherently un-christian has the effect of answering with a resounding “no” a question frequently posed after the shoah—is christianity inevitably antisemitic? however, he does not discuss the historic fact that despite christianity’s intrinsic relatedness to judaism, no christians advanced a non-adversus judaeos theology until the twentieth century.23 this is discussed further below. silence on this point is a first indication of benedict’s tendency to interpret history in support of presupposed theological constructs. 2. vatican ii’s new perspective on the problem there is a tension in benedict’s claims regarding authentic and inauthentic christian teaching. on the one hand, he frankly admits that the church began to introduce new and unprecedented ideas about jews and judaism starting with the council and continuing to the present. this is apparent in the title he gave to this section (“vatican ii’s new perspective”), as well as his recognition of a “new view of judaism that developed after the council” (168). speaking of na, he writes that it offered “the first basic indications” of a catholic theology of judaism (163). he has made this admission before. in an address he delivered as pope in 2005, he acknowledged that in the face of “the recent crimes of the nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the church and the 23 john connelly, from enemy to brother: the revolution in catholic teaching on the jews, 19331965 (cambridge, ma / london, uk: harvard university press, 2012) narrates the difficulties faced by christian theologians trying to counter nazi antisemitism because the only theological precedents they had to call upon were adversus judaeos ones. see chapters 4 and 6. cunningham and gregerman: “genuine brotherhood” without remorse 8 faith of israel.”24 the adjective “new” suggests a possible discontinuity with traditional teachings. on the other hand, benedict wants to demonstrate the continuity of post-vatican ii catholic theology with preceding church teaching. this, too, he raised in the 2005 address, stating, “the second vatican council…has reviewed or even corrected certain historical decisions, but in this apparent discontinuity it has actually preserved and deepened her inmost nature and true identity.”25 this argument recurs in benedict’s “comments.” for him, the church’s nature and authentic identity is founded on its connections to biblical israel, which has implications for the church’s relations to rabbinic judaism. opposing theologies are erroneous and are the result of historical “political and social problems of coexistence” (166). here his view of the relationship between theology and history is noteworthy. he seems to think primarily in terms of transcendent theological truths that exist in timeless continuity, untainted by their possibly imperfect expressions in history, or perhaps the timeless truths are only made real in history very gradually over time. thus, the new perspectives introduced by na are not discontinuous with the essential truths of christian faith. rather, na began to articulate them accurately, unlike the long-dominant adversus judaeos position. among the virtues of this grounding of the post-conciliar theological rapprochement with jews and judaism in the nature of the church itself is that no one may legitimately dismiss it as merely a guiltdriven response to the shoah. of course, many commentators, both jews and christians, have judged that na was a genuine reversal of past teachings about jews and judaism. for instance, a member of its drafting team, gregory baum, wrote, “it could be argued, i think, that the church’s recognition of the spiritual status of jewish religion is the most dramatic example of doctrinal turn-about in the age-old magisterium ordinarium.”26 however, benedict has long been uncomfortable with a “hermeneutic of discontinuity” when interpreting the outcomes of the council, writing in 2005 that it “risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar church and the post-conciliar church.” thus benedict’s grounding of a theology “de iudaeis” in the church’s 24 benedict xvi, “address of his holiness benedict xvi to the roman curia offering them his christmas greetings,” december 22, 2005 (emphasis added), http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedictxvi/en/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia.html 25 benedict, “address…to the roman curia…2005” (emphasis added). see also later in the same address: “indeed, a discontinuity had been revealed but in which, after the various distinctions between concrete historical situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of principles proved not to have been abandoned. it is easy to miss this fact at a first glance.” 26 gregory baum, “the social context of american catholic theology,” proceedings of the catholic theological society of america 41 (1986): 87. this view is shared by both jews and christians; see connelly, enemy to brother, 267; walter kasper, “dominus iesus.” paper delivered at the 17th meeting of the international catholic-jewish liaison committee, may 1, 2001, https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kasper/kasper01may1-1. http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia.html https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kasper/kasper01may1-1 https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kasper/kasper01may1-1 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) “inmost nature and true identity” simultaneously strengthens the theological foundations of a positive relationship between christians and jews and resists the idea that authoritative catholic teaching can drastically change.27 in this section of his “comments,” benedict specifically turns to the 2015 vatican document, “g&c,” and its principal claims. in his opinion, it provided “an authoritative summary of previous developments” toward a post-na theology of judaism (168). he suggests these developments can be summed up in two statements. first, the church must reject the pre-na “theory of substitution” (which in english is more commonly called “supersessionism” or “replacement theology”). second, the covenant between god and israel was never revoked. in a statement summarizing his argument and indicating what he will focus on, he feels that “both of these theses…are basically correct but are in many ways imprecise and need to be given further critical consideration.” he will go on to examine each of these two “theses” in depth. benedict’s identification of these two statements as central in post-na catholic theological thinking is reasonable. it might be noted, however, that he does not mention a key principle from the 1974 vatican “guidelines” to implement na, one that was “a point of particular importance” to john paul ii.28 the “guidelines” states: “christians must…strive to acquire a better knowledge of the basic components of the religious tradition of judaism; they must strive to learn by what essential traits jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience.”29 one should not conclude that the absence of this principle from his précis of post-na developments means that benedict disagrees with it. he has, after all, affirmatively cited rabbinic texts30 and has written that, “after centuries of antagonism, we now see it as our task to bring these two ways of rereading the 27 benedict, “address…to the roman curia…2005”: “the church, both before and after the council, was and is the same church, one, holy, catholic and apostolic, journeying on through time; she continues ‘her pilgrimage amid the persecutions of the world and the consolations of god,’ proclaiming the death of the lord until he comes (cf. lumen gentium, n. 8).” this theological perspective of a church abiding in transcendent continuity as history unfolds is reminiscent of the concern by the crrj in the statement “we remember: a reflection on the shoah” (1998) to distinguish “the church as such” from “the errors” and “failures of her sons and daughters in every age.” 28 “address to representatives of jewish organizations,” march 12, 1979, https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/jp2-79mar12. 29 crrj, “guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate, no. 4,” december 1, 1974, preamble (hereafter “guidelines”), http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-irapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/-orientamenti-e-suggerimentiper-lapplicazione-della-dichiarazio/en.html. 30 e.g., in his “address at the great synagogue of rome,” january 17, 2010: “in the jewish tradition there is a wonderful saying of the fathers of israel: ‘simon the just often said: the world is founded on three things: the torah, worship, and acts of mercy’ (avoth 1:2)” [§7], http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2010/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20100117_sinagoga.html. https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/jp2-79mar12 https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/jp2-79mar12 http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/-orientamenti-e-suggerimenti-per-lapplicazione-della-dichiarazio/en.html http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/-orientamenti-e-suggerimenti-per-lapplicazione-della-dichiarazio/en.html http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/-orientamenti-e-suggerimenti-per-lapplicazione-della-dichiarazio/en.html http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/-orientamenti-e-suggerimenti-per-lapplicazione-della-dichiarazio/en.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2010/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20100117_sinagoga.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2010/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20100117_sinagoga.html cunningham and gregerman: “genuine brotherhood” without remorse 10 biblical texts—the christian way and the jewish way—into dialogue with one another, if we are to understand god’s will and his word aright.”31 however, by analyzing central aspects of a theology de iudaeis without a conscious and constant engagement with jewish perspectives, benedict risks not having the dynamism of ongoing jewish covenantal life significantly inform his constructive theology. seen in this light, his “comments” in communio appears to be more concerned with a theology of christianity than with a theology of judaism. benedict starts his treatment of his two summary statements by arguing first “that there was no ‘theory of substitution’ as such before the council” (168). a basis for this is the absence of the phrase from standard theological lexicons: “it had always been amazing to me that i had never heard of this ‘substitution theory’ myself. although i had never dealt directly with the topic of christianity and judaism, it was surprising that i did not know the most important theory about it. that’s why i went in search of it and found out that it was not an explicitly existing theory before the council.”32 he adds that there was no “uniform” christian understanding of “israel’s position in salvation-history after christ.” importantly, the concept of “salvation-history,” which is essential to his theological approach, here makes its first explicit appearance in the “comments.” yet he also acknowledges that certain new testament parables in which vineyard tenants and wedding feast invitees are indeed replaced by others “largely shaped the [church’s] understanding of israel’s rejection and how it functions in the present history of salvation” (169).33 these do not deter him from emphasizing that christianity cannot be supersessionist. benedict’s claim here is highly questionable. the fact that supersessionism was not consciously recognized (and challenged) as a theological paradigm until after the second vatican council does not mean that its defining premises were not universally taken for granted by christians for centuries. from the second century on, christians have invoked the so-called “deicide” charge as explaining the destruction of jerusalem34 and the christian replacement of jews as god’s people.35 31 benedict xvi, jesus of nazareth, part two, holy week: from the entrance into jerusalem to the resurrection (san francisco: ignatius press, 2011), 33. see also his preface to the 2001 pontifical biblical commission study quoted above. 32 benedict xvi, “not mission, but dialogue.” 33 this sentence is murky about what exactly israel has rejected (christ? the gospel? god?) or whether it is israel itself that has been rejected (by god?), though his larger point is clear. 34 see adam gregerman, building on the ruins of the temple: apologetics and polemics in early christianity and rabbinic judaism (tübingen, germany: mohr siebeck, 2016). 35 to provide a few of many possible examples over the centuries: origen, “it was fitting that the city where jesus endured these sufferings should perish utterly, and the jewish nation be overthrown, and the invitation to happiness offered them by god to pass to others, i mean to the christians” (contra celsum, iv, 22); augustine of hippo, “the church admits and avows the jewish people to be cursed, because after killing christ they continue to…mourn for the loss of their kingdom, and are in terrified subjection to the immensely superior number of christians” (contra faustum, book 12, §§11, 12); thomas aquinas, “the jews by reason of their crime are sentenced to perpetual servitude” [“letter to margaret, countess of flanders”]; and pope pius x, “the jewish religion was the foundation of our own; but it was superseded by the teachings of christ, and we cannot concede it any further validity” [raphael patai, the complete diaries of theodor herzl (trans. harry zohn; new york/london: herzl press, thomas yoseloff, 1960), 1603]. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) while it is true that these assertions were never magisterially organized into a coherent doctrinal formula that might then appear in theological lexicons, there also is no evidence at all for a contrasting positive theology of judaism. despite the canonical status of the “old testament,” the only theological stance that catholics had toward jews until the second vatican council was adversarial. the adversus judaeos tradition, then, coheres well with the standard definition of the church’s ordinary magisterium as that which has been taught ubique, semper et ab omnibus (everywhere, always and by everyone).36 benedict’s lack of direct engagement with the pervasiveness of the adversus judaeos tradition combines his priority on maintaining the continuity of catholic teaching with his insistence on denying even a hint of legitimacy to supersessionist claims, even in the past. when christian theology was and is properly understood, he writes, “it was [and is] clear that israel or judaism always maintained a special position” in it (169). as mentioned above, in the next two sections of his article, benedict will repeatedly argue that the legitimacy of christianity rests (at least partially) on its genuine rootedness in and emergence from the traditions of ancient israel. the legitimacy of rabbinic judaism likewise depends on the same connection to ancient israel. this christian claim is based on a trajectory begun in na, but it ultimately goes back to the break with marcion. his argument throughout the “comments” consistently moves from israel to the church, with the legitimacy of jewish covenantal life paralleling the legitimacy of christianity. benedict, though, we will see, typically treats judaism only briefly and largely focuses on applying this claim for legitimacy to christianity. still, benedict is aware that it could not apply only to christianity, for that would both give space for supersessionism and more importantly undermine any hebrew bible-based claims for legitimacy. one could then ask: if such an argument does not hold for judaism, why should it hold for christianity? that is why he must dismiss all supersessionist notions as dissolving the firm scriptural ground on which christians stand. benedict marshals biblical arguments to demonstrate the invalidity of supersessionism: “two points of view have always resisted the idea that the jewish people have been totally cut off from the promise” (169; emphasis added).37 they are, firstly, that “israel is undeniably the possessor of holy scripture.” even if they misinterpret it (he cites statements such as 2 cor 3:15f., regarding a veil that “covers the heart of israel”), they remain in possession of god’s word: “with holy scripture one is holding god’s revelation in one’s hands” (168-169). this is a notably positive assessment of the jewish connection to the bible regardless of how it is interpreted (or misinterpreted).38 36 as developed by st. vincent of lérins, commonitorium, ch. 20, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm. 37 this phrasing implies that israel has at least partially been “cut off from the promise,” but this would seem to run counter to the thrust of benedict’s reasoning at this point. 38 the opposite view already was fully formed by the second century. for example, justin, speaking about biblical prophecy, writes “they are contained in your scriptures, or rather not yours, but ours. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm cunningham and gregerman: “genuine brotherhood” without remorse 12 secondly, benedict notes that the new testament eschatologically refers to “all israel being saved” (rom 11:26) and to the redemption of “144,000 from the twelve tribes of israel” (rv 7:4).39 he reads these verses inclusively and without attention to their original context (revelation likely does not refer to non-christbelieving jews). rather, they buttress his claims about israel’s special status beginning in the earliest christian period. that is why, he argues, jews “alone in the medieval world could exist alongside christians as a religio licita” (“permitted religion,” 169). augustine’s influential “witness people” theology undergirds this special status. though augustine simply sought to explain why judaism even continued to exist after christ, benedict reads this theology in an excessively positive way: “israel must be deemed as existing apart from the community of the church in order to attest to the authenticity of the sacred scriptures.”40 3. the question of “substitution” in this long middle section on supersessionism, benedict treats “the essential elements of the promise to which the concept of substitution could be applied” rather than the topic in general (169). while this may make sense in theory, in practice both his interest in and scholarly approaches to his five different elements vary so widely as to feel unbalanced. some he passes over with barely a comment; others require multiple pages. paradoxically, in the two longest sections (four and five) he does not specifically address the idea of substitution. 3.1 the temple cult benedict explores the implications of the rejection of substitutionary theology, opening with the question, “does the eucharist replace the ritual [temple] sacrifices, or do they remain in themselves necessary?” (170). this framing determines how his reasoning will unfold. before looking at the details, it is helpful to give an overview of this subsection. he argues that a post-na “unqualified no to the ‘theory of substitution’ [as for we believe them; but you, though you read them, do not catch the spirit that is in them” (“dialogue with trypho,” 29). 39 importantly, benedict also observes, almost in passing, that according “to the perspective of the new testament, this eschatological view is not simply concerned with something that will eventually come to pass after many thousands of years; rather the ‘eschatological’ is always also somehow present” (169). if, therefore, the new testament declares that the salvation of jews is eschatologically certain, then that salvation is logically “also somehow present” in the covenantal lives of jews today. perhaps this relates to the assertion in “g&c,” §36: “that the jews are participants in god’s salvation is theologically unquestionable.” 40 interestingly, benedict’s benign presentation of augustinian thought here can be compared with a recent orthodox rabbinical statement that cites two medieval jewish sages: “as did maimonides and yehudah halevi, we acknowledge that the emergence of christianity in human history is neither an accident nor an error, but the willed divine outcome and gift to the nations” (international group of orthodox rabbis, “to do the will of our father in heaven: toward a partnership between jews and christians,” december 3, 2015, https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/jewish/orthodox-2015dec4). https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/jewish/orthodox-2015dec4 https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/jewish/orthodox-2015dec4 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) found in “g&c”] necessarily breaks down” when law and promise are viewed dynamically. in other words, there are ways in which a kind of evolutionary replacement did occur that both legitimately continued what came before (sacrificial worship) but introduced new (christian) eucharistic elements. hence, it was a limited sort of replacement. benedict understands these new historical elements to be modifications but not grounds for a full-scale replacement theology. his nuanced claim rests on the specific historical fact that temple sacrifices did actually disappear and had to be replaced or substituted for after 70 ce. benedict construes this historical development according to a christocentric understanding of salvation-history, a characteristic move of patristic interpretation.41 however, benedict gives no support to the idea that jews’ covenanting with god more broadly was replaced. to buttress his explanation of the temple cult, benedict invokes various hebrew bible texts that criticize temple cultic sacrifices, such as ps 51:16 (“you take no delight in sacrifice.… the sacrifice acceptable to god is a broken spirit”). aware that such passages do not advocate a cessation of animal sacrifice but rather that they be performed with the proper disposition, benedict also points to verses such as ps 51:19 to argue “that a merely spiritual sacrifice alone is perceived as insufficient.” this authentic tension in biblical ideas about sacrifice then serves to ground what comes later: the “total self-gift of jesus in the crucifixion.” this event was both a physical and spiritual sacrifice, reflecting the nature of both of these strands of thought in the biblical tradition. benedict thus seeks to resolve these inner-biblical tensions by characterizing the crucifixion as a “necessary god-given synthesis of both views.” the self-emptying, physical sacrifice of the divine-human jesus on the cross was both a spiritual and an “entirely real” physical sacrifice. he writes that, “for christians, it is clear that all previous cult finds its meaning and its fulfillment only insofar as it moves toward the sacrifice of jesus christ” (171). benedict concludes, “there really is no ‘substitution,’ but a journey that becomes one reality” in the resolution in christ of the tension between the physical and spiritual. yet, he adds, “this entails the necessary disappearance of animal sacrifices, in place of which (‘substitution’) the eucharist occurs” as the reenactment of jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. benedict’s formulation, counterposing “substitution” with “journey,” is not self-evident. it does not map neatly onto the actual chronological development of christian ritual and belief. however, his argument about consecutive legitimate developments, moving toward a singular reality that requires the disappearance of and substitution for temple animal sacrifices, makes sense when one recognizes that benedict is operating with a christological reading of history. this process is not a historical one but a salvation-historical one. this is made clear in his next sentence: “instead of a static view of substitution or non-substitution, there is a dynamic consideration of the whole of salvation-history, which finds its ἀνακεφαλαιώσις [recapitulation] in christ” (171). he narrates a linear development, from one stage to another (one might even say from lower to higher–note his 41 gregerman, building on the ruins, 19-136, 217-220. cunningham and gregerman: “genuine brotherhood” without remorse 14 language of fulfillment and universalism). notably, however, benedict does not deploy this idea of a “recapitulation” of the original temple cult in order to critique or reject (aspects of) rabbinic judaism. benedict’s christocentric biblical reasoning drives him to seek to integrate the divergent perspectives of ancient israel’s scriptures into a final, harmonious “godgiven synthesis.” this clearly reflects his distinctive approach, with its emphasis on uniqueness and inevitability (e.g., the crucifixion was “necessary”; “the necessary disappearance” of animal sacrifices). however, by its very nature the canon of the hebrew bible is multifaceted, a trait maintained in the later rabbinic corpus. jon levenson’s description makes this contrast vivid: whereas in the church the sacred text tends to be seen as a word (the singular is telling) demanding to be proclaimed magisterially, in judaism it tends to be seen as a problem with many facets, each of which deserves attention and debate. …and most of the talmud is a debate, with both majority and minority positions preserved and often unmarked. this is very different from most of the theological literature of christianity.42 benedict’s contention that the eucharist substitutes for the “necessarily disappearing” temple sacrifice is predicated upon a harmonizing christian mode of interpreting the hebrew bible that he imposes upon the canon’s inherent “polydoxy of biblical theology.”43 where the christian benedict sees “a certain contradiction between the two groups of verses” (171) about the temple sacrifices, a thesis and an antithesis that beg to be brought together in a salvation-history synthesis, in the hebrew bible and in the writings of later jewish interpreters one finds multiple dimensions of a profound subject maintained in an enduring creative tension. in other words, benedict’s reasoning within a christian perspective about temple sacrifices and the eucharist is circular. the “substitution” of the former by the latter is partially predicated upon the imposition of a univocal “salvation-history” interpretive method that is foreign to the multifaceted nature of the hebrew biblical tradition. still, it should be observed that benedict occasionally qualifies his statements with words such as “for christians,” which suggests a recognition of alternative jewish possibilities upon which he does not elaborate. his discussion is also devoid of polemic. benedict’s exclusive focus seems to be the insistence that later christian interpretations are legitimate developments upon a chronologically earlier ritual tradition, reinforcing the impression that his article is really more concerned with christian theology than with jewish religious developments. 3.2 cultic laws benedict places biblical “laws affecting individual persons” regarding food, circumcision, and the sabbath in the category “cultic laws.” in his brief discussion, 42 jon d. levenson, the hebrew bible, the old testament, and historical criticism (louisville: westminster/john knox press, 1993), 61; emphasis in the original. 43 ibid. 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) he seeks to neutralize any implication that christians substituted their own interpretations of these laws for jewish interpretations. rather, any differences between them are attributed to the missionary goals of the earliest apostolic preachers to the gentiles. he writes, “the abolition of the binding character [of these laws] was the condition for the emergence of worldwide christianity from the gentiles.” he has in mind here the debates in early christ-assemblies about whether formerly pagan gentiles needed to observe the torah in order to be pleasing to god. his statement reflects the position that prevailed in the early church and that allowed gentiles as gentiles to be admitted as equals. however, note that he does not criticize the law itself. regarding jews, benedict recognizes the torah’s positive role in maintaining “israel’s identity” in the diaspora. that is why he can irenically say that questions of torah observance “have not been a real problem for both sides since the separation of israel and the church” (171). 3.3 law and morality benedict’s views on the “legal and moral precepts of the torah” have much in common with his views on the temple cult (171). as above (in 3.1), he hews to a broad post-na trajectory that rejects claims that christianity replaces judaism or that christian rituals and beliefs replace no-longer-valid jewish rituals and beliefs. traditional substitutionary claims, that, for example, “the eight beatitudes are supposed to have taken the place of the commandments [and] the sermon on the mount is taken as loosening altogether the morality of the old testament” are simply incorrect. rather than true teaching, they reflect a “misunderstood paulinism” that pits the “old covenant” against the “new covenant” (171-72). no “radical substitution” has taken place; on the contrary, the biblical tradition itself was “subject to development,” with new views emerging over time. this model legitimates christian views of law and morality by recourse to this earlier hebrew biblical precedent. some have incorrectly thought christians’ interpretations of the bible break with the past (a view typically found among those hostile to judaism). however, benedict argues, they are valid outgrowths of an earlier tradition and do not repudiate or invalidate that tradition (or the rabbinic tradition that continues this development).44 furthermore, as above, his focus is almost entirely on the christian tradition, and he has little to say about jewish views. his argument is two-fold. first, he illustrates the deep continuities between biblical and christian teachings. without denying that some change has taken place, he argues that, fundamentally, “the moral precepts of the old covenant…remain valid.” likewise, the “moral instruction in the old covenant and the new covenant is, in the end, identical.” he minimizes or denies apparent discontinuities, thereby avoiding the types of contrasts between aspects of judaism and christianity that christians often used to demonstrate the superiority of christianity. second, and simultaneously, he repeatedly employs terminology to describe christian 44 his discussion of “christians” and “jews” in the first paragraph of 3.3 indicates his interest in both biblical israel and later jews. cunningham and gregerman: “genuine brotherhood” without remorse 16 views of law and morality that indicate some level of superiority or improvement over biblical or jewish views. for example, christians, he says, “read [the law] anew” and do so “in the new context of love for and being loved by jesus christ” (171-72). without deprecating other interpretations, “the new reading” they offer is a “deepening in unaltered validity.” this is surely an improvement of some kind (though the precise nature is vague), but, benedict insists, what emerges is “neither a repeal nor a substitution.” put colloquially, one might say it is “value added.” while this second approach does not directly contradict his first approach, it does introduce an unstated tension. by insisting on continuities regarding fundamental aspects of biblical, jewish, and christian views, and speaking of them positively, he rejects anti-jewish polemic or unfavorable contrasts. however, this is only part of his argument. the introduction of the distinctive, and implicitly superior, features of christian interpretation allow benedict to avoid relativism or indifferentism. there are unique riches in the christian tradition, beyond what seem to be present in the jewish tradition, though these are not defined by contrast to the biblical or jewish traditions. 3.4 the messiah not surprisingly, messianism is a prominent issue, certainly for benedict (if not necessarily for jews in dialogue with christians). he asserts that “the messianic identity of jesus” is what divides jews and christians (172). again, he starts with scripture, which, he says, presents “a polyphony and variety of forms of [messianic] hope.” to illustrate this he cites (but does not quote) a dozen biblical passages, as if to underscore this broad range. this sets up his argument. from this corpus of material two prominent conceptions of messianism emerge: one is offered by “the jewish side” and the other comes from jesus and “new testament testimonies” (173).45 importantly, benedict does not assert that only one is correct. rather, he fairly represents some of the views of both sides without passing judgment on them and characterizes them as different and even conflicting. he grants both legitimacy, for, he acknowledges, these different ways to interpret the bible reflect a “real issue of dispute” (172). he is far more interested in and sympathetic toward the christian conception, of course, though he does illustrate jewish views with numerous examples from ancient and medieval times. specifically, he notes that jews have generally highlighted davidic models of messianism and anticipated this-worldly changes in the messianic age. they hold isaiah 2:2-5 and micah 4:1-5 (“nation shall not lift up the sword against nation, 45 he often writes as if christian messianic concepts go back to jesus himself, without noting the important recognition by catholic exegetes that the “gospels are the outcome of long and complicated editorial work” (crrj, “notes on the correct way to present jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church” [june 24, 1985], iv,21,a [hereafter “notes,”], http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jewsdocs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_jews-judaism_en.html). one manifestation of this approach is that benedict cites gospel words of jesus as if they are ipsissima verba, (the “actual words” spoken by jesus), discounting their composition by the post-resurrectional gospel authors. this has the effect of diluting jesus’ jewishness by reading later christian theology into his statements. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_jews-judaism_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_jews-judaism_en.html 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) neither shall they learn war anymore”) “as the core of [their] messianic hope” (174). he recognizes the sound biblical foundation of a traditional jewish hope for visible change in the world and frankly admits that “it is clear that these words have not been fulfilled [by jesus or anyone else] but remain an expectation for the future” (175). he offers no rebuttal or critique of the application of this standard, for he is aware that jews expect that one who claims to be the messiah would “prove his identity” by inaugurating these changes (173). upon turning to christian messianic conceptions, benedict moves in parallel fashion. having briefly illustrated jews’ views, he then embarks on an extended apologetic for the legitimacy of a christological reading of the messianic promises of the “entire old testament” (173; emphasis in original). this rests on his portrayal of the hebrew bible in developmental terms “as a book of hope,” in which, as time passed, “the passion of god in this world, and thus the suffering of the righteous one, becomes ever more central” (173-74). this undergirds his efforts to find biblical evidence for a messianic role quite different from that expected by most jews and in line with the “proclamation” by jesus and early christians about what the messiah was to do. he tightly situates this role within a christological salvation-history framework: “this [messianic] hope points less and less to an earthly and political power…the importance of the passion as an essential element of hope comes increasingly to the fore.” grounding this claim in some of the views found (perhaps obliquely; see below) in the bible, he legitimates a number of departures from the jewish perspective. for example, he de-emphasizes kingly models of worldly success. jesus, he writes, “did not draw on the davidic tradition.” instead, benedict finds a starkly different vision. speaking of jesus, benedict writes, “what was central for him” was “the idea of god’s suffering servant, of salvation through suffering.” for this jesus drew upon “the songs of the suffering servant in isaiah, as well as the mysterious visions of suffering of zechariah.” he also drew on “the form of the son of man formulated by daniel as a figure of hope.” none of these contain hopes for a political or military victory. on the contrary, the hope found in the messianic model exemplified by jesus reflects yearnings by those facing “exile and persecution.” these experiences, stripped of any “triumphant [read: davidic] accent,” are “essential stages in god’s journey with his people, which moves toward jesus of nazareth” (174). benedict’s eschatology diverges significantly from jewish views. he writes that “according to jesus’ understanding of history, a ‘time of the gentiles’ comes between the destruction of the temple and the end of the world.” he introduces multiple steps into the messianic process that align with jesus’ career and the subsequent history of the church. above all, this includes a gentile mission.46 instead of a process “considered to be very short” (which, he admits, reflects authentic biblical traditions), the advent of the messiah “is not a time of cosmic transformation” (176). history moves slowly, even in messianic time, just as the israelites wandered for forty years in the desert. benedict does recognize that some of these 46 see also the discussion of cultic laws in 3.2 above regarding “the emergence of worldwide christianity from the gentiles” (171). cunningham and gregerman: “genuine brotherhood” without remorse 18 messianic ideas are not “directly evident as such in the texts of the old testament.” still, they have biblical roots and, most importantly, “correspond to the unfolding of the hope of israel” (175). in short, this christian messianic model is as legitimate as jewish model(s), only this model is suitable “for christianity in its exodus journey” of suffering ultimately followed by “the great gift that leads to true life” (177). in his defense of the christian interpretation, benedict notes that the church, “in dialogue with the jews…tries again and again to show that all this is ‘scriptural’” (176) this recalls an important statement made by the pontifical biblical commission in 2001: “christians can and ought to admit that the jewish reading of the bible is a possible one.”47 in his communio “comments,” it is almost as if benedict longs for jews to admit that it is the christian reading of the hebrew bible that is a possible one. 3.5 the promise of land benedict next considers whether supersessionism applies to the biblical promise of the land of israel to abraham’s biological descendants by noting that christians also see themselves as his heirs, but not “in the earthly-historical sense” (176). consequently, christians are a people found among all the nations, who “do not expect any particular country in this world.” the biblical promise of land in the christian perspective, says benedict, “refers to the future world and relativizes the different affiliations to particular countries. the dialectic of responsibly belonging to this world and at the same time being on a journey determines the christian understanding of land and nationality. this must, of course, always be newly worked through, suffered, and experienced” (177). having argued that christians are not religiously bound to the land of israel or to any specific land, he turns next to judaism. unlike christians, jews “adhered to the idea of the concrete descent from abraham and thus necessarily had to search again and again for a concrete inner-worldly meaning for the promise of land” (178). benedict appreciates that “the events of the shoah made a state of their own an even more urgent matter…[and] with the decaying of the ottoman empire [it became possible] to make the historical homeland of the jews once again their own.” he sees that while the zionist project to reestablish jewish sovereignty on their ancestral land was secular in nature, it also aroused deep religious feelings among many jews. benedict then correctly observes that the “question of what to make of the zionist project was also controversial for the catholic church” (178). he proceeds to make the strong but easily misunderstood statement that “a theologically-understood acquisition of land (in the sense of new political messianism) was unacceptable…a strictly theologically-understood [jewish] state—a jewish faith-state that would view itself as the theological and political fulfillment of the promises—is unthinkable within history according to christian faith and contrary to the christian understanding of the promises” (178; emphasis added). he adds, however, that just as na had distinguished between the spiritual and worldly 47 pontifical biblical commission, “the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible,” §22. 19 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) realms by insisting that it was “moved not by political reasons but by the gospel’s spiritual love,” so, too, the holy see was able in 1993 to recognize “the state of israel as a modern constitutional state, and sees it as a legitimate home of the jewish people, the rationale of which cannot be derived directly from holy scripture” (179; emphasis added). benedict’s differentiation between spiritual and political considerations, however, appears somewhat muddied by his next two sentences: “yet, in another sense, it [presumably the establishment of the state of israel] expresses god’s faithfulness to the people of israel. the nontheological character of the jewish state means, however, that it cannot as such be considered the fulfillment of the promises of scripture” (179). his reasoning seems to be that the holy see established diplomatic relations with the new state of israel because “the jewish people, like every people, had a natural right to their own land” (178). in doing so, the catholic church was not attributing any messianic fulfillment of biblical promises to israel’s existence, something that would be “unthinkable within history” because for christians the messianic era must, by definition, involve christ jesus. in his absence, this cannot be the messianic age and thus we are all still “within history.” nonetheless, benedict seems unwilling to preclude any spiritual meaning to “the massive return of jews from all over the world to zion,” as rabbi arie folger wrote in a letter to him.48 benedict also mentions the idea that the state of israel “expresses god’s faithfulness to the people of israel.” for benedict, the state of israel in this may have religious significance, but not messianic significance in our current preeschatological history.49 benedict here echoes the 1985 vatican “notes,” which similarly oscillates between spiritual and earthly considerations: christians are invited to understand [jewish] religious attachment [to israel] which finds its roots in biblical tradition, without however making their own any particular religious interpretation of this relationship. the existence of the state of israel and its political options should be envisaged not in a perspective which is in itself religious, but in their reference to the common principles of international law. the permanence of israel (while so many ancient peoples have disappeared without trace) is a historic fact and a sign to be interpreted within god’s design.50 what the “notes” had articulated as “within god’s design” regarding the jewish people’s long history, benedict now applies to the present reality of the existence 48 arie folger, “reply to emeritus pope benedict,” september 4, 2018, https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope/folger-2018sept4. 49 this point connects with benedict’s discussion of the “time of the gentiles” in the previous section. for him, this period continues to unfold until the messianic age arrives with the parousia of christ jesus in the future. 50 crrj, “notes,” vi, 25; emphasis added. https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope/folger-2018sept4 https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope/folger-2018sept4 cunningham and gregerman: “genuine brotherhood” without remorse 20 of a jewish national homeland. “god’s faithfulness to the people of israel,” a religious concept, can potentially be seen as evident once more in this recent historical development. as with other topics he discusses in the article, benedict theologizes with a christocentric conception of salvation-history that, he says, is confirmed by (selected) actual events: “the course of history shows a growth and unfolding of the [specific land] promises, as we have seen in relation to the other dimensions of the promise [in general, beginning with the patriarchs]” (179). he emphasizes the particular experiences of the jewish people both in the land and, importantly, outside the land. the latter especially fits into this overarching salvation-history that assigns israel in exile a unique role: “israel, in exile, has finally realized that their god is a god above the gods, who freely disposes of history and nations…a god who is not only god of a particular country, but a god to whom the world as a whole belonged.” this of course coheres with a christian salvation-history that begins with the gospel initially preached only among jews but soon shared with diaspora jews and ultimately and successfully with gentiles as well: “the jews have opened the door to god precisely through their final scattering in the world” (180). benedict does not nullify the land promise, though he does minimize its relevance in christianity. after a digression into a discussion of the (perhaps providential) convergence of jewish monotheism with greek philosophy, this section of the “comments” concludes. benedict does not explicitly state whether the biblical promise of land to abraham has been superseded. he argues that exile from the land enabled the god of israel to become known by all humanity: “the jews have opened the door to god precisely through their final scattering in the world” (180). universalism has been released from its jewish particularity according to the divine plan. yet, benedict does not deny the value of jewish particularity, noting, almost in passing, that history testifies to “god’s faithfulness to the people of israel” (179). 4. the “never-revoked covenant” benedict next turns to the second of his two main topics: the “never-revoked covenant” that defines jewish covenantal life. the catholic claim that the covenant was never revoked, he says, is “basically correct” (168). however, “some details need to be clarified and deepened” (181). unlike in earlier sections, benedict is not seeking to dispel the possibility that the christian tradition may have formerly supported an erroneous theological claim. his discussion here relates to what he sees as the overly sweeping nature of the claim about the unrevoked covenant, which precludes a limited form of replacement that benedict does find acceptable. he grants that “the formula of the ‘never-revoked covenant’ may have been helpful in a first phase of the new dialogue between jews and christians,” for, among other benefits, it likely assuaged jewish concerns early in the dialogue. however, “it is not suited in the long run to express in an adequate way the magnitude of [covenantal] reality” (184). his discussion should be seen as his effort to remedy that 21 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) weakness. as before, his reading of history as an unfolding of the divine plan of universal salvation shapes his analysis. benedict’s argument rests on an important distinction. in the history of jewish covenanting with god there has been some replacement (of one covenant for another) but there has not been abrogation (the total revocation or cancellation of jewish covenanting in general). this nuance allows him to demonstrate distinctive features of christian covenanting vis-à-vis jewish covenanting without lapsing into an unacceptable anti-judaism or marcionism. before looking at the claims he makes to support this, at the outset one should note that the scope of his overall argument is limited. he does not deny that recent popes and church teachings have repeatedly referred to a jewish covenant that, in john paul ii’s words in a 1980 speech, “perdures and is never invalidated” (181).51 he also cites the 1994 catechism of the catholic church as stating that “the old covenant has never been revoked.”52 he concludes that the phrase “thus belongs in a certain sense to the current teaching of the catholic church.” however, his use of the qualification “in a certain sense” hints at the clarification to come. benedict resists the use of “covenant” in the singular form and instead endorses a plural view of covenants. building on paul’s terminology in romans 4, he says that references to “the covenant” are too limited. they tend toward an unwelcome “strict juxtaposition of old (first) and new covenant.” also, he explains that “‘covenant’ is a dynamic reality that is concretized in an unfolding series of covenants…the noahic covenant, the abrahamic covenant, the mosaic covenant, the davidic covenant, and finally, in various guises, the promise of the new covenant” (181; emphasis added). therefore, to covenant is to participate in a relationship with some fluidity and that takes various forms. even if covenants are “broken by man [sic]” they can be renewed, incorporating features that were not present in the earlier covenant. that is why it is too static to speak simply of a covenant never revoked, for there is no single covenant to speak of. in line with this fluid covenantal model that is based on his linear view of salvation-history, eventually there must be a covenant that includes christ. christ is, for benedict, the pivotal point in salvation-history who inaugurates a covenant 51 this claim has its roots in na 4. while the statement did not speak of a “never-revoked covenant,” it is hard to imagine what else the declaration could have meant when it proclaimed that “god holds the jews most dear for the sake of their fathers,” when it chose to render romans 9:4-5 in the present tense (“theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises”), and when it repudiated the idea that jews were “rejected or accursed by god.” if jews are not divinely rejected but beloved and so continue to be blessed by sonship, glory, covenants, law, worship, and promises, then no other conclusion is possible than that jews continue to abide in covenant with god. 52 catechism of the catholic church (washington, d.c.: united states catholic conference, 2004), §121. it is interesting that in this paragraph the catechism is arguing that “because the old covenant has never been revoked” the old testament is “an indispensable part of sacred scripture” whose “books are inspired and retain a permanent value.” unlike pope john paul ii (whom it does not cite here), the catechism makes no connections with living jewish covenantal life today and is focusing on intertextual relationships between the old and new testaments. perhaps that is what benedict means by “in a certain sense.” cunningham and gregerman: “genuine brotherhood” without remorse 22 that transcends the earlier covenants.53 benedict posits that there were multiple earlier covenants because “‘covenant’ in the bible…occurs in stages” (183). these are “essential stages in god’s journey with his people,” though ultimately all “moves toward jesus of nazareth” (174). there were failures along the way, causing god great suffering but leading to “a new level of love”: the self-giving of jesus christ “unto death and in resurrection, [which] opens the new covenant” (18384). god’s love, he says, requires the unconditional intervention of god’s son into human history to reestablish a final promissory covenant of universal salvation, thereby fulfilling the promises contained in the “book of hope,” the old testament (173). this is the point at which benedict introduces replacement terminology in a limited sense. ultimately, all previous covenants are “gathered together under the heading of the ‘first covenant’, which is now replaced by the final, ‘new’ covenant” (181; emphasis added). employing again the salvation-history perspective encountered earlier, benedict invokes the letter to the hebrews and several biblical prophetic texts to argue that the new covenant overcomes the shortcomings of earlier covenants, for it alone is “permanent” and “definitive” (183-84). how does this scenario relate to the covenants with the biblical israelites? the people had many failures and shortcomings. as the bible narrates, “israel does not remain faithful and prostitutes itself with all kinds of deities” (182). furthermore, the covenants themselves were “limited” and “intermediate” (181). these previous covenants have to be seen within this context “of human failure, the breaking of the covenant and its internal consequences: the destruction of temple, the scattering of israel, and the call to repentance, which restores man’s capacity for the covenant” (183). benedict identifies limitations of specific covenants too. the mosaic covenant, for example, was “bound up with the condition of fulfilling the law.” when the law was not fulfilled, the covenant “fail[ed].” likewise, the davidic covenant “was broken by man and came to an end.” however, the jews’ transgressions did not leave them bereft of any connection to god: “the covenant between god and israel is indestructible because of the continuity of god’s election” (182). the relationship endures, according to new terms or in a different form. this avoids supersessionism or a retrospective or present invalidation of the relationship between god and israel. the relationship is inherently unbreakable despite israel’s misbehavior. while there is divine “anger,” he also insists “there is no denunciation [of the people] on the part of god” that would constitute revocation. rather, history has moved to a “new stage of covenant theology,” in which benedict considers it appropriate to speak of replacement in a narrow sense. one could thus speak of “covenant” with a capital “c” as the overarching dynamic of permanently sharing life with god that is fleshed out historically or articulated in human language in an unfolding series of “covenants” with a lowercase “c.” characteristically, benedict sees both continuity between the 53 on this theme in the writings of cardinal walter kasper, president of the crrj during benedict’s pontificate, see adam gregerman, “superiority without supersessionism: walter kasper, ‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’, and god’s covenant with the jews,” theological studies 79 (2018): 36-59. 23 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) covenants (one covenant follows or co-exists with another) and discontinuity (all pre-christian covenants were preliminary, awaiting a “new beginning to the covenant with god.”) there are tensions between benedict’s salvation-history approach and a chronological historical account. benedict puts christ at the center or pivot of history. all other events—past or future—necessarily must be somehow related to him. for example, he writes, “jesus responds in advance to the two historical events that shortly afterward fundamentally changed the situation of israel and the concrete form of the sinai covenant: the destruction of the temple…and the scattering of israel in a worldwide diaspora” (184; emphasis added). benedict here breaks with a linear consideration of historical events. the jerusalem temple was destroyed forty years after jesus’ crucifixion. the jewish diaspora had been well-established for centuries before jesus’ birth. benedict here subordinates history to christian theological paradigms. this orientation also raises questions regarding the development of catholic theologies that take seriously jewish self-understandings of their own history and covenantal experiences. benedict further describes the approach of the letter to the hebrews to the “new covenant” as taking all “previous covenants” and gathering them “together under the heading of the ‘first covenant,’ which is now replaced by the final, ‘new’ covenant” in christ (181). he does not recognize the eschatological character of prophetic expectations in many of these previous covenants or the eschatological horizon of the author of hebrews. apocalyptic jewish texts and movements, including but not limited to the movement started by jesus, applied such “new covenant” language to themselves precisely because they also believed they were living at the end of the days. benedict however minimizes this context, treating all of them as preliminary despite what they say. furthermore, two thousand years later, it is self-evident that the torah has not yet been put into the inmost beings or inscribed on the hearts of either christians or jews (cf. jer 31:33). this means that the “new covenant” has not yet achieved the finality that benedict here attributes to it. finally, the letter to the hebrews, and its discussion of “all previous covenants,” was written before rabbinic judaism had arisen. it is therefore questionable how it can contribute to present-day theology about judaism. his covenantal scenario raises questions regarding his earlier statements about rabbinic judaism and christianity. in a particularly enigmatic sentence, he makes the claim that the sinai covenant was “reestablished”54 in jesus’ blood (184). the christian covenant has this unique status, for it is related to but surpasses earlier covenants. in particular, it fundamentally altered “the concrete form of the sinai covenant.” however, benedict earlier asserted that rabbinic judaism and christianity were both responses to the end of israelite cultic practices with the destruction of the temple. he clearly avoids making any comparisons between them. as noted, he usually presents rabbinic judaism alongside emergent christianity as one of 54 “umstiftung” in the german original, which is something of a neologism. it has the sense of a refoundation, a re-grounding, a new basis for something. franz posset helpfully noted benedict’s use of this unusual word. cunningham and gregerman: “genuine brotherhood” without remorse 24 “two paths,” each with their own “essence.” but if only one tradition is grounded in the reestablished covenant, does he introduce a hierarchy of legitimacy otherwise absent from his parallel statements about the two religions? perhaps the reestablishment of the sinai covenant in christ need not be the only “permanently valid form” of the covenant if the rabbinical re-grounding is itself a dynamic manifestation of the “indestructible” covenantal life between god and israel (182). it might be said that the work of the rabbis was mutatis mutandis also a “reestablishment” of the sinai covenant in their adaptive traditions of torah interpretation. there is another seeming imbalance in his views. benedict, using generic terminology, says covenantal history “is codetermined by the whole drama of human error” (182). even its “permanently valid form” does not preclude or end violations. however, it is not human or gentile but only jewish sins and offenses that he mentions: “the breaking of the covenant and its internal consequences: the destruction of temple, the scattering of israel” (183). illustrations of the seemingly generic “guilt of man” are not taken from non-jews’ misdeeds.55 there is no explicit recognition of christians’ sinfulness in his discussion of covenantal breaches. this absence results in a contrast between earlier covenants, repeatedly violated by jews, and the definitive and final new covenant in christ. benedict of course does not believe that christians are sinless or do not also violate their own covenantal obligations before god. earlier he had written about christians’ “antisemitic failures” (166) and that the “time of the gentiles” is a time “in which evil continues to have power…a time when love and truth are defeated” (176). he also concludes his article with a quotation from the new testament that mentions christians being faithless (184). therefore, it would have been more balanced theologically to have engaged directly with christians’ imperfect performance of their covenanting life in christ. 5. conclusion benedict makes some welcome contributions to a catholic theology of relations with jews and judaism: first, he insists that such theology must be predicated on the fundamental principle that christianity and judaism are not opposing religions. it is integral to the nature of genuine christianity to have a positive and enriching relationship with jews and judaism. in benedict’s perspective, for christians to be anti-jewish would be tantamount to falling into the heresy of marcionism. replacement theology or supersessionism in the sense of christians’ substituting for jews as god’s covenanting people is not and could never be part of authentic christian theology. second, since rabbinic judaism and christianity are both the legitimate heirs of the hebrew bible, their interrelationship must be a dialogical one based upon their shared biblical roots. each community in its respective history and traditions has built upon but also moved beyond the ways that covenantal life 55 some readers of the german communio article found this lopsided treatment to be especially offensive and hurtful; see dialogika, “emeritus pope benedict on supersession and covenant.” 25 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) was lived in biblical israel. benedict, in a correspondence following the publication of his article, said he believes that these different traditions of biblical interpretation need to dialogue with each other even though, “as far as humans can foresee, this dialogue within ongoing history will never lead to an agreement between the two interpretations: this is god’s business at the end of history. for now, it remains to both sides to struggle for the proper insight and to reverentially respect the perspective of the other side.”56 third, benedict seeks to balance the “already” and “not-yet” aspects of christian soteriology. christ is, for benedict, the “turning point in time” (167). thus, he emphasizes that jesus fulfills israel’s unfulfilled hopes (citing, for example, luke 1:33 [181] and john 1:18; 13:25 [175]). in christ, the promise in jeremiah 31 “is now a present reality” (183). still, benedict simultaneously holds that a “time of the gentiles” is currently unfolding. salvation has not yet fully arrived. this era in which we currently live is not yet “a time of cosmic transformation” but rather a time when “god’s power…is a power of patience and love that remains effective against the power of evil. it is a time of god’s patience, which is often too great for us—a time of victories, but also a time when love and truth are defeated” (176). while placing christ jesus at the center of human history is not the only way of conceiving christian salvation history, benedict’s effort to assert both the “already” and the “not yet” is important, not just for christian theology generally but for relations with jews, whom christians accused in the past of stubbornly refusing to recognize all that has already been accomplished in christ. it can thus be said that foundational to benedict’s thinking here is that both jews and christians await the complete fulfillment of the hopes expressed in the hebrew bible and which, for christians, were confirmed and intensified in christ. fourth, benedict largely adheres to the tradition of the catholic church’s politically and religiously cautious and moderate views of the state of israel.57 shunning eschatological scenarios, he writes that catholics may not view this state messianically as the manifestation of the imminence of the end-times. he also eschews theological denunciations of israeli policies that cast the state as a “corporate jew,” to be judged according to biblical standards as interpreted by christians.58 it should be regarded as a “legitimate home of the jewish people…consistent with the standards of international law.” he does, however, make a brief, allusive comment that the existence of this jewish home can have religious significance for christians as an expression of “god’s faithfulness to the people of israel” (179; emphasis added). this suggests an area for possible further theological development. 56 benedict xvi, “letter to rabbi ari folger,” august 23, 2018, https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope/benedict-2018aug28. 57 see “biblical land promises and the state of israel: a challenge for catholic (and jewish) theology” in philip a. cunningham, seeking shalom: the journey to right relationship between catholics and jews (grand rapids, mi. and cambridge, uk: eerdmans publishing, 2015), 220-233. 58 see for example adam gregerman, “israel as the ‘hermeneutical jew’ in protestant statements on the land and state of israel: four presbyterian examples,” israel affairs 23 (2017): 773-93. https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope/benedict-2018aug28 https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-today-s-dialogue/emeritus-pope/benedict-2018aug28 cunningham and gregerman: “genuine brotherhood” without remorse 26 fifth, benedict in a number of writings has affirmed that the jewish people today have a god-given mission in the world. he ventures to say that in the time of the gentiles, “israel retains its own mission,”59 even after having “opened the door to god precisely through their final [diasporic] scattering in the world” (180). from ancient times through the present, jews and christians have “a common struggle with our mission.”60 he does not say much about the content of the jewish mission, though it would be prudent and respectful to let jews define their own understandings of their mission(s) “in the light of their own religious experience.”61 nevertheless, the recognition of jewish vocations in the world is a significant step for catholic theology. keeping these parameters and principles in mind, we turn finally to questions for the future, some of them arising from serious weaknesses in benedict’s essay. he helpfully distinguishes between biblical israelite faith and jewish (i.e., rabbinic) faith. his attribution of spiritual worth to the latter is a significant departure from supersessionist views that saw post-new testament judaism as obsolete. however, to the degree that benedict’s article “deals exclusively with the refining of internal christian…norms but does not actually have a conversation with jewish theology,”62 it effectively relegates living judaism to irrelevance for catholic theology, at least in regard to much of the substance of his “comments.” this lack of consistent engagement with judaism as lived within the jewish community significantly constricts the contribution he can make to the development of “a newlyfashioned treatise de iudaeis” (168). benedict’s dense writing style also opens the door to his being misconstrued by some readers as supporting anti-jewish attitudes. for example, one wonders if benedict’s judgement that “a merely spiritual sacrifice alone is perceived [in certain biblical verses] as insufficient” could be taken by unsophisticated readers as a criticism of rabbinic judaism (170). rabbinic judaism, after all, came to view nonsacrificial ritual practices as equal or superior to animal sacrifices.63 since benedict had already pointed out that judaism and christianity “were two responses in history to the destruction of the temple,” it would have been preferable had he observed that the rabbis also substituted new practices for the vanished temple rites (164). by not integrating jewish self-understanding and history on precisely such points of overlap, he limits the possibilities of “deepened theological dialogue between the catholic church and judaism.”64 59 jesus of nazareth, 46. 60 letter to rabbi arie folger. 61 crrj, “guidelines,” preamble. 62 vatican news, “theologe tück kommentiert neuen text von benedikt xvi,” july 9, 2018, https://www.vaticannews.va/de/papst/news/2018-07/papst-benedikt-xvi-emeritiert-aufsatz-judenchristen-theologie.html. 63 e.g., avot d’rabbi nathan 4 (walking by the destroyed jerusalem temple, rabban johanan ben zakkai reassured a worried rabbi joshua, “we have another form of atonement which is as great, and this is deeds of loving-kindness”). 64 kurt koch praises the article for this reason in his “foreword to benedict xvi’s ‘grace and vocation without remorse,’” communio 45/1 (spring 2018): 162. https://www.vaticannews.va/de/papst/news/2018-07/papst-benedikt-xvi-emeritiert-aufsatz-juden-christen-theologie.html https://www.vaticannews.va/de/papst/news/2018-07/papst-benedikt-xvi-emeritiert-aufsatz-juden-christen-theologie.html 27 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) relatedly, we have seen how much of benedict’s thought is predicated on a certain narration of christian salvation-history, one that places christ at the center of human history and simultaneously contributes to the sidelining of jewish covenantal life. instead of ignoring ongoing jewish covenantal life, ought not christians be seeking to retell the story of salvation-history in ways that substantively affirm judaism as contributing to humanity’s redemption until the end of days? is it possible, for example, to draw upon benedict’s affinity for thinking in terms of covenantal “stages” to conceive of jewish spiritual life today as another “stage” or “path” existing concurrently with christianity as a post-new testament “stage” or “path”? this would seem a particularly useful approach since judaism’s “indestructible” covenantal relationship with god must, from a christian point of view, necessarily also include the experience of the ongoing inspiration of the holy spirit. additionally, benedict has previously written about christ as the “living torah,” which presents interesting possibilities for further developments in christology and hence also of a salvation-history narrative.65 benedict deserves thanks for stressing the importance of catholic-jewish dialogue. even though jews read the tanakh with rabbinic “lenses” and christians read the old testament with new testament “lenses,” there is, of course, not a single “jewish” way of reading a specific text any more than there is a single “catholic” way. new insights and research tools are constantly emerging, especially for those christians and jews who learn together. this raises interesting possibilities likely to be welcomed by benedict, who spoke of his “great joy that i was able to see how much the new work of exegesis on both sides allows for approaches that were hitherto barely imaginable… it is a great encouragement to me to see so many new possibilities.”66 in addition, since 1943 the catholic church has embraced critical methods of interpreting scripture. so, too, many jewish scholars employ various forms of critical analyses. a question for the future is whether joint catholic and jewish studies of scripture will help both communities negotiate the sometime tense relationship between their respective traditional interpretations and the results of critical biblical research. benedict has put forth a christian agenda for the dialogue, one that likely differs from what might be offered by a jew. he gives the strong impression that christ is the only significant topic to consider.67 this is evident in his choice of 65 see, e.g., hans hermann henrix, “the son of god became human as a jew: implications of the jewishness of jesus for christology,” in philip a. cunningham et al., eds., christ jesus and the jewish people today: new explorations of theological interrelationships (grand rapids, mi and cambridge, uk: eerdmans publishing, 2011), 114-143, esp. 131-138. 66 benedict xvi, “not mission, but dialogue.” 67 note the very germane observation by historian john connelly about conversations between jews and christians in the aftermath of world war ii: “strange as it sounds, it was this sense—the sense of common suffering of jews and christians—and not witness to auschwitz that gave impetus to the remolding of christian thought. it did so because it opened channels of communication between christians and jews who were concerned about a resurgence of racial and religious bigotry after the war. this was a revolutionary development. … [i]t was the first time since the days of justin martyr that jews and christians had discussed any theological matter other than whether or not christ was the messiah. once christians began talking to jews about theology … they began to realize how obscene cunningham and gregerman: “genuine brotherhood” without remorse 28 models of dialogue from the new testament. for example, he recalls the narrative about jesus’ teaching his followers on the road to emmaus in luke 24 about what the messiah must endure. this scene “describes in essence the conversation between jews and christians as it should be up until today—a conversation that, unfortunately, has occurred only in rare moments” (176; emphasis added). this narrow focus is also seen in his statement on the gospel of john. the “concluding summary of jesus’ dialogue with the jews…at the same time mirrors the future dialogue between jews and christians” (175; emphasis added). in the past, christians in dialogue with jews focused on substantiating their messianic claims about jesus, trying “again and again to show that all this is ‘scriptural’” (176; emphasis added). in the present as well, the catholic church does not support “a [conversionary] mission, but rather the dialogue about whether jesus of nazareth is ‘the son of god, the logos,’ who is expected by israel...resuming this dialogue is the task that the present time sets before us.”68 these statements offer a circumscribed view of catholic-jewish dialogue, implying that the prime task of catholic interlocutors is to explain and defend a christological reading of the hebrew bible, even though catholic teaching recognizes the value of non-christological readings.69 true, benedict acknowledged in his letter to rabbi folger that “this dialogue within ongoing history will never lead to an agreement between the two interpretations.” still, why would jews want to participate in a conversation focusing mostly on jesus’ messianic credentials as understood by christians? when addressing jewish audiences, benedict has movingly spoken of the need for “jews and christians to exercise, in our time, a special generosity towards the poor, towards women and children, strangers, the sick, the weak and the needy. …in exercising justice and mercy, jews and christians are called to announce and to bear witness to the coming kingdom of the most high, for which we pray and work in hope each day.”70 so, clearly, he believes that jews and catholics have many topics to learn about from each other. his catholic focus on the centrality of christ in the dialogue again seems driven by benedict’s concern that post-conciliar catholic theological developments are “de-centering” christ. but perhaps by being inspired by israel’s experiences of god, christians can learn to think in new and stimulating ways about christ and their relationship with him. benedict’s essay is noteworthy in the study of developments in christian-jewish relations. beyond its historically remarkable authorship by an emeritus pope, it provides a window into how one prominent german dogmatic theologian grapples with the challenges of the post-nostra aetate church’s effort to build new and positive relationships with the jewish people and tradition. that effort is driven largely much of their own teaching sounded when spoken in the shadow of the war’s crimes (from enemy to brother, 176-77; emphasis added). 68 benedict xvi, “not dialogue, but mission,” emphasis added. 69 e.g., pbc, “jewish people”: “the old testament in itself has great value as the word of god. to read the old testament as christians then does not mean wishing to find everywhere direct reference to jesus and to christian realities” (ii,a,6). see also: crrj, “guidelines,” ii; crrj, “notes,” ii, 6; pbc, “interpretation,” i,c,2. 70 benedict xvi, “address at the great synagogue of rome.” 29 studies in christian-jewish relations 14, no. 1 (2019) by the need for catholic theology to confront the history of christian religious and sociological anti-judaism. yet benedict’s way of theologizing leads him to view history in terms of established theological formulations, as can be seen in which historical events he chooses to stress and which he chooses not to consider. if some of those established formulas were themselves shaped in and tainted by an antijewish historical milieu, then the necessary confrontation with historical christian teachings becomes diluted. benedict’s theological approach risks being of limited effectiveness in the removal of the legacy of hostility to jews, a goal to which benedict is clearly committed. this brings us back to the scene with which we opened: john paul’s solemn commitment of the catholic church at the western wall to “genuine brotherhood with the people of the covenant,” a commitment that benedict has made his own.71 thinking of the catholic-jewish relationship in intimate family terms demands that a high priority be placed on the interreligious relationship itself. this requires a certain vulnerability, an openness to being changed by the ongoing encounter because we so value the dialogue partner. as pope francis has written, “to dialogue, one must know how to lower the defenses, to open the doors of one’s home and to offer warmth.”72 in terms of a treatise de iudaeis, catholics must be unhesitatingly “without remorse” in their commitment to genuine brotherhood and sisterhood with jews. jews should be similarly dedicated. that deepening trust and friendship will be the holy space (the locus theologicus) within which a theology of their new relationship will be nurtured. that has been our experience as a jewish scholar and a catholic scholar who closely studied benedict’s “comments” together. we were intensely enriched by our joint exploration of it and are grateful to the emeritus pope for greatly stimulating our own ongoing dialogue.73 71 “address to delegates of the conference of presidents of major american jewish organizations, february 12, 2009; “address at the great synagogue of rome,” january 17, 2010. 72 jorge bergoglio, “the façade as mirror,” in jorge mario bergoglio and abraham skorka, on heaven and earth: pope francis on faith, family, and the church in the twenty-first century (new york: image books, 2013), xiv. 73 our thanks to our colleague brendan sammon for his helpful comments on a draft of this article. editors' introduction studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): i-iii langer & spicer: editors’ introduction i http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers in jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college editors’ introduction ruth langer and kevin spicer volume 5 (2010) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): i-iii langer & spicer: editors’ introduction ii http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 welcome to volume 5 (2010) of studies in christian-jewish relations. this year’s feature topic is titled “boundaries and border crossings.” in this context, we have invited a multidisciplinary discussion of how jews and christians have developed and maintained their separate identities and how, in the modern world, they have built bridges between their religious traditions. we will continue to accept submissions for publication in this issue through september 2010, but of course, no such conversation is ever closed. indeed, the conversation on this issue began with an article published in volume 4. dvir abramovich’s “jesus-believing jews in australia: celebrate messiah as a case study” provided a detailed investigation of a community of messianic jews in melbourne, australia based on extensive archival research and interviews with the people involved. messianic judaism presents for many a contemporary challenge to the established boundaries that define jewish and christian identities. their “border crossing” is not always well-received, especially by jews. understanding the tensions raised by and others like it is important for our contemporary dialogue. the initial upload of this issue begins with a series of papers presented at a session of the christian systematic theology section, called “the torah and the continuity of scripture in jewish christian dialogue” at the american academy of religion annual meeting in november 2008. these papers engage with michael wyschogrod’s famous call for jews who have become christians to understand themselves as still obliged to observe the commandments of the torah. the authors propose ways that christians can recover theological space for torah observance and thus cross the “boundary” established by the early church in the process of the partings of the ways. the first paper of this series, by david rudolph, offers a theology of messianic judaism, i.e., of a torah-observant christianity that understands itself to remain jewish, arguing for its place within the spectrum of christianity. holly taylor coolman suggests a reading of aquinas that allows christ and torah to be inseparable theological categories; however, she argues that for christians to take on full torah observance in jewish manner would be to negate the significance of christ as torah. the third paper, by jodie boyer hatlem and doug johnson hatlem, critiques christian theological traditions that made observance of torah commandments heretical and advocates, in contrast to coolman, that this might become an appropriate expression of faith for gentile christians. finally, adam gregerman responds to these papers, adding a dialogical presence to this session. we anticipate that this symposium will be joined by several peer-reviewed articles addressing our special topic. in addition, the proceedings of at least two other conferences appear in whole or in part in this initial upload, along with several important book reviews. four items of business: we remind our readers of our call for papers for volume 6 (2011) on “constructing saints and heroes,” found on the sidebar of the journal’s homepage. we especially invite articles that address this question from a variety of disciplines, such as history, theology, sociology or anthropology. we encourage our readers to alert their colleagues to this upcoming volume and to consider submitting to it. we remind our readers of the outstanding invitation to submit responses to published papers. we announce the appointment of adam gregerman as our new book review editor, replacing leonard greenspoon and eugene fisher, whom we thank warmly for their service. adam has energetically http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4/iss1/28 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4/iss1/28 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/call_for_papers.pdf http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/call_for_papers.pdf studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): i-iii langer & spicer: editors’ introduction iii http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 undertaken his new role and we very much look forward to working with him. he can be reached at our permanent address for the book review editor, scjrbks@bc.edu. finally, we bid a sad farewell to dr. audrey doetzel, nds, who has served as managing editor of studies in christian-jewish relations almost since its inception. we thank her for her dedicated work in developing the journal and in handling the technical aspects of its publication. we also will miss her wise guidance which draws on her decades of engagement in christian-jewish relations. she will be sorely missed. we welcome in her place dr. camille fitzpatrick markey as our new managing editor. she will now be the person behind the scjr@bc.edu email address, managing the publication aspects of the journal and working with the rest of the editorial team. we look forward to many years of fruitful collaboration with her. mailto:scjrbks@bc.edu mailto:scjr@bc.edu what the catholic church has learnt from interreligious dialogue what the catholic church has learnt from interreligious dialogue archbishop michael fitzgerald, m.afr. march 16, 2006 address delivered at brandeis university as part of the conference, "in our time: interreligious relations in a divided world," co-sponsored by brandeis university and by boston college through its center for christian-jewish learning. introduction my thanks to dr. jehuda reinharz, president of brandeis university, and fr. william leahy, president of boston college, for the invitation to speak. i wish to congratulate them on this joint initiative to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of nostra aetate. it is my conviction that this seminal document is still relevant “in our time.” nostra aetate, the declaration on the relations of the church to non christian religions, which we are commemorating through this conference, took the catholic church by surprise. it was normal and only to be expected that vatican ii would take up some unfinished business from vatican i, balancing the former council’s treatment of the roman pontiff with a closer look at the role of the episcopate, thus coming to stress collegiality. ecumenical dialogue had been going on already for some time before the council, so there was already a movement, a strong current, which pope john xxiii could count on to support his desire for a council that would be ecumenical in both senses of the word, reflecting the universal character of the church and leading to unity among christians. there was no corresponding interreligious movement, and in fact in the preparatory enquiries to set up the agenda for the council very few bishops had mentioned relations with people of other religions. there were of course some pioneers, mainly people belonging to religious orders, including jesuits and members of my own missionary society, the missionaries of africa, who were working in the midst of populations that were not christian. yet these did not seem to have a great impact on the church as a whole. so it was that in the field of interreligious dialogue the church as a whole had almost everything to learn. nostra aetate provided a basis, but being by nature a pastoral document the theological foundations for the action it proposed have to be sought elsewhere. moreover, christian communities throughout the world had to be reassured that the teaching of this declaration was conformed to the gospel and the tradition of the church. the secretariat for non christians, set up by paul vi even before the document nostra aetate had been promulgated, set itself to accomplish this task, though christian-jewish relations remained under the secretariat for christian unity, which had initiated this dialogue and had http://www.brandeis.edu/ http://www.bc.edu/cjlearning prepared the original draft of nostra aetate. experts, such as jean daniélou and henri de lubac, both later to become cardinals, were consulted. theological and pastoral reflections were produced and made available to the public through a journal founded for this specific purpose: bulletin. secretariatus pro non christianis, later to be renamed pro dialogo. some special publications were prepared, including a series of guidelines for dialogue with muslims, with buddhists, with hindus, and for the encounter with african religions. these booklets, based on sound scholarship but generally simple in style, were designed to inculcate the new attitude towards other religions which the church was to adopt according to nostra aetate. therefore in attempting to answer the question about what the church has learnt from interreligious dialogue it will be well to approach the matter in two ways, one theological, the other more practical. 1. theological advances through the influence of interreligious dialogue in tracing the theological developments in the years since nostra aetate, i shall base myself mainly on the two official documents produced by the secretariat for non christians, now known as the pontifical council for interreligious dialogue, namely the attitude of the church towards the followers of other religion: reflections and orientations on dialogue and mission (1984, cited as dm) and dialogue and proclamation (1991, cited as dp). it will be necessary to take into account the teaching of the various sovereign pontiffs and also some documents emanating from other offices of the roman curia. 1.1 a trinitarian foundation dialogue and mission states clearly that the fundamental motivation for dialogue is faith. “in the trinitarian mystery, christian revelation allows us to glimpse in god a life of communion and interchange” (dm 22). reflection on the relations between the divine persons, where each person is wholly turned towards the others while remaining distinct, provides encouragement to imitate this model here on earth, not only within the christian body, but with all people, including those who belong to other religions. of course it will be realized that sinful human beings cannot hope to reproduce the perfect unity in diversity of the trinity, but this does not take away the usefulness of striving in this direction. in this context one may notice the tension that already exists in the declaration nostra aetate between plurality and unity. right from the very beginning cognizance is taken of the different religions but, at the same time, of the church’s “duty to foster unity and charity among individuals” (na 1). the unity of humankind is emphasized, a unity of both origin and destiny, which yet leaves people religiously divided on the way to this common goal. in a similar way it is noticed that all human beings are faced with the same fundamental questions about human existence, thus indicating a certain unity in their aspirations and anxieties, but they turn to different religions for their answers. the beliefs and practices of these religions are regarded with respect, on account of the elements of truth and holiness they contain, but the uniqueness of salvation in jesus christ is maintained, for the church is “in duty bound to proclaim without fail christ who is “the way, the truth and the life (jn 14:6)” (na 2). it will be necessary to return to this tension again later. it has been mentioned here to show that if interreligious dialogue can take its lead from the trinity, it can only be a very pale imperfect reflection of the richness of trinitarian life. 1.2 the father’s pervasive love “in god, the father, we contemplate a pervasive love unlimited by space and time” (dm 22). this statement seems to me extremely important. it stresses the universality of god’s love, both geographically and historically. it underlines a conviction that has grown since the council, namely that the mercy of god cannot be confined. the first letter to timothy says that god wills the salvation of all (cf. 1 tim 2:5), and this has to be taken seriously. for if god does really will that all be saved, then he must provide, in some way or another, the means to achieve this salvation. this has practical consequences for dialogue. it means that we can exclude no one from the possibility of responding to god and being united with him. i have been struck by the moral uprightness, i would say even the holiness, of many people belonging to other religions. it must surely be said that this is the effect of god’s merciful grace. if moral rectitude and holiness were to be confined to christians, it would imply the condemnation of billions of people. could the people of boston accept that their irish forebears, those in the emerald isle before the arrival of st patrick, are all in hell? the same applies to native americans and all people who have followed their traditional religion. traditional religion usually includes a high regard for ancestors, so it is important that these ancestors be respected. indeed, it is precisely because god loves all people and wants their salvation that we must respect them, whatever their religious beliefs. this is the principle underlying dignitatis humanae, the council’s declaration on religious liberty, although this document also stresses the obligation to search for the truth and to adhere to it once it has been found. it is interesting to note that pope john paul ii, preparing the church for the great jubilee of the year 2000, suggested dedicating a year to each person of the blessed trinity. the final year of preparation was to be dedicated to the father. in his letter introducing the preparation for the jubilee, tertio millennio adveniente, the pope wrote: the whole of the christian life is like a great pilgrimage to the house of the father, whose unconditioned love for every human creature, and in particular for the “prodigal son” (cf. lk 15:11 -32), we discover anew each day. this pilgrimage takes place in the heart of each person, extends to the believing community and then reaches to the whole of humanity (tma 49). this extended vision is perhaps the reason why john paul ii suggested that the year of the father would be an appropriate time for holding meetings to which people of different religions would be invited. accordingly, in october 1999, the pontifical council for interreligious dialogue organized, in the vatican , an interreligious assembly focusing on the role of religions in society during the third millennium. the pope himself presided over the concluding ceremony in st peter’s square and in his discourse he mentioned that he saw interreligious dialogue as one of the signs of hope in the latter part of the century which was drawing to a close. he added, however, that more needed to be done to promote a culture of dialogue. “greater mutual esteem and growing trust must lead to still more effective and coordinated common action on behalf of the human family” (discourse to the interreligious assembly, vatican city, 28 october 1999). 1.3 a love communicated through the word made flesh the incarnation, the fact that god has sent his son into the world out of love (cf. 1 jn 4:9), has always been central to christianity. yet john paul ii, taking up affirmations from vatican ii, gave new accents to this truth. gaudium et spes had already stated that, through the incarnation, the son of god has in a certain way united himself with every human being (cf. gs 22). the pope echoed this in his first encyclical redemptor hominis (i quote, as it has been translated, in non-inclusive language. please bear with me): man – every man without any exception whatever – has been redeemed by christ. and with man – with each man without any exception, whatever – christ is in a way united, even when man is unaware of it. christ who died and was raised up for all, provides man, each and every man, with the light and strength to measure up to his supreme calling (rh 14). this conviction, which could perhaps be termed a mystical vision of the unity of the whole of humankind in christ, gives an added dimension to the dignity of the human person. this certainly influences, or should influence, the way christians encounter people who do not belong to their own faith. the church has had to defend this truth in order to prevent its being watered down by the stream of relativism. this is the whole burden of the document dominus iesus issued by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith in 2000. should this reaffirmation of a central truth of christianity be considered as a proof of an exclusivist attitude? to that question i would respond with some other questions. is it exclusivist to believe in one god rather than in a multiplicity of gods? is it exclusivist to believe in one incarnation rather than in many? it is precisely because the incarnation of the son of god in jesus christ touches the whole of humanity that any other incarnation becomes superfluous. christ remains the way to the father, a way that he has opened up for all people through his passion, death and resurrection. one lesson that has been learnt from the practice of interreligious dialogue is that there is a need to be rooted in one’s faith. the second document issued by the pontifical council for interreligious dialogue, dialogue and proclamation (1991), makes this clear: the sincerity of interreligious dialogue requires that each enters into it with the integrity of his or her own faith. at the same time, while remaining firm in their belief that in jesus christ, the only mediator between god and man (cf. 1 tim 2:4-6), the fullness of revelation has been given to them, christians must remember that god has also manifested himself in some way to the followers of other religious traditions. consequently, it is with receptive minds that they approach the convictions and values of others (dp 48) the same document goes on to point out that, although the fullness of revelation is to be found in jesus christ, human beings, including christians, have still to grasp this fullness. there is a continuous growth in consciousness of the truth, an unending process of learning. so it has been possible to define interreligious dialogue as a walking together towards the truth and collaboration in the service of humankind (cf. dm 13). this means that a further lesson from dialogue is that it requires an attitude of humility, not arrogance. dialogue does not mean competition. there can be no place for rivalry, unless it is a rivalry for doing good, according to the qur’anic injunction: “had god willed he could have made you one community, but that he might try you with what he has given you, so vie with one another in good works. unto god you will all return” (q 5:48 ). st paul has a similar thought, put negatively: “there must be no competition among you, no conceit; but everybody is to be self-effacing. always consider the other person to be better than yourself, so that nobody thinks of his own interests first but everybody thinks of other peoples’ interests instead” (phil, 2:3). here i have been anticipating the second part of this talk, which will deal with practical matters. it is necessary to return to theological considerations. 1.4 a love made present through the work of the spirit the passage of gaudium et spes referred to above, meditating on the central role of jesus christ, the son of god made man, concludes with a remarkable statement: all this holds good not for christians only but also for all men of good will in whose hearts grace is active invisibly (cf. lg 16). for since christ died for all (cf. rom 8:32), and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the holy spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to god, in the paschal mystery (gs 22). [the translation used by the catechism of the catholic church has “partakers … of the paschal mystery,” which is more accurate.] here the activity of the holy spirit is underlined. there has surely been a growth in pneumatology, the theology of the spirit, since vatican ii, signaled by the encyclicals of john paul ii dominum et vivificantem and redemptoris missio. dialogue and mission notes that the spirit acts in the depths of people’s consciences accompanying them on their way to the truth. so the spirit is active outside the visible boundaries of the church. in fact it can be said that: the spirit both anticipates and accompanies the path of the church which, nevertheless, feels itself impelled to discern the signs of his presence, to follow him wherever he leads and to serve him as a humble and discreet collaborator (dm 24). dialogue and proclamation adds further reflection based on vatican ii. it notes that according to lumen gentium the good is found sown not only in the hearts of individuals, but also in the rites and customs of peoples (cf. dp 17 referring to lg 17). this can be attributed to the action of the spirit for, as ad gentes (the missionary document of vatican ii) teaches, “without doubt the holy spirit was at work in the world before christ was glorified” (ag 4). so john paul ii could state that every authentic prayer is the work of the spirit present in the hearts of people (cf. dp 27, citing the discourse of john paul ii to the roman curia after the day of prayer for peace held in assisi in 1986). it is obvious the impact that such a teaching can have on the practice of interreligious dialogue. the christian is not going into this dialogue as someone who has everything meeting another who has nothing. rather the spirit in the christian is able to meet the spirit already present in the interlocutor belonging to another religious tradition. in the words of cardinal newman’s motto: cor ad cor loquitur. also, in the opposite direction, it seems to me that interreligious dialogue has helped the church to be more aware of the activity of the spirit and the importance of a sound pneumatology. 1.5 the church as the sacrament of god’s love since the holy spirit both anticipates and accompanies the church in its mission, the role of the church is really to discern the signs of the spirit’s presence, to follow the leads given by the spirit, and to serve humbly and discreetly. the church is indeed called to be a sign, a sacrament, of god’s love to the world. this understanding of the church as sacrament, which vatican ii emphasized so strongly at the very beginning of lumen gentium, is the very foundation for interreligious dialogue. the church is not a “club of the saved,” to be cut off from the rest of the world, but a people, and indeed a pilgrim people, to which even those who do not know the gospel are oriented or related in some way. so the church has necessarily to be in dialogue. hence the declaration nostra aetate on the relation of the church to other religions. the church has always been considered a prolongation of the incarnation. if one meditates on the incarnation taking the baptism of jesus as a starting point, one will see that the son of god, without losing his identity, is immersed in not only in the waters of the jordan but also in the stream of sinful humanity which craves redemption. similarly with the church. it too is immersed in humanity, and its true identity may not always be evident. it may be seen as a religion among the religions, and may indeed be called upon to act as such in today’s pluralistic society. this is why it will be quite normal to find christian leaders alongside rabbis and imams, buddhist monks and hindu swamis in interfaith councils. a pilgrim church , its members are going forward, not alone, but in the company of many other pilgrims. in this fraternal journey, as john paul ii said at assisi , “either we learn to walk together in peace and harmony, or we drift apart and ruin ourselves and others” (discourse for the conclusion of the world day of prayer for peace, assisi , 27.10.86, n°5). seen in this light, interreligious dialogue forms an integral part of the church’s mission. it is not an optional extra. as the document dialogue and mission states, it is one element of this “single but complex and articulated reality” which is the mission of the church. it stands alongside presence and witness, prayer/contemplation/liturgy, service/diakonia, and proclamation/catechesis (cf. dm 13). sometimes dialogue is suspect, since it is seen as an underhand way of trying to gain converts to christianity and increasing the numbers of the church. john paul ii made it clear that “dialogue does not originate from tactical concerns or self-interest, but is an activity with its own guiding principles, requirements and dignity” (redemptoris missio 56). this understanding of how dialogue fits into the life of the church has, i think, been reinforced by the practice of dialogue, for where there is suspicion there can be no mutual confidence, and where confidence is lacking there can be no true dialogue. it is important to notice that the first-mentioned elements of the church’s mission – presence, prayer, service while they may lead up to explicit proclamation of god’s love as manifest in jesus christ, are not essentially geared to this; they are not finalized by proclamation. the liturgy for instance is not celebrated in order to proclaim jesus christ, though christ is indeed proclaimed in the eucharistic acclamation after the consecration. similarly christians do not engage in works of mercy as a pretext for preaching about jesus christ but, like the good samaritan, out of compassion for those who are suffering. so it can be said that interreligious dialogue is not aimed at bringing the partner in dialogue into the catholic church. through the practice of dialogue, therefore, its aim has been clarified. perhaps this should be put in the plural. i would enumerate three aims of dialogue. first that people of different religions may live in peace and harmony together. secondly that they may work together for the benefit of their brothers and sisters, at all levels, local, national and international. thirdly that they may stimulate one another to respond generously to the call of god or the absolute. it is with regard to this third aim that we can speak of conversion, not as a change of religion, but in the biblical sense of a purification of the heart. care should be taken not to confuse this idea with the popular notion that the purpose of dialogue is to make jews better jews, christians better christians, muslims better muslims, and so on, for a change of religion cannot be excluded. the purpose is better defined as being to help each one follow with greater generosity the dictates of his or her own conscience. 2. learning from the practice of dialogue in this section i wish to treat of four cs regarding interreligious dialogue: the necessary condtions for dialogue, the varied content of dialogue, the conduct of dialogue in its multiplicity of forms, and the continuity of dialogue which is in some ways a condition for its fruitfulness. all these dimensions of dialogue have become clearer as the church has engaged in this aspect of its mission since vatican ii. 2.1 conditions for dialogue nostra aetate exhorts the members of the church to enter into dialogue and collaboration with people of other religions “with prudence and charity” (na 2). we are here at the level of attitudes and dispositions. it is interesting that dialogue and proclamation, when dealing with the dispositions required for a fruitful dialogue, puts in first place a balanced attitude (cf. dp 47). experience has shown that if one is hypercritical, not seeing anything of the good that is contained in other religions, there can be no dialogue. this means that an effort has to be made to overcome negative attitudes, to dispel prejudice, to avoid stereotyping. one of the obstacles to dialogue listed by the same document is suspicion about the other’s motivations for entering into contact. as has been noted above, such suspicion prevents the necessary climate of trust from developing. another obstacle is a polemical spirit where the aim is to try to score points at the other’s expense rather than to seek the truth together. on the other hand, a naïve attitude does not help either. there is no advantage in looking at other religions through rose-tinted spectacles. if we are ready to acknowledge the weaknesses in our own religious community, then we should not be surprised to find weaknesses also in other religious communities. we are not required to approve everything about the other religion. where there is a climate of trust, then mutual criticism can be made. it may be possible, through exchange, to see the points criticized in a different light. it becomes apparent, for instance, that similar terms may be used, but with different meanings, so careful explanation is needed to avoid misunderstanding. yet in some cases there may remain irreconcilable differences. in this context it may be worthwhile to distinguish between ecumenical dialogue and interreligious dialogue. though ecumenical dialogue and interreligious dialogue often go hand in hand, as in diocesan or the national conference offices for “ecumenical and interreligious affairs,” their goal is different. ecumenical dialogue aims at bringing all christians into a unity faith sufficient for mutual recognition and for common celebration of the eucharist. interreligious dialogue cannot pretend to bring about a unity of all different religions; it can only help the followers of those religions to live in peace and harmony together, to collaborate in the service of humankind and to stimulate one another in responding to god. even so, it becomes understandable that a further condition for fruitful dialogue is openness. where there is an attitude of self-sufficiency there will be no willingness to encounter the other as that other really is, and to be enriched by this encounter. such a lack of openness, it has been learnt through experience, can lead to defensiveness or even to an aggressive stance towards the other. as has been said above, the truth is greater than ourselves and is always before us. we have to be ready to learn from one another, acquiring new insights rather than learning new truths, in a process which will help us to deepen our own faith. this leads to the recognition of a further condition for dialogue, namely a certain amount of knowledge. those who have insufficient grounding in their own faith will be reluctant to expose themselves to interfaith encounter. at the same time a basic knowledge of other religions is required in order to avoid misrepresenting them. it has always been a concern of the pontifical council for interreligious dialogue that adequate formation be given for interfaith relations, in seminaries and in houses of formation for religious, but also in theological faculties which are frequented by a growing number of lay people. recently, with the continent of africa in mind, some guidelines have been produced for teaching about dialogue in general, about relations with muslims and for pastoral concern with regard to african traditional religions. there is obviously a role here for universities also, and it is good to see that many universities have been developing this aspect of their theological curriculum, such as here at brandeis university and boston college . again the pontifical council for interreligious dialogue has tried to contribute to theological reflection, and to dialogue among theologians, by organizing a series of colloquia: one in pune, india, on jesus christ and the encounter with religions; a second, in abidjan, ivory coast, on the meeting of traditional religions with the gospel; and more recently, as a commemoration of nostra aetate, a theological reflection on religious plurality in the western world, which took place in mödling, near vienna, austria. in this regard, i would like to share with you my own conviction that it is not enough to give parallel courses on the different religions, judaism, islam, buddhism, hinduism, etc. it is necessary also to bring what has been learnt through the study of these religions into the teaching on christian doctrine and morals. there are many themes that can be enriched by using, at least from time to time, a comparative approach, taking care however not to take elements out of their context. of course, this means that the lecturers in christian theology would need to become more familiar with other religions. it had always been my dream for the council to facilitate such learning, a dream which remains unfulfilled. to be complete, some mention must be made not only of subjective attitudes but of objective conditions for dialogue. religious freedom is one such. it is obviously extremely difficult to engage in dialogue where there is a lack of freedom to practice one’s religion openly. there will be a fear to express one’s own opinions, to voice any kind of criticism which might jeopardize the limited freedom that does exist. intolerance does not encourage openness. and even those who enjoy freedom may become frustrated when they see that in other countries their own coreligionists are suffering and yet dialogue does not seem to bring much help to this situation. this leads to a final reflection. something that is learnt quickly is that fruitful dialogue requires much patience. it is not an investment bringing quick returns. very often it is necessary to start all over again, trying to build up trust once more, after setbacks or because of outside factors. in christian-muslim relations the events of 9/11 and the affair of the cartoons spring to mind as examples. failures or disappointments should not lead to discouragement. the fruits will come in their own good time. 2.2 the content of dialogue experience has shown that theological exchange is not the only form of dialogue, and indeed is not always the most appropriate, certainly not to begin with. encounter at the human level is perhaps more significant than exchange on doctrinal differences. hence the importance given to the dialogue of life, the sharing of joys and sorrows, of common concerns and preoccupations. such contacts can develop into concerted action, where people of different religions work together in specific projects. these may not be always overtly religions, but religion will play its part. as examples mention could be made of associations for the care of the handicapped, or collaboration in relief work. the dialogue of action just mentioned can be usefully supported by exchanges on social and moral questions. such dialogues, about justice in trade relations, for example, or respect for the environment, or about educational matters or questions of bioethics, can lead to a common mind on certain issues and ad hoc alliances. in these times when the role of religion in the public forum is often questioned, it can be a great advantage when people of different religions are able to speak together with one voice. the final words of the section in nostra aetate on christianmuslim relations – “let them preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values” (na 3) – can be applied to relations with people of all religions. again, the respect which nostra aetate has inculcated for the values enshrined in other religions, has led to the development of a more spiritual form of dialogue, the dialogue of religious experience. the flourishing monastic interreligious dialogue has revealed the common elements in the monastic way of life, even though the religious context, of buddhism and christianity, for instance, is very different. yet this type of dialogue is not confined to monastics. interreligious prayer can also be taken into consideration. this has developed considerably since the initiative taken by pope john paul ii to invite people of all religions to assisi in 1986 to pray for peace in the world. of course there is need here for that “prudence” called for by nostra aetate, so that convictions are not sacrificed for the sake of an apparent harmony. yet when such prayer is prepared well, and with sensitivity to the perspectives and requirements of different religions, it can be a powerful instrument for forging a unity of hearts. 2.3 the conduct of dialogue one weakness of nostra aetate, it seems to me, is that by treating the religions in succession – it would have been difficult to do otherwise – the impression is given that dialogue is always bilateral: christian-jewish relations, christian-muslim relations, christian-buddhist relations, and so on. this does not always correspond to reality. certainly in the last decades other forms of dialogue have developed. nostra aetate was cautious about laying too much emphasis on muslims’ claim to descend from abraham through ismael, yet their conscious linking of their faith with that of abraham is acknowledged. abraham as a figure common to jews, christians and muslims is in fact a feature of the dialogue that has developed in the last forty years. many associations have grown up under the patronage of abraham, la fraternité d’abraham in france being probably the oldest. another group in france calls itself les enfants d’abraham. in the uk a similar drive has given birth to the three faiths forum. it is only right to recognize the good relations that exist in many countries among the three abrahamic religions. of course, the ongoing conflict between israel and its palestinian neighbours creates immense difficulty for fruitful trilateral relations, but where these exist they can make a contribution to peace in the world. more important, perhaps, are multilateral relations, particularly in societies where a multiplicity of traditions exist side by side. in fact, where tensions exist between two communities, the presence of members of other communities can help to prevent conflicts from breaking out. in the period since the proclamation of nostra aetate a number of organizations, multi-religious in nature, have come into existence. as long as they respect the identity of each religion and do not attempt to unify all religions they can make a valid contribution to society. a superficial reading of nostra aetate could lead one to think that only catholics are involved in interreligious relations. in fact the document, while speaking of the catholic church, and the members of the church, also addresses its exhortations to christians in general. this is another instance where nostra aetate cannot be taken in isolation from other documents of the second vatican council. just as reference needs to be made to dignitatis humanae for the fundamental question of religious liberty, and to lumen gentium, gaudium et spes and ad gentes for theological principles, so due account must be taken of the document on christian unity, unitatis redintegratio. not only is it necessary to recognize that other churches and ecclesial communities are active in interreligious relations, but these relations have an impact on ecumenism. as the directory for the application of principles and norms of ecumenism (1993) states: there are increasing contacts in today’s world between christians and persons of other religions. these contacts differ radically from the contacts between the church and ecclesial communities, which have for their object the restoration of the unity christ willed among all his disciples, and are properly called ecumenical. but in practice they are deeply influenced by, and in turn influence ecumenical relationships. through them, christians can deepen the level of communion existing among themselves, and so they are to be considered an important part of ecumenical cooperation (n°36). 2.4 continuity in dialogue the british solution to any problem is to set up a committee. it is hoped that by the time the committee has done its work and produced a report the problem will have solved itself. yet committees and commissions have their usefulness, even for dialogue among people of different religions. in other words, structures provide the backbone for the flesh of dialogical activities. was this not the intuition of pope paul vi in setting up the secretariat for non christians, even before nostra aetate had been solemnly approved by the second vatican council? was this not the reason why consolidation was given to catholic-jewish and catholic-muslim relations by creating the appropriate commissions to carry on the task of dialogue? in the catholic church care has been taken to develop a network of commissions for interfaith work at diocesan and national levels. these commissions can be channels of communication, allowing the official teaching of the church on interreligious dialogue to reach a wider circle of people, and at the same time allowing this teaching to be verified by experience at the grassroots level. ideally, official structures, under the authority of the local bishop or the conference of bishops, do not stifle initiative. their task is to promote, to encourage, to coordinate. they can prevent individual efforts from petering out, because they are the affair of one man or one woman without the support of the community. the commissions can also take care to involve new people, so that the dialogue may continue from one generation to the next. there is a tendency among catholics to expect to find similar structures in other religions, and they are disappointed when this is not so. there is nothing equivalent to dioceses in buddhism, hinduism, islam or judaism, so there will be no commissions at this level. yet some structures do exist, and it is with these that relations have to be developed. the different schools of zen buddhism in japan have a center of zen culture, and it is with this body that the spiritual exchanges have been organized. some monasteries, such as fo guang shan in taiwan , have developed a network of foundations in different countries, and it becomes possible to deal with this organization as one would with a religious congregation in the catholic church. hinduism, or at least neo-hinduism, has similar organizations such as the ramakrishna mission or the international society for krishna consciousness. these also allow for the development of a dialogue which goes beyond individuals. within islam structures have been set up to facilitate dialogue, such as the international islamic forum for dialogue, whose president is resident in saudi arabia , or the permanent committee of al-azhar for dialogue with monotheistic religions. there are para-governmental bodies in iran bringing shi’ite islam into dialogue with a variety of christians. at the local level there are councils of mosques and similar bodies. there are also sufi movements eager to dialogue with christians. in the jewish world there are bodies such as the world jewish congress and the anti-defamation league, each pursuing its own aim but desirous of contacts with people of other religions. there is the umbrella organization, the international jewish committee for interreligious consultations (ijcic) which is the official partner for dialogue with the vatican ’s commission for religious relations with jews. again there are also councils of synagogues. so despite fragmentation, it has been possible to find partners for a dialogue with some continuity. conclusion if we are to ask ourselves what, in a nutshell, has been learnt through the practice of interreligious dialogue over the years since nostra aetate, how are we going to respond? we might say first that the church has learnt to be itself, a sign of god’s saving presence in the world. it has become more convinced than ever that the content of the christian faith is not to be watered down or compromised in any way, but that witness is to be given to the faith in the manner indicated by peter: “simply reverence the lord christ in your hearts, and always have the answer ready for people who ask you the reason for the hope that you all have, but give it with courtesy and respect and with a clear conscience” (1 pet 3:15-16). it could be added that the church has learnt to relate to people of different religions in different ways, through neighborliness, through joint action, through the sharing of spiritual values, through formal discussions. it has further been discovered that this field is not confined to specialists, but is open to all. of course, there is a greater consciousness of the preparation needed to conduct fruitful dialogue, but the degree of preparation needed will vary according to the level of the encounters. finally, i would say that the church has learnt that the task of dialogue will never end. just as the words of jesus “the poor you have always with you” do not disqualify attempts to eliminate poverty, so the realistic assessment that religious plurality will persist does not make dialogue purposeless. as has been said above, we are on a journey together. we can continue this journey despite our differences, or even being enriched by our differences, until that day when history itself will come to an end, and the differences will have no further significance, for god will be all in all. christian-jewish dialogue: exploring our commonalities and our differences studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1 (2007): r7-8 rottenberg, christian-jewish dialogue r7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art12 isaac c. rottenberg, christian-jewish dialogue: exploring our commonalities and our differences (atlanta: hebraic heritage press, 2005), paper, 275 pp. reviewed by alice l. eckardt, emerita professor, lehigh university anyone seeking a single volume to understand the long and complex story of christian-jewish relations and its many issues, including the state of israel, will find rottenberg’s well-written and well-organized book most helpful. the wealth of information will benefit both newcomers and veterans to the field. rottenberg is convinced that “encounter with judaism and with the reality of israel is of immense significance to the life of the churches, including their search for greater unity among christians” (p. 200). for he holds that despite basic differences judaism and christianity share a basic vision of faith and history, and we are experiencing a new era in christian-jewish relations. nevertheless, many traditional christian beliefs must be challenged, a view some jewish thinkers embrace for judaism as well (including david flusser, michael kogan, irving greenberg, michael wyschogrod, pp. 42-44). the first (of six) sections introduces and explores the dynamics of dialogue from a number of perspectives including “danger signs along the road.” the second and largest section deals with many doctrinal issues including the “holocaust and belief in a god of holy love,” covenant, contrasting fulfillment theologies, differing views of messianic redemption, law and sin, and apocalypse. unlike many who write in this field the author confronts the divisive issues of mission, jewish converts, and “messianic jews” several times. the penultimate section, dealing not only with theology but also with various christian responses and reactions to the state of israel the “great ecumenical catalyst” (p. 200) – is of particular importance. rottenberg not only has a personal relationship with converted jews and with the holocaust but a long professional career in the church and christian-jewish organizations. he considers viewpoints of a multitude of jewish and christian scholars on the many issues he explores. at the same time his own responses and thoughts are openly expressed both in agreement and disagreement. yet the reader does not feel belabored but is free to reach his or her own conclusions. in the aftermath of the holocaust, must of the christian world slowly came to acknowledge the many centuries of church denigration of judaism and its people and the consequent need for fundamental changes in its theology in this regard. some participants in the dialogue contend that even though many of the new insights have not reached the congregants of either community we have reached the time when we must each tackle more of the other’s troubling teachings with a new openness. for example, jews should recognize that “incarnation” was already present in the covenantal god’s dealings with abraham, isaac, and jacob; and in a study of the gospels they might possibly hear the divine voice in the teaching of “the last of the great jewish prophets.” christians ought to take into consideration the jewish view of jesus as a jew living in expectation of the messianic age and dying while still hoping for its arrival; and see the kingdom of god concept as already current in that first century jewish community of which jesus was an intimate part. review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1 (2007): r7-8 rottenberg, christian-jewish dialogue r8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art12 despite the dialogue the churches have been more hesitant in their consideration of the reborn state of israel. rottenberg traces a positive stand on jewish return to the land back to 16th century restorationists and follows this that forward through 17th century puritanism, some 18th and 19th century american protestantism, to the 1930s’ pro-palestine federation of america, the early 1940s’ christian council on palestine, and the postworld war ii american christian palestine committee. after the 1967 six day war the national christian leadership council for israel brought together roman catholics and protestants, as did the “israel study group” (later renamed). evangelical protestants initiated bridges for peace and the international christian embassy, jerusalem. but antithetical developments have occurred as well: in the world council of churches, in the vatican’s vacillation, among christian denominations with historical missionary roots in arab countries, and most recently in a move among some american protestant denominations to withdraw funds from companies doing business in israel so as to hurt that country’s economy (pp. 207-08). the jewish “love affair with the land of israel” persisted through “some of the darkest moments of history.” and rottenberg sees the state of israel as “one of the great signs of hope in modern history [for it] represents a triumph of the human spirit in the post-holocaust era” (pp. 258-59). in the concluding chapter on “history: horror and the challenge of hope” rottenberg argues for the necessity of memory as we work for a better future, for otherwise we become dishonest and irresponsible. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review gavin d’costa vatican ii: catholic doctrines on jews and muslims (oxford: oxford university press, 2014) james l. fredericks, loyola marymount university gavin d’costa has given us a painstakingly exhaustive analysis of the documents of the second vatican council related to the catholic church’s view of non-baptized persons and, more specifically, of jews and muslims. i will restrict my comments to the material on jews. while d’costa’s argumentation is often convoluted, he has a great deal to say of importance to anyone committed to jewish-catholic relations today. he takes great care in restricting his comments to the doctrinal content of the council documents themselves. but this book, at least in what it has to say about council teachings about judaism, is very much an argument against the views of the former head of the vatican’s commission for religious relations with the jews cardinal walter kasper (who is never mentioned in the book) and other catholics who insist the catholic church should not seek to convert jews to the catholic faith. (opposition to targeted missions to jews is current church policy). as d’costa rightly recognizes, there are serious theological challenges involved in justifying this renunciation of missions to the jews. he argues, among other things, that there is no basis in the documents of vatican ii for the claim that catholics should not seek to convert jews. further, he argues that the council does not rule out supersessionist theologies of judaism. he even goes so far as to claim that the council is ambiguous about the validity of the mosaic covenant today. studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 10 (2015) at work throughout this book is d’costa’s certainty that the catholic church has never reversed itself about anything of doctrinal importance. theological opinion may change, along with liturgical texts and catholic preaching and behavior. but doctrine grows out of an unchanging “deposit of faith” (a term that appears ubiquitously in d’costa’s argument) and is infallibly taught by popes and bishops (e.g., p. 2, 56). a reversal in teaching would indicate that the church was once wrong about a doctrine, which is, for d’costa, impossible. once taught, a doctrine can never be untaught. a doctrine, however, can develop. for example, a teaching that was implicit in an earlier formulation of doctrine can be made explicit in a later formulation. or what was at first merely a theological opinion can later be authoritatively taught by a pope or a council as official doctrine. this conviction provides the framework for d’costa’s interpretation of what the council said about jews and judaism. d’costa argues that the council’s teaching on jews can be boiled down to three issues. first, not all jews at the time of jesus, nor jews since that time, can be held collectively guilty for the killing of jesus christ. therefore, the jewish people are not to be understood as rejected or cursed. the author briefly acknowledges the shameful history of christian violence against jews and the support it was given by the church, but anti-judaism and antisemitism are beyond the purview of his book. catholics may have a notorious history in promoting the blood-libel against jews, but the church has never taught as official doctrine that the jews are collectively guilty of christ’s death. not a few commentators read the fourth section of nostra aetate as a repudiation of what jules isaacs famously called “the teaching of contempt.” d’costa, in contrast, argues that this text is simply an explication of what is implicit in what the church has always taught in keeping with the deposit of faith: in the first century, some jews were in fact responsible for the death of jesus while others were not responsible. today, no jews are responsible, as the church has always implied, at least in its official doctrinal teaching. this allows d’costa to conclude that section four of nostra aetate is studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr “discontinuous” with the long history of catholic anti-jewish polemics and theology, yet “continuous” with catholic doctrine (p. 158-59). second, in accordance with paul’s letter to the romans, the council taught that god is faithful to his covenant with the jewish people out of love for their ancestors. d’costa considers this a “recovery” of the deposit of faith, since the church has neither affirmed nor denied this in the past, despite the fact that it is testified to in the letter to the romans (p. 153). d’costa is also quick to add that the council said nothing about whether or not the jewish people have been faithful to this covenant. the deposit of faith is simply silent regarding this question. this allows d’costa to argue that the supersession and even abrogation of the “old covenant” by the “new and eternal covenant” remains a theological possibility for catholics. he also acknowledges that, to the extent that judaism has traditionally been affirmed as a preparation for the gospel (praeparatio evangelica), the council gave some support to a theology of christian faith in christ as the ultimate fulfillment of the jewish faith. on this issue, d’costa is critical of those who see in lumen gentium 16 a doctrinal teaching that affirms the validity of the mosaic covenant. d’costa laments the fact that some catholics have gone so far as to affirm the validity of judaism as a means of salvation. third, he argues, the council taught implicitly that the church’s missionary mandate includes the jewish people, while respecting their religion and their freedom to choose their religion and forbidding any coercion in this regard. the gospel is to be proclaimed to all peoples. the council made no exception for jews. though presumably walter kasper’s contrary views are in mind here, he is never mentioned. d’costa’s devotion to doctrinal continuity leads him to criticize those who interpret nostra aetate as a “u-turn,” a “rupture,” or an “about-face” in catholic teaching about jews (p. 154). this is seen, for example, in his discussion of the views of gerald o’collins. according to o’collins, the studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 10 (2015) second vatican council marks a disavowal of the church’s teaching on the jews at the council of florence (1431-1449). at florence, the council fathers taught that “no one remaining outside the church, not only pagans, but also jews… can become partakers of eternal life, but they will go to the ‘eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’” the teaching of the second vatican council, therefore, is unprecedented for its direct conflict with the teaching of the council of florence. d’costa rejects o’collins’ conclusion, arguing that vatican ii does not contradict florence. this is because, at florence, jews were presumed to have chosen damnation for themselves by willfully rejecting the truth of catholic faith. at vatican ii, in contrast, the jewish people were considered to be “invincibly ignorant” of christ and therefore not necessarily damned (p. 155). (“invincible ignorance” is a medieval theological principle that has come in for considerable development in the last one hundred and fifty years. “inculpably ignorant” or “ignorant through no fault of their own” might be a better translation from the original latin.) though d’costa is largely focused on (one might say preoccupied with) issues of doctrinal continuity, the book deserves a wide readership. as i said above, d’costa’s book can be seen, at least in its material on judaism, as a challenge to catholic theologians who claim that the church after vatican ii should have no mission to the jews and who reject supersessionist theologies of judaism. d’costa has given us an alternative reading of vatican ii, which figures so centrally in discussions of jewish-catholic relations today. if jews are not in need of conversion to christ, catholics must ask themselves: are there two separate and equal covenants? can catholics subscribe to covenantal pluralism as a model of jewish-christian relations? i am by no means in full agreement with d’costa’s minimalist interpretation of the council’s teachings, but he has done catholics (and jews) a service by offering us this careful textual analysis that calls the conclusions of some other catholic thinkers into question. catholics should ask their jewish friends to be patient while we fight over the best way to tidy-up our theological house. d’costa’s book, rather than cleaning studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr the mess up, goes very far in making clear that there is, in fact, a theological mess to clean up. bonhoeffer and arendt at one hundred studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 77-85 bernauer, “bonhoeffer and arendt at one hundred” 77 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art6 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college “bonhoeffer and arendt at one hundred” james bernauer, s.j. boston college 2/1 (2007): 77-85 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art6 studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 77-85 bernauer, “bonhoeffer and arendt at one hundred” 78 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art6 1. introduction while they were both born in 1906 and in germany at that, i understand those who would doubt that bringing hannah arendt’s political thought into conversation with dietrich bonhoeffer’s theological text is a promising direction for research. certainly he did not know of her and, to my knowledge, his name makes only one appearance in her published works, and that in a letter in which karl jaspers recommends him to her study of resistance in nazi germany.1 she did not take his advice and perhaps his absence is not surprising because many would regard her philosophy as entailing a dismissive lament over the ultimate unworldliness of jewish and christian life and thought. such a judgment, however, would overlook arendt’s theological preoccupations which remained with her from her earliest university studies when she decided to become a theology major after attending the lectures of romano guardini at the university of berlin. even as a philosophy student, arendt would follow the theology courses of bultmann and tillich, study kierkegaard and write a dissertation on augustine.2 while i would maintain that this theological concern survives at the core of her conceptual 1 karl jaspers to hannah arendt, march 1, 1964, in hannah arendt and karl jaspers correspondence 1926-1969, eds. lotte kohler and hans saner (new york: harcourt brace, 1992), 547. 2 see elisabeth young-bruehl, hannah arendt: for love of the world (new haven: yale university press, 1982), 33-36, 62, 82. visitors to arendt's personal library, preserved at bard college, will be struck by the number of specifically theological texts contained in her collection. the 1929 dissertation finally appeared in english in 1996 as love and saint augustine, ed. j. v. scott and j. c. stark (chicago: university of chicago press, 1996). at the same time i do not want to deny the significance of greek and roman experience for arendt. a helpful discussion of that influence is jacques taminiaux’s “athens and rome” in the cambridge companion to hannah arendt, ed. dana villa (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2000), 165-177. system, it is interesting to note that even george kateb, who takes arendt as “adamantly untheological” goes on to note that the “wonder and gratitude for being” which pervades her work and which is in opposition to totalitarianism’s “contempt for the given” is “religious in quality.”3 my essay shall draw out some implications of her religious interest and aim to emphasize certain insights in bonhoeffer’s thought that arendt’s thirty years longer life span was able to confirm and develop. both of them had to confront the toxicity of western culture’s spiritual dynamics, bonhoeffer primarily in terms of the exploitation of christian categories by such groups as the deutsche christen, arendt principally in the abuse of religious perspectives during the struggles of the cold war. their thought intersects in three domains which will make up my three brief comments: worldliness; sin and evil; and jesus. 2. worldliness certainly, their mutual embrace of worldliness is the key commitment that engenders their visions of activism and both of them make central to any clear worldly thinking the criticism of religion. for both, that criticism is the beginning of wisdom. it is interesting to note that cardinal ratzinger, currently pope benedict, while not totally accepting “religionless christianity,” wrote in 1992 of the danger of forgetting the “criticism of religions that has been burned into our souls not only by feuerbach and marx but also by such 3 george kateb, hannah arendt: politics, conscience, evil (totowa, n.j.: rowman and allanheld, 1983), 158, 165. at the same time i do agree with richard bernstein who points out that arendt never studied jewish tradition with the same seriousness as she did christianity. see his hannah arendt and the jewish question (cambridge, massachusetts: mit press, 1996). studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 77-85 bernauer, “bonhoeffer and arendt at one hundred” 79 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art6 great theologians as karl barth and bonhoeffer.”4 in bonhoeffer’s words: “for the sake of real people, the church must be thoroughly worldly. it is a worldly reality for our sakes.”5 “amor mundi,” “love of the world,” was the title that arendt originally wanted to give to the book that was published as the human condition and is the best expression for her deepest commitment. her thought is a new “partisanship for the world,” that consisted of three interrelated perspectives: a vision of human existence as worldly, an understanding of human community as political, and a portrait of the life of the mind’s worldly tasks.6 while love for the world exhibits itself through action, it is also a faith that attempts to salvage for contemporary culture central religious experiences of the hebraic-christian tradition. her recourse to religious thinkers and experiences was more than a matter of mere theological background. they are intrinsic to the way that she herself experienced the crisis of our times and here is one of the places where bonhoeffer and she meet. he had seen that it is only by “living completely in this world that one learns to have faith” and he defines “this-worldliness” as “living unreservedly in life’s duties, problems, successes and failures, experiences and perplexities.”7 arendt realized that among the forces most needed for a renewal of the political realm were two which were not present in the ancient world: faith and hope, those two essential characteristics of human existence which 4 joseph cardinal ratzinger, “faith, religion, and culture,” in truth and tolerance: christian belief and world religions (san francisco: ignatius press, 2004), 65-66. 5 dietrich bonhoeffer, “the nature of the church,” in a testament to freedom, ed. geffrey kelly and f. burton nelson (new york: harper collins, 1995), 87. 6 hannah arendt, “on humanity in dark times,” in men in dark times (new york: harcourt, brace, jovanovich, 1968), 8. 7 letter to e. bethge of july 21, 1944) in dietrich bonhoeffer, letters & papers from prison, ed. eberhard bethge (london: scm press, 1967), 369-370. greek antiquity ignored altogether, discounting the keeping of faith as a very uncommon and not too important virtue and counting hope among the evils of illusion in pandora’s box. as was the case with bonhoeffer, arendt was convinced that institutional religion was in a state of crisis. there had taken place in modern times an indisputable loss of belief in religious dogmas but this institutional crisis was not a matter of indifference for her, however, because it nurtured the seeds of a more profound disaster. while loss of religious belief need not entail the forfeiture of faith itself, this was precisely the danger: “but who can deny that faith too, for so many centuries securely protected by religion, its beliefs and its dogmas, has been gravely endangered through what is actually only a crisis of institutional religion?”8 amor mundi was the faith she proposed as the way of overcoming this danger. this project imitated that of her teacher, rudolf bultmann, whose theology sought to rescue an authentic christian faith from the loss of credibility which many of its accompanying pre-modern beliefs had suffered. in its integration of religious experience, arendt’s amor mundi became a discourse of ultimacy, a faith not in god but in creation. this faith was articulated as an alternative to the appeal which ideology exercises once faith is displaced. arendt understood, as had dostoyevsky before her, that without faith a person will become a “flunkey of his ideas” and will believe anything, especially an ideology’s total explanation and its promise to the masses of a “man-made fabrication of the paradise they 8 hannah arendt, “remarks to the 1973 meeting of the american society of christian ethics” in the papers of hannah arendt container 70, 011838-011839. hannah arendt, “what is authority?” in between past and future (new york: penguin, 1977), 94-95. arendt claims that the modem loss of faith itself is not religious in origin (the human condition, 253-254). studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 77-85 bernauer, “bonhoeffer and arendt at one hundred” 80 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art6 had longed for and of the hell they had feared.”9 a strictly secular form of thought is inadequate to this level of ultimacy and, thus, incapable of meeting the danger of loss of faith or the appeal exercised by ideology. however, as max weber reminded us, seemingly worldly commitments may actually disguise a penetrating otherwordly asceticism that alienates from worldly experience. how to be worldly? bonhoeffer calls for action that is practical: “not what fancies the mind, but what is braved in the bold deeds of justice; not by lingering over dreams of the possible, but courageously grasping reality at hand, not through ideas soaring in flight, but only through action, is there ever freedom to be.” and that freedom is “not a quality that can be discovered” but, rather, it is a “relationship” with others.10 arendt would strongly agree for action is an opportunity to shape a presence in the full light of the public life. one of the places she articulated a religious community’s specific responsibility for that life was in her reflections on two popes, pius xii and john xxiii. her reaction to hochhuth’s controversial drama about pius, “the deputy,” is a searing indictment of a christian leader’s alleged unworldliness and of the disastrous absence of political capabilities to which it leads: judgment, speech, action. pius is portrayed as lacking that most worldly of mental faculties, judgment. he is accused of failing to understand what was taking place around him and of a “rigid adherence to a normality that no longer existed in view of the collapse of the whole moral and spiritual structure of europe.” this loss of a feeling for reality was exhibited in the 9 arendt’s 1967 notes for a lecture on dostoyevsky’s the possessed, in the papers of hannah arendt, container 69; the origins of totalitarianism, 446. 10 dietrich bonhoeffer, “sations on the way to freedom (july 21, 1944)” and “creation and fall 1932-1933,” in a testament to freedom, 516, 106-107. “flowery loquacity” of church statements which attempted to hide its overwhelming silence, its failure to speak publicly against the fate which was engulfing european jewry. fearing its unpredictability, the spokesman of catholicism refused to act.11 if the church’s conduct during world war ii demonstrated to arendt the calamity which can result from an unworldly life lived in the world, pope john xxiii manifested for her both the promise and the danger of a true christian’s appearance in the public realm. his “astounding faith” liberated him from all utilitarian attitudes and bestowed a confidence which enabled him to treat all as his equals and to present himself to the world exactly as he was. in response, the world paid him the tribute of carefully attending to his words and acts and the honor of capturing his existence as a permanent reality through the countless stories told about him and passed on for future generations. despite her deep admiration for his virtues, however, pope john also represented the danger of christian life, its capacity to shake the world. she liked to cite luther’s remark on the fearful consequence of an authentic proclamation of biblical faith, that the “most permanent fate of god’s word is that for its sake the world is put into uproar. for the sermon of god comes to change and revive the whole earth to the extent that it reaches it.”12 in her essay on pope john, arendt 11 “the deputy: guilt by silence?” was first published in the new york herald tribune magazine (february 23, 1964) 6-9. republished in amor mundi: explorations in the faith and thought of hannah arendt, ed. james bernauer (dordrecht: martinus nijhoff, 1987), 51-58. 12 hannah arendt, “angelo giuseppe roncalli: a christian on st. peter's chair from 1958 to 1963” in men in dark times, 57-69, 59. in a letter to her best friend mary mccarthy, she speculated that hierarchical roman catholicism may not survive the reforms of john xxiii. letter of december 21, 1968, in between friends: the correspondence of hannah arendt and mary mccarthy 1949-1975, ed. carol brightman (new york: harcort brace, 1995), 232. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 77-85 bernauer, “bonhoeffer and arendt at one hundred” 81 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art6 expresses the awareness that christian detachment can be both a rich worldly presence as well as a potentially dangerous transcendence of the world as it is. she is correct in that a monotheistic faith must refuse to absolutize anything, the world included. a religious amor mundi can never be an uncritical love but there is no reason, contrary to much of what arendt says, that it must be an unloving criticism. 3. sin and evil bonhoeffer’s and arendt’s thought have a second encounter in the territory of sin and evil and the importance of acknowledging their presence in a life of worldly action. for both, sin is a communal, corporate reality that enmeshes the individual within wicked structures.13 as haddon willmer points out, for bonhoeffer: “participating actively in the history of evil, the disciple confesses public sin as his own, so that all falls on him….the depth of bonhoeffer’s view of discipleship is plumbed here: the disciple shares with the lord in bearing the sin of the world and in the realisation of forgiveness.”14 as far as arendt is concerned, the continuing appeal of the origins of totalitarianism is due less to its general historical analyses than to its organization of that history within a particular religious horizon of meaning that enables the reader to confront and comprehend the horror of what is described.15 the focus of her portrayal is not the 13 on bonhoeffer, see clifford green’s “human sociality and christian community,” in the cambridge companion to dietrich bonhoeffer, ed. john w. de gruchy (cambridge: cambridge university press,1999), 113-133. 14 haddon willmer, “costly discipleship,” in the cambridge companion to dietrich bonhoeffer, 186. 15 over thirty years ago philip rieff first suggested this approach to the origins of totalitarianism in his article, “the theology of politics: reflections on totalitarianism as the burden of our time,” in journal of religion 32 (april, 1952): 119-126. wicked deeds perpetrated by individual men but rather a fallen state, a sinful condition, which is a feature of our age or, as the book’s original english title had it, the burden of our time. this fallen condition is described as an “absolute evil” by which she means that it is not comprehensible in terms of wicked motives of “self-interest, greed, covetousness, resentment, lust for power, and cowardice.” it is the person’s rebellion against the human condition itself, the determination to create a new man according to a technology justified by ideological claims to absolute knowledge of the laws of life and history. running through the book is a sense of universal responsibility for crime which has often been misinterpreted by arendt’s critics as a moral condemnation not only of victimizers but also of victims.16 in fact, she is describing a fallen state that makes revolt against the human condition a universal temptation. she will later pay tribute to the american revolution’s christian realism which prevented its leaders from sharing the “absurd hope” that man “might still be revealed to be an angel.” she will praise this realism in a number of other contexts, a praise which conflicts with her tendency to see images of unworldly innocence as having their source in christianity.17 this realism is beyond the horizon of the secular mind which is committed to a universal innocence that is only lost by the evil actions of specific individuals. totalitarian evil operated on a different terrain. 16 as examples of such interpretations, cf. rieff, “the theology of politics” and benjamin schwartz, “the religion of politics” in dissent 17 (marchapril, 1970): 144-161. as an example of this tendency in arendt, see the origins of totalitarianism, 452. 17 hannah arendt, on revolution (new york: viking press, 1963), 90. also on revolution, 76-83, as well as her essay "christianity and revolution" in nation (sept. 22, 1945): 288-289. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 77-85 bernauer, “bonhoeffer and arendt at one hundred” 82 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art6 i stress the notions of sin and evil which bonhoeffer and arendt recognized because these may be the essential keys to successful political activism. bonhoeffer was particularly insightful in seeing the responsibility of the churches failure to deal with the african-american situation in shaping what he called a “protestantism without reformation.” david chappell has made a very persuasive argument for the thesis that the civil rights movement, probably the most successful social movement in american history, only succeeded when african-americans abandoned liberal confidence in reason and natural progress for a prophetic religious discourse of sin and redemption. these reformers, according to chappel, recognized that they “had to stand apart from society and insult it with skepticism about its pretensions to justice and truth….they had to force an unwilling world to abandon sin – in this case, ‘the sin of segregation.’ the world to them would never know automatic or natural ‘progress.’ it would use education only to rationalize its iniquity.”18 the religious aura of arendt’s conceptual schema is exhibited best in her analysis of action. the delineation of that realm allows her to introduce two powers which she sees as essential both to the character of the actor and to the preservation of the realm itself. these are the powers to forgive and to promise.19 both are put forward as specifically worldly acts. for arendt, forgiving is a necessarily interpersonal act, and she contrasts it to the moral standards for ruling which were developed by plato from the private experience of the self. promising is put in opposition to the “darkness of the human heart” which symbolizes the unreliability of the human being who is always capable of change from day to day. forgiving and promising shelter the 18 david l. chappell, a stone of hope: prophetic religion and the death of jim crow (chapel hill: university of north carolina press, 2004), 3-4. 19 hannah arendt, the human condition, 236-247. realm of action for they remedy the two predicaments intrinsic to action. forgiving is a “redemption” from the predicament of action’s irreversibility, the fact that once an action is done, it cannot be undone.20 what allows the actor to recover from deeds which were performed but which are regretted is the forgiveness received from others. without such forgiveness, without release from the consequences of our acts, we would be confined to the first mistaken deed for which we are responsible. forgiveness allows the continuance of a public life, which always carries the risk of unanticipated, regrettable consequences. promising is a liberation from the predicament of the actor’s chaotic unpredictability. when people come together and pledge themselves to a course of action, they make a mutual freedom and a common political achievement possible. the superiority of those capable of promising over those who are “unbound by any promises and unkept by any purpose” is that they have the capacity to “dispose of the future as though it were the present, that is, the enormous and truly miraculous enlargement of the very dimension in which power can be effective.”21 deprived of the ability to make promises, we would be without a stable individuality and would lack the ability to join with others in contributing to the world an achievement worthy of future remembrance. 4. jesus arendt’s tribute to forgiveness and promising enables her to introduce into political experience two of the most potent religious acts. promising is the politicalization of the biblical covenant, and arendt’s utilization of it allows her conception of politics to bask in the light of the experience of salvation 20 arendt, the human condition, 237. 21 arendt, the human condition, 245. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 77-85 bernauer, “bonhoeffer and arendt at one hundred” 83 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art6 and of the establishment of a people’s identity.22 arendt claims that jesus of nazareth was the “discoverer of the role of forgiveness in the realm of human affairs” and interprets his teaching to mean that forgiveness “must be mobilized by men toward each other before they can hope to be forgiven by god also.”23 while forgiving is eminently personal, where “what was done is forgiven for the sake of who did it,” this capacity need not be rooted in an unworldly love but in the respect owed to others by their very existence.24 whether her distinction between love and respect ultimately holds up, arendt nevertheless manages to incorporate the power and appeal of forgiveness into her model of politics. such a power is crucial for an historical experience that has been conceptualized as sinful. arendt is at her boldest in absorbing the experience of jesus into her model of political life. she regards his insights into the faculty of action to be as original and unprecedented as were socrates’s experiences of thought. her esteem for jesus is based on the conviction that his “faith was closely related to action” and that the new testament’s portrayals of him have philosophical implications. the most significant of these is that freedom is presented as the “power of performing miracles.” “the only activity jesus of nazareth recommends in his preaching is action, and the only human 22 while arendt recognized the theoretical influence of the biblical covenant on political conceptions, she always insisted that its nature as a compact between god and humanity made it inherently unpolitical because it was not a compact between equals. i think that her interpretation underestimates the radical novelty of the biblical covenant but, in any case, my point stands. for her discussion of this matter, see the humancondition, 243-244; on revolution, 166-176, 309-310, and her “remarks” to the 1973 meeting of the american society of christian ethics. 23 arendt, the human condition, 238-239. arendt cites matthew 6: 14-15. 18:35 and mark 11:25. 24 arendt, the human condition, 241. capacity he stresses is the capacity ‘to perform miracles’.”25 the appeal of this form of freedom for her is that it directly confronts the modem fascination with history as a natural process: “the work of faith, actually its product, is what the gospels called ‘miracles’” which are “interruptions of some natural series of events, of some automatic process, in whose context they constitute the wholly unexpected.” as arendt points out, this power to perform miracles is not rooted in will or thought but in faith.26 this faith’s most essential effect is the personal acceptance of natality. specifically differentiated from the classical emphasis on human mortality is the experience of the promise which one’s beginning possesses for the world. for her, the very purpose of being is to begin and she never tired of citing augustine’s definition; “that there is a beginning man was created, before whom nobody was.”27 nataiity is the “miracle that saves the world” and its source is faith’s discernment, against the background of natural processes, of the “infinite improbability” which every new beginning represents.28 for bonhoeffer, jesus called people to a new life, not a new religion.29 although the historical jesus was central to her faith, arendt certainly never accepted any orthodox claims regarding his divinity. for her, there was a chasm between the jesus of the gospels and the christ of the pauline texts. “i don’t feel any loyalty to christ. i may feel a loyalty to jesus, because that is indeed an example, what jesus did, and his whole life, the logoi, and all the stories, this can 25 arendt, the human condition, 247, 8 note 1, 247, 318. 26 hannah arendt, “what is freedom,” in between past and future (new york: harcourt brace jovanovich, 1978), 168. 27 hannah arendt, the life of the mind: willing , 217; cf. the origins of totalitarianism, 479; the human condition, 177; on revolution, 212. 28 arendt, the human condition, 247; “what is freedom?”, 169 29 dietrich bonhoeffer, a testament to freedom, 41. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 77-85 bernauer, “bonhoeffer and arendt at one hundred” 84 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art6 indeed become an example.”30 perhaps orthodox christians have underestimated this worldly appeal of the historical jesus especially when they recall the historic impact of such powerful presences as mahatma gandhi, martin luther king and nelson mandela. of course, bonhoeffer’s christology is quite distant from arendt’s admiration for jesus and, yet, it is striking how close to her is his view of action and forgiveness. here is bonhoeffer: “civil courage, in fact, can grow only out of the free responsibility of free men. only now are the germans beginning to discover the meaning of free responsibility. it depends on a god who demands responsible action in a bold venture of faith, and who promises forgiveness and consolation to the man who becomes a sinner in that venture.”31 30 “remarks” to the 1973 meeting of the american society for christian ethics, 001838. although it is clear that hannah arendt had a personal belief in god (see men in dark times, 67; jeannette baron, “hannah arendt: personal reflections” response 39 [1980]: 62; alfred kazin, new york jew [new york: knopf, 1978] 199), she never identified herself as a member of any denomination: “i am neither a crypto-baptist nor am i a crypto-christian? i am by birth a jew, and as far as religion goes i do not belong to any church, or to any synagogue, or to any denomination.” (“remarks” to the 1973 meeting of the american society for christian ethics, 011828). in an article, judith shklar has repeated the story which surfaced around the time of the controversy over arendt's 1963 eichmann in jerusalem, namely, that arendt appeared to have been drawn to roman catholicism (“hannah arendt as pariah” partisan review 50 [1983]: 72). in arendt's notes for a reply to a question regarding her supposed conversion to roman catholicism, she wrote that there “is no truth in it whatsoever. i suppose the rumour has been started in the old hope--semper aliquid adhaeret.” (“answer to grafton” in the papers of hannah arendt, container 42, file "eichmann case: correspondence, periodical, 1963", 13). 31 dietrich bonhoeffer, letters and papers from prison: the enlarged edition, 6. a connection between bonhoeffer and arendt on forgiveness is made in ruth zerner’s “church, state and the ‘jewish question’” in the cambridge companion to dietrich bonhoeffer, 200-202. the religious person’s tension between a love for the world and a recognition of its limitations was hannah arendt’s own experience and the gift of her jewish faith. amor mundi does not entail an amor fati; quite to the contrary, it demands the preservation of a certain distance, the willingness not to conform, the permanent status of what arendt called the conscious pariah.32 does arendt’s depiction of jesus follow bonhoeffer’s call for a nonreligious language to tell who jesus is as a man for others? is it twin of bonhoeffer’s criticism that traditional religious language now fails to communicate the true life of jesus and christ? jim wallace recently witnessed to this failure: “this young german theologian who was executed by the nazis for his opposition to hitler helped me to understand the difficult religious experiences i had known in america. the evangelical christian world i had grown up in talked incessantly about christ but never paid any attention to the things that jesus taught. jesus christ was to be praised but not followed”.33 as bonhoeffer, arendt and wallace remind us, an effective political struggle, especially in a society like the united states, may be unable to avoid delineating an image of and attitude to jesus of nazareth. 5. conclusion in bringing bonhoeffer and arendt together, i certainly do not want to deny all that separates them. still, for our purposes here, arendt does seem to me to reinforce and develop some of bonhoeffer’s own insights. and certainly we can appreciate and honor their personal and intellectual 32 see arendt, “the jew as pariah: a hidden tradition” in the jew as pariah, 67-90, and feldman's introduction to this collection, “the jew as pariah: the case of hannah arendt,”15-52. 33 jim wallis, “when i first met bonhoeffer,” the foreword to a year with dietrich bonhoeffer: daily meditations from his letters, writings and sermons, ed. carla barnhill (san francisco: harper, 2005) v. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 77-85 bernauer, “bonhoeffer and arendt at one hundred” 85 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art6 courage. it is in that same region of courage where arendt’s amor mundi and bonhoeffer’s religious faith can meet. it is a courage to love the world, not because there is an ideological vision of its potential perfection, but because it is greater than the storms of evil which pass over it. it is this awareness of evil and sin which guides faith and sustains democratic communities. manifesting a face scarred by evil, the world and its citizens appear more vulnerable, but also more real and more lovable. the vatican, antisemitism, and the holocaust: a response to kevin madigan studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): spicer cp1-4 conference proceeding the vatican, antisemitism, and the holocaust a response to kevin madigan’s has the papacy ‘owned’ vatican guilt for the church’s role in the holocaust? k e v i n p . s p i c e r, c . s . c . s t o n e h i l l c o l l e g e presented at the annual meeting of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations november 1, 2009, florida atlantic university, boca raton, florida a few days following the april 8, 2005 funeral of pope john paul ii, i called my parents to see how they were doing. during the course of our conversation, my father asked me if i had watched the pope’s funeral mass on television. i answered that i had. then he asked me what i thought of cardinal joseph ratzinger’s homily. i replied that it was moving and appropriate for such a solemn occasion. my father then said, “well, i hoped you liked it, because that cardinal is going to be our next pope. that homily was as close to a campaign speech as a cardinal could make.” my father’s candor and matter-of-factness, so unlike his normal reserved tone in regard to church matters, surprised me. i remember responding, “that will be impossible. the cardinals will never give a position of such importance in faith and morals to a german only sixty years after the holocaust.” my father quickly retorted, “just wait and see.” as we all know i was wrong and my father was right, for on april 19 the college of cardinals elected cardinal ratzinger pope. cardinal ratzinger’s election probably should not have been a surprise to me. more than likely most of the cardinals, the majority of who had been appointed by john paul ii, were unprepared to elect an outsider and favored someone who they believed would closely follow in john paul ii’s footsteps. yet, i wonder, did the hesitation that i raised with my father ever cross their minds. should such a reservation have entered their minds? the cardinals, coming from a variety of countries throughout the world (often third world countries), must have individually and collectively witnessed untold horrors and human rights infringements in their own countries at some time or another. no country is perfect or without a dark past that most of its citizens would rather forget. thus, should germany be categorized differently? many might argue no; however, i believe that such a response ignores the uniqueness of the holocaust in all its magnitude and its singular goal of eradicating all jews from this planet. it is this point precisely that the catholic church and its members, both clergy and laity, so often forget or choose to ignore. benedict follows suit. but i must then ask, should not his holiness pope benedict xvi, as a german, take it upon himself, even more so than someone of a different nationality, the towering responsibility of remembering the holocaust in a special way, and even more specifically, of recognizing and identifying the complicity of the catholic church in creating the circumstances that led to it? has not the catholic church over its two thousand year history permitted and, many times, broadly propagated and even instigated christian antisemitism that led to the untold murders of jews over the centuries, culminating in the holocaust? to this day, the holy see, the vatican, has failed to issue any papal document that honestly addresses the church’s role in the propagation and dissemination of christian antisemitism and how it led to its direct connection with racial antisemitism. the holy see's commission for spicer, the vatican and the holocaust spicer cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): spicer cp1-4 religious relations with the jews 1998 document we remember attempted to address this void, but, as kevin madigan has shown, it falls short in so many areas. as a historian of modern germany, i would even call the authors of the document “sloppy” in their research and perhaps even purposefully careless by misidentifying blessed bernhard lichtenberg’s place of death and falsely identifying cardinal faulhaber’s 1933 advent sermon as “clearly express[ing] rejection of the nazi antisemitic propaganda.” lichtenberg did not die in dachau, but en route to the concentration camp, in the town of hof that sits on the border of thüringen and bavaria. similarly, faulhaber composed and preached the advent sermons to defend the integrity of the old testament and not specifically in opposition to nazi antisemitism or in defense of jews. but these are only two weaknesses of many within the document. despite such documents by the holy see, as kevin madigan has shown, select national bishops conferences, such as those in france and germany, have seriously addressed the local catholic church’s failure to critique antisemitism, challenge national socialism, and protest the mistreatment and murder of jews in the holocaust. yet, such frankness is lacking on the part of the papacy and the vatican. specifically, the holy see, especially under pope benedict, has shown a cautious reserve when commenting on christianity and the holocaust. for pope benedict, it has been virtually impossible to use the words jews, holocaust, catholic church, and germany in the same sentence or even in the same address! as kevin madigan has also shown, still more troubling is benedict’s changes in the good friday liturgy and his overtures to the st. pius x congregation. while i would agree with professor amyjill levine’s recent comment made during an address at stonehill college that it is much better to have bishop williamson and the st. pius x society under vatican supervision than outside the church, the number of actions in regard to jewish-catholic relations, which benedict has taken or allowed to take place within the church, is certainly troubling when viewed as a whole. the latest vatican approval to a change in the u.s. catholic catechism for adults’ teaching on jews attests to this situation. while the change in wording does reflect the teachings on jews found in paragraph 839 in the catechism of the catholic church, the church’s universal catechism, which bears benedict’s imprimatur when he was joseph cardinal ratzinger, the head of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, at the same time it also appears to reflect a change in direction begun under pope john paul ii, which outwardly seemed to be moving toward some kind of recognition of the abrahamic covenant as unique and salvific for jews apart from the salvation offered by christ. with benedict’s change, however, that recognition is diminished. and while not directly promoting proselytization, it does open the door to proselytizing efforts by catholics toward jews. as we all know, such teaching also helps fuel antisemitism, especially by viewing jews as “others” in need of “salvation” through “conversion.” and, yes, i recognize that in recent days the u.s. conference of catholic bishops has attempted to address concerns expressed by both jews and catholics concerning recent statements by the bishops’ conference. nevertheless, in the past week, there have been troubling developments in regard to a new children’s catechism. such mixed messages shall only instill distrust and create confusion over church teaching. theological supersessionism is a central factor compelling these changes in catholic church’s teaching on jews. at the same time and equally troubling is the papacy’s and holy see’s refusal to admit a connection between catholic antisemitism and the holocaust. for example, on friday, 19 august 2005, at the cologne synagogue, in the midst of offering hopeful words concerning the cologne jewish community, pope benedict stated that, “in the twentieth century, in the darkest period of german and european history, an insane racist ideology, born of neo-paganism, gave rise to the attempt, planned and systematically carried out by the regime, to exterminate european jewry. the result has passed into history as the shoah.” while it was important that spicer, the vatican and the holocaust spicer cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): spicer cp1-4 the pope acknowledged the horrific nature of the shoah, he did so by denying the historical underlayer of its catholic-christian societal roots. national socialist racist ideology was not solely “born of neo-paganism,” but rather as john pawlikowski has stated, “while the holocaust had many parents, it could not have been realized without the indispensable seedbed of christian antisemitism.” nevertheless, the vatican has regularly denied any christian basis for the holocaust, played out in thousands of european communities over the centuries, however much we today want to claim that such antisemitism was based on a misinterpretation of our theology. another example is seen in we remember that reads: “the shoah was the work of a thoroughly modern neo-pagan regime. its anti-semitism had its roots outside of christianity and, in pursuing its aims, it did not hesitate to oppose the church and persecute her members also.” sadly, such statements deny the incalculable influence christian practice has had on societal antisemitism, especially virulent in europe, upon which the nazis built their annihilative antisemitism. i have addressed this issue in my own work on german and austrian catholic priests who embraced national socialism when i wrote: “historically, the catholic church tolerated discrimination against jews who allegedly betrayed the basic tenets of their own revealed faith by becoming obsessed with money and material goods. in turn, the church believed that these same unfaithful jews, especially through the influence of the enlightenment and modernity, had attacked and undermined christianity and its moral and religious teaching through their ‘pernicious influence’ on business, the press, art, theater, film, and politics. though the church rejected the national socialist racist form of antisemitism that preached ‘a struggle against the jewish race’ and made blood the sole determining factor of jewish identity, it nevertheless, almost since its foundation, continued to promote a religious-based antisemitism, often referred to as antijudaism, by blaming jews for jesus’ crucifixion. regardless of the theological logic underlying antisemitism, the negative portrayal of jews facilitated discrimination and persecution. even when catholics tried to distance themselves from antisemitism or at least demonstrate moral sympathy toward jews, it was very difficult for them to show any theological sympathy. this lack of theological sympathy led catholics to a reductive appraisal of jews as persistent non-believers, too alien and obstinate for the church’s leaders to include in the gospel mandate to ‘love thy neighbor.’ the catholic imagination had only to clothe these liturgical and homiletic perceptions into common and everyday antisemitic language. consequently, [some catholics during the nazi period] attempted to institutionalize antisemitism as a christian mandate as well as a patriotic one. in retrospect, [such individuals] were only attempting to rehearse earlier and more elemental antisemitic texts in the catholic and christian tradition, which were centuries old. from this referential perspective, much of the antisemitism in the catholic church was perceived as being partially in agreement with the spirit of nazi racial teaching and national socialism’s eventual antisemitic legislation. for the ordinary catholic then, the lines between these various forms of antisemitism─racial, theological, economic, and cultural─became not only indistinguishable but mutually reinforcing.” you will notice that in this analysis i do not adopt the term anti-judaism to identify christian theological antisemitism. as we see in the examples above, far too often popes and individual scholars have used such terminology in an attempt to exculpate catholicism especially in europe from its responsibility for the holocaust. by contrast, in my own research and writing, i use the term christian antisemitism and show its direct link to racial antisemitism. in this discussion, one question continues to linger. richard steigmann-gall’s 2003 work, the holy reich: nazi conceptions of christianity indirectly asks this question: “is christianity by spicer, the vatican and the holocaust spicer cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): spicer cp1-4 its very nature antisemitic?” though scholars resoundingly criticized steigmann-gall’s thesis concerning the “christian” nature of national socialism, the implications of his work that raises the question of the nature of christianity is key to our jewish-christian dialogue. can catholicism, which views everything through a christocentric lens, proclaim anything but supersessionism? throughout the catholic church’s history, its leaders have taught christ’s command to love thy neighbor. in my own research, i have found ample evidence suggesting that there were priests throughout germany under national socialism who preached this commandment of love. nevertheless, self-preservation, nationalism, and antisemitism regularly obstructed such teaching from being put into practice toward jews. at the heart of such inaction and lack of concern was the theological precept of supersessionism that is still the central issue that causes tensions between jews and catholics. naturally, there are also so many additional issues, such as the push for beatification of pope pius xii, which fuel tensions between jews and catholics. i would argue that catholics have no idea how painful such debates are for jews. i can only begin to imagine the pain by listening carefully to my jewish friends and colleagues. unfortunately, it appears, the pope and the majority of practicing catholics do not or chose not to listen carefully enough; for if they did, there would be no further discussion of pius xii’s cause and no need to deny the church’s century-old role in the holocaust. until then, kevin madigan is correct: pope benedict “has emphatically not ‘owned’ catholic guilt and that [in doing so] has damaged the cause of jewish-christian relations and dialogue.” spicer, the vatican and the holocaust spicer cp 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 kevin p. spicer, c.s.c. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review mark braverman a wall in jerusalem: hope, healing, and the struggle for justice in israel and palestine (new york, boston, nashville: jericho books, 2013), paperback, 276 pp. philip a. cunningham, saint joseph’s university mark braverman, a frequent speaker in american churches about judaism, christianity, and the israeli-palestinian conflict, describes this book as “my testimony as a jew, ... written ... in deep sadness—sadness over how my people have fallen into sin” (p. 20). that sin, he claims, is “seeing the state of israel as a prize awarded to us [jews] as a privileged, exclusive group” (p. 55). braverman contends that zionist jews have been enabled by a “new theology about jews, judaism, and the role of ‘the land’ that has dominated christian beliefs and attitudes since world war ii [and] has come to support a program of conquest and dispossession” (pp. 15-16; cf. p. 79). he wants to rouse american churches to take action, including “divesting church investments from companies profiting from the occupation of palestinian lands” (p. 145). a brief review precludes detailing the highly selective outline of israeli history that braverman presents. suffice it to say that such events as the dismantling of the ottoman empire after world war i; the duplicitous, contradictory agreements european powers made with arab communities; the shifting of large populations of peoples after the world war ii; and the way that regional conflicts were fanned for strategic advantage during the cold war are absent from braverman's presentation. his attention is single-mindedly fixed on the image of jewish invaders and palestinian victims. by quoting likestudies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) minded thinkers he posits highly debatable parallels between the genuine plight of palestinians and the american civil rights movement and south african apartheid (chap. 7-8). no one can deny that the present circumstances of palestinians are intolerable. but their painful predicament is the result of a unique and bewildering swirl of local, regional, and international forces contending for over a century. it seems inescapable that the current deadlock cannot be overcome unless all contributing factors are addressed. seen from this wider perspective, braverman’s assertion that “it is the faithful action of the global church that will be critical in ending the system that is destroying israeli society, has hijacked the jewish faith, continues to fuel global conflict, and has produced one of the most systematic and long-standing violations of human rights in the world today” (p. 228) seems woefully inadequate. because he is appealing to “american christians” (p. 58), as a theologian i will note three particularly troubling theological moves that braverman makes. first, he fairly enough claims that christians developed a “new theology” toward jews because of the shoah, but braverman also asserts that “just as powerful was the establishment of the state of israel in 1948 and then the israeli victory in the 1967 war ... that changed the way christians began to regard the jewish people” (p. 5). lumping the wide variety of theological efforts to reform perennial christian anti-judaism into a single “new theology” and alleging that “it” was inspired by and made possible the existence of the state of israel is factually wrong. yes, some christians have adopted a fundamentalistic stance that gives divine validation to israeli governmental policies. however, such ways of reading biblical land promises go back at least to the nineteenth century, long before the foundation of the modern state of israel. for other christians, the existence of the state of israel played little or no role in the reform of teaching about jews and judaism. in debates during the http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr second vatican council (1962-65) over a draft text 1 of what became the benchmark declaration nostra aetate, not a single voice argued that a statement about jews should be made because of the existence of the state of israel. in fact, the arabisraeli conflict (as it was then called) nearly derailed the development of the document. consequently, its authors took pains to distance their work from contemporary geopolitical disputes by stating that the council was “moved not by political reasons but by the gospel’s spiritual love” (nostra aetate, 4). the existence of the state of israel did not generate any “new theology” about jews in the catholic community. a similar conclusion can be reached for most of the earliest christian reflections about relations with jews in the wake of the shoah. furthermore, by tarring all christian efforts toward rapprochement with jews as requiring the “unconditional endorsement of the jewish national homeland project” (p. 18), braverman ignores contrary views such as those expressed by the vatican in 1985: “the existence of the state of israel and its political options should be envisaged not in a perspective which is in itself religious, but in reference to the common principles of international law” (notes, 2 vi, 25). this means that the official catholic position rejects attributing to god any political option—whether a fundamentalist “god gave the land to jews” or braverman's argument that jesus expects faithful christians to prophetically speak truth to israeli power. again, some protestant churches and theologians have offered statements that parallel the catholic view. second, christian readers ought to question braverman’s reduction of both judaism and christianity to reform programs for social justice, essentially wiping away their respective, distinctive features. regarding christianity, braverman holds that “resistance to empire was a fundamental component of jesus’ 1 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate (accessed may 28, 2014) 2 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relationsjews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_jews-judaism_en.html (accessed may 28, 2014) http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_jews-judaism_en.html http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_jews-judaism_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_jews-judaism_en.html studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 9 (2014) message” (p. 70). indeed, braverman pays little heed to the meaning of jesus for christianity other than he led “a movement to free his people from the political domination of rome and the spiritual peril represented by that tyranny” (p. 86). while it is unsurprising for a jewish writer to say, as braverman did in an online interview, 3 that “i don’t get into all that messianic christology,” christians ought to be wary of arguments in which “the necessary struggle for human justice and freedom in the economic and political sense constitutes the whole essence of salvation” (in words of a 1984 vatican instruction 4 ). braverman offers a polemical view of “establishment” judaism at the time of jesus, which—lacking any caveats or distinctions—quietly elides into a characterization of judaism generally: “[t]he problem [with judaism] is territoriality, grasping power, dispossession, us and them, particularity vs. universalism, exclusivity vs. inclusiveness” (p. 89). he then links this highly negative view of judaism with the israeli policies he condemns, as if the latter were simply organic outgrowths of the former. in contrast, the universality of the message of jesus and the prophets for braverman means that: in the christian vision of the kingdom of god, both the land and the people lose their specificity and exclusivity. temple—gone. god dwelling in one place— over. the notion of a territory as a clause in the covenant disappears. and, significantly, jesus’ kingdom takes the next step: it jettisons the am kadosh, or “special people,” concept. the special privilege of one family / tribe / nation separated from the rest of humanity is eclipsed (p. 97). 3 http://mondoweiss.net/2013/06/palestinians-interview-braverman.html (accessed may 28, 2014) 4 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con _cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html (accessed may 28, 2014) http://mondoweiss.net/2013/06/palestinians-interview-braverman.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html http://mondoweiss.net/2013/06/palestinians-interview-braverman.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr as braverman argues, the affirmation of any religious distinctiveness in post-jesus (rabbinic) judaism is tantamount to a misanthropic tribalism. his description of biblical judaism orients it totally “away from the particular to embrace the universal,” as in his interpretation of christian pentecost (p. 83). many of these themes chillingly resonate with the patristic origins of the “teaching of contempt” that pervaded christianity for centuries. to take just one example that conveniently combines several ideas: and that same providence which of old gave the law, and has now given the gospel of jesus christ, not wishing the jewish state to continue longer, has destroyed their city and their temple: it has abolished the worship which was offered to god in that temple by the sacrifice of victims, and other ceremonies which he had prescribed. and as it has destroyed these things, not wishing that they should longer continue, in like manner it has extended day by day the christian religion, so that it is now preached everywhere [i.e., universally] with boldness ... (origen, contra celsum, 7:26). braverman may not have replaced judaism with christianity as classic supersessionism did, but his homogenization of “stripped down” versions of both traditions produces a similar judgment: judaism fails to live up to christian standards. this can further be seen in braverman’s “jettisoning” of am kadosh—of judaism’s self-understanding of being chosen to be a holy people. christians should think long and hard before embracing this move, which would also have enormous theological consequences for christianity. i would agree with braverman's rejection of “exceptionalist doctrines that pervert the words of scripture into supporting oppression and land-taking” (p. 143), but the real problem is an uncritical reading of the bible, which leads to what one of the authors braverman cites calls “a distorted doctrine of studies in christian-jewish relations 6 scjr 9 (2014) chosenness” (p. 79). braverman never discusses what an undistorted doctrine of chosenness might be, thereby leaving readers with only the eradication of a core jewish theological belief. third, i would raise cautions regarding braverman’s use of prophetic language. braverman sees himself as having a prophetic mission: i realized that i had been given a voice to speak, and an ear to hear. it was a voice that could speak to american christians who were waking up to the plight of the palestinians, who were beginning to see the problems with the storybook narrative of the jewish state they had been fed for so long. it was a voice to encourage these same christians to examine the theology that had served to stifle the questions that inevitably arose about the god-given right of the jews to rule over the other peoples of the land (pp. 58-59). i do not wish to question the sincerity of braverman’s words. however, his limited presentation of biblical prophecy as essentially “speaking truth to power” likely derives from a felt need to provide an antithesis to those who invoke biblical prophecy to support israel. as the international council of christians and jews recently cautioned, appeals to the prophetic writings are basically attempts to claim god's endorsement of the judgments being expressed. this inevitably sanctifies and absolutizes opposed political positions, making it difficult to reach any compromise or acquiescence to anything less than ideal solutions. (i recommend iccj's “as long as you believe in a living god, you must have hope" 5 for further reading.) 5 http://www.iccj.org/redaktion/upload_pdf/201305102052530.iccjpentecost-2013.pdf (accessed may 28, 2014) http://www.iccj.org/redaktion/upload_pdf/201305102052530.iccj-pentecost-2013.pdf http://www.iccj.org/redaktion/upload_pdf/201305102052530.iccj-pentecost-2013.pdf http://www.iccj.org/redaktion/upload_pdf/201305102052530.iccj-pentecost-2013.pdf http://www.iccj.org/redaktion/upload_pdf/201305102052530.iccj-pentecost-2013.pdf studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 7 www.bc.edu/scjr that braverman praises some palestinians for an “unwillingness to compromise on core issues, coupled with the willingness to step outside the strictures of the institutional church” (p. 229) is evidence of the rigidity and polarization that occurs when one wraps their rhetoric in a cloak of divine approbation. i have to wonder what braverman's vision of the ideal future would be. “we are now approaching a consensus ... [that] the two-state solution is dead,” he writes (p. 231). he would appear to favor “a single state in which jews, as a shrinking minority, will share power with non-jews” (ibid.). is that the “prophetic” end to which he is driving his christian audiences? if so, that should be made explicit so their response to his appeals can be fully informed. to further illustrate the problem, braverman favorably quotes a writer who argues that “‘bds may be the only non-violent tool capable of moving israel beyond its patterns of militarized brutality.’ bds refers to the 2005 palestinian civil-society call for boycott, divestment, and sanctions” (pp. 205-206). given the prophetic ethos of the book, is this judgment about a particular political strategy to be understood as a prophetic utterance? are christians who are also distressed by the statelessness of palestinians to be condemned as unfaithful or shackled to a “constantinian” religiosity if they disagree with bds as a constructive tactic (pp. 189-190)? can compromises not also be “prophetic” or must prophets always be “uncompromising”? who decides which actions are the really “prophetic” ones? to go even further, will critics of braverman’s book be judged as complicit in palestinian suffering for disputing its “prophetic” arguments and conclusions? this would be, after all, the flip side to the accusation of “antisemitism” that some defenders of the state of israel facilely deploy. my point is that appealing to prophecy to argue one’s positions is a risky business. braverman’s simplistic approach to narrow religious aspects of the israeli-palestinian conflict will be of little avail in promotstudies in christian-jewish relations 8 scjr 9 (2014) ing lasting reconciliation and justice. the current deadlock cannot be overcome unless all contributing factors are addressed. this demands that the self-understanding of all groups be respected and the use by anyone of hostile stereotypes be rejected. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review katherina von kellenbach the mark of cain: guilt and denial in the post-war lives of nazi perpetrators (oxford university press, 2013), hardcover, ix-xi + 287 pp. rochelle l. millen, wittenberg university philosophers, theologians, novelists, and poets have brought diverse, distinct, and dissimilar perspectives to bear upon the central human issues of sin and repentance, evil and forgiveness, justice and pardon. yet each recognizes that existential meaning emanates and derives from our understanding of these concepts. these notions are the threads from which all interactions—individual, communal, and religious—are woven. the contemporary novelist marilynne robinson is preoccupied with the “generational, genealogical succession of suffering”; milton puts forth a 17 th -century christian understanding, while nietzsche and spinoza deny the possibility of repentance. maimonides’ 13 th -century discussion of repentance as an essential religious and human concept is intense and analytic. and his outstanding modern disciple joseph b. soloveitchik devoted numerous lectures and writings to repentance as the focal issue of human identity and construction of self. continuing this exploration, and illuminating it within a specific historical context, is the significant, profound, and meticulously researched volume by theologian katherina von kellenbach. the mark of cain: guilt and denial in the post-war lives of nazi perpetrators has its roots in family history, the tale of von kellenbach’s uncle who, as a young german man in the early 1930s, spent the war years in various positions of nazi leadership. one of his tasks was to organize the murder of over studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 10 (2015) 18,000 jews in pinsk, belarus, a mission he successfully completed. uncle alfred ebner, arrested in 1962, was tried twice and eventually, after many delays, ruled incompetent to stand trial for medical reasons in 1971. never convicted, he died a free man in 1987. over the years, kellenbach’s family continued to admire ebner and to protect its familial honor. the family adopted the particular and widespread post-war german perspective that led to the lies and fabrications spun by many, including kellenbach’s father, whenever ebner visited or was spoken about. kellenbach’s study is not only an individual attempt to cope with guilt and denial of monstrous crimes within the close family circle. it is also a subtle and insightful exploration of the christian concepts of forgiveness and redemption, part of the cultural fabric of german—indeed, european—society. woven from that fabric is a juridical framework that precluded moral transformation, spiritual regeneration, and cognizance of accountability and responsibility. an outstanding aspect of kellenbach’s study is its careful research into the post-war trials of former nazis, including the role of christian pastors, the legal restraints, the reigning christian conceptual theologies, and the pervading assumptions of post-war german civil society. as a german theologian who came to the united states for graduate studies (she had never met a jew before that) and has remained here in an academic position, kellenbach sees the holocaust as “an important case study of the power of antisemitism, racism, nationalism, and ethnic hatred [which also] provides lessons for turning painful histories into common ground from which to shape different futures” (p. xi). the biblical narrative of cain and abel is the framing metaphor for kellenbach’s extraordinary exploration of guilt, denial, forgiveness, memory, redemption, and moral responsibility. while christian theology viewed the mark of cain as a divine stigma upon jews for allegedly murdering jesus, thus condemning jews to perpetual servitude and wandering, studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr kellenbach reinterprets the text in startling fashion. the mark of cain, as a public signifier of his guilt, indicates god’s protection. cain’s readily transparent guilt precludes the erasure of memory, creating an unbreakable link between redemption and memory. in her telling, his mark is not a sign of shame, but rather of the possibility of change and redemption. memory of fratricide becomes the foundation of moral transformation. cain’s second chance is founded on guilt from his past deed, leading toward acceptance of responsibility and respect for the memory of abel, his brother. as he evolves, indifference becomes respect, entitlement changes to empathy, and invulnerability becomes integrity. the christological, antijewish readings of the cain narrative are transformed into a remarkable (and in many ways rabbinic) protocol for moral renewal: spiritually, practically, and juridically. kellenbach reads the story of cain as a counter-narrative to that of the prodigal son, one which “encapsulates the task incumbent upon perpetrators” (p. 15), her uncle among them. her work makes palpable the shadow of guilt which haunts german families. the crimes committed by the nazis and their many cohorts cannot be expiated by judicial punishment alone; there is no adequate payment of the moral debt of brutal murder. this of course was the much debated issue when germany offered reparations to the survivors of nazi atrocities. kellenbach asserts that despite the soteriological claims of traditional christian theology, “there are some burdens of guilt that cannot be removed either by forgiveness or punishment” (p. 9). any declaration of closure regarding the events of the shoah is a form of escapism. rather, the challenge and task of the perpetrators—individually, communally, and culturally—is to “shoulder the legacy of perpetration” and face the reality of collective evil and its agents, even now, seventy years later. only such a process can lead to the moral transformation through which genuine goodness might triumph in human struggles. reconciliation and responsibility are lifelong projects, deriving studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 10 (2015) from conscious memory of evil, hence, her use of the biblical cain narrative as her framework. kellenbach, in detail and in lucid sentences, carefully traces the various stages through which individual perpetrators and post-war german society attempted to deal with the central issues of guilt and denial. her exploration challenges important aspects of christian theology, and in my view, approaches the complex rabbinic understanding of repentance as pivotal to the human experience, especially in the face of ideological, brutal evil. there must be acknowledgement of personal responsibility and palpable remorse. the amnesty campaign in germany following the war, the war criminal prison of landsberg, the stuttgart declaration, the cases of oswald pohl and robert mulka: each is analyzed in order both to demonstrate their legal and theological limitations and to develop the context for kellenbach’s conceptions of justice and moral transformation. in the chaos immediately following the war, the churches were perhaps the single most organized institutions in germany that might speak for—and indeed to—the german people. yet church documents tended to critique what they termed “collective guilt” and emphasize the sinfulness of all humanity. that is, they did not urge the perpetrators and bystanders to acknowledge their deeds—or lack thereof—since all persons are sinners. and if wrongdoing were indeed recognized, christian forgiveness would readily be forthcoming. some pastors argued for a general amnesty, noting a shared sense of guilt which would preclude the introspection necessary for acknowledging personal responsibility. the result? 5,025 perpetrators were tried in the western allied zones between 1946 and 1949. the death penalty was imposed on 806, 486 of whom were executed. the vast majority were sentenced to life in prison and later given amnesty. by 1958, landsberg prison was empty. kellenbach vividly describes how, during these post-war years, the internment camps and the allies’ legal system were overwhelmed in many ways. this led the german roman catholic studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr and evangelical (protestant) churches to organize christian reeducation programs and provide both practical and moral support to those awaiting trial. that they had, in the main, supported the policies of national socialism’s was pushed aside in their enthusiasm to remake souls, to garner new converts, to have well-attended religious services, and to open hearts to the good news of christianity. kellenbach traces the religious evolution of martin niemöller; the role of the october 1945 stuttgart declaration of guilt, which did not specify acts of wrongdoing, nor name either culprits or victims; and the persistent and aggressive denial of personal culpability that would echo across german discourse for decades. subsequent documents, such as the request that the landsberg inmates receive amnesty, were based on prioritizing christian forgiveness over justice. the need to look back and examine the past was painted over with a veneer of christian forgiveness. in a secret 1949 memorandum of the evangelical church criticizing postwar prosecutions of germans, verses from romans 3 were explained to mean that righteousness was a matter of faith, not of moral action: “the blood of christ purifies ‘quite apart from the law’” (pp. 58-59). one could participate in atrocity, be reconciled to the church, thus be absolved from any guilt, and move forward. in this trajectory, the memory of victims was lost. the stuttgart declaration so enraged some in germany that pastor martin niemöller, an initiator of the document, became a lightning rod for widespread and pervasive criticism. he emphasized personal responsibility—through omission or commission—while the general public insisted on its commitment to duty and sacrifice. they failed to see the connection between nazi values and nazi atrocities. the declaration linked christian confession with forgiveness and absolution, thus strengthening the argument for amnesty. using the declaration as its basis, the secret memorandum of the evangelical church altered the focus of the stuttgart declaration and, surprisingly, had niemöller’s imprimatur. it criticized the legal authority of the nuremburg tribunal; it studies in christian-jewish relations 6 scjr 10 (2015) altered the contrition and humility articulated in the original to express a sense of opposition and entitlement. collective culpability precluded individual moral repair, and the victims remained a nameless mass. oswald pohl, one of the last seven men hanged at landsberg in june, 1951, is a paradigm of the easy comfort many perpetrators sought in religion, regardless of the atrocities for which they were responsible. in pohl’s 1950 memoir, probably cowritten with the priest who aided his conversion to catholicism, pohl writes of his seeking “inner peace” and never once accepts personal responsibility or articulates remorse for the death of the millions of victims in whose murders he was complicit. “i never killed anybody,” he asserts, although he worked closely with himmler and oversaw the economic and industrial aspects of the extensive slave labor system in the concentration camps. to the end, he affirmed his devotion to fatherland and lamented the “catastrophe” not of the murder of millions but of germany’s loss of the war. there is but one indirect reference. pohl writes “not much remained hidden from me, even if i did not participate in it personally” (pp. 9091). pohl whitewashes his powerful role in mass murder, but holds others accountable. an almost mystical conversion to catholicism left pohl feeling a clean break with his past, a lifting of unnamed sins as he sensed a rebirth into the universal church. kellenbach ironically renames such conversion as “get out of purgatory free” cards (p. 93) that eliminated repentance and contrition as necessary conditions for joining the church. attaining “inner peace” was readily accomplished, a journey denied in any form to pohl’s victims. it is interesting that kellenbach sees pohl’s attraction to catholicism as a variant of the allure he found in nazism; both were characterized by unconditional obedience, strict rules, a command structure and hierarchy, and a black and white understanding of ethics and texts. pohl’s militaristic inclinations were a factor in the integration of catholicism into his worldview. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 7 www.bc.edu/scjr i find incredible and fascinating that many of pohl’s supporters, among them konrad adenauer, appealed to the pope to intervene and spare pohl’s life (p. 96). pohl’s final words, and those of his priest, offer eternal rest to those who continue to “live in hatred,” an obscene way of blaming the victims, none of whom would consider the “rest” put forth as anything but false in every way. another case of factual and theological conflation is that of robert mulka, deputy commander of auschwitz between april 1942 and march 1943. tried in the frankfurt auschwitz trial of 1963-1965, mulka expressed regret and condemned, “as a christian,” the “terrible things” that had occurred. yet he denied all evidence brought in court, seeing himself as a victim of persecution and harassment. rather than individual criminal responsibility, he spoke of the political realm, the ideology of the nation, which, to his surprise, turned out to be mistaken to some. it is as if he was surprised that murdering human beings was now considered a crime (p. 132). the records kellenbach so carefully examines make clear that many, complicit in mass murder fueled by ideology, embraced denial and justification, often relying on a facile sense of christian forgiveness to whitewash their deeds. others, a much smaller number, continue to pursue acts of penance, which regenerate human connection. germany, so long haunted by its grim history, has to a large extent taken upon itself the mark of cain as a sign of its commitment to moral repair. as elizabeth kolbert states in a recent essay (“the last trial,” the new yorker, feb. 16, 2015), “there was never going to be justice for the holocaust, or a reckoning with its enormity.” perhaps even the mark of cain is inadequate in the face of widespread atrocity. but, as kellenbach demonstrates, it is the sole strategy which might lead us to look deeply into the face of the other, seeing the image of god and the essence of all personhood. this outstanding historical and theological study has but one editorial error: on page 195, “cease” appears instead of studies in christian-jewish relations 8 scjr 10 (2015) “seize.” kellenbach’s book clearly conveys the christian theological protocols used after the shoah to diminish individual and collective guilt. her reconceptualization of the biblical tale of cain provides a penetrating and insightful framework through which to probe guilt, denial, repentance, forgiveness, and justice in a world in which—alas—atrocities continue to occur. i highly recommend her study. the catholic context in bonhoeffer's lifetime studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1(2007): cp1-4 dietrich, “the catholic context in bonhoeffer’s lifetime” cp1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art14 “the catholic context in bonhoeffer’s lifetime” donald dietrich boston college delivered at the conference, dietrich bonhoeffer for our times: jewish and christian perspectives, sponsored by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college, the united states holocaust memorial museum, hebrew college, and the andover-newton theological school, september 17-18, 2006. 1. introduction: reasons for catholic moral failure the failure of the catholic church as an institution to live up to its own standards of moral responsibility when faced with the nazi onslaught was, and indeed still is, a major issue for its current life and witness. two major explanations have been provided. some have rightly pointed out that the nazi regime was a terrorist dictatorship that was unrestrained in the repression of its perceived enemies. the threat of being taken off to a concentration camp operated already in the beginning of 1933, and served to create a pervasive fear and caution sufficient to deter most people from challenging the regime in any significant way. the notorious reputation of the gestapo along with the cooperation of many ordinary citizens only increased as the third reich became even more oppressive. normal citizens were frequently co-opted into the system for their own personal gain. the clergy in particular were carefully scrutinized. agents of the gestapo and informers took notes of weekly sermons. the already overdeveloped german habit of social control could readily enough be applied to any church member believed to be in any way lacking in loyalty to the regime or its political agenda. church members who sought to uphold their personal and institutional traditions were indeed intimidated and often paid the price of their defiance of the regime. for example, nearly one third of the catholic priests in germany endured some form of reprisal during this timeline year period. the catholic response was mixed, however, since there were incidents of local resistance. priests did preach crucial sermons, and catholic laity and clergy, especially in rural areas, did resist nazi incursions into their communal life. historians have also suggested much less favorable explanations for the lack of resistance and the decline of moral integrity among the clergy and the laity of the catholic church. there is overwhelming evidence that in the heady days of 1933, after hitler had been appointed chancellor, a very large proportion of catholics was swept up by their expectations of an increasing potent anti-communist policy and by their hope for the national renewal and regeneration offered by the nazi propagandists. the euphoria of the initial months of nazi governance was unparalleled since the similar enthusiasm of 1914, the beginning of world war i. by 1935, the scales had fallen from the eyes of the bishops and other institutional leaders, but their opposition to the nazi totalitarian ambitions was bifurcated, since catholics, 30% of the population, had from the kulturkampf (1870) been fearful that any opposition could be labeled as unpatriotic. theologically and socially catholics did offer some dissent from nazi policies. simultaneously, however, they usually fervently approved nazi foreign policy goals and the elimination of the so called jewish influence in german political, economic, and cultural life. the vatican concluded a concordat (treaty) in 1933; catholics compromised their moral stance on issues of sterilization and even euthanasia; the church defended only jews who had conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1(2007): cp1-4 dietrich, “the catholic context in bonhoeffer’s lifetime” cp2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art14 converted to catholicism. no one in authority defended the jews as jews, primarily because of the 2,000 years of religious antisemitism that had become in the 19th and 20th centuries a weapon to be used against political, social and economic “modernity.” catholics defended their institutional church, but not the victims, except through the fairly abstract and prudent pronouncements of pius xii. in a sense, the catholic church was caught in a predicament that was facing europe as a whole during these years. all of the christian churches were caught up in a series of major crises, both organizationally and spiritually, which profoundly affected the exercise of their authority and influence. in the 20th century, men and women had increasingly shaken off the moral tutelage of ecclesiastical institutions and have rejected the authority of religious dogmas. instead of adhering to ecclesial admonitions, with an alarming degree of wishful thinking, the belief grew that the individual’s ethical guidance could be found in purely secular and subjective terms, regardless of the claims of history or community. at the same time, the modern state, also without any willing reference to transcendental values, has advanced its own demands for supremacy. as richard rubenstein has pointed out: “with the collapse of every credible religious or moral restraint on the state, and with the inevitable depersonalizations of relations between the government and citizens, the state’s sovereignty can achieve an ultimacy unimpeded by any contending claim.” the history of the 20th century saw an exponential growth of technology on increasing bureaucratization of the state’s machinery of control, and an unprecedented readiness to manipulate whole populations for the alleged benefit of the dominant political group. simultaneously these forces were accompanied by a corrosive decline in the acceptance of a transcendent moral order and of humanitarian ideals. 2. the catholic theological context prominent catholic theologians such as karl adam, joseph lortz and michael schmaus took the opportunity in 1933, and in the case of karl adam for the duration of the third reich, to publish articles urging a positive relationship between catholicism and national socialism. they encouraged catholics to accept elements of the new regime’s ideology and tried to dissipate any mental reservations and scruples that might trouble the catholic faithful. they also hoped to change the political radicalism of the government by adapting to some elements of the nazi worldview. they and other catholics felt comfortable supporting the “nation,” even if not always in its varied political, i.e., state, concretizations. detesting democracy, catholic theologians and ecclesial leaders felt more at home in hitler’s state, at least initially, than in the weimar republic. thus, some theologians hoped that display of support might prove that catholics, even in a nazi state, could still be good germans. these political hopes were rooted in the national pressures that motivated their theological reasoning. these german theologians hoped that the popular power of the nazi movement with its “romantic” and organic world view would sustain catholics patriotically and spiritually. when they praised the nazi movement connected to the state and to germany’s politically organic traditions, they hoped to connect their faith to their renewed political life. when they accepted the religious organic model of romantic racism, they intended that “blood”, i.e., nature, and spirit could be united in their faith, sustaining the connection between the natural and the supernatural. when they spoke about nationalism, they also opposed the roman, i.e., vatican, domination of national churches. catholic theological traditions such as the natural-supernatural connection offered sustenance for catholic theological adaptation. this theological model viewed grace coming to humans through nature, e.g., the state, and thus promoted the desirability of relating the church studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1(2007): cp1-4 dietrich, “the catholic context in bonhoeffer’s lifetime” cp3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art14 to the state. such catholic theological traditions seemed to be consonant with the nazi weltanschauung (world-view). the question must be asked: what does it mean for the validity of theology when a principle could be so misused that it facilitated the adaptation of catholicism to the totalitarian nazi state? how can the misuse of theology be avoided? 3. theologically uniting church and state when theologians want to express their political opinion, not surprisingly they use theological terms and models, which normatively help to determine the flow of their arguments. from the perceived correspondence of common interests (lortz), to a perceived unity between the church and state in the reich based on the mystery of the hypostatic union (grosche), to the unification of word and element in the sacraments (winzen), almost every union of church and state could become possible and would seem like the unfolding of god’s plan. in the case of these adaptationist theologians, it would be difficult to decide which came first, theology or historical reality. did the choice of the theological schema that was responsible for the final result or did the intention to achieve an acceptable political and theological union ultimately influence the choice of the schema? each of these theologians had to prove that his nationalist credentials were compatible with his religious ideals. here was finally, they thought, a regime that epitomized the anti-liberal and anti-democratic perspectives supported by the church since the french revolution. these adaptationist insights were theologically framed to accommodate nazism, presumably motivated by political expediency, catholics seemed determined to make the case that they were as nationalist as their protestant contemporaries. they accommodated the christian faith to the realities of politics and illustrate for us how historical theological concepts were doomed to failure when confronting modern political ideologies, since they could not engage in any substantive political critique and certainly not one that highlighted alterity. because theology deals with ontological values, it can be a dangerous affair. errors come easily when theologians lose sight of what authentic reappropriation means. nature, as it appeared in catholic traditions, should certainly not have been identified with “blood” and “race” as several theologians tried to do in the first years of the third reich. however, some catholic theologians began to see the dangers of this accomodationist stance. 4. catholic theological criticism of nazism: engelbert krebs engelbert krebs, romano guardini and karl rahner offered theological insights that conflicted with nazism. time prohibits an adequate explication of all the theologians who perceived the dangers posed by hitler’s germany. let me briefly offer an overview of krebs as he critiqued both his church and the third reich. krebs developed a love of neighbor that sees the church witnessing to the coming o god’s kingdom. in essence, the church is an advocate for the well-being of all people and is also a spokesman for the truth. he emphasized the model of church as servant during the weimar years (1918-1933) by himself aiding the efforts of workers, women, and jews to gain respect in the public realm and to establish organizations through which they could work to achieve their aspirations in german society. he emphasized the model of church as project during hitler’s timeline years by speaking on behalf of his jewish colleagues, criticizing the regime’s interference in the church, and preaching on the love of one’s enemies. krebs’ political actions and theology sprang from the conviction that the church’s task is to promote god’s reign in the world. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1(2007): cp1-4 dietrich, “the catholic context in bonhoeffer’s lifetime” cp4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art14 his writings after 1933 suggest that he respected the values of modernity and envisioned the church as taking a more positive stance toward the contemporary world. krebs stood in a trajectory of catholicism that eventually generated the second vatican council’s document on the church and the modern world, gaudium et spes (1965). a study of krebs’ theology and politics may uncover a clue for understanding the political ideas of catholic theologians under hitler. german theologian’s views of the third reich may have been a function of their notion of the church’s relationship to god’s kingdom. the more a theologian identified the church with god’s reign, the more he tended to stress that the church must safeguard its own existence at all costs and has the primary responsibility of protecting its members, its sacramental life and institutions. hence, the theologians who saw the church as the embodiment of god’s kingdom likely judged that the vatican’s signing of the concordat in july 1933 was a responsible act of self-preservation, which simultaneously helped sustain the nation. by contrast, the more a theologian distinguished between the church and god’s reign, the more he tended to emphasize that the church’s first duty is to a transcendent reality of truth, justice, and love. such theologians as krebs held a vision of god’s creation that could judge the nazis’ values and actions. krebs’ outspoken, positive view of judaism stands out in contrast to the covert, religious antisemitism among most german catholics. he held that christians must respect judaism as the home in which they were born and that they must respect jews as bearers of god’s teachings. there is a kinship between the two faiths. to be meaningful, krebs, like his young contemporary karl rahner, felt that theology has to be historically grounded and be open to the world in which it lives. 5. conclusion especially since the french revolution, christian theologians have sought for ways to make their reflections and faith relevant. catholics in the third reich, therefore, are really part of an ongoing project that has consumed christianity for more than two centuries. a historical theological schema that relied on axiomatic theological/philosophical principles and doctrines proved impotent in confronting hitler’s mobilized political power. such theologians as krebs and rahner, who asserted that theology had to be in contact with the real world of marching soldiers, proved more effective in mobilizing a faith tradition that could combat nazism at its deepest roots of exclusivity. historically-sensitive theology has proven itself as a resource nurturing alterity and inclusivity. even in the dark theological days of hitler’s reich the impulse toward vatican ii was stirring. 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-11 synagoga and ecclesia in our time: a transformative sculptural statement in traditional form judith bookbinder judith.bookbinder@bc.edu boston college, chestnut hill, ma 02467 on september 25, 2015, a new bronze sculpture near the chapel of saint joseph’s university in philadelphia was dedicated to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the second vatican council’s 1965 declaration, nostra aetate, its “declaration on the relation of the church to non-christian religions.” 1 two days later, pope francis blessed the statue of two similar female figures seated side by side, one holding a torah scroll, the other holding a bible (figures 1 and 7). the title of the work, synagoga and ecclesia in our time, points backwards and forwards chronologically: “synagoga and ecclesia” refers to the long-standing christian tradition, born in thirteenth-century europe, of depicting the church as a confident and victorious female figure in contrast to the defeated and broken female figure of synagogue; 2 “in our time” translates the declaration’s opening latin words, “nostra aetate.” this declaration’s fourth paragraph redirected catholic discourse on judaism. the sculpture also attempts to embody ideas that have emerged in the half-century since the council and that, in december 2015, found their most recent official articulation in the pontifical council for religious relations with the jews’ publication of “the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable” (rom. 11:29): a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations on the occasion of the 50 th anniversary of “nostra aetate” (no.4). 3 1 http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html. 2 see wolfgang s. seiferth, synagogue and church in the middle ages (new york: frederick ungar, 1970); first published in german as synagoge und kirche im mittelalter (münchen: kösel, 1964). 3 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jewsdocs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html. this verse from romans has particular importance in the contemporary thinking about christianjewish relations. in 2014, pope francis stated: “i hold the jewish people in special regard because their covenant with god has never been revoked, for ‘the gifts and the call of god are irrevocable’ (rom 11:29).” pope francis, evangelii gaudium (2014), 247 (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papafrancesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html). he is making explicit nostra aetate 4’s paraphrase of romans. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html bookbinder: synagoga and ecclesia in our time 2 figure 1. pope francis prays before synagoga and ecclesia in our time (2015) saint joseph’s university, philadelphia, september 27, 2015. bronze sculpture by joshua koffman. commissioned by saint joseph’s university to mark the 50 th anniversary of nostra aetate (photograph by and courtesy of melissa kelly / melissakelly.com). the form of the sculpture raises the question: in the twenty-first century and in the context of the transformation of the visual language of art in the last hundred years, how is the message of these modern documents embodied in two representational and generalized female figures wearing crowns and flowing robes in the academic art tradition of earlier centuries? the answer lies in the form and message of the sculpture and of the dialogic process that inspired it. just as nostra aetate and “the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable” anchor the theological bases of their new pronouncements about judaism in the ancient words of the christian scriptures, so joshua koffman, the sculptor of synagoga and ecclesia in our time, imbeds his reconfiguration of this ancient visual trope in the form-language of works that have adorned churches for centuries. this essay will consider the effectiveness of the sculpture in terms of the message it was meant to convey and its validity as a creative statement in the early twenty-first century. koffman’s work begins with the traditional configurations of “church” and “synagogue,” which had been devised in medieval europe to concretize the idea of supersession. as the commission for religious relations with the jews explains in the historical overview that opens its december statement, on the part of many of the church fathers the so-called replacement theory or supersessionism steadily gained favor until in the middle ages it represented the standard theological foundation of the relationship with judaism: the promises and commitments of god would no longer apply to israel be 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) cause it had not recognized jesus as the messiah and the son of god, but had been transferred to the church of jesus christ which was now the true “new israel”, the new chosen people of god. 4 thus, stone figures in early thirteenth-century gothic cathedrals throughout europe, at reims, paris, strasbourg, freiburg, bamberg, magdeburg, and elsewhere embodied the notion that the triumphant church replaced an obsolete synagogue blind to the new relationship between the religious community and god. 5 the strasbourg ecclesia (1230), for example, projects forward and stands elegantly and confidently, a crown on her head, her right hand firmly grasping a staff topped with a cross while a bible is tucked securely under her left arm, and her left hand holds a chalice evoking the wine of the eucharist (figure 2). in contrast, the accompanying blindfolded synagoga twists uncomfortably; her right hand barely holds a broken staff, while one of the tablets of the ten commandments slips from her left hand. her bare head reveals long hair, and the curves of her sensuous body contrast with ecclesia’s more modest form. 6 in the thirteenth century, “there was a veritable explosion in the diversity and ferocity of antijewish texts and artworks,” sara lipton observes. “in a symbolic window in chartres cathedral,” she notes, “the personification of synagoga has a snake wrapped around her eyes instead of the traditional blindfold.” 7 mary boys describes the typical medieval ecclesia, “standing erect and triumphant, symbol of the church of the victorious christ, [while] synagoga, in contrast, is a conquered figure, symbolic of judaism’s defeat and obsolescence.” the message these figures were meant to convey, boys eloquently states, was that, “god had only one blessing to give—and now ecclesia, not synagoga, received it.” 8 4 “the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable…” section 2, paragraph 17. 5 see nina rove, the jew, the cathedral and the medieval city: synagoga and ecclesia in the thirteenth century (cambridge, uk: cambridge university press, 2011). 6 on this motif, see: elizabeth monroe, “’fair and friendly, sweet and beautiful’: hopes for jewish conversion in synagoga’s song of songs imagery,” in beyond the yellow badge: anti-judaism and antisemitism in medieval and early modern visual culture, ed. mitchell b. merback (leiden, boston: brill, 2008), 33-61; conrad rudolph, artistic change at st-denis: abbot suger’s program and the early twelfth-century controversy over art (princeton: princeton university press, 1999); bernd nicolai, “orders in stone: social reality and artistic approach. the case of the strasbourg south portal,” gesta 41 (2002): 111-28; and nina rowe, “rethinking ecclesia and synagoga in the thirteenth century,” in gothic art & thought in the later medieval period: essays in honor of willibald sauerländer, ed. colum hourihane (princeton: index of christian art, princeton university; philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2011),265-91. 7 sara lipton, “christianity and its others: jews, muslims, and pagans” in the oxford handbook of medieval christianity, ed. john h. arnold (oxford: oxford university press, 2014), 418. see also sara lipton, dark mirror: the medieval origins of anti-jewish iconography (new york: metropolitan books/henry holt and co., 2014). 8 mary c. boys, has god only one blessing?: judaism as a source of christian self-understanding (ny and mahwah, nj: paulist press, 2000), 5. bookbinder: synagoga and ecclesia in our time 4 figure 2. ecclesia and synagoga. original sculptures from the façade of strasbourg cathedral, now in the musée de l’oeuvre notre-dame in strasbourg (replaced by replicas on the façade) photograph by rama, wikimedia commons, cc-by-sa-2.0-fr perhaps the most notorious recent american representations of church and synagogue pre-dating koffman’s reformulation of this theme remain today on the walls of sargent gallery at the third-floor entry to the special collections of the boston public library in copley square. they are part of a cycle of paintings called triumph of religion, on which john singer sargent labored from 1895 to 1916, in the hope of producing his greatest masterpiece. he borrowed from diverse visual sources to create this extremely complex program of images in the eclectic beaux-arts style. “for sargent, authority rested in cultural precedents, art historical and literary,” according to art historian sally promey. “he approached triumph of religion ‘from the point of view of iconography’; his idea rested on a modern interpretation communicated by means of reworking the religious iconography of the past.” 9 in response to criticism of his rendering of church and synagogue, sargent wrote a letter to the editor of the jewish advocate in which he cited the iconography’s medieval sources specifically at reims and strasbourg stating, “the traditional antecedents for synagogue and church establish an au 9 sally m. promey, painting religion in public: john singer sargent’s triumph of religion at the boston public library (princeton, nj: princeton university press, 1999), 200. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) thoritative precedent.” 10 “in triumph of religion,” promey explains, “the hebrew prophets signaled the emergence of religious subjectivity as sermon on the mount would signal its distilled expression.” but the climactic image was never painted, and the blank panel where sermon on the mount was to have been installed highlights how problematic sargent’s concept was from the start because it reveals the degree to which the supersessionist notion had been naturalized in sargent’s mind. “the artist did not see,” promey concludes, “that his murals perpetuated, perhaps even exacerbated, old biases.” 11 framing the space where sermon on the mount was to complete the story of triumph of religion are panels with figures representing church and synagogue. church (figure 3) is a powerful virgin mary seated on a throne, staring calmly and directly at the viewer, her enormous form dwarfing the lifeless body of jesus collapsed between her legs while she holds a glowing chalice and wafer of the eucharist and symbols of the evangelists encircle her head. the figure is primarily modeled in grisaille tones that create the illusion of a form at once alive and carved in stone. figure 3. church (1919) by john singer sargent. oil on canvas, 243 x 161 cm. on the east wall of sargent hall in the boston public library. courtesy of the boston public library, taken by the strauss center for conservation and technical studies during the 2003 restoration project of sargent hall. 10 john singer sargent, letter to the editor (21 october 1919) printed in “real interpretation of ‘the synagogue’ missing in john singer sargent’s explanation,” jewish advocate, 23 october 1919, 1. 11 promey, 201. bookbinder: synagoga and ecclesia in our time 6 opposite this imposing image is the panel of synagogue (figure 4). here another female figure, but pale and gaunt, collapses into a mass of draperies, the veils of the temple, which are falling around her. she struggles hopelessly to hold a broken staff with her left hand while also clutching a torah scroll against her chest. a crown, askew at the side of her head, and her blindfold complete a figure that straddles the line between tragedy and farce. promey argues that sargent modeled synagogue on michelangelo’s cumaean sibyl, 12 but, aside from the contrapposto twist of the pose and a few superficial resemblances, there is little in this image of total defeat that bears comparison to the powerful, vigorous figure on the sistine ceiling. for all of sargent’s efforts to insert his church and synagogue into an art historical context and for all of promey’s efforts to rationalize his concept, these images remain steeped in an antisemitic, supersessionist mindset. the outcry at the time of their installation in the library in 1919 shocked sargent and frustrated his hopes for an artistic triumph. 13 figure 4. synagogue (1919) by john singer sargent. oil on canvas, 243 x 161 cm. on the east wall of sargent hall in the boston public library. courtesy of the boston public library, taken by the strauss center for conservation and technical studies during the 2003 restoration project of sargent hall. 12 promey, 117. 13 the controversy began in october 1919 when art critic, frederick wiiliam coburn, stated: “if one were an orthodox jew, a rabbi, or a cantor, it might be a little distasteful to have this middle-age fashion of depreciating his religion revived in a building supported by public taxation.” coburn, “in the world of art,” boston herald (october 10, 1919), c8. the debate continued through 1920 with resolutions and official requests to the massachusetts legislature, the governor, and the trustees of the library from new york, cleveland, cincinnati, detroit, chicago, pittsburgh, baltimore, louisville, and nashville to remove synagogue. in june 1922, the massachusetts house and senate passed a bill calling for the removal of synagogue; but in april 1924, they repealed it.. see promey, 176-186. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) more related to michelangelo’s figure style, koffman’s synagoga and ecclesia in our time (figure 7) attempts to channel the monumentality and dynamism of the renaissance master’s sistine sibyls and prophets. 14 inspired by the libyan sibyl (figure 5) and the prophet isaiah (figure 6), for example, koffman modeled his three-dimensional figures so that they turn in space. their similar but slightly distinct facial features—more angular for synagoga, more rounded for ecclesia— reveal emotion only in the slight upturn of their lips. the intensity of their relationship is visualized, instead, in the zig-zagging folds of their robes that seem to vibrate between them almost becoming a continuous play of highlights and shadows at the base, but ultimately maintaining their separate identities. the viewer’s eye moves upward diagonally from the pointed toes of each figure, slightly more quickly, perhaps, along the more assertive line of synagoga’s left leg than the somewhat more relaxed line of ecclesia’s right leg, toward the center of the composition where the diagonals jump from one figure to the other and continue upward to culminate in the paired thoughtful heads and the large torah scroll and bible, which again point diagonally outward. figure 5. libyan sibyl (1508-1513) by michelangelo. fresco. sistine chapel, vatican, rome. figure 6. prophet isaiah (1508-1513) by michelangelo. fresco. sistine chapel, vatican, rome. 14 according to the saint joseph’s university website, “joshua koffman was captivated by greek and renaissance art at an early age.” he earned a ba in fine art at the university of california, santa cruz, and continued his studies at the pennsylvania academy of fine arts where he currently teaches. bookbinder: synagoga and ecclesia in our time 8 figure 7. synagoga and ecclesia in our time (2015) bronze sculpture by joshua koffman. commissioned by saint joseph’s university to mark the 50 th anniversary of nostra aetate (photograph by and courtesy of melissa kelly / melissakelly.com). the x-shape of the composition, linked at the shoulders, is at once stable and dynamic. the figures support and reinforce one another as they lean inward to compare their separate texts. synagoga’s left shoulder overlaps ecclesia’s right arm, but that arm, in turn, seems to support synagoga. at the same time, their extended legs suggest that this moment of stasis will end with each figure going in her own direction. as the commission for religious relations with the jews states, “the soil that nurtured both jews and christians is the judaism of jesus’ time… thus jews and christians have the same mother and can be seen, as it were, as two siblings who—as is the normal course of events for siblings—have developed in different directions.” 15 as nostra aetate fifty years ago and “the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable” today anchor their transformative declarations in the ancient words of the bible, koffman anchors his transformed synagoga and ecclesia in a nineteenth-century beaux-art adaptation of classical renaissance style, an approach that appears to resonate with pope francis and, likely, with many other observers within and beyond the catholic community, as the photograph taken on september 27, 2015 (figure 1) tends to evidence. 16 15 section 2, paragraph 15. 16 the beaux-art style of sculpture is represented in the works of such nineteenth-century american artists as augustus saint-gaudens (1848-1907), daniel chester french (1850-1931), and frederick william macmonnies (1863-1937), although the seated figures of art and science (1920-1929) by bela lyon pratt that frame the entrance steps to the boston public library seem to relate most closely to koffman’s sculpture. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) the concept of the sculpture evolved under the guidance of dr. philip cunningham and dr. adam gregerman, co-directors of saint joseph university’s institute for jewish-catholic relations. cunningham explains: “adam gregerman and i…decided that sju should mark the fiftieth anniversary of nostra aetate and the establishment of the institute [for jewish-catholic relations] in 1967…the sju president, other university leaders, and the institute’s board of directors all thought that it was a great idea.” after considering various motifs for capturing the spirit of these developments, cunningham and gregerman recalled mary boys’ thought-provoking exploration of the christian-jewish relationship and its embodiment in “synagoga and ecclesia” imagery. 17 “if god has more than one blessing, then we need to fashion new images of synagoga and ecclesia,” she reasoned. “each exists in her own integrity and vitality... they are partners in witnessing to and working for the reign of god.” 18 “knowing of mary boys’ work, we turned to synagoga and ecclesia as a concept, and everyone we consulted on and off campus found the concept exciting,” cunningham states. “mary had the idea of reimagining synagoga and ecclesia for a post-nostra aetate church.” cunningham and gregerman invited local artists to submit sketches; they explained the history of the theme and how it would be reconfigured. “we wanted both figures to be crowned and dignified,” cunningham explains, “proud of their respective traditions.” 19 joshua koffman’s proposal captured cunningham’s and gregerman’s attention. “it was my initial designs (clay sketch models) that sparked the idea to represent the two as seated equals, sharing texts,” koffman explains. 20 he submitted photographs of six-inch high clay figures “that were dynamic and alive,” cunningham describes. “one of them…showed synagoga and ecclesia reclining together in flowing draperies. what was appealing about this sketch, and what images of the two figures simply standing alongside each other lacked, was their evident comfort with each other. there was a suggestion of interactivity that we immediately latched onto.” cunningham and gregerman asked koffman if he could develop the idea of the figures studying their respective sacred texts together. cunningham explains, “this idea of joint study came from both traditional jewish chavruta study of the talmud in pairs and also from the experiences of the previous decades of catholic-jewish dialogue and two papal statements, one from benedict xvi and the other from francis (which we used on the sculpture base). joshua took it from there.” 21 koffman refined the poses of the figures to highlight their formal relationship, and he enlarged and defined the shapes of the torah scroll and bible so that their rectangular forms counter-balance each other. yet, while koffman achieves classical stasis and linear dynamism, the figures do not look at one another or at their texts. rather, each seems to gaze inward, not quite 17 boys, 245-266. 18 boys, 6. 19 philip cunningham, e-mail correspondence with author, may 25, 2016. 20 joshua koffman, e-mail correspondence with author, may 24, 2016. 21 cunningham, e-mail correspondence. bookbinder: synagoga and ecclesia in our time 10 ready, perhaps, to engage in chavruta study or true dialogue. the sculpture, therefore, while taking major strides toward expressing the equality of synagogue and church, does not fully realize its goal of dialogue. and what of the notion that a work of art ought to embody the formlanguage of its time? koffman’s sculpture clearly rejects contemporary approaches in favor of a beaux-art, classically inspired, late nineteenth-century style. another recent rendering of the synagoga and ecclesia theme presents an alternative approach to koffman’s sculpture. it developed out of boys’ recognition that “the image of jews and christians as partners in witness and work is a new vision” that requires a new formulation. in 2000, she commissioned paula mary turnbull, an artist member of her religious community, to create a pair of small brass sculptures that might serve as a prototype of such imagery. turnbull constructs her synagoga and ecclesia (figure 8) of curved planes and arcing lines that move toward and away from each other in a dance-like interplay, with the specific message depending on the positioning of the two sculptures. the irregular planes and curvilinear ropes of drapery folds sparkle as light plays across their surfaces. anatomy is abstracted in the service of movement and relationship. turnbull acknowledges the visual vocabulary of abstraction that developed in the twentieth century and uses it to convey a spiritual message. it is a modest start toward the possibility of expressing the new vision of synagogue and church in a modern form-language. figure 8. ecclesia and synagoga (2000) brass sculpture by paula mary turnbull, s.n.j.m. photograph by lynn saville. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) to compare koffman’s sculpture to the sculpture of michelangelo or rodin, alberto giacometti or henry moore, much less louise bourgeois or kiki smith, for example, would be a pointless exercise. koffman’s sculpture has neither the power of works by the first two sculptors, nor does it aim for the originality and transgressiveness of the later four artists. rather, it is the product of a conscious effort to visualize the new configuration of the synagogue / church relationship as a transformed outgrowth of traditions embedded in ancient religious teachings. how or even whether the theme of a newly understood synagoga and ecclesia will capture the imaginations of future artists remains to be seen. for now, joshua koffman’s synagoga and ecclesia in our time is a tentative beginning in a form-language of the past. it embodies the new catholic understanding of the relationship between jews and christians in a traditional, academic visual language that conveys this transformed idea to those who wish to hear and see it. it will be for other artists to consider whether or not a transformed theological construct can be captured in more contemporary, even radical, visual form. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ray cp1-11 ray, whose golden age? ray cp 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr whose golden age? some thoughts on jewish-christian relations in medieval iberia jonathan ray, georgetown university presented at the ―was there a ‗golden age‘ of christian-jewish relations?‖ conference at boston college, april 2010 so much of our understanding of jewish life in the middle ages is bound up with our own hopes and fears regarding religious interaction. in spain, where the medieval period is still regarded as the crucible of modern spanish society, a longstanding debate continues to rage over the contributions of jews and muslims during this formative period. 1 some have argued that their language and culture is essentially foreign and inimical to the inherently roman-catholic spirit of spanish society. those who follow this argument have generally seen the religious and political unification of catholic spain that took place at the close of the middle ages as marking the realization of the nation‘s destiny. against this view, others have countered that it was precisely in the medieval period, in which christians, muslims, and jews came together to form a dynamic society fueled by cross-cultural interaction, that the true spanish character was forged. this faction sees the fall of muslim granada and the subsequent expulsion of spanish jewry in 1492 as a regrettable collapse of a golden age of spanish society, and the first step on the long road to cultural decline. every key political issue that has arisen in spain over the last hundred years, from the civil war and the long tenure of francisco franco to the present debate over north african immigration, has been read against this highly charged discourse regarding the nature of the country‘s national heritage. nor are the spaniards alone in their continued engagement with these questions. the meaning of spain‘s unique cultural legacy has also been one of the most contested topics within the field of jewish studies. for the german-jewish historians of the nineteenth century, the material and scholarly success achieved by the jews of medieval spain represented the golden mean of religious devotion and social integration. almost immediately, however, judaica scholars began to modify this image of inter-religious cooperation in medieval spain. they argued that jewish life in muslim al-andalus might represent a golden age of intellectual productivity and acculturation, but the subsequent period under hispano-christian rule was one of deteriorating status for the jews. yitzhak baer, perhaps the most influential historian of spanish jewry of the twentieth century, took this revision of the golden age paradigm one step further by comparing the jewish experience in christian iberia unfavorably with that of jewish society in the rest of medieval latin europe. 2 if jewish life under hispano-christian rule was far less golden than that of their 1 henri lapeyre, ―deux interprétations de l’histoire d’espagne: américo castro et claudio sánchez-albornoz,‖ annales e.s.c. 20 (1965): 1015-37; thomas glick, islamic and christian spain in the early middle ages (princeton, 1976), 6-13; and maria rosa menocal ―visions of al-andalus,‖ in the literature of al-andalus, ed. maria rosa menocal and raymond p. scheindlin and michael sells (new york, 2000), 1-24. 2 recent studies have come to challenge this dichotomy. see for instance the collected essays in jews and christians in twelfth-century europe, ed. michael a. signer and john van engen (notre dame, in, 2001); ivan marcus ―a jewish-christian symbiosis: the culture of early ashkenaz,‖ in cultures of the jews, ed. david biale (new york, 2002), 449-516; and jonathan elukin, living together living apart: rethinking jewish-christian relations in conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ray cp1-11 ray, whose golden age? ray cp 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr andalusi predecessors, baer argues that its members were also far less pious and less dedicated to the particularities of jewish tradition than their contemporaries in northern european, or ashkenazi, society. the portrait of the jewish experience in medieval spain that juxtaposed the jews‘ ―golden age‖ in al-andalus with their oppression and cultural stagnation under christian rule became one of the foundational paradigms in the field of jewish studies. indeed, it retains much of its influence today despite repeated criticism and modification. 3 this brief historiographic overview suggests that any effort to recover the true nature of jewishchristians relations in medieval iberia must address at least two essential problems. the first, and perhaps most salient, problem that presents itself is how to interpret the seemingly contradictory evidence that suggests both inter-religious symbiosis as well as antagonism between these two communities? the second issue i would like to consider here is one that has received far less attention, but that may offer a more fruitful way of thinking about jewish-christian interaction in this and other eras. namely, is it profitable, or even accurate, to speak of religious interaction between jews and christians in such sweeping terms? evidence of a golden age if we are to define a golden age of jewish-christian interaction as a period of amicable relations, prosperity and mutual creativity, then there is certainly enough evidence to support its application to medieval spain during the high and late middle ages. recent studies have begun to challenge the popular notion that the final centuries of jewish life in christian iberia were marked by inexorable and inevitable decline. 4 jewish political status, economic diversity, and general affluence during most of this period was comparable to that which they had enjoyed in al-andalus, and scholarship on jewish literary activity in christian spain has emphasized both a continuation and expansion of intellectual categories developed under muslim rule. 5 perhaps the most striking example of interfaith cooperation in christian iberia is the collaborative effort to study and translate the vast collection of scientific works from arabic into latin, hebrew, and various romance languages that took place over the course of the high middle ages. during this period, jewish translators played an integral role in the transmission of greco-arabic philosophic, medical, and astronomical texts into the kingdoms of christian iberia and beyond. abraham bar hiyya (d. ca. 1136), abraham ibn ezra (d. 1167) and moses ben maimon (maimonides, d. 1204), all of who emigrated from iberia during the tumultuous twelfth century, acted as vehicles for the dissemination of a scientific knowledge into christian europe. 6 succeeding generations of jewish scholars did not need to flee the peninsula in order for their translations and commentaries to reach their christian counterparts. as the kings of castile-león, portugal, and the crown of aragon expanded their domains southward, they displayed a keen interest in the acquisition of knowledge as well as territory. these monarchs, together with a host of other the middle ages (princeton, 2007). other scholars remain unconvinced by this revisionist approach. see david berger, ―a generation of scholarship of jewish-christian interaction in the medieval world,‖ tradition 38 (2004): 414; and david nirenberg‘s review of living together living apart in the new republic, february 13, 2008, 46-50. 3 ismar schorsch, ―the myth of sephardic supremacy,‖ leo baeck institute yearbook 34 (1989): 47-66; and david n. myers, re-inventing the jewish past: european jewish intellectuals and the zionist return to history (new york, 1995), 109-128. 4 eleazar gutwirth, ―towards expulsion: 1391-1492,‖ in spain and the jews, ed. elie kedourie (london, 1992), 51-73; and mark d. meyerson, a jewish renaissance in fifteenth-century spain (princeton, 2004). 5 jonathan decter, ―literatures of medieval sepharad,‖ in sephardic and mizrahi jewry: from the golden age of spain to modern times, ed. zion zohar (new york, 2005), 77-100, esp. 86-92. 6 although maimonides settled in egypt, his work reached europe via the translations of the provençal jew, samuel ben judah ibn tibbon of lunel, whose family was also of andalusi origin. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ray cp1-11 ray, whose golden age? ray cp 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr nobles, bishops, abbots and leaders of military orders sought access to the intellectual riches of the muslim cities that began to pass under christian rule. they commissioned latin and romance translations of arabic works from any scholars familiar with both languages. the jewish contribution to this process of intellectual and cultural transmission reached its zenith in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries with the so-called school of translators of toledo. this popular term actually represents a wide variety of projects supported by diverse patrons including toledo‘s archbishop rodrigo jimenez de rada (1170-1247) and king alfonso x of castile (r. 12521284). the alfonsine tables, a set of astronomical calculations produced by a joint effort of jewish, christian, and muslim scholars, was emblematic of this vast enterprise. jewish translators were also active in the crown of aragon, where they rendered arabic medical treatises into latin and catalan. 7 this collaborative effort of translation and cultural transmission had a transformative effect on the understanding of the sciences in northern iberia and throughout christian europe. 8 the translation movement also brought jewish texts to the attention of a new, christian readership. by the fifteenth century, vernacular translations of maimonides‘ guide for the perplexed and judah ha-levi‘s book of the kuzari made these landmarks of jewish scholarship available to their christian counterparts. 9 finally, jews also made more direct contributions to the advancement of christian knowledge as teachers and royal advisors. abraham zacuto taught astronomy at christian universities in castile and aragon before serving as royal astronomer to joão ii of portugal (r. 1481-1495). abraham crescas and his son, judah, were mapmakers from mallorca who flourished in the latter half of the fourteenth century, producing charts for the aragonese and french royal courts. their world maps represent a landmark of cartography and a major contribution to the age of discovery. their fame was such that prince henry, the navigator, asked abraham to help train portuguese sea captains. 10 jewish participation in hispano-christian society went far beyond these sorts of intellectual pursuits. jewish translators also helped to negotiate the formal transfer of power when muslim cities fell to christian forces, and played an active role in the administration of the newly conquered territories. indeed, the jews‘ position within iberian society was also shaped by the unique cultural composition of the region. in iberia, where medieval life was defined by centuries of warfare between christian and muslim forces, the jews represented a group that threatened neither christian nor muslim sovereignty and whose ability to act as diplomatic and mercantile gobetweens helped to establish their position as a valued, and thus protected, minority under both muslim and christian rule. as they transitioned from al-andalus to the christian kingdoms of the north, the upper echelons of jewish society maintained their positions as royal physicians, diplomats, tax collectors and scribes. 11 jews of lesser standing became equally integrated into the 7 yom tov assis, ―the jewish physician in medieval spain,‖ in medicine and medical ethics in medieval and early modern spain, ed. samuel s. kottek and luis garcía ballester (jerusalem, 1996), 33-49, at 37. translations into hebrew also made these works available to european jewish readers who were not familiar with arabic. 8 david romano, ―el papel judío en la transmission de cultura,‖ hispania sacra 60 (1988): 955-978; and shlomo sela, ―contactos científicos entre judíos y cristianos en el siglo xii: el caso de ―libro de las tablas astronómicas: de abraham ibn ezra en su versión latina y hebrea,‖ miscelánea de estudios árabes y hebraicos 45 (1996): 185-222. 9 for hispano-jewish scholars and their interest in christian literature during the 14 th and 15 th centuries, see gutwirth, ―towards expulsion,‖ 60, benjamin gampel, ―letter to a wayward teacher,‖ for ha-levy‘s exposure to christian esoteric literature. 10 on zacuto see victor crespo, ―abraão zacuto e a ciência náutica dos descobrimentos portugueses,‖ in diáspora e expansão: os judeus e os decobrimentos portugueses, ed. antónio manuel hespanha (lisbon, 1997), 119-128; bernard goldstein, ―abraham zacut and the medieval hebrew astronomical tradition,‖ journal of the history of astronomy 29 (1998), 177-186. on crescas see meyer kayserling, christopher columbus and the participation of the jews in the spanish and portuguese discoveries, (albuquerque, 2002 [1894]), 4-9. 11 david romano, ―judíos escribanos y trujamanes de árabe en la corona de aragón (reinados de jaime 1 a jaime 2),‖ sefarad 38 (1978): 71-105. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ray cp1-11 ray, whose golden age? ray cp 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr fabric of urban society as artisans and merchants who formed a variety of social and economic contacts with their christian and muslim neighbors. the result of this acculturation of jews at all levels of society was that their language, material, culture, and general worldview became shaped by the cultural milieu of hispano-christian society as it was by jewish customs and traditions. the ―hispanicity‖ of the jews of medieval iberia stands as a sharp rejoinder to those who would limit the golden age of iberian jewry to the period under muslim rule. alongside those modern scholars who find fault with the rather simplistic comparison of jewish life in muslim and christian spain, there exists a living tradition within the jewish world that also challenges the negative image of the jewish experience in christian iberia. the jews of north african and the middle eastern heritage, many of whom trace their ancestry back to medieval spain, proudly refer to themselves as sephardim, a hebrew term that continues to associate them with spain. 12 for these sephardic jews, their cultural identity has been tied to the language and culture of christian iberia more than that of muslim al-andalus. indeed, for centuries after 1492, spanish and portuguese travelers to north africa or the levant would return with tales of encounters with jews who still spoke a form of medieval castilian, and who spoke longingly of their ancestral homes in spain and portugal. 13 an ambiguous relationship yet, it is not possible to give a true assessment of religious interaction during this period by merely cataloging jewish achievements or evidence of jewish-christian cooperation. one might note, for instance, that alfonso x of castile, the same king who fostered the process of interreligious translations, also produced a number of other works that offer a much more complex image of jewish-christian relations. the book of chess and games, and the songs of holy mary, both of which are intellectual landmarks of alfonso‘s brilliant court, contain beautiful illustrations of daily life that depict members of castile‘s three religious communities interacting peacefully with one another. however, these same works also contain images that openly denigrate jews and judaism. 14 similar evidence of christian ambivalence toward the jews is reflected in the great castilian legal code, las siete partidas, a work that would become one of alfonso‘s most influential projects. the siete partidas demonstrates the crown‘s dedication to preserving roman law, including the classification of castilian jewry as a legal and protected minority group. yet alfonso‘s code also underscores the increasingly precarious nature of jewish life at a time when the spirit of christian reform began to sweep across iberia. thus while the king forbids christian desecration of synagogues, since these are places ―where the name of 12 the biblical term ―sepharad,‖ which became associated with the iberian peninsula among medieval jews, continues to be used in modern hebrew to refer to the spanish state. 13 fr. pantaleão de aveiro, itinerario da terra sancta e suas particularidades, ed. antonio baião (coimbra, 1927), 284-86; mercedes garcía arenal and gerald albert wiegers, a man of three worlds: samuel pallache, a moroccan jew in catholic and protestant europe (baltimore, 2003), 39-52; henry kamen, ―the mediterranean and the expulsion of the spanish jews in 1492,‖ past and present 119 (1988): 30-55, at 55; g. h. tucker, ―to louvain and antwerp, and beyond: the contrasting itineraries of diogo pires (didacus pyrrhus lusitanus, 1517-99) and joão rodrigues de castelo branco (amatus lusitanus, 1511-68),‖ in the expulsion of the jews and their emigration to the southern low countries (15th-16th c.), ed. luc dequeker and werner verbeke (leuven, 1998), 98; and eliyahu ashtor, toldot ha-yehudim be-mitsrayim ve-suryah, 3 vols. (1944-1970), vol. 2, 530. 14 olivia remie constable, ―chess and courtly culture in medieval castile: the libro de ajedrez of alfonso x el sabio,‖ speculum 82 (2007): 301-347; john e. keller and annette grant cash, daily life depicted in the cantigas de santa maria (lexington, ky, 1998); and vikki hatton and angus mackay, ―anti-semitism in the cantigas de santa maría,‖ bulletin of hispanic studies 60 (1983): 189-199. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ray cp1-11 ray, whose golden age? ray cp 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr god is praised,‖ he also lends credence to the rumors of jewish blood libel that had begun to spread throughout his kingdom. 15 alfonso‘s response to accusations that jews sacrificed christian children on good friday in a reenactment of the crucifixion reflects an effort to safeguard jewish rights, but also signals the increased need for such protection. indeed, as the christian wars of conquest gave way to a long period of political consolidation during the late thirteenth century, an atmosphere of popular religious zeal and missionary activity began to set in throughout christian iberia. alfonso‘s father-in-law, jaume i of aragon (r. 1231-1276), spent most of his long reign waging war against his muslim rivals. but his military successes and the steady rise of missionary activity among the new dominican order led the crusading king known as el conqueridor (the conqueror) to redirect some of his prodigious energies from his muslim enemies to his jewish subjects. in 1263, jaume famously presided over a great public disputation over rabbinic theology in barcelona, and actively supported christian missionaries in their attempts to preach to and convert the jews throughout the later part of his reign. 16 royal recognition of ecclesiastical and popular anti-judaism, whether tacit or active, continued throughout the fourteenth century. during the castilian civil war of the 1360s, the rebellious enrique de trastámara (r. 1369-79) fanned the flames of christian disaffection with the jews as a means of garnering political support. during his attempt to seize the throne from his half-brother, pedro i (r. 1350-1369), enrique depicted the king as unfit due to his excessive dependence upon jewish and muslim advisors, and promised to oust the infidels from the royal court if he were to be made king. enrique‘s persistent demonization of the jews incited popular riots against the jews of toledo (1355) and valladolid (1366). however, after finally ascending the throne in 1369, enrique quickly reverted to the standard policy of utilizing jewish courtiers and civil servants to administer the kingdom. such tensions ran both ways across the religious divide. jewish scholars were openly hostile to christianity even as they displayed a significant level of acculturation to christian society. indeed, perhaps the most notable jewish composition in medieval catalan, refutation of christian dogmas, was a polemical work by hasdai crescas (d. 1410), one of the leading lights of catalan and aragonese jewish society during the height of christian missionary activity in the late fourteenth century. 17 similarly, samuel usque‘s sixteenth-century consolation for the tribulation of israel is at once a landmark of portuguese prose and a passionate appeal to his fellow conversos to flee spain and portugal in order to revert to judaism. 18 15 dwayne carpenter, alfonso x and the jews: an edition and commentary on siete partidas 7.24 “de los judíos” (berkeley, 1986); and robert i. burns, ―jews and moors in the ―siete partidas‖ of alfonso x the learned: a background perspective,‖ in medieval spain – culture, conflict and coexistence, ed. roger collins and anthony goodman (new york, 2002), 46-62. the situation was much the same in the kingdom of portugal, where the crown generally sought to protect jewish status, but often had to acquiesce to the demands of the other estates that their rights be restricted. maria josé ferro tavares, os judeus em portugal no século xv, 2 vols. (lisbon, 1982-84), vol. 1, 215-225. 16 robert chazan, ―the barcelona ‗disputation‘ of 1263,‖ speculum 52 (1977): 824-842; and robert chazan, daggers of faith: thirteenth-century christian missionizing and jewish response (berkeley, 1989). on jaume‘s declaration regarding forced sermons, see solomon grayzel, the church and the jews in the xiiith century (new york, 1966), 254-256. the franciscan order was also active in the mission to the jews. see jill r. webster, ―conversion and coexistence: the franciscan mission in the crown of aragon,‖ iberia and the mediterranean world of the middle ages ii, ed. paul e. chevedden et al. (leiden, 1996), 163-177. 17 hasdai crescas, refutation of christian principles, ed. and trans. daniel j. lasker (albany, 1992). 18 see yosef yerusahlmi‘ introductory essay ―a jewish classic in the portuguese language,‖ in consolacão as tribulacões de israel, ed. jose v. de pinta martins (lisbon, 1989), 15-123. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ray cp1-11 ray, whose golden age? ray cp 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the ambivalent nature of this cross-cultural exchange can also be seen in the new intellectual circles dedicated to the study of mystical traditions, or kabbalah, which began to emerge in both castile and the crown of aragon toward the end of the thirteenth century. this increased interest in the esoteric nature of judaism opened up a new point of contact between jewish and christian intellectuals who had already found a connection through the study of greco-arabic science and philosophy. christian theologians ranging from raymond llull in thirteenth-century cataluña to alfonso de la torre in fifteenth-century castile demonstrated an awareness and profound engagement with jewish mystical texts and ideals. 19 however, as with so many of these inter-faith associations, the diffusion of mystical thought among jewish and christian intellectuals cannot merely be interpreted as evidence of religious symbiosis. for iberian jews, religious interaction with christians could not only lead to an appreciation of christian learning, but also conversion. solomon ha-levi was a leading rabbinic authority in fourteenth-century castile, before his encounter with an esoteric christian text led him to convert to christianity, and assume a new identity as pablo de santa maría. 20 he was soon followed by his pupil, joshua ha-lorki, who adopted the name geronimo de santa fé, and embarked upon a career as a dominican friar, polemicizing against judaism. for many jewish witnesses to these and similar events, the familiarity of christian society that arose from its proximity and general openness was, perhaps, even more threatening than christian enmity and exclusion. if the specter of conversion cast a shadow over jewish-christian relations throughout medieval europe, the unprecedented events of 1391 made its impact in christian iberia particularly acute. it was during the spring and summer of that year that the mounting christian resentment of jewish status and wealth together with a parallel rise in popular religious fervor came to a head. a series of violent attacks against the jews erupted throughout the peninsula, resulting in the destruction of much of iberian jewry through killing and forced conversion to christianity. the problems posed by the rise of converso society are intricately linked to the crown‘s decision to expel the jews in 1492. the mass conversions of 1391 were followed by decades of heightened missionary activity aimed at converting iberia‘s remaining jewish population. when these efforts proved unsuccessful, the impetus of christian society turned toward enforcing the social separation of these new christians and their former coreligionists. during the latter half of the fifteenth century, royal and municipal authorities took a number of steps to segregate members of 19 the literature on spanish kabbalah is extensive. for a general introduction to the subject, see gershom scholem, kabbalah (new york, 1978); arthur green, ―the zohar: jewish mysticism in medieval spain,‖ in introduction to the medieval mystics of europe, ed. paul szarmach (albany, ny 1984), 97-134; and moshe idel, ―jewish philosophy and kabbalah in spain,‖ in sephardic and mizrahi jewry, ed. zion zohar (new york, 2005), 120-142. on spanish christianity and kabbalah, see gil anidjar, ―jewish mysticism alterable and unalterable: on ―‗orienting‘ kabbalah studies and the ‗zohar of christian spain,‘‖ jewish social studies 3 (1996): 89-157; and moshe idel, ―reflections on kabbalah in spain and christian kabbalah,‖ hispania judaica bulletin 2 (1999): 3-15. on llull, see frances a. yates, the art of memory (chicago, 1966), 189-200; and roberto j. gonzález-casanovas, ―ramon llull‘s rhetorical ambivalence towards the jews: utopia and polemic in medieval iberian missionary discourse,‖ in “encuentros” and "desencuentros,” ed. carlos carrete parrondo (tel aviv, 2000), 381-412; and on de la torre, see luis m. girónnegrón, alfonso de la torre’s visión deleytable: philosophical rationalism and the religious imagination in 15 th century spain (boston, 2001). 20 josé faur, ―a crisis of categories: kabbalah and the rise of apostasy in spain,‖ in the jews of spain and the expulsion of 1492, ed. moshe lazar and stephen haliczer (lancaster, ca, 1997), 41-63; moshe lazar, ―alfonso de valladolid‘s ―mostrador de justicia‖: a polemic debate between abner‘s old and new self,‖ in judaísmo hispano i, ed. elena romero (madrid, 2002), 121-134. on the conversion of shlomo ha-levi see benjamin r. gampel, ―a letter to a wayward teacher: the transformation of sephardic culture in christian iberia,‖ in cultures of the jews: a new history, ed. david biale (new york, 2002), 389-447. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ray cp1-11 ray, whose golden age? ray cp 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the two religions including an expulsion of the jews from the castilian province of andalusia in 1483. 21 such efforts were never fully successful. the new triangular relationship between jews, conversos, and the so-called ―old‖ christians retained many of the same complexities and contradictions that had defined inter-faith relations in iberia for centuries. in the first generation after 1391, kinship ties between jews and new christians remained a potent force shaping social interaction. these bonds of family and friendship often hopelessly blurred the boundaries between religious communities. the official position of the church was that the converts and their descendants were christians, while rabbinic authorities still considered them to be jewish, arguing that their conversions were forced and thus invalid. the attitudes of average christians and jews filled a wide spectrum between these two positions. in certain parts of the peninsula, popular jewish sympathy for the plight of the conversos began to fade as the fifteenth century progressed. regardless of the official position of their rabbis, many found the jewishness of those who had been raised as catholics to be suspect. elsewhere, leading jewish families considered it to be advantageous to retain strong ties to the conversos, despite condemnation from many old christians. 22 many christians also rejected the official stance of their religious officials with regard to the conversos, insisting that baptism failed to remove the essential cultural characteristics their jewish ancestry. in toledo, riots against the conversos were accompanied by a demand that members of the town council and other important institutions prove the purity of their christian blood going back several generations. in spite of such accusations of the unalterable nature of jewish blood, many conversos were dedicated to their new faith and argued passionately for their full acceptance into christian society. in his defensorium unitatis christianae, the castilian churchman alonso de cartagena argued against the logic that lay behind recent purity-of-blood statutes as being fundamentally anti-christian and heretical. ironically, by embracing christian doctrine in its purist form, converts such as de cartagena, only succeeded in marking themselves as distinct from the christian masses who took religion to be socially, not theologically, constructed. 23 the advent of converso society in the century between 1391 and 1492 stands as perhaps the greatest example of the inherent complications of trying to measure relations between christians and jews in medieval iberia. can we view the persistence of close bonds between many conversos and jews as evidence of inter-faith symbiosis? or does the inability of the conversos to fully integrate into christian society highlight a fundamental cultural rift between jews and christians that even baptism could not overcome? 21 angus mackay, ―popular movements and pogroms in fifteenth-century castile,‖ past and present 55 (1972): 3367. there was also an expulsion of the jews from the castilian town of valmaseda in 1486, and planned expulsions from saragossa and albarracín that do not appear to have been carried out. haim beinart, ―the expulsion of the jews from valmaseda‖ (hebrew), zion 46 (1981): 39-51. 22 in segovia and avila, for instance, a new set of jewish families came to power in the third quarter of the fifteenth century that came to dominate castilian jewry under enrique iv (r. 1454-74). these jews had continued to associate closely with their converso neighbors. javier castaño, ―social networks in a castilian aljama and the court jews in the fifteenth century: a preliminary survey (madrid 1440-1475),‖ en la españa medieval 20 (1997): 379-392, at 381. 23 bruce rosenstock, ―alonso de cartagena: nation, miscegenation, and the jew in late-medieval castile,‖ in turn it again: jewish medieval studies and literary theory, ed. sheila delany (eugene, or, 2007), 172-189; and alisa meyuhas ginio, ―la opción desaprovechada: alonso de cartagena y su obra "defensorium unitatis christianae,‖ in movimientos migratorios y expulsiones en la diáspora occidental (pamplona, 2000), 79-94. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ray cp1-11 ray, whose golden age? ray cp 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr whose golden age? how, then are we to evaluate a relationship that was so indelibly marked by both cooperation and conflict? modern defenders of the idea of a jewish golden age in christian iberia argue that episodes of inter-religious strife during this period are the exceptions that prove the rule, while detractors point to a steady decline in jewish status under christian rule that was punctuated by wide-scale massacres and forced conversions in 1391, and the eventual expulsion of spanish jewry in 1492. it is my suggestion that the nature of jewish-christian relations in medieval iberia revolves around an even more fundamental question than which of these two opposing tendencies represented the norm. namely, was religious identity the only, or even the primary factor that shaped the relationship between members of different religious communities? the closer we look at inter-faith relations during this period, the more it becomes apparent that the categories of ―jewish‖ and ―christian‖ applied very differently depending on a number of factors. to be sure, religious identity remained the principle means for social organization for both christian and jewish leaders throughout the middle ages, and beyond. in reality, however, neither culture operated monolithically. not only did the general relationship between these two cultures wax and wane from the eleventh through the fifteenth century, but it also varied significantly according to region and city, as well as to the wealth, profession, and social standing of the individuals involved. the varying experiences of iberian jewish communities during the tragic events of 1391 offer clear illustration of the highly contextualized nature of jewish-christian relations. both the forced conversions and the reactions to the communities of new christians that developed throughout the peninsula in subsequent decades followed very different trajectories based on region and city. for instance, the impact of the attacks was much greater among the jewries of cataluña and andalusia than in aragon and old castile, and the jews living in the kingdom of portugal remained unscathed. 24 similarly, attacks against the conversos such as those that took place in toledo in 1449 were highly contextualized phenomena that did not have parallels or direct repercussions in other locales. 25 even within the same city, the way in which different elements within jewish society interacted with their christian neighbors was rarely uniform. in our effort to gauge the general prosperity or mutual benefit of jewish-christian relations, we fail to ask whether or not what was good for a religious community as a whole was also beneficial for its individual members. indeed, there seems to be little reason to accept the idea that there was a common experience of the individual and the group. the conditions that helped judaism and the jewish community to flourish in christian iberia were not always the same as those that benefited the average jew. similarly, the regulations and exemptions that profited the jewish merchant were rarely to the advantage of the jewish poor. jewish integration into christian society can be heralded as proof of an inter-faith golden age, and yet it also brought with it a host of other problems that underscore how differently groups of jews and christians might experience cross-cultural interaction. royal grants that protected jewish rights or exempted them from onerous laws or taxes might be viewed as evidence of mutual benefit. indeed, as serfs of the royal chamber, jewish profit simultaneously aided the crown. yet, such ostensibly reciprocal benefits were not universally advantageous. favorable treatment of the jews either came at the expense of christian subjects, as in the case of royal support for 24 juan blázquez miguel, inquisición y criptojuaismo (madrid, 1988), 50-54; and emilio mitre fernández, los judíos de castilla en tiempos de enrique iii: el pogrom de 1391 (madrid, 1994), 27. even within the same general region, the jewish communities suffered very different fates during 1391, as was the case in the castilian cities of avila and burgos. teofilo f. ruiz, spain’s centuries of crisis: 1300-1474 (oxford, 2007), 140-142. 25 mackay, ―popular movements and pogroms.‖ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ray cp1-11 ray, whose golden age? ray cp 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr jewish debt collection, or else provoked jealous anger among other the king‘s rivals: the barons, the church, and the municipalities. the notion of mutual benefit thus quickly proves to be a mirage. upon close inspection, the neat categories of christian and jew reveal a kaleidoscope of distinct subsets of social and religious communities brought together in rapidly shifting patterns. the tax exemption that benefited a particular jewish merchant simultaneously enraged his christian and jewish competitors, and alarmed his local jewish communal council that depended on such funds. the prosperity and royal protection enjoyed by the wealthier members of hispano-jewish society allowed them to enjoy the trappings of power including luxurious clothing, horses, coaches, and muslim slaves. yet this affluence also brought condemnations from jewish moralists who saw such ostentation as both impious and provocative to the christian nobility. 26 these rabbis were not merely condemning jewish vanity and flamboyance. they were acutely aware that royal favor was a double-edged sword. for all jews, communities and individuals alike, the vertical ties to royal and episcopal courts that guaranteed their protection usually came at the expense of horizontal ties with their christian neighbors. even positive relations among jewish and christian townsmen were not without their drawbacks. for jewish leaders worried about the religious integrity of their communities, the problems born of cooperation and proximity were, perhaps, even more daunting than open hostility. greater familiarity with the religion of the ―other‖ fostered increased polemical attacks on the part of christian mendicants who endeavored to use jewish texts to buttress their arguments. it also led to sporadic voluntary conversions on the part of some jews. the total number of these voluntary conversions remained modest, at least prior to 1391. nonetheless, the culture of fear that these conversions induced among the rest of jewish society, as well as the corresponding zeal they engendered among christian missionaries, was significant indeed. our search for evidence of a golden age in jewish-christian relations cannot exclude the many non-religious factors that determined the structure of medieval society. christians and jews alike were also subject to social and political forces that transcended religion. one of the central features of medieval government was the ability of those in power to play one group against another in order to expand their own authority. the crown, the aristocracy, the towns, and the church were constantly pitted against one another, to say nothing of divisions within these groups, or between different iberian kingdoms. thus, the debate over jewish rights and privileges often became a means by which the towns or the nobility could attack royal sovereignty. 27 iberian kings in turn regarded the jews as part of the royal treasure, regardless of where they dwelt, and demanded that their taxes belonged to the crown, rather than to local lords or municipalities. to imagine christian spain as a world divided by faith is to ignore the intrinsically combative and dissonant nature of medieval society in general. popular anti-judaism and outbreaks of christian violence were, indeed, part and parcel of jewish life under medieval christian rule. however, deep-seated tensions and regular outbreaks of violence defined the relationship between peasants and lords, church and crown, and upper and lower clergy as much as they did between christian and jew. 28 26 jonathan ray, ―beyond tolerance and persecution: reassessing our approach to medieval convivencia,‖ jewish social studies 11 (2005): 1-18. 27 jonathan ray, the sephardic frontier: the reconquista and the jewish community in medieval iberia (ithaca, ny, 2006), 76-88. for portugal, see arquivo nacional da torre do tombo, chanc. de d. dinis, liv. iii, fol. 104v; published in maria josé pimenta ferro, os judeus em portugal no século xiv (lisbon, 1970), document no. 10. 28 the question of inter-religious violence in medieval iberia has garnered a great deal of attention. see david nirenberg, communities of violence (princeton, 1996); a great effusion of blood?: interpreting medieval violence, ed. mark d. meyerson, daniel thiery and oren falk (toronto, 2004); religious violence between christians and jews: medieval roots modern perspectives, ed. anna sapir abulafia (new york, 2002); and j. n. hillgarth, the mirror of spain, 1500-1700: the formation of a myth (ann arbor, 2000). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ray cp1-11 ray, whose golden age? ray cp 10 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr and hispano-jewish society was equally susceptible to internal tensions and factionalism. the religious reform movements that arose in christian society during the later middle ages also had their parallels within the jewish world. the litany of jewish complaints about rabbinic vanity, corruption, and lust for social status echo similar criticisms of christian clergy. at the same time, jewish authors also exhibited a general disdain for jewish artisans and manual laborers, especially those who exhibit pretensions of authority. 29 it might be said that one of the few overarching characteristics of jewish society that was shared by communities in all the peninsular kingdoms was the inherently combative relationship between the local jewish communal council and the jews they sought to govern. much like their christian counterparts, medieval jews demonstrated a willingness to adhere to religious law and respect religious authority as long as their compliance did not present any personal obstacle. once it did, they displayed an equal willingness to circumvent their communal authorities. spain‘s royal and municipal archives are filled with records of jewish councils pleading for assistance with rebellious individuals, and with petitions by individual jews seeking christian protection from abuses of their own officials. in addition to the clashes between jews and their local authorities, conflicts also arose between feuding clans who sought power and influence within their community. as a result, we see a number of instances in which jews joined forces with christian business partners, christian lords, and even with gangs of christian thugs in order to outmaneuver and intimidate members of their own faith. 30 this complex web of relationships raises serious questions about our ability to characterize medieval religious communities with great precision, or to speak convincingly about a golden age of jewish-christian relations. the discord that marked jewish social interaction also resonated within the fields of jewish theology, philosophy, and kabbalah. if we look only at jewish-christian relations in late medieval iberia, it is easy to be struck by the increasingly combative nature of their intellectual exchanges. 31 yet the polemical relationship between jews and christians was often surpassed by the disputes among various jewish factions. during the late middle ages, the longstanding attempt by jewish intellectuals to reconcile reason and revelation—that is, the philosophical heritage of the greeks and the dictates of their own sacred literature—erupted into two sprawling debates that engulfed jewish scholars from castile to provençe. although the initial phases of this controversy eventually passed, the underlying tensions surrounding the place of non-jewish texts within the normative curriculum of jewish society was never fully resolved. 32 nor was the debate over foreign (non-jewish) knowledge the only one that enflamed jewish intellectuals and divided them into feuding camps. the rabbis and jewish preachers of christian iberia debated frequently among themselves about the relative merits and dangers of studying the talmud at the expense of other fields such grammar, poetry, kabbalah, and even bible. 33 29 eleazar gutwirth, ―contempt for the lower orders in fifteenth-century hispano-jewish thought,‖ miscelánea de estudios árabes y hebraicos 30 (1981): 83-98. 30 see the jewish ordinances (takkanot) of valladolid of 1432 in fritz baer, die juden im christlichen spanien, 2 vols. (berlin, 1936) vol. 2, 280-298, and in english in louis finkelstein, jewish self-government in the middle ages (new york, 1924), 364-5; and shlomo ben abraham ibn adret, sheelot u-teshuvot ha-rashba (responsa) vol. 1 (jerusalem, 1997), no. 573. 31 see ram ben shalom, ―between official and private dispute: the case of christian spain and provence in the late middle ages,‖ ajs review 27 (2003): 23-71. 32 these debates are collectively referred to as the maimonidean controversy. see idit dobbs weinstein, ―the maimonidean controversy,‖ in history of jewish philosophy, ed. daniel h. frank and oliver leaman (london, 1997), 331-349. 33 eleazar gutwirth, ―conversions to christianity amongst spanish jews: an alternative explanation,‖ in shlomo simonsohn jubilee volume, ed. daniel carpi (jerusalem, 1993), 97-121, at 113-114. for continued infighting among studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ray cp1-11 ray, whose golden age? ray cp 11 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr this confrontational posture was a characteristic that the jews who left spain in 1492 carried with them into exile. one scholar challenged his detractors to ―come out to the field and let us compete in our knowledge of the bible, the mishnah and the talmud…and all of rabbinic literature…[and] in the practical and theoretical fields of science.‖ the combative tone is echoed by the great sixteenth-century philosopher, judah abravanel, who extolled his intellectual lineage in a famous poem, declaring: christian scholars are grasshoppers next to me. i‘ve seen their colleges – they‘ve no one who can best me in the duel of words. i beat down any man who stands against me, crush and hush my opponent, prove him wrong. who but me could dare to tell the mysteries of the creation, of the chariot, of its rider? my soul excels, surpasses all of my contemporaries in this wretched age. 34 while it is common to view the confrontations between jewish and christian theologians within the context of religious interaction, these polemics and disputations also took place within a larger arena of scholarly debate that grouped disputants by intellectual fields as much as religion, and in which individuals sought personal honor and victory. it is important to view jewishchristian relations in medieval iberia against this broader backdrop of intellectual factions and affinities. the concept of mutually beneficial contact between christians and jews presupposes the existence of relatively uniform and cohesive religious communities defined by the broad categories of judaism and christianity. such categories did exist, and remain useful, although not without certain limitations. if our goal is to commemorate the truly notable examples of religious cooperation, then we can, indeed, speak of a golden age in late-medieval iberia. if however, we are searching for models of inter-faith symbiosis that can potentially inform our contemporary world, then the question is a great deal more complicated. in order to do so, we must recognize, even if only in passing, the obvious imbalance of power in this relationship. medieval jewish society in general never posed a serious threat to its christian counterpart. unlike the armed conflicts between iberian christians and their muslim neighbors, mass violence between christians and jews was always unidirectional in favor the christians. moreover, christians never lived under the fear that they would be forcibly converted, or that their children would be seduced into abandoning their faith by economic, social, and political opportunities that would be available to them should they adopt judaism. in my brief overview, i have attempted to question the utility of the concept of a golden age of religious interaction in medieval spain. i have suggested that we consider the nature of religious societies with greater nuance and an appreciation of how the various divisions within both christian and jewish society experienced this relationship. however, in order for us to truly understand the legacy of christian-jewish interaction in the middle ages, the inherent imbalance in this relationship cannot be ignored. jewish intellectuals in the sixteenth century, see rachel elior, ―messianic expectations and spiritualization of religious life in the sixteenth century,‖ revue des études juives 145 (1986): 35-49. 34 abravanel‘s poem is taken from an english translation by raymond p. scheindlin and published in medieval iberia: readings from christian, muslim and jewish sources, ed. olivia remie constable (philadelphia, 1997), 362. for the preceding quote, see joseph hacker, ―the intellectual activity of the jews of the ottoman empire during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,‖ in jewish thought in the seventeenth century, ed. isadore twersky and bernard septimus (cambridge, ma, 1987), 120. heschel™s monotheism vis-à-vis pantheism and panentheism studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college heschel’s monotheism vis-à-vis pantheism and panentheism j o h n c . m e r k l e college of st. benedict/st. st. john’s university volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 26-33 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ merkle, “heschel’s monotheism” 26 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 26-33 in the jewish tradition, there is no claim about god more hallowed than the sh’ma: “hear, o israel, the lord is our god, the lord is one” (dt 6:4). naturally, then, it is the foundation of rabbi abraham joshua heschel’s religious world view. heschel echoes the tradition in claiming that the sh’ma means not simply that there is only one true god, but also that god possesses inner unity, which, in turn, is the necessary precondition for whatever unity is achieved in this world.1 pantheism is one way of explaining unity in the world. in the strictest sense of the term, pantheism is the belief that the world is divine (literally, all is god). this can be understood to mean that there is no more to god than the world, or it can mean that the world is an emanation (in contrast to a creation) of god. in this emanationist version of pantheism, which is often referred to as panentheism, the world is divine without being all there is to the divine. in a non-literal sense of the term, pantheism can refer to the belief that the unity of the world or the unifying power of the world is god. heschel emphatically rejects pantheism as alien to judaism: “to judaism, the adoration of nature is as absurd as the alienation from nature is unnecessary.”2 so with full appreciation of the sublime mystery of nature, a major theme in his writings, heschel affirms the reality of god as distinct from, though intimately present to, the world that god creates and loves. 1 the oneness of god is a theme that pervades heschel’s writings, but see especially chapter 12, “what we mean by the divine,” and chapter 13, “one god,” of his man is not alone: a philosophy of religion (new york: farrar, straus, and young, 1951), 97-123. 2 abraham joshua heschel, god in search of man: a philosophy of judaism (new york: farrar, straus, and cudahy, 1955), 90. this distinction between the sublime mystery of nature and the presence of god is crucial because upon it rests the distinction between pantheism and monotheism. as indicated, there is no doubt where heschel himself stands: “beyond the grandeur is god,” and while “god is a mystery, the mystery is not god.”3 stated otherwise, beyond transcendence is the transcendent other; beyond the holy dimension of the universe is the holy one. this is a distinction overlooked in many contemporary theological writings where terms like “mystery,” “transcendence,” “the holy,” and “the sacred” are often used as synonyms for “god.” while each of these words partially indicates the meaning of god, each also can be used to describe an aspect of worldly reality. from heschel’s perspective, for example, to perceive holiness is to perceive an allusion to god, to experience holiness is to come into the presence of the holy, but holy things and persons are not parts of god. yet even heschel himself in one instance seems to speak of “the holy dimension of all existence” and “god” interchangeably or synonymously. this occurs in a section of man is not alone titled “the holy dimension”: “what gives rise to faith is . . . an everlasting fact in the universe, . . . the holy dimension of all existence. . . . all existence stands in the dimension of the holy and nothing can be conceived as living outside of it. all existence stands before god – here and everywhere, now and at all times.”4 since, for heschel, jewish faith is a response to god, and since here he speaks of “the holy dimension of all existence,” described as “an everlasting fact in the universe,” as giving rise to faith, it seems that in this instance he is articulating a pantheistic, or at least a panentheistic, perspective. 3 ibid., 97, 66. 4 man is not alone, 237. merkle, “heschel’s monotheism” 27 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 26-33 but elsewhere, reflecting his more consistent stance, heschel speaks of god as “more than the holy dimension” and, therefore, as “a reality higher than the universe.”5 for heschel, god is the transcendent one who, while present to the world and in the world, is never part of the world. thus, in commenting on the biblical passage “the whole earth is full of his glory,” heschel writes: “it does not mean that the glory fills the earth in the way in which ether fills space or water fills the ocean. it means that the whole earth is full of his presence.”6 elsewhere he reiterates this point: “in saying god is everywhere, we do not intend to say he is like the air, the parts of which are found in countless places. . . . god is not partly here and partly there; he is all here and all there.”7 in fact, as the transcendent one, god is even more than the “one supreme force or law that regulates all phenomena of nature.”8 according to heschel, “to refer to the supreme law of nature as god or to say that the world came into being by virtue of its own energy is to beg the question”9 of why there is such a law at all. god is not the supreme law of nature but the reason there is such a law. likewise, heschel 5 ibid., 67. interestingly, in this section where heschel speaks of god as “more than the holy dimension” he also use the phrase “the divine aspect of the universe” in conjunction with “the holy dimension.” this is an exceptional use of the word “divine” for heschel who normally uses the word as a synonym for god. this unusual use of “divine” helps to explain another perplexing statement that heschel makes on page 126 of man is not alone: “god is more than the divine.” recognizing that heschel is not perfectly consistent in his usage of the word “divine” lends plausibility to the argument i am about to advance that in the section “the holy dimension,” in which he speaks of “divine values invested in every being,” heschel does not intend to equate the holy dimension of the universe with god. 6 god in search of man, 82. 7 man is not alone, 121. 8 ibid., 107. 9 ibid. declares categorically that “god is one, but one [or oneness] is not god.”10 for him, to deify the unity of the world or even the unifying power within nature is, again, to beg the question of why there is a world and a unifying force within it. monotheism, in contrast to pantheism, does not evade this ultimate question, and in response it offers its doctrine of creation: the world is the creation of the god who transcends the world, and unity within creation presupposes unity within the creator.11 why, then, does heschel, strict monotheist that he is, allow himself to sound pantheistic in the section titled “the holy dimension”? does he for a moment really blur the distinction between transcendence and the transcendent one, between the holy dimension of the universe and the holy one? i think not. instead, i think it is reasonable to conclude that heschel never intended to suggest that god is the holy dimension of the universe, and i think there are at least two ways that his apparent pantheistic moment can be explained as merely that – apparent. in the first place, it may be that rather than using the terms “god and “the holy dimension” synonymously or interchangeably, heschel is simply alternating between speaking of the holy dimension and of god in such a way as to unwittingly suggest their synonymity. but this would not explain why he calls the holy dimension “an everlasting fact in the universe” that “gives rise to faith,” unless we realize that while faith is a response to god, it is not only god that gives rise to faith. the holy dimension of the universe can be said to give rise to faith in the sense that it calls forth those attitudes like wonder, awe, and reverence which are antecedents of faith in god. 10 ibid. 11 see ibid., 112. merkle, “heschel’s monotheism” 28 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 26-33 another possible explanation of heschel’s apparent pantheistic moment is that in different contexts, and perhaps even in the same context, he uses the term “dimension” differently. thus, where heschel says that “god is more than the holy dimension” he is using the word “dimension” as a synonym for the word “aspect,” the holy dimension of the universe being the holy aspect of the universe. but where heschel suggests the synonymity of “the holy dimension” and “god” he is using “dimension” to mean “sphere,” that sphere being the presence or glory of god. thus heschel speaks of the glory of god as “an aura that lies about all being, a spiritual setting of reality,”12 and he points out that “the awareness of god as the dwelling-place of the universe must have been very poignant in post-biblical times, if makom (‘place’) was a synonym for god.”13 thus, to say that god is the holy dimension of the universe is to say that god is the “dwelling-place” of the universe. the universe dwells not on its own but in the presence of god. beyond the universe is not an abyss of nothingness but the glory of god. the holy one is our holy domain. in this connection it is interesting to note that franklin sherman, though not discussing heschel’s use of “the holy dimension,” in interpreting the hasidic understanding of god which heschel imbibed, refers to god as “a dimensional reality.”14 however, while sherman is correct to interpret heschel’s hasidic-inspired view of god as a dimensional reality, it is misleading for him to suggest that “if this were all that were said, one might well charge this view with being essentially pantheistic.”15 sherman realizes that there is more to be said, that god is not only a dimensional reality but that “god, who is truly present, also is transcendent.” 12 god in search of man, 85. 13 man is not alone, 150. 14 franklin sherman, the promise of heschel (philadelphia: a. b. lippincott company, 1970), 29. 15 ibid. 16 the reason i maintain that sherman’s qualification is misleading is because god, as a dimensional reality in heschel’s hasidic sense, is a dimension other than a dimension of the world. rather than suggesting that god is a dimensional reality who also is transcendent, thus implying that as a dimensional reality god is coextensive with the world and that as a transcendent reality god is beyond the world, it is more accurate to suggest that even as a dimensional reality god is transcendent. to say that god is a dimensional reality is not a pantheistic statement as long as “dimension” is understand as a reality distinct from the world.17 rather than suggest that god is both dimensional and transcendent, it is better to say that god is the dimensional transcendent or the transcendent dimension. due to heschel’s emphasis that god is present in all beings and that all beings dwell within the sphere of god, some of his readers describe his religious perspective as 16 ibid., 30. 17 it must be acknowledged that there is proclivity toward pantheism (or, more correctly, panentheism) in many hasidic writings, particularly those of the habad school, and this is indeed because of the hasidic stress on the immanence of god. but the hasidic view of god’s immanence, which according to sherman can be called “a dimensional reality,” need not (and in most cases should not) be interpreted to mean that god’s presence generally is viewed by the hasidim as a dimension of worldly reality. therefore, the emphasis in hasidic writings on the immanence of god or on god’s presence as a dimensional reality in which the world dwells need not be considered “essentially pantheistic” – even “if this were all that were to be said.” no, god’s immanence (or dimensional presence) is normally understood in hasidism as a reality distinct from worldly reality. moreover, and more importantly for this essay, i maintain that however much hasidic writings are tinged with pantheism (or panentheism) there is no such coloring to heschel’s hasidic-inspired view. furthermore, no matter how much heschel is steeped in the hasidic tradition, his view of god’s immanent presence as a dimensional reality could have just as well been nurtured by the earlier rabbinic tradition which, as we have seen, regarded god as the “dwelling-place” of the world. merkle, “heschel’s monotheism” 29 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 26-33 “panentheistic,” which they suggest is distinct from a pantheistic perspective. in fact, one of heschel’s foremost interpreters, fritz rothschild, says that “the awareness of . . . god’s glory ubiquitously sensed in and behind all things leads to a panentheistic outlook.”18 by this rothschild may mean that heschel perceives all created reality as existing within the sphere of god’s presence and that god’s presence permeates all things – and that is precisely heschel’s view. however, since the term “panentheistic” is often used to suggest that everything exists in god as part of god, it is perhaps misleading to use this term to describe heschel’s religious outlook. 19 to support his interpretation, rothschild refers to the fact that heschel has translated a letter of a habad hasid, the message of which is “all is god.” rothschild claims, as heschel himself notes, that this message “differs from pantheism because the phrase is not reversible into ‘god is the all (the universe.)’”20 now while it is true that this message clearly differs from the strictest definition of pantheism, which is the view that the world and god are coextensive (that not only the universe is god, but that god is the universe, with no remainder), it does not prima facie differ from the emanationist version of pantheism or from panentheism as it is popularly understood. in fact, it appears to be a radically emanationist or panentheistic statement, claiming that the universe is part of god, even if god is greater than the universe. but is this really what the hasidic statement means? and even if it does mean this, does the fact that heschel translated this letter in his book man’s quest for god mean that he himself endorses panentheism? notice that the point of heschel’s including the letter in his book is not to affirm the belief that all is god but to show that prayer is the way to insight and faith, to show that the insight or belief that all is god was reached by way of ardent prayer, as the author of the letter himself attests. heschel’s reason for including the letter in his book is made clear by the sentences which immediately precede it: “prayer is a way to faith. some of mankind’s deepest spiritual insights are born in moments of prayer. the following letter may serve as an illustration.” 18 fritz a. rothschild, “introduction,” between god and man: an interpretation of judaism from the writings of abraham j. heschel (new york: the free press, revised edition, 1975), 17. 19 the term “panentheism” is used variously by various authors, as is evident, e.g., in the book in whom we live and move and have our being: panentheistic reflections on god’s presence in a scientific world, eds. philip clayton and arthur peacocke (grand rapids, mi: william b. eerdmans publishing company, 2004), but since the term is usually understood to mean, in the words the oxford dictionary of the christian church, “the belief that the being of god includes and penetrates the whole universe, so that every part of it exists in him,” i find it problematic to refer to heschel’s theology as panentheistic without dissociating it from the common sense of the term. 20 ibid.; cf. abraham joshua heschel, man’s quest for god: studies in prayer and symbolism (new york: charles scribner’s sons, 1954), 73. 21 then comes the letter on how prayer led to the insight that all is god. from all that we have seen, it can be emphatically maintained that heschel’s perspective is not panentheistic in the usual sense of the term, just as it is not pantheistic. heschel does not think of the world as being a part of the reality of god. rather, he views the world as being embayed and imbued by the presence of god, a presence which remains distinct from the world itself. heschel’s normative statement in this regard is: “the world is not of the essence of god. . . .the world is neither his continuation nor his emanation but rather his creation and possession.”22 in other words, “the world is his, but he is not his world.”23 21 man’s quest for god, 72. 22 ibid., 121; cf. god in search of man, 97, where heschel says that “nature is not a part of god but a fulfillment of his will.” 23 abraham joshua heschel, “god, torah, and israel,” in theology and church in times of change: essays in honor of john coleman bennett, merkle, “heschel’s monotheism” 30 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 26-33 moreover, from the footnote that heschel adds to the statement “all is god,” it is clear that even this statement is not taken to mean that everything is a part of god. for in that note heschel says: “in a true sense, therefore, the world that we know is nothing compared with the power of god that contains it.”24 in other words, according to the habad teaching as heschel interprets it, to say that “all is god” is to say that, in a sense, god alone is truly real. this is confirmed by the fact that elsewhere in the same letter the author says “that there is nothing but he alone, that all is god.”25 rather than taking this to mean that everything is in god as part of god, this statement can be interpreted as expressing an experience and an insight akin to what rudolf otto, in his classic work the idea of the holy, describes as “creature consciousness”: the consciousness of a creature “overwhelmed by its own nothingness in contrast to that which is supreme above all creatures.”26 yet even if heschel would agree that we have a sense of our own nothingness in comparison with god, this is not a major or recurrent theme in his writings. for him, religious experience within the biblical tradition goes beyond otto’s “creature consciousness,” instead promoting a sense that, eds. edward leroy long, jr. and robert t. handy (philadelphia: westminster press, 1970), 81. 24 man’s quest for god, 73 (emphasis mine). 25 ibid., 74. it must be admitted that habad thought also lends itself to a panentheistic interpretation and that the claim “all is god” can be understood not simply to mean that “the world we know is nothing compared with the power of god” but that nothing exists outside god, that the world we know is a part of god or is derived from god as a result of emanation. but even if habad thought can be interpreted in this way, the point i wish to make is that heschel himself does not interpret the particular habad letter in question in this way and that he does not refer to it in order to endorse or elaborate a panentheistic viewpoint. 26 rudolf otto, the idea of the holy, trans. john w. harvey (oxford and new york: oxford university press, 1958), 10 (emphasis mine). as “a partner, a factor in the life of god,” each of us is “beyond the level of mere creature.”27 “what is decisive,” says heschel about our sense of self-worth in relation to god, “is not the acceptance of our own bankruptcy [nothingness], but, on the contrary, the realization of our great spiritual power, the power to heal what is broken in the world, the realization of our capacity to answer god’s question.”28 thus, comparing ourselves with god we may be overwhelmed by a sense of our own nothingness, yet contemplating our relatedness to god we may be uplifted by a sense of our transcendent dignity. while such a perspective implies an “analogy between creator and creature,”29 heschel does not subscribe to the view that creation is part of the creator. it therefore seems inappropriate to describe heschel’s theology as panentheistic, unless the term itself is redefined to mean that all creation exists within the domain of god’s presence, which does not distinguish it from forms monotheism that, like heschel’s, emphasize the all-embracing, though not allinclusive, presence of god. while rothschild does not distinguish what he calls heschel’s panentheistic perspective from the more common understanding of panentheism as the belief that all reality is part of god, he does point out that heschel emphasizes “the experience of the transcendent god whose voice speaks to the living. . . .”30 what is questionable, however, is rothschild’s suggestion that while “the awareness of god’s voice . . . leads to a view of god as transcendent,” “the awareness . . .of god’s glory ubiquitously sensed in and behind all things leads to a panentheistic 27 abraham joshua heschel, the prophets (new york: harper & row, 1962), 226. 28 man is not alone, 73. 29 the prophets, 229. 30 between god and man, 17. merkle, “heschel’s monotheism” 31 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 26-33 outlook,”31 implying that the glory is not as transcendent as the “voice,” or that the awareness of the glory does not also yield a vision of god as transcendent. yet, for heschel, the glory of god is as transcendent as god’s word. the phrases “glory of god” and “word of god” (or “voice of god’) metaphorically express the presence and revelation of the transcendent god. both “presence” and “revelation” are terms which suggest the immanence of god. but even as immanent, god transcends the world. it is therefore misleading to suggest that the god whose glory is “in and behind all things” is also transcendent, since it is precisely as transcendent that the glory is in and behind all things. in heschel’s words, “god remains transcendent in his immanence and related in his transcendence.”32 rothschild is not the only scholar to call heschel’s outlook panentheistic. on the basis of another of heschel’s statements, maurice friedman claims that “heschel’s philosophy is not a pantheism, but a panentheism.”33 when torn from its context, the statement on which friedman focuses does indeed sound panentheistic: “god means: togetherness of all beings in holy otherness.”34 this is not, however, the same as saying “god is the togetherness of all beings in holy otherness. while the words “means” and “is” are often interchangeable, the context of the statement with which we are concerned shows that in this case to say “god means the togetherness of all beings” is not the same as saying “god is the togetherness of all beings.” this is evident as soon as we read the sentences which precede 31 ibid. 32 the prophets, 486. 33 maurice friedman, “abraham joshua heschel: toward a philosophy of judaism,” conservative judaism 10:2 (winter 1956), 4, and “divine need and human wonder: the philosophy of abraham j. heschel,” judaism 25:1 (winter 1976):69. 34 man is not alone, 109. and follow the one in question. those sentences are: “god means: no one is ever alone. . .” and “god means: what is behind our soul is beyond our spirit; what is the source of ourselves is the goal of our ways.” obviously, the word “is” would be meaningless in place of the word “means” in these sentences.35 heschel’s point in these sentences is not to say what god is but what it means for us to be related to god. on the very same page, however, there is one “god is” sentence, and here it is clear that god is not the togetherness of all beings but the one who unites all beings: “god is he who holds our fitful lives together. . . .” god, according to heschel, is not the “cosmic or allinclusive whole” of charles hartshorne’s panentheistic process philosophy.36 heschel would not say, with hartshorne, “god is the wholeness of the world.”37 nor with john b. cobb, another self-acknowledged panentheistic process philosopher, would heschel say “we are parts of god.”38 even heschel’s statement that god is “being in and beyond all beings”39 should not be read in a panentheistic sense because, for heschel, while god’s being is within all beings, it is not in them as a part of them, and all beings are not parts of god’s being. in heschel’s words: “god is not all in all. he is in all beings but he is not all beings.”40 and in 35 that friedman misinterprets heschel by taking “god means” to be synonymous with “god is” is indicated not only by the fact that friedman claims that heschel’s philosophy is panentheistic, but also by the fact that he explicitly says that heschel favors “an understanding of god as ‘togetherness of all beings in holy otherness’” (“divine need and human wonder,” 77; emphasis mine). 36 charles hartshorne, a natural theology for our time (lasalle, il: open court, 1967), 7. 37 ibid., 6. 38 john b. cobb, god and the world (philadelphia: westminster press, 1969), 79. 39 man is not alone, 78. 40 ibid., 148. merkle, “heschel’s monotheism” 32 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 26-33 another unequivocally monotheistic statement concerning both the otherness and the intimate relatedness of god, heschel writes: “it is his otherness, ineffable and immediate as the air we breathe and do not see, which enables us to sense his distant nearness.”41 in heschel’s monotheistic world view, then, while god does not include the world, god does embrace the world, which means that “all existence is coexistence with god.”42 therefore, “we are not told to decide between ‘either-or,’ 41 man is not alone, 122. 42 man is not alone, 240. either god or the world,” but “to accept either and or, god and the world.”43 there are pantheists and panentheists who suggest that monotheism, as opposed to the idea of a divine universe, leads to human separation from nature and even to human disregard and mistreatment of the things of this world. but the demand of authentic monotheistic faith, like that espoused by heschel, is precisely the opposite – it is the demand to acknowledge “the sacred relevance of all being” and “to keep aflame our awareness of living in the great fellowship of all beings.”44 43 who is man?, 93. 44 man is not alone, 94 and 226. merkle, “heschel’s monotheism” 33 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ editors' introduction studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): i-ii editors’ introduction i http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art17 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college editors’ introduction philip a. cunningham and edward kessler 2/1 (2007): i-ii http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art17 studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): i-ii editors’ introduction ii http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art17 welcome to the second volume of studies in christianjewish relations. the editors are delighted by the interest raised by the publication of volume 1 from both the scholarly and student communities. the accessibility of this e-journal enables a wide readership and we are grateful to our editorial board and colleagues at the council of centers on jewish-christian relations for their encouragement and support. the feature topic in this first issue of volume 2 considers the significance of the life and writings of dietrich bonhoeffer (1906–45) to christian-jewish relations. many of the papers and conference proceedings presented originate from a conference dietrich bonhoeffer for our times: jewish and christian perspectives, co-sponsored by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college, the united states holocaust memorial museum, hebrew college, and the andover-newton theological school. much remains to be done in the examination of the years 1933-1945 and it is tempting to focus on what dr. kevin spicer in his recent study of the role of the catholic church has called, a "saints and sinners" approach that does not accurately portray what happened. the editors hope this temptation has been avoided and are pleased to offer a range of scholarly opinions on bonhoeffer. many of the issues that are raised remain a key feature of christian-jewish relations today. dietrich bonhoeffer was a protestant pastor and theologian, who was known for his opposition to hitler and hanged for involvement in the 1944 assassination attempt. he helped form the confessing church, which resisted state interference in church life, and exploited ecumenical contacts on behalf of the resistance. his attitude towards jews and judaism is the subject of much controversy, demonstrated by a variety of scholarly opinions over the bonhoeffer’s 1933 essay “the church and the jewish question.” as the articles in this issue show, his writings are not always consistent but they do suggest development in his views. in his ethics he wrote “the jew keeps open the question of christ,” implying that the continuing existence of judaism was essential to the continuance of christianity. contemporary debate turns on whether bonhoeffer is to be regarded as part of the problem jewish–christian relations must resolve or is one of the few theologians who made future dialogue possible. we would like to thank managing editor dr. audrey doetzel, nds, for her work in assembling this issue’s feature topic materials. in addition to the discussion on bonhoeffer, readers will notice a response to dr. jon levenson’s article, “can catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?” published in the last volume. dr henry wansbrough, a member of the pontifical biblical commission which composed the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible in 2001, offers an insightful critique of levenson’s article. the editors are keen to encourage scholarly responses to articles in the e-journal in order to foster discussion and debate in the field of christian-jewish relations. we welcome such contributions. finally, readers of the book reviews will notice that dr. ruth langer has become our new reviews editor and we are grateful for her willingness to take on this role. we also acknowledge with thanks the contributions to the first volume of drs helen spurling and emmanouela grypeou from cambridge university and dr. david sandmel from catholic theological union. this issue offers readers a number of reviews of key publications in the ever-growing field of christian-jewish relations. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review david r. wallace election of the lesser son: paul’s lament-midrash in romans 9-11 (minneapolis: fortress press, 2014), paper, xiii + 316 pp. joshua garroway, hebrew union college-jewish institute of religion the god paul describes in romans 9-11 can appear partial, arbitrary, and manipulative: partial insofar as god chooses jacob over esau to receive the divine promise; arbitrary insofar as no grounds are given for that choice; and manipulative insofar as god hardens the hearts of both pharaoh and the israelites in order to provoke the disobedience that moves salvation history forward. it is no wonder that the imagined interlocutor that paul inserts into his letter (e.g., 9:14, 19) routinely calls into question god’s justice. according to david r. wallace’s election of the lesser son: paul's lament-midrash in romans 9-11, appearances are deceiving. contrary to what it seems, wallace contends, a proper interpretation of romans 9-11 reveals that, for paul, god's promotion of the younger jacob was neither partial nor arbitrary, and god's treatment of human actors is always merciful and patient. it is just that interpreting this passage properly requires that readers be attuned to the specific form and style in which paul has couched his argument. wallace posits that romans 9-11 integrates an old testament form, the lament, with a rabbinic style of argument, midrash. the latter genre in particular calls upon readers to delve beneath the surface of paul’s text and to consider the context of his many biblical allusions. once that is done, wallace insists, god's purpose in electing jacob becomes clear and god's fundamentally fair and merciful character is revealed. studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 10 (2015) wallace's reading of rom 9-11 unfolds in five chapters, each examining a successive passage in paul’s so-called “lamentmidrash”: (1) “paul’s grief for israel,” 9:1-5; (2) “god’s faithful election of israel,” 9:6-29; (3) “israel’s failure to hear,” 9:30-10:21; (4) “the grace of god for israel,” 11:1-32; and (5) “paul’s praise to god,” 11:33-36. chapter two is the linchpin. here wallace does battle with the oft-expressed view that paul understands god’s election of jacob over esau—before either was yet born—as a demonstration of god’s inscrutable, seemingly arbitrary, sovereignty. such a view, wallace argues, fails to account for the prooftext paul adduces from malachi 1:2-3, “jacob i have loved, but esau i have hated.” the context of this oracle, in which malachi describes god’s annihilation of esau (qua edom) in order to warn jacob (qua israel), highlights the historical failure of both jews and gentiles. by choosing jacob over esau, god gave jews the opportunity to exhibit humility by submitting to god’s laws, and gentiles the opportunity to exhibit humility by submitting to israel’s superiority. according to malachi, everyone disobeyed: gentiles by showing contempt for israel, and israel by showing contempt for god. despite the disobedience, god has mercifully decided to embrace a new people composed of a remnant from among both israel and the gentiles. wallace’s claims rest upon this interpretation of malachi, though he largely follows prevailing interpretations of paul. in rom 9:30-10:21, paul indicts the non-remnant in israel for rejecting christ despite having heard the gospel; in rom 11:1-10, paul distinguishes between the hardened non-remnant in israel and those, like elijah and paul, who have remained true to god; in rom 11:11-32, paul explains how god permits hardened israelites, spurred by jealousy, to be readmitted into god’s people; and in rom 11:33-36, paul praises the wisdom and mercy in god’s plan for israel. readers will appreciate the careful attention wallace pays to the form and style of paul’s argument, which at times brings clarity to paul’s notoriously knotty rhetoric. it is especially helpful to be reminded that paul does not deploy biblical allustudies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr sions in a simplistic fashion. that said, i am not sure wallace demonstrates that rabbinic midrash is the best model for paul’s use of the septuagint. the (very) brief description of midrash in the book’s introduction does little justice to the depth and complexity of midrashic literature, and nearly every instance of “midrash / midrashic” in the remainder of the book could be replaced by “interpretation / interpretive” without compromising the point. readers may also wonder whether wallace’s approach to romans 9-11 amounts to special pleading on behalf of god. wallace insists over and again that god is merciful and impartial despite appearances. yet, the interpretations required to subvert the apparent challenges to theodicy in romans 9-11 are often tortured. when it comes to god’s seemingly inexplicable selection of jacob over esau, for example, wallace makes the choice explicable only by demanding a great deal from the prooftext from malachi. similarly complicated interpretations are required to declare god’s hardening of pharaoh’s heart an act of mercy, or to find in paul’s potter metaphor (9:21) a demonstration of god’s “gentle patience” (p. 104). even readers who are convinced by one or more of these interpretations might still wonder about the extent to which romans 9-11, a passage in which paul more than once emphasizes the inscrutability of god (rom 9:20; 11:33), can be expected to yield so crisp a portrait of god’s character, whatever it is understood to be. i suspect, therefore, that few readers will be convinced by wallace’s reading on the whole. even if they are not persuaded at every turn, however, those readers interested in paul’s deployment of the septuagint or his theology of election will no doubt profit from reading walter's book. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review hillary kaell walking where jesus walked: american christians and holy land pilgrimage (new york and london: new york university press, 2014), paperback, xiii + 269 pp. caitlin carenen, eastern connecticut state university in walking where jesus walked: american christianity and holy land pilgrimage, hillary kaell uses a broad subject— twenty-first century holy land pilgrimage—to examine a deeply personal issue—faith and relationships of modern pilgrims. three seemingly paradoxical themes emerge in her analysis: how pilgrims center their identity while traveling (home / away); how pilgrims balance the spiritual nature of the pilgrimage against the physical locality of the holy land (transcendent / material); and how pilgrims react to the lucrative business that is pilgrimage with the a-materiality of religion (religion / commerce). these three themes are then further examined through two lenses: the personal and institutional / cultural. in walking where jesus walked, kaell offers a new approach to modern pilgrimage studies by going beyond the pilgrimage itself to examine the preand post-travel experiences of pilgrims. ultimately, kaell argues that the juxtaposition of seemingly contradictory impulses make the pilgrimage “spiritually powerful” and can help the pilgrim “grapple with what it means to be a christian in the holy land today” and what it means to be a christian in america (p. 5). kaell, a religious studies scholar and ethnographer, conducted interviews with pilgrims before, during, and after their travels. this provides a rich perspective on the complex layers of contemporary american christian identity in a globalized world. the central question she asks is how contradictory impulses found in modern-day holy land pilgrimage can be understudies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) stood in the context of twenty-first century american christianity. indeed, the strength of this book lies in her refusal to separate the home / american experience from the journey itself and vice-versa. she examines the paradoxical theme of home “material” / away “imagined” (in other words, the reality / physicality of home versus imagined travel). kaell concludes that in order to stabilize or improve relationships at home, pilgrims visit the holy land. they do not seek new spiritual experiences (especially those that might challenge their evangelical or catholic beliefs), but rather seek to affirm or deepen existing belief. moreover, in interrogating the duality of transcendence / materiality, she discovers that pilgrims, particularly women, “refract” the arab-israeli conflict through a moral / religious lens and tend to eschew political engagement (p. 202). instead, they focus on the so-called “living stones”—the holy land residents (israeli jews, messianic jews, or palestinian christians) who offer a spiritual connection to the “biblical pastoral” world and even to jesus (p. 202). fear of the travel experience comes less from potential violence in the region and more from fear of disappointment with the experience itself (i.e. will it provide whatever transformation or change the pilgrim personally seeks?). one particularly interesting conclusion kaell offers is that catholics are growing more interested in a personal relationship with jesus and practicing home devotional studies, while evangelicals have begun to embrace the sensory experience of pilgrimage. such conclusions reflect her contribution to our understanding of twenty-first century christianity and its continuing evolution. finally, in examining the religion / commerce paradox, kaell concludes that pilgrims brand non-familiar practices as “commercialized” even as they use commercial experiences to justify their own, familiar practices (pp. 128, 130). gender plays a role in understanding how “middle-old” female pilgrims frame their decisions to spend money to take a pilgrimage. as kaell notes in her conclusion, “by purchasing tourism and souvenirs, pilgrims see themselves as doing and studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr giving,” while remaining within the confines of “gendered discourses of antimaterialism born of female sacrifice” (p. 205). the religious / commerce theme also suggests another paradox: the pilgrimage is for personal edification even as it strengthens the (mainly) female pilgrim to resume the role of primary caregiver once she returns home. also (perhaps as a side-note), the analysis of the religious / commerce theme offers a new perspective on the generally adroit israeli approach to promoting christian tourism in israel. on the other hand, kaell’s examples of clashes between israeli tours and american christians' expectations and desires, for example, provided some of the most colorful and interesting parts of the book. walking where jesus walked, by extending the research to before and after a pilgrimage, serves as a methodological correction to previous research that focused simply on the trip. also, kaell includes a group of pilgrims neglected in recent literature, american catholics. in so doing, kaell complicates the existing narrative that places catholics in an outdated dichotomy (“devotional foil to evangelicals’ biblicism” [p. 203]). another strength of her work is that it is deeply grounded in theory, including pilgrimage theory, and multi-disciplinary (drawing on material cultural studies, religious studies, anthropology, and sociology) and yet it remains generally accessible to a wide audience. she engages concepts of lived religion that examine global influences, even while recognizing that the participants do not view themselves as “implicated in global processes” and instead insist on a more localized selfidentification of themselves (p. 201). kaell’s willingness to engage pilgrims with sincerity (something missing in some other studies using similar methodologies) is refreshing and strengthens her analysis. on a minor note, the subtitle makes the claim that this assessment addresses american christians in general. yet the study very clearly focuses only on catholics and evangelicals, not on mainline protestants. kaell makes references to mainline protestants at different points throughout the book (often studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 9 (2014) grouping them with catholics, particularly in the context of approaches to palestinians), but only really examines catholics and evangelicals. this approach led this reviewer to wonder what evidence compelled kaell to make such generalizations about mainline protestants. this is a question of methodology more than the accuracy of her assessment. there were also minor mistakes that perhaps reflect brief moments of theological confusion (for example, a methodist is unlikely to pray to jesus’ mother mary [p. 91]). finally, while kaell’s dual lenses of personal and institutional / cultural are consistent throughout the book, proportionally she is far stronger in offering analysis of the personal experiences of the pilgrims. it is clear that this is what is most fascinating to her (perhaps owing to the time she spent accompanying groups on their pilgrimages). frankly, this (over) emphasis, while perhaps a weakness, nonetheless makes walking where jesus walked a pleasurable read. kaell’s research seamlessly blends theory and lived religion, and her illustrative examples from her interviews and observations cogently re-enforce her conclusions. for this reason, walking where jesus walked would find a ready audience in graduate courses in religion, religious history, sociology, and anthropology as well as among non-specialists. scjr 10 (2015) 1 peer-reviewed article prophetic matrix and theological paradox: jews and judaism in the holy week and pascha observances of the greek orthodox church 1 michael g. azar, university of scranton a sacred pascha has been shown to us today; a new and holy pascha; a mystic pascha; an all-venerable pascha; a pascha, which is christ the redeemer; a spotless pascha; a great pascha; a pascha of the faithful; a pascha, which has opened to us the gates of paradise; a pascha sanctifying all the faithful. first sticheron, aposticha, vespers of pascha pascha: the novel continuity the origins of the christian feast of pascha are well known yet shrouded in uncertainty. on the one hand, it is clear that the feast developed after jesus as an unremarkable continuation of the passover practices of jewish communities in the diaspora and the land of israel before the common era. 2 how this feast became an annual and, later, weeklong 1 an earlier version of this paper was presented in the bible in the eastern and oriental orthodox traditions section at the international meeting of the society of biblical literature in vienna, july 2014. 2 the diversity of passover practices in the communities of the diaspora and the land of israel before 70 ce was undoubtedly influenced (or is evidenced) by the diverging emphases of the feast in the torah itself. exodus 12, which stipulates that the ritual is to be performed by every family, with the slaughter of a small animal, reflects a nomadic environment. its emphasis is on the lord’s “passing over” the houses of the israelites on the night of the slaughter in egypt (see esp. exod 12:26–27). deuteronomy 16, with a single sacrifice in the temple in jerusalem on behalf of all israel that includes bullocks as well as sheep, reflects a sedentary, agricultural environment. the emphasis is not as much on the lord’s “passing over” as on the totality of exodus from egypt, the people’s “passing” out of slavery. scjr 10 (2015) 2 observance of jewish and gentile followers of jesus, however, is less straightforward. among the more ambiguous aspects of these uncertain origins is the gradual refashioning of the subject of commemoration in the feast. after his death, many of jesus’s followers continued celebrating the annual passover— pascha, in greek—but as the movement continued to grow, the focus of commemoration eventually expanded beyond the deliverance surrounding the events of the exodus from egypt toward the deliverance enacted in first-century jerusalem. as time went on, the mosaic focus remained in the commemorations, but the deliverance brought through christ, “our pascha” (1 cor 5:7), gradually took center stage. yet amid that innovation, certain elements persisted, most notably, for our purposes, the rhetorical recognition that god had somehow chosen “us” rather than “them.” as christianity grew into and beyond the fourth century, and the feast of pascha became increasingly historicized, the actual subjects of the “us versus them” continued to change, even while aspects of the rhetoric identifying “us” with “israel” or “zion” did not. with these elements of novelty and antiquity, innovation and continuity, the orthodox christian celebration of holy week and pascha—easily the liturgical highpoint of the year—comprises a variety of apparent theological, liturgical, and ethical incongruities. among the foremost of the latter is the texts’ presentation of jews and judaism. as amy-jill levine has poignantly asked of christian holy week in general, “[how] can a gospel of love be proclaimed, if that same gospel is heard to promote hatred of jesus’s own people?” 3 such an apparent contradiction in the holy week services has led to official amendments in the western counterparts to these texts, but not in the east, though there have been varied calls to enact such changes from clergy and laypeople, not the least 3 amy-jill levine, “holy week and the hatred of the jews,” abc religion and ethics, april 4, 2012, http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/04/3470618.htm (accessed october 2014). http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/04/3470618.htm scjr 10 (2015) 3 of whom was, it appears, ecumenical patriarch bartholomew, nearly twenty years ago. 4 what follows below is a textual examination of the many references to jews and judaism in the holy week and pascha services of the orthodox church, in light of two particular background elements: 1) the distinctive characteristics of orthodox christian theology more broadly and 2) the scriptural texts, namely the prophets and psalms, from which the liturgical texts draw. though the present-day worshiper’s actual experience of holy week and pascha is born from a blend of hymns, biblical and liturgical readings, as well as the sight, sounds, and smells of orthodox liturgical practice (a point that cannot be overstated), the present study admittedly extracts the hymnography of these services in order to analyze the varied images of jews and judaism provided therein. the purpose here is to establish some reasons for and characteristics of the presentation of jews and judaism in order to highlight what effects the emendation of the antagonistic references might have. caveats before proceeding too far, however, three caveats are necessary. first, the feast in orthodox parlance is typically referred to not as “easter” but “pascha” (the greek term for “passover”). herein lies a point that goes well beyond a mere semantic note. orthodox christians still call this feast by the same word used by the greek scriptures and greek-speaking jews (and christians) before and after jesus to refer to the celebration of israel’s deliverance from egypt. this feast, in other words, while undergoing tremendous change after jesus, is not a creation of the christian era, but a distinct inheritance of the passover that was well in place before jesus. to speak of the christian festival as “easter” but the jewish as “passover,” or to use scare quotes when referring to the christian celebration of passover but none when referring to the jewish, is to skew 4 see bert groen, “anti-judaism in the present-day byzantine liturgy,” journal of eastern christian studies 60 (2008): 369–87, here 382. scjr 10 (2015) 4 the origins and development of this feast, especially with regard to, or in favor of, the rabbinic jewish practices that continued to develop alongside of it. 5 the orthodox celebration of this feast bears with it the celebration of what god has done for his people, from creation, through the exodus, the prophets, jesus’s death and resurrection, toward the expansion of god’s people. intending to encapsulate all of these events, one cannot overlook that what the orthodox liturgical texts commemorate is not “easter” but “pascha”—namely, “the lord’s pascha” (kuriakē tou pascha; cf. ex 12:11). 6 second, the liturgical history of the orthodox holy week and pascha texts is an infamous mess wrapped in disorder, sprinkled with copious amounts of inconsistency. when discussing the development of the orthodox observances specifically, one must consider both the origins of the christian annual pascha per se as well as the historical shaping of the specifically byzantine practices. 7 as the feast was initially an inheritance of pre-christian passover, liturgically, at first, the feast was more or less one celebration, one unitive commemoration of god’s delivering his people (both in the exodus and through christ). by the fourth century, probably in jerusalem in connection with the holy sites, the feast was 5 the use of scare quotes with respect to christian “passover” is a common scholarly practice. see, for example, david brakke, “jewish flesh and christian spirit in athanasius of alexandria,” journal of early christian studies 9 (2001): 453-81, here 466 (with reference to jean juster, les juifs dans l’empire romain: leur condition juridique, économique et sociale [2 vols.; paris: p. geuthner, 1914]). 6 relatedly, but less significantly, “holy week” in greek orthodox texts is more commonly called “holy and great week” (hagia kai megalē hebdomas) or sometimes simply “great week.” 7 on the early origins of the feast more broadly, see especially s.g. hall, “the origins of easter,” studia patristica 15 (1984): 554-67; paul f. bradshaw, “the origins of easter,” in passover and easter: origin and history to modern times, ed. paul f. bradshaw and lawrence a. hoffman (notre dame, in: university of notre dame press, 1999), 81–97; thomas j. talley, the origins of the liturgical year (new york: pueblo, 1986), esp. 1–78, and clemens leonhard, the jewish pesach and the origins of the christian easter (berlin: walter de gruyter, 2006). scjr 10 (2015) 5 more or less “historicized.” rather than commemorate the deliverance of god’s people as a holistic event, the observances were partitioned into the observance of christ’s death on one day and his resurrection on the other. from there, the rest of the holy week observances grew. these observances, furthermore, underwent a complex evolution in the byzantine era, which essentially involved, as robert f. taft describes, “a three-step process of mutual borrowing”: 1) the great church of constantinople’s fusing of the liturgical practices of the monks in palestine with its own (as a result of the studite reforms especially); 2) jerusalem’s subsequent importing of this newly formed hybrid rite back from constantinople, and 3) the codification of this latter hybrid into what is now, more or less, the “byzantine rite.” 8 this evolution and repeated hybridization have left much liturgical diversity and inconsistency in contemporary practice. 9 8 robert f. taft, “in the bridegroom’s absence: the paschal triduum in the byzantine church,” in la celebrazione del triduo pasquale: anamnesis e mimesis. atti del iii congresso internazionale di liturgia, roma, pontificio istituto liturgico, 9-13 maggio1988 (rome: pontificio ateneo s. anselmo, 1990), 71–97 (here 74), reprinted in liturgy in byzantium and beyond (aldershot: variorum, 1995), no. v. cf. robert f. taft, “a tale of two cities: the byzantine holy week triduum as a paradigm of liturgical history,” in time and community: in honor of thomas julian talley, ed. j. neil alexander (washington, d.c.: pastoral, 1990), 21–41, reprinted in liturgy in byzantium and beyond, no. vi. the above summary of the liturgical development of the contemporary “byzantine rite” is admittedly brief and only begins to hint at the intricacies involved. for far fuller accounts, see, in addition to these two essays by taft, gabriel bertonière, the historical development of the easter vigil and related services in the greek church (rome: pont. institutum studiorum orientalium, 1972); sebastià janeras, le vendredi-saint dans la tradition liturgique byzantine: structure et histoire de ses offices (rome: pontificio ateneo s. anselmo, 1988), and alkiviadis c. calivas, great week and pascha in the greek orthodox church (brookline, ma: holy cross orthodox, 1992), 1–19. on the byzantine rite more broadly, see robert f. taft, the byzantine rite: a short history (collegeville, mn: liturgical, 1992). 9 regarding the liturgical inconsistencies in present practice, see pavlos koumarianos, “liturgical problems of holy week,” st. vladimir’s theological quarterly 46 (2002): 3–21. scjr 10 (2015) 6 an examination of the anti-jewish hymns in light of the tradition history of the liturgical texts would undoubtedly be— and has been—incredibly valuable, but what follows below is primarily a synchronic, rather than diachronic, examination that explores how jews and judaism appear in the texts as practiced contemporarily rather than in the multi-faceted development of the individual pieces, each of which originates from often significantly different times and places. 10 this synchronic focus, moreover, demands a third caveat. partly due to the complicated liturgical history as well as the decentralized structure of the orthodox church as a whole, one cannot speak of the holy week and pascha texts of the orthodox church. while many of the significant portions are the same across the various orthodox ecclesial centers, each church nonetheless has its own traditions. in the case of this study, i have chosen to analyze the texts as commonly practiced in one particular orthodox tradition: that of the parishes of the greek orthodox archdiocese of america, the largest of the orthodox jurisdictions in the united states. 11 though, again, 10 this is not to disregard the significance of the provenance of the various pieces of holy week and pascha, both in terms of 1) the fourth-century historicization of the feast—which appears to have perpetuated more antijewish elements—as well as 2) the more divisive “gentiles-versus-jews” aspects that originate in the liturgical rites and hymnography of constantinople—the politically tumultuous heart of the byzantine empire— rather than those of palestine (cf. elizabeth theokritoff, “the orthodox services of holy week: the jews and the new sion,” sobornost incorporating eastern churches review 25 [2003]: 25-50, here 30). 11 the moveable (variable) portions of the holy week and pascha services are found respectively in two liturgical books, the triodion and the pentecostarion. for a history of these texts, including the critical editions, see calivas, great week and pascha, 5–13 (esp. 11–13). there is no “official” greek/english compilation of the holy week and pascha texts, but the most widely used (including both the moveable/variable as well as immovable/fixed portions in both greek and english) in the greek orthodox archdiocese is george l. papadeas, comp., hai hierai akolouthiai tēs megalēs hebdomasos kai tou pascha/greek orthodox holy week and easter services (new english trans.; south daytona, fl: patmos, 2007). regarding papadeas’s compilation (which was first published in 1963), cavilas makes an apt observation: “this book has been reprinted several times and has enjoyed considerable popularity. because of this, it could be scjr 10 (2015) 7 the principal texts considered below are common to the majority of orthodox practices, i make no claims with regard to how these services are practiced in any other orthodox jurisdiction. this approach is simply a matter of focus and does not intend to underestimate the diversity and significance of the varied social and liturgical environments in which the relevant texts are sung and heard—environments, moreover, which cannot be fully communicated in this merely textual analysis. preference for paradox and the prophetic inheritance in the current shape of these observances, jews and judaism appear overwhelmingly, but not exclusively, with a negative stigma as the people and practice that have rejected christ. nonetheless, to dismissively characterize this negative portrayal as merely the result of an anti-jewish or antisemitic spin on dubious history overlooks its important theological roots and thrusts the question of contemporary emendation into a simplistic light. in order to highlight these theological roots, the exploration below argues that the literary characterizations of jews, judaism, and israelite history—and really all features of the holy week and pascha texts, including christ himself, the disciples, the crucifixion, the resurrection, etc.— arise from two key influences that shape the way the hymns exegete the biblical texts of pascha (that is, the gospels and exodus). the first is the orthodox theological preference for paradox and stark juxtaposition, and the second is the scrip said that in some respects, it has determined the manner by which the divine services are celebrated and observed in many parishes of the greek orthodox archdiocese” (great week and pascha, 12). for ease of reference and given its widespread use, this is the text whose page numbers i supply below (abbreviated as hai hierai akolouthiai). the english translations below are generally based on those of papadeas, though with modification where noted. for the services of holy week not found in papadeas’s edition (especially palm sunday vespers and matins), i will refer to the most widespread english translation of the triodion—namely, mother mary and kallistos ware, trans., the lenten triodion (london: faber and faber, 1978; repr., south canaan, pa: st. tikhon’s seminary press, 2002). citations below refer to the st. tikhon’s seminary press edition. scjr 10 (2015) 8 tural matrix for expressing rejection and redemption provided by the psalms and prophets in particular. from the gospel of luke, with its crucifixion of the seemingly aloof righteous sophos, 12 to starets zosima and his emphasis upon the true saint as the greatest sinner, 13 orthodox thought relishes the paradoxical, delights in the oxymoronic, and founds itself on the juxtaposition of the human and divine: the virgin who gives birth, the god who suffers, the incorruptible assuming the corruptible, the author of life becoming subject to death, the sinful woman who anoints jesus’s feet while the disciple betrays. one finds this love of dissonant juxtaposition forcefully expressed in the holy week and pascha texts, as the hymns often and unabashedly mold the biblical passages in order to highlight the divine-human paradox. in other words, these hymns do not record the mundane details of jesus’s judgment before caiaphas and pilate. rather, they liberally marvel that god specifically stood before a priest; they marvel that the judge of all stood before a temporal judge, 14 that the “lawgiver” was crucified “as lawless.” 15 the hymns do not tell the congregants merely that the man who suffered was innocent, but that the man who suffered was god. as the well-known hymn sung during the dramatic procession of the cross on holy thursday proclaims, today is suspended upon the tree, he who suspended the earth amid the waters; 12 see, for example, luke timothy johnson, the gospel of luke (sacra pagina 3; collegeville, mn: liturgical, 1991), 354–55. 13 starets zosima, for example, teaches, “there is but one salvation for you. take yourself in hand, and be answerable for the sins of all men. my friend, this is actually true: you need only make yourself sincerely answerable for everything and everyone, and you will see immediately that it really is so, and that it is you who are actually guilty of the sins committed by each and every man” (fyodor dostoevsky, the karamazov brothers, trans. ignat avsey [oxford: oxford university press, 1994], 401 [vi.3]). 14 kathisma before the fifth gospel, holy friday matins (hai hierai akolouthiai, 233). 15 sixth sticheron after lord i have cried, holy friday vespers (hai hierai akolouthiai, 342). scjr 10 (2015) 9 a crown of thorns crowns him, who is the king of the angels; he is wrapped in the purple of mockery, who wraps the heavens in clouds; he receives buffetings, who freed adam in the jordan; he is transfixed with nails, who is the son of the virgin. we worship your passion, o christ. show us also your glorious resurrection. 16 or again, from vespers on holy friday afternoon, a fearsome and marvelous mystery is today coming to pass: the incorporeal one is being held; the one freeing adam from the curse is bound; he who tries the inner hearts and thoughts of man is unjustly tried; he who sealed the abyss is shut up in prison. he before whom the powers of heaven stand with trembling stands before pilate; the fashioner is struck by the hand of the fashioned; the judge of the living and the dead is condemned to the cross; the despoiler of hades is closed up within a tomb: o forbearing lord, compassionately enduring all things and saving all from the curse, glory to you. 17 furthermore, beyond simply marveling at the divinehuman paradox, these hymns stand in awe more specifically of christ’s great sunkatabasis. often translated as “condescension” or “considerateness,” this word is central to patristic thought and exegesis as a literary means through which to express the work of salvation enacted by god, from creation 16 fifteenth antiphon, holy friday matins (hai hierai akolouthiai, 238 [modified]). 17 seventh sticheron after lord i have cried, holy friday vespers (hai hierai akolouthiai, 342–43 [modified]). scjr 10 (2015) 10 onward. 18 god led his people to salvation by “condescending” to their state. one finds the refrain, “glory to your sunkatabasis,” repeated on holy friday as a summarizing praise of christ’s passion. 19 in sum, when the hymns of holy week consider the gospel accounts and marvel at what is done to christ, they do so in a manner that highlights the absurdity of his sunkatabasis, well beyond what the gospels themselves do. this interpretive tendency toward accentuating paradox and sunkatabasis is chiefly what produces the overwhelmingly, but not entirely, negative picture of jews and judaism. in the same way that he who fashioned the heavens is struck by the hand that he fashioned, and he who is suspended on a tree is he who suspended the land upon the waters, so also he who gave the law is condemned as lawless by those to whom he gave the law and turned over to those who have no law. not coincidently, two of the most frequent descriptors marshaled against the antagonists are anomos and paranomos (both meaning “lawless”), sometimes with direct reference to jews or the synagogue, but most often as substantive adjectives. the two words grammatically express not mere betrayal, but the mystery of the law-recipients’ turning over the law-giver. those who had the law, who witnessed deliverance in the wilderness, have become “lawless.” 20 this stark and accusatory 18 see, for example, david rylaarsdam, john chrysostom on divine pedagogy: the coherence of his theology and preaching (oxford: oxford university press, 2014) as well as rylaarsdam’s dissertation out of which the book grew: “the adaptability of divine pedagogy: sunkatabasis in the theology and rhetoric of john chrysostom” (ph.d. diss., the university of notre dame, 1999). on the issue of translation specifically (and a key reason why i transliterate above), see r. c. hill, “on looking again at sunkatabasis,” prudentia 13 (1981): 3–11. 19 see, for example, the aposticha of holy friday vespers (hai hierai akolouthiai, 358–60). easily the climax of the service, this is chanted while the epitaphios is processed around the church, enacting the burial of christ. (literally meaning “tomb,” the epitaphios is a cloth embroidered with an icon of christ’s being removed from the cross and prepared for burial.) 20 undoubtedly, the frequent occurrence of these two words in the liturgical texts is inspired in part by the psalms and prophets, both of which repeat scjr 10 (2015) 11 juxtaposition fits smoothly, if undesirably, into the liturgical observances, given their dual emphases on both the exodus and the passion as the moments of salvation. this leads to the second key influence upon the holy week and pascha presentation of jews and judaism. as a means to fashion the distinctly jewish elements of the story in such a manner that they serve to accentuate the paradox of the god-man’s sunkatabasis, the hymns employ the motifs of rejection and redemption found time and again in the psalms and especially the prophets. 21 in other words, the holy week and pascha texts—through their lament of rejection, recognition of destruction, pleas for repentance, and so forth— intentionally and directly find their inspiration in the prophets, including the sometimes hyperbolic accusation that all of god’s people had rejected him and his prophet. as the prophets provide images by which christ is later understood (most famously, the suffering servant of isaiah), so also they provide images by which the reaction to christ is comprehended. 22 the holy week texts with near ubiquity fuse these two influences—the preference for paradox and the prophetic or psalmic precedent—to create an image in which god himself (that is, jesus) is rejected not just by those who did not know him, but by his own people. this point, moreover, is a chief reason why pilate’s culpability is notoriously diminished edly use the same words, particularly anomos, to describe god’s opponents or the speaker’s persecutors. this is the case especially with isa 53.12, whose line, “he was numbered with the lawless,” is repeated both in luke’s passion narrative (luke 22:37) as well as the hymns of holy week. 21 on the prophetic and psalmic influence, see especially theokritoff, “the orthodox services of holy week.” 22 take for example the liturgical words of christ himself, which interweave isaiah and the gospel events: “i gave my back to scourging, and turned not my face from spitting [cf. isa 50:6]; i stood before the judgment-seat of pilate [cf. matt 27:19; john 19:13], and endured the cross, for the salvation of the world [cf. john 4:42]” (final sticheron of the praises, holy friday matins [hai hierai akolouthiai, 258 (modified)]). scjr 10 (2015) 12 and that of the jews increased: god’s rejection by a pagan is nothing remarkable; god’s rejection by his own people accentuates the paradox of the god-man’s sunkatabasis. while pilate is by no means exonerated—he is clearly and repeatedly the one to whom christ is handed over—his treachery is not the focus because a gentile breaking the law is not as surprising as the law-bearers’ becoming lawless. 23 as much of the week progresses, this emphasis arises unambiguously as the hymns marvel not at the fact that gentiles misunderstood christ, but at the paradox that it was his own people who did so. 24 further evidence from palm sunday, holy friday, and pascha in many ways, palm sunday and pascha sunday appear as two peaks on either side of a valley. while the texts of holy week generally foreground the division between the congregants on the one hand and the culpability of jews and foolishness of gentiles on the other, palm sunday and pascha sunday show less concern for this sort of accusatory selfdistancing. rather, these two sundays are characterized by a universal, inclusive focus, reminiscent of (and assuredly influenced by) some of paul’s letters: all are subject to death, and all are redeemed through the death of christ. there is neither jew nor gentile; all are one in christ. 25 23 note, for example, the first verse of the eighth antiphon of holy friday matins, where pilate’s role is not denied, but neither is it the focus: “say, you lawless men; what have you heard from our savior? did he not set forth the teaching of the law and the prophets? how then, could you take counsel to hand over to pilate the word, god from god, the redeemer of our souls?” (hai hierai akolouthiai, 227 [modified]). 24 a similar idea appears in byzantine icons of the nativity of christ, where one finds the image of an ox and a donkey worshiping the newborn, a clear allusion to isaiah: “the ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master’s crib; but israel does not know, my people do not understand” (isa 1:3; nrsv). 25 see, e.g., romans 3; 1 cor 15:22; gal 3:28. scjr 10 (2015) 13 yet along with this emphasis on universality and ideal unity, the palm sunday hymns mold jesus’s entry into jerusalem in such a way so as to highlight a theological paradox—a paradox, moreover, employed by the prophets (e.g., isa 1:3), paul (e.g., 1 cor 1:18–31), and others. that paradox suggests that the foolish and simple understand god’s ways, even while the learned and wise authorities do not. thus, the psalm sunday hymns conflate, emend, and add to the gospel accounts in order to present the so-called “children of the hebrews” (paides hebraiōn) as the protagonists of the story (the phrase appears nowhere in the gospels) and their leaders as the antagonists. 26 it is “the children of the hebrews” who hold the palm branches and praise the entrance of christ while the leaders look on with disdain. 27 there is a deliberate juxtaposition here between the ignorant and the ostensibly learned leaders, similar to what one finds in the juxtaposition of the samaritan woman and nicodemus in john 3–4 or athanasius’s portrayal of the “unlettered” anthony and the philosophers. 28 the hymns encourage the congregants to imi 26 the gospels mention the “crowd” or “multitude” as holding the branches and do not specify further (see matt 21:8; mark 11:8; luke 19:37; john 12:13). however, in matthew’s account of the so-called temple cleansing immediately after the entrance into jerusalem, the author narrates, “but when the chief priests and the scribes saw the amazing things that he did, and heard the children [tous paidas] crying out in the temple, ‘hosanna to the son of david,’ they became angry and said to him, ‘do you hear what these are saying?’ jesus said to them, ‘yes; have you never read, “out of the mouths of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise for yourself?”’” (matt 21:15–16; nrsv). the palm sunday hymns, in freely conflating multiple accounts into one, particularly with regard to the two “entrances” of christ into both the temple (to “cleanse” it) and jerusalem (on palm sunday), continue a long-standing christian hermeneutical tendency (see, e.g., origen, commentary on john 10.119–306). 27 e.g., second sticheron for lord i have cried, palm sunday vespers (the lenten triodion, 489), et alibi. palm sunday vespers, served on saturday night, is not included in papadeas’s edition, which begins, rather, with the first bridegroom matins on palm sunday night. 28 see esp. athanasius, life of anthony 72. the juxtaposition of the seemingly ignorant, yet eventually enlightened, with the fully culpable and erudite leaders is a well-established theme in christian literature (and one that relates closely to jesus himself as well as the crowds that follow him; cf. jn 7:15, 49). such a theme, furthermore, shapes the way that one of the scjr 10 (2015) 14 tate the children, while berating the jewish leaders for not grasping what their own children did. 29 as the week progresses through the bridegroom matins of holy monday, tuesday, wednesday, and thursday, 30 the ideal unity of jews and gentiles clearly breaks down in light of christ’s impending crucifixion: the hymns precariously, and sometimes inconsistently, distance the congregants from the culpability of jews and foolishness of gentiles, while also specifically condemning the leaders (rather than the people as a whole). by the thursday night service of holy friday matins (the service of the twelve gospels 31 ), however, events take a more drastic turn. at first, the hymns carry on a juxtaposition that had been building since palm sunday between the unnamed sinful woman who anoints jesus and the disciple most influential patristic exegetes, cyril of alexandria, presents the passion according to the fourth gospel: it is the story of the wise teacher attempting to persuade the ignorant multitude away from the malevolent, but seemingly learned, leaders (see commentary on john 11–12). regarding palm sunday specifically, see also (pseudo-)epiphanius, homilia in festo palmarum (pg 43.436.27). 29 see, e.g., the apolytikion of palm sunday (the lenten triodion, 492). an important exception to this broad summary of the palm sunday motifs is the third sticheron of lord i have cried at palm sunday vespers (the lenten triodion, 489). here, the congregants are addressed as the “new israel, the church of the gentiles/nations” (ho neos israēl, hē ex ethnōn ekklēsia). this hymn is oddly dissonant with the more inclusive character of the rest (see theokritoff, “the orthodox services of holy week,” 27– 29). on the congregants as gentiles, see also the final verse of the ninth antiphon of holy friday matins, which alludes to gal 3:10–14 (hai hierai akolouthiai, 228). 30 these services are so named due to their focus on christ as the coming bridegroom for whom one must be ready (cf. matt 25:1–13). as with all of the services of holy week from sunday evening onward, the monday matins is served the previous evening. holy thursday matins, which is served wednesday night in many jurisdictions, is not typically served in the greek orthodox archdiocese. 31 while the service on holy thursday night is indeed a matins service for the following day, its hallmark is the twelve gospel readings that detail the final hours and passion of christ. scjr 10 (2015) 15 who betrays him. 32 the focus is on the inward comparison of my own soul with these two routes, asking which direction my soul will take. when the hymns speak more historically of the actual events of the crucifixion, they do so at first by blaming the religious leaders. their inspiration is an adapted form of ps 2:2, a verse that occurs repeatedly in the course of the service: “the rulers of the people took council together against the lord and against his anointed.” 33 but the turn comes with the sixth antiphon (after the second gospel reading): today, the jews nailed to the cross the lord who divided the sea with a rod and led them through the wilderness. today they pierced with a spear the side of him who for their sake smote egypt with plagues; they gave him gall to drink, who rained down manna on them for good. 34 shown here in parallel lines, the hymnographer’s preference to express the paradox of the god-man and the wonder of his sunkatabasis is clearly evident. in light of the dual commemoration of the first pascha with moses and the pascha of christ’s passion, exodus’s record of the people’s turning away from their deliverer time and again is not lost on these hymns. the same people whom christ led through the red sea at the first pascha now turn away at this pascha of crucifixion. 35 “the jews” are thus presented as the very same people whom christ freed in the red sea and fed with manna, as the hymn is replete with imagery that highlights the paradox: the tangible 32 the hymns, which conflate multiple gospel accounts, do not name the woman juxtaposed with judas, though john’s version identifies her as mary, martha’s sister (see john 12:1–8). 33 the holy week texts add laōn (“of the people”) after “rulers,” whereas the lxx simply has “rulers” (see, e.g., hai hierai akolouthiai, 216). 34 second verse of the sixth antiphon, holy friday matins (hai hierai akolouthiai, 223 [modified]). 35 see also the sixth sticheron of lord i have cried, holy friday vespers (hai hierai akolouthiai, 342). scjr 10 (2015) 16 tools used (nails and a rod), the act of violence (piercing and smiting), and the offering of food (gall and manna). 36 in the eleventh antiphon (after the fourth gospel reading), the indictment strengthens, and the guilt of those who condemned christ is underscored: in return for the good things that you granted, christ, to the offspring of the hebrews [tōi genei tōn hebraiōn], they condemned you to be crucified, giving you vinegar and gall to drink. but render unto them, lord, according to their works, for they have not understood your sunkatabasis. 37 amid this paradox of condemnation in return for good gifts, the “offspring of the hebrews” are indicted because they have not understood christ’s sunkatabasis specifically. 38 what is more, the hymn employs the prophetic matrix provided by lamentations, where the author laments the destruction of jerusalem by enumerating the sins of his own people. yet, despite his recognition of the failings of his own people, the author wishes the lord to “pay [the destroyers] back for their works” (lam 3:64). the hymns of holy week bear a similarly dissonant tension between the recognizably sinful souls of the congregants singing and the sins of those who actually brought the destruction of jesus. to say the least, lamentations does not comprise the only instance in which a biblical author calls 36 one hears a concise summary of this perspective the following night as well, in the canon of holy saturday matins: “the children of those who were saved bury under the ground the one who long ago buried the pursuing tyrant in the waves of the sea” (hai hierai akolouthiai, 376). 37 first verse of the eleventh antiphon, holy friday matins (hai hierai akolouthiai, 232 [modified]), sung after the reading of john 18:28–19:16. 38 writers such as athansius and john chrysosom, among others, employ a similar accusation against arians and neo-arians, as the term fittingly describes the reality of the incarnation vis-a-vis the claim that christ was merely a created being (see, e.g., athanasius, against the arians 2.62). scjr 10 (2015) 17 for the lord to payback the destroyers of jerusalem’s temple despite the admitted sins of his own people (see, e.g., psalm 79). and given that jesus’s jewish and gentile followers since at least the fourth gospel looked to jesus as the temple that was destroyed (see john 2:18–22), such prophetic and psalmic motifs find a conceptually fitting home in the poetic reflections on his passion. of all the holy week texts in which the jews appear negatively, the most striking are the improperia or “reproaches” (as they are commonly known in western liturgy): the hymns within the antiphons that comprise first-person addresses on behalf of christ toward the people, especially those who crucify him. these hymns, which have an important place in the history of christian-jewish relations, have several scriptural precedents. first, there are the words of christ himself: in john 10:32, jesus says to “the jews” who are about to stone him, “i have shown you many good works from the father. for which of these are you going to stone me?” (nrsv). second, and perhaps more importantly, there are the numerous psalmic and especially prophetic first-person addresses of the lord toward his people who have wronged him. jeremiah’s fifth lament serves as one example, in which, not coincidently, jeremiah asks why the people who are “plotting” and taking “counsel” against him are repaying him “evil” for “good” (18:20). biblical scholars have often noted the gospels’ typological shaping of christ in the image of a prophet like jeremiah; the holy week hymns simply follow in that tradition. 39 the first of these first-person addresses arises in the twelfth antiphon of friday matins: 39 with regard to matthew, for example, where this motif is particularly evident, see michael p. knowles, jeremiah in matthew’s gospel: the rejected prophet motif in matthean redaction (jsntsup 68; sheffield: jsot, 1993). see also gary e. yates, “intertextuality and the portrayal of jeremiah the prophet,” bibliotheca sacra 170 (2013), 286–303, esp. 295– 302. scjr 10 (2015) 18 thus says the lord to the jews: “my people, what have i done to you, or how have i wearied you? to your blind, i gave light; your lepers, i cleansed your paralytic, i raised up. my people, what have i done to you, and how have you recompensed me? instead of manna, gall; instead of water, vinegar; instead of loving me, you nailed me to the cross. no longer do i endure; i will call the nations [ethnē] to me, and they will glorify me with the father and the spirit; and i will grant them eternal life.” 40 within this litany of prophet-like reminders of all the good “the lord” has given “the jews” is an allusion to ps 69:21. in this verse, which one finds in the gospels themselves, the psalmist records, “they gave me gall for food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar” (nrsv). but here the twelfth antiphon makes an important change by explicitly recalling the exodus, in which the lord provided manna and water. thus, rather than repeating this verse more accurately, the hymn says, “instead of manna, gall; instead of water, vinegar.” the change serves to accentuate the paradox and juxtaposition between the pascha of the exodus and the pascha of christ’s passion. 41 40 first verse of the twelfth antiphon, holy friday matins (hai hierai akolouthiai, 232–33 [modified]). 41 the third hour (observed friday morning) summarizes this perspective: “the jews, o lord, condemned you, the life of all, to death; the ones who, by the staff, crossed the red sea on dry land nailed you to a cross, and those whom you suckled with honey from the rock brought you gall. but willingly you endured to free us from the bondage of the enemy. christ our god, glory to you” (hai hierai akolouthiai, 293 [modified]). scjr 10 (2015) 19 the first sticheron of the praises after the ninth gospel reading from the same night carries a similarly direct employment of the prophets: israel, my first-born son, committed [epoiēsen] two evils: he forsook me, the source of living water, and hewed out for himself a broken well; he crucified me on the tree and asked for the release of barabbas; the heavens were aghast at this, and the sun hid its rays; yet, you, israel, were not ashamed, but delivered me to death. forgive them, holy father, for they do not know what they have done [epoiēsan]. 42 presented as if spoken by the very same lord who both freed israel from egypt and was later crucified, the first line is a direct quotation of the lord’s speaking through the prophet in jer 2:13. with these words in jeremiah, the lord calls for israel to repent by providing a stark juxtaposition between the god who freed from egypt and the israelites who repay with rebellion. similarly to jeremiah and others (see ezek 43:10, et alibi), these words from holy week call for israel to be ashamed. but even with such a call, the last line encapsulates perhaps the most prominent notions in all of these services: repentance and forgiveness (cf. luke 23:34). carrying on a similar motif of first-person addresses and indictments, other hymns of holy friday hours and vespers (observed holy friday morning and afternoon, respectively) continue with paradoxical reminders of what the lord (that is, christ) had done for his people in both the exo 42 hai hierai akolouthiai, 257 (modified). scjr 10 (2015) 20 dus and the gospels. 43 in one such hymn from the sixth hour (observed friday morning), the congregants are exhorted to behold what the “lawless priests” have plotted with judas, in order to—note the juxtaposition and sunkatabasis—“judge the immortal word guilty of death” and deliver him to pilate. yet, the hymn again ends with a surprising request on christ’s behalf: suffering these things, our savior cried out saying, “father, forgive them this sin, that the nations [ethnē] may know my resurrection from the dead.” 44 further reminiscent of the prophetic matrix, the speaker neither denies the erstwhile sins of the people nor fails to offer an intercessory plea for god’s compassion. 45 as the days of holy week pass from friday to saturday and sunday, they return to where they left off on palm sunday: departing, for the most part, from the human level of history and the events of christ’s final days, they ascend to the divine and universal, marveling at the paradox of the divinity who lies in the tomb. the more universal—and less historicized—emphases come out especially strongly in the hymns of holy saturday night, namely, in the paschal matins and liturgy. there is far less self-distancing of the congregants from 43 see hai hierai akolouthiai, 294 (third hour), 305 (sixth hour, though repeated from holy friday matins), 321 (ninth hour), 342 (sixth sthicheron after lord i have cried, holy friday vespers). 44 hai hierai akolouthiai, 306 (modified). 45 fittingly, in the ninth hour reading from the prophets (the final such reading of the morning, a compilation of jer 11:18–23; 12:1–4, 9–11, 14– 15), jeremiah laments rejection while the lord indicts his people for their sin. nonetheless, the lord ends with a note of compassion that he will again restore his people. meanwhile, the epistle reading that immediately follows these selections from jeremiah comes from hebrews and, in quintessential hebrews fashion, reminds the congregants that though god’s punishment with regard to the law of moses seemed harsh, those who now have received the “knowledge of truth” but neglect it will be punished all the more (see heb 10:19–31). scjr 10 (2015) 21 those who ostensibly rejected christ, jews on the one hand or gentiles on the other, as they instead concentrate on the cosmic dimension of what has transpired. 46 the focus is on adam and the renewal of all of creation, and as such, the hymns repeatedly employ the psalmic matrix in order to call for zion, jerusalem, and all of creation to rejoice. 47 christ has united our flesh—jew and gentile—to his and redeemed us from death that held us captive. interestingly, the first-person hymns of christ are addressed now not to those who crucified him, but to his mother and all of creation. 48 conclusion: reflections on amending or removing problematic texts the texts reviewed above are by no means the only texts of interest with regard to the negative image of jews and judaism presented during holy week and pascha, nor perhaps are they among the most problematic with respect to contemporary concerns. 49 these texts have been chosen, rather, in order to foreground certain key influences that direct 46 one important exception is the first sticheron of the canon (sung both at holy saturday and the paschal matins [hai hierai akolouthiai, 376 and d, between pp. 447 and 448]). here again one finds the juxtaposition between those who were freed in the exodus while pharaoh was buried in the sea and those who bury christ while “we” are exhorted to praise the lord. (bibliographic note: papadeas added the hymns of the paschal matins to his compilation only in later printings; these pages are numbered with the letters a through l between pp. 447 and 448.) 47 see hai hierai akolouthiai, 456, 459, et alibi. 48 see, e.g., the ninth ode, sung at the paschal matins on saturday night (hai hierai akolouthiai, k–l [between pp. 447 and 448]). 49 in my opinion, some of the most problematic hymns that do occur (and which i have briefly mentioned above) are those very few that identify the congregants positively and seemingly exclusively as gentiles. for a fuller account of the problematic texts and issues raised, see especially thomas kratzert, “wir sind wie die juden”: der griechisch-orthodoxe beitrag zu einem ökumenischen jüdisch-christlichen dialog (berlin: institut kirche und judentum, 1994), esp. 161–182 and also the slew of related articles by bert groen, e.g., “anti-judaism in the present-day byzantine liturgy” and “attitudes towards judaism in greek-byzantine liturgy: anti-judaism in holy week texts and the appreciation of israel’s righteous,” analecta bruxellensia 12 (2007): 81–93. scjr 10 (2015) 22 the manner in which jews and judaism are shaped. the image that the texts offer is by and large, but not entirely, negative, and that is due chiefly to two reasons: the first is the orthodox preference for paradox, the stark juxtaposition between saint and sinner, the divine and human, that frequently finds its expression in the poetic marveling at the sunkatabasis of the creator and fashioner becoming subject to death. the second is the motifs provided to the hymnographers by the psalms and prophets, in which time and again god laments, often hyperbolically, his people’s rejection inspite of benevolance. to poetically and hyperbolically assert that god’s people have rejected him despite the good things they have received is not new, so to speak. what is new is the reason for that rejection: and that frequently has to do with the people’s refusal to accept the paradox, to accept the sunkatabasis of the god of exodus on the cross. the question of amending the liturgical texts in order to remove the negative image warrants a few additional points. first, the orthodox church has frequently amended its liturgical texts and observances for a variety of reasons. with regard to the practices of holy week specifically, one could mention the addition of the procession of the cross during holy friday matins (holy thursday night)—one of the most distinct and memorable moments of orthodox holy week, but one that was not added until the nineteenth century. 50 with regard to the negative presentation of entire groups, one could mention the contemporary practice of no longer proclaiming the synodikon of orthodoxy—a text that originates in the triumph against iconoclasm and is now proclaimed on the first sunday of lent (the “sunday of orthodoxy”)—with the more original censures against “the greeks.” 51 to choose to remove negative 50 see calivas, great week and pascha, 68. as taft notes more broadly, many of the “mimetic elements” in contemporary byzantine holy week practice “are so late as to be almost modern” (“a tale of two cities,” 34). 51 greek patristic writers commonly used hellēn to refer to those who assimilated beyond the acceptable borderlines of christian practice (as jews earlier did for similar reasons). most literally, the word is translated as “hellene” or “greek,” though “gentile,” “pagan,” or “heathen” are often scjr 10 (2015) 23 references against jews is not far from this, and to choose to amend liturgical texts is not, historically speaking, unorthodox. 52 second, a few english translations used by the faithful within the greek orthodox archdiocese have already removed such references. 53 one popular translation inserts “judean” whenever ioudaios is mentioned—as some have suggested especially for the gospel of john—and another generalizes the term, translating ioudaioi or “sons of israel” as “the lord’s own people,” or “the lawless ioudaioi” in the substantive as simply “the lawless.” 54 far more than the first, the second option of generalizing the references has some merit (though it still does little with regard to the original greek). after all, the original holy week texts themselves already frequently generalize. they more often than not simply speak of the “impious and lawless” or “unjust council,” when, histor used to express its usage among christian and jewish writers. oddly enough, in much patristic usage, “greek” and “jew” have parallel histories, as both were rhetorical devices employed to delineate two different borders around acceptable christian practice, depending on the nature of the heresy (see douglas boin, “hellenistic ‘judaism’ and the social origins of the ‘pagan-christian’ debate,” journal of early christian studies 22 [2014]: 167–96). more broadly, see judith m. lieu, christian identity in the jewish and graeco-roman world (oxford: oxford university press, 2006). 52 indeed, as many liturgical scholars have noted, a variety of elements in contemporary holy week and pascha practice is in need of liturgical reform (see, e.g., taft, “a tale of two cities,” esp. 34–35, and koumarianos, “liturgical problems of holy week”). 53 though not touched upon here, the same is the case with regard to english translations used by other jurisdictions as well, as evidenced, for example, by passion and resurrection (cambridge, ny: new skete, 1995), a translation of the holy week and pascha texts by the monks of new skete, a monastery within the orthodox church in america (oca). furthermore, many orthodox parishes commonly use texts and translations as increasingly provided on diocesan websites, and these translations themselves are periodically adjusted and updated. 54 the first is the papadeas translation used here (and hence a reason for modifying many of the translations); the second is leonidas c. contos, trans., the services for holy week and easter (northridge, ca: narthex, 1999). scjr 10 (2015) 24 ically, it is clear that the people to whom they refer were jews. such generalization, moreover, still bears the ability to emphasize the intended juxtapositions while also allowing the congregants to identify themselves with those who turn against christ. third, the potential removal of negative references to jews raises a concern analogous to those of many historicalcritics with regard to the gospels, particularly the gospel of john. to disregard, generalize, or abstract all references to jews stands in danger of completely dehistoricizing and decontextualizing jesus, his life and his passion. the ioudaioi—as they were increasingly called, especially by outsiders, by the time of jesus—were in fact his people, ethnically speaking and in terms of shared cultural heritage (but not necessarily, one should underscore, politically). 55 one cannot dehistoricize the contemporarily unattractive aspects of the jewishness of jesus or those with whom he interacted, whether to avoid the positive aspects of the jewishness of the characters (e.g., that jesus was a practicing jew) or the negative (e.g., that some fellow jews handed him over to pilate). to completely dehistoricize the texts in such a way that jews become entirely uninvolved in christ’s ultimate demise would lose what is a tremendously essential element of the hymns: that the creator and redeemer from the books of moses is rejected by the same people whom he created and redeemed. to completely dehistoricize would lose the stark juxtaposition, the marvel of paradox, that so underscores the way orthodoxy understands the mystery of the god-man who was voluntarily crucified on a tree that he created. that being said, however, there is much in the texts that reflects classic greek psogos or “invective,” a rhetorical form of vilification that was unremarkably typical in earlier 55 sources on the use and referent of ioudaioi in antiquity abound. see, for example, sean freyne, “behind the names: galileans, samaritans, ioudaioi,” in galilee through the centuries: confluence of cultures, ed. eric meyers (winona lake, in: eisenbrauns, 1999), 39–55. scjr 10 (2015) 25 centuries. though the rhetorical elements allowed and encouraged by the form of psogos are indeed troubling and shocking to modern ears, they were not necessarily tied to actual violence. 56 such is evidenced by the varied treatment— ranging from violent opposition to stalwart defense—of jews under the byzantine empire and within orthodox christian countries since. 57 but this is also a rhetorical form that is no longer accepted, at least in the west (the hyperbolic rhetoric of other cultures, particularly those where the orthodox church is more ancient, not withstanding). one simply does not speak of one’s opponents as a “pack of dogs” or a “swarm 56 aphthonius, a late fourth-century rhetorician who authored one of the textbooks on rhetoric (progymnasmata) that was widely used in byzantine education, describes psogos as discourse that expounds “evil attributes” but differs from koinos topos in that, rather than “propose punishment” (epagesthai kolasin), it “contains mere slander alone” (psilēn monēn echein diabolēn; progymnasmata 10.27, h. rabe, ed., aphthonii progymnasmata [leipzig: teubner, 1926]). 57 sources on jews in the byzantine empire abound; for a recent and wideranging examination, see robert bonfil, et al., eds., jews in byzantium: dialectics of minority and majority cultures (leiden: brill, 2012). on more recent orthodox christian-jewish relations and dialog, see george c. papademetriou, essays on orthodox christian-jewish relations (bristol, in.: wyndham hall, 1990); malcolm lowe, ed., orthodox christians and jews on continuity and renewal: the third academic meeting between orthodoxy and judaism (immanuel 26/27) (jerusalem, 1994); nicholas de lange, “the orthodox churches in dialogue with judaism,” in challenges in jewish-christian relations, ed. james k. aitken and edward kessler (new york: paulist, 2006), 51–62, and irina levinskaya, “jewish-russian orthodox christian dialogue,” in challenges in jewishchristian relations, ed. james k. aitken and edward kessler (new york: paulist, 2006), 63–68. amid the most well known of violent oppositions (especially with regard to holy week) are the russian pogroms of the1880s (see john doyle klier, russians, jews, and the pogroms of 1881– 1882 [cambridge: cambridge university press, 2011]). among the ardent defenses is the 1568 encyclical of ecumenical patriarch metrophanes iii that was issued after a localized outbreak of anti-jewish violence and declared that “those christians who commit these insolent acts against the jews are excommunicated from god almighty and are cursed and are unforgiven and remain bound even after death” (trans. papademetriou, essays on orthodox christian-jewish relations, 87–88). scjr 10 (2015) 26 of god-slayers [theoktokōn]” 58 anymore. such appearances of psogos rhetoric one can do without, while nonetheless hopefully preserving the marvel of the paradox of christ’s divine sunkatabasis. in fact, when ecumenical patriarch bartholomew acknowledged the need to amend these texts, it seems that he called for the removal of these specimens of psogos specifically. 59 fourth, one ought not decontextualize the conversation related to possible emendation of these texts. to abstract any conversation related to orthodox christian-jewish relations denies, for example, the considerably different contexts in which orthodox christians of russia or the west and orthodox christians of palestinian communities find themselves. the orthodox patriarchate of jerusalem, as one important example, has diverse, complicated, and often tense relationships with the state of israel, other orthodox churches (which are independent of each other) and, most importantly, the christian faithful in its care that each offers a unique dimension to the need for the betterment of christian-jewish relations. the call to amend these liturgical texts in countries where christians experience little or no tension or hardship in the name of judaism or a jewish state is a call that must be articulated carefully and sensitively when transferred to those areas where christians indeed experience such things. 60 58 third sticheron of the beatitudes after the sixth gospel, holy friday matins (hai hierai akolouthiai, 242). this otherwise harsh sticheron follows the verse, “blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy” (matt 5:7). 59 see groen, “anti-judaism,” 382. 60 of the latter, take for example the recent defacement of an orthodox church in israel, with slogans such as “jesus [is] garbage” and “death to arabs” sprawled on its walls (see ilan ben zion, “church defaced in jerusalem in suspected ‘price tag’ hate attack,” the times of israel, may 9, 2014, http://www.timesofisrael.com/church-defaced-in-jerusalem-insuspected-price-tag-attack/ [accessed march 2015]), or the torching of an orthodox seminary in jerusalem (see judah ari gross, “jerusalem christian seminary targeted in apparent hate crime,” the times of israel, february 26, 2015, http://www.timesofisrael.com/jerusalem-christianseminary-targeted-in-alleged-hate-crime/ [accessed march 2015]). http://www.timesofisrael.com/church-defaced-in-jerusalem-in-suspected-price-tag-attack/ http://www.timesofisrael.com/church-defaced-in-jerusalem-in-suspected-price-tag-attack/ http://www.timesofisrael.com/jerusalem-christian-seminary-targeted-in-alleged-hate-crime/ http://www.timesofisrael.com/jerusalem-christian-seminary-targeted-in-alleged-hate-crime/ scjr 10 (2015) 27 a final point: there is always a risk when analyzing a set of texts according to a category that does not chiefly concern those texts. whether or not one calls for the amending of these texts, one cannot and should not characterize them in such a way so as to make the anti-jewish passages appear as the norm while relegating the non-antagonistic or even positive references to mere exceptions (the term “anti-jewish” as a generalized descriptor often obscures more than it reveals). such characterization inappropriately labels these services as something they are not, and inapt categorization rarely serves to benefit. one must not, in other words, categorize the holy week and pascha texts as products of anti-jewish fervor rather than products of theological encounters with the god-man, the author of life who became subject to death, that repeatedly marvel at the redemption of all of humankind, jews and greeks, through the conquering of death. the unifying, universal, and inclusive nature of pascha, the feast of feasts, comes out especially clearly in the final troparion of matins before the midnight paschal liturgy—easily the climax of the week and a fitting place to conclude: it is the day of resurrection; let us be made bright in the festival, and let us embrace one another; let us say, “brothers,” even to those who hate us; let us forgive all things in the resurrection, and thus let us exclaim, “christ is risen from the dead, trampling death by death, and to those in the tombs, bestowing life.” 61 61 hai hierai akolouthiai, 460 (modified significantly). cf. gregory of nazianzus, oration 1.1. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review walter brueggemann chosen?: reading the bible amid the israeli-palestinian conflict (louisville, kentucky: westminster john knox press, 2015), softcover, xviii + 88 pp. peter a. pettit, muhlenberg college in the toxically polarized arena of israeli-palestinian issues, it is often most judicious to allow new advocates of the most entrenched viewpoints to enter and have their say without notice, particularly when the entry is framed as a brief, popular treatment that comes complete with a study guide in the familiar format inviting discussion and reflection in the adult forums of christian congregations. when the advocate is a magisterial scholar and teacher of the bible known globally for his critical expertise and his congenial pastoral style, though, who tells us he will show us “how to read the bible responsibly” (p. 1), the entry can hardly be ignored. add to this the explicitly politicized character of the work, and a robust engagement is unavoidable. so it is with walter brueggemann’s slim, four-chapter volume, which he tells us is “my attempt to fulfill my vocation as a teacher of the church” (p. x). he writes from a judgment “that important initiatives must be taken to secure the human rights of palestinians,” with the “hope that u.s. christians will become more vigorous advocates for human rights and will urge the u.s. government to back away from a one-dimensional ideology for the sake of political realism” (pp. xv-xvi). five unnumbered pages of introductory testimonials to the value of the book, from ten prominent activists, scholars, and church bureaucrats aligned with human rights and palestinian causes, confirm that the publisher’s intent is consistent with the author’s. brueggemann further establishes his standpoint when studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 10 (2015) he acknowledges that his study “has been informed by the witness of naim stifan ateek and the ongoing work of sabeel” (p. x), that “most important for [him] has been an ongoing conversation with mark braverman” (p. x), and that “there is…no realistic hope for any two-state solution” because “israel…never intends to allow a viable palestinian state” (p. 58). in his four chapters, brueggemann deals with biblical hermeneutics, the “claim and problem” of chosenness, the land promise, and zionism. he operates throughout with a number of repeated truisms. first, any “straight-line” reading from scripture to present-day issues is suspect (p. 10); second, the hardening of a symbol into an ideology is dangerous; and third, there is a profound need to deal with facts on the ground and to undertake clear-eyed socio-geopolitical analysis. would that his truisms more frequently shaped his own work. when it suits, he is quite adept at inferring “one dimension of [seemingly immutable] judaism” from “ezra the exclusionist” (pp. 5-6) and implying that the ideology of contemporary zionism is “of a piece with that ancient conquest of the ‘city of david’” (p. 50). similar straight lines are drawn regarding israel’s chosenness as conditional or unconditional (p. 18), our capacity to conclude from biblical texts what the enduring truth is about the granting and holding of land (p. 29), and the exclamation that “the conditional if of the torah has prevailed!” (p. 33). it is in his engagement with contemporary israel that he most clearly contradicts his mantras regarding the danger of ideology and the need for a hard-nosed dealing with reality. notwithstanding a few glosses about distinctions between judaism and ideological zionism and about the presence of political diversity in israel, the book raises a drumbeat of accusation against present-day israel and its leadership as religious ideologues who misappropriate the bible. yet nowhere does he quote an israeli source. there is no reference to israel’s proclamation of independence or its basic laws, no voice of a contemporary political or religious leader (see esp. pp. 5-7, 3739, and 49-50), no indication of the society’s vibrant, contenstudies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr tious political and religious debate. brueggemann seems simply to know the truth about israel, its intentions, and its character. he bluntly accuses “the contemporary zionist movement” of “equating … the state of israel with the faith of israel” as though jewish scholars such as louis jacobs and byron sherwin had not already challenged the “substitute faiths” of judaism from within the community (see sherwin’s faith finding meaning, oxford: oxford university press 2009). and he takes no account of the distinction between israel’s 1.7 million palestinian citizens and the larger palestinian population that lives under military occupation and the palestinian authority; the palestinian arab israeli citizens simply disappear from his view of the situation. particularly troubling from a biblical scholar of brueggemann’s stature are several literary and historical mistakes and imprecisions in his presentation. in addressing the question of chosenness as conditional or unconditional, evidence is brought from deuteronomy, exodus 19, and “much of the prophetic writings” without regard to their disparate historical contexts (p. 18). language of “love” and “setting one’s heart” is interpreted emotively as “smitten” without attention to the nuances of ancient philology (p. 17). though he gives attention to amos 9:7 and isaiah 19:24-25 in his discussion of the “very important” topic of biblical views of non-jews, he characterizes them as “at the edge of the old testament.” they are, he claims, “rare and likely too much should not be made of them” (pp. 22-25). his depiction of restoration hope in isaiah and jeremiah ends with a reference to the final verses of the bible, 2 chronicles 36:22-23, as the ending of “the entire canon,” ignoring the many centuries that stand between the prophets and any decision about where to place chronicles within the tanakh (p. 35). the problem is most evident on pages 28-30, where brueggemann discusses traditions regarding the gift of the land in canonical order as though it represents historical development. moreover, he tells us that the “deuteronomic ‘if’ became a primary theme among the prophets of the eighth studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 10 (2015) and seventh centuries bce,” notwithstanding broad scholarly agreement that deuteronomic theology developed only near the end of the seventh century bce. the torah is portrayed as israel’s “original or earliest tradition” despite brueggemann’s own recognition in the next paragraph that “critical judgment now has concluded that the torah was formulated in the fifth century during the persian period.” of what value is the contradictory portrayal of the torah as original or early, if not to trade on the common assumption that what is original is most authentic and later perspectives are variants or corruptions? when brueggemann tells us that he would show us how to read the bible responsibly amid the conflict, we might expect that the biblical witness would have something to say about palestinians as well as about judaism, zionism, and modern israel. he offers nothing, though, either to support or to critique palestinian ideas of nationalism, peoplehood, governance, or relations with “the other,” and undertakes no assessment of palestinian engagement in the conflict. what one does not expect (except for the acknowledgment of naim ateek as a strong influence) is the casual incursion of tired antisemitic tropes into the book. there are several: jews are preoccupied with purity, claim unwarranted privilege and exclusive election, and abuse their uncommon wealth. thus brueggemann argues that early judaism formed around racial (!) purity (pp.5-6). jon levenson’s objection to liberation theology’s slogan is incorrectly presented as a protest by levenson against the usurpation of israel’s claim to privileged status (p. 22). christianity for brueggemann supersedesjudaism in its understanding of “the reach of god’s promise beyond israel for the sake of other people” (p. 23). sociopolitical-theological claims for jerusalem / zion spring from “a small urban elite who enjoyed surplus wealth resulting from peasant agriculture in the surrounding region” (p. 41). brueggemann is clear about his purpose; he certainly knows how the bible has been read by some religious zionists, studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr jewish and christian, to undermine both concern for and the rights of the palestinian people in seeking their own national self-expression. we can greatly appreciate his intent to counteract that dangerous interpretive approach. the overreach in his argument, however, quickly undermines the usefulness of this study in seeking the mutual respect and accommodation that i believe he earnestly desires among those who care deeply about israel and the palestinian people. without demonstrating in his own work the care and respect that he asks both for the palestinian people and for the biblical heritage of jews and christians, he does not help us move beyond polarizations and demonizations that deepen the conflict and import it into our own churches. 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-3 ephraim meir interreligious theology: its value and mooring in modern jewish philosophy (berlin and boston: walter de gruyter and jerusalem: hebrew university magnes press, 2015), hardcover, x + 219 pp. bethany slater slaterbe@bc.edu boston college, chestnut hill, massachusetts 02467 ephraim meir’s newest book, interreligious theology: its value and mooring in modern jewish philosophy, raises the question of how to construct a dialogical theology that can have a relevant role in shaping peaceful, humanistic, pluralistic cultures in different societies in our globalizing world. meir sets out to articulate a new theological method, including its requisite values and presuppositions, and to ground it in modern jewish philosophy. drawing on martin buber’s dialogical philosophy, heschel’s celebration of religious diversity, levinas’ radical alterity, and franz rosenzweig’s idea of relational bridge-building, meir contributes to pluralist interreligious theology by suggesting a method influenced by jewish thought and values. to address the need for social harmony he constructs a type of theological reasoning he calls “trans-different” theology (p. 39). this is based on his notion of a common world that does not override particular forms of identity. with “trans-difference” meir is trying to capture a complex set of relationships. “trans” signifies the in-between or the relational link between the “i” and the “you.” he uses words like “bridging,” “translating,” “learning,” “hospitality,” and “recognition” to try to explain relationality (p. 15). meir envisions theologians reasoning constructively from the learning accomplished in interreligious dialogue. dialogue teaches us how others “legitimately organize their lives around the ultimate reality” (p. 185). the creative power and insights learned from others can expand one’s own knowledge of the ultimate. “trans-different” theology reasons from that expanded place. next, with “different” meir is pointing to a relationship to the self, to one’s home tradition. “trans-difference… creates unity with respect for differences and avoids total assimilation, as well as extreme dissimilation” (p. 142). in other words, the self is never swallowed up by the relationship to the different other. this does not mean that meir supports the idea of a static self. on the contrary, slater: ephraim meir’s interreligious theology 2 meir reminds us that religions are “ever changing, fluctuating constructs” (p. 200). “tran-different” theology resists the idolatrous urge to reify any particular instantiation of a tradition’s truth (p. 47). meir’s theological method engages with contemporary discussions regarding identity, continuity, change, authenticity, influence, and otherness. his method offers a constructive theology of interreligious dialogue that engages in bridge building and translation as ways to “reach out to the world of others [and] to engender communication and mutual involvement” (p. 11). this book contributes a jewish approach to dialogical theology by connecting meir’s method to insights from twentieth century jewish philosophers. he relies on buber’s vision of the “between-person,” the i-you [thou] whose identity is dialogically formed, for his understanding of the dynamic identity of both religious selves and religious groups. he embraces heschel’s celebration of plurality within god’s creation to support his own pluralism. meir’s “trans-different” theology delights in the diversity of spiritual practices and spiritual paths, embracing the religious diversity that is reflective of multicultural identities. from levinas meir uses the notion of radical alterity of the other, influencing his argument for a theology that engages in critical reflection from an in-between place. meir relies on rosenzweig’s views of translation between people and between religious others. meir’s study of rosenzweig’s dialogical relationship with his christian friend, gritli rosenstock-huessy, provides one model for the creative unity within difference that meir’s method champions. another model for meir is the buber-rosenzweig bible translation project. it is a physical instantiation of the hybrid or bridged theologies that meir celebrates in this book. in this case, meir sees that project as the flowering of both a hybrid german-jewish identity and a christian-jewish dialogical life (ch. 5). finally, meir finds inspiration for dialogically constructive “trans-different” thinking in the intercultural identities of intellectual german jews from mendelssohn through buber (ch. 6). he suggests that jews like these two as well as hirsch, cohen, and rosenzweig illustrate the cultural vivacity of multiculturalism. rather than being afraid of “transdifference,” he argues we should acknowledge the spiritual wealth found in the contributions of people with complex identities (p. 128). one way to grasp the distinctiveness of “trans-different” theology is to compare it to a related discipline, comparative theology. meir claims that “transdifferent” theology is methodologically distinct from comparative theology, because comparative theologians are engaged in trying to articulate “objective” comparisons, whereas “trans-different” theology tries to find theological insights through interreligious learning (p. 182). in meir’s summary, the comparative theologian treats religions like reified entities that can be discussed and compared objectively. meir’s description is not helpful, however, for it describes an outdated method of comparative religion and is not an accurate presentation of contemporary comparative theological methods. meir’s description misses the subtle relationship that exists in comparative theology between dialogical and confessional theology. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) from my perspective, the difference between comparative theology and “trans-different” theology is found not in their ways of thinking about identity and objectivity, but rather in meir’s single-minded commitment to ongoing dialogical theology to the exclusion of confessional theology. contemporary comparative theologians also recognize the subjective nature of theological discourse, are vocal about the dialogical nature of identity, and are fully committed to learning from the religious other. contrary to meir, comparative theologians listen for theological truth and then seek to bring that truth back to their own community. it is when they bring their learning home that they engage in confessional theology. they ask themselves how their confessional theologies appear differently in light of the truths learned in encounter with others. for a comparative theologian, coming home is crucial. while dialogical thinking is a dynamic creative force, comparative theologians believe that it is within the normative discourse of one’s own theological tradition that change can be enacted. the comparative theologian works within confessional theology in order to be an agent of change within a tradition. by contrast, the “trans-different” theologian focuses on building bridges, is ever engaged in dialogue, and seeks a new kind of unity. the readers that will most appreciate this book are religious pluralists active in theological dialogue. meir’s method contributes a jewishly-inflected language to an approach represented by christian theological pluralists and veterans of religious dialogue such as john hick, paul knitter, and perry schmidt-leukel (p. 8). his method maps the tenuous balance that mystical and philosophical pluralists struggle to maintain between the one and the many. by using jewish philosophers to think about these tensions, meir highlights jewish theological resources available for the field. however, the (non-academic) jewish world is less likely to take notice. meir’s choice to moor “trans-different” theology in the writings of twentieth century jewish philosophers with limited influence outside professional and academic settings (perhaps with the exception of heschel) may limit the book’s audience. an argument for dialogical theology using thinkers and texts with wider acceptance within the jewish religious community is still waiting to be made. theologians who do not share meir’s pluralism will find it harder to embrace his project. meir presumes that there is a unifying religious experience among all religions of one ultimate reality (p. 12). he assumes that the proverbial blind men are in fact touching the same elephant. yet such an approach as his is not logically necessary. the common ground for learning from the other can be our common humanity or our common experience of embodied existence. it seems to me that the next step ought to be proving the value of this new method by demonstrating the powerful and enriching insights it can generate. i await this next stage of “trans-different” theology. the death of jesus tilley, doing theology in the context of the gift tilley 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college doing theology in the context of the gift and the promise of nostra aetate 1 t err enc e w. t i l l ey f o r d h a m u n i v e r s i t y volume 6 (2011) http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr 1 this essay enlarges my keynote address of the same title given 27 october 2010 for the ninth annual meeting of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations, held at st. joseph’s university in philadelphia, pa. i am grateful to my respondents, philip a. cunningham, edward kessler, and barbara u. meyer, to members of the audience, and to email correspondents for enabling me to rethink some points and clarify others. i have chosen to preserve the oral character of the presentation for this publication, rather than to erase its oral roots. this essay is dedicated to walter cardinal kasper who could not be present at the annual meeting. he has done more, i believe, than any other catholic leader, to ensure both that the dialogues continue and that our theological and doctrinal positions become more nuanced and refined as we continue to recognize the religious other as god’s gift and to learn how to live together the promise of god’s reign inspires. i have read cardinal kasper’s “foreword” to christ jesus and the jewish people today: new explorations of theological interrelationships, edited by philip a. cunningham, joseph sievers, mary c. boys, hans hermann henrix, and jeaper svarvik (grand rapids, mi, and rome, italy: william b. eerdmans publishing company/ gregorian and biblical press, 2011). later citations are to the typescript of the “foreword.” studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): tilley 1-15 tilley, doing theology in the context of the gift tilley 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr nostra aetate and the trajectory in catholic teaching that it started have truly been a gift to those of us who do theology in and for the catholic church. the present essay focuses on responses to three theological problems that are central in the nostra aetate tradition. first, christology—reflection on who jesus was and is for us—and mariology—reflection on jesus‘ mother and her significance—seem inevitably supersessionist. i want to show how some of us christian theologians have sought to avoid the trap of supersessionism in these areas. second, there is the problem of how to understand the relationship between catholic claims regarding the irrevocable covenant god made with israel and the universality of salvation god wrought in jesus. i suggest that we catholic theologians should dissolve this problem logically, not resolve it theologically. third, some have suggested that a recognition of authentic religious diversity which underlies a commitment to true interreligious dialogue should weaken our commitment to our own particular traditions. 2 i disagree and show how what we have to be and to do in order to engage in the dialogues, called for by dialogue and proclamation § 42, show that this alleged problem is a pseudo-problem. 3 2 see robert mckim, religious ambiguity and religious diversity (oxford: oxford university press, 2001) or richard feldman, ―reasonable religious disagreements,‖ university of rochester, as at http://www.ling.rochester.edu/~feldman/papers/reasonable%20religious%20di sagreements.pdf. 3 i take it for granted that readers of this journal need neither another rehearsal of the history of jewish-christian relations over millenia that provide the context for theological work and the hope for reconciliation in general; nor of the nostra aetate tradition (that stream of documents on religious diversity and jewish-christian relations from the holy see) in particular; nor of the variety of positions jewish and christian thinkers have taken on these and other issues in the dialogue. this article is selective, not exhaustive, and thus deals only with a few of the rich variety of views that participants in jewish-christian dialogues have articulated on these problems. i do not mean to slight those whose works i do not deal with in this essay; i am arguing a case for a position that has not, so far as i know, been articulated by participants in the dialogue; i engage only with a few scholars to help make this case. finally, i i write as a roman catholic theologian who has not been a participant in the jewish-christian dialogues, but who has been deeply influenced by scholars working in other traditions. my work focuses more on resolving problems rather than explicating, exploring, and reforming a doctrinal system. my approach is rooted in an anglo-american philosophical approach that values logical and linguistic analysis. 4 i see actions (such as speech acts) and practices (i.e., patterns of actions such as discourse practices) as prior to texts. 5 mariology and christology in a post-supersessionist mode how to understand the relationship between judaism and christianity is, perhaps, the most long-standing problem in christian theology. the most common view is that christianity supersedes judaism, the new covenant replaces the old. that will not comment on benedict xvi‘s so-called ―gaffes.‖ these misunderstandings and failures in clarity and communication need to be contextualized in the main thrust of his theological work and his leadership that supports good relationships in politics and theology between catholics and the vatican with jews and israel. see, for example, hans herman henrix, ―pope benedict xvi and the jews: a relationship under suspicion?‖ israel affairs 16:4 (october 2010) 535-61. 4 this is not to separate theological from philosophical work, but simply to locate the philosophical orientation that will become evident later in this essay. while theologians seek to write logically and rationally, few theologians utilize this ―analytical‖ approach in philosophy and may find it strange and the argument in the second section about a technical issue in logic awkward. and while philosophers do work with theological propositions, many of those trained in anglo-american analysis tend to do ―analytical theology‖ that is ahistorical, a position with which i am not sympathetic. 5 hence, unless one first understands the action a speaker or writer performs in uttering or authoring a text and the reactions that the utterance or text provokes, one cannot understand the significance of a text. while i am not a ―practical theologian‖ in the sense that is now emerging among christian theologians, my problem-solving approach tends to begin with analyzing practices—including the practice of doing theology—before turning to theoretical reflection. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): tilley 1-15 tilley, doing theology in the context of the gift tilley 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr supersessionism 6 is unacceptable today is, i believe, due as much or more to the interactions of those engaged in jewishchristian dialogues around the globe for the past 50 years than to the efforts of christian theologians working primarily within the christian theological traditions. according to christian feminist theologian and historian elisabeth schüssler fiorenza, the root of supersessionism and anti-judaism is a myth of pristine christian origins. she argues that the more one thinks that the earliest christian group gathered around jesus was perfect (even if later corrupted), the more one tends to presume an adversative relationship between jesus and his followers and jewish leaders and 6 a commentator on this essay has pointed out that there is a difference between ―hard‖ supersessionism that sees christianity as a replacement or displacement for judaism and a ―soft‖ supersessionism that sees christianity as an improvement on judaism, suggesting karl rahner‘s concept of ―anonymous christians‖ as an example of the latter. however, rahner‘s first and most basic thesis is that ―christianity understands itself as the absolute religion, intended for all men [sic], which cannot recognize any other religion besides itself of equal right‖ (theological investigations. vol. 5, christianity and the non-christian religions. [london: darton, longman, & todd, 1966] 118). in other words, christianity is not one tradition one among many. nor is it a valid, but incomplete, religion. rahner maintained that god‘s communication is addressed to all people because of the universal import of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of jesus christ. while judaism may not be an invalid religion in rahner‘s view, it is certainly less valid than christianity and the covenant universal rather than particular. while this approach may be softer in its supersessionism than others, rahner‘s approach renders judaism an anonymous outpost of christianity and dependent on it. his work has been criticized from both more traditionalist and more progressive theologians. for a summary, see terrence w. tilley et alii, religious diversity and the american experience: a theological approach (new york: continuum publishing, 2007) 64-79 et passim. later in this essay, i make the claim that rahner‘s type of position on religious diversity—inclusivism—is in fact supersessionist with regard to judaism. i think it a ―soft‖ supersessionism, but one that leaves the fundamental problem of the relationship of judaism and christianity basically intact. judaism 7 and a supersessionist view of christianity. she argues, however, that her own project of feminist interpretation and reconstruction rejects the myth of a pristine earliest christianity, and hence is not anti-jewish or superssessionist. 8 she also claims that the jesus movement was not unique but was one of a number of ―jewish liberation movements‖ in the second temple period. whether one accepts all the aspects of her reconstruction of christian origins, her rejection of belief in a ―pristine primitive christianity‖ is very plausible. after all, judas betrayed jesus, peter denied him, and most of the other disciples ran off when the romans executed him. the identification of the jesus-movement as ―perfect‖ not only runs afoul of the witness of the new testament, but also leads ineluctably to see previous forms of judaism and subsequent forms of judaism and christianity as imperfect, preliminary, or corrupt. it leads to envisioning ―one shining moment,‖ at least, when things were right. whether that ―right religion‖ continued in the emergent church or was ―lost,‖ only to be rediscovered in the 16 th or 19 th or 20 th centuries, postulating a pristine perfection so idealizes a moment in time that that moment supersedes any other moment, past or future. but avoiding buying into the myth of a ―golden age‖ of christianity is only a beginning. a further problem is understanding how jesus the christ can be said to be truly human 7 see elisabeth schüssler fiorenza, jesus and the politics of interpretation (new york: continuum publishing, 2000) 128-44. 8 schüssler fiorenza, jesus and the politics of interpretation, 153-54. she argued against some critics who claimed that christian feminist interpretations of early christianity as ―egalitarian‖ —allegedly in sharp contrast to the ambient cultures—were anti-jewish. schüssler fiorenza did concede that some of her language in her landmark book, in memory of her (new york: crossroad publishing, 1983), might have led to a misinterpretation of her views, and that some of the ―jesus and women‖ writing that others had done led unwittingly to anti-jewish or supersessionist writing. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): tilley 1-15 tilley, doing theology in the context of the gift tilley 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr and truly divine while avoiding supersessionism. i want to suggest that my colleague, catholic feminist theologian elizabeth a. johnson, has carved out a path forward for a nonsupersessionist christology through her non-supersessionist approach to mariology. johnson published truly our sister: a theology of mary in the communion of saints 9 in 2003. her creative work has both negative and positive moments. negatively, she argues against the pattern of male-created gender dualism that underlies much of traditional mariology. in addition, much traditional theology attributes to mary some attributes that properly belong to god as the holy spirit. traditional mariology symbolizes mary in ways that she becomes ―a stopgap for a patriarchal view of god.‖ 10 more positively, in place of a ―patronage‖ model of mary as the heavenly intercessor for christians, she proposes a ―companion‖ model of mary as a ―first century jewish woman living a hard-scrabble life in a land violently occupied by a foreign power‖ 11 who was ―graced by the spirit‖ 12 and is remembered as friend of god and prophet, ―truly our sister.‖ as does recent work on jesus, 13 johnson‘s work focuses neither on what the historical mary was actually like nor on a theology that glorified mary, but on the jewish woman as she was remembered by those who formed the early christian 9 new york and london: continuum publishers, 2003. 10 elizabeth a. johnson, ―author‘s response‖ [to a review symposium on truly our sister], horizons: journal of the college theology society 31:1 (spring 2004) 177. 11 johnson, ―author‘s response,‖ 175. 12 johnson, ―author‘s response,‖ 181. 13 see james d. g. dunn, jesus remembered: christianity in the making volume i (grand rapids, mi: william b. eerdmanns, 2003); also see terrence w. tilley, the disciples’ jesus: christology as reconciling practice (maryknoll, ny: orbis books, 2008) 40, 50-58. community, the historic miriam. 14 recognizing that both nascent christianity and rabbinic judaism were ―children of second temple judaism, born into their separate trajectories after the disasters of 70 c.e.,‖ 15 she shows that mariology could avoid supersessionism. christianity is not the fulfillment of earlier judaism. rather, early christianity and rabbinic judaism—the root community for all subsequent judaism—carry on in disparate ways the ancient abrahamic tradition. mariology that avoids the excesses of piety that make mary practically divine and recognize her true solidarity as a young jewish women with her companions past and present, jewish and christian, needs not support supersessionism. 16 inspired by—among other things—johnson‘s theological work and the historical investigations of james d. g. dunn, larry hurtado, and daniel boyarin, 17 i attempted to write a 14 the difference between ―the historic jesus/mary‖ and ―the historical jesus/mary‖ is crucial. while using different methods and formulating their goals differently, the quests for the historical jesus sought to figure out who jesus ―really‖ was. but what made and makes jesus significant is not who he ―really‖ was or who he thought himself to be, but the historic importance of him and the community of disciples that made a historic contribution to the world. while she does not use this particular language, johnson‘s method is to consider ―mary remembered,‖ i.e., the historic mary. 15 elizabeth a. johnson, ―author‘s response,‖ 179. while the exact shape of the ―parting of the ways‖ between judaism and christianity is subject to much debate, johnson aligned her views with the approaches that see both traditions as disparate developments of the covenantal tradition. 16 johnson wrote truly our sister as a way to flesh out mary as a member of the communion of saints, an investigation she undertook in friends of god and prophets: a feminist theological reading of the communion of saints (new york: continuum publishing, 1998). in johnson‘s view, the communion of saints is the company of all those who are friends of god and prophets, past and present. 17 dunn, jesus remembered; daniel boyarin, border lines: the partition of judaeo-christianity (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2004); larry w.hurtado, lord jesus christ: devotion to jesus in earliest christianity (grand rapids, mich.: william b. eerdmans publishing, 2003). boyarin‘s work is arguably the most radical of the three. for present purposes, the ways that studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): tilley 1-15 tilley, doing theology in the context of the gift tilley 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr christology that avoided supersessionism. my 2008 book, the disciples’ jesus: christology as reconciling practice begins neither with ascertaining what the historical jesus was actually like nor with the later doctrinal affirmations that saw jesus as god incarnate, but with the community of disciples that imaginatively remembered him by engaging in the reconciling practices they learned from and with him. the true historic significance of jesus is found in the community of disciples committed to realizing, insofar as god empowered them to do so, god‘s own reign by engaging in the practices of reconciliation recorded in the christian scriptures. 18 boyarin had argued that jewish monotheism had room for a ―second power in heaven,‖ god‘s logos or wisdom, ―who mediates between the fully transcendent godhead and the material world.‖ 19 this power may have been an energy or a personalization of god rather than a distinct entity. yet it is plausible that members of the early jesus-movement came to see that god was acting in and through all of jesus‘ activity. this could lead them to envision him as a heavenly power become flesh and to worship him as an incarnation of the divine. this worship emerged, on hurtado‘s view, long before the church became separate from the synagogue. 20 the the relationships between ―jews‖ and ―christians‖ were negotiated and renegotiated is less important than the claim that the ―two powers in heaven‖ theology has at least some antecedents, if not a fully developed theology, in the late second temple period even though its clearest written attestation may have a second century provenance, and that jesus‘ followers could adapt it before or after his execution. 18 the basic practices are those that jesus and his disciples engaged in together: remembering, exorcising and healing, teaching, forgiving, and keeping and rejoicing in table fellowship. these practices are the practices of god‘s reign, the practices that instantiate god‘s reign in practice. 19 tilley, disciples’ jesus 61 quoting boyarin, border lines 30-31. 20 hurtado finds that worship of jesus as god‘s agent began at least shortly after jesus‘ death (and resurrection – an historic act of god even if not precisely a historical event; see disciples’ jesus 262, 271-77). given boyarin‘s development of orthodox christology, then, was not the imposition of ―external‖ greek philosophical categories on an earlier jewish faith, but the adaptation of images and theories in the ambient jewish and greco-roman cultures to understand and correct the worship praxis and theoria of the earliest jewish christians. 21 if this historical analysis is at all on the right track, then two things follow: first, a recognition that because early christians were jews, distinct from but in continuity with other jewish groups in late second temple judaism, christian practice and theology is unalterably rooted in judaism 22 and at root not supersessionist, but a creative adaptation of a form of monotheism later rejected by the rabbinic tradition; second, that if any tradition is ―supersessionist,‖ all traditions that emerged in the wake of the destruction of the second temple in 70 c.e. are ―supersessionist.‖ 23 reconstruction, i find it possible, even plausible, that such imagery and devotion arose during jesus‘ lifetime among monotheistic jews. 21 mark smith has suggested in correspondence that the later conciliar developments of claims about jesus‘ divinity go far beyond the ―two powers in heaven‖ approach. however, i take the conciliar regula fidei not as fundamentally assertions about jesus the christ, but as guides to or rules about what not to say about jesus the christ and the triune god. while even on this view, there would still be tensions and disagreements about how god could be incarnate, it is not clear to me just where those tensions would lie. the christian traditions always run the danger of docetism and christians often talk of jesus almost as ―god disguised‖ in a human body. i think this popular docetism is the root of more disagreement than carefully articulated understandings of the early creeds. see the disciples’ jesus, 214-34. 22 see dermot lane, ―the jewish-christian dialogue: a progress report,‖ unpublished typescript, 13. 23 i place ―supersessionist‖ in scare quotes here because i find neither judaism nor christianity technically superseding the covenantal tradition, but as developing that tradition in distinctive ways. as edward kessler reminded us, the component of supersessionism that is missing in such ―odd‖ usage is the anti judaeos strand of christian supersessionism. again, the precise historical developments that led to the parting/partitioning of the ways and the acceptance of jesus as divine agent are beyond the scope of this paper, but studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): tilley 1-15 tilley, doing theology in the context of the gift tilley 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr christology and mariology are two of the most difficult stumbling blocks for jews and christians. but the jewishchristian interactions undertaken under the inspiration of the nostra aetate tradition have inspired theologians like johnson and me to seek to formulate versions of these classic doctrines in ways that eliminate unnecessary parts of the problem. we theologians are in the debt especially of those who have engaged in jewish-christian dialogues for that inspiration. others will have to judge whether we have both succeeded in being faithful to our own christian traditions and successfully avoided the supersessionist trap. the irrevocability of the first covenant and the sufficiency of salvation in jesus the christ ―god does not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice he made‖ (compare rom 11:28). this affirmation made in § 4 of nostra aetate has generated substantial, substantive theological discourse. the root question is how are christians to affirm both the continuation of god‘s covenant with the jewish people and the uniqueness and sufficiency of jesus the christ? if the first covenant is abrogated or superseded in a new covenant with salvation wrought in jesus christ, then how can the affirmation of nostra aetate §4 stand? if the first covenant is not abrogated, then that covenant is sufficient: so how can claims for the universal salvific mediation of jesus christ be tenable? here is a difficult dilemma for catholic theology. although i cannot claim to know all the possible solutions to this problem, i argue that the dilemma should be also treated ably by numerous authors, e.g., james d. g. dunn, the partings of the ways second edition (london: scm press, 2006) and did the first christians worship jesus? the new testament evidence (louisville: westminster/john knox press, 2010). the theological point is that both are ―daughter traditions.‖ whether one, both, or neither are ―legitimate‖ is another matter; my own view that ―both‖ are legitimate should be obvious. dissolved logically, not resolved theologically because the theological positions are unsatisfactory. 24 what are the parameters? first, a catholic theologian cannot say that the covenant with the jews is abrogated. second, a catholic theologian cannot say that all faith traditions are on par with one another. 25 a number of theological positions attempt to incorporate these principles. cardinal kasper, for example, has taken a very nuanced position. he wrote, ―the new covenant for christians is not the replacement (substitution), but the fulfillment of the old covenant. both stand with each other in a relationship of promise or anticipation and fulfillment.‖ 26 both post-second temple traditions—nascent christianity and rabbinic judaism— are legitimate. in detailing this position—in reliance, of course, on documents from the holy see—kasper makes three very important moves. first, he focuses not on what god does as much as what we are and do: we jews and christians are people of the covenant. we are to act in our distinctive but not separate ways for ―teshuvah, repentance and reconciliation.‖ 27 taking this approach requires both personal and epistemological humility—a point i will return to later. we jews and christians cannot see the picture from god‘s side. but we can see it from ours, jointly yet distinctly, and can hear and respond 24 one reader has suggested that i could make this point more easily if i just noted that we don‘t understand how the two claims are related and wait for an eschatological resolution. but (a) that doesn‘t seem to be what theologians mostly due, at least christian ones; (b) we need to show that the two claims are logically compatible because we would be incoherent to wait for god to show two claims that are logically incompatible to be both true. hence, even if we wish to take that eschatological route, this exercise defends the cogency of doing so by showing that the claims are not logically incompatible. 25 these sentences could be phrased in many different ways and some theologians would want much more elegant propositions. nonetheless, i believe these two claims carry the key issues in a clear and understandable way. 26 walter cardinal kasper, ―foreward‖ to christ jesus and the jewish people today, 6 (typescript). 27 kasper, ―foreward,‖ 10 (typescript). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): tilley 1-15 tilley, doing theology in the context of the gift tilley 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr to the commandments. second, kasper recognizes that conversions between the traditions can occur, but that these are individuals‘ responses to individual witness. kasper eschews institutionally organized proselytism, which would imply the superiority of ―our‖ tradition over ―yours.‖ third, kasper takes a multiple-covenant approach. in this kasper sees a trajectory in the covenants god made with or through abraham, joshua, moses, ezra, jeremiah—and for christians, through jesus the christ. some might read this view as supersessionist. but such a reading fails to recognize the epistemic humility in the position. kasper does not say that god has made a new covenant simpliciter. he says that the new covenant is for christians. this is an important distinction. one cannot claim that this new covenant supersedes the old covenant unless one presumes to see things from god‘s point of view. no, what kasper is doing is to recognize that we cannot in the face of the other warrant a claim to know the mind of god. we can have some justification for our views about what god wants if we jews and christians together recognize god‘s call to holiness and justice, to repentance and reconciliation. that justification grows even stronger if we include other monotheists, e.g., members of the muslim traditions, in that agreement. but kasper also recognizes, along with the pontifical biblical commission, that both christian and jewish traditions have possibly true and irreducible interpretations of the ―old testament.‖ 28 yet an obvious objection arises. if christians believe that god has fulfilled the covenant in jesus, how is this different from supersessionism? can we leave jews and others ―outside the truth‖ in a false understanding of the covenant? 28 kasper, ―foreward,‖ 7 (typescript) commenting on the pontifical biblical commission, the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible (2001) §22. would that not be immoral? 29 should we christians not proselytize? as a catholic theological position, to suggest that there is no mission to the jews as to other peoples is at best controversial. 30 before turning to showing how to respond to those questions, i‘d like to consider a different approach to the covenantal issue, that of rabbi jonathan sacks. rabbi sacks‘s 2002 book, the dignity of difference was criticized for being relativist. critics said he reduced the jewish tradition to one among many equally valid positions. sacks responded in the second edition (2003) by clarifying some language. he argues that the covenantal tradition moved from the universal covenant with all humanity to a particular covenant with a particular people. god demands that this people, israel, be different. in doing so, god is ―teaching humanity to make space for difference. god may at times be found in human other, the one not like us. biblical monotheism is not the idea that there is one god and therefore one gateway to his presence. to the contrary, it is the idea that the unity of god is to be found in the diversity of creation.‖ 31 sacks claims that the 29 this sort of objection is raised most cogently by paul griffiths in a number of publications, not directed to judaism particularly, but to christian attitudes to non-christians generally. 30 see, for example, avery cardinal dulles, ―‗covenant and mission‘,‖ america magazine 21 october 2002; as at http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2550. he responded to ―reflections on covenant and mission,‖ by consultation of the national council of synagogues and the bishops‘ committee for ecumenical and interreligious affairs, usccb august 12, 2002; as at http://www.ccjr.us. the document incorporates, from the catholic side, much of kasper‘s position. dulles claimed ―covenant and mission seems to imply that conversion to christ, baptism and adherence to the church are no longer considered important for jews….the document covenant and mission does not forthrightly present what i take to be the christian position on the meaning of christ for judaism.‖ 31 jonathan sacks, the dignity of difference: how to avoid the clash of civilizations second edition (london and new york: continuum books, 2003) 53; emphasis removed. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): tilley 1-15 tilley, doing theology in the context of the gift tilley 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr covenant god made with the jews is not universal or exclusive. other peoples and other faith traditions can also provide ways to god. he writes, ―according to jewish teaching, therefore, one does not have to be a jew to serve god.‖ 32 he denies the claim that monotheism entails one path to salvation. 33 ―god is god of all humanity, but between babel and the end of days no single faith is the faith of all humanity.‖ 34 because the tradition is fundamentally ethical, judaism especially can recognize the worth of other faith traditions that observe the commands of the universal covenant god made with noah: ―prohibitions of idolatry and blasphemy, murder, theft, sexual transgression and wanton cruelty to animals, and the positive command to institute a system of justice.‖ 35 but if we are to accept sacks‘s view are we not either endorsing a form of relativism despite sacks‘s claims? is his position not vulnerable to a claim from christians that jesus the christ is the completion of the universal covenant with humanity? might christians use sacks‘s work to claim that the covenant with the jews be considered one of many particular instantiations of the universal covenant, all of which are fulfilled in god‘s final, new covenant in jesus the christ? 36 32 sacks, the dignity of difference, 20. 33 sacks, the dignity of difference, 20. 34 sacks, the dignity of difference, 55. 35 sacks, the dignity of difference, 20. 36 as kasper‘s view can be read as supersessionist, sacks‘s view can be read as relativist. however, i do not think such readings are the only readings, or the correct ones. for sacks, first, the noahite framework rules out some ideologies. within that framework we may disagree about what constitutes sexual transgression or what system of justice should be instituted. but we cannot avoid questions of justice or eliminate moral claims from our stances on sexuality and sexual acts. second, sacks is not arguing this position from god‘s point of view, but from the particular commitments of judaism as he understands them: the noahite covenant is with all humanity, the tower of babel does not represent a loss of unity but a gain in diversity, the mosaic covenant is with the jews, and from this perspective god in god‘s wisdom has created a world of difference and thus given dignity to difference. like kasper‘s, sacks‘s approach is epistemically humble. epistemic humility does not imply relativism. relativism contrasts with a particular form of universalism that goes beyond the logical claim that if one proposition is true, then its contradictory is false. it seems so obvious that either god does or god does not save the jews only through jesus christ. if we accept that point, then we must go further and construct some theory of the covenantal relationship that takes one or the other of these propositions as true and shows why this approach should not be offensive to those who hold the other, for example, ―fulfillment‖ rather than ―supersession.‖ relativism, on the other hand, says that a proposition is true relative to each believer, that there is ―truth for me, and truth for you,‖ or each tribe, ―truth for us, and truth for you.‖ ―you think jesus saves, and i think the covenant is valid. well, whatever!‖ this is not sacks‘s position. there is only one truth, but that truth, a divine or heavenly universal truth, is accessible only in particular human and earthly languages and contexts. 37 what is relative is not truth, but our claims to know what is true. for example, sacks finds the noahite law to be a basic expression of truth, but how we can discern what it means in practice, in the earthly, not heavenly realm? this requires the sort of epistemic humility that enables us to treat the other as a source of insight. is a particular temporal and earthly articulation in 37 philip cunningham reminded us that we have many stories, many narratives to articulate the shape of our history. the question, to my mind, is the criteria for discerning good stories. for present purposes, i find three. first, do not tell a story as if it is the final story. none of our stories—and our stories of god‘s dealing with humanity especially—are ended. the stories go on. we cannot tell a final story. second, do not tell a story that does not have a positive place for the other. if we dismiss or disrespect others, we may even dehumanize them. such stories are not acceptable. third, do tell stories that inflame the passions for truth and justice. our stories need to lead us to act to overcome the evils that afflict the world. for a further discussion of criteria for truth and truthfulness in faith claims—including narratives—see my faith: what it is and what it isn’t (maryknoll, ny: orbis books, 2010), especially 102-28. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): tilley 1-15 tilley, doing theology in the context of the gift tilley 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr accord with the eternal and heavenly law? how would we support such a claim except in dialogue with others who can support our insights and challenge our oversights? i believe that this is not relativism, but rather ―perspectivism‖ or ―particularism‖ rooted in the humility that we finite and conditioned creatures using our diverse languages do not and cannot warrant a claim that has absolutely true propositions that express infinite and universal truth unless all conditioned creatures assent to it, in which case it becomes ―virtually unconditioned‖ or as warranted as possible—a position that we can only approach in this world, but never reach. but here and now we can hope that our finite articulations are faithful to the infinite one. we can work together to refine our witness as we value and listen to the witness of those who differ from us as we seek from our particular locations to be faithful to the ubiquitous one. we can pray that our shared work can bring us different folk together to understandings and articulations of the truth of the faithful one. if i understand sacks correctly, then this sort of humble epistemic practice is emet, not propositional truth but faithful truthfulness, lived out in justice, and leading to the reconciliation—not the abolition—of difference in particularity and perspective. but how can we live out that hope if we have to accept or reject the claim that salvation for jews comes through jesus? to be altogether too brief, it seems to me that there is no way to show whether a view of one universal covenant, a universal and a particular covenant, 38 many covenants, or 38 sacks finds the primal covenant universal and the covenant with the jews particular and subsequent. this seems to be almost the opposite view of joseph ratzinger (now benedict xvi) in his 1998 book, many religions – one covenant: israel, the church and the world, translated by graham harrison (san francisco: ignatius press, 1999). in a provocative passage, then cardinal ratzinger wrote, ―thus the sinai covenant is indeed superseded. but once what was provisional in it has been swept away, we see what is truly definitive in it. so the expectation of the new covenant, which becomes different particular ways to live out the covenant with the divine, is the right or better way to think about this issue. and i think this a good thing and not relativism! but to show that i must first make two detours: into the more general issue of religious diversity and into a response to the problem of evil. first, christian theologians have offered three types of theories to solve the problem of religious diversity by answering the more general question for christian theology: how can we account for god‘s salvific will being effective beyond the community of the baptized? 39 no one denies that god can save any person god wants to save—to deny this would be to deny divine omnipotence. the classic theological problem for christians is to say how god can save those who live in other religious traditions. exclusivist positions claim that salvation is clearer and clearer as the history of israel unfolds, does not conflict with the sinai covenant; rather, it fulfills the dynamic expectation found in that very covenant‖ (70-71). whereas sacks sees the particular covenant as part of the diversity treasured by the one who creates a diverse world and who has first a universal covenant, ratzinger seems to see the universal as emergent from, as a clarification or purification of, the particular covenant with the people god chooses. a colleague, who has studied ratzinger‘s work more extensively than i, has told me that he cannot figure out whether ratzinger‘s view is of a single covenant or multiple covenants. i incline to interpret ratzinger as opting for the ―single covenant‖ view, a covenant that is fulfilled in the universalization of the covenant through god‘s act in and through jesus the christ, but incipient even in the ―new covenant‖ in jeremiah (see ratzinger, 53 commenting on st. paul) because ratzinger finds the ―old‖ and ―new‖ covenants ―indivisible‖ (28). 39 those whose lives are shaped in other profound living faith traditions do not aim at ends (teloi) that are even analogous to the christian telos to ―know, love, and serve god in this world and be happy with him forever in the next,‖ as the baltimore catechism put it. jews and christians can and should engage in the reconciling practices that constitute the anticipation in the present of the future reality of god‘s reign. but jews and christians do not all understand that ―future‖ in the same way. some theologians even find that the forms of life that constitute the faith traditions and their visions of human destiny are incommensurable. see terrence w. tilley et al., religious diversity and the american experience, chapters seven and eight. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): tilley 1-15 tilley, doing theology in the context of the gift tilley 10 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr accomplished only for those who believe in the name of jesus christ. various inclusivist positions find that participating in other religious traditions can be effective and graceful paths to salvation. pluralist positions effectively relativize all the traditions by finding that people will be saved no matter what tradition they follow if and only if they follow their tradition well. 40 some pluralists use the modern kantian split between the noumenal and the phenomenal many to explain religious diversity. the one beyond the many, the god beyond all gods, is unknowable in his/her/itself, but appears partially as the gods of the many religious traditions. this form of modern pluralism, however, turns out to be not only relativist, but also exclusivist in that it minimizes the particularity and specificity of the various great faith traditions in favor of a ―correct‖ universal philosophical picture. in effect, this sophisticated form of relativism is unacceptable to both jewish and catholic theological traditions. the inclusivist theories, such as the notion of ―anonymous christians‖ propounded by karl rahner, s.j., are supposed to be satisfying mediating positions. however, not only do they fail to resolve the impasse, but also they turn out to be exclusivisms with a happy face. 41 and exclusivisms do not solve the problem, but merely restate the problem. 42 40 obviously, these brief characterizations need to be nuanced and qualified. another categorical scheme can be found in paul knitter, introducing theologies of religions (maryknoll, ny: orbis books, 2002). 41 this is the view implied in tilley et al, religious diversity and the american experience which not only argues for abandoning the exclusivist-inclusivistpluralist schematic, but also prefers a non-foundationalist, practical approach to interreligious interaction in terms discussed below. 42 evangelicals clark pinnock and herold netland, catholic gavin d‘costa, and others, have pioneered an approach that can be called ―open exclusivism‖ which avoids some of the problems classic exclusivisms have created, especially with regard to salvation for jews. i have argued that d‘costa‘s view —and by extension the evangelicals‘ view—is functionally inclusivist. see tilley et al, religious diversity and the american experience 85-92, 196-97. when we consider the hard case of the relationship of the jewish and christian covenant(s), exclusivist and inclusivist positions seem to be two forms of supersession even if they have happily left behind the anti-judaeos rhetoric of the past. the pluralist positions are ―supersessionist‖ in a different way, claiming in effect a position superior to and beyond any particular religious tradition, all of which may be useful, but none of them more nearly true or effective than any others. pluralism is effectively relativist. much more could be said to develop this point. 43 in sum, it seems that turning to the general theories fails to account theologically for judaism without disrespecting that faith-tradition (inclusivism or exclusivism) or to account theologically for christianity without disrespecting the faithtradition that finds jesus christ both necessary and sufficient for salvation of all people, even for those who know nothing of him or who explicitly reject—for good reasons or weak ones— the christian tradition (pluralism). the turn to the more general theories of religious diversity does not help solve our problem. so, for the second ―detour,‖ consider an analogy. i argue in my 1991 book, the evils of theodicy, 44 that building theories, that is, theodicies, to show how an all-loving, allpowerful, and all knowing god can allow evil in the world turns out to be part of the problem, not part of the solution to the actual problems of evil. attempting to explain god‘s reasons for allowing evil in the world creates myths that make god ultimately responsible for evil. these myths, i argue, are both epistemically arrogant in that they claim to know god‘s reasons and also create a world that denies the existence of social evil or social sin. those are the evils of theodicies. 43 see the remarks of gavin d‘costa in his review of the catholic church and the jewish people: recent reflections from rome edited by philip a. cunningham, norbert j. hofmann sdb and joseph sievers (new york, ny: fordham university press, 2007) in modern theology 25.2 (june 2009): 349352. this not only ―is a debate that has hardly begun‖ (352), but also one whose resolution requires breaking through the impasse described here. 44 (washington, dc: georgetown university press, 1991). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): tilley 1-15 tilley, doing theology in the context of the gift tilley 11 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr i also argue, however, that—in contrast to theological theodicies—logical defenses show that we can believe without contradictions two propositions that seem contradictory: that god is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent, and that there is profound evil in the world. my point was and is this: we can affirm the reality of god and recognize the reality of evil even though we do not have—and i would say cannot have—a theory to explain why god allows evil in the world. barbara meyer has helped me to see that especially in the wake of the shoah, the evils of theodicies should be obvious. to attempt to explain why god ―allows‖ or ―wills‖ genocide cannot but run afoul of the problem of evil. the stories we need to tell (see n. 37 above) can be evaluated by just how they empower us to imagine ways of opposing all injustice and inhuman violence, including especially the violence of genocide. what we have to do is to show that two claims are compatible. these demonstrations are ―defenses.‖ one such defense is the free will defense—which is not a free will theodicy. 45 a theodicy offers a theory to explain why god allows evils. 45 for a fuller, rigorous exposition of this defense, see alvin plantinga, god, freedom and evil (new york: harper and row, 1974); plantinga restates his argument and responds to criticisms in numerous subsequent articles, but the basic point of the defense remains intact. plantinga‘s version of the defense relies on ―possible world metaphysics.‖ as the metaphysical claims only enter into the debate to back plantinga‘s warrants, if a non-possible worlds approach can be developed—and i think it can— then the basic shape of the defense can be accepted as possibly true. in point of fact, i do not accept the usual articulations of the free will defense insofar as they are thought to entail ―possible world metaphysics.‖ i am developing my reasoning for this view in a paper currently under construction. i find a somewhat different approach more compatible with the catholic tradition, but the clarity of the free will defense and the possibility of restating it in a broader way allows me to use it here. my first attempt at developing this approach is ―toward a creativity defense of belief in god in the face of evil,‖ physics and cosmology: scientific perspectives on the problem of natural evil, ed. nancey murphy et al. (vatican city: vatican observatory press, 2007) 195-215. a defense simply shows that two propositions p and q are logically compatible. the defense does not explain what god does, but simply shows that the believer is not irrational in holding both propositions. the logic of the free will defense is clear and compelling. first, consider two propositions: p god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. q there is genuine evil in the actual world. the ―problem‖ of evil is that these propositions seem incompatible, contradictory. but it is logically the case that if there is a possibly true proposition r that combined with p entails q, then p and q are not contradictory, but compatible. so consider r, which would do the job: r all the genuine evil in the world is the result of the choices of creatures with free will. now the point is that r has to be possibly true, not actually true. i can even think r is false while recognizing that it could possibly be true. fallen angels and human beings are free creatures. as social, political, and personal evils result from human sin or error, perhaps natural evil results from demonic sin or error. so r asserts a very traditional christian position about the causes of actual evil. but why think r is possibly true? couldn‘t god know how to make free creatures not produce evil? but consider s: studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): tilley 1-15 tilley, doing theology in the context of the gift tilley 12 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr s an omnipotent god cannot make creatures such that they always freely choose the good. 46 what s does is to show that it is logically contradictory to think god can control the choices of free creatures. god could make creatures always choose the good or god could make creatures free. in the former case, god is in control and the creatures cannot really be free; in the latter, the creatures are free but god cannot be in control. so since s must be true (a logical point), r is possibly true, and so p and q are both possibly true and compatible with each other. we may believe in p for one set of reasons and in q for another set of reasons and p and q are compatible with each other. put together p, q, r, s and the conclusion is obvious: even an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god could not make the world such that god could make it both with free creatures who are free and without evil. 47 hence, the problem of evil is dissolved. we can do something similar to dissolve the covenant dilemma. here‘s how. first, we formulate the problem in two propositions that seem to contradict each other: 48 m god‘s covenant with israel is neither revoked nor replaced by the new covenant. 46 of course, it is possible that all humans would freely choose the good. but that would be their choice, not god‘s; and to suggest that such a state of affairs actually obtains seems incredible. 47 of course, some irrationalists would say that god is beyond logic and can do even what‘s logically impossible. but that would entail that any proposition about any state of affairs could be both true and false at the same time. if we claim that god can do what is logically impossible—or that propositions about what god can do are not subject to logic—then we cannot say anything at all about god, hardly a position that evokes reverent awe for whatever both did and did not create the universe. 48 i recognize that these propositions may need more precise formulation than i give them here, but i would claim that the strategy i display here is at minimum on the right track. n the universal salvation in and through christ jesus fulfills the old covenant in the new. these propositions seem contradictory as christian theologians play out their implications. either the new covenant succeeds the old or it does not. ―fulfillment‖ may be a nicer way of saying it, but supersession is the fact of the matter. if the new supplants the old, then the old is replaced. alternatively, if the new does not supplant the old, then the new is not universal. jews are saved through the old covenant. diversity may be a nicer way of saying it, but relativism is the fact of the matter. so here‘s a dilemma, one analogous to the problem of evil. 49 but consider o: o the new covenant fulfills but does not revoke or replace the old covenant. logically, m plus o entails n—allowing that the terms in each proposition are synonymous. therefore, m and n are compatible if o is possibly true. both m and n may be true, even if the reasons we have for them are different from each other. but why believe o is possibly true? isn‘t this just the problem restated? this is where charitable interpretations of positions like sacks‘s or kasper‘s or the theologies of religious diversity can function to show that o is possibly true. they can function with regard to o as s does to r: they show that o is possibly true. 49 the analogy lies not in the contrast between good and evil, but in the apparent contradiction between two claims. the point is formal: there is a contradiction between two claims. the point is not material, i.e., a contradiction between good and evil or between two competing goods. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): tilley 1-15 tilley, doing theology in the context of the gift tilley 13 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr such views may have theological problems. all we need is that one or more of them are possibly true for them to show that o is also possibly true. we cannot, perhaps, decide on theological grounds whether kasper‘s or sacks‘s or even ratzinger‘s or a whole host of other positions are the best formulations of the relationship of religious traditions in general or the old and new covenants in particular. but all we need is for one of these theories to be possibly true to do the work of showing that o is possible, and so we can reasonably believe both m and n. again, we do not have to accept any of these theories as actually true or even the most likely true theory if any one of them is possibly true—and it seems to me that almost all of them are possibly true, even if they are as implausible (to me) as the claim that all natural evils are caused by demonic defalcations. the issue is not plausibility, but only logical possibility. the problem of the relationship of christianity and judaism cannot, i think, be solved in a systematic theoretical manner. epistemic humility with regard to god and evil is a virtue, a virtue with regard to the old and new covenants. without epistemic humility, we almost inevitably slip into a disrespect for one tradition or the other. systematic theological approaches tend to supersessionism or relativism even if they avoid—as i think kasper and sacks do—those extremes. but we don‘t have to choose among them if all we need is for one of them to be possibly true. theological theories can be taken as humble, purely speculative hypotheses which help us defend against the appearance that m and n are incompatible. we can believe both. we don‘t need a theory to show that we can, but only reasons to believe each and a defense of their compossibility. my point is this: some questions cannot be answered. how good is god? how high is up? when did you stop loving the spouse you love? by their very form they show the questions are confused. ―why does god allow evil in the world?‖ however much we might want a theoretical answer to this question, as a request for information, it is confused. as a cry of the heart, it requires hearty fidelity, not theoretical words which fail to comfort the afflicted. to ―solve‖ the ―problem‖ of evil is to mistake what is at issue; the problem needs to be dissolved, not resolved. similarly, to insist on one theory to solve the problem of how the first covenant and the new covenant are related is confused. the issue for catholic theologians in particular is to affirm both god‘s irrevocable covenant with the jews and god‘s salvation of the world in jesus the christ. that‘s the point. the problem again needs to be dissolved, not resolved. the theories are explanations, speculations, human constructs that seek to understand the ways of the one whose ways are beyond our ways. they are useful means, hypotheses to help dissolve the problems, not resolve the problems as if we could have a ―god‘s eye‖ view of the whole terrain. the virtues of dialogue a few pages ago, i wrote this sentence: ―how would we support a claim except in dialogue with others who can support our insights and challenge our oversights?‖ i intentionally did not use the terms ―argument‖ or ―discussion‖ or ―debate.‖ i used ―dialogue‖ to invoke the dialogues envisioned in dialogue and proclamation § 42. the way to recognize constructively our differences is not to abolish them by problematical systematic theologies or to ignore them as unimportant. rather, we should embrace our differences and engage in dialogue. dialogue among faith traditions and proclamation of our own tradition ―are both oriented towards the communication of studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): tilley 1-15 tilley, doing theology in the context of the gift tilley 14 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr salvific truth‖ (dialogue and proclamation § 3). 50 dialogue takes four forms. the dialogue of life is the very practice of living together, supporting each other in a local context of religious diversity. the dialogue of action is the practice of collaboration across faith traditions to work for justice and development for all people. the dialogue of theological exchange is the practice of seeking to understand more clearly our own heritage and to appreciate others‘ heritages as well—and, clearly, we can learn much about our own tradition by listening to and appreciating the testimony and criticism of others. the dialogue of religious experience emerges in the practice of sharing spiritual values and practices across traditions, as when jews and christians pray in each other‘s houses—or in yankee stadium 51 (cf. dialogue and proclamation § 42). just as we cannot explain the mystery of how god deals with evil, so we cannot explain the mystery of how god saves all that god wants to save. but we can continue the dialogue. we can have hope that god saves because we agree that god wants all humanity to live in and live out god‘s reign. the most effective form of dialogue and proclamation is witness. our practices, including the practice of believing, are our primary form of witness. there‘s a saying attributed to st. francis of assisi. it is relevant here: ―preach the gospel always; if necessary, use words.‖ as cardinal kasper noted, proselytizing jews is not the point of proclamation. yet witness of each to the other is always relevant and proper. the practice of dialogue is the kind of witness that is ―staying at the table‖ in 50 cf. http://www.vatican.va/; accessed 20 october 2010. i find this 1991 instruction of the pontifical commission for interreligious dialogue a key pillar in the nostra aetate tradition. 51 on september 23, 2001, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, a ―multi-faith prayer for america‖ service held in yankee stadium. in addition to political leaders, catholic, muslim, jewish, protestant, hindu, greek orthodox, and sikh faith traditions prayed with the 15,000 gathered in the stadium and uncounted numbers of others who were at televised broadcasts in parks in staten island and brooklyn. co-operation with those who disagree with us. these practices instantiate the more adequate and practical, not theoretical, response for christians to account for the enduring value of the first covenant and for jews to recognize the fulfillment christians see in the new covenant as not supersessionist. we need no theory to explain ―how god works‖ and ―what god‘s plan is‖ in order to be in dialogue and solidarity with others who differ with us. to engage in these dialogues requires virtues. one list is: epistemic humility, fidelity to one‘s own tradition, an openmindedness that recognizes that ―the teachings and practices of the other religion[s] are in some way related to or relevant for one‘s own religious tradition,‖ empathy, and hospitality. 52 these are the virtues that we need to sustain our engagement in the four forms of dialogue prescribed by dialogue and proclamation. virtues are not either/or conditions, but abilities that we develop as people of the covenant in dialogue with each other. we learn how to go beyond mere tolerance in the dialogue of life. we may begin with ―tolerance,‖ but as the face of the other shows us their need, they can also show us god. building the other up, feeding them when they are hungry, caring for them when they are ill, and building institutions that provide for food, clothing, shelter, and work help us develop virtues beyond ―tolerance‖ in engaging in this dialogue. the dialogue of action is the work for justice. in my less-than-humble opinion, a crucial test of our virtue of our open-mindedness is our support for the islamic center at 51 park in new york city. opponents seem to forget that muslims were killed on 9/11 by other muslims; that 52 in the impossibility of interreligious dialogue (new york: crossroad publishing, 2008) 4-6, catherine cornille identified five ―essential conditions‖ for ―constructive and enriching interreligious dialogue.‖ i follow cornille‘s ―conditions‖ but think they are far better understood as ―virtues.‖ i owe the reference to mara brecht, a ph.d. student in theology at fordham. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): tilley 1-15 tilley, doing theology in the context of the gift tilley 15 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr islam is diverse; and that just as jews and christians seek places to remember, to communicate, to grieve, and to worship in the wake of that terrible attack, so do muslims. we may disagree about that building, but the way to resolve that disagreement is the virtue of respect for the dignity of difference and the support for the other. the dialogues of experience and theological exchange are instantiated most particularly by the witness of those who have for fifty years engaged in multitradition dialogues, in interreligious theologizing, and in the tasks of comparative theology. this work is a lasting witness to the theological world. the interreligious workers pray with and for each other, think and rethink in response to each other, and carry on with intellectual humility, honesty, courage, and steadfastness in their own traditions 53 while being faithful to each other as people of god‘s covenanting love. conclusion we who do theology in other parts of the vineyard have a great debt to the inter-religious dialogues. for teaching us the importance of avoiding supersession. for witnessing to us the virtues of the dialogue, especially the virtue of humility with each other and before god. for exploring how we can relate to each other despite our differences about the covenant. but we theologians try to pay such a debt by doing theology in a nonsupersessionist mode as a way forward for our own christian 53 students in the school of theology and ministry at the jesuit university of seattle, lay ministry students from the catholic archdiocese study together with ministry students from ten other christian denominations from baptist to unitarian-universalist. i met with a group of them recently and to a person they affirmed that the diversity of the student body brought them to be more, not less, committed to their own traditions—in their view, in contrast to their colleagues in mono-denominational seminaries. mara brecht, in an ethnographic study mentioned earlier made the same point regarding a longstanding, but unofficial dialogue group composed of jewish, christian and muslim women. dialogue leads to steadfastness at least as often, i‘d say, if not more often than to conversion or infidelity to one‘s home tradition, pace mckim and feldman (see note 5, above). traditions—as i have tried to demonstrate in the first part of this essay. those of us who do philosophical theology try to pay our debt by using our skills for analyzing what people do as they work through problems—as i have tried to do in the second part of this essay. and those of us who are philosophical theologians interested in the problems of religious epistemology reflect on how we can properly engage in authentic dialogue while remaining faithful to our epistemic and religious commitments to our own traditions—as i have tried to explore in the final section of this essay. we are indebted as theologians in particular communities to those who work in the various forms of dialogue because they continue to show us in practice how to engage in dialogue, and how to continue interacting together as god‘s people, people whose core witness to all god‘s people shows how god‘s realm has many mansions, diversely decorated, but all of them god’s houses which god empowers us to occupy. 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-2 elisheva baumgarten and judah d. galinsky, eds. jews and christians in thirteenth-century france (new york: palgrave macmillan, 2015) xxv + 282 pp. harvey j. hames hames@exchange.bgu.ac.il ben-gurion university of the negev, beer-sheva 8410501 israel centuries are a convenient way of defining time. when teaching history, we define our periods in terms of centuries, as that allows us to make general statements with greater ease. the problem is that when we start going into more detail, the concept of “the history of centuries” becomes problematic. a pertinent example of this is what is referred to as the “twelfth-century renaissance,” which is anything but confined to the years 1100-1199. the co-editors of this stimulating collection of papers, based on presentations at a conference in jerusalem, are well aware of this, stating from the outset that they are talking about “a long thirteenth century, broadly defined” (p. 1). rather than framing the subject in this way, the term “late medieval” would have been more suitable, allowing greater flexibility. the geographic designation in the title of this book is also tricky. what constitutes france in the thirteenth century? is thirteenth century france, if it can be said to exist, the same for the jews and christians of the title? again, baumgarten and galinsky are aware of this problem and address it in the introduction, particularly with regard to the tendency to lump together the jews of ashkenaz (germany and france). yet, what is not addressed is the considerable expansion of the french kingdom to include almost the whole of languedoc following the agreement of paris in 1229. this, slowly but surely, brought the jews of southern france into the ambit of the french monarchy with important consequences. the book contains sixteen articles divided according to three themes: “learning, law, and society,” “polemics, persecutions, and mutual perceptions,” and “cultural expressions and appropriations: art, poetry, and literature.” they were written by a broad range of scholars, some very well known, others who will soon be. some of the topics addressed include biblical exegesis (lesley smith, susan einbinder, ari geiger), devotion (margo stroumsa-uzan, rella kushelevsky), law and legal issues (karl shoemaker, judah galinsky, ephraim kanarfogel, john tolan), polemics (daniel lasker, david berger, yossef schwartz), gender (anne e. lester), conversion (jessica marin elliott), languages hames: baumgarten and galinsky’s jews and christians 2 (cyril aslanov), and art (sara offenberg). many of the articles engage with more than one of the aforementioned topics. the introduction, written jointly by the editors, does a very nice job of summarizing the articles, so, due to a lack of space, i will focus briefly on two articles which particularly caught my eye. jessica marin elliott, in “jews ‘feigning devotion’: christian representations of converted jews in french chronicles before and after the expulsion of 1306,” looks at a variety of christian chronicles written in france and the lowlands in the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries dealing with jewish converts. she shows that in the later chronicles, there is considerable doubt whether jewish conversion to christianity is ever sincere. focusing on stories dealing with host desecration and on insincere conversions designed to allow the convert to gain access to and then to destroy christian images (mainly of the virgin mary), she shows how true conversion becomes an impossibility. referencing david nirenberg’s studies on the aftermath of the events of 1391 in the iberian peninsula, she suggests that this reflects a crisis of identity in france in the early fourteenth century. this analysis fits in extremely well with what happens in england leading up to the expulsion of the jews in 1290, a topic i have written about. the tale of adam of bristol, an invented ritual murder including the intervention of the virgin mary, becomes a story of exclusion whereby the jews cannot convert and become part of the christian commonwealth. sara offenberg is forging a path as a fascinating scholar who is able to connect text, illustration, and context in manuscripts. in “mirroring samson the martyr: reflections of jewish-christian relations in the north french hebrew illuminated miscellany,” she focuses on a prayer miscellany from northern france, circa 1280, containing some 84 different texts. it includes a poem about samson of metz, who converted to christianity in prison, but reverted to judaism and died as a martyr. this poem intersects with an illustration of the biblical samson and a lion which uses christian iconography and raises the possibility of connections between jewish and christian scribes and artists. the brevity of the article limits her elaboration of the central themes and the reader will be left wishing for a more detailed exposition of the connections between text and illustration. while most of the articles are within the remit of the collection’s title, tolan’s interesting article, “of milk and blood: innocent iii and the jews, revisited” is a little out of place. it does not really address jewish-christian interaction in france. rather, it refers more generically to papal law regarding jews’ use of christian wet nurses. this volume brings new and welcome perspectives on jewish-christian relations in a period which is generally seen to have witnessed deterioration in the latter’s attitude toward the former. these relations are more complex and engaged and on far more levels and in more areas than previously conceived. the studies gathered in this fascinating volume suggest that there is still much more work to be done. 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-2 ronald kronish, ed. coexistence & reconciliation in israel: voices for interreligious dialogue (mahwah, nj: paulist press, 2015), softcover, xvii + 268 pp. eugene korn ebkorn@gmail.com center for jewish-christian understanding and cooperation, jerusalem 9104601 peacemaking between israelis and palestinians has been an (often futile) obsession for every american president and administration from jimmy carter thru barak obama. it is the enterprise of presidents, prime ministers, kings, politicians, and diplomats, and the goal has usually been to reach a negotiated treaty largely imposed from above. this book is not about peacemaking, but peacebuilding—the slow, arduous work of rabbis, imams, priests, teachers, and psychologists. peacebuilding is all about bringing people together in a dialogical and educational process to help local community and religious leaders learn how to live in peace with each other. it is about achieving psychological, educational, and spiritual transformations, and nurturing trust over many years. long time american-born israeli interfaith activist rabbi ron kronish has compiled a collection of essays penned by his jewish, christian, and muslim colleagues in israel that gives the reader a glimpse into the variegated peacebuilding activities and organizations in israel. described from different religious perspectives, these activities usually fly under the radar in the violence-prone and mediafrenzied theater of israeli-palestinian relations. this is not a scholarly book, but an important and accessible read for anyone interested in understanding the reality of relations in israel and what is required for israeli jews, muslims, and christians to ultimately live in peace and understanding with each other. coexistence & reconciliation in israel is organized around five units: jewish-christian relations in israel; jewish-muslim relations in israel; trialogue with jews, christians, and muslims (although ‘trialogue’ is a linguistic faux pas since the ‘dia’ of ‘dialogue’ means ‘through’ not ‘two’); educating for peaceful coexistence; and reaching out to the international community. each unit contains numerous eminently readable essays averaging ten pages in length. many of the essays emphasize that interfaith dialogue in israel differs in significant ways from jewish-christian dialogue in america and europe. in israel, jews are the majority and their interlocutors are minorities, hence the power dynamics present in western dialogue are reversed. and of course, christians are a korn: ronald kronish’s coexistence & reconciliation in israel 2 minority within the non-jewish minority. second, always in the not-so-distant background of every israeli interfaith encounter lurks the painful ongoing conflict between israelis and palestinians. (most israeli christians and muslims identify as palestinians, which adds another layer of complexity to the encounters.) in this context, there is little time or patience for nuanced theology or psychological theory; practical issues always come early to dominate the encounter. third, while israel is a pluralistic democracy, israeli living patterns conform to those of other middle east countries. most people live in monolithic blocs or communities that are not conducive to serious self-critique or natural interaction with the religious or ethnic other. ignorance of the other’s faith is the norm, while awareness of the other’s humanity is at a premium. as a result these separate living patterns allow hostile stereotypes to run amok. for many, organized dialogue and peacebuilding activities provide the first opportunity for direct interaction with and experience of the other’s personhood. and finally, in the land of the bible and the crossroads of ancient empires, history and tradition always weigh heavily on the interfaith participants. the book supplies a fairly comprehensive picture of the breadth of interfaith organizations and activities in israel. (there are some important omissions, such as the rainbow coalition, a 50-year old interfaith organization of academics in israel, and the relatively new center for jewish-christian understanding and cooperation.) perhaps it is inevitable that in survey books of this type the essays do not always cohere and lack a certain depth. too often we do not learn about the detailed workings of these organizations or what their activities really achieve. one notable exception is the book’s delineation of the model elements of interfaith dialogue developed and successfully used by the interreligious coordinating council in israel (icci): (1) personal interaction, i.e., getting to know the other as an individual human being; (2) interreligious text-based learning; (3) discussing core issues of the conflict; and (4) taking action, separately and together. trust here is the key, because only after the dialogue members come to know and trust each other (the first step) can the subsequent steps have any hope of success. in sum, coexistence & reconciliation in israel provides a good overview of and introduction to the activities of jews, christians, and muslims who do more than passively wait for peace to arrive in the region. these activists are committed to doing what they can to ensure that when the presidents, prime ministers, and diplomats finally agree on a political solution, it has a decent chance of success because people on the ground will have created a critical mass of jews, muslims, and christians who have learned to understand each other and who will strive on individual and communal levels to help the solution take root in the minds and hearts of this troubled region’s citizens. brothers reunited: catholic-jewish dialogue studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): modras r1-2 dziwisz and rosen, brothers reunited modras r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 stanislaw dziwisz and david rosen b r o t h e r s r e u n i t e d : c a t h o l i c j e w i s h d i a l o g u e (krakow: wam, 2009), softcover, 122 pp. reviewed by ronald modras, saint louis university in march, 2009, the jesuits of krakow sponsored a conference entitled, "catholic-jewish dialogue—the road behind us, the road before us." it was to honor the memory of one of their own, father stanislaw musial, s.j., who died in 2004 after a life devoted to the work of building bridges between catholics and jews. in 1942, musial, then four, and his entire family were lined up outside their home to be executed by german soldiers for helping a jewish neighbor. led by "some child's instinct," as he later put it, musial ran to the german commander, threw himself at his knees, and begged for their lives. amazingly, the commander became emotional, and instead sent the soldiers away to look for other jews in other homes. haunted by this memory and by the destruction of european jewry, musial spent his adult life as a jesuit priest working for reconciliation between jews and catholics in poland. memory and reconciliation were two major themes of this conference, which included prominent jewish and catholic leaders from europe, israel, and the u.s. the two major addresses are published here, by stanislaw dziwisz, the cardinal of krakow and former secretary to pope john paul ii, and david rosen, an orthodox rabbi who heads the american jewish committee's department of inter-religious affairs and a leader in catholic-jewish relations. in his paper, dziwisz reflected on the centuries when poland was a refuge for jews fleeing pogroms in western europe. he recalled king casimir’s founding of kazimierz, a jewish settlement that would become a center for talmudic studies. with auschwitz-birkenau only fifty kilometers from krakow, the location of the conference, dziwisz assured the jews present that catholic poles want to be "guardians of memory" for the jews murdered by the german nazis (p. 15). for those who question the value of catholic-jewish dialogue in a poland with so few jews left today, he answered, "[o]ur attitude toward people of different faiths is a yardstick of the quality of our christianity" (p. 18). he might also have noted that poland is exporting priests to both western europe and the u.s., where there are vibrant jewish communities. following dziwisz's acknowledgement that poles have not been able to overcome all prejudices and stereotypes, rabbi rosen assured the cardinal that the situation in spain is much worse, where, as in poland, there is not a robust jewish community with which to join in dialogue. rosen also acknowledged "both deep-seated prejudice as well as ignorance" towards christians and christianity in israel, especially among the most religiously observant israelis (p. 43). but he pointed to pope john paul ii's visit to israel in 2000 as "an eye-opener to israeli jews concerning the changes that have taken place in the field of christian-jewish relations" (p. 44). not surprisingly, both dziwisz and rosen made frequent references to john paul ii, described by rosen as arguably "the first pope to actually know the jewish people from the inside" (p. 30). review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): modras r1-2 dziwisz and rosen, brothers reunited modras r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 one of the late pope's frequent descriptions of the jewish people, now used commonly in catholic circles, is "elder brother." rosen pointed out that the term goes back to a political manifesto by one of the giants of polish literature, adam mickiewicz. rosen suggested that a hundred years from now, john paul ii’s efforts to improve jewish-catholic relations may be his major legacy. though more traditionalist catholics ground their criticisms of vatican ii in some of the former pope’s views, rosen says john paul offers no support for any turn back from the “spirit of assisi” (recalling the location of major interfaith prayer meetings in 1986 and 2002) (p. 32). rosen also had kind words for the beleaguered current pope benedict xvi. when benedict visited auschwitz-birkenau early in his pontificate, some critics were disappointed with his remarks, which some called platitudinous. rosen, however, highlighted an important and profound idea in the pope's description of the nazi genocide: "by destroying israel they ultimately wanted to tear out the taproot of the christian faith" (p. 39). not only did benedict, like john paul, call nazism a "sin against god and man," he also linked it to an attack on christianity itself, making his denunciation even more powerful. the title of this little book, "brothers reunited," refers to a statement at the end of rosen's presentation, in his reference to a commentary by nineteenth century rabbi naftali berlin on the genesis story of jacob and esau. after decades of estrangement, the two brothers reunited. esau ran towards jacob, and embraced and kissed him. rabbis often wondered if the embrace was sincere. some doubted that it was, as suggested by the common rabbinic association of esau with israel’s enemies, including christians. commenting on this verse in genesis, rosen notes, rabbi berlin urged that even if the experiences of jews with the church have been marked by bitterness, the day will come when esau will embrace jacob sincerely: "then the latter will respond and they will be truly reconciled for the benefit of all humanity" (p. 46). poland's jesuits are to be congratulated for publishing these two papers, presented in both polish and in english. in honoring the memory of stanislaw musial and continuing the legacy of pope john paul ii and the jesuits, dziwisz and rosen fostered a spirit more recently associated with assisi but with deeper historical roots in krakow. a public dialogue: contemporary questions about covenant(s) and conversion studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kessler/cunningham cp1-15 conference proceeding a public dialogue: contemporary questions about covenant(s) and conversion edward kessler, the woolf institute of abrahamic faiths, cambridge university philip a. cunningham, jewish-catholic institute, st. joseph’s university presented at st. joseph’s university, january 11, 2009 in recent years, several controversies have beset official relations between jews and catholics. these include whether catholics should pray for the conversion of jews, whether the purpose of interreligious dialogue is to lead others to christian faith, and whether catholics should undertake non-coercive "missions" to jews. an underlying theological topic in all these disputes is how the biblical concept of "covenant" is understood in the jewish and catholic traditions and in terms of their interrelationship. the resolution of these questions could set the pattern of official catholic-jewish relations for many years. in a public dialogue of these matters, dr. edward kessler from cambridge university in great britain and dr. philip a. cunningham, director of the jewish-catholic institute at st. joseph’s university presented and discussed their own analyses of the present situation. link to video at: http://model.inventivetec.com/inventivex/mediaresources/checkout_clean.cfm?contentid =28893&transactionid=218605&checksum=%20%20509780&repserverid=&jumpsec onds=0&cfid=3895491&cftoken=14161271 covenant, mission and dialogue edward kessler covenant, mission and dialogue illustrate both the extent of the common ground between jews and christians and also many of the difficulties that still need to be addressed. the challenge they bring is demonstrated by nostra aetate, perhaps the most influential of the recent church documents on jewish–christian relations. on the one hand, the document states that “the church is the new people of god” while, on the other, “the jews remain most dear to god because of their fathers, for he does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues (cf. romans 11:28-29)”. the tension between the two statements is caused by continuing divergence of opinion over the identity of the people of god─both jews and christians claim to be verus israel, the true israel─regarded by jews as the very core of their self-understanding, yet for nearly two millennia the church also saw itself as the true israel and the heir of all the biblical promises towards israel. covenant covenant (hebrew, berith), a central concept in both judaism and christianity is a subject that has received serious attention in recent years. it refers to god initiating a covenant with a kessler & cunningham, covenant and conversion kessler/cunningham cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 http://model.inventivetec.com/inventivex/mediaresources/checkout_clean.cfm?contentid=28893&transactionid=218605&checksum=%20%20509780&repserverid=&jumpseconds=0&cfid=3895491&cftoken=14161271 http://model.inventivetec.com/inventivex/mediaresources/checkout_clean.cfm?contentid=28893&transactionid=218605&checksum=%20%20509780&repserverid=&jumpseconds=0&cfid=3895491&cftoken=14161271 http://model.inventivetec.com/inventivex/mediaresources/checkout_clean.cfm?contentid=28893&transactionid=218605&checksum=%20%20509780&repserverid=&jumpseconds=0&cfid=3895491&cftoken=14161271 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kessler/cunningham cp1-15 community of people, and that community accepting certain obligations and responsibilities as covenant partners. a covenant is not, as is sometimes mistakenly assumed, a contract or a transaction but is an agreement dependent upon a relationship. some exegetes hold to the view that berith is better translated by “obligation” because it expresses the sovereign power of god, who imposes his will on his people israel: god promises in a solemn oath to fulfill his word to his people israel, who are expected to respond by faithfulness and obedience. jonathan sacks explained this in his address to 600 anglican bishops at the 2008 lambeth anglican communion when he said, “in a covenant, two or more individuals, each respecting the dignity and integrity of the other, come together in a bond of love and trust, to share their interests, sometimes even to share their lives, by pledging our faithfulness to one another, to do together what neither of us can do alone…a contract is about interests but a covenant is about identity. and that is why contracts benefit, but covenants transform.” in the new testament the concept of the covenant is reinterpreted through the experiences of the early christian community and the story of jesus is seen as a new phase in the covenantstory of israel. the change in emphasis marked by the translation of berith into the greek diathèkè (“decree”) in the septuagint, developed still further in the new testament, where the concept acquired the meaning of a definitive “last will and testament”on the part of god. the vulgate translation used the word testamentum, which became the official designation of both parts of the christian bible─the old testament and the new testament─with its inescapable implication of supersessionism. from the jewish perspective, no change took place in israel’s covenantal relationship with god. the traditional rabbinic attitude is that judaism remained a community of faith─nothing had been taken away although there was a change in emphasis. the sinai covenant became more important and there was an increased emphasis on the mutuality of the covenantal relationship between god and his people. this is summarized in a well-known midrash, in which god was depicted as travelling around the world asking various peoples to accept his torah. none was willing to accept its yoke until god came to israel and the israelites answered in one voice: “all that the lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient”(exodus 24.7, after mechilta bachodesh 5.74a). as far as christianity was concerned, however, a radical break had occurred. christianity had introduced a new covenant, or at the very least, a radical transformation of the old covenant. according to the new testament, the relationship between god and his people was mediated decisively through his son, jesus christ. the early church soon regarded the old covenant of israel as definitely abrogated; the text on the new covenant in jeremiah 31:31-34 was explained as pointing to fulfillment in christ: behold, the days come, says the lord, that i will make a new covenant with the house of israel, and with the house of judah. not according to the covenant that i made with their fathers in the day that i took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of egypt; which my covenant they broke, although i was a husband unto them, says the lord. but this shall be the covenant that i will make with the house of israel. after those days, says the lord, i will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and i will be their god, and they shall be my people. and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, know the lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, says the lord. for i will forgive their iniquity, and i will remember their sin no more. kessler & cunningham, covenant and conversion kessler/cunningham cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kessler/cunningham cp1-15 the question that has absorbed many christian theologians, such as prof. cunningham in recent years, concerns the role of the jewish people after the appearance of christianity. the traditional christian teaching is that with the coming of jesus christ the church has taken the place of the jewish people as god’s elect community─this is known as replacement theology (sometimes called supersessionism) which implies the abrogation (or obsolescence) of god’s covenant with the jewish people. after the holocaust many christians became aware of the inadequacy of replacement theology, which was perceived to have formed the linchpin of the “teaching of contempt.”accordingly, the identification, analysis and repudiation of replacement theology have occupied a prominent place among christian theologians seeking to put the church’s relationship to the jewish people on a new theological footing. however, there is less agreement among christians about what replaces replacement theology. clearly, the rejection of replacement theology entails some affirmation of the continuing validity of god’s covenant with the jewish people and that christians must regard jews as continuing in a covenantal relationship with god, however the church eventually might interpret the meaning of the christ event. but christian theologians continue to differ about the implications of the rejection of replacement theology for central christian doctrines, notably christology and the church’s mission. it is for this reason that philip cunningham helped initiate an ecumenical christian group whose purpose was to explore the new relationship between the church and the jewish people on the assumption that christologies which revolve around the notion that through the christ event christianity totally fulfilled (and replaced) judaism can no longer be sustained. constructing a new theology of the church and the jewish people in light of the christ event remains an unresolved and formidable undertaking, perhaps because, as johann-baptist metz argued, the restatement of the church’s relationship with the jewish people is a fundamental revision of christian theology. german scholar friedrich-wilhelm marquardt viewed covenant as the most constructive biblical concept to describe both christian identity and contemporary jewish–christian relations. his conviction is that churches as representatives of the peoples of the earth can only hope to become partners in a covenantal relationship with the people of israel if they are willing to accept the burden of israel in sanctifying the name of god in the world, if they join in the calling of israel to restore the world, and if they are ready to embark with the people of israel on its journey to the “new covenant” with god which lies ahead. there are at least three possible ways in which christians may understand the relation between the 'old' and 'new' peoples: • only one (the newer) is truly the 'people of god'; • there are two peoples of god, the jewish and the christian; • the two peoples are really one people of god identical in some respects and different on others. the first position states that there is simply only one “people of god”─christians. in this case, either jews convert to christianity or remain as jews, a remnant destined to suffer whose lowly position gives witness to the truth of christ. this augustinian position, called the witness doctrine, dominated christian thought until it began to be questioned during and after the enlightenment. kessler & cunningham, covenant and conversion kessler/cunningham cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kessler/cunningham cp1-15 the second position argues that there are two peoples of god, the jewish and the christian. this view is espoused by theologians such as the jewish writer franz rosenzweig, who suggests that both jews and christians participate in god’s revelation and both are (in different ways) intended by god. only for god is the truth one and earthly truth remains divided. rosenzweig was influenced by jacob emden (1697–1776) who viewed christianity as a legitimate religion for gentiles. in seder olam rabbah vezuta he wrote positively about jesus and paul, utilizing the new testament in his argument that they had not sought to denigrate judaism and that their teachings were primarily concerned to communicate the noachide laws to gentiles. “the nazarene and his apostles…observed the torah fully,“ he wrote. james parkes also took the two-covenant position and suggested that the sinai and calvary experiences provided humanity with two complementary revelations. in his view the sinai revelation emphasized the aspect of “community “while calvary focused on the “individual.” parkes remained convinced that the revelation in christ did not replace the covenant at sinai and as a result judaism and christianity were inextricably linked together. although there are variations in the views of theologians who follow the two peoples of god (or two-covenant) approach they tend to share the view that the revelation in christ was a unique event and resulted in a new sense of intimacy between god and humanity. john pawlikowski has suggested that the two-covenant approach is particularly close to the new testament teachings because it emphasizes that as a result of the christ event, humanity has achieved a deeper understanding of the god-humankind relationship. the difficulty of this approach from the perspective of jewish-christian relations is how─after having proclaimed this uniqueness─a special role can be maintained for judaism in the salvation process. as for contemporary jewish supporters of the two-covenant theory, it is an approach shared by myself as well as israeli scholar david hartman (b. 1931). a covenant between people and god is predicated on a belief in human dignity. other religions, especially christianity and islam, have their own covenants with god and are called to celebrate their dignity and particularity. the third position posits that jews and christians represent one people of god who are identical in some respects and different in others. although both differ substantially they nevertheless share sufficient common ground to make it possible for the same covenant to be applied to both. christians favoring the one-people (or one covenant) approach sometimes refer to ephesians 2:12 which states that to be separate from christ is to be strangers to the community of israel. the roman catholic church favors a single covenant model as does the german rhineland synod, which in towards a renewal of the relationship between christians and jews (1980), declared: “we believe in the permanent election of the jewish people as the people of god and realize that through jesus christ the church is taken into the covenant of god with his people.” similarly, catholic scholar monika hellwig argues that judaism and christianity both point towards a common goal─the same eschatological event. as a result, christian claims that jesus had totally fulfilled jewish messianic expectations must be set aside. in her view, there still remains an unfulfilled dimension awaiting completion. her words, which were published in an article in 1970 foreshadowed the pontifical biblical commission’s 2001 declaration the jewish people and their scriptures in the christian bible, which stated the “jewish messianic expectation is not in vain.” in a striking passage which deals with eschatological expectations the document also stated that jews, alongside christians, keep alive the messianic expectation. the difference is that for christians “the one who is to come will have the traits of the jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us.” what christians believe to have been accomplished in christ “has yet to be accomplished in us and in the world.” kessler & cunningham, covenant and conversion kessler/cunningham cp 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kessler/cunningham cp1-15 the most comprehensive theological study among protestant theologians is found in the threevolume work by paul van buren (1924–98) entitled a theology of jewish-christian reality (1980-88), who argues that the people “israel” should be recognized as two connected but distinct branches. the christian church represents the gentile believers drawn together by the god of the jewish people in order to make god’s love known throughout the world. through jesus, gentiles were summoned by god for the first time as full participants in god’s ongoing salvation of humanity. however, the gentiles went beyond god’s eternal covenant with the jewish people and attempted, unsuccessfully, to annul the original covenant. van buren argues that both branches must grow together rather than in isolation and that in time they will draw closer whilst retaining their distinctiveness. evangelical scholar, david holwerda however, argues that christians are in danger of minimizing the differences between judaism and christianity and in so doing produce a theology that is not true to the new testament message. although he recognizes the importance of the christians’ re-acquaintance with the jewish jesus, christianity still has an implicit argument with judaism on several key issues but “the category of election still applies to the jewish people, even those who do not now believe in jesus.” the church is the new israel but the old israel remains elect and in god’s faithfulness still has a future. in taking this view, holwerda is clearly dependent upon romans 9 – 11. although there are significant differences between proponents of the single covenant thesis, they all share a number of key features: • gentiles can ultimately be saved only through a linkage with the jewish covenant, something made possible in and through christ; • the uniqueness of christianity consists far more in modes of expression than in content; • jews and christians share equally and integrally in the ongoing process of humanity’s salvation. it is much debated whether the concept of covenant, in its oneor two-covenant version, could function as a bridge between judaism and christianity. it has certainly become a common subject for discussion in activist and scholarly circles. numerous official ecclesiastical statements have in the last few decades declared that the covenant of god with his people was never abrogated, illustrated by the 1985 vatican notes and the 1992 catechism which stated that the biblical covenant had not been revoked and that “israel is the priestly people of god…the older brothers and sisters of all who share the faith of abraham‟ (para 63). it is particularly noteworthy that the present tense is used with reference to the jewish people. in recent years a number of scholars have become somewhat dissatisfied with the single and double covenant options. these scholars, both jewish and christian, have begun to suggest new images of the relationship such as “siblings” (hayim perelmuter), “fraternal twins” (mary c. boys) and “co-emergence” (daniel boyarin). all of these images stress both linkage and distinctiveness between christianity and judaism. they tend to emphasize a more “parallel” rather than the traditional “linear” dimensions of the relationship, with christianity and judaism, as we know them today, having emerged out of a religious revolution in second temple judaism. kessler & cunningham, covenant and conversion kessler/cunningham cp 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kessler/cunningham cp1-15 re-reading paul paul’s comments on the identity of people of israel and their relationship with god are complex and sometimes hard to follow and it is unfortunate that they are commonly and misleadingly simplified. he is the new testament writer par excellence who struggles deeply with the meaning of the covenant of israel and the election of the church. he is generally viewed as arguing that membership of the true israel is not determined simply on physical descent from abraham, but rather on the spiritual affinity to abraham’s trusting relationship with god. in other words israel is composed of a combination of jews and gentiles. the former, due to their spiritual past, include those who have extended their trust in god to a dependence upon jesus as lord; the latter includes those gentiles who have entered into the covenantal relationship with god by their acceptance of jesus. this, however, is a facile interpretation of paul’s assessment for it simply imputes to him the view that the old becomes new. a significant re-reading of paul’s writings in modern times began in 1974 when lutheran scholar krister stendahl, published paul among jews and gentiles. stendahl showed that paul could not accept the idea that jews as a people and religion are totally and forever outside the people of god. according to stendahl, paul suggests that both israel and the church are elect and both participate in the covenant of god. paul affirmed that the jewish people, despite their disobedience toward christ, are still the elect people of god and that christian gentiles are honorary citizens grafted onto the rich tree of jewish heritage. while paul argued that unbelieving jews are in a state of disobedience regarding christ, nevertheless, he unreservedly affirmed their continued election. in his letter to the romans, paul asked a controversial question: what of the ongoing validity of god's covenant with his jewish people? did the church, as the new israel, simply replace the old as inheritors of god's promises? if so, does this mean that god reneges on his word? if god has done so with regard to jews, what guarantee is there for the churches that he won't do so again, to christians this time? one might argue against paul by saying that if jews have not kept faith with god, then god has a perfect right to cast them off. it is interesting that christians who argue this way have not often drawn the same deduction about christian faithfulness, which has not been a notable and consistent characteristic of the last two millennia. actually, god seems to have had a remarkable ability to keep faith with both christians and jews when they have not kept faith with god, a point of which paul is profoundly aware in romans 9-11. he goes out of his way to deny claims that god has rejected the chosen people, and asserts that their stumbling does not lead to their fall. he also offers a severe warning that gentile christians should not be haughty or boastful toward unbelieving jews─much less cultivate evil intent and engage in persecution against them. this critical warning remained almost totally forgotten by christians who tended to remember jews as “enemies” but not as “beloved” of god and have taken to heart paul’s criticisms and used them against jews while forgetting paul’s love for jews and judaism. in paul’s view it was impossible for god to elect the jewish people as a whole and then later displace them. if that were the case, god could easily do the same with christians. in his view, the hardening took place so that the gentiles would receive the opportunity to join the people of god. the church’s election, therefore, derives from that of israel but this does not imply that god’s covenant with israel is broken. rather, it remains unbroken─irrevocably (romans 11:29). the rhineland synod (1980) explained this as follows, referring to the continuing existence of the jewish people, its return to the land of promise and the creation of the state of israel as kessler & cunningham, covenant and conversion kessler/cunningham cp 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kessler/cunningham cp1-15 “signs of the faithfulness of god towards his people.”in the same year, john paul ii referred to “the people of god of the old covenant, which has never been revoked.”as the 1985 notes stated: “the permanence of israel (while so many ancient peoples have disappeared without trace) is a historic fact and a sign to be interpreted within god’s design. we must in any case rid ourselves of the traditional idea of a people punished, preserved as a living argument for christian apologetic. it remains a chosen people, “the pure olive on which were grafted the branches of the wild olive which are the gentiles” (john paul ii, 6 march 1982, alluding to rm 11:17–24).‟ mission the issue of mission is in many ways far more difficult for the church to resolve in its relationship with judaism than, for example, christian antisemitism since it is relatively easy to condemn antisemitism as a misunderstanding of christian teaching whereas mission (in the sense of making converts) has been and still is central to the christian faith─the legacy of the command found in matthew 28:19 to “go therefore and make disciples of all nations.” initially, the christian message was preached by jews to jews (cf. acts 2:14ff) until paul raised the issue of preaching to the gentiles. the gospels themselves reflect early controversies over the inclusion of gentiles in christianity's missionary activity. mark 7:27 says in this context, “let the children first be fed, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs” and similarly in matthew 10.6 the instruction to “go nowhere among the gentiles, and enter no town of the samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of israel” is ascribed to jesus. both verses express the view that the proclamation of jesus as the messiah should be expressed to jews alone. the conclusion of the new testament authors, however, contradicts this. not only matthew 28:19 but also acts 28:28, which argues that the “good news”should also be transmitted to gentiles: “let it be known to you then that this salvation of god has been sent to the gentiles.” indeed, unlike jews, the author argues the gentiles “will listen.” for jews, christian mission is contentious because it conjures up images of centuries of persecution by the church which has failed to understand the jewish “no” to jesus. some jews view christian missionary activity as no different from hitler’s policies because for centuries the church had tried to do spiritually what hitler had sought to do physically: to wipe out jews and judaism. indeed, the 1948 meeting of the world council of churches (wcc) in amsterdam called for a redoubling of efforts to convert jews. whilst acknowledging the six million jews who perished under the nazis, the wcc report nevertheless recommended that the churches should “seek to recover the universality of our lord’s commission by including the jewish people in their evangelistic work.” the conclusion of the wcc was that, in the light of the holocaust, an even greater effort should be made to convert jews. much missionary theology rests on christian claims that salvation is only possible through christ. the exclusive understanding of salvation is demonstrated by the traditional teaching, extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation) and a discussion of mission and jewish-christian relations needs to address the issues of salvation and christology. the roman catholic theologian john pawlikowski strongly argues that nostra aetate necessitates a rethinking of christology, christian identity, covenant and mission. the 2002 document, a sacred obligation, a statement from an ecumenical american christian scholars group on christian–jewish relations, argues that the recent recognition within the church that with of the permanency of god’s covenant with the jewish people there kessler & cunningham, covenant and conversion kessler/cunningham cp 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kessler/cunningham cp1-15 automatically comes the realization that the redemptive power of god is at work within judaism. so, if jews who do not share the christian faith are indeed in such a saving relationship with god, then christians require new ways of understanding the universal significance of christ. this has been the subject of fierce debate and remains highly contested. despite the recognition of christian theologians that the repudiation of the adversus judaeos tradition has profound implications for christology, major problems remain. the vatican document dominus iesus (2000) reiterated that all salvation ultimately comes through christ and that those that do not acknowledge stand in considerable peril in terms of their redemption. cardinal walter kasper, since 2001 head of the holy see’s commission for religious relations with the jews, has advanced the notion that jews are an exception to the rule in terms of the universality of salvation in christ because they are the only non-christian religious community to have authentic revelation from the christian perspective. hence torah is sufficient for jewish salvation. this thesis remains in its infancy and it seems marginal under the papacy of benedict xvi, as the 2008 controversy over the revised tridentine rite good friday prayer demonstrates. the reason the tridentine rite touched a raw nerve in jewish-christian relations is because the prayer deals with mission and the conversion of jews and expressly looks towards their conversion. since 1965 and until 2008, official catholic teaching was clear for, according to the catechism of the catholic church, no. 839, “the jewish faith, unlike other non-christian religions, is already a response to god’s revelation.” the one prayer for jews in catholic liturgy, which before the second vatican council was a prayer for their conversion, previously called the good friday prayer for the perfidious jews, had been transformed by the new 1970 english missal into a prayer that jews will be deepened in the faith given to them by god. it reads: let us pray for the jewish people, the first to hear the word of god, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. the tridentine rite prayer, which retains the pre-vatican ii heading, “prayer for the conversion of the jews‟ has been reformulated as follows: we pray for the jews. that our god and lord enlighten their hearts so that they recognize jesus christ, the saviour of all mankind. with the publication of the prayer, the church now holds two contradictory positions on relations with jews. pope john paul ii (and cardinal jozef ratzinger, before he became pope benedict vxi), among others, regularly used the term, “elder brother” to apply to the relationship with judaism, and catholic teaching accepted the irrevocable nature of the covenantal relationship between the jewish people and god. the new prayer, however, challenges this teaching and since its promulgation in 2007 a small number of conservative catholic groups have begun to voice more loudly their desire to seek jewish converts. this raises a fundamental question: if the church accepts that the covenant still belongs to the jewish people, surely there appears a less pressing need to convert jews to christianity? the revised rite should be seen as part of the growing tension within the church, which now has no clear consensus in this area. many jews expect that if they dialogue with christians there should be no hidden missionary agenda or secret desire for their conversion. at the second vatican council, cardinal patrick o’boyle expressed concern if conversion came on to the agenda of catholic-jewish relations. “the word “conversion” awakens in the hearts of jews memories of persecutions, sufferings…if we express our hope for the eschatological union in words that give the impression we are guided by the definite and conscious intention of working for their conversion, we set up a new and high wall of division, which makes any fruitful dialogue impossible.” his words still echo today. kessler & cunningham, covenant and conversion kessler/cunningham cp 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kessler/cunningham cp1-15 yet, it is a mistake to equate mission to proselytism; rather, mission refers to the sending out of someone to fulfill a particular task and both judaism and christianity have a missionary vocation in the sense that their adherents carry out a specific witness in the world. christian missionary activity has traditionally been understood as converting non-christians to belief in christ, and that has included jews. generally, jews have not understood their mission as converting others to judaism but as faithfulness to torah and the covenantal obligations, sometimes described in terms of “being a light to the nations”(isaiah 42:6); therefore non-jews are not targets for conversion because the righteous of all nations will have a share in the world to come if they keep the noachide laws. of course, there has always been ambiguity in the church’s understanding of mission and jews: on the one hand it sought to bring as many jews as possible into the fold, at times by force; on the other, it had respect for the tradition that was at the root of christian faith. the church sought to preserve the identity of the jewish people because jews were the recipients of god’s providential care as the chosen people and eschatologically they had a role in the final act of redemption. this raised a tension between belief that the conversion of the jews was an essential part of christian mission and not wanting to thwart god’s final salvific plan. this tension remains, as demonstrated by those who seek the conversion of all jews because there is no exemption from the need for salvation in christ; others who witness to faith in christ, without targeting jews specifically, but believe in sharing the christian faith with all people (including jews); and finally, those who have no conversionary outlook towards jews, where mission is understood as mutual influence and a joint ethical witness in an unredeemed world (sometimes called “critical solidarity “or “mutual witness”). on the one hand, it has been argued that the church alone is the theological continuation of israel as the people of god and mission to the jewish people is necessary, as illustrated by missionary organizations such as the christian mission to the jewish people; on the other, jews were still the elect of god, demonstrated by the leuenberg document (2001) which rejected the need to actively seek the conversion of jews. put slightly differently, if the main emphasis is put on the concept of the church as the body of christ, the jewish people are seen as being outside. the christian attitude to them would be in principle the same as to adherents of other faiths and the mission of the church is to bring them either individually or corporately to the acceptance of christ so that they become members of this body. however, if the church is primarily seen as the people of god, it is possible to regard the church and the jewish people together as forming the one people of god separated from one another for the time being, yet with the promise that they will ultimately become one. consequently, the church’s attitude towards jews is different from the attitude she has to all others who do not believe in christ. mission is therefore understood more in terms of ecumenical engagement in order to heal the breach, than of seeking conversion. thomas stransky, former director of the tantur institute near jerusalem, explained the problem of mission slightly differently and his words raise new questions. he argues that christians should always avoid proselytism (in the pejorative sense). they should shun all conversionary attitudes and practices, which do not conform to the ways a free god draws free people to himself in response to his calls to serve him in spirit and in truth: in the case of the jewish people, what is christian proselytism in practice? and what is ‘evangelization’ the church’s everlasting proclamation of jesus christ, ‘the way, the truth kessler & cunningham, covenant and conversion kessler/cunningham cp 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kessler/cunningham cp1-15 and the life’? is open dialogue a betrayal of christian mission? or is mission a betrayal of dialogue? the 1988 anglican communion at lambeth was the first anglican conference to reflect on the issue of christian mission and judaism. it explained mission, not in terms of the conversion of jews, but rather of a common mission. in light of christian-jewish and christian-muslim relations, proselytism was to be rejected and the conference called for “mutual witness to god between equal partners.” it stated that: …there are a variety of attitudes towards judaism within christianity today...all these approaches, however, share a common concern to be sensitive to judaism, to reject all proselytizing, that is, aggressive and manipulative attempts to convert, and of course, any hint of antisemitism. further, jews, muslims and christians have a common mission. they share a mission to the world that god’s name may be honored. in contrast, some, evangelical christian leaders, such as de ridder, firmly believe that it is the divinely mandated mission of the church to preach the gospel to jews, as well as to everyone else. alongside the missionary activity, it is also suggested that christians should re-examine their relationship with judaism by increasing their understanding of the jewish roots of christianity. this has led to some intriguing social and political alliances between evangelical organizations and orthodox jewish groups, particularly in the united states, such as a joint opposition to abortion. according to this view, embraced by many southern baptist churches in the united states, christians would be false to their faith if they failed to try to bring jews into christian fellowship. the 1996 southern baptist convention reaffirmed the need to direct “energies and resources towards the proclamation of the gospel to the jewish people” and the jews for jesus movement also exemplifies active mission towards jews. its charter states that “we believe in the lost condition of every human being, whether jew or gentile, who does not accept salvation by faith in jesus christ, and therefore in the necessity of presenting the gospel to the jews.” for evangelicals in particular, the question of christian mission to jews is not a practical problem as to whether christians should witness their faith to jews; rather, it is how christians should witness their faith to jews. at the heart of the tension between evangelism and dialogue lies conversion and conversation. an evangelical anglican, roger hooker, argued that evangelism─in other words, conversion─and dialogue─in other words, conversation: have to walk together but always as uneasy partners. if they are not walking together, there can be no tension between them. if there is no tension, then the proponents of each caricature the others in order to enjoy the phony security of always being right. when that happens we stop asking questions and so no longer grow. response to dr. edward kessler philip a. cunningham i'd like to begin by noting the death yesterday of a friend of both of ours, rabbi dr. michael signer of the university of notre dame and one of the authors of the important document, dabru emet: a jewish statement on christians and christianity. since he was such a strong proponent kessler & cunningham, covenant and conversion kessler/cunningham cp 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kessler/cunningham cp1-15 of dialogues such as this one today, i know i speak for both of us in dedicating this afternoon's program to his memory. i thank dr. kessler most sincerely for his wonderfully prepared remarks. it is amazing how much intricate and complex material he has expressed in a fairly brief presentation. i am especially struck by his acute sensitivity as a jew to christian, and especially catholic, frames of references and concerns in his remarks. this is a sign of the very significant depths that jewishcatholic dialogue is occasionally able to explore, and a testimony to the unprecedented time in which we live. i am also happy to point out that our conversation this afternoon illustrates the important transatlantic collaboration that is taking place between christians and jews. these international efforts bode well for the future. because ed kessler and i both are eager to engage in spontaneous dialogue with each other and with all of you, i am going to respond to his comments somewhat briefly. in good trinitarian fashion, i'll organize my prepared remarks in three sections: 1. some thoughts about ed's discussion of covenant and how christian and jewish covenantal lives may or may not relate; 2. an overview of the current theological debate in roman catholicism about how jewish covenantal life should be understood, especially in regard to interreligious dialogue and whether catholics ought to hope, pray or act to encourage jews to seek baptism; 3. some questions that jewish thinkers are facing concerning a jewish "theology" of judaism's relationship to christianity. the meaning of covenant and implications for jewish-catholic relations i appreciated very much ed's descriptions of the term "covenant." biblically speaking, a covenant is not a contract, even if the scriptural term had its origins in the ancient legal agreements between people. i found especially helpful ed's citation of chief rabbi jonathan sacks: "contracts benefit, but covenants transform." a covenant is a living, dynamic reality. it is not something possessed or quantifiable, but a relationship experienced. in my view, we really ought not to talk about whether christians or jews "have" a covenant (or two), but whether jews or christians are living in covenant, or have covenantal lives, or are covenanting with god. i am among those ed mentioned who have grown weary of the one-covenant, two-covenant, multi-covenant debate. for me such perspectives are predicated on a mistaken static or objectified understanding of covenant as a thing that can be possessed or counted, rather than as a relationship that is lived. which brings me to ed's suggestion that there are at least three possible ways in which christians may understand the relation between the 'old' and 'new' peoples: 1. only one (the newer) is truly the 'people of god'; 2. there are two peoples of god, the jewish and the christian; 3. the two peoples are really one people of god identical in some respects and different in others. i am glad he said "at least," because i do not exactly embrace any of the three options he described, partially because to me "people" and "covenant(ing)" are not interchangeable. for me, the best way for christians to understand the relations between the "old" and "new" peoples kessler & cunningham, covenant and conversion kessler/cunningham cp 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kessler/cunningham cp1-15 is that here we have two related peoples of god, the jewish and the christian, but both are covenanting with the one god in distinctive ways that resonate with one another. the jewish community lives in covenant with god. the church community lives in covenant with god. jews and christians both “know/experience” (yada) god’s saving works, in the past, present, and in hope of the ultimate future. they both grapple with god’s desires for the world presently and anticipate that those desires will culminate in god's age to come. both christians and jews sin, but god’s covenantal faithfulness encourages and enables repentance and reform. jews and christians can perceive each other as covenanting with god. this perception occurs by resonating with each other’s distinctive experiences of covenantal life. jews seek to do god's will by engaging with and walking in the life of torah. its covenantal life is torah-shaped. the church seeks to do god's will by engaging with and walking in the life of christ. its covenantal life is christ-shaped. finally, because god is the ever-faithful covenant partner, the distinctive though organicallyrelated ways of walking in covenant with god experienced by christians and jews are willed by god to endure until the end of time. time does not allow me to go into all the details, but this vision of the covenantal lives of jews and christians is firmly grounded in catholic magisterial teaching beginning with the second vatican council's famous declaration, nostra aetate. that authoritative document not only instructed that the jewish people are beloved by god, but in addition the council deliberately, overwhelmingly, and with the knowledge of the general public postponed any interest in jewish conversion to christianity until the end of time: the eternal destiny of jews was a mystery to be left in the hands of god. nostra aetate expressed this teaching with these words: “the church awaits that day, known to god alone, on which all peoples will address the lord in a single voice and 'serve him shoulder to shoulder.'" this watershed statement is the principal reason why the catholic church, unlike some other christian communities, has not supported any conversionary campaigns aimed particularly at jews ever since the time of the council. combined with a growing catholic respect for jewish covenantal life and for the rabbinic heritage, the theological trajectory launched by nostra aetate would lead pope john paul ii to make many important contributions to a catholic theology of its relationship with judaism, and would enable cardinal walter kasper, current president of the pontifical commission for religious relations with the jews to make this very important pronouncement in the year 2000: ... god’s grace, which is the grace of jesus christ according to our faith, is available to all. therefore, the church believes that judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the jewish people to god’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because god is faithful to his promises. this statement is very notable for attributing the power to save to jewish covenantal life, but it also links that power to "the grace of jesus christ" in some unspecified way. that apparent tension led to a major internal debate presently unfolding within the catholic community and whose contours i can only hastily sketch out this afternoon. the current catholic debate over jewish covenantal life in retrospect, it is hardly surprising that habits and attitudes and ways of thinking that have endured for many centuries would not be transformed in a mere handful of decades. as ed kessler & cunningham, covenant and conversion kessler/cunningham cp 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kessler/cunningham cp1-15 perceptively observed, we christians in encountering judaism anew are dealing with matters that touch on the central nervous system of our own self-understanding. in recent years, some catholic officials and leaders who, on the one hand are concerned about religious relativism and who, on the other hand, espouse a robust proclamation of christ as universal savior, have critiqued aspects of the emerging post-nostra aetate catholic theology of the church's relationship to the jewish people. to take only two examples: cardinal avery dulles marked the 40th anniversary of nostra aetate by writing that, “the second vatican council, while providing a solid and traditional [?] framework for discussing jewish-christian relations, did not attempt to answer all questions. in particular, it left open the question whether the old covenant remains in force today (italics added).” similarly, at the recent synod of bishops in rome, cardinal albert vanhoye, s.j. argued that the new testament letter to the hebrews denied "the permanent validity of the sinai covenant." he concluded that although there is a permanent validity of the “covenant-promise of god,” this "is not a bilateral pact such as the sinai covenant, often broken by the israelites…in this sense, according to the new testament, israel continues to be in a covenant relationship with god." the approach represented by these two essays in effect denies any legitimacy to post-christic jewish covenantal life. ironically, the very document that cardinal vanhoye was discussing undercuts his conclusion: "israel's election is made concrete and specific in the sinai covenant and by the institutions based on it, especially the law and the temple." if sinai was terminated by the coming of christ as vanhoye suggests, then israel's election would have no concrete specificity and the jewish people's self-understanding of post-temple rabbinic judaism as continuous with the sinai covenant would be denied. let me sum up the current debate by means of a comparative chart: a comparison of currently competing catholic conceptions of covenant approach one approach two sees history as crucial to theology (e.g. supersessionism, shoah) tends to transcendent, ahistorical ways of theologizing. tends to see salvation as being in relationship with god. tends to see salvation as believing jesus is lord/savior. jews are in covenant with god and christians must be guided by jewish self-understanding of their covenantal life. jews are in covenant with god and jewish covenantal life promises to lead to christ. the faithful response of jews to god’s irrevocable covenant is salvific for them. the status of the bilateral sinai covenant after christ is doubtful, but god remains faithful to the promise(s). kessler & cunningham, covenant and conversion kessler/cunningham cp 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kessler/cunningham cp1-15 dialogue aids jews and christians in their distinct covenantal lives. the aim of dialogue is to lead all to the fullness of truth. the ultimate destiny of jews is a mysterious eschatological matter left in the hands of god. christians should propose jesus to jews so that they can know god-with-us and be fulfilled. tends to extend respect for biblical judaism to rabbinic judaism and jewish self-understanding today. respects biblical judaism for receiving the promise(s); overlooks jewish self-understanding and rabbinic judaism. stresses the revolutionary nature of nostra aetate and later vatican and papal documents. stresses nostra aetate as continuous with prior church tradition and ignores subsequent documents. accuses the other approach of making explicit faith in christ a requirement for salvation (~christomonism). accuses the other approach of denying any significance of christ for jews and/or of relativism. questions about christianity and covenant confronting jewish thinkers finally, lest anyone think that it is only christians whose self-understanding is challenged by the deepening christian-jewish dialogue, i'd like mention some issues that face jewish scholars who might consider developing a jewish "theology" of judaism's relationship to christianity. regardless of whether a oneor two-covenant model, or some other metaphor, is employed, a jewish affirmation that christians are in a spiritual relationship with the same one with whom jews covenant raises challenging questions─questions that historical oppression has not encouraged jews to consider. a. if christians are covenanting with the holy one, then presumably christian covenantal life must be the result of god's will. how else could such a relationship be established unless god agreed? since the distinctively christian style of covenanting is shaped by him whom christians name "christ," then was jesus of nazareth an agent of god, through whom god worked in bringing a new covenanting people into being? or was the emergence of a christian covenantal reality the result of some sort of accident or mistake that god took advantage of to reach out to the gentiles? b. how would a "jewish theology of christianity" (or of judaism in relation to christianity) reckon with the church's self-understanding, especially its convictions that jesus is lord, god's word incarnate? a theology of revelation is relevant here. speaking of revelation, i would like to end with a question that in different ways is challenging to jews and christians alike. i think most christians and jews uncritically hold that something went kessler & cunningham, covenant and conversion kessler/cunningham cp 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kessler/cunningham cp1-15 wrong with the origins of christianity and rabbinic judaism, the so-called “parting of the ways.” the parting was not god’s will. a. christians: jews, who did not accept the good news about jesus, were either blinded (paul: god’s will), obstinate (not god’s will, maybe demonic), or more benignly, innocently mistaken because of a misplaced myopic focus on the torah. b. jews: paul, if not jesus, fundamentally distorted judaism and founded a religion for the gentiles, but one based on misconceptions. let me give two recent illustrations of these ideas. first, a leading jewish scholar of christian-jewish relations: “let us assume…that i respect believing christians, as i do, for qualities that emerge precisely out of their christian faith. but i believe that the worship of jesus as god is a serious religious error displeasing to god even if the worshipper is a non-jew, and that at the end of days christians will come to recognize this.” and now, as a catholic example, the newly composed extraordinary good friday prayer "for the conversion of the jews": we pray for the jews. that our god and lord enlighten their hearts so that they recognize jesus christ, the savior of all mankind. let us pray. eternal god almighty, you want all people to be saved and to arrive at the knowledge of the truth, graciously grant that by the entry of the abundance of all people into your church, israel will be saved. through christ our lord. i would like to ask: "what if the origins of our two traditions have actually unfolded according to god’s will?" in the catholic tradition, god is, of course, the ultimate mystery, meaning that god's plans and actions are not fully comprehensible to mortal minds. in addition, both israel and the church are "mysteries" in the sense of possessing divine or transcendent qualities that go beyond human perceptions. it is therefore almost unavoidable to conclude that god has not necessarily revealed to either jews or christians everything that god might be doing in the other community. in fact, since jews cannot experience how i as a christian encounter god in christ, and since christians cannot experience how ed as a jew encounters god in the life of torah, it is a foregone conclusion that god acts in the other community in ways inaccessible to outsiders, though perhaps―because covenanting resonates with covenanting―outsiders can glimpse god at work among the jewish or christian others. why is it not possible that god would desire two covenanting communities in the world, perhaps to serve as enablers and correctors of one another? this makes greater sense if god’s self-disclosure, divine revelation, is understood as essentially relational in nature, so that god―with divine freedom of action― is perfectly able to reveal different (though not contradictory) things selectively and in different ways to different people. if so, then at the end of days one "side" or the other will not be proven wrong and come to see the light in some zero-sum calculus; rather both sides will come to understand why both were correct to walk with god down through the centuries in their related torah-shaped and christshaped ways. these are the kinds of ruminations and thought-experiments permitted by our unprecedented atmosphere of open and respective dialogue. although we've only begun to scratch the surface, we invite you to join the conversation. kessler & cunningham, covenant and conversion kessler/cunningham cp 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 edward kessler, the woolf institute of abrahamic faiths, cambridge university studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review franklin sherman, ed. bridges: documents of the christian-jewish dialogue volume one: the road to reconciliation (1945-1985) volume two: building a new relationship (1986-2013) (mahwah, new jersey: paulist press, 2011 and 2014) volume 1: pp. xx + 442 pages. volume 2: pp. xix + 540 pages. victoria j. barnett, u. s. holocaust memorial museum a growing number of recent programs and publications, many of them related to the fiftieth anniversary of the second vatican council statement “nostra aetate,” have reminded us of the transformative and revolutionary nature of the christianjewish conversations that began after 1945. with few exceptions the interfaith movement before 1945 focused on issues of common social and political concern, with theological conversations confined largely to the academic sphere. there were certainly christian pioneers in the first half of the twentieth century, such as james parkes in england and mildred eakin at drew university in the united states, who were already doing critical studies of anti-judaism in christian history and teachings. it was only after the shoah, however, that christian theologians and the leadership of the different churches began to acknowledge christianity’s role in the painful history and unspeakable harm that had been perpetrated against jews. simultaneously, an international network of christian-jewish organizations and publications emerged that could offer an institutional framework and continuity to the conversations that followed. this two-volume set is an indispensable resource for understanding this history. editor franklin sherman is a seminal figure in this history who was founding director of the institute for christian-jewish understanding at muhlenberg college studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 10 (2015) and also served for ten years as the associate for interfaith relations with the department for ecumenical affairs of the evangelical lutheran church in america. bridges is a compilation of 167 statements on christian-jewish relations between 1945 and 2013. the statements are organized by tradition, with sections devoted to protestant, roman catholic, orthodox christian, ecumenical christian, joint jewish-christian, and jewish documents. the documents in each section are listed in chronological and sometimes geographical order, with the exception of the roman catholic statements in volume one, which are grouped by level of teaching authority. each volume is introduced by brief essays on the documents written by renowned interfaith practitioners and scholars alice l. eckardt (protestant), philip a. cunningham (roman catholic), and michael s. kogan (jewish). many readers will turn to these volumes as a reference work, looking for documents by topic, date, or denomination, but it is worthwhile to read through all these texts in sequence. taken as a whole, the texts in these volumes reveal how greatly the jewish-christian dialogue after 1945 was a work in progress, complicated and at times weakened by the great diversity within christianity and the numerous, often contentious issues that confronted interfaith circles at the time the respective documents were written. beginning with the 1947 seelisberg meeting, there was a new conversation between jews and christians about their shared history that opened the way to learn from one another. even in the case of church statements like “nostra aetate” that were the outcome of an internal ecclesiastical process, background conversations and consultations with jewish dialogue partners were often decisive factors in the final outcome. while there were several very early postwar statements of guilt by german church bodies, for the most part it took several decades for christian churches to begin to acknowledge their historical role during the shoah, beginning with a 1978 message by the evangelical church of germany on the fortieth anniversary of kristallnacht and john paul ii’s 1979 homily at auschwitz. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr the middle east conflict emerges as an ongoing concern and subtext of many of the statements. there are also statements that explore liturgy and scripture, the joint jewish-christian commitment to the environment, and the importance of expanding the dialogue to include muslims. strikingly, the first volume concludes not with statements issued by jewish groups, but with two essays from the 1960s that have become seminal documents in this history: rabbi joseph b. soloveitchik’s “confrontation” and rabbi abraham joshua heschel’s “no religion is an island.” the second volume includes 14 statements from different rabbis and jewish centers that address different moments and issues in the dialogue. while the impetus behind many of these documents was historical (not just the history of the holocaust but the deeper “parting of the ways”), most of them are also forward looking, committed to a changed relationship, especially as evinced by changes in christian teachings about judaism and new interpretations of traditionally problematic texts. reading through these volumes, the question naturally arises: how much change has really come about? as a declaration issued by the second vatican council, “nostra aetate” carried the full weight of the roman catholic church’s teaching authority and truly can be said to have changed interfaith history. in contrast, many of the protestant statements were simply declarations issued by various synods, or groups of theologians and / or clergy, having no binding doctrinal or ecclesiastical weight. some of the jewish-christian statements, notably the 1947 seelisberg declaration, represented real breakthroughs in the conversation; it can truly be said that seelisberg set the foundation for postholocaust dialogue. other statements were quickly forgotten and perhaps their primary significance was the lengthy process of reflection and discussion among those who wrote them. still others—notably the 1998 vatican reflection on the shoah, “we remember,” and “dabru emet,” the 2000 statement on christianity issued by a group of jewish scholars—provoked widespread debates and conversations that in turn drove the dialogue further and in new directions. studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 10 (2015) although many of the major statements in jewish-christian relations are known because of their topic, their timing, or their binding status for the traditions they represented, the driving force behind most of these documents—and behind the changes in the jewish-christian relationship itself—was the dedicated engagement and leadership of many of the individuals involved. in the decades after 1945, an international network emerged of jewish and christian academics, theologians, church officials, and clergy who were committed to this new relationship. a separate book could be written about these figures—in fact, the material in bridges could (and should, in my opinion) serve as the impetus for further scholarship on a number of issues that continue to be important for interreligious engagement. the topic of interreligious relations and conflict continues to draw attention, both positive and negative. because of widespread violence between different religious groups and the persecution of religious minorities around the world today, the history of jewish-christian relations has become less prominent. it would be a shame, however, if bridges were to be read only by those interested in the post-holocaust jewish-christian relationship. these volumes have much to offer the new generations drawn to interfaith work. in some ways they serve as a rather bleak reminder of how far we have yet to go. despite the truly historical nature of some of these documents, representing profound changes in church teachings and doctrine, it must be said that a genuine transformation in jews’ and christians’ understandings of each other has occurred among only a minority from each community. the resurgence of antisemitism in many parts of the world shows the limited nature of this interreligious progress, and even jews and christians deeply committed to the dialogue may disagree vehemently about some issues. yet there is no question that the outcome of the process documented here was a remarkable change in christian-jewish relations. given that this occurred in the wake of the catastrophic genocide of the european jews, the material in bridges illustrates both the potential and the lasting significance of interreligious engagement. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review alan l. berger, editor post-holocaust jewish-christian relations: after the flood, before the rainbow (lanham, md, 2015), hardcover, xx + 162 pp. david fox sandmel, anti-defamation league this volume consists of the first ten years of the annual may smith lectures in post-holocaust jewish-christian relations delivered at florida atlantic university, where the editor, alan berger, teaches and directs the center for the study of values and violence after auschwitz. its subtitle—“after the flood, before the rainbow”—is apt. most of the authors explicitly acknowledge the profound changes in christianity exemplified by nostra aetate and, at the same time, recognize the persistence of unresolved theological questions and points of tension between jews and christians. the first five essays are by jews, and the last five are by christians (four catholics and one protestant). all the contributors are well-known and respected scholars and practitioners of jewish-christian dialogue. elie wiesel speaks of the optimism engendered by the defeat of fascist and communist totalitarianism, as well as widespread opposition to racism, colonialism, and imperialism. he senses that “the world had learned vital lessons from its errors” (p. 1). he includes the progress in jewish-christian relations as a reason for such optimism. however, this optimism is dashed by continuing global conflict. in the face of this reality, human beings must “invoke and create hope where none is found” (p. 3). irving greenberg also speaks of dashed optimism. he is disappointed by growing anti-israel sentiment among mainline studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 10 (2015) protestants, the supersessionism undergirding some evangelical support for israel, and the fact that the catholic church has not internalized nostra aetate, as evidenced by its response to mel gibson’s 2004 movie “passion of the christ.” yet he believes that the emergence of christianity from judaism is part of god’s plan, as is a pluralism that rejects the domination of one religion over others. alan berger examines the interreligious tensions generated by gibson’s movie. the film, while highly controversial for its portrayal of jews, also had the welcome effect of leading some “people to reflect on their own views of religion and to reread sacred texts” (p. 36). however, in the long run, the positive changes in catholic teaching will have to be more widely known. the power of a film to shape attitudes is much greater than the positive influence of vatican documents. also, he asks whether the church will continue to focus on these issues or whether its attention will be drawn to other, more pressing matters. david patterson explores the meaning of the messiah, faith, covenant, and redemption in judaism and christianity, with special attention to the challenges of faith in a messiah in the post-holocaust era. amy-jill levine proposes that jews and christians approach the israeli-palestinian conflict “from the perspective of scripture and liturgy, rather than contemporary politics” in order to better understand the different perspectives they bring to the discussion (p. 62). james carroll calls for the establishment of a tripartite dialogue between jews, christians, and muslims. he stresses the need for islam to engage in the kind of self-criticism that the christians have begun (a process not yet finished). all religions have to ask the following questions: “how do we correct the foundations of our beliefs when they show themselves to be inhuman? and how can basic change in religious affirmations studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr be made without undermining the authority of the tradition?” (p. 79). john k. roth explores the topic of the sixth commandment prohibiting murder. he declares that “[the biblical] imperative is the most necessary, although not sufficient, condition for human civilization” (p. 97). he connects this to theological questions about belief in a god who allows murder and genocide to persist. roth does not, however, consider the interreligious implications of his thought. mary c. boys writes that every religion has texts that are “prone to sacrilegious uses” (p. 99). she offers five readings of the passion narratives to suggest how these texts—often used to provoke hatred against jews—might nonetheless be “redeemed” (p. 108). john t. pawlikowski assesses the catholic church’s relationship to the holocaust, focusing on the vatican document “we remember: a reflection on the holocaust,” pope benedict xiv’s views on anti-semitism, covenant and the holocaust, and the on-going issue of the role of the actions of the church and especially of pope pius xii during the second world war. donald dietrich asserts “a common human morality that can be uncovered through an ongoing dialogue concerning god and the human condition” (p. 138). through post-holocaust understandings of human dignity rooted in praxis rather than abstract ideology, jews and christian can develop a dialogue in which “human values can be explicated more fully” (p. 142). each of the essays is informative, some of them provocative. they cover theology, hermeneutics, the practice of interreligious dialogue, and the politics within and between the jewish and christian communities. while the book’s title refers to “jewish-christian relations,” the catholic church features prominently in many of the essays, not only in the contributions of the catholic scholars but also in those of the jews. studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 10 (2015) this highlights the dominant role the catholic church has taken in jewish-christian relations since the promulgation of nostra aetate, an iconic statement for jewish-christian relations in general. the church has produced the most sophisticated theological reflections on jews and judaism, both in official documents and in the writing of popes and other church leaders. it is also most often involved in controversies with the jewish community, a function as much of its size and of the attention given to the church and the popes as of anything inherent in catholicism itself. this focus on jewishcatholic relations is not unique to this collection. nonetheless, the topics the contributors address transcend the parochial. those with an interest in jewish-christian relations, and in interreligious relations in general, will find much of value in this anthology. it would be an excellent text for a course in jewishchristian relations or for discussion by a clergy association. the volume has an index; the essays, however, are not dated, which would have been helpful when current events are being discussed. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr peer-reviewed article a time to deconstruct: refining the work of jewish-christian engagement beatrice lawrence, seattle university theologies of religious pluralism and comparative theology are related topics within the greater study of religion. such theologies seek to examine how it is possible to study multiple religious traditions, while remaining a member of one specific tradition. seminal works in this field reveal great strides taken in inter-religious engagement, particularly in the context of jewish-christian relationships. this is especially evident in the assertion that antisemitism is incompatible with christian theology and ethics. yet, the leading works in these fields have been predominantly written by christian scholars such as alan race, john hick, john cobb, jaques depuis, paul knitter, mark heim, frank clooney, john thatamanil, jeanine hill fletcher, and catherine cornille. 1 the realization of this fact is significant: the presuppositions, categories, and questions associated with this work were (and are) greatly shaped by and understood through christian lenses. that is, the way approaches to religious pluralism have developed 1 though works written by scholars of non-christian religious traditions have entered the field (such as those by alon goshen-gottstein, john makransky, and alan brill), the majority of scholars doing this work are still christian-identified. anecdotally, my own cohort for the luce summer seminar in theologies of religious pluralism and comparative theology reflected this reality: the cohort comprised a dozen christians, 3 jews, 1 muslim, 1 buddhist, and 1 hindu during the first year. at the second meeting of the cohort, the hindu scholar was not able to be present, leaving us to read and discuss hindu texts without the perspective of a selfidentified hindu. i believe that this unbalanced demographic was not the fault of the organizers, who earnestly sought to include scholars from various religious traditions in our work; rather, i think it is a testament to the fact that this is a field still dominated by christianity. studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) often demonstrates a christian-centric worldview and hermeneutics. a christian hermeneutical bias is an important topic for analysis among scholars working in theologies of religious pluralism and comparative theology, and each participant in the development of these fields must address the issue from his or her own religious identity and specialty. however, and in spite of important developments, the problem is uniquely complicated in the context of christian-jewish engagement. in this context, a christian-centric worldview and interpretive bias obscure and distort the conversations that take place in important ways that can have dire consequences. persecution of jews for much of the last two thousand years, often committed in the name of christianity and/or with the authority of the church, places a burden on this encounter; though the past several decades have witnessed an improvement in these relations, understandably, distrust and suspicion on the part of jews can still play a role. the particular relationship between christianity and judaism has not always been marked by equality and intersubjectivity. in addition, judaism is not a religion like other religions: people who identify themselves as jewish do so for a variety of reasons. jewish identity is rooted in history, family lines, traditions, and numerous other factors not necessarily reflective of religious belief. as a result, this particular group of people is difficult to engage and understand by many christians interested in this work. i believe that it is time for the proverbial “next step” in the work of christian-jewish engagement, well aware that this step is only possible because of the profound advancements of the last fifty years. this engagement takes place in the academy, among friends and neighbors, and through religious teachings promulgated by clergy. multiple christian denominational groups have created documents outlining their commitments to new approaches, including numerous papal documents since vatican ii that record an unfolding conversation about many of the problems that plague christian-jewish relations. it is a blessing that we have arrived at this point in studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr the development of christian-jewish engagement; only because of the hard work of the last several decades, as well as the good faith evident among participants, is it possible for me to present the arguments contained herein. i propose a few critiques of certain aspects of recent and contemporary christian approaches to judaism. my emphasis throughout this article is on theologies of religious pluralism instead of comparative theology. as the direct practice of engaging religious “others,” comparative theology is dependent on theologies of religious pluralism for its hermeneutical frameworks. though some scholars have recently argued that comparative work is more helpful as a method of intercommunity engagement, their own approaches belie the difficulties of “doing” comparative theology than is informed by problematic approaches to religious pluralism. 2 my critiques are intended to support honest and fruitful conversation between two communities whose relationship has been mostly troubled for two thousand years. in order to foster engagement that is viable, in which all participants are respected and can demonstrate authenticity, we must first deconstruct what does not work. with this goal in mind, i will address some of the ideas and methodologies that require deconstruction, and suggest topics of inquiry to guide the conversation moving forward. i offer this in the spirit of james l. fredericks’ “interreligious friendships,” and hope that these questions can be raised in the contexts of people working together with a spirit of cooperation and respect. 3 2 james l. fredericks finds ct to be superior to trp, because it involves “the interpretation of the meaning and truth of one’s own faith by means of a critical investigation of other faiths,” consequently recognizing the subjectivity of the participants and creating the opportunity for self-critique. yet, fredericks reveals perspectives rooted in problematic christian approaches to judaism, including but not limited to the idea that judaism and christianity are closely linked. for discussion of the pitfalls of such a perspective, see the discussion below. james l. fredericks, “introduction,” pp. xxxx in francis s. clooney, ed., the new comparative theology: interreligious insights from the next generation (london: t & t clark international, 2010), ix. 3 fredericks, xi, n. 5. studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 9 (2014) 1. basic models in theologies of religious pluralism the central models that characterize theologies of religious pluralism historically and today, codified initially by race and hick, appear in most seminal works. definitions for each model vary among scholars, but these basic approaches form an underlying vocabulary that informs this kind of scholarship. 4  exclusivism: paul hedges helpfully defines exclusivism in the plural: “exclusivisms are the range of beliefs that say only christianity leads to salvation and that, generally, anyone who adheres to a different religion must therefore be going to damnation.” 5 he notes that there is diversity within exclusivisms, which paul knitter identifies as the multi-layered “replacement model,” marked by the belief in “only one true religion.” 6 the ultimate thrust of the position is simple: “in the final analysis, christianity is meant to replace all other religions.” 7 knitter divides this approach into two forms: total replacement and partial replacement; the former presents a highly negative view of other religions, while the latter allows for the presence of god in other religions, but not the possibility of salvation. 8 knitter notes that many christians, even those who espouse this view, are often uncomfortable with the idea 4 among foundational works in trp employing this typology we find: paul hedges, controversies in interreligious dialogue and the theology of religions (london: scm press, 2010); john hick, a christian theology of religions (louisville, ky: westminster john knox press, 1995); john hick and paul f. knitter, eds., the myth of christian uniqueness: towards a pluralistic theology of religions (maryknoll, ny: orbis books, 1987); veli-matti karkkainen, an introduction to the theology of religions: biblical, historical and contemporary perspectives (downers grove, il: intervarsity press, 2003); paul f. knitter, introducing theologies of religions (maryknoll, ny: orbis books, 2011); alan race, christians and religious pluralism: patterns in the christian theology of religions (maryknoll: orbis books), 1983. 5 hedges, 20. 6 knitter, introducing theologies of religions, 19-60. 7 ibid., 19. 8 ibid., 23-33. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr that god would punish unbelievers without mercy. he presents a few common solutions to that quandary, including eschatological expectations of mass conversion, opportunities to convert after death, and the belief that christ’s saving grace applies to all people—even those who have not accepted it. 9  inclusivism: one version of inclusivism, encapsulated especially in knitter’s work, is the belief that one religion is most true, but other religions have something to contribute to an understanding of god and of christianity. knitter terms it “the fulfillment model,” in which “the one fulfills the many”; most scholars reference karl rahner in this particular method through his notion of “anonymous christians.” 10 the central belief is that we all benefit in some way from christianity (which is the most true of the world’s religions), and we can all contribute to christians’ self-understanding. race and hedges define inclusivism somewhat differently, as “(1) the commitment to christ as the unique and normative revelation of god, and (2) god’s universal salvific will.” 11 in this formulation, the “rightness” of christianity is retained but its partner is the belief in god’s love for all of humankind.  universalism/pluralism: the typology used by dupuis, knitter, hick, and hedges does not include a specific category named “universalism,” but instead describes “pluralistic” approaches. these two perspectives are, in fact, quite linked. both are characterized by an emphasis on a reality that transcends all contemporary forms of religion, one which all people are trying to understand, albeit through varying paths. hick’s 9 this particular approach to the problem of discomfort with mass damnation approaches the concept of inclusivism as it is represented in other scholars’ work. 10 knitter, introducing theologies of religions, 63-106, ; karl rahner, theological investigations, 22 volumes, cornelius ernst, et al., trans. (london: darton, longman & todd, 1965-1991). see also the analysis of rahner’s ideas in ronald modras, ignatian humanism: a dynamic spirituality for the twenty-first century (chicago: loyola press, 2004), 203241. 11 alan race and paul m. hedges, christian approaches to other faiths (scm press: london, 2008), 63. studies in christian-jewish relations 6 scjr 9 (2014) formulation has served as the basis for most subsequent discussions of this approach. after noting that people of nonchristian faiths “are in general no less kindly, honest, thoughtful for others, no less truthful, honourable, loving and compassionate, than are in general our christian fellow citizens,” 12 he argues that “the ultimate ineffable reality is capable of being authentically experienced in terms of different sets of human concepts.” 13 hedges defines the approach simply as the suggestion that “there is more than one legitimate way to what can broadly be termed ‘salvation.’” 14 knitter unpacks this approach (which he calls “the mutuality model”) with greater detail, articulating three guiding questions, and three “bridges” that can be used to develop pluralistic theologies. 15 these questions concern the desire to engage in “more authentic dialogue” which functions as a real conversation: the commitment to listening as well as talking; the necessity for establishing a “level playing field” in which “equals” can come to the proverbial table; and the opportunity to use this approach to “come to a clearer understanding of jesus’ uniqueness that will sustain the dialogue.” 16 the “bridges” he proposes are philosophicalhistorical (appealing to the admission of limitations in human understanding); religious-mystical (involving direct experiences of the divine coupled with a sense of ineffability); and ethicalpractical (using the social justice elements of each tradition to attend to the suffering of human communities, together). 17  particularism: though hick has had a profound impact on theologies of religious pluralism and its approaches to the reality of multiple traditions, many argue that he is too focused on shared aspects of these traditions, leaving little room for exploration of significant differences. several recent works in this field have suggested a new approach, which proposes “indeterminacy in relation to other religions, alongside a 12 hick, a christian theology of religions, 13. 13 ibid., 25. 14 hedges, 26. 15 knitter, introducing theologies of religions, 109-169. 16 knitter, introducing theologies of religions, 109-111. 17 ibid., 112-113. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 7 www.bc.edu/scjr commitment to speaking from, for and of one tradition.” 18 the emphasis is on “alterity,” although hedges still formulates his approach with some universalistic tendencies. 19 knitter, on the other hand, refers to this as the “acceptance model,” subtitling it “many true religions, so be it,” and “making peace with radical difference.” 20 he argues that this approach must be based in postmodern sensibilities, and refers to the work of george lindbeck and s. mark heim as examples of this methodology. 21 he advocates an admission of the potential for no common ground, and refutes the appropriateness of apologetics. 22 members of various traditions have the right to represent themselves authentically, without any attempt to be “more palatable” to their conversation partners. the scholars who have described and explored the perspectives named here have, for the most part, been clear that they are each speaking as christians, to christians. yet, these approaches have an impact on the non-christian players in this work because of the questions and approaches that are applied to intercommunity engagement. despite the nuances several scholars have introduced into these paradigms, the categories retain some unique problems within the christianjewish context.  exclusivism characterizes the approach most christian communities have had toward judaism for much of the last two thousand years. the result of this mindset has historically been direct proselytizing, forced conversions, and violence. 18 hedges, 27. 19 “3) the holy spirit may be at work in other faiths, requiring them to be regarded with respect and dignity; 4) no salvific potency resides in other faiths, though they are somehow involved in god’s plans for humanity but in ways we cannot know;…6) the orthodox doctrines of trinity and christ are grounding points for which to approach other faiths.” hedges, 27-28. 20 knitter, introducing theologies of religions, 173-237. 21 george lindbeck, the nature of doctrine: religion and theology in a postliberal age (louisville, ky: westminster john knox press, 1984); s. mark heim, salvations: truth and difference in religion (maryknoll, ny: orbis books, 1995). 22 knitter, introducing theologies of religions, 177. studies in christian-jewish relations 8 scjr 9 (2014) thankfully, most people engaged in theologies of religious pluralism have abandoned this as a healthy or useful approach, though it sometimes creeps, insidiously, into some works. nor is this category of thought completely absent from the articulated goals of particular christian groups. knitter notes that a significant number of contemporary christian communities continue to adhere to this view. 23  inclusivism may appear to be gracious and accepting, but it is also a refutation of the truth claims of other communities; it is triumphalist in its assertion that “i am most right,” and it is patronizing in that it self-righteously “permits” others to be embraced and saved even if they are not committed to the “true” faith.  universalism and pluralism can serve to unseat assumptions about the validity of rigid and exclusivist truth claims, because in fact no one has sole claim to the truth, but it also undercuts the truth claims of other communities. in other words, if one community approaches another and says, “none of us is fully right, and the real truth is beyond us all,” there is still the assertion that the latter community is not right. that is not an assertion that one community can make for another. avi sagi states well the critique that applies to this model: its main drawback is that it belies the world of the believers themselves, who do not view god as a product of their imagination…. [it] fails to take into account the datum to which it relates… although expressive plural 23 knitter, introducing theologies of religions, 22. some methods of proselytizing are not overt: the southern baptist convention prays for non-believers (specifically jews, according to their 1999 convention) to find christ, and some members of the mormon church posthumously baptize jews (even holocaust survivors). other attempts are more extreme. as a child, i was consistently confronted by strangers forcibly handing me the new testament outside my public schools; i was called a “christ-killer” and told that i would be damned if i did not convert. these are only anecdotes, but i believe they reveal an american religious culture that still bears the hallmark of christian exclusivism. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 9 www.bc.edu/scjr ism is possible, the question is whether it is useful: it seems in no way helpful to believers, and is superfluous to non-believers. 24 the models discussed here are also problematic in the context of christian-jewish engagement because of the nature of jewish approaches to religious pluralism. 25 judaism is a particularistic tradition. by the early post-biblical era, jews had mostly forsaken attempts to proselytize. 26 in the mishnah we see the development of ritual elements that actually make conversion to judaism more difficult. 27 especially since the 3 rd c. ce, judaism has not been a religion of outreach. it developed internally, with a flowering of texts, hermeneutics, practices, and traditions. david shatz describes the central trp of judaism as: “live and let live.” 28 this is a generalization, but it is, on the whole, an accurate one. christ and christian ideas appear in some jewish texts, historically and today, but are relatively 24 avi sagi, “justifying interreligious pluralism,” in jewish theology and world religions, alon-goshen gottstein and eugene korn, eds. (oxford: the littman library of jewish civilization, 2012), 79-80. 25 there are jewish scholars whose works demonstrate some of the same problems described here. these include contributors to goshengottstein’s volume, the writers of “dabru emet” (a jewish statement on jewish-christian relations published in the new york times, september 10, 2000), and abraham joshua heschel, who advocates universalism that excludes secular jews, and whose essay “no religion is an island” belies many of the pitfalls discussed here. these works merit analysis in the context of another scholarly article. for the full text of dabru emet, go to https://www.bc.edu/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/ documents/jewish/dabru_emet.htm. see also abraham joshua heschel, moral grandeur and spiritual audacity (new york: farrar, straus, and giroux, 1996), 235-249. 26 for further discussion on this issue, see bernard j.. bamberger, proselytism in the talmudic period (new york: ktav, 1939). 27 see, for example, the lengthy examinations of rabbinic conversion rituals throughout shaye cohen’s definitive work the beginnings of jewishness: boundaries, varieties, uncertainties (berkeley, ca: university of california press, 1999). 28 david shatz, “morality, liberalism, and interfaith dialogue,” in new perspectives on jewish-christian relations: in honor of david berger, elishevah carlebach and jacob j. schachter, eds. (boston: brill, 2012), 497. https://www.bc.edu/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/jewish/dabru_emet.htm https://www.bc.edu/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/jewish/dabru_emet.htm studies in christian-jewish relations 10 scjr 9 (2014) insignificant for jews examining their own tradition. when my students ask me, “what do jews think about jesus?” i usually answer, “not often.” 29 eugene korn expresses this idea well in his response to a speech by cardinal koch on jewish-christian relations in 2011: 30 judaism is ‘intrinsic’ to christianity but christianity holds no such essential relationship to judaism. most jews believe that they can come to a coherent theological understanding of judaism without encountering christianity at all. hence, there is a greater need to supply reasons to jews for pursuing a rich jewishchristian encounter than there is for knowledgeable and theologically sophisticated christians…thus, whereas our joint encounter is urgent for christians, it seems not so for jews. 31 29 there are jewish texts—ancient and modern—about jesus and christianity. however, these texts usually reflect a reaction against christian proselytizing or persecution of jews. more recent works engaging jesus as a jewish man and the new testament as jewish literature reflect the adoption of new models of engaging with the religious “other,” and as such, should be evaluated separately on their merits within the context of this growing dialogue. overall, however, jews and jewish texts have not historically demonstrated great interest in examining christology. scholarship on this issue includes but is not limited to: amy jill-levine and mark z. brettler, eds., the jewish annotated new testament (new york: oxford university press, 2011); r. travers herford, christianity in talmud and midrash: augmented edition (jersey city, n.j.: ktav, 2007); e.p sanders, jesus and judaism (minneapolis, mn: fortress press, 1985); geza vermes, jesus and the world of judaism (norwich: scm press, 2012); gustaf dalman, jesus christ in the talmud, midrash, zohar, and the liturgy of thessynagogue (charleston, sc: nabu press, 2010). 30 cardinal kurt koch, “keynote address: theological questions and perspectives in jewish-christian dialogue,” studies in jewish-christian relations 7 (2012), 12 pages, https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/viewfile/2075/1780. 31 eugene korn, “a jewish response to ‘theological questions and perspectives in jewish-catholic dialogue,” studies in jewish-christian relations 7 (2012), https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/viewfile/2075/1780, 2. https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/viewfile/2075/1780 studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 11 www.bc.edu/scjr because of these aspects of jewish thought in relation to religious others, it is difficult to make too strong a case for sizable jewish participation in christian models of pluralistic thought. 2. pitfalls that can arise in works of christian-jewish engagement historically, problematic perspectives that emerge from dominant christian models in theologies of religious pluralism can be categorized as follows:  proselytizing: directly encouraging or indirectly prioritizing the conversion of jews to christianity.  triumphalism and supersessionism: the belief that christianity, its texts, and its traditions, have replaced or fulfilled judaism, and/or are superior to judaism and its texts and traditions.  essentialization: the failure to recognize the vast diversity in jewish communities today in terms of practice and belief, the misunderstanding of judaism in the 1 st c. ce as monolithic, the insistence that 1 st c. judaism is accurately depicted in the gospels, and/or the equation of the judaism of the late second temple period with contemporary judaism.  utilization: using jews and judaism with imperialistic and colonialist tendencies as a way to enrich christian faith, as if judaism were a resource to be mined and not a world of its own. 32  philosemitism: elevating jews to special or privileged status, lauding judaism, and/or equating contemporary jews with christ because of christ’s environment in the 1 st c. ce; this is 32 knitter, introducing theologies of religious pluralism, 206: “the other religious traditions become our roommates as we explore the different levels of the christian house.” (emphasis mine) studies in christian-jewish relations 12 scjr 9 (2014) the flip side of the anti-semitic coin. 33 this pitfall leads to others: essentialization, obfuscation, objectification of the jews, etc. it likely goes without saying that open assertions that judaism is inferior to christianity, that jews are cursed by god, or that jews should be targeted for proselytizing are no longer prevalent among those working thoughtfully to improve christian-jewish relations. documents promulgated by christian communities in the last fifty years, especially the last two decades, directly address these approaches. in 2003, the alliance of baptists released a statement identifying themselves as “the inheritors…and transmitters” of a theology that has resulted in spiritual and religious violence against the jews, and proceeded to “confess [the] sins” committed by the church; the document ends with a list of principles designed to prevent those sins from being re-committed. 34 the elca church council has released several documents, among them “declaration of the evangelical lutheran church of america to the jewish community,” and “guidelines for lutheran-jewish relations,” which decry martin luther’s “on the jews and their lies” and build a framework for more beneficial interactions with jews, emphasizing the lutheran responsibility to listen. 35 the hebraic heritage christian center took a firm stance against triumphalism and proselytizing in their 2011 statement, 33 for example, see the discussion of this issue in eric michael reisenauer, “anti-jewish philosemitism: british and hebrew affinity and nineteenth century british antisemitism,” british scholar 1 (2008): 79-104. 34 the alliance of baptists, “a statement on jewish-christian relations,” http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-andstatements/protestant-churches/na/baptist/710-ab03apr25, april 25, 2003. 35 elca church council, “declaration of the evangelical lutheran church of america to the jewish community,” http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-andstatements/protestant-churches/na/lutheran/676-elca94apr18, april 18, 1994; “guidelines for lutheran-jewish relations,” http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-andstatements/protestant-churches/na/lutheran/677-elca98nov16, november 16, 1998. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/protestant-churches/na/baptist/710-ab03apr25 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/protestant-churches/na/baptist/710-ab03apr25 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/protestant-churches/na/lutheran/676-elca94apr18 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/protestant-churches/na/lutheran/676-elca94apr18 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/protestant-churches/na/lutheran/677-elca98nov16 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/protestant-churches/na/lutheran/677-elca98nov16 studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 13 www.bc.edu/scjr “covenant and witness.” 36 perhaps most impressive are catholic documents outlining a lengthy and deep examination of catholic teachings towards judaism and jews, leading back to the deliberations on nostra aetate. these debates within the catholic leadership belie a grave concern that the church not appear to advocate proselytizing, nor claim the jews are guilty of deicide, nor deride jewish tradition—because of awareness of the evils that have resulted from these viewpoints, and because of a clear concern that jewish partners engaged in dialogue feel respected. 37 with few exceptions, 38 the catholic leadership working on that document and other statements has demonstrated genuine concern to re-create a relationship with jews based on christian repentance and respect for judaism. subsequent documents, including but not limited to “guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar document nostra aetate,” and “the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible,” clearly charge catholics with the task of studying judaism, its texts, and its traditions, with jews. 39 36 hebraic heritage christian center, “covenant and witness,” http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-andstatements/protestant-churches/na/evangelical/952-hhcc2011may24, may 24, 2011. 37 transcripts of the deliberations prior to the release of nostra aetate are located at http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-andstatements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate. 38 in his statements during pre-nostra aetate deliberations, cardinal ruffia argued that the talmud teaches jews to despise humanity and be hostile to christianity, while archbishop pocock and bishop arcea demonstrate supersessionism and the hope that the jews will recognize christ as “not the destruction of, but the fulfillment of their own vocation.” these speakers are outliers in the larger argument. 39 commission for religious relations with the jews, “guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar document nostra aetate,” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relationsjews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19741201_nostra-aetate_en.html, december 1, 1974. the pontifical biblical commission, “the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible,” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc _con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html, 2002. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/protestant-churches/na/evangelical/952-hhcc2011may24 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/protestant-churches/na/evangelical/952-hhcc2011may24 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19741201_nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19741201_nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html studies in christian-jewish relations 14 scjr 9 (2014) yet even the most well-intentioned scholars can fall prey to problematic views of judaism. some are evident, while others are much more difficult to detect and, as such, can have an insidious, undermining effect on the relationships participants seek to build. most of these difficulties fall under three headings: the belief that judaism and christian have a deep familial relationship, supersessionism, and misunderstandings about the complex nature of jewish identity. 3. the perception that judaism and christianity are sibling or parent/child traditions multiple documents in the recent history of christian approaches to judaism demonstrate heavy dependence upon the belief that judaism is a sibling of or parent to christianity, and hence in a way, a part of christianity. this is particularly evident in some catholic teachings. at the beginning of section 4 of nostra aetate, we find the statement that contemporary christians share the heritage of abraham and the patriarchs with the jews. in addition, we find the assertion that “the salvation of the church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people’s exodus from the land of bondage;” later in section 4 we read that christians and jews “share a spiritual patrimony.” 40 in 1986, during a visit to the synagogue of rome, pope john paul ii stated: “you are our dearly beloved brothers and, in a certain way, our elder brothers.” 41 the pontifical biblical commission’s “the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible” also consistently makes reference to “the close fraternal bonds” that link the christian and jewish people. the use of the term “judeo-christian,” which appears in many of these documents, is a problem in 40 pope paul vi, “declaration on the relation of the church to nonchristian religions: nostra aetate” http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/v at-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html, october 28, 1965. 41 pope john paul ii, “”address at the great synagogue of rome,” dialogika: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-andstatements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/305-jp2-86apr13, april 13, 1986, section 4. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/305-jp2-86apr13 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/305-jp2-86apr13 studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 15 www.bc.edu/scjr and of itself. daniel joslyn-siemiatkoski notes that “‘judeochristian tradition’ is arguably a supersessionist term in that it reduces the jewish tradition to those scriptural texts it shares with christianity, thus implying that judaism ends with the rise of christianity.” 42 several underlying beliefs inform this christian perspective. among those beliefs we find the opinion that jesus’ jewishness forms a basis of connection, as well as the perception that christianity sprang solely from the loins of judaism. the presence of the “old testament” within the christian canon is also interpreted as proof of a familial relationship. these perceived connections have motivated hospitable and respectful approaches to judaism, but there are detriments as well, and aspects of these approaches do not respect jewish self-understanding. many christian communities have begun to accept and address the fact that judaism in the first century was marked by radical diversity and debate. hence “the jews” depicted in the gospels are a misrepresentation of actual second temple jewish communities; the use of the rhetorical device of “the jews” was a component of early christian polemic and political differentiation from judaism. perhaps more importantly, judaism is not the same, now, as it was in the 1 st c. ce. two thousand years of evolution have created judaism as it is today, and christian communities have only begun to study the texts and traditions that emerged in those millennia. naming judaism as the mother of christianity, or calling christianity the daughter of judaism, or referring to them as sibling traditions, is a pluralist maneuver (similar to hick’s form of pluralism) that emphasizes commonality too heavily and erases central points of difference. the fact that the judaisms of the late 2 nd temple period had an impact on the birth of christianity says less about contemporary jews and christians 42 daniel joslyn-siemiatkoski, “comparative theology and the status of judaism: hegemony and reversals,” pp. 89-107 in clooney, ed., the new comparative theology, 96. studies in christian-jewish relations 16 scjr 9 (2014) than some would like to think. in addition, christianity was significantly shaped by greco-roman mythology and philosophy, as well as apocalyptic thought. 43 judaism and christianity are, today, two very different traditions, and a pattern of emphasizing commonalities and eliding differences can now be identified and rectified. in that vein, in 1964, joseph soloveitchik published an article titled “confrontation,” in which he argued that jews should avoid discussing matters of theology with christians and focus instead on social justice issues. 44 he put forth stipulations that, in his mind, would be necessary for productive jewish-christian engagement of any sort. before jews and christians can come together, he argues that christians must hear and understand an important component of jewish selfunderstanding: 43 the bibliography addressing the rhetorical use of “the jews” in the new testament, as well as the greek/apocalyptic influence on the text, is lengthy and formidable. in particular, see: geza vermes, jesus the jew: a historian’s reading of the gospels (minneapolis, mn: fortress press, 1981); john p. meier, a marginal jew, volume three: rethinking the historical jesus (new york: doubleday, 2001); daniel boyarin, a radical jew: paul and the politics of identity (berkeley, ca: university of california press, 1997); j. christiaan beker, the triumph of god: the essence of paul’s thought (minneapolis, mn: augsburg fortress, 1990); and the work of e. p. sanders, especially jesus and judaism (minneapolis, mn: fortress press, 1985). 44 joseph b. soloveitchik, “confrontation,” tradition: a journal of orthodox jewish thought 6:2 (1964): 5-29. soloveitchik does, arguably, have a universalistic perspective with the expectation that all will be united in the end times in one faith; however, his critique of the familial relationship between judaism and christianity is an important contribution to the deconstruction of this idea. the concern about differentiation between judaism and christianity that is present in traditional jewish texts, soloveitchik’s work, and the works of many other jewish thinkers, likely emerges from several realities. among them we find the fact of a difficult history as a persecuted minority in the larger christian world, and the resulting desire for survival that requires conscious separation from the majority culture. this is a fact of judaism’s development and necessarily plays a role in contemporary jewish-christian interaction, along with the desire by jews to be seen as members of a tradition that has unique characteristics not to be elided with any other. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 17 www.bc.edu/scjr first, we must state, in unequivocal terms, the following. we are a totally independent faith community. we do not revolve as a satellite in any orbit. nor are we related to any other faith community as “brethren” even though “separated.” people confuse two concepts when they speak of a common tradition uniting two faith communities such as the christian and the judaic. 45 soloveitchik continues with a statement that well may be addressed directly to those in intercommunity work who make the case that judaism is valuable because of its role as “the root” of christianity: as a faith individuality, the community of the few 46 is endowed with intrinsic worth which must be viewed against its own meta-historical backdrop without relating to the framework of another faith community. for the mere appraisal of the worth of one community in terms of the service it has rendered to another community, no matter how great and important this service was, constitutes an infringement of the sovereignty and dignity of even the smallest faith communities. 47 the rabbinical council of america attached a statement to soloveitchik’s article, affirming his demand for respect for judaism as a unique tradition: …[e]ach religious community is an individual entity which cannot be merged or equated with a community which is committed to a different faith. each religious community is endowed with intrinsic dignity and metaphysical worth. its historical experience, its present dynamics, its hopes and aspirations for the future can only be interpreted in terms of full spiritual independ 45 soloveitchik, 21-22. 46 “the community of the few” is the term soloveitchik uses to refer to minority groups in general and jews in particular. 47 soloveitchik, 23. studies in christian-jewish relations 18 scjr 9 (2014) ence of and freedom from any relatedness to another faith community. any suggestion that the historical and meta-historical worth of a faith community be viewed against the backdrop of another faith, and the mere hint that a revision of basic historic attitudes is anticipated, are incongruous with the fundamentals of religious liberty and freedom of conscience and can only breed discord and suspicion. 48 the rabbinical council chose micah 4:5 to end the statement, which reflects a significant form of jewish trp: “let all people walk, each one in the name of his god, and we shall walk in the name of our lord, our god, forever and ever.” within several interreligious statements (jewish and christian alike) we find this biblical verse employed to express the desire for ultimate unification of humanity within the one, truest faith—in other words, universalism; 49 however, perhaps more participants in this work should recognize the significance of the final clause: we shall walk in the name of our lord. in other words, we (the jews creating these documents) are ultimately committed to living jewishly, regardless of the opinions of other communities. another component of the perceived familial connection between christianity and judaism is evident in theological comparisons. in the realm of religious education, the “guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar document nostra aetate” support the inclusion of certain central ideas in the education of catholics, one of which concerns god: “it is the same god, ‘inspirer and author of the 48 ibid., 28-9. 49 see, for example, center for jewish-christian understanding and cooperation, “cjcuc statement on a jewish understanding of christians and christianity,” http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-andstatements/jewish/950-cjcuc2011may24, may 24, 2011; leuenberg church fellowship, “a contribution from the reformation churches of europe to the relationship between christians and jews,” http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-andstatements/protestant-churches/eur/715-lcf01june24, june 24, 2001. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/jewish/950-cjcuc2011may24 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/jewish/950-cjcuc2011may24 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/protestant-churches/eur/715-lcf01june24 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/protestant-churches/eur/715-lcf01june24 studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 19 www.bc.edu/scjr books of both testaments’, (dei verbum, 16), who speaks both in the old and new covenants.” the consistent reference to the “old testament”, and here, the “old covenant,” is, unfortunately, language that makes a supersessionist value judgment, that the jewish bible is “old,” implying the existence of a “new.” for jews, the bible is neither “old,” nor “former,” nor even “first,” and the sacred texts (mishnah, talmud, and midrashim) that developed as interpretations of the bible in the following centuries were built upon a foundation that is still relevant. in addition, for those jews who would be interested in discussing god, the assertion that jews and christians encounter the same god is problematic. judaism, christianity, and islam are often grouped together as the world’s three great monotheistic traditions, but grouping them in this way can obscure significant differences in the beliefs of christians, muslims and religious jews. jon levenson eloquently addresses this point in his critique of the 2000 jewish document dabru emet: for their part, jews have not always been convinced that christians worship the same god. maimonides, for example, the great sephardic legal authority and philosopher of the 12th century, explicitly classifies christianity as idolatry, thus forbidding contact with christians of the sort permitted with practitioners of other, non-idolatrous religions. even in the medieval ashkenazic world, where a very different view of christianity obtained, some authorities interpreted the monotheistic affirmation of the shema, the mandatory daily declaration of jewish faith, as an explicit denial of the doctrine of the trinity. the issue is even more basic than the familiar questions of whether jesus was the messiah and whether the torah is still in effect or has been superseded by the gospel: it is a question of the identity of god himself. for traditional christianity sees jesus not only as a spokesman of god, in the manner of a jewish prophet, but also and more importantly as an incarnation—the definitive and unsurpassable incarnation—of the god of israel. in the http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html studies in christian-jewish relations 20 scjr 9 (2014) words of the nicene creed (recited liturgically in eastern orthodox, roman catholic, and many protestant churches to this day), jesus is “true god from true god, begotten, not made, of one being with the father. through him all things were made.” participants in jewish-christian dialogue often speak as if jews and christians agreed about god but disagreed about jesus. they have forgotten that in a very real sense, orthodox christians believe jesus is god. 50 another stumbling block to greater understanding between jews and christians is the perception that the old testament and the hebrew bible are the same document. in truth, the differences between the two are more than cosmetic. the canons are different in significant ways: the catholic and orthodox forms of the old testament contain books that are not sacred in jewish tradition, and certain translation issues pertaining to the use of the septuagint vs. the hebrew/masoretic manuscripts result in significant theological changes. 51 in addition, the differences in canon create different narrative arcs: the hebrew bible ends with a review of previous events and the return from the babylonian exile, while the old testament (in protestant, catholic, and orthodox traditions) ends with prophecies about a coming messiah. the latter canonical order creates a direct link to the beginning of the new testament, thereby supporting the belief that together, the “two testaments” create a single document. it is also why many jews are asked, “why don’t you see it? can’t you see how jesus is the fulfillment of the old testament?” 52 50 jon d. levenson, “how not to conduct jewish-christian dialogue,” commentary 112:5 (december 2001): 31-37. 51 such as in the translation of isaiah 7:14, the referent of matthew 1:18-25 and luke 1:26-38, concerning the virgin birth that is not attested in the hebrew. 52 it is noteworthy that in the 2 nd c. ce, marcion proposed a significant differentiation between judaism and nascent christianity; iraneus’ counterarguments and the identification of marcion’s views as heretical effectively prohibited the exploration of complete differentiation, for the time being. it should be noted, however, that i am not advocating marcionism here. rather, i am pointing out a problem that emerges from a particular chrisstudies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 21 www.bc.edu/scjr multiple perceived points of connection can, in fact, foster a christian attack on judaism. because of the unique christian focus on judaism, we also see a unique degree of triumphalism and critique. in a commonweal issue dedicated to an examination of catholic supersessionism, steven englund takes note of “the asymmetry of christianity’s and judaism’s mutual dependence” 53 as well as the quandary that has developed over the last 2000 years as christians have reacted to their “secret little jewish problem.” 54 jews are uniquely threatening to christianity because of their perceived proximity combined with their difference: “the church owes too much to judaism. and no good deed goes unpunished.” 55 if judaism is so closely related to christianity, then jews’ insistence on remaining jewish is perceived as a rejection of christian teaching. or, as ralph keen explains, jews were cast early on not as members of a community with its own ideas, traditions, and integrity, but as foils to christianity: “jews were generally seen as repudiators of christianity rather than as outsiders adhering to a positive religious choice regarding redemption.” 56 englund summarizes the contempt that has been bred by perceived familiarity in this way: “the jews have had to live in a world that tells them that they are wrong about one of theirs (jesus) and that they wrongly interpret their own sacred scriptures, even as they have had to watch an oppressive rival religion batten on those scriptures. no other religion in the world has had to do that.” 57 tian perspective on judaism and its scripture that has had a profound and negative impact on christian-jewish relations. a new approach is now needed. 53 steven englund, “getting past supersessionism: an exchange on catholic-jewish dialogue,” commonweal 141:4 (february 17, 2014): 16. 54 ibid., 14. 55 ibid. 56 ibid. 57 ibid. studies in christian-jewish relations 22 scjr 9 (2014) 4. supersessionism in his analysis of christian engagement with judaism, joslyn-siemiatkoski describes traditional supersessionist ideology as the “elder brother of said’s orientalism.” 58 that is, the “otherness” of judaism has, historically, provided a means of “identification-over” whereby the early church (and subsequent generations of christians) could see themselves as the “new israel,” holders of the “new covenant,” believers in a god who is more gracious and loving than the god of the “old testament.” though a bald analysis of these beliefs immediately reveals important distortions, the ideas themselves are still subtly present within much of the work devoted to more positive christian-jewish intercommunity engagement. the evolution of supersessionism has led to a reality in which christian comparative theologians are not interested in examining judaism unless it is viewed as the “near other” 59 and helps illuminate christianity: “even comparative theology scholars fall prone to producing jews when it fits their needs and renders them and their tradition invisible when it does not.” 60 this is evident in some of the texts cited above, in which judaism is presented as useful for christian selfexamination. the authors of the 1974 “guidelines,” for example, ask that “[a]n effort will be made to acquire a better understanding of whatever in the old testament retains its own perpetual value, since that has not been cancelled by the later interpretation of the new testament. rather, the new testament brings out the full meaning of the old, while both old and new illumine and explain each other.” though the conviction that some value remains in the “old testament” is 58 joslyn-siemiatkoski, “comparative theology and the status of judaism,” 92. 59 or, what gerald bruns calls christianity’s “own other.” gerald bruns, hermeneutics ancient and modern (new haven, ct: yale university, 1992), 208. 60 joslyn-siemiatkoski, “comparative theology and the status of judaism,” 93. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 23 www.bc.edu/scjr valuable and not universally present in christian thought, one should take note of the fact that it implies that only some material retains value. in addition, the assertion that the new testament “brings out the full meaning of the old, while both the old and new illumine and explain one another,” places on the proverbial table a theological assertion that jews should, in fact, learn about how the new testament fulfills and explains their own bible. 61 this is an assertion that asks for a kind of engagement from jews that many will not find acceptable, accurate, or compelling. the solution to this problem is, according to joslynsiemiatkoski, an authentic study of judaism that “seeks to shed supersessionist stances towards judaism and lays the foundation for the re-reading of one’s home tradition as a result of engaging with jewish sources.” 62 he contends that the latter component of this endeavor is of utmost importance: the christian student must reflect on his own tradition through the lens of judaism. he praises peter phan’s work because “he sees judaism as a resource for his own theology,” 63 hence avoiding triumphalism or identification of judaism as a “limb” or “root” of christianity. however, even this approach belies a utilization of judaism that is part of a subtle form of supersessionism: though conscious self-reflection through a jewish lens can afford a christian the opportunity to grow, thereby seeing 61 peter phan presents an excellent examination of the problems with the notion of “fulfillment” evident in christian (and specifically catholic) approaches to judaism. in response to the ubiquitous teaching that the new testament “fulfills” the old (rather than replace it), he notes that the idea of fulfillment is, essentially, an insensitive one, implying that there is a deficiency in judaism which christianity and its texts have come to correct. he suggests: “perhaps until we christians have walked in the shoes of the ‘fulfilled’ and undergone the same violence and hatred like the jews at the hand of others, we should not talk about ourselves as ‘fulfillers.’” peter c. phan, “judaism and christianity: reading cardinal koch’s address between the lines and against the grain,” studies in christian-jewish relations 7 (2012), http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/view/2076/1779, 5. 62 joslyn-siemiatkoski, “comparative theology and the status of judaism,” 100. 63 ibid., 101. http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/view/2076/1779 studies in christian-jewish relations 24 scjr 9 (2014) judaism as a useful and important aspect of the dialogue, it falls into an approach that does precisely that: emphasizes the “usefulness” of judaism, mining it as a resource for christian self-perception. the question therefore emerges: do jewish participants in this work want to be used in such a fashion? 5. the complexity of jewish identity an additional and significant problem to address is the reality that many christians engaged in theologies of religious pluralism have not yet adequately worked to understand the nature of jewish identity. often, christians make assumptions about the beliefs of the jews they are addressing, choosing to focus on theological points of connection or at least familiarity. several aspects of the complexity of modern judaism should be taken into consideration when christian communities seek to engage jews. first, participants must take into account the role of secular/atheist jews: a large and important percentage of jews identify jewishly but not for religious purposes, often without any interest in religion. according to the pew research center 2013 survey of american jews, ancestry and culture are much more important than religion, except among orthodox jews; hence the emphasis on “religion” in understanding judaism is biased towards orthodoxy. the survey revealed that 62% of american jews believe that being jewish is about ancestry/culture, while only 15% stated that it is about religion. half of all jews—including members of the ultra-orthodox community—stated that being an atheist is not incompatible with being jewish; the element that would be most incompatible with jewish identity is belief in christ (which is a fact that requires further examination in and of itself). what is essential to being jewish, according to this survey, is remembering the holocaust (73%); leading a moral and ethical life (69%); and working for social justice and equality (56%); only 19% felt studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 25 www.bc.edu/scjr observing jewish law is most important. 64 even in israel, 41.4% of jews identify as purely secular. 65 the fact is, jewish identity is experiencing a seismic shift, and i, for one, do not consider it to be a death knell. 66 rather, it is time for leaders in the jewish and christian communities to reflect on this shift and refrain from ignoring jewish identities that are inconvenient. the failure to take into account the role of secularism in contemporary jewish life is made evident, in part, by the fact that throughout texts focused on the encounter between jews and christians, we find the word “faith.” one of the guiding questions of the luce seminar was, “what does my neighbor’s faith mean for mine?” in the context of judaism, however, it is necessary to ask: what is “faith?” isn’t it approached quite differently in various forms of christianity from how it is in judaism? “faith” is, itself, a difficult category in jewish thought. in addition to the fact that a significant percentage of jews are atheists and/or secular, we find encouragement from some jewish leaders to keep matters of faith private. for example, in “confrontation,” soloveitchik argued that interfaith engagement “should occur not at a theological but at a mundane level,” focusing on social justice issues, as matters of belief should be private, not subjected to 64 drew silver, “jewish essentials: for most america jews, ancestry and culture matter more than religion,” pew research center 2013 survey of u.s. jews, feb.20-june 13, 2013, http://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2013/10/01/jewish-essentials-for-most-american-jews-ancestry-andculture-matter-more-than-religion, october 1, 2013; alan cooperman, ed., “a portrait of jewish americans,” pewresearch religion & public life project, http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefsattitudes-culture-survey, 2013. 65 annette grossbongardt, “religion and secularism in israel: unholy conflict in the holy land,” spiegel online international, http://www.spiegel.de/international/religion-and-secularism-in-israelunholy-conflict-in-the-holy-land-a-469996.html, mar. 7, 2007. 66 for discussion of the shift in jewish identity, see (among others): jack wertheimer, “surrendering to intermarriage,” commentary 111:3 (2001): 25-32; rachel levin and david katznelson, “jewish identity is more complex than ticking a box,” haaretz, http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.552355 , oct. 14, 2013. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/01/jewish-essentials-for-most-american-jews-ancestry-and-culture-matter-more-than-religion http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/01/jewish-essentials-for-most-american-jews-ancestry-and-culture-matter-more-than-religion http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/01/jewish-essentials-for-most-american-jews-ancestry-and-culture-matter-more-than-religion http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey studies in christian-jewish relations 26 scjr 9 (2014) the critiques of others. 67 second, judaism is and has always been a tradition in which deed is central, and even in some cases more important than faith. what a jew does is of great concern; the central question guiding much of jewish interpretation and sacred literature is: how does god want me to live? the fact that god is present in the question is often surprisingly irrelevant. in many cases, the halakhic (legal) literature of judaism ironically demonstrates a lack of concern about what god actually thinks or wants: jewish law and, subsequently, jewish life, is largely the purview of human communities in conversation (and debate) with one another. 68 especially for contemporary jews, jewish normative practice can be divorced 67 soloveitchik, 23-24. 68 though god’s name is often mentioned in the traditional texts that form the proverbial backbone of post-biblical judaism, many of the important ideas and conversations therein do not entail much involvement from god. there is no talmudic tractate on “god” or on “faith.” the decisions that must be made, and the interpretations that can be offered, usually emerge solely from the human realm, as—the rabbis note—they should. in fact, one telling text reveals how small god’s role is in matters of religious import. in b. baba metzia 59a-b, several scholars are engaged in an argument about the ritual purity of an oven. r. eliezer has one opinion, and all of the other scholars disagree with him. he presents every imaginable support for his argument, and they refuse to be convinced. sure that he is right, r. eliezer uses miraculous events to support his view: “if the halakhah agrees with me, let this carob tree prove it!”, and “if the halakhah agrees with me, let this stream of water prove it!” though the carob tree stands up and walks to a new location, and though the stream of water flows backwards, the other scholars are still not convinced. after more miracles are used to support r. eliezer’s view, a divine voice from heaven booms out, “why do you argue with rabbi eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halakhah agrees with him??” r. joshua, the leader of the dissenting scholars, stands up and exclaims: “‘it is not in heaven.' (deuteronomy 30:12) what did he mean by this? — said r. jeremiah: since the torah had already been given at mount sinai; we pay no attention to a heavenly voice, because you have long since written in the torah at mount sinai: ‘after the majority must one incline.’ ” (exodus 23:2) in other words, god has been informed that his opinion no longer matters; decision-making is in the hands of the community. lest the reader feel this is an act of blasphemy, the text continues: “r. nathan met elijah and asked him: what did the holy one, blessed be he, do in that hour? — he laughed [with joy], and replied, saying, 'my sons have defeated me, my sons have defeated me.'” studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 27 www.bc.edu/scjr from theology. many jews who adhere to aspects of jewish practice are agnostic or atheist. the value in sabbath observance, keeping kosher, observing holidays, and studying sacred texts can and often does lie in the realms of tradition, culture, and history for contemporary jews. hence, “faith” is not a universally helpful category for discussing judaism. 69 even among jews for whom religion is of great importance, it is difficult to determine which elements of religiosity are shared. while many documents produced by communities invested in christian-jewish engagement emphasize jewish commitment to halakhah, god concepts, and messianic hopes, religious jews are themselves quite diverse and even actively divided on these issues. second, the relationship between orthodox and nonorthodox jews is difficult and complex. the disagreement and even vitriol between these groups is a huge factor in any attempt to understand contemporary judaism. hermeneutical practices, worldviews, theological emphases, and social values differ profoundly among various jewish groups, and especially between orthodox and non-orthodox jews. though there is diversity within orthodoxies as well, it often becomes evident that many orthodox jews see non-orthodox jews as heretics or “not really jewish,” even questioning whether or not nonorthodox jews can count in a minyan. 70 in turn, nonorthodox jews resent this characterization and view orthodoxy as a dogmatic and stagnant form of judaism. in israel, the problem is exacerbated by the slow growth of progressive judaism, the control orthodox groups have over central elements of public affairs, and the rapidly growing “haredi” (ultraorthodox) population. this conflict has been chronicled in 69 the emphasis on “faith” in christian trp is notable, for example, in the work of frank clooney, who defines ct as “faith seeking understanding.” francis x. clooney, comparative theology: deep learning across religious borders (chichester: wiley-blackwell, 2010), 10. 70 moses ben maimon, mishneh torah hilchot teshuvah: the laws of repentance, eliyahu touger, trans. (jerusalem and new york: moznaim, 1990), 3:8. studies in christian-jewish relations 28 scjr 9 (2014) numerous books and articles, all worth perusing by any person interested in studying contemporary judaism. 71 third, non-orthodox (progressive) jews have radically different views on central issues such as the existence of god; the nature of god; whether or not revelation occurred in jewish history, and how; the authorship and history of the hebrew bible; and the role of halakhah. though progressive jews tend to have greater mutual respect and cooperation than exists between progressive and orthodox jews, the differences are still profound and important. much of contemporary christianjewish dialogue is biased towards orthodox theology, depending on categories that would not easily be applicable for progressive or non-religious jews. in some cases, interfaith dialogue with jews might be easier than intrafaith dialogue among jews. fourth, not to be understated here is the fact that one of the central features of jewish hermeneutics in all text study is argument. debate and dialogue are often more important in the study of sacred text than normative dogma. raphael jospe states in this way: one might think that an argument for the sake of heaven should lead to a peaceful resolution, yet that is not the rabbis’ intention. an argument not for the sake 71 as just a few examples of works surrounding this issue, see: samuel g. freedman jew vs. jew: the struggle for the soul of american jewry (new york: simon & schuster, 2000); ammiel hirsch and yosef reinman, one people, two worlds: a reform rabbi and an orthodox rabbi explore the issues that divide them (new york: schocken, 2003); jack wertheimer, a people divided: judaism in contemporary america, (new york: basic books, 1993); daniel j. elazar, “orthodox and non-orthodox judaism: how to square the circle,” jerusalem center for public affairs, daniel elazar on-line library; jerusalem letters of lasting interest 371, http://jcpa.org/dje/articles2/orth-nonorth.htm, december 1997; david ellenson, “obscene orthodox hatred demands a clear denunciation,” the jewish daily forward, http://forward.com/articles/10640/obsceneorthodox-hatred-demands-a-clear-denunciati/, may 4, 2007 (which garnered multiple public responses). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/samuel_g._freedman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/samuel_g._freedman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ammiel_hirsch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/yosef_reinman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/jack_wertheimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/jack_wertheimer http://www.bjpa.org/publications/results.cfm?publicationname=daniel%20elazar%20on%2dline%20library%3b%20jerusalem%20letters%20of%20lasting%20interest http://jcpa.org/dje/articles2/orth-nonorth.htm http://forward.com/articles/10640/obscene-orthodox-hatred-demands-a-clear-denunciati/ http://forward.com/articles/10640/obscene-orthodox-hatred-demands-a-clear-denunciati/ studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 29 www.bc.edu/scjr of heaven, as when a person sues another person for a debt, has to be resolved by the court; closure must be attained, and justice must be served. but when the argument is for the sake of heaven, there is no winner and there is no loser. the truth can never be closed; it must always continue to be sought through the open exchange of diverse ideas. 72 agreement on central issues often raised in interfaith work is therefore not a desideratum within jewish communities. how, then, can jews attempt to “represent” a community approach to these conversations? finally, we confront the polemics surrounding the question, “who is a jew?” how can christian communities who seek to engage jews be adequately prepared without engaging this question? what, after all, makes a person jewish? halakhically, it is either birth or conversion. if we accept the halakhic view, then being jewish can involve belief, study, practice, ethnicity, genealogy, or a host of other factors, as long as the person was born jewish or converted. questions consistently emerge, however, about the halakhic definition: which parent passes on jewish identity? what kind of conversion is necessary to enter the jewish community? different movements in judaism have differing answers to these questions, and at times do not respect one another’s claims. hence even a halakhic definition does not satisfy the question. michael satlow begins creating judaism with the question, “what is judaism?” 73 he notes that “judaism’s diversity is easier to explain than its unity,” 74 and decides that his focus for the study will include any community that self-identifies as jewish. 75 by 72 raphael jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism: the quest for religious pluralism without relativism,” jewish theology and world religions, goshen gottstein, ed. (oxford: the littman library of jewish civilization, 2012), 121. 73 michael l. satlow, creating judaism: history, tradition, practice (new york: columbia university press, 2006), 1. 74 satlow, 7. 75 satlow, 8. studies in christian-jewish relations 30 scjr 9 (2014) therefore admitting groups such as messianic jews, the majority of jewish people reading this book would likely disagree with satlow’s generous umbrella. because of the great number of secular and/or atheist jews, along with debate about multiple aspects of jewish identity, it is difficult to formulate a definition of “judaism” or “jewish” that does not ignore a significant percentage of the actual jewish population. the most accurate and comprehensive definition of judaism that i have yet encountered appears in a 1958 interview between mike wallace and abba eban on the 10 th anniversary of the birth of the state of israel. at one point in the interview, wallace is confused by some of eban’s statements about the role of israel in contemporary jewish identity, and states: “but judaism is a religion, sir.” eban replies: it is a religion, and it is a peoplehood, and it is a civilization, and it is a faith, and it is a memory; it is a world of thought and of spirit and of action and it cannot be restrictively defined. 76 given the breadth (and yet, accuracy) of this definition, who has the right to represent jewish people in the work of religiously pluralistic dialogue? only religious jews? only rabbis? non-religious jews have a vested interest in healthy intercommunity relations between jews and christians, to combat persecution and misunderstanding. many nonreligious jews are very proud of their jewishness and gladly identify with jewish culture, hermeneutical traditions, and practices. in addition, it is clear that secularism and assimilation provide no shelter from antisemitism and hence we cannot afford to ignore secular and atheist jews in this work. the events of the dreyfus affair (in which the man attacked by the government as well as the public was a fully assimilated jew), along with the shoah (in which racial definitions of 76 the entire text of this interview can be found at: http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/video/2008/wallace/eban_abba_t.ht ml . studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 31 www.bc.edu/scjr “jewish” were normative), demonstrate that jewishness is somehow intractable in the eyes of much of the world community, regardless of belief or practice. 77 therefore, not only religious jews have a role to play in this work. questions to pursue going forward this paper is not intended to put an end to christianjewish engagement, nor to silence the work of those involved in christian theologies of religious pluralism. rather, the critique offered here is intended to refine this work, deconstruct that which merits deconstruction, and push participants in the conversation to greater honesty. there is no doubt that christian approaches to judaism and jews have progressed in recent decades. i am grateful that the dominant christian approaches are no longer expressed in violence, be it spiritual or physical. the problems that remain, however, are important. i leave the reader with questions and thoughts that i hope will be addressed in future scholarship, as we work together to create a better space for engagement.  is it possible to construct means through which christian thinkers engaged in theologies of religious pluralism can grant judaism’s (plural) authenticity? when jews and christians sit down at the proverbial table for intercommunity engagement, what are the needs of the participants? what can they live with? what affords the people at the table dignity in their identities as jews? 77 the early jewish reform movement is a good example of this dynamic. the first reformers in europe and the us sought to revise jewish practice to eliminate those aspects of judaism that were most off-putting: praying in hebrew, odd holidays, kosher dietary laws, etc. by removing these ritual elements and focusing solely on the moral elements of judaism, the reformers believed they had eradicated the cause of antisemitism. they were obviously wrong. antisemitism escalated in the nineteenth century, informed not only by two-thousand years of christian hatred of jews, but also by modern racial theory. hence, a jew could not escape being a jew, regardless of his or her level of identification and practice. (incidentally, the reform movement has since changed trajectory and now reemphasizes jewish tradition and law.) studies in christian-jewish relations 32 scjr 9 (2014)  perhaps the attempt to build an approach to jewishchristian engagement which honors the unique nature of jewish identity will ultimately reveal that jews and christians cannot address religious pluralism in conversation with each other on a general level. only specific groups within those communities can do so: orthodox, conservative, reform, reconstructionist, and secular jews might have to approach this work individually. how, then, can this work take place?  motivations must also be analyzed in christian-jewish engagement. why do the participants come to the table? according to central works in theologies of religious pluralism and comparative theology, many christians participate to learn, to engage in critical self-reflection, and to gain new insight. why do jews participate? certainly some jewish participants in this work want to share ideas about god, about humanity, and about how we should live. however, it is necessary for everyone engaged in the project of christian-jewish engagement to be honest about the fact that the motivations that jews have for this work often, at the core, comprise some version of self-preservation: we do this “so they won’t kills us;” we do this “to stockpile sandbags against the next pogrom.” 78 jolene and menahem kellner offer a critique of such jewish motivations to engage in this work: “implicit in [this] argument, or so it appears, is the assumption or hope that if we jews are ‘nicer’ theologically to other religions, their adherents will be nicer to us. we doubt it.” 79  finally, i propose that it is time for christians to stop engaging jews as if we were family, as if we were so intertwined. it is time for christians interested in this work to engage jews as “the other”—not as a dangerous other, not as a scary other, but 78 both of these statements were uttered by jewish colleagues of mine while we discussed jewish-christian engagement. i thank devorah schoenfeld (personal correspondence, may 2012) and erica martin (personal correspondence, june 2012). 79 jolene kellner and menahem kellner, “respectful disagreement: a response to raphael jospe,” in gottstein, ed., jewish theology and world religions, 132. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 33 www.bc.edu/scjr as “the other” described by jacques derrida and emmanuel levinas when they explore the meaning of “hospitality.” 80 meir sendor takes these two thinkers and their views and applies them to jewish-christian engagement. he correctly notes that much interfaith work, along with much recent christian scholarship in this field, emphasizes points of commonality or shared history, which is problematic in light of true hospitality: “hospitality is not achieved if it is extended only to the familiar, to the family, or even one welcomed as though they were family… real hospitality is a welcome that respects the other as himself, not because he can be rendered like oneself.” 81 when participants emphasize perceived intimacy, connection, or similarity, they do violence to the act of engaging the other: instead of an honest relationship with the religious other, instead of real hospitality, the result is a procrustean bed or the beds of sodom. in the greek myth as well as the rabbinic aggadah [b. san 109b], the host offers his guest a bed, and then fits him to the measure of the bed: if the guest is too tall, he cuts off his legs; if the guest is too short, he stretches him on the bed used as a rack. this is the essential transgression against true hospitality: a neutralizing, relativizing welcome, forcing the guest to fit the dimensions of the bed of the host. 82 i contend that the only way to eradicate patterns of supersessionism, triumphalism, and one-sided utilization of jews and judaism by christians is, for the time being, to afford to judaism and the jews the status of “wholly other,” and not a people or tradition that forms a part of the greater christian 80 jacques derrida, “hostipitality,” trans. barry stocker and forbes morlock, angelaki: journal of the theoretical humanities 5:3, 2000; jacques derrida and anne dufourmantelle, of hospitality: anne dufourmantelle invites jacques derrida to respond, trans. rachel bowlby (stanford: stanford university press, 2000); emmanuel levinas, totality and infinity: an essay on exteriority, trans. alphonso lingis (pittsburgh: duquesne university press, 1969). 81 meir sendor, “the violence of the neutral in interfaith relations,” in gottstein, ed., jewish theology and world religions, 161-162. 82 sendor, 154-155. studies in christian-jewish relations 34 scjr 9 (2014) body. i am not denying that connections exist; rather, i am arguing that such connections should not at this point be used as a point of departure. john cobb makes the argument that christians should be silent, for the time being, when encountering jews and judaism, without the expectation that jews must also learn from christians. this silence is necessary, not only for the purpose of learning to see judaism more clearly, but as a result of christianity’s deeply ingrained anti-judaism: “…it is not clear that christians can offer much to jews except apologies until christianity has been freed of its anti-judaism. …christians are not in a position to speak to jews until our own transformation has advanced a long way. the christian purpose in the dialogue with jews must be to change christianity.” 83 though self-critique among christians is certainly an important component of the ongoing work of interreligious dialogue, i do not know if many christians would accept the silence advocated by cobb, nor do i believe it would ultimately be useful. however, it is possible to identify and uproot the belief that judaism is an arm, a source, or a brother of christianity. only after christians engaged in this work allow jews to represent themselves fully, out of their own volition, in their own words, as members of a community that has an (admittedly complex) integrity unrelated to christianity, can the conversation return to examining commonalities and points of connection, in the reconciliation that results from this work. 83 john b. cobb, jr., beyond dialogue—toward a mutual transformation of christianity and buddhism (eugene, or.: wipf and stock publishers, 1998), 48-9. note, however, that cobb expects that a changed, purified, healed christianity might serve as a better witness of christ to the jews, who might then be motivated to accept jesus. scjr 16, no. 1 (2021): 1-3 gabriele boccaccini paul’s three paths to salvation (grand rapids: eerdmans, 2020), hardcover, 200 pp. isaac w. oliver ioliver@bradley.edu bradley university, peoria, il 61625 gabriele boccaccini is a distinguished specialist in second temple judaism and christian origins at the university of michigan. best known as the founding director of the enoch seminar, boccaccini has situated nascent christianity squarely within its second temple jewish environment from the very beginning of his academic career. in his first major monograph, middle judaism, published in 1991, he critiqued rigid distinctions erected between ancient judaism and early christianity. three decades later, boccaccini continues studying earliest christianity as part and parcel of second temple judaism with a monograph devoted to paul’s jewish identity. in the first chapter of the book, boccaccini lays out his methodological framework for investigating paul within a second temple jewish context. boccaccini critiques traditional (mis)assumptions that cast paul against judaism, reified as a legalistic and particularistic religious system. he also engages with more recent interpretations, such as the new perspective on paul and the radical new perspective on paul, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. for boccaccini, paul’s jewish identity is a starting point for historical inquiry, but he warns that reclaiming paul’s jewishness does not have to mean that “he was a jew like everybody else or that he was not an original thinker” (18). the challenge lies instead in determining “what kind of jew paul was, as there were many different ways to be a jew in the diverse world of second temple judaism” (27). the rest of the book contains his examination of various dimensions of paul’s jewish identity and thought. in chapter 2, “paul the convert who never converted,” boccaccini rejects the language of “conversion” to describe paul’s spiritual journey, since paul did not join a new religion separate from judaism. however, in contradistinction to some pauline scholars, boccaccini does not reduce paul’s reorientation to a mere prophetic calling: “in describing his experience as not so much a (prophetic) ‘call’ but rather as an (apocalyptic) ‘revelation’ (gal 1:12), paul himself indicated the radicality of the event” (35). in chapter 3, “paul the apocalyptic jew,” boccaccini draws extensively from his expertise on second temple judaism, especially enochic jewish traditions, to oliver: gabriele boccaccini’s paul’s three paths to salvation 2 examine paul’s apocalyptic worldview. boccaccini highlights the belief in supernatural evil as a central concern for many second temple jews. the problem for such jews, including paul, was first and foremost the superhuman origin of evil, linked with the rebellion of angelic powers, which affected the entire cosmos, making it very hard for jews and non-jews alike to follow god’s will (46). boccaccini, in chapter 4, “paul the messianic jew,” further assesses paul’s apocalyptic thought in light of his messianic beliefs. boccaccini argues that by the turn of the common era several jewish circles had gone beyond the expectation of a human messiah and awaited a heavenly messiah, the son of man, who could free them from the superhuman power of evil. here too boccaccini draws from enochic literature, especially the book of the parables, to shed light on paul’s messianic expectations. boccaccini explores the theme of forgiveness of sins in second temple judaism in chapter 5, “the eschatological gift of forgiveness.” he stresses that the entire jewish tradition assumes that no one, not even the righteous, will be saved without some intervention of divine mercy, even if each one will be judged at the end time according to one’s works. jewish tradition, in other words, maintained that righteous people would be saved according to their works along with divine mercy. nevertheless, some second temple jewish texts, notably the book of parables and the synoptic gospels, indicate that certain individuals, namely the “sinners” who have no good works to offer on their behalf, will be justified at the end of time by mercy alone. boccaccini, in chapter 6, “the divine christology of paul the jew,” emphasizes as in chapter 4 that the notion of a divine messiah was not foreign to ancient judaism. jews in antiquity, like pagans, considered to various degrees many beings as “gods.” however, boccaccini believes that jews in first century maintained a clear distinction between the uncreated status of their own god and other created supernatural beings: “it was god’s uncreated status that made god god and defined god’s uniqueness” (94). since in boccaccini’s estimation paul also subscribed to this jewish view, paul never fully equated jesus with god even though he viewed him as a preexistent divine being (100). the last three chapters of the book overlap with the theme of forgiveness treated in chapter 3. these chapters constitute the most elaborate and original section of the book. boccaccini interprets paul’s view on justification in line with what he detects in the book of parables as well as the synoptics, which he claims show concern for the justification of the sinners alone, whether jewish or gentile. these writings do not depict all humans as sinful. there are righteous jews and righteous gentiles, however few, who comply with god’s will. some jews faithfully observe the torah; some gentiles follow their conscience and natural law. these individuals therefore do not need to rely exclusively on divine mercy in order to be justified. only the sinners do. three paths of salvation accordingly become discernible in paul’s thought: one for jews through adherence to the torah; another for gentiles, who listen to their conscience and the natural law; and, finally, a third path for all sinners who stand in complete need of jesus’ eschatological gift of forgiveness. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) as his many other insightful contributions to the study of second temple judaism, boccaccini’s treatment of paul does not disappoint. his original interpretation of paul’s thought in light of enochic texts is especially welcome, as pauline scholarship has neglected this literary corpus. by widening the spectrum of second temple jewish texts, boccaccini effectively elucidates paul’s jewish identity without divorcing him from his original jewish milieu or reducing him into a jew of “common judaism” (to quote e. p. sanders) who agreed with other jews on every key point, save for the belief that jesus had come to save the gentiles. the most original idea of this book though may elicit controversy. some readers might wonder to what degree, if any, paul would have divided humanity into the three categories (i.e., righteous jews, righteous gentiles, and sinful jews and gentiles) that boccaccini discerns in the book of parables and the synoptics. this proposal, however, requires the most serious consideration, seeing how paul’s letters—along with the rest of the new testament—have been interpreted to condemn, indeed eternally damn, jews (and non-jews) who do not confess jesus. it is hoped therefore that boccaccini’s book will reach the widest readership possible. it will challenge convictions that are assertively exclusivistic while empowering those seeking to construct a more considerate hermeneutic that is historically grounded. 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-3 philip a. cunningham seeking shalom: the journey to right relationship between catholics and jews (grand rapids, mi / cambridge, uk: william b. eerdmans publishing company, 2015), softcover, xiii + 268 pp. john borelli borellij@georgetown.edu georgetown university, washington, dc 20057 this collection of thirteen essays by philip a. cunningham, arranged in two sections (“scripture” and “theology”), on how a “right relationship” is developing between catholics and jews is informative and useful. all but one chapter are based on or adapt previous writings and lectures, though all were composed in light of the 1965 breakthrough statement of the catholic church, nostra aetate. cunningham’s fifth volume on the theme of shalom, seeking shalom demonstrates that the changes brought about fifty years ago and subsequently through church statements and the results of dialogue and scholarship can allow christians and jews today to dwell in shalom—well-being, in right relationship within their communities, and with one another. it is a superb resource for teaching catholics and other christians about their relationship with jews, for presenting this information to jews and all interested readers, and for assisting christians in reading the scriptures in light of biblical scholarship since vatican ii and the achievements of na and subsequent documents and statements on relations between jews to christians. readers will find that the first seven chapters, under “scripture,” provide lessons on how a renaissance and growth in biblical scholarship for catholics was necessary for shaping more constructive teachings on relations with jews. cunningham begins with the 1943 encyclical of pope pius xii (divino afflante spiritu) and its influence on the vatican ii constitution on revelation (dei verbum), and then turns to the continuing work of the pontifical biblical commission, especially its statements in 1964, 1993, and 2001. cunningham nicely balances a discussion of achievements in biblical understanding with examples of reversals of negative teachings about jews. he employs models from biblical scholarship, such as the three stages in the development of the gospels (the ministry of jesus, post-resurrection apostolic preaching, and the writing of the gospels), and the four options for incorporating gentiles in first century chris borelli: philip a. cunningham’s seeking shalom 2 tian communities (pp. 84-85). cunningham draws attention to a diversity of situations and themes, especially in the writings of paul and the gospels. he provides information on the history of the apostolic and post-apostolic periods, drawing on new insights from scholarship on the gradual parting of the ways between an emerging christianity and rabbinic judaism (with each perhaps influencing the other). throughout his narrative, cunningham cites papal teaching from paul vi, through john paul ii and benedict xvi in large measure, to francis, as well as statements of key church officials responsible for relations with jews and the published work of scholars. cunningham draws largely from sound, classical biblical scholarship from as early as the 1960s and up to the present. he explains how a christian reading of the hebrew bible / old testament does not supersede either its original meaning or later jewish interpretations. he explains how the christian new covenant has not replaced the jewish old covenant, and how contemporary catholic teachings rejected earlier claims that jews were under a curse for their supposed role in the passion and death of jesus and therefore rejected by god. collectively the first eight chapters should challenge how many christians understand scripture. more recent insights, particularly from jewish scholars schooled in new testament studies, will open readers’ eyes to the mutuality in faith and mission that christians and jews are called to live. (i missed mention of the work of erik peterson in the 1930s for understanding paul’s letter to the romans, which was momentously influential on j. maritain, k. thieme, j. oesterreicher, c. journet, s. lyonnet, and other central actors in na’s history.) under “theology,” cunningham traces in six chapters how na was truly a “new” beginning and a reversal of past teachings, and explains how church teachings have built upon its message, including the need for a retelling of the christian story. cunningham addresses complex theological issues, such as how both jews and christians—despite their differences—covenant with the one triune god, and how biblical texts influence jewish views of the land and state of israel and how christians might address these realities. his section on pope francis (pp. 177-78), though brief, is significant for future steps. in a final chapter and a conclusion, cunningham addresses the overall rapprochement and unexplored mutuality between christians and jews. he returns to the fundamental question jews raised during vatican ii about whether a relationship with christians is possible, and argues that it is. cunningham’s suggestions are thought-provoking and challenging on topics needing fresh thinking. his reflections on mutuality are helpful to all interested in dialogue. some points need correction or emendation. pope john xxiii did not mandate that cardinal bea “prepare a draft declaration” of na in september 1960 (p. 145). that date would have been far too early. only in february 1962 did the pope approve bea’s request for his secretariat for promoting christian unity to prepare its own draft; previously bea and the secretariat had been engaged in preliminary studies and had made recommendations to other preparatory bodies. although evidence shows that from june 1960 onward pope john never gave up on promoting jewish relations, so many uncertainties with regard to the prepara 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) tions for the council and the unfolding four years of deliberations demonstrate how phenomenal na truly was. also, cunningham’s brief paragraph on how the eventual expansion of na “weakened the text’s stress on the unique relationship between the church and judaism” is misleading (p. 146). cardinal kasper’s observation that this was done to save the substance of the text, the furniture in a burning house, only partially describes the situation in october 1964, the critical month for na’s survival. the opposition sought to split up the draft, scattering the pieces in other council drafts. the text was expanded not just to save it from destruction or to appease critics but also to incorporate legitimate proposals and initiatives that grew out of the conciliar process itself. bea came to agree that the various parts fit well together while the central teaching on jewish relations showed more brightly in contrast but in relation to the other sections. cunningham puts too much emphasis on patchy archives of the “hidden encyclical” of pius xi, which was never issued (pp. 142-45). in 1939, the church was not ready for na’s message. the details of why that was so make the important story, not what might have been the paragraphs of an early draft. moreover, cunningham writes that prior to na “there had never before been a defining ecclesiastical statement about the church’s relationship with judaism” (p. 179). however, while perhaps not specifically intended to be “defining,” there are plenty of references to jews in previous conciliar texts. as conciliar texts, they were authoritative. also, in a discussion of the land of israel, cunningham gives too little attention to the experiences and views of palestinian christians historically and theologically (pp. 220-21). finally, a very minor correction: cunningham refers to the council as a conclave, which it was not (p. ix). it is disputable when the trajectory that led to na 4 begins. did it start with preparations for vatican ii (p. 141)? are its roots earlier, in the three decades prior to the 1960s, as j. connelly suggests in his book from enemy to brother: the revolution in catholic teaching on the jews 1933-1965 (cambridge: harvard university press, 2012) (cited on p. 54)? i opt for connelly’s earlier date, when catholics, often converts from jewish or protestant origin, and some protestants began to oppose vigorously racist antisemitism. despite these criticisms and disputes, mostly about the history of na, seeking shalom is an impressive collection of reflections by a scholar who has dedicated years to improving relations between christians and jews based on accurate information, sound biblical research, and careful theological attention to the implications for both christian and jewish teaching. overlapping material and repetition make this a helpful guide for catechesis. unfortunately, there is no index. moral formation as transformation: the contribution of dietrich bonhoeffer studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1(2007): cp5-7 gushee, “dietrich bonhoeffer and the evangelical moment” cp5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art15 ““moral formation as transformation: the contribution of dietrich bonhoeffer” stephen j. pope boston college delivered at the conference, dietrich bonhoeffer for our times: jewish and christian perspectives, sponsored by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college, the united states holocaust memorial museum, hebrew college, and the andover-newton theological school, september 17-18, 2006. this essay argues that bonhoeffer can help us understand moral formation as personal and social transformation. before proceeding i would like to note three ways in which bonhoeffer himself might have been uneasy with the topic addressed here: transformation of the religious conscience after the shoah. first, the term “spirituality” has a catholic ring and refers to the believer’s journey to god. bonhoeffer stressed human receptivity to the divine call or divine command, not our journey to god. second, the term “formation” might have sounded excessively anthropocentric. formation has a developmental and somewhat aristotelian, connoting the cultivation of good habits, the shaping of conscience, the inculcation of virtue. this would seem to offend bonhoeffer’s lutheran emphasis on the sinful nature of every person and the need to live by grace alone. third, bonhoeffer does not seem to say much about the conscience, or at least he has no major treatise on the subject matter, no extensive philosophical account of its structure, no theory of how it functions, no account of its place in practical moral reasoning. bonhoeffer’s insistence on hearing god’s command and on radical reliance on the divine will seems to make such an account unnecessary. despite these three points, the question of how bonhoeffer’s spirituality and theology might inform our understanding of moral formation is a good topic to explore. contemporary formation of the religious conscience is often understood in one or more of the following of four approaches. first, those who stress doctrinal and/or biblical morality give primary emphasis to teaching religious doctrines and biblical ethics, to maintaining orthodoxy, authoritative codes, magisterial teachings, and the like. they argue that knowing how to act as a christian depends first and foremost on having right faith. this approach attracts some conservative catholics and evangelical christians. second, those who advocate character education emphasize knowledge of and obedience to the ten commandments, the development of moral integrity, adherence to academic honor codes, and the inculcation in civic responsibility. this approach attracts those of a somewhat patrician civic mindedness. most moral formation prior to the shoah focused on these two aspects of morality, or on the religious justification, motivation and reinforcement of personal morality. moral formation since the shoah has expanded in two directions: tolerance and solidarity, respectively. the third approach to moral formation, the ethic of tolerance, appreciates pluralism, multiculturalism, and diversity, focuses on enforcement of human rights and especially civil liberties, strives for nonviolent conflict resolution, censures the evils of hate and hate speech, values respect for the other and is alert to the dangers of unconscious bias, power differentials based on race, class, sexual orientation, and/or gender, etc. this approach especially values autonomy and pluralism. the fourth approach to moral development generates an ethic of solidarity. it regards toleration (along with moral character) as necessary but not sufficient for moral development. it advocates social justice and peace education that go beyond tolerance toward a full fledged conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1(2007): cp5-7 gushee, “dietrich bonhoeffer and the evangelical moment” cp6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art15 engagement with others in order to build understanding, communication, mutual respect, and friendship. they regard moral indifference as compatible with tolerance, but not with solidarity. instead of dividing people, religion promotes the formation of conscience that sees humanity as united in common dignity, shared needs, and joint claims on justice. solidarity does not seek to erase particular differences but rather appreciates them within a common human unity. bonhoeffer can help us understand the value of all four aspects of moral development, but gives a religious grounding for solidarity. it does this in three ways. first, he conceived the human person as profoundly social, as interpersonal, and as benefiting from communion with others. true christian discipleship, he thought, corrects our individualism. we exist both in our own right and as persons-in-community who are called to be responsible for one another. we thus have come to recognize sin not only as commission, active wrong-doing, but also as omission, failing to do what we ought to do. bystanding can be morally blameworthy. this view of the person as deeply connected to others seemed to grow throughout bonhoffer’s life toward the direction of greater and greater solidarity with the oppressed. as he wrote in his letter of christmas 1945: “we have for once learned to see the great events of world history from below, from the perspective of the outcast, the suspects, the maltreated, the powerless, the oppressed, the reviled – in short, from the perspective of those who suffer” (in a testament to freedom, ed. g. b. kelly and f. b. nelson [san francisco: harper san francisco, 1995], p. 486). second, bonhoeffer regarded “others” as “neighbors” who possess equal worth as human beings. every human being is precious in god’s sight and so has a right to be treated with equal dignity. love of neighbor insists on justice as a moral floor beneath which we may not fall. “the best wisdom is recognizing the cross of jesus christ as the insuperable love of god for all people, for us as well as for our enemies” (ibid., p. 285). third, bonhoeffer came to regard god as a god of the oppressed, of the marginalized. god is not neutral with regard to people: god suffers with victims and other marginalized people. moreover, he insisted that god loves our enemies as much as our friends (ibid. pp. 285-286) – something lost on most politicians today who presume that god is “on our side.” though he did not use this language, we might infer that the thrust of bonhoeffer’s theology and spirituality was to regard the formation of christian conscience as a process of transformation or conversion. the need for transformation, and the gap between what christians profess and how they act, was abundantly clear to him. christians tend to be inattentive, uncommitted, indifferent. his question is posed to every generation: who is jesus christ for us today? (p. 306) this question has a number of dimensions: where do we find jesus christ today? in the oppressed. how do we find them? not only by using our eyes but also by using our hearts, minds and spirits. and we can only see the oppressed as we ought to see them if we are transformed to become more authentic disciples. this transformation takes place on two levels: person and communal. first, transformation is fundamentally about moving from being “men and woman for ourselves” to becoming “men and women for others.” christ was a man for others who would rather suffer than inflict suffering on others (ibid., p. 316), who would rather accept violence than act violently toward others (ibid., p. 320). christians ought to understand, b held, that any attack on any person, christian or jew or other, is an attack on christ (p. 321). second, transformation also challenges the christian community and church as well as individual christians. in the ethics he writes: “’formation’ … means in the first place jesus’ taking form in his church” (p. 361). christian prayer, worship and spirituality ought to serve as key bases of christian moral formation. the fact that so many pious christians could have been studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, number 1(2007): cp5-7 gushee, “dietrich bonhoeffer and the evangelical moment” cp7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art15 bystanders and perpetrators during the shoah testifies to the need to make deliberate connections between religious practice and moral commitment. the meaning of christian religious practices like prayer and eucharist are inherently social and moral but it can and has often been diminished or silenced by powerful social pressures like those exerted during the nazi regime. the consciences of christians ought to be shaped to appreciate the four levels of moral development mentioned above – to be grounded in religious foundation, to be dedicated to personal moral integrity, to value tolerance, and to embrace solidarity with the oppressed, the outsider, and the marginalized. christian moral formation, particularly in light of the shoah, has to be alert to the importance of the key distinction between proper loyalty and improper, blind loyalty. the ss motto was “my honor is my loyalty,” and of course the ultimate object of loyalty was to hitler. bonhoeffer’s insistence, against this idolatrous pledge, that loyalty to god trumps all other objects of loyalty. we stand in constant need of this message, which is actually nothing more than the first commandment. bonhoeffer warns of god’s judgment on human pretensions, self-righteousness and selfdeception, and particularly uncritical allegiance to the nation, the political community, or the state. his reading of the conflict between “germanism” and christianity can be transferred in our time to the conflict between “americanism” and christianity – a problem completely missed by neo-conservative christians (protestant as well as catholic) close to the white house who draw a tight connection between the extension of american power in the middle east, the advancement of our theory of democracy, and the spread of christianity. bonhoeffer’s engagement in the “church struggle” also points to the danger of uncritical allegiance to the church. the church is divinely instituted but comprised of weak, flawed and sinful human beings, a point highlighted here in boston during the crisis of sexual abuse. christian moral formation instills the ability to distinguish between god and the church, divine law and human interpretation, the abuse of power by hierarchical authorities and the servant model of leadership exercised by jesus. christian moral formation, in bonhoeffer’s vein, supports ecclesial power to the extent to which the church is “for others” and not only “for herself” (see “communion of saints”). moral formation in this vein is not only forward looking but also honest about the remote and more proximate past. “the confessing church is the church which lives not but its purity but in its impurity—the church of sinners, the church of repentance and grace, the church which can lives only through christ, through grace, and through faith. as such a church, which daily stands penitent, it is a church which confesses its guilt in the division of christendom and which knows itself to be directed at every moment to the first of the grace of god. it therefore exists only as a listening church; it is free for listening to the other, which calls it to repentance” (“the ecumenical movement,” august 1937) (ibid., p. 147). knowledge of the shoah ought to inspire a collective moral transformation or reformation to correct the deformations that have marred our consciousness. the positive aspect of this moral formation promotes an awareness of the common heritage christians share with the jewish people, theological education about the permanent validity of the covenant between god and israel, and the cultivation of a deeper sense of shared biblical faith. at the same time, genuine transformation has to face up the negative: it must be based on an honest confrontation of past injustices, including those stemming from anti-judaism, and it can only follow from contrition for the sins of the past, a firm amendment to change, a commitment to make reparations, and undertake concrete steps to promote a “healing of memories.” scjr 16, no. 1 (2021): 1-3 maria chiara rioli a liminal church: refugees, conversions and the latin diocese of jerusalem, 1946-1956 (leiden and boston: brill, 2020), hardcover, xi + 387 pp. lawrence e. frizzell lawrence.frizzell@shu.edu seton hall university, south orange, nj 07079 the adjective “liminal” in the title is not an allusion to victor turner’s wellknown term for a pilgrimage between an old and new status but to the new and complex situation after 1948 of the latin patriarchate, the community of the latinrite of the catholic church in the middle east. the patriarchate, with its seat in jerusalem, was re-established in 1847. this diocese included palestine as well as transjordan and cyprus, with 35,000 faithful, and was linked to the franciscan custody of the holy land, established in 1217 and served by franciscans from many countries. it faced a difficult decade from 1946-1956 and especially after the major political changes following the creation of the state of israel in 1948. this book is the result of a very extensive study in archives, both religious and civil, in palestine and israel, as well as sources in the holy see (vatican) and many religious orders and congregations. the book depicts the interplay of roman catholics of the latin and six eastern rites, with occasional reference to orthodox christian and protestant communities in the middle east. the wider context is the political and social space shared with muslims and jews, both with larger populations. from the early 1900s the holy see rejected jewish efforts to promote a national homeland. by the 1940s catholic clergy and laity saw zionism to be a threat coming from a perceived “jewish-bolshevik conspiracy” (37). during the war of 1948 palestinian catholics described the israeli soldiers as anti-religious and immoral. the general catholic fear of communism cast a shadow over this period and beyond in palestine, israel, and transjordan. following the 1947 united nations general assembly vote for partition of palestine (giving jerusalem a special status) and an increase in regional tension, militant volunteers from arab nations came to palestine. christians joined muslims in opposition to the partition. what would be the zionist position regarding arab frizzell: maria chiara rioli’s a liminal church 2 noncombatants? early in 1948 arabs fled from jewish areas and the zionists attacked villages near the highways between major jewish centers. the arab refugee situation is discussed in detail, though israel’s contemporaneous absorption of a great jewish migration from arab and other muslim lands is not mentioned because it is beyond the scope of this work. in 1948 there were 716,000 jews in the new state (167); this was doubled by 1951. in general rioli covers the changing setting in which catholics in the region lived. in 1949 the holy see called for jerusalem and the holy places to be under international supervision. the holy see declared 1950 to be a holy year, immediately linked with the holy land, and supported “action for the peace and safeguarding of the holy places” (291). this jubilee was the context for pope pius xii to proclaim the dogma of the assumption of mary. this led to the marian year in 1954, with a focus on nazareth and a plan to construct a basilica at the place of the incarnation. a prominent building project such as this was also meant to challenge the threat of communism in the galilee. rioli discusses the complex situations the patriarchate faced. after the creation of israel, state laws on marriage and education of children included the question of conversion from judaism to other religions, particularly to christianity. she writes, “from 1953 marriage and divorce [came] under the control of the rabbinic courts and not of the state… a mixed marriage between a jew and a non-jew would be considered null and not legally binding” (206-07). this prevented a jew from marrying a catholic. this law affected the patriarchate’s effort to serve lay catholics in israel who were in an interfaith relationship. linked to this was the question of education of children of a “mixed marriage.” catholic and other christian schools in israel were seen as potential settings for conversion of jewish children (208-12). the latin patriarchate primarily served the parishes of arab catholics, but a need arose to serve catholics married to jews and the small number of converts whose preferred language was hebrew. a few priests, converts to catholicism from other countries, founded in 1955 the association of st. james (first bishop of jerusalem) to provide for them. these priests knew the history of efforts in europe to convert jews, so they strove to avoid an aggressive approach. rioli also describes the evolution of this association in considerable detail and shows how its leaders brought an appreciation for the state of israel to the attention of church authorities in rome and to pilgrims. in contrast to certain protestant churches, they were not eschatologically focused. for them, “the foundation of israel did not imply the imminent coming of christ and the end of time” (250). after the israeli press accused the church of proselytism, the patriarchal vicar, antonio vargani, met with journalists on march 10, 1956. he assured them that priests in israel were coming to serve the resident catholic population and to guard the holy places. he insisted “there is no priest or nun whose sole purpose is to proselytize” (313). nor was the church using social action as a means to gain converts. on the contrary, the hebrew speaking priests helped to prepare many people for the new climate of understanding between catholics and jews that was emerging slowly at this time. these were important trends, and “the consequences of 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) these developments would become clearer in the 1960s, with the second vatican council and the june 1967 war” (316). this careful study of the catholic experience in the middle east in the decade 1946-1956 is part of an international perspective on faith and intercultural relations that now may be explored in a wider context. rioli is very thorough in documenting sources. footnotes are translated into english from six languages, which will be much appreciated by non-specialists. reference is made to secondary sources on virtually all questions related to the topic. the book is well illustrated, with a 1963 map of the latin patriarchate diocese of jerusalem. however, maps of the u.n. division of the land into jewish and palestinian sections and the region after the 1948 war would be appreciated by many readers. there is a helpful 27 page bibliography and a general index. abraham joshua heschel: witness to god in word and deed studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college a b r a h a m j o s h u a h e s c h e l : w i t n e s s t o g o d i n w o r d a n d d e e d john c. merkle college of st. benedict/st. st. john’s university volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 3-12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ merkle, “abraham joshua heschel” 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 3-12 “here was a man for whom god was real,” said renowned protestant theologian robert mcafee brown about abraham joshua heschel. “it is not very often these days that one finds a person who communicates this reality, not even among theologians.”1 heschel communicated this reality of god through both words and deeds. after his death on december 23, 1972, one of his students was moved to say: “it was the love of god that was personified in him. the harp of this zaddik’s [righteous man’s] heart played day and night the echo of god’s message.”2 another scholar referred to heschel’s books as “the domain of written love, of a love that weaves sentences to celebrate god.”3 born in warsaw in 1907, abraham joshua heschel was the descendent, on both paternal and maternal sides of his family, of long lines of rabbis and scholars within the jewish mystical movement known as hasidism. forged in eastern europe during the eighteenth century in response to the teaching of reb israel ben eliezer (c. 1690-1760), known as the baal shem tov (master of the good name), hasidism emphasizes the presence of god in daily life and joy as a way of experiencing god. heschel grew up in an atmosphere of genuine hasidic piety and learning, nurtured by a great wealth of hasidic traditions and tales. in the introduction to his last book, a passion for truth, heschel writes: “the earliest fascination i can recall is associated with the baal shem, whose parables 1 robert mcafee brown, “abraham heschel: a passion for sincerity,” christianity and crisis (december 10, 1973): 257-258. 2 jacob y. teshima, “my memory of professor abraham joshua heschel,” conservative judaism (fall 1973): 80. 3 edward k. kaplan, “form and content in abraham j. heschel’s poetic style,” central conference of american rabbis (april 1971): 29. disclosed some the first insights i gained as a child.”4 but heschel was also profoundly influenced by the only hasidic leader to challenge teachings of the baal shem: reb menahem mendl of kotzk (1787-1859), known as the kotzker rebbe (an hasidic leader whose position is based on heredity or charisma). in many ways, the kotzker was the antithesis of the baal shem, and their dual influence upon the young heschel perhaps accounts for much of the polarity and paradox in heschel’s later writings. the baal shem found god everywhere and rejoiced in god’s presence. the kotzker was dreadfully aware of god’s absence and stormed the heavens, accosting god for permitting evil to exist in the world. the baal shem inspired joy and ecstasy, the kotzker fear and trembling. reflecting upon the influence of both the baal shem and the kotzker on his life, heschel writes: “i was taught about inexhaustible mines of meaning by the baal shem; from the kotzker i learned to detect immense mountains of absurdity standing in the way. the one taught me song, the other – silence. the one reminded me there could be a heaven on earth; the other shocked me into discovering hell in the alleged heavenly places in our world.”5 “i must admit,” says heschel, “that during my entire life i struggled between being a hasid of the way of the baal shem or the way of the kotzker rebbe.”6 perhaps combining the spirits of two such divergent masters in his 4 abraham joshua heschel, a passion for truth (new york: farrar, straus, and giroux, 1973), xiv. 5 ibid., xiv. 6 abraham joshua heschel, kotzk: in gerangl far emesdikeit (kotzk: the struggle for integrity), yiddish, 2 vols. (tel-aviv: hamenora publishing house, 1973), 10. this quotation was translated and cited by harold kasimow, the divine-human encounter: a study of abraham joshua heschel (washington d.c.: university press of america, 1979), 3. merkle, “abraham joshua heschel” 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 3-12 own spirit largely accounts for the depth and breadth of insights found in heschel’s writings. perhaps it was because heschel never allowed either the baal shem or the kotzker to prevail one over the other as his guide that heschel’s depictions of human existence and jewish faith are so penetrating and complete. in an interview about fourteen months before his death, heschel expressed his belief that the principle of polarity is essential to judaism and he revealed that he consciously decided that it was his task “to find some kind of calculus by which to establish a polarity of the kotzker and the baal shem – or of judaism altogether.”7 while heschel’s religious imagination and sensitivity were nurtured by tales and teachings of hasidic masters, most of his youthful years were devoted to classical jewish learning, the study of bible and talmud (the mishnah, the first comprehensive post-biblical book of jewish law, formulated about 200 c.e., plus commentaries on the mishnah, compiled from the third to the seventh centuries), and the study of the medieval jewish mystical tradition known as kabbalah. but heschel achieved in his youth not only “knowledge of the jewish religious heritage” but also “understanding for the realness of the spirit and for the holy dimension of all existence,” which “was not primarily the result of book learning but the cumulative effect of life lived among people who ‘were sure that everything hinted at something transcendent’; that the presence of god was a daily experience and the sanctification of life a daily task.”8 7 abraham joshua heschel, quoted from an interview with jack d. spiro held in october 1971, in jack d. spiro, “rabbi abraham joshua heschel: an appreciation,” religious education (march-april 1973), 220. 8 fritz a. rothschild, “introduction,” in between god and man: an interpretation of judaism from the writings of abraham j. heschel, ed. fritz a. rothschild (new york: the free press, 1959), 7-8. rothschild’s statement includes a quotation from abraham joshua heschel, the earth is the lord’s: the inner world of the jew in east europe (new york: henry schuman, 1950), 56. but even if book learning was not the primary source of his religious understanding, nevertheless “by age thirteen, heschel mastered the texts qualifying him to become a practicing rabbi,” reports his biographer edward k. kaplan.9 advised to wait until he achieved even greater mastery of rabbinic sources, “heschel was about sixteen years old when he was ordained” by one of his teachers, a prominent member of the warsaw rabbinical council.10 but the teenage rabbi longed for a secular education to complement his religious one, and to that end at age eighteen he moved to vilna where for two years he matriculated at a secular yiddish-language gymnasium, broadening his education and developing his literary skills in preparation for university studies. in april 1928 heschel enrolled in the university of berlin, where he earned his doctorate in philosophy in 1935. his doctoral dissertation on prophetic consciousness, published as die prophetie (on prophecy) in 1936, forms the basis of the latter part of his monumental book the prophets, published in 1962. the main themes of heschel’s dissertation and of his later book on the prophets are divine pathos – god’s being affected by human beings even to the point of suffering – and human sympathy for and identification with divine pathos. the religious philosophy that heschel would develop throughout his lifetime began to take shape in his dissertation. the title of his major work of religious philosophy, god in search of man, published in 1955, expresses what heschel considered to be the most fundamental insight of prophetic and rabbinic judaism, that 9 edward k. kaplan and samuel h. dresner, abraham joshua heschel: prophetic witness (new haven and london: yale university press, 1998), 47. 10 ibid. merkle, “abraham joshua heschel” 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 3-12 god takes the initiative in the divine-human relationship, reflecting god’s loving concern for human beings. by basing his philosophy on the experience of god’s concern, and on the insight that this concern means that god is moved by the plight and the deeds of human beings, “heschel has propounded a truly revolutionary doctrine, challenging the whole venerable tradition of jewish and christian metaphysical theology.”11 god, as the supreme subject in search of human beings, as one who is compassionate toward them, affected by them, is not the unmoved mover of classical metaphysical theology, but is, in fritz rothschild’s apt expression, the most moved mover of biblical consciousness. it is this consciousness of god that forms the foundation of heschel’s religious thought, and it is the explication of this consciousness that heschel regarded as the “major effort” of his lifework.12 while heschel’s philosophical argument for the pathos of god challenges the tradition of classical metaphysical theology, as rothschild rightly claims, it is not meant to challenge traditional jewish understandings of god. to the contrary, as heschel’s daughter, susannah heschel, points out: “my father bases his understanding of divine pathos on a long, deep tradition within judaism, most prominent in kabbalistic and hasidic writings, but also found in the heart of rabbinic judaism.”13 heschel was convinced that biblical and post-biblical jewish references to god being affected by creatures, even to the point of suffering with them, make more theological or metaphysical sense than the standard 11 fritz a. rothschild, “architect and herald of a new theology,” america (march 10, 1973), 211. 12 abraham j. heschel, “teaching jewish theology in the solomon schechter day school,” the synagogue school (fall 1969), 7. 13 susannah heschel, “introduction,” in abraham joshua heschel, moral grandeur and spiritual audacity, ed. susannah heschel (new york: farrar, straus, and giroux, 1996), xxii. claim of classical greek-inspired metaphysical theology that god is unmoved by the plight of creatures. heschel’s philosophical theology, unlike classical metaphysical theology, was born not of abstraction from human experience but of an analysis of it, particularly an analysis of the experience of the biblical prophets and pious jews down through the ages. a remote and apathetic god would have struck them “with a sense, not of dignity and grandeur, but rather of poverty and emptiness.”14 while pursuing doctoral studies and writing his dissertation in german, heschel also somehow found time to write poetry in his native yiddish, and the major themes that he would work out philosophically are poignantly expressed in some of his earliest poems, such as “god follows me everywhere” and “i and you,” both published in 1929. the former clearly anticipates god in search of man, and the latter is obviously, though implicitly, an answer to martin buber’s famous book i and thou, published six years earlier, in which the human “i” seeks and dialogues with the divine “thou.” in three of the five stanzas, including the first stanza, of heschel’s “i and you,” god is the “i.” and god’s relationship to the human “you” is not merely a matter of dialogue but of indwelling – and pathos: “i live in me and in you. / through your lips goes a word from me to me, / from your eyes drips a tear – its source in me.” the human response is full of sympathy for the god who dwells within: “when a need pains you, alarm me! / when you miss a human being / tear open my door! / you live in yourself, you live in me.”15 here, in these lines, is the preeminent 14 abraham joshua heschel, the prophets (new york: harper and row, 1962), 258-259. 15 abraham joshua heschel, the ineffable name of god: man, (new york: continuum international publishing group, 2005), 31. this book is a reprinting of heschel’s book of yiddish poems, der shem hameforash: mentsh (warsaw: indzl publishing house, 1933) and a translation by merkle, “abraham joshua heschel” 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 3-12 philosopher-poet of divine-human communion, sharing an intimacy he knew and an insight he cultivated from his warsaw days before the dawning of this poem until his death in new york some forty-three years after its publication. here in these two poems is the prophetic mystic who from his earliest years through his last knew that god longs for the attention of those – all of us – in whom god lives. but, for heschel, more than god longs for the attention of human beings, god wants human beings to attend to each other. this theme, recurrent in many of heschel’s yiddish poems, is expressed boldly in these lines of one titled “god and man”: “not for your own sake do you want sacrificial gifts; / only for those disappointed in your love. / . . . blasphemy pains you less / than people’s despair. / he who blasphemes people, the world – / shames you, almighty; / he who loves people – / brings joy to you, holy one.” 16 the two poems here quoted are among sixty-six that constitute heschel’s first book, der shem hameforash: mentsh (the ineffable name of god: man), published in 1933 while he was in the final stages of writing his doctoral dissertation. throughout his life, heschel was both a scholar and a poet. most of his scholarly works are cast in a poetic prose that signifies the inseparability, at least for him, of theology and intense spiritual feeling. that the publication of his book of poems occurred during the time of his doctoral studies signaled what was to come: scholarly works as things of beauty – and of soul. while attending the university, heschel also studied at berlin’s hochschule fur die wissenschaft des judentums morton m. leifman of those poems, with an introduction by edward k. kaplan. 16 ibid., 45. (academy of scientific jewish scholarship), a seminary of germany’s liberal judaism, where he received a second rabbinic ordination in 1934. thus, he not only was complementing his religious learning with a secular education; he also was complementing his traditional hasidic education with a modern, historical-critical approach to judaism. this undoubtedly helped heschel enrich and broaden his already profound understanding of judaism, and it prepared him well to communicate effectively throughout his life with different segments of the jewish community. “though himself eschewing labels, identifying wholly with none of these schools [in the world of judaism], and all the while holding his own views, heschel established good relations with each of the factions, since he believed each represented, in greater or lesser measure, an affirmation of jewish life. heschel’s breadth expressed the quality of his ’ahavat yisra’el (love of israel).17 in 1934 heschel assumed his first teaching position as an instructor in talmud at the berlin hochschule from which he had just graduated. in 1935 the publication of his biography of maimonides (1135-1204), the greatest of medieval jewish scholars, “established his reputation as a fine scholar, a gifted and imaginative writer, and a master of german prose.”18 “heschel’s vivid life of the rambam (as maimonides is also known) spoke to jews who had to live in nazi germany deprived of their religious culture” as he 17 samuel h. dresner, “introduction: heschel as a hasidic scholar,” in abraham j. heschel, the circle of the baal shem tov: studies in hasidism, edited by samuel h. dresner (chicago and london: the university of chicago press, 1985), viii. 18 fritz a. rothschild, “introduction,” between god and man, 8. nearly five decades after its publication in german, heschel’s biography of maimonides was published in english: abraham joshua heschel, maimonides: a biography, trans. joachim neugroschel (new york: farrar, straus, and giroux, 1982). merkle, “abraham joshua heschel” 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 3-12 conveyed maimonides’ goal “to make his godconsciousness available to everyone, to sanctify the everyday.”19 in 1936 heschel published a series of articles under the general title “personalities of jewish history” in a popular berlin jewish newspaper. later described as acts of “spiritual resistance to the nazis,” these biographical sketches were designed to implicitly address “the situation of jews in germany” and to “hearten readers with a sense of divine purpose.”20 continuing his attempt to uplift german jews through biographical writing in a time of extreme crisis, the next year heschel published a short book on the great portuguese jewish philosopher don isaac abravanel (1437-1509) to commemorate the five-hundredth anniversary of his birth. heschel was convinced that emulating the loyalty to god displayed by abravanel could strengthen german jews who experienced persecution and faced exile not unlike the portuguese and spanish jews of the late fifteenth century. “abravanel’s destiny offered a timeless guide to the present, as stated by the author’s [heschel’s] italicized editorial comment: ‘the jewish question is a question of god to us.’”21 early in 1937, the same year his biography of abravanel appeared, heschel accepted the invitation of martin buber (1878-1965), europe’s most famous jewish philosopher, to join the faculty of the judische lehrhaus, founded by another renowned jewish philosopher, franz rosenzweig (1886-1929), in frankfurt-am-maim. there heschel led seminars, directed education activities, and gave public lectures until late october 1938, when he was deported by the nazis. “during the nineteen months he lived in frankfurt, heschel announced his theology of history – and became the witness to the living god he remained throughout his life.” 19 edward k. kaplan, abraham joshua heschel: prophetic witness, 202 and 206. 20 ibid., 236. 21 ibid., 252. 22 heschel was one of thousands of polish jews being sent back to their native country. but when the trains carrying them reached the border, polish authorities refused to let them proceed home. but after several days in a detention camp, heschel was permitted to return to warsaw where, within a few weeks of his arrival, he was hired as a substitute teacher of bible and jewish philosophy at the warsaw institute of jewish science for the remainder of the academic year. in april 1939 he received a life-saving invitation to join the faculty of hebrew union college in cincinnati, ohio. three months later, just six weeks before the nazi invasion of poland, heschel left warsaw for london, where he would spend nearly a year before assuming his new academic post in the united states. heschel never forgot the horror of his last months in germany and poland. twenty-five years later, upon assuming the harry emerson fosdick visiting professorship at union theological seminary in new york, he referred to himself as “a brand plucked from the fire of an altar of satan on which millions of human lives were exterminated to evil’s greater glory, and on which so much else was consumed: the divine image of so many human beings, many people’s faith in the god of justice and compassion, and much of the secret and power of attachment to the bible bred and cherished in the hearts of men for nearly two thousand years.”23 he was thirty-three years old when he came to the united states where he lived for almost another thirty-three 22 ibid., 257. 23 abraham j. heschel, “no religion is an island,” union seminary quarterly review (january 1966), 117. merkle, “abraham joshua heschel” 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 3-12 years until his death in 1972. during this second half of his life he became for many what the great reinhold niebuhr called him, “the most authentic prophet of religious life in our culture,”24 as he consistently defended the divine image of all human beings, fostered faith in the god of justice and compassion, and inspired attachment of the bible. from 1940 until 1945 heschel served as associate professor of philosophy and rabbinics at hebrew union college. while there he continued the study of medieval jewish philosophers that he had begun in berlin and wrote his first book in english, the quest for certainty in saadia’s philosophy. published in 1944, this work is a penetrating study of the major questions explored by the father of medieval jewish philosophy – questions such as the meaning of truth, the sources of religious knowledge, revelation and reason, doubt and faith, with which heschel continued to grapple throughout the course of his life and to which he offered his own distinctive replies. what he said of saadia gaon may be said of heschel himself: “he penetrated below the deep mines of bible and talmud, where he had unearthed a wealth of wisdom and learning in order to ascertain what lay in the substratum.”25 heschel remained forever grateful to those at hebrew union college who had secured his exodus from poland, but while there he became increasingly aware of the disharmony between his approach to judaism and the mission of the college. so in 1945, the same year he became a citizen of the united states, heschel resigned his position at hebrew union and joined the faculty at jewish theological seminary of america in new york, where he subsequently became 24 reinhold niebuhr, quoted by byron sherwin, “abraham joshua heschel,” the torch (spring 1969): 7. 25 abraham joshua heschel, the quest for certainty in saadia’s philosophy (new york: philip feldheim, 1944), 2. professor of jewish ethics and mysticism and taught until the time of his death in 1972. in 1946 heschel married sylvia straus, a gifted pianist from cleveland, ohio, whom he had met while teaching in cincinnati. perhaps it was his marriage to a musician that moved heschel, whose own speaking and writing had a melodious quality, to make the following observation: “the shattering experience of music has been a challenge to my thinking on ultimate issues. . . . music leads to the threshold of repentance, of unbearable realization of our own vanity and frailty and of the terrible relevance of god. i would define myself as a person who has been smitten by music.”26 together with their one daughter, susannah, the heschels made their home on riverside drive, several blocks from the seminary where he taught. during his tenure at jewish theological seminary, heschel lectured widely throughout the united states and beyond and he served as a visiting professor at several universities. during the 1965-1966 academic year he was the first jewish theologian to hold a visiting professorship at union theological seminary in new york, located just across the street from jewish theological seminary. at union, heschel drew more students to his classes than any other visiting professor in the school’s history. but it was not only the students who came to him; he also reached out to them. according to j. a. sanders, a prominent professor at union, “heschel made himself available to students and colleagues in ways that put the rest of the faculty to shame. like the god of whom he spoke so warmly, heschel was always there.”27 26 abraham joshua heschel, the insecurity of freedom: essays on human existence (new york: schocken books, 1966), 246. 27 j. a. sanders, “an apostle to the gentiles,” conservative judaism (fall 1973): 62. merkle, “abraham joshua heschel” 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 3-12 all the while he was teaching, heschel also continued to be a prolific writer, and his writings became widely read, even outside academic circles. “every new book by heschel intrigued jews searching for roads back toward judaism,” writes moshe starkman. “more than anyone else in our time, he helped the seeking jews gain vision to see the maor sheb’yahadut, the bright and brilliant within judaism.”28 but the influence of heschel’s books extends far beyond his jewish audience. explaining why heschel’s books and essays became “the devotional reading of myriads of nonjews,” renowned biblical scholar w. d. davies writes: “through his faith in the god beyond all mystery he ministered to our ultimate human need and, therefore, to us all. in his books and speeches, in which the cadences and rhythms and patterns of ancient synagogal prayers and sermons reverberate, . . . he called into being the emotions which he described, and summoned, not only jews, but nonjews also, to the depth of awe, wonder and mystery that life should evoke in all men.”29 heschel’s most influential books written after world war ii are the ones he wrote in english: the earth is the lord’s: the inner world of the jew in east europe (1950), an eloquent tribute to the people from whom heschel learned to develop his own inner world as a jew; the sabbath: its meaning for modern man (1951), a penetrating study of sanctity of time; man is not alone: a philosophy of religion (1951) and god in search of man: a philosophy of judaism (1955), profound explorations of the grounds for faith in god and ways of responding to god; man’s quest for god: studies in prayer and symbolism (1954), a collection of essays containing what many people regard as the most 28 moshe starkman, “abraham joshua heschel: the jewish writer and thinker,” conservative judaism (fall 1973): 75. 29 w. d. davies, “conscience, scholar, witness, america (march 10, 1973),\: 215. penetrating analysis of prayer written in twentieth century america; the prophets (1962), a monumental study that greatly expands the work on the prophets that he had done for his doctoral dissertation; who is man? (1965), a cogent defense of the transcendent dignity of being human; the insecurity of freedom: essays on human existence (1966), a collection of twenty essays dealing with issues such as race relations, medical care, the plight of the elderly, interfaith relations, and religious education; israel: an echo of eternity (1968), an elegant explanation of the significance that israel holds for jews everywhere; and a passion for truth (1973), a remarkable comparative study of the baal shem tov, the kotzker rebbe, and danish philosopher soren kierkegaard. along with these widely read books he wrote in english, heschel also wrote major works in yiddish and hebrew: the two-volume yiddish work kotzk: in gerangl far emesdikeit (1973) on the kotzker rebbe’s passion for integrity; and the three-volume hebrew work torah min hašhamayim be-ispaklaryah šhel ha-dorot (volume 1, 1962; volume 2, 1965; volume 3, 1992), exploring major issues of revelation according to different strands of rabbinic theology, translated into english by gordon tucker and leonard levin and recently published in one massive volume as heavenly torah as refracted through the generations (2005). heschel believed that “music is the soul of language” and that “a sentence without a tone, without a musical quality is like a body without a soul.”30 he made sure that the language he employed and the literary corpus he produced was full of soul. “his works are like enchanted forests,” writes fritz rothschild. “if only we take the effort to enter them, we shall find them both enchanted and enchanting.”31 as such, heschel’s writings evoke the religious sensitivity, 30 a passion for truth, 323. 31 fritz a. rothschild, “architect and herald of a new theology,” 211. merkle, “abraham joshua heschel” 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 3-12 indeed the sense of god’s presence, to which they bear witness. these writings of heschel’s are genuinely religious because they reflect his authentic religious life: a harmony of prayer, study, and action. his action consisted primarily in the unsung ethical and religious deeds of a pious jew, but he also took a public stand on a number of social issues. this began early in his life and was particularly evident in an anti-nazi lecture he delivered in germany in march 1938.32 nevertheless, it was only in the last decade of his life that heschel emerged as a recognized ethical leader of national and international prominence. this began in 1963 when he delivered the keynote address at the national conference on religion and race which led to widespread clergy participation in the great “march on washington.” he was passionate and persistent in his support of civil rights and in his condemnation of racism. he often appeared with martin luther king, jr., and he walked by his side in the great selma march of 1965. heschel also protested the american involvement in the vietnam war. he co-authored vietnam: crisis of conscience (1967) and he was a co-founder of clergy and laity concerned about vietnam, a national interfaith organization that helped to bring and moral and religious implications of the vietnam war to the attention of the american people. it was largely in connection with this organization that he spent an enormous amount of time and energy in the service of peace. 32 a later version of this address was published as “the meaning of this war,” hebrew union college bulletin (march 1943): 1-2, 18; reprinted in abraham joshua heschel, man’s quest for god: studies in prayer and symbolism (new york: charles scribner’s sons, 1954), 147-151. heschel was also the first major jewish figure to urge world jewry to come to the aid of the jews in the soviet union who were suffering what he called “spiritual genocide,” and his efforts led to the formation of the american conference on soviet jewry. “early in the 1960s,” writes reuven kimelman, “when heschel was forging concern for vietnam, he was simultaneously lighting the spark for one of the greatest protest movements of jewish history – soviet jewry.”33 heschel was also active and immensely influential in interfaith relations. most noteworthy is the prominent role he assumed in the negotiations between jewish organizations and the hierarchy of the roman catholic church before and during the second vatican council (1962-1965). he was the most influential american jewish delegate at the council, encouraging church leaders to condemn antisemitism, to eliminate anti-judaism from church teachings, to acknowledge the integrity and permanent preciousness of judaism. although the conciliar decree on interfaith relations, nostra aetate, did not fulfill heschel’s expectations, he acknowledged it as a landmark in the history of catholic-jewish relations. heschel also had far-reaching interfaith influence apart from formal interfaith dialogue. through his writing, teaching, and public lecturing, he taught jews and christians to recognize the sanctity of each other’s religion and he helped them to realize the mutual spiritual benefits of interfaith encounter. living his last decade of life in the midst of an interfaith revolution he helped create, heschel had the opportunity to reach the christian world in ways unknown to jews of previous generations. and while he was one of many jewish religious thinkers of the twentieth century to 33 reuven kimelman, “abraham joshua heschel (1907-1972),” response: a contemporary jewish review (winter 1972-73): 18. merkle, “abraham joshua heschel” 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 3-12 influence christian thinking, he more than others fostered an enhanced appreciation of judaism among christians and, consequently, new ways of understanding christianity vis-àvis judaism.34 in the context of speaking of heschel’s influence on christians, robert mcafee brown makes this personal testimony: “when i have been in his presence and have talked with him and have heard him pray, i have been moved to ask myself, ‘what have i got to tell this man about god?’ and thus far i have never found an answer. at this stage of christian-jewish dialogue i remain content to learn.”35 to have inspired an outstanding christian theologian to such an extent that he felt he had nothing to tell heschel about god, and was therefore “content to learn” from him, was for heschel to perform a major feat for judaism in relation to christianity. one of the principal ways 34 see john c. merkle, “abraham j. heschel (1907-1972): introduction,” in jewish perspectives on christianity, ed. fritz a. rothschild (new york: the crossroad publishing company, 1990), 267-277. 35 robert mcafee brown, “abraham heschel: a passion for sincerity,” 257. by which christian theologians have attempted to demonstrate the superiority of christianity over judaism has been to claim that the christian view of god is superior to the jewish view. but having led christians into the grandeur of the jewish tradition, heschel has convinced many of them that jewish understandings of god as they have developed through the centuries are every bit as profound as what christian theologians usually have claimed can be attained only by means of christian faith. concerning heschel’s approach to god, the great philosopher charles hartshorne expresses the view of many christians when he writes: “if there has been a theology whose supreme principle is divine love, this is it.”36 for christians as well as for jews, then, abraham joshua heschel is a preeminent guide to the reality and the relevance of god. 36 charles hartshorne, in a letter to john c. merkle (june 18, 1985). merkle, “abraham joshua heschel” 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr peer-reviewed article the image of the other in jewish interpretations of alenu* jeffrey hoffman at the center of the ancient jewish prayer, alenu, stands the image of the non-jewish other, whom it contrasts with jews, the only worshipers of the true god. alenu juxtaposes israel’s correct religion with the other’s erroneous religion. there is a long history of jewish interpretation of alenu. some acknowledge and even grotesquely expand the negative image of the non-jewish other; others diminish and even deny it. thus, jewish interpretations of alenu, over time and across various geographical locations, form an interesting bellwether of jewish approaches to the other in general. a comprehensive presentation would require a book length treatment. rather, this essay will survey representative interpretations over the centuries. the text and its history before turning to these interpretations, let us turn to the prayer itself, its text and its history. this article will refer regularly to this contextual translation of the prayer, one that takes into account the text’s historical, literary, and grammatical context. 1 while there can be no translation that completely * i would like to express my gratitude to professor ruth langer for graciously reading several drafts and suggesting many improvements in both style and content. these have certainly helped to sharpen my argument. any remaining faults are, of course, my own. 1 here i am appropriating language and concepts explicated by stephen garfinkel in a discussion of interpretation of the hebrew bible, but these are perfectly applicable to the liturgy as well. see his essay and extensive bibliography in “clearing peshat and derash,” in magne saebo, ed., hebrew bible/old testament: the history of its interpretation (gottingen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht gmbh & co., 1996), ii: 129-134. for addistudies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 2 eliminates the subjective predilections of the translator, a contextual translation endeavors as much as possible to minimize subjectivity and place the text into its original setting. it is our duty to praise the lord of all, to ascribe greatness to the former of creation, that he did not make us like the nations of the lands and did not place us like the families of the earth. that he did not make our lot like theirs, nor our fate like all their multitudes. for they bow to vanity and emptiness, and pray to a god who does not save. but we bow and prostrate and thank the king of kings, the holy one blessed is he. for he stretches out the heavens and establishes the earth. his seat of glory is in the heavens above, and his powerful presence is in the highest heights. he is our god, there is no other. he is our true king, there is no other. as it says in his torah: “know therefore this day and keep in mind that the lord alone is god in heaven above and on earth below; there is no other” (dt. 4:39). therefore, we hope in you, lord, our god, to soon see your powerful splendor. (and to see you) remove detestable things 2 from the earth, cut down idols, and perfect the world in the kingdom of the almighty. all flesh would (then) call on your name, all the wicked of the earth would turn to you. all that dwell in the world would acknowledge and know that to you every knee bends and every tongue swears. before you, lord our god, they will bow and fall (upon their knees), tional analysis of these two types of exegesis, see uriel simon, “the religious significance of the peshat,” trans. edward greenstein, tradition 23, no. 2 (1988): 41-63. 2 gilulim, a derogatory word for idols. see deut. 29:16. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr and they would ascribe honor to your glorious name. all would accept the yoke of your kingship. may you reign over them soon and forever. for the kingdom is yours, may you reign forever in glory, as it says in your torah: “the lord will reign forever and ever” (ex. 15:18). and it is said: “and the lord shall be king over all the earth; in that day there shall be one lord with one name” (zech. 14:9). 3 alenu thus consists of two discrete sections. relevant here is that the first declares that “we,” israel, are grateful that we worship the lord of all; all others worship nothingness. 4 the second section asks that since the god that we worship is the only god in the cosmos--therefore, may you, god, cause all people to accept you as the one god. these two sections work together to express a triumphalist message: we praise god because he designated us as the only ones who worship the only true god and we hope that “all flesh,” “all the wicked 3 translation based upon the text as it appears in seligmann baer, seder avodat yisrael (roedelheim, 1868), 131-132, except for the oft-censored line, shehem mishtaḥavim…, omitted there. for that line, i use the version in i. davidson, s. assaf, b.i. joel, eds., siddur r. saadya gaon (jerusalem: mekitse nirdamim, 1951), 221. aside from this and alternatives to the word yeqaro, “his glory,” both discussed below, there are only a few minor lexical variations in the textual history of this prayer, none of which are significant enough to require discussion here. see daniel goldschmidt, maḥzor leyamim hanora’im, (new york: leo baeck institute, 1970), 1:150; naphtali wieder, “regarding an anti-christian gematria (in the prayer alenu)” [hebrew], sinai 76 (1975): 1-14, republished with corrections and additions in naphtali wieder, the crystallization of the texts of jewish prayer in east and west [hebrew] (jerusalem: mekhon ben tzvi and hebrew university, 1998), 2: 453-468; yaakov elbaum, “regarding two textual changes in the prayer alenu” [hebrew] tarbiz 42 (1973): 204-208. 4 the word kol, “all,” is used twice in the first section in just these ways. the first kol refers to the lord of “all.” the second refers to “all” of their – the others’ – multitudes. this word is a kind of a leitmotif in the prayer as a whole. the second section contains seven occurrences of the word kol, each of which refers to “all” of the non-believing others. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 4 of the earth” will similarly join us and accept the one true god. the text of alenu can first be documented in the 10 th century as part of the introduction to the malkhuyot (“kingship verses”) section of the amidah 5 of musaf (the additional service) on rosh hashanah, the jewish new year. it is found in that location in siddur rav saadya gaon 6 as well as in several documents from the genizah. 7 it ultimately appeared as 5 the central prayer of every service, consisting of an extended series of blessings: nineteen on weekdays, seven on sabbaths and holidays, but nine on rosh hashanah musaf. 6 siddur r. saadya gaon, 221. 7 these documents, though not datable with exactitude, also probably derive from approximately the 10 th century. scholars had previously identified two genizah fragments: ms. oxford 2721/13 – see ismar elbogen, “die tefilla fur die festtage,” monatsschrift für geschichte und wissenschaft des judentums 55 (1911): 426-446, 586-599; ms. oxford 2700 – see m. margaliot, hilkhot erets yisrael min ha-genizah (jerusalem: mossad harav kook, 1974), 148-149. a fresh search of the genizah material on the friedberg genizah project (november 23, 2014) yields additional examples. to the extent that the documents include at least a number of lines from the prayer, they all either match, or are very close to the text in siddur rav saadia gaon:  ms. cambridge t-s h18.25 includes the entire text of alenu:.  ten documents include a significant portion of the text of alenu: mss. cambridge t-s 8h23.1, t-s as 62.36, t-s as 105.114, and or. 1081 1.52; mss. jts ena 603.4, ena 1208.6, ena 2108.6, and ena 2213.1; ms. paris aiu iv.a.110; and ms. vienna: h 117.  nine documents include only the words alenu leshabbe’aḥ (i.e., as instructions to recite this prayer) or the first line or two of the prayer: mss. cambridge t-s 18.31, t-s 10k20.6, t-s misc. 34.5, t-s as 100.160, t-s as 107.154, and or. 1080 10.2; ms. jts ena 3474.6; ms. paris aiu iv.a.119; ms. philadelphia cajs: and ms. halper 174. all of the examples are for the musaf service of rosh hashanah. ms. jts ena 3474.6 is identified by the lieberman catalog as for the amidah of shabbat/ḥaggim. however, the context of the surrounding prayers makes it clear that it is indeed part of the musaf service of rosh hashanah. the context of ms. jts ena 2108.6, however, is not entirely clear and may not derive from rosh hashanah. see also ezra fleischer, eretz-israel prayer and prayer rituals: as portrayed in the geniza documents [hebrew] (jerusalem: magnes, 1988), 127. although alenu is also found in studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr part of the introduction to malkhuyot in the liturgy for rosh hashanah in all rites. while there is one genizah fragment that contains alenu in the liturgy for yom kippur in its musaf service, it was incorporated into the liturgy for yom kippur at a slightly slower pace than it was into that of rosh hashanah. 8 the 9 th c. seder rav amram gaon, daniel goldschmidt, in his critical edition (jerusalem: mossad harav kook, 1971), 21, 141, indicates that it is likely a later addition there. 8 it is not found where one might expect it in the amidah of musaf on yom kippur in seder rav amram, 166-168, nor in siddur rav saadia gaon, 262-264, nor in ms. oxford corpus christi college 133, the first precisely dated (1189) manuscript in which alenu appears outside the rosh hashanah liturgy (see below, n. 11), nor in the mishneh torah (12 th century), nor in several twelfth to thirteenth century liturgical sources deriving from ḥaside ashkenaz, e.g., the siddur of r. solomon ben samson of garmaise (including the) siddur haside ashkenas or in rabbi eleazar of worms, rokeach, pirushey siddur hatefilah larokeach: a commentary on the jewish prayerbook, ed., moshe hershler and yehudah a. hershler (jerusalem: machon harav hershler, 1992), 2 vols., or in or zaru’a by david ben judah (ca. 1240-ca. 1320). five lines of the prayer appear first in a genizah fragment, ms. cambridge t-s misc. 10.210, identified as part of the amidah of musaf for yom kippur by the friedberg genizah project transcriptions team and by the personal handlist of menahem ben sasson. it subsequently appears in that location in the following sources:  simhah ben samuel (11 th -12 th century), mahzor vitry, ed. aryeh goldschmidt, (jerusalem: mekhon otsar haposkim, 2009), 3:781.  abraham ben nathan hayarhi (1155-1215), sefer hamanhig (jerusalem: mosad harav kook, 1978), 351 (introduced by yesh omrim, “there are those who say” indicating that it was not yet a wide-spread custom).  nathan bar yehudah (13 th century), sefer hamahkim (cracow: eshkol, 1909), 41.  aaron ben jacob hakohen of lunel (end of 13 th c. – first half of 14 th c.), orḥot ḥayyim (jerusalem: yosef dov steizberg and son, 1986), siman 37, p. 238.  jacob ben asher (14 th century), arba’ah turim oh 621.  david abudraham (14 th century), abudraham hashalem (jerusalem: usha, 1963), p. 287. ismar elbogen, jewish liturgy: a comprehensive history, trans. raymond p. scheindlin (philadelphia, new york: the jewish publication society, the jewish theological seminary of america, 1993 – a translation of the 1972 hebrew translation and revision of the original 1913 german edition) does not mention alenu in connection with yom kippur studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 6 alenu gradually became one of the concluding prayers of daily services beginning in the twelfth to thirteenth centuries in the franco-german region. it entered the morning shaḥarit service first, and within a couple of centuries, it concluded all services, three times a day, throughout the entire liturgical year. 9 the reason for this immense extension of this prayer’s recitation (from three times a year on the high holidays to three times a day, every day) has been much studied. stefan reif denigrated attempts to explain it as a result of the supposed chanting of alenu by the martyrs in the blood libel in blois in 1171, writing, “[s]uch tendencies to see all jewish liturgical developments as the result of persecution are not historically convincing, especially since the more general usage seems to have predated the massacre.” reif’s own explanation is that alenu was added at the end of the newly canonized morning, afternoon, and evening services because of “the need for formal conclusions to match what had come to be regarded as the formal body of the liturgical text.” 10 in other words, there was nothing specific about the content of alenu that recommended it to serve as the conclusion of the thrice-daily services; it simply fit the need for formal conclusions to these services which themselves had recently become canonized by geonic authority. while reif is correct that the “lachrymose” theory of jewish history has been marshaled too often in explaining liturgical innovation, in this case, it may be warranted. he cites no examples to support his claim that the “general usage” (i.e. at all. stefan reif, judaism and hebrew prayer: new perspectives on jewish liturgical history (cambridge university press, 1993), 209,. simply notes that the prayer first found its place in the liturgy of rosh hashanah before being incorporated into the yom kippur liturgy without saying when. 9 for the general history, see elbogen, jewish liturgy, 71-72, 119, and daniel goldschmidt, maḥzor leyamim hanora’im, i:28 (in the introduction). 10 reif, judaism and hebrew prayer, 209. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 7 www.bc.edu/scjr daily usage) of alenu preceded the blois massacre; similarly, he provides no evidence to support his alternative explanation that alenu simply fulfilled a need for a concluding passage in the newly canonized worship services. in fact, there is no evidence of alenu in a liturgical location other than the high holiday prayers before the blois massacre. the earliest liturgical document in which alenu appears outside the service of the high holidays is dated no later than 1189. 11 shortly thereafter, it is mentioned as the conclusion of the daily morning service in the circle of ḥaside ashkenaz by eleazar ben judah of worms (d. c. 1230), who cited it in the name of his teacher, r. judah the pious (d. 1217) 12 and it is found in that location in several thirteenth-century ashkenazic sources. 13 many of these same works cited joshua as the author of alenu, apparently as a support for the innovation. the fact that alenu is still not found in the daily services in works by medieval sefardic sources, e.g., maimonides (d. 1204) and abudraham (fl. 1340), supports the impression that its movement to daily use began in ashkenazic circles soon after blois, and proliferated in french-german locales within a couple of centuries. 14 11 ms. oxford corpus christi college 133. alenu occurs there in three places: at the end of the weekday morning service, in a section early in that service called ma’amadot (on this, see the discussion below), as well as introducing malkhuyot on rosh hashanah. on this manuscript see malachi beit-arie, the only dated medieval hebrew manuscript written in england (1189 c.e.) and the problem of pre-expulsion anglo-hebrew manuscripts (london: valmadonna trust library, 1985). 12 see sefer haroqe’aḥ hagadol (jerusalem: s. weinfeld,, 1960), 221. 13 siddur of r. solomon ben samson of worms, ed. moshe hershler, (jerusalem: ḥemed, 1971), 126; menahem ben solomon meiri, bet habeḥirah al masekhet berakhot (jerusalem: makhon hatalmud hayisraeli hashalem, 1960), 118; jacob ben asher, arba’ah turim, oh 133; nathan ben judah, sefer maḥkim, ed. j. freimann (cracow: eshkol, 1909), 13; and the kol bo (rpt. tel aviv: n.d.), 9b – all cited in elliot r. wolfson, “hai gaon’s letter and commentary on ‘aleynu: further evidence of moses de leon’s pseudepigraphic activity,” jewish quarterly review 81, nos. 3-4 (january-april, 1991): 381-382. 14 israel yuval’s presentation of this argument, though flawed, seems credible. see my discussion of it below and in his two nations in your womb: perceptions of jews and christians in late antiquity and the middle ages, trans. barbara harshav and jonathan chipman (berkeley: university of studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 8 it is, in fact, reasonable to consider the movement of alenu from rosh hashanah to daily worship as another example of vicarious vengeance for the antisemitic attack at blois. 15 it is true that there are no clear statements in the sources connecting the introduction of alenu into the daily service with the attacks at blois. however, this may simply be the result of prudence and self-preservation in the face of a powerful majority culture. nevertheless, the fact that alenu as a whole forms a strident statement of pride in the jewish religion’s correct understanding and worship of the true god and a condemnation of the nations’ false theology and rituals made it an appropriate vehicle for expressing defiant self-defense. 16 the point is not, as israel yuval (and others) hold—see below—that alenu was pushed into prominence as a daily prayer in reaction to the jews of blois actually chanting it as they were martyred, since there is indeed reason to question the report of the jews actually chanting alenu at blois. 17 the point is that the jewish communities of the region appear to have taken that report quite seriously and literally. it is alenu’s reported california press, 2006), 119, 129-133, 192-203. see also susan l. einbinder, “pucelleina of blois: romantic myths and narrative conventions,” jewish history 12, no. 1 (spring 1998): 29-46. 15 see my “akdamut: history, folklore, and meaning,” jewish quarterly review 99, no. 2 (spring 2009): 161-183, especially 171f., for another example of this same phenomenon, in the same region, less than a century earlier. in the case of akdamut, it is doubtful, and ultimately irrelevant, whether the author meant his poem as a protest against crusader violence. the poem, as a result of the yiddish folktale that extolled the poet as an avenging hero, became a paean of jewish triumph and a source of emotional relief in the centuries following the crusades. 16 alenu, and especially its second paragraph, accords with arthur green’s characterization of “the avenging god of post-crusades ashkenaz.” see his “shekhinah, the virgin mary, and the song of songs,” ajs review 26, no. 1 (april 2002): 30, n. 118. green, in turn, is here citing israel yuval in yuval’s “vengeance and curse, blood and the libel: from holy libels to blood libels,” [hebrew], zion 58, no. 1 (1993): 34-45, esp. 36. 17 see the report of ephraim of bonn in m. weiner, emek habacha von r. joseph ha-cohen (leipzig: o. leiner, 1858), hebrew appendix, 8. on viewing the report as a discourse with its own agenda as opposed to an objective and accurate account, see kirsten a. fudeman, vernacular voices: language and identity in medieval french jewish communities (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2010), 60-63; 70. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 9 www.bc.edu/scjr role that is crucial. it is quite plausible that jewish communities in the region, following the report about blois, began to chant alenu on a daily basis in support of their faith that the martyrs of blois went to their deaths singing of the superiority of judaism over christianity. the very fact that the jews showed themselves willing to die for their faith indicated to medieval jews the truth of judaism, and the testimony of their chanting alenu—whose theme echoed this triumphalist view— only emphasized the ultimate vindication of the martyrs and their religion. the question of when alenu was originally composed, and for what purpose, has not been resolved. many scholars assert that alenu derived from the talmudic period based on the citation in rabbinic literature—not of alenu itself—but of one small passage that introduces the next section, the zikhronot (“remembrance”) verses in the service for rosh hashanah. 18 daniel goldschmidt, however, wisely cast doubt on this theory since it was based almost entirely on underdocumented speculation. 19 18 the rabbinic references to this brief passage is found in yrh 1:3, 57a; yaz 1:2, 39c; brh 27a; pdrq 151a (buber); tanḥuma, ha’azinu 4. see leopold zunz, die gottesdienstlichen vorträge der juden historisch entwickelt, 2 nd edition (frankfurt am main, 1892; rpt. hildesheim, 1966), 386-387. the hebrew edition, haderashot beyisrael vehishtalshelotam hahistorit, ed. and revised ḥanokh albeck, (jerusalem: bialik institute, 1954), 181, n. 74, adds the note: “alenu leshabbe’aḥ, therefore, was not composed against christianity.” see also: kaufmann kohler, “alenu,” jewish encyclopedia (new york: funk and wagnalls company: 1906), 1: 336-338; ismar elbogen, jewish liturgy, 119-120; hayyim herman kieval, the high holy days: a commentary on the prayerbook of rosh hashanah and yom kippur (jerusalem: the schechter institute of jewish studies, 2004), 152, n. 63; joseph heinemann, prayer in the talmud: forms and patterns, trans. richard sarason (berlin and new york: de gruyter, 1977), 272, n. 42, a translation and revision of his prayer in the period of the tanna’im and the amora’im: its nature and patterns [hebrew] (jerusalem: magnes, 1964), 173, n. 41; and joseph yahalom, “piyyut as poetry,” in the synagogue in late antiquity, ed. lee i. levine (new york and philadelphia: the jewish theological seminary of america, and the american schools of oriental research, 1987), 114. 19 maḥzor leyamim hanora’im, i: 28 of the introduction. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 10 before alenu can be documented in the liturgy, it appears in an ancient mystical text that is almost certainly earlier, in ma’aseh merkavah, part of the hekhalot or merkavah mysticism literature. there, r. akiba recites the prayer in gratitude for emerging safely from the experience of being granted heavenly visions as a “descender to/in the chariot,” that is, a mystic who has ascended heavenward to view the hekhalot, “sanctuaries,” the angels, and, ultimately, god. the two recensions of this prayer both resemble closely the liturgical text of alenu (including the second paragraph), but there are some differences, most strikingly that both of the ma’aseh merkavah texts mingle singular and the plural subject(s)/speaker(s), while the liturgical versions of alenu include only the plural forms. thus instead of beginning with alenu leshabbe’aḥ, “it is our duty to praise,” the longer recension begins, alai leshabbe’aḥ, “it is my duty to praise.” both then go on to say, in the plural, shelo asanu, “who has not made us,” but then return to the singular in the phrase shelo sam ḥelki, “who has not made my portion.” 20 scholars offer divergent interpretations of the intersection of these texts. on the basis of the appearance of alenu in ma’aseh merkavah, meir bar-ilan posited that this prayer originated in the circle of the merkavah mystics and dated it to the 3 rd -5 th centuries, c.e. 21 from there, according to bar-ilan, it 20 see michael d. swartz, “alay le-shabbeaḥ: a liturgical prayer in ma’aseh merkabah,” jewish quarterly review 77, nos. 2-3 (october 1986 – january 1987): 179-180, nn. 2, 5, and 9 for bibliographic information about rabbi akiba’s prayer. see also peter schafer’s critical edition of hekhalot literature, synopse zur hekhalot-literatur (tübingen: hansgeorg von mutius, the jewish theological seminary of america, 1981), paras. 544-596. 21 meqorah shel tefillat ‘alenu leshabbe’aḥ,’ da’at 43 (1999): 22, n. 85. see also his extensive argument there with those who place hekhalot literature at a slightly later date. bar-ilan had made the same argument twelve years before in his book the mysteries of jewish prayer and hekhalot [hebrew] (ramat gan: bar-ilan university, 1987), 38-39. this article rebuts point by point israel ta-shma’s argument. opinions about the date of the hekhalot literature vary from the tannaitic period (2 nd -3 rd c.) to the late geonic period (9 th -10 th c.). for a summary, see rachel elior, the three studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 11 www.bc.edu/scjr entered the liturgy of rosh hashanah. 22 in contrast, israel tashma claimed that alenu did not originate in ma’aseh merkavah, but instead alenu derived from the liturgy of the ma’amadot in the second temple period. 23 from there, it entered both ma’aseh merkavah and the liturgy for rosh hashanah. 24 the main issue allowing these widely diverging opinions is that, while the text of alenu seems largely appropriate to both contexts, its themes and literary style are also somewhat discordant with both. the most reasonable approach is that of michael swartz, who considers alenu an independent passage that was adapted for use in both contexts. 25 of these, the rosh hashanah liturgy became the source of alenu’s spread to all other services. alenu and jewish views of the other as alenu’s content compares jews and the religious other, jewish interpretations of alenu, over time and across various geographical locations, form an interesting bellwether temples: on the emergence of jewish mysticism (oxford/ portland, or: littman library of jewish civilization, 2004), 232, n.3. 22 aaron mirsky attempted to prove, on the basis of literary analysis alone, that alenu derived from the period between the bible and the beginning of the mishnah. see his hapiyyut: the development of post biblical poetry in erets israel and the diaspora [hebrew] (jerusalem: magnes, 1990), 72-74. 23 on the ma’amadot, see jacob liver and daniel sperber, “mishmarot and ma’amadot,” encyclopedia judaica, 2 nd edition, (farmington hills, mi: macmillan reference usa, 2007), 14:317-319; and ephraim.e. urbach, “mishmarot u’ma’amadot” [hebrew], tarbiz 42 (1973): 304-327. 24 israel m. ta-shma, “meqorah umeqomah shel tefillat ‘alenu leshabbe’aḥ’ basiddur hatefillah: seder hama’amadot u’she’elat siyyum hatefillah,” in sefer zikaron l’efrayim talmage, ed. barry walfish (haifa: haifa university press, 1992-1993), i; 85-98, reprinted with an abbreviated title in ta-shma’s, the early ashkenazic prayer: literary and historical aspects [hebrew] (jerusalem: magnes, 2003), 139-153. see also kenneth e. berger, “issues and developments in the liturgy of ashkenaz during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: the arvit service” (ph.d diss.: the jewish theological seminary of america, 2006), 202209. 25 swartz, “alay le-shabbeaḥ,” 190. see also stefan reif, judaism and hebrew prayer, 208. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 12 of jewish approaches to the other. our survey will demonstrate a movement from an ancient and medieval severely negative image to a softening and eventual rejection of the obvious meaning of the received language in the modern period as jews find ever greater acceptance. 1. alenu in the hekhalot literature: the negative image of non-jewish nations ma’aseh merkavah depicts rabbi akiva as narrating the details of his mystical ascent to rabbi yishmael. in the final stage of his visionary journey, he relates, “i saw 6,400,000,000 angels of service before the throne of glory, and i saw the knot of the tefillin 26 of (a multi-word, untranslatable, name) the god of israel, and i gave praise for all of my limbs.” following this, is the text of rabbi akiba’s praise, namely, alenu. “praise” (shevaḥ) is, of course, the root of the second word in alenu. here, the meaning of alenu flows from its specific setting as the climax of a successful cosmic journey. 27 alenu expresses rabbi akiba’s thanksgiving for his safe ascent and vision of god upon god’s throne of glory. rabbi akiba’s immediate turn from personally experiencing the reality of israel’s god in the most palpable, forceful, compelling, and persuasive way to declaring, over and over, the falsity of nonjewish nations’ worship constitutes a most rhetorically powerful condemnation of the non-jewish other. this censure of the other’s mistaken worship is the central message of his “praise.” 26 god’s tefillin (phylacteries) are mentioned in bber 7a and bmen 35b. 27 on deriving meaning from a text’s setting, see yitshak heinemann, the ways of the aggadah [hebrew] (jerusalem: magnes, 1970), chapter 12; richard hays, echoes of scripture in the letters of paul (new haven/london: yale university press, 1989), 2f.; daniel boyarin, intertextuality and the reading of midrash (bloomington: indiana university press, 1990), especially 1-19. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 13 www.bc.edu/scjr this is consistent with the negative view of the other in this early form of jewish mysticism. it continues the generally negative view of the nations in the bible and rabbinic literature and anticipates the especially antagonistic stance of medieval kabbalah. what the hekhalot tradition adds to the biblical and rabbinic views is its cosmic element: not only are the nations not the chosen of god, but rabbi akiba’s experience testifies that from the vantage point of the highest heaven, from the seat of god himself, their worship is false and misguided. 2. alenu in the rosh hashanah liturgy: the negative image of non-jewish nations defines the positive image of the jewish nation just as the context in which alenu is embedded in the passages from the hekhalot literature reveals something unique about the condemnation of the other in the prayer, so too does alenu’s context in the rosh hashanah musaf service. this service embeds three clusters of ten biblical verses on the themes of god’s sovereignty, remembrance, and the shofar respectively. 28 prayers introduce and conclude each cluster, leading, in the repetition, to a series of shofar blasts. alenu’s two paragraphs surround the malkhuyot (“kingship verses”) and consequently the root m-l-kh, “king,” occurs four times in the first paragraph and seven times in the second paragraph. this focus on god’s kingship shapes the central message of alenu in this context. worshipers enact the role of loyal subjects of their divine king, publicly and communally declaring their allegiance at the beginning of a new year. one of the classic roles of the other is to function as a foil against which a people defines itself. 29 the message proclaimed as 28 the structure and content of these sections is discussed in mrh 4:6-8; brh 32b, and yrh.4:7, 59c. 29 see, for example, laurence j. silberstein, “others within and others without: rethinking jewish identity and culture,” in laurence j. silberstein and robert l. cohn, eds., the other in jewish thought and studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 14 another new year begins is “we” are not like “them.” “we” serve the one and only true divine king. “they” serve false kings. as r. joseph caro (1488-1575) wrote in his bet yosef, “alenu leshabbe’aḥ was instituted only because we are (about to) recite the kingship verses. (therefore), we first praise god, may he be blessed, (through the words of alenu) for having separated us from the misguided ones (hato’im).” 30 this, then, is the key meaning of chanting alenu on new year’s day: by invoking the misguided path of the others, the in-group—the jewish people—declares to itself and to its divine king its fealty and loyalty to the one true god. alenu’s placement in this section of the rosh hashanah service is relatively modest and obscure. although rosh hashanah is an important holiday, alenu is tucked inside the third blessing (out of nine) in only one of the four amidot of the holiday, and even here it serves merely as the introduction to the featured section, the malkhuyot (kingship verses). this placement reflects a modest kind of confidence: it perpetuates the biblical and rabbinic vaunting of israel as the chosen people, but it does not broadcast it. 3. a 12 th -century version of alenu: an explicitly negative image of christians an early version of alenu found in a few late twelfthcentury manuscripts contains wording not found in other texts of the prayer. all other versions describe non-jewish worship fairly generically, saying, “for they bow down to vanity and emptiness and pray to a god who cannot save.” 31 in a manuscript dated 1189 that french jews brought with them to history: constructions of jewish culture and identity (new york: nyu press, 1994), 5f. 30 on the tur, oh 591, s.v. v’omer alenu leshabbe’aḥ. compare r. joel sirkes (1561-1640), in his bayit ḥadash commentary there. 31 this line was the subject of repeated censorship and to this day it is missing in most non-orthodox versions of the prayer. more on this below. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 15 www.bc.edu/scjr london and in a few parallels from that world, we find a grotesquely expanded version of this line, as follows: 32 for they bow to vanity and emptiness—a man of ash, blood, bile, rotting flesh (inhabited by) maggots; (those who bow down to this man are) defiled men and women, adulterers and adulteresses, dying in their iniquity and rotting in their wickedness, decaying in the dust, rotten with maggots and worms—and pray to a god who cannot save. as ruth langer observes, “this is apparently a direct reference to jesus, emphasizing his base humanity and denying his resurrection; it asserts in graphic terms that his body decomposed like anyone else’s.” 33 what is arresting is the particular vehemence, intensity, and fervor with which this version transforms the prayer to express a complete disdain and scorn for the specifically christian other. the fact that this version of alenu is not known beyond a few, isolated manuscript leaves is not surprising. if anything, the fact that this reading survived christian censorship at all is remarkable. nevertheless, given the overall theme of the prayer, it is not altogether unexpected that it became the locus for an expansion to vehement anti-other wording. israel 32 ms. oxford corpus christi college 133, 72b. an additional three manuscripts with similar, but not identical, versions were found by moshe hallamish, discussed in his kabbalah: in liturgy, halakah and customs [hebrew] (ramat gan: bar ilan university press, 2000), 627-630. one of these manuscripts (ms. paris bn heb. 391) is incomplete, and the page is torn in the middle of the prayer, perhaps – but only perhaps – deliberately. the other two are ms. paris bn heb. 633, which neubauer identified as deriving from the twelfth-thirteenth c. and rabbi jacob ben jehuda hazan of london, the etz ḥayyim, ed. israel brodie, (jerusalem: mosad harav kook, 1962), 126, written in 1287. all seem to derive from the northern french orbit. 33 ruth langer, “the censorship of aleinu in ashkenaz and its aftermath,” in the experience of jewish liturgy: studies dedicated to menahem schmelzer, ed. debra reed blank (leiden/boston: brill, 2011), 150. see also: yuval, two nations in your womb, 119, 129-133, 192-203. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 16 yuval hypothesizes that these sharply worded versions of alenu may have responded to the martyrdom of the jews at blois in 1171. further, he suggests that adding alenu to the daily service may have been a kind of “refutation” of the christian prayer te deum laudemus (we shall praise you, o god), which—claims yuval—is similar in content to alenu and also began as an ancient prayer that only gradually became statutory. 34 yuval’s theory is quite suggestive even though he somewhat exaggerates his evidence. he assumes that the jews actually sang alenu as they were burned to death at blois, 35 while those chronicles may well be apocryphal or exaggerated. 36 there are several parallels in content between alenu and te deum, but it would not be difficult to find similar parallels with many prayers that praise god. finally, a slow transition from sporadic recitation to statutory status is a typical of many prayers in many religions. still, yuval’s approach is provocative. jewish reactions to persecution were sometimes expressed liturgically, and it frequently took some time for those liturgical reactions to coalesce. 37 even if clear lines of causality cannot be drawn between this extreme version of alenu and the reactions to the martyrdom at blois, they may well be linked. the graphic negativity of this version of alenu, in precisely this period and region, is clearly a reflection of jewish angst and anger. by portraying the founder of christianity and his followers in the image of rotting and decaying corpses, this prayer may be foisting the horrifying visions of jewish victims of christian anti-semitic violence onto its perpetrators. 34 yuval, two nations in your womb, 192-203. 35 see above in the discussion of the prayer’s history. likewise, hanoch avenary, “aleinu le-shabbe’ah,” encyclopedia judaica, (keter publishing house, jerusalem: 2007), 1:609, assumes that the martyrs actually sang alenu and explained the emergence of alenu in daily worship as a possible reaction to the events at blois. 36 see kirsten a. fudeman, vernacular voices, 60-63; 70. 37 see my “akdamut…,” 171-173. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 17 www.bc.edu/scjr 4. thirteenth-century sources i: the negative image of worshipers of jesus and muhammad a provocative interpretation of alenu in its location in the high holiday liturgy that attracted notice in both jewish and non-jewish sources was a commentary (in the hermeneutic style known as gematria) that equated the word variq (“emptiness” in the phrase “for they bow down to vanity and emptiness…”) with the word yeshu (jesus) because the numerical values of both words’ letters add up to 316. 38 this interpretation thus understood alenu to hint that christians who bow down to jesus are, in fact, worshiping “emptiness.” this interpretation was known by jews in this period. several sources expanded the interpretation to include muhammad (and therefore, his adherents) as well. 39 none of the texts that contain this allusion derive from lands with sizable muslim populations. the likelihood is that one inventive interpretation sparked another in its wake, and once variq was interpreted as representing and condemning jesus, 40 resource 38 see the studies of this gematria by: naphtali wieder, “regarding an antichristian gematria …”; yaakov elbaum, regarding two textual changes in the prayer alenu,” 204-208; and stefan reif, “regarding the text of alenu” [hebrew], tarbiz 43 (1975): 202-203. 39 for a list of sources that include the gematria about muhammad, see naphtali wieder, “regarding an anti-christian gematria,” 455, n. 8. in this reading, the words lahevel variq (“to vanity and emptiness”) are found to equate 413; 316 for yeshu (jesus) and 97 for mushammed, spelled mem-ḥet-mem-tet. however, lahevel only adds up to 67, not 97. this disparity caused some jewish sources to actually alter the spelling of the word variq in the prayer itself, adding an extra lammed (velariq) – whose numerical value is 30 – in order to supply a hint to the missing value. see also yaacov deutsch, “jewish anti-christian invectives and christian awareness: an unstudied form of interaction in the early modern period,” leo baeck institute year book 55 (2010): 41-61. 40 in this same way, wieder, “regarding an anti-christian gematria,” 457466, explains the origin of a gematria that viewed the word yeqaro, “his glory” in alenu’s line “his seat of glory is in the heavens above” as another hint to jesus. the word yeqaro is an anagram of the word variq and thus also totals 316. in this case, a hidden reference to jesus would praise christianity’s messiah, as if it said “god’s seat of glory (= jesus) is in the heavens above.” thus were born several alternatives to yeqaro, all more or studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 18 ful readers searched for and “found” an equivalent hint condemning the founder of judaism’s other daughter religion. note the misunderstanding of islam here: muhammed is neither divine nor an object of worship. naphtali wieder collected nine examples known to him to have escaped censorship. 41 one such example is found in arugat habosem by r. abraham ben azriel: i have heard that one ought to (have in mind as one) prays (the words) “to vanity and emptiness” that in gematria (these words are equivalent to) jesus and muhammed. this proves that all who believe in those two bow down “to vanity and emptiness.” 42 it did not take much time before these interpretations aroused the wrath of non-jewish, especially christian, authorities. the most famous christian accusation in ashkenaz that jews cursed jesus through the recitation of alenu is from a 1399 book of apologetics, sefer nitsaḥon, by rabbi yom tov lipmann muehlhausen. in the book’s appendix, he attempted to rebut the charges of a jewish apostate known as pesah (who, upon converting to christianity, changed his name to peter). 43 it is more than likely that this was not an isolated incident. pesah-peter makes a number of charges, both impugning the jewish religion and accusing the jewish community of cursing jesus and christianity in alenu. in muehlausen’s counterargument, he denies in several creative ways that alenu has anything to do with jesus or christians. whether or not muehlhausen fully believed his own arguments is not entirely less meaning “his seat of glory” including hadaro, kevodo, umoshavo hayaqar, bemoshav hadaro, umoshav tifarto, vekhise khevodo, etc. 41 wieder, “regarding an anti-christian gematria,” 454, n. 7. 42 avraham ben azriel, arugat habosem, ed. e.e. urbach (jerusalem: mekitse nirdamim, 1963), 3:468-469. 43 elbogen, jewish liturgy, 71-72. see also: langer, “the censorship of aleinu,” 154-155; and jacob katz, exclusiveness and tolerance, (oxford: oxford university press, 1961), 131-142, especially 134, n. 1. there is also an earlier source for the arousal of non-jewish authorities: see yosef hayim yerushalmi, “the inquisition and the jews of france in the time of bernard gui,” harvard theological review 63 (1970): 357, 359. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 19 www.bc.edu/scjr clear. but what is uncontestable is that in spite of muehlhausen’s claims, jewish interpretations of alenu as condemning christian (and muslim) worship and worshipers certainly predated him. whether equating of the word “emptiness” in alenu with “jesus” was a reaction to specific anti-jewish incidents or not, this interpretation’s appearance marks that the basic anti-other stance of previous eras spread in the thirteenth to fourteenth centuries. 5. thirteenth-century sources ii: joshua as the author of alenu – an apologetic meant to blunt the anti-christian interpretation of alenu? many thirteenth-century sources assert that the biblical joshua was the author of this prayer. this medieval idea may be at least partially based upon the talmudic tradition that joshua, the conqueror of the land, composed the second blessing of the birkat hamazon (the blessing after meals), 44 which specifically thanks god for the produce of the land of israel. however, it is also possible that this attribution of alenu to joshua arose because in medieval jewish folklore, joshua was seen as an anti-jesus figure. 45 perhaps medieval jews attributed this image to joshua based upon joshua’s biblical warrior status, and imagined him as a kind of fictional defender of jews against christian knights and crusaders. however, other explanations emerge from thirteenthcentury texts. there are at least eight ashkenazi sources that posit joshua as the author of alenu. 46 one such example reads: joshua bin nun instituted it (alenu) when he besieged jericho and conquered it. he saw there the people’s idols that were emptiness and products of their delu 44 bber 48b. 45 see yisrael rosenson, “alenu leshabe’aḥ – the legends about the ancient author” [hebrew], meḥqere ḥag 12 (2001): 74-86. 46 see the full list in elliot r. wolfson, “hai gaon’s letter and commentary on ‘aleynu, 380-381; 404, n. 2. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 20 sions, and he (therefore) began to recite, “it is our duty to praise the lord of all, to ascribe greatness to the former of creation” (i.e., the prayer alenu, whose next lines condemn the idol-worship of the nations). 47 one motivation for this assertion was apparently to justify adding alenu to the daily worship. if such an ancient and important personality were, in fact, the author, then certainly the prayer merited recitation on a more frequent basis than just the high holidays. 48 as we have seen, there were already anti-christian and anti-muslim interpretations of alenu in jewish sources in the thirteenth century as well as anti-christian interpretations from earlier times. this explanation, then, by placing the prayer’s origins long before the advent of christianity, perhaps constituted an apology, denying that this statement against contemporary others was the original intent of the prayer. 49 6. kabbalistic sources: the negative image of the nonjewish nations who represent demonic evil the most influential text of kabbalah is the thirteenthcentury zohar. there, the source of non-jewish souls is “the other side,” (sitra aḥra), i.e., the demonic realm, and non-jews are considered sub-human. a typical passage reads, “(o)n the other side, side of impurity: the spirit spreading through the other nations emerges from the side of impurity. it is not human (adam), and so does not attain this name. the name of that spirit is impure, not attaining the name human, having no share in it.” 50 47 the siddur of r. solomon ben samson of garmaise, 124. see also p. 126. 48 elbogen’s trenchant observation is that had alenu continued to be recited only on the high holidays, it might have escaped the kind of attention it attracted by non-jews once it began to be recited on a daily basis. see his jewish liturgy, 71. 49 langer, the censorship of aleinu, 149, n. 8. 50 zohar 1:20b. translation from daniel c. matt, the zohar: pritzker edition (stanford: stanford university press, 2004) 1:157. as matt notes in n. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 21 www.bc.edu/scjr while the zohar does not comment directly upon alenu, an extant kabbalistic commentary attributed to rav hai gaon (10 th -11 th c.) was almost certainly authored by rabbi moses de leon (1240-1305, spain), the writer or co-writer of the zohar. 51 regarding alenu’s words, “that he did not make us like the nations of the lands,” this commentary presents two striking images. the first is that israel resembles the fruit and trunk of a tree while the nations resemble branches that must be pruned so that the tree itself and its fruit might flourish. 52 the second image is that the nations are sustained by the divine energy overflowing from the land of israel, like dogs who wait under the table for a bone to fall. the common thread between these metaphors is that the nations of the world are demonic forces that feed off of the divine flow of blessing vouchsafed from god only to israel. in alenu, then, when the worshiper recites “that he did not make us like the nations of the lands,” the worshiper is expressing gratitude for not being a member of the sub-human, demonic, non-jewish nations who sustain themselves only by sapping the divine energy that overflows to israel. this extremely negative image of non-jews was certainly known and of great influence on later kabbalists. this is quite obvious in the writings of r. isaac luria (1534-1572, ottoman-ruled palestine), the central figure in the great kabbalistic renaissance in sixteenth-century safed. luria did not write down most of his teachings, but his disciple, r. ḥayyim vital, did. de leon’s basic approach is quite evident in luria’s commentary on alenu. luria equated the “the nations 386, there were parallel medieval christian views of the demonic nature of the jews. 51 elliot wolfson, “hai gaon’s letter and commentary on ‘aleynu,” 406407. see also 392-395. 52 in a personal communication, ruth langer raised the question of whether or not de leon could have been responding to paul’s letter to the romans 11:16-24. in turn, elliot wolfson commented in a personal note that while it is possible that de leon was reacting to the pauline text – he may have had access to an oral or written transmission – it is hard to know without a textual witness. therefore, the question remains. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 22 of the lands” and “the families of the earth” with the qelipot. 53 qelipot in lurianic kabbalah are demonic “shells” that have no separate existence, but derive their vitality from the sparks of holiness that they encompass. luria taught that it should be “our intention (when reciting alenu) to cause the qelipot to disperse and capitulate … and when we praise god and denounce the qelipot (by reciting these lines in alenu), then the qelipot capitulate.” thus, in luria’s view, alenu is a kind of incantation: when a jew recites its praises of god and denounces the gentile nations (who are the embodiment of the demonic), the demonic forces break up and withdraw from the presence of the jews at worship. while luria was not the only kabbalist who taught this interpretation of the other in alenu, 54 luria had, by far, the greatest influence on subsequent jewish liturgy. his interpretations of prayers, including alenu, and his ritual innovations were published in dozens if not hundreds of editions of prayer books and other guides, with or without attribution. an example is the gates of zion (sha’arei tsion) by r. nathan nata hannover (d. 1683), originally published in prague in 1662 and reprinted 119 times by only 1803. 55 this perspective in kabbalistic literature represented possibly the nadir of the jewish image of the other, and that is mirrored in kabbalistic commentaries on alenu. 56 53 ḥayyim vital, peri ets ḥayyim, sha’ar qeri’at sefer torah, (jerusalem: widovsky, 1988), ch. 6. 54 see, e.g., the prayer book commentary of another major kabbalist of sixteenth-century safed, r. moshe cordevero, siddur tefillah lemoshe (jerusalem: mekhon otserot hatorah, 2004), 160a-161a. see also bracha sack, the kabbalah of rabbi moshe cordevero [hebrew] (jerusalem: mossad bialik, 1995), 193-202; idem, “prayer in the teaching of r. moshe cordevero” [hebrew], da’at 9 (1983): 5-12. 55 lawrence fine, physician of the soul, healer of the cosmos: isaac luria and his kabbalistic fellowship (stanford: stanford university press, 2003), 6, n. 9. for a number of other interesting examples of this interpretation over the centuries, see moshe hallamish, “’aleinu le-shabe’ah’ in the kabbalistic literature and its importance” [hebrew], da’at: a journal of philosophy and kabbalah 68-69 (2010): 67, n. 47. 56 cf. elliot wolfson, venturing beyond, 40. see also alan brill, judaism and other religions: models of understanding (new york: palgravemcmillan, 2010); idem, “many nations under god: judaism and other studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 23 www.bc.edu/scjr harold bloom has taught us that all writers respond to those who wrote before them. 57 when it comes to the world of religion, where saints and events of the past are often literally venerated, this insight is even more astute. given the immense popularity of luria’s kabbalistic vision, almost any jewish writer who commented on a prayer like alenu would have been influenced by this interpretation from the time that luria’s teachings gained traction in the early modern period until the enlightenment presented reasons to counteract the essence of this interpretation. 7. the early reform movement: the negative image of the others deleted or interpreted out of existence as the early reform movement accepted a modern, liberal approach to non-jews, it grew uncomfortable with the idea of israel’s chosenness. 58 the rank and file of the nascent jewish liberal movement could usually ignore talmudic and midrashic examples of this idea since these volumes were not well known to them, whereas they encountered the liturgy regularly. alenu, going beyond merely asserting the chosenness of israel to declare that israel alone worships the true god, became a focus of modification. 59 religions,” conversations, institute for jewish ideas and ideas (october 24, 2008), http://www.jewishideas.org/alan-brill/many-nations-under-. 57 bloom has expounded on this in many of his works, but first introduced it in the anxiety of influence: a theory of poetry (oxford: oxford university press, 1973). 58 see gunther plaut, ed., the rise of reform judaism (new york: world union for progressive judaism, 1963); michael meyer, response to modernity: a history of the reform movement in judaism (new york: oxford university press, 1988); eric l. friedland, were our mouths filled with song: studies in liberal jewish liturgy (cincinnati: hebrew union college press, 1997). 59 see jakob j. petuchowski, prayerbook reform in europe: the liturgy of european liberal and reform judaism (new york: world union for progressive judaism, 1967), 298-306. all english translations of german prayers are his. see also joel s. kaminsky, “attempting the impossible: eliminating election from the jewish liturgy,” midstream (january/february 2005): 23. http://www.jewishideas.org/alan-brill/many-nations-understudies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 24 one trend in the initial liberal prayer books was to interpolate wording within the translation that identified the other as pagans who worshiped idols, i.e., not christians, but earlier peoples. a good example of this reading comes from the 1853 liberal prayer book published in aachen, germany. the hebrew text of alenu is unchanged, but the german translation of one of the early lines in the prayer reads: …that thou hast redeemed us of all false belief and superstition, and enlightened us with the light of thy revelation. not before wood and stone, wrought by the hand of man, and not before silver and gold, refined by the smelter’s fire, but before thee, the king of kings, the all-holy do we bow down. 60 another particularly interesting instance derives from joseph saalschütz’s 1859 (koenigsberg) german paraphrase of the prayer book, meant to accompany the traditional hebrew. this reads, in part, “…that he hath not let us be like the pagans, and that he hath given us a lot different from that of their large multitude.” a footnote explains, “two thirds of mankind, as is known, still belong to paganism. israelites, christians, and mohammedans together represent only one third of the inhabitants of the earth.” 61 another technique that early reform prayer books employed was to delete the contrast to the other, at least in the beginning of the prayer. this required some significant rewriting. these amended versions now constructed chosenness positively, praising god for giving the jews a true understanding of god’s oneness and omitting any mention of the other nations. for example, in abraham geiger’s 1870 prayer book, instead of the traditional line shelo sam ḥelkenu kahem, “(god) did not make our portion like theirs,” we find shesam ḥelkenu leyaḥed et shemo, “(god) made our portion 60 cited in petuchowski, prayerbook reform in europe, 301-302. 61 cited in petuchowski, prayerbook reform in europe, 302. see also pp. 6-7. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 25 www.bc.edu/scjr to unify his name.” 62 both of these trends—eliminating any mention of the distinction between israel and the other nations, as well as identifying the other as idol-worshiping pagans—are found in many liberal prayer books of the nineteenth century; sometimes both are found in the same prayer book, with one of these ideas found in the hebrew version of the prayer and the other in the translation. 63 the leaders of liberal jewry in mid-nineteenth century germany and other western european countries sought to communicate a less triumphalist stance to their own adherents as well as to the non-jewish community. liturgical change did not happen all at once, nor was there general agreement to modify one or another particular prayer. at adath jeschurun in amsterdam, for example, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, civil equality had become a fact, and beyond a few deletions in the service (including the vengeful av haraḥaman from the crusader period), the main modifications were only esthetic. 64 at the other extreme, we find rabbi aaron chorin (1766-1844) who advocated for the complete removal of alenu from the prayer book, insisting from his pulpit in hamburg “repeatedly (even tediously) that jews were required to treat christians as ‘brothers’ no less than fellow jews.” 65 still, the general tendency was to emphasize universalism and to downplay jewish particularism. the alterations to the text of alenu documented in this section ought to be contextualized in the general movement among german and european liberal jewry away from supremacist nationalism and toward universalism. 62 cited in petuchowski, prayerbook reform in europe, 303. 63 for an example of the latter, see, among others, the 1882 glogau prayer book, cited in petuchowski, prayerbook reform in europe, 303. 64 meyer, response to modernity, 26. 65 meyer, response to modernity, 158. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 26 8. nineteenth-century modern orthodoxy – rabbi samson raphael hirsch: affirmation and denial of the negative image of the non-jewish others the modern orthodox movement found one of its original spokesmen in rabbi samson raphael hirsch (germany, 1808-1888). although hirsch strongly opposed the emergent reform movement as too liberal, he did not, by any means, reject modernity in toto. he, too, welcomed the beginnings of acceptance that the enlightenment brought jews in certain areas of western and central europe. his tendency was to pioneer ways for jews to play roles in modern civil society while remaining loyal to the traditional practices and beliefs of judaism. his qualified openness to modernity brought with it a conscious or unconscious sensitivity to the negative ways in which certain jewish texts compared non-jews to jews. he expresses this in his commentary on alenu: in its first part it proclaims the sharp contrast between our own concept of god and of our relationship to him, and that of the other nations of mankind. but in the second part of this prayer beginning with al ken, etc., we cite our own concept of god as the basis of our firm confidence that one day all the rest of mankind, too, will return and dedicate itself wholly and without reservations to the exclusive service of god, the one sole god, and we express the fervent hope that this day may come to pass soon and that we may see it with our own eyes. 66 here, he affirms the negative image of the non-jewish other found in alenu. however, when he clarifies the hope in the prayer’s second paragraph that non-jews will ultimately take upon themselves the jewish conception of god, he engages in a complex form of apologetics: 66 the hirsch siddur: the order of prayers for the whole year. translation and commentary by samson raphael hirsch (new york: feldheim, 1969), 208. originally published in german in 1895 under the title israels gebete ubersetzt und erlautert von samson raphael hirsch. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 27 www.bc.edu/scjr according to the teachings of judaism, however, such a hoped for “return” is not meant to be identical with a mass conversion of all men to judaism; it will be no more than the conversion of all mankind to true humanity. it merely means that all men will then recognize god, the one sole god, as the only god in heaven above and on earth below, and do him homage forever by living a life of loyal obedience in accordance with the universal moral law which has been handed down in the torah of judaism for all the rest of mankind as well to follow. 67 hirsch’s approach to universalism and to christianity is complicated. he did not believe that the non-jewish other was required to convert, en masse, to judaism. he also held christianity in high esteem because of that religion’s acceptance of the old testament as holy. on the other hand, he believed that non-jews were obligated to observe the seven noahide laws. for hirsch, the noahide laws equaled the universal moral law. part of the complication is that identifying all of the noahide laws is very difficult, if not impossible, without access to the rabbinic tradition. therefore, even for christians, even though conversion to judaism is not required, correct knowledge of what is required comes only through knowledge of at least parts of the jewish religion. hirsch’s interpretation of alenu reflects this multifaceted approach. he apparently claims that alenu only expresses the hope that all of humankind will recognize one true god and accept “the universal moral law” – with the emphasis on the word “universal.” yet, his equating “the universal moral law” with “the torah of judaism” expresses his ambivalence. it is interesting to compare hirsch’s approach with that of some of the early reformers surveyed in the previous section. hirsch did distinguish the jewish conception of god from that of the nations much more clearly than the liberal prayer books of nineteenth-century germany. the reformers 67 the hirsch siddur, 208-209. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 28 did not deny a unique role to the jewish people. they did take pains, however, to frame that special role in the positive and did not compare it to any negative roles of the nations. hirsch in contrast attempted to frame in universalist terms an essentially supremacist role for the jewish people. for the orthodox rabbi hirsch, as for the german and other european liberal rabbis, alenu became an important locus to articulate an image of the non-jewish other. all of them struggled to balance traditional jewish views with the emerging spirit of tolerance and acceptance. 9. twentieth and twenty-first century academic scholars of liturgy: diminishing or denying the negative image of the non-jewish other. we turn now to the discussions of contemporary jewish scholars of jewish liturgy, citing commentaries on alenu from the academic writings of ismar elbogen (reform rabbi, 1874-1943) and jakob petuchowski (reform rabbi, 19251991) and from the popular publications of reuven hammer (conservative rabbi, 1933) and lawrence a. hoffman (reform rabbi, 1942). all four diminished or even denied the negative image of the non-jewish other in alenu, probably from embarrassment at it. 68 consequently, the earlier defensive or apologetic stance remains to some degree apparent in their work. they are no less concerned about how the non-jewish world would judge the prayer than about the reaction of their fellow-religionists to the harsh view of the other in alenu; all but ultra-orthodox jews have, to various degrees, accepted modern, western, liberal views of the other. likely, part of this softened image of the other results from their difficulty in admitting, even to themselves, an abhorrence for this traditional prayer. in popular works, a desire to provide a 68 the same basic approach is found in reuven kimelman, “is judaism too important to be left just to jews?: the sh’ma and the alenu,” in all the world: universalism, particularism, and the high holy days,” ed. lawrence a. hoffman (woodstock, vt: jewish lights publishing, 2014), 98-106.. my thanks to prof. kimelman for providing an advance copy of his essay. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 29 www.bc.edu/scjr sympathetic view of jewish liturgy and tradition also tempers this image of the other. for all, these interpretations reflect the changing view of the other among western jews in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. ismar elbogen’s 1913 book-length study of the history of jewish liturgy has not yet been surpassed. he wrote his jewish liturgy as a professor, presenting an academic study of the historical development of jewish liturgy. he confines any evaluative comments on the relative worth of a given prayer to a rare brief sentence. he does comment on alenu, writing, “it was of high religious significance that the lofty ideal of the future union of all mankind in the world to come in the service of the one god became part of the daily service.” 69 elbogen evinces no irony in this statement. he appears to consider triumphalism praiseworthy and of great spiritual value. interestingly, he does not ameliorate this by invoking the claim that the prayer was written against pagans before the advent of christianity. jakob j. petuchowski expands upon elbogen’s interpretation in his 1968 prayerbook reform in europe. he understands alenu’s traditional text to present “a balance” between the particularistic tendency in jewish tradition (in the first paragraph of the prayer) and the universalistic tendency (in the second paragraph). 70 however, both paragraphs of alenu together form a cohesive message: the first paragraph declares that we, israel, are grateful that we worship the lord of all; all others worship nothingness. the second section expresses a straightforward plea that since the other nations erringly worship false gods – therefore, may you, god, cause all people to accept you as the one god. in straining to identify a very limited vision of “universalism” in this popular prayer and to shield it from charges that it was irredeemably particularistic, petuchowski defends 69 elbogen, jewish liturgy, 71. 70 petuchowski, prayerbook reform in europe, 298. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 30 the trend of early reform prayer books to add the words “heathens” and “pagans” to their translations of the first paragraph of alenu, writing, “this approach to the translation of that prayer has, on occasion, been criticized as being too ‘apologetic’ and something less than completely honest. actually the original version of the ‘alenu prayer completely justifies this kind of translation.” in support of this claim, he cites the censored line, “for they bow to vanity and emptiness, and pray to a god who does not save.” he continues: from this original version of the prayer it can clearly be seen that the contrast between israel and the other peoples was motivated by the consideration that “they bow down to vain and worthless things; but we bow down to the king of kings.” the meaning of “nations of other countries” and “families of the earth” [elsewhere in the prayer] is, therefore, quite definitely that of “pagans” and heathen tribes” and the “modernized” translations we have mentioned are thus quite justified. 71 petuchowski here seems to hint at the same principle that stands behind the medieval attribution of authorship of alenu to joshua, namely, that the prayer was written contra idolworshiping pagans and not monotheistic christians. the weakness in his argument is that he does not marshal true evidence to support this assumption. one wonders whether or not his desire to contribute to improving relations with christianity affected his more typically rigorous approach to the analysis of liturgical texts. we will encounter this approach in other, modern, interpretations of alenu below. 72 reuven hammer also holds that alenu was written during the pre-christian era, justifying the negativity since it 71 petuchowski, prayerbook reform in europe, 299-300. 72 this same approach also appears in menachem kellner, “overcoming chosenness,” in covenant and chosenness in judaism and mormonism, ed. raphael jospe, truman g. madsen, and seth ward (cranford, nj: associated university presses, 2001), 149-152. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 31 www.bc.edu/scjr was directed at paganism. he suggests that it “seems very plausible” that alenu was composed during the time of the maccabean revolt in the second century b.c.e. this finds reflection in the prayer’s content. he writes: the nations are to be pitied and we – israel – are the fortunate ones, for god has shown us the truth and permitted us to worship him, while they are still praying to emptiness. the lord alone exists. twice we are told, “there is no other,” a phrase that is even more powerful in the hebrew with its two staccato beats: ein od. such a statement must have been written at the height of the conflict between idolatry and judaism, when judaism wished to defiantly vaunt its creed in opposition to all else. 73 a subsequent statement underlines this apology: “we are not praising god for creating us different from others in some absolute sense. we do not claim superiority. our only advantage is the fact that we recognize and worship the true god while others are misled into idolatry.” 74 hammer, here, attempts to soften the negative view of the other in alenu nevertheless, to accuse the other of failing to “recognize and worship” the true god is very strong criticism. to hammer’s credit, he does admit in his prayer book commentary that “in the middle ages, jews and christians both came to understand the line (about bowing down to nothingness) as directed against belief in jesus…” for all that, his understanding of alenu permits him to evaluate the whole prayer positively, writing “indeed, it is an original, unique, and quite magnificent creation of unknown writers, worthy of standing with the best of the biblical writings.” 75 73 hammer, entering jewish prayer, 207. 74 hammer, entering jewish prayer, 208. 75 or hadash: a commentary on siddur sim shalom for shabbat and festivals (new york: the rabbinical assembly and the united synagogue of conservative judaism, 2003), 183. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 32 lawrence a. hoffman includes an analysis of alenu in his my people’s prayer book: traditional prayers, modern commentaries, writing about the censored line: “though originally a polemic against paganism, the line was interpreted by some medieval jews to denote christians and muslims.” 76 one wonders whether hoffman, like petuchowski and hammer, surrendered to a desire to date the prayer to the earlier period in order to avoid any appearance that the original intent of the prayer was anti-christian. including elbogen, all four mitigate the negativity of the image of the other in the prayer. 10. contemporary jewish movements in the united states: a. the reform, reconstructionist and conservative movements diminish or deny the negative image of the non-jewish others b. the orthodox movement affirms the negative image with some softening c. jewish renewal transforms the negative image into a positive one one could profitably trace the development of the image of the other in alenu by all contemporary jewish movements globally and historically, but that would require a far longer treatment. instead, i will conclude this survey by highlighting the decisions made for the most recent editions of the prayer books published by the major jewish movements in the united states. a diminished negative image of the other is not unexpected in prayer books meant to be meaningful for the modern worshiper, and that—in varying degrees—is mainly what appears in their treatment of alenu. the table presents selected lines from versions of the prayer representative of the various movements’ approaches. the extent to which each movement uses the english translation to soften the harsh image of the other will be evident when comparing it to the contextual translation of the traditional hebrew text in the first column. 76 lawrence a. hoffman, ed., history commentary, my people’s prayer book (jewish lights publishing, woodstock, vermont: 1997), 6, 135. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 33 contextual translation orthodox 77 conserv ative 78 reconstruc tionist 79 reform 80 renewal 81 it is our duty to praise the lord of all, to ascribe greatness to the former of creation it is our duty to praise the master of all, to ascribe greatness to the molder of primeval creation, it is for us to praise the ruler of all, to acclaim the creator, it is up to us to offer praises to the source of all, to declare the greatness of the author of creation, let us now praise the sovereign of the universe, and proclaim the greatness of the creator we rise to praise you source of all. your generous work as creator of all. 77 the complete art scroll siddur, ed. rabbi meir zlotowitz, rabbi sheah brander (brooklyn: mesorah publications, ltd., 1984, and reprints), 158-160. 78 mahzor lev shalem for rosh hashanah and yom kippur (new york: the rabbinical assembly, 2010), 173. 79 kol haneshamah prayerbook for the days of awe (elkins park, pa: the reconstructionist press, 1999), 1201-1202. 80 mishkan t’filah: a reform siddur (new york: central conference of american rabbis, 2007), 586. 81 from a private email received from rabbi zalman schachter-shalomi, january 2, 2013. jewish renewal does not issue official, movement-approved prayer books, but many prayer books issued by renewal communities reflect this translation. see, e.g., ivdu et hashem b’simcha: a siddur for spiritual renewal, ed. rabbi david zaslow (ashland, or: we! the wisdom exchange: 1997, 2003), 221. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 34 that he did not make us like the nations of the lands for he has not made us like the nations of the lands who has not made us merely a nation, who has made us different from the other nations of the earth, who spread out the heavens and established the earth, you made us one with all of life and did not place us like the families of the earth. and has not emplaced us like the families of the earth; nor formed us as all earthly families, and situated us in quite a different spot, whose glory is revealed in the heavens above 82 you helped us to share with all mankind 82 it should be noted that the english in this cell, and the two cells that follow it, is neither a translation of the traditional hebrew text that serves as the basis of the contextual translation, nor a revised version of the traditional hebrew text. rather, it is a translation of a short passage from later in the first paragraph that this prayer book uses to replace the trad itional hebrew text here. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 35 that he did not make our lot like theirs, for he has not assigned our portion like theirs and made our daily lot another kind from theirs, and whose greatness is manifest throughout the world. you linked our fate with all that lives and made our portion with all in the world nor our fate like their multitudes. nor our lot like all their multitudes. nor given us an ordinary destiny. and given us a destiny uncommon in this world. you are our god; there is none else. for they bow to vanity and emptiness, and pray to a god who does not save. (for they bow to vanity and emptiness and pray to a god which helps not.) some of us like to worship you as emptiness and void; studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 36 but we bow and prostrate and thank the king of kings, the holy one blessed is he. but we bend our knees, bow, and acknowledge our thanks before the king who reigns over kings, the holy one, blessed is he. and so we bow, acknowledging the supreme sovereign, the holy one, who is praised… and so, we bend the knee and bow, acknowledging the sovereign who rules above all those who rule, the blessed holy one. therefore we bow in awe and thanksgiving before the one who is sovereign over all, the holy and blessed one. some of us want to worship you as king of kings studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 37 the prayer books of orthodox and conservative movements preserve all, or nearly all, of the traditional text. the reconstructionist movement supplies two highly revised adaptations of the first paragraph of alenu; the first of those is presented in the table. it also prints the traditional version of the first paragraph in a smaller font and at the bottom of the page, in a format consistent with supplementary interpretations of prayers offered in the rest of that prayer book. the reform movement provides three highly revised adaptations of the first paragraph; the first of those is presented in the table. this prayer book, too, includes the traditional version of the first paragraph in addition to these three revised versions. the renewal movement’s prayer book contains a highly revised text of the prayer. the orthodox version—cited from a prayer book commonly used in the united states—offers the full text of alenu; it is the only one to include the full censored line albeit in parentheses. its translation does not veer from the contextual meaning in any significant way. that is the approach of this edition in general: its translations are more consistent than the liberal siddurim with the contextual meaning of the hebrew, and it evinces much less concern for modern, western, notions of universalism. nevertheless, that is not always true of its commentary. while its commentary on alenu affirms that the prayer makes clear and distinct divisions between israel’s proper worship of god and the nations’ failure to serve god correctly, it quotes samson raphael hirsch’s claim that the prayer does not imagine a mass conversion to judaism. thus, this prayer book, too, attempts to soften the attack on the nations’ religions by claiming that “only” a switch to the proper view of god is necessary. the editors of all of the non-orthodox prayer books surveyed face a dilemma in rendering alenu. on the one hand, as part of their adherence to the basic structure of the traditional service and its markers, all of them continue to include it as the conclusion of nearly all worship services as well as in a central position on the high holidays. on the other studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 38 hand, they are all uncomfortable with the traditional text’s negative portrayal of the non-jewish other, often substantially rewriting or translating it to re-interpret the most offensive lines. consequently, they all downplay the harsh treatment of the other. the conservative, reconstructionist and reform prayer books obfuscate the “us” versus “them” structure of the language, variously combining several phrases into one and replacing the negative view of “them” with only a positive view of “us.” furthermore, they do not restore the censored line. this requires them to translate the vav beginning the next line, not as the disjunctive “but we bow…,” in opposition to the nations’ worship, but as a conjunctive. this yields a crucial change in the meaning of the paragraph, subverting its triumphalist message. one reading these liberal translations would not glean that the hebrew repetitively compares the positive and unique role of israel with the negative and errant views and roles of the non-jewish others. thus they neutralize the essential anti-otherness of the prayer by both deletion and “creative” translation. the conservative movement accomplishes this through translation because it prefers not to emend or delete central, traditional prayers. this particular prayer book specifically lists felicity to the hebrew meaning, even when that may cause difficulty for the modern reader, as the first of seven principles of translation in its introduction. 83 nonetheless, the prayer book offers the traditional hebrew text of the prayer with an interpretive translation and commentary that would never give the worshiper the impression that alenu contains negative statements about non-jewish others. as mentioned above, the reform and reconstructionist prayer books each offer several modified versions of the prayer, but also include the hebrew text and a translation of the traditional version. this is an interesting phenomenon, 83 mahzor lev shalem, x. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 39 likely part of a recent trend of including more traditional texts and rituals in general within these liberal movements. one wonders, though, whether the editors of these prayer books – perhaps not unlike the editors of the conservative prayer book –are preserving or re-introducing the traditional version of alenu’s text without the will or desire to fully consider the challenging theological implications within that text. the approach to alenu of the founder of the renewal movement, rabbi zalman schachter-shalomi (1924-2014), crystallized during the summer of 1974 at naropa university in boulder, colorado, while he was on the faculty along with the poet allen ginsberg. schachter-shalomi’s father died that summer, and he gathered a group of jewish-buddhists— including ginsberg—to form a minyan (quorum) so that he could hold a worship service in his father’s memory. i said the kaddish and then we said aleinu… in the middle of aleinu it was like lightning hit me. there’s a line that goes, ‘for they bow down to emptiness and void and we bow down to the king of kings, the holy one blessed be he.’ now usually it means, they bow down to gornisht mit gornisht (yiddish: nothing with nothing), emptiness, void, stupid… but there, i read it: they bow down to emptiness… and void… and we bow down to the king of kings… and both of these are legitimate ways. you can imagine how that hit me. that’s a story i tell people who are involved in buddhism. if you do meditation and you see deep in meditation what this is all about, you see that emptiness and void is just one look and king of kings is the other look. 84 schachter-shalomi eventually embodied his insight into a new translation of alenu, a translation that completely transformed 84 cited in rodger kamenetz, the jew in the lotus: a poet’s rediscovery of jewish identity in buddhist india (san francisco: harpersanfrancisco, 1994), 238. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 40 the negative image of the others into the admiring and accepting approach that he first experienced at naropa. that translation has influenced many renewal worship groups. jewish renewal is the only non-orthodox american group i know of that retained a version—albeit a completely transformed version—of the often-censored line, reading now “some of us like to worship you as emptiness and void; some of us want to worship you as king of kings.” this directly reflects schachter-shalomi’s personal moment of enlightenment. schachter-shalomi made another noteworthy revision to the text, namely, the hebrew line shelo asanu kegoyei ha’aratsot, rendered in the contextual translation as “that he did not make us like the nations of the lands.” first, he changed the spelling of shelo from שלא to שלו, thus emending the first half from “that he did not make” to “that he made us his,” while preserving nearly the same pronunciation. second, in the second half, he substituted the word im (“with”) for the prefix ke(“like”), thus changing the meaning from “like the nations of the lands” to “with the nations of the lands.” this he then translated, not literally as “that he made us his with the nations of the lands,” but interpretatively as “you made us one with all of life.” the exegetical distance from the line’s contextual translation, “that he did not make us like the nations of the lands,” to “you made us one with all of life” is quite obvious. like the four contemporary commentators surveyed in the previous section, the prayer books of all of the contemporary liberal jewish movements in the united states moderate and temper the severe image of the other in alenu. in contrast, the contemporary orthodox prayer book softens yet still affirms that negative image. this reflects the fact that more american jews view the non-jewish other through a pluralist lens than any previous jewish community in history. the treatment of alenu in these modern prayer books is eloquent testimony to the vast change in jewish perception of the other across the centuries. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 41 conclusion settings and interpretations of alenu from late antiquity through the middle ages embraced the prayer’s negative image of the other, even at times underlining it with demonizing expansions. however, starting in the modern period, with its potential for more integration of the jewish community into gentile society, attempts were made to soften the adverse representation of the other. in fact, nearly every one of the interpretations reviewed from the beginning of the modern period to the present attempted to diminish its harshness. even without (vast) changes to the received text, this prayer’s interpretations have changed, allowing it to accommodate a more pluralistic reality. the tension between particularism and universalism persists and at times is expressed in denial of the contextual meaning of the preserved hebrew text, but many find ways to celebrate jewish particularism without conveying a negative image of the other. 1 scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-20 jewish universalism?: the nations in the rosh hashanah liturgy1 ruth langer ruth.langer@bc.edu boston college, chestnut hill, ma 02467 in its december 2015 document “gifts and calling,”2 reflecting on the fiftieth anniversary of nostra aetate 4, the vatican’s commission for religious relations with the jews affirms that the church, through the new covenant, fulfills the universal aspect of god’s initial call to abraham; this, in turn, makes the church dependent on israel. the document then continues by expressing the hope that jews might reciprocate this understanding, wishing that “jews could with regard to the abrahamic covenant arrive at the insight that israel without the church would be in danger of remaining too particularist and of failing to grasp the universality of its experience of god” (33). following cardinals kasper and koch, upon whose language it draws,3 this document here throws down two gauntlets: that jews need to articulate a specific positive relationship with christianity; and that this relationship should challenge jews to abandon at least some of their particularism and refocus on the universalist aspects of their tradition. as a jewish participant in dialogue, let me state at the outset that i find both challenges troubling. indeed the specter that theological dialogue would result in christian demands that jews adapt their theology led rabbi joseph b. soloveitchik, 1 the original version of this paper was developed for the conference, “fulfilling the promise of a new relationship: an academic roundtable on christian-jewish relations,” sponsored by the institute for catholic-jewish relations, st. joseph’s university, january 7-10, 2019. it was also shared at the comparative theology colloquium at boston college that spring. i am grateful for the comments received in both contexts and the comments of the reviewers for scjr. 2 “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’ (rom 11:29): a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of nostra aetate (no. 4).” https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/crrj2015dec10. compare §13, “without her jewish roots the church would be in danger of losing its soteriological anchoring in salvation history and would slide into an ultimately unhistorical gnosis.” 3 see philip a. cunningham, “the sources behind ‘“the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable” (rom 11:29): a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholic jewish relations on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of nostra aetate (no. 4),’ commission of the holy see for religious relations with the jews, december 10, 2015,” studies in christian-jewish relations 12 (2017): 8, nn. 12-13. https://doi.org/10.6017/scjr.v12i1.9792. https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/crrj-2015dec10 https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/crrj-2015dec10 https://doi.org/10.6017/scjr.v12i1.9792 langer: jewish universalism? 2 familiar with the drafts of nostra aetate, to deliver his famous 1964 speech “confrontation,” severely limiting modern orthodox participation in such discussions.4 however, the questions posed here are worthy of a more in-depth study. how do jews today think about their relationship to the non-jewish world, especially to christianity? this article will not attempt a comprehensive answer, but will instead focus on how american jews are taught to address it through their liturgical texts. it takes as its data set the commentaries printed in recent and widely used american liturgies for the fall “high holy days,” rosh hashanah (the new year) and yom kippur (the day of atonement), both days of unusually high synagogue attendance. there are explicitly universalist themes in the liturgy for these days, especially on rosh hashanah. focusing on specific prayers that express a tension between universalism and particularism, i will demonstrate that while jewish tradition was significantly particularist, contemporary liturgies, to different degrees, but across most of the spectrum of american jewish practice, deliberately emphasize a universalist vision. universalism and particularism as theological categories is this contrast between jewish particularism and christian universalism a stereotype, or is there substance to it? malka z. simkovich demonstrates that even in the pre-christian period, it is overly simplistic. within the diversity of biblical prophetic literature exists not only particularist understandings of jews and non-jews but also expectations that non-jews may, in eschatological times, come to worship god. she demonstrates that as the second temple period progresses, such universalist views become more and more common, with some accepting and valuing gentile worship of god not only in the future but also in the present. much of this, she says, reflects the socio-cultural realities of the worlds in which jews were living, and the shifting needs to construct higher or lower barriers between communities. in the aftermath of the failure of the jewish revolts against rome, the more universalist views diminished significantly, likely due to the need to preserve communal identity in a situation of increased oppression.5 as simkovich demonstrates throughout her book, “universalism” and “particularism” are labels that apply to a diversity of views, even within second templeera judaism. her initial working definition of universalism is helpful, though. she says, “universalist literature presumes that all people, regardless of religion, have access to a relationship with the israelite god and the benefits which he promises to those loyal to him, without demanding that they convert or participate in the 4 delivered at st. john’s seminary, brighton, massachusetts and subsequently published with the rabbinic council of america’s resolution summarizing it in tradition 6:2 (1964): 5-29. see especially ii.3., 21-25. 5 malka z. simkovich, the making of jewish universalism from exile to alexandria (lanham. md: lexington books, 2017), passim, summarized in part iv, 139-143. relevant to a broader discussion is the construction of the categories of jew and gentile. see adi ophir and ishay rosen-zvi, goy: israel’s multiple others and the birth of the gentile (oxford: oxford university press, 2018). 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) israelite community as a jew.”6 by contrast, a particularist understanding expects that the nations need to become part of israel to benefit from a relationship with god.7 how do these understandings intersect with others’ categories of theologies of religions? the most comprehensive and deliberate jewish discussion of the topic appears in alan brill’s judaism and other religions, where he discusses and defines four different categories: exclusivism, pluralism, inclusivism, and universalism.8 “particularism” does not appear on his list. still, his discussions of exclusivism, the understanding that one’s religion is the only true one,9 suggest that these two categories are substantially identical. brill defines “universalism” as representing an understanding that there is a single universal truth, located in or communicated by god, made known to all humanity. brill observes, “this category does not exist in the standard christian typology since historically they required salvation through christ,” causing universalist theologies of the truth of other religions to be subject to suspicion. christians today favor inclusivist theologies, he says, which acknowledge truth in other religions but see christian comprehension as superior.10 consistent with his observations, catherine cornille’s overview of these categories in (christian) comparative theology initially lists the “three classical paradigms”: exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism.11 however, she quickly expands beyond them. after her discussion of exclusivism, she devotes a section to particularism as an emerging paradigm by which one employs the epistemology of one’s religious tradition to evaluate and constructively learn from others.12 nevertheless, this is not what “gifts and calling” means by particularism (see below). cornille also never names universalism as a category. it is perhaps possible that we come closest to “universalism” through her “open inclusivism,” which recognizes the potential of truth “in any teachings or practices that are not in contradiction with one’s own tradition.” this point means that one can discover new truths through the encounter with the other.13 however, this is not precisely “universalism” because the truth of one’s own tradition remains an absolute criterion. neither simkovich, brill, nor cornille offer schemas that fit the vatican document’s gauntlet. both of the last two presidents of the council for religious relations with the jews, cardinals walter kasper and kurt koch, employed this dialectic of universalism and particularism.14 still, it seems, they employ the terms 6 simkovich, xviii. 7 she explores these in chapter 1. 8 judaism and other religions: models of understanding (new york, ny: palgrave macmillan, 2010), chapter 2, “theological categories.” his list first appears on pp. 16-17, but subsequently receives detailed discussion and refinement. 9 brill, 16, 19-21, 23. 10 brill, 17, 18, 23. 11 meaning and method in comparative theology (hoboken, nj: john wiley and sons, 2020), ch. 2, “the status of other religions in comparative theology,” here p. 44. 12 cornille, 2.2, “particularism and comparative theology.” 13 cornille, 2.4, p. 58. 14 see note 3 above. langer: jewish universalism? 4 less as precise theological paradigms than as descriptive historical categories. they couch their discussion in terms of the abrahamic covenant and of god’s abstract imperative that abraham “be a blessing…through [whom] all the families of the earth will be blessed” (gen 12:2-3).15 by spreading god’s word and blessing to all the nations, the church is universalist. in being concerned about herself and not the nations (and not the church), israel is particularist. the church actively seeks to be a blessing to the world; israel understands her very presence to be that blessing and, at best, understands her role to be a passive one. in other words, kasper and koch’s universalist/particularist contrast verges on a moral judgment that claims, “the church is generous; israel is selfish—but should not be because she too participates in the abrahamic covenant.”16 in neither case are these categories expressing theological understandings about the truth of other religion’s teachings. this point is more a discussion of spreading the abrahamic truth. “gifts and calling” does not call on israel to abandon all particularism, but instead calls out the danger of being “too particularist.” jewish political theorist michael walzer distinguishes between a universalism that insists that all become part of its own path—certainly the traditional christian understanding and the one with which “gifts and calling” still struggles—and a universalism that recognizes multiplicity yet allows a particular concern for one’s own group. there is thus a universalism, he says, that “is grounded in a particularity that recognizes the legitimacy of other particularities.”17 while both paths have biblical roots, he suggests that the second is more characteristic of judaism. if universalism and particularism are descriptive historical categories of a group’s horizon of concern, then the first task is to assess whether jews today are indeed characterized by a particularism that limits or excludes the universal horizon. simkovich established that universal jewish voices are numerous in the preserved literature of the second temple period, but notes that these universalist voices disappear as roman oppression grows after 135 ce.18 perhaps the stereotype of jewish particularism does hold over the subsequent two millennia? elsewhere, i demonstrated that embedded in the prophetic voices chosen for the 15 translation mine. compare gen 18:18 and 28:14 which also use the passive form of “bless;” but contrast 22:18 and 26:4’s reflexive form. in the latter, the nations are blessing themselves. acts 3:25 and gal 3:8 understand the verb to be passive. see the commentary to gen 12:3 in the catholic study bible, ed. donald senior et al. (oxford: oxford university press, 2011), 28. 16 if this reading is correct, it at least avoids asserting a replacement theology. important to this dynamic is that once the church became politically dominant, it became dangerous and often illegal for jews to proselytize. see, among the copious literature on this topic, david novak, “proselytism in judaism,” in sharing the book: religious perspectives on the rights and wrongs of proselytizing, ed. john witte and richard martin (maryknoll, ny, 1999), 17-44; louis h. feldman, jew and gentile in the ancient world: attitudes and interactions from alexander to justinian (princeton, nj: princeton university press, 1993), chs. 9-11. 17 “nation and universe,” in thinking politically: essays in political theory, ed. david miller (new haven, ct: yale university press, 2007; original publication in the tanner lectures on human values, grethe b. peterson, ed., vol. 11, 507-556 [salt lake city: university of utah press, 1990]), 184, 188189. thanks to shira wolosky for the reference. 18 simkovich, 143. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) jewish lectionary is indeed a subtle expression of jewish particularism.19 however, modern commentators on these haftarot consistently de-emphasize these particularistic elements, suggesting that today’s shift in jewish self-perception and social location generates discomfort with this received expression. these particular commentaries, though, are relatively rare and little consulted. high holy day liturgies in recent years, though, american maḥzorim, the prayer books for the high holy days,20 have included rich sets of commentaries and, among liberal jews, alternative readings, alongside english translations of the hebrew prayers. more jews attend services on these days than any others, the services are particularly spiritually intense and formal, and each attendee has a personal copy of the entire liturgy. thus, these commentaries can potentially have a significant impact. because some central received prayers directly raise issues of universalism and particularism, the commentaries on them also provide a wealth of information about what jewish leaders seek to impart on our topic.21 this article primarily considers the commentaries in three liturgies of the 2010s widely used in north america. the orthodox 2011 koren maḥzor, with the translation and commentary of jonathan sacks, contains an entirely traditional hebrew text and a literal translation. however, sacks, himself a leading orthodox rabbi to the liberal end of the orthodox spectrum, has been deeply involved in interreligious affairs and has contributed to thinking on our question. his extensive commentary appears on the bottoms of the pages.22 the conservative movement, in the middle of the american spectrum of forms of judaism, adheres to the traditional core of the liturgy but is open to creativity around this core. it published its maḥzor lev shalem in 2010, complete with literal translations and a commentary consisting significantly of selections from the writings of leading thinkers in the 19 “prophetic universalism and particularism in jewish liturgy,” in righting relations after the holocaust and vatican ii: essays in honor of john t. pawlikowski, osm, elena g. procario-foley and robert a. cathey, eds. (mahwah, nj: stimulus, paulist press, 2018), 253-269. 20 an english term for the early fall (september-october) ten days of penitence from rosh hashanah (the new year, 1-2 tishrei) to yom kippur (the day of atonement, 10 tishrei). 21 assessing the commentaries’ impact in a scientific way is beyond the scope of this study. i have heard many tell of enhanced personal worship experiences because of the commentaries; some more liberal settings substitute the commentaries for readings on occasion. the nature of the commentaries is also a significant factor in a congregation’s (or individual’s) decision to adopt a text. 22 the koren rosh hashana maḥzor, translation and commentary by rabbi jonathan sacks (jerusalem: koren publishers, 2011). some reference will also be made to the koren yom kippur maḥzor, translation and commentary by rabbi jonathan sacks, second ed. (jerusalem: koren publishers, 2013). the one-volume 2018 koren maḥzor yamim nora’im combines these two volumes but abbreviates the commentary; it has not been included here. jonathan sacks has published voluminously. for a relevant selection of his writings, see jonathan sacks: universalizing particularity, hava tirosh-samuelson and aaron w. hughes, eds., (leiden/boston: brill, 2013). the sacks-koren liturgies reverse the standard layout and place the hebrew on the left and the english on the right of every opening, reinforcing that this is a hebrew book that reads right to left. langer: jewish universalism? 6 outer margins of the pages.23 in both these cases, the commentaries are entirely or mostly designed for individuals to access at will during the extended services of these days. the rabbis of the reform movement, the liberal end of the american jewish spectrum, published mishkan hanefesh in 2015. reform liturgies have historically much abbreviated the traditional texts and freely eliminated or rewritten prayers that were found theologically problematic. this fact is still the case, but there has been a significant reassessing of tradition over the decades. unlike its predecessors, mishkan hanefesh not only includes the traditional hebrew text for our two prayers but also regularly translates it nearly literally (and consistently from one service to the next). there are some significant theological subtleties embedded in its translations, though. usually, it places the hebrew text, its transliteration into latin characters, and its literal translation on the right-hand page of the opening; on the left are a variety of alternative readings or study texts that can be substituted for the literal translation.24 across the bottom appear further notes and comments.25 as a foil to these three, i also include in these discussions the 1985 more rightwing orthodox artscroll maḥzor, a text that was then innovative in its graphic qualities and its inclusion of extensive english commentary. this commentary mostly collates received pre-modern interpretations of the prayers.26 finally, i make occasional reference to the reconstructing movement’s kol haneshamah series, including its 1999 prayerbook for the days of awe.27 this text was the first american liberal liturgy to provide the movement’s laity with commentary. however, this commentary is much more limited than more recent ones, especially on our questions. this article focuses on the commentaries on a narrow selection of prayers, each found in all these volumes, each of which makes a statement about universalism and particularism. two prayers come from the amidah, the central prayer of every service. the first, the three paragraphs beginning “and so” (uv’khen) is unique to this season, introducing the “sanctification of god’s name” in the third benediction; the second, the “sanctification of the day,” the fourth benediction, is recited 23 maḥzor lev shalem for rosh hashanah and yom kippur (new york, ny: the rabbinical assembly, 2010). “introduction,” x, gives a full-page discussion of the principles used for the translation. the lev shalem and artscroll liturgies, like the majority of their predecessors, place the hebrew text on the right-hand page and the english translation on the left. 24 unlike its immediate predecessor, the gates of repentance (new york: central conference of american rabbis, 1978, revised 1996), which interspersed paragraphs of hebrew and english text. 25 mishkan hanefesh: machzor for the days of awe, separate volumes for rosh hashanah and yom kippur (new york: ccar press, 2015). while the gates of repentance was published in both english and hebrew opening formats, this text is only hebrew opening. 26 the complete artscroll machzor, nusach ashkenaz, translation and commentary by rabbi nosson scherman, separate volumes for rosh hashanah and yom kippur (new york, ny: mesorah publications, 1985, rpt. 2000). 27 kol haneshamah, maḥzor leyamim nora’im: prayerbook for the days of awe (elkins park, pa: the reconstructionist press, 1999). “reconstructing” replaced “reconstructionist” in 2018 as the name of this small movement that is ideologically extremely liberal but liturgically somewhere between conservative and reform in practice. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) with small variations on all festivals. the third prayer, “it is incumbent upon us” (‘aleynu), originated for rosh hashanah but now concludes every single service daily. the fourth, “and they shall come” (vaye’etayu), is an ancient hymn for this season. while prayers from the rest of the year could also serve this study, this focused investigation of prayers from a day when our specific question of universalism and particularism comes to a head provides a targeted sample for investigating how contemporary american jews dialogue with this theological issue. “and so” the rosh hashanah and yom kippur liturgies add a series of three paragraphs to the blessing about god’s holiness, the “sanctification of god’s name.” 28 during these ten days, this blessing concludes by praising god not as the “holy god” but as the “holy sovereign,” thus introducing the themes of divine majesty and power on which these inserts elaborate. all our commentaries suggest that these inserts can be dated to the second or third century ce. hayyim herman kieval claims more accurately that the origin of the prayer is obscure, though it seems to have been known by the geonic period, i.e., the last centuries of the first millennium ce.29 the first paragraph reads as unabashedly universalist in its horizon, asking: and so place fear of you, eternal our god, on all your doings, and terror of you on all that you have created, and all the things you have done will be in awe of you and all that you have created will prostrate before you; and all of them shall be bound together to perform your will wholeheartedly. as we have known, eternal our god, that dominion lies before you, strength in your hand, power in your right arm, and your name is awed by all that you created.30 the word “all” (כל, kol) echoes here six times—asking that god create the conditions that will encourage all creation to come into relationship with god. whether 28 in public prayer, in the repetition of the amidah, the angelic liturgy precedes these inserts. 29 the high holy days: a commentary on the prayerbook of rosh hashanah and yom kippur, david golinkin and monique susskind goldberg, eds. (jerusalem: the institute of applied halakhah, the schechter institute of jewish studies, 2004), 78. this prayer appears in received versions of the late ninth-century seder rav amram gaon, though not in the siddur rav saadia gaon from fifty years later. maimonides (d. 1204) presents it as optional. more research is needed. 30 this deliberately hyper-literal translation, as well as those following, is mine. “doings” and “done” translate literally מעשיך and מעשים, but these terms are poetic shorthand for “the doings (i.e., works) of creation,” and the terms thus appear here as a synonym for “created” and “creations.” notice the poetically inflected elements in the doublets and frequent use of parallelism, especially in the first half. however, the absence of rhyme or any sort of meter supports a dating to the early centuries of the common era, before the appearance of these characteristics in hebrew poetry mid-millennium. langer: jewish universalism? 8 this is a pluralist vision that accepts that peoples will worship god in their own ways or an inclusivist vision that expects all to join israel is not explicit, but nonjews, as part of all creation, will participate. the second paragraph’s focus has a particularist horizon, reading: and so place glory, eternal one, on your people; praise on those in awe of you, and good hope to those who seek you; and the ability to speak out to those who hope for you; [give] rejoicing to your land and gladness to your city; and the sprouting of the ray of david your servant and the arrangement of the lamp of the son of jesse your messiah, speedily in our day.31 its focus is eschatological, asking that god restore the people israel and their land, bringing messianic times. it makes no mention of non-jews. the third elaborates on this eschatological vision: and so the righteous will see and rejoice; and the upright will be jubilant; and the pious will celebrate with song. and injustice will clamp shut its mouth, and absolutely all evil will disappear like smoke, for you will remove the reign of insolence from the earth. then you alone, o eternal, will reign over all that you have done, on mount zion, the dwelling place of your glory, and in jerusalem, your holy city. as it is written in your holy writings, “the eternal will reign forever, your god, oh zion, from generation to generation, hallelujah.” in response to the advent of the eschaton, the righteous will rejoice, but the unjust, the evil ones, and insolent governments will disappear. this enables god’s eternal reign from zion. the contrast here between the three-fold iteration of rejoicing righteous, presumably but not explicitly jews, and the threefold silencing and removal of the wicked, referred to in language that alludes to gentiles,32 reinforces the movement of this prayer to particularism, albeit less explicitly so. 31 the poetic quality of this paragraph lies primarily in the superfluity of synonyms and in the conclusion of each phrase with the suffix –ך (kha, you, your), referring to god. 32 because christian censors objected to this last part, it became more abstract, both in hebrew and in translation. see, for example, ms. cambridge add. 662, p. 128, http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/msadd-00662/128, where a censor has erased memshelet zadon (“the reign of insolence”). in the margin, a later hand has written haḥot’im bezadon (those who sin arrogantly/deliberately). the term zadon appears in ex 18:11 and neh 9:10 referring to pharaoh, and in jer 50:29-32 to babylonia, i.e., all archenemies of israel. this term was frequently understood to apply to current governing powers. http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/ms-add-00662/128 http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/ms-add-00662/128 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) today’s interpretations of this prayer dialogue in varying ways with its particularism. the commentary in the very traditional orthodox artscroll maḥzor reads the three sections as a single composition. it cites the eighteenth-century italian rabbi, moses chaim luzzato, as teaching that: god’s glory on earth is revealed through the agency of israel, because it is the nation that received his torah and proclaims his unity. when israel is exiled and degraded, it is less able to be the “chariot” of his holiness. as a result, not only israel, but the entire world suffers. thus we pray that god returns the glory of israel, of the righteous, of jerusalem…when that happens, all nations will be inspired to unite under the leadership of israel in the service of god. [emphasis mine]33 in other words, this interpretation (and the more detailed commentary that follows) is a direct answer to “gifts and calling”’s vision. like the church’s, its universalism is at best inclusivist. god’s relationship with the nations depends not on proselytism, though, but on their being attracted to israel’s message, something that cannot happen fully until israel is no longer degraded in exile. then, in messianic times, the nations will want to serve god and to accept israel’s direction. this reading then functionally rearranges the prayer’s paragraphs, making the first paragraph’s universal vision dependent on the realization of the subsequent particularist prayers and the nations’ subservience to israel. artscroll’s comment on the first paragraph is particularly ambiguous. it understands its various terms to refer to “distinct personalities,” some “high-caliber people who have perfected themselves… [and] are close to god” and others “of lesser stature…[with] many shortcomings…[who] recognize god only from afar.” these groups will be bound together to create a complete society “following the lead of israel’s finest products.”34 standing alone, these may be different categories of jews, or non-jews joining jews, but not non-jews in independent relationship with god. the commentary on the second paragraph refers back to this as “universal recognition of [god’s] greatness,” but the comment directly on the first paragraph raises the possibility that this “universality” might refer simply to universality among all types of jews.35 this would be consistent with standard rabbinic usage, where the talmud refers over seven hundred times to “all the world” (kulei ‘alma’), usually meaning just the rabbinic elite. orthodox rabbi jonathan sacks does not close off the universal horizon. in commenting on the first reference to all creation (paragraph one), he points specifically to the universal nature of rosh hashanah's themes, referring not just to jews 33 complete artscroll mahzor, rosh hashanah (1985), 64. this text also ascribes these prayers to rav, an early third century rabbi. compare this to the commentary on the third paragraph in the metzudah machzor (new york, ny: metzudah publications), quoting indirectly from yehuda halevi’s kuzari, which remains exclusivist. see: https://www.sefaria.org/machzor_rosh_hashanah_ashkenaz_linear%2c_maariv%2c_amidah?lang=en, n. 47. 34 complete artscroll mahzor, rosh hashanah (1985), 64-65. 35 complete artscroll mahzor, rosh hashanah (1985), 65. https://www.sefaria.org/machzor_rosh_hashanah_ashkenaz_linear%2c_maariv%2c_amidah?lang=en https://www.sefaria.org/machzor_rosh_hashanah_ashkenaz_linear%2c_maariv%2c_amidah?lang=en langer: jewish universalism? 10 but to all humanity. this, he says, is because rosh hashanah is the anniversary of creation and god’s creation of all humans. thus, he says, “the god of israel is the god of all,” and god judges all humans on this day.36 sacks also offers an interpretation of the three passages as a unit, drawing attention to their movement “from the universal to the particular.” he comments somewhat polemically, “this direction, beginning with the universal and progressively narrowing the focus to the particular, is characteristic of jewish thought.” after examples of this from torah and liturgy, he asserts, “this is the opposite of the greek way of thinking, that of plato especially, which moves from the particular to the universal. in judaism, what is precious to god is our particularity, our uniqueness.”37 thus, he leaves us with a tension. although the themes of the day are universal, judaism naturally and justifiably tends to the particular. he blends universal and particular as descriptors of communal horizons and a contrast between inferential and deductive logic. the conservative movement’s maḥzor lev shalem offers historical and philological comments in its right-hand margin of the opening—here pointing to the sequence of ideas between the three passages from universal to particular and the prayer’s purportedly early origins. readings in the left-hand margin seek to inspire. on this prayer, it offers two somewhat inconsistent readings. the first, a quote adapted from martin buber, titled “may all be bound together,” comments on the prayer’s opening paragraph, reading: the purpose of creation is not division, nor separation. the purpose of the human race is not a struggle to the death between classes, between nations. humanity is meant to become a single body...our purpose is the great upbuilding of unity and peace. and when all nations are bound together in one association living in justice and righteousness, they atone for each other.38 this emphasis on human unity for the sake of building a just and peaceful society raises only the prayer’s universalist message, submerging its particularist voices. the focus on all humanity suggests a universal horizon, but the passage makes no mention of jews or non-jews. 36 alluded to liturgically especially in the response to the three sets of shofar blasts during the additional (musaf) service: “this day is the birthday of the world; this day causes all creatures of the world(s) to stand in judgement, whether like children or like servants…” (sacks-koren, rosh hashana, 606 et al.) the theme of universal judgement also occurs in the poem un’taneh toqef, elaborating on the pastoral image of mishnah rosh hashanah 1:2, “on rosh hashanah all who have come into the world pass before god like sheep” (sacks-koren, rosh hashana, 566-68 et al.). 37 sacks-koren, rosh hashana, 70-73; cf. 384-387, where he points explicitly to the reiterations of “all,” and 518. he has little comment on this on yom kippur except for a repetition of these ideas during the evening service. 38 maḥzor lev shalem, 13 (rh evening), 189 (rh afternoon), 215 (yk evening), 377 (yom kippur afternoon). the evening services also serve as the text for the personal recitation of this prayer in the morning. adapted from buber’s israel and the world: essays in a time of crisis, (new york, ny: schocken books, 1948), 186, where buber does indeed allude to this prayer. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) however, for the repetition of this prayer in the morning on rosh hashanah, maḥzor lev shalem offers an inspirational text from heschel instead, one that does address the question of jews and non-jews: …is religious uniformity desirable or even possible?...does not the task of preparing the kingdom of god require a diversity of talents, a variety of rituals, soul-searching as well as opposition? perhaps it is the will of god that in this eon there should be diversity in our forms of devotion and commitment to god.39 heschel’s quotation thus challenges any vision that, in the eschaton, all humanity should become jews or under jewish leadership. this vision is neither particularist nor universalist but rather pluralist. this not so subtly contradicts buber’s view of unity and even the trajectory of the prayer itself. the reform movement’s maḥzor, mishkan hanefesh, offers a wide variety of interpretative materials, through translations, alternative prayer texts, study materials, direct commentaries, and introductory essays, that cumulatively seek to reinterpret particularism in favor of universal understandings. in an introductory essay, lawrence hoffman points to the various innovations in this maḥzor that deliberately emphasize universalism, continuing a trend characteristic of american reform liturgies. this prayer, he says, “anticipates a world where ‘good people everywhere will celebrate’ a time when ‘evil has no voice, and the rule of malevolence fades like wisps of smoke.’”40 he thus interprets the somewhat ambiguous language of the prayer’s third paragraph as expressing a universal eschatological vision. he ignores the particularism of the second paragraph entirely. he concludes, citing edmund fleg: “the promise of judaism is a universal promise.”41 the commentaries accompanying the prayer reflect this emphasis. a full-page study text preceding the prayer acknowledges the tension created by reading the third paragraph as universal.42 it asserts that these passages collectively “describe a world suffused with the holiness of god.” the first paragraph states that “all creation is united by a sense of awe and reverence for the divine.” “awe” is this paragraph’s heading; the translation virtually erases the language of “fear of god” in favor of awe, reading, “…give all creation the gift of awe. turn our fear to reverence; let us be witnesses of wonder…”43 the second paragraph then addresses 39 maḥzor lev shalem, 87. titled many faiths, one god, i.e., not words from this prayer. excerpted from “no religion is an island,” in moral grandeur and spiritual audacity, susannah heschel, ed. (new york, ny: farrar, straus, and giroux, 1996), 243-244. 40 rabbi lawrence a. hoffman, “universalism in mishkan hanefesh,” mishkan hanefesh, rosh hashanah, xxviii. 41 hoffman, xxix. he identifies fleg (1874-1963) as a french intellectual. these words explain why he reclaimed his previously rejected jewish heritage. no source cited. 42 rosh hashanah, in the evening (48) and morning (183) services, and yom kippur evening (52). 43 this continues the precedent set by this book’s predecessors for this paragraph. compare, on this, the downplaying of “fear” in maḥzor lev shalem and in the reconstructing kol haneshamah, 111 (this prayer also appears in each service). the latter translates the various hebrew terms for fear as awe, knowledge, and worship. langer: jewish universalism? 12 israel’s need to receive “honor and respect,” precisely because of its historical reality as a “vulnerable and often despised” people.44 the third paragraph addresses abstract moral values, as “evil has been vanquished by righteousness.” each paragraph receives the header, “how do we sense god’s holiness? through awe/honor/righteousness,” respectively, with the capitalized word epitomizing the paragraph’s theme. the introductory paragraph continues: together, these three prayers set forth a vision of a world in which god’s presence is felt and experienced everywhere. we sanctify god, therefore, …by realizing that vision through our actions: showing reverence for all creation, giving kavod [honor] to all people—especially those who are vulnerable and needy—and embodying righteousness in all that we do. honor, then, is not something that israel, in particular, just receives; it is something that humans universally, among them israel, give to the world. israel’s past suffering, then, does not generate a particularistic prayer but instead becomes a motivation for a universally oriented ethic. the editors of this volume still struggle with the non-universal elements of the second and third paragraphs. mishkan hanefesh restores the original hebrew messianic conclusion to the second paragraph.45 its predecessor, the 1978 gates of repentance, attempted to balance the paragraph’s allusions to israel and jerusalem by concluding “and cause the light of redemption to dawn for all who dwell on earth” [emphasis mine].46 mishkan hanefesh still does not translate the last two phrases literally, writing instead, “may the sparks of david, your servant, soon grow bright enough for us to see a beam of light in the darkness, a promise of perfection.”47 its comment apologetically explains the reintroduced reference to the davidic messiah, admitting that it contradicts the conventional reform jewish “vision of a messianic age, created by human acts of tikkun olam (repairing the 44 a variation on this comment appears in the notes to this second paragraph, mishkan hanefesh, rosh hashanah, 50, “the gift of honor.” see also the alternative readings, p. 189, “honor for israel: the dream of kavod” and “the right to be different.” these passages, and a note “the gift of honor” (yom kippur, 224) all express the jewish desire for normalcy as a nation among nations. 45 kol haneshamah, 111-112, etc., omits this, and explains the omission here and on 746 (yom kippur): “most jews of the modern era do not expect or desire a divinely appointed royal personage to come and solve our problems for us…but in rejecting the literal messiah we do not have to abandon the messianic passion…we need to take responsibility for bringing messianic days by enthusiastically advancing the ideals of human freedom, dignity, and creativity” (seth d. riemer, for this volume). -compare the union prayer .(i.e., the more literal translations) 317 ,112 ,32 ,וצמיחת קרן לכל יושבי תבל 46 book for jewish worship ii, newly revised edition (cincinnati, oh: central conference of american rabbis, 1945), 20-21 et al., which removes all explicit allusions to israel and jerusalem in all its services, including fully universalizing this passage. mishkan hanefesh has also restored, without comment, the hebrew and english references to god’s reigning over all creation from zion and jerusalem in the next blessing of the amidah. on yom kippur, alternative readings for this paragraph include several modern poems about jerusalem (59, 229). indeed, the explicit zionism of this tome is remarkable considering the contemporary discomfort of many reform laity with the current state. 47 mishkan hanefesh, rosh hashanah 50, 185, yom kippur, 54, 224, 374. 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) world)”—rather than one initiated supernaturally by a human messiah. david thus appears here “not as the literal progenitor of the messiah, but as an emblematic figure who shines through jewish history as a symbol of messianic hope.”48 perhaps the interpretative translation offered here begins to resolve this tension. the translation of the third paragraph refers explicitly to “good people everywhere” and reorganizes the prayer’s phrases, thus removing any possibility of constructing a good versus evil, particularist dichotomy. the commentaries emphasize that judaism embeds within it just such an eschatological optimism about the possibilities of a transformed society in which conflict can be resolved without violence, achieving the prophetic vision of “a messianic age in which jerusalem becomes a spiritual center with a kind of world court for the peaceful adjudication of disputes.”49 the message of this prayer book includes positive portrayals of nonjews, including a prayer for righteous gentiles, printed as an alternative reading for the end of this third paragraph.50 thus, to different degrees, our primary commentaries all value universalism, but their community’s theological strategies and liturgical options shape their possibilities for addressing the particularistic voices in this prayer. orthodox jews pray only by the received hebrew text. new ideas thus find expression through commentaries, but even then, received interpretations carry weight. the new conservative liturgy also maintains traditional texts, especially for this season, but also turns in the margins to leading twentieth-century thinkers to trigger challenges to some traditional meanings. reform jews can and do change texts, although, in recent decades, they have also retrieved traditions earlier abandoned. due to intermarriage, their communities also embrace the largest number of non-jews. theological struggles are embedded in the volume itself; it invites congregants to engage them.51 you have chosen us… other prayers confirm these observations. the “sanctification of the day” follows immediately in the amidah. it is common to all festivals, with adaptations specific to the day. the rosh hashanah version especially contains a similar set of tensions between the universal and particular. as on all festivals, the prayer opens with an unabashedly particularist statement, describing god’s choice of israel from among all peoples. 48 mishkan hanefesh, rosh hashanah, 50; yom kippur, 54. compare yom kippur, 224 which stresses the “sprouting” as an image of gradual, organic growth. 49 mishkan hanefesh, yom kippur, 56. this long reading dialogues with an implicitly christian understanding of inherently flawed human nature, pointing to the jewish teaching that while people do have destructive tendencies, they also have “a moral instinct that controls and channels our harmful drives, gives rise to generous and cooperative acts, and inspires us to work for a better world.” compare rosh hashanah, 51. 50 mishkan hanefesh, yom kippur, 227. 51 on the dynamics shaping how different jewish communities respond to historical and theological change, see my “liturgy in the light of jewish-christian dialogue,” studies in christian-jewish relations 4 (2009), https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/scjr/article/view/1541/1395. https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/scjr/article/view/1541/1395 langer: jewish universalism? 14 you have chosen us from all the peoples; you have loved us and desired us and elevated us beyond all other tongues and sanctified us with your commandments and drawn us near to your worship; and by your great and holy name you have called us. and you have given us [language describing the specific festival]. following a standard petition that god remember israel on this day, the rosh hashanah version of this prayer switches to the universal, asking god to be manifest to all creation. again, we see the reiteration of the hebrew kol (כל, “all” and synonyms, italicized in the translation): our god and god of our ancestors, reign over the entirety of the whole world in your glory, and be lifted above all the earth in your grandeur. and appear in the majesty of the splendor of your power over all those who dwell on earth, your land. then every being will know that you animated it, and every creature will know that you created it. and everyone with breath in his [/her] nostrils will say: the eternal, the god of israel is sovereign, and his sovereignty is over all dominion.52 the prayer then concludes with a return to particularist prayers for israel’s own needs. the universalist/particularist tensions thus are explicit within the prayer. the evidence from the commentaries is consistent with what we learned above. artscroll begins by asserting that rosh hashanah’s theme of god’s kingship includes “the expectation that all humanity will recognize him ultimately.” chosenness means that we must repent and live up to the “heavy responsibilities inherent in that calling.” it then goes on to say that “god chose us because he found israel to be superior to the other nations.”53 as we saw above, this fairly right-wing orthodox commentary is not in dialogue with non-jews.54 by contrast, jonathan sacks has no comment on this prayer on rosh hashanah or yom kippur. in his volume for the rest of the year, his sole comment historicizes chosenness. the prayer, he says, references “the divine choice of israel as the people who, through their singular history, bear witness to the role of god in history.”55 he thus chooses not to engage our issues here. the conservative maḥzor offers two interpretative apologies for any possible sense of superiority. the first by rabbi david wolpe (b. 1958) asserts that “to be chosen is not to be better than others.” that is the response of the persecuted, “disfigured by the ugliness of history.” nor is chosenness to claim some exclusive relationship with god. instead, it points to the jewish mission to change the world, 52 on yom kippur, this paragraph prays for forgiveness of sin. on festivals, it prays in general terms for the day’s proper celebration. in the additional service on all days, the entire prayer is different; it addresses the day’s sacrifices and the lack thereof today. 53 complete artscroll machzor, rosh hashanah, 68. 54 citing the belzer rebbe, shalom rokeach, 1780-1846, polish galicia. 55 jonathan sacks, the koren siddur (jerusalem: koren publishers, 2009), 774 and 777. 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) to improve it.56 like sacks, the second reading, by the holocaust survivor rabbi leo baeck, seeks to historicize chosenness and thus remove its contemporary significance. today, he says, the onus is on israel to be free people, not slaves, and to accept its own task.57 thus the editors of this maḥzor, while not free to change the hebrew prayer’s wording, and bound to literal translations by the norms of the volume itself, seek to mitigate the particularism of the prayer by denying the legitimacy of any literal understanding of its language. this only becomes more extreme in the reform movement’s maḥzor. the study passages introducing the rosh hashanah volume teach that judaism is a “global religion” because its calendar numbers years not according to a jewish event, but from “the birth of the universe and the birth of [all] humanity…in god’s image.”58 in other words, while christians and muslims live by very particularist calendars, jews are, in this sense, universalists! the translation of this prayer still acknowledges chosenness, but adds a statement of its purpose, beginning “you chose us, with love, to be messengers of mitzvot,” thus transforming god’s commandments (mitzvot) from a mark of favoritism to a statement of mission. rather than god’s calling israel by the divine name – yis-ra-el means “he who strives with god”59—god’s name here “has become our calling.”60 throughout the two volumes of this maḥzor, no fewer than six different footnotes address the theme of chosenness in this prayer61 in addition to several alternative readings or study texts. notable is the insistence over and over that israel has no special status before god, that jews have no “biological or racial superiority” because “jews belong to all races, and welcome as converts people of all races, ethnic groups, and nations.”62 while not exclusively true for reform communities, this is particularly characteristic of them, especially with the turn to deliberate “outreach” in recent decades.63 at least once each day, this maḥzor quotes amos 9:7, “to me, o israelites, you are just like the ethiopians—declares adonai. true, i brought israel up from the land of egypt, but also the philistines from caphtor and the arameans from kir.” in other words, the israelites are just 56 maḥzor lev shalem, 14, adapted from why be jewish? (new york, ny: henry holt & co, 1995), 38-40. note that the excerpt omits wolpe’s specific mention of christianity, and stops short of his declaration, “so jewish chosenness was actually less exclusive than the chosenness characteristic of many other peoples and faiths.” 57 maḥzor lev shalem, 88, 216, citing from baeck’s this people israel: the meaning of the jewish experience, albert h. friedlander, trans. (philadelphia, pa: the jewish publication society of america, 1964), 402-403, from the concluding, forward-looking pages of the book. 58 mishkan hanefesh, rosh hashanah, 4, adapted from rabbi harold schulweis, “jewish world watch founding sermon,” jewish world watch (rosh hashanah, 2004), available at http://web.archive.org/web/20131127202542/http://www.jewishworldwatch.org/aboutjww/sermon.html. 59 see the artscroll machzor and maḥzor lev hadash. 60 mishkan hanefesh, rosh hashanah, 53, 194, 317; yom kippur 60, 230, 382, 636. 61 mishkan hanefesh, rosh hashanah, 53, 194; yom kippur 60 (two), 61 (alternate reading and comment on it), 382. 62 mishkan hanefesh, yom kippur alternative reading, 61. 63 “outreach,” union for reform judaism, https://urj.org/what-we-believe/resolutions/outreach. http://web.archive.org/web/20131127202542/http:/www.jewishworldwatch.org/aboutjww/sermon.html http://web.archive.org/web/20131127202542/http:/www.jewishworldwatch.org/aboutjww/sermon.html https://urj.org/what-we-believe/resolutions/outreach langer: jewish universalism? 16 like other nations.64 as evidenced by prophetic critiques, chosenness also does not “imply moral superiority.” it does, though, confer special responsibility to strive for moral excellence.65 the reform movement, we are told, understands chosenness “in the sense that we are chosen for a special mission, to be a witness to the reality and oneness of god…[this] does not deny that god may well have chosen other peoples for other sorts of missions in the world.”66 the most extreme answer to the challenge posed to contemporary jews by the liturgical language of chosenness is that of reconstructing judaism. its founder, rabbi mordecai m. kaplan, considered the concept itself untenable and inconsistent with a naturalistic conception of god.67 therefore, he excised it from the movement’s original 1945 prayer book.68 as eric caplan writes, “kol haneshamah perpetuates kaplan’s rejection, on moral terms, of the concept of chosenness,” understanding that it “always implies unacceptable favoritism.”69 in this maḥzor, the tension between universalism and particularism characteristic of the two prayers we have examined is much diminished in favor of universalism. ‘aleynu poetic texts associated with this season also address similar themes. the most prominent of these is known by its first hebrew word, ‘aleynu (it is incumbent upon us). originally a poetic introduction to the shofar (ram’s horn) blasts on rosh hashanah, emphasizing the theme of divine majesty, it began to conclude every service year-round in the twelfth century. its first paragraph highlights jewish particularity, including describing god “who has neither made us like the nations of the lands nor placed us like the families of the earth,/ who has not made our share like theirs, nor our fate like that of their multitudes.” the second paragraph looks eschatologically to when all nations will join in worship of god. as sacks describes it, these two paragraphs contrast “present reality with future hope: (1) the reality that jews are different in holding god as their only king, the only nation in the world constituted by a religious belief; and (2) the hope… that one day, all humanity will recognize the one god as their king.”70 when contrasting the particularist horizon of the first paragraph with the universalism of the 64 mishkan hanefesh, yom kippur, 61; rosh hashanah, 53 (comment adapted from reuven hammer, or hadash: a commentary on siddur sim shalom (new york: the rabbinical assembly, united synagogue of conservative judaism, 2003), 125. 65 mishkan hanefesh, yom kippur, 61. 66 mishkan hanefesh, rosh hashanah, 194, adapted from the “commentary on the principles for reform judaism,” (october 27, 2004), iii, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20121109171647/http://www.ccarnet.org/rabbis-speak/platforms/commentary-principles-reform-judaism/. 67 eric caplan, from ideology to liturgy: reconstructionist worship and american liberal judaism (cincinnati, oh: hebrew union college press, 2002), 30. 68 caplan, 64-68. 69 caplan, 192. 70 sacks-koren, rosh hashana , 524-525, the first iteration of the prayer in its original location. he does not make similar observations with other occurrences of the prayer. https://web.archive.org/web/20121109171647/http:/www.ccarnet.org/rabbis-speak/platforms/commentary-principles-reform-judaism/ https://web.archive.org/web/20121109171647/http:/www.ccarnet.org/rabbis-speak/platforms/commentary-principles-reform-judaism/ 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) second, he concludes, consistent with his comment cited above, “there is no contradiction between particularity and universality. only by being what we uniquely are, do we contribute to humanity as a whole what only we can give.”71 artscroll, too preserves jewish distinctiveness; universal worship of god by non-jews will be as noahides, not as jews.72 maḥzor lev shalem preserves the traditional text of this prayer,73 never commenting on the particularist themes of its first paragraph or the hopes for the downfall of idolatry that introduce the second, thus dodging the dynamic of interest here. it focuses instead on the positive hopes expressed, interpreted from the nineteenth century on as being a call for “universal justice” and “to be partners with god in achieving a time of peace and righteousness.”74 this casts the second paragraph’s statement more as inclusivist than universalist. liberal jews early rejected the prayer’s particularist elements. kaplan fundamentally rewrote this prayer for reconstructionists. reform jews, in their earlier american liturgies, revised it to eliminate its comparisons between jews and nonjews.75 these versions (and more) still appear as alternative readings. even today’s “literal translation” blurs the particularism of the original hebrew, reading “who made us unique in the human family, with a destiny all our own.”76 vaye’etayu a final example comes from an anonymous ancient hymn, 77 known by its first word, (“and they shall come”), recited on both rosh hashanah and yom kippur.78 71 sacks-koren, rosh hashana, 36-38 (afternoon service preceding the holy day). compare the koren siddur, 182-184. 72 nosson scherman, the complete artscroll siddur (new york: mesorah publications, ltd., 1984), 158-159, citing samson raphael hirsch. no commentary appears in the artscroll maḥzor. rabbinic tradition early understood that god judged the righteousness of non-jews by their adherence to the seven commandments given to adam and noah. see david novak, the image of the non-jew in judaism: the idea of noahide law, second ed., matthew lagrone, ed. (portland or: the littman library of jewish civilization, 2011). 73 unlike the orthodox liturgies, though, it does not restore its censored line. on the history and censorship of this prayer, see my “the censorship of aleinu in ashkenaz and its aftermath,” in the experience of jewish liturgy: studies dedicated to menahem schmelzer, debra reed blank, ed. (leiden: brill, 2011), 147-166. 74 maḥzor lev shalem, 25, 173, 246. compare 131, 156. 325 offers, as an inspirational reading, a text by solomon schechter (source not identified), that suggests that this prayer contrasts god’s sovereignty with that of rome, identified classically as esau, the prototypical enemy of israel. the prayer’s message is “that the messianic age can be recognized when an end is brought to the rule of wickedness.” siddur lev shalem (new york, ny: the rabbinical assembly, 2016), 56, 231, points to the israeli movement’s replacement of the first paragraph’s statement of jewish “exceptionalism.” see also its apologia, p. 205, “aleinu both asserts a pride in jewish destiny and challenges us to go out to the world committed to jewish spiritual values.” 75 caplan summarizes the reform liturgies as well. see his index. 76 mishkan hanefesh, rosh hashanah, 82, 202, 288; yom kippur, 116, 432. 77 its poetics suggest that it is pre-fifth century ce. it embeds an alphabetical acrostic as the third letter of each stich, most stichs are three words long, but it has neither meter nor rhyme. 78 traditionally inserted into the third paragraph of “and so” in the repetition of musaf, the additional service. langer: jewish universalism? 18 as the commentaries point out, the poem describes with gusto an eschatological vision of the nations’ casting off their idolatrous practices and coming to worship god.79 thus, while its horizon is universal, it is not a pluralist acceptance of the nations in their own religious integrity. the twelfth stich asserts that “they will teach the errant wisdom.” thus, this poem reinforces the particularist reading of the final “and so” paragraph. this poem‘s modern impact was heightened for the english-speaking world by israel zangwill’s interpretative translation, “all the world shall come to serve thee,” first published in 1904 for a new british orthodox prayer book,80 and subsequently set to music at least twice.81 a version of zangwill’s text entered the 1945 “newly revised edition” of the reform high holy day liturgy.82 the lively 1932 setting by a.w. binder was regularly sung year-round in my childhood at rodef shalom congregation in pittsburgh.83 mishkan hanefesh breaks new ground, though. it offers only the first verse in hebrew, accompanied by “a contemporary [english] version,” no less universal in horizon, beginning “may all be moved to serve you.” while those writing this version apparently paraphrased zangwill and wrote to fit binder’s musical setting, they removed all reference to idolatry. the closest they come is, “when we speak about your glory, / when we praise you for your might – / those who hear will feel your presence, / turn from darkness to the light.”84 zangwill’s translation also entered conservative liturgies, but with different adjustments. the maḥzor commissioned by the rabbinical assembly, published by ben zion bokser in 1959, notes that it follows a different version of the hebrew and has adjusted the translation. in reality, this new translation goes well beyond the hebrew’s textual changes. where zangwill translated a stich no longer in bokser’s version, “and their graven gods shall shame them,” bokser fills the space 79 see the complete artscroll machzor, rosh hashanah, 495-6, 550; yom kippur, 544. sacks-koren, rosh hashana, 586-587, 826-827, does not comment directly on the poem, but provides this information before it. he repeats this instruction on yom kippur, 864-865 and adds in a comment that this is “a poetic expression of the prophetic faith that one day all nations will recognize the sovereignty of god…” maḥzor lev shalem, 150, 322, has a more extensive discussion about the hymn’s interpretation in its right margin. 80 service of the synagogue: a new edition of the festival prayers…, authorized by chief rabbi hermann adler (london: george routledge and sons, 1904; third edition 1911), day of atonement, part ii, 154-155; cf. new year (1906), 151-152. 81 see the union hymnal for jewish worship (n.p.: central conference of american rabbis, 1914), #150 with a setting by leon m. kramer; and the union hymnal: songs and prayers for jewish worship, revised and enlarged third ed., (n.p.: central conference of american rabbis, 1932, rpt. 1936), #63, pp. 64-65, with a setting new in this volume by a.w. binder (both available in the internet archive). the first edition, from 1892, did not include this text. the third verse seems to have been omitted for reasons of length. it speaks only of the nations’ praise of god. the only other substantive change is that zangwill’s “and impart their understanding to those astray at night” has become “and impart thy understanding…,” i.e., god will be the pedagogue, not the converted nations. 82 the union prayerbook ii, 92, as the concluding hymn on rosh hashanah morning, and in the yom kippur afternoon service, 275. 83 personal recollection, confirmed by dr. rabbi walter jacob. with updated english, it appears in the yom kippur afternoon service of the gates of repentance, 447-49. 84 mishkan hanefesh, rosh hashanah, 201. 19 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) with, “and their hands shall clasp in friendship,”85 introducing a new idea. where zangwill concluded this stanza, “and impart their understanding to those astray in night,” bokser writes “they shall walk in understanding, who are astray in night,” toning down the message.86 this is the version that appears in the left “inspirational” margin of maḥzor lev shalem.87 conclusion “gifts and calling” challenges the jewish community, saying “jews could with regard to the abrahamic covenant arrive at the insight that israel without the church would be in danger of remaining too particularist and of failing to grasp the universality of its experience of god.” central prayers in the high holy day liturgy hold universalism and particularism in significant tension in their traditional texts. however, analysis of the contemporary commentaries published with these prayers suggests that modernity itself, not the church or any understanding of the abrahamic covenant, has led all but the most traditional of jews to struggle with these prayers’ expressions of particularism and to lift up their tradition’s universalist and pluralist understandings of god’s relationship with the world. christians were the liturgical others for many, albeit not all, jews for most of two millennia. however, explicit references to christians and christianity are rare in jewish liturgy, mostly because early modern christian censorship systematically removed them.88 the experiences of persecution and marginalization experienced by jews in both christian and muslim societies led to a liturgy that was indeed characterized by a particularist understanding of the current situation that did not show concern for the wellbeing of their neighbors. still, sometimes this was also set within a universalist eschatological horizon. there is no jewish liturgical tradition of positive responses specifically to christianity, and traditional, received prayers are the core of the liturgy, even in liberal settings. even were liberal jews to theologize liturgically about christians, the resultant statements would likely be more broadly universal, looking to all humanity. while all the primary texts considered here preserve the traditional hebrew texts of the prayers, all but the most right-wing orthodox have shifted their stress consistently towards a universalist horizon, one that holds a place for all humanity. the further to the liberal end of the contemporary jewish spectrum we move, the more this affects the ideas expressed explicitly in revised prayer texts, their translations, or in interpretative translations of received texts. why? for more liberal jews, integration into the western world, including by marriage, certainly plays a 85 the corrupted traditional version of the text makes three references to the nations’ idolatry, doubling a letter of the acrostic; the manuscript version bokser follows has only two. 86 other changes are more cosmetic. see the high holyday prayer book: rosh hashanah and yom kippur, ben zion bokser, trans. (new york, ny: hebrew publishing company, 1959), 194-195, 408409. 87 maḥzor lev shalem, 150, 322. the reference in this volume mistakenly states that this is zangwill’s original version. 88 for detailed studies of two prayers, see my cursing the christians? a history of the birkat haminim (oxford, 2012); and “the censorship of aleinu…” langer: jewish universalism? 20 role. unmitigated particularism, while not abandoned across the board, is no longer so comfortable. but this is not directly a response to christian universalism, to joining in the understanding that it is our abrahamic calling to spread god’s word. as frequent objects of evangelization, as a community until recently punished if it accepted converts, jews tend to avoid expressing this sort of sense of mission. at most, judaism teaches that one should be a “light to the nations” (isa 42:6, 49:6), setting an example. the prayers’ universal horizon does traditionally expect a universal turning to god, but as a reality divinely, not humanly, set in motion. in this, then, echoing sacks, we can say that much of contemporary (north american) judaism values its particularist horizons, including for its universalist purposes. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review donald e. wagner and walter t. davis, eds. zionism and the quest for justice in the holy land (eugene, or: pickwick publications, 2014), paperback, xxiii + 250 pp. robert cathey, mccormick theological seminary and jay moses, hope presbyterian church, wheaton, illinois the book seeks to continue debates about the long soughtafter reconciliation of diverse peoples in the modern state of israel and palestine (or the occupied palestinian territories, including jerusalem, gaza, and the west bank). much material in this collection of articles was previously available in a curriculum written and edited by mark braverman, pauline coffman, et al., zionism unsettled: a congregational study guide (louisville: israel / palestine mission network of the presbyterian church u.s.a., 2014). the briefer curriculum caught the secular media’s attention and prompted disputes within the presbyterian church u.s.a. copies were first sold on and then later removed from the denomination’s official website prior to the meeting of its general assembly in june 2014, the same assembly that made the decision to divest the denomination’s holdings in three multi-national corporations accused of providing support for the israeli occupation of east jerusalem and the west bank and the blockade of gaza. the curriculum was viewed as highly provocative, not simply by the jewish community, but also by mainstream presbyterians who work for the cause of justice and peace in the region. those opposed to the curriculum believed it used the lens of a neo-replacement theology, turning a critique of the state of israel into a critique of the jewish people and of judaism. studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 10 (2015) the book is a longer version of the curriculum, with many of the same articles being represented but in fuller form. the contributors span the spectrum of those who have offered their “prophetic” voices on these issues for many years (e.g., p. xix, xxiii). the names naim s. ateek, rosemary ruether, donald e. wagner, brant rosen, gary m. burge, and mark braverman should be no strangers to those familiar with this terrain, and they hope here to amplify the message of the curriculum. in general, the contributors identify political and religious zionism itself as the main problem and ideology supporting and sustaining what they view as the deeply unjust policies of the state of israel. the contributors include those outside the mainstream christian tradition: brant rosen (jewish), mark braverman (jewish), and mustafa abu sway (muslim, and apparently the only contributor who has lived under the israeli occupation, apart from the authors of the 2009 statement kairos palestine, included in the appendix). although several of the early chapters deal with the political history of zionism, the remaining chapters touch primarily on theological concepts seen as contributing to violence among peoples in the region. historic teachings about jewish election and covenant are lifted up as the main culprits in these ethnoreligious divisions. although the issues of co-existence upon the land promised by god to the ancient israelites (called pejoratively a divine “land grant” [p. 98]) are discussed throughout, the source of these supposed promises are, we are told, all-too-human constructions by the israelites and by modern zionists employing the biblical symbols of election and covenant. the contributors consistently argue that the god of the bible never unconditionally and eternally promised a relatively small piece of real estate in the ancient near east to the modern jewish inhabitants of israel / palestine. the election of israel has often been discussed and argued about throughout christian history. as the incarnation of jesus became the “scandal of particularity” in modern times, so the election of the jewish people as described in the bible remained a scandal for liberal christian universalism (cf. e. e. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr cummings’ line: “how odd of god…to choose the jews”). the contributors make the theological critique that claims to chosenness and to a special relationship with god are tantamount to believing in a racist god who supports the oppression of non-jews. one jewish contributor, brant rosen, is the most outspoken in his critique: “to put it plainly: a voice that affirms claims of theological superiority in the name of one people cannot be the voice of god. a voice that asserts god’s word to humanity was vouchsafed exclusively to the children of abraham cannot be the voice of god” (p. 75). in like manner, wagner states, “[by] honoring jews because jews are god’s ‘first’ and primary ‘chosen people’, then christians are ‘secondary’, at least theologically. however, this theological position has serious political and ethical consequences” (p. 156). the underlying inference here is that theological particularism is always connected to political exclusivism and bigotry. the theological concept of god’s covenant with israel comes under discussion and critique. a great deal of work in jewishchristian dialogue has sought to affirm the continuing validity of the covenant with the jewish people from a christian perspective. historically, christians have held to a “supersessionist” or “replacement” understanding of the people named israel, i.e., the jewish people, and of the jewish covenant. the christian covenant, in this traditional theological framework, has replaced god’s unique covenant with the jewish people. it has been transferred to those who follow jesus as the christ and to the church founded by his apostles. for several contributors to the book, the turn of postholocaust christians to a non-supersessionist theology—one that recognizes god’s ongoing relationship with the jewish people—is suspect and indeed contributes to the oppressive policies of the state of israel. rosen states, “while this new formulation may have served to assuage christian guilt over centuries of church anti-semitism, it has failed to address the problematic exceptionalism of the original covenant” (p. 88). again, the claim that echoes here is that religious exceptionalism or particularism creates political tyranny and racial oppression, at least in the case of israel. studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 10 (2015) in his contribution, wheaton college professor burge explores the diversity of views within the evangelical world regarding christian zionism. while succinctly noting differences within global evangelicalism, in the end, he argues for a traditional and familiar understanding of god’s covenant with israel that seems rooted in the adversus judaeos tradition of christian replacement theology. burge states: “[supersessionism] has been the historic teaching of the church and has never been considered a heresy” (p. 188). further, burge argues that “the promises to abraham have been realized in christ; he holds everything judaism desired, and knowing christ gains access to such promises...the work of christ is definitive. there is one covenant. and it is with christ” (p. 182). both of these views reflect hesitancy among all the book’s contributors to giving support to the theological legitimacy of judaism today, rather than more narrowly attacking particular israeli policies and practices of occupation. such theological critiques of topics such as covenant and election could have been strengthened by sustained engagement with the writings of theologians engaged in such issues, such jon levenson, david novak, eugene korn, john pawlikowski, mary boys, and philip cunningham. the contributors’ theological critiques therefore lack the thoroughness of presentation to engage a full discussion. they sometimes create a “straw man” argument against judaism ultimately directed against israeli policies. for example, ateek’s statement that “zionism commits theological injustice by its appeal to god, history, and race” insufficiently engages the fullness and changing dimensions of judaism(s) and zionism(s) (p. 219). if anything, writings such as this show the chasm between progressive theologians in the christian-jewish dialogues and those theologians claiming the “prophetic” mantel and engaged in political advocacy for the palestinians. although the book brings to the surface the danger of theological beliefs buttressing the policies of any state, the connection between the two in the case of israel is not explicitly (or convincingly) proven here. they show that a particular people studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr indeed can find its identity within its sacred historic myth (such as judaism) or sense of peoplehood (such as zionism), something anthropologists have taught us for a long time. with this insight one might realize that much of what we assume to be normative within our own in-group looks very much like myth (in the pejorative sense) to those on the outside, and can tragically inflame passions all the more when inequalities and injustices are present. the contributors’ highly negative presentations of such features of jewish or israeli identity neglect the positive aspects of identity, which sustain most members of our species. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review celia m. deutsch, eugene j. fisher, and james rudin, eds. toward the future: essays on catholic-jewish relations in memory of rabbi león klenicki (new york: paulist press, 2013), paperback, xii + 387 jesper svartvik, lund university and the swedish theological institute in jerusalem in honor of their friend león klenicki (1930–2009), the editors have put together a volume with an introduction, eighteen chapters, and a concluding epilogue. klenicki, who for many years served as the director of interfaith affairs for the antidefamation league, was a leader in working for improved jewish-christian relations. after a series of tributes to klenicki (written by abraham h. foxman, eric j. greenberg, judith banki, peter stravinskas, and william cardinal keeler), there are two chapters on scripture (one by tamara cohn eskenazi, and one co-authored by jean-pierre ruiz and carmen m. nanko-fernández), two on identity (by shira lander and elizabeth groppe), two on theology (by adam gregerman and hans herman henrix), two on liturgy (by ruth langer and philip a. cunningham), two on mysticism (by arthur green and michael barnes), two on latinas/os and jewish-catholic relations (by hillel cohn and jacqueline m. hidalgo), a concluding chapter (co-authored by david m. gordis and peter c. phan), and an epilogue written by celia m. deutsch, who is also one of the editors. this is an outstanding collection of essays and a worthy tribute to a person committed to interreligious dialogue. throughout the book, judaism is presented, in the words of pope john paul ii (quoted on p. 75), as a “living heritage” of faith. one general observation is that the chapters have to be quite short studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) and regrettably succinct in order to fit into a book of no more than some two hundred and fifty pages including a select bibliography of klenicki’s publications. there are instances when one may have wished that the authors of the chapters would have had more space in order to develop their thoughts. additionally, in a collection such as this one, the purpose of which is to serve as a tribute to a particular person, there are necessarily some repetitions, for example klenicki’s famous critique of some forms of interreligious dialogue as only “tea and sympathy” (e.g., p. 6 and 10). as in other edited volumes, there are both overlapping chapters and tensions between the various parts of the book. one such instance in the jewishchristian dialogue is the discourse of otherness and sameness. on the one hand, some contributors have a levinasean emphasis on the radical otherness of the other. eskenazi, for example, insists that “the integrity of the other is [to be] protected” (p. 29). we find, on the other hand, some contributors emphasizing the essential sameness of the other, e.g., that jews and christian together constitute one people of god, that they have much more in common than is usually believed, and that die heimholung jesu ins judentums (seeing jesus within his jewish milieu) is to be celebrated in liturgy and theology. indisputably, both these lines of thought are accurate. on the one hand, because of texts, traditions, and terminology, jews and christians are joined together in a way that seems without parallel in other interreligious relations. on the other hand, although commonality is a non-negotiable starting-point for interreligious dialogue between jews and christians, it can never be the sole answer to the challenges that face people of faith. that is why the levinasean claim about the distinct otherness of the other is essential, especially when complemented by an emphasis on each person being created in the likeness of god. as green writes, “[a subjective feeling of] love is too shaky a pedestal on which to stand the entire torah” and hence there is a need for such a theological affirmation to avoid the two absolutes of otherness as well as sameness (p. 156). studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr while all sections in the book are significant and stimulating, it is only natural that some will appeal more than others to each reader. one of the chapters that the present reviewer finds particularly illuminating is written by eskenazi. the task that she sets before herself is to explore biblical resources for interfaith dialogue. while admitting that it would be “a misrepresentation to claim that the bible overtly advocated interfaith dialogue,” she nevertheless claims that “the hebrew bible affirms continuity between contemporary goals and biblical foundations” (p. 30). she finds both an acknowledgment of the importance of difference—and it has already been pointed out that she stresses that the integrity of the other is to be protected—as well as commonality, i.e., jews and christians rejoicing over common scripture, common roots, common thoughts, etc. another stimulating contribution is the concluding essay by gordis and phan. it is only fitting in a collection of essays on jewish-christian relations called toward the future that this chapter is jointly written by a rabbi and a roman catholic theologian. they, too, draw attention to the discourse of otherness and sameness. they state that dialogue cannot be just a matter of approaching areas of convergence; it also has to include open and honest considerations of areas of divergence (p. 217). a necessary condition for this is clarity of thought (both one’s own and regarding the other), even in the face of disagreement. there is room for appreciating the other, without necessarily adopting the other’s position. it is in sincere dialogue that one discovers that much of the theological discourse was born “in the context of controversies and imperialism,” and that it is “highly liable to misunderstanding today” (p. 220). the two authors argue in favor of a theological discourse which is rooted “not in our conviction about all that we know, but rather in the conviction that there is much that we do not and cannot know” (p. 221). hence, they argue in favor of an epistemological modesty, because, whereas only god is divine, humans are only human, and theology has to take this into consideration. their chapter makes one ask whether it is possible to be truly humble—which is a virtue in studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 9 (2014) arguably all religious traditions—without such an epistemological modesty. indeed, is this insight not the beginning of wisdom in interreligious dialogue? readers are in debt to the three editors for taking this initiative and for preparing these texts for publication. "can catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?" -a reply to jon d. levenson studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2 (2007): 86-93 wansbrough, “a reply to jon d. levenson” 86 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art7 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college “‘can catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?’ – a reply to jon d. levenson” henry wansbrough, osb ampleforth abbey volume 2 (2007): 86-93 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art7 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2 (2007): 86-93 wansbrough, “a reply to jon d. levenson” 87 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art7 i have been asked to comment, as a christian in the roman catholic tradition, on the stimulating reflections of professor jon levenson1 on the 2001 document of the pontifical biblical commission, the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible.2 his reflections are warm, wise and welcoming, appreciative of the new tone which it introduces officially and definitively into christianjewish dialogue. he focuses particularly on two positive elements of the document, which nevertheless pose two difficult questions. it is heartening that levenson welcomes especially two allied statements which set so much of the tone of the document: 1. the first welcomed statement comes in the discussion of the continuity between jewish and christian messianic expectation: “jewish messianic expectation is not in vain… the difference is that for us the one who is to come will have the traits of the jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us” (§21). this is rightly seen as a far cry from a previous attitude of patronizing pity for the jews who, still waiting for the messiah to come, have simply missed the boat. 2. the second is even more far-reaching, and qualifies the whole of the christian attitude to a jewish reading of the bible: “the jewish reading of the bible is a possible one… analogous to the christian reading” (§21-22). the whole tenor of the document is that the jewish interpretation of the bible 1 jon d. levenson, “can roman catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?” studies in christian-jewish relations 1 (2005-2006): 170-185. http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art19. 2 originally published in french as le people juif et ses saintes ecritures dans la bible chrétienne (libreria editrice vaticana, 2001). levenson refers to an article of charles h. miller, criticizing errors in the english translation. cannot be characterized as wrong. it is simply not the christian interpretation. “both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths…consequently, both are irreducible” (ibid.). however, as levenson rightly sees, both these statements, but particularly the second, far-reaching as it is, raise a problem. he points out that they suggest a relativism that is met constantly today in our sceptical society, and is an inherent danger of religious dialogue. this is the danger of relativism, “which prompts one to say that each vision is true for the person who has it, indeed that every vision is true for whoever experiences it, and specifically that all religions are equally valid.”3 such relativism is, as levenson points out with a quotation from pope john paul ii’s encyclical letter fides et ratio, not an attitude acceptable within catholicism. such is the first difficulty. levenson’s second difficulty with the logic of the document is its claim that “the law as revelation predicted its own end as an institution necessary for salvation” (§8). in this case, rejoins levenson, if the law is self-destructive, “the effort to validate the jewish understanding of scripture, one of the key points of the document, will have to be scrapped’.”4 1. status and style of the document before discussing these central questions, i should comment on the status and vigor of the document itself. at various points in his article levenson suggests too strongly the authority of the pbc document, asking whether we are dealing with “normative truth incumbent on all roman 3 levenson, 173. 4 ibid., 175. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2 (2007): 86-93 wansbrough, “a reply to jon d. levenson” 88 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art7 catholics.”5 the document of the pbc is by no means an infallible statement of christian faith. the commission has the authority of a group of twenty scholars, chosen by the pope to form an advisory body within the framework of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. its task is to promote biblical studies and provide the congregation with help in interpreting the bible.6 its documents are therefore teaching aids rather than pronouncements, and its authority is the cumulative authority of the sum of its members. it advises the congregation, rather than teaching the christian public directly, though the issuance of the document with a preface from and under the seal of the prefect of the congregation does of course signify the approbation of the highest normal teaching body within the church. the authority of the document is therefore not insignificant, but catholics may disagree with it without disloyalty to the church. before proceeding further i should also like to comment on the criticisms near the end of levenson’s article on the tone of the pbc document. he comments that the document neglects “god’s passionate and unmotivated love for the people israel.”7 at the very end8 he is joined by my old friend and senior colleague, fr roland murphy, who is quoted: “there is a certain tone missing in the document of the pbc – call it wonderment, awe, admiration, that is present in the old testament text.”9 to this i can only say that it is disappointing that such an impression should be given. perhaps something of the enthusiasm and savor of the discussions was lost in the stringent condensation of papers 5 ibid. 6 acta apostolicae sedis 63 (1971), p. 666. 7 levenson, 182. 8 ibid., 184. 9 quoted from roland e. murphy, “the biblical commission, the jews, and scriptures” in biblical theology bulletin 32:3 (summer 2002): 147. that were originally longer. i think all the participants in the discussions were continually moved by the tracing of those great themes throughout the bible which constitute more than half the document: god as liberator and savior, election, covenant, prayer and promises. all these were seen as elements in the dialogue of love, with all its divine constancy and with all its human failures and tragedies, which runs through the bible. the appreciation of the depths of these motifs throughout the bible, and the reflection that their expression in the new testament is in utter continuity with and dependent upon their earlier biblical elaboration, was a continually enriching experience. if it no longer finds expression in the text, that is a great sadness. it can only be hoped that the condensed and often skeletal presentation may still enable students of the document to put flesh and sinews on the bones. the balance might be somewhat redressed by an answer to levenson’s question, “once christians cease to read genesis, leviticus, joshua and ecclesiastes exclusively through a christological lens, what should they make of these books?”10 the answer is that the historical books are the record of the constant loving care of the lord in forming and guiding his people, bringing them back repeatedly to fidelity to the covenant. books of the law like leviticus are revered by christians as the reaction to and safeguard of the awesome divine holiness, and as the expression of the implications of being the chosen people of god. ecclesiastes is more challenging, but all the more enriching as the author pits his puckish humor against the doubts and difficulties brought to faith by the clash with greek culture. 10 levenson, 178. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2 (2007): 86-93 wansbrough, “a reply to jon d. levenson” 89 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art7 2. two irreducible valid readings the first major difficulty to which levenson points is the danger of relativism if the jewish and the christian readings of the bible are considered both possible ones, but each irreducible, one to the other. this statement comes in the document as the immediate preface to the survey of fundamental themes shared by the two testaments, a survey which makes up half the document, and shows in encouraging detail the common ground and similar approach on such matters as the concept of god as liberator and savior, divine choice, the paradox of human dignity and human failure, and the approach to god in prayer. this survey shows, as no previous christian document has done, the extent of the common ground, the extent to which christian views of the world and aspirations are the product of a revelation shared with judaism. above all, it shows the christian appreciation of the jewish attitude to the bible, and of jewish faith as a means to salvation. gone for ever are the days when the church could sanction that shaming starburst of insult, the inscription on the wall of the little church across the street facing the grand synagogue of rome the words of isaiah 65:2, “i held out my hands all day to a rebellious people.” it does not, however, imply that the christian can say that jewish and christian readings of the bible are equally valid. they are irreducible one to the other because jewish faith reads the bible in one way, christian faith in another. the acceptance of the central role of jesus as the christ or the messiah, and of the death and resurrection of jesus as the keystone of the arch of history is what makes the one reading of the bible or vision of reality irreducible to the other. the christian cannot say that the jewish reading is wrong, but must say that the jewish reading is not the christian one. while rejoicing in and reverencing the jewish understanding of the word of god in the bible, the christian must say that the christian focus on the christ-event gives a new focus to that revelation. the contrast between the christian and the jewish perspective is already expressed in the passage on eschatology cited above, which levenson picks out, “the one who is to come will have the traits of the jesus who has already come.” as the pbc document works through one aspect after another of the biblical revelation it becomes clear that the christian view, thoroughly indebted to the law, the prophets and the writings and impossible without them, nevertheless is seen as transcending them. the valuable work presented by levenson on comparison of the christian notion of sensus plenior11and the jewish notion of peshat throws into relief the difference between them. no christian could claim of the sensus plenior, as the jew does claim of the peshat, that it was always there, inexplicit in the oral tradition, from the beginning. the sensus plenior was not merely unperceived before the christ-event; it could not have been perceived, precisely because of the new focus or new understanding conveyed by the christevent. i will take two examples used in christian argument but dependent on the septuagint text of the bible, the translation initiated for the greek-speaking jews of alexandria, received as the original bible of the christian church, but not now enjoying within judaism the authority of the hebrew text. in the account of peter’s speech at pentecost acts 2:31 argues that psalm 16:10, “he was not 11 the sensus plenior, one of the four traditional senses of scripture, can be used very widely, and in medieval times it was used to justify all kinds of allegorical readings. in the 1950s it enjoyed a revival in the catholic church (cf. ‘le sensus plenior de l’ecriture’ by pierre benoit in revue biblique 1956, p. 285-287). it was the subject of the 1955 doctoral thesis of raymond e. brown, who became arguably the most respected of all biblical exegetes in the english-speaking world. to avoid opening the door too widely, i confine myself to two instances of such exegesis sanctioned by christian scripture itself. i use instances where the greek rather than the hebrew bible is at stake for irenic purposes. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2 (2007): 86-93 wansbrough, “a reply to jon d. levenson” 90 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art7 abandoned to hades nor did his flesh see corruption,”12 speaks of the resurrection of christ because it was not fulfilled of david, considered the author of the psalms. the christian contention is not that previous readers were stupid not to see in this text the resurrection of christ, but that now, in the light of the new event, a reader can see that it was always there. similarly, when matthew 1:23 sees the virginal conception of jesus in the septuagint text of isaiah 7:14, “look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,”13 the gospel-writer would not claim that isaiah conveys the meaning that the messiah would be born of a virgin in such a way that a reader who failed to perceive this would be failing to understand the text. on the other hand, once jesus had been born of a virginal mother, it was possible to see this in the prophetic text. are these meanings really within the text? not in the sense that they can be deduced or learnt from the text alone, though the text does raise questions which it does not wholly satisfactorily answer. the sensus plenior is, however, more easily understood within judaism and christianity than it would be to an outside literary critic. the pbc document opens by stressing that in many respects judaism and christianity share the same attitudes to the bible. one of these shared basic attitudes is that the bible is the book of the community, and is rightly understood only within that tradition. christianity insists that each and every part of the bible must be understood within the context of the whole (christian) bible as the full divine revelation. this is called 12 “for you will not abandon me to sheol, or let your faithful one see the pit” in the jps version, translating the masoretic text. 13 jps version, “look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son.” the hebrew text ‘almah is there correctly translated. the greek text has parthenos, which often includes in the notion of “fresh, young girl” the status of virginity. on the whole, scholarly opinion refuses to opt between these two texts for an “original” reading, and settles for the ambivalence of two different traditions of text. canonical reading of the scripture: the whole forms one canon. within the catholic church this appears in the teaching (stressed at vatican ii) on the single fount of revelation, scripture as understood within the tradition of the church. this corresponds roughly, if not exactly, to the teaching on written and oral torah within judaism. the difference is that for christians there is a new event which transforms the text: it is the christ-event which gives a new focus to the texts, and the bible must be read as one whole.14 the jewish reading, though sharing a huge corpus of belief in the nature and purposes of god, does not attribute to the christ-event the significance in the divine plan that christianity attributes to it. 3. the law as self-destructive levenson’s other major difficulty is the somewhat bluff statement of the pbc document, “the law as revelation predicted its own end as an institution necessary for salvation.” a preliminary question, posed by levenson, is whether the document accepts that paul shows this to be the case, or whether it merely means that paul argues it. if the former, then “the effort to validate the jewish understanding of scripture, one of the key points of the document, will have to be scrapped.”15 i have no doubt that the document does intend the former meaning, but levenson’s deduction is nevertheless not inevitable: the real issue is what is meant by “an institution necessary for salvation.” this plunges us into the heart of one of the most vibrant quarrels of early 14 levenson criticizes the pbc document for allowing the treatment of the old testament section on the human person to be colored by the treatment of the same theme in the new testament (p. 180). so long as this coloration is a matter only of emphasis, not of distortion, i think it is fair that a holistic reading from within the catholic christian tradition should be given. the same answer could be made to another criticism that has been made, that the document does not even mention more recent jewish exegesis. 15 levenson, 175. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2 (2007): 86-93 wansbrough, “a reply to jon d. levenson” 91 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art7 christianity: what is the relationship between christianity and judaism? must christians be jews? if in judaism the most important thing is belonging (with behaving like a jew coming second, and belief only a poor third), an important point is that, of the principal five writers within the new testament, three wanted to remain within judaism. matthew’s warning that ‘they will flog you in their synagogues’ (mt 10:17) shows that his community attempted to remain within judaism. only the halakhoth of the followers of jesus and their whole approach to legal observance were different from that of the members of “their [i.e. the jews who did not accept jesus as the messiah] synagogues.” mentioned more than once in john’s gospel is the fear of being put out of the synagogue, this time for reasons of doctrine about jesus (jn 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). thirdly, if paul had not been keen on remaining within judaism he would never have put himself in the position of being flogged in the synagogues five times with such rigor that they ‘spared him but one lash in the forty’ (2 cor 11:24). even within the community that accepted jesus as messiah there were differences about legal observance. peter was happy to eat with gentile christians until he was warned off it by delegates from james’ group in jerusalem. his withdrawal provoked such a furious response from paul that relationships between peter and paul never recovered (gal 2:11-14). when the same group attempted to induce paul’s galatian converts to observe the legal requirements of judaism, paul’s reaction is so violent that he transgresses all the rules of convention (he omits the usual thanksgiving at the beginning of his letter (gal 1:6), courtesy (gal 3:1) and even decency (gal 5:12). news of his attitude would get round, and, dogged by such a reputation, he has no easy task on his hands when he sets about convincing the jewish christians of rome that he still deserves their help. even then paul makes clear that he still clings passionately to his solidarity with his brothers in judaism (rom 9:3-5), and will not hear of the law being called anything but holy (rom 7:7). the whole basis of his letter to the romans and his appeal to the jewish members of the christian community in rome is that in christianity the promises to abraham reach their fulfilment. what, then, can he mean by arguing – if he does so argue – that “the law as revelation predicted its own end as an institution necessary for salvation”? by this he means that the law as a rule of life has done its work when it leads to christ. paul uses the image of the law as a paidagogos, a slave who leads the child to school (gal 3:2425). when the slave has led the believer to christ he has no more to do (and can doze in the shade). by contrast, the law as promise is central to paul’s thinking, so that it is abraham’s faith, his trust in those promises, which is central, not abraham’s observance. in the midrash on genesis 15:6 in romans 4 paul seems to be tilting expressly at the theory that it was abraham’s obedience in the aqedah which won him justification. similarly, for paul circumcision is not in itself a saving work but only a sign and expression of faith, of acceptance of the promises to abraham. justification is actually wrought not through any observance of the law but (rom 5:12-21) by the obedience of christ, which undoes the disobedience of adam (by which, of course, paul means “human disobedience” tout court, the endemic and habitual disobedience of the whole human race). there is, it will be immediately evident, a certain duality in paul’s thinking. justification is achieved by faith, that is, by trust in the divine promise to abraham, by solidarity with the trust of abraham. at the same time reconciliation is achieved by christ’s obedience, and by the solidarity of his followers with him in being baptised into christ’s death. this duality is to me a sign of just how involved with the law paul’s thinking is. in his earlier letter to the galatians on the subject studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2 (2007): 86-93 wansbrough, “a reply to jon d. levenson” 92 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art7 he explains the law as “added because of [or to deal with] transgressions until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made” (gal 3:19), and there he seems to be thinking of the cultic, legal means of purification from transgressions, which he regards as temporary. in his first treatment in romans (3:25) he uses the same cultic language, speaking of christ as the “sacrifice of reconciliation.” but it is notable that by both explanations he sees reconciliation as occurring outside the law. there are, then, two dualities in paul’s thinking: 1. justification is by faith after the model of abraham’s faith. reconciliation is by christ’s sacrifice. 2. christ’s sacrifice is, in cultic terms, the ultimate sacrifice of reconciliation, which the law could not accomplish. christ’s sacrifice is the perfect act of obedience which reverses and washes away human disobedience. the yearning to give glory to god and to compensate for human failure, which is expressed in various ways in the sacrificial system of the bible, is accomplished in a new and transcendent way by the sacrifice of christ. so in paul’s thinking the law leads people to christ and christ’s saving work, but that work itself is outside the law. that seems to me to be the meaning of the somewhat blunt statement which levenson queries. i should only add here my agreement with two underlying cautions well expressed by levenson. firstly, paul puts the question in the terms which suit his own answer. secondly, it is dangerous to put to one religion the questions of another. question and answer fit together since they determine the whole framework of the religious vision, and, as levenson wisely says, “it is very dangerous to project the soteriological focus of christianity onto non-christian religions.”16 4. paul and the law as an enslavement levenson also mentions that “whereas paul sees torah as enslaving (rom 4:21-5:1), the rabbis tend to see it as liberating.”17 this is not unrelated to the complaint, discussed at the beginning of this article, that the document fails to appreciate the awe and wonder of the bible. it must, however, be remembered that paul is an aggressive controversialist, and the presentation of the law as an enslavement is – especially in a world where slaves were regarded as barely human – part of his rhetoric. only the slightest acquaintance with judaism as it is today is needed to refute the christian caricature of the law as a stultifying dead weight. joy in the law, the festivities of simchat torah, dancing at the western wall, the joy of the sabbath, the constant linking of law and love in such biblical books as deuteronomy, the presentation of the covenant as a bridal union – all these show the law as a liberating force. paul shares this view by his frequent assertions throughout romans that the law is good and holy, and especially in such passages as rom 7:22, “in my inmost self i delight in the law of god.” on the other hand, one cannot forget paul’s controversies over legal observance, not only those five almost merciless floggings, but the struggles over the exclusion of those whom he considered to be faithful members of christ and beneficiaries of the promises made to abraham, simply on the grounds that, by the conventional boundary-markers of circumcision, sabbath observance and culinary purity, they were beyond the pale of judaism. paul’s quarrel was at least 16 ibid., 180. 17 ibid. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2 (2007): 86-93 wansbrough, “a reply to jon d. levenson” 93 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art7 as much, if not more, with christian as with non-christian jews. paul,”brought up at the feet of gamaliel, educated strictly according to our ancestral law”(acts 23:3), was trained in legal argument. again and again he uses legal arguments in correct rabbinic fashion. but he was also an artist as turning at turning jewish arguments on their head to his own advantage. so in his midrash on sarah and hagar he turns on its head the conventional view that hagar was the mother of gentiles and sarah the mother of the children of promise, instead making sarah the mother of christians and hagar the mother of enslaved jerusalem (gal 4:21-31). in paul’s forceful advocacy, the participation of angels in the giving of the law is evidence not of the solemnity of the occasion but of the inferiority of the law then given (gal 3:19). the veil over moses’ face is evidence, not of the awesomeness of his encounter with the lord, but of the blindness of the jews (2 cor 3:13). paul’s quarrel is with the obligations of legal observance, not with the law as such. i would suggest that paul’s quarrel with what he considered the excessive and unnecessary restrictions imposed on his converts to christianity is the reason for his denigration of the law, and his representation of the law as an enslaving rather than a liberating force. there can be no attempt to excuse or justify the christian persecution of jews down the centuries, but it must also be remembered that in the first decades of christianity christians were a persecuted religious minority within judaism. paul (and others) wanted to remain within judaism, but this required re-defining what it meant to be a jew in a way which was simply unacceptable to the main body of judaism. the tensions and discoloring engendered by this, and still reflected in the christian writings, should remain an object lesson for jews and christians alike. 5. can catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation? the first task of interreligious dialogue is to understand the other side, to see whether or to what extent the dialogue partners are expressing the same underlying beliefs and values in different language. is “nirvana” really the same as “heaven” but expressed against a different philosophical background and in particular a different concept of what we express as “personal individuality”? do the spirits of the ancestors play the same role in african religious life as the sacred dead in christianity? is allah the same as the god of christians under a different name? this does not necessarily imply that there is no such thing as truth, but only that truth can be differently expressed. rather it implies the conviction that all people – or at any rate the partners in the dialogue – have to some extent the same values though differently encapsulated, that you get the same kick out of budweiser as i get out of newcastle brown. the situation between christianity and judaism is somewhat different from dialogue between, say, christianity and hinduism, because in the former case so much of the language and imagery is shared. a principal purpose of the pbc document was to show just that; namely, that christians share and revere so many values and attitudes inherited from judaism, to insist that disagreement between the two must always be respectful and fraternal. christianity cannot validate jewish biblical interpretation, and has no business trying to do so. but christianity can and must say that it shares with judaism the faith in the promises made to abraham. it must, however, add that christianity sees the transcendent fulfilment of that faith as coming through christ.18 18 finally i would like to point out that my presentation referred to in john r. donahue’s lecture cited in footnote 2 of levenson’s article was given not at catholic university but at cambridge university. jesus in the talmud studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2(2007): r14-15 review p e t e r s c h ä f e r j e s u s i n t h e t a l m u d (princeton and oxford: princeton university press, 2007) xv+189 pp. reviewed by ruth langer, center for christian-jewishlearning, boston college growing from a seminar co-taught with israel yuval at princeton university, peter schäfer’s jesus in the talmud reviews well-trodden territory but derives new and important readings from this familiar evidence. applying contemporary historiographical methods, schäfer offers a convincing explanation of the talmudic texts about jesus. in doing so, he avoids what he criticizes as the excesses of previous discussions of this topic, especially the maximalism of r. travers herford in his christianity in talmud and midrash (london, 1903) and the minimalism of johann meier in his jesus von nazareth in der talmudischen überlieferung (darmstadt, 1978). where herford presumed that every possible source referred to christianity, meier established doubt about the applicability of most of these sources to knowledge about the historical jesus. schäfer shifts the question and asks what knowledge about christianity the rabbinic texts reflect. in this, he accepts the contemporary perception that the redacted rabbinic texts may not precisely transmit the traditions they purport to repeat. instead, they reflect the concerns and world of the redactor(s) as well. schäfer focuses his study by considering only texts that speak about jesus and not all rabbinic references to christianity. this allows him to consider these passages in comparison with other literature, most importantly the gospel narratives themselves. the resultant list of passages derive primarily from the babylonian talmud, i.e., from the text least likely, because of its date and place of redaction, to reflect intimate knowledge of early christianity in the land of israel. indeed, schäfer concludes that the talmudic authors did not have independent knowledge about jesus. what they did have was knowledge of the literature about jesus, from either the gospels themselves or perhaps from the diatessaron, the harmonization of the gospels used by the syrian church until the fifth century. as is obvious to anyone who has encountered these talmudic passages, especially in the form that modern scholarship has retrieved them from manuscripts that predate medieval christian censorship, the talmudic passages about jesus respond to christian traditions about him with parody, inversion, deliberate distortion, and not least with the proud proclamation that what their fellow jews did to this jesus was right: that he deserved to be executed because of his blasphemy, that he will sit in hell forever, and that those who follow his example up until today will not, as he has promised, gain eternal life but will share his horrible fate. (129) schäfer argues that these talmudic passages, when read together, “become a daring and powerful counter-gospel to the new testament in general and to john in particular.” (129) schäfer is not the first to notice the disproportionate attention paid to christianity in the babylonian talmud. however, his explanation is able to draw on our emerging understanding that jewish life in babylonia was culturally embedded in its persian context and consequently schäfer, jesus in the talmud r14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2(2007): r14-15 shaped in ways distinct from jewish life in the greco-roman west. while jews in the west were increasingly living in the presence of a triumphant christianity, one that increasingly had the power to respond to jewish slights, jews and christians in the persian east were both religious minorities in a zoroastrian state. because that state shared a contested boundary with the christian byzantine empire in the west, it suspected the local christians of disloyalty and subjected them to prolonged periods of persecution. christian martyrological texts of this era portray jews as actively siding with the sasanians against the christians. in such a context, talmudic redactors were free to include disrespectful portrayals of jesus in their literature. the issues appearing in the christians martyrologies overlap significantly with the specifics of the jewish parodies and inversions of the gospel narratives found in the babylonian talmud’s texts: christian women died to preserve their virginity, while the talmud suggests that mary was a harlot, not a virgin; martyrs strove to die on friday and their co-religionists would steal away the corpse to bury it secretly to facilitate their resurrection, while the talmud suggests that jesus’ body was taken from the tomb and buried elsewhere, not resurrected. schäfer presents these conclusions in his final chapter, after taking his readers through a careful reading of the relevant texts. he divides the materials into eight topics, organized chronologically according to the life and death of jesus. in each case, he presents the relevant texts from rabbinic literature (as a whole, not only the babylonian talmud), considers their manuscript variants, and offers his interpretation in dialogue with that of his predecessors and contemporaries, especially his former colleague, johann maier. though occasionally built on not a small degree of speculation, these readings are always plausible and are most often convincing. unevenness appears mostly in the notes, which expand dramatically when they touch on areas on which schäfer has published previously, especially on issues of rabbinic-era mysticism. missing from the volume is an overview of how these texts about jesus intersect with the rest of rabbinic literature’s statements about later christians and christianity. where do they cease to reflect literary knowledge and begin to reflect actual encounters? for jews engaged in jewish-christian relations today, anti-christian texts, especially those in authoritative literature like the babylonian talmud, must be counted among our “difficult texts.” schäfer’s volume does not diminish the difficulty of these passages; indeed, it highlights the degree to which they deliberately slander the holiest elements of the christian sacred narrative. but schäfer does offer us a context in which to understand the composition of these narratives and their introduction into the talmud. these texts become a jewish contribution to a mutual polemic, one that increasingly carried real and dangerous consequences for jews as christianity became the dominant religion of the west. schäfer, jesus in the talmud r15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review gerry wheaton the role of jewish feasts in john’s gospel (snts.ms 162, cambridge: cambridge university press, 2015), hardcover, ix + 223 pp. luc devillers, university of fribourg according to gerry wheaton, a new testament scholar who teaches in costa rica and massachusetts, the jewish feasts in the fourth gospel have not attracted much scholarly attention. many scholars devote a few pages to them, but only two have devoted an entire book to them: gale a. yee (jewish feasts and the gospel of john. wilmington: michael glazier, 1989) and michael a. daise (feasts in john: jewish festivals and the jesus’ “hour” in the fourth gospel. tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2007). there is still much to say about the jewish feasts in john, and the study by wheaton provides some valuable new insights. having read this book with interest, i can recommend it. wheaton focuses on the role of the jewish feasts in john: the three passover festivals (2:12; 6:4; 11:55); tabernacles (7:2), and the dedication (10:22). john is the only gospel to mention the last two. after reviewing the previous scholarship in his introduction, wheaton devotes a long chapter to hotbutton issues, such as the johannine vision of judaism and the “jews,” considering (quite originally) john 2-4 (pp. 13-82). he asserts convincingly that “jesus nowhere manifests a negative or judgmental attitude toward any facet of jewish religion,” and that “granted the symbolism ascribed to many events and institutions of israel in the fourth gospel, nothing in the text represents this symbolism as imperfect, still less as having failed in any way” (p. 32). for john, jesus is “the goal and fulfillment of the great salvation of god expected by [the] scriptures” (p. 34). the role of john 2-4 is of great value and studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 10 (2015) should not be undermined. these chapters present the relationship between jesus and judaism, already summarized in john 1:16-17 by “the ‘grace instead of grace’ conceptual framework” (p. 79): “for john, the institutions of contemporary judaism represented living prophecies that jesus entered into and brought to consummation … [t]he language of ‘fulfillment’ more precisely represents the relationship between judaism and jesus” (pp. 80, 82; wheaton’s italics). wheaton analyzes the three festivals in the same perspective, even if he knows that the dedication was not a pilgrimage feast, as passover and tabernacles were. he clearly gives the priority to passover, to which he devotes 40 pages, compared with 30 for tabernacles and 20 for the dedication. for john, he says, the sacrifice of the paschal lamb is not atonement for sin but a condition for access to the eschatological meal. as a paschal lamb is eaten by all of israel in the jewish passover, the feeding by jesus of the galilean crowd, the gathering of the remains of the meal, and jesus’ self-designation as the true bread of life (john 6), have an eschatological insight. this is an interesting new approach. as he did for passover, john makes tabernacles a preparatory step toward the fulfillment of israel’s hope; once more, “jesus does not set aside the various ceremonies associated with the feast” but reveals “their eschatological enactment in his very person and work” (p. 158). the dedication shows the unicity of the true god, and john affirms that jesus is not blasphemous but shares in the identity of israel’s god (pp. 181-82). after a study of each festival, wheaton briefly summarizes his findings (pp. 183-88). convincingly, he argues that the destruction of the temple had a great influence “on the shape and goals of the gospel of john” (p. 188). this book is very stimulating, but there are flaws as well. typographically, french and german quotations are often misspelled, as well as those in greek and hebrew. more important, some exegetical aspects of the “jews” in john, and of the role of tabernacles, need discussion. wheaton quotes my book la saga de siloé (paris: les editions du cerf, 2005) but studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr apparently without noticing that it was the popularized version of a large study on tabernacles in john, la fête de l’envoyé (paris: gabalda, 2002), where i devoted 150 pages to the issue of the johannine “jews” and emphasized the role of tabernacles in john. for example, wheaton limits the influence of tabernacles to john 7-8, instead of reading john 9:1-10:21 in the same liturgical context. this large “tabernacles section” gives more sense to the reminder by jesus (john 9:5) of his own words on the light of the world (john 8:12). it creates also a link between the ritual of the sprinkling of the altar evoked by john 7:38—as wheaton stresses it quite conclusively—and the mention of the pool of siloam in john 9:7, 11, since the water poured upon the altar was drawn at siloam. wheaton underestimates the weight of tabernacles, the most joyful and popular festival in jesus’ time according to josephus. moreover, he does not note that the liturgy of the dedication was duplicated in that of tabernacles (see 2 maccabees 10:6), so that the new feast was sometimes called “the feast of the tabernacles of the month of chislev” (2 maccabees 1:9). the pericope of dedication (john 10:22-39) and the section on tabernacles share in the same discussion between the “jews”--i.e., the jewish authorities--and jesus. further, wheaton mentions in his bibliography the book by j. l. martyn, history and theology of the fourth gospel (new york: harper & row, 1968), but never quotes it. even if martyn’s thesis about reading john at two levels—the times of the historical jesus and of the johannine communities—is to be nuanced, it remains stimulating and should have been included in wheaton’s discussions. despite some weakness, wheaton’s book is a welcome contribution to an important but largely neglected area of research. the lifting of the excommunications of bishops ordained by archbishop marcel lefebvre studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): sju panel cp 1 conference proceeding the lifting of the excommunications of bishops ordained by archbishop marcel lefebvre: a briefing and panel discussion philip a. cunningham, director, institute for jewish-catholic relations, sju michael j. carroll, director, office of ecumenical and interreligious affairs, archdiocese of philadelphia alan iser, executive committee, philadelphia board of rabbis; adjunct instructor, sju and villanova presented at st. joseph’s university, philadelphia, pa, february 3, 2009 on january 21, 2009, pope benedict xvi lifted the excommunications of four bishops who had been ordained by archbishop marcel lefebvre, founder of the society of saint pius x (sspx). these 1988 ordinations violated a papal prohibition, resulting in the excommunications of all involved. the sspx rejects the ecumenical and interreligious outreach of the second vatican council, which it believes contradicts catholic "tradition." it had requested the lifting of the excommunications, but had not renounced its rejection of the council. one of the four bishops, richard williamson, gave an interview in which he denied that the shoah (holocaust) had resulted in the deaths of six million jews in gas chambers. this added to the controversy over the pope's action, which for some called into question his commitment to a vigorous implementation of the second vatican council declaration, nostra aetate. rabbinical bodies in several countries, including israel, germany, and italy, have withdrawn from scheduled events with the catholic church. to update the st. joseph’s university community on these developments, the institute for jewish-catholic relations at st. joseph’s university in philadelphia, pa sponsored this panel discussion to explore the controversy. video presentation: http://rehost.sju.edu/ramgen/sjuevents/jewishcathfeb3.rm powerpoint presentation: http://www.sju.edu/academics/centers/ijcr/pdf/spxx.pdf sju panel, lifting excommunications sju panel cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 http://rehost.sju.edu/ramgen/sjuevents/jewishcathfeb3.rm http://www.sju.edu/academics/centers/ijcr/pdf/spxx.pdf 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-2 susan katz miller being both: embracing two religions in one interfaith family (boston: beacon press, 2013), hardcover, xvii + 246 pp. magdalena dziaczkowska dziaczkowska@gmail.com hochschule für jüdische studien heidelberg, 69117 heidelberg, germany in being both, journalist susan katz miller advocates for and studies a grassroots movement of interfaith families in the united states who choose to raise their children in both the jewish and christian religions. the book is sometimes apologetic, and mainly focuses on highlighting the positive facets of a dual-faith upbringing. however, the author’s point is supported by her deep knowledge of the movement due to her long engagement and lasting acquaintance with many such communities across the country. she also uses hard data collected from surveys and interviews of both parents and children who took part in dual-faith educational programs. miller challenges oft-raised objections to dual-faith upbringing, arguing that it is possible to celebrate both religions and traditions without diminishing either. she argues that this type of education enriches and benefits children raised in interfaith communities with dual-faith education. what distinguishes this publication from the many other books which stress the challenges of intermarriage and of raising children in interfaith families is that while it is written from a very personal perspective (katz was an interfaith child and is now an intermarried parent), it is not only composed of personal stories. it also has a solid basis in her field study of a large group of parents who decided to raise their children in both religions as well as with teenagers and young adults who underwent such an education. this data offer a way of measuring the effects of dual-faith education on religious identity, demonstrating its positive effects on family life and link to fulfilling future religious engagement. this study is unique in that this work was written to some extent on behalf of interfaith communities in order to present the movement to a wider audience, to advocate for them, and to dispel many widespread misconceptions about interfaith families and dual-faith religious education. at the same time, the author presents a very large spectrum of ways to live both religions, from religious to secular approaches. although she makes her own choices clear, she avoids judging others. in addition, the reader becomes familiar with the main models of interfaith communities and dual-faith education across the country. dziaczkowska: susan katz miller’s being both 2 the book contains eleven chapters dealing with interfaith families and dual faith-education. however, it starts autobiographically, with the author’s personal motivations and story. she was born to a jewish mother and a christian father and chose to be jewish. she is now married to a christian man, and they are raising their children in observance of both families’ religions. she then presents a short history of the grassroots movement of interfaith families. in the following chapters, the author discusses the reasons for and benefits of “choosing both,” while also presenting and responding to the challenges faced by interfaith families. after giving her own reflections on this topic, miller gives further substance to her words by sharing numerous personal stories from intermarried parents involved in the study, as well as from jewish and christian clergy who serve interfaith communities. subsequently, readers become familiar with descriptions and explanations of the major celebrations in the interfaith community and are also presented with a brief overview of interfaith curricula in dual-faith education programs. interestingly, miller also traces the beliefs and religious choices of interfaith adults based on a survey she administered to teenage and young adult graduates of these programs. in her discussion, she poses questions about the role of the young generation in building an open, modern society. she also points to the expected growth in interfaith families that will include hindus, buddhists, and muslims, a trend that is not the main topic of the book but is closely related to it. thanks to the author’s experience as a reporter, being both delivers a very well-written, engaging discourse on the issue of raising children who observe both christianity and judaism. her remarks on boundary-transcending practices and beliefs might make this book suitable not only for intermarried jews and christians and their families, but also for those affiliated with other faiths. it offers practical insights into dual-faith education and its origins. moreover, it is useful for future discussions, as the interfaith movement—and thus the need for educational support for parents who wish to raise their children in two religions— is growing. some of the strongest points of this book are its clear structure and the interviews and surveys with a considerable number of parents and children from interfaith families. the only major weakness of this work might be its overly enthusiastic support for this model of interfaith families and the dual-faith educational programs designed for them. while challenges are also mentioned, they are generally minimized, and cast as a broader social refusal either to accept or to understand such choices. however, the positive tone is understandable given public resistance. additionally, the hard data from the author’s research buttresses her positive views. this book will be helpful for general readers interested in the movement and also for researchers. while not an academic study, being both is a serious book introducing the ideas of dual-faith education and describing the reality of the movement of interfaith families. 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-4 david stern, christoph markschies, and sarit shalev-eyni, eds. the monk’s haggadah: a fifteenth-century illuminated codex from the monastery of tegernsee, with a prologue by friar erhard von pappenheim (university park, pa: the pennsylvania state university press, 2015), hardcover, xii + 199 pp. mitchell merback merback@jhu.edu johns hopkins university, baltimore, md 21218 the close kinship between passover and easter, each a ritual meal commemorating a people’s deliverance, has never been good for jewish-christian relations. during the middle ages, long periods of coexistence brought shared symbols into a kind of mutual antagonism as well as influence, while regular convergences of the julian-gregorian and jewish calendars kept bringing the holidays into a tense proximity, fanning suspicions and often sparking christian antijewish violence. it was this historical and religious affiliation of the two holidays that was foremost in the mind of erhard von pappenheim, a south german dominican, when, sometime between 1490 and 1492, he sat down to pen a most unusual treatise: a christian explication of the passover haggadah. the small tractate in the form of a prologue, preserved in autograph and in one manuscript copy, was written at the behest of konrad v. ayrinschmalz, abbot of the benedictine monastery of st. quirinus at tegernsee (upper bavaria), who had recently come into possession of the illuminated haggadah which survives today in the bavarian state library in munich. the prologue is a remarkable document. taking his readers on a virtual tour through the haggadah, erhard produced something like the first “ethnographic” account of the seder meal, its prayers, its ritual customs, and its symbolic foods. that he did so largely on the basis of his own translation of the tegernsee manuscript (which he annotated in latin along the way) is impressive enough; unlike many christian hebraists of his era, erhard’s hebrew literacy was deep, and his description of the seder is remarkably accurate. to corroborate his descriptions of key aspects of the ritual, such as the preparatory search for leaven (bedikat hametz), erhard supplied information gleaned from late medieval jewish books of merback: stern, markschies, and shalev-eyni’s the monk’s haggadah 2 customs (sifrei minhagim). for other, more arcane areas of jewish custom, he turned to a very different source: the recorded “confessions” of jewish suspects in the ritual murder trial of simon of trent (1475), the proceedings of which, the friar explains, he translated “into our vernacular language” (p. 116). with no apparent skepticism, erhard describes how the head of the household sprinkles the blood of christian infants into the six unleavened cakes made before passover, using “more or fewer drops, depending on how much [blood] he has . . . even though, they say, a single drop will suffice” (p. 116). christian blood, he reports, is also added to the wine for the kiddush, where the blessing is accompanied by a declaration, “this is the blood of a christian child” (p. 118). the chanting of the dayenu incorporates the same blood-infused wine, we are told, sprinkled out of the chalice, drop by drop, during the invocation of the ten plagues (p. 119). to the modern reader’s surprise, erhard is not set on demonizing the jews or the passover rite. only at the conclusion of his prologue does the friar turn polemical, sharply separating the seder and the eucharistic meal of the mass (likewise the latter’s biblical archetype, jesus’s parting supper in the cenaculum). striking though the similarities are, erhard explains, “there is the utmost difference in the thing itself, in the intention, in its effect and its meaning. for they [the jews] seek the shadow in the material thing; revenge in its intention; useless busyness in its effect; and the temporary deliverance from egypt as its meaning . . . we, however, in the holy church . . . symbolize the sweetness of the eternal banquet of the heavenly homeland above . . . truly we taste it beforehand” (p. 128). judged solely by this final argument, or by his resort to long-standing tropes of theological anti-judaism, not to mention his willingness to credit confessions about jewish ritual cannibalism extracted under torture, erhard von pappenheim would seem to be in the same league as hardened polemical opponents of judaism such as petrus nigri (1434-84), the dominican controversialist with whom erhard presumably collaborated during the trent trials; or those early sixteenth-century jewish converts to christianity who agitated for the destruction of jewish books while providing expert “testimony” to the perfidy of the jews, such as victor von carben (1442-1515), johannes pfefferkorn (d. 1523), and anthonius margaritha (b. c. 1500). yet much more than genre sets erhard apart from them. persecutory thinking and mythmaking are absent from his account. though he evinces belief in the blood libel, he does not speculate about jewish superstitions (e.g., about the magical efficacy of blood); and when all is said and done, he professes no special interest in the conversion of the jews. as a christian hebraist whose primary focus is neither the bible nor kabbala, erhard defies easy categorization. as david stern remarks, the prologue’s author “appears to be an unusual figure” (p. 86). offering a nuanced understanding of this unusual figure—and the peculiar character of his little ethnography of passover—is but one of the signal accomplishments of the monk's haggadah, a beautifully produced critical edition of codex hebraicus monacensis 200, with illuminating essays by two historians, david stern (harvard university) and christoph markschies (humboldt university), and one art historian, sarit shalev-eyni (hebrew university). another accomplishment is its comprehensive presentation of the tegernsee manuscript 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) itself. dateable to the 1470s or 1480s, the book has long been known to experts for its high-quality calligraphy and crisp, colorful miniatures. in overall appearance it is a typical production of south german or austrian scribes and illuminators, but shalev-eyni’s exemplary codicological analysis of the manuscript, its stages of production, and its iconographic program points toward a very different conclusion. her contribution details the book’s many expected parallels with other haggadahs from this same region and period, comparisons that reveal an undisputable core authenticity. and yet the book also displays several striking deviations from the norm, iconographic eccentricities without comparison in the whole known corpus of medieval haggadot. first among these is an enthroned, bearded figure wielding a sword overhead on folio 17r, a portrayal which replaces the divine “outstretched arm” traditionally used to illustrate deuteronomy 26:8. second is the appearance of a christ-like messiah figure galloping toward jerusalem’s open city gate upon a white horse, rather than the traditional donkey, set in the bas-de-page of the shefokh page, where it illustrates psalm 79:6 (“pour out your wrath . . .”). two additional motifs that, in shalev-eyni’s estimation, “convey clear christian associations” are a seated figure in a jewish hat on the kiddush page, making a gesture of eucharistic benediction over the chalice, and a bearded man who makes the same gesture over an unleavened loaf, set alongside the initial ha (“this”) which begins the phrase, “this is the bread of affliction” (p. 41). what to make of this “seemingly jewish haggadah with a hidden christian subtext,” as stern puts it (p. 17)? did the book begin as an authentic haggadah made for a jewish patron, and then later undergo modification for a new owner? or might it have been conceived from the start as a christian hebraist fiction, a cultural curiosity meant for display as a relic of ossified jewish culture? what constellation of interests produced this hybrid, an “authentic haggadah meant for christians, not jews . . . a monk’s haggadah”? (ibid). all three authors recognize that the manuscript and erhard’s prologue offer only so much internal evidence—enough to prompt the question but never to answer it. answers are sought, instead, in the tangle of circumstances that carried the book from its putative first (jewish?) owner(s) to the man who gifted it to the monastery, paulus wann (d. 1489). though the actual space devoted to him in these pages is slender, wann emerges as a prime suspect—a religious official with the means, opportunity, and motive to get hold of such a book. educated at the university of vienna (as erhard was), wann later become a member of its theological faculty and was also active as a book dealer. he had just been appointed canonical preacher at passau cathedral when several men—four jews and their christian accomplice-turned-accuser—were implicated in a conspiracy to steal and desecrate the host. this affair resulted in torture-executions, coerced baptisms, an expulsion, and the razing of jewish houses and the synagogue, where a pilgrimage shrine to the holy savior (salvatorkirche) was then established by bishop ulrich von nußdorf on august 16, 1479. not only was wann a close associate of ulrich at the time, but in his sermons he had agitated against usury and, by implication, the jewish presence in the city. to say, then, as markschies does in his crisp historical essay, that the passau host-affair “may merback: stern, markschies, and shalev-eyni’s the monk’s haggadah 4 have aroused [wann’s] interest in the jewish ritual of passover and its book” is something of an understatement (p. 64). by all indications wann acquired the haggadah during the persecution of the jewish community, and very possibly, as shalev-eyni suggests, in an unfinished state. were other hands afterward involved in remaking the book in its new owner’s image, or in preparing it for its new life as tegernsee judaica? this, alas, is where the trail of evidence ends. collaboration is a word that captures the happy intercourse of scholars who bring differing forms of expertise to bear on a common problem. likewise, it can describe the cooperation of scribes, rubricators, vocalizers, illuminators, and book-binders in the production of a manuscript, or the interpretive exchanges carried on between readers, commentators, editors, and collectors. stern extolls the virtues of collaboration in his lively introduction, and the monk’s haggadah is a shining vindication of this model of collective scholarship. but collaborator is also a dirty word, evoking treachery and complicity. however the book landed in wann’s possession—ethno-curiosity, supersessionist thinking, or antiquarian desire—it seems fair to consider the monk’s haggadah as a spoil, and its adaptive reuse by its christian owners a kind of occupation—a “cultural transfer” enabled not by cooperation but by persecution. the accusations, trials, executions, and expulsions that rippled through the jewish communities of the imperial south in the closing decades of the fifteenth century were in many ways the culmination of habsburg efforts to clear its territories of jews, starting with the so-called wiener geserah of 1420-21. they had the support of the viennese theologians, whose extended circle included all the men mentioned above. that persecution was thinly justified by a host-theft affair (in enns) that may have provided the model for passau’s. the editors have dedicated the monk’s haggadah to the memory of wann, “without whom neither the codex nor this book would exist” (frontleaf). in light of this lamentable history, this will strike some readers as an odd choice. misgivings about the way expropriations, thefts, violences, and conquests deliver cultural artefacts into our possession should never divert the historian’s effort to understand them on their own terms, of course. as an object of singular historical and art-historical significance, the tegernsee haggadah is richly served by this intelligent and handsome volume, in which it is published for the first time. the three principle essays are followed by four valuable appendices: a full codicological description of the manuscript (by shalev-eyni), the text of erhard’s latin prologue (edited by markschies), an english translation of the prologue (by erik koeneke and stern), the text of the haggadah as it appears in cod. hebr. 200 (translated by stern), and a gorgeous set of color plates that effectively make the book a facsimile. scholarly notes are extensive, up-to-date, and richly informative, a boon to future researchers in jewish-christian relations, european religious and intellectual history, medieval studies, art history, iconography, and codicology. does the church 'get' the holocaust? a response to kevin madigan studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): brill cp1-9 brill, does the church “get” the holocaust? brill cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 does the church ‘get’ the holocaust? a response to kevin madigan’s has the papacy ‘owned’ vatican guilt for the church’s role in the holocaust? a l a n b r i l l s e t o n h a l l u n i v e r s i t y presented at the annual meeting of the council of centers on jewish‐christian relations  november 1, 2009, florida atlantic university, boca raton, florida  thank you professor madigan, for a wonderful paper. i am more of a theologian than a historian. even when thinking about history, i think of the history of ideas and of memory. furthermore, i am coming from a jewish perspective. yes, i am positive about the church’s gestures and i think that the vatican does, indeed, understand the holocaust and i do think they are deeply committed to reconciliation. there are, however, some jewish perspectives that the church does not “get.” the first relates to how the history of patristic, medieval, and early modern anti-judaism led to the holocaust. for example, on page five of his classic work the destruction of european jewry, raul hilberg, lists twenty-two conciliar decrees─including the decree on the badge─that were directly used by the nazis. the church has neither acknowledged nor worked through this history of antisemitism. while this teaching of contempt has been a sincere motivation for reconciliation, the details of the lachrymose history have not been discussed.1 second, when john paul ii visited auschwitz, a catholic commentator noted that “he courteously refrained from interpreting that the jewish people had suffered in terms of christian redemptive categories.” but his talk did not sound this way to jewish ears. at auschwitz the pope stated: i kneel before all the inscriptions that come one after another bearing the memory of the victims, before the inscription in hebrew. this inscription awakens the memory of the people whose sons and daughters were intended for total extermination. this people draws its origin from abraham, our father in faith, as was expressed by saul of tarsus. his memorial at auschwitz focused on the abrahamic connection to saul of tarsus. as the author peter manseau noted: “it was not the first time, and it would not be the last, that a christian tried to understand jewish suffering on christian terms.”2 1 raul hilberg, the destruction of the european jews. (new haven yale university press, 2003). 2 peter manseau, “catholics and the shoah: appropriating the suffering of others” commonweal (march 13, 2009) volume 136: 5. http://www. commonwealmagazine.org/catholics-shoah-0 (accessed oct 26, 2009). see also avery dulles, leon klenicki, and edward idris cassidy, the holocaust, never to be forgotten: reflections on the holy see's document "we remember." studies in judaism and christianity. (new york: paulist press, 2001); john paul ii, “the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of the prisoners of the auschwitz-birkenau death camp.” www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/pont_messages/2005/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_20050127 _auschwitz-birkenau_en.html (accessed october 26, 2009). conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): brill cp1-9 brill, does the church “get” the holocaust? brill cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 another example: when benedict xvi visited auschwitz in 2006, the prayer service he led began with the words “my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?” these words from the psalms in the hebrew bible are familiar to jews. yet, the pope invoked these words because christians hear this same verse as the words cried out by jesus on the cross before he died. in speaking of the nazis, the pope stated “by destroying israel, they ultimately wanted to tear up the taproot of the christian faith.” in acknowledging history there is the tendency to see one’s own theology being played out at every turn. emmanuel levinas cautions that most jewish theology does not consider suffering redemptive.3 a third observation: while speaking about the holocaust in the year 2000, on the anniversary of the outbreak of world war ii, pope john paul ii said that there were “sins committed by not a few of their numbers against the people of the covenant and the blessing.” the pope mentioned the generic “throngs of innocents,” but did not specifically mention jews. if one attends an event such as a holocaust memorial to honor jewish memory, then one should not merely speak of the eternal problem of evil. one should specifically mention jews, and mention them as exterminated during the course of wwii.4 a fourth observation concerns the fact that reconciliation is not teshuvah. in 2001-2002 the differences between teshuvah and reconciliation were still being discussed by jews and christians. most of the papers at that time pointed out that in judaism teshuvah, unlike reconciliation before god, is actually a full confession to the one that you hurt. it involves regret and a resolve for the future. repentance is called for if the hurt of the jewish community caused by antisemitism is to be healed.5 i now turn to the paper of professor madigan. basically i agree with his conclusions that the european episcopal statements were considered a success, but we remember was not.6 however, i agree for different reasons. for me it comes down to history versus memory. 3 pope benedict, “pope's message at auschwitz” also called “pope benedict's 2006 message at auschwitz-birkenau” http://www.zenit.org/article-16150?l=english (accessed oct, 26, 2009); emmanuel levinas, difficult freedom: essays on judaism. (baltimore: johns hopkins university press, 1990). passim. 4 "service requesting pardon," origins (march 12, 2000):40; (march 23, 2000): 648. 5 see edward cassidy, “the future of jewish-christian relations in light of the visit of pope john paul ii to the holy land,” common knowledge 8.1 (2002) 10-19; michael a. signer, “can jews trust catholics? a rabbi looks forward” commonweal 128 (january 12, 2001): 12. 6 before commenting on prof madigan’s paper i consulted: robert s. wistrich, "the vatican documents and the holocaust: a personal report," in antony polonsky, ed., polin: studies in polish jewry (oxford: oxford university press, 2002), 413-443; idem, “reassessing pope pius xii’s attitudes toward the holocaust,” jcpa 89, november 1, 2009. www.jcpa.org/jcpa/templates/showpage.asp?drit=3&dbid=1&lngid=1&tmid=111&fid=624.&pid=0&iid =3108&ttl=reassessing_pope_pius_xii (accessed october, 24, 2009); michael marrus, “pius xii and the holocaust: ten essential themes” in carol rittner and john k. roth. pope pius xii and the holocaust. (london: leicester university press, 2002) 43-55; idem, “a plea unanswered : jacques maritain, pope pius xii, and the holocaust,” studies in contemporary jewry 21 (2005): 3-11; idem, “understanding the vatican during the nazi period” carol rittner, stephen d. smith, irena steinfeldt and yehuda bauer. the holocaust and the christian world: reflections on the past, challenges for the future. (london: yad vashem, 2000): 126-129; michael phayer, the catholic church and the holocaust (bloomington, in: indiana university press, 2000). finally, i discussed my talk with john morley, author of vatican diplomacy and the jews during the holocaust, 1939-1943 (new york: ktav 1980); “pope pius xii in historical context” in judith h. banki and john pawlikowski, eds., ethics in the shadow of the holocaust: christian and jewish perspectives, franklin, wi: sheed & ward, 2001, 133-162. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): brill cp1-9 brill, does the church “get” the holocaust? brill cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 professor madigan deals with the history of the holocaust while jews are dealing with the memory of the holocaust. when jews are disappointed, their disappointment is related to memory.7 i wish to offer a few considerations about memory: 1. the early leaders of the state of israel spoke positively about pius xii because no one had expected anything at all from him. jews assumed the church was antisemitic and they assumed that the holocaust was perpetrated by christians. therefore, they did not expect that the church would do anything to save the plight of the jews during the holocaust. so, any saving of jews was a good thing in the eyes of early leaders. yes, this was politically expedient, but it actually showed that the expectations had been very low. jewish reactions to the deputy in the 1960s vividly reveal how little they expected. in 1960 golda meir and others would have seen any help as a good thing, especially from a religion which they saw as hostile to jews. (i will return to this later when i discuss what antisemitism means in a given era.) in citing the letter from slovakian jews to the pope madigan characterized their perception of the church as the “safest refuge” as ironic. but it was not ironic. it was, rather, a desperate appeal to a european monarch. jews have always turned to monarchs and clergy for help in the past. similar letters were sent to the czar in the nineteenth century, and even in 1933 there were letters by the agudas yisrael to the nazi party. i am not implying that the letters are prove that the jews were helped; however, madigan’s characterization of irony may not be a good rhetorical device for unfolding the attitudes of that era. 2. madigan’s presentation quotes many of the reactions to we remember─some of them written by people here in this room. but while questioning whether the reviews or reactions were positive or negative he failed to observe that many of the reactions were couched in caveats and visions for the future. for example, some of the positive reactions held expectations of forthcoming papal statements on the crusades and jan huss, statements which would deal with the problem of medieval antisemitism. we remember, unfortunately, had not dealt with this at all. many respondents, expecting further developments later, were relatively satisfied with we remember in 1999 or 2000. but as the decade wore on there was an increasing gnawing awareness that more needed to be done. this was evident in james rudin’s rejection of dabru emet, a rejection based on the unresolved issue of the church and the holocaust. the expectation had been that the church’s acknowledgment of the holocaust and antisemitism would be a process continuing over several years─not a short opening that was quickly resolved. in his presentation madigan drew on op-eds and brief responses to we remember, but he did not consider the longer theological reflections of irving (yitz) greenberg, avery dulles, and john pawlikowski. these were more than merely positive or negative. they were less about whether the document understood history correctly, and more about what theology calls for in the process of reconciliation. this is a more subtle task, and that is why we are still discussing it here today.8 7 see paul ricoeur, memory, history, forgetting (chicago: university of chicago, 2004); dominick lacapra, history and memory after auschwitz (ithaca: cornell university press, 1998). 8 see judith banki and john pawlikowski, eds., ethics in the shadow of the holocaust: christian and jewish perspectives. (franklin, wi: sheed & ward, 2001). see also avery dulles,, leon klenicki, and edward idris cassidy, eds., the holocaust, never to be forgotten: reflections on the holy see's document "we remember" (new york: paulist press, 2001). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): brill cp1-9 brill, does the church “get” the holocaust? brill cp 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 3. while the french bishops’ letter was an acknowledgement of the holocaust, a fuller picture of french theological literature is more complex. this is apparent when we turn, for example, to the writings of cardinal lustiger from the same period. lustiger writes about his attempt to come to grips with antisemitism. “christians have opened their eyes to jewish pain,” requiring an examination of conscience about their role in fostering a culture of antisemitism. but, his noble conclusion after the examination is that there cannot be such a thing as christian antisemitism. any reading of christianity which includes a need for the persecution and punishment of israel is simply a misreading of christianity. when a journalist posed questions such as: didn’t antisemitism take shape in the patristic period? are not the church’s teachings on judaism teachings of contempt and degradation? was not the church responsible for ritual murder, segregation, the badge, and the myth of the wandering jew? lustiger answered: “history and sociology may support your opinion, but it is not true from the point of view of faith and theology.” his position held that judaism and christianity are theologically connected and therefore there cannot be enmity between them. nevertheless, basing his observation on the idealized church, he stated that the europeans, as inheritors of christian culture, cannot be absolved of their historical actions. this is reflected in the french bishops’ letter. lustiger asks: how can christianity come to terms with the animosity of the past? one of his answers is that christians maintained a pagan mentality. for him a christianity not grounded in judaism reverts back to mythology, violence, and idolatry of the self. for lustiger the shoah is the mystery of lawlessness (2 thess 2:7). the nations need repentance and a return to the church. he gives a universal answer: french catholics during the war had reverted to paganism. he asks: how can christian compliance with the holocaust exist? he responds that the immense tremendum of the holocaust fulfills the typology of the suffering servant of isaiah 53, the suffering of the messiah. the people of israel are the bearers of revelation about humanity’s need for goodness and dignity. as the suffering servants during the holocaust they revealed humanity’s need for redemption. but from a jewish point of view this theological interpretation, in the light of faith, of the murder of six million jews as messianic suffering, obliterates the unique elements of the extermination camps with their horrific forms of degradation.9 4. in his presentation professor madigan tends to judge everyone─past and present─by current standards. in this example of historical presentism we see him applying present-day norms to a moving standard. robert caro, in his detailed study of lyndon johnson and his slow change from a natural southern racist to a civil rights proponent, illustrates that change developed slowly and in a zig-zag manner. studies of jerry falwell and pat robinson on race also reveal a process of slow change, so that at the end of their lives their movements could say the gospel was never racist, but always integrated. how would robert caro approach the situation we are addressing today? how can we achieve a thicker description? what is antisemitism for a given age? how did its expression change from the 1920s to today? (here we might also take note of some private statements by truman and nixon─statements which were not considered extreme in their day.) we cannot judge past representatives of the church by today’s standards. during the nazi era there was a wide range of anti-jewish attitudes and actions within the church. to perceive jews as bolshevists was somewhat the norm, and it was especially relevant in the 1930s and 40s when a framework for vatican decision-making was its fight against liberalism and socialism. 9 quotations from cardinal jean-marie lustiger on christians and jews. edited by jean duchesne (mahwah nj: paulist press, forthcoming). these paragraphs are based on my epilogue to this volume. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): brill cp1-9 brill, does the church “get” the holocaust? brill cp 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 the church had little sympathy for poles, communists, and eastern europeans.10 furthermore, theological exclusivism at that time was not considered anti-jewish or antisemitic. fulfillment schemes, missionizing, or the rejection of dialogue may not be perceived as antisemitic in every given situation. unfortunately, willful ignorance is part of modern life. we currently live in a world willfully ignorant of its many atrocities.11 must one be a progressive by contemporary standards on all issues? in the 1950s, some liberal catholics thought that jews, overwhelmed by the holocaust, would to convert to christianity. we can learn from monsignor john oesterreicher’s slow journey in the 1950s and 60s─from a stance of mission to the jews, to acceptance, and then to assisting in the formulation of vatican ii’s nostra aetate. even though the church resisted interfaith dialogue, john oesterreicher and karl thieme were part of the freiberg circle which engaged in theological dialogue with jews in the 1940s. its hidden agenda, however, was conversion. in 1948 both martin buber and theodore adorno wrote to thieme that the goal of conversion with its concurrent devaluation of judaism is one of the reasons that antisemitism exists. thieme changed his ideas at that time, but it took monsignor oesterreicher more than a decade to catch up to his colleague.12 one has to contextualize the views of pope pius xii, especially his disinterest in poland, his neglect of polish catholics, and his view of communism as the true enemy. susannah heschel sees aiding nazis after the war as the most damning condemnation of the church. however, post-wwii saw a rapid shift to fighting communism in europe. the state department in the united states also shifted to helping nazis since communism was considered the major enemy. at that time the destruction of european jewry was low on pope pius’s list of priorities, as it was low for roosevelt, patton, churchill, and most of the allies. more damning is what happened before the war. in considering this i turn again to the theological. i rely, as well, on the research of elias fullenbach.13 a 1938 memorandum by karl thieme, john oesterreicher and others included the statement that christians are spiritual semites. it also insisted that there needed to be service to the jews who were being discriminated against in nazi germany. more importantly, they encouraged the writing of a papal encyclical against antisemitism. such an encyclical was drafted under pope pius xi, but it did not appear when pius xii became pope. after the war pope pius xii did not support efforts for dialogue. when asked to change the good friday prayer, he refused. pope john xxiii, however, understanding the issue changed the good friday prayer even prior to vatican council ii. another example of slow change is that of romano guardini who, in 1919, wrote the influential spirit of the liturgy. he was anti-jewish before wwii, but in may 1952 he wrote an essay stating that the german people need to accept responsibility for auschwitz and seek reconciliation with the jewish people. we remember did this but it took the vatican over forty more years. i now turn to madigan’s coda on pope benedict. i disagree with his perception that pope benedict is harmful. pope benedict’s prime concerns are pastoral and theological. he “gets” the meaning of the holocaust. the problem is that he does not “get” the jewish memory of the holo 10 on this point, see antisemitism, christian ambivalence, and the holocaust, kevin p. spicer, ed. (bloomington: indiana university press, 2007). 11 see zygmunt bauman, modernity and the holocaust (ithaca, n.y.: cornell university press, 1989). 12 see elias fullenbach, “shock, renewal, crisis: catholic reflections on the shoah,” in antisemitism, christian ambivalence, and the holocaust, 20, 236. 13 ibid. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): brill cp1-9 brill, does the church “get” the holocaust? brill cp 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 caust. pope benedict has been to israel at least five different times, while pope john paul ii visited only once. pope benedict has visited a synagogue on three occasions, while pope john paul ii visited a synagogue only once. pope benedict has visited auschwitz three different times, but he never delivered a great speech. he does understand the holocaust, he wants to eradicate antisemitism, and he sincerely wants reconciliation with judaism. he is deeply committed to this. but publicly he is not always an effective politician. he mainly acts as a theologian, which gives him a tin ear for the needs of the moment. for example, when he visited auschwitz in 2006, he began the prayer service which he led with the words, “my god, my god, why have you forsaken me? israel is raised to god through suffering─they tried to kill the god of abraham.” the jewish audience was not very responsive to this prayer which used the psalm uttered by jesus on the cross, which made suffering redemptive, and which spoke of judaism as abrahamic. in continuity with john paul ii, benedict xvi accords to the holocaust of the jews a special status that is not to be linked to the other causalities of wwii. he understands the special nature of the holocaust of the jews. but his contextualization of the holocaust is the problem. most of the time pope benedict’s holocaust messages are either theologically christian or universal. his approach to reconciliation is based on the christian theological perspective of an abrahamic covenant and the eternal problem of evil. he does not consider the post-holocaust need of the hour.14 however, in february 2009 after the williamson fiasco he did get it right in his speech to the conference of presidents of major jewish organizations. he stated clearly, using words his jewish audience could receive: “it is beyond question that the holocaust cannot be denied or minimized.” he quoted john paul ii’s note placed in the western wall apologizing for antisemitism and seeking forgiveness. god of our fathers, you chose abraham and his descendants to bring your name to the nations: we are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the covenant. at that meeting he even went on to say that the 2000 years of history of the relationship between christians and jews have seen many different phases, some too painful to recall. at that moment he understood antisemitism. i would recommend that he give this speech whenever he is called on to speak to a jewish audience about the holocaust. furthermore, if the healing work is to start between the church and jews, the antisemitism prior to the holocaust that pope benedict found too painful to recall needs to be faithfully held in memory. as i was editing this presentation pope benedict offered his reflections on the year, which included his confrontation with the holocaust during his visit to yad vashem. this visit entailed a disturbing encounter with the cruelty of human sin, with the hatred of a blind ideology that, with 14 on john paul ii, see robert wistrich,, “john paul ii on jews and judaism,” partisan review (winter 2000): 100111; idem, “the vatican and the shoah” modern judaism 21.2 (2001) 83-107. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): brill cp1-9 brill, does the church “get” the holocaust? brill cp 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 out any justification, sentenced millions of human persons to death─and this, in the final analysis, also strove to drive god out of the world, the god of abraham, isaac, and jacob, and the god of jesus christ. so yad vashem, this commemorative monument against hatred, is first of all a heartrending call to purification, to forgiveness, and to love. once again pope benedict both universalized the tragedy and made it theological. he is sensitive to the importance of the holocaust and wants to honor holocaust memory by condemning hatred. yet he lacks a sense of the jewish memory of the tragedy and the message was another lost opportunity to convey a sense of personal remorse.15 that same day pope benedict declared pope pius xii venerable. benedict lauds pius for his piety, his fight against godless relativism, and for maintaining the institution of the church despite the politics around him. when benedict honors someone for their piety and leadership over an almost twenty-year reign as pope, he looks almost entirely to his theology and his activities internal to the church, not to his holocaust record. as noted above, pope pius xii’s wartime record was neither that of hero nor antisemite. pope benedict is naming a saint for his piety not for his rescue of jews. this act may not reveal a sensitivity to jewish pain; however one should not declare it hostile to jews, as whitewashing the past, or as undoing the church’s moral reckoning over the past several decades. finally, (and for some this may seem beside the point), in his theology pope benedict conceptualizes the holocaust using the critical theory of the frankfort school, especially that of theodore adorno and jürgen habermas. he speaks to the historikerstreit, occuring in the 1980s which debated the role of the holocaust in history. he sides with adorno and habermas against nolte and fest. but this discussion does not in any way respond to jewish memory. neither does his discussion of the holocaust in spe salvi (in hope we are saved) which asserts that the horrible injustices of history should not have the final word. there must finally be true justice. but that, in the words the pope quotes from adorno, would require a world “where not only present suffering would be wiped out, but also that which is irrevocably past would be undone.” this would mean the resurrection of the dead (no. 42). god now reveals his true face in the figure of the sufferer who shares man's god-forsaken condition by taking it upon himself. this innocent sufferer has attained the certitude of hope: there is a god, and god can create justice in a way that we cannot conceive, yet we can begin to grasp it through faith. yes, there is a resurrection of the flesh. (42-43) in benedict’s theological works on the christian meaning of modernity, especially as typified by the holocaust, his goal is to provide salvific hope before a rampant loss of values. jewish memory of the holocaust is not addressed. when pope benedict considers the theological issues of the holocaust he thinks of adorno’s question and the pastoral answer of crucifixion and resurrection. he does not think of recent jewish holocaust theologians. in this, pope benedict is similar to many orthodox jewish theologians, who are not interested in historicity or holocaust theology, and are more concerned with either the eternal values of the halakhah or the pastoral need to spread judaism. they hear a commanding voice from sinai and zion and not from auschwitz. thus, it would be unfair to ask benedict to adopt specific positions in holocaust theology or to place the jewish-christian relationship at the center of his theology. he is a pastoral leader for catholics, and he has a vision for their doctrinal, liturgical, and institutional needs. it is fair, however, to expect him to address the specific jewish memory of the holocaust 15 see sandro magister, "i think that the church should also open today a court of the gentiles" chiesa (dec. 21, 2009) http://www.chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1341494?eng=y (accessed jan 4, 2009). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): brill cp1-9 brill, does the church “get” the holocaust? brill cp 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 when he is speaking to a jewish audience at a jewish sponsored event, such as at yad vashem. i now want to turn for a moment to the jewish side. in doing so i draw on levinas who writes, “if you live only in a world of memory, you live in a world of anger and hate. jews are not done with their mourning over the holocaust.” they have not attained a distance from the facts, an acceptance without denial. jewish holocaust theologians themselves are not great historians and they find a uniqueness that transcends history. therefore, for them historical accuracy is not the primary concern. jews say that the holocaust cannot be compared to any other event in history, or even to another genocide. their sense of tremendum is not history but theology. the theologian and essayist arthur a. cohen, in his book on the impact of the holocaust, poignantly notes how before 1939 one could read the sad litany of pogroms, riots, and massacres and find it unremarkable and predictable. one could account for the events sociologically, historically, and psychologically and thereby provide context. cohen argues that after the death camps the past became illuminated by the present image of the mass killings. now, it is as if the small medieval riots naturally culminated in the tremendum of the holocaust. there now is a sense that the killing of six jews in an obscure medieval blood libel led to the holocaust.16 jonathan safran foer, in everything is illuminated, states that jews have a sixth sense, which is memory. he does not mean academic history, but the tremendum of historical memory. jews have not internalized the changes of vatican ii which are part of recent history. much of jewish memory still sees the pope and the catholic church entirely through the lens of centuries of anti-judaism and the holocaust. the jewish sense of tremendum implicates anyone who was a bystander to the holocaust as morally guilty. i know jewish academics who are still waiting for the church to reveal its true colors and return to its medieval teaching of contempt. this lack of internalization of the changes exists even among jewish academics who have doctorates and who may even engage in interfaith dialogue. think of how little the ordinary jew has absorbed! there is an urgent need for jews to move beyond their paralyzing fears. unfortunately, holocaust theology is not helpful in overcoming this fear; it can foster a binary sense of all good or all bad, a tendency to treat bystanders as perpetrators, and greater concern for jewish solidarity than for history.17 recently i discovered a new phenomenon in which israelis blame the holocaust on the vatican and the church’s 2000 years of antisemitism. the israeli rabbinate has even issued a pamphlet that paints the vatican as training hezbollah. this pamphlet was and is still being distributed to soldiers. it even goes as far as to say that the vatican is taking hezbollah members to auschwitz for training in genocide. (i found this expressed in a synagogue handout this past summer and then was able to acquire the full pamphlet.) some jews are not letting go of the past, inhibiting their ability to look to the future. 16 arthur a cohen, the tremendum: a theological interpretation of the holocaust (new york: crossroad, 1981). 17 alan brill, judaism and other religions: models of understanding (new york: palgrave macmillan, 2010): chapter. 10. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): brill cp1-9 brill, does the church “get” the holocaust? brill cp 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 if we want to move things forward we need to truly evaluate the role of the church in the medieval ages and its legacy of antisemitism. blood libels, badges, ghettos, conversionary sermons, and the violence caused by passion plays need to be explicitly discussed. however, our discussion must also include the historical moments when the church was not anti-jewish. we need to point out the protections that were offered by the church. we have forgotten both past and present periods of tranquility and instead have internalized a story of a millennium of persecution and a need to be fearful. there are new scholars today, working from archives, who show that many of the medieval incidents were local urban ethnic disputes. many periods and lands had bishops, priests, and peasants who did not express anti-jewish views. we need to see both sides to gain accurate knowledge of the medieval period in the hope of gaining perspective. a few concluding observations: (1) there is a sincere attempt by the vatican for reconciliation, and reconciliation is indeed the goal. (2) there is also a sincere attempt by the vatican for moral reckoning of antisemitism; however, they also have other forefront concerns, including the pastoral, liturgical, and doctrinal life of the church. (3) i completely agree with professor madigan’s conclusions to the question about historic reckoning. nevertheless, issues should not be conceptualized only in the present. (4) however, the understanding of jewish holocaust memory is intermittent. most of the time the holocaust is understood as a jewish tragedy, though vatican speeches may not reveal this understanding. when going to a holocaust memorial to show respect to the jewish people while accompanied by a group of jews, church representatives need to understand that the holocaust is not the “30 million people killed by the fascists” nor is it a “universal problem of inhumanity and evil in the world.” for jews, it is a war against six million jews as jews, with the jews singled out for extermination. at a minimum this is demanded by diplomacy and propriety; at best it requires empathy for jewish memory. there is a noticeable lack of a personal empathy and empathetic regret. (5) is there an understanding by the church of the jewish sense of the tremendum? do they “get” the jewish silence, bereft of theological answers? do they “get” the rupturing of jewish faith, leaving a sense of jewish brokenness? the answer is no. few jews evoke the eternal covenants as a comfort. (6) finally, current church statements made in light of the holocaust, are not addressing the past 2000 years of christian anti-judaism. fr. edward flannery’s observation in the introduction to his book the anguish of the jews” still holds true: christians have torn from their history books the pages that jews have memorized. jules isaac’s writing on the history of antisemitism in the teaching of contempt helped inform proceedings at vatican council ii and helped motivate the writing of we remember. however, it served only as a ladder. the point now is not to move beyond the book, but to return to pages of painful history in order to help heal the past. the promise of interreligious dialogue for a world in conflict the promise of interreligious dialogue for a world in conflict archbishop michael fitzgerald, m.afr. march 16, 2006 address delivered at boston college as part of the conference, "in our time: interreligious relations in a divided world," co-sponsored by brandeis unversity and by boston college through its center for christian-jewish learning. my congratulations to fr. william leahy, president of boston college , and dr. jehuda reinharz, president of brandeis university , on this joint initiative to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of nostra aetate. my thanks, too, to cardinal-designate sean o‟malley, archbishop of boston , for his kind introduction. 1. a world in conflict “in this age of ours, when people are drawing more closely together and the bonds of friendship between different peoples are being strengthened…”. these are the opening words of the document of the second vatican council, nostra aetate, that we are commemorating. yet the premise for this talk, the topic that has been assigned to me, is that things are falling apart rather than coming together. it is true that the cold war is over. the iron curtain has melted away. the berlin wall has fallen. one would hardly have imagined forty years ago that russia (moreover no longer the soviet union ) would take its turn in holding the presidency of the g8. countries that had been on opposing sides, ideologically divided, are now cooperating more and more. it could be said too that the bamboo curtain has lifted, at least to a great extent, as china becomes a major player with other nations in the international scene. the next olympic games will in some ways be a recognition that china is no longer an ostracized member of the human family. yet though a third world war has been avoided, conflicts continue in the world. the continent of africa is far from knowing peace. we think of congo , ethiopia and eritrea , ivory coast , sudan (where even when a peace treaty has been signed between north and south belligerence still rages in darfur ), uganda where the lord‟s resistance army wreaks havoc. mention could also be made of nigeria , where from time to time clashes occur between different ethnic groups often marked also by a difference of religion. in the americas , one could think of the struggle between different armed groups in colombia , for instance. in asia peace has not yet come to sri lanka , nor in kashmir , nor in the southern philippines . there is often violence too in other countries, in india, indonesia and pakistan . one could think too of chechnia and of the unrest in other areas of the caucasus . in europe , un troops are still needed in kosovo. from time to time there is violence in the basque country, and in corsica , though it would seem that http://www.brandeis.edu/ http://www.bc.edu/cjlearning http://www.bc.edu/cjlearning movements sustaining such action are losing popular support. mention of the middle east turns minds immediately to iraq , but there is also the ongoing conflict between israel and palestine which is a running sore that prevents true peace from coming to the world. when pope paul vi announced in a letter that he was instituting the annual day of prayer for peace in the world, a muslim leader, abu‟l-ala mawdudi, founder of the jamaat-i islam in pakistan , replied to this letter saying that there would be no peace in the world until the israeli-palestinian conflict had been settled. he would seem to have seen correctly. there is the well know saying of hans küng: “there will be no peace in the world until there is peace among the religions, and there will be no peace among the religions until there is dialogue among the religions”. though there may be some truth in this saying, if it is pushed too far it becomes untrue and even unjust. conflicts do not usually arise because of difference of religion. if the causes of conflicts are analyzed, it will be seen that more often than not they are economic, or social, or political, or racial. yet it is true that these same conflicts can be aggravated by the difference of religion. this difference is used to set people against one another. the underlying causes become forgotten when an appeal is made to rally around a religious banner. clashes become religious wars. in these circumstances we may perhaps ask what interreligious dialogue can do. it may be well to state first what interreligious cannot do and should not be expected to do. 2. what dialogue cannot do interreligious dialogue should not be expected to bring an immediate solution to a conflict situation. such a dialogue is not in the nature of a band-aid, binding wounds and bringing immediate healing. dialogue is not a fire-brigade that can be called on to put out a conflagration. when war is raging there is usually little possibility of conducting dialogue. the conditions of equality, trust, openness are generally not present. people are not inclined to listen to one another. the solution will have to come through other means, probably through political negotiations. religious leaders may have a role to play, encouraging people to support the envisaged solution, and if they have contact with the religious leaders of the other side, this may help. they may be able to contribute to a process which will bring about a just and adequate settlement. in writing this, i am thinking of the alexandria process, an action started by the archbishop of canterbury, at that time lord carey, involving jewish, christian and muslim religious leaders, israeli, palestinian and from outside the area. this action did not seem to have a great impact, but it was certainly a move in the right direction. it should be realized, however, that interreligious dialogue is more in the nature of preventive medicine than of curative medicine. its aim is to build up good relations among people of different religions, helping them to live in peace and harmony. this is no easy task. it entails increasing mutual knowledge, overcoming prejudices, creating trust. it means strengthening bonds of friendship and collaboration to such an extent that detrimental influences coming from outside can be resisted. in this sense the results of interreligious dialogue, the harmony among people of different religious allegiances, may often go unobserved. it is the conflict that makes the news, not the absence of conflict. and yet this absence of conflict is really the good news. to give but one example, in france last year there were serious riots, with much material damage done, in the cités, the lower-class residential areas of many large towns. hardly any of this occurred in marseille, a city which has a very large and extremely varied immigrant population. this fact did not receive much attention from the mass media, yet it would be interesting to ask why there were no riots in this particular city. one reason could be that much effort has been put into establishing good relations among the different segments of the population. when conflict has taken place, if peace is restored, interreligious dialogue can help to maintain this peace. how can this come about? what is the church‟s understanding of interreligious dialogue? 3. the church’s understanding of dialogue according to nostra aetate 3.1 mention of conflict when speaking about relations with muslims the declaration nostra aetate mentions the many “quarrels and dissensions” that have arisen over the centuries (na 3). one thinks immediately of the crusades, but the wars of islamic expansion would also have to be kept in mind, those of the initial period of islam (al-futuhât) as also the growth of the ottoman empire in the balkans. to this should be added the impact of colonialism, since the european powers took control of most of the countries where islam is dominant. the text of nostra aetate was written in the early „sixties, before terrorism had become so prevalent and widespread. this aspect of the “quarrels and dissensions” would require mention today though it should perhaps be remembered that political assassination is not a modern phenomenon. the very term assassination is associated with the nizari ismailis who used this weapon against the seljuk overlords at the end of the 11 th century. yet the globalization of terrorism, provoking the response of a “war on terrorism,” is indeed a new feature of the world scene. it is true that nostra aetate does not refer in any way to the first war between israel and the arab countries immediately following the declaration of the state of israel, nor indeed to all the events which led up to this declaration, including the use of terrorism. the council had wished to eschew any political references, and so the existence of the state of israel received no mention at all. it contents itself with condemning “all hatreds, persecutions, displays of anti-semitism leveled at any time or from any source against the jews” (na 4). this is later broadened out to a condemnation of “any discrimination against people or any harassment of them on the basis of their race, color, condition in life or religion” (na 5). 3.2 suggested remedies what remedies are suggested to overcome this history of conflict? the conciliar document proposes three: to forget the past, to make a sincere effort to achieve mutual understanding, and to work together to “preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values” (na 3). these can be examined separately, though they would necessarily need to go together. 3.2.1 forgetting the past one might ask whether it is really possible to forget the past. historical events take on a symbolic meaning which may well go beyond the original incident. one has only to think of the importance of kosovo for the serbs. particular rites and celebrations the orange marches in northern ireland, for instance – keep alive the mythological significance of past history. there is no real will to forget. westerners are often surprised to find how near to the surface the crusades are in the consciousness of muslims of the middle east, combined as they are with opposition to what is felt to be the dominance of the west and the humiliation of the islamic world. perhaps it was recognition of this reluctance to forget which led pope john paul ii to suggest another way of dealing with the past. he may have been influenced in this by his own experience of the relations of his native poland with its neighbors. what john paul ii proposed was to try to overcome the burdens of history through the purification of memories. in other words, through listening to the differing accounts of the same events, paying attention to both facts and perceptions, an attempt is made to come to a common understanding. in this exercise an effort is certainly required to avoid arguing past one another, continuing along parallel lines that will never meet. there may be a need too to demythologize so that the past is not continuously used as a weapon to arouse hatred and enmity. when the past is examined with honesty, it will usually be seen that all is not black and white. there can be wrongs on both sides. in any case, the acknowledgement of wrongs done, of injustices, of atrocities, is an important step in any process of reconciliation. where there is an admission of guilt, this needs to be met by a readiness to forgive. this is essential if peace is to be established among peoples that have been in conflict. it was this conviction that led pope john paul ii to state, in one of his messages for the day of peace, that there can be no peace without justice, and no justice without forgiveness. as we know, such a process is by no means easy. it can be very difficult to achieve the degree of openness which is necessary for a purification of memories to take place. i have vivid memories of two meetings which the pontifical council for interreligious dialogue and the vatican commission for religious relations with jews organized together with the office on interreligious relations and dialogue of the world council of churches and the world lutheran federation. the meetings brought together jews, christians and muslims, israelis and palestinians for the most part, though some participants came from outside the area of the holy land. the topics chosen for exchange were first the spiritual significance of jerusalem for each religion – and this is where different views of history came into play – and on the second occasion a shared view of the future. it was with much difficulty that some agreement could be found and a joint statement made, but this was achieved in the end. the process will obviously be easier if there exists a degree of mutual understanding. this brings me to the second suggestion. 3.2.2 achieving mutual understanding respect is a key element of the declaration nostra aetate. the document first recognizes that people look to religions for answers to “the unsolved riddles of human existence” (na 1). some of these fundamental questions are listed: the meaning and purpose of life; the origin of suffering; the understanding of death and what lies beyond it; the way to true happiness. some features of religions are then highlighted: the awareness of the supreme being as taught by what may be called traditional or tribal religions, resulting in a deep religious sense in which harmony with nature plays a large place; the sense of divine mystery in hinduism, explored through myth and philosophy, and the search for divine realization through ascetical practices, meditation or devotion; the way buddhism attests to “the essential inadequacy of this changing world”, and how it encourages efforts to attain to perfect liberation and supreme illumination (na 2). nostra aetate does not attempt any evaluation of these different features of the various religious traditions, but it concludes with an important statement: “the catholic church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. she has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men” (na 2). both the terms “truth” and “holy” are worth underlining. they mean that other religions cannot be dismissed as false or, even worse, as demonic. the elements of truth and holiness that they contain will be attributed by christians to the work of the spirit of god. these elements are to be recognized and appreciated. here again an effort is required to understand the other religion as it presents itself. there may often be the temptation to fasten only upon that which appears to be common, taking individual elements out of their context, neglecting the inner logic of each tradition which gives it its own specificity. while it is good to underline commonalities, there should be no fear of the differences. these differences can challenge and stimulate the followers of different traditions. true understanding will develop when people, rooted in their own tradition, open themselves up to the riches of other traditions. in this context i would like to refer to what pope paul vi wrote in his apostolic exhortation evangelii nuntiandi. referring to the religions of the east he said they possess a splendid patrimony of religious writings and that they have taught generations how to pray (en 53). it is not said explicitly, but it can be understood that those who do not belong to these religions can draw benefit from these religious writings and can also learn something for their own prayer life. it should not be thought that this attitude of appreciation and respect must necessarily exclude any criticism. the document dialogue and proclamation, when treating of the dispositions for dialogue, mentions first a balanced attitude. the one entering into dialogue should be “neither ingenuous nor overly critical, but open and receptive” (dp 47). though the spirit of god is active in the world and in the religious traditions, these traditions are also human realities and thus are marked by weakness; sin is also at work this applies to the christian tradition too for, as the same document points out, “notwithstanding the fullness of god‟s revelation in jesus christ, the way christians sometimes understand their religion and practice it may be in need of purification” (dp 32). this leads to an interesting understanding of dialogue as illustrated in a later paragraph: the church encourages and fosters interreligious dialogue not only between herself and other religious traditions, but even among these religious traditions themselves. this is one way in which she fulfills her role as “sacrament, that is, sign and instrument of communion with god and unity among all people” (lg 1). she is invited by the spirit to encourage all institutions and movements to meet, to enter into collaboration and to purify themselves in order to promote truth, and to live in holiness, justice, love and peace – dimensions of that kingdom which, at the end of time, christ will hand over to his father (cf. 1 co 15:24) (dp 80). 3.2.3 collaboration in the passage just quoted mention is made of collaboration. this is the third proposal. there is certainly need for people of different religions to work together, for the challenges presented by the world we live in are so great that the combined efforts of all are needed to solve them. an allusion has been made to the globalization of terror. to overcome this there needs to be a globalization of efforts for peace. religions provide motivation. that is why it is important for people of different religions to tackle problems together. “end poverty today” is a recent campaign which is trying to get political authorities to address seriously the divide between rich and poor. though criticized by some, the movement for fair trade is growing, following the conviction that poverty can never be eradicated until justice is established at all levels, national and international. the lack of opportunity in certain countries produces a vast wave of emigration which creates problems in the receiving countries. there is surely a need to encourage development in the countries of origin of the migrants so that they do not need to leave their countries. this was the topic addressed in a seminar held in tripoli , libya , earlier this month and jointly organized by the pontifical council for interreligious dialogue and the world islamic call society. a further sector where interreligious cooperation is possible is that of health. i am thinking particularly of the challenge of aids. in some countries, for instance in uganda , people of different religions have been facing this challenge together. the field is vast for it includes the care of those inflicted and also preventive measures, especially through education. there will not necessarily be full agreement on the methods to be used, but sufficient nevertheless for cooperation to take place. other matters about which people of different religions can raise their voices together are , for instance, opposition to the proliferation of arms, the fight against corruption, the upholding of human dignity by opposing all modern forms of slavery, the defense of life, the necessity of respect for religious values. people of different religions are meeting together to discuss these issues, and there are also interreligious movements which allow for concerted action. i am thinking in particular of the world conference. religions for peace which for over thirty-five years, since its first conference in kyoto , japan , has been facilitating common reflection and response. a word of caution is needed. what is being proposed here is not an alliance of religions against the rest. the spirit of dialogue has to be fostered within each individual religious tradition, among the religious traditions, and between religious people and those of a secular bent. the relationship between religion and politics is a delicate one. perhaps the best term to use would be that of a critical dialogue. religious leaders are not called upon to formulate concrete political measures, but rather to underline basic moral principles. they need to be able to support government measures where these are seen to contribute to the common good, but also to criticize them when human dignity is not being fully respected. politicians seem to be realizing more and more the power of religion. they wish to harness this force, sometimes for their own ends. care needs to be taken that religion and religious sentiment are not manipulated. for this, of course, a critical distance needs to obtain between religious leaders and political powers, and this is not always the case. this is perhaps an area where religious traditions can challenge and help one another. 4. developing dialogue how can this necessary dialogue be developed? how can relations among people of different religions be strengthened? i should like now to give some suggestions. in doing so i shall follow the indications given by the documents dialogue and mission and dialogue and proclamation regarding four types of dialogue: dialogue of life, dialogue of deeds, dialogue of discourse, and dialogue of religious experience. 4.1 good neighborliness the world we live in is one marked by contradictions. on the one hand we have the phenomenon of globalization, with a great movement of peoples, instant communication, the influence of multinational corporations, the growth or expansion of new political entities, all creating a greater sense of inter-dependence. on the other hand there is a tendency for certain groups to close in on themselves, an increased regionalization, the desire for special treatment, an emphasis put on group identity. religion can be a strong factor marking the identity of both majority and minority communities. interreligious dialogue aims at allowing people who belong to different religious communities to live together in peace and harmony. particular identities are respected, but communication between individuals and groups is encouraged and promoted. there is a true dialogue of life where, as dialogue and proclamation puts it, “people strive to live in an open and neighborly spirit, sharing their joys and sorrows, their human problems and preoccupations” (dp 42). creating such a spirit means overcoming prejudices, and this in turn entails combating ignorance. it is so easy to generalize, and to class all muslims as fundamentalists with terrorist leanings, are all catholics as bigots, and so on. it is only when relations are established with individuals that the ridiculous nature of such generalizations can be appreciated. there is a terrible saying in the philippines : “a good muslim is a dead muslim”, but this is current particularly among those who have no direct contact with muslims. those who do have such contact know that salip and fatima are fine people, and that they can be excellent neighbors. good neighborliness is created by interest and concern. it can be strengthened by mutual visits to one another‟s homes, by offering a helping hand when someone is in need, by sharing moments of joy, such as marriages or births, or times of sadness, such as bereavements. greeting one another on the occasion of feasts also helps people to be more united. it is for this purpose that the pontifical council for interreligious dialogue, almost from its inception, started sending a greeting to muslims for „id al-fitr, the feast that marks the end of ramadan. in more recent years messages to buddhists for vesakh, and to hindus for diwali, have been added. these messages are sent to the local churches with the recommendation that they be taken personally to the members of the religious community in question. building relationships is the name of the game. the aim should be to consolidate the local community, with all its plurality of different religious belongings, so that it will be able to resist outside influences that wish to provoke divisions. harmony should not be taken for granted. there are examples, such as bosnia or indonesia , to show that mixed communities can be living in peace for a long time, but then seeds of suspicion and dissension are sown. in other words, it is when a good atmosphere reigns that the dialogue of life needs to be fostered so that people will refuse to rise up against one another. 4.2 organized action spontaneous efforts to preserve peace are necessary and praiseworthy. they may not, however, be sufficient. there will be a need for certain structures in order to promote concerted and continued action. it seems to me important that religious leaders know one another, for it is they who often give the tone to their respective communities through their preaching and teaching. ecumenism has been helped by the development of clergy fraternals. these may not always be a forum for serious theological exchange, but they do provide the occasion for social contact which can lead to greater cooperation. in some places christian clergy fraternals have been opened up to rabbis and imams. this would appear to be a good development. there may come from it reciprocal visits, of leaders or even of the communities themselves. let me share with you a story that i heard in chicago . one of the mosques, put up originally by a group of bosnians, had acquired a new director who happened to be a retired university professor of iranian origin. he decided to hold an “open day” when anyone would be allowed to visit the mosque. the members of the community were rather apprehensive, since they thought he wanted to sell the property. he reassured them that it was only so that the neighbors could see what the mosque really was and come to know the muslim community better. one of the people who visited on this “open day” was a local rabbi. it so happened that a short time after this visit his synagogue needed refurbishing. he asked permission for the jewish community to use part of the premises of the islamic center for its worship during this period, and this was granted. so it happened that the two communities got to know each other and have continued to hold joint activities, such as sunday picnics. in some places interreligious councils have been formed. this is particularly true of my own country of origin, the united kingdom . my home town, walsall , has such a council made up of representatives of all the different religious communities. in these councils the concerns of the different communities can be aired, about educational issues, equal opportunity, discrimination, or so on. representation can be made to the local authorities where necessary. there exists too a nation-wide inter faith network the membership of which is made up of these local councils, institutes belonging to the different religions, and even individuals. this network can make the voice of people of different religions heard at national level, and can liaise with the government. governments are moreover becoming more and more interested in enlisting the cooperation of the different religious communities. their aim is to try to prevent tensions arising because of religious differences, and also, of course, to stamp out any forms of extremism which can lead to violence. the concern of the governments is understandable. they wish to know who they are dealing with and to have a valid interlocutor. yet sometimes they would appear to overstep their role. in belgium, france and italy the governments have taken very active steps in setting up councils of muslims, but these councils do not always represent all those who would assert their identity as muslims.. they have at least the merit of getting muslims to discuss among themselves. interreligious associations can also carry forward joint action. the work of the world conference. religions for peace has already been mentioned. other well established movements are the temple of understanding , the international association for religious freedom, and the world congress of faiths. another organization, the united religions initiative, was started in san francisco with a somewhat controversial aim, namely to provide a body of united religions alongside the united nations. however praiseworthy the idea may be of allowing the religions to have a voice at the international level, the implementation of this idea runs into difficulties. how would a consensus on different issues be achieved? who would have the authority to speak on behalf of the religions? it would seem that where uri has renounced the ambition of making pronouncements at the international level, and has concentrated in forming local clusters, much more has been achieved. 4.3 intellectual backing the dialogue of discourse can help to create better understanding and so can provide a solid foundation for common action. the exchanges will not always be on matters of belief. in fact true dialogue of a theological nature is rather rare. there is often an unwillingness to engage in such a dialogue sometimes out of misunderstanding. people are afraid that their beliefs will come under attack, whereas the aim of theological dialogue among people of different religions cannot be to do away with distinct beliefs in order to achieve unity, but rather to bring about a clearer understanding of where the differences lie. to be successful, theological dialogue requires that those engaged in it have a high degree of mutual respect and confidence. such dialogue cannot be carried out through one off events. continuity is needed so that the topics can be mulled over, taking all the time necessary to come to some consensus. in a chapter of a book that has just come out, john borelli has described the midwest regional dialogue between christians and muslims which tackled the theme of revelation. meetings were held annually over a period of years, in a retreat environment, and led eventually to an agreed statement which noted the importance of revelation for both religions without watering down the distinct creeds. other dialogues were held in the mid-atlantic region, and on the west coast. it seems to me that one of dr borelli‟s reflections on his experience of these dialogues is worth quoting: interreligious dialogue is by no means based on compromise whereby parties negotiate a common ground, each giving up a little, to reach a mutually beneficial position. compromise is important for society to work as well as it does, but giving up essential doctrines and practices is not what interreligious dialogue is about: there is no attempt to reduce two sets of belief to one or to harmonize irreconcilable differences. nor is interreligious dialogue a debate or argument over who is right and who is wrong. on the contrary, interreligious dialogue refers to a religious attitude that encompasses both obedience to the truth and respect for freedom of conscience. ["recent muslim-catholic dialogue in the usa," in michael l. fitzgerald and john borelli, interfaith dialogue. a catholic view, spck, london/orbis books, maryknoll, new york, 2006, pp. 97-109, especially pp. 100-107]. the mid-atlantic dialogue, just referred to, studied various aspects of marriage and family life. christian-muslim dialogue, and jewish-christian dialogue too, often concentrate on such questions of a more social nature. a series of meetings between the pontifical council for interreligious dialogue and the al albait foundation of jordan examined the following themes: the place of religion in higher education, the rights of children, women in society, the use of the earth‟s resources (from the dual point of view of justice and ecology), religion and nationalism. with other groups attention has been turned to questions of bioethics, religion and the mass media, the pillars of peace, and so on. there is of course the danger that such exchanges remain theoretical. moreover the number of participants is usually rather limited, precisely in order to permit more fruitful exchanges, so it may be felt that these meetings have little impact on society as a whole. yet they can be seen as contributing to forge a mentality which is open to cooperation. they are helping to create that culture of dialogue which is absolutely necessary if a clash of civilizations is to be avoided. 4.4 spiritual backing i have already mentioned how the dialogue of discourse is facilitated if it is conducted in an atmosphere of prayer. the attitude of putting oneself humbly before god, of acknowledging a truth greater than oneself, will prevent the exchange from becoming an exercise in scoring points. prayer, meditation, the spiritual life, can become themselves the subjects of exchange. i remember a successful christian-muslim seminar on holiness where attention was given to the concept of holiness in each religion, the teaching about the paths to holiness, and the study of concrete examples of holy persons. here again such exchanges can lead to a deepening of mutual respect. one cannot categorize islam as merely a breeding ground for terrorists, when one finds that it has produced and can produce saintly people. the dialogue of religious experience has developed particularly among monastics. it has flourished mainly between buddhists and christians, because both these religions share the tradition of monasticism. exchanges have developed, allowing monastics of each tradition to experiment for a while life in the monasteries of the other tradition. this allows, as it were, for a growth in knowledge of this tradition from the inside. it may be thought that this type of dialogue, where silence is as important as the spoken word, is far removed from the reality of the world with all its conflicts. yet monks can be living in the midst of violence, and they will have to discern what their role is. let me quote again john borelli as he describes a monastic encounter that took place in 1996 at gethsemani, kentucky, the monastery to which thomas merton belonged. there were tense discussions of monastic witness in a world of violence. one afternoon cistercians spoke of their brothers beheaded in algeria just a few months earlier, giving rise to a number of serious reflections on the role of monastic life and the causes and effects of political strife. later, when the buddhists were at odds with one another on what to do about political situations such as tibet and cambodia, the discussion had taken on the character of an argument. finally, someone asked a cambodian monk to lead everyone in a walking meditation to the grave of thomas merton. this did not resolve the opposing arguments on how involved monastics truly are in the violent world around them, but the brief, prayerful walk in silence reminded them that they are on this spiritual journey together with all its hazards.["dialogue and spirituality: the example of buddhist-catholic dialogue in the usa," in interfaith dialogue. a catholic view, p.203]. the reference to a prayerful walk can serve as a reminder of the importance of prayer for peace. all people, of all religious traditions, are invited to be involved in this prayer. interreligious prayer for peace was certainly encouraged by the initiative of pope john paul ii to invite representatives of many different religious traditions to assisi in october 1986 to pray for peace in the world. in many countries such gatherings have become quite common. john paul ii twice repeated the invitation, in 1993 to pray for peace in europe and particularly in the balkans, and in 2002 as a response to the tragic events of 9/11. of course care needs to be taken to respect the conscience of each participant with regard to religious matters, but where organized with sensitivity such gatherings for prayer can be powerful experiences, binding people of different traditions together. john paul ii was convinced of the necessity of prayer for peace, since he saw peace as a gift from god. let me quote some of his words addressed to the participants in the 2002 gathering: if peace is god‟s gift and has its source in him, where are we to seek it and how can we build it, if not in a deep and intrinsic relationship with god? to build the peace of order, justice and freedom requires, therefore, a priority commitment to prayer, which is openness, listening, dialogue, and finally union with god, the prime wellspring of true peace. to pray is not to escape from history and the problems which it presents. on the contrary, it is to choose to face reality not on our own, but with the strength that comes from on high, the strength of truth and love which have their ultimate source in god. [pontifical council for interreligious dialogue, peace: a single goal and a shared intention, vatican city, 2002, p.91]. 5. conclusion we are very conscious of living in a world of conflict, a world of violence. we may ask ourselves once more where this violence comes from. it can be provoked by jealousy, by greed, by the will to dominate. it can, of course, spring at times from frustration, when freedom of selfdetermination is denied to a people. yet recourse to violence even in these circumstances, when it goes beyond legitimate defense and involves attacks on innocent civilians, always implies a lack of respect for human dignity and for the sanctity of life. so where do religion and interreligious dialogue come in? religion, as an expression of the deepest longings of the human heart, can only lead to respect for one‟s fellow human beings, not to the destruction of their lives. it will seek to promote the well-being of all, not the advantage of a few. it will be at the service , not of conflict, but of peace. religion teaches us to counteract the evil tendencies that lie in the human heart: greed, lust, anger, pride. by opening up the heart to the divine, to the creator of all, religion brings about the realization that all human beings belong to one family. it therefore inculcates a spirit of selfless service. these values, enshrined in the different religious traditions, can come to be appreciated through interreligious dialogue. recourse to violence is a false way of confronting real problems. it seeks to impose a solution rather than propose one, to defeat others rather than to win them over. it breeds enmity, rather than building up friendship. religion and interreligious dialogue, on the other hand, should lead to a search for understanding, to sympathy for those who are suffering and in need, to a thirst for justice for all, to forgiveness for wrong done, together with a readiness to acknowledge one‟s own wrong-doings, whether individual or collective. true religion, relayed by interreligious dialogue, does not support conflict and war, but provides the right atmosphere in which conflicts can be resolved and peace attained. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review paola tartakoff between christian and jew: conversion and inquisition in the crown of aragon, 1250-1391 (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2012) hardcover, x + 209 pp. hussein fancy, university of michigan on june 6 th , 1391, spurred on by the vituperative preaching of ferrand martinez, the archdeacon of écija, christian mobs attacked the jewish community of seville, slaughtering thousands and forcing others into baptism. anti-jewish violence spread throughout castile, aragon, and mallorca. these riots and forced conversions have been seen as a watershed, after which centuries of coexistence gave way to expulsion and inquisition. in between christian and jew, paola tartakoff offers a much-needed exploration of the dynamics of conversion before the events of 1391. grounded in rich archival evidence, tartakoff argues that well before 1391, evidence of forced conversion of jews to christianity “lays bare the intensity of mutual hostility between christians and jews across a period whose first decades in particular have been celebrated as a time of interreligious harmony” (p. 1). tartakoff builds her narrative around the unusual case of one aragonese convert from calatayud, alatzar (eleazer), who converted to christianity in 1340, taking the name pere (peter), only to publicly renounce his conversion three weeks later. saved from the stake by a dominican prior seeking to make sense of his “relapse,” pere confessed before a hastily convened tribunal that a group of aragonese jews had convinced him to renounce christianity and seek martyrdom for the sake of his soul. pere himself was imprisoned for life, but his accusations led to a series of trials that unfolded over the studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) course of twenty months in aragon, valencia, and catalonia. ultimately, two more jews, janto and jamila almuli were imprisoned for life, and a prominent jew, jucef de quatorze, was burned at the stake. the records of these inquisitions reside at the archives of the cathedral of barcelona. the structure of the book is appealing. tartakoff intersperses detailed analysis of these trial transcripts with broad contextualization. she draws on an array of secondary research to illuminate the particular case and artfully reflects her case back upon that broader context. the book itself is divided into three parts. part one, “before the tribunal,” examines inquisitorial prosecutions of jews and converts. although jews typically did not fall under the spiritual or temporal power of inquisitors, tartakoff argues that these trials became a ground of jewish-christian conflict, in which the convert stood as a symbol of christian superiority and the backslider was seen as a dangerous threat. far from conflating jews with heretics, inquisitions against jews “w[ere] actually a façade for an operation whose primary aim was to punish [them]” (p. 21). part two, “at the font of new life,” examines the motivations and lives of jewish converts to christianity before 1391. many converts, tartakoff contends, were driven by practical as opposed to religious motivations, but in either case, their conversions were fraught with complications. converts faced hostility from christians, who were suspicious of their sincerity. poverty and rejection ironically kept these converts bound to their jewish past. part three, “by the fire,” explores diverging jewish attitudes toward apostates and is perhaps the highlight of the book. these attitudes were not only conflicted — riven between rejection and (possible) rehabilitation of apostates — but also reflective of conflict within the jewish community, such as tensions between wealthy and poor jews and between those with access to social protection and those without (p. 120). in the particular case of pere, the jewish community of calatayud appears unusually aggressive. those who provoked pere to martyrdom, tartakoff proposes, aimed simultaneously to punish his apostasy and challenge the christian majority. as a whole, this bleak picture of competition studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr over converts leads tartakoff to argue for greater continuity between the periods before and after 1391. the great value of this book lies in its contribution to the social history of jewish conversion to christianity. in addition to the trial of pere itself, tartakoff collates and incorporates evidence from 200 other cases from the late thirteenth century through 1391. in this sense, one quickly sees that the practice of conversion differed widely from the ideal. rather than experiencing a sharp break, a sudden turn in belief, converts often found themselves between communities. this divergence between ideal and practice, as tartakoff rightly suggests, changed the significance of conversion itself. re-judaizing rituals, for instance, give a glimpse of the manner in which jewish identity actively came to stand against christianity while simultaneously borrowing from it. tartakoff presents this all in a well written, admirably concise, and compelling read. this focus on social history has its shortcomings. although tartakoff places the massacres of 1391 at the center of her argument, she never engages directly with the fractious debates about the historiography of these events. in the same vein, i would have hoped for a more direct engagement with the copious literature on conversion and inquisition, to which tartakoff’s findings have important implications. as such, this book should be read in conversation with recent works by mark meyerson, ryan szpiech, and mark pegg. to be sure, the richness of this work will inspire new research into the thirteenthand fourteenth-century archives of the crown of aragon. in her conclusion, for instance, tartakoff points to the parallel experiences of jewish and muslim converts to christianity as well as a failure of scholars to consider these communities together. within the registers of the archives of the crown of aragon, there exists significant and unexplored evidence that the relationship between these communities was more than parallel. not only jews, as tartakoff suggests, but also muslims were required to attend and silently listen to dominican preachers. moreover, dominicans studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 9 (2014) cited the qur’an in their attacks on judaism. indeed, like jewish converts, muslim converts to christianity who “relapsed” were subject to inquisition and the death penalty. but perhaps most relevantly, jewish converts to islam were arrested and sentenced to death. these and other insights are a testament to the value of tartakoff’s study, which will inspire new scholarship and debate. 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-3 robert c. holub nietzsche’s jewish problem: between anti-semitism and anti-judaism (princeton, nj: princeton university press, 2016), hardback, xx + 271 pp. robert cathey rcathey@mccormick.edu mccormick theological seminary, chicago, il 60615 when i taught the history of philosophy, the only two philosophers’ names my students recognized from the start were plato and nietzsche. it is hard to overstate the influence of nietzsche, the master of suspicion, and his critique of modern ethics and religious, social, and political forms of life in the minds of millions of readers and his army of commentators. during the heyday of postmodernism, major philosophers and cultural critics issued new translations, commentaries, and manifestos inspired by nietzsche. in important ways, we live in a moral and political world shaped by his critique of western traditions. for the scholar or student of christian-jewish relations, nietzsche is important as well. while he rejected christianity, offering a novel ethical critique of the tradition’s most important values, he also rejected judaism and jews, seeing them as the origins of the moral decay spread by christianity. we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the meticulous scholarship of robert holub, professor of german at ohio state university, for his study of the vast body of nietzsche’s published and unpublished writings within the context of nineteenth-century european society. in many ways, holub does for our historical image of nietzsche what jonathan sperber did in his karl marx: a nineteenth century portrait (new york: w. w. norton, 2013). by rereading nietzsche against the background of cultural anti-judaism and the antisemitic political movements of the late nineteenth century, holub discovers just how deeply embedded anti-jewish ideas, images, and tropes were in nietzsche’s discourse, both before and after his membership in richard wagner’s inner circle. even in his rejection of the antisemitic political movements of his day, nietzsche saw them as corrupted by jewish values. his rejection of christian morality was based on its implication in the “slave morality” and ascetic priestly moral codes of second temple judaism, communicated via the epistles of the convert pharisee, paul, in canonical early christian scriptures. holub both corrects the record in nietzsche studies and proposes new ways of reading the antimoralist’s complex relation with jews and judaism. the standard defense of nietzsche’s positive reception among antisemites was that his cathey: robert c. holub’s nietzsche’s jewish problem 2 sister elisabeth had pillaged his writings after his loss of sanity, seeking their endorsement by political antisemites and members of the early nazi movement. the apologists called attention to nietzsche’s break with wagner’s circle, his relations and correspondence with jewish contemporaries, his rejection of political antisemitic movements, and those places in his writings where he spoke positively of the jewish character despite centuries of oppression. but holub documents that nietzsche’s use of judeophobic stereotypes in his correspondence predated his first encounter with wagner. in fact, when as a young classics professor in basel he openly criticized jews for their influence over the press in a public lecture, wagner cautioned him to dial back the rhetoric. afterwards, jews and judaism are criticized in the young nietzsche’s publications through the use of “cultural codes” known to antisemites (p. xvii) and the trope of so-called “socratism” (a phenomenon that undermines ancient greece’s glorious “tragic art” and which he links with judaism) in the birth of tragedy (p. 67). in fact, the written record shows it was friedrich who introduced his sister elisabeth to antisemitism and drew her into wagner’s circle where she met and married bernhard förster, an activist and organizer of political antisemites. holub’s careful survey of nietzsche’s life, writings, and relationships also reminded me of david nirenberg’s thesis in anti-judaism: the western tradition (new york: w. w. norton, 2013). according to nirenberg, anti-judaism as an ideology is part and parcel of the very structure of western civilization, and thus often operates behind the conscious level of ideas in a movement or thinker. to discover anti-jewish stereotypes in nietzsche’s writings when the author’s reputation is built upon his freedom from conformity, his rejection of christianity (which had long provided theological rationales for anti-judaism in its doctrines and practices), and his undermining of conventional morality as “the herd morality” may come as a shock to many readers (p. 190). nietzsche, in his views of judaism, turns out to have been a product of his era rather than the exception. one of nietzsche’s insights, based on his reading of julius wellhausen, ernst renan, and other anti-jewish biblical scholars, was that the ethical foundation of christianity goes back to ancient israel and second temple judaism. in fact, holub agrees with the assessment of franz overbeck, nietzsche’s friend, that the philosopher’s “anti-christian attitude is based on anti-jewish thought” (p. 191). in nietzsche’s critique both judaism and christianity purvey a slave morality of resentment toward powerful social and political hierarchies. jewish and christian moral traditions undermine natural and noble virtues that are necessary for the flourishing of the aryan race. contrary to the regnant theological versions of antijudaism in the nineteenth century, nietzsche emphasized the historical and moral bonds between the two religions before their ways began to part. holub shows that one must read with greater suspicion nietzsche’s references to jews and judaism in his argument for the moral contagion of christianity, especially their role in the foundation of western moral traditions, and nietzsche’s critique of “socratism.” given nietzsche’s influence on heidegger and other european philosophers that backed the nazi regime, holub’s book throws new light on the controversy 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) over the role of nazi ideology in heidegger’s philosophy. the critique and rejection of many forms of modern culture, society, and politics that nietzsche and heidegger share has as one of its historical roots an identification of jews and judaism with modernity, especially the political institutions that extended citizenship to jews and the cultural institutions where (according to antisemites) they played a dominant and domineering role. the idealization of the pre-socratic greeks by both nietzsche and heidegger was in part a quest for a world without jews and judaism. do holub’s conclusions mean that one should no longer include nietzsche’s texts in the canon of required readings for a liberal education? he finds no direct connection between nietzsche’s writings on epistemology, the will to power, and eternal recurrence and the anti-jewish prejudices that haunt his critique of ethics and religion. furthermore, holub’s analysis should encourage us to include thinkers like nietzsche and heidegger in the canon in order to show how deeply ingrained anti-judaism is in western civilization. by attending to “cultural codes,” holub demonstrates that even a philosopher like nietzsche, who was critical of conventional morality and religion, could still endorse and transmit racist ideas and ideals. an introduction to jewish-christian relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): fisher r1-3 kessler, introduction to jewish-christian fisher r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 edward kessler an introduction to jewish-christian relations (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2010), paperback, xix + 243 pp. reviewed by eugene j. fisher, retired associate director for ecumenical and interreligious relations, u.s. conference of catholic bishops edward kessler, executive director of the woolf institute of abrahamic faiths at cambridge university, has both the personal experience and academic expertise to write an introduction to jewish-christian relations. he has written an excellent survey of the history of the sometimes dynamic, too often tragic relationship between judaism and its sibling faith, christianity, from antiquity through the present. after a brief narration of the relationship over two millennia, he mentions some of the most important contemporary scholars in the field. he then turns to the new testament. it is, he argues, a jewish book written in the main by jews to convince other jews that a proper reading of the hebrew (or jewish) scriptures would convince them that the jew, jesus, is the promised messiah. (interestingly, kessler uses the term “old testament” when he is describing christian understandings of the hebrew scriptures. though many christians, especially those involved in dialogue with jews, no longer use the term, others still do.) the roughly contemporaneous writings of the early church fathers and of the rabbis are then examined. he introduces the main authors and texts and situates them helpfully in their historical contexts. on the christian side, he highlights the writers whose works are especially relevant to judaism, such as justin and origen. on the jewish side, he briefly introduces the rabbis and their main texts, but focuses primarily on topics such as references to jesus and the birkat haminim that may contain anti-christian polemics. (of the latter, he says only that it is possible that minim sometimes referred to christians.) he also marshals evidence that jews and christians were not only aware of but actually influenced each other’s religious views. this occurred even while christians especially, but perhaps some jews as well, were strongly hostile to each other. a chapter is devoted to ancient and medieval interpretations of the akedah, or binding of isaac, in genesis 22, in order to demonstrate an “exegetical encounter” between the two traditions (p. 82). he finds both significant similarities in their approaches to the famous story as well as sharp differences that hint at religious polemics. he considers not only written commentaries and texts, but artistic depictions, and finds evidence of a religious encounter in all of these. moving forward historically, kessler notes that relations did become uglier beginning in england in the 12 th century, with the invention of the blood libel charge that the jews of norwich had murdered a twelve year old christian boy. despite the fact that pope innocent iv (c. 1200-54) officially rejected the notion that jews used human (christian) blood for ritual purposes, the blood libel spread, and with it anti-jewish portrayals in christian art and literature. by the end of the 15 th century, jews had been expelled from every country in western europe with the exception of italy. there, the traditional papal protection of jews, inspired by st. augustine’s claim that review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): fisher r1-3 kessler, introduction to jewish-christian fisher r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 jews should be a degraded but protected witness people, prevailed. here, i must note a correction to kessler’s text, which overstates augustine’s contribution to anti-judaism in the church (pp. 50-51). in point of fact the issue in augustine’s time was whether judaism should continue, as under roman law, to be a religio licita, a legally recognized religion, or not, which is to say whether it would be allowed to survive. ambrose of milan, augustine’s mentor, articulating the generally-held view, had argued that judaism should lose its status as a protected religion. like paganism, it should be expunged from christian society. augustine argued otherwise, and his views prevailed. this is seen, for example, in the actions of pope gregory the great (c. 540604), who, as kessler acknowledges, gave judaism, and judaism alone, a protected status as a minority religion. (see also paula fredriksen’s augustine and the jews: a christian defense of jews and judaism (new york: doubleday, 2009).) turning to the modern period, kessler narrates quite well how christian anti-judaism prepared the way for modern racial antisemitism. however, the latter was, he argues, qualitatively different from the christian teaching of contempt because of its notion of the separation of humanity into superior and inferior races. this was totally at odds with the traditional jewish and christian notions of descent from one set of parents, adam and eve. he discusses as well jewish and christian responses to the shoah and zionism, and some of the controversies over both christian culpability for the shoah and christian and jewish tensions around the state of israel. he concludes with reflections on contemporary issues such as covenant, mission, and dialogue between jews and christians, putting these in the context of the wider dialogue among the world’s religions, particularly islam. one of the points kessler makes throughout the book is that, despite the massacres, pogroms, ghettos, and expulsions of jews that marred so much of jewish life under christian rule, there were also periods of relative harmony. furthermore, jewish thinking and religious practice were positively influenced by the christian-dominated cultures in which they lived. christian understandings of scripture were also deeply enhanced by knowledge of jewish traditions. through contact with rabbis, some learned how jews understood their scriptures. there are a few minor errors and shortcomings. for example, it was not rabbi abraham joshua heschel but french jewish historian jules isaac who met with pope john xxiii and encouraged him to have the second vatican council address the church’s understanding of jews and judaism (though heschel did have a significant role in the development of nostra aetate). in 1967 the holy see replaced a demand for internationalization of the city of jerusalem with a demand for “international guarantees” for its holy places (p. 169). kessler does not give enough attention to the catholic church’s development of themes that first appeared in nostra aetate in two landmark later documents, 1974’s guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate and 1985’s notes on the correct way to present jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis. furthermore, since the author is british, he concentrates upon jewish-christian relations there and treats the richly complex history of jewish-christian relations in the united states and canada too briefly. a few of kessler’s biblical interpretations are questionable. for example, while the statement in matthew 27:25, “his [jesus’] blood be on us and on our children,” is attributed to the jewish crowd, kessler says it refers to “the people as a whole” (p. 39). also, he interprets luke 22:20 and hebrews 8:8-13 as supersessionist, though it would be helpful to note that such an interpretation is disputed by most catholic and mainline protestant biblical scholars today (pp. 27-28). but these, and a few others like them, are minor caveats. overall, the book is excellent, filled with insights that experts in the field as well as upper-level undergraduate and graduate students will learn from. in a course (especially at a catholic university), i might recommend pairing it with studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): fisher r1-3 kessler, introduction to jewish-christian fisher r 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 mary boys’ has god only one blessing? judaism as a source of christian self-understanding (new york: paulist press, 2000). the book contains a helpful timeline of events. these range from the translation of the hebrew bible into greek in 200 bce, up through modern jewish and christian statements and even last year’s international council of christians and jews’ revision of the 10 points of seelisberg. he also includes a bibliography, glossary of terms, and index. living together, living apart: rethinking jewish-christian relations in the middle ages studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r7-9 review j o n a t h a n e l u k i n l i v i n g t o g e t h e r , l i v i n g a p a r t : r e t h i n k i n g j e w i s h c h r i s t i a n r e l a t i o n s i n t h e m i d d l e a g e s (princeton and oxford: princeton university press, 2007), x + 193 pp. reviewed by eugene j. fisher, associate director emeritus, secretariat for ecumenical and interreligious affairs, u.s. conference of catholic bishops jonathan elukin, associate professor of history at trinity college, presents here a conscious challenge to much of the christian and some of the jewish historiography on the relations between the jewish minority and the christian majority in the middle ages. he rightly labels as a vast generalization the tendency to view this relationship as everywhere and always as bad as it was actually only in some places and at some times. this makes scholars unable to explain either jewish survival in the period or the continuing choice of numerous jewish communities to stay within christendom even when expelled from a particular country or region within it. the view of many that, following the first crusade, christian europe became nothing other than an unremitting “persecuting society” against jews and judaism fails, he argues, to account for the continuing vitality and continual return of jews to areas that had expelled them, or worse. chapter one on the early middle ages sets the scene of jews and christians interacting relatively peacefully within the context of a legal structure that allowed the jews (but no other non-christians) freedom of worship. elukin tracks the situation of jews and their interactions with christians in minorca, merovingian gaul, italy and visigothic spain. he notes the role of st. augustine in establishing the theological basis for jewish freedom of worship in christian societies and the role of pope st. gregory the great in enacting that vision into canon law, an approach which made the popes through the ages up to the counter-reformation protectors of the jews. he notes the normality of jewish-christian interaction not only commercially and socially, but also religiously, since the two communities shared “a common liturgical culture based on scripture” which made them aware even of each other’s hymns, so that they could sing them together.(15) elukin also duly notes, indeed stresses, the differences between the four societies’ treatment of jews, emphasizing again the inappropriateness of generalized statements about christian abuse of jews or suppression of judaism. efforts to entice or force jews to convert, he shows, came and went with individual bishops and local nobility, and even at different times in these bishops’ lives. chapter two surveys the carolingian period, marked by an attempt to establish a uniform christian culture on the disparate areas of the empire. “representations of jews in christian polemics,” he concludes, “were relatively mild.”(44) jews were seen as pharisees, not israelites, so offered no challenge to the carolingian claim to be in continuity with the ancient kings of israel. again, as in the early middle ages, jews were able, with enterprise and flexibility, to weather the storms of occasional violence and create and maintain thriving communities in christian europe. elukin, living together, living apart r http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ 7 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r7-9 chapter three discusses the “high middle ages,” which for elukin is the period from the middle of the eleventh to the middle of the thirteenth centuries. this period, he argues, saw a great rise in the population of europe, victories over muslims, movements to reform monasteries and church life, and the development of new and varied “christian identities,” which, in turn gave more room for the persistence of jewish identities. jewish and catholic biblical scholars conversed over the sacred texts. disputations showed that jews could understand christian discourse well enough to debate it. this was the period of what elukin, following other scholars, calls “the discovery of the individual” or “the discovery of the self,” in which spiritual introspection came to the fore.(69) again, the dynamic of individual spirituality allowed room for jewish spiritual differences. chapter four continues with a discussion of the “social integration” of jews in particular societies, especially spain, germany, france and italy in the same period. chapter 5 analyzes the increasingly violent language against and violent attacks on jews, including the great expulsions up to the end of fifteenth century. elukin does not try to bowdlerize this period. he notes in passing, and i wish he had pursued the matter, that a walled area of one town in germany was created for the jews in order to protect them! i think this may be true, initially, in other parts of europe as well. it is worthy of a separate, in depth study, given the deep symbolic nature of the european ghettos. with regard to verbal violence, elukin notes that similar charges of murdering children, cannibalism, desecrating the host, being agents of the devil and depicting jews as feral animals were commonly made in the period of many other groups than jews: cathars, waldensians, mongols, muslims etc. so elukin raises the question whether, in a period when anti-clericalism was quite popular, the general lay populace of europe would have taken such high clerical rhetoric literally. finally, elukin again notes the consistency of the sicut judeis of papal protection (within limits) of the jews in this volatile period as “quite remarkable.”(94) chapter 6, on “expulsion and continuity,” may be the most controversial of the book. here elukin argues that the expulsions were not inevitable outcomes of the ancient christian teaching of contempt against jews and judaism, but discrete, individual acts of various monarchs, sometimes motivated by religious zeal, but most often motivated by the economics of ridding the monarchs and the nobility of debts to jews. after a country by country analysis covering england, france (the most ambivalent and convoluted of all), spain, germany and italy (where the few expulsions lasted at most a decade), he notes that only the expulsion from spain was “final.” for the rest of western europe, jews returned. though perhaps not in the same numbers, since many had moved to the more open and tolerant societies of equally christian eastern europe. there, they were welcomed as benefits to the local economy and society. hence, he concludes, the convivencia (“living together”) that jewish memory ascribes solely to spain before 1492, continued, in different ways and in different places, in much of the rest of europe. this being said, the real radical change in european attitudes toward jews came, not, i think, as elukin argues, with the counter-reformation, since he himself demonstrates jewish abilities to adapt even to its harsher measures, but rather with the invention of a novum in european history: modern racial anti-semitism. throughout christian history, jews could convert from their “curse” by accepting jesus and baptism and by and large be accepted into christian society. the racial theorists of the eighteenth century, however, denied this “cure,” leaving only genocide as a “solution” to what they, in another discontinuity with european history, felt to be “the jewish problem.” this aside, elukin’s approach makes great sense, and it is good to see his argument carried out in some detail. as i hinted above, however, it is not as novel as the author suggests. similar elukin, living together, living apart r http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ 8 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r7-9 points have been made by a number of jewish scholars before him, such as yosef yerushalmi, marc saperstein, michael signer, david berger and others, none of whom are even listed in his bibliography. similarly missing are catholic scholars edward synan and edward flannery. those writing today, i believe, have a duty to acknowledge the contributions of those who came before us. elukin, living together, living apart r http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ 9 reckless rites: purim and the legacy of jewish violence studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r23-24 review e l l i o t t h o r o w i t z r e c k l e s s r i t e s : p u r i m a n d t h e l e g a c y o f j e w i s h v i o l e n c e (princeton university press, 2006), paper, 356 pp. reviewed by edward kessler, centre for the study of jewish-christian relations, cambridge elliott horowitz has produced a challenging and thought-provoking work, which examines both negative jewish views of christianity and jewish violence against christians. horowitz, professor of jewish history at bar-ilan university and co-editor of the jewish quarterly review, argues that “the legacy of jewish violence” can be uncovered particularly at purim and successfully demonstrates that christian contempt of jews and judaism was mirrored by jewish antipathy towards christians and christianity. one of the significant differences between horowitz’s book and ariel toaff’s controversial volume pasque di sangue, is that horowitz does not aim to be sensationalist and is thorough and rigorous in his examination of the texts. in contrast toaff offers tendentious generalizations such as his portrait of ashkenazi jews living in an almost wholly enclosed world (which goes against the evidence that there were christians on good terms with these jews who even helped them in their time of trial). horowitz does not take the contemporary evidence at face value but considers their accuracy as should an historian. the festival of purim marks the deliverance of persian jews from the attempt by haman to massacre them. it celebrates their vengeance and victory over their non-jewish enemies, as related in the biblical book of esther. the holiday has been traditionally popular at the jewish communal level but has often been the cause of controversy in jewish-christian relations. the villainous figure of haman became an epithet for any persecutor of jews. feelings of animosity towards christianity were generally hidden but came to the surface at purim, when revelry was at its height. according to bt megillah 7a, it is a duty to drink sufficient quantities of wine that it is not possible to tell the difference between ”cursed be haman and blessed be mordecai.” consequently, celebration of purim was accompanied by riotous and wild behavior. horowitz shows how for long periods, purim provided a vent for anger that jews felt towards their christian oppressors of each succeeding age. reckless rites is well written and easy to read. although this reader is not convinced that there is evidence of a widespread pattern of jewish violence in the middle ages, sufficient material exists to show the presence of a jewish adversus christianos tradition (paralleling christian adversus iudaeos writings). historical accounts of jewish violence against christians is a controversial subject but horowitz takes a brave and forthright look at its history and should be commended for demonstrating how anti-christian practices became part of the carnival at purim. as leon wieseltier has written in his endorsement of the book, “reckless rites is a model of the lost art of troublemaking scholarship.” horowitz, reckless rites r23 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r23-24 of particular interest to studies in christian-jewish relations, is horowitz’s detailed study (81106) of the polemical use of haman, whose death on a gallows was conflated with crucifixion. the lxx, followed by jerome, rendered haman’s execution by hanging as a crucifixion (lxx est 7:9 and 16:17-18). it is therefore unsurprising that a raucous celebration of purim sometimes ended with a performance of the crucifixion (or hanging), which was interpreted as an allusion to jesus, who the talmud describes as being hanged on the eve of passover (b.sanhedrin 43a). thus, it seems likely that the celebration of purim at times evolved into a demonstration of antichristian feeling during which the cursing of the crucified haman led to the cursing of the crucified jesus. this outpouring of anti-christian feeling demonstrates that the festival of purim served not only as a means of encouraging people during periods of oppression but also cultivated a contempt and a desire for vengeance over christians and christianity. in other words, horowitz shows that purim and its characteristic rituals enabled jews to direct hostility towards the symbols of what they saw as an oppressive and threatening christian environment. reckless rites courageously reassesses the historical interpretation of jewish violence – from the alleged massacre of thousands of christians in seventh-century jerusalem to later medieval attacks on christian symbols such as the crucifix, transgressions that were often committed in full knowledge that their likely consequence would be death. it is essential reading for scholars and students of jewish-christian relations. horowitz’s study demonstrates a danger for jews when they are burdened by memories of a history of persecution, especially when committed by christians. yet, this is a distortion of the historical record, not only in terms of exaggeration, but in the general picture it suggests. as james parkes famously wrote, “good theology cannot be built on bad history.”1 1 “a reappraisal of the christian attitude to judaism,” journal of bible and religion 29:4 (1961): 301. horowitz, reckless rites r24 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review michael l. morgan and steven weitzman, eds. rethinking the messianic idea in judaism (bloomington & indianapolis: indiana university press, 2015), softcover, 442 pp. samuel hayim brody, university of kansas rethinking the messianic idea in judaism is a collection of essays reflecting several years of conversation among scholars across several disciplines, loosely organized around the classic 1959 essay by gershom scholem, “toward an understanding of the messianic idea in judaism.” the book contains 15 essays in addition to its introduction, divided into five parts and arranged roughly chronologically. they address a spectrum of related topics, including: the transformations of messianism in late antiquity and its emergence as a trope capable of dividing “judaism” from “christianity”; the claims of messianic figures throughout history; the messianic figure and hopes for a future redemption in modern jewish thought; and contemporary controversies over messianic rhetoric as it is deployed by religious zionists. befitting the volume’s title, intellectual history predominates, with the majority of the essays devoted to analyzing “the messianic idea” in primary texts of the jewish and also the christian traditions as well as in the scholarship on those texts. outstanding contributions at the beginning and end of the volume address important second-order questions about the scholarly construction of the subject which need to be reckoned with in order for the many other texts in the volume to be useful. in “messianism between judaism and christianity,” for example, annette yoshiko reed examines the way it has often been taken for granted that messianism denotes difference, specifically the difference between judaism and christianity, and shows that this wall was laboriously erected studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 10 (2015) by both early church fathers (justin, tertullian) as well as by modern biblical critics and historians of religion (baur, graetz). most important here is that the difference was not seen the same way from either side of the wall: initially, the construction of messianism-as-difference was a christian project, with jews looking elsewhere (to halakhic observance, for example) for defining differences. later on, however, as jews came increasingly to participate in a christian intellectual environment, they adopted this view of messianism as a marker of difference as well. this is seen elsewhere in the volume, as in emily kopley’s essay on “arthur a. cohen’s messianic fiction,” wherein “cohen insists on the to-his-mind radical and necessary opposition between judaism and christianity, given that the former awaits redemption and the latter regards the world as already redeemed by christ” (p. 375). one could imagine a theologian dwelling on this trajectory, transforming it into yet another anxious project of definition and boundary-marking, but a number of the contributions point in other directions. shaul magid’s “the divine / human messiah and religious deviance: rethinking chabad messianism” challenges the common idea that the belief of some members of the chabad-lubavitch hasidic movement in the messiah-ship of their deceased rebbe, menachem mendel schneersohn, is best conceived of as a christianizing heresy. he suggests that not only does such messianism perhaps bear a closer resemblance to the occultation of the twelfth imam in shi’ite islam than to christianity, but also that it draws on a number of well-known hasidic sources and may represent a tradition stretching back to the second temple period. michael l. morgan (in “levinas and messianism”) and martin kavka (in “reading messianically with gershom scholem”) both draw on emmanuel levinas to sketch pictures of messianism that emphasize the connection between political critique and personal, intimate encounter. elisheva carlebach makes a truly original contribution in “seeking the symmetry of time: the messianic age in medieval chronology.” she sketches out the intellectual history of ordinary people by examining the lived sense of time among medieval jews who used studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr “chronographs” and “chronograms” to date their writings, creating a community of readers who emplotted themselves within distinct messianic chronologies. scholem’s worry in his 1959 essay that the zionist movement of which he was a part might succumb to the temptations of messianic enthusiasm is clearly a preoccupation of this volume as well. essays from shai held (“what zvi yehuda kook wrought: the theopolitical radicalization of religious zionism”), motti inbari (“messianic religious zionism and the reintroduction of sacrifice: the case of the temple institute”), david shatz (“the muted messiah: the aversion to messianic forms of zionism in modern orthodox thought”), and menachem kellner (“‘and the crooked shall be made straight’: twisted messianic visions, and a maimonidean corrective”) all confront the contemporary reality of a politically empowered jewish messianic settler movement and its role in promoting oppression and violence against palestinians. this emphasis on a settler group such as gush emunim and its ilk is so common, in fact, that it leaves one wishing for an essay that might present the messianic elements of the zionism that scholem defended, the purportedly secular and non-radical zionism that prevails inside the green line. this, in turn, could shed further light on what is in fact the more common “religious zionist” position, ably described by shatz as having its roots in the thought of rabbi joseph b. soloveitchik, which sees the creation of the state of israel as “merely” providential and miraculous, rather than as a sign of the messianic advent. after all, regardless of one’s political stance on the israel-palestine issue (and there seems to be a range represented here), and beyond the intrinsic interest of contemporary messianic activism, it does not seem that messianic convictions are required for fanaticism, racism, hatred, occupation, or plain disregard for human life. the topical weight of the volume on these more radical forms of messianism is thus both welcome and slightly disappointing. several essays in the volume go off the beaten track to highlight new topics or provide unexpected insights into old ones. studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 10 (2015) steven weitzman’s “he that cometh out” draws on psychology literature about “coming out” as lgbtq in order to shed light on some puzzling descriptions of messianic claimants, including jesus and sabbatai zvi, while cosana eram introduces “isidore isou’s messianism awry,” asking how a french-romanian’s avant-garde autobiography made use of messianic figuration. these pieces nicely complement the bread-and-butter intellectual-historical work of kenneth seeskin (“maimonides and the idea of a deflationary messiah”) and benjamin pollock (“to infinity and beyond: cohen and rosenzweig on comportment toward redemption”), making for a varied volume that should have something for a wide range of students of “the messianic idea.” jacques maritain and the jewish question: theology, identity and politics studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college j a c q u e s m a r i t a i n a n d t h e j e w i s h q u e s t i o n : t h e o l o g y , i d e n t i t y a n d p o l i t i c s robert a. ventresca king’s university college at the university of western ontario volume 2, issue 2(2007): 58-69 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2 author’s note: an earlier version of this paper was presented at the 37th annual scholars’ conference on the holocaust and the churches, march 11-13, 2007, samuel rosenthal center for judaic studies and case western reserve university, cleveland, ohio. ventresca, “maritain and the jewish question” 58 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 58-69 introduction in a curious interview with the american catholic journal the commonweal in december 1938, the noted french catholic philosopher jacques maritain was asked pointedly: are you a jew? “unfortunately, no,” maritain responded, “i am not a jew. i regret it, because it is a great privilege to belong to the same race as jesus christ and the holy virgin.”1 the question was prompted no doubt by the earlier comments of general franco’s minister of the interior, serrano suňer calling maritain not only a jew, but a mason and a communist as well. when asked whether he was a communist, maritain sarcastically observed that, since he was a jew according to the pro-franco press, how could he not also be a communist?2 maritain understood, of course, that francoist officials were decrying him as a ‘jew’ because he was a thorn in the side of the many catholic supporters of franco. here, after all, was a well known and highly regarded european catholic thinker who refused to support franco’s ‘holy war’ against republican elements, which in maritain’s view, “was bringing spain to ruin with the help of mussolini’s fascism and hitler’s racism.”3 maritain’s opposition to what he decried as the catholicism of franco thus became intertwined with the jewish question. as we shall see, maritain’s thinking on the place of anti-semitism in the authoritarian and racist ideologies of interwar and wartime europe played a catalytic role in his life-long effort to address the jewish question in catholic political theology and philosophy. in the modern age, there was a deeply held belief in catholic circles, which saw the seeming ‘ills’ of modernity as the product of nefarious ‘jewish influences.’ in this suspicion of jewish influence and its supposed deleterious effect on the moral health of society, catholic teaching and preaching contributed a significant cultural antecedent to the political anti-semitism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. 1 “une interview de jacques maritain,” in oeuvres completes, 7: 1086-1096, here at 1086. 2 on the speech by serrano suner, see oeuvres completes,. 6: 1167. 3 “une interview de jacques maritain,” 1086. 4 in short, catholic theological attitudes towards judaism were manifest in normative conclusions about the civil status of jews in european society. clearly, catholic moral doctrine demanded the outright condemnation of racial anti-semitism on the grounds that it violated church teachings on natural law. but, crucially, this condemnation did not necessarily translate into a belief in the equality of all peoples in civil law. that the church never advocated the full political and civil rights of jews in european states speaks to the unresolved tensions between catholic political theology and philosophy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and modern liberal democracy; to some of the fundamental differences between traditional catholic and liberal views of freedom, of the source and meaning of human dignity, and of the nature and purpose of the state.5 maritain was a leading figure in a comparatively small but discernible movement within catholicism, in europe and north america, before, during and after the second world war to resolve these fundamental and deeply consequential tensions on theological and philosophical grounds. in his survey of the dynamic relationship between catholic and american ideas of freedom in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, john t. mcgreevy identifies maritain, together with john courtney 4 martin rhonheimer, “the holocaust: what was not said,” first things, 137 (november 2003): 18-27. 5 oliver logan, “catholicism and anti-semitism,” review article of renato moro, la chiesa e lo sterminio degli ebrei (bologna: il mulino, 2002) and catherine brice and giovanni miccoli, eds., les raciness chretiennes de l’antisemitisme politique (fin xixe-xxe siecles) (rome: collection de l’ecole francaise de rome, 2003), in modern italy 9 (may 2004): 101-105. see also, robert kraynak, christian faith and modern democracy (notre dame, indiana: the university of notre dame press, 2001). ventresca, “maritain and the jewish question” 59 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 58-69 murray, s.j., as “leaders in a campaign…to move catholic theology and philosophy toward a more nuanced understanding of the challenges posed by modernity.” european catholic intellectuals, many of whom were living in exile in the u.s. by the late 1930s, helped to populate this movement; from germany there was dietrich von hildebrand, heinrich rommen, heinrich bruning, to name but a few. from italy there was don luigi sturzo, while the french were well represented by such thinkers as yves simon and paul vignaux.6 one of the distinguishing features of maritain’s work, however, was his persistent concern with the jewish question. by the late 1930s, it was evident that maritain hoped to furnish the intellectual basis for concrete transformations to how catholicism thought and taught about jews and judaism. equally important, the fusion of theological and philosophical reflection on the jewish question, with public action was intended to effect – ambitiously – an epochal transformation in the way christians and jews interacted as members of the same body politic, working to realize the same common good. in this regard, maritain’s thought on the jewish question, on anti-semitism, and on its relationship to christianity in the modern world serves as a prism through which to view the evolution of catholic thought and political action before and after the shoah, and indeed because of the shoah. our reconsideration of maritain’s thought on the jewish question will follow two broad lines of inquiry. first, we will sketch a general outline of maritain’s central arguments against any and all forms of catholic-christian anti-semitism, as well as his earnest, albeit vague and perhaps naïve search for workable solutions to what he readily identified as the ‘jewish problem’ in european life. second, we will take up a dimension of maritain’s thought that has long troubled maritain scholars – one has in mind here ralph mcinerny’s contentious juxtaposition of maritain’s capacity for “great lucidity” at the level of speculative enquiry, with maritain’s propensity for “practical opacity” in the concrete application of philosophical insights to the pressing temporal matters at hand. 6 john t. mcgreevy, catholicism and american freedom: a history (new york and london: w.w. norton and company, 2003), 191. 7 maritain’s contemporaries and even his most loyal and devoted disciples realized the tension in maritain’s work. writing to maritain at the end of 1940, the french philosopher yves r. simon, one of maritain’s most accomplished students, remarked, “i am more and more persuaded that even the healthiest theoretical work can…contribute to the disasters in the immediately practical realm because when the house is burning with the inhabitants locked inside, what is important is the immediate and practical.” a few months later, simon expressed his growing conviction that maritain’s continued defence of thomism and his idea of “democracy of the person” – personalism – were inadequate to confront the immediate dangers posed by authoritarian movements and regimes. simon told maritain, “[y]our method is neither utopian nor mythic; let’s call it prophetic. it is conceivable to me that this method will have great value for private contemplation.” still, simon worried that the practical effect of maritain’s theoretical work might be to “kill action,” precisely at a time when concrete action was needed to meet the threat posed by totalitarianism.8 let us consider, then, maritain’s early writings on the ‘jewish question’ through the critical lens afforded by yves r. simon, namely, with an eye to assessing the practical implications for 7 ralph mcinerny, the very rich hours of jacques maritain (notre dame, indiana: the university of notre dame press, 2003), 86-87. 8 yves r. simon to maritain, february 11, 1941. this letter is found in the voluminous correspondence between maritain and simon, now conserved by the jacques maritain center at the university of notre dame. my profound thanks to anthony o. simon, director of the simon institute for his gracious generosity in providing me full access to this vast and rich resource. ventresca, “maritain and the jewish question” 60 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 58-69 the world today of maritain’s prophetic conception of a ‘new christendom.’9 for the purpose of brevity and clarity, we will concern ourselves with three defining strands of maritain’s though on the jewish question.10 the first strand offers a diagnosis of the issue by isolating what maritain called the spiritual essence of anti-jewish sentiment, namely the world’s hatred of jews and of biblical israel’s ‘sacred mission.’ that mission, of course, was to serve as abiding ‘witness to the scriptures.’ to this end, maritain described anti-semitism as christophia, linking the hatred of jews to anti-christian sentiments. “it is the vocation of israel which the world execrates,” maritain concluded. “to be hated by the world is their glory, as it is also the glory of christians who live by faith.” in short, anti-jewish and anti-christian sentiments sprang from the same source, a common ‘spiritual essence’, namely, “the same recalcitrance of the world, which desires to be wounded neither with the wounds of adam nor with the wound of the savior.”11 the second strand in maritain’s thought spoke of israel – understood here as the biblical israel or the jewish people, rather than the postwar state of israel per se – as a paradox and a mystery. maritain likened the “mystery of israel” to the “mystery of the church” – the idea of the people of israel as a “mystical body”; with a sacred, and “superhuman” vocation. “it is true,” maritain wrote sir robert mayer in 1954, “that israel is both people and religion.” but, maritain concluded that jews could only maintain their “spiritual identity” by virtue of the “fire of their religious faith,” not by virtue of a secular state alone. 9 by far the most comprehensive list of maritain’s many writings on the subject is charles p. o’donnell, “a select bibliography on jacques maritain’s writings on jews, christians, and anti-semitism,” in robert royal, ed., jacques maritain and the jews (notre dame, indiana: the university of notre dame press, 1994), 273-275. 10 unlike much of his other writing, maritain’s thought on the jewish question is remarkably accessible to the interested lay reader. the definitive statement, so to speak, can be found in maritain’s a christian looks at the jewish question (new york, 1939). it is important to note, however, that this book was written before the events of the second world war and so some of its analysis seems painfully inadequate and anachronistic when read against the backdrop of the subsequent tragedy that befell european jews. still, the book remains the most comprehensive representation of maritain’s thinking on the subject. 11 jacques maritain, a christian looks at the jewish question, 29-30. 12 to be sure, maritain supported the zionist cause, as he had done since the 1920s. in the middle of the second world war, writing on behalf of the united palestine appeal (based in new york) maritain acknowledged that zionism was not the only solution to the jewish problem, but that it constituted “an historic importance of the first order.” maritain spoke eloquently of the “return to palestine” as the “prelude to the deliverance from exile.” still, maritain insisted that zionism “is called upon, i don’t mean to give rise to a political state like the gentile ones (whose nationalism, moreover is not a blessing for humanity), but rather to become one day the animating center for all dispersed jewry.”13 the third strand of maritain’s thinking on the jewish question reflected an earnest, if somewhat naïve attempt to propose concrete, workable ways to afford european jews peace, security and stability within the confines of european nationstates, and beyond. here maritain was arguably his most prophetic, but perhaps at the same time, his least practical. for the future of european and international politics, maritain posited an ideal political regime based upon the twin concepts of pluralism and personalism. maritain envisioned the emergence of what he called a “new christendom.” he was careful to distinguish it from medieval forms of christian states, 12 jacques maritain to sir robert mayer, november 9, 1954. maritain papers, jacques maritain center, the university of notre dame. file jm 1/07.10. 13 jacques maritain to nathan strauss, honorary chairman of the united palestine appeal (for the defense and upbuilding of the jewish national home in palestine), september 20, 1943. in jm 4/04.01, maritain papers, jacques maritain center, university of notre dame. ventresca, “maritain and the jewish question” 61 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 58-69 which had fostered various forms of anti-semitic attitudes and anti-jewish practices. for maritain, if such a new christendom ever were to emerge, it would be a “secular” type of civilization, not the “sacral” civilization of the middle ages. most important, the new christendom, precisely because it was faithful to the gospels, was to be a regime founded on the dignity of the human person, and on the complete equality of all individuals in civic rights and liberties.14 maritain’s understanding of pluralism was concerned expressly with the place of religious faith and its open expression in the public realm. this new pluralist regime was to be organized along the lines of what maritan called spiritual families, as opposed to national or ethnic lines. maritain thus envisioned jews and christians, as members of distinct, legally recognized spiritual families that would enter into direct agreement with one another, to work together in fellowship towards the realization of the common good of the political community writ large. faced with the political crisis facing european jewry in the 1930s, which in turn had been enabled by the political crises of the interwar period, what was the practical value or effect of maritain’s philosophical and theological ruminations on the nature and origins of the jewish question? more to the point, of what immediate practical value were maritain’s ill-defined visions of a ‘new christendom’ emerging from the age of the dictators; of a new political regime based on gospel-values and thus recognizing the complete civic equality, political and religious freedoms of european jews, regardless of their religious or political commitments? that is the question. 14 see the highly useful collection edited by robert royal, jacques maritain and the jews (notre dame, in: the university of notre dame press, 1994). tentative first steps: the early maritain on the jewish question from the start of his career, maritain devoted a considerable amount of time and effort to thinking about the religious, social and political relationship of jews and judaism to european society.15 we can discern two distinct periods in maritain’s thinking on the jewish question and on anti-semitism. as a relatively young philosopher and recent convert to catholicism, maritain’s early writings on the jewish question betrayed an altogether conventional approach to the topic, adhering to rather commonplace assertions regarding the two distinct aspects to the jewish question: the theological or spiritual dimension, and the political-social dimension of the problem. there was nothing new in this distinction between judaism as a religious system, and the jewish question as a political, social and economic dynamic in european life. authoritative catholic publications in the nineteenth century, including the vatican’s official newspaper l’osservatore romano or other influential journals like the jesuit la civiltà cattolica were replete with commentary on the purported difference between the religious jew and the so-called irreligious jew, and on how christians of good conscience ought to deal with either accordingly.16 maritain’s early writings exhibited strains of the same popular stereotypes about jews as politically and socially subversive and revolutionary. the young maritain was beholden to what we might consider a variation of catholic-christian secessionism that saw the persecution of jews as the 15 as we will see below, one of the earliest recorded samples of maritain’s thinking on the jewish question was reflected in a talk he gave to the semaine des écrivaines catholiques in 1921. see his “a propos de la question juive,” in oeuvres completes, vol. 2, 1196-1203. 16 for an excellent survey of how ‘the jewish question’ was dealt with in the pages of the jesuits’ la civiltà cattolica, see ruggero taradel and barbara raggi, la segregazione amichevole. la civiltà cattolica e la questione ebraica, (rome: riuniti, 2000). ventresca, “maritain and the jewish question” 62 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 58-69 regrettable but inevitable expression of the “providential decree” felt throughout history as the living witness to golgotha. for the young maritain, it was self-evident that “from the moment [the jewish people] refused the true messiah, they were destined fatally to play a subversive role in the world.17 while european jews had proven their loyalty to their respective states by their blood during the first world war, maritain insisted that the great mass of the jewish people “nevertheless remain separated, reserved, in part because of the persecution they face.” according to maritain, then, one could hardly expect from the jews any real “attachment” to the “common good” of the christian west. maritain concluded that the jewish disinterest in the common good of christian civilization explains the presence of “jewish intrigues” and the “jewish spirit” at the heart of most revolutionary movements of modern times.18 it is jarring to hear jacques maritain, renowned for his teachings against anti-semitism and for his rescue activities of so many european jews during the second world war,19 speak of the obvious “necessity” for a “struggle for civic health against the secret judaeo-masonic societies and against cosmopolitan finance.” [emphasis added] maritain even saw the need for certain “general measures” to preserve social 17 “a propos de la question juive,” 1196-1197. 18 maritain, “a propos de la question juive,” 1197. cf. bernard lazare, l’antisémitisme, son histoire et ses causes, first published in 1894. see the english translation, with an introduction by robert s. wistrich, antisemitism: its history and causes (lincoln and london: university of nebraska press, 1995), here at p. 142. lazare wrote “[t]o the scourges befalling him [the jew] replied neither with the mohammedan’s fatalism, nor with the christian’s resignation, but with revolt. as he possessed a concrete ideal, he wanted to realize it, and whatever retarded its advent aroused his wrath. maritain also refers to a book by darmsteter, les prophètes d’israel, as well as the book by maurice muret, l’esprit juif (paris: perrin et companie, 1901). 19 see michael r. marrus, “the ambassador and the pope: pius xii, jacques maritain and the jews,” in commonweal, october 22, 2004, 14-19. order and civic health; such measures, maritain admitted without a hint of hesitation, admittedly were easier in a time when “civilization was officially christian.”20 maritain was careful to insist that any such measures be entirely lawful and enacted by virtue of the duly constituted governing authority. above all, he urged his fellow catholic writers to insist that the political and social dimensions of the jewish question be met with reasoned and charitable debate – without hatred, he wrote, and in keeping with intellectual consistency and discipline. “popular passions and pogroms,” maritain concluded, “never resolved anything; just the opposite.”21 what is more, maritain insisted that the “faults and infidelities” of christians themselves be acknowledged as among the foremost causes of the “universal disorder” troubling the present time. accordingly, catholic writers were to avoid deforming the jewish question into a gross caricature in which ‘the jew’ was the sole cause of societal ills. the practical limits of maritain’s prophetic method maritain’s identification of a certain segment of the jewish population, and of a mystical jewish ‘spirit’ or character that explained the preponderant influence of jews over revolutionary disorders in society, is a telling indication of the extent to which the young philosopher’s views on the jewish question bore the influence of the french neo-thomists whom he regarded as his spiritual advisors and teachers. it also suggests something of the naiveté and superficiality with which maritain often approached practical matters of political and social consequence. in addressing the political dimensions of 20 to illustrate his point, maritain points his reader to a study titled saint thomas et la question juive by monsignor deploige, as well as a study by one m. de la tour du pin, titled “la question juive et la révolution sociale,” in the collection vers un order social chrétien (n.d.). 21 maritain, “a propos de la question juive,” 1198. ventresca, “maritain and the jewish question” 63 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 58-69 the jewish question, maritain revealed the influence of his neothomistic preparation in his repeated references to the common good, to the need to struggle against the sources of social dissension and civil unrest, and in his openness to legal and/or political measures to limit the deleterious effects of ‘jewish intrigues’ in society that called to mind some of the worst anti-jewish excesses of the middle ages. it is well known that the french neo-thomists with the greatest influence over maritain demonstrated considerable sympathy, and in some cases outright support for authoritarian, reactionary movements such as charles maurras’s l’action française. in his seminal study of the movement, the historian eugen weber attests to the well-known affinity leading french neo-thomists displayed for the politics of marruas and his movement. “unwordly men, great scholars like billot or father thomas pègues,” weber observes, “saw only [a.f’s] singleminded opposition to the worldly forces of modernism. catholic faculties were crowded with admirers of maurras who…tended to consider his anti-liberal ideas infallible.”22 so it was with father humbert clérissac, the man who introduced the young maritain, only recently converted to catholicism, to the thought of st. thomas aquinas. raïssa maritan, herself of jewish origin and a convert to catholicism along with her husband jacques, recalled that clérissac “passionately admired maurras; in his disgust with the modern world, in his pure enthusiasm for the metaphysical notion of order, [clérissac] trusted [l’action française].”23 such was maritain’s admiration of clerissac and other french neothomists, and such was his impressionability at this stage in his career, that maritain came to be loosely associated with (although never formally a member) of maurras’s movement. 22 eugen weber, action francaise: royalism and reaction in twentieth century france (stanford: stanford university press, 1962), 220. 23 weber, action francaise, 220. this affiliation was an embarrassment to maritain already by the 1930s, spurred on in large part by the papal condemnation of the movement in 1926. this embarrassment was further heightened during the years of the second world war, when the seeds of the reactionary, anti-parliamentary politics of the 1920s and 1930s were bearing deadly fruit in the collaborationist policies of the vichy regime. maritain’s student and friend, the french philosopher yves r. simon, an émigré intellectual teaching at the university of notre dame, was not shy about reminding maritain of his brief flirtation with the action française in the 1920s. nor was he shy about decrying the troubling propensity of leading french thomists like father reginald garrigou-lagrange to support petain’s regime and its more odious policies. simon wrote maritain in early september 1941, “how disgusting this garrigou! were i not so respectful of the sacerdotal character, i would, i think, write him that he is the one i will hold responsible if harm befalls even one of my jewish friends.”24 for many maritain scholars, his long and very public association with a right wing, anti-semitic, reactionary movement was an unfortunate, regrettable episode in the distinguished career of a great thinker, and thus prefer to gloss over this early period of maritain’s life. still others insist that maritain’s affiliation with the movement was superficial, and ephemeral. yet, as bernard doering and ralph mcinerny, among others, have demonstrated, it is hard to justify paying so little attention to the perplexing matter of maritain’s association with action francaise, or to maritain’s evident propensity to change political commitments virtually overnight.25 24 yves r. simon to jacques maritain, september 3, 1941, yves r. simon institute, south bend, indiana. 25 ralph mcinerny, the very rich hours of jacques maritain, 64. see also rene mougel, “jacques maritain et la condannation de l’action française,” cahiers jacques maritain, 41 (december 2000): 4-51. ventresca, “maritain and the jewish question” 64 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 58-69 that maritain’s loose affiliation with maurras was connected to maritain’s recent encounter with thomism (he first read aquinas a few years after entering the church) is made evident by the collaboration between the two men on the journal la revue universelle. notably, maritain was designated as the journal’s philosophy editor, to guide the journal’s work of promoting thomistic philosophy.26 the significance of maritain’s work with the journal should not be underestimated. after all, he remained associated with it, to varying degrees, from 1920 to 1927. the journal’s joint promotion of thomistic philosophy, under maritain’s tutelage, along with its promotion of the political ideas of action française solidified the growing public association between thomistic thought and the politics of the french right. maritain’s growing interest in thomism after converting to catholicism brought him into contact with prominent french neo-thomists such as garrigou-lagrange, billot and pègues. these neo-thomists, as we have seen, were themselves politically committed to maurras and his movement. speaking of père clérrisac, maritain’s recalled that his spiritual advisor saw in action française the political shield to protect the “dogmatic statement of the faith” from the “dangers then posed by modernism.” maritain went on to explain, “[t]he fact that action française fought these errors from outside, denouncing relentlessly the influence of bergson, the anti-intellectualism of a blondel or laberthonnière, endeared it to him, and all the more because he was upset by the ravages of these errors made among young priests and seminarians.”27 26 for further detail on the journal and the circumstances surrounding its establishment, see bernard doering, jacques maritain and the french catholic intellectuals; and jean-luc barré, jacques et raïssa maritain: les mendiant du ciel (paris: stock, 1995). see also guillaume bourgeade, “jacques maritain et la revue universelle,” cahiers jacques maritain 46 (june 2003): 2-30. 27 quoted in jean-luc barré, jacques et raïssa maritain, 147. it would be tempting to dismiss maritain’s affiliation with action française as an aberration, or youthful naiveté. that it was naiveté is easy enough to believe. the problem, as ralph mcinerny reminds us, is that maritain’s political involvement demonstrated a consistent pattern of such naiveté and aboutfaces. it suggests that maritain demonstrated a kind of “practical opacity” alongside the “great lucidity on the level of practical theory” for which he was, and is, greatly admired. “the deeper fact,” mcinerny concludes, “is that [maritain] was far more interested in atemporal things, and his excursions into the practical put one in mind of plato’s philosopher being dragged against his bent into the political realm, something that happened again and again over maritain’s long career.”28 thomism and the promise of democracy whether maritain’s tendency to move across the politicalideological spectrum was the product of naiveté, or the result of inexperience with and inattention to modern mass politics, his commitment to thomism as the basis for his political thinking remained a constant throughout his life. and the political thought of aquinas left room open to be interpreted – and in the case of charles maurras, manipulated – for different political ends. as paul sigmund observes, aquinas’s political writings provide “authoritarian, constitutionalist…and democratic” answers to the basic political questions on the nature and extent of government.29 a systematic consideration of aquinas’s political thought is beyond the scope of the present study.30 it is nevertheless relevant to understand that, as with 28 mcinerny, the very rich hours of jacques maritain, 64, 86. 29 paul e. sigmund, “the catholic tradition and modern democracy,” the review of politics, vol. 49, no. 4 (autumn 1987): 530-548, here at 534. 30 for an introduction to thomas’s political thought, see paul e. sigmund, editor and translator, st. thomas aquinas, on ethics and politics (new york, 1988); walter ullmann, a history of medieval political thought (new york, ventresca, “maritain and the jewish question” 65 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 58-69 any corpus of philosophical thought, clarity and incisiveness coexist with ambiguity, contingency and contradiction in aquinas’s political thought. what is more, the political use, or abuse of his thought by shrewd political activists like charles maurras should never obscure the spirit or the letter of the original. maritain, unlike maurras, spent a lifetime working to discern the true spirit of aquinas’s thought. for this reason, we can agree with ralph mcinerny in appreciating how thomism provided a “solid continuity” in maritain’s encounter with modernity.31 maritain’s intellectual and spiritual commitments to thomism moderated his approach to the problems of modernity, especially in the political and social realm. through a dynamic application of thomism, maritain’s work helped to bridge catholic thought on politics and modernity with prevailing liberal, secular ideas about the proper relationship between religion, society and politics. in short, thomism influenced maritain in his efforts to resolve the longstanding “alienation” between the church and the modern liberal democratic system.32 at the same time, it was thomism that solidified maritain’s conviction that the prevailing political ideologies of the modern era and the modern view of man – as proposed by liberalism or by communism – were untenable and fundamentally incompatible with christian faith. it is arguably maritain’s singular contribution to catholic thought on the jewish question that he attempted, with varying degrees of success, to fuse catholic theological understandings of judaism with the political and social realities 1975). see also the political ideas of st. thomas aquinas, edited with an introduction by dino bigongiari (new york: the free press, 1997). 31 mcinerny, the very rich hours of jacques maritain, 86. 32 see paul e. sigmund’s excellent article, “maritain on politics,” in deal w. hudson and matthew j. mancini, eds., understanding maritain: philosopher and friend (macon, ga: mercer university press, 1987), 153-170, here at 153. presented by the “dispersion” of the jewish people in predominantly christian lands. this central fact of history, as maritain saw it early on in his career, presented a “delicate” and perhaps irresolvable problem. the realization that the theological understandings of judaism could not be separated from the political and social dimensions of the jewish question, at least not in practical terms, came to maritain rather lately in his career. certainly by the latter part of the 1930s, with the increasingly radical and violent nature of anti-semitism in germany and other parts of europe, including predominantly catholic countries like italy and even maritain’s beloved france, the thomist philosopher jettisoned what appears, in the light of posterity, a naïve and illusory distinction between theology and politics. on the level of speculative enquiry, which was always maritain’s strongest suit, it was fine and good to speak of “the vocation of the jewish people” as distinct altogether from “political” questions such as zionism or the revolutionary impulse of the “jewish spirit.” yet, in terms of attitudes and policies designed to marginalize jews from public life and restrict their civil rights as citizens, such a distinction was easily lost, or rather ignored. in the early part of his career, maritain did not give any systematic or profound consideration to the nexus between vague or ill-defined theological concepts, and the exploitation of such vagueness for political ends. it was a practical insight that escaped maritain in his relationship with maurras and action française in the 1920s. the pattern repeated itself in subsequent years. as we saw above, during the second world war, for instance, maritain’s student and close friend yves r. simon and other colleagues such as waldemar gurian, both of whom taught at notre dame, repeatedly questioned the practical consequences of maritain’s speculative reasoning. commenting on maritain’s a travers le desastre, a book chronicling the events leading up to the fall of france in 1940 and the establishment of the vichy regime, simon remarked, ventresca, “maritain and the jewish question” 66 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 58-69 “your method is neither utopian nor mythic; let’s call it prophetic. it is conceivable to me that this method will have great value for private contemplation.” simon worried that the practical effects of such prophetic vision, however, would be to “kill action.”33 the corpus of maritain’s work on the jewish question similarly might be described as “prophetic,” even if, as we have seen, there were always lingering concerns about the practical utility of the eminent philosopher’s ruminations on the heady events of interwar and wartime europe. the prophetic quality of maritain’s thought on the jewish question is evident in his central thesis about the “vocation of the jewish people” and its relationship to the whole stream of human history, and especially to christianity. the intellectual coherence and moral force of maritain’s argument would come into sharp focus by the late 1930s. but even in the early 1920s, it is evident that maritain saw it as an utmost priority to urge catholic writers to confront with intellectual rigor and moral clarity the anti-semitic politics and press that were gaining numbers and gathering strength. maritain urged his fellow catholic writers to distinguish themselves by “guarding against all hatred and all contempt against the jewish race and the religion of israel.”34 he insisted, echoing saint paul and augustine, “the race of the prophets, of the virgin and the apostles, the race of jesus is the trunk to which we have been grafted.”35 above all, maritain insisted that his fellow catholic writers differentiate themselves, markedly, from the increasingly “shrill” tone with which the political dimension of the question was being discussed by non-catholic and non-christian writers. “it 33 simon to maritain, february 11,1941. yves r. simon institute, south bend, indiana. 34 maritain, “a propos de la question juive,” 1198. 35 maritain cites augustine’s adversus judaeos, c. x, and st. paul’s letter to the romans. other sources include saint jerome, estius and bossuet. is incomprehensible that catholic writers would speak with the same tone as voltaire about the jewish people and the old testament, about abraham and moses.”36 it is important to acknowledge here that which is bold, courageous and, indeed, prophetic about maritain’s insistence that catholic thought on the jewish question distinguish itself by virtue of its theological appreciation of the intimate relationship between the jewish people and christianity. true, there was nothing particularly original or unique about this viewpoint; after all, maritain could call upon some of the oldest and most venerable christian writings to substantiate a point that, sadly, was lost on so many self-professed christians throughout europe, and elsewhere. but what matters most, arguably, is the firm conviction, clearly expressed, that the catholic writer, and by extension catholic thought more generally, had a moral obligation to speak about jews and judaism in a restrained, respectful and even loving manner. in short, it is a fact of some historical significance that a catholic writer of growing reputation should speak in such open, unapologetic terms about the “vocation of the jewish people” and about the jewish roots of the church. in the light of subsequent events, including overt catholic support for avowedly anti-semitic policies and regimes throughout europe, this early call for catholic thought to distinguish itself by its reverence for the “religion of israel” assumes that prophetic quality yves simon and others saw in maritain’s vision. it is important to acknowledge, in turn, the substantive limitations and indeed the inherent weakness in maritain’s early arguments regarding the theological or spiritual aspect of the jewish question, as distinct from the political dimensions of the problem. in separating the theological and the political dimensions of the jewish 36 maritain, “a propos de la question juive,” 1199. ventresca, “maritain and the jewish question” 67 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 58-69 question, maritain unwittingly acquiesced to that subtle but inexorable process in interwar europe by which cultural and social mores came to accept the legitimacy of restricting the civil status and political rights of jewish citizens qua citizens. in the end, the distinction between the theological and the political dimensions of the jewish question was not only intellectually wrongheaded; it also proved to be politically advantageous for the anti-semites, and politically dangerous for that mass of european jews who by the mid-1930s, found themselves increasingly marginalized from civic life of their respective countries, and, eventually, stripped of any meaningful civil or political rights. the bishops, priests and theologians would continue to decry anti-semitism and nazi racism as pagan and un-christian. but until a coherent catholic political philosophy and theology emerged to defend the basic civil and political rights of jews as members of the body politic; until catholic political theology and philosophy condemned antisemitic practices and policies as harmful to the cherished common good, there was little realistic chance for the full social, cultural and religious power of catholicism to make itself felt against the racist anti-semitism of european authoritarian movements and regimes. it is not my intention to suggest that a lone philosopher, with a fairly modest albeit growing reputation in fairly confined french cultural circles, could have effected such a movement from within catholicism. my point simply is to underscore the embryonic, and under-developed state of catholic thought on the jewish question well into the interwar era. in this respect, jacques maritain’s thought on the jewish question can be seen as a kind of microcosm of catholic thought more generally on the subject; of the vulnerability of thinkers who were sympathetic to the jewish people and cognizant of the jewish roots of christianity to a chimerical differentiation between the theological or religious and the political nature of the jewish question. what is more, it is important to acknowledge the extent to which maritain’s thinking on the subject evolved over time, dictated in large part by the tragic events that befell european jews, and much of european society, in the late 1930s and throughout the years of world war two. conclusion what, then, are we to make of the paradox in maritain’s views on the jewish question, between prophetic vision and practical opacity? perhaps the best way to resolve this seeming dilemma is to recognize maritain’s thought as aspirational – a vision of might be, and what ought to be in a world infused with gospel values. more to the point, maritain the philosopher, devout student of the philosophy of st. thomas aquinas, saw that his task was to elucidate and articulate first principles in thinking about the jewish problem in european life. from these first principles, concrete political action and policy decisions could follow – following logically, coherently from the first principles. what is clear, in any case, is that jacques maritain had some very important things to say about catholics, christianity, jews and judaism. we must be careful not to exaggerate the problem of practical opacity, nor should we underestimate the potential maritain’s prophetic vision had for realm of practical, concrete action. for instance, although maritain was not present for the seelisberg meetings in 1947 – it would appear that his duties as french ambassador to the holy see prevented him from attending the meeting – his intellectual and, so to speak, spiritual presence was felt. as ramon sugranyes de franch notes, maritain addressed a letter to pierre visseur, general secretary of the gathering in which maritain asserted, ventresca, “maritain and the jewish question” 68 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 58-69 “[t]he battle against anti-semitism is a fundamental obligation for the conscience and a primordial duty of moral health for what is left of our civilization.” sugranyes de franch even suggests that maritain was the “direct source” of the seventh of the seelisberg ten theses – which dealt with the way the story of christ’s passion ought to be presented in christian teaching. in a letter written to hayim greenberg and published in the jewish frontier in august 1944, maritain wrote, “who put christ to death? the jews? the romans? i myself, i put him to death, every day through my sins. there is no other christian answer to this question…this is what the christian teachers should be teaching to their students.”37 yet, even here, the paradoxical quality of maritain’s prophetic vision vis-à-vis the jewish question is impossible to ignore. perhaps it is not so much a paradox, after all, if viewed through 37 quoted in ramon sugranyes de franch, “a personal memoir,” in robert royal, ed., jacques maritain and the jews, 260-266, here at 263-264. the lens of maritain’s intense christian faith. in the end, for maritain, the suffering of the jews in the shoah conforms the people of israel ever more to “her” messiah. as maritain wrote, “behold, then, how without knowing it, israel has been persecuted by the same hatred that also persecuted (and first) jesus christ. her messiah conformed her to himself in sorrow and abjection before conforming her to himself, some day, in light.” for maritain, then, the so-called jewish question required the christian answer; the mystery of israel and the mystery of the church, intertwined and inextricably linked, but ultimately fulfilled, or better yet, resolved, at calvary. “like strange companions,” maritain concluded, “jews and christians have traveled the way of calvary together…the great mysterious fact is that the sufferings of israel have taken on, more and more, the form of the cross.”38 38 quoted in rabbi leon klenicki, “maritain’s vision of judaism and antisemitism,” in robert royal, ed., jaques maritain and the jews, 72-88, here at 85. original text can be found in jacques maritain, pour la justice, articles et discours (1940-1945) (new york: editions de la maison francaise, 1945), 326. ventresca, “maritain and the jewish question” 69 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ jacques maritain and the jewish question: theology, identity and politics tentative first steps: the early maritain on the jewish question the practical limits of maritain’s prophetic method thomism and the promise of democracy conclusion repositioning the fiholy remnantfl of israel: german jewish negotiations with christian culture on the eve of the holocaust studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 21-35 krell, “repositioning the ‘holy remnant’” 21 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art2 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college “repositioning the ‘holy remnant’ of israel: german jewish negotiations with christian culture on the eve of the holocaust” marc a. krell university of california, riverside 2/1 (2007): 21-35 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art2 studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 21-35 krell, “repositioning the ‘holy remnant’” 22 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art2 1. introduction god abundantly shows his faithfulness by still keeping faith with israel after the flesh, from whom was born christ after the flesh, despite all their unfaithfulness, even after the crucifixion. it is his will to complete the salvation of the world, which he began with the election of israel, through these selfsame jews (rom. 9-11). therefore he continues to preserve a “holy remnant” of israel after the flesh, which can neither be absorbed into another nation by emancipation and assimilation, nor become one nation among others as a result of the efforts of zionist and other similar movements, nor be exterminated by pharoah-like measures. this “holy remnant” bears the indelible stamp of the chosen people….1 in drafting this first edition of the chapter on “the church and the jews” for the bethel confession of 1933, dietrich bonhoeffer and wilhelm vischer assessed the jewishchristian relationship in the early years of nazi germany, and in doing so, insightfully articulated the very debate among german jews since the weimar era regarding their political and theological position vis à vis german christian culture. in the above quotation, evangelical theologians bonhoeffer and vischer expressed their theological ambivalence toward the jews as the physically elected yet spiritually displaced people of god. while unwilling to countenance the pending reality of nazi extermination, these german evangelicals left the jews with no viable political option, rejecting the extremes of assimilation and self 1 dietrich bonhoeffer, no rusty swords: letters, lectures and notes 1928-1936, ed. edwin h. robertson, trans. edwin h. robertson and john bowden (new york: harper and row, 1965), 241. cf. dietrich bonhoeffer werke, bd. 12. berlin 1932-1933, herausgegeben von eberhard bethge (münchen: chr. kaiser, 1986), 402-ff. emancipation in favor of conversion, thus providing a christian theological backdrop for jewish identity construction on the eve of world war ii. ironically by the advent of nazi germany, jewish thinkers had already mapped out those same parameters when constructing jewish identity, creating a spectrum ranging from the assimilation of the wissenschaft des judentums to the spiritual nationalism associated with religious socialism to the ahistorical eschatology and concomitant anti-zionism associated with dialectical theology. bonhoeffer had taken a major role in the bethel confession’s august working group yet ultimately rejected its final version in november 1933 because it did not affirm the continuing status of israel as the chosen people. by maintaining the spiritual centrality of israel as god’s “holy remnant,” bonhoeffer, unwittingly perhaps; entered into negotiations with jewish thinkers over their continued theological and cultural relevance to german society.2 this paper will focus on the jewish side of these negotiations by examining the work of three jewish thinkers who helped shape them, franz rosenzweig, hans joachim schoeps and martin buber. each of these thinkers struggled to understand and portray jewish uniqueness in relation to their surrounding christian culture and god. they were each raised in the assimilated german-jewish subculture of the wissenschaft des judentums while ultimately rebelling against its theological attempts to historicize religion at the expense of jewish particularity. in their efforts to prove their affinity with german protestant culture in the wilhelmine period, liberal 2 on the complex and contentious history of the bethel confession, see guy christopher carter, “confession at bethel, august 1933—enduring witness: the formation, revision, and significance of the first full theological confession of the evangelical church struggle in nazi gemany” (ph.d. diss., marquette university, 1987). see stephen haynes, the bonhoeffer legacy: post-holocaust perspectives (minneapolis: fortress press, 2006), 74-80, 175, n. 46. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 21-35 krell, “repositioning the ‘holy remnant’” 23 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art2 jewish proponents of reform judaism had presented a dual history of judaism and german christian culture in jewish terms that demonstrated their common conceptions of humanity and ethical behavior.3 yet, they argued that judaism had already planted the seeds of ethical monotheism in the west and possessed this idea throughout history, whereas christianity was a “paganized version of judaism which betrayed the message of its jewish founder” and persecuted jews throughout history. in fact, these modern jewish thinkers participated in what susannah heschel has described as a “counterhistory” of christian scholarship reflected in their exploitation of christian narratives to construct their own identities, demonstrating a dialectic between fascination and aversion for christian ideas. ironically by portraying jewish theology in universal terms as the seed of ethical monotheism in western history, the scholars of the wissenschaft des judentums ultimately diluted jewish particularity as a contemporary religious community and essentially transformed it into an historical consciousness.4 marginalized by their neo-orthodox contemporaries, these reform-minded jewish scholars were forced to compete with their liberal counterparts in the 3 see marc a. krell, intersecting pathways: modern jewish theologians in conversation with christianity (new york: oxford university press, 2003), 7. see paul mendes-flohr, german jews: a dual identity (new haven, ct.: yale university press, 1999), 77. 4 susannah heschel, “jewish studies as counterhistory,” in insider/outsider: american jews and multiculturalism, ed. david biale, michael galchinsky, and susannah heschel (berkeley: university of california press, 1998), 102-103, 108. cf. krell, intersecting pathways, 6-7; amos funkenstein, perceptions of jewish history (berkeley: university of california press, 1993), 36, 48-49; mendes-flohr, german jews, 77. protestant community for intellectual supremacy by resorting to apologetics and polemics to define themselves.5 in his 2004 book challenging colonial discourse: jewish studies and protestant theology in wilhelmine germany, christian wiese presents substantial evidence to suggest that the members of the wissenschaft des judentums “with a few exceptions, did not find a partner who was willing to recognize judaism as a relevant and legitimate cultural factor in german society and to respond to it, let alone to take it seriously as a dialogue partner,”6 thus confirming gershom scholem’s classic negative characterization of a perceived german-jewish symbiosis as a “cry into a void” in his 1962 essay, “against the myth of a german-jewish dialogue.”7 wiese concludes that german protestant antijudaism had a “fatal connection with growing antisemitism” characteristic of the nazi racist hatred of jews in the holocaust.8 however, in his review of the german edition of wiese’s book, wissenschaft des judentums und protestantische theologie im wilhelminischen deutschland— ein schrei ins leere, henry wasserman argues that wiese’s evidence does not necessarily support scholem’s thesis and should not be attributed with such significance. instead, he claims that many of wiese’s own findings actually indicate the opposite; a primitive type of dialogue had begun to emerge. he points to a gradually developing type of dialogue 5 see christian wiese’s portrayal of the relationship between the wissenschaft des judentums and their liberal protestant colleagues in challenging colonial discourse: jewish studies and protestant theology in wilhelmine germany, trans. barbara harshav and christian wiese, studies in european judaism series, ed. giuseppe veltri, no. 10 (leiden: brill, 2004), 341-350. 6 wiese, challenging colonial discourse, 429. 7 ibid., 1-4; gershom scholem, “against the myth of a german-jewish dialogue,” in on jews and judaism in crisis: selected essays, ed. werner j. dannhauser (new york: schocken books, 1976), 61-64. 8 wiese, challenging colonial discourse, 433. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 21-35 krell, “repositioning the ‘holy remnant’” 24 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art2 illustrated in three examples presented by wiese: first wiese discusses the effort by the protestant scholar wilhelm bousset to educate himself more about second temple judaism after being criticized by felix perles for mischaracterizing and demeaning judaism based on his reliance upon secondary sources alone. next, he describes the effort to translate the entire mishnah into german by protestant scholars oscar holtzman at giessen university and georg beer at heidelberg that was initially criticized by viennese jewish scholar victor aptowitzer as a disguised polemic, leading to a eventual recruitment of jewish scholars to participate in the project. finally, he outlines various proposals, most of which however failed to materialize, to institute academic positions in wissenschaft des judentums just prior to world war i.9 yet wasserman appears to reserve even greater skepticism for what he perceives as wiese’s claim, “…that a burden of criminal responsibility should be borne by wilhelmine academic protestant theology for the murder of european jewry committed a generation later because of its alleged silence, unresponsiveness, and unwillingness to hold a dialogue with wissenschaft des judentums.”10 wasserman points to the fact that the silence of powerful, cultural majorities in response to the protests for recognition of powerless ethnic and religious minorities is as common today as it was in wilhelmine germany, but it is uniquely problematic to use this as a justification to attribute guilt for the murder of six million jews. when examining wiese’s book and wasserman’s critique, one can detect a certain ambiguity regarding the word dialogue and how it applies to the german jewish-protestant relationship during the wilhelmine period as well as the implications of this 9 henry wassermann, “the wissenschaft des judentums and protestant theology: a review essay,” modern judaism 22 (2002): 94. 10 ibid. encounter for the holocaust. it appears that both wiese and wasserman are willing to admit that there was some level of communication or conversation occurring between the jewish and protestant camps, but it is clear that the type of interaction displayed does not fit neatly into the category of dialogue. based on this discussion, i would argue that dialogue is intrinsically the wrong focus here, and instead the emphasis should be on cross-cultural identity construction. by examining the encounter between these two groups as a type of cross-cultural identity construction, one no longer has the burden of proof to demonstrate whether or not these jewish and protestant thinkers were actually engaged in a mutually affirming dialogue or not. instead, one can affirm with certainty that these theologians were defining themselves in dialectic with each other, demonstrating a tension between fascination and aversion for each other’s ideas reflected in their exploitation of each other’s narratives to construct their own. i have argued further in intersecting pathways (oxford 2003) that the jewish and christian construction of dueling counterhistories in the modern period is part of a larger dialectical symbiosis fueling the construction of jewish and christian identities in relation to each other throughout history and producing a common discourse that reflects mutual antagonism, ambivalence and ultimately dialogue.11 that is why i disagree with wasserman’s attempt to universalize and disassociate the jewish-protestant encounter in the wilhelmine period from the holocaust. it is clearly simplistic to attribute protestant scholars in the wilhelmine period with guilt for the later extermination of six million jews during the holocaust based on the “silence and disregard” they expressed toward jewish scholarship. however, wilhelmine protestant efforts did attempt to define christianity by ignoring and subsequently invalidating 11 krell, intersecting pathways, 5-12. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 21-35 krell, “repositioning the ‘holy remnant’” 25 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art2 jewish existence as part of a uniquely shared history of dialectical symbiosis. theological anti-judaism consequently provided a clear foundation for the racial nazi antisemitism of the holocaust. in the weimar years leading up to the third reich, rosenzweig, schoeps and buber each began to position themselves in opposition to the rational essentialism of the wissenschaft des judentums in an attempt to revitalize jewish identity as a living religious community in relation to christians and god. they all embarked on an existential path toward jewish self-identification, yet their shared route would ultimately give way to divergent pathways reflecting their ambiguous political and theological status vis à vis german christian culture. 2. rosenzweig’s dualistic historiosophy of judaism and christianity rosenzweig accused liberal jewish thinkers like hermann cohen of translating jewish theology into the idiom of christian history and culture without realizing that judaism is ontologically distinct from christianity.12 yet in his 1921 book, the star of redemption, he constructed a dialectical theology using the same type of eschatological discourse as the protestant thinker karl barth in the second edition of his commentary on the epistle to the romans. barth viewed christianity to be an unhistorical phenomenon that actually belongs to an urgeschichte, a prehistory that is both protological and eschatological. in reaction to the development of “cultural protestantism,” barth agreed with swiss theologian franz overbeck’s contention that christian historical existence is essentially absurd because of its original eschatological expectations. similarly, rosenzweig 12 mendes-flohr discusses rosenzweig’s critique of cohen in german jews, 77-86. see krell, intersecting pathways, 8. viewed the jewish people as eternal because of the fact that they anticipate the eschaton by their already established status as a redeemed nation. consequently, the jews cannot grow as a people in the context of history because that would imply that their perfection has not yet been attained in time.13 moreover, just as barth rejected protestant attempts to equate christianity with cultural progress, rosenzweig rejected zionism as a secular movement that mistakenly equated the jews’ eternal longing to return to their holy land with a political movement like all others. because jews can realize the eternal peace of redemption in every moment through their immediacy to god, they do not have to strive for it politically like all the other nations in history. consequently for rosenzweig and later bonhoeffer, the “holy remnant” of the chosen people israel must maintain an apolitical, exilic existence to ensure its eternal status outside history.14 while bonhoeffer accepted the pauline portrayal of jewish carnality as a sign of sinfulness and alienation from god, rosenzweig inverted its meaning to refer to jewish “eternal life” based on physical procreation in contrast to christian self-preservation on the “eternal way” 13 franz rosenzweig, the star of redemption, 2d ed., trans. william w. hallo (notre dame, ind.: notre dame university press, 1985), 328. cf. krell, intersecting pathways, 29-30, 145-46, n. 26; nahum glatzer, franz rosenzweig: his life and thought (new york: schocken books, 1961), 334-335; karl barth, “unsettled questions for theology today,” in theology and church, trans. louise pettitbone smith (london: scm press, 1962), 55-73. see also funkenstein, perceptions, 297; bruce l. mccormack, karl barth’s critically realistic dialectical theology: its genesis and development, 1909-1936 (oxford: clarendon press, 1995), 227-31. 14 rosenzweig, the star, 331-332, 342. see bonhoeffer, no rusty swords, 241; funkenstein, perceptions, 292; krell, intersecting pathways, 28-30. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 21-35 krell, “repositioning the ‘holy remnant’” 26 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art2 toward redemption through proselytization.15 similarly, rosenzweig turned augustine’s narrative in the city of god on its head by arguing that it is not christians who occupy an eternal realm, possessing an “inner unity between faith and life,” but rather the jews who possess this unity by virtue of their blood that enables them to guarantee their eternity merely through “the natural propagation of the body.”16 disappointed with prussian imperialism in wwi, rosenzweig condemned what he considered to be the christian-led zwischenreich or interim kingdom of history in which nations of the world mistakenly claim to achieve eternity through the historical destiny of their states, failing to realize that it is already present beyond history in the very existence of the jewish people.17 while rosenzweig seemed to portray christianity as subordinate to judaism in terms of its historical, this-worldly status, he nonetheless portrayed it as a necessary partner in the task of redemption based on its work of eternalizing the world through proselytization.18 15 bonhoeffer, no rusty swords, 241; rosenzweig, the star, 341-43. cf. krell, intersecting pathways, 36, 149, n. 83; funkenstein, perceptions, 300. 16 rosenzweig, the star, 329-330, 331-332, 299. cf. funkenstein, perceptions, 299, n. 58; krell, intersecting pathways, 32. 17 see rosenzweig’s 1918 letter to hans ehrenberg in der mensch und sein werk: gesammelte schriften, vol. 2, brief und tagebücher, pt. i, 543-544; translated by ronald miller in dialogue and disagreement: franz rosenzweig’s relevance to contemporary jewish-christian understanding (lanham, md.: university press of america, 1989), 107. cf. rosenzweig, the star, 298-300, 328-335, 338-343, 378-379, esp. 334-335; mendes-flohr, “rosenzweig and the crisis of historicism,” in the philosophy of franz rosenzweig (hanover, n.h.: university press of new england, 1988), 154, 157; funkenstein, perceptions, 291-292; krell, intersecting pathways, 30. 18 rosenzweig, the star, 341-342, 415-416. cf. richard a. cohen, elevations: the height of the good in rosenzweig and levinas (chicago: university of chicago press, 1994), 18-21; robert gibbs, correlations in rosenzweig and levinas (princeton, n.j.: princeton although claiming to preserve the absolute nature of jewish identity, rosenzweig’s theology demonstrated a level of interdependence with christianity grounded on a shared, albeit dialectically constructed discourse, and a common vision of redemption at a pivotal time of transition in german history.19 3. schoeps’s theological-political approach to german jewish-christian coexistence in his 1932 book, jüdischer glaube in dieser zeit, schoeps decried what he perceived to be the jewish liberal attempt to make god into either a projection of natural cosmic forces or ethical-political ideals by historicizing revelation.20 drawing from a german christian, cultural discourse shared by bonhoeffer, schoeps crafted a theological response to this religious dilemma shaped to some extent by barth’s dialectical portrayal of faith and martin luther’s writings on divine justification and this worldliness as interpreted by the lutheran scholar karl holl.21 while rosenzweig had utilized this joint discourse with christianity to demonstrate its incommensurability with university press, 1992), 105-106; david novak, jewish-christian dialogue: a jewish justification (oxford: oxford university press, 1989), 108; mendes-flohr, “rosenzweig,” 156. 19 see my discussion of this dialectical interdependence between judaism and christianity in intersecting pathways, 8, 26, 40-41. see funkenstein, perceptions, 269. 20 hans joachim schoeps, jüdischer glaube in dieser zeit: prolegomena zur grundlegung einer systematischen theologie des judentums, in gesammelte schriften, ed. julius h. schoeps (hildescheim: georg olms, 1990), 63-64. cf. krell, intersecting pathways, 43. 21 i discuss the influence of barth and holl’s luther on schoeps’s theology in intersecting pathways, 43, 54-63. see martin rumscheidt’s portrayal of the lutheran and barthian influences on bonhoeffer’s theology in “the formation of bonhoeffer’s theology,” in the cambridge companion to dietrich bonhoeffer, ed. john w. de gruchy (cambridge, uk: cambridge university press, 1999), 55-65. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 21-35 krell, “repositioning the ‘holy remnant’” 27 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art2 judaism, schoeps embraced this shared language and used it to speak to both jews and christians about what he perceived as a general “western history of fallenness” characterized by “the practical and theoretical elimination of god-consciousness.” using early barthian lenses, schoeps viewed both jews and christians as having fallen away from god in sin through secularization and historicism of religion.22 like bonhoeffer, schoeps was inspired by barth to set faith free from the bonds of the liberal religionswissenschaft as well as the spiritless legalism of orthodoxy.23 schoeps argued that jews and christians had forgotten that faith in god cannot be proven rationally, but rather is “dialectically determinable as having and at the same time not-having, as knowledge and equally nonknowledge.” together, they must realize their creaturely status and decide to respond to the divine command through faith in an irrational, unmediated revelation.24 despite jewish claims that he was a full fledged barthian, schoeps disagreed with barth’s objective, christocentric theology of justification in which christ must be understood as the creaturely medium of divine self-revelation that externally acts upon and transforms the individual from 22 schoeps, jüdischer glaube, 4, 63-64, 84 23 see schoeps’s promotion of the barthian idea regarding the “selflimitation of theological understanding and speech” that can’t be at the disposal of any individual human being whether they are a liberal theologian or an orthodox rabbi, in jüdischer glaube, 3, 5-6. see krell, intersecting pathways, 54, 55, 59. rumscheidt discusses barth’s radical critique of religion and its influence upon bonhoeffer’s theology in “the formation of bonhoeffer’s theology,” 61-65. see eberhard bethge, dietrich bonhoeffer: man of vision, man of courage, trans. eric mosbacher, peter and betty ross, frank clarke and william glendoepel (new york and evanston, il: harper & row, publishers, 1970), 52-55. 24 schoeps, jüdischer glaube, 75, 78. cf. krell, intersecting pathways, 43. see also gary lease, ed. “der briefwechsel zwischen karl barth und hans joachim schoeps,” in menora (munich: piper, 1991), 111. sinner to saint. schoeps rejected barth’s perception of christ as the second person of the trinity and consistently argued that israel received an unmediated revelation of god’s word in its “absolute concreteness” at sinai.25 in constructing his theology of an unmediated divine revelation, schoeps had a jewish model in the nineteenth century theologian salomon ludwig steinheim’s promotion of irrational biblical revelation.26 however, i have argued in intersecting pathways that based on his childhood exposure to protestantism and his later immersion into karl holl’s luther studies, schoeps found a christian model for a more theocentric process of justification in the writings of martin luther. like barth, schoeps appeared to portray an objective experience of justification in which a person is externally confronted by god in judgment, but there is no mediation by a separate entity like christ. instead, the process of justification shifts to an inner subjective experience in which the holy spirit works within one’s psyche demonstrating divine grace and producing the realization that one “has the ability to decide to hear god’s word” and complete the process of justification through repentance, charity and prayer. 27 this largely theocentric experience of justification replicated to some extent the 25 see alexander altmann’s critique of schoeps’s alleged barthianism in “zur auseinandersetzung mit der dialektischen theologie,” in monatschrift für geschichte und wissenschaft des judentums 79, 34561; altmann, “theology in twentieth-century germany,” leo baeck institute yearbook i (1956): 209-10. see also my refutation of altmann’s argument with my discussion of schoeps’s approach to justification and revelation in intersecting pathways, 60-61. 26 see steinheim’s portrayal of an irrational biblical revelation in die offenbarung nach dem lehrbegriffe der synagogue, vol. 1 ein schiboleth (frankfurt am main: schmerber, 1835), 11, 358; schoeps, jüdischer glaube, 70-73. cf. gary lease, “odd fellows” in the politics of religion: modernism, national socialism, and german judaism (berlin: mouton de gruyter, 1995), 195, 198, 270, n. 340. 27 schoeps, jüdischer glaube, 82. cf. krell, intersecting pathways, 60-61. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 21-35 krell, “repositioning the ‘holy remnant’” 28 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art2 divine-human encounter described by holl’s luther. while at first facing temptation from satan and intervention by christ, the individual is later confronted directly by god in judgment, ultimately arriving at an inner realization of divine love concealed by divine anger which luther attributed with the working of the holy spirit.28 like bonhoeffer, schoeps was deeply affected by luther’s doctrine regarding the necessity of “grace alone” in the form of an inner realization of divine love to confront the naive optimism of german idealism in human progress leading to the abandonment of a sense of creaturliness. yet not surprisingly, while bonhoeffer disputed holl’s portrayal of luther’s internal “religion of conscience,” schoeps was attracted to a luther without a christocentric approach to justification. 29 schoeps was perhaps also inspired by the this-worldly luther who holl argued, believed in the existence of divine likeness after the fall in the form of love for one’s neighbor, despite the fact that every christian has a dual selfawareness as sinner and saint. in fact, ethical behavior was one’s god-given duty to be performed in and for this world; not as a means to a greater end of reaching “the absolute world of the gospel of eternal salvation.” according to holl, luther believed that ethical behavior should be mediated by the political and social order, and that the state is god’s instrument for preserving the gospel through its attempts to 28 on luther’s portrayal of divine justification, see karl holl, what did luther understand by religion? ed. james luther adams and walter f. bense, trans. fred w. meuser and walter r. wietzke (philadelphia: fortress press, 1977), 74-78. 29 schoeps, ja-nein-und trotzdem: erinnerungen, begegauner, erfahrungen (mainz: hase & koehler verlag, 1974), 136; idem, die letzen dreissig jahre, rückblicke (stuttgart: ernst klett verlag, 1956), 73. cf. holl, what did luther understand by religion?, 42-43, 53, n. 28, 86-91, 96-101; krell, intersecting pathways, 54-55, 62-63; rumscheidt, “the formation of bonhoeffer’s theology,” 56-57; bethge, dietrich bonhoeffer, 46. ensure peace and order in the world. one could argue that in this instance, schoeps found a paradigm for his theological-political approach to prussian nationalism.30 while schoeps placed jews in an ahistorical heilsgeschichte, he also promoted their entrance into history as participants in the formation of a prussian state. because the prussian leaders are representatives of god in history, jews must serve them in their efforts to bring divine order to the world.31 like rosenzweig, schoeps portrayed the jews as having an eternal, otherworldly status through the sanctification of their blood as a result of “the grace of election.” consequently, just as rosenzweig and later bonhoeffer, schoeps rejected zionism as a secular, political movement that mistakenly associated the remnant of god’s inheritance, israel, with a “worldly-historical” rather than a “spiritualsalvation historical destiny.” 32 whereas this led rosenzweig to portray an ontological opposition between jewish eternality and christian historicity, schoeps actually envisioned an unprecedented intersection of jewish spiritual and christian historical destinies in the reestablishment of a prussian monarchy wherein jews and christians could realize their common creatureliness through their service to the divinely appointed state. in his effort to establish a viable prussian-jewish nationalism in the face of nazi racism and 30 holl, what did luther understand by religion?, 95, 100-101, n. 71, 1028, esp. 104. cf. walter bodenstein, die theologie karl holls im spiegel des antiken und reformatorischen christentums (berlin: walter de gruyter, 1968); 206-7. krell, intersecting pathways, 55, 61-63, 156, n. 106. 31 schoeps and hans blüher, streit um israel: ein jüdisch-christliche gesprach (hamburg: hanseatische verlagsanstalt, 1933), 104, 110; schoeps, 76. cf. lease, “odd fellows,” 217; krell, intersecting pathways, 46, 51-53 32 schoeps, jüdischer glaube, 75-76, n. 224. see krell, intersecting pathways, 47-48. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 21-35 krell, “repositioning the ‘holy remnant’” 29 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art2 anti-semitism, schoeps at times conflated his self-perceived, biologically rooted divine essence of the jew with a dogmatic position of faith. by periodically portraying judaism as more of a religion than an ethnicity, schoeps wanted to show that jews were members of the prussian nation based on a religious decision to work with the german people in the universal process of redemption. drawing upon a theological term used by barth, schoeps affirmed that in “redemptive history” german and jewish identities converge, and blood should not be taken into consideration. redemptive history is constituted by the efforts of all people to perpetuate the order of creation “through human history.” schoeps argued that because the principles of statehood originate with a universal god, jews as well as christians must embrace prussia in order to take responsibility for its past development and future destiny. to this end, he organized the deutscher vortrupp in 1933, led by jews whose historical mission was as he understood it, to provide a spiritual foundation for prussian identity by achieving a political rapprochement with the nazi regime. 33 yet despite seeking a public, pragmatic alliance with the nazis, schoeps argued privately that unlike the old conservative leaders of prussia, the nazis failed to recognize the divine origin of the prussian state and consequently rejected any belief in a transcendent order to the world. even though he would eventually be forced into exile in 1938 where he condemned hitler’s self-established “political religion,” schoeps’s theologically based prussian-jewish nationalism and his 33 schoeps, jüdischer glaube, 76; schoeps and blüher, streit um israel, 45-47, 104, 110. cf. lease, “odd fellows” in the politics of religion: modernism, national socialism, and german judaism (berlin: mouton de gruyter, 1995), 215-17, 227-31; krell, intersecting pathways, 46-47, 52. own reputation became captive to the destruction of german jewry in the holocaust. 34 4. buber’s attempt to create an “interhuman” community in constructing his philosophy of dialogue and community following wwi, buber drew upon university of berlin philosopher and sociologist georg simmel’s wissenschaftliche notion of the “suprapersonal realm” to describe what buber considered to be das zwischenmenchliche, an objective synthesis of the “interhuman,” in which truth is determined relationally through human interaction, ultimately creating the foundation for gemeinschaft or true community that is the locus for divine realization. while at the same time, buber criticized the wissenschaftliche efforts of the jewish reform movement to reduce divine revelation to an historically evolving rational principle of ethical monotheism that led to intellectual parasitism and alienation from god.35 yet in contrast to jewish dialectical theologians like rosenzweig and to some extent schoeps, buber refused to remove god and the people israel from western christian history by positing an ontological distinction between a sacred jewish dimension and a profane christian, political realm. like rosenzweig, buber was also deeply affected by the historical instrumentalism and the abuse of power leading to world war i, and he was also inspired to reconstruct theology in relation to his christian milieu. yet whereas 34 schoeps, “der nationalsozialismus als verkappte religion,” eltheto 93 (march 1939): 93. cf. lease, “odd fellows,” 181-82; krell intersecting pathways, 46-47, 52-53. 35 laurence j. silberstein’s discusses buber’s critique of the rational approach embraced by the early reform movement in martin buber’s social and religious thought: alienation and the quest for meaning (new york: new york university press, 1989), 76-77, 81-82. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 21-35 krell, “repositioning the ‘holy remnant’” 30 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art2 rosenzweig positioned himself as a jew in a sacred, metahistorical realm ontologically distinct from a christian realm of secular history, buber envisioned an integration of the spiritual and the historical in a transhistorical realm of the interhuman or what he would later call the “ontology of the between.”36 this integration of the spiritual and the historical reflects buber’s integration of religio, the divine-human encounter with socialitas, the interhuman encounter to form “religious socialism.”37 just as rosenzweig had opposed the idealization of the state and the mistaken belief that eternity arises through historical conquest, buber criticized the belief that the spirit is only effective “…under the sway of powerful groups, under the dictates of what rules in history, that is, of power…”38 however unlike rosenzweig, buber argued in his 1938 article “the demand of the spirit and historical reality” that it is misleading to conclude that history “massively opposes and resists the spirit.”39 for buber, the real problem is not history itself, but rather the misunderstanding and subsequent abuse of spirit as an excuse for power within history. to illustrate his point, he contrasted the mindset of the philosopher plato and philosophers throughout history like hegel with that of the biblical prophet isaiah who did not share the belief that spirit or even power is a human possession but rather something that is bestowed upon the 36 maurice friedman, “the interhuman and what is common to all: martin buber and sociology,” journal for the theory of social behavior 29, no. 4 (1999): 411. cf. mendes-flohr, from mysticism to dialogue: martin buber’s transformation of german social thought (detroit: wayne state university press, 1989), 44-47. 37 buber, “three theses of religious socialism,” in pointing the way: collected essays, trans. maurice friedman (new york: harper & brothers, 1957), 112. 38 buber, “the demand of the spirit and historical reality,” in pointing the way, 182. 39 ibid., 181-82 individual by god. in fact, isaiah demonstrated that spiritually influenced figures like prophets do not have perfect souls like plato. instead, they are in fact powerless and flawed human beings whose mission is to call the powerful to task for dominating the powerless through the perpetuation of social inequality and enslavement. in isaiah chapter 6, god sends isaiah to proclaim that king uzziah’s leprosy symbolized the uncleanness of the entire people including isaiah himself, yet tells him that aside from a small remnant, the entire community will misunderstand his message and persist in their disobedience to god. hence, the prophet isaiah does not represent god’s people over against the heathens, but rather condemns everyone in the community and is not expected to succeed in redeeming the people in the short term. unlike the platonic spiritual figure, the prophetic spirit does not possess a timeless, ideal truth in the midst of a profane world and cannot stand outside of history waiting for the rest of the world to be redeemed.40 instead, buber argues that the prophet is directed to address a particular people in a particular place in a specific historical situation, and even though his message will largely not be acknowledged at the time, “…it instills the vision in the people for all time to come. it lives within the people from then on as a longing to realize the truth.”41 juxtaposing the prophetic with the philosophical narrative, buber cleverly positioned himself theologically between the liberal historicists of religion aligned with the nationalists idealizing the state, and the neo-orthodox theologians rejecting the historical realm altogether in favor of a platonic dualistic historiosophy that was inherently apologetic. instead, he envisioned the emergence of a liminal zone between theology and culture in which the ideal only momentarily envelops the real, but leaves a lasting spiritual 40 ibid., 182-90. 41 ibid., 190. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 21-35 krell, “repositioning the ‘holy remnant’” 31 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art2 legacy that has universal appeal. based on his portrayal of the prophet isaiah, buber seemed to agree with rosenzweig that the jew has been a powerless, spiritual figure in history that is often at the mercy of powerful rulers. yet in contrast to rosenzweig, buber didn’t portray the jew as a purely divine entity that must abandon history in favor of an ideal metahistorical realm. moreover, buber tried to show that god does not necessarily reside in the fixed form of the religious institution or in the small holy remnant of israel in the midst of a christian dominated historical realm that is godless. instead he portrayed divine revelation in more universal terms as a random event in which the divine spirit fuses with different individuals in the world in different locations at different times throughout history.42 together with protestant socialists like leonhard ragaz and paul tillich, buber occupied this liminal zone between religion and culture that transcended the sacramental boundaries of judaism and christianity and demonstrated the potential for sanctification in the concreteness of the everyday world. this was most clearly represented in the public, political sphere where it was needed most to confront the growing objectification, instrumentalism and political domination of german bourgeois culture following wwi. while initially supporting the war for idealistic, asocial reasons, buber and tillich were transformed by the event and propelled toward a philosophy of religious socialism based on the concept of gemeinschaft, a true community governed by a prophetic ethos.43 they both had been 42 ibid., 188-89. 43 on their common goal of gemeinschaft, see mendes-flohr, “prophetic politics and meta-sociology: martin buber and german social thought,” archives de sciences sociales des religions 60, no.1 (july-september 1985): 71; ephraim fischoff, introduction to paths in utopia, trans. r.f.c. hull (boston: beacon press, 1960), xvi-xx; paul tillich, “basic principles of religious socialism,” trans. james l. adams and victor nuovo, in political expectation (new york: harper & row, publishers, staunch german nationalists who justified the war theologically as a symbol of hidden, metaphysical import that transcended its social brutality and political imperialism. yet in response to the destruction following the war and the german socialist revolution of 1918, buber and tillich began to seek out a larger community beyond their particular religious confines with a more universal goal of restructuring the social order as a whole based on equality and justice. they and their fellow jewish and christian socialists came together to confront the common enemy of bourgeois culture and the political, religious and social institutions associated with it.44 the foremost influence upon buber’s ideology of religious socialism was his dearest friend, the german jewish anarchist and social philosopher gustav landauer, who totally opposed the authority of the state, instead opting for a doctrine of “federalist anarchism” that consisted of a completely decentralized socialist community that emerges spontaneously out of smaller communal cells. buber would closely align himself with landauer’s federalism by advocating a social, decentralist framework as opposed to the political, centralized socialism emerging in russia following the bolshevik revolution.45 both he and paul tillich 1971), 83-85; stumme, introduction to the socialist decision, trans. franklin sherman (new york: harper & row, publishers, 1977), x-xi. 44 on their shared confrontation with bourgeois capitalism, see mendesflohr, “prophetic politics and meta-sociology: martin buber and german social thought,” archives de sciences sociales des religions 60, no.1 (july-september 1985): 70-71; john stumme, introduction to the socialist decision, by paul tillich, trans. franklin sherman (new york: harper & row, publishers, 1977), xi-xiii; stephen haynes, “between the times’: german theology and the weimar zeitgeist,” soundings 74, no. 1-2 (spring/summer 1991): 24-25; richard a. falk, “martin buber & paul tillich: radical politics & religion,” in faculty papers (new york: the national council, 1961), 6-8,” 13-15, 18-27. 45 buber, paths in utopia, 49-53, 106-07, 117-18. cf. friedman, martin buber’s life and work, 237-38, 240-42 studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 21-35 krell, “repositioning the ‘holy remnant’” 32 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art2 stood on the boundary or as buber described it, the “narrow ridge” between the autonomy of a decentralized, anarchistic community and the heteronomy of a centralized socialist or even democratic state.46 in order to create an ethical balance between the autonomous and heteronomous forms of socialism, buber and tillich articulated the joint discourse of religious socialism that erected a sacred, central zone to which individual citizens and government leaders could gravitate, preventing them from yielding to the extremes of absolute autonomy or heteronomy, and integrating them together in a meaningful and interdependent public sphere. in doing so, they were dismantling the traditional barrier between the holy and secular spheres in their attempt to show that religion and culture are indeed interdependent and that holiness pervades all existence.47 in 1928, buber organized and hosted a conference on religious socialism focusing on the universal theme that socialism is not just a fundamental change in the economic framework of society, but also a philosophy of human renewal embracing one’s spiritual, ethical and psychic existence.48 in the protocol for the conference, buber echoed this universal theme by asserting that socialism must be understood as a movement promoting the “concrete common life” of humanity and the genuineness of 46 tillich, on the boundary, 43-45. for a description of buber’s attempt to take the middle ground between centralization and decentralization, see friedman, martin buber’s life and work, 241. 47 see mendes-flohr, “nationalism as a spiritual sensibility: the philosophical suppositions of buber’s hebrew humanism,” the journal of religion 69, no. 2 (april 1989): 162-63; mendes-flohr, “prophetic politics and meta-sociology,” 70-71; haynes, “between the times,” 24. 48 stumme, socialism in theological perspective: a study of paul tillich, 1918-1933, american academy of religion dissertation series, ed. mark c. taylor, no. 21 (missoula, montana: scholars press, 1978), 40; mendes-flohr, “nationalism as a spiritual sensibility,”1 63; mendesflohr, “prophetic politics and meta-sociology,” 71. interhuman relationships, finally urging the attending religious socialists to “construct a true human community (gemeinschaft) in an utterly unromantic fashion, totally alert to the present…”49 here buber spoke with prophetic passion about reconstructing the social order, admitting that it would be too precipitous to promote a utopian, otherworldly endeavor at such a precarious moment in germany. when rejecting political romanticism, he seemed to be alluding to the immanent rise of nazism. he was indeed prophetic as the neutral zone of religious socialism was steadily shrinking and by 1932, the window for genuine dialogue between jewish and christian socialists in weimar germany was also closing. this changing dynamic was reflected in buber’s inability to assemble a group of jewish socialists to join together with christian socialists who had become increasingly christocentric in their approach.50 consequently on the eve of the holocaust, buber began to apply his religious socialist approach more earnestly to his evolving zionist ideology. promoting the interconnection of religion and culture, he argued in religious socialist terms that only by returning to their ancestral homeland can jews rediscover divine holiness in the concreteness of their national existence rather than simply as the object of their religious devotion. he claimed that the roots of jewish nationalism lay in the hebrew bible which promoted a type of biblical or what he considered to be “hebrew humanism,” reflecting the need for a “concrete transformation” of jewish life: both the inner religious life of the individual and the outer 49 buber, “einlandung zu einer sozialistischen aussprache in der pfingstwoche 1928 in heppenheim a.d. bergstr.,” in sozialismus aus dem glabuen. verhandlungen der sozialistischen tagung in heppenheim, a.b. (zurich: rotaffel, 1929), 243. cf. mendes-flohr, “nationalism as a spiritual sensibility,” 163; idem, “prophetic politics and meta-sociology,” 71. 50 maurice friedman, martin buber’s life and work: the middle years 1923-1945 (new york: e.p. dutton, inc., 1983), 100-101. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 21-35 krell, “repositioning the ‘holy remnant’” 33 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art2 political life of the community.51 buber based his ideology of hebrew humanism on what he perceived as the purpose of the biblical covenant; hallowing every day life without any division between sacred and profane realms, a theology that he argued was magnified later in the eighteenth century by the eastern european jewish pietistic movement of hasidism.52 interestingly enough, buber seemed to agree with the dialectical theologians rosenzweig and schoeps by refusing to see the jewish people as a “normal nation in the modern sense of the word,” instead arguing that they are fundamentally a “community of faith” who by becoming secularized, had forgotten their true identity.53 however, while rosenzweig and schoeps to some extent, argued for the separation of the historical jewish people from its metahistorical existence as a community of faith, buber believed that the ideal jewish spirit could be fused with its real body politic in a religious socialist framework. to this end, he contrasted his ideology of hebrew humanism with the conventional zionist approach which in his eyes “regards israel as a nation like unto other nations and recognizes no task for israel save that of preserving and asserting itself.”54 instead, he argued that zionism must be based on the 51 mendes-flohr discusses buber’s application of his religious socialist ideology to zionism in “prophetic politics and meta-sociology,” 73. cf. buber, on the bible, ed. nahum n. glatzer (new york: schocken, 1982), 213; silberstein, martin buber’s social and religious thought, 249-50. 52 silberstein, martin buber’s social and religious thought, 250. 53 ibid., 248. cf. buber, israel and the world (new york: schocken, 1963), 223. 54 buber, israel and the world, 248. cf. silberstein, martin buber’s social and religious thought, 249. humanistic principle of gemeinschaft, an ideal community characterized by mutual trust, concern and solidarity.55 in his 1923 book i and thou, buber argued that an ideal community arises situationally when a group of individuals share a common relation with each other and a divine center in a social framework which cannot be willingly constructed in advance. yet while these communities are ideal, they are not otherworldly, demonstrating a quasi-utopianism. in his 1949 book paths in utopia, buber would actually assert that the more earthly and creaturely the divine center is, the truer it will be. 56 there he pointed to the cooperative settlement or kibbutz movement in palestine as an example of “an experiment in utopia that did not fail” because of the fact that it emerged out of the historical situation of the zionist pioneers and their primary need to work the land which superseded any singular theological or ideological doctrine. in fact, buber asserted that the ideal community does not emerge by circumscribing a group of people within a periphery or an external border separating it from other communities, but rather grows spontaneously out of individuals who appear as radii in a common relation to a divine center.57 this explains why buber attempted to advance this religious-socialist philosophy of community in germany during the weimar era when jewish and protestant socialists had the unprecedented opportunity to construct a “true human community” situated between the peripheries of liberal and neo-orthodox circles in each of their communities. yet this also explains why by 1932, buber realized that the historical situation for jews had changed dramatically. as a result, they could no longer achieve the spiritual and cultural renewal that he had once 55 mendes-flohr, “prophetic politics and meta-sociology,” 73-74. 56 buber, paths in utopia, 135. 57 buber, i and thou, 163; buber, paths in utopia, 135. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 21-35 krell, “repositioning the ‘holy remnant’” 34 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art2 thought was possible in the public sphere of the german polity, and could only rediscover that in the land of israel, their ancestral home. subsequently for buber, the zionist regeneration of jewish gemeinschaft was essentially “the moment’s answer to the moment’s question” of how the jews would position themselves in relation to the modern german nation state.58 5. conclusion despite their divergence from one another, the theological approaches of rosenzweig, schoeps and buber represent a common attempt to map out the course of twentieth-century jewish identity construction based on a shared, but at times unacknowledged engagement with christian thought and culture. their writings constitute a mutual opposition to the perceived failure of their forbearers in the wissenschaft des judentums to balance jewish particularity and universalism, while at the same time reflecting a desire for varying degrees of mutual coexistence with their christian contemporaries. although scholars are in disagreement about the extent of jewish-german dialogue in the wilhelmine era and its implications for the holocaust, it could be argued that the liberal jewish reformers during this period perpetuated a longstanding, complex dialectic in which the ideas of the dominant culture were neither passively internalized by the subculture nor entirely distinct from them; rather, they were actively negotiated at the boundaries between the two cultures and shaped to fit the circumstances of the subculture. whether they admitted it or not, rosenzweig, schoeps and buber each inherited the ongoing dialectic between fascination for and aversion toward christian culture exhibited by their predecessors in the wissenschaft des judentums. rosenzweig was attracted to the dialectical 58 buber, paths in utopia, 134. cf. mendes-flohr, “prophetic politics and meta-sociology,” 77. discourse of his protestant contemporary barth and used it to portray an incompatible yet interdependent relationship between jewish and christian cultures in a redemptive framework, while schoeps argued for an existential intersection between ontologically distinct jewish and christian cultures in a prussian political matrix, using a taxonomy constituted by barthian and lutheran elements. finally, buber constructed a joint religious socialist response to weimar capitalism in dialogue with protestant thinkers like paul tillich, while at the same time utilizing this more universal discourse to cultivate a uniquely jewish nationalism. to conclude, dietrich bonhoeffer’s 1933 theologicalpolitical forecast of jewish destiny vis à vis christian culture was eerily correct yet simplistic in laying out the possible permutations of jewish fate in the holocaust and beyond. when examining the writings of the jewish thinkers rosenzweig, schoeps and buber in response to their wilhelmine forbears in the wissenschaft des judentums, it appears that bonhoeffer was intuitively correct regarding the different possible directions that jewish life could take, ranging from assimilation to zionism to extermination. yet by simply discounting each of these possible jewish interfaces with christian culture, bonhoeffer failed to take into account the complex negotiations between jewish thinkers and their german milieu in the run-up to the holocaust. one could argue that based on a combination of unfamiliarity with contemporary jewish theology and the fact that he viewed jews through the prism of a supersessionist christian heilsgeschichte, bonhoeffer was unable to envision the intricate types of engagement with christian culture undertaken by his jewish contemporaries in germany. yet at the same time, one could argue that this same ideal, theological vision clouded his assessment of the realistic historical fate awaiting the jews in nazi germany, in the sense that the perceived theological centrality of the jews in studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 21-35 krell, “repositioning the ‘holy remnant’” 35 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art2 the west was more of a rationale for, as opposed to a guarantee against their extermination in the eyes of hitler. ultimately the work of rosenzweig, schoeps and buber confirmed bonhoeffer’s portrayal of the continuing validity of jewish existence in relation to god during the holocaust, while at the same time providing models for a later, dialogical mapping of jewish identities vis à vis christianity in an increasingly multicultural, post-holocaust world. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr ccjr annual meeting proceeding the pope francis effect and catholic-jewish relations 1 noam e. marans, american jewish committee in evaluating the trajectory of catholic-jewish relations in the pope francis era, one picture is worth a thousand words. pope francis has identified marc chagall’s white crucifixion as one of his favorite paintings. 2 in the aftermath of kristallnacht in 1938, when hundreds of european synagogues were torched, foreshadowing greater evil yet to come, chagall artistically interpreted the threat of nazism within the continuum of anti-semitism. a “jewish jesus” is on the cross, wearing a tallit (prayer shawl) loincloth and surrounded by scenes of persecuted and fleeing jews. a synagogue and its torah scrolls are engulfed in flames, torched by a nazi brownshirt. using conflicting imagery, chagall delivers his warning: the jews who were persecuted as christ-killers are now crucified as jesus the jew once was. pope francis did not hesitate to publicly herald a painting featuring a syncretistic “jewish jesus” that certainly has the potential to offend, notwithstanding the facts of jesus’ historic jewishness and the painter’s jewish identity. it speaks volumes about francis’ empathy with the jewish people and lack of concern that his admiration for the painting might be controversial or misinterpreted. and the absence of negative 1 a version of this paper was delivered on october 26, 2014 at the ccjr (council of centers on jewish-christian relations) 13 th annual meeting in mobile, alabama. with gratitude, i acknowledge the research assistance of my ajc colleague, dahlia herzog, in preparation of this article. 2 antonio spadaro, s.j., “a big heart open to god: the exclusive interview with pope francis,” america, sept. 30, 2013 issue, http://americamagazine.org/pope-interview, accessed march 4, 2015. white crucifixion can be viewed at http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/59426, accessed march 4, 2015. http://americamagazine.org/pope-interview http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/59426 studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 10 (2015) reaction from the jewish community to francis’ fondness for this painting demonstrates a jewish comfort level with this pope that may be unique. certainly, francis’ interest in the painting suggests the significant role that the trauma of the holocaust plays in his theological and interreligious thinking. additionally, jewish sensitivity to christian images previously perceived as threatening may be diminishing. pope francis, instinctively or unconsciously, might sense that. in a poignant scene from chaim potok’s my name is asher lev, published in 1972, the young hasidic artist’s family cannot fathom his unorthodox act of painting crucifixions and nudes. asher’s mother says in exasperation, “your painting. it’s taken us to jesus. and to the way they paint women.” asher responds, “chagall is a jew,” but his mother cuts him off, “religious jews, asher, torah jews. such jews don’t draw and paint.” 3 asher’s father is enraged, and asks his son if he knows “how much jewish blood had been spilled because of that man?” 4 and yet in the fall of 2013, the jewish museum in new york showcased a collection of chagall paintings entitled chagall: love, war, and exile, featuring several paintings of the “jewish jesus” genre. white crucifixion from the art institute of chicago collection was not shown in the exhibit, but was included in its publication. 5 the exhibit generated no protest from the jewish community. on the contrary, it was welcomed with universal acclaim. jewish culture has come a long way from potok’s my name is asher lev to the jewish museum’s chagall: love, war, and exile. pope francis’ artistic sensibilities are, perhaps, in sync with the jewish people’s own cultural comfort level. 3 chaim potok. my name is asher lev (new york: anchor books, 1972), 171. 4 ibid, 173. 5 susan tumarkin goodman and kenneth e. silver, chagall: love, war, and exile (new york: jewish museum, 2013), 105. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr pope francis’ unselfconscious ease with his jewish relationships can be traced to his argentinian roots. in addition to being the first jesuit, first latino, and first southern hemisphere pope, francis is also the first pope to have had the opportunity to implement nostra aetate within a local ongoing, fluid, and living catholic-jewish relationship. he rose up within an argentinian church that had relations with jews. he spoke out on issues of concern to the jewish people and demonstrated solidarity with the families of the 85 victims murdered by terrorists at the amia jewish center. he led the argentinian church in holocaust commemoration and education. it is important in the understanding of francis’ biography that the jewish community of argentina is large and proud. argentina has the seventh largest number of jews in the world. excluding israeli and american cities which dominate jewish demographics, buenos aires’ jewish population is one of the largest in the world. 6 pope francis enjoys welldocumented positive relationships with argentinian-jewish leaders, particularly rabbis. he publicly celebrates his friendship with rabbi abraham skorka. their rabbi–priest conversations, part of a television series, were adapted into the one and only book, on heaven and earth, authored by cardinal jorge mario bergoglio, the future pope, before his ascent to the papacy. 7 there is no papal precedent for the frequency and intensity of francis’ engagement with the jewish people through meetings, gestures, and formal and informal pronouncements and teachings. on the day of his election he initiated a warm 6 “vital statistics: jewish population of the world (1882 present),” citing sergio dellapergola, “world jewish population, 2012,” in the american jewish year book, (2012 [2014]), 212-283, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaism/jewpop.html, accessed march 5, 2015. 7 jorge mario bergoglio and abraham skorka, on heaven and earth: pope francis on faith, family and the church in the 21st century, trans. alejandro bermudez and howard goodman, (new york: image, 2013). https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaism/jewpop.html studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 10 (2015) exchange with the chief rabbi of rome, dr. riccardo di segni. at his installation a few days later, the pope singled out for welcome the jewish leaders in attendance with the phrase, “the representatives of the jewish community and the other religious communities.” 8 in francis’ characteristic yet remarkable interaction with eugenio scalfari, the self-described non-believer and cofounder and former editor of la republica, the pope wrote, with the help of god, especially since the second vatican council, we have rediscovered that the jewish people remain for us the holy root from which jesus was born.... as my mind turned to the terrible experience of the shoah, i looked to god. what i can tell you, with saint paul, is that god has never neglected his faithfulness to the covenant with israel, and that, through the awful trials of these last centuries, the jews have preserved their faith in god. and for this, we, the church and the whole human family, can never be sufficiently grateful to them. 9 in a letter to la republica, chief rabbi di segni, who is known to set cautious limits to interreligious dialogue, wrote, “this pontiff does not cease to surprise.” 10 while acknowledging that francis’ sentiments are not new to the catholic 8 pope francis, mass, imposition of the pallium and bestowal of the fisherman’s ring for the beginning of the petrine ministry of the bishop of rome: homily of pope francis (march 19, 2013), 1, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2013/documents/papafrancesco_20130319_omelia-inizio-pontificato.html, accessed march 5, 2015. 9 pope francis, letter to a non-believer (sept 4, 2013), 4, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2013/documents/papafrancesco_20130911_eugenio-scalfari.html, accessed march 5, 2015. 10 as quoted in lisa palmieri-billig, “pope francis and the jews: the first six months,” vatican insider: la stampa, (sept. 18, 2013), http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/inquiries-andinterviews/detail/articolo/jews-di-segni-david-rosen-vatican-ii-27954/, accessed march 5, 2015. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130319_omelia-inizio-pontificato.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130319_omelia-inizio-pontificato.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130911_eugenio-scalfari.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130911_eugenio-scalfari.html http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/jews-di-segni-david-rosen-vatican-ii-27954/ http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/jews-di-segni-david-rosen-vatican-ii-27954/ studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr church, di segni nonetheless exclaimed, “it is the force with which he expresses them and his capacity of communicating them that is astounding.” 11 the profound truth in this observation is applicable as well to pope francis’ wider ability to resuscitate the church. without minimizing the positive content of the pope’s statements, it is often the way he says things more than the content of his utterances that has brought a new spirit to the church. beginning with his first audience at the vatican with representatives of the international jewish community, when pope francis greeted an international jewish committee on interreligious consultations (ijcic) delegation, he has repeatedly characterized christian anti-semitism as both sinful and absurd. in the official vatican english translation of his june 24, 2013 address in italian to the ijcic delegation, an exclamation point accentuates the salient sentence: “due to our common roots, a christian cannot be anti-semitic!” 12 christian anti-semitism is self-denial or self-hate, argues pope francis, because there is no christianity without judaism first. the pope recently reiterated this teaching during an interview with the israeli newspaper, yediot achronot. he said, “antisemitism is a sin…our roots are in judaism.” 13 it was at the ijcic meeting that we were introduced up close to the relative informality of francis encounters. this is indicative of his style, and perhaps even more so in his jewish meetings. veterans of papal encounters were expecting an an 11 ibid. 12 pope francis, address of his holiness pope francis to members of the international jewish committee on interreligious consultations (june 24, 2013), 1, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/june/documents/ papa-francesco_20130624_international-jewish-committee.html, accessed march 5, 2015. 13 henrique cymerman, “it's hard to build peace; but living without peace is an absolute nightmare,” ynetnews, (nov. 28, 2014), http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,l-4597267,00.html, accessed march 5, 2015. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/june/documents/papa-francesco_20130624_international-jewish-committee.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/june/documents/papa-francesco_20130624_international-jewish-committee.html http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,l-4597267,00.html studies in christian-jewish relations 6 scjr 10 (2015) nouncement or signal of the pope’s arrival, but francis caught us off guard, entering an intimate room from the rear and taking his seat on an unelevated and understated chair. he is a warm, unassuming, and unscripted pope who has a remarkable ability to engage each individual fully even as his guests work their way through the long receiving lines. more dramatically, the now legendary september 2013 jewish holiday experience at francis’ vatican was reported in depth by his good friend, rabbi skorka. skorka visited with pope francis during shemini atzeret, simchat torah, and shabbat, and described the scene: i eat with him at breakfast, lunch and dinner every day. he cares for me, and controls everything regarding my food to make sure it is all kosher, and according to my religious tradition. these are festive days, and i have to say certain prayers at meals and, i expand the last prayer and translate it. he accompanies me together with the others at the table—his secretaries and a bishop—and they all say “amen” at the end. 14 can we safely presume that this scene is unprecedented in papal history? although francis’ gestures are important, it is the formal teaching of the magisterium that will have the most lasting effect beyond his tenure. his first apostolic exhortation, evangelii gaudium (“the joy of the gospel”), a 224-page document, briefly but powerfully addresses interreligious dialogue. in a section entitled “relations with judaism,” francis writes, 14 gerard o’connell, “pope francis and rabbi skorka make history in the vatican,” vatican insider: la stampa, (sept. 29, 2013), http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/francescofrancis-francisco-28206/, accessed march 5, 2015. http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/francesco-francis-francisco-28206/ http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/francesco-francis-francisco-28206/ studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 7 www.bc.edu/scjr dialogue and friendship with the children of israel are part of the life of jesus’ disciples. the friendship which has grown between us makes us bitterly and sincerely regret the terrible persecutions which they have endured, and continue to endure, especially those that have involved christians. 15 rabbi david rosen, my ajc colleague and the leading jewish dialogue partner with the three most recent popes, put evangelii gaudium in historic context. “his emphasis on the ongoing divine presence in the life of the jewish people and on the importance of the ‘values of judaism’ for christians is particularly significant in further advancing the historic transformation in the catholic church's approach towards the jewish people,” said rosen. 16 pope francis wasted little time in affirming the centrality of holocaust commemoration and the importance of the state of israel to jews, catholics, and catholic-jewish relations. following in the footsteps of his two predecessors but prioritizing it earlier in his papal travel schedule, francis made a pilgrimage to the holy land with a state visit to israel. notwithstanding some overstated controversy regarding an impromptu stop at the security wall in bethlehem, francis clearly conveyed his heartfelt appreciation for the jewish story. building upon the historic establishment of holy see-israel diplomatic relations with israel in 1993, francis articulated the “right of the state of israel to exist and to flourish in peace and 15 pope francis, apostolic exhortation evangelii gaudium of the holy father francis to the bishops, clergy, consecrated persons and the lay faithful of the proclamation of the gospel in today’s world, 185 http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/p apa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html, accessed march 5, 2015. 16 “ajc welcomes the appeal by pope francis for catholic-jewish friendship,” (nov 26, 2013), http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=7ojilspwffjsg&b=84 80439&ct=13423079, accessed march 5, 2015. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=7ojilspwffjsg&b=8480439&ct=13423079 http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=7ojilspwffjsg&b=8480439&ct=13423079 studies in christian-jewish relations 8 scjr 10 (2015) security within internationally recognized borders.” 17 he recognized the right of the palestinian people to a homeland and the holy see’s support for a two-state solution. francis followed the latter aspiration with an assemblage at the vatican to pray for peace that was attended by jewish, christian, and muslim religious leaders, together with israel’s president shimon peres and palestinian president mahmoud abbas. at a moving encounter at the yad vashem holocaust memorial and museum in jerusalem, francis “humbly bowed to kiss the hands of holocaust survivors,” 18 and offered an elegiac homily concluding with, “adam, ‘where are you?’ here we are, lord, shamed by what man, created in your own image and likeness, was capable of doing.” 19 francis was the first pontiff to visit and lay a wreath at the grave of theodor herzl, the founder of modern zionism. 20 the drama of history was not lost upon those who remembered herzl’s diary post describing his 1904 audience with pope pius x, when he entreated catholicism’s leader to support the zionist effort to establish a jewish state in palestine. herzl set down pius x’s response: 17 pope francis, welcoming ceremony: address of pope francis, (may 25, 2014), 2, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/may/documents/ papa-francesco_20140525_terra-santa-cerimonia-benvenuto-tel-aviv.html, accessed march 5, 2015. 18 crispian balmer and philip pullella, “as mideast trip nears end, pope navigates minefield of symbols,” reuters, (may 26, 2014), http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/26/us-pope-holylandidusbrea4o00120140526, accessed march 5, 2015. 19 pope francis, visit to the yad vashem memorial: address of pope francis, (may 26, 2014), 2, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/may/documents/ papa-francesco_20140526_terra-santa-memoriale-yad-vashem.html, accessed march 5, 2015. 20 jodi rudoren, “pope lays wreath at tomb of zionism’s founder,” the new york times, (may 26, 2014), http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/world/middleeast/pope-francisjerusalem.html, accessed march 5, 2015. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/may/documents/papa-francesco_20140525_terra-santa-cerimonia-benvenuto-tel-aviv.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/may/documents/papa-francesco_20140525_terra-santa-cerimonia-benvenuto-tel-aviv.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/26/us-pope-holyland-idusbrea4o00120140526 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/26/us-pope-holyland-idusbrea4o00120140526 http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/may/documents/papa-francesco_20140526_terra-santa-memoriale-yad-vashem.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/may/documents/papa-francesco_20140526_terra-santa-memoriale-yad-vashem.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/world/middleeast/pope-francis-jerusalem.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/world/middleeast/pope-francis-jerusalem.html studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 9 www.bc.edu/scjr we cannot give approval to this movement. we cannot prevent the jews from going to jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. the soil of jerusalem, if it was not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of jesus christ. as the head of the church i cannot tell you anything different. the jews have not recognized our lord, therefore we cannot recognize the jewish people. 21 as a result of the unprecedented nature of francis’ positive history and interactions with the jewish community past and present, the francis effect has arguably had a more significant impact upon catholic-jewish relations than in other arenas. therefore, in predicting the future of catholic-jewish relations during the francis era it seems unlikely preexisting strains will evolve into full confrontations during his pontificate. a combination of his empathy for the jewish people and a perception among jews that he is a friend should mitigate any potential tensions. whatever disagreements might arise between catholics and jews, it is clear in the post-nostra aetate era, even more so in the francis era, that differences will be resolved, or at least discussed, among friends, and pope francis is certainly a friend. nonetheless, there are at least two challenges that may rear their heads during his tenure, and are worth watching. one is theological/liturgical, and the other is historical. the former relates to the extraordinary rite (tridentine) version of the good friday prayer “for the jews” promulgated by pope benedict xvi in 2008. it includes the hope, “may the lord our god illuminate their hearts so that they may recognize jesus christ as savior of all men,” and “as the fullness of peoples enter into your church, all of israel 21 raphael patai, ed., the complete diaries of theodor herzl (new york/london: herzl press/thomas yoseloff, 1960), 4: 1603. studies in christian-jewish relations 10 scjr 10 (2015) may be saved.” 22 this controversial prayer’s intent was clarified by cardinal walter kasper, president of the vatican commission for religious relations with jews, as an eschatological hope and not a call to conversion, but the contretemps may linger. 23 the proselytization of jews, even implicit, remains a sensitive topic for the jewish people. the latter challenge is likely to be more serious and difficult to resolve: the historical record of pope pius xii during the holocaust years. this entails the opening of the relevant vatican archives and the controversy over the beatification process for pius xii. as cardinal bergoglio, pope francis called for the full opening of the archives so the truth may be known. 24 pope francis’ recent comments about pope pius xii reveal his belief that perhaps the war-time pope’s record has been misunderstood. 25 however this historical debate plays out, it will be a challenge for catholic-jewish relations. but the promise of francis’ pontificate remains most alluring. there has long been concern that the advances in catholic-jewish relations taken for granted in europe and even more so in the united states may be harder to achieve elsewhere, especially where there are few jews. a pope whose background is so different from his predecessors and speaks spanish as his mother tongue might have the ability to reach 22 pope benedict xvi, “new tridentine rite good friday prayer for jews,” (july 7, 2007) cited in dialogika, http://www.ccjr.us/dialogikaresources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/pasttopics/good-friday-prayer/440b1608feb5-1, accessed march 5, 2015. 23 john thavis, “vatican cardinal defends reformulation of tridentine prayer for jews,” catholic news service, (february 7, 2008), http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0800734.htm, accessed march 5, 2015. 24 bergoglio and skorka, on heaven and earth, 183. 25 “pope francis defends pius xii’s wartime record,” jta: news brief, (june 13, 2014), http://www.jta.org/2014/06/13/news-opinion/world/popefrancis-defends-pius-xiis-wartime-record, accessed march 5, 2015. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/pasttopics/good-friday-prayer/440-b1608feb5-1 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/pasttopics/good-friday-prayer/440-b1608feb5-1 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/pasttopics/good-friday-prayer/440-b1608feb5-1 http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0800734.htm http://www.jta.org/2014/06/13/news-opinion/world/pope-francis-defends-pius-xiis-wartime-record http://www.jta.org/2014/06/13/news-opinion/world/pope-francis-defends-pius-xiis-wartime-record studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 11 www.bc.edu/scjr more broadly with the message of nostra aetate and expand this golden age of catholic-jewish relations. when an ajc delegation met with pope francis at the vatican in february 2014, we presented him with a copy of the jewish museum exhibit book inside an artistic and inscribed gift box. we showed him page 105 of the exquisite volume, where a print of white crucifixion is included. francis was moved by our recognition of his emotional connection to the painting and responded with a joyous smile. with pope francis, catholic-jewish relations have entered a new stage, normalization. it is all very natural, without premeditation. it is therefore most appropriate that the fiftieth anniversary of nostra aetate will be commemorated and celebrated during francis’ pontificate, emblematic of the maturity of this cherished interreligious relationship between sibling faiths. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review lauren faulkner rossi wehrmacht priests: catholicism and the nazi war of annihilation (cambridge: harvard university press, 2015) martin r. menke, rivier university lauren faulkner rossi’s book is a rich study of german catholic clergy and seminarians under nazi rule, especially during world war ii. she embeds the specific experience of catholic military chaplains and other catholic priests and seminarians drafted for service within the larger discussion of the tension between catholic moral teaching and german nationalist and national socialist ideology. on a larger scale, faulkner rossi provides a useful case study with which to analyze the competing claims of national and religious identity on german catholics in the twentieth century. she demonstrates that the pull of national identity and the pull of religious identity both were strong. she also shows that observant catholics need not have been ideologically committed to nazism to participate in the racial war in eastern europe. faulkner rossi’s work is a part of a growing scholarly analysis of german catholic priests during the nazi era. other recent works include kevin spicer’s hitler’s priests: catholic clergy and national socialism (dekalb: northern illinois press, 2008), doris bergen’s swords of the lord: military chaplains from the first to the twenty-first century (south bend: university of notre dame press, 2004), and martin röw’s militärseelsorge unter dem hakenkreuz: die katholische feldpastoral 1939 – 1945 (paderborn: ferdinand schöningh, 2014). of these, faulkner rossi offers the best analysis of catholic priests and seminarians in the wehrmacht. lest one think this topic insignificant, one needs to remember that while there were never many more than four hundred active studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 10 (2015) duty chaplains, a total of more than 17,000 priests, brothers, and seminarians served as medics. church leaders constantly feared the anti-clerical and anti-religious indoctrination of the regime, and the nazi regime took very seriously the danger catholic vocations posed to nazi ideology. these men faced these sometimes competing demands to carry out their religious vocations and to fulfill their duty to their homeland. in the first chapter, faulkner rossi offers an outstanding summary of relations between the catholic church and the german imperial, republican, and nazi governments. explaining the tension between the catholic minority and the largely protestant elite dating back to before the kulturkampf, this chapter presents perhaps the best brief summary of the subject. it is clear that faulkner rossi understands the larger developments in german catholicism as well as the specific seminal moments and developments. helpful to the reader also is faulkner rossi’s gift of clear and engaging prose. in the catholic chaplaincy, one of the most important individuals was its vicar general, georg werthman. faulkner rossi uses his papers to explore the tensions between obedience to military and civilian authority and to catholic teaching. she does so in a more differentiated manner than others have. while some have seen werthmann as almost heroic for taking on most of the duties of the ineffective military bishop justus rarkowsky, faulkner rossi points out werthmann’s moral blind spots. an example of this is his unquestioned loyalty to the armed forces, even insisting on wearing his military uniform while in post-war american captivity and forbidding catholic clergy from aiding occupation officials after defeat. throughout the work, faulkner rossi builds on the ideas john connelly developed in his from enemy to brother (cambridge: harvard university press, 2012). she asks how catholics could support, tolerate, or simply not resist a regime that was not only immoral but manifestly inimical to catholic teachings and the church. only one priest, pallotine father franz reinisch, died for his refusal to serve in the wehrstudies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr macht. while faulkner rossi argues that for every priest who resisted nazi demands, there were many more priests who accommodated themselves to the regime and even a good number of “brown” priests who supported the regime out of conviction, she is more interested in understanding than in keeping score. given the incompatibility of catholic morality and nazi ideology, faulkner rossi inquires how catholics reconciled themselves to the regime before and during the war. she shows that catholics, like most people, were patriotic, often nationalistic, but also observant of their faith and reliant on the comfort it provides in a crisis. in other words, german catholics live their faith as well or as poorly as people of all other faiths and nationalities. like röw, faulkner rossi problematizes the use of the sacrament of reconciliation in wartime. on the one hand, immoral acts are part of warfare. however, this war was intentionally and profoundly immoral since the regime declared the war in the east to be a racial war in which the rules of war did not apply. as a military chaplain, how could one grant absolution to a wehrmacht soldier who had participated in mass murder or other atrocities beyond the “normal” scope of wartime horror, considering that the same soldier was likely to commit further crimes in service to the fatherland. faulkner rossi embeds this wartime experience and behavior in the context of the pre-war formation of catholic clergy during the early period of nazi rule. she shows that the wartime priests had been well-socialized in a dense network of catholic youth organizations that had survived until the late thirties. they were immersed not in nazi ideology from birth but had gone through catholic formation. their seminary training occurred largely free of nazi influence. one might have expected these men not only to be “inoculated” against nazi racism and violence, but to see it as their christian duty to speak out against such crimes. another process in the development of catholic-nazi relations that faulkner rossi explains well is the increasing persecution studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 10 (2015) of the church by the regime. from the violations of the reich concordat almost immediately after its conclusion, to the morality and currency fraud trials of the later thirties, to the ban on catholic youth organizations, faulkner rossi shows the regime’s increasingly vehement efforts to remove the church from public life. when the war broke out, there were no chaplains in the air force, established after the concordat’s conclusion, and of course, no chaplains in the ss. furthermore, the regime vetted all candidates for the chaplaincy. the nazis soon dismissed all jesuits from military service, and then dismissed all priests from the reserve officer corps. there never were enough chaplains to meet demand, and the efforts of priests who served as medics to fill the pastoral gap were tightly controlled and discouraged by the nazis. by 1942, the regime insisted that empty chaplains’ posts were not to be filled, even after 19 chaplains died or became captives at stalingrad. at the same time, the regime introduced the nazi equivalent to the soviet politkommissar, the nationalsozialistische führungsoffizier to provide proper indoctrination. faulkner’s historical interrogation of catholic chaplains does not end in 1945. she analyzes post-war accounts by priests reflecting on their wartime service. none acknowledge the contradictions between what many observed themselves or at least heard in the confessional and catholic morality. none mention having seen atrocities themselves or having suffered under the burden of such knowledge. it is as if the holocaust did not occur within their realm of responsibility. faulkner explores antisemitism among the chaplains, but finds few active antisemites. she shows that, even retrospectively, german catholic priests largely saw the atrocities in the east as something that happened outside their area of influence and responsibility. the only minor quibble one could have with this work, and it is a minor quibble, is one infelicitous translation from the german on page 249, where faulkner rossi translated “oder ihm auch nur die augen zudrücken” as “to be able to bend the rules for him.” “eine auge zudrücken” indeed means to studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr bend the rules to let something pass, but “jemandem die augen zudrücken” is the practice of closing the eyelids of someone just deceased, which also makes more sense in the context of the passage. faulkner rossi’s work is valuable. she provides an excellent summary of catholic relations with the german state and with the protestant majority before 1933, then uses the chaplaincy to illustrate the immensely complex relationship between the church, its priests, and its members on one hand and the nazi regime and the wehrmacht on the other, from the beginning to the end of the regime. furthermore, she confirms that after the war, german priests were as unlikely as lay people to critically reconsider their service to germany and its masters in the light of catholic morality, even after vatican ii. her work is suitable for the larger public, undergraduates, graduate students, and scholars. the question of the competing loyalties of faith and nation in the face of such atrocities remains, but faulkner rossi has provided much food for thought. microsoft word anderson_e.doc studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers in jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church e. byron anderson garrett-evangelical theological seminary volume 1 (2005-2006): pp. 103-126 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 104 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 introduction over the past twenty years or more, some christian liturgical theologians have raised important questions about the nature of christian prayer, and especially practices of christian worship, in a post-holocaust, post-auschwitz age. david power posed these questions most directly in a series of response pieces published in 1983 and 1985. he asked, “can we in truth celebrate eucharist after the nazi holocaust and in face of imminent nuclear holocaust, and in a world half-populated by refugees, in the same way as we did before the occurrence of such horrors?”1 although some understood him to be asking if christians could celebrate the eucharist at all, power was clear that his concern was with worship “in the same way as before”, “without qualification.”2 susan white posed similar questions in her 1994 book christian worship and technological change: “can we confess and intercede before a god who seems not to have heard the cries of the jews in the death camps?” “can we…pray in the same way to the god of classical theism, the god of power, wisdom, might and mercy, in a postauschwitz community of faith?”3 the answer to these questions is that while many of our churches continue to worship “in the same ways,” they should not continue to do so. the nazi holocaust, the threat of nuclear destruction, and the events of september 11, 2001, all challenge the nature and character of christian 1 david n. power, “response: liturgy, memory and the absence of god” worship 57.4 (july 1983): 328. 2 david n. power, “forum: worship after the holocaust,” worship 59.5 (september 1985): 447. 3 susan white, christian worship and technological change (nashville: abingdon, 1994), 114-115. see also e. byron anderson, “liturgical prayer in a post-holocaust church,” encounter 63.1-2 (2002): 27-36 where i briefly explored some of these questions in conversation with the work of clark williamson. worship; they call us away from the “eulogistic evasion of suffering” and into lamentation for the woundedness and destruction of god’s people throughout the world. the events of september 11 and the war in iraq brought a shortlived soberness to worship in some christian communities. but our memories are also short-lived, especially when they are memories of times and places far from our own homes and communities. christian attention to the nazi holocaust, with the exceptions of interest in elie wiesel’s work or in the visit of john paul ii to auschwitz or the bizarre literature denying the holocaust, remains largely in the hands of theologians and ethicists. their work, combined with the work of a small group of jewish and christian liturgists has had a kind of “trickle down” effect on christian worship. yet such concerns remain largely unacknowledged and unexplored in christian worship today. susan white noted in a recent article that her earlier questions remain unanswered and unaddressed: “blatant examples of triumphalism, antijudaism and supersessionism which marked most official christian rites of the past have been largely eliminated…[r]ecent liturgical revision has barely skimmed the theological surface of the jewish-christian encounter.”4 as robert bullock also notes, while we have been able to critique theologies of supersessionism, while we have attended to the ways in which the most problematic scripture texts and liturgies – especially those for holy week – have been interpreted or revised, there remains throughout much of the church “a ‘liturgy of 4 susan white, “‘posthumous victories’: christian worship after the holocaust” in martin forward, stephen plant, and susan white, eds., a great commission: christian hope and religious diversity (new york: peter lang, 2000), 394. robert albright also provides a brief overview of some of the issues considered here. see his 1992 paper “how official christian liturgical songs and prayers form christian perceptions of judaism” available at the institute for christian and jewish studies, http://www.icjs.org/clergy/albright.html (downloaded december 28, 2005). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 105 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 supersessionism.’ it is present in liturgical structures, in the choice and use of texts, prayers, hymns and religious art….to liberate worship from these elements is an enormous task.”5 my hope in what follows is not so much to “liberate worship” as to pay close attention to the subtle ways in which the “liturgy of supersessionism” persists in our churches. such attention is important because, while liturgy has an “event-like” character that is about present and immediate experience, liturgy also is ritual and rite through which patterns of linguistic, homiletic, musical, and embodied practices are repeated over time and by which christian persons are formed. mary boys names the challenge well: because liturgy exercises such a profound role in forming christians, what it teaches about our relation to jews and judaism requires painstaking examination. supersessionism, a constant christian theological theme, permeates our liturgical life. the liturgy typically reflects the “conventional account” of christian origins—and indeed, is a principal reason for its enduring character. we thus acquire not only a distorted understanding of judaism, but of ourselves.6 if we are to effect change in the hearts and minds of christian people who gather for worship week in and week out, we need to attend specifically to what it is that these same christian people hear, pray, and sing, not only during 5 robert bullock, “after auschwitz: jews, judaism, and christian worship” in carol rittner and john k. roth, eds., “good news” after auschwitz: christian faith within a post-holocaust world (macon, ga: mercer university press, 2001), 81. 6 mary boys, has god only one blessing (new york: stimulus books/paulist press, 2000), 200. holy week but in “ordinary time” as well. susan white reminds us of the importance of such “primary theology” in life and belief: most ordinary christians ‘do theology’ through their participation in the corporate worship of the church, exploring the geography of faithfulness in prayers, hymns, exhortations, sermons, readings, and learning the rules and limitations of ‘god-talk.’ suffice it to say that if any of the insights from a truly post-auschwitz christian theology and spirituality are to find a home in the hearts and minds of christian believers, it will be because it has been lived out in their liturgical experience.7 given the formative nature of christian liturgical practices, it is necessary now to expand (but not discontinue) our attention beyond the liturgical use of scripture and problematic prayer texts used in christian observances of holy week.8 we need to look at prayer texts and hymns used, or proposed for use, throughout the liturgical year. we must also attend to the ways in which christians use language in the naming of god. it is also important that we not limit our attention solely to christian texts. the ways in which christians observe and theologically interpret sunday in relationship to the sabbath and even the calendrical relationship between easter and passover, although operating more symbolically in christian life, are also part of the liturgical structures of supersessionism that have shaped 7 white, “posthumous victories,” 397. 8 for example, william seth adams, “christian liturgy, scripture, and the jews: a problematic in jewish-christian relations,” journal of ecumenical studies 25.1 (winter, 1988): 39-55; gail ramshaw, “pried open by prayer” in e. byron anderson and bruce t. morrill, sj, eds., liturgy and the moral self (collegeville: liturgical press, 1998), 169175; and, most recently, henry f. knight, celebrating holy week in a post-holocaust world (louisville: westminster john knox, 2005). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 106 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 and continue to shape christian anti-judaism implicitly and explicitly. lenses for reading christian liturgical texts before turning to a selective analysis of resources found in recent liturgical books and hymnals, it will help to name the “lenses” through which i am reading these resources and the structures that guide my assessment. first, we must move away from understanding the history of god with israel as merely a history that prepares for the gospel and the church and learn that such history “surrounds the gospel as its horizon, context, and goal.”9 second, acknowledging that many of the ways in which christians have narrated salvation history has left “no room for the continuing existence and vitality of judaism” requires us to provide “more nuanced and textured ways of relating god’s salvific work throughout history.”10 third, we must learn to see that christian liturgical texts and practices, as well the interpretation of these, often lead to differing understandings of the relationship between israel and the church. that is, in addition to more obvious forms of displacement or supersessionism, we need to attend to the ways in which the relationships between first and second covenant, first and second testament, israel and church are portrayed by images or theologies of promise and fulfillment, or as a linear evolution from the less true to the more true or from the incomplete to the complete. and, it will be helpful for us to pay attention to and affirm those texts and practices that 9 r. kendall soulen, the god of israel and christian theology (minneapolis: fortress, 1996), 176. 10 boys, has god only one blessing, 211. affirm the complementarity or interdependence of israel and the church.11 finally, it is important to note what i am not attending to in this review and analysis. first, the three “lenses” i am using immediately raise christological and anthropological questions that are largely implicit in the discussion that follows but beyond the scope of this paper. such questions include the character and purpose of the work of christ as well as the nature of what christians receive in or through christ. for example, can we understand “new life in christ” in a non-supersessionist way? second, because of the attention given by others to the particular problems posed by holy week and the common lectionary, as noted earlier, i have largely set both aside in order to cast a wider net. in this analysis, i include questions about the pronouncability and use of the name in christian prayer; the distinction, or lack thereof, between sabbath and sunday; and the relationship between the dating of easter and passover. after addressing these themes, i want to look more generally at several, i hope, representative prayer and hymn texts. pronouncing the name of god the question here is not how to pronounce the name of god, the tetragrammaton; contemporary biblical scholars are generally agreed upon the way in which to pronounce the name. nor is the question what the name of god is or should be, as in contemporary discussions concerning the gendered name of god. rather, the question is whether and why christians should vocalize the tetragrammaton in christian worship in light of the long tradition in judaism of 11 ibid., 219. i am drawing here on boys’ summary and critique of four categories of relationship described by laurence hull stookey in “marcion, typology, and lectionary preaching,” worship 66.3 (may 1992): 251-262. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 107 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 not vocalizing the name, the taboo against doing so, and the practice of substituting other names such as adonai. jewish and christian traditions and scholarship seem to agree that the primary motivation for the taboo against pronouncing, or even writing, the name comes from a fear of profanation of god’s name, a fear grounded in an interpretation (for some a misinterpretation) of the third commandment against the misuse of god’s name (i.e., “taking the lord’s name in vain”) and in the understanding that to use a name is to exert a form of control over the one named. scholars cannot provide a certain date when pronunciation of the divine name was no longer permitted. they do suggest that the name was “originally spoken by priests in the temple in pronouncing benediction” and that there was a gradual diminishment in pronunciation and audibility after the destruction of the second temple.12 the early christian community seems to have honored the tradition of not speaking or writing the name, at least if we attend to the “absence of the tetragrammaton and its almost universal replacement by [kyrios]” in christian copies of the lxx.13 how, then, have contemporary christians come to use the name? why do christians increasingly pronounce the name in worship, if jews do not do so? as michael gilligan observes, the liturgical use of the name and its appearance in christian song is a recent innovation, perhaps the result of the french and english versions of the jerusalem bible.14 12 g. h. parke-taylor, yahweh: the divine name in the bible (waterloo, ont.: wilfrid laurier university press, 1975), 10, 79, 86-88. 13 george howard, “the tetragrammaton and the new testament,” journal of biblical literature 96.1 (march 1977): 74. 14 michael joseph gilligan, “the tetragrammaton in god’s word and liturgy,” liturgical ministry 5 (spring 1996): 79, 82. gilligan helpfully summarizes catholic positions on the use of the name in catholic liturgy; he concludes, “this term should have no place in our liturgy” (84). but, given the amount of attention the church now gives to the ways in which ritual language forms persons in structures of power and belief, i find it surprising that questions about the use of the name are generally ignored. for example, mary collins, in the context of discussing inclusive language and the church’s privileging of “father” as the name of god, talks about the fact that the name and abba are “privileged names for the god of jesus.” her critique of abba/father leads her to argue that the name is the “sole normative biblical revelation of the divine name.”15 but given this argument, she neither considers how the name is privileged for both christian and jew nor the consequences of such privilege (such as not using it liturgically). missing in much discussion is the awareness of any tension between the privileged use of a name and the reservation of that privilege to particular people, places, or liturgical contexts. and, despite regional roman catholic prohibitions against the public use of the name in worship, such as the 1986 ecumenical guidelines of the province of chicago, it continues to appear (primarily) in contemporary roman catholic music and worship resources.16 some might question why this should be an issue in jewish-christian dialogue. johanna van wijk-bos answers this question as boldly as anyone. she argues that willingly ignoring “jewish scruples regarding the name of god” such 15 mary collins, “naming god in public prayer,” in mary collins, ed., worship: renewal to practice (washington, dc: pastoral press, 1989), 223. 16 the 2004 edition of breaking bread (portland, or: oregon catholic press) contains five songs or psalm settings that make use of the name. among recent protestant collections, renew: songs and hymns for blended worship (carol stream, il: hope publishing, 1995) contains one, dan schutte’s “sing a new song”, also found in breaking bread. given that all five pieces in breaking bread were written in the early 1970s, it is highly plausible that experiences with the then new jerusalem bible (1966) shaped the writing of these texts. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 108 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 as in wellhausen’s work leads to “an implicit lack of respect for jews…accompanied by an explicit lack of respect for god’s name.”17 it is not only disrespect that concerns her, but also the consequences of that disrespect: “the full vocalization of the tetragrammaton partakes of the ‘teaching of contempt’ that is an aspect of the hatred of jews that made the shoah possible.”18 she argues that christians, on the one hand, have “feigned innocence of the connections between the silence surrounding the shoah and the spokenness of god’s name” and, on the other hand, combined this innocence with an arrogance that suggests it is universal practice to pronounce god’s name and that the taboo against such pronunciation is a superstition to be set aside (as did protestant reformers such as calvin).19 whether in feigned innocence or in arrogance, christians – and here those responsible for shaping christian worship – must ask ourselves if we continue to treat the prohibition as superstition, as part of the “old” covenant, or as simply not applying to christians. we need ask ourselves what it means to truly honor the divine name. then, as michael gilligan suggests, we might ask ourselves what simple charity for 17 johanna w. h. van wijk-bos, “writing on the water: the ineffable name of god” in alice ogden bellis and joel s. kaminsky, eds., jews, christians, and the theology of the hebrew scriptures (atlanta: sbl, 2000), 48. 18 van wijk-bos, 49. 19 van wijk-bos, 52. on calvin, see his commentary on exodus 6.2 in harmony of the law, vol. 1, as downloaded july 20, 2005 from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom03.iv.vi.i.html. but, calvin’s commentary on the third commandment in the institutes reveals his clear respect for god’s name: “the purpose of this commandment is: god wills that we hallow the majesty of his name. therefore, it means in brief that we are not to profane his name by treating it contemptuously and irreverently” (ii.viii.22). calvin: institutes of the christian religion, john t. mcneill, ed., ford lewis battles, trans. (philadelphia: westminster press, 1960), 388. god’s people requires of us.20 we should not use the name in worship, but we should sing and pray “blessed be the name.” time christianity interprets time theologically in the annual cycle of feasts and fasts that mark the liturgical year and sanctoral cycle, in the weekly observance of the lord’s day/sunday, and in the daily cycle of the liturgy of the hours. in each of these cycles, liturgical historians have noted the potential and real jewish sources of christian observance. but in speaking of jewish sources of christian practice, the church has easily allowed itself to celebrate and interpret its practices as displacements of and replacements for jewish liturgical practices. here i focus on two questions that symbolize and continue to shape the relationships between christianity and judaism: the relationships between sabbath and sunday and between the dating of passover and easter. 1. sabbath and sunday. as walter burghardt notes so clearly, “in the christian mentality there is a traditional tension, if not an endless embarrassment, between two holy days: the jewish sabbath and the christian sunday. we speak of our sunday as ‘replacing’ the sabbath, and is so doing we don’t quite know what to do with what we have ‘replaced.’ for all practical purposes it has disappeared, is no longer of concern to us.”21 even in her wise and pastoral book receiving the day, dorothy bass both calls christians to “honor the sabbath as belonging first of all to the jews, 20 gilligan, 84. a related point, beyond the scope of this argument, is to acknowledge that accuracy in translation of and reading the hebrew text requires that we also discontinue using “jehovah”. 21 walter j. burghardt, sj, “sabbath and sunday belong together,” living pulpit 7.2 (april june 1998): 8. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 109 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 not only in the past but also today” and transfers the sabbath to sunday for christians; she both distinguishes the seventh day from the first/eighth day and collapses sabbath into sunday.22 there are various arguments for the development of sunday as the christian day for gathering and worship, most beyond the scope of this paper. among these are arguments concerning the desire of christians to distinguish themselves from jews, the interpretation of jesus’ sayings about the sabbath as challenging the very keeping of sabbath (mt 12.1-14, mk 2.23-2.6, lk 6.1-11), and the gospel stories of jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to his disciples on the evening of the first day (lk 24.13ff, jn 20.19ff).23 some of these arguments clearly operate out of a displacement or supersessionist understanding of the relationship between israel and the church. but, as mark searle argued, “there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the early church saw sunday as a christian sabbath. there is some evidence to suggest that some christian groups considered the law of sabbath observance binding on christians as well as jews, so that both saturday and sunday were highly significant days.” yet even searle cannot receive the sabbath on its own terms. in his very next sentence he writes, “but the consensus that generally came to prevail is that what the sabbath represented had actually been realized [my emphasis] in the whole new age 22 dorothy c. bass, receiving the day (san francisco: jossey-bass, 2000), 52. 23 paul bradshaw, the search for the origins of christian worship, second edition (oxford: oxford university press, 2002), 178. ushered in by christ, of which the first day of the week became the symbol.”24 later in the same article, he writes, whereas the sabbath is a day of rest from labor, a momentary participation in the rest of god which preceded creation and will follow history, sunday represents the altogether more radical idea that the life of the world to come is already here. it lasts not twenty-four hours, but from the resurrection of christ unto ages of ages. sunday is the eighth day, shattering the treadmill of the seven-day week….25 note his argument: not only does sunday realize what sabbath represented, but it “shatters” the week as well. for searle, the themes and images “associated with the hebrew sabbath have now passed over [my emphasis] into the new age as characterizing the life-style of those who have passed from life to death.”26 similar but more clearly supersessionist concerns appear in a collection of essays by evangelical biblical scholars. they argue, for example, that the sabbath is a covenant sign meant only for israel and only for the duration of the 24 mark searle, “sunday: the heart of the christian year” in maxwell johnson, ed., between memory and hope: readings on the liturgical year (collegeville: liturgical press/pueblo, 2000), 63. 25 searle, “sunday: the heart of the christian year,” 71. adrian nocent provides helpful correctives to such positions as he reports eusebius’ observation that the early church was able to hold sabbath and sunday in juxtaposition without conflict and with his reminder that the idea of sunday, the first day of the week, as a day of rest was not possible prior to constantine’s conversion. see adrian nocent, “christian sunday” in eugene j. fisher, ed., the jewish roots of christian liturgy (mahwah, nj: paulist, 1990), 133, 137. 26 searle, “sunday: the heart of the christian year,” 75. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 110 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 covenant with israel.27 the commandment concerning the sabbath has been fulfilled in christ, who has reinterpreted the commandment, giving it “positive, though not literal force.”28 and, because the first christians “grasped the significance of jesus’ teaching” about the sabbath, they were able to treat the sabbath “as a shadow of the past.”29 each of these comments continue several different antijewish perspectives including the limitation of the covenant law to israel, the suggestion that god’s covenant with israel has come to an end, the idea that there is a difference between “literal” and “positive” or “moral” force in interpretation of the law, and the understanding of israel living in a “shadowy past” while the church now lives in the light of christ. the collapse of the distinction between sabbath and sunday/lord’s day is portrayed in a hymn written in 1862 by christopher wordsworth, “o day of rest and gladness.” the text that follows is the altered version provided in the episcopal hymnal 1982.30 27 harold h. p. dressler, “the sabbath in the old testament” in don a. carson, ed., from sabbath to lord’s day (grand rapids: zondervan, 1982), 30, 34. 28a. t. lincoln, “from sabbath to lord’s day: a biblical and theological perspective” in carson, 394. 29 d. a. carson, “jesus and the sabbath in the four gospels” in carson, 85. 30 (new york: church pension fund, 1985), 48. the same altered version of this text appears in the presbyterian hymnal (louisville: westminster john knox, 1990), 470, and in the new century hymnal (cleveland: pilgrim press, 1995), 66. the latter has altered the gendered name of the trinity in the fourth stanza. the lutheran book of worship (minneapolis: augsburg, 1978), 251, preserves most of wordsworth’s original final stanza. o day of radiant gladness, o day of joy and light, o balm of care and sadness, most beautiful, most bright; this day the high and lowly, through ages joined in tune, sing “holy, holy, holy,” to the great god triune. this day at the creation, the light first had its birth; this day for our salvation christ rose from depths of earth; this day our lord victorious the spirit sent from heaven, and thus this day most glorious a triple light was given. this day, god’s people meeting, his holy scripture hear; his living presence greeting, through bread and wine made near. we journey on, believing, renewed with heavenly might, from grace more grace receiving on this blest day of light. that light our hope sustaining, we walk the pilgrim way, at length our rest attaining, our endless sabbath day. we sing to thee our praises, o father, spirit, son; the church her voice upraises to thee, blest three in one. in his original closing stanza, wordsworth returned to his original opening phrase “o day of rest and gladness” with an emphasis on rest. may we, new graces gaining from this our day of rest, attain the rest remaining to spirits of the blest; and there our voice upraising to father and to son, and holy ghost be praising ever the three in one.31 31 the hymnal 1940 companion (new york: church pension fund, 1951), 294. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 111 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 on the one hand, this hymn offers a clear christian understanding of sunday as both the first day of the week and the eschatological eighth day on which christians gather for worship and sacrament in celebration of the resurrection of jesus. on the other hand, it reflects the church’s historical, but arguably unnecessary, borrowing of the theology of the sabbath day of rest. and, where wordsworth did more to develop the image of sunday as the “day of rest” in his original, he avoided naming the day as the sabbath, which the altered version now explicitly names. similar problems appear in a recent collection of prayers based on the revised common lectionary and proposed by the consultation on common texts. on this day of rest and gladness, we praise you, god of creation, for the dignity of work and the joy of play, for the challenge of witness and the invitation to delight at your table. renew our hearts through your sabbath rest, that we might be refreshed to continue in your work of restoring the world to wholeness.32 on the one hand, this prayer works faithfully with the designated readings for the day, deuteronomy 5.12-15, the commandment to observe the sabbath, and mark 2.23-3.6, jesus’ interpretation of the sabbath. with the exception of the line “for the challenge of witness and the invitation to delight at your table”, the writer has drawn on an accurate reading of sabbath theology. on the other hand, the writer 32 revised common lectionary prayers (minneapolis: fortress press, 2002), 70. although the way this prayer is used for sunday is problematic, it could be appropriately and beneficially used in morning prayer on saturdays. makes no distinction between sabbath and sunday. sunday becomes “this day of rest and gladness.” it may seem a weak point upon which to dwell, but as long as christians continue to displace sabbath with sunday, combining the theologies of one with the other, we not only perpetuate the kind of arguments that suggest the ending of one somehow imperfect covenant and the beginning of another more perfect covenant, but we make judaism as a community of living religious practice invisible to christian congregations and the culture at large. also, by collapsing sabbath into sunday, we lose the eschatological symbol of sunday through which we are taught that the church is not the completion of god’s covenant but a place in which we continue to await that completion. the challenge to the church is not to choose between the days, but to learn to celebrate and theologize about them in coherent and, need i say, biblically informed ways.33 2. easter. a similar question about the symbolic structuring of time concerns the annual determination of the date of easter. most christians are unaware of how the date of easter is determined; they are only conscious of the fact that it “moves” and that this movement creates problems for families and school systems in scheduling spring break (perhaps a problem peculiar to the united states). the latter 33 for example, congregations might be invited to consider the following statement: “sunday is first of all a memorial celebration of christ; sabbath a memorial of creation, of god as creator and humanity as cocreator. yet, both days center on life, given by god and still to be realized and manifested in its fullness. sabbath rest and sunday rest, while related, are differently based and interpreted.” eugene fisher, “a case study: sabbath and sunday” in eugene j. fisher, ed., the jewish roots of christian liturgy (mahwah, nj: paulist, 1990), 119. christian congregations might also consider the relationship between sunday as the first day of the week, and therefore a “work day,” and its call to offer itself through the liturgy, the public “work” of worship. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 112 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 problem has led the secular community either to advocate a fixed date for easter or to separate the scheduling of break from the easter calendar. that the two have been so closely related reflects the american mythology of itself as a “christian” nation. although the problem of spring break does affect church communities, it is not what has motivated the church to seek a common date for easter. rather, the primary question or problem about easter that has received attention among the ecumenical christian community has been the inability of the western (catholic and protestant) and eastern (orthodox) churches to celebrate easter on the same day in most years. for the most part, this problem was created by the west’s acceptance of the gregorian calendar and the east’s continued reliance on the julian calendar. both east and west have sought to remain faithful to the canons of the council of nicea; both are aware of the fractured witness the calendrical disagreement causes; both are aware of potential new fractures within the church should certain proposals be enacted. but what do these discussions have to do with the relationship between christianity and judaism? the canons of the council of nicea regarding the date of easter can be read as deliberately anti-judaic, as they seem to separate easter from passover calculations. but, without disregarding the anti-judaism present in the fourth-century church, it is important to note that two things were being addressed by nicea: one was the desire to set a common date for the celebration of easter throughout the church (sought then as today); the second was to address the fact that “in the third century the day of the feast [passover] came to be calculated by some jewish communities without reference to the equinox, thus causing passover to be celebrated twice in some solar years. nicea tried to avoid this by linking the principles for the dating of easter/pascha to the norms for the calculation of passover during jesus’ lifetime.”34 one of the proposals that circulated several times during the late-twentieth century would have established a fixed date for easter on the sunday following the second saturday in april. this proposal generally met the criteria established by nicea and kept the date of easter in connection to the natural lunar and solar cycles that have determined its date from the beginning. what this proposal did not do was preserve any necessary connection between easter and passover, the importance of which the ecumenical community acknowledged in a 1970 consultation: the relation between easter and passover needs careful consideration not only for the historical reason that christ’s passion and resurrection took place in the days of the jewish feast….the christian religion is essentially rooted in the revelation given to the jewish people. therefore, it is important for the christian church to celebrate its easter feast in some chronological proximity to the jewish feast. however, the christian church is conscious of the fact that there is need to interpret this proximity as an intention of friendly relationship and not to give the impression of the presumption that the christian easter is the true pesach.35 given the early stages of development in modern jewishchristian dialogue when this was written, as well as the difficulties created in that dialogue following the 1967 war, 34 “towards a common date for easter: wcc/mec consultation,” st. vladimir’s theological quarterly 41.2-3 (1997): 239. 35 “report of the consultation on a fixed date for easter, chambécy, march 1970, organized by faith and order,” ecumenical review 23 (1971): 177, cited in dagmar heller, “a common date for easter: a reality in the new millennium” studia litugica (2000): 246. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 113 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 this seems a bold statement. “chronological proximity” may be the practical concern, but the “theological proximity” of passover and pascha in god’s revelation to israel seems to require the chronological symbol. at the same time, the chronological proximity between passover and easter, and the fact that easter always follows passover, has provided a context in which the church has been able to continue its theologies of displacement and supersessionism. it would be helpful for our churches to hear more explicitly the nature of its rootedness in the revelation to israel and to explore the consequences of the vine severed from its roots. the ecumenical conversations have continued. a 1997 consultation reaffirmed the importance of the chronological and theological relationship between easter and passover: the church needs to be reminded of its origins, including the close link between the biblical passover and the passion and resurrection of jesus – link that reflects the total flow of salvation history….a fixed date would obscure and weaken this link by eliminating any reference to the biblical norms for the calculation of the passover.36 some may want to question what is intended by “the total flow of salvation history” in this statement. it is neither defined nor developed in the consultation report and warrants further ecumenical and jewish-christian conversation. nevertheless, as a result of this consultation the proposal for a fixed date for easter was set aside in favor of three working principles: a reaffirmation of the nicene norms, a commitment to calculate the needed astronomical data “by the most accurate possible scientific means,” which offers the hope of resolving the differences created by the two calendars, and the intent to use the meridian of jerusalem as the reference point for such calculations, 36 “towards a common date for easter: wcc/mec consultation,” 242. which provides not only time and place in relationship to israel but also helps resolve the astronomical differences between the northern and southern hemispheres.37 at one level, some might suggest that maintaining the calendrical relationship between passover and easter is merely symbolic. this, of course, misunderstands what a symbol is and does. rather, it is more accurate to say that this relationship is fully symbolic, because the reality of easter participates in and depends upon the reality of passover, both as symbols of “god’s mighty deeds”. without this symbolic relationship, such hymns as “the day of resurrection” or “come, ye faithful, raise the strain,” written in the 8th century by john of damascus and entering ecumenical hymnic repertoire in john mason neale’s translations, make little theological sense. the first links easter directly with the passover, the second with crossing the red sea: the day of resurrection! earth tell it out abroad; the passover of gladness, the passover of god. from death to life eternal, from earth unto the sky, our christ hath brought us over, with hymns of victory…. come, ye faithful, raise the strain of triumphant gladness; god hath brought forth israel, into joy from sadness; loosed from pharoah’s bitter yoke jacob’s sons and daughters, led them with unmoistened foot through the red sea waters.38 these two hymn stanzas, like the passover haggadah and the eucharistic prayer, provide the means for 37 ibid. 38 see the united methodist hymnal, 303 and 315. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 114 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 remembering that what god has done god continues to do with us as jew and as christian. if we have been grafted onto the vine that is israel, then passover and exodus is a shared story, as these hymn stanzas insist.39 maintaining the calendrical relationship between passover and easter, therefore, is a way for christianity to maintain not only chronological but also historical and theological relationships to judaism through which it more faithfully “remembers” itself. christians are reminded that we are the ones grafted onto the vine rather than, as theologies of displacement seem to suggest, a body painfully remembering a limb now severed from it. as does the collapse of the necessary relationship between sabbath and sunday, without this relationship, the church is provided one more means by which it makes judaism invisible to itself if not to the world. 3. additions to the calendar. here i briefly note one other consideration regarding the symbol of liturgical time in jewish-christian relationships. in a response paper presented at a meeting of the north american academy of liturgy, lawrence hoffman made the following point: insofar, then, as the holocaust requires changed behavior, we must encode that message in symbolic discourse, and this the liturgy does, precisely because regularized liturgical experience shared with one’s community reinforces the symbol as a connecting bonding element in the ritualizing group. its members are 39 nostra aetate, §4 makes this clear: “on this account the church cannot forget that it received the revelation of the old testament by way of that people with whom god in his inexpressible mercy established the ancient covenant. nor can it forget that it draws nourishment from that good olive tree onto which the wild olive branches of the gentiles have been grafted (see rom 11:17-24).” see http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/ meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/nostra_ aetate.htm socialized into sensing that deeper message which makes a symbol what it is.40 hoffman argued that christians need to “construct our worship so that the holocaust appears as a symbol” by adding observances of yom hashoah to the christian calendar of feasts and fasts.41 at the time, he noted that its observance had been added to some christian calendars but was absent from liturgical books.42 twenty years after his proposal, some denominations have made statements about it, added it to unofficial calendars, and developed liturgical resources.43 some seminaries, especially those that have programs in jewish studies or centers for jewish 40 lawrence hoffman, “response: holocaust as holocaust, holocaust as symbol” worship 58.4 (july 1984): 337. 41 for which the volume edited by marcia sachs little and weissman gutman, liturgies on the holocaust: an interfaith anthology (valley forge, pa: trinity press international), 1996, is a significant resource. 42 hoffman, 338. 43 for example, in may 2000 the general conference of the united methodist church offered the following resolution: “therefore, be it further resolved, as a sign of our contrition and our solidarity with the jewish community, the general conference urges the promotion of observance of yom hashoah, holocaust memorial day, each spring in united methodist local congregations and urges the general commission on christian unity and interreligious concerns, in cooperation with other agencies of the united methodist church, in a time of increasing anti-semitism, to work both with our own denomination's history with regard to this tragedy and find ways to support the work against anti-semitism in the world today and to prepare resources for local congregations to observe yom hashoah.” (citation from http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=992, downloaded july 7, 2005.) the united methodist church has followed up on this by including yom hashoah in the annual pocket calendar it provides pastors (although for 2005, it shares space with nurses’ day and may fellowship day) and by providing a liturgical resource. the national association of pastoral musicians included the day on its calendar and also provided a list of musical resources for its observance. see http://www.npm.org/planning/yearc/yomhashoah.htm. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 115 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 christian dialogue, such as general theological seminary in new york, have incorporated it into their liturgical cycles. but it remains largely absent from christian consciousness and observance. falling two weeks after passover, and usually two weeks after easter, its observance adds a crucial note of lamentation to the fifty days of easter and a balance to what congregations have heard and experienced in holy week. a similar interruption in the festival calendar of the church year is the december 28 remembrance of the “holy innocents.” as with any midweek service, except in those communities that have sustained a tradition of daily prayer or eucharistic liturgy, few churches pay any attention to this story. it is perhaps a cruel joke the church has played on itself in that, even as it revels in the twelve days of christmas, those first days following christmas are the days on which the church remembers stories of martyrdom (stephen and thomas beckett), the slaughter of the innocents, and the holy family as refugees fleeing their home. and yet, in the light of this discussion, the holy innocents provides an opportunity for the christian community to lament its role in the destruction of the jewish people. for example, the book of common prayer lectionary appoints readings from jeremiah 31.15-17 (rachel weeping for her children) and matthew 2.13-18. the collect for the day sets the tone for remembrance and lamentation. we remember today, o god, the slaughter of the holy innocents of bethlehem by king herod. receive, we pray, into the arms of your mercy all innocent victims; and by your great might frustrate the designs of evil tyrants and establish your rule of justice, love, and peace….44 44the book of common prayer (new york: church hymnal corporation, 1977), 238. some of the prayers appointed for this day are more limited in their focus and less amenable to use in lamentation. the opening prayer for this day in the sacramentary begins “father, the holy innocents offered you praise by the death they suffered for christ.” the concluding prayer commends the innocents because, “by a wordless profession of faith in your son, the innocents were crowned with life at his birth.”45 while the sacramentary prayers seem to offer a redemptive interpretation of the senseless slaughter of the children and a commemoration of their “birth” as martyrs, the prayers not only put unlikely words into the mouths of the children but also avoid any awareness of the ungodliness of their destruction. when appropriately framed by scripture and prayer, remembrance of the holy innocents can provide the church a specific opportunity to remember, especially, the children killed in the shoah, as well as all innocent victims. liturgical prayer i have been attempting to emphasize the ways the regard (or disregard) with which the church uses two of its symbols – language about god and the marking of time – are significant, if unattended to, components in the church’s liturgical practices. although i have given some attention to specific liturgical texts in the preceding sections, in the following sections i want to look more directly at specific liturgical texts – collects, intercessions, eucharistic prayers as well as hymns and songs. i will focus my attention on liturgical texts intended for christian liturgy outside of holy week. as i indicated earlier, others have written about the specific problems in holy week lectionary and liturgical texts, especially those for good friday, but few have attended to “ordinary” liturgical practices outside of holy week. as the examples i provide will demonstrate, we are 45 the sacramentary (collegeville: liturgical press, 1985), 124. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 116 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 hard-pressed to find blatant examples of displacement or supersessionism in contemporary liturgical texts. in some cases, we will see more explicit and non-typological attention provided to the images and narrative of the hebrew scriptures. in others, there remains a theology of the linear progression of salvation history. but what also becomes clear in reviewing these resources is that, perhaps in the attempt to address anti-judaism in previous texts, negative images have not been traded for positive images but for absence and silence. the examples that follow are intended to be representative rather than comprehensive. 1. collects and intercessions. because the liturgical books of most church communities have been revised since the 1970s, explicitly anti-jewish language has largely disappeared. in its place we find prayers like the following excerpt from a lenten intercession in the presbyterian book of common worship: for christians of every land, we ask new unity in your name. for jews and muslims and people of other faiths, we ask your divine blessing. for those who cannot believe, we ask your faithful love.46 on the one hand, the prayer neither anathematizes jews (or muslims) nor seeks their conversion. it provides, if only briefly, an answer to the question “has god only one blessing?” on the other hand, the prayer is structured in a way that moves, even visually, in descending order from christians to jews to “those who cannot believe.” in contrast, the same book provides among its “prayers for various 46 book of common worship, 236-237. occasions” (but without any suggestion of the occasion on which it might be used) a collect “for jews”: almighty god, you are the one true god, and have called forth people of faith in every time and place. your promises are sure and true. we bless you for your covenant given to abraham and sarah, that you keep even now with the jews. we rejoice that you have brought us into covenant with you by the coming of your son, jesus christ, himself a jew, nurtured in the faith of israel. we praise you that you are faithful to covenants made with us and jewish brothers and sisters, that together we may serve your will, and come at last to your promised peace.47 in addition to naming the continuing nature of god’s covenant with israel, this prayer suggests not only a more equal relationship between christians and jews but also the need for jews and christians together to seek and serve god’s will. two prayers in the collection prepared by the international consultation on english in the liturgy (icel) provide another opportunity to contrast the way in which judaism is imaged. the first collect, for the vigil mass of christmas, reminds the church of the continuity of god’s covenant with israel and asks that we be included among the people in whom god delights: 47 book of common worship, 815. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 117 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 god of abraham and sarah, of david and his descendents, unwearied is your love for us and steadfast your covenant; wonderful beyond words is your gift of the saviour, born of the virgin mary. count us among the people in whom you delight, and by this night’s marriage of earth and heaven draw all generations into the embrace of your love.48 the historical narrative leads to but does not culminate with the one born of mary. the abrahamic covenant to which god has been steadfast continues as something into which we ask to be included. in contrast, a second collect, for the fifth sunday of easter (year b), draws directly on the imagery of christ the true vine found in john 15: o god, you graft us on to christ, the true vine, and, with tireless care, you nurture our growth in knowledge and reverence. tend the vineyard of your church, that in christ each branch may bring forth to the glory of your name abundant fruits of faith and love.49 as is clear in the text on which this is based, christ and church have displaced israel. rather than echoing the promise of isaiah 5, “for the vineyard of the lord of hosts is 48 opening prayers (norwich: canterbury press, 1997), 10. 49 opening prayers, 42. the house of israel,” and locating christ in the vineyard, all other vines have disappeared. (if this point were not clear enough in prayer and scripture text, the annotations for these verses provided in the new oxford annotated bible make explicit that “the true vine jesus was the true israel, fulfilling the vocation in which the old israel had failed.”50) a final example of a collect based on the scripture texts of the day or season is this prayer from the consultation on common texts collection, written as a general prayer for the first weeks after pentecost during which the revised common lectionary selections from the first testament follow the narrative of abraham, isaac, and jacob. to fulfill the ancient promise of salvation, o god, you made a covenant with our ancestors and pledged them descendents more numerous than the stars. grant that all people may share in the blessings of your covenant, accomplished through the death and resurrection of your son and sealed by the gifts of your spirit. the first portion of the prayer is almost identical to the prayer from the christmas vigil mass above. unlike that prayer, however, it seems to ignore the very narrative upon which it has drawn. it is surprising to hear that god’s covenant with abraham and sarah was “accomplished” through christ, much less that that covenant was somehow incomplete. 2. eucharistic prayers. williams seth adams offers the observation that “the language of the church’s 50 this comment appears in the annotation for john 15:1-11 in both the new oxford annotated bible revised standard version and new revised standard version (new york: oxford, 1977 and 1991). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 118 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 eucharistic praying was the most basic language of christian faith and theology. what was believed was recapitulated in the great thanksgiving.”51 in the context of this discussion, the eucharistic prayer is both a gift and a problem for the church. it is in christian celebration of the eucharist that christians are most explicitly drawn into contact with the vestiges of jewish prayer practices. and, it is in the eucharistic prayer, particularly the preface, that god’s covenant with israel and the church is now most explicitly named (or ignored, as is the case with most of the eucharistic prefaces and prayers in the sacramentary). when these prayers do attend to god’s covenant with israel, two problems often appear. first, as henry knight argues, they have too often conveyed “structural supersessionism, omitting any but the subtlest affirmations of the covenantal story of israel.” second, they have failed “to acknowledge the covenantal history of israel as a key component of this act of thanksgiving, except, perhaps, as a prefiguration of the salvation history that follows and fulfills its promise.”52 in his essay adams provides a critical reading of eucharistic prayer b in the book of common prayer, noting the ways in which these problems occur. the following portion immediately follows the sanctus: we give thanks to you, o god, for the goodness and love which you have made known to us in creation; in the calling of israel to be your people; in your word spoken through the prophets; and above all in the word made flesh, jesus, your son. for in these last days you sent him 51 william seth adams, “christian liturgy, scripture, and the jews: a problematic in jewish-christian relations,” journal of ecumenical studies 25.1 (winter, 1988): 53. 52 knight, celebrating holy week, 64, 65. to be incarnate from the virgin mary, to be the savior and redeemer of the world. in him, you have delivered us from evil, and made us worthy to stand before you. in him, you have brought us out of error into truth, out of sin into righteousness, out of death into life.53 adams asks how this text, and especially the last sentence, is to be understood: what is the context for error, sin, and death? is this sentence to be viewed historically, suggesting that the early christians were led out of the community of the jews into the ‘true faith’? is it to be understood in some private, particularist fashion meaning that before ‘conversion’ each christian was in error, sin, and death but has not been led from that to truth, righteousness, and life?54 as in many contemporary eucharistic prayers, the place of israel in god’s history with humanity is reduced to the “calling of israel” and the prophets. while we might debate the purpose of such narrative in the eucharistic prayer, we also might fairly ask what more we can expect in such a prayer, where we cannot say everything, and in a form that some experience as “long.” the very form requires allusion and metonymy. perhaps the problem is not primarily the prayer form but the linear ways in which we experience time and through which we develop narrative. in contrast to the prayers found in the book of common prayer or in the sacramentary, new prayers have been 53 book of common prayer, 368. 54 adams, 54. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 119 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 crafted that seem to more faithfully, if not more comprehensively, articulate the narrative of god with israel as well as with the church.55 perhaps most typical of these new prayers is this preface from the united methodist book of worship. it is right and a good and joyful thing always and everywhere to give thanks to you, father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. you formed us in your image and breathed into us the breath of life. when we turned away, and our love failed, your love remained steadfast. you delivered us from captivity, made covenant to be our sovereign god, and spoke to us through the prophets.56 a similar text appears in the supplemental liturgical resources approved for use in the episcopal church: glory and honor are yours, creator of all, your word has never been silent; you called a people to yourself, as a light to the nation, 55 no contemporary prayer, however, narrates this history as comprehensively as the late fourth century prayer found in the apostolic constitutions, book viii, which offers in some detail the story of creation, fall, flood, exodus, giving of the law, and entrance into the promised land. see r. c. d. jasper and g. j. cuming, prayers of the eucharist: early and reformed, 3rd ed. (collegeville: liturgical press, 1992), 105-106. we find liturgical precedents for such recital of god’s saving history in psalms 78, 105, 106, 135 and 136. 56 (nashville: united methodist publishing house, 1992), 36. the same text serves as the “ordinary” prayer in the united methodist hymnal (nashville: united methodist published house, 1989), 9. you delivered them from bondage and led them to a land of promise. of your grace, you gave jesus to be human, to share our life, to proclaim the coming of your reign and give himself for us, a fragrant offering.57 both of these texts anchor the eucharistic prayer in the narrative of the first testament. although neither text suggests the church’s displacement or supersession of israel, nor does either explicitly name israel within this narrative. both of these texts suggest that the narrative of creation, fall, captivity and deliverance is the whole of the church’s concern with the first testament narrative and, in doing so, create a context in which to hear the narrative of jesus as repeating god’s redemptive response to fall and captivity. one interesting difference between the two, however, is the way in which they name the subject of god’s actions. in the united methodist prayer, “we” are the ones who have fallen, been delivered, and heard the prophets. the contemporary community is inserted into the first testament narrative. a question we can ask of this text is whether it intends to graft the contemporary community into the narrative of israel, or if the contemporary community displaces israel in the narrative. displacement is not a question in the episcopal prayer, rather a subtle form of supersession and exclusion; “they” are ones called, delivered, and promised, but jesus shares “our” life and offers himself for “us.” two other examples help address some of these concerns. the first, also from the united methodist book of worship, is from a prayer for the first sundays in lent. 57 from eucharistic prayer 3 in enriching our worship 1 (new york: church hymnal corp., 1998), 63. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 120 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 you brought all things into being and called them good. from the dust of the earth you formed us into your image and breathed into us the breath of life. when we turned away, and our love failed, your love remained steadfast. when rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights, you bore up the ark on the waters, saved noah and his family, and made covenant with every living creature on earth. when you led your people to mount sinai for forty days and forty nights, you gave us your commandments and made us your covenant people. when your people forsook your covenant, your prophet elijah fasted for forty days and forty nights; and on your holy mountain, he heard your still small voice.58 following the sanctus, the narrative of the forty days resumes, recounting jesus’ forty days in the wilderness. through attention to the repetition of the forty days, this prayer provides the common narration of creation, fall, deliverance, law, and prophets. what is different from the first example is that this narrative not only names specific people and attends to the continuity of god’s covenant with those people but also grafts into the narrative the contemporary community without displacing israel. 58united methodist book of worship, 60. while we might appropriately argue that the anamnetic character of liturgical prayer makes possible our memory of being joined to israel at sinai, for christians to make a liturgical theological claim that we were “made covenant people” at sinai is to forget when, by whom, and in whom we have been joined to this covenant. this next example, from the presbyterian book of common worship but created by icel, offers a different way of telling the story. the preface that opens the prayer focuses entirely on creation, culminating in the creation of humanity. the section below immediately follows the sanctus. it opens by referring back to the creation narrative of the preface. all holy god, how wonderful is the work of your hands! when sin had scarred the world, you entered into covenant to renew the whole creation. as a mother tenderly gathers her children, as a father joyfully welcomes his own, you embraced a people as your own and filled them with longing for a peace that would last and for a justice that would never fail. through countless generations your people hungered for the bread of freedom. from them you raised up jesus, your son, the living bread, in whom ancient hungers are satisfied.59 like the other prayers, this prayer moves quickly from creation to fall (if only by allusion) and then on to the covenant. although it attends to issues of gender balance in its imaging of god and expresses a concern for peace and justice, all issues of concern to many contemporary communities, it reduces israel to an anonymous “people”. at the same time that it acknowledges that jesus was one of these people, it ignores the first testament narratives in which god satisfies the hungers of the people and, by its 59 book of common worship, 143. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 121 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 allusion to john 6.49-51, creates a perhaps unintended supersessionist structure. if these prayers are, in the end, inadequate, is there a different way to tell the story in prayer? here is one example that might have some possibilities. this comes from the united church of christ book of worship. we give you thanks, god of majesty and mercy, for calling forth the creation and raising us from dust by the breath of your being. we bless you for the beauty and bounty of the earth and for the vision of the day when sharing by all will mean scarcity for none. we remember the covenant you made with your people israel, and we give you thanks for all our ancestors in faith. we rejoice that you call us to reconciliation with you and all people everywhere and that you remain faithful to your covenant even when we are faithless. we rejoice that you call the entire human family to this table of sacrifice and victory.60 by its attention to creation and god’s covenant faithfulness and its relative inattention to fall and redemption (the first expected, the second unexpected in a calvinist tradition), the prayer avoids the displacement of israel seen in some of the earlier examples. it also provides a sense that god’s covenant with israel continues to unfold in, but not be superseded by, the narrative of jesus. and yet, the “people 60 book of worship: united church of christ (new york: united church of christ office for church life and leadership, 1986), 45. israel” is linked with “our ancestors in faith;” israel is “history” rather than part of god’s continuing covenant community. the problems identified at the beginning of this section continue. we have not yet found ways to pray that fully acknowledge and affirm the continuing history of god’s covenant with israel as central to christian prayer or in the central prayer of the church. and, the fact that even the best of these texts are likely to go unused by the churches that published them – as their use is not mandated by these churches – gives all liturgists reason to remember that “just fixing the text” (whether a translation or newly created text) will not solve the problems we face. kendall soulen, in faithfilled hope, suggests, “even if there were such a time [when the living membership of the church included no jews] the presence of the church’s living lord, the jew jesus christ, ensures that the church remains essentially a table fellowship of jews and gentiles.”61 even so, it is hard to imagine a fellowship in which part of the family remains invisible and unacknowledged. hymnody and liturgical song the various kinds of problems i have identified in regard to the name of god, time, and liturgical prayer are also present in hymnody and congregational song. what we discover in looking through recent hymnals is that, while each hymnal represents a broad historical collection of material, the problems are not specific to either one historical period or tradition. our hymns and songs provide images of jewish promise and christian fulfillment, especially during the advent and christmas seasons; of the first covenant being perfected in or by the second; of christian displacing or superseding jew; and of “us” (christian) versus “them” (jewish), especially but not only 61 soulen, the god of israel, 173. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 122 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 during holy week. in some hymns, these problems overlap. but, there are also hymns that help us sing about the continuity and complementarity of god’s covenant with israel and the church. again, what follows is intended to be representative rather than comprehensive. three hymns provide examples of the christian “perfecting” of jewish practice and belief. the first comes from aquinas’ hymn “pange lingua gloriosi,” in edward caswall’s nineteenth century translation “sing, my tongue, the savior’s glory.” in breaking bread this particular stanza is accompanied by a rubric indicating that it is to be “sung while the priest, kneeling, incenses the blessed sacrament,” thereby visually and physically marking not only sacramental adoration but also liturgical supersessionism. down in adoration falling, this great sacrament we hail; over ancient forms of worship newer rites of grace prevail; faith will tell us christ is present, when our human senses fail.62 while protestants generally have a historical strong negative response to adoration of the blessed sacrament and so are disinclined to sing the first line of this stanza, it is the second line that is the greater problem. aquinas reflects a traditional christian understanding of “old testament sacraments” (e.g., the temple sacrifices) as adumbrations or prefigurations and, therefore, imperfect forms of the church’s sacraments needing to be displaced or perfected in christ.63 a second example, now only a century old, is vincent stuckey stratton coles’ “ye who claim the faith of jesus,” a hymn in praise of mary written in 1906 for the english 62 breaking bread, 65. 63 as we see, for example, in ambrose, “on the mysteries” i.12. hymnal. the hymnal 1982 added a fourth stanza, a paraphrase of the magnificat by f. bland tucker. the following is the second stanza: blessed were the chosen people out of whom the lord did come; blessed was the land of promise fashioned for his earthly home; but more blessed far the mother, she who bore him in her womb.64 while we sing of the blessing of the people and land israel at the beginning of this stanza, this blessing is all in the past tense. what is more, we end the stanza proclaiming mary as “more blessed far” all the while ignoring her jewishness. again, protestants and catholics will differ in the reading of this stanza given the varying range (or absence) of devotion to mary. several simple alterations, hardly radical in the current generation of hymnal editing, could address these concerns: “blessed is the chosen people… blessed is the land of promise… blessed, too, is mary, mother….” a third example is fred pratt green’s text “seek the lord who now is present,” a faithful paraphrase of is 55:6-11 written in 1989 at the request of the united methodist hymnal committee. the problem in this hymn is not the paraphrase but the “coda” pratt green created for the hymn: god is love! how close the prophet to that vital gospel word! in isaiah’s inspiration it is jesus we have heard!65 64 hymnal 1982, 268 and 269 and the united methodist hymnal, 197. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 123 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 in this stanza pratt green is doing nothing different than what the new testament does – reading the hebrew scriptures in light of the church’s experience of christ. but, while it has become common in some circles to refer to isaiah as the “fifth gospel” in light of the ways in which it has been used by the church, pratt green’s “coda” suggests that god’s word is hearable in isaiah only because of its proximity to the “vital gospel word” rather than as the scriptural and prophetic word it is. two hymns provide examples of christ or christians displacing judaism. both of these examples provide relatively faithful yet problematic paraphrases of the transfiguration narrative (mt 17:1-8, mk 9:2-8, lk 9-28-36). the first, “christ upon the mountain peak,” was written by brian wren in 1962 and revised in 1977. (the 1977 version begins “jesus on the mountain peak.”) stanzas two and four read: trembling at his feet we saw moses and elijah speaking, all the prophets and the law shout through them their joyful greeting: alleluia!… this is god’s beloved son! law and prophets fade (1977: sing) before him; first and last and only one, let creation now adore him: alleluia!66 65 united methodist hymnal, 124. it is pratt green himself who calls this stanza a “coda”. see fred pratt green, later hymns and ballads and fifty poems, commentary by bernard braley (carol stream, il: hope publishing, 1989), 39. 66 the 1962 version appears in the united methodist hymnal, 260, and the hymnal 1982, 129 and 130. the 1977 version appears in the presbyterian hymnal, 74. the second hymn is thomas troeger’s 1985 text “swiftly pass the clouds of glory”. stanza one reads: swiftly pass the clouds of glory, heaven’s voice, the sizzling light; moses and elijah vanish; christ alone commands the height….67 both hymns accurately paraphrase the gospel stories on which they are based, but both also say or imply the same thing: judaism, represented by moses and elijah, vanishes in the presence of christ. wren seemed to have seen this as a possible interpretation and, as he has continued to do as his theology develops, altered his text. but note, too, the contrast and similarity between wren’s early version and troeger’s text. it is perhaps a modest difference between “fading” and “vanishing,” but it is a difference. the similarity, however, remains: whether the law and prophets fade, sing, or vanish, in the end it is “christ alone” who remains. a different kind of “displacement” can be heard in the hymn “lord, christ, when first you came to earth” by walter russell bowie. it was written in 1928 at the request of the dean of liverpool cathedral for “an advent hymn in the dies irae mood,” that is, a mood of christ present in judgment upon the world.68 although bowie certainly may have had the first world war defeat of germany in mind when he wrote this, he could not have anticipated the human destruction of the second world war and the shoah. the presbyterian hymnal keeps it as an advent hymn; the hymnal 1982 groups it as a hymn for “social responsibility.” 67 the presbyterian hymnal, 73, and the recent united methodist hymnal supplement the faith we sing (nashville: abingdon press, 2000), 2102. 68 the hymnal 1940 companion, 313. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 124 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 lord christ, when first you came to earth, upon a cross they bound you, and mocked your saving kingship then by thorns with which they crowned you; and still our wrongs may weave you now new thorns to pierce that steady brow, and robe of sorrow round you. o wondrous [h82 awesome] love, which found no room in life, where sin denied you, and, doomed to death, must bring to doom the power which crucified you, till not a stone was left on stone, and all a nation’s pride, o’erthrown, went down to dust beside you.69 one of the questions this text raises is the extent to which a particular social context shapes the way in which we interpret a text. we can only guess how the second stanza would have sounded to a british man or woman in 1931 when it was published. this hymn also reflects theological themes of personal and social responsibility that (re-) emerged with the social gospel movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. while our eyes and ears, attuned as they are in this essay to the place of jews and christians, are easily stopped by the ways in which the first stanza creates an “us” versus “them” relationship between christian and jew, bowie’s concern is with continuing christian failure to live the love of christ; it is our wrongs that weave the crown of thorns. but even with this call to responsibility, bowie equates “christ-denying christians” with “christ 69 this version from the presbyterian hymnal, 7, in which “you/your” have replaced “thy/thee” found in the hymnal 1982, 598. denying jews” and points to the consequences brought upon people by such denial. those who deny christ must be doomed, overthrown, turned to dust. the consequences of denial continue to be portrayed in the third stanza: new advent of the love of christ, shall we again refuse thee, till in the night of hate and war we perish as we lose thee?… if bowie’s hymn remains relatively unknown, a more familiar as well as more problematic song is sydney carter’s “lord of the dance.” even with the careful efforts of some hymnal committees to exclude it from publication, it continues to find its way into contemporary hymnals and songbooks.70 on the one hand, it is a song that simply and accessibly outlines the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of christ. on the other hand, it is also a song that sets up scribes, pharisees, and “the holy people” as those responsible for the christ’s scourging and crucifixion. in stanzas two and three carter writes, i danced for the scribe and the pharisee, but they would not dance and they would not follow me; i danced for the fishermen, for james and john; they came to me and the dance went on…. 70 it appears in the presbyterian hymnal, 302; the united methodist hymnal, 261; breaking bread, 538; and in journeysongs (portland, or: ocp, 2003), 764. all of these are published with the explicit approval of their denominations or the usccb committee on the liturgy. it was included in the united methodist hymnal only after one of the church’s bishops used it as a centerpiece in a sermon he preached, during which he complained about its absence from the then proposed hymnal, at the 1988 general conference of the united methodist church at which the hymnal was received and approved. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 125 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 i danced on the sabbath when i cured the lame, the holy people said it was a shame; they whipped and they stripped and they hung me high; and they left me there on a cross to die…. throughout the song carter makes a seemingly anonymous “they” the guilty. where in bowie’s hymn the contemporary congregation moves from “their” denial to its own, at no point in carter’s song does the singing congregation make that transition. rather, the congregation (or solo singer) speaks in persona christi to accuse the jews. unfortunately, an adage about congregational hymns is more often true than not: “never mind the words, we only like the tune.” yet, it is by means of the fondness for the tune that the text and its theology work their way into memory and belief systems. had carter not set his text to the very singable and now familiar shaker melody we know as “simple gifts,” it may not (as it should not) have remained in the repertoire. having provided critical readings of a small selection of texts from current hymnals, i think it helpful to note positive examples that are in these same books. these next two examples come from opposite ends of the christian era, the first by gregory the great (sixth century) and the second by our contemporary brian wren. in his lenten hymn “the glory of these forty days,” in the 1906 english hymnal translation by maurice bell, gregory the great provides a summary of the biblical narrative around the theme of fasting. he makes no distinction between first and second testament or between israel and the church. he begins with reference to christ’s forty days of fasting, but does not elevate that fast above the fast of other biblical figures. all of them, gregory writes, provide models for our own fasting. stanzas two through four follow: alone and fasting, moses saw the loving god who gave the law; and to elijah, fasting, came the steeds and chariots of flame. so daniel trained his mystic sight, delivered from the lion’s might; and john, the bridegroom’s friend became the herald of messiah’s name. then grant that we like them be true, consumed in fast and prayer with you; our spirits strengthen with your grace, and give us joy to see your face.71 brian wren’s 1985 hymn “god of many names” provides an example of a recent attempt not only to address the problem of naming the triune god when gendered names seem inadequate but also the problem of the relationship between jew and christian, israel and the church: god of many names, gathered into one, in your glory come and meet us, moving endlessly becoming, god of hovering wings, womb and birth of time, joyfully we sing your praises, breath of life in every people…. god of jewish faith, exodus and law, in your glory come and meet us, joy of miriam and moses, god of jesus christ, rabbi of the poor, joyfully we sing your praises, crucified, alive forever….”72 71 this text is in the presbyterian hymnal, 87, the hymnal 1982, 143, and breaking bread, 127. 72 the united methodist hymnal, 105, sts. 1-2. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 103-126 anderson, “christian prayer and song in a post-holocaust church” 126 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art10 here is a summary of god’s creating and redeeming history with the world. although it offers a chronological sequence according to the biblical narrative, it does not suggest a history being displaced or a tradition being perfected. also, because the text supplies god’s history more by image than by narrative, a full understanding of the text is only possible when one has read (or heard) the biblical narrative in both testaments. conclusion a reading of christian liturgical texts with particular attention to how these texts describe or interpret the relationship between christianity and judaism may feel to some, as has been true of first encounters with issues of inclusive language, as an awkward and unnecessary restraint on the language of christian prayer, yet one more form of liturgical legalism. but only through such attentiveness does the liberation of christian worship from its anti-judaic history become possible. we should not be surprised, though we often are, that, in wrestling with the angel of god (or the demons we create), we come away from our engagement bearing the marks of the encounter. we walk away with a limp, a limp that might slow us down enough to pay attention to what and how we pray. we learn, as henry knight suggests, to “walk haltingly, examining our hymns, prayers and gestures for contempt and disdain and for hidden and subtle forms of supersessionism.”73 through this exploration of symbol, language, and text, we see two things. first, the difficulties are not confined to either one ecclesial tradition or one historical period. appropriate and inappropriate texts appear throughout the church’s history. second, the transformation of the ways we pray that are appropriate to our post-holocaust context are 73 knight, 34. possible yet difficult. the ritual character of liturgical prayer, especially the weekly (or daily) repetition of particular prayers and hymns over time, has written christian theologies of displacement and supersession deep in our bones. rewriting these theologies will require the same intentional, careful, and regular practice. even then, the way ahead is not easy – as the church’s attempts to recover the eschatological character of advent and the baptismal character of lent demonstrate. yet the importance of something like the recovery of advent should not be underestimated. that is, in the season when the church most persistently speaks of promise and fulfillment, recovery of the eschatological themes of advent provide the reminder to the church that god’s promise is not yet fulfilled. we still wait for messiah. we still wait for the endless peace and the kingdom upheld with justice and righteousness (is 9:7). with israel the church waits and prays for the renewal and repair of creation. in the meantime, we have need of clear-sighted, honest, and faithful lamentation and thanksgiving. "salvation is from the jews" (jn 4:22): aquinas, god, and the people of god ryan, salvation is from the jews ryan 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college “salvation is from the jews” (jn 4:22): aquinas, god, and the people of god f ai nc he r ya n m a t e r d e i i n s t i t u t e , d u b l i n c i t y u n i v e r s i t y volume 5 (2010) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): ryan 1-14 ryan, salvation is from the jews ryan 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 in a recent column in the national catholic reporter, john l. allen, commenting on pope benedict xvi‘s january 17 th visit to the great synagogue in rome, suggested that the speech made by benedict on that occasion ―reflected a broad thrust in his approach to interfaith relations, away from specifically theological dialogue in favor of social, cultural and political cooperation.‖ 1 this suggestion was refuted by daniel madigan, an eminent speaker on inter-faith matters, and an expert on islam. madigan suggests that interreligious dialogue must be theological if it is to lead peoples of different faiths into deeper relationship with one another. he reminds us that vatican ii means catholics in particular have no option but to seriously engage in theological dialogue with those of other faiths. ―one cannot,‖ he writes, ―say that we adore together the one god and then say that we cannot or may not talk together about that god, or about that sense of adoration that god evokes in us. this is after all precisely what theological dialogue means.‖ 2 talk about god is foundational to interreligious theological dialogue, a dialogue that cannot be regarded as solely a vatican ii initiative. although the explicit praxis of interreligious dialogue for roman catholics may indeed be a fruit of vatican ii, serious engagement with other religions has long been part of theological work. to illustrate this fact, this essay will explore the thought of thomas aquinas (1225-1275), regarded by many as the greatest of the medieval theologians. particular focus will be on his commentary on romans chapters 9-11 and his consideration of the issues of predestination and election as they pertain to the jewish people. the fact that engagement with another religion is essentially a question of the type of god, or deity, believed in will be 1 john l allen jr., ―two experts insist: interreligious dialogue lives!‖ http://ncronline.org/blogs/future-church/two-experts-insist-interreligiousdialogue-lives accessed 6/6/2010. 2 ibid. identified as central in aquinas‘ attempt to understand the place of jews in the story of salvation. tension, together with a search for internal coherence, not always accomplished, might be seen as the trademarks of these writings. the god that aquinas knows through his theological study and prayer is a just and merciful one. the question thus is: how does this just and merciful god relate to the jewish people who crucified jesus, as the tradition taught? aquinas is clear: jesus is a jew. in his first major theological work he refers to jesus as frater iudaeorum. 3 he welcomed assistance from jewish thinkers in his own work. this paper does not seek to portray aquinas as a participant in interreligious dialogue, to do so would be anachronistic. rather it is his willingness to engage with thinkers outside of his tradition, in particular jewish thinkers, in his attempts to articulate with deepening clarity the truth, what he terms god, that is of concern. the writings of moses maimonides, ―rabbi moses‖ (1135-1204) played a particularly influential role in his intellectual development. 4 yet the time in which aquinas lived, the thirteenth century, was a period of evolving anti-judaism. in the thirteenth century ―the very legitimacy of the european jewish community‖ was being called into 3 his commentary on the sentences was composed largely during his first tenure in paris (1252-1254), still unfinished in 1256. the question of circumcision is the context of this address (in iv libri sententiarum iv, d.1, q.2, a.2). the mature aquinas deals with the question of circumcision in detail in summa theologiae iii q.70. in this question he writes that ―circumcision was a sacrament, and a preparation for baptism‖ (st iii q.70 a.1 ad.2); it was a preparation for baptism ―inasmuch as it was a profession of faith in christ, which we also profess in baptism‖ (st iii q.70 a.2 c). 4 as well as maimonides the writings of avicebron (ibn gabirol), also influenced his thought. conversely, aquinas‘ doctrines also found favor among jewish writers after his time. see david burrell, ―aquinas and islamic and jewish thinkers‖ in the cambridge companion to aquinas, eds. norman kretzmann and eleonore stump (cambridge: cambridge university press, 1993), 60-84. http://ncronline.org/users/john-l-allen-jr http://ncronline.org/blogs/future-church/two-experts-insist-interreligious-dialogue-lives http://ncronline.org/blogs/future-church/two-experts-insist-interreligious-dialogue-lives studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): ryan 1-14 ryan, salvation is from the jews ryan 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 question. 5 up to this point the official ecclesiastical attitude had been tolerance, as while judged guilty of deicide the jews were also recognized, following the teachings of augustine, as ―chest-keepers.‖ 6 the anti-talmud controversy began in paris in 1239 (in which albert the great, aquinas‘ teacher, himself a renowned scholar, seems to have been involved). as some of aquinas‘ questions indicate, this was a time of forced conversions and of forced baptism of children (see st ii-ii q.10 a.12; st iii q.68 a.10). 7 he was not immune to the change in official ecclesiastical attitudes and yet it seems that his provenance from aquino in the region of naples, then a part of the kingdom of sicily, together with his own studies in the secular university of naples, both introduced and positively predisposed him to jewish culture. 8 5 jeremy cohen, ―towards a functional classification of jewish anti-christian polemic in the high middle ages,‖ in religionsgespräche im mittelalter, eds. bernard lewis and friedrich niewöhner (wiesbaden: harrassowitz, 1992), 104. 6 ―codicem portat judeus, unde credit christianus. librarii nostri facti sunt….‖ augustine, ennarr. in ps., lxvi, 9. since the time of augustine the jews were recognised as capsarii for the christians; they carried the scrolls, the sacred scriptures which guard the truth of christian faith. in this way the elder brother (esau) has served the younger (isaac). this remark is probably of greater weight given the context of talmud burning. 7 see steven c. boguslawski, thomas aquinas on the jews. insights into his commentary on romans 9-11 (new york and mahwah nj: paulist press, 2008), 19-35 for a succinct account of medieval church policy on the jews. see also robert chazan, ed. church, state, and jew in the middle ages. library of jewish studies. (new york: behrman house, 1980); jeremy cohen, the friars and the jews: the evolution of medieval anti-judaism (ithaca: cornell university press, 1982). 8 ―latin, muslim, and jewish culture mingled freely in sicily in a unique way that was peculiarly sicilian.‖ james weisheipl, op, friar thomas d’aquino: his life, thought, and works (washington, dc: catholic university of america press, 1983), 15. in the commentary on romans, specifically in chapters 9-11, aquinas struggles with the concepts of election and predestination in his attempts to account for the salvation of humanity, and in particular the salvation of those who crucified christ. he finds himself immersed in a struggle to balance god‘s justice and god‘s mercy, while maintaining divine providence as the overarching explanatory framework. in themselves these are complex issues, a complexity much increased by their application to the so-called jewish question. predestination and election in the summa theologiae before exploring the issues of predestination, election and the jews in the thought of aquinas, a brief exposition of his teachings in question 23 of the prima pars of the summa theologiae, a question which focuses on predestination, is helpful. 9 it is in the context of predestination that the question of election is dealt with. the summa is not constrained by a lectio continua of scripture, as aquinas‘ gospel commentaries inevitably are, and so we see the selective employment of sacred scripture, the teachings of the fathers and of ecclesiastical authorities in the formulation of the views most properly his own. at the same time, as shall be seen, aquinas does not allow the text to 9 giles emery, while acknowledging the difficulty in dating thomas‘ commentaries on the works of paul, suggests that paul was probably taught in two stages, first in italy (probably rome) between 1265 and 1268, and secondly in paris and naples. the course on romans he posits as having been composed in naples 1272-73, the last years of his life. see giles emery ―brief catalogue of the works of st thomas aquinas‖ in jean-pierre torrell, saint thomas aquinas. vol. 1 the person and his work, trans. r. royal (washington dc: catholic university of america press, 1996), 330-361: 340. another view is that of boguslawski who suggests that the prima pars (1268-69) and aquinas‘ first lecture series on romans were contemporaneous labors. whatever the exact dating it is evident that st i q.23 ―informs these three chapters (9-11) of aquinas‘ commentary and serves as the essential point of access for this interpretation of romans 9-11.‖ boguslawski, thomas aquinas on the jews, 45. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): ryan 1-14 ryan, salvation is from the jews ryan 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 dictate theology but feels free to go beyond paul‘s writings to validate what he thinks is correct theologically. while the question addresses the issue of predestination, it is fundamentally a consideration of god, and god‘s actions. predestination is predestination to eternal life, to glory. it is a part of providence, of god‘s plan for rational creatures, and is concerned with the ―whereto‖ of human life (st i q.23), not with the ―wherefrom.‖ 10 predestination involves the conferring of a good that is beyond that which is due to the human and thus it pertains to mercy (st i q.23 a.1). 11 the gift nature of predestination is illustrated by thomas‘ statement that ―predestination is not anything in the predestined; but only in the person who predestines‖ (st i q.23 a.2 c). 12 it is an immanent activity in god, its execution involves calling and magnification. predestination ―does not put anything in the predestined. but its execution…has an effect on them‖ (st i q.23 a. 2 ad 1). 13 neither good works, nor grace, merit that a person be predestined–predestination is from eternity; it is not temporal. however one can posit a certain relation between predestination and grace, ―as of cause to effect, and of act to its object‖ 10 see also st i qq. 44-49 where aquinas treats specifically of creation. god is identified as ―the efficient, the exemplar and the final cause of all things‖ (st i q.44 a.4 ad 3). aquinas writes that ―all things desire god as their end‖ (st i q.44 a.4 ad 2). creation and salvation are linked concepts; indeed one might say that creation is for the sake of salvation. salvation takes place in history. it is achieved through the incarnation of the son and the gift of the holy spirit (st iii q.32). for aquinas this is true of jew and christian alike. 11 that aquinas begins his response to this article with a citation from romans reminds the reader of the close connection between both pieces of work. thomas aquinas is primarily a magister in sacra scriptura, a biblical theologian. 12 praedestinatio non est aliquid in praedestinatis, sed in praedestinante tantum. 13 unde praedestinatio non ponit aliquid in praedestinato. sed executio eius, quae transit in exteriores res, ponit in eis aliquem effectum. (st i q.23 a. 2 ad 4). 14 the gifted, unearned nature of predestination is central. while all are ordained to eternal life by the providence of god (st i q.22) providence permits certain defects in things, for the greater good. hence god may be said to reprobate some (st i q.23 a.3 c). the language used is important—while the providence of god ordains all to eternal life, some are permitted to fall away. reprobation cannot be deemed a positive exclusion; it is rather a non-election. reprobation differs in its causality from predestination. this latter is the cause both of what is expected in the future life by the predestined--namely, glory—and of what is received in this life—namely, grace. reprobation, however is not the cause of what is in the present—namely, defect; but it is the cause of abandonment by god. it is the cause, however, of what is assigned in the future—namely, eternal punishment. but defect proceeds from the free-will of the person who is reprobated and deserted by grace (st i q.23 a.3 ad 2). 15 this is complex. god loves all and wishes good to all, and ―the divine will is efficacious‖ (st i q.19 a.8). yet, while god wills that all might be saved, and makes salvation possible for all (see st i q.21 a.1 ad 3) the efficaciousness of what god wills has to be contingent on human free will. we play an active part in the divine drama of god‘s involvement in creation, in the story of the human journey into god‘s love. so while god wills that all should be saved, simultaneously god permits, in view of a greater good known only to god, that some may sin and thus 14 ut causae ad effectum, et actus ad obiectum. 15 ad secundum dicendum quod aliter se habet reprobatio in causando, quam praedestinatio. nam praedestinatio est causa et eius quod expectatur in futura vita a praedestinatis, scilicet gloriae; et eius quod percipitur in praesenti, scilicet gratiae. reprobatio vero non est causa eius quod est in praesenti, scilicet culpae; sed est causa derelictionis a deo. est tamen causa eius quod redditur in futuro, scilicet poenae aeternae. sed culpa provenit ex libero arbitrio eius qui reprobatur et a gratia deseritur. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): ryan 1-14 ryan, salvation is from the jews ryan 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 may not attain glory. this has to be possible if human freedom to choose is to be safeguarded. in this way god is said to reprobate in so far as god permits us to choose other goods to love at the expense of loving god. 16 aquinas notes that ―as people are ordained to eternal life through the providence of god, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation‖ (st i q.23 a.3 c). 17 the asymmetry is important. the concept of double predestination is never at issue. 18 reprobation is permitted, predestination is conferred. the distinction though subtle is key. that god should reprobate is not a negative statement about god. rather that god should destine any for glory is a 16 aquinas seeks at all times to safeguard the free will of the person being reprobated, or indeed the one predestined. while the predestined must ―necessarily be saved‖ it is a ―conditional necessity‖ which ―does not do away with the liberty of choice.‖ (st i q.23 a.3 ad 3) 17 unde, cum per divinam providentiam homines in vitam aeternam ordinentur, pertinet etiam ad divinam providentiam, ut permittat aliquos ab isto fine deficere. et hoc dicitur reprobare. 18 while the beginnings of a doctrine on double predestination can be found in augustine, it is with the writings of the french reformer john calvin (15091564), that the concept of a double predestination receives substantial development. his great theological work, institutes of the christian religion, devotes a chapter to this doctrine: ―in conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, god has once for all determined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction. we affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit; but that to those whom he devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible, judgment. in the elect, we consider calling as an evidence of election, and justification as another token of its manifestation, till they arrive in glory, which constitutes its completion. as god seals his elect by vocation and justification, so by excluding the reprobate from the knowledge of his name and the sanctification of his spirit, he affords an indication of the judgment that awaits them.‖ see http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/calvin-predest.html accessed 12/20/2010. superabundance of kindness, an excess of justice. it is a kindness beyond all deserved justice for the human thus destined. 19 the question of election, god‘s choice of the predestined, is addressed solely in article 4 of question 23. 20 as scripture teaches, god wills all to be saved (st i a.4 ob 3). however in his attempt to protect human free will aquinas distinguishes between god‘s will that all be saved (god‘s antecedent will) and the fact that humans must be permitted to exercise free choice in resisting their predestination to eternal life (god‘s subsequent will). this is where the issue of election comes to the forefront. aquinas is trying to explain what he observes, people sinning, damaging one another, with the god that he knows as a god of love. it seems that god elects some, and thus appears to love these more than others, making them ―good,‖ worthy of predestination. 21 the only reason aquinas can give to account for this is god‘s will. it cannot be deemed unjust of god that equals be treated unequally as the effects of predestination are free gifts of god‘s grace. predestination simply has ―the goodness of god for its reason‖ (st i q.23 a.5 c). 22 indeed the whole thing is very mysterious for ―god allows some evils, lest many good things should never happen‖ (st i q.23 a.5 ad 3). 23 this principle will be of importance when it 19 god gives to each person more than strict justice demands (st i q.21 a.4). 20 while the question of election is addressed in article 4 of st i q.23 there is no article specifically devoted to this issue in the summa theologiae. 21 garrigou-lagrange speaks here of predilection, which he identifies as central to aquinas‘ writings on election and predestination. see reginald garrigou-lagrange, predestination, translated by dom bede rose. (st. louis, mo.: herder, 1939). 22 the placing of the question on predestination, after questions dealing with god‘s love, justice, mercy and providence, is itself instructive. god‘s goodness, the reason for predestination is likewise the explanation for god‘s creation of the world (st i q.32 a.1 ad 3). 23 deus permittit aliqua mala fieri, ne multa bona impediantur. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/calvin-predest.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): ryan 1-14 ryan, salvation is from the jews ryan 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 comes to discussion of the elect, the jewish people, and thomas‘ consideration of them in romans (interestingly he cites romans 9:22-23 in this article). 24 aquinas seems to struggle with the complex ideas he is trying at once to understand and explain, and he utilizes the subtleties of language in his attempts to reach some form of clarity: ―predestination most certainly and infallibly takes effect; yet it does not impose any necessity‖ (st i q.23 a.6 c). 25 it has nothing whatsoever to do with merit (st i q.23 a.5). 26 predestination is a part of providence, and the order of providence is infallible (st i q.22 a. 4), and yet free will is safeguarded as ―the effect of predestination has its contingency‖ (st i q.23 a.6). 27 this again is god‘s doing. god employs intermediary causes ―in order that the beauty of order may be preserved in the universe; and also that he may communicate to creatures the dignity of causality‖ (st i q.23 a.8 ad.2). 28 ―we‖ help god, 24 in an earlier work, the sentences, election is defined as ―the divine ordination itself, by which certain ones are preferred to others for the attaining of beatitude‖ (i sent. d.41.1.2 resp). it is a ―certain segregation,‖ temporal in so far as it is executed in this world, and eternal in so far as god has from eternity willed to separate the good from the evil, the good being elected, predestined for eternal life. the elect are predestined to grace for this life and glory in the next (i sent. d.41.1.2). in iii sent. d.32.2 resp. dilectio amicitiae is specified as the cause of election. ―predestination, additionally, signifies the preparation of the goods of grace and the goods of glory for the elect by means of which they are conformed to that end.‖ boguslawski, aquinas on the jews, 62. 25 praedestinatio certissime et infallibiliter consequitur suum effectum, nec tamen imponit necessitatem. 26 ―[n]obody has been so insane as to say that merit is the cause of divine predestination as regards the act of the predestinator (god).‖ [nullus ergo fuit ita insanae mentis, qui diceret merita esse causam divinae praedestinationis, ex parte actus praedestinantis.] (st i q.23 a.5 c). 27 libertas arbitrii non tollitur, ex qua contingenter provenit praedestinationis effectus. like a servant helps their master we can assist in the furthering of predestination but we cannot impede it (st i q.23 a.8 ad.3). at the same time we may lose our ―crown by mortal sin‖ (st i q.23 a.6 ad.1). 29 in trying to understand what aquinas is saying, a consideration of the concept of time, as that in which all creation exists, together with the realization that god exists in eternality, is essential. 30 there is no before or after ―in god‘s thought, but he understands all things simultaneously.‖ (scg i 55) 31 nothing in god comes before anything else. god ―is‖ in eternality. predestination is a human concept, one pertaining to creatures living in time yet destined to share eternal life with god. the theory of predestination seeks to explain how that possibility can be realized. for aquinas, god is eternal, a teaching he concludes from god‘s immutability, (see st i q.10 a.2), and eternity belongs properly to god alone (st i q.10 a.3). this is foundational. discourse about predestination is human speech about god, and as always our words strain as they seek to speak of god. the term predestination reflects our human perspective. there is no before or after in the god who is eternal. the ―pre‖ in ―predestination‖ reflects human experience of the 28 ut ordinis pulchritudo servetur in rebus, et ut etiam creaturis dignitatem causalitatis communicet. 29 et sic suam coronam aliquis amittere potest per peccatum mortale sequens. 30 for an informative discussion on the issue of eternity see e. stump and n. kretzmann, ―eternity‖ in journal of philosophy 78 (1981), 429-458. in this article eternality is defined as ―the condition of having eternity as one‘s mode of existence‖ (430). this pertains solely to god. for discussion on the eternity of the world see summa contra gentiles bk ii, 32-38. 31 ―igitur nec consideratio dei habet prius et posterius, sed omnia simul intelligit.‖ the writings of boethius, who defined eternity as ―the complete possession all at once of illimitable life‖ (the consolation of philosophy, book v, prose 6 422.9-11), were very influential in aquinas‘ consideration of eternity, in particular as it applies to god. see also summa theologiae i q.10. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): ryan 1-14 ryan, salvation is from the jews ryan 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 divine plan. what is predestined happens but it does not happen ―later‖ from the perspective of god—in god‘s thought there is no succession, therefore whatever he knows he considers simultaneously. from the human perspective, that of temporality, things are necessarily perceived differently. yet it is imperative for human beings to be aware that they are not like trams, moving in predestinate grooves, predestined to arrive at the next station. 32 god‘s love has graced humans with the ability to choose freely to love god, or to choose some lesser good at the expense of loving god. this latter is difficult. it is hard to resist love, almost impossible to resist divine love. indeed herbert mccabe, an english dominican and scholar of aquinas, speculates that ―it is very hard to hold out for a lifetime against such love; and perhaps nobody ever does.‖ 33 romans 9-11 34 this is the framework of thought from which aquinas engaged in dialogue with romans 9-11, and the question of the jews, election and predestination. 35 in a world purview where jewish people were being increasingly criticized, and their way of life coming under pressure as to its legitimacy, aquinas engaged with sacred scripture seeking to find the truth of the 32 herbert mccabe, ―predestination‖ in god still matters, ed. brian davies, op (london/new york: continuum), 182-186: 185. 33 herbert mccabe, ―predestination,‖ 186. 34 larcher, fabian r., trans., and jeremy holmes, ed. lectures on the letter to the romans. e-text, www.aquinas.avemaria.edu/aquinas_on_romans.pdf. all references (paragraph numbers) to this work shall be included in the body of the article. latin text available at http://www.thomasinstituut.org/thomasinstituut/scripts/index.htm 35 ―aquinas‘ use of elect/election occurs in eighteen paragraphs in chapters 911 and in five additional paragraphs in the remainder of the letter. by contrast, paul uses election four times in romans 9-11, specifically, 9.11; 11.5, 7, and 28. he speaks of the ―elect‖ in 8.33 and 16.13.‖ boguslawski, thomas aquinas on the jews, 76, n.20. story of israel‘s irrevocable predestination–indeed was it irrevocable? and if it was not, what did this say about god and god‘s fidelity to covenant? and if the jews remain the elect, the first chosen, where does that leave all the followers of christ? it seems that for aquinas, augustinian supersessionism (the replacement of the new israel, the church, for the old) was not sufficient. 36 in his commentary on romans, he addresses the story of the jews using the theological concepts of predestination and election previously addressed in the summa. aquinas uses paul to remind the reader of the ―greatness of the jews‖ and of ―how the gentiles have been drawn into that greatness‖ (super episotlas s. pauli lectura, ad romanos, 735). 37 this acknowledged greatness of the jews is the foundation for all his discussion, and he explains in some detail the reasons for this greatness, not limiting his use of scripture to paul. the jews enjoy ―an ancient (pristinam) dignity‖ (742), a dignity, a greatness which stems from their descent from ―jacob who was called israel (gen 32:28)‖ (743). 38 they have been blessed by god temporally with the gift of sonship (ex 4:22) by means of the covenant sealed by circumcision, the law and divine worship; and blessed eternally with the gift of glory promised to the children of god (ex 40:32). aquinas writes that the ―promises made in the old testament and fulfilled by christ seem made especially to the jews‖ (744). 39 the centrality of christ is 36 mathew levering highlights the centrality of the old testament in aquinas‘ understanding of salvation. as the title to his work indicates, levering presents aquinas as portraying christ as the fulfillment of the torah and the temple. the mosaic law thus remains of significance to christians, and is brought to conclusion in christ. see mathew levering, christ’s fulfillment of torah and temple: salvation according to thomas aquinas. (notre dame: university of notre dame press, 2002). 37 primo commemorat dignitatem iudaeorum; secundo ostendit quomodo gentiles ad illam dignitatem sunt assumpti (cap.9 lect.1). 38 a genere iacob descendentes, qui est dictus israel (cap.9 lect.1). 39 promissiones enim factae in veteri testamento impletae per christum, iudaeis praecipue factae videntur (cap.9 lect.1). http://www.aquinas.avemaria.edu/aquinas_on_romans.pdf http://www.thomasinstituut.org/thomasinstituut/scripts/index.htm studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): ryan 1-14 ryan, salvation is from the jews ryan 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 acknowledged as part of the jewish story. they are great by origin, from the patriarchs (745) and great because of their descendant christ. indeed it was christ himself who taught that ―salvation is from the jews‖ (jn 4:22) (746), 40 and christ is truly great, as aquinas teaches, for he is god (747). aquinas is struck by paul‘s assertion that one can be adopted into the sonship of god, i.e., become a son of abraham by imitating the faith and works of abraham (―god is able from these stones to raise up children to abraham‖ (mt 3:9)) (344). mere physical descent does not gift one with greatness—the dignity of the jews refers to god‘s selection, a selection which ―applies generally to jews and gentiles.‖ paul‘s astuteness in his use of the story of rebecca‘s children is remarked upon and aquinas utilizes this to discuss the mystery of god‘s election. jacob and esau are the sons of rebecca and isaac, and yet one was set over the other ―in virtue of the promise‖ (758) before their birth. 41 election is not by merit; it is never deserved. jacob was elected so that god‘s purpose might be fulfilled: he was chosen ―not by reason of merits but of election, i.e., inasmuch as god himself spontaneously fore chose one over the other, not because he was holy but in order that he be holy‖ (759). 42 predestination is because of god‘s will. it has nothing to do with merit. 43 40 salus ex iudaeis est (cap.9 lect.1). 41 quod per repromissionem (lit: counter promise) est unus filiorum rebeccae alii praelatus (cap.9 lect. 2). 42 non secundum merita sed secundum electionem, id est inquantum ipse deus spontanea voluntate unum alteri praelegit, non quia sanctus erat, sed ut sanctus esset (cap.9 lect. 2). 43 in catholic theology the term merit (meritum) is generally understood as a reward due to a person as the result of a good work done. it needs to be very carefully articulated to avoid the idea of ―earning‖ one‘s own salvation. paul‘s citation from scripture, ―jacob i loved, but esau i hated‖ (rom 9:13) is utilized to develop aquinas‘ thought. god‘s love is first. jacob did not merit this choice of god, ―[c]onsequently, one must say that god loved jacob from all eternity‖ (762). 44 god‘s love is the cause of all good that is to be found in a creature (st i q.6 a.4). god elects someone not because of a good perceived, ―but it is because god loved him that god prefers him to someone by election‖ (763). 45 aquinas next addresses the question of rejection, an issue which also pertains to eternal life. complexly, he asserts that while predestination is not a reward for merits foreknown, the foreknowledge of sins can be the reason for rejection, for punishment. the sins of the rejected they ―have from themselves, not from god‖ (764). 46 they have chosen a lesser good at the expense of choosing god‘s friendship. inevitably the question of god‘s justice arises. if merit does not lead to the reward of eternal life, god must be unjust. with this issue aquinas brings the reader to the heart of the god question. merit cannot be a cause of predestination for ―nothing which is an effect of predestination can be taken as a reason for a predestination‖ (772). 47 predestination does not pertain to distributive justice, but is to be seen in the light of things given spontaneously and out of mercy. for aquinas to give alms to one beggar and not to another is a demonstration of mercy, and is unjust to neither beggar. similarly, that god predestines anyone shows that god is merciful. on the other hand, those god does not predestine cannot be deemed to 44 et ideo oportet dicere quod deus ab aeterno iacob dilexit (cap.9 lect. 2). 45 sed potius eo quod ipsum diligit, praefert eum aliis eligendo (cap.9 lect. 2). 46 peccata quae a seipsis habent, non a deo (cap.9 lect. 2). 47 manifestum est enim quod nihil potest poni ut ratio praedestinationis (cap.9 lect.3). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): ryan 1-14 ryan, salvation is from the jews ryan 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 have been treated unjustly, for all have been ―born subject to damnation on account of the sin of the first parent‖ (773). 48 predestination is gratuitous; it is grace, gift (see also st i q.23 a.5 ad 3 for very similar reasoning). god remains the epitome of mercy. temporal graces are granted to those who are predestined, and so they are moved to good. god is judged the author of these good deeds; with regard to the hardening of people‘s hearts, and acts of malice, god is deemed to permit their actions ―by not affording grace‖ (784). 49 it is important to note that there is no such thing as an ―anti-grace,‖ an inspiration of god by which we choose evil. sin is freely chosen, we harden our own hearts. 50 the reader of both paul and aquinas is still left asking ―why?‖ and it seems we will continue to ask why for aquinas writes ―in this we are given to understand that one should not examine the reason for god‘s judgments with the intention of comprehending them, for they exceed human reason‖ (789). 51 what remains of central importance is that all god‘s works seek to manifest god‘s goodness. with humans, made from dust, any good they possess must be clearly seen as due to god‘s goodness, while any lack of same cannot be seen as an injustice of god. when applied to the gentiles, aquinas finds the fact of god‘s election even more astounding. the gentiles did not share divine sonship and so were not called the people of god. they did not enjoy the privilege of divine love, nor did they enjoy a share in the divine compassion which delivered the jews 48 omnes homines propter peccatum primi parentis damnationi nascantur obnoxii (cap.9 lect.3). 49 sed non apponendo gratiam (cap.9 lect.3). 50 mccabe, ―predestination,‖ 185. 51 in quo datur intelligi quod homo non debet scrutari rationem divinorum iudiciorum cum intentione comprehendendi, eo quod excedant rationem humanam (cap.9 lect.5). from original sin by the exterior sign of faith, circumcision (st iii q.102 a.5). all of this has been achieved through christ, through whom ―they have become god‘s people‖ (799) 52 and even more powerfully ―sons of god by divine adoption‖ (800). 53 those who had clearly been defined as ‗not-my-people‘ can now be called children of god (800). righteousness is not based on works, or on fidelity to the law, but on faith in christ. yet the complex question of the jews and salvation remains central to paul, and hence to aquinas. while their sin is great (some of them crucified christ) divine mercy ensured that they were not completely exterminated. god is merciful and just, god does not revoke his covenant. israel is not abandoned. israel cannot be, for god is faithful. some jews, a remnant (802), will be saved. paul cites is 10:22 and aquinas struggles to interpret this verse: 54 ―few will be converted from israel…not all, not the majority, but a certain few‖ (802), 55 and they will be saved because of ―the efficacy of the word of the gospel‖ (803). 56 the evangelical word is efficacious as it explains the moral precepts of the law. the word of the gospel ―shortens the words of the law.‖ it is, aquinas suggests, ―more perfect,‖ ―more profound,‖ ―simpler and briefer‖ as it focuses 52 sed per christum facti sunt populus dei (cap.9 lect.5). 53 ibi vocabuntur filii dei per divinam adoptionem (cap.9 lect.5). 54 ―and isaiah cries out concerning israel: ‗though the number of the sons of israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved‘‖ (romans 9:27). 55 reliquiae salvae fient, id est non omnes, nec maior pars, sed aliqui pauci qui relinquentur ex excidio aliorum (cap.9 lect.5). 56 ponit efficaciam evangelici verbi (cap.9 lect.5). in a sense this is what the controversial document dominus iesus sought to reaffirm. it remains a point of debate as to the wisdom of issuing the document at this point in history, and as to reason for so doing. dominus iesus, on the unicity and salvific universality of jesus christ and the church. congregation of the doctrine of the faith, 6 august, 2000. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): ryan 1-14 ryan, salvation is from the jews ryan 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 everything on christ, and christ‘s sacrifice, and on the ―law‖ of charity (803). the focus has shifted from the law of israel and the people of god to justification through faith in jesus christ. the problem is not with the law per se, for the law of moses ―if it is well understood‖ teaches righteousness (809). 57 however now, henceforth, justification comes through faith in jesus christ (808), the foundation of the church, a foundation which has become a stumbling block for the jews (811), due to their ignorance and their unbelief. this is what leads them to persecute christ and his followers. 58 but, as aquinas teaches, paul felt compassion for the jews, his brethren, and prayed to god for their salvation (rom 10:1 ff). 59 he did not see their fall as universal, nor unprofitable or irreparable. in paul‘s desire for the salvation of the jews aquinas sees him as conformed to god ―who desires all people to be saved‖ (1 tm 2:4) (814). 60 paul, he tells us, had compassion for them as they sinned not from malice but from ignorance. they have a zeal for god, but zeal alone is 57 vel sectando legem iustitiae, id est legem moysi, quae est lex iustitiae si sit bene intellecta: quia docet iustitiam (cap.9 lect.5). 58 for people of any faith, whether or not they profess faith in jesus the christ, it is the constant teaching of the catholic church that salvation is achieved through the incarnation of the son, an event in history, and by the gift of the spirit. this too was aquinas‘ belief. once more the issue of temporality and eternality are of importance. 59 from this we can learn that ―we should pray for unbelievers that they may be saved because faith is a gift from god‖ (814). 60 et in hoc deo conformabatur, qui, ut dicitur i tm ii, 4, vult omnes homines salvos fieri (cap.10 lect.1). a consideration of natural law would be of interest here. while it is beyond the scope of this paper to engage in detailed discussion it is pertinent to note that aquinas‘ ―notion of natural law, as it turns out, cannot be separated from his account of grace.‖ fergus kerr, review of ―mathew levering, christ’s fulfillment of torah and temple. salvation according to thomas aquinas,‖ in the journal of theological studies 55(2004) 733-737:733. insufficient for their ―zeal was not guided by correct knowledge as long as they were ignorant of the truth‖ (816). 61 aquinas next reinforces an important theological position. despite their zeal for god, the jews, he wrote, sought to establish their own righteousness based on the law (819), and in doing this ―they did not submit to god’s righteousness, i.e., they refused to be subject to christ through faith in whom people are made just by god‖ (818). 62 the jewish people thought they could merit salvation if they obeyed the law, but it is this very belief which is now leading them astray for god‘s righteousness is more perfect than that of the law (820). there is a distinction between human righteousness and god‘s righteousness, a righteousness based on the law and one based on faith, faith in jesus christ, the faith that leads to eternal life. aquinas sees paul, the apostle, attributing to christ what moses ―said of the commandments of the law; because christ is the word of god in which are all god‘s commandments‖ (825). 63 god‘s salvific will has not changed, but human understanding has been greatly enriched. having stated that the jews have fallen because of their ignorance, aquinas next addresses the perennial question of how people come to know god, to faith. by hearing, paul tells us. this hearing can happen in two ways: first immediately from god revealing, which aquinas terms an internal hearing, and secondly the hearing which comes from preaching. preaching is a gift of god, and the preacher seeks to help people to live well in this world, and to reach the next. however, here we 61 quia scilicet eorum zelus per rectam scientiam non ordinatur dum ignorant veritatem (cap.10 lect.1). 62 quia neminem ad perfectum adduxit lex, ut dicitur hebr. vii, 19, sed ordinat homines in christum quem promittebat, et praefigurabat (cap.10 lect.1). 63 nec est inconveniens si quod moyses dixit de mandato legis, hoc apostolus attribuit christo: quia christus est verbum dei, in quo sunt omnia dei mandata (cap.10 lect.1). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): ryan 1-14 ryan, salvation is from the jews ryan 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 move into the realm of mystery. in aquinas‘ day just as much as in our own, not everyone who hears believes–the jews heard and only some came to believe in jesus. for ―the outwardly spoken word of the preacher is not sufficient to cause faith, unless a person‘s heart is attracted inwardly by the power of god speaking…consequently, if people believe, it should not be attributed to the industry of the preacher‖ (842). 64 it is god‘s work, and we are back again to the idea of election and predestination. two things are required for faith, first the gift of grace which inclines the heart to believe, and the other is the decision about what to believe. so we can say about the jews that while they sinned from ignorance [813] their sin is not entirely excusable ―because their ignorance was not invincible or rooted in necessity, but somehow voluntary‖ (845). 65 they have heard, have they not, he wonders. they heard the teachings of the apostles in jesus‘ time, and before that they had the law and the prophets. 66 hence their lack of understanding seems to be inexcusable, for unlike the gentiles of yore or the unbelievers of today, the jews have always had their law and the prophets. so, the question remains, has god rejected them? aquinas does not mince words–the fall of the jews is deplorable, not entirely excusable (813), and yet it is not universal (859) for 64 hoc autem dicit ideo ut ostendatur quod verbum exterius loquentis non est causa sufficiens fidei, nisi cor hominis attrahatur interius virtute dei loquentis … et sic quod homines credunt, non est attribuendum praedicatoris industriae (cap.10 lect. 2). 65 eorum talis casus non est excusabilis ex toto, quia eorum ignorantia non fuit invincibilis vel ex necessitate existens, sed quodammodo voluntaria (cap.10 lect. 3). 66 with regard to those who have not heard, and so are excused from the sin of unbelief, aquinas follows church teaching and says they will not obtain god‘s blessing, the removal of original sin, or the removal of any sin they added by leading an evil life ―for these they are deservedly condemned.‖ however, adding his own caveat, he notes that if any of them ―did what was in his power, the lord would provide for him according to his mercy‖ (849). the goodness and the greatness of god are paramount. ―god has not rejected his people whom he foreknew‖ (863). 67 this is not the first time, aquinas notes, that the jewish people have turned from the worship of the one god. in the time of elijah, and indeed in many other situations in the past, the prophets have had to intervene in the relationship between god and god‘s people ―in order that people‘s sins but not people be destroyed‖ (866). 68 in his commentary on romans 11:11-16, aquinas moves to a central point of his discourse, and makes explicit the implicit principles of predestination. first, he reminds us that the fall of the jews is not universal (859), and then journeys with paul to show why the fall of some ―was neither useless nor irreparable‖ (878). 69 much of what is said in this section is a replication of what aquinas already said in st i q.23 a.6 ad 3. everything rests on god‘s goodness. for aquinas the subject of theology is always god (st i q.1 a.7), a god that is good, merciful, and just. this god permits evil to happen, in this case the jews to stumble and fall for the sake of salvation of others: ―the providence of god is operative in the fall of the jews, the inclusion of the gentiles, and the ultimate restoration of israel – all essential components of τό μυστήριον τούτο (romans 11.25).‖ 70 the fall of the jews enabled the gentiles to be saved–the crucifixion of christ redeemed them through his blood, the apostles, rejected by the jews, preached to the gentiles, and even their scattering, the diaspora of the jewish people, was useful as in this way the books of the jews, giving testimony to christian faith, were widely spread. 67 dicit ergo primo: non solum ego (paul) non sum repulsus sed deus non repulit plebem suam, totam, quam praescivit, id est praedestinavit (cap.11 lect 1). 68 ut scilicet non homines, sed peccata hominum destruantur (cap.11 lect. 1). 69 hic incipit ostendere quod casus eorum non est inutilis neque irreparabilis (cap.11 lect. 1). 70 boguslawski, thomas aquinas on the jews, 98. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): ryan 1-14 ryan, salvation is from the jews ryan 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 the fall of the jews is reparable and will bring great goodness to the world, this is the underlying refrain. god permitted the jews to do wrong and to be diminished for the benefit of the whole world. thus, argues aquinas, how ―much more will god repair their disaster for the benefit of the whole world‖ (884). 71 it is this belief that spurns paul on in his ministry. paul himself is an israelite by race and enjoys a place of eminence amongst the jews, being a member of the tribe of benjamin (861). his ―very zeal for the conversion of the jews was the sign he adduced for stating that the fall of the jews was reparable‖ (889). 72 the reparation of this fall will also help to restore to ―their primitive fervor‖ gentiles who have grown lukewarm (890). from romans 11:16 on, paul uses images, metaphors to remind the gentiles of the pre-eminence of the jews, and of how the gentiles have been included within their story. using paul‘s writings as foundational, aquinas goes beyond them to make his teaching. as the apostles who are holy were chosen by god from the jewish people, so too the people must be holy; similarly as the patriarchs, the root, are holy, so too must the branches, the jewish people, be. the sanctity of believing jews perdures, at least in potential: the apostle is not speaking here of actual holiness, for he does not mean to say that unbelieving jews are holy; but of potential holiness. for if their ancestors and descendants are holy, nothing prevents them from being called back to holiness themselves. (893) 73 71 si deus propter utilitatem totius mundi permisit iudaeos delinquere et diminui, multo magis implebit ruinas eorum propter totius mundi utilitatem (cap. 11 lect. 2). 72 unde ipsum apostoli studium quod adhibebat ad conversionem iudaeorum, inducit pro signo quod casus iudaeorum sit reparabilis (cap. 11 lect. 2). 73 sed dicendum quod apostolus hic non loquitur de actuali sanctitate; non enim intendit ostendere iudaeos incredulos esse sanctos sed de sanctitate in this way jewish sanctity is defended. it is well rooted. and while the gentiles, a wild olive shoot, have been grafted on to the olive tree, they must not boast against the jews as they are the supporting root. aquinas is quite harsh in his words to the gentiles, reminding them of their humble origins (895), and their promotion to the dignity of the jews. the jewish race is the olive tree and has borne rich spiritual fruit. the gentiles, promoted to a partnership with the patriarchs, apostles, and prophets, are warned not to boast against the jews, and to remember that ―judea did not receive salvation from the gentiles, but just the reverse: ‗salvation is from the jews‘‖ (jn 4:22) (897). 74 gentiles are warned to be careful in their faith. it was god who permitted some branches to be broken off so that gentiles might be grafted in (900); similarly god might permit the gentiles to be broken off because of unbelief (902). despair and presumption are equally to be avoided. even though we have been speaking of predestination and election, the mysterious nature of these two activities of god is underlined by thomas‘ advice to persevere in goodness for ―the situation is not immutable but could change in the future‖ (906). 75 the gentiles could be cut off once again and the jews restored to their former status. god‘s power can do this (909). thus while aquinas grounds his argument historically, he is simultaneously looking forward to the restoration of the jewish people to the greatness ―which by natural origin pertains to the jewish nation‖ (911). 76 potentiali. nihil enim prohibet eos reparari in sanctitate, quorum patres et quorum filii sunt sancti (cap.11 lect. 2). 74 id est iudaea non accepit a gentilitate salutem sed potius e converso. io. iv, 22: salus ex iudaeis est (cap. 11 lect. 3). 75 quia non immobiliter sicut quod potest mutari in futurum (cap.11 lect. 3). 76 id est qui naturali origine pertinent ad gentem iudaeorum (cap. 11 lect. 3). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): ryan 1-14 ryan, salvation is from the jews ryan 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 the salvation of israel is declared in romans 11:26. israel‘s blindness will end. thomas reads paul‘s eschatology thus: the fall of a part has permitted some gentiles to be saved, more will be saved, and then ―when the full number of the gentiles has come in, all israel will be saved‖ (916). 77 god is always active, hardening and selecting, always with mercy. ―salvation is (indeed) from the jews‖ (918) 78 as the savior, god in human flesh, came from the jewish people. the salvation which christ brings is also for the jews. while a few ―are converted with great difficulty‖ and ―a certain violence‖ (919) aquinas interprets paul‘s scriptural citation—that the deliverer will banish ungodliness from jacob (is 59:20-21)—to refer to ‗the ease with which the jews will be converted at the end of the world‘ (919). 79 they will be saved by the new covenant, the new testament, brought about by the blood of christ which has the power to remit sin (920). there will be no need for repentance ―for the gifts and the call of god are without repentance‖ (rom 11:29). the jewish people are beloved by god not on account of anything they or their ancestors (or descendants) have done, but on account of election: ―god from all eternity chose the fathers and the sons in such a way that the children would obtain salvation on account of the fathers‖…and this happens…‖through an outpouring of divine grace and mercy‖ (923). 80 god does not 77 et tunc, scilicet cum plenitudo gentium intraverit, omnis israel salvus fiet (cap.11 lect. 4). 78 salus ex iudaeis est. io. iv, 22 (cap.11 lect. 4). 79 vel utrumque refertur ad liberationem a culpa sed dicit qui eripiat, propter paucos, qui nunc difficulter quasi cum quadam violentia convertuntur. …dicit autem avertet impietatem a iacob, ad ostendendum facilitatem conversionis iudaeorum in fine mundi (cap.11 lect.4). 80 quod non est sic intelligendum quasi merita praestita patribus fuerint causa aeternae electionis filiorum sed quia deus ab aeterno elegit gratis et patres et filios, hoc tamen ordine ut filii propter patres consequerentur salutem, non quasi merita patrum sufficerent ad filiorum salutem, sed per quamdam abundantiam divinae gratiae et misericordiae hoc dicit, quae intantum patribus est revoke his call. israel will be saved ―because god wills that his mercy find room in all‖ (932). 81 the action of god in predestination and election is an act of the manifestation of god‘s goodness and god‘s mercy. god allowed all to fall, all to err, jew and gentile alike, so that his mercy could be applied not to people individually but to all races of people. the statement 82 applies to the genera of individuals, not to all the individuals of the genera. god wishes all to be saved by his mercy, in order that they be humbled by this fact and ascribe their salvation not to themselves but to god (932). 83 conclusion so what does this have to say to interreligious dialogue in the twenty-first century? while thomas aquinas cannot be deemed as having engaged in interreligious dialogue, his willingness to attend with great seriousness to another tradition is instructive. the theological question at the heart of his work remains consistent: what is the nature of this god we believe in? are our teachings truthful, or as truthful as they can be given our limited intellect, to this god who is at once the god of the covenant and the trinitarian god revealed through the advent of christ into the world? the specific question aquinas seeks to address is complex, and while he cannot be said to have ―answered‖ the theological conundrum of predestination, he teaches us of the need to take other faiths very seriously, for exhibita, ut propter promissiones eis factas, etiam filii salvarentur (cap.11 lect.4). 81 deus voluit, ut sua misericordia in omnibus locum haberet (cap.11 lect. 4). 82 ―for god has consigned all people to unbelief that god might have mercy on all‖ (rom 11: 32). 83 ad omnia genera hominum. fit enim hic distributio pro generibus singulorum et non pro singulis generum. ideo autem deus vult omnes per suam misericordiam salvari, ut ex hoc humilientur et suam salutem non sibi, sed deo adscribant (cap.11 lect.4). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): ryan 1-14 ryan, salvation is from the jews ryan 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 the god of jesus christ wishes to save all peoples by his mercy, and moreover god wants people to have knowledge of his universal salvific will. (932) this desire to save all peoples is a desire concomitant with god‘s ―decision‖ to create–the creator god is the god of the covenant is the god revealed by jesus christ. the issue of predestination is essentially an attempt to understand the promise of eternal life with god, and the necessity to safeguard the human freedom to choose. we are not, as mccabe said ―trams, moving in predestinate grooves,‖ 84 but have been created by the communication of god‘s goodness to the world, with the possibility of accepting or rejecting this goodness. this paper explores specifically aquinas‘ struggle to address the issue of the jews, the chosen people, and their relationship with god, following their ―failure‖ to recognize christ as god. god‘s mercy and god‘s justice are at issue. the god revealed by jesus christ is a merciful and just god, merciful and just in what we might term a ‗godly‘ manner. while christians may seek to restrict salvation, aquinas‘ study of god teaches him that ―god‘s salvific will has no other cause than his entirely free and disinterested love. we do not impose on it the intelligible structures of our mind.‖ 85 aquinas‘ engagement with the issue of the salvation of the jewish people leads him further into the mystery of god, and leaves him to wonder at this god of free and disinterested love. today, interreligious dialogue must seek to do no less, as daniel madigan suggested in the opening paragraph of this paper. 84 herbert mccabe, ―predestination‖ in god still matters, ed. brian davies, op (london/new york: continuum), 182-186: 185. cited earlier [p. 7]. 85 j.-p. torrell, saint thomas aquinas, vol. 2 spiritual master. trans. r. royal. (washington d.c.: the catholic university of america press, 2003), 15. response to: jewish-christian dialogue about covenant studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): cp16-17 conference proceeding response to ruth langer: jewish-christian dialogue about covenant william h. bellinger baylor university delivered at the houston clergy institute, march 6, 2007 allow me the irreverence of an old story. several centuries ago, the pope decreed that all the jews had to leave italy. there was, of course, a huge outcry from the jewish community, so the pope offered a deal. he would have a religious debate with a leader of the jewish community. if the jewish leader won the debate, the jews would be permitted to stay in italy. if the pope won, the jews would have to leave. the jewish community met and picked an aged and wise rabbi to represent them in the debate. the rabbi, however, could not speak latin, and the pope could not speak yiddish. so it was decided that this debate would be a silent debate. allow me the irreverence of an old story. several centuries ago, the pope decreed that all the jews had to leave italy. there was, of course, a huge outcry from the jewish community, so the pope offered a deal. he would have a religious debate with a leader of the jewish community. if the jewish leader won the debate, the jews would be permitted to stay in italy. if the pope won, the jews would have to leave. the jewish community met and picked an aged and wise rabbi to represent them in the debate. the rabbi, however, could not speak latin, and the pope could not speak yiddish. so it was decided that this debate would be a silent debate. on the day of the great debate, the pope and the rabbi sat opposite each other for a full minute before the pope raised his hand and showed three fingers. the rabbi looked back and raised one finger. next, the pope waived his finger around his head. the rabbi pointed to the ground where he sat. the pope then brought out a communion wafer and a chalice of wine. the rabbi pulled out an apple. with that, the pope stood up and said, “i concede the debate. this man has bested me. the jews can stay.” on the day of the great debate, the pope and the rabbi sat opposite each other for a full minute before the pope raised his hand and showed three fingers. the rabbi looked back and raised one finger. next, the pope waived his finger around his head. the rabbi pointed to the ground where he sat. the pope then brought out a communion wafer and a chalice of wine. the rabbi pulled out an apple. with that, the pope stood up and said, “i concede the debate. this man has bested me. the jews can stay.” later, the cardinals gathered around the pope, asking him what had happened. the pope said, “first i held up three fingers to represent the trinity. he responded by holding up one finger to remind me that there was still one god common to both our religions. then i waved my finger around me to show him that god was all around us. he responded by pointing to the ground to show that god was also right here with us. i pulled out the wine and the wafer to show that god absolves us of our sins. he pulled out an apple to remind me of original sin. he had an answer for everything. what could i do?” later, the cardinals gathered around the pope, asking him what had happened. the pope said, “first i held up three fingers to represent the trinity. he responded by holding up one finger to remind me that there was still one god common to both our religions. then i waved my finger around me to show him that god was all around us. he responded by pointing to the ground to show that god was also right here with us. i pulled out the wine and the wafer to show that god absolves us of our sins. he pulled out an apple to remind me of original sin. he had an answer for everything. what could i do?” meanwhile, the jewish community crowded around the rabbi, asking what happened. “well,” said the rabbi, “first he said to me, ‘you jews have three days to get out of here.’ so i said to him, ‘not one of us is going to leave.’ then he tells me the whole city would be cleared of jews. so i said to him, ‘the jewish community stays right here’!” “and then?” asked someone. “who knows?” said the rabbi. “he pulled out his lunch and i pulled out mine.” meanwhile, the jewish community crowded around the rabbi, asking what happened. “well,” said the rabbi, “first he said to me, ‘you jews have three days to get out of here.’ so i said to him, ‘not one of us is going to leave.’ then he tells me the whole city would be cleared of jews. so i said to him, ‘the jewish community stays right here’!” “and then?” asked someone. “who knows?” said the rabbi. “he pulled out his lunch and i pulled out mine.” we do often talk past each other. i am grateful for rabbi langer’s paper and have learned much from it. there are a variety of expressions of the relationships indicated in covenants. i think we are on the same page in terms of the importance of the noachic covenant and in terms of how our traditions shape our interpretations. we read biblical texts from the mapping of our own traditions and are sometimes unaware and surprised by that. let me illustrate with a text to which i have already referred. gn 15:6 says, “he trusted in the lord, and he reckoned/counted it to him righteousness.” christian tradition has pretty consistently taken the statement as an affirmation that god counted abram’s trusting of the promise as righteousness. it is possible, we do often talk past each other. i am grateful for rabbi langer’s paper and have learned much from it. there are a variety of expressions of the relationships indicated in covenants. i think we are on the same page in terms of the importance of the noachic covenant and in terms of how our traditions shape our interpretations. we read biblical texts from the mapping of our own traditions and are sometimes unaware and surprised by that. let me illustrate with a text to which i have already referred. gn 15:6 says, “he trusted in the lord, and he reckoned/counted it to him righteousness.” christian tradition has pretty consistently taken the statement as an affirmation that god counted abram’s trusting of the promise as righteousness. it is possible, bellinger response, j-c dialogue about covenant cp16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): cp16-17 however, that abram is the one counting god as righteous in affirming again the promise of progeny. that would be consonant with the god-abram relationship elsewhere. the use of the term ‘righteousness’ here challenges what i often find contemporary christian readers bring to such a text. the term does not mean doing the right moral thing in the sense of good old american works-righteousness. it rather suggests right relationship or fidelity to a relationship. so following the traditional interpretation, abram trusts the divine promise and so is faithful to the relationship with god. in the same way, noah is described in that narrative as righteous before god. noah and abram trust and worship in the context of that relationship. now what i have just done is read gn 15:6 in line with paul’s use of the text in gal 3 and rom 4. i have had some awareness of that part of my hermeneutical assumptions in reading the text for some time, but it was really in reading the work of the jewish scholar jon levenson that my awareness became full. he refers to the interpretation of the verse from philo of alexandria in light of gn 26:5 that abram “carried out all the divine law and all the divine commandments,” an interpretation more in line with the new testament book of james. that is a very different way to read gn 15:6. the two ways are tied to the mapping of the two different traditions. i heard two lectures in the last week by e. p. sanders of duke university. thirty years ago he wrote paul and palestinian judaism and in that volume established that judaism is a vibrant interpretive tradition; it is not consumed by legalism, as some christian stereotypes suggest. when i read with jewish interpreters as conversation partners, i see my christian hermeneutic more clearly and i am stopped in my tracks by a different interpretive tradition. it keeps me honest. i cannot assume my traditional reading. i might have to support it. i interpret the hebrew scriptures as a christian, but that is not the only interpretive tradition. i have the sense that jewish interpreters read the scriptures in terms of faith as lifestyle. christians tend to want to work at the basis behind the lifestyle. surely both provide pieces of the puzzle. and surely there are other pieces of the puzzle in the goal of grounding ourselves in “another.” thank you. bellinger response, j-c dialogue about covenant cp17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ response to ruth langer: jewish-christian dialogue about covenant studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review mary c. boys redeeming our sacred story: the death of jesus and relations between jews and christians (new york: paulist press, 2013), paperback, xii + 387 marianne moyaert, vu university amsterdam / katholieke universiteit leuven mary boys’ book focuses on the new testament accounts of the crucifixion of jesus and their interpretation by later christians. she shows that while these sacred stories have been liberating to christians, they have been put to “sacrilegious” use against jews (p. 47). throughout christian history the passion narratives that constitute the heart of christian identity have been used to rationalize and legitimize violence against the jewish people. it is well-known that for centuries good friday was the most dangerous day for jews living in europe. the accusation, especially, that the jews are responsible for the death of jesus has been at the core of christian antijudaism and has had catastrophic consequences for them. boys argues that christians must acquaint themselves with these dark pages in their history, take responsibility for it, and reread (and thereby redeem) the passion narratives in a constructive way. this book is a historical and exegetical study interwoven with important and nuanced theological reflections and insights. boys develops her argument in three parts. in the first, “a trembling telling,” boys shows how the new testament accounts of jesus’ passion have caused christians to “tremble” at their power (p. 3). all too often, however, these accounts have been told in a problematic fashion. while the focus of boys’ book is on jewish-christian relations, in the first part of her study she broadens the scope to show that the passion studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) narratives have been criticized from various perspectives. she gives voice to feminist and womanist theologians as well as to black liberationist theologians not only to uncover how these stories have been wrongly told (chapter 1), but also to bring forth the liberating possibilities in these stories (chapter 2). this twofold dynamic of deconstruction and reconstruction is mirrored in the next two parts of her book. in the second, “a troubling telling—and its tragic consequences,” boys narrows her scope, again focusing on jewish-christian relations and how “the new testament, so beloved and vital to christianity, includes texts that have provided the raw materials for harsh depictions of jews as enemies of christ” (p. 47). for it to be possible to “redeem our sacred stories,” christians must be willing to look directly at the violent history that has resulted from these troubling tellings. this is precisely what boys does in the following chapters. her historical analysis reveals how over the course of centuries jews were charged with deicide, and how this charge prompted anti-jewish violence. in chapter three, she studies the four gospels, acts, and the letters of paul, and shows that the new testament already contains the “raw materials accusing jews” of the death of jesus (pp. 47-75). in the next chapter, she surveys early christian apocryphal texts and writings from the middle ages (noting the tragic shift that began with the crusades). boys shows how anti-jewish prejudices grew stronger and stronger in this period until they shaped a general view of jews as less than human. an original anti-jewish pattern of thought that first served christian identity-formation (a binary division of “us” and “them”) was deepened during the middle ages, as seen in devotional literature that highlighted christ’s passion and intensified jewish guilt. the jewish people were cast as demonic for their responsibility in shedding the innocent blood of christ. in the fifth chapter, boys moves from the medieval into the modern period and argues that hatred against the jews intensified even further due to a merging of christian anti-judaism and racial antisemitism. even though the accusation of deicide continued to be made, it was presented differently in different studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr periods and contexts, and its impact on the jews also varied. during the enlightenment, such anti-judaism was intertwined with the so-called “jewish question” that asked “whether jews could be integrated in the nation” (p. 138). in this modern period, she also considers whether nazi antisemitism is continuous or discontinuous with christian anti-judaism (chapter 6). though boys affirms that the linkage is undeniable—christian anti-judaism and racial antisemitism intersect, even to such an extent that ordinary believers may not have noticed the difference—boys also notes the discontinuities. in the third part of her study, “a transformed telling,” boys, drawing on biblical scholarship, reads the troubling texts differently. she focuses her attention on central claims of biblical scholars that contribute to a new interpretation of the passion narratives. in chapter 7, she brings into focus how the crucifixion of christ has to be understood against the background of the roman empire, which she depicts as an empire that relied on violence and terror. she argues that it is most likely that the ruling parties (both the roman procurator pilate and the jewish chief priests) were responsible for the death of christ. based on historical evidence, it cannot be said that the entire jewish people pressed for the death of christ. in chapter 8, boys turns to paul, who has often been depicted as someone who strongly opposed judaism and its legal tradition. drawing on insights from the so-called “new perspective on paul,” she argues that paul was a jesus-believing jew who did not relinquish his jewish identity, and whose gospel was directed especially against the roman imperial order. for him, christ is lord, not caesar. this claim brings boys to her next point. while we think of judaism and christianity as two different religions, we should not forget that the so-called “parting of the ways” was a slow process that took almost four centuries and occurred at a different pace in different contexts. when reading the new testament narratives of christ’s passion and especially the role of “the jews” in these events, it is important to realize that there existed no such thing as judaism and christianity. it is studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 9 (2014) better to speak about jesus-believing jews, non-jesus believing jews, and gentiles who were following jesus’ “way.” the boundaries between these different groups were not clearly fixed for a long time. in the last two chapters of her study, boys formulates several concrete interpretative strategies that will enable christian readers today to redeem their sacred stories. she applies these when exploring the possibilities of transformed and transformative readings of the passion of christ. she applies her rereadings to traditional devotional practices such as the ignatian “spiritual exercises” and the “seven last words.” considering these traditional practices, boys shows how christ’s cross may become a “tree of life for the healing of the nations” (p. 228). this book would be an excellent choice for a course on jewish-christian relations. i intend to make it required reading when i teach such a course next year. microsoft word khader_neuhaus.doc studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers in jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college “a holy land context for nostra aetate” jamal khader and david neuhaus, s.j. bethlehem university and the latin patriarchate seminary in beit jala volume 1 (2005-2006): pp. 67-88 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 67-88 khader and neuhaus, “a holy land context for nostra aetate” 68 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 together with catholics around the world, the catholic church of the holy land has celebrated the fortieth anniversary of the promulgation of the declaration on the relationship of the church to non-christian religions (nostra aetate). christians in the holy land had seen up close the difference the declaration has had in shaping papal visits to the holy land. in 1964, pope paul vi, who would one year later ratify nostra aetate, made a pilgrimage to the holy land. his major meeting was with the greek orthodox patriarchs of jerusalem and constantinople, benedictos and athenagoras. however, when pope john paul ii visited the holy land in 2000, he sought out not only israeli and palestinian political leaders and other christian leaders but also went to visit the chief rabbis and the mufti of jerusalem and made a peace pilgrimage to both the haram al-sharif (the area of the main mosques of jerusalem) and the western wall. perhaps even more meaningful for many israelis and palestinians, the pope visited the deheisheh refugee camp (home to palestinian refugees from the 1948 war) and yad vashem (the israeli holocaust memorial), courageously stepping out of the religious arena to meet jews and palestinians in their own histories too. as with all teaching formulated at the level of the universal church, the local church must seek ways to put the decisions of the church into practice by contextualizing them within the specific circumstances of its local reality. in 1995, the catholic churches of the holy land, comprising not only the roman catholic church but also the oriental churches (greek, maronite, armenian, syrian and chaldean), began a synod that would last five years and lead to the promulgation of sixteen documents on all aspects of the life of the church, which together constitute a longterm general pastoral plan (gpp) for the life of the catholic churches in the holy land. thirty years after the second vatican council, the local church in jerusalem reflected on the profound changes that had affected both church and society in the holy land in the interim. the introduction to the published collection of synod documents states: “the variety of changes poses many challenges to the church and, from the grassroots to the summit; it motivates her to ask new and urgent questions in a manner unknown in the past.”1 what is of particular interest here is the thirteenth synod document entitled “relations with believers of other religions,” which is appended to this article. it presents a contextualized teaching based on nostra aetate for the local church in the various catholic dioceses in the countries of israel, the palestinian authority, jordan and cyprus. a glance at the footnotes will show how important the various statements of the council of the catholic patriarchs of the east were in the formulation of this local document.2 the synod document also builds on the pastoral letters of latin patriarch michel sabbah, who, since his consecration in january 1988, has constantly addressed the issues of justice and peace, dialogue and reconciliation in the holy land.3 1 assembly of the catholic ordinaries in the holy land, the general pastoral plan, (jerusalem, 2001), 10. 2 the council of catholic patriarchs of the east includes all the patriarchs of the eastern rite churches in the middle east (greek, maronite, syrian, armenian, chaldean and coptic) as well as the latin patriarch of jerusalem. this representative body of arab catholics in the middle east regularly publishes important guidelines for the christian arab faithful in the region. 3 here we must mention sabbah’s 1993 pastoral letter, reading the bible today in the land of the bible that contextualized teachings derived particularly from dei verbum and nostra aetate. this letter sought to help the faithful in the holy land read their bibles, particularly the old testament, within the difficult political situation. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 67-88 khader and neuhaus, “a holy land context for nostra aetate” 69 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 the openness represented by nostra aetate is echoed in the synod document on interreligious dialogue. if anything, the foundation for this openness is even more theologically grounded than at vatican ii since it draws on the theological developments since the council, especially during the epoch of pope john paul ii. the document presents a trinitarian dialogic model as the basis of interreligious dialogue. quoting extensively from a message of the patriarchs of the east, the christian presence in the east (1992), the document states: “our countries comprise the land of this dialogue par excellence, a land that ‘makes dialogue their basic vocation and greatest challenge’” (147). the synod took place at a time when optimism reigned in the area since it seemed that a process of political dialogue had begun between palestinians and israelis. the synod document is composed of four major parts: an introduction, the dialogue with muslims, the dialogue with jews, and a conclusion on the vocation of jerusalem as city of dialogue and reconciliation. we would like to stress that the document contains both echoes and adaptations of nostra aetate. whereas nostra aetate adopted a language that was general, the synod document grounds interreligious dialogue in the holy land and in the city of jerusalem as exemplary places of dialogue. with great emphasis, the document suggests: “in our holy land, this dialogue includes members of the three major religions (islam, christianity and judaism) as well as members of other denominations (druze, samaritans, bahai, etc.) we hope that our holy land can become a unique and distinguished place of coming together and of love among the religions, in the service of our societies and the universal service of humanity. everyone expects this corner of the world to be a source of inspiration because of its spiritual and social grandeur, despite all the obstacles which oppose this dialogue” (147). the introductory part of the synod document discreetly underlines a fundamental difference in perspective between holy land christians and the heart of the universal church in rome. “even though christians are few in number in their societies, this should not be a barrier to dialogue but rather a call to witness to the magnanimous values of the gospel” (148). in the context of the second vatican council, it is the voice of a christian faith that has been a dominant and majority force in europe through long centuries of history that is heard. however, in the holy land, the christians are a small group within a society that is predominantly nonchristian (muslim or jewish). the fact of being few in number cannot be ignored in reading the document. another synod document, “the christian in public life,” understands this minority status as “a vocation, a witness and a mission” (163). christians, though few in number, are called to liberate themselves from any kind of “minority complex” that would shut themselves off from society and instead to imitate the earliest christian communities that “were a small and humble minority yet characterized by the vitality of the new human person in their enthusiasm and joy” (163). the synod speaks predominantly for christians who are arabs and who have lived for centuries within an islamic culture. whereas nostra aetate presents a progression from the religions furthest from european culture and theological concerns (hinduism, buddhism and other religions to islam to judaism), the synod text contains two main sections, the first dedicated to muslims and the second dedicated to jews. the christian arab and the muslim arab, whatever their religious differences might be, live in one society, speak one language and share one culture. thus, dialogue with muslims is a priority for the local church in a way that is not self-evident elsewhere. in some parts of the holy land dioceses, it is only the dialogue with muslims that happens since, for example, there are no jews in jordan and gaza. whereas nostra aetate began its discussion of relations with studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 67-88 khader and neuhaus, “a holy land context for nostra aetate” 70 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 muslims by noting common religious principles, the synod text begins with other important levels of commonality: historical experience, social neighborliness, co-existence and civil identity, and only lastly mentions common religious principles. in very realistic terms (in contrast to the rather abstract formulations of nostra aetate), the synod document describes the positive and negative aspects of contemporary christian-muslim co-existence, laying out a program for the development of this co-existence. this program focuses on the deepening of personal relations, the promotion of mutual respect, the establishment of organizations for dialogue and encounter, the formulation of educational curricula that promote co-existence, the formation of clergy, and a joint struggle against all kinds of discrimination in civil society. the ongoing dialogue with muslims continues at every level of christian life in the holy land and is founded not only on the fact that christians and muslims form one national, civic, cultural and linguistic community but on the teaching of respect derived from nostra aetate. a recent letter of the latin patriarch expressed it in these terms: in daily life, even though relations between christians and muslims are generally good, we are fully aware that there are certain difficulties and challenges that must be confronted. these include mutual ignorance, an authority vacuum that produces insecurity, discrimination, and that trend towards islamization among certain political movements, which endangers not only christians but also many muslims who desire an open society. when islamization constitutes an infringement on the liberty of the christian, we must insist that our identity and our religious liberty be respected. this complexity is sometimes exploited for the political end of dividing the society. however, through dialogue and other diverse initiatives, christians and muslims are called to collaborate with one another in the construction of a common society, founded on principles of mutual respect and responsibilities.”4 the synod document dedicates a long section to the relationship of local christians with jews. here, too, the particular context of local christians as contrasted with the universal church must inform any reading of this section. the local church does not reflect on this dialogue from the same starting point as its european counterparts, strongly influenced as they are by the history of anti-judaism and antisemitism. christians in the holy land see themselves as free of the taints of antisemitic practice, policy and the responsibility for the fate of european jewry. not only are christians few in number in the holy land, but christians live as a minority face to face with a jewish majority (those in israel), under israeli military occupation (those in the west bank) or confronting a regional economic and military power (those in jordan and gaza). this is an absolutely unique historical situation. nowhere else in the world do christians experience directly the sovereignty and power of a jewish polity and never in history have christians experienced jewish sovereignty and power, these only having been reestablished in 1948 with the creation of the state of israel. this unique situation must inform dialogue that takes place in this land between local christians and jews, predominantly in israel. for many of the holy land faithful, unfortunately, the jew is often first and foremost a policeman, a soldier or a settler. the synod document makes reference to another complexity of the local church that informs the dialogue with the jewish people: the existence within the church of jerusalem of a group of catholic christians who are of 4 patriarch michel sabbah and the theological commission, reflections on the presence of the church in the holy land (jerusalem, 2003). this document is reproduced in the appendix to this article. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 67-88 khader and neuhaus, “a holy land context for nostra aetate” 71 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 jewish origin.5 the declared perspective of the document is one of unity among christians despite the diversity of cultural, social and political origins and milieus. furthermore, the predominantly arab language churches of jerusalem are challenged by the synod document “to preserve open bridges of communication (with)… this community in order to exchange experiences so that we can learn from one another” (156). likewise, within the church of jerusalem are many groups and individuals who are from europe and north america and share a more western perspective on the dialogue with the jewish people. despite the situation of tension and violence that exists between palestinian arabs and israeli jews, the synod text takes positive steps to implement the teachings of nostra aetate, and even advance beyond some of the perspectives of the conciliar document: 1. the common bases of jews and christians are fully recognized, whether biblical (the old testament), theological or historical. rooting the historical reflection in the regional reality, the document recalls that “in our countries, muslims, christians and jews have lived together in fruitful social and cultural interaction, this being evident in the clear traces we find of this interaction in arab civilization” (153).6 5 in 2003, the vicar of this group of hebrew-speaking catholics, rev. jean-baptiste gourion, osb was named a bishop, auxiliary to patriarch michel sabbah. sadly, he died in 2005. 6 these traces include the contribution of prominent jewish figures within arab culture whether in the medieval period (e.g., saad bin yusuf alfayoumi known as saadia gaon, great biblical commentator and translator into arabic) or in modern times (e.g., the accomplished jewish egyptian singer leyla mourad and the jewish moroccan fighter for democracy abraham serfaty). 2. even more than nostra aetate, and drawing on the developments in catholic-jewish dialogue in the intervening years, the synod document recognizes that “the jewish other is a vibrant reality which we cannot forget or ignore” (153). christians are invited to learn about “judaism as lived by jews today and as believed by them within the framework of jewish history and the context of its reality in the holy land today” (155). this is in marked contrast to nostra aetate, which makes no reference to judaism as a post-new testament dynamic religious and spiritual reality, but is clearly in accord with the developments of later documents like those of the french bishops in 1973, the united states bishops in 1975, and the guidelines published by the vatican commission for religious relations with the jews in 1985. 3. the synod text proposes a practical relationship with jews based upon a common search for truth, peace and justice. whereas nostra aetate cited “biblical and theological studies” as a main domain for collaboration, local christians in the holy land look to “collaboration with movements for justice and peace within jewish society” and to a common struggle against discrimination. although other documents after nostra aetate underline this common front too, here again the context of the local christians explains the difference in emphases, delineating two perspectives, one from europe and one from jerusalem. however, the synod document does not ignore possible collaboration between academics on both sides on common themes, “leading to co-operation in scientific research on the bible, history, theology, etc. in addition to sincere openness about the current situation” (156). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 67-88 khader and neuhaus, “a holy land context for nostra aetate” 72 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 in the section on the jews, the synod document is permeated with the political reality of the conflict between israelis and palestinians, a reality that is the context for jewish-catholic relations in the holy land until a new age of peace dawns. therefore, the document cannot ignore the difficulties in the relationship between the two parties to the dialogue. first and foremost, it cites the political situation in the country, a situation that has sadly deteriorated since the time the document was formulated. christians and muslims both face “exile and forced dispersion, confiscation of land and civil discrimination as well as the violation of legitimate human rights” (154). any positive relationship must take its point of departure from these conditions “confronting them honestly and frankly” (155). the document proposes a complex and balanced view of the difficulties, including the following elements: 1. in accounting for the difference in the mutual regard of jews and christians, the document emphasizes that both groups are wounded by their respective histories. on the one hand, the document recognizes the traumatic effects of the shoah but reminds readers that “the people of our countries were not party to this” (154). on the other hand, the document points to the painful experiences that christians and muslims went through in the 1948 nakbah (a term meaning “calamity” and referring to the uprooting of palestinians from their homes) and the 1967 occupation. 2. the synod document also points to the differences that exist between jews and christians when it comes to the development of their religious identities, practices, and interpretation of the bible. the christian patristic and the jewish rabbinic traditions of biblical interpretation are explicitly named. here, too, the synod document is part of a growing awareness in catholic documents on the dialogue with jews that these very real differences cannot be ignored.7 however, the differences must not lead to the distortion of the belief of the other through ignorance. 3. finally, and of great significance, the synod document places the dialogue with the jews within a framework of a larger dialogue that includes muslims. “relationship cannot be divided up; relationship in our countries being tripartite, among muslims, jews and christians” (157). for local christians, the dialogue with jews cannot overlook the muslim partner to the construction of a better society, offering our children a reality of justice and peace, reconciliation and pardon. christians in the holy land live a different dimension of the dialogue as a christian minority among jewish and muslim majorities. they believe that their experience has something to add to the dialogue that is promoted by the universal catholic church. according to holy land christians, all christians should be aware of the political implications of certain positions in the dialogue. for most of the holy land christian faithful, the creation of the state of israel represents less “the return of the jewish people to their land” than the catastrophic exile of the palestinian people from their land. it is important, within the dialogue, to discern clearly between biblical and contemporary political circumstances. according to many christians in the holy land, the modern state of israel is a political reality and should be treated as such. the vatican commission for 7 see in particular the pontifical biblical commission document of 2001, the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible, §22 which explicitly marks this difference with regard to jewish and christian readings of the old testament. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 67-88 khader and neuhaus, “a holy land context for nostra aetate” 73 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 religious relations with the jews forcefully stated this in 1985: “the existence of the state of israel and its political options should be envisaged not in a perspective which is itself religious but in their reference to the common principles of international law.”8 furthermore, linking the modern state of israel with the biblical israel (as some western christian groups insist on doing) makes it even more difficult for the christians in the holy land to read the old testament because it would seem to involve a denial of their rights as palestinians. how can they read the old testament when it is exploited by some jews and some christians as the very justification for occupation and the substitution of one people by another in a land that both peoples regard as their own? in conclusion, the local catholic church in the holy land has sought to implement an ongoing dialogue with jewish israelis and palestinian muslims. the present political situation, especially the continued israeli dominance of the palestinian territories, remains the biggest obstacle to the development of jewish-christian dialogue. however, catholic religious leaders do have contacts with the israeli chief rabbinate and meet in various forums. monthly meetings between local israeli jewish leading figures and the patriarch and a commission of local christians have led to lively encounters that are true learning experiences. one such encounter celebrated nostra aetate in june 2005 in the jerusalem latin patriarchate. patriarch sabbah has visited a local synagogue and the rabbi of the synagogue has become a regular guest at the patriarchate, invited in 2004 to address one of the monthly meetings of diocesan clergy. these events might seem routine in the church at large today, but in the holy land, torn apart by violence, these are seeds of hope in an otherwise bleak situation. courses in 8 pontifical commission for religious relations with the jews, notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church, §25. judaism and jewish history are regularly taught in the catholic diocesan seminary and the arab language catholic bethlehem university. groups of students from local catholic institutions meet with jewish students. contacts continue to be established in order to help all people of good will in the holy land work together for justice and peace. one great obstacle is that christians from the palestinian territories do not have freedom of movement to come and go in israel and israelis are not permitted to enter the palestinian territories, making meetings almost impossible. despite the difficulties, the commitment to dialogue is fundamental. in the words of a recent letter of patriarch sabbah on the situation of the local church: we are deeply conscious of the vocation of the church of jerusalem to be a christian presence in the midst of society, be it muslim arab or jewish israeli. we believe that we are called to be leaven, contributing to the positive resolution of the crises that we are passing through. we are a voice from within our societies whose history, language and culture we share. we seek to be a presence that promotes reconciliation, helping all peoples towards a dialogue that promotes understanding and that will ultimately lead to peace in this land.”9 two of the texts discussed in this article, “relations with believers of other religions” and “reflections on the presence of the church in the holy land” now follow in two appendices. 9 sabbah, reflections on the presence of the church in the holy land. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 67-88 khader and neuhaus, “a holy land context for nostra aetate” 74 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 appendix 1 “relations with believers of other religions” chapter 13 of the general pastoral plan, assembly of catholic ordinaries in the holy land (jerusalem 2001). the reality of pluralism and its challenges our society is characterized by great diversity and pluralism on different levels, including on the level of religious pluralism.10 religious sentiment is profoundly rooted in our oriental society, and it plays an important, one might even say essential, role in social relations. religious pluralism leads to certain attitudes and behaviours, some negative and some positive. the positive attitudes derive from authentic religious and social values which characterise our society, like respect for the other, be they guest, neighbour or stranger, and phenomena associated with this: hospitality, generosity, protection, compassion, etc. the negative attitudes, conditioned by diverse conscious or unconscious factors, should be analysed in order to defuse their destructive mechanisms and reactions expressed in everyday behaviour. these factors, which have left their negative marks on the psyche, are historical (wars, unrest …), psychological (prejudices, labelling, projections, generalisations, fanaticism, denominational intolerance, etc), social (inherited ideas which transmit images of the religious other), educational (negative ideas concerning the religious other) and religious (differences in religious belief and practice). this all leads to negative attitudes and hostility which contradict relational principles and common sense, 10see the christian presence in the east, n.46. making relationship with the religious other fraught with tension and torment. thus our churches are invited to reflect, realistically and creatively, on religious pluralism and its repercussions from the vantage point of their evangelical faith identity. they must attempt to formulate principles for a coexistence which is “more positive and fruitfully interactive.”11 a church of dialogue at the second vatican council, “the church defined itself as a church of dialogue deriving from its very identity, vocation and mission.”12 pope john paul ii has said that dialogue is the new name of love. the east is the “land of dialogue between god and humanity through history and the economy of salvation. this dialogue reached its summit in christ… for in him humanity was elevated to its creator, and god drew close to his human children in a permanent dialogue which is an echo of the eternal dialogue which goes on within the holy trinity, among the three persons. god dialogued with humanity in jesus christ in order to enable humanity from that moment on to dialogue with itself.”13 our countries comprise the land of this dialogue par excellence, a land that “makes dialogue their basic vocation and greatest challenge.”14 in the midst of this, the vocation of our churches “is a vocation to dialogue before all else, so that they might be a living sign of the unity of the human family in a world torn by divisions. religions are called upon to take a positive role in the solution of human problems instead of 11 the fifth of the folders of the synod, our relationship with others, p. 9 and in general terms pp. 5, 8-10. 12 the christian presence in the east, n. 46; also declaration on the relationship of the church to non-christian religions, § 1. 13 ibid., §45; see also jn 11:50-52 and eph 2:11-22. 14 ibid., §46. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 67-88 khader and neuhaus, “a holy land context for nostra aetate” 75 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 being a source of internecine strife and killing among the members of the one human family and in the sole homeland”.15 dialogue among religions in some parts of the world, religion has become an incentive for divisions and strife and this makes dialogue among religions all the more necessary and urgent so as to find favour with god and to serve humanity and human society. this dialogue does not mean enticing others to change their religion, but rather it means the coming together of the religions for the good of humanity, witnessing together, in any way possible, to human and spiritual values in the face of moral disintegration and the violation of the sanctity of the human being, whoever he or she might be. thus the different religions can be a way to peace, to which all people aspire, rather than being a factor of dissension and dispute. in our holy land, this dialogue includes members of the three religions (islam, christianity and judaism) as well as members of other denominations (druze, samaritans, bahais, etc). we hope that our holy land can become a unique and distinguishing place of coming together and of love among the religions, in the service of our societies and the universal service of humanity. everyone expects this corner of the world to be a source of inspiration because of its spiritual and social grandeur despite all the obstacles which oppose this dialogue. 15 ibid., §46. the spirituality of dialogue “dialogue is, before all else, a spiritual attitude in which a person stands before the lord in dialogue, thus elevating soul, purifying heart and being, and this impacts on dialogue both with self and with others, be they individuals or groups. dialogue is a spirituality which transports us from exclusion to comprehension, from refusal to acceptance, from labelling to understanding, from defamation to respect, from condemnation to compassion, from enmity to intimacy, from competition to integration, from dissent to encounter, from dispute to fraternity.”16 there is no doubt that “fanaticism – in all its forms – in the name of god, religion, nationalism, religious denomination, land, race, language or in the name of cultural or social belonging, is the primary enemy of dialogue.”17 dialogue requires that each side be aware of its belief and faith and steeped in them, for the person who is ignorant is unable to enter into a worthy relationship with another. even though christians are few in number in their societies, this should not be a barrier to dialogue but rather a call to witness to the magnanimous values of the gospel. 1. our relationship with muslims the foundations of our relationship with muslims our relationship with muslims has its own particularity which cannot be ignored. this particularity is based upon: • historical experience: from earliest times down to the present, christians in our countries, and in the east in general, have lived a common historical experience with their muslim brothers and sisters, composed, like all 16 ibid., §47. 17 ibid. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 67-88 khader and neuhaus, “a holy land context for nostra aetate” 76 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 historical experiences, of moments of light and darkness. it has been characterised by cultural collaboration and daily coexistence in all fields of life and this led to the crystallisation of an arab civilisation at the pinnacle of its brilliance, “each on (muslim and christian) preserving their religious authenticity and the particularity of their traditions.”18 this is what makes “our relationship with our muslim brothers and sisters, and with islam a basic and characteristic dimension of the identity of our churches within the universal church.”19 this historical experience is a reference point for us all, a necessary point of departure when seeking to overcome difficulties which might arise in our midst from time to time. • social neighborliness: this coexistence materializes in social integration at all levels: at home, in school and university, in work places, in associations and clubs, in celebrations and tragedies, in the many occasions of everyday social life. our mutual relationship is not illusory, built on an imagined person, but rather concrete and real, penetrating the fiber of our social lives. it is relationship of one real person with another, with all the real potentialities and difficulties involved. this experience is a fruitful everyday fact, and at the same time (naturally), problems sometimes arise that work against this kind of neighborliness. however, these problems must be dealt with in reference to the solid and profound foundations of our long experience together. • coexistence: this historical experience is encompassed within the form of co-existence which is “a fundamental dimension of our christian life in this precious region of 18together before god: coexistence between muslims and christians in the arab world, §10. 19 ibid., §3. the world.”20 this is what led the catholic patriarchs of the east to stress that “our dialogue is a dialogue with our muslim brothers and sisters before anything else. the experience of coexistence we have shared for long centuries constitutes a basic experience from which there can be no pulling back, it is part of god’s will for us and for them.”21 • civic identity: muslims and christians in our countries are brought together through their “belonging to one homeland and being connected by one destiny.”22 christians and muslims have shared this common civic identity in times of joy and times of adversity, they have suffered together, they have struggled side by side, and they share, today, the same aspirations and hopes for a better future for our countries. civic identity strengthened the unique social identity, built upon a unity of language, culture, civilisation, history and destiny, far from the spirit of denomination and hegemony by one side over the other. christians are called to root themselves authentically in their societies and not to isolate themselves or to feel alien. • common religious principles: despite the fundamental differences between the two religions, they do converge when it comes to certain common principles. the second vatican council listed these common faith denominators: the worship of one god, creator of heaven and earth, the 20 ibid. 21 the christian presence in the east, §48. 22 together before god, §21. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 67-88 khader and neuhaus, “a holy land context for nostra aetate” 77 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 prophetic status of christ, honoring the virgin mary, eternal life, etc.23 the purpose of our relationship with muslims our relationship with muslims has as its purpose the development of a form of authentic, honest and active coexistence, deriving from our faith and evangelical identity and from our social reality, with all its potentialities, difficulties and challenges. the form coexistence takes must take into consideration both the positive and negative elements in our long heritage of coexistence. likewise, factors and elements of the present as well as aspirations for the future must be taken into consideration. any historical experience, like the one concerning us here, loses its relevance if it does not relate to contemporary conditions that we are experiencing together. the relationship between muslims and christians in our countries “is an experience which must preserve its vitality in order to purify, deepen and root itself in our cultural existence, renewing and making itself compatible with ever-changing present conditions. there is no doubt that coexistence is one of the most important issues facing our countries. whether we enjoy the riches of our homeland or are deprived of them depends on the success of this endeavour.”24 this requires constant positive steps forward on both sides in order to nurture coexistence within the framework of civil society. difficulties however, like with any historic experience, the vast and manifold possibilities resulting from our relationship with muslims are also linked to difficulties on both sides. these 23 vatican council ii, nostra aetate, §3. 24 together before god, §14. difficulties originate from diverse factors, among them: political considerations, psychological, social and economic conditions, religious and denominational fanaticism and strife, etc.25 complete lack of mutual knowledge on both sides plays a negative role in these relations. this leads to projections and misunderstandings, a lack of realistic appreciation of what goes on in the mind of the religious other, paralysis in dealing with issues realistically, honestly and in a spirit of constructive self criticism, as well as a paralysis in accepting the other who is religiously different. taking refuge in texts is not sufficient in the attempt to firmly establish an atmosphere of coexistence. it is imperative that we also seek out what is going on within the psyche so as to understand negative, destructive and hostile attitudes. we are all constantly called to purify the language of religious discourse and free it from the prejudices transmitted through the channels of religious education (in the home, the church, the mosque, the school, etc). we are called to evaluate the methods and contents of our school syllabuses and of our civic education so that they strengthen the social fibre in spite of differences in belief. the development of any form of coexistence depends on wisdom, courage, spiritual and cultural boldness in confronting difficulties honestly, without pretence or hypocrisy and without evasion. for us, believers in christ, the spirit of christ and his gospel remain the basic reference point. modes of developing coexistence we can develop forms of coexistence in various ways: • personal relations: the fact that the members of the two religions mix with one another in all spheres of life is an invitation to construct relationships of friendship and mutual 25 see together before god, §13 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 67-88 khader and neuhaus, “a holy land context for nostra aetate” 78 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 appreciation, respecting the particularity of the other. this “personal, fraternal and direct encounter” is what “allows the two sides to discover each other without ready made labels and prejudices. our arab civilization is a civilization of ‘the face’ (direct interpersonal relationship), and the face of the other cannot be discovered without friendly encounter, honest conversation and direct discussion. only then, psychological and social barriers fall, barriers which have impeded knowledge and recognition of the others. each one must understand the other as he or she really is and as they understand themselves and wish to be understood.”26 personal relationship puts an end to mutual fear which otherwise leads to estrangement or even to violence, and allows for social reality at this point in the life of our society. • mutual respect: sketching healthy guidelines, based on mutual respect at the heart of rich diversity, is the best guarantee for serious and responsible dialogue. “the muslim must respect the christian as a christian and the christian must respect the muslim as a muslim.”27 the catholic patriarchs of the east call on the muslims “to consider the christians as an inseparable component of the life of society, christians being full members of civic society with regard to rights and duties.”28 likewise, they call on christians to “rid themselves of certain negative social and psychological attitudes which they have inherited from history.”29 mutual respect leads to the acceptance of the other without giving up one’s own truth and identity. 26 ibid., §24. 27 ibid., §25. 28 ibid., §15. 29 ibid. • on the official level: dialogue in everyday life must be supported by organizations for dialogue and encounter at the level of the official religious and civil institutions. they ensure that bridges for relationship remain open so that coexistence can be strengthened and problems can be faced honestly and with good intentions. this is the dialogue which must be transmitted to the popular strata of our society. simple daily initiatives should be taken which strengthen coexistence in respect, friendship, and collaboration for the common good. as long as dialogue does not reach this popular level in some way, it will remain simply words unrelated to lived reality. • educational institutions: the educational institutions (home, school, university, etc…) play an important role in relations among the various sectors in society, among them religious sectors too. this requires the formulation of educational programs that build well-rooted bases for a culture which embraces pluralism and respects it. these programs must find their way into school syllabuses, especially into the syllabuses of religious and civic education. they must steer away from anything that defames the religious other, and confirm anything that supports positive relationship with him or her. this must take place without compromising the religious truths to which each group holds. • religious platforms: “if we are not to overlook the major role played by religion in the make-up of our human character in this part of the world, we must understand the influence of religious platforms on the behaviour and orientations of society.”30 the most important of these are the church and the mosque, where “voices of strife which contradict the essence of religion or voices of love, tolerance 30 ibid., §29. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 67-88 khader and neuhaus, “a holy land context for nostra aetate” 79 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 and fraternity which call out to all religions”31 can be raised. it is essential that the use of religious platforms be preserved for the spreading of togetherness and love rather than fanaticism and defamation of the other. • struggle against denominational intolerance: denominational intolerance is a fact in our society. “this denominational intolerance finds expression in us all, whether christian or muslim, whether consciously or unconsciously, overtly or covertly. it can surface for the most insignificant and paltry reasons.”32 for this reason, “all social and religious institutions must work together in order to root out this phenomenon by means of comprehensive educational planning and constant action animated by a spirit of friendship and consultation”33 to confront objectively problems of extremist denominational intolerance with wisdom, patience and total clarity. • church organizations: it is essential that a church body, concerned with relations with muslims, be established. it would reflect on this subject and take positive and appropriate initiatives which could strengthen coexistence and advance it. in addition, there should be a joint organization (muslims and christians) if this be possible. conclusion our catholic churches in the holy land, building on our positive and negative experiences in the past, drawing on our full awareness of the needs of our present age, seeking to serve the faithful as they embark on the third millennium and preserving the unity of our people, understand that it is 31 ibid., §23, see also §26. 32 ibid., §23. 33 ibid. essential to accentuate the framework of christian-muslim dialogue, which guarantees fidelity to god and to our people. our churches look to the positive and the negative of the past in order to strengthen the positive and to avoid the negative. embarking form a present, replete with possibility, our churches see that there is an urgent need to inculcate coexistence among muslims and christians in our countries, for the sake of peace, harmony and cooperation. 2. our relationship with jews the relationship with jews in the past decades, the church’s relationship with jews34 has greatly advanced in the world. we have felt a certain reserve regarding this relationship, especially because of its political repercussions. even if this subject is new for our churches, for political reasons we are familiar with it. we are not dissuaded, however, from reflecting upon our relationship with jews from a realistic perspective, without ignoring real obstacles. this reflection is guaranteed to help christians and jews throughout the world establish their dialogue on bases of truth, and realism, taking into account what is happening in our countries and in our region. as regards the varying concrete conditions of christians in the different regions of our dioceses, the faithful in each region are called upon to develop a form for this relationship on the basis of the actual conditions in which they live. the foundations for this relationship our relationship with jews is founded on: 34 nostra aetate, §4. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 67-88 khader and neuhaus, “a holy land context for nostra aetate” 80 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 • shared history in the region of the middle east. in our countries, muslims, christians and jews have lived together in fruitful social and cultural interaction, this being evident in the clear traces we find of this interaction in arab civilization. there were certain dark moments in this history and responsibility for these must be assumed by all sides. this historic past is a foundational reference point for a new vision of these relations in the present and the future, without ignoring contemporary factors. • in one way or another, we are in everyday contact with the concrete jewish presence in this holy land, and this obliges us to reflect on how we might formulate the relationship, consonant with our faith, our christian evangelical values and our reality. the jewish other is a vibrant reality which we cannot forget or ignore. • sacred scripture includes the old testament, which constitutes a common ground for christians and jews,35 despite the essential difference in its interpretation. christians read the old testament in the light of the history of salvation which finds its fulfilment in jesus christ, who does not abolish the law but rather fulfils it (mt 5:17). the two sides have developed their interpretations within their particular traditions (the rabbinical tradition in judaism, the patristic tradition in christianity). at the same time, reading the bible in this holy land has certain particularities which broaden 35 patriarch michel sabbah has said: “the whole of the bible, the new testament and the old (also known as the torah), is the word of god, revealed for the salvation of humankind. the two testaments are intimately connected with one another and they cannot be separated under any pretext” (reading the bible today in the land of the bible, §35). horizons.36 following the apostle paul, we note here that “christ is from them according to the flesh and he is, above all, god for ever (rm 9:5) and so too are the virgin mary and the apostles. difficulties of the relationship our relationship with members of the jewish religion is confronted with real problems in our countries. these problems must be taken seriously if we desire to establish an honest and positive relationship in the future. the relationship must be between two groups which are real and true: • the political situation: the first of these difficulties is the existing political situation in our countries, which has caused suffering to everyone, and which has overshadowed – and continues to do so – relations among the members of the three monotheistic religions, among them christians and jews. the reality of the ongoing struggle has a negative influence on mutual relations. christians in this region are united in fate with their muslim brothers and sisters, carrying on their bodies the scars of exile and forced dispersion, confiscation of land and civil discrimination, as well as violation of legitimate human rights. • differing mutual regard: the mutual regard between members of the three religions in our countries, christians and jews among them, is defined by different historical memories. christians in our countries look on jews through their painful experience in the modern period (the 36 see reading the bible today in the land of the bible of patriarch michel sabbah (1993) in which he deals with the issues linked to the reading of the bible in the contemporary circumstances of our countries today. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 67-88 khader and neuhaus, “a holy land context for nostra aetate” 81 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 catastrophe of 1948, occupation etc). jews, on the other hand, look on local christians through the perspective of their traumatic experiences in the countries from which they came (anti-semitism, massacres of the jews in the nazi period etc) even though the people of our countries were not party to this; or through the perspective of their attitudes to the ongoing struggle and tensions (violence). in both cases, we are confronted with wounded memories because of injustice, oppression, violence and wars. the background from which these memories derive distorts the image of the other, making relationship difficult and harsh. • religious differences: despite common features they share, christians and jews today each have their particular beliefs. mutual acceptance of the reality of the religious other is not easy. difficulty in accepting the other often leads to the distortion of the belief of the other and the subsequent adoption of a negative stand in relation to the other. • mutual ignorance: mutual ignorance exists on both sides regarding the reality of the religious beliefs of the other. the bits of information each side has are picked up from unreliable and unfounded popular sources, resulting in a lack of objective understanding of the reality of the other’s belief. in some cases, this can even lead to racist positions on both sides. in order to start building bases for a new relationship with the religious other, and particularly in the case that concerns us here, between christians and jews in our countries, we must start with a realistic vision of all factors which influence this relationship in order to honestly and concretely confront the challenge. if not, we build this relationship on imaginary bases which serve no purpose and have no future. orientations for the future the building up and development of a positive relationship with members of the jewish religion in our countries is not easy because of certain adjacent negative conditions. however, it is essential that work begin now on the building up of positive and fruitful relations. this is required both by the reality that we experience and by the christian, evangelical values in which we believe. we would like to present here some guidelines which can be gradually developed in the future in order to give this dialogue a real concrete form.37 • lived reality: every relationship has its political, social and cultural conditions. if we seek to develop a relationship between two real rather than illusory parties, we must take as our point of departure these very conditions, confronting them honestly and frankly. otherwise, we build our relations on sand, on ambiguity and pretence, rather than building our relations on rock, on the basis of truth, honest and reality. • mutual knowledge: every positive relationship has to base itself on mutual objective knowledge. thus the jew should come to know christians in our countries through their history, reality, environment, and particular experience, in addition to knowing what they believe, rather than relying on prejudice. precisely the same is true for christians in our countries, who are called to come to know judaism as lived by jews today and as believed by them within the framework of jewish history and in the context of its reality in the holy land today. all this can only strengthen a mutual positive attitude. 37 see the christian presence in the east, §45 and together before god, §42. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 67-88 khader and neuhaus, “a holy land context for nostra aetate” 82 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 • personal relationship: there is no doubt that personal relationship on the human level is a guarantee that psychological and social barriers which separate the two will be overcome. this requires of us practical steps toward the other at every occasion in our lives so as to transform the other from a labeled stereotype into a person of flesh and blood with his or her tendencies and particularities. • action for truth, justice and peace: the political struggle and the concomitant continuous tensions make sincere action for truth, justice and peace an essential element of any true relationship.38 this can be accomplished through collaboration with movements for justice and peace within jewish society, and with all those of good will who seek justice and peace. this also requires a struggle against discrimination. discrimination is an evil at odds with the truth of god, creator of all humanity, who loves all. religious differences and the political circumstances in which we live permit racist attitudes on both sides and these must be eradicated so that the true face of the other can be seen. this means that we must distinguish between what is political and what is religious, between judaism as a religion and zionism as a political ideology, between the israeli people and the policies of its government. • means for establishing relationship: personal relationships must be supported by relations at the level of the official religious institutions of the three religions, and in our case christian and jewish institutions in our countries. establishing such official bodies will help to 38 for this domain, see pray for peace in jerusalem (1990) and also seek peace and pursue it: questions and answers on justice and peace in the holy land (1998), both of patriarch michel sabbah. construct bridges for mutual knowledge and understanding. we must, therefore, establish a church body in our dioceses, composed of the various church sectors, whose task would be to reflect on this subject and take appropriate initiatives at the local level. this could include collaboration among academics from both parties (historians, exegetes, sociologists, etc) on common theme leading to co-operation in scientific research on the bible, history, theology, etc., in addition to sincere openness about the current situation. • relationship between arab christian and christians of jewish origin: there is a group within the jewish people who have come to know christ as god and saviour. they are part of our local church and they live in their own special conditions. they too have a right to develop their own relationship with jews and judaism from the vantage point of their reality and their situation, at the same time as remaining connected to the reality of the local church and being open to it. we must preserve open bridges of communication between our churches and this community in order to exchange experiences so that we can learn from one another and so that this community can develop according to its own particularity and as part of the community of faithful in our countries. • tripartite relationship: relationship cannot be divided up; relationship in our countries being tripartite, among muslims, jews and christians. the future of our countries is also founded on these relationships. they must develop contemporaneously rather than any particular relationships being at the expense of another. present difficulties must drive us to redouble our efforts for the sake of this vision of the future, in the hope that we will eventually arrive at the conditions needed so as to translate it into a reality. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 67-88 khader and neuhaus, “a holy land context for nostra aetate” 83 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 conclusion: jerusalem: city of dialogue and reconciliation “god has set aside the region of the middle east by making it the arena for his dialogue with all of humanity. in this blessed land the three monotheistic religions developed: judaism, christianity and islam. ancient and contemporary circumstances often placed members of these three religions in a situation of struggle and strife. however, they have lived long centuries of communication, interaction and collaboration in the shadow of arab islamic civilization. current difficulties must not take on the character of a predestined fate which is impossible to overcome. instead, all must work to overcome these difficulties, creating the necessary conditions for sincere encounter and working for the benefit of the human person in our area and throughout the world.”39 jerusalem is the place par excellence where this historic reconciliation can be accomplished on the bases of truth, justice and peace. thus, jerusalem will be transformed from a place of conflict and tension into a place of dialogue and reconciliation, far removed from all monopolisation, exclusivity and obstinacy, in a spirit of frankness, understanding and openness. in the midst of all this, our churches are called to define a form of coexistence, witnessing, before god and humanity, to a new form of relationship among human religious groups for the glory of god and the service of humanity. 39 together before god, §42. decisions 1. create and encourage centers and institutions which have as their aim the development of positive relations among the faithful of different religions. 2. orient catholic schools and institutions so that they might become places of encounter, of mutual understanding, and true dialogue among the faithful of the different religions. 3. exhort people to search for a total, definitive and just solution to the problems of the region based on foundations of peace and truth, justice and the rights of peoples to development and self-determination. 4. promote dialogue with other religions as a fundamental christian priority, regardless of the degree of response from the other sides in the face of this choice. 5. encourage personal relations with believers of other religions. these relations, deriving from authentic gospel values, should be constructed upon respect for the other and acceptance of them as they are. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 67-88 khader and neuhaus, “a holy land context for nostra aetate” 84 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 appendix 2 letter of patriarch michael sabbah and the theological commission of the latin patriarchate of jerusalem “reflections on the presence of the church in the holy land” (jerusalem, 2003). “watchman, what time of night?” (isaiah 21,11) preamble 1. christians in the holy land, in israel, palestine and jordan, we share the hopes and aspirations of our peoples amidst violence and despair. here, we are called in various ways to reflect in faith on the concrete issues which we face. together, we have the responsibility to witness, by word and deed, to the good news, and to help one another navigate our daily way as disciples of christ. thus, we might become a more visible sign of unity, hope, peace and charity in this land, torn by war and hatred. 2. i present to you today, brothers and sisters, this document, fruit of a common reflection, written together with members of our diocesan theological commission, diocesan priests and religious. the document deals with issues that concern our local church as well as the universal church, in the light of the importance of the church of jerusalem and the events that are taking place in these times. naturally, our reflection derives from the official teaching of the roman catholic church on the issues that we live out in our daily lives. it is in the light of this teaching and of our specific context in the holy land that we address this document to you in order to help you to see more clearly in the midst of the difficulties of daily life. among the multiple aspects of our lives, we concentrate here on three major points: violence and terrorism, our relations with the jewish people in the holy land and our relations with the muslims in the holy land. 3. these questions might also be of interest to our brothers and sisters in the different churches around the world. we want to reflect together with you all, and pray together as we live these difficult and complex situations each day. we seek to find in this reflection and communion of prayer the courage to remain faithful to our vocation in this land that is the lord’s. in our life as members of our different societies and within our churches, there exists the constant danger of oversimplifying and generalizing. sincere prayer and our presence together before god will help us to become more conscious of differing perspectives as well as of the truth that must be discovered afresh day to day in the complexity of our circumstances. violence and terrorism a condemnation of terrorism 4. we have always condemned and continue to condemn all acts of violence against individuals and society.40 we have condemned and we continue to condemn especially terrorism, acts of extreme violence, often organized, which are intended to injure and kill the innocent in order that such terrorism yield reluctant support for one’s cause. in a previous document we clearly stated: “terrorism is illogical, 40 see michel sabbah, seek peace and pursue it: questions and answers on justice and peace in the holy land (september 1998), §14-19. see also the speech delivered by the patriarch on september 11, 2002 at hebrew union college, jerusalem on the anniversary of the attacks in the united states, jerusalem, 4-5/8 (2002), 151-152. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 67-88 khader and neuhaus, “a holy land context for nostra aetate” 85 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 irrational and unacceptable as a means of resolving conflict.”41 indeed, terrorism is both immoral and a sin. a context of despair 5. we are painfully conscious, though, of the injustices, their inhuman hurts and the climate which condition these acts of violence, most notably the occupation. we have stated: “in the case of terrorism there are two guilty parties: first, those who carry out such action, those who plan and support them, and secondly, those who create situations of injustice which provoke terrorism.”42 this climate of violence knows no borders; it does not distinguish between israeli and palestinian. among both peoples, helplessness, frustration and despair unleash emotions of anger and revenge in a never-ending cycle of violence. legitimate selfdefense is corroded by disproportionate and evil means, especially collective punishment or the support of the occupation, under the guise of trying to insure security or freedom. realistic hopes for true peace through justice, pardon and love are labeled illusions of facile optimism. they are replaced by the paralysis of cynical fatalism. walls are then erected both in the country and in the hearts of its inhabitants. hope is reduced to mere daily survival. the holy land, some claim, has become unholy. our reason for hope 6. in this very land god has gifted humanity with the son of god, the christ. his shedding of his own blood by the violent act of crucifixion has reconciled us to god and has broken down the walls of hostility between us. his 41 michel sabbah, seek peace and pursue it: questions and answers on justice and peace in the holy land (september 1998), §15. 42 ibid., §15. resurrection has defeated hatred, violence and death. “he is the peace between us and has made the two peoples into one” (cf. eph 2:13-16, rom 5:10-11). a pedagogy of non-violence 7. god is always calling the disciples of jesus christ to be a community of reconciliation.43 in the fellowship of the holy spirit, we are called to be the prophetic bearers of the good news of peace to those far away and those close at hand (cf. 2 cor 13:13, eph 2:17, is 57:19). we accomplish this not through acts of violence but through concrete gestures of peacemaking, which oppose a culture of death and contribute to a culture of life. this god-given and difficult vocation of the church and of her members requires a specific pedagogy or learning process of an active, creative gospel of non-violence in our attitudes, in our words and in our actions. peace making is not a tactic but a way of life. jews, judaism and state of israel church teaching 8. in communion with the entire church, the official teaching of the roman catholic church regarding the jews and judaism is also our teaching. with the entire church, we meditate on the roots of our faith in the old testament, which we share with the jewish people, and in the new testament that is written largely by jews about jesus of nazareth.44 with the entire church, we regret the attitudes of 43 see ibid., section 6 “reconciliation, forgiveness and loving your enemy,” § 28-37. 44 see michel sabbah, reading the bible today in the land of the bible (november 1993). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 67-88 khader and neuhaus, “a holy land context for nostra aetate” 86 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 contempt, the conflicts and the hostility that have marked the history of jewish-christian relations. our context 9. we seek to apply and live the teaching of the worldwide catholic church within our own particular context.45 unlike our christian brothers and sisters in europe, in the holy land, our history as christians has been the history of a minority community (a status that we shared with the jews in the middle east) in the midst of a civilization that is predominantly muslim. for many centuries, we have not been a dominant majority in relation to the jewish people as was the case in the west. 10. our contemporary context is unique: we are the only local church that encounters the jewish people in a state that is defined as jewish and where the jews are the dominant and empowered majority, a reality that dates from 1948. furthermore, the ongoing conflict between the state of israel and the arab world, and in particular between israelis and palestinians, means that the national identity of the majority of our faithful is locked in conflict with the national identity of the majority of the jews. 11. we are called to unity, reconciliation and love from within our local church. in our very midst and as full members of our church there are hebrew speaking catholics who are jewish or who have chosen to live in the midst of the jewish people.46 the holy father has just named an auxiliary bishop for this community. adding to the 45 see assembly of catholic ordinaries in the holy land, “our relation with the jews” in “relations with believers of other religions”, diocesan synod of the catholic churches: the general pastoral plan (february 2000), 153-157. 46 “our relation with the jews,” 156. richness of the church in jerusalem are also many catholics from other lands, who have made their home in jerusalem. seeking to be in communion together, arabs, jews and those from other nations, the church of jerusalem learns to be a visible sign of the oneness of all humanity. in our constant search for dialogue with our jewish brothers and sisters, we cannot make abstraction of this context. the reality 12. as church, we witness the continued israeli military occupation of palestinian lands and the bloody violence between the two peoples. together with all men and women of peace and goodwill, including many israeli and palestinian muslims, christians and jews, we are called to be both a voice of truth and a healing presence. the worldwide catholic church teaches that dialogue with the jewish people is distinct from the political options adopted by the state of israel. furthermore, “the existence of the state of israel and its political options should be envisaged not in a perspective which is itself religious but in their reference to the common principles of international law.”47 the church is called to be a prophetic witness in our particular context, a witness that dares imagine a different future: freedom, justice, security, peace and prosperity for all inhabitants of the holy land that is first and foremost the lord’s.48 47 vatican commission for religious relations with the jews, notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church (june 24, 1985), §25. 48 see michel, sabbah, seek peace and pursue it: questions and answers on justice and peace in the holy land (september 1998). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 67-88 khader and neuhaus, “a holy land context for nostra aetate” 87 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 perspectives 13. facing this heavy responsibility and difficult task the church of jerusalem is struggling, learning, striving and she counts on all her faithful, arabs, jews and those from other nations, to help her discern the will of god and the faithful discipleship of christ. we are already engaged in searching out our jewish brothers and sisters in an exciting dialogue from our proper common context – that of a land sadly torn by war and violence. our faithful in israel live in permanent, ongoing dialogue with their jewish neighbors, a dialogue of life and friendship. in the palestinian territories, our catholic institutions (the diocesan seminary, the catholic university of bethlehem, etc.) teach our faithful about the jews and their heritage. our diocesan commission for relations with the jewish people is an active organ within the life of our church, helping us learn more about jews and judaism. as church, we dare to hope that our prayer and witness further justice, forgiveness, reconciliation and peace and, in furthering these, contribute also to the fraternal dialogue that can and must develop between jews and christians in the holy land within the specific context we share. muslims, islam and arab society our context 14. we are realistic in the face of the possibilities for dialogue and collaboration with our muslim brothers and sisters and the difficulties that confront such a project. the concrete reality of arab society is different from country to country: here we speak from our experience of this reality in the holy land, where christians and muslims have lived together for almost 1400 years. this society has known many good days and bad ones and is still faced today with important challenges in its search for equilibrium, face to face with modernity, pluralism, democracy and the quest for peace and justice. our attitude, however, is rooted in the positive teaching of the church regarding muslims since the second vatican council.49 two principles 15. two principles animate relations between muslim and christian arabs in the holy land.50 firstly, all of us who are arabs, whether christian or muslim, belong to one people, sharing a long history, a language, a culture and a society. secondly, as christian arabs, we are called to be witnesses to jesus christ in arab and muslim society. we are called likewise, to be witnesses in jewish israeli society too. the reality 16. in daily life, even though relations between christians and muslims are generally good, we are fully aware that there are certain difficulties and challenges that must be confronted. these include mutual ignorance, an authority vacuum that produces insecurity, discrimination and that trend towards islamization among certain political movements, which endangers not only christians but also many muslims who desire an open society.51 when islamization constitutes an infringement on the liberty of the christian, we must insist that our identity and our religious liberty be respected. this complexity is sometimes exploited for the political end of dividing the society. however, through 49 see ecumenical council vatican ii, “nostra aetate – declaration on the relationship of the church to non-christian religions,” §3. 50 see assembly of catholic ordinaries in the holy land, “our relationship with muslims” in “relations with believers of other religions”, diocesan synod of the catholic churches: the general pastoral plan (february 2000), 148-152. 51 see michel sabbah, pray for peace in jerusalem (pentecost 1990), §8. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 67-88 khader and neuhaus, “a holy land context for nostra aetate” 88 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art8 dialogue and other diverse initiatives, christians and muslims are called to collaborate with one another in the construction of a common society, founded on principles of mutual respect and responsibilities. a pedagogy 17. in this situation, we seek to help our arab faithful, who are the majority of our flock, in integrating and living the complexity of their identity as christians, as arabs and as citizens, in jordan, palestine and israel. the fact that christians are statistically a small community does not, in any way, condemn them to irrelevance or to despair. we encourage all our faithful to take their rightful place in public life and to help build up society in all its domains.52 conclusion: with muslims and jews a vocation 18. we are deeply conscious of the vocation of the church of jerusalem to be a christian presence in the midst of society, be it muslim arab or jewish israeli. we believe that we are called to be leaven, contributing to the positive resolution of the crises that we are passing through. we are a voice from within our societies whose history, language and culture we share. we seek to be a presence that promotes reconciliation, helping all peoples towards a dialogue that promotes understanding and that will ultimately lead to peace in this land. “if there is no hope for the poor there will be no hope for anyone, not even the so-called rich.”53 52 see assembly of catholic ordinaries in the holy land, “the christian in public life”, diocesan synod of the catholic churches: the general pastoral plan (february 2000), 159-169. 53 pope john paul ii, pastores gregis: apostolic exhortation (oct 16, 2003), §67. 19. as we approach christmas, brothers and sisters, we address to you our festive greetings. might this feast be a source of peace in your hearts and in your souls. merry christmas! during this holiday season, let us pray to the christ messiah, prince of peace, that he might make of each one of us an artisan of peace, who lives and communicates the peace that is sung by the angels in the skies of our land. god is the creator and redeemer of us all, and in the mystery of this divine sonship brought to realization in us, we are all brothers and sisters, called to practice justice and live in the true peace that god bestows on those who search for it. december 3, 2003 signed by the h.b. latin patriarch of jerusalem + michel sabbah and members of the diocesan theological commission + g. boulos marcuzzo, auxiliary bishop frans bouwen pb gianni caputa sdb peter du brul sj d. jamal khader d. maroun lahham frédéric manns ofm david neuhaus sj jean-michel poffet op thomas stransky csp studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review mark d. nanos and magnus zetterholm, eds. paul within judaism: restoring the first-century context to the apostle (minneapolis: fortress, 2015), paper, x + 350 pp. thomas d. stegman, s.j., boston college this volume consists mainly of essays presented at and developed from the “paul and judaism” session at the society of biblical literature annual meetings starting in 2010. following an introductory essay by mark d. nanos, the contributions include: magnus zetterholm’s “paul within judaism: the state of the questions”; anders runesson’s “the question of terminology: the architecture of contemporary discussions on paul”; karin hedner zetterholm’s “the question of assumptions: torah observance in the first century”; nanos’s “the question of conceptualization: qualifying paul’s position on circumcision in dialogue with josephus’s advisors to king izates”; caroline johnson hodge’s “the question of identity: gentiles as gentiles—but also not—in paul’s communities”; and paula fredriksen’s “the question of worship: gods, pagans, and the redemption of israel.” the editors also solicited essays to address issues from the vantage point of politicaland gender-criticism: neil elliott’s “the question of politics: paul as a diaspora jew under roman rule” and kathy ehrensperger’s “the question(s) of gender: relocating paul in relation to judaism.” lastly, the editors invited a critical response from terence l. donaldson, whose contribution is entitled “paul within judaism: a critical evaluation from a ‘new perspective’ perspective.” in many respects, the essays are a reaction to the so-called new perspective (np) on paul. while the np has made significant advances over traditional readings that rested (in part) on caricatures of judaism, the contributors still share strong studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 10 (2015) reservations about it. not least is that the np can still perpetuate the notion that paul, after his encounter with the risen christ, found something inherently wrong with or deficient in judaism. moreover, they point out that np scholars tend to drive a wedge between christianity and judaism to a degree that was not true during paul’s life and ministry. there is also a tendency to import later meanings onto terms paul employs (e.g., ekklēsia) and to perpetuate a narrower notion of pistis (often reduced to “belief”) than he intended. the title of the volume, paul within judaism, is the name given to the perspective from which the authors approach paul’s writings. in seeking to move beyond the np, this new paradigm claims to commit to an unremitting historical analysis of paul’s writings, bringing to bear the rich texture of first-century judaism (with all its variations) in the broader context of the greco-roman world. this historical quest trumps, they contend, any theological concerns and biases. any advocate of the np (and, for the sake of full disclosure, i fall in that camp) stands to learn much from and to be challenged by these essays. to give a small sampling: runesson’s essay challenges an uncritical use of terminology. for instance, to assert when analyzing paul’s writings that one is studying “early christianity” is to predetermine the results from the outset because of the (often unconscious) tendency to think of christianity and judaism in terms of the distinctive religions they eventually came to be. runesson also calls for critical caution about translating ekklēsia as “church,” given its broader use in the greco-roman world to denote public assemblies, not to mention its possible connotation as “synagogue.” hedner zetterholm’s article on assumptions is a salutary corrective for interpreters who have a monolithic understanding of what is meant by, and considered to be, torah observance. in the first century (and also in the present), establishing and applying halakha involve a complex process into which many factors enter. she provides an illuminating reading of 1 corinthians 8–10, paul’s response to a question from the ekklēsia in studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr corinth on the eating of meat sacrificed to idols. she offers an interpretation of these chapters in light of the mishnah tractate avodah zarah to show how paul’s reasoning resembles rabbinic debates that not only took into account the objective act in question but also the significance attached to that act by witnesses, as well as the situation of jews living in the midst of gentiles. her essay successfully sets forth paul’s jewishness and a nuanced presentation of halakha and its application. nanos’s article on conceptualization makes a number of important distinctions, including that between the practice of jewish religious actions by non-jews, on the one hand, and the question of whether non-jews should undertake circumcision (i.e., proselyte conversion), on the other hand. nanos insists that, while paul was adamantly opposed to the latter, he insisted that gentile members of the ekklēsia do the former (i.e., walk in the ways of torah). building on this point, fredriksen claims that the phrase dikaiōthentes ek pisteōs—typically rendered “justified by faith”—meant for paul that gentiles live according to the two tables of the law (with the exception of sabbath observance). this is how they were to show piety toward god and justice/righteousness toward other people. indeed, this is what paul meant, in gal 5:6, by “faith working through love.” the thorough contextualizing of paul in judaism is the volume’s great virtue and strength. there are several helpful cautions and correctives. however, paul within judaism contains some problematic features as well. as donaldson rightly points out in his concluding essay, the eschatological scenario presumed by the book’s authors—one in which jewish restoration involves the inclusion of non-jews as non-jews—is not fully supported by the pertinent literary evidence. given the authors’ insistence on a thorough historical analysis of firstcentury judaism, including end time expectations, it is surprising to see an end time scenario that is claimed to offer the key motive for paul’s missionary activity not be better substantiated. studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 10 (2015) and while the volume challenges the ways traditional and np readings of paul can overstate the discontinuity between paul and his jewish heritage, the “paul within judaism” perspective tends to overstate the continuity. it is striking how little, if at all, the authors treat passages in which paul regards that which formerly had great value (including his jewish heritage) as “rubbish” (phil 3:8), or those that convey his emphasis on the centrality of the cross (e.g., 1 cor 1:18–25). such difficult passages cannot simply be ignored or wished away. "and after the fire a soft murmuring sound ..." the abiding significance of judaism for christian identity studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college “and after the fire a soft murmuring sound… ” the abiding significance of judaism for christian identity christian m. rutishauser lassalle-haus bad schönbrunn, switzerland gregorian university volume 2, issue 2(2007): 140-154 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2 rutishauser, “and after the fire a soft murmuring sound...” 140 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 140-154 i. perspectives beyond the pioneer phase in recent years, christian individual and ecclesiastical identity have reached a stage that was unimaginable in the 1970s and ‘80s. those years were still marked by optimistic beliefs in progress and modernism, ideological narrative traditions drawn from general history and the church’s attempts to keep pace with secularism. the catholic church was inspired by the reforms of the second vatican council (19621965) and many protestant churches experimented with various individual forms of christian identity. the privatization of christian life in both denominations was in full bloom. with respect to the jewish-christian dialogue, pioneer work was set into motion during those years.1 on the one hand, the direct and indirect involvement of the churches and the christian worldview regarding the shoah became more and more evident. the process of acknowledging their role in this historical trauma that drove european jewry toward extermination and shook the foundations of european culture was undertaken. this process could not occur without detours and resistance, as demonstrated, for example, by the long overdue debate about unidentified jewish funds in switzerland in the 1990s. still, this process could not be stopped. on the other hand, the rootedness of christian identity in judaism was brought to consciousness as well. jesus, paul, and the early church were placed into their contemporary jewish context.2 1 hans hermann henrix offers an easily readable overview of the development of jewish-christian dialogue in his judentum und christentum. gemeinschaft wider willen (topos plus taschenbuch, kevelaer, 2004). 2 the ten theses of seelisberg 1947 exemplify this rediscovery. they are published by: international council of christians and jews, ed., reports and recommendations of the emergency conference on anti-semitism (geneva, london, 1947), 14ff. see also my article on seelisberg on p. 34ff in this issue. for the rediscovery of the jesus movement and early christian history as part of the jewish history, see david flusser, judaism and the origins of christianity (jerusalem, 1988); schalom ben-chorin’s three books from the the significance and the connection between the old and the new testament were studied in-depth.3 the parallel character of sabbath and sunday, of easter and passover, became apparent, and the theological core concepts such as creation, revelation, redemption, covenant, messianism, and the last days were discussed and re-interpreted from both jewish and christian perspectives.4 besides this scientific research and the educational work in the churches, for the first time in history a positive and constitutive connection between church and synagogue was also expressed at the highest level of ecclesiastical authority. from a catholic point of view, the declaration nostra aetate, promulgated by the vatican council, created a break-through in this new theology, representing indeed a revolutionary act of reversal and repentance.5 pope john paul ii is to be remembered as the one who – unlike anybody before him – created bridges to jewish point of view: bruder jesus, paul and mutter mirjam (gütersloher publishing haus, rpt. 2005-2006). discussions about the existence of christian and rabbinic identity since alan f. segal’s rebecca’s children, judaism and christianity in the roman world (harvard university press, 1986) is noted under the heading “parting of the ways.” 3 see christoph dohmen and thomas söding, eds., eine bibel – zwei testamente. positionen biblischer theologie (paderborn, 1995). 4 see clemens thoma, das messiasprojekt. theologie jüdisch-christlicher begegnung (augsburg, 1994); clemens thoma und jakob j. petuchowski, lexikon der jüdisch-christlichen begegnung. hintergründe, klärungen, perspektiven (freiburg, basel, wien, 1997); edward kessler and neil wenborn, eds., a dictionary of jewish-christian relations (cambridge, 2005). 5 for its fortieth jubilee in 2005, several articles concerning the history and interpretation of nostra aetate were published: josef sinkovits and ulrich winkler, eds., weltkirche und weltreligionen. die brisanz des zweiten vatikanischen konzils 40 jahre nach nostra aetate, salzburger theologische studien – interkulturell 3 (innsbruck, wien, 2007) 97-159; roman a. siebenrock, vorläufige überlegungen auf dem weg zu einem erneuerten verständnis der konzilserklärung “nostra aetate” in wassilowsky, ed., zweites vatikanum – vergessene anstösse, gegenwärtige fortschreibungen, qd 207 (freiburg, basel, wien, 2004). rutishauser, “and after the fire a soft murmuring sound...” 141 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 140-154 judaism and the jewish people through speeches, symbolic gestures, and face-to-face encounters. the documents of the protestant churches in germany in no way lagged behind in this renewal of jewish-christian relations.6 beginning with the linkage of christianity to judaism, attempts were made to rephrase their entire systematic theology, a route followed, for example, by the barthian theologians friedrich-wilhelm marquardt and paul van buren. this pioneer phase in the jewish-christian dialogue is ending as the generation of its participants retires. in addition, a new social context now challenges the dialogue: post-secular society with its multicultural and global characteristics. the jewish-christian encounter is now regarded much more in the context of dialogue with other world religions and is included in early drafts of theology of religions. in such a pluralistic theory of religions the jewish-christian relationship is described in categories no longer originating from a theological context, but drawn rather from philosophical perspectives or from asiatic origins.7 particularly, the presence of islam in europe has led to the concept of abrahamic ecumenism, opening new doors to the connections among the three monotheistic religions.8 this generational change in jewish-christian dialogue and society’s new multi-religious constellation leads jews and christians 6 the collected documents are available in: rudolf rendtorff, hans hermann henrix, et. al., die kirchen und das judentum, vol. 1 dokumente von 1945 bis 1985, vol. 2 dokumente von 1986 bis 2000 (paderborn, 1988/2001). 7 see john hick, a christian theology of religions: the rainbow of faiths (louisville, kentucky: westminster john knox press, 1995); perry schmidtleukel, gott ohne grenzen. eine christliche und pluralistische theologie der religionen (gütersloh, 2006). 8 karl josef kuschel has made valuable contributions to the topic of abrahamic ecumenism in streit um abraham. was juden, christen und muslime trennt – und was sie eint (düsseldorf, 2006); in “jud, christ und muslim vereinigt”? lessings nathan der weise (düsseldorf, 2004); and in juden-christenmuslime: herkunft und zukunft (düsseldorf, 2007). alike to search for a new paradigm for their particular dialogue. this upheaval has been regarded by many as a crisis. a demonstration of this transitional stage is the difficulty in approaching young people through the established dialogue structures. another example is the dispute between edward kessler, director of the centre for the study of christian-jewish relations in cambridge, and fr. raniero cantalamessa, resident preacher at the vatican, as reported this past spring in the catholic weekly the tablet.9 kessler objected that the sermons at the vatican during the holy week were not sufficiently cautious regarding an anti-jewish presentation of christ’s passion, and that cantalamessa did not take into consideration jewish sensitivity to jewish-christian relations experienced under pope john paul ii, whose era seems to have evaporated. cantalamessa defended himself, pointing out his endeavors for a good relationship with jews, without, however, contributing anything new or positive to the dialogue. these instances of difficulties and aggravations serve as sufficient indicators of an upheaval in the jewish-christian relationship. my reference here to a certain upheaval does not imply a serious existential crisis in the jewish-christian relationship. without over-dramatizing, let me recall the prophet elijah, in particular the texts in 1 kings 18 and 19. after having fought the priests of baal on mount carmel, commissioned by yhwh, he came to a point of crisis. elijah wanted to relinquish his call as a prophet and die. but following this first phase of his life and work as a prophet, elijah returned to sinai, where he received a completely new task from yhwh – to anoint a new king. elijah could no longer access the god who in exodus revealed the torah through fire, earthquake, and storm. but that same god now revealed himself in “a soft murmuring sound” (1k 19:12). elijah’s image of god was revised as he received tasks that were altered in order to deal with a new situation. elijah was shaken by such a new orientation. the jewish-christian 9 the tablet, 24 april and 12 may 2007. rutishauser, “and after the fire a soft murmuring sound...” 142 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 140-154 dialogue after its first phase of strong motivation and hard labor has come to a turning point too. it now needs to go back to its roots to be able to define its tasks anew. weighing the impact of the shoah and acknowledging judaism as the root to christianity are not only entering into a new phase. completely new questionings and situations are finding their way into our consciousness as well. future jewish-christian encounters will need to deal with five important tasks, which involve both action and inquiry.10 i will address each briefly. jewish-christian dialogue for all. the valuable fruits of the new mutual understandings achieved since the shoah must be strengthened and anchored in the wider ecclesiastical and lay communities. the insights gained into the similarities and differences between christians and jews is in danger of becoming lost in a broader interreligious dialogue. the fact that the jesus movement and the original church were jewish is by no means a historical accident; on the contrary, it leads the church to accept by faith god’s covenant with the jewish people. on the other hand, jews have to understand that, through their concept of messianism, a religion came into existence that still today also carries typically jewish aspirations out into the greater world. they should acknowledge that rabbinic judaism took shape under christian influence and for centuries 10 over the past years future perspectives for jewish-roman catholic discussions have been addressed frequently. for example, during the fortieth jubilee year of nostra aetate cardinal walter kasper, on march 9, 2006, spoke on “nostra aetate und die zukunft des jüdisch-christlichen dialogs” at the first meeting of the rabbis of germany with representatives of catholic and protestant churches. see: freiburger rundbrief, neue folge, 2 (2007):104-118. michael a. signer published “40 jahre nach nostra aetate. gibt es im dialog neue inhalte?“ in josef sinkovits und ulrich winkler, eds., weltkirche und weltreligionen. die brisanz des zweiten vatikanischen konzils 40 jahre nach nostra aetate salzburger theologische studien – interkulturell 3 (innsbruck, wien, 2007), 97-113. has been affected by developments in christianity.11 now it is up to educators of youth and adults, to preachers and to liturgists to enable believers without a theological background to understand and accept the close link between christianity and judaism which had been kept secret for so long. this dialogue must not remain an area only for specialists and people particularly interested in the subject. rather, all jews and christians are meant to reflect on this central theme of identity.12 history shows the way. the pioneer phase of the dialogue was strongly affected by the process of coming to terms with the shoah. in the present situation, the middle east conflict and, in particular, the politics of the state of israel is a subject that strongly influences jewish-christian relations in europe. the achievements derived from an in-depth study of the shoah must be continually passed on, and developing a theological understanding of the existence of the state of israel is a fundamental agenda item for any future dialogue! however, the history of the jewish-christian encounter must not be limited to these topics. an extensive, inclusive memory is called for – an overview that covers the complete history of past centuries from the beginnings of jewish-christian interactions. the patristic and talmudic periods, respectively, and their mutual influences and interactions are of particular importance.13 we should also include periods like the crusades, the “golden age” of medieval 11 michel hilton, “wie es sich christelt, so jüdelt es sich”. 2000 jahre christlicher einfluss auf das jüdische leben (berlin, 2000). 12 consider the calls by the international catholic-jewish liaison committee (ilc), the platform of the vatican and the international jewish committee on interreligious consultations, as for example at its nineteenth meeting in cape town, november 2006. the declaration is printed in freiburger rundbrief. neue folge, no. 2/2007, 119-122. 13 see, for example, the works of daniel boyarin: a radical jew: paul and the politics of identity (university of california press, 1997); dying for god: martyrdom and the making of christianity and judaism (stanford university press, 1999); border lines, the partition of judeo-christianity (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2004). rutishauser, “and after the fire a soft murmuring sound...” 143 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 140-154 spain and the tragic expulsion of the jews in 1492, the upswing of jewish mysticism in the sixteenth century, the jewish struggle with modernity in nineteenth century germany. with regard to the challenge of remaining religious even after the enlightenment, this last era is of highest importance. jews, christians, and muslims. the jewish-christian encounter has been placed into the broader spectrum of interreligious dialogue, partly through the global context, partly because of the middle-east conflict. this is particularly due to the conflict between western society, influenced by christianity and judaism, and the oriental islam-dominated world, which demands that the west also enter into dialogue with islam. jews and christians must reconsider their relationships towards muslims separately since each relationship has unique historical connections and different theological questions that must be discussed. nevertheless, the fact that the three monotheistic religions share faith in the same god and in the heritage of abraham also demands that they enter into a trilateral dialogue. in this context, it is of primary importance seriously to consider the three religions’ different concepts and interpretations of god’s revelation.14 the concept of faith in a global society. the crucial challenge for the future of religions is not, in my opinion, the question of interreligious dialogue, even though this is often claimed. it is more important for jews and christians together with other religious believers to renew their stance in a postenlightened society. in this post-secular world, with its tendency to re-spiritualization, it becomes necessary to reconsider the relationship between religion and civil society. how is it 14 regarding interreligious dialogue in switzerland, see my report: “vom religionspluralismus zum dialog. interreligiöse initiativen in der schweiz“ in stimmen der zeit, 131 no.12 (2006), 795-808. possible to justify faith in the god of israel and the god of jesus christ in the contexts of global development, of the new scientific knowledge, and of the new openness to spirituality? fundamentalist sects, privatization of faith, and religion as a spiritual adornment in the capitalist world, cannot be the paths to follow, neither for jews nor for christians. religious relativism, by regarding religion only as an expression of the human need for transcendence diluted into a world created by human beings sacrifices the living god. god’s revelation must be rethought and explained anew, as, for example, prof. othmar keel argues, suggesting that monotheistic religions need to rewrite their biographies. 15 dialogue promotes personal identity. when jews and christians are communicating with each other and with society and culture as a whole, then they will also be transformed by their common history. consciously entering into an encounter requires an ability to deal with one’s selfperception and one’s perception by the other. paradoxically, in this drawing near to the other lies the actual drive to confront one’s own roots and one’s own vocation. the effects of the jewish-christian dialogue on both judaism and christianity must be accompanied by awareness and reflection. thus from discourse emerges an identity beyond that existing in monolithic separation, one worthy of believers who feel committed to the god of all humankind and of all creation. 16 15 thomas staubli, ed., vertikale ökumene. erinnerungsarbeit im dienst des interreligiösen dialogs, mit beiträgen von othmar keel, ulrike bechmann und wolfgang lienemann (fribourg, 2006). 16 on identity through dialogue see martin buber, ich und du, (gerlingen 12/1994); paul ricoeur, “narrative identität“ in heidelberger jahrbücher, 31, (berlin 1987), 57-67; dan bar-on, die anderen in uns. dialog als modell der interkulturellen konfliktbewältigung, (hamburg 2001). rutishauser, “and after the fire a soft murmuring sound...” 144 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 140-154 ii. identity development through dialogue i will now elaborate on this last theme by raising the theological question: what meaning does judaism have for christian identity? the reciprocal theological question – what does christianity mean for jews? – i will leave for my jewish colleagues to answer. the catholic church, sees itself not only as a religious institution that promotes christianity, not only as a social entity, but also as a significant mystical reality. the second vatican council, in lumen gentium i:1-8, explicated its awareness of the church’s mystical dimension, conscious that it owes its existence to god’s revelation in jesus christ and the diffusion of the spirit of the risen lord. the council document nostra aetate, concerning interreligious dialogue, further states that, as the church probes the depths of its own mystery, it discovers its bonds to judaism (na, 4). as paul already reflects in his letter to the romans (9-11), the church is mysteriously connected to judaism, not only in god’s self-revelation in the jew, jesus of nazareth, but also through the covenant on mount sinai with the israelites. in the twentieth century, pope john paul ii declared that dialogue with judaism is not an extrinsic task for the church, but that judaism is intrinsic to the self-understanding of christianity.17 it is possible to speak of judaism as the constituting other of christianity, a fact unfortunately too often largely suppressed historically. however, admitting this relatedness opens the road to growth towards a dialogical existence. the question arises as to how the church is linked to the synagogue. i am not pursuing the question of what the jewish part of internal christianity identity consists, but rather in what 17 see his 1980 address to the central council of the jews in germany and the rabbinic conference in mainz, and his address at the great synagogue in rome, april 13, 1986. way christianity is a kind of jewish religion for non-jews. much has been written on this subject. i am asking about the connection of the church to judaism in the present social context marked by a new, post-secular era, friendly to religion. this question is critical, on the one hand, because many people currently very involved with world religions have little or practically no interest in judaism. on the other hand, there are those involved in jewish-christian dialogue who are initiating an openness towards dialogue with islam, but who are scarcely involved in worldwide interreligious dialogue. i have previously addressed this phenomenon more thoroughly in this very journal.18 so, i would like to ask: what meaning does judaism have for christianity situated in a multi-cultural and multi-religious society? what are the topics and themes appropriate to this present christian existence that also derive from the dialogue with judaism? to refer once again to the experience of elijah: the churches have heard the powerful voice of yhwh on mount sinai, giving god’s people the torah that judaism has venerated in its history up to this day. it marked the pioneer phase of jewishchristian dialogue. how are we today to understand god’s “soft murmuring sound” connecting christianity to judaism through dialogue? declaration of faith in monotheism for quite a long time monotheism has been attacked, initially by philosophical discussions reproaching it for oppressing human freedom and poisoning life’s joys. biblical monotheism is said to have implanted a sense of guilt rooted in excessive ethical demands. since nietzsche, some perceive a cry for another god, for a dionysian god. odo marquard, in his “praise 18 “jewish christian dialogue and the theology of religions” in studies in christian-jewish relations 1 (2005-2006) 53-66. (http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/7) rutishauser, “and after the fire a soft murmuring sound...” 145 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/7 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 140-154 for polytheism” summed up the spirit of the age, according to which polytheism is more conscious of human needs.19 in addition, totally new and weighty inquiries have been addressed to monotheism within the interreligious and global context. buddhists, for example, challenge the concept of the one god who is open to personal communication as being a too anthropomorphic concept of transcendence. hindus, on the other hand, cannot accept the uniquely qualified revelation of this god in the history of israel and the church. they see biblical revelation on an equal level with other appearances of god in this world. in response to the experience of militant islam spreading terrorism in the name of this one god, monotheism is being perceived increasingly as incompatible with globalization, given its absolutist claims and inclination toward the use of violence.20 finally, a subtle criticism of monotheism is being voiced from a quite different source. the christian theological perception of god is meeting disapproval not only from muslims but also from jews. the christian emphasis on jesus christ as both god and man is perceived as undermining the oneness of god. objections expressed by some jews to the thesis in dabru emet, a document published in the year 2000, in which jewish scholars state that jews and christians worship the same god, bear out this observation. these voices revived the ancient accusation 19 marquard odo, zukunft braucht herkunft. philosophische essays, (stuttgart 2003). 20 jan assman, in scientific discourse, started the debate about monotheism and violence in his moses der ägypter, entzifferung einer gedächtnisspur (münchen, wien, 1998), and in monotheismus und die sprache der gewalt, wiener vorlesungen im rathaus, 116 (wien 2006). see also: walter dietrich und moisés mayordomo, gewalt und gewaltüberwindung in der bibel (zürich, 2005); peter walter, ed., das gewaltpotential des monotheismus und der dreieine gott, qd 216 (freiburg, basel, wien, 2005). that christians should be considered idolaters by jews because of their christology and faith in the trinity.21 in the debate around monotheism the question of god needs to be dealt with further, particularly in the jewish-christian dialogue. christian theology needs to look at rabbinic tradition and jewish philosophy and to interpret anew the christian connection to the jewish understanding of god’s appearance on mount sinai, whose face is hidden, whose name is not to be pronounced, but who, because of god’s commandments in the torah, is very much present. christianity needs to regain, for example, the lost theology of god’s name, and even more, a christology of “the word was made flesh” (jn 1:14). it needs to connect its faith in the incarnation of god to god’s gift of the torah: not god who became man without mediation but god whose word was made flesh.22 this is the only way to connect christian belief in to the hebrew bible and to jesus’ own jewish world. only by presenting the appearance of christ in relation to god’s history with the jewish people – which includes god’s radical revelation amidst the jewish people – can christian faith in the trinity as a mediation of god within the world be adequately represented. we come to understand 21 tikva frymer-kensky, david novak, et al, eds., christianity in jewish terms, (boulder, co: westview press, 2000). further publications: rainer kampling und michael weinrich, eds., dabru emet – redet wahrheit. eine jüdische herausforderung zum dialog mit den christen, (gütersloh 2003); erwin dirscherl und werner trutwin, eds., redet wahrheit – dabru emet. jüdische-christliches gespräch über gott, messias und dekalog, (münster 2004). 22 on recent discussion on incarnation theology: helmut hoping und janheiner tück, eds., streitfall christologie. vergewisserungen nach der shoah, qd 214, (freiburg basel wien 2005); jean-betrand madragule badi, inkarnation in der perspektive des jüdisch-christlichen dialogs, (paderborn münchen wien zürich 2006); hans hermann henrix, “jesus christus im jüdisch-christlichen dialog“ in stimmen der zeit 1 (2006): 3-56; “jesus christus und das judentum“ in communio 36 (märz/april 2007): 59-171. rutishauser, “and after the fire a soft murmuring sound...” 146 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 140-154 how trinity can be understood as a mysticism of monotheism.23 with this christian self-confirmation of monotheism in mind, it is possible to face the modern appeal of myths and spiritual experience. in this personal and historical approach to god and to mysticism, humans are not made gods nor is god naively made human. rather, god’s will to connect with jews and through christ with christians, determines the relationship between god and humanity. it maintains the freedom of both while breaking down totalitarian conformity to the laws of the world and nature. therefore, it is so important that in the language of the covenant that comprises personal freedom, free will, and decision, a locus of encounter with god is maintained. this religious language supports human understanding when speaking of god, more than the language of physics which characterizes god as power, energy, and light because physical reality is opened up. of course, the psychological and the gender-defined distortions of god can go along with personal talking to god, especially when god is addressed as father or king. such personal communication with god must be balanced by apophatic discourse. particularly in this respect christians should engage the jewish reflections on the sanctification of god’s name,24 the rabbinic interpretations of divine image and medieval jewish philosophy’s attempts to offer attributes of action to god without describing god’s essence, remain waiting for a christian confrontation.25 should this monotheism not be 23 bernhard klappert, “die trinitätslehre als auslegung des namens des gottes israels“ in evangelische theologie 62 (2002): 54-72; “hat das neue testament das 1. gebot übertreten und christus vergottet?“ in magdalene l frettlöh und hans p. lichtenberger, eds., gott wahr nehmen. festschrift für christian link, (neukirchen 2003) 97-126. 24 verena lenzen, jüdisches leben und sterben im namen gottes. studien über die heiligung des göttlichen namens (kiuddusch haschem), (zürich 2002). 25 an overview of talmudic and theological-philosophical thinking in judaism is offered in karl erich grözinger, jűdisches denken. theologie, philosophie, unilaterally accepted by the faithful, and not abused in order to attain one’s own political aims, only then can monotheism show its universal and humane image. in the god of the bible is the voice of justice raised, without which a globalized world cannot be achieved. the story of salvation newly understood many of our contemporaries find a way to god through experiencing nature or via a personal search for the meaning of life or for happiness. from this current re-spiritualization of society emanates an approach to religion that hardly concerns itself with any ethical implications. the god of the bible is also the god of creation revealed in the cosmos. god is also present for any human being, especially when they suffer and are in need. no doubt! but the primary experience of israel consists of its liberation from injustice and slavery and in its finding its home as a nation. so god is manifest also in historical events. for judaism, this special experience is considered a pivotal point, as it reinforces her belief in the special covenant between god and the jewish people. this is recorded as the word of god in the torah from exodus through deuteronomy. israel’s prophets and teachers have always challenged their people live up to the ethical obligations of the covenant, thus being a light for all the nations and giving witness to the covenant (is 49:6). for christians, this theological tradition led to a belief in a history of salvation. through god’s action in israel and through jesus christ, this covenant is offered through the church to all people. all of humanity is to be included in this history of salvation through the covenant with god. however, just like monotheism, so too this understanding of the history of salvation is facing criticism. first of all, we must remember that god presides in the world not only through historical revelation mystik. vom gott abrahams zum gott des aristoteles, i (frankfurt a.m., new york, 2004), 221-614. rutishauser, “and after the fire a soft murmuring sound...” 147 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 140-154 and through the church. as creator and leader of the whole world, god’s spirit is also present in non-christian cultures and other religions.26 secondly, the classical, salvation story model was refuted because it replaced god’s covenant with israel with god’s new covenant with the church, relegating the religious importance of judaism to that of a negative foil for the christian story of salvation. but as many christian churches have now accepted, the history of god with the people israel endures, and its covenant remains valid.27 moreover, since the founding of the state of israel, christians can no longer deny the political presence of the people of israel in world history. thirdly, the belief in the christian story of salvation in the nineteenth century led to theologies of history which claimed to know the universal meaning to history with god managing individual nations as well as world history. the most well known representative of this view was wilhelm friedrich hegel, whose theory was, however, refuted in the twentieth century since it served to justify european colonialism instead of affirming god’s reign over history. what is the present state of the concept of the god of history? has the idea of the history of salvation become completely outdated?28 hopefully, we have been cured of our hubris and narcissism which underpinned our attempts to explain history as a whole and to perceive god’s creation only from our own religious community’s perspective. but, unfortunately, 26 see gaudium et spes (pastoral constitution on the church in the modern world), nostra aetate (declaration on the relationship of the church to nonchristian religions) and dignitatis humanae (declaration on religious freedom). these three council documents are consequences of the conviction that the spirit of god works even beyond the limits of the church. 27 hubert frankemölle, der ungekündigte bund? qd 172 (freiburg, basel, wien, 1998). 28 with respect to the term “history of salvation” in relation to the question of the sense of history in general, refer to the essays of golo mann and karl rahner under the main title “world history and salvation history” in franz böckle und franz-xaver kaufmann et al., eds., christlicher glaube in moderner gesellschaft, 23 (freiburg, basel, wien, 1982) 87-125. in the process the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater: few dare to ask for evidence of god’s will and actions in historical events. following the breakdown of rightor left-wing narrative traditions, even political theologies that traditionally did question the meaning of history, now face difficulties.29 however, the god of history prohibits a surrender to the complete privatization of faith, reducing it to inner experience alone. god obliges us to formulate the public relevance of faith: in view of the systemic poverty in a globalized world, as taught by liberation theology; in view of islam’s public and political demands; in view of the israeli-palestinian conflict, which despite all secular points of contentions has in the background a biblical story; in view of the extensive history of the jewish people that lives to this day nourished by the sinai covenant. christian theology is challenged to understand through faith the present events of history, particularly with regard to israelpalestine.30 the interpretations of the creation and the existence of israel must not be left to fundamentalist movements. these movements extract certain biblical passages and themes, considering them timeless principles of history, inserting them into political contexts, without any respect for actual historical developments and changes. furthermore, we must withstand the temptation to think that we have come to the end of all time. we as human beings do not really know the course of history; we have a tendency to become utterly ruthless when we bind future visions to the end of all time. 29 it is interesting to note that it is instead leftist political theology that was highly inspired by biblical and jewish history. the liberation theology of south africa turned to the old testament and was attracted by socialist-marxist ideas, while the political theory in europe was confronted with the shoah and its message about faith. leonardo boff and johann-baptist metz can be mentioned here as representatives of this theory. 30 for an excellent overview about the theological interpretation of the neareast conflict, the existence of the state of israel and the significance of the country of israel see roland deines, “the importance of the country of israel from a christian perspective” in judaica,.4 (2006) 309-330. rutishauser, “and after the fire a soft murmuring sound...” 148 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 140-154 what path then remains open? with respect to rabbinic interpretations christians should deal with the enduring value of the hebrew bible’s “promised land” which the jewish people legitimately invoke to this day. they are to be considered alongside other instructions of the torah, above all the ethos of justice, and should not be identified directly with present-day, political aspirations, despite evidence for their correlation. furthermore, christians must be cautious regarding eschatological views in relation to promises of the land, as well as to all of history. in this very complicated environment, the gospel of jesus about the kingdom of god, the voices of patristic authors and the new testament texts, and the voice of the contemporary palestinian church, all also have to be taken into account.31 in any case, the christian church has to face a totally new challenge it cannot avoid, if it is to take its own conviction seriously regarding the historical significance of the jewish people alongside the church and the message of salvation to all the peoples of the world. the church as people of god – and judaism? this reconsideration of salvation history and the question of the religious significance of the state of israel are the logical consequences of the renewal of christian theology. this means that, after christ, the church does not simply disinherit and replace israel, but that the jewish people remains in an unrevoked covenant with god as a witness of revelation for humankind. thus, judaism remains a valid religion alongside christianity. although the church no longer defines itself as versus israel, it considers itself, as expressed by the last council, as “people of god.” in doing so it assumes an identity by which judaism expresses its special connection to god.32 naturally, the god of the bible claims to be god for all people and every nation. however, according to that revealed in the history of salvation, it is only the church and the jewish people who stand next to each other as the special property and special people of god. the question of the specificity of their relationship must be posed here. 31 see naim stifan ateek, recht, nichts als recht! entwurf einer palästinensisch-christlichen theologie, (fribourg, brig, 1990). 32 lumen gentium, 2, §9-17; cf. ex 19 :5f; 1 pt 2 :9. 33 is the people of god twofold? do the sinai covenant and the covenant of golgotha, which founded the two communities, form two parallel covenants, or are they only two aspects of the same bond?34 what is the meaning of being “people of god” in the jewish and the christian contexts? what are the roots of the church in the old and in the new testament? what does it mean for judaism if the church considers herself as the fulfillment of biblical history? what do the missions of christianity and of judaism have in common and what differentiates them in today’s world? questions and more questions are waiting to be answered! if christians really believe that the history of the jews continues to be guided by god, then this will create conflicts with the ways that christians have understood the history of the church. jewish history must be seen as a continuum through the centuries as well. this will require that the churches incorporate the jewish way of reading the bible, thus raising comprehensive questions about the theological meaning of christian tradition. even the talmud and the entire oral torah that, according to rabbinic conception, belong to the sinai covenant, will carry 33 see josef wohlmuth’s, im geheimnis einander nahe. theologische aufsätze zum verhältnis von judentum und christentum (paderborn, münchen, wien,1996), and his die tora spricht die sprache der menschen. theologische aufsätze und meditationen zur beziehung von judentum und christentum (paderborn, münchen, wien, 2002). 34 see john t. pawlikowski and hayim goren perelmuter, eds., reinterpreting revelation and tradition: jews and christians in conversation (franklin, wisconsin, 2000); josef ratzinger, “modern variations of the concept of the people of god” in the church, ecumenism, and politics: new essays in ecclesiology, (crossroad press, 1988) 21-28; mary c. boys, has god only one blessing? judaism as a source of christian self-understanding, (paulist press, 2000). rutishauser, “and after the fire a soft murmuring sound...” 149 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 140-154 positive meaning for christians. by including jewish scholars in his recently published theological commentaries on the old testament, erich zenger has laid the groundwork in the field of exegesis. the recent document entitled the jewish people and their sacred scripture in the christian bible published by the pontifical bible commission in 2001 is another courageous step forward. once it is acknowledged that jewish tradition and history are not an alien faith, but vital elements related to the church, it becomes obvious that this philosophy affects the church in its entirety, beginning with biblical interpretation, continuing with christian ethics and liturgy through to systematic theology.35 today it is of vital importance that judaism is not seen as the mother religion of christianity but as its sister religion, as judaism and christianity have influenced each other throughout history. the relationship of jews and christians becomes particularly volatile in relation to christian absolutist claims which imply that humankind’s only way to god is through jesus christ. (jn 14:6) how can jesus’ universal claim of salvation be sustained, when confronted with the conviction that the jews already stand in a covenant with god? is the church entrusted with a mission towards the jews when they already believe in god? is biblically-based missionary work only aimed at people who have not yet come to know god? what does the claim of the gospel then represent regarding the jews? a newly defined differentiation seems to be needed here. this is the only possible way for a serious dialogue in which christians cannot help but testify for jesus before jews, respecting that jews in turn cannot help but confirm before christians their adherence to an unsurpassable torah. the jewish people and the church must not merely consider their relationship as complementary 35 peter hünermann, ed., erneuerung der theologie. konsequenzen der wiederentdeckten jüdisch-christlichen gemeinsamkeiten, qd 200, (freiburg basel wien 2003). to each other.36 they are dialectically bound together and mysteriously woven into each other, certainly from a christian point of view. believing in the same god and being convinced that god has been revealed to both jews and christians, the logical expectation is that, in spite of a certain contradictions, both peoples will grow in their own faith. the jewish-christian relationship would become even more complex if the validity of the so-called messianic jews were to be acknowledged.37 in a word, for this jewish group jesus of nazareth has a theological meaning, but this group is not willingly dealt with by the established jewish-christian dialogue. neither the jewish nor the christian side can afford not to engage in dialogue on this issue in the future if each side wants to avoid becoming locked into an ideological position. spirituality of learning and working in community for judaism, the gift of the torah stands at the center of the revelation at mount sinai, crystallized in the religious law, the halakhah. it contains rules for specific conduct in all situations of life as a pillar for governing jewish identity. this specifically concerns the primacy of ethics and a summons to people towards a responsible personal involvement in a via activa. the jewish philosophers emmanuel levinas and hannah arendt 36 see for instance, franz rosenzweig’s complementary relation of judaism and christianity in the third part of his die stern der erlösung. (frankfurt a. m., 1999). this is a valuable project, but it has to be critically completed and corrected by both sides. see also frank surall’s juden und christen – toleranz in neuer perspektive. der denkweg franz rosenzweigs in seinen bezügen zu lessing, harnack, baeck und rosentstock-huessy (chr. kaiser/gütersloher verlagshaus, gütersloh, 2003). 37 kai kjaer-hansen and bodil f. skjott, facts and myths about the messianic congregation in israel 1998-1999. a survey (jerusalem, 1999). rutishauser, “and after the fire a soft murmuring sound...” 150 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 140-154 have expressed this in secular language.38 expressed in religious terms and within the act of profound faith, we can talk about the primacy of conduct, which is to be understood as sanctification of life through observance of the commandments. this spirituality of behavior, that respects god’s will and finds god’s presence in any situation of life, forms the center of judaism.39 in order to be able to act in the spirit of god, studying the torah and the entire tradition is an unchanging prerequisite. indeed, learning form the torah is in itself an act of personal religious performance.40 without learning from the torah, it is impossible to act in the name of god. the priority of acting, of learning in the company of others, and of inter-subjectivity corresponds to the meaning of community: it is impossible to be a jew alone. god’s covenant on mount sinai is a covenant with the people of israel. standing opposite god is a collective act into which the individual jew is registered. there can be no single righteous person, as the life and acts of a single person are always deeply intertwined with the entire group. the individual is always part of a people, a nation, a family, a culture, a language group, a religious community. ultimately, each member of the group feels part of the community. thus, nobody can escape the spirit of the age, even if he or she takes an opposing stand. jewish culture is very well aware of these connections. ideally, the individual is looked upon as a member of the people for whom he/she feels responsible and lives accordingly, and which gives him/her in turn an essential support to live fully as a jew. this does not mean that the individuality of each member of the group is 38 see emmanuel levinas, jenseits des seins oder anders als sein geschieht (freiburg, münchen, 1998) and hannah arendt, vita activa oder vom tätigen leben (zürich, münchen, 1989). 39 see joseph dov soloveitchik, the halakhic man, (philadelphia, 1983). 40 see norman lamm, “torah lismah – torah for torah’s sake” in the works of rabbi hayyim of volozhin and his contemporaries (hoboken, nj, 1989). sacrificed, as caring for the concrete and physical wellbeing of each is of capital importance. how does this aspect of jewish tradition affect christians? it is evident that one becomes a christian through faith in god and god’s revelation through christ. it is also obvious that christianity cannot be limited to ethics, although it is often presented this way. faith, however, matures only through action. first of all, the way is through jesus christ (jn 14:6), for he is the halakhah. according to the jewish paradigm, theology first has to struggle with the form in which the discipleship of christ can be made accessible to the devout. christ himself lived according to halakhah. christian ethics has to be immersed in the spirituality of action, oriented on the perception of jesus, the gospel, and tradition. in comparison, metaphysical and speculative acknowledgment of the existence of god is of secondary importance. bonding ecclesiastical praxis back to judaism would establish new priorities, including the restoration of theology as a means of service in christian life. above all, if the church wants to function in today’s world, it needs to think of itself as a minority within a non-christian society, similar to the historical condition of the jews. to do this effectively requires that it consider its concept of tradition, ponder its collective and ecclesial identity in an open society, and respect the concrete and apparent manifestation of other faiths.41 the only way to be able to strongly influence society with a rich tradition and also to transmit faith to the next generation is through a spiritual deep-rootedness in history. unless religions of revelation live collectively within historical time, they betray their identity since their existence derives from the action of 41 regarding the theological concept of tradition, see gershom scholem, tradition und kommentar als religiöse kategorien im judentum, eranosjahrbuch, xxxi (zürich, 1963) 19-48, and bernhard waldmüller, “erinnerung und identität. beiträge zu einem theologischen traditionsbegriff“ in auseinandersetzung mit der momoria passionis bei j. b. metz, studien zur traditionstheorie, 7 (münster, 2005). rutishauser, “and after the fire a soft murmuring sound...” 151 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 140-154 god within history, and not merely from experiences of transcendence in the here and now. the necessity to unlock its own sources has nothing to do with the church escaping from society. this obligation towards sacred acts in all fields of life, transmitted by fellow human beings, but ultimately originating in god, affects individual devotion.42 prayers, for example, are always open to the larger community of believers, reminding us again and again of god’s acts in history, where every person who prays stands before god. in christian prayer, the immediate appeal to god is always transmitted through jesus, and through biblical texts the individual feels part of the history of generations.43 in particular, the christian connection to judaism, especially through its irreversible basis in the old testament, is of contemporary importance regarding the christian dialogue with the mystic religions of asia. for example, the concrete history of salvation in the entire bible, not only the coming of jesus, but the progress of jewish as well as christian history, have to be brought into consideration in the process of acculturation of the indian sub-continent. learning from the holy books and regarding interpersonal relations as occasions of encountering god may to be regarded as essential for an internal mystical experience, so much praised in the asian context. accepting and returning love in the inter-subjective field from one human being to another, or from one human being to god, represents insight conveyed by the biblical message. weaving this kind of religion into the inter-religious dialogue, into the 42 willi lamberti und melanie wolfers, eds., dein angesicht will ich suchen. sinn und gestalt christlichen betens, (freiburg, basel, wien, 2005). 43 in this context, the spanish mysticism of the sixteenth century has special significance, for it refers methodologically to biblical texts which are historical in nature. the spiritual exercises by ignatius of loyola may serve as an example. globalizing process and into the “dispersion of the religious,”44 is a task for christians and jews alike. understanding the world from the point of view of the other probably the most important contribution of judaism to christianity is the concept of the other. in biblical monotheism, god is perceived as the other who must not be represented in any form, not even by visual symbols. this god who is actually quite different from what people imagine, in the specifically jewish perception is at the same time very near, standing in the world by the side of the human other. the jewish people, through the covenant on the mount sinai, are set apart from all the other peoples, in order to function as god’s special possession. the fact of being “the chosen people,” as this is also called, is by no means a privilege. on the contrary, it is an obligation to represent this otherness in the world, and thereby call attention to god. (cf. ex 19:5; dt 7:6ff) a special compassion should also be granted to the other, the stranger and the poor. (ex 22:20-26; lv 19:33f; dt 24:17ff) a perception of reality and ethical conduct are thereby formed. the israelites are called upon time and again to remember that they were at one time slaves and strangers in a foreign land (ex 23:9). furthermore, the jewish people have slowly learned not to peg their identity to the great victories and the triumphs of history. the torah finds its definite form in the exile in babylon, while the process of shaping the talmud as the core oral revelation is set in motion following the destruction of the second temple. from the other historical perspective, god is manifested as master of the universe. in the final phase of redacting 44 hans-joachim höhn, “auf dem weg in eine postsäkulare kultur? herausforderungen einer kritischen phänomenologie der religion“ in paul m. zulehner, ed., spiritualität – mehr als ein megatrend (ostfildern, 2004), 18-23. rutishauser, “and after the fire a soft murmuring sound...” 152 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 140-154 the talmud in the sixth and seventh century (ce), this awareness of the other reaches a particularly profound expression in a culture of learning, struggle, and conflict, where differing opinions in a continuous discourse are preserved and respected.45 listening to the other is an ideal that even in jewish life is often not respected. it remains a great challenge, but one with considerable appeal in our time. thinking with the other and thinking from the point of view of the other is expressed in biblical texts in connection with the core experiences of siblings, as before god all men and women are brothers and sisters. as james alison has pointed out, in monotheism the basic question regarding the mother-child relationship towards the father in view of the oedipus complex and intergenerational conflict is not the paramount problem, but rather siblings or partners living together in relationships of fundamental equality before god.46 perceiving the other as brother or sister is the challenge, as found in the old testament: from cain and abel (gn 4), through joseph and his brothers, up to the sons of david. in the new testament, the brother constellation is found in the parables of jesus (e.g., lk 15:11-32) and the experience of jesus and his male and female disciples. when another becomes my enemy, the experience of the other becomes extreme, expressed in “love your enemies” as found in mt 5:44f. but the other does not only appear as a special threat, as an enemy; the other can also appear as like oneself. this twin constellation theme appears several times in the bible, 45 see daniel boyarin, border lines, 145-225. boyarin discusses this culture of opening towards the other but above all towards the torah as god’s word, belonging to the generation of the saboraim and their internal discourse. he sees it as having an apophatic character: “the bavli’s practice of refusal of such closure reveals the strange and more surprising epistemology, one that i would characterize as virtually apophatic with respect to the divine mind, its text and intentions for practice, as well.” (p.152) 46 james alison, faith beyond resentment: fragments catholic and gay (london, 2001), 47ff; 74-77. as in the jacob and esau story (gn 27-36), so paradigmatic for the jewish-christian relationship. the relationship between judaism and christianity as constituted in late antiquity and as it took up its final form in the religion of revelation up to the present day,47 is similar to a constellation of twins that, unfortunately, has all too often turned into animosity. today it has become of paramount importance for both parties, but especially for christians, to arrive at a hermeneutics of difference that teaches us self-understanding coming from a consciousness of the other, without offending the other.48 under such circumstances, the church builds up its identity less by separation and exclusion, as communities and individuals usually do, but rather it a new culture that appreciates the otherness of the other in the established categories of difference. acceptance of the other is an expression of a culture of respect, justice, and love for all. it is a contribution to the most difficult task in the life of any human being: how to deal with the other. with its bond to judaism on the one hand, and the painful event of the crucifixion on the other (1 cor 1:18-31), sacramental signs offered by god, christianity must set an example of this culture of respect, justice, and love for all humankind. in other terms, this reference to the other and to the stranger leads to a concrete situation where the church, in addition to its mission, also enters into a dialogue in which it listens to the other, including an assessment of the relationship of christians 47 naturally, christianity’s connection to the bible and its history is quite different than that of judaism, its older brother. however, as religions related to the torah, judaism and christianity represent together two new interpretations of the older history of the bible. both remain in a coherent continuity of interpretation. 48 in humanismus des anderen menschen (hamburg, 1989) emmanuel levinas has paradigmatically presented a foundation for this in the actual discourse of being facing the other. rutishauser, “and after the fire a soft murmuring sound...” 153 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 140-154 to non-christians.49 simultaneously, this dialogue leads the church to the core of her own initial ‘good news.’ christianity has its origin in jesus christ, in the other, the jew, the outcast, the stranger, the misjudged, and the crucified. indeed, the god of the bible is not a god of historical triumphalism. instead, god has resurrected this unimportant, itinerant jewish preacher of nazareth and placed him at god’s right hand (acts 2:22-36). christian identity emerges through the failure of the messiah, where god is not concealed through a human act of heroism.50 49 pontifical council on interreligious dialogue/congregation for the evangelisation of nations, ed., dialogue and proclamation: reflection and orientationson interreligious dialogue and the proclamation of the gospel of jesus christ, vatican city, 1991. 50 christian m. rutishauser, “jesus von nazareth und sabbatai zwi, oder: das scheitern des messias“ in gregorianum, 87/2 (rome, 2006): 324-346. here, an “other logic” is manifested, the logic of the cross, according to which jesus, the victim of human violence, does not turn to revenge. redeemed by god, he gives mercy and forgiveness. jesus, the other, the victim of hostility, mistreated by his enemies, transforms all hate and hostility into love.51 in this story, yhwh is revealed as the god of true life. this way, christians, together with their jewish brothers and sisters, cannot but bear witness to god. 51 the basic theme for the theological writings of james alison deals with the topic of victims of violence who forgive while encountering the manifestations and effects of violence. he uses the mimetic theory of rené girard to reinterpret the biblical texts, particularly those of the new testament. rutishauser, “and after the fire a soft murmuring sound...” 154 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ jewish dogs: an image and its interpreters: continuity in the catholic-jewish encounter studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r16-17 review k e n n e t h s t o w j e w i s h d o g s : a n i m a g e a n d i t s i n t e r p r e t e r s : c o n t i n u i t y i n t h e c a t h o l i c j e w i s h e n c o u n t e r (stanford, ca: stanford university press, 2006), xx + 316 pp. reviewed by daniel joslyn-siemiatkoski, church divinity school of the pacific kenneth stow’s jewish dogs contains a cluster of interlocking arguments about christian perceptions of judaism both past and present. as stow himself states, this book is a work of “historiography within historiography” (ix) that tackles both the question of the persistence of christian application of canine imagery to jews and the connection between medieval ritual murder charges and the modernist controversy in roman catholicism. the end result is a work that evades chronological categorization while raising unsettling questions about contemporary christian attitudes towards jews and judaism despite the conciliatory actions taken over the past half-century. at its most basic level, stow’s book provides a stimulating examination of the history of the enduring image of jews as dogs in christian thought from the new testament to modernity. this image originates in matthew 15:26 where jesus declares to a canaanite woman that the bread of his message ought not to be thrown to gentile dogs. stow documents how a pauline concern with eucharistic integrity and the purity of the collective body of christ inverted this saying so that it referred to “christian children hungering for the eucharist, which ‘jewish dogs’ incessantly plot to steal, savage, or pollute.” (xv) tracing the trajectory of this image through millennia of christian discourse, stow argues that conceptions of jewish-christian difference should not be located within a pauline dialectic between carnal israel and spiritual christianity. christian supersessionism hinged not only on asserting christianity’s spiritual superiority over judaism, but also on establishing boundaries that preserved the purity of the body of christ from jewish contact. stow contends that the image of the jewish dog lies at the heart of the ritual murder and host desecration libels. the examples of supposed ritual murder victims werner of oberwesel and richard of pontoise reveals the complex interchange between medieval, early modern and modern christian views on the perceived threat of jews to christendom. stow notes that the seventeenth century jesuit bollandist fathers paradoxically secured principles for verifying the veracity of historical documents in their monumental acta sanctorum, yet at the same time accepted as factual the false and discredited accusations of ritual murder and host desecration directed at jews. in other words, bollandist scholarship was historically reliable except for its credulity towards libels against jews. stow shows that the image of jewish dogs threatening christendom was an essential piece of catholic rhetoric both for bollandists in the early modern period and for anti-modernists in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. in both periods, certain groups sought to ensure catholic stability by equating eucharistic integrity with the integrity of the collective body of christ found in the catholic church. these self-styled defenders employed the image of the ritual murder victim, whose martyrdom at the hands of jews was increasingly associated with host desecration, as a symbol of the triumph of christ and his church over all enemies. the jews and canine images associated with them served as a stow, jewish dogs r16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r16-17 synecdoche for these mortal enemies. anti-modernists, notably italian jesuits, resurrected ritual murder charges against jews and led campaigns for the canonization of ritual murder victims as martyrs for the faith. modern bollandists opposed these efforts and worked to disprove antijewish libels preserved in the acta sanctorum compiled by their forbearers. the question of jewish guilt over these supposed crimes served as a proxy by which catholic modernists and anti-modernists waged their battles. the triumph of anti-modernist forces meant that the image of the polluting and destructive power with which jews threatened the church was preserved at the same time that the tide of political and racial anti-semitism rose in the twentieth century. by unraveling the power of the image of the jewish dog and its central place in anti-modernist rhetoric, stow allows the reader to have deeper insights into the troubling inaction on the part of rome during the shoah. stow concludes by considering whether contemporary catholicism can reject negative and destructive views of jews, as documented in nostra aetate and subsequent documents, while retaining the theological structure of supersessionism. although lauding the effects of the vatican’s teaching to weed out widespread attitudes of anti-judaism, especially during the pontificate of john paul ii, stow contends that christian self-identity depends upon a pauline understanding of eucharistic solidarity of the body of christ which, if unchecked, can instill a need to defend the boundaries of the community from incursion and pollution. following kurt hruby, stow asks whether catholic christianity is really able to formulate doctrine in terms that do not implicitly undermine the theological and spiritually legitimacy of judaism. commenting on both “reflections on covenant and mission” and dominus iesus stow argues that the full implementation of the ideals of nostra aetate remains to be tested. benedict xvi’s hostility to religious relativism, as documented in dominus iesus and elsewhere, leaves open the question of whether jews will ever be free from christian desires to either enfold them within the church or lash out at them when they resist assimilation. stow begins his book with the claim that his book is a failure because rather than being “dispassionate” and “judgmentally neutral,” jewish dogs features “[e]ngagement and emotion . . . on every page.” (ix) the extraordinary analysis of the persistence of the image of the jew as dog and stow’s illustration of its importance for supersessionist thought and anti-jewish policies raises an important question. given the history of christian treatment of jews, is it defensible to take an objective and neutral stance and should such a view be expected of historians? stow shows that anti-jewish thought is a latent potentiality as long as supersessionist theological structures exist. this fact means the historian of jewish-christian relations is not a neutral scholar of the past alone but also becomes an engaged commentator on the present as well. to claim otherwise is to ignore the influence of the past upon the present and the ethical responsibilities of historical knowledge. stow, jewish dogs r17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ abraham heschel and the catholic heart studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college a b r a h a m h e s c h e l a n d t h e c a t h o l i c h e a r t p a d r a i c o ’ h a r e m e r r i m a c k c o l l e g e volume 2, issue 2(2007): 13-18 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ o’hare, “abrham heschel and the catholic heart” 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 13-18 on the centenary of the birth of rabbi abraham joshua heschel considering the appeal of his life and work to christians illumines further the richness of his witness. the “catholic heart” to which rabbi heschel appeals so fulsomely does not beat solely, exclusively (or even uniformly) within the precincts of the catholic church. i have reference here, in part but not limited to, paul tillich’s idea of “catholic substance,” which operates wherever it operates in the church: to the sacramental understanding and living of the christian life, to the experience of god’s immanent presence, to the essential place of religious symbolism and of priesthood for christians and to the importance given the mystical, or contemplative, dimension of christian life.1 there is here no attempt to horde the catholic spirit. wherever what one jewish thinker has called “this christcentered form of judaism”2 called christianity emulates its jewish mother,3 (at her most faithful), wherever this occurs, christianity is deeply incarnational.4 it rejects dualism, 1 paul tillich, systematic theology, 3 vol. (chicago: university of chicago press, l967), 245; and a full treatment of the “spiritual presence,” which is made concrete by catholic substance, chapter 2, “the spiritual presence,” 111-161. 2 i first heard the expression by reuven kimelman of brandeis university in the dvd walking god’s paths: christians and jews in candid conversation (boston college center for christian-jewish learning on behalf of the national council of synagogues and the bishops’ committee on ecumenical and interreligious affairs of the u.s. conference of catholic bishops, 2004). also available at http://www.bc.edu/research/ cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/education/ walking_gods_paths.htm. 3 rabbi heschel writes: “judaism is the mother of the christian faith. it has a stake in the destiny of christianity. should a mother ignore her child…? is it not our duty to help one another in trying to overcome hardness of heart?” in moral grandeur and spiritual audacity, ed. susannah heschel (new york: farrar, straus and giroux, l996), 242. 4 see an excellent essay dealing with a principle feature of shared jewish and christian incarnationalism in elliot r. wolfson, “judaism and celebrates divine-human embrace and experiences grace (god’s self-communication) all around us. synonymously, incarnational religious imagination is sacramental. in the words of richard mcbrien, “…the sacramental perspective is one that ‘sees’ the divine in the human, the infinite in the finite, the spiritual in the material, the transcendent in the immanent, the eternal in the historical…all reality is sacred.”5 this is what animates the catholic heart. (so, clearly i am employing the term “incarnational” more expansively than to designate the doctrine of jesus christ, human and divine, and least of all the exclusivist and docetic expression of that doctrine.) and rabbi heschel nurtures this catholic heart because he is so powerfully and uniformly incarnational. and a singular expression of this spirit is the seamless link which he forges between contemplative practice and prophetic action. (and, too, between ecstatic and liturgical prayer and just action, not, however, subjects of this essay.) the link between contemplative practice and prophetic action is one which judaism’s catholic children have sought to sustain. it is the link, (but also the tension or paradox), of which heschel wrote in a passion for truth, between rabbi yisrael ben eliezer, the baal shem tov, and rabbi menachem mendel, the kotzker rebbe. it is the link, and also the tension and the paradox, as heschel wrote, between the song of songs and the book of ecclesiastes, between ecstasy and poetry on the one hand, and contrition and judgment on the other.6 incarnation,” in christianity in jewish terms, ed. tikva frymer-kensky, david novak et al. (boulder, co: westview press, 2000). 5 richard p. mc brien, catholicism. revised and updated edition (north blackburn, victoria: collins dove, 1994), 9. 6 abraham joshua heschel, a passion for truth (new york: farrar, straus and giroux, 1973), 3-83. o’hare, “abraham heschel and the catholic heart” 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2 http://www.bc.edu/research/ http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/education/walking_gods_paths.htm studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 13-18 (it is also broadly analogous to tillich’s “catholic substance” and “protestant principle,” this despite heschel’s firm and whimsical rejection of tillich’s idea of the “ground of being”).7 linking the practice of contemplation and prophetic action, prayer and works of compassion, justice and peace, is work heschel shared with thomas merton, who also sought to forge such a link. edward kaplan called merton “…the most comparable [contemporary] american figure…,” to heschel, “…in intellectual acumen, worldliness, emotional intensity, ethical militancy and piety.”8 heschel and merton knew and revered one another. and i will employ them together in further elaborating the thesis of this essay. but before that, a final preliminary word about “heart.” “heart” is the indispensable metaphor bequeathed to western religious consciousness and imagination by judaism, especially in the psalms. it means “inner self,” which is to say the “whole self.” in merton’s words, “the inner self is not a part of our being like a motor in a car. it is our entire substantial reality itself, on its highest and most personal and most existential level. it is like life, and it is life.”9 7 heschel, moral grandeur and spiritual audacity, p. 408: “there are a great many people who read the word of god and don’t believe in him. let me give you an example. one of the most popular definitions common in america today was developed by a great protestant theologian: god is the ground of being. so everybody is ready to accept it. why not? ground of being causes me no harm. let there be a ground of being, doesn’t cause me any harm, and i’m ready to accept it. it’s meaningless.” 8 edward k. kaplan, holiness in words: abraham joshua heschel’s poetics of piety (new york: state university of new york press, l996), 71. 9 thomas merton, the inner experience: notes on contemplation (san francisco: harpersanfrancisco, 2003), 6. and, again: “heart refers to the deepest psychological ground of one’s personality, the inner sanctuary where self analysis goes beyond analytic reflection and opens out into metaphysical and theological confrontation with the abyss of the unknown yet present one who is ‘more intimate to us than we are to ourselves.’”10 in the same key, it is said the baal shem tov, the “master of the good name,” brings healing by whispering the name. the name is the “jewish heart.” it is sufficient! nothing is omitted to say the “jewish heart.” a good jew is formed within the people, israel. and christians who participate in the catholic spirit do not know themselves except within the community which is the church. this points to the necessary liturgical formation of jews and christians. nevertheless, for heschel, as for merton, the seamless link between contemplative practice and prophetic action demands that in a spiritually maturing lifetime our lives are lived progressively from the inside out! what is inside reveals itself in social relations. there is no more political word than “prayer,” no more effective political program than cultivating “purity of heart.” however, the link is obscured, possibly repudiated, when cultivating the inner self in contemplative prayer is misidentified and seen as a manifestation of what leo baeck, famously and with justification, rejected as “romantic religion:” feeling is supposed to mean everything: this is the quintessence of romanticism…its danger however which it 10 thomas merton, contemplative prayer (new york: image book doubleday, l996), 33. the quote within a quote at the end is merton acknowledging saint augustine’s evocation of god as “interior intimo meo,” “more near to me than i am to myself,” in confessions. o’hare, “abraham heschel and the catholic heart” 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 13-18 cannot escape is this: the all important feeling culminates eventually in vacuity or in substitutes or it freezes and becomes rigid. and before this happens, it follows a course which takes it either into sentimentality or into the fantastic; it dodges reality particularly that of the commandments, and it takes refuge in passivity when confronted with the ethical task of the day. empathy makes up for much and gives a freedom which really is a freedom from decision and independence from inner obligation.11 it seems to me one of the generative themes of rabbi heschel’s life and work was to distinguish the seamlessness of the life of prayer and of prophecy from this ethically pallid religiosity. an adequate, if not exhaustive, litany of the fruits of contemplative prayer is to become present to god within, to sanctify our time, to deepen our gratitude for ordinary things and to cultivate a silent self. heschel and merton invariably frame their thoughts on these contemplative strengths in ways that bring out their ethical implications. (again, both tie ethical living to liturgical formation as well; and heschel does not use the language of contemplation so much as merton. still there can, i think, be little question that what appears below points to contemplative practice.) of god’s presence within, heschel writes: we do not step out of the world when we pray; we merely see the world in a different setting. the self is not the hub, but the spoke of the revolving wheel. in prayer we shift the center of living from self-consciousness to self-surrender. 11 leo baeck, the essence of judaism (new york: schocken books, l961), 86. god is the center toward which all forces tend. he is the source and we are the flowing of his force. the ebb and flow of his tides. prayer takes the mind out of narrow selfinterest, and enables us to see the world in the mirror of the holy. for when we betake ourselves to the extreme opposite of the ego, we can behold a situation from the aspect of god.12 and merton: at the center of our being is a point or spark which belongs entirely to god, which is never at our disposal, from which god disposes our lives…this little point of nothingness and of absolute poverty is the pure glory of god in us.13 of the sanctification of time, heschel writes: the passage of hours is either an invitation to despair or a ladder to eternity… there are hours which perish or hours which join the everlasting. prayer is a crucible in which time is cast in the likeness of the eternal. humans hand over our time to god in the secrecy of single words. when anointed by prayer, a person’s thoughts and deeds do not sink into nothingness, but merge into the endless knowledge of an all embracing god. we yield our thoughts to god who endowed us with a chain of days for the duration of our lives.14 12 abraham joshua heschel, i asked for wonder: a spiritual anthology, ed. samuel h. dresner (new york: crossroads publishing company, l983), 20. 13 thomas merton, conjectures of a guilty bystander (garden city, ny: doubleday, 1966), 112, quoted in lawrence cunningham, thomas merton and the monastic ideal (grand rapids, mi: william b. eerdman publishing company, l999), 61. 14 abraham joshua heschel, the sabbath (new york: farrar, straus and young, l951), 36. o’hare, “abraham heschel and the catholic heart” 16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 13-18 and merton, first on a prosaic experience of time: …when everyone is obsessed with lack of time, lack of space, with saving time, conquering space, projecting into time and space the anguish produced within them by the technological furies of size, volume, quantity, speed, number, price, power and acceleration… an experience healed by contemplative time, “temps vierge,” “virgin time:” …not as stopgap…not a blank to be filled or an untouched space to be conquered and violated, but a space that can enjoy its own potentialities and hopes – and its own presence to itself…open to others – compassionate time rooted in a sense of common illusion and in criticism of it.15 of gratitude for ordinary things, heschel writes: the ineffable inhabits the magnificent and the common, the grandiose and the tiny facts of reality alike. some people sense this quality at distant intervals in extraordinary events; others sense it in the ordinary events, in every fold, in every nook; day after day, hour after hour. to them things are bereft of triteness. slight and simple as things may be, a morsel of bread, a word, a sigh, they hide a never ending secret: a glimpse of god? kinship with the spirit of being? an eternal flash of the will?16 15 thomas merton, “rain and the rhinoceros,” in raids on the unspeakable and the other side of the mountain, cited in the thomas merton encyclopedia, ed. william h. shannon, christine m. bochen and patrick f.o’connell (maryknoll, ny: orbis press, 2002), 486ff. 16 heschel, wonder, 28. and merton: if you penetrate by detachment and purity of heart to the inner, secret ground of your ordinary experience, you will attain to a liberation that nobody can touch.17 of silence, rabbi heschel writes: is not listening to the pulse of wonder worth silence and abstinence from self-assertion? why do we not set aside an hour for devotion to god by surrendering to stillness. we dwell on the edge of mystery and ignore it, wasting our souls and risking our stake in god.18 and, in the sabbath, that to “…enter the holiness of the day [we] must first lay down the profanity of clattering commerce.”19 and in this same vein, associating silence with “inner solitude” as he did so often, merton writes: no man who seeks liberation and light in solitude, no man who seeks spiritual freedom can afford to yield passively to all the appeals of a society of salesmen, advertisers and consumers… keep your eyes clear and your ears quiet and your mind serene. breathe god’s air. work, if you can, under his sky… but if you have to live in a city and work among machines and ride in the subways and eat in a place where the radio makes you deaf with spurious news and where the food destroys your life and the sentiments of those around you poison your heart with boredom, do 17 merton, inner experience, 69. 18 heschel, wonder, 21. 19 heschel, sabbath, 13. o’hare, “abraham heschel and the catholic heart” 17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 13-18 not be impatient. but accept it as the love of god and as a seed of solitude planted in your soul. if you are appalled by those things, you will keep your appetite for the healing silence of recollection. but meanwhile, keep your sense of compassion for the men who have forgotten the very concept of solitude.20 for heschel, as for merton, cultivating presence to god within, sanctifying time, being grateful for ordinary things and practicing to silence one’s heart, all animate and nurture prophecy, works of compassion, justice and peace. the god encountered within offers no palliative rendering passion for justice optional. time is made sacred for service, what rabbi heschel calls “the unearned right to serve.”21 gratitude for ordinary things attunes the contemplative jew and christian to how many are deprived of ordinary things. in silence we are schooled to listen to the silent voice of a god who wants justice, mercy and humility. addressing the separation of religion and politics, of church and state, abraham heschel said: …prayer as a voice of mercy, as a cry for justice, as a plea for gentleness, must not be kept apart. let the spirit of prayer dominate the world. let the spirit of prayer interfere 20 thomas merton, new seeds of contemplation (new york: new directions, l962), 84 and 87. 21 heschel, wonder, 22. in the affairs of men. prayer is private, a service of the heart, but let concern and compassion born out of prayer dominate public life…prayer is meaningless unless it is subversive, unless it seeks to overthrow and ruin pyramids of callousness, hatred, opportunism, falsehood.22 and near the end of a monastic lifetime, thomas merton wrote of the desert into which this life had led him: what is my new desert? the name of it is compassion. there is no wilderness so terrible, so beautiful, so arid and so fruitful as the wilderness of compassion. it is the only desert that will flourish like the lily. it shall become a pool. it shall bud forth and blossom and rejoice with joy. it is in the desert of compassion that the thirsty land turns into springs of water, that the poor possess all things.23 susannah heschel aptly compares her father to the baal shem tov: “like the baal shem tov, he brought heaven to earth and in his writings we have a revelation of the holiness of jewish life.”24 and, too, the holiness of christian life. thanks to rabbi heschel from a catholic heart. 22 abraham joshua heschel, “on prayer,” conservative judaism 25, no.1 (fall 1970): 7f. 23 thomas merton, the intimate merton: his life from his journals, ed. jonathan montaldo and patrick hart, o.c.s.o. (san francisco: harpersanfrancisco, l992), 86. 24 heschel, moral grandeur, 32. o’hare, “abraham heschel and the catholic heart” 18 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2 editors' afterword studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): i-ii studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers in jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college e d i t o r s ’ a f t e r w o r d ruth langer and kevin spicer volume 4 (2009) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 editors’ afterword i http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009) i-ii the events of past months have made us increasingly cognizant of the fact that the work of repairing the relations between christians and jews remains unfinished. this finds negative expression in the “bumps” of the past year or so and positive expression in some forward-facing work suggesting ways to build on the progress made in past decades. the “bumps” to which articles in this issue respond include the lifting of the excommunication of bishops ordained by archbishop marcel lefebvre, especially the holocaust-denying bishop, richard williamson, and the vatican’s initial response to worldwide reactions, raising doubts about the holy see’s commitment to nostra aetate and jewish-catholic dialogue. philip cunningham’s contributions on the relationship between pope benedict xvi and jews address this directly, as do a number of the conference proceedings published here, especially those from the november 2009 annual meeting of the centers for jewishchristian relations. the events of 2009 along with these contributions to our journal serve as a stark reminder of the work still needed to be done by catholic-jewish dialogue. at the same time that tensions have arisen, we have seen great signs of hope with the release a time for recommitment: the twelve points of berlin, a call to christian and jewish communities worldwide by the international conference of christians and jews. this document, the focus of several of our articles and conference proceedings, will guide christians and jews in their dialogue for years to come. we invite contributions to future issues addressing any of the many aspects of this statement. hope, too, may be found in the articles resulting from our call for papers on “educating jews and christians in an age of dialogue.” educators play an essential role in promotion of dialogue and understanding between jews and christians. in particular, andrew ettin and ulrike wiethaus’s article, mysticism, experience, and pedagogy in jewish-christian dialogue, offers significant insight into the important work being accomplished in the area of education. other contributions on education are published here as conference proceedings. looking toward our 2010 volume, we encourage contributions on the theme “boundaries and border crossings.” articles may address relevant themes as they appear in jewish-christian relations from the past to the present and from the perspective of numerous disciplines. how do jews and christians construct identity in the presence of the other? how does our common history reflect intersection and divergence as we negotiate an understanding of one another? dvir abramowich’s article on messianic jews in australia, published here, anticipates one aspect of this theme. we encourage continued discussion of current and past calls for papers in future issues of studies in christian-jewish relations. this can be through full articles, like carys moseley’s article on niebuhr and zionism that continues the discussion of theologies of the land and state, our 2008 special topic. however, we also encourage our readers to read the materials published here, and to reflect upon them and respond to them. as we all know, dialogue is the key to understanding. therefore, we endeavor to see our journal as a place for dialogue and invite your responses to our content and the issues it addresses. editors’ afterword ii http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 the 1947 seelisberg conference: the foundation of the jewish-christian dialogue studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college t h e 1 9 4 7 s e e l i s b e r g c o n f e r e n c e : t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f t h e j e w i s h c h r i s t i a n d i a l o g u e c h r i s t i a n r u t i s h a u s e r lassalle-haus bad schönbrunn, switzerland gregorian university volume 2, issue 2(2007): 34-53 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2 rutishauser, “the 1947 seelisberg conference” 34 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 34-53 sixty years ago, in the summer of 1947, the international emergency conference on anti-semitism took place in the swiss village of seelisberg. its aim, in the immediate aftermath of world war ii, was directed at fighting the roots of the anti-semitism still rampant in many countries despite the fall of national socialist rule. within this context, its objective was also to address christian anti-judaism and to seek to achieve a new relationship between christianity and judaism. the final statement of the conference, including the now famous ten points of seelisberg, which focused on christianity’s roots in judaism, became one of the most important cornerstones of the jewish-christian dialogue. the sixty-five conference participants – prominent members of the roman catholic and reformed churches, and of the european and american jewish communities – were aware that the time was ripe, after the horror of the shoah and its destruction of six million jews, to face this dark side of religious history and european culture. they desired to put an end to a 1900 year history of distrust and enmity. they gathered with the hope that their contribution would impact religious communities worldwide. in a missive to the conference, read by abbé journet, jacques maritain, the french ambassador to the vatican, said that there ought to be a battle against this “racial and anti-semitic leprosy”1 that is itself a deepest spiritual problem, one that attempts to eradicate judaism, and ought to be of vital importance to christianity. this view has continued to be verified over the past several decades. hence, the seelisberg conference has become an important reference point in the development of the jewishchristian dialogue and in the churches’ renewed understanding of their relationship with judaism. however, academic research on anti-semitism rarely makes reference to this conference. on the one hand, this might be understood from the fact that the conference set forth few theoretical statements, focusing instead on recognized practical solutions for fighting anti-semitism. its theoretical contributions lay instead in the realm of the jewish-christian relationship. many of the socio-political research projects of the conference simply came to pass. on the other hand, interreligious dialogue came to occupy a different intellectual and social realm from sociological and socio-political research. from a historical viewpoint, seelisberg came mainly to be perceived as an interreligious conference which tackled the christian roots of anti-semitism in depth. 1 from the conference report by hans ornstein in: israelitisches wochenblatt, y. 47 no. 33/1947, 11. this essay will focus on the historical context and the development of this 1947 conference. it will present and comment, as well, on the reports of its various commissions. it will conclude with perceptions, hopes and expectations expressed sixty years later at the july 2007 colloquium in switzerland, including the declaration read and signed by catholic, protestant and jewish officials on this occasion. 1. the oxford conference of 1946 the seelisberg conference with its focus on the relationship between judaism and christianity did not materialize out of nothing. since the beginning of the twentieth century, individual jewish and christian thinkers had tried to formulate positively a new perception of this relationship which included the differences as well as the complementary self-understandings of the two faith communities. among them we shall highlight the work of the jewish philosopher, franz rosenzweig, in his star of redemption (1921), the contributions of martin buber, and leo baeck’s book das evangelium als urkunde der rutishauser, “the 1947 seelisberg conferrence” 35 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 34-53 jüdischen glaubensgeschichte (1938). in his autobiographic notes, gerhart riegner, who was associated with the jewish world council for more than sixty years, identifies christians such as the anglican james parkes, the german karl theime, paul déman in france, and the catholic theologian malcolm hay as precursors of the principles expressed at seelisberg.2 on the socio-political level a primary basis for renewal in this relationship within the population at large was the formation of various jewish-christian associations. the first of these, the national council of christians and jews, was founded in the united states in 1927,3 and was followed a short time later with a similar foundation in south africa. the effort in both countries was to counter groups hostile to minorities for racial or religious reasons – such as the ku klux klan in the usa who threatened both catholics and jews. national socialism was merely the most extreme form of this heightening of raciallyand religiously-motivated tension within national states during this inter-war period. in response to this social climate, jewish-christian working groups were established in england, australia, canada and switzerland. in 1944, while world war ii was still being waged, the american conference of christians and jews called for a gathering of representatives from the various international christian-jewish constituencies. it was not until august 1946 that this conference could take place in the english town of oxford. this oxford conference had as its aim the definition of the fundamental rights and obligations of every human being, regardless of religion and race. peace, justice and responsibility were the three key words that summed up its main focus. one of the conference commission reports stated: 2 gerhart m. riegner, ne jamais désespérer. soixante années au service du people juif et des droits de l’homme (paris, 1998), 348-352. 3 the following historical information is referenced in the introduction of international council of christian and jews, ed., reports and recommendations of the emergency conference on anti-semitism, (london, geneva, 1947), 1-4; and in keller zsolt, “theologie und politik – beginn und konkretisierung des christlichjűdischen dialogs in der schweiz,” in schweizerische zeitschrift fűr religionsund kulturgeschichte, 99 (2005): 157-159. each of the religious communities represented at the conference – jewish, roman catholic, orthodox and protestant – has suffered persecution or restriction of rights in varying degrees in different parts of the world. hate is an evil that affects humanity as a whole. each group in the conference must withstand unswervingly attacks on other groups…of all the various group tensions, that known as anti-semitism concerns the whole world and calls for special treatment. recent history shows that an attack on jewry is an attack on the fundamental principles of judaism and christianity on which our ordered human society depends. accordingly it is advisable to deal with anti-semitism as a special case requiring special treatment, though suggestions for dealing with anti-semitism may be applicable to other types of group tensions.4 for the commission, anti-semitism represented a special case of social unrest between various religious and ethnic groups, which threatened jews, christians and civil society each in its own way. so it was logical that the oxford conference demanded the convening of a separate emergency conference to specifically address anti-semitism. another demand expressed at the oxford conference was the founding of an international council of christians and jews, to provide an organization which would connect the jewish–christian efforts which were emerging in various 4 international council of christians and jews, ed., 2. rutishauser, “the 1947 seelisberg conferrence” 36 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 34-53 countries. this emergency conference, as well as the founding of the council, were to take place in switzerland. let us begin with a brief reference to the birth of the international council of christians and jews.5 on july 21-27, 1948, a conference took place at fribourg university to celebrate the founding of this international council. it had been announced the previous year at the seelisberg conference that $50,000 (us) was available for this purpose and that ch. e. hughes, co-founder of the american national council of christians and jews was to be in charge. despite the fact that the seelisberg conference had gone well, including these plans for the international council, problems arose in fribourg. the american association withdrew from its leadership function of this “worldwide fraternity” and the vatican voiced its reservations regarding the danger of religious relativism. in the end, only an international consultative committee was formed. while this did not hinder additional councils of christians and jews being formed at national levels, it was not until may, 1974 that the international council of christians and jews (iccj) was actually created. this was largely due to the renewed involvement of the powerful american national council of christians and jews, and the collaboration of the vatican, of necessity, after the second vatican council’s 1965 document, nostra aetate, had opened its doors to interreligious dialogue. while the process of founding the iccj required years, the oxford conference’s second call for a conference to combat anti-semitism was realized within one year. 5 w.w. simpson and r. weyl, the story of the international council of christians and jews. a brief history of the iccj, 1946-1995 (heppenheim, 1995), 33f. 2. assembled in the grand hotel kulm in seelisberg the international emergency conference on anti-semitism took place at seelisberg in central switzerland from july 30 through august 5, 1947. those invited included christians and jews who, due to their experience and knowledge, were capable of contributing to the theme in a substantive manner. in other words, the conference participants spoke in their own names, not as official representatives of their faith communities, even though they all held such titles. given the importance placed on the international character of the conference, representation from all the european countries and the usa was ensured. as expected, the presidents of the national jewish-christian organizations were present, as were representatives of the world council of churches and the german bishops’ conference. other participants included professors from the universities of sofia and fribourg, the chief rabbis of budapest and bucharest, the representative of the chief rabbi of france, and rabbi dr. taubes from zurich. jules isaac, the french historian of jewish descent, was a signficant protagonist at the conference. willard e. goslin, from the reformed church tradition and active in the american educational system, presided over the conference. he was assisted by the british jew, neville laski, and the franciscan friar, calliste lopinot. dr. pierre visseur from geneva and rev. w.w. simpson from london served as executive secretaries. 6 the conference commencement included the reading of messages of greeting, such as the welcome from the swiss union president and the communication from the director 6 for a complete list of participants and conference commissions see the addendum to this article on pages 50-53. rutishauser, “the 1947 seelisberg conferrence” 37 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 34-53 general of unesco. then the specific agenda of the conference was presented: • first: an inventory of current anti-semitism in various european countries and the disclosure of the reasons for its continuation and increase even after the war. all general theoretical dissertations were avoided, in favor of a solution-oriented process. • second: the development of practical measures to combat anti-semitism at all levels of society, through short-term strategies or by long-term measures which would obstruct its re-emergence. • third: a contribution to the healing of the jewishchristian relationship was to be begun.7 english and french were the two official languages, the use of german having been denied due to the bitter aftertaste this language held for the jews in the wake of the experience with national socialism. this is but one example of the difficult ambiance within which the participants with differing religious and national backgrounds gathered around one table, so soon after the war, to address the delicate issue of anti-semitism. the first plenum then debated and discussed previouslyprepared statements and reports on the situation of antisemitism and of refugees. on the evening of the second day the conference participants divided into five commissions whose work was brought back to the plenum at various times throughout the conference for input and critique. at the end of the conference each commission presented its final report to the entire conference for approval. the following 7 see israelitisches wochenblatt, y. 47 no. 33 (1947), 11. two sections will address the work and the final reports of these commissions. commissions i, ii, iv and v.8 commission i focused on the fundamental aim of this jewish-christian gathering: to combat anti-semitism. a clear enunciation of this is contained within the first of the eight paragraphs of the commission paper in the following formulation: anti-semitism is a world-wide problem which we believe can be solved only by the co-operation of all men without distinction of race and creed… co-operation in this matter is based upon the complete independence and integrity of the religious faiths and practices of each religious group. the common aim has been to combat anti-semitism as a sin against god and against humanity and as a danger to modern civilization – a danger to non-jew and jew alike, to the christian and to the follower of the jewish faith.9 this was a reaffirmation of the position which had been formulated in oxford: anti-semitism is a problem affecting the entire civilized world. it is characterized as a “sin against god and humanity”. while this terminology was to become the conventional formulation in religious documents about anti-semitism, the commission also insisted that each community of belief retain its independence on this and on all matters relating to taking judaism seriously as a people and as a nation. 8 the work of the various commissions is reported in israelitisches wochenblatt, 34 (1947) 9-11. comments on the commission reports, which follow below, can be found in international council of christians and jews, ed., 7-22. 9 international council of christians and jews, ed., 7. rutishauser, “the 1947 seelisberg conferrence” 38 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 34-53 paragraph six of the commission paper subsequently expresses the need to ensure equality for jews with all peoples. this includes their right to establish themselves in palestine, although on the eve of the creation of the state of israel it gives expression to zionism’s political concerns without mentioning them directly. full recognition of and reconciliation with the jewish people would be realized only through a material remuneration which would include their social rehabilitation. for this, it would be necessary to address the anti-semitism still rampant in the occupied territories under the communist regime in eastern europe. all racially or religiously motivated hatred should be punished by national and international law. the commission paper further highlights the various deeply-rooted grounds for anti-semitism and its ramifications, with consequences penetrating all levels of society and cautions about the subtle danger of misusing them as a political weapon. it then directs attention to the other commission reports which deal with specific aspects of the fight against anti-semitism. commission ii’s report opens with an emphatic appeal for a comprehensive educational approach, emphasizing that anti-semitism and tensions among different social and ethnic groups on all levels of society can be overcome only through reliance on human moral values and the process of democratization. here one clearly hears undertones of anxiety on behalf of the countries still under communist rule where the end of the war did not restore the freedoms of a democratic society. the commission calls upon unesco, along with state and local authorities, to help provide educators specialized in understanding the dynamics affecting the relationships between differing ethnic and religious groups, and capable of implementing effective group processes and dynamics. networking centers which would provide for the exchange of literature and the revision of problematic educational materials which denigrate other groups are considered a must. there is a comprehensive and inclusive focus on the education of children, students and grown-ups in the commission’s statement that “[s]pecial emphasis should be put on emotional training, and development for attitudes. to this end, the democratizing of school life is an essential medium.”10 the commission is not simply referring to the transmission of knowledge about other ethnic groups and communities of belief. it is calling for an all-encompassing approach to educating the whole person in a manner which will enable human beings to live together in a multicultural society. in ten brief paragraphs commission iv addresses civic and social duties, beginning with the acknowledgment that situations regarding the peaceful cohabitation of various groups differ greatly from country to country. it appeals to all jews and christians, but particularly to their religious leaders, to not only to be present for their own community but to also become involved in other associations, which might well be interreligious, to share in the responsibility for the well-being of the others and the entire society. the commission states: “it would help to allay prejudice by showing the general public that deep religious conviction naturally expresses itself not in antisocial behavior but in care for the welfare of others.”11 in this context the commission highlights the important role of mass media, indicating that its power be acknowledged and used effectively in the fight against anti-semitism. given the impact of the significant number of war refugees in europe, the commission formulated an actual change in 10 ibid., 12. 11 ibid., 17. rutishauser, “the 1947 seelisberg conferrence” 39 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 34-53 perspective on them, one still relevant today: “refugees are too often regarded simply as a burden on the receiving country; but it is a social duty to lay emphasis on the new cultural contributions and industrial skills that strangers have often brought with them to the enrichment of their new countries.”12 migration-related problems themselves are perceived as a frequent cause of anti-semitism, even if the migrating foreigners are not jews. the commission here recognizes the irrational assumptions many make with regard to the social ‘other.’ while commission iv dealt with issues relating to civil society and to non-governmental organizations, commission v focused on governments, addressing them with four resolutions. resolution i dealt with legal issues. resolution ii expanded on commission i’s call for reparations. this it had established as a foundational principle, namely that all states were obligated to human rights and to compensate jews for their losses during the war. resolution iii, directed specifically to the victorious allied powers, addressed antisemitism in the countries under communist rule in an effort to combat anti-semitism in eastern europe through political pressure and information. the final resolution concerning the war refugees states: no civilized person would deny to those who years ago were taken away from their homes against their will, the right to relief and to recuperation and the right to build up their own lives afresh. but owing to international conditions which do not come into the province of this conference, the right to build up their lives afresh has been withheld from thousands of them for years. they cannot go to the countries where they want to live. the doors of palestine are in effect closed to them.13 12 ibid., 18. 13 ibid., 21. here, governments are called upon to make possible whatever imaginable, to assist war refugees in settling and building up their lives, where and how they desire. in an additional resolution concerning human rights and the palestinian problem, the conference condemned any form of terrorism in palestine and called for finding a “just solution” in the middle east. commission iii given the specific nature and purpose of this paper, further comment on the commissions and resolutions discussed above is not required. however, the work of commission iii, which contributed so significantly to the future jewish-christian dialogue, deserves more extensive elaboration. the role of the churches at the outset, the conference regarded the work of commission iii as a particularly difficult task as well as one of great historic importance. all present were aware of the fact that, over the centuries, christian anti-judaism had established a culture of contempt against the jews, serving as a precondition which enabled modern racialist antisemitism to express itself without limitation. hence, this commission – committed as it was to the fundamental improvement of the jewish-christian relationship – worked with special intent and care. its paper’s opening statement therefore declared that, in the work of this commission, catholics, protestants and jews aimed to work with candor and cordiality. for a number of the participants this was their first involvement in an ecumenical and interreligious working group. rutishauser, “the 1947 seelisberg conferrence” 40 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 34-53 after the initial meeting of the entire commission, where a first draft of the text had been presented, the christian commission members withdrew and consulted about it among themselves.14 after reworking it, they again presented the draft to the entire commission. this version was then scrutinized by separate catholic and protestant groups to allow for further denomination-specific reconsideration. another interdenominational christian meeting discussed the text, before it was brought back to the full commission yet again. only then was the document forwarded to the conference plenum for acceptance, but with the understanding that only an abbreviated version of it would be published immediately after the conference. a full version was to be sent to representatives of the various churches for acceptance prior to making it available to the press. since the various church authorities voiced no substantial opposition to the text, offering only minor queries and additions, this procedure went through as planned. given the historical importance of this commission iii document and the fact that it is not easily accessible, it will be presented here in its entirety. first, the short version as accepted by the conference: moved by the sufferings of the jewish people, the third commission, in the course of a frank and cordial collaboration between jewish and christian members, both roman catholic and protestant, were faced with the tragic fact that certain theologically inexact conceptions and certain misleading presentations of the gospel of love, while essentially opposed to the spirit of christianity, contribute to the rise of anti-semitism. 14 these details about how the commission worked can be found in international council of christians and jews, ed., 4f. having recognized this, the christian members put forward certain proposals with regard to the content and form of christian teaching, which should serve not only to combat anti-semitism, but also to promote good relations between jews and christians. these deal, among other points, with the need to emphasize the close bonds which exist between judaism and christianity, the need to present the passion story in such a way as not to arouse animosity against the jews, and to eliminate from christian teaching and preaching the idea that the jewish people are under a curse. on their part, the jewish members of the commission declare that they will seek to avoid in jewish teaching anything which would prejudice good relations between christians and jews. jews and christians alike pledge themselves to promote mutual respect for that which is sacred to each religion.15 this text begins by stating that theologically imprecise and erroneous representations of the gospel have contributed to anti-semitism. the choice of the expression “gospel of love” serves to highlight this. thus the commission makes the important point that it does not understand the gospel to be in itself or constitutively anti-jewish, as is occasionally claimed today, but rather, it becomes so only when inaccurately read and interpreted. the christian commission participants do take responsibility for the birth of anti-semitism without, however, devaluing christian teaching. rather, for theological rectification, for combating anti-semitism and for ameliorating the jewish-christian relationship, they propose three fundamental measures: 15 ibid., 13. rutishauser, “the 1947 seelisberg conferrence” 41 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 34-53 1. the antagonism between judaism and christianity – inscribed repeatedly through juxtaposed slogans as: law-gospel, god of hatred-god of love, justicemercy, ritualistic-prophetic, etc. – should be vanquished by emphasizing the bond which unites the two religions. part two of the document will spell out what constitutes this bond. 2. since medieval times the passion texts and presentations on the crucifixion of jesus have led acts of violence against jews. the gospel of john is especially prone to anti-judaic interpretation, given the manner in which it presents a collective role for the jews in jesus’ trial. therefore, the commission requests the composition of a very careful interpretation which will not incite hatred against jews. 3. the teaching of the rejection and condemnation of the jews, which has been an integral theological component of christian salvation history since the time of the early church, is definitively denounced. based on the “charge of deicide” taught since melito of sardis (circa 190 ce) the jewish people were rejected by god, were deprived of their role in salvation history, or served only as a negative example for the church which, through christ, had become the true israel. this “teaching of contempt,” as jules isaac called it, served as the undisputed basis of higher theology’s supersessionist approach to salvation history, while at the same time promoting a simplistic good vs. evil paradigm that was convenient for preachers and easily understood by the masses. through this pragmatic declaration that the jews should not be perceived as cursed, the seelisberg document explicitly rejected the teaching of supersessionism without, however, proposing an alternative theological understanding of the relationship between judaism and christianity. with similar precision and formality this brief first portion of the document then states that the jews within the commission also commit themselves to refrain from whatever could undermine the good relations between the two faith communities, expressing as well their appreciation of the sacred in christianity. what is striking in this general formulation is not merely its avoidance of any specific details, but also the fact that christians are neither accused nor asked to apologize publicly for the harm inflicted to the jewish people. expressions and demands of this nature were to become part of later developments in the jewishchristian relationship. the ten points of seelisberg when commission iii presented its document in the plenum, the conference participants listened intently and then, without any discussion, affirmed the document. this included also the second part which, as discussed above, was published only several months later, after having been submitted to the respective ecclesial authorities. this second part includes the famous ten points of seelisberg which develop the three objectives outlined in the first part of the document. this second part begins by pointing to the catastrophe of the shoah, recalling that this occurred in a christian society. it goes on to state that anti-semitism, in spite of the defeat of national socialism, is continuing to poison christians and all of humanity: we have recently witnessed an outburst of anti-semitism which has led to the persecution and extermination of millions of jews living in a christian environment. in spite rutishauser, “the 1947 seelisberg conferrence” 42 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 34-53 of the catastrophe which has overtaken both the persecuted and the persecutors, and which has revealed the extent of the jewish problem in all its alarming gravity and urgency, anti-semitism has lost none of its force, but threatens to extend to other regions, to poison the minds of christians and to involve humanity more and more in a grave guilt with disastrous consequences. the christian churches have indeed always affirmed the anti-christian character of anti-semitism, but it is shocking to discover that two thousand years of preaching of the gospel of love have not sufficed to prevent the manifestation among christians, in various forms, of hatred and distrust towards the jews. this would have been impossible if all christians had been true to the teaching of jesus christ on the mercy of god and love of one’s neighbor. but this faithfulness should also involve clear-sighted willingness to avoid any presentation and conception of the christian message which would support anti-semitism under whatever form. we must recognize, unfortunately, that this vigilant willingness has often been lacking. we therefore address ourselves to the churches to draw their attention to this alarming situation. we have the firm hope that they will be concerned to show to their members how to prevent any animosity towards the jews which might arise from false, inadequate, or mistaken presentations or conceptions of the teaching and preaching of christian doctrine, and how on the other hand to promote brotherly love towards the sorely-tried people of the old covenant.16 16 ibid., 14. despite the fact that the churches explicitly and officially dissociated themselves from anti-semitism, it was ascertained with horror that the hatred of jews could not be eliminated from the preaching of the gospel of love. fidelity to the true gospel was lacking, and above all, the active commitment needed to present the christian message in a manner which avoided any expression of animosity towards the jews. in order to prepare for this task, the commission had prepared ten teaching points. the form and content of these points were greatly influenced by the initiative of jules isaac who had presented to the conference the manuscript of his book on the roots of anti-semitism, jesus and israel.17 he had worked on this manuscript in the underground since 1943, after having been dismissed from pairs by the vichy regime and after having lost his family members through the gestapo deportations. the aim of his historical, exegetical work had been to clarify whether jesus had rejected the jewish people as a whole and whether the jews had been collectively cursed for their rejection of jesus as messiah, as the churches were teaching.18 isaac had summarized the results of his 500 pages of research into 18 theses19 which presented jesus in the context of the vibrant jewish environment of his time. 17 cf., jules isaac, jesus and israel (paris, 1948). cf. eugene j. fisher, “catholic teaching on jews and judaism: an evolution in process” in mary c.boys, ed., seeing judaism anew: christianity’s sacred obligation (new york, 2005), 252f. 18 jules isaac, genèse de l’antisemitisme (paris 1956), 14. this book is isaac’s defense against theological and historical critics of his book jesus and israel. 19 these theses are reprinted in: dorothee recker, die wegbereiter der judenerklärung des zweiten vatikanischen konzils. johannes xxiii., kardinal bea und prälat österreicher – eine darstellung ihrer theologischen entwicklung (paderborn, 2007), 402-405. recker presents the work of jules isaac on pp. 400-420. rutishauser, “the 1947 seelisberg conferrence” 43 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 34-53 the influence of his work is evident in the following ten points which the commission iii document recommends: nothing would seem more calculated to contribute to this happy result than the emphasizing of the following points: 1. remember that one god speaks to all through the old and the new testaments. 2. remember that jesus was born of a jewish mother of the seed of david and the people of israel, and that his everlasting love and forgiveness embrace his own people and the whole world. 3. remember that the first disciples, the apostles, and the first martyrs were jews. 4 remember that the fundamental commandment of christianity, to love god and one’s neighbor, proclaimed already in the old testament and confirmed by jesus, is binding upon both christians and jews in all human relationships, without any exception. 5. avoid disparaging biblical or post-biblical judaism with the object of extolling christianity. 6. avoid using the word jews in the exclusive sense of the enemies of jesus, and the words the enemies of jesus to designate the whole jewish people. 7. avoid presenting the passion in such a way as to bring the odium of the killing of jesus upon jews alone. in fact, it was not all the jews who demanded the death of jesus. it is not the jews alone who are responsible, for the cross which saves us all reveals that it is for the sins of us all that christ died. remind all christian parents and teachers of the grave responsibility which they assume, particularly when they present the passion story in a crude manner. by so doing they run the risk of implanting an aversion in the conscious or sub-conscious minds of their children or hearers, intentionally or unintentionally. psychologically speaking, in the case of simple minds, moved by a passionate love and compassion for the crucified savior, the horror which they feel quite naturally towards the persecutors of jesus will easily be turned into an undiscriminating hatred of the jews of all times, including those of our own day. 8. avoid referring to the scriptural curses, or the cry of a raging mob: his blood be upon us and upon our children, without remembering that this cry should not count against the infinitely more weighty words of the lord: father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they do. 9. avoid promoting the superstitious notion that the jewish people is reprobate, accursed, reserved for a destiny of suffering. 10. avoid speaking of the jews as if the first members of the church had not been jews. we make the following practical suggestions: the introduction or development in school instruction and elsewhere, at each stage, of a more sympathetic and more profound study of biblical and post-biblical history of the jewish people, as well as of the jewish problem. in particular the promotion of the spread of this knowledge by publications adapted to all classes of christian people. to ensure the correction of anything in christian publications and above all in educational handbooks which would be in conflict with the above principles. rutishauser, “the 1947 seelisberg conferrence” 44 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 34-53 our common endeavors are inspired by the spirit of the words of st. paul in romans xi, 28-29: they are beloved for the fathers’ sake. for the gifts and the calling of god are without repentance.20 the first four points start with “remember that” and recall central facts of the christian story of salvation, which underline, above all, the unity and continuity between the old and the new testaments. the first thesis highlights that the same god is the narrator of both the new and the old testaments. by referring to this historical reality, it provides a unifying context bracketing the differences in the jewish and christian understandings of god especially around issues of the trinity. the jewish descent of jesus (here in thesis two, but set in parallel with the jewishness of mary, the apostles and the earliest christian martyrs in thesis three) is expanded with the affirmation that god’s love and mercy continue for the jewish people and for the entire world. the difficult, theological question regarding how the old sinai covenant and the new covenant of the church are related is circumvented through the assertion that god’s love for the jewish people continues. thus the document sets forth positive alternatives to replace the belief that the jews have been cursed by god, while at the same time avoiding the need to become embroiled in problematic, complex theological issues. this reveals how astutely the commission proceeded to accomplish its objective to provide a solution-oriented foundation paper for the faith communities without attempting to develop a comprehensive theological document. point four’s commentary on the dual commandment of love of god and love of neighbor, common to both jews and christians, demonstrates not only another deep similarity between the two faith communities but also includes a call to unconditional love for all people. in this way the commission skillfully addresses the more comprehensive goal of the conference: to promote justice for all people, to acknowledge common human rights, and to overcome all ethnic and religious animosity. 20 ibid., 14ff. the following six points begin with the admonition to “avoid,” although the first in this group (§5) follows the content of the preceding four which focus on the ties which unite jews and christians. what has been expressed positively in the first four points, is now declared in a negative manner: formulating christian identity over against biblical and post-biblical judaism contradicts the common tie expressed in theses one to four. the end of the document calls christians to a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of jewish history, including the old testament. only if judaism is perceived in this manner, will it cease being perceived solely as the precursor of christianity. theses six to eight address the need for a responsible treatment of the passion narratives, responding to the second aim of the conference. just as christianity is not to be set in opposition to judaism, so the jews collectively are not to be set in opposition to jesus. during jesus’ lifetime jews were not collectively as a people opposed to jesus; such an opposition should not be constructed between jesus christ and jewish history either. over the last several decades exegetical research has taken this caveat and hermeneutical guideline seriously. today, the confrontations presented in the gospels between jesus and the pharisees are understood as intra-jewish confrontations, or as a sociological reflex in the early christian community’s attempt to establish and demarcate its own identity.21 21 see for example walter dietrich, martin georg und ulrico luz, eds., antijudaismus – christliche erblast (stuttgart, 1999). rutishauser, “the 1947 seelisberg conferrence” 45 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 34-53 the seventh thesis addresses the question of guilt for the crucifixion of jesus, and calls theological versus historical viewpoints into consciousness. the theology of expiation through the cross is based on the spiritual conviction that all people throughout history by their sins brought jesus to the cross. at the historical level this document makes the correction that not all jews collectively can be held accountable. that it makes no mention of the participation of the romans is startling in this context. however, suggestions that were rejected at the conference illustrate the struggles over the formulation of this passage. for example, the rumanian rabbi alexandre safran reports that his jewish colleague, jules isaac, had agreed to include the positive formulation that some jews “killed god.” he was, however, dissuaded, in a private conversation, since collective jewish responsibility could easily have been deduced from this acknowledgment.22 further historical research is needed more adequately to reconstruct the discussions of this meeting. at this point let us draw attention again to the practical and pastoral concerns of the entire document. these become manifest, if one is speaking of the psychological and unconscious effects of telling and hearing the passion narrative. simple solidarity with jesus the victim can reflexively provoke animosity toward the jews. this principle applies more widely, as the social-psychological aspects of anti-judaism and anti-semitism should also be taken into consideration. thesis eight, which is almost identical to a passage in jules isaac’s book jesus and israel, 23 juxtaposes the jewish blood cry as recounted in mt 25:27, “his blood be upon us and upon our children,” with the words of jesus in lk 23:34, “father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” the thesis accords greater weight to the words of jesus. whether one agrees with this evaluation or not, or how one thinks these two verses should be brought into relationship with each other, shall remain undecided here. what is important is that the blood cry, like any other verse, should not be taken out of context. 22 alexandre safran, den flammen entrissen. die jüdischen gemeinden in rumänien 1939-1947 erinnerungen (tübingen, basel, 1989) 221-224. 23 cf. freiburger rundbrief, xvi/xvii (1964/65): 57. these points relating to aspects of the passion narrative have already highlighted several reasons why christians have perceived jews as accursed. to further help overcome this, following the third proposal of the first part of the document, the ninth thesis again explicitly refutes as superstition the conception that the jews are an accursed people destined to suffer. the label “superstition” is appropriate, because it indicates that the conception is a perversion of what the bible teaches, namely that israel is to be seen as a chosen people. (cf., ex 19:5; is 44:1f; 49:7) the tenth thesis reiterates negatively what had already been recalled positively in the third point, namely that the early church in essence consisted of jews. in contrast to the third thesis, it considers not only the apostles and the first great christian witnesses, but also the primordial church as a community. nevertheless, this last point readily leaves the impression that it is a superfluous repetition. in content it belongs to the first four points. appearing as a tenth point, it stands in isolation. obviously, the decision to have ten points was a deliberate choice to lend weight and authority to the entire document, in parallel to the ten commandments of sinai. the document ends with the appeal that its contents be spread as widely as possible – relating to commission ii’s work on education – and concludes with a citation from the letter to the romans which provides the biblical foundation rutishauser, “the 1947 seelisberg conferrence” 46 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 34-53 and the exegetical springboard for the work of the entire commission: notwithstanding the coming of christ and the establishment of the new covenant through him, the old covenant is not revoked and consequently the jewish people’s divine calling endures throughout history. (rm 911). some twenty years later, these same chapters from romans would also become determinative for the second vatican council’s document, nostra aetate and its rethinking of the jewish-christian relationship.24 3. sixty years later looking back at the seelisberg conference from the vantage point of the present day, it is remarkable to note with what farsightedness and socio-political realism the participants were able to lay a foundation for the jewishchristian dialogue and for the fight against anti-semitism. these two efforts were still very integrated at seelisberg but became increasingly differentiated during the developments of the 1950’s. this has led to the fact that in western society, dialogue between jews and christians has taken on a less political and much more interreligious character, in spite of an increasing focus on the israeli-palestinian conflict. however, in both realms, the seelisberg conference had prophetic significance, since not only have many of its recommendations in the social, educational and legal domains been fulfilled or are in various stages of development, but also in the interreligious realm, the major c h u r c h e s h a v e a f f i r m e d t h e p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n christianity and judaism. today it has become commonplace to speak about a judeo-christian tradition, something that was inconceivable in 1947. r e g a r d i n g t h e e v o l u t i o n o f t h e j e w i s h c h r i s t i a n d i a l o g u e , it is significant to note that the commission iii recommendations were fully integrated into the vatican council ii document, nostra aetate, attributing to them, from the roman catholic side, the authority of a church council. similar things can be said about many documents of the reformed churches that radically revise their relationship with jews and judaism. 24 cf., nostra aetate, §4. 25 the deicide charge and the teaching of contempt are no longer a part of mainstream christian theology; they are now largely a vestige of history. however, since seelisberg, the critical voice has at times attacked so harshly that valid elements of christian faith have been held as anti-jewish or, from the jewish perspective, as a relapse into paganism.26 a theory of the inherent anti-judaism in the gospel of john or in the christology of the early church has also at times been advanced, something that had no role in the thinking of the seelisberg participants. but, since seelisberg, innumerable theological topics relevant to jewish-christian dialogue have been studied from both jewish and christian perspectives, considering their similarities and differences. the concept of messiah, the meaning of chosenness, the concepts sin, expiation and sacrifice, the liturgy, the significance of law and gospel, are only a few examples.27 while the seelisberg conference did not focus on these questions, it was its vision that first opened up these problematic fields. 25 many of these documents can be found in rolf rendtorff und hans hermann henrix, eds., die kirchen und das judentum. dokumente von 1945-1985 (paderborn münchen, 1988), and in hans hermann henrix und wolfgang kraus, eds., die kirchen und das judentum. dokumente von 1985 bis 2000, 2 (paderborn, 2000). 26 see for example jean-francois lyotard und eberhard gruber, ein bindestrich. zwischen “jüdischem“ und “christlichen” (düsseldorf, 1995). 27 two jewish-christian dictionaries should be mentioned here: clemens thoma und jakob j. petuchowski, lexikon der jüdisch-christlichen begegnung. hintergründe-klärungen-perspektiven (freiburg, basel, wien, 1994); edward kessler and neil wenborn, eds., a dictionary of jewish-christian relations (cambridge, 2005). rutishauser, “the 1947 seelisberg conferrence” 47 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 34-53 also deserving attention in this context is the fundamental transformation in the definition of the relationship between judaism and christianity itself. the seelisberg document still presents christianity as emerging from judaism and the old testament, i.e., that judaism is the “mother religion” of c h r i s t i a n i t y a s s u g g e s t e d b y t h e o l i v e t r e e m e t a p h o r i n r m 11. however, recent historical research suggests instead another metaphor of judaism and christianity as sibling religions, both as legitimate outgrowths or branches from biblical judaism.28 though judaism is certainly more ancient than christianity, its present, continuing valid form was shaped largely during the talmudic period, contemporaneously with and influenced by christianity. both faith communities arose within this complex process of differentiation over against each other.29 in such a situation of mutual self-referencing and differentiation, to imagine jews to be the “parent” of christians is to magnify complexity, to minimize the points of symmetry, and hence also to increase conflict. the siblings metaphor serves as a more appropriate explanation, incorporating as well centuries-old prototypical precedents such as the classical pair of brothers, jacob and esau – the juxtaposition through which rabbinical tradition viewed the two religions – and the christian example of the merciful father with his two sons (cf., lk 15) similarly interpreted as 28 see alan f segal., rebecca’s children. judaism and christianity in the roman worlds (cambridge, ma, london, 1986). 29 a few examples, among many, addressing this include: hershel shanks, ed., christianity and rabbinic judaism: a parallel history of their origins and early development (washington, d.c., 1992); james d.g. dunn, ed., jews and christians: the parting of the ways a.d. 70 to 135 – wissenschafliche untersuchungen zum neuen testament, 66 (tübingen, 1992); daniel boyarin, border lines: the partition of judeo-christianity (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2004); israel yuval, zwei völker in deinem leib. gegenseitige wahrnehmung von juden und christen in spätantike und mittelalter (göttingen, 2007). jews and christians. that the two siblings will walk towards the future reconciled is only to be hoped for. this spirit of reconciliation and unity pervaded the celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of the seelisberg conference on july 6-8, 2007. a jewish-christian scholarly colloquium was hosted at the lassalle-haus in bad schönbrunn near zug in central switzerland.30 these seelisberg anniversary festivities included the reading of a new joint declaration on seelisberg itself. though bearing a national character – since it was proclaimed and signed by the swiss bishops’ conference, the federation of swiss protestant churches and the swiss federation of jewish communities – the statement can be understood as representative of many communities in the western world. following is the text of the new ten-point 2007 seelisberg declaration: the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the “emergency conference on anti-semitism” held in seelisberg in 1947 p r o v i d e s u s w i t h a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o l o o k b a c k a t t h e s u c c e s s f u l pioneering phase of jewish-christian cooperation in switzerland. the attitudes of the reformed churches and the roman catholic church toward judaism have changed fundamentally, from a relationship of ambivalence and mistrust or even enmity to one of coexistence and brotherly and sisterly cooperation. anti-judaism and anti-semitism have been reduced strongly in our country through a variety of religious, educational, social, and political initiatives. in light of the current major changes within our increasingly pluralistic and complex society as a whole, we are confronted with the appearance of regressive and reactionary currents. the signers thus commit themselves now and in the future: 30 the proceedings are published by and may be obtained from lassallehaus: christian m rutishauser, impulse für die zukunft des jüdischchristlichen dialogs. zum 60. jahrestag der seelisberg-thesen (edlibach/zug, 2007). www.lassalle-haus.org rutishauser, “the 1947 seelisberg conferrence” 48 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ http://www.lassalle-haus.org/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 34-53 to combat every form of discrimination based on ethnic background or beliefs; to work ceaselessly on the sensitive relationship between jewish congregations and christian churches; to seek out and promote mutual understanding and theological dialogue; and to draw on the best of one’s own religious traditions for an existence in peace and justice within swiss society. we call upon all members of our churches and religious societies to bear responsibility in this regard within their congregations and in the public arena, and to introduce their own initiatives to this end. we also call upon all public figures, whether they are active in political, economic, or social fields of endeavor, but also each and every member of society to actively work toward these goals. the jews and christians of our country are faced with the following challenges, which they can only tackle with combined forces: the lasting integration of an historical understanding of the shoah into the consciousness of all members of society; an objective and constructive reaction to events in the middle east, especially those in israel/palestine; the integration of the muslims who live together with us in our society; the public and political presence of religious groups for the benefit of the entire populace; effective assistance in the light of new social injustices; the advancement of concrete measures for the protection of our earth, which has been placed in our hands, and of god’s creation. we would all like to encourage all members of society to join together in this work at all levels. we hope and trust that god, may his name be praised, allows these efforts to bear fruit.“31 31 the swiss federation of jewish communities, swiss bishops’ conference, federation of swiss protestant churches, eds., 60 jahre seelisberger thesen. der grundstein jüdisch-christlicher begegnung ist gelegt! (bern, fribourg, zürich, 2007) 4f. together, these look back over the achievements of the jewish-christian dialogue, designating the past several decades as a pioneering phase. the brochure for the festivities that the three signatories also published, says that the foundation for dialogue has been laid. they consider it their duty to build on this foundation and strengthen this relationship through their commitment to the four points outlined in their joint declaration. it is important to note that, like the 1947 conference documents, this new seelisberg statement also integrates the religious and the socio-political orientations. this is appropriate, given the current religious resurgence in public and political discourse. at the same time, it addresses the regressive tendencies that accompany the current social revolutions. these will be challenged by people committed to their being jews and christians. the second part of the document, in six points, calls on the representatives of politics and business, as well as all citizens, to work together on the jewish-christian question, anti-semitism, as well as the wider social problem of hatred of the stranger. the first three points address the lessons of the shoah, the israeli-palestinian conflict and the increasing muslim presence in the west. in this, they refer to the sources and provocations of socio-political conflict which the three monotheistic religions inscribe in the globalized world. the declaration also emphasizes their contribution to world society, especially in the realm of social justice and ecological responsibility. that jews and christians should be credible to outsiders for their altruistic contributions to the world had already been formulated at seelisberg in 1947. (an addendum listing the 1947 seelisberg conference particpants and commissions is found on the following pages.) rutishauser, “the 1947 seelisberg conferrence” 49 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 34-53 a d d e n d u m 11 99 44 77 ss ee ee ll ii ss bb ee rr gg cc oo nn ff ee rr ee nn cc ee pp aa rr tt ii cc ii pp aa nn tt ss aa nn dd cc oo mm mm ii ss ss ii oo nn ss archiv für zeitgeschichte (eth zürich), ib juna-archiv / 853 conference officers: chairmen: dr. w. e. goslin, minneapolis and new york, usa neville laski, k.c., london, great britain rev. fr. calliste lopinot, ofm, cap., rome, italy secretaries: rev. w.w. simpson, london, great britain dr. pierre visseur, geneva, switzerland rutishauser, “the 1947 seelisberg conferrence” 50 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 34-53 membership of commissions: 1. the principal objectives of jewish-christian cooperation in relation to the combating of anti-semitism chairman: rev. r. clephane macanna, edinburgh, scotland vice-chairman: prof. s. brodetsky, london, great britain secretary: dr. s. flowerman, new york, usa dr. thomas berman, prague, czechoslovakia dr. everett r. clinchy, new york, usa dr. georg guggenheim, zurich, switzerland mr. josue jehouda, geneva, switzerland rabbi dr. alexander safran, bucharest, rumania 2. educational opportunity in schools and universities chairman: prof. dr. h. thirring, vienna, austria vice-chairman: dr. willard goslin, minneapolis and new york, usa secretary: rabbi julian feibelman, usa dr. a. brodersen, unesco, paris, france dr. julius gorecki, warsaw, poland prof. wilhelm neuss, bonn am rhein, germany prof. paul reiwald, geneva, switzerland dr. hilda taba, new york, usa rabbi georges vadnai, marseilles, france 3. the task of the churches chairman: rev. fr. calliste lopinot, ofm, cap., rome, italy vice-chairman: bishop miroslav novak, prague, czechoslovakia secretary: rev. dr. e. l. allen, northumberland, great britain prof. dr. e. bickel, zurich, switzerland mlle. madeleine davy, paris, france rev. fr. paul demann, louvain, belgium rutishauser, “the 1947 seelisberg conferrence” 51 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 34-53 pastor a. freudenberg, geneva, switzerland prof. jules isaac, aix en provence, france abbé journet, fribourg, switzerland rabbi j. kaplan, paris, france rev. fr. de menasce, fribourg, switzerland dr. a. newlin, geneva, switzerland rabbi w. rosenblum, new york, usa rev. robert smith, prague, czechoslovakia rabbi dr. zwi chaim taubes, zurich, switzerland 4. work in the field of civic and social service chairman: mr. percy bartlett, london, great britain vice-chairman: frau prof. clara ragaz, zurich, switzerland secretary: mr. ernest levi, luxembourg dr. e. broczyner, vienna, austria mr. alfred cohen, salonika, greece mrs. stella counselbaum, chicago, usa rev. fr. r. graham, new york, usa miss esther heiberg, copenhagen, denmark rabbi dr. fabian herskovits, budapest, hungary dr. radlauer, berlin, germany dr. william warner, new york, usa 5. relations with governments chairman: kontorchef f.t.b. friis, gentofte, denmark vice-chairman: dr. stirling w. brown, berlin, germany secretary: mr. a. g. brotman, london, great britain prof. francesco carnelutti, milan and rome, italy mr. i. m. isakov, bulgaria rev. maurice jaffe, london, great britain rutishauser, “the 1947 seelisberg conferrence” 52 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 34-53 mrs. orfinger karlin, brussels, belgium frau dr. gertrude kurz, berne, switzerland dr. ernest meyer, london, great britain prof. jaques natan, sofia, bulgaria mrs. e. rothfeld, london, great britain mme. j. tumova, prague, czechoslovakia additional participants: mr. laszlo hamori, geneva, switzerland prof. dr. m.a. halevy, bucharest, rumania dr. hans ornstein, zurich, switzerland mr. sidney salomon, london, great britain additional observers: mr. tom griessemer, geneva, switzerland mme. wilhelmina schmolkova, geneva, switzerland32 32 we are grateful to the international council of christians and jews and to the united states holocaust memorial museum for providing this list of participants. rutishauser, “the 1947 seelisberg conferrence” 53 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ editors' afterword studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 209-210 editors’ afterword 209 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art27 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers in jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college editors’ afterword philip a. cunningham and edward kessler volume 1 (2005-2006): 209-210 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art27 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 209-210 editors’ afterword 210 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art27 with the four articles and five reviews published in october 2006, the first volume of studies in christianjewish relations is concluded. spanning 2005-2006, this volume testifies to the multiplicity of disciplines that contribute to the field of christian-jewish relations. peer-reviewed articles concerning bible, christian theology, documents, jewish theology, and liturgy were published in this volume, and others involving history and religious education are in preparation for volume 2. the study of jewish-christian relations has been dominated by the discipline of theology, religious studies, history or jewish studies and insufficient attention has been given to history, psychology, politics and so on. we hope the creation of this journal will lead to a broadening of the conversation so that jewish-christian relations becomes a field of study, within which people use tools and insights from a range of different disciplines to tackle broadly related questions.1 we are also pleased that in the first volume articles were written by scholars from several different countries on both sides of the atlantic. we are grateful to those authors for submitting to this fledgling scholarly electronic periodical and for their patience as we all grew accustomed to the journal publication software. 1 see further, melanie j. wright, “reflections on the goals and nature of jewish-christian relations” in edward kessler, john pawlikowski, and judith banki, eds., jews and christians in conversation (cambridge: orchard academic, 2002), 259. we would like to thank the peer reviewers, book reviewers, and reviews editors for their important contributions to this initial volume. special thanks are due to dr. audrey doetzel, nds for her invaluable assistance as managing editor in launching this first volume and in standardizing its procedures and format. thanks, too, to mark caprio, the digital repository program manager at boston college’s o'neill library for his technical assistance. we also thank the council of centers on jewish-christian relations for its support. beginning next year, each volume of studies in christian-jewish relations will correspond with the calendar year. volume 2, therefore, will include materials published in 2007. unlike this first volume in which all articles and reviews were contained within one number, subsequent issues will be published in three separate numbers throughout the year. thus, volume 2, number 1 is projected for publication in march 2007, number 2 in july, and number 3 in november. finally, we welcome suggestions from readers and contributors and hope they will help us in our goal of making this journal, and the field of christian-jewish relations, more widely known and studied. 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-3 ryan szpiech conversion and narrative: reading and religious authority in medieval polemic (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2013), hardcover, 311 pp. ora limor orali@openu.ac.il the open university of israel, ra'anana, 4353701, israel within the large body of polemical works written in the middle ages by christian, jewish, and muslim authors, especially compelling and powerful are autobiographical conversion narratives written for polemical or apologetic aims. these conversion narratives are the subject of ryan szpiech’s impressive book, conversion and narrative. such accounts often appear at the opening of polemical works, describe the circumstances of the author’s conversion, and attempt to establish his authority by citing his personal experience and his lingual and textual knowledge of the texts of his former religion. szpiech aims to show that there is a fundamental connection between conversion stories and medieval polemical writings and to understand their usefulness in presenting polemical arguments. he also seeks to explore the reasons for the reappearance of conversion stories from the twelfth century onwards, and to contextualize the importance of christian conversion narratives by comparing them to jewish and muslim ones. szpiech achieves these aims in a most powerful way through a close reading of his sources and meticulous analysis. following karl morrison, szpiech stresses the elusive quality of the term “conversion.” conversion, he writes, “is a collective representation that can be used for convenience but whose full range of significance is perpetually deferred and never definitely grasped” (pp. 16-17). he distinguishes between conversion and stories about conversion and sees the latter as “a category of discourse” (p. 6), criticizing the aspiration to reach the “real” convert that hides behind the protagonist of the conversion narrative (p. 19). from among the vast corpus of conversion narratives, szpiech chooses only those with an explicitly polemical thrust. this results in a certain homogeneity of source material, privileging learned and theological writings with a didactic aim written by male protagonists. szpiech focuses on, among others, convert authors such as moses / petrus alfonsi (early twelfth century), judah / herman of cologne (mid-twelfth century), abner of burgos / alfonso de valladoid (d. ca. 1347), solomon halevi / limor: ryan szpiech’s conversion and narrative 2 pablo de santa maría (d. 1435), giuàn / obadiah ha-ger (twelfth century), and abd allah / juan andrés (d. sixteenth century). by retaining throughout the book his protagonists’ preand post-conversion names, szpiech fixes firmly for his readers the hybridity of the converts’ personae. rather than being simply former jews or new christians, they assume a special, third identity: the convert. this is a strong analytical tool, although we can assume that the converts themselves would prefer to be called solely by their new name, the one that signifies their new identity and the radical choice they had made. the conversion narratives dealt with in the book recount personal journeys of faith, with all their attendant psychological struggles. the “narrative drama” of these literary accounts (p. 10) and religious polemics are intertwined in these texts in various ways, and szpiech skillfully disentangles this drama and exposes its power. the innovation of conversion and narrative lies in its reading of these narrations as literary constructs rather than as historical accounts. the “facticity” of the stories is of negligible importance for szpiech (p. 18). what interests him are the modes of authority found in conversion stories, which are built upon the converts’ claim to “authenticity” stemming from personal experience (e.g., p. 90). the book is comprised of a theoretical introduction followed by six chapters. the first chapter deals with two fifteenth-century accounts of converts to christianity, juan andrés and solomon halevi / pablo de santa maría. here, szpiech examines how pauline and augustinian conversion paradigms remained the template of all conversion narratives and how they were adapted and transformed with time. the second chapter returns to the twelfth century to deal with christian notions of textual authority through the anti-jewish book of moses / petrus alfonsi and the autobiographical narrative of judas / herman of cologne. szpiech strives to understand the appearance at that time of the new polemical genre— personal narratives of conversion—as a kind of response to a crisis in the understanding of the notion of textual auctoritas. these narratives sought to establish the protagonists’ authority in both their former and newly adopted faiths by demonstrating their personal struggles. the third chapter turns to several examples of conversion to judaism. szpiech claims convincingly that the accounts of bodo / eleazar (ninth century) and wecelinus (eleventh century) can be read only within a christian conceptual frame, and even the genizah narrative of giuàn / obadiah ha-ger “seems to be informed by a christian model of narrating conversion” (p. 115). in the following chapter szpiech analyzes thirteenth-century notions of authority and authenticity in the works of two famous polemicists, the dominican ramon martí, who put much weight on the importance of the original languages of his (often jewish) sources, and the “self-made convert” ramon lull, who chose reason as his main polemical tool (p. 134). although very different from each other, both lull and martí were concerned with the construction of their authority. as szpiech writes, “the recognition of non-christian authority first pursued by martí as the foundation of christian apology would become a standard of western christian argumentation” (p. 141). chapter five of the book deals with the ways in which the fourteenth-century jewish convert to christianity abner of burgos / alfonso of valladolid fashioned 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) his authority. szpiech shows how abner / alfonso’s conversion account, situated at the start of his work, defined his very identity for posterity, and how in his hands such accounts became the quintessential polemical device. this combination of personal experience (including the series of dreams he experienced) and religious knowledge forms abner / alfonso’s authoritative voice and determines its strength. “in his writings,” notes szpiech, “the threads of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries are braided into a single chain of textual authority and authorial voice” (p. 166). this chapter is the strongest in a strong book, and can be considered its most original contribution to the field. personally, i would have been glad to see more direct citations from abner / alfonso’s works that would demonstrate the qualities of the account, so well analyzed by szpiech. (more direct citations would be welcome in other chapters of the book as well.) the last chapter presents four stories of conversion to islam, comparing them to the christian examples treated earlier. the most notable of these are the stories of the former jew samaw’al al-maghribī (thirteenth century) and the exfranciscan anselm turmeda / ’abd allāh al-turjumān (fifteenth century). both adopt a supersessionist ideology that sees in islam a final truth that encapsulates and surpasses the former faiths. the inclusion of jewish and muslim texts permits a multi-cultural perspective on the topic, although, as the author asserts, the model of all these conversion stories remains christian, and the conversions stories of saul / paul and especially of augustine underly “both the imagery and the conceptualization of conversion” in christian as well as in non-christian sources. szpiech is not interested in the reception of the texts, their readers, their influence, or the impact they had (or did not have). these are all questions he leaves to historians of polemics. he also refrains from delving into the polemical arguments used in his sources, because, as he rightly asserts, while the arguments are common and even at times formulaic, the narrative elaborations in many of his sources are not. the book offers an insightful reading of these narrative elaborations. while it is charged with theoretical discussions within the categories of literary criticism that may not be as familiar to historians of polemics, it is worth the effort. in szpiech’s own words, “conversion stories function as a sort of shorthand of belief, summing up an entire theology of history in a single symbolic gesture of faith” (p. 219). 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-3 michael meerson and peter schäfer, eds. and trans. toledot yeshu: the life story of jesus two volumes and database vol. i: introduction and translation vol. ii: critical edition (texts and studies in ancient judaism 159) (tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2014), xvii + 716 pp. katja vehlow katja.vehlow@gmail.com university of south carolina, columbia, sc 29208 the book of the life of jesus (toledot yeshu) tells the story of jesus from a jewish, anti-christian perspective, from his illegitimate birth through his various heretical acts to his disgraceful death. toledot yeshu does not reveal new details about the historical jesus. rather, the texts assembled in these volumes demonstrate how jews who composed toledot yeshu approached traditions about jesus over a long period of time, and the christian responses to the jewish approaches. jews and christians alike embraced this controversial work, with jews largely reading it as a truthful account and christians denouncing its subversive nature. indeed, for centuries, some ashkenazi jews read toledot yeshu on christmas eve when torah study was prohibited. the book’s appeal extended well beyond europe. while this edition focuses on the hebrew and aramaic versions—additional yiddish, judeo-arabic, ladino, and judeo-persian texts are mentioned but not considered—surviving texts originated in france, germany, the netherlands, northern italy, eastern europe, russia, north africa, yemen, bukhara, baghdad, and even the united states (in a text copied in 1895). this publication of toledot yeshu in two volumes along with an online database presents the results of the toledot yeshu project, an international enterprise located at princeton university and directed by peter schäfer and michael meerson and with the collaboration of yaacov deutsch, david grossberg, avigail manekin, and adina yoffie. the project continues the work of samuel krauss, who first demonstrated the work’s complex textual history (1902), as well as william horbury (1970) and ricardo di segni (1984). analyzing 107 hebrew and aramaic manuscripts, including some recently discovered texts, this edition puts this important and voluminous cluster of texts at the fingertips of those interested in jewish-christian relations and polemics. they can now turn to a critical edition vehlow: meerson and schäfer’s toledot yeshu 2 that conveniently bundles, analyzes, and presents the material in english and hebrew. schäfer and meerson divide the texts into three groups, each characterized by a narrative structure and organized according to a hypothetical chronology. the dynamic nature of toledot yeshu makes clear-cut classifications difficult. group i, for example, is further subdivided into five versions, while groups ii and iii consist of seventeen different versions. the editors suggest that group i, a cluster of aramaic texts, represents the earliest layer of the toledot yeshu versions. like the later strata, this material probably evolved around a shared core of texts, but the fragmentary nature of the extant manuscripts does not disclose an identifiable narrative. neither group ii nor iii, together containing over 100 manuscripts, can be assigned chronological priority, nor do they share episodes and characters. while group i can be read as something akin to folklore, which was likely intended to amuse the reader, groups ii and iii “can reasonably be considered as artifacts of a counter-history or jewish-christian polemics, in which exactly the same texts, episodes, and persons cherished by one [christian] party are distorted by its [jewish] opponent” (p. 35). these texts creatively undermined (often through mockery) new testament narratives about jesus and acquired new folkloristic layers with each generation of readers. the difference between the texts lies in the characters dominating the narrative. group ii is dominated by queen helene (constantine the great’s mother, anachronistically placed in the first century) while in group iii, jewish sages take the initiative. the editors identify thirteen narrative units such as “birth narrative,” “heresies and crimes of yeshu,” and “stealing the name” that appear in most texts, although not necessarily in the same sequence, and with considerable variations (pp. 28-124). each core narrative is briefly identified and placed into its literary context. main figures in the accounts are named, and different versions presented and analyzed. anyone interested in, say, the execution of jesus across the toledot yeshu tradition can find a careful comparative presentation of the events that considers various literary and legal influences, and even illustrations (p. 115). the reader can then turn to the english translations of all texts located in the latter part of volume i, arranged according to their groups (pp. 127-372). the texts are divided into titled sections to facilitate the reader’s orientation. english footnotes to the translations contain a critical apparatus, literary sources, and important variants. the book concludes with indices of primary texts, subjects, and additional literary sources. the first volume contains a number of introductory chapters. one chapter looks at toledot yeshu traditions in the christian-jewish encounter. justin martyr, celsus, origin, tertullian, as well as the talmud reflect narrative elements found in toledot yeshu, but the earliest reference to the work as a written text appears in agobard of lyon (c. 769-840) who possibly knew a version that had appeared in babylonia a few years earlier. the first latin translation appeared in raymond martin’s pugio fidei (c. 1280), a central anti-jewish text of the middle ages. while the pugio as a whole remained in manuscript form until 1651, the latin version of toledot yeshu was printed already in 1470. translated into german by 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) martin luther in 1543, the material reached its perhaps greatest popularity in the next two centuries. it was included in wagenseil’s tela ignea satanae (fiery darts of satan). enlightenment figures from judah briel to voltaire and moses mendelssohn either discussed or included the text in their works. in 1824, the longest version of toledot yeshu appeared, tam u-mu’ad. the second volume contains a critical edition of the aramaic and hebrew texts. the book opens with a list of all manuscripts, with brief descriptions and reproductions of the aramaic and hebrew manuscripts’ opening lines (pp. 2-48). this is followed by the texts themselves, divided into the aforementioned groups and subgroups. the introduction for each group lists the texts, followed by a short description and synopsis of the contents for each text, and linguistic observations. in the case of subgroups that diverge considerably, the texts are presented synoptically in columns. the texts have titled sections that correspond to the online databases that facilitate the reader’s access to the text. the edition is accompanied by a very helpful online database that contains all 107 transcribed manuscripts. it is fully searchable, and allows the user to browse any number of manuscripts on separate screens. there are two minor lacunas. for readers from outside the field, an introduction positioning the text within the jewish-christian encounter would have been useful. more surprising is the omission of some recent writings such as david brodsky’s work on massekhet kallah and kallah rabbati. nonetheless, toledot yeshu: the life story of jesus is indispensable for anyone interested in jewishchristian relations and the long reception history of ancient texts across religious and linguistic boundaries. this work will surely enable generations of scholars and students to tease out new nuances of this encounter. unmuzzling the ox: should torah be normative for gentile christians? studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 unmuzzling the ox: should torah be normative for gentile christians? 1 jodie boyer hatlem, university of toronto and doug johnson hatlem, mennonite central committee ontario presented at the american academy of religion conference, november 3, 2008 drawing on recent directions in theology and new testament studies, scholars such as michael wyschogrod, mark kinzer, and david rudolph, have forcefully argued that jewish followers of jesus as messiah should continue to observe torah. 2 we hope to push in this direction yet further, arguing that gentile christians should reopen the first major intra christian debate and consider making torah normative for christian behavior. what follows is divided into four sections: (1) alexander, aquinas, and the unity of the law, (2) justin‘s dialogue and the quartodecimans, (3) paul and the muzzled ox, and (4) natural law and the noachide. throughout, we will be pursuing two strands of thinking in christian history that are introduced and related to each other in section one, alexander, aquinas, and the unity of the law. the two strands of thinking concern natural law and the troubling christian teaching that those who observe torah as law after christ‘s passion are committing mortal sin. thirteenth century theologian thomas aquinas thoroughly wrestles with these issues in his treatise on law, one part of his much larger and well-known summa theologica. examination of the treatise reveals that aquinas‘ highly influential interest in natural law is deeply connected to issues around the lasting authority of the torah. furthermore, an insistence on the unity of what christians have often called the old and new testaments leads aquinas to treat such questions at length under the rubric of ―old law‖ and ―new law.‖ aquinas‘ discussion of torah observance as mortally sinful is crucial and arises out of his reverence for the fourth and fifth century theologians jerome and augustine. while a variety of thinkers have recently assessed the importance of christological questions to christian-jewish antagonism, less attention has been given to the importance of torah observance in such assessments. in section two, justin‘s dialogue and the quartodecimans, attention to the position of justin martyr‘s interlocutor in the dialogue with trypho reveals that the question of law is most pertinent. we will briefly follow the discussion as trypho or tarphon 1 early drafts of large portions of this work have been reviewed and commented on by a variety of people whom we would like to thank including warren smith, stanley hauerwas, randi rashkover, david novak, daniel colucciello barber, richard hays, and marc goodman. continuing conversation over the years with holly taylor coolman has been invaluable. 2 michael wyschogrod, ―a jewish reading of st. thomas on the old law in understanding scripture: exploration of jewish and christian traditions of interpretation ed. clemens thoma and michael wyschogrod (new york: paulist press, 1986), 125-140; michael wyschogrod, ―letter to a friend,‖ modern theology 11:2 (april 1995): 165-171; mark s. kinzer, post-missionary messianic judaism: redefining christian engagement with the jewish people (grand rapids: brazos press, 2005); david j. rudolph, ―messianic jews and christian theology,‖ pro ecclesia 14:1 (2005): 5884; david j. rudolph, ―paul and the torah according to luke,‖ kesher: a journal of messianic judaism 14:1 (2002): 61-73; david j. rudolph, a jew to the jews: jewish contours pauline flexibility in 1 corinthians 9:19-23, wunt 2 (tübingen: mohr-siebeck, forthcoming 2010). conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 queries why jews cannot continue to keep the law even if they believe in jesus. christian theology‘s continual failure to adequately answer this question as displayed in the subsequent quartodeciman dispute and beyond is a constant feature of christian supersessionism. in the quartodeciman controversy, we see the seed that would bear terrible fruit in jerome and augustine‘s pronouncements regarding torah observance as damning. once again, christians must return to the circumstances and implications of the first major intra christian debate. in section three, paul and the muzzled ox, we do so by way of an analysis of a particularly long pericope, i corinthians 8:1-11:1. we take st. paul‘s position in the vexing dispute over gentile law-keeping to be primarily pragmatic rather than timeless, a product of his calling as a missionary to the gentiles rather than an eternal pronouncement on the nullity of the pentateuch. here, in the question of meat offered to idols, paul draws on the torah mitzvah regarding the muzzled ox (deut. 25:4) to argue that ministers of the gospel are worthy of pay. while paul himself refused such a salary, his casuistic reasoning has been the final word on support for christian clergy. earlier in i corinthians, paul instructs the corinthians to choose their own judges to settle disputes, and 8:1-11:1 should be seen as christianity‘s earliest extant legal opinion. paul is up to nothing less than a jurisprudential demonstration of how christians could appropriate torah as law through the lens of the gospel. paul becomes as one ‗outside the law‘ with respect to salary, and his halakah invites his audience to become as ones ‗under the law‘ concerning meat offered to idols. we will conclude in section four, natural law and the noachide, by beginning with reflections on the nature of most attempts to understand christian supersessionism as christologically rooted. our argument throughout this paper locates the crux of jewish christian antagonism elsewhere and posits a different way forward. but what would become of theological ethics as we know it? would torah observance by gentile christians threaten the uniqueness of the jewish people? where would gentile christians begin were they to take on such an endeavor? many of these challenges can only be admitted without being resolved. we would hope to provide some direction with the help of david novak‘s reflections on karl barth and natural law, and in conversation with mennonite theologian john howard yoder. we will suggest that the portion of torah enjoined upon gentile christians at the jerusalem council bears striking similarity to the seven commandments for the children of noah as understood by rabbinic judaism. novak points us to elijah benamozegh, a nineteenth century rabbi, who provides an account of the noachide as natural law and whose thinking comes partly out of discussions with a catholic friend who considered converting to judaism. benamozegh demands that we take natural reason and jewish law as exact equivalents in a way that makes it impossible to undermine the rigors of the commandments by way of an appeal to natural law or the noachide. his reconciliation of natural reason and law and torah furthermore provides a sensibly gradual way for christians to approach mosaic law as a natural complement to christian ethics. alexander, aquinas, and the unity of the law marie-dominque chenu‘s nature, man and society in the twelfth-century documents a reemergence in the 12 th century of christian theological interest in the hebrew bible. 3 matthew levering, following and expanding on the work of chenu and others, argues that this renewed interest emerged out a desire to answer the marcionite tendency of the catharists or albigensians but also could be traced to a desire to speak theologically with regards to an increasingly more 3 see especially marie-dominique chenu, ―the old testament in twelfth-century theology,‖ in nature, man, and society in the twelfth century: essays on new theological methods in the latin west, ed. and trans. jerome taylor and lester k. little (chicago: university of chicago press, 1968), 146-161. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 complex legal and political situation. 4 and why shouldn‘t medieval christians have reconsidered keeping torah? after all, everyone agreed that it was a divinely authored legal code. we begin to answer this question by wading briefly into one of the most contentious areas of theology from karl barth onward, natural law. if one reads thomas aquinas‘ treatise on law as a whole, one can discern that natural law functions for thomas, not so much as a guiding norm for human behavior, but as part of a larger theological discussion about the place of jewish law in the christian life. 5 the treatise is a vast series of mines. those who explore the trove to be found in them often act as if no connections exist linking the various caverns. while natural law thinking has dominated discussion of aquinas‘ jurisprudence, reflection on the ‗old law‘ stands at the heart of the treatise on law, consuming eight of the nineteen questions. natural law in and of itself is confined to just one question. thomistic natural law and the question of the relationship between the two testaments, however, are linked for a simple reason. aquinas‘ tripartite division of the ‗old law‘ (moral, ceremonial, judicial) requires it since all of the moral law, by way of specification, is included in the natural law. 6 as levering notes, a great renewal of attention to the old testament had begun in the eleventh century, with issues raised by this renewal reverberating into the thirteenth. 7 one of the central issues involved the fact that augustine and jerome had interpreted paul as saying that keeping the ‗old law‘ after christ is a mortal sin. aquinas refers to a ―difference of opinion‖ between augustine and jerome as to when keeping the ceremonies of the old law became a mortal sin. 8 for jerome, torah keeping condemned the observant one‘s soul immediately after christ‘s resurrection—the apostles and early jewish christians only piously pretended to keep the law. augustine‘s answer is more persuasive for aquinas insofar as he suggests a period of transition time when it was acceptable for jewish christians to continue keeping torah. in any event, all three thinkers agree that keeping jewish law, by their day and continuing on ad infinitum, brings with it the punishment of eternal death. (aquinas‘ thinking on this matter, at least with respect to jews, is contradicted by his later affirmation, in his commentary on the romans, of paul‘s statement that ―all of israel will be saved.‖ 9 ) jerome and augustine‘s position rests on a 4 matt levering, christ’s fulfillment of torah and temple: salvation according to thomas aquinas (notre dame: university of notre dame press, 2002), 6. 5 it should also be kept in mind that ―‗[n]atural law‘ helps explain why there is a good deal of transcultural ethical commonality, but our knowledge of it is of such a character that it cannot serve as a foundation for settling disputes apodictically.‖ this is true because ―[i]n probable argument [aquinas] followed aristotle‘s attention to those truths useful to rhetoric because agreed upon. neither helps us much if an opponent dissents, or when dispute about what the natural law consists becomes widespread. … natural law, like the [five] ways‘ linguistic end, marks the place where reason giving comes to a penultimate stop. natural law, like ‗what we call god,‘ names our consensus.‖ eugene rogers, ―the narrative of natural law in aquinas‘s commentary on romans 1,‖ theological studies 59 (1998): 274-275. 6 thomas aquinas, the summa theologica of st. thomas aquinas, 2 nd rev. edition, trans. fathers of the english dominican province (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/ [1920] 2008): ii.1 q. 100. while the moral law is directly equated with the natural law, it may perhaps also be true that aquinas uses the concept of the natural law to bring certain a spects of the old law back through a secret passage behind the door that augustine and jerome so assiduously blocked. in this way a ruler can implement the ancient juridical code of the jews if he discerns it is the most exp edient and rational form of human law or a christian couple can circumcise their son if they discern that it is salubrious. however, if either the ruler or the circumcised christian acts solely out of reverence to the word of god given to israel than they have committed a mortal sin. ibid. 7 levering, christ’s fulfillment, 6. 8 aquinas, summa, ii.i q. 103.4r.1. 9 see thomas aquinas ―selections from thomas aquinas‘s commentary on the romans‖ trans. and introduced eugene rogers in the theological interpretation of scripture: classical and contemporary readings ed. stephen fowl (malden: blackwell, 1997), 320-337. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 tendentious reading of 2 corinthians 3:6b: ―for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.‖ 10 yet medieval christianity, for a myriad of reasons, had a stake in not dispensing with all old testament law. most pressingly, if torah keeping is damnable, then what about the parts of the hebrew bible that medieval christianity heartily endorsed such as the ten commandments and most sexual prohibitions? according to levering, the solution had just recently been advanced in aquinas‘ own day. alexander of hales (d. 1245) and his followers had divided the ‗old law‘ into moral, ceremonial, and judicial categories in summa fratis alexandri (completed about 1260). 11 aquinas takes up this solution in which the ceremonial precepts are considered ―determinations of the divine worship‖ and the judicial precepts are considered to be specific ―determinations of the justice to be maintained among [humans]‖ (as opposed to the more general terms of the natural or moral law). 12 the moral precepts are specified by the fact that they all belong to natural law, they are all about acts of virtue, and they are all reducible to the ten commandments. 13 these moral precepts are useful for justly ordering human relations insofar as they aid in cultivating the acquired virtues, but they are helpless with regard to supernatural justification, which requires the infused virtues. 14 in this latter sense for aquinas, even the moral law can occasion death according to ii corinthians 3:6b, if not aided by the spirit‘s grace. 15 discussion of aquinas on the torah has recently become the backdrop of a discussion (initiated by michael wyschogrod) regarding whether jewish christian converts should continue torah observance after conversion. these discussion have sought and gained a specificity about aquinas‘ thought on the ‗old law‘ and have posed pressing question to the edifice of a tripartite division. (of interest as well, pope benedict in a pre-papal treatment many religions, one covenant: israel, the church, and the world abandons the division altogether and may even leave quite a bit of room for christian keeping of jewish law. 16 ) in criticizing aquinas on the ceremonial law‘s deadly character, wyschogrod notices that the aristotelian in aquinas has him ―convinced that classification is the key to understanding.‖ 17 indeed, as aquinas says in subdividing the judicial law, ―wherever there is order there must needs be division.‖ 18 a theme which runs throughout wyschogrod‘s attempt to defend, on christian grounds, his fellow jews‘ (whether christian or not) keeping of the law is a skepticism about whether the unity of the law in torah allows for any sub-classification, let alone that of aquinas. aquinas insists throughout that the ‗old law‘ is good (keeping dionysius‘ understanding of various degrees of goodness in mind). 19 every law aims at friendship, and the ‗old law‘ is no 10 all scripture quotations are to the new revised standard version bible (national council of the churches of christ in the united states of america, 1989). 11 levering, christ’s fulfillment, 6. thomas finds proof for this division in deuteronomy 4:13, 14 and 6:1 (see the sed contras of aquinas, summa, ii.1 q. 99.3, 4). 12 ibid., ii.1 q. 99.4. 13 ibid., ii.1 q. 100.1, 2, 3. 14 ibid., ii.1 q. 100.12. 15 ibid., ii.1 q. 100.12 cf. q. 98.1. 16 joseph cardinal ratzinger, many religions, one covenant: israel, the church, and the world trans., fr. john rock (san francisco: ignatius press, 1999). 17 wyschogrod, ―a jewish reading,‖ 126. 18 aquinas, summa, ii.1 q. 104.4. 19 ibid., ii.1 q. 98.1. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 different in this regard. 20 the prohibition of the ‗old law‘ is necessary, but not sufficient toward such ends. 21 since friendship requires similarity, we can only become friends with god if we become good. therefore we need the moral precepts, even if, standing alone, such precepts deal death. 22 the ‗old law‘ has three particular purposes in salvation history: (1) to witness to christ, (2) to draw people away from idolatry, and (3) to prepare the way for a particular people to serve as christ bearers (which, according to aquinas, requires a special sanctification). 23 as such, aquinas employs paul‘s analogy of the law as a pedagogue. the ‗old law‘ was from god and thus perfect ―in respect of time,‖ though not simply. just so, a boy could theoretically be perfect as a boy and yet still need maturing. 24 as the new law represents our adulthood, for aquinas, the ‗old law‘ is weak and useless since we are no longer under that pedagogue. 25 while some might think that this reasoning should also make the moral law irrelevant, aquinas disagrees. though the goal of the new law is that humans will follow the law ‗written on the heart,‘ we still need the law of prohibition in some respects since ―through fear of punishment, one is sometimes led to do so likewise, with delight and of one‘s own accord.‖ 26 nevertheless, there is generally a dualism between the old and new. the old is of the body, the new is of the mind. the old works by fear, the new by love. 27 those who wish to maintain some semblance of this reasoning without resorting to the language of dualism might prefer an analogy aquinas employs elsewhere, when he insists that everything in the new is in someway to be found in the old as a tree is contained in a seed. 28 how, then, does aquinas make sense of the ceremonial laws which are directed toward worship of the divine? this question is what drives levering‘s christ’s fulfillment of torah and temple: salvation according to thomas aquinas. according to aquinas, their purpose generally is to institute certain external works, whereby humans makes profession of their subjection to god. 29 thus there was a temporal reason for each of these particular laws. observance of particular torah laws is the only thing voided by the new law since the temporal reason for them has passed. 30 aquinas cannot leave it at that, however, as he rejects the idea that the ceremonial laws are now completely void. as such, aquinas introduces another reason, a figurative reason, into the picture. 31 aquinas goes to great lengths in speculation on both the temporal and figurative causes for the details of the laws found in torah. aquinas, for instance, can enumerate reasons, both temporal and figurative, as to why circumcision should occur on precisely the eighth day. 32 it is the figurative sense of the text in such matters (and especially with regard to circumcision) that is critical. as levering states, ―for aquinas it is not the case that if the old law is figurative, 20 ibid., ii.1 q. 99.1 r.2. 21 ibid., ii.1 q. 98.1. 22 ibid., ii.1 q. 99.2. 23 ibid., ii.1 q. 98.2, 4, 5. 24 ibid., ii.1 q. 98.2 r.2. 25 ibid. 26 ibid., ii.1 q. 92.2 r.4. 27 ibid., ii.1 q. 91.5, cf. ibid. ii.1 q. 107. 28 ibid., ii.1 q. 107.3. 29 ibid., ii.1 q. 99.3. 30 ibid., ii.1 q. 107.2 r.1. 31 ibid., ii.1 q. 99.3 r.3. 32 ibid., ii.1 q. 102.5 r.1. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 then one no longer needs to pay attention to it. the figurative aspect of the old law is crucial for aquinas not because he wishes to disregard the old law but because he wishes to establish the unity of the divine law.‖ 33 what that unity means for jews is a burning question. 34 it is the denial of the temporal in favor of the figurative which allows thomas to call continued temporal observance of ceremonial law a mortal sin, and it is precisely here that jewish readers of aquinas, specifically wyschogrod, take exception. the scriptural warrant that aquinas asserts for his position regarding ceremonial law keeping as mortal sin is from galatians 5:2, ―if you let yourself be circumscribed, christ will be of no benefit to you.‖ 35 for thomas, temporally keeping the ceremonial law after christ‘s passion is, in effect, a denial that christ has come. wyschogrod queries ―whether thomas‘ reading of paul on the mosaic law is substantially accurate.‖ 36 in a sympathetic answer he states, ―it seems clear that thomas tried very hard to weave a consistent position out of the many, frequently at least apparently contradictory, things paul says about the law. it seems to me that the increase in clarity we find in thomas over paul is due largely to the division of the old law by thomas into the moral or natural on the one hand and the ceremonial and judicial on the other.‖ 37 wyschogrod insists that the mosaic law can be handled in ways other than aquinas and his sources have, allowing for a more benevolent understanding of commandment keeping. 38 in short, he takes the strategy now most favored in the field of new testament studies. paul in galatians is polemicizing against those who wish to judaize gentiles rather than against jews per se. this distinction between jew and judaizer is crucial for making sense of the very fact that there is a debate at all in acts 15 over whether gentiles have to keep the law. if even jewish christians were no longer obliged to keep the law, then such should have been an underwhelming non-issue with respect to gentiles. 39 levering, in his first chapter, wishes to respond to wyschogrod‘s essay on aquinas along with his well-known ―letter to a friend‖ which spawned a symposium and an entire issue of modern theology. 40 levering takes umbrage with wyschogrod‘s plea for jewish-christians to still keep torah and with his reading of aquinas as asking jews to quit such practices. by way of the figurative unity of the old and new law, he insists that, for aquinas, christians do still keep the 33 levering, christ’s fulfillment, 22. 34 with respect to jews living before the time of christ, answering the question in terms of aquinas‘ own writing is the most simple. faith in christ was available by way of prolepsis; thus aquinas repeatedly insists that there have been some belonging to the new law at all times (ibid. ii.1 q. 98.2 r.4, 106.3 r.2, 107.1 r.2). things become a bit more complicated in the new testament period, however. while christ was teaching and preaching before his passion, law and gospel were concurrent, and thus jesus himself could and did keep the law in spite of claims by his opponents to the contrary (ibid. ii.1 q. 103.3 r.4). after christ‘s passion, aquinas‘ sources diverge. jerome and augustine agree that keeping the ceremonial precepts after the passion is a mortal sin, but augustine allows for a brief dispensation in order that gentiles and jews could be fused together in christ. jerome disagrees, positing instead what might be called a pious pretense defense of peter‘s actions in acts 15 and other instances of christian observance of the law postpassion. aquinas takes the side of augustine on the basis of paul‘s faulting of peter in galatians (ibid. ii.1 q. 103.4 r.1). 35 ibid., ii.1 q. 103.4. 36 wyschogrod, ―a jewish reading,‖ 134. 37 ibid. 38 ibid., 136. 39 ibid., 137. 40 modern theology 11:2 (april 1995): 163-241. the seven respondents to wyschogrod‘s ―letter to a friend‖ were eugene borowitz, david b. burrell, ellen t. charry, paula fredriksen, george lindbeck, and david novak with and epilogue written by peter ochs. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 mosaic law in a real sense even if it is not the way favored by wyschogrod. 41 without responding to wyschogrod‘s exegetical moves, levering further argues that in his reading of galatians 5:2, aquinas, ―[l]ike st. paul,…specifically has in mind the ‗jewish converts to christianity‘‖ (thus levering sees no reason to believe that, for aquinas, jews who have not converted to christianity are sinning by keeping the law). 42 levering apparently has no problem with the conclusion that jewish christians commit mortal sin if they keep the ceremonial aspects of the law. jewish christians keep the ceremonial law, which originally looked forward to christ‘s passion, by celebrating those christian sacraments that now look back at christ‘s passion. wyschogrod‘s essay makes it clear how he would respond to such a possibility. he writes, ―could [jewish christians] not after christ celebrate the prediction that came true and point to the final fulfillment that both jews and christians await?‖ 43 for a christian theologian, such a challenge to a tripartite division of torah invites a renewed discussion of the place of jewish law in christian ecclesiology. christian moral and political thought, and by extension western secular political thought, has been marked by a certain vagueness. this is, in part, a result of the sort of thinking that requires a principle like natural law to justify the divine law. fergus kerr, in summarizing d.j. o‘connor‘s standard philosophical treatment of aquinas on natural law suggests that ―thomas is so unclear about which of the natural law precepts are primary and which are secondary, and anyway, allows so much variability at the level of detailed choices, that his position seems little different than any other relativism.‖ 44 in this sense, perhaps natural law is not so much a solution to jewish and christian unease with secularism, but rather a source. we shall return to this question in the final section of this essay. up until this point, one brilliant aspect of aquinas‘ legal thought has remained under the surface in our discussion. while aquinas thinks that law should only punish and not reward, he does not think, necessarily, that the only function of the law is negative. law also functions in a way that shapes those under its commands. law is formational. this understanding of law often hovers around the edges of aquinas‘ discussion of the law as schoolmaster, but it is most beautifully put in his statement that the judicial precepts were not primarily ―instituted that they might be figures, but that they might shape the state of that people who were directed to christ.‖ 45 in other words, the very identity of a people, particularly the jews, can be caught up in a legal code. justin‘s dialogue and the quartodecimans jerome and augustine‘s position, as described near the beginning of the previous section, rests on a highly specious reading of certain passages in paul‘s letters and, as we shall see in this section, is likewise inherited. while thinkers from rosemary radford ruether to john howard yoder and daniel boyarin have argued that the division between jews and gentiles turned on christological questions, far fewer have been willing to assess the importance of rejecting torah 41 levering, christ’s fulfillment, 28. 42 ibid. 161. we do not see how this move to separate jews from jewish christians holds true in aquinas‘ account in treatise on law. 43 wyschogrod, ―a jewish reading,‖ 136. one of wyschogrod‘s fellow essayists echoes this sentiment wondering why jewish-christians could not keep the ceremonial law also as a way of looking back at christ‘s passion in a way parallel to advent week rituals. edward synan, ―some medieval perceptions of the controversy on jewish law,‖ in understanding scripture: exploration of jewish and christian traditions of interpretation ed. clemens thoma and michael wyschogrod (new york: paulist press, 1986), 122. 44 fergus kerr, after aquinas: versions of thomism (malden and oxford: blackwell publishers, 2002), 98. 45 aquinas, summa, ii.1 q. 104.3. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 observance in the schism. 46 in spite of the fact that boyarin‘s recent book border lines includes an entire chapter on ―justin‘s dialogue with the jews,‖ almost no space is given to the bulk of the substance of justin martyr‘s second century dialogue with trypho. 47 attention to the position of justin‘s interlocutor in the dialogue reveals that the question of law is most pertinent. trypho, perhaps r. tarphon of mishnaic fame, wants to know most of all why jews cannot continue to keep the law even if they believe in jesus. a perennial plague of christian supersessionism is a continual failure to give a sufficient answer to this question. this failure is displayed here in justin‘s dialogue and in a then current debate over the date of easter and even in recent jewish christian conversation. justin‘s dialogue appears to be entirely unique in ancient christian literature in that it takes place entirely upon hebrew bible grounds. justin‘s understanding of obedience to old testament law is intriguing for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it prefigured, in large measure, the solution that aquinas and others took to the problem when it reared its head again in late medieval history. an additional intriguing reason for justin‘s treatment of the hebrew bible is that he was a gentile convert after having reached adulthood, yet he seems, among christian writers of his time, to be the most thoroughly familiar with and committed to jewish scripture. still, justin begins the dialogue with what can only be described as a heavily supersessionist position: the law promulgated at horeb is already obsolete, and was intended for you jews only, whereas the law of which i speak is simply for all men. now, a later law in opposition to an older law abrogates the older; so, too, does a later covenant void an earlier one. an everlasting and final law, christ himself, and a trustworthy covenant has been given to us, after which there shall be no law, or commandment, or precept. 48 worse yet, all jews are lumped together as christ killers who spread rumors that lead to the death of christians. 49 even more appalling from the perspective of our times, justin suggests that god instituted circumcision and the law for two reasons – the hardness of jewish hearts, and in order to mark off the jewish people for suffering. 50 one can only look upon tarphon‘s willingness to continue such a conversation for two straight days as evidence of a magnanimous, patient, truth-seeking spirit. in spite of these claims, justin insists that christians both read and obey jewish scripture. 51 with this insistence, justin is drawn into an extended debate over law keeping, the suffering of messiah, the deity of christ, the trinity, baptism, and the place of the disobedient in the life hereafter. over time, justin‘s position begins to soften. he again suggests that the old law has ended with christ, since the eternal law is now received by way of circumcision of the heart. 52 when pressed as to why the law was given in the first place, justin eliminates the ‗marked off for suffering‘ 46 rosemary radford ruether, faith and fratricide: the theological roots of anti-semitism (new york: seabury press, 1974); john howard yoder, the jewish-christian schism revisited ed. michael g. cartwright and peter ochs (grand rapids: eerdmanns, 2003); daniel boyarin, border lines: the partition of judeao-christianity (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2004). 47 justin martyr, the dialogue with trypho (new york : macmillan, 1930). 48 ibid., 11. 49 ibid., 17. see also 93 for the charge of deicide. 50 ibid., 18,19. 51 ibid., 29. 52 ibid., 43. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 reason and adds that the old law was for the purposes of worship and virtue and to give types of christ. 53 what ensues is a fascinating discussion of law keeping after christ. trypho pushes a question as to why jews cannot continue to keep the law even if they believe in jesus. justin‘s initial response is to point out that since the destruction of the temple, not all the laws can be kept anyway. trypho admits as much, but wants to know about those that can be kept. once again a brief debate over circumcision begins in which justin insists that not all who were saved in old testament were circumcised and that god instituted it for the hardness of jewish hearts. trypho is not satisfied, again asking why one may not admit those things and still desire to follow the law. justin is cornered and says that, at least in his view, such people will be saved, so long as they do not try to convert gentile christians to their position. trypho wants to understand why justin says this is just his view. to this, justin reveals that there are quite a few christians who take another opinion and will not associate with jewish christians who keep the law, even if they do not attempt to compel others to do so. 54 the conversation continues, and after a while justin appears to backpedal still further in response to pointed questioning about the souls of god fearing and loving jews who are not christians. justin is agitated by the question. ―but now,‖ he submits, ―in fear of god‘s judgment, i shall not be bold enough to say whether or not any one of your race, by the grace of the lord of sabbath, may be saved.‖ 55 justin will not rest there, however, and insists, in opposition to his understanding of certain jewish teachers, that those who are disobedient will not share in the ―eternal kingdom.‖ 56 since justin believes that obedience to jewish law is not mandated, who are the disobedient disobeying? while not described in great detail, at least in this text, certain of justin‘s arguments let us know that he takes a combination of natural law written on the heart through baptism (but also available in some regard to all nations) and the commands of jesus and the prophets to be what replaces jewish law as normative for the christian life. 57 with regard to the latter, a comment of justin‘s in the midst of discussing jewish christian rejection of jesus‘ divinity is instructive. ―i naturally disagree with such persons,‖ he offers, ―nor would i agree with them even if the majority of those who share my opinions were to say so. for we have been told by christ himself not to follow the teachings of men, but only those which have been announced by the holy prophets and taught by himself.‖ 58 when justin refers to those jewish christians who deny the deity of christ, he seems to be referring to the ebionite sect. when he speaks of a dispute within christianity as to whether to have fellowship with those who still practice parts of jewish law, he may very well be referring to a debate over the quartodecimans, a controversy over the date of easter which has recently come to the fore in scholarly research into melito of sardis‘ on pascha. two independent projects have been published as books on melito‘s sole surviving work. 59 while the two authors, alistair stewart-sykes and lynn cohick differ on a great deal, they are in agreement that 53 ibid., 44. 54 soon after, justin also includes those jewish christians who deny jesus‘ divinity as belonging to ―our race‖ (ibid., 48). he insists, however, that those jews who once believed in christ, but apostasized and now practice the law again will not be saved unless they repent (ibid., 46-47). 55 ibid., 64. 56 ibid., 140. cf. ibid., 120. 57 ibid., 43, 48, 85, 93. the dialogue ends with a friendly departure. 58 ibid., 48. 59 alistair stewart-sykes, the lamb’s high feast: melito, peri pascha and the quartodeciman pachal liturgy at sardis (boston: brill, 1998) and lynn cohick the peri pascha attributed to melito of sardis: setting, purpose, and sources (providence: brown judaic studies, 2000). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 anti-jewish elements in on pascha are probably to be attributed to debate internal to christianity rather than to actual conflict with the synagogue at sardis (as was long thought). 60 melito sees everything in the hebrew bible as taking place by way of analogy and sketch and continues the new testament practice of contrasting carnal israel to the church as spiritual israel. 61 ―the jerusalem below‖ is now ―worthless because of the heavenly jerusalem,‖ and ―the narrow inheritance‖ is now ―worthless because of the breadth of grace.‖ 62 the people and law of israel were of value before the church and the gospel. 63 their value has now ―been depleted by the arising of the church.‖ 64 in many respects, this language, while quite troubling, might be traced in germ form to the new testament itself, and it might also be considered hyperbole with respect to judaism—hyperbole for the sake of venerating the object of praise, the marvelous grace now offered to all people. further, this language is almost certainly part of an attempt to define melito‘s community against such sects as the ebionites, a task made critical by a high stakes controversy over quartodecimans within christianity. finally, if stewart-sykes‘ argument that melito was himself of jewish descent are correct, then one‘s condemnation may become a bit less severe. even with those caveats, however, certain elements in on pascha suggesting that israel‘s disobedience, including the killing of christ, require her death cannot be countenanced. 65 nor can they be chalked up to rhetorical exaggeration. this is particularly true in light of a passage in the didascalia (probably from early in the third century 66 ) that evidences great dependence on the paschal celebrating tradition in which melito writes. the passage recommends ―praying and watching for the annihilation of the [unbelieving jews], because they erred and did not know our redeemer.‖ 67 the setting of this atrocious recommendation cannot be used to excuse it one iota. nevertheless, the quartodeciman controversy does cast crucial light on our topic here. stewart-sykes argues persuasively that the piece should be seen as a liturgical text, written by melito, and used in the celebration of passover on the fourteenth of nisan according to the jewish calendar (the term quartodeciman coming from the date fourteen). we have record of no little dispute over the continued practice of passover keeping by syrian and other christians. the most crucial preserver of the facts of this dispute is eusebius whose church history describes the row in brief and includes a letter on the topic attributed to irenaeus. iraneus‘ letter was written to the roman bishop victor who opposed quartodeciman passover observance vigorously. 68 eusebius tells us that in reaction to a letter written to him by polycrates, then leader of the bishops in asia minor, ―victor, presiding over rome sought to cut off straightway the churches of all the community in asia from the common union, together with those which neighbored upon them, on the grounds of heterodoxy.‖ 69 in his letter, polycrates had defended the practice on the 60 stewart-sykes, the lamb’s high feast, 164-172, cohick, the peri pascha attributed, 7, 52-87. 61 melito of sardis, on pascha : with the fragments of melito and other material related to the quartodecimans, ed. and trans. and introduced alistair stewart-sykes (crestwood: st. vladimir‘s seminary press, 2001), 35. 62 ibid., 45. 63 ibid., 41. 64 ibid., 43. 65 see especially ibid., 90. 66 the apostolic fathers: greek texts and english translations of their writings, trans. and ed. j.b. lightfoot and j.r. harmer, ed. michael holmes (grand rapids: baker, 1992), 558. 67 didascalia 21 as quoted by stewart-sykes in his publication of fragments and comments at the end of on pascha. 68 as discussed in stewart-sykes, on pascha, 86-89. 69 ibid., 86. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 grounds that it was long standing tradition in the syrian churches to keep a feast on that day honoring jesus as the paschal lamb, and that such luminaries as the apostles philip and john and several notable bishops including polycarp and melito had kept such a feast. 70 victor was not persuaded and, as a result, eusebius reports that several letters, still in existence at the time of eusebius, were sent ―criticizing [him] severely.‖ 71 among these was one from irenaeus that pleaded with him to keep the peace, citing the example of polycarp and anicetus (an earlier bishop of rome) who had precisely the same dispute, but had ―maintained peace with one another,‖ continuing to share in eucharist. 72 as such, stewart-sykes argues that, particularly in the atmosphere from polycarp and anicetus through polycrates and victor and beyond, selfdefinition against judaism was particularly important for these very reasons. in fact, stewartsykes makes the case that there was a dispute among quartodecimans over what time to start the feast which broke the fast, either in tempo with the jewish passover feast or delaying it until midnight on the same night. the dispute over quartodeciman paschal celebration brings us full circle. the argument between churches in asia minor and roman churches was not settled decisively until after nicaea, at which point the practice was discontinued with the exception of churches isolated in ireland. how to narrate the conflict remained a contentious issue among some of the great western minds in the century after nicaea. augustine and jerome‘s dispute, in fact, arose on this score. in jerome and augustine we have come to a remarkable juncture. the conclusion of the jerusalem council in acts 15 left something of a moral vacuum in its wake. the numerous typologies of obedience on display in a work such as i clement are a prime example of this truth. there are at least a dozen or so different types of authorities to which early christians appealed rather than torah. sadly, by the time of augustine and jerome, the church was convinced that obedience to any part of the jewish law—even celebrating a passover feast as polycarp did in honor of jesus‘ passion—was an ‗obedience unto death‘ of a different sort than spoken of in paul‘s letter to the philippians and in early christian martyr literature. much preferable is the position to which trypho was able to move justin martyr and to which irenaeus cautioned victor. obedience to jewish law is neither a mortal sin nor grounds for excommunication. paul and the muzzled ox contemporary new testament scholarship not only casts grave doubts upon the case for reading paul‘s statements, particularly in ii corinthians 3:6b, as meaning that anyone who observes torah is committing mortal sin, but also gives us reason to think that paul‘s rejection of law keeping is nowhere near as thorough as christians have long taken it to be. 73 recently, scholars such as peter tompson and marcus bockmuehl have been exploring the ways in which paul, far from discarding torah as a cause of mortal damnation, actually uses halakah in his letters to gentile converts. 74 in fact, earlier in the corinthian correspondence, paul commanded the church 70 ibid., 86-87. 71 ibid., 88-89. 72 ibid., 89. 73 this section of our essay was initially written for a course with richard hays and we have drawn heavily from his reading of paul, especially in richard b. hays, echoes of scripture in the letter of paul (new haven: yale university press, 1989) and richard b. hays first corinthians (louisville: john knox press, 1997). hays, echoes, 122-153 beautifully treats the wider pericope in which ii corinthians 3:6b is set in ―chapter four: a letter from christ.‖ our primary difference with hays is that he sees paul‘s appeal to the torah as normative to derive its force almost entirely narratively, we also take it that paul is working with the nomos of jurisprudence of hebrew scripture. 74 peter tompson, paul and the jewish law: halakha in the letters of the apostle to the gentiles (minneapolis: fortress press, 1991); marcus bockmuehl, jewish law in gentile churches: halakhah and the beginning of christian studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 to pick judges from its midst to settle disputes within their community. the idea of choosing judges from the church to preside over disputes seems strange to many christians. for one thing, upon what body of law would such judges base their decisions? certainly not the torah, for there is a seemingly impregnable obstacle to christians taking this tract—the letters of the apostle paul. in what follows we hope to put forth an admittedly controversial suggestion: mosaic law interpreted jurisprudentially, that is casuistically or as legal wisdom, can and should exercise authority within christian churches and that paul, in spite of other very harsh things he sometimes said, at least once prominently used torah in precisely such a way. within the lengthy section of i corinthians (8:1-11:1) devoted primarily to the issue of meat offered to idols, there is a portion of text that does not deal directly with meat. instead, paul seems first to digress momentarily, in order to argue that an apostle has the right to gain a living through preaching the gospel, and then to slowly return to the issue of idol meat by way of an artful use of israel‘s wilderness idolatry. while commentators sometimes treat chapters nine and ten sep-arately, we are persuaded that the apparent digression is central to paul‘s argument. the chapters are indissolubly linked by paul‘s unique understanding of freedom and his view of biblical hermeneutics after jesus. mosaic law, according to paul, is written for contemporary instruction. in four instances, two from chapter nine and two from chapter ten, paul drives home a single point—lessons from the torah are for our instruction. where in chapter ten paul twice insists that the exodus-wilderness story occurred ―as an example‖ to us, in chapter nine he has already made an almost verbatim statement: ―is it for oxen that god is concerned? or does he not speak entirely for our sake. it was indeed written for our sake.‖ 75 here, paul is not speaking of a narrative from the torah, but rather he dealing with a very specific commandment from deuteronomy 25:4, ―you shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.‖ beginning with chapter ten‘s reference to exodus, might it not be the case that paul simply understands his corinthian audience to be standing in the line of the moses community with respect to salvation history and not with respect to the law revealed at the conclusion of the exodus? put differently, paul may not have created a strict dichotomy between baptism into moses and baptism into christ, but there nevertheless appears to be a definite distinction between the two. is paul, then, merely making use of torah as a paidagōgos? as a negative example to be avoided? far from being a negative example to be avoided, the bent of paul‘s midrashic, retelling of the exodus-wilderness story, is that the corinthians need to go back to school. he appears to be writing precisely against a view of a freedom gone amuck. gospel freedom cannot lead the corinthians to forget the lessons of salvation history. he writes, ―now these things occurred as examples for us …‖ he then spells out five lessons to be learned in a fashion that sounds almost like the first half of a decalogue: ◦ do not desire evil … ◦ do not become idolaters … ◦ do not indulge in sexual immorality … ◦ do not put christ to the test … ◦ do not complain … public ethics (edinburgh: t&t clark, 2000). bockmuehl, intriguingly, makes very little reference to i corinthians 8:111:1, and none to the critical text deut 25:4 that paul draws upon to justify the payment of christian workers. 75 this pauline point of view is not unique to i corinthians. see also romans 15:4, ―whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction.‖ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 paul‘s choice of a story is didactic. like their ancestors of old upon entering a new era of freedom, if paul‘s formerly gentile audience is not careful, liberty may lead to destruction. 76 in honing in on paul‘s handling of the muzzled ox in chapter nine, we hope to further elucidate this point. whatever paul‘s message in galatians regarding justification and the law, he in no way believes that the apocalyptic end of the ages in christ has excluded torah as a ―theological norm.‖ 77 paul‘s use of torah here has puzzled many modern commentators. in what superficially appears as a mere digression from a discussion on idol meat, paul in i cor 9:9-10, quotes deut 25.4: ―for it is written in the law of moses, ‗you shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.‘ is it for oxen that god is concerned? or does he not speak entirely for our sake?‖ because of paul‘s boldness in applying this text to his own situation, many have tried all manner of interpretive gymnastics to suggest that he is reading the text allegorically. a simpler solution is readily at hand. paul was reading this text jurisprudentially. as gordon fee argues, ―in keeping with the entire ancient near east paul well understood the paradigmatic, analogical character of law.‖ 78 in fact, almost all law functions in this way. a first year jd candidate at any us law school quickly learns that it would be impossible for laws to be written to cover the infinite possibilities of human activity. laws are written and arrived at in case law and are then applied analogically to a whole host of disparate situations. why, for instance, must the muzzled ox be less fertile ground for legal interpretation than the goring one? exodus 21:28-32‘s discussion of the goring ox serves as a basis for a complex system of jewish tort law. in fact there is evidence that ―do not muzzle the ox‖ was the source of human labor law in second-temple judaism. 79 paul hardly seems to be improvising. there is little reason, other than a profound fear that paul may be upsetting the apple cart by engaging in casuistry, to suspect that paul is using allegory here. peter tompson‘s explanation of the legal movement of the text is a helpful antidote to more fanciful readings of the text. ―it becomes obvious that there is a double [qal vahomer] argument: one from the ox on man and another from the field laborers on preachers. the common element transferred from one category to another is the right to eat while working. thus paul utilizes a halakhic…tradition related to a saying of jesus.‖ 80 in short, paul could assume that deuteronomy 25:4 was written for his instruction (and so we can today) because of an ability to sift a generalized legal rule from common particularized cases. those who want to read paul‘s use of the law in this instance as allegorical do so, it seems, because they assume a gospel versus law distinction as a grid onto which everything in paul can be readily mapped. hans conzelmann‘s muted but unmistakably critical estimation of the text nicely demonstrates our point: ―in this passage we are a long way from the topic of law and justification by faith.‖ 81 a more nuanced version of conzelmann‘s position is to be found in 76 see hays, echoes, 91-94. 77 it has been argued that ―the singular apocalypse of jesus christ excludes any other decisive and critical theological norm, whether that be torah in paul‘s situation or modernist, liberal canons of rationality in hauerwas‘s situation.‖ douglas harink, paul among the postliberals (grand rapids: brazos press, 2003), 83 (emphasis ours). 78 fee the first epistle to the corinthians (grand rapids: eerdmans, 1987), 408. 79 tompson lists a variety of rabbinic texts that used the text for various purposes. tomson, paul and the jewish law, 127. cf. anthony tyrell hanson studies in paul’s technique and theology (london: s.p.c.k., 1974), 164. 80 tomson, paul and the jewish law, 129. tomson treats this separately (pp. 125-131) from the fuller chapter in which he treats the text as a whole (pp. 189-221, ―chapter five –i cor 8-10: ‗on idol offerings‘‖). our reading here places the text in the context of the wider argument as we seek to address the question of paul‘s refusal to make use of the right. 81 hans conzelman, first corinthians: a commentary on the first epistle to the corinthians (hermeneia: a critical and historical commentary on the bible vol. xxxvi), trans. james w. leitch (philadelphia: fortress, 1975), 155. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 d. instone brewer‘s analysis of paul‘s use of the law in this passage, ―[paul] has derived a ruling which carries all the force of the written law, but he does not demand obedience. he preached freedom from the law, so although he has demonstrated his rights under the law, he does not claim them.‖ 82 if this reading of paul‘s renunciation is correct, then our thesis is in danger. does paul‘s refusal to flatly ‗demand obedience‘ mean that the law is null and void and that it would be wrong for christians to use torah (and the scriptures as a whole) jurisprudentially? to address this challenge, it is necessary to frame paul‘s renunciation of his right within the larger argument in i corinthians 8:1-11:1. such a holistic reading is made difficult because of the seemingly illimitable hermeneutical potential of the lengthier pericope. exegetes have espoused interpretations ranging from paul believing eating meat offered to idols was adiaphoric to paul prohibiting christians from eating such meat under any circumstance. we have argued, following hays, that chapters nine and ten are unmistakably linked by the key phrase—for our instruction. the chapters also function together thematically. paul argues that participating in temple sacrificial meals should be avoided by the corinthians (a) out of self-sacrificial love for the weaker brother, (b) because the god of the torah is a jealous god who still does not countenance idolatry, and most importantly (c) because following the law in this matter is critical for the sake of the gospel. going back yet further, initially in chapter eight paul appears simply to agree with the justification for eating meat offered to idols: idols are simply social constructs (―no idol in the world really exists‖); since christians worship the one god, they are at liberty to partake of everything that god has created (8:4-6 cf. 10:26). paul, however, immediately begins to hammer away at the force of such a case. in 8:7-13 paul argues that, imaginative figments as they may be, idols can be harmful to the point of destroying the faith of those who do not fully understand the meaning of there being only one god. it is most reprehensible to paul that the ‗strong‘ in corinth, for the sake of their knowledge and in order to defend their liberty, are willing to endanger the souls of weaker brothers and sisters for whom christ died. having articulated the rationale for not participating in temple banquets out of consideration for weaker sisters and brothers, paul‘s argument appears to have swerved when he returns to the topic directly in chapter ten. however, in paul‘s bold statement, ―so by your knowledge those weak [faithful] for whom christ died are destroyed,‖ (8:11) we have at least been given a hint of the bold polemic against participating in sacrificial meals in pagan temples that paul develops in chapter ten. herein, paul suggests that participating in temple meals is damnable, demonic idolatry. he ends his lessons from the exodus-wilderness retelling with a thundering: ―therefore, my dear friends, flee from the worship of idols‖ (10:14). if paul really believes that ‗no idol really exists,‘ why is he so intent on running the other way from them? paul urgently wanted the corinthians to understand that christian faithfulness is not about some abstract gnosis but about a community‘s standing before a fearsome and jealous god. the story of 10:1-4 stands as a bold warning that they would be in dire straits if they dabbled too much in the temptations of the local temple. richard horsley argues persuasively that pagan temples were centers of the imperial patronage system wherein a great deal of social networking occurred. 83 moreover he argues that many of the citizens of corinth were apparently former colonists eager to climb social ladders. when they spoke of their liberty to participate in pagan 82 d. instone brewer, ―i corinthians 9:9-11: a literal interpretation of ‗do not muzzle the ox,‘‖ new testament studies 38:4 (1992), 565. 83 richard a. horsley, ―rhetoric and empire—and 1 corinthians‖ in paul and politics: ekklesia, empire, imperium, interpretation, essays in honor of krister stendahl ed. richard horsley (harrisburg: trinity press, 2000), 89. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 temple sacrificial meals they were also defending their pretensions to be ―kingly,‖ ―rich,‖ ―wise,‖ ―powerful‖ and ―nobly-born.‖ 84 in such a situation one can see why paul‘s rejection of their wisdom is so intense. paul had sought to argue throughout the letter that the church is a distinct assembly. it was unconscionable for paul that the ‗wise‘ amongst the corinthians were brandishing the theological slogan ―there is no god, but one‖ to justify participation in pagan feasts and by extension participation in the powers of an age that paul knew to be rapidly fading. the work of horsley reminds us that the temptation of sacrificial meal was not idolatry only in a narrow sense, but also in the broader sense that the life of the temple implicated one in allegiance to the idol of roman imperial power. just as jews who ate meat sacrificed in the temple at jerusalem were participants in the altar of god, the table of god at the lord‘s supper implies partnership with christ. the church lives as the one body of christ and participation with idols speaks of participation with powers opposed and hostile to christ. in the words of horsley, ―paul argues in 10:1-13, 14-22 that the new international redemption inaugurated at the end of the ages in the christ event stands in continuity with israel, that judgment looms ahead, and that the people in the process of redemption must maintain solidarity over against the dominant society.‖ 85 paul, who was certain that the present form of this world was passing away, intended to make sure that the corinthians were aware that the gospel of christ is diametrically opposed to the gospel of empire. as paul intimates in the first chapter of i corinthians, the gospel of jesus is of a lord who does not wield the fearsome threat of execution, but rather suffers crucifixion, trampling the powers of this present age. paul‘s apparent about face regarding the power of idols is held together by chapter nine in which paul offers himself as an example of a gospel centered relationship to the law. by the time we reach chapter ten, paul has long been setting up a strong argument against participation in pagan temple meals. where the conclusion to chapter eight warns the corinthians not to use freedom with regard to eating and drinking in a careless manner harmful to the gospel, chapter nine opens with a series of rhetorical questions linking the corinthian situation to his own with respect to payment for missionary activity: ―am i not free?…do we not have the right to our food and drink?‖ in other words, paul‘s teaching with respect to the muzzled ox and his own right to food and drink is directly related to his teaching regarding meat offered to idols. three points, then, protest strongly against a suggestion that paul‘s failure to take what is lawfully his is an argument against the validity of torah. first, while paul forgoes his right for the sake of the gospel, it is not because he feels it unnecessary to comply with an antiquated law. such a claim is unsustainable because refusing to claim a law-given right for oneself is a very different matter than arguing that a law cannot be applied to someone else or claiming that the law has no validity at all to confer a right. a second point that tells strongly against taking paul‘s renunciation as a renunciation of the torah itself is to be found in the way the church has taken this passage. an irony too strong to go without notice is the fact that paul‘s reasoning in i corinthians 9 has forever determined the matter of payment for preachers. paul‘s halakahic reasoning, even if paul did refuse to make personal use of it, settled the question for the church. christians pay pastors. even someone as radical as the pre-reformation figure jan hus, appalled as he was by the abuses to which payment of clergy and christian scholars had led, conceded that ministers of the gospel should have their basic needs met out of the church‘s coffers. hus‘ reason? paul‘s argument in i corinthians 9. 86 finally, 84 ibid. 85 ibid., 100-01. 86 jan hus on simony in the library of christian classics vol. xiv advocates of reform from wyclif to erasmus ed. matthew spinka (westminster: john knox, 1953), 202. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 paul‘s failure to enforce his legal claims is not an indictment of the law because it is used in service of an appeal for the corinthians to follow the law. he concludes the whole passage by enjoining the corinthians to lay aside their stated right to be free of the law. at the end of chapter ten, paul conditionally agrees with the corinthians that ―all things are lawful‖ to them, but insists that what is apparently lawful is not always allowed with respect to the gospel. he then proceeds to place severe strictures on when temple meat should be eaten. in conclusion, he returns to his own example in asking strong corinthians to follow torah as interpreted through christ. at this point we must attend to a portion of the passage that sits at the hermeneutical center of the entire section. when paul concludes the text with the phrase ‗just as i try to please everyone in everything i do,‘ he is bringing to fruition a harvest he had labored over in the latter half of chapter nine which includes the well known pauline formulation: ―to those under the law i became as one under the law (though i myself am not under the law) so that i might win those under the law. to those outside the law i became as one outside the law (though i am not free from god‘s law but am under christ‘s law) so that i might win those outside the law.‖ the entirety of the discussion of meat offered to idols turns on this passage. all the crucial elements of 8:111:1 are readily identifiable here. paul offers himself as an example of becoming weak for the weak as he has asked the stronger corinthians to do at the end of chapter eight. as such, he is pleading with them to invert his example by putting themselves under torah teachings on idolatry. where in chapter six paul instructs the corinthians to choose judges from their midst to settle disputes, i corinthians 8:1-11:1 should be seen as christianity‘s earliest extant legal opinion, a legal opinion that is every bit as intricate and capable of sustaining an independent legal tradition as the watershed case in american legal history, marbury v. madison. 87 paul unveils a revolutionary new legal theory, and it is not for what his freedom loving audience has hoped. paul is up to nothing less than a thoroughgoing, casuistic demonstration of how apocalyptic christian communities can and should appropriate torah as law through the lens of the gospel. paul becomes as one ‗outside the law‘ by renouncing what is lawfully his with respect to salary, and he instructs the recipients of his legal opinion to become as ones ‗under the law‘ by following his halakah concerning meat offered to idols. those who proclaim freedom from the law to the detriment of unity between the people of god, jews and jewish and gentile christians, have subtly taken on the position of paul‘s opponents at corinth. what, then, is the future of the church‘s relationship to torah? natural law and the noachide we conclude with an argument in that regard, occasioned by a return to a theme of our initial section on thomas aquinas, that is natural law. at the end of that section, we suggested that natural law may be a source of christian disquietude with secularism rather than a reasonable answer to the same. another direction exists, however, in which our thinking here could be taken. where aquinas and others rejected a more robust notion of the torah by way of an appeal to natural law, david novak has written about natural law and torah in a way that remarkably brings them together. novak, following nineteenth century rabbi elijah benamozegh, provides an account of what some refer to as noachide law—natural law that fully addresses hesitations in certain quarters about the propriety of natural law. 87 for a standard account of the intricacies of marbury v. madison, see william w. van alstyne, "a critical. guide to marbury v. madison," duke law journal 1969:1-47. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 as noted earlier, the nature of most attempts to understand christian supersessionism as rooted in christology fails to address the critical question of torah observance and creates massive problems. if christology is the problem, how can one retain a christology and overcome supersessionism? must christology as developed throughout the centuries be radically overhauled or discontinued altogether? encouraging christians to abandon christology is, for most christians, an invitation to abandon christianity altogether. such a move structurally mirrors the attempt by christians of ages past that have tried to overcome christian-jewish difference by encouraging jews to give up torah observance. our argument for questions of torah observance as more critical from the days of justin and tarphon to levering and wyschogrod holds forth the possibility of avoiding the tangle of trouble that comes from locating jewish-christian schism primarily in orthodox christology. of course, the possibility of such and advantage could be overwhelmed by all the problems it might immediately create! would christian ethics suffer the same sort of confusion it initially experienced in the wake of the jerusalem council? perhaps the possibility would be rejected by the majority of jews, fearing, as they might justifiably so, that it could solve one continual attempt at assimilation by putting forth the very real possibility of a more powerful potential for undoing jewish uniqueness. 88 and how would christians even begin to observe torah? as mennonites, we hope to shed some light on these questions, though not to fully resolve them, by way of bringing together novak‘s thinking on natural law with questions posed forcefully throughout his life by mennonite theologian john howard yoder. david novak‘s essay ―before revelation: the rabbis, paul, and karl barth‖ opens with the charge that the indefatigable revelatory christocentricism of the followers of barth, in opposition to any natural law or natural theology, takes the wind out of the sails in jewish christian dialogue. and this despite the fact that novak‘s most important christian interlocutors are barthians of one stripe or another—stanley hauerwas, george lindbeck, and robert jensen to name a few—and despite the fact that novak undoubtedly finds barth himself a fecund conversation partner. novak suggests returning to der romerbrief to find a more stable ―point of contact‖ for jewish christian dialogue. 89 there, novak claims, barth argues for a negative knowledge of god—a knowledge of what ―god is not‖ derived from reflection on the disordered state of human society and human nature. in ―before revelation‖ novak gives a certain prominence to the noachide command to avoid idolatry as the beginning of a negative knowledge of god. this negative knowledge, while far from the fear of the lord that births wisdom, can be the ―necessary pre-condition for receiving god‘s self presentation in revelation.‖ 90 the noachide law functions as a hermeneutical key to the prohibition of gentile idolatry—if you want to know what a prohibition of idolatry means for a gentile then examine the noachide. novak continues in a follow-up essay by pressing the question of whether barth ―adequately dealt with the communal character of the commandments of god?‖ 91 this leads novak to ask an intriguing question: ―how could we know what a commandment is if one never had any experience of a commandment before the event of revelation?‖ 92 he goes on to answer that question in an admittedly un-barthian fashion by asserting that ―[n]atural law governs who we need to be with. it prepares us for god‘s covenantal entrance into our community that transforms it without 88 peter ochs notes this concern, ―epilogue,‖ modern theology 11:2 (1995): 226. 89 david novak, ―before revelation: the rabbis, paul, and karl barth‖ in talking with christians: musings of a jewish theologian (grand rapids: eerdmans, 2005), 108-09. 90 novak, ―before revelation,‖ 122. 91 david novak, ―karl barth on divine command: a jewish response‖ in talking with christians, 136. 92 ibid., 137. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 18 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 destroying it.‖ 93 novak‘s natural law thinking further draws on rabbinic thought in insisting that a primary point of contact which exists for christians and jews is the noachide covenant which is narrated in such a way in the torah as to exist for and place demands upon all people. with those thoughts in mind, it would be useful to turn to the thinking of a mennonite theologian and student of barth who has minimally engaged novak‘s understanding of the noachide. john howard yoder and his primary champion stanley hauerwas have continually had to deal with the question of sectarianism, the charge often made that the way they inherit barth leads to an isolation or disengagement from the wider world—in other words, a rejection not just of natural theology, but of the world generally. interestingly for our questions, however, is the turn that was taken when yoder responded to hauerwas‘s essays in against the nations with his own collection entitled for the nations: essays public and evangelical. 94 in the introduction to for the nations the question of language comes to the fore. the opening lines of for the nations run as follows: the theme of this book is the tone of voice, or the style and stance, of the people of god in the dispersion. when the jews who had taken jeremiah seriously began to settle into babylon as a place where they would maintain their community…they needed to decide whether to talk the local language. that was part of the larger question of whether to make themselves at home or to constitute an alien enclave…whether their acceptance of the chaldean culture around them would be grudging and clumsy or wholehearted and creative. would they continue to maintain the language of ―back home‖ as their primary identity? if they did that, could they be effective as participants in the mesopotamian culture? 95 yoder suggests that jews in dispersion came to a solution, since replicated many times over, of using three languages—the hebrew of the bible, the language of the host culture, and ―a language of their own between the other two‖—most well-known to us is yiddish, but yoder also points to the ladino/judesmo of sephardic migrants and asserts that ―the same thing had been done in persia, in china, and in ethiopia.‖ 96 this ―jewish polyglossia,‖ yoder insists, is extraordinarily important for teaching people of god who are pacifist nevertheless ―to live for the nations.‖ 97 even though yoder often times fears that natural law language has been used to coerce belief, it is not clear that natural law language would be forbidden by yoder to the same extent as for hauerwas or barth. 98 could it not be for yoder just another type of what he elsewhere calls ―tactical alliance‖? 99 in this sense several issues would need to be considered. is natural law actually the public language of our time? could there be some sort of analogy between ―natural law‖ and what yoder means when he makes an analogy with speaking yiddish? 93 ibid., 139. 94 stanley hauerwas, war and survival in a liberal society (minneapolis: winston press, 1985) and john howard yoder, for the nations: essays public and evangelical (grand rapids: eerdmans, 1997). 95 ibid., 1. 96 ibid., 2. 97 ibid, 2-3, emphasis in original. 98 in with the grain of the universe (grand rapids: brazos press, 2001) hauerwas leaves more room for such thinking than he had previously. 99 john howard yoder, ―but we do see jesus‖ in the christian witness to the state (newton: faith and life press, 1964), 61. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 19 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 in an essay in for the nations entitled, ―the biblical mandate for evangelical social action,‖ yoder recognizes the covenant with noah as one of multiple mandates for christian social engagement. for yoder, this covenant includes divine protection of life and the promise of seasons as the basis of culture. 100 this summary is sparser than the seven commandments of rabbinic judaism‘s understanding of the noachide law. however, the noachide law is a possible way of speaking of the base line moral agreement and minimal just relations that yoder speaks of in his work, while taking seriously the significant objections that yoder launched against natural law theology. still, there are a variety of problems with this suggestion. for starters, yoder only mentions noachide law rarely and briefly. the most extended focus on the noachide in yoder‘s work is in a footnote to an essay in the posthumously published the jewish-christian schism revisited, in which jewish philosophical theologian peter ochs responds to each essay by yoder. there, yoder charges that a prominent role for the noachide was to justify a non-missionary judaism after the partition of jews and christians. 101 unfortunately, yoder gives insufficient attention to the way jesus‘ life under the torah and rabbinic communities‘ commitment to torah were critical in resisting the way of violence. yet, this is the best way of understanding the extent to which jewish communities have been the people of god that have best lived out a yoderian vision of a common life lived in rejection of all idols‘ claims to ultimacy. simultaneously, however, the long quote above indicates that jews are the best examples for yoder of the type of non-violent witness that, while nevertheless separate in crucial ways, exists for the nations. such a return to the question of the law in yoderian thought would create a basis for a new way for christians to understand old testament law as presently pedagogical without having to resort to a calvinist understanding of the uses of the law or to a tripartite division of the law found most importantly in aquinas‘ treatment of law, natural and otherwise. insofar as rabbinic judaism represents a very potent form of law that was functional without the apparatuses of state power, such an approach might give more teeth to yoder‘s ecclesiological vision. rather than being synonymous with each other, perhaps the concept of law for the children of noah might be a better way of characterizing a yoderian, christian polyglossia than the concept of natural law. there are a number of reasons for this: (a) natural law at many times has been used in the christian tradition to get around the parochial nature of jesus of nazareth‘s particularity (b) with natural law comes the temptation to ground moral reason on some rational basis purportedly more solid and determinative than god‘s revelation in christ or torah (c) natural law thinking has often been critiqued for the ways its postulates are undeniably western and thus hardly universal. conversely law ―for the children of noah‖ is founded on a validation of commonality in diversity—in the celebration that even ―heathens and pagans‖ have a law. 102 such a conception of moral thinking from those ―outside‖ our own communities makes strategic polyglossia more attractive than the creation of a moral meta-language. it affirms that in cultures where western claims of ―universal morality‖ are roundly rejected, we are free to use other forms of moral language. moreover, the people of such communities would not be ―barbarians,‖ outside the realm of possible moral discourse. we can have faith in a certain preservationist order that allows for the existence of something redemptive in any cultural form. in this way, yoderian 100 yoder, for the nations, 183. a different list, more attuned to biblical language is found in the long footnote on natural law, discussed below. that includes be fruitful and multiply, freedom to eat both animals and plants, a prohibition against eating animal flesh with the blood, and that who those who shed human blood are to have their blood shed by humans. yoder, jewish-christian schism, 98-99. 101 yoder, jewish-christian schism, 98-100. 102 john howard yoder, the politics of jesus: vicit agnus noster rev. ed. (grand rapids: eerdmans, 1994), 145. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 20 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 theology invites us to discussions between communities that take the form of comparative law and comparative theology. most importantly, the noachide, especially as understood by benamozegh and novak, functions as a reason for the commandments that, nevertheless, does not risk the temptation of finding another ground more determinative than god‘s instruments of salvation. another important aspect of yoder‘s later thinking can now come into full view. yoder collected the essays in the jewish-christian schism revisited together for a desktop packet. the last piece in the arrangement, as collected by yoder, was a consideration of the noachide, and specifically novak‘s engagement with the topic. the editors of the collection, however, moved this consideration to a long footnote in the middle of the work. as presently placed, the footnote is to yoder‘s claim in ―paul the judaizer‖ that noachide law became a way for jews to escape the universal implications of their faith. this is an odd companion to his claim that natural law has functioned in the church often as a rejection of the particularity of our communal life and witness. the note was placed where it is, no doubt, because yoder concludes his assessment of novak‘s work on the noachide with the claim that as rabbinic judaism made peace with what he calls the ―messianic schism,‖ it began to back away from ―the radicality of their earlier commitment to a synagogue polity open to the goyim.‖ 103 conversely, as christianity took on the language of constantine and the rulers of europe, it became increasingly embarrassed by the grounding of their faith in contingent facts of history. both of yoder‘s claims are more than a little disputable and, taken together, somewhat counter-intuitive. this is especially so since a good deal of contemporary reflection on the noachide has focused on the way it was used to strengthen the jewish claim that ―the lord is the god of all people.‖ moreover, given the thrust of aquinas‘ treatise on law it would seem that one of the uses of natural law thinking is to endorse the continued validity of at least some of the moral precepts of the hebrew bible. so while yoder suggests that natural law and theology has been a way for jews to avoid a universal mission and for christians to embrace a universal language instead of the particularity of the biblical witness, there is a very real sense in which the opposite is true for each community as well. the vision that coalesces around yoder‘s rejection of natural law thinking and his disapproval of the loss of jewish proselytizing is a strong insistence that it is only a community with a thick identity that has something useful to bring to the world. also, there is an implicit rejection of a logic of secularity that gives the outside world a final destiny more basic than the destiny of the people of god. against such thinking, yoder insists that the polity of communities like judaism and christianity can be a witness ‗for the nations.‘ critical here is yoder‘s conviction that there is a profound similarity between the social ethics of jews and christians. it is not so much that we are comrades in arms against the dissolution of family values and of various ethical errors and injustices. more importantly, both communities live out an alternative politics that rejects the claims of cultures‘ idols. 103 yoder, jewish-christian schism, 100. as peter ochs repeatedly suggests in his responses to yoder in jewishchristian schism, there is something both profoundly supersessionist and profoundly anti-supersessionist in yoder‘s christian chiding of jews for leaving behind the mission of evangelizing the world. the way it is supersessionist is obvious. it determines the jewish mission through a christian framework. however, there is nonetheless a profound change afoot when a christian claims that the jews still have good news to offer. indeed, jews are not valuable only as a critical part of some sort of pristine, mystical past, but as people of god on the move – as people that still have a profound part to play in telling of a god whose love is not parochial but universal. this is indeed a religion not of dead letter but of the spirit. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 21 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 according to a very legitimate way of reading yoder, then, a certain sort of natural law language might be acceptable and even welcome. it is true, as yoder puts it, that ―tyrants and cowards‖ can be called to a ―higher morality‖ through what ―traditional theology has often spoken of‖ as natural law. 104 we could go even further and suggest that christians and jews might be living out their calling to dispersion and witness when they insist on proclaiming ―jesus is lord‖ or ―god is one‖ in a hollowed out and yiddish-like rhetoric of natural law. and we might stop here were it not for novak‘s additional concern that natural law language might be an extraordinarily fruitful aid for jews and christians charged with the almost unbearably difficult task of reconciling after centuries of mutual mistrust and christian persecution of judaism. where yoder calls upon christians to begin to ―constructively appropriate…[jewish] identity,‖ 105 we must deal squarely with novak‘s way of reading natural law. for barthian christians suspicious of natural law rhetoric, this could easily mean enlisting the support of marvin fox and others in insisting that judaism does not have a theory of natural law. 106 serious theological attention from christians to the details of such intramural jewish debates would be worthwhile indeed, but there appears to be an even more urgent necessity. yoder‘s position in the jewish-christian schism revisited must be most rigorously criticized from a more faithful yoderian perspective. yoder but once and in passing notices that jewish communities‘ commitment to torah helped sustain them in a pragmatically non-violent way of life. 107 it would have been far better if yoder would have pushed this line of thinking in an essay provocatively titled ―judaism as a non-non christian religion.‖ as it turned out, this essay is the least satisfying in the entire book. 108 instead of renarrating jewish commitment to torah as allowing its communities to be structurally indistinguishable from a peace church, the best example of a non-violent, messianic people witnessing to the way of the word amidst a myriad of violent cultures and nations, yoder argues that rabbinic judaism should be seen as almost entirely a reactionary movement against schismatic, constantinian, metaphysical christianity. apart from the truth that yoder‘s account of the schism does not take questions surrounding torah seriously enough, 109 there is the more discouraging fact that yoder, like others, limits his attention to historical matters rather than also pursuing the wider and more important question of how we 104 yoder, for the nations, 113. 105 yoder, jewish-christian schism, 74. 106 lamm and kirschenbaum‘s compact assessment of the issues related to fox‘s challenge in the tradition is quite instructive. they conclude ―[t]he key talmudic passage does lend itself to a natural law interpretation. saadia, along with other geonim, and followed by bachya, albo, and others espoused natural law. yehuda halevi opposed it, and certain kabbalistically inclined halakhists attempted to isolate the halakhah from a natural-law type structure. maimonides presents a special problem. in some passages he seems to deny natural law, in others to be receptive to it; but even then, natural law does not at all assume for him the significance that it does in other traditions.‖ aaron kirschenbaum and norman lamm, ―freedom and constraint in thejewish judicial process,‖ cardozo law review, 1:1 (1979): 120. 107 yoder, jewish-christian schism, 81-82. 108 ochs most harshly criticized yoder in responding to this essay. on this contention generally, ochs and daniel boyarin take up opposing positions that are critical of yoder from their respective angles. boyarin doesn‘t mind the contention that rabbinic judaism reacts against the church and gives up on a wider missionary stance, but disagrees with yoder in taking this to be a positive development. ochs thinks that jews ought to be challenged to reconsider a more self-consciously missionary position, but takes the idea that rabbinic judaism is primarily a reaction against christendom to be a stillborn remainder of supersessionism. ochs, the jewish-christian schism revisited, 158–59 and boyarin ―judaism as a free church: footnotes to john howard yoder‘s the jewish-christian schism revisited,‖ cross currents 56:4 (2006–7). 109 at one point, yoder briefly criticizes christians for leaving behind even the minimal dietary restrictions initially accepted at the jerusalem council, yet yoder blames much of the split on justin martyr‘s apologetic ―wedge‖ (see jewish-christian schism, 54, 61, 69) studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): hatlem & hatlem cp1-22 hatlem & hatlem, unmuzzling the ox hatlem & hatlem cp 22 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 ought to address the schism here and now. 110 yoder‘s extraordinarily long footnote on novak and elijah benamozegh sadly never addresses an intriguing concern of both jewish thinkers— namely, the possibility that the noachide or natural law may provide a way for jews and others, especially christians, to be at peace on the critical question of law. where the summa fratris alexandri and aquinas ultimately used the concept of natural law as a means of avoiding the possibility of a more thoroughgoing application of torah as law, novak rightly champions benamozegh, a nineteenth century italian rabbi. 111 benamozegh provides an account of the noachide as natural law that fully addresses christian theological concerns with natural law. benamozegh‘s détente between natural reason and the mosaic law recalls one of yoder‘s phrases that became the basis for hauerwas‘s gifford lectures. it could readily be said that torah observers are working with the grain of the universe since, according to benamozegh, natural law and the torah are identical: thus science and religion, the law of the universe and the law of man, wisdom and torah, are declared identical. we may be permitted to point out a consequence of this idea, while leaving to the reader the task of determining its importance. it is that all knowledge becomes religious knowledge, all understanding is sanctified, and the intellectual act is preeminently a moral act. 112 natural reason and commandment keeping are one and the same. as to what this meant for gentiles, christians and otherwise, benamozegh detailed the consequences of his understanding of torah and the rabbis‘ teachings on the noachide. noachide law, as taught by torah, allows for, even demands, a diversity of laws for the human family. the more limited torah instructions for the whole of humanity—the noachide—are a sufficient basis for genuine jewishgentile harmony. for benamozegh, while the fuller demands of ―mosaic religion [are] optional for gentiles, it is nevertheless true that ―noachism forms the first step up the ladder‖ towards ―attaining the mosaic law.‖ 113 while benamozegh insists that gentiles need not convert to judaism, he is clearly quite hopeful that some may in fact do so. 114 rather than full fledged conversion immediately, he suggests beginning with the noachide and taking on more and more of torah, especially beginning with sabbath keeping, as knowledge and desire for torah increase. 115 as christian admirers of such a position, we might only add a suggestion of rigorous attention to paul‘s christological, but nevertheless definitively casuistic use of other portions of the torah, especially as displayed in i corinthians‘ use of the muzzled ox. for, not only are jews and jewish christians from tarphon in the second century to wyschogrod, kinzer, and rudolph in this century and the last right to insist on jewish christian law keeping as laudable, but the question raised and temporarily resolved by medieval christianity now presses upon us again. why shouldn‘t the torah, a god inspired legal code, be normative for gentile christians? 110 this is also a shortcoming, in our view, of otherwise terrific treatments such as r. kendall soulen, the god of israel and christian theology (minneapolis: fortress press, 1996) and scott bader-saye, church and israel after christendom: the politics of election (boulder: westview press, 1999). 111 see novak, the image of the non-jew in judaism: an historical and constructive study of the noachide laws, toronto studies in theology no. 14 (lewiston, ny: edwin mellen, 1983) and benamozegh, israel and humanity, trans., ed., and introduced maxwell luria (mahwah, nj: paulist, 1995). 112 benamozegh, israel and humanity, 227. 113 ibid., 245. 114 on conversion see ibid., 241-245 ―the jewish attitude with respect to conversion.‖ 115 ibid. 251ff. a fuller christian scholarly engagement with benamozegh‘s israel and humanity is most definitely in order. identity matters: john, the jews and jewishness studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r10-11 review r a i m o h a k o l a i d e n t i t y m a t t e r s : j o h n , t h e j e w s a n d j e w i s h n e s s (supplements to novum testamentum 118; leiden and boston: brill, 2005), x +291 pp. reviewed by claudia setzer, manhattan college references to jews and judaism in the fourth gospel have puzzled and disturbed interpreters because they are contradictory, one set acknowledging jewish privilege as the partners of the covenant and inheritors of scripture, and the other condemning them in sometimes brutal language. many interpreters have emphasized one set of remarks and tried of dispose of the other. raimo hakola has now put forth an interpretation that does justice to both. he employs a model drawn from the work of kari syreeni whose “three world” model distinguishes between the world of the text, the symbolic world, and the real world. the gospel’s apparent ambivalence about jews and judaism comes from the discrepancy between the real world and the symbolic world. conflict with the jews in john is not “real,” but a useful symbolic motif. the johannine community no longer identifies with the symbols of judaism, because jesus has replaced and superseded them. jewish persecution is a motif that helps the community work out its own identity. it recognizes the former glory of the jews and their symbols, but these retain no emotional weight for them. one example will suffice. john tells the story of jesus driving the money-changers and animals out of the temple (2:13-22), seemingly presenting jesus as a pious jew anxious to reform and purify jewish practices related to the physical temple (vv. 14-16). a few verses later (vv. 1921) jesus predicts the destruction of the temple and shifts to the temple of his body. john’s introduction of the sheep and oxen, a detail hakola explains as unhistorical and scandalous to jews, his ignorance of arrangements of the temple, and his placing it at the beginning of the gospel, suggests that it serves a symbolic role in the narrative. jewish failure to preserve the purity of the temple justifies to john’s readers its eventual destruction and replacement with the temple of jesus’ body. although contemporary jewish groups criticized other jews who profaned the temple, john’s interpretive move to destruction and replacement takes him beyond judaism. the temple is drained of its value as a jewish symbol and replaced with the only symbol that matters, jesus. thus john speaks to a community that views judaism’s symbols and practice as part of the past, a mere building block in construction of their distinctive identity as followers of jesus. this episode, combined with the dialogue with the samaritan woman, shows that true worship of the father is something new. it will be neither in the jerusalem temple nor on mount gerizim, but among the followers of jesus. hakola shows how his method explains other symbols: the sabbath and circumcision, jacob, moses, and abraham. the johannine author gives a nod to the heritage of these markers of jewishness, but cedes to them no independent value. indeed, his jesus turns them around, using them against his opponents in the gospel. if some members of the community still cling to aspects of jewish identity, say the so-called “secret christians” still in the synagogue or “the jews who had believed in him” (8:31), john’s rhetoric widens the breach by lumping all together hakola, identity matters r 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r10-11 as “the jews,” denying them their symbols, and calling them names like “children of the devil.” his intense soteriological dualism allows no fence-sitters. hakola challenges consensuses old and new. he argues against the influential model of j. louis martyn that saw the gospel as a two-level drama whose conflict between jesus and “the jews” is a cipher for the conflict between the johannine community and an emerging rabbinic hegemony. martyn’s model makes an unwarranted leap from narrative to history, and imagines a powerful rabbinic orthodoxy that, most scholars would now agree, is rabbinic wishful thinking. on the other hand, hakola rejects a current trend to see virtually all of early christianity as a form of judaism, a trend that renders early christian identity almost meaningless. nor does he allow an escape to a theological camp to avoid grappling with history. the problem with such a carefully calibrated model that requires an inter-play between symbol, rhetoric, and reality, as well as between the author and his audience, is the one all text scholars face. how do we know which is which? the voice of the author is especially tricky, since, as hakola understands him, he sometimes mirrors the community, but sometimes is at odds with them, trying to lead them in a different direction. his scholarship is thorough and up-to-date, although i would quibble with his identification of “the two great names in twentieth century johannine scholarship” as c.h. dodd and rudolf bultmann (6). surely raymond e. brown and rudolf schnackenburg also belong on that list. this is a judicious, carefully argued, and persuasive work. its does not wish away one kind of reference to jews in order to amplify the other in the service of a theory. some past such attempts have done so, flirting with over-irenicism or anti-semitism. he takes in current work on rabbinic judaism, noting that the image of the rabbis has become much more nuanced in jewish studies, while it has remained a caricature in much of johannine studies. the final chapter is a thoughtful reflection on current scholarship and on the implications of his model for jewish-christian relations. he notes that the scholars who have emphasized john’s jewishness do not solve the problem of anti-judaism. to say that finding jewishness precludes anti-judaism is simplistic. while he hardly recommends adopting john’s views of jews and judaism, he suggests that john’s struggle with conflicting tendencies mirrors the task of today’s christian, struggling with multiple identities. ignoring the dark side of works like john will not serve that struggle for identity. hakola’s argument persuades this reader, and is, in many ways, refreshing. he moves us out of some old arguments and on to a new level. any scholar working on john and the jews needs to take account of this work. hakola, identity matters r 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ hidden children of the holocaust: belgian nuns and their daring rescue of young jews from the nazis studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): berger r1-3 vromen, hidden children of the holocaust berger r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 suzanne vromen hidden children of the holocaust: belgian nuns and their daring rescue of young jews from the nazis (new york: oxford university press, 2008), clothbound, xiii + 178 pp. reviewed by alan l. berger, florida atlantic university suzanne vromen’s important study is a welcome addition to the literature dealing with hidden jewish children and their rescuers during the holocaust. she focused on belgium, and interviewed 28 former hidden children (16 women and 12 men); eight nuns and one priest who hid them; two surviving members of the belgian resistance; the president of the association of the hidden children; and various persons involved in commemorations. the result is a new appreciation of the complexity of rescue as well as the lasting trauma of those whose lives were saved. her interviews with the nuns, a group typically omitted from this research, is especially significant. vromen, an emerita professor of sociology at bard college, fled belgium with her family in 1941 and subsequently studied in a convent school in the former belgian congo. she writes with the empathy of experience and the insights of a scholar while treating both psychologically and sociologically charged issues. she explores heartbreaking topics, such as parents’ giving up their children to people they did not know; jewish youngsters suddenly plunged into a catholic environment where they had to assume new names; the discrepancies in memories between the nuns and the now-adult children; the crucial role played by mothers superior; and the distinction between “grassroots clergy [who] played an important role [in rescue and] the higher echelons of the church hierarchy [who] maintained a cautious silence” (p. 110). the book is a valuable resource for those wanting to know more about the experiences of jewish children hidden in places that were historically and theologically hostile to judaism. vromen intelligently touches on theological matters in this regard. to take one example, she discusses the issue of baptism, which for the catholic tradition is sacrosanct, observing that the ritual served a dual purpose: it created faithful catholics, as some nuns desired, and it concealed the children more fully. moreover, she notes the inherent tension between nuns’ “rescue mission” of jews and “their beliefs” that the baptized jews were now catholics (p. 5). after the war, this issue became even more heated when some of the hidden children were kept by catholic leaders and laity either from their biological or extended families or from the jewish community. these include the rescuer fernande henrard, who “became notorious for her fanatical efforts to ensure that jewish children who had been baptized during the war” not be returned (p. 25). vromen refers to this as a struggle to “save” the children from being jewish. this amounted to what she terms a “double annihilation” (pp.137-38). the situations of the hidden children varied, depending on both the convent in which they were hidden and the views of those hiding them. some nuns were openly antisemitic, while others were empathetic and caring. moreover, attitudes of nuns in the same convent frequently were review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): berger r1-3 vromen, hidden children of the holocaust berger r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 diametrically opposed. one rescued girl, camille, recalls that sister louise and sister ida were very mean, while sister clotilde occasionally addressed her in yiddish and, after gentile children had received snacks from visitors, gave her candy as well. the mother superior at one convent told alice, another hidden child, that she should pass as a protestant so that she would not be required to take communion. the entire matter was, however, fraught. some jewish girls, impressed by the order and relative safety offered by the convents, wished to be baptized and to receive communion. others adamantly refused. some mothers superior spared the youngsters from making this momentous decision by ruling that children could only be baptized with parental consent. furthermore, the mothers superior often had a mother-daughter relationship with the nuns, which helped to convince reluctant nuns to feel that hiding jewish children was essentially god’s will. rescue efforts were part of the broader resistance to the nazi occupation of belgium. the jewish resistance committee for the defense of jews (cdj) played a crucial role in escorting jewish children, including infants, to places of hiding. vromen stresses the importance of women in this process. for example, only women could push a baby carriage without drawing unwanted attention. moreover, the cdj was one of the few rescue organizations in which women had crucial decision-making roles. the author interviewed the only two surviving escorts, andrée geulenherscovici and paule andriesse-renard. their mission was to contact parents and convince them to send their children into hiding. paule remarked on the help given by the catholic church, especially by the convents: “they considered it a duty. it came from the bottom, not from the top” (p. 87). two important exceptions to this rule were monsignor jean-louis kesthoff, bishop of liège and linburg, and father joseph andré in namur. andré kept secret notebooks containing the names of the 2,571 children placed by the cdj. hidden children of the holocaust also sheds light on the patriarchal nature of the church. quoting the work of historian paul wynants, vromen notes that in church histories until the 1960s nuns were typically [mis]portrayed as “docile auxiliaries of the clergy or cogs in the ecclesiastical apparatus” (p. 76). this had a great impact on post-war commemorations. vromen argues that since convents are “gendered institutions” and women were sometimes seen as inferior by church leaders, there was “little incentive to underscore the important roles that mothers superior and their institutions played” in hiding the children (p. 79). on the other hand, priests played highly visible roles and received recognition soon after the war ended by yad vashem, israel’s holocaust martyrs’ and heroes’ remembrance authority. one in particular, the above-cited father andré, responded both during and after the war with exemplary behavior. mothers superior and sisters themselves, however, remained “quasi-invisible” until the hidden children, as a group, emerged in the wake of the 1991 hidden children conference, held in new york city (p. 130). discussing the issues of memory and commemoration, vromen notes the intersection of what she terms “social drama” and “social repair” (p. 127). these are sociological concepts articulated in the work of robin wagner-pacifici. specifically referring to holocaust commemoration, vromen states that “in the holocaust drama that yad vashem memorializes, destruction and its victims predominate. however, by creating and honoring the righteous among the nations, the institution provides an opportunity to repair in some measure the devastated social fabric” (p. 127). the formerly hidden children have emerged as the chief attesters of the life-saving activities of the nuns and mothers superior. in the process, the now-adult children “by recounting their lives...have changed from silent victims into witnesses and actors engaged in a dynamic reconfiguration of memory” (p. 122). the appendix lists 52 nuns, 19 of whom were mothers superior, who, based on the hidden children’s testimonies, have been designated “righteous among the nations.” studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): berger r1-3 vromen, hidden children of the holocaust berger r 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 this excellent study is, however, not without a fundamental irony. there is no mention of reflection by the nuns on the role of the church’s centuries-long “teaching of contempt” for judaism in preparing the soil, so to speak, for the holocaust. there is also little discussion of the nuns’ apparent lack of awareness of the ongoing extermination of the jews. nevertheless, this book is crucial reading for anyone interested in understanding the situation of both the children and the rescuers under the nazi reign of terror. the author wisely refrains from any uplifting ending, noting that “the catholic church never formally commemorated the rescue of children by belgian convents. instead, it has followed...the politics of silence” (p. 133). more dreadful is the fact that twice as many belgian jewish children under the age of sixteen were exterminated than were saved. scjr 16, no. 1 (2021): 1-4 philip a. cunningham, ruth langer, and jesper svartvik, eds. enabling dialogue about the land: a resource book for jews and christians (mahwah, nj: paulist press, 2020), xviii + 419 pp. eugene korn ebkorn@gmail.com center for jewish-christian understanding and cooperation in israel, jerusalem 9339082 the authors of enabling dialogue about the land state that their purpose is to provide resources for “constructive jewish-christian dialogue about israeli-palestinian issues” (x), and it offers theological, academic, and practical material toward this end. the book stresses the necessity for christians and jews, and israelis and palestinians, to understand each other, and it promotes the need to listen to, and not to deny, the views of others in this dialogue. while some of the essays could deal more thoroughly with how others view themselves, most of the authors strive mightily to acknowledge and squarely come to grips with diverse views of the conflict. the book emerged from an international council of christians and jews (iccj) project “promise, land and hope” conducted between 2011-2016 by wellknown christian and jewish interfaith scholars. the volume itself covers a wide swath, as is evident from its format. part i contains topical essays subdivided into “scriptural overviews,” “the meaning of the land [in jewish, christian-palestinian, and muslim thought],” “challenges,” “personal reflections,” and “creative approaches to the land in christian theology.” part ii offers a curriculum and guidelines for dialogue about israel-palestine. the book is thus a rich reservoir of scholarship, theology, personal narrative, and practical steps to advance a productive approach to this contentious and bedeviling subject. tamara cohn eskenazi, michael trainor, and j. cornelis de vos discuss references to the land in the hebrew bible and the new testament. ruth langer ably offers a schematic overview of jewish theological views of the land and the state of israel. while a few 19th century jewish reform thinkers denied jewish peoplehood and did not hope for a restoration of a jewish state on the land, langer notes that these ideas never took root. what sustained the overwhelming majority of european jews and jews in arab lands (“edot ha-mizrach”) was the age-old yearning korn: cunningham, langer, and svartvik’s enabling dialogue 2 to return to zion. even contemporary ultra-orthodox anti-zionists fervently insist on the jewish connection and return to the land, rejecting only the political entity of israel as the proper means for that return. jamal khader, the only native palestinian representative in the book, offers his palestinian-christian theology of the land. his essay is an example of hard supersessionism. for him, christians are the indigenous people of the land, and in his spiritual reading of the bible it is christians who have abraham, isaac, and jacob as forefathers and who are the subjects of the biblical drama. he writes, “we [christians] were in egypt, we came to the promised land” (68). in his view, christians are the heirs to the covenantal promises that continue through jesus christ. after jesus, christians are the people of god, and his theology separates judaism and the jewish people after jesus from the bible and biblical history. deborah weissman and david neuhaus offer important personal reflections on life in the land today, reminding us that the subject is for many not academic or theoretical but connected to a deeply human reality. for weissman, jewish sovereignty in israel is rebirth and cause for spiritual and political celebration, while neuhaus, a jesuit, stresses how wounded palestinians and israelis are from the perpetual conflict and its debilitating spiritual consequences. peter petit calls our attention to the complexity of the subject. he details how jews, israelis, christians, and palestinians all bring a bewildering and often conflicting assortment of biblical, theological, and historical assumptions to the terrain. these diverse views influence both our emotional and cognitive stances when confronting the theology of the land. as he puts it, “it’s not a walk in the park” (129). ilan troen provides a scholarly analysis of the roles of theology and history in claims to palestine / israel, observing that there is usually an intertwining of religious, historical, and political claims about the land even in secularist ideologies. he also calls our attention to secularized versions of replacement theology, like the historical revisionism popularized by george antonius and edward said—constructions that erase jewish peoplehood and past jewish links to the land. like hard supersessionism, these claims are assertions of faith, not “demonstrable fact[s]” (121). finally, he notes how the idea of a native people morphed into the idea of an indigenous people to defy the authority of the modern state—in our case, israel. this persists in spite of the fact that signatories to the 2007 un declaration of rights stipulated that indigenous rights do not have priority over those of a sovereign state” (121). perhaps the most fertile part of the book is the section “creative approaches to christian theology.” its essays offer substantive recommendations for how christian thinking about the land can cultivate greater understanding and respect while recognizing essential religious, social, political, and historical realities of both israelis and palestinians. the swedish lutheran biblical theologian jesper svartvik describes how current christian theology is polarized between lingering supersessionism and western christian rejection of it. shunning the non-possumus dead-end of old christian theology regarding jewish rights to the land, he urges christians to take 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) seriously the biblical land promises as well as parenesis, meaning the moral obligations that the bible places on jews living on the land. neither the promises or paranesis can come at the expense of the other. legitimate critique of israel must be measured rather than “a ritualized condemnation of the state” (244). both sides must listen to the other’s story—primarily the persecution that was the jewish fate outside the land, as well as the palestinian naqba—and explore formative narratives, radical otherness, and trust-building endeavors in order to pave the way for healing and understanding. john pawlikowski also contributes a critically important essay in this section. after surveying the history of christian theology of the land, he limns a “theology of belonging” for christians, jews, and muslims (262). this theology includes selfanalysis, acknowledging indigenous peoplehood, admitting the centrality of the land tradition, developing positive attitudes and hospitality toward the land’s minorities, and “bonding with the earth,” that is, taking physical land seriously rather than waiting for an eschatological release into a higher, heavenly realm (278). barbara u. meyer probes alternatives to christian post-shoah religious thinking and current palestinian theologies. seeing that supersessionism is neither true nor good theology, she addresses the political and scriptural clash between postsupersessionist and palestinian theologians, analyzing the conflict’s cultural and spiritual implications. she too strives to overcome supersessionism and emerge with “a theology of belonging” (283). philip cunningham discusses contemporary catholic theological and biblical principles as manifested in nostra aetate and post-conciliar documents. these declarations present judaism not simply as a religion but as “a fundamental unity of faith, land and people” (306). they acknowledge jewish covenantal life, respect jewish self-understanding, and are committed to human rights of all persons. conceiving of jews and christians as “co-covenantal companions,” cunningham asks, “how might a catholic theology of jewish covenantal attachment to the land be constructed?” (315). remarkably, he also asks, “could jewish covenantal attachment to the land have sacramental character for catholics?” (319). that is, could it be a reflection of god’s fidelity to the jewish people as many religious jews understand it? cunningham is inclined to believe that the return of jews to selfgovernance on the land could constitute “covenantal restoration” but with the important caveat that this is possible only if peace is attained between israelis and palestinians (321). when that happens, the jewish return will testify not only to god’s presence in current events but also to how that restoration reflects the ultimate reign of god in eschatological time. the “curriculum for dialogue about israel-palestine” in part ii contains an introductory essay (“partners in hope: constructive interreligious dialogue through text study”) intended to guide groups studying primary and secondary christian, jewish, palestinian, and israeli texts. the goal of that study is to encourage appreciation of the other’s views even in the midst of disagreement. the texts include statements about the land and state of israel by the church of scotland, the reform and conservative denominations, christian zionists, palestinian church leaders, israeli religious zionists, and the iccj. this part provides the kind korn: cunningham, langer, and svartvik’s enabling dialogue 4 of practical advice and activity absent in exclusively academic or theological treatments of the subject, indicating that the book’s editors intend the volume be used not only for reflection but also for nurturing cooperation and partnership. that only one contributor is a native israeli or palestinian may not be an accident. it seems that the deep wounds of which neuhaus speaks has imprisoned most of the land’s inhabitants and paralyzes them from moving forward. victimhood too often dominates their consciousness, blocking them from humanizing the other and rendering constructive dialogue near-impossible. however, as the book demonstrates, christians and jews can model genuine dialogue characterized by mutual recognition and empathetic listening. in doing so, they contribute to the heavy lifting of peace-building, which is no small matter in political or in sacred history. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review jon d. levenson inheriting abraham: the legacy of the patriarch in judaism, christianity and islam (princeton: princeton university press, 2012), hardcover, xvi + 214 pp. rachel s. mikva, chicago theological seminary the great strength of jon levenson’s inheriting abraham is his usual incisive exposition of biblical texts, challenging habitual readings and illuminating new avenues of inquiry. drawing upon an eclectic collection of jewish, christian, and muslim exegesis (mostly jewish), he highlights the creative, contextual, and highly particularistic development of abraham in the three religions. it is a traditions history of sorts that, for the most part, prefers to emphasize the relationship between text and interpretation rather than speculate about historical influence among the religions. the study’s purported target is those scholars and popular writers who collapse the essential particularisms of judaism, christianity, and islam and argue for a unitary concept of abraham that can transcend religious difference: “[a]lthough interreligious concord is devoutly to be desired, the patriarch is less useful to that end than many think” (p. 10). levenson attends to the imaginative transfiguration of abraham in new contexts, as a sage of astronomy and philosophy by interpreters living in a hellenistic milieu; as an iconoclast by those facing imperial pressures to assimilate; as a torah-observant jew in the eyes of the rabbis; as a man justified by his faith when paul addresses the gentiles; and as a hanif (pre-islamic monotheist) who illuminates the human capacity for faithful submission to allah without knowledge of torah or gospel. however, it is a little surprising that levenson does not embrace the abraham who is a “source of reconciliation among studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 10 (2015) the three traditions” simply as a comparable modern development (p. 9). whether or not the authors recognize the provisional nature of their reading of abraham as part of a multivocal, eternally changing figure, their interpretations can be viewed as an exegetical portrait that speaks to our age, with its growing theological pluralism and simultaneous upsurge in violence committed in the name of the holy one. still, it is easy to critique their careless reading of text, lopsided references to tradition, and occasionally sloppy theology, and levenson does so with relish (see chapter six). he is not alone in this project; aaron hughes published abrahamic religions: on the uses and abuses of history (oxford, 2012) the same year. yet it is not clear whether levenson simply wants to warn of the epistemological dangers of abrahamic studies or to discount the entire field. guy stroumsa (who wrote a favorable blurb for the book), in his 2010 inaugural lecture as the first oxford professor in the study of the abrahamic religions, asserted that comparison of these traditions with their textual, exegetical, and continuing historical relationship provides a powerful and critically responsible alternative discourse to talk of a “clash of civilizations,” even as it focuses narrowly on “understanding how and why genetic or structural similarities function differently in related systems.” levenson is critical of many contemporary interpretations, especially hermeneutical approaches that would wholly subordinate religion to ethics or historical criticism. (this may help to explain why he does not integrate feminist, womanist, post-colonial, or other contemporary commentaries that would enrich his engaging study.) while these arguments are tucked into individual chapters rather than systematically debated, they remind the reader how much is at stake in the (re)reading of abraham. chapter one focuses on abraham’s “call and commission” (gen 12), reflecting first on the biblical movement from the curses and alienation that unfold between the narratives of eden and babel to the blessing and divine friendship that studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr emerge with abraham. levenson draws in subsequent jewish and christian exegeses that articulate divergent concepts of blessing, peoplehood, and chosenness or election. echoing scholars before him, he argues that 1) “the blessing of abram and the blessing of all peoples of the earth are not at odds with each other. they are related parts of the same divine initiative” (p. 21), 2) chosenness does not imply rejection of other peoples, and 3) paul presented an alternative particularism, not a universalist faith. chapter two reviews a number of genesis narratives to investigate two theological motifs that have always captured the jewish exegetical imagination: the tension between religious quietism and human initiative, and the absolute or conditional nature of covenant. in “the test” (chapter three), levenson explores diverse interpretations of the text that did not fit the trajectory of his previous treatment of the binding of isaac (in his the death and resurrection of the beloved son, princeton, 1993). then noting that the narrative is barely referenced again in tanakh, he traces its growing significance in later jewish, christian, and muslim traditions and the exclusivist implications of each. yet his most passionate argument is reserved for modern critiques of abraham, beginning with immanuel kant, that remove the passage from its theological and narrative context and make it an ethical parable in which the man of faith fails miserably. levenson rejects the charge that the traditions promote religious violence in their celebration of abraham’s obedience to the divine command, and recoils at the rendering of abraham “as a model of the abusive father, the violent male, the man pathologically anxious about the paternity of his offspring, the hideousness of ‘patriarchy’ in general, and much else along the same thoroughly repellent lines” (p. 108). chapter four illuminates how radically jewish interpreters redraw the biblical portrait of abraham in order to present him as the teacher of ethical monotheism over against idolatry. facing its own dominant polytheistic culture, early islam resonates with this theme, and the idea of abraham smashing his studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 10 (2015) father’s idols found in midrash (genesis rabbah 38) has scriptural status (qur’an 21). levenson explores interpretations that present abraham reasoning his way to the one god, and others that emphasize the essential components of revelation and relationship. abraham’s rejection of iconography and astronomy might seem quaint, but levenson draws it into contemporary relevance by engaging a challenge to scientism, questioning whether the belief that science “provides the final and truest description of all reality” smacks of idolatry (p. 133). chapter five, “torah or gospel,” both constructs and deconstructs the division of jewish and christian exegesis along the lines of faith / law, demonstrating the multivocality of each tradition and continuing an argument against viewing christianity as universalist. these competing particularisms lead him to the final chapter in which he maintains, “the indisputable fact that a plurality of religions appeals to abraham does not at all warrant the prescriptive claim that each religious community should regard the appeal of the others as legitimate” (p. 204). while he critiques particular studies of “abrahamic” traditions in detail, he is also building a case against any contemporary theology or methodology that succumbs to what he views as historical relativism, claiming it is “at odds with all religious commitments—and hence with the long-term survival of all religious traditions” (p. 205). his resistance to undermining particularity—a task of jewish scholars ever since philo—also appears to be the cry of a confessional scholar against the secularization of religious studies. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review jeremy brown new heavens and a new earth: the jewish reception of copernican thought (new york: oxford university press, 2013), hardcover, xviii + 394 pp. rachel s. a. pear, bar ilan university / university of haifa during the last half-century, writings on judaism and science, especially those by orthodox jews with medical training, largely dealt with jewish legal (halakhic) issues. as interesting as halakhic definitions of brain death and assisted fertility technologies may be, they are somewhat narrow in their scope compared to the broader issues that emerge from studying the interaction of science and religion, especially topics that are most fruitful for interfaith dialogue. therefore jeremy brown’s book on jews’ reception of copernican thought is exactly the refreshing and broadening new perspective that discourse regarding judaism and science needs. taking on the ambitious project of tracing jewish responses to copernican thought from the 16 th century to the present in various geographical contexts, brown, a professor of medicine at george washington university, looks at those who were sympathetic to and also those who were critical of copernicus’ project. he emphasizes the diversity in responses, arguing that there has been no smooth or linear path to the jewish acceptance of a heliocentric world-view. this conclusion undermines the myth that, unlike christians, jews have never resisted the findings of scientific research. in fact, in a recent debate in the knesset on the teaching of evolution in the israeli school system, the committee head, ultraorthodox parliamentarian moshe gafni stopped another speaker whose testimony mentioned galileo in order to interstudies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 10 (2015) ject that traditional jews “never had a problem with [the heliocentric view].” brown’s book clearly proves this statement wrong, along with other generalizations about the jewish reception of copernicus. instead, he raises the more interesting questions of when and why some religious traditionalists fought new scientific findings while others embraced them. indeed, the recent knesset incident is an illustration of one of the main tenets in disciplines related to the history of science: because modern science is made up of the scientific theories that have won the day, many also assume these theories had smooth paths to victory over other views, both within the scientific community as well as in terms of their reception among the rational public, underestimating the multifaceted controversies they provoked along the way. this “myth-busting” component of brown’s work of scholarship will be of interest not only to academics in fields such as jewish studies and the history of science, but to many non-academics as well. perhaps it should even be distributed in certain knesset subcommittees! brown, following historian david livingstone and other scholars of the history of science, insists that historians “pluralize, localize, politicize,” and look for “hybridization” in explaining interactions between science and religion (p. 276). he rejects broad abstractions and generalizations about religious traditions and says that scholars must attend closely to social and cultural context. for example, brown emphasizes that some of the first jewish scientists to consider the heliocentric view in a positive light, such as david gans (1541-1613) and joseph delmedigo (1591-1655), were individuals who had the opportunity to learn directly from the greatest astronomers of their time, such as tycho brahe and galileo, and that personal relationships had a significant influence on their views. similarly, brown argues that at least one of the individuals who avoided confronting the issue of the heliocentric view in his writings on astronomy, david mendola in the 18th century, may have done so because he was influenced by bans on books on even less controversial subjects that he had witnessed. of course, brown is not the first author to address the issue of jews’ studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr reception of scientific knowledge. historians such as david ruderman and noah efron, among many others, are mentioned by brown, and they certainly paved the way for this book with their work. also it is relevant to note that while many may be quite satisfied with brown’s emphasis on pluralizing and localizing, others may be bothered that brown stops short of suggesting more generalized patterns that emerge from the numerous jewish views he describes, which would in turn allow for comparisons with patterns regarding christian views, for instance. as may often be the case, the book’s strengths could also be considered its weaknesses. for experts in particular fields, it may be frustrating that brown attempts to cover so much ground and therefore cannot contextualize all of the authors surveyed to the same extent. however, despite its drawbacks, i believe brown’s decision to cover more ground is the right one, because he thereby attempts to address a significant historical question in its entirety. perhaps the decision to trace the reception of a single scientific idea through an extended period of time as opposed to analyzing jewish engagement with science more generally within a particular historical or geographic context may give this book popular appeal, outside an academic context. not every point brown makes is as clear as it could be, and some of the material presented could use further analysis. however, what is most important about this thoroughly researched and well-executed book is that it begins a generative conversation. those interested in the interaction of science and religion, as well as interfaith dialogue, will be grateful. reflections on the experience of teaching about christianity to jewish teenagers wolff, reflections on the experience of teaching wolff 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/ studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college reflections on the experience of teaching about christianity to jewish teenagers j udit h e. w ol ff t e m p l e a d a t h y e s h u r n , m a n c h e s t e r , n h volume 2 (2007) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2(2007): wolff 1-11 wolff, reflections on the experience of teaching wolff 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/ introduction by mary c. boys, snjm the editors of studies in christian-jewish relations requested an introduction to “reflections on the teaching of christianity to jewish teenagers” by judith e. wolff, since her insightful essay is a departure from the genre of scholarly essay characteristic of this journal. rather, hers is the mode of reflection-on-action, the insights of one who has taught a course over a period of time and given careful consideration to its content and significance. wolff offers rich fare for consideration by jews and christians alike in her description and analysis of this one-semester, required course. wolff‟s students come from homes with two jewish parents, as well as from intermarried homes; wolff detects more negative views of christianity from the latter, perhaps because they have internalized attitudes from the non-jewish parent. her students live in a largely christian region of southern new hampshire, so wolff‟s primary goal is to encourage respect for the christians with whom they interact on a regular basis. accordingly, her course (1) approaches christianity through jewish lenses, revealing both the similarities and differences in regard to, for example, redemption and covenant; (2) situates christian origins in second temple judaism, and jesus in the context of his preaching for the kingdom of god; (3) examines recent christian teaching about judaism, with emphasis on the post-nostra aetate tradition of catholicism; and (4) makes connections with current events. wolff, of course, does not aim to convince her students of christianity‟s truth claims, but rather to make those claims more comprehensible. by demystifying christianity, wolff‟s students have gained a vocabulary and a conceptual foundation to engage christians, in contrast to the inability of many jewish adults to discuss christianity intelligently. moreover, the study of christianity increased discussion about god, thereby inviting students to address jewish beliefs more explicitly. the course thus enabled them to live more knowledgeably and confidently as jews, and increased opportunity to reflect on their own jewish identities. wolff has discovered that the course also provides a forum for her teenagers to discuss their own experiences of antisemitism, and thus to feel less isolated. wolff concludes: although one sometimes hears that hebrew school classes do not have sufficient time to be able to teach judaism and such superfluous topics as christianity, my experiences with these several groups of jewish teenagers point in the opposite direction. their encounter with an introduction to christianity was time well spent in the enrichment of their jewish knowledge and in the formation of their own jewish self-awareness and identification. it is my hope that not only will wolff‟s article be widely distributed and discussed, but that this journal will continue to publish such essays. in reflecting on her pedagogical experience, she has placed an important topic on the agenda for jewish educators, and implicitly challenged christian educators to consider their own teaching about judaism. the context of the course after teaching an introductory course on christianity to jewish teens for five years, it is very apparent that such educational opportunities are important and valuable for them. while the students differ, their experiences living as a jewish minority in a predominantly christian society are remarkably similar. they bring these experiences into the course and are enabled to reflect upon and understand both the christian “other” and their own religious tradition better. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2(2007): wolff 1-11 wolff, reflections on the experience of teaching wolff 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/ usually, this course is offered on a semester basis for ninth or tenth grade students, but at times it has been taught to eighth graders. my particular setting in an after-school hebrew high school in southern new hampshire was, until recently, a joint school program of a reform and a conservative synagogue, though for unrelated reasons, the school is now affiliated only with the reform synagogue. the classes consist of children from several different towns in the region, and each of them is a minority in their school, many times they are the only jewish child in the class, or at best, there are five jewish children in a grade. on occasion, some children are the only jewish student in the entire middle or high school student body. each of the times this class has been offered, the majority or an equal number of the students have come from an intermarried jewish and christian household. two jewish parent households never outnumber the intermarried ones. i have noticed that the children who come from a two jewish parent home and those who come from an intermarried home share negative attitudes towards christians. on the whole, there does not appear to be more “openness” toward christianity among the students from intermarried households. in fact, the reverse is true. curiously, at times the intermarried group seems less tolerant of christianity. my sense is that in some of the intermarried households where the parents made the decision to raise the children as jews, the christian parent might have expressed a disappointment with his or her own childhood christian upbringing. yet, in the hebrew school there has never been a negative comment about offering a course in christianity, either from the students or from their parents. this is especially noteworthy since the course is not an elective course offering, but one that all students at their grade level in the hebrew school must take. the students always appear eager to learn and curious to know what their christian friends believe. each class has discussed the question, “why should we study christianity?” and each has responded similarly: “we live in a predominantly christian society and we need to know about it.” once in response to this question, a perceptive student commented, “but christians do not participate in our [jewish] world, so they do not have the same need.” the students have no idea what to expect as the class develops, but once the information begins to unfold, defensive and judgmental contrasts between jewish belief and christian belief begin to appear, which can inhibit learning. as the teacher, i feel that i must ensure that such comparisons be fair and based on accurate understandings and not on stereotypes. among the impressions of christianity that have been expressed by the students are: it is a religion based on fear, fear that you cannot go to heaven. christians answer questions about religion with: “that‟s just the way it is.” they copied us and now they think they are better than us. they think we‟re going to hell. these sentiments are not instantly or even easily expressed, but unlike many jewish adults, once adolescents do reveal their thoughts, they have few inhibitions about stating their thoughts strongly and uncensored. although challenging, their views are a bit refreshing because they are honest. purpose and objectives the course could be said to have as an overarching goal the encouragement of respect for those who believe differently. however, when those others who believe differently are christians, then some particular forces come into play for jewish students. these include the demographic reality that jews are a minority in a majority christian society, the historical studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2(2007): wolff 1-11 wolff, reflections on the experience of teaching wolff 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/ and theological interrelatedness of the two communities, and a legacy of mutual stereotyping and hostility between the two traditions. when jews study christianity for the first time, they are not encountering something totally foreign but something recognizable enough to seem strangely twisted to them. this can generate negative reactions that teachers trying to promote interreligious respect must face. an accurate grasp of christianity would seem to be the remedy. this purpose is pursued through the following objectives: a. introduce christianity when possible in terms of jewish self-understanding teaching christianity through jewish lenses and our own experiences as jews seems the only effective way to teach something that appears to be so different and peculiar. certain key theological concepts, such as redemption/salvation, covenant, eschatology, or messiah are discussed in terms of the respective approaches and emphases of judaism and christianity, recognizing that there is a spectrum of ideas within both traditions. b. highlight the origins of christianity in late second temple period judaism we begin by emphasizing that jesus and all his followers were jews and that the earliest churches slowly emerged from a jewish context into a greco-roman one. in the process as new ideas arose and new perspectives were introduced, christianity became a religiously distinct community that included more and more gentiles, and judaism and christianity had a parting of the ways. c. present an overview of the practices of christianity today and its teachings about judaism, especially as seen in the catholic church catholicism is emphasized for two reasons. first, demographically catholics are the largest christian community in southern new hampshire and catholics are the christians the jewish students meet most frequently. second, the changes in official teachings about jews that have been initiated in various churches since the shoah are most apparent in the numerous catholic documents, beginning with the second vatican council‟s declaration nostra aetate. d. discuss current local and world events that relate to the discussion of christianity and judaism current events help to bring the students‟ own experiences and attitudes to bear on the material being studied. in particular, the course has proven to be a place where students can share their experiences of antisemitism. interacting with the course content a. late second temple period judaism. at the start of the course we talk about jesus—who he was and what he taught and preached. we discuss the ministry of jesus in the context of the first-century world. students learn that jesus traveled about, proclaiming the imminent arrival of the kingdom of god. this was his mission. i point out that other jews of his time also believed in the coming of god‟s kingdom. we examine the concept of the “kingdom of god” as a jewish idea, taking note of its use in our jewish liturgy. in the fall months we refer to the high holiday services, which helpfully reinforce the lesson. in class we read the liturgical references to the concept of the kingdom of god as it is also expressed in the prayer books so that the students can be alert to the phrase when it arises during the rosh hashanah and yom kippur services. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2(2007): wolff 1-11 wolff, reflections on the experience of teaching wolff 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/ the students easily understand this information. it dispels the mystery surrounding an unfamiliar religious tradition and helps prepare for future unsettling conversations. they relate to the idea that jesus‟ message was a jewish one and feel immediate gratification that they learned something very important, not only about jesus and the jesus movement, but also a key expression of jewish thought. that jesus and his disciples really were jews becomes the central thought of the program. in response to the information that those associated with the jesus movement were one of many different groups of jews in jesus‟ time, a student once observed that maybe we cannot fit jesus into any one category of jews of his time. some students compared this to their own situations. they could not place themselves exclusively in one category today; for instance, a jew may keep kosher and yet belong to a reform synagogue. students typically ask, “if jesus was jewish, then why aren‟t christians jewish?” sometimes this thought is expressed by noting a confusing mixture of similarities and differences between jews and christians. for example, one student asked, “how do we know who has the truth?” this sort of reaction shows that a mere historical presentation of the origins of christianity is not enough. the spiritual or religious distinctiveness of christianity must also be treated. b. key theological concepts of salvation, redemption, eschatology in terms of jewish understanding the central christian “story” of the death and resurrection of jesus is a very difficult topic for the jewish students. surprisingly, most of the students have never heard christian claims that jesus “rose on the third day” and they react with incredulity. while most students have experienced the question, “why don‟t you believe in jesus?,” we attempt to explore the question, “how can christians believe in jesus?” the subject allows for discussions on specifically jewish topics that are new to the students. these include the theological implications of the exodus and traditional jewish teachings regarding resurrection. judaism‟s central story of the exodus can be related to the central christian story. the jewish experience of slavery in egypt and god‟s redemption from slavery—relived each passover—make known to jews that in the past god has acted to redeem us and will do so in an ultimate way in the age to come. those who followed jesus were jews and the exodus story was their understanding of god and god‟s ways. the death of jesus causes them to despair but they claim to have experienced god‟s redeeming power through jesus after his death. jesus prepared his followers for an imminent eschatological event, and for them his death comes to mark the beginning of redemption, the approach of the kingdom. although not shared by most jews in their time or by jews today, jesus‟ followers plainly reinterpreted jewish thoughts that were well established in the early part of the first century. the discussion leads to a consideration of traditional judaism‟s belief in the resurrection of the dead when the age to come dawns. the purpose of these lessons is not to convince jewish students of christian faith-claims but rather to make the claims somewhat comprehensible. while definitively rejecting christian assertions about the singular resurrection of jesus, some students eventually show some empathy with how such ideas could occur and be spiritually normative for christians. once, after weeks of discussing the jewish historical experiences of despair/exile and redemption/renewal (the exodus, the babylonian exile, the destruction of the second temple, and the liberations or restorations that followed), one student connected these events back to our discussion of the first statements of jesus‟ “being raised,” saying, “now i see how those [jewish] studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2(2007): wolff 1-11 wolff, reflections on the experience of teaching wolff 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/ followers of jesus were feeling their loss and then experienced redemption—the resurrection.” as we begin to study the key concepts every group of students repeatedly comments, “they [the christians] copied us.” i have heard this said in each class and i am concerned that the children were taught to understand christianity simplistically. as the course continues and they explore jewish thought in christianity, they articulate this sentiment in a more mature way. they understand that “they” were “us” and understand the roots of jewish thought in the development of christianity. c. catholicism today and its teachings about judaism not surprisingly, the jewish students have never heard of nostra aetate or the second vatican council. to explain this document‟s importance it is necessary to introduce the christian teaching of contempt for judaism, the theology of supersessionism, the deicide charge and collective guilt, and christian distinctions between the “old covenant” and the “new covenant.” of these items, the central topic of the deicide charge receives the most attention. after we read together nostra aetate §4, as with many jewish adults who encounter for the first time the reversals articulated by this document, the students‟ primary concern is whether the changes are permanent. they are not prepared to assume that long-standing but temporarily abandoned hostile teachings might not one day be restored. two boys who attended a local catholic middle school were especially skeptical of changes in the church because of experiences they reported. a religion teacher who really liked one of the boys told him that it is too bad that such a nice person as he will be going to hell. the other boy was singled out in class because every morning when the class recited the lord's prayer, he did not say it. the teacher said that she did not want to mention any names, but if any student was not saying the prayer he was being disrespectful and should say the prayer out of respect for her and for the rest of the class. following the teacher‟s reprimand, even though his classmates attempted to intimidate him, he refused to say the prayer. following the reading of nostra aetate and exploring the theological developments in the catholic jewish relationship, we read together the 1995 german catholic bishops‟ statement, “opportunity to re-examine relationships with the jews.” in a recent class the text was introduced with an explanation of the teaching authority of bishops in catholic understanding, something that two students who attended catholic school already understood. after we read the german bishop‟s statement, there was silence in the room. the students were moved by this expression of remorse. it was more than i had expected. this was a defining moment for one of the two boys who attended catholic school. although he had been the most resistant to the idea of christian remorse, he finally accepted that a real change in the church was possible. as a result of reading the church documents the students began to categorize “christians” as “pre-vatican ii” and “post-vatican ii.” although they misapplied this categorization to those christians for whom nostra aetate is not authoritative, the classification shows that they had internalized the possibility that christian churches could reform because of the shoah, an idea which they had at first refused to accept. i suspect that the public controversy over the mel gibson movie, the passion of the christ, helped to enhance the vatican ii distinction for them. they clearly gained some understanding of the incredible importance of nostra aetate to the catholic church and the jewish people. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2(2007): wolff 1-11 wolff, reflections on the experience of teaching wolff 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/ d. the charge of deicide the history of christian condemnation of jews as “killers of god” or “christ-killers” is new information for the students. one time, after talking about the deicide charges, i was challenged by a student who said that her catholic friend never heard the charge that the jews killed christ even after many years of religious education. my student challenged me and said that i was in error. in another class, i asked the two students who had attended catholic school if they ever heard this accusation. they said no. questioning whether they heard the charge of deicide and did not remember it, i asked them if they were sure that they never encountered it in catholic school. my skepticism ended when one boy answered, “if anyone ever said that to me i would punch his lights out.” it appears that for this generation, at least in this locality, catholic children are unaware of the deicide charge. they do not hear it in a catholic school and apparently do not hear it at home either. and yet, the picture is not entirely positive. one year, one of my students was confronted in her eighth grade classroom with the deicide charge. the teacher was discussing u.s. immigration patterns and asked which group settled here who had lived in exile for many years. my student answered, “the jews.” a boy then said, “and they killed christ.” the student from my class disputed him, repeating what we had read in class from a catholic religion textbook. the boy was not able to respond to her. the teacher commented, “she is absolutely correct.” the boy was baptist and the teacher was catholic. the story spread in the local jewish community and the parents told me how pleased they were that their daughter was prepared for such an encounter. world events and personal experiences of antisemitism this course allows us to study current topics on religion or prejudice. for example, the death of pope john paul ii allowed for discussion on the life of the pope and his contribution to the new relationship between catholics and jews. the elevation of cardinal joseph ratzinger to the position of pope led to a discussion of his childhood. one boy continued to call him the “nazi pope.” it provided a lesson on benedict‟s boyhood experiences and his family‟s views on hitler and nazism. when the gibson film became an important topic of the day, some of the students asked to go to see the movie as a class. one girl saw the movie with her christian friends and told us that she and her friends all cried at jesus‟ death and she saw nothing anti-jewish about the movie. after we discussed the anti-jewish issues at length, no one wanted to see the movie. i asked the girl who saw the movie if she still thought there was no antisemitism in it. she said, “what did i know when i watched the movie? i‟m only a kid.” each time i have taught this class it is clear that antisemitism is ever-present in the students‟ lives. the subject matter offers them an opportunity to speak of the antisemitic incidents that they feel they have encountered with their christian classmates. yet, the students are cautious about discussing these occurrences and begin to disclose such incidents only as the class progresses and as they feel secure. in retrospect, i know of no other forum that offers the opportunity to discuss this matter openly and within a “safe” environment. a discussion of antisemitic experiences occurs late in the course and only in response to the “teachable moment.” it should be noted that the students do not display any “victim mentality” in regard to antisemitism, probably because they have no background in contemporary jewish history. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2(2007): wolff 1-11 wolff, reflections on the experience of teaching wolff 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/ nevertheless, they all have experiences they understand to be manifestations of antisemitism. some examples are: being told to “stop acting like a jew” the only jewish child in the school being told by eighthgrade classmates that “she looked” jewish after answering “yes” to a lunch hour question, “are you a jew?” the questioner never spoke to the jewish child again after jewish kids say, “jesus was a jew,” others say, “but you guys rejected him” or “you‟re just making that up.” jews being told they will go to hell for not believing in jesus a boy who excels in algebra believes the other kids think it is because he is jewish even though in the class students share these disturbing stories, these same students do not discuss their experiences of antisemitism with their parents. parents are generally unaware of antisemitism in their children‟s schools and react with great surprise when they learn of it. when i asked the students why they do not discuss these antisemitic incidents at home, one said her parents would “freak out” if she gave them this information. others in the class agreed. why this hesitation to talk about it? for some, it appears that they believe that antisemitic comments are unique to them, but as soon as one student speaks of an antisemitic remark, the others will affirm that they had similar experiences. for others it might be that the antisemitic comments are so hurtful that they have trouble talking about it. some jewish teens think that when their friends say such things to them it is all in fun. they would not want their parents to “go ballistic” over something “trivial.” in general, the students seem to take for granted that antisemitic incidents are “the way it is.” they may not think about the real hurt until our class conversations jar their memories. nevertheless, when asked directly, “does antisemitism exist among your classmates?” there is a very clear affirmative answer which seems to have become more intense in more recent classes. concluding observations my experiences teaching jewish students about christianity have convinced me that the students rather immediately take the information they learn in hebrew school outside the classroom. however they understand the information at their age level, they use it to engage in dialogue with their christian friends. it opens up a door for them to ask questions of these friends on the subject of jesus and christian practice. they seem confident in their ability, not always justifiably, to approach these questions. invariably, during the first class of the course, they criticize their jewish education, or lack of it, comparing themselves unfavorably to christian friends who they presume know all about their religion. they think they know nothing and the christian teenagers know so much more. as the religious minority they have expressed feeling pressured by christian classmates by “always having to explain ourselves.” at the end of the course they feel empowered to ask questions of their friends. as a result, they claim now that they know more about religion [both judaism and christianity!] than their christian friends since their christian friends cannot answer their questions. it does not seem to occur to them that their friends have not had the occasion to look at their own religion from an outsider‟s religious perspective, an experience that forces them to learn more about their own tradition and studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2(2007): wolff 1-11 wolff, reflections on the experience of teaching wolff 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/ motivates them to engage in direct interreligious conversation. whereas before the course they felt inadequate to answer christian questions about judaism, now they were inadvertently putting their christian friends on the same spot and recognizing that the friends knew as little as they! the conclusion is that typically neither christian nor jewish students are prepared to respond to questions posed from the other's unfamiliar perspective, but the course gave encouragement to the jewish students to at least begin the conversation. there is also an interesting dynamic that i have observed in terms of sensitization. as a result of the introduction to christianity course, the jewish students acquire some knowledge of the religious origins of christian anti-jewish teaching that contributed so much over the centuries to social animosity against jews and to racial antisemitism. with this new knowledge, they are sometimes too quick to detect “antisemitism” (understood very broadly as anything that might smack of negativity toward jews) in their everyday lives. for instance, in one class a group of jewish students who attend the same school told me that their world civilization book had information in it that was anti-jewish. the lesson in question presented in summary fashion the origins of christianity with particular attention devoted to the apostle paul‟s work among the gentiles. when i read the lesson, i found it to be well done, if perhaps a little dense, but not anti-jewish. what the jewish students missed was any reference to the (unbaptized) jewish side of the separation of the two traditions, something beyond the scope and purpose of the lesson, and they interpreted this to reflect “antisemitism.” on the other hand, with their new sensitivity to christian-jewish interactions, the students can also be better equipped to appreciate positive experiences. when one of the girls in the same group who had been concerned about the world civilization book attended our annual community-wide jewish catholic seder, she spontaneously used the blank back cover of the haggadah to take notes for the class on the bishop‟s brief opening remarks. she took these notes, she explained, because what the bishop said resonated with her from the information we discussed in class. she related to the class that he said that “we worship the same god” and we share the “exodus story” among other things. it seemed to me that she understood the implications of the bishop‟s remarks better than most of the jewish adults who were present. another consequence of the course worth mentioning is that after the course, the jewish students nevertheless remained unable to appreciate the diversity of christian practice. they know there are differences but could not grasp the idea intellectually. comparing it to differences in jewish practice did not seem to help. for them, you are either jewish or not. you are either christian or not. these are the defining categories with which they operate, and whether someone is methodist or catholic or baptist is a meaningless distinction from their jewish perspective. this categorical dynamic may be the result of the centuries of conflictual relations between the two traditions, one that continues to exercise its influence in both communities today. operating with these primary categories of “jewish” and “christian,” they were somewhat able to set aside their initial judgmental and defensive attitudes while the class material was being discussed. there was a conspicuous breakdown of some of the stereotypes and neat categorizations of christians and christianity, and they acquired some familiarity with and appreciation of the many of the differences between the traditions. the only other course that equally catches the attention of this age group is one on the holocaust. perhaps because it touches on their everyday lived experiences, the jewish students are very interested in learning about their christian studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2(2007): wolff 1-11 wolff, reflections on the experience of teaching wolff 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/ friends‟ traditions. this interest presents an opportunity for teaching traditional christian, as well as traditional jewish religious ideas that these students in other after-school settings would never have the opportunity to learn. unanimously, the students (and their parents) reported that the information they encountered was not superficial and they came away with the idea that they learned important things. these observations taken into account, i conclude from these experiences that participating in an introductory course on christianity is valuable and necessary for jewish students. overall, i hear comments from parents long after the course has ended that their children learned so much in my class. this is, of course, gratifying, but given the student‟s initial reticence to discuss some of the course topics, i am not sure how many details they actually convey to their parents. so why do i feel the course is an important experience for jewish young people? beyond simply being more informed about the majority religious community, i would note the following benefits: first, although their christian friends might be surprised to learn this, the jewish students have had little or no experience in talking about god prior to this class. in response to the encounter with the christian “other,” the course offered them an unusual opportunity to discuss matters of jewish belief and the importance for them of being jewish. second, the jewish students also had to overcome a widespread reticence among jews to consider or discuss jesus or christianity. perhaps the experience of oppression as a religious minority has established certain patterns of avoidance among many jews in this regard. the class helped the jewish young people to “demystify” christianity to some degree and alleviate the discomfort that many adult jews experience when talking about things christian. this may be reflected in the comment of one student when asked, “what did you think of this class and learning about christianity?” she replied, “it‟s pretty cool when your friends ask you what you learn in hebrew school and you say „we‟re learning about jesus.‟” it needs to be clearly understood that the reason for the course is not to choose between judaism and christianity, an understanding very rarely voiced by some students at the outset. far more important is the goal of enabling jewish students to live more comfortably and knowledgably among the larger christian population. it may be that a new confidence about a previously unknown and threatening subject was what motivated my student to say, “it‟s pretty cool.” third, a major aspect of defining identity, including jewish identity, is the distinction drawn between ourselves and “others.” learning about another religion‟s traditions inevitably encourages thinking about an individual‟s own beliefs and practices, and this is especially true for the related traditions of judaism and christianity. at a time when adolescents are deciding for themselves whether or not god exists and what that should mean for their own lives, the self-reflection on their jewish identity sparked by their encounter with the christian “other” is an important consequence of the course. surprisingly, the inevitable self-reflection that takes place in this course revealed a strong sense of jewish identity among the students. at no time was there even a hint of interest in conversion. the course did not generate or increase their sense of identity but it allowed it to emerge with greater clarity for them. although one sometimes hears that hebrew school classes do not have sufficient time to be able to teach judaism and such superfluous topics as christianity, my experiences with these several groups of jewish teenagers point in the opposite direction. their encounter with an introduction to christianity was time well spent in the enrichment of their studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2(2007): wolff 1-11 wolff, reflections on the experience of teaching wolff 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/ jewish knowledge and in the formation of their own jewish selfawareness and identification. "civilizational" boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations a n dr e w k . wi s e d a e m e n c o l l e g e volume 5 (2010) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): wise 1-22 wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 ―the jewish question is neither racial nor religious, but civilizational.‖ feliks koneczny 1 the koneczny renaissance in poland beginning in february 2007, members of the radical party narodowe odrodzenie polski (national rebirth of poland nop) 2 have gathered in kraków each year to commemorate the life and work of feliks koneczny (1862-1949). the ―koneczny conference‖ coincides with the historian‘s birthday, and after the proceedings a small group marches to his grave in the salvator cemetery to pay homage to the man dubbed by one admirer the ―copernicus of the third millenium.‖ 3 participants at the inaugural event discussed the need for ―wiping out‖ in contemporary poland the influence of the same non-latin civilizations identified by koneczny as threats in the interwar period: turanian, byzantine, and jewish. central to this vision 1 feliks koneczny, ―państwo w cywilizacji łacińskiej,‖ in państwo i prawo w cywilizacji łacińskiej (warszawa and komorów, wydawnictwo antyk, 2001), 8. the manuscript was completed in october 1941. 2 the stephen roth institute for the study of contemporary antisemitism and racism reported in 2007 that the nop was ―the most aggressively antisemitic organization in poland.‖ see antisemitism worldwide 2007 – poland, http://www.tau.ac.il/anti-semitism/asw2007/poland.html (accessed 12 august 2010). 3 andrzej j. horodecki, ―ciemności europejskie,‖ nowy przegląd wszechpolski 11 (2004), no. 5-6, http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2004_05_06/okwhorodecki_ciemnozci-europejskie.html (accessed 21 june 2006). in this essay horodecki specifically calls for koneczny‘s works to be required reading in religious education classes in middle schools. he has been active in the nationalist movement since his days as a member of the polski związek katolicko-społeczny (polish catholic-social union), which was founded in january 1981. koneczny‘s ideas were an important component of nationalist ideology among a new generation of polish activists that emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s. as a frequent contributer to myśl polska, but more importantly as an editor and contributor to nowy przegląd wszechpolski, andrzej horodecki has produced dozens of essays that apply koneczny‘s civilizational paradigm to a myriad of contemporary problems. is the belief that these civilizations aim to diminish catholicism, which is at the heart of latin civilization. one young activist, marcin jendrzejczak, concluded that it is ―necessary in our hard times of culture wars to cooperate with catholics and latinists from all western regions in a sort of ‗white international‘...‖ 4 at the 2008 koneczny conference, kamil sawczak delivered a paper ―on the resolution of the jewish problem.‖ 5 citing koneczny as an authority, the author contended that the ―jewish problem‖ is not a racial or religious issue, but a civilizational one. the presentation was filled with resentment about the ―civilizational sickness‖ that accompanies the ―judaization‖ (zażydzenie) of polish thinking. this is an old complaint, one that catholic critics voiced frequently in the interwar period. 6 linked in today‘s conspiratorial vision with the ―new world order,‖ sawczak identified jewish influence in the bureaucratization of polish society, the proliferation of pornography, 7 and most significantly in the focus on the ―letter of the 4 marcin jendrzejczak, ―nacjonalizm bizantyjski‖ (28 june 2007), prawica.net, http://www.prawica.net/node/7547 (accessed 8 july 2010). several dozen people reportedly attended the conference. topics of speeches included: dariusz tarnowiecki, ―polska między wschodem a zachodem;‖ bartosz biernat, ―cywilizacja łacińska a cywilizacja zachodu;‖ and zbigniew lignarski, ―talmud a ideologia iii rzeszy.‖ see nacjonalista.pl – portal narodowyradykalny, http://www.nacjonalista.org/galeria.php?id=110 (accessed 20 november 2009). also see zbigniew lignarski, ―talmud ze swastyką w tle?‖ (20 may 2009), archipelag-instytut norwida, http://archipelag.org.pl/newsdesk_info.php?newspath=4&newsdesk_id=4 (accessed 21 november 2009). 5 kamil sawczak, ―poglądy: o rozwiązaniu kwestii żydowskiej. referat wygłoszony na ii konferencji konecznańskiej, kraków, 9.02.2008,‖ nacjonalista.pl – portal narodowo-radykalny, http://www.nacjonalista.org/artykuly.php?id=88 (accessed 2 april 2008). 6 see ronald modras, ―the interwar polish catholic press on the jewish question,‖ annals of the american academy of political and social science 548 (november 1996): 179-180. 7 in his book on ―jewish civilization,‖ koneczny discusses this issue. see feliks koneczny, cywilizacja żydowska (london: wydawnictwa towarzystwa http://www.tau.ac.il/anti-semitism/asw2007/poland.html http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2004_05_06/okw-horodecki_ciemnozci-europejskie.html http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2004_05_06/okw-horodecki_ciemnozci-europejskie.html http://www.prawica.net/node/7547 http://www.nacjonalista.org/galeria.php?id=110 http://archipelag.org.pl/newsdesk_info.php?newspath=4&newsdesk_id=4 http://www.nacjonalista.org/artykuly.php?id=88 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): wise 1-22 wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 law‖ rather than its ethical content. echoing koneczny‘s fears from an earlier era, sawczak proclaimed: ―the judaization of polish society has become a fact; thus the problem of the solution of the jewish question stands before us.‖ 8 in his cywilizacja żydowska, koneczny opined that ―one cannot be civilized in two ways...either we must dejudaize or we will perish miserably in judaization. there is not any anti-semitism in this thesis, but only a warning about civilizational mixtures...the jewish question is neither religious nor racial, but civilizational. in the civilizational sense of the word, who will not be an anti-semite?...in any country, who will thirst for civilizational judaization?‖ 9 indeed, koneczny claimed that anti-semitism was a defense of latin civilization ―against the claims of israel for world domination.‖ 10 koneczny and his heirs have consistently defined poland‘s basic problem as a lack of civilizational purity. koneczny‘s influence on extremist thinking goes back to the interwar period, especially among the so-called ―youth‖ who eagerly sought to combine their catholicism and nationalism into a coherent ideology. rafał łętocha has identified an undoubted influence of koneczny on the endek vision of history that emerged during world war ii, and his ―clash of civilizations‖ theory can also be found in their wartime analyses. 11 his influence is evident in concepts and terms, such as ―latin imienia romana dmowskiego, 1974), 383-384. in his introduction, jędrzej giertych notes that koneczny claimed to have most of this book finished by 1934, when his plurality of civilisations was completed. giertych gives 1943 as the final date of completion, with a few changes added after that. ibid., 8. 8 sawczak, ―o rozwiązaniu kwestii żydowskiej.‖ 9 koneczny, cywilizacja żydowska, 407-409. 10 ibid., 388. 11 rafał łętocha, katolicyzm a idea narodowa. miejsce religii w myśli obozu narodowego lat okupacji (lublin: fundacja servire veritati instytut edukacji narodowej, 2002), 88-89. civilization,‖ which were borrowed from his works. also, their rhetoric has a konecznian emphasis on ethics as a key factor in distinguishing civilizations. 12 while koneczny‘s works fell into disfavor in communist poland, several key manuscripts were published in exile by jędrzej giertych (1903-1992). jędrzej‘s ideology is sometimes referred to as ―christian nationalism,‖ which is the title of a brochure that he published in 1948. 13 his thinking reflects the attitudes of the nationalist ―youths‖ who came of age in the interwar period. in recent years, jędrzej‘s son, maciej (b. 1936), has served as the leading ideologue for the league of polish families (liga polskich rodziń – lpr, formed in 2001), as well as a deputy to the european parliament (2004-2009). moreover, maciej‘s son, roman (b. 1971), served briefly (may 2006august 2007) as deputy prime minister and minister of education in a coalition government. maciej, in particular, has elevated koneczny‘s ―science of civilizations‖ to a new level of importance in nationalist ideology. 14 jarosław tomasiewicz opined that ―the influence of koneczny on the contemporary endecja [nationalist movement] is difficult to overestimate. the ‗theory of civilizations‘ is a sort of ‗metatheory‘ for the catholic nationalism of the endecja.‖ 15 12 ibid., 284-285. 13 see jędrzej giertych, nacjonalizm chrześcijański, 3 rd ed. (krzeszowice: dom wydawniczy ―ostoja,‖ 2004). 14 ulrich schmid finds that the giertychs have sought to blend roman dmowski‘s ideas with koneczny‘s catholic historical philosophy. see ―eine glückliche familie die giertychs und ihre ideologie,‖ osteuropa 56 (november-december 2006), no. 11-12: 69. 15 jarosław tomasiewicz, ugrupowania neoendeckie w iii rzeczypospolitej (toruń: wydawnictwo adam marszałek, 2003), 219. grzegorz tokarz also finds that koneczny‘s theories about civilizational conflict are important to contemporary nationalists. in the opinion of nationalists, he argues, antisemitism is ―an existential conflict.‖ see grzegorz tokarz, ruch narodowy w studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): wise 1-22 wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 today, nationalists argue that despite centuries of pressure from alien civilizations, ―the rebirth of latin civilization must begin in poland.‖ 16 as the ―apostle of latin civilization‖ [emphasis in original], 17 poland must fulfill its messianic mission as described by koneczny: ―our duty and historical mission are one and the same: the spread of latin civilization.‖ 18 while koneczny was not a member of the endecja, ―the notion of ‗latin civilization‘—which is a key to his theory—has become the standard for the new endeks‖ 19 as they don their ―civilizational armor‖ 20 and fight to defend poland‘s civilizational boundaries. for koneczny and his heirs this struggle has been ―three-fold‖ in nature: ―material, moral, and intellectual.‖ 21 koneczny insisted that the ―issue of civilization—the psychical issue—is not polsce w latach 1989-1997 (wrocław: wydawnictwo uniwersytetu wrocławskiego, 2002), 211-213. 16 andrzej horodecki, ―kościół wobec personalizmu i gromadnościowości: konsekwencje lekceważenia grzechu pierworodnego,‖ nowy przegląd wszechpolski 11 (2004), no. 3-4, http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2004_03_04/zrehorodecki_kosciol-wobec.html (accessed 30 june 2008). 17 andrzej horodecki, ―wychowanie do wolności w prawdzie,‖ nowy przegląd wszechpolski 11 (2004), no. 9-10, http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2004_09_10/pishorodecki_wychowanie-do-wolnosci.html (accessed 30 june 2008). 18 feliks koneczny, prawa dziejowe. oraz dodatek byzantynizm niemiecki (london: wydawnictwa towarzystwa imienia romana dmowskiego, 1982), 324. koneczny‘s ―neo-messianistim‖ is noted by many scholars; for example, see sonia bukowska, ―feliksa konecznego historiozoficzna refleksja nad narodem,‖ folia philosophica 20 (2002): 247. on koneczny‘s romanticism, see joanna nowak, ―jedność w rozmaitości – czyli o romantycznych korzeniach koncepcji narodu feliksa konecznego,‖ sprawy narodowościowe 30 (2007): 75-94. 19 tomasiewicz, uprupowania neoendeckie, 219. 20 editorial, ―miłość przebija pancerze,‖ nowy przegląd wszechpolski 14 (2007), no. 1-2: 1, http://www.npw.pl/pdf/npw.2007.1-2.pdf (accessed 27 august 2009). 21 koneczny, cywilizacja żydowska, 251; and feliks koneczny, on the plurality of civilisations, tr. jędrzej giertych, intro. anton hilckman, pref. arnold toynbee (london: polonica publications, 1962), 172. dependent on the bodily, the racial. we see that here the spirit is stronger than the body. the independence of civilization from race is a valuable contribution to the problem of the superiority of the soul over matter [emphasis in original].‖ 22 in their rhetoric, koneczny and his heirs place a primary significance on morality and ethics. since its formation, leaders of the league of polish families have consistently used konecznian terminology. this is evident in many phrases, such as ―the unbridgeable civilisational difference,‖ ―the law of the impossibility of the civilisational synthesis,‖ ―the law of harmfulness of the merging of civilisations—civilisations cannot coexist,‖ and ―contact of different civilizations is the greatest challenge for society.‖ 23 hanna kwiatkowska has found similar echoes of the past in the pages of nasz dziennik, 24 noting ―an ideological continuation from the thoughts of the pre-wwii nationalists such as r[oman] dmowski and prof. f. koneczny, whose writing[s] are very much promoted in the newspaper. the newspaper never sees 22 koneczny, plurality of civilisations, 216. 23 joanna kurczewska, et al. the european dilemma: institutional patterns and politics of „racial‟ discrimination. project report: work package 6. discourse analysis of politics: lpr‟s rhetoric (warsaw: institute of public affairs, 2005), http://www.isp.org.pl/files/11297950200606281001164194296.pdf (accessed 30 june 2008), 73. 24 established in 1998, nasz dziennik ―quickly became the most influential religious paper in poland‖ and sells an estimated 200,000 copies every day. the daily is closely linked to radio maryja, which since its founding in 1991 has been formally run by the order of holy redeemer (ojcowie redemptoryści), but is really managed by its director, father tadeusz rydzyk. see stanisław burdziej, ―voice of the disinherited? religious media after the 2005 presidential and parliamentary elections in poland,‖ east european quarterly 42 (june 2008), no. 2: 208. koneczny is frequently referenced in nasz dziennik and radio maryja commentaries, including those by father rydzyk. see rafał maszkowski, ―inny świat – obraz żydów w radiu maryja,‖ kwartalnik historii żydów (2006), no. 4: 671. http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2004_03_04/zre-horodecki_kosciol-wobec.html http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2004_03_04/zre-horodecki_kosciol-wobec.html http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2004_09_10/pis-horodecki_wychowanie-do-wolnosci.html http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2004_09_10/pis-horodecki_wychowanie-do-wolnosci.html http://www.npw.pl/pdf/npw.2007.1-2.pdf http://www.isp.org.pl/files/11297950200606281001164194296.pdf studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): wise 1-22 wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 the jews who lived in poland as poles but as strangers or guests who abused the polish hospitality.‖ 25 stefan zgliczyński of stowarzyszenie nigdy więcej (never again association, an anti-racist watchdog group) has correctly identified koneczny as the ―unquestioned authority‖ today among nationalists who construct defenses against ―civilizational threats.‖ 26 marian bębenek also has found that koneczny‘s views are embraced by the extreme catholic nationalists in poland. 27 writing in the ―never again‖ periodical, katarzyna stańczak-wiślicz adds that koneczny‘s cywilizacja żydowska is ―a source of arguments for contemporary antisemitic discourse.‖ she argues that koneczny‘s vision of ―antisemitism as a positive program leading to the ‗dejudaization‘ and rescue of latin civilization‖ provides a ―scientific‖ basis for similar arguments today. 28 indeed, koneczny admirers believe that his science of civilizations is ―the key to understanding the present world situation.‖ 29 mirosław dakowski warns fellow poles that a dangerous ―mélange of various moralities‖ threatens poles with civilizational chaos and that they must decide to which civilization they want to belong. moreover, koneczny is often cited as an authority by those who seek to marginalize the 25 hanna kwiatkowska, ―conflict between the image of the jews and the selfimage of the poles in the light of the articles published in ‗nasz dziennik‘ 1998-2003,‖ scripta judaica cracoviensia 2 (2003): 91. 26 stefan zgliczyński, antysemityzm po polsku (warszawa: instytut wydawniczy książka i prasa, 2008), 114. 27 marian bębenek, ―paradygmat polityki w cywilizacji łacińskiej,‖ in feliks koneczny dzisiaj. praca zbiorowa, ed. jan skoczyński (kraków: księgarnia akademicka, 2000), 90. 28 katarzyna stańczak-wiślicz, ―w pułapce kołobłędu, czyli antysemityzm uczonego,‖ nigdy więcej 16 (winter-spring 2008): 18. 29 mirosław dakowski, ―potencjały rozpraszające a instynkt samozachowawczy narodów (cywilizacja według feliksa konecznego),‖ (12 march 2007), strona mirosława dakowskiego, http://dakowski.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&itemid= 49 (accessed 23 august 2009). jewish roots of christianity as another way to create civilizational boundaries between the two faiths. 30 in order to better understand why and how koneczny‘s vast intellectual legacy can be used in this way, we must first become familiar with his work on what he termed the ―science of civilizations.‖ the quest for civilizational purity koneczny‘s ―science of civilizations‖ matured during a peculiar period of war, revolution, and cultural anxiety. 31 despite witnessing the rebirth of the polish state, he feared threats from all around: to the east, there was ―turanian‖ russia. to the west, there was ―byzantine‖ germany. finally, there was the danger within, represented by the ―flowering in poland of jewish civilization.‖ 32 these three civilizations threatened the existence of ―christian-classical civilization, represented in poland by catholicism.‖ 33 like other civilizational schemes concocted in the 20 th century, koneczny‘s is highly normative. 34 koneczny even conceded that ―it is difficult not to admit that a 30 ewa maj, ―sposoby zaprzeczania zagładzie: przypadek środowisk neoendeckich‖ (14 october 2003), forum żydzichrześcijanie-muzułmanie, http://www.znak.org.pl/?lang1=pl&page1=studies&subpage1=studies00&infop assid1=83&scrt1=sn (accessed 12 august 2010). 31 marek n. jakubowski, ciągłość historii i historia ciągłości polska filozofia dziejów (toruń: wydawnictwo uniwersytetu mikołaja kopernika, 2004), 214216. 32 feliks koneczny, polska między wschodem a zachodem (lublin: ―onion,‖ 1996), 47. 33 ibid., 48. 34 zbigniew pucek, ―feliks koneczny: teoria pluralizmu cywilizacyjnego,‖ in szkice z historii socjologii polskiej, ed. kazimierz z. sowa (warszawa: pax, 1983), 158. http://dakowski.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&itemid=49 http://dakowski.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&itemid=49 http://www.znak.org.pl/?lang1=pl&page1=studies&subpage1=studies00&infopassid1=83&scrt1=sn http://www.znak.org.pl/?lang1=pl&page1=studies&subpage1=studies00&infopassid1=83&scrt1=sn studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): wise 1-22 wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 hierarchy of civilizations exists.‖ 35 latin civilization was the best, of course, and jewish civilization was ―at the very bottom.‖ 36 poland has a special role in world history as a defender of latin civilization, and koneczny‘s works provided a thorough analysis of its salient characteristics that are referenced by many nationalists today as they argue for a purification of poland‘s culture. in koneczny‘s mind, the process of purification entailed purging poland of influences from alien civilizations. koneczny believed in the ―plurality of civilizations;‖ he rejected the notion of any sort of overarching ―supra-civilization‖ to which all humanity belongs. as he put it: ―mankind does not exist either historically or sociologically.‖ 37 thus, there never has been a ―global civilization,‖ nor will one ever exist. koneczny developed several key concepts and ―historical laws‖ that help us better understand the civilizational boundaries that separate jews and catholics. his early theoretical works refer to the concepts of logos (theory) and ethos (practice). 38 one author notes that ―logos is a thought, an opinion, an idea, a conception. but ethos is the practical side of life...‖ 39 a harmony between logos and ethos, between thought and action, is not constant, but it is required for a civilization to make progress. 40 over time koneczny introduced his notion of 35 koneczny, prawa dziejowe, 100. 36 leszek gawor, o wielości cywilizacji: filozofia społeczna feliksa konecznego (lublin: wydawnictwo uniwersytetu marii curie-skłodowskiej, 2002), 124. 37 koneczny, prawa dziejowe, 31. 38 the title of one of koneczny‘s earliest works in civilizational theory is polskie logos a ethos: roztrząsanie o znaceniu i celu polski, 2 vols., 2 nd ed. (komorów: wydawnictwo antyk, 1997). it was originally published in 1921. 39 marian szczęsny, ―rola chrześcijaństwa w tworzeniu cywilizacji łacińskiej według feliksa konecznego,‖ studia teologiczne 20 (2002): 397. 40 jan skoczyński, koneczny: teoria cywilizacji (warszawa: wydawnictwo ifis pan, 2003), 63-64. the ―quincunx of existential values‖ or ―categories of being,‖ which explains the innermost essence of each civilization: health, prosperity, truth, goodness, and beauty. the first two categories belong to the ―material world,‖ while the next two belong to the ―spiritual world;‖ the final, beauty, belongs to both worlds. piotr grabowiec pointed out that thomism was embraced by koneczny as ―the most persistent foundation‖ of his social theory. 41 his quincunx clearly demonstrates how ―koneczny builds his theory on a foundation of dualism. that is why he emphasizes the existence of two substances, material and spiritual, which make up reality.‖ 42 the spiritual side of life was more important, and koneczny argued that only in latin civilization was it dominant. significantly, koneczny took the position that civilizational differences were not seen so much in the material realm, such as technological developments, but in the ―spiritual‖ sphere of human thought. 43 koneczny cleverly applied this notion to the story of poland itself, holding that ―the nation is the soul, whose body is the state.‖ 44 a stateless nation for over a century, poland nevertheless could claim civilizational supremacy over its colonizers, especially ―byzantine‖ germany and ―turanian‖ russia, where spiritual concerns were overshadowed by material ones. indeed, zbigniew pucek has determined that the ―relativizing interpretation of the quincunx allows for the introduction of the idea of defective civilizations...which developed weakly in general or did not develop in 41 piotr grabowiec, model społeczeństwa obywatelskiego w historiozofii feliksa konecznego (wrocław: wydawnictwo uniwersytetu wrocławskiego, 2000), 27. 42 ibid., 33. 43 zbigniew pucek, pluralizm cywilizacyjny jako perspektywa myśli socjologicznej (kraków: akademia ekonomiczna, 1990), 109. 44 feliks koneczny, ―o kierunek polskości,‖ cywilizacja 4/5 (2003), 218. originally published in tęcza 2 (26 v 1928), z. 21: 1-2. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): wise 1-22 wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 certain areas.‖ 45 in koneczny‘s judgement, latin civilization was the only complete civilization, while all others were defective. the concept of the quincunx of existential values fit nicely within the thomist revival among catholic intellectuals in europe. 46 the thomist revival was inspired in part by pope leo xiii (1878-1903), whose aeterni patris (1879) and rerum novarum (1891) were regarded as seminal documents. 47 an historian who focused on the medieval period, 48 koneczny joined other catholic scholars who used thomism as ―an intellectual grid‖ to formulate responses to the challenges of modernity. 49 indeed, koneczny cited thomism as a foundation for ―normality‖ in latin civilization. 50 during the interwar period and through world war ii, both thomism and the medieval 45 pucek, ―feliks koneczny,‖ 173. 46 koneczny‘s debt to aristotlean thomism is frequently pointed out in the context of his emphasis on commensurability among the existential values of the quincunx, which calls for harmony and balance between the material and spiritual. see ryszard polak, cywilizacje a moralność w myśli feliksa konecznego (lublin: fundacja servire veritati instytut edukacji narodowej, 2001), 31, 35; and mieczysław ryba, ―człowiek, naród, państwo w cywilizacji łacińskiej,‖ cywilizacja 1 (2002), 8; available online at http://cywilizacja.ien.pl/?id=77 (accessed 27 august 2009). koneczny frequently mentioned thomism in his works. for example, see rozwój moralności, reprint ed. (warszawa and komorów: wydawnictwo antyk, 1997), 268, 277. it was originally published in 1938. 47 paul robichaud, making the past present: david jones, the middle ages & modernism (washington, d.c.: the catholic university of america press, 2007), 140. 48 see anna frątczak, feliks koneczny o państwie i wartościach (kraków: ośrodek myśli politycznej; księgarnia akademicka, 2003), 111-113. 49 peter kivisto, ―the brief career of catholic sociology,‖ sociological analysis 50 (winter 1989), no. 4: 351. 50 feliks koneczny, prawa dziejowe, 2nd rev. ed. (komorów: wydawnictwo antyk marcin dybowski, 2001), 58. ideal of a harmonious and unified christendom proved very appealing to polish nationalists. 51 anton hilckman (1900-1970) explained that ―[t]he attitude towards these values [of the quincunx], the valuation of them and the determination of the relation between them can be very different. the understanding of these differences gives a key which opens the riddle of the diversity of civilizations.‖ 52 koneczny posited that ―it is not possible to be civilized in two ways.‖ 53 according to koneczny‘s ―law of commensurability,‖ a lack of cohesion among the different categories of the quincunx is the main source of societal decline. 54 societies can flourish, according to koneczny, only when all categories of the quincunx are in civilizational harmony. he believed that poland lacked this clarity. 55 one of koneczny‘s ―historical laws‖ stated that civilizational mixing leads to moral and psychological damage and a general decline in the ―culture of action.‖ 56 another indicated 51 on this matter, see bogumił grott, nacjonalizm i religia. proces zespalania nacjonalizmu z katolicyzmem w jedną całość ideową w myśli narodowej demokracji 1926-1939 (kraków: nakładem uniwersytetu jagiellońskiego, 1984), 140-141; and łętocha, katolicyzm a idea narodowa, 92-94; 52 anton hilckman, ―feliks koneczny and the comparative science of civilisation,‖ in koneczny, plurality of civilisations, 11. koneczny claimed that there are seven civilizations. four are ancient: brahmin, jewish, chinese, and turanian. three developed in the middle ages: byzantine, latin, and arabic. 53 koneczny, plurality of civilisations, 322. 54 sonia bukowska, ―feliks koneczny – induksyjna nauka o cywilizacji a prawa dziejowe,‖ folia philosophica 8 (1991): 211. 55 feliks koneczny, ―o kierunek polskości,‖ 220. 56 piotr grabowiec sees the notion of a ―culture of action‖ as a key to understanding koneczny, as it represents for him a ―connection between thought, word, and action, as well as internal convictions about the correctness of one‘s aims. thinking in the context of aims creates a culture of action. . .‖ this effectively represents a link between logos and ethos. see model społeczeństwa obywatelskiego, 30. http://cywilizacja.ien.pl/?id=77 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): wise 1-22 wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 that ―lower‖ civilizations generally overcome ―higher‖ civilizations in confrontations. 57 in historical terms, the roman civilization declined as it became culturally orientalized; likewise, modern latin civilization was now confronted with a varievariety of ―oriental‖ threats. this included the danger within: jewish civilization. robert piotrowski has detected hygienic ideas in koneczny‘s civilizational discourse, with a pathological aspect being an important feature of inter-civilizational contacts. 58 moreover, as both piotrowski and sonia bukowska have pointed out, members of latin civilization bear a heavy burden in maintaining their civilizational purity, since ―higher‖ civilizations require more effort to preserve than ―lower‖ ones. 59 this is why koneczny concluded that latin civilization was in peril. koneczny was not alone in his calls for civilizational purity, as other commentators in the interwar period complained that ―our civilization is poisoned.‖ 60 the need for cultural (or civilizational) purification was becoming a key part of endek thinking, 61 and koneczny‘s theories were embraced as ―scientific‖ validation. the idea of a ―catholic state of the polish nation‖ thus emerged as a favorite endek notion during the interwar period as the ―re-catholicization‖ of europe became the 57 jan skoczyński, idee historiozoficzne feliksa konecznego (kraków: nakładem uniwersytetu jagiellońskiego, 1991), 110-112. 58 robert piotrowski, problem filozoficzny ładu społecznego a porównawcza nauka o cywilizacjach (warszawa: dialog, 2003), 69, 128. for examples, see feliks koneczny, prawa dziejowe (2001), 165, 172. 59 piotrowski, problem filozoficzny, 78; and sonia bukowska, filozofia polska wobec problemu cywilizacji. teoria feliksa konecznego (katowice: wydawnictwo uniwersytetu śląskiego, 2007), 132-133. 60 bogumił grott, nacjonalizm chrześcijański: narodowo-katolicka formacja ideowa w ii rzeczypospolitej na tle porównawczym, 2 nd ed. (kraków: wydawnictwo ―ostoja‖, 1996), 85. 61 bogumił grott, ―mediewalizm w koncepcjach obozu wielkiej polski ze studiów nad religijnymi uwarunkowaniami myśli politycznej,‖ zeszyty naukowe uniwersytetu jagiellońskiego. studia religiologica 7 (1982): 61. ideal, with poland renewing its historical role of ―bulwark of christendom.‖ 62 while nationalists commonly rejected racism as a materialist conception, they began to absorb theories that focused on spiritual, psychological, or cultural differences. 63 koneczny‘s ―science of civilizations‖ thus filled an ideological need. his civilizational hierarchy rejected ―others‖ as inferior and dangerous to polish culture, but not in terms of biological racism. rather, he stressed a sort of ―civilizational fundamentalism‖ that advocated cultural purity in the face of threats from inferior civilizations. as koneczny opined: ―race does not rule, but civilization; not matter, but spirit.‖ 64 he clearly stated that ―civilizational unity is the only way to the development of culture,‖ and as early as 1921 he was warning that foreign civilizational influences, including jewish civilization, would lead to societal problems and the collapse of the state if allowed to flourish in poland. 65 societal progress, according to koneczny, only takes place when there is civilizational agreement among all five elements of the quincunx. 66 this yearning for purity and harmony reflects koneczny‘s historical context: a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state, poland seemed bedeviled by civilizational uncertainty. koneczny believed that internal cohesion was needed for poland to survive. 67 indeed, civilizational mixing would remain in 62 see bogumił grott, ―the conception of ‗roman-catholic totalism‘ in poland before world war ii,‖ zeszyty naukowe uniwersytetu jagiellońskiego. studia religiologica 8 (1982): 101-107. 63 bogumił grott, ―chrześcijańskie i świeckie inspiracje w doktrynach nacjonalizmu polskiego,‖ przegląd humanistyczny (1994), no. 4: 85. 64 koneczny, prawa dziejowe (2001), 164. 65 koneczny, polskie logos a ethos, vol. 2: 473-474. 66 stanisław jedynak, ―aksjologiczne zagadnienie rozwoju cywilizacji według feliksa konecznego.‖ przegląd humanistyczny 32 (1988), no. 3: 122. 67 andrzej bokiej, cywilizacja łacińska: studium na podstawie dorobku historiozoficznego feliksa konecznego (legnica: wyższe seminarium duchowne diecezji legnickiej, 2000), 55. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): wise 1-22 wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 koneczny‘s eyes ―the main sickness‖ of poland even after world war ii, 68 since it implied the mingling of rival ethical systems. this led to ethical confusion, or a ―bedlam of ethics,‖ 69 and impeded moral progress. 70 and ethical concerns, as many scholars point out, are at the center of koneczny‘s ―science of civilizations.‖ 71 marian bębenek labels koneczny ―ethocentric‖ and concludes that his ideal society represents a sort of ―ethocracy.‖ 72 koneczny‘s fear was that morality can regress through exposure to non-latin ethical principles. most important for our discussion, he was concerned about the growing ―intellectual influence of jewish civilization‖ 73 and the consequent ―judaization‖ of polish society. these ideas were especially embraced by the nationalist youth movement, which was inspired by visions of a ―new medievalism.‖ 74 a distinct polish medievalism thus emerged, with a call for a ―return to the middle ages‖ invoking a time when catholicism had greater cultural influence. 75 other countries in europe were experiencing a similar development. in france, for example, the middle ages were glorified in part because ―medieval culture was perceived as alien to the 68 feliks koneczny, ―polskie logos a ethos,‖ tygodnik warszawski 3 (6 july 1947), no. 27: 4. 69 this is the title of an article by koneczny. see feliks koneczny, ―harmider etyk,‖ in o cywilizację łacińską (krzeszowice: dom wydawniczy „ostoja,‖2006), 38-44. originally published in myśl narodowa 16 (7 vi 1936), no. 24: 369-371. 70 koneczny, rozwój moralności, 25-27. 71 stefan zabieglik, ―feliksa konecznego teoria cywilizacji,‖ toruński przegląd filozoficzny 5/6 (2003), 118. 72 bębenek, ―paradygmat polityki,‖ 86-88. 73 koneczny, rozwój moralności, 213-214. 74 witold wojdyło and grzegorz radomski, ―w obronie niezależności narodu. ruch narodowy w polsce wobec wspólnot wyższego rzędu oraz idei integracyjnych w europie w xx w.,‖ przegląd humanistyczny 50 (2006) , no. 3: 91-92. 75 grott, ―mediewalizm w koncepcjach obozu wielkiej,‖ 68. jew.‖ 76 laura morowitz has found that in france ―during the finde-siècle, medievalism and anti-semitism were often linked. ideologies contributing to the spread of anti-semitism–antimaterialism, anti-modernism, fanatical neo-catholicism–could lead simultaneously to a glorification of the medieval era. fear of modernity manifested itself in hatred of the jew (who symbolized urbanism, industrial capitalism, the collapse of traditional christian values).‖ 77 polish nationalists today still discuss the medieval era with a touch of nostalgia. yearning for konecznian societal solidarity and civil harmony, andrzej horodecki has dreamed of the more ―civilizationally pure‖ medieval period. as he put it: ―hatred of the middle ages is a hatred of a time when jewish civilization did not yet have a decisive influence on life in christian states.‖ 78 koneczny and “jewish civilization” koneczny‘s most notorious commentary on the jewish threat to poland and latin civilization is his posthumously published cywilizacja żydowska (1974), but his works from the interwar period consistently addressed the civilizational boundaries between poles and jews. koneczny‘s substitution of ―civilization‖ for ―race‖ in his theoretical writings is clearly evident in his opening sentences of cywilizacja żydowska: ―the jewish question among nations is not a racial one, nor is it a confessional one. the question of jewry is one of an entirely different civilization, or separate method of collective life.‖ 79 as robert piotrowski pointed out, koneczny is much closer to a 76 laura morowitz, ―anti-semitism, medievalism and the art of the fin-desiecle,‖ oxford art journal 20 (1997), no. 1: 38. 77 ibid., 35. 78 andrzej horodecki, ―totalna walka z cywilizacją łacińską, część ii,‖ nowy przegląd wszechpolski 9 (2002), no. 5-6, http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2002_05_06/pis-horodecki__totalnawalka.htm (accessed 21 june 2006). 79 koneczny, cywilizacja żydowska, 12. http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2002_05_06/pis-horodecki__totalna-walka.htm http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2002_05_06/pis-horodecki__totalna-walka.htm studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): wise 1-22 wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 culturalist perspective than a racial one in his analysis of jewish civilization. 80 koneczny is concerned primarily with the way in which jewish ethics represent something totally opposite to the catholicized morality of latin civilization. 81 he was not alone; endek rhetoric of the interwar period had become focused on jewish culture rather than race, and the threat to catholicism‘s ―moral-cultural code.‖ 82 describing the rhetoric in the catholic press from the interwar period, anna landau-czajka found that what ―distinguished jews from christians was not their blood, but the character or psyche which resulted from their religion or customs. it was a psyche completely different from that of catholics, such as to rule out completely the possibility of the two peoples, polish and jewish, inhabiting the same territory. jews were different not only because of their religion and customs, but also because of the way they thought, their morality, culture, and principles...‖ 83 koneczny was quite explicit in his judgment of ―jewish civilization.‖ in his learned opinion, since its origins it had been ―an incomplete civilization, defective, not possessing all the categories of being, without truth and beauty.‖ 84 indeed, he detected only ―the tiniest provision of the intellectual categories of being.‖ 85 as an example of these shortcomings, koneczny 80 piotrowski, problem filozoficzny, 84. 81 bukowska, filozofia polska wobec problemu cywilizacji, 96. 82 joanna beata michlic, poland‟s threatening other: the image of the jew from 1880 to the present (lincoln: university of nebraska press, 2006), 8688. 83 anna landau-czajka, ―the image of the jew in the catholic press during the second republic,‖ in polin: studies in polish jewry 8. jews in independent poland, 1918-1939, ed. antony polonsky, ezra mendelsohn and jerzy tomaszewski (london, washington: the littman library of jewish civilization, 1994), 167. 84 koneczny, cywilizacja żydowska, 43. likewise, judaism is ―a defective religion.‖ ibid., 32. 85 koneczny, plurality of civilisations, 252. noted that for jews ―historical thought itself is very, very difficult. from my own experience, i know that for jewish students it is difficult to acquire this sense, difficult to understand the historical nature of people and things...‖ 86 he consistently maintained in his works that the civilizational question is more a matter of mentality than one of race. thus, the key concern with jewish civilization was the threat that the ―jewish way of thinking‖ posed to latin civilization. 87 for koneczny, jewish civilization was frozen in time. already in his plurality of civilisations (1935), koneczny was maintaining that ―the whole of community life—the whole structure of jewish civilization with a mass of detail—is contained in the rules of the old testament. it is a sacral civilization.‖ 88 jewish civilization ―added in time a second source-book of jewish religion and civilisation—the talmud... it may safely be said that there is nothing in heaven or earth which is not debated there, but always exclusively from the sacral angle... not a corner of life escapes the restraint of rules allegedly coming from jehovah. jewish civilisation would become even more strongly sacral.‖ 89 the fundamental flaw in jewish civilization is that it is ―sacral,‖ which leads jews to embrace ―apriori thinking‖ and a suspiciousness towards secular learning. 90 as early as 1926, koneczny was writing in ateneum kapłańskie (the most important organ for the polish clergy during the interwar period) 91 86 koneczny, cywilizacja żydowska, 177. 87 feliks koneczny, prawa dziejowe (2001), 36. 88 koneczny, plurality of civilisations, 252. 89 ibid. koneczny adds that a third source, the cabbala, was later added to the mix. ibid., 253. 90 koneczny, cywilizacja żydowska, 32. 91 dariusz libionka, ―antisemitism, anti-judaism, and the polish catholic clergy during the second world war, 1939-1945,‖ in antisemitism and its studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): wise 1-22 wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 that ―of all religions the jewish one is most identical with a civilization. the talmud is this civilization, because it contains the method of collective life in all its details, not neglecting a single category, but with several huge defects (such as the lack of scholarship)... in jewry religion and civilization are the same.‖ 92 he added that while religion ―is the most important part of a civilization...only religions of a lower order create civilizations and these are also of a lower type.‖ 93 koneczny later concluded that in ―sacral civilisations religion acts as a brake on progress. a religion which defines everything in categories of being must at the same time petrify everything, and in consequence its adherents are often helpless in face of new currents emerging in the process of time. where everything is established a priori, where there is no doubt and no inquiry, progress is excluded and instead there is danger of stagnation.‖ 94 for jewish civilization, this meant that there was no ―creative originality.‖ 95 koneczny placed special emphases on jewish ―legalism,‖ which is evident in mosaic law. he believed that the ―contractual‖ agreement between them and their god meant that jews placed law before ethics. koneczny found that ―over the course of centuries there emerged here and there apriori law. it imparted sanction not to existing circumstances and was not created in a natural manner, but it was imagined, invented...mosaic law was a prototype of apriori law.‖ 96 koneczny opponents in modern poland, ed. robert blobaum (ithaca and london: cornell university press, 2005), 236. 92 feliks koneczny, religie a cywilizacje (krzeszowice: dom wydawniczy „ostoja‖, 2004), 10. originally published in ateneum kapłańskie 12 (1926), t. 17: 1-14, 117-131. 93 ibid., 39. 94 koneczny, plurality of civilisations, 284. another civilizational theorist from the time, arnold toynbee, regarded jews as ―fossilized relics.‖ see arnold toynbee, a study of history (london: oxford university press, 1935), vol. 1: 51. 95 koneczny, cywilizacja żydowska, 256. 96 ibid., 38. believed that this focus on apriori law is a fundamental feature of judaism, and consequently jewish civilization. he stressed that ―[a]mong jews...law is not based on ethics, but precisely the opposite: ethics are based on law.‖ 97 he theorized that this sacralized law became the regulator for all aspects of jewish life, leaving no room for the development of ethics. an ―elephantiasis of law‖ thus emerged: ―the more law the better!‖ 98 another important factor for koneczny was the notion of jewish ―chosenness.‖ 99 he concluded that this special relationship with god and the ―faith that all must end with the jews ruling the world‖ was the most immutable, distinguishing characteristic of jewish civilization. 100 koneczny thus identified an ―ethic of exclusivity‖ that ―generated contempt, then hatred, for foreigners. in all of universal history, jews have developed hatred to the highest degree...‖ 101 this all highlights the ―defective‖ nature of jewish civilization. this ―collective predestination‖ reflects jewish emphasis on the collective, rather than the individual, and precludes a personal relationship with god that is found in catholicism. 102 koneczny posited that even while jewish civilization embraced the ―ethic of exclusivity,‖ jews have been forced to live among other peoples, to live within other civilizations. according to koneczny, ―jewish civilization experienced significant changes among other ‗nations,‘ but what is most interesting is that the changes occurred for the better: the 97 ibid., 39. 98 ibid., 176. for koneczny‘s discussion of this ―sickness‖ in the form of excessive legislation and bloated government, see feliks koneczny, ―‘elephantiasis‘ prawodawcza,‖ myśl narodowa 12 (18 december 1932), no. 55: 798-801. 99 ibid., 100, 105, and 108. 100 koneczny, plurality of civilisations, 256. 101 koneczny, cywilizacja żydowska, 40. 102 ibid., 163-67. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): wise 1-22 wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 supplement of a defective civilization in many directions and lifting it to a higher level in each case.‖ 103 for example, jews embraced other languages in order to express a higher order of abstract thought, since hebrew was itself ―a language able to facilitate civilizational development only to a certain level, beyond which it becomes a brake on higher development.‖ 104 a chief concern for koneczny, however, was that the jewish presence had weakened the civilizational integrity of latin christendom. writing in 1928, he explicitly described the struggle in poland between jewish and latin civilizations. he expressed the fear that ―christian-classical civilization‖ will cease to be, instead ―becoming gradually a kind of strange mixture. how many purely jewish notions are running rampant among us! our literature, legal ideas, political views—all of them have been subjected to judaization. a civilizational mixture endangers us—and with the same sort of results as in russia.‖ 105 for koneczny, the health of latin civilization in poland was inextricably linked with the integrity of catholicism. ―poland either will be catholic, or it will not be.‖ 106 koneczny used the stereotype of infection to argue that ―judaization‖ would weaken poland, as would a disease. 107 the lack of ethics in economics, for example, was blamed on the ―spiritual influence 103 ibid., 153. see also feliks koneczny, ―nauka a cywilizacje,‖ in o cywilizację łacińską (warszawa: wydawnictwo „milla,‖ n.d.), 16. originally published in myśl narodowa 16, no. 49 (29 xi 1936): 765-767. here koneczny conversely argued that if surrounded by a less intellectually stimulating civilization, then jewish civilization would suffer. 104 ibid., 141. 105 feliks koneczny, kościół w polsce wobec cywilizacji (krzeszowice: dom wydawniczy ―ostoja,‖ 2005), 15-16. first published in ateneum kapłańskie 14 (1928), no. 22: 413-429. 106 koneczny, polska między wschodem a zachodem, 51. 107 stańczak-wiślicz, ―w pułapce kołobłędu,‖ 19. of jews.‖ 108 while jews borrowed and learned from the aposterior ways of non-jews, they in turn ―infected them with their apriorism;‖ ―jewish thinking‖ (apriorism) was a disease that if contracted weakened civilizations and led to their stagnation. 109 koneczny concluded that if ―the success of an association depends on the suitability and uniformity of its system, that no lasting and strong association can be organised on conflicting systems, then what i regard in history as the law of laws—for me the achievement and outcome of the labours of an entire life—must also be true: it is not possible to be civilised in two ways.‖ 110 this rhetoric found an audience within the growing public debate in interwar poland about the dangers of jews spreading a ―spiritual disease‖ within polish culture; indeed, even radical nationalists were more concerned about the ―dangerous jewish soul‖ than the ―dangerous jewish race.‖ 111 perhaps the most insidious effects could be found in the jewish emphasis on law before ethics, or what koneczny calls ―the jewish method of legal thinking‖ that he argued had come to dominate in europe. this resulted in law losing its moral compass. 112 jewish civilization inverted the relationship between law and ethics in comparison to latin civilization, in which laws are created in response to ethical determinations of situations as they arise. in jewish civilization, in comparison, there was a 108 feliks koneczny, ―amoralność życia gospodarczego,‖ in o sprawach ekonomicznych (kraków: wydawnictwo wam, 2000), 121-122. originally published in myśl narodowa 13 (2 july 1933): 413-414. 109 koneczny, cywilizacja żydowska, 168; and feliks koneczny, etyki a cywilizacje (krzeszowice: dom wydawniczy „ostoja,‖ 2004), 7. originally published in przegląd powszechny 48 (1931), t. 189: 129-148, 332-345. 110 koneczny, plurality of civilisations, 322. 111 michlic, poland‟s threatening other, 100, 171. 112 koneczny, ―państwo w cywilizacji łacińskiej,‖ 8. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): wise 1-22 wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 reliance on the ―letter of the law.‖ 113 koneczny here depicted latin civilization as the antithesis of jewish civilization; indeed, he noted that ―we latins, we follow the romans‖ in legal views. 114 he elaborated on the christian-jewish civilizational boundaries even further in the context of law and ethics: ―the most important thing is that the church derives law from ethics...[but] law was not and is not sacral among catholics, [it] is not possessed of a religious character. there is a link with roman civilisation, for it was among the romans that law first ceased to be sacral. the church accepted this state of affairs, giving the faithful a free hand in the secular development of law.‖ 115 there are peculiar twists in this analysis of jewish civilization and judaism, especially in regard to jewish cultural influences in germany. as early as 1921 he was explaining that jewish funding of german militarization cleared the ―path to domination for judaism, but it was the ruin of christianclassical civilization.‖ 116 he thus sees a continuation of the old conflict between judaism and christianity, except now in the guise of a civilizational struggle. the connection between german militarism and opportunities for jewish domination was 113 koneczny referred to this as the ―shylock method.‖ ibid., 37. in his analyses, adolf nowaczyński used the term ―shylockracja.‖ see małgorzata domagalska, antysemityzm dla inteligencji? kwestia żydowska w publicystyce adolfa nowaczyńskiego na łamach “myśli narodowej” (1921-1934) i “prosto z mostu” (1935-1939) (na tle porównawczym) (warszawa: żydowski instytut historyczny, 2004), 180, 182. 114 koneczny, cywilizacja żydowska, 176. 115 koneczny, plurality of civilisations, 275. 116 koneczny, polskie logos a ethos, vol. 2: 539. ewa maj has explored commentary by nationalist ideologues who also saw a similarity in jewish and german desires for ―domination of the world, for the disruption of the existing social and political order, for the weakening of christianity as the moral foundation of european nations.‖ see ewa maj, związek ludowo-narodowy, 1919-1928: studium z dziejów myśli politycznej (lublin: wydawnictwo uniwersytetu marii curie-skłodowskiej, 2000), 194. most evident to koneczny in the alleged german-jewish plan for ―judeopolonia,‖ a jewish state on polish territory. 117 forestalled by germany‘s defeat in world war i, jewish hopes had since turned eastward, to bolshevik russia. during world war ii, koneczny lamented that ―[w]e poles are only waiting for the time when they will not be among us, but we among them.‖ 118 commenting in 1945, koneczny noted that all of poland had indeed come under jewish control in the form of communism. insensitive to the horrible realities wrought by the holocaust, koneczny concluded that judeopolonia was being created by the russians. 119 this insensitivity is perhaps most evident in koneczny‘s discussion of the impact of jewish culture in germany. the nazi idea of german world supremacy allegedly developed under the influence of jewish notions of the ―chosen people‖ and collective predestination. koneczny was not alone, as other commentators in poland also found ―striking analogies between the talmud and mein kampf.‖ 120 koneczny concluded that ―germans have assimilated jewish civilization most visibly. hitler murders jews, but he thinks and feels in the jewish manner.‖ 121 konecznian commentary today still makes these vulgar connections. holocaust denier dariusz ratajczak (19622010) cited koneczny in this regard, noting the shared ―rebellion against christianity and latin civilization‖ found in the 117 koneczny, cywilizacja żydowska, 352-363. for a recent konecznian analysis of german-jewish plots for the creation of a ―state within a state,‖ see andrzej leszek szcześniak, judeopolonia: żydowskie państwie polskim (radom: polskie wydawnictwo encyklopedyczne, 2004). 118 koneczny, prawa dziejowe (2001), 220. 119 koneczny, cywilizacja żydowska, 363. 120 landau-czajka, ―image of the jew in the catholic press,‖ 160. 121 koneczny, cywilizacja żydowska, 389. for similar commentary, also see koneczny, prawa dziejowe (2001), 283-287. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): wise 1-22 wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 ―ideas of jewish civilization‖ and ―the hitlerite worldview.‖ 122 andrzej horodecki not only assigned hitler‘s notion of germans as a chosen people to judaism, but he blamed it for stalin‘s revulsion to christianity. in this way, he uncovered jewish roots for two totalitarianisms. 123 koneczny‘s treatise on ―jewish civilization‖ represented what one reviewer termed ―‗high anti-semitism‘ revived.‖ 124 when koneczny‘s book was published in london in 1974, it seemed like a blast of fear and intolerance from the past. in a critical review of cywilizacja żydowska, s. l. shneiderman judged that while ―hitler had his racial purity...koneczny has his cultural purity...obsessed with defending the purity of latin civilization, koneczny looks into the crystal ball and predicts that when the war ends, ‗jewish influence in europe will have grown immensely‘...‖ 125 polish scholars have since pointed out the ―completely grotesque‖ depiction of jewish influences on nazism. 126 yet koneczny‘s ideas fit firmly within the framework of nationalist discussions of the ―jewish question‖ during the interwar period and wartime, which included rhetoric of ―‗the dangerous physical exposure‘ to jews and the ‗jewish way of thinking.‘‖ 127 122 dariusz ratajczak, ―o cywilizacjach,‖ (19 january 2009), dariuszratajczak.blogspot.com. http://dariuszratajczak.blogspot.com/2009/01/o-cywilizacjach.html (accessed 26 may 2009). 123 andrzej horodecki, ―sejmowe słodycze,‖ myśl polska (5-12 january 2003), no. 1-2, http://www.myslpolska.icenter.pl/ (accessed 26 march 2005). 124 s. l. shneiderman, ―‘high‘ anti-semitism revived,‖ midstream 22(august/september 1976): 76-81. 125 ibid., 80. 126 andrzej piskozub, ―feliks koneczny (1862-1949) jako pionier nauki o cywilizacji w polsce,‖ kultura i edukacja (1999), no. 1: 137. 127 joanna michlic, ―the soviet occupation of poland, 1939-41, and the stereotype of the anti-polish and pro-soviet jew,‖ jewish social studies: history, culture, society, n.s. 13, (spring/summer 2007), no. 3: 140. christian-jewish boundaries: civilizational or religious? koneczny and his heirs have focused on what they regard as issues of civilizational differences between jewish civilization and latin civilization. since jewish civilization is deemed ―sacral‖ in the konecznian paradigm, however, the distinction between it and judaism is difficult to draw and criticism of jewish civilization can easily devolve into a critique of the jewish faith. and while latin civilization is not ―sacral,‖ the pervasive influence of catholicism is frequently cited as a source of its strength and appeal. koneczny‘s construction of civilizational boundaries between latin and jewish civilizations, therefore, has a corollary effect of erecting barriers between catholics and jews. koneczny feared the ―moral and spiritual judaization of europe,‖ 128 which he envisioned might even lead to a sort of ―religious synthesis‖ of the two faiths. 129 indeed, he claimed that ―[t]he judaization of the church would be the pinnacle of success for israel.‖ 130 it is important to recall that he regarded protestantism as a judaized version of christianity. in cywilizacja żydowska and other studies, he argued that while protestants had embraced ―rejudaizing‖ by emphasizing the teachings of the old testament, catholicism remained critical in its stance toward judaism. 131 discussing the early history of the church, koneczny bluntly declared that ―judaism did not exert any essential influence on christianity in matters of faith.‖ 132 koneczny also faulted historiographical approaches 128 koneczny, cywilizacja żydowska, 372. 129 ibid., 386. 130 ibid. 131 ibid., 17. for a concise discussion, see feliks koneczny, protestantyzm w życiu zbiorowym (warszawa: wydawnictwo „milla,‖ n.d), 16-18. this work was originally published in 1938. 132 ibid., 125. for further commentary, see andrzej bokiej, cywilizacja łacińska: studium na podstawie dorobku historiozoficznego feliksa konechttp://dariuszratajczak.blogspot.com/2009/01/o-cywilizacjach.html http://www.myslpolska.icenter.pl/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): wise 1-22 wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 that placed undue emphasis on ancient israel as the center of attention for pre-christian history. he blamed jacques benigne bossuet (1627-1704), in particular, since due to his efforts ―the history of israel became as if the essential component of our religion.‖ bossuet stressed the unity of religions, koneczny claimed, thus paving the way for the ―historical unity of the christian and jewish faiths...‖ 133 koneczny concluded that in this way ―bossuet became the father of judeocentrism.‖ 134 one of koneczny‘s key authorities on this matter was tadeusz zieliński (1859-1944), whose hellenizm a judaizm (1927) posited that the classical pagan world connected ―psychologically‖ more readily than judaism with christianity. 135 as zieliński put it: ―christianity emerged from judaism—this is often written and stated—but despite this it is false.‖ there ―was no psychological continuity between judaism and christianity;‖ rather, ―continuity existed between hellenism on the one side and christianity on the other. this means that the religion of the hellenes was better prepared mentally to receive christianity than judaism.‖ thus there emerged a ―paradox‖: ―the true old testament of our christianity is the religion of the hellenes.‖ 136 zieliński insisted that this was not heretical, since he simply znego (legnica: wyższe seminarium duchowne diecezji legnickiej, 2000), 99-100. 133 feliks koneczny, ―geneza judeocentryzmu,‖ myśl narodowa 9 (6 january 1929), no. 1: 3-4. 134 ibid., 5 135 koneczny, cywilizacja żydowska, 120. koneczny used other controversial sources in his work. for example, he extensively cited rev. stanisław trzeciak (1873-1944). his mesjanizm a kwestia żydowska (1934) ―belonged to the ‗classics‘ of interwar antisemitic literature. . . he was a national and international ‗expert‘ on the ‗jewish question,‘ his international fame resting on his activitiy in the nazi-sponsored institut zur erforschung der judenfrage (institute for research of the jewish question), headquartered in erfurt.‖ see libionka, ―antisemitism, anti-judaism, and the polish catholic clergy,‖ 257. 136 tadeusz zieliński, hellenizm a judaizm (warszawa, kraków: wydawnictwo j. mortkowicza, 1927), vol. 1: 2-3. identified the obvious ―psychological continuity.‖ 137 this understanding of the theological boundaries between judaism and christianity was not uncommon in polish nationalist circles during the early 20 th century and interwar period. 138 it bears mentioning that jędrzej giertych, a leading ideologue of the endek youth in the 1930s and publisher of koneczny‘s works in postwar london, denied any jewish-christian ties in the traditional sense. 139 the resurrection of koneczny‘s theories in recent years, especially his notions about civilizational boundaries that separate christians and jews, has proven problematic for catholic intellectuals. for example, some commentators have attempted to make it seem as if koneczny‘s worldview is an integral part of catholicism. krzysztof nagrodzki, for example, finds parallels between then-cardinal ratzinger‘s thinking and the konecznian ―laws of history‖: one cannot be civilized simultaneously in two ways; the inevitable clash of civilizations; and the contention that ―lower‖ civilizations will dominate and defeat ―higher‖ civilizations without constant vigilance in defense of traditional values. 140 commentators also discuss koneczny‘s ideas in the 137 ibid., 3. 138 see bogumił grott, nacjonalizm i religia, 128-129; bogumił grott, nacjonalizm chrześcijański, 82-83; and łętocha, katolicyzm a idea narodowa, 250-251. 139 artur domosławski, ―saga rodu giertychów – część ii,‖ gazeta.pl. http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/kraj/1,62905,1074233.html (accessed 10 june 2005). originally published in gazeta wyborcza (18 october 2002). 140 krzysztof nagrodzki, ―analiza współczesności kard. josepha ratzingera,‖ myśl polska (11-18 september 2005), no. 37-38, http://www.myslpolska.icenter.pl/ (accessed 28 january 2006). the notion of ―lower‖ civilizations overcoming ―higher‖ ones is frequently discussed in konecznian analyses. it encapsulates social darwinian notions of ―survival of the fittest,‖ a fear of ―others,‖ and the centrality of cultural traditions in one‘s identity. for example, see andrzej horodecki, ―wojna światów,‖ myśl polska (4-11december 2005), no. 49-50, http://www.myslpolska.icenter.pl/ (accessed 28 january 2006). http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/kraj/1,62905,1074233.html http://www.myslpolska.icenter.pl/ http://www.myslpolska.icenter.pl/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): wise 1-22 wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 context of the teachings of pope john paul ii. 141 for example, the term ―latin civilization‖ is sometimes equated with the notion of ―civilization of love,‖ a concept embraced by popes paul vi and john paul ii. 142 jarosław paszyński even claims that the ―civilization of love‖ is ―nothing other than a new name for latin civilization.‖ 143 another giertych—maciej‘s younger brother, wojciech (b. 1951)—is also worth mentioning in the context of koneczny‘s renaissance. father wojciech was appointed as papal theologian in december 2005. 144 in a lecture delivered in march 2006 at the warsaw dominican monastery, father wojciech cited koneczny in the first sentence. he pointed out that koneczny would regard current attempts to create civilizational mixtures as ―absurd.‖ 145 and his article on ―the moral natural law‖ included extensive references to koneczny‘s ―science of civilizations‖: koneczny claimed that it is not possible to be civilized in two differing ways at the same time, because it is 141 for example, see henryk nowik, ―ekshortacja jana pawła ii kościół w europie w kontekście historiozoficznym,‖ nowy przegląd wszechpolski 11 (2004), no. 1-2, http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2004_01_02/zrenowik_ekshortacja-jana-pawla.html (accessed 21 june 2006); and editorial, ―jan paweł ii odnowiciel,‖ nowy przegląd wszechpolski 13 (2006), no. 5-6: 1, http://www.npw.pl/pdf/npw.2006.5-6.pdf (accessed 27 august 2009). 142 maciej giertych, ―z nauczania feliksa konecznego,‖ opoka w kraju11(32) (march 1995), http://opoka.giertych.pl/ (accessed 15 august 2010). 143 jarosław paszyński, ―tożsamość polski a cywilizacje,‖ człowiek w kulturze 10 (1993): 85. 144 maciej giertych, ―teolog domu papieskiego,‖opoka w kraju 55(76) (december 2005), 16, http://opoka.giertych.pl/55.pdf (accessed 15 august 2010). maciej proudly declared that his brother was named on 1 december 2005 as ―theologian of the papal home.‖ 145 wojciech giertych, ―niewykorzystany kapitał?‖ w drodze (2008), no. 3, http://www.mateusz.pl/goscie/wdrodze/nr415/04-wdr.htm (accessed 28 november 2008). common ethical convictions that generate social cohesiveness and condition civilizations. ethical standards are more decisive for a civilization than dogmatic subtleties…. in the past, when people belonging to different civilizations lived geographically close to each other, they had to live in separate social groups according to the mores of the entity to which they belonged, without mixing, because mixtures of differing civilizations cannot function in the long run. the transfer from one civilization to another would entail the embracing of a completely new set of ethical values that would require social uprooting... when civilizations mix, koneczny claimed, it is normally the less morally demanding civilization that wins, because the maintaining of a demanding ethos requires effort and perseverance. among the civilizations that he had studied, koneczny specified the latin civilization as the most demanding, because it requires that all dimensions of life, including the social and political, be bound by ethical norms. today, however, western europe is rapidly losing, or totally transforming, its age-old christian ethical convictions, and in this it is drifting away from the moral foundations in which for centuries it was anchored. 146 146 see wojciech giertych, ―the moral natural law: problems and prospects,‖ catholic online (25 february 2007). http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?id=4093 (accessed 26 february 2007). koneczny advocated natural law over positivist law, fitting with his insistence on the primacy of ethics and morality in public life. in his view, ethical considerations should shape the law, rather than the reverse. koneczny closed associated judaism with the latter view, frequently criticizing jews‘ adherence to ―the letter of the law‖ rather than ethics. the debate about the distinction between natural law and positive law emerged in the controversy over the preamble for the constitution in the late 1990s. geneviève zubrzycki summarizes the distinctions: ―natural law refers to ‗principles of law and morality, supposedly universal in scope and binding on human conduct‘ . . . following st. thomas aquinas, it was believed to be god-given, but from the http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2004_01_02/zre-nowik_ekshortacja-jana-pawla.html http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2004_01_02/zre-nowik_ekshortacja-jana-pawla.html http://www.npw.pl/pdf/npw.2006.5-6.pdf http://opoka.giertych.pl/ http://opoka.giertych.pl/55.pdf http://www.mateusz.pl/goscie/wdrodze/nr415/04-wdr.htm http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?id=4093 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): wise 1-22 wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 other polish clergy have been less receptive to konecznian concepts. father romuald jakub wekslerwaszkinel is particularly critical of koneczny‘s rejection of the jewish roots of christianity and the influence this view has on catholics who embrace his theories. 147 for example, andrzej horodecki cites koneczny as an authority as he flatly rejects any notion of a ―judeochristian tradition‖ in europe. in his mind, this connotes ―civilizational chaos.‖ 148 weksler-waszkinel is disturbed in part because this is contrary to doctrine that emerged as a result of decisions made at vatican ii (as well as the teachings of john paul ii), which held that judaism was a root religion for christianity. 149 koneczny‘s reformation onward, natural law was given secular foundations in human nature and reason. natural law stipulates that there is a normative system given in nature; that norms are not subject to change in time or place. the logic of positive law is different: it is the law that defines the normative system; norms are a human creation and therefore are subject to change and interpretation. the law could then define norms that are against natural law or humanity. (nazi germany is often given as an example of the dangers of a strict positive law.) this is why it is often insisted that positive law be based on natural law. the polish case is complex in that regard.‖ see geneviève zubrzycki, ―‗we, the polish nation‘: ethnic and civic visions of nationhood in post-communist constitutional debates,‖ theory and society 30 (2001), no. 5: 667. 147 ryszard montusiewicz, ―jezus i judaizm. z ks. prof. romualdem jakubem wekslerem-waszkinelem rozmawia ryszard montusiewicz,‖ forum: żydzichrześcijanie-muzułmanie, http://znak.org.pl/?lang1=pl&page1=pressreview&subpage1=pressreview00&i nfopassid1=3669&scrt1=sn (accessed 21 august 2009). weksler-waszkinel was born to a jewish family in 1943 in wilno. before her death, his mother asked a christian family to raise him. they did, but when he decided to become a priest they were shocked. he is also critical of tadeusz zieliński, whose hellenizm a judaizm (1927) was a source for koneczny‘s commentary in his posthumously published cywilizacja żydowska (1974). 148 andrzej horodecki, ―polowanie na polskę,‖ myśl polska (28 march 2004), no. 13, http://www.myslpolska.icenter.pl/ (accessed 22 march 2005). 149 ks. romuald jakub weksler-waszkinel, ―antysemityzm bez zydów,‖ miesięcznik “znak” (december 2008), renaissance is thus a point of concern to advocates of christian-jewish amity, such as weksler-waszkinel; he notes that ―according to koneczny, jewish civilization was the greatest enemy of latin civilization...‖ 150 archbishop józef życiński alludes to this attempt at the separation of christianity from its jewish roots when he condemns the way some poles regard koneczny as more relevant than abraham in their understanding of catholicism. ―this leads to painful consequences‖ for the ―disorientated person‖ who focuses on materials that ―have nothing in common with the catholic tradition.‖ 151 a disparity of views toward jewishchristian relations is an element of the tensions found in poland between the progressive ―open church‖ and the ―closed church,‖ which supports a more traditionalist approach ―based on the pre-1939 model of polish catholicism.‖ 152 critics have accused the closed church of failing to adopt the pronouncements of the second vatican council that ―upheld the view that http://www.tezeusz.pl/cms/tz/index.php?id=3773 (accessed 5 january 2010). for a konecznian critique of vatican ii, see andrzej horodecki, ―wobec dziedzictwa wiary,‖ nowy przegląd wszechpolski 14 (2007), no. 1-2: 26, http://www.npw.pl/pdf/npw.2007.1-2.pdf (accessed 27 august 2009). 150 romuald jakub weksler-waszkinel, ―księdza stanisława musiała zmagania z pamięcią,‖ zagłada żydów. studia i materiały 2 (2006): 443. for further commentary on koneczny, see also romuald jakub wekslerwaszkinel, ―a breakthrough in the teachings of the church on jews and judaism,‖ in imaginary neighbors: mediating polish-jewish relations after the holocaust, ed. dorota glowacka and joanna zylinska (lincolin and london: university of nebraska press, 2007), 227. 151 see józef życiński (arcybiskup), ―siła słabych,‖ gazeta wyborcza (5 april 2007), http://www.gazetawyborcza.pl/gazetawyborcza/2029020,79328,4042232.html (accessed 15 april 2007). 152 joanna b[eata] michlic, ―antisemitism in contemporary poland. does it matter? and for whom does it matter?‖ in rethinking poles and jews: troubled past, brighter future, ed. robert cherry and annamaria orla-bukowska (lanham, md: rowman & littlefield publishers, inc., 2007), 160. http://znak.org.pl/?lang1=pl&page1=pressreview&subpage1=pressreview00&infopassid1=3669&scrt1=sn http://znak.org.pl/?lang1=pl&page1=pressreview&subpage1=pressreview00&infopassid1=3669&scrt1=sn http://www.myslpolska.icenter.pl/ http://www.tezeusz.pl/cms/tz/index.php?id=3773 http://www.npw.pl/pdf/npw.2007.1-2.pdf http://www.gazetawyborcza.pl/gazetawyborcza/2029020,79328,4042232.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): wise 1-22 wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 18 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 jews were catholics‘ ‗elder brothers in spirit‘ with whom ‗christianity has a special bond.‘‖ 153 the teaching of koneczny‘s ideas has also become more widespread at some institutions, especially catholic university of lublin (kul). most important there is the lublin school of philosophy, 154 where father mieczysław albert krąpiec (1921-2008) was a leading figure in the ―renaissance of koneczny‘s thought‖ in the 1990s. 155 mieczysław ryba attributes the resurgence of interest in koneczny at kul to the efforts of krąpiec. he regards this as one of his most important legacies. 156 perhaps, as one observer noted, ―the interest in koneczny‘s thought among contemporary thomists [at kul] should not seem strange to us.‖ 157 yet joanna beata michlic has observed that the ―support of the closed church in the post-1990 period by members of the university faculty is intellectually disturbing, because in the 1980s the catholic university of lublin was known for its liberal and progressive traditions.‖ 158 weksler-waszkinel adds that the kul case is 153 joanna michlic and antony polonsky, ―catholicism and the jews in postcommunist poland,‖ in jews, catholics, and the burden of history, ed. eli lederhendler (oxford university press, 2006), 40-41. 154 radosław brzózka, ―czytajmy feliksa konecznego,‖ cywilizacja 1 (2002): 68. 155 mieczyslaw ryba, ―o cywilizacjach,‖ http://home.chello.no/~jskorups/kmfk/mieczyslaw_ryba3.htm (accessed 25 august 2009). on krąpiec and koneczny, also see piotr jaroszyński, ―ojca m.a. krąpca bój o polską kulturę (cz. 2),‖ nasz dziennik (21-22 may 2008). for comments by a recent student, see mirosław król, ―pomagał zrozumieć człowieka i jego dzieje,‖ nasz dziennik (16 may 2008). in one of many tributes to krąpiec at the time of his death, the author recalls that he and fellow students from the history department attended krąpiec‘s lectures in order to learn about koneczny. 156 mieczysław ryba, ―o ludzką politykę,‖ nasz dziennik (16 may 2008). 157 artur soboń, ―koncepcja historiozoficzna feliksa konecznego,‖ http://ciapek.uci.agh.edu.pl/~kwlodarc/tekstyo/asobon.html (accessed 28 june 2004). 158 michlic, poland‟s threatening other, 269. especially discouraging, since john paul ii taught there during an earlier progressive period. 159 civilizational fundamentalism in poland today in recent years konecznian critics have decried a perceived civilizational chaos in poland that is caused by ―open society,‖ ―multiculturalism,‖ or ―guests from other civilizations.‖ 160 the problem is obvious: ―cosmopolitanism is synonymous with the resignation and renunciation of the idea of latin civilization.‖ 161 the solution is equally clear: poland needs to spearhead a ―reevangelization of europe‖ 162 based on the values of latin civilization that will lead to its rechristianization. 163 only with a return to the ethics of latin civilization and a ―moral reconstruction‖ 164 can polish culture be healthy. some konecznian critics, such as józef kossecki, blame the influence of jewish civilization for the economic ills of the old socialist system, as well as capitalism of the post-communist era. the common denominator, it seems, is the tendency of apriori thinking, which leads to the implementation of 159 weksler-waszkinel, ―antysemityzm bez zydów.‖ 160 for example, see andrzej j. horodecki, ―bez dyskusji,‖ myśl polska (5 september 2004), no. 36, http://www.myslpolska.icenter.pl/ (accessed 19 march 2005). 161 elżbieta holz, ―kuc – czy pony? cywilizacja łacińska a współczesne postawy polskiego środowiska jeździeckiego,‖ nowy przegląd wszechpolski 9 (2002), no. 1-2, http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2002_01_02/okwkuc_czy_pony.htm (accessed 21 june 2006). 162 tomasz jaźwiński, ―rządowa deklaracja w sprawie moralności i etyki nie ma znaczenia,‖ myśl polska (2 march 2003), no. 9, http://www.myslpolska.icenter.pl/ (accessed 26 march 2005). also see andrzej horodecki, ―ciemności europejskie.‖ 163 editorial, ―jan paweł ii odnowiciel,‖ 1. 164 adrian nikiel, ―eko-filozofia czy ekologia chrześcijańska?‖ wydawnictwo “zielone brygady,” http://www.zb.eco.pl/publication/eko-filozofia-czy-ekologiachrzescijanska-p217511 (accessed 6 may 2009). http://home.chello.no/~jskorups/kmfk/mieczyslaw_ryba3.htm http://ciapek.uci.agh.edu.pl/~kwlodarc/tekstyo/asobon.html http://www.myslpolska.icenter.pl/ http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2002_01_02/okw-kuc_czy_pony.htm http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2002_01_02/okw-kuc_czy_pony.htm http://www.myslpolska.icenter.pl/ http://www.zb.eco.pl/publication/eko-filozofia-czy-ekologia-chrzescijanska-p217511 http://www.zb.eco.pl/publication/eko-filozofia-czy-ekologia-chrzescijanska-p217511 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): wise 1-22 wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 19 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 preconceived and inflexible economic programs that do not take into account the social realities of a given situation. 165 andrzej horodecki is a pundit who consistently views the world through a konecznian lens. for example, he considers globalism a ―byzantine-jewish civilizational mixture taking the form of a global pseudo-civilization, which aims to construct a so-called ‗open society.‘‖ 166 globalization is thus labeled a ―new totalitarianism,‖ and even ―a satanic totalitarian doctrine.‖ 167 the tool of ―the elite of the ‗world intellectual aristocracy‟‖ [emphasis in original], globalization certainly will undermine the purity of latin civilization in poland, where politicians representing byzantine, turanian, and jewish civilizations have recently been “practically uncontrolled” [emphasis in original]. 168 horodecki is deeply concerned that the ―dictatorship of the minority‖ that manifested itself in the form of jewish domination during the communist era now threatens to reemerge. 169 using one of koneczny‘s historical laws, 165 józef kossecki, podstawy nowoczesnej nauki porównawczej o cywilizacjach. socjologia porównawcza cywilizacja (katowice: „śląsk‖ sp. z o.o. wydawnictwo naukowe, 2003), 48-49, and 120. 166 andrzej horodecki, ―gdzie jest inicjatywna polityka polska?‖ nowy przegląd wszechpolski 7 (2000), no.5-6, http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2000_05_06/tms-horodecki_gdziejest-inicjatywna.htm (accessed 21 june 2006). 167 jan piwowarski, ―oddolne zorganizowanie się polaków warunkiem przetrwania narodu i państwa polskiego,‖ nowy przegląd wszechpolski 8 (2001), no. 5-6, http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2001_05_06/tmspiwowarski_oddolne-organizowanie-sie.html (accessed 21 june 2006). also see andrzej horodecki, ―neototalitaryzm,‖ myśl polska (2-9 november 2003), no. 44-45, http://www.myslpolska.icenter.pl/ (accessed 22 march 2005). 168 andrzej horodecki, ―totalna walka z cywilizacją łacińską, część i,‖ nowy przegląd wszechpolski 9 (2002), no. 3-4, http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2002_03_04/pis-horodecki_totalnawalka-z-cl.htm (accessed 21 june 2006). 169 andrzej horodecki, ―wobec zamachu na patriotyzm,‖ nasza witryna, http://www.naszawitryna.pl/jedwabne_297.html (accessed 7 may 2008). originally published in myśl polska (22 june 2001), no. 24-25 and in nowy horodecki bemoans this as an example of the ―lower‖ jewish civilization dominating the ―higher‖ latin civilization. this, he assumes, is one of the costs of the transition to democracy. 170 another cost of the continued interaction with jewish civilization is the ―moral schizophrenia‖ that has typically emerged as a sickness associated with civilization mixing. 171 bemoaning poles‘ ―ignorance of the fundamental difference between latin and jewish civilizations,‖ horodecki reminds readers that the two are incompatible and cannot be partners in any sort of civilizational dialogue. 172 moreover, even conversion to christianity from judaism does not mean an automatic membership in latin civilization, since it is so radically different from jewish civilization. 173 between latin and jewish civilizations, therefore: ―a state of war continues!‖ 174 as radosław brzózka notes: ―the moral life of society [in latin civilization] ought to be...dynamic—koneczny postulated—it ought to rely on an active struggle with evil, which is present in foreign civilizational influences.‖ 175 przegląd wszechpolski 8 (2001), no. 1-2, http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2001_01_02/pis-horodecki_wobeczamachu.html (accessed 21 june 2006). 170 andrzej horodecki, ―totalna walka z cywilizacją łacińską, część ii.‖ 171 andrzej horodecki, ―rozum zagrożony,‖ nowy przegląd wszechpolski 14 (2007), no. 5-6: 39, http://www.npw.pl/pdf/npw.2007.5-6.pdf (accessed 27 august 2009). 172 andrzej horodecki, ―walka cywilizacjyjna,‖ nowy przegląd wszechpolski 8 (2001), no. 3-4, http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2001_03_04/tmshorodecki_walka-cywilizacyjna.html (accessed 21 june 2006). 173 andrzej horodecki, ―wobec zamachu na patriotyzm.‖ koneczny devoted an entire chapter (―the dejudaized jew‖) of cywilizacja żydowska to this problem. see koneczny, cywilizacja żydowska, 395-406. interestingly, kamil sawczak also refers to koneczny‘s thoughts on this issue. see sawczak, ―o rozwiązaniu kwestii żydowskiej.‖ 174 andrzej horodecki, ―walka cywilizacjyjna.‖ 175 radosław brzózka, ―polityka międzynarodowa w cywilizacji łacińskiej: konecznikana,‖ cywilizacja 4/5 (2003): 35. http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2000_05_06/tms-horodecki_gdzie-jest-inicjatywna.htm http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2000_05_06/tms-horodecki_gdzie-jest-inicjatywna.htm http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2001_05_06/tms-piwowarski_oddolne-organizowanie-sie.html http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2001_05_06/tms-piwowarski_oddolne-organizowanie-sie.html http://www.myslpolska.icenter.pl/ http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2002_03_04/pis-horodecki_totalna-walka-z-cl.htm http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2002_03_04/pis-horodecki_totalna-walka-z-cl.htm http://www.naszawitryna.pl/jedwabne_297.html http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2001_01_02/pis-horodecki_wobec-zamachu.html http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2001_01_02/pis-horodecki_wobec-zamachu.html http://www.npw.pl/pdf/npw.2007.5-6.pdf http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2001_03_04/tms-horodecki_walka-cywilizacyjna.html http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2001_03_04/tms-horodecki_walka-cywilizacyjna.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): wise 1-22 wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 20 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 the most vocal and high-profile advocate of koneczny‘s worldview today is maciej giertych. he explicitly stated in his controversial 2007 booklet, civilisations at war in europe: ―what i am going to present...is based on the teaching of feliks koneczny, a polish historian and philosopher, who developed his own school of thinking on civilisational differences.‖ 176 in this booklet, giertych expressed his worldview as a true ―konecznianista‖: 177 civilisations differ so much that it is not possible to be civilised in two different ways. civilisations, by their very nature, must be at war with each other. this war has nothing to do with military activity or force. it is a war of ideas. when a civilisation ceases to fight for its own identity, when it treats other civilisations as being of equal value, the lower one wins. ‗lower‘ means the one that is less demanding. civilisational mixtures can only be mechanical, never organic, and they soon perish because they are inconsistent. there are no historical examples of civilisational mixtures surviving for any length of time. 178 building on koneczny, giertych also elaborated on the way civilizational boundaries are constructed. ―civilisation is a very strong marriage barrier. people normally look for a spouse in the same civilisation as their own. they expect to share civilisational norms with the spouse. as a result, the civilisational barrier becomes also a biological one... however, it is not the 176 maciej giertych, civilisations at war in europe (bruxells: maciej giertych, 2007), 3. available online at opoka w kraju (http://opoka.giertych.pl/ ). 177 this term is used by other scholars. for example, see jakubowski, ciągłość historii, 258. 178 giertych, civilisations at war, 4-5. race that makes a civilisation. it is civilisation that can make a race...‖ 179 critics have detected in giertych‘s ideas the echo of a discourse from the interwar period that replaced the concept of ―race‖ with the euphemism of ―civilization.‖ 180 in an interview with gazeta lubuska conducted after the publication of his koneczny primer (civilisations at war in europe, 2007), maciej giertych was directly asked by the reporter: ―pan professor, are you a racist?‖ giertych replied: ―of course not.‖ in response to another question about whether he would object to his son marrying a jewish woman, giertych voiced reservations about ―intercivilizational marriages.‖ while he would not oppose such a union if she ―belonged spiritually to our civilization and professed our values,‖ he noted that if she were not catholic it would be very difficult for this to be the case. 181 giertych commented at some length on how the civilizational boundary is drawn between christians (particularly catholics) and jews. basing his commentary on konecznian ideas, giertych posits that: jews are not pioneers. jews do not go conquering the wild world or overpowering the hazards of nature. they settle among other civilisations, preferably among the rich. they tend to migrate from poorer to richer lands. they do so always as a group, immediately forming their own separate community. jews do not represent 179 ibid., 7. 180 rafał maszkowski, ―otwarte społeczeństwo i jego radio,‖ stowarzyszenie nigdy więcej (never again association), (2004), http://www.nigdywiecej.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=9 1 (accessed 26 august 2009). 181 ―bronię naszej cywilizacji przed polityką bez etyki,‖ gazeta lubuska (31 march/1 april 2007); ―monitoring prasy,‖ 03-2007, p. 777, żydowski instytut historyczny (jewish historical institute), warsaw. http://opoka.giertych.pl/ http://www.nigdywiecej.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=91 http://www.nigdywiecej.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=91 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): wise 1-22 wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 21 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 any specific race. it is a great misunderstanding to consider anti-semitism as racism... however, the fact that they stick to their own community, their own civilisation, their own separateness, results in biological differences developing. it is not the race that forms the jewish civilisation but the civilisation can cause a biological separateness. 182 this is all for the best, it would seem, since giertych argues that aspects of jewish civilization, especially its ―situational ethics,‖ pose a ―spiritual threat‖ to latin civilization and must be avoided. 183 this concern is shared by other civilizational fundamentalists who have warned poles about the need to regulate interaction with ―lower‖ civilizations. 184 giertych received broad public criticism at home and abroad for his booklet, which was published in english in order to expose an international audience to the ideas of koneczny. most of the criticism targeted his discussion of ―jewish civilization,‖ which repeated many of the same themes expressed by koneczny during the interwar period and in posthumous publications (especially cywilizacja żydowska). 185 rafał pankowski 182 giertych, civilisations at war, 23. 183 ibid., 24. giertych has warned elsewhere about the need to prevent pollution by foreign civilizational elements. see ―rozumienie świata a podziały cywilizacyjne prof. dr hab. maciej giertych,‖ nasza witryna, http://www.naszawitryna.pl/jedwabne_497.html (accessed 6 november 2007). originally published in nasz dziennik (6 february 2001). 184 editorial, ―czy jestem polakiem?‖ nowy przegląd wszechpolski 13 (2006), no. 1-2, http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2006_01_02/index.html (accessed 20 june 2006). 185 a review of polish press reports collected by the jewish historical institute (warsaw) from february-april 2007 indicates that over 50 articles appeared in reaction to the giertych booklet during those months. analysis focused mainly on giertych‘s comments about jews, and the terms ―shock‖ or ―shocking‖ were commonly used. see ―monitoring prasy,‖ 02-2007, 03-2007, and 042007. żydowski instytut historyczny (jewish historical institute), warsaw. of ―never again‖ noted that the book was ―consistent with his previous writings, as disappointing as that may be.‖ piotr kadlcik, president of the union of jewish religious communities in poland, did not find explicit anti-semitic comments, but added that the book contained ―dangerous thoughts that could elicit anti-semitism.‖ 186 writing in his periodical opoka w kraju in april 2007, giertych explained that he ―wanted to popularize‖ koneczny‘s ideas outside of poland. as a result, he says, ―i was proclaimed an anti-semite, a racist, a xenophobe, a violator of the values on which the european union was constructed, etc.‖ despite the criticism, he is glad for the publicity in a way, since it might ―build interest in the works of koneczny, and finally this author will gain the international recognition that he deserves.‖ 187 giertych certainly had his defenders, too. mirosław dakowski wrote an open letter in february 2007 to president kaczyński, in which he made clear that giertych‘s book was based on koneczny‘s ideas, which were explicitly ―anti-racist.‖ 188 others 186 dinah a. spritzer, ―jews are a detriment to europe, polish politician says,‖ the jerusalem post (19 february 2007) http://www.jpost.com/servlet/satellite?cid=1170359892598&pagename=jpart icle%2fshowfull (accessed 6 january 2010). 187 maciej giertych, ―wojna cywilizacji w europie,‖ opoka w kraju 61(82) (april 2007): 1-2, http://opoka.giertych.pl/owk61.htm (accessed 30 june 2008). giertych responded to his critics in many interviews with the press. in a second booklet from 2007, he recalled that ―my publication of a booklet entitled ―civilisations at war in europe‖ which presents the endless ideological struggle between various civilizations that have made europe over the centuries and which pertains very much to the conflicts we are dealing with today, has created quite a turmoil in the parliament and particularly in the media. having distributed this booklet to the pigeonholes of all members of the european parliament i was accused of all sorts of sins, including racism, antisemitism and disrespect for human values. the booklet pertains very much to the issue of european values. i believe i defend them and i am accused of abusing them.‖ see european values (bruxells: maciej giertych, 2007), 6. 188 mirosław dakowski, ―nie potępiajmy konecznego!‖ myśl polska (23 february 2007), http://www.naszawitryna.pl/jedwabne_497.html http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2006_01_02/index.html http://www.jpost.com/servlet/satellite?cid=1170359892598&pagename=jparticle%2fshowfull http://www.jpost.com/servlet/satellite?cid=1170359892598&pagename=jparticle%2fshowfull http://opoka.giertych.pl/owk61.htm studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): wise 1-22 wise, “civilizational” boundaries in christian-jewish relations wise 22 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 have questioned why koneczny should be marginalized, since many pre-war authors wrote more harshly about judaism. 189 piotr jaroszyński of the lublin school of philosophy frequently comments on koneczny in nasz dziennik and radio maryja. he has advised that ―jewish civilization is a very sensitive topic, because it is to a certain degree today embraced by the censorship of political correctness [emphasis in original]‖ and there are consequences if one is labeled an anti-semite. he added that ―koneczny does not attack a race, a nation, or a religion. for koneczny was neither a racist, nor a fascist, nor a xenophobe; he was an analyst of civilization. it is possible to agree or not with this analysis, but it is not possible to classify him as anti-semitic [emphasis in original].‖ 190 koneczny‘s heirs today reject any efforts at civilizational compromise as ―naive ecumenism‖ 191 that would result in what koneczny termed a ―civilizational caricature.‖ 192 rather than decline into ―cultural and political nothingness,‖ poles should cherish their role in latin civilization, which is grounded in catholicism. early in the communist period, koneczny proclaimed: ―we support three great pillars of our existence, and these are: catholicism, latin civilization, and http://www.myslpolska.org/?idx=janek_art&lusterko=193442 (accessed 16 march 2007). 189 karol brandt, ―niezapomniany feliks koneczny,‖ myśl polska (2-9 august 2009), no. 31-32, http://www.myslpolska.org/node/10210 (accessed 21 august 2009). 190 piotr jaroszyński, ―koneczny o tożsamości zachodu,‖ in przywracanie pamięci (warszawa: dom polski, 2007), 119. 191 andrzej horodecki, ―nie ma patriotyzmu bez personalizmu,‖ nowy przegląd wszechpolski 11 (2004), no. 1-2, http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2004_01_02/pis-horodecki_nie-mapatriotyzmu.html (accessed 21 june 2006). 192 koneczny, polska między wschodem a zachodem, 2. polishness.‖ 193 in post-communist poland, his heirs have revived this credo as a rallying cry to construct civilizational boundaries between jews and christians. 193 feliks koneczny, ―warunki powodzenia,‖ in zwierzchnictwo moralności ekonomia i etyka (komorów: wydawnictwo antyk, 2006), 67. originally published in niedziela 17 (21-27 december 1947), no. 51: 472. http://www.myslpolska.org/?idx=janek_art&lusterko=193442 http://www.myslpolska.org/node/10210 http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2004_01_02/pis-horodecki_nie-ma-patriotyzmu.html http://www.npw.pl/archiwum_npw/2004_01_02/pis-horodecki_nie-ma-patriotyzmu.html scjr 17, no. 1 (2022): 1-3 marvin r. wilson our father abraham, 2nd edition (grand rapids, michigan: eerdmans 2021), xxiii + 443 pages john e. phelan, jr. jphelan@northpark.edu north park theological seminary, chicago, il 60625 modern evangelicalism arose after the second world war. it was, in part, an attempt by evangelical intellectuals to differentiate themselves from early 20th century fundamentalists. unlike the fundamentalists, they would not cut themselves off from wider american cultural and intellectual currents. however, they did criticize them. they sought to found respectable universities and accredited seminaries. it was hoped that evangelicals would not attend or teach only in fundamentalist bible schools. they wanted their books to be published by major publishers and discussed at the relevant academic assemblies. in short, modern evangelicals sought to be culturally relevant, not relegated to a cultural backwater. like all american christians, evangelicals needed to confront the emergence of the state of israel. for evangelicals who were students of biblical prophecy this meant debating the eschatological significance of this new state. many greeted the foundation of israel with enthusiasm, just as many fundamentalists had greeted the balfour declaration in 1917. but for most rank-and-file evangelicals jews were an abstraction. they imagined modern jews in robes and sandals living in the land of the bible. or they were linked with the ancient scribes and pharisees from the time of jesus. if jews were known at all they were objects of curiosity and / or evangelization. this was, in part, because evangelicals were largely where jews were not: the south, the upper midwest, and suburban california. even in a city like chicago where jews and evangelicals co-existed in significant numbers, their interactions were infrequent and superficial. for these, and other reasons, evangelicals were late to engage in jewish / christian dialogue. the roman catholic church had thrown open the doors for dialogue and change with nostra aetate in 1965. mainline christians had been engaging with jews with greater seriousness in the wake of the shoah. in the late 1970s a group of evangelical and jewish scholars, clergy, and leaders finally began to meet, share papers, and debate. four volumes of the proceedings were published. the very first article in the first volume, evangelicals and jews in conversation (1978), was by marvin wilson, entitled “an evangelical perspective on judaism.” wilson also edited this and subsequent volumes along with marc h. tannenbaum phelan: marvin r. wilson’s our father abraham, 2nd edition 2 and a. james rudin. marvin wilson was there at the beginning and, as is evident from this most recent work, still very much part of the dialogue. our father abraham was first published in 1989 in the wake of these early conversations. it proved immensely popular, going through some 30 printings. it is written for evangelicals by a self-described middle-of-the-road evangelical and not surprisingly reflects evangelical concerns. wilson taught for decades at gordon college, an evangelical college near boston, introducing generations of students to jews and judaism. the chapters clearly reflect the questions and concerns of wilson’s students and the thousands of evangelical seminarians and pastors he addressed. they also reflect decades of interactions and discussions with jewish academics, rabbis, and lay people. wilson’s primary purpose is to make clear to christians the debt they owe to jews and judaism. he argues that when christians neglect or ignore this jewish heritage it is not only bad for the jews, it is bad for the church! the second edition is substantially unchanged from the first. there is a new preface, an updated bibliography, and two important new chapters at the end of the book. wilson begins grounding the jewish heritage of christianity in the new testament, arguing against the kind of hard supersessionism that cuts the cord between israel and the church. in the second section he considers the history of the church and the jews, paying particular attention to the earliest centuries of conflict and separation. he considers in part three the hebrew scriptures and “the contour of hebrew thought” (138). section four contains a series of studies on aspects of contemporary jewish life and thought in conversation with christian practices: marriage and family; passover and the last supper; jews, christians, and the land of israel; and the high value of learning in judaism. in the fifth section he considers the importance of dialogue and how it might be done. the final section contains the two new chapters. the first is an impassioned plea for christians to keep the study of the shoah alive and to contemplate how christian theology has been challenged by that unspeakable tragedy. the second is an important personal reflection on the beginnings of wilson’s own interest in jewish / christian dialogue and its initial developments within the wider evangelical community. the book is clearly written for students and pastors and is highly suitable for small group discussions. each chapter ends with lists of discussion questions no doubt culled from wilson’s extensive teaching experience. at one point he remarks on realizing early in his teaching career that he could not answer his students’ simplest questions about modern judaism. he could lecture extensively on ancient israelite religion, israel’s prophets, and its wisdom tradition. but he admits he knew little about second temple judaism and almost nothing about rabbinic judaism. in this he was not alone. i have long shared his concern for the ignorance of many christians of modern jews and judaism. like wilson, it seems to me that most christians know a bit about the jews of the “old testament” and the time of jesus, though even there what they know is limited. after that they know nothing about jews and judaism until the shoah and the foundation of the state of israel. herein 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) lies the enduring importance of this book. the students arriving at evangelical colleges and seminaries still need to be confronted with the importance of jewish life and thought and introduced to the possibility of dialogue. for the most part the book holds up quite well. scholarship marches on and some of the discussion of paul, for example, could be updated, but this, it seems to me, would only strengthen wilson’s argument. some jews may wonder if wilson leans too heavily on more traditional forms of judaism to the neglect of more liberal forms. however, the book remains an important resource for evangelicals and a powerful testimony to the beauty and grace of one man’s experience of learning to love another tradition. microsoft word 137512-text.native.1219861310.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-2 bodian, dying in the law of moses r1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 miriam bodian dying in the law of moses: crypto-jewish martyrdom in the iberian world (bloomington and indianapolis: indiana university press, 2007) xvii + 278 pp. reviewed by steven j. mcmichael, ofm conv., university of saint thomas in late october 1998, a meeting of the international symposium on the inquisition was held at the vatican. the final report of the conference pointed out that the inquisition was not as terrible as had been believed. the report claimed that less than two percent of those interviewed by the inquisition were turned over to the secular powers to be executed. this statistic may offer consolation to some contemporary christians and jews who are knowledgeable about this shocking stage of history. but, in fact, it is no source of comfort. those who study the inquisition are used to dealing with questions about how many were arrested, tried, tortured, and handed over to secular authorities for execution. such discussions usually focus on categories of persons actually tried; for example, jews, crytpo-jews, judaizers, etc. we are not used to examining individual cases in which we see first hand the reality of the inquisitional process and what effect it had on its victims. it is in this regard that miriam bodian, professor of jewish history in the graduate school of jewish studies at touro college, provides us with a valuable resource. dying in the law of moses offers significant insight into the history of the inquisition by focusing on four individuals who were tried and condemned to death. chapter one is a very informative presentation on the background of crypto-judaism. it develops relevant themes including martyrdom and its role in jewish history, especially in spain and portugal during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. bodian provides an overview of the forced conversion of jews in 1391, the tortosa disputation of 1413-1414, and the beginnings of the converso trials in the 1460s. she describes how jews, at the end of the fifteenth century, were forced to choose between leaving spain (the expulsion of 1492) or accommodation (through conversion to christianity). some jews converted and left judaism completely. certain others, the crypto-jews or conversos, remained in spain but secretly practiced their jewish faith. those who were discovered to be judaizing (one of the main targets of the inquisition) had the choice of recanting and returning to true catholic belief and practice or being martyred. chapter two shows how complex jewish life was in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. the four individuals who are the main focus of the book are called “dogmatistic crypto-jewish martyrs.” they did not (and could not) live a traditional jewish life centered around the synagogue and traditional ritual practices. these individuals also shared an almost complete ignorance of rabbinic learning because rabbinic texts were for the most part unavailable to them. they therefore embraced a “crypto-jewish biblicism” which emphasized peshat or a literal reading of the biblical texts. this led to a new type of martyrdom because of the circumstances of jewish life and the emergence of the inquisition as an institution in catholic europe and the americas. this raises an important issue regarding the influence of the christian reformation on inner jewish life. bodian asks whether defiant protestant martyrs in roman catholic lands (and defiant catholic martyrs in protestant lands) provided a stimulus to cryptojews to die a similar death at the hands of the inquisitors (p. 26)? this question has come to the review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-2 bodian, dying in the law of moses r2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 forefront in other contemporary studies concerning this period of history. in terms of inner-jewish life itself, chapter two shows the multifaceted reality of judaism at that time. chapters three through six provide a very detailed look at four individuals who experienced inquisitional procedures and who, in the end, chose martyrdom. each of these individuals embraced a particular brand of judaism through a literal reading of the bible and not through traditional rabbinic learning and practice. a common characteristic of these crypto-jews is a type of protestant approach to the bible (the bible as the sole authority) and to theology (sola fide). they focused more on their personal experience of god within and through their hearts rather than on the observance of traditional jewish practices. however, many also began to observe jewish food laws during their time under the inquisition. they based their desire for martyrdom on their reading of maccabees (which many read in the latin vulgate) rather than on rabbinic materials. some even circumcised themselves during their ordeal, taking a hebrew name along with a descriptive epithet. they chose to defend their faith by debating with the inquisitors. these debates had the effect of increasing their sense of a divine call to embrace martyrdom rather than “backslide” into erroneous christian beliefs. dying in the law of moses offers a very informative inside view not only of the inner-jewish life of those who endured the inquisitional process but also of the inquisition itself. this fascinating book demonstrates how the inquisition operated in terms of questioning suspects, the techniques employed to obtain confessions, and the pressure placed on victims to get them to recant. it also allows us to see how actual individuals endured these inquisitional procedures and emerged as faithful jews and heroes of modern judaism. the book also shows us the complexity of jewish-christian relations in the early modern period and it should serve as a model of how to appraise this same relationship today. the declaration of the establishment of the state of israel: reflections on its sixtieth anniversary studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college the declaration of the establishment of the state of israel: reflections on its sixtieth anniversary volume 3 (2008): 115 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 on may 14, 1948, on the eve of the expiration of the british mandate, jewish leaders in mandatory palestine gathered at the tel aviv museum and issued a declaration of the establishment of the state of israel. like the american declaration of independence, this document sets forth their rationale for the formation of the state and the ideals that these leaders hoped it would embody. the founding of the state, mandated by the united nations, was greeted with widespread joy in the jewish world and with universal belligerence in the arab world. many parts of the christian world, in many ways caught between the two and embedded in the legacy of its own antijudaism, were dismayed over this resumption of jewish sovereignty over the holy land. now, sixty years later, a revolution has occurred in the teachings of the catholic and many protestant churches about jews and judaism. in dialogue settings, the topic of israel is very much on the table, no longer the proverbial “elephant in the room,” even if full understanding remains an unattained goal. in this context, the editors of studies in christian-jewish relations have invited a series of brief reflections on the text of the “declaration of the establishment of the state of israel” from the perspective of the author’s own engagement in christian-jewish relations. declaration of the establishment of the state of israel 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 provisional government of israel official gazette: number 1; tel aviv, 5 iyar 5708, 14.5.1948 page 1 the declaration of the establishment of the state of israel the land of israel was the birthplace of the jewish people. here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal book of books. after being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom. impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. in recent decades they returned in their masses. pioneers, defiant returnees, and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving reflections on the declaration raymond cohen “fear not, nor be alarmed.” when david ben-gurion read out the declaration of the establishment of the state of israel on may 14, 1948, arab armies were poised to invade the new state, and jerusalem was cut off from the coastal plain under siege. since un resolution 181 of november 29, 1947 on the partition of palestine into arab and jewish states, the 600,000-strong yishuv – jewish community in palestine – had been under continuous attack from arab irregulars. its survival was in doubt, and indeed british general bernard montgomery argued that without the protection of departing british forces it would not withstand an onslaught by regular arab armies. (continued on page 6) deborah weissman the first response evoked by rereading the declaration is a sense of the unlikelihood of its being passed today. we israelis seem so much more divided on the cores issues that it would be difficult to imagine a document of this nature being adopted by such a wallto-wall (agudat yisrael to the communists!) coalition. this may give rise, for the supernaturalists among us, to a feeling of the miraculous character of the establishment of the state of israel. but apart from that, and from a strictly rational perspective, we can point to at least three problematic areas that have developed in the ensuing sixty years. (continued on page 7) declaration of the establishment of the state of israel 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country’s inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood. in the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the jewish state, theodore herzl, the first zionist congress convened and proclaimed the right of the jewish people to national rebirth in its own country. this right was recognized in the balfour declaration of the 2nd november, 1917, and re-affirmed in the mandate of the league of nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the jewish people and eretz-israel and to the right of the jewish people to rebuild its national home. the catastrophe which recently befell the jewish people the massacre of millions of jews in europe was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in eretz-israel the jewish state, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every jew and confer upon the jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the community of nations. survivors of the nazi holocaust in europe, as well as jews from other parts of the world, continued to migrate to eretz-israel, undaunted by difficulties, restrictions and dangers, and never ceased to assert their right to a life of dignity, freedom and honest toil in their national homeland. in the second world war, the jewish community of this country contributed its full share to the struggle of the freedomand peaceloving nations against the forces of nazi wickedness and, by the blood of its soldiers and its war effort, gained the right to be reckoned among the peoples who founded the united nations. james bernauer, sj when the declaration was proclaimed, i was but three years of age and yet its words speak afresh to my feelings as a moral agent today. i feel gratitude that a special haven for jews has been established, that, as the document states, the shoah will not be ignored and that from that evil event’s destructiveness, a will to create was embraced and not a spirit of revenge. as a former new yorker and a current bostonian, i feel relieved, however, that the founding of the state of israel did not lead to the disappearance of the jewish diaspora communities as had been occasionally advocated in the nation’s early years. (continued on page 8) eugene korn israel’s declaration of independence is a remarkable document, born no less of the prophetic dreams of micah 4 and isaiah 2 for universal peace and human security than of the long jewish experience in exile that demanded an end to homelessness and suffering. the declaration seems complete as an expression of the ideal. the political reality of israel is – as in all human reality – imperfect, reflecting unfulfilled aspirations. (continued on page 9) ruth lautt, op on may 14, 1948, the founders of the modern state of israel issued the nascent state’s founding document, the declaration of the establishment of the state of israel (the “declaration”). in it they articulated the principles their state would be based on, including “freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of israel;…” a little less than twenty years later the declaration of the establishment of the state of israel 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 on the 29th november, 1947, the united nations general assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a jewish state in eretz-israel; the general assembly required the inhabitants of eretz-israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. this recognition by the united nations of the right of the jewish people to establish their state is irrevocable. this is the natural right of the jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign state. accordingly we, members of the people's council, representatives of the jewish community of eretz-israel and of the zionist movement, are here assembled on the day of the termination of the british mandate over eretz-israel and, by virtue of our natural and historic right and on the strength of the resolution of the united nations general assembly, hereby declare the establishment of a jewish state in eretz-israel, to be known as the state of israel. we declare that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the mandate being tonight, the eve of sabbath, the 6th iyar, 5708 (15th may, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the state in accordance with the constitution which shall be adopted by the elected constituent assembly not later than the 1st october 1948, the people's council shall act as a provisional council of state, and its executive organ, the people's administration, shall be the provisional government of the jewish state, to be called "israel." the state of israel will be open for jewish immigration and for the ingathering of the exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the holy places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the charter of the united nations. roman catholic church unequivocally repudiated antisemitism in nostra aetate. nostra aetate, however, was silent as to a christian understanding of the jewish state, and it would be another twenty years before the church would grapple with this issue. (continued on page 10) leonard greenspoon the declaration establishing the modern state of israel begins with this affirmation: "eretz-israel [literally, the land of israel] was the birthplace of the jewish people. here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal book of books." it is interesting to observe that, within this statement, there is no description of the geographical or political entity that eretz-israel encompasses. (continued on page 11) ursula rudnick among the many images conjured up by the state of israel are memories of my year of studies at the hebrew university in jerusalem in 1984/5. participating in the programme “studies in israel”, designed for students of theology to study classical jewish texts as well as to learn about contemporary jewish life, was a unique opportunity not only to study the classical texts of rabbinic judaism, but to encounter many different jewish people and traditions. in israel, worlds of judaism opened up and i started out on a path which led me to being active in jewishchristian relations to this very day. as a german protestant theologian i strongly feel that it is not appropriate to express what should have been articulated in the declaration of the establishment of the state of israel or to criticise its content. (continued on page 12) declaration of the establishment of the state of israel 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 we appeal in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now formonths to the arab inhabitants of the state of israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the state on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. the state of israel is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the united nations in implementing the resolution of the general assembly of the 29th november, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of eretzisrael. we appeal to the united nations to assist the jewish people in the building-up of its state and to receive the state of israel into the community of nations. we extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign jewish people settled in its own land. the state of israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire middle east. we appeal to the jewish people throughout the diaspora to rally round the jews of eretz-israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream – the redemption of israel. placing our trust in the almighty, we affix our signatures to this proclamation at this session of the provisional council of state, on the soil of the homeland, in the city of tel-aviv, on this sabbath eve, the 5th day of iyar, 5708 (14th may, 1948). dennis hale sixty years after the fact, the israeli statehood declaration is remarkable for the modesty of its claims. while the american declaration of independence proclaims self-evident and universal truths, the israeli declaration proclaims only that jews may do what others may do: govern themselves in their own land, exercising the same right to statehood that is possessed by all peoples – a natural right buttressed by convention, in the form of a u.n. resolution. its modesty, of course, is deceptive. for jews, the establishment of a jewish state in eretz-israel was an event of transcendent importance, ending an era not only of statelessness but also of extreme vulnerability. the israeli declaration references both of these facts: first, the fulfillment of an ancient promise that the homeland would be restored; and then the urgency revealed by the holocaust. (continued on page 13) peter pettit the world reflected in israel’s declaration was a very different place than we know today. the declaration stands as a document of its time, evoking respect as we attempt a fair assessment, neither wishing for the unattainable nor second-guessing with the unfair advantage of hindsight. like all founding documents, it invites us to understand its ideals, assessing the ways in which subsequent reality fulfilled them and the ways in which today’s inheritors of the ideals may yet more fully achieve them. in its twelfth paragraph, the declaration sets forth its core ideals; it is remarkable to consider how far israel has embodied the accommodation of immigrants and the participation in the community of nations that are included there, particularly in light of the continuing state of war marking its life from the start. (continued on page 13) declaration of the establishment of the state of israel 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 david ben-gurion daniel auster mordekhai bentov yitzchak ben zvi eliyahu berligne fritz bernstein rabbi wolf gold meir grabovsky yitzchak gruenbaum dr. abraham granovsky eliyahu dobkin meir wilner-kovner zerach wahrhaftig herzl vardi rachel cohen rabbi kalman kahana saadia kobashi rabbi yitzchak meir levin meir david loewenstein zvi luria golda myerson nachum nir zvi segal rabbi yehuda leib hacohen fishman david zvi pinkas aharon zisling moshe kolodny eliezer kaplan abraham katznelson felix rosenblueth david remez berl repetur mordekhai shattner ben zion sternberg bekhor shitreet moshe shapira moshe shertok from http://www.knesset.gov.il/docs/eng/megilat_eng.htm raymond cohen (continued from page 2) in the circumstances, the declaration was less a detailed political manifesto than a call to arms, a claim to statehood, an appeal for international recognition, and an affirmation of faith. in besieged jerusalem people danced in the streets. in its assurance of an eternal israel it evokes the declaration to be enunciated by the priest on the eve of battle of deuteronomy 20:3-4. hear o israel, ye draw nigh this day unto battle against your enemies; let not your heart faint; fear not, nor be racelle weiman almighty god and the declaration of independence of israel the talmud extols the extraordinary teacher as a treasure. one of my cherished teachers was ruth goldschmidt kunzer, a fiery professor with red hair and a british accent from the german studies department at ucla, who taught the first university courses in the usa on zionism, as well as the holocaust. she was extraordinary in many ways; not least was the fact that she was present as the proverbial ‘fly on the wall’ during some of the greatest moments in modern jewish history. in the summer of 1975 i volunteered to live with her to help out with her husband, who was dying of cancer. during those warm summer nights in los angeles, ruth shared her most significant memories. these were of the chaotic but exhilarating years serving as the english language secretary and aide to david ben gurion, the first prime minister of israel, and later his successor, moshe sharett (shertok), the major architects of the state of israel. (continued on page 14) alarmed, neither be ye affrighted at them; for the lord your god is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you. in one paragraph in broad brushstrokes the declaration sket ches out the ideals of a democratic state, “freedom, justice and peace, as envisaged by the prophets of israel,” while promising “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.” it guarantees “freedeclaration of the establishment of the state of israel 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 http://www.knesset.gov.il/docs/eng/megilat_eng.htm studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 dom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.” but the envisaged constitution supposed to give these ideals concrete legal expression by october 1, 1948 still languishes, sixty years on, in a committee of the israeli parliament. the declaration of statehood is not a political program in the tom paine tradition of the enlightenment for the simple reason that zionism was never very interested in political theory as opposed to policy. at an ethical level it took the message of the prophets as its beacon. at a practical level it emphasized creating facts on the ground – bringing in immigrants, buying and settling land, planting orchards. the political issues of the day were always exhaustively debated by zionist thinkers. but political and constitutional theory fell between the cracks. as a result, the declaration is something of a patchwork of contrasts and even contradictions. is this a secular or a sacred document? it is replete with biblical and messianic allusions. the “rock of israel” is evoked, but the divine promise of the land is omitted. the “redemption of israel” is proclaimed, and this seems to refer to national rebirth, the ingathering of exiles, statehood, rebuilding jerusalem, redemption of the land, and fructification of the desert. however, the text does not expand on what this implies in spiritual terms. after the six-day war this vacuum was filled by the national religious aspiration to settle the entire land of israel and ultimately to restore the temple. national and universal values also pull the text in different directions. it is unclear how the concept of a specifically jewish state can be reconciled with the political rights of non-jewish inhabitants of israel in the event that the latter become a majority of the population. in addition, does freedom of religion and conscience not also imply freedom to change one’s religion? the most resonant sentence in the entire document, against the background of the nazi holocaust, is the evocation of “the natural right of the jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign state.” sixty years on i believe that statehood has indeed transformed the conditions of jewish existence. but many key questions remain open, including cultural identity, borders, the status of jerusalem, and relations with the palestinians. as far as christian-jewish relations are concerned, no one in 1948 could imagine that israel and the holy see would eventually exchange ambassadors, as they did in 1994. today the challenge is to normalize that relationship by finally concluding agreements on the bread and butter issues of visas for clerics and tax exemptions for catholic institutions. with these obstacles out of the way, the two parties might then productively discuss deeper mutual questions of history, memory, and identity. raymond cohen holds the chaim weizman chair of international relations in the department of international relations at the hebrew university of jerusalem. he is the 2008-2009 corcoran visiting chair at the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college. (back to page 2) deborah weissman (continued from page 2) 1. the united states, rapidly after issuing its declaration of independence, produced a constitution, with a bill of rights. the state of israel came into being without a constitution. ben-gurion was afraid of a struggle with the orthodox parties, who he was sure would insist that the jewish people already had an adequate constitution in the torah. besides, it could be argued, one of the world’s admirable democracies – great britain – had existed for centuries without a constitution. declaration of the establishment of the state of israel 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 however, what was ignored in this approach is that britain had, over the centuries, developed strong traditions and stable institutions, safeguarding its democracy. many of us in israel feel that although our democracy has managed to weather deep crises and threats of an existential nature – in terms of security, politics, the economy and a multicultural society – we do need a stronger legal bulwark to continue as a jewish and democratic state. we are probably closer, on a parliamentary level, to achieving a constitution than we have been before, but because of the challenges we have already alluded to, the goal is not yet in sight. 2. after the first nineteen years of its existence, the state of israel faced the challenge of the territories acquired (captured? conquered? liberated?) during the six-days war. the settlements were a major strategic blunder, calling into question the commitment of the declaration to the values of “…freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of israel…” the majority of israelis have given up on any dream of the greater israel, although the 2005 disengagement from gaza, with its dismantling of settlements, gave a mixed message. it showed that israel was capable of withdrawal from settled territory, but brought in its wake an intolerable situation of constant rocket fire on the northern negev. another attempt at unilateral withdrawal, the infamous security barrier/fence/wall, may have lowered the incidence of terrorism, but it also has trampled palestinian rights and further worsened israel’s image in the world. 3. the most egregious contradiction to the declaration lies in the second-class status of israel’s arab citizens. the declaration has promised them “full and equal citizenship and due representation.” these have yet to be achieved. although arab israelis compare favorably with the populations of all the countries in the arab world, a fairer comparison would be with jewish israelis, and there, they lag behind. the poorest communities in israel, with the highest unemployment rates, are in the arab sector. the percentages of pupils matriculating in high schools or finishing university degrees are much lower than in jewish communities. government budgets are not always distributed proportionally. one of the most painful and, unfortunately, growing phenomena in israel is jewish racism, directed against arabs. these questions will have to be addressed if israel is to live up to the ideals articulated in its declaration of independence. rabbi dr. deborah weissman, who lives in jerusalem, is president of the international council of christians and jews. (back to page 3) james bernauer (continued from page 3) humanity continues to be enriched by the jewish cultures spread throughout the world and these diverse groups witness to a judaism that has its own independence apart from the state. as a roman catholic, i am contrite over christianity’s centuries-long persecution of the jewish people who yearned for their own redemption as a people of god, who dreamt of a welcome among the nations of the world. surely this contrition sparks in me a special understanding for the precarious situation of israel and an unwillingness to apply a double standard to israel’s political conduct. as an american, i feel pride that the united states recognized the state on the very first day of its existence. but i want my country to support an israeli nation that celebrates more than mere independent existence. may it declaration of the establishment of the state of israel 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 be a people that regards the message of the book of books as a supreme gift but not as a substitute for a political constitution. and perhaps among america’s most helpful contributions to contemporary israel might be the example of its constitutional ambition to separate religion from politics and, in doing so, protect both domains. fundamentalist religious visions and groups pose a dangerous challenge to the political character of the jewish state, to its very existence. i was shocked when, on a recent visit to israel, a settler explained that the success of the settlers’ efforts to expand the territory of israel was in god’s hands. “if we are destroyed in trying to do so, that was god’s will.” the existence of israel and the endurance of its humanistic aspirations are hopes for the jewish people but also for all peoples. as theodor herzl expressed those hopes in his speech to the third zionist congress (august 15, 1899): “we want to mount to a higher grade of civilization, to spread well-being abroad, to build new highways for the intercourse of peoples, and to forge an opening for the coming of social justice. and just as our beloved poet transformed his sorrows into songs, so upon the loom of our sufferings we shall weave progress for mankind whom we serve.” while israel’s declaration of its national existence is to be celebrated, may herzl’s vision ever become more clearly the state’s guiding light. james bernauer, sj is professor of philosophy and director of the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college. (back to page 3) eugene korn (continued from page 3) israel has succeeded in realizing many of the goals articulated in the declaration: from the ashes of auschwitz, it brought dignity and vitality to the jewish people, developed from independence and the opportunity to assume responsibility for its own welfare. in sixty short years israel has achieved prosperity, bringing a poor war-torn society to a standard of living equal to that of western european nations. israel has become a world leader in scientific advancement and the hi-tech revolution. the country has absorbed millions of jews from the four corners of the earth, including one million fleeing oppression from the to talitarian soviet union and fifty thousand black jews from ethiopia escaping starvation. the jewish state is now home to nearly the majority of world jewry and is the theater of a robust and phenomenally creative jewish culture. israel’s leaders have developed a thriving pluralistic democracy where legal equality is guaranteed for all its citizens – jewish, christian, muslim – amidst a middle east filled with monistic societies and autocratic regimes that are largely intolerant and deeply distrustful of minorities. yet there are also paradoxes pointing to dreams unfulfilled. amidst the prosperity, there is also spreading poverty. unlike all other middle east countries, the number of christians in israel is growing (from 35,000 in 1948 to 130,000 today), but christians have not yet achieved social or economic equality. seventy-seven percent of israeli arabs stated in a recent harvard university poll that they would rather live in israel than anywhere else in the world, yet many view israel as a foreign entity in the middle east. israel needs to devote more resources to the welfare of israeli christians and muslims. israel has built a strong army, but that has not brought peace within israel’s grasp. tragically, the declaration’s vision of neighborly cooperation to build a flourishing middle east has not been realized. on the contrary, islamist extremism is rising throughout the region, and the political ascendancy of hamas and hezbollah, which are both committed to israel’s destruction, makes peace seem farther away than ever. israel has in declaration of the establishment of the state of israel 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 voluntarily inherited responsibility for more than three million palestinians, and is unable to find a way to reach a separation agreement with them that would protect its own safety and security. all the while israel’s physical existence is threatened, its soul remains at risk: how long can israelis strive to fight a moral war against an enemy that targets israeli children and civilians? how can it continue to respect the human rights of enemies while in a state of perpetual war? and how long can israelis continue to see the image of god in all people when they are surrounded by vicious anti-semitic propaganda? as a jewish nation, israel represents the principle of difference in the middle of dar al islam: can the middle east be a place of dignity and equality also for jews and christians? can the stunning ideals of micah and isaiah shape the politics and life of all people in that violent region? ultimately, that is what the israeli-arab conflict is about and why the battle is so great for jews and christians – indeed, for muslims as well. these are the great challenges that israel faces. the country remains unredeemed, yet israelis resolutely continue to strive to bring their flawed reality and imperfect lives closer to spiritual and moral redemption. jews and christians around the world today have powerful reasons to be practical and spiritual partners to help realize the prophetic ideals of micah and isaiah. both faiths are threatened by common enemies: the radical philosophies of secular materialism on one side, and forces of religious intolerance on the other. as partners, jews and christians can bear common witness to the presence of god and the validity of his covenant with the children of abraham. nowhere is this more obvious than in israel today. rabbi eugene korn, phd. is north american director of the center for jewish-christian understanding and cooperation in efrat, and editor of meorot—a forum of modern orthodox discourse. (back to page 3) ruth lautt (continued from page 4) in notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church (1985), the vatican commission for religious relations drew a distinction between theological and political considerations, noting that christians should strive to understand the deep religious significance of the land of israel to jews and judaism, while interpreting the existence of the state of israel according to principles of international law. almost another twenty years later, in the joint declaration of the international catholicjewish liaison committee (2004), the church restated its commitment to rejecting anti-semitism and specifically cited anti-zionism as a more recent form of the bias. during this 60th anniversary of their country’s founding, israelis would do well to engage in a process of national self-evaluation and reflect upon how well they have lived up to the noble principles state in their declaration. such a reflection, however, is not a task for the church, which should be self-critical before it presumes to be critical of israel. the church’s task, if it has one in the 60th anniversary year, might be to reflect upon how well it is living up to its own stated declaration of the establishment of the state of israel 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 understanding of jews and the jewish state. having rightly proclaimed that the state of israel is to be judged by the same principles of international law that every other country is judged by, the church must discern whether these legal principles are applied in an even handed way. or rather, is israel held to uniquely high legal and moral standards and then routinely adjudged guilty of failing to meet them? and if this is the case – which the frequency and vigor of criticism leveled at israel by certain of the social justice and other factions of the church suggests – then the reason for this must be discerned. might this excessive criticism be reflective of a fundamental failure to fully embrace the principles declared more than forty years ago in nostra aetate? the 60th anniversary of the founding of israel presents both israelis and catholics with unique and profound opportunities. israel can engage in self-critical reflection and recommit to creating a nation that its ancient prophets might have envisioned. and the church can likewise engage in soul searching selfcriticism, and recommit to the objectives stated in its documents – rejection of anti-semitism in all its forms, including excessive criticism, scrutiny and bias against the jewish state. sr. ruth lautt, op, esq., is founder and national director of christians for faith witness on the middle east. (back to page 4) leonard greenspon (continued from page 4) such descriptions do appear in the hebrew bible or old testament, and it is instructive to observe that the borders of the land, and hence its extent, are not uniform throughout the biblical text. there are many factors to consider when accounting for such differences: chronology, ideology, origins, context, and purposes are among a few of them. moreover, while some biblical passages had specific historical circumstances in view, others clearly set their sights on an ideal configuration that had yet come to pass. these distinctive features should not obscure the centrality that the land of israel held for the hebrews/israelites/jews through out the biblical period. such a central position is also delineated when we consider how closely the people of israel and the land of israel are linked. when israel served god, the land – including vegetation, crops, livestock, indeed every mountain and valley – participated in the people's good fortune: bounteous crops, propitious rains, large and healthy herds. conversely, israel's rejection of god led not only to the people's pain and suffering; crops failed, rivers dried out, the land was overrun with wild beasts, and well-ordered farms fell victim to randomly growing briars and thorns. the land and people of israel, and their respective fates, are inextricably bound – even if the precise boundaries of the land are not decisively delineated. those jews who accepted jesus as their messiah, and the later generations of jews and non-jews who eventually established christianity as a religion separate from judaism, were heirs to these earlier ideas about land and people. they did not reject this linkage, but – it is fair to say – they shifted their horizons and threw themselves into a universal mission that emphasized the similarities among peoples, thereby deemphasizing the relative importance of the land of israel and its people. i am looking at this from what i would call a descriptive stance, passing no judgment on whether or not what has come to be the jewish view or the christian view is somehow better or more authentic. what i do insist on is that fair-minded observers of judaism take the time to fully comprehend what the land of israel, in both ideal and real formulations, has meant and continues to mean for jews. declaration of the establishment of the state of israel 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 my insistence naturally extends to non-jewish critics of the modern state of israel, most of whom are undoubtedly sincere when they assert that their statements about a specific policy of a given government of israel should not be equated with antisemitism. at the same time, such individuals must be sensitive to the feelings of many jews, whose sense of connectedness with the land is in no way diminished by the fact that they have chosen not to live there. although it is clearly not obligatory – or even desirable – that non-jews share the feelings of jews about the land of israel, it is essential that support of israel – the israel of the hebrew bible and the israel of the declaration – be acknowledged by all who wish to carry out productive dialogue between jews and christians. in short, when everyone affirms the reality of the ideal, they can work towards the ideal of the reality. dr. leonard greenspoon, professor of classical and near eastern studies, holds the klutznick chair in jewish civilization at creighton university. he is a faculty associate of the kripke center for the study of religion and society, and is the current book review editor for ‘studies in christian-jewish relations.’ (back to page 4) ursula rudnick (continued from page 4) rather, i want to throw a spot-light on contemporary protestant attitudes in germany towards the state of israel. dabru emet, a jewish statement on christians and christianity, crafted by jewish scholars and rabbis in 2000, states: “christians can respect the claim of the jewish people upon the land of israel.” looking at official statements from lutheran and reformed churches in germany, this seems to be true. the first study on the relationship of christians and jews by the evangelical church in germany from 1975 explicitly refers to the importance of the land of israel for the jewish people, stating: “jews have always lived in the land of israel and in the diaspora; complete realization of jewish life has always been connected to the land.“ the well-known declaration of the rhineland-synod from 1980 states: “the continuing existence of the jewish people, its return to the promised land, and the establishment of the state of israel are a sign of god’s faithfulness to his people.“ this is one of the few statements that interpret the establishment of the state of israel in theological categories. no other german declaration has gone that far. most statements refrain from a theological interpretation, often rejecting any theological interpretation of contemporary events in history. thus, the third study on christians and jews published by the evangelical church in germany insists on a distinction between “the land as a gift of god and the secular state of israel.“ nevertheless, there is a consensus “that the state of israel will find a secure peace within just borders.“ this consensus is shared by official representatives of the lutheran and reformed churches in germany. however, it is an official consensus which does not always seem to be heart-felt. furthermore, an anti-israeli undercurrent among church members has grown over the past decades. increasingly, sympathy rests with those who are perceived as the victims in this conflict, the palestinian people. empathy with israeli suffering is often only expressed by protestant fundamentalists, who are on the margin of the churches. the challenge for those involved in jewish-christian relations lies in redressing this rising imbalance. prof. dr. ursula rudnick, professor of theology at the leibniz university in hannover and general secretary of ‘begegnungen – christen und juden,’ niedersachsen. (back to page 5) declaration of the establishment of the state of israel 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 dennis hale (continued from page 5) and while in the wake of the holocaust it seemed briefly that there would no longer be room for anti-semitism in the civilized world – and possibly no pressing need for a jewish state – recent trends in europe and elsewhere show that the old fires were banked but not extinguished. the existence of a jewish state is therefore not just the fulfillment of a biblical prophecy; it would appear to be, even now, a practical and even an urgent necessity. there is no better evidence for this necessity than the agitation caused by the mere existence of israel – and not just among israel’s arab and muslim neighbors. there is a certain christian disquiet about israel, even in america, where jews have been safer than anywhere else in the diaspora. this unease has always been there, sometimes under the surface, and it has been quietly building since the 1970s. lately it has come fully and aggressively into view among the mainline protestant churches, whose official pronouncements leave no doubt that israel is a nation whose very existence is now debatable – even regrettable. for many mainline protestants, israeli statehood was a mistake, an aberration; to them, the zionist idea itself is abhorrent. as the episcopal bishop of massachusetts has said, zionism is a “crime against the palestinian people” that is now over a hundred years old. the willingness of the mainline protestant churches to demonize israel and absolve the arabs is by now notorious, and it is hard to find a charitable explanation for this bias. so it would appear that the founders of modern israel were right to think that the jews needed their own state. the proof is that so many people, in so many high places, are certain that they do not, and certain as well that the jews would be better off if only they could once again be made stateless. dennis hale, phd is associate professor in the department of political science at boston college.. (back to page 5) peter pettit (continued from page 5) the state has invested itself deeply in serving those in need – by accommodating its immigrants at home, by responding generously and energetically to natural and human catastrophes elsewhere, and by unparalleled contributions to the technological progress that has widened human prosperity and flattened the world. the intervening years emphasize two points for particular reflection. first, the declaration’s insistent use of “eretz israel” to name the land ignored too much history and ambiguity about ownership and sovereignty over time; the ministry of foreign affairs now wisely glosses the phrase with “land of israel, palestine” on its web site. more extensively, the declaration erects the jewish state on the people’s “natural and historic right” and leans heavily on the historical for its justifying dynamic. this begs the question of a jewish state, with its theological implications. the jewish people of course always includes the secular, but it is never without the religious of all the jewish movements. the religious reading of the compromise language of 1948 must find fuller expression in the state’s self-understanding and not only in bureaucratic pragmatics that respond only to coalition politics. declaration of the establishment of the state of israel 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 this dimension of israel’s character also challenges north american christians, for whom the church-state separation of modernity has until recently been made too easy by a continuing christian hegemony. no less than israelis, we must be clearer about what constitutes the sacred element in national existence, albeit approaching the issue from quite a different experience. the distinction between peoplehood and statehood demands careful attention, as individuals draw identity from one and strive to fulfill a role as loyal subjects of the other, without pretending that the private/public distinction is adequate. my own lutheran community should be offering its considerable resources of both experience and theology in negotiating these perilous paths, walking them together with israel both as a faithful partner and a grateful fellow learner. the declaration still stands as a calling. our strongest word should be one of encouragement for israel to embody the openness, self-extension and risk-taking that its confidence engenders. thereby we can look forward to greater fulfillment, when the state not only is based on prophetic vision but also stands as a prophetic sign of god’s will for human society and its governance. ad meah v’esrim! peter pettit, phd is assistant professor of religion studies and director of the institute for jewish-christian understanding at muhlenberg college. (back to page 6) racelle weimann (continued from page 6) it was an electrifying time and ruth, a holocaust refugee, had a vivid eyewitness account of the writing of the declaration of independence1 that became the foundation of all law in the country. a rare female insider (only two women were signatories; golda meir (meyerson) and rachel cohen), ruth knew intimately about the two major issues that were problematic: the subject of borders, and the inclusion of a reference to god. sixty years later, these two key issues still remain on israel’s agenda. but at the moment of nationhood, it was a real crisis up until the final moments, in the rush to make the pronouncement of the new state of israel as soon as the british forces lowered their flag and ended the mandate, and notably, before the coming of the sabbath eve on may 14, 1948. on the first issue, ben gurion or “b.g.,” as she called him, made the decision to refrain from all reference to actual borders. but it was the second issue that proved his leadership and genius in his resolution of the dilemma about god in the declaration. ruth described the fundamental tension between the secularist and religious jews. there were those who believed that such an important historical document in jewish collective identity must include elohim, hakodesh baruch hu, – god – in the fulfillment of the 2,000 year prayer for the ingathering of the exiles and the return to the land. the secularist jewish wing objected to any reference to god, believing that it was faith in the human spirit, in jewish empowerment and self sufficiency, which made the reality of jewish sovereignty possible. ruth tells of b.g.’s compromise solution phrase of “bitachon b’tzur yisrael” (“with trust in the ‘rock of israel’”) to satisfy each and every jew. refusing to put it to a vote, ben gurion delivered one of his most impassioned pleas to the assembly, in private, behind closed doors. he said that each person knows what he believes is the “rock of israel”2 that an 1 megilat atzmaout in hebrew is referred to as the [scroll] declaration of independence. declaration of the establishment of the state of israel 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 chors the jewish collective. as leader of the new entity, he was able to embrace all jews from their own understandings of faith, culture, belief, whatever is their ‘mighty stronghold’ by offering a specifically jewish answer – not either/or but this and that..he created a national entity from the plethora of jewish political, social, religious and ethnic groups from all corners of the globe. for ruth, it also indicates the reality of the diversity and array of jewish identities among the jewish people, which is crucial for jew and gentile alike to acknowledge. ruth labored with moshe shertok long hours into the night hammering out a translation into enlish of this famous announcement to the rest of the nations of the world. shertok thought to preserve the euphemistic “rock of israel” in the translation. it was ruth, the self-proclaimed secularist and ag nostic young secretary, who convinced shertok that the english version should read “placing our trust in the almighty.”3 para 2 in jewish literature over the centuries, “tzur yisrael” has been used to refer to eretz yisrael, the land of israel; am israel people of israel; and torat israel-the torah(teachings and culture)of israel, as well as hashem—god almighty. 3 the us declaration of independence refers to god, though the constitution does not. doxically, even though she embraced the ingenuity of the “rock of israel’ solution for the coalition of new citizens of the state of israel, she strongly believed that the gentile world needed to understand the sanctity of this moment, and that god had not abandoned his people, nor they abandoned him. in the archives, i found a time magazine article of august 30, 1948 which spoke of the ‘girl at the typewriter’ who carried the day by including “the almighty” in the new state of israel’s declaration of independence, and was officially recorded in history in the official gazette no. 1, tel aviv, 5 iyar, 5708, declaration of the establishment of the state of israel, may 14, 1948. racelle r. weiman, phd is executive director of the dialogue institute at temple university in philadelphia. declaration of the establishment of the state of israel 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 the declaration of the establishment of the state of israel: reflections on its sixtieth anniversary dabru emet, a jewish statement on christians and christianity, crafted by jewish scholars and rabbis in 2000, states: “christians can respect the claim of the jewish people upon the land of israel.” looking at official statements from lutheran and reformed churches in germany, this seems to be true. the first study on the relationship of christians and jews by the evangelical church in germany from 1975 explicitly refers to the importance of the land of israel for the jewish people, stating: “jews have always lived in the land of israel and in the diaspora; complete realization of jewish life has always been connected to the land.“ the well-known declaration of the rhineland-synod from 1980 states: “the continuing existence of the jewish people, its return to the promised land, and the establishment of the state of israel are a sign of god’s faithfulness to his people.“ this is one of the few statements that interpret the establishment of the state of israel in theological categories. no other german declaration has gone that far. most statements refrain from a theological interpretation, often rejecting any theological interpretation of contemporary events in history. thus, the third study on christians and jews published by the evangelical church in germany insists on a distinction between “the land as a gift of god and the secular state of israel.“ nevertheless, there is a consensus “that the state of israel will find a secure peace within just borders.“ this consensus is shared by official representatives of the lutheran and reformed churches in germany. however, it is an official consensus which does not always seem to be heart-felt. furthermore, an anti-israeli undercurrent among church members has grown over the past decades. increasingly, sympathy rests with those who are perceived as the victims in this conflict, the palestinian people. empathy with israeli suffering is often only expressed by protestant fundamentalists, who are on the margin of the churches. the challenge for those involved in jewish-christian relations lies in redressing this rising imbalance. 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-18 the influence of syriac bible commentaries on judeo arabic exegesis as demonstrated by several stories from the book of genesis arye zoref arye.zoref@mail.huji.ac.il the hebrew university of jerusalem, jerusalem 9190501 it has already been generally recognized that syriac bible commentaries influenced judeo arabic biblical exegesis, primarily thanks to sarah stroumsa’s studies on the subject. stroumsa has shown that qirqisani, a karaite bible commentator of the tenth century ce, explicitly cited as one of his sources the bible commentary of daud b. marwan al-muqammiṣ (a jew who converted to christianity and then converted back to judaism), whose commentary was based on syriac sources. 1 stroumsa also demonstrated the syriac influence on r. saadia gaon’s introductions to his biblical commentaries. 2 however, so far there has been no detailed examination of the reception of the christian syriac commentaries in judeo arabic exegesis. we have no explanation regarding the way in which judeo arabic commentators drew on syriac commentaries, what sort of materials they borrowed from, and how they incorporated the borrowed materials into their own commentaries. this paper aims to take a first step in grappling with these issues. methodological approach the concept of “influence” has earned a bad reputation over the last several decades. some claim that after a scholar has identified the existence of parallels between two texts or cultures, there is no need to call this phenomenon “influence.” it is argued that by labeling it as an “influence,” the scholar merely substitutes the word “parallel” with the word “influence,” without making any significant contribution towards understanding the phenomenon. 3 in the field of jewish studies in particular it has been claimed that jews should not be described 1 sarah stroumsa, “the impact of syriac tradition on early judeo arabic bible exegesis”, aram 3,1-2 (1991), 83-96 2 שרה סטרומזה, "דגם ספרותי כמסמך היסטורי: על הקדמותיו של רס"ג לפירוש המקרא", בתוך דבר דבור על אפניו: מחקרים בפרשנות המקרא והקראן מוגשים לחגי בן שמאי )עורכים: מאיר בר אשר ואחרים; י-ם: מכון בן צבי, תשס"ז(, 200-199 3 eduard will, “influence: note sur un pseudo concept”, dans hellenica et judaica: hommage a valentin nikiprowetzky (eds. a caquot et j. riado; paris: peeters, 1986), 500 zoref: the influence of syriac bible commentaries 2 as being influenced by their non-jewish neighbors, but should instead be described as being part of the surrounding culture. in this light it is the difference between jews and their neighbors that demands explanation, rather than the similarities. 4 however, the case of syriac bible commentaries and judeo arabic commentaries is different, given that these are two separate corpuses divided not only by religion and language, but also by time. in syriac literature, biblical commentaries were a fully developed genre by the ninth century ce, relying on a tradition that spanned centuries. judeo arabic biblical commentaries, on the other hand, only first emerged in the tenth century ce. if one discovers parallels between syriac commentators and judeo arabic commentators, and can rule out any other explanation for this parallel and establish that a certain motif has definitely migrated from early syriac tradition into judeo arabic texts of later times, this phenomenon surely can be called influence, in the sense that judeo arabic writers adopted the given motif from syriac tradition. influence does not necessarily imply direct contact. a writer may quote a text which borrowed from an earlier text, so that the writer is actually quoting the earlier text without even knowing it. in this way, it is possible that a judeo arabic writer could borrow from an earlier judeo arabic writer, without even being aware that this earlier writer borrowed from syriac sources. only by assembling several cases of syriac influence, comparing them, and analyzing them, can we attempt to determine how exactly this influence transpired. the first obstacle in examining the syriac influence on judeo arabic literature is that syriac literature shares many motifs with the jewish midrash, either as a result of direct contact between jews and syriac christians, or as a result of syriac writers relying on earlier christian sources that were close to jewish tradition. 5 even syriac writers engaged in polemics against the jews relied on jewish tradition. 6 these findings hold true not only for early syriac literature, but for syriac literature of the eleventh century ce and later as well. 7 it is often difficult to distinguish whether a judeo arabic writer borrowed a specific motif from syriac sources, or from the midrash. in most cases, if a motif in judeo arabic literature can be traced to both syriac literature and the midrash, it is safer to assume a jewish source. therefore, before examining syriac influence on judeo arabic commentators, it is necessary to compare the syriac commentaries and the midrash. 4 michael l. stalow, “beyond influence: toward a new historiographic paradigm”, in jewish literatures and cultures: context and intertext (eds. amita norwich and yaron eliav; brown judaic studies 349; providence: brown university, 2008), 46 5 sergey minov, syriac christian identity in late sasanian mesopotamia: the cave of treasures in context (ph.d. dissertation), the hebrew university of jerusalem 2013, 95. also: a. toepel, die adamund seth-legenden im syrischen buch der schatzhöhle. eine quellenkritische untersuchung (corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 618; louvain: peeters, 2006), 243-244 6 minov, syriac christian identity, 88. also: elena narinskaya, ephrem a “jewish” sage (studia traditionalis theologia 7; tournhout: brepols, 2010), 16-23 7 sebastian brock, “jewish traditions in syriac sources”, journal of jewish studies 30, 2 (1979), 212-232 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) the midrash is a literary genre that evolved over hundreds of years, and dating the various texts of the midrash is problematic and at times impossible. however, most scholars agree that some collections of midrash (e.g. bereshit rabba and the sections of midrash that are integrated in the talmud) were already in circulation (not necessarily in their present form) by the beginning of the seventh century ce, before the rise of islam. other collections of midrash (e.g. pirqe de-rabbi eliezer and tanchuma) were likely edited after the rise of islam, but were already in circulation by the tenth century ce. these later collections were therefore generally more susceptible to islamic and christian influence. 8 all mentions of the midrash in the present research refer to the sections of midrash written before the rise of islam unless otherwise stated. later collections will only be discussed if they were already in circulation by the tenth century ce, and judeo arabic writers could have used them. midrash collections of european origin and collections edited after the tenth century ce will not be referenced in this research. another factor that should be taken into account is the influence of islam. islamic literature both borrowed from and exerted influence on judaism and christianity, often leaving uncertainty regarding the direction of influence. for this reason, the current research focuses on biblical stories that are not mentioned in the quran. the current research also examines “the tales of the prophets” (qiṣaṣ al-anbiya`) from islamic literature, in order to look for a possible islamic influence on judeo arabic commentaries. even after having eliminated the possibility of jewish and islamic sources in motifs found in syriac commentaries, this elimination does not suffice in order to safely assume that when these same motifs appear in judeo arabic commentaries it is due to influence from the syriac literature. a motif can appear independently in both traditions. however, when dealing with biblical commentaries, there are two criteria which make the motif less likely to appear twice independently. firstly, when the motif is very far removed from the literal sense of the scriptures it is unlikely to appear twice separately. secondly, when this motif constitutes a major break from the commentator’s tradition, and the commentator presents it without stressing its innovation or trying to defend his reading against ancient tradition, there are grounds to argue that the motif was not arrived at independently. therefore, when a judeo arabic commentator presents a motif that is far removed from the literal meaning of the bible, and likewise is divergent from the traditional jewish interpretation as presented in the midrash, and furthermore he does so without presenting the motif as an innovation, it is safe to assume that he is likely relying on an alternative tradition—in some cases on a syriac tradition. the current study focuses in on three judeo arabic commentaries on the book of genesis. the first is that of qirqisani, who lived in the middle of the tenth century ce; the second is that of yefet b. 'eli, which dates from the end of 8 regarding the various collections of midrash and their dating, see: g. stemberger and m. bockmuehl, introduction to the talmud and midrash (edinburgh: fortress, 1996), 233-359. also: ,ענת רייזל )אלון שבות: מכללת הרצוג, תשע"א(. מבוא למדרשים zoref: the influence of syriac bible commentaries 4 the tenth century ce; and the third is that of yeshu’ah b. yehuda, who lived in the eleventh century ce. 9 these three are compared with the syriac bible commentaries of ephrem (fourth century ce) and ishodad (ninth century ce), and with the collection of syriac biblical legends known as the “cave of treasures” (approximately sixth century ce). the current research also consults the anonymous commentary from the diyar bakir collection (likely eighth century ce), as well as other syriac sources when available. 10 this research intends to explore the differences between the manner in which the midrash and the syriac commentators deal with specific biblical stories, and to show that the judeo arabic commentators adopted the opinion of the syriac commentators rather than that of the midrash. the manner in which judeo arabic commentators utilized the materials they borrowed from syriac tradition will also be analyzed. the examination will begin with the most obvious cases of syriac influence, and move on to cases where the syriac influence is less obvious. the sons of god (genesis 6:1-4) in syriac tradition, the “sons of god” mentioned in genesis 6 are identified with the descendants of seth, while the “daughters of adam,” whom the sons of god marry, are identified with the descendants of cain. this interpretation plays an important role in the narrative of the “cave of treasure,” 11 and it was adopted by the commentators ephrem and ishodad. 12 it is almost never mentioned in the midrash; only one midrash—the later (probably eighth century ce) midrash pirqe de-rabbi eliezer—hints at this interpretation. chapter 22 of that midrash describes acts of sin that the sons of god committed with the female descendants 9 these three commentators (their commentaries are as yet unpublished) are karaites. commentaries on genesis in judeo arabic were also written by rabbinical jews, e.g. the commentary of saadia gaon which was later completed by r. shmuel b. hofni, but these commentaries were preserved only partially. the commentaries of these two rabbinical authors on some of the stories examined in the current research have not survived, and the parts that did survive bear no traces of syriac influence. this, of course, may be purely incidental. 10 for a survey of the syriac commentaries, see: l. van rompay, “the development of biblical interpretation in the syriac churches of the middle ages”, in hebrew bible / old testament: the history of its interpretation 1/2 (ed. magne saebo; göttingen : vandenhoeck and ruprecht, 2000), 559-577. 11 su min ri (ed.), la caverne des tresors: les deux recensions syriaques (corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 486; louvain: imperimerie orientaliste, 1987), 80-97, ch. 11-13 . cain’s descendants and their wickedness are also mentioned in islamic sources, which likely rely on the “cave of treasures,” but islamic sources do not directly identify them with the story of the “sons of god.” see: kisai, die prophetenlegenden des muhammed ben ’abdallah al-kisai (ed. isaac eisenberg; leiden: brill, 1902), 82. 12 ephraem , sancti ephraem syri in genesim et exodum commentarii (ed. r.m. tonneau; corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 152; louvain: imperimerie orientaliste, 1955), section 6. for an english translation of the commentary, see: st. ephrem, selected prose works (ed. e. mathews and j. amar; the fathers of the church 91; washington: the catholic university of america press, 1994), 67-213. for ishodad, see: isodad, commentaire d'isodad de merv sur l'ancien testaent: i genese (ed. j.m. vosté et c. van der eynde; corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 126; louvain: imperimerie orientaliste, 1955), 112. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) of cain. however, according to pirqe de-rabbi eliezer, the sons of god were not descendants of seth but rather fallen angels. this interpretation of the sons of god as fallen angels originates in the jewish literature of the second temple period, and in particular in the book of enoch. the syriac commentators were familiar with this interpretation, but appear to have rejected it. 13 ishodad explicitly wrote that the sons of god cannot possibly be angels, since angels have no desire for women. 14 in rabbinic sources, the term “sons of god” is usually interpreted as referring to the sons of the judges, or the sons of the great ones, 15 which seems to imply that they were human and constituted an elite group within the society—but these sources fall short of identifying who exactly they were. the judeo arabic commentator yefet interprets these verses as follows: “the sons of god saw” (genesis 6:2). this refers to the sons of seth and enos and the generations which came afterwards. when he says “the daughters of adam” he refers to the descendants of cain, because seth is the exalted and favorite son, like isaac and jacob, while cain and his descendants are like ishmael and the sons of keturah and esau, and they are called “adam” [descendants of adam] as a generic name. the sons of god have a name by which they are known as a sign of them being noble […] and for this he has named them god, because of them being noble, and the other human beings, the common folk, he has named adam. 16 it would appear to be clear that yefet has adopted the syriac interpretations of these verses, an interpretation that is not supported by the literal sense of the bible and goes against early jewish tradition. yefet also adds details which have parallels in syriac tradition, such as his mention that the descendants of cain had many girls and only few boys as divine punishment for their sins, and that the large number of girls led to an increase in adultery. 17 he likewise mentions that the descendants of enos could pick and choose any of the female descendants of cain they pleased, and could also take possession of the property of cain’s de 13 this tradition was adopted by some islamic sources, which speak of the fallen angels harut and marut, or 'aza and 'azael. see: abu isḥāq al-nišābūrī al-ṯa'labī, qiṣāṣ al-anbiya al-musamma 'arāis al-majālis (aleppo: dār al-islām, 1900), 44. 14 isodad, commentaire, 111. 15 בני דיניא sons of judges : bereshit rabba, sec. 26. see also onqelos (and the later translation, pseudo jonathan): "the sons of the great ones" [בני רברביא]. for a survey of the jewish sources on this subject and christian parallels, see: philip alexander, "the targumim and the early exegesis of sons of god in genesis 6", journal of jewish studies 23 (1972), 60-71. also: a. van der kooij, "peshitta genesis 6: sons of god – angles or judges", journal of northwest semitic languages 23 (1997), 4447. 16 ד קין וקו' ויראו בני האלהים ישיר בה לאולאד שת ואנוש ומן בעדהא מן אלקרון. וקולה את בנות האדם ישיר בה אלי אולא לאן שת הו אלולד אלג'ליל ואלמפצ'ל מת'ל יצחק או יעקב ואמא קין וזרעו פהם מת'ל ישמעאל ובני קטורה ועשו וסמאהם אדם באסם אלנוע פקט. ואמא בני האלהים פלהם אסם יערפון בה מן ג'הה' אלשרף ]...[ פסמאהם אלהים מן ג'הה' שרפהם -manuscript: paris bibliotheque national heb. 277, f 4296 in the in: וסמא בקיה' אלנאס אדם והם אלעאם. stitute of manuscripts near the jewish national library, 155a-155b 17 ואלקול אלאכ'ר פי ובנות יולדו להם כאן ד'לך מן כת'רה' ד'נובהם יקלון אלבנים ויכת'רו אלבנות וענד כת'רה' אלבנות .paris 277, 155a : יכת'ר אלזנא zoref: the influence of syriac bible commentaries 6 scendants thanks to their exalted status. 18 the shortage of boys among the descendants of cain is mentioned by ephrem and ishodad; 19 ephrem notes that the descendants of enos could select from the female descendants of cain, and could likewise take control of the male descendants’ property. 20 in addition to this explanation on the identity of the sons of god, yefet mentions two others. the first is that they were the sons of judges and rulers, and that corruption in society began in the higher social circles before spreading downwards. 21 this is essentially the same as the explanation provided by the jewish midrash. yefet does not reject this explanation, but presents it as the opinion of another commentator, subtly implying that he did not agree with it. as for the second explanation mentioned by yefet, according to which the sons of god were angels, the commentator clearly considers it to be so absurd that there is no need to disprove it. 22 qirqasani and yeshu'ah do not concur with yefet’s view of this matter. qirqasani, in his short commentary on genesis, writes: “‘the sons of god’ means the sons of the nobles and kings and leaders.” 23 like ishodad, qirqisani on theological grounds rejects the possibility that the sons of god were angels, but his arguments are more elaborate and influenced by the style of islamic theology (kalam). he reasons that the angels, as sublime creatures, are incapable of disobeying god, and as bodiless creatures they cannot father children. as he says: “those who say that they are angles are clearly wrong. isn't it strange that the angels, who are close [to god], and whom god placed at the highest rank, would disobey god? […] and what can be stranger than saying that angels, who are spirits and bodiless beings, father children?” 24 yet, qirqasani seems to recognize that his explanation is far from being complete. if the sons of god are the sons of nobles, in what way exactly was their pedigree more distinguished than that of other human beings, especially at that early period of history in which everyone was nearly a direct descendant of adam? as qirqasani himself writes: if someone is to ask in regard of the noblemen which are the sons of god: who are they and what is this pedigree that distinguishes them? we will tell him that there are many kinds of pedigree, and the most distinguished among them is the exalted rank of knowledge and piety, and [the bible] tells us that 18 וקולה מכל אשר בחרו ידל עלי שיין. אחדהמא אן מן כת'רה' אלנסי אמכנהם יכ'תארו מא ירידו ויאכ'ד'ו ואלב' אן ידהם .paris 277, 155b : תצל אלי מא ירידו וליס ת'ם מאנע לאנהם אשראף ונבל 19 ephraem, genesim, sec. 6:2. isodad, commentaire, 112. 20 ephraem, genesim, sec 6:5 21 וקאל מפסר אכ'ר אן בני האלהים הם אולאד כאנו ]ל[חכאם וקצ'אה' פי זמאנהם מת'ל אלהים לא תקלל פערף אן אולאדהם .paris 277, 155b : אבתדו באלפסאד 22 פאמא מן פסר בני האלהים מלאיכה' פליס אשתגל באלרד עליהם אד' קולהם פי גאיה' מא יכון מן אלבעד : paris 277, 155b. 23 וקו' בני האלהים אראד אולאד אלאשראף ואלמלוך ואלרוסא : manuscript: sp rnl evr arab i 1366, f54732 in jewish national library, 50a. 24 פאמא קול מן זעם אנהם מלאיכה' פאנה קול בין אלכ'טא אד' כאן עג'ב אן אלמלאיכה' אלמקרבין אלד'ין כ'צהם אללה דרג'את ורתבהם פי אעלי אלמראתב אנהם יעצון ויכ'אלפו אללה ]...[ ואי שי אעג'ב מן אלמלאיכה' ארואח וג'ואהר בארפע אל .sp rnl evr arab i 1366, 50a-b : מג'רדה ת'ם יזעם אנהם אנסלו נסל 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) illness (i.e., corruption) had spread among human beings to the point that it has spread to the men of distinction, who are the men of knowledge and piety, and they have started to sin, and what is worse, they have started to marry the daughters of the lower class, which means the infidels. 25 qirqisani raises the question, but the answer he supplies is far from satisfying. can knowledge really be considered a pedigree? if these two groups were divided along family lines as the sons of god on one side and the sons of adam on the other, can knowledge really be the dividing factor? the proposed solution is so tenuous that it causes the reader to wonder: why did qirqisani even raise the question if he could only counter it with such a poor solution? one possible explanation is that qirqisani was keenly aware of the existence of an explanation that would solve the problem perfectly; namely, that the pedigree of the sons of god was different from that of other human beings, because they were descendants of seth while the others were descendants of cain. despite this, qirqisani wanted to prove that he also had a solution for the question of the different pedigree of these two groups. however, qirqisani makes no mention of the syriac explanation, leaving us only able to speculate about whether or not he was familiar with it. yeshu'ah was also of the opinion that the sons of god were members of a higher class of society, and his writings give no hint that he was aware of the explanation according to which they were the descendants of enos. he writes: “this abomination [i.e. the sins committed by the sons of god] was not the portion of the lower class [only] but rather of the elite, who acted as a role model for the people, for better or worse.” 26 nimrod (genesis 10:8-12) the attitude of syriac literature regarding nimrod is somewhat complicated. according to the cave of treasures, he was an evil king who was the first idol worshipper, and the first to worship fire. 27 this opinion of nimrod is shared by both the jewish midrash, which tells us that he was a fire worshiper who tried to throw abraham into a fire, 28 and by islamic tradition. 29 in syriac biblical commentaries, however, nimrod is treated as a positive figure. ephrem wrote that nimrod fought with different families of the human race according to god’s will, and forced them to move to the places where god desired for them to be. he add 25 ן פנון אלשרף פאן סאל סאיל ען אלאשראף אלד'ין הם בני האלהים מן הם ומא הד'א אלשרף אלד'י נסבו אליה קלנא א כת'יר ואג'להא שרף אלעלם ואלורע פאכ'בר אן אלבלא כאן קד עם פי אלנאס חתי וצל אלי אולאד אלשרף מן אהל אלעלם sp rnl evr arab i : ואלורע ודכ'לו פי אלמעאצי ואצ'אפו אלי ד'לך באן תזוג'ו בבנאת אלדנאה' אלד'ין הם אלכפאר 1366, 50b. 26 אלאדואן בל מן אלכ'ואץ אלד'י יקע אלתאסי בהם פי אלכ'יר ופי גירה לם יכן הד'א אלקביח מן : manuscript: sp rnl evr arab i 2015, f55110 in jewish national library, 72b. 27 ri, caverne, 208-209, ch. 27:1 28 אמר לו נמרוד ]...[ אני איני משתחוה אלא לאור הרי אני משליכך בתוכו : “nimrod told him: i worship fire, so i will throw you in it”; bereshit rabba, sec. 38. 29 kisai, prophetenlegenden, 124. zoref: the influence of syriac bible commentaries 8 ed that the phrase “a hunting champion like nimrod” (genesis 10:9) was a blessing used by men to bless kings and rulers who fought and won battles for god. 30 ishodad repeats these explanations and adds that the words of the bible: “therefore people say: a hunting champion like nimrod” (genesis 10:9) were a comment made by moses. according to ishodad, in moses’ time the phrase “a hunting champion like nimrod” was a common blessing: “the words ‘a hunting champion like nimrod etc.’ were said by moses, because in his time it was used as a common phrase when men were blessing each other.” 31 the syriac anonymous commentary from the diyar bakir collection states that the phrase “a hunting champion like nimrod” was a blessing, but does not indicate that it was a comment made by moses. 32 this commentary was likely written at the end of the eighth century ce, and it is reasonable to posit that it was one of ishodad’s sources. 33 the anonymous commentary from the mingama collection gives the same opinion that the phrase was a blessing. 34 such a positive attitude towards nimrod is rare in jewish sources, and is only hinted at in one source that was edited in the early islamic period. that source is pseudo jonathan’s aramaic translation of genesis 10:11, which relates that nimrod refused to take part in the building of the tower of babel and in reward for this action god gave him control over four cities. however, only a few verses earlier in genesis 10:9, pseudo jonathan refers to nimrod as a man who had rebelled against god. yefet considers nimrod to be a positive figure. he writes that nimrod was a clever hunter, and that according to some scholars he earned the rank of being considered as though he were one of ham’s sons even though he was only his grandson, thanks to his distinguished qualities. 35 yefet also comments on the phrase: “therefore people say: a hunting champion like nimrod” and gives a similar interpretation to that of ishodad: the phrase “therefore people say”—these are the words of our lord moses, saying that every hunting champion or clever hunter is compared to nimrod, and people say: this man is like nimrod, and this proves that no man after him ever surpassed him in hunting – no one who would have become a model for comparison [instead of nimrod]. 36 30 ephraem, genesim, sec. 8:1 31 ܕܡܒܪܟ ܡܐ ܒܡܬܐܠ ܗܘܬ ܡܬܐܡܪܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܕܒܙܒܢܐ ܡܢ ܐܝܟ ܐܡܪܗ ܡܘܫܐ ܘܕܫܪܟܐ ܓܢܒܪܐ ܢܡܪܘܕ ܕܐܝܟ ܠܡ ܕܗܝ ܠܚܒܪܗ ܐܕܡ ܗܘܐ : isodad, commentaire, 134. 32 lucas van rompay (ed.), le commentaire sur genese – 9:32 du manuscript (olim) diyar bakir 22 (corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 483-484; louvain: imperimerie orientaliste, 1986), i 67 33 van rompay, commetaire sur genese, ii 52 34 abraham levene (ed.), the early syriac fathers on genesis (tailor's foreign press: london, 1951), 52, 85 35 ואנמא כאן רג'ל שהם פי אלציד ומלך פי הד'ה אלארבע בלאד אלמד'כורה' וקד ג'על קום נמרוד אצל כאבותה וקאל אן .paris 277, 201a-b ; אלכתאב פרדה מן ג'מלה' אכ'ותה לפצ'ילתה אלד'י ד'כרהא פלד'לך קאל וכוש ילד את נמרוד 36 ציד שהם יקאס בנמרוד פיקאל פלאן מת'ל נמרוד פדל ד'לך עלי אן וקולה על כן יאמר הו קול סיידנא משה ערף אן כל גבור .paris 277, 201b : לם יקם בעדה אחד יפוקה פי אלציד פימת'לו בה 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) yefet’s comment and ishodad’s words are similar not only in content, but also in phrasing. it should be noted that the last part of yefet's comment: “have become a model for comparison,” and ishodad’s words: “used as a common phrase,” are both based on the same semitic stem “m.ṯ.l.” (used both in syriac and arabic), and therefore one could easily be a translation (or a mistranslation) of the other. 37 yeshu'ah shared the opinion that nimrod was an expert hunter. he attributes the phrase: “therefore people say: a hunting champion like nimrod,” to the prophet (i.e. moses), arguing that nimrod was an expert hunter and that the phrase: “a hunting champion like nimrod” was a common phrase in moses’ time, for no man in the periods from nimrod’s time until moses’ time was a better hunter than nimrod. 38 it seems clear that in their attitude towards nimrod, yefet and later yeshu'ah adopted the position of syriac commentators, which stands in contradiction to that of the jewish midrash. the attribution of the phrase: “therefore people say: a hunting champion like nimrod” to moses is particularly significant. a general positive attitude towards nimrod and his glorification as a hunting champion both agree with the literal sense of the bible, so that the judeo arabic writers could feasibly have reached that conclusion on their own, without consulting syriac sources. however, the bible makes no mention of moses or moses’ time period at all in this context. moreover, moses’ role in writing the pentateuch is linked to an important issue in karaite bible commentaries; namely, the importance of the prophet who serves as a biblical scribe, known as “al-mudawwin.” according to karaite commentators, the mudawwin plays an important role in the codification of the scriptures, and can change the phrasing of the words revealed to him and to other prophets by god by adding his own comments and interpretations—not by his own free will, of course, but rather as part of his prophetic mission. 39 ben shammai and goldstein, who examined the mudawwin’s role, mentioned the islamic (mainly shiite) origins of the concept. 40 as we can see in this reading of the 37 ܒܡܬܐܠ פימת'לו בה : 38 ת'ם קאל פיה אנה כאן גבור ציד פאסתעמל איצ'א קדרה' וצרף שיא מן המתה אלי אלציד תברע פיה ]...[ וקו' על כן יאמר ר אלרסול ע'א'ל'ם' ען צ'רב אלנאס אלמת'ל פיה פי אלקדרה' עלי אלציד הו כ'ב : manuscript: sp rnl evr arab i 3204, f57467 in jewish national library, 55b. 39 the mudawwin often remains unidentified. he is usually more of a literary character than an historical figure, and his role is somewhat similar to that of the "narrator" in modern literary theories. however, moses is usually considered to be the mudawwin of the pentateuch. for the literary role of the mudawwin see: m. polliack, “the voice of the narrator and the voice of the characters in the bible commentaries of yefet b. 'eli," in birkat shalom (eds. c. cohen et al.; indiana: eisenbrauns, 2008), 891-915; m. polliack, “karaite conception of the biblical narrator (mudawwin),” in encyclopaedia of midrash (eds. j. neusner and a.j. avery-peck; leiden: brill, 2005), i 350-374; m. zawanowska, "was moses the mudawwin of the torah? the question of authorship of the pentateuch according to yefet ben ‘eli," in studies in judaeo-arabic culture: proceedings of the fourteenth conference of the society for judaeo-arabic studies (eds. h. ben-shammai et al.; tel aviv: tel aviv university, 2014), 7–35. 40 miriam goldstein, karaite exegesis in medieval jerusalem: the judeo arabic pentateuch commentary of yusuf ibn nuh and abu al-faraj harun (texts and studies in medieval and early modern zoref: the influence of syriac bible commentaries 10 syriac and judeo arabic commentaries, this concept was also influenced by christian theology. ishodad several times in his commentary mentions that moses played an important part in the codification of the pentateuch—for instance, he writes it was moses who determined which part of the pentateuch would be placed at the beginning. although the book of exodus was written before the book of genesis, moses placed the books according to the order in which divine providence runs the world, rather than the order of their composition. 41 other syriac writers from the ninth century ce present similar ideas. moses bar kepha, a younger contemporary of ishodad, stressed the role of moses as the author of the pentateuch. in his commentary on genesis 3:3, bar kepha wrote that sometimes moses omitted some details when describing the events of the biblical stories, and there is a parallel for this remark in yefet’s commentary. 42 isho bar nun, in the thirteenth of his questions on the pentateuch, asks why moses did not write the names of kain and seth’s wives. 43 noah and canaan (genesis 9:20-27) the story of noah and canaan is interpreted in syriac literature differently than in the midrash. most of the writers of the midrash assume that the words “saw the nakedness of his father” (genesis 9:22) are a euphemism for something much more terrible, and that noah was actually raped or castrated. 44 the syriac commentators, however, assume that noah was only seen naked. 45 therefore, they have a hard time explaining why the action was so awful. in the cave of treasures, it is said that not only did ham see his father naked but he also judaism 26; tubingen: mohr siebeck, 2011), 120-123. חגי בן שמאי, "על מדון, עורך ספרי המקרא בפרשנות )עורכים: יוסף ראשונים ואחרונים: מחקרים בתולדות ישראל מוגשים לאברהם גרוסמןהמקרא הערבית יהודית", בתוך . 78-99ם: מרכז זלמן שזר, תש"ע(, -הקר וב"ז קידר ויוסף קפלן; י 41 ܡܘܫܐ ܘܛܘܒܢܐ, ܩܕܝܡ ܕܒܪܝܬܐ ܗܢܐ ܟܬܒܐ ܘܡܕܒܪܢܘܬܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܕܒܪܝܘܬܐ ܒܛܟܣܐ ܐܐܠ ܩܕܝܡ ܕܡܦܩܢܐ ܟܬܒܐ .isodad, commentaire, 5 : ܕܠܘܬܗ ܝܘܠܦܢܐ ܩܕܝܡܘܬܐ ܠܦܘܬ ܘܠܘ ܟܬܒܘܗܝ ܣܡ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܕܡܕܒܪܢܘܬܐ ܒܛܟܣܐ 42 yonatan moss, “scholasticism, exgesis and the historicization of mosaic authorship in moses bar kepha's on paradise,” harvard theological review 104 (2011), 338-339. as moss states, the concept of mosaic authorship may have some islamic background, but its utilization in interpreting the scriptures is certainly of christian origin, since muslims do not confer a similar role to muhammad in quran commentaries [ibid, 347]. 43 ernest g. clarck (ed.), the selected questions of isho bar nun on the pentatatuech (studia post biblica 5;leiden: brill, 1962), 26 44 חד אמר סרסו חד אמר רבעו : babli sanhedrin, 70a.אתה מנעת ממני להעמיד בן רביעי : “you have prevented me from having a fourth son”: bereshit rabba 37:11. for a survey of these rabbinical sources and their relation to the christian legend about the fourth son of noah, see: s. gero, “the legend of the fourth son of noah,” harvard theological review 73 (1980), 322; a. toepel, “yonton revisited”, harvard theological review 99 (2006), 235-245. this seems to be the opinion of most midrshic sources. some late midrashic sources, however, are of different opinion: ham the father of canaan did not strike [noah] but only saw [him naked]: [חם אבי כנען לא הכה אלא ראה בלבד] shemot rabba 30:5. 45 some islamic sources also say that noah was only seen naked, but these sources mention details which no judeo arabic source mentions, (for example, that a strong wind lifted noah’s clothes), and therefore it is less likely that these islamic sources influenced judeo arabic commentaries. see: kisai, prophetenlegenden, 99. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) mocked him. 46 according to ishodad, noah assumed that the house was empty because everyone had gone to work. ham, however, went back home to look for something and saw his father drunk and naked. ham did not know what it meant to be drunk, and therefore believed that noah was sleeping while everyone else was working—a thought that made him very angry. he called his brothers to show them how lazy their father was. in doing so, ham made three grave errors: he saw his father naked; he failed to cover him; and he told his brothers. 47 the same can be found in the anonymous commentary from diyar bakir. 48 the jewish midrash does not devote much thought to the question of how noah found out what had been done to him while he was drunk, likely because the writers of the midrash posited that noah was raped or castrated, which he could not help but notice. the only jewish source that deals with this question is pseudo jonathan’s translation of genesis 9:24, which states that what happened to noah was revealed to him in a dream. 49 the syriac sources, which maintain that noah was only seen naked, give the matter more serious attention. in the cave of treasures, noah's wife tells him what ham had done. 50 ephrem says that although noah was drunk, he was not completely unaware of his surroundings. he may not have noticed that he was naked, but he was nevertheless aware of what ham had done. 51 according to ishodad, ham’s action was revealed to noah by god in a dream. 52 another question which the syriac writers focused on, while the writers of the midrash did not, is: why did noah allow himself to get drunk? the syriac writers believed that noah did not intend to get drunk, but nevertheless he did so anyway. the cave of treasures version holds that noah was unaccustomed to drinking wine, and for this reason he became inebriated quickly. 53 ephrem states that noah’s intoxication was not caused by him drinking a large quantity of wine, but rather it was due to the fact that he had not drunk wine for a long time. he did not drink at the time of the flood, and three or four years had elapsed after the flood until the vineyard was able to produce wine. 54 ishodad claims that noah was unaware that wine can cause intoxication, arguing that he was the first man ever to make wine. moreover, grape juice does not induce drunkenness, and noah had no way of knowing that in later stages the juice becomes wine and can cause inebriation. 55 46 ri, caverne, 156-157, ch. 21:1 47 isodad, commentaire, 127 48 van rompay, commetaire sur genese, i 63 49 וידע באשתעות חלמא 50 ri, caverne, 158-159, ch. 21:6 51 ephraem, genesim, sec. 7:3 52 isodad, commentaire, 128 53 ri, caverne, 157, ch. 21:2 54 ephraem, genesim, sec. 7:2. this explanation is probably based on jubilees 7:2, which says that noah's vineyard produced wine in the fourth year (according to biblical law, leviticus 19:23-24). jubilees, however, does not present this as a reason for noah’s drunkenness. 55 isodad, commentaire, 130. zoref: the influence of syriac bible commentaries 12 one of the most puzzling aspects of this biblical story, which bothered the syriac writers and the authors of the midrash alike, is this: if ham was the sinner, why was canaan cursed? one explanation supplied by the midrash (bereshit rabba 37) and mentioned as an option by ephrem and ishodad is that it was canaan who saw noah naked and told ham. as a proof of this explanation, ephrem cites the biblical passage in which noah “woke up and saw what his small son had done to him” (genesis 9:24). ham was not noah’s youngest son; he is always mentioned as the middle son. therefore, the bible must mean canaan, ham’s youngest son. 56 another option suggested by ishodad is that since ham did not respect his father and caused him grief, his son canaan was cursed and caused him grief in turn. 57 like the syriac commentators, qirqisani believes that noah was only seen naked and nothing more. he says: some people say that a sin was committed beyond the act of seeing—that something was actually done, and that the words “he saw” (genesis 9:22) are equivalent to the words “and he saw her nakedness” (leviticus 20:17) (i.e. engaged in sexual intercourse). […] as proof, they cite the words “and he knew what his small son had done to him,” which imply that something was actually done beyond mere seeing. noah saw the results when he woke up, and cursed his son for what he had done. we, however, say that when noah’s son saw him, he did not hide his face and stand aside; on the contrary, he looked with attention, and sinned by looking at what he was not allowed to watch […] as for him knowing what happened – his two sons may have informed him, or someone else. 58 yefet believes that ham was at fault for having entered noah’s tent with no warning—he should have at least waited until he was sure that noah was no longer drunk. like ishodad, yefet believes that ham committed three sins. 59 yefet refrains from explicitly enumerating what these three sins are, but he seems to describe them slightly differently than ishodad: ham entered his father’s tent; he saw him naked; he told his brothers. yefet’s objection to ham entering noah’s tent without warning may be an adaptation of the story related by ishodad about ham returning from work in the middle of the day and surprising noah in the 56 . ܗܘܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܚܝܡ ܕܠܘ ܠܡ ܝܕܝܥܐ ܙܥܘܪܐ ܒܪܗ ܠܗ ܕܥܒܕ ܟܠ ܢܘܚ ܕܝܕܥ ܟܬܒܐ ܕܐܡܪ ܗܝ ܕܡܢ ܐܡܪܝܢ ܬܘܒ ܐܚܪܢܐ ,ephraem : ܗܘܐ ܕܟܢܥܢ ܙܥܘܪܐ ܒܪܗ ܥܠ ܐܡܪܝܢܢ ܗܕܐ ܘܡܛܠ. ܗܘܐ ܙܥܘܪܐ ܘܠܘ ܗܘܐ ܡܨܝܥܐ ܓܝܪ ܚܝܡ genesim, sec. 7:3. 57 isodad, commentaire, 128. 58 גיר אלנט'ר והו פעל וקע מנה ואן קו' וירא נט'יר קו' וירא את ערוותה והי תראה את קד זעם קום אנה כאן הנאך כ'טיה' ערוותו ]...[ ואעתלו בקו' וידע את אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן פאכ'בר באן קד כאן הנאך פעל גיר אלנט'ר תבינה נח וראה וג'הה מנה ויתנחא בל יג'וז אן יכון אמען את'ארה ענד מא אנתבה ולענה לד'לך ואלד'י נקול נחן אנה למא ראי ד'לך לם יסתר אלנט'ר ואלתאמל לד'לך פכאן בד'לך ג'אניא בתאמלה ונט'רה אלי מא לא יג'וז אלנט'ר אליה ]...[ אמא עלמה בד'לך פאנה יג'וז manuscript: sp rnl evr arab i 4529, f58063 in jewish אן יכון אכ'ברה בד'לך אמא אבניה או גירהמא national library, 17a. 59 ד'ם לה אנה דכ'ל מצ'רב אלאב גפלה' וקד כאן סבילה לא ידכ'ל אלי מצ'רב אלאב אלא בעד עלמה אן אלאב מסתיקץ' מן .paris 277, 196b : סכרה ]...[ פפעל ת'לאת' צ'רוב מן אלכ'טא 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) tent. yefet also reasons that it was likely from god that noah learned about his son’s actions. 60 like yefet, yeshu'ah also believes that ham should not have entered noah’s tent without permission, should not have told anyone about what he had seen, and should not have made fun of noah. 61 he also says that noah probably discovered ham’s actions through divine revelation. 62 the only act the bible attributes to ham is the act of seeing his father’s nakedness, meaning that the interpretation adopted by the judeo arabic commentators agrees with the literal meaning of the scriptures, and therefore they could have arrived at it on their own without consulting syriac sources. however, these same commentators clearly struggle with this explanation and are unable to regard the act of seeing as a sin by itself, and as a result they are compelled to aggravate ham’s sin by attributing to him responsibility for other actions which are not mentioned in the bible at all. therefore, one cannot claim that the judeo arabic commentators chose to adopt their explanation out of a loyalty to the literal sense of the bible. it is also imperative to recall that their explanation goes against early jewish tradition as described in the midrash, according to which noah was raped or otherwise molested. qirqasani mentions this tradition, but makes no serious attempt to disprove it. yefet and yeshu'a make no mention of it at all. this state of affairs would suggest that the judeo arabic commentators did not consider themselves as innovators battling against ancient tradition, but rather as commentators who chose to adopt an equally respected and accepted tradition. yefet’s commentary in particular—mentioning three sins—reveals that the tradition they followed was of syriac origins. judeo arabic bible commentators, in a similar fashion to the syriac writers and in contrast to the sages of the midrash, proposed various answers to the question of why noah got drunk. qirqisani says that according to some scholars, noah was not aware that wine induces drunkenness. 63 this is in essence the same answer given by ishodad. yefet says that according to the bible, noah got drunk in his own tent—which is not problematic, as opposed to if he had gotten drunk in public and disturbed others. noah was sleeping in his room and posed no nui 60 והד'א אלעלם ליס בבעיד אן אללה אעלמה : paris 277, 196b. the karaite commentators were interested in the question of how noah knew about ham's actions for theological reasons: they wanted to avoid the impression that noah cursed canaan by mistake (instead of ham) and god fulfilled his curse, which would make god appear to be unjust. see: m. polliack and m. zawanowska, "god would not give the land but to the obedient: medieval karaite responses to the curse of canaan", in the gift of the land and the fate of the canaanites in jewish thought (eds. k. berthelot, j. david and m. hirshman; oxford: oxford university press, 2014), 123. 61 אלטען עלי מן הג'ם עליה בדון אסתיד'אן כמא יפעל אהל אלאדב ת'ם לא יכפה ד'לך חתי שהר אמרה ללגיר עלי טריק .sp rnl evr arab i 3204, 52b : אלתנקץ בה 62 ויקץ נח קולה וידע יקרב אנה בוחי : sp rnl evr arab i 3204, 52b. 63 וקד זעם קום אן נח לם יעלם אן אלשראב יפעל ד'לך אלסכר פלד'לך שרב מנה מא שרב : sp rnl evr arab i 4529, 17a. zoref: the influence of syriac bible commentaries 14 sance to anyone. it was ham’s fault that he entered noah’s tent without permission, thereby making the matter public. 64 yeshu'ah reasons that noah drank wine because he was happy that god had promised not to destroy the world again in a flood, and he maintains that there is nothing wrong in drinking wine as long as it does not induce you to act foolishly or neglect your obligations. 65 as for noah getting drunk, yeshu'ah suggests two possible explanations. according to one, noah, unaccustomed as he was to drinking wine, did not realize that the quantity of wine he was imbibing would make him drunk. noah lived for five hundred years in purity and worshipped god, and for this reason even a small amount of wine was enough to cause him to get drunk. 66 this explanation is essentially identical to that given by ephrem. the second explanation is the one given by yefet: noah was in his tent, out of sight, and therefore blame shouldn't rest on him but rather on ham, who entered his tent without warning. 67 all of these explanations have no support in the literal sense of the bible, and are unlikely to have appeared in syriac and judeo arabic commentaries independently. qirqisani, in dealing with the question of why canaan was cursed instead of ham, mentions the possibility that canaan was the sinner instead of ham: “some people say that the one who did the deed was canaan and not ham, and as a proof they cite the words ‘what his small son did to him,’ saying that ham was not the smallest, but rather the middle son, because in every place [they are mentioned] it is said ‘sem, ham and yefet’” (genesis 9:18). 68 this argument is mentioned by ephrem but it is not mentioned in the midrash, although some writers of the midrash believed canaan was the sinner. qirqisani does not rule out this explanation, but he believes it is only a partial explanation which should be integrated with other explanations that he proposes. he believes that canaan was the first one to commit a sin by seeing noah naked and for that he was cursed, and later he told his father ham about it, after which ham came in and saw his father naked as well. 69 yefet says that ham sinned, and therefore deserved to grieve over the punishment of his son. 70 yeshu'ah likewise says that sometimes a father is punished 64 ופי קולה בתוך אהלו שיין אחדה מא רפע אלד'ם ען נח אנה לם יכ'רג' ען מג'ארי עאדאת אלנאס כמא יג'רי מן אלסכראן א סמג'ה בל נאם פי מצ'רבה מסתור ואלת'אני ד'ם לה אנה דכ'ל אלא מצ'רב אלד'י יכ'רג' אלאזקה ויערבד ותג'רי מנה אשי .paris 277, 196a-b : אלאב גפלה' 65 ולעלה אמען פי אלשרב סרורא בעמארה' אלעאלם ובמא תקדם מן ועדה סבחאנה באנה לא יכ'רבה פאת'ר מעה סכרא ולא .sp rnl evr arab i 3204, 51b-52a : עיב פיה אד'א לם יבעת' עלי ספה וימנע מן ואג'ב 66 ויג'וז אנה לם יקדר אן אלקדר אלד'י שרבה מנה יסכרה אלא אנה למא כאן גיר מדמן עליה בל כאן קד לזם אלזהד sp rnl evr arab i : ואלעבאדה' כ'מס מאיה' סנה' עמל פיה יסיר מא שרב מא לא יעמל פי אלמעתאד מן אלשרב 3204, 52a. 67 בה אנה לם יכן ט'אהרא פי אלטריק פכאן יוג'ה אליה אלטען בל אלטען עלי מן הג'ם עליה פי מוצ'עה וקו' בתוך אהלו בין .sp rnl evr arab i 3204, 52b : בדון אסתיד'אן 68 קומא זעמו אן אלפאעל לד'לך אלפעל כאן כנען ולם יכן חם ואסתדלו עלי ד'לך בקו' את אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן קאלו וחם ר ואנמא כאן אלאוסט לאנה יקול פי כל מוצ'ע שם חם ויפת לם יכן אלאצג : sp rnl evr arab i 4529, 17b. 69 פכל ואחד מן הד'ה אלאג'ובה' פאנה לם יאתי עלי ג'מיע מא יחתאג' אליה מן ג'ואב אלמסלה' ]...[ ויג'ב מן הד'א אלקול אן ענה' ורמז ד'לך מן אלכתאב וידע את אשר עשה לו בנו יכון קד כאן לכנען פי נפס תלך אלחאל פעל מד'מום אסתחק בה אלל .sp rnl evr arab i 4529, 18a : הקטן ]...[ ואנה אכ'בר בד'לך אבאה חם פג'א חם נט'ר ותאמל 70 פפעל ת'לת' צ'רוב מן אלכ'טא פלד'לך אסתוג'ב אן יוג'ע קלבה : paris 277, 196b. 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) by disasters afflicted on his son, as the son’s punishment causes the father's heart to grieve. 71 this is similar to the explanation mentioned by ishodad—that ham caused his father grief, and was therefore punished with grief caused by seeing his own son cursed. the similarities between syriac interpretations and judeo arabic interpretations in the story of noah’s drunkenness are not as obvious as those found in the stories of the sons of god and of nimrod, but it stands to reason that there are simply too many of them to disregard them all as coincidences. judah and tamar (genesis 38) according to the jewish midrash, judah decided to forbid tamar from marrying his third son because the death of his two sons while they were married to her appeared to him to be a bad omen. 72 the midrash never mentions any reason to suspect that sins on the part of tamar had caused the death of her husbands. ephrem, however, writes that tamar herself believed that this was so—that her sins had caused the death of her first two husbands, and this was the reason that she left judah’s home until the third son came of age to marry. according to ephrem, judah himself believed that tamar was an idol worshiper and that her sins had caused the death of his two sons, and it was for this reason that he refused to let her marry his youngest son. only after tamar becomes pregnant from judah and informs him that he is the father without making the matter public does judah understand that his sons died because of their sins, and not due to tamar’s sins. 73 the anonymous commentary from diyar bakir likewise states that judah believed that tamar’s sins caused the death of his sons. 74 qirqisani embraces the same line of thinking, but he takes it even further. he says that when judah’s understood that tamar was pregnant with his child it only strengthened his negative view of her. according to qirqisani, judah said: “i knew she played tricks on men because of the death of my two sons—for i knew she was the cause of their deaths, and this is why i did not marry her to my third son, so that his fate would not be like that of the first two.” 75 moreover, qirqisani asserts that judah was not entirely mistaken when he attributed the death of his two sons to tamar’s sins. he says: 71 לאבן ויולם קלבה באן יערף בה מן חאלה וקד יג'וז אן יעאקב אלאב במא יג'רי עלי א : sp rnl evr arab i 3204, 52b. 72 .divination is forbidden, but seeing an omen is not”; bereshit rabba, sec“ : אף על פי שאין נחש יש סימן 85:7. for details on the character of tamar in the midrash, see: ester blachman, the transformation of tamar (genesis 38) in the history of jewish interpretation (leuven: peeters, 2013), 159-179. 73 ephraem, genesim, sec. 34:6. for details on ephrem's interpretation on the story of tamar and its jewish parallels, see: t. kronholm, “holy adultery: the interpretation of the story of tamar in the genuine hymns of ephrem,” orientalia suecana 40 (1991), 149-163. 74 van rompay, commetaire sur genese, i 112 75 קד עלמת אנהא מחתאלה' עלי אלרג'אל במא לחק ולדיי ג'מיעא מן אלמות אד' עלמת אנהא הי אלסבב פי מותהמא ג'מיעא ,manuscript: sp rnl evr arab i 3195 : פלד'לך לם אזוג'הא באלת'אלת' לילא יחל בה מא חאל באלאת'נין f60981 in jewish national library, 19a. zoref: the influence of syriac bible commentaries 16 one might ask: why did he [judah] say that she [tamar] caused the death of his two sons, while the bible says of er that he “was wicked in the lord’s sight,” (genesis 38:7) and about onan that “he spilled his seed on the ground” (genesis 38:9)? […] the answer to this question is twofold. first, he was not aware of his son’s sins and mistakenly believed tamar to be the cause. another possibility is that she was indeed the cause of their deaths; he believed that was the case, but when she tricked him, he became sure of it. in other words, tamar was the cause of er’s wickedness by seducing him or helping him, although the bible does not explicitly say so. 76 qirqisani’s explanations are not supported by the literal sense of the bible, and they go against everything the writers of the midrash had to say about tamar’s innocence and chastity. 77 it would seem that qirqisani followed the syriac tradition by casting doubt on tamar’s character, but in his enthusiasm to exonerate judah and place all of the blame on tamar, he went much further than the syriac writers had ever dreamed. the sages of the midrash were divided over the question of judah and tamar’s relationship after she gave birth to her twins. some sages believed that judah did not have intercourse with tamar after the first time, while others believed that their sexual relationship continued. 78 ephrem chose a middle route, or rather he accepted the former opinion that they did not continue to have intercourse, albeit with a small reservation. ephrem mentions that after judah found out that tamar was pregnant with his sons he never slept with her again, for she was his former daughter-in-law. nevertheless, she lived in his home because she was the mother of his sons. 79 yefet makes a similar remark: “the bible tells us that he never slept with her again, because she was forbidden to him, and if she had not been forbidden to him he would not have been permitted to not sleep with her, since she had become the mother of his sons, [a status she would keep] until death.” 80 in other words, judah and tamar were bound by a relationship resembling marriage since she was the mother of his sons, and judah should therefore have had intercourse with her. however, he could not do so because as the widow of his sons she was forbidden to him. the theory of tamar and judah's ongoing relationship (even 76 ומן אין קאל אנהא כאנת אלסבב פי מות אבניה ואלכתאב קאל פי ער אנה כאן רע בעיני יי וקאל פי אונן פאן קאל קאיל והיה אם בא אל אשת אחיו ושחת ארצה ]...[ פאנמא אלג'ואב פי אלמסלה' ינצרף אלי ג'התין אחדהמא הו אנה אמא אן יכון הו בב פי מותהמא פקאל ד'לך ואכדה ענדה אחתיאלהא עליה והו לם יכון עאלמא בכ'טא אבניה פתוהם עליהא אמא הי כאנת אלס אן תכון רדאה' ער כאנת תמר אלסבב פיהא, אמא עלי ג'הה' אלאגוי או עלי ג'הה' אלמסאעדה' ואן כאן אלכתאב לם יפצח .sp rnl evr arab i 3195, 19b-20a : בד'לך 77 stephan reif, “early rabbinic exegesis on genesis 38,” in the exegetical encounter between jews and christians in late antiquity (eds. e. grypeuo and h. spurling; jewish and christian perspectives 18; leiden: brill, 2009), 231-232 78 sifre beha'alotcha 8; babli sota 10b. see: reif, early rabbinic exegesis, 230. 79 ephraem, genesim, sec. 34:6 80 ת'ם אנה ערף אלכתאב לם יעוד מן אלדאם ]גרוס: אלדואם[ יג'אמעהא לאנהא חראם עליה ולולא אנהא חראם עליה למא manuscript: paris bibliotheque national : כאן יג'וז לה אלא יג'אמעהא לאנהא צארת אם אולאדה אלי יום אלמות heb. 278, f4326 in jewish national library, 185b. 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) non-sexual) after the birth of her sons is not supported by the literal sense of the bible, and yefet's explanation does not agree with either of the opinions presented in the midrash. therefore, it likely relies on syriac tradition. summary and conclusions to draw conclusions based on such a small amount of material is a risky endeavor, but certain conclusions do seem to present themselves, and they may be proved or disproved by further study. the first issue one should consider when dealing with the reception of syriac materials in judeo arabic literature is the means of communication. did judeo arabic writers read syriac literature or arabic adaptations of it, or did they rely on oral discussions with christians? oral discussions surely existed, as the famous story of r. hai gaon consulting with the syriac head priest about the meaning of a verse from the psalms attests. 81 however, some remarks made by judeo arabic commentators, and especially yefet’s remark about the description of nimrod being an editorial comment by moses, can almost be seen as a direct translation of the syriac source into arabic. the interpretation is too close to its syriac parallel, not only in content but also in phrasing, to assume that it was transmitted orally. 82 another question to be pondered is what type of information jews were looking to receive from the syriacs, and what kind of syriac literature they were interested in. the influence of ephrem and ishodad on judeo arabic commentators is quite significant, whereas the influence of the cave of treasures on judeo arabic commentators is minimal, if not non-existent. it would seem as if the jews considered syriac biblical commentaries to be a serious source for understanding the bible, whereas they approached the cave of treasures as nothing more than a collection of legends. this hypothesis also supports the theory that judeo arabic writers relied on written syriac materials rather than oral discussions, a turn of events that would explain why certain syriac genres were used while others were ignored. the difference between the three judeo arabic writers discussed above regarding their use of syriac materials should also be noted. yefet seems to be the most eager to adopt the ideas of syriac commentators, which he occasionally presents as if they were his own. qirqisani uses syriac materials extensively, but with much more reservations. in some cases he mentions the explanations of syriac commentators but later rules them out, while in other cases he adopts syriac explanations although only after considerable changes. as for yeshu'ah, it would seem that most of the syriac material he used was borrowed from qirqisani and yefet. only rarely do we find in his writings syriac materials that do not originate with those writers, with one example being his explanation of noah’s drunken 81 התגלות הסודות והופעת המאורות: פירוש שיר השירים לר' יוסף בן יהודה בן יעקב אבן עקניןיוסף בן עקנין, 494ם: מקיצי נרדמים, תשכ"ד(, -)מהדיר: אברהם שלמה הלקין; י 82 the influence of syriac literary style on r. saadia gaon's commentaries, mentioned by stroumsa ( 200דגם ספרותי, סטרומזה, ), also points to transmission of written materials rather than oral discussions. zoref: the influence of syriac bible commentaries 18 ness, and even in these cases he most likely drew on other judeo arabic commentaries rather than syriac sources. 83 the last question, and probably the most complex, is that of language. it is natural to assume that judeo arabic biblical commentators used arabic adaptations of syriac commentaries rather than the syriac original. qirqisani used daud b. marwan’s judeo arabic commentary that was based on syriac commentaries, and there were probably christian arabic adaptations available as well. the commentary of 'abd allah b. ṭayyib on genesis appeared in the eleventh century ce, and was essentially an arabic adaptation of ishodad’s commentary. 84 it is entirely within the realm of possibility that such adaptations already existed in the tenth century ce. however, one has to consider the possibility that judeo arabic writers could read syriac. in the tenth century ce jews in mesopotamia, and probably in the holy land as well, could read and write aramaic fairly well, as is shown by the literature of the geonim, large portions of which are written in aramaic. 85 the different orthography of jewish aramaic and syriac was likely not too great an obstacle. during the eleventh century ce knowledge of aramaic gradually declined. 86 this may be the reason that yeshu'ah took most of his syriac material from his judeo arabic predecessors, as he could no longer understand the syriac original. 83 yeshu'ah borrowed a great deal of material from previous judeo arabic commentators. see: . 6-9)תשמ"ז(, 32 פעמיםהודה: לדמותו של חכם קראי ירושלמי במאה האחת עשרה", חגי בן שמאי, "ישועה בן י 84 ibn aṭ-ṭaiyib , commentaire sur la genèse (ed. joannes c. j. sanders; corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 274-275; louvain: imperimerie orientaliste, 1967). 85 karaites did not write in aramaic, but that does not mean they could not read it. qirqisani had lived in baghdad, an important center for rabbinical and syriac intellectual activity, and he was well versed in their thought, as we can see from his book kitab al-anwar, so it is reasonable to assume he knew aramaic. as for yefet, his commentary on the aramaic sections of the book of daniel shows he had a good grasp of biblical aramaic, and some knowledge of the aramaic translation on the bible. see: jephet ibn ali the karaite, a commentary on the book of daniel (ed. d. s. margoliouth; oxford: oxford university press, 1889), 18, 67. 86 joshua blau, the emergence and linguistic background of judeo arabic (scripta judaica 5; london: oxford university press, 1965), 20. scjr 17, no. 1 (2022): 1-5 gavin d’costa and faydra l. shapiro, eds. contemporary catholic approaches to the people, land and state of israel (washington, d.c.: the catholic university of america press, 2022), 309 pp. lawrence e. frizzell lawrence.frizzell@shu.edu seton hall university, south orange, nj 07079 this volume has its roots in an international conference in jerusalem in june 2019 that was convened by editors gavin d’costa, a british lay catholic, and faydra shapiro, an orthodox jew living in israel. they brought together catholic theologians from europe, the united states, and israel / palestine to present their perspectives on the challenges facing jews and catholics with regard to theologies of the land and state of israel. they did so in the presence of jewish and arab respondents “who had deep vested interests in that land” (xix). this volume gathers together these papers, many of them revised “in the light of this diverse witness and questioning” from non-catholics (xx). there are two sets of interlinking questions (xviii). first, what do roman catholics think about the land promise made to the jewish people in terms of the old testament (where there can be no doubt that this is central to the jewish covenant) and the new testament? does reading the old testament through the christological lens of the new testament permit the validity of the old testament claims regarding the jewish people? what significance does the new testament itself attribute to jerusalem and the land for christians? these challenges are introduced poignantly in his beatitude pierbattista pizzaballa’s preface. as the latin rite patriarch of jerusalem, he represents the ancient heritage of the franciscans in the holy land, with service to christian arabs and pilgrims. he presents some of views held by jews and catholics and argues for the necessity for dialogue between them. the essays are presented in three parts: “listening again to scripture” (four essays), “mining the tradition (four essays), and “seeking justice and peace” (four essays), followed by two jewish responses. the “listening again to scripture” section is addressed to catholics and reviews the foundation for catholic-jewish relations since the second vatican council. it introduces biblical and theological insights for ways in which catholics approach the intricate questions of the churchisrael relationship, especially with reference to romans 9-11. frizzell: d’costa and shapiro’s contemporary catholic approaches 2 lawrence feingold, a jewish convert to catholicism, has written the first chapter of this part, “the return to the land of israel as an eschatological sign in the light of romans 11.” he presents the event as a sign “pointing to the fulfilment of history” (3) but without the millenarian-dispensationalist interpretations of certain evangelical protestants. “israel’s identity and mission are inextricably linked to her messiah, to whom her very existence and election point” (8). the eschatological sign is “the land wedded to its people, populated with its faithful people, as portrayed in isaiah 62:4-5, related to the return of the chosen people to the land… [this] can also be seen as a sign or type of the approach of the return of the messiah” (11). “holiness [of the chosen people in the land] should be understood according to the biblical teaching on social justice” (19). etienne vetö, director of the cardinal bea centre in rome’s gregorian university, asks “why does god promise and give the land?” he argues that “what is at stake is a purified or transfigured conception of the land… which includes the call to share the land” (23). “[i]f one asserts that god’s hand is at work there, then the presence of the palestinian people cannot be exterior to god’s design,” referencing rules for resident aliens in ezekiel 47:22 (31-32). in this essay he asks the pertinent questions for catholic positions on the complex issues relating to the return of jews to the land and the relationship of jews and palestinians. ambiguities are acknowledged, and, he admits, many challenges remain. catholic questions regarding israel’s relationship to the promised land after christ are presented by jean-miguel garrigues and eliana kurylo. they review the millenarian eschatology of christian theologians before augustine of hippo. then they point to vladimir solovyov’s eschatological theocratic ideal in connection with the jewish people, followed by jacques maritain’s “opinion that we touch two realities in the land of israel: the struggle for survival and the resurrection of the jewish nation, but also the mystery of redemption carried by the church” (54). post vatican ii developments in christian-jewish relations are seen as “a sign that the eschatological hopes discussed in this article are starting to be fulfilled” (56). in “the resurrected land of israel,” isaac vikram chenchiah (england) reflects on the biblical bonds that connect people to land, using imagery of the human body. ranging widely through the hebrew bible and new testament, he develops an analogy between jewish attachment to “eretz israel [as] the land of the jewish temple” and “as land of christ, whose own body is the true temple” (76). this essay will challenge readers to find a relation to the other contributions to this book. section ii, “mining the tradition,” begins with a fine essay by christian rutishauser, s.j., entitled “land and state of israel—theological reflections from a roman catholic perspective.” he sketches the promise in the hebrew bible, noting the renewal of the covenant after the exile, and eschatological hopes (micah 4:15; isaiah 66:22). a sketch of jewish theological interpretations of the land (mentioning abraham kook, martin buber, and joseph b. soloveitchik, among others) is followed by catholic and protestant approaches (in church statements and writings of individual theologians). he also highlights pope francis’ call for a twostate solution and for social justice, and the comparatively less attention francis gives to the question of political sovereignty (98). within a few pages rutishauser 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) draws attention to major questions to be faced by catholics involved in discussions about israel, especially in dialogue with jews. matthew tapie looks at a christological interpretation of the land, putting thomas aquinas’ views on land in dialogue with the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible (2002). he focuses in particular on the phrase “land of the living” from psalm 27:13 with reference to the resurrection in the final days. next, gavin d’costa asks, “is there a roman catholic biblical view regarding the jewish people living in the land called israel?” (122). he grants that the palestinians have a right to a state / homeland. however, he writes, “given the growing appreciation of the continuing validity of the jewish covenant which is never revoked by god” (144), there is a theological significance to their presence in the land of israel. this introduces a tension he identifies: “affirming any state theologically is normally not part of the catholic tradition” but “the state may be used instrumentally to achieve god’s will regarding the settling of the jewish people in the land called israel” (144). dirk ansorge’s chapter raises the question “does a christian theology of sacraments help to achieve an affirmative approach to the state of israel?” this question is answered in the negative. because the catholic sacraments are based explicitly on christology, “[t]he concept cannot be transferred to any reality outside the christian church” (164). opening the next section, “seeking justice and peace,” david mark neuhaus, s.j., offers “a catholic perspective on the people, and land and state of israel.” a jew who converted to catholicism, he offers the declaration: “i remain a jew, an israeli, a catholic, a jesuit, and yet these characteristics… are not turned into arguments for the exclusion of others” (189). he offers a personal experience that bridges the dichotomies of life in israel and in the west bank. he has walked alongside jews and arabs (christian and muslim) for several decades and gives a picture of the church’s call to “promote justice and peace for all inhabitants of the holy land” (190) in all its complexity. “the church must promote a vision of the land in which all people, israelis and palestinians, jews, christians and muslims, can be at home and enjoy citizenship in a political entity that guarantees the common good” (190). in “tractatus theologico-politica: palestinian suffering and the official catholic teaching on the state of israel,” antoine lévy, op, a dominican who was born to a (non-religious) jewish family, reviews the israeli-palestinian conflict in terms of church statements regarding a just and sustainable peace. he argues that “the religious dimension is key to finding a just political solution to the conflict” (215), explaining that the church derives her theology of social justice from the bible. he then ambitiously recommends that catholics dialogue with leaders in israel in order to offer a well-intentioned challenge to those who may fail to live up to biblical ideals. he acknowledges that this challenge will require a new approach by catholics and an openness to constructive criticism on the part of israel’s leaders. the reviewer notes that a moral and spiritual miracle will be proclaimed if this comes to pass! frizzell: d’costa and shapiro’s contemporary catholic approaches 4 his beatitude michel sabbah, former latin patriarch of jerusalem, writes about “christian communities in israel and palestine.” he offers a poignant picture of daily life for palestinians, both christians and muslims, faced with israeli oppression and calls for reconciliation and peace based on justice as a sign of the challenge for all to imitate divine love. achieving a two-state solution and securing equality for the palestinians living in israel would be the foundation for israel to make amends for past political crimes. christians throughout the world should encourage the jewish people to move toward reconciliation with palestinians so that “all of us creatures of god… live in peace, justice, equality, and security” (233). his review of the history of the region is one-sided, omitting discussion of israel’s peace proposals and of palestinian leadership’s own decisions. jamal khader is a parish priest in ramallah and has been affiliated with the latin patriarchate in jerusalem for many years. he offers a reflection on “christianjewish relations from a christian palestinian perspective.” his reading of the bible as “one book, beginning with creation and ending with the second coming of christ” (236), reflects his strongly christological orientation to the hebrew bible. he contrasts this with another reading that “is used to justify the occupation of my land and the oppression of my people” (238). he has in mind religious arguments in support of zionism by christians and jews alike, which conflict with his claim that the bible should not be used to buttress political claims to the land. in part iv of this collection, “in conversation: jewish responses,” karma ben johanan and faydra shapiro enter into a form of dialogue with the catholic contributors to the book by composing responses to the chapters. in her response “jewish-christian relations and the irrevocable problem of political theology,” ben johanan focuses on the claim found in the title of the 2015 statement of the vatican’s commission for religious relations with the jews, “the gifts and call of god are irrevocable.” she asks: is there a theological meaning to the relationship between the jews and the land of israel? should catholics regard the modern jewish state of israel as somehow mediating this meaning? ben johanan summarizes the tension found among the catholic authors as follows: [t]he tension is embodied in a complicated relationship between two theological trajectories. the first trajectory is focused on the singular role played by the history of the jews in the history of salvation. this reasoning seeks to include the return of the jews to the land of israel in the twentieth century, and to some extent also the establishment of the state of israel and the moral challenge posed by the israeli-palestinian conflict, in the concept of the irrevocable covenant between god and the people of israel…the other trajectory stands in tension with the application of the irrevocability of the covenant to the current jewish people residing in zion, seeing this kind of jewish-christian political theology as incommensurable with the catholic profound suspicion toward the divinization of politics (256-57). in response to these tensions, ben johanan identifies in the chapters two approaches to the relationship between the history of salvation (the theological 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) approach) and political or “worldly” history (the secular approach). the first is that “a strict separation is needed between theology and politics, since this is the only way to protect religion (and politics too) from the abuse of theology or of faith in the service of unjust regimes…theology has to come to a halt when it is facing politics. this means that the jewish people’s current presence in the land of israel has to be understood in purely secular terms” (257). this view is seen in neuhaus’ writing, for example. the opposing view is that the catholic church should offer theologically-influenced judgments about worldly events. lévy is representative of this view. in “jews, catholics and israel: can we find a shared language?” shapiro advocates a two-state solution because this would be morally correct and good for israel (273). when considering catholic views, she argues that the trajectory of the holy see’s documents flowing (slowly but methodically) from nostra aetate is “on an obvious and inevitable collision course with the reluctant arm’s length attitude that the vatican has taken toward the state of israel” (278). she gives the example of the apparent “reluctance” of the holy see to entering into full diplomatic relations with israel in december 1993. by contrast, catholics might see that israel “holds out the possibility of offering the jewish people enough normalization to awaken the ability and desire to assess our uniqueness and our unique role in the world” (281). referring to ezekiel’s vision of dry bones being revivified (in chapter 37), shapiro challenges catholics, who affirm that jews “possess a specific theological significance,” to acknowledge god’s work today: “the state of israel stands in that long moment between the physical rebirth and the spiritual animation to come… it is only with security and stability that jews might have the possibility of developing a deeper engagement with the world” (282). this rich essay warrants a thoughtful catholic response. also, her question, “can we find a shared language?” is followed by a set of suggestions for dialogue between jews and catholics on the land and state of israel. the book’s contributors engage with a series of important topics in catholicjewish relations. it also will help catholics to interact productively with each other in a process of developing a catholic theology of israel. a code of jewish ethics. volume 1: you shall be holy studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r18-19 review j o s e p h t e l u s h k i n a code of jewish ethics. volume 1: you shall be holy (new york: bell tower, 2006), xiv + 560 pp. r e v i e w e d b y j a m e s f . k e e n a n , s . j . , b o s t o n c o l l e g e this is the first of a three volume work, the first code of its kind. this volume deals primarily with character development. the second volume, love your neighbor will address the ethics pertinent to interpersonal relations: obligations to the weakest and most vulnerable; between employers and employees; between jews and non-jews; between those who disagree; etc. the final volume, not yet named, will deal with family, friendship and community. as a christian ethicist who writes on virtue, i found this work very engaging and enlightening. virtue ethics is basically a departure from most contemporary forms of ethics which establish prescriptions for recommended actions and prohibitions against wrong actions. as opposed to giving priority to the ethical assessment of actions, virtue ethics focuses first, though not exclusively, on persons and their character, and then, on the actions they should or should not perform. virtue ethics is an attempt to return to the approach that most of the ancients (jewish, greek, roman, etc.) articulated, that is, a character-based ethics that presumes, if you want to perform right actions, you should become a good person first. for this reason virtue ethics follows the adage that "actions follow from being." moreover, to recommend some character traits or virtues over others, virtue ethicists often rely on narratives of virtuous exemplars. finally, virtue ethicists usually presume that every human begins life with a strong inclination toward wrong-doing and therefore the first step to becoming virtuous is to harness these evil inclinations. all of these components are in telushkin's pedagogically delightful work. the first part, "the task of a lifetime," reflects on a modest assertion: "judaism regards improving character as the goal of life." (37) this assertion means then that improving character is a life-time, and therefore, an endless task. here he presents a basic anthropology: we have good and bad inclinations, and we need to be mindful of these, directing them to the appropriate ends. interspersed with his pithy but incisive moral instructions are rich illustrative narratives, from other rabbis, his own experience, the talmud, other traditions, contemporary literature, etc. thus, on one point, he instructs us to cultivate the friendship of people who are both good and wise, and then he tells a brief anecdote about the intellectual martin heidegger, who thought it appropriate to become a nazi so as to secure his academic advancement. he concludes, "heidegger was, in moral terms, an idiot." (41) the heart of the book is the second part, "basic virtues and vices" where he offers eleven for consideration: judging others fairly, gratitude, civility, common sense, repentance, forgiveness, humility, anger, humiliating others, envy, and hatred and revenge. his virtues struck me as uneven. for instance, the virtue of justice is not to be found (it's not even listed in the index; perhaps justice will appear in his second or third volume). the closest he comes to justice is the first virtue: on judging others fairly. but of all the virtues that i found telushkin, a code of jewish ethics r18 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r18-19 the most original and striking, was the virtue of repentance. members of every religious tradition should read this chapter and take it to heart. like milton's paradise lost, telushkin's vices are generally speaking, far more interesting than his virtues. though he demonstrates how harmful these vices are, he wisely finds instances when these vices are actually virtues: when, for instance, anger is justifiable, hatred is permissible, envy could be good. yet, even here, telushkin demonstrates his ironic touch when just after commenting on the "good" envy of scholars for wisdom, he gives joseph epstein's, editor of the american scholar, account that in his experience scholars rarely have kind words for their peers. still, when he turns to humiliating others, he contends that there are no moral exceptions to this vice, though he differentiates it from shaming and argues that some instances of public shaming are permitted: fathers who do not provide for their children, husbands who abuse their wives, business people who promote unethical practices. throughout all these accounts, clearly the greatest victim of vicious behavior is undoubtedly the agent, for we harm ourselves when we are intemperate, angry, hateful, or envious. conversely, we become the beneficiaries of our virtuous practices, since virtue becomes its own reward. three brief but important parts lead us to the conclusion. the first, fair speech, begins with an account on lashon hara (literally "evil tongue") and moves to instances of how we use truthtelling to harm others. brilliantly he describes the self-deceptive arguments we use to validate these practices and in unveiling their flaws, he draws us to see inevitably how self-destructive the evil tongue is. then he turns to the excellence of leading the holy life, by reflecting on kiddush hashem, that is, sanctifying god's name in daily life. he concludes with god as the basis of morality. this wonderful work is a superb reference book for any one interested in the moral life. telushkin instructs wisely and well and orients us to an appreciation of the fact that we become moral through our ordinary lives. if we realize that every time we act, we act either with god or without, virtuously or viciously, then we begin to see how the call to be holy is a perpetual call. by inviting us to see the everyday opportunities before us, telushkin accompanies us with a new, but in many ways very traditional and humane text. telushkin, a code of jewish ethics r19 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ scjr 17, no. 1 (2022): 1-3 cary nelson and michael c. gizzi, eds. peace and faith: christian churches and the israeli-palestinian conflict (philadelphia & boston: presbyterians for middle east peace, 2021), 634 pp. daniel g. hummel dhummel@wisc.edu university of wisconsin-madison, madison, wi 53706 this collected volume is big in more ways than one. physically, it is a doorstop; its page count surpasses 475 before appendices. its backmatter includes a forty-page “annotated timeline” of jewish-christian relations by co-editor cary nelson that begins with the crucifixion of jesus and ends with the tree of life synagogue massacre in pittsburgh in 2018. the fourteen contributors feature a broad range of christian and jewish scholars (e.g., daniel friedman, edward kessler, amy-jill levine, robert cathey, giovanni matteo quer, john kampen, and jonathan rynhold), clergy (e.g., susan andrews and c.k. robertson), and organizational leaders (e.g., john wimberly, william harter, and david fox sandmel). the introduction, written by nelson, clocks in at 85 pages. more important than these metrics, however, is the ambitiousness of peace and faith’s scope and topics. it is rare to read a book that so readily shifts between theological and political contexts, weaving them into arguments that bring supersessionism, election, and chosenness into conversation with the boycott, divest, and sanction movement (bds), the israeli-palestinian peace process, and political lobbying. it is also rare to read a book that combines historical, political, theological, sociological, institutional, and numerous other perspectives in interrogating its main subject, in this case christian churches—their history, thought, and actions— in relation to the conflict. given the range of contributors, it is fruitless to generalize about this book with too broad a brush. the contributors hail from a variety of disciplines and reflect the concerns of churches, synagogues, ngos, universities, seminaries, and other organizations. the chapters are both broad (nelson’s introduction is wideranging and levine’s chapter surveys christian exegesis of the new testament) and narrow (john kampen focuses on the 2017 mennonite resolution on israel / palestine, for example). hummel: nelson and gizzi’s peace and faith 2 i will try to summarize three themes that bind the sixteen chapters of peace and faith together. first, there is a general and sustained aversion to supersessionism in christian theology—in its historical varieties, in its “hard” and “soft” expressions as represented in post-holocaust catholic and protestant theological thought, and in its liberationist strain as represented by the 2009 kairos palestine document, among others. while the contributors would undoubtedly differ in the details of their definitions of supersessionism, nelson’s is a useful stand-in for the volume: “the nearly 2,000-year-long tradition…in which christianity declares itself the new israel, with its covenant replacing the one jews traditionally have with god” (383). for nelson, as for most of the other writers, this original theological sin of the church has had profound social and political implications in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries (though levine notes that biblical scholars are divided on how supersessionist the new testament itself is). for modern examples, he cites not only european anti-judaism and antisemitism, but also blood libels, media portrayals of israeli military intervention in gaza, and antisemitism in the bds movement, among others. a second commonality across the volume is a shared ambivalence about evangelical christian zionism. the organization christian united for israel, which has more than 11 million members and is the largest pro-israel force in american domestic politics, and its founder, pentecostal pastor john hagee, are discussed in at least four of the contributions. evangelicals appear frequently throughout. to some contributors, the historic and contemporary evangelical embrace of jewish missions, often implicit supersessionism, and apocalypticism (especially as informed by dispensational theology) are clear drawbacks. at other times, evangelicals stand out as protestant exceptions in their robust support for israel and opposition to the bds movement, in their denunciation of “hard” supersessionism and liberationist theology, and in their opposition to terrorism and longstanding rivals to israel including iran. third, while often framing analysis in terms of “christianity” or “the christian churches,” this volume is mostly focused on north american and european catholicism and protestantism, with secondary critiques of palestinian christian writers (especially contributors to the aforementioned kairos palestine document such as theologian naim ateek). the largest christian zionist organization in the world, the international christian embassy jerusalem (headquartered in jerusalem but founded mostly by european charismatic christians, now with offices in more than ninety countries), receives but one mention, while the presbyterian church (u.s.a.) is the focus of fully one quarter of the chapters. the emphases reflect the backgrounds of the contributors (at least half of the christian contributors have presbyterian affiliations) and are also justified by the significant theo-political activity in that denomination in the past two decades, including support for divestment, much of it led by the israel / palestine mission network. yet it is striking that latin america, for example, is referenced numerous times in the volume, but almost exclusively in association with “liberation theology” (the historical inspiration for palestinian liberationist theology). what this association misses is that today central and latin america feature some of the world’s most active christian 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) zionist networks, in countries such as guatemala and honduras (the only two countries besides the u.s. and kosovo to have relocated their diplomatic embassies to jerusalem, in significant measure due to encouragement from christian zionists). the distinctive theological and denominational histories that dominate non-western christianity are also largely absent from the volume, including charismatic, pentecostal, and prosperity traditions (which combined make up a majority of protestants worldwide). overall, peace and faith is a significant marker in anti-supersessionist jewishchristian dialogue and a leading illustration of anti-bds religious thought. in a volume of this length and nature, there are inevitable shortcomings. for example, there is historical information that is repeated chapter after chapter and some jarring tone changes between contributions. the third section, “reconciliation,” would have been better served to be reorganized to begin with a theoretical discussion rather than with a personal reflection. overall, however, the volume displays a remarkable consistency in the topics interrogated and the broader perspective stitched together from its component parts. scholars and clergy who are in search of a larger framework for assessing the current state of anti-supersessionist christian thought, or the ongoing christian dialogue with israel and contemporary jews, will benefit from consulting peace and faith in parts and as a whole. challenges in jewish-christian relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r1-2 review james k. aitken and edward kessler, eds. c h a l l e n g e s i n j e w i s h c h r i s t i a n r e l a t i o n s (new york and mahwah, nj: paulist press, 2006), vii + 282 pp. r e v i e w e d b y d e m e t r i o s t o n i a s , b o s t o n c o l l e g e compiled predominately from papers given at a 1999 conference commemorating the first year of the centre for the study of jewish-christian relations in cambridge, challenges in jewishchristian relations, edited by james aitken and edward kessler, is a recent addition to the growing collection of collaborative works examining various aspects of the jewish-christian dialogue. challenges in jewish-christian relations utilizes an interdisciplinary approach, reminiscent of such texts as christianity in jewish terms (2000), irreconcilable differences? (2001), and seeing judaism anew (2005). published in 2006, aitken’s and kessler’s compiled work is a worthy successor to these texts both in terms of content and chronology. the book is divided into fourteen chapters including the introduction, which was written by the editors. the introduction offers a brief overview of the history of the contemporary dialogue—a dialogue that aitken and kessler describe as a “complex enterprise.”(p. 5) the scope of the dialogue and, by relation, that of the book reflects this complexity in the many disciplines covered in the articles. the editors define these disciplines as “politics, sociology, education, language, history, biblical studies, hermeneutics, and … theology.”(p. 5) even with such a variegated approach, the individual articles themselves belie the inherent complexity of the jewish-christian dialogue in the way each touches upon other categories in addressing a particular point of concern. in his article discussing the effects of history on the dialogue, marc saperstein makes the case that a comprehensive understanding of the historical relationship between jews and christians is an essential component of the on-going dialogue. he stresses, however, the importance of recognizing the positive aspects of the historical relationship as well as the many negative ones. indeed, the text in general examines the many ways in which jews and christians influenced one another long before there was any conscious attempt at formal dialogue. a shared scriptural story was one of the many points of commonality, and the importance of the hebrew scriptures to both jews and christians was a theme found throughout the articles in general and in john f. a. sawyer’s analysis in particular. the variety of interpretative methods that sawyer covers also points to one of the inherent difficulties associated with this type of collaborative work. often, out of convenience, broad terms such as church, liturgy, christianity, and judaism are used in a generic sense but require nuance that is difficult to impose in such short examinations. this issue is less problematic when dealing with a focused analysis concerning the state of the current dialogue with respect to specific christian churches, such as those found in the discussion of the interaction of the orthodox church with judaism as described by nicholas de lange and irina levinskaya and that of the roman catholic church as offered by remi hoeckman. the book works best in these instances when authors speak from their specific faith traditions in assessing the current challenges affecting jewish-christian aitken & kessler, challenges in jewish-christian relations r http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ 1 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r1-2 dialogue. to be sure, the editors seem to have recognized this difficulty by devoting a chapter, by friedhelm pieper, to the nature of institutional relations in the current dialogue. no contemporary discussion of jewish-christian relations would be complete without a discussion of the dual twentieth century watershed events that impacted the way jews and christians would interact—that of the shoah (discussed by stephen d. smith) and the founding of the modern state of israel (covered by andrew p. b. white). both events shaped the view of jews and christians not only of one another but also of themselves. the importance of these two events is indicated not only in the specific examinations of these two authors but also in the attention afforded the shoah and the state of israel by many of the contributors. additionally, the text offers insight into the two major statements known as nostra aetate and dabru emet, authored by christians and jews respectively, concerning the state of relations between the two communities. with regard to the latter, the editors themselves offer their particular views concerning the document published in september of 2000. in their emphasis on a realistic view of the other and self, the editors’ comments regarding dabru emet are reflective of those of other contributors throughout challenges in jewish-christian relations. many of the authors, for example, caution against couching the dialogue exclusively in terms of christian guilt or jewish suffering and look to a broader grass roots initiative as the agent for a better understanding of other and self, which kessler and aitken see as foundational for improved relations. challenges in jewish-christian relations serves well as an introductory text into the major categories within which jewish-christian dialogue takes place. hopefully texts such as this will help spur the publication of books investigating the individual chapter topics in much greater detail. having said this, the book is noteworthy in the attention paid to the orthodox christianjewish relationship. that the topic, for the most part, has been ignored is understandable considering the inertia surrounding this specific aspect of the dialogue. nevertheless, this neglected feature of the jewish-christian dialogue is important not only within the contemporary context but also as part of the historical relationship between orthodox christians and jews, dating back to the earliest days of the common era. future books in the same vein as that of challenges in jewish-christian relations would do well to expand the investigation of orthodox christian-jewish relations to include those surrounding the orthodox patriarchate of jerusalem, which has a significant and important role to play in the on-going dialogue. aitken & kessler, challenges in jewish-christian relations r http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ 2 exploring covenant in a world of faiths studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): cp 1-6 conference proceeding exploring covenant in a world of faiths william h. bellinger baylor university delivered at the houston clergy institute, march 6, 2007 good morning. it is a great honor to be with you today. my thanks to rabbi lyon and the planning committee for the opportunity. all of us here owe a debt of gratitude to those who have worked to make this gathering possible. i am grateful to congregation beth israel for the vision of establishing and supporting this clergy institute. such programs have much to contribute in our world and are a cause for hope among people of faith. i also thank rabbi langer and look forward to learning a great deal in this conversation. introduction our topic, “exploring covenant in a world of faiths,” recognizes that we live in a world in which pluralism is the order of the day. it also recognizes that the notion of ‘covenant’ is one that is shared by jewish and christian faiths. i bring to this conversation my background as a scholar-teacher of the old testament.1 i am a christian reader of these scriptures, in the baptist tradition. i believe we all read from our traditions, and i hope we all learn by engaging reading partners in other traditions. with that opening word i move to some explorations of covenant in the hebrew scriptures. the hebrew term commonly translated ‘covenant’ is berit. the etymology of the term is disputed, but basic meanings can be approximated as a self-imposed obligation or promise or as a structured relationship between two parties, binding upon both.2 the topic of berit could easily overwhelm us for the term ‘covenant’ has pervaded much of modern old testament scholarship.3 george lakoff and mark johnson have shown in their volume metaphors we live by that “metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action.”4 the metaphor of covenant is central to the life of the community of faith portrayed in the hebrew scriptures and to its relationship with god. i could thus take many tacks in exploring the topic; what i want to do today, however, is look at two streams of covenant expressions in the older testament, note how they flow into the 1 in this presentation i will use hebrew scriptures, old testament, older testament, and tanak to identify this canonical literature. this practice is meant to reflect an awareness of the difficulty of determining an appropriate label for the literature. 2 tlot i, 256-266. 3 for influential theological treatments, see walther eichrodt, old testament theology, otl (2 vols., philadelphia: westminster, 1961-1967); h. d. preuss, old testament theology (2 vols., louisville: westminster john knox, 19951996). 4 george lakoff and mark johnson, metaphors we live by (chicago: university of chicago, 1980), 3. bellinger, exploring covenant cp1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): cp 1-6 newer testament, and then reflect on their significance for us. one of my concerns is that i still often hear christians suggest that when we get to the new testament, everything begins afresh and the old covenant (testament) ceases and the new covenant (testament) takes over. i don’t think that kind of supersessionism works; the biblical traditions are much more complicated. it is my hope that out of these explorations a little magic will be forced to rise and our conversation can enhance our reflections on faith. covenant in genesis first a note on reading genesis. most modern scholarly treatments of these pentateuchal texts begin with the identification of the sources brought together in the text and treating those sources distinctly. today there is great debate among scholars about the question of the origin of the pentateuch; the question is very much unsettled. a number of scholars question the whole approach of focusing on origins. in such a context, i find it helpful to read genesis holistically with attention to the narrative artistry of the texts. at the macro level, i am still essentially persuaded by the view usually traced to gerhard von rad that the primary theme of the narratives in gn 1-11 is the growing power of sin in the world, with the, almost hidden, counter theme of the growing power of grace in the world.5 when readers come to the end of the story of the tower of babel in gn 11, the question is where now is the sign of divine grace found in the earlier narratives of the garden, cain and abel, and the flood. the suggestion is that the divine grace is seen in the call of abram and sarai and their descendents as a means of bringing blessing to all nations. the call of abram in gn 12:1-3 forms a pivot in the book and serves as a preface to the ancestral stories that follow. this preface announces their theme of the ancestral promise: “i will make of you a great nation, and i will bless you, and make your name great so that you will be a blessing” (v 2). readers realize when moving through these narratives that there is also a counter theme of threats to the promise. in the abram and sarai cycle of stories, the threats are infertility and the dangers in which sarai finds herself on occasion. the drama of the narrative runs on the tension between the promise and threats to it. at the end of the book of genesis, however, it is clear that the promise continues. in that context now, i want to read texts centering on berit, and i hope we will see some noteworthy things in the text. as my boyhood hero yogi berra said, “you can observe an awful lot by watching.” a first important text is the account of the flood in gn 6-9. the theme of the growing power of sin reaches something of a climax in the bone-chilling introduction to the narrative in which god sees that the wickedness of humans “was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually” (gn 6:5, nrsv). the text even says that god sorrows at having made humans so that it grieves god even to the heart. and god said, “i will blot out from the earth the human beings i have created – people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for i am sorry that i have made them” (gn 6:7). but the divine act of hope in the narrative is the provision of a means of survival for noah and his family and the animals so that creation can begin again after the “blotting out” of the chaotic flood waters. chapter 9 of genesis signals a kind of re-creation with language echoing that of gn 1. it is in the paragraph beginning with gn 9:8 that we find the language of covenant. verse 11 says, “i will establish my berit with you that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the water of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” in a remarkable narrative sweep, we have moved from “i will blot out” to “never again.” a number of biblical scholars have pointed to the turning point in the structure of the narrative in gn 8:1: “but god remembered 5 gerhard von rad, genesis, otl (philadelphia: westminster, 1961). bellinger, exploring covenant cp2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): cp 1-6 noah and all the wild animals and all the domestic animals there were with him in the ark. and god made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided.”6 the emphasis on the divine memory continues in the discussion of covenant in chapter 9 as god designates a sign of the covenant, the bow (vs 13-15). “i have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. when i bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, i will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.” in this remarkable text, “but god remembered noah and the animals” makes it possible to move from “i will blot out” to “never again.” god remembers. the text is clearly a narrative of god’s self-imposed obligation or promise. what is more, the sign of the covenant is not simply the beautiful rainbow, but the undrawn weapon of the bow. god is preoccupied in compassion with the covenant partner, creation.7 the last word is not chaos, but the divine promise, “i will remember my covenant.” i suggest that this covenant text is echoed in the prophetic voice at the beginning of is 43, spoken in the chaos of exile: “do not fear, for i have redeemed you; i have called you by name, you are mine. when you pass through the waters, i will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you” (vs 1-2). the additional two texts in which we find the language of covenant are gn 15 and 17. gn 15 begins with a theophany in which god says, this time to abram, “do not be afraid, abram, i am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” abram takes exception by noting that he is childless. god again shows a sign in the sky, the many stars in the sky, and affirms that abram’s descendants will be that numerous, so numerous that they cannot be counted. and remarkably, abram believed god. that leads to the concluding statement of the paragraph in v 6: “he trusted in the lord, and he reckoned/counted it to him righteousness.” we can read the abram-sarai cycle of stories as the history of their learning to trust god with the promise, particularly in the face of threats to it. what follows in gn15 is a parallel account related to the covenant promise of land. here the sign of the promise is the enactment of an ancient covenant practice. animals often associated with sacrifice are brought and cut in two. the phrase in hebrew for making or establishing a covenant is karat berit, literally “to cut a covenant.” it is often suggested that the phrase derives from this ceremony of cutting the animals. abram then falls into a deep sleep and god affirms again the promise of land, though the promise will be delayed. what is striking is that in v 17 “a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between the pieces.” the smoke and flame are theophanic elements and so indicate that god is the one who passes between the pieces. the ceremony reflects an ancient practice in which the participants in a covenant oath passed through the dismembered parts of an animal and proclaimed a similar fate on themselves if they disobeyed the terms of the agreement. so it is god who here takes on the self-imposed obligation. in gn 15, we find covenant promise of progeny and land. the other passage in which we find the language of covenant is gn 17. the promise is repeated. as an indication of the promise, abram’s name is changed to abraham, “exalted ancestor” to “ancestor of a multitude.” the second paragraph of the chapter brings us to response to the covenant promise; now abraham will keep the covenant with the physical sign of circumcision. the name sarai also becomes sarah, princess, and the promise now takes the 6 see the treatments of the narrative in von rad, genesis, and walter brueggemann, genesis, interpretation (atlanta: john knox, 1982). 7 brueggemann, genesis, 84-85. bellinger, exploring covenant cp3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): cp 1-6 form of the promise of a child to abraham and sarah. it is important to note that the traditions in chapters 16-17 make it clear that there will also be a future for the son ishmael. these covenant traditions in genesis mark covenant in terms of promise. they are related to the later tradition of davidic covenant. in the noachic tradition, the “never again” is reminiscent of the never again spoken to david in ii sm 7:15-16: “i will not take my steadfast love from him, as i took it from saul, whom i put away from before you. and your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.” the promise of land in gn 15 is also reminiscent of the davidic kingdom, and three references in gn 17, vs 6, 16, and 20, make the promise into a royal promise connecting the text to the davidic promise in ii sm 7. in christian tradition, davidic covenant comes into the new testament in terms of messianic promise. texts like acts 2:30-36; 13:33-37; and rm1:3-4 put jesus in the stream of covenant tradition from genesis through the david traditions to the new testament. covenant in exodus a second stream of covenant tradition in the older testament or tanak is associated with the name moses. here covenant is somewhat different. the context is the story recounted in the first half of the book of exodus. a summarizing text is ex 19:4-6: “you have seen what i did to the egyptians, and how i bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation. these are the words that you shall speak to the israelites.” god delivers the people from slavery in egypt and calls them into a covenant relationship. the same tradition is reflected in the beginning of the decalogue in the next chapter. “i am the lord your god, who brought you out of the land of egypt, out of the house of slavery.” therefore, do not worship other gods.8 these covenant traditions are a way of talking about the divine-human relationship in which god initiates the relationship in this act of deliverance and thus says, “i will be your god.” the people respond, “yes, we will be your people.” what follows is instruction in living as god’s people, torah, and how the people respond in living by torah makes or does not make a future. different from the promissory character of covenant in genesis, mosaic traditions emphasize direction in living by torah, that is, how to live as god’s covenant people. at the same time, it is important to note that the initiative in this relationship is on the divine side. as an example, jos 24 is a text centering upon renewal of this sinai covenant tradition. most protestant treatments of this text emphasize the call to covenant obedience with the famous quote from joshua: “as for me and my house, we will serve the lord.” i would simply point out that fully the first half of this covenant renewal text, vs 1-13, is a recounting of god’s benevolent deeds on behalf of the covenant community. christian appropriations of mosaic covenant traditions have gone through a famous text in jer 31 with its reference to new covenant. that text describes this covenant as broken and, in the midst of the devastating judgment of exile, sees a new possibility. this new covenant is still about divinely initiated relationship with the house of israel and judah and still centers on torah, but now the covenant is promised rather than made. further, the covenant instruction is written on the heart, on the will, and each one will fully know the gracious covenant god. this new 8 important in the history of scholarship on covenant is the view that ancient near eastern treaty formulas are reflected in the structure of covenant in exodus and deuteronomy; see “covenant,” abd i, 1179-1202; “covenant,” idb i, 714-723. a more contemporary view is that common ancient near eastern cultural means of expressing a suzerainty relation include indicating the benevolent acts of the suzerain toward the covenant partner and then describing the nature of the relationship. bellinger, exploring covenant cp4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): cp 1-6 covenant is taken up in the new testament, commonly referred to as the new covenant; the greek is diatheke. this tradition is reflected in the central christian practice of the eucharist or communion, with the text that the wine is the blood of the new covenant poured out for many for the forgiveness of sin in mt 26:26-29, mk 14:22-25, lk 22:19-21, and i cor 11:23-26. conclusions so now you might well say, “ok, dr. bellinger, but what does all this bible have to do with the topic today?” here are my responses. first, we live in a world characterized by pluralism. i live in waco; it is good for me to come to the big city of houston and escape the baylor bubble. houston is filled with people of many different faiths. waco could fairly be labeled the buckle on the bible belt. the last census had waco’s population at nearly 114,000. we have about 130 churches associated with the baptist general convention of texas. so that does not even count all the baptist churches. there is nearly a church on every corner. but even in waco, texas, there are islamic communities and jewish communities and a bahai community, and a wide variety of christian communities. pluralism is indeed the order of the day, even in waco. i want to suggest that the covenant texts i have commented upon give us much to reflect upon in this context. first notice that the noachic covenant is with creation. gn 9:13 articulates the covenant as between god and the earth, and v 15 describes the covenant as between god “and every living creature of all flesh.” what is more, the abrahamic covenant promise is not for the benefit of the descendents of abram and sarai so much as it is for the blessing of all the nations. and in gn 16-17, there is also a place for the blessing of ishmael. the covenant traditions in genesis have a striking universal dimension that suggests we reflect on god’s relation to all creation in all of its radiant plurality. the noachic covenant has not been much present in christian tradition; perhaps it could be a helpful resource for us and could help us expand our dialogue partners.9 on the other side of the ledger, when i look at how the new testament appropriates covenant traditions, i realize how we pick and choose according to our agenda. when paul wants to emphasize our common faith, he goes to abraham. when he wants to emphasize sin and forgiveness, he goes to moses and jeremiah.10 my point is that there are distinctives and peculiarities to our traditions. biblical tradition calls us to claim and perhaps even confess those idiosyncrasies. they are part of our identity, and we all have them. second, the claim of covenant traditions is that communities and persons are grounded in “another” who initiates the relationship and stays bound to the communities in loyal ways for their benefit.11 god initiates the covenant established in the noah story and the blessing initiating the promissory ancestral covenant. the mosaic covenant finds its initiative in the act of deliverance from bondage in egypt. i take that affirmation to be a contradiction to the current temptation to self-groundedness and its accompanying gospel of militant consumerism. the american myth is that life is a problem to be solved and attained by self-made people. the consequence of this deceptive gospel is fear, for people begin and end with themselves and must attain at the cost of others in order to have and have life and have it abundantly. “we have nothing to fear but fear itself.” my fear is that is precisely where we are – overwhelmed by fear. the biblical metaphor of covenant is an antidote. the noachic and abrahamic covenant traditions begin with “fear not,” as reflected in is 43. the covenant-making and covenant 9 the noachic covenant could provide the context or even pattern for other covenants; see rolf rendtorff, “covenant as a structuring concept in genesis and exodus,” jbl 108 (1989) 385-393. 10 see charles h. talbert, “paul on covenant,” review and expositor 84 (1987) 299-313. 11 walter brueggemann, “covenanting as human vocation,” interpretation (1979), 115-129. bellinger, exploring covenant cp5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): cp 1-6 keeping god holds the covenant community close. indeed, torah is a kind of binding to god for it provides direction for living in a growing relationship. the relationship opens the possibility for full living. when i think about covenant in our world, i am also reminded that imbedded in all the covenant traditions is the notion of dialogue. i have today emphasized the divine initiative, but, especially in the abraham and exodus traditions, there is much dialogue between the covenant partners. baptists have traditionally stood for religious liberty, that is, respecting another’s tradition and dialoging or conversing with those of other traditions in respect. i believe it important that christians do their reading of the scriptures in partnership with jewish communities. i believe we learn much in so doing. i am fond of saying that it keeps me honest. i also learn much about my own perspectives and about biblical texts. in that spirit i look forward to rabbi langer’s comments and to our conversation together. thank you. bellinger, exploring covenant cp6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ "to the jews as a jew" (1 cor 9:20): paul and jewish identity studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): perkins cp1-10 conference proceeding “to the jews as a jew” (1 cor 9:20): paul and jewish identity p h e m e p e r k i n s boston college presented at the boston college, march 15, 2009 conference: p a u l o f t a r s u s : t h e a p o s t l e t o t h e g e n t i l e s i n h i s j e w i s h c o n t e x t erasing the great conversion? krister stendahl’s ground-breaking article, “paul and the introspective conscience of the west,” appeared in 1963. the vigorous debate which followed marked a paradigm shift in understanding the apostle. scholars shed the image of an anguished conscience convicted by impossible demands for “works righteousness”. instead they saw in paul the robust piety of a devout jew who discovered that his most passionate convictions had placed him at crosspurposes to god’s plan. or to invoke the categories of an earlier harvard luminary, william james, our “twice-born” (“sick” or “divided-self”), paul joined the ranks of the “healthy-minded”. stendahl encouraged exegetes to rethink paul’s discussion about the law in terms of his conviction that gentiles are being called to salvation; now that the messiah has come, the custodial law is not necessary. alan segal added another dimension to the question of paul, the jew, in his provocative book, paul the convert: the apostolate and apostasy of saul the pharisee. with an eye toward apocalyptic and jewish mystical texts, segal adds a third category─that of “transformation”─to the earlier discussion of whether one should employ the term “conversion” or “call”. at the same time, he raised a crucial question about the socio-historical context for paul’s gentile mission: how did the larger jewish community look upon sympathetic or interested gentiles? he suggested that for complex reasons, jews would encourage gentiles to remain marginal outsiders: ...many jews simply preferred that a god-fearer bypass formal conversion when a complex social situation was involved, relying on the universalism that god loves all people.1 shaye cohen raised further issues about jewish identity in the diaspora communities in the beginning of jewishness. he suggested that even proselytes might be considered part of the jewish political community, politeia, without being “jews” inside the jewish community.2 such 1 alan f. segal, paul the convert: the apostolate and apostasy of saul the pharisee., (new haven: yale university,1990), 99. 2 see shaye j. d. cohen, the beginnings of jewishness: boundaries, varieties, uncertainties, (berkeley, university of california press, 1999) 140-161. perkins, “to the jews as a jew” perkins cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): perkins cp1-10 considerations led me to propose that paul’s vigorous outbursts against judaizing by gentile christians reflect his own (pharisaic?) determination to eradicate such ambiguous categories. no gentile could ever be counted as “ioudaios”.3 the antitheses and asymmetries of paul’s arguments in galatians remain troubling: (a) the shocking reduction of sinai/jerusalem to a place of bondage─suggests an abiding hostility between those whose identity is grounded in the “earthly jerusalem” and those christ believers whom paul designates as “offspring of sarah”; (b) the presumption that while jewish believers can be encouraged to adopt a gentile way of life for the sake of their gentile co-religionists, the opposite cannot be the case.4 what sort of “ioudaios” is paul, or any believer in jesus-messiah who comes from pauline circles? j.d.g. dunn suggests that even though paul asserts that he can engage in shifting social identities, sometimes living as “ioudaios”; sometimes living as a gentile (1 cor 9:20-21), in fact, paul would not have seen himself as “ioudaios” any longer.5 does this shift away from identifiable jewish praxis (the ‘special laws’) mark paul as an expharisee perhaps but from another perspective as a rather ordinary diaspora jew?6 or has paul’s messianic apostleship produced a fictional jewish identity that exists only as the apostle’s theological construction? constructing a diaspora jew the so-called “new approach” to paul which dominates contemporary discussion depends upon two premises. first, that paul did not recast christian theology in new, alien categories derived from such hellenistic cultural phenomena as popular philosophy, mystery cults or gnosticism. and second, that his tangled negative statements about “the law” do not refer to torah observance as religious jews experience it, but to the “special laws” (circumcision, kashrut, sabbath) which posed a barrier to including gentiles in the jesus movement. stendahl suggested that the much debated “parting of the ways” by which christianity became something distinctly “other” than a jewish group has less to do with halachah or doctrine than with demographics.7 or, to adapt a metaphor from wayne meeks, paul is a religious proteus. he appears as anomalous as he does─sometimes a prophet, an apocalyptic seer, a philosophic pedagogue, a jewish homilist, even an apostate─because of the context in which we see him.8 however, karl donfried points out that paul appears most jewish when interacting with the nonjewish churches that he founded, “...it is precisely paul as a jew, as 1 corinthians 10 illustrates so effectively, who addresses and interacts with his congregations located in the midst of the graeco-roman context.”9 when evaluating the apostle, one must recognize that he was not engaged in a battle between a group called “christians” and the “jews” but in what was an 3 see gal 5:3; pheme perkins, abraham’s divided children: galatians and the politics of faith (harrisburg, pa: trinity press international, 2001) 11. 4 see perkins, 127. 5 see j.d.g. dunn, “who did paul think he was? a study of jewish christian identity” in new testament studies 45, 1999, 175-93. 6 see alan f. segal, “universalism in judaism and christianity,” in troels engberg-pedersen, ed. paul in his hellenistic context, (minneapolis: fortress press, 1995) 24. 7 see krister stendahl, “qumran and supersessionism─and the road not taken,” in james h. charlesworth, ed., the bible and the dead sea scrolls, volume three: the scrolls and christian origins, (waco: baylor university press, 2006) 39. 8 see wayne a. meeks, “the christian proteus,” in wayne a. meeks & john t. fitzgerald, eds., the writings of st. paul, (new york: norton, 2007) 690. 9 see karl donfried, “rethinking paul on the way toward a revised paradigm,” biblica 87, 2006: 583. perkins, “to the jews as a jew” perkins cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): perkins cp1-10 intramural argument among jews.10 at the same time the audience to which paul’s letters present that argument is predominately gentile. it is that peculiarity which poses a difficulty with donfried’s conclusion that the nearest points of comparison are between paul and the essene, yahad.11 therefore before we turn to this proposal that we frame questions about paul’s jewish identity in relationship to qumran, we need to consider what sort of jew does paul appear to be in cities of greece and asia minor? or, perhaps more precisely, how does he project himself into that context as jewish? paul’s self-presentation was problematic in two ways: (a) its acceptance─or not ─by others in his own context; and (b) the images of “the jewish non-believer” which paul’s letters left as legacy for later christianity. steve mason’s survey of the linguistic evidence finds no generic term in the 1st century ce for what we refer to as “judaism”, that is, a coherent system of beliefs and practices that make up what can be classified as “a religion”.12 he advocates translating the term ioudaios as “judean”, not “jew”, since the ancient reader would presume that the word designated a particular people or ethnos. “each ethnos had its distinctive nature or character, expressed in unique ancestral traditions, which typically reflected a shared (if fictive) ancestry; each had its charter stories, customs, norms, conventions, mores, laws, and political arrangements or constitution.”13 unlike christians whom ancient writers compared with members of other cults, outsiders perceived ioiudaioi as members of a specific ethnos. philo clearly treats ioudaioi as an ethnos, which received its constitution from moses (virt 108). “precisely as an ethnos the ioudaioi are in constant conflict with alexandrians and egyptians (not with followers of isis or stoics) over the issues of civic and political status.”14 thus for a non-jew to become a proselyte required a complete re-calibration of the individual’s identity as philo’s exhortation to welcome the proselyte makes clear (virt. 102-103). ancestry, ethnicity, political organization and culture all come into play. yet the situation appears to have been more complex for ioudaioi in the greek-speaking diaspora than mason would have one believe.15 mason concludes─wrongly in my view─that paul did not present himself as ioudaios. “paul should not be taken as representative of judean views. outside of romans, from which the passage in question comes (rom 2:28), he shows no interest in being seen as a ioudaios, and his appeal here that being a ioudaios is internal or spiritual only serves his rhetorical needs in this letter.”16 on the contrary, the pairing ioudaios/hellēnes, serves as a comprehensive classification for all humanity in several pauline letters (gal 3:28; 1 cor 1:22-24; 10:32; 12:13; rom 1:16; 3:9 etc). paul, himself, is situated as ioudaios (gal 2:1315). one may grant that in underscoring his “ancestry, ethnicity and cultural heritage” paul uses other terms (“israelite, hebrew, seed of abraham” 2 cor 11:22; “circumcised on the eighth day, from the israelite people, tribe of benjamin, hebrew born of hebrew parents, as to torah observance a pharisee” phil 3:5). paul’s comment in phil 3:6-7 that turning to christ as “lord” rendered that proud heritage “empty, rubbish” in such polemical contexts can be read on two levels: (a) as a reflection of external criticism against paul for setting aside what he should not 10 see donfried, 2006: 586. 11 see donfried, 2006: 586-87. 12 see steve mason, josephus, judea and christian origins, (peabody, ma: hendrickson, 2009) 141-58. 13 mason, 2009: 162. 14 mason, 2009: 167. 15 see cohen: 125-34. 16 mason, 2009: 171 n. 83. perkins, “to the jews as a jew” perkins cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): perkins cp1-10 have done because he was pursuing believers among the gentiles; and (b) as a reflection of the common experience of disaspora jews in relating to their non-judean cultural environment. even so, john barclay’s schema for diaspora jewish identity considers the apostle as an anomaly.17 such difficulties over paul’s relationship to judaism are mitigated in studies of paul that focus on hellenistic culture. such treatments privilege parallels between his terminology, approach to moral pedagogy and thematic argument and the philosophic pedagogy of stoic and cynic philosophers. for example, abraham malherbe employs a pastiche of stoic and cynic topoi to reconstruct a philosophical perspective on determinism and the sage’s freedom and self-mastery in 1 corinthians 8-9. malherbe argues that both the apostle and his audience are competent users of a fairly sophisticated philosophical vocabulary. he rejects the view that paul has adopted from the corinthians a mode of reflection that he would not otherwise employ.18 this reconfiguration of pauline theology and pedagogy in conversation with graeco-roman philosophy can be pressed to the point of concluding that paul is not addressing ioudaioi at all ─even when he appears to do so─as in stanley stowers’ interpretation of romans.19 against such thoroughly hellenized depictions of the apostle, i would insist that paul’s adaptation of philosophical argument is unlike examples of jewish assimilation which exalt moses as “culture hero” from whom even the greeks derive their wisdom as in artapanus’ peri ioudaiōn (“about jewish matters”;20 or in philo, mos. 2.31.21 did artapanus’ depiction of moses as cult founder for the other nations imply jewish participation in local civic cults? “like many of his contemporaries artapanus can refer interchangeably to god (singular) and gods (plural): even as a jew he is both a monotheist and a polytheist…he shows no sign of embarrassment in this confident cultural synthesis.”22 or is artapanus representative of a monolatry, proud of the superiority of israel’s god but predicated on the assumption that other nations have their own gods. in either case, “the nations” are never encouraged to abandon their gods for israel’s.23 barclay’ s comparison of what he calls the “constitutional ideal” in josephus and paul’s corinthian letters sharpens the difference between paul and other 1st century jews. for josephus precisely the elements which distinguish israel from her neighbors make its constitution superior to those of other peoples. since childhood every citizen─even women and slaves─has been shaped by laws and customs which regulate all aspects of life and produce a harmonious polity.24 there is no place in such a picture of the jewish way of life for the carefully 17 see john m.g. barclay, “paul among diaspora jews: anomaly or apostate,” journal for the study of the new testament 60, 1995: 89-120. see also john m.g barclay, jews in the mediterranean diaspora. from alexander to trajan (323 bce-117ce), (berkeley: university of california, 1996) 381-91. 18 see abraham j. malherbe, “determinism and free will in paul. the argument of 1 corinthians 8 and 9,” in troels engberg-pedersen, ed., paul in his hellenistic context (minneapolis: fortress, 1995) 238-40; 255. 19 see stanley stowers, a rereading of romans: justice, jews and gentiles, (new haven: yale university press, 1994). 20 see erkki koskenniemi, “greeks, egyptians and jews in the fragments of artapanus,” journal for the study of the pseudepigrapha 13, 2002:17-31; and koskenniemi, “moses─a well-educated man,” journal for the study of the pseudepigrapha 16, 2005: 5-6. 21 see maren niehoff, philo on jewish identity and culture tsaj 86, (mohr siebeck, 2001) 139-45. 22 barclay, 1996: 132. 23 see koskenniemi, 2002: 30-31. [except in the case of slaves who were expected to join the jewish politeia. see niehoff; 26.] 24 see against apion 2.171-181. see also john m.g. barclay, “matching theory and practice: josephus’ constitutional ideal and paul’s strategy in corinth,” in troels engberg-pedersen ed., paul beyond the judaism/hellenism divide (louisville: westminster press, 2001) 144-47. perkins, “to the jews as a jew” perkins cp 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): perkins cp1-10 honed distinction between torah as moral guide or noahide laws and the “ceremonial law” or “special laws (circumcision, kashrut, sabbath)” employed as an explanation for the erga nomou which paul rejects. though paul concurs with the premise espoused by josephus that “word” and “deed” match in the ideal order and frames his hortatory language accordingly, it often appears that the “connections between christian master symbols and definite patterns of life” do not appear to have been either obvious or persuasive to paul’s audience.25 barclay highlights the objections one might have after reading 1 corinthians in light of josephus’ presentation: …the christian duty is “keeping the commandments of god” [1 cor 7:19]…in a context where he relativizes circumcision as a cultural token, though it was naturally regarded in the jewish tradition as one of god’s commandments. a jewish reader of 1 corinthians might also sense that in 10:23-26 paul suggests an alarmingly casual attitude to the jewish food laws, a suspicion that would be supported by close attention to 1 cor 9:21 and 2 cor 3:6-18 (cf. rom 14:14). it might seem legitimate to complain that paul’s traditional jewish language such as “keeping the commandments of god” is belied by his practical neglect of key features of the law.26 is paul’s inability to give cultural specificity to the new identity which he asserts that his converts posses in christ the inevitable consequence of trying to found churches across the cultural boundaries of jew and gentile? paul’s appeal to being “ennomos christou” in 1 cor 9:21 is an “ill-defined” concept that is neither obedience to torah nor the “lawlessness” of gentiles (barclay, 2001: 155). even ethical convictions which paul clearly adopts from his jewish context concerning opposition to idolatry and sexual immorality are presented as derivative from specifically christian convictions (1 cor 6:12-20; 10:14-22). barclay observes: thus, from the insider’s perspective, these practices are not inherited jewish practices but the expression of christian faith. similarly, the virtues of honesty and love, which were quite unobjectionable to outsiders, do not thereby necessarily function for insiders as links that include them in the wider society ... thus it is not impossible for paul to build a complete moral universe founded on a distinctively christian identity, even where the majority of its components are not in practice socially distinctive.27 paul protests that the corinthians have misunderstood an earlier letter, “when i wrote not to mix with wicked people, not about the wicked of this world, or the greedy and swindlers or idolaters, lest you would have to leave the world” (1 cor 5:10). but the corinthian response could be as much a consequence of identity ambiguities as was the attractiveness of “judaizing” in galatia. in these churches as well as phil 3:1-11, paul consistently undermines developments which might lead gentile converts to adopt jewish customs or form civic, social or political alliances with the jewish ethnos─in other words to be “god-fearers” in one of the several forms described by alan segal. to achieve this goal, paul paints a distorted picture of jewish practice. how distorted becomes clear when one contrasts his versions of righteousness, god’s spirit, torah, apocalyptic eschatology and messianic teaching with other first century jewish writings.28 “for god has done what the law weakened by flesh, could not do: by sending his son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,” (rom 8:3-4). 25 see barclay, 2001: 153. 26 barclay, 2001: 153. 27 barclay, 2001: 158, 28 see donfried, 2006: 588-93. perkins, “to the jews as a jew” perkins cp 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): perkins cp1-10 of course, we never hear paul addressing other ioudaioi. his vigorous claims to jewish credentials all occur in rhetorical contexts.29 he expects his converts to accept his authoritative interpretation of the jewish tradition as the apocalyptic “mystery” which god has revealed to him (1 cor 2:6-10). the conflicts reflected in paul’s letters suggest vigorous challenge from other jews (followers of jesus) to his claims.30 barclay concludes: the very fact that paul could speak so persuasively in the traditional jewish idiom, made him all the more insidious a foe to those who judged his teaching subversive. the majority of paul’s jewish contemporaries (both christian and non-christian) found his mutation of the jewish tradition incomprehensible or unattractive. the majority of his gentile converts, and most of the subsequent readers of his letters, could only see their distance from and not their common destiny with jews.31 paul constructing a jewish identity contrasting the “in anger” affirmations of his jewish identity in galatians and philippians with the “in anguish” pleading of rom 9:1-5, barclay wonders who is “the real” paul? has he matured or is he vacillating?32 if the former, then perhaps rom 9-11 recognizes the detrimental effects of his own rhetorical strategies. niehoff’s study of philo highlights the significance of jerusalem as “mother city” to all “ioudaioi”, a nation so populous that they cannot be encompassed in a single country.33 greek colonists or roman citizens were familiar with such dual identification, loyalty to the “mother city” combined with residence over many generations in a city far removed from those origins. despite his shocking negativity about the “earthly jerusalem/sinai covenant” as enslaved like hagar in gal 4:24-25 and a muted hostility toward christian opponents connected with james and jerusalem in gal 2:1-14, paul collected money for jerusalem christians from his churches (1 cor 16:1-4; 2 cor 8-9). the nature of that obligation remains obscure. was it undertaken as a trade-off for the agreement that gentile believers would be free from jewish observances (gal 2:10)? or a freely given acknowledgment of the spiritual debt that gentile believers owe to their jewish co-religionists (2 cor 8-9; rom 15:27)? in either case, paul must present himself as a jew embedded in a social network with ties to the mother city, jerusalem. whether or not his converts adopted jerusalem as part of their own christian identity is less clear. a regular practice of dispatching offerings to jerusalem com 29 see barclay, 1996: 382. donfried (2006: 593) takes a more positive reading of paul’s conclusions than i am suggesting: “critical is the interpretation of “just requirement” and that “the law might be fulfilled”. while the “works of the law” are not the basis of righteousness – only christ is – that does not deny a positive function for the law, properly understood, for those who are “in christ”. in such an interpretative context the term telos in rom 10,4 would mean that christ is the goal or intention of the torah, not its termination or end.” 30 sigurd grindheim insists that while paul rejected his past as “dung” and regrets his activities as a persecutor (1 cor 4:9), he would never accept the “apostate” designation but considered himself to be entrusted with a prophetic mission that involved a critique of israel as well as mission to the gentiles. in sigurd grindheim, “apostate turned prophet: paul’s prophetic self-understanding and prophetic hermeneutic with special reference to galatians 3.10-12,” new testament studies 53, 2007: 550-58. 31 barclay, 1996: 395. 32 see barclay, 1996: 382. 33 see niehoff: 33-37. perkins, “to the jews as a jew” perkins cp 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): perkins cp1-10 parable to that of diaspora jewish communities would be more effective in establishing ties to the city than a one time contribution for impoverished believers in jerusalem. paul does not possess either the wealth and family connections or the education that would have enabled him to associate with jews who had ties among the non-jewish roman or civic elite. so the images in acts of a persecutor entrusted with arrest warrants by the sanhedrin, a speaker invited to address philosophers in athens, or an “aristocratic” prisoner addressing roman governors and visiting jewish royalty are clearly imaginative reconstructions on luke’s part. did paul retain a social network of ties to jewish communities and some elements of personal observance throughout his life as acts would have us infer? or had the comment to peter, “if you though a jew are living in a gentile manner and not in a jewish one, how can you compel the gentiles to judaize? (gal 2:14), become so much paul’s way of life, that his “to the jews as a jew” means no more than conforming to childhood custom on visits home? if the latter, then paul is a chameleon whose colors are a function of his social environment.34 there is a darker shadow to this shifting coloration, a rift within the leadership of the christian churches. paul’s arrival in jerusalem recounted in acts 21:18-26 provides some clues. the narrative of paul’s report to james contains numerous difficulties. unlike the unified, jerusalemcentered missionary expansion earlier in acts, this passage reflects a sharp distinction between the myriads of torah observant believers in jerusalem and paul’s many gentile converts. there is no mention of the collection brought by paul and his associates. instead james voices the report that paul had been encouraging jews to abandon the torah by no longer circumcising their sons or following other jewish observances (21:21). james devises two strategies: paul’s participation in a nazarite vow with four members of the jerusalem community and a stipulation that gentiles observe the commandments necessary to enable jewish believers to associate with their gentile co-religionists comfortably (vv. 22-25). rather than consider this episode evidence that paul was well-received by jerusalem believers, one should entertain the possibility that james and the elders there wanted nothing to do with him.35 whatever the facts behind the story as luke frames it, neither james nor any of the jerusalem believers reappear in the narrative. paul can no longer rely on the agreements reached some eight to ten years earlier (gal 2:7-10). as pervo concludes, “both sides suspected the other of betrayal. acts 21:17-25 is indirect testimony to the failure of this early attempt at unity among christians.”36 reflecting on the failure of paul’s jerusalem visit to realize his objectives (rom 15:26), leads me to suggest that it was christian jews, not outsiders, who labeled paul “apos 34 a stunning example of how complex jewish identity could be when the jewish populace had to negotiate the shifting powers of two dominant cultures, christian and muslim, can be drawn from the life of moses maimonides. faced with the issue of forced conversions, maimonides accepted the possibility of “appearing to accept islam” while remaining devoted to torah in one’s heart as distinct from apostates who willingly embraced islam (joel l. kraemer, maimonides [new york: doubleday, 2008] 99-113). the “forced convert” should emigrate to a place where judaism could be practiced openly when possible. though the point remains disputed, it appears that maimonides, himself, lived publically as a muslim while he was residing in fez (see joel l. kraemer, maimonides. the life and world of one of civilization’s greatest minds, new york: doubleday, 2008, 116-24). 35 pervo, who presumes that luke was familiar with pauline letters and the work of josephus, concludes that for luke torah observance among believers is not a live issue. “...those believers make no positive contributions to the story of acts. ...since observance no longer conformed to the divine mandates, it was to be tolerated and no more. luke despite his insistence on continuity, is a product of the gentile mission who sees the peculiar features of jewish life as a relic of the past ...” in richard i. pervo, acts, minneapolis: fortress press, 2009: p. 544. 36 pervo: 547. perkins, “to the jews as a jew” perkins cp 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): perkins cp1-10 tate”.37 that in fact─barring objections to his announcement of jesus as messiah of course─paul may have had an easier time as “a jew to the jews”, than as an “apostle to the gentiles” among jerusalem believers. among non-believing jews, paul could─and likely did─observe torah with all its commandments. it is precisely because he considers jewish identity to constitute the “whole package” of ancestry, education, torah, even the “special laws” in short being part of a unique ethnos that paul rejects “judaizing” among gentile converts. the new identity which has reconciled them with god through the death of god’s son (rom 3:24-26) is distinctively non-mosaic as paul’s version of the abraham story makes clear. paul’s position may have created less conflict with local jewish communities than the proselytizing of gentiles by christian jews would have done. unfortunately it left him without supporters in the jerusalem community, and as an “outsider” in jerusalem, paul is then an easy target for antichristian sentiments. however as paul formulated a new discourse about their relationship to the god of israel, god’s promises, covenants, torah and prophets for his gentile churches, he also provided an outline for later christian supersessionism. in order to maintain the boundary between israel and “the nations” outside the unity of jew and gentile in the christ, paul had to sketch a jewish way of life in colors that would be unattractive to a gentile audience. “special laws” aside, any reader familiar with greek-speaking jewish apologists like artapanus, wisdom of solomon, philo or josephus would be startled by paul’s, “jews seek signs; greeks, wisdom” in 1 cor 1:22. did someone forget to tell paul that moses was the wisest, most educated of human beings?38 that brings us to our final question. what is paul’s anguish in rom 9-11? that so few of his fellow israelites have come into christ? or, as stendahl suggested, is the “so few” a simple fact that god’s version of the run up to the “end of days” has ended the mission to israel early? in speaking to the gentiles (rom 11:13), stendahl concludes that “...it is none of their business to try to manipulate or perhaps even evangelize the jewish people…paul considers the gentiles to be potentially and actually conceited in their attitude toward israel.”39 god’s plan was not for a great transformation of israel in the messianic age40 that would bring the nations to revere israel’s god. it was to transform the nations…and then what?41 paul’s resolution has left plenty of ambiguities for exegetical debate: “if their rejection [meant] reconciliation of the world, what [will] their acceptance [mean] but life from the dead” (11:15). paul has concluded that rejection of the gospel by all but a remnant of israel belongs to god’s plan for reconciling the nations. but the “small remnant saved among israel” cannot be an adequate fulfillment of god’s promise to save god’s people─for paul at least, though it has hardly bothered later christian theologians! 37 pervo is certainly correct in rejecting the ecumenically fashionable conclusion that if he had had a son, the christian paul would have had him circumcised as a given. he suggests that while paul had no qualms about communities comprised solely of torah observant believers, he is more likely to advise those in mixed communities that circumcision was not necessary (or even not to do so; p. 544). 38 see koskenniemi, “moses─a well-educated man,” journal for the study of the pseudepigrapha 16, 2005. 39 krister stendahl, final account. paul’s letter to the romans, (minneapolis: fortress press, 1995) 34. 40 for the complexity of the timing of the messianic age, the last days prior to the coming of the messiah so the discussion of qumran messianism by john j. collins in “teacher and messiah? the one who will teach righteousness at the end of days,” in eugene ulrich and james vanderkam, eds. the community of the renewed covenant. (notre dame: university of notre dame, 1994)193-210. 41 stendahl draws an important theological conclusion for mission strategy in the 21st century, an acknowledgment of “limits”: “god will always find enough people to carry the torch, if we can get over the idea so totally absent from romans that salvation means we win and others become like unto ourselves” (stendahl, 1995: 44). perkins, “to the jews as a jew” perkins cp 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): perkins cp1-10 god’s fidelity to those promises requires another “act” in the eschatological drama which signals israel’s salvation.42 paul casts his own role as apostle to the gentiles in the penultimate position. quite unexpectedly god’s hardening of israel is making gentiles “righteous through faith”. paul has pulled out all the stops in his scriptural exegesis to justify this reading of “god’s plan” and god’s sovereignty over the process of salvation. but as niebuhr rightly observes, at every point paul’s role as “apostle to the gentiles” requires a jesus who is first (and last) “messiah of israel”, the one in whom god’s promises to israel are realized.43 perhaps a strategic withdrawal from missionary efforts among the roman synagogues had been forced by jewish resistance to growing numbers of converts─or in the reading of the claudius edict and its consequences by andrew das the effective demise of any christian jewish groups in rome.44 “god-fearers, for their part, were far less integrated into the jewish community since they also maintained strong social ties with nonjews…god-fearers and sympathizers, provided they ceased attending the synagogues, would pose no threat to the jewish communities. faced with the threat of imperial intervention, godfearers could leave the synagogues and blend into other communities.”45 so one might conclude that paul’s separation strategy, insisting upon an end-time “righteousness through faith” was recommended to christians in rome as the divine necessity behind threats to both christian believers and the larger jewish community in rome.46 a theological coda: divine condescension whatever the social dimensions involved, paul certainly would have provided a theological rationale. if we take his affirmation that apostles of christ engage in “self-lowering”, humiliation to advance the gospel as imitatio christi, to be more than a rhetorical strategy, then the asymmetry of jews “living like gentiles” but saying “no” to judaizing by gentiles has a deeper significance. it depends upon paul’s conviction that god’s people israel are superior to the gentile world around them. to live as he does among the gentiles is neither freedom from a demanding god nor an attack on torah holiness, but a surrender of something of which paul is genuinely proud. it is a form of humiliation, not a quest for social elevation. 42 niebuhr rightly points out that paul’s focus remains “all israel”, the “remnant” which ensured the continuity of god’s saving promises from israel to the gentile believers cannot be the end of the story for the apostle. (karl-wilhelm niebuhr, heidenapostel aus israel. die jüdische identität des paulus nach ihrer darstellung in seinen briefen. wunt 62; tübingen: j.c.b. mohr (paul siebeck) 1992: 142-54). he also points out that the expression “vessels of wrath” in the argument of 9:22 should not be treated as a description of the unbelieving jews of paul’s day (p. 155). 43 see niebuhr: 176. jewett reconstructs a scenario of highly politicized conflict between those engaged in non-jewish missionary efforts among the gentiles and an on-going mission by christian jews among their confreres in rome, each considering the growth of the “other” as a threat to its own position. he thinks that paul must reconcile both sides in order to enlist a unified roman church behind his spanish mission, which will exhibit god’s sovereignty over the world. see robert jewett, romans (minneapolis: fortress press, 2007): 675-712. 44 see a. andrew das, solving the romans debate (minneapolis: fortress press, 2007) 149-202. 45 das: 180. tensions over practice evident in rom 14-15 could reflect the determination of “god-fearers” to maintain their adherence to jewish customs in the new environment of gentile christian communities. “many or most of the gentiles who had previously associated with the synagogues prior to the expulsion may have preferred a lawobservant lifestyle as god-fearers while newer members were likely uncomfortable with or cared little for such practices,” (das: 198). 46 it may have pushed both the jewish community and jesus believers to draw the sharp boundaries that would enable nero to target the jesus believers, costing both peter and paul their lives. see das: 198-201. perkins, “to the jews as a jew” perkins cp 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): perkins cp1-10 margaret mitchell proposes that the philosophical/rhetorical category of “accommodation” or condescension explains the “all things to all persons” agenda in 1 cor 9:19-23.47 the “wise” must adjust language and conduct to the capacities of his or her audience if they are to benefit from his or her pedagogy. christ’s death reflects god’s own condescension in saving humanity (rom 15:1-6). but if that is paul’s understanding, he would reject the interpretation of his long career outside the law48 which treats it as vacillating or ambivalent.49 however one describes paul’s consciousness of having been gifted with insight into the mystery of god’s saving power expressed in the crucified messiah, his own apostolic efforts and the unfolding story of israel and the nations in the age between the messiah’s resurrection and the subjection of all things to god, paul cannot be any less an israelite than jesus, peter, james the brother of the lord or the rest of jesus’ first disciples. misguided as his zealous opposition was, he may even consider himself a better jew because of his labors for the gospel (1 cor 15:9-10). therefore any “dual covenant” reading of romans represents only paul’s penulitmate version of god’s plan for the end of days. paul’s “all israel” will be saved (rom 11:26) means just that, not some partial group. since god’s power and purpose are represented in the messianic events, paul does not have to answer “how” that can be.50 making that happen is not the mission god has entrusted to him. respecting israel’s “no” as a divine condescension to bring the nations to know god through god’s son could lead one to conclude that christians should not evangelize jews. in paul’s account, at least, the messianic sign for israel is the witness of god’s faithful children in christ.51 for paul─and for us─the final act has yet to be played out. and for those of us paul styles as “wild olive branches” fruitful only because of the strong root onto which we have been grafted, the question is not “when will recognizing jesus as `son of god’ erase the difference which marks jews as god’s beloved children” but when will we discover jesus, god’s beloved son, as messiah of israel and teacher of righteousness? if paul’s vision of all humanity drawn together in a “doxological community”, to use jewett’s phrase52 is right, then we still have many miles to go and boundaries to cross. so though i disagree with the “two covenants” reading of romans 9-11, i heartily concur with stendahl’s insistence that “reconciling the world to god” is not about the erasure of difference under the hegemony of a single religious tradition, christian or muslim, but about the preservation and flourishing of all god’s children. 47 see margaret mitchell, “paul’s accommodation and condescension (sugkatabasis): 1 cor 9:19-23 and the history of influence” in troels engberg-pderesen ed., paul beyond the judaism/hellenism divide (louisville: westminster press, 2001) 203-214. 48 for most of his adult life paul set aside the “judean self-concept into which he was socialized” (esler: 272). esler observes that while rom 9:1-5 is a dramatic way of reconnecting with israel that would impress judean believers, paul still retains a distance from his fellow jews. see philip f. esler, conflict and identity in romans. the social setting of paul’s letters (minneapolis: fortress press, 2003) 272-273. 49 commenting on 1 cor 9:19-23, mitchell remarks, “the passage presents paul as to say the least ambivalently positioned with respect to judaism and hellenism – claiming to be both jew and anomos (“torah-bereft”), and yet not essentially identified with either since the one who is a true chameleon never can be, for assimilates to each group in its turn,” (p. 197). 50 see jewett: 701-710. 51 jewett rightly insists that in paul’s view accepting jesus as messiah would not require any change at all in the identity of israel. see jewett: 702. 52 see jewett: 1010. perkins, “to the jews as a jew” perkins cp 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 “to the jews as a jew” (1 cor 9:20): paul and jewish identity pheme perkins microsoft word 137522-text.native.1219862326.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-2 kogman-appel, illuminated haggodot r1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 katrin kogman-appel illuminated haggadot from medieval spain: biblical imagery and the passover holiday (university park: the pennsylvania state university press, 2006), 295 pp. plus plates reviewed by steven j. mcmichael, ofm conv, university of saint thomas for scholars interested in medieval jewish and christian relations in the middle ages, the book illuminated haggadot from medieval spain: biblical imagery and the passover holiday is a fascinating and enlightening read. scholars who work on medieval polemical treatises derive their knowledge of christian-jewish interaction from the texts they read and evaluate. their task is to not only to analyze and interpret what these words mean in their religious and social worlds, but also to try to understand why these texts arose in their own time and how they reflect on christian-jewish interaction in a specific time period. the focus of this work under review is on the art that appears in texts that were so central to jewish life in the middle ages: the haggadot or the passover seder liturgies. from an analysis of these works of spiritual art and ritual the author helps us understand in a more complete way not only the inner life of jews during this time period, but also how jews were reacting to christian visual presentations of biblical passages that they both shared: genesis and exodus. these haggadot, which emerged as a separate text in the thirteenth century, hold a primary key for a deeper understanding for medieval jewish life and jewish-christian interaction based on the passages that appear in these passover liturgies. concerning medieval art, we have known for some time now how images, especially derived from biblical typology, helped shape christian attitudes toward jews. scholars such as sarah lipton, ruth mellinkoff, and heinz schreckenberg have shown how images such as cain slaying abel and ecclesia/synagoga help shape the attitudes and policies toward jews in the middle ages. art joined with polemical literature created a powerful arsenal for christians in their attacks against jews during this time period. we have known for a long time how jews have reacted to the christian attack though their own polemical responses to christian texts. more recent studies, especially the book now under review, have begun to focus on how jews reacted in their own way to christians through the medium of art. kogman-appel’s book examines the illuminations in the sarajevo haggadah and six other haggadah manuscripts in light of what the biblical cycles tell us about how medieval jews visualized the biblical cycles of genesis and especially exodus. her focus is to show how these cycles “attest acculturation and dialogue, polemics with christianity and cultural struggles within sephardic jewry in a particular historical setting.” (p. 3) we learn much about jewish book production and how books functioned in the middle ages. she addresses issues of patronage and the audience of these haggadot, highlighting the cultural background of these texts. she shows us the complex background to these works by developing a theory of art production based not only on pictorial models but also on memory, which has received significant attention recently in medieval studies, and its role in this production. review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-2 kogman-appel, illuminated haggodot r2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 kogman-appel’s contribution to the scholarship of medieval judaism is manifold. she introduces the reader to the complexity of jewish sephardic cultural life in the crown of aragon in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. especially important is her focus on the interaction between jews in aragon and jews in italy and capetian france. she also shows the reader how the main characters of medieval jewish life, especially nahmanides and his students, interpreted genesis and exodus so as not only to try to maintain a truly jewish approach to these texts but as a way to defend themselves against christian conversionary interpretations of them. with regard to jewish-christian interaction in the middle ages, the book demonstrates how images were borrowed and adapted from earlier jewish and christian models, an adaptation that tells us about the how these biblical stories from genesis and exodus were remembered and produced into visual form by the sephardic jews. most important for those interested in jewish-christian relations is how certain images were transformed from a christian environment and its christological focus to one which reinforced a jewish approach to these texts. these images were intended to confirm and strengthen jewish faith in a time and place in which christianity was the dominant religion. kogman-appel offers a thorough presentation on such figures of the hebrew scriptures as abraham’s greeting of the three angels and the binding of isaac to show how jewish artists incorporated these same scenes into the haggadot without including the christological elements that were central to the christian models. this book, therefore, opens the reader to a fascinating view of the role of the book in medieval jewish life. we learn about different types of jewish literature (haggadot, mahzorim, piyyutim, etc.) and about the role played by early rabbinic writings and midrash in the history of biblical interpretation and in these visual images. we also learn about biblical exegesis in the middle ages and the roles of rationalism, allegory, typology, and the kabbalah in approaching the sacred text. the truly illuminating lessons about medieval jewish art, life, and culture along with a deepened understanding of jewish-christian interaction in the middle ages make an extremely valuable contribution in this publication. microsoft word 137526-text.native.1219863132.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-2 shanks alexander, transmitting mishnah r1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 elizabeth shanks alexander transmitting mishnah: the shaping influence of oral tradition (cambridge and new york: cambridge university press, 2006), hc, xvi+246 pp. reviewed by karla suomala, luther college the mishnah is the foundational document upon which the two talmuds (babylonian and palestinian) were created, and as such, it was central to both the formation of the talmudic world and judaism as we know it today. in transmitting mishnah: the shaping influence of oral tradition, elizabeth shanks alexander argues that not only the content of the document but also the circumstances of its oral transmission and study helped make it so significant. using insights gained from orality studies, particularly the work of albert lord and milman parry who developed a model of oral composition based on observation and analysis of live oral tradition, alexander reevaluates the mishnah’s traditional association with orality. she suggests that the mishnah’s function and role can be better understood when viewed through an “oral conceptual lens” – one that sees the text as a product of considerable interaction between its performers and their audiences – rather than a purely literary lens which assumes a text that was fixed in written form and viewed as authoritative very early in its history. through her focus on a small selection of materials from m. shevuot, alexander shows that two features of this “oral conceptual lens” are particularly important to our understanding of mishnaic textuality and transmission. first, she asserts that the mishnah’s earliest transmitters did not understand the text of the mishnah to be fixed, thus undermining the idea that the mishnah achieved an immediate authoritative status based on its fixed literary form. second, she demonstrates that “without a fixed exemplar, passive rote memorization [was] simply not possible; instead active intellectual engagement [was] required in order to reconstruct the text in each new performative context” (8). in chapter 1, alexander shows how early performers of the text saw the material as a set of features which could be arranged in different ways, according to the context of each performance. since the mishnah and tosefta share a lot of material and come from roughly the same time period, alexander identifies a number of these features in a side-by-side comparison of m. shev. 7:1-7 and t. shev. 6:1-4; they include the use of 1) similar overarching structures (both the mishnah and the tosefta focus on the debate between r. shimon and the sages in the first part, and both elaborate the principle assumed by the sages in the second part), 2) common fixed phrases (“he swears and collects”), and 3) shared underlying conceptual concerns (how ingestion of prohibited foods impacts culpability for an oath not to eat). she concludes that the transmitters of the tradition had a strategy for reproducing tradition that did not rely exclusively on memorizing and reproducing words in a verbatim fashion. by the end of the talmudic period, the textual traditions of m. shevuot were well on their way to being viewed as authoritative traditions. their language was assumed to be charged with meaning, and they were assumed to have been composed with a high degree of intentionality. eventually a fully developed theory of mishnah as divinely inspired oral torah would emerge. by closely examining the commentaries on m. shevuot in both the yerushalmi and babylonian talmuds, alexander provides insight in chapter 2 into the process of how this growing sense of review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-2 shanks alexander, transmitting mishnah r2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 fixity and authority happened. she demonstrates how the yerushalmi didn’t necessarily assume a high level of fixity in the mishnaic text, but that the later bavli views the text as more established. this discussion is significant to both rabbinic studies because it “reverses longstanding conventions that assume that the mishnah was authoritative at the time of its promulgation,” and to biblical studies which is also “concerned with the process by which traditional texts become authoritative and scripturalized” (29). traditionally, in trying to discern the function of the mishnah, scholars have been primarily divided into two groups – one arguing that the mishnah functioned as law code and other arguing that the mishnah functioned as a pedagogical tool. in chapter 3, alexander suggests that these two views don’t have to be mutually exclusive by demonstrating that the mishnah, while imparting content, also helped students to learn various modes of legal analysis. in effect, she expands the pedagogical function to include training in methods of legal analysis, while simultaneously maintaining the idea that mishnah could have also served as a legal resource. in chapter 4, the author tests the hypothesis that is proposed in chapter 3, showing that the analytic habits developed through mishnaic performance by early students of the mishnah extended well beyond this period to later students of mishnah who used some of the very same analytic approaches. by using the device of the borderline case to explore legal ambiguities, sages not only transmitted legal content but also particular intellectual habits as well. this is significant in that it demonstrates “a continuity in the intellectual character of rabbinic culture during its earlier tannaitic and later amoraic and post-amoraic manifestations” where discontinuity has been generally assumed (30). alexander’s use of orality studies as a tool through which to view rabbinic literature is the highlight of this book. her explanation (in the introduction) of how these two fields intersect and shed light on each other is helpful to scholars of rabbinic texts, but also accessible and useful to those in other fields such as biblical studies who are interested in textual transmission during the early centuries of the common era. the idea that textual formation was a much longer process than many have previously assumed and that it involved a complex interplay between written and oral forms can help scholars in these fields reorient their understanding of textual authority, corruption of texts, and even the idea of “original” when applied to a particular text. one of the only drawbacks, and perhaps a necessary one, is the author’s limited application of her ideas to such a narrow sampling of texts, primarily from m. shevuot. it will be interesting to see future studies that evaluate other mishnaic material through the oral conceptual lens, and that assess its validity across a broader range of texts. microsoft word 154201-text.native.1234993528.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): korn res 1-5 korn, response to richard lux korn res 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 jewish reflections on richard lux’s ‘the land of israel (eretz yisrael) in jewish and christian understanding’ eugene korn center for jewish-christian understanding and cooperation, efrat i richard lux’s essay, the land of israel (eretz yisra’el) in jewish and christian understanding, as well as his recent book on the land of israel are welcome additions to the library of jewishchristian dialogue, particularly for christian scholars seeking to understand the deep connection between their faith and its spiritual patrimony in judaism and in the jewish people. serious consideration of the land of israel as a theological category has been largely absent from christian writings, a fact owing primarily to the church’s long-standing supersessionist teaching that it has itself assumed the mantle of the jewish people’s role in covenantal history. logically, when christianity universalized the covenant between god and the descendants of abraham, the need for a localized geographic home for the covenant’s human partners became superfluous. theologically, when the early church fathers concluded that jewish exile and humiliation were divine punishments for rejecting jesus, jewish homelessness and wandering gained a positive theological valence. the particular status of the land of israel was reduced to a remnant of immature theology and an exhausted jewish spiritual history. (to see how deeply rooted this became in popular christian culture, see mark twain’s comments regarding the “cursed land” of palestine in the innocents abroad. 1 ) it was not only judaism that christianity claimed to supersede, but also the biblical homeland. thus eretz yisra’el was demeaned, replaced and dehypostasized, managing to linger positively in christian thought only as metaphor for more spiritual categories. today we are blessed to live in a post-supersessionist era, when much of christianity has come to acknowledge that the biblical covenant between god and the jewish people still lives, that jews bear no collective guilt for the death of jesus and that jews play a continuing role in sacred history. yet the logical implications of this dramatic change in theology have not been fully explored. in rejecting supersessionism, christianity has jettisoned the foundation for dismissing the land as a theological category, but christian thinkers have yet to fill the resulting void. in the post-supersessionist age, how should christian theologians think anew about the physical land of which judaism and hebrew scriptures – or more properly, the “shared scriptures” – make so much? “ the land” appears 2504 times and is the fourth most frequently used substantive in those scriptures. if the catholic church can now admit that “the jewish reading of the bible is a possible one,” and “the jewish messianic expectation is not in vain,” 2 1 (penguin classics, 2002), ch. lvi, 460-463, especially the end. 2 the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible (the pontifical biblical commission, 2001) preface and ii:5. a reader responds studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): korn res 1-5 korn, response to richard lux korn res 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 then zion, which jews have always considered the destination of their national redemption and the center of their messianic dream, is also pregnant with christian theological significance. modernity has brought the appreciation of worldliness to our spiritual worldviews. the reality of the jewish people’s return to its biblical homeland and the robust life jews have created today in the state of israel should impel christian thinkers grounded in empirical reality to consider the meaning of contemporary zionism for christian salvation history. if indeed jews and christians can co-exist as co-partners in god’s covenant, does not the jewish return to the land of the covenant somehow help confirm the foundations of christianity, or at a minimum, have serious theological implications for christian belief? this insight was expressed by the great anglican scholar, james parkes, 3 not long after the establishment of israel in 1948, but did not stimulate further significant christian discussion – largely, i believe, due to its political incorrectness at that time. more recently w.d. davies, 4 marcel dubois and john pawlikowski 5 are among the important christian thinkers who have articulated the need to reconsider the religious significance of “landedness” for christian life and theology, but their overtures have not been taken up with great energy. professor lux ably demonstrates the intrinsic relationship between the land of israel and the gift of the covenant to the jewish people that scriptures describe. that post-exilic return to the land is a result of jewish repentance is also a common biblical motif, yet the theological issue goes beyond the scriptural nexus that he presents. the aspiration of return has played a substantive role in the lives of jews throughout their history of exile, and today eretz yisra’el is central to how nearly all religious jews see themselves and understand judaism theologically. even contemporary anti-zionist ultra-orthodox jews reject only the religious significance of the particular political entity known as the state of israel, but not the essential requirement of some future jewish polity in eretz yisra’el that will be the destination for the ingathering of the exiles heralding messianic redemption. i would argue that land is not a jewish spiritual ideal, yet for any version of traditional judaism it is a historical necessity in the unfolding and fulfillment of sacred history. hence until christianity can somehow find a positive value for eretz yisra’el, both understanding and existential identification between faithful jews and christians will be severely – and unnecessarily – constrained. for the above considerations, a post-supersessionist understanding of the significance of the land is an important theological challenge for contemporary christians. indeed, building such a theology could lead to a new rich salutary agenda for today’s christian thinkers. (i hasten to add that jews, too, have the hard task today of creating a sober theological interpretation of zionism that does not entail messianic determinism or spin off into irrational and sometimes immoral nationalistic extremisms.) richard lux may have given impetus to this movement; he certainly has performed a valuable service to both communities when he raises the issue of eretz yisra’el for renewed consideration by christian thinkers in our times. 3 see end of an exile: israel, the jews and the gentile world, eugene korn and roberta kalechofsky eds, (marblehead ma: micah publications, 2005). 4 the territorial dimension of judaism (berkeley: u. of california, 1982). 5 see dubois, “jews, judaism and israel in the theology of saint augustine – how he links the jewish people and the land of zion,” and pawlikowski in “the re-judaization of christianity – its impact on the church and its implications for the jewish people,” both in people, land and state of israel, immanuel 22/23 (jerusalem: ecumenical theological research fraternity in israel, 1989) 162-214 and 60-74 respectively. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): korn res 1-5 korn, response to richard lux korn res 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 ii my observations below are not intended to critique or correct lux’ analysis, but are offered as a complement to it from a jewish theological perspective. throughout his argument demonstrating the biblical insistence on the intrinsic connection between the land and covenant, lux does not probe an underlying theological question: why is this so? why is a particular geography critical in god’s plan for history? the significant role of this local geography is counter-intuitive, since the covenantal god of abraham is the creator of both heaven and earth who proclaims “for all the earth is mine” (ex 19:5). 6 further, god challenges abraham, isaac and jacob – and by extension all their covenanted descendants – no less than five time in genesis to be the instruments of blessing for all the families of the earth, presumably in every corner of the globe. the redemptive effects of god’s covenant must be felt in rome, athens, damascus, constantinople and boston, not merely in jerusalem. how can this focus of particular place cohere with the universal mission of the covenant? these considerations have led jewish thinkers to reflect on the paradox of a covenantal land, and may well have been the reason why eretz yisra’el was so easily dismissed by the early universalizing christian thinkers. lux focuses on what “the land as holy” means for christians, and implicitly, christian thought. he stresses that a christian connection with the land continued unbroken, primarily as a place of pilgrimage. the land has been sacred in christian thinking mostly because of its critical religious history, one that carries cosmological significance: eretz yisra’el is the place where jesus and his apostles lived and died long ago, the context of christ’s sojourn, his passion, and the location of the tombs of ancient holy persons who changed human history. ontologically, god’s presence in the holy land is rooted in the grand past; spiritually, we feel the holiness of that presence more acutely there because of its miraculous history. christian pilgrims come to the holy land today to be inspired by the past, one that helps them to revitalize their spiritual energies drained by the constant immersion in our modern secular world. holiness of the land is holiness of memory. these considerations explain why the land is holy for christians, but not why the bible considered this particular land holy before the advent of christianity. it may be that these considerations are keys to fundamental differences in how jews and christians approach the land theologically. certainly many jews accept that the land is holy because of simple scriptural affirmation, without ever asking the deeper question of why. and even more jews – both religious and secular – treasure israel because of its jewish past. for them as well, holiness inheres in the ancient stones and sites of jewish foundational history. the past confers holiness; our foremost religious challenge is to “renew our days as of old” (lam 5:21). and if we cannot renew the past, we can at least draw sustenance and inspiration from it. yet there is another strain in the bible – most clearly pronounced in leviticus, deuteronomy, isaiah, micah, jeremiah and ezekiel – and in the thinking of jewish theologians, one that points to the future as the key to sanctity. holiness of the land is the holiness of aspiration for the ideal covenantal future. in the biblical drama, the jewish mission to bring blessing to the world is achieved by “keeping the way of the lord, i.e. doing what is right and what is just,” (gn 18:19) by becoming “a kingdom of priests and a holy people” (ex 19:6). for jews, human history has not yet been redeemed, but the covenant promises that the messianic dream will be realized sometime in the future through the agency of the covenantal people of israel. most importantly, the bible insists that this is a corporate agency. israel, qua nation rather than qua individuals is 6 biblical citations follow or are adapted from the njps translation. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): korn res 1-5 korn, response to richard lux korn res 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 called to witness, since at sinai the covenant with abraham was transformed to a national covenant with a collective purpose: the nation of israel is challenged to testify to god’s existence, sovereignty and morality in human history. this is the meaning of election (ex 19:5 “you shall be my treasured possession among all the peoples.”) and the function of the commandment to demonstrate holiness in the human/the nation’s social order – “you shall be holy, for i the lord your god, am holy” (lev 19:2). the footsteps of the messiah will be heard approaching when israel fashions a society based upon the covenantal values of righteousness, justice, compassion, care of the stranger, and human dignity grounded in the creation of all human beings in god’s image. and god’s covenant will blossom into complete fullness in the future when the values of that holy society radiate outward and influence all of humanity. but this eschatological development originates in the holy land where god’s rule and values will be most obvious: “the torah shall come forth from zion and the word of the lord from jerusalem” (is 2:3). it is precisely because redemption will occur in the empirical future with israel’s national life acting as the catalyst for universal messianic fulfillment that the land is essential to the covenantal drama. only when israel is free in its land will jews be able to build a society around god’s covenantal values that it has adopted as its own. hence independence, sovereignty and land assume an instrumental – but critical – meaning to sacred history. and the bible explains why it is this particular land that is essential to the covenantal consciousness of god’s presence on earth: “the land that you are about to enter and possess is not like the land of egypt from which you have come. there the grain you sowed had to be watered by your own labors, like a vegetable garden; but the land you are about to cross into and possess, a land of hills and valleys, soaks up its water from the rains of the heavens. it is a land on which the lord your god always keeps his eye, from year’s beginning to year’s end” (dt 11:10-12). relatively shorn of natural resources and without the nile’s constant waters of life, the residents of eretz yisra’el are ever cognizant of their existential dependency on god, his providence and justice. if i am correct that this is the major thrust of jewish covenantal theology, then holiness is a product of human action and is future-oriented. land assumes spiritual importance only as a necessary condition for present and potential national covenantal behavior. i hesitate to say “only,” as this usually connotes secondary and even minimal importance. yet here it does not, since it is indispensable to the biblical drama. and certainly the long, sad jewish experience in christian exile has proven this biblical thesis correct: as a despised and marginalized minority, jews were denied the ability to influence the ethos, social values, politics and god-awareness of the larger societies in which they lived. in the diaspora, judaism was forced to insulate itself against hostile surroundings and thus turned inward. jews focused on what they could influence: home life, ritual, worship and the study of sacred torah texts. judaism and jewish life became relegated to the home and the synagogue. while jews lived in the diaspora, the larger covenantal dream also was in exile. this is the religious revolution of modern zionism: the national return to the land and its concomitant political sovereignty has generated the corporate responsibility to establish laws, social values and national ethos and gives the jewish people the opportunity to model the lofty covenantal values of justice, peace, tikkun olam, human dignity and responsibility for one’s neighbors, i.e. the holy society described in leviticus 19, isaiah 58 and micah 4. there is no studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): korn res 1-5 korn, response to richard lux korn res 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 intrinsic holiness to the land, place or history, only sacredness as an instrument that enables the jewish people’s fulfillment of the covenant and its influence upon all of god’s children. 7 of course, the bible only presents the possibility of covenantal fulfillment for a given society. place does not guarantee fidelity or holy living. so too the modern phenomenon of the state of israel. its holiness resides not in any historical determinism heralding a messianic era, but in creating a national life where the possibility that covenantal values can be lived. can israeli society today become holy under its difficult geo-political conditions of perpetual conflict and rampant hatred? can the land indeed become holy? this is the open experiment of zionism and its success is contingent upon human striving and commitment to covenantal behavior. it is an experiment to realize a stunning and unrealistic dream. holiness will be determined in the future, not secured by its biblical past. like the covenant itself, contemporary life on the land is a struggle against insurmountable odds requiring hard political realism as well as the faith that the future can be categorically different – categorically better – than the past. only the future will tell whether israel has the resolve to make the land holy though its commitment to the values of the covenant. the national religious experiment is both heroic and audacious, but one that the bible and exilic history grant the jewish people the right to perform – indeed demands that it perform. at the end of his essay, professor lux draws logically nearer to the jewish conception of holiness when he outlines the holy land as sacrament of encounter. it is an experiential ‘theology of presence,” where holiness is not a function of history, but of the living, personal human-divine encounter: the holy land is a sacrament of the christian’s encounter with christ. if so, it is on the land that a christian can sense and relate to god most intensely, i.e. where god is most present. lux makes no reference here to the jewish conception a holy society built around covenantal values, but for both jews and christians, the land mediates the living and continuous presence of god. while jews almost never talk of “sacramental experience,” this idea of holiness of the land should resonate with theologically sensitive jews. faithful jews and christians believe fervently that god yearns to be in the world together with human beings. it seems to me this is a crucial meaning for christians of the incarnation. for jews, incarnation cannot be literal, but it is no less important theologically or spiritually powerful. god’s earthly dwelling is within the covenantal people of israel, for israel is god’s earthly sanctuary: “let them make me a sanctuary that i may dwell among them” (ex 25:8). jews, too, have “a theology of presence.” whether literal or metaphorical, it is the land that is the locus of god’s incarnation and ongoing life with his children. despite its distinctly christological terminology, perhaps professor lux’s “holy land as a sacrament of encounter” is an example of the partial and gradual meeting between christian and jewish religious experience that benefits both faith communities. if so, it is a precious gift that deserves careful nurturing. 7 i have tried to outline how modern zionism and the state of israel relate to this covenantal theology in my recent book, the jewish connection to israel the promised land – a brief introduction for christians (woodstock vt: jewish lights 2008). seelisberg: an appreciation studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college s e e l i s b e r g : a n a p p r e c i a t i o n v i c t o r i a b a r n e t t united states holocaust memorial museum volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 54-57 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ barnett, “seelisberg: an appreciation” 54 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 11 (2007): 54-57 historically, it is the fate of interreligious statements to be dismissed by religious leaders, ignored by historians, and remain utterly unfamiliar to the average believer. however influential or renowned the participants may be, interreligious meetings and the statements that emerge from them usually have little or no institutional or doctrinal clout and are by their very nature bridges: first steps toward understanding, repair and reconciliation. the real work lies in where things go from there, and this depends upon whether the words of the statement have captured the spirit of the times, addressing not only the immediate concerns of the religious communities involved, but the greater human issues at stake. if by good fortune this is the case, the path ahead is nonetheless lengthy and contentious, for changing the actual doctrine, position, or liturgy of a religious body – let alone changing the hearts and minds of believers – can take decades. this may explain why the 1947 seelisberg “address to the churches” is so little known, although it spoke eloquently to its times and is certainly known among those committed to jewish-christian dialogue today. seelisberg was a benchmark in the history of interreligious relations, both for what it said and for the context in which this occurred. it reflects the first attempt by christians from different traditions to address the implications of the shoah for the christian faith, and its ten theses establish the framework for this in christian teachings. the seelisberg “address” was christians addressing other christians. the crucial difference between the seelisberg statement and other christian statements at the time is that these were christians who had worked with, spoken with, listened to, and acknowledged the anguish of their jewish colleagues – and had come to the conclusion that christianity had to change. this difference is reflected in the opening sentence of the document: “we have recently witnessed an outburst of antisemitism which has led to the persecution and extermination of millions of jews.” the document then goes on to explain that faithfulness to christian teachings must include the “clear-sighted willingness to avoid any presentation and conception of the christian message which would support anti-semitism under whatever form.” the ten seelisberg theses that follow are predicated upon that principle: the rejection of all interpretations and teachings of the christian message that target the jews or create enmity against them. in less than six hundred words, it establishes the parameters of post-holocaust christian belief, listing those elements of christian belief and teaching that historically have been most directly responsible for fostering hatred of jews: teachings about christ’s passion, about understandings of salvation and scripture, about supersessionism, and conclusions drawn about the jewish faith. no other official statement of the early post-holocaust era comes anywhere near that clarity, either in addressing antisemitism or in acknowledging the churches’ role in fostering hatred and violence against jews. the stuttgart declaration of guilt by the evangelical church of germany in october 1945 did not mention the jews explicitly at all, and while it acknowledged christian guilt the declaration had an undertone of self-victimhood, claiming to have “struggled in the name of jesus christ against the spirit” of national socialism. the treysa “message to the congregations” in august 1945 did mention “the mistreatment and murder of the jews and the sick” as part of a litany of nazi misdeeds, but viewed the church’s guilt as the failure to preach the gospel, not the way in which the gospel had been preached. the 1947 darmstadt “statement concerning the political barnett, “seelisberg: an appreciation” 55 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 11 (2007): 54-57 course of our people” focused on the church’s political and ideological failures in conforming to nazism. the 1948 darmstadt “message concerning the jewish question” acknowledged that “retribution is being meted out to us for what we did to the jews” and condemned ongoing antisemitism, and yet its theological conclusion was that the “jewish problem” (those were the words used) could not be solved “as if it were a racial or national one” – drawing the theological conclusion that “the jew” was “an erring brother destined for christ” to be evangelized.1 the 1948 “christian approach to the jews” in the founding statement of the world council of churches, while it acknowledged the genocide of six million jews, rejected anti-semitism, and spoke of the need for a “special solidarity,” nonetheless reaffirmed the christian mission to convert jews. how, then, did it happen that the seelisberg meeting came up with this remarkably frank document that was the forerunner of other statements, like nostra aetate, that came so much later? the answer – and herein is the essence of the seelisberg document – lies in who they were and what they had just experienced during the holocaust. the unique feature of seelisberg is that it was the product of conversation between christians and jews – really a christian reply to the jewish challenge in the immediate aftermath of the holocaust. at the same time, the minutes and report of the meeting make clear that those who attended seelisberg understood their mission in a much larger context. the agenda of the 1947 seelisberg meeting 1 for translations of the three statements mentioned above, see matthew hockenos, a church divided: german protestants confront the nazi past ( bloomington and indianapolis: indiana university press, 2004): treysa conference “message to the congregations” (august, 1945), app. 3, 185186; stuttgart declaration of guilt (council of the evangelical church of germany, october, 1945), app. 4, 187; “message concerning the jewish question” (council of brethren of the evangelical church, darmstadt, april 8, 1945), app. 7, 195-197. was the defense of human rights, particularly in light of the resurgence of anti-semitic violence in many parts of europe at the time. the church declarations made at stuttgart, treysa, and elsewhere were the product of internal christian conversations that, however heartfelt and sincere they might have been, did not address directly the anguish and continued fears of the jewish community or acknowledge christian responsibility for that anguish. in addressing the past, the other church declarations sought to put it behind them, to close the door. in contrast, implicit in the words of the seelisberg statement is an openness – perhaps in reality the awareness that the door to the past could not be so easily closed. only in seelisberg did christians submit their thinking to jewish colleagues for critique. only in seelisberg was the starting point a jewish critique of christianity, the study paper written by the french historian and humanist jules isaac, “the rectification necessary in christian teachings: eighteen points.” thus, the seelisberg document was utterly different in tone and substance. sixty-five participants from nineteen different countries had gathered there for an “international emergency conference on anti-semitism.” the gathering in seelisberg included jews, protestants, catholics, orthodox christians, ordained clergy, laity, religious community leaders, educators, and social activists.2 few of them are well-known today, yet their own stories illustrate why the outcome of the seelisberg conference was so personally important to them. most of the jewish participants in seelisberg had experienced anti-semitism directly and painfully. jules isaac had just lost his wife, daughter, and a son-in-law in the holocaust. erich bickel and ernst-ludwig ehrlich had fled nazi germany for switzerland. rabbi dr. zwi chaim taubes of zurich had fled from the ukraine. 2 for a complete list of participants and conference commissions see the addendum to the rutishauser article on pages 50-53. barnett, “seelisberg: an appreciation” 56 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 11 (2007): 54-57 professor selig brodetsky belonged to a british jewish family who fled russian pogroms in the late nineteenth century. the family of rabbi jacob kaplan had fled to france after lithuanian pogroms in the nineteenth century. rabbi alexandre safran from romania had intervened with the antonescu government to save jews during the holocaust. in turn, many of the christians involved with seelisberg were people who were already engaged in reformulating christian teachings and fighting anti-semitism; in some cases they had been involved in trying to rescue the european jews. the french catholic thinker jacques maritain, who was unable to attend seelisberg but nonetheless sent word of his support, and gertrud luckner, a german catholic who had spent two years imprisoned in the ravensbruck concentration camp for helping jews, served as consultants to jules isaac as he prepared his study paper for discussion at seelisberg. adolf freudenberg was a german diplomat who fled nazi germany in 1938 because of his jewish wife and became the refugee officer for the ecumenical offices in geneva, meeting weekly with gerhart riegner of the world jewish congress and trying desperately to get international protestant support for jewish refugees. the french franciscan friar calliste lopinot ministered to jews imprisoned at the internment camp in ferramonte and had pleaded with church authorities in rome to intervene and speak out. reverend everett clinchy, president of the national conference of christians and jews in t h e u n i t e d s t a t e s , h a d w o r k e d c l o s e l y w i t h rabbi morris lazaron in creating networks of jewish-christian understanding throughout the 1930s and 1940s. father paul demann, dr. e. l. allen of king’s college, and british methodist rev. william wynn simpson had all written works about judaism in an attempt to foster a new appreciation and understanding of the judaic faith among christians. with a few exceptions, the names of those who attended seelisberg do not appear in histories of the churches during the nazi era, the holocaust, or even standard ecumenical histories. like interreligious statements, the individuals who formulate them all too often seem to end up on the outskirts of their respective religious bodies and, therefore, of history itself. yet their lives and work are worth remembering, particularly as lessons for how remarkable moments in i n t e r r e l i g i o u s u n d e r s t a n d i n g w e r e a c h i e v e d . t h i s i s c e r t a i n l y true regarding the seelisberg participants who, in an impossible and painful time, in mutual respect and humility, with a commitment toward strengthening the foundation for human rights, took a hard and honest look at the historical ramifications of christian teachings about jews. barnett, “seelisberg: an appreciation” 57 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ microsoft word 154203-text.native.1234993658.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): peck r1-3 spicer, ed., antisemitism, christian ambivalence peck r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 kevin p. spicer, c.s.c., ed. antisemitism, christian ambivalence and the holocaust (bloomington: indiana university press, 2007, in association with the united states holocaust memorial museum, washington, d.c.) hc, xxi + 329 pp. reviewed by abraham j. peck, university of southern maine antisemitism, christian ambivalence, and the holocaust, ably edited by kevin p. spicer, and introduced by spicer and john t. pawlikowski, seeks to present a contemporary balance sheet to the questions: what role did christian theology and practice play in the holocaust? did members of the european clergy find comfort in and support the growth of european fascist thought and politics because they mirrored the churchs’ fear and loathing of godless bolshevism and its jewish cohorts? what did those interested in the answers find out about their religious traditions, and what did they do to create a mood of christian teshuva or repentance? and, finally, did and do jews and judaism find examples of christian metanoia worthy of engagement in a new atmosphere of dialogue and cooperation? the twelve essays in the book were originally part of a workshop on the holocaust and antisemitism in christian europe hosted by the center for advanced holocaust studies of the united states holocaust memorial museum in 2004. the book is divided into four sections. “theological anti-semitism,” the first section, seeks to show that theological anti-judaism and its later variant, racial anti-semitism, were comfortable bedfellows, so much so that one can hardly differentiate between the two in terms of where one stopped and the other began. essays in this section are authored by thorsten wagner, “belated heroism: the danish lutheran church and the jews”; anna lysiak, “rabbinic judaism in the writings of polish catholic theologians”; robert a. krieg , “german catholic views on jesus and judaism 19181945”; and donald j. dietrich, “catholic theology and the challenge of nazism.” section two, titled “christian clergy and the extreme right wing,” seeks to understand why certain members of the clergy in roman catholic, evangelical lutheran, and the romanian orthodox churches embraced anti-semitism in their pastoral activities. the authors of this section are kevin p. spicer, “working for the fuehrer: father dr. philip haeuser and the third reich”; beth a. griech-polelle, “the impact of the spanish civil war upon roman catholic clergy in nazi germany”; and paul a. shapiro, “faith, murder, resurrection: the iron guard and the romanian orthodox church.” section three, titled “postwar jewish-christian encounters,” examines and evaluates the corruptive influence of national socialism and the holocaust on the christian churches and the efforts of both catholics and protestants to confront the tradition of the negative teachings about jews and judaism in the years after 1945. here one finds essays by matthew d. hockenos, “the german protestant church and its judenmission”; and elias h. fuellenbach on “shock, renewal, crisis: catholic reflections on the shoah.” finally, section four is titled “viewing each other.” the authors in this part examine jewish reactions to the possibility of a new direction in jewish-christian relations and dialogue. gerson greenberg writes on “wartime jewish orthodoxy’s encounter with holocaust christianity”; review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): peck r1-3 spicer, ed., antisemitism, christian ambivalence peck r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 suzanne brown-fleming discusses “confronting antisemitism: rabbi philip sidney bernstein and the roman catholic hierarchy”; and richard steigman-gall evaluates “old wine in new bottles?: religion and race in nazi antisemitism.” like so many essay collections, the quality of the works presented varies according to a number of criteria: some of the essays allow the reader an abbreviated sense of a book just written, others are essays on the way to potential fuller length monographs. but what is clear is that most of the authors have moved away from the idea put forth by the renowned ethicist and holocaust scholar john roth, who some years ago stated that christianity was not responsible for the holocaust, but the holocaust could not have taken place without it. indeed, such an understanding of christianity’s role in the murder of two-thirds of european jewry was strengthened by the september 2000 jewish document on christianity (dabru emet– speak the truth), in which dozens of rabbis and scholars of judaism supported the statement that “nazism was not a christian phenomenon.” what was it then? the majority of contributors to the volume under review would not agree with this statement and would challenge it along various lines of inquiry. writing at the end of the second world war, a non-jewish new york cultural critic and editor of the partisan review, dwight macdonald, puzzled over the events that had taken place in europe from 1933-1945. “something has happened in europe,” he wrote. “what is it? who or what is responsible? what does it mean about our civilization, our whole system of values.?” 1 across the atlantic, in the continent most affected by his questions, christian clergy and christian intellectuals asked themselves a similar set of questions. no doubt they feared an answer that might bring their entire history and theology into question. was christianity responsible for fostering an atmosphere that led to the murder of millions? did the christian churches do enough, or indeed do anything, to warrant a place in the history of resistance to the national socialist effort to bring about a “final solution” to europe’s long standing “jewish question”? in early post-world war ii meetings in places as diverse as seeligsberg, switzerland, and oxford, england, these concerned christians, aided by invited rabbinical guests, sought answers to macdonald’s penetrating and potentially devastating questions. more than six decades later, while christianity has continued to seek answers and has reshaped itself vis-àvis its relationship to judaism at many levels, spicer warns us that despite advances, “antisemitism is still quite present in christianity; in its scripture, in its worship, and in its everyday rhetoric (p.xi).” a number of the essays in this volume point to the depth of christianity’s anti-jewish teachings, an ideology that conditioned christian attitudes toward jews and judaism for well over a thousand years. those teachings and their associated actions – from the introduction of distinctive jewish clothing and the creation of ghettos to the dehumanization of jews themselves and their portrayal as servants of the devil or as devils – were simply retooled by the national socialists, who added a well-conceived organization, technological advances, and the fanatical will to see the destruction through to its horrific conclusion. it is therefore no surprise that thorsten wagner’s outstanding essay on the position of the dutch lutheran church concludes that danish lutheranism exhibited a considerable contempt for 1 quoted in george m. kren and leon rappoport, the holocaust and the crisis of human behavior (new york, 1980) 1. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): peck r1-3 spicer, ed., antisemitism, christian ambivalence peck r 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 judaism as a religion, in both its ancient or modern forms. it was thus not a pro-jewish theological attitude that pushed the danes to resist rather than collaborate with the nazis, but a question of national opposition that immediately included the rescue of their jewish community. it is a surprise to learn, however, in the essay by anna lysiak, that despite negative catholic theological perceptions of jews in pre-war poland and the growing urge to pursue their conversion, dioceses in warsaw and other parts of poland joined a new movement founded in rome in 1926, the amici israel (friends of israel), an organization that at its zenith consisted of 3000 priests and 328 bishops, archbishops, and cardinals. the amici israel sought reconciliation between jews and christians, in particular catholics. its newspaper, pax super israel, sought to end the charges of deicide against the jewish people; the removal of negative terms about jews in christian liturgy, especially in the good friday service; and any further use of anti-semitic language in general. despite great excitement in rome, the vatican’s congregation of the holy office ended the organization’s activities in march 1928, because it presented a perceived danger to the spirit, teaching, and liturgy of roman catholicism. the final essay in the book, richard steigmann-gall’s essay on “religion and race in nazi antisemitism” carries forward the arguments presented in his controversial volume, the holy reich: nazi conceptions of christianity, published in 2003. in that book, steigmann-gall argued that to label nazism as anti-christian and pro-pagan was to miss the point that many convinced nazis saw no incompatibility between national socialism and christianity as long as the marcionite exclusion of the hebrew testament, along with the depiction of jesus as an aryan and as the greatest anti-semite, highlighted the new teachings of the christian churches. antisemitism, christian ambivalence, and the holocaust is an important contribution to the continued reshaping of jewish-christian relations. it asks new questions and provides new answers, not to arrive at an outright condemnation of christian teaching and history as a direct linear predecessor of national socialism – the issue is far too complex for such a direct accusation – but to allow christians and jews to understand with greater depth and clarity the troubled relationship between the younger and older brothers in the abrahamic religious tradition and to point them in a new direction that avoids a repetition of the past. interpretations of the name israel in ancient judaism and some early christian writings: from victorious athlete to heavenly champion studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r12-13 review c. t. r. hayward i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e n a m e i s r a e l i n a n c i e n t j u d a i s m a n d s o m e e a r l y c h r i s t i a n w r i t i n g s : f r o m v i c t o r i o u s a t h l e t e t o h e a v e n l y c h a m p i o n (oxford and new york: oxford university press, 2005), xiii + 397 pp. reviewed by joseph b. tyson, southern methodist university c. t. r. hayward, professor of hebrew at the university of durham (england), has produced a book that calls attention to the richly varied interpretations of the stories of jacob in genesis. the author stresses the contrasts between ancient and modern biblical interpretations by noting that, while exponents of historical-critical methods usually try to find a single meaning in a text and attempt to distinguish between an “original folk-tale” that may lie behind the text and the secondary additions to it, ancient interpreters revel “in endeavors to derive as many meanings as possible from a text.” (p. 28) the chapters that follow illustrate this point in respect to the ancients by exploring interpretations by early jews and early christians of the jacob texts in genesis. the major issues faced by the various interpreters include, among others, the meaning of the change of jacob’s name to israel, the meaning of the term israel, the significance of jacob’s wrestling, the identity of his opponent, and the meaning of the commandment to refrain from eating the sinew of an animal’s thigh. after a discussion of the relevant material in gn 32:23-33; 35:9-15, the author explores variations of the stories in hos 12:3-6 and the dead sea scroll text known as 4q158. hayward then turns to the septuagint (lxx) translation, which he regards as the earliest interpretation of the hebrew texts, and here he deftly compares the lxx with the masoretic text of genesis. these greek translators understood jacob’s wrestling with the angel as pre-figuring moses’ experience at the burning bush. the author writes, “indeed, the translators seem to go out of their way to show how the future covenant at sinai is, in some mysterious manner, in part prefigured in the agreement between jacob and laban on a mountain with no one else present, but where god is experienced in vision and in his seeing what shall take place.” (p. 49) in the following chapters the author deals with jesus ben sira, the book of jubilees, philo, the prayer of joseph, josephus, and selected rabbinic texts. in the final chapters he turns to the new testament and some texts from christian writers up to the fifth century. this reviewer was most impressed with the rich diversity to be found among these writings. the book of jubilees, for example, is a re-writing of the biblical story, which reduces the two genesis accounts to one, omits the wrestling match, and constructs a non-biblical setting for the change of jacob’s name. philo understands the term “israel” to mean “the one who sees god,” and he claims that the one who wrestled with jacob was the divine logos. in mishnah and tosefta, there is concern with the matter of jacob’s injured thigh and the observance of the ensuing prohibition noted in gn 32:32. the gospel of john, hayward claims, presents jesus as a jacob-figure, and clement of alexandria draws on philo to show that the wrestler with jacob was the logos, not at that time given a name but later known as jesus. hayward, interpretations of the name israel r12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r12-13 hayward has clearly succeeded in showing how a relatively brief biblical text may be exploited in multifarious ways. one might, however, like to see a bit more exploration of the historical and social context of the selected texts. in his concluding chapter, the author suggests the importance of context: “the bible insists that none may remotely be compared to the holy one (is 40:18, 25; 46:5); yet this holy one is the holy one of israel (is10:20), the people who are near to him. the exegetes set themselves the task of further explicating this, each in ways appropriate to contemporary needs and concerns.” (p. 352, italics mine) from time to time hayward offers some aspect of an author’s context as a partial explanation of a particular interpretation. he claims, for example, that a section of genesis rabbah may be dated to the time of the hadrianic persecution, although the text as a whole was not finally redacted until the fifth or sixth century c.e. thus he suggests that the text presents “jacob’s struggle with the angel as a violent physical contest in which jacob, although sustaining an injury, was ultimately victorious over the heavenly representative of esau, who stands for the power of the roman empire” (p. 259). this comment is helpful, but it would have been good to see more attention paid to the contemporary needs and concerns that affected the writing of various texts. the author includes no explicit suggestions that might make the material he surveys useful in christian-jewish relations. indeed, his main concern is with jewish interpretations, although the chapters on early christian texts might have led him to raise some comparative questions. a discussion of the christian belief in jesus as “son of god” in the light of the fact that jacob/israel is given this title in a number of jewish texts would have been helpful. readers without knowledge of hebrew and, to a lesser extent, greek will find the book very difficult. the author’s discussions frequently center on the meaning of important hebrew words and phrases, and he includes english translations of only some of them. at crucial points he thus leaves behind those readers who are not proficient in the ancient languages. persons who are interested in early jewish history will find this book very helpful; those interested in christian-jewish relations may find it merely suggestive. its major benefits will be appreciated by scholars who are acquainted with the cited texts and proficient in the appropriate languages. hayward, interpretations of the name israel r13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ dabro leshalom : a jewish contemplation of peacemaking studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2(2007): cp18-24 rettig, dabro leshalom cp18 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ dabro leshalom 1: a jewish contemplation of peacemaking rabbi edward rettig2 american jewish committee, israel/middle east office, jerusalem delivered at from the inside: a look at the issues facing israel today, march 6, 2007 sponsored by american jewish committee, greater boston chapter true peace cannot come except by studying and understanding diverging views, knowing that they have their place, each according to its concerns. in the union of opposites do we behold the blessing of peace. – rabbi avraham yitzhak hacohen kuk, olat re’aya 1:330-331 it has been hard of late to be a supporter of dialogue in this fractured holy land. the recent trend toward unilateralism in the israeli-palestinian conflict is in large part an expression of disillusionment with dialogue. the "disengagement" or "convergence" plans and the electoral (and military) victories of the rejectionists such as hamas are part of this despair. many wellmeaning groups on both sides of the conflict are now tempted as never before to abandon the path of peace through dialogue. however, for truly religious jews, as for christians and muslims, despair is not an option. among jews, shalom – peace or tranquility – is at the heart of our religious identity. in the midrash, a set of collections of rabbinic maxims redacted in the first several centuries of the common era, rabbi yudan son of rabbi yossi interprets the phrase, “and he called god, peace!” (jgs 6:24). rabbi yudan says: “great is peace, since the name of the holy one, blessed be he, is called peace.” in the world of the sages, shalom is interwoven with godliness. when we bring peace, they teach us, we are partners with god's own indwelling presence. in the same lengthy discussion of the value of peace, the midrashic teacher hezekiah further stipulates: “seek it in your own place, and pursue it even to another place" (leviticus rabbah 9). in another early rabbinical text, the "ethics of the fathers" hillel instructs us to be active in peacemaking, to be “of the disciples of aaron," not only "loving peace" but "pursuing" it.3 we are forbidden from passively awaiting its coming, but must pursue it as vigorously as we claim to love it. the jewish tradition forbids us to be content until peace, complete and universal, has been achieved. 1 dabro leshalom: see gn 37: 4 “and when his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him.” , ְולֹא ָיְכלּו; אֹתֹו, ַוִּיְׂשְנאּו--ֶאָחיו-אֹתֹו ָאַהב ֲאִביֶהם ִמָּכל-ִּכי, וִַּיְראּו ֶאָחיו .ַּדְּברֹו ְלָׁשלֹם 2 rabbi edward rettig serves at the american jewish committee israel/middle east office in jerusalem and as a board member of the israeli human rights ngo "shomrei mishpat" rabbis for human rights. my thanks to rabbi david rosen, dr. eran lerman, dr. patricia tull, rev. brian j.grieves, rev. dr. hans ucko, and my son haviv rettig, who read earlier versions of this article and shared their comments with me. of course, the responsibility for the content lies with me alone. 3 pirkei avot 1:12. conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2(2007): cp18-24 rettig, dabro leshalom cp19 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ the sages also provide us with a conceptual key with which we can fulfill the duty of peacemaking, a paradigm that is at once ancient and profoundly relevant. according to the jerusalem talmud, "by three things the world is preserved: by justice, by truth, and by peace. and these three are one. if justice has been accomplished, so has truth, and so has peace." (j. ta'anit 4:2) justice is the gauge by which peace and truth are measured in a commutative relationship where none is possible without the others. justice can be understood in very different ways, and applying it as a gauge in a complicated conflict is no simple matter. still, the perception of justice in a conflict can be divided into two basic models. the first is the zero-sum perspective. in the "zero-sum game,” one party can gain only at the commensurate expense of the other party. if one party is at plus one, the other must be at minus one, for the total must always be zero. the zero sum perspective interprets justice as in a court of criminal law, the assumption being that there is a wrong-doer and there is a victim and thus essentially justice is on only one side. consider the infamous photograph of a nazi ss officer shooting a jewish woman who is trying desperately to shield her child with her own body.4 observing the situation, and considering the ideological context of the act, we perceive no justice on the side of the nazi, while the catastrophe facing the woman and her child is universally recognized. it is important to realize that there are no grounds for compromise between the sides in a zero-sum conflict. it is inherently insoluble except through total victory or defeat. the second model of justice in a conflict is one in which justice is not perceived by the conflicted parties as aligned in a zero-sum dichotomy, but justice (and perhaps injustice) exist to a significant extent on both sides. this understanding of conflict is best described as "tragic" in the familiar meaning of the term: "calamity" or "misfortune."5 such conflicts are morally complex and therefore difficult to analyze and resolve. these two perceptions of conflict lead to radically different assessments of what constitutes moral conflict resolution. if one side is evil and the other side blameless, compromise is inherently wrong, since ultimately, compromise with evil is evil. one could argue that this oversimplifies matters. yet, consider a ceasefire between enemies who see each other as evil. more often than not, experience teaches us that it is used to gain strength in order to reignite the conflict under more favorable circumstances. occasionally we encounter the argument that even zero-sum conflicts can have moments in which a short-term compromise might make limited moral sense, such as a ceasefire to treat the battlefield wounded. but what happens in the hearts of leaders and the populations they serve when they advocate an end to violence while at the same time framing the conflict in zero-sum terms? those who truly advocate conciliation with evil carry a psychological burden: if leaders truly believe that the other side is without justice, they are vulnerable to the claim, perhaps in their own hearts, that they surrendered their morality. leaders who advocate compromise with perceived evil are 4 it is titled nazi shoots jewish woman and child, and can be viewed at www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/rm2.n.shoot.women.jpg. 5 see http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tragedy. retrieved october 12, 2007. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2(2007): cp18-24 rettig, dabro leshalom cp20 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ (often justly) accused of lacking scruples and honor, and of folly. generations later, the name chamberlain still evokes the immorality of the pre-wwii compromise with nazism and its consequences. the opposite occurs when protagonists see their struggle as a tragic conflict between two just aspirations. recognizing the justice on the other side and compromising with it serves to enhance the moral stature of the leader who engages in peacemaking. compromising due to an acceptance of an opponent's just grievances is the basis for a stable agreement, an agreement that, according to both sides, should have been there in the first place. for this reason, only a tragic conflict is amenable to compromise. peacemaking through compromise cannot be conducted unless its first step is to move the sides from the zero-sum to the tragic understanding of the conflict. recognizing the importance of the perception of justice on the other side as a foundation for peace can serve to refocus our efforts from ameliorating the symptoms (i.e., humiliating examinations at checkpoints, indiscriminate qassam missile attacks) to healing the underlying disease. the metaphoric language of "underlying disease" is drawn from psychology. a metaphor drawn from family systems theory (fst) may be particularly helpful. fst sees families as systems and instructs us to recognize that families can possess pathologies and exhibit symptoms that are shared across the system in sometimes confusing ways. one member of the family may exhibit the symptoms of pathology, while the illness itself may reside in another member. for example, a teacher confronted by a violent student may respond to his symptoms by assigning him a “big brother” or sending him to the principal’s office. yet, if the teacher discovers that one of his parents is an alcoholic, family systems theory would suggest that the child's symptoms may be an expression of the parent's illness. turning the active alcoholic into a recovering one often removes the child’s pathological behaviors. family systems theory cautions not to mistake the symptom for the underlying affliction. 6 what happens when we apply this theory to the israeli-palestinian conflict? the israelipalestinian conflict has much in common with the alcoholic family. recent peace initiatives have focused on the symptoms of the conflict – suicide bombings, the practices of the occupation forces – but not on their underlying causes. outsiders attempt to discipline either the palestinians or the israelis based on their judgments of the morality of these behaviors. such attempts at intervention by well-meaning outside groups can render them useless as active peacemakers, because they are often perceived as aligning themselves with the worst abuses of the other side. yet, just as disciplining a wayward student while ignoring an alcoholic parent can be unintentionally cruel, misguided one-sided efforts can be immoral in a conflict so complex and bloody. in the wake of the violence of the past seven years, we must ask ourselves whether the focus on the evil of a particular side (for example, the pointless question of the relative despicability of occupation vs. terror) moves us toward peace. it is time courageously to examine a different paradigm based on an understanding of how the dynamics of justice impact on this particular conflict. 6 see murray bowen, family therapy in clinical practice (northvale, nj: jason aronson, inc., 1986). for an application of family systems theory to religious communal life see: edwin friedman, generation to generation (new york: guilford press, 1985). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2(2007): cp18-24 rettig, dabro leshalom cp21 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ above all, this requires us to recognize that the need to move the parties from a zero-sum to a tragic perception means addressing the underlying pathology rather than focusing on its more violent symptoms. the path out of this conflict requires both sides to recognize the fundamental justice on the other side. both societies, traumatized by three generations of suffering and war, need help if they are to reach out to their neighbors in this way. developing an approach to peacemaking that addresses the deficit of mutual recognition of the competing just causes would constitute a genuine contribution to peace. if we take the family systems metaphor one step further, we may find guidance as to where the teacher should intervene first or the peacemaker should take a stand. speaking as an israeli; as a human rights advocate and activist but a veteran of combat in two wars; as a father who, with my wife, raised our youngest son in jerusalem through the six years of suicide bombings, who sent our three sons in turn to serve in the army where they too have experienced the horrors of combat, whose youngest son even now sits in an israeli army mountaintop position on the lebanese border; i cannot pretend to scholarly objectivity. i can only humbly offer these observations in the hope that they can be appreciated at their value. from where i sit, jewish expressions of the zero-sum perspective are sadly plentiful. a political party advocating the transfer of israeli arab towns to the palestinian state (effectively expelling the occupants from their country without driving them from their land) garnered eleven seats in israel's parliament. exasperation with the rain of missiles on the town of sderot led its mayor to call for the "leveling" of the neighboring palestinian town of beit hanoun, inside the gaza strip, from which around one thousand rockets were launched. security arrangements in the west bank, while effectively limiting terror assaults and thereby saving lives (on both sides), have made life unbearable for palestinian civilians and contributed to the appalling decline in living standards since the outbreak of the violence in 2000. however, alongside the existence of a group of citizens who exhibit zero-sum pathology, israeli society has over the last three decades made undeniable strides toward recognizing the justice on the palestinian side. a pioneering generation of academics, people like benny morris whose book the birth of the palestinian refugee problem, 1947-1929,7 is widely credited with opening a new era of israeli historical self-examination, have changed israeli public discourse beyond recognition. while some important scholars raise serious reservations about some of the work done by this generation of pioneering historians and sociologists8 (and i have my own questions), there is no doubt that one result is that more israelis than ever (according to polls, a majority) have come to appreciate and even empathize with the palestinian understanding of the conflict. they do this without agreeing with some of the central claims made by the palestinian narrative, and yet they have come to support a two-state solution. it is this, more than anything else that made possible a situation where even the right wing government of ariel sharon incorporated the creation of a palestinian state into the governing principles of his coalition agreement and disengaged from the gaza strip taking down settlements along the way. many palestinians and their supporters agree that the palestinian failure to cope with the zionist project is a failure of political diagnosis, of bad decisions made by a problematic leadership. yet, it is also a profound failure of empathy. recognizing israel as a regrettable reality, as the moderates among the palestinians are wont to do, in the way a sick person might recognize his 7 benny morris, the birth of the palestinian refugee problem, 1947-1929 (cambridge university press, 1988). 8 for a harsh critique of the "new historians" see ephraim karsh, fabricating israeli history: the "new historians" (london, frank cass, 1997). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2(2007): cp18-24 rettig, dabro leshalom cp22 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ or her diabetes and therefore agree to insulin treatments, is not a foundation for peace. rather, it is the quintessential expression of the zero-sum paradigm, and can only offer short-term respite before the outbreak of renewed fighting. indeed, based on our earlier analysis of the zero-sum conflict, recognizing the “reality” of the israeli state without recognizing the justice of jewish self-determination must lead to the tragic results that we experienced with the oslo process. recognizing israel as an unjust but temporarily unassailable reality is the logic behind the hamas offer of a ten-year tactical ceasefire and their campaign of vilification against pa president mahmud abbas, in the year or so prior to their coup against his regime and the effective secession of a hamas led gaza district from the pa. another frightening symptom of this paradigm is the spate of what might be called "temple denial" in palestinian statements, in which influential palestinians have publicly doubted the existence of the first and second temples on the temple mount (haram esharif).9 this zero sum approach then, can be the basis for occasional ceasefires of convenience, with even this small gain coming at the expense of the perceived honor and credibility of any palestinian leader who would agree to it. the palestinian leadership could have made the leap from the perspective of the zero-sum game to that of the tragic conflict, helping their people to understand the truth about their jewish enemy/neighbor. instead, the commonly accepted palestinian analysis of zionism often displays a startling ignorance of jewish civilization. a central point seems to have escaped their attention: that the question of palestine is also, in the deepest sense, the question of the land of israel. it fails to undertake a substantive examination of the concept “land of israel” from the perspective of the jewish people themselves. one reason is that palestinians and many other detractors of the jewish national narrative, arrogate to themselves the right to cherry-pick their sources on judaism, and thereby to determine for the jews the permissible boundaries of their national identity, an intellectual exercise often aimed at stripping them of a right to a state. the ultimate tragedy is that a deeper understanding of the importance of the idea of the land of israel in jewish religious and historical experience might help the palestinian leadership and its supporters to get beyond the fruitless and essentially zero-sum view of zionism as a kind of european colonial project. we know this is a failed analysis not only because it is not substantively accurate, but also, because attempts to use anti-colonial strategies to dislodge the jews from the land of israel/palestine have failed. time and again, for over a century, the palestinians have based their strategic initiatives on the assumption that the jews living in the land of israel would behave like the europeans who were engaged in far-flung colonial endeavors. yet, the jews have behaved like something else entirely: despite the fact that they are a population made up overwhelmingly of refugees and their descendants, they act like an indigenous people defending their historic homeland and the birthplace of their identity. this is because the land of israel plays a role in jewish culture, history, identity, in short in jewish civilization, that is probably unique and therefore hard for others to understand. 9 see walter reich, “king herod's return,” la times, may 30, 2007. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-reich30may30,0,728037,print.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail : "but at the camp david summit in 2000, yasser arafat insisted that a jewish temple had existed not on the temple mount but in nablus. and an arafat aide, saeb erekat, said, to president clinton's amazement, "i don't believe there was a temple on top of the haram, i really don't." mahmoud abbas, the current palestinian authority president, later agreed with erekat, as did the mufti of jerusalem. arafat later went further and denied the temple existed anywhere in israel, the west bank or gaza, including nablus." studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2(2007): cp18-24 rettig, dabro leshalom cp23 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ one of the major difficulties that i find in conversation with palestinians and their supporters is that they have no exposure to the concept of the land of israel as a critical component of understanding jewish civilization. it is one of those profound notions that are tools for framing identity. from the earliest records that we have of jewish intellectual life jews have understood themselves in terms of their relationship with the land of israel. any historical survey of jewish religious sources from the bible through the talmud and the medieval commentators, and on to the modern theological writings of thinkers from all the denominations of judaism, will show how formative and central this idea is to jewish identity and civilization. there is the bible itself, in which god opens his relationship with abraham, by instructing him to “get thee out” of a different land, to go to “the land that i will show thee.” in that land, “i will make of thee a great nation, and i will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing” (gn 12:1-2). in other words, god calls upon abraham to redefine his concept of his very self using the land of israel as the new frame. from the very earliest manifestations of what would become a recognizably “jewish” identity, that identity is framed in important ways by the concept of the land of israel. this is true of the spanish scholar and poet rabbi yehudah halevi, who famously declared in the twelfth century that, though he, living in arab spain, was in the farthest reaches of the west, his heart lay in the east. halevi’s last act as an old man was to set off for the land of israel, leaving everything behind. according to legend, he perished on the way, although modern scholarship suggests that he actually arrived in the land and died shortly thereafter. responding to the challenges of modernity in the nineteenth century, the reform movement in modern judaism (the movement to which i belong and in which i am ordained), sought to reframe jewish identity by discarding the connection with the land of israel. yet, by 1937, reform judaism reaffirmed its centrality to jewish religious thought, compelled by the realization that a jewish identity built without the framing mechanism of the land of israel simply could not engage jewishly with other jews 10. it is important to note that this is not a "zionist" idea (i.e. political) in any particular way. indeed, perhaps the other way around. political zionism would never have had traction in the jewish world if it did not express a foundational cultural and identity-framing reality of jewish civilization. once we take the time to learn about the profound place the land of israel holds in jewish culture, an analysis that sees a jewish return as a kind of european colonialism becomes not merely counter-productive, but absurd. the historical experience of many downtrodden peoples has taught us that in a colonialist context, anti-colonialist violence works. the palestinian leadership early on, developed a strategy based upon this analysis of zionism. consequently, it has used every violent trick in the anti-colonialist handbook and has promised its people that jewish sovereignty would collapse. palestinian leaders expected a colonialist response to a struggle they had framed in anticolonial terms. however, unlike the colonial regimes, the jews in israel perceived the attacks as targeting their rights not only to the only national homeland in their cultural memory, but also to one of the most fundamental anchors of their identity. 10 for an expression of the 19th century approach see: the pittsburgh platform (1885) http://ccarnet.org/articles/index.cfm?id=39&pge_id=1606 ; for the 1937 revisiting of the issue see: the columbus platform – 1937 http://ccarnet.org/articles/index.cfm?id=40&pge_id=1606 . studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2(2007): cp18-24 rettig, dabro leshalom cp24 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ with the family systems metaphor in mind, it is important to decide where peacemakers can effectively intervene. outsiders, too, will need to break free from their own framing of the conflict in zero-sum terms, as is the case with the pro-palestinian divestiture and boycott initiatives in europe and in several american protestant denominations, as well as the christian zionist interventions on behalf of the settlers on the west bank. so long as the intervener attacks the symptoms and neglects the underlying pathology, deals with the errant student's behaviors and not with the parent's alcoholism, the intervention can do no good. the would-be healer becomes a part of the problem. it is only when the peace-makers find a way to help the parties wrestle with the flawed paradigm of justice that frames the conflict, that their work becomes a healing blessing. to outsiders who wish to help us toward that promised land of peace, i say: help us to replace our discussion of the evil on the other side with a radically different discussion of the fundamental justice on each side. we must say to the palestinians that, far from being challenged by a colonial regime, they face another indigenous identity whose claims to the land are equally just and whose presence there is of a right and not just of might. the jewish side to this conflict has a history and a moral foundation that so many palestinians and their foreign supporters have trouble acknowledging. communicating this message will also help to alleviate the scourge of terror that so weighs down the palestinian cause. the use of "anti-colonial" violence when proven ineffectual has a tendency to escalate in horror. this is because the logic of the zero-sum game does not permit a serious reexamination of fundamental strategic blunders. palestinian recognition of the justice underlying the indigenous jewish claim to the land of israel, coupled with jewish recognition of the justice of the equally indigenous palestinian claim to palestine, is the only way out of the present dead-end. humility and patience will be crucial in helping to achieve this goal. to the extent that the conflict will continue to be framed in israeli discourse and even more so in palestinian discourse as a zero-sum conflict – an anti-terror or an anti-colonial struggle – compromise will seem appalling and will be inherently unstable. at the same time, peacemakers who intervene with the message of the tragic paradigm may at first be neither thanked nor trusted by either side. even so, those who wish to be peacemakers in this wounded land must frame the clash as a conflict between two just causes. only in this way can they offer the parties what may be the last hope for the kind of compromise that brings about a higher justice, a peace that will be stable because it is not merely political on the ground, but also spiritual, in the hearts of the men and women of the holy land. 1 scjr 16, no. 1 (2021): 1-19 repenting for antisemitism: “to elevate evil into a state of goodness”1 katharina von kellenbach kvonkellenbach@smcm.edu st. mary’s college of maryland st mary’s city, md 20686 this paper examines repentance as a practice of transformation that aims to improve relations between the jewish and christian communities but also changes christian theology itself. in his lectures, on repentance, orthodox rabbi and philosopher joseph soloveitchik maintains that “it is the memory of sin that releases the power…to do greater things than ever before. the energy of sin can be used to bring one to new heights.”2 my subtitle invokes soloveitchik’s claim that a certain “quality of repentance…elevates evil to a state of goodness.”3 following maimonides in his mishneh torah (1170-1180), soloveitchik unpacks the interlocking precepts of teshuvah, the hebrew term for repentance that literally translates as turning back or returning to god. the basic precepts of repentance are not unlike the three-step process of the roman catholic sacrament of penance. what attracts me, a lutheran theologian, to the roman catholic sacrament of penance and the jewish ritual observance of teshuvah is precisely their clearly outlined set of obligations that provide texture and structure to the process. repentance, in soloveitchik’s startling declaration, has the power to transform historical wrongdoing into a state of productive and constructive “goodness.” this is an audacious hope, even in religious communities, where the teachings and practices of repentance appear to lie increasingly fallow; it seems outlandish. the language of repentance has largely been replaced by that of reconciliation. the terminology of reconciliation is popular in the fields of transitional justice, cultural memory, politics, and theology, while penance sounds quaint and antiquated, too “religious” for serious consideration in the areas of politics, law, and psychology. a quick search confirms that there are over ten times more titles on “reconciliation” than on “repentance” in the library of congress and the libraries of boston college 1 pinchas peli, ed. on repentance: the thought and oral discourses of rabbi joseph dov soloveitchik (new york: paulist press, 1984), 255. 2 ibid, on repentance, 254-255. 3 ibid, on repentance, 255. von kellenbach: repenting for antisemitism 2 and the u.s. holocaust memorial museum. with some intrepid exceptions, penance, and repentance are of interest mostly to medieval historians.4 in his introduction to civic repentance, amitai etzioni notes the peculiar absence of this concept from public discourse.5 while the concepts of reconciliation, forgiveness, and memory also have religious roots, they are more readily appropriated than guilt and repentance across the academic and political spectrum because these latter terms are more prominently associated with religion. and even within religious discourse, they seem to have lost cachet. the roman catholic church, for instance, decided to rebrand the sacrament of penance in its post-council liturgical revisions. when the revised rite was published in december 1973, its name was officially changed.6 the sacrament of penance was henceforth and “throughout the document…called ‘reconciliation’.” 7 subsequently, this new name appeared alongside the old in most vatican publications, such as the international theological commission’s 1983 “penance and reconciliation”8 and pope john paul ii’s 1984 “reconciliation and penance.”9 the new language about reconciliation was supposed to address the rapid decline in confessional observance and the perceived “contemporary crisis of penance.”10 however, the shift from penance to reconciliation is more than a matter of names: reconciliation focuses on the goal rather than the process. it strives for the restoration of relations between offender, god, and/or the victim. penance, on the other hand, is about practice. it is an exercise that cultivates change, encourages service, and exacts compensation from perpetrators. reconciliation is warm and happy, while repentance signals strain, effort, suffering, and discipline. reconciliation, and even more so, forgiveness, is imagined as a dramatic moment, while penance requires time and patience; reconciliation is received passively as a grace, while penance is an active pursuit. reconciliation is a relational concept. in reconciliation, victims are asked to relinquish some of their rights and resentments, while penance imposes obligations, precepts, commandments, and conditions on perpetrators. reconciliation puts the onus on victims, while repentance demands change 4 exceptions include: linda radzik, making amends: atonement in morality, law, and politics (new york: oxford university press, 2009); antony duff, “penance, punishment and the limits of community,” punishment and society 5, no. 3 (2003): 295–312; stephen garvey, punishment as atonement,” cornell law faculty publications 264 (1999): 1801–1858; amitai etzioni, ed., repentance: a comparative perspective (lanham, md: rowman & littlefield, 1997); amitai etzioni, ed., civic repentance (lanham, md: rowman & littlefield, 1999). 5 amitai etzioni, “civic repentance,” in civic repentance, vii-xii. 6 rite of penance, 1974, international commission on english in the liturgy inc., http://liturgyoffice.org/resources/penance/penance-intro.pdf [january 29, 2021]. 7 kenan b. osborne, o.f.m., reconciliation and justification: the sacrament and its theology (new york: paulist press, 1990), 205. 8 international theological commission, penance and reconciliation, 1982. (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1982_riconciliazione-penitenza_en.html) [january 11, 2021]. 9 john paul ii apostolic exhortation, reconciliation and penance (1984) http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-etpaenitentia.html) [january 11, 2021]. 10 international theological commission, penance and reconciliation, ii. 2, ii.4, iii.1. http://liturgyoffice.org/resources/penance/penance-intro.pdf http://liturgyoffice.org/resources/penance/penance-intro.pdf http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1982_riconciliazione-penitenza_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1982_riconciliazione-penitenza_en.html http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia.html http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia.html http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia.html 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) from perpetrators. for all of these reasons, it is worth “returning” to repentance and teshuvah in the aftermath of atrocity and systemic evil in order to map the lengthy and circuitous process of transformation. jean amery wrote his essay on “resentments” amid the auschwitz trial in frankfurt am main in 1965. this became the fourth chapter in his seminal book at the mind’s limits: contemplations of a survivor on auschwitz and its realities. here, he eloquently and passionately defended the right of victims to deny reconciliation and to hold on to “hard feelings” and “grudges:”11 in two decades of contemplating what happened to me, i believe i have recognized that forgiving and forgetting induced by social pressure is immoral. whoever lazily and cheaply forgives, subjugates himself to the social and biological time-sense, which is also called the “natural” one. natural consciousness of time actually is rooted in the physiological process of woundhealing and became part of the social conception of reality. but precisely for this reason it is not only extramoral, but also antimoral in character. man has the right and the privilege to declare himself in disagreement with every natural occurrence, including the biological healing that time brings about.12 amery defended his resentments in principle, because he demanded nothing less than the “annulment of time” and the “negation of the negation” before any forgiveness was to be extended to the german nation.13 his resentments—including of german youth—intended to arouse “self-mistrust” and the desire to “reject everything, but absolutely everything, that [nazi germany] accomplished in the days of its deepest degradation, and what here and there may appear as harmless as the autobahns.”14 nothing short of “the spiritual reduction to pulp” in an “actual practice” of repentance was required to alleviate his trauma and resentment. by 1965, this process had barely begun in west germany. and amery saw very little hope that such “an extravagant moral daydream” would ever come to pass: “nothing of the sort will happen, i know, despite all the worthy efforts of german intellectuals.”15 as a secular thinker, he famously disavowed atonement as something that “has only theological meaning and therefore is not relevant for me.”16 amery underestimates the possibilities of atonement, which in my view, should not be relegated to the heavens. repentance, taken seriously, implements an “externalized and actualized” performance of steps that take place in “the field of history.”17 as the “culture of contrition” and the broad program of vergangenheitsaufarbeitung [working off the past] gained momentum in germany, some of 11 jean amery, at the mind’s limits: contemplations by a survivor on auschwitz and its realities, sidney rosenfeld and stella p. rosenfeld, trans. (new york: schocken books, 1986), 68. 12 ibid, 72. 13 ibid, 79. 14 ibid, 78. 15 ibid, 79. 16 ibid, 77. 17 ibid, 77. von kellenbach: repenting for antisemitism 4 what amery envisioned occurred: the cultural and political conditions created by national socialism shifted. susan neiman, an american jewish philosopher living in berlin, provocatively titled her book learning from the germans: race and the memory of evil to make that point. there, she examines whether and how the strategies of “working-off-the-past can prepare the ground for freer futures.”18 comparing german practices of accountability and reparation to u.s american cultural memory of slavery and racial segregation, she concludes that the german penitential regime, initially enforced by the allied victors but later embraced voluntarily, successfully transformed the culture. while germany is still struggling with the persistent presence of antisemitism, racism, and nationalism, a resilient, racially and religiously pluralistic democracy emerged from the ashes of national socialism and the holocaust. for neiman, as well as other scholars who compare the german case to austria and japan, this political and cultural transformation is linked to the collective embrace of repentance as a personal and political practice.19 jewish-christian relations after the holocaust the history of jewish-christian relations after the holocaust provides another case study by which to query the power of repentance to bring about theological and institutional change. until 1945, most christians and christian institutions found nothing morally or theologically objectionable in a habitual denigration of jews and judaism. most christians faithfully repeated that god had rejected the jews and punished the people of israel for failing to recognize and accept jesus as messiah. sporadically, these doctrines erupted into actual violence ranging from expulsions to pogroms, from personal assault to the destruction of entire communities. casual violence in the form of verbal and artistic defamation is deeply embedded in the history of the christian west.20 rosemary radford ruether has called anti-judaism “the left hand of christology,” pointing to its iconic depictions in paintings such as the “living cross,” where a hand emerges from the left side of the cross to stab the blind-folded synagogue through the heart. 18 susan neiman, learning from the germans: race and the memory of evil (new york: farrar strauss, and giroux, 2019), 19. 19 see, for instance, thomas berger, war, guilt and world politics after world war ii (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2012); david art, the politics of the nazi past in germany and austria (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2005). 20 robert chazan, from anti-judaism to antisemitism (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2016); david nirenberg, anti-judaism: the western tradition (new york: w. norton, 2014). 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) hans fries, la croix vivante, 150521 violence against jews, anti-judaism, has taken root at the very center of the christian message, ruether argued, and extended into all areas of christian liturgy and doctrine, exegesis and music, art and literature, architecture and education. christians habitually characterized and condemned the people of israel as blind, obdurate, hypocritical, deceitful, arrogant, and conspiratorial. consequently, they exacted punishment from jews in the form of repression, harassment, ghettoization, exile, and murder. the “teaching of contempt,” as jules isaac called this body of anti-jewish doctrines, only became an embarrassment to christian churches after the european 21 reproduced by permission from art and history museum fribourg, switzerland. for more information about the iconography of the living cross, cf. the blogsite created by mariano akerman http://documenta-akermariano.blogspot.com/2010/12/living-cross.html [january 11, 2021]; oberlin college allen museum, http://allenartcollection.oberlin.edu/emuseum/view/objects/asitem/search$0040/0/title-asc?t:state:flow=479888ab-79f2-46d2-a6d1-4424424635f1 [january 11, 2021]; achim timmermann, “the avenging crucifix: some observations on th e iconography of the living cross,” gesta 40, no. 2 (2001): 141-160. http://documenta-akermariano.blogspot.com/2010/12/living-cross.html http://allenartcollection.oberlin.edu/emuseum/view/objects/asitem/search$0040/0/title-asc?t:state:flow=479888ab-79f2-46d2-a6d1-4424424635f1 http://allenartcollection.oberlin.edu/emuseum/view/objects/asitem/search$0040/0/title-asc?t:state:flow=479888ab-79f2-46d2-a6d1-4424424635f1 von kellenbach: repenting for antisemitism 6 genocide of the jews.22 the images and reports of extermination rattled the conscience of christian leaders and activists in a way that the “mere” conflagration of hundreds of synagogues across germany in november 1938 had not. it bears remembering that burning down synagogues remained within the acceptable boundaries of christian anti-judaism. martin luther had counseled authorities to do exactly that; his writings against the jews remained in circulation, republished and distributed in 1938 by the bishop of thuringia, martin sasse.23 only a handful of pastors and priests protested publicly or were arrested for condemning the conflagration of synagogues in their sermons the following sunday. there were essentially no street protests or offers of sanctuary to jewish communities by local churches.24 although the exceptions should not be minimized, for the majority, theological anti-judaism was too ingrained and normalized to allow for forceful and unambiguous resistance against the politics of national socialism.25 without denying the exceptional and heroic efforts that were made, or the national and local differences that existed, the paralysis of christendom in the face of genocidal antisemitism demands a reckoning with theological teachings, scriptural interpretations, and liturgical practices. the eradication of the habitual denigration of judaism requires a prolonged process of repentance, which alice eckardt recalls james parkes explaining, will take at least three hundred years.26 repentance means a return to god’s path and commandments. it is the same word in all three abrahamic monotheistic religions. as muslim scholar mahmoud ayoub explains: “like the hebrew teshuvah and the greek metanoia, the [arabic] word tawbah means ‘oft turning’ to god… the active participle tawwab implies an attitude of constant turning… repentance is not a metaphysical or theological 22 jules isaac, the teaching of contempt: the christian roots of anti-semitism (new york: holt, rinehart and winston, inc., 1964). 23 martin luther, “on the jews and their lies, 1543,” trans. martin h. bertram, in luther’s works 47: the christian in society iv, ed. franklin sherman (philadelphia: fortress press, 1971), 268-271. see also, “topographie des terrors/gedenkstätte deutscher widerstand,” in überall luthers worte: martin luther im nationalsozialismus (berlin, 2017), 117-127. 24 we know this from the few exceptions, such as elisabeth schmitz, who urged exactly such responses. see: katharina von kellenbach, “dialogue in times of war: christian women’s rescue of jews in hitler’s germany,” in women in interreligious dialogue, ed. catherine cornille (eugene, or: wipf & stock, 2013), 77-80; manfred gailus, mir aber zerriss es das herz: der stille widerstand der elisabeth schmitz (göttingen: vandenhoek & ruprecht, 2013). 25 this is not to deny or minimize the resistance to national socialism at the level of the hierarchy, such as pius xi’s 1937 encyclical mit brennender sorge/with deep anxiety, or the protestant church’s battle over the aryan paragraph in 1935 that resulted in the break -away confessing church, or many other individual acts of solidarity and rescue. there were also, already, international interfaith campaigns, especially in the united states and great britain, that mobilized christian leaders to protest, intervene, and assist europe’s jews. see: victoria barnett, “track two diplomacy, 1933-1939: international responses from catholics, jews, and ecumenical protestants to events in nazi germany,” kirchliche zeitgeschichte 27, no. 1 (2014): 76-86. 26 alice eckardt, “revising christian teaching: the work of the christian scholars group,” in seeing judaism anew: christianity’s sacred obligation, ed. mary c. boys (lanham, md: rowman & littlefield, 2005), 264. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) concept, but rather a practical attitude or state of moral and religious consciousness.”27 although repentance refers to a return, it is not a backward-oriented, restorative move. the point of repentance is not to return to the past but rather to cultivate the conditions for an open and different future. all three abrahamic religions mobilize people’s ability to reach for wholeness, connection, and fullness of life, and they extend this possibility to any and all repentant sinners. as hannah arendt puts it: without being forgiven, released from the consequences of what we have done, our capacity to act would, as it were, be confined to one single deed from which we could never recover; we would remain the victims of its consequences forever, not unlike the sorcerer’s apprentice who lacked the magic formula to break the spell.28 repentance affirms the possibility of change and transformation. the past is not the future, and we are not condemned to repeat the same beliefs and actions in endless cycles of repetition. in order to atone for wrongdoing, repentance requires recognition, expressions of remorse, truthful confession, and willingness to engage in penitential service that renders restitution to the victim, community, and god. while jew-hatred is deeply entrenched in christianity and the history of western civilization, it is neither essential nor inevitable. antisemitism is not eternal, despite hendryk broder’s book title making that claim.29 rather, repentance can transform traditions of contempt into teachings of respect, even if such a prospect appears little more than an “extravagant moral daydream,” as jean amery put it.30 how does this happen? according to soloveitchik’s reading of maimonides, there must be intellectual and moral recognition of one’s sins (hakarat haḥet), as well as feelings of remorse and self-loathing (ḥarata). these two precepts align with the christian mandate of contritio cordis, heartfelt contrition, which involves both cognitive understanding and moral emotion. jewish practice requires a firm commitment from a ba’al or ba’alat teshuvah (penitent) to avoid future repetition of the wrongful act (azivat haḥet) as well as restitution and compensation (peira’on), which must be rendered either directly to the victim or to the community in general. these two clearly spelled out precepts find a faint echo in the christian sacramental step of satisfactio operis, which traditionally involved the performance of specific tasks of charity, prayer, and austerities. both the roman catholic and the jewish process of teshuvah require verbal confession (vidui confessio oris) which can be made personally or within a liturgical ritual context. this commandment to confess has puzzled jewish commentators, since there is no priest who would receive such a confession. maimonides explains the need for verbal 27 mahmoud ayoub, “repentance in the islamic tradition,” in repentance: a comparative perspective, ed. amitai etzioni (lanham, md: rowman & littlefield, 1997), 98. 28 hannah arendt, the human condition (chicago: university of chicago press, 1998), 247. 29 hendryk broder, der ewige antisemit: über sinn und funktion eines beständigen gefühls (berlin: berlin taschenbuch verlag, 1986). 30 jean amery, at the mind’s limits, 79. von kellenbach: repenting for antisemitism 8 articulation of wrongdoing on the basis of the talmudic principle that “unspoken matters that remain in the heart are not significant matters” (b. kiddushin 49b).31 according to maimonides, writes soloveitchik, “confession is the concretization of repentance. speech, the verbalizing of confession, endows the thought of repentance with reality. it is the climax and final chord of the long and torturous internal process of repentance.”32 therefore, he argues, the book of leviticus, which addresses and regulates the offering of guilt sacrifices, adds verbal confession as an extra step: “he shall confess the sin he has committed upon it” (lev 5:5). it is the performative, external completion of steps and tasks that make repentance especially relevant for the context of antisemitism. culpable histories must be publicly expressed and acknowledged in order to be expiated. david blumenthal likens teshuvah to a spiral, which can begin at any point, and reaches deeper over time as it changes a person at ever more profound levels.33 soloveitchik similarly uses organic metaphors for a “repentance that sprouts forth and grows in the course of a long and drawn-out process typified by doubt and speculation, soul-searching and spiritual reckoning.”34 can this spiritual process that culminates in atonement with god on yom kippur be taken out of its liturgical context and applied to more profane intellectual and moral processes of “coming to terms” with antisemitism? repentance in church documents after the shoah in the aftermath of the shoah, numerous declarations on jews and judaism were issued by national churches as well as ecumenical and international churchbodies. the sheer number of synods, assemblies, councils, commissions, and review panels that were convened to study, debate, and vote on declarations on the jews, judaism, christian-jewish relations, and the holocaust is remarkable.35 these statements form a body of work that can be examined for insights into the process of repentance for the holocaust and christian jew-hatred.36 they constitute 31 soloveitchik, on repentance, 232. 32 ibid, 232-233. 33 david r. blumenthal, “repentance and forgiveness,” crosscurrents, 48 no. 1 (spring, 1998). see also: henry abramson, maimonides on teshuvah: the ways of repentance (touro college, 2017). https://touroscholar.touro.edu/lcas_books/1/ [january 11, 2021]. 34 soloveitchik, on repentance, 231. 35 helga croner, stepping stones to further jewish-christian relations (new york: paulist 1977); helga croner, more stepping stones to further jewish-christian relations (new york: paulist press, 1987); franklin sherman, ed., bridges: documents of the christian-jewish dialogue, vol 1: the road to reconciliation 1945-1985 (new york: paulist press, 2011); franklin sherman, ed., bridges: documents of the christian-jewish dialogue, vol 2: building a new relationship 1986-2013 (new york: paulist press, 2014); franklin sherman, “the road to reconciliation: protestant church statements on christian-jewish relations,” in seeing judaism anew, 241-252; eugene j fisher, “catholic teaching on jews and judaism: an evolution in process,” in seeing judaism anew, 252-263. 36 alana vincent, “rituals of reconciliation: how consideration of rituals can inform readings of catholic-jewish dialogue after the holocaust,” in interreligious relations and the negotiation of ritual boundaries: explorations in interrituality, ed. marianne moyaert (cham: palgrave macmillan, 2019), 179-196. https://touroscholar.touro.edu/lcas_books/1/ 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) a peculiar form of theological work, distinct from both the academic production of scholarly theology and liturgical and homiletic proclamations of faith. as a distinct vector of theological production, such statements may not be as effective as their proponents like to assume. eva fleischner has noted that “most christians have no idea of the recommendations various churches have made in the past forty or so years.”37 official church statements aim to articulate communal principles of faith, but they are regularly ignored, taught neither in seminaries nor in churches. nevertheless, these christian declarations about jews and judaism, the holocaust and antisemitism, demonstrate a growing recognition of theological error and willingness to institute theological, liturgical, exegetical, and educational changes. in franklin sherman’s words, as a body of work, they add up to a “major ‘turning,’ what the hebrew term teshuvah denotes, at the official levels.”38 and eva fleischner affirmed in 2005, the churches engaged in “serious soul searching and, in many cases, …a conversion of heart and repentance” in response to the shoah.39 immediately after 1945, national and international church bodies rushed to declare antisemitism a “sin against god” (wcc 1948) and a “denial of the spirit and teaching of our lord” (wcc 1946), but the precise function, shape, and history of anti-judaism remained opaque and largely unacknowledged. it took two decades before the central charge of jewish guilt for the crucifixion of christ was officially retracted by various church bodies, most notably in the second vatican council’s nostra aetate. many christians, and certainly all nazis, were convinced that jews deserved to be punished. for centuries, jews were pictured as persecutors of christ, members of a conspiracy to entrap the innocent man of god. god himself had rejected this people. according to the gospel of matthew, the entire people was guilty and had called “his blood upon us and our children” (mt 27:25). this concept of “collective guilt” has historically applied exclusively to the people of israel. punishing the jews was god’s plan and, by extension, every christian’s duty, a righteous act of self-defense. contemporary conspiracy myths, such as protocol of the elders of zion and the recent qanon conspiracy, build upon the gospel passion narrative of entrapment and wrongful conviction of jesus by a cabal of powerful jewish leaders. the atrocity of the shoah created the possibility for guilt reversal: for the first time in history, the murderers of jews were seen as guiltier than their jewish victims. this “sea change” did not occur, though, until the mid-1960s. the first church body to disavow the deicide charge as a “tragic misunderstanding” was the house of bishops of the episcopal church in the usa in 1964, who wrote, “to be sure, jesus was crucified by some soldiers at the instigation of some jews. but this cannot be construed as imputing corporate guilt to every jew in jesus’ day, much less the jewish people in subsequent generations.” 40 a year later, in 1965, the second 37 eva fleischner, “the shoah and jewish christian relations,” in seeing judaism anew, 12. 38 franklin sherman, “the road to reconciliation,” in seeing judaism anew, 241. 39 eva fleischner, “the shoah and jewish christian relations,” in seeing judaism anew, 10. 40 sherman, bridges, vol 1, 59. von kellenbach: repenting for antisemitism 10 vatican council in rome overwhelmingly passed nostra aetate, widely acclaimed as the revolutionary moment in jewish-christian relations. it similarly states: true, the jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of christ; still what happened in his passion cannot be charged against all the jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the jews today. although the church is the new people of god, the jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by god, as if this followed from the holy scriptures.41 the attribution of jewish guilt had been the cornerstone on which the election of the gentile christian church was built. it establishes the reason for god’s rejection and replacement of the people of israel. any repentance for the churches’ silence and complicity in the holocaust, therefore, must begin with superseding supersessionism and the replacement of replacement theology. in their 2002 statement, “a sacred obligation: rethinking christian faith in relation to judaism and the jewish people,” the american ecumenical christian scholars group, founded in 1969, laid out ten “sacred obligations” to demand theological, exegetical, liturgical, and educational changes in light of centuries of antijudaism. the book, published in 2005, belongs to the genre of consultative theological work. the platform of ten obligations opens with a denunciation of the erroneous traditional portrayal of jews as “collectively responsible for the death of jesus and therefore accursed by god…we acknowledge with shame the suffering this distorted portrayal has brought upon the jewish people. we repent of this teaching of contempt. our repentance requires us to build a new teaching of respect.”42 repentance grounds the search for new interpretations that seek to integrate the theological integrity and religious vitality of rabbinic judaism into christians theology, exegesis, and ethics. revising the jewish-christian relation is, the authors argue, “a central and indispensable obligation of theology in our time:” it is essential that christianity both understand and represent judaism accurately, not only as a matter of justice for the jewish people, but also for the integrity of christian faith, which we cannot proclaim without reference to judaism. moreover since there is a unique bond between christianity and judaism, revitalizing our appreciation of jewish religious life will deepen our christian faith.43 self-knowledge triggered by repentance results in not only negative emotions, such as shame and self-mistrust, but innovation and creativity. repentance is a future 41 ibid, 168. 42 christian scholars group on christian-jewish relations, “a sacred obligation: rethinking christian faith in relation to judaism and the jewish people” in seeing judaism anew, xiii-xiv. 43 christian scholars group on christian-jewish relations, “a sacred obligation: rethinking christian faith in relation to judaism and the jewish people” in seeing judaism anew, xiv. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) oriented practice that generates new paradigms and patterns of relating to self and others. paul’s olive tree and the biology of grafting since nostra aetate, paul has become the guarantor of new covenantal thinking. instead of speaking of superseding and replacing the jews in god’s one and only covenant, romans 11 introduces the metaphor of the olive tree, into which a new branch has been grafted: but if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the rich root of the olive tree, do not boast over the branches. if you do boast, remember that it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. … for if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree (romans 11: 17-18, 24). the science of plant biology and grafting makes the metaphor of the olive tree even more compelling. biologist and historian of science hans-jörg rheinberger has written extensively about the biology of grafting as well as its metaphorical use in epistemology. grafting, he points out, provides distinct benefits over other techniques of biological cultivation, such as hybridization, transplantation, and vaccination. in hybridization, transplantation, and vaccination, the genetic material of two different plants mixes and mingles, is absorbed and integrated. in grafting, the genetic difference between the two plants remains for the duration of the lifetime of the plant(s). the graft is neither a parasite that destroys the host, nor does it diminish the growth of the original tree: despite complete bonding at the interface, the grafts retain their specific genetic identity, although the base plant influences the development and quality of the graft, which grows more or less, and bears more or less fruit. however, they remain heteronomous to each other.44 this suggests that in paul’s metaphor, the christian graft does not take over the jewish root, nor does its sap all of its strength thereby harming the growth of the “jewish” branches. this image of the grafted olive tree provides an alternative model by which to envision jewish-christian relations, one not consumed by covenantal rivalry, exclusivism, and triumphalism. 45 the metaphor of the gentile church as a wild graft plugged into the established olive tree permits and celebrates difference and dependence within covenantal theology. such covenantal plurality 44 hans-jörg rheinberger, “pfropfen in experimentalsystemen,” in impfen, pfropfen, transplantieren, ed. uwe wirth (berlin: kadmos verlag, 2011), 66. 45 cf., the title of luise schottrof and marie theres wacker, ed., von der wurzel getragen: christlichfeministische exegese in auseinandersetzung mit dem antijudaismus (leiden: brill, 1996), viii. von kellenbach: repenting for antisemitism 12 is exceptional, as even paul retreats to the more prevalent narrative tradition of filial competition. in galatians 4:21-31, he claims the church to be the sole legitimate heir of abraham through the free woman sarah, while the jews are heirs of the older brother ishmael, born to the enslaved hagar. with his two wives and two sons, abraham embodies the competitive conflict over the attentions of the f/father.46 this legacy of patriarchal rivalry and exclusive identity formation has been critiqued often and eloquently. it begins with the rivalry of cain and abel, as regina schwartz argues in the curse of cain: the violent legacy of monotheism.47 and it continues with jacob and esau’s lament, “has god only one blessing?” cited by mary boys in her eponymous rereading of the covenantal dilemma.48 the notion that election must entail rejection has been the source of much historical repression and persecution. it underlies the violence of the left hand of christology that emerges from the “living cross” to stab the synagogue, and the imagery of the triumphant ecclesia who looks upon the dethroned and destroyed synagoga. 49 the triumph of one necessitates the annihilation of the other. repenting supersessionism: religious pluralism there is broad consensus across christian denominations and christian theology that anti-judaism is an evil that ought to be avoided and that supersessionism is implicated. there is no agreement, though, on how exactly supersessionism can be replaced. in light of the covenantal model of the grafted olive tree, i want to examine two pathways that have emerged in recent years. the first pathway is developed by scholars in the jewish-christian dialogue who take the metaphor of the grafted olive tree as validation of theological difference, diversity, and religious pluralism within the language of the covenant. the second pathway is taken by christian theologians, often evangelical, who understand paul’s olive tree as invitation to affirm a jewish-christian intimacy and affection that blurs the boundaries between the two religious communities and traditions. the difference between these two positions is partly denominational, but more importantly, hinges on the legitimacy of christian mission to the jews. members of the christian scholars group exemplify the first pathway. the seventh statement of their “a sacred obligation” explicitly repudiates any and all 46 nancy fuchs kreimer, “abraham and his family at the interfaith border edge,” in women in interreligious dialogue, ed. catherine cornille and jillian maxey (eugene, or: wipf & stock 2013), 88 107. 47 regina schwartz, the curse of cain: the violent legacy of monotheism (chicago: university of chicago press, 1997). 48 mary boys, has god only one blessing? judaism as a source of christian self-understanding (new york: paulist press, 2000). 49 nina rowe, the jew, the cathedral and the medieval city: synagoga and ecclesia in the thirteenth century (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2011); heinz schreckenberg, the jews in christian art: an illustrated history, trans. john bowden (london: scm press, 1996). 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) missionary campaigns directed at jews: “christians should not target jews for conversion.”50 this statement directly responds to the missionary mandate, known as the great commission, that concludes the gospel of matthew: “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit” (mt 28:19). christians have taken this as an obligation to share the “good news” with the world in general, and with the jews in particular. “a sacred obligation” rejects this out of repentance for the violence it caused. in his contribution “covenant and conversion,” philip cunningham critiques the triumphalist confidence that lies at the core of missionary campaigns that feel “competent to blame others for failing to ‘believe’ the proclamation of the good news.”51 theology, he cautions, is a human enterprise that must remain cognizant of the supreme sovereignty and transcendence of god: “no human being can know the mysterious workings of god’s purposes and grace in the heart of another.”52 the faith of medieval jews “who refused forced baptism out of fidelity to their covenant with god and so were slain by fanatical christians cannot be faulted for rejecting the gospel.”53 indeed, their martyrdom and steadfastness inspires respect. cunningham counsels eschatological humility: “conceivably, at the end of days jews will come to appreciate why christians revere christ jesus, while christians will come to value jewish love for the torah. both may profoundly recognize the presence of their divine covenant partner in the other and so will exclaim with paul, ‘oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of god.’”54 for theologians such as phil cunningham, repentance for anti-judaism leads to humility and requires a theological paradigm shift toward religious pluralism. indeed, in another publication, cunningham draws on walter cardinal kasper’s felicitous phrase of judaism as the “sacrament of every otherness.”55 in the jewish other, christianity confronts, and either accepts or rejects, difference and diversity. the false equation of monotheism with monoculture has long authorized the violent suppression of heresy and blasphemy, dissent and difference. cunningham disavows the vision of a world in which every living human being is baptized in christ, which would eradicate all other cultivars of religious wisdom and observance, leaving a much poorer and diminished world. he questions the ultimate goal of christian mission and its universalist vision for “equating the church with the kingdom of god. however, the church is the servant of god’s kingdom, not the kingdom itself…”56 such a vision of the triumph of the christian church aims to 50 christian scholars group, “a sacred obligation: rethinking christian faith in relation to judaism and the jewish people,” in seeing judaism anew, xvi. 51 philip a. cunningham, “covenant and conversion,” 157. 52 ibid, 157. 53 ibid, 157. 54 ibid, 158, citing rom 11:33. 55 phil cunningham in “judaism as otherness” in jewish-christian relations (2/29/2004) https://www.jcrelations.net/article/judaism-as-sacrament-of-otherness.html?tx_extension_pi1%5baction%5d=detail&tx_extension_pi1%5bcontroller%5d=news&chash=f0d431225705ae589d2697cfe 7f0d25e [january 21,2021]. 56 phil a. cunningham, “covenant and conversion,” seeing judaism anew, 160. https://www.jcrelations.net/article/judaism-as-sacrament-of-otherness.html?tx_extension_pi1%5baction%5d=detail&tx_extension_pi1%5bcontroller%5d=news&chash=f0d431225705ae589d2697cfe7f0d25e https://www.jcrelations.net/article/judaism-as-sacrament-of-otherness.html?tx_extension_pi1%5baction%5d=detail&tx_extension_pi1%5bcontroller%5d=news&chash=f0d431225705ae589d2697cfe7f0d25e https://www.jcrelations.net/article/judaism-as-sacrament-of-otherness.html?tx_extension_pi1%5baction%5d=detail&tx_extension_pi1%5bcontroller%5d=news&chash=f0d431225705ae589d2697cfe7f0d25e von kellenbach: repenting for antisemitism 14 control and conquer multiplicity and difference, beginning with the jewish “no” to jesus proclaimed by christians as the messiah to israel. the vietnamese catholic theologian peter phan, also a member of the christian scholars group, similarly pursues a “christian theology of religious pluralism.” he sees the jewish-christian relation as the foundation for all other interfaith encounters. the asian religions, not constrained by narratives of fraternal rivalry and monotheistic monoculture, have more easily coexisted and allowed for multiple religious belonging. for phan, religious plurality exists as “not just a matter of fact but also a matter of principle.”57 his theological project, being religious interreligiously, however, earned him a “critical notification” by the doctrinal commission of the united states conference of catholic bishops in 2007.58 phan is looking for a different covenantal model that envisions a “process of complementarity, enrichment, and even correction [which] is two-way, or even reciprocal.”59 this approximates and returns to paul’s metaphor of the grafted olive tree, where reciprocity and relationality ensure vitality and reproductive success not only of the graft but also of the host and its branches. an “inclusivist-pluralist christology” understands its vital dependence on the other not as weakness and diminishment but as enrichment and fortification.60 tree grafted with 40 different types of fruits61 57 peter phan, “jesus as the universal savior,” seeing judaism anew, 133. 58 peter phan, being religious interreligiously: asian perspectives on interfaith dialogue (maryknoll: orbis press, 2004). see also: john l. allen jr., “why is fr. phan under investigation?” national catholic reporter (september 14, 2007), https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/why-fr-peterphan-under-investigation [january 11, 2021]. 59 peter phan, “jesus as the universal savior,” seeing judaism anew, 134-135. 60 peter phan, “jesus as the universal savior,” seeing judaism anew, 131. 61 https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/gbnx56/tree_grafted_with_40_different_types_of_fruits/ [june 2, 2020]. https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/why-fr-peter-phan-under-investigation https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/why-fr-peter-phan-under-investigation https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/gbnx56/tree_grafted_with_40_different_types_of_fruits/ https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/gbnx56/tree_grafted_with_40_different_types_of_fruits/ 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) repenting supersessionism: jewish-christian affection and intimacy a different approach to repentance for anti-judaism is exemplified by the “society for post-supersessionist theology.” its members are committed to develop christian theologies that affirm and respect judaism, but they are unwilling to completely denounce missionary movements. this leads to an embrace of the jewish other, which seeks to “unite” jews and christians “in the messiah.”62 in their mission statement, the “society for post-supersessionist theology” writes: the society understands post-supersessionism as a family of theological perspectives that affirms god’s irrevocable covenant with the jewish people as a central and coherent part of ecclesial teaching. it seeks to overcome understandings of the new covenant that entail the abrogation or obsolescence of god’s covenant with the jewish people, of the torah as a demarcator of jewish communal identity, or of the jewish people themselves. the society welcomes participation from all who seek to advance post-supersessionist theology. the society especially seeks to promote perspectives that remain faithful to core christological convictions; that affirm the ekklesia’s identity as a table fellowship of jews and gentiles united in the messiah; and that engage with jewish thought and tradition as an expression of ecclesial partnership with the jewish people as a whole."63 the aim of establishing “table fellowship of jews and gentiles united in the messiah” threatens to erase the genetic difference between the jewish tree and its christian branches. groups, such as “messianic judaism,” “friends of israel,” and “jews for jesus” practice “table fellowship.” jews who follow the torah and observe kashrut do not practice table fellowship with christians. they are not—not now and not ever—united around the belief in jesus as the messiah of israel.64 as evangelical protestant churches reach out in dialogue and support the state of israel, their unwillingness to denounce missionary movements undermines their efforts.65 what emerges is an affection and intimacy that fails to respect the genetic difference between judaism and christianity. for instance, increasingly christians are 62 society for post-supersessionist theology, mission: https://www.spostst.org [january 20, 2021]. 63 https://www.spostst.org [january 20, 2021]. 64 mark kinzer is president of the messianic jewish institute, and author of multiple books: mark s. kinzer and jennifer rosner, israel's messiah and the people of god: a vision for messianic jewish covenant fidelity (eugene, or: cascade books, wipf & stock, 2011); jerusalem crucified, jerusalem risen: the resurrected messiah, the jewish people, and the land of promise (eugene, or: cascade books wipf & stock, 2018); mark s. kinzer searching her own mystery: nostra aetate, the jewish people, and the identity of the church (eugene, or: cascade books, wipf and stock, 2015); mark s. kinzer, postmissionary messianic judaism: redefining christian engagement with the jewish people (grand rapids, mi: brazos, 2005). cf. hans boersma, “on supersession,” first things (december 5, 2019), https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/12/on-supersessionism [january 11, 2021]. 65 see: stephen spector, evangelicals and israel: the story of american christian zionism (new york: oxford university press, 2008); alan middleman, bryon johnson and nancy isserman, eds., uneasy allies?: evangelical and jewish relations (lanham, md: lexington book, 2007); jacob ariel, an unusual relationship: evangelical christians and jews (new york: new york university press, 2013). https://www.spostst.org/ https://www.spostst.org/ https://www.amazon.com/mark-s.-kinzer/e/b00oyovk2a?ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vu00_tkin_p1_i0 https://www.amazon.com/mark-s.-kinzer/e/b00oyovk2a?ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vu00_tkin_p1_i0 https://www.amazon.com/s?ie=utf8&text=jennifer+rosner&search-alias=digital-text&field-author=jennifer+rosner&sort=relevancerank&ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vu00_tkin_p1_i0 https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/12/on-supersessionism von kellenbach: repenting for antisemitism 16 celebrating jewish holidays (especially passover) and appropriate jewish liturgies and ceremonial garb (tallis, tefillin). when u.s. vice president mike pence invited rabbi loren jacobs of the congregation shema yisrael to offer a commemorative prayer for the victims of the deadly shooting in the pittsburgh synagogue, jacobs concluded the prayer “in the name of jesus.” the rabbi is the leader of a “messianic synagogue,” in other words, an evangelical church in detroit, mi.66 such events deliberately violate and erase the boundary between judaism and christianity.67 another example is the conflict over the approval of the cable station “god tv” by the israeli council for cable and satellite broadcasting.68 scandal erupted in the israeli media when the tv station’s ceo, ward simpson, asserted both his jewishness by virtue of his jewish mother and his absolute right “to share the good news of messiah with my own people,” proclaiming that “yeshua is the messiah of israel.”69 while evangelical christianity is a strong political ally of the state of israel, its investment and entanglement in missionary organizations such as the “jews for jesus,” “friends of israel,” “messianic judaism,” “christian mission to israel,” and “christian witness to israel” erases the distinctions and particular expressions of communal jewish life.70 this new affection and embrace of israel is explained as a form of repentance. for instance, dan hummel, the author of covenant brothers: evangelicals, jews and u.s.-israeli relations, explained in the washington post in 2019 why many evangelical christians have begun to fast on tisha b’av: on aug. 10 and 11, many jews worldwide observed the religious holiday of tisha b’av by fasting, praying and reading bible passages related to the destruction of the first temple by the babylonians. religious jews have kept tisha b’av for centuries as a day of communal mourning. but this year they were joined by a growing number of evangelical christians who now observe the holiday to lament the historical persecution of jews by the church. the new 66 congregation shema israel, (https://www.shema.com) [january 21, 2021]. 67 matthew haag, “how a ‘jews for jesus’ moment backfired for mike pence” new york times, oct 30, 2018; https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/us/mike-pence-rabbi-jacobs.html [january 11, 2021]. 68 judy maltz, “‘the gospel of jesus christ’ in hebrew: israel green lights new evangelical god tv channel,” haaretz, (may 4, 2020) https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-god-tv-israel-unwittingly-green-lights-new-evangelical-tv-channel-1.8819671 [january 11, 2021]; joseph krauss, “‘god tv’ spat exposes tensions between israel, evangelicals,” ap news, may 18, 2020, https://apnews.com/5e8c72a2c07852ed6cd5128cf36cece2 [january 11, 2021]. 69 jeremy sharon, “god tv ceo wants jews to ‘reexamine claim yeshua is messiah, ’” jerusalem post, may 15, 2020, https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/god-tv-ceo-wants-jews-to-reexamine-claimyeshua-is-messiah-628016; [january 11, 2021]. 70 to name only a few of the multiple protestant mission organizations that are active in israel: friends of israel (www.foi.org); arbeitsgemeinschaft für das messianische zeugnis an israel (www.amzi.org); international christian embassy in jersualem (www.icej.org); jews for jesus (www.jewsforjesus.org); christian mission to israel (www.cm2israel.org); christian witness to israel (www.cwi.org.uk); international mission to jewish people (www.imjp.org); evangeliumsdienst (https://www.edi-online.de); [january 11, 2021]. https://www.shema.com/ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/us/mike-pence-rabbi-jacobs.html https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-god-tv-israel-unwittingly-green-lights-new-evangelical-tv-channel-1.8819671 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-god-tv-israel-unwittingly-green-lights-new-evangelical-tv-channel-1.8819671 https://apnews.com/5e8c72a2c07852ed6cd5128cf36cece2 https://apnews.com/5e8c72a2c07852ed6cd5128cf36cece2 https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/god-tv-ceo-wants-jews-to-reexamine-claim-yeshua-is-messiah-628016 https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/god-tv-ceo-wants-jews-to-reexamine-claim-yeshua-is-messiah-628016 http://www.foi.org/ http://www.amzi.org/ http://www.icej.org/ http://www.jewsforjesus.org/ http://www.cm2israel.org/ http://www.cwi.org.uk/ http://www.imjp.org/ https://www.edi-online.de/ 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) christian tisha b’av calls for penance for past misdeeds—most especially by growing christian support for israel.71 is the observance of jewish rituals an appropriate form of christian repentance? for dan hummel, “fusing religious observance, general support for israel and public denunciations of anti-semitism and the holocaust” constitute “practices to atone for past sins.” but when christians begin to celebrate sukkot and blow the shofar, when they put on prayer shawls and adopt jewish symbols for their brand of protestant zionism, the distinctive particularity of the jewish people is absorbed into the universal christian church. this is not repentance. fusion under the primacy of christianity ultimately harms the jewish covenantal tradition and the jewish people. in terms of the biology of paul’s metaphor, this turns christianity into a parasite rather than a graft. a parasite (or virus) takes over the energy and vitality of the host organism and captures its nutrients for its own purposes. often enough, this destroys the host. a graft, on the other hand, does not diminish the viability of the original plant. taking paul’s metaphor seriously requires not only self-interest in the health of the root, but appreciation for the insuperable, genetic differences of the fused plants. neither conversion of the jews nor the absorption of jewish otherness into christian theological principles is a genuine fruit of repentance. instead, it is the competition itself that must go, along with the strife for primacy. therefore, it will also not suffice to merely reverse the hierarchy, as mark galli has recently suggested in an article in christianity today. in his reflections in “killing jesus’ brothers and sisters: why did we turn on the jews so quickly? and what do we do about it now?,” he concludes that christianity must accept its secondary status in order to repent for centuries of jew-hatred: and then he [paul] makes absolutely clear the relationship of jews to gentiles: gentiles are like branches grafted on to the roots and the trunk of the tree (rom. 11:17–18). the main thing is israel. israel is the privileged people. the gentiles are—to not put too fine a point on it—second-class citizens. there is a hierarchy in the scope of salvation, and the jews are at the top. it’s as if paul is saying, “and gentiles, don’t you forget it.” but we did forget it. and because we forgot it, the world, especially the christian world, took note and decided that the jews should become merely a memory.72 71 dan hummel, “why many evangelical christians now celebrate jewish holidays,” washington post, august 19, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/08/19/why-many-evangelical-christians-now-celebrate-jewish-holidays/ [january 11, 2021]; dan hummel, covenant brothers: evangelicals, jews, and u.s.-israeli relations (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2019). 72 mark galli, “killing jesus’ brothers and sisters: why did we turn on the jews so quickly? and what do we do about it now?” christianity today (january 3, 2020), https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/january-web-only/killing-of-jesus-jewish-brothers-and-sisters.html [january 11, 2021]. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/08/19/why-many-evangelical-christians-now-celebrate-jewish-holidays/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/08/19/why-many-evangelical-christians-now-celebrate-jewish-holidays/ https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/january-web-only/killing-of-jesus-jewish-brothers-and-sisters.html https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/january-web-only/killing-of-jesus-jewish-brothers-and-sisters.html von kellenbach: repenting for antisemitism 18 such a reversal leaves the competitive paradigm of top and bottom, privileged and secondary intact. but, to invoke the biological metaphor once more, the graft is not second-class or an afterthought. it is deliberately chosen for hardiness, pest-resistance, maturity, and ease of propagation, to name just a few of the benefits that have made grafting a frequent and popular horticultural technique. joining two plants together while maintaining their distinctions creates abundance and benefit. the relationship of “stock” and “scion,” root and branch, is neither a mother-daughter relationship nor fraternal competition but a distinct model of flourishing that thrives on difference. repentance for anti-judaism has the potential to unleash this kind of fruitfulness. but it cannot flow from self-abjection and degradation. that will inevitably lead to resentment and rebellion against the privileged and primary. instead, repentance for christian anti-judaism requires willingness to accept difference and disagreement as a theological good. by now, it should be clear that i consider the first pathway, exemplified by members of the christian scholars group, the more radical and appropriate from of teshuvah because it rebuilds christian theology around respect for theological difference and disagreement. the second pathway remains beholden to claims of theological supremacy and cannot repudiate missionary and inclusionary incorporations of jewish otherness. this ultimately undermine genuine encounters between equals. conclusion the jewish tradition affirms that the doors of repentance are always open. the “repentant sinner is greater than a truly righteous man,” writes soloveitchik, having passed through the cleansing fires of contrition:73 hate is more emotional and more volatile than love. the destructive forces are stronger than the constructive forces. a thoroughly righteous man is not given to feelings of hatred or jealousy…but a man who has sinned and repented may be able—if he proves worthy—to utilize the dynamism of the forces of evil which had enveloped him before and elevate them… and make them operate on behalf of the forces of good.74 in the gospels, jesus teaches that there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents and returns than over ninety-nine righteous who do not need to repent (luke 15:7). repentance means wrestling with the powerful forces that fuel hatred and contempt. without a doubt, antisemitism is a powerfully persuasive poison. it requires active and long-term engagement to decontaminate toxic traditions and to transform them into life-giving teachings of theological integrity. 73 soloveitchik, on repentance, 261. 74 ibid, 262. 19 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) in the words of psychoanalyst estelle frankl, “our most calamitous mistakes lead us to our calling and to our most redeeming qualities.”75 it is the failures and faults that turn into the sources of strength. in jewish history, she writes “it was frequently the repentant sinner or wounded healer—not the righteous saint—who was chosen as the hero or ideal leader.”76 indeed, all of the religious leaders in the bible, from abraham, moses, and david, carry moral baggage ranging from deceit to murder, rape, and betrayal. starting with the first couple in the garden of eden, the biblical hero sins, repents, and matures in faith and wisdom. it is the genius of the biblical witness that humanity is portrayed and accepted in its sinful, broken, and ambivalent state, presented with choices between life and death, good and evil. choices are always made within natural constraints and limited knowledge, scarce resources and fraught conditions. fault and failure are constant companions, fueling the desire for god, wholeness, healing, and fullness of life. a christianity without anti-judaism, a world without antisemitism: what might this even look like? as we observe the global resurgence of antisemitism amidst a pandemic crisis and economic upheaval, ecological collapse and political conflict, repentance for past transgressions seems the least of our problems. but as the old scapegoats and strategies of racial and religious division are deployed once again to channel populist rage, the fruits of repentance, or the lack thereof, are coming due. repentance is not the pastime of scholars who are “working off the past” while the future is made by propagandists, who exploit the new social media landscapes to drown out the labors of dialogue and critical analysis. repentance is about a future which is not condemned to repeat, over and over again, the same old patterns. repentance means that when synagogues are attacked, non-jews show up in the streets to show solidarity. repentance means standing with the victims this time. antisemitism and racism shall not go unopposed and human flourishing in all of its diversity shall be protected as a matter of faith. this time, we shall understand ourselves as one grafted tree weathering a gathering storm. 75 estelle frankel, “repentance, psychotherapy, and healing,” in civic repentance, ed. amitai etzioni (lanham, md: rowman & littlefield, 1999), 131. 76 frankel, “repentance, psychotherapy, and healing,” 136. catholicism and the roots of nazism: religious identity and national socialism studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): fisher r1-2 hastings, catholicism and the roots of nazism fisher r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 derek hastings catholicism and the roots of nazism: religious identity and national socialism (oxford and new york: oxford university press, 2010), hardcover, xv + 290 pp. reviewed by eugene j. fisher, retired associate director for ecumenical and interreligious relations, u.s. conference of catholic bishops this is an in-depth study of the connections between catholics and the catholic church in bavaria, especially munich, and the nazi movement. it begins with the rise of nazism in 1919, continues through the beerhall putsch (revolt) of 1923, and extends into the succeeding period of radical changes in nazi ideology. while most readers will be aware of the antagonistic relationship between the catholic church and hitler’s third reich, the early nazi movement emerged in a city and a region that was largely catholic, with both supporters and opponents of national socialism identifying themselves as catholics. hastings begins his study with an evocation of the “peculiarities” of munich’s catholic tradition (p. 17). unlike in the rest of germany, the catholic community in munich was notable for its independent streak. as the largest religious community, it had a relative openness to interconfessional cooperation and also a certain distance from the catholic center party and its local branch, the bavarian volks party. this relative independence from rome rendered bavarian catholics more vulnerable to the appeals of right-wing nationalists than other german catholics. also, munich catholics were unlike catholics in the rest of germany and even throughout europe, who had forged increasingly close ties to the pope and supported vatican resistance to secular states’ efforts to control religious affairs since the early nineteenth century. in munich, however, there was widespread catholic resistance to so-called ultramontanism (from ultra montes, or “over the mountains” in italy, where the pope lived), as many felt they did not need such “foreign” assistance or guidance. in munich, the german volkische chauvinism, with its anti-ultramontanism, extended itself to “foreign” jews, establishing a particularly fertile ground for what would become central to the ideology of the nazi party. the sense of nordic-aryan superiority and imagery was blended with explicitly catholic images and themes. the racial theories of houston chamberlain and arthur degobineau were popularly accepted, laying the groundwork for later experiments of forced sterilization of racially inferior elements within the superior, pure aryan-german population. hastings throughout emphasizes the large number of catholic priests and self-identified catholic leaders attracted to and involved in these developments in munich and southern bavaria, and hence their active involvement in the development of the nazi party in the region. he notes that all of this was in the context of a sense of “extreme crisis” (p. 47) that enveloped munich after the first world war. there was a sense of vulnerability which allowed a “brief but brutal” take-over of the city in 1919 by a soviet-style dictatorship in which russian jewish immigrants played a significant role. reaction to the brutality of this short-lived regime further fanned the fires of review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): fisher r1-2 hastings, catholicism and the roots of nazism fisher r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 antisemitism among many of the catholic citizens of munich. hitler and other early nazi leaders capitalized on these elements. they presented nazism as the true catholic party which could and would strongly resist foreign evils such as ultramontanism or the influence of the jews, thus preserving the purity of catholic munich’s race and religion. hastings shows the increasing success of nazism in munich along with its increasing stridency, and the shifting attitude of church leaders. whereas in the initial stages catholic church officials allowed, though did not encourage, the participation of catholic priests in the movement, they eventually decided that the movement had become too extreme. participation by priests was discouraged, and the most prominent supporters of nazism were taken out of positions of authority within the diocese. this opposition culminated in a ban—issued “informally but no less definitively,” hastings writes—on attendance by catholic priests at nazi meetings just before the 1923 putsch and a stern condemnation of antisemitism (p. 159). hitler, hastings shows, began to see his success as foreordained. he saw the success of mussolini in taking over italy and felt he was destined to do so in germany, gathering his forces for a great putsch that was to topple the bavarian government and begin the takeover of all of germany, as mussolini had done in italy. the beerhall putsch ended in violence and in the jailing of hitler and his key henchmen. hitler came out of jail believing himself to be the apocalyptic leader of a new world order and made the decision to join with other, similarly radical volkische groups in germany to achieve his goal, increasingly seeing himself as the apocalyptic savior destined to establish a thousand-year reich (kingdom). as hastings convincingly argues, history shows that this tactic was successful within germany. it also severed the last ties between nazism and catholicism in germany, since hitler’s new allies were not only anti-semites but anti-catholics. the catholic priests melted away and were replaced by protestant ministers. henceforth, the nazi party and the catholic church, including the catholics of munich, were increasingly antagonistic, reflecting profound underlying differences between catholicism and nazism. ironically, hastings concludes, while catholics in munich had given hitler his start, the only thing catholic to remain in nazism—as it rose to and took over power in germany—was the sense of sacred (in nazism’s case, pagan) ceremony, illustrated in the famous leni riefenstahl film “triumph of the will.” this work is highly recommended for those interested in the history of the christian churches, nazism, and the shoah. however, this reviewer might suggest a more nuanced title, such as “catholics and the roots of nazism” rather than “catholicism and the roots of nazism,” given the distinctiveness, as hastings himself emphasizes, of the munich catholic community and the growing opposition to nazism by church leaders in this period. scjr 10 (2015) 1 peer-reviewed article inclusive quarantine: the pathology and performance of jewish existence in the erlangen opinion on the aryan paragraph ryan tafilowski, the university of edinburgh introduction. the equivocal nature of the erlangen opinion in the spring of 1933, lutheran theologian paul althaus (1888-1966) greeted the rise of national socialism as a “gift and miracle of god.” 1 having served as a military hospital chaplain among german expatriates in poland during the first world war, he was a nationalist for whom the discipline and order of nazism did indeed look like good news. and he was by no means the only one; at the twilight of the weimar republic many clergy hoped that the new government would usher in germany’s spiritual and moral renewal. but the nazi seizure of power did radically alter the landscape of german church life. soon the church would fragment under the pressure of the “church struggle” [kirchenkampf] as the “german christian movement” [deutsche christen] and the “confessing church” [bekennende kirche] wrestled for control of the protestant churches. 2 the german christians embraced nazi “coordination” [gleichschaltung], complete with an effort to dejudaize 1 paul althaus, “das ja der kirche zur deutschen wende,” in die deutsche stunde der kirche (göttingen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 1934), 5. unless otherwise indicated, all translations from german texts are my own. 2 for further discussion of the politics of the kirchenkampf during the late weimar years, see klaus scholder, the churches and the third reich, volume 1: preliminary history and the time of illusions, 1918-1934, trans. john bowden (london: scm press, 1987). scjr 10 (2015) 2 the christian faith and to create a doctrineless church defined by antisemitism, jingoism, and chauvinism. 3 on the other side, the confessing church sought to safeguard the church’s autonomy against state interference. with respect to the place of jews in the german churches, however, its legacy is not without significant ambiguities. 4 as a representative of the erlangen school, long a stronghold of confessional lutheranism, althaus was an active player in the church struggle, though his mediatory theological approach makes him difficult to locate within the german christian / confessing church matrix. indeed, althaus quarreled with both sides, though on different grounds. he was openly critical of the crude antisemitism of the german christians and resisted their unsophisticated supersessionist theology, though he held sympathies with the völkisch impulse behind the movement. 5 at the same time, he had a longstanding dispute with confessing church leader karl barth over the nature of general revelation. althaus’ doctrine of “primal revelation” [uroffenbarung], by which god was thought to reveal himself in historical and political events (such as national socialism’s rise), drew barth’s fierce criticism. 6 althaus’ mediatory temperament would soon be tested—along with the ambivalent attitudes of the broader protestant community toward the “jewish question”—as the new state quickly took measures to exclude jews from public 3 see doris bergen, twisted cross: the german christian movement in the third reich (chapel hill, nc: university of north carolina press, 1996). 4 see robert ericksen and susannah heschel, “introduction,” in betrayal: german churches and the holocaust, ed. robert ericksen and susannah heschel (minneapolis: fortress press, 1999) for a helpful overview of protestant attitudes toward jews and judaism in the late weimar and early national socialist eras. 5 see paul althaus, “politisches christentum: ein wort über die thüringer ‘deutsche christen,’” theologia militans 5:5 (1935), 4-32. 6 following the release of althaus’ religiöser sozialismus in 1921, the two exchanged pamphlets well into the 1940s. scjr 10 (2015) 3 life. from the beginning, protestant reactions were varied. for example, public resistance to events such as the april 1, 1933 boycott of jewish businesses was unfortunately lacking, despite signs of the churches’ unease with nazi methods. 7 the churches faced perhaps their stiffest challenge in the law for the restoration of the professional civil service of april of 1933. the law’s so-called “aryan paragraph” dismissed citizens of “non-aryan descent” from civil office. 8 shortly thereafter, the prussian general synod of the deutsche evangelische kirche (dek) appealed to the theological faculties of marburg and erlangen for a word of expertise regarding the application of the “aryan paragraph” to the question of jewish pastors within the dek. in erlangen, the task fell to its two prized theologians: althaus and his colleague werner elert. althaus and elert’s erlangen opinion on the aryan paragraph has not aged well—especially in comparison to its marburg counterpart, authored primarily by rudolf bultmann. 9 in the end, the erlangen professors recommend that the dek’s jewish christians “be restrained from taking pastoral office.” 10 but at the same time, the opinion stops short of total application of the “aryan paragraph” by allowing for hypothetical exceptions by which “jewish” pastors could minister to “german” congregations. 11 the document is just ambiguous 7 see wolfgang gerlach, and the witnesses were silent: the confessing church and the persecution of the jews, trans. and ed. victoria barnett (lincoln, ne: university of nebraska press, 2000), especially 9-24. 8 the text of the legislation and its subsequent addendums is reproduced in bernard dov weinryb, jewish emancipation under attack (new york: american jewish committee, 1942), 40-42. 9 see paul althaus and werner elert, “theologisches gutachten über die zulassung von christen jüdischer herkunft zu den ämtern der deutschen evangelischen kirche,” theologische blätter 12:11 (1933): 321-24 and “opinion der theologischen fakultät der universität marburg zum kirchengesetz über die rechtsverhältnisse der geistlichen und kirchenbeamten,” theologische blätter 12:10 (1933): 290-04. 10 erlangen opinion, §5, 323. 11 erlangen opinion, §7, 324. althaus and elert allow for exceptions. jewish pastors can retain their posts, for instance, if they had demonstrated their “willingness to offer their lives for germany” during world war i. i scjr 10 (2015) 4 enough to leave room for competing interpretations of its spirit. some have defended the erlangen opinion by emphasizing its exemptions for jewish pastors. for instance, gotthard jasper has suggested that what makes the document problematic is not its theology, but its lack of clarity. before we conclude that the opinion targets the jews for persecution, argues jasper, we must listen for the statement’s “nuances,” which make space to include pastors of jewish descent in the dek. as such, it stands in opposition to the universal application of the “aryan paragraph” in the church. 12 more forcefully, karlmann beyschlag has argued that the opinion “flatly excludes” any legal restriction on jewish pastors. 13 there is a contrast here with interpreters such as robert ericksen, who has characterized the opinion as “an apology for the aryan paragraph [sic],” albeit it an ambiguous one. 14 likewise wolfgang gerlach considers the opinion, its exemptions for select jewish pastors notwithstanding, as a compromise with the “hyper-german völkisch zeitgeist” of the era. 15 a close reading of the statement, however, suggests do not acknowledge the national socialist regime’s racialized “jewish” / “german” vocabulary. however, for facility of reference, the essay will proceed using the language of “jewish” and “german” because althaus and elert accept these terms. 12 gotthard jasper, paul althaus (1888-1966): professor, prediger und patriot in seiner zeit (göttingen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2013), 235-38. 13 karlmann beyschlag, die erlanger theologie (erlangen: martin luther verlag, 1993), 163. in beyschlag’s judgment, “[t]he erlangen opinion reveals itself as an extremely skillful and tactical attempt to safeguard not only the regulation of the aryan-question [arierfrage], but along with it ecclesial autonomy with respect to the state (a traditional erlangen desideratum) in the face of a supremely dangerous precedent” (164). 14 robert ericksen, theologians under hitler: gerhard kittel, paul althaus, emanuel hirsch (new haven, ct: yale university press, 1985), 108-09. ericksen does make note of the erlangen opinion’s exemptions for jewish pastors, which demonstrate a “compromise [...] very representative of althaus.” 15 see gerlach, and the witnesses were silent, 38-43. scjr 10 (2015) 5 above all that it is equivocal; in the words of victoria barnett, the erlangen faculty “avoided the issue.” 16 given the ambivalence of protestant attitudes toward the “jewish question” in general and that of the erlangen opinion in particular, my aim here is to investigate the unique way in which althaus and elert “avoided the issue.” that is to say, there are nuances within the opinion’s prescription for the place of jewish persons in the dek that are only fully discernable against the backdrop of althaus’ prior comments about the nature and meaning of jewish existence. namely, i argue that careful attention to the opinion’s nuances actually reveals the clear but dialectical theology of the “jewish question” that althaus developed first in the years of the weimar republic. althaus’ vision for the place of jewish persons in human societies is dialectical—alternating between the poles of inclusion and exclusion. thus it is only by reasoning dialectically that we can grasp this vision, which i call inclusive quarantine—inclusive, because the jews are conceived as an indispensable factor in the life of the volk; quarantine, because althaus invokes the language of pathology and infection to characterize the nature of jewish relationship to other peoples. in this paradoxical framework, jewish persons simultaneously threaten to destroy the communities in which they are situated—both societal and ecclesial—while also performing constructive theological functions for those same communities. i further argue that althaus fits this wider theological vision to a microcosmic scale in the erlangen opinion: christians of jewish descent emerge as a necessary danger for “german” christians and must be confined to the margins of the church. in this way, jews, on account of their dialectical relationship with germans, are suspended precariously between total belonging and total alienation, marginalized to an inclu 16 victoria barnett, for the soul of the people: protestant protest against hitler (new york: oxford university press, 1992), 129. scjr 10 (2015) 6 sive quarantine within the walls of their own religious communities. andré fischer captures something of this dialectic when he proposes that althaus imagines the jews as a “foreign volk next to—but not against—germans.” 17 however, as i will demonstrate below, althaus conceptualizes the jews rather as a foreign volk within and apart from other human communities. i. the theology of the “jewish question” in althaus’ weimar writings “jewry [das judentum],” writes althaus in 1930, “represents an ethnic-national [völkisch] question, without doubt. but today it is more important to emphasize that jewry poses a theological question! each question is fundamentally different than the other.” 18 for althaus, the so-called “jewish question” has two distinct yet interrelated dimensions: one socio-political and one theological. ostensibly, the opinion maintains this bifurcation between the social and theological dimensions of the “jewish question.” however, as is the case across althaus’ weimar writings, these two dimensions relate dialectically within the logic of the opinion. the result is a vision in which the jews, whose existence is charged with a mysterious theological purpose, appear as a necessary danger. jewish persons perform a number of constructive functions within a dialectic of election and curse. as signs of god’s judgment, jews are condemned to wander on the edges of all human societies as irritants that disrupt the total ethnic homogeneity of other peoples. 17 andré fischer, zwischen zeugnis und zeitgeist: die politische theologie von paul althaus in der weimarer republik (göttingen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2012), 522. emphasis in the original. 18 paul althaus, “die frage des evangeliums an das moderne judentum,” zeitschrift für systematische theologie 7 (1930), 196. scjr 10 (2015) 7 a. the jews as social and spiritual threat: kirche und volkstum (1927) in his 1927 speech kirche und volkstum, althaus welcomes enthusiastically an hour of “a new consciousness of our national type and responsibility, a passionate desire for the rebirth of our volk out of the procreative power of our volkstum.” 19 though the address begins as a challenge for the preservation of völkisch identity in ethnic german expatriate communities, its focus turns quickly toward the alienation of the volk taking place on german soil. in this framework, the jews emerge as a foil to the german national type and as an impediment to the realization of the german destiny. althaus situates his thinking about the “jewish question” within the broader ethical schema of the orders of creation. these orders—such as government, the legal system, business and commerce, and marriage and family—structure creation in its postlapsarian state to preserve it from chaos. most critical for our purposes is althaus’ designation of the volk as an elemental order of creation: we mean by volkstum the unique spiritual vitality [seelentum] which distinguishes us from others and appears in the collective feelings, values, desires, and thoughts of all of our ethnic compatriots...a primordial givenness [eine ursprünglichen gegebenheit]...a spiritual reality, mysteriously born of spiritual primal origination... 20 althaus’ fear of the jews is only intelligible with the understanding that for althaus the volk is a spiritual entity. the volk derives its power not primarily through its bloodlines, but through its spiritual vitality: “however great the importance of blood in spiritual history may be, once a 19 paul althaus, “kirche und volkstum,” in evangelium und leben: gesammelte vorträge (gütersloh: bertelsmann, 1927), 113-14, 142-43. 20 althaus, “kirche und volkstum,” 114. scjr 10 (2015) 8 nationality has been born, the prevailing factor is still geist and not blood.” 21 althaus understands the volk as a manifestation of god’s creative will and as the expression of god’s own selfrevelation. 22 thus the defining characteristic of germanness is a christian spiritual vitality [seelentum]. the german volk is a christian volk entrusted with a divine mission in the world. althaus speaks of “the burden of german loneliness” unique to the bearers of an onerous spiritual genius as germans have been “consecrated as a special priesthood of the knowledge of the last things.” the germans are a nation of priests: to be german is to be christian. 23 but the christian character of the german volk, along with its concomitant mission in the world, is disintegrating. the twin pressures of “civilization” [die zivilisation] and “foreigners” [die fremde] conspire to corrode german society. 24 in althausian idiom, though, the two are actually the same thing: the “foreign infiltration” [überfremdung] whose chief symbol is the jews. tanja hetzer has identified althaus’ use of the term “civilization” as a culturally encoded reference to jews: “without using the word jew even once, althaus portrays the corrosive enemy of the peoples’ community in the cultural code of the time, which connected all of these things with jews.” 25 through these rhetorical associations—the key words “rootless,” “homeless,” and “big-city”—althaus targets 21 althaus, “kirche und volkstum,” 114. in althaus’ lexicon, geist connotes not only rationality, but a volk’s spirit, i.e. its spiritual sensibilities as well as its ways of thinking, speaking, and perceiving the world. 22 althaus, “kirche und volkstum,” 123-24. 23 see althaus, “kirche und volkstum,” 121-22, 125-26. 24 althaus, “kirche und volkstum,” 115. 25 tanja hetzer, “deutsche stunde”: volksgemeinschaft und antisemitismus in der politischen theologie bei paul althaus (münchen: allitera verlag, 2009), 152-53. scjr 10 (2015) 9 the jews as the prime cause of the “fracturing of our volk and the decay of our national community.” 26 althaus suspects that the moral degeneracy of weimar is symptomatic of the spiritual sickness of the jews, which threatens the very constitution of the volk. the rise of “jewish power and the jewish spirit” is a problem that can only be addressed with “an eye and a word for the jewish threat to our national values.” 27 althaus approaches the “jewish question” here: it is not a matter of jew-hatred [judenhaß]—one can even come to an agreement with serious jews on this point—it is not a matter of blood, it is not even a matter of the religious faith of judaism, but rather it is a matter of a threat posed through a certain demoralized and demoralizing big-city spirituality [großstädtische geistigkeit] whose bearer is now primarily the jewish volk. 28 the logic of althaus’ thinking about the “jewish question” is encoded here. jews are not a threat when they confine themselves to the synagogue and practice their religion in private. the jews do become dangerous, however, when they intrude into public life, when they blur the bloodlines between jew and german, but above all when they appear to assimilate into german society. the problem arises when jews violate the orders of creation—when they try to overcome the primordial spiritual origination of the volk—that is, when they try to become germans. but why are jews dangerous? not because they are an inherently inferior race, but because they bear a foreign spirituality. this sickness of the jewish geist, if allowed to infect german spiritual life, threatens to shipwreck the divine mis 26 althaus, “kirche und volkstum,” 116. 27 althaus, “kirche und volkstum,” 130. 28 althaus, “kirche und volkstum,” 131. scjr 10 (2015) 10 sion of the german nation. “the churches must recognize and show where the powers stand that again and again hinder our volk in its self-determination and purification [selbstbesinnung und reinigung].” 29 the jews are now a “power” whose pollutive influence is poised to thwart the realization of the german destiny and sap germany’s spiritual vitality. althaus therefore calls on the church to “struggle alongside all who fight for the rejuvenation of an already sick folk-life, work courageously for the preservation and renewal of old morals, organic connections, and for the overcoming of the big-city decay of the volk, for a return to a healthy folk-life rooted in our soil.” 30 by using the language of pathology, althaus targets jews—especially assimilated jews—as contagions who contribute toward a “sick folk-life” and obstruct german “purification.” nonetheless, the jews, abstracted into a rhetorical symbol, perform a critical function as the foil against which a revitalized christian germany must concentrate its renewed spiritual vitality in order to fulfill its divine mission in the world. b. the jews as the bearers of a “difficult fate”: leitsätze zur ethik (1929) althaus’ clearest interpretation of the “jewish question” appears in leitsätze zur ethik, in which he again addresses the question within the ethical framework of the doctrine of the orders of creation. 31 before offering his own provisional solution to the problem of jewish existence in germany, althaus begins with an overview of failed proposals. in so doing, he rejects both the total inclusion and the total exclusion of the jews. 29 althaus, “kirche und volkstum,” 131. 30 althaus, “kirche und volkstum,” 139. 31 paul althaus, leitsätze zur ethik (erlangen: merkel, 1929), 47. scjr 10 (2015) 11 despite over a century of debate about the civil reform of the jews, “enlightenment liberalism” [aufklärerischer liberalismus] has failed to provide a workable solution: “[the question] is posed, in spite of all the assimilation, through the foreignness between the jewish and german ethnic types, which is now felt more strongly than ever...” 32 ironically, all of the efforts of emancipation and assimilation throughout the prior centuries had only exacerbated—not diminished—the differences between jews and germans. for althaus, jews cannot become germans because the boundaries of each volk, pursuant to the orders of creation, are impermeable. these laws of the orders of creation trump the assumptions of enlightenment discourse, which relies on the concepts of universal human dignity and equality to flatten fixed and intrinsic ethnic differences. humanity’s historical existence, argues althaus, is not characterized by basic equality, but is instead governed by the elemental “law of conflict” [konfliktgesetz]. 33 each volk is created by god to be essentially segregated from every other volk, and each is charged to protect itself against the influence of other peoples. 34 this results inevitably in violent conflict between the peoples as each pursues its unique destiny within the same historical space. but conflict, in althaus’ christianized alternative to social darwinism, drives history through the dreadful mandates of the “law of struggle” [kampfgesetz] and the competitive “law of displacement” [verdrängungsgesetz], by which one volk may overtake and replace another. 35 this haze of violence that envelops human life—what althaus elsewhere calls the “spirit of cain”—is a curse, but it is also the means by which god administers creation after the fall. 36 32 althaus, leitsätze, 54. 33 althaus, leitsätze, 63-64. 34 see althaus, leitsätze, 53. 35 paul althaus, “kampf,” in religion in geschichte und gegenwart, vol. 3., ed. hermann gunkel and leopold zscharnack (tübingen: mohr siebeck, 1929), 595-96. 36 see althaus, “kain und christus” (3 april 1931), in der gegenwärtige: predigten (gütersloh: bertelsmann, 1932), 54-55. cf. althaus, “die ge scjr 10 (2015) 12 in the face of these “ethnic laws of life, the enlightenment [aufklärerische] appeal to the concepts of tolerance, equal rights, and universal human dignity makes no sense.” 37 the assimilation of one people into another violates god’s design for the volk as an order of creation. the jewish and german völker are in competition, each trying to realize its respective destiny in history. when jews disappear into german society, they forget their own unique vocation as a volk and at the same time threaten the german destiny. hence the total inclusion represented by the political project of emancipation and assimilation is an untenable solution. 38 but althaus also rejects “racial-antisemitism” as a way forward; “ethnic hatred” against the jews as a “race inferior in themselves” holds no promise for solving the “jewish question.” 39 he questions the stability of the term rasse—a buzzword of racist pseudo-science—as a discursive tool to make universal judgments about ethnic groups. 40 as we have seen, althaus does point to “indisputable spiritual differences” between the races, but qualifies this present “racial diversity” as a temporary state that will be abolished at the eschaton. 41 like the other orders of creation, race is a penultimate condition intended to govern human life in its postlapsarian state. rasse and volk are not ultimate categories, but they nevertheless must be maintained in historical existence to safeguard against chaos. stalt dieser welt und die sünde: ein beitrag zur theologie der geschichte,” zeitschrift für systematische theologie 9 (1932), 335. 37 althaus, leitsätze, 55. 38 “the solution to the jewish question can be expected neither through the completion of emancipation and assimilation nor through the external or legal expulsion [of the jews] from the life association [lebensverband] of our state.” althaus, leitsätze, 55. 39 althaus, leitsätze, 55. 40 “yet in physically-descriptive anthropology, the concept is absolutely precarious, as there is a consensus neither about racially demarcating physical characteristics nor about the racial classification of humanity, except for in the most general of terms.” althaus, leitsätze, 67. 41 althaus, leitsätze, 67. scjr 10 (2015) 13 chaos, however, now threatens the order of creation as jews encroach into german volkstum—not primarily through the contamination of german blood, but through the corruption of german values through foreign spirituality. in particular, for althaus “the danger of jewry exists above all in the fact that...it has become the chief bearer of the rationalcritical, individualistic spirit of the enlightenment, and as such a predominate force in the struggle against the historical ties, customs, and traditions of our people.” 42 the jews, then, are not only aliens, but also agents of alienation. in particular, over the previous century, a modern constellation of judaism had created a distinct subculture based on the ideals of the enlightenment in the hopes of attaining equal standing with ethnic germans by way of bildung. as more jews embraced the progressive vision of the haskalah, the visible distinction between jews and germans started to blur. consequently, emancipation and antisemitism shared a symbiotic relationship—a byproduct of what shulamit volkov has called the “paradoxes of becoming alike.” 43 unnerved by these paradoxes, althaus instead hopes for a provisional solution to the “jewish question” in a stringent and visible delineation between jews and germans through “jewry’s intensified awareness of its own unique volkstum, its own special destiny [schicksal], and its own particular situation.” since in althaus’ view the enlightenment project had failed, jews should now “openly profess” their jewishness by embracing their distinct historical vocation. 44 however, implicit in althaus’ proposal is the fear that, despite his attestation to the contrary, assimilation had worked—at least partially. the call for jews to “come out” [sich bekennen] and identify themselves hints at althaus’ fear and 42 althaus, leitsätze, 67. 43 see shulamit volkov, germans, jews, and antisemites: trials in emancipation (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2006), 202-23. 44 althaus, leitsätze, 55. scjr 10 (2015) 14 suspicion of assimilated jews who were now impossible to distinguish from germans. only when jews openly confess their jewishness can the appropriate boundaries between jews and germans be established. with these boundaries in place, althaus envisions a “worthy community” characterized by mutual respect. 45 it is critical to recognize, however, that althaus does not envision separate societies for germans and jews, but rather clear and visible demarcation between germans and jews in a shared societal space. althaus’ view has dramatic implications because of the undesirable nature of the jewish vocation. in contempt of the orders of creation, the world’s peoples have become jumbled in the unfolding of history. in this “muddle of peoples...not every volk finds the possibility of the formation of its own national state.” 46 while some peoples are privileged to realize the destiny of nationhood, others must bear the “difficult fate” [schweres schicksal] of living as exiles within a foreign state to testify to “the limits of the national state’s authority.” 47 althaus describes the jews’ alleged divine commission in nearly identical terms: ...the mystery of the jewish destiny among and for the peoples has, in the judgment of faith, a serious purpose. the question of this scattered, homeless jewry exhibits the open question of history in general, reminds us of the limits of ethnic segregation and ethnic national-community [völkischer geschlossenheit], and directs our gaze to the coming kingdom of god. 48 the jews’ socio-political purpose and their theological purpose are virtually synonymous. it is precisely as the “scattered, homeless jewry” that jewish persons fulfill their unenviable national mission as signs of the unresolvability of human history, 45 althaus, leitsätze, 55. 46 althaus, leitsätze, 61. 47 althaus, leitsätze, 61. 48 althaus, leitsätze, 55. scjr 10 (2015) 15 as free-floating alien bodies that prevent the total ethnic homogeneity of other peoples, and as mysterious portends of the coming kingdom. echoes of the ancient libel of the eternally wandering jew are obvious, especially because althaus links the jews’ disinherited state with their rejection of jesus. 49 but it is striking to note how althaus reframes what many christian theologians have considered as the jews’ “curse” (i.e. their exilic existence among the nations) as the jews’ “destiny.” more accurately, perhaps, he conflates the concepts of curse and vocation. the curse of the jews is, paradoxically, also their unique calling: to dwell on the fringes of all human societies as a perpetually dispossessed sign of judgment over other peoples with more glorious destinies to fulfill. in the end, althaus rejects the inclusion/exclusion binary represented by the ideologies of assimilation and racial antisemitism. instead, he offers a dialectical vision of jewish existence wherein the place of jewish persons is both inside and outside of human communities— both everywhere and nowhere. c. the jews as disrupters of “ethnic national unity”: gott und volk (1932) by the time althaus’ essay gott und volk appears in 1932, nationalistic fervor is reaching its boiling point. althaus perceives a danger at each opposite pole of the public debate about the surging völkisch movement. on the one hand, the rise of non-christian völkisch ideology—whether in the form of secular nationalism or neo-paganism—threatens to drown out christian proclamation regarding the relationship between god and the german nation. on the other hand, althaus distrusts “a truncated concept of theology, indeed of revelation,” which precludes the possibility of divine self-revelation in political and historical events. 50 the althausian brand of christian 49 althaus, leitsätze, 55. 50 paul althaus, “gott und volk,” in die deutsche stunde der kirche (göttingen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 1934), 34. scjr 10 (2015) 16 nationalism emerges here: german renewal lies in a christian spirituality that can venerate the volk without idolizing it. 51 althaus basically affirms the völkisch impulse, but fears that it has become untethered from germany’s christian heritage by elevating the volk over its creator. to temper the threat of idolatry, he warns that “all earthly bonds have been ‘called into question before god.’” it is therefore impossible to speak of an “eternal nationality” [ewige volkstum] because “the volk is a creation and just a creation, god-given, but truly not immortal and not divine; it is instead mortal and transient, limited and sinful.” 52 it is at this point that the “jewish question” actually provides a constructive resource for the christianization of nationalism: “however we germans solve it, one thing will not change: the jews will remain seated in our country, as they are among the other peoples of the world.” 53 even though jewish existence represents a danger, it is nevertheless a permanent fixture in all societies. for althaus the jews have a special significance for germans as proof of the limits of ethnic solidarity. in other words, he recruits the jews as a tool to combat idolatrous nationalisms: “it seems to me that their destiny, beyond all of the difficult tasks and hardships that it brings with it, has a clear purpose from god...” the purpose of jewish existence is threefold: 1) to “disrupt the ethnic national unity” [völkische geschlossenheit] in human societies everywhere, but “particularly acutely” in germany, 2) to “point to the limits and relativity of ethnic segregation” [völkische sonderung], and 3) to “direct our gaze to the coming kingdom of god.” 54 51 althaus, “gott und volk,” 46. 52 althaus, “gott und volk,” 47. 53 althaus, “gott und volk,” 47. 54 althaus, “gott und volk,” 47. scjr 10 (2015) 17 the themes expressed in this passage capture the complexity of althaus’ theology of the “jewish question” during the weimar period. the jews, though dangerous, are actually indispensable for his theology of volk. within his christianized völkisch nationalism, althaus thus puts the jews to work as a “thorn, which painfully disturbs gentile self-segregation in national identity.” 55 the jews therefore must remain an unsolvable problem. the expulsion of german jews, according to the logic of gott und volk, is a theological impossibility. jews are indispensable not because they are intrinsically valuable, but because they have been charged with a strange and difficult vocation: to testify to the limits of national achievement in the fallen state of creation. jewish persons are evidence of the provisional nature of ethnic segregation and of the limitations of the ideal of ethnic national-community. in a paradoxical way, althaus uses the jews as a rhetorical device to expose a fatal flaw in secular and pagan ethnic nationalisms: the idolatrous exaltation of the volk above its creator. for this reason, althaus proposes not that jews be expelled or assimilated, but quarantined within german communities as an exhibit to prove that no volk stands above its creator. d. the jews as riddle of the coming kingdom: der brief an die römer (1932) althaus also puzzles over the “dark, depressing riddle” posed by israel’s existence in his der brief an die römer of 1932: “the people of salvation history [heilsgeschichte] has become the salvation-less people.” 56 his interpretation of the destiny of the jews in romans 9-11 exhibits the same dialecti 55 jörg baur, “vermittlung in unversöhnten zeiten: zum gedenken an paul althaus 1888-1966,” kerygma und dogma 34 (1988), 189. 56 paul althaus, der brief an die römer. übersetzt und erklärt (göttingen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 1932), 79. scjr 10 (2015) 18 cal quality of much christian discourse about the jews within the “witness people” tradition. 57 positively, althaus emphasizes israel’s continuing, though qualified, election by god. in contrast to the radical elements of the völkisch movement, which aim to discount completely israel’s salvation-historical importance, althaus maintains that a remnant of ethnic israel will figure prominently in the climax of salvation-history. likewise, his affirmation of the jewishness of jesus is not without significance in a time when some christian theologians were trying to aryanize him. 58 but even though the religious history of the people of israel is critical, the church is now the true “israel of god.” 59 althaus, generally following a classical supersessionist model, reconfigures israel as a theological category so that “bodily descent from the people of israel does not necessarily mean belonging to the true israel as the community of the children of god, that is, the church of god.” 60 in the negative dimension of the dialectic, then, the people of israel were once the bearers of salvation-history, but have squandered that original vocation by rejecting grace in favor of a dead religion of works righteousness. as a result of israel’s obstinacy, “god’s way of salvation has become for israel a doom and a curse through their unbelief.” 61 althaus resolves the dilemma of israel’s simultaneous election and reprobation by appealing to the “remnant”—a small remainder of christians of jewish descent who fulfill israel’s election and stand as evidence of god’s faithfulness to 57 see stephen haynes, reluctant witnesses: jews and the christian imagination (louisville, ky: westminster john knox press, 1995), 8-10. 58 althaus, römer, 79. see susannah heschel, the aryan jesus: christian theologians and the bible in nazi germany (princeton: princeton university press, 2008). 59 althaus, römer, 80. 60 althaus, römer, 82. 61 althaus, römer, 87. scjr 10 (2015) 19 his covenant with israel. it is jewish christians, in addition to gentiles, who now constitute the true israel, occupying the space vacated by the majority of ethnic israel. israel’s lapse is, paradoxically, the fulfillment of its original salvation-historical function: to bring salvation to the gentiles. 62 these comments on the text, though often antagonistic toward judaism, generally exhibit the same tension between jewish reprobation and preservation evident in classical christian exegesis. 63 however, in a concluding excursus althaus seeks to connect his interpretation of romans 9-11 to the contemporary socio-political discourse about the “jewish question” in germany. 64 in the transition from biblical text to social commentary, althaus relies on antisemitic libels and anti-judaic clichés. in the first place, althaus suggests that israel’s destiny has been forever altered by its confrontation with jesus christ. he writes that, “in israel’s history with god, its encounter with christ was the decisive hour. israel’s fate [schicksal], both inward and outward, is sealed decisively through its rejection of jesus.” the crucifixion is the pivotal moment in which israel— the vessel of salvation-historical—becomes the jews—the present-day ethnic population with no direct salvation-historical significance. althaus’ radical re-orientation of the purpose of jewish existence now comes into view. the failure to recognize jesus as god’s messiah signals the end of israel’s direct role in the drama of salvation history. since the crucifixion, one can now speak of “the eternal jew” [der ewige jude], who is destined to roam the earth disrupting the peace of others because he himself can find no peace. 65 62 althaus, römer, 93-94. 63 see haynes, reluctant witnesses, 25-63. 64 althaus, römer, 100. 65 althaus, römer, 100-01. althaus had taken up the theme of the jews’ guilt for the crucifixion, and their subsequent curse, in his sermons, “die herrlichkeit in der passion,” in der lebendige: rostocker predigten (gütersloh: bertelsmann, 1926), 146 and “die stimme des blutes,” in der gegenwärtige: predigten (gütersloh: bertelsmann, 1932), 162-63. scjr 10 (2015) 20 in this rhetoric, jewish existence is parasitic, sapping the vitality of the societies to which it is attached: this scattered, homeless people that everywhere disrupts the ethnic national-unity [völkische geschlossenheit] of their host-peoples, and which in many cases represents an open wound, embodies the open question of history in general, reminds the peoples of the limits of their ethnic national-community and of the provisional nature of their segregation [sonderung], and directs their gaze to the coming kingdom of god. 66 by plaguing the national body as an “open wound” that will not heal, the jews again enact their “indirect eschatological significance” as a living symbol to remind germans of the provisional nature of their ethnic national solidarity. 67 the continued existence of jewish communities, in other words, is a sign of god’s judgment over the “self-assertion” of the volk against god. 68 though the jews are no longer the bearers of salvation history, they retain a critical, if indirect, theological purpose—even while they, like an open wound, threaten to infect an otherwise healthy body. ii. pathology and performance in althaus’ theology of the “jewish question” these four documents provide us with a useful framework through which to interpret the erlangen opinion. the dialectic of pathology and performance that animates althaus’ theology of the “jewish question” during the weimar period can be outlined as follows: 66 althaus, römer, 101. 67 the language is andré fischer’s. see zwischen zeugnis und zeitgeist, 500. 68 althaus, römer, 101. scjr 10 (2015) 21 1) jewish persons are dangerous. althaus confronts the “jewish question” within his militant permutation of the lutheran doctrine of the orders of creation, the elemental “laws of life” which express god’s design for the segregation of human communities according to ethnic type. 69 jews violate god’s elemental design for creation when they hide their jewishness and pose as germans. the jews thus represent a threat to the orders of creation in general and a spiritual danger to germans in particular. althaus therefore frequently uses the language of pathology and infection to characterize jewish existence. 2) even under the curse, jewish persons are indispensable because jewish existence is performative. the people of israel have become the jews at the crucifixion, and now exist within the dialectic of election and curse. having failed their original salvation-historical vocation, ethnic jews have now been re-commissioned to wander the earth as disrupters of socio-political communities and signs of divine judgment. 3) jewish persons perform constructive symbolic functions in the socio-political sphere. the jews’ “peculiar self-assertion” as a volk in the socio-political sphere serves as evidence of the limits of ethnic nationalunity. 70 confined as visible exhibits on the margins of society, jews testify that the volk, no matter how healthy or powerful, will never achieve full ethnic solidarity, purity of blood, or total authority. 4) jewish persons perform constructive symbolic functions in the theological sphere. as they live out their 69 this motif is common in althaus’ weimar writings, but reaches perhaps its fullest expression in althaus’ 1935 edition of theologie der ordnungen, 2 nd ed. (gütersloh: bertelsmann, 1935): “in the classification of humanity into races and peoples, we recognize the creative richness of god, which establishes individual life here as it does everywhere. but this classification is at the same time segregation [sonderung]. the peoples not only live next to each other, but also, to an extent, stand against each other” (53). 70 althaus, römer, 101. scjr 10 (2015) 22 precarious mission to prevent total ethnic homogeneity in all human societies, the jews portend theologically that the volk will ultimately be transcended in the kingdom of god. though divested of their original vocation, jews still exercise a critical prophetic function by confronting their host societies as a living safeguard against the idolization of the volk. in both the socio-political and the theological spheres, the jews are for althaus a necessary danger who must remain both inside and outside of surrounding communities to fulfill their purpose as a volk. on a societal scale, the relationship between jews and germans is dialectical, and thus can be characterized neither by total exclusion nor total inclusion. althaus rejects, therefore, both the assimilation and the expulsion of germany’s jews. instead, he projects an inclusive quarantine model in which jewish danger is to be contained within but not eliminated from its host societies. below, i propose that althaus transposes the ecclesial question of the place of jewish persons in the dek onto this broader national vision of inclusive quarantine. iii. inclusive quarantine in microcosm: the erlangen opinion (1933) the prussian general synod had ruled that persons of non-aryan descent, or those married to persons of non-aryan descent, are to be prohibited from ordination. those pastors of non-aryan descent already serving should be forced into retirement, with the exception of those who can produce evidence of outstanding service to the german spirit. 71 though it does offer important qualifications, the opinion legitimates the findings of the synod. “the requirement of aryan ancestry” is seen as an acceptable criterion for evaluating a ministerial candidate because the church has always made such judgments on the basis of “age, gender, and physical fit 71 erlangen opinion, 321. scjr 10 (2015) 23 ness.” 72 but in this judgment, the opinion accepts uncritically the antisemitic discursive vocabulary of the aryan paragraph. 73 from the start, the opinion anticipates the objection that the difference between jew and german is overcome in the spiritual unity of the church. 74 althaus and elert grant that “no person, let alone an entire volk, is to be excluded from the universal application of the gospel.” pursuant to this gospel, jews and germans are indeed equals before god, for “in communion with christ there is no distinction between jew and non-jew before god.” yet under god’s self-revelation in the law, “the common community that all christians share as children of god does not abolish [nicht aufhebt] biological and societal differences.” 75 because the law “obligates us to the natural orders to which we have been subjected, such as family, volk, and race (that is, blood relationship),” spiritual communion and ethnic solidarity are two separate questions. 76 a common confession may make a jew a christian, but it does not make a jew a german. the opinion roots this exclusivist dimension of its ecclesiology in a specific interpretation of the church’s history. althaus and elert point to “evidence that, in the early church, the jewish christians [judenchristen] followed a different church-order than non-jewish christians.” the churches of the reformation in turn adopted this custom to produce a distinct form of ecclesiastical ordinance that conforms to “the classification [gliederung] of christian people according to history and ethnicity.” 77 to preserve the unique character of the german church through ethnic demarcation, as the prus 72 erlangen opinion, 321. 73 the erlangen opinion employs the dubious racial language of “nonaryan” [nichtarischer] as defined in the first racial definition of april 11, 1933. see dov weinryb, jewish emancipation under attack, 41-42. 74 an objection raised, for example, in the marburg opinion. 75 erlangen opinion, §1, 322. 76 erlangen opinion, §1, 322. 77 erlangen opinion, §2, 322. scjr 10 (2015) 24 sian general synod has recommended, does not violate but rather upholds the reformation tradition: the national churches [kirchentümer] which emerged from the wittenberg reformation, according to these fundamental principles, have adapted themselves to the boundaries between different peoples, and have preserved those boundaries not only in the vernacular language used in worship and in the shape of each national particularity [eigentümlichkeiten], but have also contributed essentially to the cultivation and maintenance of those boundaries. 78 the dek is therefore authorized to restrict the admission of jewish christians to pastoral office without violating the nature of the church because “being one in christ [eins-sein in christus] is for the lutheran confessions not a question of external organization, but of faith.” 79 on the one hand, then, althaus and elert subordinate ecclesiology to the volk within the doctrine of the orders of creation. the opinion presupposes that the volk is a fixed ordinance of creation to which the church must accommodate itself, rather than vice versa: “the ethnic plurality of external church ordinance is a necessary result of ethnic classification [völkischen gliederung] in general, which is to be affirmed as both a matter of destiny [schicksalhaften] and as a matter of ethics...” 80 by this logic, a pastor must be connected organically to his congregation in order to meet the community’s spiritual needs. that is to say, a pastor must belong to the same volk as 78 erlangen opinion, §2, 322. i render kirchentümer as “national churches,” but this word also connotes the concept of churches that conform to each ethnic group’s historical and spiritual particularity, such as vernacular language and social custom. 79 erlangen opinion, §2, 322. 80 erlangen opinion, §3, 322-23. scjr 10 (2015) 25 the members of his congregation, with whom he shares a common destiny. 81 althaus and elert doubt that a jewish pastor will be able to gain credibility with a german community. should jewish pastors remain in their posts, the opinion anticipates “cases in which insurmountable difficulties arise between the pastor and the community on account of the jewish ancestry of the pastor” due to the “breakdown of the relationship of trust between the pastor and the congregation.” 82 this conclusion signals a continuation of the notion of incompatible, primordial spiritual types that althaus developed in the weimar period. 83 after subordinating ecclesiology to the volk, the opinion addresses the crux of the aryan paragraph—whether jewish persons can really be considered german. on the face of it, althaus and elert leave the determination of the civil status of jews to the discretion of the state: “the first question is whether the jews who are residing in germany are members of the german volk in a full sense or whether they are their own volkstum living as a guest-people [gastvolk]. the church as such cannot decide that.” this reticence is due in part to the unique theological character of jewish existence as “the salvation-historical volk in its election and curse [erwählung und fluch].” 84 here, the jews fulfill a vital performative function in the opinion precisely by suffering under the curse. just as in althaus’ weimar writings, the jews can enact their critical symbolic function only as the people destined to be perpetually scattered: 81 erlangen opinion, §3, 323. cf. althaus, “kirche und volkstum,” 13134. 82 erlangen opinion, §7, 324. 83 see althaus, “gott und volk,” 35-36, althaus, “kirche und volkstum,” 114, and althaus, leitsätze zur ethik, 54. 84 erlangen opinion, §4, 323. scjr 10 (2015) 26 in its landless dispersion throughout the peoples, [jewry] reminds us of the limits of all ethnic national solidarity [völkischen geschlossenheit], the provisional nature of ethnic segregation [der sonderung der völker], and of the kingdom of god, which will come through the christ that has been promised to israel. 85 through this excerpt we glimpse althaus’ consistent theological vision in which the jews fulfill a constructive theological function not in spite of the curse, but through it. yet in the political sphere as well, the jews are not a people just like any other. the opinion characterizes this “alien volkstum” as a “threat” [bedrohung] and a “danger” [gefahr] to the life of the german volk. 86 here again althaus recalls the theology of the “jewish question” he had constructed during the weimar period. just as before, the jews appear as a unique obstacle for the realization of the german destiny. 87 because the perceived menace of emancipated jewry is so acute in the present historical crisis, althaus and elert authorize the state to take extreme action to neutralize the threat: “in the struggle for the renewal of our volk the new state is excluding men of jewish or half-jewish descent from offices of leadership. the church must respect the fundamental right of the state to take such legislative measures.” 88 85 erlangen opinion, §4, 323. althaus again characterizes jewish existence as intrinsically “landless” because the jews are destined to roam among other peoples of the earth. the language is taken virtually verbatim from althaus’ weimar writings. see althaus, leitsätze zur ethik, 55, althaus, “gott und volk,” 48, and althaus, römer, 101. in all three passages, as in the erlangen opinion, the jews are commissioned to disrupt “ethnic national solidarity” [völkische geschlossenheit] and to limit “ethnic segregation” [völkische sonderung]. 86 erlangen opinion, §5, 323. 87 althaus spoke of the “threat” [bedrohung] and “danger” [gefahr] of the jewish spirit in “kirche und volkstum,” (119, 130-31, and 134-35), leitsätze zur ethik (54-55), and “gott und volk” (35). in leitsätze zur ethik, althaus had expressed particular concern over the threat posed by an emancipated and invisible jewry (54-55). 88 erlangen opinion, §5, 323. scjr 10 (2015) 27 at this point, althaus’ jew-as-affliction language resurfaces, but this time the jew not only saps the strength of society in general, but of the church in particular: in the present situation, to have men of jewish stock [judenstämmigen] occupy the church’s offices would mean a severe strain on and inhibition of [eine schwere belastung und hemmung] the church’s position in the life of the volk and for the fulfillment of its tasks. therefore the church must require that its jewish christians be restrained from taking pastoral office. 89 the opinion reasons under the assumption not only that the jewish and german spiritual types are in competition, but also that the jewish type is especially dangerous. the language of belastung—which connotes both “strain” and “pollution”—is symptomatic of a deeply anti-judaic völkisch theology: a jewish pastor will only “pollute” the life of the volkskirche and inhibit the implementation of its mission. 90 on this pathological pole of the dialectic, then, the erlangen opinion, and the althausian theology of the volk in which it is rooted, is characterized by its profound distrust of jewish persons. nevertheless, the opinion does make final recommendations that controvert the more aggressive policy of the prussian general synod. despite the document’s suspicion of jews, its authors maintain that to dismiss currently serving pastors solely on the basis of their ancestry would violate the essence of the pastoral office. for this reason, althaus and elert conclude that “here the church cannot simply adopt the regulations of the state’s legislation in every regard, but it must 89 erlangen opinion, §5, 323. 90 i render belastung as “strain,” but it also connotes “pollution.” the image of the jewish pastor as a pollutant is evocative of the national socialist obsession with ethnic and spiritual purity. scjr 10 (2015) 28 act according to the rules which arise out of its nature as the church.” 91 this is where the critical nuance is to be emphasized. though christians of jewish ancestry are to be disqualified from leadership, the membership of jewish persons in the dek must not be denied or otherwise restricted. 92 it is precisely in this recommendation that we discern that, at the level of its structural logic, the opinion’s prescription for jews in german church life parallels closely althaus’ broader vision for the place of the jews in german public life. in spite of the danger they pose, jewish christians must be maintained within the community. at the same time, they are nevertheless quarantined off from their fellow christians, even, paradoxically, within the church’s walls. as the concrete evidence of the continuing election of the jews, christians of jewish descent perform a crucial salvation-historical role and therefore must exist in the church, though not in positions of influence. 93 in the same way, the jews fulfill a critical symbolic function in german society as living cautionary tales that warn of the dangers of ethnic presumption—but always from the margins and never from the center. in both contexts—within the church and in secular society—the jews exist in dialectical relationship to germans as a problem that must be contained but not expelled, a threat that must be neutralized but not eliminated. in each case, jewish persons are pushed to the edge of the community—away from public office, away from pulpit and altar—to serve as voiceless exhibits to be seen but not heard. 91 erlangen opinion, §7, 324. 92 erlangen opinion, §5, 323. while it is not entirely clear whether althaus and elert are calling for the establishment of separate churches for jewish christians, that is a plausible reading of the opinion. however, for reasons that i have argued throughout, i am convinced that the prevailing logic of althaus’ thought makes space for jewish christians in the dek even while he recommends that they be removed from pastoral office as a rule. 93 althaus had argued that the continuing election of israel is maintained in christians of jewish descent in römer, 93. scjr 10 (2015) 29 conclusion. a people who belong everywhere and nowhere i have argued that the entire trajectory of the erlangen opinion—that the jews, conceived as a force that destabilizes the orders of creation and pollutes german spirituality, are to be confined as pieces of evidence on the margins of the church community—parallels althaus’ broad theological vision for the jews on a microcosmic scale. the recommendations of the opinion are illuminated fully only when contextualized within althaus’ weimar writings on the “jewish question.” by tracing the themes of these weimar writings, i have shown that the erlangen opinion exhibits a complex and dialectical theology of judaism in which jews simultaneously appear as critical witnesses to be included and as pathogens to be quarantined. an exclusion/inclusion binary thus cannot fully reckon with althaus’ dialectical vision for jewish existence. the erlangen opinion calls neither for the total exclusion nor for the total inclusion of jewish persons in the dek, just as althaus has rejected both extremes in the civil sphere. rather, through the language of pathology and performance, althaus identifies the jews as dangerous but indispensable signs who stand both within and apart from the communities around them. for althaus, it is the jewish destiny to cleave to a tenuous existence on the periphery of the church, just as the jews are destined to fulfill their precarious mission as perpetual wanderers on the fringes of every society. this side of the eschaton, the jews belong both everywhere and nowhere, treated reluctantly in an inclusive quarantine. microsoft word editorial1.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): i-ii editors’ introduction i http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art1 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers in jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college editors’ introduction philip a. cunningham and edward kessler volume 1 (2005-2006): i-ii http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art1 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): i-ii editors’ introduction ii http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art1 welcome to the first volume of studies in christian-jewish relations. we are delighted not only to bring this new resource to the field of christian-jewish relations, but also that it is an “open access” publication that is available to anyone around the world on the internet. reflecting this, we are also committed to making its contents as “accessible” as possible in terms of writing style, the clarification of technical terms, and the explanation of concepts specific to an individual religious tradition. it is appropriate that its first articles are published in the midst of observances around the world marking the fortieth anniversary of the second vatican council’s declaration on the relationship of the church to non-christian religions, often known by its opening words in latin, nostra aetate (“in our time”). there were earlier texts that addressed the centuries of christian contemptuous teaching about judaism, particularly the 1947 “ten points of seelisberg” prepared by the international council of christians and jews. however, nostra aetate’s fourth section, issued as it was by a uniquely authoritative ecclesiastical council, sparked an epochdefining transformation in relations between jews and christians that, according to fr. edward flannery, “terminated in a stroke a millennial teaching of contempt of jews and judaism and unequivocally asserted the church’s debt to its jewish heritage.”1 traditionally, ever since the adversus ioudaios writings of the second through fifth centuries of the common era, christianity had claimed to be the successor covenant people, elected by god to replace the people of israel because of their faithlessness. this perspective was expressed in a theology of replacement (also known as the substitution theory or supersessionism), which taught that since the time of jesus, jews had been replaced by christians in god’s favor, and that all god’s promises to the jewish people had been realized, at least embryonically, in christianity. today, however, the covenant between god and the jewish people is no longer viewed as having been annulled. nostra 1edward flannery, “seminaries, classrooms, pulpits, streets: where we have to go” in roger brooks, ed., unanswered questions: theological views of jewishcatholic relations (notre dame: university of notre dame press, 1988), 128-129. aetate, for example, states that god “does not repent of the gifts he makes or of the calls he issues.” the late pope john paul ii emphasized time and again that god’s covenant with the jewish people had never been broken and retained eternal validity. if jews were not rejected or accursed, as nostra aetate insisted, then judaism was not the fossilized faith of long-standing christian teaching, but a living, authentic religious tradition interacting dynamically with god. the ramifications are manifold. nostra aetate provided a clarion call for christians to develop revised theologies based on the convictions that jews are beloved of god and have received an irrevocable calling. in a recent address, e.g., cardinal walter kasper, president of the pontifical commission for religious relations with the jews, suggested that overcoming replacement theology should be the starting point for a renewed christian theology of judaism (cambridge, dec. 6, 2004). he has also frequently repeated that we are only at “the beginning of the beginning” in this regard (boston, nov 6, 2002). therefore, the “feature topic” articles of volume one of studies in christian-jewish relations are studies of subjects and questions that have arisen in the wake of nostra aetate. the initial contributors, consisting of scholars from many different countries, consider the implications of the sea-change brought by nostra aetate for questions of christology, soteriology, theologies of religious pluralism, and later this year, christian liturgy. in subsequent articles in this volume, other topics will be explored such as the role of the land and state of israel in the jewishchristian encounter and how one new testament author may have sought to combat marcion’s effort to exclude israel’s scriptures from the christian canon. there will also appear reviews of recently published works. we note that building friendship is not simply about abandoning hostilities. true friendship needs to be based on common values and mutual benefits. similarly, a friendly relationship between the two religious traditions of christianity and judaism requires a positive theological foundation. we hope that the launch of this journal will make an academic contribution toward this goal for both communities. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review demetrios e. tonias abraham in the works of john chrysostom (minneapolis: fortress press, 2014), paperback, xiii + 223 pp. arthur p. urbano, providence college for interreligious dialogue today, the abrahamic heritage often provides common ground for jews, christians, and muslims. however, demetrios tonias reminds us that this was not always the case. his comprehensive study of references to abraham in the writings of the church father john chrysostom (d. 407) sheds important light on how early christians understood the patriarch as a proto-christian and a figure that should divide, rather than unite, christians and jews. the book is a revision of tonias’ boston college doctoral thesis directed by ruth langer and appears in fortress press’ emerging scholars series, which is dedicated to highlighting innovative and creative projects by new scholars. a native of antioch in syria, john, a monk and priest, became bishop of constantinople. he was celebrated for his preaching skills and given the nickname “chrysostom,” meaning “golden mouth” in greek. he is best known for his skillful and rhetorically-beautiful exegetical works that called christians to moral goodness and social responsibility, but also for his vicious antijewish attacks in his discourses against the jews. following the oratorical practices of his time, chrysostom’s exegetical works often focus on biblical figures as exemplars of virtue. pre-eminent among these exemplars is abraham, whom chrysostom mentions over seven hundred times in his works. despite the obvious importance of abraham for chrysostom, no single undisputed work of his is devoted to the patriarch. instead references to abraham are spread across the entirety of his writings. the footnotes throughout the book attest to the studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 10 (2015) omnipresence of abraham in chrysostom’s works. using the thesaurus linguae graecae, tonias produced a comprehensive database, identifying 633 references that were more than passing references and organizing and analyzing them to draw out prominent themes. he concludes that abraham served chrysostom as a theological and pastoral tool, ready to be employed in ministering to his christian flock and competing with his jewish neighbors. tonias appropriately begins with an examination of the classical and christian influences on chrysostom’s homiletical and exegetical methods. trained in greek language and literature like his contemporaries and a student of the famed pagan rhetorician libanius, chrysostom reproduced the practices of greek paideia and oratory. tonias notes in particular the prominence of stoic philosophy and chrysostom’s use of the rhetorical techniques characteristic of the second sophistic. as christian influences, he identifies pauline theology and the antiochene school. as a result, abraham emerges as a model of the “consummate philosopher” from the greek tradition and presumably would have been recognized as such to his congregations (p. 53). chrysostom saw in the patriarch’s dispositions, actions, and words the enactment of the cardinal virtues of greek philosophy and the theological virtues of pauline theology. here perhaps tonias makes too strong of a distinction. biblical scholars have long taken notice of paul’s familiarity and engagement with hellenistic philosophy, particularly stoicism. while distinctions are certainly to be made, it should be noted how the pauline theology influencing chrysostom had already encountered greek thought in important ways. in presenting the pastoral utility of abraham, tonias singles out several roles assigned to abraham that would have helped christians of every status and station in life to relate to him: he is a model child, parent, husband, ascetic, and philanthropist. abraham was thus a kind of everyman to emulate. in his many works, chrysostom drew upon, developed, and deployed the studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr abrahamic narrative in various ways to communicate to different segments of his audience as needed. tonias develops the theological and eschatological significance of abraham for chrysostom in chapter 4. three themes stand out: the intrinsic connection between virtue and the salvation of the soul; the superiority of the new covenant and the christian priesthood to the old (jewish) covenant; and the unity of old and new testaments. this discussion reveals how chrysostom often employed abraham to draw stark distinctions. for example, he claims that abraham belongs to christians but not to jews. in chapter 5, tonias calls attention to chrysostom’s use of the diatribe, a rhetorical device in which the orator engaged in debate with an imaginary interlocutor. chrysostom often addressed an imaginary jew who was a negative caricature and foil to christianity. in these cases, the jew was unvirtuous, faithless, arrogant, and hypocritical—the opposite of chrysostom’s abraham and, thus, no longer a worthy descendant of the patriarch. chrysostom resorts to supersessionist arguments that hardened lines of division between christians and jews in antioch. the volume concludes with a discussion of the work de beato abraham, which tonias argues is an authentic work of chrysostom. the work has been regarded as spurious, but he makes a strong case for its authenticity on the basis of style, structure, and the presence of similar themes found in the uncontested works surveyed earlier in his book. in two appendices he provides an english translation of the work and a table comparing its contents to chrysostom’s other works. the book has many strengths. tonias makes an important contribution to both biblical and patristic studies. it can also serve contemporary interreligious dialogue. it illustrates the importance of abraham to christians and jews, but also exposes an abrahamic logic behind chrysostom’s anti-judaism. it demonstrates a sweeping familiarity with chrysostom’s corpus and provides an important perspective on early formulations of christian identity in relation to pagans and studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 10 (2015) jews. the book examines the roles of rhetoric and exegesis in theology, pastoral care, and broader social relations between jews and christians. more specific attention might have been given to the last topic. in addition, when discussing sophistic culture, the author relies on some outdated scholarship. much work has been done in recent decades in classics and early christian studies broadening our understanding of paideia in late antiquity. the work of raffaella cribiore, in particular, on the school of libanius provides a useful perspective on christian participation in educational circles and philosophical culture. lastly, there are some formatting mistakes, with many footnotes appearing on a different page from the referring numeral in the body of the text. this is most likely the fault of the publisher, but it unfortunately becomes distracting. overall, the book provides a masterful treatment of abraham in patristic literature that will benefit scholars, clergy, and students. microsoft word rutishauser_final.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 53-66 rutishauser, “jewish-christian dialogue and the theology of religions” 53 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art7 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers in jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college “jewish-christian dialogue and the theology of religions” christian m. rutishauser, s.j. pontifical gregorian university, rome volume 1 (2005-2006): 53-66 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art7 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 53-66 rutishauser, “jewish-christian dialogue and the theology of religions” 54 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art7 1. nostra aetate’s inherent theological stating of the problem a. from the decree on judaism to the declaration on the world religions it is common knowledge that at the start of the second vatican council no separate document on the relationship of the church to non-christian religions was envisioned. however, a decretum de judaeis was supposed to give a new foundation for the relationship between the catholic church and judaism. after the horror of the shoah and the unacceptable “teaching of contempt” (jules isaac) that had dominated the christian-jewish relationship for centuries, pope john xxiii made it his personal quest to abolish the existing negative image of the jewish people and to emphasize their theological importance for the church. it was cardinal bea, head of the newly formed secretariat for christian unity, who was entrusted with this task.1 1 prior history includes the cancellation ordered by john xxiii in 1959 of the word “perfidious,” the designation of jews in the good friday intercession. his legendary welcome to american jews in 1960, “i am joseph, your brother!” also indicated a newer spirit. for more detailed information on the prior history see: das zweite vatikanische konzil: dokumente und kommentare, lexikon für theologie und kirche, vol. ii (freiburg basel wien: herder, 1967): 406-478; stjepan schmidt, augustin bea: der kardinal der einheit (graz: styria, 1989), 640-689, 738-808; otto h. pesch, das zweite vatikanische konzil (1962-1965): vorgeschichte.verlauf – ergebnisse – nachgeschichte, 2nd ed. (würzburg: echter 1994); giuseppe alberigo and klaus wittstadt, eds., geschichte des zweiten vatikanischen konzils 1959-1965, vol. 1-3 (mainz leuven: grünewald, 1997-2002): i, 437-456; ii, 513-520; iii, 6668, 299-343, 393-400, 437-441, 500-507; bohlen reinhold, “wende und neubeginn: die erklärung des zweiten vatikanischen konzils zu den juden nostra aetate, §4“ in katholizismus und judentum: gemeinsamkeiten und verwerfungen vom 16. bis zum 20. jahrhundert, eds. schuller florian, veltri giuseppe, wolf huber (regensburg: pustet, 2005), 297-308. from the beginning this text stood in a crossfire of forces trying to overcome traditional anti-jewish attitudes and the conflict in the near east, as well as the attempt to find a new vision of the church within a pluralistic world. the first draft mainly dealt with the relationship between the church and judaism from the perspective of the history of salvation, both systematically and with special attention to the alleged responsibility of the jewish people for the death of christ. in the first session of the council the “wardi affair” prevented the presentation of the text.2 when in november 1963 the draft was eventually presented as the fourth chapter of the conciliar decree on ecumenism, it received a highly antagonistic reaction. the representatives of the arab states considered the project to be a zionist conspiracy and demanded that the relationship to islam should also be addressed. the bishops of asia, however, considered the “jewish decree” to be a strictly european problem in order to deal with that continent’s disastrous history. in fact, they demanded that the council define the church’s relationship to the asian religions. in view of the opposition to this text, as well as to the one on religious freedom, it was placed at the end of the ecumenism decree. in addition to discussions about the draft of the text itself, the encyclical ecclesiam suam of the new pope paul vi, his visit to the holy land and subsequently to the eucharistic world congress in india in 1964, as well as the development of further conciliar documents, especially the declaration on religious freedom, led to the presentation of a separate text dealing with the attitude of the church towards non-christian 2 the world jewish congress had announced that dr. chaim wardi, an official in the state of israel’s ministry of religious affairs, was to be sent to the council as its representative. this immediately led the arab governments to protest against a seemingly special treatment of the jews. the controversy took the vatican by surprise. wardi never attended the council. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 53-66 rutishauser, “jewish-christian dialogue and the theology of religions” 55 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art7 religions. however, since the september 1964 version had lost so much of its original essence, a stronger revised version was presented in november of the same year when it received basic approval. then, as a decree in its own right, expanded to consider the fundamental position of the church towards all other important world religions, it was presented for approval under the name nostra aetate, bearing the title declaratio de ecclesiae habitudine ad religiones non-christianas.3 it was accepted by the council fathers on october 28, 1965 by a vote of 2221 to 88. b. history and structure of nostra aetate as a theological concept? the history of the origin of nostra aetate conveys the degree to which the changing attitude of the church towards judaism served as a catalyst for a foundational exploration of the church in relation to other religions. obviously the new initiatives in jewish-christian dialogue must not be considered as the sole originating force of nostra aetate, for this process was part of the more comprehensive selfreflection of the church and her relationship towards the world as it came to be expressed in such conciliar constitutions as lumen gentium and gaudium et spes. similarly, the documents concerning christian ecumenism and religious liberty issued from the same turbulent history 3 roman a. siebenrock correctly points out that the common german translation: ‘declaration about the relationship of the church and nonchristian religions’ is imprecise because the word habitudo does not describe the relationship between the church and non-christian religions but far more the attitude of the church towards the nonchristian religions, which the decree wants to highlight paradigmatically. see his “das senfkorn des konzils: vorläufige überlegungen auf dem weg zu einem erneuerten verständnis der konzilserklärung ‘nostra aetate’,“ in zweites vatikanum vergessene anstösse, gegenwärtige fortschreibungen, questiones disputatae 207, ed. günther wassilowsky,(freiburg, basel, wien: herder, 2004), 168-170. that led to a newly modified identity of the church in a world where humanity is constantly drawn together in pluralistic and global unity. nevertheless, the historic fact remains that – when the conciliar writing and editing process was finished – the declaration on the relationship of the church to the jewish people was no longer part of the decree on christian ecumenism but rather was placed in the same context as the relationship to other religions. thus, the reforming christianjewish relationship led to a document on a theology of religions. nostra aetate, §4 on judaism is still the central part of the document. it differs in form and content from statements in §2 on hinduism and buddhism, and in §3 on islam. furthermore, the statement on judaism is seen as the “heart”4 of the declaration, which assesses the human searching for religious truth and values the rays of truth which enlightens all people, including in hinduism and buddhism. as regards islam, nostra aetate respects the faith in one god, so dear to muslims in their adherence to abraham. but concerning the jewish people, after recalling the common spiritual heritage and rejecting unjustified christian accusations, the church recommends a fraternal dialogue. the reconciliation with the jews and the recognition of christianity’s own roots in the people of the ancient and everlasting covenant re-establishes the constitutive bond between the church and judaism.5 from a salvation history perspective, the text affirms that both await the day when all people on earth will worship the one god, as promised by the hebrew prophets. 4 otto h. pesch, fn.1, 305. 5 the “unrevoked covenant” has been discussed further since the council. see: hubert frankemölle, ed., der ungekündigte bund? antworten des neuen testaments, qestiones disputatae 172 (freiburg, basel, wien: herder, 1998); john t. pawlikowski and hayim goren perelmuter, eds., reinterpreting revelation and tradition: jews and christians in conversation (franklin, wi: sheed & ward, 2000). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 53-66 rutishauser, “jewish-christian dialogue and the theology of religions” 56 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art7 this biblical perspective of the history of salvation in §4 marks nostra aetate as a whole. the growing union of all people into a world culture in our time is seen in the framework of the history of salvation, which itself demands that the church promote unity, love and justice among all the people of the human race and spread the truth of the gospel (§1). god’s providence as uniting all people, as witnessed by the prophets, is seen in the process of globalization. the religions play a positive factor in god’s actions: “from ancient times down to the present there is found among various people a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history… .“ (§2) the great religions are in this sense signposts leading to the final and explicit veneration of god. this perspective of the biblical history of salvation is the result of an amended and revised theology in the first half of the 20th century that left its imprint on all the documents of the council.6 thus, the trinitarian perspective is often expressed even more explicitly when it is stated that god works through the son and the holy spirit constituting his people and forming history. since this history of salvation does not begin with the arrival of the son only, but is already testified to in the old testament, it contains a theologically defensible understanding of judaism. in order to substantiate this, nostra aetate does not refer to the general statement of heb 1:1, which affirms that god already spoke several times in the history of salvation. instead, the ancient covenant is acknowledged, which implies the gift of the torah to the jewish people and their existence as a priestly nation. the church binds herself back to it through the wellknown metaphor of the wild shoots, which have been grafted on the olive tree (rom 9-11). 6 this refers to texts that belong directly to the context of nostra aetate: lumen gentium, §1, 16, 17; gaudium et spes, §22; ad gentes, §3-4, 911. as it is clear from nostra aetate, §4 jews stand side by side with the church as chosen by god for service to the world. the church finds herself linked to judaism through the history of salvation even before she approaches the other non-christian religions. judaism is not looked upon as the first “foreign” religion when the church initiates interreligious dialogue. but it is up to the church to deal with judaism even in her process of self-understanding as the people of god, which can be found only in reference to the tradition of mount sinai. thus pope john paul ii could declare: “the first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of god of the old covenant, never revoked by god (cf. rom. 11:29), and that of the new covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our church, that is to say, between the first and the second part of her bible.”7 the dialogue between the old and the new testament, the dialogue within the christian bible and within the biblical and historical foundation of the church, has been paradigmatic for the encounter between christianity and judaism up to this very day. the church “cannot reflect upon her own being without remembering her inherent and present origin, her ongoing source.”8 the otherness of a foreign religion reaches into the self-understanding of the church. this is why she cannot exist without a theology of israel. judaism is the other within the very being of christianity. 7 john paul ii, "address to representatives of the jewish community in mainz, west germany," (nov. 17, 1980); see http://www.bc.edu/ research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/ catholic/johnpaulii/mainz.htm. 8 reinhold bohlen, ”wende und neubeginn,“ 303. interesting in this context is the debate on the historic or present interpretation of jn 4:22: “for salvation comes through the jews.” cf. rudolf kutschera, das heil kommt von den juden (joh 4,22): untersuchungen zur heilsbedeutung israels, österreichische biblische studien vol. 25 (bern, frankfurt, new york: lang, 2003). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 53-66 rutishauser, “jewish-christian dialogue and the theology of religions” 57 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art7 considering that christianity is constitutionally interwoven with judaism and has, in fact, a relationship sui generis with it (which has been a topic of a considerable amount of research recently),9 we have to question to what extent a theology of judaism relates to a theology of religions in general. does the relationship of the church to judaism create a paradigm for that with other religions? could it form a pattern for other interreligious dialogues? and furthermore, how could a theology of religions benefit from the christian understanding of judaism? to what extent does the jewishchristian relationship influence or promote a better understanding of islam, hinduism, and buddhism? does reflection on the jewish-christian relationship provide basic elements for a theology of religions? should that be the case, how can these elements be found and what do they mean? these are considerations and questions also broached by roman a. siebenrock when he examines the theological issues and consequences of nostra aetate: originally, the task was to develop a theology of israel on the background of the past theological repudiation of the jewish people and their extermination by the nationalsocialists. the original project was extended in order to deal with all the other non-christian religions. but what is the relationship between nostra aetate, §4 and the complete text, or: what is the relationship of the theology of israel to a theology of other religions? i realize today a schism between both tasks stated in nostra aetate, for at certain places there is a danger of the old testament being supplanted by texts of other religious traditions.10 this is the reason for trying to define these relationships in this essay. 9 a good compendium is: hans hermann henrix, judentum und christentum: gemeinschaft wider willen (regensburg: pustet, 2004). 10 roman a. siebenrock, ”das senfkorn des konzils,“ 180. 2. a courageous stand in the theology of religions a. the historical grounding of systematic theology as a central quest of the theology of judaism in the first half of the 20th century, catholic theology elaborated a new foundation, supported by historical research in biblical science, by reconsidering patristic sources and through the integration of a post-kantian theory of cognition. this enabled it to abandon the neo-scholastic system. systematic theology was particularly influenced in all its fields by references to exegetical considerations and to insights from the history of theology. this change in methodology became especially evident in the study of divinity in which the immanent trinity became clearly linked to the economic trinity where god’s presence through his son and the force of his spirit in history is dealt with.11 since then the development of trinitarian faith can no longer be considered as an alien, hellenistic interpretation of the gospel, but rather as a consequence of the early church’s christological task of defining the relationship between jesus the messiah and the god of israel. in the same process, the church became more and more convinced of her calling as a people chosen by god with a similar or analogous status to the people of israel.12 accordingly, the question of god, christology, and ecclesiology are inseparably linked together and developed out of the history of revelation as asserted in the scripture. 11 see karl rahner, “bemerkungen zum dogmatischen traktat ‘de trinitate’,“ gesammelte schriften vol. iv, 4th ed. (einsiedeln zürich köln: benziger, 1964), 103-133; and karl rahner, “der dreifaltige gott als transzendenter urgrund der heilsgeschichte,“ in mysterium salutis ii (einsiedeln, zürich, köln: benziger, 1967), 317-397. 12 see the essays in the anthology: striet magnus, ed., monotheismus israels und christlicher trinitätsglaube, quaestiones disputatae 210 (freiburg, basel, wien: herder, 2004). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 53-66 rutishauser, “jewish-christian dialogue and the theology of religions” 58 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art7 based on this perspective, josef wohlmuth, in particular, has linked classical christology with its core definition of god’s incarnation in jesus christ to biblical and jewish history.13 for him, it was not only the rabbinic world of late antiquity that had to be considered in studying early christology, but also that of the philosophy of emmanuel levinas, the contemporary jewish scholar and philosopher. as is well known, the jewish way of thinking has a certain reserve towards systematic and philosophical thinking, especially when referring to god. moreover, important jewish representatives in the christian-jewish dialogue consider the idea of incarnation as particularly un-jewish.14 but as regards levinas’ philosophy of the other, his ethical approach to the question of transcendence as well as his distinctively rabbinic outlook on reality enabled wohlmuth to build bridges between different traditions. thus he made the valuable overall contribution of bringing the revelation of sinai and that of jesus christ into a constructive discourse. 13 josef wohlmuth, im geheimnis einander nahe: theologische aufsätze zum verhältnis von judentum und christentum (paderborn, münchen wien, zürich: schöningh 1996); josef wohlmuth, die tora spricht die sprache der menschen. theologische aufsätze und meditationen zur beziehung von judentum und christentum (paderborn, münchen, wien, zürich: schöningh, 2002); josef wohlmuth, ”jesus der bruder und christus der herr: neue perspektiven im jüdisch-christlichen gespräch?“ in redet wahrheit – dabru emet: jüdisch-christliches gespräch über gott, messias und dekalog, eds. erwin dirscherl and werner trutwin (münster: lit, 2004), 91-112. on the intermediation between god and the world in the new testament and early rabbinic period, see daniel boyarin, border lines: the partition of judaeochristianity (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2004), 89147; erich zenger, “gott hat keiner jemals geschaut“ (joh 1,18): die christliche gottesrede im angesicht des judentums,“ in einander zugewandt: die rezeption des christlich-jüdischen dialogs in der dogmatik, eds. erwin dirscher and susanne sandherr (paderborn, münchen, wien, zürich: schöningh, 2005): 77-89. 14 e.g. peter ochs, “the god of jesus and christians,” in christianity in jewish terms, eds. tikva frymer-kensky, et al. (boulder, co.: westview press, 2000), 59-62. no theology of judaism can ignore the history of revelation that itself presents and arises from reflection on the experience of faith in history.15 and according to the bible, it is axiomatic that god – for reasons that cannot be explained other than as being of his own free will – spoke and revealed himself to israel in a special way. thus a people of god was created, different from any other people in the world. since nostra aetate the church no longer considers herself as “verus israel,” the true israel. therefore, the “great difference” created by god’s revelation is – in a christian perspective – no longer restricted just to israel compared to the rest of humanity with its different religions, but includes the duality of god’s people, consisting of israel and the church, and the rest of the world. within this duality of god’s people exists what might be called a “small difference.” b. the theology of religion in the wake of the science of religion reflection on the relatively “small difference” between the church and israel leads to the conclusion that a theology of judaism must be strongly influenced by the perspective of the history of salvation and that its systematic questions must be linked to history. as i stated above this is the achievement of the theology of the council. however, reflection on the “great difference” between the church and the other religions leads to the conclusion that a theology of religion will not be reached by the theological interpretation of history, but only by a pure systematic comparison of religions. when we consider publications about the theology of religion or those interested in a general theory of religions, it becomes obvious indeed that there is hardly any detailed 15 see the two works on a theology of judaism by clemens thoma: christliche theologie des judentums (augsburg: pattloch, 1978); and das messiasprojekt: theologie jüdisch-christlicher begegnung (augsburg: pattloch, 1994). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 53-66 rutishauser, “jewish-christian dialogue and the theology of religions” 59 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art7 information about a specific religion, although the vast number of works dealing with single religions and religious phenomenon would provide this information. this absence of history in the theory of religions is no coincidence. a theological interpretation and evaluation of religions which would seriously consider the variety of historically comprehensible religions would have to deal with the fact that, from a historical point of view, a number of religions have nothing to do with each other. consequently, one would have to construct out of discrete events a comprehensible history of development towards a final goal. that was exactly what hegel had once done in his philosophy of religion. this teleological (or “final target”) view that a theological interpretation of history had finally to refer to the end-point of christianity as a positive historical reality was refuted as christian prejudice and as contempt for the varieties of sense and nonsense in history. and indeed, the science of religion long ago stopped presenting the history of religion in a manner which led to an evaluation of religions. it has abandoned the attempt to evaluate the interpretation of religions, in favour of depicting religions as different cultural systems of signs. however, where evaluation cannot be avoided, it is measured mainly by a postulated ethical basic consensus of all religions or by basic ethical values as enlightened western culture has specified in the declaration of human rights. hans küng’s “project weltethos” is the most prominent effort to judge religion through ethics.16 it has been developed to protect humanity from obviously inhuman ideologies. it can indeed detect in religions certain elements threatening the dignity of 16 hans küng, projekt weltethos, 5th ed. (münchen: piper, 1999); hans kűng, wozu weltethos? religion und ethik in zeiten der globalisierung (freiburg, basel, wien: herder 2002); hans küng and angela rinnmaurer, weltethos christlich verstanden: positionen – erfahrungen – impulse (freiburg, basel, wien: herder, 2005). the human being. but this is not sufficient for an evaluation of religions that express highly developed forms of culture. as is especially evident in discussions about implementing the concept of human rights in islamic countries, these ethical values are often attached to religions, but they are not necessarily part of their inherent basic consensus. other approaches prompted by theology and the science of religion do not seek common ethics, but rather strong inherent religious factors that can be used to judge religions in general. john hick explains that all religions have tried to regulate people’s environment as a whole, establish it metaphysically and structure it ethically. in a later phase in the history of religion, the soteriological element in religions was moved nearer to the center. thus religions primarily intend to liberate people from narcissistic self-centeredness in order to lead them to an unselfish devotion to the transcendent and to the other.17 so they are to be measured by the extent to which their teaching, ethics and rites have encouraged this transformation. reinhardt leuze has similar reflections on the goal of religions: it is to make people ready to accept difference and otherness on all levels of reality. it is evident that any religion can be understood as an experience or perception of the other… a religion will be valued to the extent that it is ready to understand and accept the radicalism of the entirely other in its otherness. only there, where the opposition to the world, to the whole realm of the describable reality is presented without compromise, only then it opens up the highest form of self-realization of the religious man.18 17 john hick, religion: die menschliche antwort auf die frage nach leben und tod (münchen: diederichs, 1996), 46-69. 18 reinhard leuze, religion und religionen: auf der suche nach dem heiligen (münster: lit, 2004), 46. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 53-66 rutishauser, “jewish-christian dialogue and the theology of religions” 60 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art7 these different criteria are valuable reflections for a theology of religion as they correspond to christian values and action plans. sometimes they are even derived from christian theology. in any case, they should be considered in any interreligious dialogue. however, as these criteria are either added to the religions or derived from a pure, philosophical concept of religion, they lead, as a foundation for a theology of religion, to a pluralistic and an unhistorical model. this pluralistic theology of religion considers all religions as principally similar but culturally differently formed systems leading humanity to salvation and truth.19 this moderate theological pluralism, which differs from a radical pluralism insofar as it is oriented towards ethical and objective criteria, has the great disadvantage of not taking seriously the self-perception of any great world religion that claims absolute truth. the church’s specific origin, essential for the existence and justification of christianity as the historically comprehensible revelation of god in judaism and in christianity, is abandoned as a unique phenomenon and is considered instead to be only an instance of all religions’ general relationship to transcendence. the revelation based on the history of salvation is subordinated to the general, systematic principle of transcendent manifestations within the immanence of reality. it is one among many other revelations. “the great difference” set up by god through revelation to his people is betrayed.20 the reasons for this theological pluralism consist above all in the fear, based on historical facts, that because of this 19 john hick and paul knitter, eds., the myth of christian uniqueness: toward a pluralistic theology of religions, 5th ed. (maryknoll, ny: maryknoll press, 1994). 20 recommended as a critical debate on these observations: raimund schwager, ed. christus allein? der streit um die pluralistische religionstheologie, questiones disputatae 160 (freiburg basel wien: herder, 1996); hans-gerd schwandt, pluralistische theologie der religionen: eine kritische sichtung (frankfurt a. m.: lembeck, 1998). difference the church and christianity as a positive religion would again fall victim to the temptation to make imperialistic claims for possessing absolute truth. but fear by itself is not a good guide. nor is it advisable to rely only on historical missteps, abused ideas, and degenerated forms as the bases for arguments. although it seems at first that in recent times christianity has acquired more tolerance and ability for dialogue, in reality it is jews who more readily and constitutively live out of the difference between the people of god and the other people. as regards the relationship of early judaism to other religions, hans kessler concludes: the decisive issue is the irrevocable dialectic tension between a particular standpoint which is based on the perspective of the covenant – a universal one which has its origin in a theology of creation. the first guarantees the exclusive veneration of yhwh and the [community’s] own identity, the second is open to other nations and religions and integrates them [includes them]. this could lead to acknowledging the existence of other religions as a place for acts of god and for the true honoring of him in accordance with god’s will.21 the christian theology of pluralism, though well-meant, sacrifices the difference between judaism and other nations and religions, the otherness of judaism that jews have paid for in blood over the centuries, even during the shoah where this differentiation was at times given up by jews themselves. perhaps it is the most important source of hatred towards the jews in its various forms. however, any attempt to eliminate the differentiation has never succeeded 21 hans kessler, “was macht religionen pluralismusfähig (und authentisch)? fragmente einer theologie des religiösen pluralismus – jenseits von ‘dominus jesus’ und pluralistischer religionstheologie,“ in der eine gott und die welt der religionen: beiträge zu einer theologie der religionen und zum interreligiösen dialog, ed. markus witte (würzburg: religion-&-kultur, 2003), 284. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 53-66 rutishauser, “jewish-christian dialogue and the theology of religions” 61 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art7 in overcoming hatred of jews; the hatred has only assumed different forms. the courage to assert the “great difference” generated by god’s revelation – and so to acknowledge the particular relationship of god to israel through the history of salvation – is the primary contribution a theology of judaism brings to a general theology of religion. the non-jewish character of a pluralistic theory of religions cannot only lead to an antijewish attitude; it also abandons the christian concept of revelation. c. a positional and dialogic inclusivism in nostra aetate itself, as in nearly all post-vatican ii roman-catholic theology, the christian claim for revelation has been retained. the “great difference” is taken seriously from a theological point of view, especially when developing a theology of religion. the christian claim for truth is expressed in a theocentric or christocentric manner and the ecclesiocentrism derived from the dogmatic statement extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation) has been overcome in every reasonable theology. even the question of salvation of the individual, whether a member of the church or of a non-christian religion, is not the focus in this discussion. so what remains is to consider religions as systems of signs that have to be measured by the truth of christ and by his god, just as the church and christianity in their historic form must also be. for all positive religions have to be challenged by the charity, humanity, justice, and mercy historically revealed in christ, which express a truth that neither excludes nor oppresses any other truth. this would lead, as alternatives to the pluralistic conception, to two different approaches to a theological definition of the relationship of christianity to other religions: exclusivism and inclusivism.22 whereas exclusivism maintains the unique truth of christianity and denies completely every other religion’s value as being a road to salvation, inclusiveness sees in christ the highest value of revelation and evaluates other religions’ engagements with the transcendent as lesser forms. occasionally a distinction has to be made between a strict and condescending inclusivism on the one hand and a self-critical and open one on the other hand. of course, this differentiation always depends on the extent to which the church identifies herself with the truth revealed in christ or lets herself be challenged by it. the revolutionary act of the second vatican council consists of overcoming the traditional exclusivism and starting with nostra aetate to espouse a self-critical open inclusivism regarding a theory of religion. this change was highly promoted by pope john paul ii and seems to be now further supported by pope benedict xvi. but this self-critical inclusivism can be further developed and deepened through a positional pluralism so that interreligious dialogue occurs among truly equal partners. for this reason one has to proceed from one’s own internal perspective while, at the same time, the internal perspective of those of other faiths has to be taken seriously… my answer and thesis in an all summarizing headline: a mutually granted open inclusivism (not a presumptuous but a frank inclusivism based on mutuality) that, at the same time, is a positional pluralism (not a 22 for synopsis of the three alternatives see: lee kyou sung, konziliare und päpstliche beiträge zum interreligiösen dialog im 20. jahrhundert (frankfurt: books on demand gmbh, 2003), 20-33; hans kessler, “was macht religionen pluralismusfähig (und authentisch)?“ 303-305. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 53-66 rutishauser, “jewish-christian dialogue and the theology of religions” 62 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art7 pluralism pretending to be free from a personal standpoint, but a consensual plurality of different standpoints and different religious perspectives).23 i would like to call hans kessler’s thesis simply a positional and dialogic inclusivism, as he establishes the theologically defined relationship of christianity towards nonchristian religions considering the biblical revelation (inclusivism) in a communicative structure where freedom of opinion, freedom of action and right are guaranteed (pluralism). this theology of religion seriously considers the claim for revelation and for the “great difference” to be fundamental. with its predications based on jesus christ, it takes a definite position and speaks out of a historical situation. this aspect, especially in dialogue with jewish thought, will always be present. however, the perspective of the history of salvation is not fully achieved yet. certainly, jesus christ is not an abstract manifestation of god but a person full of life, filled with ethical values, acts of faith and a conduct inspired by the judaism of his days. however this social and religio-historical context is hidden in a christology that only reflects on jesus as an individual human being in relationship to god. neither the fact that christ was of jewish origin, nor his link to the history of the covenant of the old testament, which is such an essential part of the christian theology of judaism, finds expression. furthermore, from the point of view of a positional and dialogic inclusivism, it is not evident that judaism has attained a special position in a christian theology of religion. it appears just as any other dialogue partner. a theology of israel demands, therefore, that a theology of religion considers the context of the history of salvation and the 23 hans kessler, “was macht religionen pluralismusfähig (und authentisch)?“ 307. unique position of israel. the “small difference” within god’s twofold people of church and judaism must be reflected in any theology of religion. 3. dialogues on the horizon of the history of salvation a. the twofold bible as a paradigm? in the history of the church, a dialogue with religions in the modern sense was not possible. however, the constantly constitutive relationship of the church to judaism proves that from the very beginning christianity has held the “character of a dialogue.”24 from post-apostolic times onwards, christianity rejected paganism but was in dialogue with judaism and above all with greek philosophy. this character of dialogue in christianity is unique and can be useful today: although other religions have also developed from religions preceding them and have taken over a large number of discrete elements from them, they have nevertheless become a closed system of signs with normative religious foundation. at the same time they have become completely separated units. this is the case even of islam, which has taken over a considerable number of elements from the jewish and christian traditions. it has linked itself systematically to judaism and christianity by declaring that it offers the final and pure revelation, the quran descending directly from god. while it is true that the church had built an independent foundation in the first century, in the second century she deliberately connected with judaism by defining her canon of revelation out of the old and the writings of the new testament.25 she adopted 24 bertram stubenrauch, dialogisches dogma: der christliche auftrag zur interreligiösen begegnung, qustiones disputatae 158 (freiburg, basel, wien: herder, 1995). 25 as described by gerd theissen both processes are crises that have led to the consolidation of christian identity. see theissen’s die religion studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 53-66 rutishauser, “jewish-christian dialogue and the theology of religions” 63 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art7 and integrated the holy scripture of judaism. paul of tarsus can be taken as an example of the first movement, and the decision of the great church against marcion – to recognize and accept the old testament as holy scripture – of the second. the twofold christian bible consisting of the old and the new testament became normative, thus reflecting the continuity and discontinuity of christianity with biblical israel. the dynamic of the relationship is a demarcation through relating. if continuity alone had been emphasized, it would have been possible to attach the documents of the new testament as single texts to the tanakh. if discontinuity alone was to have been expressed, it would have been imperative to rewrite the history of revelation in the light of the history of jesus. this practice would have hardly been surprising in antiquity. however, early christianity intentionally wanted simultaneously to distinguish itself from and relate itself to judaism, which was expressed in the form of the two-part bible. in recent years biblical theology and canonical theology have brought into consciousness the theological relevance of this structure of the canon.26 the significance of the structure of the biblical canon still has to be integrated into a theology of religions, particularly since such first attempts as that of gerhard gäde remain very unsatisfactory.27 gäde criticizes the approaches of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism, claiming that they represent a logic borrowed from philosophy and the science der ersten christen. eine theorie des urchristentums (gütersloh: kaiser, gütersloher, 2000), 283-337. 26 christoph dohmen and thomas söding, eds., eine bibel – zwei testamente. positionen biblischer theologie (paderborn, münchen, wien, zürich: schöningh 1995). 27 gerhard gäde, christus in den religionen: der christliche glaube und die wahrheit der religionen (paderborn, münchen, wien, zürich: schöningh, 2003), 131-190. of religion, and so are not following a christian perspective. he thinks that they place christ against religions (exclusivism), above religions (inclusivism) and next to religions (pluralism). he proposes as an alternative the socalled “interiorism” that sees christ in the religions. it is built on the following thesis: “the christian bible’s canonical relationship of the new testament to the old established a paradigm through which other religions can also be viewed from a christian faith perspective, their undeniable truth recognized and able to be universally proclaimed.”28 as the new testament renders the old relative in its sole claim for recognition, its revelation completely fulfils it while at the same time making it universal. now everybody has the possibility to join the people of god by becoming members of the church. so, too, according to gäde, christ is the profound fulfilment of all religions for he is from the beginning present in them in a hidden way, just as he was in the old covenant. although christ would relativize all religions because he measures them, he nevertheless brings to light their own undeniable claims of truth. however, gäde fails to explain how these undeniable claims of truth relate to each other. the revelation in christ, in spite of its relationship to the old testament, is overly personalized and decontextualized. his use of the paradigm of the old and new testaments becomes equally unclear since neither buddhist nor islamic texts are placed on an equal footing with the old testament. the relationship between the two parts of the bible through the theological concept of fulfilment seems too simple. his simple equation of the old testament with judaism on the one hand and the new testament with christianity on the other is not very helpful. but above all, even this definition of relationship creates a simple, universal scheme that is supposed to make comprehensible christianity’s theological 28 ibid., 161. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 53-66 rutishauser, “jewish-christian dialogue and the theology of religions” 64 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art7 relationship to all religions without differentiation. the basic differentiation between the “great difference” and the “small difference” is not respected. the presumed jewish-christian relationship does not maintain its sui generis character. by being reduced to a formal paradigm it becomes blurred into all relationships with all other religions. here the jewishchristian relationship supersedes everything as in inclusivism this relationship is superseded by the general relationship of christianity to other religions. however, the crucial point is that the christian faith in jesus has different consequences for the other religions than it does for judaism. the awareness of these two different relationships can already be seen in the texts of the new testament as in simeon’s declaration concerning jesus the messiah: “for my eyes have seen thy salvation which thou hast prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the gentiles and for glory to thy people israel” (lk 2:30ff). c. interreligious dialogue in the context of the history of salvation the definition of the relationship between the old and new testament does not offer a simple paradigm for christian relationships with other religions, but rather is crucial for the relationship of the church to judaism, which christians have always understood to be of central importance for all humanity. the decisive hermeneutical question of how the two parts of the bible are to be understood is perhaps best seen in the reception of the torah into new testament texts. thomas södling describes the great theological relevance of the term “the scriptures” for the new testament as follows: it appears neither simply as a dialectical opponent nor simply as praeparatio evangelica (preparation for the gospel), nor simply as a constant warning against relapsing into legalism, nor as a collection of impressive exampla for the paraclesis, but above all as a document proving the existence of one unique god, as a valid expression of hope for eschatological perfection, as a charter to certify that israel is chosen, as god’s trust in his people, as elemental ethical order…as witness of the messianic promise, [only] with paul is there also a witness to the coexistence of the church and israel in the time of the deliverance of “all israel” (rom 11:26), but first of all as the word in which the unique god – who did not appear first in the gospel but appeared already in the history of israel in which he himself acted – is expressed, so that he can be acknowledged by jews and gentiles alike as creator and keeper of the world, as lord of israel and the people, as judge, as saviour, and as fulfiller.29 in one short statement: the relationship of the new to the old testament serves the history of salvation under the guidance of god alone. it will not be marked only by the twofold people of god, israel and the church, but also by the fact that the revelation is not only expressed in the christian bible but also from jewish side in the twofold torah consisting of the tanakh and the talmud/midrash. erich zenger’s earlier research on the differences between the old testament and the tanakh,30 together with historical and theological studies about the parting of the early christian and rabbinic ways into two legitimate continuing narrations of the biblical history,31 provide important insights into both 29 thomas söding, ”probleme und chancen biblischer theologie aus neutestamentlicher sicht,“ in eine bibel – zwei testamente. positionen biblischer theologie, eds. christoph dohmen und thomas söding, (paderborn műnchen wien zűrich, 1995), 171. 30 erich zenger, das erste testament. die jüdische bibel und die christen (düsseldorf: patmos, 1991). 31 alan f. segal, rebecca’s children: judaism and christianity in the roman world (boston, ms: harvard university press 1986); daniel boyarin, dying for god. martyrdom and the making of christianity and judaism (stanford, calif: standford university press, 1999); daniel studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 53-66 rutishauser, “jewish-christian dialogue and the theology of religions” 65 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art7 jewish and christian understandings of the history of revelation and salvation. this basic connection, disclosing a theology of israel, signifies for a theology of religions that the religions encounter in christianity not jesus christ alone, but also come into contact with the history of salvation that includes judaism. the fact that christianity in dialogue with the religions conveys not only the gospel but both parts of its entire bible should be theoretically obvious, but on the practical level this is not always the case. the inclusion of the old testament that is strongly impressed with history and prophecy will stimulate – particularly in dialogue with the deep mysticism and wisdom of the asiatic religions – the social and creative dimensions of the interreligious dialogue. it is however crucial that it is not only the history of salvation up to jesus christ and the subsequent history of the church that is brought into the discussion when the church meets other religions. they will automatically be brought into further dialogue with judaism, whether they want it or not. the big sister church will have to introduce the little sister synagogue and bring her into conversation explicitly.32 only when the torah in its rabbinic jewish development together with the whole history of the jewish people is included is the history of salvation sufficiently transmitted. in a christian theology of religions there has to be joint listening to boyarin, border lines. the partition of judaeo-christianity (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press 2004). 32 when i call the church “big sister” and judaism the “little sister,” i am not referring to the well known metaphor of the elder and younger brothers and sisters with whom jews and christians are compared. the “big” has its meaning simply in terms of size of membership and refers to the situation of the interreligious dialogue of our days. however, the metaphor is even used in the 2nd century by origen in his exegesis of cant. 8,8. where it refers to the synagogue which is the “little sister” by age. cf. a. ehrhardt, “the birth of the synagogue and r. akiba” in studia theologica (september 1955): 86-111. judaism, by both christianity and the other religions. the reference to judaism will have the task of reconsidering its own position in different situations and of maintaining a critical point of view. in the first part of the 20th century, the differentiations between religion and faith and between natural religion and revelation were introduced in the theology of religion in order to express the “great difference” of the biblical tradition.33 faith meant a response of the people to god’s revelation and self-disclosure in christ and religion was described as the pure human searching for transcendence. this judging concept of dialectical theology seems inadequate when one realizes that god as creator does not only give life to people of faith, he also reaches out to people beyond the history of salvation that constituted judaism and christianity. when looking at the jewish-christian relationship it becomes clear that the “great difference” between judaism and christianity and the rest of the world’s religions really needs to be reconceived. the revised understanding does not simply mean that single individuals out of all nations and religions have to be granted the possibility of expressing ethical and soteriological judgements, but the historical dimension of the religions will be asserted as well. this historical dimension becomes especially evident by following how the religious communities travel their roads to god, the other. this is the decisive outlook. the history of salvation has greater pedagogical importance for the education of humanity the more that judaism and christianity understand each other, and as they understand that each in its own way is a religious community inevitably obligated by god to lead all 33 above all, dialectic theology strongly played religion against belief. cf. karl barth, die kirchliche dogmatik, vol. i/2 (zürich: theol. verl., 1932): 305-397; karl-josef kuschel, ed., christentum und nichtchristliche religionen. theologische modelle im 20. jahrhundert (darmstadt: wiss. buchges., 1994). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 53-66 rutishauser, “jewish-christian dialogue and the theology of religions” 66 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art7 people to acknowledge the one god.34 however, it is a difficult task to make god’s otherness, god’s difference from us evident in history without falling into a deprecatory hierarchy. to experience that difference neither as a menace nor as self-serving, but as a call to serve god’s gift of salvation and truth to all people is a challenge for both jews and christians, in dialogue with other religions. 34 compared to christianity, rabbinic judaism has renounced an active mission. nonetheless it wants a sole god to be approved by all people and it seeks to lead everyone to a just and social system. the concept of the noahide commandments makes this clear. cf. klaus müller, tora für die völker: die noachidischen gebote: ansätze zu ihrer rezeption im christentum (berlin: institut kirche und judentum, 1994). christians and jews in dialogue: learning in the presence of the other studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r3-4 review mary c. boys and sara s. lee christians and jews in dialogue: learning in the presence of the other (woodstock, vt: skylight paths publishing, 2006), 240 pp. reviewed by daniel lehmann, gann academy – the new jewish high school of greater boston interreligious dialogue, especially between christians and jews, has been the focus of a great deal of attention in the last several decades. however, mary boys and sara lee, explore a different, more robust dimension of the encounter with the religious other which they call interreligious learning. the difference is more than semantic; this book reveals the sophisticated educational theory, planning, and implementation that is necessary to construct a transformative learning experience for people with deep roots in their faith tradition who seek to move beyond the comfort zone of their own religious communities. the two authors, one a catholic nun and professor of religious education and the other a director of an important graduate program in jewish education, share their personal and professional collaboration on five groundbreaking projects in which they develop new models of interreligious learning. i was a participant in two of these projects and can attest to the powerful educational experience that they created for jewish and christian religious educators and academics. their new book provides an invaluable gateway into these cutting-edge educational experiments and an open window into the deep thought and personal narratives that brought them into being. the book begins with a conceptual framework that sets a context and direction for boys' and lee's work in interreligous learning. a key element of their paradigm is the interdependent and dialectical relationship between religious pluralism and "textured particularism." pluralism, from their perspective, requires the individual to extend beyond mere tolerance and strive to learn from the religious other. "pluralism, in contrast, demands pursuing understanding; it is built upon an encounter of commitments and a respect for differences that flows from the knowledge of one's own tradition." (8) it is clear that the need for the particular is embedded in the very definition of pluralism. similarly, by textured particularism they mean, "a keen sense of beliefs and practices in one's own religion as well as the finitude of that tradition." (9) the particularism is textured both because it is rooted in authentic commitment and because it acknowledges the human limitations that are inherent in any tradition. this symbiotic relationship between pluralism and particularism leads the authors to construct an unique pedagogical approach to interreligious learning. the book oscillates between reflections on their experience developing educational models and personal stories of each woman's journey into the uncharted waters of interreligious learning. it is instructive to read about the ways in which their personal biographies and relationships shaped their interest in this field of inquiry. a chapter is devoted to a trip they took together to auschwitz followed by a chapter that describes their travels together in israel. they do not shy away from confronting some of the most challenging obstacles to mutual understanding. in both chapters the reader is drawn to the particular experiences they each had and the way those experiences were shaped by the presence of the other. indeed, throughout the book we hear their individual voices both separately and in dialogue with each other alongside their combined voices as they describe the projects they worked on together. in this way the very structure of boys & lee, christians and jews in dialogue r http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ 3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r3-4 the book models the movement between particularism and pluralism that is at the core of their educational vision. one fundamental element of their educational orientation is the asymmetry they have discovered between christians for whom theology is of urgent concern in the context of interreligious learning and jews for whom history is the critical issue. boys and lee place great emphasis on this understanding, and they conclude that "addressing this asymmetry has become one of the cornerstones of our work together." (15) in the chapter on the educational theory that undergirds the projects they constructed, again we read, "one of the fundamental axioms of our jewish-christian work is that jews don't so much have to change their theology as they do their self-understanding based on history." (97) i am not at all convinced that this assertion is true, and that there is not important work to be done in the realm of jewish theology that should inform the pedagogy and content of interreligious learning. while it may accurately reflect the different proclivities of the authors, i would hesitate to apply this to jews more generally. there is a long and important history of theological reflection on other religions by jewish philosophers and theologians. irving greenberg, whose writings on religious pluralism and christian-jewish relations are cited in the book several times, formulates new and bold theological positions in response to contemporary christianity. in addition, dabru emet, a jewish statement on christianity written by a group of highly regarded professors of jewish studies, is filled with theological claims that challenge jews to reconceptualize their understanding of christianity in terms of authentic jewish religious principles, not just historical analysis. it is imperative, in my view, to reevaluate this apparent asymmetry, and to rethink the educational theory in light of a more nuanced understanding of the different agendas that emerge from each faith community. the foundation upon which boys and lee build their pedagogy of interreligious learning is deeply rooted in constructivist educational theory. the writings of lee shulman, nicholas burbules, and dwayne heubner, among others, have been significant influences on the development of their educational models. arguably, the most useful section of the book is the detailed articulation of the various components that comprise the pedagogic approach they constructed. the intense and deliberate planning, the focus on helping people "get inside" the religious tradition of the other, the commitment to creating a safe environment for learning, and the conviction that true study generates "conversations that open up new perspectives or draw participants more deeply into thought" (95) are the building blocks of a transformative educational experience. the voices of various participants quoted throughout the book witness to the profound learning that boys and lee have nurtured, and beckon all those who are passionate about religious pluralism to pour over this important book. boys & lee, christians and jews in dialogue r http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ 4 microsoft word 137517-text.native.1219861543.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-2 dalin & levering, john paul and the jewish people r1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 david g. dalin and matthew levering, eds. john paul ii and the jewish people: a jewish-christian dialogue (new york, toronto, plymouth: rowman & littlefield, sheed & ward, 2008), xiv + 175 pp. reviewed by eugene j. fisher, associate director emeritus, secretariat for ecumenical and interreligious studies, u.s. conference of catholic bishops the two editors of this fine book, one jewish, one catholic, are both professors at ave maria university in florida. the volume well awards a close reading both by those wishing to gain an understanding of the profound contributions of pope john paul ii to catholic-jewish dialogue and their implications, and by those already involved in the dialogue who wish to have the central questions of the relationship sharpened, if not entirely answered. the catholic church has only been working on the questions raised by the second vatican council (lumen gentium, 16; nostra aetate, 4) for somewhat over 40 years. as cardinal walter kasper, president of the pontifical commission for religious relations with the jews has said on numerous occasions, we are only “at the beginning of the beginning” of this great rethinking of virtually all aspects of traditional catholic theology in the light of the acceptance, following st. paul, of god’s covenant with the jewish people as an ongoing (until the end time) positive and indeed necessary reality in god’s plan for the salvation of all humanity. after a foreword by robert p. george of princeton and an informative and helpful introduction by the editors, the eight essays that make up the volume are organized into three sections: historical, ethical and biblical-systematic reflection. in the historical section, george weigel, among other accomplishments a major biographer of john paul ii, provides an excellent biographical overview of why the future john paul ii, because of his youthful experiences with jewish friends and as a pole under nazi occupation, focused so much of his papal energy on expanding on the thinking of the second vatican council on jews and judaism and embedding it so deeply in the teaching of the catholic church that it cannot, ever, be rolled back or overturned, a point on which the contributors to this book and this humble reviewer agree and take heart in. my only caveat to george weigel’s otherwise exemplary article comes on page 11, where he states that “it seems virtually certain that most members of the interreligious dialogue establishment missed the deeper point” about “theological conversation” being necessary to undergird social and moral collaboration. i think, after working for thirty years for the us bishops in this field, and working as well during the period for the holy see, i can safely be called a member of the “establishment” in the field. as such, i can only say to dr. weigel, that i have been pushing for and actually engaging in theological dialogue for all of this period. the inhibition against theological dialogue, as weigel does not seem to know, came from the jewish side, from rabbi joseph soloveitchik, who feared, for quite valid historical reasons, that any such discussions would turn into christian attempts to proselytize jews. the “establishment” catholic side of the dialogue of course respected the orthodox jewish point of view with regard to the synagogue council of america, and respects it still in its ongoing moral/social dialogue with orthodox judaism. and the usccb ongoing consultation with the national council of synagogues, which represents reform and conservative judaism, who represent the majority of american religious jews, have for a number of years now engaged in theological dialogue and will continue to do so. the press communiqués which note the topics of the twice-yearly meetings can be found on the usccb website, secretariat for ecumenical and interreligious affairs. there have also review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-2 dalin & levering, john paul and the jewish people r2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 been, ever since the second vatican council, theological discussions in scholarly conferences as well as in various programs set up by the usccb working with jewish agencies such as the american jewish committee and the anti-defamation league. david dalin’s essay from a jewish point of view on the history, and history-making events of the pontificate of john paul ii very nicely complements the overall excellent survey of george weigel. part ii of this exemplary volume, on ethics, begins with an essay by stanley arkes of amherst, essentially on john paul ii’s fides et ratio. it is an excellent essay on its subject, but it is not clear what it has to do with catholic-jewish relations. david novak’s reflection, as a jew, on veritatis splendor does credit to both the late holy father’s work and to novak’s own understanding of the field. this is theological dialogue writ large and most helpfully. the third article in this section, michael novak’s “the assymetrical relation”, to my mind, is the most significant in terms of catholic-jewish relations. it should be read by anyone, “establishment” or not, engaged in the dialogue. novak describes helpfully the theological asymmetry (christians need to grapple with their relationship with judaism in order to define themselves; jews can profit from grappling with christianity, but do not need to in order to understand their basic identity) and historical reality (christians had power over jews, and abused it; jews did not have power over christians), and applies these insights into contemporary controversies such as edith stein and conversion. he does not, however, show as deep a knowledge of judaism as he does a commendable sympathy for it. he states, on page 82, that jews will see christian claims that jesus is “the son of god” to be “blasphemous.” extremely important for the dialogue, jews will not see this as constituting blasphemy at all. they will, however, see the idea that a human being can be called god as “idolatrous,” a category of sin invoked by some jews to this day. but, actually, nothing jesus said, did or claimed, would have or could have constituted “blasphemy” either in his time or in ours. the third section, which begins with matthew levering on aquinas and maimonides, is fascinating to read and well worth the effort. levering asserts that the reflections of these two philosophers on divine providence and natural law help illuminate the pope's poetic and pastoral understanding of the holy land. bruce marshall’s “elder brothers” is one of the two most challenging essays in the volume. he presents and briefly discusses three options held by various catholic theologians today for defining the church's relationship with the jewish people. the first is the two-covenant theory in which each community is saved by its own unique covenant with god. this respects judaism but renders it difficult to maintain the universal salvific validity of the christ event. the second links "the old covenant to the new as 'figure' to 'reality' or 'shadow' to truth." (p. 124) this does show the connectivity between the jewish people and the church, but is easily prone to slide into supersessionism, as does the third, which is that of messianic judaism: jews are called to faith in christ but should continue to observe the mitzvoth. marshall has an option which he calls a "weaker" version of option one, but which i believe deserves more extensive treatment on its own terms than given here by marshall. this is that there is ultimately only one covenant, but that the church and the jewish people represent two "branches" of it. ultimately, all humanity is saved through the grace of christ, but jews practicing judaism as they understand it will, as god told them in their scriptures (and god speaks truly) be saved. while i agree with him in rejecting a “two covenant” approach, for the reasons he gives, i do not think he presents here a fully nuanced understanding of the first (1b) “single covenant” theology, which happens to be my own approach. engaging in a full discussion with him on this, however, is beyond the purview of a book review, since it would require a full article, or perhaps a book to do so. response to: exploring covenant in a world of faiths studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): cp7-9 conference proceeding response to william bellinger: e x p l o r i n g c o v e n a n t i n a w o r l d o f f a i t h s r u t h l a n g e r boston college delivered at the houston clergy institute, march 6, 2007 as we all know, the bible is a vast and complex text, containing multiple voices from multiple periods. therefore it is possible for two people ostensibly to read the same bible but to hear very different things from it. dr. bellinger and i are not hearing very different things from the bible, but we do both read this text through the lenses of our own traditions and our own academic disciplines. one element that keeps our readings of covenant from being very different is dr. bellinger’s preference for a narrative approach over a source-critical approach to the bible. this means that we are, at least, telling the same story, because we are both reading the biblical narrative as it has been received, not according to how it might have been created. source critical methods fragment the text and assign the fragments to different social and political settings. those reading the bible this way then connect the pieces of the individual sources and hear the narrative through the chronology of these sources rather from their juxtaposition in the text we have received. in this reading, sinai, the covenantal apex of the pentateuchal narratives and central to traditional jewish self-understanding, becomes ahistorical. while jewish biblical scholars are increasingly convinced that source criticism does represent the history of the formation of the text itself, judaism itself, i.e., the religious traditions of jews from the point that torah became authoritative until modernity, builds on a reading of the text that respects and even requires its narrative integrity. thus, judaism’s understanding of covenant, as part of this tradition, also builds on the received text – and here quite specifically the masoretic text, not the versions of the septuagint or the samaritans or the qumran community. therefore dr. bellinger’s narrative approach gives us much more basis for dialogue than some other alternatives. but even within this narrative integrity, jews and christians lift up certain elements differently. jews emphasize the continuity between genesis and exodus, thus understanding there to be a fundamental continuity between the patriarchal and the sinai covenants. just as sinai is particular to the children of israel, so too are the patriarchal covenants. the rabbinic understanding of the continuity of these two covenants extends to their suggesting that first isaac and then jacob spend time studying at the yeshiva of shem and eber, their ancestors, a langer response, exploring covenant cp7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): cp7-9 rabbinic-style academy and law court focusing on the study of the preexistent but as yet unrevealed torah!1 within the patriarchal covenants, judaism places much more emphasis than christianity on the covenants of the land. in the torah itself, living physically in the land of israel is central. fulfillment of all of the torah’s commandments is possible only there. these include the commanded sacrificial worship of god in the jerusalem temple, agricultural laws that apply only within the borders of the land, many of which have connections to temple rituals, instructions on how to run a government and a judiciary, and how to be in relations with other nations. while some of these, like the instructions for a judiciary, have some role in directing jewish life outside the land too, even there, when jews are subject to other nations, many elements of local law will trump the internal jewish teachings. without jewish autonomy, and autonomy in the particular land about which torah speaks, there cannot be a full expression of judaism. dr. bellinger makes specific reference to god’s repeated promise that “all the nations of the earth will be blessed through you.” (gn 12:3, 18:18, 22:18, 26:4, 28:14) in jewish thinking, it is not clear precisely how this happens, but in general, it is understood to apply to the jewish people (or, more technically correct: the children of israel), in their continuing integrity in their relationship to the other peoples of the earth. the various peoples of the earth will not become part of israel; nor will israel lose its distinctive identity and covenantal relationship with god in the process of bringing the rest of the world to blessing. the realization of this blessing is mostly understood to be part of the messianic future – and jews in general do not understand themselves to be there yet. and of course, jeremiah’s prophecy about a new covenant also applies to those, for jews yet unexperienced, messianic times. there are conflicting interpretations of this verse in jewish tradition, differing on whether that new covenant will be radically discontinuous with the sinaitic torah or simply another expression of it. dr. bellinger raises another point to which i would like to respond when he suggests that covenant functions as an antidote to fear. as a jew living today, i simply cannot make this assertion. we cannot simply rely on god for even the most essential protection, that of our lives. six million of my people, one in three of all jews then alive, were murdered by the nazis and their collaborators in the holocaust. can we see god’s protection here? is it that god stopped hitler before he completed his task? that is hard to justify. and how do we respond to today’s existential threats? the president of iran calls publicly for the utter annihilation of israel while building his country’s nuclear capabilities, and the un hesitates even to censure him for this arrogant breach of their charter! simply fearlessly relying on god is a recipe for another holocaust, probably not just against israel, but against the united states and the west as well. and this question remains very real for israel even on the more local level, with hizbullah and hamas similarly dedicating themselves to israel’s annihilation. although there is no unanimous jewish teaching on this point, many suggest that covenantal life requires an activist human response to threats. god is with us as we work to save ourselves, perhaps seen in our ability to develop and use technology. simply relying on a miraculous salvation is to fail to recognize it when it comes. a story that i thought was jewish, but that appears on the internet that it comes in secular, buddhist and christian varieties too, encapsulates this understanding: a man was drowning in the ocean. he prayed to god to save him. a few minutes later a boat came and offered to pick 1 moses aberbach, "shem: in the aggadah," encyclopaedia judaica, ed. michael berenbaum and fred skolnik, 2nd ed. (detroit: macmillan reference usa, 2007) 18:453. langer response, exploring covenant cp8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): cp7-9 him up and take him to shore. the drowning man refused and the boat left. another boat came and offered to save the man and he said no, and the boat left. finally a third boat came and said, “i can help you.” once again the drowning man said, “no.” when he died he said to god: i trusted you. why didn't you save me? god said: i sent you three boats!2 2 adapted from “jewish jokes, ” http://jokes.jewish.net/joke.php?id=975&listtype=3, june 15, 2007. langer response, exploring covenant cp9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ http://jokes.jewish.net/joke.php?id=975&listtype=3 microsoft word 137528-text.native.1219863299.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-2 van harn, the ten commandments r1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 roger e. van harn, ed. the ten commandments for jews, christians, and others (grand rapids, michigan: william b. eerdmans publishing company, 2007), pb., xiii+222 pp. reviewed by rifat sonsino, boston college the ten commandments have been studied extensively, yet, in the last few decades only a few scholarly commentaries have analyzed them seriatim. for example, in the 1950’s, solomon goldman examined each “word” (the hebrew term for these commandments) one after the other in the ten commandments (chicago: phoenix, 1956), providing valuable rabbinic insights. in the late 1990’s, rachel s. mikva edited broken tablets (woodstock,vt: jewish lights, 1999) with emphasis on the contemporary applications of the decalogue, and david n. freedman, edited, the nine commandments (ny: doubleday, 2000), in which the contributors studied the decalogue mostly within the context of the hebrew bible and the ancient near east. the major critical review of the decalogue, written from an historical-critical perspective is the ten commandments in history and tradition, edited by ben-zion segal (english version edited by gershon levi, (jerusalem: magnes press, 1990). however, this book does not contain an extensive examination of each commandment, but rather deals primarily with textual issues, such as division, cantillation, its use in liturgy, in the hebrew bible and jewish thought and practice. in van harn’s book we find a collection of articles on each of the ten “words”, written by various authors. none of the contributors claims to write as the representative of his/her religious tradition, though they all are committed members of their faith. the collection quotes the rsv version of the decalogue, but jewish authors point to the jewish division whenever necessary. each “word” in the book is presented by a major essay and a response by another scholar. (for some reason, the “sixth word,” dealing with homicide,” is accompanied by two responses). the collection also has a foreword by peter w. ochs and an afterword by richard john neuhaus. the overwhelming majority of the contributors are academics in reputable universities of the usa. the collection of articles has a clear “religious” and even a “pastoral” bent to it. as von harn indicates in his preface, “this book is based on the conviction that the ‘decalogue’ was given by god to guide the life of god’s covenant community.” in a thought-provoking analysis of each “word,” participants give us a christian (catholic or protestant) and a jewish evaluation based on the classical texts of the authors’ respective religious tradition. almost all contributors extend the original meaning of the commandments to other areas of societal life today. for instance, daniel polish argues that in the “second word,” “even the idea of god we hold can become an idol” (p. 34). with regard to the “fifth word,” byron l. sherwin, based on talmudic teachings, points out that “the honor due biological parents was extended to stepparents, to adoptive parents, and even to an older sibling” (p. 97). allen vermes, quoting calvin, states that the “eighth word” prohibits “theft by violence, theft by fraud, theft through craftiness, theft through flatteries” (p. 165). similarly, miroslav volf and linn tonstad, state that the “ninth word “ by extension, forbids all lying, including stereotyping, false advertising, and propaganda, even hypocrisy (p. 185). review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-2 van harn, the ten commandments r2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 among the writers there is agreement on most of the issues relating to the decalogue’s contemporary relevance, but there are also clearly articulated differences. for example, in the “seventh word” dealing with adultery, carl e. braaten argues in the spirit of christian teachings that “according to god’s design [marriage] is indissoluble” (p. 143), but elliot n. dorff, writing from a jewish perspective, counteracts by saying that although “divorce is not a sin, it is always sad” (p155). the two also disagree regarding homosexuality, with braaten arguing that homosexuality is “abnormal” (p.141), and dorff denying this claim, averring, “god has created most of us as heterosexual but some of us as homosexual” (p. 154). similarly, dealing with the “ninth word,” david patterson, takes exception to miroslav volf and linn tonsstad’s claim that opposition to the gospel constitutes false witnessing about god. he writes, “it would seem, then, that the jews, who conscientiously reject the gospel, are in violation of the ninth commandment” (p. 198). for me, the value of the book would have been enhanced, if it also included even a cursory reference to some of the textual issues that frame the discussion and give a context to the study of the commandments. for example, there is no mention of the possible origin and provenance of the term yhwh in the “first word;” no awareness that the term “love” at the end of the “second word” really means “covenantal loyalty,” reflecting the treaty traditions of the ancient near east; and also no reference to the various meanings of the hebrew expression “la-shav” in the “fourth word” (i.e., does the commandment refer to perjury or the frivolous use of god’s name?). missing is a discussion about the possible origins of the sabbath, and how, why and when this sacred day was moved by early christians from the seventh day of the week to the first/eighth. even though neuhaus, in his afterword, states that he has “a problem with the very idea of commandments” (p. 118), no one in the book has raised the issue of the sitz im leben of these so-called “commandments” within the context of the hebrew bible and ancient near east. although attributed to god and unique in their setting, could or should these sayings be viewed perhaps as wisdom instructions, and not necessarily as “law”? after all, no penalties accompany them; the fifth word comes only with a promise of wellbeing in the future. maybe this historical approach was left out because attention seems to have been given primarily and successfully to the way in which the commandments were traditionally interpreted by the church and rabbinic scholars, and, with the purpose, as ochs states in his foreword, “to offer scriptural guidelines for our responses to today’s social challenges and crises” (p. ix). as such, the book is insightful, thought provoking, and engaging. microsoft word 137523-text.native.1219862508.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-3 mittleman, et al, uneasy allies? r1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 alan mittleman, byron johnson, and nancy isserman, eds. u n e a s y a l l i e s ? : e v a n g e l i c a l a n d j e w i s h r e l a t i o n s new york, toronto, plymouth, uk: lexington books, 2007, hc, xvi + 213 pp. reviewed by ruth langer, boston college long largely ignored by most jews engaged in interfaith work with christians, evangelical protestants suddenly and increasingly insistently entered the conversation in the opening years of the twenty-first century. driving this change was the growing political clout of the american evangelical community, especially as it rallied behind george w. bush, combined with this community’s strong support for israel at a time when mainline protestant criticism of israel was becoming increasingly strident. because the traditionally liberal american jewish community found (and finds) itself at odds with the evangelical community over a long list of critical public policy issues, particularly regarding the role of religion in the public square, it has found itself “uneasy” over calls to develop alliances with evangelicals in response to their support for israel. uneasy allies?: evangelical and jewish relations publishes the proceedings of a conference convened november 30 – december 1, 2005, to address this phenomenon. as the editors point out, unapologetic resources for jewish-evangelical understanding were sparse. what existed mostly served questions of theological understanding, not fully relevant to this new set of issues. 1 the resultant collection of essays reflects the work of the interdisciplinary and interreligious gathering of jews and christians who approached their contemporary questions with the combined tools of journalism, history, sociology, psychology, religious studies and theology. while there are inevitable weak points in such a volume, the following discussions are of particular significance to the readership of scjr: the introductory article, yaakov ariel’s, “is america christian? religion in america at the turn of the twentieth century,” argues that christianity is deeply embedded in american culture, playing a “decisive role in shaping american attitudes towards jews and israel.”(1) while, as a jew, i personally find this argument obvious, clearly not all do, and christians, particularly, may find this essay helpful in gaining perspective on aspects of american life that they take for granted. 1 the most obvious exceptions to this generalization are three volumes that grew from conferences focusing on questions of interreligious dialogue in 1975, 1980, and 1984: evangelicals and jews in conversation on scripture, theology and history, evangelicals and jews in an age of pluralism, ed. m.h. tanenbaum et.al. (grand rapids: baker house books, 1984); and a time to speak: the evangelicaljewish encounter, ed. a.j. rudin et.al. (grand rapids: eerdmans, 1987). review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-3 mittleman, et al, uneasy allies? r2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 gary dorrien’s article, “evangelical ironies: theology, politics, and israel,” perhaps teaches all too little about jewish-evangelical relations – but for good reason. dorrien provides a succinct history of evangelicalism but then proceeds to suggest that the phenomenon is incredibly complex, encompassing both political conservatives and liberals. he suggests that the christian right, which has been the evangelical movement’s political voice, simply is not representative of the movement’s diversity, and that if this group were to seek to represent the broader evangelical world, it would find itself less at odds with mainstream protestants, catholics, and jews.(121) gerald mcdermott’s article, “evangelicals and israel,” is one of the most important pieces in this volume. after providing his understanding of “evangelical,” he presents a history of evangelicals’ relationship to zionism and the state of israel, followed by an exploration of their theology of the land. in all these, he compares and contrasts evangelical and fundamentalist approaches, as well as drawing regular comparisons to mainline protestant and roman catholic positions. as a result, while the center of this essay is evangelical views, it functions as well as a helpful succinct analysis of a broader spectrum of contemporary christian understandings of israel. two of the bolder pieces are placed towards the conclusion of the volume. yehiel poupko, in his “jews and evangelicals – between prophecy and mitzvot” observes that the while the return of jews to israel is for evangelicals “an event of profound religious and theological significance[, it] is for the majority of jews a secular event.”(160) this challenges jews better to understand their own return to zion. he claims, it cannot be seen as an act of divine prophecy, as a radically new communication from god,(162) but rather as a covenantal “summons to just, righteous, and holy living, to being worthy of the miracle.”(163) at the same time, poupko is deeply disturbed when this challenge comes from those actively seeking to convert jews to christianity.(158) mark silk adds a pessimistic note to the conclusion of the volume in his “last things: the future of jews and evangelicals in american public life.” reflecting on the public controversies where evangelical leaders have voiced shock at the “failure” of american jewish leaders to support the evangelical social agenda in return for evangelical support for israel, silk suggests that this is precisely the source of the unease between the two communities. the evangelical community “should not expect their devotion to israel, however expressed, to be enough to win a nihil obstat or vow of silence from american jews.”(185) though he suggests that individual jews and evangelicals will continue to get along just fine, the two communities will have substantially different social agendas, making formal reconciliation difficult, if not impossible. beyond these, the volume includes a pair of articles by john c. green and barry kosmin that give sociological profiles of the evangelical and jewish communities, lawrence grossman’s history of the interactions between the organized jewish community and evangelical america, and george mamo and ethan felson’s somewhat more narrative reports of recent interactions between the two communities. the last three all work for community organizations and write from these perspectives. carl schrag’s analysis of the factors determining current relationships is also useful. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-3 mittleman, et al, uneasy allies? r3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 of course, since this 2005 conference, republicans foundered badly in the midterm elections and bush’s approval ratings hit all-time lows. when this volume first appeared, it was not clear that the evangelical vote would still carry organized clout in the 2008 elections. thus, it is possible that in many ways, the moment addressed by this volume had already passed. the power of its analyses to explain more than this limited historical moment remains to be seen. bonhoeffer, the jewish people and post-holocaust theology: eight perspectives; eight theses studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):36-52 haynes, “bonhoeffer, the jewish people and post-holocaust theology” 36 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art3 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college “bonhoeffer, the jewish people and post-holocaust theology: eight perspectives; eight theses” stephen r. haynes rhodes college 2/1 (2007): 36-52 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art3 studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):36-52 haynes, “bonhoeffer, the jewish people and post-holocaust theology” 37 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art3 1. introduction over the years since his death, dozens of interpreters – scholars, novelists, dramatists, filmmakers and devotional writers – have offered a variety of perspectives on bonhoeffer’s relationship to the jewish people. in the first part of this article, i will describe eight distinct, though overlapping and largely compatible, perspectives on this question. in part two i will identify my own view of this important relationship by presenting and developing eight theses. 2. perspectives a. irrelevance the earliest perspective on bonhoeffer and the jews, usually implied rather than argued, was that jews and judaism had little relevance for understanding his legacy. very simply, early studies of bonhoeffer’s life and theology tended to ignore the question of his relationship to the jewish people. for instance, john d. godsey's the theology of dietrich bonhoeffer (1960) has no index entries for "jews," "israel," or "anti-semitism."1 b. guide for post-holocaust christianity by the end of the 1970s, the view that jews are irrelevant for understanding bonhoeffer was difficult to detect in bonhoeffer studies. among some interpreters it was displaced by a perspective at the other end of the spectrum from irrelevance – the view that bonhoeffer was a potential guide for post-holocaust jewish-christian relations. jewish scholars were among the first to articulate this view. in 1960 1 john d. godsey, the theology of dietrich bonhoeffer (philadelphia: westminster, 1960). stephen s. schwarzschild wrote that “jews owe it to dietrich bonhoeffer to become acquainted with his theology”– not only because he was a martyr to nazism but because his teachings “exhibit many marks of kinship with basic jewish orientation,” a fact not surprising since he “increasingly went back to what to him was the ‘old testament’ and thus drank from the same well from which judaism is nourished.”2 by 1979 pinchas lapide was arguing that “from a jewish perspective, bonhoeffer is a pioneer and forerunner of the slow, step-by-step re-hebraisation of the churches in our days.”3 the image of bonhoeffer as a paragon of post-holocaust jewish-christian rapprochement has been encouraged more by eberhard bethge than by any other single individual. in 1980, in a seminal article titled “dietrich bonhoeffer and the jews,” bethge wrote that dietrich “established some presuppositions for new approaches to a post-holocaust theology….”4 within a decade this perspective had made a significant impact on bonhoeffer scholarship, as can be seen in an article in the encyclopedia of the holocaust (1990) which declared that bonhoeffer’s “theological influence has been significantly instrumental in the post-holocaust rethinking of christian relationships with the jewish people.”5 2 stephen s. schwarzschild, "survey of current theological literature: ‘liberal religion (protestant)’,” judaism 9 (august, 1960): 366-71; 366367. 3 pinchas e. lapide, “bonhoeffer und das judentum,” in ernst feil, ed., verspieltes erbe: dietrich bonhoeffer und der deutsche nachkriegsprotestantismus (munich: kaiser, 1979), 116-130. 4 eberhard bethge, “dietrich bonhoeffer and the jews,” in john d. godsey and geffrey b. kelly, eds., ethical responsibility: bonhoeffer’s legacy to the churches, toronto studies in theology, vol. 6 (new york: edwin mellen press, 1981), 43-96; 90. 5 john s. conway, “bonhoeffer, dietrich,” encyclopedia of the holocaust, ed. israel gutman (new york: macmillan, 1990), 1: 230-31. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):36-52 haynes, “bonhoeffer, the jewish people and post-holocaust theology” 38 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art3 echoing bethge, robert o. smith has written recently of “reclaiming bonhoeffer after auschwitz.”6 c. philosemite growing out of this view of bonhoeffer and his legacy is a third perspective – that bonhoeffer was a philosemite congenitally predisposed, it would seem, to come to the defense of vulnerable jews. novelists have been particularly effective at communicating this perspective. denise giardina’s historical novel saints and villains includes an early scene in which dietrich and his twin sister sabine are caught in a snowstorm while hiking through the thüringer wald. when a woman who shelters the teenagers remarks off-handedly that their hometown of berlin contains "too many jews,” dietrich testily responds: "why do you say that? do you know any jews?"7 similarly, michael van dyke, author of dietrich bonhoeffer: opponent of the nazi regime, portrays the young bonhoeffer as innocent of the antisemitism that is endemic to his culture and class. shocked to realize that his tübingen fraternity does not accept jews, the seventeen-year-old dietrich reflects: “could it be true that the hedgehogs are truly haters of jews .... then he remembered the songs he sang in hedgehog meetings about ‘germany, pure and strong,’ ‘the blood of christian men,’ and so forth…suddenly it seemed like his entire world had come crashing down. he closed his philosophy book, laid his head down upon it, and began to weep softly.”8 in her novel the cup of wrath, mary glazener projects bonhoeffer’s instinctive philosemitism into the nazi era. as 6 robert o. smith, “reclaiming bonhoeffer after auschwitz,” dialog 43/3 (fall, 2004): 20. 7 denise giardina, saints and villains (new york: fawcett, 1998), 12. 8 michael van dyke, dietrich bonhoeffer: opponent of the nazi regime, heroes of the faith series (ulrichsville, oh: barbour publishing, 2001), 30. he observes nazi brown shirts preparing to attack a jew who dares to sit on a “non-aryan” bench, bonhoeffer moves into action: with three quick steps dietrich passed the storm troopers, addressing the hapless victim as he went, “ah, johannes, have i kept you waiting? i’m terribly sorry. i was held up at the university.” he winked at the startled jew, put his hand on his shoulder, and steered him to the path, where hugo waited in obvious amazement. in a voice loud enough to be heard by the storm troopers, dietrich said, “i’d like you to meet my cousin, herr councilor von der lutz, of the justice department.” he tried to reassure the frightened man with a look, then turned to hugo. “my friend, herr johannes ertzberger.” without a backward glance, dietrich nudged them forward. hugo, three inches taller than dietrich, towered above the man walking between them. “we’d better hurry or we’ll be late for the matinee,” said dietrich, and continued in the same vein until they were out of earshot of the sa men….[the jew] said, with tears in his eyes, “thank you. thank you very much. those men—there’s no telling …”9 9 mary glazener, the cup of wrath: a novel based on dietrich bonhoeffer’s resistance to hitler (macon, ga: smith & helwys, 1992), 140. closely related to bonhoeffer the philosemite is the image of bonhoeffer the champion of minority rights. this portrayal of bonhoeffer, which links his experiences in harlem during 1930-31 with his opposition to the aryan paragraph two years later, is captured by elizabeth raum: “on one evening, when a number of students, including franklin fisher and dietrich bonhoeffer went to dinner at a new york restaurant, the restaurant refused service to fisher because he was black. dietrich objected loudly and left the restaurant in protest, amazing the other students, who accepted such prejudicial treatment as normal….in an act reminiscent of his refusal to eat in a new york restaurant that would not serve franklin fisher, dietrich declared that if studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):36-52 haynes, “bonhoeffer, the jewish people and post-holocaust theology” 39 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art3 d. pro-jewish resistor a fourth perspective on bonhoeffer and the jews casts his resistance to nazism as motivated by that regime’s treatment of jews. this perspective is evident in one of the earliest dramatic treatments of bonoheffer’s life, elizabeth berryhill’s the cup of trembling (1958). when erich friedhoffer (berryhill’s bonhoeffer) retreats to the garden of his parents’ home, he is ambushed by the sounds of kristallnacht: “out of the humming air, come sounds and voices. a crash of glass, as of a rock thrown through a window.” jewish voices cry, “help us…please…help us…” but friedhoffer replies, “no! i will not listen.” “brother, we seek you – we call you! can you hear us? can you hear us?” the voices plead. and friedhoffer: “i cannot! ask of me what you will…but i cannot kill!” kneeling in the garden, the young christian cries out three times: “o my father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as i will, but as thou wilt.” erich then returns to the house and announces to his sister that he will join the conspiracy.10 a novelistic version of this conviction that bonhoeffer’s resistance was rooted in nazi anti-semitism may be found in michael phillips’s the eleventh hour, in which bonhoeffer confesses: “i have prayed and prayed for years about what should be our response as christians to the nazi evil….my conscience tells me that the nazi evil against the jews is of such magnitude that bringing force against it may be necessary….fateful times and fateful decisions are upon us…those of us with jews in our family will not be allowed his friend franz hildebrandt could not serve a german parish, then neither would he.” see dietrich bonhoeffer: called by god (new york: continuum, 2002), 44. 10 the cup of trembling, a play in two acts by elizabeth berryhill, suggested by and with material derived from the life of dietrich bonhoeffer (new york: seabury, 1958), 52, 53. the luxury of an easy answer.”11 although these scenes do not correspond to any known episodes in bonhoeffer’s life, this view of bonhoeffer as a resistor on behalf of jews is routinely endorsed by scholars. chief among them is eberhard bethge, who in 1980 wrote that “there is no doubt that bonhoeffer’s primary motivation for entering active political conspiracy was the treatment of the jews by the third reich.”12 renate wind concurs, declaring that “beyond question the deprivation of rights and the persecution of the jews which followed soon after the nazi seizure of power were the decisive stimulus to his repudiation of the regime from the beginning and his fight against it.”13 friends and family members confirm this idea. renate bethge, in a letter to yad vashem, writes that “the fate of the jews was bonhoeffer’s main reason for resisting the nazis....”14 and anneliese schnurmann testifies that “one of the main reasons why dietrich opposed the nazis was their persecution of the jews; it actually was the impulse which made him reject them.”15 e. victim of the holocaust a fifth perspective on bonhoeffer and the jews – one given credence in both popular and scholarly literature – is that bonhoeffer was a victim of the holocaust. in an on-line 11 michael phillips, the eleventh hour (wheaton, il: tyndale house, 1993), 193. 12 bethge, “dietrich bonhoeffer and the jews,” 76. 13 renate wind, dietrich bonhoeffer: a spoke in the wheel (grand rapids: eerdmans, 1992), 70. 14 stephen a. wise, “answers to the commission's questions, by the individual supporters of recognition,” document submitted to state of israel commission for the designation of the righteous at yad vashem, october 17, 2000. 15 affidavit of anneliese schnurmann, march 19, 2001, shared with the author by stephen a. wise. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):36-52 haynes, “bonhoeffer, the jewish people and post-holocaust theology” 40 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art3 article, macky alston describes bonhoeffer as “a non-jewish martyr of the holocaust, [who] gives protestants a stake in the great tragedy of the 20th century, through the death of one of their own.”16 in saints and villains giardina connects bonhoeffer’s execution with the jews’ fate by having their paths intersect in the final days of the war. while in transit to his execution site, bonhoeffer passes: … a caravan of jews being driven on foot from auschwitz and treblinka to the reich. dietrich watches through a crack between the slats of the truck's wooden sides as the scarecrow men, women, and children make their painful way, driven by armed guards like draft horses ready to die in the traces. the passing truck forces them from the road, and they do not look at it but stand with heads bowed taking what rest they can as they wait to be forced on. “the absent ones,” dietrich says. and thinks he is better off on the road with them.17 for their part, scholars have encouraged such connections by referring to bonhoeffer as one who died “in the holocaust,” meeting his end “in a death camp” (sidney g. hall iii); who “wrote from within the death camps of nazi germany” (r. kendall soulen); who did theology in “the holocaust context” (craig slane); who was deported to a concentration camp for “anti-nazi sermons” (eva fogelman); whose theology “points to the presence of the ‘suffering servant,’ indeed, of jesus christ himself, in the long lines of victims at the gas chambers in nazi death camps” (geffrey 16 macky alston, “the challenge of bonhoeffer” (2003), at http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/reflections/ref_20060131.sht ml. 17 giardina, saints and villains, 480. kelly, 1999).18 other scholars have been careful to speak of bonhoeffer’s solidarity with suffering jews. according to bethge, bonhoeffer entered into “deep solidarity” with the victims of the holocaust; and robert willis adds that bonhoeffer was able “to enter into the reality of jewish suffering and maintain solidarity with it.”19 while jewish scholars have tended to dispute the characterization of bonhoeffer as a holocaust victim, at least one has encouraged it. pinchas lapide writes that this “exemplary man of god” became “a blood witness for the god of abraham, isaac and jacob….” his prison writings resemble “those we have acquired by the thousands from bergen-belsen, from auschwitz, and from treblinka.”20 f. ambiguous legacy developing alongside these positive perspectives on bonhoeffer and the jews are a few that are more cautious in their assessment. one stresses the ambiguity of bonhoeffer’s post-holocaust legacy. in 1967 emil fackenheim gave seminal expression to this view: 18 sidney g. hall iii, christian anti-semitism and paul’s theology (minneapolis: fortress, 1993), 48; r. kendall soulen, the god of israel and christian theology (minneapolis: fortress, 1996), 17, 18. craig j. slane, bonhoeffer as martyr: social responsibility and modern christian commitment (grand rapids: brazos, 2004), 95; eva fogelman, conscience and courage: rescuers of jews during the holocaust (new york: anchor, 1994), 170; geffrey b. kelly, “bonhoeffer and the jews: implications for jewish-christian relations,” in geffrey b. kelly and c. john weborg, reflections on bonhoeffer: essays in honor of f. burton nelson (chicago: covenant publications, 1999), 133-166; 162. 19 bethge, “bonhoeffer and the jews,” 80. 20 lapide, “bonhoeffer und judentum,” 126. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):36-52 haynes, “bonhoeffer, the jewish people and post-holocaust theology” 41 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art3 clear-sighted witness, apostle of christian selfexposure to the secular world and himself martyr to his cause, bonhoeffer nevertheless failed wholly to grasp…the monstrous evil of the actual world about him. this painful truth, in retrospect inescapable, cannot escape his jewish reader. in a concentration camp filled with jews subjected to every imaginable form of torture, bonhoeffer writes that protestants must learn about suffering from catholics. no mention is made in the letters and papers from prison of jewish martyrdom.21 other scholars to express doubts about bonhoeffer’s projewish credentials include stephen s. schwarzschild, who in 1965 wrote that it is time to “make clear the ambiguity of the best of protestant christians in a decisive hour…and to warn against any facile, simplistic interpretation of the phenomenon of dietrich bonhoeffer.”22 in 1981 stanley rosenbaum added that it is sad to search bonhoeffer’s works in vain for references to jews that are not “ignorantly patronizing or dogmatically conversionist….” since bonhoeffer assumed “judaism died giving birth to christianity,” according to rosenbaum, it is “painfully apparent that the only interest a bonhoeffer christian can have in judaism is the individual conversion of its erstwhile adherents.”23 james rudin opined in 1987 that even when bonhoeffer “turned to the hebrew scriptures for strength and 21 emil l. fackenheim, "on the self-exposure of faith to the modernsecular world: philosophical reflections in the light of jewish experience," in the quest for past and future: essays in jewish theology (bloomington, in: indiana university press, 1968), 278-305; 284. 22 stephen s. schwarzschild, "bonhoeffer and the jews," commonweal 83/3 (november 26, 1965): 253-4. 23 stanley r. rosenbaum, “dietrich bonhoeffer: a jewish view,” journal of ecumenical studies 18/2 (spring, 1981): 301-307; 305. comfort, [he] always saw those scriptures as a prelude to the coming of jesus, the christ.”24 g. better than his theology the view that bonhoeffer’s thinking about jews and judaism is riddled with ambiguity has given rise to another perspective on bonhoeffer and the jews – that the man was superior to the theologian. as ruth zerner wrote in 1975, … while retaining certain traditional christian images of the cursed jews, bonhoeffer refused to allow them to reinforce any fear of action. his thinking on jews and their bible may appear to us ambiguous, problematic and tentative in the light of post-holocaust christian rethinking of theology regarding the jews, but his final actions were unmistakably heroic.25 in the years since, scholars such as franklin h. littell and craig slane have echoed this view of bonhoeffer’s legacy. littell refers to “the sad truth…that bonhoeffer was much better than his theology;” and craig slane writes that “bonhoeffer’s death as a martyr accomplished something his theology alone could not…[an] answer to the anti-semitic knot he was never able fully to disentangle intellectually.”26 this perspective represents a sort of happy compromise – it acknowledges the anti-judaism in some of bonhoeffer’s 24 a. james rudin, “dietrich bonhoeffer: a jewish perspective,” paper presented at the evangelische akademie nordelbien, june 17, 1987, in the bonhoeffer archive, burke library, union theological seminary, new york. 25 ruth zerner, "dietrich bonhoeffer and the jews: thoughts and actions, 1933-1945," jewish social studies 37/3-4 (1975): 235-250; 250. 26 franklin h. littell, the crucifixion of the jews: the failure of christians to understand the jewish experience (macon: mercer university press/rose reprints, 1986 [1975]), 51; craig j. slane, bonhoeffer as martyr, 249. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):36-52 haynes, “bonhoeffer, the jewish people and post-holocaust theology” 42 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art3 early writings, but claims that he more than compensated for this offense by later risking his life to rescue jews. h. christian rescuer this eighth perspective – that bonhoeffer was a christian rescuer of jews has gained a great deal of momentum in recent years. conservative christians are particularly drawn to the image of bonhoeffer the rescuer. ralph reed, former head of the christian coalition, opines that christian support for israel is linked to the tradition of those like corrie ten boom and dietrich bonhoeffer, “who sacrificed their own lives while resisting nazi tyranny and protecting jews from the holocaust.”27 and a review of bonhoeffer: agent of grace published in christianity today describes the film as the story of “a christian theologian who gave his life to save jewish people….he became an advocate for the rights of jews in nazi germany, and helped save many jewish lives.”28 this view is sanctioned by the german embassy in london, which claims that on his return to germany in 1939 bonhoeffer “resumed his struggle against the nazi regime, not only protesting against the exclusion of people of jewish origin from church offices, but risking his own life by smuggling jewish fellow-citizens across the border to safety.”29 it is also supported by scholars such as geffrey kelly and burton nelson, who write that bonhoeffer 27 see charles colson, “earning a second look: the new christian internationalism,” breakpoint (july 17, 2002), at http://acct.tamu.edu/smith/ethics/christian_international.htm, december, 2006. 28 cheryl heckler-feltz, “agent of grace gains prestige,” christianity today (august 7, 2000), http://www.christianitytoday.com/ ct/2000/132/44.0.html, august, 2005. 29 http://www.london.diplo.de/vertretung/london/en/startseite.html, june, 2006. “struggled passionately on behalf of rescuing jews.”30 in fact, no less an expert on bonhoeffer than clifford green has endorsed this view. writing on “bonhoeffer’s legacy” for the pbs website, green claims that after outgrowing traditional christian anti-jewish attitudes, bonhoeffer “became an advocate for and rescuer of jews in nazi germany, and ended his life sharing the same fate as the victims of the holocaust.”31 ironically, however, this perspective is explicitly rejected by the jewish organization dedicated to researching such claims – yad vashem, the israeli agency that bestows the title “righteous among the nations” on bona fide christian rescuers. despite being nominated for this designation several times since the early 1980s, and despite stephen a. wise’s energetic campaign since 1998, bonhoeffer continues to be denied the honor. mordechai paldiel, director of yad vashem’s department for the righteous among the nations, has stated unequivocally that bonhoeffer was not among those “non-jews who specifically addressed themselves to the jewish issue, and risked their lives in the attempt to aid jews.” while he opposed hitler on churchstate issues, paldiel claims, his imprisonment and execution stemmed from “involvement in the anti-hitler plot of july 1944, and not, to the best of our knowledge and the known record, to any personal aid rendered to jews.”32 in the summer of 2000, when yad vashem again refused to honor bonhoeffer with the designation “righteous among the nations,” paldiel revealed what many had long suspected 30 geffrey b. kelly and f. burton nelson, the cost of moral leadership: the spirituality of dietrich bonhoeffer (grand rapids: eerdmans, 2003), 118. 31 http://www.pbs.org/opb/bonhoeffer/legacy, august 2005. 32 marilyn henry, “who, exactly, is a ‘righteous gentile’?” jerusalem post (april 22, 1998), at http://www.lexis-nexis.com, april 2003. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):36-52 haynes, “bonhoeffer, the jewish people and post-holocaust theology” 43 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art3 – that part of the problem with bonhoeffer’s candidacy is his essay “the church and the jewish question” (april, 1933), which has given jewish admirers of bonhoeffer pause since it was first published in the 1960s. “on the jewish issue,” paldiel wrote, “the record of bonhoeffer is to publicly condone certain measures by the nazi state against the jews (save only baptized jews), and to uphold the traditional christian delegitimization of judaism, coupled with a religious justification of the persecution of jews.” paldiel went on to assert that while bonhoeffer’s condemnations of nazi anti-jewish measures were uttered “in private and among trusted colleagues; his denunciations of judaism and justification of the initial anti-jewish measures were voiced in writing.”33 in 2003 the center for jewish pluralism of the reform movement, represented by mr. wise, sued yad vashem before the supreme court of israel for access to protocols from discussion of bonhoeffer’s case. yad vashem, whose privacy was upheld by the court, reiterated in a press release that its decision (which, it revealed, had been unanimous) was based on its view that bonhoeffer’s … assistance towards the jews was limited to speaking up for jewish converts who belonged to the christian church that were being persecuted by the nazis because of their jewish roots. this was not a case of saving them, but of protecting their rights as christians. moreover, bonhoeffer did not oppose the nazis per se, but a faction within the church that sought to negate the rights of 33 cited in richard l. rubenstein, “was dietrich bonhoeffer a ‘righteous gentile’?” paper presented at the aar/sbl annual meeting, nashville, november 20, 2000. converts. there is no proof that he was involved in saving jews.34 ironically, the more paldiel has elaborated on yad vashem’s decision in bonhoeffer’s case, the more clouded has become bonhoeffer’s image as a friend of the jews. 3. theses given the bewildering variety of perspectives on bonhoeffer and the jews that have found expression in popular imagination and scholarly opinion, what can we legitimately say about this aspect of bonhoeffer’s legacy? i offer the following theses as an attempt to navigate between the pitfalls of undeserved condemnation and wishful thinking. a. bonhoeffer’s career under nazism presents us with a model of authentic christian behavior toward jewish “brothers and sisters” who are vulnerable and under attack. examples of this authentic christian action on behalf of jews include: • treasonous discussions with paul lehmann in 1933 concerning the transfer of information about 34 while concluding that he “did not save any jews,” the yad vashem press release acknowledged that bonhoeffer referred a convert to the care of his brother-in-law hans von dohnanyi for inclusion in “operation-7” and in 1937 assisted in the emigration of the leibholzes. he was arrested and executed for his opposition to the nazi regime. wise is referred to as “a person who did not know” bonhoeffer, whose support is based on the fact that “following the war he became a symbol of pure christian resistance to the nazis and paid with his life.” see press release dated october 2, 2003 at http://www1. yadvashem.org/about_yad/press_room/press_releases/court.html, august, 2005. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):36-52 haynes, “bonhoeffer, the jewish people and post-holocaust theology” 44 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art3 conditions in germany to american rabbi stephen wise • refusal to seek a church post in berlin in 1933 for fear of “betraying [his] solidarity with the jewish christian pastors…”35 • energetic attempts to inform delegates to the world alliance meeting in sofia, bulgaria in september, 1933 of the “jewish question” in germany, culminating in a resolution deploring “state measures against the jews in germany” (this action led to bonhoeffer being placed under observation by both church and state authorities) • an unsuccessful campaign at the national synod in wittenberg the same month to place the “jewish question” on the church’s agenda • condemnation of the confessing church after the 1935 steglitz synod for its failure to transcend a limited concern for jewish christians • repeated admonitions to “speak out for those who cannot speak” (proverbs 31:8) • aid to jewish-christian refugees in london between 1933 and 1935 35 in a letter of october 24, 1933 regarding a post at lazarus church in berlin, bonhoeffer wrote: “i knew i could not accept the pastorate i longed for in this particular neighborhood without giving up my attitude of unconditional opposition to this church, without making myself untrustworthy to my people from the start, and without betraying my solidarity with the jewish christian pastors….” see eberhard bethge, dietrich bonhoeffer: theologian, christian, man for his times: a biography, rev. and ed. victoria j. barnett (philadelphia: fortress, 2000), 232. • sheltering at finkenwalde of willy sussbach, a young pastor of jewish origin who had been attacked by the s.a. • aiding his sister sabine and her jewish husband gerhard leibholz in emigrating to switzerland in 1938 • work on a report detailing nazi deportation of jews from berlin in 194136 • a deeply negative reaction to a fellow prisoner’s antisemitic remark.37 b. bonhoeffer risked his personal safety to aid jews who were threatened with deportation. thus, christians (and jews) are justified in thinking of him as a “christian rescuer.” 36 in berlin in september, 1941 bonhoeffer witnessed jews wearing the yellow star and became aware that an elderly friend of the family was being evacuated to theresienstadt. “the first day dietrich bonhoeffer collected all the facts he could confirm, to pass them on to sympathizers in the army command. [friedrich justus] perels helped him get information from elsewhere in the reich. by 18 october 1941 they had completed a report describing what was happening in berlin, and mentioning similar proceedings in cologne, düsseldorf, and elberfeld. on 20 october a more detailed report was concluded, and warned that further deportations were expected on the nights of 23 and 28 october….perels and bonhoeffer gave the reports to [hans] dohnanyi to pass on to [general major hans] oster and [colonel-general ludwig] beck, in the hope that the military would either agree to intervene or accelerate its preparations for revolt” (bethge, dietrich bonhoeffer, 7456). 37 dietrich bonhoeffer, letters and papers from prison, enlarged edition, ed. eberhard bethge (new york: macmillan, 1972), 194-5. see also ruth zerner’s “chronicle of compassion and courage,” in “church, state, and the jewish question,” in john de gruchy, ed., a cambridge companion to dietrich bonhoeffer (cambridge: cambridge university press, 1999), 190-205; 197. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):36-52 haynes, “bonhoeffer, the jewish people and post-holocaust theology” 45 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art3 the basis for considering bonhoeffer among the christian rescuers is his participation in “operation-7,” a scheme devised by bonhoeffer’s brother-in-law hans von dohnanyi and the abwehr’s admiral wilhelm canaris to supply fourteen german jews with false papers and spirit them across the border to neutral switzerland during august and september of 1942. bonhoeffer aided the operation by calling on his ecumenical contacts to arrange visas and sponsors for the rescuees.38 bonhoeffer’s involvement in “operation-7” has been painstakingly documented by stephen a. wise in a series of petitions to yad vashem that seek to demonstrate that bonhoeffer risked “life, freedom, and safety” to protect jews (a direct appeal to yad vashem’s requirements). wise’s twenty-six page petition filed in 1998 included an affidavit from an “operation-7” rescuee and a newly found copy of the indictment charging bonhoeffer with trying to help an imprisoned jewish professor. while it is certainly yad vashem’s prerogative to deny him recognition as a righteous gentile, the evidence indicates that bonhoeffer, unlike the vast majority of his coreligionists, was committed to aiding jews with whom he was acquainted in an effort to keep them from becoming racial victims of the nazi state. c. bonhoeffer recognized – and was among the first german protestants to do so – that the church’s task was not simply to resist application of the “aryan paragraph” in the ecclesiastical realm, but to condemn nazi measures against the jewish people as such. 38 bethge, dietrich bonhoeffer, 814-17. this point is debated; for some – including jewish scholars stephen schwarzschild, emil fackenheim and irving greenberg – bonhoeffer’s bold opposition to the german christians is diminished by his apparently exclusive concern for baptized jews. for others – including nonjewish scholars eberhard bethge, clifford green, robert willis, and geffrey kelley – it is precisely bonhoeffer’s inclusion of jews qua jews in the church’s realm of obligation that distinguishes his contribution to the church struggle. on this point it is wise to give bonhoeffer the benefit of the doubt, for two reasons: first, scholars in the latter group are more familiar with the relevant evidence; second, on this question bonhoeffer contrasts so radically with social and theological milieus, a fact that is clear even in “the church and the jewish question,” where bonhoeffer affirms that “the church has an unconditional obligation to the victims of any ordering of society, even if they do not belong to the christian community.”39 d. in “the church and the jewish question” (april, 1933), bonhoeffer invoked the christian witnesspeople tradition to illuminate jewish suffering in the light of salvation history. the relevant paragraph follows: now the measures of the state towards judaism in addition stand in a quite special context for the church. the church of christ has never lost sight of the thought that the “chosen people,” who nailed the redeemer of the world to the cross, must bear the curse for its action through a long history of suffering [quotation from luther’s 39 no rusty swords: letters, lectures and notes, 1928-1936, from the collected works of dietrich bonhoeffer. volume one, ed. edwin h. robertson, trans. edwin h. robertson and john bowden (new york: harper & row, 1965), 225. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):36-52 haynes, “bonhoeffer, the jewish people and post-holocaust theology” 46 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art3 table talk on the scattered and insecure state of the jews]….but the history of the suffering of this people, loved and punished by god, stands under the sign of the final homecoming of the people of israel to its god. and this homecoming happens in the conversion of israel to christ [quotation from s. mencken on the church’s hope that at the end of time israel will penitently depart “from the sins of its fathers to which it has clung with fearful stubbornness to this day…”]. the conversion of israel, that is to be the end of the people's period of suffering. from here the christian church sees the history of the people of israel with trembling as god's own, free, fearful way with his people. it knows that no nation of the world can be finished with this mysterious people, because god is not yet finished with it. each new attempt to “solve the jewish problem” comes to nothing on the saving-historical significance of this people; nevertheless, such attempts must continually be made. this consciousness on the part of the church of the curse that bears down upon this people, raises it far above any cheap moralizing; instead, as it looks at the rejected people, it humbly recognizes itself as a church continually unfaithful to its lord and looks full of hope to those of the people of israel who have come home, to those who have come to believe in the one true god in christ, and knows itself to be bound to them in brotherhood.40 to fully gauge the significance of this rather striking passage, its roots in the western theological tradition must be understood. for nearly nineteen hundred years before bonhoeffer wrote these words, christians had perceived jewish life as unassailable proof of god’s existence and immanence, jewish history as a unique witness to divine providence, and the jew’s destiny as a mystery comprehensible only in the light of divine election and 40 ibid., 226. reprobation. particularly when jewish survival was at stake, christians had relied on these foundational ideas to explain god’s mysterious dealings with this chosen but disobedient people. what has come to be known as the christian witnesspeople myth41 was articulated in a systematic way by augustine of hippo (354-430 ce) and acknowledged by virtually every subsequent christian theologian concerned with understanding jewish fate following the appearance of the messiah. augustine maintained that after the death of christ jews exist as living witnesses to god's sovereignty. for augustine, and for the generations of subsequent believers who embraced his solution to the problem of jewish existence post christum, god wills jewish survival "in unbelief" as mundane testimony to the transcendent realities of grace and punishment. embodying reprobation and preservation simultaneously, the jews are unique witnesses to god’s mysterious providence. in augustine’s paradoxical portrayal of the witness people, jews are killers of christ, yet remain the people of god; their religion is superseded, yet they are not "cast off"; they are dispersed, but carry “books” (the christian “old testament”) that testify to christ; they are witnesses to divine judgment who nevertheless disseminate awareness of god’s providence; they are adherents of a lifeless religion whose tragic ignorance will be redeemed when they convert to christ en masse in the eschatological future. although never officially adopted by the church, witness-people theology animated christian discourse for fifteen hundred years after augustine’s death and was quite in evidence at the dawn of the nazi era. 41 see stephen r. haynes, reluctant witnesses: jews and the christian imagination (louisville: westminster/john knox, 1995). studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):36-52 haynes, “bonhoeffer, the jewish people and post-holocaust theology” 47 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art3 among the features of this passage from “the church and the jewish question” that bring to mind the witnesspeople tradition are its style, structure and tone. the style of this extract invests an aura of mythic unreality to bonhoeffer's description of the "chosen people," a personified theological abstraction whose import is to be gauged solely on this people’s "saving-historical significance." this distinctive style is particularly evident when the segment is contrasted with the rest of the tract, which is characterized by precise and sequential argumentation. the passage also evinces a paradoxical structure. the reprobationist and preservationist dimensions of witnesspeople theology that reach in parallel lines back to augustine are juxtaposed in bonhoeffer's description of "this people, loved and punished by god." from the perspective of the essay’s participation in the witness-people myth, the crucial affirmation is not that jews “bear the curse,” but that the church must view their “long history of suffering” through the paradoxical lens of reprobation and preservation. they are, indeed, “the ‘chosen people,’ who nailed the redeemer of the world to the cross.” finally, this paradoxical portrayal of jewish destiny resonates with the ambivalence that is the leitmotif of the witness-people tradition, an ambivalence symbolized in the crucial "but" that serves as the passage’s verbal hinge. like the witness-people myth itself, bonhoeffer’s description of jewish existence incorporates positive and negative judgments upon “jews” and “judaism” while infusing both with profound ambiguity. what ought to concern us, then, is not bonhoeffer’s regrettable words so much as the images they propagate and the unconscious level at which they are communicated. scholarly analysis of “the church and the jewish question” has encouraged us to view bonhoeffer’s appeal to the witness-people tradition as an excrescence of his main argument, to separate these “theologically tainted assertions” from the “specific core” of his essay, to “chip off” the traditional teachings of contempt toward jews in order to uncover gleaming treasures. but because bonhoeffer’s witness-people theology resonates so deeply in the christian imagination, it simply will not be “neutralized”; rather, it threatens to distort the way christian readers interpret the rest of bonhoeffer’s argument. his authorial voice may speak in favor of the rights of jews; but this voice is in danger of being overwhelmed by mythological speculation on the divine necessity of jewish suffering. e. bonhoeffer invoked the witness-people myth not because he was “lutheran” (although luther was an important conduit for witness-people theology), but because he was a christian theologian seeking to grasp the mystery of jewish suffering in a situation of crisis. for understandable reasons, bonhoeffer scholars have tended to downplay the blatant anti-judaism in “the church and the jewish question” and the bethel confession.42 one scholar refers to bonhoeffer’s invocation of the curse that bears down on the jews as “unfortunate” (edwin h. robertson); another asks that it be “mercifully forgotten” (walter harrelson); one argues that the paragraphs in which bonhoeffer describes the “quite special context” for the church’s interpretation of the state’s measures towards judaism are “definitely not the central theme of the paper” (eberhard bethge); another concludes that, unfortunately, 42 on bonhoeffer’s role in the confession, see stephen r. haynes, the bonhoeffer legacy: post-holocaust perspectives (minneapolis: fortress press, 2006), 74-80. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):36-52 haynes, “bonhoeffer, the jewish people and post-holocaust theology” 48 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art3 bonhoeffer’s initial observations on the jews in germany “repeated ages-old stereotypes” (geffrey b. kelly); one contends that although the passage contains “all the ingredients of traditional christian antisemitism,” these are “morally . . . neutraliz[ed]” by bonhoeffer’s discussion of unjust state actions (robert willis); others claim that the essay’s objectionable language can be separated from its primary thrust (geffrey b. kelly and f. burton nelson); and one laments that the trees of bonhoeffer’s “christian antijewishness” have obscured the “forest of [his] contribution to christian political responsibility” (robert o. smith).43 furthermore, scholars who venture an explanation for the perplexing anti-judaism in bonhoeffer’s writings from 1933 are either vague – he was inexplicably “bound to a certain problematic view regarding judaism” (josiah ulysses young iii), dismissive – his words represent “the all-pervasive antisemitism of his era” (robert f. koch), or misleading – he “recalled the scriptural curse in order to warn the church of his day against incurring a similar curse through its failure to oppose hitler’s racist policies” (ann w. astell).44 to this latter 43 edwin h. robertson, “a study of dietrich bonhoeffer and the jews, january–april, 1933,” in yehuda bauer, et al., eds. remembering for the future: working papers and addenda, volume 1: jews and christians during and after the holocaust (oxford: pergamon press, 1989), 121-29; 128; walter harrelson, “bonhoeffer and the bible,” 115– 39, in the place of bonhoeffer: problems and possibilities in his thought, ed. martin e. marty (new york: association press, 1962), 141 n27; bethge, “dietrich bonhoeffer and the jews,” 60; kelly, “bonhoeffer and the jews,” 135; willis, “bonhoeffer and barth on jewish suffering: reflections on the relationship between theology and moral sensibility,” journal of ecumenical studies 24/4 (fall, 1987): 598-615; 607; kelly and nelson, the cost of moral leadership, 21; robert o. smith, “reclaiming bonhoeffer after auschwitz,” 209. 44 josiah ulysses young iii, no difference in the fare: dietrich bonhoeffer and the problem of racism (grand rapids: eerdmans, 1998), 137; robert f. koch, “the theological responses of karl barth and deitrich bonhoeffer to church-state relations in germany, 1933-1945” (ph. d. dissertation, northwestern university, 1988), 239; ann w. astell, category belongs the explanation that bonhoeffer’s antijudaism is “predictable” since he was under the influence of traditional lutheran theology (william jay peck, edwin h. robertson, stephen a. wise, geffrey b. kelly, stephen plant, and david h. jensen, among others). without doubt, bonhoeffer was deeply influenced by martin luther. but to refer to his invocation of anti-jewish images and concepts as “lutheran” ignores their deep roots in the christian tradition and gives the mistaken impression that bonhoeffer was appealing to a peculiarly lutheran doctrine that might be identified and repudiated. because bonhoeffer alluded to an intellectual stream that was much older than german lutheranism, it is simply inadequate to blame his anti-judaism on a failure “to recognize the antijewish biases of his own lutheran heritage.” f. kristallnacht (november 9-10, 1938) represented a personal epiphany for bonhoeffer, and was probably the turning point in his decision to join the active conspiracy against hitler. many scholars perceive a marked change in bonhoeffer’s apprehension of jews and judaism in the wake of kristallnacht. bethge contends that bonhoeffer's response to the pogrom became the "decisive impetus in his life” and marked a “decisive point” in his thinking. he argues that bonhoeffer realized almost immediately that "this day of persecution might determine his vocation and his fate." evidence for this claim includes pencil marks in bonhoeffer's bible, the more significant because they represent the only "note in his bible giving a date or key word for something “reading the bible with holocaust survivors and rescuers: a new biblical spirituality,” interpretation 56/2 (april 2002): 181-192; 184. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):36-52 haynes, “bonhoeffer, the jewish people and post-holocaust theology” 49 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art3 contemporary.”45 vicki barnett argues that the true turning toward the resistance occurred in the fall of 1939 as bonhoeffer gained knowledge of the atrocities against the jews after the invasion of poland. his work for the resistance, she notes, involved carrying that information to his ecumenical contacts abroad.46 while it is difficult to judge matters that are by definition private, it is reasonable to regard kristallnacht as the event that put anti-jewish persecution at the forefront of bonhoeffer’s consciousness and made him willing to risk himself to alleviate it. bethge points to a sentence inserted in a circular letter written by bonhoeffer on november 20th, which suggests that the theologian was engaged in serious reflection in the wake of kristallnacht: during the last few days i have been thinking a great deal about psalm 74, zechariah 2:12 (2:8 “he who touches you touches the apple of his eye!”), romans 9:3f (israel, to whom belongs the sonship, the glory, the covenant, the law, the services, the promises), romans 11:11-15. that takes us right into prayer.47 referring to the citation from rom 9, bethge writes that in 1938 bonhoeffer read and taught “about this text in order flatly to contradict the church’s centuries-old teaching of the rejection of the jews, being so moved that he asks how church teaching could so long have completely forgotten this statement from paul about the continuing existence of 45 eberhard bethge, "one of the silent bystanders?: bonhoeffer on november 9, 1938," in friendship and resistance: essays on dietrich bonhoeffer (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 1995), 58-71; 64. 46 see victoria barnett, “dietrich bonhoeffer’s relevance for postholocaust christian theology” in this issue. 47 bethge, “bonhoeffer and the jews,” 75; and “one of the silent bystanders?,” 65-7. judaism.” as for zec 2:8, bethge notes that although less than a year earlier bonhoeffer had applied this text to the church’s persecution, he now interprets it “unambiguously and exclusively in terms of its validity for the jews, leaving no room for a theology of punishment….”48 what is lacking, as i discuss below, is evidence that bonhoeffer's response to widespread anti-jewish violence was accompanied by qualitatively new perceptions of the jewish people and their destiny. g. while there is discernible growth in bonhoeffer’s understanding of judaism and solidarity with jews, there is no documentary evidence that bonhoeffer ever repudiated the anti-judaism he expressed in 1933. furthermore, his later writings suggest that he never escaped the gravitational pull of the witnesspeople tradition. the persistence of christian anti-judaism in bonhoeffer’s thought is evident in discipleship (1937), where he writes: god’s beloved people had been ill-treated and laid low and the guilt belonged to those who had failed to minister to them in the service of god. the romans had not done this, but the chosen ministers of the word, and their misuse of that word. there were no longer any shepherds in israel. no one led the flock to fresh waters to quench their thirst, no one protected them from the wolf. they were harassed, wounded and distraught under the dire rod of their shepherds, and lay prostrate on the ground. such was the condition of the people when jesus came.49 48 bethge, “one of the silent bystanders?,” 66. 49 dietrich bonhoeffer, discipleship, ed. geffrey b. kelly & john godsey, dietrich bonhoeffer works, vol 4 (minneapolis: fortress, 2003), 184. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):36-52 haynes, “bonhoeffer, the jewish people and post-holocaust theology” 50 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art3 yet, following bethge, many scholars see a “clear repudiation” of punishment theology in the fact that after 1933 bonhoeffer no longer spoke or wrote of a divine curse hanging over the jews. bethge makes much of bonhoeffer’s citation of rom 9 in the wake of kristallnacht, with its emphasis on “the continuing existence of judaism.” yet chapters 9-11 of romans contain the very musings on the fate of “israel” post christum that nurture the roots of the witness-people myth. although possessing “the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises,” israel has “stumbled over the stumbling stone,…” (9:32) “…through their stumbling salvation has come to the gentiles, so as to make israel jealous” (11:11). “they have a zeal for god, but it is not enlightened. for, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from god, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to god’s righteousness” (10:2-3). “as regards the gospel they are enemies of god…; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; for the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable” (11:28). thus bethge’s attempt to demonstrate that bonhoeffer was groping toward a new “theology of israel” in the shadow of the november pogrom paradoxically illuminates the fact that he was unable to renounce the witness-people myth. for while kristallnacht may have pushed bonhoeffer to explicitly reject the notion that a divine curse pursued the jews through history, it does not appear to have dissuaded him from perceiving jewish travail through the prism of salvation history. the lingering effects of this perception are evident in ethics, the very text to which scholars turn for literary evidence of a substantially new theological apprehension of jewish life on bonhoeffer’s part. two passages from ethics are commonly cited in this connection. in a section of the book titled “heritage and decay,” bonhoeffer writes: the historical jesus christ is the continuity of our history. because jesus christ was the promised messiah of the israelite-jewish people, the line of our forebears reaches back before the appearance of jesus christ into the people of israel. western history is by god’s will inextricably bound up with the people of israel, not only genetically but in an honest, unceasing encounter. the jews keep open the question of christ; they are the sign of god’s free, gracious election and of god’s rejecting wrath: “see the kindness and the severity of god” (rom. 11:22). driving out the jew(s) from the west must result in driving out christ with them, for jesus christ was a jew.50 a second ethics extract cited as evidence of a transformation in bonhoeffer’s “theology of israel” appears in the midst of his confession of the church’s guilt: the church confesses that it has witnessed the arbitrary use of brutal force, the suffering in body and soul of countless innocent people, that it has witnessed oppression, hatred, and murder without raising its voice for the victims and without finding ways of rushing to help 50 dietrich bonhoeffer, ethics, ed. clifford j. green, trans. reinhard krauss, charles c. west and douglas w. stott, dietrich bonhoeffer works, volume 6 (minneapolis: fortress, 2005), 105. also salient for an evaluation of bonhoeffer’s ethics in terms of their implications for a christian theology of israel is ethics’ portrayal of jews and judaism. particularly interesting are seventeen references to “pharisees” or “pharisaism” that span six of the book’s thirteen essays, most brief allusions in which “pharisee” is shorthand for hypocrite, “pharisaism” for arrogance. see haynes, the bonhoeffer legacy, 98-9. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):36-52 haynes, “bonhoeffer, the jewish people and post-holocaust theology” 51 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art3 them. it has become guilty of the lives of the weakest and most defenseless brothers and sisters of jesus christ.51 bethge asserts that inasmuch as the language of displacement, punishment, and mission is conspicuously absent from this passage, it signifies a “cardinal point in the meaning of bonhoeffer for jewish-christian relationships after the holocaust.” perhaps at this point, one sees “something like a breakthrough for a coming theology after the holocaust.”52 but the excerpt in question reiterates a controlling assumption of witness-people theology – the conviction that god’s providential action in history is transparent in the existence, wandering, and suffering of the jewish people. further, the reference to paul’s ruminations on jewish existence post christum in rom 11, the affirmation that jews simultaneously signify divine grace and divine wrath, and the claim that "the jew...is [a] sign” unmistakably echo the witness-people tradition. the declaration that “the jew keeps open the question of christ,” while no doubt an expression of bonhoeffer’s “ongoing search for a theological foundation upon which to establish his racial-ethical concern for jews,”53 resonates with the functional view of jewish survival that has characterized witness-people theology since the time of augustine. in the witness-people tradition, jewish persistence operates as both natural and special revelation. jews’ survival testifies to divine providence, while jewish suffering following jesus’ crucifixion is a “sign” pointing to christ. bonhoeffer indicates that he remains within the intellectual confines of this tradition inasmuch as the jews 51 bonhoeffer, ethics, 139. 52 bethge, “bonhoeffer and the jews,” 81. 53 slane, bonhoeffer as martyr, 107. “keep open the question of christ” by bearing witness to the dialectic of grace and judgment it is their destiny to reflect. even if the declaration that "driving out the jew(s) from the west must result in driving out christ with them” is interpreted as an allusion to the deportation of german jews and a reminder of the bond between judaism and christianity that was badly obscured during the nazi era, bonhoeffer’s linkage of jewish fate and christian hope indicates that he continued to view jewish suffering christologically. to the extent that it manifests witness-people thinking, the relationship between jews and christians articulated in ethics is formally continuous with “the church and the jewish question.” in 1933, “the suffering of this people, loved and punished by god” is illumined by “the sign of [its] final homecoming”; in 1940, the jew is a “sign of the free mercy-choice and of the repudiating wrath of god." although intended to oppose the nazi vision of a judenrein europe, bonhoeffer’s image of the jew as a mirror of election and judgment is rooted in the same mythological structure from which curse theology emerged. far from revolutionary, these comments in ethics could have been written by augustine, the early luther, or karl barth, all of whom believed that jews survived as testimony to the messiah they rejected. jews and christians alike have perceived traces of a new way of seeing jews and judaism in bonhoeffer’s prison letters.54 and we do not know what theological revisions may have begun in the silent period after bonhoeffer was transferred from tegel prison. but we do not possess any documentary evidence that he recognized his reliance on the witness-people tradition or sought to escape its grasp. 54 see haynes, the bonhoeffer legacy, 101-05. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007):36-52 haynes, “bonhoeffer, the jewish people and post-holocaust theology” 52 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art3 h. thus, bonhoeffer is not a sufficient or even a reliable guide for christian post-holocaust theological reflection. without question, bonhoeffer has exercised a positive influence on post-holocaust christian-jewish relations, particularly from the christian side. it was bonhoeffer’s legacy that placed eberhard bethge on a path of reconciliation between jews and christians in germany,55 and it has been a factor behind the willingness of american lutherans to revisit their tradition. yet the desire to portray bonhoeffer as a guide for postholocaust theological reflection is based less in bonhoeffer’s theological achievements than in the compelling nature of his witness and the dire need for christian heroes from the nazi era. bonhoeffer’s post-holocaust legacy can aid us primarily in interpreting the varieties of flawed human response to nazi anti-semitism, and remind us of the inevitable gap between praxis and reflection in situations of crisis. 55 ibid., 2-7. challenging colonial discourse: jewish studies and protestant theology in wilhelmine germany studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r20-22 c h r i s t i a n w i e s e review c h a l l e n g i n g c o l o n i a l d i s c o u r s e : j e w i s h s t u d i e s a n d p r o t e s t a n t t h e o l o g y i n w i l h e l m i n e g e r m a n y translated by barbara harshav and christian wiese (brill, 2005), 577 pp. reviewed by laurence edwards, catholic theological union, loyola university chicago “in these epoch-making times,” wrote hermann cohen in 1915, “so fateful for all nations, we as jews are proud to be germans. and we are aware of our task to convince our co-religionists the world over of the religious import of the german ethos and of its influence as well as its claim on the jews of all nations…” looking back in 1976, gershom scholem wrote, “i deny that there has ever been such a german-jewish dialogue in any genuine sense whatsoever … this dialogue died at its very start and never took place.” the attempt, and the ultimate failure of this dialogue, mostly one-sided, and stretching roughly from the time of abraham geiger through world war i is described in fascinating detail by christian wiese. the title alludes to the scholarly category developed by edward said. “colonial discourse analysis” refers to the fact that earlier accounts of colonialism tended to be written from the point of view of the colonizer (though always with a claim of objectivity). in her book on geiger (a volume that had a deep impact on wiese), susannah heschel refers to manet’s painting “olympia” as a revolutionary work in which the model looks straight at the viewer. this stance of “reversing the gaze” is a characteristic aspect of many movements in modern and post-modern scholarship (marxism, feminism, post-colonialism, liberation theology), in which the group previously studied as object finds its own voice(s) (though often in the language and discursive style of the majority or colonial culture) and speaks back as active subject rather than passive object. this is the hermeneutical key (made more explicit in the english version than in the german original) to wiese’s scholarly tour-de-force. german jews were not colonial subjects in the strict sense. but they were an identifiable minority within a society becoming in some ways more liberal, and seeking the cultural commonalities that would enable it to articulate a national identity. in nineteenth-century germany, jewish scholars began to speak the language of the modern academy. as they found their voices, they increasingly felt the need to oppose the simplistic (and polemical) picture of second-temple judaism promulgated by protestant scholars (who generally referred to it as “late” judaism, as if judaism had come to an end with jesus). jewish scholars, from zunz and geiger on, took on the project of reversing the gaze. while some “liberal” germans insisted that jews must ultimately accept baptism in order fully to assimilate to german culture, some jews replied with the argument that, if their protestant counterparts really wanted to connect to the faith of jesus, they ought to become jewish. at times the religious polemics became quite intense. wiese, a young german scholar, is clearly sympathetic to the wissenschaft project of modern jewish studies. he processes and organizes a vast amount of material – books, journals, newspapers, letters – to reveal the inner dynamics of a partisan debate that had to do not only with the facts of history, but also with the place of judaism in modern german society. in retrospect, though the protestant scholars (wellhausen, harnack, and many others) were hardly wiese, challening colonial discourse r20 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r20-22 advocating extermination, the advocates of judaism (geiger, leo baeck, and many others) turn out to have been fighting for the lives of their people. but one must not oversimplify, as susannah heschel warns in her introductory essay: “[i]t is the historian’s responsibility not to reduce jewish history prior to 1933 to a mere prehistory of the holocaust, which may give the impression that all developments inexorably lead to the ‘final solution,’ as if there were neither alternatives nor counter-developments.” (3) tangentially, wiese also discusses zionism and neo-orthodoxy, two other jewish identity options that developed during the same period. but his main interest is the strained and strenuous effort of the proponents and inheritors of the wissenschaft approach to the study of judaism. they adopted the language and the historicism of the dominant protestant university professors, and sought to be accepted in that milieu. there was crass anti-semitism that arose in political movements of the late 1870’s, and that is certainly part of the background of the academic struggle. but by 1908 or so, wiese writes, “the ‘coarse attacks’ of the anti-semitic parties had diminished.” hence, “jews now had to turn their attention more strongly to the subtler forms of ‘suspicion and disparagement of everything jewish’ which prevailed in ‘broad circles of the educated and enlightened,’ that is, among the ‘men of letters’ who shaped public opinion” (103, citing an article by joseph eschelbacher). the intellectual battle was waged between liberal judaism and liberal protestantism, and in the opening years of the twentieth century what was at stake was nothing less that “the legitimacy of judaism’s continuation.” (chapter 6) in the eyes of some, liberal judaism and liberal protestantism seemed very similar. but such similarity only intensified the conflicts, as the proponents of each felt the need to articulate the differences and demonstrate the superiority of one’s own camp. in 1848, leopold zunz had formally proposed the establishment of a chair in jewish history and literature at the university of berlin. “the failure of this attempt,” writes wiese, “is indicative of the prevailing desire to protect the privileged position of christianity…” (82). in 1912, responding negatively to a similar petition for the new university of frankfurt from the sympathetic christian, martin rade, the biblical scholar hermann gunkel wrote, “[t]he fact is that protestantism is still the only denomination in which the academic spirit is truly possible.” (402) wiese’s comment: “this was, of course, ‘colonial discourse’ in its purest form. gunkel’s words express the arrogance of a privileged protestant university theology…which claimed the scientific monopoly of enlightenment and objectivity….” (403) mention should also be made of max löhr (d. 1931), a christian scholar of the old testament in königsberg, where he was a close friend of rabbi felix perles. in 1926, stephen wise asked ismar elbogen who might be invited to speak at the jewish institute of religion. elbogen wrote back, “to begin with löhr, he has the most knowledge of judaism and the purest love for judaism” (411). in fact, löhr, on the day of his death, had attended yom kippur services. his efforts to obtain support for a chair of jewish studies were unsuccessful, and he himself was suspected by some of being pushed by his jewish friends. löhr was one of a small number of exceptions to the nearly united front of german protestant scholarship against the recognition of the academic legitimacy of jewish studies. the notion of “hybridity,” added to post-colonial discourse by homi bhabha, points to layered complexity of such understandings. in the relationship between judaism and christianity, hybridity takes on a particularly problematic, and sometimes poignant, aspect. judaism has lived as a distinct minority tradition in the lands of christendom. often despised for having been “superseded,” there nevertheless remained the dim awareness that christianity itself had wiese, challening colonial discourse r21 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r20-22 sprung from jewish roots. who then is the “colonizer” and who the “colonized”? christianity from its beginning spoke a variation of jewish theological language. in the modern period, judaism began learning to speak the language of historical criticism, derived from protestant hermeneutical traditions. whose language is it? this is an aspect of post-colonial theory that wiese does not discuss directly, though it seems to this reviewer that it lurks just below the surface of the polemics of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. at the very end of his epilogue, wiese offers the hope “that, in the future, jews and christians could freely and openly meet one another on their respective journeys of discovery, in deference to what is common and what separates them, without feeling forced to apologetics.” (444) this is the hope of a post-shoah german scholar, who offers on the altar of such hope a profound work of scholarly reparation. wiese, challening colonial discourse r22 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ scjr 10 (2015) 1 why would presbyterians turn to a catholic document? jay moses, hope presbyterian church, wheaton dirk ficca, interreligious initiative for middle east peace nanette sawyer, fourth presbyterian church, chicago robert cathey, mccormick theological seminary with jill folan and katie rains introduction on november 21, 2015, the assembly of the presbytery of chicago meeting at first presbyterian church of lake forest, illinois, unanimously adopted in an omnibus motion “‘…in our time…’ a statement on relations between the presbytery of chicago and the jewish community in metropolitan chicago.” this statement was the outgrowth of over ten years of dialogue between jewish and presbyterian leaders in chicago that began in september 2004 after conflict occurred between the national presbyterian church (u.s.a.) and mainstream jewish organizations. a majority of commissioners to the 216 th general assembly of the historic protestant denomination voted to trigger its investment scrutiny process (mrti or mission responsibility through investment) regarding certain corporations that sold hardware or software to the israeli defense force (e.g., caterpillar corporation based in peoria, illinois, and motorola solutions with its headquarters in chicago). the mrti process was intended to discover if any corporations in which the denomination had investments were profiting from the israeli occupation of palestinian territories. the middle east task force of chicago presbytery (an advocacy organization on behalf of christians and muslims in the near east) supported this general assembly decision. at the scjr 10 (2015) 2 same time, the decision presented a challenge to other presbyterians concerned with interfaith relations among jews, muslims, and christians in global cities like chicago. the dialogue of jewish and presbyterian leaders that began in chicago in 2004 focused from the first on the rationale for the general assembly’s action, the nature and implications of mrti, etc. but by 2006 other questions emerged. what did presbyterians teach about jews and judaism in our theology, sermons, and denominational resources for religious education? one jewish dialogue partner asked if presbyterians had ever had a “nostra aetate” moment? we replied with references to study papers approved by previous general assemblies. but in our normative theological documents, the book of confessions, there was no one confession that spoke directly and positively to the topics of jews, judaism, and their relations with presbyterians. the ecumenical and inter-religious work group (eiwg) of chicago presbytery recognized in 2014 that october 28, 2015, would mark the fiftieth anniversary of the official publication on “…in our time…” that radically revised centuries of roman catholic teaching and practice (via the ordinary magesterium or informal teaching authority of the church) regarding jews, judaism, and other religions. “…in our time…” impacted christians, jews and others around the world and influenced presbyterians who wrote the confession of 1967 and other presbyterian confessional and study documents. recognizing the revolution in human relations sparked fifty years ago by “…in our time…”, our work group created a sub-committee to draft a document for our time in 2015 that might become a resource for our congregations, institutions, and leaders in our relations with jews, rabbis and educators, congregations, and institutions in chicago. on november 10, 2014, we met at mccormick theological seminary in hyde park, chicago and began the drafting process. scjr 10 (2015) 3 in the winter and spring of 2015 we shared early draft versions of our document for constructive critique with members of our work group, with leaders from the jewish united federation of chicago, american jewish committee, and chicago board of rabbis, specifically with leaders with whom we have been in dialogue since september 2004. we shared a draft version with the christian scholars group for christianjewish relations, an organization founded by the national council of churches in 1967 that includes roman catholic, orthodox, lutheran, united church of christ, and presbyterian scholars and directors of centers for inter-religious relations in the us. i also shared a draft of our document with mccormick students in my “introduction to christian theology” course for their critique. chicago presbytery received a draft of “…in our time…” at the presbytery assembly on june 16, 2015, for a first reading. we created a set of discussion questions, divided the assembly members into small groups, and received oral and written responses from all present, and from other members of presbytery who wrote to us via email afterwards. we combined all these responses into a detailed report shared with our work group later in the summer. chicago presbytery also emailed all other pc (usa) presbyteries with a draft for their comment and we have read those responses via email. by october we had a new draft that was shared with the christian scholars group meeting at st. joseph university in philadelphia and they made detailed comments on all sections. in light of all the feedback we have received from presbyterians and others, we revised some of our indicative statements into interrogative form to invite members of presbytery into an ongoing dialogue with each other and with our neighbors that will continue beyond our presbytery assembly of november 2015. scjr 10 (2015) 4 but why a roman catholic document? one member of our drafting committee, the rev. dr. jay moses, a local church pastor (“teaching elder”) in wheaton, illinois, reflected on nostra aetate’s significance for presbyterians: the social and religious movement known as the protestant reformation was a powerful statement and path forward for many in their day, and led to the plethora of different denominational voices that we encounter in our own day. although the positive repercussions of this movement can be, and have been noted (and as a presbyterian with baptist roots it is part of my birthright to recite them from time to time), there was also a great deal lost in the decision to split from the mother church which can be highlighted in the attempt of these same churches, such as the pc(usa), to relate to larger issues, such as the historic teaching of contempt regarding the jewish people through christian history. specifically, why would a presbyterian look to a roman catholic document such as the groundbreaking nostra aetate with regards to articulating a modern day statement to the jewish people? two simple reasons can be given here: the unity of the roman catholic church, and her attachment and containment of christendom tradition. protestant traditions are diverse, and they are pluriform. in addition to this, many of the formations of governance, or polity, within them are decentralized, democratic, and organized from the grass roots. there is great similarity in the presbyterian church’s resemblance to our own united states form of government in regards to the opposition to a top down, “episcopal” type of assemblage. however, what one gains in our freedom of diversity and roots in the “lay” person in the pews, we lose in our ability to speak “as one” to our neighbors around us. as one cannot tell the aver scjr 10 (2015) 5 age person’s views or local governance’s reaction to such supreme court actions as our recent “marriage equality” issues, so one can see the same difficulty of having “one voice” when a polity such as the pcusa seeks to speak “as one” regarding such a daunting history and phenomena as anti-judaic rhetoric and its consequences. nostra aetate gave and gives presbyterians (and the world) a chance to see what a truly authentic attempt at reconciliation with a neighboring tradition looks like from a religious governance that can speak as one, from the lips of the pope, to the teaching of the church, to the articulation of the priests in the parishes. the roman catholic approach of unity through her assemblage shows how a tradition can seek to speak “directly” to the issue with the kind of intention that can be heard by the jewish people. although there of course are flaws to any ecclesiastical governance, and although the roman catholic “follow through” of what was stated so clearly in nostra aetate can be debated, in honesty it is the clearest attempt of a church who can clearly speak “as one.” this is highly instructive to those who learn and follow in her wake. the second reason presbyterians look to nostra aetate and the roman catholic church regarding the renouncement of the teaching of contempt and a healing path forward with our jewish brothers and sisters, is that her organic connection with the history of contempt herself, that is, her close attachment to christendom tradition. there is no other church that can speak honestly and with greater fullness to the centuries of the articulation of contempt towards jews than the roman catholic church. the strongest statements and some of the most condemning rhetoric come from within the time period that pre-dated the reformation itself. this root of error and sin follows a trajectory to the very beginning of christianity itself. to see a scjr 10 (2015) 6 church confessional community, which hold responsibility for the center of this phenomena, turn in repentance and give acts of contrition are uniquely gifts that the roman catholic communion witnesses before all who sit at her feet. it speaks in a fullness no one else is able to, but the church speaks in a revolutionary way in nostra aetate which sets the tone for all who follow: to confess and to seek forgiveness is a miraculous sign for others to ponder. in rome’s fullness, her turning is all the more a religious sign of hope for all; “all things are possible with god.” the presbyterian church (u.s.a.) is in need of finding the mode (how to speak as one) and the conviction (how to truly take an accounting of her past sins) to speak to the jewish people. it is a daunting task, and one fraught with great disagreement in a diverse people and a polity that often times does not speak as one. throughout this time, and especially in our day, the presbyterian church looks to the miracles of the past, and the continuance of its intentions in nostra aetate, and in its shadow, to speak to the jewish people, in peace and hopeful healing, in “our time.” another member of our drafting group with decades of leadership in inner-religious relations, the rev. dirk ficca, wrote: there are some advantages to having a pope rather than a corporate and democratic “head of the church” that we have in the presbyterian system. a pope can get all sorts of things done by fiat, and has a “bully pulpit” to advocate for all sorts of other things that needs wider support within the catholic church. so if you like what the pope is doing—such as with pope francis—then the ecclesiastic system of the catholic church works for you. the downside to this arrangement is, of course, when the pope is working at cross-purposes to your view of the church’s mission. scjr 10 (2015) 7 in terms of the groundbreaking nature of nostra aetate, the impact of papal initiative has left a lasting legacy. its profound impact was not only felt within the catholic church, marking a shift from christendom— making the world christian and catholic—to the question of what it means to be a catholic in the world. it also paved the way for other communions in the wider christian church—catholic with a small c—to do the same, each in their own way. i would venture to say that there is a sense, at least historically, that nostra aetate was first an ecclesiastical act, and then the theological rationale, and its implications for catholic social teaching, was worked out as time went on, whereas protestants often have to work out the theological rationale first. in a practical sense, each and every catholic diocese has been mandated to have ecumenical and interreligious relations, whatever the personal or theological perspective of the local bishop, clergy, and laity. this has been a major impetus for such relations over time, and has spilled over into the involvement of other christian communions, as well as the spectrum of diverse religious and spiritual communities. as i have shared the idea of chicago presbytery’s ‘…in our time…’ statement with jews, i’ve been struck by how powerful nostra aetate continues to be, not only for more liberal and observant jews, but also cultural and secular jews (to use admittedly outsider language). it was liberating for the jewish community at the time, and still to this day serves as a bulwark against continued suspicions of jews and judaism from a religious perspective, as well as against the ebb and flow of antisemitism. and for those who are puzzled by why catholics get a friendlier hearing when they criticize the state of israel scjr 10 (2015) 8 along the same lines as presbyterians and other mainline protestants, it is nostra aetate, and what it means to that relationship, in its affirmation of jewish identity, that is most often cited as the reason. with these acknowledgements in mind, we pray the creator and redeemer of all things will continue to reform our church by the word and spirit that jesus of nazareth communicates among us “…in our time…” the text of “‘…in our time…’ a statement on relations between the presbytery of chicago and the jewish community in metropolitan chicago” follows. comments and questions may be sent to one of the document’s co-authors, robert cathey (rcathey@mccormick.edu). mailto:rcathey@mccormick.edu microsoft word 154204-text.native.1234993697.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): sabella r 1-3 cohen, christ killers sabella r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 jeremy cohen christ killers: the jews and the passion from the bible to the big screen (new york: oxford university press, 2007) ix + 313 pp. reviewed by jeremy sabella, boston college originating in a course that cohen has taught for twenty years, christ killers traces the myth of the jew as christ killer from its origins in the context of the gospel writers through its development into the early modern period and examines its various present-day manifestations. cohen pays particular attention to what the myth reveals about the myth-makers and aims to communicate the pervasive effect that this myth has had on western culture into the present day (3). cohen divides eleven chapters into three parts: “the myth and its origins,” “the myth in history,” and “the myth and the arts.” the first part addresses issues surrounding interpretation of the gospels. the gospels in cohen’s view are not concerned with communicating events as they actually happened, but are rather interested in interpreting their meaning for the christian community. as such, they reveal more about the values and concerns of the early christians than they do about the facts surrounding the crucifixion. the destruction of the temple in particular forced the jewish community to redefine its identity. the gospels arose out of the ensuing intra-jewish polemic, with the christians accepting and the jews rejecting jesus as the messiah. after examining how this polemic shaped jewish and christian interpretations of foundational stories such as the sacrifice of isaac and the passover, cohen analyzes the first clear example of the christ killer myth in an easter sermon of the second century bishop, melito of sardis. the second, and longest, part explores the historical development of the christ killer myth. augustine argued that the jews were unaware that they were committing deicide and cannot be held responsible for the death of god. this motif of jewish blindness dominated medieval thought and served as a basis for jewish toleration right up through the late 11th century, when heightened awareness of the individual, the rise of universities, and the onset of the crusades contributed to an awakened curiosity in the status of the jews in christendom. this led to the reconsideration and restructuring of the christ killer myth: in the 12 th and 13 th centuries peter lombard argued that the jews killed jesus out of envy, and aquinas conspicuously parted ways with augustine in maintaining that jewish ignorance was willful. what caused this shift? in short, european christendom became aware of talmudic judaism. the jews were not simply adhering to the old testament because they were blind to the truth of the new testament; rather, they embraced talmudic tradition over and against the new testament. thus, they could no longer be protected on the basis of their ignorance. in accepting the talmud, they intentionally rejected christ. this notion of jewish intentionality altered the attitudes of all of christendom. currents in medieval piety, such as the crusades, the popularity of passion meditations, and increased fascination with the eucharist, fueled pervasive anti-jewish antagonism throughout europe. beginning in the 13 th century, jews were increasingly accused of ritual murder, blood libel, and cannibalism. these accusations continue in jarring and unsettling ways. review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): sabella r 1-3 cohen, christ killers sabella r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 the chapter titled “myth and counter-myth” offers an illuminating analysis of jewish responses to the charge of deicide and jewish appropriations of the passion narrative. rather than disputing the historicity of events surrounding the crucifixion, certain thinkers used the inner logic of the narrative to argue for the injustice of the christ killer motif. cohen also examines the ways in which jewish intellectuals have identified various aspects of jewish tradition and experience with the sufferings of christ, from themes of death and resurrection in talmudic interpretations of the isaac story to 20 th century jewish art depicting jesus on the cross. cohen then analyses nostra aetate, the watershed vatican ii document considered to be a “major breakthrough in jewish/christian relations” (168). cohen remains critical of how this document has been received: while its interpreters have softened the charge of christ killer, they have by no means removed it. the final part examines the christ killer myth as it has appeared in religious art, passion plays, and cinema. passion art from the 11 th to 16 th centuries portrayed the jews in increasingly negative terms: the relatively benign early portrayals of synagoga at the foot of the cross gave way to depicting christ’s executioners as jews rather than as roman soldiers. the jews were further demonized through artistic depictions of blood libel, cannibalism, ritual murder and the judensau motif. cohen’s passion play analysis focuses on the german town of oberammergau, where there have been continuous passion play productions roughly once every decade since 1634, and pays particular attention to changes in the play since vatican ii. his cinema analysis examines various films, from pier paolo pasolini’s 1964 film the gospel according to st. matthew and martin scorsese’s last temptation of christ to mel gibson’s the passion of the christ. saving his treatment of judas iscariot for the conclusion, cohen points out that the passion narrative cannot function without a villain. he leaves the reader to ponder: who ultimately betrayed whom? cohen’s stated objective in this book is, at the risk of understatement, ambitious: to trace the christ killer myth from its origins to the present day, through history and through art, in a style that is accessible and useful to academics and non-academics, christians and jews, religious and secular audiences. cohen is uniquely equipped for this task. drawing upon authors and themes covered at length in works such as living letters of the law and the friars and the jews, cohen is exceptional at discerning which of the myriad instantiations of the christ killer myth to investigate and how to do so in clear, simple, and concise terms. any study of this scope, succinctness, and coherence must, however, emphasize certain aspects of a narrative over others. consequently there are points where the informed reader will question what cohen leaves out. for example, as background to his treatment of nostra aetate, cohen devotes a single paragraph to the catechism of the council of trent, which was published in 1566 and disseminated throughout the catholic world. the catechism clearly and explicitly states that through sinfulness all participate in killing christ (169). expressing the christ killer myth in universal terms that imprecate all of humanity, rather than in historical terms that place exclusive blame on the jews (169), marks an enormous paradigm shift whereby the christian and the jew are together held accountable for the crucifixion. even in this most general and selective of surveys, i am puzzled by the fact that cohen neglects to examine this statement and its subsequent effect in greater detail. i was left with questions as to why this shift had such an apparently minimal effect despite being contained in a widely disseminated and influential document that was foundational to educating catholics in their faith. occasional questions concerning what cohen leaves out, however, do not obscure the many merits of this work. he connects sources jewish and christian, ancient and modern, artistic and literary in a way that even the uninformed reader can follow. specialists will benefit from seeing how cohen connects their topics of interest to the broader jewish/christian narrative and should studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): sabella r 1-3 cohen, christ killers sabella r 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 find his chapter-by-chapter suggestions for further reading helpful. he also gracefully manages the delicate task of being at once charitable toward and critical of the christian tradition: while he praises the progress made in jewish/christian relations, he makes it clear that the christ killer myth is alive and well and that more work needs to be done to eradicate it. in short, this is a valuable book for virtually anyone with an interest in jewish/christian relations. response to papers presented at the american academy of religion conference studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): gregerman cp1-10 gregerman, response gregerman cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 response to papers presented at the american academy of religion conference adam gregerman, institute for christian & jewish studies papers presented on the torah and the continuity of scripture in jewish christian dialogue at the christian systematic theology section of the american academy of religion annual meeting in 2008 reveal creative attempts to depart from long-standing christian views about the torah. as the authors illustrate from decisions of church councils and statements of prominent theologians from antiquity through the present, the observance of the laws of the torah has long been discouraged or flatly prohibited in christianity. from an early date, many christians said it was unacceptable to grant any binding status to (some of) the biblical commandments after the coming of christ. 1 the contributors, while aware of this dominant tradition, directly challenge it. provocatively, they reject, in their own distinctive ways, highly negative perceptions of the law, by creatively reinterpreting paul‟s writings, despite these writings having long been used to support precisely these perceptions. while the specifics and the implications of their essays vary, all seek to carve out some positive space for the observance of the law. david rudolph, insisting on the continuing legitimacy of law-observant christianity, emphatically challenges a millennia-old dominant tradition. 2 co-presenters jodie boyer hatlem and douglas johnson hatlem, 3 and holly taylor coolman 4 argue as well that observance of the law is not mutually excluded by faith in christ. all seek to recover what they see as an authentic (if neglected) and more accommodating view of the law. the harsh denunciations of it in the past are unacceptable for various reasons. furthermore, all are aware of the dangers of christian supersessionism, and the negative views of judaism encouraged by this tradition. though none focus on the stunning post-wwii / post-holocaust changes in christians‟ views of judaism and the torah, their critical readings of historic christian hostility to the torah reflect their awareness of them. 5 i want to concentrate on these three authors‟ essays, and specifically on their readings of paul, for they draw on his letters in questioning or even undermining a near-monolithic christian tradition. some engage seriously with other christian writers, especially aquinas (coolman), which situates their readings in the broader christian tradition. all propose alternative interpretations of their own, and, in some cases, their readings are insightful. however, they are more often unconvincing, and frequently strained. a few verses bear too much weight, without full consideration of context. paul‟s overriding concern with justifying the inclusion of gentiles in an originally 1 for a helpful recent study see ronald e. heine, reading the old testament with the ancient church: exploring the formation of early christian thought (grand rapids, mi: baker, 2007). 2 “paul‟s „rule in all the congregations‟ (1 cor 7:17-24) and god‟s „call‟ to torah-defined ecclesiological variegation”. 3 “unmuzzling the ox: why the torah should be normative for „gentile‟ christians”. 4 “the christological torah”. 5 such changes have been encouraged by the work of scholars such as e. p. sanders, rosemary reuther, james dunn, and amy-jill levine, for example. conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): gregerman cp1-10 gregerman, response gregerman cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 all-jewish movement; his eschatological expectations; the christological assumptions undergirding his biblical interpretation—these and other features of his thought are neglected, as the authors sometimes focus on questions that were peripheral or irrelevant to paul. i will argue that this lack of attention to central aspects of paul‟s thought undermines attempts to enlist paul‟s support for changed attitudes toward the observance of biblical law and thereby weakens the presentations. furthermore, the omission of any discussion of the implications of their reevaluations of christian attitudes toward law-observance for (non-christian) jews today limits the relevance of the contributions to jewish-christian dialogue. all of the authors offer their own exegesis of paul‟s views on the law. 6 they sometimes include critiques of the views of earlier commentators. 7 the hatlems, relying on 1 cor 8-11, deny that paul championed a “gospel vs. law distinction,” and say that earlier interpreters of paul failed to recognize that he affirmed the continuing authority of torah law in his churches. coolman, offering an admittedly “uncommon” reading in dialogue with aquinas, makes a roughly similar claim that paul did not deny the righteousness of the law or argue for its wholesale replacement. rudolph, focusing on 1 cor 7:17-24, believes that paul expected that jews who worshiped jesus would remain law-observant, not forsaking any of the distinctions that separated them from gentile members of the church (e.g., circumcision, food laws). luke, he adds, also accepted the division of the church into a jewish and gentile wing, and obligatory jewish observance of biblical law. 8 rudolph‟s exegesis of paul is the most provocative and thorough, and provides a good starting point for my response. he goes against centuries of christian tradition, implying that paul‟s views in 1 cor 7:17-24 have long been misunderstood. to summarize, he argues that paul endorses a fundamental division of the church into two groups of believers: jews and gentiles. paul demands that the former continue to observe all traditional jewish biblical laws. he writes, “jesus-believing jews [are] to continue to live the circumcised life as a matter of calling and not to assimilate into gentile lifestyle.” this reflects paul‟s favorable views both of observance of the torah by jewish believers and of a divided church, with jewish and gentile factions. i would like to offer two critiques. first, rudolph, by focusing on only a few verses, does not attend to their larger context. he neglects to consider how paul‟s views fit into his overall argument in the chapter, and the letter as a whole. second, he does not consider the intense eschatological fervor that undergirds everything paul says. this seriously compromises his attempts to derive rules for a future church from paul‟s writings, which in many cases (such as in 1 corinthians) reflect his expectation of an imminent end of days. 9 6 for an important survey of research scholarship see magnus zetterholm, approaches to paul: a student's guide to recent scholarship (minneapolis: fortress, 2009). 7 on modern attempts to challenge the traditional view of paul, see john gager, reinventing paul (new york: oxford university press, 2000), 21-42. 8 jacob jervell‟s works, which deal extensively with luke‟s views of judaism, are surprisingly absent from rudolph‟s analysis; see jacob jervell, the theology of the acts of the apostles, new testament theology (new york: cambridge university press, 1996); jacob jervell, luke and the people of god: a new look at luke-acts (eugene, or: wipf and stock, 2002). rudolph overstates luke‟s favorability toward the law; see edvin larsson, "paul: law and salvation," new testament studies 31 (1985): 425-36. 9 because of different audiences, circumstances, and reasons for writing, comparisons of paul‟s views between different letters is always complex. for this reason, i have chosen to focus here primarily on 1 corinthians, which is also the primary source for rudolph‟s interpretation. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): gregerman cp1-10 gregerman, response gregerman cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 my first critique has to do with the context of 7:17-24 in the letter. rudolph‟s main focus is on (in his words) paul‟s views of “jewish continuity.” by this, he refers to a dispute over whether jews can remain torah observant in a church otherwise filled with gentile believers. however, the only hint that this is a concern in the entire letter is paul‟s statement that those who are circumcised should not wish that they were uncircumcised (7:18-19). it is doubtful that this letter is even suitable for such an investigation into paul‟s views of judaism and the ritual of circumcision. it was written to a majorityor exclusively-gentile church (12:2), and paul is not interested in the issue of jewish continuity; the topic of circumcision appears only here, in these verses. paul mentions it only to buttress a different point, unrelated to jewish ritual per se. in a community riven by disagreements over issues large and small, he repeatedly implores believers to overlook distinctions that provoke inner-church disputes and are ultimately irrelevant to their salvation. some distinctions threaten to tear the community apart. for example, paul complains bitterly that the wealthy shun the poor (11:21), and that believers form factions under various leaders (3:4). he responds by emphasizing in all cases the need for unity, and the insignificance of that which divides them. in particular, in chapter seven he responds to issues that presumably provoked disagreement, over sexuality and marriage, and his underlying assumption is that such disputes can be accommodated. 10 he may have preferences about how individuals should behave (he favors celibacy if possible; 7:7), but is unwilling to force them on others (7:6-7). above all, disagreements need not be disastrous or divisive, and can be relativized by an awareness of what is most important: church unity and harmony (1:10; 12:25). the community was untouched by any of the disputes over jewish law, unlike in other places (e.g., galatia). the controversies in corinth—over sexuality and incest, worship, relations with outsiders, meals, etc.—never include disagreements over, for example, circumcision or kashrut. in light of these disputes, paul‟s mention of circumcision is illustrative, to make a point about the irrelevance of present distinctions in a community whose final redemption is imminent (see below). it seems almost impossible that paul in this section is responding to earlier questions about circumcision. the topic is treated cursorily, as part of his plea for an acceptance of difference. his readers need to overcome painful divisions in the community and to overlook differences in social status and religious practice. their focus should be above all on maintaining their shared faith. this is paul‟s main concern, and his different examples—e.g., circumcision does not matter, slavery does not matter—are meant to demonstrate this same point. 11 i disagree with rudolph‟s claim that paul‟s statements in these few verses are a “lynchpin” for reconstructing his views on “the church as a body of jews and gentiles.” paul does nothing to underscore the significance of this section, nor does he ever mention such a “rule” (7:17) again in other letters. it is speculative to call this a “universal” rule for future christians (as rudolph does eight times), to be followed when considering the place of law-observant jewish christians in the church. even the word “rule” (or words related to the same greek root) is used elsewhere in paul‟s letters without any special emphasis, and sometimes means simply “instruction” (1 cor 9:14; 11:34; 16:1). rudolph hints at a complex methodological question, without unfortunately addressing it: how does one generalize about paul‟s views when he expresses ideas in one 10 on reconstructing the questions to which paul responds, see john coolidge hurd, jr., the origin of 1 corinthians (macon, ga: mercer university press, 1983). 11 rudolph energetically argues that (as he sees it) paul‟s endorsement of both circumcision for jews and uncircumc ision for gentiles is not equivalent to an endorsement of continued bondage for slaves and liberty for free persons. however, this unpalatable conclusion should stand, as the same point is made in a conclusion to the entire section: “in whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with god” (7:24). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): gregerman cp1-10 gregerman, response gregerman cp 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 letter that are either missing or contradicted in another? i wish rudolph had explored this question, for the occasional nature of paul‟s correspondence complicates any attempt to describe paul‟s views in general from solitary statements. instead, rudolph too easily moves from one statement to just such a generalization. to the extent that paul mentions circumcision in 1 corinthians at all, there is no hint, pace rudolph, that he insists on its observance. rudolph argues that paul is not offering jewish believers a choice about circumcision, but issuing a demand. that is, paul does not simply concede that some might cling to these practices. he affirmatively insists that they remain binding. however, the verses rudolph relies on—7:18-22—are at best a grudging accommodation. even if rudolph is correct that paul, in saying that “circumcision is nothing” (7:19), is not saying that it is worthless but only “less important” than faith in christ, this proves little about its necessity. 12 at most it is toleration, in the pejorative sense of the term. 13 second, the eschatological context of 1 corinthians is essential to understanding paul‟s views (and may make them more palatable; e.g., his views on slavery). this chapter reflects paul‟s intense eschatological expectations. repeatedly he emphasizes the nearness of the end (e.g., 7:26, 29, 31; also, 1:8; 10:11; 11:26). 14 though rudolph largely ignores this feature, one must remember that all paul says reflects his belief that the end of days is almost here. it is this which justifies his advice. his indifference to traditional distinctions between believers—including his indifference (seen by rudolph as support) for circumcision—reflects this, for in the last moments before christ‟s return it is best simply to ignore them. paul is offering guidance for a brief period, rather than offering long-term guidance to a non-raptured church. 15 rudolph neglects this by applying paul‟s views to circumstances unrelated to those paul had in mind. while paul thought “the present form of this world is passing away” (7:31), rudolph thinks it is possible to draw on a few verses in order to, he says, “sustain” a church that continues indefinitely in time. but paul did not want to sustain a church, in the sense that rudolph uses the term, as offering fixed rules for a stable community. paul seeks only to emphasize what is most important for the community at a moment of great intensity and fervor, while damping down internal divisions. these could be ignored, for presumably they were temporary. 16 also, in corinth, these divisions have nothing to do with jew-gentile conflicts. rudolph‟s overriding goal is inculcating respect for jews as jews in an almost entirely gentile church. in his reading of paul, he assumes a stable state of affairs, so that paul‟s teachings can be used to foster a balanced and respectful relationship between different, even conflicting christian groups. interestingly, rudolph fails to grapple with the contentious issues that disturbed paul‟s churches, such as the tensions in mixed communities of jewish and gentile believers in which jews observe restrictive food laws. these would inevitably be reignited if his reading of paul were accepted. i wondered 12 the language is difficult, but repeated greek “me” (not) suggests a conditional request, not a demand. 13 other passages in paul‟s letters, though likewise addressed to predominantly gentile readers, reveal a more hostile attitude that is difficult to reconcile with rudolph‟s positive portrayal of paul‟s attitude toward circumcision; cf. gal 6:15. on the difficulty of reconstructing paul‟s attitude toward jews who support circumcision, see raymond e. brown and john p. meier, antioch and rome: new testament cradles of catholic christianity (ramsey, n.j.: paulist, 1983), 5; alan f. segal, paul the convert: the apostolate and apostasy of saul the pharisee (new haven and london: yale university press, 1990), 214-15. 14 an important treatment of paul‟s eschatology can be found in j. christiaan beker, paul the apostle: the triumph of god in life and thought (philadelphia: fortress, 1984), 135-81. 15 naturally, his indifference to slavery seems far less defensible when eschatological anticipation waned, and often became a justification for a cruel practice. 16 in other communities, divisions over jewish law were so heated they could not be ignored, of course. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): gregerman cp1-10 gregerman, response gregerman cp 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 whether rudolph would have any more success dealing with them than paul, for they were painfully divisive. 17 i should make clear that, logically, paul‟s eschatological context does not render everything he says irrelevant to later readers seeking religious guidance from these texts. my critique is not allencompassing, as if paul‟s expectation of the end completely undermines the relevance of all his views in later generations. however, the verses that rudolph cites directly reflect paul‟s eschatological expectations, and cannot be separated from them, for this passage in particular appears in a section focused on behavior before the eschaton. in this case, it is essential to situate these verses in this eschatological context, and rudolph‟s argument is weakened by his not doing so. coolman is interested in the writings of both paul and aquinas, with the latter‟s views used to clarify the former‟s. she seeks to rebut the (in her eyes) overly simplistic claim that faith in christ and observance of the law are mutually exclusive. i hoped for some explicit delineation of her comparative methodology or even her reasons for juxtaposing these two thinkers, for i was puzzled by her movement backwards across many centuries and between vastly different contexts. however, i do think aquinas‟ struggle to explain why the so-called “ceremonial law” (i.e., distinctive jewish practices) was not irrelevant despite christians‟ refusal to observe it can be clarified by paul‟s own writings. as i will argue, similar concerns are present for both writers. unlike coolman, i do not seek to find some coherence in aquinas‟ justification for rejecting some parts of the torah and affirming the binding authority of others. rather, i want to address this attempt at division of the torah at a more fundamental level, and it is here that paul‟s views are relevant. paul too faced a strikingly similar situation—his opposition to parts of the law—and his response i believe enables us to understand not aquinas‟ complex division (it is far more self-conscious than paul‟s) but rather his motivation for even offering such a complex division of the law into “four forms.” this ultimately makes it possible to appreciate his arguments. first, i will explain paul‟s motivation, for this, i believe, is the proper starting point; then, the relevance to aquinas‟ will be demonstrated. paul, as a missionary to the gentiles, consistently denies that they need to observe jewish law in order to join his churches. while a thorough investigation of his views of the torah cannot be offered here, his primary motivation is clear: to remove barriers to their inclusion. 18 those christians who demanded observance of distinctive jewish rituals such as circumcision and food laws (e.g., gal 2:4, 12; 5:12) risked dividing the church into separate factions that were unable even to eat together. also, such demands, which would be onerous for non-jews, could hinder his missionary work. i believe that paul‟s opposition to what he calls works of the law (rom 3:27; 4:2; gal 2:16; 3:5-12) reflects concerns with the disruption that demands for observance caused in majorityor exclusively-gentile communities. by focusing on the disruptive threat of the demand that gentile believers follow biblical law, i do not want to deny that paul also offers theological (not just pragmatic) critiques of the demand: namely, he rejects the idea that anything, other than faith in christ as lord and messiah, made one righteous before god (rom 10; 1 cor 7). however, with his overriding interest in unity and inclusion, he simply could not accept this demand. this is the relevant point to be made here, for paul‟s thinking, as e. p. sanders most prominently has shown, moves backward, from the emphasis that all people can be saved exclusively 17 e.g., acts 10-11; 15; gal 2. 18 see the classical study by krister stendahl, paul among jews and gentiles (philadelphia: fortress, 1976). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): gregerman cp1-10 gregerman, response gregerman cp 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 through faith in jesus (“the solution”) to the critique of the law (“the problem”). 19 the “solution” is where he begins, for this is the status in his own churches: gentile communities united by shared affirmations of jesus‟ messianic status. the problem with the law is when it raises barriers to this ideal koinonia (1 cor 1:9), as inevitably happened when rules about food or circumcision were introduced, and his critique follows from there. still, as a jew, paul was unwilling to simply deny the authority of torah, prompting complex ruminations about why it was given and yet was not obligatory for membership in an originally all-jewish movement (rom 7; gal 3). 20 he even argues that gentiles who do not observe the law fulfill it better than those who observe it in the traditional way (rom 2:26; phil 3:3). nonetheless, he faces overriding reality, in which the law is likely not observed by gentile believers and would stand in the way of that which is more important to paul. his justifications for dispensing with the demands of the law, and even his harshest statements about the law (e.g., rom 7:8; gal 3:21-25), are attempts to explain both what has already occurred (an influx of non-law observant gentile believers) and what paul independently concluded (that faith in christ unifies the community and nothing should be allowed to divide them). this is his starting point, his “solution,” apart from which one cannot understand him. paul‟s arguments, in which he valiantly (some would say incoherently 21 ) struggles to explain why he adopts a position of unprecedented hostility to the law, reflect these prior convictions. the weakness of coolman‟s argument is her failure to recognize that the same logic—i.e., moving from a prior conviction, based on present circumstances, to an after-the-fact justification—explains aquinas‟ views as well. she makes her own valiant attempt to show how aquinas justifies two apparently contradictory claims—the ceremonial laws of the torah are “no longer to be kept,” yet the ceremonial laws are “the embodied affirmation of that [which is] true”—by arguing that aquinas is not really supporting abrogation as such. rather, she says, he claims that gentile christians, by following jesus even when not observing the law themselves, nonetheless are faithful to it. according to this redefinition of observance, worship of the one who himself followed the law (i.e., jesus) is comparable, even superior to, actual observance. sometimes this is because the law is (in her words) “a pointer to christ,” not obligatory statutes; sometimes this is because observance means, vaguely, that “relatedness to the law” happens through christ. these specific claims, though murky, are actually far less important than aquinas‟ underlying motivation for making them: to justify now-universal christian opposition to observance of jewish law. while it may be interesting to see how aquinas does this, one cannot fail to note that all his arguments reflect this underlying reality; he could not but argue this. as in paul‟s case, of course, it is not an easy argument to make, for the law makes no provisions for its own abrogation. 22 this does not matter, for aquinas‟ conclusion is completely fixed before he even begins, as it is with paul. without denying the value of scholarly efforts to grasp aquinas‟ or paul‟s arguments, i regret coolman‟s failure to indicate some awareness that their reasoning cannot be understood apart from their contexts and motives. presenting the arguments that one can be faithful to the law while simultaneously rejecting it, while likely persuasive to those who already agree, is alone of limited value. the underlying assumptions should not be neglected, for these make the 19 e. p. sanders, paul and palestinian judaism: a comparison of patterns of religion (minneapolis: fortress, 1977), 552. 20 e. p. sanders, paul, the law, and the jewish people (minneapolis: fortress, 1983), 103. 21 heikki raisanen, paul and the law (tubingen: j. c. b. mohr (paul siebeck), 1983). 22 coolman incorrectly posits a rabbinic parallel to christian divisions of the law into two categories—binding commandments and abrogated commandments. while rabbis sometimes divide the law into different categories or prioritize a few commandments as especially important (b. shab. 31a; b. mak. 24a), they do not do this in order to justify non-observance. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): gregerman cp1-10 gregerman, response gregerman cp 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 argument explicable. however, coolman does neglect this in her analyses of selected verses from paul‟s writings. for example, when paul criticizes torah observance—for example, saying “believers died to the law” because the law makes fallen humans aware of, and inclined to commit, the sins it prohibits (rom 7:4)—he does not deny that the law is from god and meant to aid humanity. coolman rightly says that paul does not believe that the law “has been abrogated or spiritualized.” nonetheless, the force of his argument is undeniable, as he, like aquinas centuries later, seeks to square the circle of simultaneous rejection and acceptance. paul believed that his position “fulfilled” the law, to quote coolman (and paul; rom 8:4). but the argument alone reveals little about the motivations for making such an argument, especially since the argument alone would have struck (and strikes) most jews as unacceptable. by simply addressing the issue of how paul defends this position, without attention to the vital “meta-issue” of why paul, and later aquinas, defends this position, coolman overlooks a critical issue in christian understandings of the validity and authority of torah. finally, in the hatlems‟ paper, they helpfully highlight the intensity of continuing disagreements in the church over observance of the law and the diverse topics for which these disputes were relevant. these could even be more disruptive than disputes over christology, though scholars tend to focus on the latter. it is true, as they argue, that there was a range of opinions in early christianity regarding the authority of the law, despite the perception of widespread rejection. their own views, though less radical or far-reaching than rudolph‟s, offer a similar challenge to traditional interpretations of paul‟s writings. they focus on 1 cor 8-11, and paul‟s citation of biblical laws in response to questions about, for example, salaries for missionaries and consumption of food offered to idols. in one example from this section (9:9), paul says the ox that is to be allowed to eat while working in the fields (according to deut 25:4) refers to the apostle who is to be paid for his work. the hatlems‟ argument is that paul cites this law because he believed that “lessons from the torah are for [the readers‟] instruction.” that is, for paul, this verse is a legally binding commandment. they distinguish it from parts of the bible that they say paul used not for legal instruction but rather for guidance in “salvation history.” alternately, they set up a contrast between paul‟s use of the bible elsewhere only as a “disciplinarian” (gal 3:25) and its authority here to offer a “theological norm.” the latter interpretation, but not the former, should “exercise authority” in the christian communities. they recognize that paul is interpreting the verse in a way that resembles traditional allegory. he admits that his concern is not for the ox, but rather for the rights of apostles. nonetheless, they believe that their interpretation goes further than that of “many” other interpreters of paul, because they see here not strictly speaking an allegorical interpretation but what they call a “jurisprudential” interpretation. that is, paul appears to have been quite like other ancient jews in applying a specific written law to other related cases in order to offer binding rules for community life. 23 he too relied on the torah for such practical guidance, contrary to what, they suggest, many others have said, thereby demonstrating that he never declared the law “null and void.” their use of terms however confuses the argument, because important terms are not defined. while “jurisprudential” is said to be “casuistic or legal” and presumably binding in a practical sense, “allegory,” especially when undefined, does not mean its opposite. paul‟s jurisprudence (if that is the right word) is surely allegorical, at least as commonly used by ancient jews and christians, for in making one thing stand for another he is able to apply a verse to an entirely 23 related to this are rabbinic rules of legal reasoning; see h. l. strack and gunter stemberger, introduction to the talmud and midrash (minneapolis: fortress, 1992), 20-30. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): gregerman cp1-10 gregerman, response gregerman cp 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 different topic from the topic addressed in the verse‟s original context. 24 the same criticism applies to their use of “salvation history” and “disciplinarian,” which are also not defined or explained. they seem to use these to refer to pauline citations of the torah that have no binding authority on the believer‟s life, though neither term seems correct. salvation history, a scholarly term for god‟s actions in history on behalf of his people, is not appropriate here. likewise, disciplinarian is not helpful either, for it is a greek term paidagogos that paul harshly applies to the torah for its supposed role in condemning pre-christian gentiles. actually, such a formal division is not indicated with any such technical term in paul‟s writings, and he does not make any explicit divisions of this kind. that is not to deny that paul‟s views of the authority of the commandments vary. this leads to a more serious weakness in their argument. they argue that they demonstrate that the dichotomy, affirmed by most interpreters, of “gospel versus law” is incorrect, for paul, in this example from 1 corinthians, cites torah law as a legal guide for the community. however, this neglects what is most contentious about paul‟s view of the torah, for he does set up just such a dichotomy. admittedly, paul, like other jews, often appeals to the bible to prove a point (about ethics, worship, eschatology, etc.). the hatlems are therefore right, though no one disputes this, for citations of the torah to provide guidance for his community fill his writings, as one might expect. in those cases, there is no gospel-law dichotomy. on the other hand, it is undeniable that paul, in his mission of preaching the gospel to unconverted gentiles and founding churches in which such gentiles are no less members than jews, emphatically argues that sometimes the bible is not binding. it does not furnish legallyauthoritative rules. in those cases, the gospel and the law are mutually exclusive; these are at the heart of paul‟s polemic against the law. for example, though some christians believed otherwise (e.g., acts 15:1, 5; gal 6:12), he angrily rejects the demand that those who seek membership in the people of god must undergo circumcision. paul is strenuously opposed to a few distinctly jewish rituals that threatened the equal status of the gentiles. that these are, some said, required by the torah, is irrelevant to paul. they hinder the spread of the gospel, and set up a standard of behavior likely to divide the church. by arguing that paul is in a sense close to non-christian jews in his “gospel centered relationship to the law,” for he like they read parts of the bible jurisprudentially, the hatlems understate paul‟s radicalism. on certain laws, paul‟s gospel-centered relationship is typically manifested in his reading the bible against itself. that is, he rejects straightforward biblical commandments (e.g., circumcision) by midrashic readings of other parts of the bible (e.g., rom 4; gal 3). the purpose of such readings is to rebut attempts to force gentile believers to follow the commandments. to call this in any way a “relationship to the law,” as they do, is to overlook the surprisingly hostile conclusions he draws with regard to the binding authority of some of the commandments (e.g., phil 3:7). furthermore, there is a distinctly pauline hermeneutical assumption in his interpretations that reveals once again a tension between the demands of (spreading) the gospel and observance of the law. while all ancient readers in fact picked and chose how they read a verse—sometimes more true to its original context, sometimes allegorically—paul‟s method is remarkable because of his statement of unprecedented freedom in interpretation: “to those outside the law i became as one outside the law” (9:21). he elevates his method to the level of a principle, saying he can, in essence, pick and choose which parts of the law he will follow, depending on his missionary 24 james l. kugel, "early interpretation: the common background of late forms of biblical exegesis," in early biblical interpretation, ed. james l. kugel and rowan a. greer (philadelphia: westminster, 1986): 9-106 (207). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): gregerman cp1-10 gregerman, response gregerman cp 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 needs. 25 most often, the parts he opposes are the distinctive jewish rituals that might divide the community or elevate one group of believers above another. that he does, in some cases, cite a biblical verse in order to establish obligatory norms of behavior for a community does not, however, contradict his fundamental assertion of his right to freely choose whether to follow the law. even if his decision, as in this case cited by the hatlems from 1 corinthians, is that the law must be followed, the claim that he can chose when to do so inevitably undermines the binding authority of the law. the hatlems‟ claim then that paul transmits a “halakha” based on the bible is incorrect, at least in the legal sense, for the law has no independent legal status separate from paul‟s own ad hoc judgment. paul at least does not put himself under the law. if the law is sometimes binding, and sometimes not binding, then the law is not a “jurisprudential norm” but an occasionally useful prop to paul‟s missionary and leadership strategies. in all these essays, the contributors offer readings of paul that reflect their own religious views about the proper relationship between christianity and the hebrew bible. for example, coolman encourages gentile christians to “recognize the importance of the torah.” the hatlems cite paul‟s writings in order to convince contemporary christians that the “mosaic law can and should exercise authority within christian churches.” rudolph uses paul‟s writings to buttress a broad defense of modern messianic (christian) judaism, his own religious tradition, in which believers fully observe jewish law. this argument is made at length in his conclusion. these are vital issues in contemporary christianity, and this panel encourages such reflections. while one might question how much we learn about paul‟s actual views by the reception they receive from later christians, all these authors express the hope that their interpretations are not just correct but also acceptable and beneficial for their religious communities. there is an implied challenge in all their essays to their co-religionists, that they heed their interpretations, a sort of test of the truth of their exegesis. 26 yet there is an insularity to the essays that limits their relevance, for all the authors (with scattered exceptions) look inward, to their own christian traditions. they propose new understandings of paul and the law to modern christians, that is, to co-religionists. however, they almost entirely neglect to consider how a shift toward a more positive view of law-observance might affect jewish-christian dialogue and relations, the focus of this aar panel. one wonders if they are restrained by excessive humility or even indifference. the implications of some of these arguments about the law, while perhaps daunting for even the most open-minded christian, cannot be avoided. for as the authors themselves show, christians have long distinguished themselves from jews precisely by their rejection of the law as literally followed by jews. but none actually take up this subject. the law is of course also a central feature of jewish identity in both paul‟s day and our own, and deeply connected to the fragmented relationship between jews and christians. the failure to consider how these arguments might affect the relationship between jews and christians is disappointing. if mosaic law can function as a legal code for christian churches (the hatlems), if the “ceremonial” commandments are not simply moot after jesus (coolman), if christian churches can affirm a positive value for torah observance by fellow christians (rudolph), then serious thinking about how christians have viewed jewish observance of the torah is in order. 25 unlike the verses cited by rudolph, this verse does suggest a general principle, at least for paul‟s missionary activity. 26 rudolph‟s plea that contemporary christians respect jewish christians‟ continued observance of the laws for the sabbath, food, etc., is unusual; more often messianic jews have sought non-christian jews’ recognition that they too are jews despite worshiping jesus. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): gregerman cp1-10 gregerman, response gregerman cp 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 christians have long derided such observance, and claimed that the bible was only properly understood by christians or was even an exclusively christian text. 27 none of these modern authors say anything like this, but their re-evaluations of near-universal christian convictions necessitates such a consideration. i would have welcomed some reflection on this vital and directly relevant topic. 27 this idea appears as early as the second century; see justin, dialogue with trypho 123. see also rowan a. greer, "the christian bible and its interpretation," in early biblical interpretation, ed. james l. kugel and rowan a. greer (philadelphia: westminster, 1986): 107-99 (142-46). 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-3 carol bakhos the family of abraham: jewish, christian, and muslim interpretations (cambridge, ma: harvard university press, 2014) ix + 285 pp. moshe blidstein moshe.blidstein@mail.huji.ac.il hebrew university of jerusalem, jerusalem 9190501 readers of carol bakhos’ book, the family of abraham: jewish, christian, and muslim interpretations, may feel at times as if they are in a chamber of mirrors. the “family” in the title refers at first instance to the actual family of the biblical abraham--terah, sarah, hagar, isaac and ishmael—and to the parallel characters in islamic traditions. these figures are the focus of the book. in parallel, it refers to the religions sometimes known as “abrahamic”—judaism, christianity, and islam. as bakhos shows, these two types of “families” were in constant interaction. the mythical figures were shaped by centuries of interpretation by members of the three religions, and, in turn, the three religions and the relationships between them were conceptualized and imagined by reference to the figures. there was, therefore, a continuing reshaping of the role of abraham and his family in each of the religions, and, moreover, of their roles as figures marking the ambiguous borders between the religions. many have written on abraham, sarah, hagar, isaac, and ishmael, in the bible and in subsequent traditions. bakhos’ book is, however, innovative in its focus on the whole family and on interactions between its members. this can be seen in the chapter outline. the first chapter of the book is a useful overview of the history of interpretation in each of the three traditions, mostly in the first millennium ce. chapters two and three focus on abraham himself, first as depicted in the bible and the quran and then as interpreted by subsequent traditions. chapter four is dedicated to the confrontations between hagar, sarah, and abraham, chapters five and six to ishmael and isaac, and chapter seven to the sacrifice of isaac or ishmael. the subject is also served well by the rigorous comparative framework: each chapter dedicates roughly equal space to each of the religious traditions, followed by discussion. the text is very readable, appealing to a wide audience, with the scholarly references confined to copious endnotes. a point which emerges from all of the chapters is the divide between judaism and christianity, on the one hand, and islam, on the other. for the former the text of the hebrew bible is canonical, while for the latter it is not, even if parts of the narrative filtered into islamic tradition. while abraham himself frequently blidstein: carol bakhos’ the family of abraham 2 features in the quran, the rest of the family rarely does, and they become significant only in subsequent islamic literature. therefore, the story of abraham’s family is necessarily much more central to jewish and christian than to islamic identity, and this could not but have a decisive influence on the history of interpretation. the author shows that the historical arc of interpretation tended toward increasing demarcation and isolation of each of the religious traditions from the others. if at first there is room for all of the members of the family to be viewed as complex human beings with varying wishes and emotions, historical confrontations between the three religions led to a flattening of the characters amid attempts to claim them for each group. this trend was much stronger and earlier in judaism and christianity, however, than in islam. muslims were apparently less invested in the biblical narrative and less interested in laying absolute claims to its heroes. throughout the book, bakhos underlines the problematic and simplistic nature of the term “abrahamic,” which she attributes mostly to naïve partners to inter-religious dialogue hoping to find easy common ground between islam, christianity, and judaism. since abraham and his family were historically contested between the religions rather than providing space for agreement, bakhos argues that using “abrahamic” uncritically, as well as invoking the fraternal relations between the sons of abraham, will not lead to greater understanding or to better relations between the adherents of the modern religions. nevertheless, she claims that comparative analysis of the textual traditions of these religions, whether conducted under such terms such as “abrahamic” or other terms, is essential for their understanding. as bakhos recognizes, abraham and his family are not the most important figures in these three religions; jesus, muhammad, and moses receive that honor. abraham’s significance is that he is conceived as the forerunner, precursor, or forefather of the religious communities. as such he is apriori not-quite-there yet, a potential and not actual christian, muslim, or jew. this may be the reason that abraham has the potential to be an inclusive symbol, signaling a moment when the borders were still porous, or at least somewhat so. though this image was chipped away at during centuries of interpretation, the traditions could return to it when a more open stance towards the other religions was desirable. the author opposes invoking isaac and ishmael as siblings in order to encode a natural closeness between arabs and jews, and is also opposed to a similar reading of the relationship between sarah and hagar. such political readings are dangerous, she argues, as they rely on the traditional identification of arabs with ishmael and jews with isaac, and thus come with the baggage of the superiority of the latter over the former in jewish and christian literature. as an alternative, bakhos prefers a psychological-emotional reading which acknowledges feelings of jealousy and fear (especially sarah’s) as a driving force behind these stories. such a psychological reading turns the story into a universal human narrative, which is probably easier for most practitioners of interreligious dialogue in the west to relate to than a starkly political reading. bakhos demonstrates that it may 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) also be a more literal reading of the biblical text than subsequent interpretation. however, i am not sure that simply returning to the biblical text while shedding a millennium of socio-political reception is possible for many members of the respective communities, or that this is a strategy that should be promoted. perhaps a story of a family in murderous strife, rather than individuals under emotional strain, is indeed closer to reality in the middle east, and it is this aspect of the story that may reverberate. bakhos’ book is an engaging and persuasive study of exegesis in the abrahamic religions and especially of the fate of biblical characters. it demonstrates that despite the rich variety within each tradition, the historical context and starting-point of each tradition strongly determined the dominant mode of interpretation. 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-2 marvin r. wilson exploring our hebraic heritage: a christian theology of roots and renewal (grand rapids, michigan: william b. eerdmans, 2014), xxviii + 304 pp. jason poling vicar@hildas.org new hope community church, pikesville, md 21208 throughout his long and fruitful career, marvin wilson has worked tirelessly to help (and challenge) christians to recognize and appreciate the jewish roots of their faith. a professor of old testament at gordon college, wilson has produced a number of resources that are useful for the classroom as well as accessible to a popular audience. readers of scjr will likely be familiar with the pbs documentary jews and christians: people of faith (2002) on which wilson served as the chief scholar and study guide author. they may also be aware of wilson’s vital work alongside rabbi james rudin in facilitating the jewishevangelical dialogues of the 1970s and 1980s and in editing the published papers from those meetings. exploring our hebraic heritage serves as an apt successor to wilson’s 1989 volume our father abraham: jewish roots of the christian faith (eerdmans), which has gone through over two dozen printings. indeed, exploring our hebraic heritage complements our father abraham, and while a familiarity with the first volume is not necessary to appreciate the second, those who are familiar with it will no doubt be glad to have the other. there is some overlap between the two (and indeed some areas of repetition in this new volume), but as these books are likely to receive their greatest use in classrooms and adult learning over multiple sessions, this redundancy may be as much a strength as a weakness. wilson states that a main reason for writing this new book is “to bring to christians of every stripe and background a renewal of perspective on various biblical themes” (p. xxiii). this is indeed a work of biblical theology which finds both its questions and its answers in the texts of the tanakh and new testament. those accustomed to discussing religious matters with sacred texts ready in hand will find this volume a congenial companion. specialists will be disappointed to find that wilson is more interested in raising important questions than he is in drawing upon the current state of academic discourse on them. he notes the contributions made by e. p. sanders’ paul and palestinian judaism (1977) but does not mention (let alone engage) the vibrant development over the succeeding decades of new, fresh, and alternative perspecmailto:vicar@hildas.org poling: marvin r. wilson’s exploring our hebraic heritage 2 tives on paul. but in a work primarily aimed at students and literate lay readers, wilson is probably wise to avoid getting too deep in the scholarly weeds. our father abraham, its title notwithstanding, gave scant attention to the patriarch himself. exploring our hebraic heritage devotes one of the book’s five sections to him and his family. wilson notes the “troubling” fact that “‘biblical’ christians may be in the church for a lifetime and yet remain largely uninformed about the biblical origins of their belief system” (p. 63). therefore he discusses the character of abraham as revealed in the genesis narrative as well as the ways in which abraham is understood in later jewish and christian biblical texts to constitute the communities formed by them. wilson’s sixth chapter, “thinking theologically about abraham,” addresses themes of election, covenant, faith, and mission as they have been treated with respect to abraham in both the jewish and christian traditions. here, as in much of this book, wilson provides ample fodder for discussion and further reflection, well-grounded in scripture and informed by thoughtful jewish and christian voices. while the volume will no doubt be profitable to the individual reader, its greatest potential is to be realized by putting wilson’s work in dialogue with other studies—ideally, in an interfaith setting. indeed, a great advantage of this volume is that its content is deployed with such good intent. wilson’s voice is one of gentle insistence that for christians to be faithful to their identity they must develop a profound appreciation of the jewish sources of that identity, and of their neighbors who identify with that tradition. throughout exploring our hebraic heritage, wilson cites appreciatively the interpretive work of both ancient and contemporary jewish commentators. the influence of rabbi abraham joshua heschel is especially evident, as it was in our father abraham. relations between christians and jews can only be improved by the kind of understanding that will enable christians to develop the sincere affection for judaism and jewish people that is so evident in wilson’s work. like our father abraham, this volume includes at the end of each chapter abundant study questions; some chapters have nearly 50. while they will be most productive when employed by a skilled teacher or facilitator, these questions may still be useful in other settings as well. microsoft word henrix_final.doc henrix, “nostra aetate’s christological implications”” 24 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college “after 40 years, nostra aetate’s christological implications” hans hermann henrix bischöfliche akademie des bistums, aachen, germany volume 1 (2005-2006): 24-40 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 24-40 henrix, “nostra aetate’s christological implications” 25 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 1. statements in nostra aetate on the christology of the cross and of the incarnation if you go back from the present-day christological discussion in the context of christian-jewish dialogue to the text of the council’s declaration nostra aetate, §4, you might be surprised at how brief the christological statements in this text are. its ecclesiastical orientation is stronger. and yet, christology is central to nostra aetate, §4. thus, the basic ecclesiological tendency is anchored in christology. nostra aetate reminds the reader: “indeed, the church believes that by his cross christ, our peace, reconciled jews and gentiles, making both one in himself (cf. eph 2:14-16).” immediately after this central statement of a christology of the cross, there is one on christ’s incarnation: “the church keeps ever in mind the words of the apostle about his kinsmen: ‘…theirs are the fathers and from them is the christ according to the flesh’ (rom 9:4-5), the son of the virgin mary.” this reference to a christology of the incarnation has its own place in the history of how nostra aetate has been theologically effective. but in nostra aetate itself the other christological statements are in the area of a christology of the cross, as, for example, when it says a few sentences further on: “true, the jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of christ (cf. jn 19:6); still, what happened in his passion cannot be charged against all the jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the jews of today.” and the council’s very important lament over all hostile manifestations against jews is again grounded in a christology of the cross: “besides, as the church has always held and holds now, christ underwent his passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. it is therefore, the burden of the church’s preaching to proclaim the cross of christ as the sign of god’s allembracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.”1 nostra aetate’s statements as regards a christology of the cross have played an important role in the proclamation of the council document within the church, and thus also in its exhortatory reception.2 however, in discussing the topic of christology, catholic-jewish dialogue since the council has found the most remarkable statements in its christology of the incarnation. along with that, there have also been discussions around aspects of a messianic christology. 2. the question around jesus christ as messiah the deepest difference in faith becomes apparent when faced with the strongest link between christians and jews. the christian belief in jesus christ, according to which the crucified and risen jesus christ is not only the promised messiah, but over and beyond that, is affirmed and proclaimed as the son of god, equal to god, seems to many jews to be something radically un-jewish. ...the christian must understand this, even though he himself 1 vatican council ii, declaration on the relation of the church to nonchristian religions (nostra aetate), october 28, 1965; www.vatican.va/ archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_ nostra-aetate_en.html. german: “zweites vatikanisches konzil, erklärung über das verhältnis der kirche zu den nichtchristlichen religionen ‘nostra aetate’ vom 28. oktober 1965,“ in die kirchen und das judentum. band i: dokumente von 1945 bis 1985, eds. rolf rendtorff and hans hermann henrix, eds., 3rd ed. (paderborn-münchen: bonifatius – gütersloher verlagshaus, 2001 [hereafter: kuj i]), 39-44, 42f. 2 cf. documents in kuj i: 48-53, 54f., 65, 78, 101, 121, 135, 152, 167, 172, 277 and more. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 24-40 henrix, “nostra aetate’s christological implications” 26 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 sees in the dignity of jesus as son of god no contradiction to monotheism.3 this is how, in their 1980 declaration on the relationship of the church to judaism, the german bishops described the link of communion between judaism and christianity and its opposite where christian faith in jesus christ is concerned. in so doing, they gave two titles to jesus christ: messiah and son of god. christian-jewish disagreement centers on these two christological titles, though they do not have equal weight. the difference in the understanding of the incarnation is more fundamental because of the varying weight given to the messianic theme in the jewish and christian traditions. but theology and dialogue nevertheless do deal with the theme of the messiah. a. the theme of the messiah in theology and dialogue during the first two decades after nostra aetate, one could get the impression that people were shying away from the theme of the messiah both in christian theology and in christian-jewish dialogue. aside from work done by exegetes who were interested in history, hardly anyone dealt with the topic. it is surprising to see that this has changed over the past two decades. we can even speak of a boom in topics around the messiah and messianism. an international jewish-christian discussion is taking place. here, we have to be content with only a few observations. with his book, messiah in context: israel’s history and destiny in formative judaism, the jewish scholar jacob neusner in 1984 reopened the discussion in the united 3 die deutschen bischöfe, “erklärung über das verhältnis der kirche zum judentum vom” in kuj i (april 28, 1980): 260-280, 275. states. three years later he co-edited an extensive anthology published under the surprising title, judaisms and their messiahs at the turn of the christian era. coming from various starting points, jewish and christian authors drew a highly diverse and disunited picture of judaism, starting in about 180 bce until 70 ce. they ended up with historical reconstructions that have consequences for theological understandings: a unified judaism that was recognized as normative did not exist any more than did one coherent idea or even teaching about the messiah. the ideas concerning the messiah were not clear enough to allow one to speak of one consistent teaching on the messiah. there were also forms of judaism that did not have any messianic ideas. because of this vague result, it was also not possible to come to a more clear idea of expectations, hopes and models that would have culminated in a messianic understanding of jesus of nazareth. with all their various individual positions, the north american jewish and christian authors generally agree that they do not see the jewish expectations of a messianic nature at that time converging on the person of jesus of nazareth. in the european context, a comparable intensive discussion of jewish messianic hope and christian belief in christ followed soon after.4 4 jacob neusner, messiah in context: israel’s history and destiny in formative judaism (philadelphia: fortress, 1984); jacob neusner, jonathan smith, william s. green, and ernest frerichs, eds., judaisms and their messiahs at the turn of the christian era (cambridge: cambridge university press, 1987); jűrgen moltmann, der weg jesu christi: christologie in messianischen dimensionen (münchen: chr. kaiser, 1989); concilium 29 (1993) heft 1: themenheft “messias und messianismus”; e. stegemann, ed., messias-vorstellungen bei juden und christen (stuttgart: w. kohlhammer, 1993); jahrbuch für biblische theologie 8 (1993) der messias; clemens thoma, das messiasprojekt: theologie jüdisch-christlicher begegnung (augsburg: pattloch, 1994); n. p. levinson, der messias (stuttgart: kreuz, 1994); k. kjaer-hansen, ed., tod eines messias: messiasgestalten und messiaserwartungen im studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 24-40 henrix, “nostra aetate’s christological implications” 27 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 b. “jewish messianic expectation is not in vain” – a weighty theological note in an official document so present-day christian theology is no longer shying away from the messiah. this is also true as regards the important may 24, 2001 document of the pontifical biblical commission (pbc), the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible. the commission speaks of what is messianic in the belief in christ in a way which provokes both theology and christian-jewish dialogue to deepen their reflection on the messianic theme. the document contains statements and passages that make one sit up and listen. these include its basic thesis, that the old testament is indispensable for christianity because it is in itself of “tremendous value”: “the old testament in itself has great value as the word of god” (§21). the assertion that there exists a jewish and a christian tradition of interpreting and of reading the old testament, neither of which has the right to challenge that of the other, also causes one to sit up and listen. in this context, there is one statement that is one of the most exciting statements of the past few years: “jewish messianic expectation is not in vain” (§ 21).5 judentum, neuhausen (stuttgart: haenssler, 1996); daniel cohnsherbok, the jewish messiah (edinburgh: t&t clark, 1997); r. mayer, war jesus der messias? die geschichte der messiasse israels in drei jahrtausenden (tübingen: bilam, 1998); oskar skarsaune, “altkirchliche christologie jüdisch/unjüdisch?” evth 59 (1999): 267-285; j. ebach, “messianismus und utopie” kirche und israel 15 (2000) 68-85; h.-j. fabry and k. scholtissek, der messias: perspektiven des alten und neuen testaments [die neue echter bibel – themen 5], (würzburg: echter, 2002); hans hermann henrix, judentum und christentum: gemeinschaft wider willen? (regensburg: pustet, 2004), 134-156. 5 pontifical biblical commission, the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible, may 24, 2001, at: http://www.vatican.va/ roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_200 20212_popolo-ebraico_en.html. on the german discussion, see e.g.: chr. dohmen (hg.), "das jüdische volk und seine heilige schrift in der according to this document issued with the approval of the president of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, jewish messianic expectation not only has its objective, it also has its reason, its meaning, its authority, and its relevance as not being in vain. jewish messianic expectation is viewed very positively by the church. in view of the history of theology, that is extraordinary. the statement certainly has the messianic expectation of the old testament in mind, but ultimately it aims at the postbiblical messianic expectation of the jewish people. for immediately after the sentence just quoted, the text continues: “it can become for us christians a powerful stimulant to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. like them, we too live in expectation” (§21). in the expression, “like them, we too,” jews and christians are seen as contemporaries. the commission’s document has its eye on the post-biblical, current, present and contemporary expectations of jews and christians. by reaching this clarity, one of the document’s basic goals is realized: it does not only reflect on the sacred scripture of the jewish people (the “old testament”) and on the christian bible (as the unity of the old and the new testament) in their historical relationship to one another – as literary texts that became normative when the formation of the canon was completed – but also on literary texts that are read by individuals and their communities. to a large extent, jews and christians read the same text, but in their “looking back,” they discover emphases and aspects that the others had not read and understood in the same way. there is a closer relationship between the text and the reading community than is generally perceived, and a dimension of christlichen bibel" in eingebunden in das volk gottes: blickpunkte zum dokument (stuttgart: katholisches bibelwerk, 2003). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 24-40 henrix, “nostra aetate’s christological implications” 28 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 meaning develops that is not present at the level of the text taken by itself. therefore, the document also speaks of postbiblical jewish and christian understandings, interpretations or “ways of reading” the bible as complementing one another: on the one hand, the jewish interpretation of the jewish bible made up of torah, prophets and writings, on the other hand, the christian interpretation of the christian bible made up of the old and the new testament. for in the following paragraph the document says: christians can and ought to admit that the jewish reading of the bible is a possible one, in continuity with the jewish sacred scriptures from the second temple period, a reading analogous to the christian reading which developed in parallel fashion. both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. consequently, both are irreducible (§22). jewish messianic expectation, which the document portrays as not being in vain, is part of this jewish way of reading, which developed parallel to the christian history of interpretation. the jewish way of reading or its tradition of commenting is not a digression or distortion of an original meaning, but rather a possibility that develops organically out of israel’s bible. possibility suggests plausibility, appropriateness and legitimacy. however, still more is said about the jewish way of reading: it is not a random commenting on biblical grounds, but rather the fruit and expression of a faith that responds positively to the biblical revelation. all this is true of jewish messianic expectation as it is to be found in rabbinic writings, and in later commentaries and traditions. this positive characterization recognizes very clearly that the jewish people with its own messianic expectation say ‘no’ to the messiah jesus of nazareth. for in the same §22, the document gives a negative answer to its own question as to whether, after the shoah, christians have to read the jewish bible “like the jews.” it gives conclusive reasons for this: “for to read the bible as judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in jesus as messiah and son of god” (§22). in plain speech that means that the jews do not believe in the messiah jesus. but how can christians then think positively of the jewish messianic expectation? are we dealing here with a christian contradiction? the tension is obvious. the document seems to offer something to lessen this tension when it states: “like them, we too live in expectation,” and it immediately adds the sentence: “the difference is that for us the one who is to come will have the traits of the jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us” (§21). so the lessening of the tension consists in the fact that present jewish messianic expectation excludes faith in jesus as messiah, but in the parousia when the lord comes again, their ‘no’ will be overcome and they will come to acknowledge the one who is returning. here, the tension seems to be limited. but this raises a problem which theology must reflect upon. for the pontifical biblical commission, it is very clear that the rabbinic writings and the later jewish traditions firmly exclude until the present “faith in jesus as messiah” (cf. §22). the document does not take away this tension when it explicitly states its christological understanding and repeatedly develops it messianically, especially in the section on “the son and successor of david” (§62-64). however, it does not increase the tension in the messianicchristological understanding in such a way as to speak of a fundamental christian-jewish difference from which all other differences spring. it is acquainted with the fact that in jewish understanding, messianic expectation does not rate studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 24-40 henrix, “nostra aetate’s christological implications” 29 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 as the fundamental key to understanding: “although messianic hope continued to be part of the traditions of judaism, it did not appear in all currents as a central and integral theme, even as a special indicator” (§62). in contrast to this, the new testament and with it the church fundamentally and essentially recognizes “in jesus of nazareth the promised messiah, awaited by israel (and by the whole of humanity): it is he, therefore, who fulfils the promise” (§63). since messianic expectation is not as fundamental and essential for judaism as it is for christianity, we are faced here with an imbalance, an asymmetry in the christian-jewish relationship: on the one hand, the fundamental and essential christian belief in the messiah, and on the other hand, the messianic expectation that is not seen by all jews as being central. nevertheless, there is a jewish messianic expectation. and of this the document says: “jewish messianic expectation is not in vain.” the document knows of the tension between the church’s belief in christ and the jewish messianic expectation. it does not fail to recognize the nature of the contradiction. it is clearly the task of theological discussion to continue reflecting on this tension. c. the issue of the messiah in historical comparison and theological reflection the sentence, “jewish messianic expectation is not in vain” is a direct contradiction of a thesis that was repeated for centuries in christian theology and proclamation. christian-jewish confrontation persistently dealt with the messiah topic. ever new efforts were made to point out to the jews that jesus is the messiah who was promised in israel’s bible. the only explanation for the lack of success in these efforts was that the jews were obstinate and stubborn. that led to a progressive vilification of the jewish messianic expectation. it was said that this expectation was not only in vain and foolish; in addition, the messiah expected by the jews was understood to be the antichrist. in the disputations of barcelona in 1263 or tortosa in 1413-1414, the messiah topic became a weapon in christian hostility towards the jews.6 still today, there are participants in theological discussion who hold biased positions as regards the messianic issue. there are voices that understand the messiah merely in connection with national, political and externally assessed ideas of rescue, liberation or redemption, which only concern this world and israel. consequently, these people refuse to see the mission and understanding of jesus as being messianic. in this, the commission’s document is completely uninhibited and remains independent in face of a position which rejects the concept of messiah as not being of the new testament, as un-christian and an inappropriate concept as regards jesus, or which calls it obsolete. in contrast to historical and also present-day anti-messianic positions, the pontifical biblical commission’s document is marked by an openness which reckons with fuzziness, disparate or also peripheral ideas in judaism’s messianic expectations after the destruction of the second temple in the year 70 ce. for these do not at all mean that there was nothing in the old testament to give rise to a messianic idea, which consolidated in post-biblical times. as the pontifical biblical commission’s document implies in many passages, there is in israel’s bible a development of the messianic idea, which gradually became more differentiated. 6 see hans hermann henrix, judentum und christentum, 21-82; st. heid, “frühjüdische messianologie in justin’s ‘dialog’,“ jahrbuch für biblische theologie 8 (1993): 219-238; gűnter stemberger, “die messiasfrage in den christlich-jüdischen disputationen des mittelalters,” jahrbuch für biblische theologie 8 (1993): 239-250. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 24-40 henrix, “nostra aetate’s christological implications” 30 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 in analyzing and evaluating these developments, a theologian and scholar in the area of judaism like clemens thoma from luzerne comes to the conclusion: if during the second temple period the idea of the messiah developed in a very complex process towards … … a figure sent to israel by god during the decisive time for the definitive future, having varying royal, priestly and prophetic characteristics, then this also has consequences for how one speaks about the messiah jesus of nazareth. since before the new testament there was no typical messiah in all of early judaism, it is also not possible to say that jesus was an untypical messiah. at most one can say that he was a messiah who had not yet been designed in this concrete way… the new testament’s belief in a messiah is a specific form of early jewish messianism.7 the pbc document outlines this as follows: christian faith recognizes the fulfillment, in christ, of the scriptures and the hopes of israel, but it does not understand this fulfillment as a literal one… in the mystery of christ crucified and risen, fulfillment is brought about in a manner unforeseen… jesus is not confined to playing an already fixed role – that of messiah – but he confers, on the notions of messiah and salvation, a fullness which could not have been imagined in advance; he fills them with a new reality… the messiahship of jesus has a meaning that is new and original (§21). as regards the messianic texts in the old testament, there is “prefiguration and dissimilarity” (§21) or “a fullness of meaning that could not be hitherto perceived” (§64). 7 clemens thoma, das messiasprojekt, 134. a fulfillment of expectations which contains not only corresponding elements but also ones that are unpredictable, that could not be guessed before, that give an incredibly new meaning – such a fulfillment does not give any right to demand belief as an inevitable consequence of the expectations. of course that is said with a view to history, during which christians again and again made such demands of jews. present-day christian theology, which tries to uncover the messianic contents of belief in christ in accord with the commission’s document, must keep in mind the terrible history of christian hostility towards the jews, during which the concept of the messiah became a weapon. a christian theology that is aware of the historical burden may then say: a continuation of the christian proceedings, in which israel is “accused” of unbelief, when … the impossibility of being jewish and as such of accepting to think of jesus as the messiah is excluded. christian theology must come to terms with the fact that the messiah jesus does not make demands of the jewish powers of imagination, but rather it demands that christians prove this by the spirit and power… .this together moves us to think of jesus, the messiah of israel, as a hope which we owe to israel.8 is there a bridge between christian belief in christ and jewish messianic expectation? jewish-christian consensus cannot be demanded. the christian should hear with respect the jewish hope, which reckons with a coming messiah. but over and beyond that, can he/she also come to a relationship that appreciates this jewish messianic expectation, even if it includes a ‘no’ to jesus christ? the 8 friedrich-wilhelm marquardt, das christliche bekenntnis zu jesus, dem juden: eine christologie (münchen: chr. kaiser, 1991), 2: 217. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 24-40 henrix, “nostra aetate’s christological implications” 31 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 pontifical biblical commission’s document answers this affirmatively because it sees the church of god in proximity to the jewish people. should the fact that god’s covenant with israel has never been revoked (cf. §42), that god’s love for israel continues (cf. §31-32), that god’s fidelity to the election of israel is irrevocable (cf. §33-36), as well as jewish fidelity to god’s covenant and the jewish love for the divine name, of which the great prayer of intercession in the catholic good friday liturgy speaks,9 not bear its own weight, also in view of jewish messianic expectation? is the jewish messianic expectation not blessed by the god of israel? in accord with the total orientation of the commission’s document, we will want and will be able to answer these questions affirmatively. god’s gifts to israel continue to bring salvation to israel; the jewish messianic expectation is blessed by god. however, the pontifical biblical commission does link its positive acknowledgment of the jewish messianic expectation to the hope that this expectation will overcome its ‘no’ to jesus as messiah in the parousia and will come to acknowledge the returning christ. in the tension between present-day jewish messianic expectation and christian belief in christ, is it allowed for theological opinion to go further and ask: could it be that the possibility of a pluriformity or polarity of truth is speaking here – for example in the sense of ps 62:12: “one thing god said; these two things which i heard…”? do our questions place us in a tension already within our christian faith and hope? and would this tension consist in the fact that christian faith holds on to the messianic return of jesus christ and at the same time acknowledges positively the jewish messianic expectation? the christian is not waiting for anyone other than jesus christ who will return, and at the same time he/she respects the jewish messianic expectation as an act 9 cf. kuj i, p. 57 of fidelity to the god of israel. in this way, the undenied faith in christ does not see god’s blessing as simply turning away from the jewish messianic expectation when, with its ‘no’ to jesus christ, it protests against the experience and suffering of an unredeemed world. do we have to place the solution of this tension into the mystery of god’s plan of salvation? there exist questions of faith which cannot be answered conclusively and simply; at times they lead to a duality of attempts at answering, the tension and opposition of which cannot be mediated or solved. clearly, the christ-messiah issue is one such question. 3. no incarnation in judaism? on the christian-jewish difference and proximity in faith in the incarnation of the son of god it has been noted: messianic expectation is not as fundamental and essential to judaism as it is to christianity. because of the different weights given to the messianic issue in the two traditions, it is not surprising that the central disagreement in the jewish-christian dialogue of our time does not lie in the title of messiah, but rather in jesus christ’s other title, that of son of god, and with that the question regarding god in the narrower sense. christianjewish disagreement is centered on the understanding of god and more specifically on the theme of incarnation, the incarnation of the son of god in jesus christ. thus, the orthodox jewish philosopher michael wyschogrod said: “the most difficult outstanding issues between judaism and christianity are the divinity of jesus, the incarnation, the trinity, three terms which are not quite synonymous but all of which assert that jesus was not only a human being but also studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 24-40 henrix, “nostra aetate’s christological implications” 32 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 god. compared to this claim, all other christian claims, such as jesus as the messiah, become secondary at most.”10 a. jewish criticism of the “idea” of incarnation and its nuances present-day christian-jewish dialogue, which has progressed to the issues around god and the incarnation, has given rise to various jewish responses without softening the severity of the dissent. several arguments and ways of thinking can be distinguished in the jewish objection against the incarnation of the son of god. one important objection is on the level of (religious) philosophy. emmanuel levinas, coming from the specific premises of his philosophy as well as from his understanding of revelation, looked at the value of the “idea” of the incarnation (of the son) of god and thought: god’s presence in the world’s time would be “too much” for god’s poverty and “too little” for his glory, without which his poverty is no abasement. the jewish philosopher denies that god in his duration can become a “presence” in time and in the world. he holds on to god remaining “otherness that cannot be assimilated, absolute difference to everything that manifests itself.” consequently, he speaks of “god’s original priority or original ultimate validity as regards the world, which cannot receive and shelter him;” thus he 10 cf. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise. judaism and jewishchristian relations, r. kendall soulen, ed. (grand rapids/cambridge: eerdmans, 2004), 166; michael wyschogrod, “inkarnation aus jüdischer sicht” evth 55 (1995): 13-28, 15; eugene b. borowitz, contemporary christologies: a jewish response (new york/ramsey: paulist press, 1980), 31ff; friedrich-wilhelm marquardt, das christliche bekenntnis zu jesus, 1991; j. kirchberg, theologie in der anrede als weg zur verständigung zwischen juden und christen (innsbruck/wien: tyrolia, 1991). “cannot… become incarnate,” cannot “enclose himself in an end, a goal.”11 taking another approach, jean-françois lyotard sees the teaching of the incarnation as turning god’s transcendence into an object and as a destruction of the prohibition to make images. when the word has become clear and distinguishable “in god become man,” god’s being god is made harmless; one no longer has to listen for the “voice” in a constant search, and instead one has given space to the seeing of an image.”12 another critique argues a posteriori: judaism cannot accept the incarnation of the son of god because it does not hear this story, because the word of god as it is heard in judaism does not tell this story and because jewish faith does not testify to it.13 so from the point of view of tradition, the incarnation is not a jewish topic of discussion. that is why, already in the 1930’s, martin buber spoke of the absence of god’s incarnation as being something specifically jewish: “the absence of an incarnation of the god who reveals himself to the ‘flesh’ and who is present to it in a reciprocal relationship” is “what ultimately separates judaism and christianity. we ‘unify’ god by professing his 11 cf. emmanuel levinas, “menschwerdung gottes?,” in zwischen uns. versuche über das denken an den anderen [translated from the french by frank miething] (wien: carl hanser, 1995), 73-82, 77ff. 12 jean-françois lyotard and e. gruber, ein bindestrich: zwischen “jüdischem” und “christlichem” (düsseldorf: parerga, 1995). 13 cf. michael wyschogrod, “warum war und ist karl barths theologie für einen jüdischen theologen von interesse?” evangelische theologie 34 (1974): 222-236, 226; michael wyschogrod, gott und volk israel: dimensionen jüdischen glaubens (stuttgart: kohlhammer, 2001), 105; j. leibowitz mit m. shashar, gespräche über gott und die welt (frankfurt: insel, 1990), p. 74: peter ochs, “the god of jews and christians,” in christianity in jewish terms, eds. tikva frymer-kensky et al. (boulder/oxford: westview press, 2000), 49-69, 59. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 24-40 henrix, “nostra aetate’s christological implications” 33 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 unity in our living and our dying; we do not unite ourselves to him. the god whom we believe, to whom we are given in praise, does not unite with human substance on earth.”14 a final criticism argues that, as seen by jews, the fruit of christian belief in the incarnation was historically bad.15 in catholic theology, jewish criticism of the incarnation of the son of god is certainly listened to attentively.16 when theologians reflect on the possibilities and limits of a christian reception of these objections, they do so not least of all with reference to the council of chalcedon’s (451 c.e.) understanding of christ and to so-called chalcedonian hermeneutics. the council of chalcedon saw the relationship of “humanity” and “divinity” in christ as being not mingled and at the same time not separate: in the human countenance of jesus of nazareth the divine word, the divine son. in jesus, what is human and what is divine are not mingled with one another and they may not be separated from one another. this conciliar guideline remains important when christian theology tries to respond to jewish criticism as regards the incarnation of the son of god. the famous formula says: following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only son, our lord jesus christ… this one and only christ-son, lord, only-begotten 14 martin buber, “die brennpunkte der jüdischen seele (1930),” in der jude und sein judentum: gesammelte aufsätze und reden, martin buber, (gerlingen: lambert schneider, 1993), 196-206, 205. 15 see clemens thoma, die theologischen beziehungen zwischen christentum und judentum, 2nd ed. (darmstadt: wissenschaftliche buchgesellschaft, 1989), 111; zwi werblowsky, juden und christen am ende des 20. jahrhunderts (unpublished manuscript of november 5, 1999, pp. 2-5). 16 cf. among others the anthology: j. wohlmuth, ed., emmanuel levinas – eine herausforderung für die christliche theologie, (paderborn: schöningh, 1998). – in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function. the distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. instead, the “properties” of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one “person” and in one “hypostasis” (dh 301f.).17 the american-jewish document, “dabru emet [speak truth]: a jewish statement on christians and christianity,” (2000) sparked a relevant inner-jewish argument. the document begins its series of theses with the theocentric statement that “christians also worship the god of abraham, isaac, and jacob, creator of heaven and earth” and that “through christianity, hundreds of millions of people have entered into relationship with the god of israel.”18 this thesis was welcomed by many christians, whereas it met in part with sharp jewish criticism.19 thus for example, the noted orthodox scholar, david berger, expressed the opinion that it might be customary to emphasize that christians adore the 17 cf: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/creeds.chalcedon.txt. 18 “dabru emet. a jewish statement on christians and christianity,” at: www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-lements/texts/cjrelations/resources/ documents/jewish/dabru_emet.htm; german: nationalprojekt jüdischer gelehrter, ”’dabru emet’: eine jüdische stellungnahme zu christen und christentum vom 11 sept 2000,” in: hans hermann henrix and wolfgang kraus (hg.), die kirchen und das judentum. band ii: dokumente von 1986 bis 2000 (paderborn/gütersloh: bonifatius – gütersloher verlagshaus, 2001 (in kuj ii), 974-976, 974. 19 for an understanding of this important jewish document see the volume of commentaries: tikva frymer-kensky et al., eds., christianity in jewish terms (2000); as well as the contributions by hans hermann henrix, michael signer and leon klenicki in fenster zur welt: fünfzig jahre akademiearbeit in aachen, ed. hans hermann henrix, (aachen: einhard, 2003), 284-321; and r. kampling and m. weinrich, eds., dabru emet – redet wahrheit: eine jüdische herausforderung zum dialog mit den christen (gütersloh: gütersloher verlagshaus, 2003). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 24-40 henrix, “nostra aetate’s christological implications” 34 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 god of abraham, of isaac, and of jacob, the creator of heaven and earth, but “it is essential to add that worship of jesus of nazareth as a manifestation or component of that god constitutes what jewish law and theology call avodah zarah, or foreign worship – at least if done by a jew.”20 in adding this last part, berger is alluding to the talmudic position according to which “non-jews outside of the land of israel are not considered to be idol worshippers. they are only staying with the customs of the fathers” (bhullin 13b). however, with that he is indirectly characterizing christian worship of god as idol worship or foreign worship. in so doing, david berger falls in line with a medieval jewish position, which further developed the talmudic understanding of christianity and which normally forms the unspoken background for present-day jewish contributions to the discussion around god. during the early middle ages, authors within judaism used the hebrew concept shittuf to give a name to their impression that the christian worship of jesus christ as equal son of god introduced a non-divine element into god himself. halakhically, or according to religious law, the concept shittuf can be understood as a term that is friendly towards christians. with that name, the authors expressed that, from a jewish point of view, christianity was not idol worship or idolatry (avodah zarah), which would have meant that contact with its members was prohibited; rather, it was shittuf. as such, it was seen as introducing into god an element of mingling, by which something was joined to god, associated with god, united to god, thus obscuring the clear revelation of the one and only god.21 the concept of shittuf 20 david berger, “dabru emet: some reservations about a jewish statement on christians and christianity,” at: http://www.bc.edu/ research/cjl/meta-elements/sites/partners/ccjr/berger02.htm. 21 for an understanding of the concept of shittuf see: clemens thoma: christliche theologie des judentums (aschaffenburg: pattloch, 1978), reflected jewish uneasiness with the incarnation (of the son) of god, which was so impressively expressed in our day by emmanuel levinas. his objection should be heard in relation to the concept of shittuf and should be taken into consideration as regards a christology based on “chalcedonian hermeneutics”. b. a profile of christian belief in the incarnation when christians say in faith, “we believe in the incarnation, that the son of god became flesh or became human in jesus christ,” they mean: we consider an event in the history of the world, that did not fall to earth like a meteorite, but that came towards us within a specific history of the world and of god with the world, that is to say, within the encounter between the people of israel and the god of israel, and that contributed towards forming that history. christian faith dares to say: the event of the incarnation of the son of god is a fact that brought about change, not only in history, but to history itself. this is expressed in the gospel according to john in the climactic sentence in new testament theology: “and the word became flesh and lived among us.” this double statement in john 1:14 must be taken entirely seriously: the word’s becoming flesh is just as important as its living among us. the testimony about the word becoming flesh says what “was already said in the testimony about god ‘pitching his tent’ and his name ‘in the midst’ of israel. it doesn’t mean anything else, both mean the 190, and clemens thoma, “die jüdische liturgie und die kirche,” in jüdische liturgie: geschichte struktur wesen [quaestiones disputatae 86], ed. hans hermann henrix (freiburg: herder, 1979), 122-136, 128ff; “schittuf” in lexikon der jüdisch-christlichen begegnung, jakob josef petuchowski and clemens thoma, (freiburg: herder, 1989), 359-362. from a jewish point of view, the concept of shittuf is discussed by: michael signer, “trinity, unity, idolatry? medieval and modern perspectives on shittuf,” in lesarten des jüdisch-christlichen dialoges. festschrift zum 70. geburtstag von clemens thoma, ed. silvia käppeli (bern: peter lang, 2002), 275-284. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 24-40 henrix, “nostra aetate’s christological implications” 35 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 same thing.”22 the first half of the verse says in a “christian” way what the second half says in a “jewish” way. during the course of the church’s history, biblical language was transformed into other categories of speech, so that “jewish” categories are in the end expressed “philosophically.” the belief that god, the creator of everything in heaven and on earth, descended through the son and that his son and word became flesh and human, is very foreign to the jewish understanding of god. israel, in whose midst the event of becoming flesh and human occurred and from whose midst it went out towards the nations, did not, on the whole, speak in this way about god’s proximity, even though it had and has deep and intimate insights into god’s proximity. the majority of the jewish people did not hear this, because the word of god as it understood it did not tell it this. c. jewish knowledge of god’s self-abasement up to today, the jewish people have intimate knowledge of god’s self-abasement. god’s proximity in the exodus from egypt and during the people’s desert wandering has become the foundational pattern for god’s presence with his people in history and its disasters. there are many testimonies that speak of divine humility, even kenosis, that is to say, selfabasement or self-emptying: god decided to descend down to the abasements of human beings and to live in their misery. according to medieval understanding, god’s being touched by the lot of his people goes so far that in israel’s exile, god himself suffers exile.23 however, the inseparable 22 thus in friedrich-wilhelm marquardt, das christliche bekenntnis zu jesus, 115f. 23 on corresponding statements in jewish traditional writings see: joseph maier, “anthropomorphismen in der jüdischen gotteserfahrung,” in kosmische dimensionen religiöser erfahrung, ed. walter strolz, (freiburg-basel-wien: herder, 1978), 39-99; jakob josef petuchowski, theology and poetry: studies in the medieval piyyut, (london: routledge kegan paul ltd., 1978), 84-97; hans hermann henrix, “machtentsagung link between the god who comes down and the god on high is characteristic: “wherever you find the greatness of the holy one, blessed be he, you also find his humility. this is said in the torah, it is repeated in the prophets, and it comes again a third time in the writings” (bmeg 31a).24 jewish testimony to the infinite god’s presence with his people and among human beings is so rich that one can speak of more than “structural relationships in the christian and the jewish understanding of god.”25 as regards this jewish-christian relationship in professing the proximity of god, the orthodox jewish scholar michael wyschogrod did not shy away from choosing a phrase to characterize judaism, which at first glance sounds like an antithesis to what buber said about the “lack of incarnation”: the god of israel is a god … who enters into the human world and who, by so doing, does not shy away from the parameters of human existence, including spatiality. it is true that judaism never forgets the dialectics, the transcendent god… but this transcendence remains in dialectic tension with the god who lives with israel in its impurity (lv 16:16), who is the jew’s intimate companion, whether in the temple of solomon or in the thousands of small prayer rooms… gottes? ein gespräch mit hans jonas im kontext der theodizeefrage,” in “landschaft aus schreien”: zur dramatik der theodizeefrage, ed. johannes baptist metz (mainz: grünewald, 1995), 118-143, 124ff. 24 on the exegetical as well as philosophical interpretation of this kenotic tradition, see.: emmanuel levinas, “judaisme et kénose,” archivio di filosofia liii (1985) no. 2-3: 13-28; and emmanuel levinas, “vom beten ohne zu bitten. anmerkung zu einer modalität des jüdischen,” in damit die erde menschlich bleibt. gemeinsame verantwortung von juden und christen für die zukunft, eds. w. breuning and h. heinz (freiburg: herder, 1985), 62-70. 25 cf. clemens thoma, das messiasprojekt, 106ff., or reinhard neudecker, die vielen gesichter des einen gottes: christen und juden im gespräch (münchen : chr. kaiser, 1989). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 24-40 henrix, “nostra aetate’s christological implications” 36 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 thus, judaism is incarnational – if we understand this concept as meaning that god enters into the human world, that he appears in certain places and lives there, so that they thereby become holy.” according to wyschogrod, there are no reasons “within the essence of the jewish idea of god” that exclude a priori god’s “appearance in human form.” if jews asserted this and spoke of “a logical impossibility”, “a philosophical scheme” would be set up “in place of the sovereign god.” but no “biblically oriented, responsible jewish theology” could accept that.26 according to this position, the idea of the incarnation in general is not antithetical to judaism.27 so does this cancel the jewish objection to the christian belief in the incarnation? no. rather, the jewish objection becomes more trenchant. the reason for rejecting this belief is not a philosophical idea, but rather, what is criticized with biblically-oriented, anthropomorphic language is the fact that what befits the jewish people as a whole in christianity is ascribed to an individual from this people. that is where judaism and christianity differ. in wyschogrod’s own words: christianity concretized this tendency (of god’s to enter incarnationally into the human world), it brought it to a head in one specific incarnation in such a way that the jewish tendency towards spatiality thereby takes on a bodily form. whereas in judaism the dialectic between transcendence and immanence is always maintained quite clearly, the aspect of immanence is perhaps expressed more strongly in christianity – even if we have 26 michael wyschogrod, “inkarnation,” 22. see also his gott und volk israel, 21, 42, 62, 79, 91, 105, 125, 185-188. 27 picking up wyschogrod’s thought: elliot r. wolfson, “judaism and incarnation: the imaginal body of god,” in christianity in jewish terms, eds. tikva frymer-kensky, et al, 239-254. to keep in mind that the theology of the trinity completes the incarnate son with a transcendent father.28 even though it is explicitly acknowledged that the christian understanding of god maintains the transcendent aspect, the point of distinction between christianity and judaism lies in the concentration and specification of one particular jew. wyschogrod brings his thought to a head: christianity, which after the destruction of judeo-christianity became the christianity of the nations, “concentrated its attention more and more on jesus.” in so doing, it lacked … a central theological insight… expressed simply, i am talking about the axiom that god chose the jewish people as a whole, and that, even though he called prophets, kings, saviors and priests from among his people… they were all significant only inasmuch as they came from israel and returned to israel as members of the nation that god had chosen and to which he had sworn that he would not reject it. if we take the hebrew bible seriously, there can be no individual, no matter how important and prominent he might be, whose relationship with god is one-sided, meaning that the people of israel is not the decisive purpose served by this relationship.29 when christians attribute to the one son of the jewish people that which jews believe to be the incarnational destiny of the whole people in the sense of being called to serve as the place of god’s indwelling, this is not accepted by jews nor is it acceptable to them. jewish speaking about an incarnational dimension could at first glance considerably diminish the significance of the difference between judaism and christianity. “nevertheless, the difference remains 28 michael wyschogrod, “inkarnation,” 22ff. 29 ibid., 24ff. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 24-40 henrix, “nostra aetate’s christological implications” 37 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 significant; perhaps it becomes even more significant than it was before.”30 among the jews involved in present-day dialogue, wyschogrod is the person who most noticeably takes the incarnational thinking in christian theology seriously and tries to make it fruitful for his own understanding. he does not want to stop at the disagreement. perhaps i have the urge to find meaning in this fight that has lasted for almost two thousand years, and that this has made me tackle this mystery anew over and over again with the goal of understanding it better, of diminishing its naked reality, yes, almost even its arbitrariness. in so doing, what drives me is probably first of all the feeling that christianity is in a certain sense a part of greater judaism. for judaism, christianity is not simply another religion. if it were, judaism would be indifferent to christianity’s teaching of the incarnation, or this fact would at least not be so important. but as it is, because christianity is in a certain sense the judaism of the pagans, the teaching of the incarnation is very important.31 here, at the center of the jewish-christian dissent regarding the question of god, we stand before the dialectic of difference and proximity as described by a jew.32 d. a christian attempt to respond to the jewish perspective and an alternative understanding 30 ibid., 23. 31 ibid., 24. 32 on the idea of the incarnational in present-day jewish discussion, see: alon goshen-gottstein, “judaisms and incarnational theologies: mapping out the parameters of dialogue,” journal of ecumenical studies 39 (2002): 219-247. what can a christian say in response to jewish criticism of the christian belief in the incarnation of the son of god in jesus christ and to the jewish incarnational selfunderstanding? the answer will not be philosophical but theological. we can begin with what wyschogrod said. it was not the victory of a philosophical idea, but rather the free decision of the sovereign god of israel to take up his dwelling in the one son of the jewish people, jesus of nazareth, in such a way that we can no longer speak of god without including his relationship to this son, and in naming god’s taking up of his abode, we cannot come up with a better concept than that the word or the son of god became flesh. here we should again remember the double statement in jn 1:14: “and the word became flesh and lived among us.” according to johannine understanding, the testimony concerning the word that was made flesh says the same as the testimony regarding god’s living in israel. this was the testimony given from the midst of israel to the christians from among the nations, as the free deed of the god of israel to the son of the jewish people, jesus of nazareth. in view of levinas’ statement that the incarnation is too much for god’s poverty and too little for god’s glory, the christian answer consists in the simple and philosophically defenseless counter question: but what if the god of israel was pleased to enter into a proximity, which in fact does seem to be too much for divine poverty, and to dare a presence that seems to be too little for god’s glory, without which his poverty is no abasement? that this is how it is, is what christian belief consists of. if we reflect on this responsibly, it prohibits any triumphalism, as for example the claim that our counter question expresses the better belief as compared to the jewish one, or the greater hope or deeper love over against that of the jews. whether or not it is, all that will be seen at the end of our lives – or for all of us at the end of history – when our faith will be weighed by the lord of history. may our faith not be timid but humble, studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 24-40 henrix, “nostra aetate’s christological implications” 38 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 without claiming to be better, without being polemical towards another faith. levinas’ critical interjection against the idea of “a god man” is part of the uneasiness that found expression in the middle ages in the concept of shittuf. this concept arose out of the impression that christian worship of jesus christ as the equal son of god introduced an element of mingling into god himself. michael wyschogrod expressed the jewish concern when he said: there is a good reason for the severity of the jewish rejection of the incarnation. no matter how close god comes to humankind in the hebrew bible, no matter how much god is included in human hopes and fears, he still remains the eternal judge of the human being, whose nature is to be in the image of god (cf. gn 1:26f.), but who may not be mingled with god… in the light of this, the statement that a human being was god can only give rise to most profound concern in the jewish soul.33 christian theology will not be able to satisfy this jewish criticism and concern. but it can develop a sensitivity towards it by not interpreting the relationship between the human and the divine natures in jesus christ with concepts expressing mingling, fusion and symbiosis. it seems to me that the application of the idea of shittuf expresses an insight of faith that in fact touches on the insight of faith professed by the council of chalcedon when it emphasized the one and same christ “in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other,” and that the council 33 michael wyschogrod, “ein neues stadium im jüdisch-christlichen dialog,” freiburger rundbrief 34 (1982): 22-26, 26; michael wyschogrod, “christologie ohne antijudaismus?” kirche und israel 7 (1992): 6-9. then reinforced by adding: “the distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union” (dh 302). in walter cardinal kasper’s christology, which pope john paul ii held in very great esteem, kasper emphasized that chalcedon unambiguously held on to the statement “that god and man do not form a natural symbiosis. in the incarnation, god does not become a principle within the world; he is neither made into a spatial reality nor into one of time. god’s transcendence is upheld as much as is the human person’s independence and freedom.”34 chalcedon expressed a sensitivity that does not do away with the jewish concern, but that does indicate something that is objectively related: it does not mean some being in between that is formed by mingling the divine and the human, but rather, the one and same christ “in two natures that are not mingled.” e. the incarnation of the son of god as becoming a jew michael wyschogrod connected his comments against the christian understanding of the incarnation with the demand that jesus not be separated from the jewish people. in fact, that did happen often enough and it still happens when the incarnation is spoken of in a way that makes the son of god in jesus christ into a “human being in abstracto, in general and in a neutral way.” the son of god, god’s word, became a human being in jesus of nazareth; he did not become a human being in abstracto, in general or in a neutral way. rather, he became jewish flesh, a jew, the son of a jewish mother, and as such he became a human being concretely. nostra aetate, §4 indicated this when it recalled the words of paul “about his kinsmen: ‘… from them is the christ according to the flesh’…, the son of the virgin mary.” this implicitly makes a theological statement: the incarnation of the word, of the son of god occurred in his 34 walter kasper, jesus der christus, 8th ed. (mainz: grünewald, 1981), 280. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 24-40 henrix, “nostra aetate’s christological implications” 39 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 becoming a jew. “that is anything but ‘a provision in passing and by chance.’”35 the fact that the son of god became a jew is a foundational fact in christian theology. theology is only gradually coming to the recognition that the concreteness of the incarnation of the son of god in jesus christ has to be taken seriously. over the last two decades, statements by the magisterium have spoken of this. thus the vatican’s notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church of june 24, 1985, begins thinking about the jewish roots of christianity with a christological reflection: jesus was and always remained a jew, his ministry was deliberately limited ‘to the lost sheep of the house of israel’ (mt 15:24). jesus is fully a man of his time, and of his environment – the jewish palestinian one of the first century, the anxieties and hopes of which he shared. this cannot but underline both the reality of the incarnation and the very meaning of the history of salvation, as it has been revealed in the bible (cf. rom 1:3-4; gal 4:4-5)… thus the son of god is incarnate in a people and a human family (cf. gal 4:4; rom 9:5). this takes away nothing, quite the contrary, from the fact that he was born for all men (jewish shepherds and pagan wise men are found at his crib: lk 2:8-20; mt 2:1-12) and died for all men (at the foot of the cross there are jews, among them 35 hans hermann henrix, “ökumene aus juden und christen: ein theologischer versuch,” in exodus und kreuz im őkumenischen dialog zwischen juden und christen, eds. hans hermann henrix and martin stöhr [aachener beiträge zu pastoralund bildungsfragen 8] (aachen: einhard, 1978), 188-236, 194. mary and john: jn 19:25-27, and pagans like the centurion: mk 15:39 and parallels).36 the vatican document teaches us to consider the reality of the incarnation in a very concrete way. if this is done, one automatically comes to the jewish-palestinian milieu of the first century and becomes aware of the family and people of jesus of nazareth. no less a person than pope john paul ii reflected deeply on the concrete reality of the incarnation of the son of god in his many statements concerning the relationship of the church to judaism and of christian faith to israel. on april 11, 1997, he received the pontifical biblical commission in audience, and in his address he spoke of the new testament’s inseparable link with the old testament. in attempting to underline the necessity of the old testament, he talked about jesus’ human identity. in saying that jesus became a jew, he offered a kind of short formula of the incarnation of the son of god: actually, it is impossible fully to express the mystery of christ without reference to the old testament. jesus’ human identity is determined on the basis of his bond with the people of israel, with the dynasty of david and his descent from abraham. and this does not mean only a physical belonging. by taking part in the synagogue celebrations where the old testament texts were read and commented on, jesus also came humanly to know these texts; he nourished his mind and heart with them, using them then in prayer and as an inspiration for his 36 at: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relationsjews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_jews-judaism_en.html; german: kommission für die religiösen beziehung zum judentum, “hinweise für eine richtige darstellung von juden und judentum in der predigt und in der katechese der katholischen kirche vom,” 24 juni 1985, in: kuj i, 92-103, 98. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 24-40 henrix, “nostra aetate’s christological implications” 40 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 actions. thus he became an authentic son of israel, deeply rooted in his own people’s long history. ... to deprive christ of his relationship with the old testament is therefore to detach him from his roots and to empty his mystery of all meaning. indeed, to be meaningful, the incarnation had to be rooted in centuries of preparation. christ would otherwise have been like a meteor that falls by chance to the earth and is devoid of any connection with human history. from her origins, the church has well understood that the incarnation is rooted in history and, consequently, she has fully accepted christ’s insertion into the history of the people of israel.37 it was clear that this theological concreteness was important to the pope, for he soon came back to the idea. in preparing for the jubilee year 2000, the pope explicitly asked the historical-theological commission organizing the millennial celebrations to tackle the problem of the roots of anti-judaism within christianity when making an ecclesial examination of conscience. in his address to participants in the internal vatican consultation on october 31, 1997, he considered the relationship of the church of christ with the jewish people. he not only reinforced his understanding of the continuation of israel’s election and of the jewish people as “the people of the covenant”, but also said: the scriptures cannot be separated from the people and its history, which leads to christ, the promised and awaited messiah, the son of god made man. the church ceaselessly confesses this fact, when in her liturgy she recites the psalms each day, as well as the canticles of 37 pope john paul ii, address to members of the pontifical biblical commission, april 11, 1997; see: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/ john_paul_ii/speeches/1997/april/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19970411_pont -com-biblica_en.html. german: johannes paul ii., “ansprache an die vollversammlung der päpstlichen bibelkommission am 11 april 1997,” in: kuj ii, 102-105, 103f. zechariah, the virgin mary and simeon (cf. ps 132:17; lk 1:46-55; 1:68-79; 2:29-32). that is why those who regard the fact that jesus was a jew and that his milieu was the jewish world as mere cultural accidents, for which one could substitute another religious tradition from which the lord’s person could be separated without losing its identity, not only ignore the meaning of salvation history, but more radically challenge the very truth of the incarnation and make a genuine concept of inculturation impossible.38 if one turns to the most difficult issue in the present-day christian-jewish relationship and dialogue, one has to face the jewish critique of the christian “idea” of the incarnation of the son of god in jesus christ. based on this critique, the christian belief in the incarnation can be shown more clearly. and at the same time the question arises, whether in the deepest disagreement in the understanding of god, there is not also an element of proximity and unity, even of something jews and christians have in common. this really does come about, both as regards the kinship of faith in god’s descent as self-abasement and in the directive to christians to remain receptive to the possibility of reinforcing the connectedness when interpreting their profession of faith in the incarnation of the son of god. that is a comforting experience in the theology and dialogue of our time. it was set in motion through the second vatican council. the christological implications of its declaration nostra aetate have proven to be exceptionally fertile. and the impulses it gave for theology are still having an effect. 38 john paul ii, address to a symposium on the roots of anti-judaism, oct. 31, 1997, see: www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1997/ october/documents/hf_jpii_spe_19971031_com-teologica_en.html; german: johannes paul ii., “ansprache an die teilnehmer des vatikanischen kolloquiums über die wurzeln des antijudaismus im christlichen bereich am,” 31 oktober 1997, in: kuj ii, pp. 107-109, 108f. microsoft word 172837-text.native.1250632544.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): i-iii langer & spicer: editors’ introduction i http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers in jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college e d i t o r s ’ i n t r o d u c t i o n ruth langer and kevin spicer volume 4 (2009) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009) i-iii langer & spicer: editors’ introduction ii http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 welcome to the fourth volume of studies in christianjewish relations. as we prepare for the publication of the initial contributions to this volume, the international conference of christians and jews, at its 2009 annual meeting has just released its a time for recommitment: the twelve points of berlin, a call to christian and jewish communities worldwide. as the journal of the council of centers in jewish-christian relations, the american signatory to this document, we wish to draw special attention to it and to its proposed agenda for the coming years of dialogue. we hope that scjr will be a venue for serious ongoing discussion and development of its points. we begin that discussion with our inclusion here of the document itself as well as of two of the papers presented at the berlin conference: philip cunningham’s introduction to the document; and ruth langer’s plenary address on its call in point six for attention to the ways jewish liturgy discusses the religious other. the first of the berlin twelve points calls on christians “to combat religious, racial and all other forms of antisemitism” by, among other things, “recognizing paul's profound identity as a jew of his day, and interpreting his writings within the contextual framework of firstcentury judaism.” the fifth point calls on jews “to acknowledge the efforts of many christian communities in the late 20 th century to reform their attitudes toward jews,” including “by studying the new testament both as christianity's sacred text and as literature written to a large degree by jews in an historical-cultural context similar to early rabbinic literature, thereby offering insight into the development of judaism in the early centuries of the common era.” this issue continues our special topic on the significance of paul and pauline studies for christianjewish relations, begun in volume three. both jews and christians are among our authors, contributing to the development of both of these calls. while not the sole source of these essays, appearing both in the “feature topic” and the “conference proceedings” sections, we are particularly grateful for the contributions of the participants in the conference paul of tarsus: apostle to the gentiles in his jewish context held at boston college in march 2009. the conference was dedicated to the memory of krister stendahl whose voice contributed so much to this topic. we include here also tributes to him given at that conference. independent of the calls for attention to education embedded throughout the twelve points of berlin, we issued a call for papers on “educating jews and christians in an age of dialogue.” in our initial publication of this volume, you will find three papers on this topic from the proceedings of the 19th meeting of the international catholic-jewish liaison committee, cape town, south africa, in november 2006. additional contributions are expected. we are also pleased to present here additional conference proceedings responding to current events in the world of christian-jewish relations. in our initial upload, these include ambassador mordechay lewy’s studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): i-iii langer & spicer: editors’ introduction iii http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 address at boston college on vatican-israel relations and two fora from st. john’s university, one on issues of covenant and conversion, the other on the bishop williamson affair. we also continue our tradition of presenting book reviews of some of the most important publications in the field. in all these categories, we invite your contributions, whether articles for peer review (on the special topics or on other topics relevant to christian-jewish relations), papers delivered at conferences, or book reviews. please also visit the “call for papers” section on our website. we are soliciting papers on the 2010 special topic, “boundaries and border crossings,” which you will find described there. in the spirit of dialogue, we also invite readers’ responses to published materials. finally, audrey doetzel and ruth langer welcome fr. kevin spicer, c.s.c., associate professor of history at stonehill college, as our christian co-editor. our editorial board also welcomes eugene j. fisher who joins leonard greenspoon as christian book review editor, as we give warm thanks to john merkle for his dedicated service as the previous christian co-editor. we wish john well in his growing responsibilities at both the college of saint benedict and the jay phillips center for jewish-christian learning. what do we want the other to teach about us? jewish, christian and muslim dialogues studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r5-6 review d a v i d l . c o p p o l l a , ed., w h a t d o w e w a n t t h e o t h e r t o t e a c h a b o u t u s ? j e w i s h , c h r i s t i a n , a n d m u s l i m d i a l o g u e s (fairfield, ct: sacred heart university press, 2006), xviii + 421 pp. reviewed by eugene j. fisher, associate director emeritus, secretariat for ecumenical and interreligious affairs, u.s. conference of catholic bishops this very useful volume is the result of five international christian, jewish, muslim conferences held from 2000 to 2003 in jerusalem, israel; edmonton, canada; rome, italy; bamberg, germany; and fairfield, connecticut. the contributors include religious leaders and scholars from the three communities deeply involved in interreligious dialogue, including representatives of the holy see. the purpose of this significant enterprise was, as the editor notes in the preface (p. ix), to develop a resource that religious leaders in each of the abraham traditions could use to discover how the other two would like to be presented in their textbooks and from their pulpits, to ensure accuracy and understanding. too often in the past each of our traditions has tended to impose on the other two a definition of their beliefs and practices that is misleading and distorted. today, christians must allow jews to define the true nature of judaism and muslims to tell us what islam really teaches, etc. the editor has written not only an introduction for the whole collection, but one for each of its parts, helpfully setting the stage for the contributions to follow and providing a context for them. he notes with refreshing honesty, for example, that “these papers are neither equal nor parallel,” (p. xvii), especially given the differing native languages and cultural backgrounds of the various participants which, in turn, influenced how they understood the topics they were asked to address. each section concludes with further discussion and study questions, and suggestions for possible action in the community. the book concludes with a well considered list of books for further reading and pertinent websites. the latter, however, is missing two of the more important websites in the field: www.bc.edu/cjlearning and www.ushmm.org (the website of the u.s. holocaust memorial museum), not to mention, if one wants to understand catholic teaching , the websites of the u.s. conference of catholic bishops (www.usccb.org) and that of the holy see (www.vatican.va). the twenty-seven essays are arranged into five parts, the first part being three essays on “setting the context for dialogue,” by remi hoeckman, op, tsvi blanchard, and michael fitzgerald, mafr. these establish, respectively, the sense of dialogue as “sacred space,” the moral imperative for abrahamic dialogue, and the witness the three great, intertwined religions have, together, to offer to the world. part ii focuses on theology. alon goshen-gottstein, david burrell, csc, and jamal j. elias, given the short space allocated to such a vast theme, more than adequately summarize the essentials of the three traditions that need to be conveyed if others are to understand their respective traditions. coppolla, what do we want the other to teach? r http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ 5 http://www.bc.edu/cjlearning http://www.ushmm.org/ http://www.usccb.org/ http://www.vatican.va/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): r5-6 part iii asks what we want the other to teach about our historical traditions. the ten essays, by johannes rau, godehart ruppert, derek penslar, michael dushinsky, david fox sandmel, leonard swidler, hans-joachim sander, christopher heil, wolfgang kraus and jamal badawi do respond, collectively, to what they were asked to do, though i would have liked more on the islamic historical tradition. i would also have liked to have seen some more direct confrontation between the scholar/participants on the serious misinformation we each convey about what the other has done to us over the centuries, and what we have done to them. it is not simply our own views of our own history, but our distortions of our mutual histories of conflict, persecution and tolerance, that need to be addressed today, and i believe with some urgency. but it may well be that the organizers of this remarkable series of conferences have already organized such a series of conferences, to which i look forward. part iv on prayer and liturgy includes essays by reuven kimelman, tsvi blanchard, cardinal carlo maria martini, david coppola and margaret palliser, op, abdul hadi palazzi, and ali hussen al-badawi as-siddiqi. this was a very satisfying section, leading to the last and also very enriching section on our ethical traditions. as with theology, prayer and liturgy, the ethical traditions of the abrahamic faiths are very closely intertwined. and as with theology, prayer and liturgy, to understand the others’ tradition is to be helped immensely to understand our own. eugene korn, barry friedman, john l. elias, brian stiltner, and asad husain and mohammad a. siddiqi do excellent work in distilling the essence of their respective traditions. again, as with the book as a whole, it is left up to the reader to parse out and analyze the commonalities and differences from his or her own religious perspective. what this book gives, as have few if any before it, is a vast amount of straightforward and readable material, with each tradition speaking in its own name, for the scholar or educator to analyze and to sift through. it is a valuable resource and, i think, will be consulted many times in the years to come by those christians, muslims and jews who want to teach their own communities or other communities about their faith, history, and religious life. i would end with a personal note. i shared this volume with a colleague of mine at the u.s. conference of catholic bishops, fr. francis tiso, who staffs the u.s. bishops’ ongoing dialogues with the muslim community. it was used in a dialogue and both sides, muslim and christian, found it very helpful. so it has been “field-tested,” and found to be quite valuable. coppolla, what do we want the other to teach? r http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ 6 microsoft word 137518-text.native.1219861811.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-2 gerhards & leonhard, eds., jewish and christian liturgy r1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 albert gerhards and clemens leonhard, eds. jewish and christian liturgy and worship: new insights into its history and interaction (jewish and christian perspectives, vol. 15; leiden and boston: brill, 2007), hc, 334 pp. reviewed by debra reed blank, jewish theological seminary, new york collections of articles by different authors are always qualitatively risky business, doubly so when the articles are the reworked versions of papers delivered at a conference: conferences are by nature hit-or-miss propositions, even when organized around a defined topic. nonetheless, collections offer the possibility of serendipitously discovering an unfamiliar writer or topic. the present volume comprises papers delivered at a 2003 symposium in germany, organized in memory of jakob petuchowski, who was of the generation that produced elegant, erudite european jewish polymaths, who were religiously and secularly highly educated; who were entranced with religious texts and traditions yet open to the world and its intellectual fruits. to study with “the pet” was to sit at the feet of a master, to be filled with both the desire to emulate and the despair of ever knowing so many languages and so much text. (the brief biography of pet by hans hermann henrix alone makes this volume worth reading.) a number of such individuals focused on jewish liturgy, and it is upon their shoulders that the study of jewish liturgy has progressed in the immediate generation. as such, this volume represents a second generation of jewish liturgical studies, dependent upon that fundamental work, but just as often modifying or overturning that earlier work’s conclusions. likewise, most of the christian research herein moves beyond foundational work (e.g., of talley and taft), representing a second generation in that field, as well. pet’s work in liturgy went hand-in-hand with his advocacy of christian-jewish dialogue. his commitment to the latter and interest in the former was the organizing principle of the aachen symposium. the symposium’s participants were instructed to choose topics of cross-liturgical interest, but not to simplify their presentations. this second specific has a cost: a couple articles are so technical and arcane that one wonders how they were received in the original venue. similarly this reader speculates just how much one who is not well acquainted with terminology like k’rovah and kinah would glean from michael rand’s otherwise fine article, even with its remarkably clear and concise english introduction to the genre. some papers are groundbreaking; one hopes that their appearance here won’t result in the ideas being buried, but instead represents a trial run of a larger project soon-to-appear. not coincidentally, these overlap with those that demonstrate what the symposium was intended to be – liturgiologists of one tradition daring to step into another, setting the stage for genuine conversation and scholarly fermentation: a fitting tribute to the scholar who served as the impetus for the conference. outstanding examples are the revisionist articles of daniel stoklben ezra (on pentecost and shavu’ot) and marcel poorthuis (on the interaction of psalm exegesis), both of which illustrate how medieval christianity influenced judaism (a radical idea review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-2 gerhards & leonhard, eds., jewish and christian liturgy r2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 in the world of jewish scholarship), not only vice versa. ruth langer, writing on jewish liturgical use of biblical text, explicitly invites christian scholars to respond to her observations regarding that tradition. wolfram kinzig explores the function of christian creed in a fashion that is readily graspable and enlightening to a reader from another tradition. these pieces alone justify the entire volume. other pieces lamentably miss the opportunity to make cross-tradition observations. uri ehrlich offers amazing evidence for the theological notion that the jewish forefathers actively entreat god on israel’s behalf and even have a responsibility to do so. this excellent, albeit brief, article overlooks the potential comparison with orthodoxy’s use of icons. a couple writers rehash already-known material, but this does not necessarily translate into weakness: stefan reif provides a good summary of the genizah’s contributions to the study of jewish liturgy, and while there is no new information, reif sets the stage for several others who illustrate this importance. for example, elisabeth hollander (on piyyut commentary) and avi shmidman (comparing prose and poetic versions of birkat ha-mazon) would not have been able to make their significant contributions without this treasure trove (not to mention the foundational work of the earlier generation of scholars that pet represented). however, other articles are merely reiterative, and that fact, along with a sense that this collection serves to illustrate that jewish and christian liturgiologists labor as much in isolation from each other as in dialogue, tempers one’s enthusiasm for an otherwise excellent volume. a parting thought: while reading these articles, all originally delivered in 21 st -century germany, in a volume devoted to cross-religious dialogue, one is deafened by the silence of muslims. occasional glancing references to islamic liturgy at best draw attention to this absence and at worst sound like tokenism. pet died before the bold presence of islam in europe and north america was keenly felt, but this reader feels confident in asserting that had he been part of the symposium’s planning, the muslim tradition would have been represented on its own terms, not left to well-meaning jews and christians. on the other hand, pet would have likely argued that exclusively jewish-christian dialogue remains imperative, demonstrated by the recent hubbub over traditional catholic liturgy; here again lacunae in this collection reveal themselves. any address of controversial topics is absent, and the orthodox christian tradition goes largely unrepresented. the solution to any mild reservations expressed here about an otherwise important volume is to convene another symposium, equally as exciting as the original must have been, so that the conversation can continue, both in speech and print. microsoft word 137524-text.native.1219862700.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-2 patel & brodeur, building the interfaith youth movement r1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 eboo patel and patrice brodeur, eds. building the interfaith youth movement: beyond dialogue to action (lanham: rowman and littlefield, 2006), 263 pp. + index r e v i e w e d b y m a r y c . b o y s , u n i o n t h e o l o g i c a l s e m i n a r y “a quick read,” someone said about this book. yes and no. readers do not need to make their way through dense theories or technical language; clearly, the intended audience transcends the company of scholars. it would be a mistake, however, to dismiss the value of this volume. it not only offers considerable information about various interfaith youth movements in a variety of locations at various levels, but also some splendid reflections about interfaith engagement. the editors have organized the twenty-four chapters, each relatively brief, into seven sections indicative of the range of the anthology. the initial section offers some theoretical discussion of the context of interfaith youth movement. eboo patel’s essay, “affirming identity, achieving pluralism” is especially strong, and establishes the framework for his later essay (jointly authored with mariah neuroth) on the interfaith youth core. the essay on “theologies of interreligious encounters and their relevance to youth,” by j. nathan kline consists primarily of a superficial review of paul knitter’s highly nuanced introducing theologies of religion. among the chapters in the second section on international interfaith organizations is a fascinating chapter, “the gujarat young adult project of the international association for religious freedom” by zulfikhar akram and ramola sundram. this essay documents the contribution interfaith engagements have made in a region of india where religious conflict has been endemic. sections three and four deal with interfaith work in the context of schooling, focusing on higher education and secondary education, respectively. the former includes analysis of the seminarians interacting program by karen wood, descriptions of interfaith in the life of wellesely college by victor h. kazanjian, jr., and the university of illinois by five young leaders , and an insightful essay by alison l. boden on “articulating what is at stake in interreligious work.” high school teachers, in particular, would learn from all of the essays on secondary education. jane s. rechtman’s article on “teaching world religions” seemed especially rich. sections five and six describe various projects, both community-based and immersion programs. all make for worthwhile reading, including the “sacred stories project of the ghetto film school,” by joe hall and andrew unger. a final section by paul raushenbush analyzes the sorts of questions he fields as a contributing editor at beliefnet.com in his advice column, “ask pastor paul.” review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-2 patel & brodeur, building the interfaith youth movement r2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 a survey of the book as a whole is advisable. not only do the essays read quickly, but the range of perspectives and projects is impressive. yet musing on some of the central ideas and theoretical foundations will reveal the potential of this book; many essays bear re-reading. for example, readers might ask about the extent to which developmental psychology provides a valuable tool for evaluating interfaith youth movements. they might pursue the nine “integrated theories” patel identifies as the basis of the interfaith youth core (171-172). they might ask how religious institutions might instill a lively sense of religious identity in their adherents without disparaging the other. they might even ask about the likely impact of the collected “testimonies” in this volume on those who hold religious office: what if bishops, heads of presbyteries, etc. were to take this book seriously? would it affect their priorities? i often think of rabbi jonathan sacks’s sage – and sobering – judgment that the fate of the twenty-first century may turn on whether the world’s religions can “make a space for those who are not its adherents, who sing a different song, hear a different music, tell a different story” (the dignity of difference: how to avoid the clash of civilizations, 43). as one who shares this belief, i commend building the interfaith youth movement to a wide audience. it is a resource that should be taken seriously by religious leaders of every generation. emancipation from the whirlwind: piety and rebellion among jewish-american post-holocaust and christian liberation readings of job studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college emancipation from the whirlwind: piety and rebellion among jewish-american post-holocaust and christian liberation readings of job d a v i d c . t o l l e r t o n u n i v e r s i t y o f b r i s t o l volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 70 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 see, he will kill me; i have no hope [job 13:15 – nrsv] though he slay me, yet will i trust in him [job 13:15 – king james] translators of these words in which job assesses his relationship with god face a difficult choice. on the one hand, the masoretic text of the hebrew points to the more resigned portrayal of job followed by the nrsv. on the other, a phonetically insignificant amendment to the hebrew proposed in the margins of the text by ancient rabbis points to the hopeful meaning followed by the king james. faced with his own innocent suffering, whether job trusts or despairs in god pivots upon the change of a single barely audible letter.1 such fissures characterize the book of job. most significant is the division between job’s two responses to his torments: the piety of his sparse words in the two prose chapters that begin the book and the rebelliousness that characterizes many of his laments within its poetic dialogues. robert gordis notes that there are “two radically different jobs in the biblical masterpiece. one is the hero of the prose tale, whose righteousness is matched by his piety and who retains his faith and patience under the gravest of provocations. the other is the job of the dialogue, a passionate rebel against the injustice of undeserved suffering, who challenges god himself.”2 this article focuses upon the manner in which theologians responding to two distinct episodes of innocent suffering in the modern world have interacted with this biblical text’s fissures. the first of these episodes is the extermination of around six million european jews in the event commonly called ‘the holocaust.’ the second is the suffering of the oppressed in latin america and africa. the following will focus upon seven jewish and christian theologians to have written in response to these two contexts and engaged with the book of job within their thoughts. 1 the masoretic text (ketiv) of jb 13:15 contains while the (no, not) לא notes for the verse’s oral reading (qere) changes this to לו (to him). 2 robert gordis, the book of god and man: a study of job (chicago and london: the university of chicago press, 1965), 219. it is worth clarifying with regard to the jewish postholocaust reception of job that the following will engage with theologians writing texts focused primarily upon this event, rather than ‘post-holocaust’ merely in the temporal sense.3 these three thinkers write in varying relation to the movement often labeled ‘holocaust theology,’ widely considered, in a jewish context,4 to have only begun in earnest with richard rubenstein’s seminal 1966 work after auschwitz,5 and parallel with the greater awareness of the event within particularly american consciousness that 3 thus while gordis’ commentary noted above might be described as a jewish post-holocaust reading of job in the temporal sense, it can in no way be aligned with holocaust theology. 4 there is also the phenomenon of christian ‘holocaust theology.’ a useful overview of this is provided by stephen r. haynes, “christian holocaust theology: a critical reassessment,” journal of the american academy of religion, 52, 2 (1994): 553-585. while jewish holocaust theology is concerned with issues of innocent suffering, christian holocaust theology’s primary emphases are quite different: considering christianity’s traditions of anti-jewish sentiment and the role of christian individuals and institutions before and during the holocaust. 5 richard l. rubenstein, after auschwitz: radical theology and contemporary judaism (london: collier macmillan, 1966). michael berenbaum reflects that “after auschwitz was the first work to connect the two events [the holocaust and the foundation of the state of israel] as revolutions that required a rethinking of conventional wisdom ... no one can proceed to work in the field without wrestling with rubenstein’s premises and his conclusions.” “explorations and responses: richard lowell rubenstein: a renegade son is honored at home,” journal of ecumenical studies, 25, 2 (1988): 264. tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 71 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 historians such as peter novick identify having developed in the 1960s and early 1970s.6 what is shared between both liberation theology and jewish holocaust theology is a grounding in events of innocent suffering in the modern world. the relationship between them, however, has not always been without tensions. alongside jewish suspicions of supersessionist thought in liberation theology,7 and the ever present potential for competitive victimhood,8 have been notable differences regarding the israeli-palestinian conflict. these differences are particularly clear when comparing two contributions to the 1991 book judaism, christianity & liberation. in his chapter, rubenstein notes the degree of agreement across jewish response to the holocaust 6 peter novick describes the 1960s and early 1970s as the ‘years of transition’ with regard to the place of holocaust memory in american consciousness in the holocaust and collective memory: the american experience (london: bloomsbury, 1999), 127-203. 7 note marc h. ellis’ comment that “in most liberation theologies the jewish exodus is used as a paradigm of revolution, but contemporary jews are nowhere to be found in the writings of the theologians. this continues the age-old christian tradition of seeing the jewish people as bequeathing the ‘old testament’ and jesus and then disappearing into history, their mission accomplished. the use of the jewish story is coupled with our historical invisibility.” toward a jewish theology of liberation (london: scm, 1987), 71-72. 8 gustavo gutiérrez reflects that for “latin americans the question is not precisely ‘how are we to do theology after auschwitz?’ the reason is that in latin america we are still experiencing every day the violation of human rights, murder, and the torture that we find so blameworthy in the jewish holocaust of world war ii.” on job: god-talk and the suffering of the innocent, trans. matthew j. o’connell (new york: orbis, 1987), 102. depending upon one’s view of the ‘uniqueness’ of the holocaust – a concept to which many jewish holocaust theologians ascribe to a considerable degree – gutiérrez’s comments may be viewed as anywhere between innocuous common-sense or an offensive belittling of both the radical nature of jewish suffering during the holocaust and the need for christian introspection in the event’s aftermath. regarding the priority given to the security of the state of israel. he makes this point in the following quotation, referring approvingly to the orthodox theologian irving greenberg’s view of this matter: [a]chieving sufficient power to guarantee the survival of the state of israel, insofar as such a guarantee is humanly possible, has been elevated by greenberg to a sacred principle. in the post-holocaust period, endangering that power becomes the closest thing to an unpardonable sin for judaism…there is something close to unanimity on this point among the holocaust theologians.9 while, as will be noted below, there have been some jewish theologians to have questioned this view, rubenstein is correct to note that jewish holocaust theology has most often been defensive of israel’s security. michael morgan, commenting upon the role of the holocaust in jewishamerican thought notes that the 1967 six day war was a decisive watershed in this regard; a point after which many jews became disillusioned with a left critical of israel’s actions.10 a severely different view to rubenstein’s is taken by the uruguayan liberation theologian julio de santa ana in his chapter in judaism, christianity & liberation: [t]heology of liberation challenges the theology of the holocaust…this fear and the bitterness from the sufferings at the hands of fascist nazism were extremely important factors that led israel to adopt the behavior of its 9 richard l. rubenstein, “jews, israel, and liberation theology,” in judaism, christianity & liberation: an agenda for dialogue, ed. otto maduro (new york: orbis, 1991), 101. 10 michael l. morgan, beyond auschwitz: post-holocaust jewish thought in america (oxford: oup, 2001), 79-90. tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 72 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 former oppressors…most of the so-called ‘theology of the holocaust’ defends (granted, with nuances) that reactionary attitude of the state of israel. it tries to legitimate it theologically.11 this controversial (and historically dubious) suggestion that israel has treated the palestinians in a manner synonymous with nazi treatment of the jews demonstrates a stark contrast between liberation theology and jewish holocaust theology. liberation theology, with its associations with marxism, has historically been characterized by political radicalism and a suspicion of those with power. jewish postholocaust theology has in america, as morgan notes, been often associated with more politically conservative views.12 this contrast is, it should be stressed, rather unsurprising. while liberation theologians have faced ongoing oppression in the developing world, the main focus of holocaust theologians has been an event of suffering in the past to which a major part of the answer is continuing jewish survival in the form of a strong jewish state. if liberation theologians are concerned with the plight of the powerless, jewish holocaust theologians are concerned that jewish powerlessness of the past – powerlessness that culminated in the holocaust – is not allowed to return. political conservatism or radicalism does not, however, necessarily correspond to theology. indeed, the following consideration of how these two groups of theologians have utilized the book of job will be framed by the 11 julio de santa ana, “the holocaust and liberation,” in judaism, christianity & liberation: an agenda for dialogue, trans. terrence cambias, ed. otto maduro (new york: orbis, 1991), 49. 12 morgan writes that “there is no necessary connection between postholocaust jewish thought and political conservatism, but to some, in the seventies and thereafter, there has seemed to be such an alliance.” beyond auschwitz, 262. following proposal: that holocaust theology, while politically conservative, has often been theologically radical; and conversely, that liberation theology, while politically radical, has often been theologically conservative. the following will attempt to uncover whether this model is reflected in the manner in which a number of theologians from liberation theology and jewish holocaust theology read this biblical text. with regard to this model it is worth briefly pausing however to clarify the use of the terms ‘radical’ and particularly ‘conservative’ in the context of what follows. support for the security of the state of israel is here labeled as ‘conservative’ only insofar as being inherently committed to conserving the state’s present status from perceived threats. this commitment may, of course, be made by many who legitimately consider themselves ‘progressive’ or even ‘radical’ in all manner of other social issues. yet it remains nonetheless distinct from the orientation of those associated with liberation theology, since for liberationists it is those presently holding power who are frequently perceived as oppressors. it is on this specific level of relationships with power that this article utilizes the terms ‘conservative’ and ‘radical’. as shall be discussed in relation to interpretation of job however, either the support or critique of power where it presently resides does not correspond neatly to all social, or especially in the case of this study, all theological outlooks. within liberation theology the book of job is not, it is fair to say, the most commonly cited text from the hebrew bible. prophetic literature and the story of the exodus have seemingly had greater resonance for this strand of modern christian thought.13 it should be noted that in christian 13 for a discussion of the biblical texts most frequently appealed to in liberationist thought see phillip berryman, liberation theology: essential tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 73 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 thought job’s status as archetypal figure of innocent suffering is inevitably overshadowed by jesus’ sufferings in the new testament. perhaps because this overshadowing obviously does not apply to jewish thought, within theological responses to the holocaust references to job abound. indeed, it should be stated that a provisional character colors this study in that by necessity not all jewish post-holocaust treatments of job will be discussed at length (though several not discussed in detail will be noted in passing). the three jewish thinkers discussed below have been chosen, not because they are the three most prominent to have considered the holocaust (though elie wiesel might in fact be the most prominent), but rather because their readings of job in this context make for fruitful comparison with four liberation theologians discussed here who have engaged significantly with job rather than the more commonly cited biblical texts with liberation theology. the discussion of the seven theologian’s engagements with this text will be divided into three sections, each concerned with particular themes and elements which may be drawn from consideration of the book of job. the first of these is job in relation to issues of innocent suffering and human freewill. 1. job and freewill for elsa tamez, gustavo gutiérrez and eliezer berkovits jewish and christian thought have, through their histories, furnished theology with many models for response to the problem of evil. one of the most oft-cited has been the appeal to human freewill. god may abhor suffering, it is argued, but is duty bound not to intervene (not always at least) so that humans can exist in a moral realm in which meaningful ethical choices can be made (this is sometimes referred to as a ‘free will defense’). this section of the article will focus upon three theologians writing in the 1970s and 1980s who have, in varying ways, engaged with the figure of job while appealing to the necessity of freewill within their responses to modern episodes of innocent suffering. the first two, elsa tamez and gustavo gutiérrez, have been associated with liberation theology in latin america. the third, eliezer berkovits, was one of the key jewish-american theologians to respond to the holocaust. facts about the revolutionary movement in latin america and beyond (london: i. b. taurus & co, 1987), 45-62. elsa tamez is a methodist theologian from mexico who has responded to the plight of the oppressed in latin america with an emphasis on the perspective of women, reflecting gerald west’s statement that within liberation theology “bible study begins with the needs and concerns of poor and marginalized communities.”14 her work that will be focused upon here, entitled “a letter to job,” is a very short contribution to the 1986 book new eyes for reading: biblical and theological reflections by women from the third world.15 as noted above, the figure of job presents an archetypal model of piety in the response he gives to his torments in the first two chapters of the book, but in the poetic dialogues that follow, presents a more rebellious response to innocent suffering. note, for example, his words regarding god in 9:22-2: 14 gerald west, “the bible and the poor: a new way of doing theology,” in the cambridge companion to liberation theology, ed. christopher rowland (cambridge: cambridge university press, 1999), 145. 15 elsa tamez, “a letter to job,” in new eyes for reading: biblical and theological reflections by women from the third world, ed. john s. pobee and berbel von wartenberg-potter (geneva: world council of churches, 1986). tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 74 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 i say, he destroys both the blameless and the wicked. when disaster brings sudden death, he mocks at the calamity of the innocent. the earth is given into the hands of the wicked; he covers the eyes of its judges – if it is not he, who then is it?16 in the early sections of “a letter to job” it is this depiction of job as a theological rebel that tamez admires in her consideration of the book’s meaning for the oppressed of latin america: how brave you are, brother job! how strong is your resistance! you are, like us, sick, abandoned, rejected and oppressed. your friends eliphaz, bildad and zophar haven’t ceased to torture you and give you poor advice. they say that you should suffer in silence and stop defending your innocence. they say that god has punished you and that you need to repent. and you, brother job, in spite of everything, you haven’t given up. rather, your shouts have become louder. you don’t believe them and you fight them. what’s more, you dare to argue and wrestle with almighty god. you blame god for your plight, and you accuse the almighty of keeping silence in the face of your suffering. once your friend, now god seems to have abandoned you. you don’t understand why. you insist that you have been just and innocent. it is 16 nrsv translation. unless part of a quotation, all verses cited below are also from the nrsv. the right of every man and woman to cry out against unjust suffering.17 here the most theologically radical elements of the book of job have been appropriated by tamez: job’s rebellious lament against the silence of god. quite suddenly, however, the tone of tamez’s letter changes markedly. from having backed job’s laments she ushers him to be still so that god can provide an explanation for his silence: but let us be still as well, job. let’s not complain any more. we have complained enough already. your wise words silenced the wise of your time. they had no more arguments. god would not back them. let the almighty god stand before us and explain why for so long there has been such silence.18 the explanation that tamez then proceeds to provide for god’s silence in the face of human suffering is not without some significant difficulties. whilst on the one hand declaring that this silence is mysterious, she also provides a distinctly explicable analysis. this is the necessity of freewill: god’s silence is mysterious. sometimes it fills us with fright…but without this silence of god we can’t become men and women…god remains silent so that people may really become people. when god is silent and men and women cry, god cries in solidarity with them, but god doesn’t intervene. god waits for the shouts of protest. then the almighty begins to speak again, but in dialogue with us. 17 tamez, “a letter to job,” 50. 18 tamez, “a letter to job,” 51. tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 75 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 god shows us how the mountain goat casts away her new-born and they find their way on the rocks and don’t return looking for the mother’s milk.19 it is difficult to summarize the meaning of these words with their reference to a non-intervening god symbolized by a mother who casts away her child for its own benefit without the sense that something closely akin to a free will defense is at play – “god remains silent so that people may really become people.” with this defense of god’s silence and non-intervention in human suffering tamez ultimately brings resolution to job’s plight in her letter, declaring that “now, brother job, you have seen god, really come to know god.”20 this ‘resolution’ is perhaps unsurprising given her view, stated in a separate publication, that the bible in liberation theology overall “speaks of a loving, just, liberating god who accompanies the poor in their suffering and their struggle through human history.”21 with this undergirding outlook at play, job’s rebellion against divine injustice was, in tamez’s reading, perhaps always likely to be overcome. an analogous reading of the book of job is provided by her fellow liberationist, the peruvian theologian gustavo gutiérrez. like tamez, gutiérrez’s 1987 work on job: godtalk and the suffering of the innocent is focused upon job’s meaning for the plight of the oppressed in latin america.22 his commentary is, though, considerably more sustained than her brief letter and some of its nuances will be necessarily overlooked in the present study. 19 tamez, “a letter to job,” 51. 20 tamez, “a letter to job,” 52. 21 elsa tamez, “women’s rereading of the bible,” in feminist theology from the third world, ed. ursula king (london and new york: spck/orbis, 1994), 190. 22 in his introduction gutiérrez writes “in this reading of the book of job i shall keep my attention on what it means to talk of god in the context of latin america, and more concretely in the context of the suffering of the poor – which is to say, the vast majority of the population.” on job, xviii. like tamez, gutiérrez notes that job, at times, fiercely rebels against divine injustice. he notes that “his full encounter with god comes by way of complaint, bewilderment, and confrontation” and that “he feels harassed by the god in whom he believes.”23 however, at other times in his commentary gutiérrez appears to downplay job’s rebellion against god, suggesting that his defiance is directed more at the false theology of his friends than god: job…is a rebellious believer. his rebellion is against the suffering of the innocent, against a theology that justifies it, and even against the depiction of god that such a theology conveys.24 job…will never say that god is unjust. instead of speaking ill of the god in whom he believes, he challenges the foundations of the prevailing theology.25 gutiérrez’s job is a rebellious one, but with regard to god, this is only partially so. he notes, for example, the protagonist’s defiant words of 9:22-24 cited above, but reflects only that “job seems close here to speaking ill of god.” 26 after job declares that god “destroys innocent and guilty alike” (9:22), gutiérrez’s analysis seems curiously tentative. it is to be suspected that his reticence is related to the fact that, just as tamez ultimately ushers job into 23 gutiérrez, on job, 55 and 63. 24 gutiérrez, on job, 14. emphasis mine. 25 gutiérrez, on job, 30. 26 gutiérrez, on job, 57. emphasis mine. tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 76 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 silence, gutiérrez believes that god provides a satisfactory explanation for the suffering job rebels against, even if, similarly to tamez, he initially refers to suffering as “the impenetrable human mystery.”27 the explanation gutiérrez invokes relates especially to god’s words to job out of the whirlwind in 40:9-14: have you an arm like god, and can you thunder with a voice like his? “deck yourself with majesty and dignity; clothe yourself with glory and splendor. pour out the overflowings of your anger, and look on all who are proud, and abase them. look on all who are proud, and bring them low; tread down the wicked where they stand. hide them all in the dust together; bind their faces in the world below. then i will acknowledge to you that your own right hand can give you victory. in these words god is conventionally understood to be underlining job’s limitations – he cannot, of course, do those things god is proposing. gutiérrez, however, reads these verses in a different manner. he proposes instead that god is pointing to a reality underpinned by a theodicy of freewill not dissimilar to that referred to by tamez: 27 gutiérrez, on job, 13. [t]he lord is explaining, tenderly and, as it were, shyly that the wicked cannot be simply be destroyed with a glance. god wants justice indeed, and desires that divine judgment…reign in the world; but god cannot impose it, for the nature of created being must be respected. god’s power is limited by human freedom.28 god is not so much referring to job’s limitations but rather, according to gutiérrez’s reading, his own limitations in the face of necessary human freedom. again citing a mysteriousness that he is simultaneously dissolving, he continues by stating that “the all-powerful god is also a ‘weak’ god. the mystery of divine freedom leads to the mystery of human freedom.”29 for both tamez and gutiérrez their readings of the book of job in the face of innocent suffering in latin america are framed ultimately around a perceived necessity for freewill, appeals that render job’s rebellion, if not inappropriate, certainly not the last word. both theologians find, through appeals to human freedom, routes towards resolution with god beyond job’s defiance. a figure that similarly asserts a theodicy of human freewill is the jewish orthodox theologian eliezer berkovits in his 1973 work faith after the holocaust. as was noted above, this study will not attempt to discuss all engagements with the book of job within jewish holocaust theology at length (though berkovits’ relationship to some broader trends within jewish post-holocaust receptions of job’s rebellion will be mentioned in passing). where berkovits’ reading is of particular interest for the present discussion is in its appeal 28 gutiérrez, on job, 77. 29 gutiérrez, on job, 77-78. tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 77 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 to a version of the free will defense not wholly dissimilar to those alluded by tamez and gutiérrez. faith after the holocaust is a work that supports significantly rubenstein’s assessment that within jewish holocaust theology support for the security of the state of israel is ‘a sacred principle.’ written shortly after the 1967 six day war, berkovits sees this event as no less than an episode of divine intervention by god on behalf of the jewish people, “an event not on a purely man-made level of history, but one that took place in conformity with the divine plan.30 yet the central force behind his motivations for writing this book is a recognition that during the holocaust, god did not intervene to save six million jews. in the face of this, berkovits appeals to a theodicy of freewill to explain the only intermittent nature of god’s interventions in history. since the potential for meaningful ethical decisions requires human freedom, he asserts, more than once in his book, that to ask “why is there evil?” is equivalent to asking “why is there man?”31 in his view, the reason for human existence – and freedom – is to sanctify the name of god. he writes that “within the god-given task of sanctification, is the source of man’s freedom as well as his responsibility…granting him freedom and calling him to responsibility, god has expressed his confidence in his creature, man.”32 one might expect berkovits’ reading of job to ultimately overcome his rebelliousness in a manner synonymous with tamez and gutiérrez. yet this is not the case. berkovits’ reading of job covers only a few pages of faith after the holocaust. what is notable however is that job’s rebellion against god is ultimately upheld as a model for postholocaust jewish faith. like tamez and (to a lesser extent) gutiérrez, berkovits is conscious of the rebellious nature of job’s comments in the poetic dialogues. job’s lament, he notes, is fundamentally triggered by his faith that god should be just: “it is the very power of the faith that lends force to the accusation. what has happened to job is wrong; it is terribly wrong because it is judged by the ideal of justice that job formed for himself on the strength of his faith in god.” 30 eliezer berkovits, faith after the holocaust (new york: ktav, 1973), 153. 31 berkovits, faith, 105 and 103. 32 berkovits, faith, 61. 33 when interpreting the resonance of job’s defiance berkovits is aware of two sets of divisions that consideration of post-holocaust faith must recognize: firstly, the division between those who kept and those who lost their faith during the event, and secondly, the division between those who experienced it and those who did not. it is the first of these divisions he has in mind in the following quotation: there were really two jobs at auschwitz: the one who belatedly accepted the advice of job’s wife and turned his back on god, and the other who kept his faith to the end, who affirmed it at the very doors of the gas chambers… those who rejected did so in authentic rebellion; those who affirmed and testified to the very end did so in authentic faith.34 the experience of both these groups is something that berkovits considers closed off from those who did not experience the holocaust: neither the authenticity of rebellion nor the authenticity of faith is available to those who are only job’s brother. the outsider, the brother of the martyrs, enters a confusing 33 berkovits, faith, 68. 34 berkovits, faith, 69. tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 78 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 heritage. he inherits both the rebellion and the witness of the martyrs: a rebellion not silenced by the witness; a witness not made void by the rebellion. in our generation, job’s brother, if he wishes to be true to his god-given heritage, ‘reasons’ with god in believing rebellion and rebellious belief.35 for those whom did not experience this event (who berkovits characterizes as job’s brother) there remains the legacy of faith during the holocaust having been both rejected and sustained. with the need to respect both, they are thus left with a job-like rebellious faith. leaving aside the question of what those who lost their faith would think of their legacy being represented as ‘rebellious belief,’ what is notable for present concerns is that defiance against god, for berkovits, remains, although it never amounts to a rejection of faith. yet there seems to be an apparent tension between his emphasis upon the need for human freewill and a postholocaust faith that encompasses job-like defiance. why rebel against a divinity that has created the freewill necessary for meaningful human life and is thus duty bound to (at least sometimes) abstain from interference? the answer lies in fact that even if berkovits believes free will to be necessary, he is still not entirely willing to forgive the innocent suffering experienced by the jewish people during the holocaust. the following quotation is notable in this regard: [a]ll this does not exonerate god for all the suffering of the innocent in history. god is responsible for having created a world in which man is free to make human history. there must be a dimension beyond history in which all suffering finds redemption through god…this is no justification for the ways of providence, but its acceptance. it is not a willingness to forgive the unheard cries of millions, but a trust that in god the tragedy of man may find its transformation. within time and history that cry is unforgivable. 35 berkovits, faith, 69. 36 this quotation requires a degree of unraveling. in it berkovits appears to be making three assertions: (a) that in “a dimension beyond history” there will be some redemption for suffering, (b) that god has created a world in which human freedom is responsible for history, though (c) that within history god should not be wholly forgiven for suffering. his notion of “a dimension beyond history” in which suffering is redeemed (a) is not particularly developed in faith after the holocaust and will be overlooked in the present discussion. what is of greater importance is the relationship he posits between a theodicy of freewill (b) and the forgiveness of god (c). berkovits’ certainly possesses a faith in the need for human freedom and responsibility in human history, including the holocaust, but this does not extend far enough for him to wholly forgive god for this event. job’s rebellion remains resonant for berkovits in the face of innocent suffering to an extent greater than for tamez and gutiérrez. while not sharing berkovits’ appeals to a free will defense, several jewish thinkers associated with holocaust theology share his empathy with job’s rebellion. perhaps most notable among these is elie wiesel, whose reading of this biblical text will be focused upon in the next section of this article. a more recent example is presented by david blumenthal in his 1993 work facing the abusing god in which, declaring the need for post-holocaust jews to question god, he reflects that “the theology of protest goes 36 berkovits, faith, 136. tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 79 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 back to the bible and is present most forcefully in the book of job.”37 returning however to berkovits, tamez and gutiérrez, these three examples support the thesis that, in their readings of the book of job, jewish holocaust theologians, while politically more conservative, are more theologically radical than liberation theologians in that the radical implications of job’s rebellion are more sustained. however, to see whether this pattern continues, focus shall now be placed upon a quite different theme: the significance in job of satan. 2. the figure of satan for enrique dussel and elie wiesel in the book of job the figure of satan (perhaps rendered more accurately ‘the satan’ or ‘the accuser’) occupies a somewhat strange role. after questioning whether job’s 37 david blumenthal, facing the abusing god: a theology of protest (louisville, kentucky: westminster/john knox press, 1993), 250-251. a somewhat more ambiguous appraisal of job’s rebellion is provided by emil fackenheim in his 1970 work god’s presence in history in which he admires job’s ability to rebel “within the sphere of faith” but nonetheless worries that for contemporary jews such protest may “escalate into a totally destructive conflict.” god’s presence in history: jewish affirmations and philosophical reflections (northvale, new jersey and jerusalem: jason aronson, 1970), 76. a more curious example is presented by richard rubenstein in a 1970 article entitled “job and auschwitz” in which he declares the biblical book to be of little post-holocaust resonance because, in contrast to job’s vociferous rebellion, “most inmates [in the camps] were so totally assaulted both emotionally and physically that they were incapable of maintaining a sense of their own adult integrity and dignity.” leaving aside the historical questions raised by this psychological analysis, what is notable for present concerns is that despite viewing the holocaust’s legacy quite differently berkovits, wiesel and blumenthal, rubenstein nonetheless still perceives job in terms of a figure of archetypal rebellion. “job and auschwitz,” union seminary quarterly review, 25 (1970): 433-434. piety is simply the result of his successful life, and gaining permission from god to remove job’s family, wealth, and ultimately his health, he disappears completely from the narrative. after the second chapter of the book, this character, so pivotal to the plot thus far, is not again mentioned. it is entirely possible, as is the case for berkovits and tamez for example, to consider the resonance of the book of job in the light of episodes of the suffering in the modern world without mentioning satan once. for the argentinean liberation theologian enrique dussel however, this figure is of key importance. the interpretation that will be focused upon is his chapter entitled “the people of el salvador: the communal sufferings of job (a theological refection based on documentary evidence)” in the 1983 book job and the silence of god.38 dussel begins his chapter, like tamez and gutiérrez, by utilizing job’s rejection of his friends’ arguments to reject those theologies that argue that suffering is the result of iniquity. he states that “the comforters (eliphaz, bildad, sophar and finally elihu)…[are] the theologians of domination who try to convince the suffering job that he is guilty, that he is suffering because he has sinned…neither job nor the people of el salvador admit their arguments.”39 yet of the various characters in this biblical story, dussel is most focused upon the figure of satan. the sufferings of the people of el salvador, which he outlines in detail, are repeatedly compared to satan’s ‘smiting’ of job: 38 enrique dussel, “the people of el salvador: the communal sufferings of job (a theological refection based on documentary evidence)” in job and the silence of god, ed. christian duquoc and casiano floristán (t. & t. clark: edinburgh, 1983). 39 dussel, “the people,” 62. emphasis original. tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 80 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 satan ‘smote job’ (2:7), that is, el salvador, in recent times, first in 1972, when the army – already supported by north american business – murdered more than 30,000 peasants.40 but when satan ‘smote job – el salvador’ for the second time in recent years, the violence was far more gruesome.41 as the people grew in consciousness and organization, so the repression grew, leading to the time of the second ‘coming’ of satan.42 this terror…seeks to ‘immobilize’ the people – job. but the people do not accept any supposed blame. they know who the guilty ones are: satan.43 [i]n el salvador…[the theology of liberation] de-legitimizes oppression and the sufferings of job and deprives satan’s collaborators of their ‘good conscience.’44 at the end of his short chapter he notes that the only difference between job and the people of el salvador is that the biblical job never learnt the role satan plays in his sufferings. quoting the words of a nun involved in liberation theology in el salvador, dussel declares that the oppressed at least know their enemy: ‘the children now know what the united states are and what they mean for us. they know they are an imperialist 40 dussel, “the people,” 62. 41 dussel, “the people,” 62. 42 dussel, “the people,” 63. 43 dussel, “the people,” 65. 44 dussel, “the people,” 65. emphasis original. power and we are part of their strategic plan. they know what an oligarchy is, who the military junta are …’ this is more than job could see!45 clearly dussel is politically radical in comparison to many jewish holocaust theologians (jewish-americans supportive of the security of the state of israel tend not to accuse the us of imperialistic intent). that dussel is more concerned with outlining injustice in el salvador than presenting a detailed reading of the book of job is relatively clear from the structure of his chapter, with its lengthy quotations from the victims of oppression and narrow emphasis upon the figure of satan. yet the complete absence of both job’s rebellion against what he perceives to be god’s injustice also represents a clear theological choice. indeed, with his focus upon satan, he is at one point at pains to absolve god of any blame: the sinners are the military, the ruling classes, the united states; they are the active subject of sin…the suffering people, job, is convinced of the essence of revelation: ‘god never does wrong (yarshyah), do not doubt that!’ (job 34:12). ‘wrong’ is the product of domination, and the dominated who suffer its effect know they are innocent; they know that the dominators make them suffer…and that the dominator is satan.46 what is interesting about this quotation is that dussel, in aiming to focus upon the guilt of satan (in all his modern guises) and the innocence of god, cites not the words of the suffering job, but words in the biblical text from the mouth of elihu – one of the “theologians of domination” only three 45 dussel, “the people,” 66. 46 dussel, “the people,” 65. tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 81 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 pages earlier in dussel’s chapter! the suffering job’s laments against god, for dussel, are less suitable than a figure convinced of job’s iniquity and the overriding innocence of god. fleetingly, at the beginning of his chapter, dussel comments that god plays at least some part in job’s torments as he notes that “the god of israel, the god of the poor, absents himself...in order to allow satan... to dominate the situation, the system, the overall drift of events.”47 from this one might conclude (like berkovits) that job’s rebellion against divine injustice – entirely overlooked by dussel – may be justified given that god allows satan to cause job’s sufferings. however, after this comment the focus in his chapter is upon the figure of satan, and any blame that could be attached to god for his role in job’s sufferings is ignored. the subversive dimensions of the book of job have been overlooked or suppressed by this liberation theologian. dussel’s job suffers innocently but never rebels against god because god is innocent, and it is satan – a peripheral figure in much of the biblical text – that assumes the full role of oppressor. a notable reversal of dussel’s reading is presented by the jewish writer and holocaust-survivor elie wiesel. he stands, it is widely acknowledged, at a point of enormous influence within holocaust memory in north america. alan berger has written that “wiesel’s writings have become an indispensable starting point for anyone wishing to think seriously about the shoah’s theological and moral implications.”48 while he has resisted any temptation to consider the holocaust theologically in any systematic terms, his various writings are 47 dussel, “the people,” 62. emphasis original. 48 alan l. berger, “elie wiesel,”, in interpreters of judaism in the late twentieth century, ed. steven t. katz (washington d.c.: b’nai b’rith books, 1993), 383. rich in theological content.49 since his first book, night, written as a memoir of his experience of the holocaust, he has repeatedly empathized with the figure of job, and specifically with his rebellion against god. note, for example, his words describing his theological anxiety inside the camps: “i had ceased to pray. i concurred with job! i was not denying his existence, but i doubted his absolute justice.”50 because of this outlook, many have continued referring to wiesel as a kind of post-holocaust job. dan cohn-sherbok presents one of many examples of this, reflecting that “wiesel adopts a job-like stance. with bitterness he criticizes god for allowing the nazis to destroy the jewish people. throughout his novels he expresses outrage that he could have allowed the jews to endure torture and murder at the hands of the nazis.”51 49 note the comments of berger: “wiesel’s prolific writings assume many forms: cantatas, dialogues, essays, memoirs, plays, and novels… wiesel’s thought eludes the systematic tendency of traditional philosophical and theological speculation. his is, instead, a literary or narrative theology that is at its most penetrating when raising rather than answering questions. wiesel as storyteller can ask, and keep on asking, about those issues which lie at the core of post-auschwitz jewish experience. referring to the holocaust, for example, he observes: ‘i’m afraid of anyone who comes with a theory, a system, based on that experience. i am suspicious; i don’t want theories. i believe the experience was above and beyond theories and systems and philosophies.’” “elie wiesel,” 372-373. whether one can describe wiesel as a holocaust ‘theologian’ is perhaps best left open. certainly his works are often theologically provocative, even if he does not utilize the systematic discourse of most jewish holocaust theologians. in this study he will be considered as closely associated with jewish holocaust theology given that (a) he has been profoundly influential in this field, and (b) that he shares with these theologians the characteristic views that, firstly, the holocaust represents on some level a problem for conceptions of god’s covenant with the jewish people, and secondly, a commitment to maintaining israel’s power and security (as is discussed below). 50 elie wiesel, night, trans. marion wiesel (london: penguin, [1958] 2006), 45. 51 dan cohn-sherbok, god and the holocaust (herefordshire: gracewing, 1996), 102. see also, robert dedmon, “job as holocaust survivor,” saint tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 82 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 in a chapter focused upon the figure of job in his 1976 non-fiction work messengers of god: biblical portraits and legends, the strength of his empathy with job’s rebellion leads him to surprising interpretations. while, in the biblical text, job remains broadly rebellious during the poetic dialogues, in 42:1-6, following god’s speeches, he delivers a response commonly understood to be a submissive abandonment of his defiance:52 then job answered the lord: “i know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. ‘who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ therefore i have uttered what i did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which i did not know. ‘hear, and i will speak; i will question you, and you declare to me.’ i had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; luke’s journal of theology, 26, 3 (1983), 167, and jakob jocz, “israel after auschwitz,” in the witness of the jews to god, ed. david w. torrance (edinburgh: the handsel press, 1982), 61. 52 robert gordis, for example, describes 42:1-6 as “words of submission.” the book, 120. david penchansky notes however that some biblical scholars have suggested that job’s words are not entirely submissive. the betrayal of god: ideological conflict in job (louisville, kentucky: westminster/john knox press, 1990), 53-54. however, given that wiesel follows gordis’ view that 42:1-6 has an at least outwardly submissive appearance there is no need to dwell upon this point. therefore i despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” such is the resonance of job’s rebellion for wiesel that these words are for him a source of considerable disappointment: much as i admired job’s passionate rebellion, i am deeply troubled by his hasty abdication…i was preoccupied with job, especially in the early years after the war. in those days he could be seen on every road of europe. wounded, robbed, mutilated. certainly not happy. nor resigned. i was offended by his surrender in the text. job’s resignation as man was an insult to man. he should not have given in so easily. he should have continued to protest.53 despite this disappointment, wiesel finds a way of rescuing the archetypal figure of theological defiance against god he so admires by declaring that job’s words are so submissive that they can only be seen as deceptive: 53 elie wiesel, messengers of god: biblical portraits and legends (london: simon and schuster, 1979), 234. this disappointment regarding job’s apparent submission mirrors sentiments reflected through the character of the holocaust survivor michael in wiesel’s earlier 1975 novel the town beyond the wall: “michael never ceased resenting job. that biblical rebel should never have given in. at the last moment he should have reared up, shaken a fist, and with a resounding blow defied that transcendent, inhuman justice in which suffering has no weight in the balance.” the town beyond the wall, trans. s. becker (london: robson books, 1975), 52. the theologian andre neher reflects of michael’s position that “he was still always on job’s side, but was exasperated to see that with job one could go no further.” the exile of the word: from the silence of the bible to the silence of auschwitz, trans. david maisel (philadelphia: the jewish publication society of america, 1981), 220. tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 83 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 had he remained firm, had he discussed the divine arguments point by point, one would conclude that he had to concede defeat in the face of his interlocutor’s rhetorical superiority. but he said yes to god, immediately. he did not hesitate or procrastinate, nor did he point out the slightest contradiction. therefore we know that in spite or perhaps because of appearances, job continued to interrogate god. by repenting sins he did not commit, by justifying a sorrow he did not deserve, he communicates to us that he did not believe his own confessions; they were nothing but decoys.54 just as dussel underplays job’s rebellion to the point of complete absence, wiesel emphasizes it to the extent that, where in the text he appears to repent, his repentance is merely a deception to enable his defiance to continue. it is unsurprising therefore that the figure of satan occupies a quite different position in wiesel’s reading. while for dussel, satan is the focal point at the expense of god, the reverse is the case for wiesel. in messengers of god, satan, wiesel suggests, was “deceived by god.”55 this is a point he develops more fully in a later discussion of job published in 1998: god praises job only to force satan to oppose him. that is the impression one gets from the text: god’s compliments are meant to arouse satan’s criticism. and satan understood it – otherwise he would not have dared to go on contradicting god! which means: the whole operation was god’s doing, not satan’s. in fact – who set the story in motion? satan? no. it was god. it was god 54 wiesel, messengers, 234-235. 55 wiesel, messengers, 227. who opened the dialogue; satan only answered. satan was only an instrument.56 david penchansky argues in his 1990 work the betrayal of god: ideological conflict in job that one of the most disturbing elements of the biblical book’s early prose chapters is that god is so easily tricked by satan. he reflects that “the satan was more clever than god, able to manipulate the deity for his own purposes.”57 wiesel’s reading is the converse: it is not satan that manipulates god, but god that manipulates satan. this is no less disturbing however. for wiesel, satan is even more insignificant than in the biblical text in which he disappears after the second chapter. the only meaningful object of job’s defiance for this post-holocaust thinker is god. the book of job, it was noted at the beginning of this article, is characterized by fissures. one of these surrounds the figure of satan. while the significance of his role in the story itself is somewhat ambiguous, this ambiguity is fertile territory for both pious and rebellious readings. in the postholocaust theological outlook of wiesel, satan is the barely significant tool of a god who causes job’s suffering and should be the object of both his, and our, rebellion; a rebellion which job maintains despite all appearances to the contrary in 42:1-6. for dussel, satan is job’s central adversary, representative of all those involved in oppression in el salvador and a figure whom, once emphasized, allows god’s innocence to be piously upheld. yet for all the theological conservatism inherent in dussel’s liberation reading of job it should not be overlooked that it is 56 elie wiesel, “job,” in peace, in deed: essays in honor of harry james cargas, ed. zev garber and richard libowitz (atlanta: scholars press, 1998), 121-122. emphasis original. 57 penchansky, the betrayal of god, 37. tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 84 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 infused with a political radicalism committed to opposing those he perceives to have misused their power. julio de santa ana, it may be recalled, makes a similar accusation against holocaust theologians committed to maintaining the state of israel’s power and security. alongside rubenstein and berkovits, this is an accusation that wiesel, in a 1990 interview with carol rittner, has noted is also made against him: [rittner] there are jews and christians who have criticized you because in their opinion you have not spoken out strongly enough against the abuses suffered by palestinians in the israeli-occupied west bank…isn’t it true that your criticism of israel tends to be a little reserved? [wiesel] it’s true that i am reserved in my judgment when i speak about israel, but let us wait a while. after all, the jewish people is 3,500 years old; the jewish state is only forty years old. forty years in the life of a people 3,500 years old is not very long. remember, for 2,000 years we were in exile. we never had power, we never abused other people’s rights. now we have power, and it is not so easy …we should have faith in the jewish people. we will work it out.58 wiesel and dussel match the model proposed at the opening of this article well: wiesel, a jewish-american articulating what he believes to be the religious implications of the holocaust, presents a theologically radical reading of job while his political views are considered conservative for their commitment to maintaining the security and power of the state of israel after two millennia of jewish powerlessness. 58 carol rittner, “an interview with elie wiesel,” in elie wiesel: between memory and hope, ed. carol rittner (new york and london: new york university press, 1990), 36-38. 59 conversely, dussel vehemently opposes the ‘satan-like’ abuses brought upon the oppressed by those with power but presents an interpretation of job in which any of the book’s theological radicalism is suppressed. if we might intuitively expect political radicalism and theologically radical reading strategies to exist in union, with dussel and wiesel (as with tamez, gutiérrez, berkovits), this turns out not to be the case. consideration of two final theologians considering one of the book of job’s most famous, and also most pious, verses will however complicate matters a little further yet. 3. ‘the lord gave, and the lord has taken away’: job 1:21 for gerald west and michael goldberg for all of the theological radicalism that can be drawn from job’s lament against what he perceives to be god’s injustice, it should not be forgotten that this is a biblical text that possesses the resources for, at times, remarkably conservative theological piety. this is most notably located in job’s response to the sufferings inflicted upon him in the first two prose chapters of the book in which it is twice stated that job does not reproach god (1:22 and 2:10). significantly for its reception, it is this depiction of job that has been dominant in popular consciousness of the story. robert gordis notes that the “centuries that have elapsed since its composition have been ages of faith. during this long expanse of time it was, by and large, the long suffering job of the prologue, and not the passionate and painwracked job of the dialogue, who occupied men’s 59 wiesel’s national identity is arguably somewhat ambiguous as he was born in hungary and writes largely in french. in defense of labeling him jewish-american it can nonetheless be noted that he is a us citizen and has had an enormous influence upon holocaust memory in america. he was, for example, the first chairman of the holocaust commission founded by president carter in 1978 which lead ultimately to the creation of the united states holocaust memorial museum. tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 85 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 thoughts.”60 within christian reception of the book this is likely to have been notably influenced by the reference to “the endurance of job” in the epistle of jas 5:11. nahum glatzer has noted that rabbinic and medieval jewish interpretations of job are also characterized by a frequent downplaying of his rebellion.61 perhaps most famous among the pious sentiments of the early prose chapters is job’s accepting response to his sufferings in 1:21 in which he declares “the lord gave, and the lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the lord.” in a 2004 work entitled “reading job ‘positively’ in the context of hiv/aids in south africa,” the liberation thinker gerald west, writing with bongi zengele, notes that the piety of job’s early response to suffering is notably different to that which follows in the poetic dialogues as early as chapter 3:62 job, it would appear, accepts ‘the bad’ from god, remaining silent, refusing to ‘sin with his lips’ (2:10) by questioning god or this theology. as he sits silently his friends come among him, to ‘console and comfort him’ (2:11)…but before they can say anything…job speaks. at last he takes his wife’s advice [to “curse god” – 2:9]! perhaps the death and destruction around him and within him had numbed him; one hopes so. now, however, the radical challenge of his wife has registered in his numbed mind…having earlier refused to ‘sin with his lips’ he now 60 gordis, the book, 219. 61 nahum glatzer, the dimensions of job (new york: schocken books, 1969), 16-22. 62 gerald west with bongi zengele. “reading job ‘positively’ in the context of hiv/aids in south africa,” in job’s god, ed. ellen van wolde (london: scm, 2004). lets rip!…this shift is more than a shift from prose to poetry…it is also a shift in theology!63 west writes in the context of biblical interpretation within a specifically established study group among “ordinary poor, working-class and marginalized readers of the bible” who have tested positive for hiv in south africa.64 for such readers, their encounter with the piety of jb 1:21, in a context in which hiv/aids is frequently viewed as “a punishment from god,” has, he repeatedly asserts, been significantly unhelpful:65 would that we read this text at the countless funerals of our people who have died from aids-related illnesses. would that job 3:3-26 were read rather than job 1:21.66 attending so many funerals, members…do encounter the book of job, but usually only the oft-quoted verses of job 1:21, ‘the lord gave, and the lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the lord.’ again, for those infected here is further confirmation that aids is a punishment from god. unfortunately, job 3 is not read at funerals. but what if it were?67 i asked the group if they knew of the book of job, and many said they did. i then asked them if they had heard job read in church and funerals, and most said that they knew job 1:21.68 63 west, “reading job,” 116-117. 64 west, “reading job,” 113. the important role played by local bible study groups in latin america also is noted by berryman, liberation theology, 57. 65 west, “reading job,” 115. 66 west, “reading job,” 117. 67 west, “reading job,” 117-118. 68 west, “reading job,” 118. tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 86 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 west suggests that in the context of this reading group in south africa, focus upon job’s more rebellious words proved more positive than v 1:21, since they “affirmed the enormous anger they [the members of the group] had and that it was theologically permissible to express this anger.”69 this is not to suggest that west’s group followed a route towards a final rejection of god. noting particularly god’s words in 42:7 that job had ‘spoken correctly’ of him, west observes that members “were amazed to discover from job that even though they cursed god, god still welcomed them.”70 yet despite this reconciliatory resolution, west’s treatment of the pious and rebellious strands in the book of job is fundamentally different to the liberation readings of tamez, gutiérrez and dussel. all four may be committed to reading job in the context of those suffering in the developing world, but where the three latin american liberation theologians ultimately in some manner or another downplayed job’s rebellion, west downplays job’s piety – or at least its usefulness. in this regard, his reading is more similar to those of berkovits and wiesel, in which it is the theologically radical defiance of job’s words against god that prove more resonant in the face of innocent suffering in the modern world than the more pious elements that can be drawn from the text. a jewish-american respondent to the holocaust who views the significance of jb 1:21 quite differently to west however is the rabbi and theologian michael goldberg in his 1995 book why should jews survive? looking past the holocaust toward a jewish future: 69 west, “reading job,” 119. 70 west, “reading job,” 120. [w]hen job utters those famous words, in light of – and not in spite of – everything that has happened to him, he is acknowledging god as the lord of everything…in acknowledging god as the ultimate source of even the most horrendous suffering, job and jews maintain their integrity by wholeheartedly persisting in speaking the truth. strikingly, job only speaks falsely when he presumes (like his ‘friends’) to explain why he suffers 71 goldberg’s post-holocaust reading of jb 1:21 is radically different to west’s. the element goldberg rejects is job’s disputation in the poetic dialogues – a disputation west admires. it may initially seem, therefore, that with goldberg and west we have a situation in which the previous patterns have been reversed. tamez, gutiérrez, dussel, berkovits and wiesel follow a model in which liberation theologians emphasize the pious and conservative theological messages that can be extracted from book of job while the jewish respondents to the holocaust empathize with its more radical themes – notably rebellion against god. yet before too much weight is placed on this initial conclusion, it should be recognized that goldberg’s broader response to the holocaust is fundamentally different to those of berkovits and wiesel, particularly with regard to how much emphasis should be placed upon this event as one that challenges covenantal judaism. alongside a commitment to the security of the state of israel, another characteristic that applies to jewish holocaust theologies, for all their internal variations, is the principle that the holocaust represents a serious problem for judaism (though not necessarily an insurmountable one). this is not surprising – why anxiously respond theologically to 71 michael goldberg, why should jews survive? looking past the holocaust toward a jewish future (new york and oxford: oup, 1995), 78-79. tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 87 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 something that presents no theological challenge? however, while all jewish holocaust theologians follow this principle in some way or another it does not follow that all jewishamerican theologians do likewise. goldberg, as the following quotation attests, is an example of a figure that decisively rejects the notion of the holocaust’s overriding importance: while through the ages, individual jewish persons have been brutally persecuted, even murdered, god’s promise to sustain the jewish people has not died. that promise and that people have managed to survive the worst the world could throw at them – including the holocaust.72 covenantal judaism, for goldberg, is unchallenged by the holocaust. why should jews survive? is a work that seeks to undermine the notion that this event need be viewed as decisively questioning traditional understandings of judaism and be of central importance for jewish-american life.73 wiesel, as a figure who is central to both holocaust memory in north america and the view that it creates significant tensions in covenantal judaism, is a notable focal point for goldberg’s unease: in ancient times, the cultic shrine was superintended by priests. local shrines had local priests while national shrines, for example, the temple in jerusalem, had high priests. without doubt, the holocaust cult’s high priest is elie wiesel. his blessing is sought for every museum and 72 goldberg, why should jews survive?, 164. 73 goldberg’s view is not wholly unique. note, for example, jacob neusner’s view that jewish identity “based on the holocaust cannot create a constructive, affirmative, and rational way of being jewish for more than ten minutes at a time. jews find in the holocaust no new definition of jewish identity because we need none. nothing has changed. the tradition endures.” “the implications of the holocaust,” journal of religion, 53, 3, (1973): 308. memorial, from the local bamot to the central hechal in washington.74 for goldberg, wiesel is the high priest of a near idolatrous emphasis upon holocaust memory. it is thus unsurprising that his reading of job, so focused upon the piety of 1:21, is fundamentally different to wiesel’s. while wiesel sees job as an archetypal example of the kind of theological rebellion the holocaust now demands (even when job appears to repent), goldberg views this biblical figure as a role-model of faith in the aftermath of suffering for post-holocaust jews. goldberg is also critical of wiesel’s political view of the israeli-palestinian conflict: we jews have certainly shown over the last several years just how much we have learned from our historical abusers…elie wiesel has made a virtual career of reminding people how silence made the holocaust possible. but during the intifada, when israel was routinely using its army with disproportionate, often lethal, force against palestinian civilians while regularly rounding up scores of palestinians for detention camps, where was wiesel’s voice to be heard?75 it is notable that his assertion that the state of israel’s treatment of the palestinians is comparable to nazi treatment of the jews (a view, it is worth noting, that does not bear exacting historical scrutiny) is reminiscent of the liberation theologian julio de santa ana’s view cited above. goldberg’s reading of the book of job, with its focus upon the theologically conservative views of 1:21 is similar to the interpretations of tamez, gutiérrez and dussel. all four, in 74 goldberg, why should jews survive?, 59. 75 goldberg, why should jews survive?, 128. tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 88 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 the final analysis, downplay job’s rebellion and draw from this biblical text a message of reconciliation with god. goldberg’s interpretation is articulated within a political analysis of the israeli-palestinian conflict that, like liberation theology, is critical of those in possession of power. 4. conclusions where then does this leave the framework proposed in the introduction to this study: namely, that liberation theologians committed to more radical political agendas of opposing those with power, extract from the book of job theologically conservative messages, while jewish-american theologians committed to conserving the security and power of the state of israel, find in job more theologically radical meanings? the two earlier sections of this article largely follow this framework. where tamez, gutiérrez and dussel downplay the radical implications of job’s defiance against divine injustice within political outlooks that are committed to the powerless, berkovits and wiesel cite his rebellion as resonant for a post-holocaust age while firmly adhering to the view that the power and security of the state of israel must be upheld. the pattern however becomes more complicated with west and goldberg. like berkovits and wiesel, west’s liberation reading declares the lamenting job of the poetic dialogues to be of greater meaning in the face of modern suffering than the pious job of the opening prose chapters. goldberg’s reading radically disagrees, declaring job 1:21 to be the accepting outlook that post-holocaust jews should, in spite of the views of berkovits and especially wiesel, see as paradigmatic of the correct response to the extermination of europe’s jews. however, the extent to which goldberg disrupts the framework proposed should only be viewed as proportionate to the extent to which he is actually engaged in activity often labeled ‘holocaust theology.’ politically goldberg is as radical a critic of the powerful in israel as dussel is a critic of the powerful in el salvador. this political outlook combined with his desire to downplay the importance of the holocaust in jewish-american life means that we must view him as not a ‘holocaust theologian,’ but rather the backlash against such approaches. however, if goldberg cannot be seen as a jewish holocaust theologian, it should not be surmised that west has a similar relationship with liberation theology. west, it can be concluded, more meaningfully than goldberg, represents a challenge to the notion that liberation theologians find in job piety, while holocaust theologians find theological radicalism. a degree of tension thus remains overall regarding this thesis – with west we can see that attempting to map this model of relationships between radicalism and conservatism in theological and political spheres onto analysis of job’s receptions in these modern contexts must be done tentatively, and remains always partial and provisional. however, in overview, the situation still remains that, with due attention to the differing anomalies presented by goldberg and (rather more seriously) west, that among the figures discussed in this article, the framework proposed holds to a, though not uniform, still significant degree. why then, it should be asked, do figures such as wiesel and berkovits respond to the holocaust by interpreting the book of job in more theologically radical terms than all of the liberation theologians focused upon except west? myriad explanations could be made. two initial proposals will be suggested here. firstly, it might be suggested that the holocaust represents a more severe challenge to theologically conservative tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 89 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 notions of faithful trust in divine providence than the suffering of the oppressed in latin america. this answer, with its implicit belittling of innocent suffering in the developing world, is one many would oppose. however, the idea that the holocaust represents a more intensely severe shock to jewish theology than developing world suffering over many decades does to christian theology is perhaps less objectionable. secondly, it can be proposed that jewish-american holocaust theology reads job more radically because of its location within a western world in which religious doctrine has more broadly come under attack since the enlightenment. norman solomon notably views holocaust theology in such terms, reflecting that “the shoah came at a time when theology was already in a greater ferment than ever before in history, a ferment occasioned by the intellectual movements of the modern world.”76 gutiérrez, in the following quotation, also seems notably aware of a division between the developed and developing worlds in terms of the extent to which religion has come under sustained intellectual challenge: the main issue between progressive western theology and its interlocutors, has been whether god exists or not, while the central problem in third world countries is not atheism but an idolatrous submission to systems of oppression.77 in emphasizing job’s defiance in manner contrasting to tamez, gutiérrez and dussel’s non-western interpretations, wiesel and berkovits may be responding not only to the holocaust, but also the challenges to religious tradition posed by the post-enlightenment west. this is a proposal that both would certainly reject. berkovits, in faith after the holocaust, is consistently scathing of a western world he views as partly responsible for the holocaust. 76 norman solomon, judaism and world religion (london: macmillan, 1991), 199. emphasis mine. 77 cited in west, “the bible and the poor,” 149. 78 wiesel, as a fervently religious jew before the holocaust, can also surely claim his doubts about providence to be a genuine response to his experience of the camps.79 yet it should not be totally discounted that the reception of their theologies has been influenced by a cultural milieu in which questioning religious tradition is less abrasive than was once the case. despite only being a somewhat provisional beginning, both proposals, despite their various problems, form part of the combination that has led berkovits and wiesel to empathize with the book of job’s more theologically radical elements to an extent greater than for tamez, gutiérrez and dussel. situated on an intersection between theology, biblical studies and politics – subjects often perhaps more interwoven in the living world than an academy criss-crossed with disciplinary boundaries – this article shows that when facing episodes of innocent suffering in modernity, we need not expect theologians committed to political radicalism to search biblical texts for that which is theologically radical, or conversely, that those committed to preserving political power where it presently resides will engage with the bible conservatively. this is a conclusion of importance for 78 berkovits writes that “the guilt of germany is the guilt of the west. the fall of germany is the fall of the west. not only six million jews perished in the holocaust. in it, western civilization lost its every claim to dignity and respect.” faith, 18. 79 one of the most famous sections of night reads “never shall i forget that night, the first in camp, that turned my life into one long night…never shall i forget those flames that consumed my faith forever,” 34. clearly wiesel’s theological anxieties here relate to his holocaust experiences rather than the broader religious skepticism that has often characterized the west during modernity. tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 90 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 70-91 consideration of how the bible relates to its both jewish and christian contexts of reception, far beyond the realms of biblical scholarship, in the living world of readers and listeners politically engaged with attempting to face what they consider to be the ills of the modern world. the book of job is a text that serves many purposes. like its microcosm in 13:15, noted at the beginning of this article, it supports both rebellious despairing or pious trusting in god’s interactions with a human history often characterized by the suffering of the innocent. the title of this paper has attempted to mimic the ambiguity of both jb 13:15 and the book as a whole. whether the whirlwind from which god speaks to job – one of biblical literature’s more destructive images of the divine – is the provider of emancipation, or is instead something only a distrustful distance away from which emancipation can be sought, oscillates without resolution. in the face of one of the oldest and most insoluble theological problems – the problem of innocent suffering – it is surely fissured texts such as the book of job that are the most meaningful.80 80 my thanks go to dr jonathan campbell and dr jo carruthers for their helpful advice during the composition of this article. tollerton, “emancipation from the whirlwind” 91 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ microsoft word 154199-text.native.1234993454.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): friedmann r1-2 hirschfield, you don’t have to be wrong friedmann r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 brad hirschfield you don’t have to wrong for me to be right: finding faith without fanaticism (new york: harmony books, 2007) hb., 271 pp. reviewed by jonathan l. friedmann, academy for jewish religion, california “fanatic orthodoxy,” wrote reinhold niebuhr, “is never rooted in faith but in doubt; it is when we are not sure that we are doubly sure.” in this book, you don’t have to wrong for me to be right: finding faith without fanaticism, prominent american rabbi brad hirschfield reflects on these profound words, arguing persuasively that mature faith does not entail surety or absoluteness, but rather abides in mystery, in being unsure. this is, in hirschfield’s analysis, best captured in the story of abraham, who left behind the security of home in his search for what god called the promised land. “abraham’s journey was one of wandering,” hirschfield writes, “of not knowing, of discovering. he had nothing except faith – indelible, extraordinary faith” (p. 18). this observation sets the tone for the entire book, which frames the “authentic” religious path as one that both acknowledges and embraces the mystery of existence, the limitations of human perception, and the ultimately ineffable nature of god. to be sure, hirschfield’s style is more motivational than academic, more personal than theoretical, and more pastoral than analytical. part memoir and part personal philosophy, this “light” read may disappoint some readers expecting an exposition on the historical dangers and failures of religious fanaticism. but, this is not necessarily a weakness of the book. on the contrary, it is hirschfield’s candid, conversational tone that makes this a compelling read, especially when he addresses particular areas in which he disagrees with his more dogmatic orthodox jewish brethren (see, for instance, his measured acceptance of intermarriage, pp. 114-15). hirschfield’s targeted audience is broad: students, scholars, religious leaders and laity, and anyone else seeking (or at least open to) a lucid and practical argument for cultivating dialogue between people of different faiths. in ten breezy chapters – with clever titles like “mosquechurchagogue” and “adam and eve weren’t the cosbys” – hirschfield charts the evolution of his own religious views (referencing scholars like neusner, wuthnow, heschel, and cox), all the while suggesting that interfaith understanding must begin with a buberian, “i-thou” approach. importantly, hirschfield’s views did not come to him overnight. in the 1980s, he left his upscale, liberal jewish home for the west bank, where he joined a radical group of jewish settlers seeking to restore israel to within its biblical borders. a gun-wielding, fiery youth driven by selfrighteousness and intolerance for opposing views, hirschfield eventually recognized that he embodied all that is wrong with “being right.” as he describes it, “first you exclude everyone who isn’t a member of your religion or nation. then it’s everyone in your nation or religion who doesn’t agree with you. and then it’s everyone who only ‘sort of’ agrees with you. and pretty soon it’s down to you and me, and frankly i have my doubts about you” (p. 139). review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): friedmann r1-2 hirschfield, you don’t have to be wrong friedmann r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 hirschfield was later ordained at the jewish theological seminary in new york and currently serves as president of the national jewish center for learning and leadership (clal), a pluralistic organization that works toward jewish unity, while respecting differing ideologies and approaches. at clal, hirschfield has found a place where he can maintain his orthodox lifestyle and the spirituality he felt in israel, while at the same time embracing an attitude of inclusion and openness, far removed from his fanatic past. hirschfield has likewise applied the ideals of inclusiveness, diversity, and mutual respect to his interfaith work. “i have tried to help people discover that no one is ever one hundred percent right or one hundred percent wrong,” he writes. “i have wanted to nurture our ability to make deep communities while remaining open to new ideas and new experiences” (p. 11). focusing on isaiah’s prophecy, “my house shall be a house of prayer for all peoples” (isa. 56:7), hirschfield envisions a future in which all points of view are respected, and all distinctions are tolerated. in such a world, he insists, “we won’t need to check any part of who we are at the door in order to get in, whether we’re ‘born again’ christian, hindu, shiite, sunni, republican, or democrat” (p. 134). particularly in this age of increasing ideological polarization, religious and otherwise, it is important to recognize that the more certain we are about what is right, the less we acknowledge that what is right for us is not always right for others. this humbled evaluation of our own convictions echoes that of rabbi ben zoma, who defined the wise person as one who learns from everybody, including those with differing opinions and convictions (pirkei avot 4:1). it is, perhaps, naïve to think that this “enlightened” view will permeate the minds of religious fanatics worldwide or pave the way for peace and harmony of global proportions. nevertheless, this worthwhile book gives ample hope that such a goal can indeed be attained on a more modest scale, between individuals and among communities. microsoft word 154205-text.native.1234993729.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): slotemaker r 1-2 goodwin, “take hold of the robe of a jew” slotemaker r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 deborah l. goodwin “take hold of the robe of a jew”: herbert of bosham’s christian hebraism (leiden, brill: 2006) cloth, xii + 300 pp. reviewed by john t. slotemaker, boston college among the hebrew books that make up the christian scriptures genesis, psalms, and the song of songs are the most commented on in medieval christian exegesis. the medieval psalms commentaries often follow closely the tradition found in augustine’ s ennarrationes in psalmos and cassiodorus’ expositio psalmorum of offering a christian, or christological, reading of the psalms. this is hardly surprising, given that the psalms were already a source of christological speculation in the gospels, the book of hebrews (10:5-9), and acts (2:25-32). what is surprising is that in the mid-twelfth century the abbey of saint victor – with an emphasis on the literal/historical sense in the writings of hugh and adam of st. victor – had a significant influence on the writings of herbert bosham (c.1120–c.1194), who produced a “literal” commentary on the psalms that follows closely the writings of rabbi solomon ben isaac of troyes (rashi) and broke with the received christian commentary tradition. the present work by deborah goodwin is an analysis of herbert’s literal commentary on the psalms, a commentary that is of interest to christian-jewish relations because of its provocative literal interpretation of the psalms and herbert’s use of rashi’s exegetical work. the originality of herbert’s literal commentary is found in his close allegiance to rashi and in his hesitancy to interpret the psalms as “christologically” as previous christian exegetes. herbert’s literal commentary on the psalms has received little attention (see r. loewe, “herbert of bosham’s commentary on jerome’s hebrew psalter,” biblica 34[1953]: 44-77; 159-102; 275298; and b. smalley, “a commentary on the hebraica by herbert of bosham,” recherche de théologie ancienne et médiévale 18 [1951]: 29-65), partially because it exists only in one manuscript (ms 2, saint paul’s cathedral library, london) and is thus far unedited, making goodwin’s recent work a welcome contribution. goodwin begins by locating herbert historically, culturally, and intellectually in twelfth century england and france. goodwin’s historical analysis in the first chapter is illuminating, tracing herbert’s complex relationships as: (1) a defender of thomas becket (vita sancti thomae); (2) a student, defender, and editor of peter lombard; (3) a visitor to the abbey of st. victor and student of hugh’s exegetical tradition; and (4) a visitor to the cistercian house at ourscamp in arras (also involved in christian hebraism). the attention goodwin gives to the political and intellectual currents of the twelfth century locates herbert in a vibrant culture of christian hebraism. the second chapter considers herbert’s methodology as developed in the psalms commentary, emphasizing herbert’s divergence from previous christian tradition in three foci. first, herbert chose to comment on jerome’s hebraica psalter, not the traditional gallican version that previous christian scholarship had focused on. second, the emphasis on a literal commentary, and not an allegorical or tropological analysis, demonstrates a clear break with earlier christian exegesis. finally, herbert relies closely on the exegesis of rashi and other jewish litteratores. the central claim of chapter two – defining herbert’s originality as a christian exegete – is review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): slotemaker r 1-2 goodwin, “take hold of the robe of a jew” slotemaker r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 strengthened in chapters three and four through a comparison of twelfth century christian hebraism. the comparison of herbert to other twelfth century authors leads into a discussion of herbert’s knowledge of hebrew in chapter five. goodwin argues that while r. loewe’s claims of herbert’s expertise in hebrew (see above for reference) are somewhat exaggerated, there is every reason to think that he was a fine hebraist. the heart of goodwin’s analysis is found in chapter six. identifying herbert’s hermeneutic – as grounded in hugh of st. victor and rashi – goodwin considers various pericopae for detailed analysis. for example, in psalm 44 [45] and 79 [80], herbert offers a strikingly original interpretation of the passage in question. here herbert is portrayed between the christian tradition of adversus iudaeos literature and psalms commentaries and the jewish exegesis of rashi, often interpreting particular passages with striking originality. goodwin considers herbert’s exegesis of psalm 44 [45]:15, “the maiden in her train, her companions who follow her.” rashi glosses this verse by indicating that it means the gentiles will follow the jews, citing zechariah 8:23, “they will take hold of the robe of the jew’s garment…saying ‘let us go with you, for we have heard god is with you.’” herbert follows rashi’s exegesis – citing zechariah 8:23 – and considers this interpretation significant for both jews and christians: for jews, it indicates that salvation is through the messiah who is expected in the future; for christians, it indicates salvation through christ and the apostles (ex parte impletum/in part). but the final eschatological fulfillment will occur when all israel will be saved (romans 11:26). according to goodwin, the significance of this passage is in herbert’s outlook – his eschatological perspective that understands zechariah 8:23 as supporting both jewish and christian eschatological expectations. psalm 44[45]:15, following rashi, is read in light of the zechariah passage, such that christians take hold of the robe of the jew in their ultimate eschatological hope. in the end of days, both christians and jews will share the messiah. goodwin concludes the work with exegesis of this and other passages that indicate the innovative quality of herbert’s literal exegesis of the psalms. goodwin’s work is a fine achievement both in its historical and cultural overview and in its unearthing of herbert’s exegesis of the psalms. she is to be applauded for her careful paleographical work, presenting a fuller picture of this important and relatively unknown christian exegete. there are two points that deserve mention in response to goodwin’s work. first, goodwin somewhat overstates the case for herbert’s originality regarding his commentary on the psalms by arguing that he applies a “victorine method to a ‘non-victorine’ text” (p. 4). hugh of st. victor previously commented on the psalms (expositio super psalmos, pl 177, col. 589-634); while hugh’s incomplete work is certainly not a literal commentary, it certainly warrants greater attention. second, goodwin’s work is focused on the first ninety chapters of herbert’s psalms commentary and leaves unexplored the final third of the work. this, presumably, was necessitated because m. gruber’s complete translation of rashi’s commentary on the psalms was not yet available (having published the first ninety chapters in 1998). one can only surmise about the potential comparisons given the publication of gruber’s now complete translation (2004) and hope that goodwin will continue her work on herbert. notwithstanding these limitations the book is to be commended to scholars working in twelfth century exegesis and the hebraica veritas tradition, not to mention those interested in this “road not taken” in christian-jewish relations. the work is at once careful, insightful, and a pleasure to read. 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-3 matthew a. tapie aquinas on israel and the church: the question of supersessionism in the theology of thomas aquinas (eugene, or: pickwick, 2014), xv + 198 pp. holly taylor coolman htc@providence.edu providence college, providence, ri 02918 in aquinas on israel and the church, matthew tapie has taken on a set of questions that sits at the very heart of jewish-christian engagement. he has done so, furthermore, by exploring texts of unusual importance. although there have been a number of attempts to construct a fully post-supersessionist christian theology, too often these proposals have neglected premodern christian thinkers. tapie follows in the footsteps of those who have begun to look to a source once considered unlikely to provide assistance: thomas aquinas. in this detailed consideration of aquinas’ thought on the matter, therefore, tapie points his readers to a source whose influence is difficult to overestimate, and also further unfolds ways in which aquinas’ thought is valuable for post-vatican ii theology. aquinas on israel and the church will assist christian theologians in meeting—as pim valkenberg rightly says in the foreword—“the challenges of the document nostra aetate that we have barely begun to realize” (p. xii). within the field of aquinas studies, furthermore, tapie’s work elaborates our understanding of the common doctor’s thought. it is especially crucial that tapie has considered the treatment aquinas gives these matters not only in his magnum opus, his summa theologiae, but also in his biblical commentaries. in the commentaries, and especially the commentary on romans, a more positive account of judaism and of the law emerges. by considering these sources tapie reveals greater complexity in aquinas’ thought and signals the way in which he might assist christians who are concerned about improving jewish-christian relations. in this relatively brief volume, tapie has taken on an ambitious project, with several components. he begins by surveying recent scholarship on the category of supersessionism in general, as well as scholarship considering whether and how aquinas’ thought exhibits supersessionism. tapie draws from kendall soulen’s discussion of the different forms of supersessionism. “punitive” supersessionism, the harsher form, involves straightforward rejection by god of the jewish people. “economic” supersessionism, more immediately relevant in tapie’s consideration coolman: matthew a. tapie’s aquinas on israel and the church 2 of aquinas, is the claim that “christ’s fulfillment of jewish ceremonial law renders its continued observance obsolete and indeed damnable” (p. 20). tapie then considers analyses of aquinas from michael wyschogrod, matthew levering, bruce marshall, and steven boguslawski, with soulen’s second definition especially in mind. tapie thus helpfully isolates a very specific question for consideration: “the question of supersessionism in aquinas’ theology turns on whether jewish observance of the law can have a positive theological significance, or whether it is always ‘dead and deadly’” (p. 42, quoting wyschogrod). he goes on to look closely at aquinas’ account of the matter in the most relevant new testament commentaries: hebrews, romans, galatians, and ephesians. this specific focus is highly salutary and sets the stage for future constructive work. previous christian scholarship which spoke, for example, only of “continuity” or “discontinuity” in the move from old covenant to new is simply not subtle enough to allow the kind of scholarship that is needed. investigation into aquinas’ commentaries, furthermore, is much needed. (indeed, many areas of research into aquinas’ thought are waiting to be expanded and enriched by study that goes beyond the summa theologiae.) and the project yields important fruit. going forward on the basis of these two decisions, tapie come to a crucial, central conclusion: aquinas anticipates and agrees with the second vatican council’s affirmation, in nostra aetate, that god does not abrogate the election of the jews. taking his inspiration from an in-person conversation with wyschogrod, tapie translates a claim aquinas makes in his romans commentary (ad. rom. 3.1.253) thus: “for if the jews’ prerogative were abrogated on the account of the unbelief of some, it would follow that man’s unbelief would nullify god’s faithfulness—which is an unacceptable conclusion” (p. 99). at the same time, this book does have some weaknesses. tapie’s treatment of the secondary sources is lacking at certain points. he does not, for example, capture the full nuance of levering’s work, even if it may be the case that tapie would want to disagree with levering’s position in the end. levering says that aquinas does not think that jewish christians are obligated to keep the ceremonial law as individuals, but he nevertheless certainly does not simply claim that the law is obsolete. rather, aquinas thinks that jews who come to christ fulfill the ceremonial law in christ, as they participate in his (not simply spiritual, but bodily) torah-observance. more importantly, questions arise regarding tapie’s reading of the romans commentary. in particular, he focuses on the way in which aquinas speaks in the romans commentary of the “present spiritual benefits” of special jewish prerogatives mentioned by paul—including the prerogative of “the law” (p. 105). this discussion of present—and not merely former—prerogatives means, tapie argues, that aquinas here counts the ceremonial law as “upheld” (p. 108). it is not clear, though, that a “present spiritual benefit” of the law is the equivalent of the ceremonial law, and that the obligation of jews to observe the ceremonial law continues to function just as it did prior to christ’s life, death, and resurrection. indeed, as tapie notes, when describing the ceremonial law directly, aquinas uses the term “upheld” (statuuntur) specifically and personally in relation to christ: 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) “being figures, they were upheld and fulfilled by the fact that the truth signified by them is shown forth in the faith of christ.” (p. vi, citing ad. rom. 3.4.321). this, though, would seem to lead more easily to a profoundly christocentric account of the ongoing enactment of the ceremonial law, more like the claim of levering as described above. such a view could be more easily reconciled with aquinas’ claims in other texts, but it would also constitute an instance of “economic supersessionism,” at least as that term is defined by tapie, following soulen, above. these are complex questions, but further discussion and clarification is required. none of this, though, undermines the central importance of tapie’s work. if anything, the questions raised call for constructive work that takes into account the subtle distinctions that aquinas draws. even when we find that certain of aquinas’ conclusions are to be left behind, we well may find that he provides the structures of thought that allow us to work out the wisdom of nostra aetate in full. microsoft word 153902-text.native.1234812275.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): biblio 1-7 new understandings of paul biblio 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college new understandings of paul and his jewish heritage a select bibliography compiled by david bolton and emmanuel nathan volume 3 (2008) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 in the scjr call for papers focusing on the significance of paul and pauline studies for christian-jewish relations, the journal’s editors acknowledge that while biblical scholars “have usually viewed paul as rejecting ‘the law’ in favor of the gospel, thus providing the basis for the persistent christian supersessionist approach to jews and judaism,” there are contemporary scholars who “question whether paul was anti-jewish and suggest that recovering the historical context of his letters and understanding his rhetorical techniques can provide a new perspective on paul as a resource for improved christian-jewish relations.” this bibliography lists works that, in a variety of ways, reflect this new perspective on paul. david bolton and emmanuel nathan, the scholars who compiled this bibliography, are doctoral candidates in biblical studies at katholieke universiteit leuven in belgium. together they are engaged in kul’s “new perspectives on paul and the jews” project, which is “a critical investigation into the significance of the letters of paul in light of the historical parting of the ways between christianity and judaism” (http://theo.kuleuven.be/page/projects/419). this bibliography was originally compiled at the request of john t. pawlikowski for the international council of christian and jews in its effort to provide materials in connection with the catholic bishops synod in rome in october 2008. the scjr editors are grateful to dr. pawlikowski for recommending publication of this bibliography and to david bolton and emmanuel nathan for their permission to publish it. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): biblio 1-7 new understandings of paul biblio 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 aletti, jean noël. “où en sont les études sur saint paul? enjeux et propositions.” recherche de science religieuse 90 (2002) 329351. _________. israël et la loi dans la lettre aux romains. lectio divina 173. paris: cerf, 1998. avemarie, friedrich. tora und leben: untersuchungen zur heilsbedeutung der tora in der frühen rabbinischen literatur. tsaj 55. tübingen: mohr siebeck, 1996. bachmann, michael. lutherische und neue paulusperspektive. wunt 182. tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2005. barclay, j. m. g. “‘neither jew nor greek’: multiculturalism and the new perspective on paul.” ethnicity and the bible. ed. m. g. brett. bis 19. leiden: brill, 1996, 197-214. bird, michael f. & sprinkle, preston m. “jewish interpretation of paul in the last 30 years.” currents in biblical research 6 (2008) 355376. bird, michael f. the saving righteousness of god: studies on paul, justification and the new perspective. paternoster biblical monographs. milton keynes/waynesboro ga, paternoster, 2007. boyarin, daniel. a radical jew: paul and the politics of identity. berkeley: university of california press, 1994. boys, mary c. has god only one blessing? new york: paulist press, 2000. buchanan, george wesley. “paul and the jews (ii corinthians 3:4-4:6 and romans 11:7-10.” when jews and christians meet. ed. jakob j. petuchowski. new york: suny press, 1988, 141-162. byrne, brendan. “on re-reading paul.” gesher 2001-10-20, 174 (see also under “online resources” below), _________. “interpreting romans theologically in a post-‘new perspective’ perspective.” htr 94 (2001) 227-242. christiansen, ellen juhl, the covenant in judaism and paul: a study of ritual boundaries as identity markers. agju 27. leiden: e.j. brill, 1995. cook, michael j. “the ties that blind: an exposition of ii corinthians 3:12-4:6 and romans 11:7-10.” when jews and christians meet. ed. jakob j. petuchowski. new york: suny press, 1988, 125-139. dautzenberg, gerhard. “alter und neuer bund nach 2kor 3.” „nun steht aber diese sache im evangelium...“ zur frage nach den anfängen des christlichen antijudaismus. hg. rainer kampling. paderborn et al.: ferdinand schöningh, 1999, 229-249. davies, william d. paul and rabbinic judaism: some rabbinic elements in pauline theology. philadelphia: fortress, 1982. _________. “paul and the people of israel.” nts 24 (1978) 4-39. dettwiler, andreas, jean-daniel kaestli, & daniel marguerat (eds.). paul, une théologie en construction. le monde de la bible 51. genève: labor et fides, 2004. donaldson, terence l. “jewish christianity, israel’s stumbling and the sonderweg reading of paul.” jsnt 29 (2006) 27-54. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): biblio 1-7 new understandings of paul biblio 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 _________. paul and the gentiles: remapping the apostle’s convictional world. minneapolis: fortress, 1997. donfried, karl p. “paul and the revisionists: did luther really get it all wrong?” dialog: a journal of theology 46 (2007) 31-40. _________. “rethinking paul: on the way toward a revised paradigm.” biblica 87 (2006) 582-594. dunn, james d.g. the new perspective on paul: collected essays. wunt, 185. tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2005. _________. “did paul have a covenant theology? reflections on romans 9.4 and 11.27.” the concept of the covenant in second temple period. ed. stanley e. porter and jacqueline c.r. de roo. sjsj 71. leiden-boston: brill, 2003, 287-307. _________. the theology of paul the apostle. edinburgh: t&t clark, 1998. _________. “two covenants or one? the interdependence of jewish and christian identity.” geschichte – tradition – reflexion. fs martin hengel. hg. hubert cancik et al. band iii: frühes christentum. hg. hermann lichtenberger. tübingen: mohr siebeck, 1996, 97-122. _________. (ed.). paul and the mosaic law: the third durham-tubingen research symposium on earliest christianity and judaism (durham, september, 1994). wunt 89. tübingen: j. c. b. mohr (paul siebeck), 1996. _________. galatians. black’s new testament commentary london: a&c black, 1993. _________. “the justice of god: a renewed perspective on justification by faith.” jts 43 (1992) 1-22. _________. romans. word biblical commentary 38. 2 vols. dallas: word, 1988. _________. “the new perspective on paul.” bjrl 65 (1983) 95-122. ehrensperger, kathy. that we may be mutually encouraged: feminism and the new perspective in pauline studies. london: t&t clark, 2004. eisenbaum, pamela. “paul, polemics and the problem of essentialism,” biblical interpretation 13 (2005) 224-238. gager, john. the origins of anti-semitism. oxford: oxford university press, 1983. _________. reinventing paul. new york: oxford university press, 2000. gaston, lloyd. “the impact of new perspectives on judaism and improved jewish-christian relations on the study of paul.” biblical interpretation 13 (2005) 250-254. george, timothy. “modernizing luther, domesticating paul: another perspective.” justification and variegated nomism. vol. ii: the paradoxes of paul. ed. d.a. carson et al. wunt ii/181. tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2004, 437-463. gräßer, erich. der alte bund im neuen. exegetische studien zur israelfrage im neuen testament. wunt 35. tübingen: mohr siebeck, 1985. grenholm, cristina & patte, daniel (eds.). reading israel in romans: legitimacy and plausibility of divergent interpretations. romans through history and cultures series. harrisburg, pa: trinity press international, 2000. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): biblio 1-7 new understandings of paul biblio 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 gundry, robert h. the old is better: new testament essays in support of traditional interpretations wunt 178. tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2005. hafemann, s. j. “paul and his interpreters” dictionary of paul and his letters. eds. gerald hawthorne, ralph martin & daniel reid. downers grove, il.: intervarsity, 1993, 666-679. hagner, donald a. “paul as a jewish believer – according to his letters”. jewish believers in jesus: the early centuries. eds. oskar skarsaune & reidar hvalvik. peabody, ma: hendrickson publishers, 2007, 97-120 harrington, daniel j. paul on the mystery of israel. zacchaeus studies: new testament. collegeville, mn: liturgical press, 1992. hogeterp, albert l.a. “paul’s judaism reconsidered: the issue of cultic imagery in the corinthian correspondence.” etl 81(2005) 87-108. johnson hodge, caroline. “apostle to the gentiles: constructions of paul’s identity.” biblical interpretation 13 (2005) 270-288. kim, seyoon. paul and the new perspective. second thoughts on the origin of paul's gospel. wunt 140. tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2002. koperski, veronica. what are they saying about paul and the law. new york: paulist press, 2001. korn, eugene b. & pawlikowski, john t. (eds.). two faiths, one covenant?: jewish and christian identity in the presence of the other. new york: rowman & littlefield, 2004. langton, daniel r. “modern jewish identity and the apostle paul: pauline studies as an intra-jewish ideological battleground.” jsnt 28 (2005) 217-258. _________. “the myth of the ‘traditional view of paul’ and the role of the apostle in modern jewish-christian polemics.” jsnt 28 (2005) 69-104. levin, christoph. die verheißung des neuen bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen zusammenhang ausgelegt. frlant 137. göttingen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 1985. lichtenberger, hermann, “das tora-verständnis im judentum zur zeit des paulus. eine skizze.” paul and the mosaic law. ed. james d.g. dunn. wunt 89. tübingen: mohr siebeck, 1996, 7-24. liebers, reinhold. das gesetz als evangelium: untersuchungen zur gesetzeskritik des paulus. athant 75. zürich: theologischer verlag, 1989. longenecker, bruce w. “on critiquing the ‘new perspective’ on paul: a case study.” znw 96 (2005) 263-271. malina, bruce j & pilch, john j. social-science commentary on the letters of paul. minneapolis: fortress press, 2006. nanos, mark d. “intruding ‘spies’ and ‘pseudo-brethren’: the jewish intra-group politics of paul’s jerusalem meeting (gal. 2:1-10).” paul and his opponents. ed. stanley e. porter. pauline studies, 2. leiden and boston: brill, 2005, 59-97. _________. (ed.). paul between jews and christians. a special issue of biblical interpretation 13 (2005). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): biblio 1-7 new understandings of paul biblio 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 _________. “how inter-christian approaches to paul’s rhetoric can perpetuate negative valuations of jewishness – although proposing to avoid that outcome.” biblical interpretation 13 (2005) 255-269. _________. (ed.). the galatians debate: contemporary issues in rhetorical and historical interpretation. peabody, ma: hendrickson, 2002. _________. the irony of galatians: paul's letter in first-century context. minneapolis: fortress, 2002. _________. “the interand intra-jewish contexts of paul and the galatians.” paul and politics: ekklesia, israel, imperium, interpretation. ed. richard horsley. harrisburg, pa: trinity press international, 2000, 146-59. _________. “the jewish context of the gentile audience addressed in paul's letter to the romans.” cbq 61 (1999) 283-304. _________. the mystery of romans: the jewish context of paul's letter. minneapolis: fortress, 1996. winner of the 1996 national jewish book award for jewish/christian relations. neuhaus, david m. “à la rencontre de paul. connaître paul aujourd'hui un changement de paradigme?” recherche de science religieuse 90 (2002) 353-376. osten-sacken, peter von der. “die decke des mose. zur exegese und hermeneutik von geist und buchstabe in 2. korinther 3.” die heiligkeit der tora. studien zum gesetz bei paulus. munich: chr. kaiser, 1989, 87-115. pawlikowski, john t. “christology and the jewish-christian dialogue: a personal theological journey.” irish theological quarterly 72 (2007) 147-167. _________. christ in the light of christian-jewish dialogue. new york: paulist,1982; reissued eugene, or: wipf & stock, 2001. _________. “ein bund oder zwei bünde? zeitgenössische perspektiven.” theologische quartalsschrift 176 (1996) 325-340. penna, romano. lettera ai romani. scritti delle origini cristiane 6. bologna: edb, 2004. _________. il motivo della 'aqedah sullo sfondo di rom. 8,32. miscellanea s. paolo ad romanos. varia 2. bologna: edb, 1985. räisänen, heikki. paul and the law. wunt 29. tübingen: j.c.b. mohr (paul siebeck), 1987. ratzinger, joseph cardinal. many religions – one covenant: israel, the church and the world. transl. graham harrison. san francisco: ignatius press, 1999. german original: die vielfalt der religionen und der eine bund. bad tolz: urfeld, 1998. sanders, e.p., paul: a very short introduction. rev. edn. new york: oxford university press, 2001. _________. paul, the law, and the jewish people. philadelphia: fortress, 1985. _________. paul and palestinian judaism: a comparison of patterns of religion. london: scm press, 1977. segal, alan f. paul the convert: the apostolate and apostasy of saul the pharisee. new haven: yale university press, 1990. seifrid, mark a. christ our righteousness: paul’s theology of justification. downers grove, ill.: intervarsity, 2000. _________. “the new perspective on paul and its problems.” themelios 25 (2000):4-18. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): biblio 1-7 new understandings of paul biblio 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 soulen, r. kendall. the god of israel and christian theology. minneapolis: fortress, 1996. stendahl, krister. “the apostle paul and the introspective conscience of the west.” htr 56 (1963) 199-215. reprinted in id. paul among jews and gentiles and other essays. philadelphia: fortress, 1976, 78-96. stuhlmacher, peter. revisiting paul's doctrine of justification: a challenge to the new perspective. with an essay by donald a. hagner. downers grove, il: intervarsity, 2001. sumney, jerry l. “paul and christ-believing jews whom he opposes.” jewish christianity reconsidered: rethinking ancient groups and texts. ed. matt jackson-mccabe. minneapolis: fortress, 2007, 57-80. talbert, charles h. “paul, judaism, and the revisionists.” cbq 63 (2001) 1-21. theissen, gerd. “the new perspective on paul and its limits: some psychological considerations.” the princeton seminary bulletin 28 (2007) 64-85. thielman, frank. paul and the law: a contextual approach. downers grove, il: intervarsity, 1994. thurén, lauri. derhetorizing paul: a dynamic perspective on pauline theology and the law. harrisburg, pa: trinity press international, 2002. tomson, peter. paul and the jewish law: halakha in the letters of the apostle to the gentiles. crint. assen/maastricht: van gorcum; minneapolis: fortress, 1990. van buren, paul m. according to the scriptures. grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 1998. _________. christ in context. san francisco: harper & row, 1988. _________. a christian theology of the people israel. new york: seabury press, 1983. _________. discerning the way. new york: seabury press, 1980. watson, francis. paul, judaism, and the gentiles: beyond the new perspective. revised and expanded edition. grand rapids, mi / cambridge: eerdmans, 2007. _________. paul and the hermeneutics of faith. london-new york: t&t clark, 2004. wedderburn, alexander j.m. “eine neuere palusperspektive?” biographie und persönlichkeit des paulus. ed. eve-marie becker and peter pilhofer. wunt 187. tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2005, 46-66. westerholm, stephen. perspectives old and new. the “lutheran” paul and his critics. grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 2004. _________. “the ‘new perspective’ at twenty-five.” justification and variegated nomism. vol. ii: the paradoxes of paul. ed. d.a. carson et al. wunt ii/181. tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2004, 1-38. williamson, clark m. post-holocaust church theology. a guest in the house of israel. westminster: john knox press, 1993. witherington iii, ben. the paul quest: the renewed search for the jew of tarsus. downer’s grove, il: intervarsity, 1999. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): biblio 1-7 new understandings of paul biblio 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 wright, n.t. paul in fresh perspective. minneapolis: fortress, 2005. _________. what saint paul really said: was paul of tarsus the real founder of christianity? grand rapids: eerdmans, 1997. _________. the climax of the covenant: christ and the law in pauline theology. minneapolis: fortress, 1991. 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-3 zev garber, ed. teaching the historical jesus: issues and exegesis (new york: routledge, 2015), hardcover, 273 pp. michael mcgarry mcgarry@paulist.org the paulist center, boston, ma 02108 fr. lawrence boadt, a biblical scholar with long involvement in jewishchristian relations, used to say, “christians too often think that they know judaism by reading the old testament. and too many jews think that they know christianity without reading the new testament.” zev garber seems to be responding to this challenge, especially by opening the new testament, first in new ways for christians, and, in some cases, for the first time to jews. in his helpful volume, teaching the historical jesus: issues and exegesis, garber has gathered essays that address, many in very practical ways, how the initial historical issues of the church’s emergence and separation from judaism (e.g., jesus’ teaching, destruction of the temple, the pharisees, the crucifixion of jesus) might be approached both for jewish and christian students. garber’s book title is accurate, for the essays range from the very practical (e.g., how to put together a curriculum for undergraduates) to how one situates jesus within his social and anthropological matrix. assembling twenty other scholars in addition to himself, garber, emeritus professor and chair of jewish studies and philosophy at los angeles valley college, has gathered articles that speak to the experiences of teaching the historical jesus in many venues: from small liberal arts colleges in the american south to rabbinical schools in israel. most of the authors are jewish, with a smaller number of christians, and they have diverse backgrounds and interests. (however, he only includes three women among the twenty-one contributors.) with so many authors, the essays are consequently short, some only a few pages. what is gained by breadth sometimes entails sacrificing depth. for those looking for more, garber has provided a very helpful, if limited, bibliography. in his introduction, after a short description of the various “quests for the historical jesus,” garber gives a short précis of each essay, situating them within the tripartite book. these sections are: i. jesus in undergraduate education; ii. some issues in teaching jesus; and iii. teaching views on jesus. section i is by far the most practical, personal, and anecdotal, including, in a few contributions, excerpts from essays written by garber’s students. garber mcgarry: zev garber’s teaching the historical jesus 2 begins this section by recounting his own experiences teaching about jesus in his southern california college. his experience contrasts and complements well with that of steven jacobs in the latter’s alabama location. by including reflections on the particularity and diversity of the writers’ locations, the book helps the reader recognize the inventiveness of each professor. section i will appeal most to professors teaching at secular institutions, but also at catholic and jewish institutions of higher learning. indeed, in his essay, joel gereboff reviews “the approach of major american rabbinic schools to teaching about jesus and early christianity” (p. 69). what emerges in all the essays in section i is the importance of students’ leaving their own faith-commitments and presuppositions at the classroom door in order to adopt an historically oriented approach to studying the jewish jesus of nazareth. in addition to situating jesus within his geographical, social, and religious milieu, many of the authors note positively the transformation of jewishchristian relations since the roman catholic church’s change of course at the second vatican council. james moore and joseph edelheit, in an interesting dialogical, co-written essay encapsulate this by asserting that “any course on jesus requires a serious review and consideration of jewish-christian relations as foundations to a critical understanding of jesus. this challenge goes to the very core of post-shoah interfaith dialogue. one of the purposes of a course about jesus is the expanded praxis that is the antidote for the anti-jewish polemic within christian texts and doctrine” (p. 94). moore and edelheit also, gently and delicately, raise the place of the state of israel when approaching biblical topics. also prominent in almost all the courses reviewed in this section is a focus on the “parting (or ‘partings’) of the way (or ‘ways’)” between what became judaism and christianity. section ii addresses primarily issues of scholarly method. especially compelling is joshua schwartz’s “teaching jesus in a halakhic jewish setting in israel: kosher, treif, or pareve?” while most of this volume’s essays address american and canadian settings, schwartz lifts up israeli challenges and historical contexts quite different from a more diverse north american situation. having lived and worked in israel for more than ten years, i found schwartz’ insights especially interesting. schwartz bolsters his findings by citing a number of surveys that show israelis’ ignorance of the historical jesus and argues that they need to study this topic as part of their own history. some in israel who advocated the study of jesus saw it as a way to “know your enemy” (pp. 161, 163). while north americans might find such a designation difficult, nonetheless it reflects the effects of a sad, bloodstained history. a final highlight of this section is michael j. cook’s “gravitating to luke’s historical jesus: help or hindrance?” for generations, cook has taught the new testament and the historical jesus to rabbinical students and other jews, and the cumulative knowledge found in this essay reflects a lifetime of scholarly wisdom. section iii covers more predictable issues of historical jesus research. essays in this section address jesus’ relations to the sadducees, the pharisees, and the politics of his time. although not the first to consider the political implications of 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) jesus’ message, fernando bermejo-rubio provocatively addresses the issue in “jesus as a seditionist: the intertwining of politics and religion in his teaching and deeds.” while this is well-worn territory, bermejo-rubio clearly and succinctly reviews the evidence for the reader. s. scott bartchy’s “jesus, the pharisees, and mediterranean manliness” illustrates his own methodological insistence that “a solid knowledge of the dominant cultural values and social codes in the world of jesus and his followers is essential for any serious historical understanding of the traditions about this jesus” (p. 210; emphasis in original). bartchy lifts up the critical meanings of “honor” and “shame” in jesus’ society in order to better understand jesus. my israeli experience among jews, christians (mostly palestinian), and muslims (all palestinian) deepened my own similar appreciation for these topics. in particular, the works of such scholars as bruce malina, john pilch, kenneth bailey, k.c. hanson, douglas oakman, and richard rohrbaugh (all discussed here) are absolutely essential to an accurate understanding of the historical jesus. sadly, bartchy’s social cultural insights seem to be lacking in many of the other essays. finally, in this section, john pawlikowski addresses in clear fashion jesus’ relation to the pharisees—an understanding of which can only improve christian preaching about jesus. in too many places, this volume would have benefited from a more careful editorial eye (e.g., on page 8, john pawlikowski’s name is misspelled and “reflects” should be “reflect” in the last paragraph; on page 252, in second paragraph “extensive” should be “extent” and “no” should be “not” in third paragraph). from many vantage points, most of the essays underscore “the jewishness of jesus,” and some point out that, as obvious and fundamental as that insight may be, its import and ramifications still remain to be worked out, in both scholarship and church life. eugene fisher’s essay, “typical christian misunderstandings of jesus and judaism,” in his usual clear-and-direct style, is particularly helpful in this regard. while few female authors contribute to this volume, it is clear that vanderbilt university scholar amy-jill levine, who is not a contributor, has had an extraordinary influence on virtually all the contributors. zev garber has assembled a wide range of scholars whose experience and writing will help readers who have the opportunity and privilege to teach about the historical jesus in many settings. indeed, the joy and satisfaction found in the testimonies of those who teach the historical jesus was another theme found among many of the contributors. as is the case with other titles in the routledge catalogue, the retail price ($145) makes this a book for specialized libraries. however, those teaching about the historical jesus will find it a helpful resource for its varied content, its practical approach (in many essays), and for its useful bibliography. scjr 16, no. 1 (2021): 1-2 barbara u. meyer jesus the jew in christian memory: theological and philosophical exploration (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2020), xi + 212 pp. edward kessler edk21@cam.ac.uk woolf institute, cambridge, england this book is a profound and engaging reflection on the theological significance of the jewishness of jesus. the author acknowledges widespread recognition of the fact that jesus was born, lived, and died a jew, yet, she argues, its significance, particularly for christology, has yet to be digested by christian theologians. the focus, as the title makes clear, is on the relevance of memory, which means, for example, that jesus’s jewishness needs to be reflected in christian dogma (from the earliest times to present day). the book begins with a study of inter-religious understandings of memory, starting with jewish approaches, which need to be taken especially seriously by christian theologians. memory is not just historical but connects with the present. for meyer, christian memory cannot be formulated without jewish memory, as christianity shares so much with judaism. in an early section exploring jesus in his jewish context, she considers what type of jew he was, examining late 19th and early 20th jewish scholarship on jesus, such as the views of harry austryn wolfson (as analyzed by zev harvey), although she might also have included the contribution of claude montefiore, an often unappreciated jewish scholar of this period. one of the strengths of meyer’s approach is that she explains and then builds on a wide array theological writings, not only protestant and roman catholic but jewish as well. as professor of religious studies in tel-aviv university, she is immersed in the study of first-century judaism as well as contemporary jewish thought, making this volume both insightful and sensitive to christian-jewish reconciliation. she explains that contemporary jews, like christians, are increasingly comfortable recognizing the jewishness of jesus, but christians also need to believe in the presence of christ and the ongoing covenant between god and the jewish people. this means that jesus’s being jewish is not a jewish but a christian statement of faith. thus, although the contemporary jewish witness to jesus the jew has christological significance, there must be a clear division between jews recognizing jesus as jewish and christian interpretations of the significance of his jewishness. kessler: meyer’s jesus the jew in christian memory 2 christologically, meyer argues, jesus’ jewishness opens up new horizons for (non-jewish) christians as well as for a deepening of jewish-christian relations. she builds on karl barth’s statement that jesus was not coincidently but necessarily a jew and develops an inter-religious hermeneutic of vulnerability. she argues that the answer to dieter bonhoeffer’s question, “who is jesus christ for us today?” cannot be provided by christians alone, which is why interreligious dialogue (including with muslims) is vital. not only is jesus’s jewishness key to christian self-understanding but jesus’ affinity with the pharisees (including his halakhic observance) needs to be taken seriously by theologians. what does it mean for christians that jesus was a halakhic jew? placing jesus in opposition to torah is a common trait of christian anti-judaism but is also erroneous and damaging to christianity. meyer writes, “jesus the jew observed the commandments of the torah, and jesus christ fulfilled the torah, without abrogating it” (54). therefore, christian memory needs to witness the torah-observant jesus, a “halakhic jew” who was an “active, even passionate, participant in halakhic discussion” (65). consequently, in a section on the telos of torah (and on the writings of paul in general), meyer points out that there is no christ without torah, which means it makes no sense to oppose torah and christ in systematic theology: “once jesus is inseparably connected to torah, historical as well as christological statements contrasting him to ‘law’ become less plausible” (182). reminding christians that jesus lived as a halakhic jew is also a bulwark against heresy. in a chapter on otherness, a central category to her exploration of christology, she engages in a fascinating (but fictional) dialogue between tillich and kayko driedger hesslein, a contemporary lutheran theologian. the jewish jesus is the other and ignoring his otherness leads to docetism or arianism, while ignoring his jewishness leads to the heresy of marcionism. jesus’ jewishness as ‘otherness’ also prompts her to engage with palestinian theology and black theology. for example, she quotes james cone that “jesus is black because he was jewish” (69). this concept of otherness means jewishness becomes the signature of taking sides with the disadvantaged. in this example, his blackness and jewishness constitute elements of christology. one of the most potent chapters deals with the suffering of jesus the jew, which, she argues, helps christians remember the suffering of the other. the holocaust also challenges christian theologians to re-think the concept of redemptive suffering through the suffering of christ: “the memory of the shoah shakes christians up” (135). identifying a jesus who suffers as a jew is especially challenging for christians, epitomized by her reflection on levinas’ concept of useless suffering, and she is one of the few christian scholars to consider its implications for christian claims (alongside alice eckardt). in sum, “the memory of jesus the jew keeps christianity vulnerable” (187) and, by implication i would suggest, helps christians walk along his path and fulfil his teachings. founding father of jewish-christian relations: the rev. james parkes (1896-1981) studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-9 conference proceeding founding father of jewish-christian relations: the rev. james parkes (1896-1981) a l i c e l . e c k a r d t lehigh university, professor emerita delivered at the first friday forum, institute for jewish-christian understanding, muhlenberg college, nov. 2, 2007. the rev. dr. james parkes, anglican clergyman and leader in many national and international student and other organizations from the early 1920s on, author of ground-breaking historical and theological works, deserves to be acknowledged as the founding father of jewish-christian relations as he was the first to recognize that the roots of antisemitism were to be found in christianity from its earliest days. in this work he was a genuine pioneer. the following overview is based partially on two recent biographies published in 2005 and 2006 along with an earlier study in 1993,1 on parkes’s autobiography, but even more on my own personal knowledge of him and his work. my husband roy eckardt and i first got to know james and dorothy parkes in 1963-64 when roy was researching how european thought about the christian-jewish relationship might have changed in the roughly 20 years since the holocaust.2 we had chosen to live in cambridge, england for the university’s library along with its nearness to parkes’s home in the small village of barley. we worked frequently in his library, and had morning tea and the midday meal with them many days. by the end of the year i had come to see james as a true renaissance man because of the width and depth of his interests and knowledge. we also experienced his impish grin and his marvelous story-telling, which our fourteen-year-old daughter and eleven-year-old son thoroughly enjoyed; especially his “ghost” story.3 we continued to visit and be in touch with them through the years into1979, shortly before james’s death. when in 1966 parkes preached to a post-world war ii gathering of jews and christians he said, “there lies behind us centuries of persecution in the name of christ, centuries of massacre in the name of christ, centuries of forced baptisms in the name of christ, all of which we christians cannot undo.” the centuries-old and still widely-prevailing christian view of jews and judaism produced all of those actions. for the church taught that although at one time god had chosen this people to carry his message to the world, they had lost that role when they rejected jesus christ as the messiah. thereafter christians became god’s beloved children, 1 haim chertok, he also spoke as a jew (london and portland, or: vallentine mitchell, 2006); colin richmond, campaigner against antisemitism (london and portland, or: vallentine mitchell, 2005); robert a. everett, christianity without antisemitism (oxford and new york: pergamon press, 1993). james parkes’s autobiography is voyage of discoveries (uk: victor gollancz ltd., 1969). 2 a. roy eckardt, elder and younger brothers (new york: charles scribner’s sons, 1967). 3 in the text parkes actually refers to the so-called “ghost” as an “impersonating elemental.” see chapter 2 in voyage of discoveries. eckardt, the rev. james parkes cp1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-9 and, according to doctrines developed early in the church, jews survived only as a teaching reminder of what befalls those who continue to follow the evil they had perpetrated.4 this teaching still is regnant in many churches of the non-western world. but even in the west many mainline churches are not always sensitive to, or properly aware of, recent positive changes most of these churches have asserted at their top levels. and much of evangelical or fundamentalist christianity has not addressed the issue at all. moreover, prescribed liturgical readings remain heavily weighted toward anti-judaism, particularly in the easter season which includes post-easter sundays. it was this that led parkes, in his later years, to decide he could not attend worship services during this church season. how did parkes come to be the founding father of jewish-christian relations? and a pioneer in uncovering the real history of the church’s relation to judaism and its people? and then to be in the forefront of those rethinking and reworking christian teachings about judaism? well, it didn’t happen right away. at oxford he was among those of his generation who survived the great war (1914-1918). they wanted to establish an effective moral foundation for a new way for the world that would not repeat the tragedies of the war so recently ended. and so he gave a good bit of one of his university years to foster and debate those ideas as head of the university’s league of nations union, and got many of his fellow students equally involved. (for the remainder of his life he held to those goals.) by 1923, in his mid-twenties, he had earned his university degree and set about working with university students of britain, the continent, and beyond as part of the christian student movement, along with a number of other international agencies. in 1927 he moved to the international student service with headquarters in geneva where he secured a marvelous flat in a sixteenth century house in the old cité. it was on the top floor, originally the servants’ quarters. when he entertained a full gathering it was lit by 60 candles set in domestic english brass holders. he furnished his apartment with antique furniture acquired over some years at low prices because he purchased a jacobean style that was not then in fashion. as he was away from the apartment for extensive periods he left the key with his colleagues who were free to lend it to anyone (mostly students) they thought fit. (every now and then an absolute stranger would approach james to thank him for the use of his apartment.) parkes’s work took him all over central and eastern europe, setting up conferences for christian and jewish students. this was when he discovered and entered into the world of judaism, jewish-christian relations, and antisemitism. for he saw virulent antisemitism at firsthand and witnessed what terrible damage it was doing, particularly when some jewish students turned to him for help.5 as the christian and jewish students refused to mingle at these gatherings he deliberately set one cold january meeting in the only room of an old castle with a large fireplace. because he could not find any competent short study of the history of antisemitism (which by 1930 he had researched in depth) in english, he published a small volume entitled the jew and his neighbour : a study of the causes of anti-semitism. this traced the history back to the start of the crusades. but he had to go back still further in time to find the origins of that antisemitism, and to find out why it was still so rampant, particularly among confessing christian students. moreover, he had learned that without a graduate degree what he said and wrote didn’t have the necessary impact. and so, with some financial help, he returned to the 4 “the end of the way,” aug. 14, 1966, published in encounter today ii, 3 (summer 1967), 90-93. 5 as far as i can tell it was during these years that he first came to know any jews. eckardt, the rev. james parkes cp2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-9 university of oxford on a one semester a year basis. in 1934 his doctoral thesis was published. it was, and remains, an extremely important and path-breaking study entitled the conflict of the church and the synagogue: a study in the origins of antisemitism.6 in his research he found that catholic, protestant, and even jewish scholars had previously accepted that jews were responsible for three early christian martyrdoms (of pionius, pontius, and phillip) as supposedly “proved” by various writings of early church fathers. yet something told him to check out the evidence. this drove him to the sixty-six “fat folio volumes” of the acts of the saints which had been gathered together in the eighth and ninth centuries when hostility to jews was already theologically based. what did he find? that not one of them mentioned any jewish responsibility. this then led him to go through all the lives of the saints of the western church, the eastern orthodox church, as well as of the arab jacobite, the ethiopian, the armenian, and the georgian churches.8 so he then examined the roman world but concluded that any anti-jewish attitudes or actions during that time were only those of “normal intolerance,” related in part to the fact that rome allowed the jewish people not to make offerings to the roman gods and goddesses. only when christianity became the legal religion of the empire in the fourth century did the earlier christian writings against judaism and its people come to prevail and influence legislation that removed previous jewish rights and cast them into ever more restricted areas of livelihood. parkes followed the many consequences historically and theologically up to the medieval period. parkes was already at work on the next book: jesus, paul and the jews (published in 1936). in it he insisted that jews did not reject jesus; rather they rejected the gospel accounts which presented jesus as distorting their [also his] religion and exaggerating jewish faults. furthermore, the church claimed exclusive rights to interpreting the old testament, and finding evidence for christian faith even there. in 1933 parkes was considering resigning from his job with the international student service as his health was deteriorating under the pressure of trying to do too much. but when hitler came to power that year the international student service was overwhelmed with trying to find help for jewish, non-aryan, and even left-wing christian students who were expelled from the third reich. the agency needed to find countries that would give them sanctuary and allow them to continue their studies, stay and work. parkes was given the most difficult task – helping jewish students. in england he found that the marks family had set aside funds for just this purpose. parkes was sent to see israel sieff, a brother-in-law of the family, to arrange for accessing some of this money.9 this established a long relationship between parkes and sieff, and in subsequent years israel sieff came to underwrite many of james’s professional expenses. it was only thanks to parkes’ private intervention that in that same year of 1933 the archbishop of canterbury was stopped from telling parliament (as he had planned to do) that ambassador von ribbentrop had assured him the tales of jewish persecution in germany were unfounded. what stopped him? parkes had shown the archbishop actual copies of germany’s anti-jewish laws. in 1934 james decided to return to england and devote full time work to correcting the christian misapprehension of judaism and to countering the evil which had resulted from it. 6 first published in 1934 by the soncino press in england; republished in 1961 by the world publishing company and the jewish publication society of america. 8 see voyages of discovery, 121-22. 9 parkes also received financial help for these students from fritz warburg in new york, and then went on to toronto where he met and became life-long friends with maurice eisendrath. eckardt, the rev. james parkes cp3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-9 israel sieff had agreed to help him financially only after parkes replied to the question of how long he anticipated it would take to change christian ideas and attitudes: parkes replied, “about 300 years.” sieff laughed and said, “good. i am prepared to help you. had you said ‘twenty-five years’ or ‘my lifetime’ i would have told you to go away because you did not understand what you were talking about.”10 and so the decision was made. an old house was purchased in barley. it was a very simple medieval manor with rooms dating from the thirteenth century to the early twentieth, at least one per century. but it was in a dreadful “slummy” condition, as were the outbuildings, the garden and orchard. over the summer of 1935 parkes and his handyman installed two bathrooms, built bookcases lining most of the rooms, and began to clear the garden of decades of debris. the actual move still had to be made, and this was when a significant event occurred. among the students utilizing parkes’s apartment at times were young nazis (obviously not recognized as such). because by 1935 the nazi party had decided that parkes was too pro-jewish and a hindrance to their anti-jewish goals, they planned to assassinate him. while in england james had hired thomas thomas to work for him in barley, but first, to go to geneva with him to help pack up his possessions. when they went to the market thomas (tall and impressive) was wearing his best clothes while james was dressed as always, most casually. the nazi agents determined that thomas must be parkes. so when he descended the back stairs to check where the dustbins were that he was to put outside, his head was clobbered viciously. (apparently only his thick skull saved him from actually being killed.) only when he staggered into the apartment an hour and a half later was james aware that anything had happened. the swiss police doctor concluded that thomas was suffering from influenza; the policeman who had been assigned to watch the apartment refused to look for any attacker; the british consulate did nothing to help; and the geneva police insisted that either thomas had invented the whole thing or had taken a young man to the cellar for improper purposes and had been turned on. only the american community in the city provided care and help for thomas in the following weeks. obviously parkes was indeed in danger; it was not a half-witted idea he had cooked up. 1935 was the beginning of three decades which parkes spent in barley – before, during, and after the second world war, and where i first met him. it was here that he took in refugees from germany early on. here that he continued to work in the world of christian-jewish relations, to write and publish, speak and preach. in 1938 he published the first of three intended volumes under the overall title the jew in the medieval community. this one dealt with the jews’ political and economic situation; the others were to deal with judaism in medieval theology and the jew in medieval drama. however they were abandoned because a publisher asked him to write on the jewish problem in the modern world (the actual book title), which was published the following year. rightly he felt that one chapter had to consider zionism and britain’s palestine mandate, his first published consideration of this subject. with the commencement of war in 1939 parkes became involved with many pressing issues and tasks. he actually came to have two identities: one as james parkes, scholar; and one as “john hadham,”11 whose writing on christian and jewish faith in the modern world was non 10 voyages of discoveries, 128-29. 11 six john hadham books, or series of related pamphlets, appeared during the war years under such titles as good god, god in a world at war, between god and man, god and human progress. in 1950 politics and pacifism was published under james’ two names – hadham and parkes. eckardt, the rev. james parkes cp4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-9 scholarly in style, and who occasionally spoke on the radio. james took on this nom de plume because he did not want what he was writing in these works to be confused with his “already controversial books on the jewish question.”12 (the hadham work was immensely popular during the war years.) when the london air raids began he and the local school mistress took over the sorting out of child evacuees, and he housed a number of the adults. he had trenches dug in his orchard so that children from the school next door could take shelter. with war shortages of food parkes set to raising garden vegetables and gathering large quantities of apples from his trees which the marks & spencer stores sold for him so that they might become available to the public which was on short rations. at the same time he was traveling all over the country lecturing and preaching, and meeting in london with various committees. by late1941 james was overwhelmed by all of his various responsibilities while trying to write without any secretarial help. so dorothy wickings, to whom he was introduced by his friend bishop george bell, offered to give him “stop gap” help until he could find someone else. it worked out fine. so fine that they were married the following spring (1945). during the post-war years his output continued.13 parkes had uncovered the dark and inhuman path regarding jews and judaism which the church had followed for so long while it affirmed the trinitarian doctrine of god-in-three-persons. there had to be an alternative. as a thoroughgoing rationalist he also saw the necessity of affirming secular humanism as the deity’s third means of reaching people and opening new perspectives. hence parkes viewed the trinity as showing the “total involvement of god in the whole of his creation,” including in the scientific and political realms. in other words, the trinity represented the activity of god (rather than the nature of god). for this reason james substituted the word “channels” for the former word “persons.” how did this work out? judaism represents the “flow of divine purpose into the life of the community; christianity, the flow of divine purpose into the life of persons; and scientific humanism, the flow into the lives of humans as seekers for knowledge.”14 parkes argued for this way of interpreting the deity’s outreach to the world right to the end of his life, for he saw it as essential in helping to counter christian claims to exclusive access to divine truth, and as the way to place science and political activity within god’s realm. parkes never wrote or spoke about the holocaust; it was just too painful for him. the state of israel in 1948 parkes began writing and speaking about the relation of the jewish people to the “land of israel” then called palestine.15 there are four major books dealing with that topic along with many shorter writings and talks. the first is a history of palestine from a.d. 135 to modern times, (1949); the second, the story of jerusalem (1949); the third, end of an exile: israel, the 12 voyages of discoveries, 148. 13 an enemy of the people: antisemitism (new york: penguin books,1945); judaism and christianity (university of chicago press,1948); the foundations of judaism and christianity (london: vallentine mitchell, and chicago: quadrangle books,1960); a history of the jewish people (london: weidenfeld and nicolson,1962); antisemitism (london: vallentine mitchell,1963); prelude to dialogue (london: vallentine mitchell,1969). for complete listings of parkes’s output see the published bibliography of james parkes, (university of southampton, 1977). 14 voyages of discoveries, 223-24. 15 the word “palestinians” as used in these early years applied to jews living there, not to the local arab residents. eckardt, the rev. james parkes cp5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-9 jews and the gentile world (1954). two editions of that book have been issued subsequently in the u.s., most recently in 2004. an extensive appendix with eleven articles16 has been added. the fourth of the books about israel is whose land? a history of the peoples of palestine (1970 and 1971). in end of an exile james writes about the five roots of israel: judaism, the messianic hope, jewish history, the continuity of jewish life in the land of israel, and the relation of the jewry of palestine to the jewish world. he viewed this longawaited return of the jewish people to their homeland and to a nation of their own as vitally significant, even while he recognized the tenuousness of its existence. parkes became an ardent spokesman for the state, and visited there a few of times, initially in 1946. in 1970 the hebrew university of jerusalem recognized his decades of work on behalf of the jewish people with an honorary degree. in all, parkes published twenty-three books, plus multiple pamphlets and articles.17 in 1964 james moved not only the parkes library as a special collection to the university of southampton, but also himself and dorothy to the dorset village of iwerne minster. of course, james created a new garden. in his late years he wrote superb book reviews, giving praise unsparingly when it was due, and scathing denunciation when the work was unworthy. parkes’s roots and early years james parkes had grown up on the channel island of guernsey where there may well have been no jews at all at that time. even during world war ii there were only a small number, most of whom quickly retreated to england when the third reich’s army began to sweep across the low countries and france. one of the recent biographers sees james parkes as a heroic figure in guernsey’s past, but then notes what a total contrast to parkes was the islanders’ behavior during the second world war. not only did they collaborate to a considerable extent with the german nazi occupiers, but quite on their own deported to the continent the three or four remaining jews who then were sent directly to concentration camps.18 the parkes’ family crest shows an oak tree with a squirrel in the center of its branches.19 on his book plates he added “james william parkes.” the latin family motto (in translation) was “you may break, but you cannot bend me” (“fragas non flectes”). dr. parkes certainly lived up to the last part of that motto as over many decades much of the church and the scholarly community either ignored or severely criticized him. yet he never gave up. 16 the appendix contains seven articles about parkes: by robert a. everett (1980), reinhold niebuhr (1942), rose g. lewis (1981), richard harries (2003), malcolm lowe (2003), john pawlikowski (2003), rev. dr. petra heldt (2003). these are followed by james parkes’ article regarding the parkes library while it was still in barley (1960), and an afterword by tony kushner (2003) about the parkes library after it was situated at the university of southampton, along with university courses related to the subject. an “in memoriam” by a. roy eckardt written shortly after parkes died in 1981 completes the appendix. 17 a complete compilation of parkes’s writings with biographical notes (excluding book reviews and letters to the editor) was made by sidney sugarman and diana bailey and edited by david a. penne. it contains 329 items, is 132 pages in length including the index, and was published in 1977 by the university of southampton. 18 tony kushner, “foreword” in richmond, campaigner against antisemitism, p. viii. he notes that parkes is “written out of history” in guernsey. 19 a close friend commented on the squirrel by noting that it is a sort of collector, which james certainly lived up to. when james incorporated his library in the later years at barley, he substituted an open book for the squirrel. when the university of southampton accepted his large library collection of books, pamphlets, and journals, along with his own publications, unpublished sermons, talks, etc., it adapted that crest for the parkes library. eckardt, the rev. james parkes cp6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-9 james’ childhood on guernsey was quite idyllic in some ways, although he himself was frequently ill, and bedridden at times with splitting headaches. unfit for school sports he was free to explore the island and got to know its every feature.20 he had an older brother david and a sister mollie. david was killed in 1917 at paeschendael; and mollie in 1918 when a ship taking her to ireland from her english school was torpedoed. the tragedy of his youth was his mother’s death after a long illness when he was 13. as the family savings were depleted, and tomato growing was then “in the doldrums” his father sold their home (les fauconnaires ) and had a small bungalow built on a back corner of the land on which their former home stood. james later wrote that the cottage “was haunted almost from the year we built it” though the previous house, “a very ancient and very gloomy” place, overhung by huge trees, should have been the one to be haunted.21 because of the island’s history and location both french and english were spoken extensively, along with a local patois. the currency was another international matter: while the official coinage was a mythical coin called the livre tournois,22 french francs and british shillings casually mingled with belgian and swiss francs, italian liras, and greek drachmas. james (and other islanders) had no trouble doing all the complicated math making the various coins equivalent to the cost of an item in english sterling since they learned to do it while growing up.23 there was still another island curiosity: one day james opened the door to a strange woman who informed him that she had come to collect her fee (rente). when james said he didn’t know they owed any fee, she replied that he was too young to know as she only collected it once in fifty years. aghast and imagining the worst, james asked how much. it turned out to be only twopence halfpenny once every 50 years. however this inherited right gave her a number of other rights over the purchase or sale of the property. for by law land had to pass to all direct heirs even though only one of them would occupy the property. but that person owed fees (rentes) to the others, and to their descendants, and to the offspring of their brothers and sisters as well, and on indefinitely into the future. it is not surprising that when james’ father sold les fauconnaires and purchased a small plot of its land on which to build the cottage he spent considerable time and money to free himself from any such obligations. although parkes won a much coveted scholarship to hertford college at the university of oxford he had to wait to use it until after his part in the war ended. in january 1916 he signed up24 and crossed the channel in a march gale. before long he was accidentally poisoned by being given unboiled canal water to drink, which led to three months in an english hospital. then after receiving officer training he was sent to the front at the ypres salient, where in his last period in the line he was in command of the company simply because he was the only 20 in 1915 when most of the senior students and a number of the “masters’” (teachers) joined the army parkes became the senior sergeant in the officer training corps at the school. during their field days he and the other country boys could throw a “network of intelligence” over the island which could detect the movement of any of “the enemy.” 21 james’s account of the family members’ experiences of the ghost (“impersonating elemental”) appears as chapter two of his autobiography. our youngsters were fascinated hearing him recount the events in person. 22 the livre tournois was based on the value of corn in a specific market in the 14th century, and was equivalent to one shilling and two pence. 23 one of parkes’ first collections was of french five franc pieces from the first through the third year of the french republic. 24 the channel islands were subject to the conscription which was begun in 1916. but james (as also his brother david), volunteered. eckardt, the rev. james parkes cp7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-9 officer still alive. but he got a dose of mustard gas25 without realizing it until he went blind. after a series of hospitals (and recovery of his sight) he found himself in london during the zeppelin raids of autumn 1917. finally recuperated he was sent to the gas school in the north where he subsequently was put in command. here he was able to use his many creative teaching skills. he remained in the army for some time after the war ended even though as an accepted university student he could have been discharged very quickly. but the colonel had begged him to stay on and complete the job. however, following another collapse from the old effects of the gas, james finally was demobilized. the way that was accomplished would delight any film producer: he signed three forms as adjutant, demobilization officer, and the officer to be demobilized, because he actually was all these. (his colonel signed the fourth.) how else can i help you to get to “know” the person who was james parkes, alongside the pioneering scholar of the history of the relation of judaism and christianity? perhaps a further look at some of his additional unique qualities and oddities will help: – as an undergrad at oxford university he chose for his special subject “early christian art and architecture.” however, though it was on the faculty list, no one had undertaken the subject in 28 years, and no one at oxford was considered adequate to serve as a supervisor. so he went to the british museum and once a week met with the man in charge of that section (at oxford’s expense). when it came time for the exam james was found to have measles. consequently his faculty committee of five had to give him an oral exam (while keeping as far away from him as possible). after a rather stupid or insufficiently precise question was asked, which james queried thus showing his extensive knowledge, they hastily went their way, giving parkes a first (top grade). – while he was in the trenches he says he “was never a very good soldier,” and that he was terrified of “getting shell-shock.” in the midst of a german barrage he lost the last of his courage and expected to die any moment. “then something – i would say someone – which was certainly not me, just took complete charge of my inside, calmed it all down, and cooled it, and gave it back to me.” one of his recent biographers notes that this was the closest parkes ever came to a mystical experience, or at least one that he recognized as such.26 – james was always on the periphery of the church of england. in the mid-1930s when he was working for the student christian movement, he was accepted by the bishop of london as a candidate for ordination in the church of england. but he failed his ordination exam because the questions were too “mid-victorian” and he found it impossible to answer them with any seriousness. subsequently he refused to take an oral exam with his bishop’s chaplain. it was only with the intervention of the bishop of manchester, william temple, that he was finally ordained.27 – james frequently became impatient in committee meetings. he solved the problem by taking up elaborate needle work. this also helped his hands from closing up as a result of having acquired dupuytren’s contracture during the great war. toward the end of his life he was finally reduced to typing by grasping a short padded stick clenched in a hand he could no longer unclench. 25 see p. 8 for a later consequence. 26 colin richmond, campaigner against antisemitism, 39, with citation from god in a world at war, 60. 27 bishop temple (who later became the archbishop of canterbury) was to be one of parkes’s staunch supporters over the years. however, they differed totally about missionary work among the jewish people. eckardt, the rev. james parkes cp8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-9 – shortly after the third reich occupied czechoslovakia james learned from an irate rabbi that some czech jewish parents had entrusted their son to a man who would take him to england for his safety. when the rabbi went to visit the boy, he was told no jews were allowed to see him. it turned out the mother had been tricked into signing a document that gave permission for the boy to be raised as a christian. after three months’ investigation the boy was found living amidst one of “the extreme protestant missionary societies” and rescued. the search also found twenty-eight other boys similarly “kidnapped” (to use parkes’ own word) in this unscrupulous way. whenever james spoke about this incident he wept – in outrage at such an abuse of faith. – james was a non-conformist in many ways, including his way of dressing. he described his usual attire as “casual informality” which usually meant an open-neck shirt with a sweater.28 james was most formally dressed when he wore a suit with the anglican clerical collar, as he was dressed for his wedding. – one author describes him as “thoroughly rebellious, highly original, and inordinately cantankerous.” in the years that my husband and i knew him, we only saw the cantankerousness briefly expressed on one occasion – at a moment in his last years when i felt he was quite justified. the originality is clearly found in his published work, many letters, sermons, and radio talks. i’m not quite sure about the word “rebelliousness” though he surely was more than ready to disagree with any person or institution that refused to accept historical evidence which refuted the usual charges against jews and judaism. yet the amazing thing was james’ readiness to keep trying to get people to see things as he did. and somehow he remained hopeful and positive. – he was once offered a peerage so that he might be able to advance his cause in the house of lords. yet he refused it. james was always on the periphery of the church of england as his peers thought his work for the student christian movement was “too political.” and after he began his work on antisemitism, and then on the state of israel, churchmen saw him as a trouble maker. he was a lone voice until considerably late in his life. – he insisted “you cannot build good theology on bad history.” furthermore, good christian teaching has to be relentlessly truthful concerning the actual history and life of the church. the conclusion of roy eckardt’s eight page “in memoriam” of parkes is a fitting summing up: “[james] had few peers within the category historian-cum-theologian. nor do i know a more superb teller of tales…from parkes’s early years to his death (and beyond?), he has been living out the motto of his family crest,…‘you may break me, but i do not bend.’ his prodigious intellect was matched by his valor, his prophetic indignation, his steadfastness, his hopefulness. but the greatest of all was his empathy. he was not a jew, yet he was a jew.” 28 i can attest that the sweater was much needed most of the year in his home in barley. while there i usually felt half frozen despite wearing a warm tweed suit, a heavy sweater, and lined boots. eckardt, the rev. james parkes cp9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-29 “the bearers of unholy potential”: confessing church sermons on the jews and judaism william skiles wskiles@regent.edu regent university, virginia beach, va 23464 as moral and spiritual guides, clergymen in nazi germany had a unique opportunity to influence and inform germans under the domination of the nazi regime. if an ordinary german were to step inside a church, sit in the pew, and listen attentively to the pastor, what would he or she hear about the jews and judaism in this period of extraordinary exclusion and persecution? the german protestant churches fractured along theological fault lines when adolf hitler and the nazi regime came to power in january 1933. the popularity of a pro-nazi faction within the german protestant churches, the german christian movement, encouraged hitler to create a reichskirche (reich church) to unite all protestant churches under german-christian leadership in the summer of 1933. this religious movement sought to align christianity with national socialist principles, to praise hitler as germany’s savior, to strip christianity of its jewish elements, to apply racialist ideology to christianity, and to deny leadership or even membership in the church to christians of jewish descent. 1 for many, the german christian movement went too far, and in september 1933, the berlin-dahlem pastor martin niemöller organized the pfarrernotbund (pastors’ emergency league), which not a year later would become the confessing church with a membership of 7,000 pastors (of a total of 18,000 protestant pastors). 2 the william skiles is an assistant professor of history in the college of arts and sciences at regent university, virginia beach, virginia. this article is adapted from a chapter in my doctoral dissertation, preaching to nazi germany: the confessing church on national socialism, the jews, and the question of opposition. i would like to thank frank biess, deborah hertz, and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on this article. thanks also to robert ellison and the panel at the american society of church history conference in edmonton, in april 2016, for helpful critiques of the paper. 1 see doris bergen, twisted cross: the german christian movement in the third reich (chapel hill: north carolina press, 1996); kurt meier, die deutschen christen: das bild einer bewegng im kirchenkampf des dritten reiches (göttigen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 1964); and hans-joachim sonne, die politische theologie der deutschen christen (göttigen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 1982). 2 ernst christian helmreich, german churches under hitler: background, struggle and epilogue (detroit: wayne state university press, 1979), 156; victoria barnett, for the soul of the people: protestant protest against hitler (new york: oxford university press, 1992), 63. see also gerlach, who reports that 6,000 joined by the end of 1933. wolfgang gerlach, and the witnesses were silent: skiles: “the bearers of unholy potential” 2 single issue that united members of the confessing church was simply that they wanted to halt any national socialist infringements—whether by the regime or german-christians—into christian theology and practice. 3 this division was about the identity of the protestant churches in nazi germany. the confessing church claimed that the reichskirche had become a corrupted church, and subsequently named itself as the “true” protestant church of germany, faithful to the reformation confessions. along with the german-christians and the confessing church members, there were also “neutrals” who simply wished to stay out of the fray and not take a stand one way or the other in relation to the nazi regime. conflict within the german protestant churches played out in the pulpits. german-christian pastors preached on themes consonant with national socialist principles, such as the racial superiority of the “aryan” race, the destiny of the german nation, the greatness of germany’s “savior,” adolf hitler, and the perniciousness of the jewish people. confessing church pastors responded to these assertions by looking to the christian scriptures: christ is the only savior; the gospel is a universal message, for all people regardless of race or ethnicity; christians and jews are spiritual cousins, who share values, traditions, and sacred texts; and judaism and its scripture are the foundation of christianity and thus cannot be excised from the german churches. despite these differences, historians have demonstrated the pervasiveness of anti-jewish prejudice in all segments of the german population, including pastors affiliated with the german christian movement, the confessing church, and those who remained “neutral” regarding the nazi state. 4 wolfgang gerlach has convincingly argued that “most christians [in nazi germany] saw the jews as objects of either damnation or evangelization,” a position that drastically limited their concern for and actions in support of non-christian jews in germany. 5 historians have demonstrated the virtual silence of the german churches, and the confessing church as well, in coming to the aid of european jewry caught in nazi persecutions—a silence resulting from ingrained anti-jewish prejudice. 6 the confessing church and the persecution of the jews, translated and edited by victoria j. barnett (lincoln: university of nebraska, 2000), 33. 3 barnett, for the soul of the people, 5. 4 alon confino, a world without jews: the nazi imagination from persecution to genocide (new haven: yale university press, 2014); raul hillberg, the destruction of the european jews (new york: holmes & meier, 1985); robert michael, holy hatred: christianity, antisemitism, and the holocaust (new york: palgrave macmillan, 2006); christopher probst, demonizing the jews: luther and the protestant church in nazi germany (bloomington, in: indiana university press, 2012); and saul friedländer, who speaks of the “omnipresence of anti-semitism in most of the evangelical lutheran church,” in nazi germany and the jews, vol. 2 (new york: harperperennial, 2007), 56. 5 gerlach, and the witnesses were silent, 7. 6 gerlach, and the witnesses were silent; franklin hamlin littell, the crucifixion of the jews (new york: harper & row, 1975); franklin hamlin littell and hubert locke, eds., the german church struggle and the holocaust (detroit: wayne state university press, 1974); eberhard röhm and jörg thierfelder, juden-christen-deutsche 1933-1945, vols 1 & 2 (stuttgart , 1990); and marijke smid, deutscher protestantismus und judentum 1932/1933 (munich, 1990). more recently, peter fritzsche has argued that there was “general silence about the fate of the german jews” in the german churches. see fritzsche, life and death in the third reich (cambridge, ma: belknap, 2008), 119. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) furthermore, victoria barnett has revealed the great complexity and heterogeneity among confessing church members; the movement included moderates and radicals, nationalists and antisemites, and even nazi party members. the only thing they had in common “was their opposition to the absolute demands of nazi ideology on their religious faith.” 7 if we widen the scope of those who opposed the regime to resisters of the nazi regime and rescuers of jews, again, anti-jewish prejudice was widespread. 8 historians have demonstrated the pervasiveness of anti-semitism among the officer’s corps in the german military, even among those in the resistance who would conspire against the nazi regime to end the war and nazi policies of jewish persecution. 9 among christians who actively resisted the nazis and rescued jews, we find the same prejudice prevalent. 10 yet for rescuers and resisters, their sense of honor, duty, and concern and care for their country and the oppressed outweighed traditions of anti-jewish prejudice, compelling them to act and speak out against the nazi regime. i will demonstrate that confessing church pastors, as citizens who wanted to limit nazi infringements in the german protestant churches, also expressed anti-judaic prejudices, even in criticizing the nazi regime at the same time. regardless of the pervasive anti-jewish prejudice in the german churches, a nuanced picture emerges if we examine the sermons of the confessing church, a vastly underutilized source base. to better understand the pastors’ perspectives about jews and judaism, historians have long called for a thorough examination of sermons preached to the german masses. 11 even though gerlach’s argument about the silence of the confessing church in response to nazi persecution of jews has found support in the historiography, in my judgment it is impossible to answer the question of silence without first exploring the historical record of clergymen’s speech in the pulpit. 12 this article fills a gap in the historiography, and 7 barnett, for the soul of the people, 5. 8 see joachim fest, plotting hitler’s death: the story of the german resistance, translated by bruce little (new york: metropolitan, 1996), 150; theodore hamerow, on the road to the wolf’s lair: german resistance to hitler (cambridge, ma: harvard university press, 1997), 226; peter hoffmann, the history of the german resistance, 1933-1945, third edition (montreal and kingston: mcgill-queen’s university press, 1996), 318; robert michael, holy hatred: christianity, antisemitism, and the holocaust (new york: palgrave macmillan, 2006), 165; and louis eltscher, traitors or patriots? a story of the german anti-nazi resistance (bloomington, in: iuniverse: 2013), 64-66. 9 see for example, eltscher, traitors or patriots? 64-66; and hoffman, history of the german resistance, 318. 10 see for example, david gushee, righteous gentiles of the holocaust: genocide and moral obligation, 2 nd edition (st. paul, mn: paragon, 2003); and nechama tec’s two superb books, when light pierced the darkness: christian rescue of jews in nazi occupied poland (new york: oxford university press, 1986), and resistance: jews and christians who defied the nazi terror (new york: oxford university press, 2013). 11 see arthur cochrane, the church’s confession under hitler (philadelphia: westminster press, 1962); walter zvi bacharach, anti-jewish prejudices in german-catholic sermons, translated by chaya galai (lewiston: edwin mellon press, 1993); and robert ericksen and susannah heschel, “the german churches face hitler,” tel aviver jahrbuch für deutsche geschichte 23 (1994). 12 gerlach, and the witnesses were silent; franklin hamlin littell, the crucifixion of the jews; franklin hamlin littell and hubert locke, eds., the german church struggle and the holocaust; skiles: “the bearers of unholy potential” 4 aims to explore the messages about jews and judaism preached to the german people. my research indicates that confessing church pastors occasionally expressed comments either in support of or critical of the jews and judaism from the pulpit. i wish not simply to examine what the pastors said; instead, i wish to explore the reasons why they expressed these views. the motives for these expressions often served a broader purpose than simply relating personal views of jews and judaism. these comments from the pulpit reveal that the pastors sometimes wished to connect christians to the history, traditions, and values of jews. they sought to preserve the identity and theology of the german churches in the context of nazi persecution and the german-christian “nazification” or “dejudaization” of the protestant churches. most surprisingly, the pastors also used anti-judaic statements as a way to criticize the nazi regime and its leadership for espousing a racial ideology of “chosen-ness” that undermined basic christian beliefs. thus, the pastors’ comments about jews and judaism most often had a clear purpose that in some way served the interests of the confessing church. furthermore, as will become evident, the prejudice expressed by confessing church pastors was predominantly religious in nature, using anti-judaic tropes to characterize the jewish people and their religion. yet the explicit religious prejudice at times incorporates implicit antisemitic expressions, revealing the blurred boundaries between anti-judaic religious prejudice and racial antisemitism. lastly, my analysis corroborates the research by peter hoffmann and ian kershaw, among others, in demonstrating that the german churches were among the only institutions in germany able to withstand nazi “coordination” to the regime and its values, thus giving them a degree of freedom to publicly criticize the nazi regime and its ideology. 13 after searching archives, libraries, and used bookstores throughout germany, i analyzed 910 sermons by ninety-five confessing church pastors—all the sermons i could confirm were delivered by confessing church members. 14 while some sermons do not clearly identify the location in which they were delivered, we can determine that the sermons were preached throughout nazi germany, in small towns and large cities throughout the various regions, from schleswigholstein in the north, to bavaria in the south; from westphalia in the west, to saxony in the east. of all the sermons, 717 were found in book or pamphlet collections published either during or shortly after the nazi dictatorship. the eberhard röhm and jörg thierfelder, juden-christen-deutsche 1933-1945, vols. 1 & 2; and marijke smid, deutscher protestantismus und judentum 1932/1933. 13 see barnett, for the soul of the people, 181-185; hoffmann, the history of german resistance, 13; ian kershaw, hitler, the germans, and the final solution (new haven: yale university press, 2008), 166. 14 the sermons were all delivered by members of the confessing church, from a variety of positions, including newly ordained pastors, superintendents, and theologians. many well-known confessing church leaders contributed sermons to the source base for this research, such as hans asmussen (fifty-eight sermons), karl barth (thirty), dietrich bonhoeffer (fifty-six), friedrich von bodelschwingh (thirty-nine), helmut gollwitzer (nine), and hans iwand (eighteen). 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) remaining 211 were unpublished sermons found in archives. 15 some of the sermons are dated, while others lack dating or time references. many can only be categorized generally as pre-war, or within a certain time frame (e.g. 1941-1943). so it is virtually impossible to determine how many sermons were delivered in any given year or month. however, i have determined that only 255 of the 910 sermons were delivered during world war ii. when war broke out, pastors began to leave the pulpits and join the war, either voluntarily or involuntarily through the draft. for example, christian helmreich argues that by 1941, 40% of protestant pastors were mobilized in the army or navy. by october 1944, 45% of all protestant pastors and 98% of non-ordained vicars and candidates for ministry were mobilized for war. this mean fewer qualified pastors to preach on the home front, and thus fewer sermons in the historical record. 16 i have found that seventy sermons of the 910 in the collection expressed views that contributed to how their congregations perceived judaism and the jews of nazi germany. the expressions were evenly divided in support of and against the jewish people. in forty sermons, confessing church pastors made anti-judaic statements that corroborated the nazi antisemitic narrative that the jews and their religion are inferior. at the same time, in another forty sermons, pastors expressed support and solidarity with the jewish people, honored judaism as a foundation of the christian religion, and even spoke out against the nazi persecution of the jews (ten sermons included both comments supportive and critical of jews, and thus were only counted once in the total of seventy sermons). these sermons reveal not only ambivalence among confessing church pastors about judaism and the jewish people, but a millennia-long ingrained prejudice that often came to the surface. as some of these sermons demonstrate, even when a pastor supported the jewish people or affirmed the value of judaism as a basis of christianity, anti-judaic comments undermine these messages. my research is significant, first, because it is the only study to extensively treat expressions of support for jews as well as the nature of anti-jewish prejudice expressed from the christian pulpits in nazi germany. in short, my analysis treats seriously sermons as a source base for understanding christians’ perceptions of jews and judaism in nazi germany. to underscore how unique this approach is, i have found only one monograph to treat the sermons of german churches, the israeli historian walter zvi bacharach’s anti-jewish prejudices in germancatholic sermons (2000). 17 while bacharach examines catholic sermons of the nineteenth century, and not protestant sermons from 1933-1945, he concludes 15 the archives i utilized were the evangelisches zentralarchiv in berlin, the landeskirchliches archiv der evangelischen kirche von westfalen in bielefeld, the archiv der evangelischen kirchen im rheinland in düsseldorf, the archive of the national library of scotland in edinburgh, and the university of iowa libraries, special collections in iowa city. 16 but we should add to this also that sermons were likely destroyed in the war. as i learned conducting my research, the war might have led to the destruction of sermons by leading figures, such as gerhard jacobi of the gedenkniskirche in berlin. these sermons may have been lost from the historical record. 17 bacharach, walter zvi. anti-jewish prejudices in german-catholic sermons, translated by chaya galai. lewiston: edwin mellon press, 1993. skiles: “the bearers of unholy potential” 6 that catholic theology as expressed and disseminated in sermons throughout germany greatly contributed to the prevailing view that jews were inferior, criminal, spiritually corrupt, and thus deserving of divine punishment. 18 however, more scholarship needs to be done to judge whether the nazi era marks a shift in the expressions about jews and judaism in the protestant churches from the weimar or imperial eras. second, this research is significant because it fills a lacuna in the historiography by clarifying the nature of anti-jewish prejudice in confessing church pulpits, and demonstrates that it was predominantly religious in nature (though at times racial prejudice comes to the surface as well), in stark contrast to the virulent antisemitism espoused by pastors in the german christian movement or by members of the nazi regime and its propaganda machine. third, this research reveals that confessing church pastors employed anti-jewish prejudice, not simply to denigrate the jews, but to purposely challenge the nazi regime and its racial policies and ideology. and fourth, this research challenges, or rather nuances, the common argument that pastors of the german churches remained silent as their jewish neighbors faced unprecedented persecution by the nazi regime. while the support of the confessing church pastors for jews was admittedly meager, we now have a greater understanding of what they actually said from the pulpit in support of the jews and judaism in nazi germany. 1. confessing church expressions of anti-judaism after analyzing 910 sermons of the confessing church, i found that forty contain messages that express prejudice against the jewish people or judaism, voiced by fifteen of the ninety-five confessing church pastors examined for this study. 19 while the number of sermons may be small, they are significant to our understanding of the messages confessing church pastors delivered publicly about the jews and judaism. all forty sermons that express prejudice against the jewish people or judaism reflect traditional christian anti-judaism, specifically the following six elements: first, the general view that the jews are a stubborn or wayward people; second, the view that christianity is superior because it emphasizes grace and freedom over judaism’s purported emphasis on law and works; third, the claim that the jews are a stubborn people for rejecting jesus, or that they are actually responsible for putting him to death (and thus, the charge of deicide); fourth, the perception that god has or is currently punishing the jews for the rejection of je 18 bacharach, anti-jewish prejudices in german-catholic sermons, 130-133. 19 the names of the pastors are as follows: karl barth (2 times); friedrich von bodelschwingh (3); dietrich bonhoeffer (1); friedrich delekat (1); otto dibelius (1); hermann diem (1); robert frick (1) heinrich grüber (1); hanns lilje (1); paul hinz (4); martin niemöller (7); julius sammentreuther (8); hermann sasse (1); karl von schwartz (4); hans von soden (1). of the forty sermons that expressed anti-judaic sentiments, thirty-one (76%) were based on new testament texts. as we will see later, pastors who expressed support for the jews and judaism used the hebrew bible much more often (47%). 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) sus; fifth, the belief that upon the rejection of jesus and the establishment of the church, the jews have ceased to be the people of god; and sixth, a generalized sentiment that hopes for the mass conversion of the jews, reflecting a belief in the inferiority of judaism and the lack of salvation for the jewish people. 20 the sermons of confessing church pastors reveal anti-judaism or non-rational religious prejudice, which is based on religious convictions or interpretations of scripture and history. 21 yet at times pastors used anti-judaic tropes that implicitly reference antisemitism, an ideology that asserts the racial inferiority or perniciousness of the jewish people. 22 for example, the assertion that the jews have a history of “waywardness” in rejecting christ from the first century to the twentieth presumes not simply a religious denial of christ, but implies a biological predisposition that passes from one generation to the next. thus, these sermons reveal that the line between anti-judaism and antisemitism can easily become blurred. a faith-based anti-judaism can easily become a racially-based antisemitism. 23 nevertheless, i have found no evidence of antisemitic expressions that stand alone without mention of religious prejudice. in other words, the primary basis of the anti-jewish prejudice is religious conviction, which at times implicitly draws on antisemitic tropes. the basis of the prejudice is not racial ideology. these sermons reveal continuity in the anti-judaic prejudice expressed by clergymen throughout the history of the christianity. thus, in the interests of efficiency and precision in examining specifically religious primary sources, it is important to maintain a distinction between centuries-old religious anti-judaism and modern racial antisemitism. i will use the terms “anti-judaism” and “antisemitism” as two forms of prejudice, though forms that can and often do interact. we must also keep in mind the larger context in which anti-jewish prejudice was expressed in the german protestant churches. from the start, the main concern of the confessing church was to oppose the attempts of the german christian movement to “nazify” the churches by attempting to institutionalize a racial criterion, stipulated in an “aryan paragraph,” to be adopted into church law throughout the german states, thus limiting church leadership, ordination, and even membership to “aryan” germans only. 24 the german protestant churches 20 see james carroll, constantine’s sword: the church and the jews (new york: houghton mifflin, 2001); léon poliakov, the history of anti-semitism, vol. 1, from the time of christ to the court of the jews, translated by richard howard (new york: vanguard, 1965); dan cohn-sherbok, the crucified jew: twenty centuries of christian anti-semitism (grand rapids: eerdmans, 1997). 21 see langmuir, history, religion, and antisemitism, 152, 252-255; and michael, holy hatred, 8284. 22 see michael burleigh and wolfgang wippermann, the racial state: germany 1933-1945 (cambridge university press, 1991); and john weiss, ideology of death: why the holocaust happened in germany (chicago: ivan r. dee, 1996). 23 michael, holy hatred, 5-6. see also carroll, constantine’s sword, 22; and daniel goldhagen, a moral reckoning: the role of the catholic church in the holocaust and its unfulfilled duty of repair (new york: knopf, 2002), 78-9. 24 see barnett, for the soul of the people, 128-129; bergen, twisted cross, 88-93; gutteridge, german evangelical church and the jews, 91-96; and helmreich, german churches under hitler, 144147. skiles: “the bearers of unholy potential” 8 vigorously debated the “aryan paragraph” and they took various positions, which at times reveal anti-jewish prejudice. regional churches sought the advice of theological faculty, and two of the more well-known responses were from the theological faculty at the universities of marburg and erlangen. the marburg faculty explicitly and unambiguously opposed the “aryan paragraph”: any person of jewish descent, who accepts christianity and is baptized, is a full-fledged member of the church. 25 in contrast, the erlangen faculty’s response was ambiguous and equivocal in its answer: historically the church has required biological requirements of faculty (e.g. age, sex, and physical capabilities), so the church could add other biological requirements; at the same time, for a church to prosper, it would help for a pastor to be of the same people as his congregation (a bavarian leading bavarians, for example); perhaps separate churches for jewish christians might be the answer. 26 one of the very few times that the confessing church leadership stridently condemned the antisemitism of the nazi regime is the memorandum of may 28, 1936, issued by the provisional church government and sent directly to adolf hitler. though meant to be a private memorandum for hitler, the press got its hands on it and published it at home and abroad. 27 the letter criticized the regime on a range of issues, including the problems of disunity among the protestant churches, the deification of the nazi state and hitler himself, and concerns about de-christianization in nazi germany. 28 but its condemnation of antisemitism was especially striking, if only because it was so rare a criticism delivered directly to hitler: “when within the concepts of national socialist weltanschauung (worldview) an anti-semitism is forced on christians which demands hatred of the jews (judenhaas), there stands opposed to this the christian command of love your neighbor.” 29 the nazi regime reacted with vehemence, arresting several pastors and theologians responsible for the letter, including a jewish man, friedrich weissler, an attorney who worked with the provisional church government, and who was sent to sachsenhausen and murdered. the nazi reaction reveals the repercussions of speaking out publicly against the nazi regime, especially against its persecution of the jews. nevertheless, the consensus among historians is that throughout the third reich, confessing church pastors limited their concerns about nazi racial policies to their impact on jewish christians—to christians of jewish descent within the churches—and failed to concern themselves about the persecution of jews as jews under the nazi regime. 30 in the context of nazi germany, one could argue 25 barnet, for the soul of the people, 129; and helmreich, german churches under hitler, 145. 26 gerlach, and the witnesses were silent, 39-41; green, lutherans against hitler, 133-142; and helmreich, german churches under hitler, 145-146. 27 helmreich, german churches under hitler, 200-201. 28 barnett, for the soul of the people, 83-84; helmreich, german churches under hitler, 199. 29 quoted in helmreich, german churches under hitler, 200. 30 see kenneth c. barnes, “dietrich bonhoeffer and hitler’s persecution of the jews,” in betrayal: german churches and the holocaust, edited by robert p. ericksen and susannah heschel (minneapolis: fortress press, 1999), 128; barnett, for the soul of the people, 142; robert p. ericksen, 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) that anti-jewish expressions from the pulpit indirectly serve to support nazi racial policies because they are clearly aimed at criticizing the jewish community. it is striking to note that the religious prejudice expressed from the confessing church pulpits often serve a specific purpose, whether to demonstrate the spiritual or moral superiority of christians to jews, or remarkably, to criticize nazis and national socialism. let us start with the former, sermons that demonstrate the superiority of christianity and the inferiority of judaism, a common theme not only in the history of the nazi era, but in the history of christian anti-jewish prejudice through the centuries. 31 a sermon by pastor paul hinz of kolberg illustrates this theme well. hinz was a leading member of the confessing church in pomerania, even serving as a leader on the pomeranian provincial council of brethren (bruderrat, or governing council). on june 20, 1935, hinz delivered a sermon that uses a christian interpretation of history to criticize jews and judaism. keep in mind, this sermon comes after the nazi regime already began its persecutions against german jews, such as the nazi-sponsored boycott of all jewish shops on april 1, 1933, and the passage of the civil service law of april 7, 1933, effectively prohibiting jews and socialists from national, state, and local civil service employment, including for example, school teachers, professors, and government officials and employees. 32 hinz took as his biblical passage romans 10:1-5, wherein the apostle paul both expresses his displeasure with the jews’ “ignorance of the righteousness that comes from god,” and also his hope that they will one day experience salvation in christ. but hinz takes paul’s criticism even further, and argues that because israel rejected christ in “stubborn blindness” to god, israel was no longer god’s chosen people, but instead “under the judgment of god’s wrath.” 33 he contends that god cast the jews aside and welcomed all peoples throughout the world into the church. furthermore, he contends that the jews trust in their own descent, in blood and race, and in their own chosen-ness—perhaps indirectly comparing complicity in the holocaust: churches and universities in nazi germany (new york: cambridge university press, 2012), 106; and gerlach, and the witnesses were silent, 7. 31 my analysis follows the work of historians such as baranowski, ericksen, hayes, among others, that anti-judaism was a widespread characteristic of early 20 th century german protestantism. see shelley baranowski, “the confessing church and antisemitism: protestant identity, german nationhood, and the exclusion of the jews,” in robert p. ericksen and susannah heschel, eds., betrayal: german churches and the holocaust (minneapolis: fortress press, 1999); kenneth barnes, nazism, liberalism, and christianity: protestant social thought in germany and great britain 1925-1937 (lexington, ky: university press of kentucky, 1991), 140-141; doris bergen, “catholics, protestants, and antisemitism in nazi germany,” central european history 27 (1994): 329-348; wolfgang gerlach, and the witnesses were silent: the confessing church and the persecution of the jews, translated and edited by victoria barnett (lincoln, nb: university of nebraska press, 2000), 236; stephen r. haynes, “who needs enemies? jews and judaism in anti-nazi religious discourse,” church history 71:2 (june 2002), 341-367; and uriel tal, “on modern lutheranism and jews,” in year book of the leo baeck institute (london: secker & warburg, 1985), 203-213. 32 kirk, nazi germany, 41-42. 33 paul hinz, sermon manuscript on romans 10:1-15, 30 june 1935, collected sermons of paul hinz, evangelisches zentralarchiv, berlin (eza) 766/38. skiles: “the bearers of unholy potential” 10 them to nazis (more of this to come). but hinz does not stop here. he reminds his congregation of the anti-judaic theme of the jews’ curse in matthew 27:25. according to the gospel writer, “the jews” demanded that pilate crucify jesus and free barabbas: “[jesus’] blood be on us and on our children!” this curse, hinz contends, has “uncannily” been accomplished throughout history and even until this day. 34 the sermon takes a biblical text that is critical of jews, and adds layer upon layer of traditional christian anti-judaic theology that ends with a “proof” for all to see and verify—the punishment of the jews in history. these comments are also a good example of how religious anti-judaic prejudice can imply racial antisemitism: jewish “stubborn blindness” has been passed down biologically from one generation to the next; the “blood guilt” carries on to the modern age resulting in god’s continued punishment. just as concerning are expressions that blame “the jews” for rejecting or killing christ because of their supposed hatred, revealing their spiritual or moral inferiority. i have found fourteen examples of this trope by nine different pastors. 35 these expressions vary widely in judgment and blame. many of these refer simply and as a matter of fact to the jews’ hatred of jesus. four of these retell the trial and crucifixion of jesus and in so doing argue that “the jews” hated jesus and rejected him. for example, in a sermon during the second world war, pastor otto dibelius, the general superintendent of the brandenburg land church, calls the crucifixion a “great [attempt] of human hatred,” and pastor bodelschwingh said in 1944 that “jewish hatred of christ is a contagious force.” 36 other pastors were more explicit that the jews actually killed christ. this point is tremendously significant as the charge of deicide was often used during the holocaust to justify violence against the jewish people. 37 the historian irving greenberg has noted “literally hundreds” of instances where this kind of statement was made to justify antisemitic violence. 38 the sermons that express jewish hatred for jesus do not aim for historical accuracy, but paint the entire jewish population as opponents if not outright enemies of christ and christianity. while these statements about jewish hatred for jesus may suggest to christians listening in nazi germany that their jewish neighbors still harbor this hatred, the implication may not have been intended. nevertheless, we should remember the context in which these sermons were delivered. as nazi persecutions changed from public policies of exclusion from 34 hinz, sermon manuscript on romans 10:1-15, eza 766/38. 35 thirteen of the 14 sermons were based on new testament texts, while only one was based on the hebrew bible (from the book of micah). at the same time, eleven of the fourteen were based on the gospels (and five from the book of matthew). this evidence suggests that confessing church pastors interpreted the new testament, and especially the gospels, in a way conducive to the most destructive of anti-judaic tropes, that the jews were responsible for the death of jesus of nazareth, and that god had cursed them as a punishment. 36 friedrich von bodelschwingh, lebendig und frei: predigten, 2. folge (bielefeld: verlagshandlung der anstalt bethel, 1947), 170. 37 michael, holy hatred, 182. 38 irving greenberg, “cloud of smoke, pillar of fire,” in auschwitz: beginning of a new era? edited by eva fleischner (new york: ktav, 1997), 308. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) german social and civil life, to the increasing “aryanization” of jewish property and businesses in 1937, to the ghettoization and finally extermination of jews during world war ii, the effects of these sermons on the german public could only have legitimated nazi oppression and perhaps even cooled the consciences of christians who may have been concerned for their jewish neighbors. christian anti-judaic theology served to “numb” christians to the suffering and persecution of their jewish neighbors, and it became a hindrance for them to stand up and protest the nazi dictatorship, to act on behalf of their jewish neighbors. moreover, anti-jewish sentiments fractured relationships even within congregations. robert gellately’s study of the attitudes of germans throughout the nazi period concerning the regime and its treatment of jews reveals that many “ordinary” christians supported nazi measures, such as the decree of 15 september 1941 forcing jews aged seven and older to wear the yellow star. 39 gellately writes of the consternation of many christians when the yellow star revealed just how many christians of jewish descent attended church services: “in some parts of the country, protestant churchgoers were displeased to note how many (converted) jews went to church, and demanded of their ministers that they should not be asked to take communion next to these jews, whom they wanted forbidden to attend common services.” 40 anti-jewish beliefs resulted in the “shunning” of christians of jewish descent, the loss of fellowship and mutual support, and the restriction of rites and sacraments, including communion. 41 if we break down the years in which confessing church pastors expressed these anti-judaic comments, several important observations can be made. first, twenty-eight of the thirty-five sermons, whose dates are known, were expressed between 1933 and 1939, prior to the outbreak of world war ii. also, more than half of the expressions were given between 1933 and 1936. given the low figures we are working with, we cannot claim that these percentages are representative of all confessing church sermons. yet they indicate a decrease in the frequency of anti-judaic expressions from 1936 until the end of the war, suggesting that pastors may have wanted to “tone down” criticisms of jews as nazi persecutions increased. furthermore, most of the sermons that speak of “the jews’” rejection or killing of christ were delivered before the start of world war ii. nine of the fourteen occurred between 1933 and the outbreak of war, while four occurred during the 39 robert gellately, backing hitler: consent and coercion in nazi germany (new york: oxford university press, 2001), kindle edition, location 3387. 40 gellately, backing hitler, kindle edition, location 3387. in addition, helmreich reports that in 1939 “non-aryan” christians totaled about 14,000 people – the largest number being lutheran at 10,461. add to this number approximately 5,000 “mischlinge,” and the result is a small but significant group. see helmreich, german churches under hitler, 329-330. 41 barnett, for the soul of the people, 132. see also bankier, germans and the final solution, 124125. bankier contends that even in 1941, upon the introduction of the yellow star in germany, many were “surprised how many jews still lived in germany, and praised the labeling, which brought them into the open.” skiles: “the bearers of unholy potential” 12 war itself. 42 given the general decrease in the 910 extant sermons we have that were delivered during the war compared to the pre-war period, this proportion may not be surprising. however, eight of the sermons occur in just the first few years of the nazi regime, into 1936, just after the nazi persecution of the jewish people reached a new stage in the nuremberg laws of 1935, which provided a legal basis for legal discrimination throughout the nazi dictatorship. 43 the nuremberg laws stripped jews of citizenship, prohibited sexual relations and marriage with “aryans,” and further restricted the rights of jews, such as the prohibition of jews to fly the german flag. the laws represent another step in the permanent exclusion of jews from german public life. the fact that about two-thirds of the sermons that contain anti-judaic expressions were delivered in 1939 or earlier, may reflect a growing awareness of the nazi persecution of the jews and a subsequent desire to limit criticism toward them, or it may simply reflect a desire among pastors to adjust the content of their sermons in wartime. let us look at another example of a sermon that expresses criticism for jewish hatred of jesus, this one from the preeminent leader of the confessing church, martin niemöller. in a passion service only three sundays before easter in 1937, he preached a sermon on pilate’s question to “the masses” at the passover celebration, would they rather free “christ or barabbas?” (mt 27:17). the first paragraph is striking because of the nonchalance with which niemöller expresses what he considers a commonplace perception: [w]hen we hear the story of christ’s passion we have a feeling of sympathy… with the figure of this roman, pilate, whereas we most emphatically dissociate and separate ourselves from all the others who helped to bring about the death of jesus. the cold hatred of the jewish authorities fills us with horror, the groundless and unfathomable treachery of judas makes us shudder, and the pusillanimous fanaticism of the multitude rouses our contempt [emphasis added]. 44 niemöller does not discuss his view of the jews again in this sermon, but this first paragraph alone reveals what may be a commonly held view in germany that the jews—its leaders and the masses—were responsible for the execution of jesus. yet niemöller invokes in the congregation sympathy for pilate, the roman governor who actually had jesus tortured and crucified as an insurrectionist. remarkably, most of the anti-judaic comments in these forty sermons were not from pastors on the fringe of the confessing church, expressing views that would have embarrassed their colleagues. in fact, many of these pastors are widely considered heroes of the confessing church. for example, dietrich bonhoeffer 42 one of the fourteen does not provide enough information to determine if it was delivered before or during the war. 43 helmreich, german churches under hitler, 190. 44 martin niemöller, god is my fuehrer: being the last twenty-eight sermons, translated by jane lymburn (new york: philosophical library, 1941), 169. 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) ran an underground seminary before participating in a conspiracy against hitler and the regime. and martin niemöller courageously spoke out against nazi intrusions in church administration and theology, and also against persecutions of its pastors. they were admired leaders in their movement, and yet they expressed anti-judaic views that could only have alienated christians from their jewish neighbors or confirmed their already-existing antisemitism. if the best and the brightest of confessing church pastors, the most courageous and insightful, made such anti-judaic statements in their sermons, we can conclude along with baranowski, gerlach, and haynes, among others, that these sentiments were deeply ingrained in christian theology and that they were widespread. 45 while we find many examples of confessing church pastors using antijudaic tropes to demonstrate the moral superiority of christians over jews, or of christianity over judaism generally, another common and quite remarkable usage of anti-judaic expressions is to compare jews to nazis, or judaism to national socialism. confessing church pastors would take common anti-judaic perceptions of jews as a wayward people obsessed with race, and use them to criticize nazis and national socialism for similar “sins.” consider an example from pastor karl von schwartz from braunschweig, who published a sermon late in 1933, but possibly preached earlier, in which he argued that, “the whole history of israel from sinai to the pharisees is a history of waywardness. and if today this people had all the gold in the world and all the power in the world, the waywardness will remain: it should be a light to lighten the gentiles… also the aryan race is no exception, despite all the idealization.” 46 schwartz presents the jews as stubborn in their own beliefs. the implication is that this people is not to be trusted, but kept at a distance as a sign to the world of a people gone astray. this sermon is an example of how anti-judaic prejudice can easily transition to antisemitic expression. “waywardness” is explicitly presented as a spiritual condition, but the implication is that it is biologically passed down from generation to generation to “be a light to the gentiles.” and furthermore, the assertion that the waywardness would remain even if the jews “had all the gold in the world” implies the antisemitic trope of jews as a greedy, profiteering people in control of the world’s financial systems. in this example by schwartz, the antijudaic prejudice provides the foundation for the antisemitic trope. but having said all this, schwartz continues and asserts that “aryans,” despite their glorification in nazi propaganda, must take a lesson from the jewish people: even the “aryan race” is in need of repentance and must humbly submit to and follow god or face god’s punishment. schwartz’s implication is that the two groups are not all that different—both are wayward and need to submit to god. 45 see baranowski, “the confessing church and antisemitism”; barnes, nazism, liberalism, and christianity, 140-141; bergen, “catholics, protestants, and antisemitism in nazi germany,” 329-348; gerlach, and the witnesses were silent, 236; haynes, “who needs enemies?” 341-367; and tal, “on modern lutheranism and jews,” 203-213. 46 karl von schwartz, gottes wort an gottes volk: ein jahrgang predigten (braunschweig: hellmuth wollermann verlagsbuchhandlung, 1933), 58. skiles: “the bearers of unholy potential” 14 the historian uriel tal has shown—using sources as varied as academic lectures, private letters, and published articles and books—that the leadership of the confessing church commonly made comparisons between jews and nazis in their conceptions of race and volk, as a means to criticize the nazi regime, its leadership, and ideology, especially after the mid-1930s. 47 likewise, stephen haynes has demonstrated the common usage of anti-judaic tropes in the anti-nazi rhetoric among leaders in the german churches, especially in the writings of dietrich bonhoeffer. 48 moreover, the criticism of comparing jews to nazis as both creators of a false ethno-nationalist identity implicitly draws on the traditional antisemitic trope of “tribalism,” or the belief in the superiority of one’s own racial or ethnic group over others. 49 my research demonstrates that confessing church leaders made these same criticisms in sermons as part of worship services, and not simply in the secular public sphere. pastors utilized overt anti-judaic tropes with implicit antisemitic overtones, in a religious context, to condemn a political system and its ideology. confessing church pastors not only used anti-judaic tropes to condemn those outside the german churches, but those within, specifically the pro-nazi german christian movement. the sermons reveal a deepening rift in german protestantism between the german christian movement and the nascent confessing church. the confrontation came to a head in november 1933, in the berlin sportspalast, where the headline speaker, a german-christian leader named dr. reinhold krause, gave a speech attacking the hebrew bible for its legalistic morality and condemning the apostle paul for “judaizing” christianity, ideas that would greatly increase in popularity among the german christian movement by the end of the 1930s. 50 following krause, members of the german christian movement condemned “rabbi paul” and his theology “with its scapegoats and inferiority complex.” 51 while sermons of the confessing church reveal centuries-old anti-jewish sentiments, such as the jewish rejection of christ, the sermons of the german christian movement overtly expressed racial prejudice meant to exclude jews from the church and german society. for example, one sermon by heinrich kalb from wiessenburg, delivered in 1937, entitled juden christ – deutscher christ? (jewish christian – german christian?), argues for the separation of jewish christians from “aryan” congregations, which he sums up in the phrase, “ger 47 uriel tal, “on structures of political theology and myth in germany prior to the holocaust,” in yehuda bauer and nathan rotenstreich, eds., the holocaust as historical experience (new york, 1981), 122. 48 haynes, “who needs enemies?” 350-367. 49 haynes, “who needs enemies?” 344-347. 50 bergen, twisted cross, 17. see also susannah heschel, the aryan jesus: christian theologians and the bible in nazi germany (princeton, nj: princeton, 2008). heschel examines the history of how the german-christians established the institute for the study and eradication of jewish influence on german religious life in 1939 with the aim to “aryanize” jesus and the new testament. 51 bergen, twisted cross, 158. 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) many for germans, and also in the church!” 52 he and those in the german christian movement wished to purify the german churches of all “foreign” elements, particularly church leaders of “foreign” backgrounds. 53 “only german men may speak to the german people from german pulpits; not turks, chinese, or even jews!” 54 the german christian movement so transformed the theology, practice, and ethics of christianity through the racial principle of “aryan” supremacy that it substantively altered the meaning and message of christianity. to the germanchristian, the gospel is not universal, baptism is effective only for “aryans,” and the church must be racially segregated. in other words, the movement engaged in a process of changing the fundamental elements of christianity, transforming the religion into a nazi-based organization. in fact, to many christians in nazi germany, the german christian movement was “barely recognizable as christian.” 55 for example, the german christian movement celebrated hitler as a savior of the german people, and made efforts to transform christianity into a volkish religion. the german christian movement rejected the canonicity of the hebrew bible, and made controversial claims about the new testament, such as the assertion that jesus was an “aryan,” and that a core element of the gospel message was hatred of the jews. 56 susannah heschel has argued that germanchristians spearheaded the formation of an organization in april 1939, the institute for the study and eradication of jewish influence on german religious life (institut zur erforschung und beseitigung des jüdisches einflusses auf das deutsche kirchliche leben), a government-sponsored and church-supported institute dedicated to eradicating jewish influence from christianity. 57 confessing church pastors responded publicly in the pulpits to what they considered gross heresy in the german-christian movement, though at times invoking anti-judaic tropes. for example, in late august 1935, niemöller preached a sermon entitled, “the office of the church,” in which he combats the germanchristians and their attack on the hebrew bible. but in so doing, he asserts that ancient judaism was legalistic and works-oriented; he comments that paul’s opponents are christians “of jewish origin” and thus “set a particularly high value on the law.” 58 he stated this not because he wanted his congregation to know that first-century judaism was legalistic, but to demonstrate to the modern-day critics of paul that the apostle himself fought against judaism’s legalism. this is the crux of the problem for niemöller. if the german christian movement condemns paul and his “jewish” teaching, and if paul’s writings are in part foundational for the christian faith, then the christian faith itself is gravely undermined. niemöl 52 heinrich kalb, „judenchrist – deutscher christ?“ in deutsches christentum, dargestellt in predigt und vortrag (nürnberg: fr. städler, 1937), 21. 53 bergen, twisted cross, 82-83. 54 kalb, „judenchrist – deutscher christ?“ in deutsches christentum, 19. 55 bergen, twisted cross, 2. 56 bergen, twisted cross, 142-154. 57 susannah heschel, the aryan jesus: christian theologians and the bible in nazi germany (princeton, nj: princeton university press, 2008), 3, 13. 58 niemöller, here stand i! 200. skiles: “the bearers of unholy potential” 16 ler relates how he hears all over germany calls for the german evangelical church to free itself from the “dead formulas and dogmas” that prevent it from giving and sustaining life. 59 alas, niemöller admits, christians are not free to just toss out whatever in the biblical texts is not to their tastes. he concludes that christians must stand before the hebrew bible, before the “inexorable will” of god, and respond to his grace and mercy. 60 the irony of course is that in defending paul and the hebrew bible, he diminishes the scriptural foundation of judaism (in the hebrew bible) as legalistic and impoverished. thus, confessing church pastors such as niemöller critiqued attempts by members of the german christian movement to eliminate the jewish foundations of christianity by drawing on anti-judaic ideas. 61 the sermons that express this anti-judaic trope affirm an existing hierarchy that differentiates the spiritually superior from the spiritually inferior. though the prejudice is not racial in nature, it contributes to the alienation of jews to christians in nazi germany. but perhaps the most dangerous anti-judaic trope used by confessing church pastors in nazi germany was that god has or is currently punishing the jews for the rejection of jesus. 62 remarkably, pastors used this trope not simply to criticize jews, but to condemn pro-nazi supporters as well. for example, a sermon by dietrich bonhoeffer identifies germans of his day with israel in rebelling against god, setting up false idols, and then reaping god’s punishment as a result. he wrote the sermon to be delivered by his close friend and colleague (and later biographer) eberhard bethge at the mission festival in ohlau, silesia, on october 20, 1941. this was mere months after the start of operation barbarossa, germany’s invasion of the soviet union in june 1941. but it was also shortly after he began to hear reports of massacres on the eastern front from his collaborators in the abwehr resistance. 63 by the fall of 1941, bonhoeffer had begun his involvement with unternehmen 7 (operation 7), an intricate plan to smuggle seven jews out of germany and into switzerland to report on nazi treatment of the jewish population. 64 despite his concern and concrete actions to save jews in nazi germany, bonhoeffer still expresses anti-judaic ideas as a clergyman. the prepared message was based in part on jeremiah 16:21, a text that refers to god’s teaching the israelites of god’s power and might. bonhoeffer mirrors jeremiah’s admonition against his own people: a time will come when god will cease asking his people to stop idolatry, and he will eventually punish his people to set them right. in this context bonhoeffer recalls the anti-judaic trope that israel is a stubborn people 59 niemöller, here stand i! 201. 60 niemöller, here i stand! 204. 61 michael, holy hatred, 160. 62 i have found seven examples in these 910 sermons, from five different pastors that reflect this view of god’s curse upon the jews and his subsequent punishment of them. 63 eric metaxas, bonhoeffer: pastor, martyr, prophet, spy (nashville, tn: thomas nelson, 2010), kindle edition, location 7080. 64 bethge, bonhoeffer, 747-752; metaxas, bonhoeffer, kindle edition, location 7098; and elizabeth sifton and fritz stern, no ordinary men: dietrich bonhoeffer and hans dohnanyi, resisters against hitler in church and state (new york: new york review books, 2013), 96-98. 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) who have consistently rebelled against god. he writes, “there is a last resort by which god leads his people (israel), who have repeatedly misused and resisted god’s grace and have toyed with it, to lead them to the recognition of god’s authority: namely, the powerful angry strike of god’s hand [emphasis in the original].” 65 christians are the new israel, bonhoeffer asserts, and christians in germany have been struck with “war, crises, imprisonment, distress of all kinds.” 66 the meditation is a call for germans to consider their response to god’s “dark revelation”: will they return to god or harden their hearts? once again we see anti-judaism used to criticize the shortcomings of christians in nazi germany. moreover, the assertion that god has punished jews throughout history for rebellion implicitly draws on the antisemitic trope of the jews as biologically “wayward,” a condition passed down from generation to generation. remarkably, bonhoeffer contends that germans are at risk for the same kind of punishment. the reception of these anti-judaic sentiments is tremendously difficult to gauge. i have been unable to find any commentaries or reports from government agencies, such as the sicherheitsdienst (security service, henceforth sd) or gestapo, or in letters or diaries from colleagues or parishioners. the likely reason is that anti-judaism had long been an aspect of christianity and thus no one took note when it was expressed. the post-war reflection of eberhard bethge—the same friend, colleague, and biographer of bonhoeffer—illuminates the mind-set of german citizens (and not just pastors) under the nazi regime. in 1989, bethge gave a talk criticizing the antisemitism of various resistance figures, and he sent a letter to one german critic of his talk. bethge argued that “the ‘old tradition’ of christian anti-judaism had converged with the radical anti-semitism of nazism.” 67 bethge writes, [w]e have simply been long, long blind and—without having been radical anti-semites—nonetheless we were in our language and consciousness the bearers of unholy potential. i see the problem in that even extraordinary resistance fighters were at the same time still sunk in the kind of language and attitudes whose anti-jewish content could only be made clear decades after 1945. 68 bethge speaks of “we” not only to disarm his critics, but to argue the pervasiveness of anti-judaism even among those who were not “radical anti-semites.” 69 the anti-judaic comments in these sermons indicate that some confessing church pastors interpreted the situation of the jews in nazi germany through a 65 dietrich bonhoeffer, conspiracy and imprisonment, 1940-1945 (minneapolis: fortress press, 2006), 625. 66 bonhoeffer, conspiracy and imprisonment, 625. 67 john w. de gruchy, daring, trusting spirit: bonhoeffer’s friend eberhard bethge (minneapolis: fortress press, 2005), 190. 68 quoted in de gruchy, daring, trusting spirit, 191. 69 de gruchy, daring, trusting spirit, 191. skiles: “the bearers of unholy potential” 18 theological lens, and yet this opened the door to implicit antisemitic connections. this research supports the assertion that the primary concern of pastors in relation to the jewish people was “right belief” and conversion, not their material condition as a people group targeted by the nazi regime for exclusion from german public life. 70 2. voices of support for jews and judaism from the pulpit though pastors periodically expressed anti-jewish sentiments from the pulpit, they also expressed views supportive of jews and judaism, thus opposing national socialist ideology and racial policies, and at the same time distinguishing themselves from the explicit antisemitic perspectives of the pro-nazi german christian movement. of the 910 sermons i have examined, forty articulate perspectives that defend jews or judaism. the sermons can be grouped according to the following themes: first, judaism is a foundation for the christian faith; second, the jews are the people of god and must be respected as such; third, there is no qualitative difference between jews and other people groups, and thus they should be treated equally; and fourth, condemnations of the persecution of jews. regardless of the pastors’ motivations or intentions, the pastors’ religiously-based pronouncements in support of jews and judaism took on political significance as implicit or explicit criticisms of nazi ideology and racial policy. 71 thus, surprisingly, both negative and positive expressions about jews could serve to criticize the nazi regime, the german christian movement, or germans more generally in nazi germany. this reveals the tremendous complexity and ambivalence that characterized the thinking about jews in nazi germany. the first major theme in these forty sermons that support or defend the jews and judaism is the expression that the jews are the chosen people of god, the people whom god has chosen to enter into covenant with and to preserve his revelation. this is the most common theme in these forty sermons, occurring eighteen times. the expressions would often be concise, straightforward statements that the jews are the special people of god. for example, karl von schwartz, the cathedral pastor of braunschweig and also the provost of the st. marienberg monastery, often refers to the jews as a “chosen” or “special” people of god. i counted five different sermons in which he deliberately pointed out the chosen-ness of the jewish people, which is more than any other single pastor. 72 interestingly, these sermons were part of a collection published by hellmuth wollermann’s verlagsbuchhandlung in braunschweig in late 1933 (though some may have been preached earlier). the unusual characteristic of this collection is that the sermons were based on hebrew bible texts. clearly, schwartz believed that 70 see friedländer, nazi germany and the jews, vol. 1, 43-44; and gerlach, and the witnesses were silent, 7. 71 see victoria barnett, for the soul of the people (new york: oxford university press, 1992), 92. 72 see karl von schwarz, gottes wort an gottes volk, ein jahrgang predigten (braunschweig: hellmuth wollermannverlagsbuchhandlung, 1933). 19 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) christians needed to become more acquainted with the hebrew bible and the jews as the people of god. this positive view of the jews—that they are blessed and special—aroused the concern of the nazi regime because it blatantly undermined nazi racial ideology. gestapo and sd reports give us insight into the nazi regime’s reception of these public pronouncements by confessing church pastors that the jews are the chosen people of god. a gestapo report from berlin on december 1, 1939, relates that a confessing church pastor by the name of eberle in hundsbach (in the district of kreuznach) was arrested because he said in a sermon, “the god of our church is the jewish god of jacob, to whom i confess… in 1932, i stood in saarbrücken together with 3000 faithful protestants. since that time, more and more are falling away from the protestant faith.” 73 this report is unique because it reports a rare instance, as far as i have been able to uncover, of the nazi regime actually arresting a pastor solely due to the content of a sermon. but what is more, the “offensive” remarks were not about hitler or the nazi leadership per se; instead, the pastor was arrested for publicly acknowledging that the christian god is the jewish god and that christianity is in decline in the third reich. the offense was in identifying the jewish god as the christian god, and that indeed christianity owes much to judaism. the assertion that christians and jews have the same god closely binds the two together as god’s people, and this contradicts nazi racial ideology that denigrates jews as inferior human beings. a second theme in these sermons that support jews and judaism is belief that judaism is the foundation of christianity and, as such, christians should value and appreciate the hebrew bible. this assertion directly undermines efforts of the german christian movement to denigrate the hebrew bible and remove it from the christian canon, as epitomized in the institute for the study and eradication of jewish influence on german religious life. 74 i have found nine occurrences of this theme in these forty sermons. the lutheran pastor and theologian hans iwand of the marienkirche in dortmund, delivered a sermon focusing on the theme of christianity’s foundation in judaism on august 2, 1941, just a couple months after the nazis began the invasion of russia earlier that summer. up to this time, hitler and the nazi regime had not developed a clear and consistent policy concerning european jewry, yet the war against russia proved a turning point. 75 as the wehrmacht conquered new territory, the einsatzgruppen of the ss followed and massacred jews and soviet “commissars” and on an unprecedented scale. 76 by august 1941, hundreds of thousands of jews had been massacred by 73 heinz, boberach, ed., berichte des sd und der gestapoüber kirchen und kirchenvolk in deutschland 1934-1944 (mainz: matthias-grünwald-verlag, 1971), 376. 74 heschel, aryan jesus, 3 and 13. 75 see karl schleunes, the twisted road to auschwitz: nazi policy toward german jews 1933-1939 (chicago: university of illinois press, 1990); christopher browning, with contributions by jürgen matthäus, the origins of the final solution: the evolution of nazi jewish policy, september 1939march 1942 (lincoln, ne: university of nebraska, 2004); and ian kershaw, hitler, the germans, and the final solution (new haven: yale university press, 2008). 76 see browning, origins of the final solution, 252-63; lucy dawidowicz, the war against the jews, 1933-1945 (new york: holt, rinehart and winston, 1975), 125-140; saul friedländer, nazi skiles: “the bearers of unholy potential” 20 nazi forces and their allies in lithuania, the ukraine, bialystok, romania, belorussia, and the soviet union, among other war zones. 77 it is possible that iwand had not heard news of the jewish massacres in the war zones, but he had to be aware of anti-jewish policies closer to home: the expulsion of jews from public and professional life was long underway, the “aryanization” of jewish property and businesses increased since 1937 and 1938, and the ghettoization of polish jews began shortly after the start of world war ii. 78 and after the nazi invasion of poland in september 1939, jews throughout europe would be systematically labeled with a yellow star of david and thus targeted for persecution. iwand himself was particularly sensitive to the problem of nazi persecution of christians of jewish descent. the nazi regime classified his wife ilse as mischling (“mixedbreed”) first class, meaning that she had two grandparents of the jewish faith. 79 iwand’s sermon affirms that the source of the gospel comes from israel, and argues that a denial of this fact is at best ignorance. commenting on galatians 1:10-24, a text in which the apostle paul discusses the source of his revelation, iwand argues, do you think you could perhaps go back on the wide strand of the gospel and you could then visit from where the source comes, and you could discover that the source comes from a land, and you could discover that the source comes from a land that is jewish, and then you come to god and say, is the source something dirty, as if there is a spirit that we must bring out? 80 iwand challenges the perspective of christians like those in the pro-nazi german christian movement who devalue the hebrew bible and judaism because they fail to appreciate the relationship between christianity and judaism. 81 they cannot acknowledge the debt that christianity owes to judaism. for confessing church pastors like iwand, this is a failure to understand from where revelation ultimately comes, and that is, as paul affirms, “from above.” confessing church pastors preached against excising the hebrew bible from christianity – without it, christianity loses its source and foundation. thus, these germany and the jews: the years of extermination, 1939-1945 (new york: harper perennial, 2008), 207-225; and timothy snyder, bloodlands: europe between hitler and stalin (new york: basic books, 2010), 126-127, 182-200. 77 deborah dwork and robert jan van pelt, holocaust: a history (new york: w.w. norton, 2002), 266-278. 78 the earliest rumors of mass killings of jews are found as early as autumn 1941, though by mid1942 rumors circulated far and wide and reports were even broadcast by the bbc by autumn 1942. see ian kershaw, hitler, the germans, and the final solution (new haven, ct: yale university press, 2008), 142; and also walter laqueur, the terrible secret: suppression of the truth about hitler’s “final solution” (new york: little brown & co., 1981). 79 dr. f.w. arnold. report of the kirchliche hilfsstelle für evangelische nichtarier (büro pfarrer grüber. 21 december 1938. nichtarische geistliche kirchengemeindebeamte, gemeindevertreter usw., von oktober 1933 bis dezember 1952. eza 7/1952. 80 hans joachim iwand, nachgelassene werke, dritter band (münchen: chr. kaiser verlag, 1963), 92. 81 see bergen, twisted cross, 26-27. 21 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) sermons represent a stake in the ground for the confessing church that the hebrew bible must not be alienated from the christian tradition. 82 in this sense, the confessing church pastors stand in stark contrast to members of the german christian movement and nazi supporters who condemned the hebrew bible as immoral, as a thoroughly “jewish book,” as “un-german,” and inconsonant with “aryan” morality. 83 we know from gestapo and sd reports that the nazi regime was concerned when pastors defended judaism from the pulpit. unfortunately, the reports do not mention whether or not the pastors were confessing church members. nevertheless, the reports are instructive. for example, one describes how a pastor ulricht of prenzlau gave a sermon on january 1, 1934, and lamented the paganization of christianity in the one year since the establishment of the nazi dictatorship. 84 ulricht drew a connection between the christ whom the nazis “forgot” and how the jews were denied full participation in german life. man idolizes today great men who have achieved much, but the christ who let himself be nailed to the cross, whom one forgets, he is no longer considered. jesus christ was also a jew, yes indeed, but the faith teaches: go into the world and make disciples of all the peoples, etc. if a jew cannot be a german, so can he very well—and i stress this explicitly—be a good christian. 85 this statement not only condemns nazi ideology and those who “forget” christ, but at the same time it connects into one community all individuals who desire to be christian, regardless of nationality or culture. ulricht’s statement caught the attention of the gestapo because he claims jews can be good christians, even if the nazis declare they cannot even be good germans. he affirms that german identity, in truth, is less important than christian identity. statements such as these clearly caught the attention of the gestapo as public expression of opposition to national socialism. why would the nazi regime have been concerned with such statements? these are religious statements of faith that do not explicitly advocate active resistance to the nazi regime, whether in the form of protests or violent confrontation or even unity with jews in a common cause. but the implications were troubling to the nazi regime. the gestapo and sd took notice of these sermons as evidence that the german churches were sites in nazi germany where pastors could publically express anti-nazi ideas and pro-jewish sentiment. 86 82 arthur cochrane, the church’s confession under hitler (philadelphia: westminster press, 1967), 184-185; see also barnett, for the soul of the people, 234; and carroll, constantine’s sword, 38, 568. 83 bergen, twisted cross, 144. 84 gestapo report on pastor ulricht: “staatsfeindliches verhalten evangelischer geistlicher, v.a. der bekennenden kirche, 1934-1935,” papers of the reichssicherheitshauptamt, ba r58/5679. 85 gestapo report on ulricht, “staatsfeindliches verhalten evangelischer geistlicher,“ ba r58/5679. 86 see hoffmann, the history of german resistance, 13; and kershaw, hitler, the germans, and the final solution, 166. skiles: “the bearers of unholy potential” 22 the third and last theme expressed in these confessing church sermons is the condemnation of nazi persecution of the jews. this theme only occurs nine times in these 910 sermons. i have found just a couple cases of pastors speaking about the persecution of jews before world war ii. for example, dietrich bonhoeffer delivered the funeral oration after the death of his grandmother, julie bonhoeffer, in berlin on january 15, 1936, just months after the passage of the nuremberg laws in september 1935. while recalling fond memories of his grandmother, bonhoeffer tells of how troubled she was that the principles of her youth— “the inflexibility of law, the free word of free men, the binding quality of the given word, plain and sober speech, honesty and simplicity in personal and public life”—had been betrayed during the nazi dictatorship. 87 she could not keep quiet amid this betrayal, he says. “therefore her last years were deeply troubled by the great sorrow she bore for the suffering and fate of the jews among our people. she sought to help and suffered with them. she stemmed from a different age, out of a different spiritual world. this world does not sink with her into the grave.” 88 bonhoeffer emphasizes the strange-ness of nazi values to the world in which his grandmother julie lived. while bonhoeffer’s sermon celebrates this courageous and principled woman, it is even more significant that he makes her a model for his family to emulate in troubled times. he says that the inheritance that julie gave his family—this strength of character and great courage—was in the form of an “obligation” to emulate her example as fellow “strangers” in nazi germany. one of the most remarkable sermons about the nazi persecution of the jews was in response to the nation-wide pogrom on the night of november 9-10, 1938. for pastor julius von jan of oberlenningen, the pogrom known as kristallnacht, the night of broken glass, marked a decisive moment in his career. 89 he preached a sermon a week later on 16 november 1938, in which he sought to expose the criminal behavior of his fellow germans whose passions and hatred had run amok. 90 the nazi regime fomented the pogrom in response to an event on november 7, 1938, when a seventeen-year-old pole named herschel grynszpan shot and fatally wounded a junior official, ernst vom rath, of the german embassy in paris. grynszpan’s grievance concerned another nazi policy of persecution against the jews, this time the deportation of foreign-born jews living in germany. the polish government closed its borders to 8,000 of the 12,000 polish refugees, and grynszpan’s parents were among those stranded at the border. 91 rath died of his injuries in the afternoon on 9 november 1938, which gave the 87 dietrich bonhoeffer’s christmas sermons, edited and translated by edwin robertson (grand rapids: zondervan, 2005), 123. 88 bonhoeffer’s christmas sermons, ed. robinson, 123. 89 see dean g stroud, preaching under hitler’s shadow: sermons of resistance in the third reich (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 2013). the work is an edited collection of sermons and profiles of the pastors who delivered them. for more on jan, see conway, nazi persecution of the churches, 375376; and barnett, for the soul of the people, 142. 90 conway, nazi persecution of the churches, 375; and stroud, preaching under hitler’s shadow, 123. 91 martin gilbert, kristallnacht: prelude to destruction (new york: harpercollins, 2006), 23. 23 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) nazi regime an opportunity for reprisal against the jews of germany. within twenty-four hours, and at hitler’s instigation, nazi thugs destroyed 1000 synagogues and over 7500 jewish-owned businesses, filling the streets of germany with broken glass. 92 the best figure for the number of jews arrested is approximately 30,000, an astounding number, marking the first time that jews as jews were arrested en masse and sent to concentration camps. 93 while nazi records indicate that 91 men died in the pogrom, another 300 jews, at the depths of despair, committed suicide it its wake. 94 most clergymen were silent about the pogrom the following week, revealing timidity and a concern only for their own. 95 nevertheless, a few confessing church pastors did speak out the next week in church services, jan among them. his sermon was based on jeremiah 22:2-9, which declares the prophet’s role in proclaiming the law of god to his nation, king, and princes who have trampled upon it. 96 in the first few lines, jan accuses the nazi regime for jailing god’s prophets, and also condemns the german-christians as posers and liars. a crime has been committed in paris, he argues, passions have been released, the laws of god jeered at, houses of god that were sacred to others have been burned to the ground, property belonging to the foreigner plundered or destroyed, men who faithfully served our nation (volk) and who fulfilled their duty in good conscience have been thrown into concentration camps simply because they belong to another race… even if the authorities do not admit their hand in this injustice, the healthy sensitivity of the people (volk) feels the truth without any doubt—including where people do not dare speak of this. 97 the german people have lost their way and followed not simply a political religion, but an “organized anti-christianity,” established by the state and administered by german-christians. 98 germans have burned “houses of god” to the ground—note he does not say synagoge but gotteshäuser to bridge the distance some might see in the houses of worship of the two traditions. he echoes the prophet jeremiah: “god will not be ridiculed. what a person sows, he will reap!” 99 the people know that god’s judgment is coming unless they repent of what they have done. 92 see barnett, for the soul of the people, 139; gilbert, kristallnacht, 28-29, and 118; and richard evans, the third reich in power (new york: penguin, 2005), 581. 93 evans, third reich in power, 581. 94 in fact, the true figure of those murdered may run between one and two thousand. see evans, third reich in power, 590. 95 barnett, for the soul of the people, 142; and evans, third reich in power, 581. 96 julius von jan, “o land, land, land: hear the word of the lord!” in stroud, preaching under hitler’s shadow, 121. 97 jan, “o land, land, land,” in stroud, preaching under hitler’s shadow, 123. 98 jan, “o land, land, land,” in stroud, preaching under hitler’s shadow, 123. 99 jan, “o land, land, land,” in stroud, preaching under hitler’s shadow, 124. skiles: “the bearers of unholy potential” 24 word of jan’s sermon spread. nearly two weeks later, on 25 november at 10:30 pm, a mob of 500 demonstrators found jan, beat him senseless, and took him to the town hall for an hour-long interrogation, which resulted in incarceration in the country prison for four months. 100 one year later, on 15 november 1939, jan was tried before the nazi “special court” (sondergericht) and condemned for “misusing the pulpit” and “treachery.” 101 his sentence was 16 months. jan was able to continue preaching after his release in may 1940, but was drafted into the wehrmacht in 1943 and served on the russian front, ultimately surviving the war. jan’s story illustrates the danger and costs the confessing church pastor faced if he decided to speak out boldly against nazi persecution and in support of the jews. german pastors were certainly aware of the nazi persecution of the jews, though the extent of this knowledge is not certain, particularly regarding the details of the holocaust. strikingly, these nine cases of confessing church pastors speaking out against the persecution of the jews represent a minuscule fraction of the 910 sermons i have examined. even in these instances, the pastors most often do not give specifics about the persecution, or the identities of the persecutors, or even the nature of the crimes being committed against the jews. my research presents a significant problem given the historiography of the german population’s knowledge of the nazi mass murder of european jewry, which has been extensively examined. 102 conservative estimates are that by 1942 and 1943, approximately one-third of the german population had received news in one form or another of the mass murder of the jews. 103 if we exclude teenagers and children from this equation—those whose parents might have “shielded” them from such knowledge—less conservative estimates indicate that perhaps one-half of the population was aware of the atrocities. 104 this would of course include confessing church pastors. and yet my findings indicate that less than one percent of the 910 sermons make mention of the atrocities and persecutions. knowledge of nazi atrocities spread to germans of all socioeconomic and educa 100 gerlach, and the witnesses were silent, 144. 101 the following biographical background is based on stroud, preaching under hitler’s shadow, 119. see also conway, nazi persecution of the churches, 375-376; and barnett, for the soul of the people, 142. 102 marlis steinert, hitler’s war and the germans: public mood and attitude during the second world war, translated by thomas de witt (athens: ohio university press, 1977); walter laqueur, the terrible secret: an investigation into the suppression of information about hitler's "final solution" (london, 1980); ian kershaw, popular opinion and political dissent in the third reich: bavaria 1933-1945 (new york: oxford university press, 1983); hans mommsen, “what did the germans know about the genocide of the jews?” in walter h. pehle, ed., november 1938: from ‘kristallnacht’ to genocide (new york: berg, 1991), 187-221; david bankier, the germans and the final solution: public opinion under nazism (london, 1992); hans mommsen and volker ullrich, "'wir haben nichts gewusst': ein deutsches trauma," 1999 4 (1991): 11-46; eric a. johnson and karlheinz reuband, what we knew: terror, mass murder, and everyday life in nazi germany, an oral history (cambridge, ma: basic books, 2005); and frank bajohr and dieter pohl, der holocaust als offenes geheimnis: die deutschen, die ns-führung und die allierten (münchen: c.h. beck, 2006). 103 johnson and reuband, what we knew, 39. also, laqueur argues that “news of the ‘final solution’ had been received in 1942 all over europe” (emphasis added), see the terrible secret, 196. 104 johnson and reuband, what we knew, 392. 25 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) tional backgrounds through widely-listened to bbc broadcasts and also reports of wehrmacht soldiers returning home from the eastern front. 105 at the same time, we must also consider the impact of the nazi propaganda machine on germans throughout world war ii. through the constant barrage of propagandistic speeches by hitler, joseph goebbels, and other nazi leaders, broadcast across germany, as well as wall posters strategically positioned throughout commuter and pedestrian traffic, the nazi regime used unambiguous language to express their approach to the “jewish menace”; they used words such as vernichtung (extermination) and ausrottung (annihilation). 106 the regime reached millions upon millions of germans who could not help but be exposed to the pervasive propaganda and thereby become informed of the nazi approach to the jewish people. it has even been argued that by mid-1942, knowledge of “the mass crimes of the nazis, and in particular the murder of the jews, was an open secret in the reich and among the allies.” 107 there was simply no possibility of keeping crimes so immense a secret hidden from germans and the peoples of occupied europe, not with the murders taking place throughout much of eastern europe, the millions of victims involved, and the incredible inhumanity of the crimes. 108 many confessing church pastors, who were leaders in their religious communities and ministers to families with sons at war, “who kept their eyes and ears open,” would have known about the nazi mass murder of the jews. 109 how might we account for the extraordinarily low percentage of sermons that address the nazi persecution of the jews? a few factors might shed some light on this problem. first, we should keep in mind that for most germans the war and its progress were of utmost concern, not the fate of the jews. 110 as ian kershaw writes, “the jews were out of sight and literally out of mind for most.” 111 second, we must consider the nature of the knowledge of nazi atrocities among the german population. while millions of germans knew of the nazi massacres of jews, most failed to put all the puzzles pieces together to see the full picture the holocaust; they simply could not fathom the systematic extermination of all european jewry. 112 a third reason for the lack of response in sermons was a sense of hopelessness and powerlessness that many must have felt living in a totalitarian society. 113 105 bbc broadcasts provided constant news updates of atrocities and mass murders. see bankier, the germans and the final solution, 113; johnson and reuband, what we knew, 396-397; mommsen, what did the germans know?” 206; and laqueur, the terrible secret, 201. 106 jeffrey herf, the jewish enemy: nazi propaganda during world war ii and the holocaust (cambridge, ma: bellknap press, 2006), 267. 107 bajohr and pohl, der holocaust als offenes geheimnis, 128. 108 bajohr and pohl, der holocaust als offenes geheimnis, 128. 109 johnson and reuband, what we knew, 397. 110 mommsen, “what did the germans know?” 192; and kershaw, popular opinion, 360. 111 kershaw, popular opinion and political dissent in the third reich, 364. 112 mommsen, “what did the germans know?” 206, 209; and bankier, the germans and the final solution, 115. 113 mommsen, “what did the germans know?” 205; bankier, the germans and the final solution, 103; and laqueur, the terrible secret, 208 skiles: “the bearers of unholy potential” 26 the news of atrocities would have presented a challenge to pastors: one could ask questions, investigate the stories, speak out against the nazi regime, and reap the consequences, including possible arrest and imprisonment, or worse. or one could remain silent, refuse to follow up on news of atrocities, and continue serving the congregation, hoping to outlive the nazi regime. in the end, as the historian david bankier writes, many germans—and many pastors—“knew enough to know that it was better not to know more.” 114 the confessing church pastors behaved just like the vast majority of germans in not speaking out in support of jews facing nazi persecution, and this reflects several factors: a sense of resignation that there is nothing to be done but wait for the regime to topple; a significant degree of repression under the watchful eyes of the regime’s police apparatus, the gestapo agents and their networks of informers; and also the moral desensitization of nearly a decade witnessing the day-by-day, step-by-step, exclusion of the jewish people from german public life. 115 but we must also take into account the anti-jewish prejudice expressed in the confessing church pulpits. the evidence supports the historiography of the churches in nazi germany that anti-jewish prejudice was pervasive among christians. 116 sermons that repeat centuries-old tropes that portray jews as wayward, stubborn, as guilty of murdering christ, and as divinely punished throughout history, could serve to mitigate any compassion or empathy that a christian might otherwise feel for their persecuted jewish neighbors. i would assert that this “unholy potential,” as bethge describes it, prevented pastors from speaking out more forcefully and often in support of jews and judaism. while these relatively few instances of confessing church pastors expressing concern about the persecution of jews are important in and of themselves, the fact that there are so few from the rank and file of the “oppositional” faction of the german churches underscores the muted voice of germany’s pastors during the ghettoization, deportation, and extermination of european jewry. peter fritzsche argues that in german society there was a “general silence” about the suffering and fate of the german jews in nazi germany, a silence that filled the sanctuaries of german churches as well. 117 he makes an interesting point that the fate of the jews lay beyond the germans’ “limits on empathy” because they simply could not imagine being jewish. while germans (and christians) debated the nazi policy of euthanasia because they could actually imagine this policy causing the suffering of their own families, at the same time “they could not imagine being jewish” and suffering simply for this reason. 118 but as all the sermons indicate, christians had a wealth of religious concepts and principles that could (one might 114 bankier, the germans and the final solution, 115. 115 mommsen, “what did the germans know?” 205; bankier, the germans and the final solution, 103; and laqueur, the terrible secret, 208. 116 see michael, holy hatred; probst, demonizing the jews; and also friedländer, nazi germany and the jews, vol. 2, 56. 117 peter fritzsche, life and death in the third reich (cambridge: harvard university press, 2009), 119. 118 fritzsche, life and death in the third reich, 119. 27 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) say should) have aided this imagination. christians share much of the same sacred history, the same sacred stories that inform and shape moral behavior and spiritual growth. one could argue that this common heritage should have been utilized more often and more explicitly to bond christians and jews together in nazi germany. yet it is remarkable that after the war many germans had no problem imaging themselves as the persecuted minority. the emphasis on german suffering was quite common among post-war german leaders, especially church leaders, who argued for the victimization of germans under the nazi dictatorship and also the allied conquest of germany, thus casting themselves as survivors. 119 some went so far as to liken the nazi treatment of the confessing church to the hebrew bible’s depiction of israel’s suffering under egyptian and babylonian persecutions. for example, shortly after the war’s end in july 1945, the bishop of berlinbrandenburg, otto dibelius, delivered a sermon in which he explicitly claimed that “the lord with his mighty hand has delivered us [the confessing church] from the power of the devil and led us out of egypt, out of the house of servitude.” 120 as susannah heschel has argued, both confessing church members and german-christians appropriated the identity of the jews in the hebrew bible to describe the recent calamity of germans “who had been liberated from hitler but conquered by the allies; having murdered the jews, the germans could now take their identity.” 121 confessing church leaders identified themselves with biblical israel, and in the process exonerated themselves as honorable instruments of god that confronted an oppressive kingdom. yet ironically, as the “new israel” they overwhelmingly failed to speak out for persecuted jews under the nazi regime. 3. conclusions we can draw several conclusions based on the evidence i have presented. the expressions of prejudice revealed in these sermons may overwhelmingly be categorized as non-rational or anti-judaic, meaning the prejudice is based on religious convictions founded in scripture and a christian reading of history. in other words, the prejudice expressed is based primarily on explicit religious convictions, not racial convictions. when implicit antisemitic tropes are articulated, they always serve religiously-based anti-judaic assertions. the anti-jewish prejudice 119 see also the stuttgart declaration of guilt, october 1945. this document was drawn up by the council of the evangelical church in germany and refers to the german people as a “gemeinschaft der leiden,” a “community of suffering.” see heschel, the aryan jesus, 279-281; matthew hockenos, a church divided: german protestants confront the nazi past (bloomington, in: indiana university press, 2004), 46-47, 52-54, and 187; spotts, churches and politics, 62-69; and bill niven, ed., germans as victims: remembering the past in contemporary germany (new york: palgrave, 2006), 1-21; robert g. moeller, war stories: the search for a usable past in the federal republic of germany (berkeley, ca: university of california press, 2001), 3-4, 44-48; and steven m. schroeder, to forget it all and begin anew: reconciliation in occupied germany, 1944-1954 (lincoln, ne: university of toronto press, 2013), 9, 40-44. 120 quoted in hockenos, a church divided, 52. 121 heschel, the aryan jesus, 279. skiles: “the bearers of unholy potential” 28 in these sermons contrasts to the explicit antisemitism of the german christian movement, which utilized the irrational antisemitic prejudiced, based on fear, paranoia, and envy. 122 moreover, i have not found one instance of confessing church pastors using nazi racial terminology—such as untermenschen (subhumans)—to denigrate the jewish people, or blame the jews for germany’s problems since world war i, again in contrast to the german-christians. thus, the prejudice against the jews expressed in these confessing church sermons relies upon traditional christian tropes found throughout the history of the church. yet the sermons reveal just how anti-judaic prejudice may interact with antisemitic tropes. we must keep in mind that the expressions of anti-judaism revealed in these sermons have the potential to overlap with nazi racial antisemitism in german society, and thereby possibly advance the exclusion of jews from public life. for example, if a pastor argues that god has punished the jews as an accursed people since the crucifixion of christ, then the implications in nazi germany are potentially devastating. the congregant may generalize and perceive that the jews as a people group are evil, pernicious, and immoral; that they conspire to dominate, to destroy christianity, and thus, that they cannot be trusted. 123 while anti-judaic tropes may originate in churches, we should expect these ideas to interact and overlap with other secular ideas outside church doors. scholars have recently contributed much to understanding how religious anti-judaism blended with antisemitism in academia. 124 my analysis also reveals that confessing church pastors often used antijudaic expressions for a purpose, not only to advocate for the superiority of christianity to judaism, but to criticize the nazi regime and even the german people. they compared the jews to nazis as hard-hearted, obsessed with race consciousness and the racial purity of the people, as legalistic, weak, and erroneously convinced of their own “superiority” and “chosen-ness.” again, these comments draw on the antisemitic trope that accuses the jews of tribalism – taking pride in a false ethno-nationalist identity that denies equality with other groups. thus, ironically, confessing church pastors combated overt nazi racial ideology by using antisemitic tropes. this demonstrates that anti-jewish expressions were not often simply extemporaneous comments, or merely meant to denigrate jews in germany society, but they were often employed purposefully to challenge the nazi regime and its racial policies and ideology. the sermons also reveal evidence of a historic dilemma christians have in relating to jews and judaism. on the one hand, judaism plays a central role in the christian tradition; from jesus’ ministry in a jewish context to the inclusion of the hebrew bible in the christian canon, christianity affirms jewish religious ex 122 see for example, bergen, twisted cross; robert ericksen, theologians under hitler: gerhard kittel, paul althaus, and emanuel hirsch (new haven, ct: yale university press, 1985); and heschel, the aryan jesus. 123 michael, holy hatred, 12. 124 see for example, robert ericksen’s theologians under hitler, and complicity in the holocaust: gerhard kittel, paul althaus, emanuel hirsch (new haven: yale university press, 1985), and also heschel’s the aryan jesus. 29 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) perience and god’s covenant with israel. on the other hand, elements of the christian tradition stemming all the way back to its biblical texts present jews as “christ-killers” and as an accursed people. 125 the ambivalence is palpable. furthermore, the low percentage of sermons that expressed support of jews and judaism reveals a missed opportunity for pastors to draw connections between christians and jews in a shared religious tradition. the importance of these sermons is reflected in the concern that the gestapo and sd paid to pastors who spoke out in support of jews from the pulpit. government reports indicate that the nazi regime was indeed concerned about confessing church pastors not simply supporting and defending jews, but developing connections between christians and jews based on their shared traditions and values. the evidence suggests that confessing churches had the potential to become sites of support and sympathy for jews in nazi germany, a place where christians could develop their imagination—based on common theological concepts and stories—to place themselves in the situation of persecuted jews. the mere fact that only 40 of 910 sermons made pro-jewish statements indicates that this was a missed opportunity to shape the imagination and behavior of christians. to the attentive congregant sitting in a pew in nazi germany, the sermons of the confessing church present an ambivalent perspective of the jews and judaism. she might have heard an occasional positive word about the jews, or about the inextricable connections between judaism and christianity. but at the same time, she might have heard a harsh word that reflects centuries of anti-judaic prejudice that condemns jews as wayward and deserving of god’s punishment. these sermons reveal that anti-judaic theology in twentieth-century german protestantism became an impediment to confessing church pastors proclaiming clear and unequivocal messages about jews as the spiritual cousins of christians and judaism as a valued and inextricable foundation for christianity—messages sorely needed in nazi germany. 125 michael, holy hatred, 16-19. jewish-christian dialogue about covenant studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): cp10-15 conference proceeding jewish-christian dialogue about covenant r u t h l a n g e r center for christian-jewish learning, boston college delivered at the houston clergy institute, march 6, 2007 in 2002, the dialogue held between the us catholic bishop’s committee on ecumenical and interfaith affairs and the national council of synagogues issued a statement called “reflections on covenant and mission.” reflecting on the developments in catholic teaching about jews and judaism since nostra aetate, issued in 1965, the catholic part of the statement took the daring step of affirming that if god’s covenant with the jews is eternally valid, then it must be salvific for jews, and thus there is no justification for a christian mission directed to jews. there is no reason that jews ought to become christians. this statement was quite controversial. it received serious criticism not only from parts of the protestant world, but also from some significant catholic theologians. how could christians simply dismiss jesus’ commission to his disciples? when the resurrected jesus appears in the galilee, he commands, “all power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all that i have commanded you.” (mt 28:18b-20a)1 i begin with this, not because i plan to talk about christian understandings of covenant, but because i want to highlight what has been termed “theological dialogue.”2 this isn’t a dialogue about how we should respond together to poverty or social justice issues in our society. there, we both draw from many of the same prophetic visions and our differences are mostly those of how we understand a shared goal. this also isn’t a dialogue about our interpretation of a particular biblical text. we can build relationships by learning together how our traditions understand a shared text, but the topic itself doesn’t really address how we think about each other. the topic of covenant is fundamentally different, because it directly affects how we think about each other. if i understand that i am in covenant with god, not just as an individual, but as a member of a community, then i need to understand whether you are a member of that community too. if you are a member of my community, well and good, but what about if you are not? do you have a relationship with my god? how can i understand it? in the early decades of christianity, christians and jews both engaged in polemics about the other in a struggle for the hearts, minds, and faith of jews and pagans. in the process, 1 a consequence of the controversy is that this document is no longer available on any official catholic website. it can be found, though, on websites devoted to christian-jewish relations, like the website of our center for christianjewish learning at boston college. see http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/interreligious/ncs_usccb120802.htm, but a search of the site (www.bc.edu/cjl) will also lead to subsequent discussions of this document. 2 this is not dialogue about points where we find easy agreement or where our disagreements have little practical consequence. langer, jewish-christian dialogue about covenant cp10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/interreligious/ncs_usccb120802.htm http://www.bc.edu/cjl studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): cp10-15 christians came to claim that they were the true heirs to god’s covenant with israel, and the jews, through their sins, had forfeited this status. according to this teaching, jews were no longer in favor with god and could only regain divine favor by accepting god’s new covenant, foretold by jeremiah and revealed through jesus. thus, christianity, in virtually all its manifestations until the post-holocaust era, denied that jews were in a valid, ongoing relationship with god. thus, it was radical when nostra aetate declared, “jews remain very dear to god, for the sake of the patriarchs, since god does not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice he made.” it was even more radical when pope john paul ii explicitly taught that jews are “the people of god of the old covenant, never revoked by god,”3 “the present-day people of the covenant concluded with moses,”4 and “partners in a covenant of eternal love which was never revoked.”5 a logical outgrowth of these conciliar and papal statements was, to the framers of reflections on covenant and mission, that there should be no christian mission to jews. even before the drafting of reflections on covenant and mission, this context of dialogue was beginning to feel one-sided. catholic and protestant theologians were confronting their heritage of anti-judaism and seeking new theological understandings that would avoid the path that at best had turned a blind eye to persecutions of jews through the centuries and at worst, encouraged the persecutions themselves. how were jews responding to this? sitting on the sidelines and cheering? yes, but that itself was possibly undermining the dialogue. it appeared as if the jewish participants were setting themselves up as superior – and power dynamics undercut dialogic relationships. this cheerleading seemed to suggest that judaism was perfect and had no equivalent hard work to do. it also suggested that christians ought to learn about judaism in order to rethink their theological categories, but jews need make no similar effort to understand christianity; the jewish function in the dialogue was solely to present judaism accurately and to vet christian ideas. our christian dialogue partners were voicing concern about this uneven relationship. taking up this challenge in the jewish community has not been simple. to begin with, there is not a deep and broadly developed tradition of doing theology among jews. the intellectual elite of the traditional jewish community dabbled in such topics – maimonides wrote his guide for the perplexed – but their status and influence derived from their knowledge of halakhah, the rabbinic discussions about the concrete details of that covenant, often translated as jewish “law.” maimonides’ guide created vituperative international controversies but his legal code, his mishneh torah, is universally revered. while covenant as a category of jewish theology certainly exists from the bible on, you will not find much extended discourse on jewish understandings of covenant until modernity, except, perhaps, in refutations of christian polemics! scholars a century ago did publish books on jewish theology, but these were apologetics, collecting the tidbits scattered throughout the literature into some coherent statement so that they could say to their christian neighbors: “we’ve got a theology too!” underlying this is the reality that jewish intellectual traditions and christian intellectual traditions simply work differently. the jewish intellectual tradition puts enormous effort into defining precisely the terms of the covenant, for example, delineating what activities violate the commandment to rest on the sabbath, or prescribing the responsibilities incumbent on the owner of an ox that gores other animals or people.6 but these aren’t areas that receive the 3 john paul ii, “address to the jewish community in mainz, west germany,” november 17,1980. 4 ibid. 5 john paul ii, “address to jewish leaders in miami, ” september 11, 1987. 6 as prescribed in ex 21. langer, jewish-christian dialogue about covenant cp11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): cp10-15 attentions of the intellectual elite of christian traditions. today’s dialogue thus asks jews to bring to the table discussions that fit neatly into christian categories of thought, but that don’t always fit so neatly into jewish traditions of learning. i raise this as an observation, not a criticism. there is some tradition of thinking in theological categories in judaism, and jews have been educated into the intellectual categories of western european christian civilization – while few christians have really become conversant in jewish texts. thus, we find dialogue on covenant and other theological topics taking place on well defined spots on the christian theological map, places that are less well defined on the jewish map. an example of this issue of mapping: as part of boston college’s undergraduate theology core, i teach a two-semester course that compares judaism and christianity. one obvious topic for this course is our understandings of sin and repair of sin. both of our traditions understand sin to be something that violates our covenant with god. in judaism, we begin with as precise an understanding of the terms of the covenant, of god’s commandments, as we can manage. sin, then, is a violation of any one of the 613 commandments of torah (or their subcategories). a traditional jew can therefore tell you quite explicitly if a certain action is sinful. a sin violates a term of the covenant, but generally not the covenant itself. contrast this with a christian understanding that defines sin in philosophical or attitudinal terms, as a turning away from god, as a breach in the relationship of covenant. thus, i can’t translate christian conceptions of sin and breach of covenant neatly onto my jewish mapping of the topics to which we give the same english names because the essence of the sin and the definition of covenant are radically different. i discovered this only when i realized that i was trying to get christianity to express itself on the jewish map and define sin in concrete detail, something that would have fundamentally distorted christian teaching. so we need to be wary of similar distortions in the reverse, when we try to understand jewish covenant by speaking in the vocabulary and topography of the christian theological traditions. this may be why rabbi joseph soloveitchik forbade jewish participation in theological dialogue, at least for those with less grounding in jewish texts. dialogue thus requires some point of overlap in our conceptual maps from which we can then move to understand differences. for example: jews and christians can compare their understandings of the abrahamic covenants because we share genesis and its description of these events. we can bring islam into this picture because some of the patriarchal narratives of the hebrew bible appear in the quran. but if we wanted to include hindus or buddhists? we’d have to shift and broaden our topic. similarly, jews and muslims can discuss elements of dietary laws or even penal codes – but christians are interested only in their ethical implications. with this mapping issue in mind, let’s turn back now to our discussion of covenant. christians engaged in dialogue had done extremely difficult work, turning a self-critical eye to their own traditions, and beginning a difficult process of developing theological arguments that would justify a different understanding of jews, not as competitors for god’s love, not as people rejected by god, but as people who share god’s love and who journey with christians in covenant with god towards a promised end of days. what can jews say about christians’ relationship with god? do we have a need for selfcriticism in this realm? in my opinion, the answer here is adamantly yes, and the reasons for concern are deeply embedded in our halakhic traditions as well as in our historical experience. but note, the self-critical work needs to be done within our own mapping of the concepts. langer, jewish-christian dialogue about covenant cp12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): cp10-15 to begin with, jewish sources give very little positive space to christianity, and except in polemical contexts, amazingly little space to christianity at all. christianity simply did not matter much to jews, at least as long as jews were subject to pagan or muslim rule. rabbinic traditions perpetuate the bible’s construction of the world as consisting of israel and a largely undifferentiated mass of ויםג , gentiles. rabbis easily dismissed christian claims to be part of the covenant that god gave to israel, for the key terms of that covenant were: circumcision for men, observance of the dietary laws, and sabbath rest, precisely what paul and the other apostles determined were unnecessary for gentiles entering the covenant under christian auspices. in jewish eyes, that entirely delegitimatized their claim to be israel. how then might gentiles be in relationship with god? the rabbis, by the third century ce, i.e., before christianity became a dominant force in their world, had developed the concept of the noahide covenant, a covenant between god and all humanity. compared to the 613 commandments of torah, this covenant contains only seven laws, constituting the basic requirements of civilized human existence. the earliest statement of this tradition reads: the children of noah were commanded concerning seven commandments: about having a system of adjudication; and about idolatry; and about blasphemy; and about improper sexual relationships; and about murder; and about robbery; [and about eating a limb from a living animal]. 7 david novak points out that this tradition represents a new situation in which there is no longer an intermediate status, like the second temple period “god-fearer” or “resident stranger” (ger toshav), between jew and gentile. jews are subject to all of torah; gentiles are subject to this shorter and older list of commandments. jews and gentiles are differently commanded in their paths to holiness.8 but functionally, this gentile path is working according to the jewish map. the noahide covenant operates according to the most fundamental theological category of rabbinic judaism – that god communicates the criteria for human behavior through commandments. this is a functional equivalent to karl rahner’s assertion that all people, even if they do not know it, are saved through christ – christianity’s fundamental theological category. the concept of the noahide covenant teaches that because god gave the torah specifically to israel and not to the rest of the world, god does not expect the rest of the world to be bound by all its terms. however, god’s pre-sinai demands of humanity did contain this shorter list of commandments, which includes prohibitions of the cardinal sins of murder, sexual immorality,9 and idolatry. 10 these, then, set the standard of proper behavior, the mitzvot, for the rest of humanity, a standard that most world religions meet easily. thus, the traditional jewish view of the non-jew emerges from the categories of judaism’s own understanding of its relationship with god. to pre-modern jews, this understanding of the world was self-evident and usually subconscious. it is only in our times that we can question whether the conceptual categories framing the noahide 7 novak, image 25-34. novak’s historical reconstruction of the emergence of this concept is inconsistent with the understanding of boyarin and others that the real separation of the communities only occurred in the third or fourth centuries, a date not inconsistent with the redaction of the tosefta text. 8 the reference is to incest and adultery. 9 all other commandments are negotiable in order to save a human life. 10 novak suggests that rabbinic reaction to the pagan sacrificial custom of tearing the heart out of a living animal generated the otherwise anomalous inclusion of the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal in this list (image 240-41). langer, jewish-christian dialogue about covenant cp13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): cp10-15 laws impose a cultural construct that is incomprehensible or inappropriate for our non-jewish neighbors. however, these laws remain a critical part of jewish heritage. the challenge is to reinterpret them today. from an internal jewish perspective, these noahide laws had the practical effect of creating a yardstick by which to categorize the nations and assess the degree of possible jewish coexistence with them. people who accepted upon themselves these commandments were ipso facto righteous and their communities civilized. this created the possibility of economic and political cooperation as well as cultural exchange and dialogue. most gentiles, with whom jews lived. easily met four of these requirements. they had a system of justice; they considered murder, robbery, and sexual immorality to be criminal activities. more problematic were the questions of idolatry and its attendant crimes of blaspheming god and making offerings from living animals,11 but even so, economic necessity usually encouraged jews to find a solution. the talmudic rabbis understood pagan romans to be merely participants in ancestral custom, and not actual believers in their idolatrous rites. their intent was worship of god, so they were not true idolaters.12 how does christianity fit here? rabbinic texts consistently present the byzantine empire as “rome,” making no distinction based on religion. the gentile nature of pauline christianity, the development of trinitarian theology, particularly with the concomitant emergence of a rich iconography, made it difficult for jews to accept christians as monotheists and non-idolaters. jews probably felt no need to develop a new category to accommodate christian reality.13 rabbinic judaism in the talmudic era was, in any case, generally more interested in preserving judaism by preventing interaction with the surrounding cultures than in building bridges. one need only study the talmudic tractate avodah zarah (strange worship, idolatry) to be struck by the deep suspicion the rabbis had of their gentile neighbors. but jews living as a tiny minority in medieval europe could not cut off all relations with their christian neighbors and live. therefore, they developed ways of understanding christian practice so that, for christians, it would not constitute idolatry, though for jews it still would. therefore, jews could enter into business relationships with christians. in the end, this was more practical halakhah than good theology, but it was a recognition that christians are in relationship with god that is right, for them. it is precisely this lack of good theology and also the prevalence of suspicious and occasionally even vile statements about our neighbors that we jews need to reckon with as we participate more and more deeply in dialogue. we can understand many of these difficult 11 novak, image 124-29. there is no question that this category applies to christians and muslims, the peoples with whom jews have had the most significant interactions historically. asian religions, with the exception of some forms of buddhism, potentially provide much deeper challenges because of their polytheism and idolatry. it is likely that were significant centers of jewish civilization to come to have regular contact with adherents of these traditions, ways would be find to define them as noahides too. 12 holocaust survivors have a particularly difficult time setting aside suspicions and hatred. the virulent anti-semitism rampant in the arab and muslim worlds these days, the calls for a new holocaust emanating out of iran, also reduce jewish readiness to participate in this self-critical process. we can convincingly challenge difficult texts when the situations that generated them no longer exist. 13 a full exploration of this statement requires understanding the complex interactions between jews and christians in the first three or four centuries of their evolutions into mature religious systems. undoubtedly, they did influence one another, positively and negatively, and we know that, on the one hand, there was sufficient social and cultural intermingling to elicit strident opposition from both the rabbis and persons such as john chrysostom, and, on the other hand, significant scholarly interchanges by men such as origen and his rabbinic contemporaries. however, theological understandings of the “other” do not always play out on the street, for better or for worse. langer, jewish-christian dialogue about covenant cp14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): cp10-15 traditions as defensive responses to the anti-judaism of the world in which our ancestors lived. but some still shape some jewish thinking about our neighbors.14 but when we confront these traditions, acknowledge their sources in times when jews were persecuted, and acknowledge that much of the christian world is genuinely trying to remove the sources of this persecution from their hearts and minds, then we are called upon to go further than the noahide covenant takes us. christians understand themselves to participate in god’s covenant with israel. catholic hierarchs feel strongly that there is only one covenant, that which took on new form with jesus. can judaism theologically find a place for this claim? i think that the answer is “no,” because in jewish understanding, god’s covenant with israel has a very explicit set of terms, those of the 613 commandments. one who joins israel becomes subject to this torah. but – judaism also has no reason to insist that god has only one covenant with humanity or even with israel. instead, god has made a succession of cumulative covenants with israel, beginning with the noahide covenant common with all humanity, and then becoming specific with abraham and the covenants of circumcision and of the land of israel (and we need to underscore the importance of the covenant of the land for judaism). the full terms of the covenant were given only at sinai; only after sinai does god speak of the sabbath as a covenantal marker; and god bestows the covenant of sovereignty only with david. are these all parts of the same covenant? not necessarily. so why can’t god make a covenant with another people? in fact, rabbinic tradition says that god wanted to, but one nation after another rejected the divine offer of torah, until israel responded “we will do and we will obey” – נעשה ונשמע. from a jewish perspective, we are limiting god’s infinite love and abilities if we have the hubris to claim that god can only make a covenant with us! there is no requirement of eternal exclusivity! therefore, i have many fewer problems with recognizing, as a jew, that god is in a covenantal relationship with other peoples, and that their covenants with god may have differing terms, terms that were and are more appropriate to these other peoples than torah. such a model has the advantage of differentiating between different groups of noahides according to the particularity that they ascribe to themselves. it means that the teachings of christianity, islam, and maybe even other religions are true teachings from god – but meant for other people just as god gifted the torah and its myriads of requirements as a special responsibility of בני ישראל, “the children of israel.” because god’s teachings to christians began within the jewish world, it was also god’s will that christians have a share in the books of the jewish bible, even if christians interpret its contents differently. similarly, god willed that early muslims know and be influenced by jews and christians and their scriptures. is this satisfactory to christians? probably not entirely, but it is my attempt to express an inclusive theology of covenant through the language and tools that my tradition gives me. i must map my theology within the native terrain of jewish tradition, just as christians use christian categories. do we need to end up with a single “truth”? judaism would not say so. what we do need is to understand each other’s honest attempts to make a positive space on our own maps for the integrity of the others with whom we live and work. 14 holocaust survivors have a particularly difficult time setting aside suspicions and hatred. the virulent anti-semitism rampant in the arab and muslim worlds these days, the calls for a new holocaust emanating out of iran, also reduce jewish readiness to participate in this self-critical process. we can convincingly challenge difficult texts when the situations that generated them no longer exist. langer, jewish-christian dialogue about covenant cp15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ jewish-christian dialogue about covenant scjr 10 (2015) 1 peer-reviewed article “shalom, shalom, shalom israel!” jews and judaism in helmut gollwitzer’s life and theology w. travis mcmaken, lindenwood university helmut gollwitzer was one of karl barth’s most significant students for a number of reasons, and not least among these was his deep-seated commitment to establishing a positive relationship between christianity and judaism. 1 this a version of this essay was presented on june 16, 2014 at the annual karl barth conference at princeton theological seminary. i am indebted to dr. ellen charry (princeton theological seminary) for providing valuable comments on an early draft of the essay. thanks are also due for the help rendered by j. t. young, my teaching assistant at lindenwood university. 1 gollwitzer is perhaps best known for his political theology insofar as he engaged in extensive critical interaction with marxism while himself advocating a form of democratic socialism. see, for example, helmut gollwitzer, the christian faith and the marxist criticism of religion (new york: charles scribner’s sons, 1970); “muß ein christ sozialist sein?,” in forderungen der umkehr: beiträge zur theologie der gesellschaft (munich: chr. kaiser verlag, 1976), 162–78. for an overview of gollwitzer’s political activism, see claudia lepp, “helmut gollwitzer als dialogpartner der sozialen bewegungen,” umbrüche: der deutsche protestantismus und die sozialen bewegungen in den 1960er und 70er jahren, siegfried hermle, claudia lepp, harry oelke, eds. (göttingen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2007), 226–46. but gollwitzer’s interest in jewish-christian dialogue and his commitment to rethinking christian treatments of jews and judaism were also central aspects of his post-war thought. this is sometimes missed in english-language scholarship, perhaps in part because the three essays on “antisemitismus” in his forderungen der freiheit were not included in the english translation. helmut gollwitzer, forderungen der freiheit: aufsätze und reden zur politischen ethik (munich: chr. kaiser verlag, 1964), 247–74; cf. the demands of freedom: papers by a christian in west germany, translated by robert w. fenn (new york: harper & row publishers, 1965). however, few studies of gollwitzer’s life and thought in general—and especially his work in jewish-christian dialogue— exist even in german. this essay thus intends to advance scholarship in scjr 10 (2015) 2 relationship had been poisoned in gollwitzer’s lifetime by the horrible actions of germany’s national socialist regime leading up to and during the second world war. but gollwitzer also recognized that the seed of antisemitism, which all too easily flowers and has flowered into devastating forms of oppression, had long been planted in and nourished by established patterns of christian discourse. gollwitzer relied heavily on what andreas pangrtiz refers to as gollwitzer’s “genius of friendship” 2 in his efforts to repair this relationship. in his ability to be with others in true solidarity, gollwitzer embodied in his life the sort of rapprochement necessary between what he preferred to think of not as two different religions but as two “confessions” or “denominations” (konfessionen) of a single faith. 3 a consideration of gollwitzer’s biography reveals the complimentary point that gollwitzer came to these convictions through his propensity for friendship. what follows brings gollwitzer’s biography together with key intellectual moments in his engagement with the question of jewish-christian relations to indicate how important relationships and experiences impacted his thought on the topic. i. gollwitzer was born “the son of an evangelicallutheran pastor in bavaria” on december 29, 1908. 4 his fa this area of neglect, and especially to bring more balance to treatments of gollwitzer in english-language circles. 2 andreas pangritz, “helmut gollwitzer als theologe des dialogs” (public lecture at rheinischen friedrich-wilhelms-universität, bonn, december 3, 2008), 1. 3 helmut gollwitzer, “martin bubers bedeutung für die protestantische theologie,” in leben als begegnung: ein jahrhundert martin buber (1878–1978), vorträge und aufsätze, peter von der osten-sacken, ed. (berlin: institut kirche und judentum, 1982), 64. 4 helmut gollwitzer, skizzen eines lebens: aus verstreuten selbstzeugnissen gefunden und verbunden von friedrich-wilhelm marquardt, wolfgang brinkel und manfred weber (gütersloh: christian kaiser verlagshaus, 1998), 11. this is currently the definitive source for gollwitzer’s biography, and my discussion of his life relies on it unless otherwise indicated. it is perhaps worth noting that this work is not, strictly scjr 10 (2015) 3 ther possessed conservative socio-political instincts that included a poor opinion of jews. as gollwitzer put it later when reflecting back on his childhood, “just as the average protestant was middle class and ‘national,’ he was also antisemitic.” 5 the theological conservatism of gollwitzer’s father mitigated somewhat the effects of this antisemitism. he taught his children that the jews of the old testament period were a noble people, but that god rejected them in response to their rejection of jesus “and since that time they have been merchants, good for nothing, and they infiltrate everything, everywhere they go.” this concern for infiltration was the moral of the story, for “against that you had to defend yourself.” 6 but gollwitzer defends his parents, saying that “there was no malicious [bösartiger] antisemitism in my parent’s house” and that personal encounters with friendly jewish people opened up different possibilities for thought. furthermore, gollwitzer makes it clear that “we were taught as children that the crucifixion of jesus christ was not the fault [schuld] of jews, but that it was a result of all our guilt [schuld].” 7 what we might call gollwitzer’s “unreflective” antisemitism persisted into the 1920s. 8 in an event known as the beer hall putsch in early november, 1923, adolf hitler declared himself the chancellor of bavaria and proclaimed the establishment of a new national government. but when he speaking, a work of autobiography. rather, it is the editorial integration of various autobiographical comments made and reflections produced by gollwitzer in diverse contexts and genres. these materials from gollwitzer are ensconced in editorial comments that unite them as a single narrative, tie them to gollwitzer’s bibliography, and provide other informative discussions. that said, the task of composing a truly critical biography of gollwitzer remains as yet unfulfilled. 5 victoria barnett, for the soul of the people: protestant protest against hitler (new york: oxford university press, 1992), 15. 6 barnett, for the soul of the people, 15. see also gollwitzer, skizzen eines lebens, 30. 7 gollwitzer, skizzen eines lebens, 31. 8 later in life gollwitzer noted that after the shoah “you can hardly speak of ‘harmless’ anti-semitism, but at that time we saw the antipathy toward the jews as harmless.” barnett, for the soul of the people, 15. scjr 10 (2015) 4 failed to immediately enlist police and military forces in support of his cause, the large national socialist rally was dispersed by machine-gun fire and hitler was arrested shortly thereafter. it is in the context of such remembrances that gollwitzer reflects on his opinions of jews at that time: “a jew is not a german, and cannot be a german, because there is a profound difference in nature between jews and germans.” these aspects of gollwitzer’s early life—the events in munich and his own early view of jews—cohere in his mind because at that time he was a messenger boy for the sa in the bavarian city of lindau. 9 the critical shift for gollwitzer seems to have begun in 1925 when he entered the well-regarded st. anna gymnasium in augsburg. he graduated in 1928. gollwitzer recognized a change in perspective during this period, and it came not primarily through the course of study but through personal interaction. through personal encounter he learned that “pacifists are not necessarily cowards, despicable socialists are not necessarily november-criminals, and jews are not necessarily damned by god.” 10 after leaving st. anna’s gollwitzer studied theology at erlangen and jena before arriving in bonn for the summer semester in 1930. he was there to study with karl barth. this marked a decisive break in gollwitzer’s life with a past that he intended to leave behind. part of that past was active involvement during the previous decades in various aspects of the nationalist german youth movement. to symbolize this break, gollwitzer burned his poetry and his correspondence. 11 9 gollwitzer, skizzen eines lebens, 28. 10 gollwitzer, skizzen eines lebens, 40. the stereotypes here are all associated with the various “stab in the back” myths that circulated during the weimar period, blaming germany’s defeat in world war i on political sabotage by the sort of socially marginalized groups mentioned above. 11 gollwitzer, skizzen eines lebens, 55, 57. the unavailability of these materials makes it difficult to develop a critical understanding of gollwitzer’s early socio-political outlook. between his function as an sa messenger boy and his other youth movement connections, it is hard to resist the inference that gollwitzer had real sympathies with national socialism in the 1920s that he only gradually but—in the end—decisively overcame. in this helmut would have been ahead of his father. the elder gollwitzer initially scjr 10 (2015) 5 now his commitment would be to dialectical theology. as barth’s student, it was natural for gollwitzer to be connected with the confessing church movement that developed in response to how national socialist supporters within the church—the german christians—sought to apply the government’s employment policies in the ecclesiastical context. perhaps the most important of these applications was the socalled “aryan paragraph” of 1933. this stipulation required that any pastor “of non-aryan extraction, or [who] is married to a person of non-aryan extraction” be removed from their positions. 12 this statement foreclosed on the issue of how to treat those who were ethnically jewish but had converted to christianity, or who descended from families who had converted in previous generations, and become pastors. should they be considered jews? christians? germans? for the german christians, the answer was simple: they were jews. the pastors’ emergency league formed as a way to address the needs of those who had lost their positions, and it later became an important piece in the mosaic of constituencies that formed the confessing church. it is increasingly well known that the confessing church’s activism in support of its deposed ethnically jewish pastors did not extend to non-christian jews. indeed, “for the mainstream protestant church, and even within most of the confessing church, the question of church advocacy on behalf of non-christian jews did not even arise.” 13 although it seems placed great hope in national socialism and only became disabused of that hope when what he saw as improper government interference in the churches drove him toward the confessing church (21). 12 as quoted in wolfgang gerlach, and the witnesses were silent: the confessing church and the persecution of the jews, translated and edited by victoria j. barnett (lincoln, ne: university of nebraska press, 2000), 25. see pp. 17–18 for a discussion of the reich law for the restoration of the professional civil service, which articulated the policy that the german christians moved to apply within the church. 13 barnett, for the soul of the people, 128. gerlach corroborates: “there would never be much support within the confessing church for leading a protest against nazi racial policies.” gerlach, and the witnesses were silent, 100. along these same lines it is possible to criticize the much scjr 10 (2015) 6 certain that gollwitzer would have been aware of more clearsighted thinking concerning the jews under the conditions of national socialism, such as that provided by karl barth and dietrich bonhoeffer, 14 gollwitzer occupied himself in the confessing church’s early years with other issues. for instance, he wrote an essay against the “führer-principle” that dealt with the proper shape of authority in the church. 15 he also wrote about the nature of the lord’s supper in an effort to remove obstacles to greater confessing church cooperation between those from the lutheran and reformed traditions. this latter effort culminated in his dissertation, coena domini, published in 1937. 16 these confessional divisions plagued the movement and undermined its effectiveness at critical moments. 17 gollwitzer also became close in the mid-1930s to lauded barmen declaration as overly theological and insufficiently political in its statements, especially with reference to the jewish question. this was by design. the confessing church did not want to be “a political resistance group in the third reich.” klaus scholder, the churches of the third reich, vol. 2, the year of disillusionment: 1934, barmen and rome (philadelphia, pa: forterss press, 1988), 150. 14 barth’s influence on gollwitzer need not be argued in detail, but it may be worth noting that gollwitzer was barth’s student during this period and even served as his famulus (i.e., teaching assistant) during 1931. see gollwitzer, skizzen eines lebens, 70. as for bonhoeffer, he visited barth in bonn toward the end of the 1931 summer semester and met with a group of barth’s students. this meeting occurred in gollwitzer’s student lodgings (60). 15 helmut gollwitzer, “amt und ‘führertum’ in der kirche,” evangelische theologie 1 (1934), 79–113. 16 helmut gollwitzer, “die abendmahlsfrage als aufgabe kirchlicher lehre,” theologische aufsätze: karl barth zum 50. geburtstag, ernst wolfe, ed. (münchen: christian kaiser verlag, 1936), 275–98; helmut gollwitzer, coena domini: die altlutherische abendmahlslehre in ihrer auseinandersetzung mit dem calvinismus, dargestellt an der lutherischen frühorthodoxie, mit einer einführung zur neuausgabe von dietrich braun (munich: christian kaiser verlag, 1937/1988). concerning gollwitzer’s participation in the confessing church, see dietrich braun, “helmut gollwitzer in den jahren des kirchenkampfs 1934–1938” in helmut gollwitzer, coena domini. 17 for more on how confessional differences within the confessing church were exploited by the third reich, see scholder, church of the third reich, vol. 2, esp. 150–66. scjr 10 (2015) 7 martin niemöller, an important confessing church leader and pastor in the berlin district of dahlem. gollwitzer arrived in berlin on may 1, 1937, and niemöller was arrested on july 1. although acquitted by judicial decision in 1938, hitler personally intervened to send niemöller to a concentration camp as a “personal prisoner of the führer” 18 and he remained as such until the end of the reich. gollwitzer replaced niemöller in the dahlem pulpit. this is significant not only because dahlem was a wealthy area and home to many important national socialist officials, but also because the dahlem church had non-aryan pastors and members from important families of jewish origin. 19 this personal contact seems to have sharpened the jewish question for gollwitzer. the yearly day of repentance (bußtag) of the german church fell six days after the november 1938 pogrom, and gollwitzer preached a sermon in dahlem on luke 3:3–14 that urged his hearers to repent of their failings and practice “unreserved solidarity with the ostracized jews” as part of their commitment to the gospel. 20 gollwitzer speaks 18 braun, “helmut gollwitzer in den jahren des kirchenkampfs 1934– 1938,” 95. 19 paul oestreicher writes concerning dahlem: “not only was this one of the wealthiest suburbs of the german capital, but in it lived a high proportion of the most influential and powerful people in nazi germany. to preach the gospel here was to preach it in the open jaws of hell.” paul oestreicher, “helmut gollwitzer in the european storms” in helmut gollwitzer, the demands of freedom, 14. on the non-aryan presence in dahlem, see braun, “helmut gollwitzer in den jahren des kirchenkampfs 1934–1938,” 98. 20 braun, “helmut gollwitzer in den jahren des kirchenkampfs 1934– 1938,” 99. this sermon has recently been translated into english. see helmut gollwitzer, “a sermon about kristallnacht,” in preaching in hitler's shadow: sermons of resistance in the third reich, dean g. stroud, ed. (grand rapids, mi: william b. eerdmans, 2013). stroud makes two minor historical errors. first, he dates the pogrom as occurring on the night of november 8–9 (116), but it occurred on the night of november 9–10. second, he correctly dates gollwitzer’s sermon as delivered on november 16, but he incorrectly identifies this as a sunday (117). it was a wednesday. it may be that stroud is unaware of the bußtag tradition in the german protestant church, leading him to incorrectly surmise that the sunday following the pogrom was declared a “day of penance.” scjr 10 (2015) 8 carefully but clearly in this sermon. he begins by emphasizing the need for christians to repent of their failure to love their neighbors in need. they have “exchanged god’s standard for the standard of current political propaganda” and have demonstrated “that upright men and women can turn into horrible beasts.” as a result, gollwitzer proclaims to his hearers that “god is disgusted at the very sight of you.” furthermore, what distinguishes a person as “called into the kingdom (reich) of heaven”—and the contrast to those who are rather to be counted as members of the german reich is all the more powerful in remaining implicit—is that such a one “lets himself be talked to in this way.” 21 after preaching god’s disgust, gollwitzer preaches the antecedent and fundamental character of god’s love. “the negation of life that belongs to repentance comes from a tremendous affirmation of god.... god has loved this brood of vipers.” this love and affirmation of life raise for gollwitzer the important question, given to him by his text, “what then should we do?” 22 and just as does jesus in luke’s gospel, so gollwitzer in his sermon answers this question by pointing to concrete acts of love for one’s neighbor. according to gollwitzer’s definition, the neighbor is anyone who “lacks what you have.” the only way to address such need is through action. “god wants to see deeds,” gollwitzer proclaims, “good works [done] by those who have fled divine wrath with the help of christ.” 23 in closing gollwitzer sets the challenge still more clearly before his hearers with these weighty words: “now just outside this church our neighbor is waiting for us— waiting for us in his need and lack of protection, disgraced, hungry, hunted, and driven by fear for his very existence. that is the one who is waiting to see if today this christian congregation has really observed this national day of penance. jesus christ himself is waiting to see. amen.” 21 gollwitzer, “a sermon about kristallnacht,” 122. 22 gollwitzer, “a sermon about kristallnacht,” 124. see luke 3:10. 23 gollwitzer, “a sermon about kristallnacht,” 125. scjr 10 (2015) 9 in addition to his pastoral work at dahlem, gollwitzer’s personal life would bind him more closely to the sufferings of jews in those years. on august 25, 1940, helmut gollwitzer met eva bildt. 24 eva was a singer and actress whose dream of a professional career, along with the rest of her life, was derailed under the nazi reich because of her jewish mother. her father paul bildt’s status as an aryan and statesponsored actor provided a modicum of protection to his wife and daughter, although as the years progressed this protection seemed increasingly feeble. arrest and transfer to a camp was a constant threat. helmut and eva rapidly fell in love, becoming officially engaged in january of 1941. the period of their courtship was an uncertain time. helmut was issued a gagorder shortly after they met, and was conscripted soon after that. the couple required special permission to marry due to eva’s part-aryan status and for a time it looked like they would receive it. but this fell apart when the potential groom’s identity was discovered. a steady stream of letters passed between them when helmut was deployed to the french and later the russian fronts. eva became increasingly depressed as the war continued. the bildt home was destroyed by bombing in early 1944, and both eva’s parents became very ill. her mother died in march of 1945, berlin was occupied on april 26, and on april 27 eva and her apparently terminally ill father attempted suicide through barbiturate overdose. 25 eva succeeded. her father made a full recovery and lived until 1957. meanwhile, gollwitzer was captured and sent to russia as a prisoner of war. he would remain there until the end of 1949. in the autumn of 1946 helmut learned of the death of eva and other loved ones in the first correspondence that he 24 narration of eva and helmut’s relationship draws upon the following: gollwitzer, skizzen eines lebens, 152–59; helmut gollwitzer and eva bildt, ich will dir schnell sagen, daß ich lebe, liebster: brief aus dem krieg 1940-1945, friedrich künzel and ruth pabst, ed. (munich: c. h. beck verlag, 2008), 9–13. 25 gollwitzer and bildt, ich will dir schnell sagen, 317. scjr 10 (2015) 10 received in soviet custody. he describes his reaction: “i ran howling into the woods.” 26 ii. gollwitzer’s engagement with jews and judaism entered a new phase upon his release from captivity and return to west germany, otherwise known as the bonn republic, on new year’s eve in 1949. 27 he was awarded the post of ordinarius professor of theology at the university of bonn on january 31, 1950. 28 it was during the intervening weeks that a romantic relationship began to develop between gollwitzer and brigitte freudenberg. brigitte’s father adolf had been with the german foreign service, but two things led him to rethink his career. 29 first, he was married to a secular jew. second, he and his wife fell under the influence of martin niemöller and shifted from conventional religious concern to intense christian commitment. adolf left the service in 1935 before they could dismiss him, moved his family to dahlem in 1936, and began studying to become a pastor in the confessing church. brigitte was confirmed by niemöller, and the freudenbergs became a surrogate family—second only to the niemöllers—for the young and unattached gollwitzer. through a complex set of circumstances the freudenberg 26 gollwitzer, skizzen eines lebens, 228. there is some discrepancy here as the correspondence provided does not explicitly indicate that he learned of eva’s death in that first delivery of mail. but knowledgeable sources indicate that he did. see gollwitzer and bildt, ich will dir schnell sagen, 317. 27 helmut gollwitzer, unwilling journey: a diary from russia, e. m. delacour and robert fenn, trans. (london: scm press, ltd., 1953), 309. 28 gollwitzer, skizzen eines lebens, 249. although gollwitzer was given the position on january 31, the university credited him with an effective start date of november 1, 1949. 29 gollwitzer, skizzen eines lebens, 251. my narration concerning the freudenbergs and gollwitzer’s wedding is drawn from pp. 251–60. for more on adolf freudenberg, including his ecumenical relief work on behalf of jewish refugees during the war, see hartmut ludwig, “‘christians cannot remain silent about this crime’: on the centenary of the birth of adolf freudenberg,” ecumenical review 46:4 (1994): 475–85. scjr 10 (2015) 11 family landed in switzerland for the duration of the war, and brigitte suffered the death of a young man to whom she was secretly engaged. she undertook a certificate program in switzerland for women to receive some ministerial training. brigitte was the first of her family to return to germany after the war, which she did in october of 1945 to work in frankfurt (am main) with a confessing church pastor doing children’s ministry and church-based relief work. gollwitzer stopped to see brigitte while on the way from bavaria to bonn to assume his professorship. their relationship blossomed rapidly, undoubtedly expedited by their previous acquaintance, similar experiences of wartime loss, and commitment to the confessing church. they declared their love for each other by the end of july but planned to wait a year to wed in order to give them both an opportunity for further reflection. but in the end they were married on march 31, 1951. the wedding occurred in the midst of life’s demands. it was held in the bomb-damaged church in frankfurt where brigitte had been working. the sermon was preached by niemöller. and because of a nearby conference, at which gollwitzer spoke, karl barth and other “theological friends” were able to attend. 30 helmut’s relationship with brigitte continued the process begun years earlier and further galvanized his desire to reconceive the relationship between christians and jews both personally and theologically. furthermore, it was likely brigitte who initiated the couple’s trip to israel in 1958. 31 this trip was an important moment for gollwitzer. on may 10 of that same year, the ten-year anniversary of the modern state of israel’s founding, gollwitzer gave a commemorative speech drawing on the impressions he gained during his trip. by this time gollwitzer had moved to the free university of berlin, and 30 gollwitzer, skizzen eines lebens, 260. 31 two pieces of evidence suggest that the impetus came from brigitte. first, her parents accompanied them on the trip. see pangritz, “helmut gollwitzer als theologe des dialogs,” 5. second, she was committed to returning to israel with some regularity. see gottfried orth, helmut gollwitzer: zur solidarität befreit (mainz: matthias-grünewald verlag, 1995), 60. scjr 10 (2015) 12 this public speech was held in its largest auditorium. 32 the title was “israel and us,” where the “us” in question stood both for the bonn republic as a socio-political entity and for its citizens as christians. as gollwitzer points out at the start, the existence of israel affects his audience “more deeply than the existence of any other foreign country.” 33 gollwitzer’s speech is overwhelmingly positive, but not unreflectively so. “it is not about setting a blind philosemitism in the place of a blind antisemitism,” he maintains toward the end of the speech, noting also that reports about israel are “too easily enthusiastic” and “ignore the enormous problems” in play. 34 he further blames the geopolitical meddling of the western and eastern powers for stoking the flames of hatred and heightening the political tensions between israel and the neighboring arab nations. 35 in the face of such a situation it is no wonder that israel must pay a great deal of attention to its military and national security, but gollwitzer maintains that israel also recognizes that its future depends on the establishment of true peace. 36 on the way to his conclusion gollwitzer even offers what might be thought of as a warning to israel: “part of jewry has now achieved the ability to live like other peoples also.... in its new existence, israel will prove that it can live like other peoples only if it knows that it is not like other peoples, that a particular task is intended for it for the benefit of everyone else.” but he ends in a more positive voice. gollwitzer draws on the logic of genesis 12:3—even quoting the first part of the verse—to suggest that blessing and curse are historical realities. with world war ii fresh in his mind and the minds of his hearers, gollwitzer proposes that the world stands in need of some blessing. he urges the audience to do what they can to support and share in israel’s special task. thus, and in conclusion, gollwitzer takes the lead 32 gollwitzer, skizzen eines lebens, 282. 33 helmut gollwitzer, israel und wir (berlin: lettner verlag, 1958), 5. 34 gollwitzer, israel und wir, 27–28. 35 gollwitzer, israel und wir, 27. 36 gollwitzer, israel und wir, 25. scjr 10 (2015) 13 in pronouncing a blessing “toward palestine: shalom, shalom, shalom israel!” 37 that gollwitzer is overwhelmingly positive in this speech is perhaps no surprise given the speech’s context both geopolitically and in gollwitzer’s biography. but it is instructive to examine the reasons that gollwitzer supplies in this speech for his positive approach. he thinks the state of israel is important in view of three “moments”: sociological, moral, and theological. 38 the moral moment is the most straightforward, and gollwitzer speaks plainly: this is the first thing a german has reason to bear in mind when dealing with the state of israel, or even with jews at all: for all intents and purposes, according to the explicit will of the leadership that our people so enthusiastically cheered for years, all these people should no longer live.... it is not to our merit that these people are still alive, apart from a very few. if we did not participate, we nonetheless looked on, or perhaps looked away. we certainly did not throw things in the way of the gruesome murders that happened there in our name because our own survival—yes—was more important than the survival of these people. too many of us were prepared to approve the related atrocities when adolf hitler, so long as he led our people only to victory, required as a prize a few million jews for the satisfaction of his personal pleasure.... every german who travels to israel should be clear: every jew who still lives today lives not because of us, but in spite of us...in spite of me!” 39 gollwitzer also briefly addresses moral questions pertaining to the establishment of the state of israel. his opinion is that the legal issues are unresolvable and that “the short-sightedness 37 gollwitzer, israel und wir, 28. 38 gollwitzer, israel und wir, 5. 39 gollwitzer, israel und wir, 16–17. scjr 10 (2015) 14 and selfishness of the arabs, jews, and british were equally involved.” 40 consequently, it is best to look toward the future. with reference to the theological moment, gollwitzer emphasizes that “anyone who deals with israel must—like it or not—be a theologian.” 41 but his central message to christians is hermeneutical in nature. “since one cannot understand the new testament without the old testament, then one cannot understand the whole bible without talking to the jews. what christian arrogance to think that they have nothing to tell us!” 42 of course, there are jews elsewhere than in the state of israel. why then is the state of israel important in this connection? key is that “interpretation of scripture does not happen disconnected from life.” 43 in the state of israel, the reunion of this people and this land, gollwitzer finds the beginnings of a renewed jewish form of life that he believes will lead to deeper scriptural understanding in both the jewish and christian traditions. 44 i treat gollwitzer’s first moment, the sociological, last because it is finally the key to understanding the overwhelmingly positive stance that he takes toward the state of israel. 40 gollwitzer, israel und wir, 20. 41 gollwitzer, israel und wir, 22. 42 gollwitzer, israel und wir, 23. 43 gollwitzer, israel und wir, 24. 44 gollwitzer reflects that usually when this reunion of people and place is noted “in christian circles” it only stimulates “the apocalyptic imagination,” where one tries to deduce how the end-times will unfold. “this won’t get you very far” (23) in gollwitzer’s opinion. for further exploration of how gollwitzer understands the relation between judaism and christianity, the best place to begin in english (and perhaps also in german) is the seventh chapter, “christianity and judaism,” of helmut gollwitzer, an introduction to protestant theology, david cairns, trans. (philadelphia: the westminster press, 1982); orig. befreiung zur solidarität: einführung in die evangelische theologie, (munich: chr. kaiser verlag, 1978). elsewhere gollwitzer admits that his motivation in rethinking the theological relation between judaism and christianity is to remove the anti-semitic root in christian thinking so that plant will not flower again in the future. helmut gollwitzer, forderungen der freiheit, 257. scjr 10 (2015) 15 this is suggested insofar as his discussion of this moment accounts for half of the speech and is littered with vignettes and anecdotes about his time in israel. at one point he waxes rhapsodic about the beauty and physical power of israel’s youth, for instance. but the connecting thread in this sociological moment is that israel serves as an “example of a nonrestorative social structure.” 45 gollwitzer interprets israel on this point in contrast with his own bonn republic, and with european society in general. on both sides there was “the grace of the zero point,” a chance to remake society. the difference is that “with us, we have gambled it away; there, it has benefited them.” 46 on gollwitzer’s reading, the bonn republic has been primarily concerned to reconstruct pre-war society, i.e., to get things back to “normal.” israel, on the other hand, has begun something new. all those who can work are trained to make their contribution to society, and those who are unable to work are cared for both physically and personally. in this way, gollwitzer believes that israel has achieved organically the kind of socialist awareness that communist states try but fail to achieve by force. 47 indeed, “the phenomenon of kibbutzim” 48 features prominently in this section of gollwitzer’s speech as a fundamental locus of social solidarity. it is this new form of life in solidarity, uniquely enacted in and symbolized by the kibbutzim, that made such an impression on gollwitzer during his trip to israel and motivated his overwhelmingly positive estimation of israel in this speech. 49 45 gollwitzer, israel und wir, 6. 46 gollwitzer, israel und wir, 11. 47 gollwitzer, israel und wir, 12. 48 gollwitzer, israel und wir, 13. 49 pangritz shares this judgment, noting that “one could prove from his doctrine of israel that gollwitzer’s socialism is a necessary part of his ‘system,’” insofar as it was characterized by “the cooperative experiment of the kibbutzim.” andreas pangritz, “helmut gollwitzers theologie des christlichjüdischen verhältnisses, versuch eine kritischen bilanz,” evangelische theologie 56, no. 4 (1996), 360–61. it seems as though gollwitzer saw in the kibbutzim of israel’s early decades the beginnings of a new sort of organically democratic and socialist community in contrast to the reactionary element he saw in the bonn republic. his early enthusiasm scjr 10 (2015) 16 gollwitzer’s experiences when visiting israel in 1958 resulted in more activity than the presentation of a single public speech, however. the question of jewish-christian relations henceforth became a major preoccupation in his work. this preoccupation took on an institutional dimension when he helped to found a working group in 1961 for discussion between jews and christians under the auspices of the german evangelical kirchentag. friedrich-wilhelm marquardt—one of gollwitzer’s students—was also involved, as was rabbi robert raphael geis and other jewish leaders. 50 this group attracted opposition from more conservative quarters of the church, but it became an important institution in germany and was replicated there later by the roman catholic church. 51 however, this group experienced “a life-threatening crisis” 52 in 1963–64, which became known as the “purim controversy [purimstreit].” in brief, a conservative church group intent on proselytizing jews was interested in meeting with the working group, and gollwitzer unilaterally took it upon himself to arrange it. geis reacted very negatively to this, saying that christians had a “chance to confess christ to the jews—in the third reich” by going with the jews to their death. but having about the state of israel is therefore closely bound up with his broader political theology. 50 pangritz provides further names. see andreas pangritz, “friedrichwilhelm marquardt—a theological-biographical sketch,” european judaism 38:1 (2005), 41, n. 43. 51 gollwitzer, skizzen eines lebens, 282. 52 pangritz, “helmut gollwitzers theologie des christlich-jüdischen verhältnisses,” 365. the broad strokes of my narration of this controversy derive from this essay by pangritz, as well as the following sources: pangritz, “helmut gollwitzer als theologe des dialogs,” 5–6; friedrichwilhelm marquardt, “hermeneutik des christlichen-jüdischen verhältnisses: über helmut gollwitzers arbeit an der ‘judenfrage’,” in richte unsere füße auf den weg des friedens: helmut gollwitzer zum 70. geburtstag, andreas baudis, et al., eds. (munich: chr. kaiser verlag, 1979), 144. the correspondence between gollwitzer and geis, as well as some of their related correspondence with others, is also available: robert raphael geis, leiden an der unerlöstheit der welt: briefe, reden, aufsätze (munich: chr. kaiser verlag, 1984), 227–75. scjr 10 (2015) 17 missed that opportunity, geis believes that christians should be ashamed to attempt such proselytization after the fact. 53 throughout the controversy gollwitzer maintained that his actions were motivated by friendship and, as far as he was concerned, any friendship worth having had to provide room for disagreement. he appealed to martin buber’s concept of a “heterogeneous community.” 54 such a community presupposes that there is controversy and contestation between the members, but this is not allowed to hinder or destroy the community. for this reason, neither side—jew nor christian—should be expected to set aside their convictions. each must remain true to themselves while also finding a way to understand one another in their otherness. nonetheless, gollwitzer did come to recognize the insensitivity of his actions. he admitted with reference to jewish-christian dialogue that he was being forced to think “previously un-thought thoughts” every day, and he asked geis to be patient with him as they work through the process of becoming brothers. 55 for his part, geis found the patience for which gollwitzer asked and they were able to continue their friendship and common work. iii. it is important to consider one later event in the history of gollwitzer’s engagement with jews and judaism where that engagement once again felt considerable strain. a conference was held at beersheeba in 1978 to mark the centenary of martin buber’s birth. gollwitzer was invited to speak. his lecture entitled “martin buber’s significance for protestant theology” was primarily celebratory of buber’s intellectual achievements. in the second and largest section of the lecture, gollwitzer traces how buber’s work was appropriated in 20th century german protestant theology. the story begins with the 53 geis, leiden an der unerlöstheit der welt, 253. 54 geis, leiden an der unerlöstheit der welt, 255. 55 geis, leiden an der unerlöstheit der welt, 273. scjr 10 (2015) 18 luther renaissance that roughly coincided with buber’s work. gollwitzer suggests that the two influences coalesced to provide protestant theology of this period with an impetus to think theological questions through on the basis of a “personal logic” of relationships rather than the abstract and impersonal logic of scholasticism. 56 he proceeds to trace the presence of such logic in the work of thinkers like karl barth, emil brunner, rudolf bultmann, friedrich gogarten, karl heim, and paul tillich. this exposition occupies approximately two thirds of the lecture’s length. nevertheless, gollwitzer’s lecture is as much about jewish-christian dialogue as it is about martin buber’s influence on twentieth century protestant theology in germany. indeed, gollwitzer begins and ends the lecture on this other theme, which has only a tenuous material connection to the stated theme. gollwitzer begins his lecture by praising buber for being one of few jews to have made, precisely as a jew, such a decisive imprint on non-jewish intellectual culture. he even speculates that buber’s otherness as a jew is what motivated him to understand interpersonal encounter as an exercise in making space for and receiving another’s otherness, recognizing that true understanding requires just such an encounter. 57 gollwitzer finds this sort of true encounter-inotherness lacking in christianity’s history: “the history of the church and the christian mission was anything but the story of a dialogical learning process. it was more the story of christian imperialism.” but gollwitzer assures his audience that now jewish-christian relations are focused on mutually enriching dialogue rather than propaganda and proselytization, and he sees buber’s work as “indispensible” for this undertaking. 58 these opening reflections bear many similarities to gollwitzer’s comments from the midst of the purim controversy over a 56 gollwitzer, “martin bubers bedeutung für die protestantische theologie,” 65. 57 gollwitzer, “martin bubers bedeutung für die protestantische theologie,” 63. 58 gollwitzer, “martin bubers bedeutung für die protestantische theologie,” 64. scjr 10 (2015) 19 decade earlier and may be read as something of a commentary on those events. after what could be understood as a long digression to deal with the stated theme of the lecture, gollwitzer returns to the theme of jewish-christian dialogue by reflecting on some of martin buber’s comments about that enterprise. in particular, buber made some statements—especially after world war ii—suggesting that christianity and judaism can only be understood from the inside. gollwitzer argues that such thinking stands in “striking contradiction...to his own dialogic” which advocates “the meeting of two subjects precisely in their otherness.” 59 the mutual otherness involved in this encounter virtually guarantees the presence of mutual criticism and conflict, as was seen in the early years of the kirchentag working group. consequently, it is no surprise that in the concluding section of his lecture gollwitzer pivots to address the sociopolitical situation in the israeli state at that time. gollwitzer attempts to walk a very fine line in this concluding material, and he keeps buber in view as part of his rhetorical strategy. the socio-political challenge for israel that gollwitzer highlights is one that he raised already in his 1958 speech: the need to establish friendly relations between jews on the one side and arabs on the other. he appeals to buber as one who recognized the enduring importance for israel’s well-being of establishing peaceful relations between these two groups. the alternative, that israel “repeat all the sins of pagan states,” is not in the interest of either israel in particular or humanity in general. instead, the proper way to demonstrate israel’s identity as jewish is “by persistent effort for peaceful— that is, equal—coexistence with the arabs within israel and with its arab neighbors.” this will not be easy, but gollwitzer believes that “if a people can avoid being a ‘master race [her 59 gollwitzer, “martin bubers bedeutung für die protestantische theologie,” 75. scjr 10 (2015) 20 renvolk]’ and can avoid blundering ‘suddenly’ into a ‘master race’-position, it is the jews.” 60 negative reactions to gollwitzer’s lecture focused on two complaints, and both are answered by gollwitzer’s understanding of friendship. first, exception was taken to his use of “master race” language. however, this language was already in use in certain zionist circles with which buber had contact, 61 and buber had employed language of blood and race in his writing with reference to israel. in a short afterword appended to the lecture for publication, gollwitzer admits that this language comes from “the dictionary of inhumanity.” 62 but he stands by the importance of the issue to which he had called attention with this language. gollwitzer’s basic motivating concern was that israel had not followed through on the new form of life in solidarity to which he had been so attracted when visiting israel in 1958. there had been no extension of that solidarity from jews to arabs. indeed, gollwitzer lamented in 1967 that there had not been kibbutzim founded with the aim of bringing jews and arabs together, stating that at that time— nearly twenty years after the founding of the state of israel—“a real coexistence between the jewish and arab israelis is still in its infancy.” 63 the nation that he had thought was on the verge of forging a new way of being in solidarity had stalled and was now in grave danger of surrendering to socio-political business as usual. second, gollwitzer was denounced as a german meddling in israeli affairs. gollwitzer anticipated this complaint, 60 gollwitzer, “martin bubers bedeutung für die protestantische theologie,” 78. 61 for more on buber as not only a zionist but a socialist zionist, see friedrich-wilhelm marquardt, “martin buber as a socialist zionist,” in theological audacities: selected essays, andreas pangritz and paul s. chung, eds. (eugene, or: pickwick publications, 2010), 48–67. 62 gollwitzer, “martin bubers bedeutung für die protestantische theologie,” 79. 63 helmut gollwitzer, vietnam, israel und die christenheit (munich: chr. kaiser verlag, 1967), 81. scjr 10 (2015) 21 however, and addressed it in his lecture. he freely admits that it must be the israelis themselves who make the decisions on these challenging issues. but he also notes that even at the geopolitical level other nations give israel advice implicitly and explicitly through diplomatic statements and policy, thereby thoughtfully participating in the pursuit of peace. 64 he understands his own remarks as part of that thoughtful participation. as seen with reference to the “purim controversy,” gollwitzer’s approach to friendship is solidarity in the midst of otherness precisely by making room for disagreement. consequently, “he was never able to accept a principle of noninterference, especially vis-à-vis friends.” 65 such a practice of friendship is not easy for any of the parties involved, but it was a practice to which gollwitzer remained committed. iv. helmut gollwitzer’s work in the field of jewishchristian dialogue was not only motivated but decisively shaped by a history of personal encounter and friendship with jews. already in the experiences of his youth this personal encounter belied prevailing german prejudices and made it possible for gollwitzer to tread a different path. although always confessing his own complicity in the horrors of the third reich, gollwitzer nevertheless stands out as one who did more than most in support of his jewish neighbors. after the war and spurred on by his wife, who was ethnically if not religiously jewish, gollwitzer visited israel and was impressed with the community and solidarity that he found among the jews there. he brought these impressions back to germany and harnessed them to build the jewish-christian working group in connection with the kirchentag. this was a growing process for gollwitzer, who had to come to terms in a new way with the personal and theological baggage bequeathed by centuries of christian anti-semitism. and when gollwitzer urged the 64 gollwitzer, “martin bubers bedeutung für die protestantische theologie,” 78. 65 pangritz, “helmut gollwitzers theologie des christlich-jüdischen verhältnisses,” 368. scjr 10 (2015) 22 state of israel to take more seriously the task of building solidarity in friendship across jewish-arab lines, he did so in the spirit of friendship. gollwitzer remained committed throughout his life to living with jews in a form of friendship defined by solidarity-in-otherness, where differences are acknowledged, understood, and embraced rather than ignored. he believed that the state of israel’s ultimate success depended on the expansion of this boundary-transgressing friendship. in this way gollwitzer’s challenge to israel in 1978 was a reiteration of the pronouncement from two decades earlier, uttered at the conclusion of his speech in 1958 commemorating the first decade of israel’s existence—“shalom, shalom, shalom israel!” scjr 10 (2015) 1 in our time: civil rights, women’s liberation, and jewish-christian dialogue fifty years after nostra aetate katharina von kellenbach, saint mary’s college of maryland nostra aetate has rightly been called a “revolution” and is celebrated as a giant step in the path toward jewishchristian reconciliation and interreligious dialogue. 1 its passage at the second vatican council in 1965 was the culmination of the work of concerned christians and jews who were determined to draw lessons from the tragedy of the holocaust and to put an end to centuries of christian “teaching of contempt.” 2 beginning in 1947 in seelisberg, switzerland, theological activists both lay and ordained, created an ecumenical and interreligious movement of protestants, catholics, and jews who came together in dialogue and laid the seeds to reimagine the relationship between the old and of the new israel. at the council, in heated clashes over politics and theology, the passage of nostra aetate was so unlikely that it can be considered a miracle. but it passed, and became the impetus for profound theological changes. following roy eckardt’s black-woman-jew: three wars for human liberation, 3 i want to place nostra aetate into the historical context of the 1960s, where jewish demands for respect were raised alongside and amidst the american civil rights movement, global anti-colonialist liberation struggles, and the women’s movement. it is no accident that abraham joshua heschel marched on selma with martin luther king 1 john connolly, from enemy to brother: the revolution in catholic teaching on the jews, 1933–1965 (cambridge: harvard university press, 2012). 2 jules isaac, the teaching of contempt: the christian roots of antisemitism (new york: holt, rinehart and winston, 1964). 3 roy eckardt, black-woman-jew: three wars for human liberation, (bloomington: indiana university press, 1989). scjr 10 (2015) 2 in the same year, 1965, as he met with pope paul vi to advocate for nostra aetate. among the fifteen official female “auditors” who were allowed to attend vatican ii were several nascent feminist theologians, among them sister mary luke tolbin and rosemary goldie, as well as mary daly. 4 the 1960s was a revolutionary decade that challenged the ideologies and institutions that had ordained the secondary and inferior status of jews, blacks, women, the colonized, the poor, and the young. the language of liberation and revolution, of emancipation and freedom, of equality and civil rights infused this decade with hopes and dreams. with confidence, nostra aetate proclaims that no foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between individual and individual or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned. the church reproves as foreign to the mind of christ, any discrimination against people, or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion.” (na §5) “in our time” was written at a propitious moment in history that generated visions of a future in which songs of “we shall overcome” rang to announce the end of discrimination, inequality, and oppression. the democratic paradigm shift that was cautiously embraced by vatican ii and pushed through in the political battles of the 1960s and 1970s released enormous theological creativity and saw the flourishing of feminist theology, jewish-christian dialogue, as well as liberation, black, and womanist theology. these theological movements challenged 4 carmel mcenroy, vatican ii: guests in their own house (new york: crossroads, 1996). sister tobin was one of the fifteen female auditors at vatican ii and a feminist theologian; see “female and catholic: an interview with sister mary luke tobin, s.l., u.s. catholic, originally appeared in april 1987 issue, now available online at http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2012/09/female-and-catholic-interviewsister-mary-luke-tobin-sl?page=0%2c0. scjr 10 (2015) 3 conventional hierarchies that elevate one gender, one race, and one religion over another, and generated new theological models to respect difference, value equality, and embrace pluralism. scholars and activists explored the theological implications of granting full humanity to women, human dignity to slaves and the colonized, and theological value to the distinctive paths of jews and gentiles (gal 3:28). but even as egalitarian theologies of liberation on the basis of gender, race, class, and religion gained a foothold in academia and mainline churches, the center of the political debate and popular culture shifted. it is not only that conservative parties have come into power, beginning with the elections of ronald reagan (1981), margaret thatcher (1979), helmut kohl (1982), and the appointment of pope john paul ii (1978). but rather, the topics of public debate shifted so as to sideline progressive theological scholarship. to give an example: increasingly, the first question i receive after delivering a lecture on christian theological anti-judaism concerns the state of israel. the speaker challenges me—often in a hostile tone—to take a position on zionism and the middle east conflict. but my lecture did not concern the middle east, i am no expert in that part of the world, and have little to contribute to the resolution of the israeli-palestinian conflict, let alone the wars raging among and with neighboring countries. but the frequency of such experiences has convinced me that the discussion of christian theological supersessionism has been impacted, if not hijacked, by the rise of new political discourses. political scientist vesla m. weaver has proposed the concept of “frontlash” to explain the dynamics by which the terms of a political debate are changed. her theory does not neatly fit across the disciplines or my three areas of theological concern: feminist theology, black theology, and theology in the jewish-christian dialogue. but i want to use her theory to show how it is possible that—fifty years after nostra aetate— church and political leaders pay homage to principles of gender, racial, and religious equality while at the same time scjr 10 (2015) 4 pursuing policies that aim to curb and control the power of women, jews, and blacks. from race to crime in her provocative article, “frontlash: race and the development of punitive crime policy,” weaver argues that the civil rights act of 1964 defeated the beneficiaries of legal segregation in the south. but it did not end racism. while the civil rights act of 1964 imposed norms of racial equality, its attendant civil disobedience and the inner city riots allowed segregationist politicians to recast the political debate by linking race with crime. weaver provides historical evidence that shows how opponents of civil rights regrouped and developed new political and legal initiatives to raise police budgets, toughen sentencing guidelines, and construct new prisons. the new emphasis on “law and order” created double binds for liberal politicians and garnered public support for policies that would eventually result in the mass incarceration of black americans. weaver introduces the term “frontlash” to explain the coincidence of rising concern over crime at a point in time when the civil rights movement effectively challenged the political structure of white supremacy: i advance the notion of frontlash, or the process by which losers in a conflict become the architects of a new program, manipulating the issue space and altering the dimension of the conflict in an effort to regain their command of the agenda. frontlash hinges on the presence of winners and losers of a recent political conflict... by maneuvering into a new issue space and carving a new niche to mobilize around, the disadvantaged/defeated group opens the possibility of reversing its fortunes without violating established norms. 5 5 vesla m. weaver, “frontlash: race and the development of punitive crime policy,” studies in american political development 21 (fall 2007): 23-265, 236. scjr 10 (2015) 5 weaver concludes her historical review with the felicitous phrase: “the graveyard of civil rights legislation was the same place where crime bills were born.” 6 the recognition of racial equality as the new norm and law of the land became the platform which permitted the focus of tough-on-crime initiatives on communities of color. weaver insists that this political shift was not the result of a “redneck” backlash but the work of think tanks and cultural elites that worked strategically to recoup the loss of power and influence in the aftermath of civil rights legislation: the key distinction then between frontlash and backlash consists in both the nature of the political reaction and the actors, which carry that reaction to its conclusion. backlash is reactive in a conservative dimension (aims to preserve the status quo and resist changes through emboldened opposition). importantly, the main actors of consideration are the masses, the voting population that prompt elites to undertake certain policy positions with race in the foreground. frontlash is preemptive, innovative, proactive, and, above all, strategic. here, elites aim to control the agenda and resist changes through the development of a new issue and appropriation and redeployment of an accepted language of norms... instead of a bungee cord recoiling when stretched too far, we can think of frontlash as water moving swiftly through a path that eventually comes to an end, forcing the water to seek alternative routes or as a weed that after being killed by weed killer mutates into a new variety, becoming resistant. it is strategic, alive, complex and sophisticated in its reaction. 7 one needs to beware of conspiracy theories here. but weaver’s contention that political strategies are planned and implemented by agents who possess the educational means 6 ibid., 265. 7 ibid., 238. scjr 10 (2015) 6 and economic resources to influence public opinion and shape public policy is well taken. the five hundred percent increase in the prison population over the last thirty years did not occur accidentally or inadvertently. of the 2.4 million citizens the united states currently incarcerated, a staggering sixty percent are people of color. 8 mass incarceration maintains the economic and political structures of white supremacy without ostensibly violating the norms and laws of racial equality. it is certainly ironic to realize that just as racism was normatively and legislatively repudiated in the united states, black americans found themselves the target of crime fighting measures that led to unprecedented levels of incarceration and the loss of life, liberty, property, and dignity of millions of people. while the statistics on mass incarceration are particular to the united states, the impact of police violence on communities of color is a global reality. taking the new york times from the hot summer of 2015 as an example, one finds reports of riots in the aftermath of deadly police arrests from israel, netherlands, and brazil. 9 in all of these news stories, race and crime are intertwined and political commitments to racial, religious, and ethnic equality clash with police tactics that fight crime by aggressively controlling black and immigrant communities. the concept of frontlash captures the innovative search for new language to repackage ideas that have been delegitimized. in europe, the ideology of racism was defeated on the battlefields of world war ii and in the overthrow of 8 american friends service committee, “facts about the mass incarceration of people of color in the u.s.,” june 19, 2013, https://afsc.org/story/facts-about-mass-incarceration-people-color-us 9 isabel kershner, “anti-police protest in israel turns violent,” new york times, 4 may, 2015, a7; simon romero and taylor barnes, “despair, and grim acceptance, over killings by brazil’s police, new york times, 22 may, 2015, a1; mike corder, “the hague hit by riots after death of man in police custody,” associated press, 3 july, 2015, http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b3fc00c087414ce0a989f8bb1fb65c59/haguehit-riots-after-death-man-police-custody. scjr 10 (2015) 7 national socialism. but nationalist movements, such as pegida (patriotic europeans against the islamization of the occident) 10 or front national in france, regularly stoke racial and religious anxieties. such movements take pains to distance themselves from discredited codes of nationalism (vs. patriotism), racism (vs. islamization), and antisemitism (vs. the west). it is only under these new banners that popular support can be mobilized in order to control “foreigners” and curb presumed threats emanating from racial and religious others. weaver rightly warns against underestimating these movements as mere backlash phenomena made up of “redneck” or “neo-nazi” rabble. while her article traces the careers and involvement of segregationists in the development of crime-fighting law and order policies, i am mostly interested in the potential of her theory to highlight the role of intellectuals in recreating credible racial arguments and the resilience of structures that are invested in national, racial, or religious supremacy. in this article, i am also making claims about the presence of a frontlash in the movements for gender and jewishchristian equality. i will not be able to provide sufficient empirical evidence to document the particular agents of frontlash, which risks charges of conspiratorial thinking. conspiracy theories are especially rife in discussions of antisemitism. while i don’t argue for the existence of a cabal of cigar-smoking men, i do argue that we should assume the existence of strategic thinking on the part of agents who resist democratic principles of equality and try to reclaim political ground in the aftermath of the victory of egalitarian movements. from gender to pro-life nostra aetate does not address gender inequality and does not renounce discrimination on the basis of gender or 10 patriotic europeans against the islamisation of the occident (translated from the german: patriotische europäer gegen die islamisierung des abendlandes). scjr 10 (2015) 8 sexuality. but the presence of female auditors at the second vatican council heralded the beginnings of the women’s movement within the church/es. “the women of vatican ii” concludes carmel mcenroy “were convinced that they had turned the corner in terms of being accepted as full human beings and full church members. there was no going back.” 11 but, mcenroy notes, although the movement ... was quickening ... it was almost a stillbirth in terms of actual movement for women within the church, after the conciliar euphoria died down, although women’s spirits continued to rise, and they began to hear one another to speech in theological and pastoral circles. 12 of the multiple levels in which the subordination and silencing of women continues within the church, the exclusive use of the language of “fathers,” “brothers,” and “sons” is only the most obvious and jarring symptom. but even among the most recalcitrant representatives of the hierarchy, open endorsements of women’s secondary and inferior status have become anathema and are understood to be politically disadvantageous and theologically problematic. grudgingly, prescriptive role assignments for the “eternal woman” (singular), who was to submit to her god-given role in service to husband, children, and the church had to be amended. most christian churches (albeit not all) pay homage to the fundamental equality of women. but, at the same time, a striking political mobilization has occurred that generates enormous emotional energies and reasserts the primacy of principle over the individual personhood of women. already pope john xxiii had feared that women’s equality and economic independence might affect women’s willingness to submit to childbearing and childrearing: 11 mcenroy, guests, 265. 12 ibid., 42. scjr 10 (2015) 9 but even if the economic independence of women brings certain advantages, it also results in many, many problems with regards to their fundamental mission of forming new creatures! hence we have new situations that are serious and urgent… these arise in the area of family life: in the care and education of youngsters, in homes that are left without the presence of someone that they need so much; in the loss of disturbance of rest resulting from the assumption of new responsibilities; and above all in keeping feast days holy, and in general, in fulfilling those religious duties which are the only thing that can make a mother’s work of training her children really fruitful. 13 while church leaders have been forced to accept women’s professional involvement as a result of economic changes, the political battle over women’s equality shifted into bruising debates over women’s access to contraception and abortion. this transfer into the intimate arena of sexuality and reproduction gives rise to deeply held emotions, fears, and desires that serve to cloud the personal and social realities of childbearing and childrearing. instead of engaging with women who make responsible and informed decisions about motherhood and rearing new generations amidst complex personal, economic, and political circumstances, the pro-life movement politicized, idealized, and scandalized women’s choices. the movement was conceived by political and religious elites in the aftermath of the supreme court’s roe v. wade decision in 1973. as weaver points out: rather than defend the status quo ante then, losers propose new programs of action. by maneuvering into a new issue space and carving a new niche to mobilize around, the disadvantaged/defeated group opens the 13 quoted by christine gudorf in “contraception and abortion in roman catholicism,” sacred rights: the case for contraception and abortion in world religions, ed. daniel maguire (new york: oxford university press, 2003), 65. scjr 10 (2015) 10 possibility of reversing its fortune without violating established norms. 14 the equation of women’s sexual and reproductive choices with murder and mass murder created a powerful new matrix that provided, in the words of weaver, “issue dominance ... [and] a monopoly on the understanding of an issue, associating it with images and symbols while discrediting competing understandings.” 15 the designation of abortion as murder served to silence and shame women, who are portrayed as selfish and immature, in need of guidance and counseling, and who cannot be trusted to make moral choices affecting their bodies and children. 16 while many women have joined the pro-life movement, its leaders hail from u.s. catholic bishops conference as well as from conservative protestant evangelical circles. 17 ronald reagan was among the first to compare abortion to the holocaust, a trope that has since then mushroomed and infiltrated the official statements of numerous church leaders. 18 this movement, born in the “two 14 weaver, “frontlash,” 236. 15 ibid. 16 thirty eight states in the united states have passed fetal homicide laws and prosecute women for miscarriages and/or refusal to submit to caesarean sections. see national conference of state legislatures, http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx. 17 jerry reiter, live from the gates of hell: an insider’s look at the antiabortion underground (amherst, ny: prometheus book, 2000); james risen and judy thomas, the wrath of angels: the american abortion war (new york: basic books, 1998); kristin luker, abortion and the politics of motherhood (berkeley, ca: university of california press, 1984); and ziad munson, the making of pro-life activists: how social movement mobilization works (chicago: university of chicago press, 2002). 18 ronald reagan, abortion and the conscience of the nation (nashville, tn: human life foundation, 1983); john powell, sj, abortion: the silent holocaust (allen, tx: argus book 1981); randall a. terry, a humble plea to bishops, clergy, and layman: ending the abortion holocaust (insurrecta, 2008); and katharina von kellenbach, “notes on chrischristian resistance to the ‘abortion holocaust’” in lived religion and the politics of (in)tolerance, ed. srđan sremac (new york: palgrave macmillan, forthcoming). scjr 10 (2015) 11 epicenters in the usa and rome,” has become a global phenomenon, as andrzej kulczycki has shown in his comparative analysis of reproductive policy campaigns in mexico, poland, and kenya. 19 the manhattan declaration was released on november 20, 2009 and originally signed by 168 roman catholic, protestant, and orthodox religious leaders, including seventeen roman catholic bishops and seven women, two of whom co-signed as wives of pastors. it became the platform for an ecumenical movement to organize against abortion, gay rights and health care reform and calls on churches, religious communities, and individuals to engage in civil disobedience in defense of “the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion.” 20 the signers draw on the authority of dietrich bonhoeffer and martin luther king and call for civil disobedience to “roll back the license to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion” and to uphold a “healthy marriage culture” rooted in the “sexual complementarity of man and woman.” the document argues that feminism leads to the disintegration of the family and to the rise in divorce rates and male violence in and outside the family, to child abuse, sexual promiscuity, and the delinquency of children. even “genocide and ‘ethnic cleansing’” seem to “flow from the same loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life that drives the abortion industry.” most insidious are comparative assertions that claim that the “abortion holocaust” claims more victims than jews murdered by nazi germany. 21 the manhattan declaration blames the “culture of 19 andrzej kulczycki, the abortion debate in the world arena (new york: routledge, 1999), 27. 20 manhattan declaration, http://www.manhattandeclaration.org. 21 a google search on “abortion” and “holocaust” returns more than 2 million entries. organizations increasingly have names like “www.survivors.la” (suggesting that every person alive is a survivor of abortion); or scjr 10 (2015) 12 death,” which began with the legalization of abortion as the source of “social pathologies of every sort,” including delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair. the manhattan declaration became the blueprint for the u.s. catholic bishop’s conference “year of prayer” in 2012, in which they invited catholics to pray for rebuilding a culture favorable to life and marriage and for increased protections of religious liberty... the call to prayer is prompted by the rapid social movements and policy changes currently underway, such as the mandate by the u.s. department of health and human services that coerces employers, including heads of religious agencies, to pay for sterilizations, abortion-inducing drugs and contraceptives, as well as increased efforts to redefine marriage. 22 a subsequent frontlash was already built into the document of 2009 and has since been implemented in the aftermath of the supreme court’s striking down the ban on gay marriage. as soon as discrimination of homosexuality was declared illegal, the public speech of resistance shifted from gay marriage to the protection of religious freedom. while it is individuals like the kentucky county clerk kim davis, or florists or bakers in indiana who capture the news, their actions cannot be understood apart from the strategic matrix developed by religious leaders who used their considerable intellectual and economic resources to mobilize around new categories. using the language of civil disobedience and solidarity with the oppressed and vulnerable, pro-life campaigns aim to www.babykaust.de, which argues that abortion constitutes a genocide against “german babies” and exceeds the number of jewish victims. 22 “bishops urge catholics to pray for life, marriage, religious liberty,” dec. 6, 2012, united states conference of catholic bishops, http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-212.cfm. scjr 10 (2015) 13 elevate the legal rights of embryos over the physical integrity and moral agency of women. the focus on the unborn creates a wedge between women and children and contests women’s responsibility to make prudent and moral choices. weaver’s frontlash theory exposes the organized and top-down nature of this shift that intended to reverse the achievements of the women’s movement without contravening new linguistic conventions. abortion, like crime, is a serious moral and theological topic, but it has been sensationalized and instrumentalized by frontlash campaigns that question the moral agency of women and the integrity of black people and prevent dialogue and genuine conversation. the conflation of race with crime and of women’s rights with reproductive rights shifted the terms of the debate into emotionally fraught and ambiguous territory. characterizing women as murderers and blacks as criminals provides justification to reassert patriarchal control by state and church. abortion has become a toxic topic, not least in u.s. politics, which is facing another round of budget negotiations that threaten a government shutdown over the proposal to defund planned parenthood. the introduction of abortion into any conversation inflames tempers and raises the temperature in the room. the irrational, contradictory, and passionate quality of these debates undermines genuine conversations about the complexity of childbearing and –rearing and instead channels deep anxieties over men’s loss of control over women’s reproductive power. the terms “sexism” and “racism,” just as “antisemitism,” have become loaded and polemic fight words. but we should consider reclaiming these words as diagnostic terms that refer to structures and ideologies that aim to control and contain the power of women, blacks, and jews, who continually threaten the privilege and preeminence of gentile male heads of households. despite enormous challenges and changes to this kyriarchy over the last fifty years, the data on wealth distribution and political power arrangements point to scjr 10 (2015) 14 the resilience and adaptation of this system. 23 frontlash campaigns protect structures of privilege and refuse to engage women or blacks as equals as they struggle with motherhood and crime in poor neighborhoods. instead, frontlash creates new ideological tropes that transport emotional anxieties that arise from the loss of control and hegemony. the emotional arousal that attends the politics of abortion and of crime is only rivaled by contemporary debates over zionism. from anti-judaism to the state of israel the movement to accept judaism as a theologically valid and equal faith tradition, which began with nostra aetate, is confronted by the explosive rise of emotionally fraught debates over the legitimacy of zionism and the politics of the state of israel. as befits the history of antisemitism, these debates do not break down neatly along political divisions of left and right, progressive and conservative. on the contrary, mainline christian denominations, which have endorsed the principles of jewish-christian dialogue, find themselves consumed by petitions to boycott, divest, or sanction companies doing business in or with israel. israel has moved onto the agendas of the presbyterian church (u.s.a.), 24 the united church of canada, 25 united church of christ in the united states, 26 the evangelical lutheran church in america, 27 as well 23 elisabeth schüssler fiorenza, “introduction: exploring the intersections of race, gender, status, and ethnicity in early christian studies,” in prejudice and christian beginnings: investigating race, gender, and ethnicity in early christian studies, laura nasrallah and elizabeth schüssler fiorenza eds. (minneapolis: fortress press, 2009), 1-23. 24 “2014 general assembly divestment list,” presbyterian (u.s.a), http://www.pcusa.org/resource/2014-general-assembly-divestment-list/. 25 “united church of canada policies on israel and palestine,” united church of canada, http://www.united-church.ca/files/generalcouncil/gc41/israel-palestine-policy-summary.pdf. 26 at its 30th general synod taking place in june 2015 in cleveland the ucc passed a resolution to boycott and divest from companies that profit from israel’s occupation of palestinian lands by an overwhelming majority. see united church of christ palestine/israel network website, “united church of christ votes to boycott & divest from companies profiting scjr 10 (2015) 15 as the progressive catholic peace organization pax christi, among others. on the other end of the theological and political spectrum, one finds evangelical christian churches that maintain active missionary programs and hold that jews are consigned to eternal damnation unless they convert to christianity, but profess loyalty to israel’s governmental politics and entreat their followers to “please pray for israel’s continued protection and peace.” 28 the theory of frontlash may explain why christians who renounce theological supersessionism are more open to anti-zionist sentiments than christians who integrate zionism and the state of israel into a christian triumphalist salvation history. like abortion and crime, the discussion of the israelipalestinian conflict is complex and demands factual analysis, historical and political knowledge, and empathetic dialogue. the politics of frontlash, on the other hand, sensationalizes and dramatizes controversies in order to prevent dialogue and pragmatic compromise. rhetorical denunciations of zionism as racism, israel as an apartheid state, and israeli soldiers as nazis reinforce postures of contempt. but so do christian zionist visions of a militarized israel as a “catalyst for the end of times.” 29 wheaton professor gary burge correctly points out that “the crown jewel in christian zionism’s world view” is the belief that “the birth of israel has now set the stage for the imminent second coming of jesus.” 30 but he wrongly charges christian zionists with abandoning replacement theology, from israel's occupation,” press release, june 30, 2015, http://www.uccpin.org/#!pressrelease/c1a36. 27 evangelical lutheran church in american, “‘bds’: what does the elca say?” http://download.elca.org/elca%20resource%20repository/pnw_elca_ bds.pdf. 28 chosen people ministries, “evangelism” http://chosenpeople.com/main/index.php/evangelism/400-the-church-andjewish-evangelism. 29 gary m. burge, “evangelicals and christian zionism,” in zionism and the quest for justice in the holy land, eds. donald e. wagner and walter t. davis (eugene, or: wipf and stock, 2014), 175-190: 178. 30 ibid., 186. scjr 10 (2015) 16 which he notes “has been an historic teaching of the church and has never been considered a heresy.” 31 by incorporating the state of israel into christian dispensationalist salvation history, christian zionists are not necessarily moving beyond theological supersessionism. on the contrary, this position affirms that the covenantal promises in the old testament are fulfilled in the new testament and that the universal message of christianity has supplanted the election of israel. typically, pro-zionist christian support is couched in supersessionist terms, as for instance, by the messianic jewish bible institute (mjbi): we are committed to the centrality of yeshua and the power of the holy spirit ... we are committed to a continued jewish lifestyle that is rooted in torah and applied in the new covenant. the jewish heritage, where it is in accord with the letter and the spirit of the new covenant, is fostered. in israel, this is especially connected to the return to the land in a hebrew language society in conjunction with romans 11:29 [emph added]. 32 the websites of jews for jesus 33 , arbeitsgemeinschaft für das messianische zeugnis an israel 34 , evangeliumsdienst für israel 35 , lausanne consultation on jewish evangelism 36 , internationale christian embassy in jerusalem 37 call for demonstrations of solidarity in prayer and travel, in national and church politics, while resisting calls to end proselytism or to enter into jewish-christian dialogue. evangelical declara 31 ibid., 188. 32 messianic jewish bible institute, mjbi.org/israel/. 33 jews for jesus, jewsforjesus.org (in english); judenfuerjesus.de (in german). 34 arbeitsgemeinschaft für das messianische zeugnis an israel, amzi.org. 35 evangeliumsdienst für israel, evangeliumsdienst.ktweb.eu. 36 lausanne consultation on jewish evangelism, lcje.net/upcomingconferences.html. 37 internationale christian embassy in jerusalem, de.icej.org (in german); int.icej.org (in english). scjr 10 (2015) 17 tions such as the 1989 willowbank declaration combine prozionism with theological anti-judaism by affirming: article 3 we deny that modern judaism with its explicit negation of the divine person, work, and messiahship of jesus christ contains within itself true knowledge of god’s salvation. we affirm that the biblical hope for jewish people centers on their being restored through faith in christ to their proper place as branches of god's olive tree from which they are at present broken off. we deny that the historical status of the jews as god’s people brings salvation to any jew who does not accept the claims of jesus christ. article 27 we affirm that the jewish quest for a homeland with secure borders and a just peace has our support. 38 the political embrace of zionism obscures the continuing theological delegitimization of judaism. organizations such as the international board of jewish missions (ibjm) or the chosen people ministries blend a missionary agenda with political support of israel, and thereby attempt to disassociate from eurocentric christian triumphalism and anti-judaism. as robert o. smith has argued in more desired than our own salvation: the roots of christian zionism: as judeo-centric english protestants manufactured apocalyptic roles for jews banished from their societies, contemporary christian zionism is less concerned with flesh-and-blood jews than with preserving its christian theo-political hope. concern for systems outweighs concern for persons, whether they are israe 38 lausanne consultation on jewish evangelism, http://www.lcje.net/willowbank.html. scjr 10 (2015) 18 li jews, arab citizens of israel, palestinian muslims, palestinian christians, or iranians... 39 such a theological and political stance is anti-dialogical and therefore ultimately antithetical to genuine peace making. progressive christians, on the other hand, are willing to enter dialogue and renounce christian triumphalism. unfortunately, a proclivity for political analysis that divides the world into oppressors and oppressed, powerful and powerless parties makes progressive christians susceptible to traditional stereotypes that paint jews as politically nefarious and manipulative. for instance, walter t. davis, the editor of zionism and the quest for justice in the holy land dismisses the “history of shame and humiliation ...engendered by christian antisemitism” and the holocaust as a “central zionist doctrine,” which creates a self-perpetuating downward spiral of anxiety among political zionists” [who are] manipulating this fear for political advantage... in addition to fear, the zionist movement, like other colonial movements, required collective denial of what was being done to palestinians, a denial that may even be characterized as selfimposed blindness. 40 the language of blindness, collective denial, manipulation for political gains, etc., are deeply rooted in the history of christian contempt and are not likely to foster respect or constructive engagement in the negotiations for peace and justice in the middle east. any third party intervention that takes sides for un-reflected theological or political reasons becomes itself part of the problem rather than the solution. for histori 39 robert o. smith, more desired than our own salvation: the roots of christian zionism (new york: oxford university press, 2013), 195. 40 walter t. davis and pauline coffman, “from 1967 to the present: the triumph of revisionist zionism,” in zionism and the quest for justice in the holy land, donald e. wagner and walter t. davis eds. (eugene, or: wipf and stock, 2014), 28-62: 57. scjr 10 (2015) 19 cal reasons alone, progressive christians ought to be scrupulously aware and critical of proposals that promise to “solve the jewish question.” systems of preeminence and privilege, such as christian triumphalism, white supremacy, and male privilege cannot simply be stopped. instead, we should imagine antisemitism, racism, and sexism as mighty streams that seek new channels around dams that are erected by legal caveat and normative interventions. nostra aetate demanded the “rejection of every persecution against any man” and “hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-semitism, directed against jews at any time and by anyone.” but this declaration has failed to trickle down, as a recent study by the german bundestag on antisemitism in germany found to its surprise. in 2012, germans who attend churches—a small minority, to be sure—displayed greater susceptibility to antisemitic stereotypes than non-observant, secular germans. every empirical survey conducted in germany has shown a positive correlation between church attendance and antisemitic attitudes despite the long-standing commitments to jewish-christian dialogue on the part of both the roman catholic and protestant church (ekd) in germany. 41 these findings fall within weaver’s understanding of backlash, in which inherent inertia and conservatism among the masses resist theological leaps and revolutionary advances. nostra aetate, civil rights legislation, and the supreme court’s decision on roe v. wade can be interpreted through the lens of backlash as a reaction of ordinary people who feel left behind and refuse to follow the lead of cultural and theological elites. but weaver is also right to point out that 41 see matthias blum, "expertise: katholische kirche und antisemitismus," bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft kirche und rechtsextremismus, http://www.bagkr.de/wpcontent/uploads/blum_antisemitismus_katholisch. pdf. also, albert scherr, “expertise: verbreitung von stereotypen über juden und antisemitischer vorurteile in der evangelischen kirche,” http://www.bagkr.de/wpcontent/uploads/scherr_antisemitismus_evangelisch.pdf. scjr 10 (2015) 20 elites are often left out of the backlash story, and when they do appear... elites are not formulating discourse or strategizing, they are onlookers with an eye toward anticipating public reaction, and acting accordingly. 42 she further notes that frontlash adds another dimension to the backlash narrative because it can show how policies that usually are considered separately are actually part of same political history; developments in one domain can and do influence strategic decisions or new developments in another, ostensibly unrelated sphere. 43 “anti-zionism,” concludes robert wistrich in a lethal obsession, serves as an “indispensable cover under which prewar anti-jewish amalgam could be resurrected.” 44 the rise of zionism as a diversionary vehicle to carry forth feelings of contempt for jews required intellectual innovation and the deliberate transfer of religious and ideological tropes. antisemitism has jumped the borders of christian europe. from the first translation of the protocol of the elders of zion into arabic, distributed by the roman catholic community in jerusalem on january 15, 1926, the transfer of major antisemitic tropes, such as ritual murder charges, suspicions of a jewish world conspiracy, and racial animus can be traced back to european sources. 45 the protocols of the elders of zion is 42 weaver, “frontlash,” 238. 43 ibid., 239. 44 robert wistrich, a lethal obsessions (new york: random house, 2010), 9. see also jeffrey herf, nazi propganda for the arab world (new haven: yale university press, 2009) and barry rubin and wolfgang schwanitz, nazis, islamists, and the making of the modern middle east (new haven: yale university press, 2014). 45 derek penslar, israel in history: the jewish state in comparative perspective (new york, ny and abingdon, on: routledge), 124, writes: “in the nineteenth century, notions of a jewish international political and financial conspiracy were exported to the middle east, largely via french and francophone christian clerics.” see also “anti-semites on zionism: from indifference to obsessions,” in jeffrey herff ed. anti-semitism and scjr 10 (2015) 21 now available in sixty different translations and as a film series with forty one sequels. 46 the egyptian ministry of information hired fugitive nazi propagandists as consultants after the war to build antizionist propaganda ministry, and its materials have since become deeply entrenched in political party platforms, educational resources, and friday sermons across the muslim world. 47 for sure, these christian imports combined with indigenous animosities and the qu’ran’s record of the prophet’s enmity to jews. the confluence of european christian tropes and islamic reinterpretation of the qu’ran has turned into a perfect firestorm of genocidal hatred amidst massive modern political dislocation and economic discontent. as this export returns to europe in its islamist reincarnation, european governments and churches have seemed paralyzed and impotent to critically engage this ideology and to protect the jewish remnant communities of europe. 48 anti-zionism provides ideological legitimacy to attack jewish institutions and to harass and kill jews in amsterdam, buenos aires, copenhagen, and paris. it serves to intimidate and discriminate against jewish students on u.s. campuses and is used to suspect jews of political disloyalty and involvement in conspiracy. as an ideology it is neither capable nor interested in establishing peace between israelis and palestinians. instead, it creatively generates new stereotypes that replace discredited notions of the perfidious jews who murdered christ and slaughtered christian boys, of jewish communists and jewish rapists polluting the blood of christian nations. anti-zionism is a strategic circumvention of racial and theological stereotypes, and as such, not necessary for ant-zionism in historical perspective: convergence and divergence (new york: routledge, 2007), 1-20: 13. 46 michael küntzel, islamischer antisemitismus und deutsche politik: die juden werden brennen, wir werden auf ihren gräbern tanzen (berlin: lit verlag, 2007). 36. 47 michael kiefer, antisemitismus in den islamischen gesellschaften: der palästina konflikt und der transfer eines feindbildes (düsseldorf: bertelsmann, 2002), 93. 48 küntzel, islamischer antisemitismus. scjr 10 (2015) 22 churches that preach a gospel of conversion and contempt for judaism. by contrast, jewish-christian dialogue fosters relationships and engages in theological revision in order to affirm the equality of judaism and the dignity of the jewish community. it is committed to the flourishing of jewish life alongside christianity (and islam). this stance calls for critical solidarity with israel and robust dialogue about political issues. but it should resist sensationalized frontlash mutations that shift jewish-christian relations into the arena of middle east politics among people who lack the requisite methodological and analytic tools. the theory of frontlash is useful to explain why feminist theologians are drawn into emotional debates over reproductive health care, scholars of jewish-christian dialogue are forced to take position on middle east politics, and black and womanist theologians parse police tactics, crime statistics, and prison policy. these modifications provide political and psychological cover to reframe opposition to political and theological changes that would institutionalize the humanity of women, the dignity of descendants of slaves, and respect for jewish difference. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr peer-reviewed article implications of paul’s hopes for the end of days for jews and christians today: a critical re-evaluation of the evidence philip a. cunningham, saint joseph’s university, philadelphia mark d. nanos, university of kansas, lawrence 1. recent catholic interest in paul’s eschatology it is well known that the groundbreaking 1965 second vatican council declaration, nostra aetate, relied heavily upon paul’s letter to the romans to state that the jewish people remain “most dear” to god (rom 11:28), and, to them belong “the glory and the covenants and the law” (rom 9:4). as a recent study of the post-world war ii revolution in catholic theology about jews and judaism explains: “without romans and its confirmation of god’s promises to the jews as well as the eschatological hope for unity in an unspecified future, the church would not have had language to talk about the jews after the holocaust.” 1 in addition to the major changes that followed from this new focus on past promises and their relationship to the ultimate future, the eschaton, nostra aetate also recommended that research and discourse be undertaken in a new spirit: “this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.” 2 it thus seems very fitting to us that, as its fiftieth anniversary approaches, this consideration of that 1 john connelly, from enemy to brother: the revolution in catholic teaching on the jews, 1933–1965 (cambridge, ma: harvard university press, 2011), 256. this important volume provides a vivid narrative of how christians who sought to combat the appeal that nazi antisemitism had for christians, turned to romans and over the 1940s-1960s gradually came to read it with new eyes. 2 second vatican council, nostra aetate, §4. studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) declaration’s roots in paul’s eschatological expectations—which flowed from god’s irrevocable covenantal promises—is the combined work of a jewish exegete (mark nanos) and a catholic biblical theologian (philip cunningham). both authors will speak to the issues raised, but in general nanos will focus on insights into the translation and interpretation of paul’s language approached from within the late second temple jewish thought-world in which it was written with some attention to the reception history of paul’s language, while cunningham will focus on how paul’s language can—and just as importantly, cannot, apart from significant qualifications—be usefully employed to address christian theological concerns today. our effort is not without precedent. for many decades now, both catholic and protestant ecclesial statements have appealed to romans to foster a positive relationship between christians and jews. jews have likewise appealed to romans in efforts to improve dialogue and relations going forward. on the one hand, this development represents the historicalexegetical rediscovery of long-overlooked positive sentiments toward those of his kinspeople who did not share paul’s newfound conviction that jesus was raised. for paul and likeminded associates (see acts 3:20-21), this marked jesus as the awaited messianic figure, and led them to conclude that the end of the ages had thus been initiated. on the other hand, the modern recourse to romans arguably arose from the ethical need that christians felt, and some jews welcomed, to find a new way to read paul’s representations of jews and judaism following the horrendous sufferings of jews in cultures that were partially shaped by long-lived, anti-jewish readings of paul, including romans 11. in a pivotal passage in that chapter wherein paul describes the restoration of israel as well as the reconciliation of the rest of creation, he reveals his conviction that this process was going to reach its next stage through the completion of his ministry to the nations. he confidently describes the inevitable destiny of the jewish people in positive terms (albeit somewhat studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr less obviously in the currently prevailing construals, a topic that will be discussed more fully below). the nrsv translates paul’s insight thus: “i want you to understand this mystery, a hardening has come upon part of israel, until the full number of the gentiles has come in. and so all israel will be saved; as it is written ...” (rom 11:25-26; italics added; see too vv. 1115). 3 in the past decade or so, these words have been the subject of a lively conversation within the catholic community. the interpretation of paul’s ideas about the eschaton framed the discussion of why the catholic church today does not organize campaigns to convert jews to christianity, as some other christian groups do. this topic had also been a pivotal one during the deliberations at the second vatican council in 1964 over the draft of what would become nostra aetate. language that suggested an interest in promoting a contemporary christian “mission to jews” was replaced by an eschatological phrase: “the church awaits the day, known to god alone, when all people will call upon the lord with one voice and ‘serve him shoulder to shoulder’ (zeph. 3:9).” 4 these topics again came to the forefront in february of 2008 when pope benedict xvi composed a new prayer for jews in the good friday services of the small number of catholics who utilize the pre-second vatican council tridentine liturgical rite. the revised intercession asked god to “illuminate their [jews’] hearts so that they may recognize jesus christ as savior of all men.” 5 since this revised prayer was issued without explanation and published as pro conversione 3 nrsv translation. a different, more promising translation of this verse will be discussed below. 4 for full details on this internal catholic exchange, see philip a. cunningham, “‘god holds the jews most dear’: learning to respect jewish selfunderstanding,” in gilbert rosenthal, ed., a jubilee for all time: the copernican revolution in jewish-christian relations (eugene, or: wipf and stock, 2015), 44-58. 5 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/pope-benedict-xvi/425-b1608feb5 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-benedict-xvi/425-b1608feb5 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-benedict-xvi/425-b1608feb5 studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 9 (2014) iudeaorum, many observers concluded that the prayer was meant to encourage the proselytization of jews by catholics. to counter this understandable impression, cardinal walter kasper, the president of the pontifical commission for religious relations with the jews, composed an important essay that was printed in the vatican newspaper at the pope’s request. he argued that the prayer was not promoting the missionizing of jews, but rather drew upon the eschatological perspective of romans 11: the salvation of the jews is, for st. paul, a profound mystery of election through divine grace ([rom] 9:1429). god’s gifts are irrevocable and god’s promises to his people have not been revoked by him in spite of their disobedience (9:6; 11:1, 29). the hardening of israel becomes a boon for the salvation of the gentiles. ... when the full number of the gentiles has entered into salvation, the whole of israel will be saved (11:25ff.). ... so one can say: god will bring about the salvation of israel in the end, not on the basis of a mission to the jews but on the basis of the mission to the gentiles, when the fullness of the gentiles has entered. ... in this prayer the church does not take it upon herself to orchestrate the realization of the unfathomable mystery. she cannot do so. instead, she lays the when and the how entirely in god's hands. god alone can bring about the kingdom of god in which the whole of israel is saved and eschatological peace is bestowed on the world. 6 pope benedict himself followed this logic in a book published a few years later: 6 “striving for mutual respect in modes of prayer,” l’osservatore romano (april 16, 2008): 8-9. available at: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogikaresources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kasper/651kasper08apr16. italics added to the “full number” phrase, others are original. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kasper/651-kasper08apr16 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kasper/651-kasper08apr16 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kasper/651-kasper08apr16 studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr here i should like to recall the advice given by bernard of clairvaux to his pupil pope eugene iii on this matter. he reminds the pope that his duty of care extends not only to christians, but: “you also have obligations toward unbelievers, whether jew, greek, or gentile” (de consideratione iii/i, 2). then he immediately corrects himself and observes more accurately: “granted, with regard to the jews, time excuses you; for them a determined point in time has been fixed, which cannot be anticipated. the full number of the gentiles must come in first. ... (de consideratione iii/i, 3).” hildegard brem comments on this passage as follows: in the light of romans 11:25, the church must not concern herself with the conversion of the jews, since she must wait for the time fixed for this by god, ‘until the full number of the gentiles come in’ (rom 11:25)... in the meantime, israel retains its own mission. israel is in the hands of god, who will save it “as a whole” at the proper time, when the number of the gentiles is complete. 7 pope benedict and those he cites, bernard of clairvaux and hildegard brem, all adduce paul’s phrase about the “full number of the gentiles coming in” to argue that the salvation of jews is divinely guaranteed and will be god’s doing. benedict made the same point elsewhere when he said that the new prayer: “shifts the focus from a direct petition for the conversion of the jews in a missionary sense to a plea that the lord might bring about the hour of history when we may all be united.” 8 therefore, since it is not a responsibility of christians to “convert” jews, the catholic church does not support any missionary campaigns toward jews. 7 ibid., 44-45, 47. italics added. 8 benedict xvi, light of the world. the pope, the church, and the signs of the times. a conversation with peter seewald (san francisco, ca: ignatius press, 2010), 107. studies in christian-jewish relations 6 scjr 9 (2014) but one could ask, did paul mean the same things by “full number of the gentiles coming in” (as typically translated) as do these current applications or actualizations of his words? from the point of view of catholic theology, do these current applications mean to say that once the quota of gentiles has been reached at the end of days jews will simply fulfill their divine destiny by becoming christians? or that the entire post-new testament jewish people, including those who have practiced the rabbinic tradition for as long as christianity has been practiced, will simply collapse—in a zero-sum fashion—in the face of a divinely inspired recognition that christian expectations about christ’s “second coming” or return (parousia) have proven correct after all? furthermore, do such formulations pay any heed to jewish self-understanding, as required by the vatican’s 1974 guidelines to implement nostra aetate? 9 the texts mentioned above apparently proceed from the assumption that jews need salvation in the way christians have traditionally conceptualized the jewish need for it—by coming to have faith in jesus christ. jews cannot be expected to recognize themselves in descriptions that do not acknowledge that their own beliefs and convictions are the product of covenantal fidelity to god. rather, they must remain faithful to what are clearly believed to be the calling and gifts of god. this problem is perhaps especially apparent in a paragraph of the 1994 catechism of the catholic church, which also appealed to romans 11: the glorious messiah’s coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by “all israel,” for “a hardening has come upon part of israel” in their “unbelief” toward jesus [rom 11:20-26; cf. mt 23:39]. st. peter says to the jews of jerusalem after pentecost: 9 commission of the holy see for religious relations with the jews, “guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration, nostra aetate, no. 4,” preamble: “[christians] must strive to learn by what essential traits jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience.” studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 7 www.bc.edu/scjr “repent, therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the lord, and that he may send the christ appointed for you, jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that god spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old” [acts 3:19-21]. st. paul echoes him, “for if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead” [rom 11:15]? the “full inclusion” of the jews in the messiah’s salvation, in the wake of “the full number of the gentiles” [rom 11:12, 25; cf. lk 21:24], will enable the people of god to achieve “the measure of the stature of the fullness of christ,” in which “god may be all in all” [eph 4:13; 1 cor 15:28]. 10 while alleviating jewish concerns about active christian proselytizing in historic time, does not the “eschatological postponement” approach conveyed by the above quotations nevertheless perpetuate the judgment, albeit more benignly phrased, that the church is the community that has “gotten it right,” which jews will eventually come to recognize too? does it not imply that jews who have not believed in christ have compromised their covenantal standing, that they lack “faith” and or have acted unfaithfully (hard-heartedly) in response to the gospel’s claims, as if these claims were known to be true 10 catechism of the catholic church (washington, d.c.: united states catholic conference, 1994), §674. scriptural citations presented as footnotes in the catechism are included in square brackets above. the concatenation of pauline, deutero-pauline, matthean, and lucan perspectives in this paragraph raises the question as to whether all these new testament texts really share the common viewpoint expressed here. more specifically to romans, the catechism quote fails to convey all of paul’s thought here. his reasoning is that god has caused those jews who have thus far not responded positively to the gospel to be in some way connected to its spread among the gentiles. if it desired to cite paul literally, the catechism should have more accurately reflected pauline thought here by saying, “the glorious messiah’s coming is suspended at every moment of history until the ‘full number’ of the gentiles have heard the gospel.” see further below. studies in christian-jewish relations 8 scjr 9 (2014) but rejected? does not an “eschatological postponement” model work from the notion that these jews remain in an incomplete relationship with god from which they need to be “saved”? although different from traditional “replacement theology” or “supersessionism,” recognition of these kinds of implications have led some scholars to identify this approach as retaining aspects of traditional triumphalism, a kind of “eschatological supersessionism.” 11 jesper svartvik has insightfully framed this matter as follows: to put it bluntly, jews are [thus] tolerated because of a messianic theology which proclaims that in days to come jews will become christians. ... but a christian theology of judaism cannot be based on such a narrow understanding of eschatology. this line of thought does not allow the others to define themselves, something which must be the starting-point in interreligious dialogue. simply put, it does not allow jews to be jews as the vast majority of jews define themselves. 12 in this essay we hope to address this concern directly, by exploring both exegetical as well as theological aspects. we ask: do the apostle paul’s letters—upon which this eschatological scenario relies—require, or even support as most appropriate today, a christian expectation that envisions that the fate of judaism will be fulfilled when the distinctive identity of jews as jews dissolves in the face of the glorious return of christ jesus in messianic splendor? can christians theologize about this as if certain that this is what paul meant, let alone that he accurately glimpsed the eschatological future? could 11 eugene korn, “the man of faith and religious dialogue: revisiting ‘confrontation’ after forty years.” paper delivered at the conference, rabbi joseph soloveitchik on interreligious dialogue: forty years later, boston college, nov 23, 2003. accessible at: http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/center/confere nces/soloveitchik/korn_23nov03.htm 12 jesper svartvik, “geschwisterlichkeit: realizing that we are siblings, ” in folker siegert, ed., kirche und synagoge: ein lutherisches votum (göttingen: vandernhoeck & ruprecht, 2012), 320. http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/center/conferences/soloveitchik/korn_23nov03.htm http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/center/conferences/soloveitchik/korn_23nov03.htm studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 9 www.bc.edu/scjr paul have possibly been thinking in such binary terms about “judaism” and “christianity,” when the only church he knew was a subgroup within judaism, when faith in jesus as messiah was an option conceptualized within judaism, not by conversion from it to a different religious affiliation? 2. paul: jewish apostle or jewish apostate? to address these questions, it must be realized that in the almost fifty years since the promulgation of nostra aetate, there have been sweeping developments in pauline studies that could rightly be called paradigm shifts. we argue that these shifts provide a credible, even compelling, way of actualizing pauline eschatology in a post-nostra aetate church that does not lead inevitably to the scenario of christianity triumphing over a mistaken judaism at the end of days. to show this, it is necessary to survey the development of new perspectives in pauline scholarship. 13 the dominant reading of paul for centuries, heavily influenced by reformation-era debates, saw him as the wedge that split apart the new grace-filled christian church from judaism and its “law.” 14 according to this ubiquitous christian view, which naturally also shaped jewish perceptions of paul’s attitudes toward jews and their religious sensibilities, paul declared the end of the “law” as a futile effort by the jewish people to earn god’s favor. he is imagined to have proclaimed the “law-free gospel” because he discovered that one 13 it is not our purpose in this essay to exegete every pauline passage that bears on new understandings of paul. readers are advised to consult the works cited in the notes for treatments of pauline rhetoric in such passages as 1 cor 9:19-23; gal 3:23; phil 3:7; or 1 th 2:14-16, for example. 14 we put “law” in quotation marks to denote that the word nomos in greek (paul’s native language) has different cadences from the hebrew word torah. the latter is better rendered in english as “teaching” or “guidance,” thus signifying “god’s guidance for israel,” a positive connotation as well as a contextually specific one that is obscured if not altered beyond recognition when translated “law” and especially when put in contrast to “grace” or “love,” as it has been so often in christian theological representations. studies in christian-jewish relations 10 scjr 9 (2014) could not become “righteous” by doing good works since no one was without sin. we want to stress that judaism never upheld this straw man of perfectionism. the temple and its sacrificial system by definition gave witness to a relationship based upon god’s grace toward those who acknowledged themselves to be sinners. nevertheless, the subsequent prevailing christian view proceeded from the conviction that a new universal community that realized its total dependence on god’s merciful grace, which jews ostensibly had not realized, or, alternatively, arrogantly rejected, had now come into being because of jesus christ and the birth of christianity. assuming that paul had forsaken judaism after experiencing christ, the reformers likened the jewish way of life to roman catholicism as both being, in their outlook, religions based on the futile effort to earn god’s favor. reformed christianity, on the other hand, was thought to be similar to paul in perceiving the need to depend only on god’s mercy. paul became the champion of “justification by faith” against all the rituals and practices of roman catholicism. in this perspective, what paul wrote was interpreted to be in opposition to judaism, by way of which the reformers projected what they found objectionable within roman catholicism onto judaism: e.g., that it was “works” based, legalistic, loveless, filled with empty ritual, arrogant, and corrupt. the “paul” that christians thereby constructed was not only the founder of christianity, but his calling to do so was intimately tied to negative portrayals and valuations of jewish identity, beliefs, and behavior from which he supposedly found freedom. this is why he was thought to have desired the “conversion” of jews as well as non-jews. in response to this caricature that christians presented as admirable and desirable in sharp contrast to that which judaism ostensibly offered, jews naturally approached paul with the widespread presupposition that he was a renegade, and worse than that, that he was anti-jewish in a way that studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 11 www.bc.edu/scjr directly contributed to the harm the jewish people have experienced over the centuries at the hands of christians. 15 this way of constructing paul as well as the negative christian foil, judaism, although representing what became the dominant view (and arguably still is, especially at the level of popular culture), has suffered a significant challenge in recent years. many present-day new testament and pauline scholars (which includes some jews) have become much more aware of the danger of anachronistically reading paul’s writings through the lenses of later christian polemics and have also moved away from the previously presumed, fundamental dichotomy between judaism and christianity. they have begun to reconsider paul as standing within the jewish world of the late second temple period—not apart from it. 16 a particularly significant turning point occurred with the widespread realization among christian scholars that the preponderance of late second temple jewish texts understood the torah as god’s gracious gift to israel. 17 it was a christian distortion to imagine judaism as a legalistic religion of “works righteousness” that 15 daniel r. langton, the apostle paul in the jewish imagination: a study in modern jewish-christian relations (new york: cambridge university press, 2010), esp. chs. 1-4; mark d. nanos, “a jewish view,” in four views on the apostle paul, ed. michael f. bird, (grand rapids, mi: zondervan, 2012), 159-65 (159-93). 16 the history of this paradigm shift has been superbly charted in magnus zetterholm, approaches to paul: a student’s guide to recent scholarship (minneapolis, mn: fortress, 2009), and it is the focus of mark d. nanos and magnus zetterholm, eds., paul within judaism: restoring the firstcentury context to the apostle (minneapolis: fortress press, forthcoming 2015). 17 this development is traceable to the influential papers and essays by krister stendahl, including “the apostle paul and the introspective conscience of the west,” harvard theological review 56 (1963): 199-215, later published in his paul among jews and gentiles, and other essays (philadelphia: fortress press, 1976) and e. p. sanders, paul and palestinian judaism: a comparison of patterns of religion (philadelphia: fortress press, 1977). this trajectory is now called “the new perspective on paul” (npp), which brings a more accurate understanding of late second temple judaism to the task of interpreting paul. however, the npp did not locate paul himself and his own theologizing within the judaism it now constructed in terms of “covenantal nomism.” see note 23 below. studies in christian-jewish relations 12 scjr 9 (2014) sought to earn god’s approval through the ritual performance of commands. rather, late second temple jewish texts understood torah-observance as an act of gratitude for having already been divinely favored by god’s decision to initiate a covenant with israel. with this understanding of judaism, important aspects of the conventional contrast between paul and “law-bound” judaism could not be easily sustained. as magnus zetterholm neatly summarizes: [m]any of the established truths about paul have thus been challenged, for instance, the idea that paul ceased observing the torah 18 or that he created a new religion based on universalism instead of jewish particularism. if the old caricature of judaism can be proven false and it can be assumed that first-century judaism was not characterized by legalism and works-righteousness, it seems quite unlikely that paul found reason to leave judaism for christianity. if the torah was given by grace and contains a sacrificial system that makes it possible for the individual to atone for his or her own sins, it seems, on the contrary, likely that paul continued to express his relation to the god of israel through the torah, god’s most precious gift to the jewish people. from this point of departure, other factors must have led to the distressing conflicts within the early 18 1 cor 9:19-23 is a key text on the question of whether paul relaxed his personal torah practices when pastorally appropriate. mark d. nanos argues that in this passage paul explains his strategy of “rhetorical adaptability” rather than the adjusting of his behavior, as traditionally imagined. paul was actually “torah-observant as a matter of covenant fidelity, and known to be halakhically faithful by the audience to which he addressed this text”; hence, they understood that he was not writing of adjusting, for example, his dietary behavior, but how he adapted his arguments for the gospel to the argumentative premises of his various audiences [“paul’s relationship to torah in light of his strategy ‘to become everything to everyone’ (1 corinthians 9.19-23)” in reimund bieringer and didier pollefeyt, eds., paul and judaism: crosscurrents in pauline exegesis and the study of jewish-christian relations (london: t & t clark, 2012), 139]. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 13 www.bc.edu/scjr jesus movement. this insight has led scholars to emphasize … the relationship between jews and non-jews within the jesus movement … 19 another way to get to the heart of the paradigm shifts in recent pauline scholarship is to ask the question: “was paul jewish or christian?” the question is not as straightforward as it might appear. upon reflection it becomes clear that it cannot be answered without considering the operative definitions of both “jewish” and “christian.” this in turn leads to a greater awareness of the risks of anachronism. it is crucial to recall that paul proclaimed his good news to the nations while the temple in jerusalem still stood. at least seven of the letters attributed to him in the new testament may well be the only new testament books written prior to the temple’s destruction by roman legions in 70 c.e. the temple served as a central locus of a wide variety of jewish subgroups, including greek-speaking jews in the diaspora. with its annihilation, a centuries-long process of reorienting jewish life began, eventually resulting in normative rabbinic judaism. notably, the greek word for “christian” does not appear in any of paul’s letters. its absence is instructive. certainly, paul became convinced that christ jesus had been “established as son of god in power according to the spirit of holiness through resurrection from the dead” (rom 1: 4 nrsv). he could thus be well described as messianically or eschatologically enthusiastic about jesus and the imminence of a new creation. but “christian” has come to convey a discrete religious group identifiably separate from jewish communities. this distinction simply did not yet exist during paul’s lifetime. 20 it is more accurate to think of believers in the 19 zetterholm, approaches to paul, 229-30. 20 a similar dynamic holds true for another new testament book, the letter to the hebrews. if readers come to that text assuming that a distinct “christianity” existed when the letter was written, they will likely read passages such as 8:13 as ascribing obsolescence to “judaism.” jesper svartvik studies in christian-jewish relations 14 scjr 9 (2014) crucified-and-raised-one as a particular jewish subgroup. pamela eisenbaum puts it this way: paul believed that the recognition of the one god by gentiles was necessary so that they might have a share in the world to come. thus, paul was not a christian— a word that was in any case completely unknown to him because it had not yet been invented. he was a jew who understood himself to be on a divine mission. as a jew, paul believed himself to be entrusted with the special knowledge god had given only to jews. however, paul also believed the resurrection of jesus signaled that the world to come was already in the process of arriving and that it was time to reconcile nonjews to jews, not because they were necessarily hostile to each other but because, if all people were potentially children of god, jews and gentiles must now be considered part of the same family; this entailed a new level of interaction and intimacy. 21 moreover, paul’s self-descriptions as a “member of the people of israel, ... a pharisee” and as an “apostle to the gentiles” (rom 11:13), challenge the persistent notion that paul changed “religions.” yet that way of conceptualizing paul and his “mission” of founding “churches” (usually “gentile christian churches”) remains an underlying premise even when interpreters point out that there was not yet such a thing as “christian” or “christianity” into which to “convert.” many read galatians 1:13, for instance, to mean that he formerly lived in a jewish way (practiced judaism) but no longer does so (presuming he is now a christian, thus converting to and has convincingly shown how anachronistic and self-serving such a reading is. see his “reading the epistle to the hebrews without presupposing supersessionism” in philip a. cunningham, joseph sievers, mary c. boys, hans hermann henrix, and jesper svartvik, eds., christ jesus and the jewish people today: new explorations of theological interrelationships (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 2011), 77-91. 21 pamela eisenbaum, paul was not a christian: the original message of a misunderstood apostle (new york: harpercollins, 2009), 3-4. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 15 www.bc.edu/scjr practicing christianity). however, without the presupposition that paul must have “switched religions,” his language more likely means that he no longer practices judaism in quite the same way that he did before (“my former way of living in judaism as compared to the way that i live in judaism now”), that is, he was now practicing judaism shaped by the conviction that the messianic age has dawned, which he did not believe to be the case before. 22 since many people still think of paul as no longer having upheld, practiced, or promoted torah, or as not beholden to the god-given mosaic covenantal stipulations to which jews held themselves in response to god’s gifts and calling (this in spite of paul’s own comments, e.g., rom 9:4-5 and 11:28-29), it is hard to avoid the conceptual implications as well as the discursive practices associated with the long-lived anti-jewish reading of paul. when readers imagine that paul sees judaism as the “other,” it is probably inevitable that they will negatively contrast judaism with “christianity” as they understand it. “christian” virtues of faith, faithfulness, grace, forgiveness, love, freedom, universalism, inclusivism, or nondiscrimination tend to be denied to the “othered” tradition of judaism. this traditional way of proceeding is generally coupled with the widely held christian notion that jews are thus out of the covenant with god if they do not become christians, that “jews need to be saved just as do gentiles,” and, ironically, drawing on romans 11, that they “have been cut off” yet “can be grafted back in” “by faith.” if one presents paul as discovering god’s grace appropriately only by faith, that naturally suggests—when compared to the judaism he supposedly left 22 just as a catholic might discuss the way that he or she formerly practiced versus how they now practice, without suggesting that they are no longer a catholic. on this passage and this topic of paul’s self-understanding within instead of from outside of judaism, see mark d. nanos, “paul and judaism: why not paul’s judaism?” in paul unbound: other perspectives on the apostle, ed. mark douglas given (peabody, ma: hendrickson, 2010), 117-60. studies in christian-jewish relations 16 scjr 9 (2014) behind—that judaism is not based on grace or faith; thus, some other (negative) explanation of the way that jews think and live must be supplied. this kind of reasoning is manifest in many readings and translations of romans 11. that is not to say that paul’s positions cannot be contrasted with his former way of perceiving and practicing the same things, but that the terms for drawing the contrast should not continue to be essentialized and retrojected into a supposed contrast between (firstcentury) judaism and (pauline) christianity. rather, the contrast has to be historically contextualized, which involves recognizing that what changed for paul was his perception of the meaning of jesus—within judaism. this very brief sketch of a vast and complex body of contemporary research is intended to lead to this observation about current pauline studies: paul is more properly envisioned not as having forsaken judaism to champion a new universal religion (a jewish apostate), but as one feeling called within judaism to proclaim to the nations a jewish message about the god of israel’s acts through christ (a jewish apostle). although intermediate positions are possible between these basic models, we suggest that there are good historical and exegetical reasons for today’s readers to favor the latter approach to paul’s letters. 23 23 while tangential to this essay, we want to observe that the “new perspective on paul” (see note 17 above) did not deal with several elements of the traditional negative christian perception of judaism. thus judaism could continue to serve as a foil for articulating what made pauline christianity unique and attractive versus judaism, which paul still is understood to have left behind as his “former” religion. there linger also key contrasts, including attributing to judaism the essentialized traits of arrogance, selfrighteousness (including reliance upon badges of identity), judgmentalism, particularism (also referred to as nationalism, ethnocentrism), exclusivism, selfishness, and even works-righteousness. such alleged features of late second temple judaism are contrasted unfavorably with pauline “christianity” (which we would suggest might with greater historical accuracy be called “pauline judaism” or “apostolic judaism”). studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 17 www.bc.edu/scjr in addition, the zero-sum eschatological scenarios that see christianity “winning” and rabbinic judaism “losing” at the end of days are based upon translations of romans 11 that were themselves shaped by the binary understanding that paul had forsaken “judaism” and converted to “christianity.” by its very nature, the act of translation often requires translators to shape the language of reception so that it makes sense of words and ideas and even metaphorical or ironic elements that the language of origin presupposes. those translational word choices are significantly governed by whether the translators conceive of paul as a jewish apostle or apostate. we hope to demonstrate below that very different actualizations of romans 11 ensue when theologians work from translations based upon the paradigm of paul within judaism. furthermore, besides recognizing the very different nature of the christ-assemblies of paul’s day, today’s readers also must reckon with his very different vision for the ultimate destiny of all things, his eschatology. twenty-first century readers of his letters almost certainly engage paul’s letters with the presupposition that the “end of days” is sometime in the far-off, indefinite future. but that most likely was not paul’s perspective. for him the expected future was beginning now, albeit awaiting significant future developments, some of which were intimately tied to his own ministry among the nations. 24 the raising of the crucified one to the life of the age to come had triggered the birth pangs of the new creation. the time had come for the rest of the nations to know the god of israel. 3. reading paul and his eschatological hope from “within judaism” reading paul as within second temple judaism requires careful attention to the historical context of paul’s language. this exegetically-grounded effort offers new and 24 mark d. nanos, the mystery of romans: the jewish context of paul’s letter (minneapolis, mn: fortress, 1996), 239-88; see discussion below. studies in christian-jewish relations 18 scjr 9 (2014) significant hermeneutical advantages, not least with respect to christian-jewish relations today. many of the most relevant passages relating to the matter of paul’s relationship to judaism are being exegetically argued, and there is a growing list of participants in this venture. 25 the basic insight proceeds from some simple perspectives noted above, although generally their implications have not been fully integrated into the way that paul and his communities are conceptualized or discussed. if we take fuller consideration of insights such as krister stendahl’s, that paul was called rather than converted, that his concern with justification by faith was primarily focused on legitimating the inclusion of non-jews within god’s family rather than on individual salvation, and that fighting works-righteousness was not his life’s work, 26 and combine them with the now widely recognized historical insight that there was not yet any such thing as or named christianity into which to be converted or into which to seek to convert others, 27 it logically follows that paul would have continued to practice and promote judaism, albeit in an eschatologically enthusiastic form, centered on christ. if one assumes that his audiences knew this about him (or in the case of rome, had heard this about him), then they would have read him very differently than those christians who since the time of the church fathers have generally assumed that they knew him to have abandoned judaism for a supposedly “law-free” christianity. 25 leading voices have been participating in the paul and judaism consultation of the society of biblical literature consultation for several years. see the forthcoming fortress press (2015) edited volume by mark d. nanos and magnus zetterholm, paul within judaism. 26 stendahl, paul among jews and gentiles. 27 it has become common to see this stated in introductions to pauline studies, followed by beginning to write about paul’s christian views, christian mission, christian churches, and so on, as if the insight had not been stated. paradigms do not change easily, and terminological traditions can be an important deterrent to that process, in this case, perhaps, disclosing that pauline scholars among others, are not quite ready to embrace the logical implication that paul was thus still practicing and promoting judaism, even if that of representing a (small) subgroup of jews. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 19 www.bc.edu/scjr eschatological elements are woven throughout the central features of this re-reading. when paul became convinced that jesus was raised from the grave, this signaled for him the beginning of the awaited age to come within the midst of the present age. this was the message that he was called to announce to the nations, including those children of israel scattered among them. this is eschatological reasoning by definition. 28 obviously, for himself and other jews similarly convinced of these propositional truth claims, the most appropriate interpretation of the torah had then required reevaluation in the light of the change of eons in which they now believed. paul’s perspective was thus “chronometrical”: it was “time-conditioned” by his sense that the awaited eschatological time was now breaking into the midst of present historical time as god’s plans for a new creation approached their imminent culmination. his driving concern was the question of what was appropriate “now” in the light of the beginning of the age to come among those who followed the jesus who had been raised from the dead. the full “day of the lord” had not yet arrived, and thus the time-claims of paul and his group could be readily disputed at the empirical level. but for those who “experienced” the revelation of this “new creation,” there was a need to reinterpret how to live torah now, in the “time-inbetween-times,” we might say. the most prominent theme in paul’s writing about the torah concerns the needs of non-jews. for the emerging “paul within judaism” interpreters, it is a focal point for how 28 although sometimes noted by new perspective interpreters, it should be stressed that paul’s impulse to take the message to the nations was already an israelite/jewish ideal present in, e.g., isaiah’s prophecies of the future role of israel. this shows another value in reading paul from within judaism. in romans 3:1-2, paul boldly claims that the role of the jews and circumcision is important because they were “entrusted with god’s words/oracles,” and throughout he imagines himself as a servant of israel bringing the good news to the nations. he sees some of his jewish kin stumbling and falling behind himself (in their role as israel) to be faithful to joining him as heralds of this news, at least presently (cf. 9-11). studies in christian-jewish relations 20 scjr 9 (2014) to best contextualize the nature of his rhetorical comments, and thereby to avoid globalizing what paul writes about nonjews and the torah onto all jews by supposing he is addressing “everyman” in every argument. this contextualization includes attending to whether any given statement is descriptive or prescriptive. the non-jews “in christ” were not to become jews in order to demonstrate the truth that the end of the ages had arrived. the time had come for the nations to join alongside of israel in worshiping the one creator god of all humankind. by its nature, this truth claim demands that gentiles remain non-jews, members of the rest of the nations. 29 paul had come to recognize that the prophets could be read to announce this otherwise unexpected turning of those of the nations from idols to the one god as a signal of the arrival of the time when the wolf (nations) will lie down and dine alongside the lamb (israel), as isaiah related the metaphor (isa 11:6; 65:25). thus israel and the nations together must practice an egalitarian way of life in their gatherings (ekklesia). to live this way, different yet equal, will, paul argues, require the enabling of god’s spirit (which can be understood to represent the endof-the-ages or eschatological way of living) to guide and empower their lives. what is important to note but so often overlooked is that this is nothing other than a jewish aspiration, one grounded in jewish scriptures and teachings, especially isaiah, whom paul quotes and echoes throughout his letters, romans in particular. the difference between this jewish group and others is the chronometrical claim that this is the appropriate way to live faithfully to torah now, that something has changed among humankind and thus that israelites/jews must develop a new relationship with those from the nations who turn to her 29 for fuller discussion, see mark d. nanos, “paul and the jewish tradition: the ideology of the shema,” in celebrating paul. festschrift in honor of jerome murphy-o'connor, o.p., and joseph a. fitzmyer, s.j., ed. peter spitaler (washington d.c.: catholic biblical association of america, 2012), 62-80. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 21 www.bc.edu/scjr god through faithfulness to jesus christ. the difference is thus not between judaism and christianity. it is not even between the essential ideas, motivations, and impulses among different jewish groups’ beliefs and practices; it is the result of different conclusions about what time it is and thus about which interpretation of god's “teaching” for israel (=torah) is now the most appropriate or faithful to israel's covenantal responsibilities. in addition, just as those jews who have received the spirit of god—the spirit of the age to come, the spirit that raised jesus from death (rom 1:4)—have to live out the torah differently in the emerging new epoch, these jews also have to develop ways to teach those from the nations how to live righteously as non-jews. but non-jews, who have received the same spirit, are not taking on torah observance formally, precisely because torah was given to guide israel, not the rest of the nations, except in the general sense of guidance in living rightly toward god and neighbor. that is why we can call paul's propositional claims for the gospel “chronometrical”: the dynamic from which paul's (and his fellow jesus-followers) reasoning is distinguishable from that of other jews and jewish groups is based on a different understanding of what the current time represents. this conditions their ideas about the most appropriate way to think and behave, including, of course, how to interpret and apply torah (but not in any way to dismiss torah). other jews might well agree that such a position will be appropriate “on that day,” but, because they don’t share paul’s conviction that the crucified one has been raised, for them that day has not yet dawned. from paul’s perspective, non-jews needed to learn how to consult tanakh and torah and other teachings and customs without being technically bound to all of them in the same way as jews. but these former pagans in paul’s assemblies were obligated to turn from being slaves to sin and worshipers of other gods to being servants of righteousness and the one true god. moreover, they were initially doing so studies in christian-jewish relations 22 scjr 9 (2014) by joining jewish subgroups of followers of jesus; hence, torah behavior was normative for communal life. 30 this raises a question we seek to explore: what might paul’s first-century eschatological expectations in the letter to the romans mean for christians regarding how to best conceptualize theologically and morally their discussions about and relations to jews and judaism today? 4. romans 11: leave all judgments to god unlike, say, thessalonica and corinth, the assembly (or assemblies) of christ-followers in rome were not founded by paul, but by other apostles who may have traveled directly from judea. although it seems likely that there were christfollowing jews among the assemblies, paul's argument targets non-jews among them who have turned to christ. sometimes these non-jews are specifically singled out [e.g., “now i am speaking to you gentiles” (11:5-6, 13; 11:13-32; 15:15-16)], but in many other cases paul's focus on the non-jews is evident in various ways, for example, by his choice of pronouns (e.g., “they” in 3:1-3; cf. 9:1-5; 10:1-2; 11:1, 11-32; 15:25-32). 31 one 30 by way of analogy, when a non-catholic attends a mass, he or she will be expected to behave according to basic cultural norms. this does not require that they become catholics, that is, formally bound to behave outside of these communal gatherings in the same way as are catholics. such behavior when among catholics also does not make them catholics, but their behavior is catholic-like when attending mass, even though guests. the context for the non-jews turning to god through christ was more complicated, because they were becoming full members of the people of god without also becoming members of israel, which was now recognized within these groups as one of the people of god with people from other nations being reconciled to the one god of all humankind. thus, while torah-derived behavior was customary in these groups because they were founded by jews, they did not regard the non-jews as merely guests, making for the kind of complications that paul's letters were written to seek to resolve. 31 many exegetes representing different views of the implications recognize the make-up of the target audience is non-jews who believe in jesus; cf. stanley kent stowers, a rereading of romans: justice, jews, and gentiles (new haven: yale university press, 1994); a. andrew das, solving the studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 23 www.bc.edu/scjr of the important implications of attending to this focus on instructing the non-jews is the logical challenge it poses to the traditional assumption that paul is in some way trying to make jews realize that they too are sinners or hypocrites and related suppositions. instead, the later reader can now recognize that paul writes from positive understandings of jewish traditions, including the principle that one must “practice what one preaches” or be guilty of hypocrisy (ch. 2). he writes to the romans in order to help non-jews learn to think and live similarly. 32 a. unity among jews and gentiles in christ as with his earlier letters, paul seeks to promote oneness between the jews and gentiles in christ. he challenges any nascent indifference or resentment that might be arising. such reactions must not guide the behavior of the non-jews who now believe in jesus as christ toward jews who do not share this conviction (rom 3:1-2; 9-11). this concern is later presented in cryptic terms directed to the “strong” (or: “able” to believe jesus is christ) to censure their behavior so that it does not cause the “weak” or “stumbling” over the gospel's chronometrical assertions about jesus and the standing of romans debate (minneapolis: fortress press, 2007). in addition, nanos argues that the assemblies in rome were likely still subgroups of the larger jewish communities, creating the confusing situation for these non-jews that paul's message targets: mystery of romans; “the jewish context of the gentile audience addressed in paul’s letter to the romans,” cbq 61 (1999): 283-304; “to the churches within the synagogues of rome,” in reading paul’s letter to the romans, ed. jerry l. sumney (atlanta: society of biblical literature, 2012), 11-28. agreement with that proposed scenario is not necessary to our argument, but it helps to make sense of the widely recognized implication that paul is targeting non-jews in this letter about their attitudes toward and confusion about jews as well as righteous standing and behavior. paul is addressing non-jews confused by their recent entry into a new jewish social world centered on the raised one. 32 see mark d. nanos, “romans,” in the jewish annotated new testament, ed. amy-jill levine and marc zvi brettler (new york, et al: oxford university press, 2011), 253-86; idem, “paul’s non-jews do not become ‘jews,’ but do they become ‘jewish’?” journal of the jesus movement in its jewish setting 1.1 (2014 forthcoming). studies in christian-jewish relations 24 scjr 9 (2014) these non-jews to trip over these claims; rom. 14:1-15:13). 33 boasting of one’s status with god without complete dedication to living according to such a relationship with god, which includes living in ways that show compassion toward others, especially others (i.e., the “stumbling”) who may not be treating one well perhaps because of disagreements about these truth claims, functions as a sign of failure to realize one’s dependence on god’s mercy (see also, e.g., 3:9, 27; 5-6). it also shows a lack of concern that the “body of christ” must be united in order to serve the well-being of all of humankind (12:1-21). 34 boasting in what one has received as a gift from god instead of focusing on how accordingly to give to others signifies, for paul, an inadequate or immature understanding of faithfulness. paul objects to news he has evidently received about the non-jews being tempted to contrast their newly realized righteous standing with god through christ jesus with that of jews who do not share this perception (11:11-32). in order to prevent these non-jews from acting out of resentment, paul explains the status of jews who do not share their convictions about jesus in very positive covenantal terms that appeal to god’s faithfulness never to fail to uphold promises that god has made. as mentioned earlier, paul’s eschatologically framed instructions to remain faithful in the present rely both upon god’s faithfulness to keep the covenantal promises made in the past as well as the hoped for future of which the 33 mystery of romans, pp. 144-65. 34 although not highlighted in the commentary tradition, the “therefore” at 12:1 following the argument for living graciously instead of judgmentally or indifferently toward those jews who do not share these non-jews convictions opens paul’s instructions through the rest of the letter, suggesting not just the internal concerns among christ-followers, but also the way that these christ-followers think about and live among those who do not share their faith in jesus. this perspectives helps to explain the presence of instructions about seeking respect and avoiding vengeance in 12:9-21, the otherwise enigmatic appearance of the call to subordination and paying of taxes in 13:1-7, the instructions about how to live respectfully toward the “weak”/“stumbling” in chapters 14 and 15, as well as the concern with the success of paul’s collection upon arrival in judea. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 25 www.bc.edu/scjr prophets often spoke—even when things do not appear to be following along according to the prevailing interpretations of that script. paul emphatically insists that these other jews have not lost their covenantal standing, but are in a temporary state of being “unconvinced” (11:30-32), 35 in order for god to begin the stage of bringing those from the nations—who themselves had been characterized by being “unconvinced” of the one god (as seen in their polytheism) until now—into favored standing alongside of israel. paul wants both jews and gentiles “in christ” to recognize that they have equally been beneficiaries of god’s grace and so seek to live with each other in equality and unity (15:7-13). b. a temporary development that paul’s ministry will address it is in this context that we turn to examine more closely the language paul uses to disclose the mystery of how god is presently working among israelites and non-israelites in vv. 25-26. the nrsv translates the passage as follows: so that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, i want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of israel, until the full number of the gentiles has come in. and so all israel will be saved.... 35 in view of the argument paul is making about the present state of many of his fellow jews, appealing to the guarantee of god’s faithfulness to restore all israel in vv. 25-32, and that god is using this present anomalous situation as a way to include non-jews among the people of god, the more common meaning of peitho ̄ as persuade or be persuaded/convinced (see lsj 1353-54) in vv. 30-32, around which paul’s point works, seems warranted, rather than the prevailing translations that introduce the notion of “disobedience.” see nanos, “romans”, in jant, notes to vv. 30-32 on p. 278. studies in christian-jewish relations 26 scjr 9 (2014) as usually translated and interpreted, paul is understood to be envisioning a time when jesus will return, the parousia or second coming of jesus. the full number of the gentiles is understood to indicate the time when all those from among the nations destined to turn to god through christ have done so. this is next to be followed by the arrival of jesus in glory, and then that the rest of the jews will realize that he is the christ and so believe in him, in effect becoming christians. this way of understanding paul’s message in these verses is a central element in the current catholic eschatological reasoning we mentioned at the outset. we propose that it is unlikely that paul is trying to sketch out for a countless succession of christian generations a time that remains still in the indefinite future for us today. rather, he describes an era he believed would take place during his lifetime and ministry, even though he saw that this process was not turning out precisely as he imagined it would. his confession that god’s plans are a mystery he cannot even begin to grasp (11:33-36) provides the warrant for later readers to seek not only to understand paul’s language in its original context, but also to begin to rethink what paul might say to us today, after a history he couldn’t imagine and when things did not turn out as he had hoped—yet. would he not still be convinced that god’s promises were certain but that it was his own understanding that needed adjustment? wouldn’t he then begin to rethink how to understand not only the present but also the future? if paul is explaining in vv. 25-26 the role that he sees his own ministry playing in the mystery of god’s work among jews and non-jews, then the element of time is accentuated in a different way than has usually been highlighted. this can be demonstrated from the prevailing translations, and even more when we show an alternative translation to make better sense of his positive treatment of israel’s present, temporary state, one that is clearly central to the message he seeks to deliver to the non-jews in rome. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 27 www.bc.edu/scjr in his explanation, paul employs two metaphors: that of messengers proceeding along an assigned route, some of whom stumble on the way and thus open gaps for others to enter into the event as well (vv. 11-15); and that of an olive tree with bent branches, opening spaces into which foreign branches can be grafted (vv. 17-24). the runners symbolize the godgiven mission of jews to be “lights to the nations,” a task which paul believes must now be vigorously pursued since the end of days has commenced with the raising of jesus (ch. 10). those running to announce this news to the nations most enthusiastically and faithfully are, for paul, jewish followers of christ such as himself, while those who are stumbling (but not falling) are unconvinced jews who do not realize what is happening. the pattern that paul has experienced in his ministry, but which the christ-following gentiles in rome will not experience until paul's planned arrival, involves him, as a representative and messenger of the unfolding restoration of israel, delivering the gospel message first to the synagogues of rome. 36 he cites isaiah 59:20-21 to this effect in v. 26: “the deliverer will come from zion.” paul combines this language with that of isaiah 27:9. these passages have to do with god coming to the rescue of israel, gathering israelites from among the nations, where her fruit has filled the whole world. some 36 in mystery of romans, pp. 239-288, nanos explains in detail how the concerns paul expresses in romans, indeed, the exigency that provokes him to write this letter, arise from fear that the growing resentment among these non-jews will lead to events that close off willingness to welcome him to share his views in the synagogues of rome upon his planned arrival. paul’s ministry follows a two-step pattern of preaching first to israelites scattered among the nations, which provokes a divided response. this event signals the time to turn fully to the nations, which in turn provokes his fellow jews to reconsider whether the end of the ages expectations for israel to enlighten the nations has indeed begun, as paul claims, when they witness members from the nations turning from their gods to the one god through faith in jesus. this interpretation of paul’s strategy is compatible with the pattern traced in acts (see, e.g., 13:13-14:7), in sharp contrast to the traditional readings of paul, which find the (very jewish and synagogue oriented) paul of acts to be very different than the paul traditionally constructed from his letters. studies in christian-jewish relations 28 scjr 9 (2014) of his fellow jews will be convinced when he preaches in rome; some will not; then he will turn fully to the nonisraelites there, and their positive response will provoke his fellow jews to reconsider whether the age to come has indeed arrived, and thus, whether it is time to proclaim the gospel to the nations alongside of paul. 37 this scenario is what paul tried to communicate throughout chapter 11, especially in vv. 11-32. he developed a series of metaphors and explanations, albeit cryptic, to this end. one metaphor, drawing upon paul's insistence that israel’s special trust is god’s words/oracles (3:2), functions by picturing some of his fellow israelites stumbling instead of continuing, with him and other christ-following jews, to bring the news to the nations (vv. 11-16). he insists that the gap that has opened among these israelites, because some have stumbled instead of carrying out this task, has benefited the nonisraelites. this is a temporary development; in time those who have stumbled will catch back up. this will result in a situation far superior to the present anomalous condition, which paul likens to the superiority of the resurrected life of the new creation to normal, mortal history. in another metaphor, that of the olive tree, paul pictures some branches as being broken (as in bent, to be discussed below), while others remain in good health, such as he sees himself representing (vv. 17-24). in the argument following these metaphors, paul seeks to explain these developments as a mystery involving the intertwined fates of israelites and members from the nations in codependence 37 paul calls this provoking his kinsmen to “jealousy of his ministry” in vv. 13-14. paul uses jealous here in the positive sense of “emulation” to make the point that he expects his fellow jews to see in the success of his ministry among the non-israelites the fulfillment of their own expectation, as israelites, to share in the privilege of bringing the message of god’s reconciliation to the nations, which will provoke them to reconsider whether the chronometric claims of the gospel are being confirmed. see nanos, mystery of romans, pp. 283-285; idem, “jewish context,” 300-304. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 29 www.bc.edu/scjr upon the mercy of god, leading in time to the reconciliation of those from the nations and the restoration of “all israel.” 38 in vv. 25-26, paul provides a kind of timeline. the nrsv translates the passage thus: “so that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, i want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of israel, until the full number of the gentiles has come in. and so all israel will be saved; as it is written....” in spite of translation choices that we believe can be greatly improved, the idea that paul is engaged in disclosing a series of events comes through, and that he sees the end result for israel in positive terms. this passage is also central to the prevailing christian position that paul foresees a time when the jewish people will believe in jesus christ. we too see a timeline, but differently, and we suggest a translation that retains both the metaphorical elements that follow from the olive tree allegory just completed in the previous verses, as well as one that better captures the positive valence of paul’s comments about the present condition of his fellow jews. we propose that paul is explaining how his ministry is unfolding among jews and non-jews, following a pattern that will also take place when he is able to reach rome. it is not likely a scenario in the distant future involving the parousia, after paul’s lifetime, but his expectations about what will happen as a direct result of his ministry when he arrives in rome in the near future. the situation in rome had not developed according to (paul’s) plan, because, well, paul has not yet been able to get there to carry out this strategic program for reaching israel and the nations in what he considers to be the proper order. the anomalous situation of tensions between jews and non-jews in the assembly or assemblies in rome is a 38 the brief discussion of passages from romans 11 draws upon a series of published works noted below at certain points, and in a more summary fashion, in mark d. nanos, “romans 11 and christian and jewish relations: exegetical options for revisiting the translation and interpretation of this central text,” criswell theological review n.s. 9.2 (2012): 3-21; idem, “romans,” jant, 275-78. studies in christian-jewish relations 30 scjr 9 (2014) direct result, but one he hopes to rectify soon. as we will discuss, things did not turn out quite as he imagined that they would, and he allowed for that too, in vv. 33-36, wherein he describes god working in human history beyond the ways that we can imagine, even if the ends are guaranteed by promise. paul refers to the state of israel, or some israelites, as po ̄ro ̄sis, which has traditionally been translated as “hardened” or “blinded,” and often compared to the hardened heart of pharaoh. yet paul does not use skle ̄ros here, which is the term used to describe pharaoh’s heart. the word he uses, po ̄rōsis, is a medical term referring to the formation of a “callus” to protect a wounded limb. it is a positive development, a temporary way for the body (or plant) to preserve the health of the limb and thus “all” of the body. 39 it makes little sense to characterize his fellow jews as “hardened,” in the usual negative sense that is likened to that of pharaoh’s heart, in an argument in which he seeks to provoke these non-jews to be charitable, whereas to characterize them as in a state of repair, while still a value judgment, is at least generous. moreover, the adverbial phrase apo merous, usually translated as if adjectival, “part of israel” or “israel partially,” can be translated as “for a while” or “temporarily,” 40 preserving its function to modify the verb “has happened.” we thus have the translation: “that a callus has temporarily happened for israel,” signifying that god is protecting these israelites in spite of present appearances of their state from the viewpoint of the non-jews addressed. we suggest that paul is referring to the initial divided state of israel that results from his proclamation of the gospel in the synagogues, with some israelites accepting the chronometric claims and joining paul, and others rejecting—“unconvinced” by these claims. the next phrase is likewise of interest. 39 mark d. nanos, “‘callused,’ not ‘hardened’: paul’s revelation of temporary protection until all israel can be healed,” in reading paul in context: explorations in identity formation, ed. kathy ehrensperger and j. brian tucker (london: t & t clark, 2010), 52-73. 40 cf. rom 15:24, where paul writes of his plan, before heading off to spain, to stay in rome “for a while” or “temporarily” (apo merous)! studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 31 www.bc.edu/scjr the temporary protection will function “until” a certain point in time. that point seems to draw, as does the callus imagery, from the tree allegory, by referring to “fullness” (ple ̄ro ̄ma). this might be when the graft takes, or when it bears fruit. if metaphorical, it is unlikely to refer here to “the full number,” as often translated. this callus will protect israel “until the fullness of the nations begins/commences (eiselthe ̄),” in other words, when the fullness of the nations is addressed by the fullness of israel, i.e., by the stumbling messengers who get with the program and the bent or injured branches after their wounds are healed under the protection of a callus. with both the messengers on the road and the olive tree metaphor, paul is referring to the positive response to his preaching when he and all israel turn “fully” to those of the nations following his initial preaching aimed at his fellow israelites. in terms of the metaphor of some stumbling, this represents those from the nations who step into the temporary gap that has opened up between those who are still walking in full step and those temporarily falling a bit behind because of tripping over whether the end of the ages has really begun with jesus, who thus doubt whether it is appropriate at this time to bring this message to the nations (vv. 11-15). paul argues that the message of the gospel will be fully effective only when the gap among the messengers has been closed back up, and not by the falling aside of those (jews) who have tripped. non-jews in the jesus assemblies must not think in zero-sum terms and boast over those jews who are unconvinced that the day of the lord is imminent, as paul makes clear in the words that follow. paul completes his sentence by asserting the prophetic promise: “and then (or, and thus), all israel will be restored (or, saved/rescued),” followed by the cobbling together of passages from isaiah discussed above that affirm god’s benevolent intention toward israel in the end, following the disciplining of some who are presently unfaithful. this affirmation of god’s promises for israel’s restoration continues in the balance of the chapter, including the exclamation that studies in christian-jewish relations 32 scjr 9 (2014) israel is “beloved for the sake of the fathers,” and that “the gifts and calling of god are irrevocable” (vv. 28-29). the time element is central throughout the disclosure of this mystery, but is it not built around events paul anticipated to take place in his own lifetime as a direct result of his ministry among israelites of the diaspora and those from the other nations whom he sought to reach, “to the jew first, and also to the greek,” as he puts it several times in romans? we will return to this matter, but first a few more elements in romans 11 deserve further consideration. c. a slip into but then a recoiling from binary thinking let us turn for a moment back to paul’s allegory of the olive tree. there paul added a further twist to his argument of some stumbling temporarily by drawing on imagery from an olive tree, to which the prophets also appealed in their arguments about the future in contrast to the present state of things (e.g., isa 27-29). the message is similar, supporting the basic lines of argument against drawing mistaken conclusions from the present appearance that many of paul’s fellow jews are not joining him to announce the gospel to the nations (“yet,” as paul sees things). but paul develops the point in several new directions, some of which on the surface, especially as commonly translated, can be understood to undermine rather than enhance the logic of his argument thus far. this seems to arise from his move into a diatribal conversation with the wild shoot from a wild olive tree that has been grafted in among the natural branches of a cultivated olive tree. as paul develops the allegory, god is seen as poised to engage the wild shoot’s mistaken notion of divine favor at the ultimate expense of some natural branches now described as broken (vv. 20-24). paul labors to clarify that this is only a temporary state, as he did in the previous metaphor. but perhaps because he addresses a wild shoot that has been cut off from a wild tree, he changes his language from what he introduced when depicting some of the natural branches as studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 33 www.bc.edu/scjr “broken” as in “bent” by way of verbal forms of ekklaō (in vv. 17-21), to terms revolving around “cut off” as in “pruned” by way of verbal forms of ekkoptō in verses 22-24. 41 this has led interpreters to choose to translate paul’s allegory throughout the whole olive tree passage as if the natural branches had been cut off of the tree rather than remaining on the tree, albeit bent, and thus protected by the formation of a callus until eventually restored to good health. but the point to which paul directs attention is any nascent tendency for the wild shoot to proudly celebrate its new place at the expense of some natural branches that have suffered temporary impairment. his metaphorical language, easily missed in the translation, takes aim at any temptation for the shoot to suppose it is now superior to the natural branches that are suffering from being bent: “do not think of yourself as above (the other branches), but be afraid.” paul’s switch from ekklaō to ekkoptō raises a zero-sum implication (they lose, you win) that paul then tries to overcome by claiming that god can graft back in natural branches that have been cut off more easily than god can graft in a shoot cut off of a wild tree, which is, from a strictly horticultural perspective, not reasonable. but it should be noted that when he described the state of some of these natural branches at the beginning of the allegory, before having god address the wild shoot’s presumptuousness directly in a diatribe, he had described them simply as broken/bent (ekklaō), not cut off (ekkoptō). in the olive tree imagery, the wild shoot that is grafted among the branches is used to represent the precarious place of the non-jews among the jews even though some (many) of the jews do not (yet) share their faithfulness to christ and the declaration of the gospel to the nations (notice, there is but 41 for a fuller explanation of the translation decisions to which we are appealing, see nanos, “‘broken branches’: a pauline metaphor gone awry? (romans 11:11-36),” in between gospel and election: explorations in the interpretation of romans 9-11, ed. florian wilk and j. ross wagner (tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2010), 339-76. studies in christian-jewish relations 34 scjr 9 (2014) one single branch placed “among” the branches natural to the tree). in both of these metaphors, as in the somewhat more direct comments in vv. 25-26 and the citations in 26-27 (conflating parts of isa 27:9 and 59:20-21) as well as the conclusions drawn in vv. 28-31, the temporariness of the present situation is emphasized. there are some jews who are convinced of this unfolding process, such as paul, and there are some who are not. paul explains that this divided state is actually a part of god’s plan to spark the proclamation of the gospel to those of the nations, such as the addressees of paul’s instructions here. but that is not the end goal. rather, paul understands god to be using the commencement of this activity among the nations to provoke his fellow jews to question—when they see these non-jews turning from idols to the worship of the one god, turning from slavery to sin to slavery to righteousness (cf. ch. 6)—whether indeed the end of the ages has commenced, that time when israel will be restored and the nations reconciled. he seeks to provoke his fellow jews to jealousy of his “ministry,” that is, to want to become fellowparticipants in what paul is experiencing, the fulfillment of israel’s entrustment with god’s words/oracles (vv. 13-14; cf. 3:2). the unexpected turning to the nations after the divided response to the gospel among jews will, paul believes, provoke the reconsideration of this message by the rest of the jews. he argues that when his kinspeople see those from the other nations turning to the one god through paul as messenger (= apostle) of israel, that they will recognize he is fulfilling their own aspirations to be the light to the nations when the awaited age arrives. they will thus conclude that the age to come must have begun and reconsider the message about jesus. they will conclude with paul that it is their calling to now proclaim this message to their fellow jews among the nations as well as to the rest of humankind. in time, not only will all israel be rescued from the suffering of the present age, but the reconciliation of the world will finally arrive (vv. 12, 15). in terms of paul's metaphors, the stumbling messengers will resume their commanded course and the callus-protected studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 35 www.bc.edu/scjr branches will be fully healed on the tree, but now with those of the nations walking alongside or grafted among them. paul uses this argument to address directly any nascent ideas stemming from zero-sum thinking among the non-jews in rome that their gain has come at the expense of israelites— as if having replaced them, as if there is room for only so many. it would be natural enough to conclude that if somehow the present level of being unconvinced of the gospel claims among many jews had opened a gate for the admission of non-jews among the people of god, then all the more benefit would it be for these non-jews if those jews remained unconvinced: would these non-jews not have replaced those jews as the people of god? wouldn’t it be better for more non-jews to “get in” if fewer jews remained unconvinced? paul rejects this potential reasoning and confronts it head on: some israelites, to be sure, have stumbled over his taking the message to the nations that the birth pangs of the new age had begun with the raising of the crucified one. but they have not fallen, only temporarily tripped so as to open a gap into which some non-jews can step alongside them. that analogy nevertheless suggests a zero-sum or limited good reality, that someone had to suffer some kind of loss for another to enjoy some kind of gain. the idea that there are only so many good resources and thus that for one to gain more requires another to lose something is still common today, arguably a part of the theological reasoning we seek to dispute, and it was all the more common for greco-romans of paul’s time, where the idea of envy and thus the evil eye was an accepted explanation of the leveling affects one should fear with the gaining of additional goods or fortune. 42 paul tries to correct this impression, but 42 cf. a. w. gouldner, enter plato: classical greece and the origins of social theory (new york: basic books, 1965); p. walcot, envy and the greeks: a study of human behaviour (warminster: aris & phillips, 1978). nanos has applied this element to the interpretation of galatians; see the irony of galatians: paul’s letter in first-century context (minneapolis, mn: fortress press, 2002), 184-91, 279-80. studies in christian-jewish relations 36 scjr 9 (2014) analogies are always problematic in some way. so he argues in a fortiori style that as great as this development of a gap among israelites has been for inviting the non-jews who turn to god through christ into sharing the space with them as god's people, the fullness of the opportunity it provides will only be realized when those israelites who are temporarily falling a bit behind regain their step when they recognize the in-breaking of god’s reign. more jews will bring light to the nations: it will be like “life from the dead!” (11:11-15). this provides an interesting case where we can see paul arguing against the zero-sum logic that his own arguments and analogies otherwise implicitly encourage, and doing so by appeal to an eschatological reality that can be more readily recognized by avoiding the impulse to suppose there are a limited number of people who can gain “at that time.” god is therein recognized to be powerful enough to work independently of the limited resources that restrict human perceptions shaped by limited realities, including human frailties, failings, and the self-focused and fatalistic suppositions that characterize the thinking and life of the present age. the point of paul’s allegories, censuring any suggestion that a non-jew will ultimately gain the most by the loss of the jew who does not share his new-found faithfulness to christ, much less to have replaced the jew, has unfortunately been undermined both by translations and interpretive discussions. the most obvious case is the decision to translate ekklaō as “broken off” or “cut off,” but perhaps the most egregious case is to translate en autois as “in their place” (v. 17), explicitly expressing that christ-following non-jews have replaced jews who have not become christ-followers, when it instead means engrafted “among them.” 43 when translated “among them,” 43 another inexplicable nrsv translation decision is writing “they are enemies of god for your sake” in 11:28, when there is no manuscript evidence for “of god.” furthermore, the word translated enemies is an adjective (exthroi), better rendered something like “estranged for your sake,” paralleling the adjectival “beloved [agape ̄thoi] for the sake of the fathers” with which it is balanced, and referring to the state of impairment that paul studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 37 www.bc.edu/scjr the reader remains aware that it is among the branches referred to as broken that the shoot has been grafted, which retains the salience that the branch must still be on the tree, although bent, rather than, as commonly conceptualized, as totally severed from the tree. the allegory can advance the temporary condition central to the previous metaphor of stumbling but not fallen, but it works directly against that if the natural branches representing jews who do not believe jesus is the christ and thus do not join paul to declare this among the nations, have been cut off. they would have actually fallen, despite paul’s emphatic rejection of this in v. 11. again, we see paul appeal to eschatological reasoning to undermine perceptions based upon appearances in the present time and age. his arguments proceed from the conviction that the end of the ages has dawned, but that this is not yet apparent to everyone, not least to many of his fellow jews, and that is cause for great concern and grieving on his part, and, he argues, it should be also for the non-jews who have turned to god through christ. for paul, the present non-persuaded state of many israelites about the gospel is inextricably tied to the nonpersuaded state of many of those from the nations until that time. god is using this temporary stage, which is a part of paul’s own strategy for how to declare the gospel among jews and non-jews, to reach all of humankind in order to bring about the next stage, the awaited inexorable reign of god. in the meantime, the message is that these non-jews must remain faithful to what they have received and leave the judgment of others to god—a message that remains pertinent today. paul is certain that “all israel will be saved” or “rescued” from the present, temporary stage of god’s mysterious has just appealed to in various metaphorical ways as stumbling and bent, temporarily, and for your benefit. see norman beck, “translations of the new testament for our time,” in seeing judaism anew: christianity’s sacred obligation, ed. mary c. boys (lanham, md: sheed and ward. 2005), 200-210, here 204-206. studies in christian-jewish relations 38 scjr 9 (2014) way of reconciling all of humankind, of bringing about the day when the wolves will lie down with the lambs and not devour them. the gifts and the calling of god are certain and irrevocable, which means that god is beholden to all israelites in covenantal terms stretching back to promises made to abraham, just as parents are beholden to their children. there are many stages in a relationship, but the bond is not broken. what paul insists upon is not judging the final outcome by present appearances. he even tries to explain current events in terms that might help one understand the anomalies that present circumstances present to one who is convinced that the outcome will be other than it may seem today. if paul believed that his own ministry among the nations, turning to them fully with the gospel, would provoke his fellow jews to reconsider the message that with jesus the new creation was dawning and that they therefore had a responsibility to announce to this to the nations, this did not play out as he envisaged it in the letter to romans—certainly not yet. we propose that an awareness of the ad hoc nature of paul’s arguments in romans 11 invites christians to consider how best to actualize paul’s eschatological reasoning today. central to his argument is the ideal of taking account of one’s own responsibility to be faithful in view of the gifts received, and to leave to god the judging of whether another is being responsible to their covenanting with god. god has promised the restoration of israel; how that is to take place, what events it will involve, is not ours to decide or even to know. although paul would almost certainly still believe that it will involve his fellow jews recognizing jesus to be the appointed messiah whose work remained uncompleted, it must be remembered that for him that was still an option within judaism. it was not a decision to turn from judaism and to convert to a new religion. it is consonant with paul's own reasoning to stress that god is bigger than any boxes—even the ones he could draw, not to mention those that have emerged studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 39 www.bc.edu/scjr over history—and to focus on living graciously toward each other in the temporariness of our own time, according to what each believes to represent faithfulness. we argue that it does violence to basic pauline convictions for readers today to simply echo his first-century imminent eschatological speculations as if not reshaped by their own, later interpretive concerns and perspectives. a messianically-enthusiastic pharisee within late second temple judaism almost certainly imagined the eschaton from within a very different thoughtworld than have most christians in later gentile churches. these differences—and the implications of the intervening millennia—must be respected. 5. conclusion: paul’s eschatological speculations and zerosum eschatologies in this essay, we have envisioned paul as working from within judaism, shaped by his eschatological convictions about the meaning of jesus for israel and the nations. convinced that he was living in the throes of the birth of the new creation, this messianically-oriented pharisee adapted and applied existing jewish apocalyptic imagery to address the pastoral needs and questions of the nascent assemblies of the crucified, raised, and coming one. most specifically, he addressed what he saw as an unhealthy attitude arising among some non-jews in the roman christ-assemblies. christians who actualize paul’s reflections in today’s ecclesial context are, in a sense, imitating paul, the other apostles, the evangelists, the authors of the later books of the tanakh/old testament, and the rabbis in bringing earlier traditions to bear on their own particular circumstances. for the catholic church today, this includes actualizing pauline writings in the context of a community that doesn’t share his perspective on what the evangelizing of the nations signified within judaism, or the immediacy of a mission driven by the imminence of the eschatological events he expected but that did not occur in his lifetime. since—unlike paul and his communities—the church has come to represent a non-jewish studies in christian-jewish relations 40 scjr 9 (2014) entity, and is thus compelled to consider how its relationship to israel as the “other,” its commitment to “genuine brotherhood with the people of the covenant” 44 —rather than to their replacement or conversion to christianity—must shape how it actualizes paul's words today because it does not share his firstcentury vantage point on how this “chronometrical” timetable would play out within judaism. two additional points should be made about drawing upon paul’s eschatological writings today. the first results from a tendency to reify what paul himself admits are faltering human efforts to grasp divine providence in its ultimacy. it is simply not possible to actualize these texts as if they provide consistent and detailed eschatological timetables and sequences, or at least, to do so without the exegetical imperative to read these texts across the cultural and temporal divide between paul's time and our own. 45 paul speculated on the basis of foundational convictions, adapting contemporary concepts in an ad hoc fashion—sometimes persuading his audience (as well as later readers), sometimes failing to do so—in response to pastoral issues in the earliest assemblies. 46 additionally, we 44 john paul ii, “prayer at the western wall” (march 26, 2000); benedict xvi, “address at the great synagogue of rome” (january 17, 2010); idem, “address to delegates of the conference of presidents of major american jewish organizations” (february 12, 2009). 45 for catholics, this dialogue across the centuries is required. see the pontifical biblical commission, “the interpretation of the bible in the church” (1993), iii. 46 without adding another major section to this paper, we note that paul elsewhere also speculated eschatologically in order to address pastoral needs. in 1 thessalonians, paul had to respond to unexpected deaths in the assembly: were the dead unworthy of seeing the imminent day of the lord? he answered with a reassuring eschatological vision founded on the conviction that just as jesus was raised, so, too, those who have died “in christ” will also be raised (4:13-18). in 1 corinthians paul disagreed with those who, apparently finding corporeality distasteful rejected the idea that the physical body of jesus was raised after his death. paul argued that eschatologically the flesh of sinful humanity will be replaced by the spiritual flesh of the new humanity (15:12-58). he depicts christ’s eschatological deeds in very physical terms: he will hand over the kingdom to god the father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 41 www.bc.edu/scjr might note that hesitancy about end-times details is expressed elsewhere in the new testament. 47 a second concern we’ve stressed is the deep-seated habit of thinking about eschatology in tendentious, zero-sum ways. paul himself resisted such approaches, and even he could slip into that way of thinking in his ad hoc way of arguing, focused on whatever pastoral matter he sought to address rather than the writing of theological treatises per se. today, there are many jews and christians who imagine that at the dawning of the messianic age one tradition will finally learn that it was wrong and that the other was right. some christians envision that jews will finally recognize their error in failing to acknowledge jesus christ as the messiah and son of god. on the other hand, some jews “believe that the worship of jesus as god is a serious religious error displeasing to god even if the worshipper is a non-jew, and that at the end of days christians will come to recognize this.” 48 such binary thinking, which basically casts jews and christians in the role of either winners or losers, seems so selfserving as to be unworthy of association today with the covenanting god of israel or the church. surely, christian theologians who are committed to overcoming supersession then “when all things are subjected to him, then the son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that god may be all in all” (15:28). once more, paul has responded to a pastoral situation in one of the assemblies he had founded by drawing upon existing tropes to produce an eschatological scenario that affirms teachings he believes to be defining, in this case that christ physically died and was physically as the “first fruits” of what will happen eschatologically. 47 this is true elsewhere in paul (rom 11:33-36; 1 cor 15:50), and also in the later synoptic tradition, most pointedly in mk 13:32 || mt 24:36. if not even the son knows “the day and the hour,” then presumably his followers cannot presume to know how or when the eschaton will unfold. indeed, such presumption would disrespect divine freedom to act in surprising ways that elude human prognostication. 48 david berger, “on dominus iesus and the jews,” paper delivered at the 17th meeting of the international catholic-jewish liaison committee, new york, may 1, 2001. available at: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogikaresources/documents-and-statements/analysis/498-berger01may1. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analysis/498-berger01may1 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analysis/498-berger01may1 studies in christian-jewish relations 42 scjr 9 (2014) ism toward the jewish people and tradition can be more creative than uncritically reiterating polemics from the church’s anti-jewish past. fortunately, the pontifical biblical commission has offered an intriguing perspective on this issue: what has already been accomplished in christ must yet be accomplished in us and in the world. the definitive fulfillment will be at the end with the resurrection of the dead, a new heaven and a new earth. jewish messianic expectation is not in vain. it can become for us christians a powerful stimulus to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. like them, we too live in expectation. the difference is that for us the one who is to come will have the traits of the jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us. 49 the use of such expressions as “we, too, live in expectation” and “the eschatological dimension of our faith,” remind readers that both judaism and the church will, in a sense, be superseded in the reign of god. in particular the formulation that the eschatological messiah will possess “the traits of jesus,” which will be recognized as such by christians, is very notable. a similar expression was used by cardinal walter kasper, past president of the pontifical commission for religious relations with jews, when he said, “but whilst jews expect the coming of the messiah, who is still unknown, christians believe that he has already shown his face in jesus of nazareth whom we as christians therefore confess as the christ, he who at the end of time will be revealed as the messiah for jews and for all nations.” 50 although the pbc was referring to the traits of an eschatological messiah being 49 pontifical biblical commission, the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible (2001), §21. 50 walter cardinal kasper, “the commission for religious relations with the jews: a crucial endeavour of the catholic church.” boston college, nov. 6, 2002, iii, emphasis added. available at: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/kasper/642-kasper02nov6-2 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kasper/642-kasper02nov6-2 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kasper/642-kasper02nov6-2 studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 43 www.bc.edu/scjr recognizable by christians as belonging to jesus, cardinal kasper was speaking of jesus of nazareth as having proleptically 51 manifested and as continuing to manifest the eschatological messiah to the church. 52 while one quotation looks forward to the future eschaton and the other looks to the past as manifesting the eschaton, they both use metaphoric speech to address the asyet-unrealized expectations of many christians and jews. in each case, the practices of both traditions will be altered in the age to come, e.g., catholic sacramental life will be rendered obsolete by life in god’s direct presence and will jews continue to study torah in the divine presence? furthermore, jewish recognition of the eschatological “one who is to come,” since their “messianic expectation is not in vain,” according to this phrasing, logically depends upon jews perceiving some identifiable messianic “traits” communicated by the jewish tradition. one way of conceiving of these messianic matters, although there are diverse ideas both among and between jews and christians, is that the eschatological messiah will therefore be recognizable by both jews and christians on the basis of different legitimate but converging “traits.” this is the “both/and” option. it follows that each community, by seeing the other’s recognition, would fully understand for the first time the “rightness” of not only its own point of view, but of the other’s as well. what had been opaque about the other in historic time would become transparent in eschatological “time.” this all suggests that eschatological scenarios have greater complexity than simple zero-sum phrases like “a 51 a prolepsis is a premature or anticipatory eruption of eschatological realities into historic time. 52 a relevant quote from an earlier pbc document also speaks of the resurrection as a proleptic witness: “the resurrection of christ . . . by its very nature cannot be proved in an empirical way. for by it jesus was introduced into ‘the world to come’” [pbc, 1984, 1.2.6]. studies in christian-jewish relations 44 scjr 9 (2014) jewish turn to christ” or “christians will see their error.” if, as christians would certainly posit, the birth of the church was part of the divine plan, then christians must also contemplate the possibility that the development of the post-temple rabbinic heritage was also part of the divine plan. likewise, jews must grapple with whether or not the birth of the church reflected god’s will for israel as light to the nations. 53 we suggest that this was, in fact, what paul was up to in romans 11: seeing the advent of christ in terms of israel’s universal mission as presented in the tanakh. today’s readers should recognize that his effort to combat nascent ideas of zero-sum replacement involved different pairings (non-jews as well as jews as still salient categories) in christ vs. those not yet persuaded of jesus as christ, rather than christians vs. jews in today’s categories. 54 ironically, the ways in which paul's words were later translated and interpreted fostered the very kind of binary thinking he was seeking to counter (which was, as discussed, incongruously also present in the images with which he sought to counter it). if, then, as an exercise of divine freedom, god now works on behalf of our two related covenanting communities so that we learn to walk through historical time together, it may be that the eschaton will indeed bring about our absolute reconciliation, not in the sense of one ceding itself to the other, but rather in the sense of both joining in yielding themselves to the ultimate reality. 53 for more on this point, see philip a. cunningham, “reflections from a roman catholic on a reform theology of christianity,” ccar journal (spring 2005): 61-73. 54 we would observe, too, that the fact that we have presented a hopefully defensible reconstruction of paul’s logic in romans 11 (based on understanding him as a jewish apostle within judaism) is itself sufficient reason to doubt facile binary readings (based on the highly questionable view of paul as jewish apostate outside judaism). to the degree that current christian “eschatological postponement” approaches are themselves predicated on paul as standing outside second temple judaism, then they are also questionable. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 45 www.bc.edu/scjr perhaps in the pbc study’s eschatological allusions we can discern a resonance with the humble doxology penned two millennia ago by the apostle as he pondered the relationship resulting from israel’s initially divided response to the non-israelites who were turning to israel's god through faith in jesus. following his assertion that everyone has at times misunderstood the holy one, paul appeals to the criterion of humility that everyone should thereafter embrace, both for themselves, and in their refraining from judging others: o the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of god! how unsearchable god’s judgments and how enigmatic god’s ways! o the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of god! how unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “for who has known the mind of the lord? or who has been his counselor?” “or who has given a gift to him, to receive a gift in return?” for from him and through him and to him are all things. to him be the glory forever. amen. i appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of god, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to god, which is your spiritual worship. do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of god—what is good and acceptable and perfect. for by the grace given to me i say to everyone among you not to think of yourself more highly than you ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that god has assigned (11:33-12:3; nrsv). humility is a virtue that is perhaps insufficiently valued in academia. there is much more that we don’t “know” than what we suppose we do. perhaps it is time to theologize accordingly, especially when it impacts our views of the other who claims to seek to do god’s will also, according to what is “believed” by them, like ourselves, to be most appropriate for “now.” microsoft word 137520-text.native.1219862063.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-2 knowles, et al, contesting texts r1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 melody d. knowles, esther menn, john pawlikowski, and timothy j. sandoval, eds. contesting texts: jews and christians in conversation about the bible (minneapolis: fortress press, 2007), 213 pp. + indices. reviewed by mary c. boys, union theological seminary this stimulating volume, an outcome of a conference of the same name in chicago in spring 2005, consists of essays ranging widely in style and emphasis. the introductory section, “jews, christians and the bible,” begins with a lengthy overview by the editors. they use the 2000 statement, dabru emet (“speak truth”), authored by four jewish scholars and signed by many other scholars and rabbis, as a framework for presenting the various essays in the collection. (a copy of dabru emet may be found in the appendix.) while in some ways a bit odd, since of most of the authors do not explicitly mention dabru emet, it nevertheless offers a heuristic for a notable and helpful introduction to the work as a whole. also in this initial section is an essay on biblical authority by david novak (one of the authors of dabru emet) and on promise and fulfillment by ralph klein. this latter essay should be required reading for every christian student of bible. the second section, with essays by barbara r. rossing and steven weitzman, deals with early jewish and christian interpretation of texts of violence. rossing focuses on a dual theme of victory in revelation, the violent imperialism of conquering rome in contrast to jesus as the slain lamb. “for all its holy war imagery, revelation does not promote war,” rossing argues (74). weitzman seeks to expose various ethical options in the bible by studying reinterpretations of narratives typically used to justify martyrdom. section three deals at greater length with some of the tensions in jewish-christian interpretations. barbara bowe contributes a thoughtful piece on religious identity and the “other” via the lens of the new testament. jewish scholars sarah j. tanzer and laurence l. edwards follow with insightful perspectives on the “jews” in the fourth gospel and the pharisees in luke, respectively. the fourth section, “looking to the present and the future,” examines similar issues on a wider horizon. walter brueggemann, in his usual poetic fashion, writes on the common vocation of jews and christians to maintain hope. susan thistlethwaite and david sandmel offer concluding syntheses. each essay is well written and accessible to non-specialists. this reader, however, longed for more sustained development of ideas. novak’s essay on biblical authority functions as a commentary on the second proposition of dabru emet (“jews and christians seek authority from the same book—the bible (what jews call ‘tanakh’ and christians call the “old testament’)” (34). he raises many issues about the diverse ways in which jews and christians consider scripture to be authoritative; a companion review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-2 knowles, et al, contesting texts r2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 piece by a christian on the same topic or as a response to novak would have advanced the conversation. instead, one moves on to klein’s thinking on promise and fulfillment, another essay deserving of response. then to the essays on texts of violence and so on—in short, many issues introduced but not advanced by further analysis. i believe readers who pick up this book will gain insight into some of the key issues in interpreting scripture. whether they will be able to draw clear conclusions about what both separates and divides jews and christians in reading scripture is doubtful. for those considering using this text in advanced undergraduate or graduate courses, more attention needs to be given to probing the assumptions, methods and implications of each essay so that commonalities and differences are more sharply drawn. perhaps the necessity of seeking to make such connections and probing more deeply will provide these readers with something of the intellectual liveliness that must have permeated the original conference on “contesting texts.” microsoft word 154200-text.native.1234993502.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): gregerman r 1-2 jodock, covenantal conversatons gregerman r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 darrell jodock, ed. covenantal conversations: christians in dialogue with jews and judaism (minneapolis: fortress press, 2008), softcover, x+222 pp. reviewed by adam gregerman, institute for christian-jewish studies this book, a study of topics in jewish-christian relations by lutheran scholars, is not strictly speaking a scholarly contribution to the field, but rather a distillation of the work of scholars of bible, rabbinics, jewish thought, and religious history. by design, it is not meant as a presentation of new interpretations of texts or issues, though these are occasionally found. rather, it is for educated lay persons, seminarians, and clergy who have a basic familiarity with the bible and theology and seek to learn about the main issues in jewish-christian relations. with this limited goal in mind, it is a useful, often insightful, if sometimes uneven work that lives up to the editor’s own standard: to provide a “concise background that equips christians to deal with questions about judaism” (4). the book is structured around “talking points: topics in christian-jewish relations,” eight statements, each a few paragraphs long, issued in 2002 by the evangelical lutheran church in america (ecla). each point is dealt with in a separate chapter: “judaism then and now”; “covenants old and new”; “law and gospel”; “promise and fulfillment”; “difficult texts: interpreting new testament images of jews and judaism”; “jewish concern for the land of israel”; “healing the world and mending the soul: understanding tikkun olam”; and “christians and jews in the context of world religions.” because the points are so succinct and the topics so complex, it is difficult to imagine that one could organize a discussion around them alone, and this book is therefore a welcome complement to the original text. the chapters are written by lutheran scholars with long involvement in jewish-christian relations and present elaborations of the ideas in each point. they are followed by brief responses by other scholars, usually jewish, but, oddly, sometimes by christians. however, these responses are very short, and the respondents seem strangely hesitant to offer substantive criticism; one imagines this chapter-and-response structure sounded better in theory than it works in practice. while it can be difficult to generalize about a collection of essays, it is possible to offer broad observations. the authors’ gracious, learned discussions of judaism and their optimism about improvements in jewish-christian relations are major strengths of this book. in a sharp break with centuries of christian (mis)representations of judaism, all recognize that judaism continued to develop after the biblical period, and, importantly, all agree that the jews’ covenantal relationship with god is ongoing. breaking with supersessionism, authors devote attention to this topic, seeking to affirm, in different ways, a new christian covenant alongside an older jewish covenant. their analyses, building on the work of earlier scholars, are rich and sure to provoke discussion, as they survey interpretations of complex texts, such as hebrews review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): gregerman r 1-2 jodock, covenantal conversatons gregerman r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 and paul’s letters. i imagine one could organize a lively study group comparing their different alternatives to supersessionism, for example. not only do all the authors strive to interpret judaism on its own terms by relying on jewish sources, they have also chosen topics of importance to jews. they avoid an overemphasis on topics such as messianism or eschatology (historically less central to jews) in favor of topics such as covenant, land, and law. at the same time, they write for a christian audience, also including, for example, discussions of jesus and jewish messianism (e.g. 66-70), christian views of sacred space/land (e.g. 102, 111-12, 156), and christian involvement in the middle east (e.g. 148-53, 162-64). treatment of the controversial issue of israel, addressed in both a two-part chapter and a case study, is especially well done. all readers, regardless of their own sympathies, should applaud the self-consciously cautious efforts by karla suomala, john stendahl, and peter pettit to describe fairly and fully jewish attachment to the land, the rights and concerns of the palestinians, and possible roles for american christians. they discuss the need for precise language on all sides (with examples); the strengths and weaknesses of christian theological approaches (especially liberation theology); and the reasons why christians should be supportive of israel, though not uncritical. jewish discomfort with christian involvement in middle east politics is mentioned, but, to my mind, too quickly dismissed in the case study, in favor of an ideal presentation of the church as simply “a concerned advocate for peace” (153). there are some weaknesses, such as repetition, that could have been eliminated with further editing. certain topics, such as the pharisees and later the rabbis, naturally arise in different chapters, but nearly identical points are repeatedly made (e.g. 12, 18, 52, 86, 95-96). a related weakness is a lack of coherence in some essays. authors sometimes jump from topic to topic, leaving the reader disoriented. for example, in “judaism then and now,” darrell jodock does a fine job illuminating the ancient rabbis’ goal of creating “vibrant” communities based on their reinterpretations of biblical law. however, he then moves immediately from this period to modern judaism without any discussion of the intervening dozen or so centuries (14-20). suomala, in “healing the world and mending the soul,” builds her discussion of jewish views of social justice from a sampling of sources (e.g., a medieval kabbalist, some hasidic rabbis, a modern orthodox leader, web sites of a few contemporary synagogues) without elaborating the criteria she used to select them or how they fit into the larger jewish tradition (114-27). furthermore, there are surprisingly few quotations from jewish sources, an odd omission in a book geared to group study. finally, i should mention that frequent references to the elca points and the occasional inclusion of a distinctly lutheran perspective – such as asides about luther’s views of law (47-49, 56) or vocation (124-26) – may, on the one hand, limit readership. however, these seldom affect the broader argument (and are often insightful comparisons) and should not discourage others from using this book. in keeping with the practical, community-focused purpose of this book, the authors sometimes leave their scholarly perches and address their fellow christians directly. they offer guidance to preachers of difficult texts. they survey various biblical interpretations and judge the adequacy of them. and most importantly, they make demands of readers for better understandings of judaism and provide them with some of the tools and information to do that. all of this demonstrates the work’s usefulness as a resource for christian congregations involved in interreligious affairs. microsoft word 137525-text.native.1219862911.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-2 sandwell, religious identity in late antiquity r1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 isabella sandwell religious identity in late antiquity: greeks, jews, and christians in antioch in the series, greek culture in the roman world (new york: cambridge university press, 2007), cloth, xii+310 pp. reviewed by demetrios tonias, boston college isabella sandwell’s religious identity in late antiquity: greeks, jews and christians in antioch is an examination of the variegated religious life of fourth century antioch using the writings of the christian preacher john chrysostom and the pagan orator libanius as a lens. sandwell’s book, part of a series that examines the impact of greek culture in the roman world, is a revised version of the author’s doctoral thesis at university college london in 2001. sandwell demonstrates in her book that the labels of greek, jew, and christian were far from being the well-defined categories many have imagined them to be over the years. in contrast to the stark divisions presented in christian texts, the author describes a fourth-century antiochene religious life that was both fluid and unformed – in large part due to the prevailing social structures present in the roman imperial world of the fourth century. sandwell’s use of chrysostom and libanius serves her well, as the former was an advocate of the distinct categories of greek, jew, and christian while the latter presented a society where religious affiliation shifted depending on habit, feel, and perceived personal and political gain. the study is also valuable in light of the fact that chrysostom was libanius’ student in rhetoric – although this relationship is not the focus of the text. while chrysostom and libanius had profoundly different views concerning religious identity, they both spoke to and about the same fourth-century antiochene society. sandwell herself contends that it was libanius who more accurately described the realities of religious identity in fourth-century antioch. for libanius, religious practice was seen as an individual affair in which the goal was to obtain personal access to the divine. chrysostom’s use of defined categories of religious identity was, in part, an effort to mitigate this social reality. libanius, however, did not view the religious milieu in terms of competing monolithic groups, but rather as a collection of personal religious practices. sandwell argues that we can glean libanius’ pluralistic approach from his letters, which indicate that he favored a network model as the basis for religious connection as opposed to a system based on social groupings. while libanius would have most certainly desired a return to the earlier roman civic religion, sandwell demonstrates that he was pragmatic and recognized that “religious identities were not idealized and monolithic but strategic and practical” (p. 163). as the title of the book indicates, sandwell also recognizes the presence of a strong jewish community in antioch, and thus as a corollary, its associated importance as part of the antiochene religious fabric. she acknowledges, however, that the absence of jewish textual material makes any analysis of the jewish role in antiochene religious life largely dependent on the writings of chrysostom and libanius. chrysostom’s reference to the local jewish community in his eight homilies against judaizing christians is of course well known. sandwell, however, builds on the work of robert wilken and others by placing chrysostom’s work within the context of antiochene civic life in general and religious identity in particular. sandwell contends that libanius accepted the loss of the former civic religious identity, whereas chrysostom attempted to reconstruct it in a fashion where “to be a citizen of antioch was to be review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-2 sandwell, religious identity in late antiquity r2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 christian and vice versa” (p. 138). sandwell uses chrysostom’s sermons to show that the christian preacher consistently attempted to link all other antiochene groups into a single religious category –– the non-christians. thus, jews were accused of being idolatrous greeks and christian heretics accused of being jews in another form. for sandwell, therefore, chrysostom’s homiletic references to wealth and poverty were intended to create a christian civic life and help shape antioch as a christian city. sandwell notes, however, that chrysostom was not alone in trying to form a unified civic religious identity in antioch. throughout the book, sandwell is quick to point out that during the brief reign of julian from 361-363 ce – a little more than two decades before chrysostom was offering his sermons to his flock in antioch – the roman emperor also attempted to promote a common civic religious identity along greco-roman pagan lines. julian even pursued an alliance of sorts between jews and greeks based on their common use of animal sacrifice. furthermore, while he did not go as far as julian in promoting this type of religious alliance, libanius also demonstrated sympathy for the jews of antioch, at times extolling their virtuous life. where libanius was concerned with “creating and constructing religious networks rather than describing religious groups” (p. 239), sandwell notes that, “through a constant reference to greeks, unbelievers, christians and jews, chrysostom was trying to create these as categories” that described discrete religious identities (p. 64). religious identity in late antiquity serves well as an examination of religious life in the century that would mark the ascendency of christianity. unfortunately, many have often mistakenly transposed later religious distinctions to the fourth century – a mistake of which sandwell is well aware and which she addresses by describing the fluid political and social environment at that time. the reality of the day was that both chrysostom and libanius were making idealistic statements about religious identity in an age where the whims of the emperor or of the general populace often held sway over the actual practice on the ground. sandwell is right to note that when a christian homilist like chrysostom described a set of well-defined religious categories to his flock it does not necessarily follow that the community at large (or even the christian community itself) respected those distinctions. conversely, libanius’ call for a unified religious ethos based on a loose model of social organization would never be realized once theodosius officially made the empire a christian one in 381. sandwell does an admirable job of providing sufficient historical context in the book without allowing it to overpower the core substance of the text. while primary source references from chrysostom and libanius constitute the heart of the work, sandwell also draws upon some of the most well known scholars in the field to help support her conclusions. a limitation to a study such as this is in the paucity of physical archeological evidence to help supplement the textual sources cited in the book –– a deficiency that sandwell herself laments. additionally, there is the aforementioned dearth of jewish texts, which makes a thorough understanding of the role of the jewish community problematic as we seek to understand religious identity in fourth-century antioch. isabella sandwell’s thorough treatment of the topic of religious identity should be of value to a wide, academic audience. although studies such as this are inherently limited by a lack of physical and textual evidence, sandwell still helps add to our understanding of this period by juxtaposing these two major figures of fourth century antioch and asking relevant and enlightening questions about them. the net result is a book that produces a new understanding of the material and opens doors for future conversations on the subject. by giving focus to the issue of religious identity, sandwell offers scholars not only a solid reference tool but also a frame of reference from which future research can be conducted. 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-17 “the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable” (romans 11:29): if so, how can paul declare that “not all israelites truly belong to israel” (9:6)? 1 mark d. nanos mark@marknanos.com university of kansas, lawrence, ks 66045 since vatican ii introduced nostra aetate 4 in 1965, it has become widely recognized “in our time” that paul insisted god’s choice of and promises to israel were eternal, and that absolute affirmation of this continuity should shape christian discourses about and relationships with jews and judaism. that document, and the many statements in this direction by other christian organizations that followed it, appeal explicitly to paul’s statement that “the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable” (rom 11:29) as well as his exclamation that “all israel will be saved” (11:26; both transl. from nrsv). 2 continued covenantal relationship between god and all israel is affirmed rather than denied on the basis that israel remains “beloved because of the fathers” (11:28). that relationship is understood to operate presently—in various ways by various organizations—to some degree independent of whether jewish people have become participants in the relationship that christians celebrate with god through their faith in jesus christ, 3 1 this essay is a revision of a study originally written for translation into german for a protestant liturgical pastoral guidebook for the reading of 9:1-8, 14-16: “‘gottes gaben und berufungen können ihn nicht gereuen.’ wie, also, sollten wir römer 9,1-16 (insbesondere v. 6) übersetzen und verstehen?” in “die gotteskindschaft des jüdischen volkes (röm 9,1-16)”: arbeitshilfe zum israelsonntag 2016: 10. sonntag nach trinitatis, ed. volker haarmann, ursula rudnick, and axel töllner, trans. v. haarmann (düsseldorf/hannover: evangelische kirche im rheinland, evangelischlutherische landeskirche hannover, begegnung von christen und juden bayern, 2016), 14-23; <www.ekir.de/christen-juden>. 2 for some examples from protestant churches, see franklin sherman, “the road to reconciliation: protestant church statements on christian-jewish relations,” in seeing judaism anew: christianity’s sacred obligation, ed. m. c. boys (lanham: sheed and ward/rowman and littlefield, 2005), 241251; other essays discuss catholic examples, and various other developments and statements. 3 cf. the vatican’s commission for religious relations with jews released a new document entitled, “the gifts and calling of god are irrevocable,” marking the 50th anniversary of the ground-breaking declaration “nostra aetate,” at: <http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/12/10/vatican_issues_new_document_on_christianjewish_dialogue_/1193274>. nanos: “the gifts and the calling of god” 2 although traditionally it has been maintained that jews will be convinced to share this conviction with christians at some point in the future. 4 paul’s argument begins in chapter 9 with the powerful promise of the continuity of his israelite compatriots’ identity as israelites. regardless of whether each israelite already shared paul's convictions about jesus and thus presently undertook to proclaim god’s good news to the nations alongside of himself, they all remain recipients of the gifts given to israel (9:1-5). the argument ends in chapter 11 with the same message of god’s continued commitment to the continuity of israel, to which post-shoah theologians appeal to shape new paradigms for the church going forward. however, the impact of these declarations of continuity is significantly mitigated when not entirely subverted by the way that the rest of the language in chapter 9 is translated and interpreted, and most significantly, in verse 6. 5 the ostensibly contrasting idea is introduced dramatically in 9:6 to the reader of modern translations [ou gar pantes hoi ex israēl houtoi israēl]: “for not all israelites truly belong to israel” (nrsv). 6 paul’s language is presented as if designed to express that israelites who do not believe in jesus have already been excluded from identification as the israel of god, although they can rectify that by becoming christians (members of the church; or, less anachronistically, christ-followers). 7 translations commonly introduce the word “really” or “truly,” which serves to help make this point, as if some current day israelites are not “really” members of israel, not “truly” israelites, although that qualification is not in the greek manuscripts. the verses that follow verse 6 continue to be understood to highlight this message of discontinuity, of israel as an entity that is other than the one historically identified as the descendants of the tribes of jacob/israel. instead, the church (the community of christians) has taken their place and become israel, variously worded (including such “supersessionist” terms as “replaced,” “reconfigured,” “redefined,” “spiritual,” “true,” none of which were used by paul to 4 the interpretation of the language in paul on which these eschatological conversion scenarios are based is questioned by mark d. nanos and philip a. cunningham, “implications of paul’s hopes for the end of days for jews and christians today: a critical re-evaluation of the evidence,” studies in christian-jewish relations (scjr) 9.1 (2014): 1-45; <http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/view/5793>. 5 the tendency for christian traditional interpreters prior to na 4 to translate and interpret even 11:29 in ways that did not affirm eternal commitment to jews who were not christians is traced in joseph sievers, “‘god’s gifts and call are irrevocable’: the reception of romans 11:29 through the centuries and christian-jewish relations, ” in reading israel in romans: legitimacy and plausibility of divergent interpretations, ed. cristina grenholm and daniel patte (harrisburg, pa.: trinity press international, 2000), 127-173. 6 kjv: “for they are not all israel, which are of israel”; nasb: “for they are not all israel who are descended from israel”; niv: “for not all who are descended from israel are israel”; “denn es sind nicht alle israeliter, die von israel sind” (luther, 1912). 7 i want to bring particular attention to the earlier work of lloyd gaston on this tension, especially his essay “israel’s enemies in pauline theology,” reprinted in paul and the torah (vancouver: university of columbia press, 1987), 80-99, and dedicate this essay to his memory. he highlighted paul’s concern that the role of israel in bringing the gospel to the nations was central versus the usual emphasis on them becoming saved. thank you, lloyd; may your memory (continue to) be for a blessing. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) describe israel). 8 in this way paul’s insistence that god’s covenant promises to israel are eternal and the church’s traditional perspective that paul could not have meant that jews who did not believe in jesus were still included in those promises, is supposedly resolved by redefining israel so as to exclude those jews while at the same time including any non-jews who believe in jesus christ. but it is difficult to square that with paul’s opening and closing arguments: he was discussing jews who did not agree with him about jesus when he appealed to the certainty of their continued identity as israel (9:1-5; 11:11-32). is there an alternative for those christian interpreters (or anyone else) who wish to interpret paul as accurately as possible and to avoid the legacy of this interpretive conundrum if not contradiction at the center of paul’s thinking about israel, and the role these still play “in our time”? yes, there is. after all, logically, it makes good sense that paul would design the arguments that follow his opening declarations in chapter 9 and precede his conclusions in chapter 11 to confirm rather than to contradict them. before we focus on chapter 9, let us survey some of the conclusions reached in chapter 11. this will help us develop working assumptions for re-reading verses 6-16 of chapter 9, especially verse 6. throughout, appeal will be made to more literal translations to re-evaluate the most probable meaning in its original context. the expectations created by the conclusions reached in chapter 11 it is widely recognized that paul introduces a series of metaphors in chapter 11 to insist that those of his fellow jews who have not joined him in his convictions about jesus nevertheless remain members of israel, and, as such, are ensured of receipt of god’s promise of salvation, signified by his bold claim that “all israel will be saved” (verse 26). equally influential, indeed, the text around which nostra aetate 4 built, as already noted, is the related claim that while some 8 “on the part of many of the church fathers the so-called replacement theory or supersessionism steadily gained favor until in the middle ages it represented the standard theological foundation of the relationship with judaism: the promises and commitments of god would no longer apply to israel because it had not recognized jesus as the messiah and the son of god, but had been transferred to the church of jesus christ which was now the true ‘new israel’, the new chosen people of god. arising from the same soil, judaism and christianity in the centuries after their separation became involved in a theological antagonism which was only to be defused at the second vatican council. with its declaration “nostra aetate” (no.4) the church unequivocally professes, within a new theological framework, the jewish roots of christianity. while affirming salvation through an explicit or even implicit faith in christ, the church does not question the continued love of god for the chosen people of israel. a replacement or supersession theology which sets against one another two separate entities, a church of the gentiles and the rejected synagogue whose place it takes, is deprived of its foundations. from an originally close relationship between judaism and christianity a long-term state of tension had developed, which has been gradually transformed after the second vatican council into a constructive dialogue relationship.” commission for religious relations with the jews: “the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable” (rom 11:29): a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations on the occasion of the 50 th anniversary of “nostra aetate” (no. 4); <http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/12/10/vatican_issues_new_document_on_christianjewish_dialogue_/1193274>. nanos: “the gifts and the calling of god” 4 israelites are presently considered “enemies [or: “estranged” (discussed below)] for your sake,” at the same time they remain “beloved for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable” (verses 28-29). these statements can be made clearer and stronger, so too can be the messages in the metaphors preceding them. 9 although i have posed the tension between the positive message in 11:26, 28-29 and the negative one in 9:6 in traditional terms that raise the need to revisit the options for 9:6, the standard translation in chapter 11 ironically hides within it a supposition that should be noticed, and that i also want to challenge. the usual translation and interpretation of sōzo as “saved” is in a circular way supported by the way that 9:6 has been understood—that many israelites are in some way already outside of covenantal standing as israel, although they will be returned to that standing at some point in the future. however, the greek verb translated “will be saved” in 11:26 is a future form of sōzō, which is not used to describe saving as in returning to life that which had died, so to speak, but to keeping alive—although the implications for the translation and interpretation of paul’s arguments seems to have gone unnoticed. in keeping with the usage of paul’s time, sōzō and cognates refer to “safekeeping,” and in the future tense as paul used it here, to “will be protected” or “preserved” as in “kept safe,” or “delivered” or “rescued” from danger, or for one who is ill (or, e.g., a branch that is injured), to be “healed” (lsj). 10 this applies to the other uses of cognates of sōzō in the immediate context: “for their protection” (10:1); and in 10:9-10 and verse 13, “protected.” the context of the original texts in deuteronomy 9:4-6 and 30:11-14 from which paul draws are not about gaining entrance into standing as israel, but about how to behave faithfully after they have entered the next phase of their covenantal relationship so that they will prosper and be protected in the land; these covenantal commandments and resultant blessings versus curses are based upon the covenantal descent standing that they already enjoy. while the traditional choice of “saved” can arguably communicate this idea, it should be 9 for more detail, see mark d. nanos, “romans 11 and christian and jewish relations: exegetical options for revisiting the translation and interpretation of this central text,” criswell theological review n.s. 9.2 (2012): 3-21, and the several exegetical essays for the details referenced therein. here and throughout this essay, readers might also want to consult the notes for mark d. nanos, “romans,” in the jewish annotated new testament, ed. amy-jill levine and marc zvi brettler (new york: oxford university press, 2011), 253-86. for the german translation of reflections on romans 11 when it arose in the reading cycle see mark d. nanos, “römer 11 und christlich-jüdische beziehungen: exegetische optionen für eine andere übersetzung und interpretation des textes,” in “so wird ganz israel gerettet werden”: arbeitshilfe zum israelsonntag 2014: 10. sonntag nach trinitatis, ed. hanna lehming, et al., trans. volker haarmann (düsseldorf/hannover: evangelischlutherische landeskirche hannover, evangelische kirche im rheinland, evangelisch-lutherische kirche in norddeutschland, begegnung von christen und juden bayern, 2014), 18-25; <www.ekir.de/christen-juden>. 10 in english, we speak of the doctor “saving” the patient so that they “recover,” by which we do not generally mean that the doctor brought them back after they were “lost” as in dead, but that they keep them from dying, healing or protecting them so that they recover instead of remaining sick or getting worse. these matters were the focus of my 2015 society of biblical literature annual meeting paper: “are jews outside of the covenants if not confessing jesus as messiah?: questioning the questions, the options for the answers too.” 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) avoided in these cases because the translation “saved” has expressed the assumption that these israelites already had lost their covenant standing for not believing in jesus as messiah (now challenged by nostra aetate 4), thus that they are in need of being “re-admitted” rather than “retained” in standing as the “true” or “spiritual israel” of 9:6, the topic to which we will return. there is good reason, then, in spite of the many positive uses to which this phrase has been put, to heretofore eschew translating this phrase as “all israel will be saved,” as well as the alternative i had adopted until recently recognizing this issue myself, “restored,” since it arguably suffers from the same implication. the alternative, “all israel will be protected,” highlights the idea that these israelites are being and will continue to be preserved safely in their already preexisting covenantal standing in spite of present circumstances that paul’s addressees might be tempted to interpret differently, such as in the direction of later christian replacement theology. following the olive tree allegory, the metaphorical implication is that "all the israelite branches (i.e., the temporarily injured ones) will be healed." perhaps to accentuate the defamiliarizing potential of this insight we should refer to all israel being “safed.” notice too that rather than “enemies” in 11:28, the greek word echthroi should probably be translated “estranged (ones),” reflecting the parallel use of the widely recognized adjectival “beloved (ones) [agapētoi],” balancing the comparative contrast around which he is working. 11 this would represent another way of communicating paul’s judgment that these fellow israelites are suffering what he has been describing metaphorically as “stumbling.” they are thus “lagging behind” as well as being “broken” as in “bent” or “injured” branches to express his judgment that their not joining him in bringing the message of the gospel to the nations is a failing, but it is a temporary one in an ongoing process, and one in which god is complicit. yes, paul’s view does express a criticism of these other jews based upon his convictions about jesus; however, this alternative highlights that paul regards this temporary state to represent vicarious suffering on behalf of the addressees without also suggesting that they are enemies of the addressees or, just as importantly, that they are “enemies of god” (an addition the nrsv makes without any manuscript evidence). at the same time, it captures the fact that paul is seeking to describe the role of god’s design and present appearances as different, and more promising, than the non-jew addressees might otherwise suppose. they are witnesses of a point in an ongoing process, one that involves inscrutable elements being shaped by the divine in ways that defy even paul’s best efforts to unravel (cf. 11:33-36). paul remains, nevertheless, certain of a positive end result for all of his fellow israelites: eventually, this process will conclude with their success. he also argues in a way that should make the idea that he saw “israel” per se as having rejected the gospel or being rejected by god impossible to suppose, for 11 see norman beck, “translations of the new testament for our time,” in seeing judaism anew: christianity’s sacred obligation, ed. mary c. boys (lanham, et al: a sheed and ward book; rowman and littlefield, 2005), 200-210. nanos: “the gifts and the calling of god” 6 paul identifies his own activity to represent that of israel (11:1-10). even if the task as he understands it (bringing the gospel to the nations) is only faithfully being carried out presently by some israelites, it is nevertheless being carried out by israel! this point parallels closely the argument in 9:1-5, and should, i suggest, guide the interpretation of verse 6, to be discussed. in the metaphors in 11:11-16, paul insisted that while some israelites have “stumbled,” they have not “fallen,” and that while this temporary development has created an opening for some non-israelites to join in alongside of them on the course, the longed for culmination (“life from the dead” in verse 15) will only be achieved when those who have thus fallen behind for a while complete the course too. although not always recognized, there is good reason to question whether this metaphor was designed to portray israelites in terms of salvation, to state the issue in later christian terms. rather, paul appears to be reflecting upon the prophetic notion that when the awaited day of good news arrives the messengers of israel will complete the task of running to announce this news to fellow israelites and to the nations; 12 nevertheless, some would-be messengers are stumbling presently rather than running; that is, they are presently not expressing faithfulness to complete this task. this fits: paul has worked with the idea that israel’s chosen role was being entrusted with god’s words or oracles since he introduced the concept in 3:2, and he will discuss whether or not israel has been faithful to that trust at the end of chapter 9, and, it seems, throughout chapter 10 and into chapter 11, where he introduces the language we are discussing. moreover, in chapter 11 (esp. verses 20-22) he warns the christ-following non-jew addressees to remain faithful to their calling, to that which they believe to be true for themselves, rather than to consider it their task to judge these fellow jews (so too in chapter 2, leading up to the declaration of 3:2). for the sake of space, we will not discuss all of the translation choices in this metaphor of stumbling but not falling that can be improved to support rather than undermine a message of continuity (e.g., such as “misstep” rather than “transgression,” “lagging behind” rather than “failure”), and move directly to the translation of the olive tree allegory that follows it in verses 17-24. 13 the translations here can also be improved to support paul’s affirmations of israel’s protection. the greek word usually translated “broken off” (formed from ekklaō), can be translated very differently and thereby communicate very different implications both within the allegory of the olive tree and for the analogies drawn about paul’s view of his fellow israelites. ekklaō can be translated “broken,” as in when a branch is ‘bent” so as to suffer a “break” or “crack” in it; although injured, it remains on the tree. rather than contradict the prior metaphor, as if paul had just stated rather than denied that these israelites had indeed stumbled so as to “fall,” which imagining limbs broken or cut off instead communicates (!), the allegory 12 see isa 62:6-12. 13 examples outside of the allegory are several as well, not least of which is that “disobedience” in verses 30-32 can be understood instead as “unconvinced,” which better represents the disposition of most israelites, versus the idea of “rejecting,” as if convinced but unwilling to humbly accept the truth. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) can remain consistent, emphasizing a temporary problematic development, one that can be described as present alienation from faithfully accomplishing the assigned task rather than as abandoning it, and thereafter being abandoned by god. 14 i suggest translating apistia (11:23) in terms of the rest of the israelites’ “lack of faithfulness” (at this point) to carry out israel’s calling to announce the message to the nations, not as if at issue in the metaphor is “unbelief” in jesus as messiah per se. “unbelief” in jesus would not make sense of the threat to the wild branch being rebuked, and thus to the corresponding comment about the broken israelite branches: it is not failure to continue to believe in jesus that would lead to the wild branch being cut out, but unfaithfulness to the responsibility it has toward the suffering branches, which is not to grow arrogant toward them and suppose it has replaced them as the recipients of god’s gifts and calling. moreover, following the allegory, the usual translation of verse 25 communicates that these israelites have been “hardened,” which has a negative valence and is often even analogized with the hardening of pharaoh’s heart, even though that is based upon a different greek word (sklērunō; 9:18). paul uses a form of the verb pōroō in verse 25. this is a medical term used to describe the temporary, positive process of a body or tree mending a broken element by creating a “callus.” 15 a bent or cracked limb is “callused” to “protect” the injured area from further damage until it can be fully “healed”; in the meantime, it can continue to function within the tree toward its goal of producing fruit. “all israel will be healed, protected, preserved, kept safe.” as we have surveyed, paul concluded in chapter 11 that the present lack of participation by some (even many) israelites (jews) in the process of taking the message to the nations was part of a temporary stage in a larger design, one during which god was protecting these israelites based upon the promises made to them through their ancestors, which was in keeping with the way that he began his argument in chapter 9. now, let us see if we can read the verses in chapter 9 within the stream of this propositional logic, rather than as if it undermined it or set out an entirely different message. 14 the notion of the natural branches being broken “off” is an element in the replacement theological proposition that the wild shoot (note, singular for paul, but almost always referred to by interpreters in the plural as shoots or branches) is grafted into the tree where the natural branches were pruned off (nrsv goes so far as to invent, “in their place”), when paul wrote “among them [en autois]” (verse 17). problematic too is the notion that the shoot is grafted into “israel,” and thus the idea that the gentiles become members of israel, when paul does not identify the tree as israel but israelites as branches in the tree, the new shoot drawing from the same root (this is, notably, often the first basis for upholding the idea that the christian non-jew is now a part of israel, however qualified, often as “true” or “spiritual,” etc.). along the same line, this metaphorical language is treated as if a literal theological statement and repeated endlessly without reflection on the fact that humans are not branches and are not grafted into trees (thus representing a dead metaphor). for the complete argument see mark d. nanos, “‘broken branches’: a pauline metaphor gone awry? (romans 11:1136),” in between gospel and election: explorations in the interpretation of romans 9—11, ed. florian wilk and j. ross wagner (tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2010), 339-376. 15 mark d. nanos, “‘callused,’ not ‘hardened’: paul’s revelation of temporary protection until all israel can be healed,” in reading paul in context: explorations in identity formation, ed. kathy ehrensperger and j. brian tucker (london: t&t clark, 2010), 52-73. nanos: “the gifts and the calling of god” 8 the affirmation of these jews as israelite “brothers and sisters” still in covenantal standing (9:1-5) suddenly, at the marker we recognize as 9:1, paul changes his topic from that of chapters 5 through 8. 16 he returns to the affirmation of the advantage of being a member of israel—specifically, a jew by genealogical descent—raised much earlier, at 3:2: jews are “entrusted with the words/oracles of god”! the reason for suddenly addressing the implications of this topic is not self-evident. the nature of the argument paul commences may suggest that he wants to gainsay what might be inferred from the conclusion of the argument in chapter 8 about the certainty of god’s commitment to those chosen in christ, including those from the nations making up paul’s target audience. he seems to recognize they might reason that the corollary to their newfound assurance of god’s commitment to their success, regardless of present appearances and troubles, can be calculated by them in zero-sum terms, whereby their good fortune is imagined to necessarily entail the replacement of the good fortune of someone else. 17 if so, paul appears concerned that these non-jews might infer what christian theologians from the second century on in fact did advocate, that is, that christ-following non-jews (later: christians) had become israel, the true israel of god, having replaced any israelites not convinced that jesus was the christ—regarded as “rejecting the truth” and thereby being “rejected” by god. 18 whatever the case, paul launches into a spirited rebuttal of any such thinking in the first five verses of chapter 9. although paul affirms the continuation of god’s gifts and calling to his fellow jews, he also expressed sadness and ongoing concern for their wellbeing. in language reminiscent of the prayer of moses for solidarity with the fate of his fellow israelites who were turning to other gods while he was receiving the commandments at mt. sinai (ex 32:31-33), paul asserts that he would vow to be accursed, cut off from christ, for the sake of his kinsmen “according to the flesh,” that is, by genealogical descent. he does not explain here what it is that leads to this display of empathy, but based on what follows, presumably it is on behalf of those of his fellow jews who do not share his convictions about jesus being the messiah, perhaps more specifically their failure—from his perspective, yet, at this 16 in view of the focus of this essay i am not engaging in detail with the various alternatives for who is asking or answering questions when diatribe is recognized to be at work here, but paul introduces issues by way of one or more invented dialogue partners. judgments about which positions paul upholds versus those to be attributed to his dialogue partner (and whether more than one partner or alternative positions), and who he (or they) represent(s) remains controversial, and the various implications are too many to discuss here. 17 this same concern surfaces in the argument of chapter 11, such as in the diatribe question in verse 19 attributed to the wild branch. 18 peter richardson, israel in the apostolic church (london: cambridge university press, 1969). the discursive practice of describing israel rejecting and being rejected by god continues to this day, which is readily witnessed by consulting the commentaries on this chapter. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) time, anyway—to join him in declaring the gospel to the nations. 19 paul’s qualification of kinship in terms of “flesh” is often turned into a binary contrast to suggest that his relationship to his fellow jews is no longer one of “spirit.” but the next statement undermines any such reasoning, or should. many of the elements listed are not only spiritual in nature, but affirm shared supernatural attributes as fellow israelites and servants of god (e.g., to whom the practice of the cult, legislation, glory, etc., are entrusted, which are spiritual in nature, just as paul declares ho nomos spiritual in 7:14). similarly, appeal to paul’s deep concern is regularly noted to argue that he must see his fellow israelites as no longer israel to make sense of it, or as those who are not the ideal, legitimate (“real”) jews. if that were so, paul certainly confuses the point at the most basic level by continuing to refer to these others as jews and israel throughout the letter, and he does the same in his other letters too. why not refer to the addressees directly as israel and jews and the others as formerly such, or as apostates, or something similar, if that is the way that he already sees the situation to have become, and presumes that his target audience does as well? paul betrays the fact that he does not consider them to have lost their covenant standing and thus be in need of “being saved just like gentiles,” to use the common phrasing. just before verse 6, in verse 4, paul declares unabashedly: “who are israelites”! one might expect, based upon the long tradition of supersessionism and replacement theology—a tradition that appeals especially to verses 6 and following—that paul would have begun with: “who were israelites”! 20 but he does not. instead, paul next launches into listing many specific elements of their continued identity as israelites. again, one might expect him to have qualified these as former if he saw his compatriots in later christian terms, as having lost their standing in covenant as israel unless they were re-admitted (“saved”) following a change of confession about jesus. but paul describes the situation in terms of continuity, even if at the same time with serious concern. this suggests that paul is expressing empathy based upon a potential future development, perhaps what they might suffer as israelites for failure to have that change of conviction. logically, that would mean that he saw them as still israel, remaining in covenantal standing but in need of “safe-keeping”: if punished, however severely, this would 19 gaston, paul and the torah, 116-34, 135-50, raises the issue that paul is discussing the declaration of the word to the nations by israel, not its salvation, which i continue to find likely throughout romans. 20 i have argued similar logic at work in 2:25-29, against the consensus readings, in mark d. nanos, “paul’s non-jews do not become ‘jews,’ but do they become ‘jewish’?: reading romans 2:25– 29 within judaism, alongside josephus,” journal of the jesus movement in its jewish setting (jjmjs) 1.1 (2014): 26-53; <http://www.jjmjs.org/>. notice, too, the commentary habit to derive from paul’s affirmation of identity as israelites that he was seeking to drive a wedge between that and their identity as jews; cf. james d. g. dunn, romans 9-16 (wbc 38b; dallas: word books, 1988), 533: “the choice of title is obviously deliberate, ‘israelites’ being preferred to ‘jew’ (contrast 2:17, 28-29; 3:29).” in the direction i am arguing, see also r. kendall soulen “they are israelites’: the priority of the present tense for jewish-christian relations,” in between gospel and election: explorations in the interpretation of romans 9--11, ed. f. wilk and j. r. wagner (tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2010), 497-504. nanos: “the gifts and the calling of god” 10 represent discipline according to covenantal (family) terms as israel, which is not the same as being dismissed from standing as israel. 21 consider the list of summary features paul affirms to still apply to these “israelites”: “and of whom are the sonship (i.e., adoption), and the glory (i.e., god’s presence [heb. kovod]), and the covenants (e.g., abrahamic, mosaic, davidic, later prophetic, and these include the promise of the land, blessings, as well as discipline when warranted to allow to repent and retain covenant standing, etc.), and the giving of the legislation (to moses, i.e., torah guidance), and the cult (i.e., temple sacrificial system of worship [heb. avodah]), and the promises (i.e., to the fathers, which would logically cover some elements not in this list, such as the land, and the word entrusted around which he is working [see 3:2]; note the language in 11:29, ‘the gifts and the calling of god,’ to concisely cover this same ground), 5 of whom (are) the patriarchs (i.e., the fathers: abraham, isaac, jacob/israel; hence, the affirmation that they are “the seed” in the argument to come, not merely of genealogical descent [flesh] but also of promise), and from whom is the messiah (christ, the davidic covenant, see 1:1-5), who (is [an israelite]) according to the flesh (i.e., by genealogical descent). may he who is god over all, be blessed forever. amen (‘it is so,’ ‘let it be so,’ indicating acceptance of what has been stated, although it might appear presently to the addressees to be otherwise).” there is not space here for further reflection on these many elements, but obviously there is much to explore for a full assessment of paul’s view of current covenantal standing of his fellow jews, and thus, about what it was specifically that so deeply concerned him. largely missing in the conversation about this passage, too, is paul’s description of those about whom he is concerned as “brothers [and sisters].” before we move to verse 6 and the problems that arise there, it is interesting to note that paul uses many of the same terms to refer both to his fellow israelites and to his fellow christ-followers. 22 identification for christ-followers for non-christ following jews/israelites brethren 1:13; 8:29 9:3 adoption as sons 8:15 9:4 children of god 8:16-17 9:8 have the glory 8:18 9:4 abraham as father 4:10-17 4:10-17 seed of abraham 9:7-8; 4:13-18 9:7-8; 11:1 beloved of god 1:7 11:28 called 9:25; 8:28; 1:16 9:7, 24; 11:29 elect 8:28, 33 9:11 foreknown 8:29 11:2 21 see 2 macc 6:12-17; cf. ps 94:12; prov 3:11-12; jer 30:11; lam 3:31-33; jdt 8:27; wis 12:1-2, 26; pss. sol. 10.1; 13.7; 16.1-5. 22 many similar dynamics are covered in mark d. nanos, the mystery of romans: the jewish context of paul's letter (minneapolis: fortress press, 1996); this list is on p. 112. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) the idea that paul sees these as two distinct identity groups, as former versus current family, so central to the idea of replacement theology, is not in keeping with the way that paul’s reasoning reveals itself on these matters—he argues for this and that, not this or that. these non-jews (non-israelites) who become members of the people of god through jesus christ join together with jews (israelites), who remain the people of god whether christ-followers or not; they do not displace them. the implications for reading paul within judaism are many, they guide the assumptions at work for the modern reader, starting from what one assumes were the assumptions at work for paul and his original intended reader. translating and interpreting 9:6-16 suddenly, the reader of this passage encounters a denial of a position that does not represent what he had been arguing for anyway, betraying that he assumes his audience may reason in a very different way than he does: (nrsv v. 6a): “it is not as though the word of god had failed.” a more literal translation for “had failed” would be “has fallen [ekpeptōken].” the usual interpretation is based upon the idea that the jews rejected the gospel and thus that they have been rejected by god, that they are not “saved.” but paul has not introduced the idea that the word had gone to israel, so there is no basis for the addressees to suppose that the question concerns whether the word had failed to reach or convince these israelites. rather, he has written that the advantage of being a jew and circumcised involved being entrusted with the special role of being the messengers entrusted to bring god’s word to the nations (3:2; 10:15; cf. isa 52:7-10). if those whom paul has just insisted remain israelites, with all that he lists still applying to them, but if they do not presently proclaim the words of god entrusted to them (that being the gospel, as understood by paul and his addressees), this would logically raise an objection. if the plan for which paul has argued is based upon israel carrying out its trust to declare the word to the nations, then it is logical to ask how the nations will hear it, and whether their own fate can be tied to such a contingency. put in these terms, paul’s language choice of “falling” appeals to the same metaphorical concern expressed in chapter 11 in terms of some stumbling, to which paul also responds with the assurance that this is not the case (vv. 1115). the issue is one of “faithfulness” to carry out the task “entrusted” to israel (yet, or not), thus cognates of faithfulness or loyalty or trust are used for cognates of pistis throughout this essay, rather than faith or belief. then, in the rest of verse 6—as usually translated and understood, that is— paul ostensibly introduces the (confusing if not entirely inscrutable) idea that these israelites are not actually still members of israel: “for not all israelites truly belong to israel” (nrsv). as already discussed, these translations not only introduce a major discontinuity into paul’s argument, but they have been used to communicate that paul regards israelite identity according to genealogical descent to be transcended now by a new concept of israel, one consisting of christians, primarily composed of non-jews but including any jews who have become chris nanos: “the gifts and the calling of god” 12 tians (and, usually, certainly after a few centuries, if they have disavowed observance of torah and the practice of judaism, of jewish communal life). 23 before we consider the literal translation and several alternative ways to understand paul’s statement, let us survey the case that he makes following this sentence, toward which we should expect him to be pointing. the message(s) of verses 7-16: a brief survey of these verses is all we have space to offer, but the message is relatively straightforward, even though elements of the traditional translation and interpretation are not. in verses 7-9, paul argues that although abraham had children who were not through sarah, those descended through her constituted the promised descendant line (“the seed”). again, we have a similar appeal to the certainty that god’s word will not be circumvented, in this case by the fact that abraham had other children than those through sarah. rather than suggesting that paul is opening up the description of “israel” in verse 6 to include children not of his genealogical descent, as the traditional view upholds it to be, the point paul makes is that the line is narrowed down to only those born of sarah’s line, that is, through isaac. that supports the idea he has asserted in verses 4-5, that these descendants remain the seed to whom the promise was made even if some are not discharging (yet) the concomitant responsibility to declare the word. it also maintains the consideration that events may be unfolding in ways that seem random or even contrary to expectations, but that this all proceeds based upon god’s timetable, “at the appointed time” (v. 9). verses 10-13 form a unit that strengthens the point (“and again...”). 24 is paul driving a wedge between calling (grace and election/choice) and flesh (genealogical descent), or rather explaining that god chose a particular line of genealogical descendents to undertake a special task as “the seed”? i propose the latter. notice that being chosen by grace and being genealogical descendants are not presented as binaries in this argument, although that is what one finds co mmonly asserted in the commentaries. the overall point is that the seed continues to be narrowed down through abraham’s genealogical descendants without regard for their activity, good or bad, and before any such activity has even taken place from which to influence god’s choice: it is simply a result of god’s sovereign choice that isaac’s wife rebecca’s younger son jacob (israel) rather than the 23 see james parkes, the conflict of the church and the synagogue: a study in the origins of antisemitism (new york: atheneum, 1979). 24 interestingly, the german protestant liturgical reading for which i initially researched this passage does not include verses 11-13, skipping from verses 1-10 to 14-16. that decision may contribute to as well as reflect the traditional interpretive judgment that the historically descended israelites in question are not the promised seed on the basis of failure to perform correctly (in this case, the activity of believing in jesus as christ, or, alternatively, and contextually more likely, the task of carrying forth the gospel of christ to the nations [has the word of god “fallen”?]). however, the traditional decision to attribute the identity of (true) israel in verse 6 to those who are not of that genealogical descent line (i.e., christ-following non-israelites) does so at the expense of disregarding the text that paul wrote to explain his position, in this case by deleting these passages from the reading! 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) first-born esau will inherit the promise. when read together, verses 10-13 confirm that in spite of performance, good or bad, god’s word of promise to the specific descent line of israelites—from which those israelites paul has been defending as israel in spite of their present disagreement with him and his addressees about the meaning of jesus—that they are entrusted with god’s words, remains guaranteed. and when read together, this leads to exactly what paul will declare to be achieved by this argument in verses 14-16! verse 14 poses the logical question that the argument preceding it has raised: is god unjust to choose whom god wills independent of behavior, whether good or bad, or even yet performed—specifically (although perhaps not as salient if the reader skips verses 11-13), that only certain members of the line of abraham through jacob/israel will inherit the promises made to abraham, thus that these subsequent descendants and not others are the legitimate claimants to the promises made to the “seed”? in verses 14-29, the answer is pronounced dramatically: god is sovereign and chooses accordingly. there is one specific point in verse 16 that should not go unnoticed before we turn back to verse 6. the issue of god’s sovereign choice is contextualized around the fact that it is independent of whether one wants god’s mercy or pity or not, and, whether or not one is “running [trechontos]” (“laufen”; luther 1912). the usual english translations (“exertion” nrsv) obscure the metaphorical nature of the comment, which does not help the reader recognize that paul continues to work around the image of whether one is faithfully carrying out the entrusted task of bringing the word of god to the nations. the point is that god shows mercy to whom god wills, to whom the promises have been guaranteed by the line of genealogical descent (by flesh), in spite of whether any given israelites have successfully been doing so, or not! paul’s point is the opposite of the theological idea that has somehow emerged that he is removing the israelites who do not believe in jesus as messiah and thus do not proclaim him to the nations (yet, he appears to maintain) from standing as (true) “israel,” based largely upon the message of verse 6 as usually translated and interpreted. ironically, paul’s argument otherwise supports the commonly encountered theological impulse to highlight god’s choice in spite of human effort. no less ironic, paul’s focus is upon god’s choice of israelites as israel on these terms, rather than being based upon a supposed failure to perform adequately as paving the way for their replacement by christians—who imagine themselves to do so independent of their own performance, good or bad, but on the basis of grace and faith alone! 25 at the same time, the traditional views do not attend to 25 wilhelm pauck, ed., luther: lectures on romans, trans. wilhelm pauck (philadelphia: westminster press, 1956), 265, translates luther’s comments on 9:6-9 as follows: “this word is spoken against the presumptuousness of the jews and on behalf of grace, so that all proud confidence in righteousness and good works may be undone. for the jews want to be regarded as the children of the kingdom because they are the children of abraham.” continuing on p. 266, after other comments: “... one does not become a son of god and an heir of the promise by descent but by the gracious election of god. thus and only thus, the spirit and the grace of god can arise as the pride of the flesh is put down. so then, why does man take pride in his merits and good works? they cannot in any way please god, because they are good and meritorious, but only because god has elected from eternity nanos: “the gifts and the calling of god” 14 the contextual argument that the choices of god here are related to those chosen for a special task, not about who is chosen to be saved, as usually described. this is highlighted in verses 17-24, where the point made about god’s choice of pharaoh and other vessels (for wrath or mercy) concerns how god uses them, not whether god saves them. 26 these examples illustrate that the purpose of things— and thus determination of appropriate thinking and behavior—cannot be judged simply on the basis of how circumstances might presently appear, but must be based upon trust in god’s ultimate promises; hence, any given events along the way may even be contrary indicators (as too might be birth order, against the prevailing normal expectations of who will inherit). the message(s) of verse 6: now that we have surveyed the context, let us return to verse 6. we have already discussed how the first sentence of the verse (6a), translated literally, suggests that paul is referring metaphorically to whether the word of god has fallen in the sense that many of the israelites have not joined paul and other christ-followers as messengers bringing the gospel—the news of good awaited— to the nations. no, he insisted, the word has not fallen, because it is going out through agents like paul; thus, israel is carrying out its trust, even if not every israelite. i propose that the rest of the verse—which is a new sentence that consists of two clauses (6b-c)—is best understood in the context set up by the first sentence, even though that is not apparent in the interpretive tradition. a more literal translation of the second sentence offers the opportunity to explore paul’s message in several directions. literally, the sentence reads: “for not all the ones from israel these ones israel [ou gar pantes oi ex israēl houtoi israēl].” the grammatical construction and lack of specificity leave it to the interpreter to fill out the translation from working assumptions about paul's intended message. in addition to recognizing that there would not have been that they would please him. we do good only on the basis of gratitude, because our works do not make us good, but our goodness or, rather, the goodness of god makes us good and our actions as well.” notice not only the introduction of pride in works here, but also the catch-22 that emerges for jews, who are accused of trust that they have been freely chosen, witnessed by their genealogical descent to the line of fathers to whom the promises of their relationship were made, and simultaneously accused of seeking to earn god’s favor. as members of this family line, in covenant with god, should they not be expected to seek to do what is right, or otherwise to be disciplined? so what is the problem with seeking to do good works if in a covenant relationship with one who instructs to do good works? it seems that, in addition to the need to introduce jewish works-righteousness so as to argue against it, luther’s reasoning depends upon introducing the idea that a jew must celebrate god’s choice of themselves independent of abrahamic descent; in other words, as if he or she is a gentile, and thus not already in a covenantal relationship that requires them to behave properly to continue that relationship in good terms. a similar logic appears to be at work in popular evangelical presentations of the gospel. 26 the issue in the discourse beginning at verse 16 revolves around defending god’s justice, which includes references to pharaoh and vessels of wrath and mercy as well as the northern tribes versus judahides, not to discuss who is “saved,” but the ways that god uses different people and means to achieve god’s ends. 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) punctuation, that being a later interpretive addition, notice that paul does not provide the verbs. that paul is using israel in two ways or dismissing some he has just described as israelites in verses 4-5 from identification as israel is not as selfevident in the literal translation as it seems to be in prevailing translations. rather, the basic idea seems to be that there are some who are not from israel, or some who are not from the narrowed down line of israel, in a way that is analogous to there being some who are not of the line of abraham’s seed who will receive the promises, those not descended through isaac and jacob (israel). as we reviewed, that is the argument that he makes after verse 6 (vv. 7-16). it is not clear who are “not... from israel” in 6b and who “[are] israel” in 6c. i suggest that this convoluted language is linked to paul’s denial in the first clause of the idea that the word of god might have fallen (in 6a). “these ones israel” of the second clause (6c) seems most likely to refer to paul’s fellow jews who have not joined him in declaring the conviction that jesus is the messiah, those whom he has just been describing in verses 1-5 before the “for” introducing verse 6. it seems likely that the verb should be supplied to read as an affirmation, rather than a denial as traditionally presented: “these ones are israel.” who then are the “all” who are “not... from [ek] israel” in the first clause (6b)? and where shall we fill in the verbs for our native languages to translate these clauses, which will govern what is meant? two alternative translations for verse 6b-c 1) the first alternative to consider is to take the reference in the first clause to be to the non-jews who are followers of jesus about whose assurances he had been writing in chapter 8, all the ones who are in christ jesus but “not... from israel.” 27 in this sense, the word of god has not fallen, it has gone out into the world and been received by some from the nations, some who are not from israel but who now have god’s assurances of receiving the promises made to abraham’s seed as the ones anticipated in the idea of him being “a blessing to all of the nations” (4:16-18). if understood in this direction, then the literal translation would read: “for all are not the ones from israel[;] these ones are israel.” an explanatory paraphrase might read: “for all [the ones god chooses who can rest assured of god’s commitment to themselves, which includes non-israelites who have become followers of jesus christ (i.e., the subject of chapter 8 that preceded his argument in chapters 9-11 to introduce his concern about those of israel who were not helping to bring the gospel message to these non-jews)] are not the ones [among the chosen of israel presently bringing the message to the nations, such as is paul, but who do constitute the ones just defended in verses 4-5] from israel[;] [on the other hand, however] these ones [the israelites of verses 4-5] are [legitimate members of] israel [i.e., they are the ones chosen to bring the word].” 27 gaston, “israel’s enemies,” in paul and the torah, 94 and n. 77, suggests “those outside of israel” in the sense of non-jews who are abraham’s descendants also. nanos: “the gifts and the calling of god” 16 paul would be arguing that the word entrusted to israel has not fallen, even if some israelites are stumbling presently rather than carrying it successfully to the nations alongside of paul. this affirmation and the argument he makes following it continue to affirm the “amen” at the end of verse 5, that what paul has just asserted about these israelites is true. it also accords with his insistence in verses 13 that he is telling the truth when he expresses grave concern for their protection during this period, for, as he will express in chapter 11, he fears that these nonjews might behave in such an arrogant manner so as to turn his fellow jews away from considering to “emulate” him in this ministry to the nations (11:13-14). one advantage of making the distinction between non-israelites and israelites within the first clause is that it anticipates the argument to which paul will turn after 9:16, after he has made the case for a narrowed down definition of who are the promised seed within the descent group. he introduces an analogy to the distinction between the northern tribes and judah in order to explain how god can choose those from the nations as well as israel. another advantage is that it makes a definitive statement against the idea that non-israelite christ-followers are considered israel here. 2) the second alternative is less complicated and follows paul’s word order exactly; i consider this the most probable reading. both clauses could refer to those israelites about whom he had been writing in the previous verses, all the ones who are not joining him in his convictions about jesus. again, the exact wording paul uses is: “for not all [are] the ones from israel[;] these ones [are] israel.” i suggest paul meant: “for not all [the israelites of vv. 4-5] are the ones from israel [who are presently bringing the message to the nations (although some, like paul, are doing so successfully, so the word of god has not fallen even if some israelites are presently stumbling rather than completing the task)][;] [nevertheless] these ones [these israelites who are stumbling, v. 4] are [legitimate members of] israel [who should carry out this task, but failure to do so (yet) does not alter their legitimate standing as israel, because they come through the line of the promised seed].” note that the contrast in the pronouns between the clauses (oi [the ones]/houtos [these ones]) is maintained in this translation (also in the first alternative), and that these pronouns link back nicely to the pronoun in verse 4: “hoitines [which ones] are israelites.” together, these various ways of discussing the present anomalous situation communicate that the word has not fallen in spite of some israelites presently tripping rather than successfully (i.e., faithfully) bringing it to the nations (as will be clarified further in chapter 11). the point is emphasized in the analogy drawn in verses 7-16: neither is it the case that all the seed of abraham are the ones who will inherit the promises as “the seed” through isaac and jacob—that is by god’s choice, and remains the case in spite of any appearances to the contrary. the analogy should not be conflated; the argument it supports is not that some of these israelites not running are not israel, but rather that there can be differences between legitimate israelites, just as there are between those taking the message now and those who are not; nevertheless, they are all the israelites promised those things listed in verses 4-5, and again, differently 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) stated, in 11:25-32. just as the prophets spoke to israel, so now paul writes: things are not always as they appear to be—trusting god’s eternal promises and patterns helps to avoid drawing the wrong conclusions and provides the basis for thinking and behaving appropriately instead, steadfastly anticipating what will take place “at the proper time.” conclusion the word entrusted to israel has not fallen, even if some israelites are presently stumbling rather than faithfully carrying it to the nations alongside of paul. in time, paul apparently expects them to regain their step and join him in the task, which is what he will argue in chapter 11 in more detail and by way of several metaphors. paul’s appeal to the irrevocable covenant identity of his kinspeople need not ostensibly be revoked by the insertion of a replacement theology translation choice. these ones are israel. for paul, these israelites stand in need of protection during present circumstances, but they remain those whom god has chosen to carry out a task for which promises have been made, and for the completion of which gifts have been given. when translated in either of the alternative ways proposed, romans 9:6 supports rather than sabotages the promises paul affirmed in the preceding argument of verses 1-5, and again in his subsequent arguments in chapter 11. moreover, these alternatives corroborate rather than encumber appeals to these texts to substantiate calls for a new era of respectfulness in christian concepts and discourses about as well as relations with jews. microsoft word svartvikfinal.doc svartvik, “forging an incarnational theology” 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art2/ studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers in jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college “forging an incarnational theology two score years after nostra aetate: reassessing established christological models in the presence of a crucified and resurrected people” jesper svartvik lund university, sweden volume 1 (2005-2006): 1-13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):1-13 svartvik, “forging an incarnational theology” 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art2/ i am convinced that – with all the implications involved for theology and church history – the crucifixion and resurrection of the jewish people are the most important events for christian history in centuries. franklin h. littell 1 three score years after the liberation of auschwitz and two score years after the promulgation of the nostra aetate declaration, the question of the relation between christian theology and anti-judaism is as topical as ever.2 during the post-war period christians have come to realise the breadth and depth of the christian teaching of contempt vis-à-vis the jewish people. most churches have commenced to review, reassess and refute traditional teaching on jews and judaism.3 these soul-searching endeavors are both necessary and commendable – and their results are both promising and rejuvenating. what remains to be done, however, is to consider also those parts of traditional theology that do not explicitly relate to the jewish people. nothing is more central to christian faith than christology, i.e., what christians think, teach and preach about jesus of nazareth. arguably, he is the most known person ever in history to be crucified, owing to his followers’ belief that he was resurrected from the dead. eventually christians have 1 franklin h. littell, the crucifixion of the jews: the failure of christians to understand the jewish experience (macon: mercer university press, 1996 [1975]), 6. 2 an earlier version of this article was read at a conference at the università pontificia gregoriana in rome, september 26, 2005. i am grateful for stimulating conversations during and after the session. dr. göran larsson and dr. inger nebel have both read and commented on the article. i greatly appreciate their suggestions and scholarship. 3 see e.g., johannes willebrands, “christians and jews: a new vision,” vatican ii — by those who were there (london: chapman, 1986), 229: “in other words, an attitude which repeats ancient stereotypes or prejudices, not to say one that is aggressive against jews and judaism, does not anymore have a right to legitimate existence in the church.” come to realize, however, that his jewishness is being affirmed also in this aspect. franklin h. littell has stated that, during the last two millennia, the entire jewish people has been suffering in the western world – and during the last half-century the world has seen how the very same people has been brought back to life. (see the opening quotation of this article.) the interpretation of this crucifixion and resurrection must also be part of christian theology today. the particular purpose in this article is to explore in what ways the jewish-christian dialogue can inform and transform christology. the end of the second world war sixty years ago has already been mentioned, as has the pioneering work of the second vatican council forty years ago. twenty years ago, in june 1985, the commission for religious relations with the jews issued its notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church.4 in this series of recommendations it is stated that: jesus was and always remained a jew; his ministry was deliberately limited to “the lost sheep of the house of israel” (mt 15:24). jesus is fully a man of his time, and of his environment – the jewish palestinian one of the first century, the anxieties and hopes of which he shared. this cannot but underline both the reality of the incarnation and the very meaning of the history of salvation, as it has been revealed in the bible (cf. rom 1:3-4; gal 4:4-5).5 4 see helga croner, ed., more stepping stones to jewish-christian relations: an unabridged collection of christian documents 1975-1983 (new york/mahwah: paulist, 1985), 220-232. 5 see croner, 226. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):1-13 svartvik, “forging an incarnational theology” 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art2/ two things in this crucial passage deserve comment: first, the jewishness of jesus is underlined with the broadest possible strokes of the brush. second, this very jewishness of his is both an expression and evidence of the christian doctrine of the incarnation. in other words, diminishing the jewishness of jesus is to relativize the importance of incarnational theology. his significance to christians cannot be separated from his oneness with jewish contemporaries. it is therefore no small predicament that in some of the best known and appreciated christological models, jesus is presented not according to this line of thinking but either in a strikingly non-jewish fashion or in a way that is impossible for the jewish tradition to appreciate or even comprehend. in fact, this observation constitutes the very foundation for one of the most-repeated statements in the jewish-christian dialogue, i.e., shalom ben-chorin’s two expressions “the faith of jesus links us together” and “faith in jesus separates us.”6 this phrase both catches something important and points at a problem: it is true that the starting point for good jewish-christian relations is that christians and jews need to recognize that jesus was firmly rooted in second temple judaism. the problem, however, is that the relation between jews and christians often is described in terms of jews stopping halfway, whereas christians go all the way. thus, judaism is presented as a prologue and a religion of institutionalized reluctance. what is needed is christological discourse that helps us overcome the misleading dichotomy “faith of jesus” versus “faith in jesus”. two insights have been crucial in the writing of this article, the first being the remark by paul van buren in his theology of the jewish-christian reality that “no single 6 see e.g. “reflections on the problem ‘church-israel,’” issued by the central board of the union of evangelical churches in switzerland in 1977, quoted in croner, 198-204, esp. 200f. theory about his death became ‘dogma.’”7 this means that those who simply hold onto a favorite formulation, claiming that their interpretation is the classical doctrine, simply have not done their homework. early christianity spent considerable time defining the persona of christ – as can be seen in the creeds – but never took pains to carve out the ultimate meaning of his death on the cross. the second statement that has helped to further the suggestions in this article can be found in john d’arcy may’s book transcendence and violence, in which he states that: “to continue thinking of christ only in the traditional way is like sticking to the examples in a grammar book instead of using a language freely and creatively after having assimilated the rule systems of its ‘generative grammar.’”8 john may points to the well-known fact that there is a wide spectrum of christologies in the new testament. to ask which single christology is the only right one is neither “biblical” nor “classical.” thus, arguing that there is only one correct christological model presupposes factual ignorance and borders on theological arrogance. rather, christians should start using the grammatical rule instead of simply repeating the example that seeks to illustrate the very rule.9 7 paul van buren, a theology of the jewish-christian reality. part iii: christ in context (san francisco: harper & row, 1988), 19. 8 john d’arcy may, transcendence and violence: the encounter of buddhist, christian and primal traditions (new york: continuum, 2003), 139. 9 in this discussion it also appropriate to refer to jaroslav pelikan’s book, jesus through the centuries: his place in the history of culture (new york: harper & row, 1987), which masterfully presents a number of christologies. from his presentation, no one can deny that there have been different ways to portray the message and mission of jesus. pelikan writes in his preface (p. xv): “i think i have always wanted to write this book.” paraphrasing pelikan, the present writer would want everyone to read his book. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):1-13 svartvik, “forging an incarnational theology” 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art2/ in this article three christological models are presented: whereas the first accentuates the passion narrative, the second emphasizes the proclamation of jesus. the very point of departure for the third approach is the numerous shortcomings of the first two models. thus, the inherent weaknesses of the first two models suggest that what is needed is nothing less that a reassessment of much of traditional christological thinking. a tentative suggestion is outlined in the third model below. 1. reconciliation: the word became flesh wounds frederick c. grant once wrote that “the gospel grew backwards,” thereby indicating that the cross proclamation or kerygma preceded the narrative gospels.10 whereas the veracity of his statement need not be discussed, one should dwell upon two topics, both of which are related to the crucifixion of jesus. first, is there a difference between the roles that the cross plays in different literary genres? the second question is whether and – if answered in the positive – to what extent and in what way suffering could be said to be redemptive per se? since the release of mel gibson’s movie the passion of the christ it has become all the more urgent to ponder this question. a. similarities and differences between the marcan and pauline gospels both paul (who wrote the oldest surviving christian texts) and mark (who authored the first account of the life and death of jesus) emphasize the importance of the death of jesus. not only did they presuppose that the death of jesus had happened but they also reasoned that it had to happen. 10 frederick c. grant, the earliest gospel: studies of the evangelic tradition at its point of crystallization in writing (new york/nashville: abingdon, 1943), 76. or, to put it differently, due to both historical necessity and theological preferences there is a strong emphasis on causality in their theologies – but this causality is expressed remarkably differently by the two theologians, probably because the two authors used two different genres. this difference is all the more striking when one considers that the writings of these two theologians have so many points in common that the gospel of mark may well be regarded as a narrative presentation of the pauline gospel: both mark and paul are characterized by distinct emphases on the cross event rather than on the teachings of jesus, on the disbelief of the twelve disciples, and on gentile mission.11 nevertheless, there are important differences in the way they present the cross event. paul seems to be almost completely uninterested in reproaching any group for the death of jesus. in fact, only two passages in the corpus paulinum seem to diverge from this pattern: 1 th 2:14-16 and 1 cor 11:23. here these two passages can only be discussed very briefly. a majority of new testament scholars argue that paul’s first letter to the thessalonians is the oldest surviving christian text, probably written in 49-50 c.e. what is remarkable in 2:14-16 is that the author accuses “the jews” (hoi ioudaioi) for having killed the lord jesus as they have killed the prophets (tôn kai ton kyrion apokteinantôn iêsoun kai tous profêtas). thus, in this particular passage, paul does seem to blame a group of people, hoi ioudaioi, for the death of “the lord jesus”. however, there are a number of good arguments which suggest that it is highly improbable that the historical paul actually wrote this passage: no 11 for a more extensive discussion of the similarities between mark and paul, see jesper svartvik, mark and mission: mk 7:1-23 in its narrative and historical contexts (stockholm: almqvist & wiksell international, 2000), 344-347. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):1-13 svartvik, “forging an incarnational theology” 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art2/ manuscripts before the fourth century include 2:13-16; the choice of words indicates that the fall of the second temple is presupposed; paul himself elsewhere calls himself “jew” and “israelite.” in addition, we know of no more fierce foe of the first christians than paul himself. he describes his behavior in gal 1:13f: “i was violently persecuting the church of god and was trying to destroy it.” all this suggests that this passage is a deutero-pauline gloss inserted into the text after the fall of the temple.12 thus, in the original version of this epistle the historical paul does not blame any group of people for the death of jesus. 1 cor 11:23 is a text often recited at the eucharist. the text in the nrsv (“… the lord jesus on the night when he was betrayed”) suggests that paul here does emphasize the betrayal of judas. however, it is reasonable to argue that the greek word paredideto behind the “betrayed” of nrsv should not be understood as “when he was betrayed [by judas],” but rather “when he was handed over [according to the divine plan].” this would be much more consistent with the general trend in the corpus paulinum. nowhere else do we find an emphasis on judas’ treachery in the pauline writings. if the translators of the new testament do not wish to state explicitly that paul is here talking about god’s providential plan, they should at least allow the translation to be so transparent that the ambiguity of the greek original shines through. it therefore seems better to use expressions such as “handed over” or “delivered up.”13 to sum up, the emphasis in paul’s letters is not on the horizontal level (judas betraying his master) but on the vertical line (the death of jesus being part of a divine plan). 12 for a fuller treatment of all the arguments, see birger a. pearson, the emergence of the christian religion: essays on early christianity (harrisburg: trinity, 1997), 58-74. 13 david e. garland, 1 corinthians (grand rapids: baker, 2003), 545f. the question is to what extent this is due to the genre which paul chose, i.e., letter writing. paul certainly concentrates on the death of jesus, but he seems to be almost indifferent to the circumstances which led up to it. turning now to the gospel of mark, most probably the very first narrative presentation of the life and works of jesus of nazareth, there is a noticeable stress on the death of jesus. although mark sometimes mentions that jesus taught, he seldom gives an account of his teaching. strictly speaking, it is only in chapters four and thirteen that the author allows the readers of his text to encounter not only the teacher but also his teaching. instead, the author prepares the readers for what will come towards the end of his narrative. one finds an emphasis not only on the death of the protagonist, but also on the circumstances which led to his gruesome death. in other words, the marcan plot is to a high degree also, to use the french word, a complot, a conspiracy.14 summing up, both paul and mark accentuate the importance of the death of jesus, but paul is considerably less interested in the guilt question than is mark. this difference should be ascribed to the genre: it is the narrative genre, emphasizing the complot, which promotes the blame discourse. to use a kierkegaardian phrase, one could say that, when reading the marcan gospel forward, one must remember that the christian gospel grew backwards. it might be relevant to consider what is arguably the most important theme in jewish tradition: the liberation of the enslaved people in egypt: “the paradigmatic magnalium dei 14 one of the most useful definitions of “plot” has been forwarded by kieren egan, “what is plot?” new literary history 9 (1978), 470: “plots, then, determine and provide rules for the sequencing of narrative units —thereby creating a sense of causality” (italics added). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):1-13 svartvik, “forging an incarnational theology” 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art2/ in the bible is the liberation of slaves.”15 few would question that the book of exodus is far more pharaoh-centered than is the theocentric passover haggadah. whereas the latter stresses what the lord has done in order to help his people, the former describes at some length what the ruler of egypt did in order to prevent israel from leaving his country. it is tempting to ponder what difference it makes that jews read the haggadah at passover, which is a non-narrative compilation of prayers and psalms, whereas christians often recite the narrative gospels in their services during holy week. in other words, is there something perilous in the act of simply reading narrative presentations without interpreting them because it implies that narratives need no interpretation since they only recount what really happened? although the gospel tradition grew backwards, it is essential to remember that mark chose not to present only the passion in his narrative. therefore, christians would do well not to stress only the cross in isolation from the life and teachings of jesus. we shall return below to the consequences of a restricted focus on only the teachings of jesus. b. is suffering redemptive per se? in the oldest gospel the author makes use of only one word to describe what the roman soldiers did to jesus before crucifying him: fragellosas (“having flogged,” mark 15:15). in mel gibson’s movie, the passion of the christ this word became “flesh wounds.” whereas christian tradition has used the stock phrase “the passion narrative” as a reference to the entire story from his prayer in the garden of 15 allen dwight callahan, richard a. horsley & abraham smith, “introduction: the slavery of new testament studies,” in slavery in text and interpretation, eds. callahan, horsley & smith [semeia 83/84] (atlanta: society of biblical literature, 1998), 1. gethsemane to his death at golgotha, gibson understands “passion” to mean “torment due to torture.” it is true that this is precisely the range of his movie, but he – and also the comments from the cinema audience – emphasized the scenes in which jesus is being tortured.16 nevertheless, his movie comprises the scenes which usually together form the traditional passion plays. if nothing else, his movie has revealed the inherent weaknesses of the passion play genre. as james rudin asks in an interview about the oberammergau plays: “… the strategic question [is]: can you do a good passion play?”17 the suffering of jesus is referred to in a number of ways in christian texts, prayers, hymns and liturgies. it is therefore absolutely necessary for theologians to reflect on how his suffering can be said to be beneficial – and also to state whether human suffering is beneficial or detrimental. in a word, how do christians interpret human suffering in the light of jesus’ suffering? a good starting point for this discussion is a passage in hans küng’s monumental study on being a christian.18 when discussing how the cross should be understood he presents three useful statements: (1) not seeking, but bearing suffering: a sound christian interpretation and application of the suffering of jesus is not that christians should long for or seek suffering and pain. to be a christian is not to reconstruct christ’s cross. rather, christian faith 16 gibson made a second version of his film six minutes shorter in order to soften the movie so that “aunt martha, uncle harry or your grandmother or some of your older kids” might enjoy the movie.” see manohla dargis, “‘the passion’ reopens, 6 whole minutes shorter,” international herald tribune (march 16, 2005): 11. 17 james shapiro, oberammergau: the troubling story of the world’s most famous passion play (new york: vintage, 2000), 37. 18 hans küng, on being a christian (london: collins, 1977 [german: 1974]), 576-579. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):1-13 svartvik, “forging an incarnational theology” 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art2/ may give them strength to take upon themselves their own crosses. (2) not only bearing, but fighting suffering. christians should not adopt the stoic ideal of apathy towards suffering. rather, they should “fight against suffering, poverty, hunger, social grievances, sickness and death.”19 when all this is said, then – and only then – one can approach his third statement: (3) not only fighting, but utilizing suffering. this must also be said, but not too quickly, since sometimes it has been the only message people have heard. pain is and remains pain, but it can be transformed in order to help a person to become “more mature, more experienced, more modest, more genuinely humble, more open for others – in a word, more human.”20 this is certainly not to say that suffering promotes maturity ex opere operato, but that, in some cases, it is possible to use it in such a way. hans küng’s three statements lead us to suggest an additional assertion: the cross may have something to teach us. by and large theology has so emphasized that the message of the cross is being sent to heaven that it seems to have forgotten totally that it might convey a message to humankind as well. understood in this way, the gospel of the cross is revelation; it reveals something important. going back to the question of whether suffering per se is redemptive, it must be remembered that sacrificial discourse was the mother tongue of earliest christianity. it is therefore to the world of atonement through animal sacrifices that we must turn to answer this question. it would be exceedingly difficult to argue that it is the suffering of the sacrificial animals that should have in some way been redemptive. 19 küng, 578. he continues: “the modern world has produced a great deal of fresh suffering, but has also created immense opportunities for mastering suffering, as the successes of medicine, hygiene, technology, social welfare demonstrate.” 20 küng, 579. thus, if the passion narrative is interpreted in the light of sacrificial discourse – the mother tongue of earliest christianity – it cannot be jesus’ suffering that is redemptive. if jesus is described as “the lamb of god who takes away the sin of the world” (jn 1:29), it is his death that is being interpreted, not his suffering. otherwise, the analogy is inapt. but even if it is the death of jesus which is being analyzed, a number of questions remain; suffice it to mention four of them: first, how is the language of jesus as “the second person” (ho deuteros anthrôpos; 1 cor 15:47) translated into the vernacular of post-darwinians who do not believe that the texts about adam (“the first person”, ho prôtos anthrôpos), eve, cain and abel are to be understood as historical in the sense that these persons ever existed? how does one explain that jesus came to make void the culpa of these persons? to ignore this question is to invite the accusation of a naïve biblicism. however complex, one must also address another issue; namely, how does the death of jesus atone for the sins of humankind? this question has been answered in different ways in history: athanasius of alexandria represents those who argue that god in christ paid a ransom to the devil in order to free humankind from spiritual slavery. another answer was given by anselm of canterbury, who insisted that christian theology should not give the devil such a central position and so argued that theology must be more theocentric. thus, the ransom was paid to god, since it was god who needed satisfactio. (it may be mentioned in passing that the movie the passion of the christ in this respect seems to give vent to a pre-anselm atonement theology, since the devil plays an active role throughout the movie, up until the moment when (s)he realises that (s)he studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):1-13 svartvik, “forging an incarnational theology” 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art2/ has been defeated.21) more than one theologian has argued that the anselmean understanding amounts to cosmic child abuse. it does seem to accentuate the importance of violence rather than neutralize it: “… satisfaction atonement is based on divinely sanctioned, retributive violence.”22 indeed, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that anselm’s theory fails to represent a loving god. the third question is related to the previous: serious and soul-searching theologians ask themselves why holy week in history has been a time of horror for jews living in the christian world. why is it that jews have been blamed for the death of jesus, since (a) it was the romans who actually killed him; and (b) his death was said to be for the benefit of all humankind? a growing number of christians realize that the answer to this question is not only that christians have misunderstood what their religious leaders sought to convey, but rather that the problem actually lies in the explicitly violent discourse of christian soteriology. if one isolates the death of jesus from the rest of his life, the entirety is distorted; if one accentuates that the aim of his life was that it brutally ended, his mission is misrepresented. in other words, what is needed is a holistic perspective. a fourth question must also be raised, even if it cannot be answered in a way that satisfies every reader. a central thought in many a christian handbook is that god changes in the new testament: the tribal god of israel in the old testament suddenly decides to embrace universalism and impartiality in the new testament; the heavenly avenger in the hebrew bible, so quick to take offence, becomes a loving and tender father when he begins to communicate in greek instead; the sexist deity of the old covenant in the new 21 n.b. gibson chose a female actress for the role of the devil! 22 j. denny weaver, the nonviolent atonement (grand rapids/ cambridge: eerdmans, 2001), 225. covenant becomes aware of the importance of human rights etc. it does not take a sherlock holmes to identify the triumphalistic hidden agenda behind this binary discourse. still, the question remains: need it be central to christian teaching that god actually changes in the new testament? would it not be better christian theology to stress that god remains the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, but that human images and metaphors are insufficient, and therefore constantly need to be reviewed, refined and sometimes even refuted? if yes, do not christians need to reassess those parts of the cross discourse which suggest that god is changed because of what happened at golgotha? these four questions highlight the array of problems which arise if the death of jesus is secluded from his life. the foremost conclusion is that it would be misguided to pass over in silence jesus’ teaching and ministry. 2. revelation: the man became words, words, words the last two centuries have witnessed a wide variety of various quests for the historical jesus: the first, liberal quest exemplified by adolf von harnack’s influential series of lectures das wesen des christentums; the new, neoconservative quest, the starting point of which was ernst käsemann’s renowned lecture in jugenheim at the reunion of marburg old students on october 20, 1953; and the ongoing, third quest exemplified by the jesus seminar.23 it is pivotal to note that all these three disparate quests have two things in common: first, they all concentrate on the proclamation of jesus. it is always his teaching which scholars seek to restore. there is of course a hidden agenda 23 for an exhaustive discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the various quests for the historical jesus, see e.g., svartvik, mark and mission, 13-108. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):1-13 svartvik, “forging an incarnational theology” 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art2/ here: jesus is best understood as the sum of his teaching. the second commonality is that jesus is defined in negative terms: he was what judaism was not; judaism was what jesus is not. it is noteworthy that this dissimilarity of jesus is seldom argued for; it is simply assumed. the reason for this stress on this distinctiveness of jesus’ proclamation is most probably that the ontological uniqueness of christ (his persona, i.e., his “nature(s)” and the implications of his life, death and resurrection) in traditional theology has been transferred to a historical uniqueness of the historical jesus, specifically, the radical incomparability of his proclamation. previous generations stated that jesus was unique since he was the “son of god” and “the incarnated word” etc.; the scholars who take part in the quest for the historical jesus disregard such ontological claims, but still postulate a uniqueness!24 although it might seem, at first sight, that such claims for historical uniqueness are straightforward, they are not really very helpful, since they tend to draw our attention to details rather than to the overarching paradigm of the life and work of jesus of nazareth. in the words of e.p. sanders: …it is very bad theology to hang a confession on a verbal detail. this little detail and that are unique. they prove that jesus was the son of god. […] the claim of 24 for aspects on the role of “uniqueness” in modern theologies of religions, see jesper svartvik, “the quest of the unique jesus and its implications for global dialogue,” in the concept of god in global dialogue, eds. werner jeanrond & aasulu lande (maryknoll: orbis, 2005), 126-144. christianity historically has not been that jesus said six things which no one else said.25 it is a sad irony that a model that seeks to emphasize the revelatory significance of the teaching of jesus in the end reduces his contribution to few alleged “unique” statements. the reason, of course, is that in the early rabbinic literature one finds numerous parallels to the teachings of jesus. a hard-core supporter of the uniqueness school of thought must either ignore these parallels or seek comfort in the behavior which by samuel sandmel has been labelled parallelomania (the tendency to be interested in parallels between the new testament and contemporary sources, but always and only in order to state that the christian sources are “better” or “more unique” [sic! how could anything be more unique?]).26 if the importance of christianity only consisted in the fact that jesus said some unique things, he is ultimately reduced to a phrasemaker. two problems need to be mentioned: first, this reduction is methodologically complicated since uniqueness is not some odd point of pride – there are a number of phenomena in our world which in different ways are unique without being of any ultimate importance. secondly, when the concept of uniqueness is applied in this categorical way, second temple judaism falls victim to christian teaching. anything that looks or sounds “jewish” reduces his uniqueness; it is therefore necessary to disparage and dismantle parallels between jesus and his contemporaries. this is why contemporary ideologies are 25 e.p. sanders, the question of uniqueness on the teaching of jesus: the ethel m. wood lecture 15 february 1990 (london: university of london, 1990), 26. 26 samuel sandmel, “parallelomania,” journal of biblical literature 81 (1962), 1. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):1-13 svartvik, “forging an incarnational theology” 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art2/ belittled to such a degree that these misrepresentations sometimes amount to l’enseignement du mépris.27 to sum up, apart from constituting a methodological nightmare, the christological understanding which emphasizes the “unique” teachings of the nazarene will eventually present the contemporaries of jesus – i.e., the people he knew as his own – no longer as his historical context but as his theological contrast. in a word, a christology that accentuates revelation risks becoming not only disinterested in understanding “the anxieties and hopes” of jesus’ contemporaries; it also fails to take his theological context seriously. such a triumphalistic christology should be avoided. it is true that the fourth gospel proclaims that “the truth shall set you free” (jn 8:32), but it is equally true that paul reminds the first christians that they should “[d]o nothing from selfish ambition or conceit” (phil 2:3). revelation must not be isolated. the revelatory aspect must not be isolated from the other features of christology. hence, a third model will now be suggested. 3. reflection: “… and the word became flesh” first of all, it is important to stress that attempts to find new ways to express christology should not be subject to “heresy hunting.” one is perfectly free, of course, to stick to the examples in the grammar book by repeating traditional formulae, but the danger is that people will at best become indifferent or disheartened or at worst that theology will call forth disgust. thus, the rationale for renewing christological language is certainly not a wish to please people, but to 27 jules isaac’s influential phrase is originally the title of one of his books, published in french in 1962. the english translation was in print two years later: the teaching of contempt: christian roots of antisemitism (new york: holt, 1964). reach out to them. proclaiming good, old truths to deaf ears is no more a noble deed than seeking to express them in new ways. the remainder of this article will suggest a language that enables us to express christology anew. before the model is presented, however, it is necessary to reflect on the language of “images” in the bible and the judaeo-christian tradition.28 (1) first, the judaeo-christian tradition (and later, to an even higher degree, also the muslim tradition) has always emphasized that, since no human beings can comprehend god, there should be no images, or at least that images do not reflect the divine reality in toto. the biblical master story is, of course, the account in ex 32 of how the people asked aaron to make a golden calf to which the people could direct their prayers. but not only images can become idols; also texts, music, words and formulae can achieve a reputation that may become problematic in the long run. (2) the second fact that should be pointed out is that there is a need for many images as all discourse is an approximation. everyone who has translated from one language to another knows this. theological discourse is no exception. augustine said that “we talk about three ‘persons,’ not because it says everything, but in order to have something to say” (a paraphrase of his pregnant statement 28 for an exploratory presentation in swedish, see jesper svartvik, “och ordet blev köttsår—om gudabilder, gudsbilder och guds bilder,” svensk kyrkotidning 100 (2004), 693-695. for a full and fair study which analyses the construction of the role the image-of-god discourse has and can play in modern trinitarian theology, see b. sandahl, “person, relation och gud: konstruktionen av ett relationellt personbegrepp i nutida trinitarisk teologi” (unpubl. diss. lund university, 2004). an important article on anthropology is tikva frymer-kensky, “the image: religious anthropology in judaism and christianity,” in christianity in jewish terms, eds. frymer-kensky et al. (boulder, co: westview, 2000), 321-337. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):1-13 svartvik, “forging an incarnational theology” 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art2/ in de trinitate 5.9 [cc]: dictum est tamen tres personae non ut illud diceretur sed ne taceretur.) in other words, the only alternative to theological speechlessness is to use words and images in order to give speech to what we want to describe – and to be aware of their limitations. lord alfred tennyson knew this: “for words, like nature, half reveal / and half conceal the soul within.”29 god can and must be described in multiple ways – and one, single metaphor cannot be canonized as if it exhausts the subject. (3) thirdly, in the religious tradition there is an influential legacy that describes each human being as the image of god. now, it was not unusual to call the political and/or religious leaders in antiquity “the image of god” (e.g., tutankhamon was the living image of amon), but what is so striking when one reads the hebrew bible is that each and every human being is said to be created be-tselem elohim (“in the image of the lord”). this perspective is remarkably egalitarian: there are no conditions, no restrictions: be it a man or a woman, be it a poor or rich person, be it a jew or a gentile: all are created be-tselem elohim.30 what, then, does it mean to be created be-tselem? there are of course many answers to that question. the most remarkable of all answers may be a daring midrash which can be found in both tanchuma and the midrash rabbah. the midrashist suggests that when a person walks down the street, angels go before him or her, crying out: “make way! make way for the image of the holy one, blessed be he!”31 this text is interesting for two reasons: first, it is obvious that the midrashist is aware of the fact that be-tselem, so to 29 lord alfred tennysson, “in memoriam a.h.h.” in selected poems (london: phoenix, 2002), 51. 30 frymer-kensky, 322f. 31 tanchuma ‘eqev 4, and also deut.r. 4.4. speak, actually was intended for royals. in other words, since every human being is created by god be-tselem he or she is as if he or she were a king or a queen. royal blood runs in their veins: “… every person can be the viceregent of god, manifesting some of the qualities of the divine. […] an inherent dignity results which is humanity’s heritage and destiny.”32 the second observation is that the midrashist here uses a greek loanword for “image”; behind the hebrew word iqonin one easily identifies the greek word eikonion, which is also the origin of the english word “icon”. what this midrash seeks to convey is that every human being is like a wandering icon. those who revere such an icon see something of who, what and where god is, which takes us to the fourth point. (4) it has already been suggested that each human being is a reflection of the divine realm. it is only in this context that the set phrase of jesus as the image of god makes sense. when the new testament authors state that jesus is “the image of the invisible god” (col 1:15) and “the reflection of god’s glory and the exact imprint of god’s very being” (heb 1:3), this should not be understood in opposition to but as an intensification of his humanity. this belief confirms the thought that each and every human being is the reflection – although through a glass, dimly – of the divine reality. in the words of james carroll: “christ did not die on the cross to change the mind of god, but to reveal the love of god to us. the crucifixion is a word spoken not to heaven, as anselm has it, but to earth.”33 32 john f. o’grady, models of jesus revisited (new york/mahwah: paulist, 1994), 177. 33 james carroll, constantine’s sword: the church and the jews. a history (boston/new york: houghton mifflin, 2001), 293. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):1-13 svartvik, “forging an incarnational theology” 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art2/ rather than conveying revelation in his teaching and bringing about reconciliation in his death, jesus is the reflection of the divine will. in other words, what is suggested here is that contemporary christology should emphasize that jesus in his teaching conveyed reconciliation. his teaching reminds us that words can both hurt and heal. in this context it is interesting to note that paul, when discussing reconciliation, states that god has committed unto christians “the word of reconciliation” (ton logon tês katallagês; 2 cor 5:19). this could, of course, be understood as the teaching about reconciliation, but it would be unwise to refute that it should also be a teaching that promotes reconciliation. in other words, the contents of the message cannot be isolated from the reactions that the message provokes. in a similar way, contemporary christology should seek to explore whether the death of jesus could be described in terms of revelation. what does it mean that the image of god is being found among people being executed? this makes one think of a well-known graffito from the first century, discovered in 1857, scratched on a wall on palatine hill in rome. it shows a person standing in front of a cross upon which a person wearing an ass head is bound. under the image is written alexamenos sebete theon (“alexamenos worships [his] god”).34 this alexamenos, obviously a christian, is being mocked by the graffitist for finding his god in a place of execution. although 34 it is not obvious why the verb (sebete) is in the plural. one (less likely) explanation is that alexamenos represents a whole group, i.e., all christians. the more likely explanation is that it is a misspelling due to the itacism, i.e., the tendency to pronounce ai (and other letters or combinations of letters) as [e]. thus, the sentence should be translated “alexamenos worships [his] god.” christianity has shaped the minds and provided the words of a substantial part of the world for two millennia, the alexamenos graffito is still disturbing in its bluntness. it is indeed outrageous to proclaim that one’s god is bound to a cross at a place of execution. however much the cross as a symbol has been domesticated in history, this will remain so preposterous that it is either absurd or a deeply significant event. to the christian mind it is the latter. in a swedish hymn by olov hartman, inspired by the second chapter in paul’s epistle to the philippians, it is stated that because of christ’s emptying himself christians know who, what and where god is.35 in a word, the cross is a revelatory event. it is a matter of more than lofty words, more than mighty deeds, more than sole suffering and more than just death: what is being argued is that jesus is the human face of god. one need not choose between the proclamation and the passion of jesus (mê genoito!)—but the relation between them should perhaps be reinterpreted. it is suggested here that it is in his teaching that jesus conveys reconciliation and that his suffering and death should be interpreted as a revelatory manifestation – not the other way around. thus, what is needed is a christology which is based upon the entire life of jesus: not only his teaching, his wonders, his suffering, his death, his resurrection. the gospel, in its kerygmatic sense, has much in common with the literary genre “gospel”, i.e., a narrative about his entire life – not a compendium of his teaching or a minute-by-minute account of his preaching or passion. it is the totality which constitutes the image of god.36 if only one aspect is emphasized, the image is distorted, often beyond repair. 35 psalm 38 in the swedish hymnal book. 36 weaver proposes a narrative christus victor theology, which “encompasses the full story of the life, death, and resurrection of jesus” (p. 227). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):1-13 svartvik, “forging an incarnational theology” 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art2/ the first model accentuates the reconciliation on the cross so much that it ceases to be the way his life ended – and becomes the end of his life, i.e., the goal, sole purpose of his life. he came to die. the second model emphasizes revelation to such an extent that it distorts the obvious starting point of christology, i.e., that jesus was a jew and that most of his teaching was consistent with the teachings of his contemporaries. this section of the article, suggesting that jesus should be described as the reflection of the divine, comes from the johannine statement that “the word became flesh” (jn 1:14). the doctrine of the incarnation is often presented as perhaps the largest obstacle in jewish-christian relations. what this article seeks to explore is how the johannine language could be articulated so that, rather than being an obstacle, it may be a starting point for interreligious dialogue. understood in this way, incarnational language is not different from, but an intensification of what it means to be human.37 once again, what has been suggested here is that christology should isolate neither jesus’ proclamation nor his passion. rather, it should emphasise the totality of his life and works: in jesus of nazareth christians perceive a portrait. it is the totality of the portrait which makes it iconic: “it emphasizes the totality of jesus of nazareth as the 37 for an article suggesting that incarnational theology helps christians to see (a) that theology should begin in wonder (cf. abraham joshua heschel’s neo-platonic statement that “philosophy begins in wonder,” man is not alone: a philosophy of religion [new york: noonday, 1951], 13); (b) that the incarnation could be understood as a celebration of particularity; and (c) that incarnational theology should promote a non-apologetic theology, see jesper svartvik, “christological and soteriological reflections in the wake of half a century of intense and improved jewish-christian relations,” current dialog 44 (2004): 54-60. expression and revelation of god. there is no aspect of his life forgotten or unimportant.”38 now, it is essential to remember that this portrayal is partial: it is a first-century portrait from the middle east painted with paintbrushes dipped in the apocalyptic range of colors. that final remark could be the starting point for another article: how should the apocalyptic portraits of the galilean preacher be introduced and interpreted in our days? conclusion in this article three christological models have been discussed. whereas the first two presentations are bound up with a number of methodological, historical, and theological shortcomings, the third is all the more worthy of our attention and theological reflection. jews and christians will always look upon jesus of nazareth in different ways, but it is probable that the third model is a better starting point for discussions when they meet. the third model argues that christian incarnational language may be both an expression for and evidence of jesus’ jewishness. in this respect the third model differs greatly from the two previous models – and that will make all the difference. the endeavor to reassess triumphalistic christologies belongs to the more important tasks for christians today, since the christologies of earlier times have to such a high degree contributed to distorted and dangerous presentations of “the jews” in the christian imagination. it is for this reason that the recognition of both the crucifixion and the resurrection of the jewish people are the most important events for contemporary christian theology. 38 o’grady, 192. 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-3 mary marshall the portrayals of the pharisees in the gospels and acts (göttingen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2015), hardcover, 265 pp. amy-jill levine amy-jill.levine@vanderbilt.edu vanderbilt university, nashville, tennessee 37240 in this revision of her 2009 oxford dissertation (directed by christopher tuckett), marshall demarcates the portrayals of the pharisees in the canonical gospels and acts. she correctly notes that the christian tendency to view the pharisees wholly negatively has led to the underestimation of the complexity of their portrayals in the new testament. marshall shows how the evangelists display distinct redactional concerns regarding not only pharisees and complementary jewish topics including torah and temple, but also issues of christology, ecclesiology, ethics, and discipleship. several methodologically perceptive moves mark the work. marshall does not, “in the absence of adequate justification to the contrary, suppose that either the authors or their readers possessed any substantial or first-hand knowledge of the pharisees” (p. 24). therefore, she offers literary-critical observations unhampered by debates about the authors’ historical presumptions. she also cogently both guards against regarding the pharisees as necessarily engaged in “supererogatory purity” (p. 38) and diminishes claims, based on questionable historical reconstruction, that the pharisees are promoting judean nationalism as opposed to, for example, personal piety, correct interpretation of torah, or reactions to christological teachings. cautions regarding scholarly use of the birkhat haminim to explain the polemics, especially in the gospels of mark and john, are well taken, as is her wariness of reading the fourth gospel, following j.l. martyn’s hypothesis, as a two-tiered story in which the narrative recapitulates john’s historical situation. marshall’s literary-critical observations also cut through scholarly apologetics seeking to diminish the pharisees’ negative portraiture in the new testament. for example, she concludes for mark, “it is difficult to uphold the suggestion that the significance of the pharisees’ opposition is mitigated by their absence from the events of jesus’ passion” (p. 67). confirming the consensus that matthew heightens mark’s negative portrayal of the pharisees, she further finds that matthew’s pharisees do not simply repeat the negative depictions of the chief priests, scribes, and elders, but that they are “opponents in their own right” (p. 79). she levine: mary marshall’s the portrayals of the pharisees 2 also argues that matthew enhances the divisiveness of their disputes with jesus over the issue of defilement, and she notes that mark highlights debates over christology and the source of jesus’ authority, while matthew focuses on halakhic concerns. for the fourth gospel, marshall argues that john’s use of “pharisees” along with the broader category of jews / judaeans (ioudaioi) creates both distinctions and overlaps. her point that john’s pharisees are more concerned to note the reactions of others to jesus rather than to offer reactions to jesus himself is a keen insight (p. 205). generously, she proposes that the pharisees’ question to jesus, “surely we are not blind, are we?” (jn 9:40) “may be interpreted as a genuine appeal for clarification and reassurance” (p. 191). for john, however, the question is comparable to pilate’s equally benighted and dismissive query, “i am not a jew, am i?” (jn 18:35). the answer to both questions, in terms of johannine symbolism, is “yes.” while she shows that the pharisees cannot be completely subsumed into the broader category of “jews” (ioudaioi), and while her thematic rather than plot-based approach does heighten the distinctions, readers more attentive to plot and so to narrative flow might conclude that by the end of the gospel, such distinctions disappear. the most innovative aspect of the study is the appeal to distinct characterizations of the pharisees in luke and in acts. in the gospel, the pharisees are not individualized, but acts introduces gamaliel and paul. in the gospel, the pharisees remain outsiders, but in acts they are found inside the church. thus marshall supports the view that the gospel presentation does not constrain the depiction of the pharisees in acts. how, exactly, the depictions of these individual pharisees depart from the gospel’s largely negative portraits remains debated. that “the pharisees’ role as defenders of the church is confirmed by the fact that luke nowhere explicitly suggests their involvement in any of the arrests and martyrdoms of christians” is technically correct, since the earlier parts of acts do not mention paul’s pharisaic background (p. 146). however, a second reading of acts finds paul the pharisee (acts 23:6; 26:5) “approving” of stephen’s death (acts 8:1) and “ravaging the church” (acts 8:3). gamaliel defends peter and john, and paul the persecutor was gamaliel’s student (acts 22:3). yet paul’s pharisaic teacher, who compares jesus to theudas and to judas the galilean (acts 5:36-37), may be less benevolent than marshall suggests. similarly, the pharisees in the christian community remain negative foils who insist that gentile members “be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of moses” (acts 15:5). in acts, paul emerges as the only pharisee, and perhaps the only jew, who displays correct jewish piety. at times, marshall reinstantiates rather than interrogates stereotypes of pharisees. she categorizes “tax collectors and sinner” as “outcasts [and] archetypes of disreputability” (p. 38; see also pp. 93, 179) who were rejected by pharisees. sinners and tax collectors are not “outcasts”; they rather walked out of the covenant community in favor of personal gain. the people in mt 9, to whom jesus “has shown mercy and compassion by turning towards outcasts,” are not cast out from anything: most (e.g., a paralytic, jairus’ daughter) are embedded in a familial con 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) text (p. 93). the paralytic is not cast out, but is rather cast in, when his friends open a roof to lower him to jesus. the hemorrhaging woman and the demoniac are not seen as stripped of social relations. marshall finds that for luke, the pharisees are those who “shun the sinners who have sought forgiveness” (p. 137 see also p. 179). but such repentance is not explicit. simon the pharisee could not know that the “woman from the city who was a sinner” (lk 7:36) repented; the pharisees remark that jesus dines with “sinners and tax collectors” (mt 9:10-11; mk 2:15-16; lk 5:30; 15:1-2), yet no mention is made of their repenting. in other cases, marshall’s claims regarding historicity outstrip the evidence, despite her care to avoid importing external reconstructions. while she finds that matthew’s polemic “indicates an opposition that transcends the literary sphere and responds to opposition faced by the evangelist” (p. 124), there is no confirmatory evidence of this claim. matthew remained the early church’s most popular gospel, as determined by manuscript attestation, citation by the church fathers, and even canonical placement, but there is no reason to presume that this popularity resulted from external jewish competition. mirror-reading is always speculative, and marshall misses the possible distinction between perceptions that one is being persecuted for one’s beliefs and actual persecution, or received tradition vs. current status. marshall observes that “there is no recent and full length work by a single author that treats the pharisees in all four gospels and acts” (p. 20). is there need for one? the answer is “yes.” marshall provides in one volume a lucid description of how the pharisees function narratively in each gospel. her thematic approach reveals details not easily derived from historical or plot-based efforts. further, given shifts in scholarly source-critical views, such as the increasingly popular claim that john is familiar with some if not all of the synoptics and is attempting to control communal memory, her volume provides the data, neatly organized, with which to assess such claims. 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-3 peter schäfer anziehung und abstoßung: juden und christen in den ersten jahrhunderten ihrer begegnung / attraction and repulsion: jews and christians in the first centuries of their encounter (tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2015), hardcover, 120 pp. joseph sievers sievers@biblico.it pontifical biblical institute, 00187 rome, italy in recent years, views of the development of the relations between judaism and christianity have been changing dramatically. an early rupture between the two had been assumed almost as a given, until a much more complicated and gradual “parting of the ways” was widely accepted, even leading to the provocatively-titled book the ways that never parted (adam h. becker and annette yoshiko reed, eds., tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2003). schäfer has been an important and authoritative voice in this debate. he has argued that rabbinic judaism and early christianity developed in response to each other (the jewish jesus: how judaism and christianity shaped each other, princeton: princeton university press, 2012). the slim volume under review (in german, with english translation on facing pages) contains schäfer’s lecture when he received the prestigious 2014 “dr. leopold lucas-preis” at the university of tübingen, in which he develops his thesis further. he notes that rabbi leopold lucas (1872-1943) had written on jewish history, systematically using primary sources from both rabbinic and patristic traditions, a pioneering effort at the time. schäfer places his own work on the same trajectory. for the present volume, he uses divergent but related developments in jewish and christian enoch traditions as test cases. after briefly reviewing the image of enoch in genesis (mt and lxx), he passes to the “non-canonical” enoch. in the first and perhaps earliest part of the ethiopic book of enoch (1 en.), the protagonist mediates between god and the fallen angels. thus, schäfer notes, a gap between the accounts of genesis 5 and 6 is closed (pp. 22-25). the so-called “similitudes of enoch” (1 en. 37-71), commonly dated to the 1 st century bce / ce, go one step further and have enoch addressed (by god himself or by an angel) as an exalted son of man (1 en. 71:14-17). schäfer concludes, “[t]his text sievers: peter schäfer’s attraction and repulsion 2 leaves no doubt that the son of man enoch is the messiah,” drawing a connection with the question about the messiahship of jesus in mk 14:61-62 par. (p. 26). after noting the favorable portrayal of enoch in ben sira and the wisdom of solomon, schäfer looks at “the rabbinic enoch.” he finds that the only midrash that deals in some detail with enoch’s fate is found in genesis rabbah 25:1 (on gen 5:24). here different rabbis are cited as saying that “enoch was a hypocrite, sometimes righteous, sometimes wicked” and that “he was not inscribed in the scroll of the righteous but in the scroll of the wicked” (p. 32). various rabbis even argue against the heretics (minim) and against a roman matron that enoch died a natural death. schäfer does not attempt to identify the interlocutors of the rabbis but cautiously remarks “that we may not necessarily be dealing here with groups whose detachment from judaism was a universally recognized fact. and this holds (especially) true for the christianity that was establishing itself ever more vigorously at the time of our midrash (around 300 c.e.)” (p. 38). in contrast to rabbinic pronouncements, christian interpretation of enoch is decidedly favorable, in keeping with earlier jewish traditions. yet, in this view, first attested in heb 11:5 (cf. jude 14), enoch’s rapture was only completed through the death and resurrection of jesus. this line of thought continues for example in tertullian (ca. 200). for him, enoch becomes a model for christians, for he lived without circumcision or sabbath observance. furthermore, enoch and elijah, who had ascended to heaven without passing through death, return to earth so that “by their blood they may extinguish the antichrist” (p. 44). schäfer notes that other pre-nicaean authors offer similar interpretations and concludes that “[o]n the background of this christian interpretation of the enoch myth, one may well suspect that the wrath of the rabbis of genesis rabbah is directed against christians, or more cautiously formulated, christianizing circles” (p. 46). rabbinic literature after genesis rabbah is largely silent about enoch, but the third / hebrew book of enoch (3 en.), a mystical work composed between 600 and 900 c.e., relates the transformation of enoch into the exalted angelic figure of metatron, who is called yhwh ha-qatan (“the lesser [or: ‘young’] god”). this figure is discussed in the babylonian talmud in a polemic between rav idith and a heretic (b. san. 38b). the rabbi, denying any positive role for metatron, here fights against a position similar to that of the (jewish) author(s) of 3 enoch. this conflict reaches a head in the story of elisha b. avuyah, who during his journey through the heavens encounters metatron, seated on a throne, and asks “perhaps, god forbid, there are two powers [in heaven]?!” in rabbinic tradition, even to consider the possibility of the existence of a second divine figure is an unforgivable sin, which makes elisha a heretic (b. hag. 15a). thus, jewish ideas that had developed further in christianity could be reclaimed in jewish mysticism, as the example of the “lesser / young god” in 3 enoch shows. schäfer concludes that the new findings of a much more complex, and for a long time fluid, relationship between judaism and christianity “could and should be applied fruitfully for that which we today call christian-jewish dialogue” (p. 68). one may wonder why enoch could be viewed so negatively in rabbinic tradition, whereas his frequent companion, the prophet elijah, apparently suffered no 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) such fate, despite his popularity in christianity. one may also ask why schäfer does not engage in any discussion of the work of gabriele boccaccini and the enoch seminar, but in a public lecture, this may be understandable. overall, schäfer’s well-documented thesis is both stimulating and convincing. the final part of the book (pp. 76-117) contains an address by editor jürgen kampmann at the same award ceremony. he first discusses rabbi lucas’ pioneering work in the scientific study of judaism and his tragic death in the theresienstadt concentration camp. he then introduces the recipient of the dr. leopold lucas junior scholar prize, paul silas peterson, and his book the early hans urs von balthasar: historical contexts and intellectual formation (berlin: de gruyter, 2015), based on a dissertation in systematic theology. finally, the address concludes with an appreciation of peter schäfer’s research, teaching, and publications in broad areas of jewish studies, most recently with a focus on mutual influences of judaism and christianity. a list of past recipients of the lucas prize (pp. 119-120) concludes the volume. 1 scjr 17, no. 1 (2022): 1-19 dietrich bonhoeffer, prayerbook of the bible, and the reichsschrifttumskammer (rsk): reassessing the historical record david a. r. clark mail@davidarclark.ca wycliffe college, toronto, on m5s 1h7, canada this article examines geffrey b. kelly’s influential argument that, in 1941, the reichsschrifttumskammer (the reich chamber of literature, hereinafter the rsk) prohibited dietrich bonhoeffer from publishing because the agency objected to the ostensibly pro-jewish and anti-nazi content of bonhoeffer’s brief work, prayerbook of the bible: an introduction to the psalms (hereinafter prayerbook).1 kelly’s argument appeared first in the journal weavings in 1991, then more prominently in the introduction to the 1996 critical edition of prayerbook in dbwe 5. kelly’s argument subsequently influenced scholarship that mirrored, intensified, and even exaggerated his claims. the interactions between bonhoeffer and the rsk merit scrutiny, not solely for historical clarity, but also for interreligious interests. if, as kelly maintains, bonhoeffer’s interpretation of the psalms so defiantly honored the jewish scriptures that nazi authorities construed his exegetical approach as a pro-jewish and anti-nazi protest, then prayerbook might have significant implications for assessing bonhoeffer’s place in post-holocaust jewish-christian conversations. however, a careful examination of the relevant primary sources shows that kelly’s claims are uncorroborated and unsubstantiated by the historical record, as there is no evidence that prayerbook figured into the deliberations of the rsk. indeed, far from being incensed by the supposedly seditious message of prayerbook, the rsk seems not to have been familiar with the content of this brief work. after critically assessing kelly’s account, the broader implications of his argument, and its appeal, will be addressed by briefly considering why kelly’s historically insupportable claims have gained acceptance and influence. the article will suggest that kelly’s argument, and its acceptance, may comprise an example of a problematic tendency in the reception of bonhoeffer: interpreting his life and work, especially in the context of jewish-christian relations, through a misleadingly heroic or hagiographical lens. 1 a leading expert on bonhoeffer, kelly (1932-2017) was integral to the development of bonhoeffer scholarship. in addition to his impressive career in teaching and research, he made significant contributions to the international bonhoeffer society (english language section), which he served as secretary and as president. clark: dietrich bonhoeffer, prayerbook of the bible 2 1. kelly on prayerbook and the rsk according to kelly, the publication of prayerbook was a clear act of anti-nazi protest. “one should make no mistake about it; in the context of nazi germany’s bitter opposition to any honoring of the old testament,” kelly declares, “dietrich bonhoeffer’s little book on the psalms, first published in 1940, constituted an explosive declaration both politically and theologically.”2 for kelly, the “explosive” implications of “honoring” the jewish scriptures in prayerbook are unmistakable within the context of nazi germany. “against the quasi-apocalyptic background of a europe at war, a church divided, and a nation engaged in a malignant national policy of genocide,” he writes, “bonhoeffer’s study of the psalms takes on a new life. this book, coming from one who was representative of that small group of fellow christians acting at great risk and seemingly in vain to restore true christianity to germany, stands in sobering contrast with the blind, flag-waving patriotism and nationalistic sloganeering that cheered on the terroristic violence against innocent peoples.”3 how, then, does kelly justify this dramatic assessment of the significance of prayerbook? kelly does not identify specific anti-nazi and pro-jewish content in prayerbook; instead, kelly describes the ostensible tendentiousness of the book in more general terms. “bonhoeffer was fully aware that his writings on themes of the old testament would be part of the conflict in which theologians debated the value of the old testament and the ‘old testament people of god’ for the christian church,” kelly writes. “this was a conflict aggravated by the anti-judaism of the ‘german christians’ in the ‘german reich church’ which, in bonhoeffer’s opinion, had sold its soul to nazism.”4 faced with this context, “bonhoeffer was particularly troubled by the clumsy, ideologically based attempt of the ‘german christians’ to eliminate the jewish heritage from christianity,” kelly adds. “the nazis and the more extremist among these pseudo-scholars had dismissed the old testament as a ‘jewish book’ already supplanted by the new testament.”5 according to kelly, moreover, bonhoeffer’s christological interpretation of the psalms in prayerbook launched a salvo in the so-called “church struggle”: “in the context of the german church struggle, therefore, bonhoeffer desired to retrieve the psalms as the prayerbook of jesus christ himself,”6 an approach “congruent with the needs 2 geffrey b. kelly, “the prayerbook of the bible: dietrich bonhoeffer’s introduction to the psalms,” weavings 6, no. 5 (september/october 1991): 36. see also dbwe 5:143. 3 kelly, “the prayerbook of the bible,” 41. see also dbwe 5:153, where kelly claims that “bonhoeffer’s study of the psalms offers protest and hope.” 4 kelly, “the prayerbook of the bible,” 37. see also dbwe 5:143-144. 5 kelly, “the prayerbook of the bible,” 37. see also dbwe 5:144. for more on this, see doris l. bergen, twisted cross: the german christian movement in the third reich (chapel hill: university of north carolina press, 1996), and susannah heschel, the aryan jesus: christian theologians and the bible in nazi germany (princeton: princeton university press, 2008). for an overview of the context, with additional bibliography, see david a. r. clark, “antisemitism, violence, and invective against the old testament: reinhold krause’s sportpalast speech, 1933,” canadian-american theological review 7, no. 1 (2018): 124-137. 6 kelly, “the prayerbook of the bible,” 37. see also dbwe 5:144. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) of people in nazi germany.”7 in this sense, kelly maintains, prayerbook addressed “the anguish of christians” in nazi germany, which kelly interprets partly as a coded reference to jews.8 however, beyond these broad assertions that the christological interpretation in prayerbook somehow championed the church struggle, christians, and jews, kelly does not support his claim that prayerbook was “explosive” by analyzing specific texts from the work.9 instead, kelly substantiates his claim that publishing prayerbook was “explosive” with reference to its reception by the nazi regime. that is, in kelly’s argument, the claim that prayerbook constituted an anti-nazi protest is evidenced by its ostensibly harsh reception by nazi authorities, as kelly asserts that the seditiousness of prayerbook instigated a repressive response from the rsk: it was not surprising, therefore, that its appearance led to an unpleasant exchange of letters between bonhoeffer and the “reich board for the regulation of literature” which had seen fit to fine him 30 reichsmarks for violating the obligation already imposed on him to report his writing activity to the proper authorities. the board added a prohibition against any further publications. bonhoeffer appealed this punishment on the grounds that he was only doing 7 kelly, “the prayerbook of the bible,” 38. see also dbwe 5:144. 8 kelly claims, somewhat enigmatically, that bonhoeffer’s concern for christians implicitly refers also to jews: “it is obvious here that bonhoeffer is alluding to the anguish of christians. it is equally obvious that bonhoeffer felt that there could be no specific mention of the jews, given the rigorous censorship to which his book was submitted. to sympathize with the plight of the jewish people in any public way could only have brought down the wrath of the gestapo on the confessing church and on those with whom bonhoeffer was involved in 1940. but it is equally clear that even when he speaks openly only of the suffering of christians, he is likewise describing the crucifixion of the jews of europe to whom he was viscerally bound during the church struggle.” dbwe 5:151-152. kelly’s contention that bonhoeffer’s concern for christians functions as a cipher for concern for jews is by no means “clear,” yet kelly offers no evidence that any such code operates in prayerbook. 9 kelly’s most specific reference to material from prayerbook is his claim that bonhoeffer’s discussion of “psalms of suffering, guilt, the imprecation of enemies, and the hope of resurrection” had special significance in the context of nazi germany. “the meaning of these prayers for a people living under the heartlessness and militaristic nationalism of nazi rule is not to be missed,” kelly writes. yet aside from some general observations about bonhoeffer’s commentary on these psalms, kelly leaves this “meaning” unexplained. moreover, the supposedly anti-nazi interpretations kelly discerns in this context might easily have been perceived as pro-nazi exegesis by a reader in the period unfamiliar with bonhoeffer’s political allegiances. for instance, kelly observes that, in bonhoeffer’s exegesis, “psalms relive the experience of jesus’ passion in which good people suffer misfortune while the godless seem to be free to do their evil with impunity.” kelly, “the prayerbook of the bible,” 40; see also dbwe 5:151. however, since nazi propaganda exploited the antisemitic charge of deicide by portraying jews as crucifying germans, this reading of the psalms would hardly appear seditious to readers in nazi germany. the cover illustration of a january 1939 issue of der stürmer, for instance, depicted herschel grynszpan crucifying ernst vom rath, above the perennial banner of that antisemitic publication: “die juden sind unser unglück!” (the jews are our misfortune!). if, as kelly suggests, bonhoeffer’s interpretation of the psalms connected the crucifixion of jesus with those who cause “good people [to] suffer misfortune,” then—far from signaling anti-nazi protest—this interpretation could have been viewed by a casual reader in nazi germany as consonant with antisemitic propaganda that imputed unglück to supposedly deicidal jews. clark: dietrich bonhoeffer, prayerbook of the bible 4 “scientific exegesis.” moreover, he argued that the prohibitions against his religious writings were so vague that he was unable to discern whether this particular work should have been submitted to the board or not. the head of the censorship board was not fully taken in by bonhoeffer’s disingenuous contention. although he repealed the fine, he strengthened the prohibition against any further publishing on bonhoeffer’s part, adding that there were enough dangerous dogmatic and spiritual connections in the book to make it impossible for the board to accept bonhoeffer’s reasoning.10 thus, according to kelly, the anti-nazi message of prayerbook is demonstrated by the agitation it caused nazi officials; that is, the evidence of the “explosive” message of this book is the punitive reaction of the rsk that prayerbook elicited. kelly claims that, despite bonhoeffer’s protestations, the nazi authorities recognized prayerbook as a diatribe against the nazi regime: “the nazi censor was not deceived,” kelly claims, for “he saw the political implications of this book and its exposé of the suffering inflicted by nazism on so many.”11 kelly asserts that prayerbook, far from being merely a short work of christological exegesis, constituted nothing less than a dramatic “exposé” of nazi criminality. 2. acceptance and slippage: kelly’s claims in the scholarly discourse kelly’s account is prominently situated in bonhoeffer scholarship, appearing at the outset of the “editor’s introduction to the english edition” of prayerbook, in dbwe 5. indeed, any scholar who consults this standard scholarly edition of prayerbook encounters kelly’s account from the first sentences of the introduction: “one should make no mistake about it; in the context of nazi germany’s bitter opposition to any manner of honoring of the old testament,” the introduction begins, “this book, at the time of its publication, constituted an explosive declaration both politically and theologically. it came as no surprise, therefore, that its appearance led to an unpleasant exchange of letters between bonhoeffer and the reich board for the regulation of literature….”12 from its prominent place in the scholarly apparatus on prayerbook, kelly’s argument has been mirrored in scholarly contexts.13 scholarly accounts that mirror kelly’s argument have, however, featured blurring of details and even problematic intensification. some of this slippage has been relatively minor. martin rumscheidt, for instance, cites the gestapo rather than the rsk, inadvertently conflating the action of the gestapo to prohibit bonhoeffer from public speaking (imposed august 22, 1940) and the decision of the 10 kelly, “the prayerbook of the bible,” 36. see also dbwe 5:143. 11 dbwe 5:153. 12 dbwe 5:143. 13 kelly’s argument has also appeared in a popularized form. in a mass-market biography, eric metaxas quotes kelly’s account, then labels prayerbook “a bold and scholarly rebuke to nazi efforts to undermine anything of jewish origin” that featured “offensively pro-jewish content.” eric metaxas, bonhoeffer: pastor, martyr, prophet, spy: a righteous gentile vs. the third reich (nashville: thomas nelson, 2010), 367 and 378. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) rsk to prohibit bonhoeffer from publishing (imposed march 19, 1941).14 “bonhoeffer published a little book on the psalms called prayerbook of the bible. not coincidentally,” rumscheidt writes, mirroring kelly’s reasoning, “the gestapo’s banning him from publishing and speaking in public (apart from preaching in worship services) occurred shortly after that book had appeared.”15 similarly, lisa e. dahill mistakenly substitutes the gestapo for the rsk as the agency involved: “for bonhoeffer to publish in 1940 a book on the psalms, entitled ‘prayerbook of the bible,’ was a defiant attempt to counter such propaganda by asserting the supreme christological significance of the psalms. not coincidentally,” dahill adds, “the gestapo’s ban on his writing appeared shortly after this book was published.”16 substituting the gestapo for the rsk is perhaps understandable slippage, since the activities of the two agencies sometimes overlapped.17 these examples suggest not only the influence of kelly’s argument in the scholarly discourse, but also a tendency toward minor slippage in how the argument has been replicated. more recently, however, kelly’s argument appears to have been intensified to the point of misrepresentation in brad pribbenow’s assessment of the drastic consequences of bonhoeffer’s biblical interpretation. whereas kelly claims that bonhoeffer’s biblical interpretation in prayerbook resulted in being banned from publishing, pribbenow suggests that bonhoeffer’s biblical interpretation was somehow a causal factor in bonhoeffer’s arrest and imprisonment, describing “the nazi detractors who would soon seek [bonhoeffer’s] arrest, in part, on account of his particular reading of the old testament.”18 pribbenow does not explain how bonhoeffer’s 14 the gestapo issued a decree addressed to “all state police headquarters” and dated august 22, 1940: “because of his activity subverting the people, i impose on pastor dietrich bonhoeffer of schlawe/pomerania a ban on public speaking within the entire german reich.” dbwe 16:71. this decree was issued by office iv a 4 of the reich central security office (reichssicherheitshauptamt), the department of office iv (the gestapo) directed at “church political matters.” dbwe 16:71n1. the decree was signed by erich roth, an attorney and ss officer who headed department iv a 4. dbwe 16:71n4. bonhoeffer promptly protested this decree. in a draft letter to the reich central security office, dated september 15, 1940, bonhoeffer responded: “on september 9, 1940, the state police headquarters in köslin notified me of the decree of the reich central security office iv a 4 b 776/40, which has forbidden me to speak publicly throughout the reich. the reason for this ban is stated as ‘activity subverting the people.’ i reject this charge.” in his letter, which received no reply, bonhoeffer argues that his family “has rendered outstanding service to the german people and nation for generations” and that his “personal work consists overwhelmingly of scholarly research.” dbwe 16:75. see also dbwe 16:187-188. 15 martin rumscheidt, “the view from below: dietrich bonhoeffer’s reflections and actions on racism,” toronto journal of theology 24, suppl. 1 (january 2008): 69. 16 lisa e. dahill, reading from the underside of selfhood: bonhoeffer and spiritual formation (eugene: pickwick publications, 2009), 103. 17 guenter lewy describes, as a frequent procedure, the following cooperative efforts of the rsk and the gestapo: “a local gestapo office would seize a book deemed to be dangerous and send it to the gestapa [geheimes staatspolizeiamt] in berlin, which would send the book to the rsk. the rsk then forwarded the book to department viii of the ministry of propaganda for a decision. if the book was found to be objectionable, the rsk would enter the book on the index and instruct the gestapo to confiscate the book.” lewy, harmful and undesirable: book censorship in nazi germany (new york: oxford university press, 2016), 54. 18 brad pribbenow, prayerbook of christ: dietrich bonhoeffer’s christological interpretation of the psalms (lanham: lexington books/fortress academic, 2018), 45. clark: dietrich bonhoeffer, prayerbook of the bible 6 biblical interpretation could be connected to his imprisonment on completely unrelated grounds, but it seems this may be an overextended version of kelly’s argument. not only then has kelly’s influential account been mirrored, but its replication has involved both misattribution of details and problematic intensification. considering its prominence and influence, it is therefore important to assess the validity of kelly’s argument. 3. weighing kelly’s claims against the historical record a central claim of kelly’s account is that the content of prayerbook presented an anti-nazi and pro-jewish “exposé of the suffering inflicted by nazism on so many.” this claim is surprising partly because there is no obvious evidence of antinazi and pro-jewish content in prayerbook, a brief christological interpretation of the psalms that never discusses contemporary jews.19 yet kelly’s argument hinges on his contention that, as a direct consequence of the content of prayerbook, the rsk prohibited bonhoeffer from further publishing. as we will see, however, kelly’s argument is unsupported by the historical record. there is no evidence that the rsk was motivated by the interpretation of the psalms in prayerbook; to the contrary, the historical record signals that the rsk was either unaware of—or indifferent to—the content of prayerbook, focusing instead on bonhoeffer’s professional status and political reputation. 3.1. initial correspondence from the rsk the exchange began with a letter, dated november 21, 1940, from the rsk to bonhoeffer. this letter may not be extant; however, it apparently instructed bonhoeffer to apply for membership or exemption from the rsk, which bonhoeffer undertook sometime between november 1940 and february 1941. bonhoeffer then received two letters from the rsk, dated march 17 and 19, 1941. the letter dated march 17, 1941 imposed a fine on bonhoeffer for publishing books without having secured either membership or exemption from the rsk. this letter was signed “by order of: ihde,” acting director of the rsk:20 with this notice, a fine in the amount of 30 (thirty) marks is hereby levied against you, in accordance with paragraph 28, subparagraph 1, of the first regulation of the november 1, 1933, reich chamber of culture law (rgbl. i, page 797). you have published the following works: 19 for the author’s discussions of bonhoeffer’s christological interpretation of the psalms in prayerbook, see david a. r. clark, “psalm 74:8 and november 1938: rereading dietrich bonhoeffer’s kristallnacht annotation in its interpretive context,” scottish journal of theology 71, no. 3 (august 2018): 259-260, and david a. r. clark, “bonhoeffer’s christological interpretation of the psalms: tensions, subjectivity, and the voice of christ,” pro ecclesia 31, no. 2 (may 2022): forthcoming. 20 dbwe 16:181n6. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) discipleship, appearing in 1937 from chr. kaiser publishers, munich; year together, appearing in 1938 from chr. kaiser publishers, munich; introduction to the psalms, appearing in 1940 from mbk publishers, bad salzuflen; contribution to the anthology sermon letters, appearing in 1940 from g. müller publishers, wuppertal. you have therefore taken an action that falls under the jurisdiction of my chamber. according to paragraph 4, cited in connection with my official notice no. 88 of april 1, 1937, revised november 11, 1938, regarding the registration of those engaged in literary activity with the reich chamber of literature (published in the völkischer beobachter of july 1, 1937; börsenblatt no. 148/1937, 275/1938; der deutsche schriftsteller, volume 2, page 157, and volume 3, page 277), you were obligated to gain membership in my chamber or to apply for exemption from membership. only as a result of my request of november 21, 1940, did you seek membership or the procurement of an exemption from my chamber. in order to preclude disciplinary measures, this fine is to be paid to the reich chamber of literature, berlin postal account no. 80915, within a week of your being served with this notice.21 concerning kelly’s claim that the rsk responded to the “explosive” anti-nazi protest of prayerbook, it should first be noted that prayerbook is not at all highlighted in this letter, but merely appears in a list of four works published by bonhoeffer between 1937 and 1940. indeed, prayerbook is not even correctly cited in that list. one would expect that, if the actions of the rsk resulted from the politically “explosive” contents of prayerbook of the bible: an introduction to the psalms, the rsk would be familiar with its full title; instead, as with most titles listed in the letter, the rsk incorrectly cites prayerbook.22 in this letter, the rsk did not emphasize or discuss prayerbook; the rsk seems not even to have known its correct title. the rsk soon sent a second letter, again issued by ihde’s authority, dated march 19, 1941. in this letter, the rsk rejected bonhoeffer’s application for membership or exemption, explaining its rationale as follows: 21 dbwe 16:180-181. 22 mark s. brocker notes: “the titles of three of the four works mentioned by the chamber are inaccurate. year together is actually life together. introduction to the psalms is the subtitle of prayerbook of the bible. bonhoeffer contributed to a volume titled eine predigthilfe (a sermon aid), not predigtbriefe (sermon letters), that was published by e. müller-verlag…, not g. müller verlag.” dbwe 16:180181n3. clark: dietrich bonhoeffer, prayerbook of the bible 8 in accordance with paragraph 10 of the implementation order of the november 1, 1933, reich chamber of culture law (rgbl. i, page 797), i hereby reject your application for admission to the reich chamber of literature, author group, as well as for procurement of a certificate of exemption, due to the lack of the requisite political reliability [zuverlässigkeit]. i have determined that on august 22, 1940, the state police [gestapo] imposed on you a ban on public speaking as a result of your activity subverting the people. this fact sufficiently demonstrates the deficiency in reliability [zuverlässigkeit] as noted in the sense of paragraph 10 above.23 on the basis of the present decision, you are forbidden every activity as a writer. in the case of a violation, the penal provisions set forth in paragraph 28 of the implementation order cited above would necessarily be initiated against you.24 in explaining the reasons for its decision, the rsk is blunt: bonhoeffer, having already been forbidden by the gestapo from public speaking, lacked “political reliability” and was thus inadmissible to the chamber. the rsk does not mention prayerbook; rather, the rsk cites bonhoeffer’s political record, in particular the restrictions already imposed on him by the gestapo, as grounds for denying his application. jan-pieter barbian’s archival research provides insight into the deliberative process of the rsk prior to its march 19, 1941 letter, further corroborating that bonhoeffer’s political reputation—and not the contents of prayerbook—motivated the decision of the rsk.25 bonhoeffer applied for a “certificate of exemption,” barbian reports, but the rsk soon ascertained the details of bonhoeffer’s political record. “during the resulting checks,” barbian notes, “it was found that bonhoeffer was an ‘open proponent’ of the oppositional confessing church” who had already been prohibited from public speaking “‘due to his corrosive activities.’”26 barbian reports that the reich church ministry influenced the rsk by requesting that the chamber deny bonhoeffer’s request for a membership exemption. “on 25 february 1941,” barbian reports, “the church ministry therefore asked the chamber to 23 “before accepting a new member,” lewy explains, “the rsk inquired at the appropriate party leadership (gauleitung) and the gestapo about the political reliability of the candidate.” lewy, harmful and undesirable, 32. any routine inquiries to the gestapo would quickly have revealed that, on august 22, 1940, the gestapo had banned bonhoeffer from public speaking. 24 dbwe 16:181-182; dbw 16:171. 25 barbian’s observations are based on a file that i have not been able to locate in the archives. i suspect that the file, formerly referenced as barch bdc/reichskulturkammer/reichsschrifttumskammer/besondere kulturangelegenheiten/bonhoeffer, d., may have been relocated or relabelled since the 1980s. until this file is located, barbian’s published reports provide access to this primary source. 26 jan-pieter barbian, the politics of literature in nazi germany: books in the media dictatorship, trans. kate sturge (new york: bloomsbury academic, 2013), 165. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) reject bonhoeffer’s application ‘because, as a leading member of an illegal organization not recognized by the state, he cannot be considered to show the necessary reliability [zuverlässigkeit].’”27 the rsk thus heeded the recommendation of the reich church ministry, supported by the record of prior action by the gestapo. notably, the wording of the reich church ministry in its request to the rsk appears also in the letter from the rsk to bonhoeffer: the reich church ministry informed the rsk that bonhoeffer lacked zuverlässigkeit, and the rsk subsequently notified bonhoeffer that his inadequate zuverlässigkeit warranted the rejection of his application. reports on this process do not reference the content of bonhoeffer’s writings, including prayerbook. 3.2. correspondence from albert lempp after receiving the letters of march 17 and 19, 1941, bonhoeffer contacted albert lempp, who owned chr. kaiser verlag.28 bonhoeffer’s initial letter may not be extant; however, lempp’s return correspondence exists, in which he provided bonhoeffer with guidance that subsequently shaped bonhoeffer’s response to the rsk. lempp’s letter advises bonhoeffer how to respond to the fine levied by the rsk: i have received your letter of march 28 regarding the reich chamber of literature and would like to let you know that a great number of theological authors have now received such penalties, not only those who publish here but also those with other publishers. the penalties are generally being handled in such a way that the amount fined is paid with reservations, but then the author protests the penalty to the reich chamber of literature. this protest appeals to the reich chamber of literature’s official notice no. 88, paragraph 2, which reads, “scholars who publish purely academic papers in their discipline do not fall under the jurisdiction of the reich chamber of literature [wer als wissenschaftler auf seinem fachgebiet rein wissenschaftliche arbeiten veröffentlicht, gehört nicht in den zuständigkeitsbereich der reichsschrifttumskammer],” and it appeals also to the statement of the reich minister of the interior on november 14, 1934, based on this paragraph, which reads, “officials, scholars, clergy, physicians, and attorneys are for this reason not included within the reich chamber of literature when they write in the areas of their professional expertise.” it is on the basis of these pronouncements that you then seek the rescinding of the penalty and the repayment of the fine.29 27 barbian, politics of literature, 165. see also, barbian, “die arbeitsund lebensbedingungen der schriftsteller,” in geschichte des deutschen buchhandels im 19. und 20. jahrhundert, vol. 3, pt. 1, drittes reich, ed. ernst fischer and reinhard wittmann with jan-pieter barbian (berlin: walter de gruyter, 2015), 40. 28 dbwe 17:405. 29 dbwe 16:184; dbw 16:175. clark: dietrich bonhoeffer, prayerbook of the bible 10 kelly presents the measures of the rsk against bonhoeffer as an extraordinary reaction to an extraordinary protest; however, lempp informed bonhoeffer that “a great number of theological authors” had been subjected to similar actions by the rsk, suggesting that bonhoeffer’s exchange with the rsk was not remarkable but routine. furthermore, there is again no mention of the content of any of bonhoeffer’s books, including prayerbook. lempp did not discuss the content of bonhoeffer’s writings, including any potential insinuations of anti-nazi protest; rather, lempp addressed the academic category of bonhoeffer and his writings, as an academic publishing specifically academic books, believing that—since the rsk did not wield authority over scholarly works—this distinction would benefit bonhoeffer’s case. lempp’s letter then addresses the decision of the rsk to reject bonhoeffer’s request for membership or exemption, which thereby precluded any further publishing: you write that you simultaneously received a letter of march 19, 1941, that prohibited you from engaging in any writing. if this letter is also from the reich chamber of literature, then i believe that you can protest it, since you are working not as a writer but as a scholar [da sie sich ja nicht als schriftsteller, sondern als wissenschaftler betätigen] who does not fall under the reich chamber of literature’s jurisdiction, and request that they confirm with you explicitly that this interpretation of yours is correct…. when your situation is presented as an infraction to me, presumably very soon, then needless to say i shall testify as well on your behalf to the effect that these are scholarly books [wissenschaftliche bücher].30 in this context, there is no specific reference to the content of bonhoeffer’s books, including prayerbook. lempp remains focused on bonhoeffer’s wissenschaftlich status as an academic publishing academic works, seeking to position bonhoeffer outside the purview of the rsk. there is no hint that bonhoeffer or lempp anticipated any need to defend the content of bonhoeffer’s books against accusations of anti-nazi sedition. indeed, when lempp assures bonhoeffer of his willingness to support bonhoeffer’s case before the rsk, he alludes only to the status of bonhoeffer’s writings as “scholarly books.” 3.3. correspondence from mbk lempp’s press, chr. kaiser verlag, was not the publisher of prayerbook, which had been published by mbk.31 had bonhoeffer suspected that the rsk was reacting to the content of prayerbook, then one might expect him at least to have 30 dbwe 16:185; dbw 16:175. 31 the full name of the publisher was “menschen begegnen—bibel entdecken—kirche gestalten.” 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) contacted mbk.32 however, bonhoeffer appears not to have contacted mbk at all, as the letter bonhoeffer soon received from mbk offers no hint of any prior correspondence; to the contrary, this letter from mbk recounts the actions of the rsk as though bonhoeffer were not yet aware of the situation. this letter, dated april 2, 1941, is signed by elfriede rättig: the leipzig reich chamber of literature has communicated with us in a letter of march 29, 1941, that with our publication of your volume prayerbook of the bible, we have violated the chamber decree, since you are not a member of the chamber nor have you requested a certification of exemption from it.33 absent from this letter is any discussion of the content of prayerbook, as mbk gives no indication that the content of the book had been deemed a subversive protest against the nazi regime. instead, mbk recites the same rationale that appears elsewhere in these exchanges with the rsk: bonhoeffer lacked the requisite status within the rsk to publish, as he had been granted neither membership nor exemption. in its letter to bonhoeffer, mbk adds: “so that you may be informed about this correspondence [with the rsk], we are enclosing for you…our return correspondence to the chamber, dated today.”34 mbk accordingly provided bonhoeffer a copy of its own letter to the rsk in which the publisher justified the publication of prayerbook, not by defending its content but by highlighting its brevity. this unpublished document is held in the archives of the staatsbibliothek zu berlin: re: dietrich bonhoeffer, prayerbook of the bible in reply to your letter, we would like to inform you that prior to the publication of the volume above, the obligations towards the reich chamber of culture legislation were duly verified on our part. since the booklet, “prayerbook of the bible,” is only a pamphlet of sixteen pages and the only publication of the author in our publishing house, we based our decision on the notification of the reich chamber of literature, nr. 88, paragraph 3, from april 1, 1937, and november 21, 1938. from this we infer that the publication of this booklet falls under the category of a minor literary work, which does not require registration.35 in this letter to the rsk, mbk focuses on the categorization of prayerbook as a sixteen-page pamphlet which, according to the publisher’s understanding of the 32 this observation, however, should perhaps not be pressed too far. as an anonymous reader of this article suggested, bonhoeffer’s initial contact with lempp could also be explained in terms of bonhoeffer’s prior familiarity with lempp or the prominence of chr. kaiser verlag. 33 dbwe 16:185. 34 dbwe 16:185. 35 nl 299 (bonhoeffer), a 61 4 (5). clark: dietrich bonhoeffer, prayerbook of the bible 12 relevant regulations, meant that the publication was not subject to the oversight of the rsk. when mbk discussed prayerbook with the rsk, then, it was to address not the content of its pages but rather the number of pages. yet again absent from this correspondence is any discussion of the content of prayerbook. 3.4. bonhoeffer’s response to the rsk in a letter dated april 22, 1941,36 bonhoeffer responded to the rsk by rejecting its actions. “i have paid the fine,” bonhoeffer writes, adhering to lempp’s recommended procedure, “although i cannot thereby acknowledge its legitimacy.”37 the remainder of bonhoeffer’s letter offers a detailed refutation of the actions of the rsk. “i object to both the fine and the ban for the following reasons,” bonhoeffer writes, enumerating four specific rebuttals, none of which address the content of prayerbook. first, he invokes the rationale suggested to him by lempp: as a scholar writing in his field of expertise, bonhoeffer argues, he is outside the purview of the rsk. bonhoeffer quotes, nearly verbatim,38 the regulations cited by lempp which stipulate that scholars writing in their areas of research are outside the authority of the rsk. “the sum of my publications consists of the results of my scholarly—dogmatic, ethical, and exegetical—research [meiner wissenschaftlichen… forschung],” bonhoeffer writes. “therefore,” he adds, on the basis of the regulations already cited, “they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the reich chamber of literature; and thus i have no right to apply to the reich chamber of literature.”39 this initial argument focuses on his wissenschaftlich status—as an academic writing academic works—and not on the specific content of any particular book. second, bonhoeffer specifies that each publication listed by the rsk is academic. “discipleship,” he states, “is everywhere acknowledged in theological circles as a purely scholarly work [wissenschaftliche arbeit],” supporting this assertion by citing “the discussion in die theologische literaturzeitung and elsewhere.”40 life together, bonhoeffer maintains, has a similarly academic pedigree, having “appeared in the scholarly series [wissenschaftlichen reihe] theologische existenz heute and is intended for theologians.”41 bonhoeffer briefly addresses prayerbook, echoing the defence articulated by mbk that the work “comprises only sixteen pages and therefore falls clearly within paragraph 3 of official notice no. 88 regarding documents of ‘negligible size.’”42 he does not discuss 36 the extant version of this letter is bonhoeffer’s draft. i have not been able to locate in the archives the final version, which was mailed to the rsk; it may not be extant. 37 dbwe 16:187. 38 in one quotation, “bonhoeffer mistakenly wrote ‘conduct research’ rather than ‘write.’” dbwe 16:187n2. 39 dbwe 16:187; dbw 16:178. 40 dbwe 16:187; dbw 16:178. 41 dbwe 16:187; dbw 16:178. 42 dbwe 16:187. 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) the specific content of prayerbook, except to note: “the paper contains the results of scholarly work [wissenschaftlicher arbeit].”43 finally, bonhoeffer asserts that “predigthilfe provides scholarly textual exegesis for sermons” and that “these exegeses are not at all accessible to laypeople.”44 after emphasizing that all these works are wissenschaftlich, bonhoeffer concludes: “not one of my publications, therefore, justifies the imposition of this fine.”45 yet again, this context features no discussion of the specific content of bonhoeffer’s publications, including prayerbook; instead, bonhoeffer asserts in general terms that these publications should be categorized as academic and thus fall outside the purview of the rsk. third, bonhoeffer addresses the errors that appeared in the list of titles in the march 17, 1941 letter from the rsk: “i never wrote a book titled year together,” bonhoeffer corrects, “but rather life together. the volume subtitled introduction to the psalms was missing its title, namely, prayerbook of the bible. there is no such anthology as sermon letters [predigtbriefe]; i contributed to the volume titled an aid to preaching [eine predigthilfe] that appeared not with g. müller publishers but rather with e. müller publishers.”46 according to bonhoeffer, these errors indicated that the rsk was so unfamiliar with his works that the chamber must not even have had ready access to the books in question. “the enumeration of my writings for the purpose of the fine levied on me is so imprecise,” bonhoeffer reasons, “that i must assume the writings themselves were not even at hand.”47 according to kelly, the rsk reacted to the content of prayerbook; bonhoeffer, by contrast, accuses the rsk of having failed to consult copies of his books. whereas kelly argues that this dispute was prompted by the supposedly anti-nazi content of prayerbook, bonhoeffer infers that the rsk did not read, or even acquire, the books that resulted in his fine. fourth, bonhoeffer disputes the recourse of the rsk to the ban on public speaking previously imposed by the gestapo.48 in this context, bonhoeffer again emphasizes that his writings are academic without defending the content of his books. “furthermore,” he insists, “anyone who is familiar with my theological writings will realize that they consist of purely inner-theological discussions that have not the slightest to do with the rationale for the ban on public speaking.”49 bonhoeffer does not mention prayerbook in this context, highlighting only the academic nature of his publications. since one must expect a measure of circumspection in correspondence with a nazi agency, this article does not suggest that bonhoeffer would candidly have disclosed all his concerns or reservations to the rsk. indeed, there may be much 43 dbwe 16:187; dbw 16:178. 44 dbwe 16:187. 45 dbwe 16:187. 46 dbwe 16:187. 47 dbwe 16:187. 48 bonhoeffer was informed of the influence of the gestapo on the deliberative process of the rsk, but he seems to have remained unaware of the role of the reich church ministry, since this information was not mentioned in the correspondence from the rsk. 49 dbwe 16:188. clark: dietrich bonhoeffer, prayerbook of the bible 14 below the surface of these letters.50 nonetheless, at least for the purposes of assessing kelly’s argument, what bonhoeffer wrote in this letter is noteworthy; so too is what he did not write. bonhoeffer did not defend—or even allude to—any specific content of his published works. bonhoeffer apparently saw no need to defend what he had written in his books, since the rsk likewise never contested the content of these publications. instead, bonhoeffer focused on what he believed was relevant to his case before the rsk: his academic status, and the academic status of his books, which he (and lempp) expected would release him from the oversight of the chamber. bonhoeffer gave no attention to the content of prayerbook, only briefly noting its brevity and its wissenschaftlich subject matter. having apparently surmised that the actions of the rsk were unrelated to the content of his published works, bonhoeffer saw no need to defend content that was evidently not under scrutiny. 3.5. final decisions of the rsk the final letter from the rsk, dated may 22, 1941, and again issued by ihde, canceled the fine levied against bonhoeffer. it is perhaps unremarkable that the chamber rescinded the fine, since lempp suggested that such reversals were not uncommon. however, what indeed seems remarkable is the admission that the rsk cited as rationale for rescinding the fine: “taking into consideration your counterproposal of april 22, 1941, to my decision of march 17, 1941, i hereby rescind the fine in the amount of thirty reichsmarks in acknowledgment of the absence of guilt and authorize your reimbursement in this amount.”51 the fine was rescinded, the rsk explained, as a recognition of bonhoeffer’s “absence of guilt”! according to kelly, the rsk identified and targeted the pro-jewish and anti-nazi protest of prayerbook, recognizing “the political implications of this book and its exposé of the suffering inflicted by nazism on so many.”52 the documents show, however, that the rsk explicitly absolved bonhoeffer of any culpability. if kelly’s assessment of the rsk were accurate, it is utterly implausible that the chamber would have rescinded the fine, let alone exculpate bonhoeffer. this letter does not discuss the content of bonhoeffer’s books, including prayerbook, but instead clarifies the position of the rsk regarding bonhoeffer’s professional status. at lempp’s recommendation, bonhoeffer had argued that he and his writings were sufficiently scholarly to obviate any need for approval from the rsk. the rsk responded by clarifying that it defined academic writers not according to the content of their books but according to their professional status: when in numeral 2 of my april 1, 1937, notice (revised november 21, 1938) on the registration with the reich chamber of literature of those engaging in writing for publication, i decreed that whoever as a scholar publishes purely 50 i am grateful to an anonymous reader for highlighting this possibility. 51 dbwe 16:189. 52 dbwe 5:153. 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) academic writings in his area of scholarly expertise does not fall within the jurisdiction of the reich chamber of literature, i thereby had in mind the delimitation of areas of jurisdiction between the reich ministry for science, instruction, and education and the ministry for public enlightenment and propaganda, of which my chamber is part. accordingly, only those theologians who are occupants of chairs at state colleges and universities are exempted from membership in my chamber— authors’ group. furthermore, because of their overwhelming dogmatic allegiance, i cannot readily acknowledge clergy as scholars in this sense.53 since bonhoeffer held no academic post at the time, the rsk dismissed bonhoeffer’s argument that he was an academic writing academic works. according to the rsk, one’s status as wissenschaftlich was determined not by scholarly content of publications but by holding an academic position (a stipulation not satisfied simply by having the status of clergy). in other words, the theological writings of a professor were academic, regardless of their content; the theological writings of a nonprofessor (including clergy) were non-academic, likewise regardless of their content. in this way, the rsk removed from consideration the content of bonhoeffer’s books, concentrating on his professional status and deeming irrelevant the wissenschaftlich subject matter of his publications. kelly claims that the rsk reacted to the content of prayerbook; yet, as the rsk excluded from consideration the content of bonhoeffer’s publications, the exchange between bonhoeffer and the rsk could scarcely have had less to do with the content of his books, including prayerbook. thus, since the rsk was—insofar as its proceedings in bonhoeffer’s case— uninterested in the content of bonhoeffer’s books, his protestations that his books were scholarly left the chamber unmoved: your explanations are not, however, sufficient to induce me to rescind or revise my decision of march 19, 1941. the refusal to accept you into the authors’ group of the reich chamber of literature or to confer an exemption remains in force. this refusal has the effect of an official prohibition on writing for publication.54 according to kelly, the rsk at this point “strengthened the prohibition against any further publishing on bonhoeffer’s part.”55 in fact, the rsk did not “strengthen the prohibition,” but only clarified the force and effect of the decision already communicated to bonhoeffer on march 19, 1941. for the rsk to “strengthen the prohibition” in this letter, there would need to be some change from its previous 53 dbwe 16:189-190. 54 dbwe 16:189. 55 kelly, “the prayerbook of the bible,” 36. clark: dietrich bonhoeffer, prayerbook of the bible 16 decisions; there was no such change. this is also the letter in which, kelly contends, the rsk stated “that there were enough dangerous dogmatic and spiritual connections in the book [prayerbook] to make it impossible for the board to accept bonhoeffer’s reasoning.”56 this claim is utterly insupportable, as there is no mention of prayerbook in this letter. there is also no reference in this letter to bonhoeffer’s “dangerous dogmatic and spiritual connections,” nor indeed anything in this letter that resembles the statement that kelly ascribes to the rsk. subsequently, the decision of the rsk was recorded in a document now held in the archives of the bundesarchiv berlin-lichterfelde. dated july 2, 1941, the document is addressed “to the editor of the journal, ‘the writer.’”57 it includes lists of individuals, categorized according to decisions of the rsk regarding their cases. bonhoeffer is listed under this heading: for the following applicants, the application for admission, or issuance of a certificate of exemption, is rejected.58 under this heading, the rsk lists seven applicants, including bonhoeffer, whose information appears as follows: 026055✓59 am 19.3.1941 dietrich bonhoeffer schlawe/pom., koppelstr. 960 the date given for the decision (march 19, 1941) corresponds to the date of the letter bonhoeffer received informing him of the decision. bonhoeffer’s status is listed exactly as he was notified, as having been denied membership or exemption. no further information appears in this document regarding bonhoeffer’s case; there is no mention of prayerbook. 3.6. concluding analysis of kelly’s account bonhoeffer’s exchange with the rsk is well documented, with correspondence originating from the rsk, bonhoeffer, and representatives of two publishers, as well as documentation internal to the rsk. yet nowhere in this correspondence is the content of prayerbook discussed. the title—or, rather, the incorrectly cited subtitle—is mentioned just once by the rsk, and then only in a list among other works. furthermore, the internal documentation of the rsk, including the communications with the reich church ministry reported by barbian, does not mention prayerbook. none of the documentary evidence supports kelly’s claim that the content of prayerbook exerted a decisive role for the rsk. significantly, there is 56 kelly, “the prayerbook of the bible,” 36. 57 barch (berlin-lichterfelde) r 56 v/80 fol. 145. 58 barch (berlin-lichterfelde) r 56 v/80 fol. 146. 59 this number is added by hand and followed by a checkmark. 60 barch (berlin-lichterfelde) r 56 v/80 fol. 146. 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) also no evidence that bonhoeffer himself believed the rsk reacted to the content of his books, including prayerbook; to the contrary, bonhoeffer accused the rsk of not even having his books on hand. rather than supporting kelly’s claim that the rsk acted in response to the content of prayerbook, the evidence indicates that the rsk focused on two considerations: bonhoeffer’s professional status and his political reputation. first, whereas bonhoeffer argued that his books were outside the purview of the rsk by virtue of their academic content, the rsk focused not on whether his books were academic (in terms of content) but on whether he was academic (in terms of professional status). contrary to kelly’s contention that the rsk responded to the contents of prayerbook, the rsk emphasized that bonhoeffer’s professional status—and not the content of his books—was relevant to his case. second, the rsk sought to determine bonhoeffer’s political reliability which, due to the restrictions already imposed by the gestapo, would clearly have been deemed inadequate by an agency of the reich. indeed, it seems likely that bonhoeffer’s history with the gestapo ensured, before this correspondence with the rsk even began, that he would never again publish in nazi germany. kelly’s claim that prayerbook “constituted an explosive declaration both politically and theologically” is further disconfirmed by the notably mild actions of the rsk. had the rsk deemed prayerbook a volcanic anti-nazi protest, as kelly argues, then the response of the chamber would have included aggressive action against the offending publication and its author. at the very least, one would expect the rsk to have deemed prayerbook “harmful and undesirable” (schädlich und unerwünscht)—or, as is perhaps more likely, to have applied that designation to all of bonhoeffer’s works.61 i have found no mention of bonhoeffer in any such lists produced by the rsk.62 instead of banning and destroying copies of prayerbook, the rsk imposed a modest fine, then—following bonhoeffer’s objections—rescinded the fine to acknowledge bonhoeffer’s “absence of guilt.” ultimately, the only action taken against bonhoeffer by the rsk was to refuse him membership or exemption, thereby preventing him from further publishing. if prayerbook were 61 the actions of the rsk in bonhoeffer’s case could be compared, for instance, to its actions regarding emil brunner only seven months prior. in a letter dated august 13, 1940, the rsk communicated the following from ihde’s desk: “re: ban on the complete writings of the swiss theology professor emil brunner. at the instigation of the reich minister for public enlightenment and propaganda, i have classified the complete published writings of the aforementioned in the list of harmful and undesirable literature.” the reason for this action, as stated in a letter dated august 8, 1940, from the reich propaganda ministry to the rsk, was as follows: “brunner has recently agitated against the german reich in an extraordinarily spiteful manner.” rg 242 foreign records seized collection, bdc microfilm/rsk 2108/a3339-rkk-z008, frames 1796 and 1800. if, as kelly argues, the rsk considered prayerbook an anti-nazi diatribe, then we would expect bonhoeffer’s actions to have been deemed, like brunner’s, “extraordinarily spiteful” against the reich, resulting in a similar ban on all of bonhoeffer’s works. no such action resulted from the publication of prayerbook. 62 bonhoeffer does not appear, for instance, in a listing of “harmful and undesirable” literature, dated 1934-1941. rg 242 foreign records seized collection, bdc microfilm/rsk 2108/a3339-rkkz005. clark: dietrich bonhoeffer, prayerbook of the bible 18 anywhere near as “explosive” as kelly claims, then bonhoeffer would have contended with far more severe measures from the rsk than a canceled fine and a declined application. by the standards of the rsk, and the reich agencies with which the rsk communicated and coordinated, the actions taken against bonhoeffer during this exchange were lenient. this was hardly the bristling response of a nazi agency that had unmasked in prayerbook a strident anti-nazi protest; this was the response of an agency that may never have even bothered to obtain—let alone read—a copy of prayerbook. 4. the place of prayerbook in post-holocaust context bonhoeffer’s interactions with the rsk, when examined with attention to the original sources, show that the chamber appeared uninterested in the content of prayerbook; however, beginning with kelly’s argument, this episode has been exaggerated to signify the very opposite, that the rsk fumed at the supposedly projewish and anti-nazi content of prayerbook. yet considering the total absence of historical corroboration for kelly’s argument, a question arises: why has kelly’s historically untenable account proven influential? that is, why does one find kelly’s unsubstantiated and implausible account mirrored, and even magnified, in scholarly contexts? i suggest that kelly’s argument, though it lacks historical credibility, coheres with an appealing narrative of bonhoeffer as heroically pro-jewish and anti-nazi. kelly’s argument, and its appeal, might then be viewed as exemplifying a problematic tendency in readings of bonhoeffer, which is to interpret his life and work through a hagiographical or heroic lens—especially in the context of jewish-christian relations. “perhaps it is not surprising,” stephen r. haynes suggests, “that texts authored by an anti-nazi resister and martyr, texts reputed to mark a path out of the morass of christian anti-judaism, would become the focus of wishful interpretation.”63 however, in order to assess bonhoeffer’s legacy for post-holocaust jewish-christian relations, it remains vital to pursue, in andrew chandler’s phrase, “the quest for the historical dietrich bonhoeffer,” by examining the historical record.64 this pursuit involves attending to narratives of bonhoeffer’s life and actions that are supported not by wishful thinking but by historical evidence, especially since, as victoria j. barnett observes, “popular hagiography has lifted him far beyond that historical record.”65 kelly’s version of bonhoeffer’s engagement with the rsk exemplifies a hagiographical or heroic approach,66 reimagining bonhoeffer’s exchange with the rsk as a fiery confrontation between the dissident author 63 stephen r. haynes, the bonhoeffer legacy: post-holocaust perspectives (minneapolis: fortress press, 2006), 105. 64 andrew chandler, “the quest for the historical dietrich bonhoeffer,” journal of ecclesiastical history 54, no. 1 (january 2003): 89-96. 65 victoria j. barnett, “bonhoeffer is widely beloved. but to fully understand him we should first dial back the hero worship,” washington post, april 9, 2015. 66 haynes observes that “hagiographical impulses are often at work when bonhoeffer is remembered.” haynes, the bonhoeffer phenomenon: portraits of a protestant saint (london: scm press, 2004), xiii. 19 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) of an anti-nazi tract and his seething nazi opponent. as we have seen, the reality supported by historical records is far less dramatic, involving a relatively routine— even bureaucratic—dispute with a nazi agency. furthermore, the historically tethered account of this episode suggests far less obvious implications for jewish-christian relations. if kelly’s claims were correct, and the rsk had indeed reacted harshly to an “exposé of the suffering inflicted by nazism on so many” that bonhoeffer unleashed in prayerbook, then this treatment of the psalms could—as an “explosive” exegetical protest—carry significant implications for bonhoeffer’s place in post-holocaust jewish-christian conversations. however, since the historical record does not indicate any correlation between the content of prayerbook and the actions of the rsk, any such inquiry must shift away from the nazi reception of prayerbook to focus instead on the text. that is, if prayerbook is indeed significant for bonhoeffer’s place in postholocaust jewish-christian conversations, then this significance must be demonstrated with reference to the text itself and not by recourse to a fictionalized account of the response of nazi authorities. that text, however, is a radically christological interpretation of the psalms, which could be viewed—in 1940 or now—as an erasure of jewish readers of the jewish scriptures.67 interpreters of bonhoeffer may therefore be left with hard questions regarding the troubling practice, initiated by kelly and replicated by others, of presenting an exclusively christian interpretation of the psalms, written during the holocaust, as a heroic act.68 in this context, haynes cites john conway’s insight: “largely because [bonhoeffer] seemed to be the one ‘good german’ whose witness could be held up for unstinting praise, and whose heroic martyrdom vindicated these ideas, we have numerous publications of his life and thought of the hagiographical kind.” conway, “coming to terms with the past: interpreting the german church struggles 19331990,” german history 16, no. 3 (1998): 382. haynes also observes that “images of a heroic anti-nazi resistor figure largely in literary accounts of bonhoeffer’s life.” haynes, “readings and receptions,” in the oxford handbook of dietrich bonhoeffer, ed. michael mawson and philip g. ziegler (oxford: oxford university press, 2019), 476. 67 see walter harrelson, “bonhoeffer and the bible,” in the place of bonhoeffer: problems and possibilities in his thought, ed. martin e. marty (london: scm, 1963), 129-130. 68 i thank the staff of the handschriftenabteilung at the staatsbibliothek zu berlin, including dr. monika linder, for generous and kind assistance. the staff of the bundesarchiv berlin-lichterfelde offered valuable guidance, as did the staff of the microfilm reading room at the us national archives in college park, maryland. i thank the priests of the missionary servants of the most holy trinity, who hosted me during my research in maryland. i gratefully acknowledge funding from the anne tanenbaum centre for jewish studies at the university of toronto, which made possible my archival work through two research and travel grants. borders and beyond: priests and laity, jews and christians studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): korn cp1-11 korn, borders and beyond korn cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 borders and beyond: priests and laity, jews and christians eugene korn, institute for theological inquiry of the center for jewish-christian understanding and cooperation presented at the providence college catholic-jewish theological colloquium, march 18, 2010 as pope benedict has proclaimed 2010 as ―the year of the priest,‖ it is appropriate for both christians and jews to reflect on what meaning the priesthood continues to hold for us today. perhaps no other institution is more dissonant with our contemporary democratic and egalitarian culture than is the priesthood. does it have any constructive role to play in shaping and influencing modern religious life, not only for priests and the ecclesiastical hierarchies themselves, but also for the faithful laity of each community? it is also important to probe to what degree the priesthood—which historically functioned as a prime border-constructing institution both intra-religiously (i.e., separating holy priests from laypersons within the same community) and inter-religiously (i.e., separating our community from those outside our faith) 1 —has implications for relations between christians and jews today and in the future. do the concepts of priesthood and its call to holiness militate against closer relations between us or can they somehow shed light on our commonalities and interrelated missions? we should not play the role of revolutionary greenwich village theologians. whatever the answers are to the above questions, they need to emerge from an honest and authentic examination of our respective traditions about priests and the priesthood. this does not preclude us finding fresh and constructive new answers for the future, for a theologically consistent extension of past teachings need not be confined to the ways our forefathers lived these concepts in the empirical past. in this context, i offer a thesis touching on both the formal legal institution as well as the spiritual aspirations of the priesthood in judaism. the jewish priesthood: definitions and preliminaries jewish priests—―kohanim‖ in hebrew—are central functionaries in the divine services and other tasks mandated in jewish scriptures, particularly in the pentateuch, the five books of moses from genesis through deuteronomy. jews know these sacred books as torah. 2 for the most 1 ―holy nation‖ implies separation from other communities. the hebrew term qedushah (holiness) connotes separation by definition. 2 torah means ―teaching‖ in hebrew. tragically, it was translated into the greek as nomos and has been often understood pejoratively in christian tradition as ―law.‖ yet jews never understood torah as solely law, but as a combination of ethics, law and narrative. it is not a dry legal code, but the fount of living waters that has always sustained judaism and the jewish people. conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): korn cp1-11 korn, borders and beyond korn cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 part, jewish scriptures delineate priests as a distinct class of males separate from the rest of the jewish people, and establishes that priestly status derives from paternal heredity. that is, according to the bible and jewish tradition, one is a kohen if—and only if—his father is a kohen. priests were common to many ancient near east cultures and religions, and it is clear that the specific jewish institution of priesthood had its basis in the practices of non-jewish cultures of biblical times. for example, genesis 14:18-20 tells us of melchizedek, king of salem, who was a priest. joseph married the daughter of the egyptian priest of on (gn 41:45) and moses‘ fatherin-law, jethro, was a midianite priest (ex 2:16). the biblical establishment of the jewish priesthood is a prime example of the general methodology of the torah. it utilizes institutions and practices common to the pagan cultures surrounding the israelites, but transforms them, striving to purify them of their idolatrous or immoral elements before commanding them to the israelite nation. evidently, the god of the bible was a superb pedagogue. (s)he understood that the historical people of israel could not radically divorce themselves from all the cultural forms around them and to which they were accustomed. hence, god mandated a new religion for israel by using old forms and investing them with different norms and meanings. 3 the ancient egyptian priests often were seen as possessing divine character. they often owned large tracts of egyptian land, which led to their economic domination over lay egyptians. they were also in charge of death rituals, embalming and burials—which gave them enormous power leading to all sorts of political and spiritual extortion over lay egyptians, who, like us were very much concerned with gaining immortality. (how much would you pay someone to guarantee you immortal life?) jewish priests, too, had a special holiness, but they were never considered anything other than human administrators. and unlike the pagan priests, they were not permitted to own land or have any contact with the dead. their place was in the temple, and both cadavers and graves were forbidden from being anywhere within the temple precincts. contact with the dead rendered the kohen ritually impure and disqualified him from performing any temple ritual. one can see evidence of this ancient prohibition in jerusalem today. the location of the large ancient jewish cemetery on the mount of olives was chosen because jews wished to enter the temple precincts quickly after being resurrected in the messianic era. they were forbidden from being buried in the temple itself, so the cemetery was placed in the most proximate location— the mount of olives. thus did the torah succeed in circumscribing the power the kohen had over non-priestly israelites. as administrators, jewish priests are referred to as ministrants of god (is 61:6; jer 33:21–22; jl 1:9, 2:17, 13; et al.). more importantly, as ezekiel 44:16 indicates, their purpose is to draw others nearer to god and to worship of the holy one. in other words, kohanim are merely conduits or channels that aid the striving of every jew to reach god. who qualifies for the priesthood is a perennial question amongst biblical scholars. only the male progeny of the first high priest, aaron, who is descended from the tribal father, levi? all levites? every male israelite? on this point the biblical laws appear contradictory, but the answer is pregnant with theological and spiritual significance, which i will probe later. 3 other examples of how the bible achieved these institutional transformations are: (1) how it largely purged ancient slavery of its inhumane elements, making it in actuality a form of severely circumscribed indentured servitude, (2) how it transformed the pagan practice of animal sacrifices, limiting it to prevent the spread of idolatrous worship in israel (on this case, see moses maimonides, guide of the perplexed, iii:32.), and (3) how it abolished ancient ―honor killings‖ of female relatives suspected of sexual misconduct by establishing a legal procedure for the suspected adulteress (nm 5:11–31). providentially, even these ameliorated institutions later disappeared completely from jewish religious life. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): korn cp1-11 korn, borders and beyond korn cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 the functions of jewish priests 4 the priests were mainly concerned with the temple ritual in jerusalem, but they were not solely limited to it. in general, we can identify four types of priestly functions: (1) temple cultic functions, (2) mantic functions, that is, functions concerned with solving mysteries of the future or the past and making decisions in uncertain cases through revealing the divine will, (3) treatment of impurities and diseases—such as leprosy—that involved special ceremonies, and (4) judging, teaching and blessing the people. 1. temple cultic functions. the most prominent function of jewish biblical priests was to offer sacrifices on the altar that stood in the temple court. the priests' activities in this ceremony are described in detail at the beginning of the book of leviticus and they fall into two major functions: sprinkling sacrificial blood on the altar and burning portions of sacrifices. these functions were normally performed by the ordinary priests. aaron, the high priest, did not participate in this function except when special sacrifices were brought by all the priests themselves—such as the sacrifices of the eighth day of investiture, described in leviticus 9; the daily offering sacrificed from the day of consecration (lv 6:12-15), and the sin offerings whose blood is brought into the inner temple (lv 4:3–21, 16:3–25). significantly, the high priest plays the central role in the ritual of the holiest day of the year, yom kippur, the day of atonement. on that occasion, the high priest is the one who administers the sin offerings and who enters the holy of holies to ask for atonement for the people of israel. atonement comes from god after sincere repentance by the sinners, and the high priest is only what we would call today, a ―facilitator.‖ a second priestly duty was to sound trumpets on special occasions, such as the pilgrimage festivals and the consecration of the new moon. 5 the trumpets served as reminders of the sacrifices of israel before god (nm 10:10). on the day of atonement in the jubilee year, it was obligatory to blow a shofar—a trumpet, which was a ram's horn—throughout the land (lv 25:9), and on the rosh hashanah, the new year, it was obligatory to carry out a "memorial blowing" (lv 23:24; nm 29:1). today, jews still blow the shofar every year on rosh hashanah in every synagogue, but it may be blown by any jew, not only a kohen. another priestly function in this category was carrying the ark that contained the scroll of the torah when israel traveled through the desert before entering the land of canaan, and postentry before the temple was built in jerusalem. deuteronomy (10:8, 25, 31:9) mentions this as one of the distinguishing features of priesthood. and in all the transportations of the ark during the period of the conquest, scriptures mention that the "priests, sons of levi," were its ―bearers‖ (jos 3:3–17; 4:3, 8:33, 9–10, 16–18). other priestly temple functions included burning the frankincense on the altar (ex 30:7-9), caring for the lamps (ex 27:20-21; lv 24:1-4; nm 8:1-3), and setting out the showbread on the altartable (lv 24:5–9). (if this is reminiscent of church ritual today, it is no coincidence.) the inner system of priestly temple ceremonies is rooted in the fundamental conception of the temple as god's dwelling place, in which the holy one, in some mysterious and metaphorical way, "lives." 4 for a more elaborate description of these four priestly categories, see encyclopedia judaica, ―priests.‖ 5 the hebrew calendar is a lunar one, and each new moon was celebrated as a quasi-holiday. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): korn cp1-11 korn, borders and beyond korn cp 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 2. mantic functions. according to numbers 27:21, in cases of difficult questions or policy such as deciding to embark on an optional war, the high priest was to consult the urim v‘tumim—the jewel stones located on the breastplate of the high priest (ex 28:30; lv 8:8). in order to obtain a reply, the high priest must enter with the urim v‘tumim "before god," that is, into the sanctum sanctorum, or qodesh ha-qedoshim. the use of the urim v‘tumim was common in the ancient israelite priesthood, but it seems from ezra 2 and nehemiah 7 that by the second temple period, the urim v‘tumim had been entirely forgotten, and the returnees to zion in 6th century bce did not know how to reinstate them. the urim v‘tumim were consulted when it was necessary to decide between two contradictory possibilities, and a yes or no answer was received. solution by lots was needed in more complex situations, such as the division of allocated areas of the promised land to the tribes of israel. the most famous decision by lots was the selection of the scapegoat of the day of atonement, in which the high priest did the casting (lv 16:7-10). priests would also conduct ordeals to resolve doubtful cases. these ceremonies were held by the priest in the court of the sanctuary. one example is the case of a suspected adulteress as described in numbers 5:11-31. this practice was also discontinued even before the temple was destroyed. 3. treatment of impurity: purification and apotropaic rites. in the ancient near east, diseases and plagues were viewed not simply as an organic-physiological phenomena, but embodiments of inner spiritual defects coming to rest in the body. healing was performed either by waiting until the impurity left the body or by purification rituals to hasten its exit. the bible instructs that priests are the ones to deal with these impurities or diseases. a prophet could heal leprosy, but only by some miraculous action (nm 12:13; 2 kgs 5:1–15; cf. ex 4:6–8). but the regular and systematic cure was in the hands of the priests. deuteronomy (24:8 cf. 21:5) admonishes the people to follow carefully the instructions of the priests pertaining to these matters. this aspect of priestly activity is described in biblical passages dealing with impurities of animals and carcasses (lv 11), leprosy (lv 13-14), bodily emissions (lv 15), and laws concerning impurity of the dead (nm 19). 4. judging, teaching, and blessing the people. kohanim also judged. although this was generally a function of the elders and heads of families, in some towns, priests would participate in judging together with the elders. if a difficult case required higher expertise, deuteronomy (17:8– 13) enjoins the litigants to go up to the chosen city (i.e., jerusalem) and be judged there, although the assumption is that judging there is in the hands of both the priests and the judges (dt 17:9, 19:17). deuteronomy 21:5 requires that "every law suit" be decided by the priests, but this seems to be only a generalized mode of speech. apparently the description contained in deuteronomy essentially reflects actual historical reality according to which the priests participated in judicial authority. as a piece of history, i samuel 4:18 tells us that eli the priest achieved the status of a great judge of israel. ezekiel says of the priests that "in controversy they shall act as judges" (ez 44:24). importantly, the priests also served as teachers of torah to the people. this function is mentioned as early as the blessing of moses found in deuteronomy 33:10: ―they shall teach jacob thy ordinances, and israel thy torah. they shall put incense before thy nostrils, and whole burntoffering upon thy altar.‖ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): korn cp1-11 korn, borders and beyond korn cp 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 individual priests rotated their service time in the temple, with each deployment lasting only three months of the calendar year. the talmud contends that in the other nine months of the year, the kohanim taught torah to the people. sometimes the priests' teaching did not exist as a special institution, but was a by-product of their other activities. thus, torah followed from the legal and moral discussions held before the priests (dt 17:11, 33:10). torah was also taught by way of guidance given by the priests to the people in matters of impurities and diseases (dt 24:8; hg 2:11ff.). indeed, the various types of laws of impurity themselves were called ―torah‖ (lv 11:46, 13:59, et al.) and were to be learned by the public (lv 10:10–1). related to this teaching function, the priests were entrusted with preserving the scrolls of the torah. the final—and for our purposes most significant—function of the kohanim was offering blessings to the people. the mandate to bless the people occurs on different occasions and in a number of places in the bible (lv 9:22; dt 27:12–26; jos 8:33–34), but most prominently in the imperative found in numbers 6:24–26. says the lord: thus you shall bless the children of israel: ―may the lord bless you and keep you; may the lord cause his face to shine on you and be gracious to you; may the lord lift up his countenance upon you and grant you peace." so they are to invoke my name upon the israelites, and i will bless them. this blessing was recited every morning in the temple. it is important to stress that the text of this blessing clearly indicates that blessing comes through the priest, not from the priest. it is god—and god alone—who is the source of all blessing. the priest is merely a conduit of that divine gift that god bestows upon his children. the priesthood after the destruction of the temple when the romans destroyed the second jerusalem temple in 70 ce, of course the temple sacrifices and purity/impurity rituals were discontinued. as a result, the cultic, mantic and purity/impurity functions of the kohanim also came to an end. concurrent with this was a democratization process throughout jewish religious life. the pharisees and their tradition, from which jesus emerged and which later became normative rabbinic judaism, de-emphasized hereditary privilege in jewish society. merit—particularly that of torah scholarship—eclipsed authority derived from pedigree. the famous pharisaic statement, ―a learned bastard takes priority over the ignorant high priest‖ (mamzer talmid hakham kodem l‘kohen gadol am ha‘arets) 6 became the religious and social organizational principle after the temple was destroyed. moreover, the primary teaching function in israel was transferred to the pharisaic rabbis. however, a few priestly functions—as opposed to enduring priestly restrictions and privileges— did continue and persist until today. the most prominent is the act of contemporary kohanim blessing the people of israel. 7 today in the diaspora, during every major holiday the kohanim of each jewish community rise, cover themselves with their prayer shawls, spread out their arms and fingers in a special configuration, and bless the community with the beautiful blessing from numbers 6. again: 6 mishnah horayot, 3:8. 7 a second enduring priestly function is the redemption of first born jewish males, in accordance with numbers 3:45, numbers 8:17, and numbers 18:16. see also luke 2:22-24. http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20numbers&verse=3:45&src=he http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20numbers&verse=8:17&src=he http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20numbers&verse=18:16&src=he studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): korn cp1-11 korn, borders and beyond korn cp 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 may the lord bless you and keep you; may the lord cause his face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you; may the lord lift up his countenance upon you and grant you peace. in response to each part of the threefold blessing, the community responds ―may it be thy will.‖ in the land of israel, the kohanim perform this function each and every sabbath in addition to the holidays. and in jerusalem, the holiest of jewish places, the priests recite it every day at the end of the morning service. it is precisely this practice of priestly blessing that provides a key to the essence of the eternal importance of the priesthood. indeed, i believe that it illuminates the divine mission of all israel— and perhaps even christianity—in sacred history. i would like to explore this with you for the remainder of this proceeding. the priestly blessing today i mentioned earlier that there is a question about who the bible regards as fit for priestly function: only the particular subset of the jewish people who are sons of aaron from the tribe of levi and their descendants, or every israelite? the most important place where the bible implies that all of israel should function as priests is exodus 19:5-6. immediately before revelation at sinai, god and the jewish people commit themselves to be partners in the mosaic covenant. god proclaims: if you will faithfully obey me and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all people. all the earth is mine, but you shall be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. the implication of this idea is revolutionary. if the function of a priest is to bestow god‘s blessings upon others, and all israel is to be a ―kingdom of priests,‖ then it can only be the gentile nations of the world who israel is called upon to bless. hence some traditional jewish theologians like rabbis obadiah ben jacob seforno 8 and samson raphael hirsch 9 identified this sinaitic priestly calling as the mandate to spread blessing by teaching the world about god and divine moral values. indeed, this universal calling is the meaning of jewish election at sinai, the very reason for israel‘s covenant and religious existence. one early 20th century rabbinic authority, naftali zvi yehudah berlin, went so far as to claim that in establishing the covenant with israel at sinai, god completed his plan for all of creation that began in genesis. 10 election of israel is the culmination of creation, not because jews are the center of the universe, but because sinai charged the jewish people to be teachers of all humanity, instructing all people of god‘s authority over creation and his moral rules for human social order. in other words, israel was created for the world, not the world for israel. the prophet isaiah poetically expresses in god‘s name this same universal calling of israel: 8 15 th -16 th italy; his commentary ad loc. 9 18 th century germany; his commentary ad loc. 10 his commentary on the pentateuch, ha-ameq davar, introduction to the book of exodus. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): korn cp1-11 korn, borders and beyond korn cp 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 i will establish you as a covenant of the people, for a light of the nations…behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and a thick darkness the nations. but god will shine upon you. nations shall then go by your light and kings by your illumination (42:6, 60:2-3). the jewish ―nation of priests‖ will illuminate the world. the nexus of priesthood and universal blessing cogently explains the spiritual connection between abraham, who is understood by jewish tradition as the first jew and who the rabbis identified as a type of priest, 11 with his later descendants who became obligated in the mosaic commandments after revelation at sinai. god‘s original charge to abraham in genesis 12:2-3 was to ―be a blessing, and through you all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.‖ what is the content of this blessing, of this light? jewish theological tradition understood abraham to have assumed the responsibility to be the witness to god‘s presence in heaven and on earth, 12 and, as indicated in genesis 18:19: ―to teach the way of the lord, to do righteousness and justice‖ (tsedakah u-mishpat). that is, abraham, his immediate family and his descendants for eternity—the jewish people—are tasked with the mission of bringing god‘s blessing to all of humanity and the divine light of the fundamental moral values of righteousness and justice to every corner of creation. drawing on this jewish concept, the catholic church likewise considers herself to have assumed this collective priestly function. this is clear in the first letter of peter (i pt 2:9), who stated that the whole church is ―a chosen race, a royal priesthood.‖ this idea was reiterated in the second vatican council‘s document, lumen gentium (light of the nations): ―the baptized, by regeneration and anointing of the holy spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood.‖ 13 can judaism possibly agree to this claim of priesthood by the church? does it not inevitably require conceding that the jewish people have been superseded by the church as god‘s chosen people? does it also not entail dropping the fervent jewish conviction that the jewish people are still in living covenant with the creator of heaven and earth? i believe that judaism can—and should--agree to this claim of the church, even while jews must insist that, qua jews, they remain in living covenant with god. it is noteworthy that a number of rabbinical authorities and jewish thinkers in the modern era— all quite ―orthodox,‖ i may add—have described the historical influence and mission of christianity as identical to the original mission of abraham, namely bringing the presence of god and his transcendent morality to the world. here are two examples: 11 midrash aggadah (buber ed.) on gn 12:3. 12 the early rabbinic interpretation (midrash, sifre, ha’azinu 313) states that ―before abraham, god was called ‗god of the heavens‘; after abraham, people called him ‗god of the heavens and the earth.‘‖ that is, abraham taught people that god was present in human affairs. the rabbis derived the midrash from the text of gn 24:2-3, in which abraham requires that his gentile servant, eliezer, swear ―by the lord, the god of heaven and earth.‖ since christianity adopted this idea of religious purpose and popularized the term ―witness,‖ jews have shied away from using it. however, ne ither god nor isaiah hesitated to do so in reference to the jewish people and their mission. through isaiah, god calls israel ―my witnesses‖ (is 43:11-12). 13 dogmatic constitution on the church lumen gentium, november 21, 1964, chapter ii, section 10 found at http://www.scborromeo.org/docs/lumen_gentium.pdf. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): korn cp1-11 korn, borders and beyond korn cp 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 rabbi jacob emden in 18th century germany stated: christians removed idols (from the nations) and obligated them in the seven moral commandments of noah so that they would not behave like animals of the field. christians instilled firmly the nations with moral traits…the goal of christians [and moslems] is to promote godliness among the nations...to make known that there is a ruler in heaven and earth. 14 and rabbi samson raphael hirsch in 19th century germany proclaimed: the peoples in whose midst the jews are now living [i.e., christians] have accepted the jewish bible of the old testament as a book of divine revelation. they profess their belief in the god of heaven and earth as proclaimed in the bible and they acknowledge the sovereignty of divine providence...judaism produced an offshoot [christianity]…in order to bring to the world—sunk in idol worship, violence, immorality and the degradation of man—at least the tidings of the one alone. 15 where would the world be without christianity and its vast influence? still steeped in rank idolatry and pagan immorality, according to these rabbinic leaders. in effect, these rabbis saw christianity as playing a role in the covenantal calling that god made to abraham, that he function as a priest and bring blessing to all the nations of the earth: ―through you all of the nations of the earth shall be blessed!‖ (gn 12:3). if this is so, jews can view christians as partners in conveying the priestly blessing of divinity and morality to the world. in this conception, christians and jews would co-exist as two independent ―nations of priests,‖ each working differently toward the same end of god‘s plan for sacred history. this is a new claim for jewish theology and a relatively new claim for christian theology, which until recently had always insisted that the church had superseded and completely replaced the jewish people as the people of god. jews and christians: priests to the world if we are true to the bible‘s account of abraham and god‘s challenge to him, we must admit that the bible does not portray abraham as a theologian. 16 it describes abraham as a man of faith, of action and of morality. his calling as priest, therefore, should above all denote a commitment to practical action in sacred human history. and it is precisely today that the practical teachings of abraham and our priestly calling to the world are particularly urgent. at the dawn of the 21st century, human beings face awesome and terrifying possibilities. we have the tools to improve and protect human life as never before—and we have the means to destroy all human life and god‘s creation. civilization as we know it stands on the edge of a precipice. our values, choices and behavior will spell the difference between a future of blessing 14 seder olam rabbah 35-37; sefer ha-shimush 15-17. 15 nineteen letters on judaism, edited and annotated by joseph elias (jerusalem: feldheim, 1995). it is because hirsch believed that the fulfillment of god‘s covenant as spreading the reality of god throughout the world constituted the telos of sacred history that he could claim that christianity [and islam] ―represented a major step in bringing the world closer to the goal of all history.‖ see his commentary on ex 19:6. 16 in a remarkable transvaluation of the biblical text, maimonides sees abraham primarily as a theologian and rational philosopher, ala socrates. see his mishneh torah, laws of idolatry 1:1-3. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): korn cp1-11 korn, borders and beyond korn cp 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 and a hellish future in which the world descends into its primordial chaos. after witnessing the nazi holocaust, the genocides and democides of the past century, any naiveté or complacency on our part are religious sins. the horrors of the 20th century have taught us that radical evil was real then, and it remains an ever-present potentiality for today and the future. as partners exercising priestly function, the ethical imperative ―to do the right and the good,‖ must be foremost in our behavior and theology. we must understand deeply that there is no justification for any teleological suspension of the ethical—whether the telos is theological, political, financial or personal. the moral imperative, as both the bible and kant insisted 17 , must be categorical. a number of troubling signs powerfully dominate our cultural and political landscapes. postmodern secularism has created a pervasive value-orientation whose foundations contain the seeds from which destructive forces can again grow. hedonism drives much of contemporary life and ethos. violence saturates our media and popular culture, sometimes appearing as merely another justified form of pleasure. this contributes to the evisceration of moral concern and the numbing of individual conscience, both of which are essential to human flourishing and individual dignity. moral utilitarianism has also made a comeback in contemporary academia and high culture. in this ethic, human life possesses no intrinsic value. individual human life too often becomes a commodity to be traded—and sometimes even discarded. this moral philosophy shares the nazi denial of the fundamental axiom of judeo-christian ethics, namely that all persons are created in imago dei, god's image, and hence that each person‘s life has non-quantifiable sacred value. because relativism has become one of the most accepted moral theories in our time, objectivity and moral absolutes are under ferocious attack. the belief that there is no objective bar by which to measure human actions easily slips into the belief that there is no bar at all for valid moral judgment. and from there, it is but a small step to the denial of ethics entirely. in the political theater, a radical and intolerant islamist monism has grown into a common threat to judaism and christianity and to moderate muslims around the world as well. it denies jewish and christian legitimacy in the middle east and by implication tolerance of all religious diversity. finally, irrational religious extremism has become a potent force in both world politics and religious identity. although the 21st century is but in its infancy, we have already seen too much violence and mass slaughter committed in the name of god. all these phenomena are frightening dangers and call jews and christians to joint action. today, jews and christians play an essential role in sacred god‘s plan for human progress in history—indeed for the survival of humanity. we do this together by being nations of priests and bearing public witness to god and his values. as partners in abraham‘s priestly mission, we are spiritually obligated to heed the divine call of bringing blessing to the world and to be charismatic peoples, message bearing peoples. here is how i see our common testimony: 1. there is a spiritual center to the universe because the world was created by a loving god, who is intimately involved in human lives and who yearns to redeem his children. jews and christians should be unembarrassed about teaching this reality, as was abraham when he taught his peers about ―the god of heaven and earth.‖ 17 groundwork of metaphysic of morals, translated by mary gregor (cambridge university press, 1998). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): korn cp1-11 korn, borders and beyond korn cp 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 2. as the creator of all, god is the transcendent authority over human life, and he establishes the validity of moral values. although sometimes difficult to apply, moral values are neither relative nor human conventions, but intrinsic parts of the universe that are essential for human flourishing. the fundamental moral values of righteousness and justice must remain primary to all human endeavors. 3. all persons are created in imago dei, the image of god, and every human being has intrinsic sanctity that derives from this transcendent quality. therefore all persons possess inherent dignity and much be treated as such. moreover, the spiritual essence of each person ensures that individual human life is not a process of biological decay toward death but a journey of spiritual growth toward life. because human life has this transcendent character, human worth cannot be measured solely in utilitarian, social or materialistic terms. and because every person is created in the divine image, any assault on innocent human life is an assault on god that diminishes the divine presence in our world. 4. abraham learned from his trial of the binding of isaac that god loves human life and abhors death. thus, abraham‘s covenantal children must teach that killing innocent persons in the name of god is contrary to the god of our scriptures, and all forms of religious violence are idolatries that the world must reject. 5. as abraham defended justice and righteousness before the destruction of sodom and gomorrah, his children are duty bound to teach social justice and display individual righteousness. it was only abraham‘s moral protest to god and concern for the moral treatment of others that distinguished his righteousness from noah‘s self-righteousness, and that earned him the privilege to be the father of god‘s covenantal people. our commitment to justice and righteousness for all human creatures is the test of our fidelity to our priestly calling that is designed to bring peace and harmony to the world. 6. lastly, as faithful christians and jews believing in messianic history, we must teach the eternal possibility of human progress and moral reform. we cannot fall prey to pessimism, nihilism or a malthusian acceptance of war, disease and oppression as permanent features of human destiny. 18 hope in possibility of a peaceful humanity is the meaning of our messianic belief. critical theological differences remain—and should always remain—between judaism and christianity. yet both of our faiths demand belief in messianic history and action to make our world a place where god can enter. we share the priestly task to bless the world, to make it a better place, where moral values are real, where human affairs reflect a spiritual center, and where every human life is endowed with meaning. the prophet micah offers a stunning description of that time when history culminates in the blessings of the messianic era: let us go up to the mountain of the lord and the god of jacob, that he teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths.…let all the peoples beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. nations shall not lift up sword against nation, nor shall they learn war anymore. let every man sit under his vine and under his fig tree; 18 thomas malthus, an essay on the principle of population (norton & company, 2003). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): korn cp1-11 korn, borders and beyond korn cp 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 and no one shall make him afraid….let all the people walk, each in the name of his god; and we shall walk in the name of our lord our god forever and ever (4:2-5). if jews and christians work together in this priestly calling and become partners after nearly 2,000 years of theological delegitimization and physical conflict, then peace and harmony is possible between any two peoples anywhere on earth. that peace would be our most powerful witness to god‘s presence in history and to the fulfillment of our calling to carry god‘s blessing to the world. indeed, this holy partnership is the very stuff of which the messianic dream is made. 1 scjr 17, no. 1 (2022): 1-17 reorienting “settled identities”: rethinking a course on jewish-christian relations mary c. boys shuly rubin schwartz mboys@uts.columbia.edu shschwartz@jtsa.edu union theological seminary jewish theological seminar of america new york, ny 10027 new york, ny 10027 over the course of the last decade, we have been co-teaching courses for students of our two seminaries, union theological seminary (uts) and the jewish theological seminary of america (jts), which lie across broadway from one another on manhattan’s upper west side. most recently, we taught “studies in jewish-christian relations” in spring 2020 amidst the initial irruption of covid19 that brought devastating illness and death, upended social interactions, and disrupted in-person learning. the planning sessions that we had found so personally enriching now took place via zoom rather than over lunch or a glass of wine at day’s end. and yet “remote” though we were by mid-march 2020, we have continued to ponder how best to approach the course’s complex topics that are typically layered with emotional freight. now, from the vantage point of two years’ distance, we reflect on our experience in the hopes that our analysis might offer greater clarity for those who might envision teaching such a course. in particular, we take note of how more sustained attentiveness to a conceptual scaffolding might have clarified the complex developments of the first centuries ce so decisive in establishing a pattern that has endured for nearly two millennia of relations between jews and christians and that is only in the contemporary period under reassessment. thus, in this essay, we are both describing salient aspects of our course and thinking “out loud” how we might revise it. part i of our reflection situates the recent iteration of our course in context as we planned and taught it. after offering a brief overview of the course, we turn in part ii to a focus on the early class sessions in which we were particularly mindful of establishing critical foundational ideas. in part iii we step back to reassesses those first sessions in light of the literature on “threshold concepts” as well as the ever-developing scholarship on the interconnections in the evolving processes by which “judaism” and “christianity” emerged. a brief conclusion identifies other areas that would also benefit from more sustained attention to an explicit conceptual framework. boys and schwartz: reorienting “settled identities” 2 i. overview: confronting history in the presence of the other we first taught “studies in jewish-christian relations” january-may 2018 in the wake of the “unite the right” rally in charlottesville, virginia on august 11, 2017. by the time we began to redesign the course for spring 2020, the climate in our nation had grown even more toxic, with racial division and antisemitism intensifying amidst growing partisanship, cynicism, disinformation, and mistrust. the attack in october 2018 on the three congregations housed in the tree of life synagogue in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, and six months later on the chabad of poway, california, heightened our sense of responsibility to educate future religious leaders to understand and to counter antisemitism and its related bigotry, racism. these events sharpened our conviction that the course constituted a case study in how cultural and religious differences can give rise to disparagement of the other, and how power imbalances and societal crises often fuel binary oppositional identity, often with tragic consequences. at the same time, we believe that learning about the gradual but real healing in jewish-christian relations over the past sixty years has considerable potential to inspire course participants to join in this transformative work as religious professionals. we organized our course chronologically, probing the historical, socio-cultural, and theological forces that have shaped relations between our two traditions since the first century ce.1 typically, we discussed primary texts in each class session, virtually always through the lenses of selected secondary literature. in studying early antiquity, we focused on the gospel of matthew and then on primary texts from early church and proto-rabbinic writings. in the medieval period we used christian art and the crusader chronicles as primary “texts.”2 in looking at important developments in the sixteenth century, we juxtaposed texts by luther (“on the jews and their lies,” 1543) with an analysis of the roman ghetto (1555-1870).3 in surveying the enlightenment, we focused on the emergence of racial antisemitism, a prelude to our study of the shoah.4 we arranged for a curated tour of an 1 our class met for three hours each week and was scheduled for twelve sessions overall. because of the pandemic we ultimately had only ten sessions. we limited enrollment to fifteen students from each school so as to keep parity of traditions. all readings and other resources (e.g., websites and videos) were posted to our learning management platform, moodle. 2 see sara lipton, dark mirror: the medieval origins of anti-jewish iconography (new york: henry holt, 2014). the illustrations of her book are available at https://static.macmillan.com/static/holt/darkmirror/chapter3.html. 3 see james carroll, “the roman ghetto,” in constantine’s sword (boston: houghton mifflin, 2001), 363-384. in both iterations of the session on luther, we have assigned excerpts from heidi neumark’s poignant memoir, hidden inheritance: family secrets, memory, and faith (nashville: abingdon, 2015). she wrestles with her relatively recent discovery of previously unknown jewish family in germany, most of whom lost their lives in the concentration camps, and how these discoveries affected her vocation as a lutheran pastor. both times we have taught the course, pastor neumark has also spoken to our class. 4 for analysis of the enlightenment’s linkage of racism and antisemitism, see j. kameron carter, race: a theological account (oxford: oxford university press, 2008), esp. 79-121. for another linkage, see beverly mitchell, plantations and death camps: religion, ideology, and human dignity (minneapolis: fortress, 2009). https://static.macmillan.com/static/holt/dark-mirror/chapter3.html https://static.macmillan.com/static/holt/dark-mirror/chapter3.html 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) outstanding exhibit, “auschwitz: not long ago. not far away” at the museum of jewish heritage for a class session in late march.5 in the final sessions, we pondered whether jews saw their experience in the united states as “exceptional,” studied the emergence of zionism and the founding of israel in conversation with a critique of christian liberation theology, examined the significance of vatican ii for ecumenical and interreligious relations, offered an overview of scholarship on jewish-christian relations, and ended with discussion of the document “a time for recommitment: the twelve points of berlin” from the international council of christians and jews (2009).6 in terms of course participants, our experience in co-teaching has enabled us to develop some assumptions about what to anticipate when students from our two seminaries learn together. obviously, each course forms its own particular culture, but the following generalizations helped to shape the pedagogical strategies we used. in our experience, the jts students are far more conversant with the history of relations with christianity than their counterparts at union, while having little familiarity with christian beliefs and practices. some are understandably wary about studying with christians and mystified by the array of denominations. uts students who have grown up in a church (albeit, a smaller proportion of the student body than a decade ago) generally assume they know something about judaism because they have acquaintance with the old testament and know that jesus was jewish; typically, what they know is over-simplified, if not an outright distortion. international students often have never met a jew. most uts students lack awareness of christianity’s anti-jewish teachings, though with many students of color and the school’s activist reputation, they are keenly aware of racism and engaged in anti-racist work; christianity’s sinful oppression of the “other” is not a new revelation. we experienced several memorable sessions at the midpoint of the 2018 course in which the different knowledge level regarding christian anti-jewish teachings made for some tense sessions. having recently confronted some of the anti-jewish writings of early christian writers and a couple of weeks later the crusader chronicles, the discussion of martin luther’s “on the jews and their lies” became quite tense. a few jts students began to express barely controlled anger; for the most part, uts students, cognizant that this anger had been building for weeks, were paralyzed with guilt. they simply had no idea of how deep and wide christianity’s anti-jewish teaching were—and confronting it in the presence of jews was all the more disturbing. we spent a fair amount of time talking with students outside of class. yet as we were in the final third of the course, the tension largely dissipated—primarily because students had simultaneously begun working closely together on projects and presentations. working collaboratively, they had begun to experience the depth of the other’s humanity and to discover how much more complex both judaism and christianity were at the level of lived religion. 5 the museum of jewish heritage closed for the pandemic just days before our scheduled visit. 6 https://www.iccj.org/fileadmin/iccj/pdf-dateien/a_time_for_recommitment_engl.pdf. https://www.iccj.org/fileadmin/iccj/pdf-dateien/a_time_for_recommitment_engl.pdf boys and schwartz: reorienting “settled identities” 4 thus, when we began the 2020 iteration of the course, we decided to put the particular challenges of the course “up front.” after the round of introductions to one another, we posed the question: “when you think of our world, what manifestations of intolerance and bigotry stand out to you? what keeps you up at night?” the reserve associated with an initial meeting of a course immediately gave way to animated discussion. everyone had something to contribute to this discussion. we also drew upon this exercise to speak personally about why we find this a painful course to teach—and why we are nonetheless so committed to teaching it. in large part, we said, the difficulty arises because of the nature of the course material in which a tradition to which half the class belonged had been unable to differentiate without denigrating the tradition to which the other half of the class belonged. the course involved both confronting the tragic consequences of this denigration and revealing the reconciling endeavors of the past seventy years. moreover, the fragmentation and polarization of our time exacerbated the challenge to recognize our common humanity. as beverly mitchell writes in her analysis of shared characteristics of enslavement and the holocaust: the notion of a common humanity runs counter to the prevailing trend in contemporary theology in which it is fashionable for various constituencies of the theological community to emphasize diversity and to particularize the theological concerns that arise out of a specific set of economic, social, and political realities. this focus on particularity has been a counter-response to long-standing tendencies in theological reflection to posit a form of universalism that obscured diversity and masked imperialistic pretensions toward the disinherited. the attempt to avoid co-optation from the dominant culture is an important act of resistance.7 however, mitchell continues, in an era in which we witness efforts by conflicting parties to vilify one another, “it is imperative that we affirm out common humanity often, even as we celebrate our respective differences…. the urgency that accompanies this appeal to affirm a common humanity arises out of a recognition that the first step toward the kind of atrocities perpetrated against hapless groups, historically, is invariably made when we forget the commonalities that bind us together as members of one human family.”8 our experience in 2018 also confirmed our commitment to prioritizing highly interactive pedagogies. we believe that the extensive planning we do in shaping a syllabus, identifying the most appropriate resources, and designing pedagogies that engage participants in active learning largely obviates the need for lecturing at length. one or both of us may frame a topic, but typically we give priority to discussion. this means that we send out three or four questions that will be the focus of the initial part of the next class about four days prior to that class. we expect participants not only to read the assigned texts carefully, but also to be prepared to 7 mitchell, plantations and death camps, 2. 8 mitchell, plantations and death camps, 2. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) discuss them with their classmates. in a course such as ours that deals with troubling texts, polemical literature, and violence, we recognize and proactively name the challenge and, often, discomfort. we have, however, learned that even discomfiting discussion can contribute powerfully to learning. in their final reflection papers in 2020, two students wrote about their experience:  through this academic exercise, i think we all learned to grapple with our own texts in the presence of the other and to learn about the other’s texts in their own context. i see the small group discussions and close readings of these texts to have been one of the most meaningful experiences in this class and most formative for my understanding of interreligious cooperation.  i did find, however, that going through this process, despite the discomfort (or perhaps due to it), was critical for initiating repair of this historically fraught relationship. i noticed how many of the christians in the class squirmed almost as much as i did when these painful texts were discussed. the jewish pain was acknowledged in a very open way without defensiveness or blame-shifting. the first step toward repairing a bitter relationship is to get it all out there in an open and honest way, and i felt that the class format and the bravery of many of the students allowed this to happen. our requirements included a research paper on a primary text (due about a month into the term), and a final reflection paper to be shared prior to our last class session via posting on our moodle site.9 two other requirements involved collaborative projects to be presented in class; groups had to include students from both schools. the first project was to select a contemporary manifestation of one of the themes addressed by our course (e.g., scapegoating, demonizing, white supremacy or white nationalism, antisemitism, islamophobia, xenophobia, oppositional identity, and racism), connect it with similar historical manifestations, and explicate its current significance. the second, more extensive project was to plan and prepare a presentation of twenty minutes, choosing from five options for topics. ii. laying foundations in the early sessions in 2020 our first three class sessions covered the first four centuries ce, with much greater emphasis on the first and third centuries because we wanted to correct what we see as anachronisms that have distorted history. the assumption that jesus’ disciples consolidated his teachings into “christianity” in the immediate wake of his resurrection and thus established the christian religion has long exerted a powerful hold on the christian imagination. in this scenario, jesus is the “founder” 9 we specified that the final essay synthesize “how the experience of studying together in this course has impacted your understanding of your own tradition and your understanding and appreciation for the other. please include discussion of course readings.” we also included various prompts that they could use. boys and schwartz: reorienting “settled identities” 6 of christianity; alternatively, it is paul, the “convert” from judaism, who establishes the christian religion. jews, too, typically hold similar perspectives on the origin of christianity, seeing it as born out judaism but rapidly developing into its opponent—and often, as an idolatrous religion. thus, in conventional thinking, christianity and judaism are understood as religions in opposition from the beginning and conflict was—and remains—inevitable. biblical scholarship reveals a host of problems with these assumptions. first, they grossly oversimplify the complex and lengthy evolving process by which both christianity and judaism emerged in late antiquity in both conversation and contestation with one another. second, these assumptions rest on a reductionistic or essentialist understanding of judaism and christianity that obscures their heterogeneity. third, they disregard the meaning and significance of jesus and the first generations of disciples as jews. fourth, they isolate religious arguments from their socio-historical contexts, and, finally, they fail to account for the impact of literate gentile followers of jesus schooled in the graeco-roman rhetorical mode who had little or no familiarity with judaism in their arguments for a christian identity divorced from judaism. our challenge was to open up new ways of thinking revealing that neither tradition appeared fully formed as a “religion,” an anachronism when applied to traditions of antiquity. to the contrary, each emerged from biblical israel and evolved in relation to various groups of torah-followers and jesus-followers whose conversations, common and variant practices and rituals, uses of texts, and arguments took place over varying times and places with different levels of intensity. in short, in the first century ce neither judaism nor christianity existed fully formed. nor did religion as a distinct category.10 in order to break open the conventional understanding of christianity arising out of judaism early in the first century ce, we introduced alternative terminology. rather than impose a primarily religious meaning on the term yehudim (judeans) or its greek counterpart ioudaioi, we recommended that participants think of yehudim/ioudaioi an ethnic group comparable to other ethnic groups, with distinctive laws, traditions, customs, and gods. only in predominantly “christian” writings from early in the third century did the greek term for “judaism” (ioudaismos) arise; contemporary scholars debate whether the related term, which makes a frequent appearance in the new testament, ioudaioi, should be translated as “jews” or “judeans.”11 most argue for translating the term as “jews,” arguing that this translation denotes continuity with the nexus of culture, practice, and beliefs that have generally characterized jews over time. we raised the question of what terminology most accurately designates the early followers of jesus? most christians simply think of the twelve (e.g., peter, 10 see philip f. esler, conflict and identity in romans: the social setting of paul’s letters (minneapolis: fortress press, 2003), 73: “religion as we understand it did not exist in the ancient world, and the religious dimensions of human experience had a very different status.” 11 steve mason, “jews, judaeans, judaizing, judaism,” journal for the study of judaism (2007): 482– 88. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) james, and john) as christians, as were mary of magdala, paul and other early church leaders. the term christianismos (christianity), however, does not appear in the new testament. christianos, which appears three times in the new testament (acts 11:25; 26:28 and 1 peter 4:16), has typically been translated as “christians,” but this is anachronistic. there was as yet no bifurcation of jews and christians. we suggested as alternatives: “christ followers,” or “followers of the way” or “messianists” or the “jesus movement.” so, if in the first century ce christianoi does not mean “christians” in the sense we mean it today, when did the term take on a meaning of belonging to a distinct religious tradition? in short, when does christianity—christianismos— begin? having raised that question, we directed them to paula fredriksen’s important essay, “the birth of christianity and the origins of christian antijudaism” in preparation for the second session in which we would also discuss the gospel of matthew in its jewish context.12 we assigned this essay because it situates the jesus movement within the wider jewish culture. with enviable economy of expression, fredriksen explained that the “heated polemic against different types of jews” in the gospels and letters of paul “contain … exactly the measure of their jewishness. but this polemic came to be read, understood, and used as a blanket condemnation of judaism itself.”13 she locates the beginnings of christian anti-judaism among second-century gentile intellectuals who had neither connection to the synagogue nor to jewish interpretive traditions and practices. their writings constituted a departure from the intra-jewish polemics of the new testament, and their oppositional stance hardened in the post-constantinian world. perhaps threatened by the flourishing of synagogues in the diaspora, fourth-century christianity began to be “more strident, more comprehensive, more furious.” anti-judaism thus permeated “all known genres of surviving christian literature, including systematic theologies, biblical commentaries, martyr stories, church histories, antiheretical tracts, preaching handbooks, and sermons.”14 nevertheless, in the realm of ordinary life, jews and christians intermingled well into the early middle ages. with the fredriksen essay establishing some important concepts for the first weeks of the course, we turned then to a prime exemplar of first-century literature 12 paula fredriksen, “the birth of christianity and the origins of christian anti-judaism,” in jesus, judaism, and christian anti-judaism: reading the new testament after the holocaust, ed. paula fredriksen and adele reinhartz (louisville: westminster john knox, 2002), 8-30. frederiksen concludes that christianity is “twice-born, once in the mid-second century, and again after constantine, in the fourth. and in that second birth especially, orthodox christian anti-judaism increased in range and in intensity” (30). see also anders runesson, “inventing christian identity: paul, ignatius, and theodosius i,” in exploring christian identity, ed. bengt holmberg (tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2008), 59-92. he writes, “on february 28, 380 c.e. christianity, as it would develop in medieval europe, was born…. but theodosius’s edict of that year, issued independently of church authorities, that nicene christianity was to be the religion of the empire to the exclusion of all other forms of ‘religion,’ including other forms of christianity, was indeed a crucial step in the development of christian social and political identity” (86). this ruling, however, was not enforced until 391 when theodosius prohibited all other temples, cults, and sacrifices. 13 fredriksen, 28. 14 fredriksen, “the birth of christianity,” 29. boys and schwartz: reorienting “settled identities” 8 manifesting intra-jewish polemic: the gospel of matthew (dated ca. 85)—a polemic more conventionally read as a christian one. we acknowledged that for some in the course, particularly the jts students, reading matthew would be an initial encounter with literature later included in the christian canon, and thus appreciated that they might have misgivings. uts students varied in their depth of understanding of matthew, depending in large measure on how much course work in bible they had completed. after eliciting initial responses to their reading of matthew as a jewish text, we took a more analytic turn, focusing on 23:1-36, jesus’ diatribe against the pharisees in which he castigates them as hypocrites (seven times), blind men (three times), whitewashed tombs, snakes, and brood of vipers. we chose to focus on this passage for three reasons. first, matthew’s gospel has more references to pharisees than other new testament texts; to inquire into possible reasons for his pejorative portrait of the pharisees provides a deeper dive into the issues shaping his gospel. second, in spite of the copious references arguing for a more nuanced understanding of the pharisees in recent years, the attribution of “hypocrite” to pharisees is a stock item in the homiletic arsenal of christian preachers—and thus needed to be countered. third, homing in on the pharisees would enable our students to gain familiarity with other significant contextual matters. we drew upon an intriguing argument of anders runesson as a complement to fredriksen’s essay.15 runesson, who dates matthew to the mid-80s ce in an urban area of the galilee, first underlines the complexity of the term “synagogue,” lest interpreters today conflate the contemporary synagogue with its predecessor in antiquity. in ancient texts, some seventeen greek terms, five hebrew terms, and three latin terms refer to what is translated in english as “synagogue.” most common are three greek nouns: proseuche, synagoge, and ekklesia. ekklesia, however, is more often translated as “church.”16 the distinction he made between two types of synagogues is fundamental to his argument about the mattheans in relation to the pharisaic movement. the public synagogue was a village assembly open to all for deliberating community issues, including the reading and discussion of torah on shabbat. in contrast, association synagogues were sites for voluntary groupings (e.g., pharisees, the qumran community, sadducees) for their members to interpret jewish life according to their own understandings; we might think of these voluntary associations as roughly analogous to denominations. thus, there were, among others, pharisaic association synagogues. runesson proposes that the mattheans were “urban-based pharisees who became convinced, most likely after the death and resurrection of jesus had been 15 anders runesson, “behind the gospel of matthew: radical pharisees in post-war galilee,” currents in theology and mission 37/6 (december 2019): 460-471. for a more detailed version, a. runesson, “rethinking early jewish-christian relations: matthean community history as pharisaic intragroup conflict,” journal of biblical literature 127/1 (2008): 95-132. 16 runesson, “behind the gospel of matthew,” 464, contends that to translate ekklesia as church “misleads us to interpret the texts anachronistically as something removed from a jewish context” and thus should be avoided when used in the context of the first century. we did not dwell on this important clarification, given all else we attempted to achieve in the second meeting of our class. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) proclaimed to them by missionaries, that jesus of nazareth was israel’s messiah, confirming their pharisaic belief in the resurrection of the dead as well as their hope for a restored israel.”17 they had, he hypothesizes, originally formed a minority sub-group within a pharisaic association in which there was attraction to jesus’s teaching among some members.18 yet the mattheans became disillusioned in the 80s, separated themselves—perhaps because they saw the pharisees as lacking faith in the messianic mission of jesus—, and thus sought to delegitimize the pharisees as neglecting the most vital aspects of torah.19 runesson convincingly shows that the mattheans shared a basic worldview with other jews: “it is obvious from the text that jesus and the disciples share the same basic point of departure in torah and its interpretation as other jewish groups and that the critique against the pharisees, the very force of the arguments used by the matthean jesus, depends on this shared foundation.”20 similar to fredriksen’s argument, cited above, that the diatribe against different groups of jews is “exactly the measure of their jewishness,” runesson’s essay provides a clear exegetical counterpoint to the frequency with which christians generalize from the criticism of the pharisees in matthew 23 to criticism of judaism as a whole. in retrospect, we expected a lot of our students for that second session. the amount of reading was appropriate but the conceptual richness of the two articles, combined with the gospel of matthew, obscured the significance of what we were attempting to do: reorient interpretation of matthew in such a way that his gospel is understood in its jewish matrix. nevertheless, we learned that this session made its mark in various ways, as these student comments reveal the mixed responses we received the next week:  paula fredriksen launched us right into the context for the reading of the gospel of matthew, and i could not help feeling self-conscious and uncomfortable. right away, i could see why anyone reading the first century text without the context of second temple judaism would fall into the trap of anti-jewish and anti-semitic interpretations.  the book of matthew was one of our first assigned readings; i had never encountered this text before, but was encouraged to both read it critically and contextually. i had the opportunity to simultaneously encounter my own discomfort with the texts while also watching my christian colleagues grapple with this text’s historical and cultural significance, and while we were all expected to be respectful, at no point were we asked to coddle one another with what may come up; rather, our differing facility and experience with this book was seen and embraced as an asset for one another’s religious growth. 17 runesson, “rethinking early jewish-christian relations,” 125. 18 see acts: 15:5, 23:6, and john 3:1 as examples of pharisees attracted to jesus. 19 see also anthony j. saldarini, “delegitimation of leaders in matthew 23,” catholic biblical quarterly 54/4 (1992): 659-680. 20 runesson, “behind the gospel of matthew,” 467. boys and schwartz: reorienting “settled identities” 10  it was even more challenging to cordially discuss some of the major themes of the writings with the group of people whose historical beliefs and actions were being reflected. there were many accounts of brutal christian persecution of jews, but what was most disturbing was the insidious characterization of the jews in christian scripture. indeed, the gospels themselves contributed enormously to divisiveness, establishing a duality whereby jews were the prototypical “other.” these ideas inevitably developed and evolved into dark associations with jews to all that is evil in the world (emphasis added).  those first weeks actually gave me hope that christianity could be redeemed. christian anti-judaism wasn’t inevitable; it was the product of intense political and theological upheaval and then centuries of exegesis on that early conflict. this last insight offers a link from matthew’s gospel to one of the texts we studied in the third session, the “homily on the passover” (ca. 160-170) of melito, bishop of sardis (d. 190). melito’s homily is both a literary gem and a dreadful denunciation. his accusation that in crucifying jesus jews have killed god illustrates how the matthean intra-jewish polemic was transformed into one between gentile proto-christians and jews.21 his sermon also demonstrates a key literary device in the christian hermeneutical arsenal, typology, a poetic means of asserting superiority to the jewish tradition. in the same class session, we studied two jewish texts from roughly the same period as melito’s homily, pirkei avot (“ethics of the fathers”) and the “oven of achnai.” the former, one of the 63 tractates of the mishnah (“teaching,” compiled ca. 200 ce), consists of sayings attributed to the sages; as a subject for study on shabbat afternoons in the spring and summer, it is an important text for many jews. a talmudic story known as the “oven of achnai,” uses a debate among rabbis over whether or not a new kind of oven could become susceptible to ritual impurity to illustrate differing modes of torah jurisprudence and to determine how to properly apply legal opinions from torah to different realities in the community’s lived experience. the outcome of the debate teaches that interpreting torah does not rely on miracles (pace rabbi eliezer) but rather on the work of human reasoning because the “torah is not in heaven” (pace rabbi joshua), based on deuteronomy 30:12-14: it is not in the heavens, that you should say, “who among us can go up to the heavens and get it for us and impart it to us, that we may observe it?” neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “who among us can cross to the other side of the sea and get it for us and impart it to us, that we may observe it?” no, the thing is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to observe 21 we situated this homily in its sociohistorical context, e.g., mary c. boys, redeeming our sacred story (new york: paulist, 2013), 76-91. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) it.” iii. a retrospective: developing a more adequate conceptual framework looking back, we are clearer that our aim in the first session was to set the tone for the course and in the second session to establish an important challenge to the assumption that jews and christians formed separate and conflicting religions in the first century ce. we see now that we could have been clearer, a task that would have been facilitated by drawing upon what educational literature terms “threshold concepts,” an idea developed by ray land and jan h.f. meyer about twenty years ago. threshold concepts have since been incorporated into a range of disciplines, including literacy information, history, social science, engineering, medicine, and to a far more limited extent, the study of religion. a threshold concept, according to land and meyer, is “akin to a portal, opening up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking about something. it represents a transformed way of understanding, or interpreting, or viewing something without which the learning cannot progress.”22 in the realm of biblical studies, john van maaren identifies five threshold concepts.23 the first and most fundamental, he asserts, functions as a threshold concept for the discipline of biblical studies itself: the biblical world is a foreign country. entrance into the biblical realm involves developing modes of thought that encompass imaginative recreation of the past, link this reconstructed history to interpretation of texts, and develop empathy for historical characters. other threshold concepts follow. our understanding of the bible is constructed, that is, readers weigh evidence, assumptions, patterns and agenda; they reconstruct history in conversation with textual interpretation. moreover, everything in biblical studies is an argument because the texts are artifacts created by real people in real situations. the ideology, interests, and worldview of the authors, redactors, and transmitters shape features of the text (genre, language, structure, rhetoric, etc.). further, biblical study in academic settings is relevant; it provides new ways of inquiry and pursuit of dispassionate evidence-based arguments as a tool in making meaning. finally, to regard biblical texts as authoritative leads to inquiry about ways communities of practice transmitted, selected, and edited texts as a means of instructing their members on how to live in ways faithful to their tradition. what makes threshold concepts distinctive is their constellation of characteristics. threshold concepts are transformative insofar as they involve conceptual change; they also integrate concepts that may previously have appeared unrelated. moreover, and most important for us, they are “troublesome” because they involve 22 jan h.f. meyer and ray land, “threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge,” in improving student learning theory and practice ten years on, ed. c. rust (oxford: oxford university press, 2003), 412-424 (citation, 412). see the extensive online bibliography on threshold concepts compiled by mick flanagan: https://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~mflanaga/thresholds.html 23 john van maaren, “transformative concepts and troublesome knowledge: toward a threshold concept for biblical studies,” the wabash center journal on teaching (2020 1/1): 61-78. van maaren notes the overlap of some of his threshold concepts with those of history and literature (65). https://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~mflanaga/thresholds.html boys and schwartz: reorienting “settled identities” 12 difficulty, often are typically counter-intuitive, seek to actualize inert and/or tacit knowledge, and may destabilize identity.24 caryl h. sibbett and william t. thompson term this “nettlesome” knowledge: “elements of knowledge that are deemed taboo in that they are defended against, repressed or ignored because if they were grasped they might ‘sting’ and thus evoke a feared intense emotional and embodied response.”25 being “stung” into sensibility is at the heart of the identification of threshold concepts, because it stimulates the learner’s experience of cognitive dissonance as a key path to learning. in retrospect, we encountered three issues at stake in the early sessions that would have benefited from “nettlesome” concepts. first, we realize now that many jews encountering runesson’s thesis regarding matthew’s depiction of the pharisees would not find it sufficient to assuage their emotions regarding how new testament texts had fostered “divisiveness [and] a duality” that portrayed jews as “the prototypical ‘other’ [and] inevitably developed and evolved into dark associations with jews to all that is evil in the world.”26 grappling with the implications of commentaries that reorient seemingly anti-jewish new testament passages as intra-jewish polemic requires time to absorb and assimilate. second, we acknowledge that runesson’s argument did not necessarily challenge christian students to rework their deeply embedded equation of pharisees with hypocrites and the associated assumption that judaism was legalistic. situating jesus’ encounters with the pharisees as examples of characteristically jewish debate also requires time for absorption and assimilation. third, we see that we moved too quickly to the text of melito’s homily on the passover without giving sufficient attention to implications of the changed demographics of the early second century when there were “too many gentiles, too few jews, and no end in sight.”27 here we should have lingered at greater length at the consequences of this demographic change, particularly the theological perspectives developing among non-jewish christ followers (“proto-christians” in runesson’s terminology) who, unfamiliar with jewish ways of life and conversant in graeco-roman rhetorical patterns of argumentation, illustrated the dictum that “christianity was born in an argument over 24 threshold concepts bear a family resemblance to “advance organizers,” as developed by educational psychologist david p. ausebel in the 1960s. he argued for the value of presenting a hierarchy of knowledge that bridged the learner’s existing knowledge with new knowledge at a more abstract level. ausebel saw such an organization as key to meaningful learning. see d. p. ausebel, “the use of advance organizers in learning and retention,” journal of educational psychology 51 (1960): 267-272 as well as his psychology of meaningful verbal learning (new york: grune and stratton, 1963). see also his most recent, the acquisition and retention of knowledge: a cognitive view (dordrecht: springer netherlands, 2012 [original 2000]). threshold concepts, however, take into much fuller account the difficulty of presenting knowledge that challenges conventional understandings. 25 caryl sibbett and william thompson, “nettlesome knowledge, liminality, and taboos in cancer and art therapy experiences: implications for teaching and learning,” in threshold concepts within the disciplines (rotterdam: sense publishers, 2008), 227-242 (citation 229). 26 as expressed by one of the jts students (see above). 27 paula fredriksen, from jesus to christ: the origins of the new testament’s images of christ, 2nd ed. (new haven: yale university press, 2000), 169. 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) how to understand jewish texts.”28 likewise, we should have given attention to the significance of the bar kokhba revolt in 135 ce, the destruction of jerusalem and the expulsion of jews. mindful of these issues, we proffer the following as a primary threshold concept for the first section of our course: study of relations between jews and christians involves disturbing, exploring, and reorienting “reciprocally settled identities.”29 that is, we needed to unsettle what runesson terms “terminological edifices,” the ways in which our ethnic/religious identities are set in a view of judaism and christianity as two diametrically different religions.30 the pedagogical challenge is to break through the assumption that “judaism” and “christianity” are incompatible traditions. this assumption has had staying power “because that is the way that, in large part, things eventually worked out.”31 disturbing “reciprocally settled identities” is virtually always a nettlesome process, particularly if it involves deconstructing one’s self understanding. we see this today, for example, in acknowledging that whiteness is an advantaged racial identity or that gender identity transcends binaries. similarly, the scholarship that reveals the fluidity of ethnic and religious boundaries in the mediterranean world of the first century ce and situates jesus and the first generations of his followers squarely in their jewish context disturbs conventional understandings. in further exploring what is involved in unsettling the “terminological edifices,” we see the necessity of teaching a series of interconnected claims, which themselves seem to have many of the characteristics of threshold concepts. here, we identify and briefly develop several concepts that we believe would more adequately shape the first month of our course.  at least until the fourth century ce, there were jews but no judaism as such, and followers of jesus but no christianity as such. jewish life before the rabbinic period might best be understood as manifesting key common practices and beliefs within a diverse range of perspectives: “in the ancient world, most people whom we can identify as jews were monotheists; most observed the sabbath in one way or other; most would not consume pork, shellfish or blood; and most jewish men were circumcised.”32 moreover, 28 paula fredriksen, “roman christianity and the pro-roman west,” in jews, christians, and the roman empire: the poetics of power in late antiquity, ed. natalie b. dohrmann and annette yoshiko reed (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2013): 249-266 (citation, 249). 29 the term originates with jack miles, “forward,” in daniel boyarin, the jewish gospels: the story of the jewish christ (new york: new press, 2012). 30 anders runesson, “the question of terminology: the architecture of contemporary discussions of paul,” in paul within judaism: restoring the first-century context to the apostle, ed. mark nanos and a. runesson (minneapolis: fortress, 2015), 53-79 (citation, 58). 31 paula fredriksen, when christians were jews: the first generation (new haven: yale university press, 2018), 186. 32 e. p. sanders, “the dead sea sect and other jews: commonalities, overlaps, differences,” in the dead sea scrolls in their historical context, ed. t. h. lim, et al. (edinburgh: t&t clark, 2000), 743. boys and schwartz: reorienting “settled identities” 14 the vast majority of jews of antiquity worshiped the god of israel, accepted israel’s scriptures as revelatory, observed most aspects of the mosaic law, and identified themselves with the jewish people.33 e. p. sanders, from whose 1992 work, judaism: practice and belief, the term “common judaism” emerged, also makes the important claim that common judaism was neither uniform nor enforced—an important corrective to the assumption that in the first three or so centuries ce there was a jewish institution that had the power to make normative rulings over the jewish people. only in the third or fourth centuries did rabbinic authority slowly become more widespread.34  moreover, jesus and the early jesus movement existed entirely within the realm of jewish life. while it is commonplace today to find resources situating jesus in his jewish context or even to hear a reference to the jewish jesus in a homily, such assertions are “more declared than elaborated or explained.35 a substantial attempt to fill out this lacuna may be found in the 2020 book by barbara meyer, jesus the jew in christian memory. jesus was not a person who could have lived anywhere in any era. rather, she argues that jesus was a jew with a “specific practice, narrative and tradition,”; he had distinctive daily practices and time structures, and “probably even a unique approach to god” connected to jewish practice of the time (47). in contrast to the common misconception that jesus saw himself in contrast to the law, meyer claims that jesus’ fundamentally observant jewish praxis must be considered constitutive for discussion about his jewishness. she regards him as a “practicing, torah-observant and halakhically committed jew,” (52) whose disputations with the pharisees, for examples, reveal jesus engaging in characteristically jewish debates about how torah should be lived out. considerable new testament scholarship confirms meyer’s view of jesus as torah-observant. yet, she pursues the significance further in her claim that living the jewish law as understood in the second temple period was the way jesus lived the covenant. while christians today regard torah as holy, both in their own sacred texts and as the law of the jews, christians have no need to 33 sanders, “the dead sea sect.” see also common judaism: explorations in second-temple judaism, ed. wayne o. mccready and adele reinhartz (minneapolis: fortress, 2008). in their “conclusion,” editors mccready and reinhartz add important nuance: “second-temple judaism was in fact an untidy, complex and contradictory reality that fused widespread adherence to a set of beliefs and practices with fierce controversy and contradiction, the tussle for power and the impulse to exclude others on one basis or another” (220). 34 if, as more recent scholarship reveals, the rabbinic movement came to dominate jewish life over a period of centuries, then this “raises the possibility that a variety of jewish groups and ideologies continued to exist after the destruction of the second temple. an increasing number of scholars now maintain that judaism post-70 was as diverse as it had been before.” see jesus, the new testament, christian origins: perspectives, methods, message, ed. dieter mitternacht and anders runesson (grand rapids: william b. eerdmans, 2021 [swedish original, 2007]), 450. 35 barbara u. meyer, jesus the jew in christian memory (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2020), 7. 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) appropriate halakhah for themselves. christianity is not a halakhic religion. acknowledging jesus as observing torah as interpreted in his time, however, reveals the positive significance of jewish law that christian theologians have for the most part neglected. nevertheless, “jesus the jew is contemporary christians’ other mainly in the sense of his jewish life… a torah-bound life.”36 meyer’s delineation of the torah-observant jesus as other to non-jewish christians of every era evokes james crossley’s critique of the temptation to image “jesus the decaffeinated jewish other deprived of a degree of problematic otherness.”37  beginning in the early second century, gentile proto-christians unacquainted with the jewish ethnos proclaimed the teachings of jesus through typological readings of israel’s scriptures (albeit in greek, that is, the septuagint), thus preserving those scriptures against opponents such as marcion while at the same time maligning jewish interpretational practices through their use of graeco-roman styles of argumentation.38 their mode of interpretation played a dominant role in christian thought for many centuries; it became the principal template by which christianity was seen as superseding judaism.39  rabbinic and christian interpretative practices gave rise to fundamentally different rubrics for interpreting israel’s scriptures, thereby shaping each tradition in distinctive ways often not understood by the other. as christian interpretation developed, the life, death and resurrection of jesus became the lens through which the scriptures of israel were understood, particularly through the medium of typology. the rabbis, however, interpreted these scriptures through multifocal lenses, originating with the midrash (varying expositions of scriptural texts collected for each biblical book) and the mishnah (ca. 200 ce, a compilation of oral torah). together mishnah and subsequent rabbinic commentaries constituted major portions of the talmud, both of the land of israel (the “yerushalmi” or jerusalem, dating from ca. 400) and that of babylonia (modern iraq), often referred to as “bavli,” compiled beginning in the sixth century.  judaism and christianity emerged in co-existence, conversation, competition, and contestation over the course of several centuries. while contestation proved the most lasting—and detrimental—legacy, jewish 36 meyer, jesus the jew, 157. 37 james g. crossley, “a ‘very jewish’ jesus: perpetuating the myth of superiority,” journal for the study of the historical jesus 11 (2013): 119 38 seen anders runesson, “jewish and christian interaction from the first to the fifth centuries,” in the early christian world, ed. philip esler (new york: routledge, 2000), 245: “…[w]hat we see during the first five centuries is a gradual process, often ambiguous and never linear, in which the jesus movement becomes ethno-culturally disembedded, losing central identity markers related to the jewish ethnos, markers which emerging mainstream forms of late-antique judaism maintained, nurtured and developed.” 39 supersessionism, however, was a multifaceted perspective. see terence l. donaldson, “supersessionism and early christian self-identity,” journal for the jesus movement in its jewish setting 3 (2016): 1-32. boys and schwartz: reorienting “settled identities” 16 christian interaction was continuous and complex.40 significantly, jews and christians interacted in public civic settings at the local, national, and imperial levels as well as through various associations, in private and domestic settings. this period of identity formation was not straightforward, as many persons, jewish and non-jewish, “continued to express, in practice, an identity which blurred the boundary between what later became distinct categories for all: ‘jew’ and ‘christian.’”41 a concluding note revisiting our course at a distance has provided us with deepened appreciation for both the complexity and significance of the early centuries of the emergence of judaism and christianity. we believe that explicit and repeated use of threshold concepts will enable us to more adequately establish a foundation from which we can explore later centuries, particularly post-holocaust perspectives that have led to a reorientation of our respective origins. as scholarship continues to emerge, new insights will require revision in every iteration of our course. cultural developments will affect the context, requiring adaptation and adjustments. for example, in the current version of the course (spring 2022), the heightened attention to issues of equity and inclusion gives new significance to racial matters, such as the obsession of so-called “old” christians with purity of blood (limpieza de sangre) in late fifteenth century spain, kant’s racial hierarchies in his “of the different human races” (1775-1779), and hitler’s use of america’s jim crow policies in formulating the laws of citizenship and blood in the nuremberg laws of 1938.42 moreover, the trend in many state legislatures in recent months to pass laws prohibiting teachers in public schools from exposing their students to historical accounts that might prove unsettling or elicit discomfort, guilt or psychological distress stands in stark contrast to our commitment to confront the difficult history of the jewish-christian encounter. as the current syllabus reads: “there will be occasions in this course that will indeed prove unsettling… knowledge that unsettles also has the potential to reorient.”43 teaching this course is indeed unsettling, involving a continuing encounter with nettlesome knowledge. yet we experience the process of reorienting settled 40 “far from being forever frozen in ingrained hostility, the two sister religions engaged in a profound interaction during late antiquity…. [i]n certain cases the rabbis appropriated christian ideas that the christians had inherited from the jews, hence that rabbinic judaism reappropriated originally jewish ideas that were usurped by christianity” (peter schäfer, the jewish jesus: how judaism and christianity shaped each other [princeton: princeton university press, 2012], 1-2.) 41 runesson, “jewish and christian interaction,” 259. 42 j. kameron carter’s race: a theological account, 79-121, provides an excellent resource on kant and the enlightenment. on the development of the nuremberg laws, see james q. whitman, hitler’s american model: the united states and the making of nazi race law (princeton: princeton university press, 2017). 43 this version of the course is taught by mary boys, as the appointment in july 2020 of shuly rubin schwartz as chancellor of the jewish theological seminary has necessitated setting aside her role in classroom teaching. 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) identities to be life-giving, offering new depth and breadth to our knowledge and, we hope, to an increase in wisdom. microsoft word 172840-text.native.1250632995.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): koester & harrington 1-7 koester & harrington, stendahl tributes koester & harrington http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 1 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college eemmiinneenntt ppaauulliinnee sscchhoollaarr bb ii ss hh oo pp kk rr ii ss tt ee rr ss tt ee nn dd aa hh ll 1921 — 2008 tt rr ii bb uu tt ee ss hh ee ll mm uu tt kk oo ee ss tt ee rr ,, hh aa rr vv aa rr dd ss cc hh oo oo ll oo ff dd ii vv ii nn ii tt yy dd aa nn ii ee ll jj .. hh aa rr rr ii nn gg tt oo nn ,, ss jj .. ,, bb oo ss tt oo nn cc oo ll ll ee gg ee ss cc hh oo oo ll oo ff tt hh ee oo ll oo gg yy aa nn dd mm ii nn ii ss tt rr yy volume 4 (2009) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): koester & harrington 1-7 koester & harrington, stendahl tributes koester & harrington http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 2 bb ii ss hh oo pp kk rr ii ss tt ee rr ss tt ee nn dd aa hh ll 11 99 22 11 - 22 00 00 88 tthhiiss eemmiinneenntt ppaauulliinnee sscchhoollaarr pprrooffoouunnddllyy iinnfflluueenncceedd mmaannyy tthhrroouugghh hhiiss hhoossppiittaalliittyy,, hhiiss lleeaaddeerrsshhiipp iinn tthhee cchhuurrcchh,, aanndd hhiiss aaddvvooccaaccyy ooff ttoolleerraannccee.. aass aa sscchhoollaarr aanndd aa ppaassttoorr hhee wwaass aa lleeaaddeerr iinn rreeddeeffiinniinngg rreellaattiioonnss bbeettwweeeenn cchhrriissttiiaannss aanndd jjeewwss.. tthhee ccoouunncciill ooff cceenntteerrss oonn cchhrriissttiiaann--jjeewwiisshh rreellaattiioonnss aanndd tthhee eeddiittoorriiaall ssttaaffff ooff ssttuuddiieess iinn cchhrriissttiiaann--jjeewwiisshh rreellaattiioonnss aarree ggrraatteeffuull ffoorr aanndd ddeeeeppllyy iinnddeebbtteedd ttoo tthhee ppiioonneeeerriinngg eeffffoorrttss ooff tthhiiss ddiissttiinngguuiisshheedd sscchhoollaarr aanndd iinnssppiirriinngg cchhuurrcchh lleeaaddeerr.. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): koester & harrington 1-7 koester & harrington, stendahl tributes koester & harrington http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 3 the march 15-16, 2009 boston college conference, paul of tarsus: the apostle to the gentiles in his jewish context, honored the memory and the contributions of the pauline scholar, krister stendahl. the following tributes by professor helmut koester, harvard school of divinity, and professor daniel j. harrington, sj, boston college school of theology and ministry, were among several tributes paid to bishop stendahl on this occasion. helmut koester, harvard school of divinity we met krister stendahl for the first time on the pier in new york city. my family and i had just arrived on the “berlin,” the first post-world war ii german passenger ship—in fact formerly a swedish steamer. here we were on the pier with two small children, the younger one only three months old. we had to wait there for hours until we finally got our customs and immigration clearance, dirty and hungry and less than comfortable. and there appeared krister stendahl like a saving angel. he packed us into his large buick, and drove off to the nearest howard johnson restaurant. there we washed up and enjoyed our first american meal. then it was on to cambridge and to the stendahl residence, the carriage house behind jewett house, where we were welcomed warmly by brita, and where we relaxed and enjoyed a good dinner. in the following days krister stendahl was our guide in getting a social security number, opening a bank account, familiarizing us with andover hall, introducing us to the dean of harvard divinity school, douglas horton, and last but not least in directing us to a church. it was, in fact, brita who told us that the only church to go to was university lutheran church in cambridge where we have now been members for half a century. but the beginning of the new academic year was not far away, and that was to be become for me a most significant experience. krister stendahl, born in 1921 and five years my senior, who also had many years of experience in pastoral ministry in country parishes and student chaplaincy, had been educated at the university of upsala in sweden under his teacher anton friedrichsen. to be sure, that was a superb education in historical-critical new testament interpretation, but it emphasized grammar, factual data, sober historical assessment. in upsala krister stendahl had learned that the primary task of new testament scholarship was to find out, in the words of the famous ancient historian leopold von ranke, “wie es eigentlich gewesen ist,”—what actually was done and said in the past—which implied rigorous and critical investigation and scrutiny of the available sources. i, on the other hand, had grown up in marburg under rudolf bultmann and then in heidelberg under the guidance of bultmann’s student günther bornkamm. although ordained, with only a brief period of ministerial service, i was still full of ideas of hermeneutics and demythologizing, which was the most hotly debated subject during the years of my study. but now it fell to us to direct jointly the new testament seminar for doctoral students. our senior colleague amos wilder was on sabbatical that year. for me this joint ten-year work with doctoral students opened a new world of historical scholarship. with respect to any wild ideas i may have had, krister listened patiently and asked critical questions—and i learned to listen. we got along with each other well for a blessed ten-year period until krister became dean of harvard divinity school. i once asked krister stendahl why we were getting along with each other so well. he answered, “because both of us are pretty arrogant!” studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): koester & harrington 1-7 koester & harrington, stendahl tributes koester & harrington http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 4 after ten years of cooperation our paths went in different directions, but our friendship, however stressed, never failed thanks to krister’s graciousness. krister had become the godfather of our older son, ulrich christoph, and he remained faithful to him with care and signs of love into the last year of his life. faculties and deans usually engage in battle, and so we did. but krister had to face very difficult situations, beginning on the first day in his new office. these were the years of student revolution: a red flag raised over andover hall, an a-wall marine chained to the altar of andover hall chapel, mail deliveries hidden away, padlocks put onto the entrance door of the andover harvard library—some new problem almost every day. krister remained true to himself. nothing illegal was tolerated, but also peaceful protests were not disturbed, however crazy—and the president of the divinity school’s student association had a lot of crazy ideas! krister demonstrated his wisdom when radical students occupied university hall, the administrative center of the faculty of arts and sciences. all deans of the university were asked by the president whether the cambridge police should be called in to assist in driving students out of the building. only krister stendahl, the dean of the law school derek bok (later president of harvard university), and the dean of the school of education voted against it. but with the majority of the deans voting in favor, the city police moved in to cruelly expel these radical students—and the president eventually was forced to resign. in such conflicts krister was always on the side of the angels. his sense of justice and toleration never failed him. during his time as dean of harvard divinity school one of his lasting and most influential achievements was the establishment of the program of women’s studies at the divinity school. still today this program brings accomplished female scholars to harvard for a year of research in this field. in 1984, after his eleven-year tenure as dean and a few additional years of teaching at harvard divinity school, krister accepted the appointment of bishop of the diocese of stockholm of the lutheran church of sweden. he served in that office four years until his mandatory retirement. he is still remembered in sweden for his energetic leadership, thoughtful public witness, and pastoral concern. after the assassination of prime minister olof palme in 1986, krister eloquently ministered to the shock and grief of the nation. within his diocese he advanced the cause of women in the priesthood and greater gender equality, bringing the number of ordained women from just a very few to a third of all ordained clergy. already in the 1950s he was known for his support of the ordination of women, suffering the loss of several collegial friendships because of his more open hermeneutic on this issue. now as bishop he was able, in spite of resistance, not only to advance the cause of women in the church but also to open it up to the fresh challenges of a new time. returning to harvard in 1988 he resumed contributing to the life of the divinity school, teaching the art of preaching and functioning as chaplain to the students. he continued to offer courses and remained as a senior scholar and advisor at the school after his official retirement. in 1991 he accepted an appointment from brandeis university to serve as the inaugural professor in a newly endowed chair in christian studies, a position he held until retiring, yet again, in 1993. he traveled extensively, teaching, preaching, and conferring with international scholars and leaders even in his later years despite the serious challenges to his health, which he bore with patience and determination. he was courageous and persistent in his advocacy not only for women but also studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): koester & harrington 1-7 koester & harrington, stendahl tributes koester & harrington http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 5 for gay and lesbian people in the church. for his students, colleagues, and friends he was always present as an advisor, counselor, source of encouragement and as a pillar of faith in his participation and occasionally as a preacher in the services of his beloved university lutheran church in cambridge. krister stendahl, was a man of all seasons: scholar, preacher, academic leader, bishop, editor, unwavering advocate for the cause of women in the church and the academic world, reconciler of jews and christians. at heart a biblical scholar, he published his influential the school of st. matthew early in his career and edited a significant volume on the new testament and the dead sea scrolls, which brought the investigation of these newly discovered materials to the forefront of biblical studies. later came some extremely important and groundbreaking articles that appeared during the long years of his activities. most important is his essay on “paul and the introspective conscience of the west.” this much debated article argues with foresight that the apostle paul’s insistence upon justification by faith is completely alien to the modern western preoccupation with personal and introspective feelings of inadequacies and sinfulness but is rather concerned with the sinfulness of the human race as a whole and its need for divine justification as a general fact. i remember a lively debate many decades ago between krister and the german new testament scholar ernst käsemann in the braun room of andover hall. käsemann, who was then working on a commentary on the epistle to the romans, had been invited to give a lecture at the divinity school and had chosen as his topic “justification by faith alone,” which he used as a frontal attack on krister stendahl’s recently published article, “paul and the introspective conscience of the west.” is it thinkable that paul, when he speaks of justification by faith alone, is not talking about the salvation of individuals, who are constantly burdened by their conscience, telling them that they are unable to fulfill the law and do the will of god? i have to confess that it took me years before i fully realized the consequences of this brilliant article, both for the understanding of paul and for the rethinking of much of christian piety today. paul is not talking about individuals but about people and nations, about actions of the god of israel, who is the god of all nations and who wants freedom and justice and reconciliation. this insight was also at the core of krister stendahl’s increasing concern and active involvement in the question of the reconciliation of jews and christians. thanks to krister stendahl i have learned that as a christian i belong to a people that is burdened with the guilt of a long history of the persecution of jewish people, culminating in the holocaust. his interpretation of paul’s letters has opened the door to a fresh understanding of jews and christians as people who both possess the promises of a god who is faithful to his promises and wants peace and justice for all. krister stendahl was once invited to write a commentary on paul’s epistle to the romans. had he done so he would have left a major and most insightful work to us. but he is not the first new testament scholar who despaired of accomplishing this task. in any case, krister was not the person to devote his scholarly efforts to the painstaking task of producing a commentary on one of the most difficult books of the new testament. he wanted to stimulate, to ask questions, to break down barriers, to reconcile. i think that this is his legacy and it is attested to in a large number of smaller contributions. his essay on “new testament theology” in the supplement volume of the dictionary of the interpreters’ bible insists on a descriptive biblical theology which presents the facts of theological thinking at the time of the production of biblical writings. this essay intends to put a studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): koester & harrington 1-7 koester & harrington, stendahl tributes koester & harrington http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 6 stop to fanciful hermeneutical speculations. he seems to say—and i heard him say this more than once: “this is what i read in my text, and this is what paul says here.” other publications followed, especially his volume of essays, paul among jews and gentiles, and his collection of insightful discussions of ethical and theological interpretations entitled meanings. there are also a number of publications dealing with pastoral and ecumenical questions, bearing witness to krister stendahl’s engagement in numerous areas of religious, ecclesiastical, and spiritual concerns. krister stendahl was my close colleague on the faculty of harvard divinity school for many years. those years were exciting, challenging, and rewarding experiences of congenial cooperation in theological inquiry, biblical studies, and formation of academic policies. during almost all of the last half century we were also fellow worshipers and occasionally preachers and leaders of worship at university lutheran church in cambridge, massachusetts. during all these years i learned that krister was an open-minded, warm, and caring human being with a deep sense of humor. magisterial perhaps—he was an authority on many things, but never overpowering, always seeking understanding and agreement, listening carefully and honoring different perspectives. but he never wavered when it came to questions of reconciling. here he did not acknowledge any conventions and restraints. when a lesbian female theologian living in a committed relationship was elected as a pastor of a lutheran church, krister, a former lutheran bishop, traveled to minnesota to participate in her ordination, which lost him many friends among conservative circles of the church. he knew that this would happen but he simply could not accept discrimination of any kind. he always searched for a way to make peace between jews and christians, homosexuals and heterosexuals, women and men. he was a pioneer in the exploration of christian integrity as a basis for, rather than a contradiction of, pluralism. he never accepted that any human being could be considered as inferior because of nationality, religious commitment, social class, or sexual orientation. i mourn the death of this great friend, which came after several decades of surviving serious challenges to his health. i delight that his mind remained clear to the very end and that he knew that his life and death were in the hands of a god who was greater than all human understanding—a god of all people, no matter what their national, social, sexual or religious commitment. daniel j. harrington, s.j., boston college school of theology and ministry the best description of paul the apostle that i know is “pastoral theologian.” paul was not a professor or a philosopher. rather he was a founder of christian communities, and his letters were part of his ongoing pastoral care. they were originally intended to provide theological and practical enlightenment regarding the pastoral problems facing early christian communities. this afternoon i want to reflect briefly on krister stendahl as a pastoral theologian after the pattern set by his hero, paul. i want to explain what i mean by recalling three personal experiences that illustrate krister’s pastoral sensitivity on the intellectual, ecclesial, and personal levels. first, on the intellectual level. we all have had communal and personal moments when the world seemed to change for us. we know where we were and how we felt at the time. i can recall vividly my own first reading of krister stendahl’s famous article on “paul and the introspective conscience of the west” while sitting in the library of harvard divinity school in the summer of 1965. it changed my outlook on studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): koester & harrington 1-7 koester & harrington, stendahl tributes koester & harrington http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 7 paul, augustine, and luther. it was a thrilling intellectual experience that has stayed with me through the years. so much so, that whenever i teach or write about paul i recall that moment. through his lectures and publications krister stendahl opened up for many of us new intellectual and theological horizons. through his scholarship, krister stendahl was a pastoral theologian after the pattern set by paul. second, on the ecclesial level. we all know that one of krister’s great concerns was christian-jewish relations. but he was not content merely to write about that relationship in ancient texts. he also wanted to know what his christian students and colleagues were thinking and doing about jews and judaism. in the early 1980s the national workshop on christian-jewish relations was to meet in boston in the spring. i had participated in some of their sessions before, and in the fall a friend mentioned to me that i was on the program to conduct a workshop with krister stendahl on the attitudes of christian theological students and their professors toward judaism. that was the first i had heard of it. so i contacted krister, and after an apology for forgetting to tell me, we set to work on the project. it consisted mainly of interviews with boston theological institute students and professors. i reported on the results at the national meeting. on the ecclesial level, krister stendahl was pastoral theologian after the pattern set by paul. third, on the personal level. in the late 1960s i did my doctoral research at harvard under the direction of john strugnell. in fact, krister (then the dean) was instrumental in bringing john to harvard, and i was one of john’s first doctoral students. john was a brilliant scholar. krister once told me, “i have been around many smart people in my life, but john strugnell is one of the very smartest of all.” but john was afflicted with manic-depression, and had many ups and downs throughout his life. when john was recovering from a devastating and tragic episode of manic depression in the early 1990s, i received a phone call from krister. his message was simple and concise, “john needs a friend.” john did recover and did some of his best scholarly work on the dead sea scrolls then, and i was privileged to be part of it. john strugnell died in late november of 2007. a few days later krister invited john’s family, former students, and friends to his own home for a time of reflection and prayer. in february of 2008 krister presided at the memorial service held for john strugnell at harvard divinity school. this was about two months before krister’s own death, and he was obviously in poor health. he knew that it would perhaps be his own last public event, but it was something that he really wanted to do. through all of this, i marveled once more at krister’s pastoral sensitivity. on the personal level, krister stendahl was a pastoral theologian after the pattern set by paul. one of paul’s pieces of advice to the early christians at corinth was this, “be imitators of me, as i am of christ” (1 cor 11:1). as a pastoral theologian on many levels, krister stendahl fulfilled paul’s directive magnificently. scjr 16, no. 1 (2021): 1-3 christian danz, kathy ehrensperger, and walter homolka (eds.) christologie zwischen judentum und christentum (tübingen: mohr siebeck 2020), xiv + 447 pp. gregor maria hoff gregor.hoff@sbg.ac.at university of salzburg, salzburg, austria in recent years, the discussion about the significance of christology in jewishchristian dialogue has taken on a new dynamic. various factors are responsible for this. two recent documents by orthodox jews, “to do the will of our father in heaven” (2015) and “between jerusalem and rome” (2016), represent important statements. the authors raise essential questions about christology. among them is the question of how jewish-christian dialogue can deal with the issue. for the catholic church, more than fifty years after the conclusion of the second vatican council, a theological deepening of the basis for dialogue is on the agenda in its contact with judaism. with the document “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’” (2015), the vatican commission for religious relations with the jews once again raised the question of the significance of the “universality of salvation in jesus christ” (sect. 37) and affirmed that the “covenant of god with israel has never been revoked” (preface). in addition to the issues raised by these religious communities, there have been shifts in various theological discourses. they concern exegetical perspectives which, starting from the new perspective on paul, also concern christological questions. they are connected with questions about the “parting of the ways” and the complex emergence of rabbinic judaism and christianity. they concern tradition-historical questions about the development of theological concepts in both traditions and in relations between them, revealing their inner diversity. in this context, the historical jesus and the christ of faith are the subject of a new discussion. this discussion has been shaped by an awareness of jesus’ jewishness and raises methodological-hermeneutical questions about how to think about him. these questions come to a head when considering jesus’ theological significance, which on the one hand sets a marker of difference between judaism and christianity, but on the other hand also can problematize the self-understanding in the two religions. in recent years, walter homolka in particular has recalled the hoff: danz, ehrensperger, and homolka’s christian danz 2 history of jewish research on jesus in order to make it productive for a jewish perception of jesus. his jesus reclaimed: jewish perspectives on the nazarene (2015) is a title that profiles the “jewish jesus” as “a challenge for christian theology.” following up on this work, homolka, together with the catholic theologian magnus striet, published another volume, christologie auf dem prüfstand [jesus the jew christ the redeemer] (2019). questions are emerging that concern the significance of christology for both jewish and christian theologies. this discussion is influenced by the complex interconnection of academic discourses, each with its own methodological approaches and epistemological presuppositions (e.g., biblical exegesis and systematic theology). also, questions about the placement of boundaries between judaism and christianity, unstated assumptions, and religious beliefs have an impact on christology. out of this complexity have emerged efforts to construct the figure of jesus of nazareth and to establish his theological significance. this volume, which gathers together papers presented at a conference in vienna in 2019, misses this discursive landscape. the essays, while of high quality, are primarily written by protestant and catholic theologians, though there are three by jews (both liberal and orthodox). this imbalance means there is little sense of inter-religious dialogue, though the christian authors do refer to jewish positions. another peculiarity concerns the composition of the volume: it is not organized around disciplines or themes. two introductory essays on the tradition of jewish jesus research (by verena lenzen and walter homolka) are followed by four exegetical analyses (by markus öhler, martin stowasser, paula fredriksen, and kathy ehrensperger). next, there are fourteen essays from a systematic-theological perspective. the result is a rather loose sequence of essays, though the essays themselves exhibit a very dense interweaving of similar problems, methodological approaches, and argumentation. the reader is thus challenged to establish connections in order to map the project of a “christology between judaism and christianity.” these connections emerge between historical-biblical and systematictheological approaches. the contributors, with their different methodological approaches, consider the significance of historical research for the “construction of christology” (3). they raise the question of the plausibility of christological models, and whether they are able to “elaborate or substantiate a lasting significance of jewish religion within the framework of christology” (3). in the course of the essays it becomes apparent that this question is connected with the ecclesiastical frameworks used to present diverse christologies. while paula fredriksen, in her essay “christus und das reich gottes. oder paulus, der diasporajude, und der christliche erlöser” (81-107), sees the early church councils as “transversal to paul’s very immediate eschatological christ” (105), josef wohlmuth argues that the council of chalcedon illustrates a continuing influence of jewish traditions in efforts to affirm both the human reality of jesus christ and the transcendence of god (“der jüdische jesus und die christologie des konzils von chalkedon” [319-32, especially 326-28]). 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) this raises a crucial question: is christology a dissociation from the jewishness of jesus by a church that ignores the religio-cultural context of the nazarene and his movement? and what then does it mean to speak of the holy spirit not abstractly but in real terms, as identified with a real man (jesus of nazareth confessed as christ)? answers to these questions reflect confessional divergences which are not discussed as such but are reflected in the various texts. they are linked to a decisive question: in what way and with what consequences does a christology that recognizes jesus as a jew of his time challenge some traditional forms of theology, especially given the importance of christology? for, in christian danz’s words, “dogmatic christology is not [just] a component of the content of the christian religion, but a level of reflection within it” (“christologie als bestätigung der jüdischen religion? reflections on the doctrine of jesus christ in the age of religious pluralism” [123-44; 140]). this proposal, in turn, can meet with determined resistance within the christian community because potentially threatens the specifically theological claim to validity of christianity for example, in its soteriological dimensions (as discussed in chapters by christoph schwöbel and klaus von stosch). magnus striet argues for the ethical dubiousness of a historical christology grounded in a crucifixfocused theology and a view of redemption in which god sacrifices his son. striet insists on a jewishly-grounded “ethical monotheism” which takes jesus’ message of freedom in the kingdom of god seriously (“vom judesein jesu und einem notwendigen dogmatischen umdenken” [311-18; 317]). these discussions all raise the question whether soteriology can ever be less prominent in christian theology, though some contributors present a decidedly theocentric christology (erwin dirscherl, helmut hoping, heinz-günther schöttler). new, creative christologies can serve as models for dialogue between jews and christians. while they are still little known or developed, the authors in this volume begin to sketch the contours of what they may look like. it is important for there to be an underlying hermeneutic compatible with theological conceptions that accept differences in traditional portraits of god (especially chapters by klaus von stosch and reinhold bernhardt), and this volume, with its multiple contributors, reflects this diversity. as patristics scholar christoph markschies shows, for those with an affinity for plurality, the history of christological thought in fact provides its own resources (“die erforschung antiker christologischer reflexion und der jüdisch-christliche dialog ein prospekt” [247-69]). his essay not only is a gem of subtle philology and fine theological judgement but, if read paradigmatically, also provides some overall direction in a volume that, with the high quality of its contributions, sets an inspiring point of reference for further christological reflections between judaism and christianity. scjr 15, no. 1 (2020): 1-18 response from the author to reviews of catholic doctrines on the jewish people after vatican ii (oxford: oxford university press, 2019), hardcover, 240 pp. + xiv gavin d’costa gavin.dcosta@bristol.ac.uk university of bristol, bristol, bs8 1qu, uk i am grateful to my four colleagues. i have learnt enormously from their comments. i am especially privileged to have two jewish colleagues responding to catholic doctrinal theology in evolution.1 for brevity and respect, i treat each person separately, focusing solely on critical questions they raised. i deal with the roman catholics first so that the logic of the catholic doctrinal position is clarified before addressing my jewish interlocutors. i apologize for questions i ask the respondents which they do not have the opportunity to answer. the questions are pedagogic and meant to encourage future exploration of unresolved issues. to remind readers of terminological distinctions i employed in the book and use below: “biblical judaism” denotes judaism until the time of jesus; “rabbinic judaism” denotes the form of judaism beginning in the second century and slowly emerging as the mainstream jewish tradition; “hebrew catholics” denotes jewish followers of jesus who unite themselves to the catholic church and have various levels of practice regarding written and oral torah; and “messianic jews” denotes jewish followers of jesus who operate with various senses of unity (if not formal union) with gentile churches and have different levels of practice regarding written and oral torah. bruce marshall: marshall raises two issues, one doctrinal, one practical. the doctrinal: god’s will regarding israel is surely not “permissive” but positive, for israel, as scripture shows, is positively willed. god’s permissive will is often taken to indicate something that is not positively willed but only permitted. the good, for 1 i also wish to thank david armstrong, karma ben-johanan, isaac chenchiah, angela costley, bruce marshall, david maayan, and malka z. simkovich for helpful conversations arising out of this panel discussion. thanks to adam gregerman for facilitating this published exchange and kendall soulen for arranging the discussion of my book at the society for post supersessionist theology, panel (2021); see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a983vddpnfm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a983vddpnfm d’costa: response from the author 2 instance, is always positively willed. evil, however, is permitted so that freedom and the good may flourish. god never positively wills that which is permitted. hence, marshall argues, it is inappropriate to describe rabbinic judaism as permitted rather than positively willed. marshall says there can be no question that biblical judaism is positively willed by god. likewise, there can be no question that the covenant with god continues in rabbinic judaism, for god has remained faithful to his covenant. but catholics need to view rabbinic judaism differently from biblical judaism because god positively wills all people to be in communion with him through christ and his church. within this positive will, hebrew catholics are included but not rabbinic jews. one might put the dilemma in this way: does the catholic church teach that the highest good for biblical israel is found in rabbinic judaism, in hebrew catholicism, or in both? remember, this is asked knowing that rabbinic judaism is based on and emerges from biblical judaism’s irrevocable covenant and is also god-responsive. also, it is recognized that at the subjective level, both communities have shortcomings and failings. the catholic church does not formally teach an answer to this specific question. however, the argument of my book was that it would have to reckon with the example of hebrew catholicism. this form of catholicism alone keeps intact the two truths that marshall advanced as taught by the catholic church. the two truths are: (1) the saving mission of christ and his church is willed by god to be universal, extending to every human being; and (2) god’s covenant with israel, with the jewish people according to the flesh, is irrevocable. hebrew catholics keep those two truths in harmony. rabbinic judaism does not, only affirming truth (2). furthermore, i suggest that the catholic church should view rabbinic judaism differently than hebrew catholicism because it does not affirm the objective truths that the messiah has come in jesus and that through his cross and resurrection, israel’s covenant has now been extended to gentiles through jesus the jew. rabbinic judaism cannot be the highest good to emerge from biblical israel for the catholic church constantly denies the possibility of parallel paths of salvation, one for jews, one for catholics. in saying the latter, it does not deny the salvation of the jewish people, past, present and the future. nor does it deny that rabbinic judaism is a call to holiness, to a special priestly vocation for the nation. in fact, this tension is well expressed in the document issued on the fiftieth anniversary of nostra aetate, “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’ (rom 11:29): a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of ‘nostra aetate,’ #4,” (2015), 36: “that the jews are participants in god’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery.”2 this statement represents the tension present in catholicism and held together in the two truths rightly identified by marshall. 2 commission for religious relations with the jews, “the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable” (rom 11:29) a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations on 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) applying permissive will to rabbinic judaism implies that it is like an evil permitted. marshall is right to question this. however, it would be misleading to say that in its present form rabbinic judaism is positively willed by god from a catholic viewpoint, because salvation in catholic dogmatics includes recognition of god as triune. that a trinitarian confession is not part of rabbinic judaism is self-evident. though one can respect this rabbinic jewish self-description, it cannot be the final form of judaism that is positively willed by god. the present form of rabbinic judaism does have a providential purpose in god’s plan and rabbinic jews as a community will eschatologically, if not before, come to see that jesus is messiah. this latter belief is found in the catechism of the catholic church 840: when one considers the future, god’s people of the old covenant and the new people of god tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the messiah. but one awaits the return of the messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as lord and son of god; the other awaits the coming of a messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding christ jesus.3 the important shift in the catholic position is in the last part of the final sentence. no longer is rabbinic judaism seen as rejecting jesus christ willfully or sinfully. rather, it is viewed as keeping to its god-given covenant in fidelity to the true and living god. the catechism accepts that rabbinic judaism is not founded on willful denial (“not knowing” or of “misunderstanding” – technically, what is called in catholic theology “invincible ignorance”). this is in keeping with st. paul’s understanding of a providential meaning to jews who do not accept jesus. eschatologically, it is impossible to make sense of the “participation in salvation” that the jewish people share without their eventually and explicitly coming to know the messiah, jesus christ, who is also the second person of the trinity. the fullness of salvation entails the beatific vision of the triune god. i recognize that this kind of response might be found insulting and implausible to jewish colleagues. however, i contend this is the logic of catholic doctrine. if one retains the terminology of “god’s will” when analyzing this issue, i would now prefer the fuller term “consequent operational will” (although it has its own problems). god has an antecedent will, which is what god wills positively. there is a consequent will, which can be divided into operational and permissive. the permissive is usually used of evil (that which god permits). but the operational has a higher status of dignity. it shows how god actually works through good to eventually achieve his antecedent will. it avoids the negative implication that marshall rightly protests against. it allows for the proper distinction between the higher the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of “nostra aetate,” #4, 2015, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismonostra-aetate_en.html. [subsequently gifts] 3 libreria editrice vaticana, catechism of the catholic church, english updated edition, 2nd edition (vatican city; washington, d.c.: our sunday visitor, 2020). http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html d’costa: response from the author 4 good of hebrew catholicism within god’s church, compared to rabbinic judaism. it allows for the harmonious tension of the two truths in catholicism noted by marshall. marshall’s practical question regarded the weight placed upon the slim shoulders of hebrew catholics who “constitute an immeasurably small fraction of world catholicism, visible only to those who expressly look for them. their place within the church’s overall understanding of her responsibility to the jewish people today is at present unclear and in need of strenuous reflection.” i entirely agree. this inner reality, the church of the gentiles and the church of the circumcision, has only become evident since the council because jewish rituals and practices have up until then been negatively understood. hence, in gifts, fifty years after the council, the church is just registering this emerging reality without having worked out its significance. when i began work on the book, this issue had been off my radar. in gifts 15 it says: in the early years of the church, therefore, there were the so-called jewish christians and the gentile christians, the ecclesia ex circumcisione and the ecclesia ex gentibus, one church originating from judaism, the other from the gentiles, who however together constituted the one and only church of jesus christ (emphasis added). this distinction maintained within the “one church” is not a historical matter of empirical numbers or a nostalgic recall of an early new testament community. in gifts 43, in the last paragraph of the section on “the church’s mandate to evangelize in relation to judaism,” this distinction is given a constitutive and qualitative status not to be found in any other official church document as far as i know: it is and remains a qualitative definition of the church of the new covenant that it consists of jews and gentiles, even if the quantitative proportions of jewish and gentile christians may initially give a different impression. just as after the death and resurrection of jesus christ there were not two unrelated covenants, so too the people of the covenant of israel are not disconnected from “the people of god drawn from the gentiles.” rather, the enduring role of the covenant people of israel in god’s plan of salvation is to relate dynamically to the “people of god of jews and gentiles, united in christ,” he whom the church confesses as the universal mediator of creation and salvation (emphasis added). this reality has gone largely unnoticed in the reception of gifts. a recent publication by antoine lévy, o.p., entitled jewish church: a catholic approach to messianic judaism (2021)4 boldly sketches out the contours of this constitutive and 4 levy, antoine, o.p., jewish church: a catholic approach to messianic judaism (lanham, maryland: lexington books, 2021). 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) qualitative reality in dialogue with mark kinzer’s messianic jewish bilateral ecclesiology. it helps to address marshall’s question in some detail, although this reality is fragile. lévy argues at least four theses relevant to this discussion. he uses “jewish church” for “hebrew catholics.” first, and most importantly, lévy argues for a serious difference between rabbinic judaism and messianic judaism because for the former, the torah (written and oral) is the mediator of god’s will, and for the latter, it is yeshua, the messiah, through whom the written and oral torah are understood and practiced. however, within christ’s body the torah is practiced differently by jews and gentiles. the practices of hebrew catholics are different from rabbinic jews in terms of intentionality, explicit telos, and in actual rituals. for example, some prayers and rituals may remain the same as those of rabbinic jews, but their meaning is different because the messiah has come. some prayers and rituals may be modified because the messiah has come. lévy makes clear that kinzer’s founding premise that messianic jewish communities are to be identified with rabbinic judaism is simply not possible or plausible. he rejects kinzer’s view that messianic communities are a bridge and witness to both gentile christianity and rabbinic judaism because of these messianic communities’ false self-understanding. messianic communities can only properly witness to rabbinic judaism by being visibly united to the gentiles who also follow yeshua, properly displaying the nature of the extension of the jewish covenant to all the nations. “properly” here means under the rules of catholic ecclesiology.5 for lévy, this does not, as in the past, entail erasing the jewish covenant for those jews who follow yeshua. for lévy, in comparison to kinzer, practicing the torah for jewish followers of jesus is not a strict obligation or a matter of religious vows. in catholic terminology it is not an intrinsically necessary means of salvation. second, lévy says this jewish church is under-defined. he suggests four characteristics for it to be authentically catholic (193). it must be corporate, “since this is about the presence of israel qua israel in the church, in contrast to the limited existential options of private individuals.” it must be distinct, “since it must give jewish disciples the possibility to express the uniqueness of their calling as sons and daughters of israel.” it must be in “communion” with gentile brethren, “since such communion is at the foundation of a truly catholic church.” this requires shared table fellowship and acceptance of the pope as the visible sign of unity. the jewish church would also have its own bishops. it would be in unity in the same way as the eastern catholic churches, with their very different rites, are in communion with rome. levy prefers to think of the jewish church as an “ordinariate” in order to preserve its vital role in the definition of the church, constituting part of its dna so to speak. finally, it must be stable, “since it must contribute to god’s project of preserving the existence of israel as a corporate reality” (193). 5 lévy’s critiques of kinzer are in some ways a latin roman catholic critique of a low church protestant ecclesiology which permits autonomous churches without visible hierarchal ministry overseeing their unity. d’costa: response from the author 6 third, lévy argues that in preserving messianically transformed jewish commandments (mitzvot), hebrew catholic communities would create the true witness that kinzer seeks to build. this jewish church is thus a challenge to both communities. to rabbinic jews, it is a witness to the reality that the messiah has come, though he does not abolish jewish identity but transforms it, as was always the expectation in both biblical and rabbinic judaism. to gentile catholics, it is a witness to the jewish covenant and how that covenant has been widened to now include the gentile nations. it demands a deep conversion to the charism and gifts of this ecclesial reality, outlined by lévy in his work, without which the church lacks the “marks” that make it true to its calling (358 fn. 79). while lévy’s book does not address marshall’s empirical concern, it begins to provide a framework that would encourage this fragile empirical reality. it shows that on such slim shoulders that are hardly formed, much depends. what is important is that gentile christians become attuned to fostering such an ecclesia, and gifts has gone some way to putting out a red carpet, even without yet knowing what the shape of such a reality might look like. lévy has given theoretical form to the shape of the jewish catholic church more than any other work that i know of, which is why i have outlined it in detail.6 it must be acknowledged that nurturing this ecclesial reality will entail difficult conversations with jewish dialogue partners who see this phenomenon as both apostasy as well as encouraging the extinction of the jewish people as a nation. this is no light charge. (this topic is covered further below.) philip a. cunningham: cunningham presents a few claims. he says that i have relegated the doctrinal authority of na. he also says i incorrectly claim that na did not address living judaism but explicitly only biblical judaism. related to this is his challenge to my claim that only starting in 1980 with the utterances of saint pope john paul ii does the church explicitly link biblical judaism with rabbinic judaism. i agree with cunningham that na has doctrinal authority and that it supplements lumen gentium 16. the argument of my book was that na should not be read alone without lg 16. this hermeneutic was enjoined by the 1985 synod of bishops which decreed that the four constitutions provide the interpretive key and dogmatic context for reading other documents such as declarations, which na is. the passage cunningham cites from my book (14) was written with this context in mind. lg is relevant here because it discusses those “who have not yet accepted the gospel” [il tandem qui evangelium nondum acceperunt], nondum clearly implying that there will be an opportunity to do so. it speaks of those who are technically “invincibly ignorant” of the truth of the gospel. it also uses the technical term from aquinas ordinantur in the next part of the same sentence: “finally, those who have not yet accepted the gospel are related [ordinantur] to the people of god in various ways” (summa theologiae iii, quest 8, art 3, to 1). in the summa passage 6 whether kinzer’s view is accurately portrayed in lévy’s work is a question i leave aside. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) cited aquinas argues that ordinantur indicates that all people have a positive potential relation to christ as their head. no one is excluded from this universal call. no one is positively willed for damnation. aquinas also distinguishes between actuality and potentiality and clarifies that the actuality only happens through baptism and communion within the church. potentiality must be made actual through grace and human cooperation. hence, my argument was and is that lg gives us the soteriological status of the groups it depicts and who are then treated in na. that is why lg also ends with the necessity of mission, citing mark 16:15: “preach the gospel to the whole creation.” mark’s formulation expressly uses creation, not nations (“omni creaturae” in the vatican text which quotes the vulgate). if one reads na alone, without lg and mark 16:15, the status of these religions will not be understood properly.7 cunningham and i are therefore in agreement about the doctrinal status of na. we are probably in disagreement about the how lg 16 influences one’s reading of na. cunningham also argues that i incorrectly maintain that catholic formal identification of rabbinic judaism as an outgrowth of biblical israel had to wait until 1980. cunningham presents linguistic and contextual arguments against my view. i have defended my view in detail in my earlier book.8 however, i can now cite gifts 39 for support, as it expresses a view on the dispute between cunningham and me: because it was such a theological breakthrough, the conciliar text is not infrequently over–interpreted, and things are read into it which it does not in fact contain. an important example of over–interpretation would be the following: that the covenant that god made with his people israel perdures and is never invalidated. although this statement is true, it cannot be explicitly read into “nostra aetate” (no.4). this statement was instead first made with full clarity by saint pope john paul ii when he said during a meeting with jewish representatives in mainz on 17 november 1980 that the old covenant had never been revoked by god. admittedly, gifts has no magisterial authority so it does not trump cunningham’s argument. i agree with cunningham the explicit statement from 1980 is perhaps implicit in na, but it is not stated or formally taught until 1980. cunningham’s second point relates to christology. he suggests a fourth model (in addition to the three in my book and thus asks that i attend to this approach) which coheres with the ecclesiastical “guide ropes” and which he says would lead to “genuine brotherhood with the people of the covenant.” his approach, he argues, would also be more acceptable in jewish-catholic dialogue. cunningham is right on the first point. the second remains to be seen. given constraints of space, i 7 i also should clarify that my citation of ilaria moralli’s claim that “the status of council documents are themselves contested” (9 fn. 26) was meant to illustrate a viewpoint. i did not affirm her claims in my book. 8 gavin d’costa, vatican ii: catholic doctrines on jews and muslims (oxford: oxford university press, 2014), 113-59. d’costa: response from the author 8 simply register some questions to cunningham’s interesting fourth model to highlight the sources of our difference and the range of ecclesial “guide ropes” that still need unknotting. there is an asymmetry between rabbinic judaism and christianity. the rabbinic noahide covenant allows gentiles to remain gentiles and to seek god through that path. gentiles are not required to become jews but must adhere to a limited collection of (mostly moral) laws. the catholic church has been called to a different vision. it must be faithful to this vision in dialogue. it has always taught from the new testament onwards, and still does in lg 8 and 14, the necessity of christ and his body, the church, for salvation. it has also called for mission to all creation. how does cunningham’s fourth model explain these teachings? cunningham’s position seems to contravene marshall’s first truth which is part of catholic dogma: that the saving mission of christ and his church is willed by god to be universal, extending to every human being. admittedly, vatican ii taught that those invincibly ignorant of the gospel are not thereby lost. i agree with cunningham, the term “invincibly ignorant” is not pleasant when applied to a sincere and pious jewish person who may be deeply knowledgeable about christianity. the point of the term is to designate someone who in good faith is not a christian and yet may eventually be saved through christ. cunningham’s model is a rahnerian type of inclusivism, without karl rahner’s insistence on the necessity of mission based on the importance of explicit knowledge and confession of christ. it is a position best developed by jacques dupuis who called it “inclusivist pluralism,” taking rahner to the limit.9 cunningham’s position affirms a trinitarian god present in torah practice and thus a fully salvific trinitarian presence in rabbinic judaism. this then explains how judaism is salvific in catholic eyes and it also obviates the need to conduct missions as jews are already saved. one might ask whether this approach honors the constitutive nature of faith in christ, whereby a person is formed through this faith in a very specific way by the reality of god as trinity. this was von balthasar’s criticism of rahner.10 rahner, in his eyes, was on the verge of making explicit christian faith irrelevant and thus minimizing the habit formation of christian practices and faith. is “anonymous christianity,” as rahner had called it, finally no different from explicit christianity? if so, what need of the incarnation? what need of the church? to ask this is not to deny the significance of the torah’s being the channel of grace that leads to the affirmation that “the jews are participants in god’s salvation.” this phrase from gifts 36 does not say this is the fullness of salvation brought 9 see jacques dupuis, toward a christian theology of religious pluralism, 2nd ed. (maryknoll, n.y.: orbis books, 2001), 89. my criticisms of dupuis can be found in gavin d’costa, “christian orthodoxy and religious pluralism: a response to terrence w. tilley,” modern theology, 23 (2007), 435–46; gavin d’costa, “‘christian orthodoxy and religious pluralism’: a further rejoinder to terrence tilley,” modern theology, 23 (2007), 455–62. 10 see hans urs von balthasar, the moment of christian witness, trans. by richard beckley (san francisco, ca: ignatius press, 1994 [1966]). it is also barth’s criticism of rahner. see bruce marshall, christology in conflict. the identity of a saviour in rahner and barth (oxford: basil blackwell, 1987). 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) in christ. “participants” is a technical term that was used in john paul ii’s redemptoris missio 5 (1990) and again in dominus iesus 14 (2000) which indicates that such “participations,” which can vary in degree and kind, all derive from christ and lead toward him for their fulfilment. while both those documents were not discussing judaism explicitly, the principle they expound can be applied to judaism, which is surely why the term “participation” is used in gifts. it signifies a kind of hierarchy in the objective revelatory order of history. this would not mean that holiness and goodness of the highest order could not be found at the subjective level in rabbinic judaism. it is not difficult to find such “saints” outside of christianity. the issue is about the first cause and end of salvation history being the trinitarian god. cunningham’s solution also fails to signify the fulfilment of this salvation in israel’s messiah, who the church takes to be jesus christ. cunningham’s model seems to set aside the most central of catholic theological questions in the jewish-catholic dialogue: is jesus israel’s messiah? pope benedict says, “the question of the messianic identity of jesus is and remains the real issue of dispute between jews and christians.”11 this is admittedly from a catholic viewpoint. the incarnation and trinity might equally qualify as central issues of dispute. there is wisdom in acknowledging that the question of the identity of the messiah may not be settled between jews and catholics until the eschaton, but that does not mean it is not a central question for catholics. cunningham’s final question to me is: if catholics have any desire to convert (he calls it a “persuasive intent”) jews because of their witness of faith in christ, does this overstep the boundaries of “dialogue”? he argues that his view reflects the direction of the catholic church’s official position. this is contrary to my argument that witness does have an “intent,” a call to “conversion” to christ. any such “intent” to be legitimate must be carried out with true respect toward the jewish person, self-critical attention to power structures, and knowledge of the horrifying history of jewish-christian relations. it also must be non-coercive, not eradicate jewish identity, and positively affirm the irrevocable covenant at the heart of rabbinic judaism. cunningham offers a pathway through the official documents that supports his view in the same manner that i tried to support mine (and admittedly failed in respect to not referring to the us bishops’ corrective of the appended “note”). i make two further observations about cunningham’s argument, while addressing our basic differences. first, we can find no mention of an explicit intention to convert jews, muslims, hindus, buddhists, and sikhs in the huge collection of vatican documents related to these religious groups and none in speeches delivered to these groups by the formal magisterium and its offices. what we do find is good will, greetings on major festivals, praise for elements within these traditions, injunctions to work together for the common good, and encouragement to engage in ongoing dialogue. while recognizing that rabbinic judaism is a sui generis case 11 pope benedict xvi, “grace and vocation without remorse: comments on the treatise ‘de iudaeis,’” trans. by nicholas j. healey, communio, 45 (2018), 163–84, 173. d’costa: response from the author 10 compared to the “religions,” one should not deduce from these documents that mission has disappeared from the catholic agenda. the necessity of universal mission to all peoples and creation was expressed in the council in ad gentes, then again by pope paul vi in evangelii nuntiandi (1975) and emphatically by saint pope john paul ii in redemptoris missio. in the catholic church’s own reflection on this matter, in a technically non-magisterial document dialogue and proclamation 2 (1991), it says “proclamation and dialogue are thus both viewed, each in its own place, as component elements and authentic forms of the one evangelizing mission of the church. they are both oriented towards the communication of salvific truth.”12 the salvific truth here is jesus christ. furthermore, gifts explicitly addresses the question of evangelization and the jewish people. what does it say? while using confusing terminology on this matter, a point that cunningham and i agree on, it nevertheless affirms “christian mission and witness, in personal life and in proclamation, belong together.… christian mission means that all christians, in community with the church, confess and proclaim the historical realisation of god’s universal will for salvation in christ jesus (cf. ‘ad gentes’ 7, [emphasis added]).” confess is one matter, proclamation is another, and the latter includes a “persuasive intent,” that is, it endorses efforts to persuade jews regarding the truthfulness of that which has salvific truth. why would ad gentes, which is entirely devoted to “mission” as the very nature of the church deriving from the trinity, be affirmed in the short section of four paragraphs on “the church’s mandate to evangelize in relation to judaism”? furthermore, why does the final paragraph in this section speak of the hebrew catholic church, the “church of the circumcision,” as being a qualitative aspect of ecclesiology? and why finish this same final paragraph with lg 16: “all people who have not yet received the gospel are aligned with the people of god of the new covenant.”13 it then cites the full section on the jewish people from lg 16. as noted above, lg offers a special dogmatic perspective on the way na should be read. while the catholic church is aware of a sui generis jewish irrevocable covenant with god, it is also without contradiction committed to confessing and proclaiming the “historical realization” of god’s “universal will for salvation” in the coming of the messiah, jesus christ. it marries the tension of affirming both god’s universal salvation in christ and the irrevocable covenant with rabbinic judaism by introducing the jewish catholic church. if “persuasive intent” means catholics hope to convince others of the truth of the definitive revelation in jesus christ, then surely persuasive intent cannot be excluded, though ultimately all things are in the hands of god. 12 joint document of the pontifical council for interreligious dialogue and the congregation for evangelization of peoples, dialogue and proclamation. reflection and orientations on interreligious dialogue and the proclamation of the gospel of jesus christ, 1991. 13 the document was published in english. the official english translation of the term ordinantur in lumen gentium is rendered as “related.” it is not clear why the terms are changed in gifts. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) i will return to this constellation of issues in what follows as i engage with my jewish colleagues. there is some overlap, inevitably, with the materials discussed above. rabbi david sandmel: sandmel raises three questions: first, sandmel suggests a change in terminology to make my thesis clearer. he suggests i should use “inclusive supersessionism,” which he sees as equivalent to my “fulfilment” position, as an acknowledgment this position has elements of soft supersessionism. in my book i avoid the term “inclusivist.” for sandmel, this is in contrast to “exclusivist supersessionism,” which is a form of replacement theology. he suggests this terminology in order to make what he sees as the real logic of my position clear: catholicism has not moved away from supersessionism of sorts. sandmel is too graceful to say this bluntly, but i take this concern to be that soft supersessionist logic still perpetuates a view of some sort of “lack” in rabbinic judaism (“lack” implying deficiency). sandmel does not see his tradition in this way and is uncomfortable engaging in dialogue when his tradition is viewed in this manner by the dialogue partner. he also is concerned that this view allows catholics, for whom na is not bedtime reading, unintentionally to slip back into replacement theology and hard supersessionism. sandmel is correct in his analysis. there are a few features of his observations i would like to comment on. first, i take seriously the way in which soft supersessionism can so easily slide back into hard supersessionism.14 the work of catechetics is vital and the size and educational level of the catholic population means that this point will takes many years to be absorbed by catholics. only when doctrine is firmly established does it get taught in schools, seminaries, colleges, and most importantly in the pews. this explains my focus on doctrines in my book. i concur with sandmel in his worry about soft turning into hard supersessionism. second, i am uncomfortable with the notion of “inclusive supersessionism” because that which is included is always transformed in the “inclusion.” recalling levy’s book cited above in my discussion of marshall, hebrew catholics are no longer identified with rabbinic judaism. although they may desire to follow some rabbinic jewish practices, these practices will be transformed from their original context due to the messianic intentionality and explicit telos now invoked. one cannot say that rabbinic judaism is “included” in hebrew catholicism from the viewpoint of rabbinic judaism. one should respect this. fulfilment is the term used in most ecclesial documents. i prefer it for both these reasons. third, two jewish writers, david novak and jon d. levenson, both make strong cases for the coherence and tenability of christian soft supersessionism. without some form of this, christianity would relativize itself out of making truth claims. novak notes that there would be no reasons for christians to be christians if they did not hold to the truth of christianity as god’s definitive revelation. there 14 edward kessler, “reflections from a european jewish theologian,” 2015, https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analyses/crrj-2015dec10/kessler-2015dec10. https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analyses/crrj-2015dec10/kessler-2015dec10 https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analyses/crrj-2015dec10/kessler-2015dec10 d’costa: response from the author 12 could be no reason to explain why a jew may convert to christianity. 15 the challenge for christians is to affirm some form of soft supersessionism while not eradicating the positive meaning of rabbinic judaism as a consequence. my book tries to do this. i show that the catholic magisterium has, within fifty years of the second vatican council, affirmed unequivocally that the jewish covenant is valid, that it is operative, that god does not go back on his promises, and most importantly, that rabbinic judaism is a continuation of this covenant. i uphold these claims while also retaining the traditional claims that jesus christ is the jewish messiah who fulfils that covenant by serving as a light to the nations, by inviting gentiles to participate in fellowship, and by deepening and transforming the knowledge of the form of god as triune.16 the incarnation has been viewed as idolatry in rabbinic judaism for making a human (jesus) into god. (jews have this concern in common with islam.) there are a range of sophisticated jewish opinions on this matter: christianity as a whole is idolatrous because of the centrality of the incarnation; christianity is both true in its worship of the one god of abraham and idolatrous in its view of jesus (both views being held together in tension); and the minority view, christianity is not idolatrous in affirming the incarnation and is pure monotheism. the middle view is expressed in recent times by rabbi dr. meir soloveitchik: “i must emphasize that jews recognize the difference between christianity and pagan idolatry. christians, like jews, worship the god of abraham, isaac, and jacob. at the same time … jews believe that christians, in the process of worshiping the god of abraham, also worship a human being who was not god.”17 political and social circumstances often influenced the jewish viewpoint. karma ben johanan shows how within the safe context of modern israel, free from christian persecution, significant halakhic figures in contemporary orthodox judaism define christianity as idolatry. others, a very small minority, take this a step further in arguing that this would mean that theologically, christians as idolaters should not be allowed to settle in the land. this is found in the theology of some of 15 david novak, talking with christians: musings of a jewish theologian (grand rapids, michigan & cambridge: william b. eerdmans publishing co., 2005), 164; and david novak, jewish-christian dialogue: a jewish justification (new york: oxford university press, 1992), 16f. 16 jon d. levenson, “can catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?,” studies in christian jewish relations, 1 (2011), 170–85; and jon d. levenson, “how not to conduct jewish-christian dialogue,” commentary magazine, december 1 (2001), https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/jon-levenson-2/how-not-to-conduct-jewish-christian-dialogue/. levenson even makes a strong case that traditionally judaism is hard supersessionist regarding all forms of idolatry and paganism that existed prior to itself. when this hard supersessionism entails violence, there are problems with it. when it does not entail violence but is focused on truth, when a belief that is true compared to something that is less true, it is permissible and indeed necessary. otherwise, judaism could not make truth claims at all and relativism would rule. 17 see meir y. soloveitchik, “torah and incarnation. torah learning bridges the gap between man and god,” october 2010, https://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/10/torah-and-incarnation. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/jon-levenson-2/how-not-to-conduct-jewish-christian-dialogue/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/jon-levenson-2/how-not-to-conduct-jewish-christian-dialogue/ https://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/10/torah-and-incarnation 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) the followers of rabbi tzvi yehuda kook.18 the claim i make is that jewish supersessionism viz. paganism and jewish views of the incarnation illustrate a philosophical point that lack is always a shadow side of truth claims. fifth, while judaism contains forms of hard supersessionism toward paganism and idolatry, soft supersessionism is peculiar to christianity (and to forms of islam in their view of jews and christians). this is a feature perhaps related to chronology and genealogy: abraham as a common father both generates contestations about who are the true sons and daughters by the later arrivals on the scene. this construction of abraham also provides resources to think of members of these three traditions as being abraham’s true sons and daughters.19 furthermore, christian soft supersessionism is not a reciprocal process. when christians claim jesus is a soft fulfilment of judaism, they really mean christianity’s version of biblical judaism is being fulfilled. the notion of fulfilment can hardly be so straightforwardly applied to rabbinic judaism. it is after all a post-biblical tradition. in this sense, sandmel is right to raise his disquiet about the term lack. is there a lack in rabbinic judaism in relation to catholicism in any objective sense? or is this just a catholic perception? sixth, it is worth asking whether this messianic lack in rabbinic judaism is also one that rabbinic judaism identifies itself. i think the answer would be both “yes” and “no”. rabbinic judaism in its own view has not reached its own teleological fulfilment until the messiah comes and the temple is restored (and there are various scenarios within the tradition that mark this fulfilment). in this sense, to speak of a lack is not an external critique but an acknowledgement of a lack that rabbinic judaism still anticipates will be fulfilled. at the same time, rabbinic judaism’s “no” to jesus as messiah can hardly be seen by rabbinic jews as a lack; this judgment is externally imposed by christians. the “no” of rabbinic judaism regarding yeshua needs to be registered seriously. yeshua fails to meet the expectations of the anticipated jewish messiah of mainstream rabbinic judaism, and christian attitudes toward him is most often understood as idolatry. the conversation here has only just begun. it is difficult at this stage to establish whether we are seeing two incommensurable traditions in catholicism or rabbinic judaism such that there could be no serious discussion about the messiah, or whether there is intellectual space for these questions to be properly aired and to have traction within each of the traditions. finally, catholics must register the seriousness of the issue of violence and intimidation between religions, in this case by catholics toward jews. the long history of violence always casts a shadow over any conversation between catholics 18 see forthcoming: karma ben johanan, reconciliation and its discontents: christians and jews after vatican ii (cambridge, ma: harvard university press). neither author argues for a unitary rabbinic judaism. levenson and ben johanan both acknowledge internal diversity. 19 see jon d. levenson, inheriting abraham: the legacy of the patriarch in judaism, christianity, and islam (princeton: princeton university press, 2014), who carefully deconstructs, for positive reasons, the too easy use of the metaphor “children of abraham.” vatican ii was ambivalent, but not entirely dismissive, of this model. d’costa: response from the author 14 and jews. vatican ii, in its teachings in dignitatis humanae, insisted that both religious and secular communities, despite differences between them, must be granted civil rights and freedoms.20 this statement is a serious development in catholic social thought, based on a recovery of elements of christian anthropology. note that this development does not require the catholic church to affirm as true the views of these other communities. sandmel’s second concern is about jewish mitzvot. he correctly recognizes that the logic of the catholic position that is slowly emerging from the teachings of the magisterium leads to some very methodologically problematic and fraternally risky implications. he argues that it is inappropriate methodologically to analyze rabbinic judaism from a catholic perspective. it is not up to catholics to discern which forms of rabbinic judaism are god-given and god-responsive and which are not. i said in my book that i would prefer to avoid these implications, but they were logically generated questions! and if the first methodological objection is correct, the second objection is then automatically granted. responding to sandmel’s first methodological point, one might ask, do the noahide laws in judaism also employ an inappropriate methodology whereby gentile practices are assessed as legitimate or illegitimate from a jewish view? i think not. it is a responsible exercise of a community to reflect on the religious status of those not within the community using categories generated from within the (in this case jewish) community. those categories can sometimes even overlap with the views of the outsiders being analyzed. david novak, for example, makes an interesting case that the noahide laws can also be understood in terms of “natural law” and thus might gain more traction with non-jewish communities.21 this approach has been positively embraced by some catholics.22 however, many a postmodern community who rejects natural law would still have this analysis applied to them by novak. in that situation, the natural law argument will not be withdrawn, for its applicability is not reliant on its conceptual acceptance by the group being analyzed in terms of their acceptance of such laws. furthermore, the jewish community may determine practical actions in the light of such analysis. eugene korn writes, “the talmudic tradition split the gentile world into two sub-categories: immoral persons who reject the noahide commandments and to whom tolerance is generally not extended, and gentiles who accept the laws of the noahide covenant who are regarded positively, whom jews are obligated to protect and sustain.”23 i have noted above both how social power can determine how conceptual categories are actually applied and how the relation of power to practice is always a contingent one. my 20 see especially dignitatis humane 6 and f. russell hittinger on dignitatis 359-382, in vatican ii: renewal within tradition, eds. matthew l. lamb and matthew levering (new york; oxford: oxford university press, 2008). 21 see chapter 6 of david novak, natural law in judaism (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2008). 22 the achievement of david novak, eds. matthew levering and tom angier (eugene, oregon: pickwick publications, 2021). 23 eugene korn, “noahide covenant,” boston college, sourcebook, https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/sourcebook/noahide_covenant.htm. https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/sourcebook/noahide_covenant.htm https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/sourcebook/noahide_covenant.htm 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) point is that methodologically, all religions are involved in interpreting other religions and non-religions from within their own world view. we should not expect otherwise. having said this, i fully accept that a catholic appraisal of judaism is different from the study of judaism. any catholic appraisal of rabbinic judaism as a type would also have to eventually know this tradition in detail as the tradition understands itself. the catholic theological analytical appraisal would be first about the type, rabbinic judaism, and then its application to the different granular forms of rabbinic judaism. this parallels the need to first establish what the noahide laws are and only then to look at their subsequent application to particular non-jewish societies. in the second stage application process there is reciprocal interaction. for the application of the noahide laws, non-theistic religions have posed interesting problems since it may not be clear whether they are idolatrous in their “alternative” cosmologies and whether the traditional prohibition against idolatry would require reconceptualization in the present. likewise, the diversity of rabbinic judaism poses interesting questions to the affirmation of the type, rabbinic judaism. my book was dealing with the first generalized task: the emerging theology of a catholic appraisal of the type, rabbinic judaism. the subsequent application to the granular phenomena of rabbinic judaism cannot be evaded in the long run. however, it can also accept that being jewish does not require the religious practice of the torah, just as rabbinic judaism also views the matter. ultimately, it is impossible for the catholic magisterium to positively affirm rabbinic judaism in a generalized manner, purely as a type. can it affirm rabbinic judaism, including forms which view christianity as idolatry, without a certain level of self-contradiction? would forms of rabbinic judaism that are hostile to christianity have the same status as the rabbinic judaism that generated the 2015 declaration, to do the will of our father in heaven: toward a partnership between jews and christians?24 what will catholics make of their own generalized affirmative statements about rabbinic judaism when rabbinic judaism contains groups which deny that other forms of rabbinic judaism are legitimate and have insist they have departed from proper torah practice? finally, it goes without saying that the catholic church has no authority whatsoever to tell jewish people how to be good jews and what constitutes rabbinic judaism. that is a matter internal to the jewish community. sandmel asks whether my argument that the teachings of vatican ii are not discontinuous with the full authority of previous magisterial teachings implies that jewish views that vatican ii represents a “sea change” or “copernican revolution” are incorrect. two considerations are in order. first, i acknowledge that a number of catholic theologians would disagree with my analysis regarding the claim there is no “doctrinal discontinuity” in vatican ii. this is because ‘the epistemological presuppositions of each group differ” (188, cited by sandmel). disagreements like this are normal. hence, some catholic theologians would entertain sandmel’s view. 24 see https://www.cjcuc.org/2015/12/03/orthodox-rabbinic-statement-on-christianity/. https://www.cjcuc.org/2015/12/03/orthodox-rabbinic-statement-on-christianity/ d’costa: response from the author 16 second, everything hinges on the term “full authority of the magisterium” regarding continuity or discontinuity (188, cited by sandmel). if discontinuity is to be claimed, then one must show teachings derived from the full authority of the magisterium showing x at one point (i.e., that the jews do not have a valid covenant), and not x at another time (i.e., that the jews do have a valid covenant). there is no a priori reason to dismiss any evidence offered. i spend a chapter in my book (27-63) examining the major argument for such discontinuity. the doctrinal statements arising from cantate dominus have the full authority of the magisterium. they appear to constitute evidence of discontinuity. however, i show that when cantate deals with jews it has different epistemological presuppositions about that type from the vatican ii documents. in cantate it is assumed that jews are those who knowingly deny christ whom they know in their hearts and minds to be the messiah. in vatican ii it is assumed that the jews do not willfully deny jesus’s status. hence, the epistemological presuppositions differ generating two types, both called “jews,” but understood very differently. i further argued that once this is identified, cantate provides serious resources to think positively about judaism! this is because cantate acknowledges that god works through jewish festivals and practices in a quasi-sacramental form that point to christ.25 this is also found in ex quo primum (1756). what cantate protests is the practice of these jewish festivals (in christian communities as well) after the time of christ because they in effect deny the truth of christ, the messiah’s, arrival. they deny that it is christ who saves, not these quasi-sacramental practices. once it is recognized that rabbinic jews do not willfully deny jesus’ status, it opens the door to the type of insight found in gifts 36: “that the jews are participants in god’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery.” their festivals and practices do participate in god’s grace in terms of a general type. my concern about continuity and discontinuity was exclusively regarding the “full authority of the magisterium.” however, i sadly have no hesitation in acknowledging a pervasive and deep-rooted anti-jewishness in “catholic culture,” including even among popes. here there is genuine discontinuity, but not in the teachings of the magisterium. gifts 17 openly acknowledges this long history of perverted catholic culture: on the part of many of the church fathers the so-called replacement theory or supersessionism steadily gained favour until in the middle ages it represented the standard theological foundation of the relationship with judaism: the promises and commitments of god would no longer apply to israel because it had 25 on the quasi-sacramental and in figura status of such practices see bruce d. marshall, “quasi in figura: a brief reflection on jewish election, after thomas aquinas,” nova et vetera, 7 (2009), 477– 84; trent pomplun, “quasi in figura: a cosmological reading of the thomistic phrase,” nova et vetera, 7 (2009), 505–22; and emmanuel perrier, op, “the election of israel today: supersessionism, post-supersessionism, and fulfilment,” nova et vetera, 7 (2009), 485–504. my position is like that of pomplun and perrier in contrast to marshall’s. 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 15, no. 1 (2020) not recognised jesus as the messiah and the son of god, but had been transferred to the church of jesus christ which was now the true ‘new israel,’ the new chosen people of god. arising from the same soil, judaism and christianity in the centuries after their separation became involved in a theological antagonism which was only to be defused at the second vatican council. hence, i agree that sandmel is right to use the terms “copernican revolution” and “sea change” in relation to catholic culture in a broad sense. however, if applied in the specific sense of the “full authority of the magisterium,” these are inaccurate terms. ruth langer: some of the issues langer raises have already been covered above. however, i want to respond to two questions she asks. the first is that my position is not helpful or practical for jewish-catholic dialogue. it views rabbinic judaism only through catholic spectacles, not on its own terms. langer’s second point is that my arguments for non-coercive mission are unconvincing to jewish ears for they still spell the extinction of rabbinic jewish existence, especially with the introduction of hebrew catholics into the equation. i have addressed the issue of failing to see rabbinic judaism in its own terms. i think catholics need to do this. however, my book was not focused on the many contributions, questions, and spiritual beauties and riches within rabbinic judaism. langer’s deeper objection, i take it, might be expressed more forcefully: why do catholics like d’costa not get it? messianic jews and hebrew catholics are not good jews. they are apostate jews. one should respect the jewish community’s own self-definition. to tell jews that hebrew catholics keep their jewish identity intact is like jews telling catholics that marcionism, despite being condemned, is fully catholic. what is the point of dialogue when d’costa is so impervious to jewish voices? he is not listening. dialogue with people like him cannot go far. i respect the authority of rabbinic jews to define their own boundaries and to decide who is and who is not an apostate. i accept that rabbinic jews usually question the status of both messianic jews and hebrew catholics, and this should be respected.26 they are apostates, but still jews. apostates lose many rights and privileges. i accept that supporting apostate jews as the catholic church seems to, in supporting hebrew catholics, is a new menace to jewish self-definition. i can see how it is thereby construed as another christian invitation to self-extinction by jews who do not follow jesus. this is regrettable. i acknowledge the problem. however, while rabbinic jews do own the categories and authority for their own self-definition,27 it is not clear to me that hebrew catholics, as lévy argues, 26 for a range of jewish views of (belief in) jesus, see dan cohn-sherbok, messianic judaism (london: new york: continuum, 2000); peter schäfer, jesus in the talmud (princeton: princeton university press, 2009). though schäfer’s interpretations are contested, he gathers an impressive array of historical sources. 27 although in truth, matters are more complex and fluid, as shalom goldman depicts in his jewishchristian difference and modern jewish identity: seven twentieth-century converts (lanham, md: lexington books, 2015). d’costa: response from the author 18 are or should be under the authority of rabbinic judaism. there is no contestation by any group that hebrew catholics are “jewish.” the definition of jewishness is defined by one’s genealogical link to abraham. who then owns the term “jew” in the modern context? rabbinic judaism does for those who wish to be rabbinic jews (and here there is diversity)28; the high court of israel does for those who wish to apply for the right of return to israel as jews (and here yeshua-followers are legally refused due to their apostasy)29; and the church does for those who are hebrew catholics, seeing them as deriving from biblical judaism. the authority to interpret biblical judaism for hebrew catholics is finally christ’s, as is the interpretation of their own possible rabbinic jewish tradition. there are no easy answers here. perhaps the most that can be asked for is a recognition of the legitimate complexity of the right of different groups to properly exercise theological jurisdiction. in the long run jews may wish to withdraw from conversation with catholics, seeing catholics both breeding and nurturing apostate jews and thereby showing “persuasive intent.” i sincerely hope this will not be the outcome. if we can be honest with each other about what we believe and why we believe it, and show a willingness to be interrogated about those beliefs, surely that is the most dialogue can ask for. the purpose of dialogue can be many things: bridge building; work for common goals; social action; scriptural engagement; learning from each other’s spirituality and practices; working through our own tradition’s madness, sadness, and glories; and listening to critical views that make us very uncomfortable. however, i prefer to think of dialogue using the guiding metaphor of friendship. and friendship, according to aquinas, is the highest goal we might seek with another.30 that friends may desire the greatest good for each other is a virtue; that they learn from the other what the good is, is equally a virtue. the first has an element of persuasive intent; the second requires humility and receptivity. both require trust, that most fragile of realities, but the most precious. 28 see goldman and the interesting questions raised by daniel boyarin, sparks of the logos: essays in rabbinic hermeneutics (leiden: boston: brill, 2003), regarding the incarnation as idolatry; and boyarin, border lines: the partition of judaeo-christianity, (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2004), regarding the boundaries of difference between jew and christian. 29 the famous test case on this matter was regarding a hebrew catholic, who was also celebrated at yad vashem! see https://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/communities/mir/rufeisen.asp; and nechama tec's depiction of the story, in the lion’s den: the life of oswald rufeisen (new york: oxford university press, 1990), and covered in goldman, jewish-christian difference, 149-68. 30 see “cardinal schönborn: ‘on love and friendship,’” thomas aquinas college, 2002, https://thomasaquinas.edu/news/cardinal-schonborn-love-and-friendship [accessed february 2021]. about:blank https://thomasaquinas.edu/news/cardinal-schonborn-love-and-friendship theologies of the land and state of israel: the role of the secular in jewish and christian understandings langer, “theologies of the land and state of israel” 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college theologies of the land and state of israel the role of the secular in christian and jewish understandings ruth langer b o s t o n c o l l e g e volume 3 (2008) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-17 langer, “theologies of the land and state of israel” 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 the sixtieth anniversary of the founding of the modern state of israel provides us with an opportunity to search for deeper understanding on a central but under-discussed topic in christian-jewish dialogue. it has been avoided most often because of the sheer complexity of the issues involved: the pitfalls involved for christians globally in negotiating between israeli and palestinian political issues; the wide range of jewish responses to these same issues; and a sense that political issues have no place in dialogue between religious communities. while acknowledging that the first two concerns also deserve their own discussions, this essay will focus on the third, which functions as a meta-issue that has obstructed productive dialogue on this central element of jewish life and thought. the theoretical separation of religious and political realities has been an aspect of christian culture since the fourth century when christians first began to wield political power, but it was never a native separation for judaism. thus, contemporary christian theologians have attempted to develop understandings of jewish relationship to the land that excludes its political aspects. from a jewish perspective, this amounts to a recasting of judaism according to a foreign set of values, one that devalues the potential (if not yet actualized) theological meanings inherent in contemporary jewish sovereignty over its historical homeland. a cardinal principle of dialogue states that one should strive to understand the other from within the other’s own terms of reference and then strive to respond accordingly.1 this means being sensitive to the cultural and theological barriers that lead easily to miscommunications. rather than presuming similarities, one needs to be open to differences, subtle or not, and to 1 see leonard swidler, “the dialogue decalogue: ground rules for interreligious, interideological dialogue,” first published in the journal for ecumenical studies, 1983, available in slightly revised form at http://www.usao.edu/ ~facshaferi/dialog00.html (accessed march 2, 2008). see particularly his fifth commandment. learn how the other can operate with a different perspective on the world, with a different set of presuppositions and a differently nuanced set of values. otherwise, we miss what is distinctive about our dialogue partners. this is particularly critical when we share so many aspects of culture that we become unaware of the need to translate, presuming that our words and ideas are received as we intend them. our brains can be compared to filing cabinets or hard drives. we humans tend to listen selectively, filing away that which fits into our preconceived constructs, that for which we already have folders, and either misfiling or ignoring the rest. in dialogue, we meet an other who frequently structures ideas and information differently, who organizes information into a different set of mental files. how do we achieve communication? dialogue challenges us, on the one hand, to open new files for ourselves, to acquire new ways of organizing and integrating incoming information. on the other hand, it challenges us to discern how our partner has previously learned to organize information and to try to communicate in such a way that what is important to us fits as well as possible into the other’s preexisting file structure – to minimize our partner’s need for architectural reform to achieve understanding. by striving to maximize our own mental flexibility and to minimize our demands on our dialogue partner, we seek a maximally successful act of communication. when we apply this theoretical construct to issues surrounding dialogue about israel, we see its power. for observant jews through the centuries, the physical return of the people israel to the land of israel and the resumption of political sovereignty over the land have stood at the center of their messianic vision. far from peripheral, this vision permeates daily statutory prayers as well as popular piety. it finds expression in texts of halakhah and midrash almost without number. it is such a given studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-17 langer, “theologies of the land and state of israel” 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 that there is no need for systematic theological argument.2 in contrast, christianity early on explained jewish exile from the land as the concrete earthly expression of a theological necessity; it represented divine punishment, minimally for jewish rejection of jesus, but more seriously for jewish crime in murdering him. in this, then, the jewish and christian “filing systems” have been utterly incompatible on this issue. however, in the contemporary world, nostra aetate and similar documents claim that “the jews remain very dear to god,” that “neither all jews indiscriminately at that time, nor jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during [christ’s] passion,” and that “jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed.”3 functionally, these teachings undercut traditional christian understandings of why jews were exiled from their land, creating an opening for rethinking, theologically, jewish religious connection to it. this, as part of the contemporary revision of christian theologies of jews and judaism and its search for positive understandings, constitutes a major and extremely challenging revision of the received christian “filing system,” but one that creates the potential for true dialogue. 2 see, for instance, the discussions (or lack thereof) in contemporary summaries of rabbinic theology. ephraim e. urbach, the sages: their concepts and beliefs, trans. israel abrahams (jerusalem: magnes press, 1975), includes no explicit chapter on the land, and discusses these concepts only peripherally within his final chapter, “on redemption.” in this, he largely draws upon a pattern set by early twentieth-century works like solomon schechter’s aspects of rabbinic theology: major concepts of the talmud (new york: schocken books, 1961; rpt. from macmillan, 1909). neil gillman, sacred fragments: recovering theology for the modern jew (philadelphia: jewish publication society, 1990), similarly devotes no particular chapter to israel. for a more detailed study of jewish understandings of the land in late antiquity, see isaiah gafni, land, center and diaspora: jewish constructs in late antiquity, journal for the study of the pseudepigrapha supplement series 21 (sheffield: sheffield academic press, 1997). 3 see http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/ resources/documents/catholic/ nostra_aetate.htm. land and state in dabru emet and a sacred obligation we see this clearly when we look carefully at the statements about israel in two important documents that emerged from our dialogue within the last decade: the third point (of eight) of the jewish document, dabru emet,4 and the ninth point (of ten) of the christian document, a sacred obligation.5 both statements address christian understanding of the jewish relationship to a place called israel. both speak directly to their own communities, but know too that they will be read and studied by the other. dabru emet’s concern is that its primary audience, jews, understands that “christians can respect the claim of the jewish people upon the land of israel.” a sacred obligation, in turn, affirms that “we [christians] affirm the importance of the land of israel for the life of the jewish people.” it would seem that this is a simple matter. what the jewish document says that christians can do, the christian document does. but a closer reading challenges this easy conclusion. these are texts that were produced by committees who scrutinized and debated every nuance of every word. once we go beyond the headings and read closely with sensitivity to the structural question with which i began, we see immediately that the situation is not so simple. dabru emet’s paragraph reads: 4 issued by a committee of jewish scholars affiliated with the institute for christian and jewish studies, baltimore, on september 10, 2000, as a fullpage advertisement in the new york times and the baltimore sun, with a long list of additional signatures. see http://www.icjs.org/what/njsp/ dabru emet.html. 5 issued by the christian scholars group on christian-jewish relations, hosted by the center for christian-jewish learning, boston college, on september 1, 2002. see http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/sites/ partners/csg/sacred_obligation.htm. note that its fourth point directly addresses the revision of christian thinking about judaism to include judaism’s living reality through history and today. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-17 langer, “theologies of the land and state of israel” 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 christians can respect the claim of the jewish people upon the land of israel. the most important event for jews since the holocaust has been the reestablishment of a jewish state in the promised land. as members of a biblically based religion, christians appreciate that israel was promised – and given – to jews as the physical center of the covenant between them and god. many christians support the state of israel for reasons far more profound than mere politics. as jews, we applaud this support. we also recognize that jewish tradition mandates justice for all non-jews who reside in a jewish state. where this statement’s opening sentence and header speaks of the christian ability to respect the claim of the jewish people upon the land of israel – a theological understanding not tied to any particular point in jewish history – its second sentence speaks of the value contemporary jews place on of the establishment of the jewish state of israel – a political and historical experience centered concretely in the proclamation of israeli statehood by david ben-gurion on may 14, 1948, on the 5th of iyyar, 5708. as becomes evident, this is a deliberate move. jewish theology often does not rely on abstract philosophizing; here it is concretely grounded, literally, in the historical experience of a people called israel in relation to a specific place called israel. in christian terms, this might be understood more as a narrative theology rather than a systematic philosophical theology, and for christian theologians, narrative theology is rather a newer and less esteemed category. to try to represent this historical and political reality in the language of christian theological expression, then, dabru emet’s third sentence frames its point in the categories of this narrative theology. it points to our shared biblical text and the bible’s record of god’s promise and gift of this physical space as an integral and central element of god’s covenant with the people israel, known for most of their history as jews. the narrative authority of scripture, dabru emet suggests, is the basis on which christians can enter into a theological understanding of the covenantal nature of the jewish relationship with the land. in making this assertion, however, dabru emet wades into complex waters. for those christians (and jews) whose primary approach to the bible is through the lens of biblical critical scholarship, the “true” narrative of the bible does not lie in the obvious meanings of the received text, but rather in the human origins of its atomized parts. such readings can undercut the authority of the patriarchal covenants and make them problematic as bases for a theological understanding of the land. dabru emet’s strategy here thus works in dialogue only with that spectrum of christian approaches to the pentateuch that reads its narratives as divinely inspired and hence of theological significance. dabru emet next turns back to the modern political state, suggesting that this theological, biblically grounded relationship with the land is a profound basis for many christians’ support of the state of israel. in other words, dabru emet’s brief statement about israel searches for a bridge between the jewish groundedness in history and physical location and the universal, often even timeless scope of systematic christian theological categories. dabru emet’s framers offer a possible christian framing of these jewish categories, a way to express the role of israel for jews that will accurately reflect the way that minds trained to think in christian categories and to operate according to christian presuppositions would do so. before focusing on dabru emet’s closing statement, an acknowledgement of the humanitarian crisis among the palestinians, we should turn to the parallel discussion in a sacred obligation. while a sacred obligation arose from the same impetus as dabru emet and within a parallel group of scholars, it is in studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-17 langer, “theologies of the land and state of israel” 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 many ways a radically different document. dabru emet’s authors were concerned that jews understand the new christian thinking about judaism; they did not, however, present a jewish understanding of christianity itself. a sacred obligation, in contrast, presents to christians certain principles of christian theological understandings about judaism; it does not try to teach its christian audience about a jewish theological understanding of christianity. thus, both texts are ultimately discussing christian theological understandings of jews; they parallel rather than mirror each other, reflecting an inherent imbalance that has been characteristic of the contemporary dialogue. the publication of dabru emet preceded that of a sacred obligation by two years, and is acknowledged in a sacred obligation’s introduction. some aspects of the christian scholars group’s a sacred obligation, then, respond to dabru emet. a sacred obligation’s ninth point reads: we affirm the importance of the land of israel for the life of the jewish people. the land of israel has always been of central significance to the jewish people. however, christian theology charged that the jews had condemned themselves to homelessness by rejecting god’s messiah. such supersessionism precluded any possibility for christian understanding of jewish attachment to the land of israel. christian theologians can no longer avoid this crucial issue, especially in light of the complex and persistent conflict over the land. recognizing that both israelis and palestinians have the right to live in peace and security in a homeland of their own, we call for efforts that contribute to a just peace among all the peoples in the region. dabru emet’s negotiation between the language of “land” and “state” is fully absent here. following the heading, a sacred obligation mentions the “land” or “land of israel” another three times, but it never names or alludes to the contemporary political state, except in the context of resolution of “conflict over the land.” this was deliberate; as michael mcgarry explains, the drafters did not want to be drawn into taking sides in the israel-palestinian conflict, especially in the face of intrajewish differences in how to approach the meaning of israel.6 the challenge that i want to raise is whether this results in a sufficient understanding of jews and judaism, one that reflects jewish self-understanding. the understanding of jewish attachment to the land that the framers of a sacred obligation call for is certainly a necessary step towards understanding the jewish relationship to the land of israel. but should it stop there? does the desire to stop short of engaging with the contemporary political state represent a failure on the part of the jewish dialogue partners to convey its significance in categories that christians can “file” properly? or is it, as mcgarry suggests, instead a prudent choice in the face of conflict? before addressing these questions, though, it will be helpful to understand how this distinction between the land of israel and the modern political state of israel emerged. in the catholic world, the bishops at the second vatican council confronted this issue as they negotiated the eventual text of nostra aetate, presenting it as a religious, theological statement and not one that concerned zionism or the state of israel. in no small part, this was needed to overcome the objections of voices from arab countries.7 the most explicit statement of this distinction appears in the 1985 “notes” continuing the implementation of 6 michael b. mcgarry, “the land of israel in the cauldron of the middle east: a challenge to christian-jewish relations,” in seeing judaism anew: christianity’s sacred obligation, edited by mary c. boys (lanham: rowman & littlefield, 2005), 213-224. 7 see alberto melloni, “nostra aetate and the discovery of the sacrament of otherness,” in the catholic church and the jewish people: recent reflections from rome, ed. philip a. cunningham, norbert j. hoffman, joseph sievers (new york: fordham university press, 2007), 140. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-17 langer, “theologies of the land and state of israel” 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 nostra aetate,8 but it is also evident in the fact that relations between the vatican and the state of israel are a function of its secretariat of state, and not of the commission for religious relations with the jews. however, the need to completely omit reference to the state of israel was not clear to the framers of a sacred obligation from the beginning. in the course of their deliberations, in november 2001, the question arose whether the scholars were calling on christians to affirm the jewish bond to the “state” or the “land” of israel. correspondence discussing this question over subsequent months has not been collected and was not available to me, but we should be mindful that these were the bloodiest months of the second intifada in israel and palestine. the next text is dated april 12, i.e., immediately following the bombing of the communal passover seder in a netanya hotel at the end of march, which led to israel’s re-entry into palestinian cities, especially jenin. in mid-april, palestinian gross misinformation about the extent of israeli-caused casualties in jenin had not yet been debunked,9 so accusations of horror were flying in both directions. thus, it is easy to imagine the context in which the scholars decided that it was most appropriate for them, as christian theologians, to focus exclusively on theological issues. the deeply revised text, not yet our final version, still acknowledged the founding of the state, but only in the context of a remark about the challenge that it presented christians who had no 8 vatican commission for religious relations with the jews, “notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church” (june 24, 1985), vi:25, (http://www.bc.edu/ research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/ vatican_notes.htm) 9 i.e., reports of the deaths of 500 palestinians. the eventual documented total was 52 palestinians and 23 israelis. in addition to news sources from this period, see the report of the secretary general of the united nations, http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/. theological basis for understanding this historical political reality and its attendant conflicts. the statement acknowledged christian traditions of denying ongoing jewish covenantal ties with the land and called for christian theologians to “engage in the theological task of developing a christian theology of the land that will contribute to peace among all the peoples of the region.” the document as it emerged from the april 12 meeting was too long. a draft dated may 18, 2002, shows our paragraph to have achieved its final, shorter form. it is only at this point that all direct reference to the state of israel drops out entirely, leaving only the urgency of the christian theological challenge “in light of the complex and persistent conflict over the land.” a sacred obligation grants the state of israel only implied recognition, equal to that of the incipient state of palestine, through their citizens “israelis and palestinians” who [both] “have the right to live in peace and security in a homeland of their own….” the way that these two documents treat these issues of conflict underscores the fundamental differences that have become apparent. the framers of a sacred obligation label it carefully as “the complex and persistent conflict over the land.” they name both israelis and palestinians – the political entities and not the religious communities – as those having “the right to live in peace and security in a homeland of their own,” and they call for efforts that “contribute to a just peace among all the peoples in the region” (emphasis mine). not only are these carefully neutral statements, but they do not even voice special concern for the troubled christian communities of the region. muslims are present only by inference, but this, after all, is a document specifically about christian-jewish relations. the reiteration of the word “peace” speaks to christian values, but not uniquely so. this is the voice of a community that strives to stand as a neutral third party, outside this messy political reality. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-17 langer, “theologies of the land and state of israel” 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 jews, in my opinion and apparently that also of the framers of dabru emet, do not have that option. this statement, which, remember, is supposedly about christian support for israel, concludes, “we also recognize that jewish tradition mandates justice for all non-jews who reside in a jewish state.” this is not a neutral voice; it is also not a statement about christianity. rather, it is the critique of the engaged jewish insider speaking to the political reality of the contemporary state of israel in answer to an expected christian concern (one which is absent in a sacred obligation!) about the plight of arab communities, christian and muslim, in israeli-controlled territory. dabru emet’s statement says unequivocally: the jewish state itself is not negotiable – but that state’s laws do require a system of justice that protects the rights of all its residents, including nonjews.10 it is possible that it was simply too difficult for the framers of dabru emet to present this strong statement of support for the state of israel as a christian understanding.11 thus, both statements call for justice, but the ways that they frame these calls are very different. these different framings, consistent with the documents’ discussions of how christians should understand israel, point to a deep and substantial disjunction in the jewish and christian “filing cabinets,” one with which jews have struggled from the time of their emancipation 10 dabru emet was framed before the oslo process fell apart, though it was promulgated in the interval between the failure of the camp david meeting and the outbreak of the intifada in 2000. its framers probably anticipated a two-state solution. they felt that as semi-insiders, as jews but not israelis, they could speak to the legal norms of the jewish state, but not to those of a palestinian state. 11 as opposed to the understanding of people who are christians who recognize the rights of jews to the same sort of political self-determination as any other people. this distinction between the political and the religious is clear in the “notes…” iv:25. the exception would be various evangelical christian groups, but these are not the churches with whom the framers of dabru emet were intensively in dialogue. see gerald r. mcdermott, “evangelicals and israel,” in uneasy allies?: evangelical and jewish relations, ed. alan mittleman, byron johnson, nancy isserman (lanham: lexington books, 2007), 127-154. and enlightenment on, and one that christians need to engage with too if the dialogue on this issue is to be genuinely two-way and among equal parties. this discussion over the role of the political in religious understandings of the land is a very critical issue, a meta-issue, underlying more specific discussions. meta-issue: are there separate secular and religious realms? this meta-issue has its source in the fact that jews and christians traditionally define the boundaries of religion very differently. christian definitions have their roots in the specifics of christian history. roman law was a well-developed system, very much entrenched when the roman emperors became christians and gradually made christianity first licit and then the official religion of the empire. this law code’s continuing bailiwick defined the secular realm, while areas ruled by the church defined the religious one, at least in theory. most christian states had both secular rulers and church hierarchies, often seeking each other’s approval or seeking one to dominate or influence the other, but as distinct entities.12 modernity has seen increasingly successful separation of church and state in most historically christian countries.13 this means that while religious values can certainly inform decisions 12 the obvious exception was the papal states and today, the vatican. here, church authorities serve also as civil rulers, controlling territory, conducting foreign relations. one of the complicating factors in catholic theologies of israel is precisely that the vatican’s secretariat of state, and not the commission for religious relations with the jews, handles relations with israel. this bifurcates the catholic relationship with the jewish world. 13 the most obvious exception being the uk, where the monarch, since the reformation, serves as supreme governor of the church of england, and twenty-six of the church’s bishops and archbishops, appointed by the monarch, sit in the house of lords. see, on the official website of the british monarchy, “queen and state: queen and church,” http://www.royal.gov.uk/ output/page4708.asp (accessed june 3, 2008). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-17 langer, “theologies of the land and state of israel” 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 made in the secular realm (and do all the time, of course, especially outside of contemporary secularized europe), western culture has a strong sense of what is religious, or theological, or not. when religion tries to creep too far into the secular realms, it meets with strong resistance. we just have to think of the contemporary culture wars in america over evolutionary versus creationist understandings of biological and geological processes, or over the place of prayer in public schools, or of representations of the ten commandments in government buildings. in parts of europe, this assertion of the secular realm is even stronger. we need only look at recent disputes in france over wearing religious symbols in public schools,14 or the reluctance in denmark to ask the press to impose some self-restrictions in deference to muslim sensitivities over depictions of muhammed. thus, when a group of christian theologians understands jewish relationships to the land of israel explicitly as a theological category that excludes the political reality, they are placing themselves carefully within this spectrum of western thought. israel as a theological category belongs to religion, to faith, to god, but not to politics, governance, urban planning, water rights, agricultural policy, and so forth except, perhaps, in so far as these affect basic questions of justice and ethics. such functions are matters of secular politics that affect humans beings who are israelis, palestinians, jordanians, syrians, lebanese, etc., by nationality; their being jews, christians, or muslims is incidental. indeed, we do find israelis who are jews, christians, muslims, and more. but this separation between secular and religious realms has, in actuality, never been simple. applying it too strictly to israel creates a number of entanglements. first, christian theo 14 paralleled in many ways by the issues in turkey over muslim head scarves. this too is a question of the public role of religious symbols in a modern secular state. logians would readily agree that “covenant” is a theological and not a secular category, and one that plays a significant if complex role in discussions of the jewish relationship to the land of israel.15 but what is the nature of this covenant? can it be a purely abstract state of relationship? a covenant relating to something concrete necessarily manifests itself in concrete ways, i.e., in expectations of correct human behavior relating to that object. in other words, a covenant of the land must necessarily carry among its terms proper treatment of that land and its inhabitants, worked out in its governance. the boundaries of the theological blur very quickly. within this category of covenant lies the traditional jewish category of “commandments dependent on the land.” these include the agricultural laws, including the land’s sabbatical rest and the dedication of first fruits and tithes to the temple, ritual laws for the running of the temple-based worship of god, and political instructions on how to govern the state and its business. these laws have no application at all outside the land.16 full resumption of these categories of jewish life must be messianic, but observant jews living in the land strive to observe the agricultural laws fully and to use the political ideals of torah to guide communal life in the contemporary state. to continue to ignore this category or to deny its ongoing validity is to perpetuate the supersessionist attitude that the framers of a sacred obligation seek to avoid. however, a focus driven by christian categories of religious versus secular would dictate that attention be given primarily or 15 note, though, that the word “covenant” does not appear in a sacred obligation’s discussion of israel. it does not appear in this context in michael mcgarry’s discussion in seeing judaism anew either. 16 these, and other aspects of traditional judaism, are indeed deeply particularistic. judaism’s inherent particularism, a characteristic that generally takes precedence over its universalistic concerns, is another significant locus of difference in the jewish and christian “filing systems,” one that impacts our discussion here but also one requiring separate attention. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-17 langer, “theologies of the land and state of israel” 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 exclusively within this category to issues of temple-based worship and not to its more explicitly political and agricultural elements. but – and here is our second entanglement – the temple-based elements of this category are actually the most dangerous and volatile elements of all, the one that only activist messianists dare to address today.17 those seeking to spark an immediate apocalypse are calling for the immediate rebuilding of the jerusalem temple on the site currently occupied by the 8th century muslim architectural gem, the dome of the rock. these are a tiny minority in the jewish world, aided by some evangelical christians. their support is limited even among the orthodox because most believe that this rebuilding must await the arrival of the messiah, the descendent of king david who will restore the proper political rule over the land first. for the most part, jewish groups interested in rebuilding the temple focus harmlessly on teaching priests the skills they will need and preparing tools and vessels for the sacrificial service.18 but periodically, on dates of symbolic significance, a minority of these attempt to drag a cornerstone for the third temple up onto the temple mount.19 however, the response from the muslim world is always, rightfully, one of outrage, as such a move threatens their holy places. this, thus, is one area where theology is more dangerous than politics. a christian engage 17 most orthodox jews may regularly perform the prayers petitioning for the restoration of the temple, but they never actually give the topic attention. conservative jews changed a few words of these same prayers so that they refer only to the past and not the future. reform and reconstructionist jews eliminated references to sacrificial worship, past and future, from their liturgies. secular jews, the majority in israel and in reality, of all jews today, omit all prayers. 18 see the website of the temple institute (makhon hamiqdash), especially its page on the temple’s “sacred vessels and vestments,” http:// www.templeinstitute.org/vessels_gallery.htm . 19 see the website of the temple mount and eretz yisrael faithful movement, especially their photographs from jerusalem day 2006, http://www.templemountfaithful.org/pix.htm . ment with a theology of the land that seeks to confine itself to obviously religious categories quickly runs into problems. a third entanglement relates to the definition of “the people israel.”20 is this a religious community or a national, ethnic group? the attempt to differentiate between the theologically defined, religious community of jews and the politically defined contemporary category of “israelis” has validity at the level of citizenship and its attendant legal consequences. not all jews are israelis and not all israelis are jews. but, the world has generally not treated jews as a religiously defined community. in the christian world, this found expression in the augustinian theology of the wandering jew, forever stateless. statelessness is, after all, a political category, even if it finds theological justification. the modern experiment to remove national elements from judaism and to make jews purely citizens in the states in which they reside (about which more below) finds utter failure in nazi europe, where it was jewish blood, not jewish faith, that mattered.21 the founding of the state of israel led to overt expression of this understanding in the arab world as well, which largely expelled its millennia-old jewish communities after 1948. the world has rarely treated “the people israel” as a purely religiously defined community. attempts to do so have created more problems than they have solved, and do not reflect jewish self-understanding. the traditional jewish perspective presumes an inclusive understanding of what it means to be a jew, of what the peoplehood of israel means. the roots of this are in our shared scriptures, but traditions of jewish biblical reading and interpretation lift up texts that christianity downplays. according to to 20 dabru emet neglects or perhaps presupposes this category, a significant lacuna. 21 relevant here too is the iberian suspicion of new christians beginning in the fifteenth century, a factor that contributed to their preservation as an identified group on the margins of christian society for centuries. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-17 langer, “theologies of the land and state of israel” 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 rah and its covenantal framework, to be israel in the ideal sense is for the people of israel to live as a independent, selfgoverning political entity in the land of israel, worshipping god in jerusalem. exodus and deuteronomy especially offer chapters full of laws on how to govern this state appropriately, how to tax it, how to farm it, all as part of the people’s worship of and covenantal life before god. exile from the land, then, is exile from israel’s ability to live this ideal life fully. exile is classically understood as punishment for sin, but judaism has never understood this to be a permanent state. in the understandings that mature in rabbinic judaism after the destruction of the second temple, messianic redemption will allow the full revitalization of corporate jewish life in the land. but even without messianic redemption, rabbinic judaism has always encouraged individuals to return, to “go up”22 to live the fullest lives that they can in the land of israel. today’s state of israel struggles to negotiate the tensions inherent in this vision. it fully embraces the ideal of jewish life in the land today as the fullest expression of being a jew. life there under jewish sovereignty, i.e., in a jewish state, is a fuller expression of this. but life there today is not messianic; at best it is protomessianic, as expressed in the chief rabbinate’s prayer for the state, which calls it “the beginning of the sprouting of our redemption.”23 to expound on this fully goes beyond the scope of 22 i.e., to “make aliyah” in today’s judeo-english. leaving israel is yeridah, to go down. the language reflects the rabbinic sense that the world’s locus of holiness is in israel, and most particularly in jerusalem at the site of the temple. 23 for a history of this prayer, see joseph tabory, “the piety of politics: jewish prayers for the state of israel,” in liturgy in the life of the synagogue: studies in the history of jewish prayer, ed. ruth langer and steven fine (winona lake, indiana: eisenbrauns, 2005), 225-246. joel rappel, the convergence of politics and prayer: jewish prayers for the government and the state of israel (ph.d. diss., boston university, 2008), presents a more detailed analysis of the history of the prayer and the theology it represents. his conclusions about the genesis of the modern prayer differ from tabory’s. this essay, but would encompass such questions as how to apply in a modern economy the agricultural laws of the biblical sabbatical year (shemitah)24 or of the weekly sabbath, as well as how to apply civil government regulation of conversion to judaism, marriage and burial and similar issues of personal status and membership in “the people israel.” on all of these, there are intense differences of opinion from one end to the other of the jewish religious spectrum. however, these internal jewish differences mostly are over how to apply these categories in the modern world and not over whether these are relevant categories to the state and its construction of jewishness. today’s state, while informed by jewish values, struggles with the relationship between its modern democratic nature and its jewishness. this jewish side to today’s state knows no native distinction between the sacred and the secular realms. indeed, the torah itself and the rabbinic traditions interpreting and applying it, seek to sanctify the seemingly secular, giving guidance for agriculture, industry, and governance. the rabbinic texts that lie at the heart of the traditional jewish curriculum address agricultural laws, as well as torts, civil and criminal law. they include mundane issues of urban planning, determining where to locate smelly but necessary industries, including disposal of human waste.25 part of this concern is to keep the impure away from the sacred, granted, but even this source of impurity is itself not fully profane. after all, after a successful bowel movement, after leaving the profane physical realm of the toilet itself, the rabbis 24 of real issue as of this writing as the year 5768 (2007-8) is a shemitah. 25 for a discussion of a set of these issues that exemplifies the role of halakhah (ranging historically from the talmudic sources to contemporary court cases) and jewish religious thought in such issues, see eliezer diamond, ”how much is too much?: conventional versus personal definitions of pollutions in rabbinic sources,” in judaism and ecology: created world and revealed world, edited by hava tirosh-samuelson (cambridge: harvard university press, center for the study of world religions, harvard university, 2002), 61-80. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-17 langer, “theologies of the land and state of israel” 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 mandate a prayer praising god who “created us in wisdom, giving us all the necessary orifices and cavities, for it is fully known before your throne of glory that if one of them should be improperly open or clogged up, it would be impossible to survive to stand before you....”26 in other words, the rabbis teach jews to thank god for that function of the human body that creates substances that are fully necessary to human health but the epitome of impurity and incompatible with sanctity. if the human body is god’s creation, as is the land on which humans live, then god’s laws for how to live on that land are also of deep theological significance in their directing the jewish response to god’s creation. judaism’s traditional “filing system” does not include a concept of a realm beyond the purview of religious concern. 27 however, while judaism traditionally makes no distinction between the religious and the secular realms, precisely this distinction plays a significant role in jewish self-definition today. 26 tb berakhot 60b, included in traditional prayer books as a preliminary to the daily morning service. 27 while there are secular jews who would abandon these categories altogether, israeli government, both legislative and judicial, has generally sought at least guidance from jewish tradition. a contemporary example of such a debate has been the question of the mechanisms governing the sabbatical year (shemitah) for the jewish year 5768 (2007-8), when, according to traditional halakhah, jewishly owned land may neither be actively farmed nor its produce sold. the issue is whether israel’s current prosperity justifies continuing to rely on some legal fictions that lessen the economic impact of the observance. the debate has been quite intense, involving the highest levels of the government-supported rabbinic establishment and even israel’s secular supreme court. on the sabbatical year in general, see ex. 23:10–11; lev. 25:1–7, 18–22; deut. 15:1–11; and david lieber, moshe greenberg, shmuel safrai, and aaron rothkoff. "sabbatical year and jubilee." encyclopaedia judaica, edited by michael berenbaum and fred skolnik 2nd ed. (detroit: macmillan reference usa, 2007), 17:623-630 (accessed electronically through the boston college library). on the involvement of secular authorities in this issue, see the editorial in haaretz, “if the high court cannot judge religious matters” (october 25, 2007) http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages /916790.html. this presents christians trying to understand modern israel with a very confusing situation, with an apparently confused and confusing jewish filing system! how can we understand this? while christianity’s deep engagement with judaism and jewish culture is very new, the reverse is not true. jews, living on the margins of christian europe, have engaged deeply and regularly with the categories of christian intellectual traditions, assimilating them into jewish culture. as doors opened for jews to receive less marginalized status in the eighteenth century, this assimilatory process gained momentum, resulting in conscious adaptations of jewish theology and intellectual traditions that sought to make jews more deserving of acceptance.28 aspects of this modern process were also deliberately imposed on the jewish community. the result was a tension that has shaped the nature of the modern jewish reality. we deal with the aftermath and continuation of this tension today. radical changes entered european society in the eighteenthcentury enlightenment. jews began to think differently about themselves when european christians began to see jews as fellow human beings, potential citizens and contributors to western society. it should come as no surprise that there were significant segments of the jewish community that welcomed this opening and sought to explore its implications. responses, of course, ranged from jews so eager to find welcome that they converted to christianity for convenience, to those who sought to adapt judaism in more and less extreme ways, to those who witnessed this opening with fear and approached it with caution or rejected it entirely. from this, the modern spectrum of judaisms was born. one of the central questions that came to dif 28 one could point to other examples of similar processes in muslim spain, continuing in christian spain immediately after the reconquista. israel m. ta-shma, “law, custom, and tradition among the jews of ashkenaz in the eleventh-twelfth centuries (initial investigations),” [hebrew] sidra 3 (1987): 85-161, points to a similar process that shapes jewish legal and commentarial traditions in ashkenaz (northern france and germany) in the high middle ages. the italian renaissance presented another such window. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-17 langer, “theologies of the land and state of israel” 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 ferentiate these groups was their thinking about the national elements of their judaism. are jews a people or a religion? do they hope for a return to zion, and consequently, to abandon their current place of residence, or are they deeply loyal to the lands in which they currently live? these questions came to matter deeply, in no small part because, in the eyes of many, rejection of jewish peoplehood and national aspirations tied to the land of israel were necessary prerequisites for the acceptance of jews into western society. this, then, is the point where the idea of judaism as purely a religion emerges in jewish thought. precisely these elements that jews were now asked to jettison had been central to jewish theology. as far as we know, the destruction of the jerusalem temple by the romans in the year 70 ce, the failure of the two jewish revolts against rome in 70 and again in 135 ce, the subsequent exile of the jews from jerusalem, and the loss of even symbolic sovereignty in the land, were defining events for all jews at the time, whether they lived in the land of israel or in the far reaches of the jewish diaspora. rabbinic judaism, that which over the course of the first christian millennium becomes what we understand to be judaism, holds these first century disasters at the center of its consciousness and expects that, eventually, god will send the davidic messiah, resurrect the dead, gather in the exiles to the land of israel, and restore jewish sovereignty there. this hope is ubiquitous in medieval jewish literature. to the extent that jews have dogmatic statements of faith, these elements are prominent.29 this messianism is central to the teachings of medieval kabbalah, becoming a dominant force in its popularization in lurianic form from the sixteenth century on. the first synagogues in the new world received names like mikveh is 29 the most well-known are maimonides’ thirteen principles of faith, included in a liturgical formulation in traditional prayer books, both as a prose listing usually printed at the conclusion of the weekday morning service and as the hymn yigdal. rael or shearith israel (the hope or remnant of israel) or nidhe israel and nefutzei israel (the banished or scattered of israel), reflecting a belief, voiced in 1650 by a dutch rabbi and kabbalist, menasseh ben israel, that this new extension of the diaspora was a necessary prelude to the imminent ingathering of the exiles.30 for these jews, the further they moved from the center of the world, from jerusalem, the more they yearned to be there, and the more likely, they thought, that divine intervention would occur. meanwhile, jews in europe were increasingly ghettoized, restricted in residence and profession, with no access to secular education. jews in muslim lands fared somewhat better as just second-class citizens. in neither case had they reason to cease dreaming about returning home to jerusalem, dreams that did indeed break out in messianic movements, most famously around the figure of shabbetai tzevi beginning in 1665. there are stories of jews from around europe at the time transforming their lives in accordance with the teachings of this (false) messiah, some even selling their possessions and preparing to move to israel.31 none of this inspired confidence that jews were worthy residents in christian society. citizens should have sole allegiance to the state in which they reside, and judaism was teaching jews to yearn for another state. the enlightenment project thus demanded of jews that if they sought acceptance and ulti 30 for a detailed discussion of this, see jonathan d. sarna’s forthcoming “the mystical world of colonial american jews” in modernity: challenges and trends in the jewish encounter with the modern world: essays in honor of michael meyer, ed. lauren strauss and michael brenner (detroit: wayne state university press, 2008). 31 see the reports recorded by gershom scholem, sabbatai sevi: the mystical messiah, 1626-1676 (princeton: princeton university press, 1973), ch. 5, “the movement in europe.” scholem, 477, suggests that some of these reports are exaggerated as there is no evidence for subsequent impoverishment of these people after tzevi’s apostasy. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-17 langer, “theologies of the land and state of israel” 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 mately citizenship, they needed to revise this core element of their theology. we see this most clearly in the french revolutionary documents, where the discussions about the place of jews in french society were deliberate and protracted.32 until this point in european societies, all jewish communities were self-governing political entities, granted toleration by kings or more local authorities but not citizenship. thus, when the august 1789 “declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen” gives all men equal rights and forbids molestation for any opinions, even religious ones, this represents radical change.33 that december, the french national assembly debated the eligibility of jews for citizenship. in that discussion, an advocate for jewish rights argued: the jews should be denied everything as a nation, but granted everything as individuals. they must be citizens.…there cannot be one nation within another nation….it is intolerable that the jews should become a separate political formation or class within a country. every one of them must individually become a citizen; if they do not want this, they must inform us and we shall then be compelled to expel them. the existence of a nation within a nation is unacceptable to our country….34 a counter voice argued, “it is necessary to grant [jews] protection, security, liberty; but must one admit into the family a tribe that is a stranger to oneself, that constantly turns its eyes to 32 the united states constitution was actually the first document globally to eliminate religious tests for public office and to prohibit legislation concerning the establishment of religion, thus giving jews citizenship and civil rights. by 1826, all states gave jews full rights. but these matters were only briefly debated in the united states; for the most part, there were no deep discriminatory precedents to overthrow. 33 in paul mendes-flohr and jehuda reinharz, the jew in the modern world: a documentary history, second edition (new york, oxford: oxford university press, 1995), 114. 34 mendes-flohr and reinharz, 115. ward [another] homeland, that aspires to abandon the land that supports it…?”35 this particular debate was adjourned without resolution, as was typical for the revolutionary french national assembly,36 but these were the issues that were to occur and recur. when napoleon convened an assembly of jewish notables in 1806 from throughout the empire, his questions to them constituted conditions that they needed to accept in order to be considered frenchmen. here, the question of israel did not come up directly, but napoleon did ask for and receive a specific declaration of allegiance to france. the assembled rabbis stated: at the present time, when the jews no longer form a separate people, but enjoy the advantage of being incorporated with the great nation (which privilege they consider as a kind of political redemption), it is impossible that a jew should treat a frenchman, not of his religion, in any other manner than he would treat one of his israelite brethren.37 their parenthetical description of jews’ achieving french citizenship as “a kind of political redemption” suggests that they were interpreting the events of their times as quasi-messianic, as an event of eschatological significance. this citizenship, they presumed, erased jewish separateness. the sequel to this gathering was the famous paris sanhedrin, convened at napoleon’s instruction in april 1807 to give spiritual sanction to the notable’s decisions. in its declaration, we see for the first time, in a jewish text, this separation of political and religious – that which results from the requirements placed upon jews for entry into citizenship. the sanhedrin wrote: 35 mendes-flohr and reinharz, 115. 36 mendes-flohr and reinharz, 116, n.1. 37 mendes-flohr and reinharz, 130. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-17 langer, “theologies of the land and state of israel” 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 we therefore declare that the divine law, the precious heritage of our ancestors, contains within itself dispositions which are political and dispositions which are religious. that the religious dispositions are, by their nature, absolute and independent of circumstances and of the age; that this does not hold true of the political dispositions, that is to say, of the dispositions which were taken for the government of the people of israel in palestine when it possessed its own kings, pontiffs and magistrates; that these political dispositions are no longer applicable, since israel no longer forms a nation.…38 this last point, forged by the demands of french politics, found wide religious echo throughout western europe, especially in the reform movement as it developed in germany. the radical non-rabbinic frankfurt friends of reform in 1842 declared in the third of its three principles, “we neither expect nor desire a messiah who is to lead the israelites back to the land of palestine; we recognize no fatherland other than that to which we belong by birth or civil status.”39 liberal jewish thinkers argued for the development of an official german jewish “church” that could play a parallel role in the prussian state to the official lutheran church, thus granting jews access to civic roles.40 in addition, a judaism that dropped its particularism and that understood its dispersion among the gentiles as the divine will and its task to be a prophetic “light to the nations” could play a role in the enlightenment project of the messianic progress of the entire world.41 38 mendes-flohr and reinharz, 135. for an analysis of the impact of this statement, see most recently, jay r. berkovitz, “the napoleonic sanhedrin: halachic foundations and rabbinical legacy,” ccar journal (winter 2007): 11-34 (http://ccarnet.org/_kd/items/actions.cfm?action=show&item_id=969& destination=showitem). 39 michael a. meyer, response to modernity: a history of the reform movement in judaism (new york, oxford: oxford university press, 1988), 122. 40 meyer, 125ff. 41 cf. meyer 201 et.al. these ideas crossed the ocean and became formative for the american reform movement too. its 1885 pittsburgh platform declared, “we consider ourselves no longer a nation but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the administration of the sons of aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the jewish state.” to the extent that this document voiced an eschatological vision, it was a universal one, in which jews work in harmony with other monotheists by searching for justice, truth and righteousness on earth.42 thus, a political trajectory that began as part of the enlightenment project, became formative of liberal jewish identity in western europe and in america. jews were a religious community only, with allegiance only to the state in which they resided. the land of israel, let alone a revived state of israel, ceased to have any significance for them. once zionism emerged as an organized movement in the late nineteenth century, many in the reform movement became officially antizionist. the zionist desire to rebuild a jewish homeland, to revive a specific jewish culture, to create a jewish political entity, flew in the face of this entire western attempt to redefine judaism to be a religion of universal horizons, legitimately part of european and american culture. philosophically, or, if you prefer, theologically, they understood religious reform and zionism to be utterly incompatible. zionism was undermining what reformers saw as the route to end anti-semitism. but zionism was relatively successful – it attracted jews to ottoman and then british mandatory palestine, and it transformed the desert there into increasingly modern cities, farms, and industries. with all its problems, it provided an attractive refuge, especially for jews fleeing eastern european antisemitism. in the face of russian pogroms, arab riots seemed 42 mendes-flohr and reinharz, 469; the text is also posted at http://ccarnet.org/articles/index.cfm?id =39&pge_prg_id =4687&pge_id=1656. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-17 langer, “theologies of the land and state of israel” 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 tame. on the other hand and more importantly, the western european experiment failed utterly. the rise of virulent antisemitism in europe, culminating in the nazi holocaust, showed jews that however much they attempted to transform themselves into germans, french, etc., of the jewish faith, europeans ultimately considered their judaism to be much more than a religion. modernized jews of arab lands received this same rejection when they too were expelled after 1948. this combination of factors led to a sort of resolution of the conflict between reform judaism and zionism. especially after america closed its doors to immigrants in 1924, even before the rise of nazism, leaders of the american reform movement gradually come to accept the need for a zionist settlement for european refugees; in 1937, they made this acceptance formal.43 but formal acceptance of an ideology by the leadership of a movement does not necessarily reflect or effectively shape the thinking on the ground. this enlightenment project of recasting judaism as a universal religion without specific or necessary ties to nationality and culture was imposed on judaism as a condition for acceptance into western civilization, something many jews deeply desired. it consequently became a formative element in the shaping of modern western and especially american judaisms, assimilated into their theologies. thus, even after subsequent history debunked significant elements of this ideology, aspects of it remained and remain very strongly present. thus, we find diaspora jews today whose religious 43 in the columbus platform, a.5 (http://ccarnet.org/articles/index.cfm?id =40&pge_prg_id=4687&pge_id=1656). particularly important in the process towards this are discussions at the 1935 central conference of american rabbis (ccar) convention about re-accessing elements of jewish nationalism. see david polish, renew our days: the zionist issue in reform judaism (world zionist organization, 1976), 169ff. in 1997, the ccar adopted its first official zionist platform, “reform judaism & zionism: a centenary platform,” an official american reform theology of the land and state (http://ccarnet.org/articles/index.cfm?id=42&pge_prg_id=3032&pge_id=1656) . identity does not include deep identification with either the land and state of israel or even the people of israel. while within a pluralistic understanding of judaism, this cannot be deemed “right” or “wrong,” it is a product of a peculiarity of the jewish struggle for acceptance in modern western society. it also no longer represents the official teachings of any major jewish group. in some ways, this modern separation between the religious and national aspects of judaism shaped the israeli reality. secular zionism, from its late nineteenth century origins, championed precisely those elements of judaism that this modernized, westernized, religiously defined judaism rejected. while eliminating or limiting religious expression, it celebrated jewish culture, nationalism, and jews’ historically rooted attachment to the homeland. this approach resulted in a state of israel whose governing structures are those of a secular democratic nation, not those that would be dictated by rabbinic halakhah. it resulted in a state that is culturally jewish, that accommodates and negotiates with religious aspects of judaism, but not one that excludes minority cultures and their religions. most would agree that this state does not represent a utopia or ideal society. it has very real and even severe problems, internal and external. but this state does represent an authentic jewish striving and searching for an expression of important aspects of a holistically defined judaism. the orthodox jewish world largely resisted this rejection of one part or another of judaism. religious observance, jewish cultural and ethnic identity as the people “israel,” and the ideal of life in the land of israel and sovereignty there were never questioned. what complicates orthodox theology is the status of the contemporary political state. orthodox understanding ranges from absolute rejection of the jewish validity of any premessianic state (these include some ultra-orthodox groups who are resident in the land, some of whom have their own political studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-17 langer, “theologies of the land and state of israel” 16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 parties and participate in the state for the sake of expedience, some of whom do not), to religious zionist positions that understand today’s state to be proto-messianic and god’s will. within the latter group, there is a range from those like the gush emunim (bloc of the faithful) who understand jewish residence in the whole biblical land of israel to be god’s will and necessary to create the conditions for the advent of the messiah, to those who advocate the practical necessity of compromise towards a peaceful two-state solution. thus, without question, there are many judaisms today, and the theologies of these various judaisms express different understandings of the role of the land and state of israel. but within these, only a tiny minority of those who actually think about their judaism seriously still accept the enlightenment rejection of judaism’s national, ethnic, or familial elements or its ties to its historical homeland. essentially all would accept that successful jewish life in that homeland requires its effective governance. in other words, the vast majority of jews agree that political issues cannot be excluded from theological discussion about israel. by no means does this preclude criticism of the current government; in fact, the jewish project requires continual constructive criticism and striving towards an as yet unachieved messianic ideal.44 talmudic culture has embedded in jewish culture a love of argumentation and a sense that it is within the dialectic of this argument that truths will emerge, that god’s will will become evident to us.45 thus, the diversity of un 44 the appropriate modes and boundaries of this criticism are another very complex topic. to what extent do jews living in the diaspora have a voice? for christians, the question needs to be phrased in terms of the boundary between legitimate critique and critique that is driven by traditions of antisemitism and/or anti-judaism. answering this question requires careful discernment – but also very careful voicing of any critique so that its legitimate content is received as intended. the challenges of communicating across the different “filing systems” of our communities are directly relevant to this. 45 for an exposition of this dynamic within the talmud itself, see david kraemer, the mind of the talmud: an intellectual history of the bavli (new derstandings about contemporary israel, from a jewish perspective, can be understood as a sign of health and theological vitality, one that from the perspective of the jewish “filing system” is to be cherished. while this diversity makes the christian task of coming to an understanding of judaism complex, to insist on simplicity or doctrinal uniformity is to impose foreign categories on the native structures of judaism. conclusions enlightenment christians welcomed jews into western culture only if they jettisoned what was distinctive about judaism, that which seemed to go beyond the confines of the categories of christian theology. this included especially elements of nation, state, and land. but ultimately, even this did not create categories that allowed exclusion of anti-semitism; instead it seemed to have enhanced it. in other words, christian attempts to bring jews into the christian “filing structure” were disastrous; jews were welcomed only if they jettisoned large segments of their existing “hard drives.” consequently, even this altered (or reformed) judaism never fit fully. we may speculate whether a recognition of this reality lay behind the vatican commission’s 1974 statement that christians “must strive to learn by what essential traits jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience.”46 in other words, any culture, to be in dialogue with others, needs to come to conscious recognition of its own presumptions, of its own “filing structure,” in order to be able to recognize where york, oxford: oxford university press, 1990). because study of the talmud formed and forms the core of traditional jewish education, its intellectual values deeply impact jewish culture. 46 vatican commission for religious relations with the jews, “guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate, no. 4,” (december 1, 1974), preamble (http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/metaelements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/vatican_guidelines .htm). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-17 langer, “theologies of the land and state of israel” 17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 others legitimately differ. in order to engage with any specific other, one must be able to enter into its mental structures and intellectual categories, its way of organizing the world. christians have historically little experience with this;47 jews, as a minority culture for most of their history, have somewhat more. but christian-jewish dialogue, like dialogue between any two communities, requires developing this sensitivity. in terms of our specific topic here, the development of adequate theologies of the land and state of israel within the context of the contemporary dialogue, this is a crucial first step. here, jews are asking christians to come to an understanding of a critical aspect of jewish thought and life. for this understanding to reflect “the essential traits [by which] jews define themselves,” jews need to reflect deeply on 47 the enterprise of comparative theology seeks to open this door. for resources on this, see http://www.bc.edu/schools/cas/theology/comparative/ resources/articles/ct.html. and verbalize not only the specifics of jewish theologies of the land, but also the mental categories that govern how the elements of these theologies operate. without such entry into the jewish “filing system,” christian reflection on israel can reflect only the re-filing of elements of jewish theology into christian categories. our communication and hence our dialogue will inevitably, then, be inadequate. and of course the reverse is also true: jews must also understand the christian “filing system” and to communicate in ways that enable words and ideas to find productive and accurate hearings. it is this that i have attempted to do here: to explore our different structurings of the secular and religious realms as this affects the possibilities for our theological understandings of the land and state of israel. introduction of a time for recommitment: building the new relationship between christians and jews cunningham, introduction: a time for recommitment cunningham 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college introduction of a time for recommitment building the new relationship between jews and christians philip a. cunningham institute for jewish-catholic relations, st. joseph’s university volume 4 (2009) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-4 cunningham, introduction: a time for recommitment cunningham 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 the 2009 conference of the international council of christians and jews (iccj) took place in berlin on july 5-8. its theme was a time for recommitment: jewish-christian dialogue 70 years after the beginning of wwii and the holocaust. on july 5 the iccj issued the 12 points of berlin: a time for recommitment. a founding officer and secretary-treasurer of the council of centers on christian-jewish relations, dr. philip cunningham, addressed the assembly before the ceremony at which representatives from twenty-three countries signed the document. the document signatories representing twenty-three countries, with iccj president, dr. deborah weissman (front row, far left) and iccj vice-president, dr. philip a. cunningham (second row, far left). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-4 cunningham, introduction: a time for recommitment cunningham 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 i have been asked to introduce and provide the context for the major new statement of the international council of christians and jews: a time for recommitment: building the new relationship between jews and christians. this twenty-two page document recalls and updates the historic august 1947 declaration an address to the churches, more commonly known as the ten points of seelisberg. the ten points were the product of a gathering of about seventy christians and jews, who convened an emergency conference on anti-semitism in switzerland in the immediate aftermath of the second world war and the atrocity of the shoah. in conversation with their jewish colleagues, the christian participants sought to reverse the long-standing christian "teaching of contempt" for jews and judaism by urging the churches to remember certain fundamental ideas. their ten theses, ground-breaking at the time, helped spark a new era of dialogue and cooperation between christians and jews and also began the formation of the iccj. today, just over sixty years later, the iccj revisits the work of seelisberg with its new statement, a time for recommitment: building the new relationship between jews and christians. now written by both christians and jews from about a dozen countries, the statement begins with what we call the twelve points (or theses) of berlin, but whereas the original ten points of seelisberg were described as an address to the churches, the new document addresses in turn christians, then jews, and finally christians, jews, and members of other religious traditions. the twelve points are followed by a narrative entitled, the story of the transformation of relationship, which reviews the long, ambivalent history of relations between christians and jews, the developments of the last six decades, lessons learned from the new experience of dialogue, and finally looks ahead to the future continued building of the new relationship. i would like to thank publicly all of the dozens of people who contributed to the composition of a time for recommitment. these include its authors, external readers, translators, various consultants, including the iccj executive board, and institutions that supported our work. i would like to thank in particular the rev. dr. john pawlikowski, immediate past iccj president, and rev. dick pruiksma, iccj general secretary, for their leadership in conceiving of the project, and to thank them also together with current iccj president dr. deborah weissman for implementing and advancing it. special thanks are also due to the external editor, barbara king lord, for her invaluable help in improving the style and wording of the text. a time for recommitment is best understood as a photograph, a snapshot of the current state of jewishchristian relations as viewed by the authors―all veterans of interreligious dialogue―and the executive board of the iccj. dealing as it does with several very sensitive issues, it was never expected to express total unanimity in studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-4 cunningham, introduction: a time for recommitment cunningham 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 either content or expression. its telling of the history of jewish-christian relations, for example, could have been told differently and equally legitimately by focusing on other countries or persons. as it stands, the document concentrates on bringing the history to the origins of the iccj. despite such unavoidable limitations, it is the hope of the iccj that the statement will inspire study and reflection among the iccj's member organizations and many others as well, encouraging everyone, as the title suggests, to recommit themselves to the work of rapprochement between two peoples so long divided by enmity and distrust. we owe it to those voices that were silenced by polemic, persecution, and pogrom to raise our voices in dialogue. the past sixty years have seen an unprecedented level of conversation and collaboration between jews and christians. through sustained dialogue we have learned much that could be helpful in addressing other conflicts between religions. we have learned that substantive dialogue requires an atmosphere of safety and trust and a respect for the religious integrity and distinctiveness of the other. we are convinced that authentic dialogue never seeks to persuade the other of our own faith convictions, but rather to change one’s own heart by understanding others on their own terms, to whatever degree possible. we have learned that we each bring different issues, memories, fears, and hopes to the dialogue table. we have learned that substantive dialogue requires the ability to be self-critical, to recognize deep-seated patterns of thinking and prejudice, and a willingness to confront together the hurts and wounds of the past, even at the cost of recrafting our own self-understanding. the christian-jewish dialogue has achieved a stunning measure of success. but the work of building a new relationship has only just begun. the inimical habits of almost two thousand years are not unlearned in a mere six decades. misunderstandings erupt on a regular basis, members of both communities sometimes seek to revive theologies of disdain or dismissal, and the continuing deepening of true understanding and friendship can at times seem a hopeless dream. however, we live at a time of unprecedented grace─a time of unparalleled opportunities to build a new relationship together. the international council of christians and jews tonight invites everyone to join with us in seeing this as "a time for recommitment." thank you. microsoft word 'in our time' final-2.docx 1 executive summary: metro chicago presbyterian jewish relations “ … in our time” presbytery of chicago, november 2015 the purpose of this document is to provide a theological and relational framework for the presbytery of chicago to pursue an engaged and constructive relationship with the jewish community in metropolitan chicago (city of chicago and suburbs). our spiritual kinship with the jewish community is not dependent upon a resolution of the israeli-palestinian conflict, nor does it presume to offer a specific path to its resolution. rather, it seeks to provide a framework by which jews and presbyterians can discuss the conflict in an engaged, civil, and productive way. an understanding in our time inspired by the second vatican council’s nostra aetate declaration issued nearly fifty years ago, we believe god calls us “in our time” to declare a self-understanding of the deep and continuing relationship between congregations of the presbytery of chicago and the jewish community in metropolitan chicago. in light of this, we propose today that: • presbyterian christians and jews, each in their own unique way, offer a contemporary witness to the living god of abraham and sarah; • presbyterians better understand themselves as christians when they understand the historic and living tradition of the jewish people; • given our shared vision for social justice presbyterian christians and jews have worked together in the past, and in the present continue to work, to strengthen the democratic social contract in the united states consistent with the commandments and values of both traditions; and • presbyterian christians need a theological and relational framework in which to work out our understanding of the sacred promise and hope embodied in ancient israel in relationship to the modern state of israel. for these reasons, we offer this theological affirmation and vision for relations between presbyterian christians and jews in metropolitan chicago ‘in our time.’ a theological affirmation over the past fifty years, the presbyterian church (usa) has begun to more fully acknowledge its relationship to the modern jewish people and judaism. this has been reflected in a variety of denominational confessional and study documents that can offer guidance for the denomination: • the confession of 1967 • a theological understanding of the relationship between christians and jews (1987) • the study catechism (1998) • christians and jews: people of god (2014) the christian church arose within (the people) israel. the followers of jesus remained at first within the people of israel. as persons from all nations joined them, they…separated from the jewish community. yet they continued to accept israel’s story as their own and to consider themselves part of the people of god. we can never lay exclusive claim to being god’s people, as though we had replaced those to whom the covenant, the law, and the promises belong. we affirm that god has not rejected god’s people the jews. the lord does not take back the lord’s promises. we christians have often rejected jews throughout our history with shameful prejudice and cruelty. god calls us to dialogue and cooperation that do not ignore our real disagreements, yet proceed in mutual respect and love. we are bound together with them in (a) story of those chosen to serve and proclaim the living god. 1977 declaration of faith 2 in our present day, as presbyterians, can we see the need to affirm, positively and proactively, our present spiritual kinship with the jewish people, to rediscover the jewish dimension of our own tradition, and to engage with the jewish people in causes of mutual concern? changing hearts and lives many presbyterians have become aware of previous strains of anti-judaic thought present in the way we ourselves sometimes speak and write . historically, this has been specifically reflected in the presbyterian tradition, including in the book of confessions 5.019 and in the writings of calvin, friedrich schleiermacher, and karl barth. changing our hearts and lives, which is the essence of repentance, requires us to look critically at christian beliefs and practices regarding evangelism and our jewish neighbors, friends, and relatives. forging a framework on ‘the land’ for presbyterians, and many but not all jews, the answer to the question of jewish sovereignty is to be found in distinguishing the biblical meaning of the land for the chosen people of god from the national aspirations of the modern jewish people. critique of the policies and practices of the state of israel on political grounds, employing frameworks and criteria used broadly by the international community — and which resonate with the underlying principles of reformed theology — is an effective way for presbyterians to enter into this complex discussion. this is in contrast, for example, to the out-of-context use of explicit covenantal warnings embedded in biblical sources and addressed to ancient israel. in this way, presbyterians can fully engage questions of justice and peace without resorting to more problematic approaches that slip over into anti-semitic or anti-judaic rhetoric or lines of argumentation. given this overall framework, presbyterians can do the following: • fully engage in public witness, discourse and action with regards to matters such as self-determination, human rights, reconciliation, justice and peace, related to the israeli-palestinian conflict; • affirm the aspirations for, and the right to, self-determination by both israelis and palestinians; • affirm the necessity of human and civil rights afforded to all arab and other minorities in the state of israel, and to jewish and other minorities in a future state of palestine and other arab countries; • actively work on behalf of israelis and palestinians, and a just and peaceful future for both, without compromising our relationship to each people. living together as covenant peoples together, presbyterians and jews can: • share the most treasured aspects of our religious identity • work for the well-being of our world • create safe havens for religious diversity this is an invitation to respect and love that does not require us to ignore our real disagreements, but which does require us to do the hard work of building trust and deepening relationship. pursuing and fostering relationships in these ways carries us into a deeper experience of our own faith commitments. 3 “ … in our time… ” a statement on relations between the presbytery of chicago and the jewish community in metropolitan chicago proposed to the presbytery of chicago november 21, 2015 purpose the purpose of this document is to provide a theological and relational framework for the presbytery of chicago to pursue an engaged and constructive relationship with the jewish community in metropolitan chicago (city of chicago and suburbs). rationale as christians, presbyterians are ever aware that our theological convictions inform and guide our attitudes and practices, just as the practices of our faith embody our beliefs and convictions. we place a high value on theological understanding as reflected in our book of confessions, standards for ordination to church office, christian education, and in our discourse, deliberations and actions as a corporate body. therefore, in light of historic circumstances and current realities that the jewish community has endured and continues to face, we seek to renew our theology and practices with fresh insights of god’s word to us in jesus christ as witnessed by holy scripture interpreted in the power of the spirit. process this document, presented to the presbytery assembly by the ecumenical and interreligious work group, has been vetted for review and comment by: christian and jewish scholars; members, congregations and other groups within chicago presbytery; and similar counterparts in other presbyteries of the presbyterian church (usa). a draft of the document received a ‘first reading’ by the presbytery assembly at its june 16, 2015 meeting. motion: the presbytery of chicago adopt the “ … in our time… ” a statement on relations between the presbytery of chicago and the jewish community in metropolitan chicago, for the following purposes: to serve as a statement on the relationship of chicago presbytery with the jewish community in metropolitan chicago; to serve as affirmation to the jewish community of our spiritual kinship with them, and a commitment to an active and deepening relationship; to serve as a source of study, guidance and inspiration for local congregations and for the presbytery as a whole in their dialogue and engagement with the jewish community in metropolitan chicago. 4 i preface during a time of much needed renewal, as deep disagreement and polarizing discourse over the ongoing israeli – palestinian conflict has led to fractured relations between presbyterians within the denomination, and between the denomination and the jewish community across their local and national expressions, we seek to reconsider our theology and practices. in light of historic circumstances and fresh insights of how the god we know in jesus christ is at work among us, we cannot consider our relationship with the jewish community in the us without taking this reality into account. further, it must be clearly stated that the affirmation of our spiritual kinship with the jewish community is not dependent upon a resolution of the israeli-palestinian conflict, nor does it presume to offer a specific path to its resolution. rather, it seeks to provide a framework by which jews and presbyterians can discuss the conflict in an engaged, civil, and productive way. this document is primarily addressed to presbyterians, in the presbytery of chicago, for the purpose of framing and guiding individual and corporate discourse, dialogue, relations and action with respect to the jewish community in metropolitan chicago. we recognize the pluralistic reality and diversity of the members of the body of the pc(usa), the presbytery of chicago, and the individual congregations therein. as this document addresses the relationship of presbyterians to the jewish people in metropolitan chicago, and as such will be ‘overheard’ by the jewish community, we strive to understand the jewish community as they understand themselves, and to be clear about our commitment to the wellbeing and aspirations of the jewish people. we recognize the pluralistic reality and diversity of the jewish people in metropolitan chicago, in the united states, and around the world. any credible document that addresses the relationship of presbyterians to the jewish people must take into account the israeli – palestinian conflict, and as such will be ‘overheard’ by the palestinian community in metropolitan chicago. for that reason, we also strive to be clear about our commitment to the wellbeing and aspirations of the palestinian people. it is the hope of the ecumenical and interreligious work group that this document might be a resource to other presbyteries and the presbyterian church (usa) in their broader relations with the jewish community in the us. 5 ii preamble ….in everlasting love, the god of abraham and sarah chose a covenant people to bless all families of the earth. hearing their cry, god delivered the children of israel from the house of bondage… loving us still, god makes us heirs with christ of the covenant. like a father who runs to welcome the prodigal home, god is faithful still…. (10.3) (a brief statement of faith 1990, 10.3) the christian church arose within (the people) israel. the followers of jesus remained at first within the people of israel. as persons from all nations joined them, they…separated from the jewish community. yet they continued to accept israel’s story as their own and to consider themselves part of the people of god. we can never lay exclusive claim to being god’s people, as though we had replaced those to whom the covenant, the law, and the promises belong. we affirm that god has not rejected god’s people the jews. the lord does not take back the lord’s promises. we christians have often rejected jews throughout our history with shameful prejudice and cruelty. god calls us to dialogue and cooperation that do not ignore our real disagreements, yet proceed in mutual respect and love. we are bound together with them in (a) story of those chosen to serve and proclaim the living god. (1977 declaration of faith)1 6 iii an understanding in our time nearly fifty years ago, the second vatican council issued a groundbreaking declaration on the relation between the roman catholic church and the wider christian church, and with other non-christian religious communities, especially the jewish community. titled nostra aetate (meaning literally ‘in our time’) it spoke of an emerging reality when “…day by day humankind is being drawn closer together, and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger…” in light of which “…the church examines more closely her relationship to non-christian religions.” given the task of the church in “…promoting unity and love among humankind, indeed among nations…” it was crucial to consider “…what human beings have in common and what draws them into fellowship.” while addressed in general to all the non-christian religions, nostra aetate nevertheless paid special attention to the relations of christians and jews, affirming that “…god holds the jews most dear for the sake of their fathers…” and decrying “…hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-semitism, directed against jews at any time and by anyone.” we believe god calls us “in our time” to declare a self-understanding of the deep and continuing relationship between congregations of the presbytery of chicago and the jewish community in metropolitan chicago. considering the tragedy of the holocaust, the establishment of the state of israel, and the rediscovery (through historical-critical inquiry) of the jewish covenantal dimension of our reformed faith, we propose today that: • presbyterian christians and jews, each in their own unique way, offer a contemporary witness to the living god of abraham and sarah; • presbyterians understand themselves better as christians when they understand the historic and living tradition of the jewish people; • given our shared vision for social justice presbyterian christians and jews have worked together in the past, and in the present continue to work, to strengthen the democratic social contract in the united states consistent with the commandments and values of both traditions; • presbyterian christians need a theological and relational framework in which to work out our understanding of the sacred promise and hope embodied in ancient israel in relationship to the modern state of israel. this framework is also crucial to our understanding of the ways in which that sacred promise and hope remains pivotal to the evolving identity of the us jewish community today, as they understand themselves. for these reasons, we offer this theological affirmation and vision for relations between presbyterian christians and jews in the united states ‘in our time.’ 7 iv a theological affirmation over the past fifty years, the presbyterian church (usa) has begun to more fully acknowledge its relationship to the modern jewish people and judaism. this has been reflected in a variety of denominational confessional and study documents that can offer guidance for the denomination: the confession of 1967: in this confession, presbyterians expressed the significant statement that jesus was indeed not just human, but “a palestinian jew” (9.08) living amongst his people, israel, “whom god chose to be his covenant people to serve god in love and faithfulness (9.18)”. of significance to this confession is the fact that jesus indeed came “out of israel.” (9.19) a theological understanding of the relationship between christians and jews (1987): this general assembly approved study document highlighted seven theological affirmations regarding christianity and its relationship with judaism: 1 that christians and jews worship the same god. 2 that christian identity is intimately related to the continuing identity of the jewish people. 3 that jews and christians share an elect status to be a light to the nations. 4 that jews are in continual covenant with god and are therefore partners and to be treated as such. 5 a pledge by christians to put an end to “the teaching of contempt” toward jews. 6 6 an obligation for christians to discern the existential importance of the land within judaism and its repercussions for christian theology. 7 a readiness to act with jews in promotion of the shared hope of a peaceable kingdom. the study catechism (1998): with significance for the christian relationship with jewish tradition and religion, the following developments can be noted in this approved presbyterian teaching resource: 1 the lifting up of the ten commandments as a source of “god’s law” for our lives, which should be followed out of gratitude (question 89-92). 2 the reaffirmation of the covenant relationship between god and (the people) israel, stating that “god has not rejected israel, that god still loves israel, and that god is their hope, “for the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable” (rom 11:29). (question 37) 3 the necessity of a christian’s vigilant stance against “prejudice of people who belong to any vulnerable, different or disfavored social group”, specifically lifting up “jews” as among those who have “suffered terribly from being subjected to the slurs of social prejudice.”(question 115) 8 christians and jews: people of god (2014): a recent general assembly approved resource regarding jewish/christian relations highlights the following significant developments for presbyterians: • a rejection of any theology that attempts to see the jewish people as supplanted or replaced by christians as “contrary to the core witness of the new testament and … not supported by the mainstream reformed tradition.” • a refutation of anti-judaic rhetoric in the new testament as appropriate for current conversation and dispute with jews. • an affirmation of the existential importance of the land of israel as “particular and concrete” for jews, but also not sufficient “to resolve this conflict or provide any basis by which to settle modern territorial disputes,” affirming that a christian theology of the land must “base [its] commitments on a justice for all peoples.” • a continual recognition that jews and christians are “partners in hope” and should view and treat each other accordingly. in our present day, as presbyterians, can we see the need to affirm, positively and proactively, our present spiritual kinship with the jewish people, to rediscover the jewish dimension of our own tradition, and to engage with the jewish people in causes of mutual concern? jesus sought the well being of the jewish people, and through this, the renewal of the world. by following the teaching and practice of jesus, presbyterians not only ‘love our neighbor as ourselves’, but fulfill god’s call to discipleship which comes through him. in this context, a reformed theology of presbyterian relations with the jewish people… • humbles christians as we are reminded that we are not alone in the sacred story of salvation; • reminds the church of the witness of god’s plan for all people through the existence, integrity, and perseverance of israel as a unique covenantal people, called to be ‘light of the world’ and a ‘blessings to the nations;’ • preserves the jewish roots and context of which jesus was a part; • grounds christian theological reflection on 2,000 years of a dynamic and vital jewish civilization, which continues to this day with the independent and changing lives of a real and living jewish people; • provokes the church to repentance from the hubris and historic contempt and actions towards the jewish people; • sustains a transformative partnership even when there is irreconcilable disagreement about messianic fulfillment (in jesus of nazareth) or a yet unrealized expectation for a messianic age (full realization of god’s promises to the people israel and with it the world); • gives witness to the one god, to the commandments, and to the ethics that flow from them; 9 • awakens christians to the evolving nature of our understanding of god’s activity by learning the history of the people israel in its historic and modern embodiments. v changing hearts and lives a. owning our historical privilege as with our catholic brothers and sisters from fifty years ago, in the last several years conversations with jews have renewed our concern to guard against anti-semitism and anti-jewish motifs and stereotypes. many presbyterians have become aware of previous strains of anti-judaic thought present in the way we ourselves sometimes speak and write, and of the ways in which the classic medieval teaching of contempt of judaism and the jewish people continues to live on in contemporary expressions of anti-semitic rhetoric: “we acknowledge in repentance the church’s long and deep complicity in the proliferation of antijewish attitudes and actions through its ‘teaching of contempt’ for the jews. such teaching we now repudiate, together with the acts and attitudes which it generates” (from ‘a theological understanding of the relationship between christians and jews,’ 1987). historically, this has been more specifically reflected in the presbyterian tradition… • in the condemnation found in the second helvetic confession (1566), under “heresies” regarding the doctrine of god: “…therefore we condemn the jews and mohammedans, and all those who blaspheme that sacred and adorable trinity” (book of confessions 5.019). • in his controversies with roman catholic writers and michael servetus, the attacks of calvin on “…scripture exegesis which indulges in materialistic or ‘carnal’ interpretations, a pattern calvin frequently identifies as typically jewish” (mary sweetland laver, “calvin, jews, and intra-christian polemics,” <ph.d. diss., temple university, 1988>, 224). • in the assessment of friedrich schleiermacher, the prussian reformed theologian who was one of the founders of protestant liberal theology, who wrote in 1799 that “judaism is long since a dead religion, and those who at present still bear its colors are actually sitting and mourning beside the undecaying mummy and weeping over its demise and sad legacy” (in on religion: speeches to its cultured despisers, richard crouter, trans. <new york: cambridge univ. pr., 1996>, 113-14). • in the admission of karl barth, who, though opposed to the nazis and attentive to a “doctrine of (the people) israel” in his theology, admitted that “…in personal encounters with living jews (even jewish christians) i have always, so long as i can remember, had to suppress a totally irrational aversion…” which “…could have had a retrogressive effect on my doctrine of israel” (karl barth: letters 19611968, ed. j. fangmeier and h. stoevesandt; trans. and ed. g. w. bromily <grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 1981>, 262). • in the barmen declaration of may 1934 (included in our book of confessions), barth and the other ‘confessing church’ leaders issued the admonition to resist the influence of nazi ideology promoted by the movement of “german christians” in the churches. nevertheless, the declaration was silent about the mistreatment of jews and defamation of judaism, and the racist intentions of nazi anti-semitism. 10 b. our commitment to change in light of this history, and ongoing spiritual kinship with jewish people, we must recommit ourselves to more accurate biblical and theological scholarship and christian education in all our congregations and institutions regarding the treatment of jews, judaism, and the history of god’s relation with the jewish people in the past and present. this includes scrutinizing our curriculae in congregations and seminaries to discover where we may be communicating ‘false witness’ about jews and judaism. the more comprehensive our study of this covenantal people, the safer the lives of the jews, and the practice of their way of life, will be in our local communities. unfortunately, the attitudes and beliefs of the church toward the jewish people and judaism have often been woefully inadequate—not acknowledging the impact of the jewish dimension of new testament witness, nor the significance of the inclusion of the hebrew scriptures in the christian canon. supersessionist theology (seeking to replace the jewish covenant with the christian covenant), and the persistence of anti-judaic rhetoric in christian thought (holding contempt for the jewish character of biblical revelation) are painful examples of these attitudes and beliefs that have often led to tragic consequences. we must seek unambiguously respectful forms of attribution and dialogue between jews and presbyterians. “god calls us to dialogue and cooperation that do not ignore our real disagreements, yet proceed in mutual respect and love. we are bound together with them in a…story of those chosen to serve and proclaim the living god” (from ‘a declaration of faith’, 1976, 1977). changing our hearts and lives – which is the essence of repentance also requires us to look critically at christian beliefs and practices regarding evangelism and our jewish neighbors, friends, and relatives. one of our study documents states frankly: “we must continue to be clear that proselytism by christians seeking to persuade, even convert, jews often implies a negative judgment on jewish faith. jewish reluctance to accept christian claims is all the more understandable when it is realized that conversion is often seen by them as a threat to jewish survival, as many jews who unite with the church sever their bonds with their people” (from ‘a theological understanding of the relationship between christians and jews,’ 1987). our past practices of evangelizing jews assumed that witness and testimony occurred only in one direction: from christians to jews, as if jews were godless, lacking covenant, in need of conversion to find relationship with god. but this is contrary to scripture as the 2014 general assembly study document argues: “the new testament makes it clear to christians that jews are not empty vessels, without god, who must be filled with christianity to be restored to divine favor…. (romans 11:1, 11, 28, 31, 33, 36).” the document then affirms: “god remains faithful to the people israel; god remains faithful to christians. jews remain faithful to the god of abraham, isaac, and jacob; christians remain faithful to the god of abraham, isaac, and jacob whom we know in emmanuel, jesus christ. as two peoples who are known and loved by god and who know and love the one god, christians and jews are therefore called to be faithful to one another in bonds of love” (from ‘christians and jews: people of god,’ p. 16). 11 rather than one-way communication, presbyterians are called with jews to a relationship characterized by “mutual witness,” “mutual disclosure,” “mutual affirmation,” and “mutual questioning and correction” (from ‘christians and jews: people of god,’ p. 17). in such a relationship, we will no doubt continue to ponder the ongoing mysteries of election, mission, and ‘the promise of the land.’ and of those three, the matter of the ‘land’ looms large at this particular moment in time. vi forging a framework on ‘ the land’ for presbyterians, and many but not all jews, the answer to the question of jewish sovereignty is to be found in distinguishing the biblical meaning of the land for the chosen people of god from the national aspirations of the modern jewish people. on the one hand, these national aspirations for jews are grounded in the sacred tradition of israel. their attachment to ‘the land’ is deepened by a history of two thousand years of exile and suffering in lands where the jewish people had no sovereignty; of a longing for a homeland; of the horror of the holocaust; of the establishment of the modern state of israel; and of the ongoing struggle over sovereignty with respect to the palestinian people who know this same land as their homeland. on the other hand, (to borrow from official catholic teaching): “the existence of the state of israel and its political options should be envisaged, not in a perspective which is in itself religious, but in their reference to the common principles of international law.” (“notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church” 1985). this represents the implications of nostra aetate that were worked out extensively in catholic social teachings, employing international law and broadly recognized human rights to critique the practices and policies of the modern jewish state, instead of using any theological objection to the jewish return to sovereignty in the ancient land. in terms of our spiritual kinship to the jewish community, it is especially important in our analysis and critique of the israeli-palestinian conflict to be vigilant against employing language, rhetoric and lines of argumentation that introduce harmful stereotypes, anti-jewish motifs, and classic christian anti-judaic theology into nevertheless critically necessary discussions. an example of anti-judaic theology is the notion that with the coming of christ, the jews lost connection to ‘the land’ and their covenant with god, as expressed in a variety of christian writings, such as martin luther (1483-1546) in his interpretation of psalm 2: “finally they were exterminated and devastated by the romans over fourteen hundred years ago— so that they might well perceive that god did not regard, nor will regard, their country, city, temple, priesthood, or principality, and view them on account of these as his own peculiar people.” while it is challenging to address the rights and aspirations of both the jewish and palestinian peoples, and the steps needed toward a just and peaceful resolution of the israeli-palestinian conflict, the conversation and analysis can be engaged frankly and critically without resorting to such language and thought. at the same time, presbyterians can respectfully communicate that the use of the historical victimization of the jewish people, in so far as such use seeks to legitimize specific policies and practices regarding the occupation and its impact on the palestinian people, does not further constructive discourse about the state of israel. 12 critique of the policies and practices of the state of israel on political grounds, employing frameworks and criteria used broadly by the international community — and which resonate with the underlying principles of reformed theology2 — is an effective way for presbyterians to enter into this complex discussion. this is in contrast to the out-of-context use of explicit covenantal warnings embedded in biblical sources and addressed to ancient israel. in this way, presbyterians can fully engage questions of justice and peace without resorting to more problematic approaches that slip over into anti-semitic or anti-judaic rhetoric or lines of argumentation. given this overall framework, presbyterians can do the following: • fully engage in public witness, discourse and action with regards to matters such as self-determination, human rights, reconciliation, justice and peace, related to the israeli-palestinian conflict; • affirm the aspirations for, and the right to, self-determination by both israelis and palestinians; • affirm the necessity of human and civil rights afforded to all arab and other minorities in the state of israel, and to jewish and other minorities in a future state of palestine and other arab countries; • actively work on behalf of israelis and palestinians, and a just and peaceful future for both, without compromising our relationship to each people. vii living together as covenant peoples question 52 in the study catechism asks, “how should i treat non-christians and people of other religions?”and then answers this way: “as much as i can, i should meet friendship with friendship, hostility with kindness, generosity with gratitude, persecution with forbearance, truth with agreement, and error with truth. i should express my faith with humility and devotion as the occasion requires, whether silently or openly, boldly or meekly, by word or by deed. i should avoid compromising the truth on the one hand and being narrow-minded on the other. in short, i should always welcome and accept these others in a way that honors and reflects the lord’s welcome and acceptance of me.” (from book of catechisms: reference edition <louisville, ky: geneva pr., 2001>, 84). this is an invitation to respect and love that does not require us to ignore our real disagreements, but which does require us to do the hard work of building trust and deepening relationship. pursuing and fostering relationships in these ways carries us into a deeper experience of our own faith commitments. the spiritual practice of such kindness, generosity, persistence, humility and open-hearted conviction may help us develop a sense of empathy that in no way negates our sense of self. on the contrary, such spiritual disciplines are a means of developing caring and considerate hearts—helping us to more accurately know and more sincerely love our jewish neighbors. 13 together, presbyterians and jews can share the most treasured aspects of our religious identity: • by inviting, listening to and offering mutually transparent testimonies. • by regularly discussing issues that are significant to each community. • by sharing, through conversation or encounter, ritual practices that are especially meaningful. together, presbyterians and jews can work for the well being of our world: • by coming together to aid yet other religious groups who might face prejudice in their neighborhoods. • by working together on issues of hunger, violence, poverty, immigration, and other shared concerns for the common good. together, presbyterians and jews can create safe havens for religious diversity: • by building relationships over time, not in reaction to crises, but in order to live out a commitment to deep hospitality and mutual respect. • by maintaining these relationships even in (and especially in) times of crisis. • by listening attentively and representing our jewish dialogue partners in ways that they feel accurately represent them. with the best elements of our respective traditions, the relationship between christians and jews remains unique, foundational and enduring. notes (1) the 1976-77 declaration of faith of the presbyterian church (us) was never approved as a confessionnal document. it was approved as an educational and liturgical resource, and later accepted by the pc (usa). (2) reformed theology sees human collectives, such as a nation state, as an instrument of providence, contributing to human flourishing. at the same time, nation states are fallible, and therefore open to critique and reform. such a critique can be based, for instance, in the theological claim that all human beings are created in the image of god, and therefore worthy of the respect and recognition accorded them by the central principles found in the united nations declaration of human rights. any attempt to sacralize the temporal and fallible nature of the nation state is idolatrous, and ultimately destructive of human well being. we acknowledge that empires, kingdoms…etc. are ordained by god….for the manifestation of his own glory and for the good and well being of all men [humanity]. scots confession xxiv 3.24 we reject the false doctrine, as though the state, over and beyond its special commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life…. theological declaration of barmen 8.23 although nations may serve god’s purposes in history, the church which identifies the sovereignty of any one nation or any one way of life with the cause of god denies the lordship of christ and betrays its calling. confession of 1967 9.45 14 viii resources declarations, study papers, and other online documents: nostra aetate, declaration on the relation of the church to non-christian religions…proclaimed by his holiness pope paul vi on october 28, 1965, the second vatican council. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html). “notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church” 1985. (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jewsdocs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_jews-judaism_en.html). a theological understanding of the relationship between christians and jews, 1987 study paper, presbyterian church (usa). (http://www.pcusa.org/site_media/media/uploads/_resolutions/christians-jews.pdf) christians and jews; people of god. theology and worship church issues series no. 7. louisville, ky: presbyterian mission agency, 2010. (http://store.pcusa.org/7042005004). interreligious stance paper, presbyterian church (usa) (2014): (http://www.pcusa.org/resource/interreligious-stance-adopted-221st-general-assemb/) drafting team rev. dr. jay moses pastor, hope presbyterian church, wheaton convener, ecumenical and interreligious work group presbytery of chicago rev. dr. robert cathey professor of theology, mccormick theological seminary member, ecumenical and interreligious work group, presbytery of chicago rev. nanette sawyer pastor, st. james presbyterian church / grace commons rev. dirk ficca director, interreligious initiative for middle east peace presbytery of chicago with special thanks to jill folan and katie rains. 15 mccormick theological seminary from: rev. dr. robert cathey to: chicago presbytery date: 9 november 2015 re: process for ‘…in our time…’ the ecumenical & inter-religious work group (eiwg) of chicago presbytery recognized in 2014 that 28 october 2015 would mark the fiftieth anniversary of the official publication on “…in our time…,” the vatican ii teaching document that radically revised centuries of roman catholic teaching and practice regarding jews, judaism, and other religions. “…in our time…” impacted christians, jews and others around the world and influenced presbyterians who wrote the confession of 1967 and other presbyterian confessional and study documents. recognizing the revolution in human relations sparked fifty years ago by “…in our time…”, our work group created a sub-committee to draft a document for our time in 2015 that might become a resource for our own congregations, institutions, and leaders in our relations with jews, jewish leaders, congregations, and institutions in chicago. on 10 november 2014 (one year ago), we met at mccormick seminary and began the drafting process. in winter and spring of 2015 we shared early draft versions of our document for constructive critique with members of our work group, with leaders from the jewish united federation of chicago, american jewish committee, and chicago board of rabbis, persons with whom we have been in dialogue since september 2004. we shared a draft version with the christian scholars group for christian – jewish relations, an organization founded by the national council of churches in 1967 that includes roman catholic, orthodox, lutheran, united church of christ, and presbyterian scholars and directors of centers for inter-religious relations in the us. i also shared a draft of our document with mccormick students in introduction to christian theology for their critique. chicago presbytery received a draft of “…in our time…” at the 16 june presbytery assembly for a first reading. we created a set of discussion questions, divided the assembly members into small groups, and received oral and written responses from all present, and from other members of presbytery who wrote us via email afterwards. i combined all these responses into a detailed report shared with our work group later in the summer. chicago presbytery also emailed all other pc (usa) presbyteries with a draft for their comment and we have read those responses via email. by october we had a new draft that i shared with the christian scholars group meeting at st. joseph university in philadelphia and they made detailed comments on all sections. in light of all the feedback we have received from presbyterians and others, we have revised some of our indicative statements into interrogative form to invite members of presbytery into an ongoing dialogue with each other and with our neighbors that will continue beyond our presbytery assembly of 21 november. we give thanks for all persons and organizations that have commented on drafts of this document. we have learned much from your wisdom and deep commitment to the well being of all peoples in our city, our country, and in israel / palestine. we pray the creator and redeemer of all things will continue to reform our presbytery and church by the word and spirit who comes to us in jesus “…in our time….” birkat haminim: jews and christians in conflict in the ancient world studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): langer r 1-3 review y a a k o v y . t e p p l e r birkat haminim: jews and christians in conflict in the ancient world trans. susan weingarten (tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2007), 413 pp. reviewed by ruth langer, boston college since the patristic period, the birkat haminim has attracted christian attention. this twelfth benediction of the central, thrice-daily jewish weekday prayer of eighteen benedictions (actually, for most of its history, nineteen), calls for the downfall of various categories of humans who harm the jewish community. instituted at yavneh in the late first century according to talmudic tradition, it was understood by jerome and ephiphanius and perhaps even by justin to curse christians. the earliest preserved liturgical texts, from the end of the first christian millennium (though not from christian lands), would seem to confirm this, naming christians explicitly. but was this the original intent and/or language of the prayer? while many scholars have written on the birkat haminim and the question of the identity of the minim in general, teppler’s is only the second book-length treatment of the subject.1 the methodological challenges confronting such a study are overwhelming. from the perspective of understanding early christian-jewish relations and the parting(s) of the ways, it is obviously critical to determine whether the rabbis of the land of israel were so concerned about christians in the late first century as to give them the attention of a thrice-daily liturgical curse. however, were the original minim christians? early rabbinic texts give very little concrete information by which to identify the minim, and the term aggregated new meanings over time. to what extent can the liturgical texts of a millennium later be retrojected to the first century? how much of their language and their malediction of several additional categories of people (especially apostates and the kingdom of arrogance) sheds light on the original situation of the blessing? how do we understand traditions, like the story of the institution of this prayer, that appear only in the babylonian talmud and not in earlier rabbinic texts or in texts from the land of israel? how quickly did this prayer become widely recited? teppler wades into this methodological morass. he devotes the second half of the book exclusively to determining who were the original minim. his exhaustive study of the minutiae of the available evidence results in a conclusion that the original minim, the objects of the prayer, were christians, both jewish and gentile. the first half focuses more specifically on the prayer itself. rabbinic evidence shows that the original language of the prayer mentioned minim and closed with the eulogy, “makhnia’ zedim” (who brings low the haughty). although the term “notzerim” (christians, nazarenes) is well documented in the earliest surviving liturgical texts, teppler argues that there is no evidence for jewish use of the term in the first and second centuries, and no evidence for it in the prayer until the fourth century. teppler also argues that “apostates,” the term with which the vast majority of uncensored texts open this prayer, is an early medieval addition, probably of babylonian provenance and in response to shifting meanings of the already embedded terms. once “minim” comes to mean “karaites,” he claims, 1 after r. travers herford, christianity in talmud and midrash (london: williams & norgate, 1903; rpt. new york: ktav, n.d.). teppler, birkat haminim langer r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): langer r 1-3 other terms become necessary, including “notzerim.” unfortunately, though, his argument for this relies on very little evidence and much assumption. that some rabbis call karaites “minim” does not mean that all “minim” were karaites. he also ignores entirely the third line of the later medieval blessing (addressing israel’s enemies). in the context of his detailed discussions, this reads like an oversight. were his data better (see below), he could have justified his choice. he similarly never connects saadia gaon’s text with the rich geniza evidence for its actual use. teppler queries whether the prayer for the downfall of the “kingdom of arrogance” is original to yavneh. as it is unlikely that rome would have tolerated such a prayer, especially in the period between and after the jewish revolts, teppler suggests two possibilities: either this phrase was later instituted against rome by babylonian jews (and hence it was not original to yavneh); or its original intent was not rome at all, but the christian understanding that in the period between the resurrection and the second coming, the church represents the “kingdom of heaven” on earth. for the rabbis, this translated into the “kingdom of arrogance.” this last is an example of the major flaw of this massive book. the “kingdom of heaven” was indeed an important concept in the early church, but what did it mean? teppler does not acknowledge the wide-ranging discussion among new testament scholars about whether this meant something manifest in the contemporary church or something only anticipated eschatologically. in any case, how would the romans know that the term “kingdom of arrogance” did not apply to them? teppler’s preferred theory, that in babylonia, where there was no fear of retribution, jews applied this term to rome, is no less problematic. what would motivate such an addition to the prayer? and how did they make explicit to the babylonian authorities that the prayer’s object was babylonia’s own enemy! here, and throughout his book, teppler’s claims are based on insufficiently grounded suppositions that subsequently become “fact” and the basis for further suppositions. this includes, especially, his assertion that the minim of the yavneh period were exclusively christians. teppler’s use of rabbinic sources, including his consultation of manuscript variants, is mostly sound (provided that one accepts his frequently dating traditions according to their attributions) and, with the exception of his presumption, based on some older scholarship never well accepted and not consistently implemented even here, that the tosefta is post-talmudic. his use of liturgical sources is more problematic. unfortunately, his book probably went to press before my article with uri ehrlich appeared, publishing almost 200 manuscripts of the birkat haminim from the geniza and medieval european rites (among which teppler fails to distinguish).2 had he consulted with ehrlich about the geniza materials, with jonah fraenkel about ashkenazi liturgy, or with the late ezra fleischer about liturgical poetry, his discussion of the actual liturgical texts would have been grounded in state-of-the-art data. as it is, many of his details are partial or outright wrong, leading to mistaken suppositions and conclusions. there is also much secondary material of relevance in english of which he seems unaware. to write on this topic and not engage explicitly the publications of daniel boyarin, seth schwartz, or lee levine, for instance, is a huge lacuna. in many cases, the secondary authors he does engage do not represent contemporary scholarship on the topic, but represent earlier stages methodologically in the project of jewish wissenschaft or outdated (or his own eclectic) understandings of second temple and early christian history and literature. consequently, he sees the septuagint, jubilees, and the damascus document as of no relevance as jewish texts and fails to understand the contexts of the new testament’s books. he also views the yavnean 2 “the earliest texts of the birkat haminim,” hebrew union college annual 76 (2006): 63-112. teppler, birkat haminim langer r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): langer r 1-3 rabbis as having immediate success in promulgating throughout the world their innovative liturgical system, including the birkat haminim, an understanding many question. finally, the book badly needs editing. teppler repeats himself and argues in circles. confusingly, he regularly works backwards from more recent to older sources, something that is justified perhaps with regards to the first millennium text of the birkat haminim itself for lack of alternatives, but not beyond this. his tables presenting the geniza texts seem to have been corrupted, resulting in completely wrong information (23, 373). more seriously, the translation is frequently clumsy to the point of incomprehensibility, as it was not reworked into idiomatic english. the translator also does not know standard technical english vocabulary for the subject. the “eulogy” of the blessing appears here as its “close”; “resurrection” as “revival of the dead”; and “sadducees” as “zadokites,” and once “zadocean” (175). for a book this expensive, this is inexcusable. teppler is to be commended for undertaking an ambitious project, one central to understanding the early jewish-christian relationship. anyone dealing with the birkat haminim or minim will need to evaluate his arguments carefully. but the last word on the topic has not yet been written and may never be written, simply because the available evidence rarely, in my opinion, supports the sort of firm conclusions teppler proposes. teppler, birkat haminim langer r 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review paul r. hinlicky before auschwitz: what christian theology must learn from the rise of nazism (eugene, or: cascade books, 2013), paperback, xii + 233 pp. robert cathey, mccormick theological seminary the author engages the reader in a historical-theological meditation on the implications of “the complicity of mainstream christian theologians in nazism” (p. 17). he relies upon robert ericksen’s theologians under hitler (gerhard kittel, paul althaus and emanuel hirsch) (new haven: yale university press, 1985) as foundational research for a new field in historical theology. hinlicky reviews much of the literature published in german and english from his own theological perspective, summarized in his statement that “christian theology can and must still learn from experience and produce knowledge that makes a difference,” in opposition to so-called “death of god” theologians (p. 11), elaborated in six theological theses explicated in chapter 5. his close readings of the literature in the field are insightful and his own theological perspective and theses are constructive and provocative. chapter four on “the not so strange theology of adolf hitler” is the most distinctive. he reconstructs hitler’s own system of beliefs and reports that some of his students, misreading hitler as the “champion of an enlightened scientific worldview,” “could not possibly have favored racial or religious intolerance” (pp. 104-105). part of what hinlicky uncovers is that neither protestant theological liberalism (or revisionism) nor conservatism in the context of germany of the 1920s and 30s had the moral, spiritual, and critical resources to save the german churches from becoming aligned with the nazi cause. for some liberal studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 9 (2014) german christians, demythologizing biblical texts and reinterpreting the gospel in light of the rise of national socialism went hand in hand, especially when all the mythology (seen negatively) was ascribed to judaism. in his second chapter, “the peril of conservative apologetics,” he argues against post-war apologists for the german protestants who claim that “real christianity, or the real luther, or real lutherans are not really to blame” for horrific evils of the nazi era (p. 67). he draws from this the lesson in our own context that locating ourselves within the simple binary of liberal (or progressive) vs. conservative theology will not save us from the crises of twenty-first century global capitalism. we stand in need of a “critical dogmatics” that realizes “neither those who attack nor those who defend succeed in understanding” the challenges and crises of the day (p. 11). there is a tendency in the first three chapters to string together a series of condensed book reviews to cover the corpus of new historical and theological literature. this reader would have preferred that the author engage more directly with the historical and theological issues that are raised by the uses of theology under the nazis. i also wondered whether readers who were not schooled in lutheran theology would appreciate how much space is devoted to whether the “two kingdoms doctrine” of lutheranism was properly interpreted by the major theological figures and institutions of german protestantism in the 1930s. in fact, why should theologicalpolitical distinctions of the sixteenth century provide adequate explanatory language for a twentieth-century theological crisis (apart from the fact that this doctrine was used during the crisis)? what were the unique dimensions of this crisis that outstripped all inherited christian norms? part of the value of this book for christian-jewish relations lies in the theological revisions hinlicky proposes and argues for. for example, christology “must account for the divergence between christianity and judaism over issues of the law without stigmatizing jewish unbelief or questioning god’s irrevocable calling of his ancient people, israel. it must rather take jewish studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 9 (2014) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr unbelief in jesus as the messiah as a principle internal to its own theology” (p. 159). in light of this thesis we would benefit from hearing the author’s thoughts on whether christ after auschwitz should still be proclaimed as the universal savior of all peoples, including the jews. for the author, “the external word of the gospel concerning christ includes the jewishness of the man jesus, because the ambiguity of his appearance in history is constituted by the well-grounded scriptural refusal of living judaism to believe him. only in the light of this refusal can christian faith in jesus as the messiah and son of god understand itself properly as faith, not sight” (p. 175). the implication seems to be that the person and work of christ are salvific for the nations (the gentiles) but unnecessary for jesus’ own jewish people, whose covenant with god is irrevocable. would the author be open to something like a “two covenant approach” to god’s dealings with jews and gentiles, especially if the jewish refusal of faith in christ serves a positive theological function for christians? finally, i wanted to ask the author at the end of each chapter and the book what were the implications of his research for how we critically evaluate christian theology today with regard to particular movements and authors? he never specifies where he finds any contemporary theological movement or theologian falling into errors like those of nazi-era theologians paul althaus, gerhard kittel, and emanuel hirsch. for example, are some forms of liberation theology too völkisch (too centered on one people’s history and culture as divine revelation today)? does the structure of anti-judaism that hinlicky criticizes in nazi ideology and german christian theology under hitler reappear in some contemporary christian theological critiques of zionism and the state of israel today (see, for example, donald wagner and walter davis, eds., zionism and the quest for justice in the holy land. [eugene, or: wipf & stock publishers, 2014])? are the “right to life” activists who invoke historical analogies between nazi ideas of eugenics, racial purity, and genocide in the concentration camps, on the one hand, and the legal use of abortion as a means of birth control, on the other, onto something, or are studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 9 (2014) they twisting history to their own ends? perhaps the author wants his readers to draw their own conclusions about where their theologies and movements stand before and after auschwitz. scjr 10 (2015) 1 introduction what happened in 1965? karla suomala, luther college a half-century ago, the war in vietnam was escalating, the space race was in full swing, the rolling stones were on a world tour, the bravery of those who marched to selma led to the passage of the voting rights act, and the st. louis arch was completed. the united states occupied the dominican republic, malcolm x was assassinated, nasa’s mariner 4 flew by mars, race riots erupted in watts, california, and muhammad ali defeated sonny liston. 1 this pastiche from one year, 1965, sheds light on just how much and how quickly the united states was changing in the 1960s. and religious institutions in that period were not immune to what was happening in the rest of society. the expanding civil rights movement, the developing women’s movement, the changing demographics through immigration, and an emerging disenchantment with organized religion all demanded the attention of people of faith and provoked a long and thoroughgoing reassessment of beliefs and practices in many congregations and church bodies. among protestants, this process unfolded in as many ways as there were denominations. the roman catholic church was also reassessing long-held practices and positions in light of how much the world had changed since world war ii. the church, however, was working out its decisions on a world stage. when pope john xxiii opened the second vatican council in 1962, bishops from around the world gathered in 1 taylor, alan. “50 years ago: a look back at 1965.” the atlantic, march 11, 2015. http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2015/03/50-years-ago-alook-back-at-1965/387493/. scjr 10 (2015) 2 rome to work through a slate of reforms. in particular, the group took almost four years to hammer out and agree upon a statement that would best articulate a new framework for the relationship between the church and non-christian religions. when pope paul vi closed the council in october, 1965, this new understanding was set forth in the document, nostra aetate (“in our times”). while na mentioned other religions by name, the most radical portion (par. 4) focused on the relationship between jews and christians. in one very short paragraph, the document revoked the ancient charge of deicide, indicating that the death of jesus can no longer be “charged against all the jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the jews of today.” the same paragraph also said that in teaching and preaching throughout the church “the jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by god” and it called an end to all “hatred, persecutions, [and] displays of anti-semitism, directed against jews at any time and by anyone.” in the wake of this major turning point in catholicjewish relations, the christian scholars group on christianjewish relations (csg) was formed in 1969. going by a variety of names throughout the years, the csg has consisted of primarily catholic and protestant scholars (as of 2015, the group includes jewish scholars as well) dedicated to rethinking historical approaches to the relationships between christians and jews and producing fresh theologies and hermeneutical strategies that incorporate and build upon the new framework. over the last year, in celebration of na’s fiftieth anniversary, the group has dedicated considerable time to thinking about what na has accomplished and what it means today, in a world that is markedly different than the one in which na came about. the csg also looked to the future, to the challenges and opportunities for inter-religious engagement in the next fifty years. in this special edition of studies in christianjewish relations (scjr), current and former members have contributed articles which form pieces of this larger conversation, all the while recognizing that this is just a beginning. scjr 10 (2015) 3 csg members have also played a role in the development of the sculpture, “synagoga and ecclesia in our time” by joshua koffman, now installed on the campus of st. joseph’s university. reimagining the medieval european image in which “the feminine figures of victorious church (ecclesia) and vanquished synagogue (synagoga) adorned dozens of cathedrals and churches,” the new sculpture depicts ecclesia and synagoga sharing their texts with each other and demonstrating that “both synagogue and church experience covenantal life with god.” 2 the sculpture was inspired by a small brass sculpture which csg member mary boys commissioned for her book, has god only one blessing? judaism as a source of christian self-understanding (paulist press, 2000), and created by paula mary turnbull, a member of her religious community. directors of the institute for jewish-catholic relations at saint joseph’s university, drs. philip cunningham and adam gregerman, had the opportunity to present miniature bronze replicas of “synagoga and ecclesia in our time” to pope francis and rabbi abraham skorka in the vatican during an audience with the international council of christians and jews on june 30, 2015. in “protestant parallels to nostra aetate,” franklin sherman provides a glimpse into how protestant churches, both before and after 1965, have wrestled with the troubled history of their relations to the jewish people. sherman provides a roadmap to the variety of statements that so many protestant church bodies, primarily in north american and europe, produced in their efforts to come to terms with their own historical positions toward the jewish people, affirming new understandings of this relationship, and committing themselves to new relationship. while na doesn’t refer to the holocaust, many of the protestant statements do, acknowledg 2 “sculpting a new tradition: from adversaries to two peoples in covenant to study partners.” sju: institute for jewish-catholic relations. september 2015. https://www.sju.edu/int/academics/centers/ijcr/archives/sculpture development.html. scjr 10 (2015) 4 ing the role christians played in hitler’s final solution. this is likely due to the fact that many of these statements were written many years after na, at a time when people were much more aware of what happened to the jews during the holocaust and it was widely discussed in the public square. using the concept of “frontlash” as a lens through which to look at the ways anti-semitism, just like racism or patriarchy, persists today but in new forms, katharina von kellenbach in “in our time: civil rights, women’s liberation, and jewish-christian dialogue fifty years after nostra aetate,” points to just how difficult it is to enact real and lasting change in long-held attitudes and behaviors. while many of the overt forms anti-semitism, such as the charge of deicide, have largely fallen out of favor in the public arena, antisemitism itself has not disappeared. in fact, says von kellenbach, “-isms” simply find new outlets that aren’t perhaps as obvious but are just as pernicious. in particular, von kellenbach suggests that one of the new outlets for anti-semitism can be found in anti-zionism, an ideological position which is being taken up by many progressive christians. in “reading nostra aetate in reverse: a different way of looking at the relationships among religions,” peter phan argues that in order to truly read na today, for our time, the theology that informs the document must be re-evaluated. the dilemma is apparent in the title, declaration on the church’s relations to non-christian religions, where the asymmetrical relationship between christianity and religions of the world is clear in the use of the prefix “non-”. suggesting something which is inferior or incomplete, the use of “non-” expresses the church’s conviction that other religions find their purest expression in and through christianity (fulfillment theology). if the church is to authentically relate to the religions of the world today, argues phan, na needs to be read in such a way that christianity becomes one among, not the pinnacle of, religions. phan goes on to outline how the jewishchristian dialogue of the last fifty years can serve as a starting scjr 10 (2015) 5 point, if not model, for a revised understanding of the church among religions. finally, csg member robert cathey, along with presbyterian colleagues jay moses, dirk ficca, and nanette sawyer with jill folan and katie rains, shows us how na still serves as a model and inspiration for christian churches today. in “why would presbyterians turn to a catholic document?” cathey and his co-authors reflect on the long process of dialogue, drafting and re-drafting that preceded their official declaration, “‘…in our time…’ a statement on relations between the presbytery of chicago and the jewish community in metropolitan chicago.” this contribution allows us to see not just the final product, but also the careful thought and considerable effort that go into the creation of this type of statement in our own time. karla suomala, president, christian scholars group on christian-jewish relations does the catholic church have a mission fiwithfl jews or fitofl jews? studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college does the catholic church have a mission “with” jews or “to” jews? mary c. boys union theological seminary volume 3 (2008) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 boys, “catholic church and mission ‘to’ or ‘with’ jews?” 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): 1-19 since the deliberations of the second vatican council that resulted in the promulgation of nostra aetate on october 28, 1965, catholic teaching on the church’s relationship with the jewish people has both broadened and deepened. yet, the important question of whether the church has a “mission” to the jews—that is, whether catholics should seek the conversion of jews to christianity—has lurked below the surface, seldom addressed explicitly. many, including myself, conclude that vatican ii and its legacy mean that a mission “to” the jews is no longer theologically warranted and is pastorally insensitive, even deplorable. rather, we might speak of having a mission “with” jews in furthering the reign of god.1 recently, however, the reticence about a christian mission to the jews has given way to overt advocacy in some circles: in the pronouncements of certain prominent cardinals, in pope benedict’s reformulated prayer for good friday for the tridentine rite, and in the growth of certain organizations for the “ingrafting” of jews to the church. thus, what appeared to those involved in catholic-jewish dialogue to be effectively, if implicitly, settled now seems in question. if the chorus of voices calling for jews to convert (or “be completed”) swells and finds resonance in the church, the trust many jews experienced in and through dialogue will likely give way to wariness and suspicion. moreover, the work of their catholic partners will be undermined. it is vital, then, that the issue of mission receives serious attention. i hope my essay will put the question on the table, place it in broad context, 1 see the essays by philip cunningham and joann spillman, “covenant and conversion” and “targeting jews for conversion contradicts christian faith and contravenes christian hope,” respectively, in seeing judaism anew: christianity’s sacred obligation, ed. mary c. boys (lanham, md: rowman and littlefield, 2005), 151-174. analyze the thinking among the advocates of a mission to jews, and identify the theological tensions at stake. i. the context: a nostra aetate trajectory amidst a bipolarity of tendencies though it has been nearly forty-three years since the conclusion of vatican ii, lively (and at times vociferous) debates about its meaning continue.2 in many respects, how catholics interpret the council – not just its texts, but its spirit and its reception over the years – provides a theological grounding on the question of mission to (or with) jews. what complicates analysis is that the conciliar texts themselves represent a “contradictory pluralism” or a “bipolarity of tendencies.”3 this is particularly the case with regard to the church’s attitude toward the religious other. as a very brief summary of this bipolarity, i offer the following chart, which highlights some of the tensions in key conciliar and post-conciliar texts:4 2 among the most significant are ormond rush, still interpreting vatican ii: some hermeneutical principles (new york/mahwah, nj: paulist, 2004); the reception of vatican ii, eds. giuseppe alberigo, jean pierre jossua, and joseph a. komonchak (washington, d.c.: catholic university of america press, 1987); the 4-volume history of vatican ii, eds, alberigo and komonchak (maryknoll, ny: orbis press, 1996—2003); joseph cardinal ratzinger, principles of catholic theology (san francisco: ignatius press, 1987); john j. o’malley, s.j., tradition and transition: historical perspectives on vatican ii (wilmington, de: michael glazier, 1988). 3 the phrase “contradictory pluralism” is from otto hermann pesch, cited in rush, still interpreting vatican ii, 28; “bipolarity of tendencies” is from arthur gilbert, the vatican council and the jews (cleveland and new york: world publishing, 1968), 215. 4 abbreviations: from vatican ii: lg, lumen gentium; gs, gaudium et spes; ag, ad gentes, na, nostra aetate. subsequent documents: dm, dialogue and mission [secretariat for non-christians, 1984]; rm, redemptoris missio [encyclical of pope john paul ii, 1990]; dp, dialogue and proclamation [pontifical council for interreligious dialogue and the congregation for the evangelization of peoples, 1991]; di, dominus iesus. boys, “catholic church and mission ‘to’ or ‘with’ jews?” 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): 1-19 oonn tthhee oonnee hhaanndd…… oonn tthhee ootthheerr…… in the religious tradition of non-christians there exist “elements which are true and good” (lg §16); “seeds of contemplation (ag §18); “elements of truth and grace” (ag§9); “seeds of the word” (ag§11, 15); “rays of truth which illumine all humankind” (na§2). “with the coming of the saviour jesus christ, god has willed that the church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity (cf. acts 17:30-31). this truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism ‘characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that one religion is as good as another'” (di§22). “interreligious dialogue is truly part of the dialogue of salvation initiated by god” (dp§80). “all dialogue implies reciprocity and aims at banishing fear and aggressiveness” (dp§83). “if it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the church, have the fullness of the means of salvation” (di§22). dialogue means “all positive and constructive interreligious relations with individuals and communities of other faiths which are directed at mutual dialogue “cannot simply replace proclamation, but remains oriented towards proclamation insofar as the dynamic process of the church’s understanding and fulfillment” (dm§3). evangelizing mission reaches in its climax and fullness” (dp§82). “interreligious dialogue does not merely aim at mutual understanding and friendly relations. it reaches a much deeper level, that of the spirit, where exchange and sharing consist in a mutual witness of one’s beliefs and a common exploration of one’s respective religious commitments….[its aim is] a deeper conversion of all toward god” (dp§40). “dialogue should be conducted and implemented with the conviction that the church is the ordinary means of salvation and that she alone possesses the fullness of the means of salvation” (rm§55). peoples of other religions who sincerely practice “what is good in their own religious tradition” and follow the “dictates of their conscience” thereby “respond positively to god’s invitation.” thus, they receive salvation in jesus christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their savior” (dp§29) …[w]hile remaining firm in their belief that in jesus christ, the only mediator between god and man (cf. 1 tm 2:4-6), the fullness of revelation has been given to them, christians must remember that god has also manifested himself in some way to the followers of other religious tradition. consequently, it is with receptive minds that they approach the convictions and values of others (dp§48). boys, “catholic church and mission ‘to’ or ‘with’ jews?” 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): 1-19 “part of [the church’s] role consists in recognizing that the inchoate reality of this kingdom can be found also beyond the confines of the church, e.g., in the hearts of followers of other religious traditions…” (dp§35). god’s reign and the church are distinguishable but not separable (dp§34). that ambiguities and contradictions exist in the post-vatican ii teachings of the catholic church is not surprising. in one sense they are a sign of health, reflecting the ecclesiastical compromises that allow diverse perspectives on christian selfunderstanding to co-exist in a single communion. they become problematic, however, when complexities and consequences are overlooked—or when certain church officials attempt to close off debate on issues that cannot be adequately resolved at this point of history. this is particularly the case with the church’s relationship with jews, a relationship that took a dramatic turn in 1965 and that has required the church to face its history and to reexamine its theological understandings of judaism and of its relationship with jews. this bipolarity became evident in the drafting process of na. although the general direction of the various drafts lay in a positive perspective on judaism, the second draft articulated a clear hope that jews should convert: the “church expects in unshakable faith and with ardent desire … the union of the jewish people with the church.”5 in fact, however, the council rejected this wording. rather, the drafters couched the final text in a more eschatological tone, evoking a day in the distant future time when all will be one before god: “… the church awaits the day, known to god alone, when all people will call upon the lord with a single voice and ‘serve him with one accord’ (zeph 3:9).” the vote on this [fourth] draft on october 14-15, 1965 was overwhelmingly positive: 1937 for, and 153 against. 5 the drafts and final text of the declaration nostra aetate may be found in their latin originals and english translations in beatrice bruteau, ed. merton and judaism (louisville: fons vitae, 2003), 342-362. for a detailed account of abraham joshua heschel’s intervention on this draft and response to further drafts, see edward k. kaplan, spiritual radical: abraham joshua heschel in america (new haven and london: yale university press, 2007), 239-276. along with nostra aetate’s radical shift in posture toward the jewish people, vatican ii did not explicitly reject seeking the conversion of jews.6 yet by setting aside the formulation “union of the jewish people with the church,” the council may be regarded as turning away from its missionary posture toward jews. in an analysis of speeches and comments by conciliar participants, philip a. cunningham argues that the council “to all intents and purposes postponed any interest in converting jews into the indefinite eschatological future.”7 yet post-vatican ii teaching about relations between the catholic church and jews, at least until recently, has been silent about a need to convert jews; on the contrary, this teaching manifests an increasing regard for judaism. i think of the following foci as constituting the major elements of the post-nostra aetate trajectory: 6 of course, whether nostra aetate was a radical shift is part of the debate. on the one hand, gregory baum, a peritus involved in its drafting, asserted in his 1986 presidential address to the catholic theological society of america that “the church's recognition of the spiritual status of the jewish religion is the most dramatic example of doctrinal turn-about in the age-old ‘magisterium ordinarium' to occur at the council” (“the social context of american catholic theology,” proceedings of the catholic theological society of america 41 [1986], 87). in contrast, avery cardinal dulles has minimized the import of nostra aetate. see below for discussion of dulles. 7 philip a. cunningham, “reflecting on the reflections,” boston college, february 9, 2005, http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/center/ events/cunningham_9feb05.htm. boys, “catholic church and mission ‘to’ or ‘with’ jews?” 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/center/%20events/cunningham_9feb05.htm http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/center/%20events/cunningham_9feb05.htm studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): 1-19 • understanding biblical texts in their historical and literary context, especially texts that might be (and have been) interpreted in anti-jewish ways (e.g., texts about the pharisees and the passion and death of jesus). indeed, without the significant flowering of contemporary biblical scholarship in the wake of divino afflante spiritu, pope pius xii’s 1943 encyclical promoting biblical studies, it is difficult to imagine na and subsequent documents.8 • recognition that the divine covenant with the jewish people continues; jews remain in covenant with god. pope john paul ii emphasized this in a 1980 speech to jewish leaders in mainz, germany, when he spoke of jews as “the people of god of the old covenant never revoked by god,” and reiterated in various ways over the years of his papacy.9 one of the more important official commentaries on nostra aetate, the notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church (1985) speaks of the “permanence of israel” as a “historic fact and a sign to be interpreted within god’s design.” the text continues: “we must in any case rid ourselves of the traditional idea of a people 8 see the scripture documents: an anthology of official catholic teachings, ed. dean p. béchard (collegeville: liturgical press, 2001). for a incisive analysis of catholic hermeneutics, see raymond e. brown and sandra m. schneiders, “hermeneutics,” the jerome biblical commentary, eds. r. e. brown, joseph fitzmyer and roland e. murphy (englewood cliffs, nj: prentice hall), 1146-1165. 9 most of the documents cited in this essay are available in numerous sources, especially online. rather than cite details, i refer readers to the websites of boston college’s center for christian-jewish learning (www.bc.edu/cjl) and the international council of christians and jews (www.jcrelations.net). for texts of john paul ii, see also spiritual pilgrimage: texts on jews and judaism 1979-1995, eds. eugene j. fisher and leon klenicki (new york: crossroad and adl, 1995). punished, preserved as a living argument for christian apologetic. it remains a chosen people” (§25).10 • rejection of antisemitism and resolve that the “spoiled seeds of anti-judaism and antisemitism must never again be allowed to take root in any human heart.”11 significantly, the bishops of france acknowledged in 1997 that the “anti-jewish tradition” in church “doctrine and teaching, in theology, apologetics, preaching and in the liturgy” provided the ground on which the “venomous plant of hatred for the jews was able to flourish.”12 • acknowledgment that christians must learn about judaism on its own terms. the 1985 notes (§4) reiterate what appeared in the introductory section of the 1975 guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate §4: “on the practical level in particular, christians must therefore strive to acquire a better knowledge of the basic components of the religious tradition of judaism; they must strive to learn by what essential traits jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience.”13 10 available online in various sites, and in more stepping stones to jewishchristian relations, a stimulus book, ed. helga croner (new york/mahwah, nj: paulist, 1985), 220-232. 11 citation from the final words of “we remember: a reflection on the shoah,” by the commission on religious relations with the jews, 1998. available online and in the valuable collection by the secretariat for ecumenical and interreligious affairs of the national conference of catholic bishops, catholics remember the holocaust (washington, dc: united states catholic conference, 1998), 55. 12 “declaration of repentance, in catholics remember the holocaust, 34. 13 text available online and in stepping stones…, 11-16. boys, “catholic church and mission ‘to’ or ‘with’ jews?” 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 http://www.bc.edu/cjl http://www.jcrelations.net/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): 1-19 • recognition of the state of israel and acknowledgment of the centrality of israel to jewish identity, most notably in the “fundamental accord between the holy see and the state of israel in 1993.”14 • commitment to education about the holocaust in the context of the long history of relations between jews and christians. in the 43 years since the promulgation of nostra aetate, relations between jews and the catholic church have advanced in significant ways. of course, much remains to be done. in too many sectors of the church, these foci seem to exist largely on the periphery, and other church documents, notably catechism of the catholic church and dominus iesus, insufficiently integrate the insights from the nostra aetate trajectory. in general, when the church writes documents explicitly on issues related to its relationship with jews, the documents reflect sound moorings in biblical scholarship and show the development since nostra aetate. when, however, they are addressed more generally, the texts are not nearly as carefully composed to incorporate the developments in thinking about jews and judaism since the council. the promulgation of dominus iesus in 2001 provided the occasion for an important clarification about a mission to the jews. at a meeting of the international catholic-jewish liaison committee in new york city in may 2001, cardinal walter kasper, president of the vatican’s commission on religious relations with the jews, offered the following, which i cite at length because it is, to my knowledge, the most official word about a mission to the jews: … i wish to say… that the document dominus iesus does not state that everybody needs to become a catholic in or der to be saved by god. on the contrary, it declares that god’s grace, which is the grace of jesus christ according to our faith, is available to all. therefore, the church believes that judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the jewish people to god’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because god is faithful to his promises. 14text in spiritual pilgrimage, 203-208. this touches the problem of mission towards jews, a painful question with regard to forced conversion in the past. dominus iesus, as other official documents, raised this question again saying that dialogue is a part of evangelisation. this stirred jewish suspicion. but this is a language problem, since the term evangelisation, in official church documents, cannot be understood in the same way it is commonly interpreted in everyday’s speech. in strict theological language, evangelisation is a very complex and overall term, and reality. it implies presence and witness, prayer and liturgy, proclamation and catechesis, dialogue and social work. now, presence and witness, prayer and liturgy, dialogue and social work, which are all part of evangelisation, do not have the goal of increasing the number of catholics. thus evangelisation, if understood in its proper and theological meaning, does not imply any attempt of proselytism whatsoever. on the other hand, the term mission, in its proper sense, is referred to conversion from false gods and idols to the true and one god, who revealed himself in the salvation history with his elected people. thus mission, in this strict sense, cannot be used with regard to jews, who believe in the true and one god. therefore –and this is characteristic [there] does not exist any catholic missionary organisation for jews. there is dialogue with jews; no mission in this proper sense of the word towards them. but what is dialogue? certainly –as we learned from jewish philosophers such as martin buberit is more than small talk and mere exchange of opinions. it is also different from academic dispute, however important academic dispute may be within boys, “catholic church and mission ‘to’ or ‘with’ jews?” 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): 1-19 dialogue. dialogue implies personal commitments and witness of one’s own conviction and faith. dialogue communicates one’s faith and, at the same time, requires profound respect for the conviction and faith of the partner. it respects the difference of the other and brings mutual enrichment.15 in particular, i highlight cardinal kasper’s judgment: “therefore, the church believes that judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the jewish people to god’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because god is faithful to his promises.” ii. a mission to the jews? a. hierarchical voices among leading church officials in the united states, avery cardinal dulles has been the major voice for a more negative assessment of judaism. dulles relegates nostra aetate to one of the lesser conciliar documents (as a declaration, and not one of the constitutions or decrees), and holds the supersessionist perspective of the letter to the hebrews 8:13 (“in speaking of ‘a new covenant,’ he [jesus] has made the first one obsolete. and what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear”) as a warrant for regarding israel’s covenant as obsolete.16 he gives what philip cunningham terms a “minimalist” reading of nostra 15 text available at: http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrela tions/resources/articles/kasper_dominus_iesus.htm. 16 for a critique of dulles’s reading of hebrews, see eugene j. fisher, “god’s plan for the jews,” the tablet (5 april 2008): 12. see also the exchange in the jesuit journal america between cardinal avery dulles, “covenant and mission,” and mary c. boys, philip a. cunningham and john t. pawlikowski, “theology’s sacred obligation” america (october 21, 2002): http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2550 aetate in judging that the council “left open the question whether the old covenant remains in force today.”17 in an essay published in first things in 2005, dulles says, without critique, that augustine and aquinas “denied that jewish rites had any saving efficacy, even for jews.” he continues: “the council of florence, in its decree for the copts, taught that the legal statues of israel, including circumcision and sabbath, ought no longer be observed after the promulgation of the gospel, and that converts from judaism must give up jewish ritual practice.”18 dulles adds no contextual or critical assessment of this harsh fifteenth-century decree, the first to connect “jews” and “pagans” with the axiom “outside the church no salvation.”19 17 philip a. cunningham, “uncharted waters: the future of catholic-jewish relations,” commonweal 133/13 (july 14, 2006); http://www.bc.edu/research /cjl/meta-elements/pdf/uncharted_waters.pdf. an account of the complexities of the conciliar processes involved in nostra aetate, see alberto melloni, “nostra aetate and the discovery of the sacrament of otherness,” in the catholic church and the jewish people: recent reflections from rome, eds. philip a. cunningham, norbert j. hofmann, and joseph sievers (new york: fordham university press, 2007), 129-151. 18 avery cardinal dulles, “the covenant with israel,” first things (november 2005): http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=256. 19 the “decree for the copts,” issued in 1442 by the general council of florence, reads in part: [“the holy roman church] …firmly believes, professes and preaches that ‘no one remaining outside the catholic church, not only pagans,’ but also jews, heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the ‘eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’ (matt 25:41), unless before the end of their life they are received into it. … for union with the body of the church is of so great importance that the sacraments of the church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercises of a militant christian life bear eternal rewards for them alone. ‘and no one can be saved, no matter how much alms has given, even if shedding one’s blood for the name of christ, unless one remains in the bosom of the catholic church.’” for the citation from the council of florence, see j. neuner and j. dupuis, eds., the christian faith in the doctrinal documents of the catholic church (new york: alba house, 1996), #1005. the quotations within the council of florence’s decree are from a north african bishop, fulgentius of ruspe (468 boys, “catholic church and mission ‘to’ or ‘with’ jews?” 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrela%20tions/resources/articles/kasper_dominus_iesus.htm http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrela%20tions/resources/articles/kasper_dominus_iesus.htm http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2550 http://www.bc.edu/research%20/cjl/meta-elements/pdf/uncharted_waters.pdf http://www.bc.edu/research%20/cjl/meta-elements/pdf/uncharted_waters.pdf http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=256 studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): 1-19 even though private assurances were given at high levels of the vatican that dulles’s views were his personal ones, no one at that level publicly expressed a contrary argument. as the only theologian among the cardinals of the u.s., dulles has been influential among sectors of the episcopacy.20 more recently, the papal reformulation of the good friday prayer for the so-called tridentine rite (from the roman missal of 1962) and the ensuing controversy has heightened discussion about christian mission to the jews.21 after vatican ii, the 533), the first to formulate the axiom, “outside the church no salvation.” for analysis see jacques dupuis, toward a christian theology of religious pluralism (maryknoll, n.y.: orbis, 1997), 84-102. 20 see john pawlikowski, “moving the christian-jewish dialogue to a new level: can it happen?” in the conference proceedings section of this volume. 21 in the motu proprio summorum pontificium of july 7, 2007, pope benedict xvi gave greater latitude for the celebration of the tridentine rite. left unanswered was the question of the good friday orations, particularly that for jews. in a press conference on july 19, 2007, the holy see’s secretary of state, cardinal tarcisio bertone proposed that the tridentine rite should use the same prayer as the normative roman rite; see anthony j. cernera and eugene korn, “the latin liturgy and the jews,” america (october 8, 2007): 10-13. on 6 february 2008, however, the pope released his version of the prayer for this rite only: oremus et pro iudaeis: ut deus et dominus noster illuminet corda eorum, ut agnoscant iesum christum salvatorem omnium hominum. (oremus. flectamus genua. levate.) omnipotens sempiterne deus, qui vis ut omnes homines salvi fiant et ad agnitionem veritatis veniant, concede propitius, ut plenitudine gentium in ecclesiam tuam intrante omnis israel salvus fiat. per christum dominum nostrum. amen. the prayer is headed: “pro conversione iudaeorum.” one translation reads: “let us pray also for the jews. that our lord and god may enlighten their hearts, that they may acknowledge jesus christ as the savior of all men. almighty, ever living god, who wills that all men would be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, graciously grant that all israel may be saved when the fullness of the nations enter into your church. through christ our lord. amen.” among the good friday orations were changed in accord with the spirit of the council. thus, since 1970 the church has no longer prayed for jews as blind and faithless.22 rather, its prayer is that they might “continue to grow in the love of [god’s] name and in faithfulness to his covenant.”23 instead of retaining the 1970 prayer in latin for those who worship according to the tridentine rite, the pope has restored the petition that jews “may acknowledge jesus christ as the savior of all men.” although he softened the harsh language of the pre-1970 versions, he nevertheless returned to the notion that the salvation of jews requires con critics of the prayer are the german bishops; see “bishops ‘unhappy’ over good friday prayer,” the tablet (29 march 2008), 32. 22 before 1955 the prayer’s english translation read: “let us pray also for the perfidious jews: that almighty god may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge jesus christ our lord. almighty and eternal god, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even jewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy truth, which is christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. through the same lord jesus christ, who lives and reigns with thee in the unity of the holy spirit, god, for ever and ever. amen.” in 1955, “perfidious” was changed to “faithless”; in the 1960 version, this adjective was removed altogether. in 1965 pope paul vi modified the prayer to read: “let us pray for the jews: our lord god deign to let your face shine upon them, so that even they may recognize the redeemer of all, our lord jesus christ. o almighty and eternal god who has made his promises to the people of abraham beloved of god, heed with kindness the prayer of your church, that your chosen people of old will be able to attain to the fullness of grace in the redemption.” 23 the full wording of the 1970 prayer: “let us pray for the jewish people, the first to hear the word of god, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. almighty and eternal god, long ago you gave your promise to abraham and his posterity. listen to your church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption. we ask this through christ our lord. amen.” boys, “catholic church and mission ‘to’ or ‘with’ jews?” 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/jews studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): 1-19 version to christianity, though “when the fullness of the nations enter into your church.”24 amidst the controversy spawned by the new prayer, the question has arisen whether it inspires or even implicitly mandates catholics to seek the conversion of jews.25 or, should the prayer be understood eschatologically, as a hope that at the end of days “all israel may be saved when the fullness of the nations enter into your church”? various interpretations of the prayer have been offered, and it is not clear that one is to be regarded as definitive. cardinal darío castrillón hoyos, president of the pontifical commission ecclesia dei since 2000, entrusted with relations with traditionalist groups such as the society of st. pius x, has been a chief proponent of summorum pontificium, and, in response to an interviewer’s question about criticism of the pope’s prayer, said: is it not a good thing to pray for our brothers the sons of abraham? abraham is the father of faith, but in a chain of salvation in which the messiah is expected. and the messiah has arrived. in the acts of the apostles we read that, in 24 those who have followed pope benedict’s thinking on judaism during his long reign as the prefect for the congregation for the doctrine of the faith will not be shocked at the wording of his prayer. in interviews in the late 1990s, the then cardinal ratzinger said that the jews “still stand within the faithful covenant of god and we believe they will in the end be together with us in christ. we are waiting for the moment when israel, too, will say yes to christ, but until that moment comes all of us, jews and christians, stand within the patience of god” (cited by avery cardinal dulles, “the covenant with israel”) for analysis of ratzinger’s 1998 book, many religions, one covenant?: israel, the church and the world, see mary c. boys, “the covenant in contemporary ecclesial documents,” in two faiths, one covenant: jewish and christian identity in the presence of the other, eds. eugene b. korn and john t. pawlikowski (lanham, md: rowman and littlefield, 2005), 86-89. 25 another controversy related to the papal prayer is what, if anything, jews say about peoples of other religious traditions in their liturgy and sacred texts. see gilbert s. rosenthal, “jewish views of other faiths,” america 198/17 (may 19, 2008): 14-16. one day, five thousand jews have converted. i am not contesting the prayer of the novus ordo, but i consider perfect the present one of the extraordinary rite. and i pray gladly for the conversion of my many jewish friends, because i believe truly that jesus is the son of god and the saviour of all.26 cardinal kasper has offered the lengthiest, most nuanced interpretation of the prayer in an april 2008 article in l’osservatore romano. he notes the importance of sensitivity to jewish concerns, recognizing that “many jews consider a mission to the jews as a threat to their existence; some even speak of it as a shoah by different means.”27 kasper reads the first part of the prayer – that jews “may acknowledge jesus christ as the savior of all men” – as based in the “whole of the new testament” and as an indication of the “universally acknowledged fundamental difference between christians and jews.” he notes that catholics do not expect that jews will 26 interview by vittoria prisciandaro in the catholic magazine, jesus (http://www.sanpaolo.org/jesus/0805je/0805je54.htm); it was translated into english on a liturgical blog (http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/ 2008/05/cardinal-castrilln-tradition-without.html) and posted on may 9, 2008 on the listserv of the council on centers of jewish-christian relations (ccjr@listserv.bc.edu). emphasis in original. by “extraordinary rite,” the cardinal is referring to the tridentine rite. 27 cardinal walter kasper, “striving for mutual respect in modes of prayer,” l’osservatore romano, weekly edition (16 april 2008), 8-9. similarly, in an address at boston college on november 6, 2002, cardinal kasper remarked: “but whilst jews expect the coming of the messiah, who is still unknown, christians believe that he has already shown his face in jesus of nazareth whom we as christians therefore confess as the christ, he who at the end of time will be revealed as the messiah for jews and for all nations…this does not mean that jews in order to be saved have to become christians; if they follow their own conscience and believe in god's promises as they understand them in their religious tradition they are in line with god's plan, which for us comes to its historical completion in jesus christ” (“the commission for religious relations with the jews: a crucial endeavour of the catholic church, http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations /resources/articles/kasper_6nov02.htm.) boys, “catholic church and mission ‘to’ or ‘with’ jews?” 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 http://www.sanpaolo.org/jesus/0805je/0805je54.htm http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/%202008/05/cardinal-castrilln-tradition-without.html http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/%202008/05/cardinal-castrilln-tradition-without.html http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations%20/resources/articles/kasper_6nov02.htm http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations%20/resources/articles/kasper_6nov02.htm studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): 1-19 agree with the christological aspect of the prayer, but that “we do expect them to respect that we as christians pray in accordance with our belief, just as we evidently do as regards their mode of prayer.” 28 the “really controversial question,” kasper admits, is two fold: “should christians pray for the conversion of the jews?29 can there be a mission to the jews?” the cardinal claims, as he had in his 2001 address cited above, that the “catholic church has no organised or institutionalised mission to the jews,” and, in a reading of rom 9-11, he infers that in the end god will bring about israel’s salvation, “not on the basis of a mission to the jews but on the basis of the mission to the gentiles, when the fullness of the gentiles has entered. he alone who has caused the hardening of the majority of the jews can dissolve that hardening again. he will do so when ‘the deliverer’ comes from zion (rom 11:26).30 thus, in kasper’s view, the wording of the pope’s good friday prayer “expresses this hope in a prayer of intercession directed to god.” he continues: basically, with this prayer the church is repeating the petition in the lord’s prayer: “thy kingdom come” (mt 6:10; lk 11:2), and the early christian liturgical cry, ‘marantha”: “come lord jesus, come soon” (1 cor 16:22); rv 22:20; did 10, 6). such petitions for the coming of the kingdom of god and for the realization of the mystery of salvation are not by nature a call to the church to undertake missionary action to the jews. rather, they respect the whole depth of the deus absconditus, of his election through grace, of the hardening and of his infinite mercy. so in this prayer the church does not take it upon herself to orchestrate the realisation of the 28 kasper, 8. 29 as kasper concedes, although in the prayer itself the term conversion does not appear, but pope benedict has apparently retained the heading from the missal of 1962, “pro conversione judaeorum.” 30 kasper, 8. unfathomable mystery. she cannot do so. instead, she lays the when and the how entirely in god’s hands. god alone can bring about the kingdom of god in which the whole of israel is saved and eschatological peace is bestowed upon the world.31 nonetheless, even if christians do not have an “intentional and institutional mission to the jews,” they must “offer witness before their elder brothers and sisters in the faith of abraham (john paul ii) to their faith and the richness and beauty of their belief in jesus christ.” such a witness, he adds, must be done “tactfully and respectfully; but it would be dishonest if christians in their encounters with jewish friends remained silent about their faith or denied it.”32 the archbishop of vienna, cardinal christoph schönborn, has recently proffered another point of view on mission to the jews. basing his arguments on an array of new testament texts, he argues that although there is but one salvation in christ, there are “two clearly distinguishable ways of proclaiming and accepting this salvation.” schönborn distinguishes between christ’s mandate to evangelize all nations – i.e., the gentiles – and to make an overture or offer to jews to recognize jesus as messiah: by welcoming the gospel, the jews are witnesses of god’s fidelity to his promise, while the gentiles are witnesses of the universality of his mercy. these two appeals in the church reflect the twofold way of the same salvation in christ, one for jews and one for gentiles. thus the same jesus christ is simultaneously “a light for the revelation to 31 kasper, 8. 32 kasper, 8-9. boys, “catholic church and mission ‘to’ or ‘with’ jews?” 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): 1-19 the gentiles, and for the glory to your people israel” (luke 2:32).33 schönborn reminds his readers that the various forms of compulsion jews have experienced means that while “christians have now irrevocably renounced all forms of proselytism,” they have not “abandoned the mandate to proclaim the gospel ‘to the jews first’.” nevertheless, he advises, christians should fulfill this mandate “in the most sensitive way, cleansed of all un-christian motives,” and with “due respect and humility” so that jews may understand christ’s salvation as fulfillment rather than as a denial of god’s promise to them.34 schönborn, however, provides no clear criteria by which one might distinguish proselytism from the mandate to proclaim the gospel. a clear tension exists between the positions of cardinals dulles, castrillón hoyos and schönborn, on the one hand, and cardinal kasper, on the other. although the vatican has offered no public clarification, rabbi david rosen, chair of the international jewish committee for interreligious consultations, reported on may 28, 2008 that cardinal bertone sent a fax “at the end of last week to the chief rabbis [of israel]. in rosen’s reading of the fax, bertone provided “official vatican confirmation of the contents of cardinal walter kasper's letter to me (as chair of the international jewish committee for interreligious consultations) and his article in osservatore romano, regarding the prayer for the jews in the (easter) latin liturgy” [i.e., the kasper article in l’osservatore romano, cited above]. rabbi rosen cites two key elements of the bertone fax: “as cardinal kasper has clearly explained, the new oremus et pro iudaeis is not intended to promote proselytism towards the jews and opens up an eschatological perspective. christians however cannot but bear witness to their faith in full and total respect for the freedom of others, and this leads them also to pray that all will come to recognize christ." bertone continues: “[as] the cardinal emphasized, a sincere dialogue between jews and christians is possible on the one hand on the basis of our common faith in one god, creator of heaven and earth, and in the promises made to abraham; but on the other hand, through respectfully acknowledging the fundamental difference over faith in jesus as christ and redeemer of all mankind." 33 christoph schönborn, “judaism’s way to salvation,” the tablet (29 march 2008): 9. 34 schönborn, 9. see the response to cardinal schönborn by eugene j. fisher in the subsequent issue of the tablet (5 april 2008), “god’s plan for the jews,” 12-13. 35 b. the voices of jewish “converts” despite the post-nostra aetate reticence about the appropriateness and nature of a “christian mission to the jews,” in some quarters of the catholic church a clear campaign is being waged to bring jews to “completion” as catholics. such a movement for the conversion of jews provides a concrete example of what john pawlikowski calls the “central, unresolved question” in the dialogue with jews.36 the archdiocese of st. louis, missouri, where sound ecumenical and interreligious relations have been built in the years since the council, now has an active group committed to a mission to the jews. with the support of archbishop raymond burke, the association of hebrew catholics has relocated from ypsilanti, michigan to st. louis under the leadership of its president, david moss. they “add a catholic witness to the 35 rosen’s report was circulated on the listserv of the council on centers for christian-jewish relations on may 28, 2008. as philip cunningham noted in a response posted on the same listserv on may 29, 2008, the prayer composed by benedict xvi still seems to retain the title pro conversione judaeorum. as of may 29, 2008, the full text of the bertone letter is available at http://www.sidic.org/en/doconlineview.asp?class=doc00604. 36 see the pawlikowski article under conference proceedings in this volume. boys, “catholic church and mission ‘to’ or ‘with’ jews?” 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 http://www.sidic.org/en/doconlineview.asp?class=doc00604 studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): 1-19 messianic jewish movement.37 moss lists the following aims of the association:38 • to gather the jews who have entered the church and to help re-enable their irrevocable calling, providing a collective and unified witness to jesus and his church. • to preserve the identity and heritage of the jewish people within the church. • to provide pastoral support for those who have entered the church. • to provide support for jews who are searching and inquiring about jesus and the church. • to be an integral part of the new evangelization, contributing a vibrant and rich jewish perspective. • to be an eschatological sign of the ingrafting, which may have already begun.39 37 http://hebrewcatholic.org/aboutheahc/havurah/whyahchavurot.html. the website includes a letter from archbishop burke dated may 19, 2006 expressing his esteem for the apostolate of the association of hebrew catholics and offering his support as they established their headquarters in st. louis. on june 27, 2008 pope benedict xvi named archbishop burke as the head of the highest court of the vatican, apostolic signatura; thus, he will be leaving st. louis. an article in a british publication calls burke “one of the world’s most enthusiastic episcopal supporters of reviving the tridentine rite” (robert mickens and rocco palmo, “u.s. conservative appointed head of vatican’s ‘supreme court,’” the tablet [5 july 2008]: 30). 38excerpts from an address by david moss in may 2005, “jewish identity: the irrevocable calling the new evangelization.” see http://hebrewcatholic.org/ jewishidentityir.html, accessed may 29, 2008. 39 moss, “jewish identity...,” http://hebrewcatholic.org/jewishidentityir.html. “ingrafting” seems to be a major term for this movement and associated movements, and arises from a distinctive interpretation of the new testament. as moss, following the thinking of the late elias friedman, ocd, reads scripture, he discerns four major points: (1) “god has not rejected his people whom he foreknew” (rm 11:2) “for the gifts and the call of god are irrevocable” (rm 11:29). (2) “the people of israel will enter the catholic church, as st. paul assures us” (rm 11:25-26). (3) the time has now come; the full • to help all catholics understand the jewish roots of their faith. • to be a witness to the jewish people that the cross is not a sign of persecution, but rather of sacrificial love, that jesus is the glory of israel, and that catholicism is the judaism of the redemption.40 roy h. schoeman, one of the preeminent members of the association of hebrew catholics, articulates its theological perspectives in his 2003 book, salvation is from the jews: the role of judaism in salvation history from abraham to the second coming. while its length precludes detailed analysis in this essay, several aspects of the book limn the thinking of these jewish “converts” to catholicism. a personal religious experience lies at the core. in schoeman’s case, though he had grown up in a synagogue and had a jewish education, by the time he was in his thirties and a faculty member at the harvard business school, he had lost touch with god and was “inwardly overwhelmed with a sense of pointlessness bordering on despair.”41 then, while walking the dunes on cape cod, he found himself “most consciously and tangibly in the presence of god” (359), and on his return home spent a year pursuing various spiritual options. then he had a dream: “when i awoke…i was hopelessly in love with the number of gentiles has come in, and this is the time of israel’s ingrafting: “jerusalem will be trampled on by the gentiles, until the times of the gentiles are fulfilled” (lk 21:24). jerusalem has indeed been “trampled on by the gentiles,” but now for the first time since 70 ad, jerusalem is reunified under the sovereignty of the people of israel. (4) when “the jewish people do enter the church, a great blessing shall result.” 40 moss, “jewish identity…,” http://hebrewcatholic.org/jewishidentityir.html. 41 roy a. schoeman, salvation is from the jews: the role of judaism in salvation history from abraham to the second coming (san francisco: ignatius press, 2003), 358. in further citations from this book, i will cite page numbers in parentheses following the quotations. boys, “catholic church and mission ‘to’ or ‘with’ jews?” 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 http://hebrewcatholic.org/aboutheahc/havurah/whyahchavurot.html http://hebrewcatholic.org/%20jewishidentityir.html http://hebrewcatholic.org/%20jewishidentityir.html http://hebrewcatholic.org/jewishidentityir.html http://hebrewcatholic.org/jewishidentityir.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): 1-19 blessed virgin mary and knew that the god who had revealed himself to me on the beach had been christ” (361). several years later he was baptized. theologically, the issue is clear: “if jesus was the jewish messiah – the messiah long prophesied, expected, and prayed for by the jews – then a jew can either be right and accept that he was the messiah or be wrong and maintain that he was not” (10). thus schoeman traces the messianic prophecies of the old testament and what he sees as its fulfillment in christ, drawing freely upon biblical texts without regard to context. he interprets them as inerrant (28); the alternative is to regard the gospels as “fictional accounts” (79). there is no question, he asserts, that jesus “intended christianity to be adopted by jews in place of judaism” (67); “god wants jewish entry into the church” (71). schoeman discusses the holocaust at length. he maintains that the third reich’s extermination of jews “did not flow out of christianity,” but rather out of a contrary philosophy, “one introduced by darwinism and epitomized in our country by planned parenthood and margaret sanger. the holocaust owed nothing to the principles of ‘christianity’; it owed everything to the principles of margaret sanger and ‘planned parenthood’” (191). in speculating on what motivations might lie behind the holocaust, schoeman offers a distinctive hypothesis: at least in part, the holocaust might “have been an attempt to forestall the second coming.” he continues: obviously the first coming of the messiah came through the jews, and the new testament also implies – most notably in romans 11 – that the jews will have a role to play in the second coming…if the adversary’s primary motivation behind the holocaust was to prevent the second coming of christ by exterminating all the jews, there was still a secondary way he could succeed even if some jews survived. that would be by stopping the conversion of the jews that must precede christ’s return. as the catechism [of the catholic church] states: “the glorious messiah’s coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by ‘all israel’ (rm 11:20-26; cf. mt 23:39). (246)42 schoeman notes that the holocaust has also influenced “even the catholic church to curtail or eliminate entirely any efforts to evangelize jews” – and here he footnotes the 2002 document, reflections on covenant and mission, which concludes that “campaigns that target jews for conversion to christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the catholic church.43 in fact, schoeman devotes an entire chapter to “the jews and the second coming,” identifying many biblical texts he sees as predictions that “the jewish nation will be reborn in a single day” (307), the return of jews from russia to israel (“out of the north country,” jer 16:15), “the fight over the city of jerusalem will cause a world war” (309) but “israel will be miraculously militarily strong and able to successfully defend itself” – and “there will be a widespread conversion of the jews” (310). jesus himself prophesied this conversion of the jews prior to his second coming (matthew 23:37-39, “o jerusalem, jerusalem…”), but so had zechariah: “and i will pour out a spirit of compassion and supplication on the house of david and the inhabitants of jerusalem, – so that, when they look on the one whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn” (12:10). 42 emphasis added. see catechism of the catholic church (collegeville: liturgical press, 1994, #674. the catechism is also available online on numerous sites. 43 this text is a joint production of the bishops’ committee on ecumenical and interreligious affairs of the united states conference of catholic bishops and the national council of synagogues. see http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/ meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/interreligious/ ncs_usccb120802.htm. boys, “catholic church and mission ‘to’ or ‘with’ jews?” 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/%20meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/interreligious/%20ncs_usccb120802.htm http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/%20meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/interreligious/%20ncs_usccb120802.htm http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/%20meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/interreligious/%20ncs_usccb120802.htm studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): 1-19 schoeman and others in the association of hebrew catholics frequently make the point that in becoming catholic they have not “changed” religions but simply “come into the fullness of its truth.” drawing upon paul’s metaphor of the olive tree (rm 11), he sees his baptism not so much a “conversion” as an experience of being “ingrafted.” it is a “return;” he sees the catholic church as “simply the continuation (and fulfillment) of judaism after the first coming of jesus, the jewish messiah” (317). in his perspective, the jews who accepted jesus became the first christians and thereby stayed within the core of judaism, “while those who rejected him left the mainstream, the fullness of the truth of the religion” (317). schoeman offers a closing argument: just as the new covenant brought the old covenant to fruition at the first coming, so the old covenant will bring the new covenant to fruition “by the return of the jews at the second coming.” he avers: “thus, the current wave of jewish entry into the church may be among the most important things going on today, or indeed, in the history of the world” (353). in an accompanying footnote, shoeman writes: “this also means that the misguided attempt on the part of some in the church to say that such entry is inappropriate plays directly into the hands of the enemy” (353, n.48). schoeman’s colleague in the ahc, rosalind moss, shares his disagreement with those catholics who do not believe in seeking the conversion of jews. in a lengthy open letter to cardinal william keeler in 2002, moss objects to the theology in reflections on covenant and mission. she writes that she is “at a loss to understand how anyone can conclude, with walter cardinal kasper, that “the church believes that judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the jewish people to god’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because god is faithful to his promises.”44 quoting from the new testament, catechism of 44see http://www.hebrewcatholic.org/faithandtheology/reflections-covenant -mission/openlettertocard.html . emphasis in original. the catholic church and dominus iesus, moss asserts that the “’fullness of redemption’ is to be found only in jesus christ (acts 4:12), and unless we embrace him in this life we cannot presume to be happy with him in the next.” moss, like her brother david, is a convert from judaism to catholicism in 1995 (though by way of evangelical protestantism). various interviewers generally identify moss as a catholic apologist, and host of radio and television programs on the eternal word television network (ewtn). she is currently involved in founding a community of religious women, daughters of mary, mother of israel’s hope. self-identified as a “completed” or “fulfilled jew,” the major apostolate of this traditionalist community, in the process of establishing itself in st. louis under archbishop burke, she says, will be evangelization. given her association with the association of hebrew catholics, one may infer that jews will be a principal focus of her evangelizing efforts.45 among the topics she addresses as a lecturer (at an honorarium of $1600 per day in addition to expenses): “christ in the old testament,” “from judaism to the fullness of christ,” and “the passover fulfilled.”46 the foundation of a community of sisters involved in evangelizing jews (and others) in 2008 is ironic. it goes in a direction contrary to the highly regarded sisters of sion. this congregation of catholic women, founded in the 1840s in france, initially was established to convert jews. according to their constitutions of 1874, their “particular aim is the sanctification of the children of israel.” in the 1950s and 1960s, however, the sisters of sion undertook a serious rethinking of their mission. 45 moss holds a m.a. in ministry degree from talbot school of theology, which, among its other degree programs, offers a m.div. degree in messianic jewish studies in partnership with chosen people ministries in new york city. as a self-identified “theologically conservative evangelical” school, its doctrinal statement indicates that talbot upholds biblical inerrancy and the “rapture” of believers before the millennium. 46 see http://www.catholic.com/seminars/moss.asp. boys, “catholic church and mission ‘to’ or ‘with’ jews?” 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 http://www.hebrewcatholic.org/faithandtheology/reflections-covenant%20-mission/openlettertocard.html http://www.hebrewcatholic.org/faithandtheology/reflections-covenant%20-mission/openlettertocard.html http://www.catholic.com/seminars/moss.asp studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): 1-19 in light of extensive reflection on the shoah (which deeply affected especially the european members), theological study and consultation, they radically revised their mission to include a “particular responsibility to promote understanding and justice for the jewish community, and to keep alive in the church the consciousness that in some mysterious way, christianity is linked to judaism from its origin to its final destiny.”47 among other significant changes, the sisters of sion removed communal prayers with a negative depiction of judaism. ironically, one of those prayers that they had long suppressed as not in accord with sion’s theology now surfaces on the schoeman’s website: “salvation is from the jews,” and is listed as “prayer from the congregation of the daughters of sion.”48 iii. a mission with jews: reinvigorating the council’s legacy it is appropriate to revisit nostra aetate’s formulation: “in the company of the prophets and the same apostle [paul], the church awaits the day, known to god alone, when all people will call upon the lord with one voice and ‘serve him shoulder to shoulder’ (zeph. 3:9; see is 66:23; ps 65:4; rom 11:11-32).” in light of the intense debate over nostra aetate’s second draft, with its conversionary language, and of post-conciliar texts on the church’s relations with jews, this sentence should be interpreted as a judgment against seeking the conversion of jews. to evangelize jews is not compatible with the obligation of the roman catholic church to repent of its anti-judaism and to seek reconciliation with the jewish people. yet, as philip cunningham has observed, the council’s formulation was in essence a matter of orthopraxis; it did not make explicit questions 47 this citation is taken from the current sion constitutions of 1984. for an extensive study of the evolution of their change in self-understanding, see mary c. boys, “the sisters of sion: from a conversionist stance to a dialogical way of life,” journal of ecumenical studies 31/1-2 (1994): 27-48. 48 see http://www.salvationisfromthejews.com/prayers.html. of orthodoxy, such as the relationship between jews and jesus as the savior of all.49 the present state of affairs is lamentable, inviting jewish mistrust. prominent cardinals gloss over some forty years of substantive dialogue and scholarship. the catholic church now has two “competing” prayers for jews on good friday. the zeal of the association of hebrew catholics and similar messianic jewish movements in the church far exceeds their employment of careful biblical and theological reflection. the commission on religious relations with the jews, from whom useful commentaries on nostra aetate have emanated, has fallen largely silent at precisely the point when vigorous leadership is critically needed. thus, it is imperative that catholic theologians involved in dialogue take up the question and articulate what it means to have a mission with jews rather than to them. by way of prologue to this task, i offer a brief analysis of central elements of the question. a. taking history seriously in reviewing the work of those who advocate a mission to the jews, i am struck with how little they wrestle with the consequences of the centuries-long anti-jewish teaching of the church. although precisely how those teachings played a role in the shoah is a complex matter, i detected little awareness of serious attempts in catholicism to confront its own shadow side, such the candor of the french bishops in confessing that the church’s anti-jewish teachings provided the ground on which the “venomous plant of hatred for the jews was able to flourish.”50 in a recent article in commonweal, robert egan 49 cunningham, “reflecting on the reflections.” 50 text in origins 27/18 (october 16, 1997) and widely available on various websites. boys, “catholic church and mission ‘to’ or ‘with’ jews?” 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 http://www.salvationisfromthejews.com/prayers.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): 1-19 cites bernard lonergan’s assertion that “the meaning of vatican ii was the acknowledgment of history.”51 to be involved in dialogue with jews is to meet history at virtually every turn – and to feel its consequences in a visceral way. acknowledging history in the presence of jews is not only an exercise in humility about one’s tradition, but a catalyst in rethinking one’s theological foundations. “historical investigations,” terrence tilley argues, “may bring up facts that ‘force’ theologians to rethink their formulations, but not that force them to reject their faith.” 52 b. the importance of catholic hermeneutical principles both cardinals dulles and schönborn make considerable use of biblical texts without attention to their literary and historical context. schoeman (whom dulles cites approvingly in his article in first things) and moss are prolific in proof-texting. further, among those advocating a mission to the jews – even if this is regarded as “ingrafting” or a “gospel mandate” to be exercised with “sensitivity” – there is virtually no reference to the considerable body of hermeneutical principles that might be derived from the pontifical biblical commission, such as the “instruction on the historical truth of the gospels (1964), “interpretation of the bible in the church” (1993) and the “jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible” (2001), all of which have spawned commentaries of their own. moreover, the considerable corpus of catholic biblical scholarship, including many fine popular texts authored by first-rate scholars, is largely ignored. on the issue of a mission to or with the jews, a grave methodological chasm exists.53 51 robert egan, “why not? scripture, history and women’s ordination,” commonweal 135/7 (april 11, 2008), 17. 52 terrence tilley, history, theology and faith: dissolving the modern problematic (maryknoll, ny: orbis, 2004), 154. 53 some of these methodological differences can be gleaned from the controversy over the film by mel gibson, “the passion of the christ.” see, e.g., pondering the passion, ed. philip a. cunningham (lanham, md: rowman and littlefield, 2004; on the passion of the christ: exploring the issues c. the role of post-nostra aetate documents also typically passed over in silence (or outrightly rejected) by those who propose a mission to the jews are key documents by vatican offices, national episcopal conferences, and diocesan commissions that refine and extend nostra aetate. of particular significance are “’guidelines and suggestions for implementing nostra aetate #4” (1975), and “notes on the correct way to present jews and judaism” (1985), both from the vatican’s commission on religious relations with the jews. the principles articulated in 1975 guidelines that “christians must…strive to learn by what essential traits jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience” is largely ignored. one senses little or no in-depth engagement with jewish thinking among cardinals castrillón hoyos, dulles and schönborn, for example. however learned they may be, one wonders to what extent they have seriously and substantially engaged with jews and scholarship on jewish-christian relations. one does not get a sense from their writing that they grasp in any way the profundity of judaism. and while many in the association of hebrew catholics are converts from judaism, it is not clear how learned they were in their own tradition – nor, indeed, how learned they have become in catholicism. moreover, one would never know from their writings and addresses that an extensive body of scholarship on christianjewish relations exists, and grows exponentially. in the united states, the national conference of catholic bishops has published a number of important resources: “within context” (1978), “god’s mercy endures forever” (1988), “criteria for the evaluation of dramatizations of the passion” (1988), and “the bible, the jews and the death of jesus” (2004). these documents have provided a fundamental raised by the controversial movie, ed. paula fredriksen (berkeley: university of california press, 2006; a reissue of perspectives on the passion of the christ, published by miramax books in 2004). boys, “catholic church and mission ‘to’ or ‘with’ jews?” 16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): 1-19 orientation for many involved in dialogue with jews – but they seem largely unknown, even among many of the bishops and among vast numbers of the clergy. d. the meaning of “fidelity to the magisterium” one notes among the association of hebrew catholics, for example, consistent mention of their fidelity to the magisterium – as their website says on their home page, “as a lay apostolate, we are faithful to the magisterium” – but this is a selective adherence and made as an assertion rather than an argument. from my review of resources available on line, there tends to be a high correlation between groups such as the association of hebrew catholics and very conservative understandings of catholic thought and practice, thereby eliciting approval and support from conservative prelates. for example, in the foundation of the congregation daughters of mary, mother of israel’s hope, considerable attention is devoted to their intention to wear the “holy habit;” in the words of rosalind moss, “i want to restore the years the locusts have eaten with an order of sisters that will restore the hemline to the floor and the habit to the world.” she adds that “young people today want god; they want orthodoxy; they believe the church is the church christ established; the magisterium is the church’s teaching office; the church is our mother.54 however well intentioned such views are, the naïveté of the ecclesiology is striking. yet, it clearly strikes a chord for some catholics unfamiliar with – or unalterably opposed to – theologies out of vatican ii. ironically, those traditionalist catholics in the association of hebrew catholics may not be conversant with the antisemitism that has been a part of traditionalist 54 http://stlouiscatholic.blogspot.com/2008/03/saint-louis-catholic-interviewwith_10.html . groups, such as the society of st. pius x.55 moreover, the piety evident on the website of the association of hebrew catholics is redolent of pre-vatican ii devotionalism. e. how catholics understand authority in the church today.56 given that relatively few pay attention to the nuances of theology, many assume that if a pope or cardinal or bishop pronounces on something, it is authoritative, and, thus, settled. most catholics are likely to be unaware of the range of views on theological matters (even among cardinals and bishops). they typically lack familiarity with church documents (as well as facility with their rhetorical style), and are unaware of or unable to follow highly nuanced arguments. so the nuances of carefully phrased piece, such as cardinal kasper’s april article in the l’osservatore romano, are likely to be missed by most who read it. as rabbi ruth langer observed about that article: • cardinal kasper is trying to find a way to mollify the voices on both sides of this issue, to create a middle path that will put discussions back on track. that is probably a responsibility that comes with his position, on the one hand, and a constructive move, on the other, for the long-term dialogue. • however, his eschatological solution, however well grounded in catholic theology, strikes me as a theological solution that requires a degree of nuanced 55 see michael cuneo, the smoke of satan: conservative and traditionalist dissent in contemporary american catholicism (baltimore: johns hopkins university press, 1977). 56 i am indebted to sister of sion celia deutsch, a professor at barnard college, for this observation. for an especially helpful work on authority in the catholic church, see richard r. gaillardetz, by what authority? a primer on scripture, the magisterium, and the sense of the faithful (collegeville: liturgical press, 2003). boys, “catholic church and mission ‘to’ or ‘with’ jews?” 17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 http://stlouiscatholic.blogspot.com/2008/03/saint-louis-catholic-interview-with_10.html http://stlouiscatholic.blogspot.com/2008/03/saint-louis-catholic-interview-with_10.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): 1-19 • thinking that will go right past most people. how can a prayer with the heading "for the conversion of the jews" be taught effectively as referring to "for the conversion of the jews only after everyone else has been converted" when those words simply aren't in the liturgical text and those reciting them aren't interested in hearing them? thus, cardinal kasper's learned solution really doesn't address the educational and pastoral challenge created by this prayer. and for the jewish community, the reality on the ground, what people are taught to think that ultimately shapes their actions, takes priority over abstract theological reflection. so how does cardinal kasper's reading move from words on a page to effective teaching?57 f. disregard of what the church has learned through dia logue with jews perhaps the most overlooked aspect of nostra aetate is its exhortation to: “[e]nter with prudence and charity into discussion [colloquia] and collaboration with members of other religions. let christians, while witnessing to their own faith and way of life, acknowledge, preserve and encourage the spiritual and moral truths found among non-christians, also their social life and culture.” this excerpt suggests approaching the question of salvation outside the church from what has actually been learned in and through dialogue, from what jacque dupuis calls the “praxis of interreligious dialogue.” this praxis, he says, is not merely a necessary condition, premise or first step in theologies of religious pluralism. rather, it is theological reflection on and within dialogue and properly belongs to every stage of 57 posted on the listserv of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations on may 9, 2008, and used with the permission of the author. theologies of religion.58 since the council, many christians have taken up this mandate – and their dialogue with the religious other has characteristically embraced the fourfold forms of life, action, theological exchange and religious experience.59 when an ecumenical council – the highest authority in the catholic church – exhorts its members to engage in discussion and collaboration with the religious other and that exhortation has been taken with utmost seriousness, then does it not follow that the church will gain new knowledge, see itself in the eyes of the other and thereby gain new perspectives that may require a changed self-understanding? this does not mean jettisoning the tradition, but rather approaching it through new lenses and discerning how that tradition might continue to inspire and sustain in light of what has been learned in and through dialogue. much of what the church has articulated about jesus over the centuries has been rooted in a christology based on supersessionism grounded in a distorted understanding of judaism. might we at long last acknowledge the consequences of such teaching? as jewish scholar peter ochs says, supersessionism “kills”: the “jewish people in this day must regard a supersessionist church as an obstacle to redemption.”60 just as christology has been in the making for nearly 2000 years, so too must we continue to rearticulate it in terms of new insights. 58 jacques dupuis, toward a christian theology of religious pluralism, 1819. 59 see the vatican statement “dialogue and proclamation, #42; text and commentary, inter alia, in redemption and dialogue: reading redemptoris missio and dialogue and proclamation, ed. william r. burrows (maryknoll, ny: orbis, 1993), 104. 60 peter ochs, “israel’s redeemer,” in the redemption, ed. stephen t. davis, daniel kendall, sj and gerald o’collins, sj (oxford: oxford university press, 2004), 145. boys, “catholic church and mission ‘to’ or ‘with’ jews?” 18 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): 1-19 g. pastoral sensitivity and educational responsibility it seems crucial that catholics long involved in dialogue with jews recognize the vulnerability jewish converts to christianity may experience when they hear language about judaism as “salvific.” having “converted” because in their view christ fulfills their judaism, a more nuanced theological position seems to question the basis of their conversion. the religious experience at the core of their own “ingrafting” seems to complicate openness to theological understandings contrary to their views of catholic-jewish relations. there is an enormous gap between the sensibilities and theologies of these converts and the scholars of catholic-jewish relations. to allege that becoming catholic “is the most jewish thing a person can do,” as rosalind moss has said in various interviews, flies in the face not only what the vast majority of jews hold but also effectively denies the nostra aetate trajectory. yet precisely how to deal with the thinking of those advocating conversion of jews to catholic christianity is a challenge, particularly since their views are promulgated in the circles of the catholic right, such as the eternal word television network and various websites (e.g.,www.ignatiusinsight.com) that tend to attract people unreceptive to vatican ii and its legacy. their thinking also has support in some hierarchical circles. yet even as schoeman, moss, et al., deserve respect for their decision to commit themselves to christ and the church, their theologies need to be challenged – precisely because they go contrary to the direction of the church since vatican ii. and the importance of sound biblical learning cannot be stressed enough. h. greater humility about what we know about god’s ways in considering the question of a mission to or with jews, we must remember we are in the realm of faith, not certainty. we neither know the extent of nor the manifold ways in which god “saves,” says michael barnes, a british jesuit and scholar of the religions of india. rather, “the church speaks of what it knows in faith – that god raised jesus from the dead and thereby transformed the whole of creation. what the church does not know is the total reality of what always remains other and utterly mysterious. christians must, therefore, acknowledge this possibility: god may act in the world in ways of which the church does not know.”61 much is at stake. can jews trust that the catholic church will respect the integrity of judaism as a way to god? will catholics draw upon their own substantive body of biblical scholarship in honoring the complex character of the scriptures? will the hierarchy let theological scholarship flourish, or champion only traditionalist views? will the church as a whole learn from its more than forty years of dialogue with jews? will it take history seriously, including its own shadow side in regard to treatment of the religious other? will the scholarship of the christian-jewish encounter be made widely accessible and be seen as essential to theology? the legacy of vatican ii is at issue. so is the still-fragile relationship between the catholic church and the jewish people. 61 michael barnes, theology and the dialogue of religions, cambridge studies in christian doctrine (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2002), 28. emphasis added. boys, “catholic church and mission ‘to’ or ‘with’ jews?” 19 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/ the death of jesus o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college relationships across the divide: an instigator of transformation t her es a o ‟ keef e b o s t o n c o l l e g e volume 5 (2010) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): o’keefe 1-22 o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 in a recent conversation jewish educator naomi towvim spoke of “a surprising lack of information about jews and judaism” among catholics. she should know; she has worked, with her roman catholic colleague celia sirois, to educate catholic religious educators (from both parishes and catholic schools) in the boston, massachusetts area on the topic of christian-jewish understanding. 1 while she admits there was no lack of good will among catholics, after many years she still finds a “lack of knowledge” and “no sense of consequence” among catholics about the jewishness of jesus and his earliest followers. yet the lack of understanding is not all on one side. current research indicates that jews are also unlikely to understand christianity well, particularly the positive change in relationship between the catholic church and judaism. arnat barber found that “most of the contemporary jewish population, save for jewish leaders, has no formal education or up-to-date information regarding the catholic church.” 2 these two accounts each reflect, in their own way, a lack of educational initiatives directly connecting catholics and jews on the congregational level, resulting in a lack of understanding of or concern for the other as religious persons. those in religious leadership with long careers in interfaith dialogue attest to the importance of their relationships with 1 this private conversation took place following a lecture and panel discussion on january 27, 2010 at boston college, chestnut hill, massachusetts. the initiative is new directions, co-sponsored by the anti-defamation league and the archdiocese of boston. it is designed for catholic religious educators to educate around their own christian faith with greater awareness of its jewish roots. more recently programs were developed for jewish educators on the shared roots of christianity and modern judaism. http://regions.adl.org/new-england/programs/new-directions.html accessed march 5, 2010. 2 anat barber, “jewish community institutions and education in interfaith efforts,” studies in christian-jewish relations, vol. 4, no. 1 (2009) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4/iss1/17/ (accessed january 12, 2009). their interlocutors for building commitment to and concern for the other. the ever-deepening relationships build in each: a commitment to understanding; to reconciliation, when necessary; and to continued dialogue even in the face of difficulties. particularly they attest to how those relationships have helped them understand their own faith differently while developing a deep commitment to the other. 3 much has been accomplished on formal levels to improve relations among christians and jews over the past fifty years. 4 however, the same advances have not been made on the local level, between members of christian and jewish congregations. the challenge is to find an educational model that best serves adult congregants so as to lead to a transformed relationship among christian and jewish congregants and congregations. i argue that building relationships among individual christians and jews should be central to an educational agenda for members of local congregations. interfaith relationships serve as a motivator of care and understanding for congregants, just as they do for leaders in dialogue. direct engagement between congregants results in greater selfawareness and commitment to improve relations between the two religious communities. 3 examples of such stories include those found in mary c. boys and sara s. lee, christians & jews in dialogue : learning in the presence of the other (woodstock, vt.: skylight paths pub, 2006) and judith a. berling, understanding other religious worlds: a guide for interreligious education (maryknoll, ny: orbis books, 2004), and from stories shared by contributors to john c. merkle and walter j. harrelson, faith transformed : christian encounters with jews and judaism (collegeville, minn.: liturgical press, 2003). 4 as reflected in international council of christians and jews, “a time for recommitment: building the new relationship between jews and christians,” studies in christian-jewish relations vol. 4, no. 1 (2009). http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4/iss1/7/ (accessed march 5, 2010). http://regions.adl.org/new-england/programs/new-directions.html http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4/iss1/17/ http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4/iss1/7/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): o’keefe 1-22 o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 the presence of the religious other as peers in the educational process on the congregational level provides what educational theorist jack mezirow calls the “disorienting dilemma” necessary for transformation among participants. this article substantiates that claim with illustrations from a qualitative study of the relationships that developed across the religious divide during an educational program with catholics and jews. the program brought together adult members of a roman catholic parish and a conservative jewish synagogue, both set in a small city in the northeastern united states. it was based on a model of interreligious learning developed by mary boys and sara lee, adapted for the congregational setting. interreligious learning models there are currently multiple models of interreligious learning; not all are appropriate for congregations. those suggested for european contexts are primary designed for secondary school settings, where educational curriculum about religions is mandated by some school systems. these models frequently depend upon guest lecturers, 5 or case studies, 6 but do not presume nor depend upon the students themselves being religious adherents. their primary agenda is raising religious literacy and tolerance for religious difference within society. other models designed for north american settings are primarily suggested for higher education, including seminary 5 lars naeslund, "the young and the other: students' voices about encounters with faith," religious education vol. 104, no. 2 (2009), 166. 6 bert roebben, "interreligious learning," religious education vol. 104, no. 1 (2009), 103, and anna halsall and bert roebben, "intercultural and interfaith dialogue through education," religious education vol. 101, no. 4 (2006), 443. settings. 7 these too depend upon readings and lectures, case studies, and other forms of immersion in the religious world view of another. while some theorists, particularly judith berling, expect that students themselves are religious adherents, there is no expectation (particularly in the seminary setting) that students would be able to engage across religious differences; rather that opportunity would be the exception. on the other hand, religious education theorists mary c. boys and sara s. lee propose a model that is well suited for congregational use. they argue for “study in the presence of the other as fundamental to interreligious learning.” 8 in their model “presence” is embodied in the physical presence of the religious other as well as the “key texts, practices, and beliefs of the other‟s tradition.” 9 their own work has been with christians and jews, and their writing reflects settings in which members from two religious traditions interact in the educational process as peers. this model is the most suitable for use on the congregational level because it is predicated on the participants themselves being religious practitioners, not simply students of religion. such is the case at the congregational level, even if the level of practice or religious observance may vary among members. their work is informed by educational theorists such as stephen brookfield, jane vella, lee shulman, and nicholas burbules. each contributes to boys‟ and lee‟s thinking about the purpose, design, and execution of interreligious learning. they understand interreligious learning as transformational of 7 berling, understanding other religious worlds, michael j. stoltzfus and james a. reffel, "cultivating an appreciation for diverse religious worldviews through cooperative learning in undergraduate classrooms," religious education vol. 104, no. 5 (2009), 539. 8 boys and lee, christians & jews in dialogue, 95. 9 boys and lee, christians & jews in dialogue, 96. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): o’keefe 1-22 o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 the participants‟ self-understanding in light of “changed perspectives of the other.” 10 transformation is accomplished through an “encounter with the tradition [of the other] as embodied in the other” rather than “learning about the other in the abstract.” 11 as a result, it “affects many aspects of an individual‟s religious self-understanding and identity.” 12 while boys and lee have developed this model with religious leadership as participants, i show that it can be adapted for use at the congregational level with similar transformative affect. transformation and critical reflection in interreligious learning: jack mezirow though not a theorist boys and lee name, jack mezirow, a leader in transformational learning theory, offers a helpful framework for understanding what is behind the transformation process. mezirow defines knowing as ordered into meaning perspectives and meaning schemes. meaning perspectives are those “codes that govern activities of perceiving, comprehending, and remembering.” 13 they are the filters through which we see (or fail to see) the world around us. within a meaning perspective are meaning schemes. mezirow identifies schemes as “specific knowledge, beliefs, value 10 boys and lee, christians & jews in dialogue, 66. a full account of their thinking can be found in chapters four and five. 11 boys and lee, christians & jews in dialogue, 67. emphasis in original. 12 they frequently make the point that the transformation is asymmetrical. for the christians the task is largely theological; reconsidering the centrality of jesus in light of the continued validity of the jewish covenant with god. for jews the task centers on reconsidering an identity that is not rooted in victimhood. boys and lee, christians & jews in dialogue, 96. 13 jack mezirow, “how critical reflection triggers transformative learning” in fostering critical reflection in adulthood: a guide to transformative and emancipatory learning, ed. jack mezirow (san francisco: jossey-bass publishers, 1990), 4. judgments, or feelings involved in making an interpretation.” 14 schemes fill in the framework created by the meaning perspective; they are the information that fit in the forms. likewise, information that does not easily fit within a given meaning perspective or contradicts it is not seen, ignored as irrelevant, or altered to fit the perspective. thus meaning perspectives make seeing possible, by giving sense to what is seen, but also limit seeing by ignoring or skewing what does not easily fit. accordingly, a meaning perspective necessarily requires revision as one encounters more complexity and variety in the world and the existing perspective is found insufficient to make sense of that complexity. mezirow defines transformative education as a process of assisting learners in finding the inadequacies of current meaning perspectives and altering them to become those that “are more inclusive, discriminating, permeable (open), and integrative of experience.” 15 mezirow is hesitant to suggest that meaning perspectives are either right or wrong; rather, for him, a “more adequate” or “satisfying” meaning perspective is one that recognizes and makes better sense of the complexity of reality, thus generating “beliefs and opinions that will prove more true or justified to guide action.” 16 critical reflection is the primary tool for revising meaning perspectives. it is essential for unmasking presumptions and inadequacies in search of more adequate beliefs and actions. educational theorist stephen brookfield sharpens mezirow‟s understanding of the nature of critical reflection, asserting that it necessarily involves examination of power and hegemony. he asserts that an ideological critique is crucial to critical reflection 14 mezirow, “how critical reflection triggers transformative learning,” 5. 15 jack mezirow, transformative dimensions of adult learning (san francisco: jossey-bass, 1991), 111. 16 jack mezirow, “learning to think like an adult: core concepts of transformation theory,” in learning as transformation: critical perspectives on a theory in progress, ed. jack mezirow (san francisco: jossey-bass, 2000), 8. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): o’keefe 1-22 o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 as “the process by which people learn to recognize how uncritically accepted and unjust dominant ideologies are embedded in everyday situations and practices.” 17 brookfield‟s insistence on an ideological critique is helpful in the interreligious learning setting in that it points to the fact that religion is never merely a private endeavor but one steeped in public and political consequence that shape the private and public expressions of religious belief and practice. when overlaying mezirow‟s framework onto interreligious learning we can see that a religious worldview can be seen as the meaning perspective. a religious worldview determines how one perceives or interprets elements of the religious tradition: biblical texts, community structure and purpose, religious practices, history, belief statements, and concepts of god‟s saving action. these perceptions or interpretations contribute to the larger construct of religious worldview, and they can be understood as meaning schemes. for example, if my christian worldview is dependent on a devaluing of judaism, then my understanding of scripture and tradition will reflect that presumption. furthermore, i will either not recognize, or not make sense of pronouncements, even those from church leadership, that are attempting to offer a different relationship with judaism. if i do hear them, i will likely distort them into something more recognizable and immediately acceptable, or only grant them minimal significance such that my overall perspective is not challenged. both catholic and jewish religious leadership who have been engaging in dialogue and study articulate new understandings and practices that have contributed to more appropriate self-understandings and relationships between the two traditions. we can say that these leaders have gone through a transformation of their perspectives and are 17 stephen brookfield, “transformative learning as ideology critique,” in learning as transformation, 128. developing new schemes for their religious communities. as valuable as their efforts are they have largely gone unnoticed by jewish and catholic congregants because some deeper meaning perspective remains unchanged at the congregational level. although supplied with renewed meaning schemes, initiation of the critical reflection process and eventual transformation of the meaning perspective needs some trigger in order for those new schemes to fit. as brookfield writes, “because of their pervasiveness and persuasiveness, ideologies are hard to penetrate.” 18 the necessity of a “disorienting dilemma” if i am embedded in a particular meaning perspective it is unlikely that the piecemeal introduction of transformed meaning schemes will have sufficient impact to get my attention. 19 rather, mezirow argues that transformation is initiated by some “disorienting dilemma” that tips the scales and helps the learners see the inadequacy of their current meaning perspective. it is in response to this disorientation that the learner begins “selfexamination with feelings of guilt or shame” followed by “a critical assessment of epistemic, sociocultural, or psychic assumption.” once disorientation has begun to show the inadequacy of a perspective, the critical reflection process can 18 stephen brookfield, “transformative learning as ideology critique,” 130. 19 likewise, catholic theologian terrence tilley makes a similar theological argument. believers have to experience some sense of disequilibrium with old ideas and practices prior to investigating new, more satisfactory practices or interpretations. tilley demonstrates the nature of religious beliefs and their corollary practices as contextually grounded; as context change, meanings can slip, so practice must alter if meaning is to remain intact. yet he makes clear that “any proposal for reformation must be accepted by the practitioners who put it into practice.” if the reform does not make sense, if it seems unnecessary, it will not be taken on. terrence w. tilley, inventing catholic tradition (maryknoll, n.y.: orbis books, 2000), 80. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): o’keefe 1-22 o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 begin in earnest. 20 a potentially valuable “disorienting dilemma”—offering both reason and desire for change—is the proximity of the religious other in the learning setting, as partners in the learning. the presence of the other as a learning partner not only assists in the development of renewed schemes, but also provides an added incentive for reconsideration of religious perspectives than if this same material were studied in isolation. that incentive is what i call the affective link, whereby one comes to care for the other and so comes to care about what affects the life of the other. affective links can develop without a deep familiarity with the other. rather, they can grow from a sense of commonality, respect, enjoyment, or appreciation, and so inspire a wish for deeper understanding. in boys‟ and lee‟s model the affective links are able to develop while the participants are also learning about one another‟s religious tradition; thus, understanding and concern grow simultaneously. boys and lee attest to the importance of the presence of the religious other in their learning settings, but their primary exemplar (the catholic-jewish colloquium) involved religious leaders and educators and took place over a three year period. 21 that example reflects a considerable investment in time and formal education among members and so would appear out of the reach of most congregants and congregations. i argue that the model is a highly valuable one for the congregational level and that the presence of the other serves as the primary cause of “disorientation” for adults on that level 20 according to mezirow, disorienting dilemmas can include such things as loss of employment, death of an important person, social crisis, and a significant encounter with otherness. mezirow, transformative dimensions of adult learning, 168. 21 the catholic-jewish colloquium is reported on extensively in mary c. boys and sara s. lee, "the catholic-jewish colloquium : an experiment in interrreligious learning," religious education vol. 91, no. 4 (fall, 1996), 421; and boys and lee, christians & jews in dialogue, 220. because of the capacity therein for participants to form an affective link with other learners. adult members of religious congregations differ from the leaders of those congregations (especially catholic and jewish congregations) in a few important ways: 1. formal religious education within their own tradition frequently concluded in their adolescence; 2. they usually do not hold significant responsibility for religious leadership to the congregation or to a wider religious body; 22 and 3. their primary professional commitments are most often outside the congregation. these are each significant in their own way. relative to a lack of formal religious education—particularly graduate or professional level—congregants seldom have a deep enough understanding of their religious tradition to articulate that tradition in meaningful ways; this will be illustrated below. furthermore, lack of familiarity with scriptural texts and other source material would make it difficult to recognize contradictions in their interpretations (e.g., valuing nostra aetate 23 as a vatican council document, but continuing to read the new testament as abrogating the covenant with israel). as regards their 22 by leadership i mean religious leadership (e.g., ministerial, worship, or educational) not organizational (e.g., synagogue boards, finance boards, or parish counsels). 23 the declaration on the relation of the church to non-christian religions, proclaimed in 1965 at the second vatican council. among the major teachings of nostra aetate relative to jews are: all jews “without distinction” were not to be blamed for the death of jesus; that god “does not repent” of the gifts given the people israel; that “the jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by god;” that the church “decries…displays of antisemitism;” and invites respectful dialogue. austin flannery, ed., documents of vatican ii (grand rapids : eerdmans, 1975), 1062. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): o’keefe 1-22 o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 responsibility to the congregation and professional commitments outside the congregation, these adults would take part in an interreligious learning experience voluntarily—perhaps inspired by relationships with friends or even family. they would not participate as a requirement of essential professional development, with an intention of enhancing the congregation‟s life. likewise, they would not feel compelled to continue if their primary professional commitment interfered. however, as regards critical reflection, the first point is likely the most important. lack of deep familiarity with one‟s own tradition—its history, its doctrinal and theological exposition, the rational and history behind practices, its texts and interpretations—make it difficult, and so unlikely, for one to engage in critical reflection on that tradition except where it touches on aspects of daily life. stated in another way, it would be unlikely for most adult congregants to see where and how one‟s religious tradition interferes on the dignity, freedom, and religious sensibilities of another. finally, a sense of politeness, or at least a fear of engaging others in religious discussions frequently stymies meaningful critical conversation among most adults before it begins. 24 however, those barriers (politeness, lack of deep familiarity with one‟s own tradition, lack of awareness of disparagement) can be overcome, such that adult congregants can move to critical reflection if sufficient attention is paid to creating a learning environment whereby affective relationships across the religious divide can develop. developing such relationships serves as the beginning of the “disorienting dilemma” that spurs critical reflection and potential transformation. even in a relatively short period of time, relationships can develop 24 anthony lising antonio, "when does race matter in college friendships?: exploring men's diverse and homogeneous friendship groups," review of higher education vol. 27, no. 4 (2004), 553; theresa o'keefe, "learning to talk: conversation across religious difference," religious education vol. 104, no. 2 (2009), 197. sufficiently so that disorientation can begin to affect change. brookfield writes that the resulting transformation is “a shift in the tectonic plates of one‟s assumptive clusters.” 25 while an apt image, it may give the impression of transformative learning as an “all-at-once” event, but true movement takes time, allowing both tremors and fault line shifts to occur as the landscape settles into a new position. following mezirow‟s schema, the perspective may shift, but the accompanying schemes will take time to be renegotiated. regardless, something must initiate the shifting, and i argue that it is the affective link across the religious divide that is an effective incentive for change. adapting for the congregational level educating for this kind of encounter takes time and attention. it does not “just happen,” because participants will revert to expected modes of behavior by avoiding difficult topics or keeping discussions at a surface level. yet productive conversation can happen if attention is given to the opportunity to develop relationships among participants and care is given to maintain respectful conversation amid challenging topics. 26 the centerpiece of boy‟s and lee‟s interreligious learning model is significant time spent in conversation among the participants, in both small and large groups, with conversation directed towards personal understanding and practice of religion. my understanding of such conversation is premised around nicholas burbules‟ conception of conversation as an “inclusivedivergent” form of dialogue. this form of speech is designed to invite diverse views with the aim of mutual understanding, but not necessarily agreement or problem-solving. 27 25 stephen brookfield, “transformative learning as ideology critique,” 139. 26 this is one of the initial findings of this study, as reported in o'keefe, “learning to talk: conversation across religious difference,” 197. 27 burbules’ discussion of four dialogic speech forms—debate, instruction, inquiry, and conversation—is found in chapter nine. nicholas c. burbules, studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): o’keefe 1-22 o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 boys and lee have acknowledged that this model, when used with religious leadership, has created and heightened a sense of commitment to the other and deepened participants‟ religious self-identification. 28 they attest to the considerable planning that has to go into the interreligious learning processes, including questions and conversation among participants such that relationships are able to form among participants and with the tradition of the other. fundamental elements of the model that boys and lee have executed (both those they name explicitly and those observable in their accounts) include the following: 29 an educator from each tradition co-leads the experience and work as partners in developing each component. an equal number of participants from each tradition are sought. participants are relative peers to one another. dialogue in teaching: theory and practice (new york: teachers college press, 1993). 28 they have worked predominantly with religious educators. the most striking accounts of participants’ learning are found in the writing of the participants of their catholic-jewish colloquium of 1992: joanne chafe, "colloquium participants speak," religious education vol. 91, no. 4 (fall, 1996), 502; julie a. collins, "can i not do to you as this potter has done? interreligious learning and the transformation of religious identity," religious education vol. 91, no. 4 (fall, 1996), 468; cynthia reich, "on pluralism and religious education : how jesus changed the life of a jewish educator," religious education vol. 91, no. 4 (fall, 1996), 555.; barbara veale smith, "encountering the other and deepening in faith," religious education vol. 91, no. 4 (fall, 1996), 562.; addie lorraine walker, "dialogue as a strategy for transformative education," religious education vol. 91, no. 4 (fall, 1996), 589. 29 mary c. boys and sara s. lee, "introduction: religious traditions in conversation," religious education vol. 91, no. 4 (fall, 1996), 416; mary c. boys and sara s. lee, christians & jews in dialogue. sessions take place in a location that is mutually comfortable. all participants have equal access to source materials, whether written, video or live presentation. participants learn about each other‟s tradition in the presence of one another. co-leaders select and present material (e.g., texts, lectures) that serve as the centerpiece of participant reflection and discussion. conversation among participants is central to the learning process. discussion is directed (but not necessarily facilitated) in small and large groups, with questions that build from the presented material and are directed towards personal understanding and practice. while encouraging a critical engagement with the other, a presumption of affection for what the other holds dear is central. at the congregational level certain adaptations should be made such that the three distinctions of congregation members (in formal religious education within their own tradition; in responsibility for religious leadership; and in primary professional commitments outside the congregation) are accommodated. i developed these adaptations with my colleague, rabbi lynn liberman for use in 2004 with a group of 16, the membership of which was divided equally among conservative jews and roman catholics congregants. 30 they are as follows: 30 this experience is the basis of the study, data from which is offered in the following section. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): o’keefe 1-22 o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 1. facilitate the model between two congregations within a single geographic area. this allows the opportunity to build on any prior relationships among participants that exist in the community (e.g., neighbors, business associates, schoolmates). more importantly, this creates the potential for building long-term relations among participants and between the two congregations, including the re-occurrence of interreligious learning. 2. the second adaptation is in the time commitment. enough time must be allowed for people to get to know one another and learn together, but too much of a commitment would be prohibitive of those with other significant commitments in their lives. local custom may dictate what is acceptable for adult education experiences. however, the illustrations offered below indicate that relationships developed sufficiently within two hour, weekly meetings over the course of eight weeks, comprising a total of sixteen contact hours among participants. 3. a third adaptation is the use of scholarly, yet accessible course material. in our own course we used the videobased series walking god's paths, released from the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college. 31 the video presentations provided a framework upon which eight two-hour sessions were built. walking god’s paths attended to the following topics: 31 national council of synagogues, et al., walking god's paths christians and jews in candid conversation (washington, d.c.: usccb pub, 2003). at that time this resource was newly available, and support material around the program was limited to the “focusing questions” and “discussion questions” that were to accompany the video presentations. as that time there were no recommendations for outside resources or suggestions on session facilitation. a. the modern history of christian-jewish relations, including the “teaching of contempt” of jews by christians, and the changed teachings of the roman catholic church since the second vatican council. b. an overview of late second temple judaism and the eventual parting of the ways between rabbinic judaism and christianity. c. a focus on biblical texts as sources of commonality and division. d. a review of the springtime festivals of passover and easter, with an understanding of what they each say about god‟s saving action. e. a consideration of metaphors that illustrate the relationship between judaism and christianity. f. looking to the future of dialogue and collaborative efforts in and for the world. the walking god's paths video segments were supplemented by reading assignments and in-class presentations determined and presented by rabbi liberman and me. the supplemental material was chosen with the learners in mind— intelligent adults, but not theologically trained—offering background information that made the video elements even more accessible. 32 for example, participants read chapters one and two of marc saperstein‟s book moments of crisis in jewishchristian relations in preparation for an early session on the 32 all members had at least completed high school, most had completed an undergraduate degree, and some had completed graduate/professional degrees. the topics discussed reflect five of the eight main issues that need to be explored between catholics and jews, as recommended by joseph sievers and lawrence h. schiffman, “learning about ourselves while learning about each other: proposals for jewish and catholic education,” studies in christian-jewish relations vol. 4, no. 1 (2009), 3, http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4/iss1/15/ (accessed january 12, 2010). http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4/iss1/15/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): o’keefe 1-22 o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 current status of catholic and jewish relations. 33 throughout, attention was given to balancing helpful source material from both religious traditions. 4. another important adaptation is the facilitation of the small groups so that the conversation is kept on topic and does not veer away from difficult material. in our own case, the facilitators were gifted in directing conversation among adults and had some experience in interreligious dialogue. those personal experiences in education and dialogue gave them an awareness of the dynamics of group interaction as well as an anticipation of the challenges particular to the catholic-jewish encounter. 5. boys and lee have used neutral spaces for the experiences they have directed. their reason was that there may be discomfort for participants, particularly the jews, if surrounded by the religious imagery of the other. i recommend, rather, use of the congregations‟ spaces, and for each congregation to alternate as host. this allows use of the space as a teaching tool, including tours of the worship space. it also creates the opportunity to shift the power dynamic of guest and host. it provides the opportunity to learn what it means to be a good host. for us that was demonstrated in the catholic hosts‟ learning of and adhering to the dietary restrictions of some jewish participants. furthermore, hosting in the congregation‟s home allows for impromptu extra-curricular learning inspired by the activities and structure of the site. again, this happened when the catholic participants were invited to try hamentashen, which was being baked at the synagogue in anticipation of purim. 6. regardless of how full each session may seem, it is important to have a break mid-way through each session. it is included so that class members have a built-in opportunity for 33 marc saperstein, moments of crisis in jewish-christian relations (philadelphia: trinity press international, 1989). informal conversation. sometimes those conversations are on the session‟s topic, but frequently they are not. as valuable as teaching time is in this program (as in many programs) the opportunity for informal conversations is essential to the overall learning and development of relationships. 7. following boys‟ and lee‟s example, small group discussion sometimes happened in either faith-alike (all-jewish or all-christian) or faith-different groups. among adults living in the same community, pre-existing relationships are common occurrences in adult learning settings. consideration should be given to the potential effect these can have on the learning process. in our case the two faith-alike groups were not altered, but rabbi liberman and i were able to determine the faith-different groupings. we did so with the intent of separating those with long established relationships (spouses, friends, and family) so that long-established patterns of relating did not inhibit new relationships. 8. as a final consideration, it is important to name the goals for educating at this level. the educational goals for religious leadership should be ultimately directed towards new theological inquiry, promotion of educational efforts, or furthering formal diplomatic relations. while theological investigation of the relationship between christianity and judaism should not be excluded, more basic goals would be central to an initial experience as named here. those goals might include, but not be restricted to, a desire for participants to recognize the other religious tradition as valid and vital; to appreciate the historical relationship and religious connections between the two traditions, and the positive change underway; to appreciate the shared yet distinct natures of biblical texts and interpretation; and to recognize instances of devaluing of the other tradition studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): o’keefe 1-22 o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 and its adherents. 34 while these may seem very basic, accomplishing these goals opens up opportunity for further study and deeper relations between the communities. they would also be a great improvement over the status quo and would create greater incentive for religious and diplomatic leaders to advance the relationship between the two communities further. boys‟ and lee‟s model for interreligious learning, centered around learning in the presence of the other, creates new modes of relating around religious belief and practice for participants. the use of productive conversation at the center of the model encourages participants to speak for themselves, such that the tradition is embodied in the people present. misunderstanding, ignorance, and prejudice are challenged by that presence. likewise, complexity and nuance found within a tradition are more visible in the various participants. boys‟ and lee‟s model is rich with possibilities. the adaptations to the model for the congregational level enhance those possibilities in that they consider the differences of time, education, and purpose appropriate for congregants. they also take advantage of the resources available in congregations (e.g., the existence of prior relationships, the use of worship space as an educational tool). furthermore, the adaptations enhance the possibility of building affective links among participants such that they develop and maintain over time new relationships— and ways of relating—as individuals and as congregations. what follows are illustrations drawn from an experience of boys‟ and lee‟s interreligious learning model adapted for congregational use. the illustrations substantiate how learning accompanied by and set within relationships across the religious divide prompted “disorienting dilemmas” for participants 34 these goals are in line with the educational goals outlined in international council of christians and jews, “a time for recommitment: building the new relationship between jews and christians.” such that they began to question and reconsider their preexisting religious meaning perspective. moments of disorientation: illustrations from the congregational level over the course of the eight week program mentioned above i conducted a qualitative study. in it, i was investigating the development of the conversational dynamic among the participants. the first finding, reported on in a previously published article, is that conversation across religious difference is a learned activity that is supported by constructs in the learning setting. 35 as nicholas burbules argues, it takes concerted effort for educators to help learners carry over the skills of conversation that they use in more personal settings to more public educational settings. 36 i would suggest further that when the subject of conversation is the known religious difference between interlocutors, even greater care needs to be taken in the teaching setting to help people move from polite avoidance to meaningful engagement. the earlier article names the factors (including pedagogical choices) that contribute to participants‟ capacity to engage in meaningful conversation. they are: that conversations benefit from ground rules and facilitation; those disciplines and parameters allow for freedom of inquiry; that productive conversation includes respectful disagreement, freedom to question, and thinking aloud; 35 o'keefe, “learning to talk: conversation across religious difference,” 197-213. the particulars of the study were reported on in this previously published article and are not repeated here. 36 burbules, dialogue in teaching: theory and practice, 42-43. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): o’keefe 1-22 o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 that there remain limitations to conversation, including the use of defense mechanisms and attempts to avoid controversy. attention to the process, environment, and structure of conversation contributes to an atmosphere of trust, safety, and purpose that allow productive conversation to get underway. the remainder of this article offers analysis of how the conversation—and the conversational relationship—provided “disorienting dilemmas” in which the roman catholics and conservative jewish participants recognized and became dissatisfied with their previously held perspectives concerning their own and the other‟s religious tradition. in some instances, a move towards critical reflection is demonstrated, thus initiating a process of potential transformation. the relationships across the religious divide developed in the interreligious educational model produced four instances of disorientation. the relationships assisted participants in: 1. seeing the relationship between christians and jews differently; 2. seeing the other more clearly and recognizing presumptions; 3. recognizing differences in perspective; 4. heightening ownership of and responsibility for understanding one‟s tradition; 5. opening to the value and validity of the religious other. the instances involved both catholic and jewish participants. 1. seeing the relationship between christians and jews differently one of the first and most important learnings for both catholics and jews in the course was that the present and historic relationship between the two religious traditions is different—and more complex—than they had expected. as the following stories illustrate, it was the study of source material in the presence of the other—a sometimes uncomfortable experience—that helped participants see things differently and attribute value to that difference. for jim, learning about the history of violence perpetrated by christians against jews caused him to appreciate that history as part of the current relationship between christians and jews. jim, a 35-year-old catholic, is a self-professed lover of history and he does a lot of reading in history as well as in church teachings. yet the readings assigned in preparation for the second class were quite a surprise for him. they were the two chapters of marc saperstein‟s moments of crisis in jewishchristian relations which recount the difficult, often bloody history between the two communities from the first to the sixteenth centuries, ce. 37 jim admitted to finding the history distressing and something he would rather not consider. he admitted that he was not surprised by the history, but “i guess i‟m guilty of avoiding things like that because i‟m always very afraid it‟s going to tarnish my image of the church.” he even admitted that if saperstein‟s material had come to him from a different source (e.g., not from a teacher and a class he already validated and respected), he would have either ignored it or gone looking for something that would have refuted it. jim attested that the presence of his jewish classmates made a difference in his reading the assignment: 37 saperstein, moments of crisis in jewish-christian relations. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): o’keefe 1-22 o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 i would read a line or a paragraph and i would put it down and go (intake of breath), “oh, man what are they going to think about [us]?” (laughter) i thought i was going to go into that next class and they could have either been pointing at me, or saying, “what did you do?” i thought it was going to be a pretty rowdy class after that. when the session did not turn out that way, jim attributed it to the fact that this history was long known to the jewish members. in that session he had the chance to hear further how that history had impacted their lives as a community and as individuals. after that, jim admitted to going back and forth between wanting to leave the history buried and bringing it out for all to see; but he ultimately acknowledged: i don‟t think i‟ll particularly look at a jewish person quite the same….now any time i think that i look at a jewish person that [history] will always enter my head. for jim studying this disturbing material in the presence of jews, whom he was coming to know and respect and who were reading the same material, made it difficult for him to ignore it. their own perspective on it gave the history texture and impact. jim admits knowing all this has changed the way he sees jews. what makes this instance a “disorienting dilemma” is that it caused jim to see the church as “tarnished,” thus creating a possibility for critical reflection on the church‟s relationship vis-à-vis jews. elaine also came to see the current relationship between the two communities differently. as a jewish woman in her mid-60s, she was familiar with the history of violence but not with its theological foundation. in the same session referenced in jim‟s story, the video spoke about the vatican council and its impact on catholic life with particular attention given to the document nostra aetate. in class, participants read sections of the document and it was presented against the context of the early christian community‟s development of antijewish and later super-sessionist teaching. 38 elaine admitted to finding the theological foundations for christian animosity very disturbing and had not realized that there was “so much antijudaism in scripture and prayer.” it was in light of learning about christian anti-judaism that she found the teachings of nostra aetate so revolutionary; at the end of the course she named the turn-around as her greatest learning. while elaine has many close friendships with catholics and had heard about the second vatican council in the past, she had no idea of its impact on catholics and their relationship with judaism. it was the conversation with the catholic participants, who talked of “how they were taught” growing up (prior to the second vatican council) and who demonstrated their present desire for reconciliation, that made the changes both more dramatic and believable for elaine. she was really impressed by the great desire of the catholic participants to understand jews and judaism. she had “a sense of the catholics trying harder than the jews for understanding. they were very earnest.” through the opportunity to converse with catholics whose lives and religious understanding was directly 38 the terms “anti-jewish” and “super-sessionist” have many nuanced interpretations. for the sake of the class presentation the most basic was employed. anti-judaism is a christian interpretation of scripture and of liturgy that privileges christians’ relationship with god through jesus christ over jewish interpretation and practice, while disparaging all things jewish. super-sessionism is the christian understanding that the covenant of god with israel has been superseded by that with jesus christ. thus the jewish covenant is null and void. mary c. boys, has god only one blessing? : judaism as a source of christian self-understanding (new york: paulist press, 2000), 10-11. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): o’keefe 1-22 o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 affected by nostra aetate, elaine came to appreciate the significance of the change for the catholic church and these individual catholics. for elaine the disorientation came in hearing the stories of catholics who were thankful for the church‟s changed teaching and who were sincere in their desire for change in relationship with judaism that both gave her hope about the future. that disorientation also led her to some critique of her jewish counterparts‟ hesitation. for both elaine and jim, the presence of the other contextualized what they were learning about the other, giving it breadth, texture, and value. the information was not simply about “those people” but about other participants whose voices and stories contributed to the lessons in very personal ways. the stories heard in the group assisted elaine to value the changes and challenges for catholics that she had not seen prior to this encounter. for jim, the learning caused him to see and take seriously what jews saw in his church—something he would have ignored were it not for their presence. both experienced “disorientation” by which they came to see the relationship between catholics and jews to be different than they had previously understood; their disorientation was caused in large part through the presence of the other in the learning process. 2. meeting the other and recognizing presumptions the prior examples with jim and elaine involve material that was an explicit part of the curriculum. yet very often the learning identified by the participants was not explicitly planned, but came about simply because people were together. the learning was usually drawn from impressions that the two groups made on one another and often revolved around differences and similarities between the two groups. i say two groups because although one or two people may have been particularly good exemplars of the behavior observed, very often the impression was attributed to the group of jews or catholics at large. note that none of these topics were directly attended to in the curriculum of walking god’s paths. they were drawn from the encounters that the participants had with one another. it should also be noted that a few of these revelations came to people who have had long-standing prior relationships with members of the other tradition, but this was the first time they were seeing these things. the combination of learning and relating with one another prompted them to see differently. in each case the learner came to see that his or her new understanding indicated a prior presumption about the other. it is through relating in the learning setting that those prior presumptions are brought to light. frances (a 77-year-old catholic) had known nathan (a 78-year-old jew) from years ago through a business related encounter that did not go particularly well. however, now they were in the same small group and frances had several opportunities to hear nathan speak and to know him differently. as a result of this opportunity she admitted, “i think we as catholics figure no one else prays. we have the emphasis on prayer…. i was impressed with nathan and his talk about envisioning what he needed to do with his life…and prayer was a big part of that. and particularly of people you don‟t expect it of.” she laughed at herself for assuming that only catholics had relationships with god that involved a practice of prayer: “that‟s dumb, isn‟t it?” gladys (a 68-year-old jew) was surprised to find that catholics were so open-minded. in the class, she found that the catholics were very interested in sharing and learning. “maybe their views are different, but they were still trying to understand….i felt like it was a new beginning….you could feel very comfortable.” through her prior experience she had come to appreciate diverse opinions among her jewish co-religionists but had believed catholics to walk in lock-step with one studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): o’keefe 1-22 o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 another, and to be closed to diverse opinions. she found this experience with her catholic classmates to be quite different from her expectation. caroline and kelly (two 48-year-old catholics) were both impressed by the intense study adult jews brought to their religious practice. caroline in particular was fascinated with their grasp of the hebrew language: i was really interested in how even, not just the rabbi, the other members of the group would say things, and would say, “in hebrew we call it such and such. and it‟s not exactly this.” and they would use that right in their conversation trying to explain things to us. and i thought [of] the richness of the hebrew instead of this really hard thing to have to learn another language. and i remember having classmates [in school] who had to go to hebrew school and i never realized how rich it was. even though both women have taken on leadership roles in their parish, including assisting in religious education, both kelly and caroline found their knowledge of catholicism inferior to their jewish participants‟ knowledge of judaism. independently they also bemoaned the lack of an atmosphere of adult learning in their church while it was very apparent to them in the synagogue. caroline offered another example of surprise at her prior perspective. at the end of the course she admitted that she held the view, mostly unconsciously, that the jewish faith had not changed since the time of jesus, and through the course that view was challenged: i don‟t think i thought a lot about it, but that‟s exactly what i thought. i thought it was the same religion. so over the course of those eight weeks, that‟s what struck me the most was what [judaism] is, these many facets. these many facets that i was unaware of. the class—particularly the conversations with her jewish classmates—helped her recognize her own failure to see judaism as more than a precursor to christianity. her preunderstanding of judaism as a static tradition would likely have implicitly affected her interaction with her jewish sister-in-law and her teaching in the parish‟s religious education program. however the conversation with her classmates about their religious practice showed her a tradition that has continued to grow and give life. on the other hand, both howard and elaine (72 and 66 year-old jews) were impressed with the faith of the catholics and the strength of their relationship with god. as howard said, “i think i have a greater understanding of the passion of the catholic members…of their real involvement.” elaine found that the catholics were “more spiritual and more people of faith.” as for judaism, she said, “it‟s more a „practical‟ religion; following the rules to some extent.” neither thought a relationship with, or even a belief in, god was necessary for jewish identity and practice, but they both picked that up as central and valuable for the catholics they met and came to admire it in them. the setting of learning with and relating to one another caused participants to see one another differently and become disoriented such that they began to see their prior perspectives. in some of these instances (frances, gladys, and caroline) one can hear indications of “feelings of guilt or shame” that mezirow mentions come with seeing something anew. 39 the process of reevaluating what they have known begins with disruption of previously held ideas. 39 mezirow, transformative dimensions of adult learning, 168. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): o’keefe 1-22 o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 3. recognizing different perspectives hand-in-hand with a new appreciation of the other can come a new awareness of oneself. 40 differences come to light as just that, differences. the encounter with the other brings to light the recognition that religious ideas or practices—once assumed to be held universally—are in fact unique to one‟s own tradition. a first step in critiquing hegemony is recognizing that there are diverse perspectives. a good example of this happening comes from max and jim who worked as a hevruta briefly studying a passage from the book of the prophet isaiah. 41 although the passage was familiar to both of them prior to this meeting, when they looked at it together they appreciated immediately that they were each approaching it differently. jim “could hear [jesus] saying this” about himself—“he made my mouth like a sharpened blade”— while max understood god to be speaking directly to him in the passage. it was no surprise to either max or jim that the two traditions shared this biblical text. however, both were surprised to realize that they interpreted the text differently because of their religious tradition. granted, in the short time they had together neither max nor jim got a deep understanding of what the other understood in the text, nor how it was interpreted fully in the other‟s tradition. what they did get was an appreciation simply that it was interpreted differently by the other. 40 developmental psychologist judith jordan argues that the recognition of distinctiveness brings a person to a greater sense of “clarity” of who they are themselves. judith v. jordan, women's growth in diversity: more writings from the stone center (new york: guilford press, 1997), 342. 41 hevruta pairs are a traditional and dynamic form of study of texts— biblical and talmudic—in jewish education. we used hevruta pairs twice over the course of the eight weeks. in a later interview, jim spoke of the hevruta work with max as heightening his own sense of difference: it was very interesting. (with laughter.) seeing both sides of it. seeing the [isaiah] reading from a different angle. i guess i just never really thought of it that way.… i immediately think christ. and they look at it differently…. i think this whole class has really changed me in the effect that i‟m not going to look at things in the same way anymore. i want to see it the way a jewish person would see it, the way an atheist would see it, and the way maybe a baptist would see it. i‟m going to look at it from a lot of different fronts now. and i just feel that i think basically so that it would open me up a little more to the way someone else would look at it. i think i was always reading anything...one-sided in a way, and that really did affect me. it really did change me in that sense. and that‟s a good thing. it was really good hearing someone else, seeing it from a different angle. reading the isaiah text with max gave jim a chance to see that his reading was an interpretation, and not just how the text was, and that it could be read differently from “the context that [max is] looking.” the consideration had never occurred to him, as he admitted having read things “one-sided” up to this point, but here he was disoriented from his own perspective enough to see and grant initial validity to another reading. this opens the possibility of critical reflection on the interpretation of the biblical text. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): o’keefe 1-22 o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 4. heightening ownership of and responsibility for understanding tradition this pair of illustrations concern changes in participants‟ sense of connection to their own tradition. they are not necessarily critical of their religious tradition. rather, the transformation comes in a new sense of responsibility for understanding and owning their tradition. let me point out that a sense of responsibility for and understanding of one‟s tradition would be normal among religious leadership, but among congregant members this is not necessarily the case. an example of this arose when the jews were asked to speak to their understanding of being “chosen” by god, a concept held by conservative judaism. the jewish members, best exhibited here in elaine‟s comments, consistently tried to both explain and downplay its importance in their understanding of judaism. elaine: well first of all it‟s always been a concept that has kind of irritated me, because, um, i don‟t really think that my religion, one of its main objects is to set me above other people. i just have trouble with that. betty (the small group facilitator; catholic): so chosenness does mean something to each of you—correct me if i‟m not interpreting correctly. that it gives you a sense of responsibility, commitment... howard: obligation. elaine: i would say that‟s the way i interpret this [biblical] passage, but i actually am using that as kind of an excuse. i really don‟t care for this particular statement. it‟s there and i don‟t want to really say i disagree, but the only way i can interpret it not that i‟m really chosen but that i have some responsibility. of all the jewish things i would say this is kind of far down on my list of things that i consider important. there was an effort among the jews to disassociate from the concept, while at the same time trying to explain how they interpret it. towards the end of the discussion nathan finally speaks to why they might wish to disassociate themselves from it by explaining: this chosenness theory has been one of the causes of anti-semitism. because non-jews say, “you‟re pretty fancy; you think you‟re better than everyone else.”….we don‟t feel that chosenness is an important part of our practice of judaism. his comments brought to light a compelling reason for jews to put aside this concept. while the catholic members seemed to appreciate that point, they still wanted to understand chosenness and the role it plays for the jews. this was one of the liveliest and most intense conversations of the whole eight weeks as catholics and jews engaged in the intense effort to understand and be understood. after the class, elaine recognized that the very fact that they were asked to speak on chosenness and that it inspired such lively discussion in the group means that it is important outside the jewish community. the catholics were very inquisitive but not threatening throughout the process. the process of being questioned about it in this setting brought elaine to admit that her interpretation was “kind of an excuse” for distancing herself from the concept. this is not to suggest that there is a single way for jews to understand the concept of chosenness; but that it is not a concept that can be ignored simply because it is uncomfortable. as much as she has wished to disassociate from the concept, the presence of the catholics and their studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): o’keefe 1-22 o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 18 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 questions caused her to give it renewed consideration as an element of jewish identity. as participants begin to articulate their religious beliefs with people who do not share the same tradition, they come to see that there are distinct differences between traditions and perspectives. the uniqueness of a perspective becomes clearer in the exchange; language and concepts are not shared. thus articulation is more challenging in that it necessitates finding language that can be understood outside the community, but it also requires understanding the concepts deeply enough to accomplish that communication. a good example of the difficulty of articulation is seen when frances, a 77-year old catholic, tried to explain what the resurrection means to her. she was challenged by the effort of making her views understood by the jewish members and came to see her limited understanding of this long-held belief. frances talked about it this way: it‟s just to try to formulate what you‟re trying to say [about the resurrection], and even though i had thought about it ahead of time, but when it actually comes to doing it. of course, as ida and i were both saying, you do things in your faith for years and years and years, and you never think about why. so to have somebody ask you “why?” and specific questions as to why...(trailing off). interviewer: i remember you saying to people a few times: “well you just don't think about these things.” frances: well you don’t, you really don’t. you just lead your life, and mostly i think you think about the gospel more than you do specifics...like the resurrection. i mean that floored me, really. because i don‟t think i ever think about what the resurrection is, even though you accept it. then to have to explain it….then nathan‟s saying, “well you know they wrote these things 30 or 40 years later.” and i thought, “well that‟s true.” and he goes, “what‟s your answer to that?” and you go, “blah, blub, blub” (laughter). because you accept them, and have for years, they are part of your heritage, part of your belief system. but to actually explain it....you can discuss it with someone who actually has the same belief, but even that is a little difficult. because, i don‟t know, you just don‟t. like i said, you just don‟t think about it. consequently it‟s hard to articulate. for frances the exchange with nathan caused her to see how little she understood this concept, even though it was central to the christian tradition and her professed faith. a prior, unquestioning assent to this teaching was disoriented by the challenge of articulating it for her jewish classmates. she began to see how little she understands it. reflecting on these two instances, i do not suggest that either the jewish members or the catholics have to—or should be able to—provide an explanation that is satisfactory to those outside their tradition about elements unique to their traditions. nor do i suggest that upon examination these elements are something that members of a tradition wish to hold closely—as was the case in the chosenness discussion. what i am saying is that traditions are perceived by those outside them (well or poorly) as having unique characteristics. those same characteristics may go unnoticed or un-discussed within the tradition simply because their meaning is assumed by its members. the presence of the religious other in this learning setting, and the requirement that participants speak for themselves, has the capacity to disorient someone from a prior place of comfort and move him or her to recognize a need for greater ownership of or responsibility for their tradition. it can happen, as it did here studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): o’keefe 1-22 o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 19 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 in both the resurrection and the choseness discussions, that members have to become aware of and confront characteristics unique to their tradition simply because the other asks. max expressed it this way in a journal entry: this whole experience has made me appreciate my own traditions. i spoke with pride about my beliefs and practices. being in a position to articulate thoughts and beliefs provided me with opportunity to grapple with and appreciate my own traditions. a few weeks after completion of the course, max, reflecting back on the value the course held for him, said, “you gave me back my tradition.” i asked him what he meant by that. he explained that by having him share his own understandings of his jewish practice with catholics, rather than having the rabbi do all the teaching, he realized that judaism was his and not simply the possession of rabbis. 5. opening to the value and validity of the religious other the final story illustrates how the affective link that develops between participants has the potential to cause a ”disorienting dilemma” for a religiously embedded participant, such that he becomes dissatisfied with his religious perspective that excluded the value of jewish belief and practice and begins examining his perspective in a more inclusive manner. 42 42 i use the terms “exclusive” and “inclusive” as understood by diana eck. an exclusive perspective does not allow for the validity of religious traditions outside one’s own. an inclusive perspective allows for the religious validity of other traditions in as much as they conform to elements of one’s own tradition. eck argues that nostra aetate should be read as advocating an inclusive position. diana l. eck, encountering god: a spiritual journey from bozeman to banaras (boston, ma: beacon press, 1993), 168-185. at 35, jim, the youngest catholic, was the most devotional in his practice and serious in his study. in other settings he was accustomed to having to “defend the faith” among his contemporaries who were not religious. he said early in the process that he did not expect this course to have any impact on how he saw his catholic faith. changes began early for jim as he got to know the jewish members of the class; this would be his first instance of a religiously-based interaction with practicing jews. his most important connection was with max, a few years older, and one of the more observant among the jewish members. jim and max were in the same small group, and were paired as a hevruta. 43 early on in the course, after their first evening in hevruta, jim felt particularly frustrated in his inability to be articulate. he wanted to apologize to max for his inability to speak clearly. jim tells this story: we were leaving the synagogue. i said [to max], “i was trying to get some stuff out. it‟s there but i can‟t get it out sometimes.” and [max] goes, “it‟s all right. it‟s all in here.” putting his hand on his [own] chest, and “that‟s what‟s important.” and that really made me feel good. i‟ve said that to people too; i just never had anybody say it to me and it was really nice. similarly, in another group discussion, jim shared his thoughts on the value of faith in his life, and again was feeling inarticulate. he was amazed that it was max who finished his thoughts by expressing max‟s own, which were so similar to jim‟s. jim was surprised to find someone who was like himself 43 rabbi liberman and i tried to create hevruta pairs between people who appeared peers in the hopes the similarities would assist them to quickly bond in conversation. in this case max and jim’s similarities in religious practice, age, and gender were all contributing factors. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): o’keefe 1-22 o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 20 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 in depth of religious practice and care, and at the same time have that person be jewish. jim came to see how much he had changed by the end of the eight weeks when he saw how he had moved away from positions he had previously shared with his catholic friends outside of the course. in our final interview he recounts phone conversations he had had over prior weeks with catholic friends, in which they greeted his enthusiasm about the course with silence. he interpreted their reactions to mean, “why are you even doing this? why would you even consider doing something...why don‟t you have discussions with other catholics?” he admits that he would not have been much different if he had not had this experience. those phone conversations caused jim to compare where he was at the end with where he had been prior to these classes. like his friends, he probably would have thought talking to jews a “dead end” pursuit, for jews‟ lack of belief in jesus. in that last interview he admits: to be honest, i didn‟t think i really could be overly close to someone who was jewish, in a...how do i say this? i mean, in a friendship way it‟s fine, and everything, but i didn‟t think i could have the type of depth with a jewish person than i could have with a fellow catholic. and i believe i could do that now. jim can see where he was, when he compares himself with his catholic friends. he admitted further that at the time he did not know how to reply to this friend, but he also said because of this class experience: i would be much more apt, much, much more apt to [speak up] in the right setting. if i was hanging out with some friends, in a bar in boston or something, if something came up about the jewish faith, i would be much more apt to put my foot down and say, “you don‟t know. you don‟t really know the depth of their faith and how they look at things.” for jim it was seeing the “faith” of his jewish counterparts, particularly max, that was disorienting and opened for him the value of judaism. 44 these were people for whom he previously admitted “feeling sorry” because they did not believe in jesus. a few times in conversations with me over the eight weeks he raised a concern about the fate of his jewish classmates after death. what would happen when they met jesus for judgment? he admitted thinking about it frequently and being quite concerned. finally, in the last interview when asked what he imagined might happen, he responded: i just wonder what [jesus is] gonna say when they die and they meet [him]. i‟m hoping he‟s just gonna, you know… i hope he‟s gonna sit there and say, “your faith...you were so into your faith, which was wonderful, glad to have you aboard. come on in!” he was still concerned about their lack of belief in jesus and wished he could just “give them his faith.” yet at the same time, he had come to see the depth and sincerity of their religious life, he had come to value it, and believed that jesus would too. he did not drop the need for jesus as a result of encountering jewish belief, but he tried to make room for them in his own belief. as such he moves from an exclusive perspective to one that is more inclusive and able to recognize value in the jewish tradition. 44 i use “faith” in quotation marks, because it was not a word that the jews often used for their own belief or practice. it is the word jim consistently used for them. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): o’keefe 1-22 o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 21 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 it is unlikely that sixteen hours spent studying in the company of members from another tradition will make congregants fully adept at rethinking their religious perspectives. however, that time commitment can give reason to start by creating the space to develop affective links that help participants think differently about the other and themselves. when jim started this program he was unable to attribute value to much outside the catholic tradition. however, at the beginning of the process, jim did possess the capacity of heart to care beyond the borders of his own community when given the opportunity in this learning environment to meet and get to know the other. as a result, over the course of the program, he made connections with jews that he never had before and began to appreciate the validity and vitality of their own “faith.” note that he does not restrict this consideration to max but attests to how he would defend jews in general, saying “you don‟t really know the depth of their faith and how they look at things.” this is a major shift for jim made possible by the chance to learn in another‟s presence and talk about another‟s religious belief and practice directly with the other person. conclusion while religious relations among catholics and jews has advanced significantly over the past half century, especially along official and academic avenues, those advances have not in large part impacted the religious perspective of adult adherents at the congregational level. yet the diplomatic and academic avenues need the support and encouragement of local congregants if greater advances are to be made in the relations between the catholic church and jewish communities. congregations and their members are a source of incentive, but congregations are also the places where peacebuilding, learning, and cooperation happen on a local level. the interreligious learning model proposed by mary boys and sara lee—in which study in the presence of the other is central—serves as a workable and effective model for adult education at the congregational level. attention to accessible scholarship in selected material is important. however, of equal importance is the intentionality of relationship building among participants. paying attention to the structure and processes among the participants, creating space and opportunity for safe and productive interaction enhance the potential of participants creating affective links with one another. they come to care about one another as they come to know one another. as jack mezirow argues, the transformative learning process is initiated by a “disorienting dilemma.” the disorientation brings learners to rethink their meaning perspectives. relationships whereby participants come to know each other while learning about their religious traditions have the potential of providing the “disorienting dilemmas” such that they begin to see beyond their prior religious perspectives. the study illustrations provide valuable indicators about the centrality of forming relationships across the religious divide for transformative learning among adults at the congregational level. as a result of the disorientation caused by those relationships, participants showed significant instances of: 1. seeing the relationship between christians and jews differently; 2. meeting the other and recognizing presumptions; 3. recognizing different perspectives; 4. heightening ownership of and responsibility for understanding tradition; 5. opening to the value and validity of the religious other. the amount of time spent together, the direct conversation among participants, the group structure, and the formal and studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): o’keefe 1-22 o’keefe, relationships across the divide o’keefe 22 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 the informal engagement created the space and atmosphere in which participants felt at ease enough to know and be known. the resulting changes created the potential for new relationship for these congregants and their congregations—and so renewed possibilities between these two great traditions. has the papacy 'owned' vatican guilt for the church's role in the holocaust? studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): madigan cp 1-18 conference proceeding h a s t h e p a p a c y ‘ o w n e d ’ va t i c a n g u i l t f o r t h e c h u r c h ’ s r o l e i n t h e h o l o c a u s t ? k e v i n m a d i g a n harvard divinity school plenary presentation at the annual meeting of the council of centers on christian-jewish relations november 1, 2009, florida state university, boca raton, florida given my reflections in this presentation, it is perhaps appropriate to begin with a confession. what i have written on the subject of the papacy and the shoah in the past was marked by a confidence and even self-righteousness that i now find embarrassing and even appalling. (incidentally, this observation about self-righteousness would apply all the more, i am afraid, to those defenders of the wartime pope.) in any case, i will try and smother those unfortunate qualities in my presentation. let me hasten to underline that, by and large, i do not wish to retract conclusions i have reached, which, in preparation for this presentation, have not essentially changed. but i have come to perceive much more clearly the need for humility in rendering judgment, even harsh judgment, on the catholic actors, especially the leading catholic actors of the period. as josé sanchez, with whose conclusions in his book on understanding the controversy surrounding the wartime pope i otherwise largely disagree, has rightly pointed out, “it is easy to second guess after the events.”1 this somewhat uninflected observation means, i take it, that, in the case of the holy see and the holocaust, the calculus of whether to speak or to act was reached in the cauldron of a savage world war, wrought in the matrix of competing interests and complicated by uncertainty as to whether acting or speaking would result in relief for or reprisal. fair enough. at the same time, we must never forget, nor must we shrink from honest and, let me add, wellresearched judgments about the conduct of the institutional church during the holocaust. nor must we fudge on the question, as elena procario-foley put it well to me in her letter of invitation, whether the church has completely “owned” its responsibility for errors and sins and whether subsequent prelates and popes, in their speeches and theology, have truly faced their responsibility for the treatment of jews and judaism. as each of you knows all too well, the bulk of commentary on these questions has, not wrongly, focused on the conduct of pius xii and on the vatican document we remember, the long-awaited statement on the catholic church and the holocaust released in march of 1998. but it is also true that some european national episcopal conferences released their own statements of atonement. what i want to attempt today is to place we remember against the backdrop of the statement issued by the french bishops; and what i shall argue is neither that the institutional church as a whole succeeded nor failed in facing its responsibility for the teaching of contempt and its catastrophic outcome. rather, what i wish to suggest is that, if the vatican statement of apology, in many respects, has been deeply disappointing to both jewish and catholic readers, the same cannot be said of the 1 josé sanchez, pius xii and the holocaust: understanding the controversy (washington, dc: catholic university of america press, 2002). parts of this essay have previously appeared in “a survey of jewish reaction to the vatican statement on the holocaust,” cross currents 50/4 (winter 2001): 488-505; reprinted in remembering for the future: the holocaust in an age of genocide, 3 vols. (palgrave: 2001), 2:425-37. madigan, has the papacy ‘owned’ vatican guilt? madigan cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): madigan cp 1-18 episcopal statements—and these include statements made, with varying degrees of success, by the german, hungarian, polish, dutch, italian and swiss national episcopal conferences. accordingly, i want to argue today that the response to the questions posed to me must be framed in shades of gray, or to put it more concretely, that the bishops in germany and especially france have indeed “owned” their responsibility while the crafters of we remember in the vatican curia have largely failed to do so. i conclude with some reflections on the short pontificate of benedict xvi (2005-), which, in my judgment, has damaged jewish-christian relations at the highest levels, even when on the lower echelons of this relationship, like ours, dialogue thrives, and the two parties remain committed to one another in an indefectible covenant of friendship and mutual respect and support. in order to establish the historical background to the recent episcopal and papal reactions to the shoah, and to lay out the material that will launch our discussion on the essentially moral question professor procariofoley put to me, i would like briefly to summarize what i take to be established historically about the controversial wartime pope. let me begin with a narrative from the wartime sources the vatican has published. in the early months of 1942, the newly-formed state of slovakia entered negotiations with the government of germany, and in particular with adolf eichmann. the negotiations centered on logistical issues surrounding the deportation to galicia and the lublin district of the roughly 90,000 jewish citizens of slovakia. as the negotiations proceeded, eichmann demanded that slovakia send only jews capable of labor. while the slovak government, which represented a population that was almost entirely catholic, initially complied, it was not happy to be left with the care of the elderly and of children. accordingly, it proposed to eichmann that, “in the spirit of christianity,” families not be separated but instead be deported together. though he first complained about the “technical” problems this plan would cause for germany, eichmann relented. by the beginning of march 1942, he had agreed to plans for the deportation of all the jews of slovakia.2 as news of the plans for deportation spread, it naturally panicked the jewish community in bratislava. about to be swallowed in the maw of deportation, the jewish leaders there turned first to the vatican chargé d’affaires, monsignor giuseppe burzio. because he happened to be absent, the leaders of the community composed an anguished letter of appeal to the pope himself. this they entrusted to the nuncio in budapest, archbishop angelo rotta, through whom the letter reached the vatican on march 13, 1942. “most holy father,” it stated. “no one [else] can help us.” not only had everything—businesses, houses, funds, even clothing—been taken from them in a ruthlessly efficient act of aryanization. but “as we surely know,” the community declared, “we are to be shipped out to lublin, poland.” the authors of the letter were under no illusions about what this meant: “we are,” they stated simply, “condemned to annihilation” (wir sind zum untergang verurteilt). would the holy father, in the name of humanity and fellow feeling, admonish the president of slovakia, a catholic priest, to block their expulsion and certain massacre? “we place all our hope and confidence in your holiness,” it says, “as the safest refuge of all the persecuted” (als die sicherste zuflucht aller verfolgten).3 less than two weeks later, a transport of 1000 young slovakian citizens boarded a train. the first transport sent by eichmann’s section iv b 4, the train was bound for auschwitz. six weeks later, more than 40,000 of their countrymen and women had also been deported.4 2 see leni yahil, the holocaust: the fate of european jewry (new york and oxford: oxford university press) 13940; nora levin, the holocaust: the destruction of european jewry 1937-1945 (new york: crowell, 1968), 531. 3 actes et documents 8:458. 4 see yehuda bauer, a history of the holocaust (new york: franklin watts) 310-11; and livia rothkirchen, “vatican policy and the ‘jewish problem’ in ‘independent’ slovakia (1939-1945), in yad vashem studies 6 (1967): 27-53. madigan, has the papacy ‘owned’ vatican guilt? madigan cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): madigan cp 1-18 the safest refuge of all the persecuted. those words were loaded, then, with impossible pathos and, now, with an irony its desperately sincere writers could not have intended. surely they could not have foreseen that, sixty years later, the recipient of their letter would be excoriated by critics for near-criminal passivity in crisis and even, by some, for complicity in judeocide. nor could they possibly have imagined that, far from being celebrated as a haven for the tyrannized, the vatican and the pope in particular, had been so severely criticized for cold and craven wartime conduct that one writer, a catholic at that, would dare to christen him “hitler’s pope.”5 actually, so harsh a judgment was unthinkable not only in 1942 but through the early 1960s. in fact, for the fifteen years after the war, pius was almost everywhere celebrated as a courageous antagonist of nazi racial theory and policy, a benefactor of victims of war and compassionate collaborator—indeed, leader—in resistance and rescue efforts on behalf of jewish civilians threatened with deportation. on the occasion of his death, no less a figure than golda meir, then foreign minister of the state of israel, eulogized him thus: “when fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of nazi terror, the voice of the pope was raised for the victims. the life of our times was enriched by a voice speaking out on the great moral truths.”6 similar sentiments were expressed at the same time by others, including president eisenhower and moshe sharett, the first foreign minister of israel, as well as albert einstein. (let me just observe incidentally that pius’ wartime defenders have made much of these jewish and israeli statements, which hardly justify their claim, often heard, that they prove that pius saved hundreds of thousands of jewish lives.) if opinion among leaders of the allied governments during the war was not nearly so univocal or enthusiastic, the chorus of praise after the war and into the early 1960s was virtually unqualified. the chorus did not exactly stop singing in the 1960s. but its numbers were depleted and its performances unceremoniously interrupted by the loud dissenting voice of the german playwright rolf hochhuth. in 1963 hochhuth staged a play entitled der stellvertreter. (translated as the deputy or the representative, the title is a sarcastic twist on the papal claim to be vicarius christi, i.e., representative of christ on earth. recently, hochhuth has inexplicably befriended david irving, the infamous british holocaust denier).7 in the play, pius appears on stage pontificating about the wickedness of the allies, whose bombing had ruined parts of the artistic patrimony of rome. the germans, he observes, were friendlier than the cold allies whose bombs had demolished san lorenzo, an ancient basilica in rome. then, while the pope is murmuring about how the allied invasion had depreciated the value of stocks the vatican had invested in, an emissary of kurt gerstein8 bursts into the room to tell the holy father about the death camps in poland. pius waves him off and continues to execrate the allies. while perhaps successful literarily, this picture of the pope even pius’s critics find crude; and, in fact, the picture hochhuth draws cannot, without considerable misrepresentation, or dramatic license, be reconstructed from the documents and from eyewitnesses. not to mention that, as michael novak once observed, “the play drew moral attention away from hitler and moral pressure away from germany.”9 be that as it may, the play was simply a smashing popular 5 john cromwell, hitler’s pope: the secret history of pius xii (new york: viking, 1999). 6 michael o’carroll, pius xii: greatness dishonoured (chicago: franciscan herald press, 1980) 149 n. 76. 7 der stellvertreter (reinbek bei hamburg: rowohlt, 1963); the deputy, trans. by richard and clara winston (baltimore: johns hopkins university press, 1997). 8 gerstein, discussed below, pp. xx-xx, was the ss colonel who attempted to inform ecclesiastical authorities in berlin of the death camps. 9 michael novak, “pius xii as scapegoat,” first things 105 (august/september 2000): 20-22, 20. madigan, has the papacy ‘owned’ vatican guilt? madigan cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): madigan cp 1-18 success. aside from being staged in virtually all of the countries of the west and translated into more than 20 languages, it inspired more than 450 reviews and articles in english alone, the best of which have been anthologized in a volume whose title says it all about the impact of the play: the storm over the deputy.10 more importantly, the pius that most people knew in the 1960s—and, i think, the one still known today—is the one that is traceable to the play or its influence: a cold, calculating pope, scandalously callous in the face of unspeakable suffering, cynical and supine in the face of crimes that, had he intervened with moral force and courage, he might have prevented. as hochhuth, in an article he wrote on his own play, put it, severely: “perhaps never before in history have so many people paid with their lives for the passivity of one single politician.”11 (pretty cheeky for a german playwright.) in 1958, then, pius enjoyed a reputation as a moral hero; five years later he had transmogrified, as one of his defenders has said, into the hero of a black legend (légende noire).12 in 1963, the church had just entered a new and unprecedented phase of self-examination and doctrinal and institutional reconstruction. it was a time when the bitter criticism expressed by hochhuth and felt by millions was allowed to sting, a time at which such criticism was no longer reactively dismissed as the venom of the hostile and unchurched. for many, the hochhuth play had raised painful questions about the role of the catholic church at all levels—papal, diplomatic, episcopal, clerical, religious and lay—during the holocaust, questions which led to even more agonizing reflections on the credibility of christianity itself. if christianity, or at least catholicism, could be so passive in the moment of truth—if, indeed, two millennia of ecclesiastically-sponsored anti-judaism had paved the way for the kind of nonchalance that allowed catholics to observe without pity the spectacle of “non-aryan” neighbors being cruelly expropriated and deported to god knew where—well, how could it answer for itself? in this new atmosphere of self-criticism—and also undoubtedly with the self-interested hope that the caricatures of vatican activity during the war would be disciplined by historically-verifiable data—pope paul vi, who had been a second-in-command in the vatican secretariat of state during the war years, waived the usually-mandatory 75-year delay in granting access to the vatican archives and appointed a team of four jesuit scholars resident in rome to select and publish the acts and documents of the holy see connected to the second world war. the result was an eleven-volume collection of documents, mostly dispatches and telegrams sent between the vatican and its international network of nunciatures and legations; it also contains memoranda and some extremely valuable private notes written by the upper-echelon staff in the secretary of state’s office.13 while not without their flaws—the editors regrettably chose not to publish a number of crucially informative documents, and there have been questions about their principle of selection that only the unlikely opening of the archives is now capable of quieting—the volumes are an immense contribution to scholarship and a positively indispensable foundation for any scholar or writer wishing to address the questions of what the vatican knew about the final solution and when, what it did with this knowledge and why it acted as it did. it is all the more perplexing, then, that over the fifteen or so years during which these documents were published and in the 10 edited by eric bentley (new york: grove press, 1964). see also the extremely perceptive essay of leonidas e. hill, “history and rolf hochhuth’s the deputy,” in from an ancient modern theatre, ed. by r.g. collins (winnipeg: university of manitoba press, 1972) pp. 145-57. 11 quoted by anthony rhodes, the vatican in the age of dictators, (new york: holt, rinehart and winston), 348. 12 pierre blet, s.j., pius xii and the second world war: according to the archives of the vatican (n.y. and mahwah, n.j.: paulist press, 1999) 1. 13 see footnote 1 for bibliographical information. madigan, has the papacy ‘owned’ vatican guilt? madigan cp 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): madigan cp 1-18 three decades since the last of the eleven volumes came out, they have been largely unused by those who have entered the debate, both by pius’s defenders and critics. many of the latter— especially those who have, not without justification, demanded that the vatican open its archives—are, i am convinced, simply unaware that these volumes exist. it is little wonder that judah graubhart was moved to comment, as early as 1975, that there were “few issues in the historiography of the holocaust that are colored by more emotion and based on less knowledge than the vatican’s response to the ‘final solution to the jewish question.’”14 too true. hardly predictable then, and all the more regrettable now, is that the debate has turned, in the past ten years, not just emotional but venomous; some of the least measured and even vindictive discussion has come from restorationist catholics and catholic organizations and periodicals commonly recognized as “right-wing” or “conservative” and those using the debate over pius as a transparent attempt to reverse the reforms of vatican ii. meanwhile, the number of detractors and defenders has multiplied wildly.15 neither side, with notable exceptions, has distinguished itself by deep immersion in—or even superficial familiarity with—the published documents upon which any informed historical or moral judgment must be made. among the very most passionate participants in the debate have been those who, since the publication of the hochhuth play, have indignantly risen to the defense of pius, whom they regard as the victim of ignorant polemicists and shoddy scholarship. “in the twenty-two years since pius xii died,” the spiritan priest michael o’carroll could write in 1980 in a volume subtitled greatness dishonoured, “the falsehood and misrepresentation published about [pius xii] are possibly unique in biographical literature of the same years.” if it is obvious that carroll could not have read the countless publications defending pius published in the 90s, carroll and others have argued that pius did and said, if, admittedly, sotto voce, more on behalf of imperilled jews than is ordinarily known or admitted; could not have done more than he did for fear of reprisal, not just against the holy see but especially against the victims whose suffering he was presumptively attempting to relieve; and, most dubiously in my view, did not know the full truth about the massacres in the soviet union and especially the polish death camps until after the war.”16 in 1998, john paul ii published a document, which was actually written by a committee headed by edward cardinal cassidy, president of the holy see's commission for religious relations with the jews. it was entitled we remember: a reflection on the shoah. in a preface to the document, pope john paul ii expressed his hope that it would "help to heal the wounds of past misunderstandings and injustices." ten years after the publication of the document, it seems now possible to conclude that, however sincere the vatican's intentions, the pope's hopes will almost certainly not be realized. indeed, far from healing, the document succeeded largely in reopening, if not actually deepening, old wounds. not only did it divide the catholic intellectual and journalistic communities; more importantly it bewildered and frustrated many jewish readers and bitterly disappointed others. it also called forth a literary response from jewish intellectuals and organizations that, while especially vigorous in the immediate wake of the document's 14 “the vatican and the jews: cynicism and indifference,” judaism 24 (1975): 168-80, p. 168. 15 john s. conway, “records and documents of the holy see relating to the second world war,” yad vashem studies 15 (1983): 327-45, p. 332. 16 michael carroll, pius xii, p. 11. for a contrary view, particularly of that last point, see kevin madigan, “the vatican and the final solution: what was known and when?” in ethics in the shadow of the holocaust, ed. john pawlikowski (chicago: sheed and ward, 2001): 175-209; slightly revised version reprinted in commentary 112/3 (october 2001): 43-52. madigan, has the papacy ‘owned’ vatican guilt? madigan cp 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): madigan cp 1-18 publication, had force and feeling to last more than a year. why this should be the case may be traceable to the hope generated by the document issued by the french bishops. the french bishops' statement one way to interpret the vatican document and isolate what was distinctive and disappointing about it for so many is to compare it to prior ecclesiastical statements on the holocaust and the church. probably none of the many documents issued by the various national episcopal conferences of the church better allows us to appreciate by contrast the reaction to the vatican document than the one issued in october of 1997 by france's roman catholic clergy.17 the impact of this strongly worded and, it certainly seemed to both catholic and jewish auditors, strongly felt apology was magnified both by the place and time at which it was given, as well as by the identity of those present at the declaration. the place was the grounds of drancy, memorialized in a plaque there that calls it "the antechamber of death." in 1942 it began serving as the transit camp from which many of the seventy-six thousand jews who would ultimately be deported from france boarded cattle cars destined for auschwitz. among the thousand jews and christians present at drancy for the french declaration of repentance was jean-marie lustiger. the late lustiger was a catholic; he was, in fact, the cardinal-archbishop of paris. seventy years ago, however, he was a young jewish boy menaced by the pro-nazi government of france, which separated him from his mother. she, once detained, would pass through drancy on her way to the gas chambers in auschwitz. the timing of the apology was also carefully planned in several ways. aside from coinciding with the celebration of the jewish new year, its delivery came fifty-seven years after the passage of marshall petain's so-called "jewish laws," which not only banned jews from the major professions and discriminated against jews in a variety of other ways—indeed, in some ways more harshly than the nuremberg laws had against the jews of germany—but also facilitated census-taking by vichy officials, which in turn made it easy for police to track down french jews for detention and deportation.18 second, the apology virtually coincided with the trial of maurice papon, a former police supervisor from bordeaux charged with signing the orders that led to the deportation of some seventeen hundred jews, including hundreds of children.19 thus, at the very moment the french government was trying the highest-ranking vichy official ever accused of complicity in crimes against humanity, the french bishops were, in effect, delivering a verdict on self-imposed charges that ecclesiastical docility (their word) in the face of catastrophe had caused the church not just to be complicit in these crimes but, in so doing, to have violated divine laws and to have failed in its divinely ordained mission. 17 “declaration of repentance,” in catholics remember the holocaust, 31-37. page numbers for quotations from this document will be cited in parentheses in the text. for the french original, see, “les évèques de france et le statut des juifs sous le régime de vichy,” la documentation catholique 21/68 (october 19, 11997). statements by the hungarian, german, polish, dutch, swiss and italian bishops are also included in the volume catholics remember the holocaust. 18 see michael r. marrus and robert o. paxton, vichy france and the jews (new york: basic books, 1981). 19 papon was later elevated to budget minister under valéry giscard d’estaing. this naturally, did much to embarrass the republic’s pretenses to being a wholly distinct entity from vichy, a distinction that had been exploited by both church and state to avoid an honest confrontation with the past. papon also made international headlines on october 20, 1999 for having fled france rather than serve his ten-year prison sentence. he would soon be discovered hiding in switzerland. madigan, has the papacy ‘owned’ vatican guilt? madigan cp 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): madigan cp 1-18 to these serious charges, the french bishops plead, with sober and quite unambiguous clarity, guilty. in fact, the french episcopal document is—especially for those accustomed to the genteel circumlocution of many roman episcopal documents—almost shockingly direct, selfcritical and precise in responding to the question: exactly who in the church was guilty of moral dereliction? throughout, the guilty parties are identified as "priests," "leaders," "church officials," "the hierarchy," and "the bishops of france.20 if the french bishops were blunt about the identity of the guilty ecclesiastical parties, they were no less direct on the issue of how their predecessors had failed. in their view, the french bishops generally failed—they say sinned (36)—above all by their silence (a word used many times in the document), especially in the immediate wake of the publication of the anti-jewish laws. "silence," the bishops confess, "was the rule" and words "in favor of the victims the exception" (35). if the bishops' preoccupation with institutional continuity in a time of insecurity was legitimate in itself, their "docility," "conformity," and "loyalism" caused them to ignore the biblical imperative to respect every human creature in the image of god (32). "ecclesiastical interests, understood in an overly restrictive sense," the bishops say, "took priority over the demands of conscience" (33). the moral and political consequences of this silence were profound. their predecessors' silence, the bishops declare, made them "acquiescent" in "flagrant violations of human rights" and left an open field for the spiral of death (33). their predecessors failed to recognize that they had "considerable power and influence" (32) when the anti-jewish laws were promulgated. although there were "countless acts of courage later on," they should, they admit, have offered help immediately, when protest and protection were possible and necessary (32). among other things, the impact of a public statement from them would have been amplified not only by their moral position in french society but by "the silence of other institutions" (32). indeed, the impact of a public statement, the bishops conclude, might have forestalled an irreparable catastrophe. it is important to observe here by way of brief anticipation that this is precisely the kind of confession the vatican document did not make. some jewish commentators, including robert wistrich and roger cohen, observed that this move is even more remarkable when it is remembered that several french bishops, including archbishop jean-geraud saliège of toulouse (who declared in august 1942, "the jews are our brothers...and no christian can forget this fact"), cardinal gerlier of lyon, and bishop pierre-marie théas of montauban, spoke out strongly against the vichy regime in the wake of the roundup of jews by the french police in july 1942.21 their stand, cohen observed, stimulated french resistance activity and contributed to the survival of three-quarters of france's jewish population, many of whom were sheltered by french catholics. in general, wistrich has observed, the record of the french episcopate is, while far from unimpeachable, favorable compared to that of the german bishops. news of the declaration led television newscasts and made the front page of many french newspapers. if jean-marie le pen, leader of france's rightist national front party, was heard to comment (not unpredictably) that the statement was "absolutely scandalous," and if bishop jean-charles thomas of versailles, who was present at the ceremony, complained that "old sensibilities were going to be severely ruffled,"22 jewish reaction to this document was overwhelmingly positive. cohen, for example, called the french episcopal declaration "an expression of remorse more complete, more uncompromising and anguished than anything previously pronounced by the 20 see “declaration of repentance,” passim. 21 robert wistrich, “the pope, the church and the jews,” commentary 107, no. 4 (april 1999); r. cohen, “french catholic church apologizes for silence on the holocaust,” new york times, october 1, 1997. 22 “french catholic church apologizes,” new york times, october 1, 1997. madigan, has the papacy ‘owned’ vatican guilt? madigan cp 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): madigan cp 1-18 church.23 "your words of repentance constitute a major turning point," said henri hajdenberg, president of the representative council of jewish institutions, who was present at the declaration. "your request for forgiveness is so intense, so powerful, so poignant, that it can't but be heard by the surviving victims and their children."24 however, other jewish observers present at drancy, such as serge klarsfeld, president of the sons and daughters of deported french jews, perceptively observed that so candid and heartfelt a statement of repentance would "put pressure on the vatican" to make "its public declaration on the holocaust" and to make it good.25 six months later, the vatican did indeed publish its own declaration of repentance, though to far less enthusiastic reviews. we remember the document begins by describing the nazi genocide as "an unspeakable tragedy"(48), one which the church is urged never to forget. the church is especially to remember it "by reason of her very close bonds of spiritual kinship with the jewish people" (48) and also because of "her remembrance of the injustices of the past"(48). the document also acknowledges right at the start that the shoah took place in "countries of long-standing christian civilization" (49) and so it immediately raises the question of the relation between the holocaust and christian attitudes to jews over the centuries. the tormented relations of jews and christians through the ages the document ascribes to "erroneous and unjust interpretations of the new testament in the christian world" (49). it then hastens to distinguish these interpretations from those held by "the church as such" (49) and observes that these interpretations "have been totally and definitively rejected by the second vatican council" (49). the document also distinguishes, with a sharpness jewish commentators almost unanimously found objectionable, between the anti-judaism of which many christians have historically been guilty and modern anti-semitism. the latter, it argues, is a nineteenth-century development more sociological and political than religious in origin. indeed, it owes its genesis in part to "a false and exacerbated nationalism" (50) and to theories which "denied the unity of the human race" (50) and were used in nazi germany to distinguish between the so-called nordic-aryan races and other supposedly inferior ones. nazi anti-semitism, refusing to acknowledge as it did any transcendent reality as the source of life and the criterion of moral good, was "the work of a thoroughly modern neo-pagan regime. ”its anti-semitism had its roots outside of christianity" (50; emphasis mine), the document proclaimed. indeed, in pursuing its aims, it did not hesitate to oppose the church and persecute her members also. nonetheless, the document does ask if the nazi persecution wasn't "made easier by the anti-jewish prejudices imbedded in some christian minds and hearts" (52), rendering christians "less sensitive, or even indifferent" (52) to persecutions launched by the nazis. "did christians give every possible assistance to those being persecuted and in particular to the persecuted jews?" (52) to the bewilderment of some, the document states that "many people" were "altogether unaware of the 'final solution'" (52)—a statement whose inclusion in the document can now be questioned on historical as well as diplomatic grounds. still, it goes on, if "many" individuals gave every possible assistance even to the point of placing their own lives in danger, the behavior of the rest "was not that which might have been expected from christ's followers" (53). passing from the individual to the collective level, the document is cheekily critical of "the 23 ibid. 24 marilyn august, “french bishops make unprecedented apology for world war ii silence,” associated press, october 1, 1997. 25 “french catholic church apologizes,” new york times, october 1, 1997. madigan, has the papacy ‘owned’ vatican guilt? madigan cp 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): madigan cp 1-18 governments of some western countries of christian tradition" (52) which hesitated to open their borders to persecuted jews, even though the "leaders of those nations were aware of the hardships and dangers to which jews living in the greater reich were exposed" (52). the church therefore deeply regrets "the errors and failures of those sons and daughters of the church" (53). this, the document says, is to be understood as an act of teshuvah (54). at the same time, the document insists that those individuals and institutions that heroically resisted nazism must not be forgotten. in one sentence that actually has not elicited much comment, the document observed of the german church's response to nazism, that "it replied by condemning racism" (50)—surely one of the cruder and even erroneous statements in the document. it singles out cardinals bertram of breslau and faulhaber of munich, as well as regional episcopal conferences, for criticism of nazi anti-semitic propaganda and celebrates bernard lichtenberg's public prayer for jews in the wake of kristallnacht. (lichtenberg would pay for his courage by being shipped to dachau; he died en route.) similarly, it acknowledges pius xi's encyclical mit brennender sorge,26 read in german churches in 1937, and quotes his famous assertion, delivered to belgian pilgrims in september 1938, that "[spiritually we are all semites" (50-51). much more controversially, the document celebrated pius xii not only for warning, in his very first encyclical (summi pontificatus),27 against theories which "denied the unity of the human race and the deification of the state," but for "all that he had done" either personally or through representatives to save hundreds of thousands of jewish lives" (53). then, in a footnote, roughly ten times longer than the next longest footnote, we remember documents the praise by jewish leaders given to "the wisdom of pius xii's diplomacy," quoting, among others, golda meir (55-56, note 16).28 positive jewish reaction a number of jewish commentators, even those who were critical of certain elements of the document, nonetheless praised it as a whole and for its good intentions. wistrich spoke for many in observing that "whatever one's final judgment" on the document, "one cannot but commend both its tone and its basic aims."29 similarly, michael berenbaum, then of the survivors of the shoah visual history foundation remarked: "jews didn't get everything they wanted, but what they got was so significant."30 yehuda bauer, head of the holocaust research institute at yad vashem and professor of holocaust studies at hebrew university, concluded: "the document has to be evaluated positively."31 contradicting the sentiments of many jewish commentators, who called the vatican document a step backward,32 dr. jonathan sacks, the chief rabbi of britain, celebrated we remember as "a step forward."33 these sentiments were 26 dated march 14, 1937. see acta apostolicae sedis 29 (1937): 145-67. 27 dated october 20, 1939. see acta apostolicae sedis 31 (1939): 413-53. 28 the vatican was also presumably relying on the testimony of the former israeli consul pinchas e. lapide, who estimated that the church under pius was instrumental in saving the lives of 860,000 jews, or at least in preserving that many from nazi detainment in the camps. see three popes and the jews (new york: hawthorn books), 214. 29 “the pope, the church and the jews,” 24. 30 thomas o’dwyer, “vatican’s struggle to save the church’s soul,” jerusalem post, march 23, 1998. 31 ibid. 32 to give just one example: rabbi leon klenicki, director of the department of interfaith affairs of the antidefamation league, commented, “the document falls short of the mark; it’s taking a step backward.” bbc news, march 16, 1998. 33 “vatican apology to jews ‘rings hollow’,” the times, march 17, 1998. madigan, has the papacy ‘owned’ vatican guilt? madigan cp 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): madigan cp 1-18 echoed in substance by france's grand rabbi joseph sitruk, who observed that his disappointment was blunted by his excellent rapport with the bishops of france and their courageous statement.34 more specifically, some jewish groups, like the american jewish committee and the tanenbaum center for interreligious understanding, hailed the vatican document, one hopes not too optimistically, for rendering impossible the obscenity of holocaust denial among catholics in the next century. rabbi a. james rudin, who was at the time interreligious affairs director of the american jewish committee and a member of the international jewish committee on interreligious consultations, remarked that "50, 75, 100 years from now, there can never be any doubt that the holocaust took place, because here is a definitive statement from the catholic church by a pope from poland."35 finally, david gordis, then president of hebrew college, argued that "the statement must not be read in isolation but in the context of an extraordinary and epochal change in the catholic church's teaching and behavior...if read in the context of history, the document 'represents both a true act of xn repentance and an act of teshuvah' "— sentiments echoed by rabbi david rosen, director of the anti-defamation league in israel, who read the document as a step in a continuing process of ecclesiastical self-criticism and repentance.36 critical jewish reaction despite these expressions of generalized approval, jewish reaction to this document was largely negative. lord janner, of britain's holocaust educational trust, confessed that he was "deeply disappointed" and denounced we remember as an "unworthy document."37 ignatz bubis, chairman of germany's central council of jews, likewise condemned the document as "completely unsatisfactory."38 many jewish commentators expressed frustration that the document as a whole was so nebulous, so equivocal, so partial, and so euphemistically formulated that it amounted to a lower-order sort of denial. robert rifkind, president of the american jewish committee, commented: "it only begins to address many issues and questions concerning the role of the catholic church in the evolution of antisemitism throughout the ages and its culmination in the holocaust."39 phil baum, executive director of the american jewish congress, likewise observed: "without derogating from the church's efforts at atonement, some of the most troubling questions of responsibility and complicity in those horrendous events still have not been addressed.40 and israel's chief rabbi, israel lau, said: "we expected a more specific apology," one that was less equivocal about "the silence of the christian world and those who headed it during the holocaust."41 as these comments suggest, the problem here really is the diplomatic and legalistic character of the document. indeed, one of the main reasons this document touched such a nerve is undoubtedly that many jews sensed, as holocaust survivor pierre sauvage tells us he did, in its feebleness and vagueness an expression of diplomatic hesitation, equivocation, and timidity all too painfully redolent of papal attitudes toward nazi policy during the war.42 as efraim zuroff, 34 “leading rabbi defends vatican on holocaust,” the irish times, march 18, 1998. 35 “world jewish group chastises vatican’s shoah stance,” jewish telegraphic agency, september 4, 1998. this is a point rudin made in an interview on the news hour with jim lehrer, april 8, 1998. 36 richard owen, “vatican apology to jews ‘rings hollow’,” the times, march 17, 1998. 37 bbc news, march 16, 1998. 38 “leading rabbi defends vatican on holocaust,” the irish times, march 18, 1998. 39 w. drozdiak, “vatican gives formal apology for inaction during holocaust,” washington post, march 17, 1998. 40 american jewish congress press release, march 16, 1998. 41 anton la guardia, “jews cool on apology,” the age, march 18, 1998. 42 “an equivocal apology hurts more than it heals,” los angeles times, march 20, 1998. madigan, has the papacy ‘owned’ vatican guilt? madigan cp 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): madigan cp 1-18 director of the israel office of the simon wiesenthal center, has bluntly put it, "the statement still lacks the guts that would make it satisfactory."43 some commentators felt particularly and painfully surprised by these features of the document, ironically in part because of the perceived excellence of john paul ii’s record on jewish-christian relations. abraham foxman, national director of the anti-defamation league and a holocaust survivor, for example, observed, "we expected more from this pontiff, who has been so courageous in reconciling the church with the jewish people."44 other commentators noted that expectations had been heightened by the french catholic bishops' document. elan steinberg, executive director of the world jewish congress argued, that we remember compared unfavorably both with it and with the apology issued by the german bishops' conference.45 in terms of specific criticisms, virtually all jewish commentators faulted the document for failing to acknowledge the deep connection between ecclesiastically sponsored anti-judaism and the anti-semitism that achieved such disastrous expression in the shoah. foxman, for example, observed: "two thousand years of teaching contempt of jews by the church was part of the underpinning of the holocaust. the people who killed jews during the day,” he observed pointedly, then went to church on sunday...they were not aberrations. they were part and parcel of what western civilization was."46 bauer noted that, despite the examples of catholic heroism, "it is still true that the vast majority of individual priests and catholic faithful were completely indifferent, or downright hostile to jews" and that this indifference is traceable to the twothousand-year-old tradition of contempt for the jews.47 zuroff added that doctrinal anti-semitism "enabled catholics" not simply to be passive or indifferent but to participate in the holocaust, not only in germany, but "more especially in places like lithuania and croatia," where the nazis almost effortlessly found enthusiastic collaboration.48 in short, nazi ideology, policy, and genocide all presupposed a cultural framework that had been fashioned," as wistrich has summarized the matter, "by centuries of medieval christian theology, ecclesiastical policy and popular religious myth."49 however, it was over we remember's flawed portrayal of the hierarchy as ever-heroic and compassionate that created the most profound frustration for jewish commentators. while most of them focused on the picture of pius xii, a few, though very few, found unconvincing and even offensive the portrayal of the german bishops lionized for their heroism. if the document was surely right to honor the memory of bernard lichtenberg, they thought, for speaking out from his berlin cathedral pulpit against anti-jewish atrocity—actions that eventually led to his perishing on a train en route to dachau—it attempted to distort the facts by mentioning cardinals faulhaber of munich and bertram of breslau in the same breath with the martyred provost lichtenberg of berlin cathedral. robert wistrich talks at some length about the ambiguous legacy of both of these princes of the church, and then, widening his scope to the german episcopate in general, observes that their elevation is anomalously accompanied in the document by "utter silence about the german church's acquiescence and, at times, complicity in the 43 “vatican’s struggle,” jerusalem post, march 23, 1998. 44 diego ribadeneira, “vatican falls short of jewish hopes,” boston globe, march 17, 1998. 45 bbc news, march 16, 1998. this was a point made from the catholic point of view by notre dame theologian richard mcbrien in an interview on the news hour with jim lehrer, april 8, 1998: “the bar has been raised in recent years. this document does not ‘acknowledge the guilt of the church as such’.” 46 “vatican falls short,” boston globe, march 17, 1998. 47 “vatican’s struggle,” jerusalem post, march 23, 1998. 48 ibid.. 49 wistrich, “the pope, the church and the jews,” 24. madigan, has the papacy ‘owned’ vatican guilt? madigan cp 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): madigan cp 1-18 shoah."50 unlike their counterparts in france, belgium, italy, and holland, wistrich observes, leaders of the german catholic church, "rather than attempting to guide their flock, tamely chose to follow it."51 they accepted the nuremberg race laws and offered virtually no protest in the wake oí kristallnacht. worse still, the german catholic church collaborated with the nazis in helping to establish who in the third reich was of jewish descent.52 at best, wistrich concludes, the german bishops were disastrously naive; at worst, they were complicit in genocide. either way, they should not have been candidates for glorification in we remember. still, the criticism of the vatican document for its portrayal of the german bishops was rare— and mild compared to the ubiquitously critical response evoked by its image of pope pius xii. virtually no jewish commentator, even those who responded favorably to we remember as a whole, applauded the document for its representation of pius, and very, very few spoke favorably of his activities on behalf of menaced jews during the war. in fact, the responses to these aspects of the document were, for all intents and purposes, uniformly negative. the only complexities and distinctions came in the degree of criticism, ranging from the view that, in this respect, the document was soft, defensive, or partial to the view that it was mendacious and insulting to readers, to historical memory, and to the victims. typical of this latter view was the opinion of meir lau, who, perhaps too harshly, commented of the pope that, "[h]is silence cost millions of human lives."53 zuroff described we remember as "a total cop-out" on the role of pope pius xii and also adds he "could have saved millions."54 b'nai brith international president tommy baer remarked that the document "sadly attempts to varnish the controversial wartime conduct of pope pius xii."55 if the american jewish congress does not go that far, it certainly was not alone in finding the portrait of pius as a tireless and heroic laborer on behalf of menaced jews wildly exaggerated and even false. so far from being tireless, it observed, he was virtually passive. as phil baum put it: "the historical record does not allow us to disregard the harsh fact of the refusal of important church leaders to take even those minimal steps of compassion and rescue that were clearly within their power to provide."56 as for the claim that pius xii saved hundreds of thousands of jewish lives, many called for at least some documentary evidence to support that claim.57 robert wistrich was certainly not alone in observing that, while we may never know exactly how many jewish lives he was responsible for saving, "the number is almost certainly far smaller than that implied by the vatican."58 50 “the pope, the church and the jews,” 25. wistrich observes that cardinal bertram of breslau, ranking prelate in german catholicism throughout the period of the third reich, condemned nazism in print in 1931, but after hitler rose to power his objections became “increasingly timid and inaudible.” never did cardinal bertram speak out (as lichtenberg had) from the pulpit, and he celebrated a solemn requiem mass for hitler shortly after his suicide. 51 ibid. 52 the supply of genealogical records was crucial to the nazi genocide and continued through the war years, a fact that has led some historians to place certain ecclesiastical officials in the category of “perpetrator.” 53 “vatican gives formal apology,” washington post, march 17, 1998. 54 “vatican’s struggle,” jerusalem post, march 23, 1998. 55 rabbi marvin hier, head of the simon wiesenthal center in los angeles, also remarked: “to take 10 years to study the critical question of the vatican’s role in the holocaust and not to criticize pius xii is in my view incredible.” see “vatican apology ‘too little, too late,’ jews say,” in the salt lake tribune, march 17, 1998. 56 “vatican falls short,” boston globe, march 17, 1998. 57 see, e.g., rudin, “reflections,” 521. 58 wistrich, “the pope, the church and the jews,” 26. madigan, has the papacy ‘owned’ vatican guilt? madigan cp 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): madigan cp 1-18 if few jewish commentators portrayed pius either as criminally complicit with the nazis or altogether passive in the face of atrocity, and fewer still as courageously heroic and active, many faulted him for extreme and naive caution and timidity. while acknowledging that pius's christmas message of 1942 does, in general terms, deplore the condemnation to death of hundreds of thousands solely because of their nation or race, wistrich, for one, has noticed that this was the protest that lasted "for the duration of a breath and mentioned neither jews, nor nazis nor any nazi ally."59 given the obvious ambiguity of this record, wistrich observes, it is odd that not only the vatican but many catholics have felt the need to defend him at all costs. after all, he notes (though not quite accurately), "no one is blaming the wartime pope or the catholic church for the destruction of european jewry, or even suggesting that pius xii could have done much to stop the slaughter. nor can one reasonably object to his quiet diplomacy where it did actually save the lives of jews and other victims of the nazis." but what is undeniable, he argues, is the "paucity of moral courage displayed by the vatican when it came to the fate of the jews."60 many jewish commentators have deplored pius's prudence and discretion. it was not a time, they agreed, for diplomats but for prophets.61 susannah heschel, in an article published in dissent,62 has argued that the vatican statement failed to come to grips with "the most damning piece of evidence" regarding the vatican: namely how it, or at least some of its priests, behaved at the end of the war. "pius xii might have been intimidated before the spring of 1945, but why did he remain silent after hitler's defeat?" the "most incriminating insight" into the vatican's real attitudes is its effort to secure safe passage out of europe for former ss officers being hunted by the allies. "no less a figure than franz stangl," former commandant at treblinka, wanted for the murder of nine hundred thousand people, was, heschel points out, "spirited to south america by an underground railroad of catholic priests, under the guidance of the vatican's own bishop, alois hudal." the "intriguing question is what might have motivated the vatican to assist those murderers. could it be that the vatican felt closer ties to the nazis than the jews? which lives did the church really want to save?"63 other commentators deplored the document's decision to point out that nazi hostility was expressed toward christianity as well as judaism. some saw it as a catholic attempt to appropriate the holocaust, a literary analogue to installing crosses outside of auschwitz. again, some perceived in this a subtle form of denial, for it cannot be forgotten that, if thousands of catholics died in the holocaust, the shoah was overwhelmingly a jewish, not a christian, catastrophe. 59 ibid. 60 ibid. 61 still, the process of beatification, the penultimate step to sanctification or canonization, has been going on for several years, under the leadership of the vatican’s father gumpel. a recent report, however, suggested that the church had decided to slow down the process toward sainthood. see “vatican slows beatification for pius xii— group,” reuters, october 27, 1999. the timing of this decision coincided with the widespread publicity given to the british journalist john cromwell’s controversial book, hitler’s pope: the secret history of pius xii (new york: viking, 1999). 62 see heschel, “the vatican and the holocaust,” dissent (summer, 1998): 113-14. 63 on this story, see gitta sereny: into that darkness (new york: vintage, 1983); phayer, “pope pius xii,” 233-56; and mark aarons and john loftus, unholy trinity (new york: st. martin’s, 1991. in the november 15, 1999, issue of u.s. news & world report, an article was published that suggests a soon-to-be-released argentine government report has confirmed the involvement of the vatican in seeking latin american visas for fleeing nazis, many made by the vatican secretariat of state. some were also made for vichy collaborators, and much intercession occurred on behalf of the ustasha criminals. the argentine report has not, however, yet been published. madigan, has the papacy ‘owned’ vatican guilt? madigan cp 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): madigan cp 1-18 finally, virtually all jewish commentators called on the vatican to open its archives to historians.64 baer declared: "we therefore call again on the vatican to tear down [its] archival wall and let the light of truth in for the world to see," adding that while not presuming to suggest what the archives may disclose, "suspicions can only continue to grow about what they may contain." "only when the vatican archives are opened to historians," heschel has said, "and the record set straight in all honesty, can a genuine catholic reflection on the shoah take place."65 in short, the overwhelming majority of jewish commentators expressed disappointment, ranging from mild to severe, with the document. their disappointment had several sources.66 first, both the perceived excellence of john paul ii's record on jewish-catholic relations and the candor and contrition expressed by the various national episcopal documents raised expectations that the vatican would issue a document which fully came to terms with its conduct during the war. few jewish commentators thought it did. many of them found themselves in agreement with catholic journalist peter steinfels, who remarked that the document read as if crafted by lawyers "whose job it was to protect catholicism from the theological equivalent of civil suits."67 indeed, it seems to many to be, in the most literal sense of the term, a jurisprudential document which constantly forced its genuine expressions of remorse to compete with its less honorable impulse to self-exoneration. so far as the theological flaws of the document are concerned, many jewish commentators found the main problem with we remember to be its reiterated distinction between "the church as such" and its sinful members. cardinal cassidy, in a reflection given two months after the publication of the document, and addressed to the vigorous and voluminous criticism that had already been published, insisted that the church as such did not refer to the hierarchy, and that the sinful sons and daughters of the church could include popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, and laity. but it is understandable that almost all jewish (and many catholic) readers felt—not only because of the intrinsically hierarchical and filial character of the sons and daughter language used here, but also because the heroes celebrated by name in we remember are, without exception, popes, bishops, and priests—that this theological distinction was an attempt to absolve the institutional church of blame, as was the distinction between historic, ecclesiastically sponsored anti-judaism and modern, secular anti-semitism. finally, the deepest frustrations of many jewish commentators come on historical grounds. of course, all recognized that we remember is not a historical analysis of the shoah. nonetheless, it did make historical statements, many of them shockingly selective and partial. in their eyes, nothing so undermined the credibility of the document as the selectivity and gross crudity of many of those statements, especially those connected with the behavior of the german episcopate and, especially, of pope pius xii. the historical statements made should either have been accurate and nuanced, many felt, or not included at all. the statements made created the 64 as did some prominent catholics, including john cardinal o’connor, archbishop of new york. see the jewish week, october 9, 1998. the vatican responded by declaring itself the judge of the timing and scope of archive accessibility. see eric j. greenberg, “vatican to u.s.: no archives,” in the jewish week, december 11, 1998. john morley, who has worked with the eleven volumes of diplomatic documents related to the war published by the vatican between 1965 and 1981 [actes et documentes du saint-siège relatifs à la second guerre mondiale, éd. pierre blet (vatican city: libreria editrice vaticana, 1965-1981)] has observed: “i fear sometimes that this contribution of the vatican to historical research has not been clearly appreciated. moreover, i suspect that the very existence of these primary sources is not as well known as it should be.” see morley, “we remember,” 6. 65 heschel, “the vatican and the holocaust,” 14. 66 “jews and catholics: beyond apologies,” first things 89 (january 1999): 20-25. page numbers for quotations from this article will be cited in the text. 67 “beliefs,” new york times, april 3, 1999. madigan, has the papacy ‘owned’ vatican guilt? madigan cp 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): madigan cp 1-18 impression that the church was primarily interested less in a courageous confrontation with its past than in prudent self-protection. even more seriously, they seemed to involve the church in a subtle, lower-order form of denial. worst of all, many perceived in the diplomatic waffling of the document a parallel to papal attitudes toward the jews and to nazi policy in the hour of extreme jewish agony. for these reasons, especially, i have to agree with most jewish commentators that a precious opportunity had been missed. benedict xvi we turn, briefly now, to the pope who has been in office for just over three years. but what a three years it has been. in september of 2006, pope benedict delivered a lecture in regensburg, in which he quoted a fourteenth century byzantine text, which said about islam: “show me just what muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman…”68 needless to say, that strained relations with the muslim world, which quite naturally found it profoundly offensive.69 benedict’s relationship with worldwide communities of jews started off auspiciously enough, though as prefect for the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, cardinal ratzinger had written and signed dominus iesus. it said of non-christian religions in general, and therefore of judaism implicitly, that: other traditions ''are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.''70 once reaction set in, john paul ii nimbly, if humiliatingly, had to backtrack once again and, in effect, to assert that the document did not mean to say what it had clearly meant to say. nonetheless, the holy father visited a synagogue in the united states at passover in 2008, and hopes were rekindled that relations between the roman catholic church and worldwide communities of jews would be repaired. those hopes were dashed when, months later, benedict gave every signal that he intended to proceed with the beatification of pius xii.71 it was not just individual jewish leaders who balked at this idea, which made him appear, again, not fully sensitive to the sufferings of the victims of the shoah and their descendants. even his own cardinals urged benedict to delay the beatification proceedings, as it would, or could, impair relations with jews and the state of israel. finally, he did, but not without first sowing a seed of doubt that would soon grow into a great mustard tree of anger, betrayal and bewilderment. those feelings, actually, first stirred when benedict circulated his apostolic letter summorum pontificum.72 in it, he gave greater latitude for the saying of the tridentine mass. as is well known, the tridentine rite contains a good friday prayer “for the jews…that god may remove the veil from their hearts, so that they too may acknowledge jesus christ our lord,” and goes on to implore god to heal their blindness.” not surprisingly, and again, not unfairly, jewish leaders and institutions were appalled. the adl went straight to the point, characterizing benedict’s decision to restore the tridentine rite, and thus the hurtful prayer, as “a body blow to jewish 68 the speech was given in september 2006 and was followed shortly by the customary apology, which emphasized that the pope was quoting michael paleologus, a 14th century emperor, as if that suggested the holy father did not agree with the quote. 69 see bbc news, 16, september 2006. 70 see dominus iesus 6.22 at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith.documents/_rc_con_cfaith_doc _20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html . 71 “benedict backs beatification for pius xii,” catholic news, october 6-10, 2008. 72 complete text in latin found at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_benxvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum_lt.html . madigan, has the papacy ‘owned’ vatican guilt? madigan cp 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith.documents/_rc_con_cfaith_doc%20%20_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith.documents/_rc_con_cfaith_doc%20%20_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum_lt.html http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum_lt.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): madigan cp 1-18 catholic relations.”73 some jewish leaders felt that this represented a reversal of vatican ii’s landmark document nostra aetate,74 which rejected the historic (and lethal) charge of deicide and inaugurated a new and increasingly flourishing relationship between the two communities.75 following concern expressed by jewish leaders, a statement issued by the holy father attempted to assure jews that the prayer did not indicate a change "in the catholic church's regard for the jews." it also affirmed that nostra aetate "presents the fundamental principles guiding catholic relations with the jewish people."76 that seemed to calm the waters. nonetheless, it is frustrating for catholics to witness their spiritual head constantly blundering and repeatedly back-pedaling. no more serious blunder occurred than when in january 2009, a few days before holocaust memorial day, benedict chose to rehabilitate four schismatic bishops from the traditionalist (some say ultraconservative) society of pius x. as is well known, the society was founded in 1970 by the french archbishop marcel lefebvre. he founded it in order to resist what he perceived to be the excessively liberalizing reforms of vatican ii. estimates suggest the society’s membership includes 600 priests and is nearing half a million followers. more importantly, they are not only opposed to the liturgical changes and collegiality promoted by the council but also to its relations with other religious traditions, including judaism. they are expressly opposed to the reforms of vatican ii. the four rehabilitated bishops had been excommunicated by pope john paul ii after levebvre consecrated them irregularly, that is, with no approval or mandate from the papacy. benedict declared that he had rehabilitated the bishops as an attempt at unifying the church and as a first step in welcoming them fully back into the church; but it was hard not to perceive it as an attempt to nudge it even further to the right or, using a chronological rather than a directional metaphor, back past the reforms initiated during the years of vatican ii. initially, no concession was demanded of any of the four bishops. none would have to accept nostra aetate, nor liturgy in the vernacular, nor collegiality—in short, none of the reforms for which the council had been called and achieved. but that would change as the curious thoughts on the holocaust of one of them came to light. one of the four bishops rehabilitated was richard williamson, a briton, who had a history of holocaust denial—and as early as one month before the rehabilitation had denied the existence of nazi gas chambers in an interview on swiss television. he restated his conviction that no more than 300,000 jews had died in the holocaust. williams was director of a seminary in, of all places, argentina, that haven for eichmann, mengele and other nazi war criminals. in the subsequent interview published in der spiegel, williamson initially refused to distance himself from his views and refused an invitation to visit auschwitz, where, as we all know, remains of the gas chambers exist. he would, he said, have to do more research before changing his views. late in january, 2009 the vatican announced that williamson’s history of holocaust-denying statements took them by surprise, and the pope from germany in particular was unaware of that history.77 he was not the only one surprised. 73 “pope’s statements raise concerns about interfaith relations,” forward 20, july 2007. 74 online at the vatican website at: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_deci_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html. 75 see jerusalem post, 16 april 2008 (online at http://jpost.com/servlet/satellite?cid=1208246578945_&page name=jpost%2fjparticle%2fshowfull . 76 “some jews still upset as pope readies u.s. visit,” jewish journal, 20 april 2008. 77 it soon emerged that some of williamson’s german colleagues had also made antisemitic statements in the past. see spiegel international, 26 august 2009. some had said that the jews had to convert to christianity; another blamed the decay in moral values over the past centuries to the jews. madigan, has the papacy ‘owned’ vatican guilt? madigan cp 16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_deci_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_deci_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html http://jpost.com/servlet/satellite?cid=1208246578945_&page%20name=jpost%2fjparticle%2fshowfull http://jpost.com/servlet/satellite?cid=1208246578945_&page%20name=jpost%2fjparticle%2fshowfull studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): madigan cp 1-18 amazingly, cardinal walter kasper, a german who is the director for the pontifical council for promoting christian unity, and the vatican liaison for catholic-jewish relations, was blindsided by events. he told the press that he had not been consulted before the decision of the pope. this enormous bureaucratic blunder, and insult to kasper, the eirenic cardinal labeled “management errors”78 and blamed no one. as one followed this story, it became increasingly difficult to distinguish truth from face-saving falsehood, though i do not doubt that kasper, at least, was staggered by the scandalous revelations. the vatican secretary of state demanded that williamson recant his views in an unequivocal and public manner. his apology, when it finally came, concluded: “to all souls that took honest scandal from what i said, before god i apologize.” the vatican’s chief spokesman, father federico lombardi immediately responded, saying that the apology had hardly fulfilled the conditions set for his readmission into the church. quite obviously, his apology did not take back his view that the number of victims of the holocaust had been grossly exaggerated, nor that millions of them had been asphyxiated in gas chambers. nor did he specifically express regret for deeply hurting survivors and the jewish community in general. finally, williamson was removed from his position as director of the society’s seminary in argentina in august 2009. as it is illegal to deny the holocaust in germany and in several other eu countries, germany has opened an investigation into his remarks. it is not impossible that he will be brought up on charges, convicted and punished. in an episode which would have been scarcely imaginable half a century ago, the head of the german government demanded that the pope clarify his own position on the holocaust; his previous remarks had not sufficed. as it turned out, williamson was not the only society figure to have denied the holocaust. in february of 2009, floriano abrahmowicz suggested that the gas chambers were used merely for purposes of disinfection.79 the german bishops were at least as appalled as angela merkel. cardinal karl lehmann, former chair of the german bishops’ conference, and a hallowed figure in german catholic society, pronounced the pope’s decision to rehabilitate williamson “a disaster for all holocaust survivors.” once williamson refused to retract, bishop robert zollitsch of freiburg, who is now president of the national conference, denounced williamson as “impossible and irresponsible.” bishop gebhard fuerst of rottenburg-stuttgart criticized williamson’s remarks as “totally unacceptable.” the bishop of regensburg, gerhard mueller, declared that, in his diocese, williamson was persona non grata. some called for him to be excommunicated again. some will see in this a happy union of the bishops of germany against a denier of the monstrous crime committed in the name of their country seventy years ago. unfortunately, it’s a bit more complicated than that. fuerst, in particular, feared that williamson and the three other rehabilitated priests would tear away at ecclesiastical unity or even that some believers would walk away from the church, either literally or metaphorically. we know, in fact, from tax records that large numbers of parishioners are leaving the church, many of whom have submitted forms to be struck from the catholic rolls. in the wake of the williamson scandal, two-thirds of the remaining catholics in german admitted that they had thought that the church’s reputation had been sullied by the papal remission of the decree of excommunication. one cannot help but be reminded of the demand, seventy years ago, by prelates and priests, that non-aryan christians ought to be spared deportation to the charnel houses of the east because they had been baptized. that is, the holocaust was a danger because it failed to distinguish between jews and baptized jews, the latter of whom deserved not to be spirited off to the 78 “vatican finger-pointing in holocaust controversy,” christian century, 10 march 2009. 79 ibid. madigan, has the papacy ‘owned’ vatican guilt? madigan cp 17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): madigan cp 1-18 east; one underlying fear was that their loss would reduce the number of european christians. in fairness, though, most of the german bishops reacted with such indignation not out of fear for the future of the church but shame that one of them, however irregularly consecrated, had denied the most monstrous crime in german history, one for which the german church had been attempting to atone, and with whose victims, survivors and descendants, new bonds of under-standing and friendship had been forged. it was the danger to those links, and to the successful, ecumenical dialogue between jews and christians, about which most german bishops, i think, were made anxious. at least, i hope that is the case, and so it seems to me. finally, in october of 2008, the anniversary of the death of pius xii, benedict took the opportunity to speak at castel gandolfo for an audience of participants in a conference dedicated to the memory of the wartime pope. benedict may be a talented theologian, but he is no historian. this much is clear from the lavish praise he heaped on pius for laboring “especially in favor of the jews who in those years were being targeted all over europe.” to these imperiled jews, he showed only “courageous and paternal dedication.”80 present in the audience were margherita marchione of fairleigh dickinson university; ronal rychlak, a law professor at the university of mississipi, william doino, a journalist and author of the book the pius war; and fr. peter gumpel, relator for the canonization cause of pius xii. all seem to have accepted the proposal made at the colloquium, to which, apparently, no dissenting voices were invited, that roughly 900,000 trees be planted in israel in memory of pius. that is roughly the number of jews saved by the heroic and courageous wartime pope, at least according to israeli writer pinchas lapide.81 in a visit to israel five months ago, benedict deplored the murder of six million jews, though he failed to name the regime that murdered them, nor did he see fit to link that murder in any way with two thousand years of the teaching of contempt or complicity of church officials and catholic soldiers and bystanders during the final solution itself. in short, the restoration of the latin mass, with its prayer for the conversion of the jews, the rehabilitation of bishop williamson and the lionization of pius xii all lead me to the lugubrious conclusion that benedict has emphatically not “owned” catholic guilt and that he has damaged the cause of jewish-christian relations and dialogue. "after centuries of prejudice and hostility, culminating in the murder of european jewry," robert wistrich has observed, "the prospect has tantalizingly appeared of a day when anti-semitism will no longer hold a place in christian hearts." but, he adds, "the arrival of that day depends not only on repentance and a generalized will to change but, ultimately, on an honest reckoning with the past."82 that honest reckoning will eventually come, i hope, not only because of widespread jewish desire for it, and the influence of the radiant example of the french bishops, but also, one hopes, because of the eternal obligatory force of an ancient jewish text binding on us catholics too. i am thinking of exodus 20:16: "thou shalt not bear false witness." 80 address available in its entirely at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008_/september/ documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080918_pave-the-way_en.html . 81 for a definitive repudiation of this absurd figure, or the picture of pius as manager of a continental-wide campaign of rescue for the jews, or even one in italy, see susan zuccotti’s extremely well-researched study, under his very windows: the holocaust and the church in italy (new haven: yale university press, 2002). lapide had compelling social and political reasons for inflating the number of jews saved by the vatican. 82 “the pope, the church, and the jews,” 28. madigan, has the papacy ‘owned’ vatican guilt? madigan cp 18 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008_/september/ has the papacy ‘owned’ vatican guilt kevin madigan plenary presentation at the annual meeting of the council of centers on christian-jewish relations vatican secret diplomacy: joseph p. hurley and pope pius xii studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cohen r1-4 review charles r. gallagher, s.j. vatican secret diplomacy: joseph p. hurley and pope pius xii                              new haven and london: yale university press, 2008. hardcover, xi + 283 pp. reviewed by raymond cohen, corcoran chair, center for christian-jewish learning , boston college charles gallagher has enterprisingly made use for the first time of the archive of archbishop joseph p. hurley, bishop of the diocese of st. augustine, florida, to write the revealing biography of a vatican diplomat who was a severe in-house critic of pius xii's policy of appeasement and reticence on the extermination of the jews. joseph hurley (1894−1967) was the son of poor irish immigrant parents who grew up in cleveland, ohio in a dingy home near the railroad tracks. an altar boy in church, he was a bright student and a good sportsman. his favorite sport was boxing and throughout his life he never shirked a scrap. he was imbued with two passions, love of church and love of country. he did not like jews. after his plans to attend, first west point military academy, then harvard law school, fell through, he chose the priesthood and was ordained in 1919. at st. mary's seminary hurley was befriended by edward mooney, the future cardinalarchbishop of detroit. in 1928 he was invited by mooney, by then apostolic delegate to india, to be his secretary. observing mooney's tough tactics negotiating the mylapore agreement, which ended the system of local portuguese patronage in church appointments, hurley drew the conclusion that a "diplomacy of inflexibility" paid off. in 1930 mooney was appointed apostolic delegate to japan. when he fell out with the bellicose japanese authorities in 1933 hurley, who had no formal diplomatic or legal training—but had served an apprenticeship under mooney— became chargé of mission. it was in this post that hurley first made his mark. instructed to "hold on" until the arrival of a new apostolic delegate, the feisty american determinedly faced down a threat to religious freedom. catholic children in nagasaki were barred from going to chapel by the japanese government. hurley refused to buckle under pressure and authorized the students to attend church, rightly judging that the authorities would back down. this was hurley's first, but not his last encounter with totalitarianism. confronting dictatorships and standing up for catholics' rights in the face of persecution were to be constant themes of his subsequent career. in 1934 hurley officially entered the vatican secretariat of state and during the nazi period was the only american in the church's foreign service, serving as rome liaison for the apostolic delegation in washington and resident expert on u.s.−vatican relations. in this capacity he played a key, hitherto unrevealed part in the affair of fr. charles e. coughlin, the rabble-rousing "radio priest", whose strident opposition to the new deal was an embarrassment to the roosevelt administration and whose jew-baiting was a gift to nazi propaganda. hurley's assigned task, which he failed in, was to moderate the unruly priest. in november 1938 following the kristallnacht pogrom—the beginning of the end of german jewry—fr. coughlin made a virulently anti-semitic broadcast blaming the jews for their own fate. what was to be done? the church kept silent. hurley wrote from rome that "nobody seems bothered about it here" and criticized jewish organizations for making "too much of an gallagher, vatican secret diplomacy cohen r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cohen r1-4 outcry about the speech" (p. 61). the vatican feared that public denunciation of coughlin would spawn a catholic backlash in the united states and be exploited by the nazis and fascists against church interests in europe. to avoid this monsignor domenico tardini, a senior vatican official, actually proposed backing fr. coughlin. following a visit by british prime minister neville chamberlain to the vatican in january 1939 at which hurley acted as interpreter for pius xi, the pope was reinforced in his view that hitler posed a greater—and certainly more immediate—threat to the catholic church than stalin. hurley was in full agreement. but within weeks pius xi was dead. his successor, pius xii, reversed vatican policy, assigning the communist threat greater priority and opting to appease hitler. fr. gallagher argues that pius xii's long-time dread of communism spilled over into a conviction that even the united states was ripe for a communist takeover. "the great danger in america is that it will go communist," the then cardinal pacelli reportedly told president roosevelt in 1936 (pp. 87-88). behind the scenes hurley determined, as an american patriot, to do all he could to assist president roosevelt’s growing opposition to nazism and fascism. in october 1939 he was thanked by the president for having presidential statements published in the vatican's osservatore romano, the only independent news outlet in italy at that time. at first hurley hoped to harmonize his two loyalties, to pope and president. but he soon became disenchanted with pius xii's impartiality in the midst of "a war for christian civilization" (pp. 89-90) and his reluctance to condemn germany for the invasion of poland. "any man who is not moved by a profound moral indignation is thereby disqualified as a moral force," he wrote in his notes (pp. 97-98). in his first encyclical of october 20, 1939, summi pontificatus, pius xii defined the duties of catholics in wartime: prayer, mortification, and penance. hurley, who translated the document into english, implicitly challenged it in an extraordinary broadcast over vatican radio on july 1, 1940, following the fall of france. pacifists were wrong, he opined. the allies were "defending justice." evoking the gospels he argued that christ himself would have admitted "that two nations could be at war and one of them be in the right" (p. 99). hurley's position had now become untenable. in his notes he lamented pius xii's weakness, which had "come to light with the first appearance of danger." he wondered "why are the good so often weak, or dumb, or wrong minded?" (p. 104). on august 13, 1940 the bishop of the diocese of st. augustine, florida died. with unprecedented haste hurley was appointed to the post. it was an example of the vatican tradition of promoveatur ut removeatur—let him be promoted in order to be removed. pius xii was absent from his critic's vatican consecration. for the duration of the war hurley, in collaboration with the u.s. state department, threw himself into public diplomacy, speaking, broadcasting, and writing. he did not conceal his disapproval of pius xii's shrouded pronouncements. in a broadcast on cbs on july 6, 1941 he explicitly denounced "the murderous hosts of nazi germany." "we will call things by their real names," he told his audience, hinting at a 1937 address by pius xi condemning nazi atrocities (p. 122). archbishop cicognani, the apostolic delegate in washington, carpeted the outspoken bishop. it was "inopportune," he told hurley, for religious leaders to make moral judgments upon political topics. "don't say any more" (p. 126). hurley also underwent a change of heart on the jews at this time, speaking out against catholic anti-semitism and condemning in general terms the german concentration camps in poland. this was a full year and a half before pius xii’s 1942 christmas message obliquely referred to gallagher, vatican secret diplomacy cohen r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cohen r1-4 those who “sometimes only because of their nationality and race, have been consigned to death or to a slow decline” (p. 147). hurley's finest hour came with an editorial published in the florida catholic on april 9, 1943 explicitly denouncing the extermination of the jewish people. not mincing his words he declared that the death camps were “a criminal effort to eradicate the jews.” all christians must condemn the “orgies of extermination” sweeping nazi-occupied europe. hinting at his disappointment with the pope’s abdication of leadership he called on christians to “take the lead in opposing in every way possible the barbarism that rages unchecked” under the swastika flag (p. 149). at the end of the war hurley was unexpectedly given a new diplomatic posting. with germany defeated and yugoslavia under communist rule, the vatican now needed an envoy in belgrade who could work closely with the american embassy. initially the arrangement worked well: hurley supplied his old state department friends with intelligence, they interceded on behalf of catholics in jeopardy. but soon his position unraveled. his fervent support of croat archbishop stepinac, on trial for collaboration with the pro-nazi ustasha, cast doubt on his good judgment. then, as the split between tito and stalin widened, hurley's penchant for a "diplomacy of inflexibility" fell out of favor. by late 1949 he was complaining about the vatican's "hand-wringing passivity" and the pope's lack of leadership (p. 191). within a year he was sent home for good. in his later years hurley became increasingly reactionary. he persisted with his anti-tito crusade, was deeply suspicious of the state department, and identified with senator joseph mccarthy. later he opposed détente, fobbed off the reverend martin luther king's personal request to help in the fight for desegregation, and objected that the attention paid by the second vatican council to anti-semitism was excessive. he continued to mull over his differences with pius xii, who had twice curtailed his diplomatic career and relegated him to a diocesan backwater. the disagreement between the two men must give us pause. clearly the responsibility of a pope is of a very different order from that of a middle-level official. the arguments used in vatican circles to justify pius xii's aloof policy towards the extermination of the jews were summarized by the united states' resident envoy to the vatican, harold tittmann. they included a lack of uncontestable proof, the impracticality of verifying all the various alleged humanitarian violations in wartime, the danger of irreparable errors of judgment, the assertion that the pope had spoken in general but unmistakable terms, common knowledge that the views of local bishops reflected the position of the pope, the belief that open condemnation would do more harm than good, the need to be even-handed between nazis and bolsheviks, and the fear of alienating the german faithful should germany lose the war.1 reticence, in short, was presented as both inescapable and prudent given the logic of the situation. hurley's contemporary critique gravely undermines this case because it is that of an insider motivated by deep concern for the church who was privy to the facts available to the pope at the time. hurley's view was that a pope faced by clear and present evil had to provide unambiguous moral guidance to those who looked to him for leadership. he had to decide on the facts without evasion and condemn that evil in the most explicit language. confronted by mass murder on an unprecedented scale the natural human reaction is one of disbelief and denial. only when a pontiff—the supreme moral authority on earth—spoke out in the plainest terms could lesser folk grasp the realities of the situation and do their moral duty as christians. of course, the righteous 1 see harold tittmann, inside the vatican of pius xii: the memoir of an american diplomat during world war ii (new york: doubleday, 2004) pp. 119-20, 124-25. gallagher, vatican secret diplomacy cohen r 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cohen r1-4 few needed no instruction. but without clear leadership at the top how could local bishops and their flocks be expected to stand up and be counted? with the same facts at his disposal as his masters, hurley grasped the dimensions of the tragedy and the need for moral leadership where they did not. he saw through the specious argument to even-handedness and the fallacy that to speak out as the nazi machinery of extermination worked at full capacity could somehow make the situation worse. above all this very political diplomat understood that the pope must provide a fearless moral lead; if not him, then who? we should be grateful to charles gallagher for a meticulous piece of original research. he adds significantly to our knowledge of vatican thinking during the holocaust. he also provides us with a fresh perspective from which to appraise the quality of moral guidance provided by pius xii during the greatest challenge ever faced by a spiritual leader. in the final analysis gallagher's account challenges the special pleading used both then and now. gallagher, vatican secret diplomacy cohen r 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-3 james h. charlesworth, ed. jesus and temple: textual and archaeological explorations (minneapolis: fortress press, 2014), xv + 282 pp. jared c. calaway jared.calaway@mail.ic.edu illinois college, jacksonville, illinois 62650 this volume contains essays on herod’s temple by prominent jewish and christian scholars of antiquity. they imaginatively gather archaeological and textual fragments in studies of the building’s physical appearance and broader significance. adapted from papers given at a conference in boca raton, florida, in december 2011, the authors overall argue for a positive relationship between jesus, his earliest followers, and galileans with the jerusalem temple. this volume’s strength is its breadth. james charlesworth’s preface and introduction lay out its sweeping vision, asking what recent archaeological discoveries tell us about the temple, questioning assertions that jesus and his disciples rejected the temple, and wondering whether the shift from predominantly jewish to predominately gentile followers of jesus affected early christian attitudes toward the temple. surveying major publications, he discusses the temple as axis mundi, pilgrimage to the temple, the temple as a bank, herod’s architecture, temple security, and worship, and he also imagines jesus’ and hillel’s experiences in the temple. the first two chapters reconstruct the temple’s physical space. leen ritzmeyer scans visual representations of herod’s temple, from coins of the bar kokhba revolt to modern three-dimensional models. this culminates in ritzmeyer’s own reconstructions, examining the temple from the outer walls and then working inward. dan bahat traces the development of the temple from ezra and nehemiah through herod. both authors attempt to harmonize the divergent accounts of josephus, the new testament, and the mishnah. bahat, for example, suggests that the mishnah describes the pre-herodian structure while the new testament and josephus depict herod’s expansions. lawrence schiffman shifts to the temple’s theological importance for ancient jews. he takes the dead sea scrolls as his primary source, branching out to josephus, philo, and the mishnah. he focuses on the temple’s role within a theological tension between god’s immanence and transcendence and on the temple as a centripetal force for ancient jews. he discusses diverse images of the temple as the place of the divine presence, as the tabernacle, as eden, as axis calaway: james h. charlesworth’s jesus and temple 2 mundi, and as a microcosm for the universe. he also considers ideas such as the community as temple, acts of mourning for the temple, and the eschatological temple. however, he does not consider some relevant texts, such as 1 enoch and the songs of the sabbath sacrifice. mordechai aviam’s essay on galilean reverence for the temple provides the linchpin to this volume’s argument. while some scholars suggest divisions between judean and galilean estimations of the temple, recent archaeology closes the gap. he argues that galilean jews connected to the temple’s holiness by acts of purification illustrated by mikvaot; by using imported stoneware and clay oil lamps from jerusalem; and by including temple symbols in synagogues, such as found on the migdal synagogue’s decorated stone, which is a three-dimensional representation of the temple. in the next two chapters, charlesworth studies jesus’ and his followers’ attitudes toward the temple. he covers the social and theological significance of the temple and temple terminology in the new testament, and he surveys the views of scholars who have argued that jesus was critical of the temple. he calls for careful differentiation when describing attitudes regarding jerusalem, the temple, temple services, cult, financial institutions, and personnel. for example, jesus could have revered the temple but disdained its personnel. he works through several pericopae, some of questionable historicity, from jesus’ birth through resurrection to conclude that jesus maintained a positive view of the temple. turning to jesus’ followers next, charlesworth differentiates three periods: before 30 ce, 30-70 ce, and 70-150 ce. for the first, he shows that jesus frequented the temple. for the second, he says acts presents the disciples, based in jerusalem, engaged in temple activities. paul presents the community as a temple, but this does not necessarily belittle herod’s temple’s importance. charlesworth differentiates between palestinian christians, who adhered to the temple, and diaspora christians, who laid the foundations for replacement theology, excluding the necessity of a physical temple. regarding hebrews, he argues that while some passages suggest supersessionism, cultic language dominates the author’s thought, indicating the temple’s centrality. while q is ambivalent, the traditions around james indicate reverence for the temple. when adapting to life without a temple in the third period (70-150 ce), he argues that the synoptic gospels, acts, and john shift the locus of holiness from the temple to jesus, to the community, or to rome. by contrast, the odes of solomon maintain the temple’s holiness. for revelation, temple symbolism dominates. charlesworth expresses the hope that his bold argument that jesus’ earliest followers mostly revered rather than replaced the temple will spark scholarly dialogue. harold attridge identifies multiple attitudes in the new testament, such as taking the temple for granted, seeing the temple as a symbol, and claiming the community replaces the temple. except for jesus’ destruction prediction, jesus and his disciples took the temple for granted. attridge speeds through paul and the evangelists, particularly luke-acts, to focus on john and hebrews. john, when applying temple imagery to jesus, respects temple traditions generally, but disdained herod’s temple specifically. hebrews focuses on the symbols of israel 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) ite worship in the desert or in a heavenly tabernacle, yet also presents christ as a high priest greater than the earthly priests and whose self-sacrifice was a new day of atonement. 1 peter, despite an ambivalent relationship with the temple, applies its symbolism to the community, and revelation regularly alludes to temple worship. attridge finally turns to 1 clement, which uses temple and priestly imagery to establish a system of authority, and the gospel of judas, which rejects such imagery. he concludes by noting three tendencies: continued adherence to temple; temple and priesthood recast as communal symbols; and appropriation of priestly hierarchy. these contributions are high quality and consistent in covering a range of material. however, while most of the essays are intended to be surveys, george servos examines in detail a temple scene in the protoevangelium of james in order to reconstruct its sources. he uses the scene to buttress his theory about the redaction of the document rather than using it to illustrate attitudes toward the temple. this chapter does not fit in a volume dedicated to synthesis. a more appropriate essay would have surveyed the temple in ancient christian apocrypha more broadly. only gary rendsburg’s essay on the psalms as temple hymns addresses temple service. he places this in the context of ancient near eastern temple hymns using clues from the biblical narrative (from the pentateuch to chronicles-ezranehemiah) to the rabbis. this volume’s lack of any other analysis of temple rituals, particularly sacrifice, is a striking omission. this volume would have benefited from engaging the increasing number of theoretical approaches to space, whether physical, representational, or symbolic. however, its strong, even if overplayed, thesis and broad synthesis make it an important conversation partner next to john day’s more comprehensive, temple and worship in biblical israel (london: t&t clark, 2007). scjr 17, no. 1 (2022): 1-2 john j. r. lee christological rereading of the shema (deut 6:4) in mark’s gospel (tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2020, in wissenschaftliche untersuchungen zum neuen testament, 2, no. 533), xiv + 320 pages erik waaler ew@nla.no nla university college, 5036 bergen, norway the main thesis of john j. r. lee’s revised ph.d. dissertation is that mark’s gospel by the use of monotheistic god-language makes a sustained argument that jesus christ is on par with god. the author is quite consistent in his avoidance of source criticism and bases his discussion on the final version of mark, which he thinks would have been “mark’s intention” (246). this holds true for his approach to the old testament as well. in the second chapter lee gives a candid and valuable overview of monotheism in second temple judaism as the background to mark. he shows how mark uses “one god language” (2) in the descriptions of god as “sovereign,” “sole creator,” and the “only object of cultic worship” (42). the author then argues that mark reads the shema (deut 6:4) “with an interest in jesus’ unique status” (81), something that is unparalleled in jewish sources, probably excluding earlier christian texts like paul’s letters. he persuasively argues against claims that monotheism precludes other heavenly beings like angels, but this comes at the cost of a clear distinction between monism, henotheism, monolatry, and monotheism. he discusses in chapter three the christological use of the shema in mark 12:27-37. he links the conversation between jesus and the scribe about the “one god” of the shema with jesus’ reflections on the two lords of ps 110. he points to mark’s almost exclusive application of the term “lord” to jesus and to god. however, he fails to discuss the different vocabulary used for “the lord” and “my lord” in the hebrew text of ps 110 (see 142fn). this is part of a pattern of the author’s minimal interaction with the hebrew text of the old testament. nonetheless, his argument for seeing mark’s jesus being elevated above david is relevant here. in chapter four he discusses the reformulation of shema in mark 2:7 and 10:18. his interpretation of the first of these is the most convincing argument in the book. in both texts he notes mark’s use of two parallel “one god” statements, which he directly links to jesus’ ability to forgive sins (2:7) and his ability to be good, as waaler: john j. r. lee.’s christological rereading of the shema 2 only one is good (10:18). both these characteristics are traditionally ascribed to the one god only, but are here extended to jesus. lee describes mark’s claims for both jesus’ parity with god and his subordination to god in chapter five. these two claims are described as “paradoxical statements that are probable apart from each other but inconsistent together” (249). this chapter has a nuanced discussion of two tendencies in mark’s gospel, the elevated christology displayed in god language and the suffering and obedient son of god who is crucified. mark, lee argues, manages to retain both paradoxical claims. lee’s concluding claim is that mark has “striking christological use of monotheistic language” (255). this conclusion has its merits, and the dissertation is clearly formulated as a sustained argument for this main point. lee’s focus is on mark’s story, and his discussion of synoptic traditions is limited, as is interaction with paul’s letters. the author’s argument may have been more plausible if he included these texts, and especially if he further developed the idea that paul influenced mark. methodologically, the author places his work in the category of composition and narrative criticism. the former theory is discussed at some length, but narrative theory is presented and used in a rather limited manner. the author very clearly presents his argument, sometimes to such a degree that the book becomes repetitive. however, this pedagogical approach makes the book accessible for those who are not bible scholars, and it is readable for pastors and those with theological training. he regularly translates greek texts, so that an educated layperson might also be able to read the book. judaism and the gentiles: jewish patterns of universalism (to 135 bce) studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): gregerman r1-2 review t e r e n c e l . d o n a l d s o n judaism and the gentiles: jewish patterns of universalism (to 135 bce) waco, tx: baylor university press, 2007. hardcover, xvi + 563 pp. reviewed by adam gregerman institute for christian and jewish studies, baltimore; loyola university maryland canadian new testament scholar terence donaldson has in a sense been writing his new book, judaism and the gentiles, for decades. i imagine that donaldson, during years of study of ancient judaism and christianity, kept a running list of passages on this enormous topic as he prepared his other, more detailed studies. in those works, he focused on subsets of this material, especially when jewish views illuminate early christian missionary activity. his paul and the gentiles: remapping the apostle's convictional world (fortress, 1997), for example, contains a very helpful chapter on jewish attitudes to the gentiles contemporary with paul, in order to better understand paul’s own “convictional world.” other writings have focused on texts relevant to understanding jews’ ideas about the eschatological fate of the gentiles. in this new sourcebook, these jewish texts occupy center stage. he no longer focuses on selected texts that are relevant to a specific argument, but gathers “all the primary texts” from the second century bce through 135 ce that reveal jewish “patterns of universalism.” by this phrase, he refers to discussions of the “religious status” of non-jews (ix). already in the bible, some jews naturally began to think about this topic, for while insisting on their own special covenant with god they also affirmed that their god was the supreme deity, creator, and judge of the entire world. because the nations of the world lived under israel’s god, many jews asked, for example, whether non-jews too could find god’s favor, or what their ultimate fate was. donaldson only briefly refers to the biblical sources, and begins chronologically with daniel and the hellenistic era. this omission is understandable, if the book was to be kept to a manageable size, though his occasional references to biblical texts seem scattershot. however, second temple texts are his primary focus, and in this period such concerns became more prominent, especially as large numbers of jews moved to the diaspora. donaldson’s collection is extensive. it most closely resembles menachem stern’s, whose translations he sometimes uses and for which this study will serve as an essential complement; see menachem stern, ed., greek and latin authors on jews and judaism, 3 volumes (israel academy of sciences and humanities, 1974). donaldson includes 222 literary and inscriptional texts, organized by source in part 1: daniel, septuagint, and apocrypha; pseudepigrapha; qumran; philo; josephus; greco-roman literature; early christian literature; and inscriptions. for each text he begins with a translation of relevant sections (though he also refers to sections that he does not include). he then provides information about dating, authorship, provenance, and earlier scholarship. donaldson situates the selection within its context, both in the overall text from which it is taken and in its social and religious milieu. he also provides excellent introductions to the most important writers. for example, his sections on philo and josephus are insightful, succinct summaries of those aspects of their lives and writings relevant to the topic. on the other hand, donaldson’s comments are sometimes too extensive and detailed for this type of work. some information he provides is easily accessible in other works one naturally would rely upon if one was studying a text, or not directly relevant to the topic (e.g., 47-51; 41534). donaldson, judaism and the gentiles gregerman r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): gregerman r1-2 in general, in these texts, we find that authors’ opinions vary widely, from harsh denials that any gentile can ever be spared god’s wrath, to optimistic hopes that upright or monotheistic gentiles can revere god and be spared at the end of days. donaldson briefly mentions some of the least favorable texts about the gentiles, such as jubilees, but these are treated only in passing (e.g., 4, 510). he is largely interested in the more positive texts. his collection is therefore less than completely comprehensive. this positive emphasis reveals his underlying interest in material relevant to the study of christianity and especially christian proselytism, for which he has in earlier works shown the relevance of positive jewish views. a key feature of this work is his labeling of each text according to one of four patterns of universalism: sympathization (e.g., joining jews in worship); conversion (e.g., observance of mosaic law; joining the jewish community); ethical monotheism (e.g., implicit recognition of the god of israel; virtuous behavior); and eschatological salvation (e.g., sharing in god’s blessings to the jews at the end of days). this categorization helps to organize a diverse, even unwieldy collection, and aids in comparisons between different texts. however, there is ambiguity in the categorization. in some texts we can learn about authors’ attitudes toward gentiles, while others simply report what gentiles may be doing without revealing authors’ opinions. also, donaldson recognizes that these category distinctions are imprecise, especially because the authors do not employ uniform terminology. i found that donaldson’s judgments were generally sound except where he claims that authors display an interest in conversion. sometimes, such judgments, even when nuanced, are questionable. for example, qumran texts, though perhaps mentioning proselytes or converts (the hebrew is complex), probably tell us little about either actual reality or, when mentioning converts to the sect’s opposition, the views of the sect’s members. philo’s praise for biblical heroes as model converts reveals little about his views of gentiles per se and yields sparse data about whether contemporary jews really expected gentiles to forsake idolatry and join a new religious community. furthermore, donaldson confusingly labels some texts “conversion” despite little evidence that writers expected gentiles to observe the biblical commandments (186-89; 253-57, 261-63). part 2 of the book is a synthesis of his views of the texts, organized according to the four categories. donaldson details the many variables that make generalizations difficult, such as authorship (jew or gentile); genre; purposes for writing; and historical reliability. in light of this diversity, it is doubtful whether one can make any generalizations at all, and his are quite modest. for example, in the case of gentile sympathizers, donaldson’s conclusion that “it is enough to be able to say…that [they] existed” (475) is, while true, not especially satisfying, and a reminder of the limits of our knowledge. to his credit, donaldson recognizes that some of the authors may provide little useful information about jews’ views of gentiles because they felt no compelling need to address the topic. it would have been helpful to explore more the significance of this observation, for the lack of interest is itself significant. when one compares the intensity some christians brought to proselytism, the differences are striking (e.g., 1 cor 9:16). this is an impressive and learned work. it is a major contribution to our understanding of a key feature of jewish identity—attitudes toward outsiders—and relevant for studies of both other periods in jewish history as well as early christianity, for which these views were influential. furthermore, donaldson’s nuanced reading of jewish sources is a signal advance over earlier studies that bluntly deprecated judaism for its supposed particularism. he shows definitively that jewish views were far more complex and diverse than many have previously thought. donaldson, judaism and the gentiles gregerman r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 dietrich bonhoeffer™s relevance for post-holocaust christian theology studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 53-67 barnett, “dietrich bonhoeffer’s relevance for post-holocaust theology” 53 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college “dietrich bonhoeffer’s relevance for post-holocaust christian theology” victoria j. barnett united states holocaust memorial museum 2/1 (2007): 53-67 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 53-67 barnett, “dietrich bonhoeffer’s relevance for post-holocaust theology” 54 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 1. introduction in april 2001 i received a request from dr. mordecai paldiel, director of the department for the righteous at yad vashem, to submit an opinion on dietrich bonhoeffer’s qualifications for the honor of being designated a “righteous gentile.” dr. paldiel raised three central questions: 1) the question of bonhoeffer’s public opposition to the nazi antijewish measures, not just on behalf of those who had converted to christianity but on behalf of all jews; 2) the question of whether bonhoeffer ever aided jews directly; and 3) the issue of bonhoeffer’s theological anti-judaism and, more specifically, whether bonhoeffer ever explicitly repudiated his 1933 writings that reflected this anti-judaism. in my reply i deliberately did not take a position on whether i personally thought yad vashem should honor bonhoeffer or not. at the risk of sounding disingenuous, i don’t really have an opinion. there are two reasons. the first and most important is that i don’t think it is up to us christians to decide who is honored by yad vashem. that sacred ground is where the jewish community, especially the survivors of the shoah, honors those who rescued jews. the holocaust was preceded by a long history of anti-jewish violence in christian europe that was often sanctioned by the church. between 1933 and 1945, christians and their leaders were all too often apathetic and even complicit in the nazi persecution and genocide of the jews. christians should approach this history and its jewish victims with a great deal of humility. the second reason is perhaps more relevant for the purposes of this paper. my own interest in bonhoeffer has never been based upon whether i think he is a hero. the questions raised by dr. paldiel are important ones and they continue to be debated. as of this writing, a truly thorough analysis of these points in the entire bonhoeffer opus in conjunction with more recent historical research still remains to be done. only now are his complete writings appearing in english, and several recent works offer new documented evidence that has given more detail about his resistance activities.1 the bonhoeffer opus remains one of the most fascinating, complex, and well-documented historical examples we have of the intersection of theology and activism, giving tremendous insight, not only into his times and into ours, but also into how christian thought changes in response to historical events. the iconography of dietrich bonhoeffer actually undermines a serious examination of his significance. thus, in replying to yad vashem, i simply outlined what i considered to be the main historical facts in response to the questions that had been raised. these are as follows: in looking for evidence of public opposition to nazi antijewish laws, the first piece of evidence would be his ecumenical activism throughout the period, and here we 1 publication of the dietrich bonhoeffer works english edition (hereafter referred to as dbwe) by fortress press is not yet complete, and the volumes with historical material most relevant to the topic here – volumes 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 – are still in the editorial process. the german historian winfried meyer’s monumental unternehmen sieben: eine rettungsaktion für vom holocaust bedrohte aus dem amt ausland/abwehr im oberkommando der wehrmacht (frankfurt a. m.: verlag anton hain, 1993) offers the most thorough documentation of the resistance circles in which bonhoeffer moved, with a great deal of new material, but research remains to be done on some aspects. for example, a much closer study could be made of the contacts between bonhoeffer and friedrich siegmund-schultze, who was deported from germany in july 1933 for helping jews and remained active in the european rescue network thereafter. (bonhoeffer first met siegmundschultze during the 1920s and continued to have contact with him throughout the period, meeting with him in switzerland in the early 1940s in the context of his resistance activities). studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 53-67 barnett, “dietrich bonhoeffer’s relevance for post-holocaust theology” 55 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 must look both at bonhoeffer’s role and that of the ecumenical circles in which he moved. the earliest church protests against nazi anti-jewish measures came from christian leaders active in the european and north american ecumenical movement. many of these protests were explicitly articulated in terms of civil liberties issues and focused on the plight of all jews, not only those who had converted to christianity.2 at the september 1933 international meeting of the world alliance in sofia, bulgaria, bonhoeffer was a crucial figure in pushing european ecumenical leaders to condemn the nazi measures. the statement issued by this conference explicitly condemned “the treatment that people of jewish ancestry and association have suffered in germany,” adding: “we especially deplore the fact that the state measures against the jews in germany have had such an effect on public opinion that in some circles the jewish race is considered a race of inferior status.”3 the wording of the sofia statement was particularly striking because it condemned the antijewish measures in general, not merely in terms of the attempts to introduce an “aryan paragraph” into church law. the nazi government understood this as a broader political critique as well: bonhoeffer’s role in sofia provoked a written protest sent by the german foreign ministry to the church leadership in berlin, charging that the sofia statement amounted to international “incitement against germany” 2 two early works that documented this were judaism and christianity under the impact of national socialism, ed. otto dov kulka and paul mendes-flohr (jerusalem: historical society of israel and zalman shazar center for jewish history, 1987); and the grey book: a collection of protests against anti-semitism and the persecution of jews, issued by non-roman catholic churches and church leaders during hitler’s rule, ed. johan snoek (new york: humanities press, 1970). armin boyens’ two-volume work, kirchenkampf und ökumene. darstellung und dokumentation (munich: chr. kaiser verlag, 1969 and 1973), also gives a great deal of background. 3 boyens, kirchenkampf und ökumene, vol. 2, 68. (“verhetzung gegen deutschland”), which led to a reprimand for bonhoeffer.4 the second pivotal action was bonhoeffer’s activism at the berlin steglitz synod of the prussian confessing church in september 1935, two weeks after the passage of the nuremberg laws. in advance of the synod, two resolutions were circulated among the delegates: one that would have effectively given church sanction to the nuremberg laws; the other a proposal denouncing the church’s silence about the persecution of jews (not just “jewish christians”) and calling for the confessing church to publicly oppose the nazi measures.5 the writers of this second proposal summoned bonhoeffer and his seminary students to strengthen their ranks at the steglitz synod. bonhoeffer arrived with the finkenwalde seminarians. the group had to sit in the balcony and was not allowed to speak; by all accounts they behaved loudly and rambunctiously as the official delegates debated below. but the statement they came to support was not even put on the synod agenda for a vote, and once again the confessing church remained silent about the nazi persecution of the jews. nonetheless, bonhoeffer and his allies at the synod did succeed in preventing synodal affirmation of the nuremberg laws.6 4 ibid. 5 see wolfgang gerlach, and the witnesses were silent: the confessing church and the jews, translated by victoria j. barnett (lincoln: university of nebraska press, 2000), 84-85 and 94-99, and christineruth müller, dietrich bonhoeffer’s kampf gegen die nationalsozialistische verfolgung und vernichtung der juden (munich: chr. kaiser, 1990), 210. more recent research has led to a revision of the historiography of the document presented to the synod and the synod’s response; see dietgard meyer, “elisabeth schmitz: die denkschrift ‘zur lage der deutschen nichtarier’”, in katharina staritz: 1903-1953, ed. hannelore erhart, ilse meseberg-haubold, and dietgard meyer (neukirchen-vluyn: neukirchener verlag, 1999), 187-273. 6 gerlach, and the witnesses, 94-99. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 53-67 barnett, “dietrich bonhoeffer’s relevance for post-holocaust theology” 56 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 a third example was bonhoeffer’s ongoing engagement on behalf of refugees attempting to flee nazi germany. if we look only at the cases in which bonhoeffer was approached directly, we have a paper trail of isolated instances, and it is often unclear, particularly during his time in london, as to whether these were jews who had converted to christianity or not.7 there is bonhoeffer’s letter of july 13, 1934, to reinhold niebuhr in the united states, asking for niebuhr’s help for two refugees who wanted to emigrate from nazi germany: a jewish law student and social democrat named kurt berlowitz, and the political dissident armin wegner (who was later honored by yad vashem).8 there are references by bonhoeffer, george bell, and others to his efforts on behalf of refugees during his time in london, from october 1933 to april 1935. there is the correspondence from max-peter meyer in 1939 that documents bonhoeffer’s role in helping the meyers reach the united states.9 finally, bonhoeffer was involved in the “operation seven” rescue of fourteen individuals in 1941 who reached switzerland. many of those whom he helped were “non-aryan christians”; others (including three of those rescued in operation seven) were either secular or observant jews. bonhoeffer’s motivation in these efforts is clear in his letter to reinhold 7 this is significant because the confessing church protests against aryan legislation were focused almost exclusively on the plight of “nonaryan christians” – i.e., people of jewish descent who had converted. as time passed and state pressures on the churches intensified, confessing support even for this group diminished. but with very few exceptions christians were completely silent about the plight of religiously observant and secular jews. hence the question about whether bonhoeffer’s concern extended to all refugees, or only those who were christian, is an entirely legitimate one. 8 london: 1933-1935 (dbwe 13), document 1/127, forthcoming publication spring 2007. 9 published in dietrich bonhoeffer jahrbuch 2 2005/2006 (gütersloh: gütersloher verlagshaus, 2005), 97-101; it will be included in the forthcoming theological education underground: 1937-1940 (dbwe 15). niebuhr in february 1933, where he wrote: “it would be precipitous to say even one word about conditions here in germany…here, too, we will have to open up a civil liberties union soon.”10 a fourth and key piece of evidence is the report written by bonhoeffer and confessing church lawyer friedrich perels in october 1941 at the request of hans von dohnanyi about the deportations of jews from berlin.11 this report was sent to several members of the german resistance, as well as to ecumenical contacts in geneva. this report appears to be part of the series of documents sent abroad at the behest of hans von dohnanyi, beginning in the fall of 1939, which conveyed very detailed information about german atrocities against jews on the eastern front as well as the intensifying persecution in germany.12 thus, there is a fairly detailed record of bonhoeffer’s activism and clear opposition against the nazi anti-jewish measures, as well as his commitment to help its victims. as to the third point raised by paldiel, however – whether bonhoeffer ever repudiated his theological anti-judaism – i wrote that this was a question with no definitive answer. there are certainly indications, which i will mention below, 10 dietrich bonhoeffer, berlin, 1932-1933 (dbw 12. german edition pages nos: 50-51), letter dated february 2, 1933. 11 conspiracy and imprisonment 1940-1945 (dbwe 16), 225-29. regarding dohnanyi's involvement, see winfried meyer, verschwörer im kz: hans von dohnanyi und die häftlinge des 20. juli 1944 im kz sachsenhausen (berlin: edition hentrich, 1998), esp. 97. 12 see especially meyer, verschwörer im kz; but there is also extensive material on this in winfried meyer, unternehmen sieben. see also victoria barnett, “communications between the german resistance, the vatican and protestant ecumenical leaders: implications for interpeting bonhoeffer’s reflections on civil society,” in religion im erbe: dietrich bonhoeffer und die zukunftsfähigkeit des christentums (2002), ed. christian gremmels and wolfgang huber, 54-75. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 53-67 barnett, “dietrich bonhoeffer’s relevance for post-holocaust theology” 57 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 but they must be gleaned primarily from his writings about other things, notably his reflections in his prison writings about christianity’s potential role in a post-nazi world. it is this third point – the issue of the anti-judaism in bonhoeffer’s writings – that is most relevant here, since i am considering the relevance of bonhoeffer’s thought for postholocaust christian theology, which has focused primarily on the critique of anti-judaism in christian theology and a corresponding reformulation of christian teachings and interpretations. my reply to yad vashem was complicated because bonhoeffer in this regard is an extraordinarily complicated figure. these complexities have consequences not only for how we understand bonhoeffer, but also for our understanding of a post-holocaust theology and the jewishchristian relationship. if bonhoeffer has something to contribute to our understanding here, it can only be through a careful examination of the development of his thought in the context of his times. but his place in the post-holocaust conversation is also contingent, i think, on how narrowly or broadly we define post-holocaust theology. is post-holocaust theology confined to the critique and eradication of anti-judaism from christian thought? or – and this is my position here – does this critique of anti-judaism necessarily go hand-in-hand with a profound rethinking of core christian understandings of christology and ecclesiology, and most particularly with a self-critique of our privileged understanding of the relationship between christianity, culture, and state authority? it is important to consider this because the failures of german protestantism under nazism were not only due to antisemitism, but were the outcome of the very long history in german protestantism of nationalism, subservience to state authority, and emphasis on cultural privilege, which in turn had a profound effect on how church leaders reacted theologically and ecclesiologically to nazism. for that reason, i would argue that a more extensive examination of bonhoeffer’s thought that includes these points, particularly the conclusions he drew in his prison writings, is crucial. 2. central issues let me begin this analysis with the central issues as i see them in bonhoeffer’s work: a. traditional anti-judaism we must begin, of course, with the passages containing traditional christian anti-judaism at various points in the bonhoeffer opus, including his later writings such as ethics (1941). as stephen haynes notes in the bonhoeffer legacy: post-holocaust perspectives,13 it is not only the content of these statements that troubles us (e.g., statements about god’s punishment of the jews or the pejorative use of the word “pharisee” to mean hypocrite) but their impact in their historical context. christians in nazi germany, even those in the confessing church and even when they were disagreeing with the nazi state on other issues, used such rhetoric to position themselves and protect themselves from the charge that they were unpatriotic or disloyal. the use of anti-jewish language at a time of growing persecution of jews clearly increased the vulnerability of jews and undermined those in solidarity with them. the open affirmation by some church figures of nazi anti-jewish policies not only attests to the antisemitism that was widespread throughout the church, but it reminds us of why the early hagiography of the kirchenkampf, in which church leaders portrayed their disputes with the nationalist deutsche christen as anti-nazi resistance, was so misleading. 13 stephen haynes, the bonhoeffer legacy: post-holocaust perspectives (minneapolis: augsburg fortress press, 2006). studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 53-67 barnett, “dietrich bonhoeffer’s relevance for post-holocaust theology” 58 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 where does bonhoeffer stand in this regard? it should be mentioned that there is actually relatively little of this language throughout the bonhoeffer opus and it is for the most part found in theological reflections about other things. despite the popular image of bonhoeffer speaking out constantly against the nazi regime and on behalf of the jews, there are few writings in which he actually did so explicitly, and much of his written work during the 1930s (e.g., sermons, bible studies, and notes taken by his students of his lectures) is remarkably circumspect. most of his political statements are found in his correspondence, notably during the period in london where presumably he was freer to speak his mind. there are also positive references to judaism, and these, too, are striking in their historical context, an era in which most german protestants emphasized what they saw as the irrelevance (or worse) of jewish texts and the supersessionist rightness of christianity over against its jewish roots. in contrast, bonhoeffer seemed to have an early openness to other religions. as he wrote in 1928, it was “fundamentally wrong to seek a new morality in christianity. in actual practice, christ offered hardly any ethical prescriptions not already attested among his contemporary jewish rabbis or even in pagan literature … what are we to make of other religions? are they nothing compared to christianity? the answer is that it is not the christian religion itself that, as a religion, is something divine. it is itself merely one human path toward god, just as is the buddhist and other religions, albeit, of course, of a different sort.”14 what made christianity distinct, bonhoeffer argued, was simply its 14 “das wesen des christentums” (“the essence of christianity”), in barcelona, berlin, new york: 1928-1931 (dbw 10. german edition pages nos. 316 and 320). translation is from the forthcoming english edition. belief in christ as messiah and the consequent centrality of the incarnate and risen christ in the world for christians. the only place where bonhoeffer discussed theological understandings of judaism at any length, however, was in the april 1933 essay “the church and the jewish question” and the early drafts of the bethel confession in the fall of 1933. because of the ongoing debate about bonhoeffer’s role in drafting specific passages of the bethel confession, i will focus here on the april essay. as previously mentioned, even in the earliest days of the nazi regime we have the evidence that i think is characteristic both of his early opposition and his eventual move to the resistance: of a strong civil libertarian streak, unique within german protestantism but apparently quite consistent with his upbringing and the bonhoeffer family views. it is in “the church and the jewish question” that we find these two aspects of bonhoeffer’s thought joined: a traditional theological anti-judaism, juxtaposed with a clear political conviction that the church must oppose the state’s measures against its jewish citizens. the essay is filled with problematic contradictions.15 it begins with a systematic 15 in her study of bonhoeffer and the jews (dietrich bonhoeffer’s kampf gegen die nationalsozialistische verfolgung und vernichtung der juden) christine-ruth müller contends that these contradictions stem from the fact that bonhoeffer here is not expressing his own beliefs (even in the anti-jewish passages), but simply setting up certain arguments in order to then refute them in the passages calling for church opposition to oppressive state authority. (müller, 326) the german text can indeed be read that way, but it is worth noting that even bethge didn’t offer this interpretation. müller’s book is probably the most thorough documentation to date of the development of bonhoeffer’s thought on this issue, but in my own opinion she is too quick to dismiss the significance of antisemitic statements, including those made by members of the conspiracy. the other major study is marijke smid, deutscher protestantismus und judentum 1932/1933 (chr. kaiser, 1990), which in addition to an excellent extended chapter on bonhoeffer offers a detailed historical and theological context of german protestant studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 53-67 barnett, “dietrich bonhoeffer’s relevance for post-holocaust theology” 59 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 outline of traditional lutheran teachings about the respective roles of the church and the state, and bonhoeffer then proceeds to write: “without doubt one of the historical problems that must be dealt with by our government is the jewish question, and without doubt our government is entitled to strike new paths in doing so.”16 bonhoeffer then goes on to differentiate between the legitimate and the illegitimate exercise of state authority – the latter arising when the state oppresses people and treats them unjustly. while the church, he writes, must respect its clear boundaries and not interfere with the state’s exercise of its authority, it does have an obligation to speak up when that authority exceeds its legitimate bounds. in any unjust situation the church always has an “unconditional obligation toward the victims…even if they do not belong to the christian community”17 and in extreme situations the church has the eventual obligation to resist the state. bonhoeffer then proceeds to delineate why the “jewish question” confronts the church with particular issues, and it is here that we encounter the familiar and troubling passages: the conversion of israel is to be the end of its people’s sufferings. in our time, the christian church trembles at the sight of the people israel’s history, as god’s own free, terrible way with god’s own people. we know that no government in the world can deal with this enigmatic people, because god has not yet finished with it. every new attempt to “solve” the “jewish question” comes to attitudes toward judaism; as the title suggests, however, this study does not go beyond 1933. 16 berlin: 1933 (dbw 12. german edition page no. 351). translation is from the forthcoming english edition of this volume. 17 ibid., 353. translation is from the forthcoming english edition of this volume. grief because of the meaning of this people for salvation history, and yet one has to keep trying.18 this essay contains both traditional theological explications of the christian understanding of the role of jews in history – in language that dismisses the judaic faith and is painful for us to read, particularly given the historical context in which it was written – and even (in the statement cited above) appears to defend the state’s right to “deal with” the “jewish question.” at the same time it offers a radical revision of lutheran teachings about obedience to state authority by setting the criteria for establishing when christians can oppose illegitimate state authority. this is the essay that gets cited in discussions about bonhoeffer and the jews – in fact it’s often the only thing, since bonhoeffer didn’t write much else on this – and it usually is the case that either the anti-jewish passages are cited or the ones about resistance to the state. taken as a whole, however, the essay is a call for church intervention on behalf of the jews, a stance that is evident elsewhere in bonhoeffer’s correspondence.19 yet in that historical moment, the theological anti-judaism clearly undercuts his call to help the victims and even resist the state. 18 ibid., 355. translation is from the forthcoming english edition of this volume. 19 see, for example, bonhoeffer’s letter of september 11,1934, to erwin sutz in which he writes about the need to finally break “with our theologically grounded reserve about whatever is being done by the state which really only comes down to fear. ‘speak out for those who cannot speak’ (prov.31:8) who in the church today still remembers that this is the very least the bible asks of us in such times as these?” london: 1933-1935 (dbwe 13, 1/147), publication forthcoming spring 2007. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 53-67 barnett, “dietrich bonhoeffer’s relevance for post-holocaust theology” 60 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 does he ever repudiate these theological judgments about judaism? as i noted previously, not explicitly.20 among the writings that deserve the greatest scrutiny here are his bible studies and lectures to students between 1935-39, both because these years encompassed the sharp intensification of the persecution of german jews and because it was during this period that he trained confessing church pastors.21 and as i will mention later, his wartime writings reveal a rethinking of christianity that implicitly indicates a new relationship to judaism. b. the ecumenical network the second central issue concerns the ecumenical network of which bonhoeffer was part, both throughout the church struggle period of the 1930s and then during his resistance period.22 after 1939, this ecumenical network became central in the communications between different 20 the two early drafts of the bethel confession, written in the summer of 1933, do repudiate the deicide charge very clearly. berlin, 1932-1933 (dbw 12. german edition pages 386 and 404). 21 an extensive summary of this material, which is found primarily in dbw volumes 14 (theological education at finkenwalde: 1935-1937) and 15 (theological education underground: 1937-1940), is beyond the scope of this essay. documents from these volumes that deserve particular analysis in this respect, however, include the bible study of king david from october 1935 (dbw 14. german pages 878-905); bonhoeffer’s talk on “the contemporary significance of new testament texts,” given to confessing clergy in august 1935 (dbw 14. german pages 399421); and his october 26, 1938 lecture to illegal seminarians, titled “our path according to the testimony of scripture” (dbw 15. german pages 407-31). 22 his primary contacts here included paul lehmann and reinhold niebuhr in the u.s., and ecumenical leaders throughout europe, including marc boegner in france, willem visser ‘t hooft in geneva, george bell in london, and ove ammundsen in sweden. the role of these leaders in helping refugees and particularly in terms of their own responses to nazi anti-jewish measures is documented extensively in armin boyens’ two-volume kirchenkampf und ökumene. resistance movements and in the actual rescue of jews throughout europe.23 again, whereas the popular portrayals of bonhoeffer give him a leading role in this network, he was one among many. yet the significance of this network, even in seemingly singular cases such as le chambon and the white rose resistance (two groups often portrayed as isolated examples of resistance), is often overlooked. in 1941 bonhoeffer and other ecumenical colleagues met in geneva with mayor charles guillon of le chambon to discuss visas and other means to help jews from le chambon reach switzerland.24 in early 1943 dietrich and klaus bonhoeffer planned to meet with the scholls in munich – a meeting that never took place because of the arrests and executions of the white rose members in february 1943. this seems to have been linked to the work of dohnanyi’s office, for josef müller stated that he conveyed information 23 the works that document this most extensively are boyens, kirchenkampf und ökumene; jörgen glenthøj, "bonhoeffer und die ökumene," in bethge, ed., die mündige welt ii (munich: kaiser verlag, 1956); klemens von klemperer, german resistance against hitler: the search for allies abroad 1938-1945 (oxford: clarendon press, 1992); winfried meyer, unternehmen sieben and verschwörer im kz; and most recently uta gerdes, ökumenische solidarität mit christlichen und jüdischen verfolgten: die cimade in vichy-frankreich 1940-1944 (göttingen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2005). because of bonhoeffer’s ties to the german resistance figure gertrud staewen (and her pivotal role in several of the rescue networks), a recent biography of staewen is worth including in this list: marlies flesch-thebesius, zu den aussenseitern gestellt: die geschichte der gertrud staewen 1894-1987 (berlin: wichern verlag, 2004). 24 bonhoeffer was in meetings with mayor guillon during his visits to geneva in march and september 1941. see conspiracy and imprisonment 1940-1945 (dbwe 16), 169, 215, and 681. in addition to the documents in dbwe 16, the world council of churches archives contain the minutes of a meeting in february 1941 of various people working with refugees, attended by bonhoeffer and guillon. (wcc, gs 42.0016. folder 5: cedergren. “minutes of meeting of ecco. febr. 3, 1941). studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 53-67 barnett, “dietrich bonhoeffer’s relevance for post-holocaust theology” 61 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 about the white rose group to rome to be passed on to england.25 the debate about whether bonhoeffer was a “rescuer” has skewed the discussion, i think, because it focuses primarily on his actual role in the operation 7 rescue in 1941. yet his more significant role is as one figure in this larger network, and we can trace a clear trajectory from bonhoeffer’s early political critique of nazism, and his call for church opposition to the nazi state, to his subsequent involvement in the ecumenical rescue network and the german resistance. c. christianity in the world the theological evidence of change that runs concurrently with this move toward resistance, however, is most evident in his reflections on the church and the nature of christian witness and existence in ideological times. his primary theological preoccupation during this period remains what it was from the beginning of his theological work in the 1920s: the identity of the church. that’s what he wrote about throughout the 1930s, it’s what he preached about, it was the focus of his teaching to his students between 1935 and 1939. bonhoeffer’s central point of reference was the question he posed to his times: who is christ for us today? and what defines the church? bonhoeffer’s radical christology – christian preaching and witness for him were incarnational acts – was the means by which he detached 25 the planned meeting with the white rose group is mentioned in eberhard bethge, dietrich bonhoeffer: a biography. revised and edited by victoria j. barnett (minneapolis: fortress press, 2000), 1010, note 284. josef müller, one of the few survivors of the dohnanyi circle, mentioned bonhoeffer’s attempt to pass this information on to england in his interview with harold deutsch. (harold deutsch papers, carlisle, pennsylvania: interview dated march 24, 1966, p. 6 of transcript.). his earthly witness as a christian from the ideological alliances of christendom. this was the focus of his teaching to confessing church seminarians. this – the real-life, real-time emphasis on what it means to live in the world as a christian – is what makes bonhoeffer so important in christian theology, and i think it’s what gives him such universal appeal, both to people exploring spirituality and to the political theologians, in a variety of countries and in very different church and theological traditions. bonhoeffer’s emphasis to his students that they were called to follow “christ alone,” echoing the second thesis of the barmen declaration, was a radical declaration of christian independence from the nazi state and its führer. at the same time, this “christ alone” is clearly an exclusivist claim that is problematic for jews. there is no escaping the fact that bonhoeffer’s theology and language is very internal to christian theology. that, coupled with the anti-judaism in some writings, makes the question of bonhoeffer’s relevance for post-holocaust theology an important one. is bonhoeffer relevant for post-holocaust theology? if so, what does he bring to it? does he have important insights for christians that help us understand our religion and its practices better in the wake of the holocaust? does he have anything at all to say to jews? picking up on some of the points i just outlined, i would focus on what i think are the two most relevant aspects of bonhoeffer’s writings for post-holocaust christian theology: studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 53-67 barnett, “dietrich bonhoeffer’s relevance for post-holocaust theology” 62 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 3. bonhoeffer’s changed ideas about christian identity and witness from the very beginning – and even before, because bonhoeffer’s writings on the church in the late 1920s and early 1930s set the foundation for this – bonhoeffer was clearly concerned about the ideological costs when the church aligns itself with worldly authority or ideology. he began to argue with people like paul althaus and emanuel hirsch in the early 1930s about nationalist and völkisch conceptions of christianity.26 this sets him on a clear collision course both with the deutsche christen and with the widespread support within the protestant church for the nazi regime. the early hagiography of the german church struggle was flawed by the absence of any analysis of christian antisemitism, and yet it is equally problematic to analyze this antisemitism purely as the product of theological antijudaism, without an analysis of how these elements converged in the german protestantism of the 1920s and 1930s with an explicitly nationalist, völkisch mentality and a corresponding understanding of what it meant to be the church. the political critique of the church that did emerge in the early period after 1945 (and in germany it was driven largely by those who had studied under bonhoeffer) was one response to this. by focusing on the protestant church’s alliance with state authority and power, its consequent nationalism, and hence its profound influence in helping to shape the culture that succumbed to nazi ideology, this critique addressed these deeper ideological strains. yet this critique led in many cases to a purely political theology that failed to address the concrete historical record of the 26 this was at a 1932 ecumenical meeting in berlin. see glenthöj, "bonhoeffer und die ökumene," 140-141. church’s antisemitism. the emergence of post-holocaust theology that explicitly confronted anti-judaism was the corrective to this – and yet this theology, in turn, often glossed over the historical and political aspects of the christian response to nazism. yet any serious rethinking of christianity in the wake of the holocaust needs to address these aspects together; one is embedded in the history of the institutional church and the other in theology. thus in addition to re-examining our theology, we need to address the identity of the church, because that is the primary form in which we act in the world. ecclesial traditions, and an understanding of church as ally of nation and culture, were central factors in the churches’ failure under nazism. part of the provocative impact of james carroll’s constantine’s sword27 was that he examined these issues in conjunction with antisemitism. carroll, of course, focused on these issues through the lens of catholic history, but he showed the extent to which these two aspects of christian history – theology and ecclesiology – have been intertwined throughout the centuries. religion is never just about belief or doctrine. religion is always simultaneously a social construct, and theological teachings and interpretations of text constitute a form of dialogue with the social and political context in which they occur. beginning with constantine, christianity and its leaders became aligned with political power, and that power was deepened by the articulation of an explicitly christian culture and the identification of certain values with christianity. the foil of theological anti-judaism gave this prejudice not only political power but an even broader cultural power, which is why even after the emancipation laws in europe jews remained vulnerable, 27 see james carroll, constantine’s sword: the church and the jews: a history (new york: houghton mifflin co., 2001). studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 53-67 barnett, “dietrich bonhoeffer’s relevance for post-holocaust theology” 63 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 viewed as suspect and as “other”, and were immediately targeted in times of turmoil. this also helps to explain the insidious staying power of antisemitism in western society, even to our present day, and i think this is one reason why it is so difficult for christians to acknowledge the real existence of antisemitism and the role played here not only by christian interpretations of scripture, but by christian history and our understanding of the church. this is also why the distinction that is often drawn between antisemitism and theological anti-judaism is so problematic. while this distinction is often defensively invoked to make a distinction between christianity and nazism (and, indeed, the two were not the same thing), the fact remains (and not just during the nazi era) that christian teachings were cited in support of violence against jews throughout the history of christian europe. this is underscored by the fact that for centuries, christians in europe and in this country have been the majority. our cultural understanding as christians, even when we are critical of our religious history and institutions, reflects this. ninety percent of the german population in 1933 was registered with the catholic or protestant church. for that matter, eighty-two percent of the u.s. population today identifies itself as christian.28 christians in western europe and north america are accustomed to thinking as a majority, doing theology as a majority, believing as a majority, and worshipping as a majority. inevitably, this shapes christians’ self-understanding of their own religion as normative, as well as their approach to religious minorities. 28 this figure is from page 50 of the 2002 study conducted by the pew forum on religion & public life, “americans struggle with religions role at home and abroad”, http://pewforum.org/publications/ reports/poll2002.pdf. jews constitute the second largest single religious group in the united states – with one percent of the population in 2002. looking at this issue in a broad historical context, carroll’s book illustrated the closely-woven interrelationship between anti-semitism, the individual christian sense of identity, the church’s institutional sense of identity – and the resulting sociopolitical and cultural sense of privilege. this was one reason that nazism was able to take hold as it did, and hold the allegiance of millions of people and receive the sanction of many in the church. this is why i believe that a post-holocaust christianity cannot consist only of the critique of theological anti-judaism and the rethinking of christian teachings about the jews – as crucial and as central as these tasks are. the other core element has to be the analysis and challenge to presumptions about christian culture and the right to power, because that has been our achilles heel through the centuries, and the response of the german churches to nazism is the case study for that. and this is what bonhoeffer came to understand – in a way that virtually no one else at the time, including his ecumenical colleagues, did. at the heart of his 1933 essay was his analysis about the criteria for determining what state authority is legitimate and what is not. he was very clear about the church’s obligation not only to oppose illegitimate authority (which in bonhoeffer’s definition in this essay is authority that is unjust and oppressive) but to stop it. by virtue of its inclusion in this essay he is clearly linking this to the anti-jewish measures. his starting point for this critique seems to have been his strong political clarity, which is in evidence from the beginning of the nazi regime. he recognized quite early that a christian could not be a nazi, a sentiment he articulated in a 1934 letter to norwegian bishop ove ammundsen: “it is precisely here, in our attitude toward the state, that we must speak out with absolute sincerity for the sake of jesus christ studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 53-67 barnett, “dietrich bonhoeffer’s relevance for post-holocaust theology” 64 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 and of the ecumenical cause. it must be made quite clear – terrifying though it is – that we are immediately faced with the decision: national socialist or christian.”29 in turn, this political clarity shaped his theology. particularly during his resistance activities, we can trace how his theological understanding of christian identity was influenced by the political developments around him. bonhoeffer’s critique of cultural and nationalist christianity was a repudiation of the ways in which his religion had been hijacked by ideologies – nationalism, militarism, nazism, fascism – and had made its peace with them. he understood the problems of the instrumentalization of christianity, its alliance with power, its place in society, better than any other christian thinker of his times and better than most since. bonhoeffer’s reflections on this and on the moral failure of “christendom” became most striking during the early 1940s, when the conversation in many christian resistance circles of europe and the ecumenical world turned to what would be necessary for the moral reconstruction of european society after the defeat of nazism. virtually all these documents saw the solution of this question in some form of “rechristianization” of europe (as an antidote to fascism and ideology) or return to explicitly “christian” values.30 the values they were upholding, of course, are naturally not confined to christianity, and the failure of these european christian leaders to acknowledge this, to reflect on the meaning of “rechristianization” in the context of what had 29 london 1933-1935 (dbwe 13), 1/123; publication forthcoming spring 2007. 30 a detailed description of these documents goes beyond the scope of this essay, but see von klemperer’s discussion of this in german resistance against nazism, 264-315. see also dianne kirby, “william temple, pius xii, ecumenism, natural law, and the postwar peace,” journal of ecumenical studies (summer-fall 1999): 318-39. happened in the holocaust, and to reflect on the explicit failures of christianity during this period, is striking. bonhoeffer’s own wartime reflections on the topic of the values that would be needed in the aftermath of nazism are in stark contrast.31 bonhoeffer disagreed with the premise of these ecumenical documents, writing that the remedy to the moral havoc wreaked under nazism could not be the rechristianization of society or the state, but a society in which christians and their church would have to assume a new function.32 in one such example, bonhoeffer wrote of the need for a new understanding of civil society, marked by “a possible and necessary cooperation between christians and non-christians in clarifying certain subjects and in advancing concrete tasks. because of their fundamentally different foundations, the results emerging from this cooperation have the character not of the proclamation of the word of god but of responsible deliberation or demand 31 see barnett, „communications between the german resistance“, esp. 67-71. it should be noted that the citations in this 2002 published article were from the “the doctrine of the primus usus legis” in the 1963 edition of ethics. that essay is no longer in the new dbwe edition of ethics, since it has been determined that it was not part of bonhoeffer’s original ethics manuscript. the essay can now be found in: conspiracy and imprisonment 1940-1945 (dbwe 16), 584-601, and the citations here are from this more recent translation. 32 see especially his reflections on the relationship of the church to the “worldly orders” in the essay on “‘personal’ and ‘objective’ ethics” in conspiracy and imprisonment 1940-1945 (dbwe 16), esp. 547-51. other wartime writings that indicate his new thinking about christianity (including explicit commentary on the ecumenical position papers about “rechristianization”) include his position paper on state and church, his review of william paton’s the church and the new order, and his draft proposal for reorganizing the church and its constitution after the coup. these writings can be found in part 2 of conspiracy and imprisonment 1940-1945. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 53-67 barnett, “dietrich bonhoeffer’s relevance for post-holocaust theology” 65 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 on the basis of human perception. this distinction must be preserved under all circumstances.”33 bonhoeffer’s central concern remained the life of christian faith in the world, yet his understanding of christianity had been shaken and altered by the failures of his church under nazism. in 1942 he wrote of “a christendom enmeshed in guilt beyond all measure”34 and during the same period he wrote: the church confesses that it has witnessed the arbitrary use of brutal force, the suffering in body and soul of countless innocent people, that it has witnessed oppression, hatred, and murder without raising its voice for the victims and without finding ways of rushing to help them. it has become guilty of the lives of the weakest and most defenseless brothers and sisters of jesus christ.35 by the time of his imprisonment bonhoeffer had concluded that christianity could never again be what it was. the church, he wrote, had fought under nazism: … only for its own preservation, as if that were an end in itself, and has become incapable of bringing the word of reconciliation and redemption to humankind and to the world. so the words we used before must lose their power, be silenced, and we can be christians today in 33 conspiracy and imprisonment 1940-1945 (dbwe 16), 599-600. 34 in his “unfinished draft of a pulpit pronouncement following the coup”, in conspiracy and imprisonment 1940-1945 (dbwe 16), 572. 35 ethics (dbwe 6), 139. only two ways, through prayer and in doing justice among human beings.36 does any of this, however, indicate a revision of his attitudes toward judaism? there is no definitive answer. bethge and others have observed that between 1939 and 1945, when bonhoeffer was engaged in the resistance and then imprisoned, he was hardly in a position to write at length about taking a new approach to judaism. the historical circumstances under which he was writing must indeed be taken into account. bonhoeffer’s thinking and language remain clearly christian and his reflections here are consistent with his understanding of the incarnational nature of christianity in the world. at the same time, his experiences had challenged every aspect of his theology, and his understanding of christianity had changed as a result: but we too are being thrown back again to the very beginnings of our understanding. what reconciliation and redemption mean, being born again and holy spirit, loving your enemies, cross and resurrection, what it means to live in christ and follow christ, all that is so difficult and remote that we hardly dare speak of it anymore.37 it was during this period that he began to call for a “religionless christianity” in “a world come of age” – a christianity that must understand and define itself anew, in the world that had been altered by nazism; a christianity that has to detach itself from privilege and triumphalism. 36 from “thoughts on the baptism day of dietrich wilhelm rüdiger bethge,” widerstand und ergebung (dbw 8. german edition page 435. translation is by isabel best, from the forthcoming english edition. 37 ibid. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 53-67 barnett, “dietrich bonhoeffer’s relevance for post-holocaust theology” 66 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 in talking with christians, the jewish theologian david novak argues that christian-jewish dialogue needs to go beyond merely theological conversations, and that the most important form of commonality between jews and christians must be “the theological-political question: how faithful jews and faithful christians can enter into civil society and survive there intact.”38 this is the central question that bonhoeffer was exploring during the resistance and prison period. his language remains very much that of the “faithful christian” – but the writings are those of someone struggling with the very meaning of this, of how christians could not only remain faithful in civil society, but in a historical period in which they had profoundly compromised their faith. 4. bonhoeffer’s reflections on guilt and failure this second factor is something that, oddly enough, has been largely overlooked in writings to date about bonhoeffer. this may well be due to the hagiographic nature of much of what has been written about him, but – as the excerpts above indicate –a dominant theme in bonhoeffer’s late writings is his own developing sense of guilt, of failure, and what this means not only for his life as a christian but for his very understanding of christianity. here theology and biography must be understood in conjunction with one another. this aspect of bonhoeffer’s thought cannot be separated from what he was experiencing in the resistance, beginning in the fall of 1939. while there remains much that we may never know, it is clear that he was involved in the resistance circle that was best informed about the atrocities against the jews on the eastern front, 38 david novak, talking with christians: musings of a jewish theologian (grand rapids: wm. b. eerdmans, 2005), 207. through his brother-in-law hans von dohnanyi.39 bonhoeffer’s work for the resistance entailed carrying two kinds of information to ecumenical colleagues abroad: 1) this information from dohnanyi, and 2) peace feelers for the resistance. at least one document – the 1945 memo from harold tittmann about his postwar conversation with josef mueller – suggests that one aspect of the peace feelers may have been to urge caution in what foreign church leaders said about nazi actions, so as not to undermine the resistance plans.40 given bonhoeffer’s knowledge of what the nazis were doing, given the repeated delays and failures of the resistance to overthrow the regime (by all accounts a source of real anguish to dohnanyi), it is clear that bonhoeffer’s period in the resistance confronted him with difficult ethical dilemmas. the reflections on guilt and the very viability of christianity that permeate bonhoeffer’s wartime writings are evidence of this. his reflections on the changed nature of ethical thought and human responsibility in history are at the heart of ethics, which was written at the height of his resistance activities. his most famous reflections on these matters can be found in the short essay “after ten years,” written for his closest friends in the conspiracy in december 1942.41 “one may ask,” he writes here, “whether there have 39 this is extensively documented in winfried meyer’s unternehmen sieben and especially verschwörer im kz. see also barnett, “communications between the german resistance,” in religion im erbe, esp. 59-65, which include references to various archival documents that contain the reports of these atrocities. 40 see barnett, “communications between the german resistance,” in religion im erbe, esp. 59-65. a copy of the tittmann memo is in the myron c. taylor papers, library of congress, box 2: “secret. for the ambassador. june 4 1945. memo from tittmann.” 41 the new translation of this will appear in the forthcoming letters and papers from prison (dbwe 8). the translation referenced here is from the translation in letters and papers from prison, (new york: macmillan publishing company, 1972), 3 – 21. studies in christian-jewish relations 2/1 (2007): 53-67 barnett, “dietrich bonhoeffer’s relevance for post-holocaust theology” 67 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss1/art4 ever before in human history been people with so little ground under their feet – people to whom every available alternative seemed equally intolerable, repugnant, and futile...the great masquerade of evil has played havoc with all our ethical concepts.”42 in the pages that follow he explores the consequences of this experience for how they think about faith, solidarity, good, evil, and responsibility. while his reflections in ethics on these issues are more directed at the role of the christian in society and history, in “after ten years” he confronted them very personally, as a christian and citizen, asking: “are we still of any use?”43 his late writings are marked both by a continuing belief in grace as well as a profound sense of his own failings, the failing of his church and his fellow conspirators. bonhoeffer witnessed and understood evil, he was part of and understood compromise with evil, he acknowledged his own shame and guilt. between 1933-1945 his writings can be understood as an unfolding set of reflections on that experience and what it meant for his faith. and he nonetheless remained faithful; as he wrote on july 21, 1944 – the day after the failure of the final attempt on hitler’s life – “it is only by living completely in this world that one learns to have faith.”44 5. conclusion does any of this make him relevant in post-holocaust jewish-christian dialogue? is his thinking useful or interesting for jewish scholars? or does the combination of the theological anti-judaism and his strong christian focus make that impossible? i don’t know. but i personally think that bonhoeffer’s thought is indispensable for any true post 42 ibid., 3 – 4. 43 ibid., 16. 44 letters and papers from prison, 369. holocaust christian thought – not because of the development of his thinking on judaism and the jews, but because of the conclusions he drew about the changed identity of the church, the necessity for the dismantling of cultural and political christendom, and not least because of his own guilt and shame about the failures of his church and his country to withstand nazi evil. he wrote about what it does to our souls to be complicit, to struggle to be good, to think differently about good and evil. his writings in their simplest form are simply the record of the development of his thinking on these issues. this, i would argue, is his potential contribution to postholocaust theology. in the long run it may prove to be a minor one, less important than the work of those pioneers whose profound rethinking of the jewish-christian relationship is at the heart of such theology. yet surely his reflections here are informative for christians who seek to rethink and practice their faith in a profoundly different way in the shadow of the holocaust, for he leaves us with some additional tools for seeing our role as christians and as citizens in a new light. the insights he drew from his experience under nazism can help christians to encounter jews and members of other faiths, not as members of a majority or dominant religion, not as people who privilege their faith as the dominant set of values for the culture or who demand ideological conformity with “christian” values, but as people who have sinned profoundly and who accept their place in civil society as brothers and sisters (and as citizens) alongside non-christians, and want to reflect theologically on what this means for their faith. christ in the works of two jewish artists: when art is interreligious dialogue studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): hayman 1-14 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college c h r i s t i n t h e w o r k s o f t w o j e w i s h a r t i s t s : w h e n a r t i s i n t e r r e l i g i o u s d i a l o g u e m a r i n a h a y m a n yale university volume 4, (2009) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 hayman, christ in the works of two jewish artists hayman 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): hayman 1-14 in 1942, the puma gallery in new york city hosted an exhibit entitled "modern christs.” of the twenty-six artists showing works, seventeen were jewish, a startling number; clearly something was afoot. this paper explores this issue of the place of christ in the works of two jewish artists, painter marc chagall and sculptor jacob epstein. when researching these two artists it becomes clear that, in the process of representing christ, these two men were engaging with christ and the whole network of christian meaning and symbolism. their engage-ment was dialogue, though not the exchange of words and ideas typically associated with the term today. this paper contends that interreligious dialogue is a multifaceted phenomenon and that restricting our understanding of it to the realm of words and verbal interchange hampers development in this field. the cultural backdrop the two artists under consideration were roughly contem poraries born into a world in which judaism had been grappling with the forces of modernity for over a century. it was a world in which jewish intellectuals and artists had been struggling, since the late 1700's, with the role of jesus and the place of jews in christian society. the work of these individuals led to far-reaching changes, as they "redefined the essence and meaning of judaism, jewishness, and jewish history for the modern age…they also reconceptualized the place of jesus within the world of judaism… ."1 during this period jews were emerging from the isolation of medieval times when the figure of jesus, indeed all christian symbols, had been hated objects due to the pain caused by anti-semitism. jews were struggling to locate themselves as legitimate members within the christian world which 1 hoffman, matthew. from rebel to rabbi: reclaiming jesus and the making of modern jewish culture ( stanford ca: stanford university press) 7-8. surrounded them, and they were attempting to clarify their relationship to the basic issues of christianity, jesus and the cross, as a part of this. in the late 18th century german-jewish philosopher moses mendelssohn was a seminal figure in the haskalah, the renaissance of european jewry. the transformation of jesus into a figure of legitimate consideration for jews was a part of this renaissance. a thrust of his work, as well as of the work of his contemporaries and those who followed, was the reassertion of the jewishness of jesus. at times this developed to the point of suggesting that "all christian teachings and doctrines that can be authentically traced to jesus were part of one or another normative strand of judaism and the remaining christian teachings were mere inventions of paul and the founders of the early christian church."2 in the early 20th century two russian jewish intellectuals, writer and folklorist s. ansky and cultural activist chaim zhitlovsky, were involved in an ongoing debate regarding "…the dangers and the merits of embracing christian themes in jewish thought and literature."3 the controversy in this debate became known, in yiddish, as "di tseylem frage," the crucifix question, in which the essential issue was the place of jews and jewish culture within modern western civilization with its christian underpinnings. marc chagall (1887-1985) chagall produced several paintings depicting christ over the course of his career, most of them appearing during or after world war ii. the best known of these are white crucifixion (1938) and yellow crucifixion (1943), although his earliest work 2 ibid., 20. 3 ibid., 61 hayman, christ in the works of two jewish artists hayman 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): hayman 1-14 of christ, the 1912 painting golgotha, is also a well-known painting. chagall grew up an orthodox jew in a jewish enclave in a small russian village surrounded by a world saturated in christian imagery, the rich visual world of russian orthodox churches and icons. he was impacted by what he saw: in my youth i often saw russian icons. i was profoundly impressed by them, but later, i became estranged from them because they seemed to contain too much traditionalism and schematism…the symbolical figure of christ was always near to me…4 the figure of christ was compelling for chagall, and in his memoirs he reported "that he had been haunted for a long time by the pale face of jesus."5 at one point he had even gone so far as to set up a meeting with a noted rabbi to discuss this, but then for some reason not stated, he never broached the topic. chagall did a crucifixion sketch in 1909 which became a study for his painting golgotha. this early sketch, stylistically, resembled traditional russian orthodox icons in many ways. however by the time he did the final painting, these resemblances had dissipated. as chagall developed his own interpretations. dedicated to christ (1912), chagall's first crucifixion, originally titled golgotha, is shown below. in this cubist painting, a blue child hangs cruciform on a cross that has partially disappeared into the green background. at the foot of the cross 4 aimishel-maisels,, ziva. "chagall's dedicated to christ: sources and meaning” in jewish art, vol. 21-22, 1995-1996, 77. 5 j. wilson, "divine muse: a jewish artist haunted by the face of jesus" in wall street journal online, friday april 27, 2007, 1. stand a disciple and mary and at the right a figure disappears with a ladder—an important theme in chagall’s work which will be discussed later. golgotha/dedicated to christ in her article on this painting, ziva aimishel-maisels traces the evolution of this work through a series of drawings and paintings and concludes that the initial drawing may have been done in response to a june 1906 pogrom which was set off by false allegations of jewish blood-libel (murdering christian children for blood to be used in rituals). icons of crucified children that referred to this blood libel were in circulation, and aimishel-maisels surmises that golgotha/dedicated to christ was chagall's complex and angry response to the accusations of blood libel and the pogroms that ensued.6 from chagall's own statements, it is apparent that he is very conscious in his use of christian dogmatic symbols to illustrate the volatile 6 general conclusion drawn by aimishel-maisels, ibid. hayman, christ in the works of two jewish artists hayman 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): hayman 1-14 religious situation of the times and the precarious position of the russian jews.7 white crucifixion chagall's fascination with the crucified christ re-emerged in the upheaval of the late 1930s and remained a continuing theme in his work for the next thirty years. his 1938 painting white crucifixion stands at a great distance from the joyous apolitical scenes that had characterized his work.8 at the time it was painted the national socialist party had come into power in germany and there "…the anti-jewish pogroms were raging, the concentration camps were filling…synagogues were going up in flames."9 in white crucifixion chagall depicts these atrocities around the central figure of christ, which is described as: 7 ibid , 78. 8 ibid. 9 walter erben, marc chagall, ny: frederick a. prager, 1957, 111. …a recognizably jewish christ with a prayer shawl for a loincloth dominates the large canvas…but all the scenes clustered around him are unaffected by his presence. revolutionary mobs attack from the left, the matriarchs and patriarchs weep up above, a synagogue burns on the right, jews flee the destruction on foot and by boat, the torah scroll is in flames, a mother clutches her baby, an old jew weeps… ."10 despite the presence of christ on a cross, chagall scholar franz meyer emphasizes how white crucifixion differs from christian portrayals of the cross. he writes that in white crucifixion "this christ is really crucified, stretched in all his pain above a world of horror…,"11 but that, in contrast to christian portrayals of the event, the suffering of christ is not the most significant component. for meyer white crucifixion is primarily "an exemplary jewish martyrology"12 in which chagall is "raising the shrieks of the dying and the horror of death into the realm of legend."13 yellow crucifixion (1943), painted in response to the second world war, reworks the themes of white crucifixion.14 the christ figure is suspended mid-air on the cross, sharing the central focus of the painting with a large green torah scroll, which reinforces jesus' connection to judaism and jewish law. the lower part of the painting shows burning buildings and people, in agony, fleeing. in the martyr (1940), the christ, shown as a contemporary cap-wearing russian jew, is bound to a stake rather than a cross. in this painting, chagall moves 10 david g. roskies, against the apocalypse: responses to catastrophe in modern jewish culture. cambridge ma: harvard university press, 1984, 294. 11 franz meyer, chagall, ny: harry n. abrams, 1964, 414. 12 ibid. 13 ibid. 415 14 edward n.mcnulty, "three artists view christ: marc chagall, abraham rattner and robert lentz" in christianity and the arts, 6 winter, 1999, 13. hayman, christ in the works of two jewish artists hayman 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): hayman 1-14 toward a more explicit identification of the crucified christ with the present suffering of the jewish people. yellow crucifixion the martyr although each of the paintings described above has its unique symbolism and elements, what is common to all of them is the way in which the function of christ and the crucifixion motif have been transformed by chagall. it has already been mentioned that in his paintings there is the repeated theme of the ladder being removed from the cross, which implies that this christ will simply remain there crucified. this christ is not the redeemer of christian theology, but an eternally suffering christ who cannot be removed from the cross and remains isolated from the rest of humanity while simultaneously summing up the suffering in the world around him.15 referring to white crucifixion, plank writes: 15 mcnulty, 13. chagall's messiah, this jew of the cross is no rescuer, but himself hangs powerless before the chaotic fire. this portrayal of messiah as victim threatens to sever the basic continuity we have wanted to maintain between suffering and redemption…"16 while chagall is almost obsessive in his use of christ as the main image of martyrdom, he is simultaneously aware that "…images of christ are tough for a jewish audience to swallow."17 particularly after world war ii, depicting a jew on the cross "…was to confront a stronger taboo, for to do so required the victim to borrow from the oppressor's cultural tradition."18 the rise of fascism and antisemitism made inroads on the earlier modernizing movement within judaism and no longer was christ a subject for intellectual or artistic consideration, as jews turned away from their embrace of jesus in the face of the nazi genocide implying that the outburst of rage and violence unleashed against the jews in europe once again tainted the figure of jesus with the stain of jewish as in earlier times… .19 chagall remained one of the few cultural figures who continued to use jesus as "an iconic image of jewish martyrdom"20 in the course of and after the second world war. chagall's work preserves for us an image of the "jewish jesus" that was salient in some circles of modern jewish 16 karl a. plank, "broken continuities: night and white crucifixion" in the new christian century, nov. 4, 1987, 964. 17jonathan wilson, xi. 18 plank, 964. 19 hoffman, 252. 20 ibid. hayman, christ in the works of two jewish artists hayman 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): hayman 1-14 culture before the holocaust. chagall's jesus is "a jewish jesus who would not have understood himself in any way existing beyond the boundaries of a normative judaism of his time… ."21 his paintings illustrate for us the jesus of history, the "jewish jesus" who was to become a central impetus of late 20th century christian theology. there has been a tendency throughout christian history to extract jesus from his context and to forget that the gospels referred to him as rabbi. following centuries of such de-judaization, "scholars have not only put the picture of jesus back into the setting of firstcentury judaism; they have also rediscovered the jewishness of the new testament… ."22 chagall's works help put a face on this reclaimed part of christianity. chagall's burial in france was an ecumenical event. he was buried in saint-paul-de-vence's catholic cemetery, in a plot donated by the mayor of the town. chagall had asked for a burial without religious rites. yet a man unknown to anyone present stepped out from among the trees and recited kaddish, the jewish prayer for the dead.23 jacob epstein (1880-1959) epstein was born into an orthodox polish-jewish family that had emigrated to new york city. they lived on the lower east side of the city, in an area that was teeming with people from nearly every corner of the globe. this exotic variety of ethnicities and races is reported to have fascinated epstein from an early age. as a child epstein was made to attend lengthy synagogue services on a regular basis and he also had a bar mitzvah. however, he did not like organized religion and described himself as follows: "certainly i had no devotional 21 j .wilson, 2. 22 jaroslav pelikan, jesus through the centuries. new haven, ct: yale university press, 1997, 19. 23 j. wilson, 215. feelings, and later, with my reading and free-thinking ideas, i dropped all practice of ceremonial forms."24 nonetheless, he remained identified as a jew throughout his life and maintained his own form of religiosity, not some abstract form of spirituality, but one in which biblical themes were important as is reflected in the themes he chose to sculpt. although, as will be discussed later, he often used non-conventional primitive sculptural forms in his religious sculptures, this was not an effort to side-step judaeo-christian spirituality, which remained an important theme for him throughout his life. epstein was an innately religious man, although he subscribed to no organized religion. he read the bible, both the old testament and the new, all through his life and he grappled with the search for significance… .25 the world in which epstein grew up was very different from the shtetl of chagall's youth. in 1886, when epstein was six years old, a group of young idealistic christian reformers, moved to the lower east side of new york to help educate and expose the youth there to a wider cultural context. this contact "freed [the children] from the strictures of a closed orthodoxy" and opened them to the "vigorous yiddish culture of the intelligentsia of polish jewry."26 it is not inconceivable that he had some contact with the sorts of debates about judaism's relationship to christianity and jesus that were on-going at the time. epstein moved to paris in 1902 to pursue his artistic education. there he met and was influenced by a number of avant-garde artists and, like them, he rebelled against 'pretty' 24 jacob epstein, let there be sculpture: the autobiography of jacob epstein. london: the reader's union, ltd., 1942, 7. 25 june rose, demons and angels, a life of jacob epstein, ny: carroll and graf publishers, 2002, 118-19. 26 rose, 22. hayman, christ in the works of two jewish artists hayman 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): hayman 1-14 art. characteristic of the avant-gardes, he was drawn to primitive art, including african art, because, in his words, "african work opens up to us a world hitherto unknown, and exhibits characteristics that are far removed from our traditional european rendering of form in greek, in gothic or in renaisssance traditions."27 primitive art, for epstein, opened new avenues of expression, but he was not so caught up in rebellion that he was willing to discard traditional forms. he maintained a respect for these, and as his words indicate, was critical of those who had chosen to demean what had come before: "in the reaction against european sculpture, the newly enlightened are inclined to declare european, greek, and egyptian sculpture insipid and meaningless. this is a great error."28 epstein went on to become a serious collector of primitive art, with "an obsession to possess it which led him eventually to own the finest collection of african and pacific art in europe."29 epstein was a prolific sculptor and over his lifetime his works included 450 portrait bronzes, for which he is best-known, and 50 large carvings which were received mixed reviews. his first statue of christ, the risen christ, stands over seven feet in height. it was done between 1917 and 1920.. as epstein reports it, the initial inspiration for the risen christ came to him while he was working on another project: …i began it as a study from bernard van dieren (a friend) when he was ill. watching his head, so spiritual and worn with suffering, i though i would like to make a mask of him. i hurried home and returned with clay and made a mask 27 epstein, 189. 28 epstein, 190. 29 rose, 78. which i immediately recognized as the christ head…i saw the whole figure of my 'christ' in the mask….30 the risen christ epstein interprets this episode as a sort of mystical experience and compares it to that of the author turgenev, who while standing in a crowd felt the presence of christ in the man next to him. epstein's interpretation reveals conversancy with christian religious and spiritual traditions, as well as the new testament, as he goes on to further compare his own experience with christ with that of the disciples' recognition of christ in a stranger on the road to emmaus.31 epstein's service in the british army during the first world war was a very distressing experience and he ended up hospitalized with some sort of a break-down. richard cork considers the risen christ to contain some autobiographical component: 30 epstein, 104. 31 ibid. hayman, christ in the works of two jewish artists hayman 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): hayman 1-14 there is nothing triumphal about this resurrection. with a gaunt and etiolated body, christ emerges from death in a state of somber stillness. he scarcely seems to have recovered from his own martyrdom…although he head was based on the ailing dutch composer bernard van dieren…the sculptor's own traumatic experience in the army surely informs risen christ as well….32 it was epstein's aim to create a christ that would convey the horror of the war that he had experienced. of this christ epstein wrote, "it stands and accuses the world for its grossness, inhumanity, cruelty, and beastliness, for the world war and for the new wars…".33 for epstein, the risen christ was prophetic and as he wrote in his later years: i should like to remodel this 'christ'. i should like to make it hundreds of feet high and set it up on some high place where all could see it and where it would give out its warning …to all lands… 'shalom, shalom' must be still the watchword between man and man.34 despite epstein's hopes, the risen christ was too radical a departure from convention and was not well received by parts of the viewing public. difficulty in accepting epstein's use of primitive forms is revealed in the critical review of one father vaughan: …i felt ready to cry out with indignation that in this christian england there should be exhibited the figure of a christ which suggested to me some degraded chaldean or african, which wore the appearance of an asiatic-american or hun 32 richard cork, jacob epstein, nj: princeton university press, 1999, 41-42. 33 epstein, 103, 34 epstein, 105. jew…i call it positively wicked and insulting to perpetrate such a travesty of the risen christ.35 however the potential of the risen christ to transform the image and understanding of christ was understood by some of the public as revealed in the humorous assault of a contemporary writer on the critique of the just-quoted father vaughan. referencing the cookie-cutter quality of existing images of christ, this writer makes the comment: "father vaughan will find his christ in every roman catholic church in the land and in all the shops that furnish them…".36 ecce homo ecce homo (1934-35), epstein's next christ, was his biggest carving and in some way resembles the god of an indigenous religion. what epstein wanted to convey in this work was "..a symbol of man, bound, crowned with thorns and facing with a 35 father bernard vaughan in the graphic, february 14, 1920, cited in epstein, 107. 36 cited in epstein, 109. hayman, christ in the works of two jewish artists hayman 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): hayman 1-14 relentless and over-mastering gaze of pity and prescience our unhappy world…".37 like the risen christ, ecce homo was met with contemporary criticism, although some contemporaries were able to grasp the possibilities of seeing and understanding that ecce homo opened to viewers. as one favorable reviewer of the time assessed the value of this work that departed so radically from convention, "there was much sentimentality and clap-trap to be cleared away from the idea of religious art…".38 ecce homo was never sold and eventually found a site in 1969 in the ruins of coventry cathedral "where it still can be seen in all its power…in a setting that resonates with tragic history and the inhumanity of man to man which had prompted the risen christ after the first world war".39 consummatum est epstein found the inspiration for his next christ, consummatum est, while listening to the 'crucifixus' section of bach's b minor mass. the way he described his recognition of the figure in the block of marble from which it was to be carved, 37 epstein, 147. 38 from the spectator, march 15, 1993 cited in epstein, 152. 39 rose, 194. "i see the figure complete as a whole,"40 is another instance of the intuitive-spiritual component in epstein's mode of working, that was also evident in the creation of the risen christ. as had been the case with his two previous christ sculptures, consummatum est received scathing criticism from some clergy and, in particular, from roman catholic journalists.41 the sculpture is now housed in the scottish gallery of art.42 the post-world war ii climate was better for epstein. by then, public anti-semitism had become unacceptable, and many cathedrals and churches had been damaged in the bombings and were in need of reconstruction. epstein was commissioned to do a christ for the llandaff cathedral—the llandaff christ or christ in majesty (1954-55). christ in majesty 40 epstein, 154. 41 ibid., 156. 42 rose, 276. hayman, christ in the works of two jewish artists hayman 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): hayman 1-14 the architect on the reconstruction project of the cathedral had written to epstein asking if he would have an interest in sculpting "a great figure of christ reigning from the cross".43 in contrast to the vulnerability and woundedness of the risen christ, this "christ was conceived as pantocrator in the spirit of byzantine mosaics… ."44 in the 1970's, riverside church in new york city acquired epstein's original plaster cast for christ in majesty, which now gold-leafed, hangs in its magnificence, in the back of the main sanctuary. in addition to his christs, epstein also sculpted two major works of the madonna and child, a 1927 work which was donated in 1959 to riverside church and a second one that was commissioned as part of the reconstruction of the convent of the holy child on cavendish square in london. madonna and child for reconstruction of convent of the holy child, london 43 rose, 255. 44 richard buckle, jacob epstein, sculptor, london: faber and faber, ltd., 1963, 385. the nuns at this convent had planned on hiring a catholic sculptor, but architect louis osman held out for epstein, whom he felt was the only sculptor capable of doing justice to the architectural design. epstein is reported to have been very humble in his dealings with the nuns and is reported to have made the following comment: "short of baptism i don't mind listening to them."45 this arrangement work out well and the sculpture was warmly received by the convent.46 epstein also sculpted st. michael and the devil for coventry cathedral from 1955-58. he was the choice of architect basil st. michael and the devil spence and this choice was supported by the bishop of the cathedral. still, a reconstruction committee member protested that epstein was jewish, to which the architect, spence, is reported to have replied, "so was jesus christ".47 epstein was questioned about his religious beliefs in the course of dealing 45 rose, 247. 46 buckle, 350. 47 rose, 264. hayman, christ in the works of two jewish artists hayman 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): hayman 1-14 with the cathedral hierarchy and his reply was, "my tendency has always been religious" adding, "most great sculpture is occasioned by faith…"48 despite the intimate familiarity epstein, at times, displayed with the christian faith, one writer's assessment of epstein's connection to christianity was that "epstein's visual imagination was fired by the christian story, but it seems clear that for him the divine spark might take many forms".49 epstein died on august 18, 1959 and his burial six days later, like that of chagall, was an ecumenical event. despite the fact that epstein died a jew who had kept his tallis and menorah,50 the dean of canterbury cathedral performed the ceremony. later that year, on november 10th, there was a memorial service for epstein at st. paul's cathedral in london, and the plaster cast of his christ in majesty hung on the wall during the service. canon c.b. mortlock gave an incredible eulogy, finishing with the words: …if we ask how it was that a boy born and bred in the jewish faith and never embracing any other, should become the interpreter of the sublime mysteries of our religion there can be no clear answer. such things belong to the inscrutable wisdom of god….51 impact of the work of chagall and epstein why jewish artists choose to express themselves within the idiom of christian iconography has been a matter of interest and curiosity for many. david roskies in his book against the apocalypse: responses to catastrophe in modern jewish 48 ibid., 265. 49 ibid. 50 ibid. 51 cited in buckle, 420. culture, theorizes that perhaps it is because of the second commandment, the prohibition of graven images, and the fact that "…synagogue art…had never developed into a cumulative self-conscious tradition…,52 that some modern jewish artists have turned to christian imagery as a vehicle for conveying their spiritual concerns. however, it is also important to include historical factors and precedents, such as the focus on christ in the period of modernization of judaism, as discussed in this paper, when trying to reach an understanding of the choice of christ as a subject for jewish artists. neither chagall nor epstein used christian iconography in its traditional, expectable way. chagall's christ was not a redemptive figure, but stood a victim on the cross surrounded by chaos and suffering. chagall was not simply recycling a christian symbol, but using it in a new way that "…creates an intense interplay of religious expectation and historical reality that challenges our facile assumptions."53 chagall changes the meaning of the cross, which has helped both christians and jews to see it in a different way. referring to white crucifixion, plank spells out the fruit of chagall's dialogue with christian symbols, showing a major way in which chagall enriched the meaning of christ and his cross, thereby opening new vistas of theological understanding. …expressions of jewish anguish distinctly not our own return us to the meaning of the cross in its most powerful form. the jewish testament enables us to see anew what centuries of resurrection enthusiasm have obscured in our own tradition: the fractured bond between god and the world".54 52 roskies, 275. 53 plank, 963. 54 ibid, 966. hayman, christ in the works of two jewish artists hayman 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): hayman 1-14 the transformation in the christ-image catalyzed by chagall is not only important for christians, but jews as well. chagall, in his own ways was continuing the work of the earlier jewish modernizers who, in their quest for the jewish jesus, sought to create a place for jesus within jewish understanding and theology. …it is only in the work of marc chagall…that the crucifixion is wholly transformed into a central jewish icon. no other jewish artist went as far as chagall in inscribing the figure of jesus and the crucifixion into the canon of modern jewish culture."55 epstein's sculptures offended the sensibilities of many in the very proper england of his time. he was aware of the conservatism of believers concerning the symbols of their faith as is revealed in his statement : today ecclesiastical authorities fight shy of any work which shows any religious intensity of feeling, and merely wish for innocuous religious 'furniture' that will not disturb the mind of the beholder."56 yet, epstein was a man of intense feeling who did not hold back from injecting his passion into his religious works. although, as has already been described in this paper, much of epstein's public had difficulty accepting the novelty of his work, some contemporaries did grasp the significant transformational potential of epstein's art. that epstein's original interpretations were recognized as bringing new life to a religious art that had become moribund, is reflected in these comments from reviewers of the time: 55 hoffman, 251 56 epstein,102. …the great difficulty which has faced religious artists in europe is that our natural tradition for expressing religious feeling is utterly used up and dead…there was much claptrap and sentimentality to be cleared away from the idea of religious art….57 the point is that several hundreds….of people who will go to see a christ will come away with the shock of recognition that, although they had never imagined such a man of sorrows, this strange embodiment of a traditional figure has impressed them deeply. so they will discover what art can do…they may feel…that civilization itself depends .on the possibility of achievements like epstein's christ."58 the claim was made by one contemporary clergyman, that epstein's christs even had the capacity to expand christians' understanding of the gospel: in his daring figure of the christ, mr. epstein has broken with the tradition of christian art…it must be admitted at once that this christ would never make sense of the gospel as a whole…yet there is another figure in the gospel, and the value of this great work lies in the insight which has led the artist to interpret this other strand in the story…"59 implications for contemporary jewish-christian dialogue contemporary jewish-christian dialogue is prevalently understood as a post-holocaust phenomenon, with little awareness of the lively jewish debate and dialogue about jesus and the cross that ensued from the late 18th through the 57 anthony blunt in the spectator, march 15, 1935 cited in epstein, 152. 58 jon middleton murry in the nation, february 12, 1920, cited in epstein, 257-8. 59 the rev. edward shillito in the sunday times, february 12, 1920, cited in epstein, 152. hayman, christ in the works of two jewish artists hayman 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): hayman 1-14 early 20th centuries. this yiddish modernism, "lived a tragically curtailed existence,"60 dying when many writers "turned away from their embrace of jesus in the face of the nazi genocide."61 so, it is understandable that the general perception is that contemporary jewish-christian dialogue largely began in the mid-twentieth century with the vatican's nostra aetate and the commission for religious relations with the jews. however, the earlier efforts to narrow the divide between the two faiths do deserve attention and have a significant contribution to make to contemporary dialogue efforts. although the intense inquiry of jews into the figure of jesus characteristic of the yiddish modernist dialogue no longer survives as an intact movement, the spirit of the enterprise still exists. there have been jewish scholars, of whom geza vermes and paula fredriksen are two notable examples, who have written extensively about jesus within the jewish context.62 although the jewish inquiry into jesus has, for the most part, remained a scholarly enterprise, this is not universally true. back in 1987, a jewish author, dan bloom, wrote a children's story jesus for jewish children. 63 he reports that he was asked why, as a jew, he would want to write about jesus? it was his experience that most of the resistance to his book came from within the jewish community who did not consider jesus a topic for jewish consideration. ironically, the book did 60 hoffman, 252. 61 ibid. 62 of this writer's own acquaintance, there is the young rabbi with a ph.d. in new testament from a prominent academic institution who was a popular teaching fellow in the new testament courses in its divinity school. 63 jeff berliner, "jesus story for jewish children raises storm," chicago sun times, dec. 13, 1987, highbeam research, oct. 12, 2009. not raise protest in israel, where school textbooks have long taught children about jesus in a sympathetic way.64 a distinction about interreligious dialogue drawn by the catholic theologian ewert cousins is relevant, here. cousins distinguishes between dialectic dialogue and what he terms "dialogic dialogue."65 the former is the typical claim/counterclaim pattern of intellectual discourse that has characterized much of 20-21st century inter-religious dialogue. it can be polite and politically-correct or it can be vituperative, but it still typically involves psychological distance between the participants. in contrast, cousin's "dialogic dialogue" is a dialogue of depth, an "i-thou" encounter to employ buber's terminology. this is a dialogue in which an individual meets another religion and then "passes over into the value consciousness of the other religion,"66 and comes back with a new synthesis, a unique and personal understanding of the other religion. this was the dynamic behind the dialogue that both marc chagall and jacob epstein had with christ and christianity. the christ that emerged from each of their dialogic encounters was unique and offered an expanded understanding of the central figure of christianity to christians and jews alike. their visual christologies, which in essence is what the work of both artists was, have been transformative for viewers, and hold the potential for interreligious healing. the mind-set that gave chagall and epstein the freedom, as jews, to do their christological exploration, largely ended with the advent of the second world war when doors that had been 64 shmuley boteach, "discovering the jewish jesus," jerusalem post online, dec. 7, 2005, 15. 65 ewert h. cousins, christ of the 21st century, ny: continuum, 1998, 9. 66 ibid., 105 hayman, christ in the works of two jewish artists hayman 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): hayman 1-14 opened slammed shut in the face of the horrors of the nazi atrocities. late in the 20th century, some of these doors have begun to reopen in the form of a renewed interest in the jewish jesus, both among jews and christians. yet, how many contemporary jewish laypersons would think of personally undertaking the in-depth grappling with the figure of jesus or the relationship of judaism to christianity, such as is reflected in the work of chagall and epstein, that was prevalent earlier in the century? how many people, jewish or christian, even know that jewish writers wrote plays about jesus or that jewish artists painted and sculpted christ? yet, as cousins points out, there is a need for in-depth, transformative, intimate grappling with the 'other', because talk will get us just so far. chagall, epstein and the other writers and artists formed in the crucible of 19th–20th century jewish modernism have much to offer contemporary jewish-christian dialogue, because they remind us of one way in which there was an effort to encounter the heart of the religion of the "other", that is so essential to interreligious dialogue. chagall, epstein and others took on the central figure of christianity, christ, and what emerged were works of transformative potential. 21st century jewish-christian dialogue needs to begin casting its nets wider in terms of how it understands dialogue. there is much that a renewed exploration of the works of the writers, poets and artists influenced by earlier jewish modernism have to offer to contemporary jews and christians alike. information about this period just does not show up in books on jewish-christian relations. just one small instance is the best-selling book constantine's sword, in which author james carroll spends some 600 pages clarifying the fact that he says has been forgotten by too many christians, often with tragic consequences, that jesus was indeed a jew. yet, in this massive volume, there is just one tangential reference to anything to do with jewish modernism. apropos of the current paper, this was a mention of chagall's white crucifixion, of which carroll writes: "can the christian imagination envisage jesus as the jewish artist marc chagall did, as a crucified figure saved from the indignity of nakedness not by a loincloth, but by a tallit, the fringed shawl worn by a jew when praying?"67 the answer to carroll's rhetorical question would have to be "yes", because christians as well as jews have seen and been moved by chagall's masterpiece. who knows how many christians and jews, or people of any religious background, have come away from viewing white crucifixion with a changed outlook on christ? perhaps, in the field of interreligious dialogue, as elsewhere, the old adage holds true: a picture is worth a thousand words. 67 james carroll, constantine's sword, ny: houghton-mifflin, 2001, 101. hayman, christ in the works of two jewish artists hayman 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 jewish community institutions and education in interfaith efforts studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): barber cp1-3 conference proceeding jewish community institutions and education in interfaith efforts a n a t b a r b e r graduate research assistant, center for online judaic studies prepared for the international catholic-jewish liaison committee, cape town, south africa, november 4-7, 2006 this study sought to assess a diverse cross-section of jewish institutions in the united states, israel, australia, england, canada, the council of latin american organizations, south africa, and france. in most countries with significant jewish populations four different kinds of organizations were contacted: schools, religious organizations such as synagogues or rabbinical schools, community welfare and fundraising organizations, and defense organizations. the result of my research with the myriad of worldwide jewish organizations was alarmingly small. in most organizations the individuals i spoke with reported that almost nothing is being done to educate jews of any age as to catholic attitudes toward jews and judaism. in day school, yeshiva and supplementary education, there is a noticeable lacuna in the curriculum relating to contemporary changes in catholic attitudes as reflected in nostra aetate. on the community level, the leaders of many communities have mostly perfunctory meetings with leaders of other religious or ethnic communities to discuss shared values and exchange holiday greetings. these meetings are seldom focused exclusively on the catholic community and rarely discuss substantive issues of antisemitism and the articulation of new church teachings outlined at the second vatican council. out of all of the respondent organizations only 6.5% of them are engaging in a program to educate their communities as to the vastly changed attitudes of the catholic church. 74% of organizations are doing no intergroup work at all. this means that most of the contemporary jewish population, save for jewish leaders, has no formal education or up-to-date information regarding the catholic church or any other religious group. the remaining 18.5% of organizations and schools engage community leaders in intergroup relations, which may or may not include catholic groups, but are certainly not exclusively devoted to the dissemination of the changed attitudes of the vatican towards judaism and the jews. the following outline more clearly displays the different categories of involvement: organizational findings each organization was asked to describe the extent to which they are engaging in educating jewish individuals about catholicism and specifically the vatican’s views about jews and judaism. the results from these organizations fall into four categories: non-engagement, non-catholic inter-group affairs, leadership engagement, and active communal engagement. barber, jewish education in interfaith efforts barber cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): barber cp1-3 1. non-engagement: most groups did not engage in any specific intergroup issues. most of these were primarily schools and outreach programs whose number one goal was to build jewish identity. this means that students in the twenty-first century are still being taught versions of catholic belief that has tainted the last 2000 years of jewish-catholic history. one respondent in this category said, they “were more concerned with young jews learning about jewish culture and religions, than to spend time teaching them about other religions.” 2. leadership engagement: though many communities do not educate their members as to jewish-catholic history and the evolving relationship between the two groups, they do involve communal leaders in this level of interaction. the community leaders involved generally are rabbis, educators and organizational leaders and their counterparts from the catholic community. most of these interactions are meetings that match leaders from each of the two communities that serve similar community functions. the content of the meetings seems to range from discussing contemporary political, social and religious issues upon which the two groups either agree or disagree. there is a particular focus on the shared values between the two religious communities and many human rights issues. 3. non-catholic intergroup affairs: outside of the united states, intergroup affairs addressed by the jewish community seemed to focus more broadly on christian-jewish relations or muslim-jewish relations. work pertaining to catholics in particular was not popular, with only one country that we surveyed conducting any particular program. this was in argentina where the population is mostly roman catholic. in other countries, such as australia and great britain, meetings between muslim and jewish leaders were more popular than any other individual group. 4. active communal engagement by these organizations is defined as employment of a comprehensive educational approach to teaching community members about catholicism and its approach to jews and judaism. there were only a handful of organizations, from the ones we contacted, who engaged in this kind of full-scale effort. most notably they are: the american jewish committee and the anti-defamation league. their programs include full-scale curricula geared for community leaders, laypeople and students. denominational findings different denominations also approached the topic somewhat differently. 1. within the orthodox community the spectrum included teaching aids to help teachers educate students in the event that they ask about christianity. this “dah mas lh’ashiv” approach (know how to answer) was popular among schools that subscribed to torah u’mesorah publications where the one-page teaching aid was located. in other orthodox schools that call themselves modern orthodox, the topic of other faiths is covered in a historical context within a world history class. the extent to which the students learn about contemporary issues between catholics and jews is at the discretion of the teacher, so that students in the same school with different teachers will be presented with entirely different approaches to the subject. 2. in the conservative community most educators i spoke with who oversee supplementary education, feel that the limited time they have was better served teaching students about jewish identity. within the day schools of the conservative movement some interfaith barber, jewish education in interfaith efforts barber cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): barber cp1-3 activities do go on, but they are not standardized as part of the educational curriculum from the united synagogue of conservative judaism. 3. the reform’s community approach within education focuses more on common values regarding social justice issues and is closely tied with programs stemming out of their religious action center. there is one program being in formulation for college campuses which is a joint venture of their keshet college programming office and the rac. this program will aim to bring jewish student leaders together with student leaders of other denominations. geographical findings 1. united states: in the united states there are a few organizations engaging in full-fledged educational initiatives within their communities. the american jewish committee and the anti-defamation league are the two organizations with substantive educational programming that target many different age groups within the community. in chicago there is also a jewish high school that has an exchange program one day of the year with a non-jewish high school so that each group of students can learn about each other. (this program is not exclusively designated to catholic students) 2. israel: in most educational institutes in israel, much like in the united states, very little formal education is being disseminated to students about the catholic church and its relationship vis-à-vis the jews. in one popular religious high school the topic gets covered insofar as it relates religious beliefs that may compete with jewish values. in a religious teacher’s college, the prospective educators have no courses dealing with interfaith issues or dialogue. 3. south africa, australia, england, canada and france: all reported similarly structured programs. a representative in each country responded that they are focusing their efforts in other places. they have no programs with catholic leaders specifically, rather they are engaging in interfaith dialogues with muslim leaders. these programs are focused almost exclusively on religious leaders with the general jewish populations having limited exposure, save for one formal program in an australian high school which incorporates some interfaith volunteer days for its students. 4. latin america: latin america has thriving interreligious group programs, largely because the predominant religion in south america is roman catholicism. the jewish community representatives take part in many ecumenical discussions with the president of the rabbinic seminary also serving as the vice-president of the argentine council for religious freedom. most of the interfaith activities there do center predominantly around the catholic church because they are a majority in the country and are the exclusive state-sponsored religion (though venezuela has complete religious freedom). barber, jewish education in interfaith efforts barber cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 jewish community institutions and education in interfaith efforts no going back: letters to pope benedict xvi on the holocaust, jewish-christian relations and israel studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): kasimow r1-2 rittner and smith, no going back kasimow r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 carol rittner and david smith, eds. no going back: letters to pope benedict xvi on the holocaust, jewish-christian relations and israel (london: quill press, 2009), paperback, xii + 180 pp. reviewed by harold kasimow, grinnell college this excellent book, published just before pope benedict xvi made his 2009 trip to the holy land, consists of thirty-eight letters written to the pope in response to the following question raised by the editors, carol rittner and stephen d. smith: “if you had five minutes with pope benedict xvi, what would you say to him?” (p. x). each contributor was also asked to include several questions for discussion and to recommend his or her favorite books on interfaith relations. among the contributors are distinguished jewish and christian scholars, some of whom have devoted decades to healing the nearly two-thousand-year rift between jews and christians. although the pope may never read this volume, i see it as a very helpful book that reveals how some jews and christians view benedict’s papacy. in spite of the fact that benedict worked closely with john paul ii and from the beginning of his pontificate stressed that, with regard to judaism, he would continue on the path of his predecessor, many of these jewish and christian writers are not convinced. many argue quite strongly that there has been a serious deterioration in jewish-christian relations. the following are some of the key reasons that contributors give for that deterioration. many find the pope’s holocaust-related actions and statements problematic. for example, some criticize the lifting of the excommunication of the bishops from the society of st. pius x, most notably bishop richard williamson, who has publicly denied the holocaust. the christian writers seem to be more critical of benedict’s views of the holocaust than the jewish writers, claiming that the pope’s statements on the holocaust are not strong enough. john roth, one of the most prominent protestant scholars on the holocaust, writes: “christianity alone did not cause the holocaust, but it was a necessary condition for it” (p. 143). this strong connection between the holocaust and christianity is not the view of benedict. the pope does not link the holocaust with traditional christian anti-semitism, but sees it as a neo-pagan phenomenon. another central concern of many contributors is benedict’s 2008 revision of the 1970 good friday prayer for the jews. the 1970 version includes the hope that jews “grow in the love of his [god’s] name and in faithfulness to his covenant.” without eliminating the 1970 prayer, benedict has approved a new, optional prayer (similar to the pre-1970 prayer) that reads: “let us pray also for the jews: that our lord and god may enlighten their hearts, that they may acknowledge jesus christ as the savior of all men” (p. 83, n. 2). sister audrey doetzel argues that the revised good friday prayer, with its hope for the conversion of the jews, conflicts with his previous writings (p. 82). review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): kasimow r1-2 rittner and smith, no going back kasimow r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 perhaps the most controversial issue is the canonization of pope pius xii. john roth tells the pope to “take a courageous step: state publicly that pope pius xii is unworthy of sainthood” (p. 146). he also recommends that the pope issue an encyclical on the church and the holocaust clearly stating that “the church...failed during the holocaust” (p. 145). roth also asks the pope to embrace religious pluralism, and to say that “judaism provides a fully valid and truthful path to god, one that does not require christian mediation or conversion in any way whatsoever” (p. 147). it is one thing for committed catholics to ask the pope to slow down the sainthood procedure for pope pius xii and quite another for a protestant academic such as roth to tell the pope to stop the process “forever” (p. 146). from my perspective, it is also not helpful for a protestant academic to tell the pope that he should give up the idea that members of other faiths are ultimately saved by the grace of christ. (since this book appeared, the church has clarified its positions on some of these issues. shortly after the excommunication was lifted, the vatican stated that it was not aware of the views of bishop williamson and has made it clear that he must “absolutely and unequivocally distance himself from his remarks” before he can be admitted to episcopal functions in the church. with regard to the good friday prayer, the pope, in a conversation with the chief rabbis of israel, stated that the catholic church will not seek to convert the jews. the pope’s trip to jordan, israel, and the palestinian territories in 2009 did not resolve these difficult issues, which will have to be worked out by jews and christians who are involved in christian-jewish relations.) in my judgment, benedict feels a special relationship to jews and judaism, but his primary concern is the catholic church, which perhaps causes a major misunderstanding between the church and the jewish people. pope benedict played a key role in all the controversial issues discussed above. yet we must understand that his aim was not to antagonize the jews but to unite the catholic church. unlike some of the book’s contributors, i believe that pope benedict is as interested in furthering jewish-catholic relations as was pope john paul ii. the current tensions between the church and the jewish people arise from benedict’s desire to emphasize not only the similarities but also the differences between the traditions. his view is that in dialogue we must remain faithful to our own traditions. the formidable challenge is to discuss our differences honestly and openly and to respect and honor each other in spite of them. i cannot perceive a significant difference between his and john paul ii’s desire for reconciliation with jews. i was disappointed, as were the editors, that they found only one muslim to write a letter for this book. it is even more disappointing that the muslim contributor advises the pope to tell the israelis that they should “dismantle” the state of israel (p. 36). this request is unfortunate, especially when religious leaders have emerged as powerful voices for peace or war. nevertheless, this book can serve as an ideal source for courses in jewish-christian relations. scjr 17, no. 1 (2022): 1-3 donald m. lewis a short history of christian zionism (downers grove: ivp academic, 2021), softcover, ix + 361pp. eric newberg enewberg@oru.edu oral roberts university, tulsa, oklahoma 74171 a fair-minded study of christian zionism is a rare find. a short history of christian zionism by donald m. lewis could easily be the most enlightening work on the topic published to date. while his evangelical orientation influences some of his judgments, especially on missionizing jews, lewis’ hope is that an unbiased evaluation of the movement’s history will promote understanding of this important religious development. given the author’s purpose, this book represents a significant contribution to the history of jewish-christian relations. donald m. lewis, professor of church history at regent college, vancouver, is a widely acclaimed expert on the history of evangelicalism. with a previous work on the origins of christian zionism (2010), lewis is highly qualified to narrate this updated and pithy history of christian zionism. the purview of this book expands the swath of his previous work, telling the story from the early church forward to the present. lewis defines christian zionism as “the belief that the jewish people were destined by god to have a national homeland in palestine and that christians were obliged to use means to enable this to take place” (5). lewis’ approach differs from authors like donald wagner (anxious for armageddon: a call to partnership for middle eastern and western christians from 1995) and stephen sizer (christian zionism: road map to armageddon? from 2004) who caricature christian zionists as captivated by dispensational endtimes scenarios which are used to exonerate supporters for injustices committed against palestinians. lewis rightly downplays the importance of dispensational eschatology in christian zionism generally. in his discussion of eschatology, he astutely sorts out various end-times scenarios, making a distinction between historicist premillennialism and dispensational pre-millennialism, as well as pretribulation and post-tribulation views of the rapture. these differ over the point in time when jesus is expected to return, with dispensationalists opting for before the tribulation and historicist premillennialists after the tribulation. the thesis that lewis upholds is an elaboration of the argument in his earlier work. he contends that identity construction was an implicit factor in evangelical interest in the jews and jewish-christian relations, holding that “christian identity newberg: donald m. lewis’ a short history of christian zionism 2 making invariably involves christians coming to grips with their jewish roots” (18). christian zionists are among those who share with the apostle paul the insistence that the christian church should never conceive of itself as disconnected from its jewish roots (22). in linking the jews to english nationalism, british evangelicals developed an activist political lobby in support of zionism and set in motion a series of fateful historical events leading to the balfour declaration, the british mandate, the partition of palestine, and the formation of the state of israel in 1948. based on a fluctuating range of theological assumptions, he argues that christians have mobilized support for the zionist project and the state of israel, countered replacement theology, affirmed love and esteem for jews, cheered waves of jewish aliyah, and stood against antisemitism. lewis offers a genealogy of christian zionism, claiming it indirectly originated with eighteenth century german pietists and their desire to correct the grievous mistakes in judgment made by martin luther by cultivating positive relations with jews in the interest of missionizing them (81). the pietists’ stated love and esteem for jews was a holistic strategy of restructuring the lives of converts, sometimes through vocational training. however, lewis finds a more direct genesis of what would become christian zionism in calvinist circles. he highlights important contributions of edward bickersteth and lord shaftesbury in actively promoting the christian zionist vision that the jews would be restored to palestine (108). bickersteth and cooper worked along with the mission of the london jew society (ljs) of evangelizing jewish people, which some scholars have impugned as opportunistic imperialism and veiled antisemitism. lewis notes that evangelicals believed it would be an act of antisemitism to exclude jews from preaching salvation through the one they believed to be the jewish messiah (112). unlike paul merkley (christian attitudes towards the state of israel from 2001), lewis expresses a disparaging view of anglican christian zionist william hechler (1845-1931), construing his non-insistence on jewish evangelization as “a critical move away from a core evangelical identity” (128). reflecting his own views (and no doubt those of some other evangelicals), he commends premillennialists (unlike hechler) who held together evangelization of jews and support for jewish national aspirations. he links hechler’s position with g. douglas young, billy graham, and john hagee, who also downplayed explicit efforts to evangelize jews. advancing his own view of the matter, lewis states, “the historian is hardpressed not to see that the impact of christian zionism on evangelical theology has sometimes led some of its proponents away from classic evangelical theology about the centrality of christ and the universal claims of the christian gospel. evidence of the secularizing effect of christian zionism is hard to ignore—notably hechler and hagee” (266). lewis is certainly entitled to his judgments (and the book is a publication of an evangelical press), though of course on this issue some readers will surely disagree with him about the importance and appropriateness of missionizing jews. further, i would welcome a more generous assessment of those evangelicals who tread lightly on efforts to convert jews for the sake of promoting the cause of jewish-christian relations. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) lewis clearly charts the history of various phases of christian zionism across the centuries, identifying leading proponents and adducing their theological perspectives. he helpfully clarifies the distinction between christian restorationism and christian zionism, noting that the term christian zionist was not coined until the 1890s (108). his functional analysis of the factor of national identity construction in the english and american phases is well done. it is true that christian zionists starting in the nineteenth developed an identity intended to oppose competing religious identities. however, this theory cannot be applied across the board, especially to the forms of christian zionism spreading in the global south. some have attempted to explain the provenance and nature of christian zionism in contemporary african pentecostal contexts as a monolithic movement which is “obviously rooted in modern american history,” “stems from the dispensationalism of john nelson darby,” and “fully identified in its modern forms with darby’s theological system—dispensationalism” (quoting here paul gifford in “the complex provenance of some elements of african pentecostal theology” from 2001 [74-5]). these three claims are also made by wagner, sizer, clifford a. kiracofe (dark crusade: christian zionism and us foreign policy from 2009), grace halsell (prophecy and politics: militant evangelists on the road to nuclear war from 1986) and others. lewis succeeds in confounding such attempts at essentializing christian zionism as the ideological progeny of darby’s dispensationalist system. rather, he says, the spread of christian zionism should be seen in terms of its appeal to indigenous christians who resonated with zionism based on their reading of the bible. lewis generally writes with a positive and affirming tone, especially when he engages with other scholars’ published works on the topic (including my own). his book is well-written and accessible, and structured as if it were intended for a seminar-style discussion. readers will be enriched by his circumspect analysis. microsoft word 154202-text.native.1234993592.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): mcgarry cp 1-8 mcgarry, land and the state of israel mcgarry cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 one christian perspective on land and the state of israel michael mcgarry, c.s.p. tantur ecumenical institute, jerusalem presented at the gregorian university, rome, december 11, 2007 beginning: a christian perspective in the christian tradition, “land” is not a particularly important area of theological consideration. indeed, there is no entry for “land” or “holy land” in the thirty-five volumes of the new catholic encyclopedia and its supplement. so for mainstream christians, it was certainly anomalous when, in 2002, the united states-based ecumenical christian scholars group on christianjewish relations (of which i am a member) issued a statement entitled “a sacred obligation: rethinking christian faith in relation to judaism and the jewish people.” in that statement, they affirmed “the importance of the land of israel for the life of the jewish people,” and went on to elaborate: the land of israel has always been of central significance to the jewish people. however, christian theology charged that the jews had condemned themselves to homelessness by rejecting god’s messiah. such supersessionism precluded any possibility for christian understanding of jewish attachment to the land of israel. christian theologians can no longer avoid this crucial issue, especially in light of the complex and persistent conflict over the land. recognizing that both israelis and palestinians have the right to live in peace and security in a homeland of their own, we call for efforts that contribute to a just peace among all the peoples in the region. 1 in this short paragraph, the christian scholars group – we – linked issues of biblical theology, historical events, and contemporary politics – kind of like a daily conversation in the middle east. nevertheless, while most christians of the past have not reflected on the category of land at any length, i believe that christian perspectives on land can be inferred from treatments of related concepts, including the incarnation, the heavenly jerusalem, and christian devotions of pilgrimage and icons. here i wish, therefore, only to outline my understanding of “land” in christian tradition by reviewing, sequentially and superficially, new testament, patristic, and modern theological perspectives. from this outline, i will draw certain conclusions for a contemporary christian theology of the land, concluding with some remarks of a more political nature. land in our tradition: the bible, the fathers and our history a. the overview christianity emerged out of judaism and, at its beginning, understood itself as a jewish reform movement. at a critical, early moment in its life, those jews who believed that jesus was mes 1 mary c. boys, ed., seeing judaism anew: christianity's sacred obligation (lanham, md: rowman & littlefield, 2005), xvii. conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): mcgarry cp 1-8 mcgarry, land and the state of israel mcgarry cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 siah – in the midst of other jews (the majority) who did not believe that jesus was messiah – had to account for, and respond to, the destruction of the temple by the romans in 70 ce. and both jewish groups had to wrestle with the loss of their land. what does it mean, they had to ponder, to be a people without our temple, without our land? and both jewish groups set themselves to dealing with this new situation in theologically creative ways: to be bereft of temple and homeland unleashed one most innovative jewish response, which we now call rabbinic judaism. alternatively among the jews of the jesus movement, new interpretations and understandings of their relation to temple, land, and cult began to take shape. one particularly elaborate expression of this can be found in the letter to the hebrews where a transformation of the whole notion of temple cult and priesthood took shape. these members of the jesus movement drew on moments in jesus’ life and early community teaching to formulate a landless selfunderstanding. 2 i list the most significant here: john 4:21-24: jesus declared, “believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the father neither on this mountain nor in jerusalem. you samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the jews. yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the father seeks. god is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” 3 john 14:2-3 in my father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, i would have told you. i am going there to prepare a place for you. and if i go and prepare a place for you, i will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where i am. philippians 3:19-20: their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. their mind is on earthly things. but our citizenship is in heaven. and we eagerly await a savior from there, the lord jesus christ, acts 17:24: the god who made the world and everything in it is the lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. hebrews 12:22 – 24: but you have come to mount zion and to the city of the living god, the heavenly jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are en 2 for a masterful and concise account of the relationship between land and the bible and its understanding in history, see alain marchadour and david neuhaus, the land, the bible and history: toward the land that i will show you (new york: fordham university press, 2007). see also the foundational work by walter brueggemann, the land: place as gift, promise, and challenge in biblical faith, second ed. (minneapolis: fortress press, 2002). also w. eugene march, israel and the politics of land: a theological case study (atlanta: w/john knox press, 1994). (this book has been renamed and republished in 2007 under the title god’s land on loan: israel, palestine, and the world, by the same publisher.) 3 all biblical citations are from the new revised standard version. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): mcgarry cp 1-8 mcgarry, land and the state of israel mcgarry cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 rolled in heaven, and to god the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of abel. with these passages, we see the incipient trajectory of later christian thought which, among other things, relativized the importance and meaning of land and the importance of a physical place of worship for this group of (jewish) followers of jesus, as well as the beginning of a “spiritualizing” of jerusalem as the new “heavenly jerusalem.” 4 their relationship to land and temple was only one expression of strains between jews who believed in jesus and those who did not. the partings of the ways developed other boundary markers as well, which, from a later perspective, clearly foreshadowed the eventual and inevitable rupture. if we use acts 2:42 as a touchstone (“they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer”), we may itemize the fledgling christian community as dependent on four practices: • the teaching of the apostles: this was still jewish (based on the scripture), but interpreted from the center of god’s whole salvation work in jesus the christ. his interpretation of how to obey god’s will (in words and in his paradigmatic life) formed their way of life as a distinct one. • fellowship or koinonia: it continued the fellowship with everything-in-common that had started around jesus, and continued to be infused by his spirit. • the breaking of the bread: continued the commensality around jesus, now tied deeply to the presence of the crucified and resurrected lord and messiah, present in their midst and hoped for in his return. • prayer: of course this was still jewish but offered in the name of jesus. taken altogether, these markers would mean that jewish followers of jesus had to separate from their brothers and sisters who did not follow such practices. the early members of the jesus movement developed their self-understanding without a land, without a temple, and with a constellation of factors which ultimately would separate them from their jewish brothers and sisters. as roman persecution and marginalization made them a target in the empire, the christian church more and more understood its heavenly home, not an earthly territory, as its true destiny. with the legalization of the christian movement in the empire in the 4 th century, something new emerged. after constantine’s mother helen traveled to palestine to find the places made holy by jesus’ life and teaching, pilgrimage, as a distinctly christian religious phenomenon, gained legitimacy and popularity. 5 helen’s example fueled the christian religious imagination: “if i can touch what jesus touched, then, in a way, i can touch jesus.” these early pilgrims, indeed, touched those places, they worshipped with their fingertips, they “tangibilitized“ (as one great african-american preacher put it) their faith with their bodies. it should be noted, however, that, because the early jewish followers of jesus had already developed a landless self-understanding, the growth of christian pilgrimage found quick and ready criticism: origen and eusebius both countered, “we do not go to a shrine like pagans to seek 4 e.g., revelation 21:2, 10 . 5 for the most complete and compelling account about how the “land became holy,” see robert wilken, a land called holy: palestine in christian history and thought (new haven: yale university press, 1993). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): mcgarry cp 1-8 mcgarry, land and the state of israel mcgarry cp 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 god. god does not dwell in particular places.” nevertheless, the theology and practice of pilgrimage developed. so from the fourth century, despite admonitions from origen, eusebius, and gregory of nyssa, christians flocked to jerusalem not only to touch the land made holy by their savior, but also to behold how bereft palestine was of jewish life. indeed jerusalem’s devastated condition stood for them as unmistakable evidence that god had punished the jews for not recognizing their messiah. thus the divine will was interpreted, by augustine and others, that the landless jewish people were forever to wander this earth. despite the early triumph of the argument for church pilgrimage and the costly twelfth century crusades to reclaim the holy places, many in the 16 th century protestant reformation attacked devotions related to pilgrimage and all material expressions of faith, including pictures, statues, and relics. drawing certainly on biblical passages already cited and ubiquitous examples of contemporary abuse, the reformers made the case that christians should avoid what they regarded as superstitious practices. rather christians should focus on the bible, the word of god. the catholic reaction predictably sought to explain the proper use of images and related christian devotions, even as they admitted, and tried to correct, the abuses. indeed in the holy city, we repeat the joke that catholics come on pilgrimages, protestants come on study tours. echoes of 16 th century arguments linger even today. finally, in some parts of present-day evangelical protestantism, one finds not so much a christian theology of land, but a christian perspective on land resulting from the jewish return to all of historic palestine interpreted as fulfilled biblical promise and ultimate christian triumph. the jewish return to the land functions as a step in the eschatological scenario of christ’s one-thousandyear reign and the conversion of all to christ. 6 obviously i have oversimplified a long, complicated, and truly fascinating history on land, epitomizing its christian distinctiveness in related attitudes towards a heavenly jerusalem, icons and religious pilgrimage. much more nuance is required to distinguish catholic, protestant, and orthodox theologies of the land and the meaning of pilgrimage. but the contours of this history, whether one follows the “catholic/orthodox path” or the “protestant path,” suggest a christian perspective on the land which, i think, is profitable for our reflection, both to contribute positively to the discussion and to contrast the christian perspective from jewish and muslim perspectives. b. a reflection on the survey after this very brief survey, we may belatedly ask, why are we here in our contemporary context concerned about a “christian perspective” on the land? there is no doubt that the state of israel looms in the background of our interest. but, if one steps back, a christian reflection on land also finds its current impetus in the jewish return to the land and its implication for christian thought. 6 for extended considerations of christian zionism, see stephen sizer, christian zionism: road-map to armageddon? (indianapolis: intervarsity press, 2006); naim ateek, ed., challenging christian zionism: theology, politics and the israel-palestine conflict (london: melisende, 2006); and timothy weber, the road to armageddon: how evangelicals became israel's best friend (grand rapids, mi: baker academic, 2004). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): mcgarry cp 1-8 mcgarry, land and the state of israel mcgarry cp 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 a little over one hundred years ago, theodore herzl, one of the fathers of modern zionism, approached pope pius x to plead for his blessing for the jewish return to the land. famously remembered from herzl’s diary was the holy father’s response: we cannot encourage this [zionist] movement…the jews have not recognized our lord, therefore we cannot recognize the jewish people…and so, if you come to palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you. 7 many of us are shocked by this reaction, but the holy father’s response reflected a theological position vis-à-vis a jewish attachment to the land which claimed its genealogy in augustine’s already-cited apologetic about the wandering jew. as a sign of their unfaithfulness and of god’s turning his back on his people, jews may survive, but certainly, some christians concluded, they must remain forever landless. in the wake of the shoah, christians have begun to reflect anew on the meaning of jewish survival, especially because the single-minded effort to eliminate all jews took place in christian lands where the vast majority of perpetrators and bystanders were baptized. 8 this new reflection on jewish survival has, in turn, moved conscientious christians to reflect on the place of the land of israel and its meaning for the jewish people. maybe, some conclude, after the shoah, god wills the jewish people to survive, precisely as jews, in a land of their own. but it is my conviction that christian reflection on the land and a concern about the welfare of our christian brothers and sisters in the holy land (to say nothing about a concern for the welfare of jews and muslims in the same region) need not, indeed should not lend support for particular political arrangements. dwelling in a land is not the same as sovereignty over the land…which is not the same as determining international borders for that land. while they have always dwelt in the land, even through years of muslim hegemony and christian crusades, many jews have dreamed of a time when they could have sovereignty and freedom in a land that corresponded with historic palestine. secular jews and religiously committed jews have both shared this dream, even if the calculus for determining borders and the meaning of such sovereignty have found many different foundations and solutions. while in our contemporary political situation it is important to consider christian perspectives on land, it is also critical in an interreligious situation to listen to the centrality of the land in the jewish self-understanding even if one will not adopt it as one’s own. one must, therefore, distinguish recognizing – and honoring – this central jewish self-understanding from identifying one jewish (or muslim) side as the only theologically justified solution in the current political situation. let me give one example. in the weeks leading up to the annapolis meeting (autumn 2007), rather pointed jewish theological assertions were made in the israeli press to be used as the foundation for particular political positions. i cite one illustrative advertisement from the jerusalem post: 7 quoted in sergio i. minerbi, the vatican and zionism: conflict in the holy land, 1895-1925 (new york: oxford university press, 1990), 100ff. 8 see michael b. mcgarry, "a christian passes through yad vashem," in the holocaust and the christian world: reflections on the past, challenges for the future, ed. carol rittner (london: kuperard, 2000). see also secretariat for ecumenical and interreligious affairs, catholics remember the holocaust (washington, dc: united states catholic conference, 1998), which includes we remember, the catholic document on the shoah. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): mcgarry cp 1-8 mcgarry, land and the state of israel mcgarry cp 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 the [israeli] government has no right to cede the land of the bible and to blithely discard the jewish people’s unique heritage of thousands of years. it has no right to reverse the biblical prophecies of return to zion that were fulfilled in our era at such tremendous human cost. 9 to affirm the centrality of land in jewish life derives from paying attention to the many jewish sides of the conversation. if, as i quote from the christian scholars group’s statement, “both israelis and palestinians have the right to live in peace and security in a homeland of their own,” one must resist theological solutions and justifications to political questions no matter how attractive they may appear. jewish views on land are more complex and varied than some voices of the religious right, with their singular biblical and rabbinic justifications, would lead one to believe. indeed one finds vigorous (if not always a majority of) secular jewish israeli voices speaking both for equal rights for all israeli citizens (including arab muslims, christians and druze) and territorial compromise in working for peace – and all without reference to the biblical or rabbinic tradition. many of the ashkenazi jews of israel, recalling how they were cruelly treated in christian europe, work for just treatment of all in the jewish state. indeed, the majority of israelis working for human rights tend to be nonobservant jews. 10 the political discourse in israel is robust and multilayered. christians who come to israel are often baffled by jewish selfunderstandings that are not religious, biblical, or even theistic. as christians come to understand how jews understand themselves, they must not ignore these secular jewish voices as one authentic jewish self-understanding. and, therefore, christians should refrain from adopting any particular jewish religious understanding of the land as the jewish understanding of the land. when the vatican’s commission for religious relations with the jews addressed the relation of the land to the jewish people, it wisely took a tack other than a theological one to support the legitimacy of the state of israel. the state of israel does not rest on a particular interpretation of the bible, but rather on universally recognized international law. this is not unusual, for none of the nations of the world stands before others on its theological, biblical, or quranic legitimacy. furthermore, neither the bible 11 nor a particular christian theology enables us to conclude where israel’s borders should be: christians are invited to understand this [jewish] religious attachment [to the land] which finds its roots in biblical tradition, without however making their own any particular religious interpretation of this relationship (cf. declaration of the u.s. conference of catholic bishops, november 20, 1975). 9 the jerusalem post, 23 november 2007, p. 19. days leading up to the 2007 annapolis meeting saw numerous such advertisements, from both jews and christians, citing specifically religious and biblical support for particular political decisions. 10 obviously there are noteworthy exceptions among the religiously observant. cf. the interreligious coordinating council of israel, the shalom hartman institute, the interfaith encounter association, rabbis for human rights, those in the alexandria process, and the jerusalem center for jewish-christian relations, among others. for a listing of many israeli groups (not all religious) working for peace and/or human rights, see http://www.icci.org.il. 11 one might note here that both within the observant jewish community and the christian theological community, a great range of opinion exists as to just what constitutes the biblical borders of the promised land (to say nothing of subsequent, significant rabbinic arguments). so all the more careful does one need to be in, on the one hand, claiming divine sanction for a particular land, and, on the other hand, saying that the boundaries are so disputed that they can be negotiated by politicians for secular reasons. here the religious zionists in israel and the christian world are consistent in affirming both the divine gift of land and its (still disputed) borders. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): mcgarry cp 1-8 mcgarry, land and the state of israel mcgarry cp 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 the existence of the state of israel and its political options should be envisaged not in a perspective which is in itself religious, but in their reference to the common principles of international law. the permanence of israel (while so many ancient peoples have disappeared without trace) is a historic fact and a sign to be interpreted within god’s design. we must in any case rid ourselves of the traditional idea of a people punished, preserved as a living argument for christian apoloetic. it remains a chosen people, “the pure olive on which were grafted the branches of the wild olive which are the gentiles” (john paul ii, march 6, 1982, alluding to rm 11:17-24). 12 in other words, a christian perspective on the land does not entail particular political decisions, whether they be the legitimacy of the israeli state, its seeking out of secure borders, or rights to a particular land. 13 political decisions do not and should not come from particular interpretations of the bible, christian or jewish. the zionist movement started as, and during its early history remained, an overwhelmingly secular movement. their descendants’ voices should be included in the discussion about israel, its borders, and its future. clinging to biblical interpretations, however finely crafted and argued, mutes their voices and establishes a too-narrow consideration for future israeli political decisions. conclusion one may rightly counter to all that has gone before that i have conflated the issues of loss of temple, loss of land, the development of christian pilgrimage, and a high sacramental tradition – all with a christian perspective on land. yes, i would agree. but, in the end for us christians, a perspective on the land is ultimately related to our notion of being related to this world and its physicality. therefore ultimately these themes find their moorings in a theology of incarnation, grounded in the apostle john’s claim that “the word became flesh and lived among us.” 14 recalling the early debates about the validity of pilgrimage as worthy christian practice and the triumph in the western church of the use of physical expressions of their faith (e.g., sacraments, icons, statues, incense), we conclude with the christian affirmation of the physical, the material, and its corollary flight from the docetic. with this affirmation, the conscientious christian may come not only to understand why the land is important to the jewish people, but also to appreciate, and have an insight, into its meaning. the christian scholars group’s affirmation of the importance of the land for jewish selfunderstanding, with which i began, was carefully crafted. it recognized the jewish attachment to the land without entailing particular political arrangements. as important as theological perspectives might be, however, in the end it is dangerous and counter productive to provide a warrant 12 vatican commission for religious relations with the jews, “notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church (june 24, 1985),” in eugene j. fisher and leon klenicki, eds., in our time: the flowering of jewish-catholic dialogue (new york: paulist press, 1990), 49. see a similar statement from the department for ecumenical affairs of the evangelical lutheran church in america, “jewish concern for the state of israel” http://www.elca.org/ea/interfaith/jewish/tp6.htm. 13 one might add that this applies to islam as well. that is, (some) muslim claims to the land of palestine – or spain – might be understood but neither opposed nor supported theologically from a christian perspective. 14 john 1:14 . studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): mcgarry cp 1-8 mcgarry, land and the state of israel mcgarry cp 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 for, or argument against, israel’s political legitimacy on theological grounds. 15 no, christian perspectives on land may be a legitimate and needed topic for interreligious dialogue, but they are not the justifications for particular policy decisions. these must come from elsewhere. works cited: ateek, naim, ed. challenging christian zionism: theology, politics and the israel-palestine conflict. london: melisende, 2006. boys, mary c, ed. seeing judaism anew: christianity's sacred obligation. lanham, md: rowman & littlefield, 2005. brueggemann, walter. the land: place as gift, promise, and challenge in biblical faith. second ed. minneapolis: fortress press, 2002. levitas, daniel. "a marriage made in heaven." reform judaism. summer (2003): 38-46. march, w. eugene. israel and the politics of land: a theological case study. atlanta: w/john knox press, 1994. marchadour, alain, and david neuhaus. the land, the bible and history: toward the land that i will show you. new york: fordham university press, 2007. mcgarry, michael b. "a christian passes through yad vashem." in the holocaust and the christian world: reflections on the past challenges for the future, edited by carol rittner, 1-4. london: kuperard, 2000. minerbi, sergio i. the vatican and zionism: conflict in the holy land, 1895-1925. new york: oxford university press, 1990. secretariat for ecumenical and interreligious affairs. catholics remember the holocaust. washington, dc: united states catholic conference, 1998. sizer, stephen. christian zionism: road-map to armageddon? indianapolis: intervarsity press, 2006. weber, timothy. the road to armageddon: how evangelicals became israel's best friend. grand rapids, mi: baker academic, 2004. wilken, robert. a land called holy: palestine in christian history and thought. new haven: yale university press, 1993. 15 if political legitimacy depends on theology, then it can be lost by countervailing theologies. so one finds some christians charging that jews have lost their right to the land of israel because most contemporary israelis are not living according to the covenant (for the promise of the land is dependent upon covenantal faithfulness). or one finds the position that jews lost their right to the land when they denied their messiah (remember pius x to herzl and much of christian tradition). on the other side of the spectrum, one finds those dispensational christian theologies that frame the jewish return and right to the land on a predictive understanding of prophecy, which, in the end, will lead to the annihilation of the jewish people as jews. as one jewish observer characterized it, “according to this view, history unfolds in a series of distinct preordained periods or ‘dispensations’ and the return of the jews to israel will not only bring about christ’s return, but also their destruction.” daniel levitas, "a marriage made in heaven," reform judaism summer (2003): 39. scjr 16, no. 1 (2021): 1-3 matthew colvin the lost supper: revisiting passover and the origins of the eucharist (lanham: lexington books / fortress academic, 2019), hardcover, 173 + xiii pp. bruce chilton chilton@bard.edu bard college, annandale-on-hudson, ny 12504 the second-century bishop melito of sardis was a master of typological interpretation. his approach, extending that of st paul, involved seeing diverse elements in the scriptures of israel as “types,” or indirect representations, of the complete reality manifest in christ. melito’s peri pascha, a rhetorical tour de force on passover, identified the significance of what happened to the biblical people of israel as applying fully to christ, who is “the pascha of our salvation” (peri pascha 69). melito even derives the meaning of the feast from the greek verb paskhein, to argue that its true sense is that of the suffering of the lord (peri pascha 46-47). colvin embraces a suggestion published in 1966 by david daube that focused on melito’s statement that the lord is the one who “reached from heaven” (aphikomenos ek ouranou [peri pascha 66, cf. 86]) to take on suffering so as to kill death itself. this profound confidence in the pre-existence of christ, richly developed by melito, was taken in a different, historical direction by daube, who associated the aorist participle of aphikneomai with the aphiqoman of judaism’s passover. the aphiqoman is a piece of unleavened bread hidden during the meal so as to be consumed at the end; the term is usually derived from the greek epikomon, a reference to something after dinner. in this reconstruction, the haggadah in the time of jesus already associated the unleavened bread with the messiah, so that jesus identified himself as he messiah when he said “this is my body” (28, in colvin’s citation of daube). if melito indeed thought in those terms, the typology might or might not have related to what practitioners of the haggadah thought. the origins of the haggadah, and the practice of hiding the aphiqoman until the close of the meal, are not fully clarified and of uncertain date. nonetheless colvin follows the lead of israel yuval and deborah bleicher carmichael in building out daube’s case (itself a recapitulation of robert eisler’s argument from 1925). chilton: matthew colvin’s the lost supper 2 colvin tries to argue that this meaning of the aphiqoman lies in plain sight, if only we look past the differing meanings accorded the eucharist within the new testament and early christian literature. he claims that an “emphasis on diversity has led many scholars to turn away from analysis of the jewish cultural an d linguistic background” (xi). this, of course, is a misleading statement, since many scholars of the new testament, from hans lietzmann to the present writer, have related the practice of different meals in judaism to eucharistic practice. indeed, a shortcoming of much scholarship on the eucharist is the apparent assumption that passover presents the only case of a theologically significant meal in judaism. colvin’s appeal to univocal origins leads him simply to cancel the dispute over the difference between the calendars of john and the synoptics by appeal to the work of theodor zahn in 1908 (17-18). colvin argues that the appearance of a discrepancy over when christ died is a simple mistake that generations of scholars have made in regard to the reference to the day of preparation in john.1 that is not the day before passover, he argues, but friday in the week of passover. his limited remarks, however, do not take account of the overt statement, only found in john, that correlates the paschal offering with the death of christ in that in both those cases not a bone was broken (exodus 12:46; john 19:36). melito alludes to this connection (peri pascha 12), but it eludes colvin’s notice. in addition, to blandly maintain that because it is possible to translate mark’s gospel into aramaic, it was written in aramaic (2) takes no account of long established features of markan style in koine. such shortcuts follow a stream of recent british evangelicalism, reflected in colvin’s argument against diversity: “the church in the apostolic age was highly mobile and interconnected” (1). this is one of the few assertions i have encountered during the past year to the effect that greater mobility and interconnectedness guarantee greater unity. in any case the variance of eucharistic presentations among the gospels, paul, and the didache finds no focused discussion here. colvin presses his unitary christianity back to jesus himself, arguing that “this is my body” means that the aphiqoman is the messiah, with whom he identifies himself (24-35, 56). yet any haggadah that jesus used would of course have been framed prior to the destruction of the temple, an event which exerted a profound influence on the practice of the passover. in order to speak of religious meals (and not only paschal celebrations) in second temple judaism, account would need to be taken of the dead sea scrolls, for example. they, of course, inevitably bring us into the deep diversity of judaism within that period. the principal scholar of that variety, jacob neusner (including neusner’s analysis that problematizes reference to the “messiah”) is not discussed in this regard, and his work with lawrence schiffman, in a comparative handbook to the gospel of mark. comparisons with 1 at moments i have attempted to soften some of my criticism of colvin’s work. but then i run across sentences such as, “it is truly remarkable how so simple an omission of philological due diligence has grown legs and traveled through the scholarship” (18 n. 16). zahn’s argument represents more ad hoc reasoning than philology, and to accuse the many scholars who have declined to follow him as lacking in “due diligence” is captious. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) pseudepigrapha, the qumran scrolls, and rabbinic literature: the new testament gospels in their judaic contexts 1 (2009; of which i was general editor) seems not to have been consulted. although the argument of this book is not worked out in the historical and philological terms it sets out for itself, the author takes us through a selective survey of a vast country. if his mapping appears incomplete, he nonetheless shows us what an interesting journey awaits the willing traveler, and some of his textual discussion is fascinating. most relevant for readers of studies in christian-jewish relations, however, is colvin’s failure to discuss the argument that the aphiqoman relates to the messiah and to jesus within the practice and apologetic of messianic judaism.2 this development is all the more pertinent in light of melito’s development of the charge of israel’s role in christ’s suffering and death, an emphatic dimension of peri pascha. subtlety is not evident when he makes israel responsible for the crucifixion (peri pascha 75); why melito should not actually mention the aphiqoman or its alleged meaning remains a mystery according to the hypothesis under review. although the argument of this book is framed as if it were historical, in fact it is rooted in typology. colvin happily cites paul as providing the “coup de grace” of his argument, since paul identified christ and passover (119). that, however, is after all an example of pauline typology. typological argument still has its attraction, as its deployment in contemporary messianic judaism illustrates. to make a typological argument of this sort into an historical argument, however, would require that the origins of the haggadah be elucidated; that the practice, etymology, and dating of the aphiqoman be determined; and that judaic meal practices be assessed. all the while, the issue of the degree to which typology may be inherently supersessionist needs to be addressed, as does the prospect that transferring typology into history exacerbates any supersessionist tendencies. fortunately, all these are vectors of analysis that have been explored, and those intrigued by suggestions in the present book may readily look into them further. 2 see john dulin, “reversing rupture: evangelicals' practice of jewish rituals and processes of protestant inclusion,” anthropological quarterly 88 (2015): 601-34, as well as the widely cited article by paul sumner, “he who is coming. the hidden afikoman,” hebrew streams, http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/judaism/afikoman.html. http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/judaism/afikoman.html http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/judaism/afikoman.html friends on the way: jesuits encounter contemporary judaism studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): mcmichael r 1-2 review thomas michel, s.j., ed. friends on the way: jesuits encounter contemporary judaism    (new york: fordham university press, 2007), hardcover, x + 230 pp. reviewed by steven j. mcmichael, ofm conv. university of saint thomas friends on the way: jesuits encounter contemporary judaism presents a number of the papers that were delivered at the third international colloquium of jesuits in jewish-christian dialogue held in zug, switzerland in 2005. the contributors were asked to present research on famous jews: rabbis, philosophers, biblical exegetes, and one literary critic. most of the authors are jesuits (or former jesuits) who are actively engaged in jewish-christian dialogue. this is a valuable contribution to the dialogue of christians and their jewish interlocutors, who are truly friends on the way. some of the articles in the volume take up a conversation with recognized spiritual giants within the modern jewish community: joseph dov soloveitchik and abraham joshua heschel. the basic thrust of these jesuit writers is to compare the jewish theology and spirituality with ignatian spirituality. the two articles, written by donald moore and stanislaw obirek, that are focused on the spirituality of heschel testify to his own aim of dialogue with his christian partners: that it be based on mutual reverence, “that without denying profound differences, jews and christians will seek to help each other in understanding one’s respective commitment and in deepening appreciation of what god means” (pp. 78-79). for those interested in a contemporary jesuit critique of modern jewish biblical scholarship, jean-pierre sonnet offers two articles on robert alter, michael fishbane, b. m. levinson, and other scholars. these articles show to christians that there is much to learn about jewish approaches to the hebrew scriptures that is helpful for a christian appreciation for the same texts. we learn about the role of inner biblical exegesis, hermeneutics of innovation, and contemporary narrative exegesis. two very interesting articles are testimonies to the literary work of harold bloom and the political philosophy of hannah arendt. the first contribution, by peter du brul, is a very poignant testimony to what he describes as the “canon, the genius, and wisdom of bloom.” he describes how the work of this author “swept him away” and remains such an inspirational literary figure in his life. included in the article are letters that were exchanged between the two authors and a complete list of harold bloom’s works. james bernauer’s critique of hannah arendt is a very notable response to her critique of christianity, which serves as an example of how jews and christians should be able to challenge each other about the role of the jewish and christian traditions in our contemporary world. a very interesting and original article is donald neuhaus’ contribution concerning the yad vashem museum in jerusalem. he asks the reader to consider approaching the holocaust museum at yad vashem as a contemporary jewish text and provides a very good analysis of the contents of it. he believes that more balance is needed in presenting the role of christianity in nazi germany and the controversial issue of pope pius xii and the jews during the holocaust period. michel, friends on the way mcmichael r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): mcmichael r 1-2 two articles do not seem to belong in a volume that is dedicated to contemporary jesuit-jewish relations: one on the early conversos (converted jews) in the society of jesus and the other on the dialogue between jew and non-jew in the bible and in rabbinic literature. these articles are very good in their overall content, but one questions why they appear in this volume. a couple of other articles would help balance the entire book, which is primarily contemporary in terms of content. for example, what would help justify the first article on jesuit conversos would be to add another article on the early jesuits and the jewish community of rome, which has been treated in the past (james w. reites, "st ignatius of loyola and the jews," studies in the spirituality of jesuits, vol. 13, no. 4., september 1981), but should receive a new treatment. friends on the way is a valuable collection of articles that show how one particular religious community within the roman catholic tradition is taking seriously the call of the 1965 vatican document, nostra aetate, to engage in serious dialogue with our jewish brothers and sisters: “since the spiritual patrimony common to christians and jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.” michel, friends on the way mcmichael r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 1 scjr 16, no. 1 (2021): 1-25 “supersessionism”: the political origin of a theological neologism michael g. azar michael.azar@scranton.edu university of scranton, scranton, pa 18510 introduction in 1972, george khodr, a prominent orthodox metropolitan in lebanon, wrote a report for the world council of churches on eastern christian “feelings and reactions” to the “palestine problem.”1 among many other and varied observations, he raised concern that “a certain zionist press” had declared “christian arabs” to be “enemies of israel.” “it refers,” he writes, “not to a simple political feud, in which these christians are not disunited from their non-christian compatriots, but to their theological attitude loyal to the patristic [sic] tradition.”2 for orthodox arabs such as khodr, the accusation that fidelity to the fathers—a characteristic claim of orthodox christianity especially—made one an enemy of israel was easily problematic, if not dangerous, as a mischaracterization both of political views and of theological understanding. it is unclear to what publication khodr was referring. however, in that same year, a. roy eckardt, an american methodist theologian and “pioneer” of jewishchristian relations,3 published an overview of recent christian approaches to the state of israel in midstream, the american, self-designated “zionist publication”4 of the theodore herzl foundation.5 given midstream’s circulation and the growing geopolitical chasm between the u.s. and lebanon at the time, one suspects that the this article has benefited from the careful reading and critiques of several friends and colleagues, including especially r. kendall soulen and philip cunningham, who each read and graciously discussed more than one draft with me; my colleagues at the university of scranton and the orthodox christian studies center of fordham university; as well as michael legaspi, karma ben-johanan, stephen shoemaker, the anonymous reviewers of scjr, and the journal’s co-editor, ruth langer. i remain deeply indebted to each—even and especially when we may have come to significantly different conclusions. 1 metropolitan george khodr, “the feelings and reactions of the eastern christian towards issues arising from the palestine problem” (1972), 4212.07.22/01 orthodox churches 1965-1978, world council of churches archives. 2 khodr, “the feelings and reactions,” 4. 3 see ralph blumenthal, “roy eckardt, 79, a pioneer in christian-jewish relations,” new york times, may 9, 1998. notably, eckardt was also a past president and founder of the american academy of religion (formerly, the national association of biblical instructors). 4 “statement of purpose,” midstream 1.1 (1955): 3. 5 a. roy eckardt, “christian perspectives on israel,” midstream 18 (1972): 40-50. azar: “supersessionism”: the political origin of a theological neologism 2 article was unknown to khodr, but its context, content, and rhetoric are nevertheless of the precise sort that formed the basis of his concerns. in this essay, eckardt surveys a variety of american and european “perspectives” on israel. examining the “more conservative” expressions of those who openly resisted israel’s post1967 policies, eckardt draws his readers’ attention away from the social, political, legal, or moral objections that these detractors had voiced. instead, he tells the zionist publication’s readers: these christians’ true “ground for political opposition to israel” was their adherence to a “traditional” theological predisposition, in which “the church, the ‘new israel’” had “taken the place” of “the ‘old israel,’ the jewish people.”6 in other words, christians who resisted israel’s policies did so, to use khodr’s words, not because of “a simple political feud,” but, in eckardt’s characterization, because of their adherence to “traditional” theology. to encapsulate this claim, eckardt coins an entirely new term: “supersessionism.” now a half century later, eckardt’s neologism has come to “dominate” the “current scholarly discourse regarding the church’s relationship to the jewish people.”7 it has served western theologians well as the chief heuristic device for assessing, and normally rejecting, the “standard theological foundation of the relationship with judaism” in christian history.8 it has engendered a wealth of discussion and debate over the origins of its typical components (e.g., notions that the “church” replaced “israel” or that the “law” has been “abrogated”), its linguistic roots (e.g., in the latin supersedere), or its various definitions and subcategories. what follows below adds a new dimension by unpacking the origin not of the ostensible components or of the linguistic roots, but of the neologism itself as a heuristic device—the umbrella category, the taxonomy, the way of reading and labeling theological positions and opponents. aside from one partial exception,9 the actual origins of this way of categorizing, this way of reading, have never entered into the discussion, and that is what we choose to explore here, while also considering some of the effects of the political perspectives in which this theological neologism was forged. 6 eckardt, “christian perspectives,” 43. 7 matthew a. tapie, “christ, torah, and the faithfulness of god: the concept of supersessionism in ‘the gifts and the calling,’” scjr 12 (2017): 1-18, here 1. 8 as described in the 2015 statement from the pontifical commission for religious relations with the jews, “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’ (rom 11:29)—a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations” 17. for the statement, with commentary, see philip a. cunningham, “the sources behind ‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’ (rom 11:29): a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of nostra aetate (no. 4),” scjr 12 (2017): 1-39. 9 r. kendall soulen, “supersessionism,” encyclopedia of jewish-christian relations, ed. walter homolka, rainer kampling, amy-jill levine, christoph markschies, peter schäfer and martin thurner (berlin: de gruyter, 2020). 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) a few clarifications at the outset this article proceeds along three primary lines. first, through an examination of the writings of roy eckardt, his wife, alice eckardt, and their friend and colleague, franklin littell, it demonstrates that this categorizing of ancient and modern christian thinkers under the umbrella of “supersessionism” (along with the label for its proponent, the “supersessionist”) originated not in scholarly works of theological history or systematic theology, but in the hostile political environment of burgeoning american christian support for the state of israel’s military superiority.10 the rhetoric surrounding these first appearances, we will see below, ensured that the neologisms allowed these authors to diminish the validity of moral, ethical, or political concerns raised by christians regarding israel’s post-1967 policies by rooting the chief cause of those concerns in an unethical, antiquated, and historic—especially greek patristic—theology. in other words, it was not the specifics of israeli policy that comprised the main cause of christian discontent with the new state, but the underlying and ancient christian “supersession” of jews in toto. in this way, christian detraction from israel was totalized as a product of historic anti-judaism (or antisemitism) rather than a diverse and worthwhile array of concerns often having little to do with this “traditional” theology. second, this article will foreground the way that this tendency to totalize christian detraction from the state of israel employed eastern christians, arabs, and church fathers. while each of these figures factors saliently and regularly into the writings under consideration here, they typically function as rhetorical, totalized figures rather than figures governed by the nuances of reality or close textual examinations. to be clear, our focus will not be on the figures themselves (orthodox, arab, or church father), the characteristics of their approaches to jews, jewish practices, zionism, or the state of israel, or whether those approaches harbored “antijewish” sentiments that could be designated “supersessionist” according to the term’s typical usage. rather, our focus will be on the totalizing and rhetorical role that each of these played in those writings that first employ “supersessionism” (or “supersessionist”) as a category. our focus, one might say, is not on the varied sets of data, but the origins of a way of reading that data. the third and final part of this article will demonstrate that, in light of their opposition to “traditional” theology and their treatment of christian arabs (especially orthodox) and their “non-christian compatriots,” the eckardts, littell, and other likeminded pioneers of american christian-jewish relations did not so much overcome the “supersessionism” myth that they identified and rejected as much as they redirected its principal elements toward a new cast of characters. moreover, given their own explicit and overwhelming personal advocacy for military support 10 this essay does not fully explore the entirety of either the eckardts’ or littell’s approaches to jews, jewish practices, zionism, or the state of israel; rather, it focusses on a specific aspect of those broader approaches—the creation and use of the category of “supersessionism.” azar: “supersessionism”: the political origin of a theological neologism 4 for the state of israel, there came to be little divide between their rhetorical dismissal of those negatively affected by the state and their real support of violence against them. in light of this exploration, we will conclude by briefly considering the common role played by “supersessionism” as a sort of “gateway” into jewish-christian relations for non-western theologians, especially orthodox christians, with the hope of reshaping a historically problematic aspect of jewish-christian relations that has tended to confirm, rather than challenge, orthodox and other arab christian hesitancy toward jewish-christian dialogue.11 the present study does not seek to undermine or underappreciate the unprecedented attempts of the eckardts, littell, and their contemporaries to undo the drastic effects of historic christian degradation of jews. rather, it draws attention to the negative, and too often neglected, effect that the rhetoric of their theological neologisms had and continues to have on traditions often overlooked in western interreligious and theological discourse.12 the eckardts, midstream, and opposition to arabs prior to 1972 the decades-long careers of both roy eckardt and his wife, alice, were defined by a persistent dedication to “post-shoah” theology and the reshaping of christian approaches toward jews that fittingly earned them recognition as among the “pioneers” of jewish-christian relations. by the late 1960s this commitment to jewish-christian relations had become inseparable, for them and for many of their colleagues, from a positive commitment to the state of israel and regular activism against arab concerns. while it was the “whirlwind tour of israel” offered to roy by the israeli government in 1966 that firmly pushed their scholarly interests toward this “new direction”13 of explicit political support, it was nonetheless the sixday war of june 1967 especially that led to their increased activities on behalf of israeli concerns and explicitly against those of arabs. writing back-to-back articles for the christian century in august 1967—before alice had herself visited the region14—the eckardts lamented the christian “silence” to israel’s near destruction in words of a poignantly anti-arab tone that clearly reflect the government-sponsored nature of roy’s trip the previous year: 11 this essay stems from a larger project examining the various historical, theological, and political dimensions of orthodox christian participation in jewish-christian dialogue, with a particular focus on the middle east. one such section will be devoted to patristic approaches to jews—a topic not under consideration in the present essay. 12 while arab orthodox christians form a major part of the present examination, such is simply a matter of focus and is not meant to distract from the importance or experiences of other eastern, orthodox, or non-arab christian traditions (e.g., greek, slavic, syriac, armenian, etc.). 13 alice l. eckardt, “growing into a daring and questioning faith,” in faith transformed: christian encounters with jews and judaism, ed. john c. merkle and walter j. harrelson (collegeville, mn: liturgical, 2003), 17-36, here 22. 14 see eckardt, “growing into a daring…,” 23. this was also alice’s very first publication (see 34, n. 8). 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) “palestine/israel,” they affirm, has only ever been the “original homeland” of the jewish people “and of no other living nation.”15 the “original and continuing cause of the arab refugee problem and its recent aggravation has been arab intransigence and hostility” since “israel tried to convince them to stay” in 1948.16 any “refugees” (a term they place in quotes) really only resisted, and therefore fled, “jewish sophistication, jewish intransigence, jewish power.”17 such was the nature of the eckardts’ totalized view of arabs: “the one unbreakable bond that unites the arab peoples is their conviction that israel deserves to die.”18 this “bond,” in other words, was characteristic not of some arab leaders or spokespeople, but of “the arab peoples” in toto. though they thus believed that arab opposition was rooted chiefly in a sort of monolithic and violent hatred of israel, the focus of the eckardts’ concerns was the reasons why christians had come to sympathize with arab causes. such sympathies, they lamented, were misguided and due to two main reasons: first, a concern for american missionaries “hard at work in arab lands”19 and, second and most importantly, because “christendom,” having neglected its own “hebraic roots”20 while claiming the mantle of “the real israel,”21 had “for centuries” taught that “jews have no ultimate or integral right to exist.”22 the eckardts did not seriously entertain any of the legal, political, or moral concerns voiced by “arabs” or “christians” (terms that for them did not yet overlap23). the problem for arabs, in the eckardts’ view, was a deeply rooted violent tendency; for christians, a deeply rooted theology. these twin assertions would, in a few short years, form the basis of roy eckardt’s coining of the term “supersessionism.” shlomo katz, the founding editor of midstream, decided almost immediately to reprint the eckardts’ second article in his journal.24 he undoubtedly recognized that it was in keeping with his publication’s general anti-arab tone over the preceding two decades. since its founding in 1955, as emily katz has shown, midstream’s contributors generally kept in step with its editor’s own views and regularly offered essays that patronized, caricatured, and promoted “assumptions 15 originally published as two separate articles in the christian century on july 26 and august 2, 1967, i cite the compiled reprint in a. roy and alice l. eckardt, “again, silence in the churches,” in a. roy eckardt, elder and younger brothers: the encounter of jews and christians (new york: charles scribner’s sons, 1967), 163-177, here 165. 16 eckardt, elder and younger…, 167-68. 17 eckardt, elder and younger…, 171. 18 eckardt, elder and younger…, 170. 19 eckardt, elder and younger…, 171-72. 20 eckardt, elder and younger…, 174. 21 eckardt, elder and younger…, 171, emphasis original. 22 eckardt, elder and younger…, 170. 23 in a later revision and expansion, they acknowledge the existence of arab christians but do little more (see a. roy eckardt, your people, my people: the meeting of jews and christians [new york: quadrangle, 1974], 122-51). 24 a. roy and alice l. eckardt, “silence in the churches,” midstream 13 (1967): 27-32. azar: “supersessionism”: the political origin of a theological neologism 6 about arab backwardness and the unmitigated benefits that israeli civilization afforded these minority populations.” 25 as such, contributors were generally “unwilling to summon empathy of any sort for arabs,”26 and, together with other concurrent publications, “generally decried arabs as, at worst, obstinate aggressors who acted in bad faith, or, at best, pawns in the soviet union’s cynical game of geopolitical chess.”27 around the same time that the eckardts’ 1967 article appeared in midstream, shlomo katz wrote to roy eckardt to ask him to contribute “a personal examination of what israel means.”28 and eckardt’s contribution five months later—the first of at least three more contributions to midstream—does precisely that. while this article does not quite carry the virulence of the earlier articles, eckardt nonetheless again foregrounds the seemingly natural affinity between the theologically rooted “annihilationist designs” of fellow christians and the “cancer of exterminationism that pervades the arab world.”29 by the end of the 1960s, the eckardts were making their central point abundantly clear for both christian and jewish audiences: christian historic hostility toward jews had left the christian soul open and unrefined, in danger of being metabolized into an “arab sympathizer.”30 as such, any “socio-political” concerns for palestinian rights and refugees, as alice eckardt would later say with shocking forthrightness, were “essentially beside the point.”31 if, in the eckardts’ view, the real problem is with a historic christian theological predisposition, the need to address other concerns becomes far less important. what they are still lacking, however, is a precise label by which to describe this theological predisposition. a trip to the middle east together in 1969 seems to have tempered the eckardts’ generally totalized views of arabs slightly, but by no means significantly. while they show some concern for palestinian refugees (without quotes, this time) in their 1969 report of this journey,32 they assert that such suffering was nonetheless a byproduct of an otherwise and entirely just cause that had been exacerbated by the arab failure to “bring themselves to recognize” the beneficial “achievements” brought by israel’s victory in 1967.33 and while they, for the first time, 25 emily alice katz, “‘a questioning of the jewish status quo’: midstream, shlomo katz, and american zionist letters at midcentury,” jewish history 29 (2015): 57-96, here 70-71. 26 katz, “a questioning…,” 71. 27 katz, “a questioning…,” 82, describing an anti-arab tendency shared by jewish frontier and american zionist, but less so by commentary (see 87-88). 28 a. roy eckardt, “eretz israel: a christian affirmation,” midstream 14.3 (1968): 9-12, here 9. 29 eckardt, “eretz israel,” 11. 30 see roy eckardt’s defense of this term in eckardt, your people, 174, n. 8. otherwise, see a. roy eckardt, “the jewish-christian encounter,” ccar journal 15 (1968): 22-30. 31 alice l. eckardt, “the enigma of christian hostility to israel,” women’s league outlook 42 (1972): 5-7 and 24-25, here 7. 32 a. roy and alice l. eckardt, “the tragic unity of enemies: a report from the middle east,” the christian century 86 (1969): 73-76. alice describes this eight-week trip elsewhere as well (“growing into a daring…,” 23-24). 33 see eckardts, “the tragic unity,” 73. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) acknowledge the concerns of local christians,34 roy eckardt, in a later reworking of this same report, backtracks, suggesting that “stressing arab rights” too much risks “a strengthening of those forces and interests that are bent upon the destruction of the jews and israel.”35 in the end, the only way, he argues, for “arab sympathizers” to “heal the arab world of its powerful impulse to self-destruction” and to “preclude the terrible eventuality that future generations will have to remember arabs along with nazis as the wholesale slaughterers of jews in the twentieth century” is for christians to hold to “a categorical insistence upon the ethnic and national rights of the jews of israel.”36 in other words, christians must overcome their historic theology that, seemingly exclusively, had precluded them from both recognizing the virtue of the state of israel and “healing” the arabs’ pervasive tendency, in roy eckardt’s explicit view, toward self-inflicted violence. eckardt’s assessment of the state of israel’s various detractors thus regularly comprised both a sweeping generalization of historic christian theology and a totalized view of arabs; what he did not posit, so far, was a term by with which to label that theology. roy eckardt’s neologism and “traditional” christianity when roy eckardt returned to midstream’s pages in 1972, he offered a contribution (“christian perspectives on israel”) that would prove monumental for jewish-christian relations and the study of early christian thought in ways likely little anticipated by him and little recognized still. his article examines a range of christian perspectives, liberal and conservative, catholic and protestant. while the perspectives that he explores are varied, the chief object of his opposition is nonetheless, once again, christians, who since 1967, in eckardt’s view, had stood guilty of a quadripartite crime: “anti-judaism,” “antisemitism,” “anti-zionism,” and “anti-israelism.”37 the sense in which eckardt uses these terms—including the individual meanings, but, more to the point, the nature of the link between them—was, at the time, remarkably recent (if not entirely unprecedented).38 while both eckardt’s use of these ideas and their prior history warrant their own extended discussion, it is most important, for now, only to note that eckardt understands the phenomenon of christian antisemitism not merely as a specific manifestation of wider racial, economic, or social opposition toward jews (as, for example, zionist forefathers like 34 eckardts, “the tragic unity,” 74-75. 35 eckardt, your people, 177. 36 eckardt, your people, 177. 37 eckardt, “christian perspectives,” 40-41. 38 in fact, eckardt himself recognized the novelty of his language in 1971; see a. roy eckardt, “the nemesis of christian antisemitism,” journal of church and state 13 (1971): 227-44, here 234, and “anti-israelism, anti-semitism and the quakers,” christianity and crisis 31 (1971): 180-86, here 180. it is unclear which of these two articles came first, but note the important linguistic difference. cf. a. roy eckardt, “the devil and yom kippur,” midstream 20 (1974): 67-75, here 67. azar: “supersessionism”: the political origin of a theological neologism 8 moses hess or theodore herzl had argued39) but as a unique manifestation of theological views—that is, of “anti-judaism.”40 eckardt similarly characterizes christian “anti-zionism” and “anti-israelism” (both of which are terms that had undergone significant linguistic changes in 1948) as the results of the umbrella concept of “anti-judaism” (and the antisemitism to which it had given rise) rather than results of ethical, political, or legal objections.41 in eckardt’s view, “christian attitudes to israel, many of which are hostile, must be understood in continuity with the long tradition of christendom’s antipathy toward jews and the persecution of jews.”42 once again, other issues are “essentially beside the point”43 when the chief issue is theological (“anti-judaism”). roy eckardt first turns to address liberal protestant christianity (especially unitarians), whose casting off of “traditional” christianity should have led them also to cast off antisemitism/anti-judaism, but it had not.44 next, eckardt turns toward “more conservative” protestant christians, whom he accuses of “theologizing” the “political domain of erstwhile palestine,” by which he means a “resort to christian religious judgments and scriptural passages in order to question and even to negate zionist and israeli claims.”45 the first of his two lightning rods here is a spring 1968 statement from american missionaries in beirut. while the statement does not appear to have been widely published or noticed,46 it is tremendously important for eckardt, so we will briefly review the original statement before continuing with eckardt’s use thereof. 39 moses hess in rome and jerusalem (1862); theodore herzl in the jewish state (1896). 40 while not entirely unknown in preceding decades, this view gained exponential traction in the 1960s and 70s, most notably with the publication of rosemary radford ruether, faith and fratricide: the theological roots of anti-semitism (new york: seabury, 1974). 41 eckardt misleadingly uses an article from edward h. flannery (“anti-zionism and the christian psyche,” jes 6 [1969]: 173-84) in order to bolster his emphasis on “anti-judaism” as the cause of antisemitism, but flannery had posited the former as only one possible cause of the latter (see 181 and 183). nonetheless, flannery would later change his position: compare edward h. flannery, the anguish of the jews: twenty-three centuries of anti-semitism (new york: macmillan, 1965), 60-61 and the revision of the same section in the anguish of the jews: twenty-three centuries of antisemitism, rev. and updated (new york: paulist, 1985), 62-64. 42 eckardt, “christian perspectives,” 40. the novelty of this language is evidenced by the fact that, in a 1974 revised and expanded version of their 1967 articles above, the eckardts add the word “anti-judaism” as a totalizing term to encapsulate the christian position which they seek to oppose (it was not in the original); see eckardt, your people, 122-51, here 151 (this revision encompasses other articles as well). compare roy eckardt’s distinction between “anti-judaism” and “anti-semitism” early in his career in christianity and the children of israel (morningside heights, ny: king’s crown, 1948), xiixiii. 43 eckardt, “the enigma,” 7. 44 eckardt, “christian perspectives,” 41. 45 eckardt, “christian perspectives,” 42. 46 see eckardt, “christian perspectives,” 50, n. 10. i cannot find the statement printed anywhere besides monday morning, a small presbyterian magazine for ministers, which is the version i cite below: “the continuing middle east crisis,” monday morning 33 (september 23, 1968): 3-6. eckardt himself only cites an original copy from the authors’ file in beirut. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) these missionaries offer seven points with the explicit purpose of helping american christians better understand the “middle east crisis.”47 first, they combat a series of “stereotypes” of palestinian arabs as uneducated, technologically inept, wandering nomads who failed to see the benefits of the land until israel first made the “desert bloom.”48 second and third, they stress the need to listen to the “facts” and “feelings” from “both sides,” such as the arab evidence against the notion that they had left in 1948 “of their own free will.”49 fourth, the authors question the notion that “might makes right”—whether for israel itself or for the “many christians” who believed its military victories were evidence of “god’s grace.”50 in the fifth point they challenge the “assumption” that israel’s land-gain in 1967 “represents the fulfillment of old testament prophecy” (at the time, a growing assertion in american evangelical circles).51 sixth, they remind their readers of the christian obligation “to minister to the last, the least, and the lost of this world.”52 their final point stresses the need not only to “bind up wounds but to prevent new ones” by supporting, for example, the un resolution demanding israel’s withdrawal from its 1967 gains, while “wondering” whether “political and economic pressures” should now be employed in order to persuade israel to abide by the un resolution. whatever the statement’s ostensible “balance” or lack thereof, it clearly raises cultural, historical, political, moral, and social concerns in regard to christian support for israel’s administration and military superiority since 1967 (not 1948). but eckardt characterizes it exclusively as a theologically motivated attempt to delegitimize zionism and the state of israel itself (not merely its post-1967 policies).53 the only portion he quotes comes from the fifth point, though he misleadingly introduces it with the authors’ fourth point. here is his presentation, complete with his own ellipses and bracketed phrases: isn’t it too simple to assume that [the military action of israel] is a manifestation of god’s grace? 47 eckardt, “christian perspectives,” 3. 48 “the continuing middle east crisis,” 3. the eckardts and other likeminded pioneers of american jewish-christian relations, such as edward flannery, john oesterreicher, and franklin littell, each promoted a version of these stereotypes. for the eckardts, see above; for littell, oesterreicher and flannery, see below. 49 “the continuing middle east crisis,” 4. this myth was largely abandoned in israeli society a few years later, but at the time was widely held, including by the same american “pioneers” in the previous note. on the change in israeli society, see rafi nets-zehngut, “origins of the palestinian refugee problem: changes in the historical memory of israelis/jews 1949-2004,” journal of peace research 48 (2011): 235-48. 50 “the continuing middle east crisis,” 5. 51 “the continuing middle east crisis,” 5. 52 “the continuing middle east crisis,” 5-6. 53 eckardt, “christian perspectives,” 42. for a wider account of the complex history and political effects (or lack thereof) of protestant missionary interaction with zionists and zionism, see david hollinger, protestants abroad: how missionaries tried to change the world but changed america (princeton: princeton university press, 2017), 117-138. azar: “supersessionism”: the political origin of a theological neologism 10 … [we] must challenge the assumption that the israeli occupation of jerusalem, and indeed of large portions of palestine, represents the fulfillment of old testament prophecy. the old testament does speak of the return of israel to the promised land, but christians should remember three things: (1) the great prophetic voices in the old testament…constantly warned israel that a gracious god would judge severely any injustice his chosen people committed; (2) by the end of the old testament period such promises of return were understood as part of the action of god at the very end of history rather than of men within history; and (3) the new testament understands the whole old testament experience as having been transposed into a new key by the coming of jesus christ: so that the church is the new “israel of god” (gal. 6:16). if jesus made it clear that god is to be worshiped neither on mt. gerizim nor in jerusalem (john 4:21) [a misquotation, by the way54], can christians believe that god’s promise is fulfilled by the occupation of palestine by the modern political state of israel? what do we mean when we sing, “noel, noel, born is the king of israel?”55 eckardt immediately follows with a second lightning rod: the contention of the beirut group was given renewed voice in a sermon on palm sunday, 1972 by edward l. r. elson, chaplain of the u.s. senate and former head of the anti-israeli organization american friends of the middle east.56 in seeking to rebuke christians who allegedly find a fulfillment of prophecy in current administration of jerusalem, elson told his hearers that the christian church is “the new israel of god.”57 unfortunately, i have not been able to find the original account of elson’s sermon, so i am unable to compare it to eckardt’s summary. however, suffice it to say that eckardt’s report is not firsthand (and probably not even secondhand), nor terribly balanced, as he relies on the account given in the near east report—the newsletter distributed by the decidedly pro-israel lobby group, aipac (american israel public affairs committee), to members of congress and other washington notables.58 54 eckardt’s footnote reads: “jesus is actually reported by john as saying, “the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in jerusalem will you worship the father” (“christian perspectives,” 50, n. 9). why eckardt calls this a “misquotation” is unclear, since the statement is not even claiming to have quoted jesus, but merely paraphrasing what most biblical scholars accept to have been the case. 55 eckardt, “christian perspectives,” 42. 56 this was an erstwhile pro-arab organization with which, it appears, the cia was involved. see hugh wilford, “american friends of the middle east: the cia, us citizens, and the secret battle for american public opinion in the arab-israeli conflict, 1947–1967,” jas 51 (2017): 93-116. 57 eckardt, “christian perspectives,” 42-43. 58 near east report (march 29, 1972). see also the subsequent issue (april 5, 1972), which reports on the christian reactions to the palm sunday sermons. on the near east report, see john l. moore, ed., the washington lobby, 3rd ed. (washington: congressional quarterly, 1979), 143. for another description of this palm sunday event and the response from christians concerned for israel (to be 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) one need not to defend or even sympathize with either the “beirut group’s” statement59 or elson’s in order to recognize that eckardt cites two american presbyterian statements (though he does not mention that affiliation) and examines both as if they are exclusively theological objections to israel. even further, he obscures the fact that these statements were responses to a specific theological claim by characterizing the point to which they were each responding (christian belief that 1967 was the fulfillment of prophecy) as “alleged.” as eckardt himself will acknowledge in the same article, this phenomenon was, by 1972, hardly “alleged.”60 after all, another presbyterian, nelson bell (founder and editor of christianity today, as well as billy graham’s father-in-law), had written on july 21, 1967, “that for the first time in more than 2,000 years jerusalem is now completely in the hands of the jews gives a student of the bible a thrill and a renewed faith in the accuracy and validity of the bible.”61 such was even more thoroughly confirmed by the 1500-person conference christianity today held in jerusalem in 1971, which was attended by both david ben-gurion and zvi werblowsky (a prominent scholar and periodic advisor to the ministry of religious affairs) and focused on the connection between biblical prophecy and israel’s six-day victory.62 yet, in eckardt’s overall rendering, this was not an inner-christian debate, in which the beirut authors or elson had waded into theological waters regarding biblical prophecy and its fulfillment in the church because fellow christians had affirmed those same prophecies on behalf of israel’s military victories. it was not a debate in which theology was one aspect of otherwise worthy social, political, or other concerns—whatever the quality of that theology. it was, rather, an exclusively theologically motivated—seemingly ex nihilo—attempt to delegitimize israel itself (rather than merely challenge its post-1967 policies). having thus established the seemingly and theologically sui generis nature of christian opposition to the state of israel, eckardt introduces an entirely novel term, immediately following: addressed below), see caitlin carenen, the fervent embrace: liberal protestants, evangelicals, and israel (new york: new york university press, 2012), 159-60. 59 an “open letter” from the same “beirut group” a year later is far more castigating of israel’s actions. nonetheless, even there they attempt to be “evenhanded” (lamenting, for example, the presence of “bigoted anti-jewish propaganda pamphlets”). for the full version, see “middle east crisis continues,” monday morning 34 (september 22, 1969): 3–6, and for the eckardts’ characterization of the statement, see encounter with israel, 257. 60 sources on this phenomenon abound. see, e.g., timothy p. weber, on the road to armageddon: how evangelicals became israel’s best friend (grand rapids: baker academic, 2004), or, more recently but with different emphases, jason olson, america’s road to jerusalem: the impact of the sixday war on protestant politics (lanham: lexington, 2018). 61 l. nelson bell, “a layman and his faith: unfolding destiny,” christianity today, july 21, 1967. 62 see olson, america’s road, 112-14. cf. eckardt, “christian perspectives,” 45. azar: “supersessionism”: the political origin of a theological neologism 12 here are spokesmen who intrude theological supersessionism into the political domain. the fact that the church, the ‘new israel,’ has taken the place, allegedly, of the ‘old israel,’ the jewish people, becomes the ground for political opposition to israel.63 after offering midstream’s readers this neologism, eckardt displays again his earlier tendency to view “traditional” theology as a sort of impetus that had allowed christians to become “arab sympathizers.” this “christian traditionalist-negative stance toward the jewish people” (as he later describes it64) had enabled these christians to share the goal of israel’s enemies: the surface insistence that theology is to judge politics is a cloak for other purposes. reputedly christian reasoning has become, in fact, an ideology to justify and advance a specific political program: the forcible transfer of land to the foes of israel.65 concluding this section soon after with reference to a french christian publication, témoignage chrétien (though he neither quotes nor cites anything specific from it),66 he more clearly specifies his understanding of the more traditional “christian right,” claiming that “traditional supersessionist theology”—which he now defines as the belief that “the church is the fresh, spiritual ‘new israel’ replacing the outmoded, evil ‘old israel’”—had combined with a leftist “condemnation of zionism and israel.”67 for eckardt, this newly designated “supersessionist theology” is neither temporal nor simply a product of contemporary circumstances; it is cosmic; it is “traditional.” it is, in his characterization, not a theological response to prophetically rooted christian support for israel, but “the ground” from which springs a uniquely christian opposition to israel itself. with eckardt’s assertions, within a self-described “zionist publication” with an established history of anti-arab rhetoric, it is no wonder that someone in metropolitan khodr’s position raises the concern that christian arabs were being portrayed as “enemies of israel” not because of “a simple political feud,” but because of their devotion to ancient christian traditions.68 eckardt indeed casts “traditional” christianity in little else than a villainous role and, in this particular article, overlooks entirely the actual perspectives 63 eckardt, “christian perspectives,” 43. emphasis mine. 64 your people, 110. 65 “christian perspectives,” 43. eckardt later revises the language in such a way that makes his point about “the hidden but real intention of the beirut churchmen” even stronger (your people, 111). 66 the only citation he gives is his own, unpublished talk the previous march: “the churches, antisemitism, and the holocaust.” there is a chapter by the same name that appears two years later in your people (7-28), which one can assume is the published version of the talk, but he does not quote témoignage chrétien there either. 67 eckardt, “christian perspectives,” 43. 68 khodr, “the feelings and reactions,” 4. 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) of arabs, christian or otherwise, except to identify them as the real cause of “socalled israeli militarism.”69 when eckardt later turns in the same article to “evangelical literalism,” he is no longer on the extreme attack. while he clearly rejects their desire (no longer “alleged”) to interpret/justify the state of israel through a prophetic/eschatological lens, he does not, on the whole, condemn them, perhaps because their political support of israel had made their theology less problematic for now.70 similarly, when he turns to the “theological justifications for the state of israel” espoused by catholic thinkers like john oesterreicher and edward flannery (whom we will address below), he does so with trepidation, holding that such positions, while largely laudable, nonetheless risk imposing “a double standard” on israel that may diminish or obscure the “objective historical, moral, and juridical considerations” that are the “primary elements in the support for israel that are increasingly affirmed and shared by catholics, protestants, and others” who unite with “those who speak from the standpoint of secular-ethical authentication and of international law.”71 eckardt concludes the essay by again reemphasizing that, whatever one’s “spiritual” views in regard to its people or historic founding, israel stands with “historical and moral” justification.72 and it is thus to its founding, and toward its people, that the christian must react with “celebration” and “thanksgiving” “because their jesus christ was and remains a jew.”73 franklin littell’s neologism and the “greekness” of christianity after roy eckardt coined the term “supersessionism,” its rise in jewish-christian/israeli-american relations as the chief descriptor for the “traditional” christian views of jews did not quickly reach beyond his circle of family and friends.74 two years later, alice eckardt uses the concept to describe christianity’s “genocidal” tendency—“if not for racial genocide for jews, then for religious genocide through conversion”75—which had caused christianity to see itself as the “new israel,” thereby entailing “the death of the ‘old israel’” and comprising the reason why more christians did not rally to support israel in june 1967, the potential moment 69 “christian perspectives,” 44. 70 the eckardts’ critique of this sort of “christian zionism” becomes clearer later: see alice and roy eckardt, “the achievements and trials of interfaith,” judaism 27 (1978): 318-23, here 320. 71 see “christian perspectives,” 47-49, here quoting 49 and 47. eckardt is speaking primarily of the members of christians concerned for israel, to whom we will return below (see also n. 58 above). 72 “christian perspectives,” 49. cf. eckardts, “the achievements,” 320. 73 “christian perspectives,” 49. 74 cf. david nicholls, “modifications and movements,” jts 25 (1974): 393-417, here 397-98, which employs the term, but with a meaning entirely unrelated to eckardt’s, as if nicholls too was coining it. 75 alice l. eckardt, “the holocaust: christian and jewish responses,” jaar 42 (1974): 453-69, here 454. azar: “supersessionism”: the political origin of a theological neologism 14 of a “second holocaust.”76 but besides the eckardts, few would have more success in promoting this basic narrative than their friend and fellow pioneer in jewishchristian relations and “post-shoah” theology, franklin littell. a strong advocate for a jewish state (notably even before 1948), littell founded christians concerned for israel shortly after the six-day war (later to be succeeded by the still-active national christian leadership conference for israel). like roy eckardt, he despised the american missions center in beirut, noting that it had become “nothing but a pumping station for arab league/muslim holy war propaganda for the destruction of israel and the jews.”77 accordingly, as we will see further below, the image of “the arab” that he regularly put on display was consistent with, if not even more negative than, that of the eckardts and midstream above: arabs regularly appear in his writings as violent, communist-directed pawns who had wrongly garnered the sympathy of liberal christians.78 and the reason that so many christians had fallen for arab propaganda was for him, as it was for the eckardts, the “traditional” christian view of jews and judaism. despite the fact that his works generally reveal an unfamiliarity with late-antique christian thought—he claims for example that nicea “set off the ‘old testament,’” as opposed to the “new testament,” and thereby set “in place” the “superseding myth, which already carries the genocidal undertone,”79 when nicea did not at all deal with the issue of canonicity, never mind the other inaccuracies implicit in this statement—littell regularly totalizes and blames the patristic period for offering to christianity an antisemitic, “superseding” view of jews to which nazis, arabs, and their christian sympathizers would eventually hold.80 as he shows in his most well-known work, the crucifixion of the jews (1975), there are few reasons for christian “anti-zionism”—the “new code word for antisemitism”81—beyond this ancient “superseding or displacement myth,” which had for millennia declared that “the mission of the jewish people was finished with the coming of jesus christ, that ‘the old israel’ was written off with the appearance of ‘the new israel.’”82 76 a. eckardt, “the holocaust,” 464, with reference to emil l fackenheim, quest for past and future: essays in jewish theology (boston: beacon, 1968). despite eckardt’s implication, fackenheim did not share her “supersessionist” vocabulary, though he did share the general idea (see quest for past…, 23). 77 franklin h. littell, “reflections on a visit to israel,” the reconstructionist 36 (february 1970): 712, here 10. 78 littel makes this link amid arabs, communists, and misled christians throughout his works. see, e.g., franklin h. littell, “historical reflection: the holocaust and beyond” (speech at eastern college, 1985), tlitfz201307000204, subseries 12.5: speeches, lectures, and article manuscripts, 1938-2006, franklin h. littell papers, temple university, 6-8. 79 littell, “historical reflection,” 4. 80 see, esp., franklin h. littell, the crucifixion of the jews (new york: harper & row, 1975), 24-43, where littell, unlike the eckardts, at least directly cites some early christian sources. 81 littell, the crucifixion, 97. 82 littell, the crucifixion, 2. emphasis mine. this develops the same point regarding the “superseding theory” that littell had explored earlier in “christendom, holocaust and israel: the importance for christians of recent major events in jewish history,” jes 10 (1973): 483-97. 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) in his 1982 “christian antisemitism and the holocaust” (an essay originally presented at a jerusalem conference on nazism), littell provides, akin to the eckardts, a groundbreaking way to label and reify the notion that christian resistance to israel was a misguided enterprise, rooted in both an unfortunate adherence to church fathers and misdirected sympathies with arabs, with no legitimate political or ethical basis.83 overall, he seeks to show in this essay how christianity can “become credible again.”84 his chief concern is liberal protestantism, which had, in his view, been deceived by communists and the recent attempt of refugees in the “near east” to “create a ‘palestinian’ identity” (we will return later to his use of quotation marks here).85 and more specifically at fault is the liberal tendency toward “universalism,” which, as littell explains, is rooted in the “greek” ideas with which the gentile fathers had tainted christianity’s jewish roots and thereby dismantled the particularity of the jewish people.86 this triumph of greek universalism over jewish particularity came with (or led to) accusations of deicide87 and the notion that “with the new dispensation the historic mission of the jewish people is ended. they are to scatter, wither away and disappear from history. the ‘new israel’ has superseded the old.”88 the patristic writers “took over” the jewish scriptures, promulgated a “radical break between the age of the jews and the age of the church,”89 and thereby created the “superseding theory” that disregarded jewish history entirely. for one who remains faithful to this way of thinking, recent events present a challenge: “to the supersessionist,” he summarizes, “both the holocaust and a restored israel are unintelligible.”90 here littell offers a neologism, “the supersessionist,” the concrete exponent of eckardt’s “supersessionism.” though cyprian, a latin writer—and a notably unique one at that—is the only patristic authority that littell cites (in a discussion primarily of greek ideas),91 for him, all are equally guilty in providing the foundation of later christian resistance to the state of israel. the restored state of israel has, according to littell, once and for all put to bed the “greek-philosophical” view of history and its “old myth of jewish decline and disappearance” that had viewed jews as a “fossil.”92 christians who fail to recognize this are guilty of the “terrorist weapon, political antisemitism [sic],” to which 83 franklin h. littell, “christian antisemitism and the holocaust,” in papers presented to the international symposium on judaism and christianity under the impact of national-socialism (1919–1945), ed. jacob katz (jerusalem: historical society of israel, 1982), 455-83. 84 littell, “christian antisemitism and the holocaust,” 455. 85 littell, “christian antisemitism and the holocaust,” 456. 86 see, littell, “christian antisemitism and the holocaust,” 457-60. 87 see littell, “christian antisemitism and the holocaust,” 462. 88 littell, “christian antisemitism and the holocaust,” 463. 89 littell, “christian antisemitism and the holocaust,” 464. 90 littell, “christian antisemitism and the holocaust,” 465. 91 littell, “christian antisemitism and the holocaust,” 462-63. 92 littell, “christian antisemitism and the holocaust,” 466-67. azar: “supersessionism”: the political origin of a theological neologism 16 their “centuries of theological and cultural antisemitism” had led.93 thus, for christians to become credible again they must abandon their triumphalist ways (which, along with “supersessionism,” is the real problem for littell).94 they must acknowledge and come to terms with the holocaust, particularly the christian involvement; they must reject universalism (which was, for littell, the “greek” legacy of the patristic era) and recognize the particularity of the jewish people; they must acknowledge christianity’s own roots in judaism. and most especially, they must support the state of israel—that is, the “reborn israel”—and avoid the temptation toward “even-handedness.”95 consistent with the eckardts, for littell, christian resistance to israel’s policies was rooted in a poor, traditional, and “greek” theology; he does not seriously consider other reasons. the political roots of “supersessionism”: a summary the ideas often denoted by the term “supersessionism” (e.g., that the “church” has replaced “israel”) are rooted in writings long before the twentieth century, and its nominal (supersession) and verbal (to supersede) counterparts had appeared before 1972, for example among protestants who had “superseded” jewish fidelity to torah and, though surprisingly rarely acknowledged, other christians (i.e., roman catholics).96 but the way of categorizing—the “-ism” in which the “-ist” believes, the newly identified “traditional doctrine” and totalizing heuristic device for assessing and rejecting historic and contemporary christian teaching on jews— originated amid the heresiological and political concerns of roy and alice eckardt and franklin littell. the line of reasoning which led to the creation of this taxonomy is rooted not in theological scholarship that entails a close reading of ancient texts, but in a quite specific chain of events: 1) the eckardts’ and littell’s strong reactions to 2) fellow (american protestant) christians, who themselves had reacted to 3) the growing body of evangelical christians who, because they saw new and exciting evidence of biblical prophecy and god’s ongoing covenantal fidelity to his people, justified and exulted in 4) israel’s clear demonstration of military superiority in and administrative policies after the six-day war. in this environment, the neologisms debut as tools not to demonstrate (for their opponents assert otherwise) but in order to reify the claim that christian objection to the state of israel (rather than to the prophetically/biblically based approval of its post-1967 policies) was rooted above all in a “traditional” condemnation of the 93 littell, “christian antisemitism and the holocaust,” 468. 94 see littell, “christian antisemitism and the holocaust,” 480. 95 littell, “christian antisemitism and the holocaust,” 481. 96 see, e.g., h. christopher, “on instrumental music in churches of christ,” lard’s quarterly 4 (1867): 349-68, here 353. for brief examinations of the linguistic precursors to “supersessionism,” which i am not offering above, see, e.g., soulen, “supersessionism”; terence l. donaldson, “supersessionism and early christian self-definition,” jjmjs 3 (2016): 1-32; or matthew a. tapie, aquinas on israel and the church: the question of supersessionism in the theology of thomas aquinas (eugene, or: pickwick, 2014), 9-24. 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) jewish people as a whole. it was this “traditional” theology, rather than salient political, legal, or ethical concerns, that effected a uniquely christian resistance that enabled the christian to share the nefarious goals of israel’s arab enemies. since, for the eckardts and littell (and here, they are not alone), israel was in the right morally, historically, legally, politically, socially and in many other ways of speaking, christian resistance must be theological.97 what is not opposed as an “arab front” or deception by “arab propaganda” is opposed as bad theology.98 the rhetorical figures of arabs, eastern christians, and church fathers the chief objects of the eckardts’ and littell’s criticisms in the texts considered here (and several of their other writings) are european/american christians whose “supersessionism” had left the door open to misguided sympathies with israel’s enemies. “arabs” themselves, however, function as little more than rhetorical figures distanced from the nuances of reality. they do not amount to much more than ignorant rejectionists whose tendency toward violence allowed them to be dragged along by communists while mischievously molding the theologically predisposed american christian into an “arab sympathizer.” the accompanying terms that each of these pioneers themselves use to describe arabs unfortunately add a dark dimension to their stalwart defense of jews and a jewish state in the decades following the shoah. and still worse when one turns to the manner in which they handled the nuances of palestinians—particularly littell,99 who was wont to place “palestinian” in quotes, who suggested that “palestinians” were demographically comprised of post-zionist arab immigrants who thereby had no longstanding tie to the land100 (thus not really “refugees”101), and who held that “palestine,” as a political concept, was “entirely a myth, a product of propagandists of the plo and their supporters and fellow-travellers [sic].”102 one’s concern for the state of israel or for revising historic christian teaching after the shoah does not have to come with a regular dismissal of palestinian history and interests, but for these american pioneers, it did. their considerations of arab and palestinian christians themselves, insofar as they were explicitly acknowledged at all, likewise tended more toward rhetoric 97 in addition to the many examples above, see eckardts, “the achievements,” 320. 98 cf. the eckardts’ description of the americans for middle east understanding (founded in 1967) in “the achievements,” 321. 99 cf., e.g., eckardts, “tragic unity of enemies,” 75. 100 see littell, “historical reflection” 5-6, where he favorably cites joan peters, from time immemorial: the origins of the arab-jewish conflict over palestine (new york: harper & row, 1984). peters’ work was roundly rejected by the majority of the scholarly (including israeli) community, but it was quite impactful for those in the anti-palestinian movement like littell. shortly before her death in 2015, prime minister netanyahu called peters to praise her for all she had done “for israel” (ron grossman, “joan caro, author of controversial book on israel, dies at 78,” chicago tribune, january 7, 2015). 101 see, e.g., littell, “christian antisemitism,” 456 above. he elsewhere speaks of palestinian “refugees” with quotes but of jewish refugees (from arab nations) with none (“reflections on a visit,” 7). 102 see littell, “historical reflection,” 6. azar: “supersessionism”: the political origin of a theological neologism 18 than reality. in 1992, littell asserted, in his regular column for the philadelphia inquirer, that the claim to be a “palestinian christian” was little different from the “deutsche christian” movement and attempt to make jesus aryan.103 he referred to christianity in the holy land in 1970 as “repulsive, coming from the very lowest level of christendom” holding that it would be “gain for christianity pure and undefiled if the [israeli] government would simply expel the ‘christian’ moneychangers and bigots from the country” (though, notably, he spoke more positively of european and american christians residing there).104 when it came to eastern, particularly orthodox, christianity, to which the majority of arab christians hold, these writers react either with disdain (especially littell) or shocking oversight (especially the eckardts). littell more than once agreed with the notion (expressed at a 1910 meeting of american and european missionaries) that had the “church of syria” been more faithful,105 it would never have had to suffer the dominance of islam and ensuing reduction to the “little fossilized remains of christian communities” that it had become.106 roy eckardt’s introduction to his own edited 1970 collection, christianity in israel (remarkably comprised exclusively of european and israeli, notably governmental, sources107), says nothing of the orthodox, the largest single block of local christians.108 perhaps he considered such oversight to be justified, since he elsewhere does not include orthodox christianity as among “the two main branches of christianity” and asserts that its future relations with jews did not “look very promising.”109 though their own views of patristic thinkers as principle villains in the jewishchristian saga may not have been the cause of their low regard for orthodox christianity, it assuredly did not help, and scholars even still notably lament orthodox 103 franklin h. littell, “lest we forget #636: the aryan jesus” (typescript, philadelphia, april 15, 1992), temple university. “lest we forget” was a weekly column that littell wrote for the philadelphia inquirer. thus, these claims were meant for a wide audience. 104 littell, “reflections on a visit,” 9-10. littell would repeat similar views in 1984 as well: “the christian presence ‘in the holy land’ is scarcely representative of christianity at its best.” franklin h. littell, “teaching the holocaust and its lessons,” jes 21 (1984): 531-35, here 533. this context has to do with holocaust education/scholarship in israel, where he also remarks on the misuse of the holocaust among “a type of right-wing israeli politics.” 105 see, e.g., littell, “christianity and totalitarianism” (speech at glenview community church, glenview, il, 1965), tlitfz201310000219, subseries 12.5: speeches, lectures, and article manuscripts, 1938-2006, franklin h. littell papers, temple university, 3 and “like a mighty stream” (speech at the conference on “the instinct for righteousness,” houston, 1985), tlitfz201504000014, subseries 12.5: speeches, lectures, and article manuscripts, 1938-2006, franklin h. littell papers, temple university, 2. he seems to have viewed the state of the nineteenth-century russian orthodox church and the later rise of communism similarly. see, e.g., littell, “christianity and totalitarianism,” 4. 106 “like a mighty stream,” 2. littell is summarizing the 1830s assessment of the american board of commissioners, and he uses the same point in a variety of places. see, e.g., franklin h. littell, “the holocaust and the christians,” journal of church and state 41 (1999): 725-38, here 729. 107 a. roy eckardt, ed., christianity in israel (new york: american academic association for peace in the middle east, 1971). 108 eckardt, ed., christianity in israel, 2. 109 see your people, 189 and footnote. interestingly, eckardt here admits that it is “unwarranted” to ignore orthodox christianity in interreligious discussions. 19 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) devotion to patristic literature as an assumed reason why orthodox christian-jewish dialogue has not reached a standard more acceptable to western christianity.110 yet, for all of the culpability that these pioneers place on the church fathers, they do not betray much knowledge of patristic literature at all. they are, like arabs and eastern christians, chiefly rhetorical figures. roy eckardt, for example, examines the “foundations of christian antisemitism” in the early period while depending entirely on secondary citations of patristic writers.111 not even in his doctoral thesis—which alice eckardt later remembered as bringing both of them “face to face with the adversus judaeos history” that inspired their “new thinking” in order to overcome “traditional theology”112—does he cite any patristic writers, but rather offers a blanket summary that they all “denounced the jewish religion as a work of the devil and said jews were destined for eternal torment in hell.”113 littell, likewise, offers no evidence that his understanding of patristic literature went beyond an introductory level114 and his generalizations of patristic writings are only slightly less sweeping than eckardt’s.115 despite claims to summarize the “the thinking of the church fathers” and to draw that “thinking” directly to “gas ovens and crematoria,”116 the “church father” for these pioneers remained little more than a “rhetorical,” or perhaps “hermeneutical,” church father: an antisemitic and poor reader of scripture unworthy of serious attention. such is by no means to claim that church fathers did not harbor some, or even many, of the ideas denoted by the eckardts’ and littell’s “supersessionism” (any more than the preceding consideration of their “rhetorical arabs” should imply that no arab has ever borne the sort of violent hatred for israel that they so often foregrounded).117 the varied forms of “anti-judaism” among the church fathers or the subsistence of antisemitism in certain eastern christian or arab communities— both of which are important, and far more trodden, topics of study—constitute, in the case of our examination of these pioneers, separate issues. to use a relevant, albeit imperfect, analogy from another common topic in jewish-christian relations, our focus here is not on jewish approaches to torah per se, but on the misdirected christian tendency to categorize all such views, whatever they are, under the umbrella of “legalism.” our focus is not on the data per se, but on the way of reading 110 r. kendall soulen, “jewish-christian relations: patristics and orthodox churches,” ebr 14:234235, here 235. cf. sandrine caneri, “the orthodox church in dialogue with judaism: toward an official document?,” the wheel 17/18 (2019): 33-40. 111 see your people, 7-28, here 13. eckardt depends largely on the work of james parkes and gregory baum. 112 eckardt, “growing into a daring…,” 20. 113 eckardt, christianity and the children of israel, 1-2. 114 see, for example, franklin h. littell, historical atlas of christianity, 2nd rev. and exp. (new york: continuum, 2001), 23-38. 115 e.g., the crucifixion, 24-32. 116 eckardt, your people, 14 and 13. 117 regarding the applicability of the term “supersessionism” to patristic writers, see michael g. azar, “origen, scripture, and the imprecision of ‘supersessionism,’” jti 10 (2016): 157-72; charles meeks, “superseding patristic supersessionism: hilary of poitiers and cyril of alexandria on hosea 1–3,” jti 14 (2020): 87-101; and donaldson, “supersessionism.” azar: “supersessionism”: the political origin of a theological neologism 20 the data, especially when that way of reading developed in sources with little demonstrated knowledge of the data itself. our focus here, in other words, is the totalizing way that the eckardts and littell employed arabs and church fathers as rhetorical constructions that served their tendency to root contrary christian political outlooks in the theological soil of “supersessionism.” while the term “supersessionism”—the heuristic device, the way of reading— would eventually rise to prominence in more theologically oriented writings and with more scholarly precision,118 it originated nonetheless from a political outlook in which arabs featured prominently, but were scarcely considered, church fathers were regularly alluded to, but hardly read, and orthodox christian arabs—who, one might say, combine the worst of both worlds—were unworthy of serious attention, except to be implicated explicitly and implicitly, as both arabs and “traditional” christians, in crimes against jews and the state of israel. these sorts of mischaracterizations, oversights, or outright dismissals of ancient peoples and traditions were undoubtedly due to the pioneers’ primary focus of affirming jews, jewish concerns, and the state of israel: to borrow a phrase from elsewhere, their sentiments toward arabs and palestinians, christian or otherwise, formed the “negative side” of what one might call their “israel hermeneutic.”119 because of that, these tendencies of dismissal or oversight unfortunately amounted to something strikingly similar to the historic “supersessionism” or the spätjudentum myths that these pioneers sought to overcome. “supersessionism” redirected the pioneers did not reject the idea that there was a “new israel”; they simply believed that it was not the christian church. for them, the “new israel” was the state of israel that had been “resurrected,” as littell believed, from the jewish “crucifixion” in the shoah and the centuries preceding it.120 for the eckardts, 1948 was likewise a “resurrection,”121 but not merely of the jewish people or a “resurrection of israel.”122 rather it was a resurrection of the “state of israel,”123 a resurrection of the “medinat yisrael,”124 which had its “founding fathers” in the early proponents of zionism and palestine’s early jewish colonies,125 toward whose 118 especially with the publication of r. kendall soulen, the god of israel and christian theology (minneapolis: fortress, 1996). see also donaldson, “supersessionism.” 119 cf. ruether, faith and fratricide, 64. 120 the namesake idea of littell, the crucifixion (see, e.g., 130). 121 see, e.g., alice eckardt and a. roy eckardt, encounter with israel: a challenge to conscience (new york: association, 1970), 58-72. this book was requested as a development of their 1967 christian century articles (see eckardt, “growing into a daring…,” 23). 122 eckardts, encounter with israel, 19. 123 eckardts, encounter with israel, 16, 158; emphasis mine. 124 eckardts, encounter with israel, 70; emphasis mine. 125 eckardts, encounter with israel, 80. 21 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) “sacrificial toil” the long-neglected land had looked with hope.126 this new israel never “stole the land away from its inhabitants”127 because the latter had not been properly organized anyway, and it is therefore to this israel and this resurrection that the christian must react with celebration. it is no wonder that roy eckardt told a group of houston clergy in 1970 that a true christian must support the state of israel—for jesus would have been “an israeli” in contemporary terms, and it is therefore “in an israeli munitions factory” that one finds true christian witness.128 and so the other elements of “supersessionism” were also redirected. for these american pioneers, it was no longer ancient israel that was moribund and fossilized; it was the arab (even specifically christian) communities of erstwhile palestine. it was no longer jewish history that could be violently written off; it was arab history (and still more palestinian, insofar as they believe it ever existed). it was no longer jewish religious practices that were worthy of supersession; it was “traditional” christianity in general, if not eastern christianity specifically. it was no longer jews, but “arab nations” who were “real disciples of the devil,” along with christian sympathizers and agents of “evenhandedness,” the un, and the wcc.129 it was no longer the people of israel that was the “barren” womb out of which new life would spring, but the uncultivated, “malaria-infested marshes…barren land” of palestine that was the “desert” which the state of israel made to “bloom.”130 rhetorical violence and real violence numerous scholars have concurred with a point that the eckardts and littell were admirably among some of the first to make: that centuries of rhetorical violence against jews (largely by means of “hermeneutical” or “rhetorical” jews rather than encounters with “real” jews) were bound one day to culminate in real violence against jews, as it had most especially under the nazis.131 whether it is a “red 126 eckardts, encounter with israel, 45. 127 eckardts, encounter with israel, 233. 128 as quoted in “see christ in israeli bombs,” national catholic reporter, february 4, 1970. see a similar point in your people, 181-82. the newspaper report of this event comes just below another article wherein edward flannery assures an american jewish meeting that the us would continue military support of the state of israel, thereby resisting the temptation to “evenhandedness.” at the same meeting, flannery declared that he was “suspicious” of “many of those who shed copious tears for arab refugees but never fail to turn that problem into a big stick with which to beat israel.” see “bishop’s aide hopes for closer u.s.-israel ties,” national catholic reporter, february 4, 1970. 129 a. roy eckardt, “the devil and yom kippur,” 70, 72, 67, 69. 130 john m. oesterreicher and edward h. flannery (on behalf of the institute of judeo-christian studies at seton hall), “a statement of conscience” (nov 17, 1967), available in “middle east collation of documents and comments prepared by jerusalem rainbow group,” box 68, folder 5, rabbi marc h. tanenbaum collection, american jewish archives, 61-66. the authors also call the notion that arabs were driven out of their homes in 1948 a “gross misrepresentation,” but fail to specify why. for roy eckardt’s approval of this statement, see “christian perspectives,” 48. 131 see, e.g., barbara m. meyer, “structures of violence and the denigration of law in christian thought,” scjr 13 (2018): 1-21. azar: “supersessionism”: the political origin of a theological neologism 22 thread”132 or a “ghastly line”133 that links church fathers to concentration camps and nazi propaganda, it is one that is commonly asserted. and if for that reason alone, the scholar and participant in interreligious dialogue must always be keenly aware of such rhetoric. in that light, our discussion of the origins of a theological category that was coined with rhetorical figures and that served to ignore or mischaracterize, if not “supersede,” the varied detractors from the state of israel, cannot ignore the link between the disparaging rhetoric of the eckardts, littell, and several other pioneers toward arabs (christian or not) and their actual and explicit support of violence against them. their rhetoric was hardly unrelated to the actions they promoted. examples abound, but here must be limited to a select few: roy eckardt and littell signed on to a june 1970 letter petitioning president nixon to send fighterbombers to israel in order to maintain its military superiority—a letter which john oesterreicher organized on behalf of numerous other catholic and protestant pioneers in jewish-christian relations.134 oesterreicher and flannery had earlier that year called for defunding “arab refugee camps”135 on behalf of seton hall’s institute of judeo-christian studies, and a month before the june letter, oesterreicher had written to president nixon, on the institute’s letterhead, asking him to show “similar firmness” on behalf of israel as he had promised in vietnam.136 in the years preceding, the founding director of the center for jewish-christian studies at chicago theological seminary, andre lacocque, praised the richness of jewish culture and explicitly mocked the supposed vacuousness of arab as a “confrontation between a western sensibility on the one hand and a vicious complext [sic] of inferiority on the other hand,” while confirming that god was on the side of “his people,” rejecting any attempt of “the ‘christian’ arabs” (note the use of quotes) to claim to be “israel,” and refusing to “cry crocodile tears on the arab victims” any more than he would a mass murderer and rapist.137 and even if other scholars and founding pioneers did not go quite so far, one should still not overlook other, more subtle, but equally important, links between scholarly literature and real violence, such as evident in the origins of w.d. davies’s now-classic book on “the land,”138 which he wrote at the request of a “prominent government figure in israel” 132 littell, the crucifixion, 1. 133 andrew t. lincoln, truth on trial: the lawsuit motif in the fourth gospel (peabody, ma: hendrickson, 2000), 405. 134 “christian clergy calls on nixon to back israel,” b’nai b’rith messenger, june 26, 1970. 135 “judeo-christian institute demands withdrawal of support for refugee camps until terrorism terminates,” the jewish news, february 27, 1970. 136 night letter to president nixon (may 2, 1970), series 1.5, box 16, folder 45, the monsignor field archives and special collection center, seton hall university. 137 andre lacocque, letter to howard schomer (executive director, specialized ministries department, national council of the churches of christ), july 18, 1967, in “middle east collation of documents and comments prepared by jerusalem rainbow group,” box 68, folder 5, rabbi marc h. tanenbaum collection, american jewish archives, 37-39. 138 the gospel and the land: early christianity and jewish territorial doctrine (berkeley: university of california press, 1974). 23 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) who had called during the six-day war to ask if davies would “would go on record as a scholar…to defend israel’s claims to palestine and jerusalem.”139 as it happens, davies’ book was featured a few years later in a lengthy discussion in midstream, with a variety of other notable scholars participating.140 some of the same scholars had also joined davies, eckardt, lacocque and others in publishing a statement in the new york times shortly after the six-day war that affirmed the theological reasons why jerusalem should remain “united” under israeli control.141 indeed, “the land,” for obvious reasons, became a central issue in these scholarly jewish-christian encounters (and remains one still).142 and here once again was a place where the pioneers’ support for overcoming the “supersessionist” claim that jews had no right to the land melded with their supersession of palestinian claims, and the border between rhetorical and real violence proved porous. in the wake of the six-day war, israel announced a series of building plans for the newly burgeoning city of jerusalem, including, among other features, a “ring” of “neighborhoods” on the hilltops around jerusalem (now to be designated as jerusalem). in june 1971, after concerns had been raised about what these building plans might mean for non-jewish populations, most of the pioneers above, and more, issued a statement in israel’s defense.143 the plans, they assured, were merely a “renewal” of rundown areas and in no way a threat to the wellbeing of arab populations (the designation, “palestinian,” is notably absent). and after a group of bishops in jordan had written to the vatican expressing concerns over the building plans a few months earlier, oesterreicher offered a scathing response along the same lines. the bishops, he asserted, were peddlers of “propaganda” and “alarmists” wrongly using the name of christ. though he labeled the concern that the building plans would hinder free access to the holy sites as the result of an “imagination run wild,” he offered a hypothetical caveat: “their fears,” he said with striking prescience, “would have some semblance of rationality, if that ‘hebrew belt’ was a series of military fortifications or a row of police stations, and not a scattering of apartment houses.” he further reminded them that “jesus…was a jew, not a jordanian” and hoped that they, like jesus’s crucifiers, would be forgiven for their ignorance.144 given his close association of jesus and the state of israel here, and his censuring of christians who had opposed its policies, oesterreicher’s concluding allusion to 139 truman g. madsen, introduction to w.d. davies, “israel, the mormons and the land,” in reflections on mormonism: judaeo-christian parallels, ed. truman g. madsen (provo: religious studies center brigham young university, 1978), 79. 140 w. d. davies et al., “symposium: the territorial dimensions of judaism,” midstream 29 (1983): 32-43. 141 the advertisement/statement (“jerusalem should remain united”) is found on p. 12 of new york times, july 12, 1967. 142 most recently, see philip a cunningham, ruth langer, and jesper svartvik, eds., enabling dialogue about the land: a resource book for jews and christians (new york: paulist, 2020). 143 a copy of “statement of concerned christians [cci] adopted at emergency conference on jerusalem and israel,” along with a press statement from littell, june 10, 1971, is available in pp. 24-29 of “christians support unified jerusalem,” an undated collection of reports and statements prepared by the interreligious affairs department of the american jewish committee, american jewish archives. 144 as quoted in “judeo-christian studies director accuses jordanian bishops,” nc news service, april 22, 1971, available in pp. 18-19 of “christians support unified jerusalem” (see previous note). azar: “supersessionism”: the political origin of a theological neologism 24 jesus’s crucifiers (luke 23:34) is familiar, but with a different set of referents. whereas the ancient “supersessionism” myth so foregrounded by the pioneers of christian-jewish relations had identified jesus’s messiahship (and jewish supposed rejection thereof) as the determining factor in the possession of the land, jesus’s jewishness (and arab supposed rejection thereof) was now employed to serve the same purpose. conclusion in the shadow of the shoah and amid concerns for israel’s survival and superiority during its tumultuous beginnings, the eckardts and littell—alongside several others—dedicated much of their lives toward the unprecedented work of revising a history of theological degradation of jews and jewish practice. in so doing, they coined the new umbrella category of “supersessionism” (and “supersessionist”) under which to group historic and contemporary christian views they felt unworthy of the name of christ. never before had this category functioned as the chief heuristic device under which to assess historic and contemporary christian approaches to jews and jewish concerns. yet, in this desire to overcome the past, to close the door on “traditional” christian views, and to throw their theological weight behind israel’s military superiority, they opened other doors toward “supersessionist” views of arabs and orthodox christians. the place that “supersessionism” now holds in theological literature on jewish-christian relations is far more nuanced, and the category continues to serve well as christians seek to come to terms with historically harmful teachings and ongoing susceptibility to antisemitism. however, while the concept has functioned well as a means for western-based christians to revise and repudiate past teaching in order to make more theological space for jews and jewish concerns, it has also served as a means of excluding or delegitimating christians outside of the west, who do not wish to “arrange,” as the palestinian lutheran pastor munther isaac has said, their “thinking in a way to fit the paradigm of western theology.”145 though the term remains western in origin and primarily western in its usage, and though orthodox and arab christians in general still have never formed major components of the mainstreams of christian-jewish relations, the concept often nonetheless functions as a sort of “gateway” for their entry into christian-jewish relations. even while scholars sometimes recognize that orthodox christianity’s historical relationship with and contemporary approach to “supersessionism” might be “different,”146 the expectation that orthodox and other arab christians can and should operate or be assessed under this umbrella remains common. 145 munther isaac, “challenging the empire: theology of justice in palestine,” in christian theology in the palestinian context, ed. rafiq khoury and rainer zimmer-winkel (berlin: aphorisma, 2019), 253–64, here 257. 146 meyer, “structures of violence,” 3. see also harold smith, “supersession and continuance: the orthodox church’s perspective on supersessionism,” jes 49 (2014): 247–74. 25 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) in light of its highly politicized origins among western theologians who had significantly low regard for orthodox and other arabs, the manner in which proponents of jewish-christian relations employ the term vis-à-vis the theologies and concerns of orthodox and other arab christians needs careful consideration. to spotlight “supersessionism” in such a way that non-theological concerns and realities are diminished or dismissed,147 or to portray it as the chief, even exclusive, reason why various arab christians, particularly the orthodox, criticize or challenge the state of israel or hesitate to join jewish-christian dialogue by its established standards,148 at best, misleads, and, at worst, excuses its own kind of “supersession”—and more sharply so if asserted by scholars and religious leaders with no ongoing experience of daily life in the lands controlled by israel since 1967.149 the problem, in this case, has not been the empty arab or orthodox seat at the table of jewish-christian relations as much as it has been the manner in which the table itself has often been set. 147 cf. kalman j. kaplan and paul cantz, “israel: ‘occupier’ or ‘occupied’? the psycho-political projection of christian and post-christian supersessionism,” israel affairs 20 (2014): 40-61. related examples of categorizing israel’s christian critics as proponents of “supersessionism” or “replacement theology,” and so softening the potency of their criticisms, abound in both popular and scholarly literature. a particularly acute example is andrew d. robinson, israel betrayed, 2 vols. (san antonio: ariel ministries, 2018), with the two volumes tellingly titled, “the history of replacement theology” and “the rise of christian palestinianism.” 148 cf. petra heldt. “a brief history of dialogue between orthodox christians and jews,” in orthodox christians and jews on continuity and renewal: the third academic meeting between orthodox christians and jews (immanuel 26/27), ed. malcolm lowe (jerusalem: ecumenical theological research fraternity in israel, 1994), 211-224, here 212. 149 for a critique of western scholarly tendencies to accentuate anti-jewish motifs among certain palestinian theologians while downplaying or ignoring entirely their explicit critiques of “anti-judaism” and antisemitism, see michael j. sandford, “is jesus palestinian? palestinian christian perspectives on judaism, ethnicity and the new testament,” holy land studies 13 (2014): 123-38. scjr 17, no. 1 (2022): 1-3 timothy jackson mordecai would not bow down: anti-semitism, the holocaust, and christian supersessionism (new york: oxford university press, 2021), xv + 266 pp. sol goldberg sol.goldberg@utoronto.ca toronto, on m5s 1a1, canada timothy jackson’s book sounds like it should be of interest to scholars of the holocaust, antisemitism, and the history of jewish-christian relations. given its subtitle, one might expect jackson to consider whether christian supersessionism is the distant historical root of the antisemitism which resulted in the nazi program to exterminate european jewry. his core argument, however, is something else entirely. although jackson affirms the antisemitic implications of supersessionism and compares it with nazi ideology, he relates them not historically but rather through a christian metaphysics of human existence that he describes as “original sin” (2) and “active schadenfreude” (214-216). in contrast to the nazis, whom he regards as the exemplification of a universal human tendency to reject a faith-based morality, jackson understands the jews as representative of the equally human capacity for a life close to god. mordecai’s defiance of haman expresses paradigmatically the jews’ holiness and their unwavering commitment to the transcendent source of goodness and grace. scholars of antisemitism and the holocaust thus should not be misled by the subtitle, for they will find not a work of history or religious studies but rather a proposal for a philosemitic christian theology. based on his theological orientation, jackson offers a novel thesis about antisemitism, which has little to do with the currently heated debates about the phenomenon’s most adequate definition. in his hands, antisemitism is hatred of god and god’s loved ones, namely, the jewish people and the person of christ (himself a jew). with this definition, jackson sets out to explain nazi evil as well as the moral failings of christian supersessionism. the very existence of the jews, who embody a faith opposed to all forms of humanistic eudaimonism, was anathema to nazi ideology, which jackson characterizes alternately as pantheistic naturalism, pagan anti-supernaturalism, and social darwinism. jackson argues that, although as a matter of pretense hitler and other nazi leaders depicted the jews as a subhuman threat to aryan life and culture, their goldberg: timothy jackson’s mordecai would not bow down 2 beliefs and actions reflect a deep awareness of jews’ holiness. the holocaust is accordingly explained not as a case of ignorance of the good or of a will too weak to do it, but rather as a basic perversity among the nazi party’s upper echelon. even if they could not entirely admit this to themselves or to their followers (whom jackson places on a fivefold scale of moral responsibility from oblivious to murderous [112-120]), hitler, himmler, and other chief nazis understood that the jews represent a moral monotheism antithetical to their pantheistic worldview, a form of survival of the fittest threatened by anti-natural charity. thus, while a tendency to elevate oneself by vilifying others stands at the core of all sin and evil, according to jackson, sinfulness assumes its most intense form when, as in nazism, the others whom one vilifies symbolize religious sanctity and charity. jackson’s religious readers might find this picture of sinfulness attractive as well as familiar. his account of nazi evil appeals at bottom to a rather traditional christian understanding of sin as a person’s deliberate turning away from divine grace and goodness. but these readers might also wonder how this general human possibility to choose evil instead of good and god bears upon the dogma of christianity’s supersession of judaism. if christians have become the true israel, then would they not be furthest of all from anything like anti-religious nazism because they aim indeed to be closest of all to god? it is exactly christianity’s competitive attitude towards judaism, it seems to me, that jackson means above all to undercut by likening supersessionism to nazism. jackson’s particular way of talking about and accounting for nazi evil makes sense only as part of a rhetorical strategy intended to cast as negative a light as possible on christian antisemitism. it is, i suspect, the basic, albeit unstated, lesson of his book. christians, jackson suggests, should always have been the allies of the jews as witnesses of god’s gracious love. just as god chose jesus as the individual in whom the vices of selfish individualism would be overcome, so he chose the jews as the people (or “tribe”) through whom the vices of tribalism would be overcome, a tribe which could be a light unto other nations about monotheism’s anti-naturalistic faith and charity (3). and yet, christians bear tremendous responsibility for much of the historical persecution of the jews (even by anti-christian nazis) by accusing jews of a parochial tribalism, a tribalism that is actually judaism’s antithesis rather than its essence. why, according to jackson, have christians consistently failed to acknowledge lovingly their debt to the jews? while he is not entirely clear, he seems to be claiming that, just as one feels hurt or angry when someone else has been singled out for an honor one might wish for oneself, so christians have often responded to jewish chosenness not with gratitude for the goodness which jews represent but rather with jealousy at their selection. on jackson’s account, then, despite christianity’s many important differences from nazism, christian supersessionism is similarly a form of original sin, namely, the elevation of the self by the denigration of that other—the jewish people—who stands for supernatural goodness. if i am correct in identifying this claim as the central message of jackson’s book, then his ideal audience is rather circumscribed. the book, as i said at the 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) outset, does not speak to scholars of the holocaust, antisemitism, or jewish-christian relations. while jackson engages with some of the literature in these fields, he assumes a theological framework largely foreign to it (45-54). for this same reason, his audience also is not anyone who takes naturalism seriously, whether as a religious option or as a philosophical position. this is evident throughout in jackson’s contrast between faith-based morality and naturalism as fundamental alternatives, as a “perennial either / or” (the title of chapter two). for him, naturalism includes both social darwinists like nazis, who actively pursue the elimination of alleged inferiors, and humanistic virtue theorists such aristotle, kant, rawls, and sen, whom jackson engages to varying degrees. he seems aware that these profoundly different atheistic naturalisms should not be conflated when he disowns any intention “to suggest that all nontheistic worldviews are murderous or embrace fascist hierarchies” (77). but how meaningful could this disavowal be given that he subsequently asserts “that any anthropocentric starting point that emphasizes flourishing (individually or collectively) will lead to social disaster” (95)? and what good is his category “naturalism” if it puts anthropocentric ideals of individual and collective flourishing alongside the murderous embrace of fascist hierarchies? anyone who regards humanism as a serious option will find both his contrast between moral faith and immoral humanisms as well as all the claims that follow from it to be inadequate and unpersuasive. his argument, in other words, rests on polemical religious assumptions that beg the question of the necessity of faith and the awful consequences of its denial in any form. perhaps readers sharing his religious views would welcome jackson’s philosemitic christian theology for offering an important moral warning about the temptation to self-aggrandizing and other-disparaging faith. this lesson is certainly commendable. it would be better served and of wider interest, however, if delivered with a different and more compelling argument. paul™s use of the old testament in romans studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): harrington cp1-8 conference proceeding paul’s use of the old testament in romans daniel j. harrington, s.j. boston college school of theology and ministry presented at boston college, march 15, 2009 at the conference p a u l o f t a r s u s : t h e a p o s t l e t o t h e g e n t i l e s i n h i s j e w i s h c o n t e x t two of krister stendahl’s major scholarly interests were the use of the old testament in the new testament and pauline theology. in his doctoral dissertation on the school of st. matthew, krister was one of the first biblical scholars to use the newly discovered dead sea scrolls as a help toward clarifying how some early christians interpreted the old testament. and, of course, this conference is devoted to assessing and celebrating his contributions to pauline scholarship and carrying forward the new perspectives on paul that his work has brought to the biblical field. against this background, i want to discuss paul’s use of the old testament, with reference especially to the letter to the romans. what christians call the old testament was a very important theological resource for paul. besides hundreds of allusions or echoes, his letters contain almost one hundred explicit quotations of it, roughly one-third of all the old testament quotations in the new testament. these quotations come from sixteen different books, with the bulk of them from the pentateuch (33), isaiah (25), and the psalms (19). they appear primarily in what are regarded as paul’s most important letters: romans, 1 and 2 corinthians, and galatians. they are taken mainly from the greek bible, and their wording is closest to the textual tradition preserved in the alexandrian (a) manuscript of the septuagint. while most of paul’s biblical quotations come from the greek bible, we cannot be sure whether in citing these texts he was working from memory or whether he (or an assistant) was checking them against some kind of written version. moreover, the four letters in which he makes extensive use of the old testament (romans, 1 and 2 corinthians, and galatians) were addressed originally to gentile (non-jewish) christians. this fact raises some interesting questions: how much did those gentile christians know about the old testament? where did they get their knowledge of it? what authority did they give to the old testament? as a first-century jew, paul certainly regarded what we call the old testament as possessing great authority. nevertheless, paul’s primary authority was his own encounter with the risen christ whom he believed he had experienced on the road to damascus. that event changed everything for paul, so much so that he looked back on his pre-conversion and pre-call life in judaism as “rubbish” (phil 3:8). and yet in his letters meant mainly for gentile christians, paul took freely from the old testament examples and illustrations, as well as quotations from texts that eventually became part of the jewish and christian bibles. harrington, paul’s use of the old testament harrington cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): harrington cp1-8 according to paul in his most positive statements, the bible (or what christians call the old testament) is a witness to the revelation of god’s righteousness in christ (rom 3:21) and thus is “holy and just and good” (rom 7:12). he found in it the revelation of god’s will for his people. the very early summary of christian faith that he received from the apostles and that he handed on to the corinthians declares that christ died for our sins “in accordance with the scriptures” and that he was raised “in accordance with the scriptures” (1 cor 15:3-4). while in paul’s view the scriptures of israel were “fulfilled” in christ, he also believed that christ was the key that opened up the possibility of their correct interpretation. such an approach has many parallels in early judaism. as the pesharim and many other dead sea scrolls show, the qumran community regarded their community’s history and life together as providing the key to understanding many old testament prophecies and psalms. the jewish apocalyptists looked forward to the fulfillment of god’s promises to israel preserved in the scriptures in the near future. likewise, the rabbis considered israel’s existence as god’s holy people to be the key to the jewish scriptures. so also paul and other early christians took jesus of nazareth to be the key that opened up the scriptures of israel. the topic of paul’s use of the old testament has drawn great attention recently among biblical scholars. for an excellent overview and survey of the issues along with a thirty-page bibliography, see stanley e. porter and christopher d. stanley [eds.], as it is written: studying paul’s use of scripture (symposium series 50; atlanta: society of biblical literature, 2008.) in this paper i do not want to survey scholarship or debate with other scholars. rather, i want to look at specific pauline texts, that is, six different examples of paul’s use of the old testament in his letter to the romans, a text especially dear to krister stendahl. while not a theological treatise, romans is the most extensive and profound statement of paul’s theology. in it paul made abundant use of the old testament in confirming his basic thesis (rom 1:16-17), in clinching his case that both gentiles and jews needed the revelation of god’s righteousness in christ (3:10-18), in developing his argument about justification by faith with reference to abraham (4:1-25), in constructing his comparison between adam and christ (5:12-21), in meditating on the place of the remnant in the mystery of salvation (9:1–11:36), and in giving the love commandment as his summary of the biblical commandments (13:8-10). then i want to draw six general conclusions about paul’s use of the old testament. six examples 1. biblical confirmation of paul’s thesis: habakkuk 2:4 in romans 1:17 in romans 1:16-17 paul formulates what is generally regarded as his thesis statement about the revelation of god’s righteousness in christ and justification by faith. paul’s roots his thesis in a quotation from habakkuk 2:4. a literal translation of paul’s version would be, “the righteous (or, just) person from faith will live.” while the wording of the septuagint text is the same, the contexts are different and so are the meanings. in the hebrew text god promises survival in a babylonian attack against jerusalem around 600 b.c. to those who trust in god and remain faithful to him: “the righteous by my faith (or, by faith in me) will live.” here “faith” is primarily trust in god, and life is physical survival from the attack. in the first century a.d. paul used the same words to refer to god’s promises of salvation and eternal life (“will live”) to those jews and gentiles who accept the gospel or good news about harrington, paul’s use of the old testament harrington cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): harrington cp1-8 christ (“from faith”). from paul’s perspective, the words found in habakkuk 2:4 had not been really fulfilled around 600 b.c. he contended that they were being fulfilled in his own day in the first century a.d. because christ was the key to the jewish scriptures, the one who solved the mystery of what had seemed to be god’s unfulfilled promises to his people. 2. all are under sin: the catena in romans 3:10-18 having stated his thesis in romans 1:16-17, paul in 1:18—3:20 tries to show that all people, gentiles and jews alike, needed the revelation of god’s righteousness in christ. to summarize his argument, paul in 3:10-18 uses the device of the chain or catena of biblical quotations. with this device he seeks to prove that apart from christ every person in every part of his or her body stood under the domination of sin and death. paul could not imagine a human person without a lord or master. his point was that without christ humankind found itself under the lordship of sin and death. he clinches his argument by appealing to israel’s scriptures. in romans 3:10-18 paul provides an anthology of biblical texts. familiar from the qumran scrolls and other early jewish texts, the catena or chain brings together biblical quotations from various sources that pertain to a particular theme. here the theme is sin’s domination over humankind, and the quotations are from the writings and the prophets (but not the torah). the first two quotations establish that “there is no one who is righteous, not even one” (rom 3:10b = eccl 7:20), and that “there is no one who has understanding…no one who seeks god…no one who shows kindness…not even one” (rom 3:11-12 = pss 14:1-3/53:2-4). while most of paul’s first readers in romans were gentile christians, paul uses the old testament to forestall the objections of both gentiles and jews that they might be exempt from sin’s domination. the remaining biblical quotations in romans 3:13-18 single out various parts of the body and affirm their corruption by sin: throats and tongues (3:13ab = ps 5:10), lips (3:13c = ps 140:4), mouths (3:14 = ps 10:7), feet (3:15-17 = isa 59:7-8 and prov 1:16), and eyes (3:18 = ps 36:2). the effect of the catena is to show the total corruption of humankind by sin and to suggest that the only way out was the revelation of god’s righteousness in christ and humankind’s appropriation of it through faith. the use of biblical texts to establish this point was not only an example of paul’s rhetorical skill but also an indication of his continuing respect for the authority of the old testament. 3. the case of abraham: an argument based on genesis 15:6 still another way that paul used the old testament in romans is in constructing an argument on the basis of a biblical text. having shown that all peoples, jews and gentiles alike, were under the domination of sin and death, paul in romans 4 appeals to what the old testament says about abraham as the father of all who believe (4:16). the proofs that paul offers are a series of biblical passages that he uses to show that his thesis about justification by faith is consistent with god’s will revealed in the scriptures of israel. the lead text in paul’s argument is genesis 15:6: “abraham believed god, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (rom 4:3). paul had previously developed a similar argument with an even more extensive recourse to biblical texts in galatians 3:6-29. in the context of his letter to the romans, paul wants to argue that because abraham believed god’s promise that he would have a son (isaac) despite his advanced age and that of sarah, and that he would thus become harrington, paul’s use of the old testament harrington cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): harrington cp1-8 the father of many nations, “it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” the verb “reckoned” carries a business connotation, and the passive voice suggests that the bookkeeper is god (the divine passive). the point that paul wants to make is that the heavenly books are being kept on the basis of faith like that of abraham and not the works of the law. that means that the right relationship with god made possible through jesus’ death and resurrection (justification) is a gift rather than merely just payment for good works performed. to cap off his argument, paul invokes the authority of david and the psalms, with the quotation of psalm 32:1 to the effect that those who have been freed from the domination of sin deserve to be declared “happy” or “fortunate.” one of the “works of the law” was circumcision. in romans 4:9-12 paul notes that while abraham was reckoned to be righteous in genesis 15:6, he was circumcised only twenty years later according to genesis 17:10-27. therefore abraham’s justification took place long before his circumcision and so had nothing to do with it. paul prefers to view abraham’s circumcision as “seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised” (4:11). moreover, in an argument from “the light to the heavy” (qal wehomer in hebrew), paul contends that god’s promise to abraham and his declaration of abraham’s righteousness took place many centuries before the giving of the law to moses on mount sinai in exodus 19–24. the implication is that doing the works of the law was not the way to right relationship with god in the case of abraham and (by qal wehomer) in the case of all humankind. in 4:15 (“the law brings wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there violation”) paul alludes to his controversial idea that the law can and does function as a conspirator with sin and death to keep humankind in slavery. from paul’s perspective, abraham’s call to be the father of many nations foreshadowed the spread of the good news of jesus christ to non-jews. for their part, gentiles became part of god’s people by imitating abraham’s faith (or trust) in god’s promise (the gospel for them). just as abraham’s faith was the basis for his justification (gen 15:6), so the gentiles’ acceptance of the gospel could mean right relationship with god (justification) for them (4:22). paul insists that the words “it was reckoned to him as righteousness” in genesis 15:6 were written not “for his [abraham’s] sake alone but for ours also” (rom 4:23-24). in paul’s view the god whose promise abraham believed is the one who raised jesus from the dead. the proper response to this good news should be that of abraham (faith) so that the result might be the same (justification). paul concludes his argument based on the interpretation of genesis 15:6 with what sounds like an early christian confession of faith in the power of jesus’ death and resurrection: “who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification” (4:25). 4. adam and christ: typology in romans 5:12-21 the first three chapters in the book of genesis are dominated by the figure of adam. his name means “the man,” and clearly he is meant to be a representative figure. he is portrayed as the progenitor of all humans and also as the cause of most of our problems. his disobedience to god’s command not to eat from the fruit of the tree (gen 3:3) results in the banishment of adam and eve from the garden of eden. it is largely to the depiction of their sin in genesis 3 that we owe our concept of original sin. harrington, paul’s use of the old testament harrington cp 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): harrington cp1-8 while adam and original sin have figured prominently in christian theology, it is surprising how little attention is given to adam and his sin in the rest of the old testament. adam’s place in christian theology is due in large part to paul’s comparison between adam and christ in romans 5:12-21. in romans 5:14 paul describes adam as “a type of the one who is to come.” the greek word here is typos, the origin of our english word “type” and the basis of the term “typology.” according to my dictionary, the first definition of typology is “a doctrine of theological types, esp. one holding that things in christian belief are prefigured or symbolized by things in the old testament.” in romans 5, paul views adam as a “type” of christ insofar as both figures are bearers of a fate or destiny that affects all of humankind. in that sense christ is the second or new adam. whereas adam’s sin had repercussions for us all, so jesus’ life, death, and resurrection have repercussions for us all, jews and gentiles alike. while paul is interested in the similarities between adam and christ, he is even more interested in the different results or effects that they have brought upon us all. his fundamental point is stated in romans 5:15: “but the free gift is not like the trespass.” that is, the positive effects of jesus’ saving death and resurrection far outweigh the negative effects of adam’s sin. according to paul, adam’s sin brought disobedience, sin, condemnation, and death upon humankind, whereas christ’s sacrificial fidelity opened up the possibility of obedience, righteousness, justification/acquittal, and eternal life. the result of adam’s sin was the reign of sin, death, and the law. the result of christ’s saving death and resurrection is the reign of grace (divine favor) and eternal life. this is typology with a twist. for paul, adam is like christ and thus foreshadows christ as the bearer of a fate or destiny. but even more important for paul is how adam is unlike christ, when one compares the results or effects of what each one has done. paul’s negative assessment of adam and the effects of his sin is echoed in the late first century a.d. jewish apocalypse known as syriac or second baruch 54:19: “each of us have become our own adam.” 5. the mystery of salvation: prophecies fulfilled. the first time i heard krister stendahl lecture was in 1964. his topic was paul’s letter to the romans, and his revolutionary thesis was that paul’s major concern was with explaining how gentiles could be part of the people of god. the section of romans that received special attention was, of course, chapters 9 through 11, paul’s long and often difficult meditation on the mystery of salvation. though often neglected because of its difficulty, romans 9–11 represents a kind of “eureka” moment for paul. at this point in his argument, paul was trying to fit together three different groups in the divine plan: jewish christians like himself, gentile christians to whom he was sent as an apostle, and jews who had not accepted the gospel. in explaining his solution, paul in romans11 took the olive tree as a symbol for israel as the historic people of god. he identified jewish christians like himself as the root of the olive tree, and gentile christians as the branches cut off from a wild olive tree and grafted onto the olive tree representing israel as god’s people. those jews who did not accept the gospel he described as branches now cut off from the olive tree but capable in the future of being grafted back on. paul summarized his “eureka” moment near the end of his argument in this way: “a hardening has come upon part of israel, until the full number of gentiles has come in. and so all harrington, paul’s use of the old testament harrington cp 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): harrington cp1-8 israel will be saved” (rom 11:25-26). unfortunately for us, paul did not define “all israel” or explain exactly when and how all israel will be saved. in making his case and arriving at his conclusion, paul frequently appeals to old testament texts. given the topic of the mystery of salvation, this procedure is not surprising. and given the constraints of our time, we can only look at a few examples. but these examples illustrate nicely the broad outlines of paul’s approach. according to romans 9:24, the present but provisional goal of salvation history is the church made up of jews and gentiles. with reference to the biblical prophets hosea and isaiah, paul in 9:25-29 aims to show that the present state of the church is related to god’s promises to israel, and that the church’s inclusion of jews and gentiles stands in accord with god’s plan revealed in the old testament. the first set of biblical quotations in 9:25-26 grounds the inclusion of gentiles among god’s people. the key expressions are “not my people” and “not beloved” in hosea 2:25 and “not my people” in hosea 2:1. in the book of hosea these epithets apply to ancient israel in moral rebellion against god. however, paul takes them as references to gentiles and uses them to defend the inclusion of gentile christians in the church as now “beloved” and as “children of the living god.” the second set of biblical quotations in 9:27-29 explains the presence of some (but not all) jews in the church. with reference to isaiah 10:22-23 paul identifies jewish christians like himself as the “remnant” within israel as opposed to the majority of israel. then with the help of isaiah 1:9 he insists that god has not abandoned israel to destruction (“like sodom…like gomorrah”) but preserves israel through the participation of jewish christians like himself in the church. thus paul provides a biblical foundation for his insight about the relationships among jewish christians, gentile christians, and other jews. paul and other jewish christians fulfill the biblical prophecies about the remnant within israel, and gentile christians have become part of god’s people through god’s mercy. 6. summarizing the torah: love your neighbor (rom 13:9) one of the tasks set before early jewish teachers was to give a summary of the 613 commandments in the torah. according to b. sabbath 31a, shammai dismissed his gentile questioner without an answer. however, hillel gave a response that is a version of jesus’ golden rule and so is often called the “silver rule”: “what is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.” according to matthew 22:34-40, in response to the same question, jesus combined deuteronomy 6:5 (love of god) and leviticus 19:18 (love of neighbor). we can assume that for hillel, jesus, and matthew the idea was that if you keep perfectly the silver rule or the biblical love commandments, you will surely give perfect obedience to the rest of the commandments. in romans 13:8 paul echoes leviticus 19:18 and jesus when he says, “owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.” he goes on to list various commandments from the second part of the decalogue, and concludes that loving the neighbor is “the fulfilling of the law” (13:10). but does paul mean what jesus and matthew meant? harrington, paul’s use of the old testament harrington cp 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): harrington cp1-8 while paul’s original audience in rome probably contained both jews and gentiles, it appears that he was primarily addressing gentile christians. in several of his letters (including romans), paul was adamant in his conviction that gentile christians did not have to observe the torah. given what paul had said in romans 2:14 about gentiles who “do instinctively what the law requires,” he probably meant that those who truly love the neighbor may do what were the deepest intentions of the law without embracing full jewish torah observance. he may be going so far as to say that if gentile christians love their neighbors, they will naturally do whatever good the law demands. six conclusions 1. paul had become convinced that jesus was the key to interpreting the jewish scriptures. given what we know from paul’s own testimony and the witness of acts and the deuteropauline letters, this was an unexpected and remarkable development. the one who had persecuted the early christian movement became its champion. the many modern attempts at psychoanalyzing paul have not gotten us very far. perhaps the most satisfactory explanation remains the one paul himself gives: it was due to his encounter with the risen christ. in paul’s view that encounter was so real and so powerful that it changed everything. and it led paul to find christ everywhere, and especially in the jewish scriptures 2. although paul had discovered christ as his new key to interpreting the jewish scriptures, he continued to use jewish methods in interpreting those scriptures. as we have seen, these methods included using biblical texts to confirm an argument, gathering various biblical texts into a chain or catena, using biblical texts to construct a theological argument, typology, fulfillment of biblical prophecies in the present, and summarizing the torah by one biblical text (love of neighbor). 3. the fact that paul made such abundant use of the jewish scriptures in his most substantial letters indicates that for him and his first readers these texts continued to possess great authority. but how much and what kind of authority is difficult to specify. terms such as “innerancy” and “cannon” are anachronistic when applied to paul and his contemporaries. nevertheless, it is striking how influential and thus authoritative in some way these writings had become for many jews in the late second temple period as they sought to express their religious, political, and cultural experiences. a similar phenomenon appears in the dead sea scrolls. 4. how much paul’s first gentile christian readers (or better, his first hearers when his letters were read aloud to them) understood and evaluated his appeals to the jewish scriptures is still another difficult question. although his language is strongly biblical, paul in writing to the philippians and thessalonians and to philemon makes few explicit appeals to the old testament. but in his major letters—especially in romans and galatians, and to a lesser extent in 1 and 2 corinthians—there is much more use of the jewish scriptures. we must assume that paul’s first readers had enough familiarity with these scriptures to appreciate what paul was saying. perhaps these gentiles had been associates of the jewish synagogues, the kind of persons whom luke calls “god fearers” in acts, and so had exposure to the jewish scriptures in that setting. 5. in interpreting and applying these biblical texts, there are not many commonalities between paul’s approach and the modern historical-critical method. paul shows little interest in harrington, paul’s use of the old testament harrington cp 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): harrington cp1-8 determining what these texts meant in their precise ancient historical setting. what interested him more, as krister stendahl has taught us, is what they mean, at least what they meant in the context of what we call the first century a.d. from paul’s perspective what once may have seemed like unfulfilled prophecies had at least found their meaning in christ as the key to the scriptures. 6. what do we learn about paul from his use of the old testament? we learn that paul continued to regard the scriptures of israel as important and in some way authoritative. we learn that paul found in those scriptures pointers toward the christ event and regarded the promises contained in them as somehow fulfilled in christ. and we learn how deeply paul’s experience of the risen christ shaped his person and his thinking, and in particular how he read and used the jewish scriptures. harrington, paul’s use of the old testament harrington cp 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 scjr 17, no. 1 (2022): 1-3 john e. phelan, jr. separated siblings: an evangelical understanding of jews and judaism (grand rapids: william r. eerdmans publishing company, 2020), softcover, xix + 305 pp. emily soloff soloffe@ajc.org american jewish committee, chicago, il the subtitle of john phelan’s thorough and well-researched book, separated siblings: an evangelical understanding of jews and judaism, could rightly continue with the phrase, “as they understand themselves.” for close to two decades, in what he describes as an enriching and challenging experience, phelan has studied judaism and explored his own faith with jewish guidance. a retired president and senior professor of theological studies at north park seminary in chicago, phelan offers christians an insider view of judaism and jews through his christian lens. many christians learn about jews and judaism only in church or sunday school and are unlikely to seek out jewish sources. he hopes they will be willing to read a book written by a christian about jews and judaism. co-chair of the national evangelical-jewish conference, which annually brings together rabbis, pastors, scholars, and leaders, phelan is painfully aware of how christianity has caricatured jews and judaism throughout history. he has written this book as a corrective for christians, though jewish readers as well will appreciate his survey of key moments in the development of judaism. the best interreligious dialogue, phelan writes, enables believers to raise difficult questions with each other without setting aside their own beliefs and practices. he believes that, by studying together, reading common texts respectfully, and engaging their respective traditions, jews and christians deepen not only their understandings of the faiths of others, but also their own faith. and, he suggests, another compelling reason for christians to develop a greater understanding of the history, traditions, and texts of jews is to not “fall prey to anti-jewish or even anti-semitic sentiments. the jews are not simply an ancient people walking around…palestine at the time of jesus. they are a living, vital, contemporary people, but still vulnerable and still under threat” (xvii). soloff: john e. phelan, jr.’s separated siblings 2 the first 15 chapters cover jewish history, ancient and modern; peoplehood; religious understandings; the development of the rabbinic tradition; zionism and the founding of the state of israel; and the jewishness of jesus and paul. he includes a wide range of jewish scholarship beginning with articles from the early 1900s to the present. phelan also introduces some important christian scholars who wrote about the connections between judaism and christianity and some christians’ reflections on judaism. he begins each chapter with quotations from various sources, christian and jewish, which are useful for further study and discussion. not surprisingly, since he is writing for christians, phelan focuses on jewish experience, past and present, and on belief, god, and the commandments. he does not ignore secularizing influences like the enlightenment, but he centers judaism in faith and belief without disregarding how peoplehood is also crucial to jewish self-understanding. historically, to be a jew, phelan writes, “meant to be a people that lived in accordance with god’s commandments as revealed in torah” (4). he recognizes there are significant differences: jews and christians think differently about atonement, salvation, reconciliation, and repentance: “next to the question of the identity of jesus, the most contentious question between jews and christians is, ‘how are we to be righteous and act justly?’” (114). but phelan also believes the “difference between the old testament and the new testament are not as great as some jews and christians believe” (129). phelan does not shy away from the challenge in christian-jewish relations posed by the state of israel. he ends chapter 5 on israel by recognizing this: “the entire torah is suffused with promise, longing, and hope for the land – as is jewish history. but what do such claims mean both theologically and politically in this politically volatile and theologically divided world? this is an enduring and profoundly challenging question” (93). when he writes about the period from the rise of zionism to the creation of the state of israel in chapter 15, phelan includes a brief introduction to christian zionism and closes with another cri de couer, acknowledging that christians’ responses to jews, judaism, and the state of israel “continue to be complicated….christians are…in conflict with jews, often, but not always, over the actions of israel. conversations that once were hopeful are increasingly hostile and hopeless. what now is to be done?” (283) in his final chapter, dialogue and hope, phelan confronts christian anti-judaism directly. he begins with the manifesto written by the perpetrator of the 2019 synagogue attack in poway, california, which contains traditional christian antijewish claims. not just white supremacists but also people of good will can “perpetuate anti-jewish tropes in their preaching, teaching, interpretation of the bible, and political advocacy” (288). speaking directly to his christian readers, phelan calls out negative tropes about jews in popular bible translations and demolishes popular misconceptions about pharisees and old testament legalism. he does not deal directly with how jews reject evangelizing but shows through example a model of potential engagement and dialogue that deeply respects jewish continuity. “i still insist that it is as important to explore jews and judaism ‘with christian eyes’ as it is for christians to see their own sacred texts and traditions ‘through jewish eyes,’” he writes. “studying with jews and exploring jewish texts 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) has enriched my own faith…studying [with those] who have loved their own tradition and respected mine [has]…helped me become a better christian” (xvii). phelan’s book is reader-friendly (e.g., he has footnotes rather than endnotes) and would lend itself to use in dialogue settings for both christians and jews. chapters end with review questions as well as short bibliographies for additional reading. the book includes a glossary, an index, and a twelve-page bibliography and would be useful to teachers, pastors, and rabbis, as well as to lay people. this is among the few books written by an evangelical christian with a deep appreciation and knowledge of judaism that explicitly rejects any interest in proselytism. phelan’s book will help jews and christians to become better allies in this complicated world. scjr 18, no. 1 (2023): 1-2 olivier rota apostolat catholique et travail social en milieu juif: les ancelles de notre-dame de sion (1926-1964) (paris: les editions du cerf, 2019), 261 pp. lawrence frizzell lawrence.frizzell@shu.edu seton hall university, south orange, nj 07079 the sisters of our lady of sion (“sisters of sion”) are a catholic congregation founded in 1847 by father theodore ratisbonne, a convert from an assimilated jewish family in strasbourg, france. they are a teaching congregation, active on five continents, with a small contemplative branch. they and the much smaller “fathers of sion” were considered philosemites in the context of the first vatican council, praying daily for the conversion of the jews but not proselytizing in an aggressive manner. their history, moving from a desire for conversion of the jewish people to dialogue, especially in the decades from 1945-1965, has been examined thoroughly by celia deutsch in this journal in 2016 (“journey to dialogue: sisters of our lady of sion and the writing of nostra aetate” 11:1 [3]). olivier rota presents another dimension to this history in this detailed account of a community of women with a special interest in the jewish people. the title of this book describes their initiative: catholic apostolate and social action in the jewish environment. as explained by paul gauthier, a priest-worker in israel in 1964, this call is understood to be christian charity in action, not intended primarily for individual conversions but to foster a coming together to prepare for the eschatological mass conversion described by paul (17). a group of young french women, motivated by the command of jesus to make disciples of all nations (mt 28:19-20), felt a call to become missionaries in palestine and formed “the ancelles (handmaids) of our lady of palestine.” several years later they encountered the sisters of sion and in 1937 became the apostolic branch of this congregation. rota chronicles their efforts to navigate between their wish to belong to a religious congregation and their commitment to quiet social action in the jewish communities in europe and israel (18). during world war ii, the ancelles, along with some teaching sisters, were active in the french resistance, trying to assist jews. rota has chronicled the history of this tiny group in great detail, using documentation from sion archives. when the ancelles joined the sister of sion as the apostolic branch in 1937 they frizzell: rota’s apostolat catholique et travail social en milieu juif 2 were a mere handful among the 2,085 sisters (61). they wore secular clothes and lived in small groups close to their work. this research describes the moves of the ancelles into cities in france, spain, and palestine and chronicles sisters’ benign but blundering efforts to situate them in the rhythms of religious life: “the history of the ancelles is one of an unfortunate graft of a group of religious women who were engaged in the vicissitudes of the world to a congregation, welcoming but unprepared, for such an addition. for almost thirty years the ancelles navigated between their wish to be better integrated into sion and their will to preserve their specificity within the congregation” (18). unknown to the ancelles, in 1947 pope pius xii issued a document, “provida mater ecclesia,” giving principles for founding secular institutes, pious organizations for lay people desiring to live a commitment to spiritual ideals but not linked to a religious congregation. in the context of the second vatican council, and of sion’s general chapter in 1964, the ancelles did become a secular institute named pax nostra (our peace, referring to jesus from ephesians 2:14 in the context of the christian hymn celebrating the unifying power of jesus’ death-and-resurrection). as in his other studies of mid-twentieth century catholic-jewish relations, rota drew heavily from archival sources to paint a poignant picture of catholic good will and of the ancelles’ committed life of quiet witness. while his narrative stops in 1964, just before the issuance of nostra aetate, this good will reflects the church’s continuing efforts to cultivate and improve these relations. they kept in touch with the sisters of sion and took the second vatican council’s declaration nostra aetate into their spirituality. this study includes an appendix of original texts from the period immediately after world war ii and an index of names. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review gilbert s. rosenthal, ed. a jubilee for all time: the copernican revolution in jewish-christian relations (eugene, oregon: pickwick publications, 2014) softcover, xxxii + 332 pp. peter a. pettit, muhlenberg college the anthology of articles in his volume offers wide-ranging reflections on the history and significance of chapter four of the “declaration on the relation of the [roman catholic] church to non-christian religions” (commonly known by its titular latin incipit, “nostra aetate”), from the second vatican council. published to inform and help celebrate the golden jubilee of the document’s promulgation by pope paul vi on 28 october 1965, the book includes a preface, an introduction, and an afterword by the editor, together with essays by 25 contributors from five countries and a range of jewish and christian communities. the text of nostra aetate #4 is included in one appendix; a second appendix offers the text of an apostolic exhortation by pope francis, evangelii gaudium [“on the proclamation of the gospel in today’s world,” issued 24 november 2013], with its extensive discussion of interreligious dialogue. five sections of varying lengths illustrate rosenthal’s effort to inspire religious people and leaders to seek “a deeper understanding of the roots of their faith and the relationship between ‘the elder and younger brother’—judaism and christianity” and to “stimulate conversation and dialogue between members of the faith groups” (p. xxxi). six “retrospective reflections” by internationally-recognized figures, four jewish and two roman catholic, lead off the book. the relationship of na to the mainline protestant, evangelical, and orthodox studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 10 (2015) christian traditions is then explored in three chapters by participants in those traditions. part three includes six explorations of the impact of na in communal and pastoral dimensions from lutheran, roman catholic, and israeli jewish perspectives, and part four offers a look at “unresolved issues” from orthodox jewish, reform jewish, and roman catholic perspectives. the fifth part is a “symposium” of individual reflections by five jews and two roman catholics on how they were affected by this “landmark document” (p. xii). the book is distinguished by the profile of its authors. among them are notable roman catholic and jewish leaders in interfaith affairs, who support and celebrate the legacy of na but also bring a critical perspective to it. in several essays, history is told by those who were present for the events; susannah heschel’s memoir of her father abraham joshua heschel’s involvement with vatican ii is particularly enchanting. the focus of the book results in an unavoidable repetition of that history, along with repeated encounters with the key themes that regularly accompany discussion of na: praise for its dramatic emergence and its rejection of the deicide charge; recognition of its limitations and the importance of reading it with subsequent vatican documents (especially the 1974 “guidelines”; 1985 “notes”; 1998 “we remember”; and 2001 “jewish people and their sacred scriptures”); the absence of reference to israel and the impact of the arab-israelipalestinian conflict on jewish-catholic relations; the importance of personal relationships in building interfaith understanding; and the need for deeper reception of na and its insights in both communities. beyond these, many chapters offer insights and present questions that could well stimulate dialogue in a study group or deeper exploration by the individual reader. elena procario-foley offers a generous and measured analysis of the 2008 curricular framework for american catholic high schools that demonstrates its limited embrace of na and its implications. she then offers a detailed, stirring report on a pilot project that could serve widely as a model for cultivating in studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr teenagers the “mutual understanding and respect” that na sought to foster. john pawlikowski contributes a broad survey of implications for church teaching, ranging across biblical and pauline studies, christology, ethics, ecclesiology, mission, evangelism, and relations with other religions. david rosen discusses the importance of the neocatechumenal way as a vehicle for spiritual formation in the post-na era. deborah weissman, one of three israeli authors, provides compelling insights into the distinctive factors in israeli society that have tended to marginalize the impact, and even the awareness, of na among israeli jews. liam tracey illuminates na helpfully by setting its emergence within the broader development of the 20 th century liturgical movement in the roman catholic church. the longest chapter by far at 48 pages is alan johnson’s “vatican ii and nostra aetate at fifty: an evangelical view.” johnson earns the extra space with an extensively researched and well-documented essay that offers readers a concise and robust primer on a perspective not often seen in the literature on na. similarly helpful on a more limited scale is antonios kireopoulos’ discussion of jewish-orthodox christian relations, including a syllabus of topics for ongoing engagement by his christian community. joseph d. small takes a narrower focus in describing his involvement in developing a presbyterian church (u.s.a.) 1987 study document on judaism. he omits much of the mainline protestant activity and even the signal contributions of paul van buren, clark williamson, krister stendahl, marilyn salmon, kathryn henderson, and friedrich marquardt to post-na protestant theology. david berger and byron sherwin in different ways challenge the generally upbeat tone of the book by pointing to both communal and theological issues that remain unsettled in spite of the apparent clarity of na. their critiques are offered in a constructive spirit, pressing for fuller realization of na’s promise while restraining the temptation to see it as a panacea for all interfaith tension. philip cunningham explores the internal church dynamics around the more problematic ongoing isstudies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 10 (2015) sues, notably in regard to the controversy prompted by the 2002 publication of “reflections on covenant and mission” from participants in the u.s. jewish-catholic dialogue. he observes that the church faces a serious ongoing challenge actualizing romans 9-11, the key biblical reference of na, into its regular magisterium. eugene korn makes the strongest case for rethinking jewish theology in light of na, and irving greenberg synthesizes his thirty years of work in re-thinking christianity from a jewish perspective. korn helpfully draws attention to several “seeds” in pre-20 th -century jewish thought that might be nurtured into fruitful new outgrowths (p. 293) in a work as wide-ranging as this there will always be points of dispute and questions unfortunately left unanswered. those who use the volume as rosenthal intends—as an inspiration and as a stimulus to dialogue—will be able to discover these and build them into engaging projects or exchanges. one issue that recurs implicitly and does not receive direct address is the place of history in jewish and christian construals of theology. the issue emerges here in both jewish and christian writers, in ways that make clear that the two traditions relate more dialectically than diametrically. is christianity “rooted” only in biblical israel and second temple judaism, or does the “spiritual bond” of which na speaks imply that it is also “rooted” in later (i.e. post-jesus) judaism? in using the image of the olive tree stock to which gentiles have been engrafted as branches, does na also invite reflection on the degree to which the root may be altered by the new growth that it supports? does the heilsgeschtliche model that informs even greenberg’s generous and creative work necessarily imply a fuller knowledge of the divine will than na’s more circumspect recognition of the “mystery” of the church and of “that day, known to god alone,” which all god’s people await? can any salvation-history hermeneutics fully avoid the pitfalls of supersessionism? the pervasive and diverse references to history and eschatology throughout the volume constitute an unarticulated call to address such fundamental questions. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 10 (2015) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr two mechanical and editorial elements mitigate the book’s appeal in unfortunate ways. first, with the variety of documents, events, figures, and movements that appear in the various essays, a timeline plotting these “characters” in relation to one another would make it much easier to follow the several narratives and analyses and to relate them to one another. second, the presence of about four dozen errata and typographical errors is simply annoying and on occasion undermines the credibility of the work being presented. rosenthal’s afterword represents a strong example of what david berger has called the “maximalist reading” of both na and the changed jewish-christian situation it has helped to engender (see p. 236). whether its celebratory spirit and optimism are vindicated in coming decades cannot, of course, be known, but those who invest themselves in using his anthology as it is intended will make a significant contribution in that direction. scjr 17, no. 1 (2022): 1-3 jens schröter, benjamin a. edsall, and joseph verheyden, eds. jews and christians – parting ways in the first two centuries ce? reflections on the gains and losses of a model (berlin / boston: de gruyter, 2021, beihefte zur zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche wissenschaft 253), hardcover, 409 pp. joel marcus jmarcus@div.duke.edu duke university, durham, nc 27708 this edited volume goes back to a 2019 conference at the faculty of theology of humboldt university in berlin which aimed to critically assess the thesis that judaism and christianity underwent a decisive “parting of the ways” in the first two centuries ce. after an introduction by the editors (1-10), the contributions are as follows: christoph markschies, “from ‘wide and narrow way’ to ‘the ways that never parted’? road metaphors in models of jewish-christian relations in antiquity” (11-32); anders runesson, “what never belonged together cannot part: rethinking the so-called parting of the ways between judaism and christianity” (33-56); jan n. bremmer, “ioudaismos, christianismos and the parting of the ways” (57-87); jens schröter, “was paul a jew within judaism? the apostle to the gentiles and his communities in their historical context” (89-119); matthias konradt, “matthew within or outside judaism? from the ‘parting of the ways’ model to a multifaceted approach” (121-50); kylie crabbe, “character and conflict: who parts company in acts?” (151-83); jörg frey, “‘john within judaism?’ textual, historical, and hermeneutical considerations” (185-215); james carleton paget, “the epistle of barnabas, jews and christians” (217-47); benjamin a. edsall, “justin martyr without the ‘parting’ or the ‘ways’” (249-72); paul r. trebilco, “beyond ‘the parting of the ways’ between jews and christians in asia minor to a model of variegated interaction” (273-306); joseph verheyden, “living apart together: jews and christians in second-century rome – re-visiting some of the actors involved” (307-45); and tobias nicklas, “jews and christians? sketches from second century alexandria” (347-79). each essay begins with an abstract in german and ends with a bibliography, and the book marcus: schröter, edsall, and verheyden’s jews and christians 2 concludes with a list of contributors and indices of ancient sources, modern authors, and subjects. as several of the contributors note, the phrase “the parting of the ways” was first applied to the separation of early christianity from its jewish subsoil by the philo-judaic english cleric james parkes in a 1934 work that bore the significant subtitle, a study in the origins of antisemitism. the term was thus conceived as a weapon against anti-judaism, deliberately opposing the view of adolf von harnack that the church quickly (by the end of the first century), naturally, and rightfully separated from its jewish parent (see 16-17, 217-18). several of the contributors, however, believe that the term has unfortunate connotations, implying that judaism and christianity are two separate and unitary entities that inevitably and irrevocably parted, leaving no room for further meaningful interaction (see, for example, pp. 28, 94-95, 114, 250 n. 7, 252-53). whether those are necessary implications of the term is questioned by other contributors (for example, trebilco [275]), who note that some recent skepticism about it stems from a postmodern distrust of essentializing definitions and master narratives (222) and that it is commonly used in other areas of religious studies without pejorative implications (309 n. 3). nor is this the only topic upon which the contributors to the volume disagree. edsall, for example, argues that justin martyr’s dialogue with trypho was not trying to create a distinction between christianity and judaism, as daniel boyarin has alleged; rather, edsall points out, justin at one point acknowledges that some people known to him are both christians and torah-observant jews (dialogue 46:147:1). rather than arguing that christians were a new people, distinct from israel, justin, according to edsall, was trying to show that there had always, from sinai on, been a division within israel, and that the christians were just continuing that division into the present. for edsall, then, justin’s treatment of judaism and christianity emphasizes continuity rather than discontinuity. verheyden, however, expresses skepticism about edsall’s reading, pointing out that justin’s claim that christians are “israel” (dialogue 123:6-7) “immediately raises the ire of trypho” (341 n. 97).the editors’ apparent tolerance for such a diversity of opinions on such a complicated and disputed subject is commendable, and they have generally done a good job of cross-referencing the articles to each other. less pleasing is the fact that their volume contains a number of typos and instances of awkward “translation english.” one can learn a lot from each of the essays in this collection, but in the reviewer’s opinion two in particular stand out. carleton paget’s analysis of the epistle of barnabas, one of the most anti-jewish documents in the history of the church, begins with a masterful introduction that brings much-needed clarity to the “parting of the ways” discussion. he then proceeds to apply these considerations to the case of barnabas, emphasizing both the author’s attempt to devalue jewish interpretations of the law and thus to separate christianity from judaism, and his acknowledgement that other christians do not agree with him but claim that the covenant is “both theirs and ours” (4:6).trebilco’s essay is a comprehensive survey of the archaeological and literary evidence for jewish-christian interactions in asia minor in the first four christian centuries. although carleton paget tends to be 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) more on the “parting of the ways” side of the spectrum and trebilco on the “ways that never parted” side (to allude to the title of an influential book edited by adam becker and annette yoshiko reed, the ways that never parted [2003], which many of the authors of this collection cite approvingly), both are good enough scholars to not only acknowledge but also give due weight to the evidence for the other position. thus, even in an article whose title begins with “beyond ‘the parting of the ways,’’’ trebilco devotes six dense and heavily footnoted pages to negative interactions between jews and christians in asia minor. carleton paget, on the other hand, while decrying the tendency of “ways that never parted” partisans to assert without evidence that the situation “on the ground” was the opposite of the division suggested by literary sources, nevertheless acknowledges that the rhetoric of barnabas itself suggests that the author was “seeking to change a blurred vision—the covenant is both theirs and ours—which is perhaps the norm” (244). i conclude this appreciative review by noting two omissions: first, there are essays on asia minor, rome, and alexandria, but none on syria. indeed, the eastern part of the roman empire gets short shrift in the volume, except for occasional references to antioch on the orontes. yet my own research in recent years has suggested that it was in syria as much as anywhere that jews, christians, and jewish christians rubbed up against each other in the early christian centuries, as illustrated for example by the pseudo-clementine literature, the testaments of the twelve patriarchs, and the didascalia apostolorum. second, although both the “parting of the ways” and the “ways that never parted” approaches emerged at least in part out of concerns about anti-judaism, there is very little conscious or consistent reflection in this volume on hermeneutical questions, except for acknowledgements that anti-judaism is bad (the essays by frey and verheyden are partial exceptions). but what do we do with the anti-jewish material in our religious tradition, especially when it is part of our sacred scripture (all but one of the contributors to this volume were, at the time of writing, either members of faculties of theology or associated with a research institute at australian catholic university)? here this learned volume leaves us mostly in the dark. microsoft word 137505-text.native.1219860895.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-2 bialer, cross on the star of david r1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 u r i b i a l e r cross on the star of david: the christian world in israel’s foreign policy, 1948-1967 bloomington: indiana university press, 2005, 233 pp. r e v i e w e d b y m i c h a e l b . m c g a r r y , t a n t u r e c u m e n i c a l i n s t i t u t e , j e r u s a l e m over the last few decades, scholarly interest in political relations between the christian world and the state of israel has focused primarily on the roman catholic church’s view of the zionist movement (before the founding of the state) and its perceived slowness in establishing full diplomatic relations with the jewish state. but here in his cross on the star of david: the christian world in israel’s foreign policy, 1948-1967, dr. uri bialer addresses the question in the opposite direction. drawing on israel’s diplomatic history from 1948 to the 1967 war, dr. bialer traces the attitude and actions of the fledgling jewish state towards the christian world. currently occupying the chair in international relations – middle east studies in the department of international relations at the hebrew university, dr. bialer has opened up a seldomaddressed topic both fascinating and illuminating: in its first twenty years, how did the new-born state of israel, in its foreign diplomacy and internal policies, address the christian world? bialer, a perspicacious historian with the necessary language skills to analyze recently declassified (1980) israeli governmental archives, recognizes and honors the complexity of his topic. he carefully notes the multiple factors affecting the new state’s diplomats and policy makers in assessing their delicate but forceful formulation of policy towards the christian world – both those christians living in israel and those countries, often overwhelmingly christian, whose support the young state desperately needed, even and maybe especially after its united nations’ authorization. as he notes: one of the most formidable problems that israeli foreign policy faced from its early years was the stance of the christian world. the attitudes of that world toward zionism and israel after the second world war ranged widely, from the basic hostility and categorical nonrecognition of the catholic church through the general protestant ambivalence toward evangelical support. the overall effect of questioning legitimacy was certainly detrimental to the young state’s foreign relations. (xi) bialer organizes his chapters sequentially around the roman catholic church, the orthodox churches, and the relatively small protestant churches in israel. with his singular access to israeli sources, bialer weaves his narrative through a series of factors, almost like icebergs floating in a sea, which influenced israeli strategy: the weighty memory of christian persecution of jews (notably the crusades, the inquisition, and the shoah); the perennial fear of christian proselytizing; the uncharted undertaking of forging the jewish character of the state while at the same time guaranteeing, at least from its declaration of independence (israel does not have a constitution), freedom of religious expression for all citizens; the challenge of starting up a representative democracy by persons with little experience; a concern about how jewish religious groups internally would benefit or suffer from privileges or rights demanded by the local christian groups; an obsessive monitoring about how review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): r1-2 bialer, cross on the star of david r2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 israeli actions vis-à-vis its own christians would be viewed and then, perhaps, be used as a “wedge” in pressuring israel; an ambivalence about the christian presence in israel that was overwhelmingly arab (indeed, still today, 80% of the christian community in israel are arab); the truly byzantine relationships among various christian communities within israel and how these might be, alternately, respected and manipulated to israel’s advantage; the issue of christian ownership of land: who owns it, how do you prove it, and who can buy it; and finally how might taxes, building permits, and zoning codes be imposed on christian communities? while the above, perhaps dizzying, litany of issues affecting israeli treatment of the christian world may come off as abstract, let me recount one incident from bialer’s book – at once colorful, dramatic, and complicated – that illustrates some of these concerns. in internal israeli memos, the following episode was referred to as “of pigs and men.” in 1962, israel passed a law that forbade raising pigs in most of the country. the daughters of charity, a french order of nuns, who oversaw a hospital for brain-damaged children in the jerusalem suburb of ein kerem (and do so to this day), were ordered to get rid of their forty-plus pigs by a religious deputy minister of the interior. the sisters countered that pork was the mainstay of the food for their charges; following this law would jeopardize their work, they complained. further, they threatened to take the issue to the french government, with the inevitable exaggeration and amplification of the story en route (as one israeli diplomat put it, “by the time the story about the pigs reaches rome…there will be 300 of them”). some of the nuns’ french allies claimed that this israeli internal law ran counter to an existing french-israeli agreement. so in november of 1963, “the prime minister, the minister of the interior, and the acting foreign minister decided that the order to round up and destroy the ein karem pigs would not be carried out as long as their meat was earmarked solely for internal consumption at the convent and thus ‘does not constitute a danger to the jewish inhabitants of the country.’” (118f) while showing how small issues (at least from one perspective) can have multivalent meanings, this case study illustrates the multi-leveled complexity of bialer’s theme. only two shortcomings mar this otherwise excellent study. first, like many authors who investigate the relationship of the churches to the state of israel, bialer seems to be interested predominantly in the roman catholic church. while one may wish for more space to be devoted to other christian communities (and, to be fair, he does deal with almost all the christian communities in israel), bialer reasonably spends most of his time on the catholic church. in addition to its size, the catholic church was pivotal to the kind of legitimacy and support which the state sought in the first twenty years of its existence – and this needed to come from countries with catholic majorities. second, bialer’s book would have been better if he had had a native-english speaker’s editorial hand. occasional awkward english constructions and missed christian ecclesiastical subtleties would have been corrected by such friendly oversight. obviously to be included in the next chapters of this story would be israel’s relation to the rise of christian zionism and then to the signing the accords between the holy see and the state of israel, 1993-94. (for the latter, one should read marshall breger’s indispensable the vaticanisrael accords: political, legal, and theological contexts.) we can only hope that a book that would address the history since 1967 would find language skills, perspective, and judiciousness equal to those which bialer amply displays in his history of the first twenty years. for those interested in the relationship between the jewish state and the christian world, this book is essential reading. maimonides in his world: portrait of a mediterranean thinker studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kalman r1-3 review s a r a h s t r o u m s a maimonides in his world: portrait of a mediterranean thinker princeton, nj: princeton university press, 2009, xx + 222 pp. reviewed by jason kalman, hebrew union college – jewish institute of religion in 1997, collette sirat asked “should we stop teaching maimonides?” (in raphael jospe, ed., paradigms in jewish philosophy, madison: fairleigh dickinson university press, 1997) and argued, against the vast majority of her colleagues, that we should. the appearance of two sixhundred page biographies of the great rabbi, doctor, and philosopher [joel l. kraemer, maimonides: the life and world of one of civilization's greatest minds (new york: doubleday, 2008) and, herbert davidson, moses maimonides: the man and his works (oxford: oxford university press, 2004)], along with scores of other books and articles on various aspects of his biography and thought suggests that more than a decade later the resounding answer to sirat’s question remains a very clear “no.” given the popularity of maimonides as a subject for contemporary scholarship the real question that needs to be asked is what aspects of the subject remain to be studied and by what methods should they be approached? in maimonides in his world sarah stroumsa lays out her answer to these questions. for stroumsa, maimonides is to be understood as a mediterranean thinker. by this she means both that he, from the perspective of geography, lived his life around the mediterannean basin and more importantly, was a cultural product of having lived among the intertwined groups who inhabited the region: maimonides’ cultural mediterranean encompassed the legacy of other religious communities. his world included the cultures of various communities in the mediterranean basin of his days: muslims, jews, christians, with their various denominations and sectarian disagreements. he was familiar with their philosophical and religious traditions, and with the mental world, the imaginaire, of both educated and simple people. his world also included past and extinct communities, previous layers of the mediterranean palimpsest, whose imprints were left in arabic literature. maimonides fully lived and breathed the culture of his time, including the impact of contemporary culture, as well as sediments of previous cultures. (p. 13). in exploring maimonides from this perspective stroumsa is not breaking new ground. by her own reckoning her goal is not to provide an overview of maimonides’s thought or to explore in depth one particular aspect of his thought. nor does she attempt to describe maimonides’s role in a particular field (e.g., philosophy, science, law or medicine) or to contribute by adding to aspects of his biography. stroumsa attempts to present what she describes as maimonides’s “cultural biography”: his “interaction with his multi-faceted historical and cultural legacy, and how this cultural context affected him and shaped his thought” (p. xii). to this end, the book offers more of a collection of snapshots which might shape an intellectual and cultural biography but not the biography itself. in this regard joel kraemer’s maimonides: the life and world of one of civilization's greatest minds is similar in approach but a more thorough traditional biography. stroumsa, maimonides in his world kalman r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kalman r1-3 chapter 1, “maimonides and mediterranean culture,” sets maimonides in his historical and cultural context. it provides an overview of the cultural, religious, linguistic, and intellectual milieus in which maimonides found himself as he moved from cordoba to fez to palestine and finally to fostat. in chapter 2, “the theological context of maimonides’ thought,” stroumsa explores maimonides’s knowledge of islamic thinkers. the chapter is significant in that stroumsa expands the list of sources maimonides drew from. he cites very few of sources—jewish, christian, or muslim—and stroumsa is committed to the fact that those scholars who are identified by name in his works were only a few of the thinkers with whose work maimonides was familiar. stroumsa’s maimonides was fully engaged with the world around him and, as such, likely read much of the material available to him whether he references it explicitly or not. chapter 3, “an almohad ‘fundamentalist’” explores the influence of almohad thought and theology on maimonides.” maimonides lived under almohad rule for close to two decades between 1148 and 1165 in spain and north africa. the major contribution of the chapter is highlighting the influence of almohad legal methodology on maimonides especially in regards to his mishneh torah. while the influence of muslim thought on maimonides’s philosophy has been the frequent subject of academic studies, that the influence can also be seen in other significant areas of maimonides’s work helps support stroumsa’s argument, on the one hand, but more importantly offers new directions for future study. chapter 4, “la longue durée: maimonides as a phenomenologist of religion,” explores the place of the sabians in maimonides’s understanding of the role of the sabians in maimonides explanation of the biblical commandments. the chapter begins by constructing a picture of the sabians as they appeared in the arabic literature known in maimonides’s time. stroumsa then discusses how maimonides used the pagan practices attributed to this ancient people to explain the development of biblical monotheism. chapter 5, “a critical mind: maimonides as scientist” offers an exposition on the meaning of the term hadhayān (ravings) in maimonides’s scientific works. here stroumsa concludes that “its use indicates that maimonides regards the theory under discussion as related in some way to the esoteric non-aristotelian philosophies of his times, and in particular to their irrational, mythical discourse and to the sciences of the occult. by describing them as “ravings” he intends to underline their false pretense to be scientific knowledge.” (p. 152) in chapter 6, “’from moses to moses’: maimonides’ vision of perfection,” stroumsa explores the tension between maimonides’ responsibility to “perfect” the jewish community and his desire for “individual salvation.” the exploration largely relies on paralleling maimonides’s thought with that of avicenna. without doubt, the reader of maimonides and his world will benefit from stroumsa’s very close reading of select texts and her broad knowledge of arabic literature, and muslim thought, theology, and philosophy. importantly, the book serves as a corrective to scholars who have preferred to examine maimonides as a jewish thinker in dialogue with his jewish predecessors and scholars of the medieval muslim world who rarely investigate him in a sustained way to ask what his life and learning might contribute to the understanding of the world in which he lived. the book not only raises questions about the direction of maimonides-related scholarship but of academia more broadly. stroumsa challenges contemporary scholars’ dismissal of the category of “mediterranean” as well as the move away from exploring the influences which shaped an individual’s thinking. finally, the book’s conclusion is worthy of note for more than its summary of stroumsa’s argument. throughout the volume stroumsa returns to the work of her hebrew university stroumsa, maimonides in his world kalman r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kalman r1-3 teacher, shlomo pines, who promoted the approach she propounds in the book. she has argued elsewhere (“shlomo pines: le savant, le sage,” journal asiatique 278, nos. 3-4, 1990) that his approach was not followed by subsequent generations of scholars and that they, like her hebrew university colleague eliezer schweid whom she criticizes explicitly, see “the islamic world provid[ing] only the background to jewish philosophy.” (p. 189) as rector of the hebrew university, stroumsa may not only be laying out new directions for the study of maimonides in this volume, but a critique of the direction of the scholarship of “jewish thought” at her own institution. additionally, given her position as an israeli academic, it seems stroumsa has found in maimonides’s mediterranean a worthwhile model which may define a place for the university in promoting peace in the middle east: maimonides’ erudition in subjects that are not typically jewish could not have been achieved in a rarified jewish environment, without extensive, personal contacts with the non-jewish world. it is from muslims, as well as from jews, that he bought and borrowed books, and also with muslims that he discussed and debated ideas. the snippets of information provided by muslim biographers as well as by maimonides himself corroborate the existence of such extensive contacts. if we assume that maimonides met muslim thinkers, and exchanged with them knowledge and ideas, by the same token we must assume that muslim thinkers met with maimonides, and exchanged with him knowledge and ideas. (p. 191) for the important implications of her work for maimonides studies and for this broader concern the reader of this fine volume owes stroumsa a debt of gratitude. stroumsa, maimonides in his world kalman r 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 microsoft word gamberini.doc gamberini, “with sincere reverence” 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art3/ studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college “‘with sincere reverence’: a christological perspective for the interreligious dialogue envisioned by nostra aetate” paolo gamberini, s. j. pontifical theological faculty of southern italy “san luigi,” naples volume i (2005-2006): 14-23 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art3/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 14-23 gamberini, “with sincere reverence” 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art3/ the ethnical and cultural situation in italy as well as in many european countries has radically changed in recent years. the increase of immigration, especially from north africa and from asia, is slowly changing the way europeans think about their own religious and cultural identity. the arrival of muslims, buddhists, hindus and sikhs challenges who we are as catholics. islam has become the second largest religion in italy. in his speech to the city in the year 2000, the former archbishop of bologna, giacomo biffi, said that either europe will become christian again or else it will become muslim.1 the cardinal was also targeting the nihilistic and pluralistic culture which will not be able to face the ideological attack of islam. this is why the catholic church has tried to have the continent’s christian roots acknowledged in the european constitution, but as we know without success. facing not only the religious expansion of islam and of other religions, but also preoccupied by the threat of terrorist fundamentalism, many catholics are tempted to defend their identity by suspecting any kind of pluralistic attitude in dealing with the present situation. they affirm themselves by excluding anyone who is different ethnically and religiously. they claim themselves by removing others. therefore, there is a need for renewing the spirit of the conciliar declaration nostra aetate (na), which reminds us that the catholic church rejects nothing that is true and holy in the other religions. the church acknowledges “with sincere reverence” (sincera cum observantia) that the other religions reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all humanity. the 1974 guidelines for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate, no. 4 – prepared by the 1 cardinal giacomo biffi, “la città di san petronio nel iii millennio,” il regno-documenti, 17 (2000): 551. commission for religious relations with the jews – states that the church must always promote better mutual understanding to overcome the reciprocal ignorance and the frequent confrontations among people of different beliefs. theologians have a particular task in providing discernment, in order to inform interreligious dialogue with the christological proclamation that jesus christ is “‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (jn 14:6), in whom people may find the fullness of religious life, in whom god has reconciled all things to himself” (na, §2). i will highlight three different moments in which this “sincere reverence” towards other religions may be realized. the first moment may be called methodological and will refer to the ignatian tradition of the spiritual exercises. i will develop first of all the praesupponendum (presupposition) as an attitude of being able to listen to the religious experience of the other; then the contemplatio ad amorem (contemplation in attaining love) as the awareness and recognition of the action of the spirit: being able to distinguish the religious experience of god from its theoretical and practical interpretations; and finally the magis, the continuing transcending of the religious conscience in reaching out to god: deus semper maior (god is always greater). the second moment of my paper will be more theoretical. i will deal with the question of truth within interreligious dialogue and how god’s ineffable transcendence and otherness have been revealed in this jesus of nazareth. “no one has seen god at any time; the only begotten god who is in the bosom of the father, he has made him known” (jn 1:18). the humanity of god, jesus’ particularity, is not a limitation for the interreligious dialogue, but constitutes an adequate perspective for determining the universality of jesus christ. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 14-23 gamberini, “with sincere reverence” 16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art3/ the third moment considers the practical dimension of the dialogue. i will articulate the inner otherness of god (trinity) with god’s becoming other than himself (incarnation): i will show how the evangelical praxis of the believer, who makes himself everything for everybody, is able in the praxis, more than in theory, to sustain the eschatological tension between the already and not yet, which characterizes interreligious dialogue. 1. the methodological moment st. ignatius of loyola wrote the book of the spiritual exercises as a guide on how to experience god and to make decisions in one’s own life in a selfless way. at the beginning of the spiritual exercises st. ignatius introduces some presuppositions (praesupponendum) which say that he who is giving the spiritual exercises should “be ready to save his neighbor’s proposition than to condemn it. if he cannot save it, let him inquire how he means it; and if he means it badly, let him correct him with charity. if that is not enough, let him seek all the suitable means to bring him to mean it well, and save him.”2 when we apply this principle to interreligious dialogue it means that it is necessary to listen carefully to the religious experience of the other believers, trying more and more to assume the other’s perspective instead of coercing the other into one’s own viewpoint. “listening is the first step in understanding. in listening we indicate both that we care about the other and also that we have something to learn from the other. it seems to me that religious humility mandates listening as a basic mode of being in an 2 see david l. fleming, sj, saint ignatius, the spriritual exercises: a literal translation and a contemporary reading 6th ed. (st. louis: the institute of jesuit sources, 1991). see also j.thomas, i segreti dei gesuiti. gli esercizi spirituali (casale monferrato: piemme, 1986). interreligious context.”3 we may formulate the golden rule of interreligious dialogue in this way: “try always to understand the others, as you would like to be understood.”4 we need to listen to the muslim as a muslim, the buddhist as a buddhist. dialogue and proclamation (dp), a may, 1991 document of the pontifical council for interreligious dialogue (pcid), states that christians must be prepared to learn and to receive from and through others the positive values of their traditions. through this attentive listening and open attitude christians “may be moved to give up ingrained prejudices, to revise preconceived ideas, and even sometimes to allow the understanding of their faith to be purified” (§49).5 in §235-§236 of the spiritual exercises we may find the second methodological principle for interreligious dialogue. everyone is invited to acknowledge how god dwells, labors, and acts in all created things. that means that by giving up one’s own preconceived ideas and by having receptive minds, as the pcid document affirms, christians should recognize that god has “also manifested himself in some 3 a. goshen-gottstein, “judaism and incarnational theologies: mapping out the parameters of dialogue,” journal of ecumenical studies 39, no. 3-4 (june 2002): 23. 4 m. schulz, “der beitrag von immanuel levinas zum jüdisch-christlichen dialog:menschwerdung gottes,” müncher theologiszhe zeitschrift 56 (2005): 152. 5 cf., “much contemporary theological thinking is done precisely in dialogue with others. the purpose of such dialogue is twofold: first, to correct imbalances that stem from a false perception of the other or from excluding the other from one’s horizons; and second, the encounter with the other furnishes us with new ways of perceiving and presenting our religious convictions. ultimately, the encounter with the other fashions our own self-perception, as well as our religious understanding” (alon goshen-gottstein, “judaisms and incarnational theologies,” 221). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 14-23 gamberini, “with sincere reverence” 17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art3/ way to the followers of other religious traditions” (§48).6 the spirit of god is not only at work in the religious life of individual believers, “but also in the religious traditions to which they belong” (§17). during the first interreligious meeting in assisi on oct. 27, 1986, and again in his speech to the roman curia in december of the same year, john paul ii declared that “every authentic prayer is moved by the holy spirit.”7 in one of his wednesday catecheses, on sept. 10, 1998, john paul ii remarked that “very often at the source of the variety of religions there are founders who realized in the spirit a deep religious experience. this spiritual experience has been transferred into the doctrines, rites and teachings of the different religions.”8 in order to perceive the spirit at work within these religions it is necessary to go beyond the propositions and formulations of those to whom we listen. we need at this moment to pay attention to the eighth rule for the discernment of spirits of the second week. ignatius loyola distinguishes very carefully the starting moment of the spiritual consolation, in which the soul is touched by god himself, and the following moment of this experience. “for often in this second time, through one’s own course of habits and the consequences of the concepts and judgements, or through the good spirit or through the bad, he forms various resolutions and opinions which are not given immediately by 6 the federation of asian bishops’ conferences declared in november 1986 that religions have the gift of an authentic experience of the selfcommunication of the divine word and of the saving presence of the holy spirit. (quoted in congregazione generale 34a della compagnia di gesù (1995), decreto v, roma 1996, 86). see j.-m.biron, “la compagnie de jésus et le dialogue interreligieux,” cahiers de spiritualité ignatienne 110 (2004) : 97-111. 7 giovanni paolo ii, “discorso ai cardinali, alla famiglia pontificia e alla curia e prelatura romana,” il regno-documenti 32 (1987): 136. 8 see l’osservatore romano (september 10, 1998). god our lord, and therefore they have need to be very well examined before entire credit is given them, or they are put into effect” (§336). if we extend this eighth rule not only to individuals but to religions, then we need to distinguish between the written and oral traditions, kept in sacred scriptures and teachings, and the original self-communication of god received by the founders of these religions.9 dialogue and proclamation (§30, §78) states that prayerful discernment and theological reflection is required in order to discern the presence of the spirit within the doctrines and precepts of the other religions. the august, 2000 declaration of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, dominus iesus says that god “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors’. therefore, the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain (§8).” by discerning the first and the second moment of god’s self-communication in these religions and distinguishing the original spiritual gift from its human interpretations and categories, we may be able to participate in the spiritual experience of the other and be receptive to the ways other religions proclaim and live their experience of god. by 9 “in religious experience it is possible to distinguish between a superstructure which i call belief and an infrastructure which i call faith. the superstructure is the external word, the external revelation, the external reality, the word used in history and culturally conditioned. the infrastructure is the interior word, the word which addresses the heart, the intimate revelation.” (w. johnston, l’œil intérieur. mysticisme et religion [paris: desclée de brouwer, 1982], 82-83). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 14-23 gamberini, “with sincere reverence” 18 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art3/ transcending the categorical expressions of other religions we reach “a much deeper level, that of the spirit, where exchange and sharing give a mutual witness to one’s beliefs and a common exploration of one’s respective religious convictions.”10 the aim of interreligious dialogue is a deeper conversion of all towards god and everyone is invited “to leave one’s previous spiritual or religious situation in order to direct oneself towards another.”11 “the christian theologian in dialogue with the other is called faithfully to reflect on the experience of tracing a pilgrimage of constant departure which is also an entry into this fullness which god promises.”12 by converting oneself more and more to god, one comes closer to truth. na, §2 states that in the manner of life and conduct, in the precepts and teachings of these religions, there is a reflection of that truth which enlightens all people. this does not mean that the truth, which enlightens all religions, is still hidden and inconceivable. truth is not the outcome of complementary truths found in other religions. jesus christ is “the way, the truth and the life.” dialogue and proclamation states, however, that “the fullness of truth received in jesus christ does not give individual christians the guarantee that they have grasped that truth fully. in the last analysis truth is not a thing we possess, but a person by whom we must allow ourselves to be possessed. this is an unending process” (§49). in order to reflect on this important aspect of the interreligious dialogue we need to consider the second moment of this discussion. 10 dp, §40. 11 secretariat for non-christians, “the attitude of the church towards the followers of other religions: reflections and orientations on dialogue and mission,” aas 75 (1984): §37. 12 michael barnes, theology and the dialogue of religions (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2002), 219. 2. the theoretical moment in the contemplation to gain love, st. ignatius invites the retreatant to search and find god in everything. this is not a nameless and abstract god but the god of jesus christ. god’s truth was made visible and accessible in the particular history of jesus of nazareth. god does not exclude humanity. the human jesus defines god’s very essence. “it is precisely god’s deity which, rightly understood, includes his humanity.”13 god can be humanly expressed since god is also human in his being. dominus iesus declares that “the truth about god is not abolished or reduced because it is spoken in human language” (§6). the human god is not less than god. god finds his appropriate and adequate self-expression in the humanity of jesus. this does not dissolve the mysterious character of god’s revelation, but it is manifest in jesus christ. we should not look for god beyond the humanity of jesus, but we should always go beyond our relative and finite ways of expressing the mystery of incarnation. this truth qualifies the identity of the christian faith as a revealed religion. to set this truth aside means to alter christianity and to make interreligious dialogue impossible because christians would enter into dialogue without their own identity. we would not have a “sincere reverence,” if we dialogue already with a presumption, a common denominator for all religions called the unfathomable mystery, into which we reduce all religions into one.14 on the contrary, each religion is in dialogue with its own presuppositions. 13 karl barth, the humanity of god (richmond: john knox, 1960), 46. 14 see paolo gamberini, “kenosi e universalità del cristianesimo,” filosofia e teologia 17 (2003): 426-434. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 14-23 gamberini, “with sincere reverence” 19 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art3/ to argue the truth of christian faith is very complex in the cultural context of our days, which is on one side relativist and on the other side marked by a clash of civilizations and religions; but we cannot deny truth or become agnostic, either saying that truth cannot be known, or saying that truth is what the majority decides.15 in a speech at the pontifical lateran university on may 12, 2004, the president of the italian senate, marcello pera, asked, “if one truth is equal to another truth, why should we dialogue? and if in faith there is no truth, how can we ever be saved?”16 according to pera absolute truth bars dialogue or an acknowledgment of what “is true and holy” in other religions, as na, §2 and ad gentes, §9 declare. to answer this serious objection we need to articulate in the right way the criterion and the condition of truth, in order to avoid both relativism and fundamentalism. whoever dialogues is well aware of his own criterion of truth (torah, holy scriptures, qu’ran). denying what makes a jew a jew, a christian a christian, ignoring that everyone is committed thoroughly to his measure of truth, boycotts and does not promote dialogue at all. to leave one’s own belief in order to be in dialogue with the other would change dialogue into a monologue. instead, each religion must question and clarify, what are the criterion and condition of the truth it claims.17 15 see joseph ratzinger, fede-verità-tolleranza. il cristianesimo e le religioni del mondo (siena: cantagalli, 2003), 115ff. 16 m. pera, “il relativismo, il cristianesimo e l’occidente,” lezione alla pontificia università lateranense per i 150 anni di fondazione della facoltà di diritto civile, roma, 12 maggio 2004, http://www.senato.it/ presidente/21572/21575/28223/composizioneattopresidente.htm. 17 by criterion we mean the objective reference (in se) of what constitutes an identity; by condition we mean the perspective (pro nobis) in and through which that objective reference is perceived. to deny this when christians proclaim their truth, they refer to the way this truth became flesh in jesus of nazareth. there is a deep link between the truth and this jesus, as it is stated in jesus’ affirmation: “i am the truth” (jn 14:6). this is quite a paradoxical affirmation and in certain way intolerant. this identification between the “i” of jesus and the truth is intolerable for everyone who encourages relativism, but also for those who oppose any form of fundamentalism. behind that “i” there may be hidden an institution or an ideology, or even a church. if god is the truth, whoever (an individual, a group, or a religion) stands on god’s side is also in the truth and becomes the interpreter of truth. the attributes of god’s word qualify god’s spokespersons. in order to understand the paradoxical character of the johannine affirmation we must pay attention to the proximal context of jesus’ self-definition: the paschal experience. “now before the feast of the passover, when jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end” (jn 13:1). jesus’ passion, death and resurrection reveal that in the identification between truth and the i of jesus a deeper revelation of god and a different way of defining truth have been shown. jesus’ self-giving for others (kénosis) is the essential condition by which jesus expresses his being the truth of god the father. there is a deep connection between “i am the truth” of jesus’ saying and the johannine affirmation that summarizes the whole easter event: “there is no greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (jn 15:13). becoming the neighbor of whoever was poor, sick and marginal, until he made himself “friend of correlative dimension of truth leads either to reducing the objective reference to one’s own perspective (relativism) or to making one’s own perspective the criterion of truth (fundamentalism). see v. melchiorre, essere e parola (milan: vita e pensiero, 1982). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 14-23 gamberini, “with sincere reverence” 20 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art3/ sinners” (cf. mt 11:19), jesus manifested that the criterion of his truth is the experience of otherness which has its origin in god the father and has its end in embracing the other. jesus’ identification with the truth reveals that god defines his very being in the humanity of jesus and in him god has assumed the extreme otherness of the sinner. jesus emptied himself so totally for the sake of others, that his life was defined in relation to sinners. that god affirms himself in relation to another from himself, to that wholly other who is the sinner, this belongs to the paschal revelation of god, which can be recapitulated in the johannine expression “god is love” (1 jn 4:8). the very possibility that god becomes other from himself is god’s very essence which is constituted by inner relations: father, son and holy spirit. without denying biblical monotheistic faith, christians believe that the one god is not an absolute being, resting in splendid solitude. the god of jesus christ is ontologically open within and beyond himself. therefore, the category of “otherness” finds in the christian idea of god its foundation. if interreligious dialogue is made possible by acknowledging the other in his difference and limits, then the logic guiding this dialogue is the same as that of the paschal existence, when jesus laid down his life for the others, and of the trinitarian life, where each person in the one god exists for the sake of the other person. this different god calls for a different understanding of what truth is. we may quote saint augustine: “we do not enter into truth but through love” (non entratur in veritatem nisi per charitatem).18 god is not afraid of dialogue as the dogmatic constitution on divine revelation (dei verbum) declares: “the invisible god (see col 1;15, 1 tm 1:17) out of 18 augustine, “de gratia contra faustum,” opera, f. tempsky g. freytag, lipsia 1891, xxxii, cap. xviii. the abundance of his love speaks to human beings as friends (see ex 33:11; jn 15:14-15) and lives among them (see bar 3:38), so that he may invite and take them into fellowship with himself” (§2). the absolute truth is essentially “conversational” and “self-communication.” “truth itself may become for us an idol, because truth, separated from love, is not god: it becomes an image, an idol which we must neither love nor adore.”19 in a christian perspective, truth and dialogue are neither opposed nor juxtaposed: they essentially correspond to each other. this relation, between truth and dialogue, determines what kind of universality may be attributed to christian truth. if christian identity originates from the life-style and thoughtstyle of jesus, we have to avoid any form of exclusive or inclusive christianity in dialogue with other religions. “instead of diminishing the scandal of the word made flesh, in order to ease interreligious dialogue, it is necessary to show how the principle of incarnation, that the absolute reveals himself in and through a historical particularity, invites us not to make christianity an absolute, that is, a religion excluding others.”20 if jesus is defined by his relation to others, it means that also the other religions define christ’s event. dialogue and proclamation, §48-49 states: [w]hile remaining firm in their belief that in jesus christ, the only mediator between god and humanity (cf. 1 tm 2:4-6), the fullness of revelation has been given to them, christians must remember that god has also manifested himself in some way to the followers of other religious traditions. consequently, it is with receptive minds that 19 b. pascal, pensieri, a cura di paolo serini 3rd ed. (milan: arnoldo mondadori editore, 1988), n. 541, 314. 20 c. geffré, “le pluralisme religieux comme question théologique,” vie spirituelle 3 (1998) : 586 . studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 14-23 gamberini, “with sincere reverence” 21 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art3/ they approach the convictions and values of others. the fullness of truth received in jesus christ does not give individual christians the guarantee that they have grasped that truth fully. in the last analysis truth is not a thing we possess, but a person by whom we must allow ourselves to be possessed. this is an unending process.21 only to god is known how the many religions participate in the work of the holy spirit and how they can be associated with the paschal mystery.22 “on the last day the mysterious convergence of all religions among them will be revealed together with their meaning within god’s one plan of salvation.”23 in the meantime, however, if it is true that god is love, the way the spirit of christ touches every human person is by the experience of mutual love. to give a christian account of the experience of being in relationship with the other, committed always to living ‘in between’ this concrete position within history and the fullness of meaning which comes at the end of history and which can only be anticipated in hope, is only possible if one is willing to take the risk of crossing the threshold, of encountering the other person.24 3. the practical moment after examining the methodological and theoretical dimensions of interreligious dialogue, we consider now the practical moment. in order to make the catholic church 21 n.b. “the spirit of truth will lead you to the complete truth” (jn 16:13). 22 cf. gaudium et spes, § 22. 23 c. geffré “le pluralisme religieux comme question théologique,” vie spirituelle 3 (1998), 584. 24 m. barnes, theology and the dialogue of religions, 226. receptive to interreligious dialogue in authentic spirit, both realism and discernment are necessary. first of all realism: everyone should seek to comprehend the religion of the other as the other understands it, according to its own parameters and not according to a superficial idea of that religion. speaking about islam in the post-synodal apostolic exhortation ecclesia in europa, john paul ii said that a proper relationship with islam needs to be conducted prudently, “with clear ideas about possibilities and limits, and with confidence in god’s saving plan for all his children. it is also necessary to take into account the notable gap between european culture, with its profound christian roots, and muslim thought” (§57). together with realism we need also discernment. this asks first of all for an ethical foundation, which is the golden rule found in many religions: “do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law and the prophets” (mt 7:12); “love your neighbor as yourself” (lv 19:18); “not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself” (40 hadith an-nawawi, 13); “this is the sum of the dharma: do nothing unto others which would cause you pain if done to you” (mahabharata 5:1517). card. karl lehmann declared that: [t]he problem of violence in every religion is of utmost importance. whoever wants to dictate his conviction with power and violence cuts himself off from any kind of interreligious dialogue. every religion should examine in which way its own image of god pursues an ideal of violent imposition of her belief upon the others [...] each religion should be critical of certain praxis of religious studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 14-23 gamberini, “with sincere reverence” 22 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art3/ coercion (for christian churches: heresy, inquisition, missions).25 discernment should be done not only on an ethical base but also a spiritual one. the eschatological event of god, who became human in jesus, continues in the selfidentification of christ with the little ones, the hungry, the thirsty and the excluded (cf mt 25:35). as god became other-from-himself (incarnation) by being other-in-himself (trinity), so christians are called everyday to discover their own identity by becoming other than themselves. saint paul says: to the jews i became as a jew, so that i might win jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law though not being myself under the law, so that i might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of god but under the law of christ, so that i might win those who are without law. to the weak i became weak, that i might win the weak; i have become all things to all men, so that i may by all means save some.26 paul defines his own identity by relating it to others: he meets those who are under the law not without that law that binds to the problems of the law. he meets the weak not as the strong one, in order to let them feel more greatly the suffering caused by their weaknesses. he does not face the jews as a christian who denies them the authenticity of their specific way to god. he meets everybody with what identifies each one of them before others and before god. paul’s ego constitutes himself by 25 karl lehmann, “una religione tra le altre,” il regno-documenti 48 (2003): 46. 26 1 cor 9:20-22. encountering the human and religious determining factors of the other. through these strong denotations of the other paul articulates his own identity in a plural way. he needs these strong factors which determine the identity of the other, in order to find his own way to god, overcoming his own weakness and his inclination to violence.27 translating this into the language of interreligious dialogue, we may say that the christian is called to become a jew, to become a muslim, “for the sake of the gospel” (1 cor 9:23). it is not simply becoming more tolerant or respectful for the dignity of the other. as god became human by remaining god, so the christian is called to become a refugee with the refugees, an outcast with the outcast, a muslim with the muslims, by remaining himself. the more as a christian he dialogues, the more he will be able to be incarnated in the belief and in the life of the other believer, and vice versa. the model for such dialogue is jesus’ relationship with the father. “through participation in that relationship – father and son united by the sprit of love – christians learn how to relate to others. the analogy of “mutual indwelling” (perichoresis) of the divine persons within the godhead teaches the virtues and practice of hospitality and welcome.”28 the more christians dwell in the way of believing and of living of muslims, of jews, of hindus, the more they will understand their own christian identity and why god’s being is defined as love.29 27 h.-j. sander, “il cristiano nel postmoderno: identità plurale,” il regnoattualità 50 (2005): 23. 28 m. barnes, theology and the dialogue of religions, 228. 29 cf. frank whaling, christian theology and world religions. a global approach, (london: society for promoting christian knowledge, 1986), 130-131. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006): 14-23 gamberini, “with sincere reverence” 23 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art3/ “to be ‘oneself as another’ entails a participation in the mystery of god’s self-giving which alone can mend the ‘broken middle’ of interfaith relations.”30 by getting to know the spiritual tradition of the other, christians understand better their own faith, purifying it from what causes obstacles or misunderstandings in the partner. at the same time differences between the christian faith and the other religions may appear more clearly. everyone will understand his own religious identity not without the others but in relation to the others.31 “if christian identity is found only in generous-hearted relationship, in learning to see ‘oneself as another,’ then it will be through trust in the spirit that constant conversion is made possible. faith, love and hope are reciprocal dimensions of the christian life, manifestations of god’s own self-giving, the grace which makes for human flourishing.”32 30 m. barnes, theology and the dialogue of religions, 207. 31 cf. “the spirit of god breaks through the self-enclosed world we inhabit; the spirit re-creates us and sets us on the road toward becoming what i like to call a ‘catholic personality’, a personal microcosm of the eschatological new creation. a catholic personality is a personality enriched by otherness, a personality which is what it is only because multiple others have been reflected in it in a particular way. the distance from my own culture that results from being born by the spirit creates a fissure in me through which others can come in. the spirit unlatches the doors of my heart saying: ‘you are not only you; others belong to you too’” (m. volf, exclusion and embrace. a theological exploration of identity, otherness, and reconciliation [nashville: abingdon press, 1996], 51). “one does not live without others. this means that one does not live without fighting with others. so we need, not just once but everyday, to give up the naive conviction that ‘we understand each other’, and to get out of the sentimental meanderings, by which we hoped to hide under certain expressions and defenses the reality of the other” (m. de certeau, mai senza l’altro [magnano: qiqaion, 1993], 41). 32 m. barnes, theology and the dialogue of religions, 228. in conclusion, i summarize the three moments mentioned above as three theses: 1) the dynamics of the spiritual exercises invites us to listen and to acknowledge in the other the work of the spirit by distinguishing the religious experience of god from its consequent theoretical and ethical interpretations; 2) the spirit at work in the other religions is the spirit of jesus christ, who became a human being for others; 3) interreligious dialogue lives the eschatological tension between the already and not yet. this tension should not be explained by means of a theory but lived and supported in the praxis of a believing love. reflections on conversion and proselytizing in judaism and christianity studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): cp1-7 conference proceeding reflections on conversion and proselytizing in judaism and christianity d a v i d b e r g e r yeshiva university revised version of a talk given at the presbyterian-jewish consultation, october 30-november 1, 2006, pendle hill, pa. setting aside disputes regarding the state of israel, there is no more sensitive subject in the universe of jewish-christian relations than conversionary aspirations on the part of christians. the reasons for this appear obvious—and in large measure they are—but they are also marked by layers of complexity that we would do well to examine, particularly in light of the controversy engendered by the revised tridentine mass issued by pope benedict xvi and a full page advertisement in the new york times in which prominent evangelical christians advocated the targeted proselytizing of jews.1 contemporary discussions of this issue usually take for granted that judaism in principle eschews efforts to proselytize others. thus, a locus classicus in the talmud in effect instructs jews approached by a gentile expressing an interest in conversion to suggest that the prospective convert urgently seek out a psychiatrist. why, after all, would anyone in his or her right mind join a defeated and persecuted people? only one who persists despite this effort at discouragement is eligible to pursue the goal of becoming a jew.2 nonetheless, some see this passage not as an expression of an anti-proselytizing principle but as the reaction of jews who had lost the contest for pagan adherents and decided to make a virtue of their failure. the argument for the position that there were widespread jewish efforts in the graeco-roman world to attract converts rests upon the presence of “god-fearing” semiproselytes throughout that world as well as explicit or near-explicit assertions in several texts. in this forum, the most relevant of those texts is the assertion in matthew (23:15) that pharisees compass land and sea to make one proselyte. while the question of ancient jewish proselytizing remains a lively matter of dispute, it is worth noting the obvious. whether or not one endorses the plural form “judaisms” in vogue among some historians, it is evident that ancient jewish attitudes toward a host of religious questions ranged across a very large spectrum, so that indications of both proselytizing activity and opposition or indifference to such activity do not constitute a puzzling contradiction. unless there are independent grounds to conclude that conflicting evidence about this issue testifies to historical development, such evidence can easily be read as a reflection of very different approaches to proselytizing that coexisted among jews in the hellenistic-roman-rabbinic period.3 1 the new york times, march 28, 2008, p. a15. for my reaction to the new text of the mass, see “let’s clarify the purpose of interfaith dialogue,” the jerusalem post, feb. 16, 2008. 2 babylonian talmud yevamot 47a. 3 for a book-length discussion of this issue arguing that jews did not proselytize before the second century c.e., see martin goodman, mission and conversion: proselytizing in the religious history of the roman empire (oxford, 1994). berger, reflections on conversion and proselytizing r1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): cp1-7 as judaism moved into the middle ages, it is evident that an explicit rabbinic text would carry more weight than evidence from matthew or graeco-roman artifacts and literature. jewish reluctance to proselytize was of course greatly reinforced by the attendant dangers of such efforts in both the christian and the muslim worlds. setting aside the danger, the very fact that jews were a small, relatively powerless minority rendered the idea that they could win over large numbers of converts unrealistic. beyond all this, there was, i think, a fascinating dialectic that played itself out in the jewish psyche. to become a jew is to join a people, not just a faith. the concept of jewish chosenness, of the special sanctity of israel as a collective, rendered the objective of a mass conversion to judaism problematic. even in the eschaton, all the nations may call upon god together in a clear voice (zephaniah 3:9), but they remain discrete nations. in jewish eyes, those nations would presumably follow the noahide code, binding in historical times as well as at the end of days, which defines god’s expectations of non-jews in a manner that keeps them separate from israel. since obedience to this code provides eternal felicity to its non-jewish adherents, the drive to convert gentiles to judaism is diminished even further. at the same time, it is far from clear that medieval jews refrained from missionizing only or even primarily because they saw another route to salvation for gentiles. given the realities of the medieval jewish condition, many jews so resented their persecutors that they had no interest in their salvation; rather, they looked forward to their damnation. while hitler maintains so unique a position in the history of judaeophobia that analogies can be dangerous and even offensive, it is nonetheless instructive to consider how jews would have reacted in the last months of world war ii to the prospect of a suddenly repentant hitler who will enter the world to come as a righteous man. distasteful as this analogy is, it provides a graphic means of grasping the psychology of people who yearned for the moment when god would destroy their oppressors and consign them to damnation.4 complicating the issue further is the relationship between christianity and the requirements of the noahide code. david novak has written with considerable plausibility that a case can be made that christianity is a quintessential fulfillment of that code since it not only establishes the obligatory moral framework but even meets the maimonidean requirement that non-jews observe the code out of belief that it is a product of divine revelation.5 nonetheless, this position runs afoul of a theological point that was at the forefront of the medieval jewish psyche, to wit, the status of worship directed at jesus of nazareth as a hypostasis of the triune god. almost all medieval jews saw this as a form of avodah zarah, or worship of an entity other than god, which prima facie violated one of the seven noahide commandments. during the paris disputation of 1240, r. yehiel of paris displayed considerable unease when he was more or less forced to 4 some forms of christianity, at least today, take a position on forgiveness of enemies that can be quite jarring to jews. during a break at an international meeting in lower manhattan between catholic clergy, primarily cardinals, and orthodox jews arranged by the world jewish congress, the group walked to ground zero, where cardinal lustiger of france recited a spontaneous prayer. i was stunned when i heard the words, “pardonnez les assassins.” i cannot imagine a jew who would share this sentiment, particularly in light of the fact that the 9/11 murderers left themselves no opportunity to repent. my discomfiture was enhanced later in the day when another cardinal spoke of how we can learn from a jewish holocaust survivor who converted to catholicism and declared that she forgives those who tormented her in the camps. 5“mitsvah,” in christianity in jewish terms, ed. by tikva frymer-kensky, david novak, peter ochs, david fox sandmel, and michael signer (boulder, colorado, and oxford, 2000), p. 118. berger, reflections on conversion and proselytizing r2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): cp1-7 imply in response to a direct question that christians could be saved through their own faith; other medieval jews unhesitatingly answered this question in the negative.6 in sum, then, jews in the christian world refrained from missionizing as a result of an extraordinarily complex constellation of theological, historical, and psychological considerations not always consistent with one another: the jewish people should retain its uniqueness even in eschatological times; non-jews have an avenue of salvation without joining that people (though that avenue is probably not christianity); missionizing was dangerous; its chances of meeting with significant success were minuscule; and the persecutors of israel should receive their just punishment for all that they had done. despite all this, the impulse to have christians recognize the truth was not absent from the medieval jewish psyche. members of a minority regularly mocked for their religious error and periodically pressured to renounce it enjoyed a sense of validation and enormous satisfaction when adherents of the majority faith recognized their own error. while this is a point whose psychological validity is almost self-evident, here is a text from the nizzahon vetus, a latethirteenth-century northern european polemic that i edited several decades ago, that spells it out: with regard to their questioning us as to whether there are proselytes among us, they ask this question to their shame and to the shame of their faith. after all, one should not be surprised at the bad deeds of an evil jew who becomes an apostate, because his motives are to enable himself to eat all that his heart desires, to give pleasure to his flesh with wine and fornication, to remove from himself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven so that he should fear nothing, to free himself from all the commandments, cleave to sin, and concern himself with worldly pleasures. but the situation is different with regard to proselytes who converted to judaism and thus went of their own free will from freedom to slavery, from light to darkness. if the proselyte is a man, then he knows that he must wound himself by removing his foreskin through circumcision, that he must exile himself from place to place, that he must deprive himself of worldly good and fear for his life from the external threat of being killed by the uncircumcised, and that he will lack many things that his heart desires; similarly, a woman proselyte also separates herself from all pleasures. and despite all this, they come to take refuge under the wing of the divine presence. it is evident that they would not do this unless they knew for certain that their faith is without foundation and that it is all a lie, vanity, and emptiness. consequently, you should be ashamed when you mention the matter of proselytes.7 in this environment, a classic talmudic commentary cites a medieval french proselyte’s interpretation of a rabbinic text declaring converts to be as damaging to israel as a serious disease. the reason for this, says the proselyte, is that converts observe the torah with such care that they put born jews to shame.8 6 see my discussion in "on the image and destiny of gentiles in ashkenazic polemical literature" (in hebrew), in facing the cross: the persecutions of 1096 in history and historiography, ed. by yom tov assis et al. (jerusalem, 2000), pp. 8081. 7 the jewish-christian debate in the high middle ages: a critical edition of the nizzahon vetus with an introduction, translation, and commentary (philadelphia, 1979; softcover edition, northvale, new jersey and london, 1996), #211, english section, pp. 206-207. i commented on this passage in “jacob katz on jews and christians in the middle ages,” in the pride of jacob: essays on jacob katz and his work, ed. jay m. harris (cambridge, mass., 2002), pp. 52-54. 8 tosafot to qiddushin 70b, s.v. qashim gerim. berger, reflections on conversion and proselytizing r3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): cp1-7 it is a matter of no small interest that in addressing the question of the permissibility of teaching torah to non-jews, maimonides took a stringent position with respect to muslims – even though he saw them as exemplary monotheists – and a more lenient one with respect to christians, even though he saw them as worshippers of avodah zarah. the reason he provides is that unlike muslims, who consider the text of the hebrew bible unreliable, christians accept the accuracy of that text and are therefore more susceptible to being persuaded of the true faith if they can be made to understand the correct meaning of the bible.9 i am not prepared to say that maimonides advocated a jewish mission to christians, but he clearly hoped that in sporadic, personal encounters, jews might be able to demonstrate the superiority of their faith. similarly, i am convinced that in the streets of medieval christian europe, some jews challenged their christian neighbors with arguments designed to prove the truth of judaism, though here too these contacts do not add up to a jewish mission or near-mission. the motive was primarily to reinforce jewish morale, not to create a cadre of proselytes.10 this motive also plays a role in moderating my earlier observation about the desire of some medieval jews for the damnation and destruction of their oppressors. such a desire conflicts with the hope for eschatological vindication, a hope that provides its full measure of psychological benefit only if the deniers of judaism acknowledge their error at the end of days and proclaim, in the words of the high holiday liturgy, “the lord god of israel is king, and his kingship rules over all.”11 jacob katz argued that by the sixteenth century, the assertiveness that marked medieval jewish attitudes toward christianity, particularly in northern europe, began to wane, and that this transformation also affected attitudes toward converts and conversion. the jewish community had turned inward and no longer sought to impress the christian world with its ability to attract outsiders. but as jews moved toward modernity, other considerations emerged. significant authorities began to affirm that christianity is not considered avodah zarah when practiced by non-jews. thus, the likelihood that christians could attain salvation increased exponentially. for moses mendelssohn, religious toleration became an almost transcendent ideal, and he famously expressed dissatisfaction with maimonides’ requirement that the noahide code confers salvation only upon those who accept it as revelation.12 r. israel lipschutz, an important nineteenthcentury commentator on the mishnah, asserted as an almost self-evident truth that god would not fail to provide heavenly reward to johannes reuchlin for his defense of jewish books against those who would have destroyed them.13 if christians can attain salvation as christians, the motive for a jewish mission is markedly diminished. in modern times, this is often taken for granted as the reason why jews have refrained from proselytizing. in other words, jewish opposition to mission is a function of a deeply held principle recognizing the salvific potential of other religions. as we have seen, the history of jewish attitudes regarding this question is far more complicated, but there is an 9 teshuvot ha-rambam, ed. by joshua blau (jerusalem, 1989), no. 149. 10 see the argument in my "mission to the jews and jewish-christian contacts in the polemical literature of the high middle ages," american historical review 91 (1986): 576-591. 11 for a discussion of the scholarly debate about these matters, see my "on the image and destiny of gentiles in ashkenazic polemical literature," pp. 74-91. several participants in that debate also pointed to a medieval hymn in the high holiday liturgy that describes in recurrent, celebratory language how all the world’s inhabitants will gather to worship the true god. for an english translation of this hymn, see, for example, the complete artscroll machzor: rosh hashanah (new york, 1986), pp. 495, 497. 12 for a translation and discussion of the relevant passage, see, for example, steven schwarzchild, “do noachides have to believe in revelation?” in the pursuit of the ideal, ed. by menachem kellner (albany, 1990), p. 36. 13 tiferet yisrael to avot 3:14 (boaz #1). berger, reflections on conversion and proselytizing r4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): cp1-7 element of truth in this assertion even with respect to the pre-modern period. as allen friedman has put it in an oral communication, medieval christians and muslims did not expect to meet anyone who was not a co-religionist in heaven; even jews with a restrictive view of salvation expected to meet a few righteous gentiles. thus far, i have addressed the views of jews in a traditional society and their orthodox successors in modern times. it goes without saying that almost all non-orthodox jews maintain that christianity provides its adherents with the ability to find favor in the eyes of god, and those non-orthodox jews who believe in an afterlife affirm that good christians have a portion in the world to come. for such jews, proselytizing is a symptom of an intolerant, even immoral theology of exclusion. while reform judaism has, after much soul-searching, affirmed the desirability of outreach to non-jews with the hope of attracting them to judaism, these efforts are restricted to “unchurched” gentiles or—sometimes--to christians who have married or plan to marry jews. committed christians remaining within their own community remain beyond the scope of such initiatives for reasons not only of pragmatism but of principle. before attempting to assess how jewish attitudes toward missionizing may affect current interactions between christians and jews, we need to turn, however briefly, to historic christian approaches toward missionary activity directed at jews. it is hardly necessary to say that classical christianity strove to spread the good news and that jews were not excluded as objects of this effort. at the same time, a theology developed that granted jews special, even unique toleration both because they were seen as witnesses to the truth of christianity and because romans 11, however one reads it, speaks of their continued separate existence when the fullness of the nations arrives.14 thus, although it was clearly desirable for individual jews to save themselves through conversion, systematic efforts to convert large numbers of jews were rare before the thirteenth century. an article on jewish conversion in thirteenth-century england in a recent issue of speculum asserts that even at this relatively late date, robert grosseteste “view[ed] jewish conversion as a consequence of the end of history rather than as a current possibility or even a desire.”15 though the vision of jewish conversion at the end of days persisted, the thirteenth-century saw the exponential growth of efforts to convert the jews en masse. as time passed, some of these efforts developed an eschatological perspective linked to the belief that jewish conversion must precede the imminent end of days, while others resulted from the desire to establish a uniformly christian europe. the earlier absence of conversionary programs does not bespeak a strong interest in the welfare of jewish souls, and i see little indication that the primary motive of the new policy was a sudden concern for the fate of jews who would otherwise be condemned to hellfire, though some missionaries undoubtedly took satisfaction in the benefit that they brought to the objects of their ministry. the treatment of new christians in this world certainly left much to be desired. they were sometimes deprived of their property, the conditions in the halfway houses for converts were often lamentable, and other efforts to meet the needs of individuals removed from their families and support systems were sporadic and generally inadequate.16 14 for a detailed analysis of christian readings of this difficult chapter, see jeremy cohen, “the mystery of israel’s salvation: romans 11:25-26 in patristic and medieval exegesis,” harvard theological review 98 (2005): 247-281. 15 ruth nisse, “‘your name will no longer be asenath’: apocrypha, anti-martyrdom, and jewish conversion in thirteenth-century england,” speculum 81 (2006): 738-739. 16 see, for example, robert c. stacey, “the conversion of jews to christianity in thirteenth-century england,” speculum 67 (1992): 263-83. berger, reflections on conversion and proselytizing r5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): cp1-7 when converts were suspected of judaizing in late-medieval-and-early-modern iberia, they were of course subjected to terrible consequences. here we confront the logic of imposing one’s faith on an unwilling other in its most acute form, since the torments inflicted by the inquisition were imposed at least in part for the sake of the immortal souls of the unfortunate judaizers. but the souls of unconverted jews are presumably just as destined to damnation as those of insincere converts, so that as a matter of cold logic the policies of the inquisition could just as well have been applied to the former. but they were not. the tradition of toleration, even in an age of expulsions and intense missionary pressures, maintained some modicum of its original standing.17 and so we return to modern and contemporary times. the question of the propriety of a christian mission directed at jews depends first of all on the underlying theology of salvation maintained by the christian group in question. such theologies range across a broad spectrum: • jews, like all other non-christians, are condemned to eternal hellfire. • non-christians, including jews, are at a distinct disadvantage in the struggle for salvation, but such salvation is not ruled out.18 • jews, uniquely among adherents of non-christian religions, can be saved no less readily than christians because they are already with the father. • salvation is readily available to all good people irrespective of religion. even the last two positions do not in themselves rule out proselytizing since spreading the good news could be desirable or obligatory because of the inherent value of ultimate truth without reference to the eternal destiny of the non-christian. still, the first two positions, and especially the harsher of the two, greatly strengthen the argument for an active mission. how then does a jew, or at least this jew, respond to such an argument? as long ago as 1983, i expressed strong opposition to jewish efforts to instruct christians about what to believe regarding their own religion, and i have repeated this position on numerous subsequent occasions. i confessed, however, that with respect to missionizing, “even jews who hesitate most about intervention in the internal affairs of christianity have some mixed feelings.” i went on to say that “the jewish mandate to protect jews from conversion is no less a religious requirement than any christian mandate to convert them, and, although my basic sympathies are with the ‘non-interventionists,’ in the case of aggressive missionizing aimed specifically at jews, the overriding principle of pikkuah nefesh, or preventing danger to life (including spiritual life), may well prevail.”19 in short, if i could persuade a christian uncertain of his or her position regarding mission to the jews that proper christian belief should affirm the possibility of salvation for unconverted jews, i would try to do this. nonetheless, i do not regard honest advocates of proselytizing who adhere to the harshest position regarding jewish salvation as evil in any sense. thus, i take the position that someone who has declared war on me and my people is nonetheless a fine person whom i can embrace 17 for a discussion of both elements constituting the tension in the church’s position, see kenneth stow, alienated minority (cambridge, mass. and london, 1992), pp. 242-273. 18 this is the position expressed in the controversial catholic document dominus iesus. see my analysis in “dominus iesus and the jews,” america 185:7 (september 17, 2001): 7-12, also available at http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/berger.htm. reprinted in sic et non: encountering dominus iesus, ed. by stephen j. pope and charles c. hefling, new york, 2002, pp. 39-46. 19 “jewish-christian relations: a jewish perspective,” journal of ecumenical studies 20 (1983): 17-18. berger, reflections on conversion and proselytizing r6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/berger.htm studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): cp1-7 as a friend in other contexts. there is, of course, an emotional tension in this position, and i ask myself whether an argument for jewish exceptionalism can be formulated that does not impinge on christian doctrine. i think it possible that this question can be answered in the affirmative. christians in the modern world, including those with exclusivist views of salvation, definitively reject coercive methods, whether physical or economic, to enforce conformity to christian belief and practice, and they do this not only because such methods would be ineffective but because they abhor them in principle. this appears to mean that even saving another’s soul does not outweigh all competing considerations. one who refrains from religious coercion recognizes that the apparently transcendent benefit does not outweigh the harm done to the coercer’s moral personality, to that of his or her collective, or to civil society as a whole, not to speak of the immediate suffering of the presumed beneficiary. in light of these considerations, we are now in a position to ask if there is any moral harm inflicted by non-coercive proselytizing. it can certainly damage, even poison, intergroup relations, and it renders respectful dialogue about religious matters next to impossible. these concerns apply to proselytizing directed at any group; the question is whether they are serious enough to set aside the salvific advantage of conversion to christianity. at the very least, they may persuade christians who believe that the other party’s salvation is not at stake to eschew active missionizing. in dealing with jews, the moral objections to conversionary efforts increase exponentially. first, even in an open society, there is a tinge of pressure, if not genuine coercion, when members of a majority religion carry out sustained campaigns to convince the minority to abandon its faith. in 1988, the new york times published a letter in which i objected to their accepting advertisements from “jews for jesus” containing biblical prooftexts for christian doctrines. setting aside the well-known issue of the ethically objectionable misappropriation of jewish symbols, the letter argued that publishing such religious polemic puts a jewish respondent in an untenable position. jews would either have to explain in a counter-ad why the verses in question cannot legitimately be understood christologically, which “would pollute the atmosphere of interfaith relations and create concrete dangers for the jewish minority,” or they would have to remain silent, thus accepting “a quasi-medieval position of being bombarded by public attacks on their faith without opportunity for candid response.”20 second, the history of christian treatment of jews is genuinely relevant to this moral calculus. the jewish community reacts to missionary efforts by christians through the prism of crusades, inquisition, blood libels, accusations of host desecration and well poisoning, depictions of jews as instruments of the devil, and assorted massacres. this reaction is not merely understandable; it is thoroughly legitimate. the jewish people managed to survive these religiously motivated efforts to destroy it, but contemporary efforts to wipe it out by kinder means are tainted by this history. like it or not, the christian missionary to the jews is continuing the work of count emicho, vincent ferrer, torquemada, and chmielnicki. “jews for jesus” can proclaim as loudly and as often as they wish that these persecutors of jews were not christians, but there is no avoiding the fact that they acted and were perceived as acting in the name of christianity. even if proselytizing other groups is appropriate, proselytizing jews is arguably not. let me end more softly by returning to my anti-interventionist mode. in a contemporary context, it is a matter of the first importance to recognize that belief in eschatological verification is very different from mission. i have made this point in several essays, but it bears repetition here. 20 “jews for jesus ad poses painful choices,” the new york times, january 9, 1988, p. 26. berger, reflections on conversion and proselytizing r7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume3 (2008): cp1-7 participants in dialogue often affirm that even the assertion that your faith will be vindicated at the end of days constitutes morally objectionable triumphalism. i regard this position as itself morally objectionable. both jews and christians are entitled to believe that their respective religions are true in a deep and uncompromising sense, and that this truth will become evident to all the world in the fullness of time. berger, reflections on conversion and proselytizing r8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 reflections on conversion and proselytizing in judaism and christianity scjr 18, no. 1 (2023): 1-4 františek ábel, ed. israel and the nations: paul’s gospel in the context of jewish expectation (minneapolis: lexington/fortress academic, 2021), xiii + 354 pp. jason a. staples jasonastaples@gmail.com north carolina state university, raleigh, nc 27695 the essays in this volume began as presentations at a conference held in september 2019 in bratislava, slovakia. a primary aim of that conference was “to introduce and implement the paul within judaism perspective into the slovak academic environment” (xii). the essays all represent varying attempts to situate paul’s statements about the relationship between israel and the nations in the context of early judaism and the early roman empire. the sixteen essays are almost evenly split between scholars whose work regularly appears in english (genevive dibley, anders runesson, matthew novenson, loren stuckenbruck, kathy ehrensperger, william campbell, joshua garroway, kenneth atkinson, and mark nanos) and those primarily publishing outside the anglophone sphere (eric noffke, patrick pouchelle, imre peres, michael bachmann, markus öhler, karlwilhelm niebuhr, and františek ábel). the essays by the latter group may help introduce some readers to current discussions in european scholarship not written in english, which the interested researcher may more easily find through these short pieces and their characteristically robust endnotes. the volume is organized into two parts. the first seven chapters deal primarily with early jewish eschatology in sources other than paul’s letters while putting them in conversation with paul, and the final nine chapters engage more with paul’s own writings. the essays are broad-ranging, covering material ranging from the book of the watchers (1 enoch 6–11) to the letter of aristeas to greek sepulchral inscriptions in addition to the pauline letters themselves. the volume presents a relatively representative cross-section of paul within judaism (and pwj-adjacent) scholarship, evident in several significant disagreements across several of the essays, though all are agreed on the fundamental approach of considering paul within, rather than at odds with, his jewish context. several consistent themes emerge throughout the essays, the first of which is how the salvation of nations/gentiles relates to israel’s salvation. there is a general and sustained effort across a plurality of the essays to situate paul’s position on gentiles in conversation with views reflected in other early jewish materials such staples: františek ábel’s israel and the nations 2 as the letter of aristeas, the third sibylline oracle, the book of the watchers in 1 enoch, josephus, philo, and more. the essays include a fair amount of debunking of previously cherished ideas. matthew novenson, for example, makes the compelling argument that paul “aimed to bring about not the eschatological pilgrimage of the gentiles but the eschatological obedience of the gentiles” (67), and patrick pouchelle argues that the greek translation of the twelve minor prophets does not introduce more universalism to those texts than is already present in the hebrew versions. most of the contributors agree that paul envisions gentile salvation as entirely distinct from, albeit related to, israel. here joshua garroway’s essay “the ins and outs of paul’s israelite remnant” (187–98), is a significant outlier. garroway argues that paul transforms the familiar remnant concept “into an operative principle in all israelite history” (192) such that “the historic israel, the present israel, and the future israel … are not the same, varying in both constituency and in criteria for membership” (188). garroway argues that whereas other early jewish sources “envision an eschatological inclusion of gentiles concomitant to the final paring down of israelites,” paul goes one step further, proposing that gentiles are becoming “constitutive members of the israelite remnant itself” (192), though the remnant remains open to addition until christ’s return. this perspective stands sharply at odds with the conclusions (and assumptions) in the essays by genevive dibley, anders runesson, william s. campbell, mark nanos, kenneth atkinson, and karl-wilhelm niebuhr. these authors all emphasize that paul’s gospel maintains a strict division between gentiles-in-christ and israel. of these, campbell argues that rom 9:6 has been interpreted backwards and that paul defines israel in strictly biological terms, excluding from israel anyone not directly descended from jacob, though gentiles can be saved apart from israel. nanos argues that although paul preaches salvation to gentiles, he gives no indication that israel needs to be “saved” at all; instead, rom 11:26 refers to all jews, regardless of their response to christ, being “kept safe” due to their covenantal status. nanos does not, however, address why, if israel needs no salvation, this statement is immediately followed by reference to israel’s deliverance from “impiety” (ἀσεβεία; 11:26) and the removal of their “sins” (ἁμαρτία; 11:27). in contrast, niebuhr argues, “salvation from god’s judgment is needed for israel as well as for the gentiles as long as they lean on their own will and turn themselves against god” (274). nevertheless, whereas “the nations, if at all, will be saved by faith in christ alone” (282), “all israel … will be saved by the salvific eschatological act of the merciful god who will enforce his promises to his people out of his own will” (282) regardless of belief in jesus. similarly, runesson argues that although paul insists gentiles must convert and join the “in-christ” group to be saved (without changing their ethnicity!), all jews will be saved regardless of their response to “the in-christ offer” (32) because “god’s covenant with them stands” (33). atkinson argues that much of romans is a reaction to paul’s fear that if gentile converts behave too jewishly, it will cause a backlash in rome; thus he “wants to erect a dividing wall to prevent gentiles from being confused with jews” (210), 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2023) specifically allowing gentiles-in-christ to remain integrated in pagan roman society (by eating idol meat [!]) since they “are not part of the covenant community” (209). a second and related theme has to do with israel’s role with respect to the nations and gentile salvation. kathy ehrensperger and františek ábel highlight early jewish understandings of israel’s role as a light to the nations and suggest that paul’s disagreements with unbelieving jews centers on their not living out their vocation as heralds to the nations to bring about universal (but ethnically distinct) salvation. two essays challenge recent proposals that have gained traction in pwj scholarship. in “if you are called a judean…,” markus öhler demonstrates that ἐπονομάζη in rom 2:17 must be understood as a passive (“you are called”) rather than a reflexive verb. he then argues that the interlocutor of 2:17 should not be understood as a proselyte nor as a typical representative of “judaism.” instead, he joins others in concluding that ἱεροσυλεῖν in rom 2:22 alludes to the deceitful jewish teacher (and accomplices) who deceived fulvia as recounted in josephus’ antiquities 18:81–84. in “the making and unmaking of jews in second century bce narratives and the implication for interpreting paul,” genevive dibley offers what may be the most significant essay of the collection. dibley engages with matthew thiessen’s proposal that paul (like the author of the book of jubilees) objects to gentile circumcision on the grounds that since ethnicity is immutable, adult circumcision cannot make gentiles into jews. dibley challenges a primary foundation of this view, arguing that jubilees’ emphasis on eighth-day circumcision does not have the question of gentile conversion in view at all. instead, “on the subject of circumcision, jubilees served to warn jews, not to inform gentiles [about the covenant].” thus “the visitors to galatia, about whom paul was so exercised, could have argued their same case for gentile convert circumcision from jubilees 15 as much as from genesis 17” (14). dibley concludes that paul’s “shrill rhetorical pitch” (15) would hardly be warranted if he thought adult circumcision was merely ineffectual. instead, she argues, paul believed the opposite, “that gentile circumcision worked all too well in making gentiles jews” (16), threatening the apostle’s eschatological vision of a union of jews and gentiles under one god. one shortcoming of the volume is that nearly all its contributors presume that “israel” is synonymous with “[the] jews,” limiting the questions asked and, in some cases, leading to outright contradiction, such as when runesson argues that god’s impartial judgment is foundational to paul’s gospel (36), except that all jews are exempt from such impartiality and will be saved no matter what. in another example, when bachmann concludes that “the israel of god” refers to “ethnic jews” (128), are we really to conclude that by “israel” paul necessarily excludes samaritans, who are not jews (cf. john 4:9) but do claim descent from the joseph tribes of israel? and what constitutes “ethnicity” in the first place? one wonders, for example, how proselytes and those such as ruth or rahab fit into campbell’s strictly biological reading of israel. as dibley’s essay demonstrates, jewish or israelite ethnicity was rarely (if ever) merely a matter of biological descent alone. staples: františek ábel’s israel and the nations 4 unfortunately, this insight is mostly ignored in the other essays, which regularly treat “jews” and “jewishness” in an uncritical fashion, arriving at conclusions— such as the idea that all who are biologically descended from jacob are jews or that those of such descent will automatically be saved—that nearly all early jews would likely have found surprising at best. the essays could also have been copy edited more thoroughly, and the english of some of the articles is uneven at times. nevertheless, the essays in this volume display a broad range of paul within judaism and pwj-adjacent scholarship and thus provide a window into the present discourse within a field undergoing significant reorientation. the essays of dibley, novenson, öhlers, and garroway in particular deserve sustained engagement in future academic studies, and the volume as a whole is a worthwhile resource for pauline scholars and those interested in jewish-christian relations in general. paul's "rule in all the churches" (1 cor 7:17-24) and torah-defined ecclesiological variegation studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 paul’s “rule in all the churches” (1 cor 7:17-24) and torah-defined ecclesiological variegation david j. rudolph, messianic jewish theological institute presented at the american academy of religion conference, november 3, 2008 17 nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the lord assigned to him and to which god has called him. this is the rule i lay down in all the churches.18 was a man already circumcised when he was called? he should not become uncircumcised. was a man uncircumcised when he was called? he should not be circumcised. 19 circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. keeping god’s commands is what counts. 20 each one should remain in the situation which he was in when god called him. 21 were you a slave when you were called? don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 for he who was a slave when he was called by the lord is the lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is christ’s slave. 23 you were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 brothers, each man, as responsible to god, should remain in the situation god called him to (1 cor 7:17-24).1 in preparation for this conference, i asked a number of church leaders if they were familiar with paul’s “rule in all the churches.” notably, not a single leader who responded to my ad hoc survey was aware of such a rule. based on this response and my general familiarity with ecclesial theology, i think it is likely that paul’s “rule in all the churches” has become a “rule in few of the churches” today. while many would probably be content to see this state of affairs continue, especially those who do not like church rules, there remains the nagging question, “should a teaching that paul considered important enough to be a universal rule be almost universally neglected by contemporary christians?” the aim of this paper is to introduce paul’s rule to those who are unfamiliar with it, and to make the case that paul’s rule is a lynchpin that sustains the church as a body of jews and gentiles.2 in part one of the paper, i will discuss paul’s rule as it relates to jewish continuity, the apostle’s indifference to jewish difference (1 cor 7:19), and the jerusalem council (acts 15). in part two, i will address the effects of the church not keeping paul’s rule, the jew-gentile ekklesia, and whether paul’s rule can be implemented today. 1 the holy bible: new international version (grand rapids: zondervan, 1984). i am quoting intentionally from one of the most popular english translations of the new testament. 2 for a fuller discussion of paul’s theology of judaism, see david j. rudolph, a jew to the jews: jewish contours of pauline flexibility in 1 corinthians 9:19-23 (ph.d. diss., cambridge university, 2006; forthcoming by mohr-siebeck in the wunt ii series). conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 paul’s rule and israel’s irrevocable calling in the english language, we sometimes speak of a person’s “calling in life”—a path or direction that seems to be laid out for them and that reflects their unique disposition, talents or motivations. today, it is unusual for us to speak about the calling of a nation or ethnic group. but in first century jewish thought, israel’s election was of paramount importance and a sense of national calling was normative. paul can therefore say in rom 11:28-29 that “as regards election they [the jewish people] are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; for the gifts and the calling (klhvsiß) of god are irrevocable.” in 1 cor 7:17-24, paul draws on this jewish conceptual framework, and presents jewish calling as an illustration to help communicate his stance on marriage and celibacy. paul’s point is that just as jews should remain in their calling as jews, and gentiles in their calling as gentiles, so should the married and celibate remain in their respective callings.3 each has the lord’s approval. the corinthians should not think of celibacy as good and marriage as bad (1 cor 7:1727). eschatological blessing is not contingent on marriage or celibacy.4 though the issue of jewish and gentile callings is presented in 1 cor 7:17-24 as a supporting argument,5 paul makes clear that he regards the affirmation and perpetuation of these callings 3 see appendix. for a study of how 1 cor 7:17-24 fits within the wider context of paul’s social vision in the letter, see bruce hansen, “all of you are one”: the social vision of gal 3.28, 1 cor 12.13 and col 3.11 (london: t&t clark, 2010), 105-157. 4 does 1 cor 7 reflect an imminent eschatology? there is a spectrum of views on paul’s eschatological expectations in 1 corinthians. “as deming and wimbush urge, paul’s pragmatic pastoral criteria [e.g. his instruction in 1 cor 11:2-16 that women should wear headcoverings] do not suggest a theology of eschatological imminence which depends on the conviction that the pauline communities are the last generation” (anthony c. thiselton, the first epistle to the corinthians: a commentary on the greek text [nigtc; grand rapids: eerdmans, 2000], 575). david garland concurs, “he is not talking about how little time is left but about how christ’s death and resurrection have changed how christians should look at the time that is left. he is not recommending that one should take the short-term view of life, nor is he offering an interim ethic for the impending end-time tribulation. instead, he understands the compressing of the time to mean that the future outcome of this world has become crystal clear…fee comments (1987:339), ‘those who have a definite future and see it clearly live in the present with radically altered values as to what counts and what does not.’ it requires them ‘to rethink their existence’” (david e. garland, 1 corinthians [becnt; grand rapids: baker academic, 2003], 328-329). see also brian s. rosner, paul, scripture & ethics: a study of 1 corinthians 5-7 (grand rapids: baker, 1994), 161-163. for my argument, however, the more important point is that even if one were to conclude that paul expected an imminent return of the messiah, it would still remain necessary not to overstate an eschatological motive for his instructions; paul was also influenced by christological and ecclesiological concerns, among others. granting an imminent eschatology, the question would still remain, “how imminent? and what was the interim ethic paul envisaged for jesus-believers in corinth?” following this line of thought, a reasonable argument can be made based on paul’s “rule in all the churches” and the principle of divine callings (1 cor 7:17-24) that paul wanted his communities in the interim to reflect torah-defined ecclesiological variegation. a related question addressed later in the paper under the heading “a church of jews and gentiles” is whether paul viewed the church as a prolepsis of israel and the nations in the eschaton. if this was the case, paul’s interim ethic could have been informed by second temple jewish eschatological expectations that envisioned jewish and gentile identity continuing in the age to come (see footnote 63). 5 the church in corinth appears to have begun with a core of jesus-believing jews—aquilla and priscilla (jews from rome) as well as crispus the president of the synagogue (aórcisuna¿gwgoß) and all his family (acts 18:1-2, 8). luke notes that paul stayed “next door (sunomorouvsa) to the synagogue” with a god-fearing gentile named titius justus (acts 18:7). the term sunomorouvsa means “was bordering on” or “having a common wall with.” perhaps the jesus-believers in corinth first met in this home next to the synagogue. “the fact that luke shows that paul remains spatially as near to the synagogue as possible is more or less a metaphor for his being as closely connected to the synagogue as can be and that thus luke makes a point about paul’s desire for a continuing relation to jews” (bart j. koet, “as close to the synagogue as can be: paul in corinth [acts 18.118],” in the corinthian correspondence, ed. r. bieringer [leuven: leuven university press, 1996], 409). paul’s reference to jews and greeks (1 cor 1:22-24; 9:20-21; 10:32; 12:13), circumcised and uncircumcised (1 cor 7:17-20), apollos (1 cor 1:12; 3:4-5, 22; 4:6; 16:12; cf. acts 18:24; 19:1), cephas (1 cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; cf. gal 2:7), timothy (1 cor 4:17; 16:10; cf. acts 16:1-4), passover (1 cor 5:7), the people of israel (1 cor 10:18), the timing of the jewish festival of pentecost (1 cor 16:8) and the gift to jerusalem (1 cor 16:3) all suggest that the church in corinth remained within the orbit of jews and judaism. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 as a fundamental outworking of his rule in all the churches. the association with a universal “rule”6 underscores the importance he attaches to these callings.7 the principle behind this rule that jews should remain jews, and gentiles should remain gentiles, is that each person should remain in the calling he was in when god called him. this is the kernel of the rule. paul repeats this principle three times in 1 cor 7:17-24. note the parallel structure: v. 17 each one (e˚ka¿stw)̂ should retain the place in life (peripatei÷tw) that the lord assigned (e˙me÷risen oj ku/rioß) to him and to which god has called him (ke÷klhken). v. 20 each one (eºkastoß) should remain (mene÷tw) in the situation [calling] (klh/sei) which he was in when god called him (e˙klh/qh). v. 24 each man (eºkastoß), as responsible to god, should remain (mene÷tw) in the situation god called him to (e˙klh/qh). verse 24 states: e˙n wˆ— e˙klh/qh . . . e˙n tou/twˆ mene÷tw (literally: “in what he was called, in this remain”). here the “in what he was called” (nrsv “to which god called you”) seems to refer to particular modes of life and not simply to “god’s call to salvation.”8 this argument is strengthened when the parallel in verse 20 is examined: e˙n thøv klh/sei hø∞ e˙klh/qh, e˙n tau/thø mene÷tw (literally: “in the calling in which he/one was called, in this let him remain”). most translators concede that in verse 20 klh/sei refers to one’s place in life when called (nrsv, esv, nasb, reb, net; cf. 1 cor 1:26).9 this would suggest by extension, on the basis of paul’s use of e˙klh/qh in verses 20 and 24, that the “situation” (klh/sei) in life is itself a calling.10 this is how augustine interpreted 1 cor 7:17-20: 6 nrsv, esv, rsv, niv, njb, reb, nlt, ncv, nirv, cjb. “i make this rule (diata¿ssomai) in all the churches” (bdag 2000:238). cf. diata¿ssw in 1 cor 9:14; 16:1; ti 1:5; luke 17:9-10; acts 7:44; 18:2; 23:31; 24:23. 7 1 cor 7:17-27 may reflect pauline halakhah, “a halakhically specific reading enables us to imagine paul as violently protesting against forcing the law on non-jewish believers, while still supposing jewish believers to remain law-observant. in parallel to this specific reading, we are able to see that paul’s ‘law theology’ does not intend to do away with the law but to argue its distinctive value for jews and for non-jews. yes, there is ‘law theology’ in romans and galatians, but its application is halakhically specific: it has distinct practical implications for jews and for non-jews. both are justified by faith only—therefore non-jews must not start observing the law and jews must not stop doing so. such is the message of paul’s ‘ecclesiastical rule’ in 1 corinthians (7:17-20)” (peter j. tomson, “halakhah in the new testament: a research overview,” in the new testament and rabbinic literature, eds. reimund bieringer, florentino garcía martínez, didier pollefeyt and peter j. tomson [sjsj 136; leiden: brill, 2010], 204-205); “indeed, the fundamental conviction of paul, and in my view the key to understanding his theological position on law and faith, is that all people must remain in the condition in which they were when they were called (1 cor 7:17-20)” (anders runesson, “inventing christian identity: paul, ignatius, and theodosius i,” in exploring early christian identity, ed. bengt holmberg [tübingen: mohr-siebeck, 2008], 80-81). also mark d. nanos, “paul and judaism,” in codex pauli (rome: società san paolo, 2009), 54; magnus zetterholm, “paul and the missing messiah,” in the messiah in early judaism and christianity, ed. magnus zetterholm (minneapolis: fortress, 2007), 49-50. 8 it is notable that paul can refer to his apostleship as a calling, “paul, called to be an apostle (klhto\ß aópo/stoloß)” (1 cor 1:1; cf. rom 1:1). here, “called” does not refer to a calling to salvation but a calling to a particular kind of service in god’s kingdom. later, in 1 cor 12:4-5, 28-31, paul identifies apostleship with “gifts” (cari÷smata) and “services” (diakoniw ◊n) of god. 9 for a survey of call language in 1 corinthians, see brad r. braxton, the tyranny of resolution: 1 corinthians 7:17-24 (atlanta: society of biblical literature, 2000), 40f. 10 “but the concern throughout is with their social situation at the time of that call, which is now to be seen as that which ‘the lord assigned to each’ . . . paul means that by calling a person within a given situation, that situation itself is taken up in the call and thus sanctified to him or her” (gordon d. fee, the first epistle to the corinthians [nicnt; grand rapids: eerdmans, 1987], 310). also mark d. nanos, “the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul standing between christians and jews,” studies in christianjewish relations 4 (2009): 3; joel willitts, “weighing the words of paul: how do we understand paul’s instructions today?” the covenant companion 3 (2009): 28-30. more cautious is w. a. beardslee, human achievement and divine vocation in the message of paul (london: scm, 1961), 63. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 “was one called having been circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised [1 cor 7:18],” that is, let him not live as if he had not been circumcised...because of the view which he expressed in the words: “was one called having been circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. was one called being uncircumcised? let him not be circumcised [1 cor 7:18],” he actually conformed to obligations (augustine, op. mon. 11 [12]; italics mine).11 this is also how rabbi jacob emden, a leading eighteenth century torah scholar, interpreted 1 cor 7:17-24 in seder olam rabbah vezuta (1757): but truly even according to the writers of the gospels, a jew is not permitted to leave his torah, for paul wrote in his letter to the galatians (gal 5) “i, paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, the messiah will do you no good at all. you can take it from me that every man who receives circumcision is under obligation to keep the entire torah.” again because of this he admonished in a letter to the corinthians (1 cor 7) that the circumcised should not remove the marks of circumcision, nor should the uncircumcised circumcise themselves…you may therefore understand that paul doesn’t contradict himself because of his circumcision of timothy, for the latter was the son of a jewish mother and a gentile father (acts 16), and paul was a scholar, an attendant of rabban gamaliel the elder, well-versed in the laws of the torah. he knew that the child of a jewish mother is considered a full jew, even if the father should be a gentile, as is written in the talmud and codes. he therefore acted entirely in accordance with the halakha by circumcising timothy. this would be in line with his position that all should remain within their own faith (1 cor 7). timothy, born of a jewish mother, had the law of a jew, and had to be circumcised, just as he was enjoined to observe all commandments of the torah . . . for all who are circumcised are bound by all the commandments . . . certainly, therefore, there is no doubt that one who seeks truth will agree with our thesis, that the nazarene and his apostles never meant to abolish the torah of moses from one who was born a jew. likewise did paul write in his letter to the corinthians (1 cor 7) that each should adhere to the faith in which each was called. they therefore acted in accordance with the torah by forbidding circumcision to gentiles, according to the halakha, as it is forbidden to one who does not accept the yoke of the commandments.12 alan johnson notes that the niv translation of 1 cor 7:17-24 followed luther and the reformers who considered this text evidence of the existence of “vocational” callings (i.e. callings to a particular way of life in the service of god).13 johnson, however, regards “called” in 1 cor 7:17 as a reference to one’s call to faith in christ: the niv translation of verse 17 is unfortunate. following luther and other sixteenthcentury reformers who understood “calling” and “called” throughout this passage as vocational or occupational callings, the niv renders the text as each one should retain the place in life that the lord assigned to him to which god has called him. better is the 11 mary sarah muldowney, trans., the work of monks, in saint augustine: treatises on various subjects, ed. roy j. deferrari (foc 14; washington, d.c.: the catholic university of america press, 1952), 323-394. latin: pl 40.547-582; csel 41; ba 28. 12 harvey falk, “rabbi jacob emden’s views on christianity,” journal of ecumenical studies 19:1 (1982): 107-109. cf. ernst f. stroeter, “does the jew, in christ, cease to be a jew?” our hope 2:6 (december 1895): 129-134. 13 “vocation” is derived from the latin vocare (“to call”). “calvin interpreted ‘vocation’ in a way very similar to luther’s. god, he says, has appointed duties and a way of living for everyone, and these ways of living are ‘vocations’” (rupert davies, “vocation,” in a new dictionary of christian theology, eds. alan richardson and john bowden [london: scm, 1983], 602). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 tniv: “each of you should live as a believer in whatever situation the lord has assigned to you, just as god called you.” the primary emphasis is on christian behaviour that is appropriate to our call to faith in christ in every situation of life in which we may find ourselves when we were called to salvation. on the other hand, that paul also says the lord assigned [to each] hints that as a secondary matter these life situations may also be thought of as in some sense divinely ordered...verse 20 comes closest to luther’s sense of vocational calling.14 though johnson de-emphasizes the “life situation” aspect of “calling” in 1 cor 7:17, he acknowledges that “these life situations [referred to in verse 17] may also be thought of as in some sense divinely ordered” and that verse 20 supports this argument. anthony thiselton concurs with this assessment: yet in v. 20a thøv klh/sei comes very close to the notion of a calling to a specific state or role. the very use of the phrase e˙me÷risen oj ku/rioß [the lord assigned] in v. 17a should make us wary of claiming that paul did not regard some prior role in society as a matter of divine vocation.15 wolfgang schrage similarly views ke÷klhken in verse 17 as a call to salvation and thøv klh/sei in verse 20 as a reference to the situation and modality of the calling, the concrete condition of the calling.16 to sum up, 1 cor 7:20 links klh/sei (“situation”/ “calling”) with e˙klh/qh (“called”). verse 24 e˙n wˆ— e˙klh/qh (“in what he was called”) points back to the antecedent (v. 20 klh/sei situation/calling) in the same way that verse 17 points toward it: “this situation, this setting-in-life in which the call of god has reached one, is now (by extension) itself described as a ‘call’...it seems to be the only solution which respects the context.”17 for this reason, hans conzelmann and others translate 1 cor 7:20, “each should remain in the call(ing) in which he was called.”18 14 alan f. johnson, 1 corinthians (downers grove: intervarsity, 2004), 121. 15 thiselton, the first epistle to the corinthians, 549. “thus despite the relativization of everything in christ, the situation (the point of receipt of call – klhvsiß) in which one received the call to faith has a specific significance in paul’s ethics. this remains a vital factor in determining future conduct even in issues as significant as whether or not to accept or reject circumcision. one’s situation may not be the decisive factor, but it is still significant. so circumcision or lack of it still plays a role in the ethical decisions of those in christ…so even if, as some would hold, ethnic issues—jew or gentile—are not quite so pressing in corinth as sexual matters, our discussion thus far confirms that for pauline ethics, circumstances form part of the criteria for ethical decision in christ...whatever eschatological freedom christ-followers may enjoy, this freedom is limited by one’s situational starting point when called to faith, which barth terms, ‘the whole of the particularity, limitation and restriction in which every man meets the divine call and command.’...the fact that paul uses call/klhvsiß for the point of receipt of the call to faith indicates that he is in fact giving a christological significance to the human status and condition at this crucial juncture. those who are called must take into account and respect where they and others were when they were called...the force of paul’s theologizing must not be overlooked. calling takes place at a particular time and place and that status remains a given, an essential component of one’s ongoing identity in christ, subject only to the lordship of christ” (william s. campbell, paul and the creation of christian identity [edinburgh: t&t clark, 2006], 91-92). 16 wolfgang schrage, der erste brief an die korinther ii (ekk; düsseldorf: neukirchener verlag and benziger verlag, 1995), 137-138. 17 gregory w. dawes, “‘but if you can gain your freedom’ (1 corinthians 7:17-24),” the catholic biblical quarterly 52 (1990): 684 n. 17. luther argues in his kirchenpostille (wa 10.1.1, 308) that all godly spheres in life are divine callings to service (gustaf wingren, luther on vocation, trans. carl c. rasmussen [philadelphia: muhlenberg, 1957], 1-7), but this would seem to go beyond what 1 cor 7:17-24 states. following dawes, a medial view between the minimalist (johnson) and maximalist (luther) positions on 1 cor 7:17-24 would seem to be in order. 18 hans conzelmann, a commentary on the first epistle to the corinthians, trans. j. w. leitch (hermeneia 36; philadelphia: fortress, 1975), 125. cf. “let each man continue in that calling in which he was called” (c. k. barrett, a commentary on the first studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 two intertextual arguments add to the cumulative case that paul in 1 cor 7:19-20 viewed “circumcision” (peritomh\) and “foreskin” (aókrobusti÷a) as god “assigned” callings. first, jewgentile distinction reflects an historic calling; the lord elected israel to be his “treasured possession out of all the peoples” (i.e. set apart in identity and manner of life). the jewish nation was called to be a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (ex 19:5-6; dt 7:6; 14:2; 26:18). this was israel’s service to god.19 second, in rom 11:29, paul uses the term klhvsiß to refer to the “irrevocable calling” of the jewish nation: as regards the gospel they are enemies of god for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; for the gifts and the calling (klhvsiß) of god are irrevocable (rom 11:28-29).20 when klhvsiß in 1 cor 7:20 is interpreted in light of klhvsiß in rom 11:29, the position we have argued for receives significant support. noting the possible correlation between the jewish klhvsiß in 1 cor 7:20 and israel’s irrevocable klhvsiß in rom 11:29 (which can be viewed as a calling to service),21 adolf von harnack concedes that paul in 1 cor 7:17-24 was encouraging jesus-believing jews to view their jewishness as a divine calling.22 the circumcised should not put on foreskin the notion of a jewish calling finds further exegetical support in paul’s command to jesusbelieving jews in verse 18: mh\ e˙pispa¿sqw (“do not put on foreskin”/ metonymically: do not epistle to the corinthians [2nd ed.; bntc; london: a & c black, 1971], 169); “let each one remain in the calling in which he or she was called” (raymond f. collins, first corinthians [sp 7; collegeville: liturgical, 1999], 274); “each in the calling in which he was called, in this let him remain” (braxton, the tyranny of resolution, 8). 19 see edward breuer, “vocation and call as individual and communal imperatives,” in revisiting the idea of vocation: theological explorations (washington, d.c.: the catholic university of america press, 2004), 42-43. israel was to be a servant nation that mediated the knowledge of god to the gentiles (dt 4:5-8; ex 8:10; 9:14; 14:4, 18; 18:11). the prophets elaborate on the theme of israel’s holiness and mission/witness (is 2:2-4; 41:8; 42:6; 43:10; 44:1-2, 8, 21; 49:3-6; 60:3; 61:6; 62:12; zec 8:23; 14:16-21). from the second temple period, ex 19:6 is attested in peter’s correspondence (1 pt 2:9; cf. v. 5) and in qumran literature (4q504; cf. 4q491). philo considers the ex 19:6 calling fundamental to israel’s identity (abr. 56, 98; cf. legat. 3; mos. 1.149; praem. 114; spec. 1.97, 168; qe 2.42). see peder borgen, “philo and the jews in alexandria,” in ethnicity in hellenistic egypt, eds. per bilde, troels engberg-pedersen, lise hannestad and jan zahle (aarhus: aarhus university, 1992), 135; david winston, “philo’s ethical theory,” in anrw, eds. h. temporini and w. haase (berlin: de gruyter, 1984), 398-399. he compares the jewish nation’s role to a king’s royal estate and to a priest who ministers on behalf of a city (plant. 54-60; spec. 2.163-67). 20 see joseph sievers, “‘god’s gifts and call are irrevocable’: the reception of romans 11:29 through the centuries and christian-jewish relations,” in reading israel in romans: legitimacy and plausibility of divergent interpretations, eds. cristina grenholm and daniel patte (harrisburg: trinity press international, 2000), 127-173. 21 c. e. b. cranfield (a critical and exegetical commentary on the epistle to the romans ii [icc; t&t clark, 1979], 581) comments on rom 11:29, “by hj klhvsiß here we may understand god’s calling of israel to be his special people, to stand in a special relation to himself, and to fulfil a special function in history. compare paul’s use of klhto\ß in connexion with his own call to be an apostle (i.i).” the pairing of “gifts” with “calling” in rom 11:29 supports the case that klhvsiß is an election for service alongside sonship. the gifts mentioned in rom 3:1-2 and 9:4-5 (commonly recognized as antecedents of ta» cari÷smata in rom 11:29) enable israel to fulfil its servant calling. they equip and empower the jewish nation to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. 22 adolf von harnack, the date of the acts and of the synoptic gospels, trans. j. r. wilkinson (nts 4; new york: williams & norgate, 1911), 47. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 assimilate or gentilize yourself).23 the graphic language is a likely allusion to 1 macc 1:11-15 (c. 100 bce) where the expression “removed the marks of circumcision” is linked to dejudaization and the adoption of gentile customs that collapse jew-gentile distinction: in those days certain renegades came out from israel and misled many, saying, “let us go and make a covenant with the gentiles around us, for since we separated from them many disasters have come upon us.” this proposal pleased them, and some of the people eagerly went to the king, who authorized them to observe the ordinances of the gentiles. so they built a gymnasium in jerusalem, according to gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision (kai« e˙poi÷hsan e˚autoi √ß aókrobusti÷aß), and abandoned the holy covenant (kai« aópe÷sthsan aópo\ diaqh/khß ajgi÷aß). they joined with the gentiles and sold themselves to do evil (1 macc 1:11-15; italics mine). notably, the clause “and removed the marks of circumcision” (1 macc 1:15) is immediately followed by the words “and abandoned the holy covenant.” the two are interrelated since circumcision is pars pro toto language for jewish life as it relates to law, covenant and customs.24 in the first century, philo makes the same correlation by placing circumcision at the beginning of his discussion on the special laws (cf. 1 macc 1.48, 60-61; 2.46; 2 macc 6.10; josephus, ant. 13.257-58, 318; jub. 15.25-34). james dunn explains: circumcision was not merely a single act of law-keeping. it was the first act of full covenant membership and obligation. “circumcision” could stand metonymically for a whole people precisely because it characterized a people’s whole existence, a complete way of life. as christians today speak of a “baptismal life,” so we could speak of a “circumcision life.”25 23 “let him not undo his circumcision...paul is thinking of more than a surgical operation, of one kind or another. the converted jew continues to be a jew, with his own appointed way of obedience” (barrett, a commentary on the first epistle to the corinthians, 168). gundry-volf concurs with a metonymic interpretation of mh\ e˙pispa¿sqw (judith m. gundry-volf, “beyond difference? paul’s vision of a new humanity in galatians 3.28,” in gospel and gender: a trinitarian engagement with being male and female in christ, ed. douglas a. campbell [london: t&t clark, 2003], 19). see also richard b. hays, first corinthians (interpretation; louisville: john knox, 1997), 122; fee, the first epistle to the corinthians, 312 n. 27; conzelmann, a commentary on the first epistle to the corinthians, 126 n. 10. contra winter who argues that 1 cor 7:20 refers to epispasm operations (bruce w. winter, seek the welfare of the city: christians as benefactors and citizens [grand rapids: eerdmans, 1994], 146-164). winter, however, offers no direct evidence that epispasm was common enough in the first century to warrant paul making a “rule in all the churches” (v. 17) banning the operation. more recently, braxton (the tyranny of resolution, 165170) has argued for a non-metonymic reading of mh\ e˙pispa¿sqw but with less evidence than winter. it should be noted that the metonymic and non-metonymic positions are not mutually exclusive. a metonymic interpretation of 1 cor 7:20 would include epispasm among the diverse ways that jews could assimilate into gentile identity and lifestyle. even if winter and braxton were correct, the underlying principle in the context of 1 cor 7:17-24 would be the same: jews should remain in their calling as jews and not take on gentile calling. 24 josephus’ retelling of 1 macc 1:11-15 brings out this interconnection. according to josephus, “…they were desirous to leave the laws of their country, and the jewish way of living according to them, and to follow the king’s laws, and the grecian way of living: wherefore they desired his permission to build them a gymnasium at jerusalem. and when he had given them leave they also hid the circumcision of their genitals, that even when they were naked they might appear to be greeks. accordingly, they left off all the customs that belonged to their own country, and imitated the practices of the other nations” (josephus, ant. 12.240-241; italics mine). 25 james d. g. dunn, “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, but...(gal 5.2-12; 6.12-16; cf. 1 cor 7.17-20),” in la foi agissant par l’amour (galates 4,12─6,16) (rome: benedictina, 1996), 86. cf. james d. g. dunn, “what was the issue between paul and ‘those of the circumcision?’” in paulus und das antike judentum, eds. martin hengel and ulrich heckel (tübingen: mohrsiebeck, 1991), 297. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 like philo, paul views circumcision in metonymic terms. he divides humanity into two groups: the circumcised and those with foreskin (gal 2:7-9;26 5:3; rom 2:25-27; 3:30; 4:9-16; 15:8; phil 3:3; cf. eph 2:11; col 3:11; 4:11).27 rom 2:25 and gal 5:3 confirms that paul linked circumcision to law observance. in rom 2:25─“circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision (peritomh/) has become uncircumcision (aókrobusti÷a)”28─paul describes circumcision as integrally related to torah observance (jewish identity), and lack of torah observance is indicative of foreskin (gentile identity). circumcision is incomplete without the circumcised life. in galatians 5:3, paul makes the same point in more explicit language─“once again i testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised (peritemnome÷nw)̂ that he is obliged to obey the entire law (o¢lon to\n no/mon)”─paul uses circumcision here as pars pro toto language for keeping all of god’s commandments. the apostle upholds the second temple jewish understanding that ritual circumcision initiates one into the covenant. covenant responsibilities (detailed in the law) are binding on the circumcised one.29 as dunn puts it, “‘the jewish way of life’ was a complete package” (cf. mt 5:18-19; jas 2:10).30 following this line of thought, dieter mitternacht contends that galatians 5:3 should be read straight up as “whoever is circumcised (including paul) is obligated to observe the whole law.”31 paul’s words appear to imply that he was living the circumcised life. otherwise, his words would have had no force: if the galatians did not know paul as a torah-observant jew, then the rhetoric of 5:3 would have no bite: “i testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law.” otherwise, they might simply respond, “but we want only what you have: jewish identity, without obligation to observe ‘the whole law.’”32 against this second temple jewish backdrop, harnack understood paul’s “rule in all the churches” (v. 17b)─mh\ e˙pispa¿sqw (do not assimilate or gentilize yourself)─as an imperatival instruction to “remain faithful to the customs and ordinances of the fathers.”33 since the law was 26 the distinction between jewish and gentile identity in christ is so fundamental that paul can speak of “the gospel of the foreskin” (to\ eujagge÷lion thvß aókrobusti÷aß) and “the [gospel] of the circumcised” (thvß peritomhvß) (gal 2:7). contra walker who rejects pauline authorship of these words (william o walker, “galatians 2:7b-8 as a non-pauline interpolation,” the catholic biblical quarterly 65 [2003]: 580). the two gospels may reflect the lifestyle callings noted in 1 cor 7:18. 27 paul’s inclusion of women under the categories of circumcised and foreskin adds to the case for a metonymic interpretation of 1 cor 7:18. for a discussion of the covenant identity of jewish females, see shaye j. d. cohen, why aren’t jewish women circumcised? gender and covenant in judaism (los angeles: university of california press, 2005), 111-142. 28 see joel marcus, “the circumcision and the uncircumcision in rome,” new testament studies 35 (1989): 76. 29 shaye j. d cohen, the beginnings of jewishness: boundaries, varieties, uncertainties (berkeley: university of california press, 1999), 218-219, 324-325. 30 dunn, “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision,” 88. 31 dieter mitternacht, “foolish galatians?─a recipient-oriented assessment of paul’s letter,” in the galatians debate: contemporary issues in rhetorical and historical interpretation (peabody: hendrickson, 2002), 409. see mark d. nanos, “paul and judaism: why not paul’s judaism?” in paul unbound: other perspectives on the apostle, ed. mark d. given (peabody: hendrickson, 2010), 151-152. 32 mark d. nanos, the galatians debate: contemporary issues in rhetorical and historical interpretation (peabody: hendrickson, 2002), 405. also mark d. nanos, “rethinking the ‘paul and judaism’ paradigm” (paper presented at the yale postgrad seminar, march 3, 2005), 21; markus bockmuehl, jewish law in gentile churches: halakhah and the beginning of christian public ethics (edinburgh: t & t, 2000), 171. 33 harnack, the date of the acts, 43. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 fundamental to jewish identity,34 harnack concluded that, by implication, paul encouraged jesus-believing jews to remain law observant. in harnack’s view, the jewish christian is to keep the law because in it is given the manner of life which god had willed for him. hence the whole law continues to exist as custom and ordinance for jewish christians.35 harnack’s interpretation of 1 cor 7:18 and 20 is strengthened by paul’s use of nomistic language in 1 cor 7:19b─“but obeying the commandments of god” (aólla» th/rhsiß e˙ntolw ◊n qeouv)36─as peter tomson has argued: i conclude that the observance of distinct sets of commandments by jewish and gentile christians was the basic principle of paul’s missionary work, and he laid it down in the rule, “circumcision is nothing and the foreskin is nothing, but keeping god’s commandments.”37 in support of tomson’s contention, it is notable that “‘keeping the commandments of god’ is similar to the exhortation that the corinthians conduct their lives in a way that is in accordance with their call from god (v. 17).”38 if the klh/sei (calling to a particular way of life) differed 34 carl r. holladay, “paul and his predecessors in the diaspora: some reflections on ethnic identity in the fragmentary hellenistic jewish authors,” in early christianity and classical culture: comparative studies in honor of abraham j. malherbe, eds. john t. fitzgerald, thomas h. olbright and l. michael white (leiden: brill, 2003), 456-457; james d. g. dunn, jesus, paul and the law: studies in mark and galatians (louisville: westminster/john knox, 1990), 179-181, 221. 35 harnack, the date of the acts, 44. harnack held that the promises of god to the jewish nation were still valid from paul’s perspective (rom 11:12-15, 25-27) (adolf von harnack, the acts of the apostles, trans. j. r. wilkinson [nts 3; new york: williams & norgate, 1909], 282, 288; harnack, the date of the acts, 46). jesus-believing jews were to live out israel’s call to be a priestly nation and serve as conduits of spiritual blessing to the gentiles (rom 15:27). jews needed to remain law observant in order to fulfil israel’s eschatological calling: “for if the nation no longer observes its law, then it is no longer the jewish nation; and thus there is now no nation for which the special promise belonging to the jewish nation can be fulfilled. thus life in accordance with the law must continue” (harnack, the date of the acts, 51). 36 thielman has shown that the expression “obeying the commandments of god” (th/rhsiß e˙ntolw ◊n qeouv) occurs throughout second temple jewish literature and consistently means “keeping the law of moses” (frank thielman, “the coherence of paul’s view of the law: the evidence of first corinthians,” new testament studies 38 [1992]: 237-240). 37 peter j. tomson, “paul’s jewish background in view of his law teaching in 1 cor 7,” in paul and the mosaic law, ed. james d. g. dunn (grand rapids: eerdmans, 2001), 267-268. see also peter j. tomson, paul and the jewish law: halakha in the letters of the apostle to the gentiles (minneapolis: fortress, 1990) for evidence of halakhic reasoning in 1 cor 7-10. not a few scholars have arrived at the same conclusion as tomson: “it is clear that paul throughout his life continued to practice judaism: and that he expected jewish converts to do so, cf. 1 cor 7:18…” (w. l. knox, st. paul and the church of jerusalem [cambridge: cambridge university press, 1925], 122 n. 54); “paul observed the law, and that in the pharisaic manner, throughout his life. in 1 cor 7:18 he implies that obedience to it is his duty…” (w. d. davies, paul and rabbinic judaism: some rabbinic elements in pauline theology [philadelphia: fortress, 1980], 70); “saul expected those of his converts who were judahists to continue to practice judahism and to respect its laws (1 cor 7:19) and he expected the same of himself. anything else would have been hypocritical: it was only the gentile followers of yeshua to whom the finite rules of torah did not apply, at least not fully” (donald h. akenson, saint saul: a skeleton key to the historical jesus [oxford: oxford university press, 2000], 252); “paul nowhere suggests that jews should reject their torah observance, and in fact seems to assume that they would and should remain committed to it (1 cor 7:17-20; cf. gal 5:3; acts 21:17-24)” (douglas harink, paul among the postliberals: pauline theology beyond christendom and modernity [grand rapids: brazos, 2003], 219); “the apostle himself in 1 corinthians 7:17-20 makes clear that his ‘rule for all the churches’ is for jews to keep the torah (indeed gal 5:3, too, may mean they are obliged to do so) and for gentiles to keep what pertains to them─and only that. in either case, what matters are the applicable commandments of god” (bockmuehl, jewish law in gentile churches, 170-171); gudrund holtz, damit gott sei alles in allem: studien zum paulinischen und frühjüdischen universalismus (berlin: de gruyter, 2007), 247-250. 38 collins, first corinthians, 284. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 between jew and gentile (1 cor 7:18-20), it is plausible that paul, a first century jew from a pharisaic background, held that god’s commandments for jews and gentiles differed as well.39 i conclude that paul’s statement in 1 cor 7:18─mh\ e˙pispa¿sqw (“do not put on foreskin”)─required jesus-believing jews to continue to live the circumcised life as a matter of calling and not to assimilate into gentile lifestyle (1 cor 7:17-20). paul’s indifference to jewish difference but what of 1 cor 7:19a where paul says, “circumcision is nothing (oujde÷n), and uncircumcision is nothing (oujde÷n)”?40 here paul seems to indicate that jewish identity is relativized to the point of indifference in christ. david horrell argues that “nothing” or “not anything” points to unimportance.41 but given the context of 1 cor 7:19, oujde÷n is more likely “related strictly to salvation,”42 that is, “neither circumcision nor the lack of circumcision has ultimate bearing on salvation.”43 with respect to status before god and eschatological blessing, being jewish or gentile is irrelevant. i contend that paul uses hyperbole in these passages to stress that being “in christ” is more important than being jewish. this means that being jewish could still be very important to paul.44 he is simply relativizing a to b. in support of this reading of 1 cor 7:19b, there are several occasions when paul uses “nothing” (oujde÷n) or “not anything” (ou¡te...ti) language in a clearly hyperbolic way. first, with respect to the work of planting the corinthian congregation, paul describes himself as nothing compared to the lord: 39 what were the “commandments of god” for gentile believers? given that luke portrays paul as delivering the apostolic decree to gentile believers, and the likelihood that paul wrote 1 corinthians after the acts 15 jerusalem council decision (acts 18:1-18), it is reasonable to assume (from a canonical perspective) that “keeping the commandments of god” for gentiles included the responsibility to “obey the regulations” (fula¿ssein ta» do/gmata [acts 16:4]), the four “requirements” (e˙pa¿nagkeß), listed in the apostolic decree (acts 15:28; 21:25). one of these “regulations/requirements” was to “abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols” (ei˙dwloqu/twn). paul’s instructions in 1 cor 8:1–11:1 can be interpreted to mean that gentile believers in corinth were to abstain from what they knew to be idol-food. marcel simon considers 1 cor 8:1–11:1 to “represent a sort of commentary on the decree” (“the apostolic decree and its setting in the ancient church,” in le christianisme antique et son contexte religieux: scripta varia ii [tübingen: mohr-siebeck, 1981], 429-430). notably, this is not a recent view. the early church fathers read paul “in light of the decree, which was assumed to have the full authority of the apostles” (john c. brunt, “rejected, ignored, or misunderstood? the fate of paul’s approach to the problem of food offered to idols in early christianity,” new testament studies 31 [1985]: 113-124). 40 cf. gal 5:6; 6:15. 41 david g. horrell, “‘no longer jew or greek’: paul’s corporate christology and the construction of christian community,” in christology, controversy and community: new testament essays in honour of david r. catchpole, eds. david g. horrell and christopher m. tuckett (leiden: brill, 2000), 343; david g. horrell, solidarity and difference: a contemporary reading of paul’s ethics (london: t&t clark, 2005), 18, 260 n. 50. 42 conzelmann, a commentary on the first epistle to the corinthians, 126. 43 collins, first corinthians, 284. also j. brian tucker, “negotiated identity and paul’s rhetoric: the use of social identity and self-categorization theory in the corinthian correspondence to support the pauline mission,” centre for rhetoric and hermeneutics and the new testament rhetoric project, redlands, ca, january 19-20, 2007, 17; campbell, paul and the creation of christian identity, 91-93; mark s. kinzer, postmissionary messianic judaism: redefining christian engagement with the jewish people (grand rapids: brazos, 2005), 72-75; tomson, “paul’s jewish background in view of his law teaching in 1 cor 7,” 266; pamela eisenbaum, “is paul the father of misogyny and antisemitism?” cross currents 50 (2000-01): 515; thiselton, the first epistle to the corinthians, 550; carol j. schlueter, filling up the measure: polemical hyperbole in 1 thessalonians 2.14-16 (jsntss 98; sheffield: jsot press, 1994), 126f. 44 wayne a. meeks, “the christian proteus,” in the writings of st. paul: a norton critical edition, ed. wayne a. meeks (new york: w. w. norton & co., 1972), 442; william s. campbell, “the crucible of christian identity: paul between synagogue and state” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the british new testament conference, birmingham, 2003). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 what then is apollos? what is paul? servants through whom you came to believe, as the lord assigned to each. i planted, apollos watered, but god gave the growth. so neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything (ou¡te...e˙sti÷n ti ou¡te), but only god who gives the growth (1 cor 3:5-7). are paul and apollos truly nothing? did they really do no work of any significance? on the contrary, their work was vital to the establishment of the corinthian congregation. but relative to what god did, the miracle of changing lives, their work was nothing. similarly, paul writes in 2 cor 12:11, “i am not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though i am nothing (oujde÷n ei˙mi).” again, was paul─the apostle to the gentiles─truly “nothing”? or is he saying that, relative to the lord, he is nothing, even as relative to the super-apostles he is something? another example of paul relativizing two important works of god is 2 cor 3:6-11. here paul contrasts the glory of moses’ ministry with the ministry of the spirit. though god performed miracles through moses’ ministry that were unparalleled in history, paul refers to moses’ ministry as having no glory now, for “what once had splendor has come to have no splendor at all, because of the splendour that surpasses it.” it all pales in comparison. moreover, three times paul uses a kal vachomer (a fortiori) argument to compare old covenant and new covenant experiences of the presence and power of god (vv. 8, 9, 11). both are truly glorious revelations of the god of israel, but one is more glorious than the other. to emphasize the “surpassing glory,” paul uses language that downplays the sinai revelation. but it is wrong to mistake this as trivialization of the old covenant glory.45 it is instead a rhetorical device intended to highlight the greater glory. he refers to something genuinely important to emphasize what is even more important. it is likely that paul uses the same rhetorical device when he refers to circumcision and uncircumcision as “nothing.” second, paul’s manner of expression (oujde÷n...aólla»») in 1 cor 7:19 is consistent with the jewish idiom of dialectic negation in which the “‘not...but...’ antithesis need not be understood as an ‘either...or,’ but rather with the force of ‘more important than.’”46 consider, for example, how the prophet hosea makes the same kind of hyperbolic-comparison statement when he speaks in the name of the lord, “for i desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of god rather than burnt offerings” (hos 6:6). sacrifices were important, for the lord commanded them, but “steadfast love” was even more important. to emphasize this, the lord states that he does not desire sacrifice. the negative statement should be taken as hyperbole; it is a hebrew rhetorical device. a variation of this is found in the letter of aristeas 234. see also mark 2:17 and 7:15.47 third, paul’s anti-circumcision language (directed at gentiles) in galatians can be understood as upholding jew-gentile distinction rather than collapsing it. “circumcising gentiles would have made jews and gentiles all the same. paul’s vehement rejection of circumcision demonstrates 45 scott hafemann, paul, moses, and the history of israel: the letter/spirit contrast and the argument from scripture in 2 corinthians 3 (wunt 81; tübingen: mohr-siebeck, 1995), 321-327. 46 dunn, jesus, paul and the law, 51. cf. e. p. sanders, jesus and judaism (philadelphia: fortress, 1985), 260-264; roger p. booth, jesus and the laws of purity: tradition history and legal history in mark 7 (sheffield: sheffield academic press, 1986), 69-70; jonathan klawans, impurity and sin in ancient judaism (oxford: oxford university press, 2000), 147. 47 klawans, impurity and sin in ancient judaism, 147; david j. rudolph, “jesus and the food laws: a reassessment of mark 7:19b,” evangelical quarterly 74:4 (2002): 297-298. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 his commitment to maintaining jews and gentiles as different and distinct, and militates strongly against seeing paul’s goal as creating human homogeneity.”48 consistent with his 1 cor 7:17-24 rule in all the churches, paul refers to “jews” and “gentiles” (greeks) in his letters.49 to peter, who withdrew from eating with jesus-believing “gentiles” (gal 2:12), he says, “you are a jew” (gal 2:14). the writer of colossians 4:10-11 refers to aristarchus, mark and justus as “the only ones of the circumcision among my co-workers for the kingdom of god.” by contrast, titus is a “greek” (gal 2:3). in romans 11:13, paul writes, “now i am speaking to you gentiles.” all of this suggests that, for paul, the jew-gentile distinction is preserved, not erased in christ.50 “he accepts, and even insists on retaining, the differences as ethnic-identity markers at the same time as he strips them of soteriological significance.”51 paul and the jerusalem council luke’s portrait of paul adds canonical and conciliar weight to the above interpretation of paul’s “rule in all the churches.” acts depicts paul stating that (1) jesus-believing gentiles do not need to take on torah observance as proselytes (acts 15:1-5, 22-31) and (2) jesus-believing jews should not assimilate into gentile identity (acts 21:20-26). luke describes the jerusalem council as adopting paul’s position and then commissioning paul to deliver the apostolic “decree,” the “requirements,” to a number of churches for them “to obey” (acts 15:28; 16:4). six chapters later, in acts 21:25, luke delineates the jerusalem council decision as applicable to all jesusbelieving gentiles. patristic evidence indicates that the “apostolic decree” (as it came to be called) was widely observed in the catholic church.52 what are the implications of the acts 15 conciliar decree for jesus-believing jews? this is a question that has been largely overlooked by theologians. the jerusalem apostles and elders ruled that “brothers of gentile origin” (aódelfoi √ß toi √ß e˙x e˙qnw ◊n) were exempt from the requirement of circumcision (acts 15:23). gentiles did not need to become jews and live the circumcised life in order to be saved. at the same time, the jerusalem ruling gave no indication that jesus-believing jews were exempt from the responsibilities of jewish covenantal life. as f. scott spencer points out, “the representatives at the jerusalem conference─including paul─agreed only to release gentile believers from the obligation of circumcision; the possibility of nullifying this covenantal duty for jewish disciples was never considered.”53 if the jerusalem 48 eisenbaum, “is paul the father of misogyny and antisemitism?” 518; mark d. nanos, the mystery of romans: the jewish context of paul’s letter (minneapolis: fortress, 1996), 116 n. 84. circumcision remained a “principal marker of jewishness” for paul. see james d. g. dunn, “the jew paul and his meaning for israel,” in a shadow of glory: reading the new testament after the holocaust, ed. tod linafelt (new york: routledge, 2002), 209; james d. g. dunn, “who did paul think he was? a study of jewish-christian identity,” new testament studies 45 (1999): 189-190; dunn, “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision,” 82. 49 for a discussion of the term “greeks,” see christopher d. stanley, “‘neither jew nor greek’: ethnic conflict in graeco-roman society,” journal for the study of the new testament 64 (1996): 101-124. 50 denise k. buell, why this new race: ethnic reasoning in early christianity (new york: columbia university press, 2005), 76; denise k. buell and caroline j. hodge, “the politics of interpretation: the rhetoric of race and ethnicity in paul,” journal of biblical literature 123 (2004): 247-250; kathy ehrensperger, paul and the dynamics of power: communication and interaction in the early christ-movement (lnts 325; london: t&t clark, 2007), 192-193. 51 gundry-volf, “beyond difference?” 21. 52 richard bauckham, “james and the jerusalem church,” in the book of acts in its palestinian setting, ed. richard bauckham (carlisle: the paternoster press, 1995), 464; richard bauckham, “james and the jerusalem community,” in jewish believers in jesus: the early centuries, ed. oskar skarsaune (peabody: hendrickson, 2007), 74-75; tomson, paul and the jewish law, 178. 53 f. scott spencer, acts (sheffield: sheffield academic press, 1997), 159. i interpret acts 15:10-11 to mean that jews experience soteriological blessing “through the grace of the lord jesus” and not by torah observance according to the standards of pharisaic studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 leadership had viewed circumcision as optional for jews, there would have been no point debating the question of exemption for gentiles or delivering a letter specifically addressed to gentiles. michael wyschogrod rightly notes that both parties at the jerusalem council shared the assumption that circumcision and torah observance remained obligatory for jesus-believing jews: from this episode [acts 15], a clear conclusion can be drawn. the jerusalem community harbored two parties. there were those who believed that gentile believers in jesus had to be circumcised and accept full torah obedience as part of their conversion to jesus. others in the jerusalem community of jesus believers believed that gentiles did not have to be circumcised but their faith in jesus together with a version of the noachide commandments was sufficient. but it is clear that both parties agreed that circumcision and torah obedience remained obligatory for jewish jesus believers since, if this were not the case, one could hardly debate whether circumcision and torah obedience were obligatory for gentiles. such a debate could only arise if both parties agreed on the lasting significance of the mosaic law for jews. where they differed was its applicability to gentiles. but both sides agreed that jewish believers in jesus remained obligated to circumcision and the mosaic law. the verdict of the first jerusalem council then is that the church is to consist of two segments, united by their faith in jesus.54 the jerusalem council decision presumes that jews will (and should) remain jews in keeping with the “covenant of circumcision” (acts 7:8; gn 17:9-14).55 in acts 21:17-26─the mirror text of acts 15─this theologoumenon is made explicit.56 here paul sets the record straight that the rumors about him are false57 (i.e. he does not teach jews to assimilate but to remain faithful jews) even as paul himself lives as a torah observant jew.58 halakhah (note the pharisaic context of the demands in acts 15:5). it does not follow from this statement that peter considered jesus-believing jews exempt from the responsibilities of jewish covenantal life stipulated in the torah or that he considered these responsibilities necessary for salvation. he may have viewed them as commandments of god for jews, the observance of which did not have a direct bearing on salvation. similarly, the apostolic decree lists a number of ritual “requirements” (e˙pa¿nagkeß) for jesus-believing gentiles (acts 15:28-29) but there is no indication that they are necessary for salvation. 54 michael wyschogrod, “letter to a friend,” modern theology 2 (1995): 170-171; cf. daniel marguerat, “paul and the torah in the acts of the apostles,” in the torah in the new testament: papers delivered at the manchester-lausanne seminar of june 2008, eds. michael tait and peter oakes (london: t&t clark, 2009), 111-117; scot mcknight, “jesus and james on israel and purity,” in james the just and christian origins, eds. bruce chilton and craig a. evans (leiden: brill, 1999), 110; bruce d. chilton and jacob neusner, judaism in the new testament: practice and beliefs (london: routledge, 1995), 108. 55 paul thus circumcises timothy (acts 16:3), the son of a jewish mother, as a testimony that jews should circumcise their sons. luke refers to jesus-believing jews as the “circumcised” (peritomhvß) in acts 10:45 and 11:2. 56 in acts 21, james anticipates paul’s concern that a public testimony of torah faithfulness may be misinterpreted by jesusbelieving gentiles to mean that they too should be torah observant. james reassures paul that the gentile believers will not misunderstand because “as for the gentiles who have become believers, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication” (acts 21:25). here james points back to the acts 15 jerusalem council decision that exempted jesus-believing gentiles from full torah observance: “james parallels the necessity of jews keeping the law with the necessity of gentiles to keep the apostolic decree (21:25)” (chris a. miller, “the relationship of jewish and gentile believers to the law between a.d. 30 and 70 in the scripture” [ph.d. diss., dallas theological seminary, 1994], 142; cf. bauckham, “james and the jerusalem church,” 475; wyschogrod, “letter to a friend,” 170; heiner ganser-kerperin, das zeugnis des tempels. studien zur bedeutung des tempelmotivs im lukanischen doppelwerk [münster: aschendorff, 2000], 275 n. 15). this is reinforced by luke’s use of fula¿ssw in acts 16:4 (in reference to gentile observance of the apostolic decree) and in acts 21:24 (in reference to paul’s torah observance). 57 subsequent to acts 21, paul confirms three times that his life and teachings are consistent with the torah (acts 24:14-18; 25:8; 28:17). once he refers to himself in the present tense as a pharisee (acts 23:6). 58 rudolph, a jew to the jews, 55-73. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 factoring in luke’s account, we conclude that there are two universal rules in the new testament that enjoin jews to remain jews, and gentiles to remain gentiles─one authorized by paul (1 cor 7:17-24) and the other by the jerusalem apostles (acts 15). paul’s direct involvement in delivering the apostolic decree to the churches (acts 15:22−16:5) would furthermore suggest from a canonical perspective that these two rules are really two apostolic expressions of the same rule in principle.59 many jesus-believers today view the apostles’ creed and the canons (rules) of the ecumenical councils convened in the fourth through ninth centuries as authoritative standards of christian life and doctrine. how much more should contemporary jesus-believers find significance in paul’s rule and the jerusalem council’s apostolic decree─universal directives that go back to the beginnings of the church and that reflect full apostolic authority. the effects of the church not keeping paul’s rule paul’s rule instructs the circumcised to remain circumcised and not to become uncircumcised. throughout most of church history, however, the church’s policy has been the exact opposite─jews who believed in jesus were expected to leave behind their jewish identity and assimilate into gentile christianity. as an example of this sentiment, jerome wrote to augustine in 404 c.e.─“since they [jesus-believing jews] want to be both jews and christians, they are neither jews nor christians” (epist. 112.13; 75.13). augustine replied to jerome that “the jewish ceremonies are to christians both hurtful and fatal, and that whoever observes them, whether he was originally jew or gentile, is on his way to the pit of perdition” (epist. 82.18).60 a number of regional and ecumenical councils, beginning with the council of elvira in c. 305 c.e., prohibited christians from associating with jews and observing jewish ceremonies. the second council of nicea (787 c.e.) was the first ecumenical council to explicitly ban jesus-believing jews, who lived as jews, from the church (canon 8). baptized jews were expected to renounce all ties to jewish life through confessions like the following: i do here and now renounce every rite and observance of the jewish religion, detesting all its most solemn ceremonies and tenets that in former days i kept and held. in the future i will practice no rite or celebration connected with it, nor any custom of my past error, promising neither to seek it out nor to perform it (of erwig, leg. vis. 12.3.14).61 because the church did not keep paul’s rule, it became a broken family. it became an all-gentile church with a persona non grata view of practicing jews, a deformity never envisioned by jesus and his apostles. a church of jews and gentiles markus barth wrote in 1969, “the church is the bride of christ only when it is the church of jews and gentiles…the existence, building, and growth of the church are identified with the common 59 see conzelmann, a commentary on the first epistle to the corinthians, 126 n. 12. 60 augustine held that paul lived during a transitional age when god permitted jesus-believing jews to remain jews in honor of the “divine authority and the prophetic holiness of the sacraments” (epist. 82). 61 james parkes, the conflict of the church and the synagogue: a study in the origins of antisemitism (new york: atheneum, 1985), 395. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 existence, structure, and growth of jews and gentiles.”62 why is this? it is because the church is a prolepsis of israel and the nations in the eschaton. interdependence and mutual blessing between jew and gentile reflects the raison d’être of the church and anticipates the consummation when israel and the nations, in torah-defined unity and diversity, will worship adonai alone. as george howard asserted in 1979, a jew-gentile church testifies to the oneness of god and the ultimate plan of god: the gospel as paul preached it demanded a continued ethnic distinctiveness between jews and gentiles in order that…[adonai], the god of the hebrews, could be conceptualized by both jews and gentiles as the god of all nations…this is certainly his point of view in rom. 3:29-30 where he says: “or is god the god of the jews only? is he not the god of the gentiles also? yes, of the gentiles also, since god is one.” his thought is: if god is one he must be the god of both jews and gentiles. belief in…[adonai] as the one universal god thus demanded mutual recognition between jews and gentiles that they both belonged to the same god. we may even go further and say that any attempt on either side to erase the ethnic and cultural nature of the other would be to destroy paul’s particular concept of unity between jews and gentiles…in romans 11 paul describes god as maneuvering israel and the nations in such a way as eventually to include all within his kingdom (cf. rom. 11:11-36). thus it is necessary for paul’s thought to distinguish ethnically between jews and gentiles since each had an ethnic role to play in the salvation of the other. the ultimate goal, in paul’s mind, was the mutual recognition of each under the divine rule of…[adonai], the god of abraham…paul’s particular insistence on unity between jews and gentiles, as opposed to some nebulous concept of world unity, gives the continued observance of the law on the part of jewish christianity an important role to play within his gospel…all of this is to say that with paul salvation is the unification of uncircumcised, non-torah-abiding gentiles with circumcised, torah-abiding jews under the one divine headship of…[adonai], the god of abraham.63 countering paul van buren’s argument that “only one jew is essential to the church and that is the jew jesus,”64 isaac rottenberg points out that “jewish-gentile unity belongs to the esse [being], not 62 markus barth, israel and the church: contributions for a dialogue vital for peace (richmond: john knox, 1969), 90-91. 63 george howard, paul: crisis in galatia. a study in early christian theology (sntsms 35; cambridge: cambridge university press, 1979), 66, 79-81. magnus zetterholm, the formation of christianity in antioch: a social-scientific approach to the separation between judaism and christianity (london: routledge, 2003), 158 maintains that pauline ecclesiology is rooted in jewish eschatology, “paul thus simultaneously obliterates and accentuates the differences between jews and gentiles. they are certainly ‘one in christ,’ but it is precisely as ‘jews’ and ‘gentiles’ that they constitute this unity. in building up this theological construction, paul makes use of traditions deeply embedded in his own religious tradition. monotheism, the eschatological pilgrimage of the gentiles, and covenantal nomism are combined with a firm conviction of living in the messianic age.” cf. bockmuehl, jewish law in gentile churches, 81; nanos, the mystery of romans, 181-184; william horbury, “jerusalem in prepauline and pauline hope,” in messianism among jews and christians: twelve biblical and historical studies (london: t&t clark, 2003), 218, 223; william horbury, “land, sanctuary and worship,” in early christian thought in its jewish context, eds. john barclay and john sweet (cambridge: cambridge university press, 1996), 221-222; scott hafemann, “eschatology and ethics: the future of israel and the nations in romans 15:1-13,” tyndale bulletin 51 (2000): 174, 186, 190-191; w. d. davies, “paul and the people of israel,” in jewish and pauline studies (philadelphia: fortress, 1984), 139, 141; douglas harink, “paul and israel: an apocalyptic reading” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the society of biblical literature, philadelphia, november 2005), 1-26; kinzer, postmissionary messianic judaism, 151-179; john howard yoder, the jewish-christian schism revisited, eds. michael g. cartwright and peter ochs (grand rapids: eerdmans, 2003), 31-35, 69; brad r. braxton, no longer slaves: galatians and african-american experience (collegeville: the liturgical press, 2002), 69, 72; seth turner, “the interim, earthly messianic kingdom in paul,” journal for the study of the new testament 25:3 (2003): 323-342; l. joseph kreitzer, jesus and god in paul’s eschatology (jsntss 19; sheffield: jsot press, 1987), 131-170; george wesley buchanan, new testament eschatology: historical and cultural background (lewiston: the edwin mellen press, 1993), 90-120. 64 paul m. van buren, discerning the way (new york: the seabury press, 1980), 155. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 just the bene esse [well-being] of the church.”65 r. kendall soulen has made a formidable case for jew-gentile ecclesiological variegation in his book the god of israel and christian theology: traditionally, the church has understood itself as a spiritual fellowship in which the carnal distinction between jew and gentile no longer applies. the church has declared itself a third and final “race” that transcends and replaces the difference between israel and the nations…the proper therapy for this misunderstanding is a recovery of the church’s basic character as a table fellowship of those who are—and remain—different. the distinction between jew and gentile, being intrinsic to god’s work as the consummator of creation, is not erased but realized in a new way in the sphere of the church. the church concerns the jew as a jew and the gentile as a gentile, not only initially or for the period of a few generations but essentially and at all times.66 increasing numbers of churches today are affirming israel’s irrevocable election and repudiating supersessionism, however, such statements should be concomitant with support for torahdefined ecclesiological variegation. soulen notes that a logical implication of renouncing supersessionism is affirming jew-gentile distinction and jewish continuity within the church: for wyschogrod, the acid test of the church’s theological posture toward israel’s election is the church’s conduct toward jews in its own midst, that is, toward jews who have been baptized…if the church acknowledges the abiding reality of israel’s corporeal election, it will naturally expect baptized jews to maintain faithfully their jewish identity. but if the church truly believes that it has superseded god’s covenant with israel, it will prohibit or discourage jews from preserving their identity as jews and members of the jewish people. in short, the problem of supersessionism turns on the church’s capacity to acknowledge the abiding religious significance of israel’s corporeal election and hence the abiding religious significance of the distinction between gentile and jew.67 soulen and wyschogrod put their finger on the crux of the matter. if the “gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable,” they are irrevocable for all jews, including jesus-believing jews.68 a genuine post-supersessionist church would affirm the irrevocable calling of jesus-believing jews to live as jews and raise their children as jews.69 to put it another way: the church needs to practice paul’s rule today if it is to renounce supersessionism fully and be restored as a body of jews and gentiles. 65 isaac c. rottenberg, jewish christians in an age of christian-jewish dialogue (1995), 99. a collection of essays published “by the family and friends of the author in honor of his 70th birthday for distribution among circles engaged in christian-jewish dialogue.” 66 r. kendall soulen, the god of israel and christian theology (minneapolis: fortress, 1996), 169-170. 67 soulen, the god of israel and christian theology, 11. 68 david novak notes that, according to orthodox judaism, jesus-believing jews remain elect and part of the covenant ─“the important thing to remember when dealing with the issue of the jewish christians is that according to normative judaism, they are still jews. jewish status is defined by the divine election of israel and his descendants...since jews are elected by god, there is absolutely nothing any jew can do to remove himself or herself from the covenant. the rule concerning individual apostates is based on a talmudic judgment about the jewish people as a whole: ‘even when it has sinned, israel is still israel’ (sanhedrin 44a)” (david novak, “when jews are christians,” in the chosen people in an almost chosen nation, ed. richard john neuhaus [grand rapids: eerdmans, 2002], 97). see also david novak, the election of israel: the idea of the chosen people (cambridge: cambridge university press, 1995), 198-199, 235-240; wyschogrod, “letter to a friend,” 167-168; dan cohn-sherbok, messianic judaism (new york: cassell, 2000), 192. 69 see bruce d. marshall, “christ and the cultures: the jewish people and christian theology,” in the cambridge companion to christian doctrine, ed. colin e. gunton (cambridge: cambridge university press, 1997), 82, 91-93. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 practicing paul’s rule today but how can jews remain faithful to the covenant of their fathers in an overwhelmingly gentile church? for wyschogrod, the answer is found in messianic synagogues that promote “sustained jewish torah observance” (consistent with the jerusalem model in acts 15; 21:20-26).70 messianic synagogues, of the kind wyschogrod advocates, are necessary because of the communal nature of jewish life.71 do such communities exist? it is estimated that today there are 400-500 messianic synagogues around the world.72 in north america, the majority of messianic synagogues are affiliated with the union of messianic jewish congregations (umjc) and the international association of messianic congregations and synagogues (iamcs). the umjc defines messianic judaism as “a movement of jewish congregations and congregation-like groupings committed to yeshua [jesus] the messiah that embrace the covenantal responsibility of jewish life and identity rooted in torah, expressed in tradition, renewed and applied in the context of the new covenant” (www.umjc.org). in addition to messianic synagogues, there are messianic jewish theological schools (such as the one i work for in los angeles─messianic jewish theological institute─which recently established a center for jewish-christian relations).73 there are messianic jewish community centers, day schools, hebrew schools, summer camps, israel aliyah programs, women’s organizations, halakhic councils and benevolence organizations that work directly with the israeli knesset (national parliament).74 70 see michael wyschogrod, “response to the respondents,” modern theology 2 (1995): 236-237, 239. 71 david j. rudolph, “messianic jews and christian theology: restoring an historical voice to the contemporary discussion,” pro ecclesia 14:1 (2005): 58-84. 72 david h. stern, messianic judaism: a modern movement with an ancient past (clarksville: lederer, 2007), 271-272. 73 see www.mjti.com. 74 david j. rudolph and joel willitts, eds. introduction to messianic judaism: its ecclesial context and biblical foundations (grand rapids: zondervan, forthcoming 2011); mark s. kinzer, israel’s messiah and the people of god: a vision for messianic jewish covenant fidelity, ed. jennifer rosner (eugene, or: wipf & stock, 2010); matthew levering, “supersessionism and messianic judaism,” in jewish-christian dialogue and the life of wisdom: engagements with the theology of david novak (london: continuum, 2010), 12-46; richard harvey, mapping messianic jewish theology: a constructive approach (milton keynes: paternoster, 2009); peter hocken, “the messianic jewish movement: new current and old reality,” in the challenges of the pentecostal, charismatic and messianic jewish movements (burlington: ashgate, 2009), 97-115; pauline kollontai, “women as leaders: contemporary perspectives on the roles of women in messianic judaism,” women in judaism: a multidisciplinary journal 6:1 (2009): 1-17; mark s. kinzer, “messianic gentiles & messianic jews,” first things 189 (2009): 43studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 18 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 messianic synagogues have proven to be indispensable for living out paul’s rule. over the past twenty years, thousands of jews in churches have embraced their calling to remain jews in a jewish communal context and have sought out messianic synagogues. as a result, messianic synagogues have tripled in number. after three years of researching messianic judaism, sociologist shoshanah feher concluded that messianic jewish families grow in their sense of jewish identity as a result of being part of messianic synagogues, “the congregants show a distinctive trend toward increased jewishness: those who grew up jewish now value their heritage more fully.”75 rabbi carol harris-shapiro concluded her book messianic judaism: a rabbi’s journey through religious change in america with the following words: until now, according to jewish communal expectations, the amount of ritual indicates the strength of jewish identity. quantifiable jewish ritual had dominated sociological research on jewish continuity; what jews do has classified them as “more” or “less” jewish, more or less in touch with the “golden thread” that binds jews to their ancestors and to each other (s. cohen 1988; goldscheider 1986). for example, the 1990 national jewish population survey assumed individuals had a stronger jewish identity if they had regular synagogue attendance, fasted on yom kippur, visited israel, practiced jewish holidays, did not put up a christmas tree, and lit shabbat candles (kosmin, et al. 1991, 35-36). if ritual is the sole measure of jewishness, the messianic believers i knew in the 47; dvir abramovich, “jesus-believing jews in australia: celebrate messiah as a case study,” studies in christian-jewish relations 4:1 (2009): 1-28; david j. rudolph, “contemporary judeo-christian communities in the jewish diaspora,” in encyclopedia of the jewish diaspora: origins, experiences, and culture, ed. m. avrum ehrlich (vol. 1; santa barbara: abcclio, 2008), 146-150; david j. rudolph, “history of judeo-christian communities in the jewish diaspora,” in encyclopedia of the jewish diaspora: origins, experiences, and culture, ed. m. avrum ehrlich (vol. 1; santa barbara: abc-clio, 2008), 136139; keri zelson warshawsky, “returning to their own borders: a social anthropological study of contemporary messianic jewish identity in israel” (ph.d. diss., the hebrew university of jerusalem, 2008); stern, messianic judaism (2007); pauline kollontai, “between judaism and christianity: the case of messianic jews,” journal of religion and society 8 (2006): 1-9; rudolph, “messianic jews and christian theology,” 58-84; kinzer, postmissionary messianic judaism (2005); pauline kollontai, “messianic jews and jewish identity,” journal of modern jewish studies 3:2 (2004): 195-205; cohn-sherbok, messianic judaism (2000); carol harris-shapiro, messianic judaism: a rabbi’s journey through religious change in america (boston: beacon, 1999); shoshanah feher, passing over easter: constructing the boundaries of messianic judaism (walnut creek, ca: altamira, 1998); shoshanah feher, “managing strain, contradictions, and fluidity: messianic judaism and the negotiation of a religioethnic identity,” in contemporary american religion: an ethnographic reader, eds. penny e. becker and nancy l. eiesland (walnut creek: altamira, 1997), 25-50; gershon nerel, “messianic jews in eretz israel, 1917-1967: trends and changes in shaping self identity” (ph.d. diss., the hebrew university of jerusalem, 1995); ruth i. fleischer, “the emergence of distinctively jewish faith in jesus, 1925-1993” (ph.d. diss., king’s college, university of london, 1995); bruce stokes, “messianic judaism: ethnicity in revitalization” (ph.d. diss., university of california, riverside, 1994); david j. rudolph, understanding messianic judaism (denver: union of messianic jewish congregations, 1993); john r. stone, “messianic judaism: a redefinition of the boundary between christian and jew,” research in the social scientific study of religion 3 (1991): 237-252. 75 feher, passing over easter, 140-142. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 19 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 congregation would score favorably, certainly outstripping the average “jew by religion” in their attendance at services and possibly even doing other jewish practices. if doing jewish is being jewish, ironically, messianic jews are more jewish than many born jews.76 the 1990 national jewish population survey (njps) interviewed a broad spectrum of the american jewish community, including messianic jews. one survey question asked: “is being jewish very important in your life?” according to the findings, 100% of all messianic jews interviewed said “yes” to the survey question. this was higher than any other jewish group interviewed, including orthodox (77%), conservative (58%), reform (40%), and reconstructionist (49%).77 sergio dellapergola, who tabulated the results, summed up the significance of the data as follows: not unexpectedly, the perceived importance of being jewish is highest among those who consistently manifest their identity via a religious definition and a clear denominational preference. the expected gradient among the major denominations (orthodox, conservative, reform) emerges. jews who are consistently secular display far lesser interest for being jewish. the amount of interest is quite variable, though generally low among other subgroups with the survey population, including ex-jews. one small group with extremely high percentages of interest in judaism is those preferring the messianic denomination.78 the empirical evidence demonstrates that messianic synagogues make it possible for the church to observe paul’s rule. my own story confirms this assertion. in 1975, my father, a jewish lawyer from new york, became a believer in jesus and began attending a local church. the pastor of the church encouraged my father to visit a messianic synagogue where he would be able to live out faith in jesus in a jewish communal context. this led to my father joining the messianic synagogue. because this pastor upheld paul’s rule (probably more out of instinct than response to 1 cor 7:17-24), i was raised as a messianic jew.79 i now have three daughters, all of whom have been raised in messianic synagogues and identify as messianic jews. my oldest daughter is an undergraduate student at johns hopkins university, and she tells me that she will raise her future children as messianic jews. the messianic synagogue option enabled my parents (both of whom are halakhically jewish) to pass on jewish identity to their children and grandchildren.80 but things could have turned out differently had the pastor not intervened. if the pastor had welcomed my father into his church, without welcoming his jewish calling, the likelihood is that i (like the vast majority of jesus-believing jews who attend gentile churches) would have assimilated into gentile christianity. 76 harris-shapiro, messianic judaism, 186. 77 sergio dellapergola, “new data on demography and identification among jews in the u.s.,” in jewish intermarriage in its social context, ed. paul ritterband (new york: the jewish outreach institute & the center for jewish studies. the graduate school of the city university of new york, 1991), 86. among born jews who identified as “christian,” 21% responded “yes.” 78 dellapergola, “new data on demography and identification among jews in the u.s.,” 84; emphasis mine. 79 i also regularly attended a conservative synagogue with my mother who is not a messianic jew. 80 david j. rudolph, “no pork, just a little: reflections on our college road trip,” jewishjournal.com (november 4, 2009). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 20 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 there are presently over one million christians in the united states who have a jewish parent.81 we do not know how many of these christians of jewish descent attend churches; however, there is little question that the number is in the hundreds of thousands. church leaders who meet these individuals can act on paul’s rule by connecting them with messianic synagogues where the ethos and community life reflects a commitment to jewish covenantal living.82 but how can a church leader uphold paul’s rule if the person or couple does not want to attend a messianic synagogue or if there is no messianic synagogue in the area? to begin with, church leaders can encourage baptized jews to move in the direction of “staying jewish,” and help them toward this end. they can explain to them, on the basis of 1 cor 7:17-24, that being a jew is a calling from god, and that god wants them to keep the covenant of their fathers. the jewish member of a church can be counseled to remain connected to the jewish community, either through a messianic affiliation, a mainstream synagogue, or both. they can be encouraged to study hebrew, attend parsha (torah portion) classes, give tzedakah (charity) and engage in gemilut chasadim (acts of kindness) within the jewish community, to grow in their walk with god and to become better jews. pastoral leaders can advise jews in their churches, including those who are intermarried, to maintain jewish life in their homes through welcoming the shabbat (sabbath), celebrating jewish festivals, keeping kosher and hanging a mezuzah (a small case containing a parchment of dt 6:4-9; 11:13-21 with god’s name written on the back) on their doorpost, among other jewish observances. jewish life is centered in the home. the church leader may be able to work closely with a local rabbi (messianic or mainstream) who is willing to assist with jewish lifecycle events such as bris/brit milah (circumcision) ceremonies, bar/bat mitzvahs, weddings and funerals. the pastor or priest needs to make room for jews to live as jews within the church, teaching the scriptures in a way that affirms israel’s irrevocable election, and the existence of distinct callings for jews and gentiles. all of this takes commitment and knowledge on the part of the church that wants to honor paul’s rule that jews should remain jews and not assimilate. without such commitment and knowledge, jews in churches will naturally gravitate toward assimilation, as they have done throughout history.83 given this ecclesial challenge, baptized jews who continue to identify as jews can help their communities develop the vision, educational programs and resources needed to live out paul’s rule. notably, the first ecumenical conference of jesus-believing jews in modern times met in helsinki on june 14-15, 2010 to “affirm their jewish identity, their faith in jesus and their desire for unity.” catholic, orthodox, protestant and messianic scholars from england, finland, france, germany, israel, russia, and the united states—all of them jewish—met to discuss the 81 see david j. rudolph, growing your olive tree marriage (clarksville: lederer, 2003), 180 n. 2. 82 relationship building and joint activities between local churches and messianic synagogues help develop the trust necessary to make this possible. 83 e.g., more than 400,000 jews became members of churches between the early nineteenth century and world war ii but less than one percent of their descendants are self-identified jews today. see mitch l. glaser, “a survey of missions to the jews in continental europe 1900-1950” (ph.d. diss., fuller theological seminary, 1998), 159-161; philip cohen, the hebrew christian and his national continuity (london: marshall brothers, 1909), 37; yaakov ariel, evangelizing the chosen people: missions to the jews in america, 1880-2000 (chapel hill, n.c.: the university of north carolina press, 2000), 49-51; rachel l. e. kohn, “ethnic judaism and the messianic movement,” jewish journal of sociology 29:2 (1987): 89. those who argue for the theoretical possibility of jewish christian continuity without upholding paul’s rule typically offer no socio-historical evidence to support their case. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 21 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 “significance of jewish continuity in the church, as an ongoing link between its historic beginnings, its present life, and its future hope.” speakers included father david neuhaus, sj, patriarchal vicar general for hebrew speaking catholics in israel, and father antoine levy, op, director of the studium catholicum in helsinki. after two days of meetings, the helsinki consultation on jewish continuity in the body of messiah issued the following statement: we thank god for bringing us as jews to the knowledge of jesus the messiah, and we express a debt of gratitude to those from the nations who have transmitted the knowledge of christ from generation to generation. while we seek to speak on behalf of those who share our jewish identity and faith in christ, we have no official mandate from our respective communities. in what follows we are expressing our own deeply held convictions. at this unprecedented event, we have experienced the depth of our bond, and at the same time we have wrestled with the diversity of our ingrained theological and cultural constructs. in spite of church divisions, we have come together as jews who believe in jesus. we hope that sharing the fruit of our common efforts will benefit our brothers and sisters in christ. we do not aim to issue a definitive declaration, but to initiate an ongoing process of discussion. there are many jewish people in the body of christ. we believe that this reality reflects god’s intention that israel and the nations live as mutual blessings to one another. in fact, the church in its essence is the communion of jews and those from the nations called to faith in christ. in light of this truth, we think that the life of jews in the body of christ has theological significance for that body as a whole. their presence serves as a constant reminder to the body that its existence is rooted in the ongoing story of the people of israel. this story resounds throughout the celebration of the liturgical life of the community. we believe that this story finds its center in israel’s messiah. we believe that jews within the body are a living bond between the church and the people of israel. accordingly, we would like to explore concrete ways in which jewish people may live out their distinctive calling in the body of christ. finally, we wish to express to our jewish brothers and sisters who do not share our faith in jesus the messiah that we consider ourselves to be part of the jewish people and are committed to its welfare.84 the consultation’s desire to “explore concrete ways in which jewish people may live out their distinctive calling in the body of christ” reflects a new ecumenical vision for jewish continuity in the church that challenges long-held approaches to boundary construction. conclusion no one likes church rules. however, paul’s “rule in all the churches” (1 cor 7:17-24) should be embraced because it sustains the church as a body of jews and gentiles. when we do not keep paul’s rule, the church becomes devoid of practicing jews. some people are fine with this and 84 the consultation was jointly organized by the mjti center for jewish-christian relations and the helsinki studium catholicum. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 22 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 say: “in christ there is neither jew nor gentile”85 or “the church is a third race.”86 but the evidence surveyed in this paper indicates that paul took great care in his letters to differentiate between jesus-believing jews and gentiles for the purpose of mutual blessing.87 moreover, paul (like the jerusalem apostles) formulated a universal rule that the circumcised should remain circumcised (i.e. practicing jews), and that the uncircumcised should remain uncircumcised in keeping with their respective callings from god. churches today have rules about all kinds of things─chewing gum in the sanctuary, where members can park their cars, etc. more than once i have been asked to take off my hat because it was a rule. if the church cares enough to practice these rules, perhaps the time has come for it to practice paul’s “rule in all the churches” and the jerusalem council’s decree─both universal directives that bear the seal of apostolic authority. appendix having presented an interpretation of 1 cor 7:17-24 that supports the notion of lifelong jewish and gentile callings, the objection may be anticipated that such a reading would contextually infer that being a slave is a lifelong calling (1 cor 7:21).88 a response to this argument is found in gregory dawes’s 1990 cbq article “‘but if you can gain your freedom’ (1 corinthians 7:17-24).”89 dawes proposes that we understand 1 cor 7:17-24 in the context of paul’s discussion of marriage and celibacy in 1 cor 7:1-39. he contends that 1 cor 7:17-24 functions as a digressio integral to paul’s argument, and that an analogy exists between pair 1 (circumcision and slavery) and pair 2 (marriage and celibacy). in support of this argument, dawes notes the parallelism between verse 18 and verse 27: 1 cor 7:18 1 cor 7:27 was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. mh\ e˙pispa¿sqw was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? are you bound to a wife? do not seek to be free. mh\ zh/tei lu/sin are you free from a wife? 85 horrell, “no longer jew or greek,” 321-344. 86 love l. sechrest, a former jew: paul and the dialectics of race (new york: t&t clark, 2009). 87 see rudolph, a jew to the jews, for a discussion of gal 1:13; 2:14; 3:28; 5:6; 6:15; phil 3:8; 1 cor 9:19-23; 10:32; and rom 14. 88 because of the ellipsis at the end of v. 21 (ma ◊llon crhvsai), translators can add the word “slavery” (nab) or “freedom” (nrsv). dawes and garland survey the lexical and syntactical problems with the “remain in your slavery” view as well as bartchy’s “third possibility.” see dawes, “‘but if you can gain your freedom’ (1 corinthians 7:17-24),” 689; garland, 1 corinthians, 308-311. 89 garland, 1 corinthians, 298-316, adopts dawes’s approach. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 23 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 let him not seek circumcision. mh\ peritemne÷sqw do not seek a wife. mh\ zh/tei gunai √ka dawes suggests that in 1 cor 7:17-24, paul uses circumcision and slavery as illustrations to communicate his stance on marriage and celibacy. the corinthians questioned whether married life was compatible with the life of a jesus-believer (1 cor 7:1) and specifically whether a married person should remain married.90 paul responds by encouraging single people with sexual desire to marry (vv. 2-8); he commands the married to remain married even if married to an unbeliever (vv. 10-16). marriage is good and has its advantages (vv. 2-6). being single is also good and has its advantages (v. 7). it is wrong to think of celibacy as good and marriage as bad. neither way of life is sin (1 cor 7:28, 36-37). both marriage and celibacy have the lord’s approval. in order to emphasize that both marriage and celibacy have the lord’s approval, and that each should remain in their respective calling,91 paul reminds the corinthians of “circumcision” and “foreskin,” which are callings from the lord. jews are called to remain in their calling as jews; gentiles are called to remain in their calling as gentiles. it is wrong to think of “circumcision” as good and “foreskin” as bad, or the reverse. both have god’s authorization and seal of approval. both callings are consistent with the believing life. jews and gentiles have commandments to keep. “with respect to salvation no social situation is more advantageous than another.”92 the point of the circumcision-foreskin illustration is that the corinthians should adopt the same perspective toward marriage and celibacy (v. 27); each is a legitimate calling from god. the corinthians should not think of celibacy as good and marriage as bad (see esp. vv. 17-27). eschatological blessing is not contingent on marriage or celibacy. more important than whether someone is married or celibate is whether they keep the commandments of god: paul wanted to assert (perhaps against those who, for super-spiritual reasons, wanted to dissolve their marriages) that what was important was not one’s marital status, but rather one’s christian obedience─keeping god’s commandments.93 but just because marriage and celibacy are both good, and matters of indifference with respect to eschatological blessing, does this mean that (for those without prior commitments) there is no advantage to choosing one over the other? paul would have the corinthians know that, while their affirmation of both celibacy and marriage in the community is essential, there are distinct advantages of celibacy over marriage for those who are not yet married and for those who are no longer married. what is the advantage of celibacy over marriage? celibacy is a special “gift 90 in 1 cor 7:1, paul seems to restate the corinthian view, “now concerning the matters about which you wrote: ‘it is well for a man not to touch a woman.’” 91 since paul permitted the single person to marry but not the married person to divorce, it may be reasonably assumed that paul considered the single person’s “calling” to be epistemologically less absolute until it was clarified through either marriage or a conscious decision to remain celibate. natural desires may lead to the clarification of one’s calling (“but if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry” [v. 9]; “if his passions are strong...let him marry as he wishes” [v. 36]). paul also recognizes that one’s calling can be affected by circumstances beyond one’s control (e.g., the death of a spouse [v. 39]). 92 collins, first corinthians, 274. 93 colin g. kruse, paul, the law and justification (leicester: apollos, 1996), 124. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): rudolph cp1-24 rudolph, paul’s “rule in all the churches” rudolph cp 24 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 from god” (ca¿risma e˙k qeouv) (1 cor 7:7, 17). what is the purpose of this gift? paul explains that a celibate person’s attention is not divided. he/she does not have to think about pleasing their spouse. they can devote themselves fully to the lord in body and spirit (1 cor 7:32-35). to ensure that the corinthians do not lose sight of the advantages of celibacy as he extols the goodness of marriage, paul uses a second illustration─the slave who can gain his freedom should take advantage of the opportunity (1 cor 7:21b). the correlation of this illustration to celibacy is supported by paul’s use of “bound” (de÷desai)/ “free” (le÷lusai) language to describe celibacy in 1 cor 7:27. paul’s point by analogy is that “the person who is already celibate or who has been married and is now once again single is urged to take advantage of this opportunity to remain single-mindedly devoted to the lord (cf. v 35).”94 when 1 cor 7:17-24 is interpreted in this way, the pericope is not a digression from paul’s discussion of marriage and celibacy in 1 cor 7 but is integral to it. dawes’s proposal allows for the possibility that circumcision and slavery are not illustrations that mean the same thing. rather, they are complementary.95 this means that paul’s rule in all the churches can be understood to indicate that a jew has a lifelong calling to be a jew without necessarily implying that a slave has a lifelong calling to be a slave. 94 dawes, “‘but if you can gain your freedom’ (1 corinthians 7:17-24),” 696. 95 a similar use of complementary illustrations occurs in 1 cor 3:5-7 and 1 cor 15:35-44a (dawes, “‘but if you can gain your freedom’ [1 corinthians 7:17-24],” 686-689). microsoft word 154051-text.native.1234902478.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008) editors’ afterword i http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers in jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college editors’ afterword ruth langer and john c. merkle volume 3 (2008) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008) editors’ afterword ii http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 “unfinished business,” understood in a positive sense, characterizes the state of our journal’s discussions as we close out its third volume. here we have opened a number of important discussions whose topics, because of their complexity, will remain on the christian-jewish dialogue agenda for some time to come. our call for papers on paul receives its initial response in this volume with the publication of a select pauline bibliography and vincent smiles’ essay on galatians and the law. this feature topic, like the catholic church’s jubilee year dedicated to st. paul, will extend into 2009. our 2008 call for papers on theologies of the land and state of israel resulted in several peer reviewed articles, one response, and a published conference proceeding. but this discussion is also far from complete. we invite further submissions, either in the form of new articles or as responses to those already published. we call particular attention to a set of peer-reviewed articles, published in this volume in response to the issues that emerged in conjunction with pope benedict’s publication of a revised tridentine good friday prayer for the jews. both mary boys’ article, reflecting on the american situation, and hans hermann henrix’s, reflecting on the european reality, draw our attention to the meta-issues inherent in these discussions – issues that also require continuing attention. david berger’s conference proceeding provides a jewish contribution on this same topic. as we look toward volume 4 (2009), we continue to welcome your submissions on these and other topics. we particularly welcome contributions to our two feature topics for 2009. in addition to our continuing focus on paul, we initiate here a conversation about “jewish and christian education in an age of dialogue” and invite professional educators and academics to submit papers of a descriptive, analytic and/or prescriptive nature which address experiences and challenges in education with or about the religious other. please see the full call for papers. the holocaust as a source for jewish-christian bonding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): greenberg 1-13 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college the holocaust as a source for jewish-christian bonding g e r s h o n g r e e n b e r g a m e r i c a n u n i v e r s i t y volume 4 (2009) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 greenberg, the holocaust and jewish-christian bonding greenberg 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): greenberg 1-13 jan karski jan karski, the polish courier who, in the fall of 1942 delivered the first eye-witness report to the west (directly to fdr) about the warsaw ghetto and the belzec concentration camp, made an unforgettable confession during a conference i organized in washington in march 1980 on the holocaust’s impact on judaism in america. with fellow panelists emil fackenheim (the religious philosopher), john pehle (of the war refugee board) and american jewish historians abraham karp and henry feingold at his side, he rose and declared: “the war made me a jew. i am jewish, i want to be jewish. i am a christian, but i am a jew.” he explained this further a year and a half later at the international liberator’s conference in the same city: i became a jew. like the family of my wife. all of them perished in the ghettos, concentration camps, gas chambers. and all the murdered jews became my family. but i am a christian jew. i am a practicing catholic. and although not a heretic, still my faith tells me: there [in warsaw and belzec], the second original sin had been committed by humanity. through commission or omission, or self-imposed ignorance or insensitivity, or self-interest or hypocrisy, or heartless rationalism. this sin will haunt humanity to the end of time. it does haunt me. and i want it to be so.1 1 see gershon greenberg, “shover shetikah: hartsa’ato shel jan karski be23 merts 1980,” in jan karski: ha’ish u’shelihuto, ed. ester webman and lawrence webman (tel aviv 2006): 42-57. in the cauldron of the holocaust, judaism and christianity became rooted as one in this deeply religious individual. i have karski in mind, when i suggest that a common root was struck during the holocaust for all jews and christians, with regard to their respective conceptions of sacred death.2 the intimate bond: dubois, sherman, thoma in 1974, marcel dubois spoke of a shared reality-of-suffering by jews and christians. it existed, without the loss of respective particular identity—of christianity, where the mystery of christ’s crucifixion transfigured suffering and death into a crucible of resurrection; of israel, where suffering was to redeem the world (see is 53:3-4). dubois wrote: the transcendent intelligibility of the holocaust can be granted only by light from above, and for us christians, that light passes through the mystery of golgotha…/what the christian can truly say is that to the eye of faith, jesus fulfills israel in her destiny of suffering servant; and that israel, in her experience of solitude and anguish, announces and represents even without knowing it the mystery of the passion and of the cross…/the calvary of the jewish 2 i am indebted to john pawlikowski for directing me to christian thinkers who addressed the matter of jewish-christian unity, in the holocaust context, during our seminar at king’s college in april 2000. see john pawlikowski, “christology after the holocaust,” encounter 59 nr. 3 (summer 1998): 345368; and idem, “the historicizing of the eschatological: the spiritualizing of the eschatological: some reflections,” in antisemitism and the foundations of christianity, ed. alan davies (new york: 1979): 151-166. also gershon greenberg, “crucifixion and the holocaust: the views of pius xii and the jews,” in pope pius xii and the holocaust, eds. carol rittner and john roth (new york: 2002): 137-153. greenberg, the holocaust and jewish-christian bonding greenberg 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): greenberg 1-13 people, whose summit is the holocaust, can help us understand a little better the mystery of the cross.3 that same year, franklin sherman wrote that it was a tragedy that the cross of christ, symbolizing the agonizing god, had become “a symbol of division between jews and christians, for the reality to which it points is a jewish reality as well, the reality of suffering and martyrdom.” it should be kept in mind, sherman pointed out, that the cross was the instrument upon which jews were put to death long before jesus. josephus recorded that cyrus threatened crucifixion for any jews who disobeyed his edict for the return of jews from babylon. antiochus crucified jews who would not abandon their religion. after the romans besieged jerusalem, titus crucified so many jews, that according to josephus; “there was not enough room for the crosses, nor enough crosses for the condemned.” the cross was, first of all, a “jewish reality,” one that should make christians the first to identify with the sufferings of any jews.” it was “a matter of deepest shame on the part of christianity” that it made the cross into a symbol of inquisition and not one of identification. auschwitz, sherman concluded, should become a source for new christian-jewish unity—and certainly not a ground for christian triumphalism: a god who suffers is the opposite of a god of triumphalism. we can speak of a god after auschwitz, only as the one who calls us to a new unity as beloved brothers—not only between jews and christians, but especially between jews and christians.4 in 1977 clemens thoma wrote that a believing christian should not find it very difficult to interpret the “sacrifice of the 3 marcel dubois, “christian reflections on the holocaust,” sidic vii, 2 (1974): 4-15. 4 franklin sherman, “speaking of god after auschwitz,” worldview 17 (sept. 1974): 26-30. jews” during the holocaust. their sacrifice should turn the christian’s thoughts “toward christ, to whom these jewish masses became alike, in sorrow and death.” for thoma, auschwitz was “the most monumental sign of our time for the intimate bond and unity between jewish martyrs—who stand for all jews—and the crucified christ.”5 what were the ingredients of this intimate bonding, associated by dubois with calvary, the passion, and crucifixion? what unified judaism and christianity, such that neither lost its particular identity—for one, the national suffering which redeemed the world, for the other, that of the mystery of christ’s crucifixion which transfigured suffering and death into a crucible of resurrection? the ingredients include akedah, physical suffering, love and crucifixion. i will examine them as conceptualized by judaism through the holocaust, in light of its historical precedents, and illustrate the bond by comparing them with conceptions articulated during christianity’s formative period of the early church. ingredients of jewish-christian unity 1. akedah (binding of isaac) over the course of time, jewish thinkers carried the binding of isaac into actual sacrifice, drawing from the rabbinic tradition,6 and they established it as an archetype for the sacred death of jewish martyrs.7 different aspects were 5 clemens thoma, a christian theology of judaism (new york 1977): 155. 6 4 macc 17:24, mekhilta de’rabi shimon bar yohai, massekhta de’sanya 2:2, pt taan 65a, genr, parashah 39, siman 11, and parashah 94, siman 5; and levr, parashah 36, siman 5. 7 on the history of interpreting the akedah see tsevi levi, ha’akedah vehatokhehah: mitos, teimah vetopos be’sifrut (jerusalem: 1991). avraham sagi, “ha’akedah umashmeutah be’tarbut ha’yisraelit u’bemasoret ha’yehudit,” mehkerei hag 7 (1996): 66-85. examples of the view that isaac was (virtually or actually) killed include 4 mac 17:24, mekhilta derabi shimon greenberg, the holocaust and jewish-christian bonding greenberg 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): greenberg 1-13 emphasized. during the crusades, eleazar of worms held that isaac died and then returned to life. how so? his soul fled in fright when the knife reached his throat. when abraham was commanded, “lay not thy hand upon the lad” (gn 21:12), the soul returned to the body and isaac rose up from the altar.8 according to the medieval jewish philosopher hasdai crescas, once the akedah took place, readiness to offer one’s life in sanctification of god’s name served as proof that one belonged to the seed of abraham and isaac.9 many centuries later the mitteler rebbe of lubavitch, dov ber schneersohn (17731817), explained that when isaac’s hands were bound for sacrifice and he was placed upon the wood pile, he was so terrified of his imminent death that, except for a tiny spark, all life left him. the spark remained to revive him once he would be taken down from the altar. schneersohn wrote: when the sword reached his neck, the soul of isaac left him. when the voice came forth, ‘lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything to him’ [gn 22:12], isaac’s soul returned to his body. abraham released him [from his bonds] and isaac stood up. abraham knew that the dead would be revived in this way, and he said, ‘blessed art thou…who revives the dead’ [yalkut shimoni, parashah va’yera, perek 22, remez 101].10 bar yohai massekhet de’sanya 2:2; palestinian talmud ta’anit 65a; bereishit rabbah parashah 39, siman 11 and parashah 94, siman 5; and va’yikra rabbah, parashah 36, siman 5. on abraham’s confidence that isaac would survive see also sefer yosifon, vol i, ed. david flusser (jerusalem: 19781980): 424. 8 citing pirkei derabi eliezer, ch. 31. eliezer miworms, “parashat va’yeira,” in perush ha’rokeah al ha’torah (benei berak: 1978): 174-175. 9 marc saperstein, “a sermon on the akedah…” in a. mirsky, a. grossman and y. kaplan, eds., exile and diaspora (jerusalem 1996): 103-124. 10 dov ber schneersohn, “sha’ar hatefilah,” in sha’arei ha’teshuvah (jerusalem: 1971 rpt.): part 1, 69-93. tali lowenthal, “self-sacrifice,” pp. 468-478. wartime jewish thinkers expanded the individual experience into a collective one, identifying the mass death as the akedah carried through into actual immolation, sometimes adding a vicarious dimension—rooted in 4 mc, where hannah and her seven sons begged god to let their punishment serve as an exchange for the nation’s sins, and their blood as a purification for the people (4 mc 6:27-29); and in the mekhilta, where the patriarchs and the prophets offered their lives on israel’s behalf (citing moses in ex 32:32; nm 1:15; and david in 2 sm 24:17).11 in the warsaw ghetto in october 1940, the piaseczner rebbe kalonymous kalman shapira preached that the akedah was not only a test of isaac, but also the commencement of a form of worship that requires total selfsacrifice for god and for the jewish people…the akedah was just the beginning, the expression of intent and desire, while the murder of a jew is the conclusion of the act. thus, the akedah and all murders of jews since are components of one event.12 sometime later during the war, chief rabbi of petah tikvah reuven katz stated that the jews who were killed in the catastrophe constituted a complete burnt offering (olah; see lv 1:3ff), where the innocent blood of the sacrificial victims (korbanot) atoned for the collective sins of israel. the ashes of atonement desired by god (kaparah retsuyah) would reconcile israel with god. death served as atonement: 11 mekhilta, massekhet de’pisha ad exodus 12:1. on hannah and her sons see also sefer yosifon, vol. 1, ed. david flusser (jerusalem: 1978-1980): 70-76. 12 kalonymous kalman shapira, sacred fire, transl. j. h. worch (northvale, nj: 2000): 140. greenberg, the holocaust and jewish-christian bonding greenberg 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): greenberg 1-13 ‘and the blood shall be forgiven them’ [dt 21:8]. this does not mean that the atonement is separate from the blood, or is for the sake of the blood. rather that the blood is the actual atonement of israel. and the blood of our sanctified ones will bring freedom and polity (medinah) to israel. [the atonement of blood] is a desirable form of worship, one which resolves the nation’s trespasses.13 in 1946 the legal scholar and poet simhah elberg, who had escaped warsaw via vladivostok for shanghai in fall 1939, identified akedah as the essential reality of the holocaust. following the rabbinical tradition that the akedah preluded immolation, he conceived of akedah-death as a metaphysical entity. it was central to jewish existence, and it joined the people of israel as they moved from mt. moriah and ultimately to poland and the death camps. the sharp differences between mt. moriah and treblinka notwithstanding, they shared the akedah essence.14 katz’s application of korbanot and olah to the holocaust reappeared a number of years after the tragedy. yehoshua mosheh aharonson, who survived labor and concentration camps, and the death march from auschwitz to theresienstadt, and after liberation served as the chief rabbi of jews in austrian d.p. camps, identified the victims as korbanot olah, where the bodies were transformed into white smoke and served to mend (tikkun) the entire world.15 13 reuven katz, duda’ei reuven, vol. 1 (jerusalem 1953/54): 63-72; vol. 2 (jerusalem 1953/54): 72-78. 14 simhah elberg, akedas treblinka (shanghai: 1946). 15 yehoshua mosheh aharonson, “azkarah li’kedoshei ha’shoah be’kenes yotsa’ei gostinin,” [n.d.], in alei merorot (1996): 258, citing ya’akov aryeh guterman, bikurei avi”v (1947), citing beit yosef (yosef karo). see aharonson, in pinkas gostinin: yizker bukh (new york 1960). early church thinkers applied the akedah, including the vicarious dimension, to christ on the cross. in the second century, melito of sardis declared that if one wished to see the mystery of the lord, one should look at isaac. christ was bound in (or as one with) isaac, for both were led by the father, with isaac carrying firewood and jesus carrying the cross. however, while isaac was ransomed by the lamb (or ram) in the thicket, jesus was himself caught in a tree—and slain to save humanity. in this way, christ brought isaac to perfection, making him superior to isaac.16 origen held that abraham was prepared to sacrifice isaac, because he knew that isaac would be revived. god promised abraham progeny, god was not a liar, which could only mean that isaac would be resurrected. abraham knew as well, that isaac’s death and resurrection prefigured that of jesus, who would advance ahead of isaac by actualizing the sacrifice for which he, jesus, was bound.17 facing martyrdom in 107, ignatius sought to identify his death with jesus’ sacrificial death. as with jesus, whose flesh suffered on behalf of mankind’s sin, the animals about to devour ignatius were instruments of a sacrificial atonement for the community. he would be the scapegoat, a sacrificial offering for his fellow.18 2. physical suffering a recurring theme concerning sacred death within the jewish tradition was that suffering liberated the soul from the body, enabling the soul to enter god’s presence. the rabbinic sage rabbi akiva said suffering was the dearest of 16 stuart g. hall, trans., melito of sardis: on pascha and fragments (oxford 1979). 17 origen, “homily 8,” in j. p. migne (ed.), patrologiae cursus completus…series graeca prior origenis opera omnia 12 (paris 1862): 203-210. 18 ignatius, “letter to polycarp” 2:3; “letter to smyrneans” 7:1; and “letter to the ephesians” 8:1, in bart ehrman, transl., the apostolic fathers (cambridge, ma: 2003): 1: 367-401, 295-309, 219-241. greenberg, the holocaust and jewish-christian bonding greenberg 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): greenberg 1-13 experiences, because it purified the soul by removing it from materiality and enabling it to enter the world to come.19 the zohar contains the passage: when the holy one, blessed be he, wishes to illuminate the soul of man, he crushes the body so that the soul will govern. because as long as the soul is within the body, they remain equal and the soul cannot rule. but once the body is crushed, the soul assumes power.20 the sixteenth century kabbalist meir ibn gabbai held that when sacred death occurred, the body which came between the soul and god, was removed. thus, when rabbi akiva was martyred and he declared god’s oneness with his final word (ehad, one) the physical partition dividing him from god disappeared.21 similarly, his contemporary the maharal of prague believed that god brought suffering to the pious, because it ended the soul’s adherence to materiality and thereby enabled the individual to reach lofty heights.22 a bi-product of the separation between soul and body was the ability to overcome physical pain. in the thirteenth century, meir of rotenberg observed that when there was martyrdom (mesirut nefesh al kiddush hashem)—which made one holy—there was no crying out. whatever form the murder took, the physical pain was overcome.23 in the fifteenth century, the spanish kabbalist avraham eliezer halevi held, that even 19 source uncertain. cited in mosheh ben gershon, “siman 155,” in mishpat tsedek: leva’er inyan kabalat yesurim be’ahavah (rpt. benei berak: 1986/87). see also sanhedrin 101a. 20 zohar, helek 1, toledot, p. 140b (sulam edition of the zohar, para. 90). 21 meir ibn gabbai, perek 36, helek sitrei hatorah, col. 2, in avodat ha’kodesh (cracow: `1576/77). 22 maharal of prague, netivot olam 2, p. 174—netiv ha’yesurim, perek 1, cited in mosheh ben gershon, “siman 153,” in sefer mishpat tsedek. 23 meir of rothenberg, “para. 517,” in shu”t maharam (prague: 1608). as the martyr’s body was hacked to pieces, there was no pain because god instilled new life into the soul with a love which overcame pain. the love was so intense, as to remove the impact of physical death. the loving soul became as a flaming torch, and no matter the manner of death (burial alive, burning in a furnace) the soul remained unaffected (see cant. 8:6).24 in the nineteenth century, yehudah aryeh layb, admo”r of gur, held that when the material partition which separated the martyr from god was removed, and the inner point of holiness (nekudah penimit) was revealed, the pain borne by the material was removed as well.25 his contemporary, the mitteler rebbe of lubavitch dov ber schneersohn, wrote that as rabbi akiva prolonged the word ehad, it enclosed his soul, shutting out all materiality, and he did not feel the burning iron combs.26 these motifs reappeared during the holocaust. regarding the liberation of the soul from the body: eliyahu meir bloch, one of the heads of the telsiai yeshiva, who found refuge in cleveland, wrote in 1940 that god’s hesed (covenantal love, one of the kabbalistic sefirot), opened a narrow path in the body, through which the soul could ascend to god). when gevurah (power, another of the kabbalistic sefirot) was added, there was suffering. suffering meant that the body shattered into little pieces (kelipot, kabbalistic shards) for the spark of the soul to be liberated.27 ya’akov mosheh harlap, avraham yitshak kook’s successor as head of merkaz harav in jerusalem, believed that each death of the holocaust 24 megillat amraphel, in “perakim betoledot sifrut hakabalah,” kiryat sefer 7 (1930/31): 152-153. 25 yehudah aryeh layb migur, “para. 638 and para. 652,” in sefat emet (brooklyn 1989/90 rpt.). 26 dov ber schneersohn, “sha’ar ha’tefilah,” in sha’arei hateshuvah (jerusalem: 1971 rpt.): part 1, pp. 69-93, 111. loewenthal, “self-sacrifice of the tsadik…” in a. rappaport-alpert and s. j. zipperstein, eds., jewish history (london: 1988): 454-494. 27 eliyahu meir bloch, “yesurim shel ahavah,” in shiurei da’at (jerusalem: 1971/72): 1: 121-127. greenberg, the holocaust and jewish-christian bonding greenberg 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): greenberg 1-13 was an akedah. the shattered body descended into the oblivion of hopelessly dark history, as the spark of the soul ascended and blended into the light of the messiah son of joseph.28 as to overcoming physical pain: in ra’anana, palestine, rabbi efrayim sokolover explained that when there was suffering unto death, the adherence (devekut) of the jew to torah and mitsvot could become intense to the point of transforming flesh and blood into spiritual, heavenly material— leaving the physical body with its pain behind. sokolover said he knew of instances in europe where jews danced and sang as they went to their death.29 one of the heads of the slobodka yeshiva, mordekhai shulman, having escaped to america, cited the midrash where abraham was cast into the furnace by nimrod, and become transformed into a spiritual being—so intensely spiritual that physical pain subsided. up through the holocaust, shulman wrote, jews were able to submit their souls in sanctification of god’s name, because their spirituality was so intense that it could overcome physical torment.30 in shanghai, simhah elberg held that the soul could reach such spiritual heights, that pain disappeared. for example, the mother taken into the gas chamber in treblinka did not suffer the torture of gehinnom, because she now resided in a heavenly atmosphere.31 the separation of the soul from the body for the soul to enter god’s presence, was articulated during the period of the early church by ignatius. ignatius yearned for his soul to leave his body. he wanted his love for anything worldly to be “crucified,” because this would enable him to escape the prison 28 gershon greenberg, “the holocaust apocalypse of ya’akov mosheh harlap,” jewish studies 41, 5-14. 29 sokolover, penei efrayim (tel aviv 1965/66). 30 grossman, kovets zikaron keneset yisrael (benei berak: 1982/83): 639641. 31 elberg, akedas treblinka (shanghai: 1946). of materiality and enter a realm of spirit to become a true disciple of christ. by severing all love for earthly, material existence, he could receive christ’s spiritual love—which was present in his blood.32 origen also spoke of the soul’s leaving everything earthly and material.33 as to overcoming physical pain: members of the church of smyrna recorded how polycarp concentrated on the world to come with such intensity, that “the fire of the inhuman torturers was cold to him…he was filled with joy as he taunted his torturers to do with him as they wanted. for he had journeyed away from the flesh, to speak with the lord.”34 3. love another ingredient shared by jews and christians was the love in which the suffering of sacred dying was immersed. the suffering involved god’s love for the martyr, the martyr’s love for god, and even the martyr’s love for the suffering itself. the tannaim held that god brought about suffering, in order to purge sin and save the sinner from the fires of hell. the sufferings should therefore be objects of love. the tanna hananiah ben teradyon, for example, recognized that his torments and imminent martyrdom were somehow related to his sinning, and brought by god as expressions of his judgment. the tanna accepted them in silence, out of his love for god.35 in the zohar, a comparison is drawn between the human soul and a candle. when a candle did not properly shed 32 ignatius, “letter to the romans” 2:2, 4:2, 7:2, 7:23. in the apostolic fathers, vol. 1, trans. bart ehrman (cambridge, mass: 2003): 257-283. 33 origen, “exhortation to martyrdom,” in origen, trans. r. greer (new york: 1971): 41-79. 34 “martyrdom of st. polycarp: bishop of smyrna,” 2:2-3; 11:2; 12:3; 14:2. in the apostolic fathers, vol. i, 367-411. 35 adolf büchler, “the service of god for the love or the fear of him, and the right attitude of the jew to suffering,” in studies in sin and atonement (new york 1967): 119-24. greenberg, the holocaust and jewish-christian bonding greenberg 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): greenberg 1-13 light, the wick had to be moved about. likewise, when the soul did not shed light as it should and there was only darkness, it had to be upset. it followed, that sufferings should be accepted with love.36 according to another sixteenth century kabbalist, avraham galante, sufferings-of-love (yesurim shel ahavah) contained the secret, that suffering brought about love between, and unity with, god.37 the suffering-love relationship was also articulated in medieval philosophy. in his hovot halevavot, bahyah ibn pakudah (eleventh century) wrote: in the manner of job, ‘though he slay me, yet i will trust in him’ [job 13:15], there was a pious man who used to get up at night and say, ‘my god, you have made me hungry and naked and you have put me in the darkness of night. but i swear by your power, that were you to burn me with fire, it would only add to my love for you and my attachment to you.’38 the relationship was articulated again during the holocaust. during december 1938 in kovno-slobodka, another head of the slobodka yeshiva, avraham grodzensky, citing bahyah ibn pakudah’s principle of the harmony of the world as created by god, observed that devekut (adherence to god) enabled perception of an inner, absolute unity between suffering and love. grodzensky burned to death when the ghetto hospital was set aflame, and when yitshak ayzik sher, another head of the slobodka yeshivah, memorialized him, he associated the death with that of rabbi akiva. both intensified 36 zohar, helek 3, ba’midbar: pinhas, p. 219a (sulam edition of the zohar, para. 115). 37 avraham galante ad lamentations 3:25, in avraham galante, kol bokhim, cited by isaiah horowitz, “siman 39,” in asarah ma’amarot: ma’amar shelishi urevi’i, in shenei luhot haberit (jerusalem: 1993). 38 bahyah ibn pakudah, the book of directions to the duties of the heart, trans. menahem mansoor (london: 1973): 428. their love for god, as they suffered until god took their souls.39 efrayim sokolover took the relationship a step further. insofar as chastisements came to israel for israel’s benefit, according to the rabbis;40 and did so solely out of god’s love, it followed that the greater the love the greater the suffering. sokolover offered two analogies. the tailor cut beautiful lengths of cloth into pieces, not to destroy the cloth but to make a suit. so god let the body of israel be cut limb from limb during the holocaust, to the point that the pieces disappeared, for the sake of redemption. a certain surgeon, sokolover offered, had to amputate the legs of a child in order to save him. but the disease spread, and more and more body parts had to be amputated—until all that really remained was the soul. the surgeon was the boy’s father. similarly, god let israel suffer to such extremes as he did, and did not spare the people, because the soul was bound to him in devekut and he could never let israel die.41 this ingredient of sacred death can be found in the early church as well. believing that the torment would bring him to christ, ignatius begged to become bread for the wild beasts which were set upon him: fire and cross and packs of wild beasts, cuttings and being torn apart, the scattering of bones, the mangling of limbs, the grinding of the whole body, the evil torments of the devil—let them come upon me, only that i may attain to jesus christ [and drink the blood of christ which is imperishable love].42 39 berakhot 60a. sher, “eleh ezkerah,” in leket sihot musar, vol. 2 (benei berak 1989/90): 538-548. grodzensky, torat avraham (new york: 1962/63). 40 tanna debe eliyahu zuta, ch. 1. 41 efrayim sokolover, penei efrayim (tel aviv: 1965/66). 42 ignatius, “letter to the romans” 4:1-2; 5:2-3; 7:23. in the apostolic fathers, vol. 1, 257-283. greenberg, the holocaust and jewish-christian bonding greenberg 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): greenberg 1-13 members of the church of smyrna, identifying polycarp’s martyrdom with the crucifixion, recorded that his astonishing love for christ enabled him to endure, even as the “skin was ripped to shreds by whips, revealing the very anatomy of the flesh.”43 4. crucifixion marcel dubois wrote that the holocaust, the “summit” of the calvary of the jewish people, helps christians better understand the mystery of the cross. namely, that while jesus fulfilled israel in her destiny of suffering servant, israel’s suffering announced and represented the mystery of the passion and the cross—even without knowing it. some jews invoked the image of the cross, to represent their own jewish suffering. the cross as a christian symbol, let alone conversion to it, was absolutely objectionable to the masses of jewry. in cluj, romania, for example, a certain hasid, knowing with a certainty that he would soon be taken to the ovens, faced the choice of leaving his three daughters with a christian neighbor—until “the fury passed” (see is 28:15). he turned to the admo”r of klausenberg (cluj), yehudah yekutiel halberstam. halberstam recalled: in vain i tried to convince him to leave his daughters with the christian. it was not certain they would convert even if he would not be fortunate enough to return. especially so since his daughters were already grown. but he replied, ‘rabbi, i have always listened to whatever you told me. but not here. i would not die with a whole heart, knowing 43 “martyrdom of st. polycarp: bishop of smyrna, 2:2,” in the apostolic fathers, vol. 1, 367-411. that possibly, god forbid, my daughters would convert.’ and he resolved to take his daughters with him.44 in the warsaw ghetto during september 1940, it is told, a father had the opportunity to leave his daughter in safety in a monastery. the man recalled how in ancient times hananiah ben teradyon’s body burned, while his soul survived. now, should he let the body survive while the soul burned because of conversion by a catholic priest?45 in the lvov ghetto, the wife of a certain rabbi yitshak levin could have left her youngest son with the orthodox christian metropolitan sheftitsky. she determined that he would be too young to resist the inevitable attempt to convert him. she kept the child with her in the ghetto, and the child was killed in the january 1943 aktion.46 to the religious thinker shelomoh yahalomi-diamant, the christian crucifix he saw at maidanek meant something even worse than death. heading west after liberation from a siberia labor camp, he reached maidanek and found the gas chambers and the unburied bones. he saw 800,000 pairs of shoes, their soles ripped open to search for gold. but there was something even more terrible: i can still see the great crucifix in the middle of maidanek. and i tremble. why wasn’t there a magen david? were not the children of david murdered there? did not the jews cry out shema yisrael as they were about to be killed? why was there a crucifix? not even the ground which became the grave of our holy ones is ours! it is christian. and so there is a christian crucifix. we have nowhere to live. nowhere to die. thus it is, whenever i 44 sh. noyvirt, yahadut 10 (1962-63): 4-5. 45 cited from ringelblum archives in esther farbstein, be’seter ra’am (jerusalem: 2002): 11. 46 yitshak levin, aliti mi’spetsyah (tel aviv: 1947): 128-129, 149-150. greenberg, the holocaust and jewish-christian bonding greenberg 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): greenberg 1-13 was asked, ‘what did you see in maidanek?,’ i answered, ‘i saw a crucifix.’47 at the same time, the cross had jewish meaning. some jews reached towards the mystery behind the symbol and thought of their suffering in terms of the cross. as such, it provided another ingredient for jewish unity surrounding sacred death. in white crucifixion (1938) and way to calvary (1941), the artist marc chagall identified holocaust with crucifixion. in his response to the warsaw ghetto, obsession (1943), chagall depicted jesus wrapped in a tallit. jesus was surrounded by a nazi soldier shattering a torah-ark, eastern european jews being crucified in a burning shtetl, and a jew with the face of christ passing by a cross which had fallen onto a village street. in response to kristallnacht, in 1939 two religious zionists in jerusalem, yeshayahu volfsberg and shelomoh zalman shragai, evoked the suffering servant (is 53) associated by christians with the cross.48 but they also drew a distinction. the people of israel absorbed the suffering of others, not the sins of others as did christ. the troubles in germany and austria belonged to israel’s servant relationship to god, where the jewish people absorbed the world’s suffering which came about because of its sins—lest the suffering spread until the world was itself destroyed. 47 shelomoh diamant-yahalomi, “bein hametsarim: refleksen,” di yidishe shtime 1 nr. 28 (4 july 1947): 3. 48 on christian uses of is 53 see the suffering servant: isaiah 53 in jewish and christian sources, ed. bernd janowsky and peter stulhmacher (grand 49 the motif remained in jewish thought. in 1979, the orthodox religious philosopher eliezer berkovits of chicago identified the tribulation of the holocaust with the suffering servant.50 the crucifixion was invoked by the reform zionist leader abba hillel silver of cleveland in september 1943. at the american jewish conference in pittsburgh, concluding his description of the death camps and mass murder, he declared: from the infested typhus-ridden ghetto of warsaw, from a hundred concentration camps which befoul the air of europe, comes the cry, enough! time and again we have been stretched upon the rack of other people’s sins. how long is the crucifixion of israel to last?51 according to the report of yehudah razmivash-nahshoni of transylvania, a hasidic jew associated with the spinka dynasty who survived auschwitz to become a notable journalist and biblical scholar in the land of israel, the admo”r of spinka rapids: 2004); and jesus the suffering servant: isaiah 53 and christian origins, ed. william h. bellinger, jr. and william r. farmer (harrisburg, 1998). on jewish uses, see the “suffering servant” of isaiah according to the jewish interpreters, trans. samuel r. driver and adolf neubauer (new york: 1969). h. w. wolff, jesaja 53 in urchristentum (berlin: 1950). see also irving greenberg, “cloud of smoke, pillar of fire: judaism, christianity and modernity after the holocaust,” in auschwitz: beginning of a new era?, p. 36. 49 volfsberg, “penei hador: eved hashem,” hatsofeh 3 nr. 342 (10 february 1939): 6. shragai, “be’aspeklariyah shelanu: yesurei yisrael,” hatsofeh 3 nr. 360 (3 march 1939): 6-7. 50 berkovits, with god in hell (new york: 1979). 51 abba hillel silver, conference record (1 september 1943): 4-5. greenberg, the holocaust and jewish-christian bonding greenberg 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): greenberg 1-13 yitshak ayzik weiss himself employed images associated with the via dolorosa and calvary. he provides a survivor testimony, according to which weiss was led towards the flames with a wreath of thorns (kotsim) on his head. after washing his hands for the vidui (the prayer recited as one was about to die) he told a certain hasid from selish (ukraine) not to fear—for they were walking towards the messiah. he told the hasid that the messiah was in germany, for according to tradition the messiah dwelled in edom (signifying rome) and edom was in essence the same as germany. there, in germany, he was bound in chains, bearing israel’s sufferings. by the act of his immolation, the admo”r continued, he would take the chains and place them on his own head, liberating the messiah. according to the testimony of a certain mosheleh of orshava, romania, who escaped auschwitz, with the words “an eternal fire bound to the altar would not be extinguished” (lv 6:6) on his lips, the admo”r’s body (a “kelippah,” or shard of the vessel which exploded at creation) went up in flames. the soul was itself fire, razmivash-nahshoni explained, so it did not burn but ascended to heaven with the names of thousands of his hasidim. throughout his life the admo”r yearned to sanctify the name of god in death, as did rabbi akiva. he did so, as an akedah-sacrifice. and as with hananiah ben teradyon, when the “parchment” (body) burned, the “letters” (soul) ascended to heaven.52 later, in 1965, the london reform rabbi ignaz maybaum, a disciple of franz rosenzweig who escaped germany on a kindertransport in 1939, identified the holocaust 52 “gevilim nisrafim ve’otiyot porhot be’avir.” avodah zara 18. yehudah razmivash-nahshoni, hagut be’farshiyot hatorah (benei berak: 1977/78). idem, “rabenu kadosh yisrael z”l,” in hasidut spinka ve’admorehah (benei berak: 1977/78). see further mikhal shaul, “yehudah razmivash-nahshoni: toledot hayav,” in ‘pe’er tahat efer’: nitsolei ha’shoah, zikhronah, ve’hahitmodedut im hashlekhotehah—perek merkazi be’shikum ha’hevrah ha’hareidit ha’ashkenazit be’yishuv u’bemedinat yisrael, 1945-1951 (bar ian university dissertation, 2009): 281-291. as the stage of israel’s metahistory following upon the crucifixion of christ. in the face of god after auschwitz, maybaum described how god originally used mitsvot to instruct the world about sin, during the biblical era. this failed, and then he sought to do so with the crucifixion. as this too failed, and once the crucifixion took place no bloodless akedah would deter humanity from transgression, god brought the holocaust to do so.53 a concluding note—on moltmann the great protestant theologian jürgen moltmann went to maidanek in 1961. the experience, he explained forty-five years later, led him to ask whether god had died: i can never forget my walk through the concentration and death camp maidanek, lublin, in 1961, when i wanted to sink into the ground under the burden of shame and guilt. what was it: guilt, or sin, or radical evil, or something which cannot be comprehended through these traditional theological concepts? this dictatorship of the nihil was for me so incomprehensible because the abyss of the mass annihilation is such a bottomless pit. what an apocalyptic eclipse of god lies over the godlessness of treblinka, maidanek and auschwitz! is god himself dead?54 the preface to his work der gekreuzigte gott, his christian “theology after auschwitz,” which he wrote on good friday 1972, provides an answer: the god over the death camp was the god of the cross: 53 maybaum, the face of god after auschwitz (amsterdam: 1965). 54 jürgen moltmann, a broad place. an autobiography (minneapolis: 2008): 190. translation of weiter raum: eine lebensgeschichte (gütersloh: 2006). greenberg, the holocaust and jewish-christian bonding greenberg 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): greenberg 1-13 in front of me hangs marc chagall’s picture, crucifixion in yellow [1943]. it shows the figure of the crucified christ in apocalyptic situation; people sinking into the sea, people homeless in flight, and yellow fire blazing in the background. and with the crucified christ there appears the angel with the trumpet and the open call of the book of life. this picture has accompanied me for a long time. it symbolizes the cross on the horizon of the world.55 two years later, in das experiment hoffnung, moltmann defined christian faith in terms of the passion of god and the cross of christ: “only a recognition of god in christ, and above all in the crucified one, makes possible the dialogical life in the spirit, in pathos and in sympathy.” in turn, recognition of god in the crucified christ enabled one to understand auschwitz, where god was not dead but where suffering and death were in god.56 55 moltmann, “preface,” in the crucified god, p. 6, translation of der gekreuzigte gott: das kreuz christi als grund und kritik christlicher theologie (munich: 1972). 56 moltmann, experiment hope (phila.: 1975): 72-73, 77-78. translation of das experiment hoffnung: einführung (munich: 1974): 57. see also moltmann, a broad place, p. 16. writing about das experiment hoffnung in 1976, gregory baum observed that moltmann’s “definitive and unqualified affirmation of christ’s mediatorship” overshadowed his union of jews and christians in “common waiting for the promised fulfillment.” while moltmann wrote with great sensitivity to the jewish holocaust, baum continued, when it came to central dogmas of christian faith, a “theology of substitution” (a formulation baum attributed to john pawlikowski) emerged. for moltmann, “a direct relationship between god and man severed from the person and the history of christ would be inconceivable from a christian standpoint.”57 while dubois, sherman and thoma found jewishchristian unity in their perception of sacred, sacrificial death during the holocaust, for moltmann the suffering and death of auschwitz were in god-in-christ. it is true that dubois’ realityof-suffering which passed through golgotha and the holocaust lent itself to a christian universalism: everywhere in the world there is an infinite mass of suffering, of wretchedness, an immense capital of distress and agony which risks becoming emptiness, nothingness, despair unless christ’s victory comes to save it and by saving it to give it meaning. the cross of christ thus appears as an immense sacrament reaching through time and permeating all the secret places of human existence. its application certainly depends on the penetration of our faith and the intercession of our prayer, but we are assured by this certainty that many people will be saved by the cross which they bore without knowing it and which in their death-ravaged lives was the pledge and the sacrament of resurrection.58 57 gregory baum, christian theology after auschwitz (london: 1977): 9, 11. 58 marcel dubois, “christian reflections on the holocaust,” p. 14. greenberg, the holocaust and jewish-christian bonding greenberg 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): greenberg 1-13 but this is modified by dubois’ statements about retaining respective christian and jewish identities. gregory baum contended that moltmann set aside the jewish religion in-itself: the negation of jewish existence is lodged so deeply in christian doctrine below the level of awareness, that christian teachers and theologians unthinkingly endorse and repeat it, even when they want to adopt a new, positive stance toward the jewish people. typical examples of this are jürgen moltmann and hans küng, both of whom have strongly reacted against anti-jewish ideology and favor dialogue and fellowship between christians and jews. however, when they deal with the church’s central teaching, and do not reflect explicitly on jewish existence, then even they do what the church has always done, i.e., leave no room for jewish religion.59 i would suggest, that by absorbing the suffering of auschwitz into the cross, moltmann set aside the understanding and the reality of sacred death on the part of jewish thinkers, and thereby precluded any basis for jewish christian unity in its terms. 59 gregory baum, “catholic dogma after auschwitz,” in antisemitism and the foundations of christianity, ed. alan t. davies (new york: 1979): 144. see also idem, “rethinking the church’s mission after auschwitz,” in auschwitz: beginning of a new era? reflections on the holocaust, ed. eva fleischner (new york: 1977): 113-128. gregory baum wrote me in december 2000, saying that he was uncomfortable with the jewish references to crucifixion which i brought to his attention, and pointing out correctly that his jewish theological friends were not acquainted with these sources. he doubted that the ordinary jewish believer entertained such notions, and thought the motif was limited to the minds of a few jewish specialists. i would suggest that the presence of the motif across the spectrum of judaism (from reform to hasidism) indicates broader appeal. greenberg, the holocaust and jewish-christian bonding greenberg 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 scjr 10 (2015) 1 reading nostra aetate in reverse: a different way of looking at the relationships among religions peter c. phan, georgetown university if the adage “the best things come in small packages” is ever true, the second vatican council’s declaration nostra aetate (na) surely is an indisputable proof of its truth. this document is neither a “constitution” (dogmatic or pastoral), nor a “decree,” but rather a “declaration,” the lowest rank of the three types of conciliar documents. vatican ii issued four declarations, the other three—on the mass media (inter mirifica), religious liberty (dignitatis humanae), and christian education (gravissimum educations). with somewhat of an exception for the declaration on religious liberty, they were quickly forgotten. by contrast, na went on to produce an enormous impact on the life of the roman catholic church and its theology, and that in spite of the fact that it is composed of only 1,141 words, in 41 sentences and five paragraphs. “small packages” indeed! of course, it may be argued that na is short because it does not need to provide the theological foundations for its teaching as these have been elaborated at length in the council’s other documents such as the dogmatic constitution on the church (lumen gentium) and the decree on missionary activity (ad gentes). while this is true, still those theological foundations do not explain why the declaration has become the cornerstone of and impetus for radical and unexpected developments in both the practice and the theology of interreligious dialogue in the catholic church in the last fifty years. it is safe to assume that when na was passed by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2221 in favor to 88 against, few of them if any could have foreseen the dramatic impact and the wirkungsgeschichte of this shortest of all the documents of the council. scjr 10 (2015) 2 in this essay i will not rehearse the tortuous five-yearlong history of the composition of the document, a story that has been told often, and well. 1 what needs to be stressed is that from its conception as a document entitled decretum de iudaeis [decree on the jews] drafted by the secretariat for christian unity under the leadership of cardinal augustin bea to the final text that was promulgated by pope paul vi on october 28, 1965, its birth was never assured. the precariousness of its gestation is well expressed by cardinal franz könig who said that na “almost did not happen” and that it was “almost a miracle that it was ever passed.” 2 nor will i survey the history of the impact of na on the roman catholic church, the other christian churches, and other religions. such a history, which would be tantamount to an account of the interreligious dialogue between christianity as a whole and other religions in the last fifty years, remains to be written. rather my interest in this essay is to make a thought experiment, which i term “reading nostra aetate in reverse.” i first explain the nature, necessity, and purpose of this thought experiment. secondly, i show how reading na in reverse will radically change the way in which interreligious dialogue is conducted. thirdly, i argue that this reading of na is compatible with, or at least does not deny, traditional christian claims about divine election, revelation, jesus, the church, and mission. 1 a concise but illuminating account of the history of na is given by thomas stransky, “the genesis of nostra aetate,” america (october 24, 2005), 1-4. for another brief account, see history of vatican ii, vol. v, ed. giuseppe alberigo; english version, ed., joseph a. komonchak (louvain: peeters, 1995-2006; maryknoll, ny: orbis, 1995-2006), 211-21. a detailed history of the composition of na is given by john m. oesterreicher, “declaration on the relationship of the church to non-christian religions: introduction and commentary,” in herbert vorgrimler, ed., commentary on the documents of vatican ii, vol. v (new york: herder, 1969), 1-154. 2 franz könig, “it must be the holy spirit,” the tablet 21/28 (2002), 6. scjr 10 (2015) 3 are there non-christian religions? a thought experiment those of us working all of our lives exclusively in majority-christian milieus might miss the offensive tone in the title of na: declaration on the church’s relations to nonchristian religions (declaratio de ecclesiae habitudine ad religiones non-christianas). the use of “non” as a prefix to refer to others different from oneself is perhaps an unavoidable anthropological and sociological shorthand to distinguish “us” from “them.” but the negative naming of the other loses its innocence as an identity marker when it is used by a group that has consistently claimed to be superior to all others in all aspects of life. the “non” then, when applied to others, implies the absence, or at least imperfect presence, of all the things that make this group the norm and standard of perfection for all others. thus, during the height of empire and colonialism, such sobriquets as “non-greek,” “non-roman,” “non-persian,” “non-turkish,” “non-british,” “non-russian,” “non-han” (chinese), just to cite a few, were powerful weapons in the imperial and colonialist arsenals to categorize other peoples as uncivilized and barbarian who therefore needed to be brought into the fold by means of the mission civilisatrice and often by conquest and subjugation. such negative designation is by no means a neutral nomenclature but is part and parcel of the imperial politics of difference and power. in no way am i implying that the bishops at vatican ii in using the expression “non-christian” to refer to religions other than christianity were harboring imperialistic ambitions, religious and otherwise. indeed, after using this negative umbrella term in the title of the document, they go on naming specific religions such as hinduism and buddhism, and specific religious groups such as muslims (not islam) and jews (not judaism). nevertheless, there are too many commonalities between christianity and empire—after all it was an imperial religion for nearly two millennia—to dismiss the concerns about religious domination and conquest as overheated conspiracy theorizing or trivial terminological nitpicking. scjr 10 (2015) 4 on the contrary, what is at stake in this negative naming is, i submit, deeply theological. the thought experiment i am proposing serves to illustrate this point. imagine you are a member of one of the so-called “non-christian” religions mentioned by na. how would you self-identify religiously, let’s say, on the census form, under the section “religious preference”? is there a box marked “non-christian religion” in addition to, for instance, hinduism, buddhism, judaism, and islam, that you can tick off? of course not, since there are no “non-christian religions” as such anytime, anywhere. and if “non-christian religions” is used as a collective moniker for all religions except christianity, only the specificity of christianity as a religion is officially and publicly recognized, whereas the other religions are lumped together in a generic and undefined heap of the hoi polloi. let’s pursue the thought experiment further: suppose you are a christian living in a hindu, or buddhist, or muslim country and are filling out a census form, and the form does not include the category “christian” but only “non-hindu,” “non-buddhist” or “non-muslim” categories for christians to self-identify. you would very likely reject this categorization as chauvinistic and are well within your rights to protest such classification as academically inaccurate at best and religiously discriminatory at worst. indeed, whenever such negative appellation is used, for instance, when proponents of the nationalistic hindutva ideology called indian christians “nonhindu,” it was done with the intent to impugn their civic status, question their patriotism, and to discriminate against them. the crux of the problem is of course not merely lexicology. rather, beneath this terminological infelicity lies a theological perspective that goes under the name of “fulfillment theology” of religion and was widespread at vatican ii. what is troublesome, especially for believers in other religions, is that christianity is used as the measure and standard, as the vera religio, to classify and eventually to evaluate other religions. though na’s focus is the relation between christi scjr 10 (2015) 5 anity and other religions, these religions are described from the vantage point of christianity to show how far they line up with it. in fact, it seems that the various religions are listed in the ascending order of the degree of their agreements with christianity—from the so-called primal religion through hinduism and buddhism to muslims and lastly to jews. it is perhaps because of this approach that na does not mention other indian religions such as jainism and sikhism and the chinese religious traditions such as confucianism and daoism, as these religions do not bear significant similarities with christianity. be that as it may, clearly the relation between christianity and non-christian religions is not conceived of as mutual but only unidrectional, that is, how other religions are related to christianity, and, as we will see, how they can be “fulfilled” in christianity, and not the other way round. of course, it must be acknowledged that in na the church made a complete volte-face in its understanding of its relation to other religions. just to cite one example: for those who adopt pope benedict xvi’s “hermeneutics of reform” and reject the “hermeneutics of discontinuity” it would be a herculean feat of mental prestidigitation to argue the continuity between what pope eugenius iv declared at the council of florence about the jews on february 4, 1442, and what na asserts in §4. similarly, what §2 of na affirms about primal religions, hinduism, and buddhism is simply and utterly beyond the pre-vatican ii ecclesial imagination: the catholic church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. it has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing many ways from its own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men and women... let christians, while witnessing to their own faith and way of life, acknowledge (agnoscant), preserve (servent) and promote (promoveant) the spiritual and moral good things (bona spiritualia et moralia) as well as the socio-cultural scjr 10 (2015) 6 values (valores socio-culturales) which are found among non-christians. perhaps it was due to their justly enthusiastic appreciation for these radically positive changes in the attitude of the catholic church toward other religions that is marked by genuine respect and readiness to dialogue that church leaders and theologians, and perhaps even members of other religions, did not avert to the latent patronizing tone of na’s negative naming of other religions. to remove this theological blight it is not enough to tweak the title of the declaration from “nonchristian religions” to “other religions,” though that would be a good place to start. the new title signals a copernican revolution in the way na is framed. in brief, with the new title “declaration of the relations of the church to other religions,” christianity relinquishes its claim to a privileged and superior position vis-a-vis other religions and will consider itself as one religion among other religions. the relation between christianity and other religions is a genuinely mutual one, where all religions are equally willing to teach and to be taught by one another. this humble acceptance of christianity of itself as simply one “religion” among many—not even as primus inter pares—entails a reversal of the two-thousand year old apologetics of christianity as sola vera religio, not only as vera but also as religio, reserving this term exclusively for itself and dismissing other religions as secta or superstitio. before making a reversal of na’s perspective on the relation of the church to non-christian religions and “reading na in reverse,” it is necessary to take a closer look at vatican ii’s theology of religion. vatican ii and the fulfillment of non-christian religions in the aftermath of vatican ii there has been a veritable avalanche throughout the globe of activities and writings, at both the official and grassroots levels, to promote interreligious dialogue in the forms of common living, collaboration for the common good, theological exchange, and spiritual sharing. new theologies of religion have been developed, us scjr 10 (2015) 7 ing different paradigms ranging from exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism, or knitter’s four types or models, namely, “replacement” (“only one true religion”), “fulfillment” (“the one fulfills the many”), “mutuality” (“many true religions called to dialogue”), and “acceptance” (“many true religions: so be it”). these paradigms or models are so wellknown that there is no need to rehearse them here. it is safe to say that na’s undergirding theology of religion hovers between “exclusivism” and “inclusivism,” with a stronger nod toward the latter. more precisely, it is a “fulfillment” theology of religion (knitter’s second model), a combination of the exclusivist affirmation of the universality and uniqueness of the function of jesus as the savior and of the necessity of the church as the instrument of salvation (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) with the inclusivist acknowledgment of the presence of “elements of truth and grace,” karl rahner’s celebrated phrase, in other religions. this theology of religion has its roots in the writings of pre-vatican ii theologians such as jean daniélou and henri de lubac, and was developed further by karl rahner with his emphasis on the presence of the mystery of christ (and later, he adds, the holy spirit) in all religions with his celebrated concept of “anonymous christianity.” this theology of the presence of christ in all religions other than christianity was elaborated in another direction by raimon panikkar who speaks of “christ” as the “symbol” of the human-divine-cosmic (cosmotheandric) mystery present in all religions, which is experienced in the one identical “faith” but expressed in different “beliefs.” it is rahner’s theology of the inclusive presence of christ outside christianity that shaped vatican ii’s understanding of the relation of the church to other religions. this is obvious not so much in na as in the decree on the church’s missionary activity (ad gentes), as its §9 makes it abundantly clear: through preaching and the celebration of the sacraments, of which the holy eucharist is the center and scjr 10 (2015) 8 summit, missionary activity makes christ present, who is the author of salvation. it purges of evil associations those elements of truth and grace which are found among people, and which are, as it were, a secret presence of god, and it restores them to christ their source who overthrows the rule of the devil and limits the manifold malice of evil. so, whatever goodness is found in people’s minds and hearts, or in the particular customs and cultures of peoples, far from being lost is purified, raised to a higher level and reaches its perfection, for the glory of god, the confusion of the demon, and the happiness of humankind. that this text is an unambiguous and resounding affirmation of the fulfillment theology of religion leaves no doubt. phrases such as “elements of truth and grace,” “a secret presence of god,” “is purified, raised to a higher level, and reaches its perfection” are the shibboleths of fulfillment theology of religion. while it no doubt constitutes an enormous advance on the purely exclusivist theology of religion of ages past, it leads to the kind of unilateral, patronizing, and arrogant view of “nonchristian” religions. in spite of its genuine admiration and respect for other religions, na seems unable to appreciate the value of other religions except insofar as they contain “elements of truth and grace” that belong by right to christ (and, by extension, to the church) outside whom they suffer from “the rule of the devil “ and “the manifold malice of evil.” in “restoring” these “elements of truth and grace” to christ as “their source” by means of the church’s “missionary activity,” “whatever goodness is found in people’s minds and hearts, or in the particular customs and cultures of peoples, far from being lost is purified, raised to a higher level and reaches its perfection.” this affirmation sounds at first generous and benevolent toward other religions, but in fact, at least to the ears of believers in other religions, the wall separating this task of purifying, raising to a higher level, and bringing to perfection the “elements of truth and grace” found in other religions and outright supersession by which they are eliminated is scjr 10 (2015) 9 menacingly thin and porous. among contemporary catholic theologians of religion, james fredericks has made the most scathing critique of this type of fulfillment theology. in his judgment, it is a christians-talking-to-christians, in-house discourse; it distorts other religions for christian purposes; it domesticates differences; and it lessens the urgency of interreligious dialogue and undermines its value. 3 it is to be noted that what na says so far about other religions applies only to the so-called primal religions, hinduism, and buddhism (§1 and §2). (na speaks of islam and judaism only in §3 and §4 respectively.) though the declaration does not mention other indian religions such as jainism and sikhism and chinese religious traditions such as confucianism and daoism, and other living religions, it is safe to assume that na’s fulfillment theology applies to them as well. in general, it must be recognized that na’s apparently favorable attitude toward these religions is likely to be seen as a trojan horse that asian religions receive at their own risk of self-destruction. when na’s assertion about the need for the “elements of truth and grace” of these religions to be purified, raised and perfected in christianity is coupled with the rhetoric of the decree on the church’s missionary activity about the “rule of the devil” and the “malice of evil” from which these religions must be delivered through christ and the church’s mission, and when a later declaration of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, dominus iesus, asserts that these religions do not contain divine revelation, that “inspiration” cannot be ascribed to their sacred scriptures, and that their followers do not have “faith” but only “belief,” it comes as no surprise that vatican ii’s fulfillment theology of 3 see james fredericks, buddhists and christians: through comparative theology to solidarity (maryknoll, ny: orbis books, 2004), 14-21. fredericks’s critique of fulfillment theology of religion is well-taken. the question of course, is whether all theologies of religion are but iterations of fulfillment theology, or whether there is a form of theology of religion that is genuinely christian but does not espouse the main tenets of fulfillment theology. this is the direction i attempt to take in this essay. scjr 10 (2015) 10 religion leaves the believers in asian religions cold, to put it mildly. toward a kenotic theology of the relations among religions to move beyond vatican ii’s fulfillment theology of religion and to develop an alternative theology that helps effectively to implement na’s exhortation that christians “acknowledge,” “preserve,” and “promote” the truths and values of other religions, it would be necessary to adopt a reversal of the council’s perspective on other religions, one which may be termed a “kenotic theology of religion,” in the mold of christ’s kenosis (self-emptying) affirmed in philippians 2:7. i will attempt to outline the contour of such an approach by drawing on the jewish-christian dialogue in the last fifty years. the reason for choosing the jewish-christian dialogue as resource is that by any standard it is arguably the most theologically advanced and institutionally successful form of interfaith dialogue in the aftermath of vatican ii. this comes as no surprise given the intimate historical and theological connections between judaism and christianity, the complex and not rarely tragic relations between them for two millennia, the fact that na began as a document about the jews (de judaeis), the significant contributions of pope john paul ii, the many official statements on jewish-christian relations, and not least, the immense scholarly and institutional resources that both partners-in-dialogue have at their disposal. one possible objection against the use of the jewishchristian dialogue as a model for interreligious dialogue in general is that the relation of christianity to judaism is said to be unique and therefore cannot be extended to other types of interreligious dialogue. of course, there is no denying the “unique” character—theological and historical—of the relation between judaism and christianity; judaism, to use john paul ii’s expressions, is not “extrinsic” but in a certain way “intrinsic” to christianity. but whether the uniqueness of this relationship prohibits the applicability of its theology of reli scjr 10 (2015) 11 gion to other religions should not be decided a priori and in globo, that is, on the ground that it is unique. rather the analogical applicability must be assessed in each particular aspect of this theology of religion. let it be noted in passing that the intimate bond between judaism and christianity does not make the understanding of the precise relation between them any easier; on the contrary, it has been made much harder, especially in light of the christian “teaching of contempt” and the christian responsibility for the shoah. fortunately, the enormous progress that has been accomplished in the last fifty years in both the religious relations between jews and christians and the theology of jewish-christian dialogue can, in my judgment, form a most helpful basis for constructing a general theology of religion that promotes a reading of na in reverse. 1. one of the most important elements of the contemporary theology of jewish-christian dialogue is the unequivocal rejection of what is termed “supersessionism,” the belief that god’s covenant with israel has been “fulfilled” by jesus and therefore abolished. that covenant is declared “old” and has been replaced the “new” and “better” covenant that god has made in his son jesus. as the result, israel has been superseded by the church, the new and true people of god, the verus israel. over and against supersessionism, it is now widely acknowledged that god’s covenant with israel has not been revoked; rather it remains eternally valid. hence, the fulfillment theology of religion as expounded above does not apply to judaism. however “fulfillment” is understood, it cannot mean abolition or replacement. how does this anti-supersessionst theology of judaism apply other religions? in terms of covenant, it has been shown that for irenaeus god has made four covenants with humanity, namely, in adam, in noah, in abraham, and in jesus, and that none of the three covenants preceding the one made in jesus was abolished by the fourth. if god’s covenant with abraham, and in him with his descendants, has not been abolished, nor even aufgeheben in the hegelian sense, the same must be said of god’s other covenants made with all peoples. in particular, scjr 10 (2015) 12 the so-called noachic covenant, which is embodied primarily in peoples’ religions, has never been revoked, and remains eternally valid. in this sense therefore, the fulfillment theology of religion must not be applied to them. they have been neither replaced nor abolished by christianity. in this context it is important to recall the danger i alluded to above, namely, that the line separating the rhetoric of purification, elevation, and perfection as applied by nostra aetate and ad gentes to asian religions and their actual supersession is perilously thin, and the tendency to cross the line is well-nigh irresistible, and dominus iesus is exhibit a for it. 2. another positive achievement of the jewishchristian theology is the overcoming of what jules isaac calls the “teaching of contempt,” part of which is the representation of judaism at the time of jesus as a legalistic and ritualistic religion without a soul, and as a result incapable of accepting jesus’ message, and as a sterile religious tradition lacking spiritual substance and vitality. thanks to recent biblical and historical scholarship on second temple judaism and on early christianity we can now interpret the invectives present in the gospels against the pharisees and the “jews” (hoi iudaioi), paul’s contrast between faith and works, and the statement in the letter to the hebrews on jesus’ high priesthood in contrast to the priesthood of ancient israel not as a blanket rejection of god’s covenant with israel because of its alleged defects but in the context of the (at times vitriolic) dispute between rabbinic judaism and the jewish followers of jesus (regarding the correct interpretation of the torah and the obligatory character of certain jewish laws such as circumcision, the sabbath, and kosher foods). furthermore, we now understand judaism not just as the old testament but as a living, vibrant, historically evolving religion that provides its followers sure guidance in the practice of the way of the covenant. similarly, with regard to asian religions, we have rejected the “teaching of contempt” that catholic and protestant missionaries have propagated against them, depicting them as rank superstition, witchcraft, idolatry, immorality, and works scjr 10 (2015) 13 of the devil. this kind of scurrilous attack filled the pages of early missionaries’ descriptions of the religions they encountered in asia, africa, and latin america. to cite just one infamous example, in the so-called chinese rites controversy, ancestor veneration in asia was severely condemned by various popes, and catholic missionaries were obligated to take an oath under pain of excommunication to prohibit the converts from practicing it. of course, some enlightened missionaries have taken a more benign view of this practice not as a religious cult but as acts of purely civil and political import and deemed it acceptable. a more enlightened theology may even discern “elements of truth and grace” in these rites and other practices of other religions, to be purified, perfected and elevated by christianity. however, under the veneer of missionary and theological accommodation, there lies a thick layer of the “teaching of contempt” not very different from that directed against judaism. fortunately, in recent decades, many christians who live among the followers of other religions, especially those with the so-called double religious belonging, have come to appreciate, learn from, and be spiritually nourished by their sacred scriptures, their doctrinal teachings, their moral practices, their monastic and ascetic traditions. furthermore, we have also come to appreciate asian religions not as outmoded relicts of technologically backward cultures, a view promoted by enlightenment historians of religion with an anti-religious bias, but as living, vibrant, evolving religious practices of billions of people struggling to find meaning and god in the midst of poverty, oppression, and suffering. 3. within this theology of the relation between christianity and judaism and between christianity and other religions such as islam and asian religious traditions, the role of christ as the unique and universal savior and of the church as a community of salvation have of course to be understood differently. the role of christ as unique and universal savior can no longer be interpreted apart from the equally unique and universal role of the spirit, which are, in irenaeus’s felicitous scjr 10 (2015) 14 expression, “the two hands” with which god works out god’s one plan of salvation in the world, not independently from, much less in opposition to, each other, but, by the same token, not in an identical, uniform manner everywhere and at all times. thus, both god’s logos and pneuma can and do function salvifically in history not as parallel agents (since both are agents of god’s one economy of salvation) but before, after, with, and outside each other. in this way, all religions, in which god’s logos and pneuma are actively present, can legitimately be said to be “ways of salvation” together with christianity, one religion among other religions. space does not permit me to elaborate other aspects of the relation between the church and other religions such as mission and interreligious dialogue. but i hope to have shown that the time to read nostra aetate in reverse, in which other religions are no longer viewed and called “non-christians” but in which christianity, one religion among others, is purified, perfected, and elevated by its encounter with other religions, has indeed come. microsoft word 137469-text.native.1219855257.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): i-iii editors’ introduction i http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers in jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college editors’ introduction ruth langer and john merkle volume 3 (2008) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): i-iii editors’ introduction ii http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 welcome to the third volume of studies in christian-jewish relations. we are grateful the council of centers on jewish-christian relations and the center for christian-jewish learning for the opportunity to serve as the journal’s coeditors, and we are pleased to assume editorial responsibilities for a journal that was so successfully launched by its founding co-editors editors, philip a. cunningham and edward kessler and its managing editor, audrey doetzel. they set a high bar, and we are committed to maintaining their standard of excellence. fortunately, audrey remains part of our editorial staff, providing continuity and much wisdom. we are also delighted to welcome to our editorial staff leonard greenspoon, creighton university’s phillip m. and ethel klutznick professor in jewish civilization, as he replaces ruth langer as book review editor in september. our journal, through its feature topic section, has already marked several significant anniversaries: the fortieth anniversary of nostra aetate (vol. 1, 2005-2006); the centennial of dietrich bonhoeffer’s birth (vol. 2:1, 2007); the centennial of abraham joshua heschel’s birth (vol. 2:2, 2007), and the the sixtieth anniversary of the 1947 international emergency conference on anti-semitism, held in seelisberg, switzerland, and sponsored by the then newly formed international council of christians and jews, (vol. 2:2, 2007). in this third volume, our special topics turn in two new directions. the first marks another anniversary, the sixtieth anniversary of the birth of the state of israel in 1948. we reiterate our message in our 2008 call for papers: while judaism has historically presumed theologies of both the land and the state, elements of modern jewish experience have demanded the emergence of new ways of thinking about them. traditional christian theology, on the other hand, justified the exile of jews from the land, making it difficult for christians to understand the significance of these elements of modern jewish experience and the need for a new christian theology of israel. we invite academic papers that present both historical and contemporary jewish and christian theologies of the land and state of israel. we also invite responses to the papers published in this forum as well as conference proceedings on this topic. the initial upload of items for this volume includes two peerreviewed articles and one conference proceeding on this feature topic, as well as a forum of reflections on the text of the declaration of the establishment of the state of israel by scholars engaged in christian-jewish dialogue. this special topic will remain open for the remainder of the year, and we welcome additional contributions to it. in recognition of pope benedict xvi’s proclamation of a jubilee year (june 28, 2008 to june 29, 2009) dedicated to saint paul, we have also issued a call for papers on the significance of paul and of pauline studies for christian-jewish relations. the call for papers invitation reads: traditionally, christian scholars have portrayed paul as having converted from judaism to an already existing christianity. many modern scholars, both christian and jewish, have depicted paul instead as the founder of christianity. scholars in both camps have usually viewed paul as rejecting "the law" in favor of the gospel, thus providing the basis for the persistent christian supersessionist approach to jews and judaism. still other contemporary scholars question whether paul was antijewish and suggest that recovering the historical context of his letters and understanding his rhetorical techniques can provide a new perspective on paul as a resource for improved christian-jewish relations. we invite academic papers that present both historical and contemporary christian and jewish approaches to paul and their implistudies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): i-iii editors’ introduction iii http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 cations for christian-jewish relations. we also invite responses to papers published in this forum as well as conference proceedings on this topic. submissions for this discussion have begun to arrive and will be posted in the near future. given the timing of the jubilee year, this special topic will extend into the 2009 volume. after we posted this call for papers, one of our era’s most influential pauline scholars and pioneers of christian-jewish dialogue died: krister stendahl (1921-2008), mellon professor of divinity emeritus at harvard divinity school, lutheran bishop of stockholm, and a great and beloved friend of many members in o u r co u n c i l o f ce n t e r s o n j e wis h christian relations. grieving his death and thankful for his life and work, we dedicate our feature articles on paul and pauline studies to krister’s blessed memory. we welcome articles that treat krister’s contributions to pauline studies and to christian-jewish relations. as always, we continue to welcome articles for peer review and conference proceedings on other topics relevant to christian-jewish relations. this initial upload includes essays of note responding to pope benedict xvi’s revised good friday prayer for the jews and its implications, and we expect more to follow. please also benefit from our growing book review section! microsoft word cunningham.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):41-52 cunningham, “a covenantal christology” 41 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art6 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college “a covenantal christology” philip a. cunningham center for christian-jewish learning at boston college volume 1 (2005-2006): 41-52 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art6 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):41-52 cunningham, “a covenantal christology” 42 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art6 1. the question and some of its parameters an enormous theological topic in the ongoing renewal in catholic-jewish relations is how to understand the relationship between the universal saving significance of christ with the post-nostra aetate church’s appreciation of the jewish people’s ongoing covenantal life with god. as cardinal walter kasper expressed it at cambridge university in december, 2004: “how can the thesis of the continuing covenant be reconciled with the uniqueness and universality of christ jesus, which are constitutive for the christian understanding of the new covenant?”1 the question is: how should catholics understand the links between christ and israel’s covenanting? let us consider some of the parameters of this question. a. the unicity of christ (and of the church) catholic teaching, as expressed by the 2000 declaration dominus iesus, rejects a religious relativism in which “one religion is as good as the other” because “jesus christ has a significance and a value for the human race and its history, which are unique and singular, proper to him alone, exclusive, universal, and absolute.”2 therefore, “the church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one 1 walter cardinal kasper, “the relationship of the old and the new covenant as one of the central issues in jewish-christian dialogue,” address delivered at the centre for the study of jewish-christian relations, cambridge, england, dec. 6, 2004, §5. www.bc.edu/ research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/ kasper_cambridge_6dec04.htm. 2 congregation for the doctrine of the faith, “dominus iesus, declaration on the unicity and salvific universality of jesus christ and the church” (2000), iii, 15. www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/ resources/documents/catholic/cdf_dominusiesus.htm. christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the church.”3 this does not mean, as some claim, that the catholic church holds that personal baptism is necessary for salvation.4 to continue with the words of dominus iesus: for those who are not formally and visibly members of the church, “salvation in christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the church, does not make them formally part of the church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. this grace comes from christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the holy spirit”; it has a relationship with the church, which “according to the plan of the father, has her origin in the mission of the son and the holy spirit.” with respect to the way in which the salvific grace of god — which is always given by means of christ in the spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the church — comes to individual non-christians, the second vatican council limited itself to the statement that god bestows it “in ways known to himself.” theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully.5 it must be noted that dominus iesus did not address the reality of the unique relationship between judaism and christianity,6 a uniqueness acknowledged by pope john 3 ibid., vi, 20, citing second vatican council, lumen gentium, 14. 4 n.b., dominus iesus, note 82: “the famous formula extra ecclesiam nullus omnino salvatur is to be interpreted in this sense (cf. fourth lateran council, cap. 1. d fide catholica: ds 802). cf. also the letter of the holy office to the archbishop of boston: ds 3866-3872.” 5 ibid., vi, 20-21, citing john paul ii, redemptoris missio, 10; second vatican council, ad gentes, 2,7. 6 see cardinal joseph ratzinger, “the heritage of abraham: the gift of christmas” l’osservatore romano, 29 december 2000: “it is evident studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):41-52 cunningham, “a covenantal christology” 43 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art6 paul ii: “the jewish religion is not ‘extrinsic’ to us, but in a certain way is ‘intrinsic’ to our own religion. with judaism therefore we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion.”7 however, the insistence of dominius iesus that christ may not be theologically separated from the salvation of all human beings, including jews, recalls an earlier statement from the pontifical commission for religious relations with the jews (pcrrj): jesus affirms that there shall be “one flock and one shepherd” (jn 10:16). the church and judaism cannot, then, be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the church must witness to christ as the redeemer for all, while maintaining the strictest respect for religious liberty in line with the teaching of the second vatican council declaration, dignitatis humanae.8 that, as christians, our dialogue with the jews is situated on a different level than that in which we engage with other religions.” [www.bc.edu/ research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/ ratzinger.htm]; cardinal walter kasper, “dominus iesus,” address delivered at the 17th meeting of the international catholic jewish liaison committee, new york, may 1, 2001, §2: “because of its purpose, [dominus iesus] does not deal with the question of the theology of catholic-jewish relations, proclaimed by nostra aetate, and of subsequent church teaching. what the document tries to ‘correct’ is another category, namely the attempts by some christian theologians to find a kind of ‘universal theology’ of interreligious relations, which, in some cases, has led to indifferentism, relativism and syncretism.” [www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/ articles/kasper_dominus_iesus.htm]. 7 “address at the great synagogue of rome,” april 13, 1986, §4. http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/ resources/documents/catholic/johnpaulii/romesynagogue.htm. 8 pcrrj, “notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church” (1985), i.7. www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/ documents/catholic/vatican_notes.htm. this rejection of comprehending judaism and christianity as “two parallel ways of salvation” stems from the christian conviction that the salvific effect of the “christ event” is definitive for all, and so any understanding of israel’s covenanting that is totally disconnected from christ would be untenable. indeed, it could be argued that such would be a form of marcionism since it risks disengaging jesus and the church from their roots in biblical israel. b. israel’s covenanting as saving beginning with nostra aetate’s present-tense citation of romans 9:4 – “to them belong the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law” – and of romans 11:28-29 that jews are beloved of god and have received an irrevocable calling, catholic teaching has increasingly valued the covenantal relationship between god and the people israel. in addition to john paul ii’s frequent references to the permanency of that relationship, for example, as one of “partners in a covenant of eternal love which was never revoked,”9 there have been other ecclesial recognitions of its ongoing vitality. the pontifical commission for religious relations with the jews has extolled post-biblical judaism for bringing “to the whole world a witness – often heroic – of its fidelity to the one god”10 and urged christians to “strive to learn by what essential traits jews define themselves in the light of their 9 “address to jewish leaders in miami,” sept. 11, 1987. see also his addresses to: “representatives of jewish organizations,” mar. 12, 1979; “the jewish community in mainz, west germany," nov. 17,1980; “experts gathered by the pontifical commission for religious relations with the jews,” mar. 6, 1982; “jewish leaders in warsaw” june 14, 1987); “at mount sinai,” feb. 26, 2000. see also his “prayer at the western wall,” mar. 26, 2000 and ecclesia in europa (june 28, 2003), ii, 56. for relevant texts from john paul ii see: www.bc.edu/ research/cjl/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/johnpaulii/. 10 pcrrj, “notes” (1985), vi, 25. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):41-52 cunningham, “a covenantal christology” 44 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art6 own religious experience.”11 it also reminded christians that judaism has known “a continuous spiritual fecundity, in the rabbinical period, in the middle ages and in modern times … so much so that ‘the faith and religious life of the jewish people as they are professed and practiced still today, can greatly help us to understand better certain aspects of the life of the church’ (john paul ii, 6 march 1982).”12 the pontifical biblical commission has made an important hermeneutical affirmation concerning the vitality of judaism’s ongoing covenantal life with god: christians can and ought to admit that the jewish reading of the bible is a possible one, in continuity with the jewish sacred scriptures from the second temple period, a reading analogous to the christian reading which developed in parallel fashion. each of these two readings is part of the vision of each respective faith of which it is a product and an expression. consequently, they cannot be reduced one into the other.13 this “irreducible” quality of the two traditions relates to the commission’s earlier observation that “jewish messianic expectation is not in vain. it can become for us christians a powerful stimulus to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. like them, we too live in expectation. the difference is that for us the one who is to come will have the traits of the jesus who has already come and is already 11 pontifical commission for religious relations with the jews, “guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration, nostra aetate no. 4” (1974), prologue. www.bc.edu/research/cjl/metaelements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/vatican_guidel ines.htm. 12 pcrrj, “notes” (1985), vi, 25. 13 the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible (2001), ii,a,7 §22. www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/ pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_fr.html. present and active among us.”14 this acknowledgement that the covenantal life of israel will endure until the eschaton, in distinction from but related to the church’s covenantal life, is a further example of the catholic respect that has been unfolding since nostra aetate for the living, post-biblical jewish religious tradition.15 the recognition that israel’s covenanting with god will develop until the end of time, combined with an awareness that a covenantal relationship is an intimate interaction of mutuality, also has implications for how christians understand the “salvation” of israel. cardinal walter kasper has touched on the topic in two recent addresses: [t]he document dominus iesus does not state that everybody needs to become a catholic in order to be 14 ibid., ii,a,5, §21. 15 cardinal avery dulles seems to disagree with this mainstream post-nostra aetate trajectory of catholic thought; see his, “the covenant with israel,” first things 157 (november 2005):16-21. the essay ignores the documents of the pcrrj to implement nostra aetate, §4, including the 1974 directive quoted earlier (see fn. 11 above). thus, the article discounts jewish self-understanding as apparently irrelevant to christian theologies of judaism. it adds the odd opinion that, “the second vatican council, while providing a solid and traditional framework for discussing jewish-christian relations … left open the question whether the old covenant remains in force today” (p. 16, italics added). one wonders what “traditional framework” dulles had in mind since nostra aetate §4 rejected the “traditional” idea that jews were cursed by god. dulles seems to fear that an affirmative answer to “whether the old covenant remains in force today” would produce a theology of an ongoing jewish covenant that is isolated from christ. he is apparently worried about seeing “the old and new covenants as two ‘separate but equal’ parallel paths to salvation, the one intended for jews, the other for gentiles” (p. 21). this would indeed be problematic (cf. fn. 8 above), but it is neither inevitable nor necessary. n.b. that the present paper’s phrases “israel’s covenantal life” or “israel’s covenanting” intend to assert both that the covenantal bond between god and the jewish people has never been revoked and that this bond is organically united to the church’s covenanting in christ. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):41-52 cunningham, “a covenantal christology” 45 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art6 saved by god. on the contrary, it declares that god’s grace, which is the grace of jesus christ according to our faith, is available to all. therefore, the church believes that judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the jewish people to god’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because god is faithful to his promises.16 but whilst jews expect the coming of the messiah, who is still unknown, christians believe that he has already shown his face in jesus of nazareth whom we as christians therefore confess as the christ, he who at the end of time will be revealed as the messiah for jews and for all nations. the universality of christ's redemption for jews and for gentiles is so fundamental throughout the entire new testament (eph 2,14-18; col 1,15-18; 1 tm 2,5 and many others) … that it cannot be ignored or passed over in silence. so from the christian perspective the covenant with the jewish people is unbroken (rom 11,29), for we as christians believe that these promises find in jesus their definitive and irrevocable amen (2 cor 1,20) and at the same time that in him, who is the end of the law (rom 10,4), the law is not nullified but upheld (rom 3,31). …this does not mean that jews in order to be saved have to become christians; if they follow their own conscience and believe in god’s promises as they understand them in their religious tradition they are in line with god’s plan, which for us comes to its historical completion in jesus christ.17 16 kasper, “dominus iesus,” §3. 17 kasper, “the commission for religious relations with the jews: a crucial endeavour of the catholic church,” address delivered at boston college, nov. 6, 2002, §iii. www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/ texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/kasper_6nov02.htm. it is noteworthy that in both these formulations, “salvation” is seen as a characteristic quality of israel’s covenantal life with god, though not unrelated to the redemptive work of christ. we have thus come full circle to the question with which this article began: how are catholics to understand the relationship between the universal “saving” significance of christ with the post-nostra aetate church’s appreciation of the jewish people’s ongoing covenantal life with god? or to put it crudely, “how are jews saved?” c. summary our discussion thus far has set forth some significant guiding parameters. a catholic theology of israel’s covenanting must affirm that: 1. israel’s distinctive covenantal life with god will continue until the eschaton; 2. jesus christ has a unique, universal significance for the “salvation” of all humankind; and 3. an “intrinsic” bond exists between the covenanting peoples of israel and the church. 2. defining our concepts to pursue the question of how christians should see israel’s covenanting in relation to jesus christ, one must grapple with the definitions of some key christian concepts: a. “salvation” there are many ways that “salvation” is understood in christian tradition. how one thinks about “salvation” will shape how the soteriological status of jews is comprehended. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):41-52 cunningham, “a covenantal christology” 46 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art6 in a recent essay entitled “what does it mean to be saved?” clark williamson has helpfully sketched out a variety of traditional approaches.18 he posits that all approaches to salvation involve being brought by god from a dire situation to a new and transformed situation. how these two situations are understood informs the definition of salvation. thus, he sets forth the following christian approaches to salvation: salvation as redemption: rooted biblically in the notion of “buying back,” this approach understands salvation as a rescue: the israelites being saved from slavery to freedom or gentiles being freed from bondage to idols to freedom in christ. “we are liberated from sin and evil and liberated to love the neighbor.”19 salvation as reconciliation: this approach stresses that being “saved” is principally being justified: brought or restored to full relationship with god and others. it is a transition from estrangement and hostility to intimacy and affection. salvation as sanctification: this approach stresses the entering into a life of holiness, a life grounded in ethics and a christian character that is lived out with gratitude to god. “salvation as sanctification means that the god who calls us forward into the future that god has in mind for us … is a god who is never finished with us. nor are we ever finished with god who is the ground of all possibilities and ever calls us forward into a future of blessing and well-being.”20 18 in philip a. cunningham, ed., pondering the passion: what’s at stake for christians and jews? (lanham, md: rowman & littlefield, 2004), 119-128. 19 ibid., 121. 20 ibid., 125. salvation as everlasting life: grounded in the christian experience of christ’s resurrection, this approach thinks in terms of “salvation from death, from being utterly forgotten, from final meaninglessness and salvation to life everlasting with god.”21 it points beyond the world as we know it to the ultimacy of god’s steadfast live. these four approaches that christians have used over time make it clear that “salvation” is a wonderfully multifaceted concept. it ought not to be collapsed into a single, one-dimensional formula. any working definition of salvation should be expansive enough to incorporate the rich diversity conveyed by williamson’s schema. for the purposes of this discussion, then, salvation is defined as being in a relationship with god that involves the ongoing acceptance, as individuals and communities, of god’s invitation to participate in god’s unfolding plans for the world, plans that will lead to the reign of god, the age to come. relationships with god that generate this participation are “salvific.” people are “saved” from sin, meaninglessness, and death by this sharing-in-life with god and are set on a path of reconciliation, holiness, and steadfast love. and, as will be seen below, all divine invitations that bring salvation are bound up with the life, death, and resurrection of jesus christ. b. jesus as “christ” although the term christ comes from the greek word meaning “anointed one,” it means much more than that in the life of the church. “christ” is above all the term that expresses the church’s experience of god’s logos incarnated in the human life, death, and resurrection of the 21 ibid. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):41-52 cunningham, “a covenantal christology” 47 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art6 first-century jew, jesus of nazareth.22 the logos, the “word” of god, is that hypostasis of the triune god that the church knows as constantly revealing god and inviting people into relationship with that one. after the experience of the resurrection, the embryonic church began to understand that the logos was incarnated in jesus. as the pontifical biblical commission (pbc) has put it, “this [christian] faith has its origins and progressive growth in jesus’ resurrection; it was an event of salvation introduced among people who already shared the religious experience of diverse jewish communities.”23 ongoing reflection on the meaning of this recognition of jesus as “christ” and how he relates to the father and the spirit also led to the eventual development of trinitarian thought. thus, all distinctively christian understandings of god are “christomorphic,” they are shaped by the church’s experience of god as mediated through christ. sometimes christians think of “christ” and the “logos” as co-extensive terms, but this is imprecise. dominus iesus emphasized that “with the incarnation, all the salvific actions of the word of god are always done in unity with the human nature that he has assumed for the salvation of all people. ... therefore, the theory which would attribute, after the incarnation as well, a salvific activity to the logos as such in his divinity, exercised ‘in addition to’ or ‘beyond’ the humanity of christ, is not compatible with the catholic faith.”24 this means that from within the human perspective of linear time, ever since the incarnation everything that the divine logos does is done in unity with the humanity of 22 since the revelation of the logos’ incarnation in jesus is a postresurrectional development, the name “jesus” herein refers to the human nature, human self-awareness, and human life and activities of that nazorean jew. 23 pbc, the scripture and christology (1984), 1.2.3. 24 dominus iesus, ii, 10. jesus, which, since the resurrection, is a glorified humanity. what this does not mean is that anyone who glimpses the continuous activity of god in their lives, even if it includes a specific perception of the divine logos at work, will therefore be able to glean the involvement of the transcendent jesus since the experience of jesus as christ – as the logos incarnated, ministering, dying, and being raised – is a precondition for such an identification. christians experience the logos as christ, but others may experience the logos in non-christomorphic ways even though the church understands that christ is always involved. c. god as “triune” a factor that likely impedes the development of a theology of israel’s covenanting in relationship to christ is a tendency in the west toward christomonism, by which i mean an inclination to consider the significance of christ’s work without keeping a trinitarian perspective in the forefront of our theological imaginations. the god with whom the church covenants christomorphically is a triune god. the god of israel is known by christians as constantly and simultaneously creating and sustaining existence, revealing and inviting people into relationship, and enabling people to perceive that continuous invitation and empowering them to accept it. these three “ways of interrelated being” or hypostases, known in christian tradition as father, son or word, and spirit, are concurrently participating in a resonating dynamism in all of god’s deeds in historic time. therefore, from a christian perspective, all human interactions with god always involve interacting with all three of the divine hypostases because of “their” eternal interrelationship. as anthony saldarini has explained, studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):41-52 cunningham, “a covenantal christology” 48 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art6 the triune christian god is one reality with inner relations among three subsistents, the begetter, the begotten and the spirated one. … in all else, in all activity, in all relationships with humans, god is, acts, loves and saves as one, indivisibly. to say that god saves humans means that the father saves as do the son and the spirit. to say that jesus the son of god saves is to say that god saves. when god saves israel, in the christian understanding of god, the spirit of god and the son of god as well as god the father save israel. … at the most fundamental level of theology christians need to emphasize god more than they have and jesus christ as savior within the context of god’s relationship to humanity. christians too frequently center everything on jesus to the detriment of the god who sent him, guided him and sustained him.25 thus, the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of jesus – the jew in whom the divine logos is incarnated – all occurred in “cooperation,” with the dynamic involvement of the father and the spirit. trinitarian thinking requires this or god is no longer one, but three. likewise, humans experiencing a divine self-disclosure – even though revelation is fittingly attributed to the distinctive activity of the logos, the word – are always engaging all three hypostases inasmuch as their mortal existence is sustained by god the father, their mortal existence is being addressed by god the son, and their mortal existence is being empowered by god the spirit to discern god. d. the “christ-event” as universally saving 25 anthony j. saldarini, “christian anti-judaism: the first century speaks to the twenty-first century,” joseph cardinal bernardin jerusalem lecture, april 14, 1999. http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/metaelements/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/saldarini.htm. with these perspectives, then, how are the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of jesus, sometimes collectively referred to as “the christ event,” to be understood as universally and uniquely important for all humanity? again, as with other foundational questions, there are a variety of approaches that have been utilized in christian history. eastern christianity, for instance, has tended to focus on the incarnation, while western christianity has tended to stress jesus’ death and resurrection. even with an emphasis on the death of jesus, there are numerous understandings of its meaning and signifiance just within the pages of the new testament itself.26 without attempting to delineate all the richness of the christian tradition in this regard, and with a view to the discussion of salvation above, i propose that the salvific importance of christ be understood as springing from the totality of the “christ-event,” (i.e., not concentrating on the incarnation or the ministry or the crucifixion or the resurrection to the exclusion of the other aspects of jesus’ life) and that the biblical model of “covenant” provides a very useful approach to understanding christ’s universal significance. the biblical writers adapted the language of “covenant” (b’rit) from the various types of legal relationships in ancient societies and applied it to different moments of interaction between god and humans (e.g., with noah, abraham, at sinai, etc.). indeed, it could be argued that “covenant” is the bible’s favorite term for describing divine-human 26 in the new testament, e.g., jesus’ death is understood as the vindication of the righteous sufferer (lk 24:47), the death of the ultimate martyred prophet (lk 13:33), the justification of humanity (rom 4:25), the hour of jesus’ glorification (jn 17:1), the supreme sacrifice (heb 10:12), and the revelation of jesus as god’s son (mk 15:39). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):41-52 cunningham, “a covenantal christology” 49 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art6 interrelationships. thus, “covenant” can be understood in a theological sense as god and humans walking through life together in a relationship of mutual responsibilities. this concept of covenant as an ongoing, active sharing-in-life offers a primary biblical metaphor for christians to understand the unity of the divine logos with the jew jesus: a covenantal christology. thus, it is the church’s experience that jesus christ incarnates both israel’s covenantal relationship with god and god’s constant divine self-revealing logos that brings people into relationship with the triune god. by embodying israel’s covenantal life with god, jesus, the faithful son of israel, epitomized what life in covenant was and is all about. israel’s experience of being in covenant with god and of trying to walk in god’s way has included times of disaster and suffering that were brought about by a combination of internal failings and external gentile hostility. however, the people of israel have also experienced restorations and revivals after these calamities. for christians, jesus walked god’s way with perfect fidelity and epitomized the perfect jewish covenantal partner. like israel, he suffered for his faithfulness to god. he also experienced a divine covenantal restoration after his suffering that was uniquely eschatological in nature, a raising up to transcendent life that showed that death itself would be defeated in the inevitable reign of god. the revelation of this exaltation discloses to the church the identity of jesus as the triune god’s word that invites people into relationship. through christ, through the crucified and raised jew, the church continuously encounters god’s sustaining invitation to and empowerment of covenantal life. jesus christ brings the church into ongoing covenantal life with israel’s god. god’s will for the church, now become a gentile assembly rooted in israel’s story, is made known through its christ-shaped encounter with god. if jesus christ is understood as personifying israel’s covenanting with god, and thereby making possible a similar if distinctive life for the church, then israel’s covenanting with god in biblical times and down to the present must be permanent and vital. this would explain why the church knows its own covenanting with god through christ to also be permanent and vital. if israel’s covenanting could be obsolete or inert, then as jesus the jew, christ would be mediating and inviting the church to a relationship with god that is also susceptible to being rendered outmoded by god. this is unimaginable. it would be contrary to character of the god of israel and of jesus to establish a covenantal bonding that was not founded upon divine fidelity and empowerment.27 there is a further dimension to this realization. if salvation is being in a relationship with god that involves the ongoing acceptance, as individuals and communities, of god’s invitation to participate in god’s unfolding plans for the created world, then israel’s covenanting life with god has always been “salvific.” although as fallible humans, the people of israel have not always been faithful to their covenantal duties, nonetheless their covenantal life with god 27 n.b. bishops’ committee on the liturgy, national conference of catholic bishops, god’s mercy endures forever: guidelines on the presentation of jews and judaism in catholic preaching (washington, d.c.: us catholic conference, 1988), 8: “[f]alse or demeaning portraits of a repudiated israel may undermine christianity as well. how can one confidently affirm the truth of god’s covenant with all humanity and creation in christ (see rom 8:21) without at the same time affirming god’s faithfulness to the covenant with israel that also lies at the heart of the biblical testimony?” www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/ texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/nccb_gods_mercy.htm studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):41-52 cunningham, “a covenantal christology” 50 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art6 has endured and has contributed – and continues to contribute – to god’s plans for the world. despite failures, israel prays for god’s mercy and recommits itself to doing god’s will. christ’s embodiment of israel’s covenantal life, now mediated to the church in its covenanting, is saving as well. one might say that christ epitomizes “saved existence.” both israel and the church fail in their covenantal duties, both pray for god’s mercy, and both recommit themselves to doing god’s will. the salvation brought through the christ-event by the church into the whole world is an invitation to enter into covenanting life with god in service to god’s reign and thus israel’s saving work in the world is enhanced. the eschatological perspective introduced by reference to the reign of god is important in this christological approach. the “exodus-event” (i.e., the escape from slavery, the giving of the torah) can be understood as a point on the journey of humanity through history toward the age to come. israel enters into covenanting life to participate in the unfolding of god’s plans. the “christ-event” (i.e., the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of jesus) is an essential additional point on that journey, one that both intensifies israel’s covenanting with god and universalizes it in the distinctive covenanting of the church. by incarnating god’s self-revealing logos, jesus unites in himself the covenanting life of israel with the inner relationality of the triune god. through the covenanting life of the post-resurrectional church, humans are invited into a sharing-in-life with god that mirrors on a mortal scale god’s own triune being. christians might say that the divine invitation that the church finds embodied in jesus christ draws people into the very way of life of the triune god. this concept is essentially the mutual indwelling (perichoresis) formulation of the gospel of john. that text portrays the father, son, and spirit as “abiding in” one another. in johannine terms eternal life is a sharing in the loverelationship between the father and the son in the spirit. it is a love-life that transcends human death, as shown by the resurrection of jesus. indeed, it is the love-life of the trinity that transforms the rather routine roman execution of one more jew judged to be seditious into an event of universal significance. the utter self-giving of god in the incarnation in the jew jesus, itself a deepening of divine intimacy with israel for the benefit of humanity, is reflected in the self-giving of jesus to israel and all humanity through his death in service to god’s reign. as louis roy expresses it: more than [only] a human being, it is the son equal to the father who undergoes the passion. in this way, jesus’ movement of love is identical to the movement of the eternal son. he constantly gives back to the father everything he receives from him. this offering is not only that of the man jesus, but inseparably that of the eternal son. .… the father is the source. he gives himself entirely to his son and he gives us the incarnate son as well as their mutual spirit. the son returns this gift without reserve. …. [w]hat salvation makes accessible is participation in the trinitarian life.28 the resurrection of jesus, which “introduced [him] into ‘the world to come’”29 is thus both a foretaste of the fullness of life of god’s reign and an essential step in making it inevitable. indeed, both the incarnation and resurrection can be understood as “proleptic” (early intrusions or preliminary eruptions into historic time) manifestations of the age to come when god will be “all in all” (1 cor 15:28). 28 louis roy, “why is the death of jesus redemptive?” in cunningham, pondering the passion, pp. 137-138. 29 pontifical biblical commission, bible and christology, 1.2.6.2. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):41-52 cunningham, “a covenantal christology” 51 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art6 all of this should make it clear that the “christ-event” is “unique and singular, proper to him alone, exclusive, universal, and absolute.”30 by it, the transcendent life of god that will pervade existence at the eschaton entered into human history proleptically, thereby making the full realization of god’s intentions inevitable. what a covenantal approach ensures is that this “event” is related to israel’s covenanting in ways that affirm and complexify israel’s ongoing covenantal life. 3. propositions toward a christology in relation to israel’s covenanting so how, then, are catholics to understand the relationship between the universal “saving” significance of christ with the post-nostra aetate church’s appreciation of the jewish people’s ongoing covenantal life with god? it might be most useful to set this forth by means of a series of christian theological propositions: 1. the one god is triune. the inner relationality among the three in the one god is operative in all divinehuman interactions. 2. god desires and invites human beings to participate in god’s unfolding plans for the establishment of god’s reign throughout all existence. a. this continuous work of god redeems, reconciles, sanctifies, and shares divine life with the human participants. 3. god’s invitation to the people of israel has produced a covenantal sharing-in-life between god and israel that will endure until the age to come. 30 dominus iesus, iii, 15. 4. as part of god’s unfolding plans, god’s revealing and inviting logos was incarnated in a son of israel, jesus of nazareth. a. as son of israel, jesus embodied israel’s covenanting life with god. i. therefore, it could be said that the holy one’s intimacy with israel attained an even greater degree of intensity in the circumcised flesh of jesus. ii. therefore, israel’s covenanting life with god must be ongoing and vital if jesus christ is to mediate such a covenanting life to the church. b. as divine logos, jesus embodied the relationality of the triune god. i. therefore, the relationality of god entered into human history in a unique way through the ultimate union of the divine with humanity. 5. the “christ-event” – jesus’ birth, life, death, and resurrection – was a proleptic manifestation of the life of the age to come into human history and had these effects: a. the church was called into being and began a covenanting sharing-in-life with god in service to the age to come. the church’s covenanting is “christomorphic.” it is mediated and sustained through christ, the church’s experience of the divine logos in his life, death, resurrection, and transcendent life. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 1 (2005-2006):41-52 cunningham, “a covenantal christology” 52 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art6 b. christ personifies israel’s covenanting life for the church. he is the exemplar of human life in covenant with god. c. all humanity is invited to enter into the salvific participation in the unfolding of god’s plans for creation. d. the “christ-event” both anticipates and was necessary to make inevitable the ultimate establishment of god’s reign. 6. since israel covenants with god until the age to come, then israel dwells in intimate relationship with the holy one whom christians know as triune. a. therefore, from a christian point of view, israel knows god’s revealing and inviting logos, not christomorphically, but in jewish grapplings with the torah, both written and oral. 7. therefore, jews are “saved” by their ongoing covenantal participation in god’s unfolding plans for the created world, a covenanting that from a christian point of view involves an intimate relationship – since the holy one is triune – with the eternal logos unified with the son of israel, jesus. a. therefore, it could be said from a christian point of view, that jesus christ “saves” israel by virtue of his epitomizing and deepening of israel’s life with god, although, since israel does not covenant with god christomorphically, the jewish people are correct not to perceive their covenanting in this christian way. b. jewish covenanting with god is intended by god to render a non-christomorphic service on behalf of the age to come. therefore, to paraphrase john paul ii, the catholic people have a relationship with the jewish people which we do not have with any other religion. judaism is not extrinsic to us, but intrinsic.31 perhaps christians might say something similar concerning israel’s relationship to the divine logos, and so to jesus, son of israel and logos incarnate. he is not extrinsic to israel’s covenanting, but intrinsic to it. 31 john paul ii, “address at the great synagogue of rome,” apr 13, 1986, §4. see: http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/ resources/documents/catholic/johnpaulii/romesynagogue.htm. scjr 16, no. 1 (2021): 1-3 david b. ruderman missionaries, converts, and rabbis: the evangelical alexander mccaul and jewish-christian debate in the nineteenth century (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania, 2020), vii + 251 pp. yaakov ariel yariel@email.unc.edu university of north carolina at chapel hill, nc 27599 anyone interested in jewish-christian relations, as well as in the history of missions, will welcome missionaries, converts, and rabbis. it is a remarkable book. through the exploration of the work and thought of alexander mccaul (1799-1863), an outstanding british missionary leader and writer, the author skillfully resurfaces a much larger story. the book explores the history of missions to the jews in the 19th century, the impetus for evangelizing jews, the fieldwork that the missions carried out, and the literature they produced. ruderman also pays attention to jewish converts, their thoughts and careers (chapters 4 and 6), as well as to the competing ideas on how to approach the jews within the evangelical community that sponsored the missionary enterprises (chapter 5). likewise, the book examines jewish reactions to the missionary endeavor, especially to mccaul's ideas and writings (chapters 7 and 8). this is a comprehensive and thorough study of a particularly important topic in the history of judaism, as well as of christianity, in the modern era. organized, systematic attempts at evangelizing jews came about with the rise of the pietist movement in continental europe at the turn of the 18th century and was followed, with much energy, by evangelicals in britain a century later. the missions meshed with and gave voice to the messianic theology of pietists and evangelicals and their new, or renewed, understanding of the role of jews in god’s plans for humanity. missions were more than agencies aimed at christianizing jews. they served as double-edged embassies, stirring protestant interest in the jews, and the prospect of their conversion to christianity and return to palestine, as well as propagating the christian faith in its protestant messianic version among the jews. from their own perspectives, missionaries were devoted to the jews. they were working to aid the jews materially and spiritually, and they often defended the jews from what ariel: ruderman’s missionaries, converts, and rabbis 2 they considered to be malicious accusations, such as blood libels. at the same time, missionaries, such as mccaul, manifested a dismissive attitude toward rabbinic literature and published tracts attacking the talmud (chapter 1). utilizing his familiarity with jewish commentators to make a case for the evolutionary nature of jewish law, mccaul characterized (rabbinic) judaism of his day as far removed from biblical religion and as incapable of offering its adherents spiritual salvation. with the exception of the decalogue, none of the commandments were abiding. jewish thinkers, especially among the emerging reformist movements, took exception to the attacks on rabbinic judaism. the jewish elite often looked at the missions, which spread throughout the jewish world in the 19th century, as an insult and a threat. missionaries brought jews into their orbit by offering medical and financial assistance, as well as educational opportunities. they also distributed tracts and engaged jews in conversations. missionaries were aware that many jews, especially the young and dynamic, were searching for new ways of life and wishing to improve their lives within larger european or american contexts. the missions offered one such new context. though it is one that only a minority chose, many explored them, a reality that made the jewish elite very uncomfortable. the missions proliferated at the same time that jewish thinkers were themselves working to modernize their tradition and re-interpret and reconfigure their own faith. jewish writers who responded to the christian evangelists therefore walked a fine line between their own reformist agenda and their opposition to the alternative that christian missionaries offered. jewish maskilim, followers of the jewish enlightenment, who responded to mccaul’s tracts, seriously engaged with him. isaac baer levinsohn, an east european maskil, tried to disqualify mccaul as a scholar of rabbinic judaism, claiming that mccaul was not fully familiar with jewish texts and their meanings (chapter 7). another east european jewish maskil, samuel joseph fuenn, wrote a comparative history of christianity and judaism, deeming judaism the superior religion (chapter 8). raphael kasin, a reformist rabbi in bagdad and in aleppo, came out with a daring formula for his time. constructing a didactic fable, the syrian rabbi defended judaism and presented it as a noble religious tradition, though he rejected claims of its exclusivity or superiority. judaism, he asserted, was a universalist tradition that promoted the redemption of all good people, not only jews. likewise, he presented christianity as a noble religion for christians, offering all that they desired religiously (pp. 188-89). such a benevolent outlook would only become prevalent a century later, in the last few decades of the 20th century, when a movement of jewish-christian dialogue and reconciliation appeared and which cultivated a measure of respect in the manner that christians and jews related to each other. as erudite and innovative as they might have been, the jewish anti-missionary tracts had little influence on the choices that jews made when considering the option of embracing christianity. the tracts enjoyed limited circulations and were often published belatedly, even after their authors’ death. the one exception were the missionaries, who read all the literature jewish opponents of missionary activities wrote about them, often quoting from such attacks in their literature. it seems 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) that jewish thinkers wrote not so much to dissuade their coreligionists from converting to christianity but rather to define their faith in face of growing alternatives both within the fold and outside of it. the exploration of the jewish intellectual reactions to missionary writings is one of the highlights of this outstanding book. as missionaries, converts, and rabbis demonstrates, missions have posed serious challenges and stirred strong reactions in the jewish community. however, jewish, as well as christian, historians have, by and large, overlooked those highly important endeavors that have served as major venues of interaction and dialogue between protestant christians and jews. this book is an enormous contribution to the field and its available literature. likewise, it serves as a model and inspiration for historians, who, hopefully, decide to pursue research on the subject. david ruderman should be commended for his study, which has the potential to transform the field. scjr 18, no. 1 (2023): 1-3 joseph sievers and amy-jill levine, eds. the pharisees (grand rapids: eerdmans, 2021), hardcover, xxiii + 482 pp. eric c. smith ecsmith@iliff.edu iliff school of theology, denver, co 80210 a tension stretches taut through this book of essays about pharisees. pulling from one end is scholars’ diminishing confidence about the kinds of historical or literary knowledge we can possess about them. one of the contributors quotes coeditor joseph sievers (writing in an earlier article), “we know considerably less about the pharisees than an earlier generation ‘knew’” (220). anchoring the other end of the tension is the cavalier and self-assured way that many christians spoke and speak about pharisees, continuing to teach and preach theological slander that can inflict harm on contemporary jews and has little grounding in good historiography or hermeneutics. this book, the edited proceedings of a conference organized across both religious and geographical differences, grapples with this tension admirably and offers a marvelous state-of-the-question survey to anyone interested in the scholarly and ethical dimensions of the study of pharisees. the volume is organized into three main parts. first comes a collection of thirteen essays (fourteen, if one counts craig e. morrison’s etymological reflections that are listed as a “prelude”) on historical reconstructions of pharisees. this section takes up about half the book and reflects the shifting and strengthening pull of contemporary scholarly inquiries into pharisees particularly and second temple judaism generally. the overall effect of this section is to erode the certainties of previous generations of scholars. morrison undermines the usefulness of etymologies for the term “pharisee” and instead argues for descriptions based on usage of the term. vasile babota underscores the lack of clarity about the emergence of pharisees, and eric m. meyers undermines common claims that pharisees were especially concerned with purity in a way that was unusual for the time. vered noam reads 4qmmt as a record of halakic disputes in which pharisaical positions may be identified. steve mason focuses on another important extant corpus, the works of josephus, and finds it useful for isolating a few characteristics of pharisees (such as distinctive interpretation, legal precision, leniency in legal judgments, and popularity) despite his “coolness” (81) or “disdain” (108) for the group. in a turn toward the new testament, paula fredriksen offers a reading of new testament texts, especially paul’s letters, with an eye toward paul’s pharisaism, not as smith: sievers and levine’s the pharisees 2 a defunct aspect of his past but as a vital aspect of his present identity. henry pattarumadathil explores the juxtaposition of pharisees with sadducees in the gospel of matthew, and adela yarbro collins continues the focus on matthew and especially its polemics against the opponents of jesus and his followers in the “woes” of chapter 23. helmut löhr turns to luke-acts, seeing the two volumes as literary and not historical evidence for pharisees and noting the depictions of closeness between jesus and pharisees. in the gospel of john, harold w. attridge sees pharisees as foils for jesus and the author’s claims but notes that nicodemus is an intriguing counter-example. yair furstenberg understands pharisees to be especially concerned with the “form” of law observance and reads their encounters with jesus in that light. jens schröter also studies the relationship between jesus (and jesus’ followers) and pharisees but inflects it differently, noting important geographical, organizational, and eschatological differences (204). turning to the rabbis, günter stemberger questions long-held assumptions about connections between pharisees and the rabbinical movement and understands those connections as rooted in common judaism and not in any special genealogical relationship. the second part of the volume consists of ten essays on the reception of pharisees, and here the book’s ethical concerns move to the fore. matthias skeb opens the section by detailing how pharisees function in christian heresiologies to symbolize theological grievances. luca angelelli offers a very interesting statistical analysis of references to pharisees in greek literature that serves to confirm some of skeb’s observations. focusing on references to pharisees in classic rabbinic tradition, shaye j.d. cohen places jewish concern with pharisees relatively late. likewise, abraham skorka, looking at medieval jewish writers, argues that the rabbinical tradition does not consider pharisees as an independent group. turning to christian theological movements, randall zachman provides a nuanced and sometimes surprising account of the rhetorical use of pharisees in the works of martin luther and john calvin. angela la delfa, in a chapter on pharisees in art, confirms that pharisees are usually depicted as jews are depicted and offers some intriguing case studies. in a change of pace, christian stückl’s essay on his own involvement in the oberammergau passion play opens a window into the ways modern scholarship informs (and often does not inform) performances that include pharisees. relatedly, adele reinhartz helps us see the consequences of historical reconstructions of pharisees in culture, in this case in film, and shows how bias is mediated and transmitted outside of formal religious settings. a chapter by susannah heschel and deborah forger harkens back to the historical material in the first half of the volume, tracking the receptions of pharisees in scholarship and their entanglements in intellectual, religious, and political movements. finally, in this section philip a. cunningham surveys catholic textbooks and catechetical materials for evidence of how pharisees are mediated pedagogically and calls for further ecclesial and scholarly interventions into these materials. a final section of two essays is titled “looking to the future,” and both contributors emphasize the ethical stakes of the study of pharisees. co-editor amy-jill levine writes with her characteristic combination of charity and honesty, calling on christians to examine their teaching and proclamation about pharisees and jews, 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2023) to excise false and harmful stereotypes, and to contextualize references to pharisees to combat rampant unfounded anti-judaism. massimo grilli and co-editor joseph sievers helpfully summarize and categorize some of the major questions of the volume and offer constructive pathways forward. a final short piece, included as an appendix, presents the remarks of pope francis to the conference. the hopeful and forward-looking tone of the pope’s remarks is welcome but somewhat at odds with the litany of historical and contemporary misreadings and even harm catalogued by many of the essays that preceded it. again, the central tension of the book draws tight. this volume manages to be both a helpful entry point for anyone interested in scholarship on pharisees and an essential addition to the library of even the most seasoned scholar. it covers the major sources for information about pharisees, asking the reader to reconsider received knowledge, and it follows and contributes to many ongoing scholarly conversations, summarizing the journey so far and surveying the road ahead. in this way, the tension at the center of the volume is unresolved and helpfully left in place: as scholars seek to know more about the pharisees and their world, christians and others who invoke pharisees in religion and culture might seek to know and say less, adopting a posture of humility both toward the past and toward religious neighbors in the present. 1 scjr 18, no. 1 (2023): 1-4 we remember: a complex narrative john pawlikowski jtmp@ctu.edu catholic theological union (emeritus), chicago, il 60615 the 1998 vatican document on the shoah was a decade in the making. first promised by pope john paul ii in an address to the jewish community of miami during a pastoral visit to the city in 1987, it finally made its appearance in march 1998. initially there was hope that the promised document would have the status of a papal encyclical. regrettably this did not happen. rather it was issued under the auspices of the holy see’s commission for religious relations with the jews, whose president at the time was australian cardinal edward idris cassidy. but the document did include a strongly worded supportive introduction by john paul ii. taken together, the papal forward and the actual text establish a measure of moral failure on the part of catholics during the nazi era. otherwise there would be no need for the repentance to which it summons the church worldwide. some greeted we remember with considerable enthusiasm while others in the catholic and jewish communities expressed disappointment that it was not as forceful as the statements issued by various episcopal conferences, notably one from the french bishops. the response from the vatican at the time was that the document had global orientation that was intended to address catholic communities in south america, asia, and africa where the connection to the shoah is not as direct as in europe and north america. there is some validity to this argument but, in my judgment, there could have been some direct reference to the various european statements in we remember. some of the most trenchant critiques came from catholics. the respected catholic magazine commonweal, for instance, expressed strong concern about the document in an editorial in march 1998. the central criticism of the document was that it failed to move the discussion of the shoah beyond what had already been articulated in ecclesial statements in prior national catholic reflections. nostra aetate had already asserted that jews bore no responsibility for the death of jesus and that jews remain in an ongoing covenantal relationship with god. my own assessment of we remember is rather mixed in terms of positives and negatives. i do see it as a document that establishes the shoah as a permanently vital issue for catholic self-reflection on a global level. but at the same time i believe it falls short from a scholarly point of view in critical areas. it brings the theological and ethical issues raised by the shoah to the heart of catholic self-reflection far more directly than any previous vatican statement—and it does so with pawlikowski: we remember: a complex narrative 2 papal endorsement. because of this document, catholics throughout the world, not only those in countries immediately impacted by world war ii, must take seriously the challenge of the shoah to catholic theology and ethics. finally, although not as pivotal a contribution to the theological challenge, the document makes it intellectually impossible for catholics to accept the arguments of holocaust deniers. we remember also clearly implicates catholics at all levels of the church— even at the very highest levels, as cardinal edward cassidy stressed in several speeches soon after the document’s release—in the sin of antisemitism. while the distinction made in the document between the “pure” mystical and sacramental church, the body of christ, and the wayward “sons and daughters” of the church may be rooted in a theological perspective no longer acceptable to leading theologians who regard such a perspective as not fully congruent with the ecclesial vision laid out at vatican ii, we remember does at least argue that leading catholics were guilty of serious moral failure during the nazi era in their attitude towards jews and judaism. though we remember is certainly one of the most important documents on catholic-jewish relations issued by the vatican since nostra aetate, it is unfortunately marked by some perspectives that are incomplete and sometimes even misleading. i will focus on four such areas. at the outset let me set some context for these misleading assertions in the text of the document. soon after the release of we remember i found myself together with cardinal edward cassidy at the international council of christians and jews annual conference in germany. on a bus trip during the conference to the nearby czech republic i was able to engage the cardinal in an in-depth conversation about the creation of the text. he was blunt in telling me that the four issues that i am about to discuss were imposed upon the text by cardinal joseph ratzinger as head of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith (cdf). cardinal cassidy said he was faced with an ultimatum. either he would alter the text or the cdf would not permit the publication of the document. after considerable soul-searching the cardinal said he decided to incorporate the controversial revisions because he believed it was important to bring the holocaust to a central place in catholic self-identity despite the presence of these controversial statements. it is important to understand that these claims were not in the text as proposed by cardinal cassidy but changes demanded by cardinal ratzinger at the cdf. the first of the controversial assertions in we remember concerns the distinction between the sinful actions of wayward “sons and daughters” of the church and the church itself as a theological and spiritual reality. we remember insists that the church itself cannot be guilty of sinfulness. during the shoah it was only some members of the church who sinned by following inauthentic catholic preachers. the late cardinal francis george of chicago during a public discussion of we remember related a conversation he had about the document with pope john paul ii. in that conversation, cardinal george insisted, the pope strongly endorsed the view that the church itself did not sin during the holocaust era. sinfulness was confined to wayward members of the church. while this catholic perspective on the capability of the church to sin has roots in the classical catholic tradition, it needs 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) further discussion today. surely we must come to see a much closer connection between the theological vision of the church and its institutional expression. and the so-called “wayward sons and daughters” who failed their moral responsibility during the shoah had frequently taken their anti-jewish views from the preaching and teaching of catholic leaders. the second problematic area in we remember that i would highlight is its contention that there existed no links between christian anti-judaism (hatred of jewish religion) and christian antisemitism (the desire to make jews marginal and miserable in social settings) and the hitlerian form of antisemitism. there is some truth to that distinction. classical christian antisemitism, following the teachings of st. augustine, argued for the preservation of jews as a “witness people” who expose the spiritual and social consequences of rejecting christ. nazi antisemitism had the goal of eliminating jews from the face of the earth through genocide. the shoah represented a definite advance in the depth of antisemitism. but there was also a direct connection that we remember fails to expose. while many people were likely unaware or unconvinced of nazi genocidal ideology about jews and judaism, they were significantly impacted during the nazi era by what they had been taught as an inherent part of their christian faith. anti-judaism had become so embedded in catholic theology, catechesis, and artistic expression. so to fundamentally separate the two forms of antisemitism is a gross error. catholics abetted the nazi extermination of the jews directly or by remaining on the sidelines as sympathetic bystanders. the third problematic dimension of we remember is closely related to the second. as a result of the history of antisemitism in christian proclamation over the centuries most catholic did little to aid the jews, so when we remember asserts that most catholics helped jews during the nazi onslaught it is misleading its membership. while there were some heroic examples of polish assistance to jewish victims, evident in those polish citizens included in the avenue of the righteous at the national holocaust memorial in jerusalem’s yad vashem, they in fact represented a tiny fraction of the catholic population of europe. so we remember is totally misleading when it claims majority catholic assistance for the jews. the contrary was actually the situation. this claim of exemplary catholic assistance for the persecuted jewish community deserves the extensive criticism it has received from both christian and jewish scholars. it is a clear falsification of the actual situation. the final point i would raise about we remember has to do with its portrayal of the papacy of pius xii. in the aforementioned conversation i had with cardinal cassidy he shared with me that he wanted to leave the question of pius xii out of the document. he believed it required a far more nuanced and in-depth consideration than we remember would allow. also the evaluation of pius xii was still in early stages of study with considerably different perspectives emerging. and key materials in the vatican archives were not yet available for research. nonetheless the cardinal said he was forced by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith to include it as a requirement for the congregation’s approval of the document’s pawlikowski: we remember: a complex narrative 4 public release. it was clear according to cardinal cassidy that the cdf was insisting on some defense of pope pius xii’s papacy. so, as with the other requirements presented to him by the cdf, he reluctantly decided to go along with the congregation’s request. he judged it was vitally important that the holocaust be placed on the catholic table for theological and moral education as well as repentance. in light of the papal promise of a vatican statement on the shoah, its burial rather than its release would likely have caused further tensions. to satisfy some of the concerns of the cdf he included mention of the positive perspectives on pius xii and his papacy issued right after world war ii and at the time of his death. certainly these statements need to be included in any comprehensive evaluation of pius xii. but the political context of some of these statements must also be examined, something that is not undertaken in the text of we remember. in my view, any presentation of pius xii in such an official document must include an assessment that has scholarly and ethical authenticity for the sake of the catholic church’s integrity. the 1998 text does not adequately meet that bar. if we remember is to remain the foundation for discussion about the holocaust within global catholicism, it must be revised in a way that corrects the first three distortions i have raised in these comments. and if the papacy of pius xii is to remain in the text then words need to be added which make clear that his legacy is far from a settled question. there must be a clear affirmation of the importance and value of the scholarly research now being undertaken as a result of the opening of the various pertinent vatican archives. catholic leadership needs to make it clear that it remains open to a serious evaluation of his policies regarding the extermination of the jews and the plight of the polish people under the nazis. ____________________ john t. pawlikowski, osm, is professor emeritus of social ethics at the catholic theological union in chicago. he served four terms on the board of the united states holocaust memorial museum in washington dc, by presidential appointment, where he chaired the church relations committee at the mandel center for advanced holocaust studies. he also served as chair of the advisory committee for the national center for catholic holocaust education at seton hill university. his publications in english and german include ethics in the shadow of the holocaust: christian and jewish perspectives, co-edited with judith h. banki. from denial to acceptance: holy see israel relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): lewy cp1-7 lewy, denial to acceptance lewy cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 from denial to acceptance: holy see israel relations h.e. mordechay lewy, ambassador of israel to the holy see keynote address at the holy see and israel conference center for christianjewish learning, boston college, june 17-18, 2009 excellencies, reverends, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends: it is a special honor for me to present this address which inaugurates tomorrow’s colloquium. it seems that the success of the recent papal visit to israel has attracted an audience wider than insiders and scholars. i welcome all here tonight for this opening presentation. i have to confess that, before joining israel's diplomatic service thirty-four years ago, my profession was historical research. i still find it a most stimulating pursuit. the quality control of diplomatic reporting and evaluations begins the moment the ink has dried. my ambition was to be considered a good historian among diplomats and as a good diplomat among historians. now, after being at the vatican for one year, i face a new challenge: to become a theological diplomat. theology preoccupies me more than ever, because this is the body language in which relations between israel and the holy see are embedded. as the title of this lecture indicates, my historical reflections begin with the state of nonrelationship, during which the vatican withheld any openness towards the very concept of jewish statehood in the holy land, in other words towards the zionist idea. i wish to share with you quotations from two documents, which are very telling. the first is a very early catholic reaction to the zionist congress in basel. it was published in the civilta cattolica on may 1, 1897. civilta cattolica was and still is the leading jesuit periodical which is always published with an imprimatur (ecclesiastical approval). civilta cattolica (1.05.1897): ”…according to the holy scriptures, the jewish people is to live in dispersion and itinerant among the nations in order to serve as witness to jesus, and not only through the scriptures but in its own existence. concerning the newly built jerusalem, which could be the center of the renewed jewish state, we have to add that this contradicts jesus' own prophecy.” the objections are encapsulated in the prophecy of dispersion which, according to thenprevailing catholic doctrine should mark the fate of the jewish people. the encounter between conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): lewy cp1-7 lewy, denial to acceptance lewy cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 theodor herzl and pope pius x was equally negative, according to herzl’s notation of the papal reply to herzl's quest for diplomatic support. in his january 25, 1904 diary entry herzl presented pope pius x's words as follows: there are two possibilities: either the jews will remain in their belief and will wait for the messiah to come, the one who has already come according to us. in this case we cannot help the jews, because they do not believe in the divinity of jesus. or they will go there [i.e. palestine] without any religion, and then we surely cannot help them. the religion of israel was the root of our religion but it was superseded by the teaching of jesus, and we cannot attribute any status to it. the jews, who should have been the first to recognize jesus, have not recognized him until today…if milord will come to palestine and will settle with his nation, we will prepare churches and priests in order to baptize all of you.” obviously, the first encounters of the holy see with zionism were problematic to say the least. the objections were theological touching upon such principles of belief as the succession of christians to jews as the chosen people, or the dispersion of the jews as a punishment for failing to recognize jesus as their messiah. to the best of my knowledge the secret archives of the pope, which are relevant to the apostolic tenures of pius x, benedict xv and pius xi, are open, but the vatican's attitudes towards the zionist movement are still known mainly from jewish sources. it is time to diversify these sources, especially since they are already accessible in rome. the vatican had to face the challenge that emerged from the rise of zionism. after all, some jews were transforming a religiously articulated jewish hope into a secular action plan, aimed politically at the return of the jewish people to the promised land. although the first catholic objections to zionism were theological, political objections were added progressively in tandem with the zionist action plan gradually taking shape in the land of israel. after the balfour declaration, which promised jews british support for building a homeland, zionists became competitors on both the theological and political levels. in view of the coming mandate rule by a christian power, albeit of anglican denomination, the holy see hoped to improve its standing in jerusalem and the holy sites after the removal of the ottoman rule. in order to accommodate the vatican, theodor herzl and later nahum sokolow (who met pope benedict xv on may 4th 1917) gave assurances that a future jewish state would respect catholic interests in the holy sites and may even consider not establishing its capital in jerusalem (according to herzl). the holy see, however, saw its interests in the holy land best served in the context of international status for jerusalem and bethlehem (corpus separatum), which it advocated in 1937. the holy see succeeded diplomatically to integrate this concept in a more limited formula into the un partition plan, which was adopted on november 29, 1947. still today this position has not been formally abandoned. a relic of it is visible every day as l’osservatore romano, reports ─ from tel aviv and never from jerusalem ─ what is happening in israel. the concept of special status for jerusalem is still alive in the terza loggia in the vatican palace. one has only to read the preamble to the february 15, 2000 basic agreement between the holy see and the plo. i would not rely much on palestinian contractual promises. as long as palestinians did not assume effective responsibility in jerusalem, epistola non erubescit [the letter is not ashamed], as cicero used to say. however, beyond the yet-to-be solved question of jerusalem, has the vatican changed its basic attitude towards the jewish homeland since 1948? the answer is clearly positive. how else should we understand the words of pope benedict on the occasion of my accreditation on the 12th of may 2008? studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): lewy cp1-7 lewy, denial to acceptance lewy cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 the holy see joins you in giving thanks to the lord that the aspirations of the jewish people for a home in the land of their fathers have been fulfilled. his statement was simultaneously meant as a blessing on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of the establishment of israel. these words go beyond the mere recognition which was extended in december 1993. they amount to a theological justification of the return of the jewish people to israel – indeed, an acceptance which shed a new light on all previous catholic denials. what has happened to vatican attitudes towards israel and zionism during the last century, between 1904 and 2009? my answer will not be structured chronologically. it will instead rely on an eclectic choice of events. my aim is to explain how the process of change from denial to acceptance took shape. changing attitudes is sometimes a process of adapting to new realities. what were the realities that affected the attitudes of the holy see towards jews and israel, and when did they occur? the vatican did not recognize israel long after its establishment in 1948. moreover, there are indications presented in uri bialer's book, cross on the star of david, that the holy see did not believe that the jewish state would survive its war of independence. confronted with israeli survival in spite of all odds, pope pius xii issued an encyclical letter, redemptoris nostri cruciatus on april 15, 1949. the letter's aim was to encourage the return to the status quo ante of the partition plan of november 1947. i assume that the vatican believed that catholic interests were much better safeguarded under an international umbrella than by relying on the benevolence of a non-believing ruler, be it jewish or muslim. the policy of denial was maintained throughout pope paul vi’s holy land pilgrimage in 1964. the state of israel was never mentioned by him. president shazar, who welcomed the pope in megiddo, was not addressed by him as the president. however, the first decade of israel's existence was marked by constant israeli diplomatic efforts to come to terms with the holy see and to pave the way towards some modest level of recognition. nobody in jerusalem dared to dream about full-fledged relations. most israeli statements, during that time, relating to the vatican and to pope pius xii should be evaluated with this parameter in mind. but far beyond the arduous diplomatic parquet, new developments took place within the second vatican council’s deliberations during the years 1962 and 1965. the catholic church's new openness was aimed at claiming its place in the modern public sphere. it did not stop short of reformulating its theological attitude towards jews, muslims and other religions. the outcome of this reassessment is known as the council declaration nostra aetate, promulgated on october 28, 1965. what is less known, however, is the fierce opposition by the oriental latin churches and substantial conservative circles within and outside the curia to §4 in this declaration which addresses the church’s relationship with jews and judaism. this opposition has not faded away. even until today several segments of the catholic church fail to accept this declaration wholeheartedly. in third world catholicism this declaration is still regarded by many believers as not relevant. this is especially the case where no jewish community structure can provide a solid basis for a dialogue. therefore, we welcome any public papal statement which refers to nostra aetate. it has immense value, even if it is a repetitive exercise. did this new theological approach lead to a new political relationship with israel? it is assumed the vatican adapts to new political realities more quickly than to changes in theology, which usually lag behind. are we able to recognize here an exception where theological change is the forerunner of political change vis-à-vis israel? perhaps. at least we would like to think so. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): lewy cp1-7 lewy, denial to acceptance lewy cp 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 i rather tend to assume that the new reality was a result of israel’s effective control over the entire holy city in a united jerusalem since 1967. this forced the vatican to add a pragmatic dimension to its well-known declaratory policy of political denial. hence, since 1967, vatican diplomacy vis-à-vis israel began to waver between two parameters: 1. a policy of strict and consequent non-recognition of israel’s sovereignty over jerusalem, far beyond the usual interpretation of international law. the holy see still embraced its own ideas regarding the special status of jerusalem. 2. a pragmatic policy through which catholic interests can best be served by having a working relationship with the party who exercises effective authority in jerusalem. the salient though never confirmed understanding is that the holy see is aware of the fact that catholic interests are better safeguarded under israeli governance than under muslim-arab rule. this leads to an optic distortion whenever the vatican laments the fate of the christians in the middle east. the holy see may have good reasons to do so, but consequentially it always fails to mention the improved living conditions of israeli christians. what then brought about the establishment of full diplomatic relations in 1993-94? • was it adaptation to the new political reality of the oslo peace process? hence, the vatican could not simply behave more palestinian than the palestinians themselves. • was this peaceful scenario only a pretext for realizing a long standing personal aspiration of pope john-paul ii? hence, the pope overruled his own advisers. • was this establishment to be understood within the overarching framework of zealous vatican diplomacy during the nineties to establish relations with as many countries as possible? hence, vatican diplomacy is focused less on israel than one might assume. • was it a belated political consequence of the theological change towards judaism as reflected in nostra aetate? hence, it would denote theological priority over political considerations in the shaping of vatican diplomacy. historical truth may reside within all four reasons. each reason probably contributed its own share. i, at least, cannot provide a clearer answer. it is more than fair to leave this to future research. the nature of our diplomatic relations allow me now to outline some of the parameters of our diplomatic relations. they will reflect the unique framework within which the relations are conducted. first parameter: asymmetry in scope of representation examples: 1. the nuncio, as the ambassador of the holy see, is at the same time a high ecclesiastical dignitary with the title of archbishop. he may perform his religious office, but he must care about the wellbeing of all the catholics in his host country, including intervention on their behalf with the authorities. however, he will not participate in the presidential new year reception in honor of the non-jewish religious leadership. he rather prefers to participate in the annual reception for the diplomatic corps. by doing so he underlines the studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): lewy cp1-7 lewy, denial to acceptance lewy cp 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 reality of the vatican as a full-fledged member of the international community of sovereign states. 2. an israeli ambassador to the holy see (on the other hand) is by definition regarded as a lay person representing his state but not any religious community. therefore, he may observe and discuss, with his hosts in the holy see, religious concerns, but will not be able to speak officially on their behalf. second parameter: intertwining theological and political mode of action examples: 1. the theological and political levels of performing the duties of a nuncio are intertwined. when he requests to enter an area of restricted accessibility for the purpose of saying mass, he is making a request in the name of religious freedom. once his request is granted, it is regarded as a political gesture, meeting expectations of religious freedom maintaining friendly bilateral relations as well. however, if, upon his return, he speaks to the media about his visit it may be seen as a political and not as a spiritual act. 2. in order to enable the resumption of the interfaith dialogue between the holy see and the chief rabbinate of israel one year ago, the vatican had to write a response from the highest possible rank, explaining, in an acceptable manner, the papal measure regarding the good friday prayer for the jews. every answer would have entailed an interpretation about the time when the truth will be unveiled to the jews. the final answer (in an eschatological frame of time) given to the rabbis came from the highest political echelon in the vatican ─ without any binding theological authority. the dialogue was resumed. i have reasons to believe that at the given moment, this was the best answer the holy see could provide, and israel did not insist on a theological imprimatur. 3. both the nuncio and the ambassador of israel participate in the interfaith meetings between the vatican and the chief rabbinate of israel. it is just this grey zone between diplomacy and theology which i personally cherish most. 4. issues of beatification or excommunication are internal theological matters of the vatican. diplomatic courtesy obliges israel to respect this. nevertheless, when these matters have a political bearing on the public sphere, such as pius xii's disputed historical role during the holocaust or bishop williamson's denial of the holocaust. israel’s official representatives reserve their right to take public positions related to the political public sphere. at the same time they are advised to avoid any reference to internal affairs of the vatican. third parameter: intertwining theology and domestic policy examples: 1. most matters for discussion on the bilateral agenda relating to israel's authority are within israel's domestic policy: taxation, exemptions, juridical status, property rights. the holy see cares about the wellbeing of catholics in israel, the great majority of whom are israeli citizens. they are served by the ministry of the interior. fiscal negotiations are, studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): lewy cp1-7 lewy, denial to acceptance lewy cp 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 from the israeli perspective, a domestic issue involving four ministries (finance, justice, interior and foreign). for the holy see, these are foreign political issues. 2. most matters to be discussed on the bilateral agenda relating to the authority of the holy see are theological issues: anti-judaism, combating racism and antisemitism, holocaust education, joint research and academic exchange, promoting biblical studies etc. classical bilateral ventures, such as cooperative efforts in development or joint issue of commemorative stamps, exist but are not many. economic or defense issues are obviously not included in our bilateral relations. fourth parameter: intertwining freedom of religion and security 1. extending visa permits to catholic clergy is, for the vatican, a matter of exercising freedom of religion, which israel respects. if, however, a cleric holds passports from states which are at war with, or do not recognize israel, israeli authorities regard the matter as a security issue. on this delicate matter not all the hopes of the vatican can be fulfilled. fifth parameter: the triangular nature of our bilateral relations examples: 2. the not-always silent shareholders of the holy see in the bilateral relationship with israel are the catholics in israel, most of whom have israeli citizenship. most are of arab ethnicity, and they bear the marks of a catholic minority of 140,000 persons within a larger arab muslim minority. the fact that they belong to the higher socioeconomic echelons in israel seems not be a consolation to them. they rather like to lament about their fate, despite the fact that they are far better off in israel in every respect than their brethren are in any given arab muslim country. 3. in the past as well as in the present some israeli catholics are opponents to the improvement of relations between the holy see and israel. their leadership opposed the theological opening towards the jews during the second vatican council. they were overruled by the holy see when they objected to the establishment of diplomatic relations. it seems to me that they will be overruled also in the future when the interests of the vatican require it. papal visits to israel: a baramoter of the relationship it is rewarding to compare the three papal visits, as we can draw some conclusions on the state of bilateral relations. in 1964, the visit of paul vi was a clear expression of a non-recognition policy. nostra aetate had not yet been promulgated. the aim of the visit, beyond the act of pilgrimage, was the meeting with the greek-orthodox ecumenical patriarch athenagoras in jerusalem. the papal visit of john paul ii in 2000, on the other hand, was in the context of the second millennium celebrations. to the best of my knowledge, the long-time pre-announced papal visit took place without a formal invitation. it was as if papa wojtilla had set himself in motion and later, knocking at israel's door, announced, "i'm coming – are you at home?" the personal desire of the pope overruled any objections on the part of his advisors and of the local catholics. the program included, not only acts of recognition by visiting the president at his official residence in jerusalem. his personal affection towards jews was visible, as he stayed longer than planned at yad vashem, speaking with jews from krakov who had survived the studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): lewy cp1-7 lewy, denial to acceptance lewy cp 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 holocaust. his dramatic gesture of asking forgiveness from god at the western wall gave his visit a historical dimension. at the same time, not everyone in the vatican was happy with this gesture, which might have far-reaching theological implications. in november 2008, the first operative steps were set in motion in order to implement pope benedict's long-standing desire to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor and to perform a pastoral visit together with an act of pilgrimage to the holy land. one of the first vatican requests, after frequent verbal invitations, was to get official invitations from all heads of state in question (i.e. the king of jordan, the president of israel and the president of the pa). with those invitations in hand, the pope gave his visit a political dimension. this served as an additional proof that the holy see is aiming at a special position as a political player. the gestures, which could mean an upgrading of bilateral relations with israel, were taken hereby into account. by and large, the visit of 2000 served as a model for the papal program in 2009. the slight changes were more of a non-political nature mainly due to logistical considerations. neither "operation cast lead" nor the williamson affair, neither the elections in israel nor the historical dispute about pius xii, endangered the papal visit at any given moment. potential minefields, such as a visit to the display about pius xii in the yad vashem museum, were cleared in advance. an uncontrolled initiative of the rabbi in charge of the western wall, not to allow bearing crosses during the papal visit, was thwarted at an early stage. the preparations continued discretely without interruption. as in the past, the local catholics were the least excited about the visit. the latin patriarch of jerusalem twal had to campaign among his flock before the papal visit took place. on the other hand, the jewish world was cooperative and joined israel in accepting the explanatory remarks given by the holy see regarding williamson's holocaust denial. in his exceptional letter to his bishops, benedict expressed thanks to jewish friends for showing understanding, an attitude which, according to the pope, many catholics were not ready to show. many critics within the church and in the media watched every move of pope benedict in order to "celebrate" another potential mishap. with this background in mind, the overall success of the visit counts even more. vatican diplomacy performed at its best during the visit. the state secretariat tried to accommodate the sensitivities of jordanians, israelis and palestinians, each upon its own merits, as much as it could. only requests which put the vatican's own interests in jeopardy where rejected. for israel, benedict's visit was of historical dimension, and not only because it actually took place. israel holds the present pope in high esteem perceiving him as very friendly towards jews as well as promoting interfaith dialogue with them. it seems that his visit has fashioned a tradition acknowledging that any future pope may visit the holy land and israel. the program of john paul ii is likely to remain as the model for visits to come. pope benedict's statements during his visit will nourish our future relations for a long time. his homily on names and memory in yad vashem was a contribution to indepth reflection never heard before on such an occasion. his remark on the meaning of the hebrew expression batah at the presidential palace was constructive in promoting the semiotic and political nexus between security and confidence. his clear words against holocaust denial and his call to combat anti-semitism, as well as his commitment to dialogue with the "elder brother" in the spirit of nostra aetate will also hopefully reach catholic quarters in the third world. bearing the events of the past year in mind, we can express our present state of bilateral affairs with samson's riddle from the book of judges (14:14): …and out of the strong came forth sweetness כי מעז יצא מתוק microsoft word 172845-text.native.1250633994.doc nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college the myth of the 'law-free' paul standing between christians and jews 1 m a r k d . n a n o s r o c k h u r s t u n i v e r s i t y volume 4 (2009) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 mark@marknanos.com 1 this essay is dedicated to krister stendahl, may his memory be for a blessing. special thanks to andy johnson, david may, and bill stancil for comments on earlier versions of this paper, which was presented as a guest at the evangelical theological society (ets) annual meeting, providence, ri, november 21, 2008. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): nanos 1-21 nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 since the emergence of historical criticism, many christian and jewish scholars have concluded that jesus was torah positive, upholding that not even a jot or tittle of the torah is to be removed (matt 5:18). thus, any ostensible disagreements jesus had with pharisees or other rival jewish interest groups were not about the continued role of torah per se, but over competing interpretations of how to apply torah. but this new approach does not extend to the apostle paul. in fact, this new understanding about jesus has magnified exponentially the tendency to represent paul as one who devalued torah and founded christianity. 2 now paul, not jesus, by his ostensible conversion from torah to christ, substantiates the differences between these faith communities. 3 jesus practiced judaism, however different his halakhah may have been from that of his rivals; paul did not. with his announcement of the arrival of the kingdom of god, jesus sought to refine prevailing interpreta 2 surveys of modern jewish views of paul include: nancy fuchs-kreimer, the “essential heresy”: paul's view of the law according to jewish writers: 1886-1986 (phd diss., temple university, 1990); stefan meißner, die heimholung des ketzers: studien zur jüdischen auseinandersetzung mit paulus, wunt 2.87 (tübingen: mohr siebeck, 1996); susannah heschel, abraham geiger and the jewish jesus, chicago studies in the history of judaism (chicago: university of chicago press, 1998); pamela eisenbaum, "following in the footnotes of the apostle paul," in identity and the politics of scholarship in the study of religion, eds. jose ignacio cabezon and sheila greeve davaney (new york: routledge, 2004), 77-97; daniel r. langton, "the myth of the 'traditional view of paul' and the role of the apostle in modern jewishchristian polemics," jsnt 28.1 (2005): 69-104; idem, "modern jewish identity and the apostle paul: pauline studies as an intra-jewish ideological battleground," jsnt 28.2 (2005): 217-58; alan f. segal, "paul's religious experience in the eyes of jewish scholars," in israel's god and rebecca's children: christology and community in early judaism and christianity: essays in honor of larry w. hurtado and alan f. segal, eds. david b. capes, april d. deconick, helen k. bond and troy a. miller (waco, tex.: baylor university press, 2007), 321-43. 3 richard l. rubenstein, my brother paul, 1st ed. (new york: harper & row, 1972), 114, put the matter succinctly: "'jesus, yes; paul, never!' would seem to be the watchword of much of the thoughtful jewish new testament scholarship in modern times." tions of torah; paul altogether abandoned it. thus ironically, a central proposition of christianity, that it is "not-judaism," and of judaism, that it is "not-christianity," revolves around the prevailing portrait of the "law-free" (or better, "torah-free") paul and his supposedly "law-free gospel" (or better, "torahfree gospel"), instead of around jesus and his teachings. 4 when christians celebrate paul as the apostle of "the gospel of freedom from law," this nomenclature highlights the problem of polemic at work at the level of ideology. "torah" means "teaching" rather than "law." torah is not simply the teaching of commandments or rituals, but of a way of life that prizes the interests of god and god's creation. the "love command" quoted by paul (and jesus) is from the heart of torah, leviticus 19:17-18. torah includes the teaching of freedom, a core value for judaism just as it is for christianity. freedom is at the heart of the celebrations of sabbath and pesach, of many commandments enjoining the humane treatment of others, reasoning that extends to the treatment of animals. 5 it is because of freedom that responsibility to god and to each other are magnified in torah. and the word "gospel" also communicates a central concept of judaism, the message of good for israel, and that news which the heralds 4 this characterization of paul's attitude toward torah and judaism is so widely held that annotation would be superfluous, and inevitably incomplete. 5 see, for example, lev 26:13; deut 5:15; 15:1-15; 16:1-12; 24:17-22. i do not mean to discount the weight of the responsibility to do the commandments, which rabbinic judaism characterizes as the "yoke of the commandments," referring to the shema (deut 11:13-21; b. berakhot 2.2), but this is the responsibility of those who are in a covenant relationship with the god who delivered israel from egypt, which is also a central element of the ge'ulah (redemption) blessing recited following the shema; similarly, paul bases the call to keep the commandments on covenant identity in christ (e.g., 1 cor 7:19; gal 5:13—6:10). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): nanos 1-21 nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 from israel will bring to all of the other nations (e.g., isa 52:610, cf. rom 10:15). 6 in response to the way that judaism is portrayed in christian interpretations of paul, jews traditionally characterize him as an apostate who either failed to understand torah, or rejected it because of his own inadequacies. even generous treatments of paul today conclude that his teachings on torah indicate a religious way of life that does not represent judaism, instead perhaps advocating its mirror opposite. 7 yet the tanakh itself as well as later forms of judaism emphasize god's grace and faith, just as paul did. we find this view even among extreme halakhists like the community of the dead sea scrolls, and this emphasis continues in judaism to this day. one need but consult the rabbinic morning prayers to recognize that while responding to god’s call to responsibility, jews also look to god's lovingkindness, grace, and forgiveness. 8 the actions undertaken, just as for christians, are in grateful response to god's kindness and the covenant relationship into which this people have entered. both of these polemical viewpoints about the other depend upon certain interpretations of paul's language and intentions. each community relies upon these choices to protect themselves, to make them different from the other, to show their own religious impulses and systems to be superior. what christians might celebrate as freedom, jews might deride as antinomian, illogical, and harmful; what jews might celebrate as a special calling and sacred obligation, christians might deride as 6 for more detail, see mark d. nanos, the irony of galatians: paul's letter in first-century context (minneapolis: fortress press, 2002), 288-96. 7 see, for example, 1qs xi; 1qm xi.4; 1qh viii.11-18; vii.29-39; xv.15-25. 8 see nosson scherman, the complete artscroll siddur: weekday/sabbath/festival: a new translation and anthologized commentary, artscroll mesorah series; the rabbinical council of america ed. (brooklyn, n.y.: mesorah publications, 1990), 24-27, 70-71, 82-83 (ps 130). bondage, self-serving, and passé. members of both communities want it to be clear that christianity is not like judaism, and judaism is not like christianity. consequently, it is difficult and threatening to consider seriously a different reading of paul regarding torah that might undermine this dichotomy; that it is ideologically relevant to do so in an age of christian-jewish reconciliation is self-evident. i submit that the prevailing portrayal of paul's heralding a "law-free gospel" and teaching a life "freed from law" for all christ-followers represents a profound misreading of his texts. for jews, such as himself, paul did not teach the end of torah, including jewish dietary norms. but he did uphold that christbelieving non-jews were not to become jews, that they should never be under torah in the same way that jews were and remained. paul himself observed torah as a matter of faith, as incumbent upon himself as a faithful jewish believer in christ. he also affirmed torah unambiguously, proclaiming that the good news in christ "established" it (rom 3:31); he went so far as to declare the torah "spiritual" (rom 7:14). at issue in his letters to non-jews was how they were to become members of judaism, of a politico-religious community and its way of life, without becoming jews ethnically, that is, without becoming members of israel. they thus remained without the "advantages" torah offered (rom 3:1-2; 9:4-5), but also without the responsibility "fully" to observe torah like him and other christ-believing jews (1 cor 7:17-24; gal 5:3). this mixing of different people while retaining their different religio-ethnic identities and thus different relationships to torah confused some of his original audiences, provoking him to write letters intended to clarify this proposition, but they have misled later interpreters reading his instructions to non-jews in particular as if universal truths paul applied without distinction to every person, including jews. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): nanos 1-21 nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 there are viable alternative interpretations for each text upon which the traditional and still prevailing myth of the torahfree paul and his supposed torah-free gospel has been constructed. thus these traditional portrayals of paul need not delimit the possibilities for each community's ongoing conceptualizations of the other; there are new perspectives that promise more positive relations going forward. i will demonstrate this in an examination of paul's treatment of the jewish dietary commandments, a topic that is central to the traditional and still prevailing constructions of paul as "torah-free." first, we turn to a general discussion of paul's jewish identity and behavior. paul as a torah-observant jew that paul observed torah according to the halakhic conventions for a jew of his time and place—including dietary norms— would be in keeping with the logic of his rhetoric. he claims to be a jew, indeed a jew beyond reproach (2 cor 11:22; gal 2:15; phil 3:3-6). 9 he argues in 1 cor 7:17-24 that everyone is to remain in the state in which one was before responding to the gospel message, and thus, in his own case, he should be expected to remain in a circumcised state. 10 he argues that what matters above all for everyone is not their different states of identity, but "keeping the commandments of god" (v. 19). 11 9 krister stendahl, paul among jews and gentiles, and other essays (philadelphia: fortress press, 1976), 78-96, "the apostle paul and the introspective conscience of the west." 10 rabbi jacob emden (1697-1776), made a similar point. see harvey falk, "rabbi jacob emden's views on christianity," journal of ecumenical studies 19, no. 1 (1982): 107-9. 11 regardless of its historical accuracy acts bears witness to this interpretation of paul by his earliest extant biographer. in acts 21:15-26, paul takes a nazarite vow in the temple to deny the rumors that he teaches jews not to observe torah, an act that involves a burnt offering. in chs. 21—26, he affirms his identity as a torah-observant jew, indeed, as a pharisee not guilty of charges of breaching the torah or desecrating the temple. in 15:30 and how does this logic apply to galatians 3:28, where paul declares that among those who are in christ there is oneness, and thus that there "is neither jew nor greek, neither slave nor free, neither male and female"? in the traditional view, this indicates that paul eliminates religio-ethnic difference. yet paul and his communities know full well that there are differences between slaves and freepersons, between men and women, and that he gave different instructions for each. instead, in this text, paul is elaborating on his theme of eliminating discrimination among christ-followers, and not ignoring the fact that differences remain for these dyads, including the religio-ethnic distinction between jew and greek. paul’s argument in gal 5:3 similarly derives from paul’s maintaining his own jewish identity. there, following their decision to be faithful to christ, he argues against his non-jewish audience's becoming jewish proselytes, asserting that if one is circumcised, one is obliged "to observe the whole torah." that argument would not have made sense, to the point of undermining his authority, had his audience thought that he, a circumcised jew, did not himself observe torah fully. some may argue that the very fact that paul tries to dissuade the galatians from circumcision on these terms shows his distaste for torah. on the contrary, paul's intent is to subvert not the torah, but rather the authority of those his audience might suppose represent its ideals. he criticizes his competition, suggesting that they trivialize the advantages of torah-based identity when they avoid making plain the cost that is involved. from paul's perspective, the supposedly good news that they present as a complement to faithfulness to christ, namely, proselyte conversion, is rather a rival "good news" to the "good news" in christ for non-jews, who should not become jews or members of israel according to paul's gospel. although prose 16:4, paul represents the jerusalem church decision that gentiles are to observe the apostolic decree, and in 16:1-1-3, he circumcises timothy. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): nanos 1-21 nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 lyte conversion ostensibly would solve their socio-religious dilemma by making them not mere guests but proselytes—and thus full members of the jewish community in religio-ethnic terms—it actually compromises the gospel proposition that the end of the ages has begun with gathering of the nations alongside of israel. in addition, proselyte conversion incurs the obligation fully to observe torah. paul thus plants here seeds of distrust in the reliability of his competitors' motives and teachings. 12 in other words, paul is engaged in intra-jewish polemic about precisely how to interpret torah and not in disparagement of torah. the rabbis similarly warn potential proselytes of the enormous responsibility involved in the privilege of torah observance that comes with this identity transformation. 13 paul understands that obscuring this fact is itself not righteous; it fails to uphold a central ideal of torah, the imperative to love one's neighbor as oneself (lev 19:18: rom 13:8; gal 5:14). there were significant differences between the judaism of paul and his disciples and the other jewish groups which did not profess commitment to jesus christ. but these differences did not find expression in derogatory views of torah, or in reactions to such views. instead, they focused on the meaning 12 interpreters miss the point of galatians when conflating torah-observance with torah-identification, as if those whose influence paul opposes were teaching those without torah-identification of the need to undertake torahobservance. but 5:3 makes plain that is not the case. circumcision of nonjews is not about torah-observance, but about torah-identification. paul does not challenge torah-observance at any point in the letter. in irony of galatians, 267-69, i challenge paul's usually supposed opposition to jewish food norms and calendar, leaving only his opposition to proselyte conversion, symbolized in the language of circumcision and works of torah (that work being specifically the entrance requirement for gaining torah/jewish identity). 13 yevamot 47a-b; shaye j. d. cohen, the beginnings of jewishness: boundaries, varieties, uncertainties, hcs 31 (berkeley: university of california press, 1999), 198-238. of christ both for the people of israel who observe torah and for the people of the rest of the nations to whom israel is to proclaim christ. the tensions over the interpretation of torah primarily arise over paul’s claim that the people from the other nations are full co-members of the people of god and yet not under torah because they are not members of israel, even after they decide for faith in christ. for paul, whether jesus is the promised one is a question independent of whether torah continues to define what was promised, and why, and how those of israel who define themselves by torah will live. at issue in paul's letters is how to portray righteousness for those from the other nations. the dominant pauline interpretive tradition deemphasizes this continued ethnic differentiation between the nations and israel. 14 often citing as evidence gal 3:28, it interprets paul to have universalized all religio-ethnic difference, so as to apply his every instruction to everyone equally, making immaterial any distinction, including jewishness as an identity and as a way of life. 15 when combined with 14 challenging this tradition, see lloyd gaston, paul and the torah (vancouver: university of british columbia press, 1987); john g. gager, reinventing paul (oxford and new york: oxford university press, 2000); anders runesson, "particularistic judaism and universalistic christianity?: some critical remarks on terminology and theology," studia theologica 54 (2000): 55-75; kathy ehrensperger, that we may be mutually encouraged: feminism and the new perspective in pauline studies (new york: t & t clark international, 2004); william s. campbell, paul and the creation of christian identity, library of new testament studies 322 (london and new york: t & t clark, 2006); caroline johnson hodge, if sons, then heirs: a study of kinship and ethnicity in the letters of paul (new york: oxford university press, 2007). 15 see, for example, daniel boyarin, a radical jew: paul and the politics of identity, contraversions 1 (berkeley: university of california press, 1994), 412, passim. amy-jill levine, the misunderstood jew: the church and the scandal of the jewish jesus (new york: harpersanfranscisco, 2006), 84 (cf. 114, 159), writes: "… (gal 3:28) is not good for jews, whose identity is then erased. in the church, the vision came true." closer to my view on this passage are pinchas lapide, "the rabbi from tarsus," in paul, rabbi and apostle, eds. pinchas lapide and peter stuhlmacher (minneapolis: augsburg, studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): nanos 1-21 nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 the traditional interpretation of gal 4:8-10, which understands paul to be constructing an analogy between jewish calendrical observances (including the sabbath) and idolatry, this logically generates a pauline teaching that privileges non-jewish identity and behavioral norms for christ-followers. 16 they present "torah-free" as the ideal state universally for all christ-believing humankind, and not as something applicable to gentiles in ways that do not apply to jewish believers in christ. 17 thus, they assert that pauline teaching by definition undermines the very essence of jewish and israelite identity as set apart by god from that of other peoples and nations, and non-jewish becomes equivalent to universal. at the same time, logically, christ-faith now becomes a religio-ethnic identity marker that separates christ-followers from all others, including jews, making it no more universal than the judaism with which the traditional as well as "new perspective" interpretations find fault for drawing religio-ethnic boundaries between israel and the nations. 1984), 31-55, 64-74; alan f. segal, paul the convert: the apostolate and apostasy of saul the pharisee (new haven: yale university press, 1990), 146; michael wyschogrod, abraham's promise: judaism and jewishchristian relations, radical traditions (grand rapids, mi: w.b. eerdmans, 2004), 188-201; and those listed in the immediately previous note. 16 this widely held interpretation has been challenged by troy martin, "pagan and judeo-christian time-keeping schemes in gal. 4:10 and col. 2:16," nts 42 (1996): 120-32; nanos, irony of galatians, 267-69. the calendar paul mentions lacks the one element that would signify a jewish way of marking time, namely "weeks." this suggests that paul is writing about the roman and local idolatrous calendars, not the jewish calendar, consistent with his challenge here to those returning to idolatry. 17 for more on this matter, including fuller bibliography, see mark d. nanos, "paul and judaism: why not paul's judaism?" in paul unbound: other perspectives on the apostle, ed. mark douglas given (peabody, mass.: hendrickson, forthcoming 2009). a version is also available at http://www. marknanos.com/paul'sjudaism-5-28-08.pdf. the acts of the apostles and the epistle of james 18 confirm that paul teaches that torah is established by christ, that christ's faithfulness exemplifies righteousness, that this righteousness was first israel's, and that now it is israel's special role to declare this righteousness also to the nations. anyone who believes in christ is obligated to live righteously, as is anyone who believes in torah. in neither case is the goal of pursuing righteousness undertaken to initiate god's favor. 19 both jews and christ-followers decide to be faithful in order to retain right standing in a covenant relationship that presents obligations to both parties. anything other than the pursuit of what is right would represent continuing bondage to sin, when bondage to god, the righteous one—the one who does right and judges accordingly—is the desired alternative (cf. rom 68). the threats to the non-jews within the christ-believing jewish communities founded by paul were, on the one hand, from their local "pagan" community's hostile reactions to their avoidance of participation in civic and familial cults, tempting 18 james agrees with rather than corrects paul, although perhaps he challenges a misrepresentation of paul’s teaching. 19 this insight is central to the "new perspective on paul." see e. p. sanders, paul and palestinian judaism: a comparison of patterns of religion (philadelphia: fortress press, 1977); james d. g. dunn, jesus, paul, and the law: studies in mark and galatians (louisville: westminster/john knox press, 1990), 183-214, "the new perspective on paul," especially 185-86. it has been frequently noted by jews writing about paul since the mid-nineteenth century. see, for instance, schoeps, the jewish-christian argument, 41-44, 165; idem, jüdisch-christliches religionsgespräch in 19 jahrhunderten: geschichte einer theologischen auseinandersetzung (berlin: vortrupp, 1937), 49-61, 152; will herberg, "judaism and christianity: their unity and difference," in jewish perspectives on christianity: leo baeck, martin buber, franz rosenzweig, will herberg, and abraham j. heschel, ed. fritz a. rothschild (new york: crossroad, 1990; rpt. from jbr 21 [1953]), 249-50. some other earlier examples are discussed in sanders, paul and palestinian judaism, 33-59, which also explains the traditional viewpoint that sander's challenges. it is now a point commonly made; see the discussions listed in footnote 2. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): nanos 1-21 nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 these non-jews to continue in or return to practicing idol rites to avoid such hostilities (e.g., i thess 2; 1 cor 8-10, discussed below; gal 4:8-10; 20 phil 3 21 ), and on the other hand, from the temptation to overcome such religio-ethnic identity problems by undertaking proselyte conversion into israel in addition to confessing christ. these social identity conundrums arose to a large degree from paul's way of teaching non-jews that they were no longer idolaters and yet they were not becoming jews either, but rather fellow members of jewish groups out of the other nations, representing the assembly of the righteous from all of the nations at the dawning of the age to come (rom 15:712). why did paul oppose this religio-ethnic identity transformation into jews and israelites by way of proselyte conversion, which would have probably eased if not eliminated much of the gentile christ-followers' suffering and confusion? the traditional interpretive approach to paul argues that in addition to obstructing the universal appeal of the gospel, he considered israel/jew to be an inferior identity bound to torah and thus passé. it would trap these christ-followers into worksrighteousness. it would enslave them to torah. these nonjews are instead members of true or spiritual israel, which is superior to carnal israel. the "new perspective" view argues that it is because the ethnic or boundary marking elements of torah such as circumcision, sabbath observance, and dietary rules were passé, and observing these would trap these nonjews in the ostensibly essential jewish problem of ethnocentric exclusivism. by definition, only universalization in the church could free carnal israel from this problem, leaving in christ 20 nanos, irony of galatians, 267-71. 21 mark d. nanos, "paul's reversal of jews calling gentiles 'dogs' (philippians 3:2): 1600 years of an ideological tale wagging an exegetical dog?," bibint (forthcoming, 2009). neither jew nor greek. 22 even though proponents of this perspective have otherwise largely undermined the traditional christian basis for the negative valuation of judaism and torah, they continue to suggest that attaining jewish proselyte standing would enslave christ-followers to a lifestyle which is immature, because they are ideally to be "free" from torah in their supposed new religion, christianity. 23 these are aspects of the "new perspective" view that i seek to challenge. instead, i submit, paul insisted that non-jews must remain non-jews, and thus not come under torah on the same terms as jews, because it would compromise the propositional truth of the gospel of christ that the end of the ages has dawned. that proposition maintains that with the resurrection of christ and arrival of the spirit the awaited age has begun, when all of the other nations will recognize israel's god as the one god, the creator god of all humankind. in this age, christ-following non-jews are obligated to bear witness to the righteousness expressed in torah, that is, the love of god and neighbor, but as representatives of the other nations, and not as members of 22 cf. james d. g. dunn, "who did paul think he was? a study of jewishchristian identity," nts 45 (1999): 174-93, who, on 192, argues that paul would not give a straight "no" to his identity as a jew, as long as it was qualified "to come from within and not from without, and that the trappings of jewish identity, most explicitly the practice of circumcision and food laws, could be equally taken on or put off without affecting the integrity of that jewishness either way." but paul would give a clear "no" to being "in judaism": "the term had become too much identified with ethnicity and separation from other nations; and paul's self-understanding on just these points had been too radically transformed by his conversion…for 'judaism' to continue to define and identify himself or his apostolic work." see also dunn, "new perspective," in jesus, paul, 198. for critique of this view, see neil elliott, liberating paul: the justice of god and the politics of the apostle (maryknoll, ny: orbis books, 1994), 66-72, 108. 23 james d. g. dunn, romans 9-16, wbc 38b (dallas: word books, 1988), 798; in my the mystery of romans: the jewish context of paul's letter (minneapolis: fortress press, 1996), 88-95, i provide other examples of this phenomenon, and discuss the process of "luther's trap" for the prevailing interpretations of the "weak" in romans 14; see also my "paul and judaism." studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): nanos 1-21 nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 israel and her mosaic covenant. this age represents the fulfillment of god's covenant with abraham, bringing blessing to all of the nations through his seed. but non-jews becoming jews by proselyte conversion, symbolized by "circumcision" for males—which in paul's letters serves as a metonym for completion of the rite of proselyte conversion, just as does "works of law"—would undermine the message that the awaited good for israel and the nations had arrived now in christ jesus. 24 the proclamation of this proposition was paul's vocation: unlike his "former" understanding that non-jews must become members of israel to become members of the family of abraham (gal 5:11; cf. 1:23; rom 3:28−4:25), this is the new-age "way of living in judaism" to which he was called by christ (gal 1:13-16). this position was simple, but confusing, and led to many problems for the first non-jewish believers in the gospel of christ, and for the jews proclaiming this message as well. it created the need for a new religio-ethnic category to identify these believers. they were no longer idolaters, and thus no longer represented the status quo of the nations from which they came. but they were not israelites, not jews, and thus, not worshipers of the god of israel on the same terms as jews. neither ethnic jews who did not share their faith in christ, nor their own idolatrous families and neighbors perceived them as full members. rather they were merely guests of or sympathizers with the socio-ethnic community practicing judaism. yet they were to understand themselves as fellow members of the jewish way of life, of judaism, of the people of god (cf. acts 15). their equal standing with jews was legitimated by faith in 24 for details of this position, see my mystery of romans, esp. 179-87; "paul and the jewish tradition: the ideology of the shema," forthcoming in a festschrift honoring jerome murphy-o'connor and joseph a. fitzmyer, ed. peter spitaler, cbqms (washington d.c.: catholic biblical association of america, 2010; a version presented at the jubilee year of st. paul lecture series, villanova university, is available at http://www.marknanos.com/paul-shema10-27-08.pdf). christ, the faithful representative of god's plan to reconcile all of the nations equally. 25 they were thus not jews or israelites, but members of a certain judaism, of a jewish subgroup, of a jewish coalition, of christ-faith judaism, the judaism of paul post-damascus. 26 this nuanced and controversial way of incorporating nonjews into the communal life of this jewish subgroup led to many social problems, as well as confusion in these gentiles' own sense of self. it is in this context that we can understand paul's relativizing of all identities to the shared identity of christfaith. this includes his own highly esteemed and honored identity as a jew (e.g., phil 3:4-16), a socio-religiously advantageous identity within the jewish community, and one that provides for respectful avoidance of idolatrous cults within the broader community, including those related to imperial cult, but an identity that he denies to his non-jewish audience, since they cannot become proselytes according to his teaching. the category "christian" does not yet exist, yet he must make these non-jews realize that they are neither identified any longer with the gods of the other nations, nor are they on the way to becoming members of the nation israel, even though they now worship israel's god as the only god of all humankind. this amorphous identity, which does not correspond with the communal lines defining socio-religious identity on either side of the jewish/gentile divide, creates confusion and marginalization on both sides. it is one that non-jews in christ-believing communities seek to make sense of or escape, some by seeking to become proselytes (in galatia), others by supposing to have replaced jews (in rome, independent of paul's instruction). paul responded to these developments in his letters. he addressed some of the problems that arose among them from this controversial proposition of the "truth of the 25 cf. stendahl, paul. 26 nanos, "paul and judaism." studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): nanos 1-21 nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 gospel": that these christ-following non-jews are now members of judaism, of the socio-religious people of the god of israel, who the one god of all the nations incorporates in the ekklesia without re-identifying them religio-ethnically as jews or members of the nation israel. they are thus without the same relationship to torah that applies to the jewish members. at the same time, because these gentiles are now members of the jewish community, they are not without a relationship to torah-defined norms for living, including dietary practices when among jews. paul and jewish dietary norms it is not possible in this context to discuss all of the relevant passages about paul's torah observance, or the vast corpus of secondary literature that overwhelmingly assumes (when it does not explicitly argue) that paul left judaism, was law-free, and taught a law-free gospel. instead, i will focus on the topic most often discussed in this context, one of the matters that highlights what is at issue in the discussion of paul and torah, or better, paul's version of christ-believing judaism: did paul eat according to jewish dietary norms or believe that other jewish christ-followers should? what about gentile christfollowers; were they to observe jewish dietary norms? the primary texts for this discussion include galatians 2:11-15, the so-called antioch incident, when peter withdrew from eating with gentiles because he feared "the ones from circumcision" following the arrival of "certain ones from james;" 1 corinthians 8-10, the matter of eating in idolatrous settings or of food that had been used in idol rites; and romans 14-15, concerning how the "strong" ought to behave with respect to the "weak" in faith. 27 27 the order of this discussion is based on the consensus view for the chronological order of these texts. the antioch incident in galatians 2:11-15, paul informs his audience about an earlier incident in syrian antioch when he confronted peter for lacking faithfulness to the truth of the gospel, because peter, followed by the rest of the jews, withdrew from eating with the gentiles after the arrival of "certain ones from james." 28 thus, for paul, the mixed meals that they celebrated prior to this breach of communal conduct signified the theological "truth of the message of good" in christ. the traditional reading of this text, which continues in the "new perspective" analyses, understands the "certain ones from james" to represent the ideological view of the jerusalem church that the christ-faith movement continues to be a subset of jewish communal life, of judaism, in a way that supposedly clashes with paul's viewpoint. 29 accordingly, james and the jerusalem church, so-called jewish or palestinian christianity, 30 held that meals were to be conducted according to prevailing halakhic dietary norms. moreover, they maintained that gentile believers in christ should become jewish proselytes; alternatively, if they wished to follow instead paul's 28 a more complete discussion is available in my "what was at stake in peter's 'eating with gentiles' at antioch?," in the galatians debate: contemporary issues in rhetorical and historical interpretation, ed. mark d. nanos (peabody, mass.: hendrickson, 2002), 282-318; mystery of romans, 337-71 "peter's hypocrisy in the light of paul's anxiety." the related matter of the jerusalem meeting in the prior passage is the topic of my "intruding 'spies' and 'pseudo-brethren': the jewish intra-group politics of paul's jerusalem meeting (gal 2:1-10)," in paul and his opponents, ed. stanley e. porter, pauline studies 2 (leiden and boston: brill, 2005), 59-97. 29 james d. g. dunn, "the incident at antioch (gal 2:11-18)," in the galatians debate: contemporary issues in rhetorical and historical interpretation, ed. mark d. nanos (peabody, mass.: hendrickson, 2002), 225-30. 30 problems of terminology and definition are discussed in matt a. jacksonmccabe, ed., jewish christianity reconsidered: rethinking ancient groups and texts (minneapolis: fortress press, 2007). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): nanos 1-21 nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 conviction that they should not become jews, then this gentilized, so-called pauline christianity should remain separate from jewish christianity. any joint meetings, such as to celebrate the lord's supper, should be conducted according to the standards of jewish christianity. 31 in contrast, in antioch, paul had denounced this position in no uncertain terms, asserting that when joint meetings took place, it was torah-free standards that should be applied. christianity was not judaism; it was to be free from "bondage" to torah. anyone proclaiming otherwise subverted the gospel of christ. this traditional reading, in its various forms, depends upon several decisions. the following are a few of the most fundamental ones. first, it bases its interpretation on the notion that what "the ones from circumcision" found objectionable about the mixed meals was that they were not conducted according to prevailing halakhic dietary standards. 32 paul's accusation that peter was compelling the gentiles to "judaize," although peter was himself "living like a gentile," has been understood to mean that peter had been eating torah-free, and that he implicitly, if not explicitly, was teaching faith plus proselyte conversion and torah-observance for gentile christ-followers. 33 that interpre 31 for the "commensality" alternative, see magnus zetterholm, "purity and anger: gentiles and idolatry in antioch," interdisciplinary journal of research on religion (2005): 1-24. 32 naturally, for a variety of reasons, including local constraints, there were various interpretations of halakhic standards, inside and outside of judea, and between communities in each location. dunn holds that the standards at issue were those for noahides, which lessens the matter of degree. however, this does not alter the traditional view that the issue was halakhic, having to do with laws governing food preparation. it also does not work because paul was accusing peter of (implicitly) compelling "judaizing," not "noahidizing"; see my "what was at stake?," 282-318. 33 commentators have not usually differentiated adequately between circumcision, that is, proselyte conversion, which has to do with identity transformation, and torah-observance, which applies only to jews and those who have tation supposes that christ-followers met independently of the jewish community and according to torah-free norms, so that by definition the jews present were not behaving jewishly. second, this reading understands the "certain ones from james" to represent james' viewpoint and presumes that these people are those whom paul says peter feared, namely, "the ones from circumcision." 34 since it was the influence of the "certain ones from james" that led peter as well as barnabas and other unnamed jews to adopt (or return to) this position regarding gentile christ-followers, the traditional interpreters thus infer that it represents the view of james, of jewish christianity, or of a significant element of that movement. third, these interpreters conclude that paul's opposition is thus not only to proselyte conversion for christ-believing gentiles, but also to torah-defined dietary behavior. by extension, he also then objected to torah-observance as a way of life for jews as well as gentiles, at least when they mixed in church, which would seemingly apply to all cases in pauline assemblies, and probably most other christ-believing groups as well. 35 completed or who are in the process of completing proselyte conversion. circumcision is for the male children of israelites, slaves, and strangers living among them, and for the non-israelite wishing to become an israelite. i suggest that paul's metonym ergon nomou ("works/deeds of law") denotes "rites of torah," specifically, those deeds/acts involved in a non-jew becoming a jewish proselyte. 34 a minority position upholds that the "certain ones from james," although coming from james, misrepresented his policies, or perhaps his ideals; see george howard, paul: crisis in galatia: a study in early christian theology, sntsms 35, 2nd ed. (cambridge and new york: cambridge university press, 1990). 35 there are some interpreters who maintain that paul allowed jews not engaged in the gentile mission to observe torah fully, although he himself could not because of his close affiliation with gentiles (e.g., johnson hodge, if sons, then heirs, 123). but this does not square with paul's logic, which is based on principle. he either believed that torah-observance still applied to studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): nanos 1-21 nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 i disagree with each of these decisions. on the first point, when paul says peter is living like a gentile, or “gentilely,” paul is not accusing him of a torah-free lifestyle, but of living justified by christ just like the gentiles are, not also by his standing as a jew. 36 according to paul, drawing on habbakuk 2:4, "the just shall live by faithfulness" (3:11, 1621; cf. rom 1:17). thus non-jews were living equal in standing before god with jews, without the conferral of ethnic identity and concomitant advantage of being a jew within the jewish community (cf. gal 2:15; rom 3:1-2; 9:3-5). because these gentiles have attained equal standing with jews before god, naturally, they should be treated as equal in standing among each other (cf. gal 2:16; 3:28-29; rom 3:27−4:25; 15:5-12). paul's accusation that peter's behavior implicitly compels the gentile christ-followers to become jews (ioudaïzien), 37 does not derive from peter teaching non-jews to become christ-believing jews as a part of covenant faithfulness, or it did not; he himself was committed to living consistently, and he accuses peter precisely for failing to do so. what would christ-believing jews be expected to do according to paul's standards when a gentile was present in their congregations, regardless of whether they had engaged in an active gentile mission leading to this circumstance? the consensus view is that, like paul, who is understood to "live like a gentile" (interpreted to mean he does not live torahobservantly), any christ-believing jews would be expected to compromise torah when in the company of christ-believing gentiles. cf. e. p. sanders, paul, the law, and the jewish people (philadelphia: fortress press, 1985), 185-87. 36 nanos, "what was at stake?," 312-16. 37 cf. my "what was at stake?," 306-12, where i challenge the arguments that ioudaïzein in general as well as here refers only to behaving like a jew, and not to proselyte conversion. it is also important to note that this verb does not signify jewish missionary behavior, but is a reflexive verb, denoting a non-jew becoming a jew (or behaving jewishly). in other words, it is synonymous with references to the proselyte, not to those conducting nonjews in the rites of proselyte conversion, or in some way seeking to persuade non-jews to adopt such a course of action. proselytes or adopt some kind of change in dietary behavior. this is implicit in paul's accusation of "hypocrisy" rather than of "apostasy" or "heresy." he accused peter of masking the conviction that paul still believes peter shares with him, that gentile christ-followers were to not become proselytes. but because of the exigencies of the moment and his fear of those who do advocate proselyte conversion, peter is not behaving consistently with that conviction. his expedient behavior is undermining "the truth of the gospel" that he otherwise upholds, that gentiles in christ live as equal members of the people of god already, descendents of abraham, without becoming members of israel. this is what distinguishes this christ-following jewish coalition from all other jewish groups. moreover, peter, and everyone else at the table, including the non-jews, had been eating according to torah-defined dietary norms. paul does not accuse peter of eating like a gentile and then ceasing to eat in this manner; he does not accuse him of withdrawing for "fear of the ones advocating dietary norms." rather, he relates that peter fears "the ones from circumcision," that is, presumably, those advocating the need for gentiles to become circumcised to be welcome at this table on the terms being upheld at it. in other words, paul describes peter as withdrawing from eating with gentiles, not from eating like a gentile. if "the ones from circumcision" peter feared had been advocating a change of menu, then peter, and the other jews present, including "certain ones from james," were in a position to change that menu and to expect the gentiles either to accept this or to be the ones who withdrew. it makes little sense for the jews, including important figures like the "certain ones from james," peter, and barnabas, to do the withdrawing. and again, the issue is about "those from circumcision," not "those from the kosher menu committee." a change of diet certainly would be a less threatening option, and one that non-jewish men should studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): nanos 1-21 nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 be expected to accommodate more gladly than the alternative of circumcision—but that is not what paul states to be at issue. the issue paul addresses concerns with whom peter was eating, and what his withdrawal from eating with them implies about their standing. other jewish groups also included nonjews at meals without compromising jewish dietary norms, everyone eating according to jewish dietary rules. 38 however, in this group, which also ate according to jewish dietary norms, there was something about their eating together that was distinctive. they sought to demonstrate through their table fellowship together as equals, israelites and members from the other nations, that the awaited "age to come" had dawned in christ, that the messianic banquet had begun in their midst. they thus likely arranged the seating and distributed food and drink according to non-hierarchical arrangements, whereas it was likely normal in jewish groups, as in greco-roman groups in general, to discriminate in such matters according to rank. 39 in other jewish groups, non-jewish guests would be distinguishable as guests, however welcome. but not in these groups, where equality of jew and greek in christ was being celebrated. that would account for the threat from the ones advocating that circumcision of these gentiles was necessary, if they were to be treated as if equal members of the people of god within the jewish community of antioch. but according to the truth of the message of good that paul and peter proclaim, they are to be treated as religio-ethnic equals without proselyte 38 cf. e. p. sanders, "jewish association with gentiles and galatians 2:1114," in the conversation continues: studies in paul & john in honor of j. louis martyn, eds. robert t. fortna and beverly r. gaventa (nashville: abingdon press, 1990), 170-88; paula fredriksen, "judaism, the circumcision of gentiles, and apocalyptic hope: another look at galatians 1 and 2," in the galatians debate: contemporary issues in rhetorical and historical interpretation, ed. mark d. nanos (peabody, mass.: hendrickson, 2002), 235-60. 39 nanos, "what was at stake?," 304 n. 75. conversion, that is, without religio-ethnic sameness. thus to avoid seating and serving people from the other nations equally would compromise the very proposition around which this christ-following jewish subgroup exists, and for which purpose it meets together to remember jesus. second, paul does not equate the "certain ones from james" with "the ones from circumcision." the arrival of the "certain ones from james" represents a time marker: it is after their arrival that peter and "the rest of the jews" withdrew. paul also does not equate these "certain ones from james" with "the ones from circumcision" peter feared. it could be that the two are synonymous, but paul has just finished an argument in vv. 1-10 in which he concluded that james and the jerusalem leaders were in full agreement with paul that gentile christfollowers should not be circumcised (similarly, acts 15). where many interpreters argue that james and the jerusalem church now reversed their agreement with paul in jerusalem, paul does not in fact signal any reversal in principle, and does not accuse the "certain ones from james," or james himself, of anything. moreover, as already noted, he does not accuse peter or the rest of apostasy or heresy, but only of "hypocrisy." an accusation of hypocrisy (of "masking") implies continued theoretical agreement with and teaching of "the truth of the gospel" proposition that gentiles are to remain gentiles within this movement. otherwise, one should conclude that the jerusalem church leaders reneged on this agreement, 40 in spite of paul's failure to state the matter in those terms. yet paul chose to introduce this example. presumably he did so to 40 based on recognizing the logic of this route: if one adopts the prevailing view that paul was torah-free and the other apostles were torah-observant, then philip f. esler's case is cogent. see his "making and breaking an agreement mediterranean style: a new reading of galatians 2:1-14," in the galatians debate: contemporary issues in rhetorical and historical interpretation, ed. mark d. nanos (peabody, mass.: hendrickson, 2002), 261-81. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): nanos 1-21 nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 persuade his audience that his position was normative for christ-faithfulness, and thus the only legitimate one for them to consider in their own situation in galatia. there are other more logical identifications of the "certain ones from james." they may be james' representatives, and thus, like him, they join in mixed table fellowships and arouse a heightened objection from local antiochene jews who were already upset with such practices. their joining this mixed table fellowship represented the last straw for those in the jewish communities of antioch who opposed such developments within these christ-following subgroups. those who came from james' coalition in jerusalem were reinforcing the claim of local antiochene christ-believing jews that these gentiles were now equal members of the people of god, welcome as full members of table fellowships being otherwise conducted according to normal jewish dietary laws. antiochene jews could not doubt that this was the position of all members of the christ-believing movement, and it was high time to oppose it vehemently. in response, the christ-believing jewish members sought to dissipate the heat by a temporary, expedient withdrawal, but without changing their teachings. presumably, in due time, they would return to the mixed table. or it may be that the "certain ones from james" represented those who were outsiders to the christ-believing movement, as related in the prior jerusalem meeting passage (2:1-10). they were "inspectors" whom james allowed to be present at the christ-believing coalition's otherwise private meetings in jerusalem. 41 in either case, paul judged them to be "informants" who gained access in jerusalem, and now were allowed to travel to antioch to investigate matters there also. if so, then they might well be synonymous with "the ones from circumcision" whom peter feared. they objected to the christmovement's standards for equal fellowship with non-jews, and 41 nanos, "intruding 'spies' and 'pseudo-brethren.'" peter worried that it might be unclear just how important it was in antioch, as in jerusalem, that torah standards be upheld within these mixed meals. thus, rather than permit ambiguity, he withdrew to avoid any problems while these informants were seeking to find some reason to report back to jerusalem that things were not as they should be. perhaps the inspectors' purpose was to bring greater pressure upon james and the jerusalem church to respond to supposed transgressions within the spreading network under their supervision, including antioch, and peter reasoned that avoiding normal behavior for a while would be a strategic way to avert their intentions. none of these alternatives for the identity of the "certain ones from james" concerning their role in antioch and for their relationship to "the ones from circumcision" implies that james differed from peter and paul in his expectations of proselyte conversion for gentile christ-followers or torah-observance for jews, or participation in joint meals. this challenges the third major point of the prevailing views. galatians 2:11-15 thus shows that paul objected neither to torah-observance in his assemblies, nor to prevailing halakhic standards for dietary behavior. the issue at antioch had to do not with the food being served, but instead with how it was being shared with non-jews as if equal members of the fellowship rather than as non-jewish guests or proselyte candidates. this was unlike the practice of all other jewish groups of which we are aware. for while gentiles were welcome in other jewish groups, they remained distinguishable as non-jewish guests, and likely were not treated as members unless they chose to become proselytes. not so in the christbelieving groups in antioch and in jerusalem. that is the message that paul wanted to communicate to the galatians, who were under similar pressure from their own local jewish communities. he expected them to resist these studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): nanos 1-21 nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 pressures, just as he insisted on such resistance elsewhere. 42 when jewish apostles and leaders like peter and barnabas erred, paul criticized them too. "the truth of the gospel" was at issue; the entrance of members of the other nations to the messianic meal was fundamental to the propositional truth claims they sought to substantiate. non-jews join judaism, but they do not become jews through the "works of torah" that alter their religio-ethnic identity to make them jews. for that they would need to complete the rites of proselyte conversion, which involves circumcision for males. thus they are not under torah in the fullest sense, as are jews. but gentile christfollowers are nevertheless under the torah (i.e., teaching, principles) of christ, which includes the halakhic codes of behavior for guests, which cohere with the noahide commandments, as witnessed in the so-called apostolic decree (acts 15). 43 in short, the antioch incident does not substantiate that paul ate torah-free on any occasion, or that he taught that jews or even gentiles should eat free of jewish dietary norms. the implications of paul's argument run in exactly the opposite direction. he teaches that gentile christ-followers must be proselyte-conversion free. they do not undertake the "works/actions of torah" that create jewish religio-ethnic identity and thus they are not under torah; they do not become israelites, although they become enslaved to the love of neighbor that is the essence of torah, and thus israelite covenant life (gal 5:13-14). and since their groups are jewish, being christ-believing subgroups of the larger jewish communities, these non-jews will eat and live together 42 for the setting and message of galatians, see my irony of galatians; and my, "the interand intra-jewish political context of paul's letter to the galatians," in the galatians debate: contemporary issues in rhetorical and historical interpretation, ed. mark d. nanos (peabody, mass.: hendrickson, 2002), 396-407. 43 cf. nanos, mystery of romans, 50-57, 192-207. according to prevailing jewish communal regulations that govern the lifestyle of the righteous non-jew. food offered to idols 1 corinthians 8−10 is paul's response to apparent queries from his corinthian disciples about whether they might participate in idolatrous rites, or eat food that had been sacrificed to idols. 44 interpretations of this passage logically must be consistent with interpretations of the antioch incident. if one maintains that paul did keep the kosher dietary laws, then he certainly would not eat food from idolatrous sacrifices. but if one argues that paul did permit and even ate idolatrous food in some circumstances, then it follows that he would not keep kosher regulations regarding other food. the consensus view is that paul permits the eating of idolatrous food in principle, but not when it would bother the "sensibilities" (syneidesis: "conscience," or better, "consciousness") of the asthenes ("weak," or better, "impaired"). the "weak" are understood to be christ-followers who are not secure enough in their faith to internalize fully the torah-free principles of the gospel of christ. they thus hesitate to eat idolatrous food, or when eating it, are conscious in some way of participating in idolatry. they misunderstand the gospel proposition (according to the "knowledgeable") that there are no real 44 a full discussion of the prevailing views and my interpretation is available in my "the polytheist identity of the 'weak,' and paul's strategy to 'gain' them: a new reading of 1 corinthians 8:1−11:1," in paul: jew, greek, and roman, ed. stanley e. porter, past 5 (leiden: brill, 2008), 179-210; and "'but this knowledge is not in everyone' (1 cor 8:7): who were the 'weak' in corinth, and what was the harm paul feared they would suffer?," in 'saint paul the apostle and corinth,' 1950 years since the writing of the epistles to the corinthians, ed. christos karakolis, (international conference in corinth, greece: prefect of corinth, forthcoming 2009). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): nanos 1-21 nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 gods represented by these idols. 45 the food dedicated to them is really profane (ordinary) food and should be of no real concern. it is widely maintained, even by those who understand paul to accept eating idolatrous food in certain circumstances, that he did not permit participation in idolatrous rites. 46 this would seem to suggest that paul does indeed argue from certain basic torah-inspired sensibilities. nevertheless, those maintaining the consensus view hold inconsistently that unless paul is opposed to eating idolatrous food because it is intrinsically impure, he cannot be a torah-observant jew, or one teaching a torah-based approach to christ-faith. they combine this with their decision to interpret 1 corinthians 9:19-22 to mean that paul adapted his behavior equally to the torah-observant and to those free of torah. 47 depending upon which group he was among, he sought to proclaim his gospel free of such supposedly non-essential requirements, since torah is for paul adiaphora, a matter of indifference. while the overwhelming consensus agrees that paul was against keeping jewish dietary norms in antioch, some interpreters recognize that the logic of paul's argument in 1 corinthians signals both that he disapproved of other's eating of food known to be idolatrous, and that he did not eat idolatrous food himself, for example, when evangelizing among 45 this observation also applies to those who define these two groups by their different socio-economic backgrounds; cf. gerd theissen, the social setting of pauline christianity: essays on corinth, trans. john h. schütz (philadelphia: fortress press, 1982), 121-43. 46 c. k. barrett ed. essays on paul (philadelphia: westminster press, 1982), 50-52. 47 peter richardson, "pauline inconsistency: 1 corinthians 9:19-23 and galatians 2:11-14," new testament studies 26 (1979): 347 (347-62); segal, paul, 228, 229-40; klinghoffer, why the jews rejected jesus, 106-10. idolaters. 48 my own work strengthens this second case. 49 the "weak" or "impaired" in 1 corinthians 8−10 are probably not christ-followers, but polytheists (pagans), those who still practice idolatrous rites as a matter of principle. unlike paul's audience, who are the "we" who know the one god and who "all have knowledge" that these statues do not represent real gods (8:1-6), "they" are the "some" who lack this knowledge of the one god, who until now have been accustomed to eating idolatrous food without sensing that it is not right to do so (v. 7). and why would they if they are not christ-followers but idolaters? the issue raised by the corinthian christ-followers is whether they may eat food that was being or had been sacrificed to idols. they reason that since they no longer believe that these idols represent gods and lords, food offered to them has no holiness. eating idol-related food with indifference would have the advantage of bearing witness to their gospel convictions and at the same time not giving offense to their polytheist neighbors. withdrawal from all contexts where it was being served and from buying it in the marketplace, in contrast, would be akin to social suicide, to dwelling apart from the world. how were they to live when virtually every social engagement and much of the food available for meals involved 48 peter j. tomson, paul and the jewish law: halakha in the letters of the apostle to the gentiles, crint (assen and minneapolis: van gorcum and fortress press, 1990); peter david gooch, dangerous food: i corinthians 8-10 in its context, scj 5 (waterloo, ontario: wilfrid laurier university press, 1993); alex t. cheung, idol food in corinth: jewish background and pauline legacy, jsnt sup 176 (sheffield: sheffield academic press, 1999); john fotopoulos, food offered to idols in roman corinth: a social-rhetorical reconsideration of 1 corinthians 8:1-11:1, wunt 2.151 (tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2003). 49 "polytheist identity"; "paul's relationship to torah in light of his strategy 'to become everything to everyone' (1 corinthians 9:19-23)," interdisciplinary academic seminar: new perspectives on paul and the jews, katholieke universiteit, leuven, belgium, september 14-15, 2009, sets out this case in detail. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): nanos 1-21 nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 some association with the idolatry of their polytheistic families, neighbors, and fellow workers, with civic life in general? however, paul sees things from a jewish torah-based point of view, and the logic of their appeal to eat idolatrous food escapes him. their reasoning probably surprises him, for israelites have long upheld that idols were merely statues, ones that should not have been built. those who worshiped the gods through "idols" were regarded to be misguided, at the very least. but it does not follow that one could participate with indifference in idolatrous rites or even eat food that had been used in any such rites, including when it was later available in the marketplace. rather, it must be avoided as if infected with powers that seek to rival god and to harm his people. 50 so paul argues that rather than bearing witness to their polytheist neighbors, eating this idolatrous food may serve as a scandal for them, leading them to continue in idolatry under the impression that christ-faith sanctions such behavior. they will remain ignorant of the proposition of the one god that is at the heart of the confession of this jewish subgroup community's faith in christ. but why doesn't paul just come right out and say that the torah teaches the "knowledgeable" about christ not to eat idolatrous food? because his intended audience is not composed of jews; thus they are not under torah on the same terms as israelites. paul's understanding of the logic of the truth 50 paradoxically, scripture trivializes idols as not gods and meaningless and yet proscribed as demonic and dangerous for those in covenant with the one god (e.g., compare deut 32:21 with vv. 16-17; isa 8:19 and 19:3 with chapters 40 and 44; cf. wis 13—16; see also ps 106:36-39; 1 enoch 19; jubilees 11.4-6); other gods and lords are implicitly recognized to exist, albeit to be lower than israel's god, and they are not to be honored by israelites (exod 15:11; 20:2-6; 22:28; deut 4:19; 29:26; 32:8-9; ps 82:1; micah 4:5; james 2:19); images of other gods are to be destroyed in the land (exod 23:24; deut 7:5). see tomson, paul, 151-77, 208-20; cheung, idol food, 39-81, 152-64, 300-1. of the gospel constrains him—to a point. so he begins 1 corinthians 8 with first principles. he agrees with the christfollowers who "know" that there is no such thing as the gods and lords these statues seek to represent (v. 4). yet he adds, as part of his logical appeal to the shema—the proclamation that god is the one and only god for israel, and for the christbelieving gentiles too—that there are such things as other gods and lords, whom he will identify as daemons (v. 5; 10:20-21). then he writes in the balance of chapter 8 that, because some do not have this knowledge, being "weak/impaired," the "knowledgeable" should refrain from behaving as if all things related to idols should be considered profane. to do so will harm the "weak" polytheists, for they think these things to be sacred to the gods and lords to which they are dedicated. it would not send the message to these "impaired," not yet christbelieving "brother[s] for whose sake christ died" (8:11-12; cf. rom 5:6-10), that they, together with these christ-followers and all israelites, should desist from any such behavior and turn to the one god alone. 51 after a digression in chapter 9 to explain paul's own selfsacrificial way of living, including how he adapts his rhetoric to each group he seeks to win, paul moves the argument against 51 cf. nanos, "polytheist identity," for full discussion of the logic for understanding the asthenes ("weak/impaired") "brothers" to be non-christ-believing idolaters, and of the letter's concern with winning them to christ. note that church fathers continued to operate according to this understanding of constructing outsiders as kin. ignatius (late 1 st -early 2 nd c.) calls upon his addressees to pray for outsiders to the church, and to conduct themselves as "brothers/sisters [adelphoi]" to them, as expressed by imitating how christ lived humbly with his neighbor, including choosing to be wronged rather than to wrong them (eph. 10; cf. mart. pol. 1.2). and although chrysostom (late 4 th c.) understood the impaired in 1 cor 8—10 to be christ-followers, he argued that on socio-economic grounds the christian in his own audience ought to regard as brother the fellow-laborer more than the elite or wealthy (cor. 117 [homily xx]). for non-christian examples of concern for those outside of one's own philosophical group, see epictetus, diatr. 1.9.4-6; 1.13.4, on the cynics in particular, diatr. 3.22.81-82; marcus aurelius, 2.1; 7.22; 9.22-23. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): nanos 1-21 nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 eating idol food to the next stage in chapter 10. although to some degree avoiding direct appeal to torah injunctions, he invokes examples from torah to make clear that one who eats at the table of the lord cannot also eat at the table of other gods, the so-called daemons. in other words, he admits that there are powers associated with idols, undermining the theoretical concession with which he began this argument that apparently shared these gentile christ-believers' premise that there were no such things as other gods and lords. thus, regardless of the fact that god made all things to be eaten with sanctifying prayer, not all things can be eaten. purity is not inherent to the food, but imputed by the command of god. any food known to be idolatrous food, whether available in the marketplace, or offered in a host's home, may not be consumed. christ-believers, like biblical israelites, must flee idolatry, both for their own sakes and for the sake of their polytheist neighbors, their brothers and sisters in the created order whom god in christ seeks to redeem through them. paul did not permit the eating of food known to be idolatrous food, and there is no indication that he himself ever ate it. quite the opposite is the case. moreover, the teaching of the early church for centuries was that christians were not to consume idolatrous food, in part, based on their reading of this text. 52 paul's argument, including that contained in 1 cor 9:19-22, confirms that his audience knew him to be not only one who would not eat such food, but also one who would not expect them to do so either. thus, although they knew him to be 52 acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; rev 2:14, 19-20; didache 6.3; ignatius, magn. 8—10; pliny, letters 10.96; aristides, apology 15.4; 12; justin, dial. 34.8; 35.1-2; tertullian, apol. 9.13-14; cor. 10.4-7; 11.3; spect. 13.2-4; jejun. 2.4; 15.5; mon. 5.3; clement, strom. 4.15.97.3; tomson, paul, 177-86; gooch, dangerous food, 122-27, 131-33; cheung, idol food, 165-295; david moshe freidenreich, "foreign food: a comparatively-enriched analysis of jewish, christian, and islamic law" (phd thesis: columbia university, 2006), 123-41. barnabas 10.9, may suggest an early group that does eat anything, but it is not specific about idolatrous food; and see tertullian, apol. 42.1-5. torah-observant when he had been among them in corinth, their query protests the cost to their civic life and standing caused by paul's denying this food to them as gentiles. they knew that by the defining terms of paul's own proclamation of the truth of the gospel, he understood that they remained nonjews and were not subject to torah. in 9:19-22, paul declares that to win jews he "became like a jew," to win the "ones under nomos" (law/convention/torah?) he "became like the one under nomos," but also to win the lawless he "became like a lawless one" (anomos), and to win the "weak" that he "became weak," who are understood to be insecure in their freedom in christ, and thus to avoid eating idolatrous food. 53 this statement has been universally understood to mean that paul regards torah-observance, including the value of jewish identity itself, to be only a matter of evangelistic expedience. that interpretation, which for analytical purposes may be called "lifestyle adaptability," depends on understanding "causing myself to become like" (egenomen hos) members of each of the various groups to signify "causing myself to mimic the conduct" of each of them. in the consensus view, paul does not share the various groups propositional truths, but rather he merely copies certain aspects of their behavior, presumably, in order to gain a hearing among them by making them (mistakenly) suppose that he might actually share their convictions. this applies to such conduct as eating according to torah when with those who eat halakhically and with no regard for torah when with those who do not eat according to jewish dietary norms. in other words, paul does not actually "become" or "become like" each referent, but 53 it is unclear how the reference to those "under law" differs from "jews," for example. perhaps it refers to proselytes or to those representing stricter standards like pharisees; alternatively, it may refer to being under roman or other laws or conventions. likewise it is not clear whether anomos refers to lawless (perhaps non-practicing) jews as well as to non-jews, or only to nonjews, as if he had written xoris nomos ("without law"). see my "paul's relationship to torah" and "paul and judaism." studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): nanos 1-21 nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 18 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 instead merely "pretends on the surface to live like" each one when among each. then he abandons that conduct and lives like the other ones when among them. but there is another way to understand paul's argument here, one that both avoids implying that he is indifferent to torah and also one that does not compromise his morality by ascribing to him a "bait and switch" strategy. rather than suggesting that he relates to each person or group by mimicking their lifestyle, paul is referring instead, i propose, to his rhetorical strategy for persuading them. his "becoming like" signifies not "behaving like," but rather "arguing like," or "reasoning like." he employs a strategy of "rhetorical adaptability" widely upheld in the philosophical traditions of his time wherein a speaker begins with the premises of those whom they seek to persuade, whether or not they intend ultimately to undermine these premises. 54 it was the way of socrates, and it is still employed as one of the best methods for teaching students. paul routinely begins with his audience's propositional truths, whether he shares them, like he does with jews and those who are torah-observant, or not, like in the cases of those he calls lawless, or the impaired who engage in idolatry as a matter of conviction. he does not behave like them, but he makes his arguments in ways that adapt to the propositional thinking of each group he seeks to persuade to the gospel. so too here, he approaches the knowledgeable in corinth about idolatrous food by appearing to uphold premises with which he may disagree in order to lead them to different conclusions than those they have drawn. luke portrays paul preaching to the philosophers in athens in just this manner (acts 17:16-34). paul begins from their premise that there is an "unknown god" to whom they dedicated a statue. paul does not begin by declaring there is no such thing 54 w. b. stanford, the ulysses theme: a study in the adaptability of a traditional hero (dallas: spring publications, 1992), 90-101. as polytheist gods, but builds on their (mistaken) conviction that this "idol" symbolizes a god. then he declares the identity of that god as really the god of israel. he next proceeds to inform them that this god does not approve of building statues to himself, or to any other supposed god or lord. paul does not make this criticism obvious in the beginning of his address, but it becomes transparent as he moves toward his conclusion that the god of israel is the one and only creator god of all humankind. in this way paul "became like" an idolater to gain idolaters. he does not conduct himself idolatrously or mimic idolater's conduct; rather, he remains like a torah-observant jew while arguing from the premises of the polytheists he seeks to persuade. my reading not only avoids the negative characterization of paul and his methods as intentionally deceptive, with a questionable commitment to righteousness, truth, and justice, but it also challenges the long-standing notion that 1 corinthians 8−10 shows clearly that paul is by definition torah-free. instead it substantiates that he is torah-observant and that he constructs his arguments assuming that his audience is aware of this fact. subsequent interpreters, assuming that his contemporary audiences shared the later understanding that paul was torah-free, have not only mischaracterized him, but they have missed the thrust of his teaching. instructions to the strong about the weak in romans 14:1−15:7, paul exhorts the ones who are "strong" or "able" (dunatoi) to respect the "weak" or "stumbling" (asthenes), who are "unable" (adunatoi) in faith. 55 to whom 55 for more detail, see my mystery of romans, 85-165; "the jewish context of the gentile audience addressed in paul’s letter to the romans," cbq 61 (1999): 283-304; and "a rejoinder to robert a. j. gagnon's 'why the "weak" studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): nanos 1-21 nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 19 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 each label refers is a matter of debate. paul's argument, directed to the "strong," characterizes the "weak" by their convictions about the value of certain foods, drink, and days. these characteristics appear to be typical norms for jewish behavior, such as eating vegetables when properly koshered meat is not available, avoiding wine that may have been offered as a libation to the gods according to normal greco-roman practice, and observing the holy days of the jewish calendar, including the sabbath. according to the prevailing views, the "strong" are christfollowers of pauline persuasion, that is, they are "torah-free” whether gentiles or jews. the "weak" are also christ-followers, but in contrast, they still observe torah and probably consist mostly of jews, perhaps with some "god-fearing" non-jews included among them. thus the conflicting identities turn around their relative valuation of torah, for all of them are christ-followers. these interpreters take the fact that paul includes himself among the "strong" as support for the notion that paul is torahfree, but their logic is circular. if the romans believe paul to be torah-observant, then their shared strength would be presumed to have nothing to do with torah, but with shared faith in christ. the prevailing view couples this reading with paul's declaration that he is "convinced in the lord jesus that nothing is impure in itself," (14:14), meaning that what makes something impure is someone's perception that it is, not something intrinsic to it. they understand paul to define categories of purity and impurity not according to torah, but rather according to christ-based personal or group convictions as if inherently different from those defined by torah for jewish people and groups. thus, paul is not torah-observant, or even torahrespectful, except in concession to the convictions of others, at rome cannot be non-christian jews'," available at http://www.marknanos.com/gagnon-rejoinder-6-20-03.pdf. whom he accommodates to advance more important matters like peace in the assembly and the witness of the gospel. i disagree with such readings. i propose that the distinctions paul makes between "strong" (or "unable") and "weak" (or "stumbling") do not revolve around their observance of torah-based norms, the "strong" rejecting them and the "weak" observing them with this signifying an inferior choice (weaker faith) according to the ideals of pauline christianity. nor does paul's appeal to the inherent purity or even goodness of everything god created indicate a rejection of halakhic behavior. rather, the distinction between the groups arises from their present level of "ability" or "inability" to believe in the gospel proposition. 56 at issue is whether or not they are "stumbling" over the proclamation of the message of good in christ to the nations. they are in this way "weak" or "impaired" or "stumbling," 57 but they are not non-believers in god. they do 56 note how paul works around dynatos in 15:1 57 for further explanation, see my "broken branches: a pauline metaphor gone awry? (romans 11:11-36)," in romans 9−11 at the interface between the 'new perspective on paul' and jewish-christian dialog (göttingen, germany: may 1-4, 2008; to be published in the forthcoming conference volume, eds. ross wagner and florian wilk; tübingen: mohr siebeck; a version is available at http://www.marknanos.com/brokenbranches-8-108.pdf); and mystery of romans, 239-88. paul saw himself, like the prophets, engaged in restoring israel. he viewed some of his fellow israelites in a temporary state of discipline for disobeying this truth claim. they are "stumbling" but not "fallen," within the covenant standing of israel, having the certainty of the gifts and calling of god promised to their fathers (rom 9:4-5; 11:25-29). in due time, as a result of his successful ministry among the nations, paul maintains that they will come to share his point of view and be restored to standing upright. i am pleased to say that krister stendahl embraced my argument when he first heard it at the 1998 society of biblical literature annual meeting, now available in "challenging the limits that continue to define paul’s perspective on jews and judaism," in reading israel in romans: legitimacy and plausibility of divergent interpretations, eds. cristina grenholm and daniel patte, romans through history and culture series (harrisburg, penn.: trinity press international, 2000), 217-29. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): nanos 1-21 nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 20 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 not lack faith in general terms, but faith that god is bringing to pass what was promised in christ. 58 but does paul's ostensible relativizing of the value of pure and impure, for example, imply that he does not respect, observe, or teach torah as a matter of conviction? no, it does not. rabbinic tradition relativizes these categories, making them apply only to israel. 59 according to the bible, god created everything good. the foods that are proscribed as impure are not inherently impure; rather, they are impure for israel because god has designated them to be so in the torah. impurity or purity is an imputed, not an inherent characteristic. paul appeals to the same notion here (and in 1 cor 10:19−11:1) as does the (presumably torah-observant) psalmist whom he quotes (ps 24:1; 50:12, in 1 cor 10:26). however, paul raises this as an argument, not its conclusion. he presumes his audience will identify positively with this premise—but characteristic of his rhetorical tactics, he subverts this argumentative concession in his subsequent conclusions. regardless of whether the "strong" should identify something as pure or not, they are obliged to respect the sensibilities of those who conclude it to be impure, and to behave accordingly. anything less is sin, and contributes not to testimony to their faith, but to their faithlessness, and to the ostensibly legitimate derision of their faith claims, i.e., to blasphemy itself. they can have no part in behavior that might lead to such results. therefore i propose that the divisions between these groups arise around their expression or lack thereof of the identity markers of christ-faith ("strong"="able" to believe; "weak”= "stumbling" over the message of christ), and not around their relative degree of torah-observance ("strong"=free from torah; 58 abraham's level of faith is described in similar terms in 4:18-20. 59 sifra aharei 93d; gen. r. 44.1; lev. r. 13.3; i. grunfeld, the jewish dietary laws (2vols.; london and new york: soncino press, 1972), 5, 12-19, 28-29; tomson, paul, 249. "weak"=observing torah). whether or not one accepts my view, this passage does not provide enough information to support the traditional case that paul did not observe torah in matters of diet, or that he taught against it. moreover, even according to the consensus view, paul defends the torah-observant, or at least calls for respectful behavior toward them. paul also explicitly proscribes the very judgmentalism towards the weak that this view imputes to him in understanding "weakness" to be stumbling over trusting god enough to abrogate torah. but i submit that paul instead argues here from the premises of a torah-observant jew, a faithful israelite who believes that jesus is the messiah of israel, and the savior of the nations too. conclusions and implications those promoting the prevailing portrait of paul's torah-free gospel and lifestyle do not depend exclusively on these texts and topics, but they usually appeal to them first as the ostensibly most self-evident sources that contradict the proposition of a torah-observant paul. in each case, i question their readings. at this point, i am unaware of any reason to doubt that the approach i suggest, which i have only been able to briefly describe here, is the most historically probable, helpful, and useful way to read paul, and the best place from which to seek to apply his messages to the issues that arise today. my understanding can lead to a heightened recognition of the similarities between first-century judaism and christian foundational texts and traditions. moreover, combined with appropriate awareness of the differences that exist today between these faith traditions, it can also encourage a new level of respect in relationships. these implications extend to include how each characterizes the other, which is so instrumental in the perpetuation of stereotypes. for even when these are ostensibly not encouraged outright, they often nevertheless travel implicitly in studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): nanos 1-21 nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 21 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 the interpretations we present. they are carried on in the ways that each explains the viewpoint of the other, often by appeal to the apostle paul, to paulinism as traditionally understood. for christians, it is exemplified in celebrating how different this special apostle's values supposedly were from those of other jews, including the other apostles, even from those of jesus, although sometimes this supposed difference seems to be retained without reconciling the tension it produces. for jews, it is expressed in undermining such notions and values, not necessarily by denying the claims that christians make in paul's name, but rather, by turning them upside down: it is obvious that an apostate representing such teachings, one who did not get judaism or even jesus right, is not a rival worthy of respect, much less painstaking exegesis. some christians may sense a deep and reprehensible threat to the very essence of christianity at work in the notion of a torah-observant paul, a threat that undermines elements considered essential to highlighting christianity’s difference from judaism. i believe that this concern is mistaken and unnecessary. when we examine the details of paul's propositional truths, there is no need for torah to be abrogated in order for christ-faith to be central to paul's theology. it is widely recognized that indifference to torah was not the norm either for jesus or for james and the other apostles of this movement. for them, there was no dichotomy between torah and christ. why must there be for paul? if we take seriously a portrayal of paul as torah-observant, one which is consistent with his own self-witness and confirmed by his earliest biographer in the acts of the apostles, might not the jewish and christian communities find themselves to be more similar than different? should not the differences become more clearly related to how each community values the identity and meaning of jesus, a judean martyr of the roman regime, and not to their shared concern for the "teaching" of faithfulness in response to the gracious calling of god? this is not an appeal to disregard differences, but to get them right. i hope each community will give this critical approach a hearing, not only in the interest of seeking to read these texts in the most historically viable way possible, but for the sake of our welfare today, and for the generations to come. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): nanos 1-21 nanos, the myth of the ‘law-free’ paul nanos 22 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 maven in blue jeans: a festschrift in honor of zev garber studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): eckardt r1-2 review steven leonard jacobs, ed. maven in blue jeans: a festschrift in honor of zev garber west lafayette, in: perdue university press, 2009, paper, 513 pp. reviewed by alice e. eckardt, professor emerita, lehigh university this remarkably rich collection of essays gathered and edited by steven jacobs to honor zev garber will be of value to any scholar interested in the several often-overlapping fields covered: biblical and rabbinic literature, interfaith dialogue, judaism and jewish thought, educational matters in a range of settings, shoah and post-shoah theology among jews and christians, hebrew studies and literature, and, all too briefly, zionism. of the 42 contributions only 18 here represent the whole. within the first category scott bartchy insists that the apostle paul is a far more radical teacher than most christian scholars recognize. and herbert basser shows how jesus fit the rabbinic style of teaching. both joseph edelheit and james moore tackle two difficult chapters of numbers to argue a) on behalf of the essential need for dialogue to undergird the post-shoah survival of the jewish people, and b) on behalf, further, of the need for changes in christian liturgy so that exclusionary language, especially toward jews and judaism, is eliminated. in the only dialogical essay eugene fisher engages in a “conversation” with garber about a number of jewish-christian relational issues, including areas of difference. a very thorough overview of new teachings of the catholic church about judaism and its relations with the jewish people since 1990 is provided by john pawlikowski. he does not hesitate to state what he, and other catholic scholars, see as shortcomings in some of the church documents, especially the insistence that the church itself is a “sacramental reality” uninvolved in, and unaffected by, the “sinful realities of history” (p. 136). he finds pope benedict xvi less ready to acknowledge the church’s failings than his predecessor. pawlikowski also deals with the recent jewish development of a theology of christianity, along with jewish readiness to insist that the state of israel be brought into the dialogue for a better catholic appreciation of how the land of israel is pertinent to jewish identity, concern, and survival. a consideration of how rabbis expanded the concept of divine suffering and merged it with human suffering and sinfulness during medieval times, and more fully during the holocaust is undertaken by michael fishbane. harold kasimow’s essay points out that abraham joshua heschel carried this thinking forward in his insistence on god’s suffering, and on god’s need for humans. both heschel and martin buber saw revelation and co-revelation at work in divine action and human response. shoah theology and other post-shoah developments receive the most extensive attention. samuel edelman foresees the eventual development of a body of sacred literature for use in worship which will utilize some of the most powerful writings from within the shoah itself. this will impact on jewish theology just as writings from other devastating times in jewish history helped shape the hebrew bible, the talmud, maimonides’ mishnah torah, the kabbalah, and the shulhan aruch. the author sees poetic works by yitzhak katznelson as particularly pertinent for this with their twofold elements of curse and lament along with consolation and instruction. jacobs, maven in blue jeans eckardt r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): eckardt r1-2 henry knight focuses on drawing new insights from scripture through midrashic dialogue with interfaith colleagues, as well as students, and moving beyond christian supersessionism. david patterson finds martyrdom no longer a valid means of sanctifying god. it is replaced by affirmation of life, “living for the holy one,” or living-for-the-other. thus patterson finds “holocaust”─burnt offering─the wrong word for the nazi annihilation of the jews. instead, “shoah”─abyss, or destruction─is the appropriate term since “shoah is made of murder” (p. 341). have we really learned from the unprecedented genocide of the shoah? john roth replies “maybe something?” “not enough?” and history has already negated “never again.” he argues that disrespect for human life and disrespect for the natural world are intertwined. yet despair is not the answer; we must recognize that “even small deeds and modest actions can be lifesaving” (p. 349) as were those of the french village of le chambon. another life-affirming and teaching resource is found by lev hakak in the folk tales of the 19th century iraqi rabbi yosef hayyim. writings about the holocaust for children below the 7th grade are reviewed by peter haas. and louanne clayton jacob has written most helpfully about how to do holocaust education. klaus hödel looks at the “staggering expansion” of jewish studies in germany and austria (p. 198). yet most of this teaching, and the creation of jewish cultural exhibits, are done by nonjews to non-jews, without a supporting jewish population. while klezmer music has captured the public’s fascination, the musicians are also non-jews. the far more serious issue of the european adoption of a pro-palestinian, pro-arab and antiisrael stance in order to secure the oil their economies need so desperately is addressed by richard rubenstein. the only article with a focus on zionism and the state of israel is gilead morahg’s in which he looks at two israeli literary works─one by haim hazaz (1942), and one by a. b. yehoshua (1990). both see a “national pathology” which subverted jewish history and “repeatedly led the jewish people to the brink of annihilation” (p. 455); and both find judaism ultimately responsible. yehoshua argues that even the military prowess of israel “recapitulates the self-destructive patterns of the past” (p. 460). i urge readers to make use of this valuable book and discover the further wealth of insights. jacobs, maven in blue jeans eckardt r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 pluralism out of the sources of judaism: religious pluralism without relativism studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college p l u r a l i s m o u t o f t h e s o u r c e s o f j u d a i s m : r e l i g i o u s p l u r a l i s m w i t h o u t r e l a t i v i s m r a p h a e l j o s p e רפאל ישפה b a r i l a n u n i v e r s i t y volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92113 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 92 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92-113 preface: christian challenges for some years the subject of religious pluralism has intrigued me, and has been the subject of several articles dealing with the concept of chosenness, exclusivity vs. inclusivity, and the compatibility of chosenness with pluralism.1 my thesis is that the jewish concept of the chosen people, correctly understood, is not externally directed, implying that jews in fact are better than other people, but is, rather, internally directed, challenging jews to become better people. such a concept, i maintain, is compatible with religious pluralism, based on the paradigm of the jewish obligation to live in accordance with the commandments of the torah while accepting the legitimacy of other ways of life in accordance with the paradigm of the universal “seven commandments of the children of noah.” what i propose is a reversal of traditional claims. instead of spiritual exclusivity (the notion that there is only one truth, and that one group has exclusive possession of the truth, and thus of the keys to salvation, however understood), which logically leads to ritual inclusivity (the impulse to proselytize and include others in one’s own religious community with its ritual obligations), we should attempt to work for spiritual inclusivity (recognition that different groups are capable of understanding the truth, albeit frequently in diverse ways), which logically leads to ritual exclusivity (or pluralism, namely that the existence of different religious 1 see my articles: “the concept of the chosen people: an interpretation” in judaism: a quarterly journal 170, vol. 43, no. 2 (spring, 1994): 127148; “educating for interreligious responsibility: ritual exclusivity vs. spiritual inclusivity” in caring for future generations: jewish, christian and islamic perspectives, ed. emmanuel agius and lionel chircop (twickenham: admantime press, 1998), 20-41; “chosenness in judaism: exclusivity vs. inclusivity”, in covenant and chosenness in judaism and mormonism, eds. raphael jospe, truman madsen and seth ward (madison & teaneck: fairleigh dickinson university press / associated university presses, 2001), 173-194. approaches and ritual practices is both legitimate and desirable, and that there is no reason to seek to proselytize others). as i readily acknowledge, my thoughts on these questions were prompted and enriched by two roman catholic thinkers. radical catholic scholar hans küng has said that without peace among the world’s religions, there will be no peace among the nations,2 a proposition that strikes me as self-evidently true, especially in this era of the “global village” and growing world-wide religious fanaticism, strife and terror.3 in our part of the world, it is unfortunately a fact that 2 hans küng, “world peace – world religions – world ethic” in eds., agius and chircop, caring for future generations, 69-81, especially 74. 3 while modern weapons of mass destruction obviously render the problem more urgent, the concern that religions not create or exacerbate deadly conflict is not new. küng’s call for peace among the religions is reminiscent, for example, of “on the peace of faith” (“de pace fidei”) of nicolaus of cusa (1401-1464), which opens with the prayer that god “might moderate the persecution, which raged more than usual on account of diverse religious rites.” (nicolaus of cusa, toward a new council of florence, trans. william wertz, jr. [washington, d.c., 1993], 231). “many turn their weapons against each other for the sake of religion and in their power compel men to renounce long observed doctrines or kill them. . .it is a condition of earthly human nature to defend as truth lengthy custom, which is regarded as part of nature. and thus no small dissensions arise, when any community prefers its beliefs over another’s.” (ibid, 232-233) in turn, we find remarkable similarity between some of the arguments in “on the peace of faith” and positions expressed in the “letters of the brethren of purity” (rasa’il ikhwan al-safa), a collection of 51 or 52 letters (depending on the numbering) of a tenth-century group of isma’ili muslim intellectuals in baṣra. (see i.r. netton, muslim neoplatonists: an introduction to the thought of the brethren of purity [london: george allen & unwin, 1982] and lenn evan goodman, the case of the animals versus man before the king of the jinn [boston: twayne publishers, 1978]). for example, in the letter “on the generation of animals and their kinds,” we find that the king of the jinn asks the persian spokesman why do people “slay one another if all their faiths have the same goal of encounter with god?” the persian replies: “this does not arise from faith, for ‘there is no compulsion in faith,’ rather, it comes from the institution of faith, that is from the state. . .religion cannot do jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 93 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92-113 religion is rarely a force for peace and is usually used (or abused) to exacerbate conflicts that are basically national and political, not theological, in nature. on the other hand, in 1994, in an interreligious conference in jerusalem, then cardinal joseph ratzinger (now pope benedict xvi), who is generally known for his conservative approach, and who was at the time the prefect of the congregation for the propagation of the faith, asked whether we can move from mere toleration to mutual acceptance.4 this question had a profound influence on the development of my own thought, as i have attempted to develop a jewish paradigm for pluralism.5 however, as is often the case with thinkers, the question posing an intellectual challenge is far more important than the specific answer proposed by the thinker himself. for as became clear in his subsequent official declaration dominus iesus, ratzinger’s call for mutual acceptance means only respect for the personal equality of the other, and not acceptance of the other’s doctrinal position per se. such acceptance can at best be only de facto and not de iure, according to ratzinger: “the church’s constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure.” without a ruler to command the people to uphold his institutions out of allegiance or by force. this is the cause of the adherents’ of different religions slaying one another – the quest for primacy and power in the state. each desires that all people should follow his own faith or sect and the laws of his own religion.” (translation by lenn evan goodman in the case of the animals versus man before the king of the jinn, p. 194). the quote “there is no compulsion in faith” (or: “let there be no compulsion in religion”) is from the qur’an, sura 2:256, “la ikraha fi’l din.” 4 ratzinger posed this challenge in the international jewish-christian conference on religious leadership in a secular society in jerusalem (february, 1994). 5 in this age of wide-spread, murderous religious fanaticism and terror, mere toleration would frequently be a great improvement. this paper attempts to develop, in response to ratzinger’s challenge, a jewish paradigm for moving beyond toleration to pluralism. irving “yitz” greenberg argues for going beyond pluralism to jewish-christian partnership. (for the sake of heaven and earth: the new encounter between judaism and christianity [philadelphia, 2004], 42). later in the book (p. 119), however, he refers to “the possibility of true pluralism, i.e., a love pluralism of passionate people, not the tolerance of apathy.” 6 this roman catholic concern about relativism, and the equation of religious pluralism with relativism, were reflected several years later, when i was sent by the israeli ministry of foreign affairs to lecture at the vatican (in september, 2001), and presented my pluralistic thesis at the urbaniana pontifical university in rome. the rettore magnifico abrogio spreafico asked me whether the pluralism i propose is not, in fact, tantamount to relativism. i replied that i don’t equate pluralism with relativism, and then said that even if my epistemology is wrong, i am morally certain that relativism has not killed people the way absolutism has. my reply received horrorful confirmation exactly 24 hours later. unknown to me, while i was flying back to israel from rome, the murderous 9/11 attacks of al-qa’idah in america were taking place. a jewish challenge: menachem kellner shifting from roman catholic influences on the development of my thought to the context of contemporary constructive jewish philosophy, my position on pluralism stands in theoretical contrast to the thought of my friend and esteemed colleague menachem kellner, professor of jewish philosophy at the university of haifa. although in practical terms of traditional religious lifestyle, zionist commitment, 6 “declaration dominus iesus on the unicity and salvific universality of jesus christ and the church” (august 6, 2000). jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 94 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92-113 and moral and political values kellner and i aren’t far apart, in theory we differ sharply, and our two papers in the volume on covenant and chosenness in judaism and mormonism represent clearly contrasting views.7 i have called kellner’s approach “an enlightened and sophisticated form of traditional triumphalism,”8 because in kellner’s view, “in the messianic future” the dichotomy between jews and gentiles “will be overcome, and all human beings will share the same relationship with god. in the messianic world, there will be no jews and gentiles, only worshippers of the one true god.”9 the distinction between jews and gentiles will be “overcome” not because all gentiles will convert to judaism in its current, particularistic form, but because (in kellner’s reading of maimonides, with whom he identifies), judaism is really a matter of affirming the truth and not merely an ethnic identity, and, therefore, by accepting the truth the gentiles, in effect, will become jewish in a universal sense: “the messianic age will witness not so much a triumph of judaism so much as the triumph of truth.”10 kellner concludes: i must express my sympathy for maimonides. to my mind the “postmodern” approach takes an unfortunate reality – that we cannot agree on what is true, or even on what truth is – and turns it into an ideal. this position is, i think, self-refuting to the extent that it makes real communication 7 kellner’s paper, “overcoming chosenness”, pp. 147-172 maintains a universalistic understanding of the truth, and proposes a maimonidean universal “religion of truth” for the future. 8 “chosenness in judaism: exclusivity vs. inclusivity”, p. 193 note 28. irving “yitz” greenberg (for the sake of heaven and earth: the new encounter between judaism and christianity, p. 134) writes: “surrendering religious exclusivism or triumphalism is a crucial moral step.” 9 kellner, “overcoming chosenness”, 152. 10 ibid., 160. among human beings impossible. it is also based upon a rejection of the idea of revelation, at least as it has been historically understood in judaism, according to which the torah is truth. this truth may be misunderstood, it may be viewed differently in different times, it may be better or worse understood as we get further from sinai and closer to the messiah, it may exist only in heaven, here being approximated, but truth there is. in short, maimonides’ vision of a universalist, not pluralist, messianic future was unusual in his day, consistent with his basic beliefs, necessitated by the understanding that revelation teaches truth, and thoroughly admirable.11 kellner’s position is clear: pluralism is at best an “unfortunate reality” in our current condition, and is, moreover, “self-refuting.” what we must strive for is the ultimate triumph in messianic times of universal truth, a truth that kellner believes is taught in historic jewish revelation. this view is reiterated and reinforced in an important recent book, must a jew believe anything?:12 “judaism teaches truth, and. . .orthodoxy understands that truth more completely than competing versions of judaism. these competing versions are wrong and mistaken.” nevertheless, on several theoretical and pragmatic grounds kellner argues that calling these versions “heretical is simply not helpful.”13 but kellner cautions us: although he rejects “maimonides’ dogmatic version of judaism”, he does not “wish at the same time to reject the. . .claims that judaism teaches truth and 11 ibid, 160. 12 menachem kellner, must a jew believe anything? (london: littman library of jewish civilization, 1999); second edition with new afterword (2006), 125. 13 ibid, 125. jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 95 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92-113 that there is one absolute truth – for these are claims that i am in no way willing to give up.”14 in his new afterword to the second edition, kellner adds that there is a problem inherent in the concept of religious pluralism itself: why not extend the bounds of pluralism beyond the bounds of judaism? if one relativizes truth within judaism, on what grounds can one refuse to relativize it outside judaism?15 kellner’s argument here – that internal jewish pluralism is unacceptable because one could then no longer oppose external religious pluralism – strikes me as a peculiar adoption of the logic employed by peter stuyvesant, the governor of the dutch colony of new amsterdam (what would later become new york), who in 1654 attempted unsuccessfully to keep jews out of the colony, arguing that “giving them liberty, we cannot refuse the lutherans and papists.”16 kellner’s objection to recognition of jewish dissenting opinion is thus justified on the grounds that it might lead, god forbid, to recognition of christian dissenting opinion. kellner’s logic is the opposite of that employed by moses mendelssohn. in his preface (written in march, 1782) to the german translation of manassah ben israel’s vindiciae judaeorum,17 mendelssohn argued that the jews could scarcely expect to be tolerated by christians, from whom they differ so fundamentally, so long as they are themselves intolerant of much less significant internal, jewish dissent: “if you wish to be shown concern, tolerance and forebearance by others, show concern, tolerance and forebearance to each other.” 14 ibid, 113. 15 ibid. 140. 16 cited by jonathan sarna, american judaism: a history (new haven: yale university press, 2004), 2. 17 manassah ben israel wrote vindiciae judaeorum to oliver cromwell, arguing for the readmission of the jews to england. 18 mendelssohn’s argument, that external, interreligious toleration, should lead to internal, intra-religious toleration, strikes me as far more persuasive than kellner’s argument against internal jewish pluralism on the grounds that it might lead to external religious pluralism. kellner’s argument also fails to deal with what i regard as empirically true, certainly of many jews and christians, and probably also of many muslims: it is often far easier to attain external, interreligious toleration or pluralism than it is to attain internal toleration or pluralism within the religious community. most of my thesis in this paper relates to pluralism in general, without specific regard for important questions pertaining to possible differences between internal and external forms of pluralism. at this point, on the level of internal pluralism (or at least toleration), i would note that kellner’s statement, “judaism teaches truth, and… orthodoxy understands that truth more completely than competing versions of judaism” strikes me as counterfactual, or at best as wishful thinking. jewish orthodoxy (and it is ironic that the ideology adopts an explicitly christian name), in its modern, enlightened and moderate form – as typified by people like kellner – is today an endangered species, and has been completely outflanked and overwhelmed by ḥaredi ultra-orthodoxy, which is largely fundamentalist (another christian term), literalist in its traditional, rabbinic reading of the bible and the talmud, 18 english translation in eva jospe (ed. and trans.), moses mendelssohn: selections from his writings (new york: viking press, 1975), 99-100. a complete translation by m. samuels was published in his english translation of mendelssohn’s jerusalem (london, 1838), vol. 1. jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 96 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92-113 suspicious of science, and opposed to much of modern culture.19 such orthodoxy, as kellner well knows, affirms as absolute truths many traditional assumptions which, when taken literally, are patently false, for example, some of the astronomical assumptions which are the basis of jewish calendrical calculations; biblical and rabbinic statements regarding the age of the universe, or regarding medicine, or precluding the evidence of evolution, archeology and bible criticism. had kellner expressed admiration for the disciplined traditional jewish way of life, and appreciation of observant jews’ dedication and commitment to the torah and to study, often entailing personal hardship and demanding sacrifice, he would have been on far safer ground than his attribution of absolute truth to orthodoxy in a book devoted, in no small measure, to an admirable attack on false contemporary orthodox dogmatics. finally, at the world congress of jewish studies in jerusalem (july-august, 2005), kellner devoted much of his lecture to a critique of my thesis of pluralism, on two grounds: first (as we have seen above), he regards pluralism as inherently absurd, theoretically self-refuting, and essentially relativistic; second, he maintains that there are no precedents for such pluralism in traditional jewish thought, since in his view “judaism teaches truth and…there is one absolute truth” (cited above). what follows, then, is my response to these challenges. first, however, it is important to note that pluralism is frequently equated with relativism, as it is in ratzinger’s dominus iesus, in the question posed to me in rome, and in statements by kellner. in my understanding, pluralism cannot be equated with relativism. plural understandings of the truth, or even plural truths, are not the same as no truth, and they are certainly not the same as no moral standards. as maimonides pointed out (in the guide of the perplexed 1:2 and in his treatise on logic, ch. 8), moral judgments do not deal with what is theoretically true and false (which he regarded as intelligibles, arabic: ma`qulat; hebrew: muskalot), but with practical determinations (which he regarded as conventional or “generally accepted” propositions, arabic: mashhurat; hebrew: mefursamot) of what is good and proper or evil and improper. to confuse theoretical pluralism with moral (and other) relativism is thus to blur this important distinction. 19 by “literalist” i do not mean corporealist, i.e. that they take biblical anthropomorphisms literally, but rather that their reading of the bible is shaped exclusively by an exclusive reliance on rabbinic tradition (or on certain aspects of that tradition), and in turn that their reading of the rabbis is literalist and uncritical, even when the rabbis’ own non-literal and midrashic reading of scripture or other views are implausible. such literalist reading of the rabbis is strongly criticized by maimonides in his commentary to the mishnah, “pereq ḥeleq” (sanhedrin, ch. 10). 20 irving “yitz” greenberg also argues admirably for maintaining this distinction: pluralism means more than accepting or even affirming the other. it entails recognizing the blessings in the other’s existence, because it balances one’s own position and brings all of us closer to the ultimate goal. even when we are right in our own position, the other who contradicts our position may be our corrective or our check against going to excess…pluralism is not relativism, for we hold on to 20 irving “yitz” greenberg has written: “to my great frustration, the orthodox failed to distinguish between pluralism and relativism; to my failure, i could not persuade them of the essential difference between these positions – in other words, that one could uphold the authority of tradition while making room for other religious systems.” (for the sake of heaven and earth: the new encounter between judaism and christianity), 11. i share greenberg’s frustration, but it’s not only the orthodox jews who fail to make this important distinction. jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 97 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92-113 our absolutes; however, we make room for others’ as well.21 relativism…is the loss of capacity to affirm any standards. but the deepest religious response is pluralism – the recognition that there are plural absolute standards that can live and function together, even when they conflict. the deepest insight of pluralism is that dignity, truth and power function best when they are pluralized, e.g., divided and distributed, rather than centralized or absolutized . . . the essential difference between pluralism and relativism is that pluralism is based on the principle that there still is an absolute truth…pluralism is an absolutism that has come to recognize its limitations.22 unfortunately, greenberg’s merely stating that “we hold on to our absolutes” does not explain how to reconcile claims to absolute truth with pluralism. if one’s own position is held to be absolutely true, it may need a moral “check” against practical excess, but why should absolute truth require theoretical correction? pluralism is not relativism, on that greenberg and i agree – but how can it be compatible with absolutist claims? does not greenberg’s vision of “divided and distributed, rather than centralized or absolutized” truth contradict the “absolute truth” which he affirms? how are we to understand greenberg’s assertion that “pluralism is an absolutism that recognizes that an absolute truth/value need not be absolutely right to be absolute”?23 21 greenberg, for the sake of heaven and earth: the new encounter between judaism and christianity, 196. 22 ibid, 201-203. 23 ibid, 205. this tension (which i regard as unresolved) in greenberg’s thought between pluralism and absolutism, which may prove inevitable in much of progressive yet faithful religious thought, also characterizes much of nicolaus of cusa’s “on the peace of faith” (“de pace fidei”), referred to above, note 3. a consistent theme in the essay is the need to avoid conflict and to respect religious diversity, which “may bring an increase in as we shall see below, over two centuries ago moses mendelssohn advocated a clearer and more consistent and progressive form of pluralism that avoided such problematical claims to absolute truth, or that judaism is “absolutely the best” religion.24 i shall, therefore, argue that claims to absolute truth are not merely morally dangerous, but theoretically meaningless. returning to allegations of relativism, however, the truly meaningful question for me is not whether pluralism may necessarily entail some degree of relativism in general, but what kind of relativism. i cannot imagine that anyone is bothered by a pluralism of flavors of ice cream, if it should prove to be the case that one’s favorite taste is both subjective and relative. as a jew, what concerns me most is moral relativism, which implies that there are no meaningfully binding standards (however derived) on all people. the experience of 20th century totalitarianism, and the shoah in particular, should teach us the obvious dangers of such a position, and the nuremburg trials correctly, from my perspective (as the child of a german jewish family, many of whose members were murdered by the nazis), established international recognition that there are certain norms to which all people can and should be held, regardless of whether they were following what their country posited to be legal orders. therefore, it seems to me that if, despite what i think, it should prove correct that pluralism inevitably entails some devotion” (p. 233), and to tolerate different rites (p. 268). at the same time, since all the diverse religions “presuppose” a common, single religion and wisdom (pp. 236-237; 272), ultimately “all diversity of religion ought to be brought into one orthodox faith…the lord has taken pity on his people and agreed to the plan to lead all diversity of religions through mutual agreement of all men harmoniously back to a single, henceforth inviolable religon.” (p. 235) 24 see the discussion below, and note 69. jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 98 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92-113 degree of relativism, we would then be obliged to differentiate between moral relativism, which may entail clear and immediate practical dangers, and various kinds of epistemological relativism, especially in terms of what people think about god, which may have its theoretical errors, but does not present an existential danger. moral relativism affects interpersonal matters (bein adam le-ḥ avero), whereas epistemological relativism (if it be relativism at all, rather than pluralism) regarding diverse understandings of god refers to extremely personal and subjective questions between the individual and god (bein adam la-maqom). as a jew, i am, therefore, far less troubled by at least some degree of epistemological relativism, since even people who claim revelation can readily admit that their human understanding of divine truth is limited and partial, and reflects cultural and other influences, thus acknowledging a limited epistemological relativism. nevertheless, i recognize that my position may be easier for a jew to affirm than for a christian, given the relatively greater emphasis in judaism on deed, which does not necessarily entail abstract truth claims, and the relatively greater emphasis in christianity on creed, which necessarily forces one to deal with truth claims. whatever “salvation” or “justification” mean, the traditional jewish notions that israel must live according to the 613 commandments of the torah, and that the righteous gentiles who also, like israel, have “a portion in the world to come,” are those who observe the universal “seven commandments of the children of noah,”25 clearly have a behavioral emphasis, with truth claims playing at most a minor role in the scheme of jewish attitudes towards non-jews. conversely, the classical pauline notion of justification by 25 see the discussion of these points in my “chosenness in judaism: exclusivity vs. inclusivity,” 178-180 and the references in notes 15-19, and in “the concept of the chosen people: an interpretation,” 130-131, and the references in notes 15-20. faith clearly places truth claims at the focal point of christian theological concern, and together with belief in “one way” may well make it far more difficult for a christian to relegate epistemological relativism to the back rows of the debate on pluralism. as for kellner’s argument that there are no precedents for pluralism in jewish thought, even if that were correct, the lack of precedent would not invalidate pluralism in principle. kellner surely would not reject democracy on the grounds that it is derived from athenian and not from biblical or later jewish thought. as i shall show, however, there are in fact ample precedents for pluralism in jewish sources. as i attempt to respond to kellner’s challenges, that pluralism makes no inherent sense and is self-refuting, and that there are no precedents in traditional jewish thought for my position, i am guided by a twofold belief: on a theoretical level, that claims to “one absolute truth” are inherently meaningless; and on a practical level, that such spiritual exclusivity constitutes an existential danger to the peace of the world, especially in the era of the “global village” and increasingly widespread weapons of mass destruction. so long as religions continue to compete with each other in their exclusivistic claims, they will not be able serve as an effective force for peace and cooperation, but rather will perpetuate their all too frequent desecration of god’s name and affront to human dignity. toleration versus pluralism: alexander altman and avi sagi in his 1957 lecture before the council of christians and jews in london, my teacher alexander altmann discussed jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 99 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92-113 “tolerance and the jewish tradition.”26 in altmann’s analysis, historically jews in the biblical and rabbinic periods found ways to tolerate non-jews, while rejecting internal toleration of jewish dissent. he then argued that jews and christians today meet on secular ground, while their theologies remain mutually exclusive. therefore, he concludes, although theologically jews and christians cannot tolerate each other, they need each other for a common stand in the face of contemporary “virulent paganism.” while theology thus divides, religion, which is broader than theology, can bring the two groups together by emulating god’s love.27 altmann’s essay, of course, was written prior to the radical changes in christian-jewish relationships since vatican ii, and could not take into account later developments. he questioned the possibility of theological toleration; fifty years later, we face the question of whether we can move from mere toleration to a pluralistic acceptance of each other. more recently, avi sagi of bar ilan university has characterized different grades of toleration and pluralism.28 we tolerate what we reject, and view the tolerated position as error. in short, we tolerate the person, not the idea. by contrast, in pluralism we see the other position as valid and possessing value. a “weak pluralism” is based on the skeptical view that there is one truth, but that, because of our fallibility, we have no way to discover it except through the confrontation of opposing ideas. the weak pluralist is thus 26 alexander altmann, “tolerance and the jewish tradition”, the 1957 robert waley cohen memorial lecture (london: the council of christians and jews); hebrew trans. david singer in a. altmann, panim shel yahadut (tel aviv: am oved, 1983), 217-232. 27 ibid, 19. 28 avi sagi, “ha-dat ha-yehudit: sovlanut ve-efsharut ha-pluralism” in `iyyun 43 (1994), 175-200. not sure that he has the truth, as opposed to the person who tolerates dissent, because he is certain of his truth.29 “strong pluralism,” on the other hand, does not affirm only a temporary value of opposing views leading to ultimate truth, but regards different views as having inherent value of their own. such pluralism thus adopts a measure of relativism.30 in sagi’s analysis, weak pluralism can coexist with religious authority, because it adopts only a hypothetical epistemological relativism, but strong pluralism has generally been understood as presenting an impossible challenge to religion, by requiring that it give up its claims to religious truth, which it cannot do.31 sagi concludes, nevertheless, by calling for a revolution of attitudes, if not of halakhic practice. there is a need for pluralism in western society; in practical terms, most of western society is already pluralistic; and pluralism follows from the subjectivity of the religious experience. sagi therefore calls for an “intellectual golden rule”: let others have their own experience and recognize its value.32 it seems to me that the opponents of pluralism fail to take into account the subjective nature of faith and the religious experience, to which sagi points. the difference between faith and knowledge lies precisely in the fact that we know something which we can demonstrate and for which we have evidence, whereas we believe, rather than know, something to be true precisely when we lack such demonstration and evidence and yet affirm it as true.33 since faith therefore 29 ibid, 184. 30 ibid, 185-186. 31 ibid, 194-195. 32 ibid, 198-200. 33 kellner’s approach to faith is that faith involves trust, which should find expression in behavior, whereas knowledge involves the acquiescence to the truth of certain claims, which do not necessitate any specific behavior. kellner identifies his approach with that of maimonides. regardless of whether kellner is correct that this is maimonides’ understanding of the jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 100 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92-113 deals with affirmations which are unproven and unprovable (as opposed to knowledge), it is inherently subjective, not objective, and culturally relative. at least a weak form of pluralism would seem inevitably to follow from such subjectivity and cultural relativity. subjectivity and cultural relativity in revelation on the face of it, revelation would appear to preclude pluralism. the rabbis, however, understood the revelation at sinai to be adjusted to the subjective capacity of each person, and to the relative cultures of the seventy nations of the world. commenting on the peculiar phrase, “all the people saw the voices” of the revelation at sinai (ex 20:15), the midrash rabba on exodus34 picks up on the plural qolot (“voices” or “sounds”): it says “all the people saw the voices.” it does not say “voice” here but “voices.” rabbi yoḥanan said, the [divine] voice went out and was divided into seventy voices, into seventy languages, so that all the nations could hear, each nation hearing it in its own national language...come and see how the voice would go out to each israelite according to his capacity (koaḥ, literally “power”), the elders according to their capacity, the youth according to their capacity, the children according to their capacity, infants according to their capacity, and the women according to their capacity, and even moses according to his capacity...therefore it says, “the voice of the lord is in power (koaḥ). it does not say “in his power” but “in power,” in the power [i.e., capacity] of each individual. nature of faith (and kellner’s reading is not necessarily supported by maimonides’ insistence in guide of the perplexed 1:35 that the common people should accept on authority certain basic beliefs), kellner’s approach reflects that of martin buber, who contrasted two types of faith: jewish faith, “the fact that i trust someone, without being able to offer sufficient reasons for my trust in him;” and christian faith, “likewise, without being able to give a sufficient reason, i acknowledge a thing to be true.” (martin buber, two types of faith, trans. n. goldhawk [new york, 1961]), foreword, p. 7. moses mendelssohn makes a similar point, that emunah means trust, in jerusalem and other jewish writings, trans. and ed. by alfred jospe (new york, 1969), 71; cf. the translation by allan arkush, with introduction and commentary by a. altmann (hanover, 1983), 100. in any event, as buber admits more candidly than does kellner, even a behavioral, rather than cognitive understanding of emunah still involves an attitude “without being able to offer sufficient reasons for my trust,” i.e., there is no demonstrative evidence to justify the trust. 34 midrash exodus rabba 5:9. my english translation. in the english translation by s.m. lehrman (london: soncino press, 1939) this passage is found on pp. 86-88. revelation, in short, according to this rabbinic view, was not absolute or monolithic; it had to be adjusted to the subjective capacity of each individual to understand, and to the relative cultures of the various nations.35 abraham ibn ezra and the limitations of revelation abraham ibn ezra (1089-1164), a prominent bible exegete, grammarian, poet and philosopher argued36 against the traditional rabbinic view that both versions of the 35 kellner argues that i’m reading into the text views its authors would have rejected, because all they meant was that the same text can be understood on different levels, just as the same geometry can be taught to graduate students or to school children on different levels. but is graduate-level, advanced non-euclidean geometry really the same geometry as that taught in elementary or middle schools? at what point is a critical understanding of scripture or other religious sources merely quantitatively more advanced than what children are taught, as opposed to qualitatively different? 36 ibn ezra, long (i.e. standard) commentary to ex 20:1. jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 101 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92-113 decalogue (ex 20 and dt 5) were revealed simultaneously.37 after listing in detail all the differences between the two versions, ibn ezra explained that many of these differences (especially in the commandment regarding the sabbath) are substantive, not merely stylistic. no person is capable of understanding two different notions spoken simultaneously, and in such a case would understand neither of them. a simultaneous revelation of both versions would thus have been incomprehensible and meaningless.38 it is impossible that “remember” and “observe” [the sabbath] were spoken simultaneously, even by a miracle...how could many verses be miraculously spoken simultaneously, when they do not have the same meaning?... reason cannot tolerate these notions... and if we were to say that god’s speech is not like human speech, how could israel have understood what god said? for if a person would hear “remember” and “observe” simultaneously, he would not understand either one. for ibn ezra, the limitations on revelation are thus imposed not from above, namely on god as the speaker, but from below, namely by the limited capacity of the people hearing it. in other words, it is meaningless to discuss the absolute nature of revealed truth because of its divine origin. successful communication – whether divine revelation or a radio broadcast – must be effectively received as well as 37 b.t. rosh ha-shanah 27a (inter alia), zakhor ve-shamor be-dibbur eḥad ne’emru, “‘remember’ and ‘observe’ [the sabbath] were said as one statement.” 38 my english translation. ibn ezra concludes that the version in exodus, where it says that “god spoke all of these things” (ex 20:1) is the actual record of the revelation, whereas the version in deuteronomy, where moses says “i stood between god and you at that time, to tell you the word of the lord” (dt 5:5) is the paraphrase by moses, 40 years later. broadcast, and the limited capacity of the human receiver is what necessarily subjectivizes and relativizes revelation. al-farabi: religious versus philosophical language abu naṣr muḥammad al-farabi (870-950), one of the greatest early islamic philosophers, who had an immense influence on maimonides,39 applied platonic political philosophy to revealed religion, and identified the philosopherking with the prophet. in his political regime, al-farabi argued that there is one reality, but that there are many images or reflections of reality. therefore, there can be many religions, because each nation has its own ways to represent these images of reality, although not all the ways are equally excellent.40 because it is difficult for the multitude to comprehend these things themselves as they are, the attempt was made to teach them these things in other ways, which are the ways of imitation. hence these things are imitated for each group or nation through the matters that are best known to them; and it may very well be that what is best known to the one may not be the best known to the other.41 similarly, in his attainment of happiness, al-farabi suggested that philosophy deals with demonstrative 39 for a discussion of al-farabi’s influence on maimonides, see shlomo pines, “translator’s introduction: the philosophical sources of the guide of the perplexed” in pines’ english translation of maimonides’ guide of the perplexed (chicago: university of chicago press, 1963), lvii-cxxxiv. 40 al-farabi, the political regime. english translation by f.m. najjar in ralph lerner and muhsin mahdi, medieval political philosophy (ithaca: cornell university press, 1978), 31-57. 41 ibid., 40-41. jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 102 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92-113 knowledge of beings, whereas religion entails assent, secured through persuasion, to images of things. if he perceives their ideas themselves with his intellect, and his assent to them is by means of certain demonstration, then the science that comprises their cognitions is philosophy. but if they are known through similitudes that imitate them, and assent to what is imagined of them is caused by persuasive methods, then the ancients call what comprises those cognitions religion ...therefore, according to the ancients, religion is an imitation of philosophy... in everything of which philosophy gives an account based on intellectual perception or conception, religion gives an account based on imagination.42 to translate al-farabi’s theory into our contemporary terminology, the language of science is discursive, whereas the language of religion is mythological. in such language, which is a function of imagination, not of reason, we have the possibility of multiple images, reflections or imitations of reality, once again raising the possibility of religious pluralism.43 42 al-farabi, the attainment of happiness. english translation by muhsin mahdi in medieval political philosophy, #55, 44-45. 43 this does not mean that al-farabi is positing a “double truth” theory, in the sense of thirteenth-century latin averroists at the university of paris, namely that reason and revelation are two separate and autonomous realms of truth. al-farabi is suggesting that the truth can be expressed scientifically, in discursive, rational terms for intellectuals. this is the realm of philosophy. the same truths need to be expressed, for the common people, in terms they are capable of understanding, namely by “similitudes” deriving from the imagination, which “imitate” those truths; this is the realm of religion. on the “double truth” theory, see the discussion and references in my “faith and reason: the controversy over philosophy in jewish history,” in la storia della filosofia ebraica, ed. irene kajon (milan: archivio di filosofia, 1993), 99-135. maimonides: “the torah speaks according to human language moses maimonides (1135-1204) was profoundly indebted to al-farabi, especially his identification of the prophet of revealed religion with the platonic philosopher-king. whereas the philosopher has a perfected intellect and the politician has a perfected imagination (which enables him to lead effectively, by appealing to popular emotion), the prophet is perfect in both respects.44 although maimonides emphasizes the unique rank of the prophecy of moses, which did not entail imagination,45 he also insists that “the torah speaks according to human language” ( דברה תורה in other words, that the torah had to 46,( כלשון בני אדם employ anthropomorphic and anthropopathic language to accommodate the primitive understanding of the ancient israelites. these two positions, that the prophecy of moses did not entail imagination, but that the torah had to use primitive language and mythological imagery, are not necessarily contradictory. in the first case, maimonides is referring to moses’ own experience of revelation, in which there was no involvement of imagination, whereas in the second case he is referring to how moses subsequently conveyed those abstract truths to the people in imaginative terms they could understand. 44 cf. guide of the perplexed 2:37. 45 cf. guide of the perplexed 2:36, 2:45. 46 guide of the perplexed 1:26. the phrase occurs, inter alia, in b.t. berakhot 31b. whereas rabbi akiva would interpret (darash) the significance of every word, and even letters, of torah as significant, rabbi yishma’el’s hermeneutic was based on the principle that the torah speaks according to human language. maimonides was not the first medieval philosopher to apply this hermeneutic principle philosophically, in the sense that the torah had to adapt itself to the primitive understanding of the masses. cf. baḥya ibn paqudah, duties of the hearts 1:10. jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 103 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92-113 maimonides’ political theory thus again forces us to separate historical revelation from claims of absolute truth, since even the torah had to adapt its method of expression to limited and primitive human understanding. the torah’s corporealist method of expression is not only frequently misleading – thus the “perplexed” student for whom maimonides’ wrote his guide of the perplexed – but actually dangerous, when people take literally corporealist attributes which are themselves false, because in maimonides’ view, a person who believes in a corporeal god is worse than an idolator.47 the possibility of multiple revelations: netanel ibn al-fayyumi maimonides, in several places, most notably in the ninth of his “thirteen principles,” rejected the possibility that any subsequent revelation could abrogate the torah.48 but what of revelations to other nations that would not abrogate the torah? joseph albo’s book of principles (sefer ha`iqqarim) (c. 1425) discusses “divine laws” besides the torah that were revealed to prophets, reflecting changing human needs (like a patient whose changing condition requires revised prescriptions), but these revelations were all to pre-sinaitic prophets, such as adam, noah and abraham, 47 guide of the perplexed 1:36. 48 the arabic term maimonides uses, naskh (abrogation), is a technical term in islam. since the qur’an was given over a period of years, a later revelation to muḥ̣ammad could abrogate an earlier revelation (cf. qur’an, sura 2:106), just as in general, muḥ̣ammad, as the last and greatest prophets, and as the “seal of the prophets” (cf. qur’an, sura 33:40), could abrogate prior revelations to earlier prophets. maimonides’ use of the islamic term as a polemic against islam is thus not accidental. and albo did not regard christianity and islam to be divinely revealed religions.49 conversely, the garden of the intellects (bustan al-`uqul) of netanel ibn al-fayyumi (yemen, c. 1165)50 explicitly discusses multiple revelations both before and after the revelation of the torah. these post-sinaitic revelations, however, do not abrogate the torah, which will not be abrogated even in the messianic era: nothing prevents god from sending unto his world whomsoever he wishes, whenever he wishes, since the world of holiness sends forth emanations unceasingly from the light world to the coarse world, to liberate the souls from the sea of matter – in the world of nature – and from destruction in the fires of hell. even before the revelation of the law he sent prophets to the nations, as our sages of blessed memory explain, “seven prophets prophesied to the nations of the world before the giving of the torah: laban, jethro, balaam, job, eliphaz, bildad and zophar.”51 and even after its revelation nothing prevented him from sending to them whom he wished, that the world might not remain without religion. the prophets declared that the other nations would serve him from the rising of the sun to the setting thereof: “for from 49 irving “yitz” greenberg (for the sake of heaven and earth: the new encounter between judaism and christianity, p. 57) refers to what he understands to be divine revelations and other nations’ access to god, in gn 14:18-20; nm 22-24; am 9:7; mi 4:5). 50 cf. david levine, the bustan al-ukul by nathanel ibn al-fayyumi (new york: columbia university press, 1908), judeo-arabic text and english translation. judeo-arabic text with hebrew translation by yosef kafiḥ̣ (jerusalem, 1954). 51 the reference is to t.b. bava batra 15a, where, however, the list differs slightly: balaam, his father, job, eliphaz, bildad, zophar, elihu. jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 104 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92-113 the rising of the sun to the setting thereof great is my name among the nations.” (mal 1:11).52 this leads netanel to explicit religious pluralism: know that god commanded that all the people should serve according to the law; and he permitted to every people something which he forbade to others, and he forbade to them something which he permitted to others, for he knoweth what is best for his creatures and what is adapted to them, as the skilled physician understands his patients.53 netanel then cites the qur’an (sura ibrahim 14:4): “he sends a prophet to every people according to their language.”54 we thus have in netanel’s garden of the intellects what is probably the clearest statement of religious pluralism in 52 bustan al-`uqul, ch. 6, levine ed., 103-104; kafi ḥ̣ ed., 114-115. 53 bustan al-`uqul, ch. 6, levine ed., 107; kafi ḥ̣ ed., 118-119. netanel’s arguments have sometimes been called relativistic, by y. tzvi langermann and others (see below), although langermann clearly refers to it as “religious relativism” and not as moral relativism. it seems to me that what our text is referring to is not relativism in the moral sense, i.e., that there are no moral standards however derived, but pluralism in the religious sense, that different groups have diverse ritual requirements which only apply within that group, because of their particular conditions. it is only in the sense that the rituals differ according to particular conditions that one can suggest some kind of “relativism” in the ritual practices, just as the physician’s prescriptions are “relative” to patients’ conditions and needs, but we do not usually regard a diabetic’s need for insulin, which would endanger a non-diabetic, as constituting “relativism.” similarly, the ritual dietary restrictions of kashrut in the torah apply only to jews, and those of the book of mormon apply only to latter day saints, just as in a civil context citizens of one country salute only the flag of their country, and not of other countries. this is how i understand netanel’s text, as referring to such pluralism and not to relativism. 54 bustan al-`uqul, ch. 6, levine ed., 109; kafi ḥ̣ ed., 121. medieval jewish thought, reflecting pluralistic trends in the isma’ili thought of the “brethren of purity” (ikhwan al-ṣafa).55 sa`adiah gaon and “the community of monotheists” one might, of course, dismiss netanel ibn al-fayyumi as a relatively insignificant and exceptional figure in medieval jewish thought. one cannot thus dismiss sa`adiah gaon (882-942), the first medieval jewish philosopher, whose book of beliefs and opinions (kitab al-amanat w’al-i`tiqadat; sefer ha-emunot veha-de`ot) established a whole tradition of jewish philosophizing. sa`adiah does not discuss multiple revelations, but he does discuss a type of religious truth transcending judaism. in the introduction (#5) to his book, after discussing empirical, rational and deductive sources of knowledge, which are all clearly universal, he states: as for ourselves, the community of monotheists (jama`at al-muwa ḥ̣adin), we hold these three sources of knowledge to be genuine. to them, however, we add a fourth source …the validity of authentic tradition (al-khabar al-ṣadiq)… 55 cf. s.m. stern, “fatimid propaganda among the jews”, pp. 85-86, cited by y. tzvi langermann, “some astrological themes in the thought of abraham ibn ezra”, in i. twersky and j. harris, eds., rabbi abraham ibn ezra: studies in the writings of a twelfth-century jewish polymath (cambridge: harvard university press, 1993), 72 and note 121. langermann refers here to netanel’s “religious relativism”. on the brethren of purity, see note 3, above. for an example of religious pluralism in the ikhwan al-ṣafa, see lenn evan goodman, the case of the animals versus man before the king of the jinn, p. 194: in response to the king of the jinn’s question, “why do you disagree in your notions, sects and creeds if your lord is one?” the persian spokesman says: “because religions, doctrines, sects are only different paths of approach, different means and avenues, but the goal we seek is one. from whatever quarter we seek to encounter him, god is there.” jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 105 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92-113 this type of knowledge…corroborates for us the validity of the first three sources of knowledge.56 this type of knowledge (which can also be translated as “reliable report” or “reliable tradition”) has generally been understood by scholars, such as my teacher shlomo pines, as “drawn only from the jewish prophetic books” and as “intended solely for the benefit of the jewish community.” pines also interprets “the community of monotheists” exclusively as the jews.57 this view, however, needs to be modified. sa`adiah cannot have denied the monotheistic nature at least of islam (if not of christianity), since he follows the mu`tazilah kalam arguments for creation and the existence and unity of god. his argument with christian trinitarianism, which follows his discussion of essential attributes,58 and not his refutation of dualism and polytheism, and therefore contextually implies that christianity is an erroneous form of monotheism and not polytheism. moreover, sa`adiah later refers in the plural to “the communities of the monotheists” (ma`ashir al-muwa ḥ̣adin)59 when discussing christian trinitarianism. so sa`adiah’s understanding of “the community of monotheists” cannot be limited to the jewish 56 book of beliefs and opinions, trans. samuel rosenblatt (new haven: yale university press, 1948), 16; arabic text with hebrew trans. by yosef kafi ḥ̣ (jerusalem: sura, 1970), 14. for a complete discussion of this issue, cf. my “sa`adiah gaon and moses mendelssohn: pioneers of jewish philosophy” in raphael jospe, ed., paradigms in jewish philosophy (madison and teaneck: fairleigh dickinson university press and associated university presses, 1997), 37-59; and my “ha-hagadah hane’emenet shel rabbi sa`adiah gaon: mi hem qehal ha-meya ḥ̣adim?” in da`at 41 (summer, 1998) 5-17; and “additional note” in da`at 42 (winter, 1999), ix. 57 s. pines, “a study of the impact of indian, mainly buddhist, thought on some aspects of kalam doctrines” in jerusalem studies in arabic and islam 17 (1994): 182-203. 58 book of doctrines and beliefs 2:4. 59 ibid. 2:5. people, and must have a broader connotation. the fourth type of knowledge, authentic tradition, which is possessed by the “community of monotheists,” must also, therefore, be shared by non-jews (as becomes even more obvious by his example, that without such knowledge a person would not even be able to know who his father is). in sa`adiah’s usage, authentic tradition is by no means identical with revelation, although at least in the case of the jews it is based on and related to revelation. nevertheless, we have here at least an implicit, if not explicit, pluralistic conception of religious truth in the thought of one of the most influential of the jewish philosophers of the middle ages. this universalistic reading of sa`adiah’s “community of monotheists” is further reinforced in the usage of later jewish philosophers. for example, ba ḥ̣ya ibn paqudah’s duties of the hearts 1:1-2 refers to “the people of monotheism,” where the distinction is not between jew and non-jew but between varying degrees of comprehension of people who affirm god’s unity. judah ha-levi’s kuzari 1:4 also refers to “monotheists” in a non-jewish context, when the christian spokesman says to the khazar king: “for we are truly monotheists, although the trinity appears on our tongues.” maimonides’ guide of the perplexed 1:53 has: “we, the community of true monotheists”, where the category is philosophical, not parochial, and refers to those who have a correct philosophical understanding of the divine attributes; a similar usage is found in guide of the perplexed 1:75. if my universalistic understanding of “the community of monotheists” in sa`adiah gaon, ba ḥ̣ya ibn paqudah, judah ha-levi and maimonides is correct, the universal nature of this type of truth implies at least a degree of pluralism, for the simple reason that the truth takes different forms in jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 106 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92-113 diverse cultures, all of which are, nevertheless, acknowledged to be true monotheism. all of these cases support my claim, in response to kellner, that there are ample precedents in jewish thought, both rabbinic and philosophic, for pluralistic and inclusive understanding of religious truth, and that the concept of revelation need not, and indeed cannot, be understood to mean exclusive possession of absolute truth, since even the revelation of the torah at sinai had to be adjusted to subjective human understanding and relatively to diverse national cultures. on cultural relativism in conceiving of god the insight that our very conceptions of god and the universe are culturally relativistic is not new. the presocratic philosopher xenophanes of colophone (570 bce – 475 bce) already made the point:60 170. but mortals consider that the gods are born, and that they have clothes and speech and bodies like their own. 171. the ethiopians says that their gods are snubnosed and black; the thracians that theirs have light blue eyes and red hair. 172. but if cattle and horses or lions had hands, or were able to draw with their hands and do the work that men do, horses would draw the forms [greek: ideas] of the gods like horses, and cattle like cattle, and they would make their bodies such as they each had themselves. 60 greek fragments and english trans. in g.s. kirk and j.e. raven, the presocratic philosophers (cambridge: cambridge university press, 1964), 168-169. franz rosenzweig refers to xenophanes and spinoza in his article “anthropomorphism” written in 1928-1929 for the original german encyclopaedia judaica. the hebrew translation by yehosua amir may be found in rosenzweig’s naharayim (jerusalem: mosad bialik, 1960), 3140; the specific reference is on p. 38. in the seventeenth century, baruch (benedict de) spinoza continued in the same humorous vein: let us imagine…a little worm, living in the blood…this little worm would live in the blood, in the same way as we live in a part of the universe, and would consider each part of blood, not as a part, but as a whole.61 some years later, spinoza went even further: i believe that, if a triangle could speak, it would say, in like manner, that god is eminently triangular, while a circle would say that the divine nature is eminently circular. thus each would ascribe to god its own attributes, would assume itself to be like god, and look on everything else as ill-shaped.62 moses mendelssohn and religious pluralism moses mendelssohn (1729-1786), on whose thought spinoza exercised a decided, albeit frequently negative influence, was the first jewish philosopher to address the question of the compatibility of a traditional loyalty to the torah (which spinoza had rejected), with a modern, pluralistic vision of religious cooperation in the liberal state.63 mendelssohn 61 letter #15 (1665?) to oldenburg, in r.h.m. elwes english trans. of the chief works of benedict de spinoza (new york: dover, 1955), vol. 2, p. 291. 62 letter #60, to hugo boxel (1674), in the chief works of benedict de spinoza, vol. 2, p. 386. 63 i discuss mendelssohn’s theories at length in “moses mendelssohn: a medieval modernist”, in sepharad in ashkenaz: medieval knowledge and 18th century jewish enlightened discourse, ed. r. fontaine, a. schatz, i. jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 107 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92-113 objected to classical christian exclusivity of salvation and to locke’s theory of toleration on both philosophic and jewish grounds, and proposed, rather, religious pluralism. on the first issue, christian claims of exclusivity of salvation, mendelssohn wrote in favor of greater respect for dissenting opinion:64 it is my good fortune to count among my friends many an excellent man who is not of my faith…i enjoy the pleasure of his company and feel enriched by it. but at no time has my heart whispered to me, “what a pity that this beautiful soul should be lost.”…only that man will be troubled by such regrets who believes that there is no salvation outside his church…some of my countrymen hold views and convictions which, although i consider them wrong, do belong to a higher order of theoretical principles. they are not harmful, because they have little or no relationship to the practical concerns of daily life. yet they frequently constitute the foundation on which people have erected their systems of morality and social order and are of great importance to them. to question such notions publicly merely because we consider them biased or erroneous would be like removing the foundation stones of a building in order to examine the soundness of its structure. such religious exclusivism, in mendelssohn’s view, is thus both theoretically wrong and practically dangerous. locke’s theory of toleration differentiates between the respective realms of state (which is interested in the temporal zwiep (amsterdam: royal netherlands academy of arts and sciences, 2007), 107-140. 64 open letter to lavater, 12 december 1769, in alfred jospe, ed. and trans., jerusalem and other jewish writings by moses mendelssohn (new york: schocken books, 1969), 118-119. affairs of this world) and religion (which is interested in the eternal affairs of the world to come). such a differentiation between the temporal and the eternal, mendelssohn argues, simply does not hold up either theoretically or practically. it fails theoretically because the temporal is part of the eternal and the eternal is an extension of the temporal. it fails practically because people’s behavior in this world is predicated, at least to some extent, on their beliefs regarding the world to come. instead, mendelssohn applies the traditional rabbinic differentiation between those matters which are between a person and another person (bein adam leḥ̣avero), which he assigns to the state, and those matters which are purely between a person and god (bein adam lamaqom) and do not involve other people, which he assigns to religion. furthermore, locke had argued pragmatically that the state is incapable of determining which religion is true, and must, therefore, tolerate dissent and variety. mendelssohn goes beyond such a pragmatic view of toleration and affirms the inherent value and desirability of religious pluralism. diversity is part of the divine plan for humanity. addressing christian rulers, he concludes his jerusalem: or on religious power and judaism:65 dear brothers, you are well-meaning. but do not let yourselves be deceived. to belong to this omnipresent shepherd, it is not necessary for the entire flock to graze on one pasture or to enter and leave the master’s house through just one door. it would be neither in accord with the shepherd’s wishes nor conducive to the growth of his flock.66 65 mendelssohn, jerusalem and other jewish writings, ed. and trans. alfred jospe, 107-110. 66 although the claim of jesus to be israel’s shepherd can be seen as referring back to ez 37:24, it seems to me that mendelssohn here deliberately employs the image of multiple doors for the sheep, to counter jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 108 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92-113 … a union of faiths, if it were ever to come about, could have only the most disastrous consequences for reason and freedom of conscience…if the goal of this universal delusion were to be realized, i am afraid man’s barely liberated mind would once again be confined behind bars…brothers, if you care for true godliness, let us not pretend that conformity exists where diversity is obviously the plan and goal of providence. not one among us thinks and feels exactly like his fellowman. why, then, should we deceive each other with lies? it is sad enough that we are doing this in our daily relations, in conversations that are of no particular importance. but why also in matters which concern our temporal and eternal welfare, our very destiny? why should we use masks to make ourselves unrecognizable to each other in the most important concerns of life, when god has given each of us his own distinctive face for some good reason?...a union of faiths is not tolerance. it is the very opposite. mendelssohn had long and consistently held to such pluralistic views, rejecting the exclusivistic claims made by any religion. early in 1770 he wrote to prince karl-wilhelm about liberal christian reformers:67 they must not base their system… on the hypothesis that judaism and, even more so, natural religion, are inadequate means to ensure man’s salvation. since all men must have been destined by the creator to attain eternal bliss, no particular religion can have an exclusive claim to truth. this thesis, i dare to submit, might serve as a criterion of truth in all religious matters. a revelation claiming to show the exclusivism of jesus’ statements: “i am the door of the sheep…i am the door, if anyone enters by me, he will be saved.” (jn 10:7-9). 67 english trans. by eva jospe in moses mendelssohn: selections from his writings (new york: viking press, 1975), 116-117. man the only way to salvation cannot be true, for it is not in harmony with the intent of the all-merciful creator. mendelssohn’s consistency in this regard is evident in his explicit application of his pluralistic principles to judaism, not only to christianity and to other religions. in another letter written in 1770 he differentiated between internal, natural religion, which is universal, and involves basic, demonstrable truths all people should accept on a rational basis, and a pluralistic variety of external positive religions:68 worship, however, as everyone knows, can be private as well as public, internal as well as external, and one does well to differentiate between the two. the internal worship of the jew is not based on any principles except those of natural religion. to spread these is, indeed, incumbent upon us…our external worship, however, is in no way meant to address itself to others, since it consists of rules and prescriptions that are related to specific persons, times and circumstances. i grant that we believe that our religion is the best, because we believe it to be divinely inspired. nevertheless, it does not follow from this premise that it is absolutely the best. it is the best religion for ourselves and our descendants, the best for certain times, circumstances and conditions.69 68 english trans. by alfred jospe in jerusalem and other jewish writings, p. 134. 69 mendelssohn thus anticipates by over two centuries what irving “yitz” greenberg states: “thus any truth may speak absolutely to me and others, yet it is not intended for others who may be spoken to by other revelations and chosen for another sector of service.” (for the sake of heaven and earth: the new encounter between judaism and christianity, p. 204). mendelssohn wisely avoids, however, the trap into which greenberg falls, because mendelssohn denies that judaism “is absolutely the best,” whereas greenberg still claims absolute truth. jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 109 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92-113 for mendelssohn, pluralism of positive religions is thus a theoretical desideratum and a practical necessity. kant’s unknowable “ding as sich” and heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle” kellner claims that pluralism is inherently meaningless and self-refuting. it seems to me that we are forced to conclude, to the contrary, that any claims of objective knowledge of absolute truth are inherently meaningless and self-refuting, or, to put it simply, absurd, when even divine revelation (the purported basis for claims of objective knowledge of absolute truth) is subject to the limits imposed by subjective human understanding and cultural relativism, as freely acknowledged by the talmudic rabbis. pluralistic understandings of the truth thus become inevitable and inescapable. an additional nail in the coffin of absolutist epistemology was provided by immanuel kant (1724-1804). by definition, whatever we cognize and experience is the phenomenon, the form and order of which depend on the human synthetic forms of sensibility and categories of understanding. these synthetic principles and categories, such as space and time, are prior to and transcend sense data – but they are the necessary and a priori conditions for human experience of the phenomena, by which we synthesize the sense data, or forms which mind imposes on the sense data – and are not objective properties of things in themselves. the noumenon, the “real” world, as opposed to the phenomenon, cannot be known, and its existence is postulated by practical reason. the “thing in itself” (das ding als sich) can thus never be known. for kant, the necessary synthetic principles and categories of understanding are transcendental and a priori. he could, therefore, still affirm universal, objective knowledge, and i do not suggest that kant should be construed to be a cultural relativist let alone deconstructionist. nevertheless, since in his view the categories of understanding are not objective properties of things in themselves, but are the forms and order the human mind imposes on the sense data it synthesizes, kant’s insight at least opens up the possibility that human cognition reflects inescapable cultural relativism and individual subjectivism, and not (or not just) universal human ways of cognizing, whatever the phenomena in question. in light of abraham ibn ezra’s insight, that the problem comes from below, i.e., from the human capacity to comprehend, rather than from above, i.e., from revelation’s divine source, even the phenomenon of what is alleged to be divine revelation would have to reflect these limiting factors. in other words, if kant is correct regarding the synthetic principles and categories, namely that they are characteristics of the way we cognize and not objective properties of the things in themselves, then he is wrong in ignoring the cultural relativity and individual subjectivity, which also seem to be fundamental components of cognition. although kant is by no means the last word in philosophy, which has developed considerably since his day, and even if his epistemology is at best only partially correct in light of more recent developments, it seems to me to be helpful in getting us away from thinking that whatever we cognize is the ding als sich or absolute truth. whatever we know is as much a reflection of our own processes of cognition, which necessarily introduce at least some elements of individual subjectivity and cultural relativism, as it is a reflection of some kind of external reality. therefore, kant’s insights, however obsolete, are an important step in freeing us from the error of absolutism, that somehow any of us and all of us can claim possession of absolute truth. jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 110 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92-113 a final (for the moment, at least) nail in the coffin of epistemological absolutism is provided by werner heisenberg (1901-1976), who argued that the theory of relativity undermines kant’s a priori categories of space and time, as separate and objective categories, because they don’t take into account the notion that space (extension) and time (energy) are actually interchangeable. therefore, the common words “space” and “time” refer to a structure of space and time that is actually an idealization and oversimplification of the real structure.70 according to heisenberg, kant’s arguments for the a priori character of causality no longer apply, and synthetic judgments are relative truth: the a priori concepts which kant considered an undisputable truth are no longer contained in the scientific system of modern physics…what kant had not foreseen was that these a priori concepts can be the conditions for science and at the same time can have only a limited range of applicability…classical physics and causality have only a limited range of applicability. it was the fundamental paradox of quantum theory that could not be foreseen by kant. modern physics has changed kant’s statement about the possibility of synthetic judgments a priori from a metaphysical one into a practical one. the synthetic judgments a priori thereby have the character of relative truth…any concepts or words which have been formed in the past through the interplay between the world and ourselves are not really sharply defined…we do not know exactly how far they will help us in finding our way in the world…we practically never know precisely the limits 70 werner heisenberg, physics and philosophy: the revolution in modern science (new york: harper and row, 1958), 114. of their applicability. this is true even of the simplest and most general concepts like “existence” and “space and time.” therefore, it will never be possible by pure reason to arrive at some absolute truth.71 according to heisenberg’s 1926 “uncertainty principle” of quantum mechanics, the minimum quantum of light needed to measure the position and velocity of a particle will disturb the particle and change its velocity in unpredictable ways; the more accurately one measures the particle’s position (requiring a shorter wavelength of light and therefore greater energy), the more one disturbs its velocity, and therefore the less accurately one can measure its velocity; and the more accurately one measures its velocity, the less accurately one can measure its position. in other words, the very act of observing affects the observed phenomena. in stephen hawking’s words: this limit does not depend on the way in which one tries to measure the position or velocity of the particle, or on the type of particle: heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is a fundamental, inescapable property of the world…the uncertainty principle signaled an end the laplace’s dream of a theory of science, a model of the universe that would be completely deterministic: one certainly cannot predict future events exactly if one cannot even measure the present state of the universe precisely!72 so what is the “absolute” truth? is light to be understood as particles or as waves, or simply to be treated, depending 71 werner heisenberg, physics and philosophy: the revolution in modern science, 90-92. 72 stephen hawking, a brief history of time (new york: bantam books, 1988), 55. cf. “the uncertainty principle is a fundamental feature of the universe we live in. a successful unified theory must therefore necessarily incorporate this principle.” (pp. 155-156) jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 111 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92-113 on the needs of the experiment, as both? there is, at least as yet, no “unified theory” combining quantum mechanics on the sub-atomic level, and gravity on the astronomic level of general relativity.73 if, then, we are forced to acknowledge fundamental uncertainty in physics, how can we continue to insist on certainty and absolute truth in metaphysics? on a different level, the insights of quantum mechanics, in which the primary “substance” of the world is energy,74 force us to think in terms of process and relation more than in the classical terms of substance. in this regard, it is interesting to note that the audacious shift proposed by mordecai kaplan (1881-1983) away from “substantive nouns” to “functional” or “relational” nouns, and therefore to god in terms of process rather than being,75 not only reflects maimonides’ insistence that the only positive statements of god that we can make are attributes of action, and nothing essential (i.e., we can only know what god does, not what god is), but also parallels the shifts taking place in physics at around the same time. “the lord is close . . . to all who call him in truth” how, then, can one continue today to be certain that any individual, or any particular group, has attained perfect and 73 stephen hawking, a brief history of time, 133, 155-156. 74 werner heisenberg, physics and philosophy: the revolution in modern science, 70-71: “in the philosophy of democritus all atoms consist of the same substance…the elementary particles in modern physics carry a mass in the same limited sense in which they have other properties. since mass and energy are, according to the theory of relativity, essentially the same concepts, we may say that all elementary particles consist of energy. this could be interpreted as defining energy as the primary substance of the world.” 75 mordecai kaplan, the future of the american jew (new york: macmillan company, 1948), 183; the meaning of god in modern jewish religion (new york: reconstructionist press, 1962), 325. objective knowledge of absolute truth? are not such claims and self-confidence epistemologically empty, spiritually smug, and perhaps even morally offensive? what, furthermore, shall we make of the verse in ps 145:18, “the lord is close to all who call him, to all who call him in truth (be-emet)”? we often misunderstand the qualifier “in truth,” which was translated literally by the targum as biqeshot, by the septuagint as en aleitheia and by the vulgate as in veritate. luther correctly avoided translating the qualifier cognitively, and instead rendered it as die ihn mit ernst anrufen, although i don’t think the psalmist meant “earnestly.” moses mendelssohn was more on the mark when he translated it as die aufrichtig ihn anrufen. this rendition of be-emet as “sincerely” reflects the comment of the medieval rationalist bible exegete, grammarian and philosopher radak (rabbi david kim h ̣̣i, c. 1160-1235), with whose commentaries mendelssohn was familiar (as were christian hebraists at the time of the reformation). kim ḥ̣i, whose exegetical works are replete with anti-christian polemic, nevertheless interprets “the lord is close to all who call him” as meaning from whatever nation he may be, so long as he calls him in truth, that his mouth and heart be the same.76 conclusion: pluralism as the way of torah i believe, therefore, that i have replied to kellner’s two challenges, namely that pluralism makes no sense, and that 76 irving “yitz” greenberg (for the sake of heaven and earth: the new encounter between judaism and christianity, pp. 66-67) similarly writes on this verse: “god is close to those who call god’s name, whose yearning born out of love and fidelity calls out truthfully and sincerely to the lord.” jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 112 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 92-113 there are no precedents for it in jewish literature and thought. as for the christian challenge, equating pluralism with relativism, i believe i have succeeded in constructing a paradigm of religious pluralism which avoids moral relativism (which is what concerns me most), while at the same time avoiding the kind of extreme epistemological relativism of radical deconstructionism. if, in the process, we have arrived at a degree of moderate epistemological relativism, i will happily plead guilty, because if my understanding of the rabbis, of the jewish philosophers, of kant, and of heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is correct, the shoe is really on the other foot: the burden of proof shifts to those who still, despite all the evidence, wish to maintain absolutist epistemological claims which i regard as intellectually untenable and even potentially morally dangerous to our religious coexistence. as for jewish precedents, there is ample evidence for both internal and external pluralism in the sources. for example, we find both internal and external pluralism supported by rabbinic interpretation of jer 23:29, “is not my word like fire, says the lord, and like a hammer smashing a rock?” in his commentary to gen 33:20 and ex 6:9, rashi cites this verse to justify diverse, internal pluralistic interpretations, like the sparks set off by the hammer smashing the rock into pieces. rabbi yishma’el interpreted this verse as alluding to both internal and external pluralism. internally, the talmud (sanhedrin 34a) records his statement that “as this hammer is divided into several sparks, so does a single biblical text contain several meanings.” elsewhere, the talmud (shabbat 88b) also records rabbi yishma’el interpreting our verse in support of external pluralism, that “as this hammer is divided into sparks, so was every single commandment that god spoke divided into seventy languages.” such pluralism, even if it entails a degree of moderate epistemological relativism, does not imply a strong relativistic conception of multiple truths, but of multiple perspectives on the truth, or what the rabbis called the “seventy facets of the torah” (shiv`im panim la-torah).77 i think it is not coincidental that the “seventy facets” of the torah’s internal pluralism are identical in number to the “seventy languages” of its external pluralism. it is this rabbinic commitment to pluralism, i believe, which underlies their apparently paradoxical statement that an argument which is not for the sake of heaven will not endure, but an argument which is for the sake of heaven will endure (sofah le-hitqayyem).78 one might think that an argument which is for the sake of heaven should lead to a peaceful resolution. but that is not, as i understand it, the rabbis’ intention. an argument which is not for the sake of heaven, for example, when a person sues another person for a debt, has to be resolved by the court; closure must be attained and justice must be served. but when the argument is for the sake of heaven, there is no winner and there is no loser. the truth can never be closed; it must always continue to be sought through the open exchange of diverse views. therefore, “the argument which is for the sake of heaven will endure,” that is to say, will continue without end, because it can be said of both sides, “these and those are the living words of god (elu va-elu divrei elohim ḥ̣ ̣ ayyim).”79 77 midrash numbers rabba 13:15, inter alia. 78 mishnah avot 5:17. 79 babylonian talmud `eruvin 13b; gittin 6b. the phrase can also be translated: “these and those are the words of the living god.” jospe, “pluralism out of the sources of judaism” 113 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ preface: christian challenges a jewish challenge: menachem kellner scjr 17, no. 1 (2022): 1-3 laura tack john 14:6 in light of jewish-christian dialogue: sharing truth on the way to life (tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2021), paperback, xx + 491 pp. benjamin e. reynolds breynolds@tyndale.ca tyndale university, north york, on m2m 3s4, canada this book is an english translation of laura tack’s revised doctoral dissertation written under the supervision of reimund bieringer and didier pollefeyt at ku leuven. tack’s original study was part of a research project at ku leuven entitled “new hermeneutics or renewed dialogues: a catholic perspective on crucial theological issues in jewish-christian and ecumenical dialogues in the perspective of a future-oriented interpretation on key johannine texts.” tack offers an interpretation of john 14:6 that is christocentric and relationally trinitarian but also, she contends, one that makes jewish-christian dialogue possible. after briefly introducing the volume, tack examines in chapter 1 the literary context of john 13:31-14:31 and provides an extensive exegetical study of three sections (13:31-38; 14:1-26; 14:27-31). her detailed examination addresses the major concerns of the discourse. she concludes that john 14:6 serves as a pivotal point in the discourse. jesus’s talk of the disciples’ dwelling with him is now in doubt since he is departing. tack argues that jesus’s saying in john 14:6 moves from a realized eschatology to a “future-oriented eschatology” not just for the disciples but for a larger community (91-92). the second chapter comprises a substantial portion of the book (164 pages). here, tack analyzes the three terms “way,” “truth,” and “life” in the context of their use in the gospel of john. since “way” is not a significant johannine term, tack considers eight possible backgrounds for it. she argues that “way” is connected to jesus’s movement of ascent and descent (128-54) and that the father is where the way leads. tack maintains that “truth” in john is not an existential reality but reflects the relationship between the father and the son. “life,” tack contends, is central to the gospel of john. while it has a soteriological aspect, life, like truth, is relational, as is evident in the “life-giving relationship between the father and the son” and in the way the life that jesus gives comes from the father (258). reynolds: laura tack’s john 14:6 in light of jewish-christian dialogue 2 in chapter 3, tack combines her examinations of the literary context of john 14:6 and the concepts of way, truth, and life to determine the meaning of jesus’ statement. she contends that the “i am” sayings are metaphorical. she argues against the common appeals of an isaianic background for the sayings, claiming that the absolute “i am” category is misleading. after describing various relationships between way, truth, and life in john 14:6, she states her view as follows: “jesus is the way in the sense that he is the truth, i.e., a part of the father’s and son’s loving unity of being, and he is the way in the sense that he is the life, i.e., that which constitutes the father’s and son’s loving unity of being” (284; also 286, 309). tack discusses metaphor in john and understands the “i am” predicate statements (“i am the…”) as creating new meaning and not as a means of identifying jesus. tack shifts from exegesis in chapters 1-3 to hermeneutics in chapter 4. she addresses the reception history of john 14:6 in jewish-christian dialogue, beginning with a case study comparing the use of john 14:6 in two modern documents of the roman catholic church that address the church’s relationship to other religions. the first, nostra aetate (1965), is a second vatican council document, and the second, dominus iesus (2000), was completed under cardinal ratzinger and ratified by pope john paul ii. tack argues that nostra aetate was more inclusive of judaism and that dominus iesus presents a “triumphalist christology” supported by john 14:6 (335). following the case study, tack considers various ways that interpretations of john 14:6 prove problematic for jewish-christian dialogue. she indicates that interpretations that present jesus as divine, the new exodus, “the truth,” or the only mediator with god create barriers to jewish-christian dialogue. in chapter 5, tack presents her hermeneutical approach to john 14:6. drawing on work by reimund bieringer and sandra schneiders, she offers a “normativity of the future approach” (381). this approach is future oriented in that is not tied solely to the historical context of the text but considers the revelatory aspect of the text. the normativity of the future approach is a “world in front of the text” approach in that it focuses on the historical context of the author and original audience. this approach also considers the community to which the text was written and is concerned with future dimensions, such as time, ethics, hope for a better future, and zukunft (a future that “comes to” one) (395-96). tack’s inclusive interpretation of john 14:6 using this hermeneutical approach presents perspectives on the “implied community” of the gospel, reads the text as testimony, and is a vision of many coming to the father’s house with its many dwellings (436). the book’s conclusion summarizes the primary arguments of each chapter. tack’s work is ambitious in scope. her first three chapters on the literary context of john 14:6, the three concepts of way, truth, and life, and the “i am” saying as a metaphor would have served as a substantial contribution to johannine studies on their own. that she additionally tackles interpretational obstacles to jewishchristian dialogue and uses a new hermeneutical approach to john 14:6 is to be commended. at the same time, clarity on what an obstacle-free jewish-christian dialogue would look like would be beneficial in order to compare tack’s approach and conclusions to this ideal. while tack presents numerous examples of high 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) christological interpretations of john 14:6, her engagement with jewish thinkers does not indicate how the proposed christocentric and trinitarian interpretation of john 14:6 would be more conducive to jewish-christian dialogue. however, tack’s metaphorical approach to the “i am” sayings and her focus on “the way” as the central concept are compelling. resurrection: the power of god for christians and jews studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): tassel r 1-4 review kevin j. madigan and jon d. levenson resurrection: the power of god for christians and jews yale university press, 284 pages reviewed by janet tassel, writer and editor in lexington, massachusetts according to christian tradition, history was radically transformed on a friday afternoon in jerusalem some 2000 years ago. a miracle-working jewish prophet was nailed to a cross, and left there, amid taunts and jeers, to endure three hours of agony before succumbing. however, it was not only by the excruciating death of jesus that the narrative of civilization was transformed, but by the utter miracle, three days later, of his bodily resurrection. naturally, there were skeptics. how could there not be? after all, as we have often been taught, the concept of bodily resurrection was alien to the jewish tradition. or was it? for a pleasurably readable attempt at an answer, we now have resurrection: the power of god for christians and jews by kevin j. madigan, professor of the history of christianity─a catholic, and jon d. levenson, professor of jewish studies─an observant jew, both at harvard divinity school. this book opens our eyes to the fact that, contrary to popular belief, jewish tradition has powerful links to the concept of bodily resurrection. levenson and madigan are the odd couple perfectly matched for this project. madigan, whose books include the passions of christ in the high middle ages,1 teaches an intensive survey seminar on the holocaust and moreover considers himself, in an “inchoate” way, a jew himself. “it’s as if i were destined to be a jew,” he says, “but through some cosmic hiccup my ancestors landed in ireland.”2 and he is frank that his work is grounded in the eschatological hope that somehow the wounds of the holocaust victims will be healed, “their deaths swallowed up forever by the god who keeps his promises, who loves, and who has never forgotten his people.” levenson, meanwhile, considers the present book a follow-up to his resurrection and the restoration of israel (2006)3, though in a form, he says, less technical and more accessible to the layperson. its aim, as the book’s preface states and as is repeated often throughout the book, is to emphasize “god’s everlasting promise to israel, the jewish people, a promise that they would recover from even the most deadly adversity” (xii). that is, jews will be blessed as a people, assured of ultimate restoration to zion. of equal importance is the sibling, rather than parent-child relationship, of christianity and judaism during the late rabbinic period, when the concept of resurrection was codified. but does the book convince? it would depend on how fully the reader accepts the entire package: “the return of the whole person, body and soul together” (xii) (authors’ emphasis). many modern jews, of course, find the concept unacceptable, even risible. 1 oxford university press, 2007. 2 harvard gazette online, march 13, 2008. 3 yale university press, 2006. madigan & levenson, resurrection tassel r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): tassel r 1-4 the authors are ready for this debunking, thoroughly detailing the arguments of the scoffers. in jesus’s time, the principal deniers were the sadducees, “the princely elite of judea in the late second temple period” (3). however, the pharisees, “another group that emerged during the same period, affirmed it [the concept of resurrection], and it is with the pharisees that jesus has the most in common” (3). similar apocalyptic expectations were expressed by the sect that left us the dead sea scrolls, and a recent find—a scroll in stone referred to as “gabriel’s revelation”—bears the message of a resurrected messiah. clearly, then, as the authors point out, the idea of resurrection was accepted by many jews at the time of jesus. the pharisees gave rise to rabbinic traditions of the first few centuries of the common era, and here, as in the early christian sources, the authors trace the unambiguous expectation of bodily resurrection. consider, for example, that part of the prayer known as the amidah that pronounces, “you are the one who revives the dead, powerful to save.” it continues: he sustains the living with kindness and revives the dead with great mercy, supports the falling, heals the sick, releases captives, and keeps faith with those who sleep in the dust. who is like you, lord of power? and who can compare to you, o king who brings about death and restores life and makes salvation sprout? faithful you are to revive the dead. blessed are you, lord, who revive the dead (201). “according to rabbinic law,” the authors remind us, this prayer “is to be said three times each weekday; four times on sabbaths, new moons, and festivals; and five times on the day of atonement…the prayer is thus as authoritative a summary of rabbinic theology as one can find” (202). or consider, from the mishnah, the great law code of rabbinic judaism (compiled about 200 ce): “all israelites have a share in the world-to-come, as it is written,” except, it specifies, the one “who says that the resurrection of the dead is not in the torah, [he who says] that the torah is not from heaven, and the skeptic” (206). in truth, the rabbis were backed into some intricate grammatical and philological footwork to find direct allusion to bodily resurrection in the five books. “given the playfulness of midrash and the joy it takes in multiple meanings, it would be dangerous to assume [that the rabbis] intended their readings to be exhaustive and exclusive,” reason the authors (212). the miracles performed by god as recounted in the five books─in exodus, for example─were a sign to the rabbis of “the still greater things he will do in the future consummation—a consummation that moves the jews not merely from slavery to freedom, but quite literally from death to life as well” (209). however, while the early scriptures yielded only sparse allusions to life beyond death (as in the enigmatic “taking” of enoch in genesis 5), the later writings—nevi’im, psalms, and the other kethuvim—offered rich pickings. the wonder-workings of elijah, for instance, include the restoration to life of the dead boy in first kings 17. and in second kings 4, elisha not only predicts and magically brings about the end of the shunammite woman’s infertility (a significant biblical theme), he also restores to life the son she has borne. in a replication of elijah’s miracle, he places himself on the lifeless body, adding to the drama a sort of mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. madigan & levenson, resurrection tassel r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): tassel r 1-4 arguably, too, there is hosea 6:2: in two days he will revive us [yechayyenu] on the third day he will raise us up [yeqimenu], and we shall live [nichyeh] in his presence. one can imagine the usefulness of such a verse for the early christians. and the authors dwell at great length on ezekiel 37:1-14 (early sixth century bce), the famous vision of the valley of the dry bones, in which the bones are reconstituted and breathed back into life. the authors explore the manifold interpretations of this story as metaphor or miracle, but they decode it in a manner consistent with their essential judeo-christian theme—resurrection as redemption: “the dead bones are the people israel, who, living in exile after the great destruction, have given up hope: ‘our bones are dried up, our hope is gone; we are doomed.’ the restoration of those bones to life—the lord’s giving them sinews, then flesh, skin, and finally the breath of life— indicates that god will open the graves of ezekiel’s audience and restore them to the land of israel” (147). interestingly, the early christian writer tertullian (d. 225), while arguing for both the literal and figurative resurrection described by ezekiel, also stressed the redemptive aspect: “what does it matter to me, so long as there will be a resurrection of the body, just as there is a restoration of the jewish state” (228)? moreover, it should not be forgotten among the welter of metaphors that in a “culture in which god’s creation of humankind and his gift of life were undisputed, the proposition that he could reassemble his deadened people and bring them back to life was hardly outrageous” (149). later, as a talmudic scholar would say, “if those who never existed can come to life, those who once lived—all the more so” (149)! primarily, of course, there is daniel 12:2 (second century bce), “the first transparent and indisputable prediction of the resurrection of the dead in the hebrew bible” (171): at that time, the great prince, michael, who stands beside the sons of your people, will appear. it will be a time of trouble, the like of which has never been seen since the nation came into being. at that time your people will be rescued, all who are found inscribed in the book. many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, others to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence. and the wise will be radiant like the bright expanse of sky, and those who lead the many to righteousness will be like the stars forever and ever. these “future events,” of course, have “vast implications for the jewish people” (171), and for christianity as well. what, after all, will be the nature of these beings in the afterlife and who can define this starry hereafter? offering a wealth of references, from paul in 1 corinthians 15, to talmudic sages such as rav, to maimonides, the authors postulate: “it would be a mistake to imagine that the ‘eternal life’ the deserving receive is simply a restoration to their old and familiar reality, only without the pain and injustice. to ‘be radiant like the bright expanse of sky’ (dan 12:3) is light-years away from having to reinhabit one’s old body for all eternity” (178). the key fact is not “immortality of the soul, on the one hand, and resurrection of the body, on the other” (178). it is the fact “that resurrection was thought to yield a transformed and perfected form of bodily existence and thus a state of being both like and unlike any we can know…in both the christian and the rabbinic cases, postmortem existence is a radical transformation, and not the indefinite prolongation, of earthly life” (178). madigan & levenson, resurrection tassel r 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): tassel r 1-4 but how to describe this postmortem existence? in an intricate chain of associations deriving from concepts of eden as paradise, the authors arrive at the conclusion that, based on the hebrew bible, eternal life for the israelites is to be found only in zion, and only in the temple. the temple is nothing less than “an antidote to death, bestowing a kind of immortality on those who dwell there in innocence, purity, and trust” (89). in this reading of immortality, individual israelites may die and not be resurrected, “but the collective promise of life to the people israel [authors’ emphasis] that emanates from zion shall endure forever. here, as often, zion serves as a spatial image of the liberation from the ravages of time and decay that characterize ordinary human life.” they continue: “death is the norm outside zion and cannot be reversed, but within the temple city, death is unknown, for there god has ordained the blessing of eternal life. to journey to the temple is to move toward redemption” (91). thus, while weaving a web of fascinating allusions to bodily resurrection common to later scripture and the rabbinic texts, the authors prefer to emphasize what is for them the more significant concept of the resurrection as redemption—of an entire people. this expectation, they say, “is the apocalyptic expectation of a universal resurrection in a coming dispensation in which all of god’s potentials would be activated in a grand finale of stupendous miracles, very much at odds with the natural course of history” (165). we are hugely indebted to madigan and levenson for synthesizing in such an accessible manner a formidable body of information, much of it obscure, and for demonstrating the intimate connections linking rabbinic judaism and early christianity. in the terrifying matter of the end of days, one finds oneself compelled—and consoled—by their depiction of that grand finale. madigan & levenson, resurrection tassel r 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 learning about ourselves while learning about each other: studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): schiffman & sievers cp 1-5 conference proceeding learning about ourselves while learning about each other: proposals for jewish and catholic education1 lawrence h. schiffman, new york university joseph sievers, pontifical biblical institute and gregorian university presented at the 19th meeting of the international catholic-jewish liaison committee cape town, south africa, november 4-7, 2006 prolegomenon at the 2001 new york2 and 2004 buenos aires meetings of the international liaison committee (ilc), various educational recommendations were adopted. despite these recommendations, little has been done to make the aspirations voiced at these meetings a widespread reality. the present proposals, drawn up at the request of the ilc leadership are intended to refine and focus our objectives, and to set into motion a program to bring these dreams to fruition. we seek to address an outstanding need in the ongoing development of close relations between the jewish people and the catholic church. recent years have seen immense improvements in official interchanges, not to mention close personal relations between many of the leaders of this important movement. furthermore, recent academic scholarship regarding judaism and christianity has also helped to provide a scholarly background for the improvement of jewishchristian relations. numerous issues that used to divide us have been overcome, so that our regular meetings have taken on an atmosphere of cooperative learning and planning. however, it is clear that our respective communities have not been sufficiently educated to partake of this new relationship. the task of remedying this deficiency will certainly be a difficult one. on the one hand, we seek to extend a new understanding of jewish-catholic relations to a wide range of age groups in different countries and cultural atmospheres, and in two very distinctive religious groups. even without these complications, the resources necessary to complete this task will be great. what 1 this paper was presented at the 19th meeting of the international catholic-jewish liaison committee in cape town, south africa, november 4-7, 2007. the substance of a proposed resolution based on it was included in the committee’s joint declaration issued on nov. 7, 2006. it reads as follows: “the delegates resolved to adopt a widespread program of education to make known the significant developments that have taken place in jewish-catholic relations since vatican ii. they pledged to conduct these educational efforts in both jewish and catholic communities and to mobilize the resources of their respective religious and communal organizations to make this a significant part of their joint and separate agendas. they agreed that different programs must be provided for different age groups, cultural contexts and for the two religious communities recognizing that education holds the key to mutual respect and joint moral leadership that have become the basis of their relationship.” 2 see http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical _councils/christuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_ 20010504_new-york-meeting_en.html. also available at http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=1022 schiffman & sievers, learning about ourselves schiffman & sievers cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical%20_councils/christuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_%2020010504_new-york-meeting_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical%20_councils/christuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_%2020010504_new-york-meeting_en.html http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=1022 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): schiffman & sievers cp 1-5 we propose below is to develop a method to enlist existing church, synagogue and communal institutions in a widespread and coordinated effort to get the word out about what has been accomplished. such steps are necessary for two reasons: first, we cannot consider any of our already achieved efforts to be complete until our respective communities are well aware of them. second, those in the lead regarding jewish-catholic relations are hoping to move to further heights by joining together to promote efforts and to undertake steps regarding various moral and ethical commitments that we share. such efforts require the support of our communities, no matter how far-flung or how small. it is clear that success in bringing this message to the entire catholic and jewish communities will require steps aimed at particular groups by those best equipped to plan and execute them, local educators, clergy and lay leaders. at the same time we wish to set forth in this document and in a proposed resolution our commitment to the importance of these steps. further, it is our sincere hope that the discussion of this issue will lead to the appropriation of sufficient resources to make sure that the proposal outlined here will call for dedication of substantial staff resources for each of our communities in order to give the project ongoing leadership. in what follows we present outlines of what ought to be stressed in educational programs aimed at the catholic and jewish communities. we propose to approach each community bearing in mind its particular theological and religious character, and community organization. this is often referred to as part of the asymmetry between the two communities, a factor that we have taken into consideration and have embraced as a necessary feature in our planning. we expect that tailor-made programs for various subsections of the community will be essential to the success of our program. we hope to speak to catholics in theological and catechetical language and to jews in the language of history and jewish law. we are convinced that only such an approach, coupled with adequate staffing and funding, can bring about the success of that to which we are committed. we have also prepared reports about current efforts in both the catholic and jewish communities to educate our children and adults about the issues we are concerned with at our meetings. these reports show that much less has been done than we might wish. however, they also demonstrate that many of our colleagues have developed successful and meaningful approaches. with the help of these already developed approaches, we can begin a process in which the new relationship of the catholic church and the jewish people will become “household” information for all of our respective religionists. only in this way can we open the door to the future developments for which we are now planning. we want to emphasize that this document is submitted in order to provide a framework for ongoing discussion about how to achieve the goals we have outlined. we look forward to further efforts to refine these ideas. educational objectives for the jewish community one of the most important challenges that face those of us concerned with the ongoing progress of jewish-catholic relations is the need to put into effect a large-scale educational effort within the jewish community. on the one hand, such an effort must seek to explain to jews how and why we approach our christian neighbors with respect, even as we disagree with them about many fundamental religious issues. this is especially important to a minority community seeking to retain its identity and character. the jewish community must know how to explain its distinctive views while at the same time affirming its deep respect for others. on the other hand, members of the jewish community must come to recognize the fundamental and wide-ranging schiffman & sievers, learning about ourselves schiffman & sievers cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): schiffman & sievers cp 1-5 steps undertaken by the catholic church to redefine its relationship to the jewish people and, more recently, to the state of israel. jews need not only to know much more specifically about these developments, but they also need to understand that they spring from genuine feelings and commitments on the part of our catholic friends. jews must come to understand that all of jewish history was not one episode of anti-semitism and that the catholic church related to jews in various ways throughout the ages. however, most importantly, as we move beyond the sad history of our past relationships, we must prepare the ground for naturally friendly relations based upon mutual respect and our common devotion to ethical and moral principles. to implement these goals successfully, a variety of issues need to become part of the jewish educational framework, extending from teenage years, through seminary studies for those who pursue them. further, we must make sure that textbooks, whether regarding jewish history or general history, speak respectfully of christianity and adequately portray the complexities of the relationship of jews to their christian neighbors as well as the important developments in recent years in jewish-catholic relations. a group of jewish scholars and educators should put together a booklet regarding the presentation of christianity and catholic doctrine in the context of jewish education, similar to within context3 which has been so successful. here is a brief list of some of the main issues that need to be explored: • the jewish-christian schism and its historical context; • jewish-christian relations in antiquity and the middle ages, the bad and the good, including the role of popes protecting jews; • jewish-christian relations in modern times, with emphasis on the important changes, and the new relationship that jews and catholics enjoy; • the significance of changes in catholic doctrine about the jews, their covenant and traditions of interpretation; • catholic withdrawal from proselytizing jews; • catholic approaches to the holocaust; • catholic documents that highlight this new relationship; • diplomatic relations between the state of israel and the vatican. these topics need to be presented honestly, not hiding the difficulties of the past. at the same time, we need to emphasize the positive future that has already begun to unfold. we seek to make known to the entire jewish community the respect and cooperation that currently typifies jewish-catholic relations and that provides the platform for the new joint efforts we are planning. educational objectives for the catholic community in the years since the second vatican council and its declaration nostra aetate, much progress has been made in the catholic church toward a more accurate knowledge about jews and judaism and about christian-jewish relations. several church documents have been specifically addressed to the furtherance of more adequate education. taking its cue from nostra aetate and from the 1974 guidelines4 the 1985 document notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church has indicated specific areas where a new understanding of and appreciation for judaism and christian-jewish 3 available at http://www.bc.edy/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/interreligious /within_context.htm . 4 available at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical _councils/christuni/sub-index/index_relations-jews.htm. schiffman & sievers, learning about ourselves schiffman & sievers cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 http://www.bc.edy/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/interreligious%20/within_context.htm http://www.bc.edy/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/interreligious%20/within_context.htm http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): schiffman & sievers cp 1-5 relations makes possible and requires changes in educational materials. quoting from pope john paul ii it affirms: because of the unique relations that exist between christianity and judaism – “linked together at the very level of their identity” (john paul ii, 6th march, 1982) – relations founded on the design of the god of the covenant” (ibid.), the jews and judaism should not occupy an occasional and marginal place in catechesis: their presence there is essential and should be organically integrated.”5 a variety of initiatives have been taken to implement this document. within context is one example of how to provide guidance for educators and textbook publishers for the implementtation of parts of the notes.6 in many countries, religion textbooks for different levels of primary and secondary schools have been revised, so as to provide a more accurate picture of judaism and early christian-jewish relations. too frequently, however, negative stereotypes are still to be found in descriptions of relations between jesus and his jewish contemporaries, in the image of the pharisees, and in accounts of the circumstances of jesus’ crucifixion. the notes also emphasized the importance for catholics to be aware of later jewish history and jewish-christian relations up to and including the reality of the state of israel and the religious significance it holds for jews. in particular, catholic religious education needs to heed the call of the 1998 document we remember “for a ‘moral and religious memory’ and, particularly among christians, a very serious reflection” on what gave rise to the shoah. “the fact that the shoah took place in europe, that is, in countries of long-standing christian civilization, raises the question of the relation between the nazi persecution and the attitudes down the centuries of christians towards the jews.”7 it is also important that an awareness of the positive changes in jewish-christian relations be appropriately communicated, together with an appreciation for the unique and evolving religious identity of each community. the situation in every country and region of the world is different and all educational efforts need to be adapted to the intended audience. therefore, specific initiatives must be entrusted to persons familiar with each local situation and constituency – as well as with the advances in scholarship and with current church teaching. therefore, we propose that the following suggestions be communicated to bishops conferences worldwide: 1. appropriate authorities should be encouraged to check existing and, especially, new catechisms in order to ascertain that their approach to jews and judaism and jewishchristian relations conforms to recent advancements in scholarship and to current church teaching. relevant portions of the assessment criteria developed by eugene j. 5 notes #2, available at http://www.vatican.va//roman_curia/pontifical_councils/christuni/relations-jewsdocs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_jews-judaism_en.html . 6 available at http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/interreligious /within_context.htm. see also “jews and christians in germany: responsibility in today’s pluralistic society,” april 13, 2005. english version available at http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources /documents/interreligious/german_catholics_jews-2005.htm. 7 we remember # ii available at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents /rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.html. schiffman & sievers, learning about ourselves schiffman & sievers cp 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 http://www.vatican.va//roman_curia/pontifical_councils/christuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_jews-judaism_en.html http://www.vatican.va//roman_curia/pontifical_councils/christuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_jews-judaism_en.html http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/interreligious%20/within_context.htm http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/interreligious%20/within_context.htm http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources%20/documents/interreligious/german_catholics_jews-2005.htm http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources%20/documents/interreligious/german_catholics_jews-2005.htm http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents%20/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents%20/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): schiffman & sievers cp 1-5 fisher, amplified and updated by philip a. cunningham, may provide a helpful guide and checklist (http://www.bc.edu/research/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources /education/criteria.htm ). 2. publishers and authors of textbooks for religious education at primary and secondary levels should be encouraged to get actively involved in a similar process. 3. as part of the continuing education for teachers, catechists, clergy and lay leaders, courses, seminars, visits to jewish sites should be organized, where feasible, in order to increase first-hand knowledge and to communicate the church’s new attitude. 4. as indicated in the recommendations of the 2001 ilc meeting, “the curricula of catholic seminaries and schools of theology should reflect the central importance of the church’s new understanding of its relationship to jews.” 5. educators should be made aware of teaching aids and other educational resources that are available in different languages on the internet at sites such as www.jcrelations.net , www.sidic.org , www.bc.edu/cjlearning , in printed form or through other media. joint educational objectives much of what has been accomplished thus far depends on increasing understanding of the historical and religious aspects of our respective traditions and their interaction throughout the centuries. we recommend that we seek to reach large numbers of students, seminarians and lay leaders with a deep appreciation of our history, theology and new modes of cooperation. the following joint projects are intended to provide avenues for a deepening of our understanding: 1. existing websites dealing with jewish-christian relations need to be expanded and developed in order to provide a central sources of materials for educators and leaders. such sites need to provide and expanding library of materials in all languages used by members of the two faiths. we should aim to provide resources at all levels. 2. a series of exchange programs and reciprocal visits of an educational nature need to be organized to bring seminarians to meet one another directly and learn together about issues of common concern. where feasible, faculty and course exchanges should be arranged on the university level between catholic and jewish institutions and/or between academic programs that teach judaism and christianity. 3. seminars or conferences should bring clergy, educators, and lay leaders together for the explicit purpose of furthering mutual understanding and organizing joint projects in areas of shared concern. 4. jewish-catholic understanding is nourished by academic scholarship in our respective faiths and in areas in which they have intersected. we need to make available resources to encourage conferences and ongoing seminars in such academic areas, resulting in publications that make our joint scholarship available widely. schiffman & sievers, learning about ourselves schiffman & sievers cp 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 http://www.bc.edu/research/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources%20/education/criteria.htm http://www.bc.edu/research/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources%20/education/criteria.htm http://www.jcrelations.net/ http://www.sidic.org/ http://www.bc.edu/cjlearning learning about ourselves while learning about each other: proposals for jewish and catholic education lawrence h. schiffman, new york university microsoft word 137529-text.native.1219863673.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 landau, the land of israel cp1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 the land of israel in jewish-christian-muslim relations ye h e z k e l l a n d a u h a r t f o r d s e m i n a r y revised version of a paper presented at iona college, new rochelle, ny, oct. 21, 2007 at the annual meeting of the council of centers on christian-jewish relations before conveying my views on israel – people, land, and state – i want to share a bit of my personal journey, so that the reader will appreciate the perspective that i bring to the subject. i was born in santiago de chile in 1949, the child of austrian jewish refugees who managed to flee vienna in time in march, 1938. some of my cousins were not so fortunate and perished in the shoah. after my family moved to new york, i attended public schools, then went to college and divinity school at harvard, pursuing studies in psychology, theology, and education. krister stendahl, then the dean of harvard divinity school, became my mentor in new testament studies, my “christian rebbe.” 1 two years after completing my mts program, and then working in the administration of bard college in upstate new york, i flew to israel for the first time on april 5, 1978. i was the last member of my immediate family to visit israel, and the only one who stayed. i lived and worked in jerusalem for twenty-four years, became an israeli citizen, and fathered a son who now serves in the israeli defense forces. all of these choices were motivated by my religious convictions. my judaism includes both a zionist commitment to the security and wellbeing of israel as a jewish state, along with a spiritual commitment to justice and peace for all peoples. my involvement in interfaith relations, which began at harvard, deepened during my years in israel. to live in jerusalem is to experience directly the epicenter of jewish-christian-muslim interactions worldwide, magnifying both the joy and the anguish that coexist in the heart of any sensitive jew. the joy is over the re-establishment of jewish sovereignty in the holy city and land; the anguish is over the daily suffering of both israelis and palestinians locked in a prolonged, debilitating conflict. my work in the past three decades has been in the overlapping fields of interfaith education and jewish-arab peacebuilding. while in jerusalem, i served as program coordinator for the israel interfaith association, then executive director of the religious zionist peace movement oz veshalom-netivot shalom (strength and peace/paths of peace, derived from psalms 29:11 and proverbs 3:17), and finally as co-founder and co-director of the open house center for jewisharab coexistence and reconciliation in ramle, israel. in all of these positions, i was able to engage in teaching, writing, administration, and peace activism. i returned to the united states in 2002 to become the first full-time jewish professor at hartford seminary, a graduate school of religious studies with protestant roots and known for its focus on christian-muslim relations. my work there has allowed me to intensify my contact with islam and muslims. the violent eruption of the second intifada, followed by the atrocities of september 11, 2001, contributed to my decision to leave jerusalem for hartford. i felt that the political and spiritual pathologies afflicting the middle east had grown dangerously contagious, spreading to other parts of the globe. after dec 1 together with many others, i mourn his recent passing. he left an extraordinary legacy in the hearts and minds of countless people throughout the world. conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 landau, the land of israel cp2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 ades of involvement in jewish-christian relations, including teaching at different educational institutions in israel (nes ammim, the tantur ecumenical institute, st. george’s college, and the sisters of sion program at ecce homo), i came to believe that we need tripartite or trialogical initiatives bringing together jews, christians, and muslims in order to heal the wounds of our shared history. bilateral relations in all three directions are necessary and valuable, but so are trilateral educational programs and frameworks for joint community service. at hartford seminary i teach courses in jewish tradition and spirituality, mainly for our christian and muslim students. in addition, i designed and direct a program called building abrahamic partnerships, which draws adherents of the three traditions for one intensive week of academic study and experiential learning to develop sensitivities and skills in interfaith relations. i find that this micro-laboratory affords uncommon opportunities for developing and testing methodologies for mutual engagement. for the sake of better interfaith relations in america, the middle east, and elsewhere, we need many more such initiatives to counter the destructive acts of religious extremists in all of our faith communities. in fact, we need ongoing efforts to transform both inter and intra-faith dynamics around the challenges of living together in a pluralistic society. david smock, who directs the religion and peacemaking initiative at the u.s. institute of peace in washington, d.c., wrote a special report in february, 2003, entitled “building interreligious trust in a climate of fear.” in that report he wrote: the overarching question is how to develop interfaith trust in the prevailing atmosphere of fear and mutual suspicion. in situations of trauma, as experienced continuously in the middle east and as experienced in the west since 9/11, people are likely to turn inward. accordingly, they have great difficulty in reaching out to the religious ‘other.’ the prevailing attitude is often that no one’s suffering can compare to our own suffering. in this climate of victimhood, the other – whether nation, ethnic group, or religious community – is often labeled simplistically and unhelpfully as either good or evil. 2 one of the most contentious issues in jewish-christian-muslim relations today, and in any bilateral encounter among the three, is the tragic conflict in the middle east, centering on israel/palestine. this is often the “elephant in the room” that people prefer to avoid, yet it comes back to haunt us if we try to deny the pain and the passion evoked by this issue. it is a very difficult subject to engage fruitfully, since it involves both practical politics (issues of power, justice claims, and profound suffering) and mythic symbolism linking past, present, and future. both dimensions impinge strongly on people’s identities and loyalties. i venture into this complex discussion as a traditional jew who believes in the holiness of the land and the transcendent promise of god’s shalom. some of my guiding questions as i search for answers are as follows: • i affirm the covenantal link, from abraham’s day until now, between the people of israel and the land of israel, established and sanctioned by god. does that faith conviction necessarily privilege jewish claims to ownership or sovereignty? can it coexist with the faith convictions, sacred narratives, and territorial claims of christians and muslims, who view the holiness of the land differently? 2 david smock, “building interreligious trust in a climate of fear: an abrahamic trialogue,” special report 99 (washington, dc: united states institute of peace, february 2003), p. 3. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 landau, the land of israel cp3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 • in practical terms, how can jews share the holiness of the land, and of jerusalem, with christians and muslims in ways that mutually enhance each other’s spiritualities and each other’s lives, and that hold out the promise of a just peace for the generations to come? these questions are necessarily in dialogue with the perspectives of others, and it is our collective wisdom that creates the context for productive reflection on these issues. this context can be summarized in this way: • christians in the west who engage this issue tend to divide into two theological and political camps (with theology and political ideology mutually reinforcing): a pro-jewish/zionist camp, led by evangelical protestants, and a pro-palestinian camp led by liberal and liberationist catholics and protestants, often inspired by the testimonies of palestinian christians. • muslims are, for the most part, sympathetic to the palestinian narrative and justice claims; and many dispute jewish/zionist historical or theological arguments. • jews are split among passionate zionists, passionate universalists who endorse the human and political rights of palestinians, a small number of religious or secular anti-zionists, and a large number who take no public position on the issue, in some cases because of a nominal or weak jewish affiliation. my own position is a dialectical one: a religious zionist peace perspective, rather than a doctrinaire position favoring any one side exclusively. i believe in the right of the jewish people to selfdetermination in a majority jewish state within our ancestral homeland; at the same time, i recognize the parallel right of the palestinian people to their own state within that same territory, which they claim as their homeland, too. accommodating both rights and claims necessitates a political and territorial compromise, which will also ensure a stable jewish majority in the state of israel. my politics are determined by my spirituality and religious convictions. i see the land as a divinely chosen laboratory for consecration by its inhabitants, primarily through acts of justice and lovingkindness (mishpat and tsedakah, as exemplified by abraham – cf. gn 18:19). in what follows, i suggest a theological grounding for this position. to achieve this goal, i have generated a conceptual framework which constructs a parallel between the four-dimensional typology of rabbinic scriptural exegesis and the four “worlds” in kabbalistic thought. 3 the exegetical typology discerns four simultaneous dimensions of any torah text: (1) peshat, the literal or plain meaning; (2) remez, an allusion within the text pointing to other text(s) in the torah using similar words or phrasing; (3) drash, a homiletical dimension that emerges through allegorical parables; and (4) sod, the mystical or esoteric dimension that remains hidden unless the reader is graced with a special capacity of vision. traditional jews believe that the torah is god’s blueprint, so to speak, for the creation. for jewish mystics, there are four co-existing realms of creation, suggesting a parallel with the four levels or dimensions of the torah: (a) olam haasiyah, the world of material phenomena, including our body and its sensations, and of human action; (b) olam hayetsirah, the world of formation and shaping of both nature and history through divine providence; this includes the three major categories of divine agency: creation, revelation, and redemption; (c) olam habriyah, the world 3 in applying this four-dimensional typology to the challenge of sharing the holiness of erets yisrael with another nation and with non-jewish faith communities, i am (as far as i know) entering uncharted intellectual and spiritual terrain. i welcome responses from others, in order to refine this framework and make it more effective, or else to supplant it with something more compelling. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 landau, the land of israel cp4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 of causal forces and energies beyond this material plane, including angelic messengers; and finally (d) olam haatsilut, the world of pure spirit and the source of all the disparate manifestations of matter and energy, where all is unified in the oneness of god. peshat and olam haasiyah for jews, our way of serving god and neighbor concretely connects the metaphysical with the physical, the spiritual with the material. we are commanded to consecrate space and time within this created world in very practical ways. the physicality of erets yisrael, as a medium of consecration, is an integral element of our identity as jews and of our religious worldview. there are specific torah commandments that can only be fulfilled by those residing in the land, tilling its soil, and regulating the social and economic life of the community there. these injunctions are called by our sages hamitsvot hateluyot ba’arets, the commandments contingent on being in the land. among these religious acts are: pilgrimage to jerusalem (aliyah laregel) for the three major festivals, pesah, shavuot, and sukkot (ex 23:14-17, lv 23, dt 16:16-17); offering animal or vegetable sacrifices (korbanot) in the temple (as described in the book of leviticus; see, also, dt 12:5-7, 11, 13-14, 27 and dt 27:6-7); tithing one’s agricultural produce (ma’aser – dt 12:6, 11, 17-18; dt 14:22-29; dt 26:12-14); leaving the corners of one’s field ungleaned (pe’ah – lv 19:910; lv 23:22; dt 24:19-22); letting farmland lie fallow and remitting debts every seventh, or sabbatical, year (shemitah – ex 23:10-11; lv 25:2-7, 20-22; dt 15:1-18); and, after seven sabbatical cycles, observing the jubilee year (yovel – lv 25:8-19; nm 36:4) by restoring ceded property to its original owners. observing the sabbatical rhythm of sevens, starting with the weekly sabbath and extending to the shemitah and yovel cycles, is a cardinal praxis for jews. it brings us into sync with the liberating time code programmed by god into the creation and allows us, through acts of renunciation and devotion, to consecrate both time and space. on the physical, material level where our animal bodies live, we jews have a sense of connection, zikkah, that is like the “territorial imperative” of other animals. erets yisrael is our “natural habitat,” and we have a sense of exile, existential estrangement and a truncated judaism, when in other places. we direct our thrice-daily prayers to jerusalem and the holy of holies, praying for rain and material blessing for the land and its inhabitants. rain at the appointed seasons is necessary in erets yisrael for crops to grow and for our bodies to receive nourishment, since there is no river system like the nile or the tigris and euphrates. the spiritual and ethical corollary to this ecological reality, as the bible states again and again, is that we will face drought, famine, and eventual forced exile (being “spewed out,” according to the torah’s graphic language – cf. lv 18:24-28) if we do not live up to the behavioral norms which god has taught us. in fact, the babylonian exile is understood in our tradition as the consequence of our not keeping the sabbatical years (cf. 2 chr 36:21, along with lv 26:34-35, 43). scripture and tradition teach us that if we follow the torah, ethically and ritualistically, we will be blessed by a bountiful ecology, and if we do not we will suffer the wrenching consequence of exile from the land. in other words, if we choose to live there, individually or collectively, we jews need to remember that our residence is behaviorally contingent and not unconditionally guaranteed. since physical presence in the land makes possible a deeper level of spiritual commitment and fulfillment, some jews – particularly residents of judea and samaria – elevate the territory beyond its proper proportion in our “hierarchy of holiness” and make it into an end in itself rather than a means for consecration through holy acts. this excessive attachment, often justified by a messianic determinism, creates a need to possess and control. the tragic result of such an approach to the land is an ideology of superiority and domination, placing the physical above the metaphysical, mistaking means for ends. the political stance based on this self-centered religiosity has its parallel among militant muslims. its essence can be conveyed in these terms: “the studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 landau, the land of israel cp5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 land is ours, it belongs to us, because it was bestowed upon us by god, and ruling over it is an integral part of our religious identity and vocation.” the contemporary version of this religious ideology is represented by the religious settler movement gush emunim, the “bloc of the faithful.” this movement claims that we jews will be messianically blessed by divine victory and vindication if we impose our sovereign rule over the “whole land of israel” (erets yisrael hasheleimah), including the territories of judea and samaria. citing authorities such as nachmanides (ramban), they assert that we are bound by the imperatives of conquering and populating the entire land (kibbush and yishuv ha’arets). 4 their dogmatic, inflexible position favoring maximum boundaries and political control has oppressive consequences for the palestinian people and threatens the physical and spiritual wellbeing of israeli jews. the “messianic” imperative aggressively promoted by gush emunim and its supporters compels israelis to be oppressive occupiers, with all the negative consequences for jewish morale and morality everywhere. once the land becomes an end in itself justifying martyrdom, and its possession is elevated above justice or peace as a spiritual and moral imperative, then jews, muslims, or christians who skew their religious priorities in this way turn the territory into an idol rather than a means of serving the almighty. land becomes holier than human life in such a worldview. i call this sinful choice “territorialotry.” for us jews, this transgression is a spiritually retrogressive development, relating to the geography as a virtual “canaan” – a land defiled by idolatry – rather than as sacred “israel” – a land where jews struggle with god and dilemmas of the human condition, while revering the torah as a tree of life. 5 remez and olam hayetsirah as we move to the next level, we need to emphasize that we jews are always firmly grounded in this world. we are taught to pray with our two feet planted on the earth while our eyes and heart are turned toward heaven. the leader of a prayer quorum, the sheliah tsibbur, is expected to know the physical hardships of the community, so that the petitions offered to god on its behalf will reflect its true needs. in a similar vein, through their methods, rashi and other medieval bible commentators teach us that we should never ignore or bypass the peshat level of meaning as we search for more symbolic truths in a torah text. to be fully jewish, in an expansive rather than a narrow way, we also need to appreciate the deeper nuances, remazim, and the paradoxes in both sacred texts and sacred history. the torah (written and oral) and the evolving human story are two complementary media of revelation. in our time, we are forced to confront new aspects of the truth revealed by new chapters in our history. in particular, the establishment of a sovereign jewish state in the land of israel, coupled with a more constructive encounter with 4 rabbi zvi yehudah kook, spiritual mentor of gush emunim, claimed that holding onto the territories acquired in the 1967 six-day war was a fundamental religious imperative and nonnegotiable, comparable to the three cardinal commandments which one must never violate – murder, idolatry, and forbidden sexual relations – even at the cost of one’s own life. for a detailed examination of the halakhic issues involved in territorial compromise for the sake of peace, including the differing views of nachmanides and maimonides, see j. david bleich, contemporary halakhic problems, vol. ii (new york: ktav publishing house/yeshiva university press, 1983), chapter viii, “the sanctity of the liberated territories,” pp. 169-188 and chapter ix, “judea and samaria: settlement and return,” pp. 189-221. 5 see uriel simon, “territory and morality from a religious zionist perspective,” in voices from jerusalem: jews and christians reflect on the holy land, david burrell and yehezkel landau, eds. (new york/mahwah: paulist press, 1992), pp. 107-117. as simon writes, “…the holy land is not bestowed with an intrinsic, ontological holiness beyond other parts of the creation. its holiness…is functional: it was chosen to be the seat of the ‘kingdom of priests’…the land is imprinted by the deeds of its inhabitants, and it is thus left to us to transform the land of canaan into the land of israel...it is our task to sanctify the land through our level of religious and moral commitment to torah...no one, including the jews, has an unconditional right to dwell in the holy land; everyone dwells here, so to speak, ‘on probation’.” (pp. 111-112) studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 landau, the land of israel cp6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 other world religions, compels us to go beyond the conditioned notions and reflexes that characterized our life as minority communities in christian or muslim lands. for centuries, we were comforted or consoled by a rather one-dimensional view of divine promises and prophecies. this view was self-referencing, and it served to undergird our hope for ultimate redemption. that hope envisioned, and still envisions, our return to zion as a free people, subservient to god alone and not subject to the rule of other nations. but now, the radically new political reality in which we live, with israel as a jewish state, stretches our minds, hearts, and imaginations. the painful contradiction between the messianic dreams of our ancestors and the tragic war in which we are presently enmeshed forces us to see divine providence in a less selfreferencing and more inclusive way, neither privileging nor penalizing whole peoples. 6 can we jews understand the idea of election or chosenness as a distinctive, but not exclusive, characteristic of our people, or of any people? looking more deeply, and less defensively, at the israeliarab conflict, we need a spiritual “wide-angle” lens that helps us see beyond the polarized us versus them antagonism. for example, if more jews understood arabic and more arabs understood hebrew, the striking similarities in the two languages could help spark fruitful associations on the remez level of awareness. then we could together view texts, history, and ourselves from a non-polarized vantage point. from the perspective of olam hayetsirah, we might be able to see god’s agency in history – creation, revelation, and especially redemption – as pluriform. that is, we could acknowledge that the one god has created different peoples and faith communities, instructing them in different languages and calling them to unique paths of consecrating service. if we could affirm that these separate paths all promote the messianic redemption, we could broaden our notion of redemption – the fruit of god’s intentionality within history – into an inclusive vision of justice, peace, and reconciliation. we should be able to affirm god’s oneness while celebrating cultural and spiritual diversity within the divine plan. 7 in biblical terms, we can embrace ishmael and his descendants as our half siblings, sharing abraham/ibrahim as a common father through different mothers. just as isaac and ishmael were reunited at the burial of their father (gn 25:9), 8 so we can find emotional common ground in the grief we suffer over the loss of our loved ones to the political conflict over a shared homeland. in both judaism and islam, saving a single human life is tantamount to saving all of humanity, and god’s merciful and gracious compassion is affirmed as a core theological principle, reinforced 6 the evil phenomenon represented by the biblical amalekites, israel’s archenemy, presents a unique challenge, for even when we enter the land we are commanded to remember amalek and blot out his name (cf. ex 17:8-16, dt 25: 17-19). our tradition, overall, no longer understands amalek’s perverse, wanton cruelty directed against our people as characteristic of any particular nation or group. rather, the phenomenon of “amalekiut,” or amalek-ness, is conceived as a more generalized demonic phenomenon, perhaps grounded on a metaphysical plane as part of god’s providential plan, and manifesting in this world as irrational jew-hatred. the occasional attempts, in ultra-nationalist jewish circles, to label palestinian terrorists as “amalekites” risks mythologizing a real-world conflict over territory and power. a danger in concretized messianism is the tendency towards a dualistic worldview pitting the forces of light and virtue against those of darkness and evil. 7 the qur’an (49:13) offers such an affirmation: “o humankind! we created you from a single (pair) of a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. truly the noblest of you, in the sight of allah/god, is the most righteous of you.” 8 even before the burial, there are hints (remazim) in the torah suggesting that isaac had sought out ishmael and hagar following the death of his mother sarah. there are three references to be’er lehai ro’i, “the well of the living one who sees me,” first seen by hagar in gn 16:13-14 and then mentioned in connection with isaac in gn 24:62 and 25:11. these remazim allow us to “connect the dots,” not only exegetically (seeing isaac as a pro-active peacemaker within his own family), but also in terms of god’s agency behind the scenes (in olam hayetsirah), to bring isaac and ishmael back together for the good of their descendants. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 landau, the land of israel cp7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 through liturgical confession: harahaman in hebrew and al-rahman/al-rahim in arabic are almost identical terms for this divine attribute, which we are instructed to emulate. when the two traditions diverge, taking their adherents in different directions, our monotheistic loyalty to the oneness of the divine challenges us to see these disparate forms of religiosity as complementary rather than mutually exclusive, as is too often the case. the creation story in genesis reveals a binary complementarity programmed into the cosmos by god: heaven and earth, light and darkness, male and female, good and evil (in the far east, the terms are yin and yang). if jews call the holy land erets yisrael and palestinian arabs call it al-ard filastin, why can we not accept both terms as symbolic references to two separate and distinct subjective “maps” that can complement each other – much as the two abraham/ibrahim narratives in the bible and qur’an complement each other? these two interior maps, which give us our respective geographic and spiritual coordinates, need not be opposed. but to transcend the either/or dualism that undergirds the ongoing conflict, we need to accept complementarity as a divinely intended dimension of creation, revelation, and redemption. such an acceptance – would even say an embrace of otherness – helps us avoid dualistic distortion and allows for the mutual correction and enrichment inherent in any constructive bilateral relationship. in my understanding, both peoples, with the subjective categories that define their respective identities (jew/palestinian arab, jew/muslim or christian, israel/palestine), belong to the land, rather than the land belonging to either one of them. and using the lens of ethical contingency cited above, we can say that both peoples are being severely tested to adhere to moral principles of conduct, even as fear, anger, and nationalistic ideologies keep them locked in mortal combat. if israeli jews, in particular, aspire to become “a kingdom of priests and a holy people,” in the spirit of ex 19:5-6, what does that mean today? to be a priestly community in our own time, instead of offering animal or vegetable sacrifices we are called – israeli jews and, i would say, palestinian arabs as well – to sacrifice territory, self-referencing attachments, exclusive claims to the land, and unilateral political power. traditionally, the english word “sacrifice” means to “make holy” through renunciation, offering material benefits to god in exchange for spiritual blessings. in hebrew, hakravah (offering a sacrifice, or korban) connotes a relationship of greater closeness to god, experienced by offering an animal or vegetable product that would ordinarily provide food for the body. in the holy land today, reciprocal acts of mutual renunciation need to be carried out in some kind of truth and reconciliation process. in religious terms, the resources of land and governmental authority need to be jointly consecrated by being shared, so that the higher ends of human life, freedom, and dignity can be served. a territorial and political compromise is a religious and moral imperative, as advocated by oz veshalom-netivot shalom, in contrast to gush emunim. 9 instead of citing as a precedent the military conquest under joshua, we find a better model for the zionist homecoming in our time in the nonviolent return from babylon of only part of the people to only part of the land (at the invitation of the non-jewish ruler cyrus/koresh). but in practice, this sacrificial magnanimity and tsimtsum (political and territorial self-contraction) is extremely difficult to do. it feels in the soul like a symbolic amputation, especially when one grieves over past or present losses, feels traumatized by ongoing conflict, and lives constantly with “animal” fear in the face of recurrent attacks. at the most basic level, jews in israel (and, through vicarious identification, jews everywhere) harbor an existential dread at the prospect of collective annihilation. after the holocaust, jews are understandably insecure when threats to israel’s survival are proclaimed. such poisonous 9 english-language materials from oz veshalom-netivot shalom are available at p.o. box 4433, jerusalem, israel 91043. they include a booklet entitled “religious zionism: challenges and choices” which i edited in 1981. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 landau, the land of israel cp8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 anti-israel rhetoric must be denounced and combated. but we have to appreciate that palestinians live with a similar fear of genocide, following their displacement and dispossession by israel in the 1948 war and later massacres inflicted on them by other arabs. given the conditioned insecurities in both peoples, an emotional catharsis and healing are necessary for any negotiated peace agreement to “work.” fear must be transformed to trust, anger to forgiveness, and grief to compassion for the suffering of others. 10 this is the demanding “priestly” work that must be done in addition to “prophetic” criticism of political abuses or violations of human rights. it entails sacrificing one’s “victim script” in favor of a more inclusive praxis of mishpat and tsedakah, justice and compassion. isaiah 1:27 reads: tsion bemishpat tippadeh veshavehah bitsedakah, “zion will be redeemed through justice and those who return to her through compassion.” justice means a single, inclusive standard of fairness (two states for two peoples and a shared jerusalem), not double standards competing for validation. if genuine jewish-arab reconciliation, based on inclusive justice and compassion, were to be achieved, it would be a redemptive blessing for all of humanity. in my faith understanding, from an olam hayetsirah perspective, it would also align the faith communities in god’s holy land with the messianic intentionality programmed into creation from the beginning. drash and olam habriyah as we move to the level of drash, allegorical parable, our religious imaginations are challenged by the pressing need to tell our sacred stories in ways that do not exclude, marginalize, or (at worst) demonize others. combining this with the perspective of olam habriyah, we might glimpse some metaphysical or metahistorical forces at work even in the tragic suffering of israelis and palestinians. what both peoples need is a redemptive meta-midrash that embraces the particularistic narratives of exile and homecoming. a biblical foundation exists in the story of noah and the covenant with all of creation established by god after the flood. this noahide covenant precedes both the covenant with abraham, sealed through circumcision, and the later sinai covenant with the people israel. symbolized by the rainbow, this universalistic covenant embraces all of humanity, with each monotheistic tradition and national/ethnic particularity as a distinct “color,” and with the full spectrum more beautiful than any one color. this is one midrashic lens for appreciating diversity or multiplicity within god’s plan. 11 a contemporary meta-narrative offers a potential application of this ancient midrashic wisdom: jews, armenians, and palestinians, peoples of the three abrahamic faiths, are all “suffering servants.” all have been present in jerusalem for centuries. each testifies, in its very existence, to a transcendent, redemptive possibility within god’s creation, a foundation for shared hope. the three peoples have all survived horrific massacres in recent times, in two cases genocidal. they have also suffered exile from their homelands, an assault to the collective body and spirit. 12 at 10 two practical initiatives that try to effect such a transformation are parents’ circle, the network of bereaved israeli and palestinian families who have lost loved ones during the course of the conflict, the subject of ronit avni’s documentary film encounter point; and open house, the center for jewish-arab coexistence and reconciliation in ramle, whose symbolic story is chronicled in sandy tolan’s book the lemon tree. see, also, the web sites www.theparentscircle.com and www.friendsofopenhouse.org. 11 a similar midrashic message emerges from the word makhpelah, the name of the sacred cave in hevron/al-khalil which abraham purchased from ephron the hittite (gn 23), and in which abraham was later buried by isaac and ishmael (gn 25:9). the hebrew name means “multiplicity.” encoded in that name is a multiple holiness that jews and arabs could jointly affirm and share. 12 we jews have a profound understanding of exile, given our historical experience, reflected biblically in psalms 137 and 126. today we are once again “like dreamers” as we celebrate our homecoming to zion. but that homecoming dream has turned into a living nightmare for the palestinians. as we sing the joyous songs of our amazed ancestors, how do we ensure that our children and grandchildren will enjoy a safe and healthy future full of song? studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 landau, the land of israel cp9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 this historical moment, the three national communities find each other in adjacent quarters of our common mother city, jerusalem. 13 the three communities are segregated, each consoled by its own faith tradition and vision of redemption. my conviction is that the god of history is calling all of us to see the divine hand in each other’s sacred stories, to recognize the divine image in each others’ faces, and thus to bear witness to a redemptive future for all. the prototype for this transformation of perception and spirit is the patriarch jacob. upon his return to the land after a twenty-year exile, and following a nocturnal struggle with a mysterious being which left him permanently wounded, his identity was transformed from jacob to “israel,” to a survivor who prevailed in the struggle with the divine and the human. after this costly transformation, jacob could encounter his estranged brother esau and declare to him, “i have seen your face as though i had seen the face of god.” (gn 33:10) we need a broader spiritual view of history that incorporates sacred mystery and points to a shared human destiny. if we are to transform our present condition of conflict into one of spiritual partnership, we will need such a vision to inspire our efforts. and for the three monotheistic faith communities, jerusalem remains the holy epicenter of global transformation. as isaiah prophesies in 56:7, “my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.” sod and olam haatsilut the context for the verse just cited, chapter 56 of isaiah, is a vision of the sabbath as a universal, all-inclusive means of accessing the divine and experiencing god’s love and blessing. in this text, spatial dispensations or benefits follow references to the cosmic covenantal dimension of shabbat. the prophetic vision reaffirms the sabbatical “code of sevens” programmed into creation, with holiness in time preceding and conditioning holiness in space. 14 jerusalem, with its holy of holies, becomes the reconciling center-point in sacred geography as well as the alpha and omega point of sacred history. 15 using a contemporary metaphor, one might call it the centerpiece of “god’s home page” on the cosmic web site. in messianic or eschatological terms, humankind can re-enter the garden, reversing the primordial exile from eden and eating from the tree of life, if we can transcend our self-centered narratives, especially our “victim scripts,” and forge together a meta-narrative that is god-centered. even if our subjective religious “lenses” are not able to penetrate the veils that keep us from direct encounter with the divine at the sod or esoteric level, we might still have enough revealed knowledge, amplified by our experiences in interfaith relations, to discern a higher unity behind and within our fragmented human condition. if we can direct our prayers, messianic longings, and actions toward the en sof – the infinite beyond the finite, the eternal beyond the temporal and temporary – we may be graced with better understanding, from the perspective of olam haatsilut, the realm of pure spirit, of how our antagonistic identities can be reconciled. such a messianic transformation requires a paradigm shift in consciousness, a healing of our wounded and fearful hearts, and an opening to god’s love in the depths of our souls. 13 in ps 87:5-7, we learn that jerusalem, chosen and graced by god, has given birth to more than one child, and that singers and dancers (of different faiths) will joyously proclaim about her that “all my wellsprings are in you.” 14 this is the central message in abraham joshua heschel’s modern classic, the sabbath: its meaning for modern man (new york: farrar, straus and giroux, 2005). 15 the jewish mystics see the holy of holies on the temple mount, with its foundation stone (even hashetiyah) as the aleph or origin point of the cosmos. in their view, its primordial and cosmic sanctity explains why the two temples were built there and why jewish prayers are directed there until today. this is also why the messianic transformation of history at the end of days is envisioned as happening there. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 landau, the land of israel cp10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 for jews, this means, in part, a multi-dimensional spirituality that affirms both the particular and the universal, as reflected in isaiah 1:27: there is a divine promise of return to the land (shivat tsion), linked to the inner return (teshuvah) of the people. that demographic shift from diaspora to zion has to be accompanied by a spiritual and ethical transformation lived out in acts of mishpat/justice and tsedakah/compassion. the unprecedented challenges of our present historical moment stretch our hearts and minds beyond our own people, am yisrael, to include the other nations, starting with our arab neighbors in the middle east. all peoples are invited to come “up” to jerusalem to worship, study, and join in tikkun olam, transforming the weapons of war into implements of peace and security, by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, liberating the captives, and reconciling neighbors. 16 the late rabbi abraham isaac kook, chief rabbi in the land of israel under the british mandate, had a religious zionist vision that integrated the particularistic and universalistic dimensions of judaism. in his mystical understanding, he saw the zionist homecoming as part of a global transformation that will ultimately bring healing to all of humanity. 17 for rabbi kook, that messianic transformation includes reconciliation among the abrahamic faith communities. in a letter from jaffa in 1908, he wrote: the brotherly love of esau and jacob [christians and jews in rabbinic midrashic typology], of isaac and ishmael [jews and muslims], will assert itself above all the confusion that the evil brought on by our bodily nature [in olam haasiyah] has engendered. it will overcome them and transform them to eternal light and compassion. this broad concept, sweetened by the enlightenment of the true teaching of the torah, must be our guide on all our ways in the end of days, to seal our understanding of the torah with the imprint of the messiah by turning the bitter to sweet, and darkness to light. 18 the vision of rabbi kook, reflecting the sod or mystical level of torah and history, can inspire us as we struggle to achieve genuine reconciliation among religious communities and nations, especially in god’s holy land. 19 16 cf. isaiah 2 and micah 4; also isaiah 61, reiterated by jesus in luke 4. 17 “the renewal of the desire in the people as a whole to return to its land, to its essence, to its spirit and way of life – in truth, there is a light of teshuvah [repentance/return] in all this. truly this comes to expression in the torah: “and you shall return to the lord your god” (dt 30:2); “when you return to the lord your god” (dt 30:10). [between these two verses are others which speak of restoring the people to the land, as in verse 5: “and the lord your god will bring you into the land which your forefathers inherited, and you will inherit it...”] the teshuvah spoken of is always an inner teshuvah, but it is covered over by many screens. no impediment or lack of completion can keep the higher light from reaching us…let the bud come forth, let the flower bloom, let the fruit ripen, and the whole world will know that the holy spirit is speaking in the community of israel, in all the manifestations of its spirit. all this will culminate in a teshuvah that will bring healing and redemption to the world.” from the lights of penitence [orot hateshuvah – first edition 1925], chapter 17, in abraham isaac kook – the lights of penitence, the moral principles, lights of holiness, essays, letters and poems, trans. and introduction by ben zion bokser (new york: paulist press, 1978), pp. 126-7. in this citation i have used the hebrew “teshuvah” in place of the english “penitence.” 18 from a letter written in 1908/5678, trans. by bokser, abraham isaac kook, p. 339. 19 rabbi kook had his own four-dimensional typology for defining jewish spirituality and identity. he poetically described a “fourfold song” comprising the song of the self, the song of the people, the song of all humanity, and the song of the cosmos. in his idealistic conception of the religious soul, especially for jews, these four songs “merge in him at all times, in every hour. and this full comprehensiveness rises to become the song of holiness, the song of god, the song of israel, in its full strength and beauty, in its full authenticity and greatness…it is a simple song, a twofold song, a threefold song and a fourfold song. it is the song of songs of solomon, shlomo, which means peace or wholeness. it is the song of the king in whom is wholeness.” ibid., pp. 228-9. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 landau, the land of israel cp11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 conclusion what are the practical implications of these thoughts for jewish-christian relations today? five points stem from this reflection: 1. the land is a laboratory for holy living, a testing ground for faithfully practicing justice and compassion, among jews, christians, and muslims (with help from druse, baha’is and others). bilateral dialogue between us on these matters is not sufficient; we must invite our muslim neighbors into the conversation. 2. the spiritual and the political can not be separated, since there are fundamental ethical principles at stake which need to be upheld in public affairs, not only by individuals. 3. nationalism and territorialism are idolatries. they must be challenged on biblical and qur’anic grounds. the national and territorial dimensions of identity, which are integral realities for jews and muslims (and some christians, like armenians), need to be defined more inclusively. christians can help, so long as they do not choose sides and can demonstrate solidarity with both jews and muslims. 4. we live in a radically new era of christian-jewish relations, symbolized by the holy see’s recognition of the state of israel in 1993 and by pope john paul ii’s jubilee trip to israel/palestine in march, 2000. 20 toward the end of his trip, when he placed his prayer of contrition over christian persecution of jews inside a crack in the western wall (kotel), it was a meta-historical moment, an act of sincere teshuvah or metanoia on the part of a global christian leader. it acknowledged that christians are in need of forgiveness, from jews and from god. jews are called to acknowledge such acts of sincere teshuvah and to reciprocate through their own acts of transformative love. 5. christians are called to help jews and muslims – worldwide and especially in the land we all call holy – to achieve justice and reconciliation, in the spirit of the beatitude calling peacemakers “children of god.” (mt 5:9) this requires a dual solidarity based on an inclusive vision of justice and an inclusive praxis of loving care – sacrificial service that combines fraternal philia and gracious agape. a small number of saintly souls might demonstrate the highest of christian virtues, self-emptying love. for the majority of christians, acts of sympathy and overtures of welcome to jewish neighbors will help those jews overcome any conditioned suspicions of christian motives. once trust is established, jews and christians can be partners in promoting “tikkun olam bemalkhut shaddai” (from the aleinu prayer), the transformation of our broken, suffering world into the messianic kingdom of god. praying together for the peace of jerusalem, and working as allies together with muslims to make those prayers real, are crucial requirements of that joint commitment. hopefully the four-fold song in this reflection (to use rabbi kook’s poetic metaphor in fn. 19) is a rubric that can help us find a way out of the present deadly conflict in israel/palestine, which has negative repercussions worldwide. we need new angles of vision, and frameworks for collective action, that will engage our full souls, tapping wisdom from our critical intellects, our devotional hearts, and the depths of our being where we experience ecstatic rapture in communion with the 20 see my essay, “pope john paul ii’s holy land pilgrimage: a jewish appraisal,” in john paul ii in the holy land: in his own words (new york/mahwah: paulist press, 2005), pp. 129-156. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 landau, the land of israel cp12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 divine. for too long we aspired to attain these sacred ends as segregated communities living in mutual ignorance. in our time, we see the tragic price we have all paid, and continue to pay, because of the mutual estrangement and antagonism forged over centuries. we have the opportunity to transform this history of pain into a future of shared blessing. but we can not do this alone. we need one another, as abrahamic siblings and partners, in order to realize god’s promise for each and every one of us. in search of an explanation for the suffering of the jews: johann reuchlin's open letter of 1505 posset, in search of an explanation posset 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college in search of an explanation for the suffering of the jews: johann reuchlin’s open letter of 1505 f r anz p os s et volume 5 (2010) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): posset 1-11 posset, in search of an explanation posset 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 in 1505, the humanist johann reuchlin (1455-1522) published a booklet titled doctor iohanns reuchlins tütsch missiue, warumb die juden so lang im ellend sind 1 (johann reuchlin‘s german-language open letter [discussing] why the jews have been in ―exile‖ 2 so long). one may debate whether or not reuchlin‘s ―german open letter‖ is to be understood as merely repeating the ―conventional view that they [the jews] were suffering for the sins of their forefathers who had murdered jesus.‖ 3 however, such an interpretation is a far too simplified summary of this rather unusual, ―somewhat mysterious tract.‖ 4 reuchlin felt sincere concern over the continued suffering of the jews and sought to understand it for many years. first of all, reuchlin‘s macaronic text is far from ―conventional‖ as it is very unusual for a non-jewish author of that 1 reuchlin finished this work after christmas 1505 and had it printed in his home town, pforzheim, by thomas anshelm, as indicated in the colophon. i use the critical edition in widu-wolfgang ehlers, hans-gert roloff, and peter schäfer, johannes reuchlin sämtliche werke (stuttgart: frommannholzboog, 1996-), hereafter quoted as sw. missiue is found in iv.1: 1-12. the original is available digitally at http://daten.digitalesammlungen.de/~db/bsb00006194/image_1 and succeeding pages. 2 the english translation of ellend/elend is ‗exile‘; see jonathan west, early new high german english dictionary part e, http://www.germanstudies.org.uk/enhg_dic/enhg_dice.htm (accessed october 2010). max brod translated ellend as ―exil‖ in his book johannes reuchlin und sein kampf. eine historische monographie (stuttgart, berlin, cologne, mainz: w. kohlhammer, 1965), 170. ellend also carries the modern german connotation of elend (misery); see erika rummel, ―why the jews have lived in misery for so long,‖ in the case against johann reuchlin: religious and social controversy in sixteenth-century germany (toronto, buffalo, london: university of toronto press, 2002), 7. 3 so says rummel, the case against johann reuchlin, 7. 4 david price, ―johannes reuchlin,‖ in dictionary of literary biography (detroit: gale research, 1978-), 179:237. time to use hebrew phrases, given in hebrew characters, 5 within the early new high german text. if reuchlin had written the text in latin as one scholar to another, it might not be particularly exceptional, but he writes in 1505 in the then non-scholarly vernacular language. the only other document of the very early sixteenth century written in german and hebrew is the pamphlet by the former jew, johann pfefferkorn (1469–1523), titled the enemy of the jews and published in 1509, 6 i.e., four years after the missiue. pfefferkorn may have deliberately mimicked reuchlin. secondly, in terms of content, reuchlin‘s missiue represents more of an expression of ―philosemitism‖ (for lack of a better word) 7 than of conventional anti-judaism. it seems misplaced among adversos iudaeos (against the jews) texts. reuchlin is admittedly a rare exception to contemporary (i.e., pre-reformational), antagonistic attitudes toward jews. while more commonly discussed in connection to his role in the controversy over jewish books (that would erupt about four years later, often referred to as the reuchlin affair), his attitude to jews can also be demonstrated from his missiue, our focus here. 5 earlier writers (such as nigri) used transliterations of hebrew phrases. 6 ich bin ain buchlinn der juden veindt ist mein namen (augsburg, 1509). 7 one may question heiko a. oberman‘s assertion that philosemitism did not exist in the sixteenth century, but one may simultaneously agree that christians as ―friends of jews‖ are rare exceptions. see his the roots of antisemitism in the age of renaissance and reformation (philadelphia: fortress press, 1981), 101; and the critical comments by stephen g. burnett, ―philosemitism and christian hebraism in the reformation era (1500-1620),‖ in geliebter feind, gehasster freund: antisemitismus und philosemitismus in geschichte und gegenwart: festschrift zum 65. geburtstag von julius schoeps, ed. irene a. diekmann and elke-vera kotowski (berlin: verlag für berlin-brandenburg, 2009), 135. http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00006194/image_1 http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00006194/image_1 http://www.germanstudies.org.uk/enhg_dic/enhg_dice.htm studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): posset 1-11 posset, in search of an explanation posset 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 the missiue (and reuchlin‘s other works) is better placed within a minority medieval tradition that was guided by tolerance, exemplified by gilbert crispin (ca. 1046-1117), a benedictine monk at westminster. 8 in his own time, reuchlin‘s missiue reflects the influence of the benevolent attitude toward the jews of emperor frederick iii (1440-1493). 9 coming of age in this imperial milieu, reuchlin apparently had no personal bias against jews. this allowed reuchlin and his work to play an important role in the beginnings of changes in social attitudes toward the jews. the tendency to understand reuchlin as sharing in the prejudices of his age and social class, and to find proof of this in his missiue, began almost as soon as it was published. this understanding, though, accepts the perspective of johann pfefferkorn. he found certain passages in it to his liking and quoted from it for his own purposes in his hand mirror (1511), fire mirror (1512), and compassionate complaint over all complaints (1521), 10 as part of his self-appointed task to convince christians to eliminate jewish books as an aid to converting all jews to christianity. reuchlin‘s missiue appears to have been the 8 see religionsgespräche mit einem juden und einem heiden: lateinischdeutsch, trans. karl werner wilhelm and gerhard wilhelmi (freiburg: herder, 2005) and ole j. thienhaus, jewish-christian dialogue: the example of gilbert crispin (frederick, 2006). as the prior of the abbey crispin offered a jewish scholar the opportunity to dialogue and conduct a rare, respectful exchange of ideas concerning the interpretation of the hebrew bible. 9 on emperor frederick, see paul-joachim heinig, kaiser friedrich iii. (14401493): hof, regierung und politik (cologne: böhlau, 1997). for other aspects of this time period, see dean phillip bell, jewish identity in early modern germany: memory, power and community (aldershot, england; burlington, vt: ashgate, 2007); jews, judaism, and the reformation in sixteenthcentury germany, ed. dean phillip bell and stephen g. burnett (leiden: brill, 2006). 10 see hans-martin kirn, das bild vom juden im deutschland des frühen 16. jahrhunderts dargestellt an den schriften johannes pfefferkorns (tübingen: mohr, 1989), 184. main reason that pfefferkorn submitted reuchlin‘s name to emperor maximilian i (1493-1519) as a potential expert on the books of the jews. 11 some passages in reuchlin‘s early work on the wonder-working word (de verbo mirifico, 1494; reprinted 1514) 12 may also have been to the liking of the antijewish christian convert pfefferkorn. the fact that pfefferkorn could read (or better, misread) reuchlin in this way may indeed have something to do with passages in reuchlin‘s work that appear to be open to a variety of interpretations. however, the overriding tone and style of the missiue demonstrate reuchlin much more to be a friend of the jews than their enemy, as is consistent with his overall biography. to understand reuchlin‘s missiue adequately, it is crucial to avoid two errors in interpreting it. first, reuchlin lists three talking points that must be read within their context in the document itself. if one isolates these three points, one ends up reading the text as if based exclusively upon them, and then the entire document does indeed wrongly appear ―conventional.‖ secondly, the missiue must be contextualized within the rather benevolent imperial attitude toward the jews that dominated the reign of emperor frederick iii and that presumably continued for some time after his death in 1493. otherwise, one may mistakenly read the missiue as just another expression of anti-semitism. the medieval, anti-jewish tradition of western christianity admittedly regained influence during the time of frederick‘s successor, maximilian i, but did not necessarily shape reuchlin‘s own understandings. 11 see matthias dall'asta and gerald dörner, ―introduction,‖ in johannes reuchlin: briefwechsel, ed. heidelberger akademie der wissenschaften, vol. 3 (stuttgart: frommann-holzboog, 2007), xiv; hereafter quoted as rbw with volume and page. 12 see sw i: 106-109. http://de.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dewiki/2090 http://de.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dewiki/2428 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): posset 1-11 posset, in search of an explanation posset 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 motivation for composing the text some suggest that reuchlin‘s missiue was his response to the request of a nobleman looking for help ―on how to convert jews.‖ 13 however, neither the text of the missiue itself nor reuchlin‘s other writings support such a claim. in his defensio of 1513, reuchlin recalls the sitz im leben from which the question, ―why the jews are in exile for so long,‖ had arisen. reuchlin explains that in early 1493, 14 an unnamed nobleman had asked him what he should talk about with ―his jews‖ during times of leisure, but without giving cause for scandal. 15 there is no mention of a question of ―how to convert jews.‖ in response, reuchlin composed ―something short in which you in times of leisure may want to talk about with your jews which would not cause offense, but real improvement.‖ 16 reuchlin encourages dialogue. the nobleman should ask the jews themselves what the main reason is why they must suffer ―imprisonment‖ (exile) for such a long time. reuchlin then 13 ronnie po-chia hsia, the myth of ritual murder: jews and magic in reformation germany (new haven: yale university press, 1988), 119. compare willehad paul eckert, ―die universität köln und die juden im späten mittelalter,‖ in die kölner universität im mittelalter: geistige wurzeln und soziale wirklichkeit, ed. albert zimmermann (berlin and new york: walter de gruyter, 1989), 493, 504. charles zika, reuchlin und die okkulte tradition der renaissance (sigmaringen: thorbecke, 1998), 128-130, wants to see a connection between reuchlin‘s missiue and pico‘s concept of employing the cabala as a ―weapon against the jews.‖ this appears to me more an eisegesis than an exegesis of the given source. 14 about half a year before emperor frederick iii died on 19 august 1493 at linz, austria, in reuchlin‘s presence. 15 ...et ad dispusationem multa formavi argumenta, hinc inde tam gravia quam levia, qualia poteram excogitare, quorum sibi iusseram postulare solutiones (defensio); sw iv.1: 370, 5-7. 16 etwas kurtz zů verzeichen, dar inn ir euch zů müssigen zyten mitt ewern juden möchten ersprachen, dar uß kein ergernüß, sunder mercklich besserung entstünde; sw, iv.1: 5. primarily delves into pertinent passages of the scriptures in order to tackle this issue. reuchlin hopes that he may find answers from dialoging on the controversial biblical texts. reuchlin envisioned a friendly and private atmosphere in which his specific talking points would provide substance. this was its primary purpose. he apparently did not want to present theological theses in the style of martin luther‘s so-called ―95 theses‖ of 1517. reuchlin‘s missiue was also not meant for use in formal, public disputations, like, for example, the famous leipzig disputation of 1519 in which martin luther and johann eck attacked each other. in reuchlin‘s defensio, he points out that in the missiue of eight years earlier he did not intend to provide dogmatic theological determinations or definite conclusions on faith-decisions. 17 this disclaimer suggests that he felt compelled to safe-guard himself against potential heresy charges that might result from his over-friendly views of the jews. thus, it is fully legitimate to place the origins of reuchlin‘s missiue in the spiritual climate that had developed during the reign of emperor frederick iii, one that was not poisoned by hatred of jews. 18 in this rather relaxed atmosphere, conversations concerning the lives and the fate of jews could address the key question that reuchlin indicated in the title of his missiue, the length of jewish exile. providing assistance ―on how to convert jews‖ was at best a secondary goal. 19 the missiue is a letter with discussion points meant for use in private. it was 17 see sw, iv.1: 370,6-12. 18 see heinrich graetz, history of the jews vol. iv: from the rise of the kabbala (1270 c. e.) to the permanent settlement of the marranos in holland (1618 c. e.) (philadelphia: jewish publication society of america, 1956); first english edition in 1894), 293. salo w. baron, a social and religious vol. ix under church and empire (new york, london: columbia university press, 1965), 31, 167-168. 19 this does not mean that one should take the missiue as a document of tolerance. there was no tolerance in the modern sense of the word. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): posset 1-11 posset, in search of an explanation posset 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 made public in order to aid others like reuchlin‘s anonymous nobleman who found themselves in similar situations. for such private talks with ―his‖ jews, noblemen could rely on the talking points that reuchlin offered. a “moment of world-historical significance” reuchlin‘s study of hebrew began or continued at the court of emperor frederick iii in 1492 with the emperor‘s jewish physician, jacob jehiel loans (lohans) (d. 1505) as his teacher. 20 reuchlin‘s acquaintance with loans, whom the emperor greatly favored and knighted, forms the immediate backdrop for the missiue. frederick‘s favor to jews, especially to loans, including his instruction to his son, co-regent, and successor maximilian i to ―do good to jews,‖ 21 may have been a decisive factor influencing reuchlin. loans was also aware of reuchlin‘s interests in hebraica. in the spring of 1492 loans arranged that reuchlin received from the emperor a particularly valuable 12-13 th century bible manuscript, a parchment codex of the pentateuch in hebrew with the aramaic translation targum onqelos. this priceless codex was the emperor‘s farewell present to reuchlin who received it at the end of his diplomatic mission at the imperial court in linz. 22 the encounter between reuchlin and loans, which evidently developed into friendship, is a ―moment of world-historical significance,‖ as ludwig geiger convincingly wrote in his reuchlin biography of 1871. 23 reuchlin‘s missiue, written in the year of loans‘ death in 1505, may be reuchlin‘s literary monument to the memory of his jewish 20 loans‘ surname refers to the french town, louhans. 21 as was rumored among the jews themselves. see baron ix: 168. 22 now known as codex reuchlin 1 or the ―reuchlin bible.‖ see greschat, johannes reuchlins bibliothek gestern & heute, 69-72, 92 (with illustrations). 23 johann reuchlin: sein leben und seine werke (reprint elibron classics, 2007), 105. friend. whether or not it specifically referred to this friendship, the thorny question about the long jewish exile raised in the title required an answer. an open letter in german and hebrew reuchlin‘s missiue is probably best defined as an ―open letter‖ or a pamphlet in which he shared his benevolent thoughts on the ―jewish question‖ in german interspersed on every single page with numerous hebrew phrases. for each hebrew phrase reuchlin provides a german translation. such a mix of languages, i.e., of the vernacular with hebrew, is quite rare in sixteenth-century texts written by non-jews (while the mix of latin and hebrew is more common). apparently, reuchlin employed the so-called ―rashi script‖ for his hebrew words, while in his later rudiments of hebrew he applied the common square form of the hebrew alphabet. 24 a decade earlier, reuchlin‘s de verbo mirifico had been printed without hebrew or greek characters (by amerbach in basel). the use of hebrew characters makes one also wonder whether, indeed, this letter was meant as an answer to the question of a real or of an imagined german nobleman. the readers would also have to be familiar with the cabala (see below), something that cannot be expected from an ordinary german nobleman of the time. words given in hebrew characters were not something even a highly educated german nobleman would have been able to decipher. it is not inconceivable, then, that the anonymous nobleman is a literary fiction or represents reuchlin himself. emperor frederick iii had elevated him to the rank of nobility in 1492. however, reuchlin‘s description of the situation at frederick‘s court supports his claim that a real person had asked him to suggest discussion points for conversation with jews. 24 raschischrift, brod, 174. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): posset 1-11 posset, in search of an explanation posset 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 content for the imagined, private conversations that make up the missiue, reuchlin presents a series of talking points which are allegations to which he hopes jews will be able to respond properly. reuchlin‘s christian nobleman should propose to the jews the following allegations as talking points. 25 (1) this jewish exile is lasting longer than the babylonian captivity. therefore, the sin which led to this punishment must be yet greater. (2) god has promised to punish a person‘s misdeed only up to the third and fourth generation. yet, the punishment of the jews has now endured for more than one hundred generations. evidently, this sin cannot be that of an individual, but rather that of the entire nation. (3) the reason why the jews cannot recognize the reason for their punishment is that god himself has made them obdurate. reuchlin comes up with the following explanations to prove that the jewish people have sinned collectively: first, reuchlin cites dt 25:2 (in hebrew with his own german translation added). a guilty person is to receive the number of stripes his guilt deserves. evidently the greater the sin the greater the punishment should be. 26 however, god grants mercy (begnadet), as ps 106:43-46 and neh 9:16-20 teach. 27 second, and in contrast, god gave them notice that he is a jealous god who does not tolerate idol worship; for this he will punish the children down to the third and fourth generation (ex 20:5 and 34:7). the present day jews are punished not 25 dar vff moegen ir inen fürwerfen dry gegründte wahrhsafftige meinungen nemlich wie hernach volget; sw iv.1: 5,11-12. 26 ye groesser die sünd ist ye mer die zal der straff soll sin; sw, iv.1: 5,24. 27 see sw, iv.1: 5,30-33. only to the fourth generation, but down to the hundredth generation. from this fact, one must derive that these sins were not committed by just one or two jews. if the sin were that of one person, the saying of ez 18:20 would apply: ―only the soul of the one who sins shall die. the son shall not be charged with the misdeed of the father.‖ reuchlin seeks to harmonize these conflicting words of god. if it is true that an innocent child should not be charged with his parent‘s sin, then some other sin must have been committed, i.e., by all jews, based upon the obvious experience that jews suffer continuously. he calls the sin under consideration the gemeine sünd, by which he means a sin which was committed publicly by an entire nation including all its members. 28 how is the early new high german adjective gemein to be translated into english? the latin equivalent is communis. in contemporary german it is allgemein, or perhaps, gemeinsam, ―common,‖ as it has something to do with ―community‖ (gemeinde). 29 thus, reuchlin‘s choice of words, gemeine sünd, means the common sin that is publicly committed by the community as a whole; thus it is a universal, general, or, ―collective sin‖ of all generations (parents and children). it should not be translated, however, with ―collective guilt‖ 30 because reuchlin explicitly uses sünd and not schuld, although these may at times function as synonyms. 28 ...darumb so můß es ein gemeine sünd syn ...eins gantzen volcks mit allenn iren glidern; sw, iv.1: 6,18. 29 but the expression has nothing to do with contemporary german gemein or gemeinheit which means ―mean‖ and ―meanness.‖ 30 as found in roots, 28. whereas one may agree that the translation of ―collective‖ for gemein is not controversial, this is not necessarily the case for the translation of sünd as ―guilt.‖ a theological discussion of the distinction between sin and guilt would go beyond the scope of this study. for the nontheologian, sin and guilt may be the same. the philological fact remains that reuchlin used sünd, not schuld. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): posset 1-11 posset, in search of an explanation posset 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 in reuchlin‘s view, another biblical saying applies to the situation of a collective sin, namely that god punishes the children down to the third and fourth generation (ex 20:5). however, this applies only if the children are following the misdeeds of their fathers. the targum on ex 20:5 establishes this condition, which reuchlin quotes in hebrew characters along with the comments by rashi (1040-1105) 31 and nahmanides, whom he calls moses gerundensis (1194-1270) 32 on the same verses (ex 20:5 and ex 32:34). 33 these authors had connected the ancient crime of the golden calf with the jews‘ miserable imprisonment in their day. reuchlin disagrees with the interpretation by the great jewish masters, on biblical grounds, because their view contradicts both ez 18:20 (see above) and neh 9:16-20. the latter reads: 34 but they, our fathers, proved to be insolent; they held their necks stiff and would not obey your commandments. they refused to obey and no longer remembered the miracles you had worked for them. they stiffened their necks and turned their heads to return to their slavery in egypt. but you are a god of pardons, gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in mercy; you did not forsake them. though they made for themselves a molten calf, and proclaimed, ―here is your god who brought you up out of egypt,‖ and were guilty of great effronteries, yet in your great mercy you did not forsake them in the desert. the column of cloud did not cease to lead them by 31 the commentary on the pentateuch by rabbi solomon of troyes, who is known as rashi, is now lost from reuchlin‘s library; see wolfgang von abel and reimund leicht, eds., verzeichnis der hebraica in der bibliothek johannes reuchlins (ostfildern, 2005), no. 24. 32 moses ben na[c]hman; rambon, ramban, moyses gerundensis, gerondi, i.e. from gerona; spanish, talmudist, cabalist and commentator on the pentateuch; on him, see verzeichnis, 228. 33 see sw, iv.1: 6,22-31. 34 new american bible translation. day on their journey, nor did the column of fire by night cease to light for them the way by which they were to travel. your good spirit you bestowed on them, to give them understanding. with this gift of the ―good spirit,‖ god forgave them all their sins of any kind. furthermore, not all jews sinned, as one finds among them those who hate sin. nevertheless, the fact remains that the entire jewish people finds itself in miserable exile. reuchlin concludes from this that the sin for which they were dispersed is a different category of sin, the gemeine sünd of the entire people to which all jews belong ―as long as they are jews.‖ 35 reuchlin seems to imply the element of an ―inherited sin,‖ perhaps implying the german term erbsünde (inherited sin) usually translated with ―original sin‖ (which does not evoke the element of inheritance present in the german). the theological concept of ―original sin‖ refers to the general sinfulness that every human being inherits from adam and his first (i.e., original) sin described in gn 3. however, although reuchlin discusses all kinds of biblical passages in his missiue, the biblical story of gn 3, the classical source of original sin is not among them. nor does he use the technical language that points to this concept. reuchlin‘s third deliberation about the sin for which the jews have suffered for so long a time results in the statement that it must be the greatest sin that ever was. it was a gemeine sünd, and it was a sin that they themselves do not consider a sin. were they to recognize it as the sin for which they were being punished, they would cease doing it in order that they might return home. but they remain blind, and such blindness is god‘s special punishment. they do not want to recognize their sin. you can tell them whatever you want; they do not want to hear any of it, as is written in jb 21:14, ―they say to god, 35 ein gemein sünd deß gantzen geschlechts ..., darin all juden verharren so lang sie iuden sind; sw, iv.1: 7,17-19. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): posset 1-11 posset, in search of an explanation posset 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 ‗depart from us, for we do not like to know your ways‘.‖ even isaiah was told to tell the people that they had become sluggish (is 6:8-10). even though god‘s word to isaiah was communicated in its literal sense, 36 reuchlin argues that according to cabalistic learning, it is to be understood as applying to jesus. 37 reuchlin‘s reference to cabala draws from traditional christian hermeneutics of the hebrew bible and he understands by ―cabalistic interpretation‖ the christianized (christological) version. through this lens, the prophetic words are spoken as if addressed to ―jesus our lord god.‖ only ―the learned jew‖ (der gelert iud) may understand this if he knows the ―familiar art‖ (heimliche kunst). 38 he will understand that ―god jesus‖ (got jeschuh) 39 is the same one who said to his heavenly father, ―send me‖ (the words of isa 6:8). it becomes clear, then, that reuchlin‘s vernacular expression (inn der hohen heimlichkeit verstanden) is based upon the traditional 36 nach dem buochstaben; sw, iv.1: 8,7. 37 ―inn der hohen heimlichkeit verstanden vff jeschuh vnsern hern got.” sw, iv.1:8,8-9, spelled here as haimlichkeit. reuchlin‘s early new high german keyword heimlichkeit should be rendered in english as something to do primarily with heim (english home) and heimat. heim is the realm which only members of the household are familiar with; to others it is unfamiliar, secret (i.e., heimlich). in medieval german it had the meaning of ―familiarity‖, ―pleasantness‖, and ―joy.‖ see der große duden: etymologie, s. v. heimlich/heimlichkeit. the original meaning is not ―secrecy‖; it has nothing to do with occultism. in medieval spirituality, heimlichkeit is a significant concept; see marianne heimbach-steins, ―gottes und des menschen 'heimlichkeit': zu einem zentralbegriff der mystischen theologie mechthilds von magdeburg‖ in contemplata aliis tradere. studien zum verhältnis von literatur und spiritualität, eds claudia brinkler et. al. (bern etc: lang, 1995), 71-86. the expression hohe heimlichkeit is a synonym for cabala, as reuchlin defines cabala with exactly this term in his expert opinion (ratschlag) about jewish books and he writes in his eye mirror (sw, iv,1: 28,27-28), zum dritten find ich die hohe haimlichhait der reden vnd woerter gottes / die sie haissent cabala. 38 not to be misunderstood as ―occult practices.‖ 39 sw, iv.1: 8,11. christian hermeneutics of the hebrew bible and it means the ―cabalistic interpretation‖ in the christianized (christological) version. in reuchlin‘s macaronic language mix, his german sentence includes the hebrew characters for god‘s name (tetragrammaton, yhvh). as reuchlin explains, by inserting the hebrew consonant (shin) it becomes the hebrew name for jesus (yhshvh, iehoshuha). 40 this insight allows reuchlin to understand that the heavenly father told jesus to make the hearts of the people sluggish. the messiah as the son of god, sent by god, is thus the source of the jews‘ trouble (plag, plague). jews of their own free will (vß eigem frien willen) are blind and obstinate, with the fatal consequence that they do not acknowledge the sinful obstinacy for which they are punished. the highly learned rabbi david kimhi had understood this very well in his commentary on is 6, says reuchlin. 41 reuchlin sums up his thoughts: you heard three essential reasons (drüw wesenlich stück) about the sin for which god punished the jews for such a long time, a sin that was the greatest sin there ever was: it was a gemeine sünd; it was a sin that they themselves did not consider a sin; and it is the sin of blasphemy which their forefathers committed against the true messiah, our lord jesus, and which their children perpetuate, up to this day. 42 reuchlin further elaborates on the charge of blasphemy as he continues with his christological interpretation of ps 37:32 that ―the wicked man spies on the just [jesus] and seeks to slay him.‖ the fact that jesus indeed was a just man 40 reuchlin proclaimed this discovery first in 1494 in his book on the wonderworking word, de verbo mirifico. it is not the place here to discuss the flaws in reuchlin‘s philology and theology. 41 he cites the original hebrew and then translates it; sw, iv.1: 8,3-19. 42 see sw, iv.1: 9, 6-30. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): posset 1-11 posset, in search of an explanation posset 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 was witnessed by pilate according to lk 23:14-15. 43 the jews‘ sin of blasphemy was that they supposedly labeled both jesus a sinner and sorcerer (ein sünder vnd ein zouberer) who was hanged and the virgin maria as a haria. this which reuchlin gives in transliteration, not in hebrew letters, etymologically stems from the hebrew word for ―getting angry,‖ . it is a deliberate play of words (maria – haria), i.e., (m)aria [mary], the one ―who is full of anger‖ which in reuchlin‘s vernacular is rendered with ein wüterin. in addition, they call jesus‘ disciples ―heretics‖ (ketzer) and us christians a ―non-people‖ (ein vnfolck oder nit volck) and foolish heathens. 44 all jews as long as they are jews ―participate‖ in this blasphemy. 45 after reuchlin sums up all the essential talking points he offers some concluding thoughts which he draws from a great jewish master. reuchlin’s concluding thoughts toward the end of the missiue (for the first time in reuchlin‘s entire opus), the work (guide for the perplexed) of the famous jewish philosopher and theologian, maimonides (died 1204) shows its impact as reuchlin quotes it by its hebrew title. 46 reuchlin introduces maimonides as the highly respected and learned master, rabi mose, the jew from egypt, 47 and gives two quotations in hebrew characters from 43 see sw, iv.1: 9, 31 10,2. 44 see sw, iv.1: 11, 1-4. 45 an soelcher gotzlesterung teilhafftig syen, sw, iv.1:11,9. reuchlin will refer to these statements in his eye mirror for further clarification, when he talks about pfefferkorn‘s twenty-seventh lie; sw, iv.1:163,19-164, 3. 46 sw iv.1:11, 24-26. 47 als do schreibt der hochgelert meister rabi mose, der jud von egiptten inn dem bůch genannt libro iij, capitulo .xxiiij...; sw, iv.1:11, 24-29. maimonides is referred to in eye mirror (1511), sw iv.1: 40, 32; 114,19; 153, 24; and again in the reuchlin‘s preface of the seven penitential psalms the guide for the perplexed iii:23. we do not know from which version reuchlin took them. we do know that maimonides‘ book was available in print by 1480, 48 but it is not found in reuchlin‘s library, and it remains a puzzle from whence reuchlin would have copied these quotations or if he even knew the guide first hand. the fact that reuchlin quotes maimonides in his concluding deliberations signals to the reader that reuchlin identifies with the wisdom of this medieval jewish sage and that reuchlin considers maimonides‘ words to be the best answer to his question about the reasons for the continued suffering of the jews. he cites only two brief passages. 49 the first states, ―whoever commits evil must suffer condemnation.‖ 50 the second reads, ―everything that happens to a person happens in justice, but we lack the knowledge of our defects for which we are punished.‖ 51 reuchlin, the conservative christian hebraist, may have considered these two phrases by maimonides good summaries of the issues that had been raised. (1512), but there, too, on a different subject, namely, on the purity of hebrew; rbw 2: 325, line 143 (no. 206). 48 see reimund leicht, ―johannes reuchlin – der erste christliche leser des hebräischen more nevukhim,‖ in the trias of maimonides. jewish, arabic, and ancient culture of knowledge / die trias des maimonides: jüdische, arabische und antike wissenskultur, ed. georges tamer (berlin: de gruyter, 2005), 414. reuchlin will make use of maimonides‘ book also in his commentary on athanasius (1519); i am grateful to dr. matthias dall‘ asta (germany) for pointing this out to me. 49 although reuchlin has: capitulo xxiiij. 50 wer boeß tůt der můß verdamnus liden; sw, iv.1: 11,20-21. he does not identify the reference to daniel. 51 vnsere gebrechenheitten alle, daruff die ver damnus gesetzt ist verborgen vor vns ir missetat; sw iv.1: 11,26-29. other possible translations could be: the fate of man is the result of justice, but we do not know all our shortcomings for which we are punished; or: any definite insights into all our failings and sins, for which we deserve to be punished, remain hidden from us. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): posset 1-11 posset, in search of an explanation posset 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 without starting a new paragraph, reuchlin immediately connects the two maimonides quotations with his prayer for the jews: ―i pray that god may enlighten them and convert them to the right faith so that they may be liberated from the devil‘s prison, as the community of the christian church devoutly prays for them on good friday.‖ 52 once the jews recognize jesus as the right messiah everything will be fine here in this world and in eternity. however, reuchlin‘s prayer is not so much a proof for his conscientiousness as a christian missionary, but more an expression of his own catholic faith conviction. he remains a christian who is ready to discuss theological issues with the jews. he is somewhat anxious to ask them for explanations of how they themselves see things and how they interpret the biblical texts which he cited. but reuchlin does not do this with the zeal of a missionary like, for instance, pfefferkorn. reuchlin has a sincere desire to understand better the fate of the jews while simultaneously thinking that it would be so much easier if all jews would become christians. reuchlin’s postscript in the final paragraph, clearly set apart typographically, reuchlin states that this letter represents what he wants the (anonymous) nobleman to discuss with his jews. 53 his final 52 jch bit gott er woell sye erlüchten vnd bekern zů dem rechten glouben, das sye von der gefencknüs des düfels erledigt werden, als die gemeinschafft der christenlichen kirchen an dem karfritag andechtiglich für sye bitt, sw, iv.1: 11,29-31. five years later, in his expert opinion of 1510, reuchlin will view the good friday intercession somewhat differently, i.e., from the jewish perspective, as a ―public scolding‖ (offenlich scheltten) which causes the jews to defend themselves against christian slander: dan die weil wir sy alle iar ierlichs inn vnsern kirchenn am karfreitag offenlich scheltten perfidos iudeos (eye mirror, sw, iv.1: 53,20-21); on this, see friedrich lotter, ―der rechtsstatus der juden in den schriften reuchlins zum pfefferkornstreit,‖ in reuchlin und die juden, eds arno herzig and julius h. schoeps (sigmaringen: thorbecke, 1993), 86. 53 das hab ich eüch für des erst woellen endecken mit inen zů redden, sw iv.1: 12, 2. words are an offer himself to talk with any jew who really wishes to be instructed about the messiah and ―our true faith‖ (vnnserm rechten glauben). he is more than ready to help such a person, who would then not need to worry about temporal food, but would be able to serve god in peace and be free from all concerns (vnd aller sorg fry syn). 54 these are the last words of reuchlin‘s missiue. apparently the wealthy reuchlin himself was offering financial support to any jewish dialogue partner in order to exchange ideas on the unsolved mystery of continued jewish suffering. dialogue, not mission, was his goal. it would be an over-interpretation to view him only as being in search of jews for the purpose of preaching to them about christian theological claims. conclusions as reuchlin had written at the beginning of the missiue, his intention was not to ―cause offense,‖ but to achieve ―real improvement‖ (mercklich besserung). 55 improvement and reform of the relations between christians and jews appears to be the best interpretation of this phrase in this context. in other words, reuchlin‘s booklet (and we must recall that it is in german, not latin) likely functioned as a manual for nontheologians (primarily christians but perhaps also jews 56 ) who wanted to prepare for dialoguing about the serious question 54 sw, iv.1: 12, 2-6. 55 as to reuchlin‘s noun besserung: it is connected to the verb bessern which means ―to improve.‖ the noun besserung also carries the meaning of ―repentance‖ or ―reformation‖; see jonathan west, ―early new high german english dictionary part b/p,‖ http://www.germanstudies.org.uk/enhg_dic/enhg_dicbp.htm (accessed july 2010). 56 the fact that in his text so many phrases are given in hebrew letters may lead even to the surmise that reuchlin is offering a manual for jews who are able to read hebrew and who want to familiarize themselves with christian thinking on the issue. http://www.germanstudies.org.uk/enhg_dic/enhg_dicbp.htm studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5(2010): posset 1-11 posset, in search of an explanation posset 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 that preoccupied reuchlin and that he articulated in the title. the primary motivation, however, appears not to be the conversion of jews to the christian faith. reuchlin‘s missiue and the rest of his works are situated better in the minority medieval tradition of relaxed relations between christians and jews. reuchlin was a staunch catholic, very convinced of his own faith. however, to see his missiue simply as an instrument of converting jews would mean to agree with reuchlin‘s adversary, the converted jew, pfefferkorn. he read the pamphlet this way. because such a misreading of his missiue was possible reuchlin was forced to clarify his position and his opposition to pfefferkorn‘s claims. he refused to identify with the familiar accusations against the jews that he had listed in the missiue (that the jews blaspheme jesus, the son of god, and that they enjoy such blasphemy) and expressed more clearly his real motivation, to improve relations between jews and christians (what he calls mercklich besserung). pfefferkorn became very upset and completely frustrated with reuchlin‘s unexpected clarification and total opposition. as late as in his compassionate complaint over all complaints (ein mitleidliche clag) of 1521 pfefferkorn quoted reuchlin‘s missiue of 1505 as a proof for his own claims. 57 pfefferkorn had been convinced that reuchlin originally himself was convinced that the jews blaspheme jesus, the son of god, and that they enjoy such blasphemy—accusations that pfefferkorn kept quoting from the missiue. pfefferkorn declared reuchlin a ―judas‖ for 57 fur das erst so zeych ich an ein epistel die reuchlin eine[m] edelma[n] vnder ander[e]n worten[n] zo geschriebe[n] hat waru[m]b die jude[n] so la[n]g in de[m] ellendt seint...; ein mitleidliche clag, fol. b ii; digitized edition at munich library: http://daten.digitalesammlungen.de/~db/0002/bsb00025516/image_1. (digital pages 19-20) (accessed july 2010). disavowing this position, describing reuchlin as a man who betrayed him ―more than judas betrayed the dear lord god.‖ 58 in his missiue, reuchlin reviewed the critical, contradictory biblical texts that needed to be discussed in a jewishchristian dialogue. he interpreted them as a christian lay theologian. puzzled by his excellent personal experience with honorable jewish men who did not personally deserve divine punishment, he reflected on the traditional biblical reasoning why jews lived in miserable exile. the answer reuchlin came up with in this regard was that ―collective sin‖ (gemeine sünd) was the root cause. this, he articulated through quotations from maimonides. the concept of a ―collective sin‖, which reuchlin had introduced in his open letter of 1505, does not emerge elsewhere in his works or in his correspondence. the issue was satisfactorily settled, at least in reuchlin‘s mind. his motivation and his wishes appear far from ―conventional.‖ reuchlin‘s unconventional approach caused pfefferkorn‘s increased distress. pfefferkorn preferred reuchlin to have had retained the position that he thought reuchlin had expressed in the missiue. it fitted his purposes so much better. 58 so hat er [reuchlin] mich ... schalckhafftiger vn[d] luge[n]hafftiger verrate[n] dan[n] judas vnsern liebe[n] hern gott...; ein mitleidliche clag, fol. b ii, [digital page 19]. http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0002/bsb00025516/image_1 http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0002/bsb00025516/image_1 scjr 17, no. 1 (2022): 1-3 munther isaac the other side of the wall: a palestinian narrative of lament and hope (downers grove, il: intervarsity press, 2020), paperback, 248 pp. robert cathey rcathey@mccormick.edu mccormick theological seminary, chicago, il 60615 palestinian christians once numbered 12 percent of the population of british mandate palestine before 1948. today their numbers have declined to 1.3 percent in the historic birthplace of christianity (209). the author was born in bethlehem and is pastor of the christmas evangelical lutheran church and dean of bethlehem bible college. he is deeply committed to peaceful and respectful christian witness in the region despite the ongoing israeli occupation of and settlement in the west bank and diverse forms of religious extremism in the region. his primary audience for this book is christians from other parts of the world, especially christian zionists who he says ignore the plight of palestinian christians. he sharply criticizes their celebration of the return of jews to national sovereignty in the holy land as the penultimate chapter in an eschatological drama that ends with the return of christ. he argues that they underestimate the harm done by their one-sided advocacy to the indigenous arab peoples of the region, the majority of whom are muslim but which includes small, vibrant communities of christians representing all the major traditions of christianity. the author structures the book autobiographically but addresses topics such as trauma, grievances, and human rights abuses of palestinians by the israeli government and their primary ally, the united states. the book was written during the administration of president trump when the americans moved their embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem, suspended aid to the palestinian authority, attempted to normalize israeli occupation of the west bank, and recognized the golan heights (also claimed by syria) as part of israel’s territory. the author assumes the reader already knows about the history of the region and the israeli-palestinian conflict (thus this is not the best book for students who have never visited the region or studied its history). the most interesting chapters deal with christian zionism and different uses of the bible in the region. there is also one chapter addressed to the author’s jewish neighbors and one to his muslim neighbors. cathey: munther isaac’s the other side of the wall 2 the author strongly dissociates himself from antisemitism and islamophobia, acknowledges the horror of the holocaust, and seeks to live at peace with both israelis and the muslim majority of his own people. along the way he interprets jewish israelis’ claims to the holy land as excessively particularistic and exclusive (e.g., the nation-state law enacted by the israeli knesset in 2018 [127-29]). likewise, he presents christianity (excepting christian zionism) as universal and inclusive. he views the holy land as god’s land intended to be shared by all peoples, not to be possessed only or primarily by jews. he says his own palestinian contextual christian theology is anti-zionist but not anti-jewish. yet he does not acknowledge strong bonds of connection between the israelites of ancient israel and judah and modern jews gathered from around the world who populate the state of israel today. he asks, why under israeli law can a jew anywhere in the world apply to immigrate to the state of israel (and perhaps settle in the west bank), yet millions of palestinians native to the region are refused a similar “right” of return? he tends to view the modern nation of israel as a western solution to the problem of european antisemitism that was imposed on his ancestors and that is rationalized by christian zionists via a highly speculative and exclusive eschatological drama. he tends to conflate christian zionism with post-holocaust christian theology that, according to him, seeks right relations with jews while ignoring the human rights of palestinians. he quotes affirmatively from the kairos palestine document that calls for boycott, divestment, and sanctions against the state of israel and considers the jewish homeland to be an ”apartheid state” like south africa in the twentieth century (221). on the one hand, the author is convincing that he and his fellow palestinians are traumatized and denied their right to national sovereignty after the jewish people returned to sovereignty in their ancient homeland with the support of other nations. on the other hand, the author fails to address the fact that palestinians and other arab peoples have resisted the jewish return to sovereignty not only nonviolently but also with lethal force in multiple wars and acts of terrorism. the reader who knows something about the region and its modern history is left to sort out conflicting claims and grievances of two traumatized people (palestinians and israelis) who are both victims of an ongoing conflict that has regional and international dimensions. “the wall” in the book title (called “the security barrier” by the israeli government) was built in response to the violence of the second palestinian uprising (2000-2005) against the israeli occupation of the west bank. since 1967, israeli governments under different ruling coalitions have expressed deep concern with the national security risks of returning the west bank to full palestinian control, especially given support by syria, hezbollah, and iran for the palestinians. isaac clearly presents the hardships faced by palestinians and harshly criticizes israelis and christian supporters of israel. we know, however, that in many conflicts there are seldom pure, innocent victims and evil oppressors. the binary of oppressor / oppressed obscures how we are all caught in the gravity of sinfulness and alienation from god and neighbor, and how we all have agency to contribute toward a better future. for we who live outside the region, we can make a contribution to the possibility of greater justice and peace by listening patiently to all 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) sides without demonizing one against the other, by giving of our resources to civil society organizations in the region that work toward mutual recognition and reconciliation, and trusting that whatever compromise to the conflict that may emerge, it will take both the palestinian and israeli peoples and others in the region to make reconciliation a reality. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): krondorfer r1-4 jacob, confronting genocide krondorfer r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr steven leonard jacob, editor confronting genocide: judaism, christianity, islam (lanham: lexington books, 2009), paperback, xvii + 343 pp. björn krondorfer, st. mary’s college of maryland the continuously growing literature on genocide—both in the form of anthologies and monographs—is often comparative in scope, looking at various genocides from different historical and geographical locations and through particular frames of reference. for example, in 2009, when the book under review was published, two other works appeared: cathie carmichael’s genocide before the holocaust, which argues that genocidal conflicts before the holocaust (especially the balkan wars) were the result of collapsing empires (austro-hungarian and ottoman) and the rise of nationalism, and allan cooper’s the geography of genocide, which applies a feminist analysis of masculine ideologies that characterize perpetrators of different genocides. with respect to anthologies, the 2004 volume century of genocides (edited by samuel totten, williams s. parsons, and israel w. charny) and the 2002 volume in god’s name: genocide and religion and the twentieth century (edited by omer bartov and phyllis mack) can be mentioned as points of comparison to steven jacob’s confronting genocide. whereas totten, parsons, and charny pay hardly any attention to religion because they look at genocide from the perspectives of the historical, social, and political sciences, bartov and mack address religion but remain primarily focused on the holocaust. jacob’s new anthology aims at a middle path: it wants to engage the “all-too-prominent role of religion in [the] horror” of genocidal atrocities, beyond the more usual jewish and christian responses to the holocaust (p. x). hence, the eighteen chapters (all except two were written especially for this volume) cover genocides against rwandans, armenians, bangladeshis, native americans, residents of the former yugoslavia, and jews during the holocaust. focusing on the link between genocide and the three abrahamic traditions is a sensible way of working within a compatible set of interpretive frames, such as monotheism, messianism, eschatology, shared textual traditions, or simply the intimately tense relations between jews, christians, and muslims throughout history. such a focus, of course, explains why there are no chapters on genocides in timor or cambodia (which, for example, are included in totten’s century of genocide). the role of religion in genocide was previously addressed in two seminal essays by leo kuper (“theological warrants for genocide: judaism, islam, christianity” from 1990) and leonard glick (“religion and genocide” from 1994). they have both argued for the genocidal potential inherent in the jewish, christian, and muslim traditions. their inclusion here is valuable. kuper argues that differences in religious belief have served as legitimizing ideologies (though not “in isolation from the societal context” [p. 26]); glick similarly states that religious differences “impel people…to perpetrate genocidal crimes” and that it is in the human “evolutionary heritage…to dislike [and] to distrust” other people. religions, far from helping to overcome this dislike of others, “are part of the problem.” hence, “religious leaders, whether they be shamans, priests, pastors, mullahs, or rabbis, appear on the average to demonstrate neither more nor less compassion for review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): krondorfer r1-4 jacob, confronting genocide krondorfer r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr aliens than anyone else” (p. 113). the problem with kuper’s and glick’s analyses is that they remain general and unspecific, painting a picture of religion in rather broad strokes. not surprisingly, some contributors, such as zev garber and david patterson, take issue with kuper’s and glick’s limited understandings of judaism and christianity. the articles by kuper and glick are also somewhat dated. this is particularly obvious in the case of kuper (1908-1994), who relies on sources published in the 1970s and early 1980s. his section on christianity, for example, repeatedly refers to rosemary radford ruether’s faith and fratricide (1974) and the wrath of jonah (1989, co-authored with herman ruether); his section on islam relies heavily on bernard lewis, the famous princeton orientalist, also known as “an unapologetic foreign policy hawk” (new york review of books, april 7, 2011, p. 83). nevertheless, kuper and glick serve as anchors around which the contributions are organized. formally separated into four parts, confronting genocide begins with a section that probes the role of biblical narratives and, to a lesser degree, liturgical recitations and traditions in legitimating and motivating genocidal mentalities. part ii explores the religion-genocide link through case studies of armenia, bangladesh, rwanda, and the balkans, and it is here that we find the widest angle in comparative genocide studies. parts iii and iv are quite similar in their overall thematic approach, probing troubling texts in the bible (iii) and troubling theologies in judaism and in the christian churches (iv). here, the contributors use the holocaust as the main matrix for their reflections, with the notable exception of carol rittner. rittner, who is the only female contributor to this volume, fiercely laments the catholic church’s silence vis-à-vis rape and sexual violence against women in rwanda and the former yugoslavia. the narrowing of perspective in parts iii and iv is somewhat unfortunate, given the title and intention of this anthology. not only does confronting genocide return to the holocaust as the kind of paradigmatic event that shapes our thinking about judaism and christianity, it also limits itself to a particular cohort of thinkers, who—despite the scholarly merit and academic recognition their work deserves—think too much alike since they have been in conversation with each other for decades. they include richard rubinstein, donald dietrich, john pawlikowski, john roth, zev garber, henry knight, steven jacobs, james moore, and carol rittner. one misses the voices of a younger generation of scholars. although the subtitle of confronting genocide prominently and promisingly mentions islam as the third abrahamic religion to be covered, readers may be disappointed by the dearth of attention to this subject. mohammad omar farooq, who is from bangladesh and writes about the genocide there in 1971, is the only contributor from an islamic background; however, farooq is not a religious studies scholar but a professor of economics (at upper iowa university). two other contributors mention islam in somewhat more sustained ways, but both give it a decidedly negative reading. richard rubenstein, who probes religious motivation behind the turkish killings of armenians, presents the concepts of dar al-harb (region of war), dhimmi (the special status of jews and christians in islamic empires), and jihad in a most ungenerous way, concluding that, “strictly speaking, islamic tradition envisages no such thing as genuine peace between faithful muslims and infidels” (p. 124). rubinstein, like kuper, relies heavily on bernard lewis’ work on islam. david patterson, who argues theologically that genocides have emerged in modernity because of the loss of a divine absolute in the european enlightenment, also sees nothing good in islam. qur’anic sources, he argues, do not reveal counterweights to power; hence, “in modern times, at least, the muslim world has produced no one comparable to mahatma gandhi or martin luther king, jr. what that world has produced is a discourse of rabid jewhatred, a notion of martyrdom defined in terms of murder, and an international network of studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): krondorfer r1-4 jacob, confronting genocide krondorfer r 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr terrorism” (p. 205). the growing literature on islam and democracy and islam and human rights is, it seems, willfully ignored. many of the contributions do not present primary research but build their arguments upon secondary literature. in itself, there is nothing wrong with such an approach as long as one analyzes the existent literature for how it takes account (or fails to take account) of religious motives and motivations, or if one aims at ethical and theological reasoning on the basis of available publications. in the case of confronting genocide, the lack of primary research has led to a loss of originality in some chapters. for example, too many contributors adopt rwanda as their case study, without adding too much new insight. james moore, stephen haynes, paul bartrop, donald dietrich, john pawlikowski, and carol rittner refer to rwanda, but not a single entry addresses sudan, darfur, the congo, or the use of child soldiers in mass atrocities. moore’s chapter on the culpability of christian churches in rwanda is especially problematic. claiming that liturgical texts (especially easter hymns) contribute to the justification of genocidal killings, moore repeatedly states that his “analysis is purely suggestive” (p. 71) and “hypothetical” (p. 74), that “evidence is scant” (p. 70), and that more “empirical research” needs to be done (p. 75). twice in his footnotes he feels the need to explain what his point is not (it is “not” to show “exactly how the churches were involved” [p. 75 n. 6] or to “demonstrate that the rwandan genocide was...impacted directly by the theology of the churches in rwanda” [p. 76 n. 8]). he cites hymns of american protestant churches at length but admits that he had no “access to the additional liturgical texts that were used” at the easter celebrations in rwanda four days before the organized killing spree that started in april 1994. his chapter is based on conjectures and speculations but, as we know, these neither can count for evidence nor can replace a scholarly thesis. stephen haynes’ essay on rwanda, on the other hand, makes good use of the secondary literature in pondering how problematic it is to relate the events in rwanda to the holocaust. any attempt at easy comparison might fail to account for the racial dimension of the african genocide, for the relatively swift arrest of hutu perpetrators (christian clergy among them), and for the general difficulty that white christians have when including africa on their religious and “mental map” (p. 190). in addition to haynes and rittner, other chapters are worth the purchase of the book: paul mojzes’ excellent explanation of the balkan wars and the differences between ethnic cleansing and genocide (mojzes, though, has little to say about religion); henry knight’s midrashic play with biblical amalek as the mythological figure of irredeemable evil; gary phillip’s analysis of the links between national trauma, religion, and atrocities in the case of kosovo; and john pawlikowski’s critical appraisal of catholic social teaching on the holocaust and the lack thereof with respect to genocide. several chapters, however, are missing notable new insights. donald dietrich’s piece on the holocaust and the catholic church, for example, is a mosaic of short reflections on nostra aetate and johannes metz’s thought (as read through sarah pinnock’s work), followed by a short appeal to the church to take responsibility in rwanda and a brief summary of robert schreiter’s work on reconciliation. zev garber’s chapter on “terror out of zion” offers a brief analysis of (mis)appropriations of biblical prooftexts to support zionist claims, but the case study he offers on rabin’s assassination has been published previously. chris mato nunpa’s chapter on the genocide of native americans is, unfortunately, not so much an argument as a pastiche of various “scripture related” (p. 47) quotations that illustrate the racism and colonialist attitudes of white (christian) people in their encounters with the indigenous population in the united states. there are minor editorial slips, such as double entries for the same reference (e.g., bruce johansen, ecocide [p. 62] or bat ye’or, the decline [p. 136]). also, a final updating on current events might have been good: the accused war criminal radovan karadzic, for example, is still studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): krondorfer r1-4 jacob, confronting genocide krondorfer r 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr listed as a fugitive, when, as a matter of fact, he was arrested in july 2008, a year before the anthology was published (p. 173). in sum, confronting genocide contains a number of very good chapters, but this reviewer wishes the anthology had identified a broader spectrum of contributors among religious studies scholars and theologians, applied a more rigorous standard for accepting submissions, and included more up-to-date primary scholarship on geographically more widely spread genocides. scjr 18, no. 1 (2023): 1-3 olivier rota les catholiques anglais et la “question juive”: d’une approche politique à une approche spirituelle (paris: les éditions du cerf, 2021), 672 pp. lawrence frizzell lawrence.frizzell@shu.edu seton hall university, south orange, nj 07079 this work by olivier rota, a scholar well-known for studies in catholic-jewish relations in europe and israel, began as his “habilitation à diriger des recherches.” he is now a professor in the catholic university of lille, france. in his study, rota examines how the english catholic minority developed its relationship with the jewish minority in the modern period. he begins with a background of english catholics’ views of jews. for a long time, british historians neglected or minimized the existence of antisemitic currents in england. however, phrases such as the “jewish problem” or the “jewish question,” which emerged in germany during the first half of the 19th century, appear frequently in the period from 1917 to 1960 in political and missionary fields and then in spiritual and theological areas (10). this illustrates the trend toward a reorganization of values in society that placed jews in a situation of symbolic exclusion. they had been integrated in european nation states but then they were reproached for preserving bonds of particular and especially extranational solidarity. in a catholic milieu jews were accused of nurturing interests contrary to those of the church (21). emancipated in england after the catholic emancipation in 1829, jews were never threatened by a later reduction of their civil or political freedoms. the jewish population in london grew from 45,000 to 135,000 between 1881-1900. the older jewish community tried to help the migrants from czarist russia to assimilate. although strongly assimilated, jews continued in the popular imagination to be associated with negative traits that distinguished them from the rest of the national population (26). however, compared with the continent, english anti-jewish prejudices did not take on the passionate character that was its characteristic in europe from 1880-1950 (33). one false stereotype was that english christians thought that few jews volunteered to join the british army during the boer war or world war i. frizzell: olivier rota’s les catholiques anglais et la “question juive” 2 conscious of the difficulty for the historian to explore such a multiform hatred, rota tries to show “in what way the definition of antisemitism advanced by hilaire belloc, [g. k.] chesterton and in a wider way by english catholics subverted its habitual acceptance in england.” he is thus “interested in the antisemitic theses of belloc and g. k. chesterton, and in the role played by cecil chesterton, gilbert’s brother, in the structuring of these theses” (75-76). rota begins by considering efforts by them and other english catholics to discuss the “jewish question” reasonably and to find a solution before those whom they called “the antisemites” would force an unjust and brutal solution. he considers how their “definition of antisemitism… subverted its habitual acceptance in england” (75-76). belloc and g. k. chesterton distinguished their position from that of promoters of hate. for these two, one should not confuse “antisemitism” (understood as hatred of jews), on the one hand, and the legitimate examination of what people had begun to designate discreetly as the “jewish question,” on the other. but by doing this, they legitimated certain questions about jews and an antisemitic discourse. belloc posited that jews dominated in finance, information, and secret societies. in response to the “abnormal” situation of jews, he was aware of two solutions: a liberal approach (absorption into the national body) or an antisemitic approach (exclusion, which was promoted by antisemites on the continent). instead, belloc, in 1911, preferred a third, which he called “privilege,” which referred to segregation. one must see here a belief in jewish ubiquity and an expression of a fear of jewish “invisibility,” a common premise in conspiracy theories. belloc, however, did not claim there was a plot against the crown. though he read the far-right action française assiduously, belloc showed a certain reserve with regard to this french anti-jewish obsession. he did not believe that it was wise to exaggerate the power of freemasons and jews and thought that french priests made too much of this point. his denunciation of jewish money in british political affairs seemed above all to draw attention to a sick political system rather than a worldwide jewish conspiracy. when in july 1914 the new witness published such an allegation by frank hugh o’donnell, belloc promptly expressed his disapproval. in december 1919 g. k. chesterton visited palestine, recently occupied by the british army. in “new jerusalem” (1920) he envisaged the possibility of jews coming to zion, to jerusalem or elsewhere. behind this position was his criticism of liberal imperialism and international finance. he was preoccupied with maintaining the christian character of england (103). his writings in the 1920s were quite diverse, defending the underdog, whether this was the jews attacked by antisemites or the poor at the hands of jewish plutocrats. the solution to antisemitism was for the jews to have the dignity and status of a separate nation. rota devotes two chapters to palestine between the wars and the move from “the jewish question” to “the question of israel.” the latter includes development of a mission to the jews by the english “catholic guild of israel.” these two chapters are dedicated to responses to persecutions of the jews in the 1930s. cardinal arthur hinsley and the catholic hierarchy in england created the catholic committee for refugees to help jews fleeing from germany and austria. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2023) in chapter 6, “the second world war,” rota includes the developing collaboration of protestants, catholics, and jews in spiritual resistance to nazism. this led to the creation of the council of christians and jews. in chapter 7, “the long fifties (1945-1965),” he discusses international initiatives against antisemitism in 1946-1947, which had little involvement of english catholics. however, in 1954 the sisters of our lady of sion in london began to organize educational encounters between catholics and jews. this had a modest influence on english catholics to engage in interreligious relations. he discusses “the second vatican council and the work toward nostra aetate” in chapter 8, focusing on the four sessions of the council and giving detailed attention to the catholic press in england. the council inaugurated a silent revolution in the catholic church, leading to a dialogical posture that framed the relation between catholics and jews in a new light (as seen in his subtitle: “from a political to a spiritual approach”). in his “conclusion,” he returns to belloc, g. k. chesterton, and “the jewish question,” acknowledging the challenges that a historian faces when trying to penetrate the psychology of the period. the adoption of a dialogical posture after vatican ii promoted much more than a new face for catholicism. the council fostered numerous subterranean revolutions that appeared in the church for the following half century. nonetheless, a “culture of dialogue” did not resolve the tensions between ecumenism and conversion, evangelization and proclamation. it remains for catholics to respond to the question posed by rabbi israel mattuck in 1939: “may christianity consent that this other religion, this parent religion, has a valuable contribution to bring to the religious life of the nation?” as mattuck recognized, “this implies the negation of a traditional [christian] pretention to exclusivity” (583). this work offers a very thorough historical discussion of catholic-jewish relations in england and their impact internationally, especially in israel. it has 30 pages of texts in english where major themes are presented, plus a list of archives and other sources, a bibliography, and index of names. microsoft word 153905-text.native.1234812720.doc smiles, the blessing of israel smiles 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college the blessing of israel and “the curse of the law” a study of galatians 3:10-14 vincent m. smiles college of st. benedict and st. john’s university volume 3 (2008) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): smiles 1-17 smiles, the blessing of israel smiles 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 by his own testimony, paul was “circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of israel, the tribe of benjamin, a hebrew of the hebrews, as to the law a pharisee, as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness under the law beyond reproach” (phil 3:5-6). paul never lost his sense of what his heritage involved, but his harsh treatment of that heritage emerges in the next verses. “all such advantages,” he says, he now regards as “loss,” indeed even as “rubbish,” “for the sake of christ” (3:7-9). in both halves of his life, paul was something of an extremist. we do not know how old he was when, only three years or so (c. 33-34 ce) 1 after jesus’ death, he experienced the damascus epiphany which utterly transformed him. but we do know that for close to the next thirty years, until his death in rome under the persecution of nero (c. 63 ce), he ardently pursued his new call “to preach the gospel to the gentiles” (gal 1:16), and did so with all of the “zeal” that had characterized his earlier life as a pharisee and persecutor of the church (1:1314). paul’s conversion radically transformed for him the law in which he “had been raised by the strictest” standard (acts 22:3; 26:5; cf. gal 1:13-14). 2 by the time he wrote galatians (c. 54-55 1 the chronology of paul’s ministry and the dates of the letters are all somewhat uncertain. i am following a fairly traditional outline, but for more full discussion and some alternative views, see lüdemann, paul. 2 stendahl, paul, 7-23, insists on “call rather than conversion,” and he is correct that it was not a matter of paul going “from one ‘religion’ to another” (9). nevertheless, faith in christ changed paul’s perspective regarding aspects of his “former life in judaism” (gal 1:13). stendahl also stresses that paul exhibits no “remorse” (13) about his life in judaism, which is true, but again we cannot (no matter how we might wish) avoid seeing some severe “critiquing” by paul both of the law and of jews who, in his view, misinterpret it, as i hope to show. boyarin, radical jew, 272, n. 9, in line with the “gaston-gager hypothesis” (42), wants to avoid seeing paul as “critiquing some essential fault in the law or in the jews’ observance of it.” for boyarin, it was a matter, in the name of “universalization” (276), of paul “trying to extend [the law] to all folks” (272). i agree that paul had a strong interest in universalism, but the ce), he had already faced vigorous opposition to his law-free gospel in antioch and jerusalem (c. 48 ce; acts 15:1-29; gal 2:1-10), and then again in antioch. in antioch, he confronted the combined authority of james, cephas and “even barnabas” (gal 2:11-14). when he heard, therefore, that opponents of his gospel 3 had reached galatia he was probably not surprised, but he was bitterly disappointed that the galatians were entertaining their teaching (1:6; 4:12-20; 5:7-12). galatians is paul’s angry response both to this immediate crisis and to years of being questioned with respect to his teaching about the law. in his mind the issue was clear, but to this very day paul’s teaching on the law is a source of great controversy, not least because of a phrase like “the curse of the law” (3:13), found only in galatians. how we interpret paul will inevitably impact both our image of him in relation to judaism, and the role of his letters in contemporary christian-jewish dialogue. latter could only be established by exposing the fault of what stood in its way, namely, an insistence on “works of law” as definitive of the covenant. this does not mean, either on paul’s part or on ours, seeing ancient judaism as monolithically “a religion of ‘works-righteousness’ … in which meritorious works automatically earn one’s salvation” (43). it involves only the mundane observation that ancient judaism so identified covenant with law – as, for instance, deuteronomy shows – that the grace of the one was inextricably involved in the demands of the other. paul’s conversion at some point involved, in part, seeing “the grace of god” (gal 2:21) in antithesis to the law’s requirements of “works” (e.g., gal 2:16; rom 11:6), since such requirements suggest that god’s eschatological deed in christ was not of itself sufficient for “the salvation of everyone who believes, jew first, then greek” (rom 1:16). paul’s critique of works-righteousness was primarily aimed at jewishchristians and it remains applicable, in my view (speaking as a catholic), to attitudes and practices of both religions. 3 referring to “opposition” or “opponents” in galatia has become a little controversial, but in light of the history we can reconstruct, it strikes me as fully appropriate. on the history, see luedemann, opposition. for other views, see martyn, “law-observant mission” (who prefers the term, “teachers”) and nanos, “political context” (who prefers “influencers”). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): smiles 1-17 smiles, the blessing of israel smiles 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 as a phrase, “the curse of the law” is undoubtedly offensive, particularly, one imagines, to jewish ears; it is also difficult for christians. 4 but we do well to remember that paul derived the concept from deuteronomy 27-30, probably in response to his opponents’ teaching (more on this below) and that, in paul’s rhetoric, the phrase is deliberately paradoxical. on the one hand, paul cannot permit the law to exclude the gentiles from participation in the status of israel as god’s elect; but on the other hand, neither can he turn his back on the law, and even less can he turn his back on israel or disparage its divine election and covenant. interpreting paul’s critique of the law as an attack on election and covenant is, as i shall argue, one of the 4 gaston, paul and the torah, and gager, reinventing paul, have championed the view that paul’s teaching on the law was aimed only at gentiles; in gager’s words, “in all likelihood paul … is not speaking about the law as it relates to israel but only about the law and gentile members of the jesusmovement” (44, compare 58). this notion is ecumenically attractive, but: 1) historically it is highly unlikely that paul could have confined his message exclusively to gentiles (even, says gager, in jewish synagogues [51]). 2) though gentiles (as i will argue below) were paul’s primary audience, jewish-christian apostles instigated the debate about the jewish law, as gager properly insists. from this he concludes that the disputes had nothing to do “with jews or judaism outside” [“the jesus-movement”] (69). but paul is controversial precisely because he believed that all jews should accept christ and feared for their salvation, if they did not (rom 9:1-3; 10:1; 11:23). if gager were correct, it is difficult to understand why paul “five times received the thirty nine lashes” (2 cor 11:24) and why his life was threatened (acts 23:12-14). 3) most important, paul himself applies his teaching directly to critique of jews (e.g. rom 2:17-3:31; 9:31-32) and the law (gal 3:10-21) as well as to the needs of gentiles. paul says in rom 3:19 that “what the law says, it says to those in (under) the law, so that…the whole world might be held accountable to god,” and then immediately follows that with the explanation that “by works of law no flesh shall be made righteous before [god].” consequently, we cannot avoid paul’s inclusion of jews and gentiles under the one rubric. it may be impossible to remove the offensiveness, but it helps if we note that his teaching on the law does not amount to a rejection of judaism or the covenant (see the next note). serious missteps of recent scholarship on paul. 5 critique of the law does not, for paul, lead to denial of the covenant; careful nuance is required here. galatians is an intense letter, nowhere more so than in 3:1014. one of the most difficult aspects of the passage is whether "the curse of the law” applies only to jews or to both jews and gentiles. resolving this problem is crucial since it has everything to do with what paul understood “the curse of the law” to be and thus it affects the overall understanding of paul’s thinking about the law. the question, therefore, is of great concern to exegetes, especially where ecumenical concerns hover in the background of their work (see notes 6 and 7). if the curse, for paul, applied only to jews, then the sphere of the law’s dominion was quite limited. in such an interpretation, israel’s redemption from the curse was a necessary “intermediate step” for the salvation of the gentiles, since “christ through the cross redeemed israel from the curse of the law so that the blessing of abraham might come to the gentiles in christ jesus.” 6 fur 5 the credit for finally convincing christian scholars not to portray ancient judaism as narrowly “legalistic” belongs to sanders, palestinian judaism; see also paul, the law. it is, therefore, deeply ironic that, in his attempt to deny paul’s critique of works-righteousness, sanders ends up saying that paul “explicitly denies that the jewish covenant can be effective for salvation, thus consciously denying the basis of judaism” (palestinian judaism, 550-551, here 551; see also paul, the law, 46-47). this, if correct, would be a far more radical rejection of judaism (see also n. 17 below, and gager’s critique of sanders [reinventing paul, 46-49]). in my view, what sanders has failed to recognize is that paul separated the law from the covenant and, while affirming the latter, denied that the law was constitutive of the covenant. there is, in paul, a critique of works-righteousness (see n. 8), which is as applicable to christian failings as it is to those of judaism. i have set out my criticisms of sanders on this point more fully in smiles, gospel and law, 21-25 and 214216. the issue is complex and i will return to it in the conclusion below. 6 this is the thesis of donaldson, “the ‘curse of the law,’“94, 97; it is diametrically opposite to gager, reinventing paul, 88, who applies the entire passage to gentiles alone. donaldson enumerates at length scholars who favor an inclusive reading of “us” (3:13) and those who, like himself, read it as referring to “jewish christians exclusively” (97 and nn. 2-3). other scholars agreestudies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): smiles 1-17 smiles, the blessing of israel smiles 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 ther, an israel-only curse profoundly impacts how one interprets the phrase “works of law.” an israel-specific interpretation lends itself to “works of law” having to do with “nationalism” or with israel’s specific plight rather than (as i shall argue) with a critique of the law itself. 7 if, however, in paul’s thought, the curse applied to all humanity, then other perspectives are more possible, including that by “works of law” he thought also of “works” in general, 8 and that he regarded the law as having a universal reach such that gentiles also had to reckon with it. ing with donaldson include: boers, justification, 69 (also 74, 150), kruse, paul, 86-89, and boyarin, a radical jew, 136-145 (n. 143). dunn, epistle, favors an exclusive reading in 3:10 (172) but an inclusive reading in 3:13 (176). see also wright, next note. 7 wright, climax, 141, interprets 3:10-14 in terms of israel’s still being “under the curse of deuteronomy 29,” and thus he takes 3:10 to refer to israel “as a whole” being in “exile” (142, 146), and the “we” of 3:13 to refer to “jews” exclusively. this requires reading into the text a somewhat complex narrative for which there is scant evidence. for a full critique of this view, see kim, new perspective, 136-141. the primary advocate of the “nationalist” interpretation is dunn, beginning with his essay, “new perspective on paul.” i have set out my agreements and disagreements with dunn in this regard in smiles, “concept of ‘zeal’; see also n. 9 below. 8 erga nomou (“works of law”) is almost unattested prior to paul, but is an important phrase for the apostle in polemical contexts (rom 3:20, 28; gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10). its rare appearance in a qumran letter (4qmmt), on which, see martinez, dead sea scrolls, 77-79, shows that paul’s use of the phrase was not completely unprecedented. the phrase indicates that by nomos paul mostly has in view the mosaic (sinaitic) legislation, as is maintained by westerholm, perspectives, 298-300. the many instances where erga stands alone as an abbreviation of the whole phrase (rom 3:27; 4:2, 6; 9:11, 32; 11:6; see also eph 2:9) shows how important that word is for the meaning of the whole; it is the “works” the law requires that occasion the debate. that emphasis on “works” also shows that “works-righteousness” is a target of paul’s concern. further on this, see smiles, gospel and law, 119-120, and the insightful critique of the “new perspective” in this regard by kim, new perspective, 60-66, especially n. 212. gaston, paul and the torah, 100-106, interprets “works of law as a subjective genitive,” but for good reason the interpretation has been rejected; e.g., westerholm, perspectives, 313-314. the thesis although paul was well aware of jews’ being bound to the law in a unique way (e.g., rom 3:1-2; 9:4), he nevertheless instinctively thought of the law as having a claim on all humanity; the law not only held “promise” for the world, it also held “the whole world” to account (rom 3:20). 9 further, from his encounters with his opponents’ teachings, paul had come to view the law as a power of “the present evil age” (gal 1:4), to the extent that in galatians he turned his polemic not primarily against the “agitators” (1:7), but against the law itself (3:1520). the whole world, including the messiah himself (3:13; 4:4), came under the law’s curse, and the curse itself was complex, binding under its power both the transgressors and the obedient. such ideas required paul polemically to distinguish the law – specifically, the law of sinai – from the abrahamic promises and inheritance, and thus also from god’s action in christ. 9 dunn, new perspective, 29 and n. 108, and 417 and n. 19, criticizes my view that in galatians paul contests “the law’s claims upon the entire world” (gospel and law, 126). he provides no specific reason for this criticism, but it occurs as part of his defense of “works of law” as the works “by which judaism distinguished itself and kept itself separate from the (other) nations” (new perspective, 28). in line with this criticism, he claims that i set “‘social’ and ‘theological’ interpretations in antithesis” (29 and n. 112, with reference to gospel and law, 125-128). this claim is inaccurate, and dunn’s failure to capture what i wrote is symptomatic of his failure to grasp the weakness of his overemphasis on “nationalism” as the way to understand paul’s statements on the law. i agree with dunn that circumcision, sabbath and food laws functioned as “boundary markers,” and that paul rejects separatism. but behind separatism lies the belief that the law grants a status before god to which gentiles can attain only by obeying the law. since the galatians are close to accepting this belief, that is the point paul must refute. what the law affirms about jews is not a problem for paul, but what, in the opponents’ teaching, it denies about gentiles, is the problem – namely, that unless they obey the law, they cannot be included in the promise. romans 14 shows that paul had no problem with the law as a boundary marker, but he rejected the notion that the law determines the basis of the divine-human relationship. the law’s role for both jews and gentiles – thus for the “entire world” – was paul’s concern. the social function of the law (as a “boundary marker”) is one thing, the theological implications of requiring obedience to it are another. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): smiles 1-17 smiles, the blessing of israel smiles 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 such a turn against the law itself was deeply paradoxical, since paul, of course, had to appeal to the law – in the sense of graphe (“scripture”) – to make his case. small wonder that paul’s teaching on the law is so complex and difficult. in any event, it is crucial to recognize that paul separates the law from the covenant; his critique of the former does not involve rejection of the latter. this thesis requires careful exegesis of galatians 3:10-14 and its context. this includes, importantly, the wider context of how paul viewed gentiles in relation to the law prior to his damascus experience. it is this that shows how natural it was for him, even as an apostle, to think of gentiles as also being subject to the law’s curse. gentiles and the law in paul’s pre-conversion period as many studies have shown, jewish attitudes toward gentiles in ancient times were very diverse. 10 paul’s own language suggests that he originally belonged well toward the negative, separatist edge of that wide spectrum. in his letters he presupposes, as a point no one would argue, that the ethne (“gentiles”) are “sinners” who exemplify heinous immorality (e.g., 1 cor 5:1; 1 thes 4:5). paul continued to employ this language long after his conversion, long after he had worked extensively among gentiles and had come to interpret the scriptures in 10 e.g., donaldson, paul and the gentiles: 52-74; sanders, palestinian judaism, 206-212; idem, judaism: 72-76; bertram and schmidt, s.v. ethnos, ethnikos, theological dictionary, 364-372; fredriksen, “judaism, 532-564, esp. 533-548. ancient texts (both biblical and intertestamental) betray a wide spectrum of attitudes, from the most positive (ruth, jonah) to the most negative (jubilees). donaldson, paul and the gentiles, 295, recognizes that paul belonged within “the more stringent and zealous forms of pharisaism,” but then maintains, in light of gal 5:11, that paul “played an active role in the making of [full] proselytes” (296). the latter is not impossible, but dunn, new perspective, 417, n. 18, is correct to emphasize “the far weightier considerations which flow from the fact of paul’s ‘zeal’ as a persecutor.” terms of their inclusion within israel’s heritage (e.g., gal 3:8). in other words, he continued throughout his apostolic career – romans 2:14-15 notwithstanding – to presume that gentiles were the prime illustration of immorality. the most likely explanation for this would seem to be the zeal for the law and the separatist language that characterized his pre-conversion years. separatism, as i have maintained elsewhere, was motivated by israel’s desire – especially among the “zealous” – to maintain fidelity to the covenant and law of sinai. 11 zeal sometimes required separatism, whether from gentiles or from apostate israelites, in defense of the law. israel’s awareness of being distinct from the “nations” pervades both old testament and apocryphal texts, from genesis 34 to jubilees 30, 12 but exile and persecution increasingly fractured israel into groups with different responses to the realities of gentile domination. already in the early second-temple period, ezra and nehemiah were representative of jews who, in defense of the covenant and law, deemed it necessary to be separate “from the pollutions of the nations of the land” (ezr 6:21; cf. ezr 9-10; neh 13:23-31); other jews explicitly repudiated such separatism (1 11 see smiles, “concept of ‘zeal’,” especially 287-291. “separatism” is a preferable term to “nationalism,” because it matches the vocabulary of texts from lv 20:24 and ezr 6:21 (9:1) to 1 mc 1:11 and jubilees 22:16. paul clearly rejected separatism (e.g., rom 3:29-30; gal 3:28; 6:15), but dunn, theology, 69, goes much too far in thinking that separatism (his preferred term is “nationalism”) is what paul reacted against “in his conversion to faith in jesus” (69), and even that jewish motivation for torah-observance was “to keep themselves distinct from gentiles” (364)! on the motivation for lawobservance among jewish zealots, see smiles, “concept of ‘zeal’,” 291. 12 gn 34 and jub 30 both deal with the story of the rape of dinah by shechem and the sly revenge taken by simeon and levi. the contrast between the two interpretations of the story is very telling. both show awareness of israel’s distinctiveness, but whereas gn 34:30 could envisage a covenant between israel and shechem, jub 30 emphatically could not. the latter takes dt 7:2-6 very literally (“you must utterly destroy them, make no covenant with them and show them no mercy”). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): smiles 1-17 smiles, the blessing of israel smiles 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 mc 1:11-15). the crisis of 167 bce (1:41-62), however, drew clear battle lines between the separatists and the assimilationists, so that separatism ultimately obtained not only between jews and gentiles, but also among jews themselves. 13 in this context, for the separatists, gentiles represented the epitome of wickedness; the nadir of israel’s depravity was that they “followed [or exceeded] all the abominations of the nations” (2 chr 36:14; cf. 1 esdras 1:47). punishment at the hands of gentiles forcefully demonstrated the moral depths to which israel itself had sunk (e.g., ez 4:13; 22:15; 2 chr 36:1521; jub 23:23). the phrase, “sinners of the gentiles” (gal 2:15), echoes similar phrases in 1 maccabees (e.g., 1:34), 3 maccabees 6:9 (cf. 5:13) and jubilees (23:23-24; 24:28). jubilees envisages that the “judgments” and “curses” israel had suffered would ultimately fall on the gentiles themselves (23:30), and wisdom of solomon follows and develops further the leviticus theme (18:24-25) that it was the depravity of the original inhabitants of the “holy land” that caused them to be driven out and destroyed, “for they were an accursed seed (sperma gar en kateramenon) from the beginning” (wis 12:11). paul echoes this wisdom motif in romans 1:18-25. the new testament also blithely presumes that “gentiles” and “sinners” are synonymous terms (e.g., mt 5:46-47, cf. 18:17; lk 18:32 with 24:7, cf. acts 2:23; 1 pt 4:3), but no new testament writer more clearly echoes this notion than paul (1 thes 4:5; gal 4:8-9; 1 cor 5:1; 12:2; rom 2:14; 9:30). his usage of the terms israel, laos (“people”) and ethne echoes faith 13 elliott, survivors of israel, adduces abundant evidence showing that “traditional national views of israel’s election” were much in decline in secondtemple judaism and were largely replaced by factionalism (i.e. separatism within israel) and notions of “individual judgment” (here 73, and see 57-113 and 203-207). fully the lxx’s usage, which in turn reflects the masoretic text. 14 a telling example is paul’s usage sixteen times of israel. no instance includes gentiles, 15 showing that, in spite of his long gentile mission, paul never lost his awareness of the distinction between israel and the rest of the world. in romans 9:25-26, however, paul applies to gentiles the words of hosea 2:23 and 1:10, to the effect that gentiles in christ are raised to the laosstatus of israel. apart from christ, gentiles could never be “offspring of abraham, heirs in accordance with [the] promise” (gal 3:29). that god has enabled gentiles to receive “righteousness” in large measure constitutes for paul the eschatological scandal over which, he believes, unbelieving israel has stumbled (rom 9:30-33 with 10:10-13). 16 ephesians is succinct: “the mystery of christ” is that “the gentiles are coheirs, members of the same body and sharers in the promise” (3:3-6; cf. 2:11-22). 17 14 see smiles, gospel and law, 109-115, especially 109, n. 11. in brief, the vocabulary of the hebrew texts, followed closely by the lxx, demonstrates vividly israel’s awareness of its distinctiveness from other nations. e.g., hebrew am (“people”) is consistently reserved for israel (e.g., ex 1:20; nm 11:29), though the plural (amim) is occasionally used of gentiles, who are otherwise always designated goyim. the lxx nearly always translates am as laos, and goyim as ethne, and the new testament consistently follows the lxx’s usage. 15 gal 6:16 is a special case, and might be inclusive of gentiles. for discussion, see das, paul and the jews, 44-46; sanders, paul, the law, 173-174, and smiles, gospel and law, 112 and n. 20. 16 the “stone of stumbling” (rom 9:33) is christ, but what makes him such a “scandal” is that he is “lord of all,” eliminating “the difference between jew and greek” (10:12). 17 martyn, galatians, 349, 350, based on 3:16-20, maintains that until christ “god’s promise to abraham remained in a docetic, unembodied state”; in other words, that in galatians paul repudiated any “belief in the divine election of the ancient people of israel.” this is an even stronger version of sanders’ view that “paul denies the jewish covenant,” which i have already rejected (n. 5 above). as martyn knows, romans “several times refers to israel as god’s people” (350), but this means that he has to posit a dramatic change of mind on paul’s part between the two letters. but galatians does not require such a radical interpretation – quite to the contrary! it is the law paul sepastudies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): smiles 1-17 smiles, the blessing of israel smiles 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 this all suggests that in the time of his persecuting the church paul had a very negative, separatist attitude toward gentiles and, indeed, toward jews who – whether because of gentiles or for other reasons – compromised the covenant and the law. this survey also suggests that zealous jews, such as paul, could readily describe gentiles as “an accursed seed” (wis 12:11). even as he dictates romans 1:18-32, paul continues to assume that idolatry, the prototypical gentile sin, inevitably leads to other sorts of gentile “uncleanness.” furthermore, he continues to take it for granted – a presumption that adds considerable complexity to his theology – that the jewish law, though not the means to righteousness, articulates “the righteous demand” of god (rom 8:4), exposes humans as sinners (3:9-20), and provides instruction for the life of faith (15:3-6). in other words, paul brought into his apostolate presumptions about gentile sin versus the demands of the law that he never abandoned. it was by the measure of the law that “all, both jews and greeks,” were exposed as sinners (3:9-18); “we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law (hypo nomon), so that every mouth might be silenced, and the whole world held accountable to god” (3:19). the context of galatians 3:10-14 the context of our passage strongly suggests that paul has primarily the galatians in mind as he turns to consider those who are ex ergon nomou (“of works of law”). in 3:1-6 he directly addresses the “foolish galatians” and rebukes them by asking whether they “received the spirit by works of law or by the hearing of faith.” in 3:7-9, with the aid of genesis 12:3 and rates from god and the covenant, not israel’s election (especially if 6:16 refers to jews – n. 15 above). christ alone, as the “singular seed” (gal 3:16), is the goal of the promise, in that he is the way it reaches “all nations,” but this does not require any denial of israel’s “divine election.” more on this below. 18:18, he applies explicitly to gentiles the general principle that “those who are of faith (hoi ek pisteos) are children of abraham.” 18 it is, therefore, inherently probable that in 3:10-14 he is describing what he believes to be true of believers in galatia (5:2-4). the notion of some interpreters that suddenly the galatians are not in view and that paul is thinking only of jews requires an unlikely interpretive leap. in 4:21 paul rebukes the galatians for their desire to be “under the law.” at other points, he refers to that desire (3:1-5; 4:8-10; 5:2-4). these considerations make it more than likely that hoi ex ergon nomou (“those relying on works of law”) refers to the galatians, and their fascination with the law. however, some understand the context to require that hoi ex ergon nomou describes only jews. donaldson, for example, proposes the thesis that “the redemption of israel” is “a prerequisite for or condition of…the blessing of the gentiles.” 19 in dis 18 hays, faith of jesus christ, 172-3, suggests that ek pisteos in 3:7, 9 is “an allusion to hab 2:4,” and anticipates paul’s quotation of that text in gal 3:11. thus, hoi ek pisteos primarily connotes not “those who have faith” but rather “those who are given life on the basis of christ’s faith.” this is ultimately unconvincing. among several problems, it does not account well for ek pisteos in 3:8 which holds 3:7 and 9 together, and which obviously echoes abraam episteusen in 3:6 (quoting gn 15:6). further, a focus on “the religious disposition” of faith in 3:1-15 need not be seen as in “contradiction” (171) with the christological focus of 3:16-29. as 2:16-21 shows, human faith (episteus amen) leads to incorporation with christ (2:19-20); faith involves participation in all that christ does and accomplishes. hays’ somewhat tortured exegesis is occasioned by his insistence on the “faith of christ” as the only way to understand pistis christou. donaldson, “curse of the law,” 101-102, mostly favors hays’ exegesis. 19 donaldson, “curse of the law,” 94 (see n. 6 above). the apparent contrast, in support of this, between “us” (3:13a) and “the gentiles” (3:14a), which donaldson cites (97), is not decisive and is considerably weakened by the “we” of labomen (“we might receive”) in 3:14b, which, as even donaldson acknowledges (98), includes both jews and gentiles. if paul intended to say, as donaldson avers, “christ redeemed us (jews)…in order that (hina) abraham’s blessing might come to gentiles,” then the second hina of 3:14 (“in order that we might receive…”) would seem to be introducing yet a third step in the salvific process (the reception of the spirit by both jews and genstudies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): smiles 1-17 smiles, the blessing of israel smiles 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 cussing the context of the passage, he correctly notes that in 3:10-14 “paul is replying to the argument of his judaizing opponents that some form of torah observance…was mandatory for any who wanted to be included among the ‘sons of abraham’.” 20 in this, he follows standard descriptions of the situation in galatia that occasioned the letter’s composition. in this view, the threat paul perceives is that the galatians are being persuaded to follow the law, because they are afraid that paul’s law-free gospel, focusing only on christ’s redemptive death and resurrection, is insufficient. donaldson’s next sentence, however, departs from this context and misses the point of the passage completely. “in other words,” he says, “the status of uncircumcised and unbelieving gentiles is not under dispute here; they do not enter the picture at all.” 21 but why mention “unbelieving gentiles”? of course “they do not enter the picture;” tiles). this is unlikely in itself, and it separates “the blessing of abraham” from “the promise of the spirit,” terms that, for paul, were synonymous, as 3:1-9 shows (on this, see martyn, galatians, 317). note also the parallel, and synonymous, phrases in 3:23-25 and 4:3-5 that donaldson (98) also wishes to see as separate moments in the redemptive plan, again by distinguishing “us” as jews from “us” and “you” as both jews and gentiles. stendahl, paul, 1822, attempts the same distinction with respect to 3:23-25. the scheme is weak in itself, and romans 5:12-6:23 (especially 5:12-13, 20; 6:14-15), presupposing that sin, death and law are universal powers from which christ rescues all humanity, presents a considerable challenge to it. donaldson’s attempts to answer the challenge (“curse of the law,” 96) are less than convincing. it is clear that paul sees god as working through israel for the salvation of the gentiles, and through the gentiles for the salvation of israel (rom 11:11-32). donaldson overstates the case when he says that “christ redeemed israel so that the gentiles might be blessed” (98). 20 donaldson, “curse of the law,” 97 (emphasis added). his prior sentence misses an important nuance and begs the question. he says that “those subject to the curse from which christ offers redemption…are to be seen as torah observers in particular.” actually, hosoi ex ergon nomou is best translated, “those who rely on works of law” (see donaldson, paul and the gentiles, 181, and n. 27 below), which easily includes gentiles. of itself, observance (whether of jews or gentiles) neither incurs the curse nor brings deliverance from it. 21 donaldson, “curse of the law,” 97. paul’s concern is with the believing uncircumcised galatians. it is their status that is the point of the dispute. this obfuscation causes donaldson to exclude from consideration precisely the group who are central to paul’s concern. 22 further, donaldson sees 3:10-14 as analogous to 2:15-17 where paul distinguishes “jews by birth” from “sinners of the gentiles.” paul reintroduces, says donaldson, “a distinction between jewish and gentile groups” in 3:10-14 in support of “the thesis” in 2:15-21. 23 this presupposes that the distinction between “jews by birth” and “sinners of the gentiles” (2:15) was introduced by paul as an idea he wished to defend. in fact, however, the distinction had been introduced by peter in antioch (2:11-14) and was something, with respect to life “in christ,” that paul abhorred (3:28; 5:6; 6:15)! 24 paul’s “thesis” in 2:15-21 – at least its negative edge – is that “no one is made righteous by works of law.” he thereby aims to expose peter’s 22 just previously (”curse of the law,” 96), donaldson contrasts hypo nomon (“under law”) with hypo ta stoikeia tou kosmou (4:3, 9; “under the elements of the world”), averring that only the latter applies to “all human existence apart from christ.” but this ignores the context of galatians where gentile desire to be “under [the] law” is the whole issue. ironically, donaldson correctly says, “no doubt paul would agree that unbelieving gentiles are under a curse as well; but that is not his point here” (97). this, of course, is true, but donaldson misses what the point really is – believing gentiles, who are in danger of “turning back” (4:9) and incurring the curse all over again. 23 donaldson, ”curse of the law,” 97. 24 in defense of the view that “under the law” does not apply to gentiles, donaldson, paul and the gentiles, 182-184, argues at length that the “distinction” between jew and gentile was of “continuing significance for paul” (182). of course, i agree with this, as indicated above. but it is crucial to distinguish between when paul maintains the distinction (e.g., rom 1:16; 9:30-32) and when he insists that it does not exist (e.g., rom 3:22-23; 10:12). the former represents paul’s conviction of the primacy of the covenant (“apart from the law” – rom 3:21) and thus the special status of israel (3:1-2; 9:4; 11:28-29), but the latter represents his view that israel’s status (which gentiles come to by faith) has nothing to do with the law, and thus jews and gentiles alike attain to the covenant only by grace and by faith (rom 9:16); all alike are “sinners” in the sense of utter dependence on divine grace. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): smiles 1-17 smiles, the blessing of israel smiles 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 “distinction” between jews and gentiles as an illusion, in that all alike are “sinners” (2:15-17). 25 stated positively, by baptism “into christ…there is no longer jew nor greek,…you are all one in christ jesus” (3:28); “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but only new creation” (6:15). it makes nonsense of 3:10-14, therefore, to claim, as donaldson does, that it supports the thesis of 2:15-21 by distinguishing jews from gentiles. it would be truer to say that 3:10-14 supports 2:15-21 by doing the opposite, “for all 26 who rely on works of law are under a curse.” “the curse of the law” in galatians 3:10-14 the investigation thus far suggests that paul brings into his apostolate ideas about gentiles as prototypical “sinners” who stand under the condemnation (curse) of the law, and that he has become convinced that the law indicts jews also as sinners: “scripture confined all under sin” (gal 3:22; cf. 2:17; rom 3:23; 11:32). writing to the galatians, he fears that they are in danger of capitulating to the judaizers’ pressure for them to become law-observant. in this context – and keeping context in the foreground is crucial for interpreting this passage – paul needs to demonstrate to the galatians that their “desire to be under law” is disastrous (5:2-4). to this end, he must also undermine the strong point of the judaizers’ position: their ability to cite scripture’s commands that the law must be obey ed. thus, it is not enough for paul to turn his invective on the judaizers; his primary target has to be the law itself (3:15– 4:11). this means that in 3:10 paul is not merely speaking 25 on the conditional clause of 2:17 as a “fulfilled” condition, intending to say that “we” (peter, paul, jewish and gentile christians) “were [indeed] found to be sinners” when “we came to faith in christ,” see smiles, gospel and law, 152-154 and n. 108. 26 on hosoi here denoting the “‘uncertainty’ or ‘potentiality’” of the group in question, see stanley, “‘under a curse’,” 481-511, here 498 and n. 51. however, stanley’s doubting (498) “[w]hether paul had the jews in mind at all” in 3:10 – the diametrically opposite position to donaldson – goes too far. about jews and gentiles who ascribe what he regards as an inappropriate primacy to the law; he is also speaking about the law and how it functions in the world as a power of oppression when interpreted as his opponents do. the latter theme becomes explicit in 3:11-21 where he separates the law from the promises, the covenant and christ. quite typically, he begins his argument with its conclusion: “those who rely on works of law are under a curse.” 27 grounded in the climactic curse of deuteronomy 27:26, paul’s pronouncement functions as “a threat” at the very least to any who might contemplate placing themselves under the law by accepting circumcision and other commands. 28 paul, however, is describing more than simply a threat. “the curse of the law,” for him, denotes the law as a power of “the present evil age” (1:4), to which believers must “die, in order to live to god” (2:19). 29 “the curse of the law” is more than an epithet 27 “rely on” (rsv) or “depend on” (nab) is regularly employed in translating this verse, though the verb as such does not occur in the greek text. bonneau, “paul’s argument,” 73 and n. 33, rejects “rely” on the grounds that it is not in the greek and it suggests that “one seeks justification by accomplishing the law’s requirements.” yet he characterizes paul’s opponents (quite rightly) as “those who believe that one must observe the works of the law in order to be justified” (75). further, in rom 2:17 paul describes his opponents as “relying on law” (epanapaue nomo) and in phil 3:4-6 “trusting in flesh” is synonymous with “having my own righteousness from law.” reliance on lawobservance for proper standing is characteristic of many religions, not only conservative jewish-christianity. 28 on 3:10 as a “threat,” see martyn, galatians, 311, and stanley, “under a curse,” 501. on the other hand, stanley seems to see the curse only as a “potentiality” (509) as though paul did not see it as realized. however, 3:13, in conjunction with 4:4-5, suggests that for paul the power and curse of the law were very real (see also 2:19-20). martyn, galatians, 308, rightly speaks of “the law with which [the teachers] frighten the galatians,” but which also falls on “these persons themselves.” thus, “the human dilemma consists at its base, not of guilt, but of enslavement to powers lying beyond the human being’s control.” 29 thus wright, climax, 145, misses the point when he suggests that, because of “the remedy of repentance” and the “sacrificial system,” paul could studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): smiles 1-17 smiles, the blessing of israel smiles 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 paul slings at the opponents’ teaching. this becomes apparent, first, in his statement that christ was “born of a woman, born under law” (4:4), meaning that subjection to law was an aspect of human bondage to “the elements of the world” (4:3, 9). 30 this coheres with paul’s view of the law as an enslaving power, which is quite evident in galatians (2:4; 3:23-4:9; 4:22-5:1, 13). secondly, the reality of the curse is apparent in paul’s presenting the opponents themselves as victims of the law’s power to deceive. already, in 2:15-17, paul has intimated that the judaizers, like peter and the rest in antioch (2:11-14), suffer from the illusion of privilege in the law, believing themselves to be at an advantage over against “sinners of the gentiles.” “in christ,” however, “even we (jews) were found to be sinners” (2:17), no less than the gentiles. “righteousness by faith in christ” disclosed the illusion of righteousness “by works of law” (2:1621). 31 not have maintained that the law held a curse over the head of the disobedient. for paul, even if a person never needed the atonement-system, obedience could never amount to righteousness, since no such law existed (gal 3:21). with or without the law “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god” (rom 3:23; see 2:12); the law exposed and condemned human wickedness, it could not remedy it. 30 donaldson, “curse of the law,” 96-97, tries to refute the thesis of reicke, “the law and this world,” 259-276, that to be “under the elements of the world” is equivalent in this passage to being “under law.” donaldson attempts no detailed exegesis of 4:1-11, but appeals only to what he sees as “the natural meaning” of “under law” (97) and to the change of pronouns from 4:5a (“those”) to 5b (“we”). this is far from sufficient, since the latter, as donaldson knows (98) denotes “jews and gentiles,” as also must the “you” of 4:6a, the “our” of 4:6b, and the “you” singular of 4:7! the same critique applies to boyarin, radical jew, 143. the detailed exegesis provided by martyn, galatians, 390-392 and 393, n. 21, also his “comment #41” (393-406) shows the essential accuracy of reicke’s view. 31 martyn, galatians, 315, speaks of paul using the form of “textual contradiction…in order to show that the promise of lev 18:5 is a falsification of the gospel.” paul sees his opponents as lost in illusion, because they do not understand the law (cf. 2 cor 3:14-18), but he also blames the law itself for producing the illusion! in rom 2:17-19 (also 9:30-10:4), he shifts the blame for misunderstanding onto his opponents. paul’s fear that the galatians are falling under the same illusion is apparent at various points, particularly where he uses vocabulary suggesting “knowing” (as in 2:16a) and its opposites. in 3:1 he asks the galatians who it was that “bewitched” them and drew their gaze from the vision of the crucified. he then asks a series of questions, all of which have to do with the proper understanding of what they experienced in coming to faith and questions the law’s role in this process. this section climaxes in 3:7 with the conclusion, “you know, then, that those who believe (hoi ek pisteos) are abraham’s children” this direct address leads into paul’s declarative statements on what he sees as the true understanding of the law. in reality, the galatians’ “knowing” is awry; they seem to be in the process of accepting a view of the law that paul finds deeply troubling. what specifically concerns him is not that deuteronomy and other texts indict humans as sinful and as deserving of condemnation; that is a notion paul accepts and retains also in romans (3:9-20). nor is there good reason to believe that he sees the law as impossible to fulfill. 32 what concerns him is that the law – most specifically its mosaic legal requirements (see again n. 8 above) – has attained, by the “persuasion” of the opponents (5:8), the divine authority to define the covenant, the promises and “righteousness.” the very law, which paul himself quotes, is the most powerful weapon the opponents can use against his gospel. for the galatians, the law has become not merely an indictment of sinfulness, but also, unless they undertake its requirements, the condemning voice of god. this makes the law constitutive of the divine-human relationship. the apostle cannot permit such 32 not only does phil 3:6 call this into question, but so also does the fact that though such an argument was available (cf. acts 15:10), nowhere does paul employ it. on this, see martyn, galatians, 310-311; westerholm, perspectives old and new, 304, and smiles, gospel and law, 200-201. for a contrary view, see schreiner, law and its fulfillment, 44-50, and kim, new perspective, 141-143. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): smiles 1-17 smiles, the blessing of israel smiles 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 a notion to stand, since the essence of what he preaches is that god in christ has enabled “righteousness” by faith alone (2:1621; 3:1-6). for paul, the nature of the divine-human relationship is at stake. the power of the law to compel human obedience is what forces him to distinguish between the law as mosaic legislation, which makes that relationship (i.e., the covenant) dependent on law-observance, 33 and the law as “scripture,” which witnesses to the gospel (3:8) and demands the “hearing” of the galatians (4:21). the ability of the opponents to quote the law in order to enforce the law’s observance is what, in my view, explains paul’s difficult and contradictory quotations from scripture in these verses, beginning in 3:10. 34 on the face of it, deuteronomy (not only 27:26) contradicts paul’s entire thesis in galatians; it fa 33 on this perspective as an aspect of the mindset of jewish zealots, see smiles, “concept of ‘zeal’,” 291-292. watson, paul, judaism and the gentiles, 122, strives to maintain that paul’s “antithesis between faith and works does not express a general theoretical opposition between two incompatible views of the divine-human relationship. rather, it articulates the pauline conviction that the church should be separate and distinct from the jewish community.” thus, in galatians, paul’s arguments are not about faith versus works, but about seeking “to reinforce the barrier separating the church from the jewish community” (98). i agree that there was a de facto separation between the church and judaism, but this was more a phenomenon paul lamented than one he either wanted or needed to reinforce. more problematic for watson’s thesis, however, is the strong evidence, from deuteronomy through numerous later texts, that the covenant was seen as dependent on law-observance. on the latter, see das, covenant, 45-69. of course, paul himself insists on “doing” (e.g. gal 5:14; 6:7-10; 2 cor 5:10), but for him behavior derives from the spirit (“faith at work in love” – gal 5:6) and can only be defined in the context of the gospel. in that task the law as “scripture” provides “instruction,” but not ultimate definition (rom 15:4-5); see smiles, gospel and law, 244-251. 34 barrett, “allegory,” 6-7, is probably correct that this text and others were introduced into the debate not by paul but by the judaizers; see also martyn, galatians, 309. regarding the texts in 3:11-12, martyn, ibid., 330-331, thinks that both paul and his opponents employed “textual contradiction” and that paul anticipated their appeal to lv 18:5 against his use of hb 2:4. vors only the opponents, since it unequivocally makes the covenant dependent on the observance of its legal prescriptions (e.g., dt 27:1-29:1). paul responds, on the one hand, by contesting the meaning of particular statements. but, on the other, paul can only sustain his counter-interpretations by focusing on the cosmic and, indeed, the apocalyptic purposes of god: christ’s function as the eschatological redeemer (gal 3:23-25; 4:4-5) and the law’s positive (3:8) but limited role (3:21-25) in god’s plan of universal salvation. in 3:10 paul goes beyond affirming that all humans, whether jew or gentile, indict themselves as sinners when they disobey the law. universal sinfulness is a basic presupposition of paul’s theology and 3:22 confirms that paul has that in mind also here. in 3:10, however, his target is more human illusion about the law – specifically, the opponents’ teaching which the galatians are in danger of accepting, that obedience to the law (“doing”) is determinative of the covenant and thus of the divine-human relationship. paul’s affirmation, therefore, is that “all who rely on works of law are under a curse.” paul makes clear in 3:11-12 what it is that causes the illusion. whereas the law, properly understood as “scripture” (hb 2:4), establishes the divine-human relationship (“righteousness”) on faith, the law as sinaitic legislation (lv 18:5) has duped its devotees into thinking that “righteousness” is only possible by obedience to its commands. the law in the latter sense distorts the divinehuman relationship, deludes its adherents, and brings them not to “the blessing” of the covenant, which god had always intended, but to “the curse of the law.” this means that god’s verdict and the verdict of the law are not identical, 35 as is clear in 3:13 where paul omits hypo theou 35 this view is expressed clearly and effectively by burton, galatians, 164165; see also martyn, galatians, 312, 321. a contrary view is expressed by hübner, law, 39. hübner recognizes (38) that in 3:11-12 “a scripture quotation” (hb 2:4), which is “seen as the expression of divine truth,” is opposed to studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): smiles 1-17 smiles, the blessing of israel smiles 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 (“by god”) from the lxx text of deuteronomy 21:23; it was the law, not god, that cursed the crucified christ. 36 what has turned the tide against the law and its power to condemn is god’s action in christ. christ is the hermeneutical key, as paul sees it, for the true interpretation of scripture. but scripture itself – here is the heart of the paradox about the law in galatians – both witnesses to the truth of the gospel (e.g., hb 2:4) and provides the ammunition for the law to function as a power of condemnation (e.g., dt 27:26; lv 18:5). the law, which the galatians wish to be under, is also the law that, interpreted “correctly,” proclaims their liberation (4:21-5:1). hence, in 3:11-12, paul quotes scripture against scripture in service of illustrating this dual face of the law. on the one hand, the law reveals god’s design for salvation and is an ally of the gospel, but on the other, as manifest in the teaching of the opponents, it is a power of “the evil age,” a “curse” from which humans require rescue. paul proceeds in 3:11 to restate his theological thesis of 2:16 about justification through faith, but now he grounds the thesis in habakkuk 2:4, “the one who is righteous by faith will live.” 37 this verse recalls 2:16, but it also anticipates 3:21, that a “quotation from the law” (lv 18:5) which might be seen as “the expression of falsehood and deception.” but he rejects this possibility on the grounds that “the curse pronounced by the law in deut 27:26 is completely effective, and it is completely effective precisely because it is god’s curse, though of course pronounced by the law.” in order to maintain this view, hübner has to say that, for paul, “the authority of the law is so great that it is capable…of moving god himself to react to the stipulations of the law,” a notion to be found nowhere in paul’s letters. the law is a power, like sin and death, which god defeats in the death of christ (see n. 42 below) – in galatians, the cosmic power is the law. 36 that paul used the lxx text is apparent from his near-verbatim quotation and from the fact that only the lxx provides the link paul needs between dt 27:26 and 21:23 (using a form of [epi]katarasthai in both verses). on this, see martyn, galatians, 320-321, and 326. 37 in light of the contrast with “by law,” it is best to take “by faith” with “made righteous” rather than with “shall live.” fitzmyer, romans, 265, argues the the law was not “given to confer life;” the law’s purpose had always been more limited (3:19-25). paul envisages here the sharp antithesis between the claims of the law, as in the opponents’ use of leviticus 18:5, and the law’s true intent, as articulated by habakkuk 2:4. 38 but such use of scripture to counteract scripture only intensifies the paradox of the law, which on the one hand proclaims the gospel (3:8, 11; 4:21-31) but on the other arrogates power it does not have and so deceives its adherents. this dual, paradoxical character of the law is nowhere more apparent than in 4:21. “the law” which the galatians foolishly “desire to be under” is the oppressive law that deceives and enslaves (4:9); they must learn to “listen to the law” that witnesses to the gospel. as 3:12 will show, the law as a negative power promises what it cannot give and defies scripture’s true testimony that “righteousness” is “by faith.” “the law, however, is not based on faith;” its claim – a text undoubtedly quoted by the opponents – is that “the one who does them (viz. erga nomou) will live by them” (lv 18:5), 39 meaning that the law itself is the measure of righteousness. such a claim, as in the opponents’ preaching, demonstrates why paul, in this context, can think of the law as a power that illegitimately interposed itself between “the promises” to abraham and their fulfillment in christ (3:15-18). the law as graphe “proclaim[s] the gospel” (3:8) but when it claims to be the channel of “the inheritance” (ek nomou he kleronomia, opposite, since he thinks that paul must have followed habakkuk’s phrasing for whom “by faith” modified “shall live.” paul, however, did not follow exactly either the hebrew original or the greek (lxx) translation of habakkuk’s text; for paul, as fitzmyer knows well enough, the issue is how one attains to righteousness. martyn, galatians, 312-314, convinced of the “subjective genitive” interpretation of pistis christou (“faith of/in christ”), tries to have it both ways. 38 no distinction between “law” and “prophets” is operative here. 39 cosgrove, cross, 59 and n. 39, shows that lv 18:5 was widely used in second-temple judaism as a “common sentence-summary of the law,” which needed no citation-formula, as in gal 3:12 (cf. rom 10:5). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): smiles 1-17 smiles, the blessing of israel smiles 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 3:18), then it deceives its adherents. when its power extends to defining righteousness in terms of its own prescriptions (3:12), then its judgment no longer conforms with the judgment of god and it shows itself to be a power that must be defeated for the sake of human salvation. by its insistence on erga as defined by itself, the law distorts the divine-human relationship, arrogating to itself a normative power it does not have. 40 nevertheless, such power is being wielded in the world with devastating effect. from paul’s perspective – the opponents would completely disagree – the galatians are being seduced from their allegiance to christ (1:6; 5:2-4). 41 by placing themselves under the power of the law, both jews and gentiles become subject to its power of condemnation, its “curse,” which falls on both the obedient and the disobedient. it falls on the obedient, because the law cannot in fact “confer life” (3:21) and thus deceives them regarding “righteousness.” it falls on the disobedient in condemning their sinfulness, but also, again, by convincing them that the law’s commands are the norm of righteousness. the incarnation of this “curse of the law” is the preaching of the opponents. thus it is that in this letter, it is not “sin” (rom 6) or “death” (1 cor 15), but “the law” that is the power of “the evil age” from which humans require res 40 contra bultmann, theology, i: 264, this does not mean that “man’s effort to achieve his salvation by keeping the law only leads him into sin, indeed this effort in the end is already sin.” the polar opposite to bultmann, and also to be rejected, is wilckens, rechtfertigung, 92 that “only the one who fulfills the law perfectly will gain life thereby,” whereas in reality “all jews have sinned, so that the law curses them” (my translation). paul’s view lies between these extremes. the law neither defines nor confers righteousness, but the doing of the law, within the demands and freedom of the gospel, remains an essential aspect of the life of believers (rom 2:1-29; gal 5:14). 41 the opponents, of course, would maintain that faith in christ and obedience to the law are in perfect coordination. paul cannot permit this, because it requires gentiles “to become jews” (ioudaizein – 2:14), and thus compromises the eschatological power of grace and faith. cue. 42 “christ redeemed us” from that curse, says paul, by “becoming a curse for our sakes” (3:13), meaning that, as the crucified, he suffered the law’s condemnation and thereby, once and for all, broke that power, 43 so that “the blessing of abraham” was able to flow unhindered for both jews and gentiles (3:14). the motivation for paul’s strange view of the law paul’s complex portrait of a multi-faceted nomos has some counterpart in the wide range of meanings of torah within the tanakh and ancient judaism generally. there also, torah occasionally is parallel with “covenant” (berit), emphasizing god’s saving actions (e.g. hos 8:1; ps 78:10). on its own, it sometimes refers to the history of god’s loving kindness for israel (e.g. dt 1:5) or is itself (as a body of instruction) an instance of such love (dt 4:8). on the other hand, like berit itself, torah is also found in parallelism with terms denoting “statute,” “decree” and “law” (hoq, mizvah, mishpat; e.g. ex 16:28; 18:16-20; 24:12; lv 26:46), leading in the lxx to the translation of torah 42 romans seems to envisage that through adam’s disobedience, sin and death entered the world (rom 5:12) and the law “subsequently entered, so that transgression might increase” (5:20). prior to christ, all humans were “under [the] law” (6:14) and “slaves of sin” (6:17). through christ, humans are free from sin and law, but even now, outside of christ’s deliverance (7:24-25), sin’s power continues to use the law in its death-dealing campaign, though the law in itself “intends life” (7:10) and is “holy, righteous and good” (7:12). this scheme is not apparent as such in galatians; the only one of the trio that features here is the law, but its personification (most notably in 3:15-18) shows that also in galatians paul sees it as one of the powers (“the elements” – 4:3, 9) of the world. 43 it is difficult to know for sure how, in paul’s view, christ’s death broke the power of the curse. it does not seem to be a matter of propitiation or vicarious substitution. the best clue in the context is probably dia nomou (“through law”) in 2:19, where the law itself is the instrument of “my” death “to law,” and the closely related assertion, “i have been crucified with christ” (christo synestauromai). the law’s curse of the crucified, and thus of those “in him,” placed christ beyond the pale of the law, and thus set him, and them, free from it. for fuller discussion, see smiles, gospel and law, 170-172. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): smiles 1-17 smiles, the blessing of israel smiles 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 as nomos. paul, as already emphasized, sees nomos primarily as the mosaic legislation of sinai (n. 8 above), but he is also fully aware that torah has to do with covenant and grace (e.g. rom 3:21b; 9:4, 31). where he differs from the judaism of his heritage is in his stark separating of the torah of moses from the patriarchal covenant. what his heritage regarded as utterly inseparable, paul radically divided. this separation leads to his harsh portrait of the law, and it justifies john m. g. barclay’s description of paul as “an anomalous jew.” on the wide “spectrum of [jewish] voices…from the diaspora” paul is closest to that of “cultural antagonism;” he is “most at home among the particularistic and least accommodated segments of the diaspora.” 44 other jewish writers, such as aristeas, philo and wisdom of solomon, though fully conscious of the distinctiveness of jews within the gentile world, relate to that gentile world and present judaism to it in terms and modes of speech that show considerable sensitivity, even sympathy, with gentile beliefs and values. paul, on the other hand – even after years as “apostle to the gentiles” (rom 1:5; 11:13) – still largely sees the gentile world as “suppressing the truth with wickedness” (rom 1:18) and “on the way to destruction” (1 cor 1:18). this suggests that even while disqualifying the law of sinai as determinative of the covenant, he continues to understand god and the gospel he proclaims in terms of his former zeal for the law. but now he transfers his zeal to christ and argues vehemently that the law is christ’s witness; its true interpretation is to be found only in him (2 cor 3:14-16). for paul, christ should have meant the uniting of jews and gentiles (gal 3:28) around the law as graphe and covenant, while maintaining freedom over against its “statutes” and “decrees” (4:31-5:14). but other jews inevitably see such a path as an impossible betrayal of themselves as israel – where there is “no 44 barclay, jews, 392-393. difference” (rom 10:12; gal 3:28), neither is there identity. 45 hence, paul’s solution – tragically “aided” in later centuries by christian supersessionism and triumphalism – has always seemed like an utter betrayal of the covenant. even very recently, as noted above (notes 5 and 17; see n. 51 below), scholars have interpreted paul as denying the value of the jewish covenant, and even as rejecting the notion of israel’s divine election. in fact, however, paul denies neither the value of the covenant nor the reality of election. paul’s stress on “blessing,” “promise” and “inheritance” in galatians 3-4 exposes the weakness of such views. brendan byrne shows that kleronomia (“inheritance”) “overarches the whole discussion from [galatians] 3:15…to 5:1,” 46 and this is very evident in 3:29 which surprisingly sums up the gospel not as “belonging to christ,” but as being “abraham’s descendants, heirs (kleronomoi) according to [the] promise.” being “abraham’s heirs” corresponds to the galatians’ desire as they seek circumcision and law-observance (4:21; 5:2-4). paul would confuse the galatians and undermine his own argument, were he to suggest that the covenant was worthless or that until now there had never been an elected people. in the galatians’ context, what would be the point of such assertions? the exalted status of israel (its divine election and covenant) was a presupposition paul shared with the galatians and with his opponents; along with god’s action in christ, it was the foundation of his argument. sanders is partially correct, therefore, when he says that paul “denies that the jewish covenant can be effective for salvation,” but, as i see it, he is simultaneously incorrect at a crucial point. what sanders should have written is: paul denies 45 the problem of paul’s universalism as the inevitable (and impossible) abandonment of identity is powerfully worked out in boyarin, radical jew, e.g., 22-32. 46 byrne, “sons of god,” 189. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): smiles 1-17 smiles, the blessing of israel smiles 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 that the jewish covenant alone is effective for salvation. 47 for paul, all “the promises of god” have their “yes” in christ (2 cor 1:20); he is the one at whom all of “the promises spoken to abraham” were aimed (gal 3:16). israel’s election and covenant have in christ their ultimate affirmation, not their denial. israel, in that sense, is foundational for what christ means for the gentiles, since christ brings to effect the promise to abraham, “in you shall all the nations be blessed” (gn 12:3; 18:18; gal 3:8). for all of my disagreements with donaldson, therefore, i fully accept his general notion that, for paul, israel has a vital role in god’s plan for the salvation of the gentiles. christ, for paul, enfolds and brings to fruition for all nations – jews and gentiles – the divine election, covenant and promises of ancient israel. this does not rescue us – jews and christians today – from the agony of paul’s christ-exclusivism. paul did fear for the salvation of jews who refused to accept christ, since the “covenant alone,” as he saw it, is not sufficient for salvation. but if, in this year of paul, we wish to understand this anomalous firstcentury jew, we owe it to him to see that it was the demands of the law (the sinai legislation) that he repudiated, not the election or the covenant. and he repudiated the law’s demands in service of what he saw as the heart of the covenant from the beginning, that god had always intended its gifts to be universal. as far as paul was concerned, israel and its covenant existed for the same purpose as christ – the salvation of the whole world. no matter its failures in paul’s eyes, therefore, israel was “beloved” by god (rom 11:28); paul even assures us that “for the sake of [his] own people, his kindred in the flesh,” he would be willing “to be cut off from christ” (rom 9:1-3). in a 47 sanders makes this error, because he does not see that paul separated the law from the election and covenant; he consistently strings them together, as though in paul’s mind they all were one thing. see palestinian judaism, 551-552; paul, the law, 46-47. sense, paul was indeed apostate, but he was never judaism’s enemy. summary and conclusion prior to his call, paul belonged to the “zealous for the law” within judaism and as such held very negative views of gentiles, as well as of jews whose obedience to the law was not sufficiently strict. his call convinced him that god had made christ the means of salvation for both jews and gentiles, and thus for paul the revaluation of the law began immediately. 48 by the time he wrote galatians paul was already familiar with opponents who insisted that the law remained in full effect for believers in christ, including for gentiles (acts 15:1-5). the opponents in galatia were meeting some success in convincing those churches that they must become law-observant, including that the males must accept circumcision. it was now clear to paul that the opponents themselves were not the heart of the problem; it was the power of the law in the world that had to be addressed. his task was near impossible, however, since the very scriptures that paul himself quoted were the source that gave authority to the opponents’ claims. a difficult and sharply paradoxical portrait of the law is what emerges from paul’s struggle with this dilemma. on the one hand, as in romans, the law is the gospel’s ally that proclaims god’s plan and promise and exposes humans as sinners. on the other hand, the law has become a power in the world that, though not “contrary to the promise,” (in that it cannot “confer life” [gal 3:21]), it has masqueraded as though it could in fact do so (3:12). the law has deceived adherents and 48 i am agreeing here with the thesis argued at length by kim, new perspective, 35-53, here 51, that “paul derived his doctrine of salvation by god’s grace, through faith, without works of the law from his damascus experience and that he formulated it quite early.” kim’s critiques of donaldson and dunn on this point are quite telling. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): smiles 1-17 smiles, the blessing of israel smiles 16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 non-adherents alike into believing that it is the norm of righteousness and thus paul makes the law itself a direct object of attack. this latter emphasis is unique to galatians; in romans it is considerably softened. 49 the paradox of the law in galatians is, to a considerable degree, a matter of theological rhetoric – “rhetoric” in the sense that paul plays with mythical images and power-packed terms, in order to persuade his audience (“you who wish to be under [the] law, will you not hear the law?”). the danger, however, in describing paul’s language as “rhetorical” is the temptation to regard it as “mere rhetoric” and – especially since he withdraws from some of it in romans – to dismiss it, as though it had no lasting value. such a conclusion, in my view, would be tragic. luther overstated his case, but he was not wrong to see in his own struggle a reflection of paul’s, and to wrestle with the problem of the place of the law in human salvation. jews and christians alike, in various streams of both traditions, wrestle today with the question of the power of the law in the life of faith. paul did not, and could not, provide any definitive answer, but his ability to recognize both that the law is the authentic voice of god and that it can rise to become a power in its own right in opposition to god and, indeed, a power of oppression, 49 romans shifts the critique from the law to the law’s adherents and the power of sin in which they (like all humanity) are caught. a good illustration of the shift is romans 7 where paul emphasizes the law’s goodness (7:12) and that its intent is “for life” (7:10) and yet, in the presence of sin’s domination, the law ends up being an instrument of deception and death (7:11) through the awakening of “covetousness” and all manner of other “sins” (7:5-9). even in romans, therefore, coming to faith means being “severed from the law” (7:6; but see also 14:1-15:1). but whereas in galatians, it was the law itself that “added [an illegitimate] codicil” (gal 3:15-17) and caused the deception and illusion, in romans, the problem lies with sin and human weakness and with those who deal with the law “as though [it were a matter] of works” (9:32), thus “being ignorant of the righteousness of god” (10:3). in brief, romans blames sin and israel for the illusion of works-righteousness; galatians blames the law itself. for fuller discussion, see smiles, gospel and law, 230-244. provides essential food for thought both for those who too easily dismiss the way of the law and those who are overly enamored of it. 50 finally, it is important to distinguish carefully between, on the one hand, paul’s critique of the law and his rejection of works-righteousness and, on the other, his thinking about israel’s election and covenant. what he saw as the failures of jews – their misinterpretation of the scriptures (rom 9:32) and their “unbelief” (3:3; 11:20) – only confirmed in paul’s mind the mercy and fidelity of god. it was unthinkable that the covenant might be denied. to be sure, in the absence of faith in christ, paul feared deeply for the “salvation” of other jews (9:1-3; 10:1), but the covenant rests only on the fidelity of god (3:3-4), and “regarding election” israel remains “beloved, because of the patriarchs” (11:28). thus, paul’s fear for israel ultimately gave way to the hope and belief that somehow – in a way paul could not understand, much less describe – “all israel will be saved,” and the “covenant” will mean the “forgiveness of sins” (11:26-27). 51 paul separated the law from the covenant because his call “to preach [christ]” (gal 1:16) changed his understanding of 50 it is easy to understand why some scholars see paul as hopelessly confused and self-contradictory in his thinking about the law (e.g., räisänen, paul and the law, 11), but (as i have tried to show) such thinking is not necessary, and does paul no justice. 51 for a thorough discussion of romans 9-11, including a refutation of the “two-covenant” hypothesis, see das, paul and the jews, 78-113. generally i agree with das’ exegesis, but his espousal (106) of ruether’s quote from her faith and fratricide, 106, to the effect that “god has rejected the people of the mosaic covenant” (emphasis added), is unfortunate, since (like other aspects of ruether’s book) it goes too far at a crucial point. it flies in the face of what paul himself says (“god has not rejected his people…” – rom 11:2) and misses the nuance for which paul struggles. israel’s refusal of faith does not mean god’s rejection or lack of fidelity (rom 3:3-4); though it is not of itself salvific, “the covenant” will issue in “the forgiveness of sins” (11:27). see also next note. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): smiles 1-17 smiles, the blessing of israel smiles 17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 what the covenant, in its origins, was really all about. in his days as a zealot, he had identified the covenant with the law, but as an apostle he came to the view that the covenant had always envisaged the ultimate inclusion of the gentiles, and thus it had never been about “doing something, whether good or bad,” but was always about “god who has mercy” (rom 9:11-12, 16). the law (as sinaitic legislation) was never intended as the definition of righteousness or the covenant, and thus ultimately it had to be set aside, though its role as witness to the gospel (rom 1:1-2; 3:21; gal 3:8) and as torah (“instruction”) for the life of believers (rom 15:4-5; gal 4:21b) remained essential. israel’s election and covenant, however, paul never set aside – quite to the contrary. 52 most especially in romans, though still being emphatic regarding “not by works of law,” he emphasized the priority of israel (rom 1:16; 3:1-2; 9:4-5) and god’s unswerving fidelity to the covenant (9:6; 11:1-2, 28-29). 52 i think that gager, reinventing paul, 57, quoting from meyer, “romans 10:4,” 66, is completely correct to insist that “paul nowhere suggests that the way to obedience for the israelite lies in abandoning the torah;” in fact, romans 14:1-15:1 is very clear that believers in christ, jew or gentile, who wished to follow the law, were to be left in peace, as they in turn were not to “judge” those who did not obey all of its prescriptions. rom 14 makes the essential point: for paul, the law is not determinative, for jews or gentiles, of the covenant or salvation in the manner his opponents were claiming. even in galatians, paul presupposes the covenant, the promises and the inheritance (3:1-29) as the foundation on which the galatians can rely as the “blessing” god had intended also for the gentiles (3:8). any suggestion that the founding covenant had not been operative for jews would have called into question the value of “the inheritance” to which the galatians were aspiring. paul’s unhappiness with the galatians only had to do with the manner of their attempt to attain the status of being “abraham’s children;” he utterly agreed with them regarding what they wanted to attain (3:29). as he expresses it in romans, it was a matter of gentiles being “grafted onto” the vine of israel (rom 11:17). for paul, “the curse of the law” had to do with the law’s power to misdirect the human gaze from “the grace of god,” but in no way could it detract from the covenant, god’s undying blessing of israel. just how “all israel will be saved” was unknown to paul; we, of course, need not be so diffident. what can a modern jew believe? studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): berger r 1-2 review gilbert s. rosenthal w h a t c a n a m o d e r n j e w b e l i e v e ? (wipf & stock, 2007), 255pp. + index reviewed by alan l. berger, raddock family chair of holocaust studies, florida atlantic university over a half century ago, rabbi milton steinberg’s basic judaism, a learned yet accessible book, became a classic for those interested in the jewish religious tradition. steinberg’s book was read by contemporaries, both jews and non-jews. in addition to his command of the jewish material, the author had a firm grasp of christian philosophy and, especially, theology. despite the subsequent appearance of many other basic texts in the intervening decades, some of them quite good, steinberg’s book is still being sold and read. i mention this as background to rabbi gilbert s. rosenthal’s well written and sensitive response to the title query of his newest book, which may well attain the same status as steinberg’s text. rosenthal, who is executive director of the national council of synagogues, served as a pulpit rabbi for over three decades. his book combines the wisdom of the scholar with the insights of one who, like steinberg, was in the “theological trenches” and knows well what concerns his congregation when tradition seems under assault by modernity. the book, divided into sixteen chapters and an afterword, may be seen as an intelligent and sensitive discussion of jewish religion and how its main tenets can continue to address twentyfirst century jews. rosenthal cites jonathan swift’s satirical observation: “we have just enough religion to make us hate one another but not enough to love one another” (8). the author then proceeds to demonstrate that religion is far more than satire. the wisdom of the rabbinic dictum that the commandments are to live by is the unstated premise of rosenthal’s work. he contends that “it is not enough to ‘do judaism;’ it is essential that we [jewish people] ‘believe in judaism’” (xiii). contra the swiftian position, rosenthal discusses tikkun ha-olam, mending or repair of the world, as an eternally valid demand for social justice and activism. extra-biblical in origin, the idea of tikkun has undergone various meanings in the course of jewish history; in the talmud it refers to the protection of women from unscrupulous husbands. perhaps the two best known uses of world repair, however, are the lurianic kabbalah, where it is tied to the concept of elevating fallen divine sparks, and in the post-holocaust thought of the philosopher emil fackenheim that calls for a repair of the world, in so far as this is possible after death camps and crematoia. what can a modern jew believe? focuses on key concepts in judaism, describing how the meanings have been re-interpreted by various sages and in response to changing historical circumstances. furthermore, rosenthal distinguishes intra-denominational positions on the jewish theological map, writing with understanding about the differences between reform, conservative, orthodox, and reconstructionist judaism on key issues. consequently, rosenthal’s volume helpfully illuminates the constant tension between tradition and change present in any revealed religion. to take but one example, the concept of chosenness is still valid, attests rosenthal for several reasons: “it recognizes the unique contribution of this tiny speck of a people that spawned two major faiths” (77); ” it is “inspirational” in the jewish people’s ongoing engagement with tikkun ha-olam, mending or repairing the fractured world; the re-birth of the state of israel “added a new dimension to the ancient summons” (77). israel “must be different and extraordinary” (77), a light to the nations; and “election offers us a transcendent rosenthal, what can a modern jew believe? berger r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): berger r 1-2 raison d’etre for remaining jews in a gentile society even as it has inured us to withstand the pressures of paganism, christianity, and islam” (77). each chapter is enriched by two additional features. first, rabbi rosenthal, after discussing the history and transformation of the particular concept, states his own personal view on the topic. thus, the volume’s scholarly dimension is enhanced by the wisdom of the author, a modern jew, enlarging the text’s scope and contemporary relevance. second, every chapter concludes with a page of questions which rosenthal terms “points to ponder.” these points are guidelines to the reader and serve a two-fold purpose: helping her/him better understand the chapter and compelling a personal response to the points raised. rosenthal’s entire text can in fact be seen as an invitation to the reader to think seriously about her own perspective and, in so doing, enrich both that perspective and contribute to the continuation of the jewish tradition. consequently, this book is ideally suited both for classroom use and for the intelligent lay reader. although rabbi rosenthal contends that he is “not a theologian, [but] a rabbi and historian of ideas” (xi), his claim is too modest. rosenthal’s text, like that of steinberg, bears great theological import. he is personally committed to, and involved at a high level in, interfaith dialogue, having co-produced six film segments under the rubric “walking god’s path: christians and jews in candid conversation.” his chapter “how can jews relate to other faiths” offers a wealth of insight into basic ground rules for doing authentic interfaith work. after first noting some jewish thinkers who were years, sometimes centuries, ahead of their time in interfaith understanding, beginning in the ninth century and including the well known moses maimonides [died 1204] and franz rosenzweig [died 1929], the author offers important guidelines for authentic interfaith exchange. dialogue is not to be used as “a camouflage for proselytism” (215). rather, the key point in dialogue is communication. rosenthal emphasizes that “dialogue means conversation, not conversion, consultation, not confrontation (215). while reform judaism has taken the lead in interfaith dialogue, it is by no means alone in this effort. rosenthal approvingly cites the orthodox jewish thinker michael wyschogrod’s statement: “where there is communication there is hope, but where there is no communication, the very basis of hope is absent” (cited by rosenthal on p. 215). rosenthal is saddened by the lack of meaningful dialogue between jews and muslims. suspicion and mistrust have proven untenable, and bloody. dialogue and, by extension, trialogue between the abrahamic faiths may make us all worthy of god’s blessings. rosenthal does make certain claims the validity of which is questionable. two in particular i found startling. writing about prayer, he states that psychologically, “prayer puts us in touch with the transcendent, coupling us to the element of divinity in the universe” (126). this is true, but not exclusive. contemplating the beauty of zion national park or the grand canyon can also yield the same result. furthermore, prayer, especially as supplication, e.g., if you grant my wish, i promise to do . . ., is very far from appreciating divinity. in his chapter “are jews the chosen people?” rabbi rosenthal writes “but the suffering ennobles our people” (73). i believe that suffering is not ennobling. victims of the holocaust were not ennobled by being gassed and incinerated. they were martyred, but not ennobled. suffering is no guarantee of anything except suffering. but what can a modern jew believe? is an important book. the author distills a half-century of wisdom gained through serious study, scholarly writings, and, most importantly, living as a congregational rabbi committed to living life as a proud, knowledgeable, and practicing jew. this is the inheritance he wishes to pass on to successive generations of jews. his book is an excellent text to help accomplish his goal and, along the way, enlighten all people. rosenthal, what can a modern jew believe? berger r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 1 scjr 17, no. 1 (2022): 1-14 living with the enemy: why high priest joseph caiaphas was not a roman collaborator maurice ryan lumino@bigpond.com lumino press, brisbane, australia introduction a continuing challenge for biblical scholars and general gospel readers is determining how and why the jewish high priest joseph caiaphas was involved with the roman prefect pontius pilate in the arrest and execution of jesus of nazareth. over the past fifty years, the word “collaborator” has been used by many scholars as a convenient tool for discerning the relationship between the two men and as the key to unlocking the mystery of the involvement of caiaphas in this incident. many have argued that caiaphas collaborated with rome—in the person of pontius pilate—against the interests of his own jewish people and in pursuit of his personal agenda. despite minuscule evidence supporting the label, “collaborator” has been used as a condensed explanation for the motivations, intentions, and actions of caiaphas in relation to the arrest and execution of jesus of nazareth. this paper seeks to demonstrate that the identification of caiaphas as a roman collaborator in the arrest and execution of jesus of nazareth is inappropriate, inadequate, inaccurate, and ultimately damaging to relations between jews and christians. the word is an intrusion from outside the biblical tradition; it is inadequate and misleading in scholarly efforts to pinpoint the role of caiaphas; it does not fit the slender evidence concerning the relationship between these two men; it is so insufficiently precise in meaning as to be meaningless in this context; and its use requires modern commentators to see into the heart and mind of a man whose actual name is barely known to us. high priest joseph caiaphas as a remembered collaborator english-speaking scholars over the past fifty years have consistently presented joseph caiaphas as a collaborator with roman authorities, principally pontius pilate. the following representative examples provide a sense of the spirit of scholarly opinion on this issue. eugene fisher notes that caiaphas is “remembered ryan: living with the enemy 2 in jewish history negatively as a collaborator with rome.”1 craig evans identifies “pilate’s jewish collaborators–caiaphas and his priestly associates.”2 barbara reid locates caiaphas in luke’s account of “the ubiquitous presence of roman emperors, governors, tetrarchs, proconsuls, tribunes, and soldiers, along with the collaborating high priests.”3 james watts observes how early christian authors set the foundations for the identification of caiaphas as a roman collaborator: “in the historical narratives of traditional judaism and christianity, the aaronide dynasties appear as greedy and traitorous collaborators with foreign empires (e.g., john 11:50).”4 richard horsley sums up the accepted scholarly consensus in this way: “many if not most jewish historians and biblical scholars were working with the assumptions that the jewish high priests of the early roman period were aristocratic collaborators with the roman rule of palestine.”5 despite horsley’s generalization, none of these examples should be taken to mean that everyone considered caiaphas to have been a roman collaborator. this description has been pervasive and influential—but not universal—in discussions about his role in the arrest and execution of jesus. as gerard sloyan summarizes, there are those “who think the roman-sadducean collaboration was likely, and others who are convinced that any account whatever of jewish cooperation with the empire must have been fabricated.”6 the anglophone scholarly use of the term “collaborator” for caiaphas is thus not universal, but it is widespread. a general gospel reader easily could be persuaded that this description is the most apt way to characterize caiaphas. it is not. 1 eugene fisher, “the bible, the jews and the passion,” america 190 (2004): 5, 8. 2 craig evans, fabricating jesus: how modern scholars distort the gospels (downers grove: intervarsity press, 2006), 173. 3 barbara reid, “women prophets of god’s alternative reign,” in luke-acts and empire: essays in honor of robert l. hawley, ed. david rhoads, david esterline, and jae won lee (eugene: pickwick publications, 2011), 47. 4 james watts, “scripturalization and the aaronide dynasties,” journal of hebrew scriptures 13 (2017): 1. john 11:50 recounts caiaphas claiming: “you do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.” see also scott bartchy, “where is the history in mel gibson’s the passion of the christ?” pastoral psychology 53 (2005): 6, 325; sarah fairbanks, “review”: marilyn salmon, preaching without contempt: overcoming unintended anti-judaism (minneapolis: fortress, 2006), in theological studies 68 (2007): 479. 5 richard horsley, “high priest and the politics of roman palestine: a contextual analysis of the evidence in josephus,” journal for the study of judaism 17 (1986): 23. other scholars have echoed these sentiments: john dominic crossan, jesus: a revolutionary biography (san francisco: harpersanfrancisco, 1994), 136; mary boys, redeeming our sacred story: the death of jesus and relations between jews and christians (mahwah: paulist press, 2013), 173; warren carter, pontius pilate: portraits of a roman governor (collegeville: liturgical press, 2003), 48; helen bond, caiaphas: friend of rome and judge of jesus? (louisville: westminster john knox press, 2004), 12. 6 gerard sloyan, jesus on trial: a study of the gospels, second edition (minneapolis: fortress press, 2006), 3. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) the caiaphas of history historical records have bequeathed the barest details about the life and career of joseph caiaphas. he was likely born sometime around 20 bce, although the exact circumstances and time of his birth are unknown. he was the jewish high priest from 18 ce to early 37. according to josephus, he was appointed to the position by valerius gratus, the roman prefect who preceded pontius pilate (antiquities, 18.2.2) and who exercised direct responsibility then for the administration of judea. he was the longest serving high priest in the first century ce; his contemporaries averaged around four years in the job.7 the position was often a precarious one; roman officials routinely deposed jewish high priests. caiaphas himself was deposed as high priest shortly after pontius pilate was recalled to rome in 36 ce. caiaphas had married the daughter (whose name is unknown to us8) of ananus i, who was high priest from 6 ce to 15 ce. this ananus, known to christians as annas from his brief appearances in the gospels,9 was the progenitor of a dynasty of high priests between 6 ce and 65 ce that included his five sons, one son-in-law (caiaphas), and one grandson. while we cannot know the full circumstances of his appointment, we can plausibly imagine that caiaphas’ ascent to the high priesthood was due to “this marriage, rather than the power and prestige of his family.”10 the new testament refers to him only as caiaphas—his family name. we learn from josephus that his full name is joseph ben caiaphas. josephus relates how the roman legate in syria, vitellius, having sent the roman governor pontius pilate back to rome in 36 ce to explain an incident involving rough treatment of samaritans, returned the high priestly vestments to jewish custody which had previously been under the control of roman officials. josephus continues to observe how after vitellius “had bestowed these benefits upon the nation, he removed from his office the high priest joseph, who is also called caiaphas, and appointed in his stead jonathan, son of ananus the high priest” (antiquities, 18.4.3). however, josephus does not provide his readers with commentary on the personality, background or administrative conduct of caiaphas, so little can be deduced from these writings about his personal attributes, political motivations, family background or leadership style—or why vitellius deposed him.11 also, the exact date when caiaphas was deposed is unclear, though many believe it was late in 36 or 7 john dominic crossan, who killed jesus?: exploring the roots of anti-semitism in the gospel story of the death of jesus (san francisco: harper san francisco, 1995), 148. 8 see john 18:13, “they took him to annas who was the father-in-law of caiaphas.” 9 see luke 3:2: “…during the high priesthood of annas and caiaphas.” 10 richard bauckham, “the caiaphas family,” journal for the study of the historical jesus 10 (2012): 29. 11 bruce chilton, “caiaphas,” in david noel freedman, ed., the anchor bible dictionary (new york: doubleday, 1992), 1: 805: “no judgment of caiaphas’ character can make any serious claim on our attention, except as an imaginative exercise. historically speaking, the available evidence will not permit conclusions of that sort.” ryan: living with the enemy 4 early 37.12 what happened to caiaphas subsequently is unknown. he may have returned to priestly duties in the temple; he may have died soon after. helen bond says that “we will never, of course, know. caiaphas’ death, like his birth, remains shrouded in mystery.”13 collaborator: a brief history and geography of the word the first hurdle in using the word “collaborator” to describe caiaphas is establishing its meaning. dictionaries provide two clashing definitions. according to the oxford english dictionary, the term collaborator is derived from the latin prefix col (an assimilated form of com)—with, together, and the root laborare—to work. from the early decades of the nineteenth century, the term indicated “one who works in conjunction with another or others; esp. in literary, artistic, or scientific work.” this, with its positive connotation, is the common way the word is employed today. however, the oed documents the emergence of a second meaning. it shows how the word experienced a semantic shift from the early 1940s in response to experiences during world war ii, gaining a negative connotation. this second definition reads: “one who collaborates with the enemy.”14 the widespread cooperation of citizens with enemy occupiers in regions conquered by nazis pushed the meaning of the word in english to denote activities of national betrayal, conspiracy and treachery which previously had not been associated with the word collaborator.15 the standout example of treasonous collaboration associated with world war ii is vidkun quisling, whose “name entered the english dictionary as a term defining a person who betrayed his country through collaboration with an occupying enemy.”16 understanding and appreciating the meaning of collaborator as applied to quisling enlightens the modern association of caiaphas with the idea of collaboration, so a brief survey is beneficial. on april 9, 1940, the norwegian citizen quisling installed himself as minister president of the national government in nazi german-occupied norway. quisling did not regard himself as a collaborator, but as a patriot. at his trial on charges of treason in september 1945, he maintained “the legal system had misconstrued his motives and misunderstood his mission.”17 he told his accusers that his functioning as minister president had been in the best 12 james vanderkam, joshua to caiaphas: high priests after the exile (minneapolis: fortress press, 2004), 432-4. 13 bond, caiaphas, 89. 14 oxford english dictionary, oxford university press, available at: https://www.oed.com/view/entry/36198?redirectedfrom=collaborator#eid. accessed 27 september 2022. 15 oxford english dictionary. “collaborate: to co-operate traitorously with the enemy.” https://www.oed.com/view/entry/36195?redirectedfrom=collaborate#eid. accessed 27 september 2022. 16 “collaboration,” holocaust encyclopedia, united states holocaust memorial museum (accessed 27 september 2022). available at: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/collaboration. 17 hans dahl, quisling: a study in treachery (cambridge: cambridge university press, 1999), 1. https://www.oed.com/view/entry/36198?redirectedfrom=collaborator#eid https://www.oed.com/view/entry/36198?redirectedfrom=collaborator#eid https://www.oed.com/view/entry/36195?redirectedfrom=collaborate#eid https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/collaboration 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) interests of the nation. though found guilty and executed by firing squad on october 24, 1945, he exuded an attitude right to the end that communicated “a sense of another, higher kind of innocence.”18 in his trial, he made “several references to a new kingdom of god on earth as the driving force behind his actions.”19 norwegian post-war investigations by medical, legal, academic, and political agencies into vidkun quisling as a nazi collaborator are revealing. first, quisling did not think he was guilty of treason. on the contrary, he believed he was saving his people and setting the foundations for a flourishing national future. his vision was for national resurrection, decidedly nordic, purposely undemocratic, purged of wasteful competition between political opponents and purified of decadent influences.20 he did not foresee or desire a permanent german presence in his country. his interaction with the nazi occupiers was a useful means to achieve his desired ends.21 second, professional judgments about his status as a collaborator were conditioned by the social and political climate of the immediate post-war period when the attribution was made.22 norwegian political leaders, lawyers and psychiatrists at that time were “caught up in the emotion and controversy of the quisling trial and the treatment of collaborators. later, there was tacit agreement that their stand had been less than objective, sharing the public repulsion towards collaborators.”23 third, post-war norwegian investigators “divided acts of collaboration into ten different categories (of apparent decreasing seriousness),”24 which included participation in the central administration, membership of the norwegian 18 dahl, quisling, 1. 19 robert kaplan, “norwegian psychiatry and the trial of vidkun quisling,” nordic journal of psychiatry 66 (2012): 155-8. 20 fredrik wilhelmsen, “‘national decay and national resurrection’: the semiotics of quisling’s conception of history,” in war and semiotics: signs, communication systems, and the preparation, legitimization, and commemoration of collective mass violence, ed. frank jacobs (new york: routledge, 2020), 229-258. 21 quisling identified jews as a contaminating influence in norway because of his idiosyncratic perception of their connection with both capitalism and international communism. he acquiesced with the nazis’ forced removal of them from norway. see oddvar hoidal, “vidkun quisling and the deportation of norway’s jews,” scandinavian studies 88 (2016): 270-294. quisling also moved to limit resistance from the church by declaring himself supreme bishop of the norwegian church. see torleiv austad, “church resistance against nazism in norway, 1940-1945,” kirchliche zeitgeschichte 28 (2015): 278-293. 22 oyvind giaever, “the psychiatry of quislingism: norwegian psychiatric research on the collaborators of world war ii,” science in context, 17 (2004): 267-292 reviews studies of investigators given the task of assessing the mind and motivations of norwegian collaborators. giaever considers that the determinations of researchers were shallow “due to a general lack of adequate methodology in the contemporaneous sciences.” he considers the “explanation must be sought in the project’s social and historical context” (267). giaever explains that the researchers found the collaborators were no more or less insane than the average norwegian. however: “the norwegian psychiatrists seemed strangely reluctant to finish the project, and it is reasonable to see this in relation to the public and political currents of the immediate postwar period. whereas the insanity hypothesis was welcome in the norwegian public at the time, its definite rejection was perhaps not” (289). this is to say, the mind of the people was made up; scientific evidence was rendered redundant. medical experts fell into line and followed the popular view. 23 kaplan, “norwegian psychiatry,” 155. 24 giaever, “the psychiatry of quislingism,” 268. ryan: living with the enemy 6 version of the nazi party, informers, propagandists, (german) military volunteers, and fraternizers—usually, but not always, women whose relationships were frowned upon but not considered illegal or treasonous.25 robert kaplan observes how many in the immediate post-wwii era preferred a binary rather than a nuanced set of criteria: “it suited the government, the public and those individuals whose conscience was not entirely clear to adopt this categorical view, rather than take the more objective position that there were many grades of collaboration, both active and passive.”26 in norway, and beyond, the understandings of the contexts of interaction between enemies and the applicability of “collaborator” to these contexts evolved as the decades progressed. this is highly visible in the attitudes taken to jewish detainees who ostensibly cooperated with the nazis, serving administrative functions in the camps and ghettos.27 in the immediate post-war period, as dan porat’s research of israeli court trials demonstrates, “many believed that those who served in leadership positions in ghettos and camps, shared responsibility with the germans for the catastrophe that had befallen them.”28 essentially, the kapos were presumed guilty until proven innocent. but this understanding began to change. israel’s attorney-general haim cohn doubted a court’s ability to adjudicate on motives and intentions of collaborators, stating in 1958 that “this is a matter between them and heaven.”29 by the 1960s, while still acknowledging the actions of the accused, the dominant view became that “the functionaries had taken up their positions not with the aim of promoting the goals of their persecutors but in the hope of saving themselves and their families.”30 these ostensible collaborators had indeed done wrong—but with good intentions. now, true collaborators were identified as “individuals with motivations equal to those of the perpetrator.”31 this redefinition excluded the kapos and cast doubt on the extent of others’ collaboration because, 25 raffael scheck, love between enemies: western prisoners of war and german women in world war ii (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2020), surveys the extensive documentation of romantic relationships between allied pows and german women. these collaborations were officially discouraged, mostly assessed as threats to morale on the battlefields, but not considered treasonous. he writes, “the pows have simultaneously been accused of collaboration for loving enemy women and praised as resisters for seducing them” (5). 26 kaplan, “norwegian psychiatry,” 158. 27 kapos were “jewish detainees who helped run the nazi concentration and labor camps, served as ghetto police, and emerged as community leaders. the nazis compelled many of these individuals into administrative functions while others--believing in negotiation and compromise as tools of social navigation necessary for them and others simply to stay alive–came forward and enlisted.” see mark drumbl, “histories of the jewish ‘collaborator’: exile, not guilt,” washington & lee legal studies paper no. 2017-13 (july 28, 2017), available at ssrn: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3009231. 28 dan porat, bitter reckoning: israel tries holocaust survivors as nazi collaborators (cambridge: harvard university press, 2019), 2. 29 porat, bitter reckoning, 5. 30 porat, bitter reckoning, 6-7. one charged collaborator “believed that sustaining a good relationship with the nazis would enable him to save jews in the future” (5). 31 dan porat, “changing perceptions of ‘nazi collaborators’ in israel 1950-1972,” in jewish honor courts: revenge, retribution, and reconciliation in europe and israel after the holocaust, ed. laura jockusch and gabriel finder (detroit: wayne state university press, 2015), 320. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3009231 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) among other considerations, it required investigators to undertake the difficult, if not impossible, task of determining individual intentions. this transformation also appears in the writings of primo levi, an italian chemist and survivor of auschwitz who first published his memoir if this is a man in 1958.32 in a chapter titled “the drowned and the saved,”33 levi explored what scholar lawrence langer would later term the “choiceless choices” that confronted those coerced by nazis into service of the reich.34 primo levi introduced the nazi camp as a morally ambiguous realm, a “gray zone,”35 indecipherable to newcomers since it did not conform to any known model. in that context, it is difficult to judge the motivation of fellow jews who cooperated with the nazis.36 he said that some may have been “only apparently collaborators, camouflaged opponents.”37 and even those “gray, ambiguous persons, ready to compromise” cannot be adequately judged without recognizing that “the prisoners’ errors and weaknesses are not enough to rank them with their custodians.”38 he argued that “the room for choices was reduced to zero.”39 these reflections on developments during and after the second world war provide context and a basis for critique of the attribution of the term “collaborator” to joseph caiaphas. the term is rubbery, malleable, shifting. the english word is a nineteenth century construction with a generally positive connotation that experienced a semantic shift in the 1940s in response to the experiences of world war ii. at that time, it also became a synonym for betrayal, conspiracy, and treachery. the meaning of the term evolved with the passage of the years after 1945. the meaning of the term became more nuanced. by the 1980s, collaboration was understood to admit of degrees of involvement, not all of them considered treasonous or traitorous. the sense of an absolute binary distinction broke down and was replaced by a recognition of ambiguity and complexity40 that suggested caution in making judgments about assigning personal guilt and responsibility for actions and 32 primo levi, if this is a man (london: penguin, 1979), was first published in italian in 1958 under the title, se questo e un uomo. 33 subsequently expanded to a book in english of the same title thirty years later, (new york: summit books, 1988). 34 some have challenged langer’s notion of “choiceless choices” by analyzing the range of responses from jewish individuals and communities whose actions and choices were conditioned by a complex range of community factors. see evgeny finkel, ordinary jews: choice and survival during the holocaust (princeton: princeton university press, 2017). such scholarly debates underline the complexity and ongoing disputes around making judgments about the actions and attitudes of those who complied with nazi policies. 35 primo levi, the drowned and the saved, (new york: summit books, 1988), 25-56. 36 levi, the drowned and the saved, 44. 37 levi, the drowned and the saved, 46. 38 levi, the drowned and the saved, 49. 39 levi, the drowned and the saved, 50. 40 mark drumbl, “histories of the jewish ‘collaborator’,” 18, asserts that the term “collaborator” conveys “finality, disjuncture, and category: guilty or not-guilty, persecuted or persecutor, abused or abuser, right or wrong, powerful or powerless. criminal law hinges upon these binaries.” drumbl argues these binaries are contrivances that require judges to squeeze accused collaborators “into predetermined absolutes of villain or victim…and are left with no choice other than to differ about the category into which to shoehorn the collaborator.”. ryan: living with the enemy 8 decisions. “collaborator” had been a term formed in the mind of accusers seeking to apportion blame, mostly free of “objective” evidence, which revealed the fraught social-political climate in which the description was applied. with this history of the term in mind, we can return to the example of joseph caiaphas to re-assess scholarly judgments about his identification as a “collaborator” with the roman enemies. pilate and caiaphas: establishing the evidence of their relationship caiaphas has commonly been portrayed in art and cinema “as a corpulent, even grotesque old man with a straggly beard, hook nose, blotchy complexion, and a sly, even devilish grin, wearing robes and an elaborate head covering with hornlike protrusions.”41 european medieval and renaissance artists painted a plump, selfsatisfied, worldly figure who sat in judgment on the fate of jesus. for examples of such images, see albrecht durer, c. 1508, christ before caiaphas, and giotto, c. 1304, christ before caiaphas.42 movie makers in the silent era and in the early talkies generally portrayed “caiaphas as the prime example of the money-grubbing jew for whom the pursuit of profit overrides all other considerations.”43 these are consistent with caiaphas’ literary portrayal through the centuries. in the hands of the church fathers, caiaphas became emblematic of all those who opposed jesus in particular and christians in general. they denigrated caiaphas for his hostility towards jesus and tagged him as the mastermind of the plot against him. tertullian (c. 155-c. 220) preached, “on the resurrection of the flesh” where he used the words of psalm 2 in identifying annas and caiaphas as “the rulers” who “were gathered together against the lord, and against his anointed.”44 athanasius (c. 293373), in “on the opinion of dionysius” said that all opponents of christians “emulate this characteristic of caiaphas and his party, just as they have learned from them to deny christ.”45 augustine (354-430) in “reply to faustus the manichaean” resolved the dilemma posed by john 11:49-52 of how caiaphas was able to predict jesus’ future in the manner of a prophet inspired by god: “even caiaphas, wicked as he was, was able to prophesy without knowing it.”46 medieval mystery plays presented him almost as a cartoon character. in european passion plays in the middle ages, caiaphas took his place among the assembly as “the christ killing jew 41 adele reinhartz, caiaphas: the high priest (minneapolis: fortress press, 2013), 202. 42 albrecht durer (1471-1528), christ before caiaphas, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/388049; giotto (1266-1337) christ before caiaphas, https://www.wikiart.org/en/giotto/christ-before-caiaphas. 43 adele reinhartz, jesus of hollywood (oxford: oxford university press), 216. 44 alexander roberts and james donaldson, the ante-nicene fathers: the writings of the fathers down to a.d. 325 (peabody: hendrickson, 1994), 3: 559. 45 philip schaff, a select library of the christian church: nicene and post-nicene fathers (peabody: hendrickson, 1994), 4: 177. 46 schaff, select library, 4: 228. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/388049 https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/388049 https://www.wikiart.org/en/giotto/christ-before-caiaphas 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) who proved a most appropriate villain.”47 note that none of these portray caiaphas as collaborating with pilate! since little evidence of any kind is available detailing the relationship between joseph caiaphas and pontius pilate, scholars rely heavily on overlap in the dates for pilate and caiaphas to support their views about the actions and motivations of caiaphas, using inference and implication to bridge the gaps. we see this in the conclusions drawn from caiaphas’ unusually long term as high priest. scott bartchy writes that caiaphas had learned well how to get along with the roman occupation forces. indeed, he apparently had made himself seem indispensable. for when the roman authorities were appointing new jewish high priests on the average of every 16 months (17 high priests in 22 years), they retained caiaphas in power for 18 years.48 mary boys similarly affirms the putative collaborative role played by caiaphas, writing that “since caiaphas was high priest for the entirety of pilate’s rule, we may infer that together high priest and prefect formed a powerful alliance.”49 john dominic crossan earlier had gone even further, writing, it is equally significant that both caiaphas and pilate were themselves dismissed around the same time in late 36 and early 37 c.e…. it is not unfairly cynical to presume that there was close cooperation between caiaphas and pilate, that it often offended jewish sensibilities, and that eventually it became necessary to break up that cooperation in rome’s best interests.50 these are just a few examples of the many prepared to view this confluence of two men sharing time and space as proof that they engaged in a collaborative relationship to their mutual benefit and to the detriment of the jewish people and nation. but this piece of temporal evidence can be read in several ways. although their appointments overlapped: caiaphas from 18-36 ce and pilate from c. 26-37 ce,51 presuming collaboration ignores the reality of the massive imbalance of power that existed between the two men. as eugene fisher notes, “data from the gospels and ancient secular sources such as philo and josephus portray pilate as a ruthless tyrant. the roman governor held absolute power over the chief priest, whom he appointed.”52 any description of the relationship between caiaphas and roman 47 jeremy cohen, christ killers: the jews and the passion from the bible to the big screen (oxford: oxford university press, 2007), 214. 48 scott bartchy, “where is the history?,” 322. 49 mary boys, redeeming our sacred story, 171. 50 john dominic crossan, who killed jesus?: exposing the roots of anti-semitism in the gospel story of the death of jesus (san francisco: harper san francisco, 1995), 149. 51 craig evans, “excavating caiaphas, pilate, and simon of cyrene: assessing the literary and archaeological evidence,” in jesus and archaeology, ed. james charlesworth (grand rapids: william eerdmans, 2006), 337. 52 fisher, “the bible, the jews, and the passion,” 8. ryan: living with the enemy 10 authorities must take this into account. pilate could have deposed caiaphas on a moment’s notice with no recourse. roman occupation was based on delegation to local aristocrats who were expected to maintain order.53 it was likely, then, in the interests of pontius pilate–that local and ruthless aristocrat–to maintain joseph caiaphas in his role of high priest: pilate had his man where he needed him. however we might assess the slender evidence, caiaphas was successful in navigating the challenges of working under a murderous and corrupt roman prefect who represented the interests of an invading foreign power that threatened national survival.54 while pontius pilate was known for clashes with groups and individuals over whom he ruled, none of these clashes, on the available evidence, appears to have included caiaphas. pilate did not appoint or depose any high priest during his lengthy tenure as prefect. scholars have offered a range of guesses to account for this fact. maybe annas, the family patriarch, offered pilate bribes to keep caiaphas in office until his own son was ready for the high priesthood.55 or, perhaps caiaphas himself offered pilate financial incentives to maintain his tenure.56 maybe his roman bosses discouraged pilate from deposing jewish officials to avoid antagonizing the locals.57 or, maybe caiaphas was simply good at the role he was given and it proved to be in no one’s interest to remove him from it.58 however, confidence in determining caiaphas’ historical relationship with pilate is undermined by lack of evidence. we have no reliable ancient testimony that the two men ever met. no text explicitly locates caiaphas at pilate’s interrogation of jesus. nor is caiaphas present at jesus’ crucifixion in any canonical gospel. the contemporary jewish historian flavius josephus tells us little. he does not mention caiaphus when describing two major crises involving pilate and the temple: his placement of busts there (antiquities 18.3.1) and his raiding temple funds to construct an aqueduct (antiquities 18.3.2). this suggests that caiaphas did nothing “that attracted the attention of josephus’s sources from the time of his appointment until the end of his reign.”59 this does not mean that the two men had no interactions. the search for the historical caiaphas is plagued by the same constraint as for other gospel characters: the available sources must be recognized as partial and fragmentary.60 53 paula fredriksen, when christians were jews: the first generation (new haven: yale university press, 2018), 71. 54 caiaphas like the other high priests of the era “were philo-roman only in the sense that they recognized the power of rome and the consequent futility of opposing it….in their hearts they probably had little genuine love for roman dominance as such.” e. mary smallwood, “high priests and politics in roman palestine,” journal of theological studies 13 (1962): 28. 55 helen bond, pontius pilate in history and interpretation (cambridge: cambridge university press, 1998), 19. 56 david catchpole, the trial of jesus: a study in the gospels and jewish historiography from 1770 to the present day (leiden: brill, 1971), 249. 57 daniel schwartz, studies in the jewish background of christianity (tubingen: mohr, 1992), 198. 58 e.p. sanders, the historical figure of jesus (london: penguin, 1993), 27. 59 vanderkam, joshua to caiaphas, 431. vanderkam thinks this silence by josephus is “intriguing.” 60 adele reinhartz, “crucifying caiaphas: hellenism and the high priesthood in life of jesus narratives,” in defining first-century jewish and christian identities, ed. fabian udoh with susannah 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) we cannot be sure if the negative portrayal of caiaphas originated with christians, but their received perceptions amplified any pre-existing antipathy. early christians built on popular resentments towards jewish religion, casting key characters in negative light. as james watts summarizes: they supplanted aaronide priests with the priestly office of christ and his successors (heb 4:14-10:18). they reproduced and sharpened jewish criticisms of second temple-era high priests and cast them as the chief plotters against jesus’ life (mark 14:1-2 and parallels) …. at best, they are depicted as subservient students of rabbinic lore and at worst as tyrannical persecutors of the righteous.61 accumulated christian hostility towards caiaphas may have been the reason gospel authors tended to omit caiaphas’ name from their narrative accounts of jesus’ passion.62 the execution of james, brother of jesus of nazareth and leader of the jerusalem church, by ananus ii in 62 is an indication of a continuing pattern of conflict between christians and the priestly establishment, which may help to explain the gospel authors’ aversion to caiaphas.63 traces of this resentment may also be detected in acts 4 which recounts the experience of peter and john before the council in jerusalem who were “much annoyed” (acts 4:2) with their preaching and teaching about the resurrection of the dead. all of this points to our need to discount the historicity of the new testament accounts about caiaphus in assessing his and the jerusalem priesthood’s relationship with rome. thus, conjectures about the relationship between caiaphas and pilate bear witness more to the fertility of scholarly imagination rather than to the foundations of verifiable evidence. any or all of these explanations may be accurate, but they remain no more than plausible guesses in the absence of compelling evidence. their variety and tentativeness testify to the reality that available evidence does not allow a definitive answer to the question of the complicity of caiaphas in the governance of roman palestine by pontius pilate. and, if the sum or any parts of these guesses indicate collaboration, then they signify by their diversity that such collaboration is difficult, if not impossible, to categorize or describe in accurate detail. heschel, mark chancey, and gregory tatum (notre dame: notre dame university press, 2008), 242. sloyan, jesus on trial, 107, notes that no post-resurrection jesus followers had access to the records of the decision making of either the temple or the romans. 61 watts, “scripturalization and the aaronide dynasties,” 2. 62 jesus appears before the “high priest” in mark 14:53-65. luke 22:66-70 omits the mention of caiaphas by name or title in the scene narrating jesus before the council. matthew 26:57 names caiaphas as the high priest but identifies him by title rather than name subsequently in 26:58-68. john 18:24 recounts jesus taken to “caiaphas the high priest” but provides no details of any interaction between them. 63 richard bauckham, jesus and the eyewitnesses: the gospels as eyewitness testimony (grand rapids: eerdmans, 2006), 187. ryan: living with the enemy 12 locating joseph caiaphas in the story of christianity christian reflection on the relationship between pontius pilate and the high priest joseph caiaphas is fundamental to christian self-understanding. without caiaphas’ role in the story of jesus, christianity would not exist in the way it does. “collaborator” is not an accurate descriptor of the jewish high priest joseph caiaphas’ dealings with the roman prefect pontius pilate. it became routinely attached to caiaphas by english-speaking scholars, but not when the word first became available in english in the nineteenth century, when the term was coined to describe separate parties who cooperated to achieve mutually agreed goals. “collaborator” was commonly associated with joseph caiaphas only after the word became freighted with images of treachery, corruption, and betrayal in the years during and after world war ii. it became as much a character slur as an attempt to explain the motivations, intentions, and actions of a leader attempting to navigate the political realities for his people subjected to the vicissitudes of a conquering master nation.64 in defiance of the evidence, this usage forces inescapable binaries in describing caiaphas’ character, condemning him for what is only his putative involvement in the execution of jesus. if his actions were not good, then they must have been bad, with no nuance derived from the complex context in which he operated under roman oppression.65 other interpretations are available to us. stephen mason offers a realist’s analysis of relations between rome and jerusalem. he explains that “realism lowers our gaze from loftier conceptions of freedom to the concrete struggle for survival, as each nation looks constantly to secure itself against immediate threats.”66 for realist theorists, “the struggle for (or use of) power among states is at the core of international relations.”67 mason uses these categories to argue that “weaker nations form productive security alliances whenever possible, and trust great powers when they must. some of their leaders will counsel fidelity to the great power even in extreme danger, because of the greater risk of disloyalty.”68 this analysis allows 64 geza vermes, searching for the real jesus: jesus, the dead sea scrolls and other religious themes (london: scm press, 2009), 100: caiaphas “found himself in an unenviable position. as the head of the jews in judea, he and his council were duty-bound to keep law and order for the romans in a troublesome country and even more turbulent jerusalem….the governors were the absolute masters of the jewish high priests whom they appointed and sacked at will.” 65 see, for example, e.p. sanders, jesus and judaism (philadelphia: fortress press, 1985), 299: “i do not doubt that jesus was arrested on the orders of the high priest and interrogated. but we cannot know much more. it seems quite clear that they [the evangelists] did not know why jesus was executed from the point of view of the jewish leaders.” see also: sanders, historical figure, 273, who indicates the complexity in his judgment that caiaphas acted “not because of theological disagreement, but because of his principal political and moral responsibility: to preserve the peace and to prevent riots and bloodshed.” vermes, searching for jesus, 102, offers another perspective: “the decision of caiaphas to hand jesus over to pontius pilate did not reflect his legal incapacity to do so. he was passing the buck.” 66 stephen mason, “’what have the romans ever done for us?’ brian and josephus on anti-roman sentiment,” in exploring the historical jesus and his times via monty python’s life of brian, ed. joan taylor (london: bloomsbury t&t clark, 2015), 205. 67 paul viotti and mark kauppi, international relations theory (new york: longman, 2019), 43. 68 mason, “what have the romans ever done for us?” 205. 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) us to perceive caiaphas as a success in achieving national security from a position of personal and national vulnerability.69 the fourth gospel author reflects this circumstance when he recounts an intervention at the council about jesus at which caiaphas was present, writing, “if we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the romans will come and destroy our holy place and our nation” (john 11:48). as jae won lee observes, “caiaphas’s discussion with the council in john 11:48 reflects resistance to rome in his desire to maintain some autonomy of the ‘people’ at the same time that he wishes to ward off any action of rome to destroy the temple and the nation.”70 the image of caiaphas as a wily politician affords the opportunity to view him as the type of skilled leader able to operate under crushing demands from a ruthless invading regime. this is still far from a flattering portrait of the character of joseph caiaphas. the preceding discussion has neither attempted to paint caiaphas in sepia tones as in possession of a kind heart and generous disposition, nor attempted to elevate or justify whatever actions he may have taken. nonetheless, this image of a wily, pragmatic politician “bears some relationship to the primary sources,” as adele reinhartz points out, “and it avoids the faint whiff of supersessionism that lingers in the air after jesus the truest jew has done battle with caiaphas the corrupt hellenizer.”71 while we might not be justified in characterizing his actions as a “choiceless choice,” we could legitimately view caiaphas’ situation as a hobson’s choice–an illusion of choice, a choice between undesirable options, a quest for the least bad path. the mis-cast image of caiaphas the roman collaborator has served to damage relations between christians and jews. the assigned moral culpability of caiaphas for the death of jesus is closely correlated with the way christians have imagined the complicity of (all/many/some/only a few) jews in jesus’ demise; caiaphas has been used as a surrogate who can represent all jews who opposed jesus. in many– if not most–popular presentations of the life story of jesus in all genres (movies, literature, visual arts, drama), “caiaphas is the calculating political leader who orchestrates the arrest, trial, and death sentence of jesus. he thus bears ultimate responsibility for the crucifixion.”72 69 we can hear echoes of norwegian vidkun quisling’s self-justification in this analysis. we might also align caiaphas with most jewish “collaborators” under the nazi regime who “did not act for their own benefit but rather operated under the assumption that by cooperating to a degree, they could mitigate nazi oppression, retain a measure of jewish autonomy and agency, or enhance chances for the survival of their fellow jews.” laura jockusch and gabriel finder, “introduction: revenge, retribution, and reconciliation in the postwar jewish world,” in jewish honor courts, 6. 70 jae won lee, “pilate and the crucifixion of jesus in luke-acts,” in luke-acts and empire, 96. lee observes the ambiguity and complexity of the situation in which caiaphas acted: “elite judeans act in the interest of maintaining their status. but maintaining their status is also the way to maintain a semblance of national autonomy and identity,” 96. vanderkam, joshua to caiaphas, 427 considers that in john 11:47-53, and repeated in john 18:14, “caiaphas was making a realistic political point.” 71 reinhartz, “crucifying caiaphas,” 243. 72 reinhartz, “crucifying caiaphas,” 227. this theme has been pursued in passion plays, the most prominent example of which is the one performed by locals at oberammergau in germany. james shapiro, oberammergau: the troubling story of the world’s most famous passion play (new york: pantheon books, 2000), x, has acknowledged that all passion plays carry the “legacy of medieval anti ryan: living with the enemy 14 assigning responsibility for the death of jesus has been a major stumbling block in relations between christians and jews for the past nineteen hundred years. the jewish milieu in which the gospel jesus of nazareth encountered the high priest joseph caiaphas is more complex and ambiguous than traditionally has been presented when telling the christian story. to the best of our historical knowledge, the two men were driven by a “jumble of religious, political, careerist, fearful, ambitious, and other motives.”73 the term collaborator to describe the interaction of joseph caiaphas with roman power is neither sufficiently nuanced, accurate, nor appropriate for employment in the ambiguous and complicated context in which the jewish leader found himself. nor is continued use of the term of any assistance in healing fractures in relations between christians and jews. judaism.” attempts by recent directors at oberammergau to change course “failed to blunt the criticism or meet the requirements of those demanding change.” kevin wetmore, “introduction: forty-first in the twenty-first,” in the oberammergau passion play: essays on the 2010 performance and centuries-long tradition, ed. kevin wetmore (jefferson: mcfarland & company, 2017), 7. the council of centers on jewish-christian relations acknowledged the 2010 play script “avoids the common pitfall of contrasting a weak and vacillating pilate with a determined and powerful caiaphas.” council of centers on jewish-christian relations, “report of the ad hoc committee on 2010 oberammergau play script,” 2010. available from: https://ccjr.us/news/newsflash/ccjr2010may14. however, caiaphas has now replaced judas in the revised script as the principal jewish villain: “past characterizations of judas as epitomizing jewish evil and treachery are refocused onto caiaphas.” ccjr, “report,” 5.3. 73 ccjr, “report,” 9. https://ccjr.us/news/newsflash/ccjr2010may14 scjr 10 (2015) 1 peer-reviewed article omnis observator legis mosaycae iustus est apud deum: robert holcot’s theology of the jews 1 john t. slotemaker, fairfield university the statler brothers—a christian gospel quartet from stauton, virginia—released an album in 1975 entitled the bible: the old testament. the third track was written by robert watson schmertz, a philadelphia-based architect and songwriter who served as professor of architecture for thirtyfive years at carnegie tech. the song “noah found grace in the eyes of the lord” was recorded by various artists in the 1970s. in the second stanza schmertz writes: so the lord came down to look around a spell, and there he found noah behavin’ mighty well. and that is the reason the scriptures record, noah found grace in the eyes of the lord. the final line is a direct quotation of the king james translation of genesis 6:8. 2 the following verse continues the quotation, providing the biblical reasoning that “noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and noah walked with god” (gn 6:9). 1 i am grateful to jack bell, ruth langer, and two anonymous reviewers for making useful corrections and comments. 2 the king james translation is close, here, to the latin vulgate (gn 6:8): noe vero invenit gratiam coram domino (noah found grace before the lord). the new revised standard version provides a translation that is closer to the hebrew text “but noah found favor in the sight of the lord” means favor, grace, or (חן) the hebrew word chen .(ונח מצא חן בעיני יהוה) elegance. scjr 10 (2015) 2 while the song is faithful to the text of genesis, embedded within it is a theological tension that has been debated within christian theology since the time of the apostle paul (cf. gal) and throughout the patristic, medieval, and early modern periods. stated in the starkest of terms, this asks on what grounds did god give grace to noah? noah lived prior to the abrahamic covenant (gn 17) and the giving of the mosaic law (ex 20); he lived prior to the incarnation of jesus christ and the grace offered through his death and resurrection. thus, if noah was not a child of the old law or of the grace offered through jesus christ, how, precisely, is he a recipient of god's grace? on what grounds, one could ask, did god give grace to his servant noah? christian theologians in the medieval latin west had a standard answer to this question that was grounded in the writings of the fourth-century african bishop, augustine of hippo († 430). augustine had argued that certain prophets and holy men and women of the old testament were saved on account of their anticipation of the future coming of jesus christ. 3 individuals such as noah, abraham, moses, job, and ruth were saved because of their belief in the salvation that would be offered through the future coming of the messiah. however, this answer posed further theological problems: e.g., why, then, did god give the law to moses? what was the purpose of the law and the sacrificial system described in the books of exodus and leviticus? was the law purely instrumental in teaching the jews the will of god (if grace was given through christ)? was the purpose of the law to instruct them in just how far they had fallen? 3 throughout this paper i use the term “old testament” to refer to hebrew bible/tanakh. augustine and robert holcot understood the hebrew bible to be the old law/testament that was followed (replaced) by a new law/grace that is revealed in the new testament. retaining this historical language despite modern objections to the continued use of such language in modern jewish-christian dialogue reflects their theologies more accurately. scjr 10 (2015) 3 the present paper focuses on how two specific christian theologians addressed these questions and interpreted the mosaic law. 4 the paper begins with augustine because he established what would become the normative theological response to these questions for western christians in the medieval and early modern periods. following this discussion of augustine, it turns to the theological writings of the english dominican robert holcot († 1349). holcot articulated a critical stance towards the mainstream augustinian position and, in response, developed a novel theology of the jewish law and the sacrificial system. augustine argued that those who followed the mosaic law were saved not on account of their adherence to the law, but by means of the future coming of jesus christ. subsequent scholastic theologians would consequently argue that the law was not efficacious of grace as a cause per se (in and of itself) but as a cause per accidens (by accident, not in and of itself): a per se cause being a cause that causes an effect by its very nature (e.g., a builder builds a house), while a per accidens cause is a cause that is accidentally joined to a per se cause, and is thus not a true cause (e.g., a musical builder builds a house – here musical is accidental to the builder). the mosaic law, for these theologians, is not a true cause of grace in and of itself, but a cause per accidens in that it was accidentally conjoined to the true cause (i.e., jesus christ). robert holcot was introduced to this mediated version of augustine through the scholastic tradition. however, he broke with it, arguing that god gave grace to the jews through 4 for a general introduction to the relationship between jews and christians in the medieval latin west, see: robert chazan, daggers of faith: thirteenth-century christian missionizing and jewish response (berkley, ca: university of california press, 1989); idem, the jews in medieval western christendom (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2006); jeremy cohen, the friars and the jews: the evolution of medieval antijudaism (ithaca, ny: cornell university press, 1984); idem, living letters of the law: ideas of the jew in medieval christianity (cambridge: cambridge university press, 1999). scjr 10 (2015) 4 the mosaic law and the sacrificial system per se. 5 grace was not given to moses, elijah, or deborah because these men and women foresaw in the law and the prescribed sacrificial system the coming of christ. rather, these men and women were given grace by god through their faithfulness to the covenant established by god as found in the law and the sacrificial system. as such, holcot’s theology is radically subversive of the augustinian position. in the final section of the paper i develop a more constructive (as opposed to historical) argument that engages with the theology of holcot and offers an alternative to the standard augustinian theology of supersessionism. 6 i. the augustinian inheritance augustine’s theology of the jews has been the subject of extensive research and debate in recent scholarship. jeremy cohen’s living letters of the law catalogs the origins of au 5 here i follow the language of the scholastics, see fn. 34. throughout i use this phrasing to distinguish holcot’s understanding of the grace given through the mosaic law from augustine’s (and the subsequent scholastic tradition) understanding of the law as anticipating christ. 6 supersessionism in its strictest and hardest form is the theological claim that the christian church has replaced israel as god’s chosen people (i.e., the new covenant is a replacement of the old covenant). for a modern discussion of supersessionism within the context of christian-jewish dialogue, see david novak, jewish christian dialogue: a jewish justification (oxford: oxford university press, 1999); and the collection of essays by david novak, talking with christians: musings of a jewish theologian (grand rapids, mi: william b. eerdmans, 2005). see also matthew levering, jewish-christian dialogue and the life of wisdom: engagement with the theology of david novak (london: continuum, 2010). david novak helpfully distinguishes between three types of supersessionism, such that “(1) the new covenant is an extension of the old covenant; (2) the new covenant is an addition to the old covenant; (3) the new covenant is a replacement for the old covenant.” see his essay “the covenant in rabbinic thought,” in two faiths, one covenant?: jewish and christian identity in the presence of the other, eugene b. korn and john t. pawlikowski, eds. (rowman & littlefield, 2004), 65–80. following novak’s definitions, one should note that the third form—what he calls hard supersessionism—is the variant that dominated the medieval latin west. scjr 10 (2015) 5 gustine’s theology of the jews and traces the reception of his theology in the subsequent medieval tradition. cohen’s focus is on the theology of jewish witness: the claim that, “the jews survive [after the coming of christ] as living testimony to the antiquity of the christian promise, while their enslavement and dispersion confirm that the church has displaced them.” 7 while it is important to recognize the historical significance of the theology of jewish witness, augustine’s contribution to the development of the medieval theology of the jews cannot be reduced to it. 8 it is important also to examine a cluster of related theological questions: are the legal and ceremonial practices of the jews living prior to the coming of christ a vehicle of god’s grace?; and, if so, how is it that they conveyed such a grace? the jewish law and the three ages jeremy cohen begins his discussion of augustine by analyzing the latter’s periodization of world history into seven ages. 9 however, augustine also develops an alternative account in de civitate dei and de trinitate that divides world history into three ages. 10 this alternative threefold division—that maps, 7 cohen, living letters of the law, 24–65, here 33. for an instructive critique of cohen’s thesis, see paula fredriksen, augustine and the jews: a christian defense of jews and judaism (new haven, c.t.: yale university press, 2010), 432–433, fn. 25. fredriksen’s thesis is that augustine’s doctrine of “jewish witness” is actually a radical break with the previous christian tradition. this break from the previous patristic tradition actually provided intellectual support for the preservation of jewish communities as living witnesses and as such deserves to be acknowledged as a defense of jews and judaism. 8 cohen has not disregarded all other aspects of the augustinian heritage, but rather his influential work has pushed the argument in a particular direction that emphasizes or prioritizes the doctrine of jewish witness. 9 cohen, living letters of the law, 24–26. see augustine, de genesi contra manichaeos in patrologia latina 34, j.-p. migne, ed. (paris, 1865), i, 23 (190–193). see also, paul archambault, “ages of man and ages of the world,” revue des études augustiniennes 12 (1966), 193–228. 10 paul fredriksen, augustine and the jews, 163 and 243. see, e.g., augustine, the trinity, stephen mckenna, ed. (the fathers of the church 45) scjr 10 (2015) 6 broadly speaking, onto the seven ages—was employed more broadly by medieval theologians and is thus our focus here. augustine discusses the six periods of history (omitting the 7 th / the sabbath) in de trinitate, book iv, and reduces these historical periods to three theological categories: a time before the law (ante legem), a time under the law (sub lege), and a time under grace (sub gratia). 11 this theological rendering of the various ages of world history was employed by the seventh-century archbishop isidore of seville in his etymologies. following augustine, isidore understands there to be three ages of world history. 12 the first age (ante legem) begins with the creation of the world (i.e., adam) and persists up through the time of moses. the second age extends from the giving of the law on mount sinai (isidore lists moses’ birth as the 3,728 th year since the creation of the world) up until the coming of jesus christ. finally, the third period extends from the time of jesus up through the present age (the age of the christian church). 13 isidore summarizes this threefold division, stating that “the first age is before the mosaic law, the (washington, dc: the catholic university of america press, 1963), 4.4.7 (139–140). 11 see augustine, the trinity, 4.4.7 (140). for the latin of this text, see augustine, de trinitate, w.j. mountain and fr. glorie, eds. (corpus christianorum 50, 50a) (turnhout: brepols, 1968), 4.4.7 (i, 170 26–27 ). 12 the basic medieval view of the biblical chronology of moses, job, et al., can be found in isidore of seville, the etymologies of isidore of seville, s.a. barney, w.j. lewis, j.a. beach, and o. berghof, eds. (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2010), here 5.39.9 (barney 131a) and 5.1.1 (barney 117a). 13 the present discussion of isidore is limited to his analysis of the three ages in the etymologies. isidore, however, developed an extensive defense of augustine's theology of the jews in his work de fide catholica ex veteri et novo testamento contra judaeos ad florentinam sororem suam, in patrologia latina 83, j.-p. migne, ed. (paris, 1850), 449–538. in the second book, isidore argues that because christ’s saving grace was revealed in the old testament, jews themselves know that the old testament condemns its own rituals and practices as insufficient. for a further discussion see bat-sheva albert, “isidore of seville: his attitude towards judaism and his impact on early medieval canon law,” jewish quarterly review 80.3/4 (1990), 207–220. scjr 10 (2015) 7 second under the law, and the third under grace; where the sacrament is now manifest, earlier it was hidden in prophetic enigma.” 14 medieval christians, therefore, inherited this augustinian threefold schema of world history. however, this periodization also raises various theological problems. for example, the bible records the history of numerous people—e.g., adam, eve, cain, abel, melchizedek, noah, job, and ruth— who lived neither sub lege nor sub gratia. some, such as adam and noah, lived historically prior to the mosaic law, while others, such as job, seemed to live during the historical period of the law, but in ignorance of it (according to medieval christians, job was not jewish and did not have a knowledge of the law). these individuals were the cause of serious theological discussion because a christian theologian had to give an account of how god gave grace to such individuals given that they lived outside of the old law and the new law. augustine developed a theological strategy to account for god’s offer of grace to those who lived prior to the giving of the mosaic law. augustine, and later medieval christians following him, would argue that adam (and those living before the law or in ignorance of it) lived in the promise of a future savior. thus they understood genesis 3:15 15 as a promise to humanity according to which god would bring about a son of adam (i.e., christ) who would crush the head of the serpent (i.e., the devil). adam and his offspring, therefore, would be granted salvation through their belief in the future coming of the messiah and the grace offered through his death and resurrection. god similarly offered/s grace and salvation, according to augustine, to those who lived under the law (sub lege) 14 isidore, etymologies 6.17.16 (barney 144b). 15 gn 3:15: “i will put enmity between you and the woman, and your seed and her seed: she will crush your head, and you will lie in wait for her heel (inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius).” scjr 10 (2015) 8 through their belief in the future coming of jesus christ. however, this required a proper reading of the old testament. augustine distinguished between a carnal and a spiritual understanding of scripture. the carnal or literal reading of scripture, he taught, was the predominate interpretation of scripture in the time before the coming of christ and fails to understand it as foretelling the coming of jesus christ; the spiritual reading of scripture becomes the appropriate reading after the coming of christ and in light of further revelation; it interprets the old testament as speaking about jesus christ and the salvation that he offers to humanity. that jews continue to read the scriptures carnally or literally indicates that they do not understand the necessity of this spiritual reading. in his comments on romans 5:20 augustine writes: paul sufficiently indicated the jews did not understand why the law had been given. it was not to bring life, for grace does this through faith. but the law was given to show what great and tight bonds of sin bound those who presumed to attain righteousness by their own strength. 16 jews understood/understand the law’s purpose to be to instruct them in the will of god. in the christian spiritual reading, it functions as a teacher pointing to christ, and christ, through his incarnation, death, and resurrection, is the fulfillment of the law. augustine writes in contra faustum that “the same law that was given to moses became grace and truth in jesus christ.” 17 however, augustine does argue that while the literal or carnal reading of the scriptures was common to the period before christ, there was “[a] special group within israel—patriarchs, prophets, holy women and men—enlightened by 16 augustine, propositionum ex epistolae ad romanos, in augustine on romans: propositions from the epistle to the romans, unfinished commentary on the epistle to the romans, paula fredriksen, trans. (chico, ca: scholars press, 1982), 30. 17 as cited in fredriksen, augustine and the jews, 243. scjr 10 (2015) 9 divine revelation, [who] understood the ultimate christological significance of the law.” 18 augustine’s distinction between the carnal and spiritual readings of scripture implies—as he writes in on the spirit and the letter—that “the law written on tablets could not bring about for the jews this writing of the law upon their hearts, which is justification, but could only bring about transgression.” 19 thus, the law per se is not a source of grace; in fact, the law can only function as a vehicle of god’s grace if it is understood that the law points to jesus christ. jews at the time of king david, therefore, could only achieve salvation through the law if they understood the spiritual, or christological, interpretation of it. while augustine is not precise about the numbers, it is safe to say that he thought that the majority of the jews interpreted the law literally and as such failed to understand the spiritual meaning imbedded within it (i.e., that the law pointed to christ). 20 augustine’s theology of the jews and the two modes of interpretation had implications for how he understood the relationship between the old and new testaments. in de civitate dei and contra faustum augustine argued that the old testament is a hidden form of the new testament. 21 logically, this means that the scriptures do not contradict themselves. the apparent contradictions between the old and new testaments and their respective theologies of salvation disappear when the old testament is read spiritually and not 18 fredriksen, augustine and the jews, 245. 19 augustine, the spirit and the letter, in answer to the pelagians i, roland j. teske, trans. (the works of saint augustine: a translation for the 21 st century, 1.23) (hyde park, ny: new city press, 1997), 48.28 (174). 20 augustine, contra faustum, in answer to faustus, a manichean, roland j. teske, trans. (the works of saint augustine: a translation for the 21 st century, 1.20) (hyde park, ny: new city press, 2007), 12.2–3 (126–127). 21 augustine, the city of god, 2 vols., william babcock, trans., boniface ramsey, ed. (the works of saint augustine: a translation for the 21 st century, 1.6 and 1.7) (hyde park, ny: new city press, 2012, 2013), 4.33 (i, 141) and 16.26 (ii, 217). see also augustine, contra faustum 6.9 (teske, 103). scjr 10 (2015) 10 carnally. 22 in fact, augustine goes so far as to claim that, when one finds an alleged contradiction in scripture, one must conclude that “either the manuscript is defective, or the translator made a mistake, or you do not understand [the text].” 23 according to augustine, did or could the old law give grace in and of itself, independent of the future coming of christ? augustine writes explicitly that the old law per se could never give grace. preaching on john 1:17 (for the law was given by moses, grace and truth came by jesus christ) augustine writes: grace was not given in the old testament, because the law threatened but brought no relief. it gave orders; it did not heal; it manifested frailty; it did not get rid of it. but it was preparing the ground for that doctor who was to come with grace and truth; as a doctor who wants to cure someone first sends along his slave, that the doctor might find the patient bandaged up. the patient was not in good health, did not want to be healed, and, to avoid treatment, was boasting about his health. the law was sent, it bound him; he found himself guilty, and he then cried out from the bandages. the lord comes, he treats him with bitter and stinging medicines. ... that is grace for you, amazing grace indeed. 24 while the old law could be said to prepare the way for grace (as the slave in this analogy is sent ahead of the doctor to bandage a patient), it cannot give grace in and of itself. the implications of this theological position are important. according to augustine and the majority of medieval christians following him, there is no possible salvation for the jew who 22 see augustine, contra faustum 11.5–6 (teske, 118–120). 23 augustine, contra faustum, 11.5 (teske, 119). 24 augustine, homilies on the gospel of john (1–40), edmund hill, trans., allan fitzgerald, ed. (the works of saint augustine: a translation for the 21 st century, 3.12) (hyde park, ny: new city press, 2009), homily 3 (78). scjr 10 (2015) 11 remains faithful to the god’s covenant. that is, there is no salvation for those who follow the mosaic law and believe that the god of abraham, isaac, and jacob will be faithful to the promises made in the covenant—promises that, from the jewish perspective, have nothing to do with the future coming of jesus christ, but instead with the faithfulness of the jewish people to god's law and covenant. the medieval reception: birds without flight a full catalog and discussion of the scholastic reception of augustine’s theology of the jews does not yet exist. 25 however, holcot’s theology can only be understood within the context of the thinking of his more immediate forebears. we will therefore first look at the reception of the relevant elements of augustine’s theology in a few of his significant interlocutors, peter lombard, thomas aquinas, and bonaventure. the development of medieval scholastic theology between the early thirteenth century and the sixteenth century can be traced in the commentaries on the sentences of peter lombard. peter lombard († 1160) was the bishop of paris and a magister (professor) at the cathedral school of notre dame. he wrote a textbook called the sentences divided into four books (sententiae in quatuor iv libris distinctae) that became, by the early thirteenth century, the standard textbook for theology in the medieval universities. 26 almost every medi 25 elisheva baumgarten and judah d. galinsky, eds., jews and christians in thirteenth-century france (the new middle ages) (new york, n.y.: palgrave macmillan, 2015) contains several essays relevant to the present discussion. for a focused study on late medieval sacramental theology and the distinction between the old law and the new law, see ueli zahnd, wirksame zeichen? sakramentenlehre und semiotik in der scholastik des ausgehenden mittelalters (spätmittelalter – humanismus – reformation 80) (tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2014), 132–149. 26 on peter lombard see philipp w. rosemann, peter lombard (oxford: oxford university press, 2004); marcia l. colish, peter lombard, 2 vols. (leiden: e.j. brill, 1994). the latin text of the sentences can be found in peter lombard, sententiae in iv libros distinctae, i. brady, ed., 2 vols. scjr 10 (2015) 12 eval theologian between the thirteenth and the sixteenth century wrote a commentary on this work in order to become a magister and, as such, permitted to teach theology. perhaps 1,500 such commentaries are known to exist, including holcot’s. 27 particularly because augustine was the main source for peter lombard’s theology, his sentences and the subsequent commentary tradition are useful for tracing the influence of augustine’s theology of the jews. in his sentences peter lombard examines briefly the difference between the “sacraments” (signs, in the lombard’s language) of the old law and the sacraments of the new law. here he treats the nature of certain old testament practices including sacrifices and ceremonial observances. the lombard argues that “those things which were instituted only for the sake of signifying are merely signs, and not sacraments; such were the carnal sacrifices and the ceremonial observances of the old law, which could never justify those who offered them.” 28 as marcia colish has commented, the lombard “views these old testament ceremonies as significant, but not as a means for the transmission of divine grace.” 29 following, therefore, the predominant augustinian tradition, the lom (spicilegium bonaventurianum iv, v) (grottaferrata: colledii s. bonaventurae ad claras aquas, 1971, 1981). an english translation is available as, peter lombard, the sentences: books i–iv, 4 vols., giulio silano, trans. (toronto, pontifical institute of mediaeval studies, 2007–2010). 27 on the commentary tradition see: philipp w. rosemann, the story of a great medieval book: peter lombard’s sentences (rethinking the middle ages 2) (ontario, 2007); gillian evans, ed., mediaeval commentaries on the sentences of peter lombard, volume i, current research (leiden: e.j. brill, 2002); philipp w. rosemann, ed., mediaeval commentaries on the sentences of peter lombard, volumes 2-3 (leiden: e.j. brill, 2010, 2015). 28 lombard, sent. iv, d.1, c.4 (brady ii, 233 17–20 ; silano iv, 4) (latin text in appendix b). 29 colish, peter lombard, ii, 510–514 (and 528), here 511. cf. rosemann, peter lombard, 145–147. see also, jack watt, “parisian theologians and the jews: peter lombard and peter cantor,” in peter biller and barrie dobson, eds., the medieval church: universities, heresy, and the religious life: essays in honor of gordon leff (woodbridge: boydell press, 1999), 55–76. scjr 10 (2015) 13 bard holds that the old law merely signifies (as signs) the grace of god, but does not sanctify the individual. in his commentary on distinction 1, of book iv of the sentences, the thirteenth-century dominican theologian thomas aquinas recognizes that it seems like the sacraments of the old law confer grace, for to be a sacrament is, by definition, to confer grace. 30 however, after discussing various opinions regarding the nature and the use of the sacraments, thomas concluded that in no way do the sacraments of the old law confer grace by means of the work worked in them (opus operatum in eis). 31 that is, the old law per se cannot give grace by means of the opus operatum (work worked), but could only be a conduit of god’s grace if the individual in question believed in the future grace that would come through jesus christ. 32 thomas aquinas makes this final point clear in the summa theologiae: though our faith in christ is the same as that of the fathers of old [i.e., old testament patriarchs]; yet, since 30 aquinas, scriptum iv, d.1, q.1, a.1. qc.1, arg.1 (latin text in appendix b from www.corpusthomisticum.org, accessed december 15, 2015). for a discussion of thomas’s theology of the jews, see cohen, the friars and the jews; cohen, living letters of the law, 364–398. steven c. boguslawski, thomas aquinas on the jews: insights into his commentary on romans 9–11 (new york, ny: paulist press, 2008), for example, offers an unconvincing critique of cohen’s argument. for recent presentations of aquinas, see also: john y.b. hood, aquinas and the jews (philadelphia, pa: university of pennsylvania press, 1995); matthew a. tapie, aquinas on israel and the church: the question of supersessionism in the theology of thomas aquinas (eugene, or: pickwick publications, 2014). 31 aquinas, scriptum iv, d.1, q.1, a.5. qc.1, co. (latin text in appendix b). circumcision is treated by thomas and others (following the lombard) as a separate case, however, i am not discussing this somewhat complicated exception here. for a useful introduction to the problem, see rosemann, peter lombard, 146. 32 thomas argues in the sed contra to scriptum iv, d.1, q.2, a.5. qc.3, s.c.1 and 2 that following the practices of the old law actually stands in the way of the grace offered through jesus christ and ought to be discontinued. for a discussion of related issues see franklin t. harkins, “docuit excellentissimae divinitatis mysteria: st. paul in thomas aquinas,” in a companion to st. paul in the middle ages, ed. steven r. cartwright (leiden: e.j. brill, 2013), 235–362, here 261. scjr 10 (2015) 14 they came before christ, whereas we come after him, the same faith is expressed in different words…in like manner the ceremonies of the old law betokened christ as having yet to be born and to suffer: whereas our sacraments signify him as already born and having suffered. 33 thomas argues in his commentary on the sentences and summa theologiae—following the augustinian and lombardian tradition—that the patriarchs of the old testament were saved because of their belief in the future coming of christ and through the ceremonies of the old law that foreshadowed christ’s death and resurrection. grace was given to those who followed the old law, not because of the law per se, but because they believed in the coming of christ who is the source of all grace. this theology was not particular to thomas aquinas, and, following the lombard, is found in the majority of theologians working between the thirteenth and sixteenth century. 34 * * * while the commentaries on the sentences were the scholastic theologian’s workshop for developing theology, this theology was transmitted via preaching. in a sermon on the nature of grace given at the end of his life, the franciscan contemporary of thomas, bonaventure of bagnoregio, begins 33 aquinas, summa theologiae ia–iiae, q.103, a.4, in opera omnia iussu impensaque leonis xiii p. m. edita, vols. 4–12 (rome: ex typographia polyglotta s. c. de propaganda fide, 1888–1906), 7, 256 (latin text in appendix b). here i cite the translation by the fathers of the english dominican province, summa theologica, 5 vols (notre dame, in: ave maria press, 1948), ii, 1086. 34 including, for example, bonaventure, who in his commentary on the sentences states that the sacraments of the new law give grace and justification (iustificatio) non tantum per accidents, sed etiam per se. that is, bonaventure argues that the grace offered through the old law is per accidens and not per se, whereas the grace offered through the new law gives grace per se. see bonaventure, liber iv sententiarum, d.1, p.1, art.1, q.5 (opera theologica selecta, vol. 4) (quaracchi: ad claras aquas, 1949), 20. scjr 10 (2015) 15 with an examination of the same verse on which augustine had preached, john 1:17: “the law was given through moses, but grace and truth have come through christ.” 35 the law, bonaventure argues, gives the jews a knowledge of the truth. however, the power to act on this truth—to live the virtuous life through grace—comes about through the grace given by means of the resurrection of jesus christ. the jew who lives according to the old law, but does not receive the grace that comes through christ, is, he says, like a bird who has the power to see the heavens (i.e., knowledge of the truth) but not the strength in her wings to fly (i.e., the power of grace that comes from christ). 36 he writes: “o faithless jew (judaee perfide). you have the law at hand, but unless you have the power to act, it is pointless for you to think about possessing the law unless grace is present as well.” 37 but what is the source of this grace that gives flight? can it come through the law? job too inquires into the origins of this grace, bonaventure observes, when he asks (jb 38:24), “in what way is light spread, and how is heat divided over the earth?” the answer, according to bonaventure, is that all grace descends upon rational minds through: 1) the incarnate word, 2) the crucified word, and 3) the inspired word. 38 the incarnate word refers to the incarnation of the second person of the trinity in the person of jesus christ; the crucified word refers to the triumph of jesus christ over death through his crucifixion and resurrection; and the inspired word refers to the process of regeneration that occurs by means of the holy spirit through an individual’s belief in the 35 see bonaventure, de septem donis spiritus sancti in opera omnia v (quaracchi: ad claras aquas, 1891), 455–503; it is translated by zachary hayes as collations on the seven gifts of the holy spirit (saint bonaventure, n.y.: franciscan institute publications, 2008). here, quaracchi 457; hayes 27–28. 36 bonaventure, de septem donis, coll.1 (quaracchi 457; hayes 27) (latin text in appendix b). 37 bonaventure, de septem donis, coll.1 (quaracchi 457; hayes 28) (latin text in appendix b). 38 bonaventure, de septem donis, coll.1 (quaracchi 458; hayes 30) (latin text in appendix b). scjr 10 (2015) 16 salvation offered through jesus christ. 39 in short, therefore, grace can only come through the person of jesus christ, such that there is no grace present in the law unless one understands the law christologically. in this sermon bonaventure is not explicit about the latter point, as his focus is elsewhere. however, it goes without saying that for the jew of the law, there is no flying without explicit belief in the future coming of jesus christ. the jew without christ remains a bird without flight; a person without god’s grace. in the language of the scholastic doctors, grace is given through the law per accidens and not per se. ii. robert holcot and the jews robert holcot was an english dominican friar who lived during the first half of the fourteenth century. 40 he died of the great plague and would spend the majority of his life in the roughly rectangular area between his native village, holcot, and oxford, cambridge, and london. given that the jews were expelled from great britain by king edward i in 1290 through the edict of expulsion, it is quite certain that holcot never met a single jew. further, if we ask the question “who did holcot have in mind when he discusses the jews”—there is not a definitive answer to the question. the situation is complicated by the fact that throughout this paper i will speak of holcot’s theology of the jews as if discussing his theological position about jews who were contemporaries of his, living during the fourteenth century. however, this is not the case. in fact, holcot’s concern is not with any group of particular jews, but with god’s revelation as found in the old and new tes 39 bonaventure, de septem donis, coll.1 (quaracchi 458; hayes 30) (latin text in appendix b). 40 for an introduction to holcot’s thought see: hester goodenough gelber, it could have been otherwise: contingency and necessity in dominican theology at oxford, 1300–1350 (leiden: e.j. brill, 2004); fritz hoffmann, die theologische methode des oxforder dominikanerlehrers robert holcot (münster: aschendorff, 1972); and john t. slotemaker and jeffrey c. witt, robert holcot (oxford: oxford university press, forthcoming). scjr 10 (2015) 17 taments. therefore, when discussing holcot’s theology of the jews here, we have to keep in mind from the outset that his concern is to present a christian theology of the jews that can account for judaism as witnessed to in the old testament scriptures (and not rabbinic judaism as it existed in the fourteenth century). 41 the three ages and god’s grace holcot’s theology of the jews is grounded in a discussion of the three ages. however, while holcot’s understanding of the three ages corresponds to the augustinian definition, holcot has a different interpretation of the nature of god’s relationship with the distinct groups of individuals living during these periods. 42 holcot agrees with augustine that there are three historical periods: a time before the law, a time under the law, and a time after the law/the time under grace. while his basic outline corresponds with augustine’s analysis of the three ages, holcot radically diverges from augustine and the subsequent medieval theological tradition that followed him who argued that individuals in all three periods are saved by means of the grace offered through jesus christ (even if they lived prior to christ and only received that grace by believing in the future coming of christ). holcot instead insists that individuals living under a given period or covenant are held responsible to god’s self-revelation as defined within the respective periods. according to holcot, individuals who live in the first period are held responsible to god’s revelation as known through natural law. those who live in the second period are held responsible to the mosaic law. and, finally, 41 for a rather different approach that examines holcot’s anti-jewish statements as if related to actual jews of the fourteenth century, see nancy l. turner, “robert holcot on the jews,” in chaucer and the jews: sources, contexts, writings, sheila delany, ed. (new york, ny: routledge, 2002), 133–144. 42 see appendix a for a list of holcot’s texts and manuscripts cited throughout. scjr 10 (2015) 18 those who live in the third period are held responsible for god’s self-revelation in the person of jesus christ and the salvation offered through his death and resurrection. the jews, therefore, who lived during the second period are responsible for keeping the law and are given grace for following the law. in short, god offers the people of each age grace by means of the instruments provided within the given covenant. thus, moses, david, and elijah received grace through their practice of sacrifice and on account of following the law, because the law gave grace per se (not per accidens because an individual believed in the future coming of jesus christ). holcot addresses these theological questions in several places. one is a quodlibetal question (i.e., a public debate “concerning anything”—de quolibet—held twice a year at advent and lent) on "whether the observation of the mosaic law by the jews merited them eternal life?" 43 what strikes the reader familiar with the writings of augustine almost immediately is that robert holcot here confronts, head on, the seeming contradictions found in scripture. instead of arguing, as augustine did, that there are no actual contradictions between the old and new testaments, holcot is willing to address the tension created when scripture first prescribes animal sacrifice or circumcision (cf. lev 4 and 6), only to subsequently denounce such practices (heb 10). this willingness to confront the tensions within the scriptures is the first indication that holcot is presenting an entirely new reading of covenantal theology. in his discussion, holcot critiques the standard theology found in peter lombard (and augustine). he examines the passage in acts 15:10 where the apostle peter argues that the old law placed a yoke (iugum) upon humanity that “neither 43 holcot, utrum observantia legis mosaycae. nancy turner correctly rejects gilbert dahan’s reading of this text. see her "robert holcot on the jews," 144, fn. 20, discussing gilbert dahan, les intellectuels chrétiens et les juifs au moyen age (paris: editions de cerf, 1990), 560. scjr 10 (2015) 19 our fathers nor we have been able to bear.” 44 holcot argues that the lombard uses this passage to argue that while the new law confers grace (conferunt gratiam), the old law merely signifies (significant) grace. this theology, discussed above, was developed by augustine and supported by peter lombard and the majority of medieval theologians. holcot argues instead that the old law did confer grace, stating explicitly that “every just person before god is worthy of eternal life, and every observer of the mosaic law is justified before god.” 45 as evidence of this claim, holcot mentions moses, joshua, samuel, david, ezekiel, josiah, judas maccabee and many others (multis aliis) as examples of those who merited eternal life. 46 however, holcot is aware that this general argument is not sufficient to make his broader claim, for, as we know, one could argue that these individuals merited eternal life because (as augustine would say) they understood the law as pointing to christ and were given grace though their belief in the future coming of the messiah. holcot excludes this interpretation by stating that in leviticus 4 and 6 sacrifices were offered for the sin of the people (pro peccato populi) and that “those sacrifices bestowed the remission of sins” and, as such, bestowed grace (for to give grace and to remit sins is identical). 47 holcot indirectly expands this discussion to include circumcision in his discussion of baptism. he recalls that jesus (jn 3:5) stated explicitly, “except a person be born again of water and the holy spirit (ex aqua et spiritu), he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” thus, it seems as if baptism is necessary for salvation. however, holcot broadens his understanding of baptism to include the repentance of the faithful, martyrdom, as well as baptism by water. this allows 44 holcot, utrum observantia legis mosaycae (molteni, 174 7–12 | b, fol. 242 vb ) (latin text in appendix b). 45 holcot, utrum observantia legis mosaycae (molteni, 179 30–33 | b, fol. 243 rb ) (latin text in appendix b). 46 holcot, utrum observantia legis mosaycae (molteni, 180 7–11 | b, fol. 243 rb ) (latin text in appendix b). 47 holcot, utrum observantia legis mosaycae (molteni, 176 23–35 | b, fol. 243 ra ) (latin text in appendix b). scjr 10 (2015) 20 him to classify the jewish practice of circumcision under the old law as an act of repentance and regeneration; as such, it conferred grace. 48 holcot is, like others we have seen, also concerned with whether or not god’s grace is given prior to the law, in the first age. following his medieval predecessors, holcot focuses on job and argues that job is not saved under the old law (as he was a gentile). 49 however, holcot explicitly rejects the implication that job was not given grace. after discussing job, holcot immediately inquires into the status of someone who lives simply according to natural law and is ignorant of both the law of moses and the message of the gospels, writing: “is it is possible for someone who is brought up from infancy (ab infantia) outside the context of god’s law to be saved?” 50 he argues that it is possible such a person is saved (and receives god’s grace) if she chooses the better sect (sectam meliorem) among the available options and follows it earnestly. 51 such an individual can be saved and can be given grace if she does not provide an obstacle (obicem) to god’s grace, for barring an obstacle, a baptism of the spirit (bap 48 holcot, utrum observantia legis mosaycae (molteni, 203 7–10 | b, fol. 245 ra ) (latin text in appendix b). 49 holcot, utrum observantia legis mosaycae (molteni, 202 26–31 | b, fol. 245 ra ) (latin text in appendix b). 50 holcot, utrum observantia legis mosaycae (molteni, 183 22–31 | b, fol. 243 va ). holcot argues that in living “according to the principles of natural law” that god revealed to them, they are not living according to demonstrable reason (demonstrationes naturales). see holcot, sent. i, q.4 (l, fol. e.3 ra–rb | o, fol. 136 va ) (latin texts in appendix b). on this, see heiko a. oberman, “facientibus quod in se est deus non denegrat gratiam: robert holcot, o.p. and the beginnings of luther’s theology,” harvard theological review 55.4 (1962), 317–342. oberman claims, “we are, however, forewarned that holcot’s position cannot simply be identified with that of augustine by the fact that this gift of knowledge of god is not bestowed on the elect but on those who live according to the principles of natural law” (321). 51 cf. holcot, sent. i, q.1 (l, fol. a.7 rb | o, fol. 123 ra ) (latin text in appendix b). scjr 10 (2015) 21 tismum flaminis) would be conferred by god. 52 indeed, holcot maintains that god can grant salvation to those ignorant of the articles of faith if their ignorance arises from no fault of their own. 53 according to holcot, many of the philosophers and wise men—job, socrates, plato, aristotle, and most of the stoics—lived in a divine cult according to some rite (ritus) and profession (protestationes) and were saved (salvati sunt). 54 thus, holcot argues that those living in the first two covenantal eras (before the law and under the law) were offered grace by god if they strove to do their best within their given covenant. further, the giving of salvific grace was not on account of their belief in the future coming of the messiah. such individuals, whether under natural law or the mosaic law, are given grace for striving to live according to the will of god as communicated to them within a given covenant. holcot’s obligational analogy the arts faculty of the university of paris developed a form of academic disputation in the thirteenth century that was referred to as obligationes (literally obligations). according to holcot, this complex form of debate is an instructive analogy of how god interacts with humanity throughout the three ages. the obligationes are a form of logical training or disputation staged between two scholars. 55 the opponent 52 holcot, utrum observantia legis mosaycae (molteni, 202 31 – 203 7 | b, fol. 243 va ) (latin text in appendix b). cf. oberman, the harvest, 243–248. 53 cf. gelber, it could have been otherwise, 294. 54 cf. holcot, sent. iii, q.1 (l, fol. n.i va | o, fol. 176 rb ) (latin text in appendix b). this passage should also be read alongside one referenced by smalley, english friars and antiquity in the early fourteenth century (oxford: basil blackwell, 1960), 327–328. cf. holcot, sap. 157 (b1, 521– 523 | b2, fol. 233 va–vb ). 55 on the obligational arts, see: catarina dutilh novaes, formalizing medieval logical theories: suppositio, consequentiae and obligationes (logic, epistemology, and the unity of science 7) (dordrecht: springer, 2010); paul vincent spade, “if obligationes were counterfactuals,” philosophical topics 20, 171–188; paul vincent spade, “medieval theories of scjr 10 (2015) 22 (opponens) begins the disputation by stating a proposition of the form “i posit that a” (with a being called the positum). the respondent (respondens) responds to the original positum by conceding (concedo), denying (nego), or remaining doubtful (dubito) about the proposition. the debate begins when the respondent accepts the proposition and obliges himself to it (se obligat). throughout the course of the debate the original positum functions as the basis for exchange as the opponent introduces new propositions into the debate and the respondent continues by either accepting, rejecting, or denying the relevance of the subsequent propositions. the rules of the debate state that the respondent is to accept nothing contradictory to the first proposition and to deny nothing that is consistent with it. thus, the obligational debate is about identifying an original proposition and analyzing whether or not subsequent propositions are logically consistent with the original proposition. the debate is concluded when the opponent stops the debate by saying “time is up” (cedat tempus). while there are numerous passages in which holcot examines the obligational arts as a model for constructive theology, we will focus here on a single passage. 56 holcot writes in his sentences commentary: obligationes,” stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (winter 2014), available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/obligationes/; and mikko yrjönsuuri, ed., medieval formal logic: obligations, insolubles and consequences (the new synthese historical library 49) (dordrecht: springer, 2013). see also the two essays by eleonore stump, “obligations: a. from the beginning of the early fourteenth century,” and paul vincent spade, “obligations: b. developments in the fourteenth century,” in the cambridge history of later medieval philosophy, norman kretzmann, anthony kenny, and jan pinborg, eds. (cambridge: cambridge university press, 1982), 315–334, and 335–341. 56 hoffmann, die theologische methode, 18–19, 276–277, 280–281, and 346–355; gelber, it could have been otherwise, 151–190; and hester goodenough gelber, “robert holcot, obligational theology, and the incarnation,” (forthcoming), have discussed the importance of the obligational arts for understanding holcot. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/obligationes/ scjr 10 (2015) 23 it seems to me for now that one should speak to this according to the obligatory art. for that god reveals proposition a [i.e., “only those who are numbered among tomorrow’s mortal sinners will be saved”] to socrates and that socrates believes this proposition, god’s teaching it to him, and that so it will be as [that revelation] denotes, is the same as if [god] were to say to him: “i pose a to you (pono tibi a), such that afterwards you should concede and deny [as in an obligatio].” and having made such a revelation, the revealed proposition ought to be conceded as often as it is proposed, and every formal consequence following simply [from that] ought to be conceded. to everything, however, that does not follow from that, one should respond as to an irrelevant proposition... 57 in this short passage holcot argues that the relation between the opponent and respondent can be understood as analogous to the relationship between god and humanity. according to the analogy, god is the opponent who posits an original proposition or positum: “i pose a to you.” god reveals this positum to an individual (i.e., the respondent) and the respondent either concedes or denies the proposition. if the respondent obliges himself to it, the debate has begun and the respondent is now obligated to everything that logically follows from the positum. this, holcot argues, is perhaps how god interacts with humanity in the three ages described above. god reveals to humanity a given covenant: for example, in the first age before the mosaic law god revealed himself and his ordering of creation to all humanity through the natural law (iuris naturalis, i.e. the positum of the age). in the second age, the age of the law, god reveals himself and his law to humanity through the law given to israel on mount sinai. in the third age, god reveals himself to humanity through the coming of jesus christ and the salvation offered to all through his death and 57 holcot, sent. i, q.3 (l, fol. d.2 rb–va | o, fol. 132 rb ) (latin text in appendix b). this passage is transcribed and translated in gelber, it could have been otherwise, 182. scjr 10 (2015) 24 resurrection. in each case individuals are obligated to god’s revelation and are held accountable for what has been revealed to them (and everything that logically follows from the original positum). the true power of the analogy, for holcot, is that it allows him to give a theological account of how scripture speaks in different ways about the parameters of human salvation. holcot was almost unflinching in accepting the fact that the christian scriptures contain divergent plans of human salvation. for example, in some places scripture implies that animal sacrifice is necessary for salvation, whereas in other places it implies that it is not. holcot accepts the fact that for a jew living during the first temple period, the sacrificial system described in the book of leviticus contained god’s revealed law. as such, this person lived faithfully according to the will of god as revealed in the law by sacrificing animals. however, the new testament, reflecting the third age, after the law, outright rejects that animal sacrifice forgives sins. following the obligational analogy, holcot argues that god has revealed to humanity three distinct covenants that are binding for those to whom they have been revealed. in other words, holcot argues that god, like the opponent in the debate, can change or stop the debate at any time and offer a new positum that contradicts the first. that is, god can change the rules of the game (i.e., the original positum). further, holcot argues that scripture witnesses to the fact that god has indeed done so in the past through the three distinct ages of salvation history. this allows him to reject augustine’s understanding of the three ages as bound to a single salvific system governed by christ and his work of salvation. therefore, according to holcot, job, who lived neither under the mosaic law nor under the grace of christ, is given the grace of god by obliging himself to the natural law revealed by god. moses, who lived under the mosaic law revealed to him, is given grace by obliging himself to the law given on mount sinai. these individuals, holcot insists, are not saved because they understood the natural law or mosaic law as pointing to the scjr 10 (2015) 25 future salvation offered through jesus christ. no, they are saved because god has revealed his will to them in radically distinct ages of salvation history that are spoken of in scripture. holcot argues that according to the obligational model god reveals proposition a to socrates and that socrates believes this proposition, god teaching it to him. consequently, holcot is arguing that the change from one age to the next is not a defined moment in history according to which god immediately and without warning shifts all of humanity from one covenant to the next. a new covenant did not immediately begin for all of humanity the moment moses was given the tablets on sinai (ex 24:14–18) or jesus christ rose from the dead (mt 28:1–10). indeed, as holcot understood things, job lived during the age of the mosaic law and, as a non-jew, did not have access to this revelation. holcot’s understanding of the shift from one covenant to the next is more nuanced and individualized than a blanket shift at a given point in history. he writes that god reveals the proposition or positum to the individual, as is implied in holcot’s comment about socrates. job too was held to the standard of the natural law because god had not revealed the mosaic law to him. similarly, if there were jews living in persia or india around the year 1,000 c.e. who had not been exposed to the gospel of christ (i.e., god did not reveal to them the third age) they would be held accountable to god’s revelation as they knew it through the law of moses. to return to the question that was posed at the beginning of this paper, we can note that for holcot noah received grace because he lived according to the natural law that god had revealed to him. noah was neither a proto-jew who anticipated the mosaic law nor a proto-christian who anticipated the grace of jesus christ—noah was an individual who did the best he could within the covenantal relationship that god established and revealed to him through the natural law. scjr 10 (2015) 26 implications of holcot’s theology robert holcot’s theology of the jews has interesting and complex implications for christian theology and it is necessary to address a few of the questions that may arise. first, robert holcot was certainly not arguing that any of his contemporary european jews were offered salvation on account of following the mosaic law. holcot knew that the majority of the jews during his time period were aware that: (a) jesus christ had lived and died, and (b) christians believe that this person jesus christ was the promised messiah. consequently, holcot would have argued that individual jews during the medieval period were probably not receiving the grace of god because they consciously rejected god’s most recent covenantal revelation. this accounts for the fact that holcot in general continues to employ anti-jewish language. 58 second, this means that the theology discussed above is not a theology of the jews in and of itself. historically, therefore, we must not anachronistically overextend his argument and claim that holcot developed an alternative theology of the jews that moved beyond a kind of supersessionism. for holcot, the question was not how to articulate how the jews fit within god’s plan of salvation in relationship to the message of christian theology. holcot’s concern was about how to read scripture. his original approach to the material arose from questions about the consistency of the message revealed by god in the old and new testaments. in confronting the tensions and perceived theological inconsistencies between the old and new testaments, he resoundingly rejected the augustinian sentiment that the old testament is just an imperfect form of the new testament and that there are not contradictions between the two testaments. his theology of 58 nancy turner, “robert holcot on the jews,” 134, notes that holcot’s most extensive treatment of the jews is found in his analysis of wisdom 2:12–24. his commentary on these verses is found in lectures 24–30 (b1, 84–108 | b2, fols. 39 rb –50 ra ). scjr 10 (2015) 27 the three ages and his obligational model are a complex alternative way of approaching the various theological and textual tensions that exist between the two testaments. finally, those familiar with the christian theological tradition will recognize that various unsavory consequences seem to follow from holcot’s theology. the first (1) natural objection or concern is how one can know that there are only three ages. for example, one could argue that in fact there are not just three ages, but instead four ages with the fourth beginning with god’s revelation to the prophet mohammed. 59 (2) second, holcot’s dominican order (the order of preachers) is devoted to spreading the gospel. however, holcot’s theology seems to undermine the need for proselytizing given that if one is unaware of a new covenant they can still achieve god’s grace and salvation. in the most literal sense of the phrase, ignorance is bliss (or could be). (3) further, some would object that this model presents god as a god of absolute power who acts capriciously in his dealings with human beings. holcot did not deal with these basic objections directly in his extensive corpus of writings. if he was aware of them, he was apparently not troubled by them. however, these objections raise real issues today, so we can propose certain responses. in response to the first claim (ad 1), holcot was clear that god’s revelation is never complete and that one could anticipate that a subsequent covenant is pending. for christians, the final age is one of union with god where the wolf lays down with the lamb and all is made whole (is 11:6). holcot’s theology could easily accommodate a discussion of the eschaton, therefore, that views the present age as not the final age. however, the specific objection about other religions being revealed as a new covenant simply did not occur to him and it is difficult to anticipate how he would respond. 59 this objection was raised by a perceptive undergraduate student at the university of basel in response to a public lecture on holcot’s theology. scjr 10 (2015) 28 to the second claim (ad 2), holcot could consistently argue that within the third covenant (i.e., sub gratia) god has revealed to humanity that they ought to “make disciples of all nations” (mt 28:16–20). god’s revelation in scripture is binding and, therefore, the believer ought to follow the teachings of this revelation. thus, despite the fact that by analyzing carefully the obligational model one could theologically anticipate objections to proselytizing, based on the same analogy, the fact that god commands the making of disciples in the new testament would trump, for the christian, any other theological objections. finally, in response to the third objection (ad 3), holcot developed a strong covenantal theology according to which god acts in a way that is faithful to his covenant(s). in short, holcot argues that god never acts “inordinately (inordinate)” within a given covenant (that is, god does not break his own rules and is faithful to the covenant in question). 60 iii. thinking with holcot: a theological response the purpose of the present paper has been to think through robert holcot’s theology of the jews, given its important divergences from the broader augustinian heritage. its final section presents preliminary thoughts about the implications of holcot’s theology that may be of interest to those thinking about the relationship between jews and christians today. what follows is not the theology of robert holcot (and to take it as such would be to distort his thought). further, my goal here is not to work through my own theology of the jews, but to present some thoughts that build on holcot’s theology. 60 an adequate response to these three objections requires a separate essay. this third argument, in particular, has been the focus of considerable attention in the literature. the reader who is interested in a fuller sympathetic response should consult: gelber, it could have been otherwise; hoffmann, die theologische methode; and slotemaker-witt, robert holcot. a non-sympathetic account (that should be used with caution) can be found in leonard a. kennedy, the philosophy of robert holcot, fourteenth-century skeptic (lewiston, ny: mellen press, 1993). scjr 10 (2015) 29 according to holcot god could grant grace to a jewish person living during the time of moses and practicing her religion to the best of her ability. the sacrifice of animals, for example, could be efficacious of grace in and of itself because it was ordained by god according to the mosaic law. what is less clear, however, is whether jews living after the coming of jesus christ could receive grace by living according to god’s covenant with abraham and moses. if so, how could they receive such grace? we turn to this question because, in the end, it is perhaps the most pressing theological question facing holcot (or a defender of his position). it was argued above that according to holcot the jews living after the coming of jesus christ who remained ignorant of his life, death, and resurrection—and the fact that those events initiated a new covenant—could be granted grace through the practice of the mosaic law. holcot is clear that one is responsible for a new or subsequent covenant only when god has revealed that covenant to the person directly. in this sense, ignorance really could result in bliss (i.e., grace). however, this response does nothing to answer the question of whether or not a jew living in the fifth century after the coming of christ and who had knowledge about jesus christ (but rejected the claim that he is the jewish messiah) could be granted grace for following the law. this remains a pressing issue for contemporary christian theologies of judaism. 61 it seems, prima facie, that robert holcot claimed that jews living after the coming of jesus christ who had knowledge of his life, death, and resurrection, but continued to follow the mosaic law, were denied grace if they failed to recognize or accept god's new covenant. indeed, evidence that holcot would support this claim, with resounding enthu 61 see the recent statement by the vatican, “the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable (rom 11:29),” available at: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relationsjews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html; and gavin d’costa, vatican ii: catholic doctrines on jews and muslims (oxford: oxford university press, 2014). http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html scjr 10 (2015) 30 siasm, appears throughout his writings. in his commentaries on the sentences and the book of wisdom he repeats the traditional anti-jewish accusation that jews are blind because they fail to recognize the coming of christ. what i want to examine here, though, is a possible and novel theological position that is consistent with holcot’s broader theology and might perhaps present an intriguing option for modern christians and jews who seek to move beyond a theology of supersessionism. robert holcot writes that individuals are bound to a given covenant only when god has revealed that covenant to them. some human beings, therefore, are bound to the rules of the law of nature because god has communicated those rules to them (and not others). similarly, god chose to communicate the law of moses to the people of israel as his truth—that is, the rules were not just known to the people, they were revealed to the people of israel as the truth of god, of yhwh. here it is useful to recall the obligational model, according to which the original positum was put to the respondent by the opponent. in the model, it is necessary that the positum is communicated to the respondent and in a way in which the respondent understood the positum to be a binding proposition within the rules of the obligational arts. following the analogy, what one could hold, given holcot’s position, is that god takes responsibility for the act of revelation. jews and christians then accept the proposition that god has revealed himself through holy scripture. as such, god has chosen to reveal to certain groups of humanity that the scriptures are true. holcot’s model allows one to argue, i think, that jews living after the coming of christ are perhaps not responsible for following the “new covenant” (i.e., to hold that jesus is the messiah) if god has not revealed to them that there is, indeed, a new covenant that is grounded in the person of jesus christ, and even so, if they have not accepted this revelation as true. would holcot endorse such a claim? scjr 10 (2015) 31 this scenario is perhaps consistent with holcot’s obligational analogy (though not with his supersessionism). 62 first, recall that in his analogy holcot imagines god revealing to socrates the parameters of a given covenant. in this discussion holcot states that god reveals the positum to socrates and that socrates believes this proposition, god teaching it to him. what is important here is that socrates must believe the proposition for the proposition to be binding (in the same way a respondent must accept the positum in an obligational debate). that is, holcot seems to imagine a possible scenario in which information is known to an individual but the individual does not believe it. this, of course, would be the case for medieval christians who lived in a world in which muslims claimed that god had revealed his truth through the prophet mohammed. what a christian would argue in response to islam, according to this model, is that while a christian may know about the claims of the prophet, he or she does not believe those claims to be true. in the same way a defender of “holcot’s model” could argue that jews have knowledge of jesus of nazareth but that they did not recognize him to be the christ because god had not revealed it to them as the truth. second, holcot says that the positum is not only believed, but it is believed in a particular way: i.e., god teaching it to him. the point, again, is that god’s revelation to an individual must be taught to the individual by god as the truth in such a way that it is believed as the truth. returning to the question of the jews who lived during the medieval period, one defending this revision of holcot’s theology could claim that the jews in the middle ages were aware of the teachings about jesus but that they did not believe this claim as the truth because it had not been taught to them by god. that is, god did not teach it to the jews as the truth of his revelation. 63 62 see, e.g., holcot’s discussion of the three laws (the law of nature, the mosaic law, and the law of the gospel) in the moralitates 11 (b1, 720– 721); cf., slotemaker-witt, robert holcot, ch. 11. 63 this argument is in no way defended by robert holcot. further, while it is perhaps theologically consistent with certain aspects of his thought, other aspects of his thought (the idea, e.g., that the jews are blind because they scjr 10 (2015) 32 on this theological model god has revealed himself to humanity in three distinct ages: a time before the law, a time under the law, and a time after the law. in each age god communicates his truth to humanity and humanity believes this truth because it was taught to them by god. in each covenant, individuals must seek to follow the truth of god as revealed to them—in response, god rewards those who follow a given revelation and he gives grace. further, one could argue that these are not three historically exclusive covenants such that one sequentially replaces the next (with moses on sinai or with jesus’ resurrection). 64 one could push holcot’s model, a bit, and argue that god in some cases does not reveal a given covenant to a particular individual (or group) as the truth. in particular, one could claim that god did not choose to reveal to the jews, as the truth, the proposition that jesus is the messiah. while jews at the time of holcot (or presently) clearly knew about jesus of nazareth and what christians claimed about him, one could argue that this knowledge was not revealed to the jews by god as the truth and as such they live under a distinct covenant that began with moses and extends into the medieval and modern world (a truth revealed in written and oral torah and taught to them by god as the truth). on this model one could argue that god gives grace to the jews for living into the truth of judaism as revealed to them by god. do not accept jesus as the messiah) clearly go against the argument suggested here. the present argument, therefore, is perhaps closer to modern theories that have attempted to move beyond supersessionism. for example, see david novak, “from supersessionism to parallelism in jewishchristian dialogue,” in talking with christians, 8–25. i have, for the sake of simplicity, bracketed the question of how rabbinic judaism relates to the mosaic law and the jewish practices of the first and second temple periods. the christian interested in modifying and extending holcot's thought could make a similar argument regarding two distinct propositions (the original positum) that god revealed as true to two distinct groups (rabbinic judaism and christians) through a binding covenant. 64 holcot seems to grant this possibility (see, e.g., the discussion of job). scjr 10 (2015) 33 appendix a: robert holcot: manuscripts and editions cited text manuscripts/editions sigla in quatuor libros sententiarum quaestiones lyon, 1518; reprinted frankfurt, 1967 l in quatuor libros sententiarum quaestiones oxford, oriel college, ms. 15 o moralitates basel, 1586 b1 super sapientiam salomonis basel, 1586 b1 super sapientiam salomonis oxford, balliol college, ms. 27 b2 utrum observatia legis mosaycae fuit iudaeis meritoria vitae aeternae paulo molteni (ed.), roberto holcot o.p.: dottrina della grazia e della giustificazione con due questioni quodlibetali inedite (pinerolo, 1967), 174– 204 utrum observatia legis mosaycae fuit iudaeis meritoria vitae aeternae oxford, balliol college, ms. 246 b scjr 10 (2015) 34 appendix b: latin citations fn. reference latin quotation 28 lombard, sent. iv, d.1, c.4 quae enim significandi gratia tantum instituta sunt, solum signa sunt, et non sacramenta: sicut fuerunt sacrificia carnalia et observantiae caerimoniales veteris legis, quae nunquam poterant iustos facere offerentes. 30 aquinas, scriptum iv, d.1, q.1, a.1. qc.1, arg.1 videtur quod sacramenta veteris legis gratiam conferebant. ut enim supra dictum est, sacramenta a sacrando dicuntur, sicut ornatus ab ornando, et munimenta a muniendo. sed sine gratia non potest aliquid sacrari. ergo sacramenta veteris legis gratiam conferebant. 31 aquinas, scriptum iv, d.1, q.1, a.5. qc.1, co. sed haec opinio non videtur convenire dictis sanctorum: dicunt enim, quod lex erat occasio mortis, inquantum ostendebat peccatum, et gratiam adjutricem non conferebat. nec differt quantum ad hoc qualitercumque vel directe vel indirecte gratiam conferrent. et praeterea secundum hoc nulla esset vel valde modica praeeminentia sacramentorum novae legis ad sacramenta veteris legis: quia etiam sacramenta novae legis a fide et significatione causandi efficaciam habent, ut dictum est. et ideo alii dicunt, et melius, quod nullo modo sacramenta ipsa veteris legis, idest opus operatum in eis, gratiam conferebant, excepta circumcisione, de qua post dicetur. 33 aquinas, summa theologiae ia–iiae, q.103, a.4 quamvis autem sit eadem fides quam habemus de christo, et quam antiqui patres habuerunt; tamen quia ipsi praecesserunt christum, nos autem sequimur, eadem fides diversis verbis significatur a nobis et ab eis. nam ab eis dicebatur, ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium, quae sunt verba futuri temporis, nos autem idem repraesentamus per verba praeteriti temporis, dicentes quod concepit et peperit. et similiter caeremoniae veteris legis significabant christum ut nasciturum et passurum, nostra autem sacramenta significant ipsum ut natum et passum 36 bonaventure, de septem donis, coll.1 lex se habet ad gratiam, sicut virtus apprehensiva ad motivam, et sicut instrumentum ad virtutem operativam. esto, quod avis haberet aspectum ad videndum caelum et non haberet virtutem in alis, non posset volare nec ibi pertingere. sic, quantumcumque glorietur iudaeus in lege, ex quo est scjr 10 (2015) 35 sine gratia, nihil est. artifex, quando habet instrumentum, per quod operatur, nisi habeat virtutem operativam in manibus, nihil boni potest facere. 37 ibid. iudaee perfide, legem habes in manu, sed nisi habeas virtutem operativam, frustra putas, te legem habere. ideo per legem nemo salvatur, nisi adsit gratia. 38 ibid. sed qua via descendit gratia in homines? quaerit iob dicens: per quam viam spargitur lux, et dividitur aestus super terram? respondeo et dico, quod gratia descendit super mentes rationales per verbum incarnatum, per verbum crucifixum et per verbum inspiratum. 39 ibid. per verbum incarnatum descendit ad nos copia gratiarum; unde in ioanne: de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepinius et gratiam pro gratia. certum est, quod originale principium, quod est deus, quando creavit hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem suam in statu innocentiae, ita propinquum creavit illum sibi, ut per verbum increatum informabilis esset homo ad gratiam. postquam vero homo lapsus est per peccatum, providit divina sapientia modum condescensionis per verbum incarnatum, per quod homo adaptaretur ad gratiam. 44 holcot, utrum observantia legis mosaycae antecedens probo per auctoritatem petri act. 15: “quid temptatis imponere iugum super cervicem discipulorum quod neque nos neque patres nostri portare potuimus.” 45 ibid. omnis homo iustus apud deum dignus est vita aeterna, omnis observator legis mosaycae iustus est apud deum; igitur etc. 46 ibid. hoc idem per exempla satis patet, sicut de moyse, josue, samuele, david, ezechia, josia et machabaeis et multis aliis. 47 ibid. similiter sacraficia multa instituta fuerunt ad emendandum homines a peccatis sicut patet lev. 4 et 6, ubi ponitur quadruplex hostia pro peccato scilicet pro peccato populi, sacerdotis, principis et animae, id est singularis personae. tunc arguo sic: idem est tribuere gratiam, et remissionem peccatorum, sed ista sacrificia tribuebant remissionem peccatorum. 48 ibid. tertio dico quod extorte exponit verbum christi joh. 3:[5]: “nisi quis renatus fuerit, etc.” scjr 10 (2015) 36 49 ibid. similiter ex ista ratione non concluditur quod sine gratia potest quis salvari in lege nova, sicut nec in veteri, unde job, de quo exemplificat, nec fuit sub lege, nec fuit salvatus sine gratia. 50 a ibid. secunda ratio talis: ponatur quod aliquis ab infantia instruatur sub terra, nec informetur de lege dei, similiter illa, quae sunt servanda ad meritum vitae aeternae et statuat ipse penes se quod vellet sectam meliorem tenere, si constaret sibi, quae esset illa, et sic decedat. 50 b holcot, sent. i, q.4 dico quod gentes que legem moysi si non habent, viventes secundum principia iuris naturalis, perceperunt fidem et gratiam a deo sine lege moysi, et faciebant legem, et dilexerunt deum super omnia, instructe a deo non per demonstrationes naturales. 51 holcot, sent. i, q.1 unde quidam ducti sunt ad fidem per orationes sanctorum. similiter aliqui solliciti de salute consequenda volunt et desiderant scire que sunt media et ad salutem necessaria; et cum intellexerint, quod credere sit necessarium ad salutem, tunc desiderant credere et volunt credere et habent animum promptum ad faciendum quicquid est necessarium ad salutem, et quicumque fuerint tales in quacumque secta, credo eos per divinam gratiam aliquo modo salvandos. 52 holcot, utrum observantia legis mosaycae secunda ratio, quam facit de homine nutrito sub terra, qui audiens de diversis sectis dictaret penes se quod vellet servare meliorem, si sciret quae esset talis, dicit quod ipse salvaretur sine gratia et sine baptismo. falsum est: sed deus tali conferret gratiam, si non praeberet obicem gratiae et sic baptismum flaminis consequeretur. 54 holcot, sent. iii, q.1 quarto dico quod de istis philosophis aut mundi sapientibus quidam in divino cultu secundum aliquos ritus et protestationes perstiterunt et salvati sunt, sicut constat de iob, de socrate, de platone, aristotele et plurima turba stoicorum presumi potest. 57 holcot, sent. i, q.3 videtur mihi pro nunc ad istam formam respondendo est secundum artem obligatoriam. nam idem est dicere revelet deus sorti a propositionem et credat sortes a propositionem, deo docente, et sic erit sicut per eam denotatur, et simile est si dicat sibi: ‘pono tibi a, quantum ad scjr 10 (2015) 37 concedendum et negandum postea,’ et ideo facta tali revelatione, ipsa propositio revelata quotiescumque proponatur est concedenda, et omne sequens ex ea simpliciter per formalem consequentiam est concedendum. ad omne autem quod non sequitur ex ea nisi consequentia ut nunc, respondendum est sicut ad impertinens, quia consequentia et nunc debet negari in illa arte. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): valkenberg r1-3 burge, jesus and the land valkenberg r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr gary burge jesus and the land: the new testament challenge to “holy land” theology (grand rapids, mi: baker academic, 2010), xiv + 153 pp. pim valkenberg, the catholic university of america reading gary burge’s jesus and the land while visiting israel and the palestinian territories with a group of christian and jewish clergy from maryland last year certainly was a unique reading experience. the book prompted many conversations with others familiar with his controversial views, often introduced by the question, “well, what do you think about it?” in this book, two sides of the professional career of gary burge, professor of new testament at wheaton college, converge. the first side is his expertise in the new testament, its authors, and its context. the second side is burge’s deep interest in the israeli-palestinian conflict, which he approaches from a position strongly critical of israel on both political and religious grounds, as seen in a number of earlier books such as who are god’s people in the middle east (1993) and whose land? whose promise? what christians are not being told about israel and the palestinians (2003). the central questions for burge in this book are how christians should understand the competing land claims by jews and palestinians, and how they should respond to these claims on the basis of a new testament theology of the land and specifically of the land of israel. burge realizes quite well that his theological critique of israel and christian theologies that support it is a minority position among his fellow evangelical christians to whom he addresses his book. he expects it will meet with strong opposition from the defenders of the “holy land” theology sympathetic to israel who are mentioned in the subtitle of his book. at the start, burge introduces some fundamental complexities of the topic. he notes the importance of notions of “land” and “place” for religions and suggests that modern nation-states as well often use religious claims to legitimate contemporary political claims. he also recognizes that even one’s choice of name for a place is always a challenge since few names are entirely neutral. for example, he asks if christians should speak of the holy land, of israel, or of palestine. any choice betrays a particular point of view (p. xiv). burge opts for “israel-palestine” as the most “inclusive” term. the first chapter of his book gives a survey of the biblical and second temple period views that form the background against which new testament authors forged their notions of land. burge recognizes that there is the important biblical connection between covenant and promises of land, and there are the many stories about possession and loss of land. the experience of the exile made the notion of “land” even more central, and, he argues, it presented diaspora jews with the question: is it possible to be a faithful jew outside of the land? in an effort to demonstrate the vitality of judaism “without a necessary territorial base,” he points to the views of philo and josephus. he says they “entirely redefined” the notion of the land. rather than actual review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): valkenberg r1-3 burge, jesus and the land valkenberg r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr territory, it stands for the knowledge and wisdom of god or a stage of development for the soul on its way to god (pp. 22-24). though he notes the continuing attachment of many diaspora jews to the land of israel (e.g., financial support for the temple; a desire to be buried there), burge emphasizes the size of the diaspora and apparent comfort of jews there. though burge is seldom explicit in his exegesis here about modern political implications, the reader is of course aware that he has the state of israel in mind when presenting ancient jews’ positive views of the diaspora. the bulk of his study focuses on new testament texts. his interpretations are largely intended to prompt christians “to rethink land and its value,” especially the value of the land of israel, as part of his religious critique of christians who support the modern state of israel (p. xii). he analyzes the synoptic gospels (chapter three), john (chapter four), acts (chapter five), paul’s writings (chapter six), and other new testament books (chapter seven). he admits there are texts that roughly reflect an attachment to the land of israel. he says jesus is certainly in agreement with the “geographical consciousness” of the biblical notion of land. however, burge also observes that jesus is “surprisingly silent with regard to the territorial aspirations and politics of his day” (p. 28). he rejects contemporary “land theologies.” this tension in burge’s interpretation appears in his discussion of a central saying in the beatitudes: “blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth / land” (matthew 5:5) (pp. 33-35). interestingly, burge admits that the word usually translated “earth” most likely means “land,” as in land of israel. however, he says jesus’ main point is that the meek, not nationalist or revolutionary jews, will inherit the land. does this mean that jesus affirms territorialization? burge is uncomfortable with this view but admits that matthew’s jesus does not denounce the land itself. burge therefore tries to minimize jesus’ interest in it and to demonstrate his break with other jews’ more favorable views: “he is reticent with regards to debates about the land. he expresses no overt affirmation” of it (p. 40). burge argues for a stronger critique of land theology in john. he focuses on passages where jesus seems directly opposed to more favorable jewish ideas about the land. in that gospel, jesus becomes the holy place of god instead of the temple (john 4). also, burge gives a controversial exegesis of the “song of the vineyard” in john 15. whereas formerly the vines stood for the jews and the vineyard symbolized the land of israel, john, burge says, makes jesus the true vine. the vineyard ceases to be the land; the vines cease to be the jews. jesus therefore spiritualizes the land and empties it of the meaning it had for jews. these passages in john are useful for burge’s overall argument: “the land as holy territory therefore should now recede from the concerns of god’s people” (pp. 52-56). while he admits that there is a continuing presence in other new testament texts of some types of attachment to the land, burge argues that the view spiritualizing—and, therefore, relativizing—the land is more prominent and takes place in different ways and in other texts in the new testament. he strongly emphasizes texts where it is reinterpreted or abrogated, as in john’s claim that jesus has become the holy place of god, or in the argument in hebrews that the land was “a metaphor perhaps” but that ultimately god rejects a focus on actual land (p. 100). again, whether stated or implied, his goal is to weaken christian religious and political support for the state of israel by emphasizing new testament texts that minimize any connection to the land of israel. i think that burge’s interpretations reflect strong traditions in roman catholic and orthodox theological approaches to the concept of land, certainly more so than in the evangelical world with which he is most familiar. in that sense, i would say that burge provides a welcome corrective to the prevailing “holy land” theology in these circles. also, his point of view has much in common with the christological approach that is predominant among oriental and eastern orthodox christians in the middle east: they see the land not as a material but as a spiritual reality present in christ. but i am worried that it is the anti-jewish theology of the fourth gospel that gives him studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): valkenberg r1-3 burge, jesus and the land valkenberg r 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the main key for his interpretation. also, though i sympathize with burge’s approach, both theologically and politically, i am afraid that it does not entirely do justice to the full breadth of the new testament witnesses. when one wants to correct a prevailing misdirection, it is always difficult not to veer too much in the opposite direction. burge’s johannine christology certainly is useful for challenging christian zionists and their land theology, as he sets out to do in the final chapter. however, he selectively emphasizes this theme (unfortunately, a theme that will be further developed in an anti-jewish direction in patristic and medieval christianity) and barely does justice to the much wider spectrum of views in the hebrew bible, post-biblical judaism, and the new testament. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): stegman r1-2 bieringer and pollefeyt, paul and judaism stegman r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr reimund bieringer and didier pollefeyt, eds. paul and judaism: crosscurrents in pauline exegesis and the study of jewish-christian relations (london–new york: t & t clark, 2012), hardcover, xiv + 256 pp. thomas d. stegman, s.j., boston college this volume consists of revised and edited papers given at an international conference, “new perspectives on paul and the jews,” held in leuven on september 14-15, 2009. the conference sought to “bring together different perspectives and approaches from the areas of biblical exegesis and jewish-christian dialogue” (p. xiii). accordingly, the book contains five essays that offer an exegetical perspective and four essays that discuss paul and contemporary jewish-christian dialogue. the exegetical essays include: michael f. bird’s “salvation in paul’s judaism?”; william s. campbell’s “covenantal theology and participation in christ: pauline perspectives on transformation”; thomas r. blanton iv’s “paul’s covenantal theology in 2 corinthians 2.14– 7.4”; michael bachmann’s “paul, israel and the gentiles: hermeneutical and exegetical notes”; and mark d. nanos’s “paul’s relationship to torah in light of his strategy ‘to become everything to everyone’ (1 corinthians 9.19-23).” the dialogical essays include: philip a. cunningham’s “paul’s letters and the relationship between the people of israel and the church today”; john t. pawlikowski’s “a christian-jewish dialogical model in light of new research on paul’s relationship with judaism”; hans-joachim sander’s “sharing god with others or dividing god from powerlessness: a late-modern challenge by the heterotopian experience of the new paul”; and hans hermann henrix’s “paul at the intersection between continuity and discontinuity: on paul’s place in early judaism and christianity as well as in christian-jewish dialogue today.” in addition, the two editors authored “prologue: wrestling with the jewish paul,” and james d. g. dunn (who was unable to attend the conference) wrote an epilogue. the prologue and epilogue function as the loci where the two perspectives or approaches are brought into dialogue. as bieringer and pollefeyt point out in the prologue, the essays as a whole home in on two fundamental points: 1) the historical question of continuity or discontinuity regarding paul’s relationship with judaism; and 2) the soteriological question of whether paul espoused an understanding of salvation as inclusive, exclusive, or pluralist (this question is closely linked to the theological debate about covenant theories). in line with the insights produced by the “new perspective on paul,” the majority of essays tend toward historical continuity and soteriological inclusivism. in this regard, bird’s essay stands out as a notable exception. he contends that “paul conceived of christ-believers as a...third race” (p. 29), and concludes by stating that “for paul, salvation is of judaism only in so far as judaism is of jesus christ” (p. 40). i want to highlight two of the exegetical essays. bachmann makes a rigorous case for interpreting the phrase “israel of god” in gal 6:16—in line with paul’s consistent usage elsewhere—as referring to “real judaism,” that is, only to jews (both non-christian jews and christian jews). in this reading, paul concludes the contentious letter to the galatians by praying for peace and mercy not only for those in christ but also for “the israel of god.” thus, according to bachmann, review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): stegman r1-2 bieringer and pollefeyt, paul and judaism stegman r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr “a disinheritance or expropriation of judaism does not (yet) take place” (p. 104). he links gal 6:16 with rom 11:26-27, where paul famously asserts “all israel will be saved.” nanos—the only jewish scholar in this volume—makes an intriguing argument for rendering paul’s statement about becoming all things to all people as referring not to lifestyle adaptability but to “rhetorical adaptability” (p. 124). in other words, what paul claims to do here is to begin with the premises and concepts of his interlocutors and from there to attempt to persuade them to accept his convictions about the gospel. nanos supports his argument with the presentation of paul in acts 17 and with antisthenes’s interpretation of odysseus as a “polytrope” (p. 134). it should be noted that nanos holds that paul continued to keep faithfully torah after his encounter with christ. dunn, in his epilogue, rightly chides nanos for not reckoning with 1 cor 7:19, where paul suggests that “he thought that some commandments of the torah no longer mattered, while still being committed to observing the commandments of god” (p. 216). nevertheless, nanos’s interpretation of the claim that paul employed “rhetorical adaptability” deserves careful consideration vis-à-vis paul’s evangelistic tactic. i also appreciated the way both bachmann and nanos concluded their exegetical analyses with thoughtful suggestions for the relevance of paul’s thought for jewish-christian relations. of the dialogic essays, cunningham’s stands out. employing the biblical hermeneutic of sandra m. schneiders (see the revelatory text: interpreting the new testament as sacred scripture [2 nd ed; collegeville, mn: the liturgical press, 1999]), cunningham sets forth an engagement between exegesis / explanation (what the text meant) and contemporary concerns (what the text can mean). in particular, he addresses how paul’s teaching in romans 11 can be actualized in “a post-shoah, post-nostra aetate church” (p. 153). one can cull out from this volume a number of constructive proposals in connection with the study of paul and its relevance for jewish-christian relations. cunningham lists six important implications of his analysis (pp. 153-161), including an appropriation of paul’s caution to the gentiles in the churches in rome that they have no ground for boasting, and of his exhortation that they be holy and loving so that others can approach them with trust and without fear. sander sets forth some challenging implications for taking seriously the pauline emphasis on the paradox of power working through weakness. henrix proposes that life-giving actualization of scripture means that one should “criticize the scriptures by means of the scriptures” (p. 193). bieringer and pollefeyt point out that paul’s vision is ultimately theocentric (1 cor 15:28), rather than christocentric or pneumatocentric. they also suggest a hermeneutical approach called “the normativity of the future,” a dialogical approach that “puts an emphasis on the contemporary reading community and their ability, through engaging with the spirit who transcends the text, to go beyond the limitations of the biblical text and ‘write their own fifth gospel’” (p. 13). there is much to commend about this volume. one significant deficit is the lack of interaction among the participants in their edited papers. (only sander does this, in addition to the prologue and epilogue.) to be sure, the subtitle makes clear that the contents are “crosscurrents.” nevertheless, it would have improved the work to have more interaction between the essays and to have more “controls” on terminology. as dunn justly criticizes, the term “judaism” is employed throughout the volume with varying referents. scjr 18, no. 1 (2023): 1-3 r. alan culpepper matthew: a commentary (the new testament library) (louisville: westminster john knox, 2021), hardcover, lxi + 664 pp. john kampen jkampen@mtso.edu methodist theological school in ohio, delaware, oh 43015 r. alan culpepper’s commentary is a masterful work which should become one of the standard references for academics and the first commentary on matthew consulted by clergy. the mind and hand of a seasoned exegete are evident in every paragraph, both in the careful reading of the texts and in the clear prose of the author. it is extensive, evident from the number of pages in the volume, and for the most part comprehensive. the latter point will receive more discussion below. a bibliography of thirty-three pages precedes the “introduction” to the volume. this introduction contains a good evaluation of the sources employed in the creation of this gospel. while recognizing that much of the special material in matthew (the m source) may be redactional, culpepper’s treatment of this material may not pay enough attention to the creative work of the redactor / final author. a good evaluation of “matthew’s place” among the new testament voices and in other early christian writers is included (10-14), and he consistently deals with this broader issue of the relationship between biblical books throughout the commentary. his evaluation of the value of the papias tradition attesting to an early hebrew or aramaic version appears to be negative, even though he ultimately takes no firm position. this means that the later hebrew manuscripts of matthew in the medieval period receive no mention. there is also a good and clear evaluation of the manuscript witnesses to the transmission of the greek text. important points in diverging manuscripts are treated in the textual notes to each passage throughout the commentary. culpepper considers the distinctiveness of the first gospel to lie in the manner in which it treats jesus’s teachings in relationship to his role as messiah, to the interpretation of the mosaic law, and to the fulfillment of scripture. he identifies three major themes: christology, scripture, and eschatology. his choices are sound. he shows that the distinctive nature of matthew’s christology rests in its ethics and the view of righteousness promulgated therein, citing similarities to viewpoints in some of the dead sea scrolls. the vigorous denunciation of opposing kampen: culpepper’s matthew: a commentary 2 jewish leadership is treated as a major theme in his consideration of the work’s eschatology. the wide-ranging commentary is distinguished by a few features of note. the first is the extensive use throughout the volume of references to the hebrew bible and a learned evaluation of those passages, whether direct quotations or indirect allusions. he also shows how these inform our understanding of the text of matthew. this discussion is comprehensive and well-informed. in addition to the hebrew bible, culpepper skillfully mines diverse second temple jewish texts as well as early christian literature. josephus, philo, the dead sea scrolls, the apocrypha, and the pseudepigrapha are all employed to advantage in this comprehensive treatment. culpepper’s exegetical skill is evident in his literary sensitivity to the text of the first gospel. nuanced treatments of the meaning of central terms, attending to both greek and hebrew literary contexts, are found throughout the work. the same could be said for his treatment of literary forms such as those in the beatitudes and similar constructions, as well as matthew’s use of the poetry of the psalms. the ten excurses are valuable and well-done, summarizing the pertinent scholarship on important topics such as the pharisees and the sanhedrin. in these discussions he points to significant scholarly literature on each topic and is cautious in his judgments, recognizing when there is limited evidence. the comprehensive approach of this work also illustrates the limitations evident in most contemporary christian bible commentaries. while approaching the gospel primarily within a jewish context, culpepper identifies as major issues those relevant to developments within the early christian movement: “to orient ourselves we will in turn consider matthew’s use of its sources, this gospel’s place among other nt voices, its reception in the second century, and its major themes” (3). in this case the sources are from the early christian movement. in other words, the specific issues culpepper often addresses in matthew are those that put it in conversation with other christian literature, such as the debate over the validity of the law with a pauline wing of the movement. the jewish literature serves a supplementary role in the consideration of the major themes of the work. for example, in the comprehensive and well-informed treatment of texts from the hebrew bible one could be left with the impression that matthew is primarily an exegetical project rather a sophisticated argument addressing issues of a dynamic jewish community facing a host of challenges. another noteworthy example is culpepper’s omission of the texts on polygamy and divorce found in the dead sea scrolls. finally, culpepper, following the scholarly majority, highlights the problem of the status of jews and gentiles as matthew’s primary concern, rather than issues of jewish identity in relationship to the roman occupation after the destruction of the temple. in other words, even expert and learned christian commentators accept matthew is a jewish composition and use comparative jewish material in their studies but still situate the gospel primarily within the context of the early christian movement. if one accepts it more as a jewish composition then one needs to study it within the context of the major issues facing the jewish world at that time. then 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2023) matthew becomes one more voice in the debates about the future survival and wellbeing of the jewish people during a traumatic period in their history. a pilgrim in a pilgrim church studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): fisher r1-2 review r e m b e r t g . w e a k l a n d , o s b a pilgrim in a pilgrim church: memoirs of a catholic archbishop grand rapids, mi: wm b. eerdmans, 2009, xiii + 429 pp. reviewed by eugene j. fisher, u.s. conference of catholic bishops (retired) archbishop rembert weakland, now retired, was one of the leading figures of the american catholic church and its efforts to implement the second vatican council’s vision on the national, local, and parish levels. he was, though not so centrally as cardinal william h. keeler, a leader as well of ecumenical, catholic-jewish and interreligious relations, as this book amply shows. thus, while the book does not concentrate on jewish-christian relations, it does bring them up and it provides a sense of the overall context in which catholic-jewish relations, in particular, made such progress in the years in which he was abbot, abbot-primate, and archbishop. these were years, as weakland shows, not just of progress in implementing the council, but of backlash to it both locally within the united states, and, in certain aspects, from rome itself. and weakland was often a lightning rod for the “catholic culture wars” that have raged during this period. those interested in the history of catholic-jewish relations in the usa can profit from this book. when he was abbot of st. vincent’s archabbey in latrobe, pennsylvania, weakland was asked by the then national conference of catholic bishops to host what was to become the first official dialogue between the catholic church and the jewish people ever in the history of the church. he readily agreed and the dialogue took place in january of 1965, well before the passage of nostra aetate by the council in late october of that year. the symposium brought together a number of the leading thinkers in both communities and, as weakland states in describing it, led to lasting friendships among them, particularly his with rabbi marc tanenbaum (p. 116). the papers, as he notes, were published in philip scharper, ed., torah and gospel: jewish and catholic theology in dialogue (new york: sheed and ward, 1966). the topics included the history of the relationship, liturgy, scripture, freedom of conscience, religion and society, and israel. these have been topics central to the dialogue ever since. interestingly, the holocaust was not explicitly among them, being raised within the larger context of history rather than on its own. the book also shows something of the parallel and intertwined history of american jews and catholics as immigrants into a predominantly protestant country, facing the same discrimination and exclusionary practices. he speaks, for example, of how in 1993, while he was archbishop of milwaukee, the jews and catholics of that city jointly celebrated the 150th anniversary of their arrival in that city, and how throughout his tenure as archbishop, jews and catholics met frequently to discuss freely their concerns regarding the social challenges facing the city and how they could work together to address them (pp. 161-162). in 1985, weakland accepted an invitation to speak on the bishops’ economic pastoral, the development of which he was leading for the bishops’ conference at the time, and which was being verbally pilloried by the catholic right and even more confrontationally by members of lyndon larouche’s party, which had as he rightly states, an anti-semitic tinge to it. one member of this party, he narrates, ran up to the bima and threw a piece of bloody liver at him. weakland, a pilgrim in a pilgrim church fisher r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): fisher r1-2 after the security guard had taken the woman away, weakland narrates, “i asked the audience to reflect with me on how historical this evening was: here was a catholic archbishop speaking in a jewish synagogue and both of us together were being treated to this ignominy” (pp. 301302). being a vatican ii liberal in an increasingly conservative hierarchy, weakland was often questioned by rome about his policies and actions on a range of matters, including his plans for re-designing his archdiocese’s cathedral. one such criticism raised against him by american conservatives for which he had to answer to rome during a major investigation of him in 1988 was that he had affirmed that the vatican should recognize the state of israel, an allegation that today, he can only find “amusing” (p. 322). as a side note, i might add that i, too, had made such affirmations in public and was never questioned about it, even though i was at the time a consultor to the holy see’s commission for religious relations with the jews. in november 1999, anticipating pope john paul ii’s liturgy of repentance in st. peter’s in which the pope asked god’s forgiveness on the church for the sins of catholics against the jews over the centuries, the milwaukee catholic-jewish conference sponsored a joint prayer service in a synagogue, during which weakland asked forgiveness for the negative christian teachings and actions toward jews throughout history and especially in the city of milwaukee. all the catholics in the congregation responded “amen,” most resoundingly, to his affirmation of god’s ongoing, never abrogated covenant with the jewish people. after the service, catholics and jews hugged each other in a spontaneous kiss of peace (pp. 393-395). as weakland states, i sent copies of the service and of his talk to all the dioceses of the country to serve as a model of what they might do to make the upcoming year of jubilee a time of reconciliation between jews and catholics. as he rightly says, “such a deeply prayerful gathering was only possible after twentyfive years of dialogue in which we have come to know and trust each other as friends” (p. 395). i have one nit to pick with weakland regarding christian-jewish relations. on two different occasions, he evokes the ancient christian teaching of contempt against jews and judaism, which he rightly condemns. but on both occasions, he calls it “st. augustine’s” teaching. it is true that the teaching can be found in augustine’s writings, but it did not originate with augustine. it was already well developed and widespread by the end of the second century. augustine merely passed on what was a common set of negatives by his own time. and augustine must be credited for carving out the theology that ultimately underlay the official policy of the church that the jews must be allowed to worship freely as their ancestors in the bible had. because of augustine, judaism alone of all non-christian religions that existed at the time of constantine was declared a religio licita and allowed to survive within christendom, while all others were suppressed. on this, see paula frederikson, augustine and the jews: a christian defense of jews and judaism (new york: doubleday, 2008). weakland, a pilgrim in a pilgrim church fisher r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 considering the other™s tikkun: a response to liturgy in the light of jewish-christian dialogue studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2004): meyer cp1-3 a r e s p o n s e t o liturgy in the light of jewish-christian dialogue considering the other’s tikkun b a r b a r a u . m e y e r hebrew university/ hebrew union college, jerusalem iccj conference, 2009, berlin the best language in which to to say something comprehensively without losing depth is in the hebrew holy tongue, which is also the holy language of jesus and thus the language of the father-son relationship, holy of holiest for christians (kodesh ha-kodashim). i will sum up my response with one hebrew word, one we all just learned or re-learned: aleinu. this needs to be explained. aleinu is the name and the first word of the prayer we heard about. its translation is: “it is our duty”. or, as we might say at this conference on re-commitment in berlin: “it is our commitment.” literally the word aleinu means: “on us” [in german “an uns ist es”; “an uns liegt es”]. in presentday colloquial hebrew the word is mostly used in the context of hospitality, as for instance, “we’ll take care of the bill; we’ll treat you.” my christian response to the jewish transformations of the aleinu prayer can be summed up in the hebrew word aleinu [it is our duty—it is incumbent upon us) because i see the transformation of this prayer not just as a friendly ecumenical move that makes me lean back contentedly, but first and foremost as something that commits christians. the changes that jews are presently making in their liturgy reflect new perceptions about praying non-jews. the decision to skip the sentence that depicts others as adoring nothingness was not made with regard to christians alone, but to christians it is a highly relevant, indeed an essential, decision. as we heard in professor langer’s presentation, jews are “repairing” this prayer in different modes, and i will again use only one term for all the different modes of repairing: tikkun. tikkun literally means repairing, and in contemporary jewish thought tikkun brings together various endeavors of healing relationships and creation. in our context, in liturgical memory, i suggest that we understand tikkun as any change or reparation that seeks recognition of the other (in the levinasian sense)1 while at the same time avoiding forgetfulness. as a christian my spontaneous reaction to the jewish tikkun is a certain feeling of gratitude. i do feel much better when this sentence is skipped in synagogue. this is the case in the conservative synagogue i go to: the sentence is there in the prayer book, but is not said. this is remarkable: the whole congregation unanimously skips it! for me, as a christian visitor of the prayer service, this feels good. but my main thesis is that the repairing jews perform here 1 while the concept of otherness can be applied to various contexts, in the levinasian understanding it cannot be employed to state one’s own superiority, but only with regard to the priority of the other. not my own otherness, but the other’s otherness is my responsibility—which for example excludes the claim by christians that belief in jesus christ as universal savior constitutes their christian otherness. cf. emmanuel levinas, otherwise than being or beyond essence, duquesne university press: pittsburgh, 1981. meyer, response: considering the other’s tikkun meyer cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2004): meyer cp1-3 commits me to justify this particular change. in abstract terms: the first function of the other’s tikkun is to commit me. it is now our duty to live up to the repair; it is on us, aleinu. so, what does it mean here, for christians, to live up to this jewish tikkun? let us go back to the text and its most controversial sentence, which can still be found in many prayer books (or can again be found, re-inserted after centuries of enforced christian censorship). the advantage of keeping the sentence but not saying it is that it can help us remember the past of christian violence that is echoed in it. “for they bow down to emptiness and nothingness (hevel ve-rek) and pray to a god who will not save.” the christian aggression itself is not documented in this sentence; we do not hear about place, time and the structure of violence from the liturgy itself. historical research informs us that christian violence is in the background —and maybe only in the background of interpretation. the sentence itself expresses a theological protest: forced baptism of jews cannot be done in the name of the god of israel. the jewish perception of a non-idolatrous christianity today makes it possible to skip this sentence. according to the hermeneutics of the other’s tikkun that i wish to develop here, christians will have to take care that they not fall back into idolatry. one might say that christians praying to idols is not one of our burning problems today. but recently there has been a resurgence of violence in christian thought and a renewed desire on the part of some christians to assimilate jews to christian belief, at least in principle. (this has been a striking theme in recent german public discourse). i used to think that we christians had overcome the idea that jews need us for salvation, and i thought that what was true before the shoah was now acknowledged by the majority of christians. i had assumed that what franz rosenzweig wrote in the twenties had become widely accepted today. when jesus says in the gospel of john, “i am the way, the truth and the life; nobody comes to the father except through me,” rosenzweig would enter into the christian logic for a moment, confirm it, but then add: except for the one who already is with the father and thus does not need to come there—which is the case for the people israel.2 the christian wish that jews take a christian truth on themselves induces doubts regarding the identity of the god that christians pray to. if the god of abraham and sarah is the father of jesus christ, if god lives in the continuity of both testaments, then the idea of turning jews toward this god (to improve their relationship with this god from outside of this relationship) is a theo-logical mistake: a logical error concerning god. whenever christians fall back into the idolatry of the missionary desire, be it in practice or in theory, perhaps we should all pray, “for they bow down to emptiness and nothingness and pray to a god who will not save.” for this puts christian salvation into question. it is true that we have many problems in our world today apart from missionary efforts. but also in the global tikkun and the common struggle for world justice and peace every religion needs to contribute by repairing its particular structures of aggression. wanting the other to be like me is the specific christian manner of aggression, as daniel boyarin has pointed out, and christians need to be aware of this.3 aleinu, it is our christian duty to fight this aggression and we are reminded of it twice in the twelve points of berlin (paamaim ki ra!).4 2 nahum n. glatzer, franz rosenzweig. his life and thought, hackett publishing company, indianapolis/cambridge 1998, p. 341. 3 daniel boyarin, a radical jew: paul and the politics of identity, university of california press: berkeley 1997, p.233. 4 iccj, the twelve points of berlin. a time for recommitment, http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=3104 . meyer, response: considering the other’s tikkun meyer cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=3104 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2004): meyer cp1-3 christian theologians have started to develop a christian language against this idolatry: they call jewish otherness a ‘sacrament’ (cardinal kasper and phil cunningham)5 and see the otherness of the other under god’s special protection (friedrich-wilhelm marquardt)6. this way is to be continued for the sake of the other and for our own sake, to prevent christian idolatry. that a negative memory, or the theological echo of traumatic memories, can be skipped by jews reflects a profoundly new situation between jews and christians. this is a church-historical moment of “credit” which we must not forego. with regard to the shoah, we find ourselves in an entirely different situation. the shoah is not present yet in our daily or weekly liturgies. even in the liturgical year, it has not yet been decided if this memory should be added to tisha be’aw or be remembered in a special prayer and megila-reading on yom ha-shoah. christians have lately assembled in memory of the shoah on january 27, after a long tradition of marking november 9. the shoah-megila is a first attempt to define certain readings for remembrance.7 i agree that we need to act liturgically, as there are fewer and fewer survivors among us to tell the story—and also because secular liturgies and cults develop that are not as thoughtful as we might wish. ruth langer suggests that we consider christian repentance in the formulation of specific jewish memorial liturgy. how exactly that will look i cannot yet imagine. i would even say that it sounds utopian to me. but the memories of different parties need not be mixed. families of survivors and grandchildren of nazis, for instance, do not have to share their gestures and words of remembrance. at the same time new horizons open when we recognize that descendants of perpetrators and bystanders have begun a memory-process—a process of repentance in deeds and thought. again, in my hermeneutics of aleinu, this would not look like cheap memory (cheap forgiveness), and would not foster a premature recognition. it would not necessitate a jewish recognition of christian repentance, but rather the possibility of recognizing a beginning of tshuva. the ethics of memory as suggested by avishai margalit have limited us to the alternatives of either your own memory or global memory, either the history of your own group or events of universal importance.8 it is an entirely new challenge to formulate one’s own memory in solidarity with or criticism of one’s own group, and leave liturgical space for the ongoing memoryprocess of the other. the repairing of a tradition in consideration of the other is not flattening one’s own identity, and it is not a sign of “low-profile“ theology. rather, the view of the other as a developing religious subject who undergoes pains and changes underlines the challenge of one’s own liturgical presence. thus any expression of the other’s transformations of memory vitalizes one’s own prayer, song and devotion. “aleinu” as the described hermeneutic of the other’s tikkun in the jewish-christian relationship offers an alternative to interreligious reductionism and to the reinforcement of the conservative values of each. rather than exercising a political-theological correctness, considering the other’s past and present tikkun encourages a dynamic of commitment and re-commitment. a liturgy that expresses awareness of the other’s repairing vitality will intensify its own spirituality and observance. 5 cf. philip a. cunningham, “judaism as ‘sacrament of otherness.”’ http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=2189 . 6 friedrich-wilhelm marquardt, was dürfen wir hoffen, wenn wir hoffen dürften? eine eschatologie, vol. i, kaiser gütersloher verlagshaus: gütersloh 1993, pp. 183-192. 7 the shoah scroll. a holocaust liturgy, schechter institute / the rabbinical assembly, jerusalem 2003. 8 avishai margalit, ethics of memory, harvard university press, 2002. meyer, response: considering the other’s tikkun meyer cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=2189 liturgy in the light of jewish-christian dialogue considering the other’s tikkun the business of being a jew studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): r fisher 1-2 review g u n t h e r l a w r e n c e t h e b u s i n e s s o f b e i n g a j e w (new york: jay street publishers, 2008) paper, 149 pp. reviewed by eugene fisher, retired, u.s. conference of catholic bishops gunther lawrence has been professionally active in the organized jewish community for nearly half a century. this book is his memoir of that life, behind the scenes organizing and serving to communicate with the press for meetings with the key leaders of that period, ranging from martin luther king jr. to popes john paul ii and benedict xvi. readers of this journal will be especially interested in the approximately 40% of the volume that deals with christian-jewish and especially catholic-jewish relations. the reviewer has known and worked with lawrence on the latter for over thirty years, so can affirm the essential accuracy of his memory of the key events we shared. the narration of catholic-jewish relations begins with the second vatican council, when he arranged an interview of father gustav weigel, sj, with a friend who was a reporter for the new york times. the story of the work being done on a statement on the jews, which became nostra aetate, §4, was carried on the front page of the times. in lawrence’s estimation, it helped in making it most difficult for the considerable forces arrayed at the council against any statement on the jews, to bury the issue. weigel rightly insisted that this must be faced by the church. lawrence goes on to sketch, albeit briefly, the formation of the international jewish committee for interreligious consultations (ijcic) and, in the united states, the synagogue council of america (sca). he was the public relations head for the latter. it is in narrating the latter that lawrence’s story becomes very gripping. he presents the jewish side of the great controversy over the 1987 audience given by pope john paul ii to kurt waldheim, the then president of austria whose past as a member of the nazi party was just surfacing. an historic meeting between the pope and the leadership of american jewry had been scheduled as the first major event of the pope’s visit to the united states in september. the meeting with waldheim, of course, placed this larger meeting in jeopardy. how could the jews be expected to meet with the pope just weeks after he had hosted a by now notorious ex-nazi? as the staff person for relations with the jews of the us bishops’ conference, i can attest to the sheer volume and intensity of the behind the scenes negotiations between catholic and jewish leaders. they worked feverishly together to manage the manifold difficulties facing all who wanted the meeting between the pope and the leaders of the world’s largest jewish community both to take place and to be successful. during an august visit to new york, in anticipation of the pope’s visit, cardinal agostino casaroli, the holy see’s secretary of state, met with a small group of leaders of the synagogue council of america, the american jewish committee, the anti-defamation league, and a representative of ijcic. in the hall outside the room staff, such as lawrence and myself, anxiously awaited the outcome of the 90 minute meeting. the lawrence, the business of being a jew r fisher 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): r fisher 1-2 outcome was an invitation by cardinal johannes willebrands of the pontifical commission for religious relations with the jews to a special meeting in rome at the end of august. as the person in charge of press relations for the jewish side, lawrence narrates the meeting in rome from his point of view. it started with a meeting of the nine jewish leaders and corresponding catholic leaders representing the holy see and the us bishops conference, cardinal keeler and myself. needless to say, the meeting was intense; however, it paved the way for the meeting with the pope the next morning. this meeting went extremely well, with the pope making some very moving remarks about the holocaust, which murdered so many of his childhood jewish friends. he spoke about the need for catholics to hear the witness of jews to the holocaust and called for catholics to join their voices to those of jews to ensure that it never be forgotten. he went on to voice his desire to visit israel. along with rabbi tanenbaum and cardinals willebrands and keeler, i worked with lawrence on the press release. gunther rightly points to the significance of its key phrase: “the holy see declared that there existed no theological reasons in catholic doctrine that would inhibit such relations” (p. 62). (it is important to note that this was well before the vatican and israel exchanged ambassadors.) as lawrence narrates it, the meeting in miami between the pope and over 200 national jewish leaders went quite well. he goes on to describe subsequent key meetings in which both he and i took part, such as the meeting of ijcic and the pontifical commission in prague in 1990 and —against the background of the auschwitz convent controversy—an unforgettable encounter between a small, key group of jewish leaders in washington and cardinal jozef glemp of poland. as part of the press corps flying on the same plane, lawrence accompanied the pope on his historic visit in 2000 to jordan and israel, and reports the response of jews to this visit. he describes his idea of creating a liturgical sculpture, which eventually became a yom hashoah menorah, in honor of the victims of the holocaust. he has reverently placed this menorah on the grounds of several cathedrals and catholic seminaries in the united states, as well as on the ground of the north american college in rome. lawrence describes a series of priest-rabbi dialogues on intermarriage which he organized for dioceses across the usa and canada. these have established deeper understandings among not only jewish and catholic clergy, but even more significantly between the families of catholic-jewish marriages. finally, in 2007 he organized a trip to rome for a large group of catholic and jewish lay leaders, along with some clergy. this experience of dialogue and intense mutual learning accentuated educational, community and humanitarian activities as well as joint study. i heartily recommend this book for all who wish to be knowledgeable about this important phase in the history of catholic-jewish relations. lawrence, the business of being a jew r fisher 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-10 nostra aetate in boston james m. o’toole james.otoole@bc.edu boston college, chestnut hill, ma 02467 historians and theologians are just now concluding observance of the fiftieth anniversary of the second vatican council. as that event begins to cross over the invisible line that separates the present from the past, it is entirely appropriate that scholars take stock of its meaning. few would deny its significance for the catholic church itself, an importance that derives in part from the fact that it was a rare and unusual occurrence. when it convened in the fall of 1962, the last general council of the church had been held almost one hundred years before, and the last general council before that had been three hundred years earlier. when an event happens only a couple of times over the course of four hundred years, something big is likely to come of it. within the catholic church, vatican ii obviously had tremendous impact, initiating major changes in religious practice and also in some important understandings of theology. in practice, the changes were evident for all catholics to see, every time they went to mass on sunday. the altar had been pulled away from the back wall of the church, and the priest stood behind it, facing the congregation and speaking in their own language, rather than the latin of centuries. the people were expected to respond aloud to his invitations to prayer and, alarmingly to some, they were even expected to sing, though many stoutly resisted all encouragement that they do so. in theology, the council brought the reformulation of some traditional concepts and understandings. others are more qualified to speak of this than i am (i am a historian, not a theologian), but the council’s adoption of the “people of god” as the governing metaphor for the church had tremendous significance. here was a fundamentally democratic rather than hierarchical definition, a new way in which the church talked about itself. words and images really do matter. the premier american historian of the council, john o’malley, s.j., has written that the real “revolution” of vatican ii was as much rhetorical as anything else. the pastoral language of the council’s documents and their “soft” style conveyed deep meaning. the use of “horizontalwords,” of “humility-words,” of “interiority-words”—here was the key to grasping the real meaning of the gathering for catholics. 1 in defining the relationship of the church with other religions, particularly non-christian religions, the crucial document of the council was nostra aetate, 1 for this, see john o’malley, what happened at vatican ii (cambridge, ma: belknap press, 2008), 43-52. o’toole: nostra aetate in boston 2 promulgated at the end of the sessions in 1965. together with its companion document on religious liberty (dignitatis humanae, also 1965), nostra aetate initiated a change that was truly revolutionary. that well-known theologian, lenny bruce, once supposedly said that the catholic church was the only “the” church; if so, the quip was not so true after vatican ii as before. in particular, the relationship between catholics and jews entered a new era, one that is still unfolding and will continue to do so in the years ahead. these developments played out on national and international levels. but just as important they played out on countless local levels as well, involving communities and people who could know and talk and work with one another face to face. the metaphor i always use for this kind of development after vatican ii is that of “warming air.” what follows is a sketch of what happened in that warming air in greater boston, and specifically at boston college. traditionally, the catholics and jews of the boston area had led largely separate lives. 2 numerically, the catholics were much larger, constituting three of every five residents by the time of the second world war. there was a kind of de facto residential segregation between the two groups, not enforced by law but still producing distinct communities. where jews and catholics lived in close proximity—the west end neighborhood of the city, for example—there was often tension, though jews generally addressed the problem by moving up and out to somewhere in the suburbs. still, there were tensions, and contacts between the two groups were not always happy. we should not paint a picture of constant hostility or open warfare, but neither should we gloss over conflict. catholic boys did indeed sometimes pick on their jewish schoolmates, who had to find ways to avoid confrontation. the most famous example of this, perhaps, is the story nat hentoff tells in his memoir of almost getting beaten up one day by a group of catholic kids. he was able to avoid his fate by convincing his tormentors that he was not jewish but rather greek, convincing them by reciting some lines from homer that he was studying at the boston latin school. 3 in the 1930s, the sharpest source of conflict between catholics and jews came with the prominence of the famous radio preacher, charles coughlin. a canadian by birth, coughlin was the pastor of the shrine of the little flower in the detroit suburbs, and in 1926 he had begun broadcasting sermons on sunday afternoons over the still-new medium of radio. everyone agreed that he had a perfect voice for radio: round, deep, melodious. at first purely devotional, he quickly took on issues of politics and the economy after the depression set in. he started as a strong backer of franklin roosevelt and the policies of the new deal but then turned violently against him. in the process, as was frequently the case, it did not take him long to get around to blaming jews for the nation’s and the world’s 2 for general studies, see jonathan d. sarna, ellen smith, and scott-martin kosofsky, eds., the jews of boston, 2 nd edition (new haven: yale university press, 2005), and thomas h. o’connor, boston catholics: a history of the church and its people (boston: northeastern university press, 1998). 3 nat hentoff, boston boy (new york: knopf, 1986), 16-17. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) economic woes. well-worn clichés about an “international conspiracy of jewish bankers” became his recurring theme. 4 coughlin was tremendously popular in boston. the corrupt but astute politico james michael curley (at the time, serving in his only term as governor of massachusetts) called boston the most coughlinite city in the country, and no one seemed able to prove him wrong. it was said that one could walk down the street on sunday afternoon and hear coughlin’s voice in the very air. every radio was tuned in, and his voice just came from everywhere. coughlin visited boston in the summer of 1935, and politicians (including curley) tripped over one another to get their pictures taken with him. 5 there is no doubt that the preacher was popular with boston’s catholics. but not, significantly, with cardinal william o’connell, the archbishop and leader of the catholic community in the city and throughout new england. o’connell was one of the first american bishops to denounce coughlin publicly, and he did so repeatedly. in 1933, speaking to a catholic charitable group, he warned people not to be “swept off your feet by mere oratory,” adding that “mere harangue” produced little improvement in social conditions. “hysterical addresses” by priests had no place in public discourse. a year later, during ceremonies (held in fenway park) that honored the fiftieth anniversary of o’connell’s ordination as a priest, he took on coughlin’s anti-semitic “harangues” more pointedly. leaders of the local jewish community prominently shared the stage that day, this in a time when any sort of interfaith dialog was rare. in his remarks, the cardinal acknowledged them as his friends, insisting that catholics should “never forget” their own historic connection to the jewish people. “as christians, we would be unfaithful to our own profession of faith,” he continued, “unless we love our neighbors.” o’connell never mentioned coughlin by name, but the newspapers pointed out that everyone knew he was talking about the radio preacher. 6 the problem was that o’connell could do nothing about him. as a priest, coughlin was subject to the authority of the bishop of detroit, who tolerated him longer than he should have; not until 1942, after american entry into the war, was he taken off the air. before that, o’connell might have tried to order his parishioners not to tune in, but they probably would not have obeyed. in the meanwhile, he made his own opinions clear, even if only by indirection. a second episode of overt tension between boston’s catholics and jews came in the late 1940s and early 1950s, and it centered around a jesuit priest 4 on coughlin’s career, see charles j. tull, father coughlin and the new deal (syracuse: syracuse university press, 1965) and alan brinkley, voices of protest: huey long, father coughlin, and the great depression (new york: vintage books, 1983). 5 “visit social, says fr. coughlin,” boston globe, august 13, 1935. 6 for o’connell’s denunciations, see “clerical hysteria hit by cardinal; he criticized fr. coughlin without identifying him,” boston globe, december 11, 1933; “jubilee mass for cardinal brings 40,000 to honor prelate in fenway park service,” ibid., june 11, 1934; “cardinal raps false leaders; ... no doubt he refers to fr. coughlin,” ibid., may 24, 1935. for more on these episodes, see james m. o’toole, militant and triumphant: william henry o’connell and the catholic church in boston, 1859-1944 (notre dame, in: university of notre dame press, 1992), 137-138. o’toole: nostra aetate in boston 4 named leonard feeney. he was from a large, devout catholic family; two of his brothers also became priests, and one of his sisters became a nun. he joined the society of jesus after graduation from high school, and he later taught some at boston college, mostly in the summer school rather than as a regular member of the faculty. he was best known as a popular poet and essayist, serving as literary editor of america magazine, the jesuits’ biweekly. he was a skilled preacher with a gift for mimicry: when he delivered sermons in the voices of such celebrities as katherine hepburn and harry truman, there were always cries for encores. after the end of the war, he became associated with the saint benedict center in cambridge, a storefront meeting place for catholic students at harvard, radcliffe, and other colleges in the area. feeney was the main attraction, and many students were drawn to the center, they said, because of the impact of the dropping of the atomic bomb. the prospect of the obliteration of all life on earth had prompted many spiritual crises, sending students flocking to the center, which produced several catholic converts, most prominently avery dulles, later a renowned theologian and cardinal. 7 after some calm early years, feeney and his followers began to develop extreme theological positions, centering particularly on the doctrine, extra ecclesiasm nulla salus—“outside the church, there is no salvation.” this idea had a very long pedigree, first articulated in the third century in the contest between christianity and paganism. in its strictest interpretation, it could be taken to mean that all non-catholics were going to hell by definition, and this was the view that feeney and his followers insisted on, even as the church itself was moving to a more conciliatory understanding. especially given the aggressively anti-semitic turn that feeney subsequently took, it is important to note that, at the outset, his real targets were other catholics whom he judged to be insufficiently rigorous on this and other points. catholics were too eager to abandon the doctrine, however harsh, he thought. in hopes of winning approval from their protestant “betters,” they had watered down their faith. “the american catholic is a sort of diluted catholic,” one center partisan wrote, and boston catholics may have been the soggiest of all. why, even jesuits were studying at harvard, she pointed out, and little good could come of that. feeney’s initial targets were these supposed weakkneed catholic fifth columnists. 8 concern for diluted catholics led to a particular concern for diluted catholic education, particularly the kind of catholic higher education available at boston college. several lay members of the faculty were frequenting the center, absorbing its outlook. in the process, they missed what others saw: that the place was spinning out of control. simply put, feeney had gone crazy, and he was taking 7 avery dulles, “leonard feeney: in memoriam,” america (february 25, 1978): 135-137, recalls the early days of the saint benedict center. 8 see catherine goddard clarke, the loyolas and the cabots: the story of the boston heresy case (boston: ravengate press, 1950) for the extended critique of “diluted” catholics. clarke was cofounder of the saint benedict center and feeney’s closest aide. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) other people with him. consider the evidence from no less an observer than the british novelist, evelyn waugh. he visited the center in 1948, while in america on a lecture tour, and he described the episode in a letter to his wife back home in england. “i went one morning by appointment, and found [feeney] surrounded by a court of bemused youths of both sexes—and he stark raving mad.” the priest delivered a long, rambling diatribe against a list of catholic theologians and writers, prompting a sharp retort from the ardently catholic waugh. the crowd was “aghast,” he said, at hearing their “holy man” addressed in such a way. waugh left the premises, uncertain whether feeney’s problem was psychological, or something worse: “a case of demonic possession,” he concluded, perhaps not meaning it as a joke, “and jolly frightening.” 9 three young lay members of the boston college faculty had a different opinion, and they began introducing feeney’s ideas into their own classes. since they taught courses in the philosophy of science, in math, and in physics, however, the subject was entirely extraneous: the question of who went to heaven and who did not had nothing to do with physics and even less with math. college administrators told them to keep their theological views out of their classrooms, but they refused, ratcheting up their denunciations of the college as promoting heresy. again ordered to stop, they refused, and in the spring of 1949, in the middle of the term, they were fired; a cohort who was teaching german at boston college high school was dismissed for the same reason. public demonstrations by supporters of the saint benedict center followed, including the picketing of local catholic churches on easter sunday. archbishop cushing, who had succeeded cardinal o’connell, forbade catholics from frequenting the center, and feeney was dismissed from the jesuit order; two years later, he and his followers were officially excommunicated—an ironic ending, to say the least, for those who had preached that there was no salvation outside the church. they themselves were now outside it. they continued in the public eye, however, holding open air rallies on the boston common. it was at this point that the target shifted, and feeney turned in a blatantly anti-semitic direction. eventually, he and his followers withdrew to a farm in central massachusetts, where they organized their own selfidentified religious order. but the turmoil did not cease: they subsequently splintered into about six warring factions before feeney’s death in 1978. 10 this was obviously a sad and painful episode in boston history generally and in the history of boston’s catholics and jews in particular. we should not diminish its impact. feeney’s “problem” with jews (or with anybody else) was neither theological nor sociological; it was clinical. he was indeed mad. but the lasting 9 evelyn waugh to laura waugh, november 20, 1948, letters of evelyn waugh, ed. mark amory (new york: penguin, 1980), 291-293. 10 “fr. feeney, priest in heresy case, dies,” boston globe, january 31, 1978; also see mark s. massa, catholics and american culture: fulton sheen, dorothy day, and the notre dame football team (new york: herder and herder, 1999), ch. 1, and mark silk, spiritual politics: religion and america since world war ii (new york: simon and schuster, 1988). for the later history see gabriel gibbs and owen j. murphy, harvard to harvard: the story of saint benedict center’s becoming saint benedict abbey (still river, ma: ravengate press, 2006). o’toole: nostra aetate in boston 6 significance of the entire episode may have been that it brought to prominence a new leader for boston’s catholics, richard cushing, and he was able to turn things in a new direction. richard james cushing was born in south boston in 1895, the son of immigrant parents. like most catholic priests of his era, he was a child of the working class. he would observe that, in the 1950s, there was no catholic bishop in america whose parents had gone to college—perhaps not technically accurate, but true enough to highlight the long connection of the church to those on the lower rungs of the social and economic ladder. young richard had enrolled at boston college in 1913 and, as was common then for those intending a career in the priesthood, he left at the end of his sophomore year to enter saint john’s seminary in brighton, located just across the street from the college campus. he was ordained a priest in 1921 and, instead of a regular parish assignment, he was put in charge of the archdiocesan office that supported the work of foreign missions. this gave him a broad vision of the role of the church in the world while, more practically, cementing his reputation as a prodigious fund-raiser. in 1944, when cardinal o’connell died, cushing was named his successor as archbishop for boston’s catholics; he was made a cardinal in 1958 and served until his death in 1970. 11 this was a time of tremendous change in greater boston. the population of the city itself was declining at an alarming rate. in the 1950s, boston lost 100,000 residents (from a high of 800,000), while nearby suburbs such as canton and framingham doubled in size, practically overnight. to address these shifts in the population, cushing presided over a rapid expansion of the local catholic infrastructure. there were about three hundred parish churches at the beginning of his tenure, more than four hundred at his death twenty-five years later. churchrelated schools, hospitals, and social service agencies similarly expanded. amid this growth and development of his own flock, cushing also reached out to the leaders of other faiths and sought opportunities for cooperative ventures. this was new. in boston as elsewhere around the country, religious leaders of all denominations kept mostly to themselves; joint appearances, even on purely civic occasions, were rare. by cushing’s time, this was beginning to change, and he seemed to relish the development. when the evangelist billy graham came to boston for one of his two-week crusades in 1964, for instance, the two spent a laugh-filled afternoon together, smiling broadly in the pages of the newspapers. 12 cushing’s particular role in improving relations between catholics and jews was crucial, and it played out both locally and on a larger stage. one of his brothers-in-law was jewish, and this may have added a personal dimension to his efforts to bring the two communities together. he took every occasion to be seen publicly working to overcome the divisions of the past. in 1948, for instance, he addressed the fifteen hundred delegates to the convention of the union of hebrew congregations, meeting in boston. when he learned of episodes of catholic boys beating up jewish kids (those not as clever as nat hentoff), he would send local 11 for cushing and his tenure, see o’connor, boston catholics, ch. 7. 12 see, for example, “‘i trust in the lord,’” boston globe, october 8, 1964. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) parish priests to visit the homes of the aggressors, making clear the parents’ responsibility to curb such activity. his ongoing effort to silence father feeney was the most visible example of his stance against anti-semitism. but on a larger stage, he played a small but significant role in shaping the vatican ii documents that changed the church’s official approach to these issues. 13 he attended the sessions of the council, which were held in the fall of every year between 1962 and 1965. he told reporters that he found it difficult to follow what was going on because the debates were conducted in latin and his facility in that language was marginal; he attempted to speak in french once and was corrected by an italian cardinal. (it was reported that he offered to pay for simultaneous translation, but this was not done.) as a result, he did not take an active role in the debates, though when he did it was to good effect. his wellknown friendship with the kennedy family, both before and after the president’s assassination, made him instantly recognizable to bishops from around the world, and they paid special attention to what he said for that reason. he addressed the assembly for the first time in september 1964 during the debate over the text of dignitatis humanae, the document that endorsed the idea of religious liberty for all. speaking, he said, on behalf of “almost all the bishops of the united states,” he said that the time had come for the catholic church to show itself as supporting the same kind of liberty for others that it had always sought for itself —“civil liberty, especially in the matter of religion.” in effect, the days of the “the church” were over. it would take another year before the final text of the document, embodying these principles, was completed and finalized, but his comments had marked a turning point. 14 he made a similarly effective intervention in the debate over nostra aetate. when its text came up for discussion a week after his first address, he again took the floor and urged the council to make a clear statement—and not, he said, a “timid” one—on the connections between christians and jews. the church had to “manifest to the whole world and to all men a concern which is genuine, an esteem all embracing, a sincere charity” in its relationship to the jewish community. jews were, after all, the “blood brothers of christ.” he wanted an explicit rejection of the idea that jews had been responsible in a particular way for the death of jesus, and he called for an acknowledgement that christians had not always lived up to their responsibilities to respect and work with their jewish neighbors. he spoke so personally that, in violation of the rules of the council, the other bishops in attendance applauded. here again, drafting the final version of the text took another year, but when it was officially published in october 1965, it bore the mark of his effort, speaking of “the spiritual patrimony common to christians and jews” and saying that “the church rejects, as foreign to the mind of christ, any 13 o’connor, boston catholics, 256-259. 14 cushing’s remarks are quoted ibid, 264. for the larger debate over the document, see o’malley, what happened at vatican ii, 241-243 and 287-288. o’toole: nostra aetate in boston 8 discrimination of men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion.” 15 the impact of these and other council documents was swift and, as i suggested at the outset, it was an impact that was felt locally as well as internationally. i offer a brief example of the fundamental changes that vatican ii wrought on a single american college campus, that of boston college. the school had been founded by jesuit priests in 1863 to provide education for the sons of irish and other catholic immigrants who had begun to flood into the city. some of the early students were immigrants themselves, though most were the sons (not yet the daughters) of those who had come to america seeking a better life. the school was located in the south end neighborhood of the city, a district with an overwhelmingly immigrant population, and the first students were admitted in the fall of 1864. twenty-two showed up on the first day, the first dean saying of them that “only one or two had talent.” though called a “college,” the institution in its earliest days was in fact more of a middle or high school; the average age of the students in the first decades was sixteen or less. the goal was to provide education beyond the basic level of the three r’s as a way of offering a step up into the professions for the second and third generations of families. the curriculum had a heavy emphasis on latin, greek, and philosophy, spread out in a program that (if pursued completely) might take seven years. this prompted a public dispute in the 1890s when harvard announced that it would no longer admit boston college students to its law school on the grounds that a boston college degree was not a “real” academic degree. the jesuits rose to the defense of their school and got the ban reversed, but they also recognized that harvard was, to a significant degree, right and that their curriculum had to change. this led to a clear separation of boston college and boston college high school, and it also brought a relocation of the collegiate division to a new campus in chestnut hill, a district that straddled the line between boston and the suburban city of newton. 16 the student body had been primarily catholic from the beginning, though the college charter expressly prohibited any discrimination in admissions on account of religion or race. a handful of non-catholic students enrolled in the nineteenth century—they were exempt from taking the religion classes that their catholic schoolmates took—and this continued into the twentieth. over time, the institution took some halting steps toward broadening its student body. the first jewish students i have been able to identify were members of the class of 1935: milton borenstein and milton cohen. borenstein was from everett, wrote for the student newspaper, and was a star member of the debating team; after graduation he went 15 again, see o’connor, boston catholics, 264-265, for cushing’s role in the debates. for the text of nostra aetate, see the documents of vatican ii, ed. walter abbott (new york: guild press, 1966), 660-668. dignitatis huamae is ibid., 675-696. 16 the most complete account of the early years is in david r. dunigan, a history of boston college (milwaukee: bruce, 1947). for the dispute with harvard, see kathleen a. mahoney, catholic higher education in protestant america: the jesuits and harvard in the age of the university (baltimore: johns hopkins university press, 2003). 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) to law school, practiced law, and then managed a family business. cohen was from brookline, a pre-med student who became a doctor, spending most of his career on the staff of the carney hospital in dorchester. they were jewish, not catholic, but they were otherwise very much like their fellow students: secondgeneration kids seeking an education so as to advance the fortunes of their families over the decades. with a further nationalization of the student body, starting in the 1950s—and especially with the decision in 1970 to become fully coeducational—greater racial, ethnic, and religious diversity became the norm at boston college. by the early 1970s, what was then called the black talent program had been initiated for african american students, and at the same time a jewish student alliance was formed. this became formally affiliated with hillel, the national organization for jewish college students, in 1976. 17 more significant, perhaps, as a direct impact of the work of vatican ii were changes that came to the curriculum, particularly in the study of theology. these changes were felt right away in the remaking of theology courses. the study of religion had always been an important part of the college’s program: catholic students took one such class every one of their eight semesters on campus. for the early years, however, it is not really accurate to call these theology courses as we understand that term. they were in effect catechism classes, with a clearly apologetic purpose, designed to instill in the students habits of religious practice that they would carry into adulthood; the classes were even sometimes called simply “evidences of religion.” the theology faculty consisted entirely of jesuit priests, and it was assumed both that it would always be that way and indeed that it had to be. brief consideration was given in the 1950s to establishing a master’s program in theology for lay people, but the dean and the president rejected the idea. they could not imagine that graduates of such a program would ever be able to find jobs in their field. “would a catholic college hire a layman” to teach theology, the president wondered aloud: it seemed unlikely. 18 in the aftermath of the council, however, the inadequacies of this approach to the discipline were immediately apparent, and the theology department moved quickly to reform itself. the speed of this effort is striking. with the opening of classes in the fall of 1966, less than a year after the final session of vatican ii, two new faculty members had joined the department, the first non-jesuits. one was a woman: mary daly, a specialist in the work of paul tillich with a degree from fribourg. she later became one of the founders of the new field of feminist theology and was controversial on campus for the remainder of her career. the second newly hired faculty member was perhaps even more unlikely: a rabbi, david neiman. he had been born in russia, immigrating to the united states with his family as a child. a biblical archaeologist who had previously taught at 17 see entries in the boston college yearbook, sub turri: 1935, 31 (borenstein) and 44 (cohen); 1972, 164 (jewish student alliance); 1977, 177 (hillel). 18 for a typical listing of “evidences of religion” courses, see boston college catalog, 1920, 62. on the rejection of a master’s program, see michael walsh to richard rousseau, october 7, 1959, walsh papers, box 8, folder 12, university archives, boston college. o’toole: nostra aetate in boston 10 the new school in new york and at brandeis, on coming to boston college he became the first theology professor with a regular appointment at any catholic university in america who was jewish. he taught courses in hebrew literature and thought, including a perennially popular course on the book of genesis. he remained an active force in the ongoing reform of the theology curriculum until his retirement in 1991; he died in 2004. 19 little of this would have been possible without the changes that came with vatican ii in the relations between catholics and jews, locally and more widely. those changes have continued in the half century since the promulgation of nostra aetate. the dialog and mutual respect that it helped initiate continue, and if that dialog is to be fruitful, it must be grounded on an understanding of where we have come from. we must look at both the bad and the good dimensions of that history if we are to understand it and move forward. the future can never be predicted, of course, and to a greater or lesser degree it always surprises us. but the foundations that the council laid are firm and will provide the basis for ongoing conversations. that surely gives us something to celebrate. 19 on the unusual appointments, see “2 theologians named at b.c.,” boston globe, may 14, 1966. opening the covenant: a jewish theology of christianity studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): sherman r1-3 review m i c h a e l s . k o g a n o p e n i n g t h e c o v e n a n t : a j e w i s h t h e o l o g y o f c h r i s t i a n i t y new york: oxford university press, 2008. hardcover, xiv + 284 pp. reviewed by franklin sherman, muhlenberg college (emeritus) this is a significant volume by michael kogan, professor of religious studies and director of the jewish american studies program at montclair state university (new jersey). kogan credits john pawlikowski with inspiring him to write a "jewish theology of christianity" comparable to the "christian theology of judaism" propounded by scholars like clemens thoma. that is to say, just as christian scholars have asked themselves, "what is the significance of the ongoing vitality of judaism within the christian scheme of things?" jewish scholars should ask themselves, "what is the significance of the ongoing vitality of christianity within the jewish scheme of things?" kogan's broad answer is: christianity (meaning the story and message of jesus and his interpreters, especially paul, as well as the ongoing history of the christian movement) has served to "open the covenant" to the gentiles, making the benefits of that covenant─god's grace and guidance─available to all who choose to enter it. those who become christians do not thereby become jews; judaism remains a unique peoplehood and practice. but they do become "israelites," worshipers of the god of israel as part of the israel of god. kogan intends this as a much stronger statement than maimonides' acknowledgment that christianity has served to bring knowledge of torah to the nations. he is willing to view the "christ event" (using this christian term) as in some sense revelatory, and as a new act of god. jesus is not a "failed messiah," as irving greenberg would have it, but in fact succeeded─again, with the aid of paul and his other interpreters─in opening the covenant to the gentiles, thus enabling israel to fulfill its prophetic goal of serving as a light to the nations. kogan is not working with a reduced understanding of christianity; he takes it at full strength. thus at one point he asks himself and the reader, "what are the central propositions of the christian faith?" he lists them as follows (p. 114): 1. the incarnation of god in jesus; 2. the vicarious sacrifice of jesus for the sins of the world; 3. the resurrection of jesus from the dead. kogan makes clear: we jews do not believe in any of these propositions─but we need not decry them as irrational or idolatrous. this is the symbol system that has conveyed the knowledge of israel's god to the nations, and all of these propositions are, in fact, jewishly understandable. on the possibility of incarnation, he cites certain stories in the hebrew scriptures of the appearance of god in human form, but more generally, appeals to michael wyschogrod's theme of "corporeality" in his the body of faith: god in the people israel (san francisco: harper & row, 1983). on vicarious atonement, he refers to isaiah 53─a jewish source, after all. as to resurrection: this was a fundamental jewish doctrine, affirmed especially by the pharisees, and has been part of the jewish eschatological hope down through the centuries. thus it was not and is not a preposterous notion, from a jewish standpoint. whether someone was actually raised from the dead at a given point in history is another question. kogan, opening the covenant sherman r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): sherman r1-3 so: these things are believe-able, even if in fact one does not believe them (my own formulation). it is no accident that kogan refers to kierkegaard at this point. he teaches courses on kierkegaard, and is working here with the latter's concept of faith as "an objective uncertainty, held fast through appropriation with the most passionate inwardness." thus the jew can understand and in some way identify with the christian's faith-affirmations, even while not joining in them. kogan reviews the work of recent as well as more remote contributors to a jewish theology of christianity. rabbi menachem ha me’iri, of 13th/14th-century provence, offered a positive evaluation of both christianity and islam as "nations restricted by the ways of religion," and hence not comparable to the idolaters of old. moses mendelssohn, in the age of enlightenment, developed a "religious pluralism coupled…to an ethical universalism," as kogan puts it. elijah benamozegh (1823-1900), rabbi of leghorn (livorno), italy, saw judaism and christianity as sisters. "if they are fundamentally united and interdependent, no power on earth will be able to separate them permanently," he wrote. "indeed, to the contrary, they will know at the proper moment how to join their energies of spirit and intelligence” (israel and humanity, transl. maxwell luria, new york: paulist, 1995 ["classics of western spirituality" series], p. 51). as to more recent figures, kogan appreciates and, it would seem, translates into his own terms franz rosenzweig's striking image of judaism as the "eternal flame" at the heart of the star of redemption and christianity as the "eternal rays" streaming out to the world. he rejects, however, rosenzweig's view of judaism as essentially unworldly, seeing him as influenced too much by the nature of jewish life in the shtetls and ghettos of eastern europe rather than the role of jews in western europe and america, and even more their "return to history" in the state of israel. kogan is closer to the view of buber, who sees the jews as firmly this-worldly, while christianity is more unworldly. kogan believes, however, that in these and other such comparisons─christianity as individualistic, judaism as communal; christianity as based on pistis (belief), judaism on emunah (trust)─buber has oversimplified and to some extent stereotyped the christian dialogue partner. regarding heschel, kogan notes that his context in a pluralistic america and his experience of working side by side with christians in the public sphere enabled him to feel close enough to christians to be a loving critic of their faith, as he was of jews and judaism. he called on both faith traditions to resist the trivialization of religion, following instead in the bold tradition of the hebrew prophets. kogan faults heschel, however, for failing to deal directly with the significance of jesus, as buber had done. as to his elder contemporary irving greenberg, kogan sees him as a colleague in the task of opening up jews to a more sympathetic understanding of christianity. as noted above, however, he objects to greenberg's conception of jesus as a "failed messiah," finding this unnecessarily demeaning to christians, and not reflective of the complexity of messianic concepts in jesus' time. a failed what-kind-of-messiah? kogan devotes a full chapter to tracing the various types of messianic thought in the hebrew scriptures and in later jewish writings. under the title "the forty years' peace," kogan reviews the development of christian-jewish relations during recent decades as it can be traced in the plethora of christian statements on the subject. he devotes almost all of his attention to roman catholic documents, however, taking note of only a few of the many similar protestant statements, some of which long antedate vatican ii. kogan also offers brief comments on the thought of individual scholars in this field: paul van buren, a. roy eckardt, clark williamson, and john pawlikowski. kogan urges such kogan, opening the covenant sherman r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): sherman r1-3 christian interlocutors not to present a trimmed-down version of their own faith, nor to idealize jewry. kogan shows a real familiarity with the christian vernacular, as expressed in preaching and liturgy as well as theology; he characterizes himself as "a frequent visitor to church services." he devotes a chapter to recounting some of his experiences of teaching about judaism in christian churches and about christianity in jewish synagogues, as well as in interfaith venues. he reviews the pivotal statement "dabru emet" and the christians scholars group's response, "a sacred obligation," as well as the controverted "reflections on covenant and mission." surprisingly, however, he does not deal with the important volume produced as a follow-up to dabru emet by tikva frymer-kensky, david novak et al., christianity in jewish terms (boulder: westview, 2000). kogan’s book gives evidence of some of the chapters having originated as separate lectures or journal articles─the basics of how far the dialogue has come, etc., are repeated frequently─but this need not be a hindrance to the reader. this is a book that should be taken account of by all, whether christian or jewish or other, who are working in this field of the encounter of living faiths. kogan, opening the covenant sherman r 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review herbert l. kessler and david nirenberg, eds. judaism and christian art: aesthetic anxieties from the catacombs to colonialism (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2011), hardcover, 456 pages + 110 illustrations. pamela a. patton, southern methodist university this collection stands out amid recent publications on western representations of jews and judaism in its swerve away from this scholarship’s typical focus on the history of jews or jewishchristian relations. instead, its editors seek to consider what references to judaism in christian-made works of art reveal about christendom’s own internal struggles with self-identity, theology, practice, and aesthetics. drawing upon papers presented at the third lavy colloquium on judaism and christian art, held at john hopkins university in 2007, the volume investigates how the figuration of jews and judaism helped to define and justify the very forms and materials by which western christendom defined itself. the contributions generally take the form of case studies, which vary as widely in topic as they do in their mode of addressing the collection’s stated goals. in the first and chronologically earliest cluster of studies, jaś elsner describes how the early christian adaption of roman triumphal imagery transformed the depiction of the israelites’ crossing of the red sea into a symbolically-laden christian narrative in fourthcentury sarcophagi. sara lipton explores the visual and epistemological elaboration of augustine’s “jewish witness” as a means of validating both christian truths and christian sensory experience in the twelfth-century. herbert kessler’s wideranging essay traces the tension between the material and the spiritual, christian supersessionist claims, and the conflicted perceptions of jews as iconoclasts and idolaters. francisco prado-vilar meditates on the visible and invisible dynamics of studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) jewish conversion in the thirteenth-century song collection known as the cantigas de santa maría. marcia kupfer employs oppositional paradigms of colonization and dialectic to analyze rabbi moses arragel’s simultaneously enforced and subversive contributions to the early fifteenth-century alba bible, an illustrated christian manuscript of the old testament. a second cluster of chapters spans the late middle ages and early modernity. achim timmerman reads the living cross tympanum of st. martin in landshut as a visual gloss on the violent expulsion of the town’s jews just prior to its (now redated) construction in 1452. mitchell b. merback shows how multivalent references to jewish hostility toward the eucharist in a fifteenth-century panel of the last supper in rotterdam responded also to fears about misuse of the host by christians. dana e. katz explores how the sixteenth-century segregation of venetian jews within a vertically expanding ghetto provoked new patterns of tension and surveillance between jewish and christian communities. felipe pereda’s english-language summary of a chapter from his well-received book imágenes de la discordia (2007) examines how both the function and the style of devotional images were transformed by their deployment to combat judaizing in fifteenthand sixteenthcentury castile. stylistic as well as iconographic decisionmaking becomes central to the chapters by stephen campbell and richard neer. campbell describes a mode of “sacred naturalism” (p. 308) in which pre-tridentine north italian painters harnessed key elements of the maniera moderna to articulate points of catholic doctrine (often through representations of judaism). neer describes the seventeenth-century french painter nicolas poussin’s elegant play upon vision, legibility, and the dual negative and positive figurations of jews and judaism in the service of a transcendent christian truth. ralph ubl’s chapter stands somewhat apart from the others in its more secular “christian” perspective. he departs from typical orientalist readings of eugène delacroix’s jewish wedding in morocco and asserts that the work harnesses the theme of the jewish wedding in a defense of the materiality of studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr painting. like pereda’s contribution, ubl’s is an englishlanguage version of work already published elsewhere; both are thus, despite their undeniable merits, curious additions to a volume that seems otherwise dedicated to new scholarship. the collection is closed by nirenberg’s erudite rumination on how the figure of the jew activated fundamental binaries of matter and essence, and of letter and spirit, that shaped the nature, understanding, and uses of art as much as they were shaped by it over the longue durée of western culture. the strength of this volume lies in its self-conscious reversal of the traditional focus on what works of art say about jews to consider what they say about christians. the most successful of its contributions keep this agenda at their forefront, leavening knowledgeable analysis of contextual and material specifics with attention to their consequentiality for the broad questions posed by the editors. exemplary in this regard are the chapters by lipton and kupfer. lipton’s elegantly wrought counterposition of the imagery of the twelfth-century eilbertus altar against contemporary writings such as the life of saint heribertus attests revealingly to the heightened flexibility of jewish tropes in high medieval thought. kupfer’s deployment of seemingly contradictory frames for understanding rabbi moses’ participation in the making of the alba bible suggests the dancelike complexity, risk, and excitement inherent in many such “interfaith” collaborations. as a collection, judaism and christian art is certain to advance and complicate current scholarship on jewish-christian relations, as well as that on the nature and significance of the visual per se in western culture. specialists in art history, religious studies, philosophy, and history, as well as readers of scjr generally, are sure to find more than one item of interest among its widely varied offerings. scjr 17, no. 1 (2022): 1-3 carol rittner and john k. roth, eds. the memory of goodness: eva fleischner and her contributions to holocaust studies (greensburg, pa: seton hill university, 2022), x + 249 pp. judith banki jbanki@tanenbaum.org tanenbaum center for interreligious understanding, new york, ny 10004 this extensive volume pays tribute to eva fleischner (1925-2020) by gathering together many of her essays and discussing her life. fleischner, who was born in vienna to a catholic mother and jewish father, was devoted to study of and reflection on the holocaust, to writing about it, to teaching it in several academic settings, and eventually, to exploring its impact on christian-jewish relations. in a prologue titled “the way she lived,” editor john k. roth recalls fleischner’s life and works. he discusses the influence of her writings on him as well as the relationship that developed between them when she moved west to claremont, california. in her retirement community, she met and befriended roth’s widowed father, a retired presbyterian minister. over time, she became “like family” to him. when roth became the founding director of the center for the study of holocaust, genocide, and human rights (now the mgrublian center for human rights) at claremont mckenna college, he invited fleischner to serve on its founding advisory board, where they worked together for years. following this presentation of her life story as a scholar, historian, and teacher is a creative chronological section. roth and carol rittner—both distinguished holocaust educators—present in chronological order major historic events (such as the accession of adolf hitler to germany’s chancellorship; the barman declaration; the publication of ernst bergmann’s influential “twenty-five points of the german religion,” asserting that jesus was not a jew but a nordic warrior) and events in her personal story. for example, they note that on march 12-13, 1938 nazi germany occupied austria, and on july 20 fleischner’s parents sent her from austria to a convent school administered by french nuns in brighton, england. the cause-effect relationship is clear. the authors meticulously trace her development into a scholar and teacher of the holocaust and discuss her major influence in the field of christian-jewish relations. they offer a chronological narrative, from her education and receipt of a banki: rittner and roth’s the memory of goodness 2 ph.d. at marquette university followed by decades teaching religion at montclair state college (now university) until her retirement in 1991. they also discuss her personal development, especially her finding a spiritual home in the grail, an international ecumenical women’s movement, and her beginning an intense christian formation program, including study of the hebrew scriptures. several american rabbis influenced that development, including abraham joshua heschel and harold schulweis. when she was searching for “meaning” in the holocaust, heschel gently rebuked her. “my dear eva,” she reported him saying to her, “there is no meaning to be found in this event” (42). when she was hesitant to include stories of rescuers in her writing (knowing how many more people remained silent or collaborated), schulweis convinced her to include them. he said, “our world, particularly our young people, needs heroes, models of courage and decency” (49). she went on to interview, befriend, and write about french women and men who risked their lives to save endangered jews. this added an entirely new dimension to her studies, her teaching, and her writing. there are two especially memorable essays near the book’s end. in the first, on the “spirituality” of pius xii, she argues for his piety, his concern for the german church, and his dependence on prayer. she notes that one of his favorite books was the imitation of christ by thomas à kempis (which he knew by heart), a work that emphasized “an interior, solitary and ascetic religious life” (145). his choice of the priesthood (he was ordained at 23) came as no surprise to those who knew him. noting that public figures such as president roosevelt had a worse record than pius in protecting vulnerable jews, she points out that roosevelt was responsible for sending the st. louis, the ill-fated jews’ refugee ship, back to europe where the nazis murdered many of them. yet excuses were always found for roosevelt’s action, while “vituperation and venom” were reserved for pius’ caution and inaction (144). she seems determined to defend him. but as the chapter unfolds, she compares the pope’s timidity to the prophetic witness of men such as gandhi and martin luther king, jr. who continue to inspire people today. salvadoran archbishop oscar romero openly criticized his country’s government and armed forces and paid for it with a bullet through his heart while saying mass in church. yet his voice was not silenced; his influence grew with his martyrdom. today he is a saint. fleischner began to believe that a more prophetic witness was called for and wondered why martyrdom in the face of such genocidal brutality was never considered at the highest levels of the church. while she never states it officially, it seems she has come to identify with the “many women and men [who] today find pius’ concept and embodiment of holiness—prayer, sacrifice, penance—too narrow and other-worldly” (136). the second memorable essay addresses “heschel’s significance for jewishchristian relations.” her tribute to the influence of heschel emphasizes his “greatheartedness,” his personal impact on christian audiences, his deep commitment to dialogue, and his notion that religious pluralism is a desire, even a delight, of god (158). despite the differences between jews and christians, heschel insists they must work together to increase faith in god. she traces heschel’s activism at the second vatican council, especially his interactions with cardinal bea on behalf 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) of the so-called “jewish declaration” (what eventually was promulgated nostra aetate), and his profound influence on christian thought. i would like to add a personal reflection: i was privileged to know fleischner, to work with her as fellow advisory board members of the national catholic center for holocaust education, and to have co-authored a published paper with her. she had the elegance and charm that seemed to come from her viennese background, and a smile that could melt an iceberg. i only saw her lose her composure once, when someone suggested she was jewish, had converted to catholicism to save her life, and should reclaim her jewish identity. she replied by asserting her catholic credentials, that she was baptized at birth, raised as a catholic, identified herself as a catholic, educated as a catholic, and taught and wrote as a catholic. she never denied that her father was a jew, but like other members of his family, he was totally assimilated. she learned nothing of judaism from that side of her family. he converted to catholicism in 1936, but of course remained a jew according to nazi ideology and law. her respect for judaism came from her lifelong love of the psalms, her study of the holocaust, and her interaction with rabbis and jewish scholars as her career developed. she looked unflinchingly at the origins and development of the “teaching of contempt” in christian tradition, and devoted much of her writing and teaching to addressing and overcoming it. she leaves us, indeed, with the memory of goodness. this volume, memorializing her life and contributions, is a rich and valuable resource for educators, for students of theology and history, and for christians and jews involved in interfaith dialogue. in assembling, organizing, and interpreting fleischner’s writings and discussing her life and work, john k. roth and carol rittner have done us all a great service. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review lloyd kim polemic in the book of hebrews: anti-judaism, anti-semitism, or supersessionism?, princeton theological monograph series 64 (eugene, or: pickwick publications, 2006) xiv + 222 pp. andrew massena, boston college the new perspective(s) on paul and other critical reexaminations of traditional antisemitic, anti-judaic, and supersessionist interpretations of new testament texts have, since the latter half of the twentieth century, focused on the pauline epistles and the gospels. the fruits of such rereadings have been monumental in generating new understandings of the jewish identity of several of the authors and of concepts like law, justification, and gentile mission. however, one text that has not figured as largely in these conversations is the epistle to the hebrews. in his book, polemic in the book of hebrews, lloyd kim sets out to help amend this imbalance. his goal, simply put, is “to determine whether the epistle to the hebrews is anti-semitic, anti-judaic or supersessionistic, and if so, to what extent” (p. 1). in chapter one, kim reviews prior scholarship on the epistle. though hebrews has not figured as largely in critical reexaminations, it has garnered some attention. kim observes that most of the verdicts of possible antisemitism, anti-judaism, or supersessionism have found the epistle unquestionably guilty (p. 8-16). in chapter two, kim explains his approach to hebrews: the socio-rhetorical method, which “combines the use of social-scientific approaches with analysis of how a text uses subjects and topics to communicate thoughts, arguments, speeches, etc.” (p. 43). this method, he believes, addresses best the variegated aspects of the text. it is also a more conservative hermeneutic—reflecting kim’s denominational affiliation with the presbyterian church in america—and he studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) prefers historical-grammatical methods (e.g., attention to grammar, genre, perspicuity, inerrancy, historical-cultural background, etc.) over historical-critical methods (though, of course, the methods do share some similarities). in chapter three, kim begins applying his method, analyzing the social context of hebrews. he assumes the epistle was written before the jerusalem temple’s destruction (pre-70 ce). though hebrews contains intense language against the levitical priesthood, mosaic covenant, and levitical sacrifices, the author adamantly maintains his community’s biblical roots. kim argues that hebrews is speaking to a sect within judaism, a group discerning its own distinct identity in light of christ’s revelation (p. 51-52). this sect is also facing an issue of backsliding, with some members feeling tempted to return to the “dominant form of judaism” (p. 60). pressure to do so appears to have derived from non-jewish persecution; though, kim believes jews also persecuted and attempted to persuade this “wayward” sect to return. to address these issues, the author of hebrews adopts a countercultural rhetoric, a mode designed to promote the superiority of a subgroup within the majority (p. 51-58). hebrews, thus, is following a structure/anti-structure model, a procedure that forms a new identity over against the old. the desired outcome is “reintegration” into the dominant society, after the latter eventually will have conformed to the views of the sect (p. 59). in the last three chapters, kim focuses on what he considers the three most polemical passages in hebrews, dedicating one chapter each to the priesthood (7:1-19), the covenant (8:1-13), and sacrifice (10:1-10), respectively. each chapter follows a similar pattern: a survey of second temple jewish literature on the topic of the passage, an analysis of the passage’s sociorhetorical function, and an assessment of the level of antisemitism, anti-judaism, or supersessionism present in the passage. from kim’s survey of second temple literature, he argues that hebrews is not unique in criticizing the priesthood, covenant, and sacrifices. however, there is a major difference. the other second temple writings generally held these institutions studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr as integral to jewish identity; their criticisms centered only on corruption and misuses (pp. 80, 119-21, 139-42). in contradistinction, while hebrews holds the institutions as integral, it argues that their manifestations (levitical and mosaic) are ineffective; thus, god has instituted three eternal and superior “fulfillments”: jesus as high priest (pp. 98-99), a new covenant (p. 146), and jesus’ final sacrifice (pp. 195-96). the balance hebrews strikes between “continuity” and “discontinuity” with the jewish tradition leads kim to conclude that the epistle is not antisemitic; such an accusation is anachronistic and fails to account for the author’s own jewish identity (pp. 94-95, 142, 192). but kim does view the epistle as anti-jewish and supersessionist, with qualifications. it is antijewish to the extent that it reflects intra-jewish theological disagreements (interestingly, kim defines anti-judaism as any “theological disagreement” between jews, or between jews and jewish-christians or gentiles [p. 2]); it is supersessionist to the extent that jesus fulfills the three institutions. however, kim says, one must realize the author is writing specifically to jews. there is no rejection of the jewish people or these institutions (pp. 197-201). indeed, “because of god’s great love for his people, he has provided a superior way by which his people can draw near to him” (p. 201). kim’s book is well-organized and lucid (though a reader without a strong background in rhetorical studies might be overwhelmed with his terminology). kim boldly addresses the polemical language of the epistle and does not attempt to downplay its supersessionist language through acrobatic exegesis that fails to do full justice to the language of the text. rather, with passages like 8:13, kim underscores the polemic content, while situating it in its social context (pp. 144-45). in this way, kim casts the epistle as an intra-jewish argument, produced by a jewish-christian sect affirming its own jewish identity amidst a real threat of backsliding from belief in christ. the reason for polemics now becomes clearer. studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 8 (2013) while kim’s socio-rhetorical approach offers many insights, kim appears to elide two important issues. first, kim adopts a pre-70 date for the text without any explicit or critical justification why he prefers this to a post-70 date. for a text so focused on temple ritual, a late (i.e. post-destruction) date might offer new angles for understanding the polemics and supersessionism. second, kim perhaps too hastily rejects any platonic influence on the text, and provides only a minimal discussion of why he does (p. 174). the possibility of such influence might lend further insight into why the author devalues the levitical and mosaic institutions, and perhaps help illuminate how and why the author believes christ supersedes them. overall, kim has performed a crucial task of explicating three of the most problematic passages in jewish-christian relations. he gives a compelling argument for their (qualified) antijudaic and supersessionist aspects. in doing so, whether intentionally or not, he also lays before christians an extremely difficult problem. hebrews presents the superior way for jews, namely, faith in christ. for modern opponents of supersessionism who do not believe that god has rejected jews who do not accept christ, however, hebrews offers little guidance. 1 scjr 18, no. 1 (2023): 1-6 we remember: “antisemitism had its roots outside of christianity” – really? a reflection on early modern europe nathan ron nron@humanities.haifa.ac.il university of haifa, haifa, 3498838 israel the 1998 publication we remember: a reflection on the shoah, reads, among other things: “thus we cannot ignore the difference which exists between antisemitism based on theories contrary to the constant teaching of the church on the unity of the human race and on the equal dignity of all races and peoples.” and further on, “the shoah was the work of a thoroughly modern neo-pagan regime. its antisemitism had its roots outside of christianity.” the publication emphasizes “the constant teaching of the church on the unity of the human race and on the equal dignity of all races and peoples.”1 thus, the 1998 publication condemns modern antisemitism and distinguishes the church’s theological anti-judaism from modern antisemitism. indeed, the term antisemitismus did not exist before 1879. it was coined only then, or a few years earlier, if not definitely so then most likely so, by wilhelm marr (1819-1904) to “impart a new, nonreligious connotation to the term anti-jewish.”2 many historians, however, argue for the continuity of the oldest hatred from antiquity to modern times, using “antisemitism” and its derivatives independently of any particular era or historical periodization.3 shulamit volkov elucidated the 1 the pontifical commission for religious relations with the jews, we remember: a reflection on the shoah. march 16, 1998 (section iv. nazi anti-semitism and the shoah unpaged). issued march 16, 1998 by the pontifical commission for religious relations with the jews. https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/we_remember.htm. 2 moshe zimmermann, wilhelm marr: the patriarch of anti-semitism (oxford: oxford university press, 1987), 89, 95 and 112: “it is not absolutely certain that marr coined the term “anti-semitism,” but it is very likely.”; robert wistrich, “antisemitism as a radical ideology,” jerusalem quarterly 28 (1983), 83-86; idem, a lethal obsession: anti-semitism from antiquity to the global jihad (new york: random house, 2010), 108. 3 e.g., victor tcherikover, hellenistic civilization and the jews trans. s. applebaum, (philadelphia: jewish publication society of america, 1959; 5th reprinting, 1979), 364: “[…] the anti-semitic literature which flourished at the end of the hellenistic period…”. on p. 365 tcherikover uses also “ancient antisemitism”; jerry l. daniel, “anti-semitism in the hellenistic-roman period,” journal of biblical literature, 98, (1979): 45-65; louis h. feldman, studies in hellenistic judaism (leiden: brill, 1996), 277, 289; robert s. wistrich (ed.), demonizing the other: antisemitism, racism and xenophobia (london: https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/we_remember.htm https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/we_remember.htm ron: we remember: a reflection on early modern europe 2 principle of continuity or discontinuity of antisemitism: “clearly, from a historical point of view, every event is rooted in the past, but at the same time, every phenomenon is at least in some way new and unique. the ongoing debate on break and continuity is thus only about the correct proportions.”4 scholars also emphasize the variety of elements that construct modern antisemitism, religion/theology being one of them. thus, jonathan adams and cordelia heß have observed: “not all forms of pre-modern anti-judaism were religiously motivated, and in the modern racist antisemitism that emerged around and after the emancipation, religion continued to play a major role […] this mixture of religious, political and ethnic aspects can also be seen in medieval anti-jewish phenomena.”5 accordingly, there is no reason why “christian antisemitism” should not be used to emphasize the religious/theological elements of the term—in relation to early modern europe— without excluding other aspects manifested or implied by it. a few demonstrations are needed here. desiderius erasmus (1466-1536) was a christian humanist (sometimes called biblical humanist) and theologian, perhaps the most progressive of his time (known as “the prince of humanists”). a devout catholic who disputed martin luther on essential doctrines, erasmus dedicated his novum instrumentum, his new critical version of the new testament (1516), to pope leo x. far from luther’s incendiary anti-jewish incitement, erasmus was identified with “a-semitism, an indifferent alienation from all things jewish.”6 however, a reading of erasmus’s remarks on the jews suggests that he was more inclined to antisemitism than to “a semitism. indeed, historian heiko oberman has described erasmus as a forerunner of racial antisemitism, closely linked to “the roots of antisemitism.” 10 regarding erasmus’s venomous slander of johannes pfefferkorn (1469-1521), the notorious convert, oberman writes: “here we encounter not just anti-judaism, as erasmus scholars routledge, 2013), 74 (antisemitism and other -isms in the grecoroman world); menahem stern, “antisemitism in rome,” in shmuel almog (ed.), antisemitism through the ages, translated by nathan h. reisner. vidal sasoon international center for the study of antisemitism, hebrew university of jerusalem (new york: pergamon press, 1988), 13-25; moshe david herr, “the sages’ reaction to antisemitism in the hellenistic-roman world,” in idem, antisemitism through the ages, 27-32. historian david engel argues that antisemitism is an arbitrary, vague, and flawed term pointing to a much too wide a range of historical, social, and political phenomena from different periods and places that are not necessarily related to each other. therefore, he concludes, “no necessary relation among particular instances of violence, hostile depiction, agitation, discrimination, and private unfriendly feeling across time and space can be assumed.” thus, historical research and writing should avoid the term “antisemitism.” see david engel, “away from a definition of antisemitism: an essay in the semantics of historical description,” in jeremy cohen and moshe rosman (eds.) rethinking european jewish history (oxford: oxford university press, 2009), 30-53 (53). my paper should be understood as rejecting angels’ suggestion. 4 shulamit volkov, antisemitism old and new. trials in emancipation. part ii: antisemitism as a cultural code (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2006), 67. 5 jonathan adams and cordelia heß (eds.), the medieval roots of antisemitism: continuities and discontinuities from the middle ages to the present day (london: routledge, 2018), 7-8 (introduction). 6 shimon markish, erasmus and the jews, trans. anthony ollcot (chicago and london: university of chicago press, 1986), 143. markish’s lenient judgement of erasmus’ conception of the jews is the foundation of a narrative of an a-semitic/tolerant erasmus, a narrative nurtured and shared by many. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) insist, but we touch on one of the roots of antisemitism … the fatal shift from anti jewish sentiment to racial antisemitism can already clearly be discerned when, in the later middle ages, the cleansing waters of baptism are no longer believed to purify the sinful jew.”7 following on from oberman’s observations, a few more demonstrations are presented and analyzed here. a passage in erasmus’ colloquy, “the godly feast” (convivium religiosum,1522), in which theophilus, one of the speakers, presents a detailed, theological conviction, purely erasmian in its essence, reads as follows: but god rejects the jews, not because they would keep the rites of the law but because, foolishly puffed up by keeping them, they would neglect what god especially requires of us. saturated with greed, pride, theft, hatred, envy, and other sins, they thought god much in their debt because they frequented the temple on holy days, offered burnt sacrifices, abstained from forbidden foods, and fasted occasionally. they embraced the shadows and neglected the substance. as for “i desire mercy and not sacrifice,” i suppose this is hebrew idiom for “i desire mercy more than sacrifice”; as solomon means when he says, “to do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the lord than sacrifice.8 in a march 1518 letter to the theologian wolfgang faber capito (1478-1541), erasmus harshly condemned jews in general and marranos in particular, while expressing, among other things, his distaste for the kabbalah: i see them as a nation full of the most tedious fabrications, who spread a kind of fog over everything, talmud, kabbalah, tetragrammaton, gates of light,9 words, words, words. i would rather have christ mixed up with scotus than with that rubbish of theirs. italy is full of jews, in spain there are hardly any christians. i fear this may give that pestilence that was long ago suppressed a chance to rear its ugly head.10 7 heiko a. oberman, the impact of the reformation (grand rapids, michigan: eerdmans, 1994), 164. 8 proverbs 21: 3. the passage is in asd i-3, 246-247: “iudaeos autem aduersatur deus, non quod obseruarent legis ritus, sed quod his stulte tumidi negiigerent ea, quae deus maxime vult praestari a nobis ac madentes auaritia, superbia, rapinis, odio, liuore caeterisque viciis existimabant deum ipsis multum debere, quod diebus festis versarentur in templo, quod immolarent victimas, quod abstinerent a cibis vetitis, quod illi nonnunquam ieiunarent. vmbras amplectebantur, rem negligebant. quod autem ait, misericordiam volo et non sacrificium, opinor ex idiomate sermonis hebraei dictum pro eo quod erat misericordiam volo potius quam sacrificium, quemadmodum velut interpretatur solomon, quum ait facere misericordiam et iudicium magis placet domino, quam victimae.” asd = opera omnia desiderii erasmi roterodami (amsterdam: elsevier, 1969–). 9 the kabbalistic work sha'arei orah was composed by joseph ibn gikatilla (13th century, spain). the latin edition was titled portae lucis (augsburg: johannes miller, 1516). the hebrew original of this work was published in mantua, 1561. 10 cwe 5, 347-348; ep 798: 19-25: “video gentem eam frigidissimis fabulis plenam nihil fere nisi fumos quosdam obiicere; talmud, cabalam, tetragrammaton, portas lucis, inania nomina. scoto malim infectum christum quam istis neniis. italia multos habet iudaeos, hispania vix habet christianos. vereor ne hac occasione pestis iam olim oppressa caput erigat.” cwe = collected works of erasmus ron: we remember: a reflection on early modern europe 4 moreover, the ideal europe, according to erasmus, was one free of jews. in his a complaint of peace (querela pacis, 1517), erasmus admired the christian purity of france due to the absence of corrupt jewish commerce and the fact that— according to erasmus—the turks or marranos were nowhere to be found, so the country was free from their infection. france was thus the flower of christendom: “the law flourishes as nowhere else, nowhere has religion so retained its purity without being corrupted by commerce carried on by the jews, as in italy, or infected by the proximity of the turks or marranos, as in hungary and spain.”11 the same idea appears in erasmus’s march 1517 letter: “only france is not infected with heretics or bohemian schismatics nor jews or half jews marranos, and there are no turks to be found in its vicinity.”12 these assertions indicate an acknowledgment of the expulsion of the jews from france throughout the middle ages, with the most significant deportations taking place in 1306, and at the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth centuries. france, whose jews had been expelled, served erasmus as the model of a purely christian state. indeed, he did not explicitly call for the expulsion of the jews. however, he accepted the expulsion as a realization of the ideal of christian concordia in its exclusive meaning. the unity of christian hearts can be achieved if or when the jews are out of the country. this is a clear display religious and ethnic intolerance. it can be understood as an objection to tolerantia, the medieval term meaning the permission given to jews to live in a certain place at a certain time. erasmus’ public influence should not be underestimated. he was one of the most prolific and influential christian voices of his time. friedrich grau nausea (c.1480-1552), bishop of vienna, wrote in his monodia (1537): “to whom do we owe it that in our age the ploughman at his plough thinks on some part of the gospel? is it not erasmus? and that the weaver accompanies his labours at the loom with something from the gospel? is it not to erasmus?”13 the historian hugh trevor-roper defined erasmus as a colossal intellectual in the history of ideas, the most important intellectual hero of the sixteenth century, a cosmopolitan in an age of rising nationalism, whose intellectuality influenced the enlightenment movement. we can therefore conclude that if erasmus’s attitude toward jews was hateful, other contemporary humanists held a similar, if not identical, view of humanity. in (toronto: university of toronto press, 1974–). ep = opus epistolarum desiderii erasmi roterodami, ed. p. s. allen and h. m. allen, 12 vols. (oxford: oxford university press, 1906–58). see also price, johannes reuchlin and the campaign to destroy jewish books (oxford: oxford university press, 2010), 179; posset, johann reuchlin (1455–1522), 863. 11 cwe 27, 306; asd iv-2, 80. asd = opera omnia desiderii erasmi roterodami (amsterdam: elsevier, 1969–). 12 cwe 4, 279; ep 549: 11-13. ep = opus epistolarum desiderii erasmi roterodami, ed. p. s. allen and h. m. allen, 12 vols. (oxford: oxford university press, 1906–58). 13 quoted from bruce mansfield, phoenix of his age: interpretations of erasmus c, 1550-1770 (toronto: university of toronto press, 1979), 10. on erasmus’ immense influence on modernity, see bruce e. mansfield, “erasmus in the nineteenth century: the liberal tradition,” studies in the renaissance 15 (1968), 193-219 and idem, phoenix of his age. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) fact, we often do not find racial antisemitism in early modern texts, but only hatred. nevertheless, the hatred channeled against the jews was catastrophic in itself and led to terrible results. this persistent hatred, whether combined with racial elements or tied to religion, was the driving force behind the various forms of atrocities that jews experienced in early modern europe. although this paper is not written in the spirit of the “lachrymose conception of jewish history,”14 it is appropriate to recall two cases that reflect the outbreak of such hatred. in 1510, thirty-eight jews were burned to death in berlin after being convicted of stealing and torturing a eucharistic host. however, a christian man had previously confessed to having done it.15 then, in 1529, the infamous blood libel of pezinok (a former hungarian, now a slovakian town) occurred. thirty jews were publicly burned to death after convicted of murdering a nine-year-old christian child for ritual purposes.16 in conclusion, the use of the term antisemtismus, after wilhelm marr coined it in the 1870s, was not and is not divorced from past traditional anti-judaism (and its racial elements). on the contrary, the modern term expresses, to a considerable extent, a continuation—in modern tools—of the hatred of the jews that can be found, among others, in the writings of early modern theologians and christian humanists. this also emerges from david nirenberg’s response to a holocaust survivor who wondered whether he, the persecuted, was a victim of anti-judaism or antisemitism. nirenberg’s answer was “both.”17 moreover, hatred is the fundamental element that unites antisemitism and antijudaism. the humanist conradus mutianus (1470-1526), considered by many to be the third great german humanist after desiderius erasmus and johannes reuchlin (1455-1522), is described as “subtle and open-minded…a fine judge of literature and critical of traditional religious practice.”18 mutianus wrote: “i hate the jews, even though most of them are good and have earned merits that i appreciate.”19 this manifestation of hatred is arguably a direct anti-jewish reflection of 14 salo w. baron “newer emphases in jewish history,” jewish social studies 25 (1963): 245–58; reprinted in salo w. baron, history and jewish historians: essays and addresses (philadelphia: jewish publication society, 1964), 90–106 (96). 15 on this see elisheva carlebach, “critical introduction,” in johannes reuchlin, recommendation whether to confiscate, destroy and burn all jewish books: a classic treatise against anti-semitism, translated and edited by peter wortsman (new york: paulist press, 2000), 19. 16 on this see stephen g. burnett, “philosemitism and christian hebraism in the reformation era (1500-1620),” in irene a. diekmann and elke-vera kotowski (eds.) geliebter feind gehasster freund: antisemitismus und philosemitismus in geschichte und gegenwart: festschrift zum 65. geburtstag von julius schoeps (berlin: verlag für berlin-brandenburg, 2009), 135-145 (p.143); price, johannes reuchlin and the campaign to destroy jewish books, 228-229. 17 david nirenberg, “response to comments on review of ‘anti–judaism: the western tradition’,” jewish history 28 (2014), 187-213 (209). 18 peter g. bietenholz and thomas b. deutscher (eds.), contemporaries of erasmus: a biographical register of the renaissance and reformation, vol. 2 (toronto: university of toronto press, 2003), 474. 19 carl krause and karl gillert (eds.) der briefwechsel des conradus mutianus rufus, 2 vols. (halle: verlag otto hendel,1890), no. 229: “odi circumcisos, quamquam boni sunt plurimi et de me bene meriti.” see also eckhard bernstein, “die reuchlin-kontroverse und der humanistenkreis um mutianus rufus,” in marc laureys and roswitha simons (eds.), die kunst des streitens: inszenierung, formen und funktionen öffentlichen streits in historischer perspektive (göttingen: v&r unipress, 2010), 307. ron: we remember: a reflection on early modern europe 6 the early modern anti-jewish mentality and spirit of the age. today’s scholars are engaged in tracing and discovering notions of determined biological inferiority, ethnological hierarchies, or ethnic characterizations in early-modern europe. however, the significant role of emotional or inclinational hatred seems to be overlooked. hatred played an important role, whether or not it was combined with racism. jonathan judaken, who rejects the term antisemitism and suggests judeophobia instead, asks if hatred is the emotion that drives antisemitism.20 the answer is yes. call it judeophobia rather than antisemitism (or anti-judaism), if you wish; still, hatred was a leading force in driving people to persecute the jews in earlymodern europe. as pointed out here, such hatred was not the monopoly of “christian mobs” driven by “erroneous and unjust interpretations of the new testament,” as the 1998 publication puts it.21 admittedly, it was shared and disseminated by christian intellectuals and church prelates, erasmus being an outstanding example. ____________________ dr. nathan ron is the son of holocaust survivors who emigrated from poland to israel in 1949. dr. ron is a research fellow at the school of history at the university of haifa (israel). his research interests focus on the thoughts of renaissance scholars such as erasmus of rotterdam, johannes reuchlin, and nichola of cusa. dr. ron also explores religious differences and interreligious dialogue in early modern europe. he is the author of four books, numerous articles, and translations of classical renaissance works from latin and german into hebrew. 20 jonathan judaken, “rethinking anti-semitism introduction,” american historical review, oct. (2018), 1122 21 we remember: a reflection on the shoah, section iv (unpaged). michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): kreimer r1-2 cobb and mcafee, the dialogue comes of age kreimer r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr john b. cobb, jr. and ward m. mcafee, editors the dialogue comes of age: christian encounters with other traditions (minneapolis: fortress press, 2010), paperback, v + 242 pp. reviewed by nancy fuchs kreimer, reconstructionist rabbinical college john cobb and ward mcafee have assembled a valuable book for progressive christians and for anyone wanting to understand interfaith encounter from that perspective. the book begins and ends with theologically-oriented essays by cobb, the leading process theologian and author of christ in a pluralistic age and beyond dialogue: the mutual transformation of buddhism and christianity. other chapters treat the challenges in christians’ relations with jews (by eva fleischner, a catholic scholar and veteran of dialogue), buddhists (by dickson kazuo yagi, a southern baptist scholar of buddhism), and muslims and native americans (by mcafee, coeditor, professional historian, and methodist layperson). each chapter includes suggestions for further reading and questions for discussion. the book’s design facilitates groups of christians who want to engage these essays together. they will surely be motivated by the lively presentations to move beyond the text and encounter both the literature and members of other faiths. study of this book will help them do so with knowledge, sensitivity, and a theological grounding that starts with humility and ends with compassion. cobb begins the volume with an admirably clear exposition of the pluralistic religious reality that increasingly characterizes american society. he completely rejects an exclusivist view, spelling out what a pluralist position looks like (“many paths up the same mountain”) and faulting it for being “not pluralistic enough” (pp. 20-21). he argues for a “fuller pluralism” (p. 22). this requires no surrender of one’s own peculiar positions or a request of other faiths to relativize their own claims. rather, each faith retains that which makes it distinctive, including universal claims that might impinge on others’ beliefs. for christians, this means faithful discipleship, with christ at the center. one of the best insights here is that there is no “one size fits all” method for christians to relate to other faiths (p. 7). with each of the four faiths dealt with in this book, cobb finds a unique christian-based argument for listening and appreciating rather than judging. in the end, cobb admits this kind of deep pluralism will be very different from a new testament or traditional christian understanding of religious difference, but he suggests that such a position is not entirely foreign. rather, it involves siding with some emphases in the history of christianity, even if they are muted voices. for example, he mentions the jesuits who served as christian missionaries to china in the 16 th and 17 th centuries. they wanted to allow new christians to accept faith in jesus while retaining their commitment to confucianism. this is an idea the papacy rejected, but one with intriguing resonances today. eva fleischner’s chapter is commendably balanced and written with rigor and compassion. she describes the difficult history of jewish-christian relations, the remarkable post-holocaust transformation, and the work still to be done. when she takes on the difficult question of zionism, her review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): kreimer r1-2 cobb and mcafee, the dialogue comes of age kreimer r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr work becomes particularly strong. in a notably fair-minded way, she reports how the political conflict in israel has been challenging for jewish-christian relations. some jews and christians understand christian criticism of the state of israel’s policies in the context of christian historic anti-judaism. fleischner reminds christians of their “confidence in judaism as a source of peace and justice” (p. 80). i hear in this statement an admonition to avoid despair over israel’s current policies, a gentle rebuke of the policies, and, at the same time, a reminder that christians too easily revert to criticism of jews and judaism. the same tone is continued in the final essay by cobb when he deals with this topic. one feels a genuine respect and commitment to the jewish people, along with a concern for the palestinian people arising from humanitarian values, not anti-semitism. it is not an easy tightrope to walk, and this book walks it with grace. ward mcafee’s chapter on islam has much to recommend in it. he does a beautiful job of explaining to christians how they can understand aspects of islam that are problematic to them, such as periods of militancy, both by contextualizing them in muslim history and, at the same time, by reminding themselves of not-so-dissimilar christian history. my only objection was that i found the author put too much emphasis on “progressive muslims” (p. 117f.). the line mcafee draws between “progressive” muslims and other muslims is a line i do not think most muslims would recognize. in fact, explicitly named “progressive muslims” remain a tiny minority, although perhaps southern california, where he is a professor, is different. i assume that the problem may arise because mcafee applies a protestant understanding of scripture to the qur’an. but the qur’an, like jewish scripture, is read through a body of interpretation, so one can believe that every word on the page was divinely revealed and still find a great deal of room for creative interpretation, as pious muslims have done for centuries. for this reason, some muslims believe that islam itself is progressive, and they resist designating a separate movement called “progressive islam.” mcafee’s clear preference for “progressive muslims,” especially when it comes to the understanding of revelation in qur’an, thus strikes a discordant note. it seems in some tension with cobb’s thesis that it is not for us to judge different manifestations of another’s faith. this concern pales in light of my overall sense that the authors of this book are doing the lord’s work with the best of intentions. while i have no particular insight into the chapters on buddhism and native american religion, my perception is that they share with the other chapters in this book enormous heart along with fine intelligence. they explain difficult subjects precisely in a way that will speak well to christians less informed about these other faiths. christians willing to open themselves to the authors’ challenge will be better christians for having done so. scjr 10 (2015) 1 protestant parallels to nostra aetate franklin sherman, muhlenberg college (emeritus) when nostra aetate was issued in 1965, protestants as well as roman catholics concerned with christian-jewish relations rejoiced. i recall a meeting in chicago convened by the american jewish committee to consider the document. all present—protestants, catholics, jews—shared at least two emotions: immense gratitude for the breakthrough in the millennia-old estrangement between christians and jews that nostra aetate represented; and astonishment that a statement so brief (only §4, on judaism, was considered) could have such epochal significance. in subsequent years, numerous statements of a similar nature were issued by protestant bodies—statements of repentance for the “teaching of contempt” towards jews and judaism as well as pledges of commitment to a new relationship. the question therefore naturally arises of whether these protestant developments may have been due to the influence of nostra aetate, being in a sense imitative of it. the answer to this must be a complex one; one needs to avoid the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. on the one hand, protestants committed to overcoming the alienation between christians and jews were indeed emboldened by the fact that it was the roman catholic church—regarded by itself and others as the most stalwart defender of “the faith once delivered to the saints”—that took the courageous step of reversing an age-old teaching, namely, that of deicide. many protestants were also envious of what they saw as the far more effective “command and control” apparatus in roman catholicism that would make it possible to implement this revision in all areas of the church’s life, and in all parts of the world. (only later would they learn, along with scjr 10 (2015) 2 catholics themselves, of some of the obstacles to the full realization of this vision.) so nostra aetate clearly did have some impact on protestants, even if only on a leadership cadre. on the other hand, one has to account for the fact that well before vatican ii, protestant bodies in america and elsewhere had already made statements of a similar nature. the earliest of these statements go back to the years just following the second world war. already in august 1945, the evangelische kirche in deutschland (protestant church in germany) issued the dramatic “stuttgart declaration of guilt,” acknowledging “with great anguish” that “through us [germans] has endless suffering been brought to many peoples and countries.” noting that some had indeed struggled against national socialism, they nevertheless declare: “[we] accuse ourselves for not witnessing more courageously, for not praying more faithfully, for not believing more joyously, for not loving more ardently.” 1 it was subsequently noted, however, that although the declaration mentioned offences against “many peoples,” there was no specific mention of the jews. in excuse of this, it might be maintained that the full scope of what came to be called the holocaust or the shoah was not yet known at that time. while this may be true to some extent, everyone knew that thousands and tens and hundreds of thousands of jews had disappeared from the cities of europe, as well as the countryside. this lacuna was evidence of a serious remaining “fog of conscience,” as one might call it, comparable to the fog of war. by 1948, at least one of the german protestant regional churches (landeskirchen), the evangelical lutheran church of saxony, realized that more needed to be said. in a state 1 franklin sherman, ed., bridges: documents of the christian-jewish dialogue. vol. 1—the road to reconciliation (1945-1985) (new york: paulist press, 2011), 41. scjr 10 (2015) 3 ment entitled “declaration of guilt toward the jewish people,” it makes its confession: we feel it a matter of deep shame that the most comprehensive and terrible attempt at the forceful extermination of jewry that world history has ever known was undertaken in the name of the german people. millions of jews—men, women, and children, a third of the total jewish population worldwide—were destroyed by us. it need hardly be said that this stands in deepest contradiction to the christian principles of justice, tolerance, and neighbor-love. but it would be too easy to push off the responsibility to the ruling authorities of that time... insofar as racial hatred has been fostered among us or simply has been tolerated without vigorous resistance, we share in the guilt. 2 this was an expression of repentance for past sins. but the past proved to be not truly past. in 1960, the protestant church in berlin-brandenberg issued a cry of alarm about a new wave of antisemitic incidents in europe. it urged all its members, but especially parents and educators, to “break the widespread, awkward silence in our country in regard to our shared responsibility for the fate of the jews and resist whatever tempts the younger generation towards enmity against jews.” 3 statements such as the foregoing clearly reject antijewish attitudes and actions, but they do not yet express the need for a drastic reformulation of christian teaching regarding the jews and judaism. they do not deal with the charge of “deicide,” i.e., of jewish culpability for the crucifixion. we do find this clearly addressed, however, in a statement issued by the house of bishops of the episcopal church (u.s.a.) in october 1964 (nostra aetate would appear just a year later). entitled “deicide and the jews,” it states in part: 2 ibid., 45. 3 ibid., 54. scjr 10 (2015) 4 antisemitism is a direct contradiction of christian doctrine. jesus was a jew, and, since the christian church is rooted in israel, spiritually we are semites. the charge of deicide against the jews is a tragic misunderstanding of the inner significance of the crucifixion. to be sure, jesus was crucified by some soldiers at the instigation of some jews. but, this cannot be construed as imputing corporate guilt to every jew in jesus' day, much less the jewish people in subsequent generations. simple justice alone proclaims the charge of a corporate or inherited curse on the jewish people to be false. 4 the episcopal general convention, meeting at the same time and including lay delegates, issued a similar statement. what shall we make of this consonance, these parallels, between protestant statements issued between 1945 and 1964 and the second vatican council's nostra aetate of 1965? clearly, it cannot be the influence of the latter on the former. but neither is it a mere coincidence. rather, we need to see this as an instance of what in the history of ideas, especially the history of science, is called “simultaneous invention” or “multiple independent discovery.” many examples of this can be cited: the formulation of calculus by both newton and leibniz in the seventeenth century; the discovery of oxygen by priestley, lavoisier, and others in the eighteenth century; the theory of evolution, articulated by both charles darwin and alfred russel wallace in the nineteenth century; the development of radio by marconi and others on both sides of the atlantic at the turn of the twentieth century; and so on, down to our own time. “sometimes the discoveries are simultaneous or almost so,” notes the sociologist robert k. merton, who made this a special topic of research; “sometimes a scientist 4 ibid., 59. scjr 10 (2015) 5 will make a new discovery which, unknown to him, somebody else has made years before.” 5 what accounts for this phenomenon? at least two factors come to mind, both of which are relevant to our question. one is internal to the scientific discipline in question: it is at a point of readiness for this new step. a series of lesser discoveries cry out for a grand synthesis; an urgent problem demands to be resolved. the other factor is external: there are new developments in the surrounding context; new data to be reckoned with; new discoveries to be made by venturing farther afield (darwin's voyage of the beagle). with reference to our question: christians of all persuasions, in the post-1945 period, were reeling from the gradual realization of the enormity of the holocaust, and the extent to which long-standing christian anti-judaism had fueled the rise of modern antisemitism. all saw the need for repentance and renewal in the christian attitude toward the jews and judaism. all drew on the work of pioneering scholars like james parkes in britain and a. roy eckardt in the united states, and were influenced by towering jewish figures such as jules isaac and, later, abraham joshua heschel. so it is no wonder that there are parallels in the protestant and catholic responses. we have reviewed above some of the key protestant statements on christian-jewish relations antedating vatican ii. as to the post-vatican ii period, we can deal with only a few of the numerous protestant statements issued in the following decades. 6 many of these are quite lengthy and of considerable scope; in this respect they are more comparable to the catholic teaching documents that followed nostra aetate than to na itself. (this would include the pontifical commission for 5 see robert k. merton, “singletons and multiples in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science,” in proceedings of the american philosophical society, vol. 105 (1961), no. 5, 470-486. see also, for a somewhat whimsical review of the matter, malcolm gladwell, “in the air: who says big ideas are rare?,” the new yorker, 12 may, 2008, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/05/12/in-the-air. 6 the bridges collection contains 46 such documents. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/05/12/in-the-air scjr 10 (2015) 6 religious relations with the jews’ “guidelines and suggestions” of 1974 and “notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church” of 1985, as well as similar documents prepared by the united states conference of catholic bishops and other national bishops' conferences. 7 ) typical of these later documents is the statement prepared by a task force of the presbyterian church (u.s.a.) and commended by its 1987 general assembly for study and reflection. entitled “a theological understanding of the relationship between christians and jews,” it is set forth in a series of affirmations: 1. we affirm that the living god whom christians worship is the same god who is worshiped and served by jews. we bear witness that the god revealed in jesus, a jew, to be the triune lord of all, is the same one disclosed in the life and worship of israel. 2. we affirm that the church, elected in jesus christ, has been engrafted into the people of god established by the covenant with abraham, isaac, and jacob. therefore, christians have not replaced jews. 3. we affirm that both the church and the jewish people are elected by god for witness to the world and that the relationship of the church to contemporary jews is based on that gracious and irrevocable election of both. 4. we affirm that the reign of god is attested both by the continuing existence of the jewish people and by the church’s proclamation of the gospel of jesus christ. hence, when speaking with jews about matters of faith, we must always acknowledge that jews are already in a covenantal relationship with god. 7 see bridges, vol. 1, 193-263, and vol. 2, building a new relationship (1986-2013), new york: paulist press, 2014), 294-360. scjr 10 (2015) 7 5. we acknowledge in repentance the church’s long and deep complicity in the proliferation of antijewish attitudes and actions through its “teaching of contempt” for the jews. such teaching we now repudiate, together with the acts and attitudes which it generates. 6. we affirm the continuity of god’s promise of land along with the obligations of that promise to the people israel. 7. we affirm that jews and christians are partners in waiting. christians see in christ the redemption not yet fully visible in the world, and jews await the messianic redemption. christians and jews together await the final manifestation of god's promise of the peaceable kingdom. 8 each of these “affirmations” is followed by a historical and theological “explication” of some length. statements of a similar import have been made (speaking first of north american bodies) by the united church of christ (1987), the episcopal church (1988, expanding the brief 1964 statement referenced above), the christian church (disciples of christ) (1993), the united methodist church (1972 and 1996), the evangelical lutheran church in america (1998), the alliance of baptists (2003), the united church of canada (2003), and the presbyterian church in canada (2011). 9 overseas, there are statements by protestant bodies in germany, hungary, poland, switzerland, italy, and austria, as well as australia. 10 there are also statements from two worldwide bodies: the lambeth conference, representing the anglican/episcopal churches, and the lutheran world federation. 11 8 bridges, vol. 2, 51-62. 9 ibid., 63-106. 10 ibid., 107-151. 11 ibid., 152-173. scjr 10 (2015) 8 among lutherans, a key statement was the evangelical lutheran church in america’s “declaration to the jewish people.” authorized by its 1993 churchwide assembly after a selection from luther’s hateful writings about the jews had been read out to the delegates (most of whom, whether clergy or lay, had little or no previous knowledge of these materials), the statement was prepared by a special panel and issued in april, 1994. it reads in part: in the long history of christianity there exists no more tragic development than the treatment accorded the jewish people on the part of christian believers. very few christian communities of faith were able to escape the contagion of anti-judaism and its modern successor, anti-semitism. lutherans ... feel a special burden in this regard because of certain elements in the legacy of the reformer martin luther and the catastrophes, including the holocaust of the twentieth century, suffered by jews in places where the lutheran churches were strongly represented... luther proclaimed a gospel for people as we really are, bidding us to trust a grace sufficient to reach our deepest shames and address the most tragic truths. in the spirit of that truth-telling, we who bear his name and heritage must with pain acknowledge also luther’s anti-judaic diatribes and the violent recommendations of his later writings against the jews. as did many of luther’s own companions in the sixteenth century, we reject this violent invective, and yet more do we express our deep and abiding sorrow over its tragic effects on subsequent generations... grieving the complicity of our own tradition within this history of hatred, moreover, we express our urgent desire to live out our faith in jesus christ with love and respect for the jewish people. we recognize in antisemitism a contradiction and an affront to the gospel, a violation of our hope and calling, and we pledge this scjr 10 (2015) 9 church to oppose the deadly working of such bigotry, both within our own circles and in the society around us. 12 this declaration was celebrated in joint lutheran-jewish meetings around the country and was followed by study materials on the subject. 13 particularly poignant are the statements of guilt, repentance, and the hope for reconciliation and renewal between christians and jews issued by the protestant churches in europe, which had seen directly the murderous effects of the age-old christian anti-judaism in their own midst, coupled with the emergence of modern racist antisemitism. the east german protestant churches issued a statement marking the fortieth anniversary of kristallnacht (the “night of shattered glass”) that confessed: the burden of a great guilt lies upon our people. the events of november 9, 1938, were met at that time, for the most part, with a depressing silence, a frightful indifference, or open approval. most people broke off all relations with jews, gave credence to the slanders, let themselves be intimidated, and avoided the slightest human contacts. only very few raised their voices in protest and tried to stand by the oppressed and persecuted jews. applying the lessons of that time also to more recent instances of resentment against those who are “different,” the east german statement adds: we are called, as we live among our neighbors today, to practice: 12 ibid., 81-82. 13 for these later materials, particularly the 1998 “talking points: topics in christian-jewish relations,” see evangelical lutheran church in america, http://www.elca.org/faith/ecumenical-and-inter-religious-relations/interreligious-relations/jewish-relations. http://www.elca.org/faith/ecumenical-and-inter-religious-relations/inter-religious-relations/jewish-relations http://www.elca.org/faith/ecumenical-and-inter-religious-relations/inter-religious-relations/jewish-relations scjr 10 (2015) 10 – love, rather than hate – help, rather than condemnation – respect, rather than contempt – understanding, rather than rejection – connection, rather than separation. 14 the protestant churches in west germany issued a parallel statement. 15 and the same was done on the fiftieth anniversary of kristallnacht, now in a unified statement—even preceding the fall of the berlin wall in 1989—by east and west german protestants. 16 the reformed church in hungary, in a statement of 1990, made its own acknowledgement of complicity: the reformed church in hungary is still standing before god in self-examination remembering this shame of europe which caused six million jews—including 600,000 from hungary—to be murdered. in that time of crisis our church, too, proved to be weak in faith and in action, and was unable to prevent this genocide. 17 and the small evangelical reformed church in poland spoke similarly in a 1995 statement marking the fiftieth anniversary of the end of world war ii and the liberation of auschwitz: during the war many poles, at great risk to their own lives, sheltered jews from the germans and rescued them. however, there were also some—and not as few as is often maintained—who handed over jews to certain death. and the greater part of the population remained indifferent to the fate of the jews. in re 14 sherman, bridges, vol. 1, 129-131. 15 ibid., 132-133. 16 “statement on the fiftieth anniversary of the pogrom in november 1938,” bridges, vol. 2, 107-109. 17 ibid., 119. scjr 10 (2015) 11 membering this today, we acknowledge that indifference as guilt and sin. 18 the protestant church in austria 19 offered its retrospective in its statement, “time to turn: the protestant churches in austria and the jews” (1998). “the part played by christians and churches and their shared responsibility for the suffering and misery of jews,” they acknowledge, “can no longer be denied.” looking to the future, it offers the following assurances: the protestant churches know themselves obliged to always keep alive the memory of the jewish people’s history of suffering and the shoah. the protestant churches know themselves obliged to check the teaching, preaching, instruction, liturgy, and practice of the church for any antisemitism, and to also, through their media, stand up against prejudice. the protestant churches know themselves obliged to fight against every form of personal and social antisemitism. the protestant churches want, in their relations to jews and jewish congregations, to walk a common way into a new future. 20 the most inclusive european protestant document on christian-jewish relations was issued in 2001 by the leuenberg fellowship, subsequently re-named the community of protestant churches in europe, which includes more than ninety church bodies in some thirty countries. entitled “church and israel: a contribution from the reformation churches in europe to the relationship between christians and jews,” it is some eighty printed pages in length; thus it is more a study document than a statement. if it breaks little new ground, it is nonetheless a very useful recapitulation of the 18 ibid., 127-129. 19 full name: protestant church of the augsburg and helvetic confessions in austria. 20 ibid., 139. scjr 10 (2015) 12 state of the question and an impressive achievement in reaching consensus among these diverse bodies. 21 among the many other statements that might be considered, one issued in 1988 by the lambeth conference, representing the world anglican community, deserves special notice for its tri-faith approach. entitled “jews, christians, and muslims: the way of dialogue,” it sets forth a compact résumé of what each faith community needs to know about the other in order to avoid prejudicial oversimplifications. each faith, it points out, has developed far beyond its historical origins; is internally diverse; and has experienced both tolerance and intolerance for and from the other two communities. the document speaks eloquently of “the way of understanding,” “the way of affirmation,” and “the way of sharing” among the three faiths. 22 if the issuance of statements on christian-jewish relations by protestant bodies seems to have slowed in recent years, this is no doubt largely due to the fact that most of the major denominations have already made statements. but it also reflects the fact that work on this front is increasingly being done by organizations that include both protestants and roman catholics, and often eastern orthodox christians, as well as jews. this was true already of the pioneering “ten points of seelisberg,” issued in 1947 by the famous conference in that swiss village that included catholic, protestant, and jewish scholars and leaders, with official observers from both the vatican and the world council of churches. the international council of christians and jews (iccj), which grew out of that conference, has continued work on this interfaith basis down to the present. 23 also inclusive of 21 the full text may be viewed, in both english and german, at leuenberger documents, vol. 6, www.leuenberg.eu/sites/default/files/publications/lt6.pdf. 22 bridges, vol. 2, 157-169. 23 see especially its major statement, “a time for recommitment: building the new relationship between jews and christians” (berlin, 2009), ibid., http://www.leuenberg.eu/sites/default/files/publications/lt6.pdf scjr 10 (2015) 13 both roman catholics and protestants is the christians scholars group on christian-jewish relations, the u.s. group that prepared and issued “a sacred obligation: rethinking christian faith in relation to judaism and the jewish people,” a response to the pivotal jewish document “dabru emet: a jewish statement on christians and christianity.” 24 increasingly, too, the council of centers on jewish-christian relations (ccjr) 25 , an association of more than forty academic centers and institutes in the united states, with affiliate members overseas, provides a significant venue for protestant, catholic, and jewish scholars and leaders to compare experiences and discuss matters of common interest. so we are well placed to move into the future together. 26 455-462. current developments may be followed at international council of christians and jews, www.iccj.org. 24 ibid., 417-422 (the christian scholars group statement). for dabru emet, see institute for islamic, christian, and jewish studies, www.icjs.org/dabru-emet/text-version. 25 see council of centers on jewish-christian relations, www.ccjr.us, especially the section “dialogika,” the ccjr’s extensive and continually updated documentation of work in this field. 26 the above has dealt with what in the u.s.a. is commonly called “mainline” protestantism, and has been written from that perspective. for an overview from a conservative evangelical standpoint, see alan f. johnson, “vatican ii and nostra aetate at fifty: an evangelical view,” in gilbert s. rosenthal, ed., a jubilee for all time: the copernican revolution in jewish-christian relations (eugene, or: pickwick publications, 2014), 106-153. i am indebted to peter a. pettit for this reference and for other discerning comments on a draft of this article. http://www.iccj.org/ http://www.icjs.org/dabru-emet/text-version http://www.ccjr.us/ the land of israel (eretz yisra™el) in jewish and christian understanding lux, the land of israel (eretz yisra’el) 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college the land of israel (eretz yisra’el) in jewish and christian understanding richard c. lux sacred heart school of theology volume 3 (2008) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 lux, the land of israel (eretz yisra’el) 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 since the establishment of the modern state of israel in 1948 and especially since the end of the vatican council ii and the 1993 fundamental agreement between the vatican and the state of israel, the topic of the land of israel has played a critical role in the dialogue between christians and jews. the focus on the state of israel is partly predicated on the importance of the land in our two traditions. in an effort to clarify the role of the land of israel in a religious perspective, it is necessary to examine the sources of a land tradition in the hebrew scriptures and the christian scriptures. this study focuses on this issue from a roman catholic perspective, but has implications for the broader christian community. at the end of this essay, a proposal is made for a sacramental understanding of the land in the catholic tradition. land tradition in the hebrew scriptures our search for an understanding of the land of israel must begin with the scriptures.1 for a catholic, the hebrew scriptures are “an indispensable part of sacred scripture. its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value” for god’s covenant with israel “has never been revoked.”2 furthermore, since the 1965 vatican council ii declaration nostra aetate affirms that the eternal covenant of god with israel is unbroken and remains valid, we catholics view the jewish people in a new light. subsequent church documents – e.g. guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate, no. 4 (1974) and notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the ro 1 the following is a development of my article, “biblical land traditions,” the catholic world 234 (jan/feb, 1991), 4-10. 2 catechism of the catholic church (vatican: libreria editrice vaticana, , 2nd ed. 2000), 121, which also cites the vatican council document, dei verbum, 14. the catechism adds: “christians venerate the old testament as the true word of god. the church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the old testament under the pretext that the new has rendered it void (marcionism)” (123). man catholic church (1985), both from the pontifical commission for religious relations with the jews; the catechism of the catholic church (1994), and the pontifical biblical commission’s the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible (2001) – cause us to take to heart, even more intensely, the american bishops message in their statement on catholic-jewish relations (1975), that christians should learn “by what essential traits the jews define themselves in the light of their own religious tradition.” the notes cite john paul ii, who calls upon catechists and preachers “to assess judaism carefully and with due awareness of the faith and religious life of the jewish people as they are professed and practiced still today.” the vatican notes also speak of the religious attachment between the “jewish people and the land of israel as one that finds its roots in the biblical tradition and as an essential aspect of jewish covenantal fidelity to the one god.” if, as the notes claim, this bond is in the biblical tradition, the question we need to ask of the hebrew scriptures is: is there an essential territorial dimension to “judaism”?3 that is, is there a special relationship among the god of israel, the people of israel, and the land of israel? and is that relationship primary and essential or is the territorial claim of judaism accidental and peripheral? let us begin to answer these questions by noting that some of the ideas about land in hebrew scriptures are common to early ancient near eastern religions as well as to archaic religious beliefs; other ideas about land are particular to israel. we will look first at what israel shared with other near eastern religious traditions. 3 strictly speaking “judaism” is the development of jewish life after the destruction of the temple in 70 c.e. this transformation of jewish life was initiated by the pharisees under the leadership of johanan ben zakkai. see jacob neusner’s popular treatise, judaism in the beginning of christianity (philadelphia: fortress press, 1984). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 lux, the land of israel (eretz yisra’el) 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 the belief that there were sacred and profane spaces and that the god(s) dwelt in one particular land and place was common to all archaic peoples. that there were certain privileged spots where the gods manifested themselves, be it a hilltop, a stream, a grove of trees or through a person as an oracle or shaman was also common to the archaic peoples of the ancient near east. post-biblical judaism ultimately came to believe that israel was the center of the earth, jerusalem was the center of israel, mt. zion the center of jerusalem, and the holiest place of all was the foundation stone of the earth whereon reposed the holy of holies and the holy ark. of course these assignations of holy places are not the exclusive custom of israel; other peoples similarly considered places to be holy to them.4 in the modern age we have fugitive instances of this tendency, now secularized, as, the “sun never setting on the british empire.”5 if the concept of the holiness of a land and the holiness of a place is not exclusive, from whence derives the uniqueness of the god of israel and the identity of the people of israel and its land? one scholar contends that the “land theme is so ubiquitous that it may have greater claim to be the central motif in the ot than any other, including ‘covenant’ [emphasis added].”6 4 see mircea eliade, cosmos and history: the myth of the eternal return, trans. willard r. trask (new york: harper torchbooks, 1959), 12-17, and his patterns in comparative religion, trans. rosemary sheed (world publishing company, 1958, 1963), 367-387. 5 as a secularized “center of the earth,” all clocks are calibrated on greenwich mean time (gmt) in england. also, the word “china” means “center of the universe.” examples could be multiplied from the babylonians, canaanites, assyrians, et al. 6 w. janzen, “land,” anchor bible dictionary, ed. david n. freedman (new york: doubleday, 1992) 4:146; see complete article for extensive coverage of the topic and bibliography, 143-154. the first theme to be distinguished in the bible after the “prehistory” of genesis 1-11 is that of the land as a promised land.7 abraham is promised the land five times, beginning with an account in the earliest written tradition, the yahwist (or j) tradition, dated in writing from the time of the davidic and solomonic empire in the tenth century bce.8 god says to abraham in genesis 12:1-4a: go forth from the land of your kinsfolk and from your father’s house to a land that i will show you. i will make of you a great nation, and i will bless you; i will make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. i will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you. all the communities of the earth shall find blessing in you. abram went as the lord directed him. 7 for a more comprehensive treatment of the land in the hebrew scriptures, see “the land in the old testament,” in alain marchadour and david neuhaus, the land, the bible, and history (new york: fordham university press, 2007), 9-62. 8 traditional dating from martin noth, a history of pentateuchal traditions, translated by bernhard w. anderson (englewood cliffs, nj: prentice-hall, 1972), 263. see treatment/development of the traditions in the pentateuch in noth’s a history, and for an excellent, more popular yet sound treatment, see richard e. freedman, who wrote the bible?, second edition (san francisco: harper collins, 1997), which also contains the history of the development of multiple authors and traditions in the pentateuch and presents the best modern rationale for the documentary hypothesis. friedman says that the j narrative “might conceivably have been written as early as the reign of david or solomon” (86), but he thinks it more likely the j author wrote between 848 and 722; whereas the e narrative was probably composed between 747-722 (87, 265). some other modern authors hold to the traditional dating of a tenth century j and a mid-ninth century e: michael d. coogan, the old testament (new york: oxford university press, 2006), 26, and bernhard w. anderson, et al., understanding the old testament, 5th ed. (upper saddle river: prentice hall, 2007), 20, 266. john j. collins, introduction to the hebrew bible (minneapolis: fortress press, 2004) delineates the history of the documentary hypothesis with its dating and the challenges to the traditional point of view, but ventures no opinion of his own (59-64). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 lux, the land of israel (eretz yisra’el) 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 the second promise, also from the j tradition, is given after his return from a sojourn in egypt and his separation from lot (gn 13:14-17). in a later passage, gn 15, probably a redaction of the j tradition and the elohist (or e) traditiion (a tradition from northern israel put into writing sometime after j), recounts a covenant that is made between god and abraham: when the sun had set and it was dark, there appeared a smoking brazier and a flaming torch, which passed between those pieces. it was on that occasion that the lord made a covenant with abram, saying: “to your descendants i give this land, from the wadi of egypt to the great river (the euphrates), the land of the kenites, the kenizzites, the kadmonites, the hittites, the perizzites, the rephaim, the amorites, the canaanites, the gigashites, and the jebusites (gn 15:17-21). the same covenant relationship is reconfirmed in the e tradition in the story of the “sacrifice of isaac” (gn 22:1-18).9 what is essential in these passages is “the recognition that that promise [of the land of israel] was so reinterpreted from age to age that it became a living power in the life of the people of israel.” it operated “as a formative, dynamic, seminal force in the history of israel.”10 9 although traditionally attributed to e, the story is a redaction of the e and j traditions inasmuch as yhwh occurs in verses 11-14 where isaac is saved and again in verses 16-18; in the rest of the passage god is referred to as elohim. see friedman, who wrote the bible, 256-257. in the jewish tradition this story is called the akedah, the binding of isaac. see how the various traditions have interpreted this story in robin jensen, “how jews and christians see differently [gn 22:1-18],” bible review 9 (1993) no. 5, 42-51. in the earliest muslim tradition, found in the qur’an, the son is unnamed and for the first three centuries opinion was divided over whether it was isaac or ishmael. present-day muslims contend it was ishmael. 10 w.d. davies, the gospel and the land (berkeley: university of california press, 1974), 18. the content of the promise to abraham (gn 12) consists of progeny, blessing, and a land. a later redactor may have joined the theologies embedded in gn 12 and 15 to connect the abraham and david traditions; many have argued that in king david the abrahamic covenant found its fulfillment in the creation of the davidic empire and the secure establishment of israel as a people on a land.11 the next stage of development occurred when the deuteronomic (or d) tradition joined together the promise of the land made to the patriarchs with the tradition of the law given at sinai. the commandments (hebrew: mitzvot) are regulatory, that is, they provide for how one lives on the land. they are also conditional, that is, if israel the people disobey the commandments she can be expelled from israel the land (see dt 28-29). the redemption of israel begun in the exodus experience finds its completion in the possession of the land, i.e., god’s mighty acts wrought in egypt have as their conclusion the entry into and settlement on the land. as von rad comments, “in this work [dt] the land is undeniably the most important factor in the state of redemption to which israel has been brought, and on this basis the nation is to expect an additional gift from yahweh – ‘rest from all enemies round about.’”12 many times deuteronomy stresses that israel did nothing to deserve this land; it was only god’s desire to give her the land and because of his faithfulness to his promises that israel possesses it. therefore, 11 the covenants with abraham and david and their interrelation are paralleled in other ancient near eastern practices and documents from the second and even third millennium. see “the covenantal aspect of the promise of the land to israel,” in moshe weinfeld, the promise of the land (berkeley: university of california press, 1993). 12 gerhard von rad, “there remains still a rest for the people of god: an investigation of a biblical conception,” the problem of the hexateuch and other essays, trans. by e.w. trueman dicken (new york: mcgraw-hill, 1966), 95. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 lux, the land of israel (eretz yisra’el) 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 one must not fail to recognize the theological justification given for israel’s possession of a land inhabited by others— and thus also for her dispossession of the former inhabitants. their wickedness and god’s gracious gift of the land in fulfillment of his promises form a rationale for israel’s possession of it. at the same time and over against this, however, is the deuteronomic self-criticism of israel’s life and obedience and the assertion that possession of the land is not automatic or eternal . . . israel cannot justify her original possession of the land on the basis of her behavior; she must, however, justify or preserve her continuing and future possession on the basis of her behavior both in terms of the worship of god and a proper use of the possession which is her salvation gift [emphasis added].13 in deuteronomy there are found two strong traditions: 1) a nomadic model14 based on the figure of abraham, who is the 13 patrick d. miller, jr., “the gift of god: the deuteronomic theology of the land,” interpretation 21 (1969) 461. 14 irrespective of how one interprets the “historical” abraham and the validity of the antiquity of these traditions/promises, it is clear that the book of deuteronomy so understands abraham in this way. doubters of abraham’s historicity and antiquity of these traditions include thomas l. thompson, the historicity of the patriarchal narratives: the quest for the historical abraham, bzaw, 133 (berlin: walter de gruyter, 1974); the origin tradition of ancient israel. i. the literary formation of genesis and exodus 1-23, jsot supp., 55 (sheffield: jsot press, 1987), and john van seters, abraham in history and tradition (new haven: yale university press, 1975). for rejoinders to these positions, see “face to face: biblical minimalists meet their challengers,” bar 23 (july/august, 1997), no. 4, 26-42, 66 (an exchange between niels peter lemche and thomas thompson in disagreement with william dever and p. kyle mccarter). the issues are sketched out in the perceptive article by hershel shanks, “the biblical minimalists: expunging ancient israel’s past,” br 13 (june, 1997), no. 3, 32-39, 50-52. for a detailed articulation of the issues see william g. dever, who were the early israelites and where did they come from? (grand rapids: eerdmans, 2003). dever holds that the ancestors of the “israelite peoples” were canaanites along with some pastoral nomads and small groups of semitic slaves escaping from egypt. an excellent source of information on these issues is in the recent book by model of a wandering people, leaving home and land to go to a place promised by god, and 2) a sedentary model, based on an image of israel as a people enjoying the gifts of god and living a life of particular service in this particular land. these two traditions overlap, with the consequent result in deuteronomy of the requirement that israel continue to justify her continued existence in the land by doing good deeds – especially those of a proper religious worship and the building of a community of justice including both the israelite and the resident alien (ger) in their midst.15 in the priestly (or p) tradition, put into final written form during the exile in babylon between 587-539 bce,16 the promise to abraham in genesis 17 takes on a different cast. in the covenant of circumcision god says: between you and me i will establish my covenant, and i will multiply you exceedingly. when abram prostrated himself, god continued to speak to him: my covenant with you is this: you are to become the father of a host of nations. no longer shall you be called abram; your name shall be abraham, for i am making you the father of a host of nations. i will render you exceedingly fertile; i will make nations of you; kings shall stem from you. i will maintain my covenant with you and your descendents after you. i will give to you and to your descendents after you the land in which you are now staying, the kenneth a. kitchen, on the reliability of the old testament (grand rapids: eerdmans, 2003). the views of thompson and van seters remain marginal and unconvincing to most catholic and jewish biblical scholars. 15 many authors (including miller, n. 12) attempt to apply this deuteronomic theology to the current conflict between israelis and palestinians; while the biblical traditions do have a voice in promoting justice in the land, one cannot make a facile application of continued land-tenure to the perceived behavior of present-day antagonists (see n. 18 below). 16 freedman, who wrote the bible?, convincingly locates the origin of the written priestly tradition at the time of the judean king hezekiah (715-687 bce), see 162-173; 210-216. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 lux, the land of israel (eretz yisra’el) 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 whole land of canaan, as a permanent possession; and i will be their god…thus my covenant (of circumcision) shall be in your flesh as an everlasting pact. (gn 17:2-8,13) god’s words to abraham in this priestly tradition are an unconditional statement. the abrahamic covenant of genesis 17 means that israel’s election and its possession of the land can never become conditional upon obedience to the law; it cannot be annulled by human disobedience.17 these covenant promises of land and blessings are repeated with each of the succeeding patriarchs. in contrast with the last two patriarchs there is no question of personal merit or reward. the covenant with isaac is explicitly rooted both in the promise to and the merit of his father (gn 26:3-5 [j]). isaac in turn conveys “the blessing of abraham,” that he “possess the land which god gave to abraham” (gn 28:4) to his own son. and, in the subsequent covenant-making encounters between jacob and god, the 17 this biblical view is in obvious contradiction with what was just said about the deuteronomic tradition. as catholics we hold that all of scripture is inspired, i.e., that it is all god’s word and speaks to us. we do not hold to a canon within a canon (i.e., that certain portions of scripture are more god’s word than other parts of scripture), nor that certain parts of the bible are not (or no longer) god’s word. this heresy was condemned long ago. what then are we to make of contradictory statements? because the scriptures (both hebrew and christian) were conditioned by the historical situation of the time, they were god’s word for the particular needs and situation of the community. applying this understanding to these texts, we could say that the promise of the absolute possession of the land probably came in periods when israel’s ownership and possession of the land was threatened or when she was in exile and needed encouragement, reassurance, and the consolation that their god was still with them and that they would be returned to or preserved in the land. conversely, threats of deprivation of the land were given by god in times of hubristic certainty of their possession of the land – when israel is feeling invincible and sure of itself on its own power. first two patriarchs again serve as the point of reference for transmission of the land of promise.18 thus the tradition of the land as promised and given to israel is attested to in the traditions embedded in the torah in all the major periods of israel’s life from the time of david and solomon (10th century bce) through the period of exile in babylon (586-539 bce). whether one can trace it back prior to david depends on the position one takes on the historical reliability and age of the patriarchal narratives. the most ancient promise, that of genesis 12:1-4a, can be reasonably associated with a (semi-)nomadic life style: promises of land, progeny, and protection (blessings and curses) are essential for this type of existence. that land-promise put into writing during the time of david, associated with earlier promises to israel’s (presumed) ancestors indicates, at minimum, their belief in their god’s ownership of the earth and all the lands thereof, and his beneficence in giving israel this gift.19 but it is clear that god’s unconditional gift of the land does not carry with it the unconditional right to live on the land: because both deuteronomy and numerous prophets make israel’s continued residence on the land dependent upon certain ethical requirements.20 18 betsy halpern-amaru, “rewriting the bible: land and covenant” in postbiblical jewish literature (valley forge: trinity press international, 1994), 12. 19 israel’s origins before david are beyond the scope of this treatment. for current discussion see: william g. dever, recent archeological discoveries and biblical research (seattle: university of washington press, 1990), especially ch.1: “artifacts, ecofacts, and textual facts,” 1-36, and william g. dever, “how to tell a canaanite from an israelite,” in hershel shanks, ed. the rise of ancient israel (washington: biblical archeological society, 1992), 26-85. for a maximalist view, see provan-long-longman, a biblical history of israel (louisville: westminster john knox press, 2003) and the opposing minimalist view in philip r. davies, the origins of biblical israel (new york: t & t clark, 2007). for a comprehensive collection of essays on all sides of this issue, see v. philips long, ed. israel’s past in present research: essays on ancient israelite historiography (winona lake: eisenbrauns, 1999). 20 this is the view of the biblical authors; it does not provide an easy resolution to the right to reside on the land in the post-biblical period. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 lux, the land of israel (eretz yisra’el) 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 the first distinctive characteristic of the concept of israel’s land in the hebrew scriptures is that it is the promised land; the second is that the land is cultic, it is god’s own possession, and religious obligations flow from this fact. as leviticus 25:23 says: “the land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; and you are but aliens [ger] who have become my tenants.” the hebrew scriptures also tell us that the offering of first fruits to god was because he was the true owner of the land; that the land should keep a sabbath-year rest once every seven years; and that the land was holy because it was separated out (“chosen”) and consecrated to the lord. one of the reasons given in scripture for the displacement of the “native” inhabitants in the land (canaanites, amorites, jebusites, et al) is “rooted in the moral quality of the occupants’ life in the land rather than in the partriach’s merit.”21 but what applied to these prior inhabitants applies to israel’s life in the same land. because of the wickedness of the “natives” the lord drove out the former inhabitants and gave this land to israel (dt 1:8). yet jeremiah says, during the time of king josiah of judah (ca. 627 bce), “when i brought you [israel] into the garden land to eat its goodly fruits, you entered and defiled my land, you made my heritage loathsome” (jer 2:7). the lord further says that he “will at once repay them [israel] double for their crime and their sin of profaning my land with their detestable corpses of idols, and filling my heritage with their abominations” (jer 16:18). however, those who take the land away from israel by conquest fare no better in the prophet’s denunciations! [the lord] speaks jealously against edom and other nations “who gave my land to themselves as a possession” (ez 36:5). joel 1:6 speaks of “a nation that has come up against my land.” enemies will attack the land in vain. thus we read 21 halpern-amaru, rewriting, 16. concerning assyria in is 14:25: “i will break the assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains trample him under foot.” jl 2:18 says: “[the lord] became jealous for his land, and had pity on his people.” and jl 4:2 (3:2) predicts that the nations will be judged in the valley of jehoshaphat “because they have divided up my land.” it is said by god, “i will bring you [gog, a symbol of israel’s enemies22] against my land, that the nations may know me” (ez 38:16).23 the primary thrust of the pre-exilic prophets was that the people would be punished with exile for the sins of covenantinfidelity in the kingdom of israel and the kingdom of judah. but although punishment and exile were deserved by israel for her sins, it was also unthinkable to the prophets that israel should be permanently deprived of her land. the exilic addition to the end of the book of amos promises a return: i will bring about the restoration of my people israel; they shall rebuild and inhabit their ruined cities. plant vineyards and drink the wine, set out gardens and eat the fruits. i will plant them upon their own ground; never again shall they be plucked from the land i have given them, say i, the lord, your god (am 9:14-15).24 22 gog may have been a reference to an historic enemy in anatolia; even during ezekiel’s lifetime it became a symbol for the attack against israel of its enemies, whom god would intervene to defeat. see new jerome biblical commentary 19:15; 20:89-90. 23 ottosson, erets [land], theological dictionary of the old testament, ed. g. johannes botterweck and helmer ringgren, trans. john t. willis (grand rapids: eerdmans, 1977) vol. 1, 402. see entire entry for thorough discussion, 388-405. 24 the prophet amos, from the (southern) kingdom of judah, preached to the (northern) kingdom of israel ca. 760 bce; however, the end of the book (9:11-15) is generally held to be a later addition by disciples of amos, redacted during or soon after the exile in babylon. see james mays, amos: a commentary, old testament library (philadelphia: westminster, 1969), 1314, 163-168; hans walter wolff, joel and amos, hermenia, trans. waldemar janzen, et al. (philadelphia: fortress press, 1977), 350-355 and francis i. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 lux, the land of israel (eretz yisra’el) 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 the most eloquent prophet of a return to the land of israel is ezekiel, who prophesied during the exile in babylon. his vision of the dry bones coming back to life bespeaks israel’s return to her land. the lord says: i will deliver them from all their sins of apostasy, and cleanse them so that they may be my people and i may be their god. …they shall live on the land which i gave to my servant jacob, the land where their fathers lived; they shall live on it forever, they, and their children, and their children’s children, with my servant david their prince forever. i will make with them a covenant of peace; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them…my dwelling shall be with them: i will be their god, and they shall be my people (ez 37:23, 25-27). after the return from exile, israel never enjoyed the glorious reign of peace, prosperity, and in-gathering of all exiles that the prophets had proclaimed. israel’s history continued to be one of domination by foreign powers – persian, greek and roman. yet even in exile the entity of the land continued to play a central role in judaism. w.d. davies concludes his study of the territorial dimension of judaism by noting that “just as christians recognize ‘the scandal of particularity’ in the incarnation, in christ, so for many religious jews…there is a scandal of territorial particularity in judaism. the land is so embedded in the heart of judaism, the torah, that – so its sources, worship, theology, and often its history attest – it is finally inseparable from it.”25 anderson and david noel freedman, amos, anchor bible, 24a (new york: doubleday, 1989), 885-926. for the contrary view that 9:11-15 comes from amos, see shalom m. paul, amos, hermenia (minneapolis: fortress press, 1991), 288-295. 25 w.d. davies, the territorial dimension of judaism (berkeley: university of california press, 1982), 125. land tradition in the christian scriptures at this point it is clear that the land of israel was a basic component of jewish belief and religious practice as found in the hebrew scriptures. walter brueggemann argues that “land is a central, if not the central theme of biblical faith.”26 as a catholic christian i am certainly called upon to acknowledge this bond between the people israel and eretz yisra’el and their continuing attachment to the land through post-biblical history up to the present. a two-fold question still remains for us christians: does christian scripture sever this bond in light of the jesus experience or does this bond endure, and does the land have any special significance for us as christians? most christians believe that we have passed beyond the claims of and need for the particularity of and commitment to any particular land – our commitment is to the person jesus, and not to a land. without yet attempting to affirm or deny this frequently held belief, let us examine the references in the christian scriptures, the new testament, regarding the land. the earliest existing writings from jesus’ first followers are the letters of paul dating from 44 to 58 ce.27 these letters are particularly interesting because paul is a jew born in tarsus, the hellenistic capital of the province of cilicia (in modern day 26 walter brueggemann, the land: place as gift, promise, and challenge in biblical faith, 2nd edition (minneapolis: fortress press, 2002), 3. 27 earl richard argues for a conflation of two letters to the thessalonian community (our canonical i thess) with the earliest probably written in 44/45 and the later letter in 49/50; see his “early pauline thought,” in jouette m. bassler, ed., pauline theology (minneapolis: fortress press, 1991), 39-51, and his commentary, i thessalonians, in sacra pagina commentary series, ed., daniel harrington, sj. (collegeville: liturgical press, 1996). paul’s last writing was his letter to the roman(s) community while he was in prison in 58 before he was taken to rome. the seven certainly-authentic letters of paul are: 1 thessalonians, galatians, 1 and 2 corinthians, philippians and romans, probably in this order, with philemon written (perhaps) in the mid-50’s. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 lux, the land of israel (eretz yisra’el) 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 turkey). he describes himself as having been a pharisee (phil 3:5) before he became a follower of jesus. he probably had been a follower of rabbi shammai (d.30 ce), one of the most rigorous interpreters of the torah in his day.28 nowhere in paul’s writings is the idea of the land of israel explicitly mentioned. this is not surprising, since one of paul’s primary concerns was with the bonding together of his gentile converts with the jewish followers of jesus. but romans 9-11 gives an eloquent defense of the continuing validity of god’s covenant with israel and its continuing election. he tells the gentile christian community in rome that they are wild olive shoots grafted on to the cultivated tree which is israel. it is the roots that support the branches and not the other way around (rm 11:11-24). thus, it is israel that supports the gentile community grafted on to the olive tree and not the reverse. in an earlier passage paul says that his own people “are israelites; theirs is the adoption, the glory, the covenants [emphasis on plural added], the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises [emphasis added]; theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the messiah” (rm 9:4-5). foremost among the “promises” are the land promises made to abraham in genesis as well as the prophetic messianic expectations, including the rule of the messiah, the return of political self-rule over the land of israel, and a great age of peace for all humankind – and including the acknowledgment of the importance of god’s rule and his presence on mt. zion in the temple. paul also places great stress upon abraham as the paradigm for our faith in romans 3-4 and galatians 3-4; his primary 28 see the development of the proposal that paul was a follower of shammai in lloyd gaston, paul and the torah (vancouver: university of british columbia press, 1987), 28. of course, the most rigorous interpreters of all were the essenes. thrust is to assure his pagan converts that it is by faith in jesus the jew, as christ [messiah, anointed one], that they become members of the covenant community and children of abraham, and not by circumcision and food laws. as a first-century jew, paul approaches the biblical text in the torah in a linear historic mode; namely, he posits that since the law was given on sinai many centuries after the time of abraham and since abraham’s faith made him righteous in god’s eyes (gn 15:6),29 paul’s pagan converts become members of the covenant community of israel through faith, and not by circumcision.30 because abraham’s faith affirmation is the key for paul to our relationship with god in christ and because constituent to this faith affirmation are the promises of progeny, land, and protection, the importance of the land of israel remains part of the abrahamic faith and promise. brueggemann couldn’t state it more strongly when he says: abraham imagery apart from the land promise is an empty form. no matter how spiritualized, transcendentalized, or existentialized, it has its primary focus undeniably on land. that is what is promised, not to the competent deserving or to the 29 it is two chapters later, in gn 17, that circumcision is required as a covenant sign in abraham’s flesh and in the flesh of his whole household. it is interesting to note that although ishmael was also circumcised (gn 17:26 [p tradition]) indicating that he is in covenant with god and even though he, too, is given the blessing of progeny and nationhood, implying territorial possession, the p tradition implies that god’s covenant will be “maintained’ only with isaac (gn 17:21 [p]; 26:12-16 [j]). 30 this is why, in the christian tradition, abraham is the model of our faith and our father in the faith: abraham was bonded (covenanted) with god in an act of faith (gn 15:6) and not by doing the “deed” of physical circumcision (gn 17). since according to paul’s historical understanding, abraham’s act of faith preceded the act of circumcising it is not necessary to circumcise gentiles (since abraham himself was a gentile called by god). although paul claims that god directly revealed this to him (gal 1:11-12) he also makes the above scriptural argument for his practice (gal 3:11-12). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 lux, the land of israel (eretz yisra’el) 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 dutifully obedient, but freely given (as in the beginning) to one who had no claim. . . .31 on other occasions paul was at pains to demonstrate that no division existed between the christian-jewish community at jerusalem and his diaspora non-jewish christian communities. paul exhorts the gentile community at corinth to set aside monies and when paul arrives he will send emissaries with the collection to the jerusalem community (1 cor 16:1-4; 2 cor 89). this action probably was based upon 1) an understanding that paul would preach to the non-jews while peter, james and john would minister to their fellow jews in jerusalem (gal 2:610), and 2) paul’s contention that his gentile converts were in complete communion with the christian-jewish community in jerusalem. we also know that the jewish jerusalem followers of jesus continued their distinctive jewish practices, including daily praying in the temple (acts 2-3). although paul did not require pagans to become jews through commonly accepted second temple conversion practices before they accepted jesus as messiah,32 he was at pains 31 brueggemann, land, 166. not all agree with this position. w.d. davies says that “the gospel substituted for the torah, jesus, the christ, who was indeed born and bred in the land, but who became the living lord. . . . thus, once paul had made the living lord rather than the torah the center in life and in death, once he had seen in jesus his torah, he had in principle broken with the land. ‘in christ’ paul was free from the law and therefore, from the land” (davies, the gospel and the land, 219-220). 32 the plurality of christian-jewish/gentile missions is far more complex than most interpreters imagine. see raymond e. brown, “not jewish christianity and gentile christianity, but types of jewish/gentile christianity,” cbq 45 (1983), 74-79. his theory can be explained briefly as follows: there are four groups of christian-jews with their gentile converts, from the most strict and demanding in their requirements to join this community of followers of jesus, to the most “lax” in their requirements. type 1 required full observance of the mosaic law including circumcision; originated in jerusalem and found success in galatia, philippi, and perhaps elsewhere (see gal, esp. ch. 2; phil 3 and acts 15, esp. vss. 1 and 24). this group were opponents of paul. type 2 did to ensure that there was a common covenant bond between jesus’ jewish believers and his pagan converts. the content of this religious identity is made explicit in romans 9:4-5 and gentile converts, by virtue of their bonding with israel, are heirs of this same content. included in this identity as people of the covenant is a religious (and political) bond to the land of israel for all christians – both gentile and jewish believers. after paul’s death33 christian perspective toward the land of israel changes radically with the four gospels. mark’s gospel’s final composition was ca. 70 ce and probably written in rome not require circumcision, but did require some jewish purity laws and the food laws (see acts 15:20; gal 2:12 on marriage; 1 cor 5:1 = acts 15:20, 29). it originated also in jerusalem with james (the brother of the lord as the leader of the community) and peter as the leader of the twelve along with john as the “pillars” of the community (gal 2:9). it was dominant in antioch (thus saul/paul’s earlier opposition to the “way” since they did not require circumcision), rome, pontus, cappadocia, and sections of the province of asia (see gal 2:7 versus acts 15:7), the cephas party in corinth (see 1 cor 12:12; 9:5); also 1 pt to gentile christians in northern asia minor. note that peter acquiesced in the food laws and they were enforced at antioch (acts 15:23). this type of “evangelical missionary program” was a middle ground between type 1 and type 3. type 3 did not require circumcision nor the food laws, but probably did require other purity laws especially regarding marriage (1 cor 5:1 = acts 15:20,29). it originated with paul and his companions who departed from antioch. after 49 ce barnabas and john mark aligned themselves with type 2 and broke with paul. in the pauline type 3 gentile mission, there was no break with the cultic practices of judaism (feasts, temple, etc.), nor were christian-jews who were part of paul’s mission required to abandon the torah and circumcision. type 4 did not require circumcision, food laws, or any abiding significance to the jerusalem temple. they spoke only greek and were thoroughly acculturated to the greco-roman world. it probably originated in jerusalem and spread to samaria with philip (acts 8:4-6) and to the gentiles (acts 11:19-20) in phoenicia, cyprus and antioch. it developed into a more radicalized type of christianity found in john’s gospel and the book of hebrews, where “judaism” is treated almost as another religion. 33 paul died in rome, probably by beheading which was the form of death for roman citizens, in the year 62. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 lux, the land of israel (eretz yisra’el) 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 for the persecuted christians there.34 it has as its focus the coming of the kingdom of god. it was jewish expectation that god’s lordship would be definitively manifested at the end of history with a universal acknowledgment of his rule by all peoples and nations. in order not to inflame the roman authorities, the author was careful not to emphasize the political and military functions of the expected jewish messiah. in fact, he goes out of his way to make clear that jesus conceals his messiahship during his earthly life.35 although in this gospel, galilee becomes the place of revelation and redemption while jerusalem is the place of jesus’ rejection, there are no grounds given to elevate galilee to a land of central importance to christians. the gospel of matthew was written in the late 80s ce by a jew who accepted jesus as messiah. this person was probably a leader in the local community – perhaps in caesarea, the capital of roman government of the province of judea.36 this gospel represents a predominantly christian-jewish perspective;37 thus, we would expect to find great theological impor 34 although there were certainly earlier stages of composition of this gospel and some authors identify its place of origin as alexandria, egypt, or perhaps in northern syria, or even in the galilee. see discussion in john r. donahue, sj, and daniel j. harrington, sj, the gospel of mark, sacra pagina, 2 (collegeville: liturgical press, 2002), 44-46. 35 biblical scholars have called this perspective the “messianic secret” in mark’s gospel. see raymond e. brown, an introduction to the new testament (new york: doubleday, 1997), 153. 36 although most commentators place the composition of matthew in syria, harrington makes a good case for its composition in caesarea maritima or even one of the cities of the galilee [sepphoris?]. daniel j. harrington, sj, the gospel of matthew (collegeville: liturgical press, 1991), 8-10. for the history of caesarea and sepphoris and the roles they played in the jewish revolt of 66-70 ce and later, see the archaeological encyclopedia of the holy land, eds, avraham negev and shimon gibson, revised and updated ed. (new york: continuum, 2003), 102-107, 454-456. 37 it is only the jesus of matthew that says he has “come not to abolish [the torah or the prophets] but to fulfill” (mt 5:17) and that “until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from tance given to the concept of the land of israel. however, two events intervened which negated this possible development. first, in the year 70, after four years of jewish revolt against roman rule, the city of jerusalem and the temple were destroyed by the roman general titus and his tenth legion. we know that at that time the christian-jews fled from the city and refused to defend it against the romans. second, after this catastrophe, the pharisaic leaders gathered at javneh to develop what has become rabbinic judaism – a religious way of life that now functioned without the temple, priesthood, and sacrifices. they met as a rabbinic academy from about 75-135 ce, in this period becoming less amenable to the theology and community of the jewish/gentile messianic sect of jesus’ followers.38 it was in this milieu that matthew attempted to assert the law” (mt 5:18). this gospel is a sustained polemic against the synagogue “down the block” which probably threw out the christian-jews from their midst and this “tract” was written in defense of their orthodoxy as followers of the halakah of rabbi jesus. see the excellent commentary on these issues by harrington, matthew, 17-22, 81,83-84. 38 earlier views of the so-called “council” of javneh considered there to have been a definite decision and split with the nascent christian-jewish sect shortly after 70 ce. recent works have suggested that this split wasn’t complete until after the bar kochba revolt (132-135 ce). see vincent martin, a house divided: the parting of the ways between synagogue and church (new york: paulist press, 1995). martha himmelfarb demonstrates that even in the late fourth century and beyond, there were positive relations between jews and christians in eastern christianity; see her “the parting of the ways reconsidered: diversity in judaism and jewish-christian relations in the roman empire: ‘a jewish perspective’” in interwoven destinies: jews and christians through the ages, ed. eugene j. fisher (new york: paulist press, 1993), 47-61. in a related essay, “the parting of the ways: a view from the perspective of early christianity: ‘a christian perspective’” in the same book, 62-73, john g. gager agrees with himmelfarb, saying: “the hostility that characterizes much of early christian literature on judaism does not tell the full story – though it does tell the official one…[that is, it follows] the contours of power and authority within early christian circles” (71). he continues: “but among early christians of an ordinary sort, many seem to have experienced no difficulty in combining allegiance to jesus with respect for judaism that sometimes took the form of direct participation in the life of the synagogue. ultimately…inevitably, those in positions of power and authority won out” (72). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 lux, the land of israel (eretz yisra’el) 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 the christian-jewish community’s jewish roots and to demonstrate its continuity with the torah, the prophets, and the tradition. both because of roman rule, and new directions the pharisees were beginning to take at javneh, the land becomes a moot question for matthew’s gospel. the gentile author of luke-acts addressed a primarily gentile audience when he wrote from antioch in syria between 8590 ce. the main theme in his work is the relationship of christianity to judaism – especially christianity’s growth from a small jewish sect to reaching (in the book of acts) “the ends of the earth.” by the time of luke’s writing gentiles greatly outnumbered jews in the church. this fact underscores the reason why there is little interest in the theme of the land of israel: the gentiles had no roots in jewish tradition and religious practice and thus no attachment to the land. luke does not explicitly separate the christian message from the land or consciously negate it, but the end result is the same: its absence from his gospel. luke concentrates on the word of god coming from jerusalem and from the land of israel to the gentile world focused in rome, and from there to the “ends of the earth.” jerusalem and the land of israel are only important because they are the place of origin for jesus and god’s word; they have no abiding significance for christians. of the christian scriptures, the gospel of john is probably the most radical in its severing of the importance of the land from christian belief. written in the late 90s ce, this gospel presents special problems to interpreters because of its apparent hostility to jews, their practices, their temple, and jerusalem. the prologue (ch. 1) of john establishes jesus as the incarnate word (the logos) of god. this logos is no longer attached to the land, as was the torah, but to the person who came to his own land, and was not received. the abandonment of any special relationship with the land is seemingly completed in the gospel of john. it is clear from our brief survey that in the hebrew scriptures the importance of the idea of the land plays a central role but that in the christian scriptures the role the land plays is at best ambiguous. why? because, at a very early date gentiles, for whom interest and commitment to the land had no previous history, became a majority in this jewish messianic movement. with the fall of jerusalem in 70 ce, christian-jewish communities declined in the land of israel and with the diminishing of these believers there was no voice for the enduring bond with the land of israel.39 also, although early christian-jews proclaimed the advent of the messianic age and the future return of jesus as lord, before this came to pass a new reality appeared on the scene. before the new israel on mt. zion and the earthly and cosmic rule of jesus in his return took place there “emerged a community, in response to jesus, the messiah, which dispensed with the oral law as unnecessary to salvation. outside the land, outside the law there was a messianic activity.”40 although christian-jews tried to reconcile this activity with traditional expectations (a struggle reflected in paul’s letters and matthew’s gospel), pharisaic/rabbinic judaism ultimately rejected this new movement. early christians, probably by the time of luke, if not earlier, and certainly by the time of john, were moved by the question: “what shall we do now that the end is delayed? how are we to understand our faith in the light of the emergence of these gentile christians, who are without the law and outside the land but yet share in the redemption?”41 39 nevertheless, christian-jewish communities continued to exist well into the 2nd century. see discussion of the pseudo-clementines by j. neville birdsall, “problems of the clementine literature,” in james d.g. dunn, ed. jews and christians: the parting of the way a.d. 70 to 135 (grand rapids: eerdmans, 1999), 347-361. 40 davies, gospel and the land, 371. 41 ibid., 373. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 lux, the land of israel (eretz yisra’el) 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 was the ultimate result the breaking of the link between covenanted peoplehood and the land of israel42 for the gentile christian movement? or, rather, did the land take on a different kind of importance for this gentile christian movement? land as “holy land” the focus of this section is to consider the meaning and significance that the land of israel has had for christians; it is not our concern to consider the meaning that the land has had and continues to have in the jewish tradition.43 surprising, our story does not end at the time of the bar kochba revolt (132-135 ce) with the separation into “church” and 42 it is possible to continue to establish a continuous link with the centrality of the land in jewish life from the time of the destruction of the temple in 70 ce until the present. lawrence a. hoffman demonstrates how this link continues in jewish blessings and prayers, especially in the prayers before and after meals; see “introduction: land of blessing and ‘blessings of the land’” in the land of israel: jewish perspectives, ed. lawrence a. hoffman (notre dame: university of notre dame press, 1986) 1-23. other articles in this volume trace the theme of land from the biblical, hellenistic, tannaitic, medieval, and modern periods. also see the extensive bibliography by lena skoog, “selected bibliography on the land and state of israel,” immanuel 22/23 (1989) 215-229 for articles, books, and documents by christians and jews on this topic. my particular interest here is the christian (not jewish) attachment to the land of israel; while the theology of the hebrew scriptures forms part of the christian confession, my primary focus is our attachment (or lack thereof) to the land from the period of the christian scriptures to the present. 43 there are many excellent articles and books that treat this subject. see, e.g., harry m. orlinsky, “the biblical concept of the land of israel: cornerstone of the covenant between god and israel” in hoffman, the land of israel, 27-64, and other articles in this collection; martin buber, israel and palestine: history of an idea (london, 1952); ze’ev w. falk, “the notion of promised land: searching for clarity,” sidic 12:3 (1979), 23-25; abraham joshua heschel, israel: an echo of eternity (new york: farrar, straus and giroux, 1967); dan bahat, ed., twenty centuries of jewish life in the holy land: the forgotten generations, 2nd edition (jerusalem: the israel economist, 1976); uriel tal, “jewish self-understanding and the land and state of israel,” union seminary quarterly review 26 (1971), 351-363. “synagogue,” and the dismissal of any importance of the land of israel in christianity. even though the link with the covenant/people/land of israel appeared to be sundered, a christian connection with the land continued unbroken. from the beginning there were permanent christian communities established in the land and very soon it became a place of christian pilgrimage. as true as it is to say, as does fr. edward flannery, that most christians are ignorant of the history of anti-semitism,44 it is even more true to say that most christians are ignorant of the history of christian presence in the land of israel – even in this present century! the first known pilgrim to the land of israel for whom we have documentary evidence is a bishop from western asia minor, melito of sardis, who in the second century made a journey to this land “to the ‘place where these things had been proclaimed and accomplished.’ his purpose in going there was to obtain ‘precise information’ about the books of the ‘old testament.’ he wanted to know the number as well as the order of the books that christians shared with the jews.”45 even prior to the beginning of the christianization of the roman empire at the time of the emperor constantine and the building of churches in the holy land at sacred christian sites under his orders, pilgrims were journeying to the holy land. in the third century “pilgrims had begun to visit palestine ‘for prayer’ and ‘investigation of the holy places’.”46 44 edward flannery, the anguish of the jews, revised and updated (mahwah, nj: paulist press, 1985), 1-2. 45 robert l. wilken, the land called holy (new haven: yale university press, 1992), 109. 46 ibid., citing places of pilgrimage prior to 320 ce in h. leciercy, “pelerinages aux lieux saints,” dictionnaire d’archeologie chretienne, 14.1, cols 68-70. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 lux, the land of israel (eretz yisra’el) 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 both origen (185-254) and jerome (340-420) took up residence in the land of israel to study the scriptures, compile manuscripts of biblical texts, write commentaries, and live out their lives there. the first historian of christian history, eusebius (260-339), bishop of caesarea, also wrote “a book on biblical place names (onomasticon), several other biblical studies, a commentary on the book of psalms (fragmentary), and a complete, verse-by-verse exposition of the book of isaiah.”47 with the discovery of the tomb of christ in jerusalem, “located not in the heavens but in judea,”48 eusebius was the first to sense a “profound shift in devotion that was taking place in his day and to lay the foundations for a christian idea of the holy land.”49 while this work of scholarship and study was going on, christian pilgrims were undertaking the difficult journey to the land of jesus’ birth, life, death, and resurrection. as it was clear to them that “christ’s sojourn on earth, it seems, had sanctified not only the specific places where he lived and died, but the very soil of the land itself.”50 consequently, we have a substantial record of journeys made by pilgrims from the fourth to the eleventh century. some of these writings are first person accounts and others are secondhand reports of pilgrim journeys. what is clear is that in the first thousand years of christianity, irrespective of how the land was understood from the scriptures, there was a continuing importance given to journeying to the land as a pilgrim. and this has continued to the present day. 47 ibid., 78. 48 ibid., 81. 49 ibid. 50 ibid., 125. although, unlike judaism and islam,51 christianity does not mandate its adherents to make a pilgrimage to any place, christian pilgrims have come to the holy land from the early centuries to the present day. in viewing contemporary catholic pilgrimages to the holy land, catholic groups come to the holy land throughout the year, and while many come as individuals or in families the larger proportion come in groups active as organizations – oftentimes in parish communities. in a study of modern pilgrimages glenn bowman notes: in large part catholic pilgrimage is inspirational;…[that is, people] come to the holy land to be renewed in their faith so that they can subsequently reengage their ordinary lives with renewed energy and a renewed sense of purpose. the idea that pilgrimage serves as a revitalization of spiritual energies drained by involvement in the labors of the secular world makes catholic pilgrimage much more individuated than that of the orthodox; instead of a cosmological celebration of the community of mankind in christ, catholics engage, as individuals or in groups bound by a shared purpose, in a process of being repossessed by the power that gives meaning to their personal lives and labors.52 51 “the jewish law demanded that every male should make pilgrimage to jerusalem three times a year (passover, feast of weeks, and tabernacles; ex 23:7; dt 16:16). during the second temple period even diaspora jews sought to observe it (mishnah aboth 5.4; mishnah ta’anit 1:3; jos. wars 6.9). after the destruction of the temple in 70 ad pilgrimages to the [western] wall became occasions of lamentation. in islam it is a sacred duty, [once in one’s lifetime,] to make the pilgrimage to mecca (qur’an 2.196; 3.97).” michael prior, “pilgrimage to the holy land yesterday and today,” in michael prior and william taylor, eds., christians in the holy land (london: world of islam trust, 1994), 170. 52 glen bowman, “contemporary christian pilgrimage to the holy land,” in anthony o’mahony, ed., et al, the christian heritage in the holy land (london: scorpion cavendish, 1995), 302-303. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 lux, the land of israel (eretz yisra’el) 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 bowman goes on to note that catholic groups are generally given great amounts of secular and historical information about the holy places, both inside and outside them, by knowledgeable catholic and israeli guides who instruct the pilgrims and speak of the significance of what, by tradition, is believed to have happened on that site. for catholics the most significant act is to celebrate the eucharist at the holy sites. though these liturgies of the eucharist do not differ in essence and structure from eucharists celebrated in their own home communities (save for perhaps special commemorations or readings associated with the site), in the eucharistic celebrations on these holy spots god is felt to be especially and intensely present in ways that do not occur when the eucharist is celebrated in their home churches. the power of these celebrations would seem to imply a sacramentality connected with the sites and thus inextricably to the land itself also, making more intense the reality of god’s presence. so, the question arises, how might we consider the “holy land” in light of a theology of presence? how might we reimage its meaning in light of the history of christian presence in the land and the experience of pilgrimages to the land? “holy land” as sacrament of encounter catholics have often been called “sacramentalists,” which means that we are a church based on sacrament and word.53 “’the church’ is the people that god gathers in from the whole world. she exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a eucharistic, assembly. she draws her life from the word and the body of christ and so herself becomes christ’s body.”54 what is the meaning of christ’s presence here, and how does this take place in the church? 53 that is, the word of god – found in the scriptures, proclaimed to the church and lived out in our daily lives. 54 catechism, no. 752. the early greek and latin literature spoke of mysterion and sacramentum from which we get our modern term, sacrament. originally mysterion “meant something secret, something hidden, something not fully manifest. this sense of mysterion is retained in both…testaments. in the book of daniel mysterion55 refers simultaneously to the plan of god for the end times and to some obscure revelation of this plan. in paul mysterion refers to the divine plan to save all…in christ, a plan determined by god from the beginning and kept secret, but now revealed through the spirit, through the prophets, through the apostles.”56 the third century alexandrians, clement and origen, first began to adapt the mystery language to ritual practices of christians, and by the fourth and fifth centuries this language usage was fully established. the latin translation of the greek word, mysterion, was sacramentum, which referred to sacred realities proclaimed and realized in symbols in general and particularly in sacramental symbols.57 this development continued through augustine (fourth century) until it was more precisely defined in the twelfth century by hugh of st. victor as a sign that signifies something while also efficaciously conferring it because “by a visible reality seen externally, another invisible, interior reality is signified.”58 it was thomas aquinas, in the thirteenth century, who gave the definition and explanation of sacrament that continues in the church until the present day.59 following the second vatican council’s decree dei verbum, describing “the sacramental character of revelation” and implic 55 as found in the lxx of daniel 2:28, 29 and 47. 56 michael g. lawler, symbol and sacrament: a contemporary sacramental theology (mahwah, nj: paulist press, 1987), 29. 57 ibid., 30-31. 58 ibid., 33. 59 ibid., 34-45. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 lux, the land of israel (eretz yisra’el) 16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 itly also the “description of the sacramental character of the whole economy of salvation”60 many modern theologians have attempted to expound the fuller implications and meaning of the direction of the council. we can now say that in contemporary catholic theology the use of the word sacrament has been extended. it is applied to christ, who is described as the sacrament of god [schillebeeckx, christ the sacrament]. it is applied also to the church, which is described as “a kind of sacrament” [constitutiion on the church], “the sacrament of unity” [constitution on the sacred liturgy], “the universal sacrament of salvation” [constitution on the church in the modern world]. the application of [this] word to christ and to the church and to the individual christian is an analogical use of the word. christ, the church, the christian and many elements of the christian life are called sacraments, legitimately, insofar as they are in some way akin to but still quite different from the ritual sacraments, signs and instruments of the grace of god mediated to men and women. the growing extension of the analogical use of the word sacrament marks a renewed emphasis on the traditional catholic theme that the grace of god is mediated to men and women in created reality [emphasis added]…god always speaks and communicates himself, the catholic tradition holds, in created “deeds and words.”61 each of the traditional seven sacraments has been reexamined in light of the new understandings and insights of modern theology, biblical studies, and other modern disciplines. more recently some sacramental theologians have begun to look at sacraments “based less on the history and theology of the rites than on the actual experiences of women and men at 60 ibid., 46. 61 ibid., 47. prayer.”62 this approach, used in the early church and practiced most extensively in the fourth century is called mystagogy.63 this practice is “a form of instruction that attempted to plumb the depths of the rites that had been experienced for their spiritual import. first the experience, then the teaching… .”64 while this approach is found in the great teachers of the fourth century, it is ultimately grounded in scripture. st. paul is using the approach we have called mystagogic when he challenges those who died to sin in baptism to no longer live in sin (rm 6:1-4) and to the gentile christian community in corinth to properly live out their eucharistic experience in the way they treat the poor in their community (1 cor 11:17-33). in this approach “the experience of participants is also always in the forefront.”65 the primary focus of mystagogy is the community’s sacramental life – especially baptism, confirmation and eucharist, but the whole sacramental life of the community is appropriate for mystagogical reflection.66 “personal experience is [an] indispensable focus of mystagogy. thus, imagination and memory are critical to the mystagogical process.”67 applying this mystagogical process to a re-examination of the eucharist includes an attempt to understand the sense of real presence in terms more meaningful to, and resonant with, our present-day experience of personal communication. these views in no way deny the reality of jesus’ presence in eucharist 62 kathleen hughes, rscj, saying amen: a mystagogy of sacrament (chicago: liturgy training publications, 1999), xx. 63 the golden age of mystagogical preaching is exemplified in the writings of cyril of jerusalem, ambrose of milan, theodore of mopsuestia, john chrysostom and sometimes even in augustine. ibid., 10. 64 hughes, saying amen, 9. 65 ibid., 11. 66 ibid., 14-15. 67 ibid., 15. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 lux, the land of israel (eretz yisra’el) 17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 as risen lord, but are a modern attempt to explicate the meaning of christ’s real presence in contemporary idioms. in this purview schillebeeckx posits "that the real eucharistic presence cannot be isolated from the real presence of christ in the whole liturgical mystery and in the souls of the faithful…. [thus] the eucharistic presence in the consecrated bread and wine is ordered to the ever more intimate presence of christ [emphasis added] in the assembled community and in each member of the church.”68 these new ways of reflecting on sacraments, especially that of the eucharist, led pope paul vi to issue his encyclical mysterium fidei, in which he says that he wishes “to review at greater length the…doctrine which was briefly set forth in the constitution de sacra liturgia,”69 of the ways in which christ is present in his church. those ways are, in order: 1) the presence of christ first of all in the church at prayer [“where two or three are gathered in my name”]; 2) in the church performing works of mercy; 3) in general, with us and in us on our pilgrimage through life; 4) as the church preaches or proclaims the word of god; 5) in the governance of the people of god through pastoral care; 6) “in a manner still more sublime” as the church 68 edward schillebeeckx, “transubstantiation, transfinalization, transignification,” in r. kevin seasoltz, osb, ed., living bread, saving cup (collegeville, mn: liturgical press, 1987), 179-180. schillebeeckx clarifies his thought in this article, originally delivered in french during the fourth session of vatican ii to fathers of the council at domus mariae in rome. regarding these new theories schillebeeckx says that they “do not deviate from the [tridentine] dogma [of real presence] itself. rather, they try to present that dogma in existential categories that are at once ontologically profound and more intelligible to the people of our day” (ibid., 184). 69 paul vi cites the “constitution on the sacred liturgy,” 1:7. interestingly, all eight types of presence the pope cites are also in the vatican document on the liturgy, but in a different order. the order he gives in his encyclical appears to be in ascending order of intensity since of the last he says that the eucharistic presence is in “a manner which surpasses all the others.” offers the sacrifice of the mass; 7) as the church “administers” the sacraments; and finally 8) “there is yet another manner in which christ is present in his church, a manner which surpasses all the others; it is his presence in the sacrament of the eucharist.” then paul vi adds a very important note on eucharistic presence vis-à-vis other forms of presence: “this presence [in the eucharist] is called ‘real’ – by which it is not intended to exclude all other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too [emphasis added], but because it is presence in the fullest sense.” if indeed there are multiple senses of christ’s presence, as the constitution on the liturgy and paul vi teach, let us reflect upon what this might mean regarding a new christian imaging and understanding of the “holy land.” at the level of personal communication there are various degrees of presence. for example, when we think of someone dear to us and bring them to mind there is a sense in which they are present to us. there is a more intense sense of presence when we receive a letter or an e-mail from them, and an even more intense sense of presence when we speak to them over the phone. the most intense experience is, of course, a person-to-person meeting with someone. if, as we have demonstrated, a sacrament is the mediation and encounter of a christian with god (in fact, schillebeeckx speaks of christ as the “sacrament of our encounter with god”), then perhaps the different kinds of encounter with christ, as well as the degrees of intensity of these encounters as described above, have a parallel with a pilgrim’s experience in the holy land. when one brings to mind the land where the great events of our redemption took place – whether by reading scripture or meditating – there is a sense of the presence of these events and an experience of christ’s presence being brought about by the land. seeing pictures of and reading books about the land can also increase the sense of christ’s presence being mediated studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3(2008): 1-15 lux, the land of israel (eretz yisra’el) 18 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 through the land. the most intense sense of presence, of course, is making a pilgrimage to the holy land, visiting and praying at the sites where jesus lived and walked and the early church took root. (it has been said that tourists pass through the land, but the land passes through the pilgrim.70) from this description of our experience of reading, reflecting, viewing pictures, and finally personally visiting the holy land, we can experience the essential role that the land plays in making christ present to us. in a re-imaging of our relationship to the holy land we can say: as christ is the sacrament of our encounter with god, the holy land is a sacrament of our encounter with christ. as surely as christ is mediated in multiple ways and present in multiple ways as taught by the second 70 a slight adaptation of the statement attributed to cynthia ozick, “a visitor passes through a place; the place passes through the pilgrim” in wilken, land, 110. vatican council, paul vi and various theologians, so he is most assuredly present and mediated in the land we call holy. we can call this mediation of christ in the holy land, a sacramental encounter; thus, the holy land, itself, becomes for us a sacramental experience. this sacramental experience neither invalidates nor supersedes the jewish experience and covenantal connection to the land of israel, but adds a new dimension of experience and meaning specific to catholic christians, who, since vatican council ii, are called upon to understand, appreciate, and affirm the reality of the jewish experience in the 21st century. this, i would argue, is especially true of the jewish experience of their connection to the land of israel. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review robert a. ventresca soldier of christ: the life of pope pius xii (cambridge, ma and london: the belknap press of harvard university press, 2013), hardcover, 405 pp. martina cucchiara, bluffton university in soldier of christ: the life of pius xii, robert a. ventresca offers a superb biography of the controversial pontiff who led the catholic church during world war ii and the holocaust and who is currently being considered for canonization. these efforts have added much fuel to “the incessant partisanship of the so-called pius war” (p. 4). the author asserts that this fierce battle has often been waged at the expense of sound scholarship, producing little beyond competing, ahistorical caricatures of pius xii that rely on “interpretive leaps, which are grounded on counterfactual or normative claims about what the pope could have or should have done rather than a reasoned assessment of what he did or did not do—and why” during world war ii and the holocaust (p. 6). ventresca succeeds in his objective of presenting a nuanced scholarly assessment of the man who as vicar of christ during europe’s darkest hour seemed more comfortable in the role of the cautious diplomat over that of the bold evangelist. pope pius xii, born eugenio pacelli (1876-1958), emerges in the first chapter as a highly intelligent but frail scion of the roman black nobility (aristocratic families that backed the vatican in earlier disputes with secular rulers). according to the author, pacelli was indelibly shaped by an era when the church was under siege as it struggled against the loss of temporal power and modernity. his clerical training therefore “tended toward pragmatism, moderation, and accommodation,” which suited his naturally cautious character (p. 37). within months of pacelli’s ordination, the young priest’s superiors selected him for a career in the nascent vatican diplomatic corps that studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) was “to handle its often testy relationship with european powers” (p. 38). starting with his appointment as papal nuncio to germany in 1917, pacelli’s life and legacy became inextricably linked to germany. here the author highlights familiar themes such as pacelli’s love for germany and his fervent rejection of communism. from the nuncio’s correspondence, ventresca gleans that he shared the widespread prejudice that blamed the 1919 revolutionary unrest in munich on “foreign jews” (p. 55). in the chapters that follow, however, the author makes a convincing case that pius xii’s silence during the holocaust was not driven by antisemitism, nor did he choose, as has been suggested, nazism over communism as the lesser of two evils. rather, in soldier of christ readers encounter an at times anguished man who could not or would not let go of his extreme, self-imposed restraint in his handling of hitler and mussolini, even long after the catastrophic futility of this approach became apparent. as cardinal secretary of state (1929-1939), pacelli struggled “to find an effective political response to increasing nazi radicalism” (p. 128). he clung to diplomacy and neutrality, and within weeks of his elevation to the papacy in march 1939 this approach was tested when italy invaded albania. critics immediately raised their voices against pius xii’s “scandal of silence,” voices that only grew louder during world war ii (p. 149). ventresca writes later on that “it is commonly asserted that the accusation of papal silence during the holocaust was an invention of the post-war era,” most notably “in the contrived historical fiction of hochhuth’s play the deputy,” but “criticism of pius xii’s reluctance to speak out against the fascists stretches back to the early weeks of his pontificate” (p. 186). in his discussion of the pope’s repeated failures to speak out publicly against nazi aggression and genocide, ventresca is careful to point out that the pontiff’s silence must not be construed as inaction. in contrast to caricatures of the pontiff as studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr cold and aloof, the author argues that the well-informed pacelli was not only deeply affected by news of mass killings and violence, he was at times capable of bold actions, such as when he acted as “intermediary between anti-hitler factions of the german military and british authorities” (p. 162). pius xii’s supporters have long claimed that the pontiff’s silence during the holocaust becomes all but inconsequential when measured against these shrewd, mostly invisible actions that in their estimation saved countless lives. the author concedes that this approach worked sometimes, as in the well-known rescue of the four to six thousand jews hidden in roman convents. but, in what is a highlight of the monograph, ventresca convincingly argues for the extreme limitations of the holy see’s secret and diplomatic missions. the marginal success of pius xii’s efforts to induce the brazilian government in 1940 to issue visas to persecuted european jews demonstrates the pontiff’s limited authority even over catholic countries, which in turn raises the intriguing question how much political power pacelli really yielded. but perhaps no other events highlight the catastrophic limitations of the vatican’s wartime diplomacy like the deportations of slovakian and hungarian jews. these limitations, ventresca argues, were to a large extent selfimposed. in these instances too, pacelli mostly exercised his trademark restraint and circumspection, and “courageous catholic rescuers might be able to count on some measure of papal support, but when their efforts became too risky, papal support was attenuated if not withdrawn altogether” (p. 196). although ventresca details pope pius xii’s impressive record of authoritative teachings over the course of his reign, the reader comes away with the distinct impression that the pontiff fell short in his role as vicar of christ when he refused to raise his voice against nazi crimes. this impression of moral failure is reinforced in the chapter on the immediate post-war era when, freed from the fetters of nazism, pope pius xii still did not heed calls to exhibit courage and leadership in the face of the singular catastrophe of the holocaust and to speak out clearly and decisively against antisemitism. instead, as was generally true for the post-war era, the cold war and the studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 8 (2013) urgent need to rebuild europe took precedence. although ventresca briefly discusses pius xii as a cold warrior and his “heroic efforts to help rebuild the continent after a cataclysmic war,” he offers few details (p. 270); too much of the chapter is taken up by discussions of ratlines and the vatican’s purported shielding of war criminals. this is but a minor criticism of this otherwise outstanding biography of eugenio pacelli, whose path to sainthood “will always be dogged by a great imponderable that lingers over pius xii’s policy of avoiding public confrontation with the hitler regime” (p. 308). michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): garroway r1-2 yinger, the new perspective on paul garroway r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr kent l. yinger the new perspective on paul: an introduction (eugene, oregon: cascade, 2011), x + 120 pp. joshua d. garroway, hebrew union college-jewish institute of religion, los angeles the title of this slim volume announces the author’s intention to lay bare the key issues and controversies associated with the “new perspective on paul.” yinger is not conversing with fellow scholars here but with pastors, seminarians, and educated laypersons—chiefly of a protestant stripe—who have heard the new perspective praised and criticized yet lack the capacity to assess it for themselves. as yinger explains his purpose, such readers “should find help in getting behind the hype to the real issues” (p. 2). yinger clarifies these “real issues” in the seven chapters that follow his introduction. in the first three, he examines the origins of the new perspective. due credit is given to three patriarchs: e.p. sanders, who challenged traditional representations of judaism as overly legalistic and instead claimed that most forms of second temple and rabbinic judaism fit a pattern of religion he called covenantal nomism; james d.g. dunn, who drew on sanders’ work and interpreted paul as a jew within that religious pattern of covenantal nomism; and n.t. wright, who contextualized paul’s gospel within israel's historic mission. the trajectory they established constitutes what yinger calls the four “main lines” of the new perspective—namely, (1) that ancient judaism fits the religious pattern of covenantal nomism; (2) that legalism or works-righteousness was accordingly not in paul’s crosshairs; (3) that inclusion of gentile believers in the people of god was paul’s principal concern; and (4) that paul’s disagreement with contemporary jews was not over the relationship between grace, faith, and works, but over the identification of jesus as the messiah of israel. in addition to the sanders-dunn-wright-trajectory, yinger explains how these main lines inform the variations in the new perspective put forth by don garlington, francis watson, heikki räisänen, lloyd gaston, john gager, and others. in the next three chapters, yinger explores the historical, exegetical, and theological controversies raised by the new perspective. the last two receive the most attention. on the exegetical front, yinger examines the standard catalog of pivotal phrases and passages (e.g., “works of the law,” “faith in / of christ,” “curse of the law” [gal 3:10-13]; paul’s robust or burdened conscience [phil 3:6; 1 cor 4:4; 2 cor 1:12; rom 7:1-25], and more). his analysis is admirably clear, concise, and balanced, enabling even newcomers to new testament studies to discern the differences between the traditional and new perspectives along with the strengths and weaknesses of each. yinger’s treatment of the theological controversies is no less exemplary as he weighs both sides of the well-known accusation that the new perspective is incompatible with reformation theology. the final chapter considers the potentially positive effects of the new perspective. it is here where many readers of this journal, regardless of their specialty, might take interest because the new perspective is often credited with wearing down the supposed contrasts that have generated christian antipathy towards judaism: grace vs. works, love vs. fear, spirit vs. law, etc. review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): garroway r1-2 yinger, the new perspective on paul garroway r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr unfortunately, yinger’s reflections on contemporary christian-jewish relations are meager. in a brief section (hyperbolically) titled “goodbye to anti-semitism?” he suggests that “the npp might also help reduce some christian tendencies toward anti-semitism or anti-judaism” because covenantal nomism is more appealing to christians than legalism, which many christians consider “inferior,” “failed,” or “wrong-headed” (p. 88). on his reading of the new perspective, “judaism and christianity turn out to have most of their pattern [of religion] in common” (p. 88). some may have concerns over this approach to christian anti-judaism because it seems as though the legitimacy and respectability, even the palatability, of judaism depend on judaism’s resemblance to christianity. many jews—and i count myself among them—do not look upon legalism with such disrelish, however; they embrace legal discourse (distinct from its pejorative portrayal by traditional christian scholars) as a quintessential expression of jewish engagement with god and the torah. it might be preferable to find ways of encouraging christians to understand and to appreciate the legalistic aspects of judaism rather than effacing them (with reciprocal acts of understanding and appreciation on the part of jews, naturally). that contention notwithstanding, yinger’s effort should be judged an overall success. it has a protestant flavor, to be sure, but i think students of all backgrounds will find it to be as clear and concise as any introduction to the momentous shifts in pauline interpretation that have occurred over the past three decades. the annotated list of suggestions for further study provides direction for greater immersion in the field. even scholars well acquainted with the new perspective may find this book useful for distilling ever expanding reams of scholarship into digestible lessons and lectures. scjr 18, no. 1 (2023): 1-4 thérèse andrevon and william krisel, eds. réflexions juives sur le christianisme (geneva: éditions labor et fides, 2021), 213 pp. murray watson jmkwatson@gmail.com christian-jewish dialogue of toronto, toronto, on m5c 2z3, canada one of the challenging aspects of our plurilingual world is that scholarship in one language is frequently not easily accessible in other languages; the desirable cross-pollination of ideas is often hampered by the limitations of market-driven scholarly publishing and the prohibitive costs of translation. while many scholars are comfortable in a number of languages, those without that fluency are frequently stymied in their access to the research and insights of their colleagues in other parts of the world. this book, jewish reflections on christianity, represents an attempt to bring four influential english-language jewish commentaries on christianity to a new french readership, together with responses from francophone scholars from a range of christian traditions. it is a stimulating blend of interfaith engagement and christian ecumenism, in which leading voices in one part of the world are able to speak to, and enrich, the work of others an ocean away for the benefit of the dialogue overall. the project leaders and editors, thérèse andrevon and william krisel, bring complementary expertise and background to this work. andrevon is a professor at the domuni universitas, a virtual university campus sponsored by the (catholic) dominican friars. a resident of israel and a member of the elijah interfaith association, she has been active in jewish-christian dialogue for three decades and teaches jewish studies, with a focus on catholic theologies of judaism. krisel is a lecturer at the institut catholique de paris, where he has taught in the fields of ecumenical theology and old testament studies, and he has several publications in biblical studies. they have assembled a diverse panel of knowledgeable jewish and christian scholars and commentators, including christophe chalamet, luc forestier, alon goshen-gottstein, alexandru ioniţă, jonas jacquelin, david meyer, and christian rutishauser. at the heart of the book are significant essays by four major rabbinic figures spanning the last 60 years of the dialogue: joseph ber soloveitchik (author of “confrontation” from 1964), abraham joshua heschel (“no religion is an island” from 1966), irving greenberg (“covenantal partners in a post-modern world” from 2004), and david novak (“supersessionism hard and soft” from 2019). each watson: andrevon and krisel’s réflexions juives sur le christianisme 2 essay, and its author, is introduced by another rabbi who provides helpful biographical and theological context for readers who may be unfamiliar with these four thinkers. three christian theologians—one catholic, one protestant, and one eastern orthodox—then provide their own responses to the original essays, highlighting and critiquing the ideas presented. i believe that it is these responses that provide some of the most interesting and thought-provoking parts of this book. as andrevon notes in her introduction, there have been dozens of christian statements regarding judaism. but the 2001 joint statement “dabru emet” proved to be the catalyst for a number of other jewish statements on how christianity might be understood from a jewish perspective. more than 20 years after de, andrevon and her colleagues want their audience to appreciate the evolution in jewish conversations about christianity and to trace for themselves the theological shifts as that dialogue has deepened and expanded over nearly 60 years. andrevon notes the obvious limits to such a selection: all four of the rabbis showcased are either naturalized or native-born americans and therefore not representative of thinking in israel or in other diaspora communities. (novak currently teaches in a canadian university.) they represent either modern orthodox or conservative / masorti judaism. although they all served as professors, all of them are also deeply steeped in traditional jewish learning. they also represent very different historical contexts, and so it is difficult to fairly compare their ideas. however, there are definite common threads in their thinking. in commenting on these rabbinic contributions, chalamet (a reformed christian pastor and theologian) points out that many of the early protestant reformers spoke of judaism with comparatively some respect and devoted great attention to the concept of covenant. he particularly highlights the work of heinrich bullinger (1504-75) and his treatise “on the one eternal covenant,” which emphasized the fundamental continuity between the covenants of the old and new testaments (a message that chalamet finds in both greenberg and novak). for bullinger (and his contemporary, ulrich zwingli [1484-1531]), there could be no split, and certainly no contradiction, between the messages of the two parts of the christian bible. he emphasized new testament passages that underscored this theological connectedness. (bullinger’s approach earned him the scorn of some of his peers, who mocked him as an ebionite.) john calvin espoused similar sentiments, and chalamet quotes extensively from writings of the swiss reformer who honored the authentic faith of jewish figures who lived before christ. chalamet argues that the idea of god’s unshakeable covenant with the jewish people—so central to nostra aetate and subsequent documents—is already powerfully present in the writings of several 16thcentury reformation leaders, although it has sometimes been minimized by later theologians. forestier is a catholic priest and theologian who teaches at the institut catholique de paris. he emphasizes one key term for each of the four jewish authors: “1964,” “mission,” “branch,” and “fulfillment.” “1964” is the year when soloveitchik wrote, and this is essential for understanding his thinking. nostra aetate had not yet been promulgated, and mainstream christianity had not seriously begun a new and different trajectory in its attitude toward jews. for forestier, that 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2023) date reminds us of the importance of historical context in situating and understanding a theologian’s views. soloveitchik was reacting to still-unreformed attitudes, out of a perceived sense of vulnerability as a jew in a majority-christian society, which makes his opposition to theological engagement with christians understandable. for heschel, “mission” was closely linked to proselytism and traditionally strong pressure on jews to convert to christianity, which he forcefully rejected. (as forestier points out, novak develops similar themes decades later, in a context when some catholic theologians were again debating the desirability of encouraging jewish conversion.) the american experience certainly colors these discussions, as do the influential ideas of john courtney murray on religious liberty and conscience. once again, context is enlightening. next, “branch” applies to greenberg’s discussion of the relationship of christianity to judaism. forestier highlights some of the pitfalls in the “family” language that has often been used in the past, but he also sees greenberg’s use of this language as an organic way to express a relationship that christians have often spiritualized. the final term, “fulfillment,” touches on questions raised by novak: how can christians see their faith as “fulfilling” judaism and yet engage with jews in a non-supersessionistic way? how can jewish and christian claims co-exist respectfully? and what new, less exclusivistic models of “fulfillment” might we be able to explore? forestier’s chapter raises detailed questions for exegesis, sacramental theology, and ecclesiology. the third christian respondent, ioniţă, is a romanian orthodox priest, theologian, and researcher at lucian blaga university in sibiu. ioniţă points out that, just as many orthodox christians know very little about jews and judaism, so these four contributors seem to show very little familiarity with eastern orthodoxy. he grants that this is understandable, because there were few orthodox christians in the diaspora until after the fall of communism in 1990. furthermore, “eastern christianity has remained more or less a stranger to the theological developments of recent decades” (186). novak’s focus on supersessionism resonates for ioniţă since, as he says, “in the eastern orthodox church, the idea of supplanting judaism is very palpable, and the temptation of marcionism … is more obviously present in orthodox christianity than in any other christian denomination” (187). orthodoxy’s deep rootedness in patristic thought has resulted in liturgical and theological texts which, ioniţă suggests, combine both “hard” and “soft” forms of supersessionism. the very limited place of old testament texts in byzantine liturgy means that the old testament is often unfamiliar to orthodox believers. (heschel sees familiarity with the hebrew bible as an essential step in christian renewal.) also, the tradition has privileged new testament texts apparently critical of judaism. ioniţă pushes for a greater awareness of the moral and spiritual heritage common to both orthodox christianity and judaism as an important step in transforming the current situation. he points out that, while it is an uphill battle to change these antijewish texts, there have been small victories and minor liturgical reforms, and his research team is making romanian translations of key catholic, protestant, and jewish dialogue texts available on their web site. in her concluding comments, andrevon celebrates that a collection of voices that could have yielded a cacophony has, in the end, turned out to be more of a watson: andrevon and krisel’s réflexions juives sur le christianisme 4 symphony. she hopes that the book itself can be a model for how interreligious dialogue and ecumenical discussions can intersect in fruitful ways. she appreciates that the jewish authors studied in the book both appeal for christian change and offer a critique of certain areas where judaism needs to examine its attitude toward others. andrevon points out some interesting areas that were not addressed by the contributors. none of the jewish authors seems to contest the idea of christianity as a monotheistic religion, despite the historical assessment by some jewish theologians that christianity is avodah zarah (idolatry). even soloveitchik (arguably the author who most wants to keep christian theology at arm’s length) does not try to refute or condemn christianity per se. andrevon was also surprised that there seemed to be little discussion of the importance of jesus’ jewishness and humanity as an important (and helpful) component in healthy dialogue between the two communities. what does come through, however, is the importance for both jews and christians of a need to remain rooted in their traditions as they engage in a project of renewal. many of the authors draw upon authoritative (but often neglected) voices or texts from the past which permit a different, more dialogical approach to the other. for christians, “a theology of judaism can only be constructed by delving into one’s own heritage. tradition is, simultaneously, both the problem and the remedy” (207). similarly, the rabbinic evocation of past figures like yehuda halevi and menachem ben shlomo meiri is a reminder of the diversity of jewish voices on these topics, many of which remain somewhat marginal and little-quoted. this is a remarkably rich, nuanced, and revelatory book and a major new contribution to french-language resources for jewish-christian dialogue. it celebrates the undeniable achievements of the post-shoah period, reminds us of how much work remains to be done, and inspires us with hope by revealing what is possible when goodwill, openness, faith, and patient listening combine. it also reminds us of the ongoing problem of linguistic “siloing” in scholarship on jewish-christian relations, and of the need for increased efforts to translate and share the best thinking in languages other than our own. andrevon suggests that the modern jewish-christian “duet” can be a prophetic sign to the rest of the “orchestra” of humanity of how we need to unite our efforts to serve a needy world and to prepare together for the coming of the messianic age. the four jewish thinkers highlighted in this volume are giants upon whose shoulders all those in the field now stand. the commentaries assembled here point us in new directions so that we can continue that momentum and encourage us to reflect on how our contributions today can be vital building-blocks for the generations who will come after us. scjr 18, no. 1 (2023): 1-3 wulfert de greef of one tree: calvin on jews and christians in the context of the late middle ages (refo500 academic studies, vol. 83.) translated by lyle d. bierma (göttingen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2021), 197 pp. g. sujin pak gspak@bu.edu boston university, boston, ma 02215 of one tree: calvin on jews and christians in the context of the late middle ages is the english translation of wulfert de greef’s 2012 dutch volume of the same title. lyle d. bierma’s excellent translation makes the book available to a wider readership. the book’s greatest strengths are that it provides the reader a lucid introduction to many aspects of the secondary scholarship concerning calvin’s views of jews, concise accounts of the historical backdrop and contemporary contexts in which calvin developed his views, and several well-chosen analyses of calvin’s primary texts that have often been overlooked in prior scholars’ studies. in particular, de greef wisely chose to focus on calvin’s old testament exegesis. of one tree is an eminently readable volume for lay readers and scholars alike. the first chapter outlines key figures and events that contributed to the view that jews in medieval christendom posed threats to christians and prompted the need for protection. after an admirably succinct overview, de greef devotes the majority of this first chapter to anti-jewish (and anti-christian) literature, as well as sixteenth-century christians’ debates about whether jewish literature should be tolerated or censored. these choices point to the author’s predisposition toward the intellectual (rather than social or cultural) aspects shaping christian-jewish relations. the discussion of the polemical literature and corresponding intellectual debates is somewhat oddly arranged, as it bounces between the twelfth century and the sixteenth century. in chapter two de greef briefly summarizes medieval and early modern christian interest in hebrew and hebrew sources, ultimately focusing on the work of several prominent sixteenth-century christian hebraists. one can assume that the author’s predisposition toward certain intellectual aspects of this christian-jewish history is due to his own judgment that it was these that most pak: wulfert de greef’s of one tree 2 shaped calvin’s views of jews and judaism. while a defensible claim, it would be helpful for the author to have stated this more clearly as part of his argument. the bulk of the book—chapters three to eight—focuses on calvin’s views of jews and judaism, approaching the question from different angles. in chapter three de greef explores the question of calvin’s contacts with jews and knowledge of jewish sources. chapter four provides a very brief account (about four pages) on calvin’s views of the relationship between law and gospel and his argument for the enduring significance of the old testament for christians. it is puzzling that the author addresses these themes so briefly since they underpin key aspects of chapters five to nine. a deeper engagement with the primary and secondary sources on these topics would strengthen these chapters significantly. in chapter five de greef explores calvin’s use of scripture to develop his views of how christians should approach their relationship with jews. this is the heart of the book and the place of the author’s most significant contributions. de greef establishes that in both his nt and ot exegesis, calvin depicts israel as “‘the firstborn’ in the family of god” (85). christians participate in the promises first given to the jews through abraham, through whom god’s covenant is then extended to all nations. accordingly, argues de greef, calvin teaches that the “nations, therefore, are bound together with them [the jews] in the unity of the faith” (87). consequently, when christians “come to faith, they are joined together with the jews” (87), which he warns christians should never forget. de greef identifies key biblical commitments that shape calvin’s teachings concerning jews: jews are the source of the law and the gospel, for which christians should be thankful and from whom they should be willing to learn (88-90); christians are engrafted into the body of the chosen people so that israel and the nations become one body (91) and, thus, christians “do not enjoy an independent status” (95); and jews retain their special status despite their “ingratitude” (93). in this way, de greef makes the case for calvin’s complicated and tension-filled view that even as christians have seemingly replaced jews in god’s covenant, this is not the last word. de greef argues that calvin emphasized that christians should never “lose sight of the fact that christians do not exist in isolation.” rather, christians join the jews so “that together they might be the people of god” (98, emphasis added). in chapter six de greef studies calvin’s views of the future of israel. he sees strong indications that calvin expected the jews’ full return from exile or their conversion (107), pointing to calvin’s emphases upon a spiritualized jerusalem (115) and a spiritual kingdom (126-31). calvin also applied biblical prophecies of the restoration of israel to the “entire course of history from the deliverance from exile to the return of christ” (122). de greef investigates in chapter seven calvin’s engagement with christian and jewish exegetes in his biblical commentaries. he notes calvin’s criticisms of christian exegetes for applying texts to christ that “ought first to be understood in their original historical contexts” (136) and his criticisms of jewish exegetes in their refusal ultimately to direct scripture to its true aim, christ (143). within chapter seven is an interlude on calvin’s views on usury that is not tied clearly to the chapter’s prior themes. in the final chapter, de greef 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2023) briefly (in about five pages) explores some of calvin’s positive and negative statements concerning jews. similar to other sections in the book, a broader engagement with the primary and secondary literature on these important topics is desirable. the book left me both thankful and perplexed. i am thankful because several chapters provide compelling accounts of key aspects of calvin’s teachings on jews and christian-jewish relations that are rightfully grounded in his biblical exegesis and engage with important secondary literature. these chapters are simultaneously rich in information and amazingly concise. the book left me perplexed at points, however, because the logic of the overall arrangement of the chapters is not clear, nor are sufficient connections made between the chapters. consequently, when read for concise nuggets, the book is incredibly helpful, but when read as a whole, the book is less effective or coherent. nonetheless, there are many treasures to be found, yielding an enriched understanding of calvin’s teachings on jews and judaism. scjr 18, no. 1 (2023): 1-22 american catholic attitudes toward jews, judaism, and the israeli-palestinian conflict kirill bumin kmbumin@bu.edu boston university boston, ma 02215 adam gregerman agregerm@sju.edu saint joseph’s university philadelphia, pa 19131 philip a. cunningham pcunning@sju.edu saint joseph’s university philadelphia, pa 19131 motti inbari inbari@uncp.edu university of north carolina at pembroke pembroke, nc 28372 1. introduction in the foreword to an italian book in which jews and christians commented on passages from scripture, pope francis wrote, “i am well aware that we have behind us nineteen centuries of christian anti-judaism and that a few decades of dialogue are very small in comparison. however, in recent times many things have changed and still others are changing.”1 while it is widely known that the catholic church has sought to improve relations with jews, there have not been major studies that statistically chart changes in catholic attitudes or teaching. this article presents the findings of an unprecedented survey of american catholic perspectives on jews, with a particular interest in its implications for catholic religious education. catholic ideas about jews and judaism were, for over a millennium, hostile. they were predicated on the conviction dating from the second century that god had cursed jews to homeless wandering because they had rejected and continued to reject jesus christ. among other things, this long history explains why the zionist proposal for jews to return to their ancient homeland was met with total rejection by pope pius x in 1906: “the jewish religion was the foundation of our own; but it was superseded by the teachings of christ, and we cannot concede it any further validity. … [i]f you come to palestine and settle your people there, we shall have churches and priests ready to baptize all of you.”2 such premises were not officially renounced by the catholic church until after the shoah (holocaust) when the second vatican council in its 1965 declaration nostra aetate instructed that “jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by god as if this followed from the holy scriptures.”3 this major shift was followed by additional ecclesiastical statements in the 1 marco cassuto morselli and giulio michelini, eds., la bibbia dell’amicizia: brani della torah/pentateucho commentti da ebrei e cristiani (milano: san paolo, 2019), 5. 2 raphael patai, the complete diaries of theodor herzl, translated by harry zohn (new york/london: herzl press, thomas yoseloff, 1960), 1601-1605. 3 second vatican council, “nostra aetate: declaration on the relationship of the church to non-christian religions” (1965), 4: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostrahttps://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html bumin, cunningham, gregerman, inbari: american catholic attitudes 2 succeeding decades that continued the trajectory begun in nostra aetate and deepened catholic theology on jews and judaism. the nationally-representative survey that we conducted between june 9-17, 2022 provides insights into how well this dramatic change in official catholic teachings since 1965 is reflected among american catholics today by assessing their views about their jewish neighbors, christian-jewish relations, and the israeli-palestinian conflict. this survey includes 1,241 us catholic adults and was fielded online by surveyusa using the sample provided by lucid holdings, llc of new orleans. the pool of adult survey respondents was weighted to pew research center targets4 for gender, age, race, education, and household income, and to regional targets from commonweal magazine, as reported via wikipedia.5 the sample provides 95% confidence that the sampling error does not exceed ±3.2%. margins of error are higher in some sub-groups. throughout this article, we will compare aspects of the present survey of american catholics to similar research on the attitudes of evangelical and born-again christian americans conducted in 2021 by two of us, kirill bumin and motti inbari.6 such comparisons will be made for several reasons. first, catholics and evangelical protestants have different theological beliefs and practices. comparing their opinions can help us to understand the nuances and differences between these two largest american christian communities. second, due to their size, catholic and evangelical protestants both have significant social and political influence. comparing their opinions on religious views can help us to understand how these groups shape public opinion and policy decisions. third, despite theological differences, catholics and evangelical christians share many religious values and beliefs. comparing their perspectives can help to identify areas of common ground and promote interfaith dialogue and collaboration, thus fostering tolerance and understanding between these groups and perhaps openness to diverse religious beliefs.7 this article is organized into several parts. after presenting some demographic data of our research sample, we will discuss religious questions regarding jews and judaism. this is followed by questions about the israeli-palestinian conflict. it ends with a discussion about respondents’ answers in the light of official catholic teaching. importantly, these divisions are not strict; some questions are discussed at multiple points. aetate_en.html. there are many scholarly discussions of nostra aetate; recent studies include john connelly, from enemy to brother: the revolution in catholic teaching on the jews 1933-1965 (cambridge: harvard university press, 2012) 239-72; and philip a. cunningham, seeking shalom: the journey to right relationship between catholics and jews (grand rapids, mi: william b. eerdmans, 2015), 141-53. 4 https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/catholic/ 5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/catholic_church_in_the_united_states#cite_ref-13 6 kirill bumin and motti inbari. “in the shadow of 2021 gaza conflict: evangelical and born-again christian views of the israeli-palestinian dispute.” an initial report on the july 2021 survey with evangelical and born-again christians. available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357062740. this survey was fielded july 8-22, 2021 by the barna group and consisted of 1,012 self-identified evangelical and born-again christians. a demographically balanced online panel was used. maximum quotas and slight weights were used for gender, region, age, ethnicity, and education to reflect the u.s. evangelical christian population more accurately, as defined by pew religious landscape survey. the sample offers 95% confidence that the sampling error does not exceed ±2.9%. 7 for earlier studies of both catholics and evangelicals (and others) on some of the topics we address, see the pew study discussed by becka a. alper, “modest warming in u.s. views on israel and palestinians” (may 26, 2022) (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/26/modest-warming-in-u-s-views-on-israel-and-palestinians) and the gallup study discussed by frank newport, “americans' religion and their sympathies in the middle east” (may 28, 2021) (https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/350435/americans-religion-sympathies-middle-east.aspx). these surveys were less targeted to members of these religious groups and much shorter, asking only a few questions. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/catholic/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/catholic_church_in_the_united_states#cite_ref-13 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357062740 https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/26/modest-warming-in-u-s-views-on-israel-and-palestinians https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/350435/americans-religion-sympathies-middle-east.aspx 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) 2. demographic summary in the survey, the majority of catholics are white (57.9% of the sample), followed by hispanics and latinos (33.4%). 45.6% of catholics have a college degree, while those who have a high school, some college, or vocational training comprise 52.5% of the sample. their mean household income is roughly $67,500. 55.7% of the respondents in our survey are female. the mean age of our respondents is 50.7 years of age, and 50.9% of the respondents are married. these demographic statistics about age, income, and gender largely mirror national estimates for american catholics provided by the pew research center,8 gallup,9 the public religion research institute,10 and the us religion census.11 in terms of the regional distribution of the respondents, 24.1% hailed from the northeast of the united states, 17.3% from the midwest, 34.3% from the south, and 24.3% from the west. 35.5% of the catholics surveyed live in urban areas, 46.5% in suburban neighborhoods, and 18.5% in rural environments. these results comport with other research on the us catholic population.12 in responses about their degree of religious practice, 51.6% of the catholics polled said they do not attend church much: 13.5% never, 19.2% seldom, and 18.9% a few times per year. 43.9% said they come to church often: 9.6% visit 2 or 3 times a month, 30.9% every week, and 3.4% every day. these numbers are consistent with other indicators of catholic church attendance.13 politically, most catholics identify themselves as moderates or "middle of the road" (38.6%), but more self-identify as conservative (33.5%) (on a range from slightly conservative to extremely conservative) than liberal (28%) (slightly liberal and extremely liberal). when it comes to party affiliation, 40.8% said they are democrats, and 10.7% said they are independents leaning democrat. 31.1% identify as republicans, and 11.1% identified as independents leaning republicans.14 in the 2020 presidential election vote, 37.2% said they voted for trump, 43.4% said they voted for biden, 2.4% said they voted for another candidate, 13.4% said they have not voted, and 3.6% preferred not to answer. from this data, we can observe that american catholics are not politically homogenous. they have strong liberal and conservative wings, while there is a slight tilt toward liberal opinions in the american political landscape. 8 https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/ 9 https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/350435/americans-religion-sympathies-middle-east.aspx 10 https://www.prri.org/spotlight/the-u-s-catholic-experience/ 11 https://www.usreligioncensus.org/interactive-tables 12 pew research center, “a closer look at catholic america,” september 14, 2015; prri, “the us catholic experience," february 7, 2020; catholic news agency, “u.s. catholic population shows growth, trends southward,” may 12, 2023. 13 lyida saad (gallup), “catholics’ church attendance resumes downward slide,” april 9, 2018. in this study 39% reported attending church weekly between 2014-2017. 14 these party identification data are relatively consistent with data from pew research center, described in the “party affiliation among catholics” portion of the religious landscape study, carried out in 2014. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/ https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/350435/americans-religion-sympathies-middle-east.aspx https://www.usreligioncensus.org/interactive-tables https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/ https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/350435/americans-religion-sympathies-middle-east.aspx https://www.prri.org/spotlight/the-u-s-catholic-experience/ https://www.usreligioncensus.org/interactive-tables https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/09/14/a-closer-look-at-catholic-america/ https://www.prri.org/spotlight/the-u-s-catholic-experience/ https://www.prri.org/spotlight/the-u-s-catholic-experience/ https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252998/us-catholic-population-shows-growth-trends-southward https://news.gallup.com/poll/232226/church-attendance-among-catholics-resumes-downward-slide.aspx https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/catholic/party-affiliation/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/catholic/party-affiliation/ bumin, cunningham, gregerman, inbari: american catholic attitudes 4 3. american catholic religious views of jews and judaism a. american catholic opinions about jews and muslims when asked for their overall opinion of jews, 54.2% of the catholics surveyed had good or very good views, with 41.5% responding either “neutral” or “i don’t know,” while 4.3% indicated poor or very poor opinions. in response to the same question about muslims, the responses were more uncertain and less positive. only 31.7% had good or very good opinions, while 55.5% did not know or were neutral, and 12.8% had poor or very poor views. these catholic christian responses can be compared with those of evangelical christians.15 for both american christian groups, attitudes toward jews were more positive than those toward muslims, though catholics to a lesser degree than evangelicals (54.3% vs. 65%). about twice as many evangelicals had poor or very poor feelings toward muslims than catholics, who tended to be more neutral toward both jews and muslims than evangelicals. the surveys cited here did not explore the reasons for these results.16 15 motti inbari, kirill m. bumin, and michel g. byrd, “why do evangelicals support israel?” politics and religion, 14/1 (2021): 28. 16 we note, though, that the terrorist attacks on september 11, 2001, and the subsequent global “war on terror” had a major impact on american attitudes towards jews and muslims in many ways. after 9/11, there was a sharp increase in discrimination against muslims in the u.s. who were often subject to racial profiling and increased scrutiny by law enforcement and government agencies. many faced harassment and even violence. the war on terror also led to heightened negative perceptions of islam, with many americans associating the religion with terrorism and violence. there is a large body of literature on these factors, including these books: khaled a. beydoun, american islamophobia: understanding the roots and rise of fear (oakland, ca: university of california press, 2019); adam garfinkle, jewcentricity: why the jews are praised, blamed, and used to explain just about everything (hoboken, nj: john wiley & sons, 2009); nathan lean, the islamophobia industry: how the right manufactures fear of muslims (london: pluto press, 2012); and peter morey and amina yaqin, islamophobia and anti-muslim sentiment: picturing the enemy (lanham, md: rowman & littlefield, 2018). 54.2 35.2 4.3 6.3 31.7 45.8 12.8 9.7 65 25.2 1.8 8 25.6 35.1 27.5 11.8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 very good or good neutral very poor or poor don't know what is your opinion of jews and muslims? catholics on jews catholics on muslims evangelicals on jews evangelicals on muslims 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) in terms of catholic attitudes, the present survey seems to substantiate the view that personal contact between members of different groups improves views of each other.17 this seems to be the case with catholics and jews as well. few of the catholics surveyed had attended a jewish religious service in a synagogue (20.8%), but more than two-thirds of the respondents indicated they had socialized with jewish friends and neighbors and 56% had jewish co-workers. this indicates that interactions among american catholics and jews mostly do not occur in religious settings but in society at large and in the workplace. our survey has confirmed this hypothesis about contact and shows that several different types of social interaction have a strong correlation with positive opinions of jews. specifically, if catholics encounter jews at work, socially as friends, and also at jewish religious services, on average their views of jews increase in positivity by about 70% for each type of engagement. this can be put in directly comparative terms: catholics with the highest level of exposure to and socialization with jews are 2.8 times more likely to express a positive opinion of jews than respondents who had no jewish friends or exposure to jewish practice. while american catholics generally had favorable or neutral sentiments toward jews, the survey further assessed catholic attitudes toward jews and judaism by inquiring about specifically theological topics. thus, respondents were asked, “which best expresses your feelings or beliefs about the jewish people?” and given explicitly theological answer choices. one-fifth (20.8%) gave the matter-of-fact reply that judaism is a non-christian religion, an answer that seems to indicate neither a positive nor negative assessment of the religious status of jews. 13.3% stated that jews were either cursed by god or used to be the chosen people, an answer that can be read as a negative assessment of jews on theological grounds.18 finally, 27.9% of the participants answered, “i don’t know.” the largest response was given by the 35.9% of those surveyed who selected the statement “jews enjoy a special and ongoing relationship with god.” directly related to this question is the topic of chosenness. chosenness (or election), while defined variously, has long been a prominent feature of jewish religious self-identity, although it has also occasioned controversy and opposition. 17 see, e.g., “positive and extensive intergroup contact in the past buffers against the disproportionate impact of negative contact in the present,” stefania paolini, jake harwood, mark rubin, shenel husnu, nicholas joyce, and miles hewstone, european journal of social psychology research 44/6 (2014): 548-562. 18 the survey options for beliefs about jews as “cursed by god” or “used to be the chosen people,” reflect r. kendall soulen’s distinction between “punitive” and “economic” supersessionism. see his the god of israel and christian theology (minneapolis: fortress press, 1996), 28-31. 20.8 13.3 35.9 27.9 0 10 20 30 40 non-christian religion cursed by god or used to be chosen people jews enjoy a special relationship with god don't know which best expresses your feelings or beliefs about the jewish people? bumin, cunningham, gregerman, inbari: american catholic attitudes 6 two variables correlate statistically with the negative opinions that jews were never chosen or had lost that status to christians. the first is unremarkable: those who think the jewish covenant with god has ended or that jews never had a covenant are consistent in expressing this negative assessment in the related category of chosenness. this makes sense on logical grounds. however, the second correlation is not so easily explained. belief that the bible should be read literally (i.e., an agreement with the statement “[the bible] is the word of god and should be taken literally” [see below]) is strongly correlated with respondents’ rejection of the idea of jews’ chosenness. the reason for this correlation is not immediately clear. one possibility is that these catholics understood “the bible” to refer primarily to the new testament, which, in contrast to the multiple affirmations of the chosenness of the israelites/jews found in the old testament, says little about it. more on chosenness appears below. b. american catholics and whether jews are in covenant with god later in the survey, participants were asked a similar theological question that explicitly used the term “covenant”: does god’s covenant with the jewish people remain intact today? 41.7% affirmed that it is intact, 15.8% answered that this covenant had ended or never existed, and 42.5% replied that they did not know. the responses to both questions (spiritual status of jews and jewish covenant) are roughly consistent. when the option in the former question that “judaism is a non-christian religion” was removed, a higher percentage of respondents (42.5% vs. 27.9%) did not know how to answer the question about jewish covenanting with god. thus, roughly an equal number of catholics felt that jews are in covenant with god as those who did not know about the status of the jewish covenant. there are striking differences in catholic replies to the covenant inquiry in comparison with evangelical christian responses to the exact same question. less than half of the catholics (41.7%) felt that jewish covenantal life with god was intact, while over two-thirds of evangelicals (67.2%) held that view. 15.8 41.7 42.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 it has ended or never was yes, it is intact don’t know does god’s covenant with the jewish people remain intact today? 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) similarly, almost twice as many catholics (42.5%) were unsure how to answer the question when compared with evangelicals (22.9%). what explains these differences between catholics and evangelicals on the subject of jewish covenanting with god? we suspect that their diverse views on the christian bible plays a role. again, more discussion on this topic is below. how do the survey results of catholics’ views on the covenantal life of jews compare with catholic church teaching? numerous vatican texts and post-vatican ii popes have declared that jews abide in ongoing covenant with god. for example, pope francis wrote in 2014 that “we hold the jewish people in special regard because their covenant with god has never been revoked, for ‘the gifts and the call of god are irrevocable’ (rom 11:29).”19 in both the pertinent survey questions, less than half of the survey participants (respectively 35.9% and 41.7%) held that view. during his twenty-six-year pontificate (october 1978-april 2005), pope john paul ii prioritized the implementation of the second vatican council’s call for a new relationship between catholics and jews. a very significant element of his teaching, first stated in 1980, was that jews are “the people of god of the old covenant, never revoked by god” and “the present-day people 19 pope francis, apostolic exhortation evangelii gaudium (2014), §247. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazioneap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html 7.7 8.1 41.7 42.5 6.7 3.3 67.2 22.9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 no, the covenant has ended god never had a covenant with jews yes, it is intact don’t know does god’s covenant with the jewish people remain intact today? catholics evangelicals https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html bumin, cunningham, gregerman, inbari: american catholic attitudes 8 of the covenant concluded with moses.”20 he reiterated this theme many times subsequently,21 and his basic insight was affirmed by his successors, popes benedict xvi22 and francis.23 the catholics we surveyed seem largely unaware of these developments. the same percentage did not know whether god’s covenant with the jewish people remains in effect today as said it did (~ 42%). 16% replied that such a covenant had ceased or had never existed at all, meaning that more than half of the respondents (58.3%) could not affirm that god’s covenant with jews “remains intact.” these results suggest that catholic liturgy and education need to express the key teaching on jewish covenantal life more vigorously if catholics are to acquire “an exact knowledge of the wholly unique ‘bond’ (nostra aetate, no. 4) which joins [the] church to the jews and to judaism.”24 this is a “pastoral concern for a still living reality closely related to the church … ‘the people of god of the old covenant, which has never been revoked.’”25 c. catholics and the crucifixion on the historically vexatious question of who bears responsibility for the crucifixion of jesus,26 nearly 70% of the respondents chose either a historical answer (28.2% selected “roman soldiers / pontius pilate”) or a theological one (41.6% chose “the sins of humanity”). these replies are in accord with official catholic teaching, which made it clear in nostra aetate that “what happened in [jesus’] passion cannot be charged against all the jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the jews of today. … [t]he jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by god, as if this followed from the holy scriptures.”27 of the remaining responses, 11% blamed “the jews” and 19.2% either did not know or blamed no one (9.6% each). in terms of catholic doctrine 20 pope john paul ii, “address to representatives of the west german jewish community,” mainz, west germany, november 17, 1980, §3. https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-johnpaul-ii/jp2-80nov17 21 see his addresses to the australian jewish community, nov 26, 1986; american jewish leaders, sept 11, 1987; the viennese jewish community, june 24, 1988; the new ambassador of the federal republic of germany to the holy see. nov. 8, 1990; his general audience, april 28, 1999; his jasna gora meditation, sept 26, 1990; his letter concerning pilgrimage to places linked to the history of salvation, june 29, 1999; and his homily at mount sinai, feb 26, 2000 at https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii. the relevant quotations from the texts are provided in philip a. cunningham, “official ecclesial documents to implement vatican ii on relations with jews: study them, become immersed in them, and put them into practice,” studies in christian-jewish relations 4 (2009): 21-25: https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/scjr/article/view/1521/1374 22 pope benedict xvi, “address at the great synagogue of rome,” january 17, 2010, §3: https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2010/january/documents/hf_benxvi_spe_20100117_sinagoga.html . as emeritus pope, he sought to “clarify and deepen” the concept in “grace and vocation without remorse: comments on the treatise de judaeis,” communio 45 (spring 2018): 181. https://www.communio-icr.com/files/45.1_benedict_xvi.pdf 23 pope francis, apostolic exhortation evangelii gaudium (2014), §247. 24 crrj, “notes on the correct way to present jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church, june 24, 1985, §i,8: http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapportireligiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-dellacommissione/en2.html 25 crrj, “notes,” §i,3., citing pope john paul ii. 26 for an overview of this topic, see jeremy cohen, christ killers: the jews and the passion from the bible to the big screen (new york: oxford university press, 2007). 27 second vatican council, nostra aetate, §4. https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/jp2-80nov17 https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/jp2-80nov17 https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/scjr/article/view/1521/1374 https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2010/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20100117_sinagoga.html https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2010/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20100117_sinagoga.html https://www.communio-icr.com/files/45.1_benedict_xvi.pdf http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/en2.html http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/en2.html http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/en2.html 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) and the centuries-long “christ-killer” charge leveled against jews, the relatively few responses that blamed jews for the execution of jesus are a positive sign for jewish-catholic relations. however, given the pernicious prevalence of the idea that god had cursed jews to homeless wandering for rejecting christ, which greatly contributed to antisemitism over the centuries, it is disturbing that almost 30% of the american catholics surveyed thought either that “the jews’’ bore the blame for the crucifixion of jesus, that no one was to blame, or did not know what to think. indeed, further statistical analyses of the data reveal that those who believe that “the jews” crucified jesus are six times more likely to hold that christians have replaced jews as god’s people. the fact that the second vatican council authoritatively and explicitly rejected the historically inflammatory notion that jews were “rejected or accursed by god”28 could lead to the conclusion that a “passing grade” of 70% on this crucial issue is unacceptably low for catholic religious education. the two topics just discussed—jewish covenantal life and responsibility for the crucifixion of jesus—are historically interrelated. when jews were collectively deemed culpable for jesus’ execution, most christians believed that god was punishing them with powerlessness and vulnerability and had abrogated the original divine covenant with them. d. catholics and salvation the notion of jewish culpability for the crucifixion of jesus also connects to the related topics of salvation and christian missions to convert jews. the survey asked questions about both. when asked if only baptized people can be saved, only 17.6% of the catholics surveyed agreed or strongly agreed (8-10 on a 10-point scale), 28.2% were not sure, and 54.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed that salvation was restricted to baptized christians. thus, over 80% of the catholics 28 second vatican council, “nostra aetate, §4. 28.2 41.6 9.6 9.6 11 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 rome / pontius pilate sins of humanity no one is to blame don't know the jews who bears the blame for the crucifixion of jesus? bumin, cunningham, gregerman, inbari: american catholic attitudes 10 surveyed were not predisposed by their religious beliefs to look unfavorably upon jews (or other non-catholics / christians) or their traditions as outside the community of salvation. it is difficult to determine if these responses stem from familiarity with the highly nuanced doctrine of the catholic church on this topic. catholic teaching asserts that “jesus christ is the mediator and the universal redeemer” but also that “the salvific action of jesus christ, with and through his spirit, extends beyond the visible boundaries of the church to all humanity.”29 on the latter point, the catholic magisterium also holds that “‘the spirit’s presence and activity affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures, and religions. ... the risen christ is now at work in human hearts through the strength of his spirit.’”30 to put these and other ideas simply, the catholic church teaches that adherents of other religions or of none can be saved (be in right relationship with god) without explicit faith in christ, but it is christ who makes that possible.31 the fact that some respondents’ acceptance of the notion that non-christians can be saved is consistent with official catholic doctrine does not mean that they are aware of the subtleties of this teaching. what can be said is that (particularly female and older respondents) who expressed 29 congregation for the doctrine of the faith, “dominus iesus: declaration on the unicity and salvific universality of jesus christ and the church” (2000), ii, 11,12: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominusiesus_en.html 30 cdf, dominus iesus, ii, 12, citing pope john paul ii, “redemptoris missio: on the permanent validity of the church’s missionary mandate” (1990), §28: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_07121990_redemptorismissio.html. see also second vatican council, gaudium et spes, pastoral constitution on the church in the modern world (1965), §22: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html. 31 however, salvation outside of baptism is not considered to be “the ordinary means” of salvation. see pope john paul ii, “redemptoris missio, §55: “the fact that the followers of other religions can receive god’s grace and be saved by christ apart from the ordinary means which he has established does not thereby cancel the call to faith and baptism which god wills for all people.” note that his observation about all humanity does not address the special case of jews. see also the discussion in cunningham, seeking shalom 203-19. 54.3 28.2 17.6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 disagree or strongly disagree (8-10) not sure (4-7) strongly agree or agree (1-3) please react to this statement: only baptized people can be saved. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_07121990_redemptoris-missio.html https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_07121990_redemptoris-missio.html https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) positive feelings toward jews were less likely to restrict salvation only to baptized christians. those who felt the bible should be interpreted literally or who claimed to be familiar with catholic teachings about jews were more likely to adopt an exclusivist view of salvation.32 relatedly, participants were also asked if they felt the catholic church should either seek to convert jews or to dialogue with them about religious beliefs. only 12.7% advocated efforts to convert jews and 25.5% said that the catholic church should neither seek to convert jews nor talk about their jewish and catholic beliefs. 61.7% answered that jews and catholics should discuss their respective beliefs without seeking to convert each other. the catholic church’s recognition that god’s covenant with the children of israel continues, as discussed above, has influenced the thinking of the catholic church about judaism on such topics as evangelization and salvation. the 2015 vatican document, “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable,’” states that “the catholic church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards jews”33 and “the torah is the instruction for a successful life in right relationship with god. whoever observes the torah has life in its fullness.”34 the ideas that the catholic church does not actively proselytize jews or that jewish observance of the torah has salvific value have their roots in changes begun with nostra aetate. that declaration by the second vatican council also sought “to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.”35 the desire for interreligious dialogue with jews has been reiterated in virtually every relevant catholic ecclesiastical text ever since. nearly two-thirds of 32 these observations reflect additional logistic regression analyses conducted in preparation of this study, which are not fully reported here. 33 commission of the holy see for religious relations with the jews, “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’ (rom 11:29): a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of nostra aetate (no. 4)” (2015), §40: http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-lebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/en.html 34 crrj, “gifts and calling,” §24. 35 second vatican council, nostra aetate, §4. 12.7 61.7 25.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 work to convert jews to christianity discuss religious beliefs without seeking conversion not discuss religious beliefs with jews or seek their conversion regarding jews, the catholic church should http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/en.html http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/en.html bumin, cunningham, gregerman, inbari: american catholic attitudes 12 the responses to this question about conversion or dialogue are in line with this goal, but, again, catholic educators and preachers might well consider the one-third of the responses that either oppose it (by wanting to convert jews, 12.7%) or at least fail to endorse it (25.5%). those respondents who thought the catholic church should be trying to convert jews (12.7%) were also more likely to think that the bible should be read “literalistically,”36 which is not catholic teaching. respondents were also more likely to favor the conversion of jews if they felt they were familiar with catholic teaching. however, women and older catholics were less likely to support efforts to convert jews. those who thought the catholic church should dialogue with jews without seeking their conversion (61.7%) were more likely to have jewish friends, to not believe that only christians could be saved, and to hold that jews have a special relationship with god. finally, there is a statistically significant correlation between those who do not support either attempts at conversion of or interreligious dialogue with jews (25.5% of participants) and those who reject biblical literalism. additionally, those who have significant contact with jews are less likely to prefer not to discuss religion with jews or less likely to seek to convert jews than those who have minimal or no exposure to jews at all. moreover, respondents who claimed familiarity with catholic teaching were more likely to say either the catholic church should convert jews or to discuss religion with jews without hoping for their conversion. however, catholic teaching actually encourages non-conversionary interreligious dialogue with jews. e. catholics and the bible the catholic survey posed questions to assess the influence of the christian bible on catholic attitudes toward jews. one question asked how often respondents read the bible. more than half of the catholics (53.1%) said they read the bible seldom or never and less than a quarter (23.1%) read it twice a week or daily. in comparison with evangelical christians, about one quarter of the respondents in both surveys say they read the bible between once a week and once or twice a month (24.7 of catholics; 24.6% of evangelicals). the greatest differences were between the most frequent and the most infrequent readers. (see chart below.) nearly twice as many evangelicals as catholics read the bible frequently, and similarly twice as many catholics as evangelicals reported they read the bible seldom or never. this contrast is unsurprising; bible study outside church has traditionally been encouraged more by protestant than by catholic leaders (albeit there is more encouragement of bible reading in today’s catholic community in the wake of the acceptance of critical biblical scholarship by the vatican beginning in 1943). the comparison between the percentage of respondents who chose “never” is particularly stark: 17.4% of catholics and only 4.5% of evangelicals. 3.9 times more catholics report never reading the bible in comparison to evangelicals. 36 we use the term “literalistic” here to refer to a “naively literalistic interpretation” of a scriptural text in distinction from a “literal sense” or “plain sense” reading. the former “excludes every effort at understanding the bible that takes account of its historical origins and development” and that “often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical.” see pontifical biblical commission, “the interpretation of the bible in the church” (1993) §i, f: https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/pbc-1993 https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/pbc-1993 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) given evangelicals’ greater attachment to the study of the bible,37 it is reasonable to surmise they read more of the contents of the christian bible, namely the old testament as well as the new testament. as noted above, the new testament sometimes presupposes and sometimes ignores the multiple declarations of the covenant between god and the children of israel that are found in the old testament. in addition, evangelicals tend to read the bible as the literal word of god,38 whereas 62.3% of the catholics in our survey did not share this view, saying either that the bible is the word of god but should not be taken literally (40.9%) or that the bible is the work of human beings inspired by god (21.4%). 37 david bebbington says a high regard for the bible (“biblicism”) is one of their four main characteristics; see his evangelicalism in modern britain: a history from the 1730s to the 1980s (london: unwin hyman, 1989), 1–17. 38 see inbari, bumin, and byrd, “why do evangelicals support israel?”: 1-36. 37 40.9 21.4 2 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 it is the word of god and should be taken literally it is the word of god but not everything should be taken literally it is the work of humans inspired by god it is not the word of god. i don't know. which best expresses what you think about the bible? 17.4 35.9 24.7 23.1 4.4 24.7 24.6 46.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 never seldom once a week to once or twice a month daily to at least twice a week how often do you read the bible? catholics evangelicals bumin, cunningham, gregerman, inbari: american catholic attitudes 14 taken together, these results might help explain why evangelical christians in greater numbers than catholic christians acknowledge ongoing jewish covenantal life with god. catholics may be less likely to read the old testament’s covenantal affirmations and are thus less inclined to read them literally or apply them to today. this conclusion has relevance for the subject of catholic attitudes toward the israeli-palestinian conflict, as will be seen below. catholic educators and preachers might well be concerned that over one-third of the respondents stated that the bible is the word of god and should be taken literally, an opinion that is contrary to catholic teaching and is a nearer to a viewpoint that the catholic church criticizes as “fundamentalist.”39 these results indicate that catholics need more explicit formation in the bible and its interpretation according to the catholic understanding that “holy scripture, inasmuch as it is the ‘word of god in human language,’ has been composed by human authors in all its various parts and in all the sources that lie behind them.”40 4. catholics and the israeli-palestinian conflict our survey yields significant insights about the attitudes of american catholics toward the israeli-palestinian conflict. their replies can also be compared with those given in a 2021 survey of evangelical christians the year before.41 it might be noted at the outset that 68.4% of the catholic respondents and 64.5% of the evangelicals said they were not very knowledgeable about the conflict. given the widespread perception of intense evangelical interest in the events in the middle east, the similarity in these catholic and evangelical responses is surprising. when asked whom they supported in the israeli-palestinian dispute, the catholics surveyed were three times more likely to support israel than palestinians. 42 11.4% supported palestinians in 39 pbc, “interpretation of the bible,” §i, f: “the fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the bible for ready answers to the problems of life. it can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. it injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.” 40 see ibid, §i, a. 41 bumin and inbari, “in the shadow of 2021 gaza conflict.” on evangelical christian support for israel there is a vast literature. see yaakov ariel, an unusual relationship: evangelical christians and jews (new york: new york university press, 2013): 82-110, 171-97; jason olson, america’s road to jerusalem: the impact of the six-day war on protestant politics (lanham: lexington books, 2018); stephen spector, evangelicals and israel: the story of american christian zionism (new york: oxford university press, 2009); and daniel hummel, covenant brothers: evangelicals, jews, and u.s-israel relations (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2019). 42 in the options for this question, we referred to israel (meaning the state, not the israeli people) and to the palestinians (a people, not a governmental and territorial entity that represents this people). on this complex terminological question we thought it important to acknowledge that this conflict pits stateless people against a nation-state. exacerbating this disparity, the palestinian government has been fragmented since 2006, with hamas in control of gaza and the palestinian authority controlling the west bank. as a result, asking ordinary americans, who may be poorly uninformed about this conflict, about the palestinian government may be more confusing than clear. similarly, asking respondents about their support for israeli people, rather than israel, can lead to responses that are difficult to interpret. many israelis do not support the occupation policies of the state of israel and some of the israeli citizens are not members of the titular nationality (jews) and perceive the israeli-palestinian dispute in a fundamentally different way. the terminology we use here (the palestinians vs. israel) therefore presents a clearer, more consistent, and more accurate representation of the nature of the dispute. moreover, this terminology reflects a common approach 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) varying degrees (very strong support: 3.8%; support: 2.8%; lean toward support: 4.8%), whereas 34.8% supported israel (very strong support: 11.5%; support: 10.7%; lean toward support: 12.6%). more than half supported neither side (35.1%) or did not know how they felt about the conflict (18.7%). evangelicals were even stronger in their support for israel over the palestinians. in the 2021 survey, 19.4% supported palestinians to varying degrees, 50% supported israel, and 31% supported neither.43 using open-ended questions, the survey also invited the catholic respondents to explain their preferences with regard to where they placed their support.44 411 explained why they supported neither side: they lacked sufficient knowledge or did not have reasons for their views (161), the conflict is not their problem (77), or they are neutral vis-à-vis the belligerents (48). a few respondents gave religious reasons for supporting neither: christian love for all (13), their catholic identity (8), or god’s ownership of the contested land (4). others wrote that both israelis and palestinians are equal (16), both act improperly or immorally (26), both need to stop fighting (13), they did not want to judge (14), or it is too complicated to decide (8). although the affirmation for many surveys over the last 75 years. gallup, pew, roper, and other major surveys often refer to israel and the palestinians in relevant questions. 43 ibid. however, the 2021 study of evangelicals differed significantly from earlier research in 2018 when more than 75% of the evangelicals reported support for israel. respondents in the 2021 sample were presumably exposed to more negative coverage of israel than respondents in the 2018 sample, as analyzed in inbari, bumin, and byrd, “why do evangelicals support israel?” (2021). in fact, the timing of the 2021 survey was deliberate. bumin and inbari wanted to survey evangelical and born-again christians shortly after the gaza conflict (may 10-21, 2021) in order to assess how attitudes changed as a result of the violence and respondents’ exposure to the media coverage of the conflict (much of it critical of israel). 44 sometimes more than one explanation was provided about a certain point, which can result in a greater number of responses than write-in respondents. 3.8 2.8 4.8 35.1 12.6 10.7 11.5 7.4 5.3 6.7 30.6 13.8 10.8 25.4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 strongly support palestinians support palestinians lean toward palestinians support neither lean toward israel support israel strongly support israel support for israel or palestinians compared catholics evangelicals bumin, cunningham, gregerman, inbari: american catholic attitudes 16 of the rights of both palestinians and israelis to live in safety and security is the official diplomatic position of the holy see,45 none of the respondents cited this as their reason for their opinion. of those who indicated that they supported israel, 424 provided a written explanation of their positions. some offered religious reasons: god promised the land to the jews (112), biblical israel possessed the land first (77), jews believe in the same god (15), or jews are god’s or jesus’ people (14). others gave social or political explanations: palestinians are aggressors or terrorists (72), jews are entitled to a homeland (19), israel is an ally of the united states (12), and/or israel needs help (8). some stated that they did not know why they supported israel or that they just did (56), while others gave vague or highly subjective or personal reasons such as israel is better or more peaceful, i like israelis better, or jews are better people (44). a small number (11) said they supported both israel and palestinians after first stating support for israel. 136 of those who supported palestinians gave written explanations. 31 described palestinians as the victims (31). some gave reasons that mirrored ideas given by more pro-israel respondents: palestinians were on the land first (26), they believe in the same god (11), or they deserve a state (9). some said they like palestinians better (5), or they did not know why they supported the palestinians (23). comparatively very few gave explicitly religious reasons for supporting palestinians. in addition to saying they both believe in the same god (noted above), respondents said palestinians believe in god (11), respondents were motivated by christian love (1), or jews lost the land by the will of god (3). a small number (10) said they supported both palestinians and israel after first stating their support of palestinians. the catholic survey, like the 2021 evangelical survey, asked what the participants thought of united states foreign policy with regard to the israel-palestinian conflict. among catholics, 25.7% advocated that the u.s. embrace a pro-israel policy (compared to 41.1% among evangelicals), 5.8% advocated a pro-palestinian policy (compared to 10.3% among evangelicals), and 52.6% wanted the united states not to take sides (compared to 37.6% of evangelicals). a few more catholics said they did not know how to answer this question than evangelicals (15.9% vs. 11% respectively). 45 e.g., pope john paul ii, “address to the viennese jewish community,” june 24, 1998: “[e]very initiative of the holy see has to be understood, when it tries to seek the recognition of equal dignity for the jewish people in the state of israel and for the palestinian people. … [t]he jewish people have a right to a homeland like any other nation, according to international law. the same goes also for the palestinian people, many of whom are homeless and refugees. by a common readiness of understanding and compromise solutions can be found which lead to a just, comprehensive, and lasting peace in this area.” https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/pope-john-paul-ii/jp2-88june24. many scholars have studied the catholic church’s views of israel (both the state and the land); for discussions of some of the theological issues, see anthony kenny, catholics, jews, and the state of israel (new york and mahwah: paulist, 1993); richard c. lux, the jewish people, the holy land, and the state of israel (mahwah, nj: paulist, 2010); philip a. cunningham, “a catholic theology of the land? the state of the question,” studies in christian-jewish relations 8 (2013): 1-15; adam gregerman, “is the biblical land promise irrevocable?: post-nostra aetate catholic theologies of the jewish covenant and the land of israel,” modern theology 34 (2018): 137-58; and gavin d’costa, catholic doctrines on the jewish people after vatican ii (oxford: oxford university press, 2019) 64-143. https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/jp2-88june24 https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/jp2-88june24 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) for both groups, a sizeable proportion of respondents either did not want to support either side or wanted american policy to be neutral. this was especially prominent among the catholic respondents, suggesting a greater tendency to support balanced policies. we also addressed more explicitly religious topics. for example, more than twice as many evangelicals as catholics say that the teachings of their church make them more supportive of israel (52.1% vs. 20.5%). of catholics, 72.1% say church teachings have nothing to do with their views (whether in support of israel or the palestinians) in comparison with 40% of evangelicals. more than twice as many catholics (38.8%) as evangelicals (15.7%) never hear their coreligionists talk about supporting israel. on the other hand, twice as many evangelicals (41.3%) as catholics (20.2%) hear their co-religionists talk once a month or weekly about supporting israel. the implication of this comparison is that socialization with pro-israel co-religionists appears to be a significant determinant of evangelicals’ higher levels of support for israel and may explain the comparatively lower levels observed among catholics. inbari and bumin’s statistical analyses confirm that socialization with pro-israel evangelicals is one of the most consequential predictors of support for israel among the members of this religious community.46 analyses of the data on catholics, however, fail to yield a statistically-significant result for such socialization dynamics. in addition, the survey asked if jews today have the right to the land of israel by virtue of the covenant god made with abraham (in genesis 12:7; 15:7; 17:8, and elsewhere). of the catholics, 45.3% responded affirmatively, while 38.4% said they did not know and 16.3% answered negatively. this contrasts with evangelical responses to the same question. 68.2% thought that jews today had rights to the land of israel because of the abrahamic covenant—a difference of over 20% with catholics—while 23.5% said they did not know and 8.3% answered that they disagreed. 46 inbari, bumin, and byrd, “why do evangelicals support israel?”: 17-18. 25.7 5.8 52.6 15.9 41.1 10.3 37.6 11.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 israel palestinians remain neutral/not take sides don't know should u.s. policy favor israel or the palestinians? catholics evangelicals bumin, cunningham, gregerman, inbari: american catholic attitudes 18 in other words, catholics were less inclined than evangelicals to invoke scripture in current geopolitical debates. although it seems unlikely that the 55% of catholic participants in the survey who said they did not know or answered negatively to the question about the abrahamic covenant were aware of formal vatican statements that caution against citing the bible with regard to the israeli-palestinian conflict,47 their replies were in line with them. it might be conjectured that these results reflect less emphasis among catholics on the bible, which they do not see as the sole authority for grappling with contemporary issues. this might also connect with the responses elsewhere in the survey that 66.6% of the catholics reported that they read the bible never, seldom, or once or twice a month, and only 23% that they read it at least once a week or every day. this is in contrast to the 53.5% of evangelicals who read it frequently and 37.7% who read it infrequently. 47 see especially the crrj, “notes”: “the existence of the state of israel and its political options should be envisaged not in a perspective which is in itself religious, but in their reference to the common principles of international law” (§vi, 25). 45.3 16.3 38.4 68.1 8.3 23.6 0 20 40 60 80 yes no don't know do jews today have rights to the land of israel because of abraham’s covenant? catholics evangelicals 11.5 7.4 35.2 20 25.9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 disagree strongly (1-2) tend to disagree (3-4) uncertain (5-6) tend to agree (7-8) agree strongly (9-10) the land of israel belongs to the jewish people today based on biblical promises 19 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) similar catholic responses resulted from the closely related question elsewhere in the survey that asked if participants agreed (on a scale of 1-10) with the statement that the land of israel belongs to the jewish people today based on biblical promises. again, while more catholics were inclined to agree with the statement (45.9%) rather than disagree (18.9%), many respondents (35.2%) expressed uncertainty. perhaps as one might expect, the percentage who agreed with this statement is almost identical to the percentage who agreed that jews have rights to the land based on abraham’s covenant (45.3%). for both of these two related questions—whether jews today have a right to the land of israel because of biblical promises or god’s covenant with abraham—catholics, unsurprisingly, were more likely to respond positively if they had social contact with jews. they were also more likely to agree with both statements if they read the bible literalistically and so more likely to apply biblical texts to contemporary geopolitical issues. on the other hand, catholics who believe that jewish covenantal life with god endures (which is catholic teaching) also were more likely to answer these two questions affirmatively, meaning that the covenant has consequences for current geopolitical matters (which is not catholic teaching). this suggests that the opinions of the respondents were not directly shaped by official catholic teaching, which perhaps coheres with 72.1% stating that church teachings have nothing to do with their support for israel or the palestinians (in comparison with 40% of evangelicals in the 2021 bumin-inbari survey). 5. familiarity with current catholic teaching as noted early in this article, since the catholic church has a highly centralized teaching authority or magisterium, it has been possible to compare the ideas of american catholics with the official beliefs and teachings of their church, some of which have changed or evolved since the issuance of nostra aetate in 1965.48 the survey gives the overall impression that the respondents generally have positive attitudes of and good relationships with american jews and do not hold the anti-jewish views that were common before the second vatican council, such as holding that all jews were guilty of the rejection and crucifixion of jesus. at the same time, the respondents seemed unacquainted with the details of post-conciliar official teachings of the catholic church on jews and judaism. the survey assessed both how well respondents thought they knew church teaching and how well they actually did know it. first, respondents were asked on a scale of 1 to 10 to rate their knowledge of “catholic church teachings about jews.” nearly 40% were confident about their level of knowledge with regard to contemporary catholic teaching. 18.6% claimed to be very familiar, and another 20% said they were moderately familiar. only a small number (22%) claimed to be very or somewhat unfamiliar. 48 two recent surveys of church teachings on jews and judaism are cunningham, seeking shalom and d’costa, catholic doctrines. bumin, cunningham, gregerman, inbari: american catholic attitudes 20 we reviewed the responses of the entire sample to several relevant questions to assess whether they were congruent with ecclesiastical teaching or not, as has been discussed by topic above. to summarize:  when asked in two distinct questions if jews enjoy a special or covenantal relationship with god, less than half of the survey participants thought so (35.9% and 41.7%). this is contrary to catholic doctrine which teaches that god made with jews “a covenant of eternal love which was never revoked.”49  70% of the respondents stated that “the jews” were not to blame for the crucifixion of jesus, which agrees with catholic teaching. however, 30% either did hold jews responsible or did not know whom to hold accountable, which does not represent catholic teaching.  most respondents (67.1%) supported having non-conversionary interreligious dialogue with jews, which accords with the catholic church’s position. those who supported efforts to convert jews (12.7%) were often biblical literalists and/or felt (incorrectly) they were familiar catholic teaching.  over one-third of the respondents stated that the bible is the word of god and should be taken literally, an opinion that is contrary to catholic teaching and is a nearer to a viewpoint that the catholic church criticizes as “fundamentalist.”50 this is significant because those with this perspective about the bible were more likely to blame “the jews” for the crucifixion and to think that jewish covenantal life had ended.  the majority of the respondents either did not support one side over the other (35.1%) or did not know whom to support (18.7%) in the israeli-palestinian conflict. this is in harmony with the vatican’s typically even-handed policy.51 on the other hand, almost 49 pope john paul ii, “address to the american jewish leaders,” september 11, 1983, §1: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1987/september/documents/hf_jpii_spe_19870911_jewish-org.html 50 pbc, “interpretation” §i, f, “fundamentalism.” 51 e.g., pope benedict xvi, “farewell address to president mahmoud abbas,” may 13, 2009: “[i] urge those involved in peace negotiations to work towards a just solution that respects the legitimate aspirations of israelis and palestinians 22 39.3 20 18.5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 very unfamiliar (1-3) somewhat unfamiliar (4-6) moderately familiar (7-8) very familiar (9-10) how familiar are you with catholic teachings about jews? https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1987/september/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19870911_jewish-org.html https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1987/september/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19870911_jewish-org.html 21 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) three times as many catholics supported israel over the palestinians (34.8% vs. 13.4%). additionally, most respondents were hesitant to appeal to the bible for solutions to the contemporary clash, which is consistent with catholic teaching. nonetheless, many (just under 50%) also affirmed a jewish right to the land based on both abraham’s covenant and the biblical promises. in other words, on this topic there is a mixed picture about consistency with relevant catholic teaching or policy. beyond these observations, there was additional and paradoxical evidence that anti-jewish sentiments were 19.5% more likely among those who claimed to be very familiar with catholic teaching, 15.6% more likely among those who said they were greatly influenced by the catholic church in their political, social, and moral values, and 19.2% more likely among regular church goers.52 as noted at the outset, we did not in this article treat the survey’s results with regard to the demographics of the respondents. however, it should be mentioned that the respondents’ age played a significant role. fewer respondents under 30 years old said that jews enjoy an ongoing relationship with god than older ones (30% vs. 36.8%). similarly, 32.5% of catholics under 30 thought that jewish covenantal life with god continues, while 43.1% of older catholics thought so. 15.6% of young catholics as compared with 6.5% of older catholics thought that the jewish covenant with god had ended. catholics over 30 were more seriously worried about antisemitism (40.2%) than those under 30 (24.4%).53 one can speculate about possible reasons for these results. for instance, younger catholics had socialized less with jewish friends than older catholics (60.6% vs. 70.3%) and had less job experience working alongside jews (37.5% vs. 58.5%). these divergent results according to the age of the catholic respondents also comport well with the findings by inbari and bumin among evangelical and born-again christians, where the age of a respondent was one of the strongest predictors of support for israel in the israelipalestinian dispute, even after controlling for the effects of theological and political factors. the authors found across multiple surveys that the under-30 evangelicals were significantly less proisrael than the older generations.54 similar findings for catholics could point to broader generational differences in american society across different religious groups.55 another trend was that more regular churchgoers were 19.2% more likely to have negative ideas about jews and judaism than infrequent worshippers. similarly, those who said they were very familiar with catholic teachings about jews were 19.5% more likely to be supersessionists. taken together, these findings both about age and about catholic knowledge and practice suggest that catholic religious education and/or catholic liturgy are not currently promoting alike.” https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2009/may/documents/hf_benxvi_spe_20090513_farewell-betlemme.html 52 anti-jewish sentiments in this instance are proxied by respondents’ assent that jews were cursed by god or replaced by christians in god’s favor. these results reflect examination of odds ratios of the ordinal logistic regression. 53 additionally, some confirmatory results that were within or close to the margin of error of +/-3.2% showed that catholics under 30 were more likely than older catholics to believe that jews were cursed by god (6.3% vs. 4%) or replaced by christians (11.3% vs. 8.7%). 54 motti inbari and kirill bumin, christian zionism in the twenty-first century: evangelical public opinion on israel (oxford university press, forthcoming 2024). 55 on the decline in support for israel among younger americans see: amnon cavari and guy freeman, american public opinion toward israel: from consensus to divide (new york and london: routledge, 2021), 102-107. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2009/may/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20090513_farewell-betlemme.html https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2009/may/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20090513_farewell-betlemme.html bumin, cunningham, gregerman, inbari: american catholic attitudes 22 “genuine brotherhood with the people of the covenant”56 as well as might be hoped. many respondents, despite positive views of jews and judaism, seemed unacquainted (or—less likely— disagreed) with post-conciliar teachings of the catholic church. this may suggest that except for fundamental doctrines (e.g., jews cannot be collectively blamed for the crucifixion of jesus) american catholic views arise less from detailed knowledge of catholic teaching than from living in a society that is pluralistic and in which members of different religious groups often interact.57 recognizing that only a minority of american catholics are regular churchgoers and that the number of catholic grammar and high schools is declining, the survey nonetheless points to a need in catholic formation for more focused preaching and education about ongoing jewish covenantal life and catholic principles of biblical interpretation. it particular, the survey indicates that the vatican directive that “the jews and judaism should not occupy an occasional and marginal place in catechesis: their presence there is essential and should be organically integrated,”58 has not been measurably enacted. conclusion roman catholic leaders historically taught contempt for jews. preachers in every age blamed jews collectively for crucifying jesus, taught that the church had replaced jews as god’s chosen people, and insisted that only baptism would save jews from god’s curse upon them. almost sixty years ago, during the second vatican council, the catholic church repudiated such teachings. this first-of-a-kind survey shows that the attitudes of american catholics toward jews reveal little of that traditional hostility. still, it also demonstrates that relevant catholic teachings on jews and judaism have not been well communicated to the american catholic population. we were fortunate to be able to compare catholic attitudes to those of american evangelicals; thus, we were able to find significant similarities and differences. to get a fuller picture of catholics’ attitudes toward jews and israel, a good way to move forward would be to compare catholics in europe, south america, the middle east, and elsewhere. such research should examine to what extent catholicism worldwide is impacted by church teachings, how the church’s official views are being received, and to what extent catholics are influenced by their non-catholic surroundings. sixty years after nostra aetate, it is timely to examine how catholics worldwide have responded to it. studying american catholic attitudes toward jews uncovers only one piece of a larger puzzle. 56 pope john paul ii, “confession of sins against the people of israel” at the mass for pardon at saint peter’s basilica, march 12, 2000 (https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/jp2-00mar12) and “prayer at the western wall,” march 26, 2000 (jubilee pilgrimage to the https://www.vatican.va/content/johnpaul-ii/en/speeches/2000/jan-mar/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000326_jerusalem-prayer.html holy land: prayer at the western wall (march 26, 2000) | john paul ii (vatican.va). 57 the current survey does not allow us to analyze to what extent the attitudes of american catholics are determined by their catholic or by their american backgrounds. this deserves further investigation. 58 crrj, “notes,” (§i, 2). https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/jp2-00mar12 https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2000/jan-mar/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000326_jerusalem-prayer.html https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2000/jan-mar/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000326_jerusalem-prayer.html https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2000/jan-mar/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000326_jerusalem-prayer.html moving the christian-jewish dialogue to a new level: can it happen? studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 conference proceeding moving the christian-jewish dialogue to a new level: can it happen? john t. pawlikowski, osm catholic theological union delivered at the stadt heidelberg-iccj agreement, heidelberg, germany, march 2008 in an address to the annual meeting of the catholic theological society of america in 1986 the canadian theologian gregory baum, who served as an expert at vatican council ii and worked on the council document nostra aetate, argued that "the church's recognition of the spiritual status of the jewish religion is the most dramatic example of doctrinal turn-about in the age-old magisterium ordinarium to occur at the council." for centuries western christian theology, beginning with that of most of the major second century church fathers, was infected with a viewpoint which saw the church as replacing "old" israel in the covenantal relationship with god. this replacement theology relegated jews to a miserable and marginal status which could be overcome only through conversion. nostra aetate, together with many parallel protestant documents, fundamentally changed christianity's theological posture relative to jews and judaism that had permeated its theology, art, and pastoral practice for nearly eighteen hundred years. jews were now to be seen as integral to the ongoing divine covenant. jesus and early christianity were portrayed as deeply rooted in a constructive sense in the religiosity of second temple judaism (particularly its pharisaic branch). jews were not to be held collectively accountable for the death of jesus. vatican ii did not "forgive" jews of the so-called crime of deicide as some newspaper headlines proclaimed. rather it argued that there existed no basis for such a charge in the first place. certainly the past four decades have seen substantial, even monumental, changes in the way christians present jews and judaism in their educational materials, in understanding and combating anti-semitism, and in incorporating the reality of the shoah into their religious consciousness. though the situation is quite different in terms of jewish perceptions of christianity, there is no question that many jews now look far more positively on the church. the christian-jewish relationship today differs greatly from what it was fifty years ago. we must not lose sight of this new reality as we ask what developments are still needed and what obstacles still remain as we prepare to move to the next level in our relationship. an initial step that must be taken if the thrust of nostra aetate, §4 is to be advanced is determined opposition to those forces attempting to vitiate the fundamental theological significance of this council statement on the church and the jewish people. current voices, primarily within conservative circles in rome, are arguing that nostra aetate was only a "pastoral document” with no theological implications. the undiluted nonsense of this position must be made clear. in its utter reversal of the classical christian view of the jewish people's covenantal exclusion after the coming of christ, a view that had significant impact on the church's articulation of christology, nostra aetate cannot be seen as anything but theological. to say otherwise is to radically distort the vision of vatican ii. pawlikowski, moving the dialogue to a new level cp1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 in recent years in the usa cardinal avery dulles has been asserting that vatican ii never resolved the question of jewish covenantal inclusion from a christian perspective. his first strong attack was on those who argued that it did in the context of a study document issued by the ongoing dialogue between the national council of synagogues and the catholic bishops' secretariat for catholic-jewish relations in the united states. in a major address at the 2005 washington conference celebrating the fortieth anniversary of nostra aetate he continued and in some ways deepened this attack, maintaining that we need to reintroduce the teaching of the letter to the hebrews in which several passages appear to present the jewish covenant as abrogated after christ. this presentation subsequently appeared in the conservative publication first things.1 certainly nostra aetate did not resolve all questions regarding a christian theological perspective on the church's relationship with judaism, including the seeming contradiction between romans 9-11, which it uses as the basic building block for its new view of judaism. and the texts in hebrews, which it does not mention. but it brought conciliar and papal authority to its selection of romans 9-11 with its insistence on jewish covenantal inclusion after christ as the prevailing text for understanding judaism's role today in a theological context. this view has been sustained in subsequent vatican statements and in several of the late pope john paul ii’s many pronouncements on christian-jewish relations. dulles stands on very, very shaky grounds in terms of the official catholic teaching. in his major address at an october 2005 commemoration of nostra aetate in rome, rabbi david rosen of the american jewish committee and currently chair of the international jewish committee for international consultations (ijcic) raised serious questions about the dulles' perspective and its status in contemporary catholicism. he was assured privately that dulles was presenting a strictly "personal" position in his presentations and articles. a joint communiqué from the ongoing dialogue between the national council of synagogues and the u.s. catholic bishops' secretariat for ecumenical and interreligious affairs also took issue with the dulles’ perspective without, however, mentioning him by name. the problem is that there has been no public challenge to dulles’ views from within the vatican or from national hierarchies. as a leading christian theologian many bishops look to dulles for leadership on theological questions. i myself have been in discussions of dulles' views where several bishops, along with one jewish speaker, wholeheartedly endorsed his position. a public – not merely a behind the scenes –reaffirmation of nostra aetate is needed at a time when many parts of vatican ii are being undermined in certain sectors of the church. there simply cannot be an advance to a new level if the basic foundation for the new dialogue launched by vatican ii is allowed to crumble. a second challenge confronting the new theology of the jewish-christian relationship which has been emerging from nostra aetate and parallel protestant documents2 is the minimal impact these documents have had on christian internal theological thinking apart from a dialogical setting. jewish participants in the dialogue with christians have at times noted this reality with dismay. they are right in expressing their concern. do these declarations on the church's relationship with the jewish people have relevance only when christians are actually speaking with jews? or are they also, with consistency, part of the intra-christian conversation about christianity’s theological identity? only if we begin to see the latter development can we say that there has been genuine reception of nostra aetate and similar protestant documents. there is a current ray of hope in this regard. in december 2006 the international council of christians and jews in partnership with the office on interreligious relations at the world council 1 see avery dulles, “the covenant with israel,” first things, nov., 2005. 2 there have been no real equivalent orthodox christian documents. pawlikowski, moving the dialogue to a new level cp2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 of churches (wcc), then headed by dr. hans ucko, sponsored a consultation on the new wcc faith and order statement on the church which is in process in boldern, switzerland. several of the key leaders working on this document met for several days with a small group of christian and jewish scholars to examine thoroughly the current text of this major document which would have significant implication for ecclesiological understanding within all three major branches of the christian community. they left the meeting with copious notes for suggested changes that would bring far greater congruity between the text of this statement on the church and the various documents on christian-jewish relations issued by various christian churches over the past four decades, as well as with current scholarly research on christian-jewish relations. if in fact they are able to integrate most of these proposed changes into the faith and order statement, as they promised they would try to do, this would mark a positive breakthrough in terms of mainstreaming the new theology of the jewish people which has been developing within the dialogue. whether their efforts will prove successful remains an open question. other rays of hope in terms of bringing the theology of the christian-jewish relationship into the mainstream of church thinking can be seen in the writings of a few noteworthy theologians such as johannes-baptist metz. he has clearly acknowledged the overall theological implications of the documents on christian-jewish relations issued by the churches in the last forty years. metz has insisted that these implications go far beyond the parameters of the christian-jewish dialogue. especially after the holocaust, metz argues, they involve "a revision of christian theology itself." but the list of christian theologians who share metz's mindset remains short. moving to the next level of the dialogue will require many more signatories. an important european church document that has recognized the validity of metz's argument is the 2001 statement from the leuenberg church fellowship, an association of the reformation churches in europe. its document church and israel, published both in german and english, emphasizes that the relationship between the church and israel is not a marginal issue for christianity. rather it represents a central dimension of ecclesiology. the relationship with israel is seen in this document as an indispensable foundation of christian faith. the church is required to reflect on its relationship with judaism because of its profound linkage to the jewish community in its beginnings. "the biblical texts referring to these beginnings" according to this document, "do not only speak of the historical origin of the church and thus of the historical relation with israel; they also form the starting point and critical point of reference (fons et iudex) for all theological reflection."3 such a declaration needs to become the rule rather than an exception in christian circles. one current effort to help move the church in this direction is the ongoing "christ and the jewish people consultation" co-sponsored by the catholic university of leuven, boston college, catholic theological union in chicago and the pontifical gregorian university in rome. as christianity enhances its global reach, the christian-jewish dialogue will have to be brought into a theological context wider than the traditional north atlantic setting. in response to the recent urgings of a number of scholars, we need to recognize anew the historic theologies of the east where christian identity has often been expressed in ways quite different from western christian theologies which are so often premised on the church as the replacement for israel in the divine-human covenantal relationship. today moving beyond the common dominance of western theology in the christian-jewish dialogue will require extending the impact of nostra aetate and its sister statements to theological discussions in africa and asia. through a cameroon conference co-sponsored several years ago by the world jewish congress and the world 3 see church and israel: a contribution from the reformation churches in europe to the relationship between christians and jews, june 24, 2001 at: http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=1009 . pawlikowski, moving the dialogue to a new level cp3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=1009 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 council of churches and through the writings of a few asian theologians such as peter phan, a very modest beginning has been made in this regard. but the vatican concern regarding phan's writings, including his reflections on the christian-jewish relationship,4 coupled with the attitudes of influential asian theologians such as wesley ariarajah, formerly of the world council of churches, who belittles any theological significance for jesus' jewishness (which he acknowledges) will continue to be a major challenge to such outreach. as a christian theologian in the dialogue who has pursued the issues from the christian perspective i am compelled to assert that jews also will have to re-examine the classical jewish theology of christianity, such as it is. admittedly, the situation for judaism in this regard bears little parallel to the challenge faced by christians. however, the groundbreaking jewish document dabru emet will need to gain greater respect within the jewish theological community along with the writings of such scholars as irving greenberg, elliot wolfson, daniel boyarin, michael signer, david novak, edward kessler, michael kogan, and byron sherwin, all of whom have reflected in new and differing ways on the jewish-christian relationship. new joint jewish-christian scholarship is also fundamentally reconceiving our understanding of the so-called "parting of the ways" through such projects as the joint oxford university-princeton university study group. this poses significant questions for the theological identities of both the jewish and the christian communities as it increasingly moves in the direction of showing that jesus never intended to begin a totally new religious community in his own lifetime and that jews and christians remained interlocked for several centuries under a wide jewish umbrella. if this new scholarship on the first several centuries becomes the dominant interpretation it will pose fundamental challenges especially for christian theological self-identity and for jewish identity as well. the open question is whether either or both communities will be able to entertain such challenges or will fearfully retreat to their conventual theological outlooks on the jewish-christian relationship on the grounds that "faith" cannot be determined by historical scholarship. thus far this increased re-examination of the so-called “parting of the ways" clearly has had little or no impact on theological perceptions of the jewish-christian relationship among important religious leaders and scholars. one example of such “non-influence" can be found in the recent theological exchange between pope benedict xvi and the renowned jewish scholar jacob neusner which has been highly praised in certain christian and jewish circles. it appears that neither contributor to this discussion is aware of this new scholarship. each continues to perpetuate standard, but increasingly shaky, descriptions of the history and nature of the split between the two faith communities now being relegated to the category of "stereotypes." one notable exception to this prevailing lack of awareness of the new scholarship was the late cardinal joseph bernardin of chicago. a genuine pioneer in rethinking christian-jewish relations at the episcopal level, bernardin embraced the views of dr. robin scroggs, an important biblical scholar involved in the new research on "the parting of the ways." scroggs has taught at chicago theological seminary and union theological seminary in new york. in his effort to simplify the very complex picture that is emerging of the first several centuries of the common era scroggs emphasizes the following points: (1) the movement begun by jesus and continued after his death in palestine can best be described as a reform movement within judaism. little or no evidence exists to suggest a separate sense of identity within the emerging christian community; (2) paul understood his mission to the gentiles as fundamentally a mission out of judaism which aimed at extending god's original and continuing call to the jewish people to the gentiles; (3) it is difficult to speak of a separate christian reality prior to the end of the jewish 4 phan was a signatory of a sacred obligation: rethinking christian faith in relation to judaism and the jewish people, the september 1, 2002 statement by the christian scholars group on christian-jewish relations. pawlikowski, moving the dialogue to a new level cp4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 war with the romans in 70 ce. followers of jesus did not seem on the whole to understand themselves as part of a religion separate from judaism. a distinctive christian identity began to develop only after the roman-jewish war. the research which postdates that of scroggs tends to push the separation even later, perhaps as late as the fourth century. certainly there were distinctive identities such as "jewish," "jewish christian," "christian jews," "gentiles," but these groups did not necessarily view their "distinctiveness" as a reason for total separation. some scholars today would argue that even "christ worship" did not bring about a total split; (4) the later parts of the new testament do exhibit the beginnings of some sense of distancing often leading to hostility towards each other (some would argue that "synagogue of satan" language in the gospel of john is the result of such hostility among rival christian jewish groups). in my judgment, the degree to which we advance the dialogue in the coming years will be determined by whether and how we incorporate this significantly new understanding of "parting of the ways," in either faith community.. it is never easy for any religious community to readjust its basic faith identity. most christian churches took a major step in that direction with their repudiation of theologies of jewish covenantal displacement which frequently served as an important cornerstone of their christological affirmations. only time will tell whether a second step can be taken by the christian community and a first step by the jewish community in response to the emergent consciousness that the account of the jewish-christian separation is simply not as as it has been presented for centuries. this new scholarship will certainly have great significance for liturgy or worship, an area still largely untouched by nostra aetate and the parallel protestant documents. in 1988 the u.s. catholic bishops' committee on liturgy in collaboration with the secretariat for ecumenical and interreligious affairs issued an excellent document on the impact of the new thinking on christian-jewish relations on worship. regrettably this document, god's mercy endures forever, received virtually no promotion and is basically unknown among liturgists. while there has been talk of it being reissued, the current climate in the catholic church leaves little room for optimism. the controversy regarding appropriate prayer for the jewish people in catholic liturgy has been with us since the time of pope john xxiii. prior to vatican council ii john xxiii removed the term "perfidious" from the good friday prayer. just before the council’s promulgation of the declaration on the church and the jewish people in 1965, pope paul vi eliminated the negative language about the jews (e.g., their "blindness") from the good friday liturgy. however, the prayer's basic conversionist tone was left intact. the 1970 missal, the definitive response to the liturgical changes mandated by vatican ii, further revised the 1965 prayer by positively acknowledging the jewish people's faithfulness to god and by leaving open-ended what might be the eschatological resolution of the apparent conflict between notions of christ's universal salvific action and ongoing jewish covenantal commitment. this prayer is clearly in the spirit of nostra aetate which totally rejected the almost two millennia of christian theological perspectives on the jews without offering a definitive replacement. it left that task to subsequent generations of theologians and biblical scholars, a task which they in fact have taken up since the end of the council. in an official international vatican-jewish dialogue in venice in 1977 professor tomaso federici, a lay scholar highly respected in vatican circles, proposed that in light of nostra aetate catholicism should formally renounce any proselytizing of the jews. the official published version of his paper, which appeared only several years later, was altered to call for a rejection of "undue" proselytizing. cardinal walter kasper, a few years ago, argued in his writings that there is no pawlikowski, moving the dialogue to a new level cp5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 need to proselytize jews because they have authentic revelation and in virtue of the perspective of vatican ii remain in the covenant. he did add, however, that catholicism must retain a notion of christ's universal salvific work. unfortunately he failed to pursue further how these two theological affirmations might be authentically integrated. the controversial statement "reflections on covenant and mission"5 issued as a study document from the ongoing dialogue between the usccb's secretariat for ecumenical and interreligious affairs and the national council of synagogues which has drawn praise from cardinal edward idris cassidy, cardinal kasper's predecessor, and the statement from the ecumenical scholars' group on christian-jewish relations "a sacred obligation"6 both called for a cessation of missionizing towards jews. cardinal avery dulles wrote a strong critique of the former.7 the discussion about the good friday prayer for the jews in the context of pope benedict's motu proprio on the latin liturgy began in the summer of 2007 when word began to emerge that the document was on the horizon. groups long associated with efforts at christian-jewish understanding after vatican ii such as the committee of german catholics and jews, the international council of christians and jews, the austrian coordinating council on christian-jewish relations, and the north american council of centers on christian-jewish relations, among others, sent messages to the vatican urging that the latin version of the 1970 prayer be inserted into the 1962 missal for good friday. prominent church leaders such as cardinal karl lehmann of germany and the united states conference of catholic bishops weighed in as well as several jewish groups including the vatican's official jewish dialogue partner, the international jewish committee for interreligious consultations (ijcic), and the chief rabbis of israel. christians and jews were equally concerned about the prayer. it was not a one-sided jewish protest as frequently erroneously presented by the popular press. in late august the papal secretary of state cardinal bertone publicly acknowledged these concerns and suggested that the best solution might be to make the 1970 prayer the common text for both missals. this proposal, however, was disregarded with the announcement that the pope would compose a new prayer. while the papal prayer removes the most offensive language from the 1962 missal it retains a clearly conversionist perspective. it has engendered much controversy with protests coming from many countries..jewish groups in germany, italy and austria moved to suspend any catholic-jewish dialogue. reflection on the current controversy raises several points: • dialogue is very much an encounter of people, not merely an academic theological exercise. in the spirit of the vatican's own 1974 guidelines on catholic-jewish relations it is vital for catholics to come to understand, in light of the long history of christian antisemitism and the holocaust, why the issue of "conversion" strikes such a raw nerve within the jewish community. in fairness, jews will also need to appreciate that "mission" stands at the core of christian identity and hence cannot be reinterpreted easily. in the end authentic dialogue involves mutual learning. this new prayer conveys no sense of this. • jews need reassurance that use of this papal prayer will not generate new concrete pro 5 see http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/interreligious/ ncs_usccb120802.htm 6 see http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/sites/partners/csg/sacred_obligation.htm 7 see cardinal avery dulles, sj, “covenant and mission” in america, oct. 21, 2002. pawlikowski, moving the dialogue to a new level cp6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/interreligious/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 grams aimed at proselytizing jews. in recent days cardinal kasper and others have attempted to set this prayer in a totally eschatological context. cardinal kasper has argued this eschatological perspective in relation to romans 11 on which the new papal prayer is based. there was hope that clarification of the prayer from the vatican would explicitly support this eschatological interpretation, but it did not. whether such a reading endures an open question. there is little hope of changing the prayer at this point. but it is possible to leave it strictly a prayer devoid of any practical missionizing programming. • a prayer on good friday, especially given what this day often entailed historically in terms of jewish suffering, should not become the occasion for the proclamation of a definitive new theology of the church and the jewish people. the 1970 prayer is superior to the new papal prayer because it affirms jewish faithfulness without settling the question of how this impacts christian notions of ultimate salvation. that is a task for theologians not for the faithful at prayer on good friday. the theology behind this not so new prayer – which could have been written prior to vatican ii – takes no account of what gregory baum, one of the drafters of nostra aetate, has termed this document's radical transformation of ordinary catholic teaching on the jewish question which he regards as the most striking turnabout to emerge from vatican ii. • we need to recommit to the christian-jewish encounter at this critical moment. silence will get us nowhere. various christian and jewish groups, including the usccb, have spoken out for such continuation despite the pain that the papal prayer has produced. two special opportunities present themselves in the near-term. the october 2008 synod of bishops in rome will focus on the bible and has placed the issue of jewish-christian relations on its preliminary agenda. and the jubilee celebration of st. paul offers the possibility of bringing to popular attention the emerging view of paul as a person quite positive on judaism rather than merely an opponent of "the law." both of these opportunities need to be pursued in earnest as a countermeasure to the negative impact of the new prayer. the situation regarding the prayer for the jews in the 1962 missal has been handled badly from start to finish. but the controversy may still open the possibility of new learning and renewed commitment to catholic-jewish reconciliation. to advance the dialogue we shall also have to find a way to discuss the issue of the land, including the state of israel, in a way that does not polarize relations between jews and christians. some years ago in his still important book christian-jewish dialogue: theological foundations, 8 peter von der osten-sacken, drawing upon a quote from the late david flusser, put forth the issue as central for any theological discussion within the dialogue: "a christian theology of judaism that does not affirm the divinely willed tie between israel and the land is impracticable in our day." if von der osten-sacken and flusser are not taken seriously with regard to the inclusion of the land issue we will surely come under the scrutiny of the 1974 vatican guidelines issued for the tenth anniversary of nostra aetate which rightly insisted that christians must come to understand jews as they define themselves. and, as von der osten-sacken rightly argues, the vast majority of jews today see some connection to the land of israel as integral to their self-identity, as varied as the interpretation of that connection may be. noted biblical scholars such as w.d. davies and walter brueggemann stood at the core of israel's biblical tradition. and, while this tradition receives virtually no mention in the new testament, biblical scholar john townsend has shown that there is little evidence of its repudiation. in fact, if the emerging biblical scholarship 8 fortress press, 1986. pawlikowski, moving the dialogue to a new level cp7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 that places jesus and the early christian community squarely within the setting of first century judaism continues to gain support, christians will be forced into recognizing the land tradition as an integral part of early christian theology. there is no question that christianity and judaism followed separate paths as time went on, even paths marked by inherent hostility. the patristic anti-judaic theology which stressed jewish expulsion from the land as a component of the "perpetual wandering theology" of the jewish people severed jewish roots to the land in the christian mind. as christianity spread into a global setting it tended, particularly in its catholic and protestant sectors, to place a high value on "universality" as a vital element of its basic identity, marginalizing ties to the land of its origins. this theology continued to find resonance among influential twentieth century biblical scholars such as martin noth, it was this perspective which, for several decades, clearly influenced the initial vatican and papal position on zionism and the political state it conceived until the position was formally reversed in the accords signed by the vatican and the holy see during the pontificate of john paul ii. while i totally repudiate the classical "perpetual wandering theology" in christianity and do acknowledge that the "land tradition" was present within the jewish-based setting of most of early christianity, i do recognize validity in the "universality" distinction today. as i have written elsewhere, berlin, london, chicago, sao paulo, manila, etc. are as "sacred" for christianity as is jerusalem. christians do not have a sense of living in diaspora theologically in the same manner as jews. but that does not mean that i fail to acknowledge the geographic and cultural diversity within judaism nor that i regard jewish "particularity" as automatically inferior to christian “universality.” i would instead see them as existing in creative tension with one another. this is an issue that needs further exploration and development, at least partially in partnership with jewish scholars. i commend contemporary scholars such as richard lux of the sacred heart school of theology in wisconsin for beginning work on a scholarly effort in terms of the land tradition in christian theology.9 we also cannot avoid the more political discussion regarding the state of israel. while christians, given their own failures in the political area, should not preach to jews from a supposed moral high ground, there is need for the ability to mount a serious discussion about certain policies of the israeli government. i have tried to do so in connection with the last war with lebanon and more recently regarding the situation in gaza. while so-called "facts" are often manipulated by all sides, there is need for a serious conversation about these issues. while full agreement may not be reached, it will at least result in a better understanding of each other's positions. for christians the christian "just war” tradition must be drawn in to inform such situations of conflict. given the long history of this tradition, it may be that christians can assist jewish partners in thinking about such questions from a moral perspective. as jewish ethical and political theorist michael walzer argued some years ago, certain pertinent christian texts such as the u.s. conference of catholic bishops’ pastoral letter on war and peace (may 3, 1983) may enhance such discussions. a dialogue of this nature may also help christians better appreciate why basic survival questions assume such stature within contemporary jewish consciousness. any further advance in christian-jewish relations will also require that the issue of mission and evangelization be put on the table. recently pope benedict xvi strongly reiterated the central role of evangelization for christians, a statement similar to those currently coming from various protestant communities. for example, a major evangelical christian statement approved at an 9 see, for example in this volume, the article “the land of israel (eretz yisra’el) in jewish and christian understanding.” by richard lux. pawlikowski, moving the dialogue to a new level cp8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 http://etc.is/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 international conference in bermuda reiterating a christian mandate to convert jews, was seconded in a full-page statement by the world evangelical alliance published in the new york times on march 28, 2008. nowhere in statements such as these are jews explicitly exempted. the only exception at the level of christianity's top leadership is a statement some years ago by cardinal walter kasper in which he argued that there is no need to proselytize jews because they are already in a covenantal relationship with god. but kasper has never developed this "theological kernel" and has also spoken of the need to maintain a universal significance for christ without indicating how such an assertion relates to his "no proselytizing" thesis. the issue of mission and evangelization has been a difficult issue for some time. the proposed rejection of any notion of mission to the jews in documents such as the ecumenical theological statement a sacred obligation and the study document released by the ongoing dialogue between the u.s. bishops' secretariat for ecumenical and interreligious affairs and the national council of synagogues titled reflections on covenant and mission has encountered strong opposition in sectors of christianity. the southern baptists attacked these documents as well as the pontifical biblical commission's landmark statement on the jews and their scriptures in the new testament released in 2001. on this point cardinal avery dulles took strong exception to reflections on covenant and mission in his essay covenant and mission mentioned above. within catholicism the concrete effort to convert jews has never been quite as strong as within protestantism. though the issue has been pretty much kept under wraps since vatican council ii, in my view and the view of others it has remained a central, unresolved question in the christian-jewish dialogue which might surface at any moment within catholicism. as indicated above, catholic lay scholar tomasso federici spoke to it in 1978 in venice calling for the formal termination of any catholic mission to the jews on the grounds that the jews, in light of nostra aetate, were now recognized as standing within the divine covenantal framework and as possessing authentic revelation from the christian theological perspective. these same points have been used by cardinal kasper. in fact reflections on covenant and mission represents an effort to develop further the ideas kasper has put forth on mission to the jews, something he himself urged in talks at sacred heart university and boston college. this effort has also received praise from cardinal edward idris cassidy who served as president of the holy see's commission on religious relations with the jews prior to cardinal kasper. obviously there is no easy resolution of this issue of mission to the jews. mission has stood at the heart of christian self-understanding throughout the centuries. to renounce it relative to jews is to touch the very nerve center of the christian faith. some christians have argued that such a renunciation would represent a failure to love jews because there is no greater love a christian can offer anyone than the love made present in the life of jesus. certainly we must leave open the possibility of individual conversion in either direction – jew to christian or christian to jew. but as a theological principle i support cardinal kasper's argument that the church has no formal obligation to espouse the conversion of the jews to christianity through organized missionary efforts. aware that this affirmation can open a pandora's box in terms of mission and other world religions, this controversial question for christians needs serious ongoing discussion. we need to ask whether an effort to convert others does not in fact represent an outlook in which non-christians, including jews, are perceived as fundamentally inferior and hence is a basic affront to human rights and the freedom of conscience proclaimed as contemporary catholic belief in vatican ii's declaration on religious freedom. for the moment the best we can say is what a sacred obligation stated in §7: "christians should not target jews for conversion." the document then adds that "in view of our conviction that jews are in an eternal covenant with god, we pawlikowski, moving the dialogue to a new level cp9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 renounce missionary efforts directed at converting jews. at the same time, we welcome opportunities for jews and christians to bear witness to their respective experiences of god's saving ways. neither can properly claim to possess knowledge of god entirely or exclusively." in closing i briefly raise a few additional issues. the first is the need for an outreach to other world religions, especially islam, without undercutting the special nature of the jewish-christian relationship. two interrelated points must be made in this regard. firstly, when presenting points of christian self-understanding in this extended interreligious dialogue, the important changes in the church's identity emerging from the new biblical and theological insights into the christianjewish relationship must be front and center. this is especially true for the dialogue with islam (where theological exchange should be encouraged) since it involves inter-covenantal thinking. the christian-jewish relationship stands at the core of how christianity presents itself. hence this is the second point in terms of the wider interreligious dialogue: christianity's integral bonding with judaism, as the late pope john paul ii often spoke about the relationship, must become central to the way the church presents itself in these other dialogues. there is also need to indicate the relevance this emerging theology of the christian-jewish relationship has beyond the north atlantic region. as one of his many efforts to underscore this new, central challenge for the christian-jewish dialogue for the twenty-first century, dr. hans ucko, formerly of the world council of churches, co-sponsored a noteworthy conference with the world jewish congress in the west african country of the cameroons. asian scholars peter phan and wesley ariarajah have also begun to address this question recently, though in quite different ways. two somewhat interrelated opportunities currently before us must also be pursued: the october 2008 roman catholic bishops’ synod on the theme of the bible, and pope benedict xvi’s proclamation of a jubilee year in honor of st. paul, to begin in june 2008. the preliminary material developed for the bishops’ synod includes reference to the christian-jewish relationship – a theme which must be sustained in the discussions at the synod itself and in its final document. hence, bishops who will be attending the synod must be made aware of the importance of this theme and urged to speak to it. suggestions in this regard have already been put forth by the international council of christians and jews and several of its member organizations. the synod represents a golden opportunity to promote the pontifical biblical commission’s 2001 document on the jews and their scriptures in the new testament. this document, which includes several groundbreaking statements such as the argument that jewish interpretations of messianic passages in the bible have a validity of their own, must be moved to a central place in christian consciousness if it is to realize its full potential. the synod certainly provides such an opportunity. the vatican has stressed that the jubilee year in honor of st. paul should take on an ecumenical dimension. it is important that the issue of st. paul and the jews should be addressed both within the bishops’ synod and in the many conferences and events planned for the jubilee year. a key question confronting us during this jubilee year is: what image of paul will emerge? will the dominant emerging image be the paul in the book of acts which has often served as a basis for the polarizing theology of law and gospel which has done much harm to christian-jewish relations over the centuries? or will the jubilee replace that image with one based on more recent scholarship which sees paul as very positive on the torah and on judaism while he struggles to find ways to incorporate gentiles into the covenantal framework, even to the point, which the late scripture scholar raymond brown made, that if paul had fathered a son he would have had him circumcised as a sign of his continuing high regard for judaism? obviously it is my conviction that the second image must become better rooted in christian understanding if the dialogue is to pawlikowski, moving the dialogue to a new level cp10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 take a major step forward. finally, the growing complexity of the dialogue due to newly emergent conservative trends within the christian churches, particularly within catholicism, must be recognized. the promotion of jewish-christian reconciliation was born out of the overall spirit of reform launched by vatican council ii. if that reform spirit is undermined, as it appears to be in many instances today, it is bound to also specifically affect the christian-jewish dialogue. those who have spent four decades and more promoting nostra aetate have generally done so out of a more comprehensive commitment to the reforms of vatican ii. if the jewish partners in the dialogue try to isolate the christian-jewish dialogue from the efforts to undo this wider reform movement within christianity, tensions with those who have been the bulwark of the implementation of nostra aetate up till now may well arise. for many who have been deeply involved in rethinking the theology of the jewish-christian relationship over the years new models for understanding this complex relationship have begun to emerge. the language of "mother-daughter," "elder and younger brother," single/double covenant now seems inadequate. among the newly emerging images of the christian-jewish relationship is the notion of "siblings" advanced by jewish scholars alan segal and the late hayim perelmuter which argues that two new communities – rabbinic judaism and the christian church – resulted from the revolution taking place in second temple judaism. both went beyond former incarnations of judaism in their basic message. this model stresses continued bonding ("siblings" remain connected no matter distinctive they become) while also allowing for recognition that christianity is far more than judaism for the gentiles. a similar image put forth by mary boys in has god only one blessing? depicts jews and christians as "fraternal twins." positing a somewhat deeper connection between jews and christians than the "siblings" model. her model may in fact tilt a bit too much towards the "connected" rather than the "disconnected" side of the relationship. while their bondedness needs emphasis and christianity needs to recover its jewish roots, it is necessary to stress that judaism and christianity over the centuries have become distinctive religious communities. postbiblical judaism and christianity differ in significant ways in their approach to religious understanding and this must not be glossed over. theologian clark williamson, author of important works on the christian-jewish relationship such as a guest in the house of israel, argues for a basic relationship model of "partners in waiting." this more open-ended image lacks the emphasis on inherent bonding contained in the "siblings" or "fraternal twins" models. but it implies linkage in terms of future hope. there is also a sense of common witness to the world implicit in williamson’s model. the university of california scholar daniel boyarin has proposed the thesis that what finally resulted from the complex social and religious revolution in second temple judaism were two, new distinct religious communities known as rabbinic judaism and christianity. thus boyarin implies that we should image the christian-jewish relationship in terms of "co-emergent religious communities" – a perspective which accounts fairly well for the historical evidence now at hand in terms of the multiplicity of "judaisms" at the time of jesus and for the gradual process of separation which was outlined above. but it is weaker than the other images in stressing the continued bonding between church and synagogue. it is obvious to all the scholars involved in this rethinking that no simple straight lines connect biblical judaism to rabbinic judaism and christianity. certainly a connection remains, but it is not as linear as once believed. new models may well appear that will capture more adequately the complexity of the relationship. even after more than four decades since vatican ii's and the protestant community's substantial turnabout on the question, we are still at an early stage in the process of rethinking the christianjewish relationship. it took almost two millennia to forge the negative theology of religious pluralpawlikowski, moving the dialogue to a new level cp11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-12 ism which vatican ii abrogated. as christians we will likely never come to a point where our christological affirmations will lead us to a theology of religious pluralism that will be in total agreement with the perspectives of judaism or any other world religion. nor will the development of new thinking about christianity exemplified in the jewish document dabru emet resolve all theological concerns about church teachings. but in our globalized world in which interreligious understanding is not merely confined to the realm of theological ideas but directly impacts our life together as a civic community we can ill afford to shrink from the challenge. pawlikowski, moving the dialogue to a new level cp12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 john t. pawlikowski, osm studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr ccjr annual meeting proceeding what difference does a life make? reflections on jesus the jew arthur j. dewey, xavier university marc chagall, exodus. 1952. a few years ago, i believe it was during the last presidential election, some american bishops were calling for stricter enforcement of communion. only catholics in proper standing should receive the sacrament. a dear friend—an elderly jesuit, ever concerned with social justice issues—was discussing all this with me. well, the devil entered into me. i turned to him and stated that i had a problem. “what is that?” he responded. “i have a problem with jesus.” studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) “jesus?” “yes. you see, jesus was never baptized, and died a jew. and from what the authorities say, it would seem that if he entered a church today he could not receive himself!” the jesuit, earnestly considering the question, stood there stunned. in fact, he had no answer and soon found he had to get to an appointment. despite the playfulness of this incident, there is a serious issue at stake. yeshua bar mariamne, jesus, son of mariam, jesus, the nazorene, jesus, the jew, still lurks in the social memory of the west and disturbs the subconscious recesses of christians and jews. it is as if there have been numerous attempts to remove the traces of his circumcision, despite the fact that the holy foreskin was located in numerous churches through the middle ages. indeed, since the second century, and particularly from the fourth, there have been significant efforts to cover the matter up through theological sleights of hand. i should add here that forgetfulness in the ancient world does not come about through simple erasure but through replacement. a roman temple or a jewish synagogue, for example, does not simply deteriorate but is reconfigured, replaced, or built over by a church. we need to ask why and how was the jewish jesus replaced? yet, at the same time, there is that disturbing fact—the jewish jesus—continued to survive. as freud and others have pointed out a great deal of antisemitism comes from christians’ unwillingness to recognize the jew within their deepest dreams. it has been, however, my experience over my years of teaching that for many jesus is so removed from history that he cannot be imagined as jewish. occasionally i ask my students whether the fact that jesus was a jew makes a difference to them. some exhibit the tolerant idealism of contemporary youth. they see studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr no reason even to wonder about this, just as they would have no problem with the possibility of jesus having been married or gay. but others are stunned by the question. as one young woman in a recent honors class frankly declared, she had never imagined such a possibility. she had gone to catholic schools all her life and now was at xavier. somehow an incredible miracle has occurred in the process of transmitting the story of jesus: the very traces of jesus’ jewishness had been completely removed. how is this possible? let me illustrate it this way. often, when introducing the question of the historical jesus, i juxtapose two images. first comes the 2001 forensic reconstruction undertaken by the bbc of a skull dated to firstcentury israel. then i present the mosaic of an imperial jesus found in the bishop’s palace in ravenna from the fifth century. of course, the reconstructed face, swarthy, low browed, and distinctly non-aryan, is not an image of the historical jesus. but neither is the beardless roman, clad in royal purple and military breastplate, offering in one hand an open codex and with the other bearing a cross-turned-pike over his shoulder. indeed, tellingly this dominant figure’s right foot is stepping down on the neck of the lion of judah. both of these images convey much of the sweep of history. they speak first of all to what we do and do not know. we have no clue as to jesus’ appearance; no coins or statues honored crucified peasants. the first-century palestinian skull, in fact, was reconstructed using the physiological characteristics typical of the region. now when it comes to jesus’ words and deeds we have only the fragments that have survived the push and shove of history. but from these literary remnants, however, nt scholarship has been able to learn a great deal. we can detect a creative sage who tempted his listeners with a kaleidoscopic vision of the empire of god. we can see indications that he was a healer who dared to break the boundaries of table fellowship. we can also register the sober studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 8 (2013) note that his death was a public execution, designed to erase him from memory. of course, the roman authorities failed in their purpose: the followers of jesus did not forget him. recent scholarship has attempted for some time to realize and plumb the diverse and complex responses of his followers to his fate. rudolf bultmann succinctly summed this up by saying that the “preacher became the preached.” but this paradoxical quip does not fully explain how a jewish peasant ended up in roman imperial armor. briefly in touching on the jewishness of jesus we can say: i. the work of nt scholarship suggests that jesus was a jewish sage, a distinct jewish voice, among a number of competing jewish voices. let us hear a few of his words: matthew 5: "as you know, we once were told, `you are to love your neighbor' and `you are to hate your enemy.' {44}but i tell you: love your enemies and pray for your persecutors. {45}you'll then become children of your father in the heavens. <god> causes the sun to rise on both the bad and the good, and sends rain on both the just and the unjust. {46}tell me, if you love those who love you, why should you be commended for that? even the toll collectors do as much, don't they? {47}and if you greet only your friends, what have you done that is exceptional? even the pagans do as much, don't they? {48}to sum up, you are to be unstinting in your generosity in the way your heavenly father's generosity is unstinting." matthew 5: don't react violently against the one who is evil: when someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other as well. {40}if someone is determined to sue you for your shirt, let that person have your coat along with it. {41}further, when anyone conscripts you for one mile, go along an extra mile. luke 12: {22}he said to his disciples, "that's why i tell you: don't fret about life---what you're going to eat---or about your studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr body---what you're going to wear. {23}remember, there is more to living than food and clothing. {24}think about the crows: they don't plant or harvest, they don't have storerooms or barns. yet god feeds them. you're worth a lot more than the birds! {25}can any of you add an hour to life by fretting about it? {26}so if you can't do a little thing like that, why worry about the rest? {27}think about how the lilies grow: they don't slave and they never spin. yet let me tell you, even solomon at the height of his glory was never decked out like one of them. {28}if god dresses up the grass in the field, which is here today and tomorrow is tossed into an oven, it is surely more likely <that god cares for> you, you who don't take anything for granted! {29}and don't be constantly on the lookout for what you're going to eat and what you're going to drink. don't give it a thought. {30}these are all things the world's pagans seek, and your father is aware that you need them. {31}instead, you are to seek <god's> domain, and these things will come to you as a bonus. mark 7:15 it's not what goes into a person from the outside that can defile; rather it's what comes out of the person that defiles. luke 6:20 then he would look squarely at his disciples and say: congratulations, you poor! god's domain belongs to you. luke 10:30 jesus replied: there was a man going from jerusalem down to jericho when he fell into the hands of robbers. they stripped him, beat him up, and went off, leaving him half dead. {31}now by coincidence a priest was going down that road; when he caught sight of him, he went out of his way to avoid him. {32}in the same way, when a levite came to the place, he took one look at him and crossed the road to avoid him. {33}but this samaritan who was traveling that way came to where he was and was moved to pity at the sight of studies in christian-jewish relations 6 scjr 8 (2013) him. {34}he went up to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring olive oil and wine on them. he hoisted him onto his own animal, brought him to an inn, and looked after him. {35}the next day he took out two silver coins, which he gave to the innkeeper, and said, `look after him, and on my way back i'll reimburse you for any extra expense you have had.' luke 17:20 "you won't be able to observe the coming of god's imperial rule. {21}people are not going to be able to say, `look, here it is!' or `over there!' on the contrary, god's imperial rule is right there in your presence." here is offered a vision to listeners of a world that works as if god were in charge. in contrast to some scribal visions it is not an apocalyptic world where rewards and punishments will be meted out. instead we have a kaleidoscopic vision that upends the usual way of power relationships. in fact, the more one considers the words of jesus, the more one is led to the conclusion that he is one of the earliest of a long list of jewish stand-up comics. jesus envisioned an atmosphere where one could fall into the hands of the enemy and come out the better for it. his is a curious god who delivers benefits without distinction or discrimination. it is a god in whom the nobodies of the land can trust. this echoes the breakthrough of amos, who joined the memory of the exodus to his social world. amos spoke of a god who could remember slaves and now calls the people to remember orphans and widows. ii. recent nt scholarship also has underscored that his death was a roman execution. moreover, we can note that the very meaning of his death was constructed in jewish terms. again let me briefly summarize such findings. 1. it is clear that not all of jesus’ followers were concerned with determining a meaning for his death. the sayings gospel, the gospel of thomas and the didache are evidence that the death of jesus was not their focal point of studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 7 www.bc.edu/scjr interest. indeed, when q alludes to jesus’ death it does so as the death of a jewish prophet. 2. from the pre-pauline materials we can detect that the syrian jewish community of jesus followers began to make sense of the death of jesus as that of a martyr’s death such as found in the book of 4 th maccabees. just as the other jewish martyrs jesus dies for the people. 3. recent pauline investigations would point out that paul discovered that the god of israel not only accepts what appeared to paul as a godless, abandoned criminal but also reaches out to the nations on equal terms of trust. 4. by reading the gospel of mark within the late first century context scholars have argued that the writer of the gospel of mark constructed the death story of jesus in the aftermath of the destruction of the temple and the roman victory over the rebellious jews. he characterized jesus in the terms of the well-known story of the suffering and vindication of an innocent one. we can summarize this story thus: the actions and claims of an innocent person provoke his opponents to conspire against him. this leads to an accusation, trial, condemnation, and ordeal. in some instances this results in his shameful death. the hero of the story reacts characteristically, expressing his innocence, frustration, or trust in prayer, while there are also various reactions to his fate by characters in the tale. either at the brink of death or in death itself the innocent one is rescued and vindicated. this vindication entails the exaltation and acclamation of the hero as well as the reaction and punishment of his opponents. most important: the death of jesus for mark’s community was not envisioned as an exclusive event but as a death in solidarity with all those innocent sufferers. studies in christian-jewish relations 8 scjr 8 (2013) but if all of these scholarly advances have merit then why has it taken so long for them to be recognized? indeed, if this assessment indicates the historical record, what happened that so much was forgotten? moreover, how did a maverick group of jewish peasants end up as heresy vigilantes? first of all, we must realize that judaism before the destruction of the temple could be found in a variety of forms. the pharisees’ take on the tradition was not the only interpretation in town. in short, there were many ways of being a son or daughter of abraham. but it must also be noted that first century groups or parties were rather competitive and did not see other groups within a lens of fairness. each group would presume that they had hold of what counted for the real. but this competitive habit was compounded by a further assumption. competition does stress differences. but what if the claim of difference exceeds the usual limits? how does one account for someone having a lasting impact? to stir the pot a bit more, let me read a most interesting aside by an ancient historian: "it seems to me that a man who is different from all other humans could not have come into being apart from divinity." (arrian, anabasis 7.30.2) this was not a christian theologian, although it is a theological reflection. this is an appraisal by the writer arrian about the value and importance of alexander the great. to account for difference the ancient imagination reached for a divine explanation. only the divine realm could deliver the surplus power or energy for such spectacular individuals. sometimes they were called “divine men,” sometimes “sons of god.” such entitlements came from those who approved of the benefits that flowed through such extraordinary individuals. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 9 www.bc.edu/scjr if one couples this language with the competitive world of the greco-roman age, then one can understand that a note of “difference” is based upon the perception of having or gaining an advantage. to call someone a “son of god” meant that one was in some way “different” from others. the roman coinage proclaimed the emperor as uios theou (son of god). it is crucial that we notice how “being different” was justified and explained. within the aside of arrian stands what i would call an “exclusive principle.” difference is predicated upon prerogative; a domination pattern underlines such thinking. for difference is defined through domination. one becomes unique and different at the expense of others. i should add that is not the full range of either the modern or ancient word diaphero (“to differ”). the ancient greek word has a vast range of meaning. the basic root metaphor is that of “coming or carrying across or through.” but the word spreads out in meaning: in various contexts it can mean “endure to the end,” “spread,” “tear asunder,” “plunder,” “excel,” “quarrel,” “struggle,” “dispute,”’ make a difference.” allow me to put it this way. what difference does a life make—a human life? as we hurtle through interstellar space, we are becoming increasingly aware that what we thought to be eternal verities are in fact aging satellites that cascade and crash. what difference does a life make—a human life? it is a question that each of us has to answer. does a human life make a difference? does my life make a difference? does yours? in a related sense, we can also ask: does the life of another make a difference in our lives? this question is most radical, for it gets to the heart of our existence on this planet. to ask if a human life makes a difference entails the quest for significance of our existence. if we did not think we could make a difference, if we did not think we counted, could we studies in christian-jewish relations 10 scjr 8 (2013) continue to act, even to live? even albert camus declared that our ability to care and love in the face of the absurd represented the human face of freedom against the nothingness of the universe. i would contend that jesus the jewish sage still has something to say to us even today. but to ask what difference does a life make is distinct from considering a life as “different.” in the latter case another judgment is reached as the element of comparison is brought in. here we begin to detect that such and such a life is different from another. calculation and the detection of advantage enter the picture. moreover, even if we ourselves are making this judgment we are taking over certain social assumptions upon which to make the comparison. sometimes, especially if we agree or are indifferent, we simply let others declare what that difference is and means. it is with this attempt to compete through determining and maintaining difference at the expense of others that we return to the domination patterns known so well through the centuries. it is fitting then at this point to consider two great theologians of the twentieth century to help deepen this conversation through time: marc chagall and eli wiesel. i would submit that we need each other to remind one another not only of our humanity but of the presence of mystery in our midst. this means that we need all the imagination and honesty possible and that we take seriously artists’ visions and writers’ insights -such as wiesel’s night and chagall’s exodus. here we can begin to see, for example, the courage and the continued conversation of elie wiesel’s night. in that staggering scene where the concentration camp is forced to watch the hanging of a child, the narrator remembers hearing a man studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 11 www.bc.edu/scjr asking: “where is god now?” and the narrator adds: “i heard a voice within me answer him: ...here he is—he is hanging here on this gallows.” he then notes that he cannot pray as the inmates later celebrate rosh hashanah. in his haunting style wiesel writes: how could i say to him: blessed be thou, almighty, master of the universe, who chose us among all nations to be tortured day and night, to watch as our fathers, our mothers, our brothers end up in the furnaces?...but now, i no longer pleaded for anything. i was no longer able to lament. on the contrary, i felt very strong. i was the accuser, god the accused. this scene is part of an extended conversation that began so long ago. the tale of the suffering innocent one has been taken up again, as it was by andre schwartz bart in the last of the just. the writer of the passion of mark was an earlier interlocutor of this centuries long conversation, or perhaps better, lament. the echoes of these stories tremble across time and space. they reinforce and cross-examine each other. both the agony of the suffering of the innocent and the question of the justice of god are again and again placed before us. the same can be said of the painter marc chagall. while many are taken by the brilliance and courage of white crucifixion, i would mention chagall’s exodus. in the manner of james joyce’s finnegan’s wake, one can describe this painting as “here comes everybody!” chagall gives us a rush of jews in exodus, with moses, holding the sacred tablets on the right side of the picture, fleeing mothers cradling children at the center, a synagogue in flames to the left, the ever-present signature rooster aloft, and a crucified jesus in the back, embedded with the people, with his arms extended on the cross that seem to encompass all in this frantic movement. here chagall undermines the centuries of domination, the ever-present search for the competitive edge, the exclusionary studies in christian-jewish relations 12 scjr 8 (2013) sense of difference, by placing all this frantic movement within the overarching perspective of enfolding the innocent. our contemporary discussions need more of this in order to seek and hear the variety of voices in order to detect the presence of mystery in our midst. so, then, what difference does it all make to remember that jesus was a jew? memory—we can realize that our social memories are complicated and subject to historical displacement. the critical reimagination of the historical jesus as a first century jew is not only necessary for our intellectual search but even more so for the ethical consequences for our lives today. how can we, for instance, countenance signs that equally condemn homosexuals and the killers of jesus, when we realize that jesus’ vision would counsel very differently and his death was originally seen in solidarity with other innocent ones? a. it is a challenge to both jews and christians. for we must all reappraise what jesus meant and means, his vision and his fate. can his vision and ethical challenges be part of ongoing jewish debate? b. for christians this means that the imperial invasion and evasion, where difference is defined by seeking advantage, by a competitive calculus, by a demonstration of power and dominion at the expense of others, is a denial of the vision of jesus and the earliest concerns of his followers. indeed, such an imperial modus operandi led not only to jesus’ death but to the deaths of millions of his kin. c. there is also the ever-widening challenge to all who live on this planet. this discussion cannot be limited to a jewishchristian tete-a-tete. the reality is that jesus has leaked out. he is no longer the sole property of the churches, nor of the synagogues. indeed, he, along with moses, mohammad, buddha, and other religious figures, has studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 13 www.bc.edu/scjr become available to all. this does not mean that we can bleach jesus of his particularity. rather it means that even greater critical focus must be made along with a reappraisal of the consequences of bringing this difficult jew into the new global arena. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): korn r1-3 cunningham et al., christ jesus korn r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr philip a. cunningham, joseph sievers, mary boys, hans herman henrix, and jesper svartik, eds. christ jesus and the jewish people today: new explorations of theological interrelationships (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 2011), xxxii + 302 pp. eugene korn, center for jewish-christian understanding and cooperation, israel modernity is a messy affair, full of dramatic change, pluralistic tension, and spiritual contradiction, and christianity has not been spared this fate. the aggiornamento of the second vatican council brought modern anxieties and antinomies into christian theology, perhaps no more conspicuously than in the catholic church’s relations to jews and judaism. nostra aetate rejected traditional supersessionism, thus creating a clash between the church’s universal mission and the continuing validity of god’s covenant with the jewish people, whose religious mission is said to still be operative. how can christians reformulate their theologies in light of a living judaism? after centuries of denying that “the covenant is both theirs [i.e., jews] and ours [i.e., christians]” (to quote the second-century epistle of barnabas [4:6]), the plight of today’s christian theologian is to wrestle with this theological conundrum. in order to examine this tension, four catholic universities arranged a series of consultations for christian (largely catholic) scholars from eight countries beginning in october 2006. the recently published collection of their essays (along with brief responses from jewish scholars) gathered in christ jesus and the jewish people today represents the first fruits of this project. as cardinal walter kasper explains in the volume’s introduction, the dominant issue is how contemporary christians can reaffirm jesus christ as savior of all humanity even as they affirm israel’s covenantal life with god. the book’s contributors are amongst the best thinkers in the field and include john pawlikowski, jesper svartik, mary boys, christian rutishauser, phillip cunningham, didier pollefeyt, barbara meyer, hans herman henrix, and thomas j. norris. together they are building a “pro judaeis” tradition (quoting kasper on p. xii) under the aegis of contemporary doctrine to counter the adversus judaeos tradition which so burdens the consciousness of historically and ethically attuned christians. right behind this meta-question is the related challenge of probing the implications of acknowledging that jesus lived and died as a faithful jew amidst the jewish people in the jewish homeland. what does this mean for church history, ecclesiology, and christology? despite karl barth’s 1947 announcement that “jesus christ was of necessity a jew” unlike his accidents of skin color and gender (quoted by meyer on p. 148), this remained a largely unexamined theological point until this book. henrix puts it sharply: “the word became jewish flesh, not some sort of generic human being” (p. 123). only a jew could proclaim god’s unity, his covenant, messianic redemption, and our human duties to “love the lord your god with all thy heart and with all thy might” and to carry out a mission to the world. meyer claims “if any god is present in jesus christ, it is the god of the jews” (p. 152). so the christian challenge is not merely to recollect review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): korn r1-3 cunningham et al., christ jesus korn r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr that jesus was a jew (anamnesis), but to hold this critical point in continuous memory (mneme). how far do the consequences of all this touch the essentials of christian belief? the book’s essays are also excurses in history, biblical hermeneutics, and liturgy. pawlikowski reviews recent scholarship on “the parting of the ways” and concludes that taking historical christian behavior toward jews seriously creates a moral imperative to change church doctrine. boys discusses the consequences of seeing jews as deicides. clearly, the horror of the holocaust is never far from the surface of both these thinkers’ reflections. svartvik offers a nonsupersessionist reading of hebrews, claiming that the traditional supersessionist reading is “anachronistic” (p. 84), while daniel j. harrington provides the historical context of paul and matthew, insisting that they reflect intra-jewish rivalry, not anti-jewish polemics. cunningham carefully rereads romans for us. but at its core the book always returns to ask the questions and limn the theological changes entailed by the church’s new fraternal recognition of judaism and the jewish people. is this tension a problem to be solved through rational explanation or a divine mystery to be celebrated? while some cite the conundrum as an inexplicable mystery, importantly the book offers two specific and creative theological attempts to resolve the antinomy. the essay by cunningham and pollefeyt provides the most explicit argument by building on cardinal kasper’s one-covenant theory that asserts the simultaneous validity of the jewish covenant and christ as “universal redeemer” (p.183). surprisingly, it is the insistence on one covenant that implies the necessity of christians and jews cooperating with each other. although bound by the same covenant, jews and christians fulfill it and live it differently. the boldest claim in this argument is that by being faithful to the sinai covenant, jews covenant with christianity’s triune god, even if they do not realize it. this is possible because the authors define the logos generically, as “the invitation to covenantal relation with god together with the spirit that empowers the human acceptance of that outreach” (p. 195). the jewish commentator on this essay, adam gregerman, sees cunningham and pollefeyt’s casting of judaism in christian trinitarian terms as “scandalous” to jews (p. 224), yet i find no fault with it. understanding judaism as the covenantal life charged to the descendants of abraham and moses that results from “god’s constant outreach for relationship with his covenantal people and their acceptance of that outreach” seems to me, as a traditional jew, to be an accurate description of jewish sacred history and the grand drama of judaism (p. 195). if cunningham and pollefeyt’s grammar demands they use a trinitarian vocabulary to describe that covenantal process, i may have problems with their semantics but not their ontology of the relationship between god and the jewish people. i am curious to hear more, however, about how this generalized definition of the logos is consistent with traditionalist understandings of the trinity. rutishauser asserts that salvation for jews and christians is only possible because of the unique salvation history of sinai and the jewish national covenant. to resolve the tension of universalist claims about christ, he sees the jewish covenant as the mission to be a light and messenger to the gentile nations (is 49:6 and jer 1:10), and thus the christian mission to gentiles described in galatians 2:7 is merely an outgrowth of the jewish universal mission. (i add here that a number of traditional rabbinic exegetes understood isaiah’s and jeremiah’s descriptions of the jewish covenantal mission as a correct interpretation of the sinaitic commandment in exodus 19:6 for israel to be “a nation of priests.”) for rutishauser, jesus “passed over,” out of the realm of the jewish people into the hands of the gentiles (p. 236). he was torn out of the core of israel’s covenant and was handed over (“paradidonai”) to the romans, indicating that studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): korn r1-3 cunningham et al., christ jesus korn r 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr jesus’ mission consisted of crossing over the difference between the covenanted people (i.e., the jews) and the nations. “paradidonai” expresses only this extension to the gentiles, and it is tendentious to understand it as “betrayal,” as many traditionalists have done. this reading leaves the original, particularist sinai covenant and the torah of moses untouched for jews, while charging christians to extend the covenant outward to the gentiles. as a consequence, there is no mission to the jews, forcing evangelical scriptural passages like matthew 28:16-20 to refer to all peoples except the jews who already are people of god. after the resurrection, it is the apostles who teach us that the christian mission is to “hand over the messiah to the (gentile) world” (p. 241). if rutishauser is correct, jews should be free to reconsider christianity without any threat to their physical and spiritual identity. indeed, there is every reason for jews to consider christians as their partners in fulfilling god’s covenant. one may ask here, “what if any significance, then, does jesus have for jews? is there any claim of jesus on jews before the eschaton?” the book explores a number of other questions that flow from the meta-question, like the meaning of jesus’ eternity for jewish identity, the implications of loving jesus for christian-jewish relations, the relation of the trinity to jewish monotheism, and the theological significance of jesus’ jewishness. toward the end of the book the jewish scholar ruth langer correctly observes that theological investigations are not enough. endorsement of these new ideas by church authorities and their concrete implementation into doctrine, liturgy, preaching, and dialogue must supplement these theological exercises. this is particularly important since, as gregerman notes, the center of gravity of the catholic church is moving away from europe toward countries with little knowledge of jews, their religion, and the tortured christian-jewish history. unfortunately, cardinal kasper was alone among the book’s writers as one with a high-ranking position in the church. hopefully, the quality of the book’s essays will attract the attention of ecclesiastical authorities to effect these needed developments. in sum, this is a remarkable book written by a remarkable group of believers. its most significant contribution is its reflection on the pregnant implications of the officially supported new theological coexistence between christianity and judaism in christian thought. excepting cunningham / pollefeyt and rutishauser, the writers do not attempt to provide comprehensive answers. but their articulation of central questions and challenges for christian theology are significant cognitive and spiritual gestures. the authors have staked out but the beginning of unfinished business, which needs to be pursued in subsequent iterations of the project. in the best of worlds, the book would create a new field in christian theology devoted to the issues its authors raise, or at least broaden the contours of contemporary ecclesiology, christology, and soteriology. this hope is a worthy prayer, for christians and jews alike. christological torah studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): coolman cp1-12 coolman, christological torah coolman cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 c h r i s t o l o g i c a l t o r a h holly taylor coolman, providence college presented at the american academy of religion conference november 3, 2008 the question of the status of the mosaic law has a unique history within christian theology. it was, of course, the stuff of some of the very earliest christian theology, and, indeed, the focus of the jerusalem council, the first known meeting of the leaders of the emerging church. gradually—although it likely did not happen as quickly and easily as is often supposed 1 —a consensus did emerge regarding such central questions as whether gentile converts to christianity should be required to be circumcised, and, by the end of the early christian era, the question of the nature of christian observance of the law seems to have moved into the category of a settled question. sixteenth-century battles over “the law” raised new questions in new ways, although these heated conflicts did not disturb certain long-settled answers such as that regarding circumcision. now, the events of the twentieth century—especially nazi atrocities and the church‟s responses to them—have called for profound rethinking of the matter, bringing even those early questions to the surface again. as the church has wrestled through its response to the holocaust (shoah) the discussion has been articulated predominantly in terms of supersessionism, or “replacement.” 2 in its most primary sense, supersessionism refers to the claim that the church has come to replace the jews as the chosen people of god. this, of course, also implies that god has revoked the original coven-ant with israel. an increasing number of christian scholars have come to the conviction that this is a stance that not only wounds jewish-christian relations, but also does violence to some of christianity‟s own deepest convictions, above all, the conviction that god keeps his promises. 3 the discussion, though, has continued to evolve and become more complex, and further questions have been raised about the concept of supersessionism itself. we find, for example, the claim of the jewish thinker michael novak that even those who affirm god‟s ongoing election of israel may still hold a form of supersessionism that he calls “soft supersessionism.” 4 “soft super 1 cf. stephen wilson, related strangers: jews and christians. (minneapolis: augsburg fortress press, 1997). james d.g. dunn, ed., jews and christians: the parting of the ways, a.d. 70 to 135. (grand rapids: eerdmans, 1999). 2 bruce marshall describes the proposal that “christians should reject their long-held supersessionist interpretation of their relationship to the jewish people” as being “[t]he “theological point of departure for our [the twentieth] century‟s critical reassessment of the church‟s relation to the jewish people.” the cambridge companion to christian doctrine, ed. colin gunton, “christ and the cultures: jewish people and christian theology,” (cambridge: cambridge university press, 1997). george hunsinger puts it this way: “for christian theology the discussion has focused in particular on the question of „supersessionism‟—a term at once descriptive and pejorative.” for the sake of the world: karl barth and the future of ecclesial theology, introduction, george hunsinger, (grand rapids: eerdmans 2004). 3 peter ochs notes that “the most significant christian theologies of judaism in the past decade promote”, among other things, “jewish-christian theological dialogue as a practice of christian theology per se….,” “judaism and christian theology,” in the modern theologians, ed., david ford, rachel muers. (malden, ma, blackwell publishing, 2005). 4 david novak, “the covenant in rabbinic thought,” in two faiths, one covenant?: jewish and christian identity in the presence of the other, ed. eugene b. korn (lanham, md: rowman & littlefield, 2004), 65-80. conference proceeding studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): coolman cp1-12 coolman, christological torah coolman cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 sessionism,” according to novak, is the claim that “jesus came to fulfill the promise of the old covenant,” such that not only are some gentiles initiated into that covenant, but also that jews already initiated into the covenant only come to its fulfillment through jesus.” 5 for novak, this is still supersessionism because those jews who do not accept jesus as messiah, while they remain in the original covenant are nevertheless “out of step with the fulfillment of the covenant which jesus began… and which he shall return to totally complete.” 6 on this definition, it is perhaps not difficult to see why novak says, “christianity must be generically supersessionist,” and “i question the orthodoxy of any christian who claims he or she is not supersessionist at all.” 7 novak, then, argues that it is possible for christians to renounce supersessionism in its most essential sense, but to affirm another form of supersessionism; it is possible to insist that the church has not simply replaced israel, and that jews remain in covenant with god, while also insisting that, in living out that covenant, a central focus on christ has replaced a central focus on torah, so that most jews are now “out of step.” and, in fact, novak offers his own judgment that this combination is the best that christian theology can do vis-à-vis judaism. for christian supersessionists of this sort, novak goes on, “living the covenant is the celebration of the birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of jesus,” while “the torah and jewish traditions are now past memories, rather than living norms.” 8 “after all,” novak notes, “if the church teaches that gentiles reborn into the covenant…do not require circumcision and torah observance, then christianity can no longer require them of any christian.” 9 in other words, a crucial component of novak‟s “soft supersessionism” is the way in which it moves the focus from the identity of the people of god to the nature of the divine economy and the appropriate response to it. novak‟s soft supersessionism is a stance that sees god‟s work in christ as replacing torah, and faith in christ as replacing observance of the ceremonial law. this question of the way in which christianity understands the change in the divine economy brought about by christ is, in fact, precisely the issue raised recently by two other jewish thinkers: the well-known scholar, michael wyschogrod and relative newcomer, mark kinzer. although they do not use the term, both address novak‟s category of soft supersessionism, and both suggest that the ongoing discussion of a christian relationship to torah ought to include a crucial distinction: the distinction between christians who are jews and christians who are gentiles. wyschogrod‟s best-known work in this regard involves a public letter, in which he pleads with a jew who has become a christian at least to continue to keep the law. in his letter, wyschogrod notes that the decision of that earliest of christian councils, the jerusalem council, was specifically a decision regarding christians who were gentiles and not christians who were jews. where then, he asks, is the justification for a jew to turn away from commandments given by god himself? “but if i am right,” he asks, “are you not, from a christian point of view, obligated to lead a torah observant life because, as they say, you are a jew? are you not obligated to obey the dietary laws, the sabbath, the jewish festivals, etc.?” 10 5 novak, 66. 6 novak, 66. 7 novak, 67. 8 novak, 71. 9 novak, 71. 10 this letter, along with responses to it, appeared in modern theology 11/2 (1995), 165-71. although unnamed there, the intended recipient of wyschogrod‟s letter was jean-marie lustiger, who after his conversion to catholicism rose to the position of archbishop of paris (and cardinal). during his lifetime, lustiger stirred significant controversy by his studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): coolman cp1-12 coolman, christological torah coolman cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 kinzer, who has introduced the scholarly world in a powerful way to the reality of messianic judaism, argues in a similar ways. working carefully through new testament texts, kinzer argues that these texts actually affirm the ongoing validity and importance of jewish practice for all jews, including those who become christians. not only, then, is it permissible for jews to continue their torah practice if they become christians: it is, in fact, commanded by god. 11 both wyschogrod and kinzer, then, challenge novak‟s claim, (shared by almost all christians) that “if the church teaches that gentiles reborn into the covenant…do not require circumcision and torah observance, then christianity can no longer require them of any christian.” 12 they thus press at least for qualification of his claim that christianity, in order to be true to itself, must endorse soft supersessionism. how then might the conversation move forward from here? what novak has offered, with helpful candor, is the possibility that there may be elements within positions labeled as supersessionist that christians, qua christians, are simply unable to renounce. as we try to tease these elements apart from others, however, the matter can become complicated indeed. this essay sets aside the question of classic supersessionism, or “hard supersessionism,” assuming it to be incompatible with christian faith and unsupported by either scripture or authoritative church teaching. the questions pursued here are the nature of god‟s salvific work, asking whether and how what novak has called “soft supersessionism” is the stance that christians should espouse. rather than setting out to negotiate a new definition or qualification of supersessionism, however, it is the conviction of this writer that it is actually most helpful to lay aside entirely the category of supersessionism, or replacement. the practical questions raised here are important ones, but as the questions become more subtle, and as they move from the identity of god‟s people to the nature of god‟s work, thinking within the framework of supersessionism becomes less and less helpful. drawing upon certain elements in the work of st. thomas aquinas, i shall sketch the most basic contours of what i believe is a quite different sort of account of the relationship of the law and christ, and of christians to the law. because i believe this is a conversation that is important to have in close connection to scriptural texts, i want also to note briefly the direction this approach would suggest in interpreting certain key pauline passages. finally, i will return to the matters raised above in order to suggest what the practical implications of such an account might be for these questions of practice of the law. would this account require, or even allow, uninterrupted torah practice by the jew who becomes a christian? now, thomas aquinas will seem to some an unlikely source. all of the thinkers mentioned above—novak, wyschogrod and kinzer—specifically mention aquinas, and they all find him wanting. they, along with many others note especially aquinas‟s most troubling claim: that obedience to the mosaic ceremonial law after christ is a mortal sin. all three focus on the implications, not for jews in general, but for those jews who have become christians. wyschogrod wonders whether aquinas has simply not considered the possibility that obligation to obey torah claim that he did, in fact, remain a jew. some of lustiger‟s reflections of the relationship of judaism and christianity are recorded in a work published posthumously, the promise (eerdmans, 2007). 11 mark s. kinzer, post-missionary messianic judaism: redefining christian engagement with the jewish people (grand rapids: brazos press, 2005). 12 novak, 71. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): coolman cp1-12 coolman, christological torah coolman cp 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 may very well remain in place for jews, even if they are baptized. 13 kinzer goes even a bit further, suggesting that aquinas has simply begun with the assumption that the ceremonial law must be deadly and then looked for an argument to justify that claim. 14 at this point, i will simply say that i believe some of the broad strokes of aquinas‟ account to be immensely valuable as we try to go forward on this issue. even so, i shall suggest that it is possible to prescind, in the end, from his claim that obedience to the mosaic ceremonial law after christ is a mortal sin. i have said that we cannot frame this conversation in terms of supersessionism, that we cannot begin by attempting to determine whether and to what extent christ replaces torah. the problem is that even phrasing the question in this way treats the law and christ as if they are two separable phenomena, which may therefore be seen as competitive. looking through the lens of aquinas‟s thought, however, we see rather a complex reality in which law and christ are profoundly intertwined. in fact, if we think along with aquinas, we travel in two corollary directions: (1) we must see christ in terms of the law, and (2) we must see the law in terms of christ. christ in terms of the law first, then: to see christ and his salvific work, in terms of the law. many have in recent days sought to recover the “jewish jesus,” 15 and much valuable historical work has been done in this regard. 16 in important ways, this kind of scholarship has revolutionized the picture of jesus that we hold in the present day. the theological implications for understanding jesus in the context of the law have not, however, yet been fully imagined. in particular, we might note that the traditional christian claim that jesus is perfectly righteous must be read in the first place in terms of the specifics of the law. the new testament, of course, already records disputes over whether jesus did, in fact, keep the law. but aquinas, typical of traditional christian theologians, insists that he did. aquinas, in fact, goes to some trouble on this point. let me give a bit of background on aquinas‟s thought. the most relevant part of aquinas‟s work in this area is that part of his summa commonly called the treatise on the law. mark jordan has noted: “no section of the summa has been abused so regularly as the discussion on law, and no abuse of it is so regular as the refusal to see the discussion whole and in place.” 17 this essay, given practical constraints, will fail again to give an account of the treatise on the law in place in the larger summa, but perhaps a little background here that will allow some sense of the whole. this section of the summa includes discussion of “law” in four forms: (1) eternal law, (2) natural law, (3) human law, and (4) divine law. the eternal law is wisdom within god. it is a name for god‟s own “reason” 18 and it is, indeed, aquinas says, “not distinct from [god] himself.” 19 the 13 wyschogrod, 170. 14 kinzer, 207. 15 cf. especially david flusser, jesus in selbstzeugnissen und bilddokumenten (hamburg: rowohlt, 1968); geza vermes, jesus the jew: a historian's reading of the gospels. (london: collins, 1973); and e. p. sanders, jesus and judaism (minneapolis: augsburg fortress, 1987). 16 we have foundational work from jewish scholars geiger, flusser, vermes; additional work from christian scholars such as john meier and n.t. wright; and, most recently, amy-jill levine‟s highly engaging the misunderstood jew. amy-jill levine, the misunderstood jew (san francisco: harpersanfrancisco, 2006). 17 mark jordan, rewritten theology, (malden, ma: blackwell publishing, 2006), 57. 18 “et ideo ipsa ratio gubernationis rerum in deo sicut in principe universitatis existens, legis habet rationem.” st i-ii, 91, 1, corp. st. thomas aquinas, summa theologiae, blackfriars ed. (westminster, md: christian classics, 1948). (hereafter, “st”) studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): coolman cp1-12 coolman, christological torah coolman cp 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 natural law is the participation of rational creatures in the eternal law—more precisely, the participation of humanity‟s practical reason in the good. human law is a flexible form of law, in which particular precepts governing a particular community are derived from natural law. divine law, the form particularly relevant for our purposes here, is that form of law by which humanity is moved beyond natural faculties, expressed in the natural and human laws, and directed toward its final end, the vision of god, or “friendship with god.” 20 the divine law is twofold: it exists as the old law—the law as given to israel—and the new law, a form of law initiated by christ‟s appearance, by which law is written by the holy spirit on human hearts. relevant for our purposes here is the fact that aquinas devotes the most space to discussing the divine law, and, within that, he gives the clear majority of space to the “old law.” the articles dealing with the “ceremonial law” are, in fact, some of the longest of the whole summa. 21 it is true that aquinas believes that the ceremonial law is no longer to be practiced, but he does not seem therefore to believe it is irrelevant. equally crucial is aquinas‟s claim that the new law is, most properly speaking, simply a new form of the old law. in explaining the relationship between the two, aquinas turns several times to a quotation from the epistle to the hebrews: “the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law.” 22 this “translation” for aquinas, is not a change in substance, but rather a teleological progression from a less perfect to a more perfect form. thus, he claims that the new is “in” the old “as the [full-grown] corn is in the ear.” 23 the new is to the old, in other words, as a full-grown plant is to a seed. they are, in essence, the same thing; one, however, exists at a stage of later maturity. quite logically, then, aquinas insists that jesus never turns away from the demands of the “old law.” “christ,” he says, “fulfilled the precepts of the old law both in his works and in his doctrine.” 24 even at those points where he is accused of breaking the law, aquinas, says, jesus is actually either (1) extending the law to explain its true sense; (2) prescribing even stricter courses of action, to avoid any infraction of the law; or (3) intensifying the law. 25 in reading the gospel accounts, for instance, aquinas insists that jesus did not break the sabbath, but rather violated “the superstitious interpretation of the pharisees, who thought that man ought to abstain from doing even works of kindness on the sabbath, which was contrary to the intention of the law.” 26 here, it is crucial to pause and to note the import of christ‟s obedience to the law. claims regarding the nature of christ‟s righteousness speak not only of christ, but of the soteriological dynamic which is humanity‟s hope. it is true that aquinas sees christ‟s passion as absolutely central; nevertheless, for aquinas, all of christ‟s actions constitute a part of his whole, saving work. his perfect observance of the law, in other words, is more than the background of jesus‟ salvific action. it is, in an important and irreducible sense, a part of the substance, or the text, of 19 “nec eius lex est aliud ab ipso.” st i-ii, 91, 1, ad 3. 20 “amicitiam hominis ad deum….” st, i-ii, 99, 2, corp. 21 st, i-ii, 102, 3 includes 14 objections and responses; st, 102, 5 runs to more than 8,000 words. 22 “translato sacerdotio, necesse est ut legis translatio fiat.” cf. hebrews 7:12. 23 “sic igitur est lex nova in veteri sicut fructus in spica.” st, i-ii, 107, 3, corp. 24 “praecepta vero veteris legis adimplevit christus et opera, et doctrina.” st, i-ii, 107, 2, corp. 25 st, i-ii, 107, 2, corp. 26 “sed videbatur solvere secundum superstitiosum intellectum pharisaeorum, qui credebant etiam a salubribus operibus esse in die sabbati abstinendum: quod erat contra intentionem legis.” st, i-ii, 107, 2, ad 3. for a fuller, fairer account of the pharisees, we must turn to other sources. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): coolman cp1-12 coolman, christological torah coolman cp 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 that action. if, then, the righteousness of individual christians depends upon the righteousness of christ, as has been an essential claim of christianity, then it is the torah-observance of christ upon which the salvation of christians—both jewish and gentile—rests. this in turn would mean, following aquinas‟s logic to its end, that it is impossible fully to understand the character of jesus‟ righteousness without understanding torah. perhaps this is why aquinas devotes so much space to the “old law,” including the ceremonial law. a further possible implication, one not pursued by aquinas, is even more provocative. torah, of course, is a reality that is ultimately not simply written, but lived. here, we see the problem for the gentile church, which no longer either knows or practices many of the elements of the mosaic law. jesus‟ salvific work, we might say, is expressed in a language that the church no longer speaks. now, in order to understand and to proclaim christ fully, they must rely on native speakers. the torah lived in the jewish community is a crucial key to understanding the gospel itself. for the majority of the church, then, gentiles who have never kept, and would not know how to begin keeping the whole torah, this would require admitting that an understanding of the lived torah is crucial to their faith, and then granting this expertise to the jewish community. given all this, it is not hard to see that we find ourselves dealing with a central issue. it is not possible first to describe one‟s relationship to christ and then to describe one‟s relationship to the law. on this account, they are the same thing. to be baptized into christ is specifically to be related to christ‟s torah-observance. the implications begin to emerge with relationship to wyschogrod‟s challenge. there is nothing, wyschogrod has noted, that any jew can do that will revoke her or his own obligation to torah-observance. given this account, however, torahobligation is indeed impinged upon in the connection to christ experienced by those who belong to him. simply put, seeing christ in terms of the law means that, for those who are related to god via christ‟s perfect righteousness, relatedness to the law necessarily happens in and through christ. the law in terms of christ but, if christ‟s righteousness is understood in terms of obedience to the torah, an important question remains: why shouldn‟t all those who follow christ keep torah, not out of obligation, but voluntarily? why, we could ask, if christians are grounded in the righteous torah-observance of jesus, do they divide the law into various parts and then imitate jesus only in what they call the “moral law” and not in what they call the “ceremonial law”? here, it is important to note the second of the broad claims made above: the law must be understood in terms of christ. this, of course, is not a point often explored by contemporary thinkers (and it is the relative unfamiliarity of the claim that prompts the title of this essay). although it sounds strange to our ears, aquinas insists that the law itself possesses a christological character. this is not to say simply that the law points forward toward christ, but also that the law is already, in a certain sense, inherently christological. recall the taxonomy of “law” in aquinas‟s treatise on the law. old and new law are, in an important sense, a single thing: divine law. and the substance of the divine law, aquinas says is: christ. indeed, at every point, as he compares old and new, aquinas insists that the “substance” of the new law is not new at all, but is entirely “in” the old. 27 we see why it is that 27 sed quantum ad ipsam substantiam praeceptorum novi testamenti, omnia continentur in veteri testamento…”st, i-ii, 107, 3, ad 2. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): coolman cp1-12 coolman, christological torah coolman cp 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 aquinas goes so far as to say “the law that is instilled in the heart is common to those who are in the new testament and to those who are in the old testament.” 28 in i-ii, 106, 4, aquinas deals with the issue in a more speculative and trinitarian way. the old law, he says, is appropriated to the father and the son, while the new law is appropriated to the son and the spirit. 29 christ‟s centrality becomes obvious. this schema of “double appropriation” could be explained in a much more elaborate way, but it is easy to see the main point: the move from old law to new law is not, as some might suppose, a move from a reality appropriated to the father into a reality appropriated to the son. both new and old are understood as the work of the son. of course, if this is right—if the law is and always has always been inherently christological in nature—talk about the “replacement” of the law with christ is just too simplistic. it is impossible to replace a thing, unless with something different. it is for this reason that even talk of “soft supersessionism” can be misleading. the move from the old law to the new law, then, is not truly a move from a torah-shaped engagement by god to a christologically shaped engagement by god. if christ is truly understood in terms of torah, and vice versa, it becomes clear that, both in the old and in the new, god is engaging his people in a work that is always simultaneously constituted both by torah and by christ. the claim of the new is that christ‟s appearing allows the new possibility of participation in his perfect torah-observance. rereading paul with aquinas it will be a natural question as to whether such an account might assist in interpreting the most foundational christian texts on the matter: the canonical writings of st. paul, and especially those dealing with the law. although current scholarship on this matter is voluminous enough to deter forays into these texts, it is nevertheless desirable, therefore, to consider how such an account might serve the task of interpretation. aquinas is not, of course, necessarily a guide to the original sitz im leben of these texts, or to grammatical considerations of the greek. he is, however, a voice revered within the christian tradition, and so it is appropriate that we explore the contribution he makes to the ongoing, communal task of interpretation. without giving a full context of recent scholarship on paul, or “the new perspective on paul,” or, simply, “the new paul,” we might therefore consider just a few of the most crucial pauline passages in light of this thomistically inspired account. first, we might consider the way in which this position allows a highly plausible, if uncommon, reading of the controversial galatians 3:28: “there is neither jew nor greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in christ jesus.” 30 it is clear 28 “sed lex indita communis est et eis qui sunt in novo testamento, et eis qui sunt in veteri testamento” st, i-ii, 106, 1, obj. 3. 29 attested in the west at least since augustine, the theological practice of appropriating certain names, attributes, or operations to one of the persons of the trinity, does not nevertheless exclude the cooperation of all three persons of the trinity. in aquinas, cf. st. 1, xxix, 8). 30 revised standard version. the scholarship on this single verse is vast. one scholar noted recently: “watson e. mills, bibliographies for biblical research, nt series 9, galatians (lewiston, ny: mellen, 1999), 38-45, lists 42 entries published on just the verse, with another 23 on the pericope. since mills's (incomplete) listing, another 12 items on the verse and five more on the pericope have appeared, per my count via nta. items overlooked by mills include 11 on the verse and one on the pericope. when contributions doubtlessly overlooked by all are added, the total publications studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): coolman cp1-12 coolman, christological torah coolman cp 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 that paul‟s claim that within the christian community “there is neither jew nor greek,” cannot be taken to describe a wholesale erasure of all differences. the tendency of most recent scholarship has been to endorse (or contest) the claim that what paul is addressing here is differences in status among members of the young church—and the tendency of some to discriminate others. 31 the context of galatians, however, does not suggest differences in status or the dangers of discrimination. the book of galatians, and especially its third chapter, deals rather specifically with one particular, practical issue: the obligation to keep torah and how it has changed with the coming of christ. taking our cue from this context, we can read all of the pairs mentioned here (not only “jew-greek,” but also “slave-free,” and “male-female”) not simply as pairs who are distinguished by basic, ontological difference, or as pairs potentially distinguished by status, but rather as pairs that can be distinguished precisely in terms of their torah-obligation. 32 what the verse suggests more specifically is that the differing burdens placed on different groups have been transformed by a greater commonality: “in christ jesus, you are all children of god through faith. as many of you as were baptized into christ have clothed yourselves with christ.” 33 in other words, if we are speaking in terms of obligation to obey torah, we must now say that there is a common experience of being “clothed in christ” that provides the context within which individual obligation must be understood. 34 or, we can see how the account sketched here might lead us to interpret the radical claim of st. paul in romans 7:4. “you have died to the law,” he tells his readers, “through the body of christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for god.” 35 the remarkable claim that those to whom he writes have died to the law is clearly premised on the phrase that follows: “through the body of christ.” a transformation of torah-obligation so radical that it can be called “death” happens only and precisely “in christ.” this makes sense if we consider the position, as described above, that christ‟s righteousness is fundamentally constituted as torah-observance. it is not, then, that the law has been abrogated or spiritualized—it is fulfilled in a primary sense “through the body of christ.” 36 the fundamental obligation has been kept by “another” to whom these readers now “belong.” 37 on this verse may well come to a hundred items.” walden, wayne. “galatians 3:28: grammar observations,” restoration quarterly, 51 no 1, 2009, 45. 31 the focus is often gender as in paul king jewett‟s groundbreaking man as male and female: a study in sexual relationships from a theological point of view (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 1975) jewett refers to the verse as “the magna carta of humanity.” more recently, the same argument has been made regarding the jew/gentile divide: cf., e.g., mark nanos, “the myth of the „law-free‟ paul standing between christians and jews, studies in christianjewish relations, volume 4, issue 1, 2009, 4. 32 admittedly, seeing the precise ways in which torah-obligation varies between these pairs requires us to look to the mishnah and other later rabbinic sources, which involves a degree of conjecture. 33 galatians 3:26-27. 34 aquinas himself understands paul to be here insisting that no one, whatever his or her prior state, is to be barred from baptism into christ. st. thomas aquinas, commentary on saint paul’s epistle to the galatians, (albany, ny: magi books) 1966), pp. 105-106. 35 revised standard version. 36 cf. matthew levering, christ’s fulfillment of torah and temple: salvation according to thomas aquinas (notre dame, in: notre dame press, 2002), especially chapter three. 37 i myself am in agreement with those contemporary scholars who believe that the epistle to the romans was written (as this verse would seem to suggest) to an audience that included jews. the line of thinking presented here could still hold, though, for those who believe that the recipients of this letter in rome were only gentiles. whomever he was addressing, paul‟s language of “dying to the law” necessarily implies some previous state (historical or theoretical) or being “alive to the law,” and a movement out of that state “through the body of christ.” this interpretation goes beyond aquinas‟s own comments on the verse, and yet his reading seems to support it. christians have died to the studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): coolman cp1-12 coolman, christological torah coolman cp 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 or, finally, consider the reading of philippians 3:9 that is now made possible. paul describes himself as “not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in christ—the righteousness that comes from god and is by faith.” myriad arguments have been posed as to the structure and parallelism that may be present in this verse. 38 the account sketched out in this essay, however, suggests that the crucial opposition is not that between righteousness that “comes from the law” and righteousness that comes “through faith in christ.” the whole phrase is needed; what is problematic is a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, as opposed to something completely different: a radical new relationship to the law that rests upon being connected to christ. one phrase in particular from this passage has played no small part in “the new perspective on paul.” what is translated “faith in christ” above is, in the greek, πίστιs χρίστου. the question of how to translate this phrase has been raised regularly in new testament studies for the last several decades, posed as a choice that must be made between two options: the objective genitive reading ('faith in christ') or the subjective genitive reading ('the faith of christ'). 39 in others words, if we follow those who push for a subjective genitive reading of πίστιs χρίστου, the english translation might better read: “not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through the faith of christ—the righteousness that comes from god and is by faith.” now, fully exploring what is the “faith of christ” is a serious undertaking, but, it is helpful to note that, for our purposes here, moving in the direction of the subjective genitive only pushes more clearly in the direction suggested above. it is not a question of whether the believer has a righteousness that comes from her obeying the law or from her having faith in christ. it is rather a question of whether, in the most fundamental theological sense, it is the believer or christ who has accomplished this obedience. practical implications here, we must return to the very practical questions raised at the outset of this paper. again, if torah-obligation is radically re-situated in connection to christ, why shouldn‟t all those who follow christ keep torah, not out of obligation, but voluntarily? why, we could ask, if christians are grounded in the righteous torah-observance of jesus, do they imitate him in what they call the “moral law” and not in what they call the “ceremonial law”? or what about the possibility raised by wyschogrod and by kinzer: the ceremonial law is not relevant for gentile christians, but it remains in effect for jews, whether they should become christian or not. what does the account sketched here—an account that operates on broadly thomistic lines and that sees christ defined by the law and the law defined by christ—have to say to these concrete questions? law, he argues, “in the sense that the obligation of the law ceases in you.” thomas aquinas, "lectures on the letter to the romans"; available from http://www.aquinas.avemaria.edu; internet. translation by fabian larcher. chapter 7, lecture 1. 38 cf. “the rhetoric of πίοτις in paul: galatians 2.16,3.22, romans 3.22, and philippians 3.9,” r. barry matlock, jsnt 30.2 (2007) 173-203. 39 cf. r. hays, the faith of jesus christ: an investigation of the narrative substructure of galatians 3:1-4:1, number 56 in the society of biblical literature dissertation series, (scholars press, 1983); m. d. hooker, ”pistis christou” in from adam to christ: essays on paul (cambridge university press, 1990), pp. 165-186. , j.d.g. dunn “once more christus pistou,” sbl seminar papers 1991 (atlanta: scholars press, 1991), pp. 730-44.; p. pollard, „the “faith of christ” in current discussion‟, concordia journal 23 (1997), pp. 213-28; j. dunnill, „saved by whose faith? the function of pi/stij xristou~ in pauline theology‟, colloquium 30 (1998), pp. 3-25. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): coolman cp1-12 coolman, christological torah coolman cp 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 first, what becomes clear in this account is that such divisions are not intended to indicate that some parts of the law are relevant, while others are not. they rather indicate that various commandments are related to christ in different ways. what aquinas suggests is that, for those united to christ, the ceremonial law serves above all as a pointer to christ. in his lengthy treatment of the ceremonial law, aquinas explains that the ceremonial commandments are those that are related directly to the worship of god. “all ceremonies,” he says, “are professions of faith.” 40 aquinas believes that observance of the ceremonial commandments serves specifically as professions that christ—the substance of the law—is yet to come. here we see a further specification of aquinas‟s claim that the law is already inherently christological. the ceremonial law is, for aquinas, we might say, the embodied affirmation that this is true. the ceremonial law is the place at which christians acknowledge the momentousness of christ‟s earthly appearance, the place at which they acknowledge that this is the one who has always been the “substance” of the law. here, then, is the other half of the logic that insists that torah-observance cannot be understood or negotiated separately from the reality of one‟s union with christ. torah-observance is already inherently christological in nature; it would be strange were it untouched in the lives of those who have become united to christ. now, for aquinas, this is precisely the reason that the ceremonial law becomes not only unnecessary, but forbidden. the commandments that christians call “ceremonial” are not the points at which they follow christ in torah-observance; rather, the very act of abstaining from them constitutes worship of christ. in not keeping the ceremonial law, christians honor christ‟s unique place, and display their primary reliance upon him and his torah-observance. this, above all, is what motivates aquinas‟ denouncement of the ceremonial law—he imagines the continued practice of the ceremonial law to function as embodied rejection of these central affirmations about christ. but is aquinas right about this? what we can say about the possibility suggested by both wyschogrod and kinzer: that jewish christians should keep not only the moral, but also the ceremonial law? first, in the account laid out here, wherein christ is defined by torah, and torah by christ, the unavoidable conclusion is that those united to christ cannot simply keep the torah in precisely the same way as those who are not united to christ. for those who are united to christ, relatedness to the law happens in and through christ. here, the “immovable object” of christology remains just that. 41 with regard to this most central claim, furthermore, this account cannot make sense of a fundamental differentiation between gentile and jew. seeing christ defined in terms of torah and seeing torah as defined in terms of christ means that any distinction between jewish christians and gentile christians must be rooted in a more radical similarity. both are necessarily related to the law, and both are necessarily related to the law in christ. a question remains, though, about concrete practice. what about aquinas‟ more controversial claim: that observance of the ceremonial law in fact constitutes mortal sin? what about the plea of wyschogrod, the argument of kinzer? is it possible that jewish christians could, in fact, 40 st, 103, 4, corp. 41 cf. wyschogrod. “christology: the immoveable object.” religion and intellectual life 3 (1986). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): coolman cp1-12 coolman, christological torah coolman cp 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 pratice the ceremonial law as christians? is it possible that, even given radical similarity, distinction between jewish christian and gentile christian might exist? here, we could remain completely consistent with aquinas and say, “no”: no christian may ever observe the ceremonial law. jewish christians who light the sabbath candles or eat according to kosher dietary guidelines do so to their own damnation. or, we could ask whether the thomistically inspired account, above, could allow for a precisely christian form of observance of the ceremonial law. for aquinas, the ceremonial law can, by its nature, only point forward to christ, and not back. but, if we prescind from aquinas at this particular point, we might allow for such a thing. michael wyschogrod, in fact, presses this question in the light of aquinas‟ claim: imagining a jew who has become a christian, he asks, “could adherence to the mosaic law not be interpreted much more benevolently, as love of god and his commandment, as fidelity to a holy way of life out of which…the redeemer was born? if the commandments before christ predicted him, could they not after christ celebrate the predictions that came true and point to the final fulfillment that both jews and christians await?” 42 if this could be allowed, then a sense of torah and christ as deeply interrelated would yield this crucial question: what would a specifically christ-honoring form of ceremonial observance look like? this is exactly the sort of thing for which both wyschogrod and kinzer seem to be calling. and yet kinzer‟s account, which explores the matter in much more detail than does wyschogrod, leaves the impression that the torah-observance of those jews who turn to jesus ought not only to continue, but may continue undisturbed and unchanged. given the thomistically inspired account above, that is impossible. on this account, any righteous act must be seen and lived as grounded in jesus‟ own righteousness, since, for thomas, the second person of the trinity is not simply a moment in the divine economy. christ, rather, is the foundational form of every moment of the divine economy. practically speaking, then, it would not make sense simply to add gentile christian practices to jewish ones. what is needed is rather a robust account of a form of wholetorah-observance that is transformed as it is united to christ. what is needed is a practice that is at once precisely jewish and precisely christian. at least one positive argument for such practice is suggested above. it would create the possibility, via a new, living experience of torah within the church, for a renewed recognition of the gospel‟s meaning and power. there would, of course, be many, many further practical questions that would have to be addressed regarding this practice. halakhic practices are virtually impossible to carry out as individuals or even as single families. they require community. how would jewish christian communities be constituted? how would they be related to the broader church? would they welcome gentile christians who feel inspired to join their ranks? and how could a church divided by issues of ritual purity live out visible unity? there do seem to be those, already, who understand themselves to be living just such a life—including messianic jews, and others. 43 perhaps 42 michael wyschogrod, “a jewish reading of st. thomas aquinas on the old law,” in understanding scripture, ed. clemens thoma and michael wyschogrod (new york: paulist press, 1987), 136. 43 only recently, the visit of the pope to jerusalem prompted media coverage of jewish converts to catholicism such as fr. gregorcz pawlowski, who says mass for his small polish community in jaffa and also fasts on yom kippur, and fr. david neuhaus, a jesuit priest who continues to attend a reform synogague regularly and celebrate jewish holidays such as succot and hanukka. the jerusalem post magazine, may 9, 2009. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 5 (2010): coolman cp1-12 coolman, christological torah coolman cp 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol5 in dialogue with these and others, these difficult practical questions, not so different than the ones with which the church began, are the ones to lead us forward now. microsoft word 172844-text.native.1250633564.doc studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): stegman 1-14 stegman, ‘lifting the veil’ stegman http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 1 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college ‘lifting the veil’: the challenges posed by 2 corinthians 3 t h o m a s d . s t e g m a n , s j boston college school of theology and ministry volume 4 (2009) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 an earlier version of this paper was presented at boston college on march 16, 2008 at the conference: paul of tarsus: the apostle to the gentiles in his jewish context studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): stegman 1-14 stegman, ‘lifting the veil’ stegman http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 2 second corinthians 3 raises problems and challenges for jewish-christian relations. it is in this chapter that paul refers to the mosaic covenant as “the old covenant” whose glory has been so surpassed that it no longer has glory. it is here that he portrays the ministry of the mosaic covenant as one of “condemnation,” even of “death.” it is here that he describes his jewish contemporaries as suffering from a pervasive spiritual blindness. and it is here that he sets forth his christcentered hermeneutical principle for the interpretation of the jewish scriptures. so what do we do with this text, a text that is also replete with content dear to christian hearts 1 (e.g., the effects of god’s outpouring of the spirit; the intimate encounter with christ mediated through the gospel)? victor paul furnish begins his anchor bible commentary, “no pauline letter requires more of its readers…than 2 cor.” 2 in a similar vein, daniel j. harrington, s.j. has publicly observed that 2 corinthians is the most challenging document in the new testament on which to give a clear, coherent lecture. i would add that, within this most difficult 151515 1 the march 15-16, 2009 boston college conference “paul of tarsus: the apostle to the gentiles in his jewish context” was fittingly dedicated to honor the memory and contributions of krister stendahl. in the discussion following the presentation of an earlier version of this paper, his son, pastor john stendahl, informed the conference that 2 cor 3:18 was read at bishop stendahl's funeral liturgy. 2 victor paul furnish, ii corinthians: a new translation with introduction and commentary, anchor bible 32a (new york: doubleday, 1984) 3. writing, chapter 3 poses the most demanding test for the interpreter. second corinthians 3 raises a number of challenging questions: what lies behind paul’s bringing up the notion of “a new covenant” in v. 6? how does he regard the figure of moses—as an ally or as part of the problem? how are we to understand paul’s four-fold use of the verb katargeomai— usually rendered “fading,” at least in its first three occurrences—in vv. 7-14? why does he focus on the image of veiling? why does he take up the issue of jewish rejection of the gospel here? is paul responding to criticism of his ministry? if so, what precisely is the critique? and who is doing the criticizing: other missionaries? members of the nascent christian community in corinth? jews in corinth? a combination thereof? and, perhaps most fundamental of all, how does chapter 3 fit within its larger literary context? situating 2 corinthians 3 the last question raises the issue of whether the canonical form of 2 corinthians is a single letter or a composite of parts of two or more letters. fortunately for our purposes, we do not need to settle this question definitively (although, in the spirit of full disclosure, i read the letter as a single, unified text). even the most ambitious partition theories set chapter 3 within the section of paul’s discourse on his apostleship that runs from 2:14-7:4. 3 more precisely, i 151515 3 see, e.g., hans dieter betz, “corinthians, second epistle to the,” in the anchor bible dictionary, vol. 1, ed. david noel freedman et al. (new york: doubleday, 1992) 1149-1150. betz divides 2 corinthians into five letters, or parts of letters, in the following chronological order: a) first apology, 2:14-6:13 + 7:2-4; b) second apology, 10:1-13:10; c) letter of reconciliation, 1:1-2:13 + 7:5-16 + 13:11-13; d) administrative letter to studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): stegman 1-14 stegman, ‘lifting the veil’ stegman http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 3 want to situate chapter 3 within the first division of that discourse, 2:14-4:6. this chapter is thus bracketed by two small units, 2:14-17 and 4:1-6, units that contain a number of points in common. first, in both units paul alludes to his call to be an apostle. in 4:1 he talks about having “the ministry” because of god’s mercy, a reference to his awareness that he received his mission in a most unexpected time and manner, when he was persecuting the church (1 cor 15:9-10; see also 1 tm 1:13-14). that paul has his encounter with the risen jesus in mind is strongly suggested by 4:6, where he refers to the glory of god shining “on the face of christ.” 4 similarly, in 2:14 paul’s adaptation of the roman triumphal procession—in which he sets god in the position of the conquering general and himself as a prisoner of the triumphator—conveys his sense that god had “captured” him in order to promulgate “the knowledge of [christ] in every place.” not to be overlooked is paul’s question, found two verses later, where he asks who is “sufficient” (hikanos) for such a calling (2:16). scott j. hafemann has argued that paul alludes here to the call of moses, who protested to god that he was not hikanos (lxx ex 4:10). as was the case with moses, so the apostle has come to understand that his sufficiency comes from god (3:5-6). 5 if hafemann is correct, and i think he is on to something here, then paul has moses in mind from the outset of 2:14-4:6, as a figure with whom he has an important connection. corinth, 8:1-24; e) administrative letter to christians of achaia, 9:1-15. he regards 6:14-7:1 as a non-pauline interpolation. 4 all translations of the biblical text are my own. 5 scott j. hafemann, paul, moses, and the history of israel: the letter/spirit contrast and the argument from scripture in 2 corinthians 3, wissenschaftliche untersuchungen zum neuen testament 81 (tübingen: mohr–siebeck, 1995) 39-47. a second common feature of the bookend units is that paul intimates the presence of opposition from other missionaries or preachers of the gospel. in 2:17 he distances himself from a group, dubbed “the many,” whom he accuses of ‘peddling’ or, worse, of ‘diluting’ 6 god’s word. and in 4:2 paul insists that he has renounced shameful and underhanded ways, and that he neither conducts himself with cunning nor distorts god’s word. admittedly, there is no explicit reference here to others acting in this manner. however, given that these same criticisms resurface in connection with his polemic against a group he derisively names “superlative apostles” (see 12:16-18), i submit that he has a competing group in mind in 4:2. hints of opposition against paul also appear in 5:12—where he distinguishes his way of being an apostle from those “who boast about appearances and not on what is in the heart”—and 7:2— where he defends himself against charges that were likely exacerbated, if not originated, by other missionaries. a third shared quality is that paul indicates that his apostolic ministry entails humble service and even suffering. the notion of humble service is evident in 4:5, where he describes his proclamation of the gospel as involving his becoming a “slave” (doulos) to the corinthians “for the sake of jesus.” that is, he is committed to serving the community in response to jesus’ call to him (1:1), a service that is patterned after jesus’ loving, self-giving manner (see, e.g., gal 2:20; phil 2:7-8). paul’s use of the roman triumphal procession metaphor in 2:14 also suggests his slave-like status. in addition, he refers to the self-sacrificial quality of his ministry by describing himself in 2:14-15 as “odor” (osmē) being spread by god and as “the aroma (euōdia) of christ.” interestingly, paul elsewhere juxtaposes osmē and euōdia to indicate a fragrant sacrificial offering to god (phil 151515 6 the verb kapēleuō can denote both meanings. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): stegman 1-14 stegman, ‘lifting the veil’ stegman http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 4 4:18; see also eph 5:2). 7 in short, he alludes in the bookend passages to the paradoxical quality of his apostleship: he claims that divine power and glory are revealed through what appears on the surface as weakness and dishonor. it is this paradoxical quality that others, including members of the corinthian church, do not understand and is the cause for some of the criticism leveled against him. a fourth common feature in the bracketing passages is paul’s acknowledgement that his proclamation of the gospel has not been accepted by all. he employs dramatic imagery to describe the cause and consequence of rejection of the gospel message. in 4:3-4 paul declares that “the god of this world”—that is, satan—has blinded the minds of unbelievers. lying behind this declaration seems to be a criticism leveled against him that his preaching of the gospel is somehow “veiled.” and in 2:15-16 paul portrays the rejection of the gospel as leading to death. gathering together these commonalities, we see that 2 corinthians 3 is set within a freighted context. paul is on the defensive. rival missionaries lurk in the background. indeed, within the past generation there was a cottage industry in scholarly monographs that attempted to identify these rivals and their ideology. 8 while i think that the quest for 151515 7 the phrase osmē euōdias appears forty-nine times in the lxx; in most cases, it refers to the sweet aroma of the burnt offering. see, e.g., gn 8:21; ex 29:18, 25, 41; lv 1:9, 13, 17. paul employs the phrase in eph 5:2 in connection with jesus’ self-giving love. 8 see, e.g., derk w. oostendorp, another jesus: a gospel of jewishchristian superiority in ii corinthians (kampen: j.h. kok, 1967); walther schmithals, gnosticism in corinth: an investigation of the letters of the corinthians, trans. john e. steely (nashville: abingdon, 1971); dieter georgi, the opponents of paul in second corinthians: a study of religious propaganda in late antiquity (philadelphia: fortress, 1986); jerry l. sumney, identifying paul’s opponents: the question of method in 2 corinthians, journal for the study of the new testament: supplement series 40 (sheffield: jsot press, 1990). pinpointing paul’s opponents in corinth has led the interpretation of 2 corinthians down wrong paths, there is no doubt that there were rival missionaries at work there. and it does not stretch the imagination to picture them criticizing paul’s manner of being an apostle, especially his servile ways and his penchant for suffering. nor does it seem farfetched that the truth and efficacy of his message would be called into question, as the number of adherents to paul’s gospel was relatively small. furthermore, the jews, the people of god to whom he claimed to belong, were not flocking to the house churches. how reliable, then, is this man who claims to be “an apostle of jesus christ by the will of god” (1:1)? and how trustworthy is his message about god’s bringing salvation through jesus, whom he insists is the christ, the messiah? 9 confronted with such circumstances, paul goes back to the basics in 2 corinthians 3, just as he does elsewhere when under attack. that is, he points to his divine calling, insists on the efficacy of his ministry, and draws on biblical texts—in this case, in order to set forth his claim that god’s promises to israel are now being fulfilled, especially as manifested by the outpouring of god’s spirit through his ministry. 10 before proceeding with our analysis, it is worth pausing a moment to reflect on what has just been set forth. the content of 2 corinthians 3 is, in large part, a product of 151515 9 cf. thomas e. provence, “‘who is sufficient for these things?’ an exegesis of 2 corinthians ii 15-iii 18,” novum testamentum 24 (1982): 56. 10 paul employs a similar strategy in his letter to the galatians, a letter occasioned by the encroachment of his missionary foundation by rival preachers who led (at least some of them) the community to doubt his apostolic credentials and the gospel he preached. paul reminds the galatians of his call and its aftermath (1:11-2:21); invites them to recall the salutary effects of his proclamation of the gospel to them (3:1-5); and offers a number of arguments from scripture (3:6-4:31). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): stegman 1-14 stegman, ‘lifting the veil’ stegman http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 5 paul’s defensiveness. experience teaches that a defensive posture does not always produce a measured response. this observation merits consideration, especially when the question of appropriation of this text arises. i will return to this point in the concluding section. but let’s now delve more deeply into the text. 2 corinthians 3:1-6 second corinthians 3 begins with a reference to recommendation letters. paul’s defensive posture is evident from the outset, as he aggressively raises two questions about commendation and letters of recommendation (v. 1). it seems that the missionaries who have come to corinth brought with them letters of recommendation; moreover, they may have been soliciting letters from the corinthian community to take elsewhere. behind the text lie two pointed questions: did paul bring such letters with him when he first came to corinth? if not, what does that say about him and his claim to be an apostle? paul’s initial response is to claim that the very existence of the nascent ekklēsia in corinth functions as his recommendation letter (cf. 1 cor 9:2). his ministry there has borne fruit—or, as the apostle would express it, god has worked through him (see 1 cor 3:6). but there is more going on here than paul’s basic assertion that the establishment of “the church of god that is in corinth” (1 cor 2:1) is his recommendation letter. his manner of expressing this claim—in which he employs a number of biblical allusions—begins to set the stage for a more fundamental defense of his apostleship. paul informs the corinthians that they are “a letter about christ” 11 authored by “the spirit of the living god,” written 151515 11 for rendering epistolē christou as “a letter about christ” and its significance, see thomas d. stegman, the character of jesus: the “not on tablets of stone but on tablets of fleshy hearts” (v. 3). the phrase “tablets of stone” is an allusion to ex 31:18, which recounts moses’ receiving from god, on mount sinai, the two stone tablets that “were written by the finger of god.” the phrase “fleshy hearts” (kardiai sarkinai) and the reference to the bestowal of god’s spirit within them allude to the divine promises made to exiled israel found in ez 11:19; 36:26-27. moreover, paul’s statement in v. 2—that the corinthians are a letter written “on our hearts” (i.e., on his heart and those of his co-workers)—echoes lxx jer 38:33 (mt jer 31:33), where god promised israel that, in days to come, god would write the law upon their hearts. crucial to paul’s train of thought here is that this promise pronounced by jeremiah takes place in the context of god’s pledge to make “a new covenant” (kainē diathēkē) with god’s people (lxx 38:31; mt 31:31). that paul has the jeremiah text in mind is clear from his statement, a few lines later (v. 6), that god has made him “sufficient” to be a minister of “a new covenant.” 12 we now arrive at the heart of paul’s self-understanding, one that is intricately connected with his belief concerning how god has acted in and through jesus. lying just beneath the surface of paul’s presentation in vv. 1-6 is his conviction, as he explicitly declares in 2 cor 1:18-20a, that all the promises of god have their “yes”—that is, their fulfillment— in “the son of god, messiah jesus.” 13 moreover, in the latter linchpin to paul’s argument in 2 corinthians, analecta biblica 158 (rome: pontifical biblical institute, 2005) 315-318. 12 the figure of jeremiah is important for paul. the latter describes his call to be an apostle in gal 1:15 in language that echoes lxx jer 1:5, especially the notion of being set apart and called when he was in his mother’s “womb” (koilia). paul also understands his god-given authority for the purpose of “building up” others (eis oikodomēn – 2 cor 10:8; 13:10) with reference to lxx jer 1:10. 13 one of the reasons for reading 2 corinthians as a literary unity is that paul’s claim in 1:18-20 provides the foundation for what he writes in 3:1-6. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): stegman 1-14 stegman, ‘lifting the veil’ stegman http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 6 passage, paul goes on to insist that the fulfillment of god’s promises has two interrelated, ongoing manifestations. 14 first, he states in 1:20b that “through [jesus] the amen goes to god for glory through us.” observe that paul raises here the issue of “glory” (doxa), an issue he takes up in earnest in 2 corinthians 3, beginning with v. 7. second, paul asserts in 1:21-22 that god has bestowed the gift of the spirit “in our hearts.” texts like gal 3:1-5—where the apostle appeals to the galatians’ experience of receiving the spirit—and 1 cor 12:1-14:40— where he discusses the manifestations and gifts of the spirit —attest to paul’s sanguine belief in the powerful presence of god’s spirit among those who have accepted the gospel proclamation and have been baptized. what is pertinent for our purposes is that he regards this outpouring of the spirit as the fulfillment of the prophetic passages about god’s promises of a new covenant. moreover, he considers his ministry of proclaiming the gospel as continuing the work of salvation god has brought about through jesus. this brief detour positions us to understand better paul’s presentation in 2 cor 3:4-6. he states in v. 4 that his confidence in god is dia tou christou—“through the messiah.” here paul points to the centrality of jesus’ life, death, and resurrection in god’s salvific activity. he goes on to explain, in vv. 5-6, that this saving action is now extended through the ministry of “a new covenant.” 15 we are not surprised to hear that the distinguishing characteristic of this new covenant is pneumatos—it is “of the spirit.” observe that paul alludes once again to his call, as he insists that his 151515 14 paul signals this ongoing significance, at least in part, by his use of the perfect tense verb gegonen in v. 19. the perfect tense in greek indicates a past action that has enduring ramifications, even to the present. 15 elsewhere paul refers to “new covenant” when passing on the tradition of jesus’ words over the cup at the last supper (1 cor 11:25; see also lk 22:20). sufficiency 16 comes from god, who has made him a minister of this covenant. therefore, in vv. 1-6 the apostle has insisted on the efficacy of his ministry and, even more fundamentally, on his divine call. and he has done so by drawing on israel’s scriptures. but this is where paul’s presentation begins to take on an incendiary quality. starting in v. 7, he goes on to accentuate the greatness of the new covenant ministry by contrasting it with that of the covenant given to moses. actually, the first salvo was sounded back in v. 3, where he contrasted “tablets of stone” with “tablets of fleshy hearts.” now, at the end of v. 6, he remarks, “the letter kills but the spirit gives life.” it is important to be clear that paul does not say that the law in and of itself brings about death; notice that he says to gramma (“the letter”), not ho nomos (“the law”). his position, as he will later explain in rom 7:7-8:11, is that the law of itself cannot grant life; rather, life is bestowed only by the life-giving power of god’s spirit. what motivates paul to embark on a comparison between the covenants (vv. 7-11)? to use moses as a foil for his own comportment (vv. 12-13)? to account for the rejection of the gospel by the majority of the jews of his day (vv. 14-15)? and to describe how he and all those who possess god’s spirit behold the glory of the lord (vv. 1618)? here is where, in my opinion, a veil can easily fall over the eyes of the commentator who attempts to identify with precision what lies behind the text and what was in paul’s mind as he wrote. but try one must! my sense is that a number of factors were at play—two that are suggested in the text, and two that lie behind the text: 151515 16 paul employs three cognates of the root hikanin 3:5-6. this picks up the issue of “sufficiency” raised in 2:16. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): stegman 1-14 stegman, ‘lifting the veil’ stegman http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 7 • paul alluded to the call of moses in 2:16, and this figure and the story of exodus has been in his mind since then. • the background of the prophecies from jeremiah and ezekiel was the failure of the people to heed god’s ways as set forth in torah. paul now sees israel’s rejection of the gospel as a similar failure. • paul was aware that some in corinth were questioning why jews, for the most part, did not respond favorably to the gospel. 17 • paul’s way of being an apostle, marked by selfgiving and suffering, seemed in the eyes of others to be the antithesis of reflecting divine doxa. i now propose to work through the remainder of 2 corinthians 3, keeping the focus on what i consider to be the positive points paul makes while flagging the controversial and problematic aspects of his exposition vis-à-vis jewishchristian relations. the latter will then serve as the subject of my concluding section. 2 corinthians 3:7-11 the usual manner of approaching vv. 7-11 is to see this unit as paul’s contrast and comparison of two covenants. to be sure, this seems to be what these verses ultimately boil down to. nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that what he compares and contrasts here are two “ministries” (diakoniai). recall that paul and his ministry are under attack. hence he 151515 17 this was john chrysostom’s explanation. see homilies on 2 corinthians, 7:2. is determined to set forth the greatness of the ministry to which he has been called. given what paul believes about the outpouring of god’s spirit in connection with the proclamation of the gospel, it is not surprising that he now refers to the new covenant ministry in v. 8 as hē diakonia tou pneumatos, “the ministry of the spirit.” he also calls it hē diakonia tēs dikaiosynēs, “the ministry of righteousness,” in v. 9. this appellation has deeper resonances than the immediate context suggests. “righteousness,” for paul, is first and foremost an attribute of god (dikaiosynē theou). god’s righteousness refers to god’s covenantal faithfulness, the faithfulness that reveals itself in salvific activity. 18 the locus classicus of paul’s understanding of dikaiosynē theou is rom 3:21-22: “but now the righteousness of god has been manifested…through the faithfulness of jesus the messiah for all who believe.” 19 notice that paul identifies jesus as the messiah and, as rom 3:24-25 goes on to explain, his expiating death (that expressed his faithfulness to god) as the eschatological revelation of god’s saving righteousness. god has acted through jesus’ death (and resurrection) to bring about the 151515 18 see n.t. wright, what saint paul really said: was paul of tarsus the real founder of christianity? (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 1997) 100110. 19 along with a growing number of scholars, i read the phrase pistis iēsou christou as a subjective genitive, referring to christ’s faithfulness (rather than the objective genitive rendering ‘faith in christ’). for more on the pistis christou debate, see richard b. hays, “πιστις and pauline christology: what is at stake?” in pauline theology: volume iv: looking back, pressing on, ed. e. elizabeth johnson and david m. hay (atlanta: scholars press, 1997) 35-60; and, in the same volume, james d.g. dunn, “once more, πιστις χριστου,” 61-81. paul’s parenthetical statement in rom 3:21—that “the law and the prophets” bear testimony to the revelation of god’s righteousness—is explained, in part, by his interpretation of texts like those from jeremiah and ezekiel referred to above. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): stegman 1-14 stegman, ‘lifting the veil’ stegman http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 8 possibility of salvation. moreover, according to paul, jesus’ death reveals god’s reconciling love (rom 5:8-11). the manifestation of god’s righteousness, however, is not exhausted in the christ-event. it now continues in the exercise of the spirit-empowered ministry of righteousness that paul is presently discussing. elsewhere in 2 corinthians, he explains two major facets of this ministry. first, it entails the proclamation of god’s work of salvation, what paul calls “the ministry of (diakonia) reconciliation” (5:19). second, it must be embodied through the praxis of self-giving love within real life circumstances. 20 an important instantiation of such incarnated love, for paul, is the collection for the poor of the jerusalem church (8:1-9:15). indeed, he employs the term diakonia in this connection—the collection is, literally, “the ministry unto the holy ones” (8:4; 9:1). not only was it to be marked by self-giving (8:5) and love (8:8, 24); it was also a sign of the reconciliation that jesus has brought about, at least potentially, between gentiles and jews, within the ekklēsia (see eph 2:14-16). 21 now, because paul considers the new covenant ministry as part of the definitive divine eschatological action to bring about salvation, he views this ministry as permanent and enduring, as he states in v. 11 of our passage. 151515 20 paul succinctly expresses this two-fold expression, through preaching and praxis, of the new covenant ministry in 2 cor 4:5: “we proclaim… jesus christ as lord, and [we proclaim] ourselves as your slaves for the sake of jesus.” 21 for paul’s understanding of the theological and symbolic significance of the collection, see keith f. nickle, the collection: a study in paul’s strategy, studies in biblical theology 48 (naperville, il: alec r. allenson, 1966); and dieter georgi, remembering the poor: the history of paul’s collection for jerusalem (nashville: abingdon, 1991). paul’s authorship of ephesians is, of course, a disputed issue. if this writing is deutero-pauline, it is significant to note that some of paul’s earliest interpreters understood him as valuing the jewish tradition. but paul is not content with setting forth the new covenant ministry in positive terms—as empowered by the spirit, as manifesting god’s righteousness, and as enduring forever. he contrasts this ministry with that of the mosaic covenant, the covenant “carved in letters of stone” (v. 7), and adds corresponding negative attributions to the latter. thus he calls it “the ministry of death” (v. 7) and “the ministry of condemnation” (v. 9). paul’s reasoning seems to be as follows: the mosaic covenant concluded with a long list of curses that would come upon israel if the people were not faithful to the covenant (dt 28:15-68), including the punishment of exile. the passages from ezekiel and jeremiah cited above are from the context of the babylonian exile, from the context of israel’s failure to obey the divine commandments and of their subsequent punishment. to paul’s way of thinking, the spirit prophesied by ezekiel—the spirit that would bring the dry bones of exiled israel back to life (37:1-14) 22 —has only now been poured out. and it has been poured out on those who have believed the gospel proclamation and been baptized. what is crucial to appreciate is that it is only from the perspective of his encounter with the risen jesus and his experience of the outpoured spirit that paul declares that the ministry of the mosaic covenant has now “been set aside,” even “rendered inoperative” (the sense of the verb katargeomai—`vv. 7, 11). 23 151515 22 for the significance of ez 37:1-14 for paul, see carol kern stockhausen, moses’ veil and the glory of the new covenant: the exegetical substructure of ii cor. 3,1-4,6, analecta biblica 116 (rome: pontifical biblical institute, 1989) 67-71, 78-82. 23 although many commentators translate katargeomai as “fade” in vv. 7, 11, and 13, there is no lexical support for this translation. in fact, the twenty-two other usages of the verb katargeō in the pauline corpus are best rendered “set aside” (as in v. 14 of the present passage), “nullify,” and even “destroy”—but in no case as “fade.” 23 see john m. mcdermott, “ii corinthians 3: the old and new covenants,” gregorianum 87 (2006): 34-35. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): stegman 1-14 stegman, ‘lifting the veil’ stegman http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 9 what do we make of paul’s negative assessment? from one perspective, he is simply setting forth the counterpoints to his robust characterization of the new covenant ministry. from another perspective—for instance, one that realizes how a text like this has been used by some christians to regard judaism as obsolete and, even worse, as condemned—we must not pass over this language uncritically. it is important to point out that, in vv. 7-11, paul’s assessment of the mosaic covenant is not entirely negative. even his harshest criticism is nuanced. observe that he acknowledges that the law given to moses “came to be in glory” (egenēthē en doxēi – v. 7), an allusion to the tradition that moses’ face reflected the glory of god (ex 34:29). and as the argument continues, paul will appeal to moses in a positive way. admittedly, he also states three times that the new covenant ministry surpasses in glory the ministry of the mosaic covenant. but this claim raises an apparent problem for the apostle: his own face does not literally shine with the glory of god. in fact, his life—marked by humility, self-giving, and suffering—seems anything but glorious, something about which the rival missionaries and some of the corinthians likely reminded him. so how does paul deal with this paradox? 2 corinthians 3:12-13 paul takes up the story of moses’ face reflecting god’s glory in vv. 12-13. he declares that, because of his hope in the enduring character of the new covenant, he acts with “boldness” (v. 12). the term parrēsia can also mean “frankness” in the sense of “open speech.” given that paul will soon insist that he acts and speaks openly (4:2)—as well as deny that his gospel is “veiled” (4:3)—he likely also intends the connotation of frankness. he then compares his boldness and openness to moses’ act of veiling his face (v. 13). so, at one level, moses simply plays the role of foil for paul, who continues to defend his manner of being an apostle. but there is something else going on here. paul attributes a peculiar reason for moses’ act of veiling, namely, so that the israelites would not look intently. that is, according to paul, moses wanted to prevent the israelites from staring or fixating (the sense of the verb atenizō). but this differs from what is narrated in ex 34:29-35—not to mention from what paul himself implied back in v. 7, where he wrote, “the israelites could not look intently at the face of moses because of the glory of his face….” exodus 34:29-35 recounts moses’ descent from mount sinai, carrying the ten commandments inscribed on two stone tablets. because he had been in the glorious, divine presence, the appearance of his face was transformed: he now radiated god’s glory. the israelites, however, were afraid to approach moses because of his shining face. he responded by covering his face with a veil after transmitting god’s commandments to them. although no explicit reason is given in the exodus text, one can infer from it that moses veiled his face because the people were unnerved at seeing its radiance. paul thus attaches a different motive to moses’ act of veiling in v. 13. he regards it as a preventative measure. but what, exactly, did moses want to prevent the israelites from seeing? to telos tou katargoumenou. the meaning of this phrase has long been debated. 24 in my opinion, the best interpretation is: “the cessation of what was being set 151515 24 see margaret e. thrall, a critical and exegetical commentary on the second epistle to the corinthians, vol. 1, international critical commentary (edinburgh: t & t clark: 1994) 259-261. thrall sets forth seven interpretations that have been offered. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): stegman 1-14 stegman, ‘lifting the veil’ stegman http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 10 aside.” 25 that is, paul provocatively suggests here that moses veiled himself so that the israelites would not fixate on what was ultimately bound to be rendered inoperative. in other words, moses desired to keep the people from so focusing on the ministry bestowed on him that they would fail to see that, in the end, it would be set aside at the coming of messiah jesus. similar to how paul can claim that abraham was foretold the gospel (proeuangelizomai—gal 3:8), he now intimates that moses foresaw the coming of a new covenant in the spirit. notice what paul has done vis-à-vis the figure of moses. although the apostle regards moses’ ministry as marked by condemnation and death, he also enlists moses as one who knew—presumably by divine revelation—what god was going to bring about in the future. on this reading, moses is on the side of the new covenant. while paul initially contrasts his comportment with moses’ act of veiling, he favorably regards the latter’s beholding and radiating the glory of god. just as paul claims elsewhere that moses prefigures baptism and the eucharist (1 cor 10:1-4), so here the latter’s experience of transformation in the divine presence is the prototype for the christian experience of being transformed while “gazing at the glory of the lord” (v. 18). paul’s reading of the story in exodus 34 raises some important questions: is this a legitimate way of interpreting the biblical text? is it not tendentious? what control, if any, does the literal meaning of the text exercise? does paul’s interpretation, as part of what is now regarded as a canonical text (i.e., as part of the new testament), trump the 151515 25 so also, e.g., jan lambrecht, 2 corinthians, sacra pagina 8 (collegeville, mn: liturgical press, 1999) 52; and frank j. matera, ii corinthians: a commentary, new testament library (louisville: westminster john knox, 2003) 92-93. literal meaning? to be sure, he reads this text (and many others) through a christological lens, from the same perspective now employed by most christian lectionaries. do such readings vitiate how others – namely, jews – read these texts which they too regard as divine revelation? 2 corinthians 3:14-15 we now come to the most contentious section of paul’s argument in 2 corinthians 3, where he discusses the veil over jewish minds and hearts. at the beginning of v. 14, he states that “their thoughts were hardened”—referring to the people at the time of moses. the verb pōroō means “petrify.” paul’s imagery hearkens back to the stony hearts (ez 11:19; 36:26) alluded to above in v. 3. indeed, the hardened “thoughts” (noēmata) in v. 14 become the veiled “heart” (kardia) in v. 15. 26 but paul’s real concern is not with the israelites of moses’ time. rather, as the phrase “to this day” makes clear, it is with his jewish contemporaries, the majority of whom have not accepted the gospel proclamation “messiah jesus is lord!” (2 cor 4:5; phil 2:11). paul here employs the veil of moses metaphorically to explain what he regards as jewish blindness: “when they read the old covenant, 27 the same veil remains unlifted.” he then makes explicit his christological hermeneutical principle for reading scripture, namely, that only “in christ” is the veil set aside. 28 151515 26 the rsv fails to convey paul’s movement from noēmata (“thoughts” – v. 14) to kardia (“heart” – v. 15); rather, it renders both terms as “minds.” 27 this is the only place in the entire bible—in both testaments—where the phrase “old covenant” (palaia diathēkē) appears. 28 here is where all translations and commentators agree that the verb katargeomai should be rendered “set aside” (or something similar in meaning). see note 21 above. it is interesting to note that paul does not make explicit what is the subject of katargeomai. it could be either “old covenant” or “veil.” given how paul’s argument proceeds (especially in v. 16), it is better to take “veil” as the subject. if this is correct, it is worth studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): stegman 1-14 stegman, ‘lifting the veil’ stegman http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 11 according to the apostle, the veil that blinds is removed only when one recognizes that the jewish scriptures point to and are fulfilled by christ jesus. paul reiterates the blindness of his jewish contemporaries in v. 15, but with some subtle changes. he refers to the reading of moses, that is, to the reading of torah in the synagogue. he thus distinguishes between the figure of moses and the writings attributed to him. paul claims moses as the forerunner of the fruit of the new covenant ministry—beholding the glory of the lord—while acknowledging that the written torah led to a different diakonia (vv. 7-11). in addition, he replaces the phrase “the same veil” with simply “a veil,” thereby intimating that an even more pervasive spiritual blindness has descended on the people, resulting in hardened “hearts.” 29 observe the transition from moses’ face—that is, from an exterior aspect of human existence—to minds and hearts—that is, to the interior, the very core, of human existence. this is significant because paul is about to point to the inner transformation empowered by the spirit. before proceeding to the final unit of 2 corinthians 3, it is worth flagging issues raised by vv. 14-15. the mixed imagery of hardened/veiled minds/hearts and the use of the phrase “old covenant” raise some of the same problems we saw in connection with vv. 7-11, except that now the negative assessment touches, literally, on the very condition of the jewish people. verses 14-15 also bring to the fore the issue of paul’s christ-centered hermeneutic for reading observing that he does not claim here that the “old covenant” has been set aside. 29 cf. alfred plummer, a critical and exegetical commentary on the second epistle of st. paul to the corinthians, international critical commentary (edinburgh: t & t clark, 1985 [1915]) 101. scripture, which we noted in connection with vv. 12-13. moreover, paul’s use of the passive voice in v. 14—“their thoughts were hardened (epōrōthē)”—raises an important question: is this an instance of the divine passive (cf. is 6:910)? 30 if so, what does that say about the apostle’s understanding of god’s fidelity to israel? 2 corinthians 3:16-18 paul now moves to the climax of 2 corinthians 3. recall that god’s promise to make a new covenant with israel (jer 31:31)—one marked by god’s removing stony hearts and replacing them with fleshy hearts into which god would send the spirit (ez 11:19; 36:26-27)—has been in the background throughout the chapter. in vv. 16-18 paul explains how these promises are now enacted. he begins by offering the remedy for spiritual hardening and blindness: “whenever a person turns to the lord, the veil is removed” (v. 16). this line is an allusion to lxx ex 34:34, which reads: “whenever moses entered in the presence of the lord to speak with him, he [i.e., moses] removed the veil….” the reference is to moses’ practice of entering the meeting tent to discourse with god face to face (see ex 33:7-11). 151515 30 as suggested by r.v.g. tasker, the second epistle to the corinthians, tyndale new testament commentaries 8 (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 1983 [1958]) 65. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): stegman 1-14 stegman, ‘lifting the veil’ stegman http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 12 paul actualizes 31 the exodus text, adapting it for his purpose. he makes three important changes. first, he removes “moses” as the subject of the opening clause; in doing so, he leaves open to anyone the possibility of coming before “the lord.” that is, what was unique to moses’ experience has now been universalized, at least potentially. second, paul replaces the past tense verb “entered” (eiseporeuteto) with the present tense verb “turns” (epistrepsei), thereby offering a perennial invitation to people to turn to the lord. third, he changes the verb periaireō from an imperfect middle—which conveyed moses’ habitual practice of removing his veil—to a present passive— suggesting that it is the lord who now removes the veil. 32 in sum, paul’s appropriation of ex 34:34 functions to claim that all people are now offered the possibility of encountering god in glory. for the apostle, such an encounter is the fruit of the new covenant ministry. paul then offers an exegetical gloss in v. 17: “now the ‘lord’ is the spirit.” without doubt, “the lord” refers to god (i.e., to yhwh) in the exodus text. paul, in actualizing this passage, asserts that “the lord” stands for “the spirit.” 33 the reb captures his sense well: “now the lord of whom this 151515 31 the pontifical biblical commission’s document the interpretation of the bible in the church (iv.a.) aptly defines the practice of “actualization” as re-reading biblical texts in light of new circumstances and applying such texts to a contemporary situation. for the full text of the english translation of the pbc document, see http://catholic-resources.org/churchdocs/ pbc_interp-fulltext.htm. 32 of course, the middle and passive forms have the same spelling. that paul uses the passive voice here is strongly suggested by the divine agency made explicit in 3:18 and 4:6. cf. murray j. harris, the second epistle to the corinthians, new international greek testament commentary (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 2005) 309. 33 see, e.g., linda l. belleville, reflections of glory: paul’s polemical use of the moses-doxa tradition in 2 corinthians 3.1-18, journal for the study of the new testament: supplement series 52 (sheffield: jsot press, 1991) 263-67. passage speaks is the spirit.” but what, precisely, does it mean to ‘turn to the spirit’? james d.g. dunn has argued, rightly in my opinion, that the phrase as used here is the equivalent of “receiving the holy spirit,” which is the fruit of the new covenant ministry. 34 paul then adds that the spirit brings freedom. given the context of his appropriation of the exodus passage, the words at the end of v. 17 suggest that the spirit releases people from the veil that keeps them from recognizing the salvation god has effected in and through messiah jesus. in v. 18 paul describes what happens when a person turns to the lord, that is, when he or she receives the spirit. like moses, they—note the phrase “we all”—behold, with unveiled faces, the glory of the lord. as the following verses will spell out, “the glory of the lord” refers here to god’s glory as it has been revealed through jesus (4:6), whom the apostle calls “the image of god” (4:4). what, precisely, paul means by ‘beholding’ has been the subject of some debate. the verb katoptrizomai is a new testament hapax legomenon. does it mean “to contemplate”/“gaze intently at,” like looking into a mirror, or “to reflect like a mirror?” 35 my sense is that paul intends the former sense. that is, he refers to contemplating god’s glory as reflected in jesus, the imago dei (4:4), the new adam, whose obedience to god—made manifest in his self-giving love unto death on the cross—revealed how human beings ought to show forth god’s holiness and likeness. to behold 151515 34 james d.g. dunn, baptism in the holy spirit: a re-examination of the new testament teaching on the gift of the spirit in relation to pentecostalism today, studies in biblical theology ii.15 (naperville, il.: alec r. allenson, 1970) 136. 35 for reading katoptrizomai in the sense of “contemplate,” see, e.g., matera, ii corinthians, 96-97; for understanding it as “reflect,” see, e.g., n.t. wright, the climax of the covenant: christ and the law in pauline theology (minneapolis: fortress, 1993) 185-189. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): stegman 1-14 stegman, ‘lifting the veil’ stegman http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 13 this glory is tantamount to contemplating the story and character of jesus as proclaimed in the gospel. like moses who once gazed “with unveiled face” on the divine glory, so now christians can behold god’s glory reflected in messiah jesus through the medium of the gospel proclamation. the result of such beholding is being transformed into “the same image.” the verb metamorphoomai is the same term used by matthew and mark to describe jesus’ transfiguration. 36 paul’s use of the passive voice points to the agency of the spirit, as the end of v. 18 makes clear— “as from the ‘lord,’ who is the spirit.” his employment of morphterminology elsewhere illuminates his meaning here. in rom 8:29, in the context of expounding on the working of the spirit, paul describes people “being conformed (symmorphous) to the image of god’s son.” in rom 12:2 he exhorts, “be transformed (metamorphousthe) by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is god’s will.” returning to v. 18, paul is referring to a process—observe the present tense “we are being transformed”—in which the spirit enlightens/renews people’s minds and empowers them to become more like jesus. such transformation is “from glory unto glory.” that is, when people are faithful to god’s ways and embody self-giving love after the manner of jesus, they both reflect the holiness of god in whose image they are created and give glory to god. admittedly, the transformation paul describes here is paradoxical. taking on the likeness of jesus is to enter the way of self-sacrifice and suffering, what the apostle will call “carrying in the body the putting to death (nekrōsin) of jesus” in 2 cor 4:10. 37 the faces of christians do not shine like that 151515 36 mt 17:2; mk 9:2. 37 for more on paul’s understanding of this paradoxical transformation as he sets it forth in 2 cor 4:7-15, see thomas d. stegman, “�πίστευσα, δι� of moses. rather, their renewal involves the “inner person,” even though what is exterior—as paul readily acknowledges —seems to waste away (4:16). conclusion faced with opposition—from rival missionaries and from members of the church in corinth, and perhaps even from jews in corinth—and with criticism—concerning his manner of being an apostle and the lack of reception of his gospel— paul authored the lines now known as 2 corinthians 3. he insists that god has made him a minister of “a new covenant,” the covenant marked by the outpouring of god’s spirit into people’s hearts as envisioned by the prophets jeremiah and ezekiel. the fruit of his ministry, through the proclamation and acceptance of the gospel, is the spiritempowered transformation of believers, who behold “the glory of god in the face of messiah [jesus]” (2 cor 4:6). but paul’s exalted vision has also left much in its wake, not the least of which are: denigrating designations of the mosaic covenant and its ministry; and his assessment of spiritual blindness on the part of jews who do not recognize jesus as messiah, a blindness that manifests itself in their reading of scripture. how do we deal with 2 corinthians 3 in the context of jewish-christian relations? or, to ask the question from a christian perspective, what kind of “damage control,” if any, should we attempt to engage in our appropriation of this problematic chapter? it might sound presumptuous to attempt to engage in damage control over what christians regard as divine revelation. nevertheless, i would like to offer two �λάλησα (2 corinthians 4:13): paul’s christological reading of psalm 115:1a lxx,” catholic biblical quarterly 69 (2007): 725-745. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): stegman 1-14 stegman, ‘lifting the veil’ stegman http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 14 suggestions that, i think, responsibly mitigate the harshness of the apostle’s language and imagery. first, as i remarked earlier, paul is writing from a defensive posture, the result of his coming under fire from various criticisms of his apostleship. such a posture rarely promotes dispassionate and considered discourse. i suggest that we read 2 corinthians 3 in such a way that allows paul’s positive contributions their full voice while critically analyzing his negative attributions, calling into question their abiding value. to be sure, such an approach runs the risk of devolving into picking and choosing only what we want to hear from scripture rather than what should be our stance before the text: namely, humble listening. but in this case—and here i segue to my second suggestion—paul himself gives warrant for doing so. 38 as do many other exegetes, i date 2 corinthians in close proximity to his letter to the romans. 39 it is no accident, in my opinion, that he takes up the jewish question there in chapters 9-11. indeed, i cannot help but wonder whether paul came to regret the way he expressed himself in 2 corinthians 3 and thus sought to clarify his thoughts in romans (although, to be clear, what the apostle does in 2 corinthians 3 is compare and contrast two ministries; he does not explicitly abrogate the mosaic covenant itself). in any event, he sets forth a much more measured assessment of the jewish people vis-à-vis god’s promises in romans 11, especially in verses 26-29, where he remarks that god’s gifts and call to israel are irrevocable and that “all israel will be saved.” 151515 38 of course, there are other warrants for reading 2 corinthians 3 with a critical and discerning eye, such as the sensitivities gained from jewishchristian dialogue, especially in the post-auschwitz context. 39 nearly all commentators agree that paul wrote romans from corinth. if 2 corinthians is a single, unified letter—as i argue elsewhere (see the character of jesus)—then the letter to the romans can be dated within a year of 2 corinthians. these lines call into question any reading of 2 corinthians 3 as paul’s definitive word on the jewish people. it is also worth pointing out that, in rom 11:27, paul applies the new covenant promises contained in jeremiah 31 to jews: “and this will be my covenant with them, when i take away their sins” (see lxx jer 38:33-34; mt jer 31:3334). observe that the prophetic promises that he sees fulfilled in the ekklēsia are not thereby exhausted; here he indicates that they also pertain to israel. moreover, in the preceding verse (rom 11:26), paul grounds his statement that “all israel will be saved” by citing lxx is 59:20: “the deliverer will remove ungodliness from jacob.” chapters 4066 of isaiah are an extremely significant part of scripture for the apostle. his understanding of jesus is, in many ways, influenced by the portrayal of the isaian servant. 40 paul’s self-understanding is also shaped by the later chapters of isaiah. 41 it is thus noteworthy that he appropriates a text from this part of isaiah, a promise of deliverance and salvation, for the jews. to say the least, these are extremely important observations, ones that illustrate the apostle’s more careful and nuanced evaluation of the people he still regards as his brothers and sisters (rom 9:3). we are still left with paul’s christ-centered biblical hermeneutic. in fact, it is his statement in 2 cor 3:6—“the letter kills, but the spirit gives life”—that various church 151515 40 for instance, paul w. barnett contends that 2 cor 5:21a—where paul writes, “[god] made the one who did not know sin to be sin for our sake”— can only be understood in light of isaiah 53, the fourth servant song. see the second epistle to the corinthians, new international commentary on the new testament (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 1997) 313 n. 61. 41 see, e.g., rom 10:15, where paul alludes to lxx is 52:7: “how beautiful are the feet of those who proclaim the good news (tōn euangelizomenōn).” studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): stegman 1-14 stegman, ‘lifting the veil’ stegman http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 15 fathers used to give scriptural warrant for engaging in “spiritual exegesis,” the way of reading the jewish scriptures in light of the christ-event. 42 there is no getting around the fact that jews and christians read the same scriptures differently. but difference does not rule out the possibility of mutual respect and of sustained dialogue. as the pontifical biblical commission’s 2002 document the jewish people and their scriptures in the christian bible observes, “christians can and ought to admit that the jewish reading of the bible is a possible one, in continuity with the jewish sacred scriptures from the second temple period, a reading analogous to the christian reading which developed in parallel fashion” (22). 43 both parties can profitably learn from one another. it is therefore important that jews and christians engage in respectful dialogue—a dialogue made possible, as the same document notes, because of the “rich common patrimony that unites” us (87). 151515 42 in this connection, the pbc has recently asserted that “the spiritual sense can never be stripped of its connection with the literal sense.” see the interpretation of the bible in the church, ii.b.2. 43 for an english translation, see http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc _con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): vehlow r1-2 harkins, transforming relations vehlow r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr franklin t. harkins, ed. transforming relations: essays on jews and christians throughout history in honor of michael a. signer (notre dame: university of notre dame press, 2010), xxv + 476 pp. katja vehlow, university of south carolina transforming relations is a collection of twenty essays celebrating the work of michael a. signer, a reform rabbi and the abrams professor of jewish thought and culture at the university of notre dame from 1992 until his death in 2009. a number of contributors (e.g., arnold band) lovingly reflect on signer as a student, colleague, teacher, and friend. the volume embraces the wide scope of signer’s research interests and presents current studies of jewish and christian encounters with the scriptural text and with one another in antiquity, the middle ages, and today. the book reflects signer’s key convictions that, firstly, a shared biblical text and its exegesis are central points of convergence and divergence for jews and christians, and, secondly, that genuine inter-religious dialogue is only possible when the participating partners recognize each other as heirs of and participants in living and equal faith traditions. transforming relations opens with a poem remembering signer by cyril o’regan, a foreword by john van engen, and an introduction by franklin t. harkins. it is divided into two parts. in part one (“ancient and medieval perspectives: exegesis, polemic, and cultural exchange”), david novak discusses the concept of the law as a major divider between jews and christians and suggests that rabbinic jews and paul of tarsus shared a basic understanding of the precovenantal (i.e., pre-sinai and pre-calvary) nature of the law while differing on its ultimate telos. novak argues that a reconsideration of the rabbis and paul might lead jews and christians to a deeper appreciation of themselves and each other. israel j. yuval’s essay advocates “parallelomania,” i.e., a quest for parallels and influences that expresses a lively and conflicted dialogue between the two religions in the first millennium. employing john scott’s concept of “hidden transcripts,” yuval argues that rabbinic judaism created a body of literature that, while seemingly sealed off from the outside world, engaged christianity by refusing even to admit the opponent’s existence. the following four essays focus on the victorines, a group of theologians based at the augustinian abbey of saint-victor in paris and a topic of much interest to signer. grover a. zinn investigates the spiritual and theological practice of the study and recitation of the psalms at the abbey. dale m. coulter reconstructs the theoretical framework for hugh of st. victor’s methodology for interpretation and exposes the literal approach that had characterized the enterprise of the victorines and their jewish counterparts. boyd taylor coolman and franklin t. harkins analyze the exegetical practices of richard of st. victor and andrew of st. victor, two of hugh’s students. rashbam’s reflections on song of songs and lamentations form the focus of sara japhet’s chapter. e. ann matter elaborates on some of the many meanings given to the “wandering jew” motif in medieval christian literature, while lesley smith examines the authorship of hugh of st. cher’s postilla in totam bibliam (commentary on the whole bible) and suggests that scholars should pay closer attention to the mendicant vocation of medieval christian thinkers. arjo review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): vehlow r1-2 harkins, transforming relations vehlow r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr vanderjagt discusses the use of hebrew by the fifteenth-century dutch christian hebraist wessel gansfort in the context of an increasing scholarly awareness of the role of christian antisemitism in the past and present. jeremy cohen concludes this section with an article looking at the function of exegesis in a sixteenth-century jewish anti-christian polemic, the shevet yehudah (staff of judah). in his brief introductory essay to part two (“modern perspectives: theology, praxis, and perceptions of the other”), peter von der osten-sacken discusses the limits on inter-religious understanding and stresses in particular the need to acknowledge religious difference. angela kim harkins echoes signer’s concerns. christian theologians, she insists, should carefully study jewish concepts, and she points to the problematic use of the term “people of god” in documents issued by the second vatican council as an example of a less than careful use of theological terms. david ellenson shows how rabbi hayim david halevi, a former chief rabbi of tel avivjaffa, established a new halakhic basis for respectful relations with christians based on ethical human obligations that transcended the traditional view of christianity as idolatry. the ensuing essays by peter ochs and john t. pawlikowski engage signer’s theological philosophy directly. ochs defends signer’s views on the importance of plain-sense medieval commentary for modern faith communities. pawlikowski issues a series of challenges to signer and to modern exegetes. he calls on signer to take seriously both the problematic chapters in classical christian exegesis and the impact of contemporary exegesis on inter-religious relations, especially as it pertains to the jewish character of jesus. christian theologians should take the hebrew bible seriously as the scriptures known to jesus and should openly acknowledge that proselytization of jews is not the goal of this discourse. lastly, he argues that signer paid insufficient attention to the ramifications of the shoah for contemporary jewish-christian relations. david fox sandmel reflects on the implications of the (predominantly evangelical) christian appropriation of jewish ritual items and rituals, especially the passover seder. the phenomenon reflects recent scholarship on the jewishness of jesus, though it is perceived very differently by jews and christians. while christians often view a seder as a way to connect to the original jesus, jews tend to view appropriation as a form of christian supersessionism. hanspeter heinz, recounting how his friendship with signer transformed his own understanding of the christian relationship with judaism, concludes this volume with a study of the recent re-instatement of the tridentine rite, in particular the re-introduction of the good friday intercession “for the conversion of the jews.” the diverse essays collected in this volume reflect signer’s wide-ranging interests and his impact on other thinkers. scholars will cherish the rich articles to be found in part one, but those who are engaged in jewish-christian relations on the community level will feel particularly drawn to part two. at the beginning of the twenty-first century, when many christians are turning to jewish practices in order to enrich their spiritual lives, and when orthodox rabbinic authorities are quietly revising traditional stands vis-à-vis christianity, this volume’s call for intellectual and religious honesty could not be more timely. good neighbors, bad times: echoes of my father's german village studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): berger r 1-4 review m i m i s c h w a r t z good neighbors, bad times: echoes of my father’s german village (lincoln: university of nebraska press, 2008), 260 pp. + illustrations reviewed by alan l. berger raddock family eminent scholar chair of holocaust studies florida atlantic university                  many years ago elie wiesel observed: “the mystery of goodness far exceeds the mystery of evil.” mimi schwartz, the american-born daughter of a refugee father from the village of benheim (not its real name), germany, has written an evocative memoir that explores the goodness of certain of the village’s christians during the holocaust. she seeks answers to two related questions: what accounted for the amity of jewish-christian relations in this small black forest community of 1200 people, 30 percent of whom were jewish, and how can she understand herself as an assimilated american jewish woman in relationship to holocaust history and its aftermath? her memoir is an elegantly written and intellectually honest response to these questions as she attentively listens to the contemporary echoes of the holocaust. schwartz, professor emerita at richard stockton college, is a perceptive and keen observer. her late father, arthur lowengart, along with his brothers, devised an ingenious plan to smuggle cash to switzerland in order to flee benheim in 1936. living in queens, new york, he would constantly say that in benheim “it was self-understood” that one helped one’s neighbors. as a young girl, the author was neither interested in nor curious about her father’s lost world. as a mature woman, she feels a strong sense of urgency to catch up with the past “before everyone who knew that world is gone” (p.3). thus, good neighbors is a sensitive second generation reflection on goodness, denial, and ordinary people; it is also a memoir that records memory’s jarringly discordant perceptions. divided into four parts, schwartz’s book reflects her engagement with benheim’s jews living in america and israel, and the town’s christians residing in germany. the author focuses on the “small stories, the ones that history has no time for as it paints the broad brushstrokes of the past” (p. xv). while not forsaking the historical records, her quest is animated by her role as a storyteller rather than an historian. she writes: “i liked how one person’s memory bumped another, muddying the moral waters of easy judgment” (p. xvi). if memory and an exploration of christian motivation to help their fellow jewish citizens form two legs of this memoir, certainly food is the third leg. schwartz’s interviews invariably involved a kaffeeklatsch replete with linzertorte. “food,” she writes, “triggers nostalgia” (p.104). the author even includes a recipe for berches, a type of potato bread that was given by certain benheim jews to their christian neighbors. schwartz lists eighteen examples of christian altruistic acts on behalf of the jews of benheim. the number eighteen is symbolically fraught, being the numerical equivalent of the hebrew word for life, (chai ). among these acts are: the policeman saved two torahs; the barber cut jewish hair under the sign no jews allowed here; the farmer’s daughter cleaned house, washed, and brought food to her old jewish neighbor; the shopkeeper gave food over the back fence at night; at least ten neighbors helped a half-jewish family survive for five years; the rest let them be; the three nuns kept helping the jews until the nuns were transferred; the beloved mayor schwartz, good neighbors, bad times berger r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): berger r 1-4 kept helping the jews until he was transferred; christians paid back debts to jews even though the law said they didn’t have to; the priest spoke out against what was happening to the jews in a sermon. he was reprimanded (pp. 234-235). larger towns and cities had no similar enviable record of christians who believed that they were their brother’s keepers. mimi schwartz’s memoir affirms, however, the contradictory behavior of christians during the war. some christians helped jews whom they knew and liked. her father’s business friend in frankfurt turned hitler’s picture to the wall whenever arthur lowengart visited and joyfully proclaimed: “for my good jewish friend, arthur” (p. 65). yet some germans were both helpers and murderers. the head of the stuttgart gestapo saved mimi’s uncle fritz, with whom he had played cards for twenty years. however, he subsequently “rounded up thousands of jews he didn’t know personally for deportation” (p.65). this moral ambiguity is eternally perplexing and underscores the elusive nature of the mystery of goodness. while it is true that pre-war friendship played a role in whether a person became a rescuer, it was far from decisive. there is an exquisite irony attending one of the acts of christian help. the jewish youth group and the hitler youth group met in the same building every friday night. because jewish law proscribed turning lights on or off on shabbat, the leader of the hitler youth would “come downstairs and do that for them” (p.194). mimi hears this story in israel while eating linzertorte, served by gretl, the widow of the founder of oleh zion [not its real name], the israeli kibbutz settled by some fourteen benheim jewish families who escaped the village. gretl draws a distinctive lesson from the story. on the one hand, “this kind of cooperation was so typical in our village” (p.194). however, on the other hand, it is precisely because of this that “our parents did not see the dark shadows coming up, but we, the young people did see them…we decided that if we wanted to survive…the only place to go was our ancient homeland of eretz israel” (pp. 194195). some christians in benheim helped because “it was self-understood” that they should. christians buried the rescued torah scrolls near the village’s jewish cemetery. after the war, the scrolls were unearthed. mimi’s interviews revealed the fact that one of the scrolls was sent to america and is now in burlington, vermont. the second is in the israeli kibbutz, located north of acre, established by benheim jews. the author’s attachment to this kibbutz is both historical─it’s part of the story of the holocaust─and personal; her father chose to be buried there. mimi’s intrepid journey is aided by several germans representing the generation of the holocaust and the second and third generations afterwards. herr adolf stolle, “a decent man [and] a good gentile contact” (p.75), according to the benheimers living in america interviewed by the author, has researched benheim’s old jewish cemetery. he has sent photographs of family graves to benheim’s jews living in new york, and is mimi’s principle guide in germany. she is also aided by rolf (the third generation), a graduate student at the university of mannheim doing research on how the holocaust could have happened in germany. rolf tells mimi that she cannot trust people’s stories, “even if they are willing to talk honestly to you. and most are not” (p.78). only the town hall archives will yield the “real information” (p.78). this leaves mimi somewhat perplexed because of the eight benheim jews she has interviewed, “all blamed germany, but not their benheim neighbors” (p.78). she tells rolf that her main interest is “how decent people remember and live with the past” (p.79). schwartz, good neighbors, bad times berger r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): berger r 1-4 two second generations come together as mimi speaks with otto stolle, herr stolle’s son, who teaches german history in a multicultural high school. mimi notes that both the jewish and german second generations “grew up with our parents’ secrets and silences, we live with them, but we don’t own them” (p.122). comparing the son to the father, mimi observes that the second generation is more honest and less “guarded about prejudice” than benheim’s old timers (p.123). otto shares that responses to the query, “what did you do when the nazis were in power?” ran the gamut from those [including the new nazi mayor of benheim] who thought it was okay to persecute the jews, to those who were indifferent, to those who spoke up, one of whom did so in church (p.127). the author frequently hears a recurring phrase, you can’t imagine the times, from all who were there during the shoah. of the many people the author interviews, several stand out as crucial guides on her quest to understand why some were “good neighbors.” katherine of dorn, located near benheim, is committed to telling the story of what happened in germany during the holocaust. katherine analogizes this responsibility to the telling of the exodus: “like the jews telling the story of leaving egypt and being delivered from slavery, so we have to tell this story of germany and never forget” (p.166). her grandfather was a staunch anti-nazi whose acts of resistance included secret meetings, to which area priests came, to listen to the bbc. but katherine’s furniture included items that had belonged to jewish families; mimi feels revulsion for these items that she terms “trophies of history” (p.171). katherine tells mimi that the jewish owners of this furniture “begged us to buy from them so they’d have money to leave” (p171).. willy weinberger, now living in baltimore, is one of two benheim jews who survived the holocaust. a deeply religious man, willy deepens mimi’s understanding of jewish-christian relations in benheim. willy recalls his father cleaning manure off the streets on saturday night so they would be clean for sunday church: “we didn’t want our horses’ droppings to upset them” (p.144). the women in his family made thick potato soup for non-jewish neighbors. consequently, for benheim’s jews kindness toward gentiles transcended etiquette, “it was a survival technique” (p.144). his mother brought this soup to a neighbor every time she had another child, “eight of them!” (p.144). one of the woman’s sons, nonetheless, threw stones at the weinberger house after kristallnacht, prompting willy’s father to say: “you see, you didn’t make enough soup!” (p.144). schwartz rightly identifies levity as a survival technique. willy’s story reveals the complexity of staying alive during the reign of increasing nazi terror. on the one hand, he received crucial assistance: a farmer was willing to hide him; the mayor’s assistant saved his father from dachau; a policeman’s wife brought willy’s mother extra food; herr damon bought his father’s house for a fair price; the servant girl said nightly prayers with willy in hebrew. later, after her marriage, she gave willy and his father an orange, which in those days was “like gold” (p.143). on the other hand, willy points to the poisonous effects of nazi mis-education on the children. while most of the older benheimers, with one ignoble exception, did not change their behavior toward the jews, their children were taught to hate jews. willy makes an analogy to the contemporary middle east, rightly claiming that palestinian children are “also indoctrinated to hate the jews” (p.141). “celebration,” the book’s ironically titled final chapter, is a wrenching account of the truism that the holocaust has very few happy outcomes. benheim’s former synagogue, now a church, has been restored. it is to be a place where christians pray and remember their former jewish neighbors (p.244). there is a band, there are speakers including mayor himmel, mimi schwartz, the bishop and a cantor, among others. letters of support are read. this celebration of reconciliation takes place against the rising tension between germans and turks, who are excluded. but it is the pathos of 70-year-old tante (aunt) gaby that defines the endless pain of schwartz, good neighbors, bad times berger r 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): berger r 1-4 the holocaust. she cries out for her murdered mother and brother: “meine mutti, meine bruder” (p.257). no reconstruction here. no closure to the mourning. mimi schwartz has written a memoir that is important for both jews and christians to read. her quest provides a template for all who wish to confront the mystery of goodness. furthermore, she juxtaposes events of goodness then─the 5,000 villagers of lechambon sur lignon, 300 miles south of paris, who saved 5,000 jews during the holocaust─and the non-jewish residents of billings, montana now, who rallied to show solidarity with their jewish neighbors targeted by hate groups. these groups disappeared. she muses that if more people knew the good stories, “no matter how small, might not more of us find courage to follow suit?” (p.238). schwartz would doubtless endorse the call of rabbi kook, the first chief rabbi of the yishuv [nascent jewish state of israel], who urged his followers to pursue “causeless love.” despite some minor errors (mishnah is misspelled as misnah, martin luther’s vicious pamphlet on the jews and their lies appears as on the jews and their lives), the author deserves our gratitude for her courage, her balance, and her quest. it is a defining characteristic of many in the second generation to undertake a pilgrimage to the european birthplaces of parents and to israel.1 it is no small irony that, in my view, she could not be more mistaken about the nature of her own work when she confides to a jewish interlocutor in zurich that the book she is writing is “not a holocaust book” (p.214). her goal is different; “i’m really more interested in how good people lived through and with germany’s past. and what that has to tell me, us, about our lives today” (p.214). consequently, good neighbors, bad times is very much a holocaust book in that it chronicles the sinuous and insidious legacy of trauma left in the wake of the shoah while challenging its readers to demand that they care about others. schwartz, good neighbors, bad times berger r 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 scjr 17, no. 1 (2022): 1-8 k. healan gaston imagining judeo-christian america: religion, secularism, and the redefinition of democracy (chicago: university of chicago press, 2019), x + 349 pages victoria barnett victoria.j.barnett@gmail.com descriptions of the united states as a “judeo-christian” country have become a constant in our political discourse, invoked in battles about secularism, religious minorities and immigrants, school curricula, and abortion. the term is both a shorthand reference to the core moral values of our society and a deep fault line between opposing understandings of religion’s role in american democracy. but what does this concept even mean, and where does it come from? in this book k. healan gaston, a lecturer on american religious history and ethics at harvard divinity school, explores the history of “judeo-christian” rhetoric in the united states and its very different manifestations and interpretations in various eras. along the way she offers numerous insights into the multifaceted role (and interpretations) of religion in a pluralistic democracy. the first part of her book traces how the predominantly christian european colonization of north america shaped understandings of these issues. george washington’s famous 1790 letter to the jewish congregations of newport promised that “every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid...the government of the united states gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance…” washington’s words emphasized the centrality of pluralism and tolerance in how the new democracy would define religious freedom. as a descriptive word for the religious roots of western values, however, “judeo-christian” is a far cry from the concepts that washington referred to. gaston traces the term as far back as 1841 (in an obscure reference to jews who had converted to catholicism but secretly remained jewish), but during the nineteenth century the term (when used at all) was usually a cultural reference to the shared influence of these traditions on western culture, often in conjunction with “graeco-roman.” in its earliest use, then, “judeo-christian” was more of a cultural signifier than a religious concept. as gaston shows, christian supersessionism remained central to this narrative until well into the twentieth century (and in many ways, it still is). indeed, it is barnett: k. healan gaston’s imagining judeo-christian america 2 probably the reason that the term “judeo-christian” even exists. “judeo” referred to what was seen as judaism’s secondary role in christian history. despite its semblance of inclusiveness, “judeo-christian” often went hand-in-hand with antisemitic tropes of tribalism and legalism. in his 1871 book ten great religions the theologian james freeman clarke described judaism as the “preparation for christianity” (31). for american hebraists like crawford toy, who taught at harvard and wrote the 1890 book judaism and christianity, judaism was a narrow, legalistic faith and the foil for christianity’s “universalism.” as gaston observes, such viewpoints failed to recognize judaism “as a viable faith in the modern world” (32). such perspectives began to shift in the early twentieth century as jewish scholars and religious leaders pushed back on these assumptions. morris jastrow, a polish-born professor of semitic languages at the university of pennsylvania, emphasized the convergence of ethics and religion in judaism and the important contribution this made to american political culture. in 1906 the menorah movement was founded at harvard, publishing a journal by the same name that focused on judaism’s continuing significance and relevance for western civilization and the u.s. these developments coincided with the beginning of jewish and christian collaboration on social and political issues, especially in the early twentieth century movements against racism, anti-catholicism, and antisemitism. during the 1920s the “tolerance” movement united representatives of different faiths in this fight, leading in 1928 to the founding of the national conference of christians and jews (nccj). among a very small group of american and british scholars, this was a time when a dialogue between jews and christians that included theological critiques of christian supersessionism and proselytization began. while more extensive theological dialogue began after the shoah, already in the 1920s some christians, viewing judaism as a living faith, recognized that it had an important place in a pluralistic cultural and political landscape. interreligious cooperation and conversations between american jews and christians moved to a deeper level. the prominent reform rabbi stephen wise for example recognized jesus as a “great ethical personality” who had been shaped by his jewishness. christian thinkers like john haynes holmes (a close friend of wise’s) and reinhold niebuhr explicitly emphasized the ways in which judaism contributed to their understanding of scripture and ethics. this new commitment to jewish-christian relations and cultural pluralism did not yet mean the theological dismantling of christian anti-judaism or the rejection of proselytization. organizations like the nccj and the protestant ecumenical federal council of churches (fcc) deliberately avoided these more difficult theological issues. this new phase coincided with the rise of fascism and antisemitism in europe. gaston traces the first modern use of the term “judeo-christian” to p. w. wilson, a british journalist who used it in the early 1930s to describe the cultural values of western democracies that opposed totalitarianism. in gaston’s view, this led to two 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) very different understandings of totalitarianism, paralleled by two distinct but not entirely exclusive understandings of what “judeo-christian” meant. the first was a more inclusive emphasis on tolerance and pluralism as the very cornerstones that strengthened democracy in its fight against totalitarianism. this concept, similar to what george washington had articulated in 1790, was the worldview being promoted by the nccj and the fcc. the other perspective viewed totalitarianism as a dangerous anti-religious expression of modernity, aligned with atheism and secularism, which could only be combatted by a democracy committed to explicitly religious values. in both perspectives, according to gaston, “judeo-christian” became a “religio-political category” (72). characterized by the embrace of western religious values in their battle against secularism, modernity, and liberalism, the term was useful shorthand for an alliance of jews and christians that “identified shared religious principles, rather than religious tolerance, as the cornerstone of democracy” (74). these developments became the foundation of the postwar “tri-faith” alliance in which jews, protestants, and catholics sought to ensure that the american agenda and its values were consistent with their religious values. gaston offers numerous examples of how leaders of these different faith traditions became engaged on issues ranging from public school religious education to the civil rights movement. by the post-1945 section of the book it is apparent that she views the “judeochristian” ethos as a religious form of exceptionalism that was employed in constant battle with various forms of “secularism.” this led to growing divides about public issues between members of different faith groups as well as within the respective traditions. it also led to a backlash against the politicization of religious principles and values, including the 1948 founding of a group initially called protestants and other americans united for the separation of church and state (formed in opposition to catholic advocacy for federal aid to parochial schools). the intertwined language of religion and democracy also gained new traction internationally, especially in the war against “godless communism.” references to “judeo-christian” values became a standard part of political speech, and people like evangelist billy graham became influential public figures. gaston’s book offers a fascinating overview of how such rhetoric influenced various churches, from mainline protestants to evangelicals to catholics to black churches. inevitably this rhetoric also began to drive the culture wars, with deep debates about individual freedoms vs. the strengthening of common ground and shared community. her overview includes a far-ranging discussion of how different faith communities responded to mccarthyism, foreign policy, demographic changes, the civil rights movements, and the rise of neo-conservatism, particularly within the catholic and jewish communities. by the 1960s, she writes, all this had led to the “fracturing” of judeo-christian alliances: “where such claims had once seemed to indicate consensus…they now fueled the ongoing social conflicts” (209). in one of the most significant insights of her book, gaston argues that in the second half of the twentieth century the early inclusivist understanding of “judeo-christian” (i.e., as a unifying principle around which different religious groups could find their place in our democracy) had barnett: k. healan gaston’s imagining judeo-christian america 4 changed to an exclusivist understanding. this exclusivist influence of judeo-christian “exceptionalism” is evident in the cultural and political divisions that have intensified up to our present day (230-31). in the book’s last section gaston traces the post-1945 trajectory of “judeochristian” rhetoric in u.s. politics. in 1980 the republican party was the first to use the phrase in a political party platform; since then the gop has used it in five more platforms. it has never appeared in a democratic party platform. there is a fascinating analysis of how each different postwar president (beginning with truman, up to and including trump) has spoken about his own faith and the role of american pluralism. as the first roman catholic president, john f. kennedy made a point of expressing his respect for the division of church and state, bringing a new awareness of how religious faith could coexist with a constitutional system. the openly evangelical jimmy carter was the first president to link his faith explicitly to appeals to pluralism and human rights. carter also explicitly emphasized the moral teachings of the jewish tradition and was the first president to describe the united states as a “mosaic,” not a “melting pot.” the christian right that emerged during the reagan presidency pushed back against carter’s openness to other faiths, and its support for christian zionism led many evangelicals to embrace a more deeply politicized understanding of “judeo-christian.” as gaston notes, “one could argue that the 1980s, not the 1950s, represented the heyday of judeo-christian rhetoric in the united states” (242). the reagan years may have been the “heyday” of such rhetoric but they are crucial for understanding the deepening tensions ever since, particularly in american protestantism. the emergence of a politically activist christian right and its absolutism on certain policy issues (notably the abortion issue) became a cornerstone of the republican party. bill clinton was the first president to describe the united states as multireligious (and the first to use the term “abrahamic”), but gaston notes that “to clinton, american unity was civic, not religious” (250). george w. bush tried to counter the wave of islamophobia after 9/11 with an inclusive appeal to civil society and religious values, but by this time the advocates of “judeo-christian america” dominated a significant sector of republican voters. with the election of the first african-american president the discourse grew uglier and more polarized. the obama presidency in particular confronted americans with the reality that the united states was growing more ethnically and religiously diverse, and he took a more inclusive approach when discussing the role of religion in american democracy. obama “portrayed religious difference not as a static condition to be managed but rather as a vital dynamic…to be actively celebrated” (266). i would argue that obama’s understanding of the “judeo-christian” heritage—as a philosophical influence that reflected “broader, universal truths” in a “formally secular state”—mirrors the perspective of many mainline protestants, ecumenists, and interfaith leaders in the early twentieth century (260). american evangelicals however portrayed obama’s views as “unvarnished— and implicitly totalitarian—secularism” (266). “judeo-christian” rhetoric took a new turn—or perhaps one could see it as a return to the ugly nativism and open racism of previous eras in u.s. history. evangelicals embraced donald trump, who 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) openly appealed to christian nationalism while ignoring “basic theological tenets” (266). while i think trump’s language (and his audience) have their parallels in american history, gaston is correct that in many ways the trump presidency broke with the postwar traditions of religious conservatism. as this overview indicates, this is an extraordinarily ambitious book that covers a great deal of territory. its shortcomings may be the inevitable outcome of its scope, and i would note three in particular. the first is a lack of terminological consistency and precision, beginning with the term “judeo-christian” itself. there are references throughout the book to “judeo-christian rhetoric”, the “judeo-christian tradition,” “judeo-christian exceptionalism,” “judeo-christian faiths,” and even “judeo-christianity.” none of these are defined, but by the second half of the book it is clear that gaston’s focus is the cultural meaning of the term “judeo-christian.” in particular, she studies its use in religious and political polemics that are anti-secular, anti-liberal, and grounded in the conviction that “theological principles and ethical ideals” are foundational to democracy (15). her analysis is based upon a perceived dichotomy between “judeo-christian” and “secularism.” this perspective however was not shared or articulated by all the groups she describes, particularly when it comes to the ecumenical and interfaith movements of the 1930s and 1940s and the self-understanding of post-shoah and post-vatican ii jewish-christian dialogues (which she largely ignores). as gaston notes herself, the phrase “judeo-christian” did not get much use until after the second world war, even if there were occasional references to it in the 1930s and 1940s. this raises a second issue. gaston is painting with a very broad brush on a big canvas, creating a masterful narrative about the historical role of protestants, catholics, and jews in american public life. in the process, however, a number of significant distinctions are lost. the articulation of “theological principles and ethical ideals” in the public sphere varied considerably among different sectors of these three traditions, as did their understandings of church / state issues. there are numerous generalizations like “many mainstream protestants moved away from jews and naturalists and toward liberal catholics, uniting with their own theological foes against the threat of secularism” and “virtually all jewish leaders steered clear of antisecularism” (67). who (and what) exactly is being described here? she interchangeably uses “mainstream” and “mainline” protestants without defining either, and there is only a brief reference to the early twentieth century fundamentalist wars within american protestantism, which were significant precursors of today’s culture wars. nor is there much analysis of the battles within and between different sectors of american jews during the 1920s and 1930s about interfaith relations. a number of jews had working relationships with christian colleagues and organizations during that era, but they held very different positions on key issues and jewish-christian conversations were often contentious. rabbi stephen wise, for example, was involved in interfaith work. however, by the end of 1933 he was a bitter foe of the nccj because of its lukewarm reaction to events in nazi germany (the nccj chose to focus on american issues), and the nccj itself came barnett: k. healan gaston’s imagining judeo-christian america 6 under growing fire from jewish organizations both because of its response to national socialism and because of its anti-zionism. such distinctions are crucial for understanding the very different perspectives among and within religious groups in this country when it comes to the proper place of faith issues in the public sphere, particularly with respect to the issue of “secularism.” by the time gaston addresses the issues of the 1930s and 1940s, she is treating “judeo-christian” as shorthand for religiosity, and she interprets much of this history as a battle between religious americans and secularism. for example, during the 1930s and 1940s (the history with which i am most familiar) she writes, “those defending pluralism on explicitly theistic grounds—mostly liberal and moderate protestants—found their views defined out of existence in the 1930s. figures such as the fcc’s samuel mccrea cavert understood that antisecularism forced them to choose between their faith and a pluralist conception of democracy” (69). elsewhere she dismisses the claim by carlton hayes (a baptist convert to catholicism who served on the nccj board) that the “nccj was ‘a civic organization’ promoting ‘good citizenship,’ not a common creed” (112). on the contrary, gaston says, the nccj sought “a substantive alliance of protestants, catholic, and jews sharing an understanding of democracy as a religious phenomenon” (113). but in fact, hayes was correct; the nccj bylaws supported the “religious ideals of brotherhood and justice” but explicitly rejected a religious organizational identity. everett clinchy, the founder of the nccj, described its goals as a social science approach to intergroup work, and although he was ordained he preferred to describe himself as an educator. (the closest contemporary parallel to the early nccj is probably the interfaith youth corps). similarly, the mainline protestant faith of samuel cavert and other ecumenists coexisted with their commitment to pluralist democracy, and their understanding of “secularism” was quite different from that of american evangelical and fundamentalist protestants and roman catholics. they tended to frame totalitarianism (and the threat posed by american groups like the fascist christian front) not as secularism but as a nationalist distortion of religion. gaston seems to posit an inherent antagonism between “religious convictions” and “secular thought and institutions” (notably, there’s only one reference in the entire book to the phrase “civil society”) but the interplay between the two is key to understanding many of the issues she discusses. mainline protestantism (and certain sectors within the jewish and catholic communities) had an easier time navigating the boundaries between “religion” and civil secular society. in fact, one could argue that mainline protestants were the ones who had drawn those boundaries—and that part of the story here concerns the growing challenges from other sectors within protestantism, particularly in the wake of the fundamentalism wars. that in turn is important for understanding the fracturing of post-1945 american religious landscape. while jews, protestants, and catholics came together during the second world war in the name of patriotic unity, after 1945 old divisions reappeared and new ones developed. gaston’s binary distinction between “judeo-christian” and “secularism” prevents her from a deeper analysis of these divisions. in discussing the protestant 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) ecumenical movement, the social gospel movement, social justice alliances of the 1960s and 1970s, and the rise of liberation theology she observes: “the culture wars framework identified two clearly delineated sides in the struggles of the day: on the one hand, advocates of traditional, judeo-christian values, and on the other, secular, pluralistic liberals” (245). such sweeping statements allow little room for progressive catholics, protestants, and sectors within the black churches who viewed liberation theology, the social justice movement, ecumenism, and the feminist movements as expressions of their faith. the lack of attention to progressive christian circles (both protestant and catholic) is a problem in this book. i will add that gaston may well be correct that her anti-secularist definition accurately describes those who most often invoke “judeo-christian” values. however, as her book illustrates, they comprise a very specific sector of religious and political leaders. it is hardly an accurate description of everyone who becomes engaged in interfaith work, and as she herself notes certain groups (like the nccj) rarely even used the term. this brings me to my third observation and the one of greatest interest to readers of this journal: there’s very little analysis here of the jews, protestants, and catholics who became involved in interreligious dialogue, and virtually none of vatican ii and the changes it generated within american catholicism and in the realm of interreligious and related theological work. there is also no treatment of post-shoah jewish-christian dialogue. on the one hand this makes sense. the concept of “judeo-christian” as outlined in this book is something quite different from what these post-shoah developments were about, and yet she does try to argue that the second world war and “the spread of judeo-christian formulations…substantially reshaped interfaith relations and the broader terrain of cultural controversy” (100). despite these criticisms, this book is thought-provoking reading, with numerous insights into how american understandings of the multifaceted and complex intersections between religion and democracy have been both productive and problematic. the construction of a civil society to which all groups have equal access and equal input is difficult in any multireligious, multiethnic society, and, as gaston notes in her conclusion, there has never been “a stable consensus around either the meaning of democracy or the religious identity of the united states” (230). “abrahamic” does not address the broader religious diversity in american society or the growing number of americans who are not religious at all. as she shows, however, the idea of “judeo-christian” america “was always deeply contested and served a wide range of political and religious purposes,” even if historically it was framed more inclusively than it is today (231). in previous eras “judeo-christian” (and the related notion of “tri-faith”) could bring people together around a narrative that connected cultural and religious diversity to democracy. for some, this gave american democracy a religious foundation from which they combatted secularism; for others it was closely bound to understandings of civil liberties and religious freedom. barnett: k. healan gaston’s imagining judeo-christian america 8 gaston concludes by summarizing the multiple challenges confronting us today, observing that “the ongoing shift from group-based thinking toward a more individualized and hybridized conception of religious identity is fundamentally altering the conditions of american public life” (272). she writes that trump’s violation of religious, social, and political norms, which in previous eras might have derailed him politically, may illustrate a deeper disintegration of commonly shared political assumptions. her insight that this shift is indicative of a more profound shift in our other assumptions is a good one. she concludes her book with the question: “can people know who they are…without delineating who they are not?” (274) answering this question individually is a far cry from answering it collectively and politically as a society or as a religious community. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): cook r1-2 harrington, the synoptic gospels set free cook r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr daniel j. harrington, s.j. the synoptic gospels set free: preaching without anti-judaism (mahway, nj: paulist press, 2009), paperback, xii + 231 pp. michael j. cook, hebrew union college-jewish institute of religion in this compact volume, jesuit father and new testament scholar daniel harrington analyzes forty-five synoptic texts: fifteen each from matthew, mark, and luke. these are keyed to readings from the three-year sunday lectionary used in the roman catholic church and mainline protestant churches. each series of expositions opens with harrington’s views regarding the gospel's author and provenance, major themes, and the potential for misreading the text antijewishly. by demonstrating the synoptics' rootedness in their first-century jewish context, and emphasizing jesus' jewishness, harrington aims to free the synoptics from anti-jewish misappropriation, particularly in preaching. the book is thus “intended…for the pastor, the parishioner, seminarians and all christians of good will who wish to better understand the scriptures in their context so that anti-semitism does not seep in” (back cover). (the gospel of john is treated in paulist’s 2008 companion volume by father george smiga, the gospel of john set free: preaching without anti-judaism.) certain key emphases surface repeatedly in the course of harrington’s exegeses: christianity can be affirmed without denigrating jews or judaism; jesus’ fulfillment of hebrew biblical passages hardly exhausts their abiding value and integrity (“fulfillment does not require abolition” [p. 85]); and one should avoid negative stereotyping of the pharisees as legalistic, for jesus shared a spiritual agenda with these learned teachers (although he was not a pharisee himself). by these and similar arguments, harrington aims to help free the synoptic texts from continuing to contribute to the disastrous effects of their past anti-jewish applications. even apart from his stated goal, harrington’s contribution constitutes a sterling introductory commentary to the synoptic gospels as a whole. among his very best explications are those dealing with the kingdom of god (pp. 87, 112); the qorban (p. 108); the transfiguration (p. 117); the poor, generous widow (p. 130); what harrington (among others) terms mark’s “odd block” passover unit (pp. 138-139); and the parables of the good samaritan (pp. 184-185) and the prodigal son (p. 201). throughout harrington’s presentations, he spotlights jesus’ consistently radical pronouncements as yet remaining within the contours of the variety of contemporaneous judaisms. criticisms that jesus lodged against other jews, including even the jerusalem temple establishment, hardly set him outside jewish boundaries because so many of his fellow jews surely felt the same way. harrington's volume will be most helpful to readers who will accept what he lays out as his starting assumptions: that all three synoptists were jewish by extraction and disposition; that firstcentury judaism is the suitable and sufficient backdrop for interpreting synoptic portrayals of jesus' ministry (harrington seldom notes greco-roman attitudes and biases); and that antijudaism is not inherent in the synoptics themselves but is a function of how these gospels were review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): cook r1-2 harrington, the synoptic gospels set free cook r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr wrongly enlisted throughout later history. further, whatever seemingly anti-jewish rhetoric may indeed punctuate these gospels reflects intra-family or in-house squabbling, along the lines of a kind of jewish sibling-rivalry. these premises, fruits of harrington’s long and esteemed career, are undoubtedly reached with care. but within this volume, he does not take sufficient opportunity to justify them vis-à-vis competing positions. the result will be that readers not sharing harrington’s starting assumptions may well have qualms even about the book’s title. they may question whether harrington’s analyses do after all genuinely “free” the synoptic gospels of their anti-jewish misapplications. the net effect of his starting assumptions is to shelter these three gospels from claims that they themselves foster anti-judaism. skeptics may thus argue that the book is really about freeing modern preachers from the synoptics’ actual anti-judaism, as well as to free jesus from the synoptists’ actual anti-jewish recastings of him. to welcome those harboring such doubts would require harrington to address more fully readily predictable questions, as in the following examples: a significant proportion of scholars believe that at least one synoptist (luke) or possibly two (adding mark) and, less frequently, all three (perhaps a putative final redactor of matthew), were actually gentile by extraction as well as diaspora-based. accordingly, one can question harrington’s almost exclusive concentration on first-century judaism of the holy land when the synoptists themselves could have been reacting to contemporaneous judaism of the grecoroman diaspora where, after all, the vast majority of christians lived post-70 ce. indeed, were any of the synoptists actually writing for such communities of diaspora believers, many of whom were gentiles? for that matter, was any synoptist influenced by gentile anti-jewish sentiment already native to some diaspora settings (cf. rom 11:13-32)? in these lights, anti-jewish wrangling reported in the synoptics could well reflect circumstances considerably more serious than mere intra-family squabbling. presuming markan priority, as does harrington, one could argue that matthew and luke repeatedly and methodically appear to intensify markan texts anti-jewishly. for example, compare mt 26:59 with mk 14:55; mt 23:1-36 with mk 12:38-40; mt 27:25 with mk 15:14-15. also, one might note matthew’s decision not to retain mk 12:29a and 12:32-34, and luke’s advanced placement and intensification of mk 6:1-6a, among a plethora of still other such examples. we then might also conjecture that mark, even earlier, likewise revised his own sources anti-jewishly, roughly paralleling what matthew and luke later did to material they received from him. such questions raise a dilemma: can the completed synoptics themselves be “set free” from anti-judaism if quite possibly they already manifested it themselves? while harrington is surely correct that the synoptics later on became misapplied anti-jewishly, such misapplication could also be an exacerbation of anti-jewish tendencies which characterized these gospels ab initio. especially telling, then, is the questionable phraseology on the back cover: to say that later antijudaism “seeped into” the synoptic gospels seems to prejudge that no anti-judaism could have resided there originally. fortunately, all readers, skeptics included, can distill fabulous gems from harrington’s forty-five exegeses. for rarely, elsewhere, does one encounter such precision in resolving challenging passages, all accomplished with an economy of language. still, while readers will enjoy this book enormously, they might wonder exactly who here is being “set free” from anti-judaism: the historical jesus, the synoptic gospels, or modern preachers—or perhaps some of these in combination? michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): merback r1-4 bale, feeling persecuted merback r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr anthony bale feeling persecuted: christians, jews and images of violence in the middle ages (london: reaktion books, 2010), hardcover, 254 pp. mitchell b. merback, the johns hopkins university "is it possible," asks anthony bale on the penultimate page of feeling persecuted, "that some medieval christians and medieval jews could have a readerly, imaginative world, structured around horror, emotion, affectivity, empathy and aesthetic violence, which is neither seamlessly connected to the terrible violence which punctuates the jewish historical experience in medieval europe nor able to be explained away by psychoanalysis?" (p. 188). that rhetorical question, which comes amidst an inspired closing polemic in a study otherwise free of historiographical hand-wringing, encapsulates bale's mandate: to participate in the broad move away from clichés of historical writing on christian-jewish relations and enact a more nuanced reading, a properly "historical" reading—though he really means historicist—of christian europe's negative images of jews and judaism. across seven briskly paced chapters, bale examines an array of late medieval texts, pictures, buildings, and built environments—most of them english—whose primary purpose was devotional: artifacts produced and employed to stimulate an ardor for christ's passion, to "prick" the guilty conscience, to initiate that inner transformation that turns the reprobate heart of the sinner toward god. making up his rather heterogeneous sample of subjects are luxury books of hours and wall paintings in parish churches; ivory statuettes and ornamental ceramic tiles; poetic lullabies and "lives" of contemporary saints; levantine and european crusader chapels; and holy land pilgrimage simulations. what unites these objects, according to bale, is what they provided their audiences: opportunities and occasions for aesthetic shock, a voluntary and performative imperiling of the self through a virtual violence and an artful terror, experienced in the shadow of a specifically jewish menace. and not only the religious ego, but the culture's most precious symbols—christ's suffering body, mary's virginal womb, the vulnerable host, the innocent child slain by herod's soldiers, relics of saints—were likewise drawn into fantasy after compulsive fantasy of victimization, abuse, mockery, wounding, bleeding and dismemberment at the hands of jews. why did christian culture commit itself with such gusto to this "recreational pious persecution" (p. 11), in which a confabulated cast of jewish christ-tormentors, host-abusers, boymurderers, funeral crashers, and iconoclasts do bloody violence to things sacred, and have violence done them in turn? bale's provocative answer is two-pronged, and it marks his project as a product of a particular moment in cultural studies when a (new) history of emotions is beginning to take up the unfinished business of an (aging) new historicism. making theoretical bedfellows of augustine, freud, edmund burke, rené girard, søren kierkegaard, and elaine scarry, bale ventures that we "willingly subject ourselves to narratives of terror, religious fear and valorized images of suffering, identity under attack" (p. 12, emphasis in original) in order to elicit a certain kind of painful pleasure, one that is useful and hence edifying to the penitential self. all those forms of review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): merback r1-4 bale, feeling persecuted merback r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr aestheticized "devotional violence" wrought by spectral jews served christians in the cultivation of an affective response to the passion. this edifying feeling of being persecuted bale elevates to a central place in medieval culture's "ideas about what it was to be an intellectual subject, to be moved ardently, properly and constructively" (p. 11, emphasis in original). the second prong of the book's thesis concerns the interconnections between aesthetic shock, cognitive memory-work, and what the author terms the "perceptual passio" (p. 17) of the beholder who, with disciplined intent, submits to the terrorism of the image or the text. reading the drastic emotional oscillations of a middle english lyric that locates the devotee at the foot of the cross, for example, bale discovers a rhetorical strategy that turns a ciceronian contentio, an antagonistic clash of opposites, into "an adversarial encounter between jewish and christian rhetorical modes which disrupts the reader and militates against progressive narrative" (p. 79). how devotional texts, images, and spaces artfully and persuasively structured response in the later middle ages is crucial to bale's whole project, and he insistently makes "jewish violence" the fulcrum for a tormented christian experience of sacred narrative. like the grotesqueries of anti-jewish caricature (an entire chapter is devoted to "the jewish profile"), "jewish violence" disrupts and disorders the associative flow of images, what bale, following mary carruthers, calls "the religious and aesthetic ductus of an image or narrative" (p. 96). rhetorical violence guaranteed that the affective devotional image will become an "affective memory-image"; and this, in turn, ensured that "the edifying and pleasurable experience of fear, violence and contrast" (p. 65) would become effective in the service of devotion. what the anti-jewish animus and violence inhering in these artifacts reveals them to be, in short, are "rhetorical records of imaginative desire" (p. 185). several problems emerge when this hypothesis is asked to hold water against the pressures of evidence and analysis, however. where the author engages sources already familiar to him he shows his agility as an interpreter: illuminating discussions of the so-called "n-town plays," the york dormition play (part of that town's corpus christi cycle), and the croxton play of the sacrament form the core of chapter four, which is devoted to the disordering force of jewish violence in dramatic narrative. where bale engages other kinds of sources (notably the pictorial arts, with examples gleaned largely from the scholarship he admires), he is less reliable. visual analysis founders more often than it succeeds; conclusions seem foregone; and too often things just don't add up. for all the author's abiding concern with rhetoric there is precious little talk of genre—pictorial, functional, or otherwise—and this omission creates the impression of an undifferentiated mass of cultural artifacts, all performing the same functions for the same people. in the end bale simply does not persuade us that his hermeneutic is equal to the task—the enormous task—of reconstructing historical experience in its inflected and often conflicted character. too much is asserted a priori, and there is no clear sense of why the selected sources—none of which will be new or surprising to medievalists—should be considered especially apropos for testing the emotional mechanisms bale seeks to uncover. unlike cultural things are often adduced as comparanda (for example, the "structures, productions and landscapes" the author sets alongside the simulated calvary genre in chapter six [p. 152]) or simply conflated in laundrylist fashion. factual blunders, such as his equation of sacri monti (a popular holy land simulation) and monti di pietà (a communal banking and loan institution), are rendered all the more egregious by being drawn out in the analysis, undermining confidence in the whole enterprise (pp. 150-51). readers vexed by these problems will be less tolerant of the slipshod writing one encounters here and there: convoluted sentences drenched in hyperbole, subject-verb disagreements, repetition and redundancy, nonsensical phrasing (the ritual murder victim described as "an attention-grabbing assertion of violent embodiment" [p. 50]), and too many places where analysis or theoretical exposition gets wrecked through paratactic overload. more than one studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): merback r1-4 bale, feeling persecuted merback r 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr passage of conceptual or theoretical foregrounding—and the book has many—utterly confounded this reader. among the things one might expect from a book that approaches christian-jewish relations in terms of "imaginative desire" and "rhetorical mode" is a position on the question of what role, if any, encounters with actual jews played in the forging of those fantasies medieval christians prized as "recreational pious persecution" (p. 11). with great determination bale rubs against the grain of the mimetic argument for anti-jewish imagery—that is, the presumed role of images in reflecting certain social realities, however distortedly—and ardently advances the line that "the jew" is always already a figuration within christian thought and devotional practice, a representation operating within closed circuits of cognition, narrative, and memory. in the book of margery kempe, for example, he claims, "'jewe' does not mean jewish, but rather that which is disruptive to christianity" (p. 161). to a degree that will roil some readers in jewish studies, bale also steers clear of the whole late medieval arsenal of anti-jewish myth and accusation: historical jews qua historical jews, the real victims of real persecutions, largely disappear from his account. this insistence stands as both a strength and a weakness of the argument. the author's occasional interpretive forays into jewish sources seem thin and ungrounded. in chapter seven, for example, he reads several tales from the thirteenth-century sefer hasidim (book of the pious), which tell of jews wanting to commission christians to bind their books, in order to underscore that both christian and jewish scribal cultures were beset with "an anxious, proleptic perception of persecution" (p. 169). building on the fine work of marc michael epstein (dreams of subversion in medieval jewish art and literature, university park, pennsylvania state university press [1997]), bale gives more substantive treatment to the hunting imagery inside the prato haggadah (jewish theological seminar, ms. 9478), teasing out nuanced metaphors of textual "starting off" and "pursuit." such word-image composites were implicated, he argues, in "a painful kind of self-development" common to christian and jewish uses of hunt imagery (p. 180). here and elsewhere, for example in his juxtaposition of christian and jewish accounts of the 1190 york massacres, bale offers valuable glimpses into other kinds of shared experiences: assumptions about the vivifying power of pain, about the therapeutic value of "holy fear" (p. 10), and the crucial role feeling played in consolidating, and perpetuating, liturgical memories. this appreciation, to be sure, comes only in fits and starts and is, particularly in the case of the rhineland martyrologies composed in the wake of the slaughter of jews in the late eleventh century, largely derivative of recent scholarship. again, the conclusions may not surprise specialists, who may be less likely than bale's lay readers to let him shape the "rhetoric vs. realism" problem both ways. delineating the cultural phenomena associated with an "antisemitism without jews" is no doubt important, especially when dealing with post-expulsion england or france, or reformation germany. but the mutual acculturation of the kind that bale often assumes depends on some degree of social encounter, whether as peaceful coexistence or tense antagonism, even if meditated by collective memory. despite these criticisms and the liabilities outlined above, there is an important contribution here that should not be obscured. in the end bale's partisanship of the "self-authorizing sensations which are at the center of western culture" (p. 180)—vengeance, pain, terror, and their corresponding forms of penitential pleasure—and his intense wariness of any historical writing that "takes an aesthetic world and treats it like a factual one" (p. 187) are extremely salutary. the hermeneutical mode he has adopted stands as a—sadly, still—necessary corrective to the reflexive psychologizing and sociologizing that characterizes the self-sustaining discourse of judeophobia's longue durée across an ever-violent european experience. yet the historicist who wants to make good on the claim to be constructing a better history must be equally wary of the opposite danger of aestheticizing the factual, a reversal toward which feeling persecuted veers studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): merback r1-4 bale, feeling persecuted merback r 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr awfully close. to regard that captivating aesthetic world in which christians staged their own victimization as a species of social fact, by contrast, would mean demonstrating the complex interplays of sensation and representation with the material processes of history. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review irven m. resnick marks of distinction: christian perceptions of jews in the high middle ages (washington, dc: the catholic university of america press, 2012), hardcover, 400 pp. ephraim kanarfogel, yeshiva university in this thoroughly researched and well-written work, irven resnick sets out to demonstrate that medieval christians viewed jews as different not only in terms of their religious beliefs and practices, but also on the basis of their physical nature. although resnick notes in the introduction and conclusion that such a claim also has suggestive implications for narrowing the differences between modern anti-semitism and medieval anti-judaism, the importance of this book lies in the admirable way that it succeeds in making its case for the medieval period. resnick begins by defining and discussing the notions of medieval physiognomy and bodily complexion, with special emphasis on how medieval christian thinkers and authorities used these methods or disciplines to assess the nature of individuals generally, and the nature of the jews in particular. employing these disciplines, peter the venerable and others concluded, for example, that jews were irrational and, as a result, essentially inhuman. in addition, scholastic theologians determined that jews had unbridled sexual appetites and a defective nature overall. the second chapter extends this discussion by focusing on the supposed role of circumcision in restraining the excessive sexuality of the jewish male. resnick argues that even the jewish badge and other restrictions on jewish dress were largely meant to prevent sexual encounters. the third chapter discusses the association of jews with leprosy. christian biblical exegetes linked jews’ alleged excessive studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) sexual appetites with leprosy, which they saw as a divine punishment. these exegetes claimed that the biblical precepts that proscribed sex with a menstruating woman and eating pork were observed by jews in order to protect themselves from leprosy. christians, however, did not need to practice these prohibitions in the actual (or non-allegorical) sense, since it was the jews’ imperfections and disposition for disease which made them much more susceptible to leprosy. indeed, as resnick shows in chapter four, the fact that christians could eat and digest pork without becoming diseased was due, according to medieval christian scholarship, to their superior constitutions and bodily complexion. a melancholy complexion, associated particularly with jews in several medieval traditions, was linked to both leprosy and hemorrhoids. in the fifth chapter, resnick carefully works through the various biological symptoms that christian scholars associated with jews, noting also that in christian thought, the inability to achieve a perfectly balanced nature and complexion was one of the consequences of original sin. as twelfth-century french philosopher william of conches put it (cited on pp. 191-92), “the first human being was perfectly temperate, as he had equal shares of the four qualities that constitute a healthy complexion. but after he had been driven out of the amenity of paradise…never afterward has perfect health been found in humans.” resnick also details the christian claims that the blood of murdered christian children was needed by jewish males in part as treatment for several peculiar physical defects (including a monthly bloody flux and hemorrhoids), which led in turn to a pernicious degree of melancholy. the punishment of cain and the mark that he received (which was typologically applied to all jews) was understood by some medieval christians, following the septuagint and the vetus latina, to connote insanity or melancholy, as well as an associated trembling of the head or limbs. in chapter seven, resnick discusses the impacts of the planets on the jews, such as the supposed distinctive body odor or stench (among other maladies) that studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr medieval christians linked to the planet saturn. finally, three case studies are offered as a means of bringing together the distinctive jewish physiognomy that christians associated with jews. the last of these is the supposed dark jewish complexion, which is deftly explained by resnick and contextualized, in a variety of different ways. throughout his study, resnick notes the inconsistencies and even the paradoxes within the christian positions. despite evidence that jews could take up arms and fight “manfully,” jews were thought of as having an effeminate or emasculated nature (pp. 49-53). although circumcision was seen as a means of restraining the jewish male’s excessive carnality, it was also used to identify the jewish male with unrestrained female sexuality (p. 79). the jews enjoyed relative immunity to leprosy because of their laws that prohibited the consumption of pork and sex with a menstruant, but the christians were not encouraged to follow these (salutary) dietary restrictions (p. 143). jews were supposedly both more and less likely to be leprous: more likely, because their dietary laws pointed to a flaw in their bodily constitutions that necessitated the avoidance of leprosy-causing pork; and less likely, because the jews avoided leprosy by scrupulously observing the laws of sexual purity (p. 173). more generally, resnick asks, if jews were clearly marked by a variety of physical, natural differences and peculiarities, why was it necessary for jews to wear distinguishing badges (pp. 249-50)? reminiscent of g. d. cohen’s seminal study on “esau as symbol in early medieval thought,” resnick’s book also shows that jews often attributed to the christians the very same defects or peculiarities that the christians associated with them, such as irrationality and inhumanity (pp. 39-43); engaging in sexual relations with menstruants (pp. 130-31); and even the unhealthy nature of the christians’ physical appearance (pp. 290-91; and see also pp. 208-14). similarly, from the jewish perspective, circumcision was viewed as a positive means of restraining excessive sexual desire while promoting intellectual virility (pp. 88-92). indeed, these various counter-claims by the jews can be extended and even expanded. studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 8 (2013) following the lead of anna sapir abulafia, robert chazan, and jeremy cohen, among others, resnick has further elucidated the outsized importance of the cluniac abbot, peter the venerable, in establishing a number of the christians’ central anti-jewish claims during the twelfth century (pp. 37-40, 43, 72, 170, 208-09). at the same time, the extent to which sefer hasidim (an unusual work of ethics and culture whose overall impact on contemporary jewish society is a matter of some debate) is representative of jewish responses in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (pp. 41, 83-84, 88-89) needs to be considered carefully in light of this work’s hypersensitivity to christianity, and to aspects of jewish religious symbolism at the same time. with palpable erudition, irven resnick has highlighted the extensive reflections by christian thinkers in the high middle ages on jewish physicality. the perception of the unique appearance and physiognomy of the jews was not merely an instinctive or popular notion, but was instead one that medieval christian exegetes, legal scholars, and churchmen anchored and further expanded on the basis of textual and scholastic study and analysis. as resnick has convincingly demonstrated, the role of these issues in shaping aspects of medieval anti-judaism was much weightier than heretofore imagined. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review neal king the passion of the christ (palgrave macmillan, 2011), paperback, xii + 148 pp. jenna weissman joselit, the george washington university in the months leading up to the release of mel gibson’s 2004 film, the passion of the christ, which dramatized the last fifteen hours of jesus’s life, incendiary statements thickened the air, threatening to undo years of interfaith dialogue and testing the limits of america’s commitment to religious pluralism, let alone civility. pitting jews against christians, biblical scholars against biblical literalists, and hollywood against just about everyone else, the movie kicked up quite a storm of both protest and publicity. well in advance of its actual debut, interest ran so high that, reported the dallas morning news, “church members across the country are buying tickets in bulk” (p. 22). little wonder, then, that “the passion of christ became a cause célèbre,” writes neal king in his elegant and incisive account of the contretemps. “defensive gestures became selffulfilling prophecies as group dynamics and emotional spirals led professionals into culture war” (p. 14). while some spoke in terms of a “culture war,” others of a “hatchet job,” and still others of the oppression of faithful christians, the nation’s social fabric did not come undone. but, as king, an associate professor of sociology at virginia tech, makes abundantly clear, it was not for want of trying. gibson, for his part, milked every opportunity that came his way, speaking darkly of persecution and insinuating that his fate was not unlike jesus’. insisting that his uncommonly gory and violent film was about “faith, hope, love and forgiveness” and that the profoundly hostile anti-jewish sources to which he resorted were based on the facts—“i’m telling the story as the bible tells it,” he claimed—the filmmaker rejected out of hand any notion that he was doing jews, or history, for that matter, a studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) disservice (p. 7). more pointedly still, gibson was given to characterizing any form of criticism as an expression of the “vehement anti-christian sentiment out there” (p. 13). king’s slender but weighty volume contains all this and more. paying close attention to the ways in which the film was scripted, performed, and edited, he is especially attentive to its popular and critical reception. with a keen eye for the telling detail, king notes how champions of the film transformed its “r” rating from a potential defeat into a saving grace: “this time,” they said, “the ‘r’ should stand for redemptive” (p. 66). strategies like these rendered the film the “most successful church-based promotion in the history of cinema” (p. 23), king points out, while also highlighting the ways in which the scholarly community sought to bring to public attention the tendentious sources on which it was based. quoting mary boys of union theological seminary, who charged that gibson’s film “may counter what the teaching of the church has been for the last 50 years” (p. 9), king writes that this 21 st century version of the passion “confirmed the scholars’ worst fears of a medievalist anti-judaism fully revived” (p. 10). here and elsewhere throughout his swiftly paced text, the author not only draws on and assembles a wide range of primary sources, but also sets them in context, enabling his readers to understand more fully how they relate to contemporary concerns about the future of evangelical christianity, the current state of scholarship about jesus, and the protocols of film distribution in 21 st century america. but then, he goes even further by placing things in a broad historical context, comparing gibson’s response to his critics with that of cecil b. demille, the filmmaker responsible for two highly influential biblical epics of the nineteen-twenties: the ten commandments of 1923 and the king of kings of 1927. though both were silent films, they generated quite a lot of noise in the public square. for the most part, the ten commandments was warmly received by christians as well as by jews, who delighted in seeing moses on the silver screen studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr and who widely promoted the film in the yiddish and english language jewish press. the king of kings, on the other hand, enjoyed a rather chilly reception within the american jewish community, whose representatives—including a rabbi employed by demille—made clear they found the film’s depiction of the ancient judeans profoundly offensive. in short order, demille himself took offense. re-opening old wounds, the filmmaker put it this way: “those jews who are raising these rather violent objections would crucify christ a second time if they had an opportunity, as they are so ready to crucify what, for want of a better term, i shall call his second coming upon the screen” (p. 103). by sharing this and other equally hair-raising statements made by demille with latter-day readers, statements that make most of gibson’s animadversions look mild in comparison, king’s intention is not simply to inject history into the proceedings or to give the contemporary filmmaker a pass. his point is that gibson ought to have been mindful of the long shadows cast by the past. at the height of the furor over the passion of the christ, professor paula fredriksen, one of gibson’s fiercest scholarly critics, expressed the hope that the film and the resulting public conversation would converge and become a “teachable moment” (p. 15). at the time, few heeded her call. but now, nearly a decade later, neal king’s account is likely to be the one to which most teachers and students will repair, time and again. the resurrection of jesus and human beings in medieval christian and jewish theology and polemical literature studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college the resurrection of jesus and human beings in medieval christian and jewish theology and polemical literature s t e v e n j . m c m i c h a e l u n i v e r s i t y o f s t . t h o m a s volume 4 (2009) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 mcmichael, the resurrection of jesus and human beings mcmichael 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): mcmichael 1-18 the resurrection of jesus was a significant issue in jewish-christian polemical literature in the middle ages, though it does not appear to be the most prominent one in relation to other issues that appear in polemical texts.1 themes of jesus as messiah, his incarnation and divinity, the abrogation of the mosaic law—all these took center stage then and remain central in jewish-christian dialogue even today.2 nevertheless, the theme of resurrection was important because of its place in jewish and christian theology in general. the theme of resurrection was very important for medieval jews and christians because of its association with the salvation question. it actually illustrates different views of salvation. in the christian belief system, jesus, as the messiah, not only was the first to be raised from the dead but also was acknowledged as the primary agent of the resurrection of human beings. those who believe this gain at least the possibility of entrance into eternal life. everyone will rise to face final judgment, but things will go better on that day for those who believe in jesus, the true messiah and risen lord, than for nonbelievers. jews, on the other hand, have different ideas about who will rise and who will enter into the world to come. generally, only the righteous will rise, regardless of their beliefs. but one thing is certain: jews do not acknowledge that jesus has any role in the salvation process, and therefore, his resurrection has no bearing on their theological understanding of resurrection. what is at stake in regard to the resurrection 1 this chapter was presented as a paper at the academy of jewish-christian studies sessions, the medieval studies congress, kalamazoo, michigan, may 4th, 2006. i wish to thank professors lawrence frizzell and asher finkel of seton hall university, the organizers of the session, for their comments at the conference and for their subsequent comments on this chapter. 2 for example, there has not been a major christian work on contemporary jewish-christian dialogue dealing with the resurrection issue. when pinchas lapide published his the resurrection of jesus (london: spck, 1983), he became the first jewish scholar to write specifically on the resurrection of jesus in the context of contemporary jewish-christian relations. issue for both communities is the answer to the major question: who is the true people of god who will be raised by god at the end times? this article will first look at intra-religious discussion among medieval christians and jews about resurrection in general to see how they understood it theologically in their respective religious communities. we will see that the resurrection is embodied in many other issues of theology such as the concepts of messianic redemption, eschatology and salvation. the resurrection also appears in the issues of biblical exegesis, the interpretation of biblical prophecy (hermeneutics), and the meaning of history in the context of divine revelation. we will then focus our attention on how the issue of the resurrection of jesus appeared in medieval jewish and christian polemical literature, especially in the polemical works of two spanish authors, moses nachmanides (1194-1270) and alonso de espina (d. 1464). medieval christian theology and the resurrection of jesus “jesus has been raised; hope that you will rise. he is blessed; believe also that you are blessed. he is immortal; believe that you will be immortal. he is luminous and clear; and you also are illuminated of the glory (next to christ) and the right of the father.”3 this theological assertion in the sermon on the resurrection of the franciscan roberto caracciolo da lecce (c. 1425-1495) summarizes the medieval christian approach to the entire theme of resurrection – not only is the resurrection important for the person of god whose resurrection showed that he was savior and messiah but also its effects are important for the 3 roberto caracciolo, opere in volgare, ed. enzo esposito (galatina: congedo editore, 1993), 264. mcmichael, the resurrection of jesus and human beings mcmichael 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): mcmichael 1-18 resurrection of those who believed in him.4 belief in the risen christ was considered to be the very christian foundation for hope in rising to new life and the enjoyment of blessed life with god the father. he was the hope in the transformation of the human being from earthly life to the heavenly life of the blessed. the resurrection of jesus, therefore, was the centerpiece of the christian faith. the medieval approach to the resurrection of jesus was founded on the new testament witness to risen christ. the apostle paul declared: “if christ be not raised, our faith is in vain” (1 cor 15:14). jesus’ resurrection was the first-fruit of things to come in the messianic kingdom. in the gospel of mark (8:31-33; 9:30-32; 10:32-34), jesus told his disciples that they would not understand who he really was until he had risen from the dead. according to the new testament, not only has jesus been raised but he also becomes the agent of the resurrection of all human beings. with his ascension into heaven, jesus became the title “risen lord,” and assumed the role of the judge of all humanity in the last judgment after the general resurrection of the dead that will come at the end of time. the foundation element or starting point in new testament christology is the resurrection of jesus, and all other elements are based on the belief that jesus was raised from the dead. the doctrine of the resurrection of jesus seems to constitute a minor focus for western medieval christian theology as this is not the starting point of medieval theology. a survey of topics covered in the sentences of peter lombard, the summa theologiae of thomas aquinas, and the breviloquium of bonaventure reveals that these major theologians focused primarily—at least in page length—on the trinity, creation, incarnation, sin and redemption, and the sacraments. in light of 4 this follows the scholastic pattern as we find in thomas aquinas and other medieval authors to see what effect any activity of christ had on himself and then on the human being. the claims paul makes in 1 corinthians 15, it seems strange that the resurrection of jesus was not a more important topic for these theologians and the starting point for their theological reflection. however, for medieval theologians, all sub-categories of theology are related to one another (i.e., “the whole is in each part”).5 the resurrection, therefore, appears as a significant element in the total theological enterprise. theology, christology, and soteriology were not seen as separate entities. the resurrection of the dead usually appears in the last sections of theological treatises in which eschatology (the “last things”) and the sacraments are discussed. peter lombard takes up resurrection of the dead in book iv of the sentences (distinctions 43-50). bonaventure speaks of it in the breviloquium in the context of the passion of christ (part iv, questions 8-10) and the resurrection of the body (part iv, question 5).6 thomas aquinas covers it in four chapters of the summa theologiae (third part, questions 53-56);7 and the supplement 5 thomas f. o’meara, thomas aquinas: theologian (notre dame: university of notre dame press, 1997), 87. as o’meara states: “to study, to ponder, to teach the theology of thomas aquinas is to see its great themes unfold, to see them illumine each other, as their patterns display his genius. these ideas offer a christian interpretation of reality. not a few theologians and philosophers have observed that when a system treats one area, other areas are implicitly considered. this is true in aquinas’ works: for instance, it is hard to learn about the holy spirit without considering human freedom, or to discuss baptism is to consider at the same time jesus’ life. principles and key ideas appear within various topics, disclosing the networks of being and grace. the whole is in each part. what each page is about is god, nevertheless, this is a god who creates human beings, who lets creation act through its own powers, and who then shares an inner divine life with intellectual creatures.” quoted from page 87. 6 on bonaventure and the resurrection of jesus, see john saward, “the flesh flowers again: st. bonaventure and the aesthetics of the resurrection,” downside review, 110 (1992): 1-29. 7 the titles of these sections are: “of christ’s resurrection,” “of the quality of the resurrection,” “of the manifestation of christ’s resurrection,” and “of the causality of christ’s resurrection.” on thomas aquinas and the resurrection mcmichael, the resurrection of jesus and human beings mcmichael 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): mcmichael 1-18 to the third part of the summa deals with the resurrection of jesus as the foundation for the resurrection of human beings during the end times.8 in thomas’s summa contra gentiles, a text written against all unbelievers (jews and muslims in particular), the resurrection is discussed in a few sections toward the end of the work.9 important for our consideration is the christian belief that the resurrection of christ is integral to the whole process of justification, salvation, and glorification of humanity.10 to speak of the resurrection of the dead without christ, who is the mediator between god and human beings, is theologically impossible for the medieval christian theologian. jesus’ own resurrection and the resurrection of believers are two sides of one coin. thomas and bonaventure connected the resurrection to the passion of christ as an interconnected process that leads to salvation. thomas claimed that the resurrection is the efficient and exemplary cause of our salvation and resurrection. christ chose to die in order to cleanse us from sin (passion) and also of jesus, see jean-pierre torrell et al., le christ en ses mystères: la vie et l’oeuvre de jésus selon saint thomas d’aquin, vol. ii (paris: desclé, 1999), 537-648. 8 a number of questions in the supplement of the summa theologiae (questions 75-87) deal with what happens to human beings in the resurrection. the most important issue is found in question 75: whether christ’s resurrection is the cause of our resurrection. on thomas aquinas and the resurrection, see garlo leget, “eschatology,” in the theology of thomas aquinas, ed. rik van nieuwenhove and joseph wawrykov (notre dame: university of notre dame press, 2005), 365-385, especially 372-375; and pim valkenberg, “aquinas and christ’s resurrection: the influence of the lectura super ioannem 20-21 on the summa theologiae,” in reading john with st. thomas aquinas: theological exegesis and speculative theology, ed. michael dauphinais and matthew levering (washington dc: the catholic university of america press, 2005), 277-289. 9 thomas aquinas, summa contra gentiles, book four: salvation, chapters 79-95. 10 thomas aquinas, summa theologiae, supplement to the third part, question 76. chose to rise from the grave in order to free us from death (resurrection).11 in other terms, the passion of christ removes evil (atonement) and is the cause of the eventual destruction of human death; and the resurrection of christ is the cause of the resurrection of human beings and produces the beginning of new life in them (promotion of good).12 the resurrection of jesus in medieval christian anti jewish polemical literature a review of medieval christian polemical texts against jews shows that, while the resurrection of jesus was not the most discussed issue, it was nonetheless significant. for example, when one reviews the substantial text written against jews, the fortalitium fidei of the spanish franciscan alonso de espina (d. 1464),13 one sees the relatively minor importance to the resurrection in polemical literature. in the theological chapters four and five of book iii, “on the jews,” there are fortyeight arguments on the meaning of scriptural passages from the old and new testaments. many of these arguments deal exclusively with the messiahship of jesus. they also describe 11 thomas aquinas, summa contra gentiles, chapter 79, no. 2. 12 thomas bases this on romans 6:4. see valkenberg, 58. 13 alonso de espina is an important source in medieval polemical literature because he collected and summarized many issues concerning resurrection found in previous polemical literature and his fortalitium fidei is a useful tool to discover what issues the resurrection theme elicited in the middle ages. he gathered many of the arguments from earlier polemical literature and synthesized them into a compendium. they are based, for the most part, on an allegorical or spiritual interpretation of passages from the old testament. see steven j. mcmichael, “the sources for alfonso de espina’s messianic argument against the jews in the fortalitium fidei,” in iberia and the mediterranean world of the middle ages: studies in honor of robert i. burns, s.j., ed. larry j. simon (leiden: e. j. brill, 1995), 72-95. for a detailed presentation on the medieval christian and jewish approach to the biblical texts concerning the messiah, see steven j. mcmichael, was jesus of nazareth the messiah? alphonso de espina’s argument against the jews in the “fortalitium fidei “ (c.1464) (atlanta: scholars press, 1994). mcmichael, the resurrection of jesus and human beings mcmichael 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): mcmichael 1-18 the christian approach to the mosaic law, jesus’ equality with god the father, the practice of circumcision, and the observance of the jewish sabbath. the resurrection theme appears to be hardly an issue at all if one looks only at the pages invested in this issue. yet, the resurrection of jesus from the dead is interconnected with all other topics of christian belief, especially that of the christian belief that jesus was the messiah and the second person of the trinity. it is this connection between jesus’ messiahship and his resurrection for the dead that shows how important the latter issue was for medieval christian polemical writers. de espina clearly believed that the old testament taught that the messiah was to rise from the dead. for him, the biblical texts also proved that jesus was the messiah, and therefore the link between the messiah and resurrection was made in the person of jesus of nazareth. for these writers, a non-literal (figurative or allegorical) interpretation of the old testament passages provides typological ways to read jesus and resurrection into key passages of scripture.14 the messiah had already arrived and is now at the right hand of god the father and will return only at the time of the general resurrection of the dead and the last judgment (or in apocalyptic thought, he will come back to defeat the antichrist and then gather all the faithful to himself in the new age). as we shall see, this is a rebuttal of the jewish claim that the messiah has not yet come and that he does not have any role in setting up an earthly kingdom in jerusalem. one of alonso's major concerns in his fortalitum fidei is to show how the scriptural authorities or proof texts from the old testament foretold the resurrection of jesus. among sev 14 robert chazan provides us with a review of this issue between christians and jews in the middle ages. see chazan, fashioning jewish identity in medieval western christendom (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2004), 122-140 eral scripture passages that speak of resurrection, the principal one is hosea 6:2: he will revive us after two days; on the third day he will raise us up, to live in his presence. alonso states that "faithful hebrews" have interpreted this text as prophesying the coming of the messiah, rather than his resurrection. he points out that rabbi solomon (rashi, 1040-1105) interpreted this text to speak of the tribulation the jews are experiencing [presently] because of their dispersion throughout the world, and that they pray publicly and privately for their liberation through the expected messiah. rashi divides the three days in the following way: the first day is the time of the first temple of solomon and the first night the time of the "chaldeans" who destroyed the temple. the second day is the time of the second temple rebuilt by zorobabel and the night is represented by the romans who destroyed the second temple. the third temple, representing the third day, will be rebuilt by the messiah which is foretold at the end of ezekiel. alonso considers rashi's interpretation of hosea 6:2 to be totally false because no third material temple will be built by the messiah according to christian interpretation. a correct interpretation of this passage is: he will revive us after two days refers to the death and burial of the messiah himself; and on the third day he will raise us up refers to the resurrection in which human beings will be raised up for eternal life. clearly hosea 6;2 (and all other prophetic texts) were fulfilled in the events of the life, death, and resurrection of jesus of nazareth. another important text considered by medieval christians to refer to the resurrection and exaltation of jesus is taken from the fifty-second chapter of isaiah (52:13 and 15), which reads: behold my servant shall understand, he shall be exalted, and be raised, and shall be exceeding uplifted; and there follows: that one shall sprinkle many nations. according to alonso, the aramaic translation has: "behold my servant, the messiah, will be made prosperous." the ancient jews, from this verse until the end of the fifty-third chapter of isaiah, have mcmichael, the resurrection of jesus and human beings mcmichael 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): mcmichael 1-18 explained these verses as speaking literally about the passion of the christ. behold my servant shall understand, means that he will have divine knowledge from eternity and human knowledge in time. he shall be exalted toward the unity of the divine substance (suppositi divini); and will be raised in his ascension; and shall be exceeding uplifted when he sits at the right hand of god, the father. according to alonso, these various interpretations all lead to the conclusion that the messiah was to be god, which is confirmed by rabbi aquiba, who said of the messiah: "he will be exalted more than abraham and he will be elevated more than moses, and will be lifted on high far more than the angels." thus it is appropriate that the verse, that one shall sprinkle many nations be applied to the messiah who will cleanse humanity with his blood and baptism. these things were fulfilled in jesus of nazareth. another major issue that arises based on hosea 6 concerns what happens to the messiah after his own death and resurrection. the jews, according to alonso, interpret the words in hosea 6:2—to live in his presence—to mean that the messiah will sit at the right hand of god the father after his resurrection. investigating the talmud and jewish midrashic texts, christian polemical writers like alonso supposed the early jewish rabbis believed that the messiah would sit at the right hand of god the father. other prophetic texts that speak of the "right hand," "right side," "the throne(s)," etc. were associated with david. since jewish interpretation of hosea 6 leads them to consider other texts that speak of david, christians conclude that this does fit a christian interpretation of these same texts because of the early christian association of jesus with david. the jewish interpretation of the talmud and midrashim prevents them from seeing the true meaning of these texts— that jesus was the messiah, that he was to rise from the dead, and that he would sit at the right hand of god the father. another major issue is the reward for following jesus, which is the resurrection of true believers. espina turns his attention to the prophecy contained in isaiah 65:13-16 and 51:11-12 which speaks about the rewards for the true followers (the christians) of the messiah, namely, his grace in the present life and eternal glory in the future life; and the punishments for those who do not believe in the messiah (and who are thus condemned), namely, the jews. while true believers will experience eternal life, the persecutors of the true messiah are destined to endure perpetual punishment in this life and eternal damnation in the future life (amos 2:6). the focus of the argument is on the meaning of the "fourth crime of israel" which, for our author, is the killing of jesus of nazareth. for killing christ, the jews have been punished in a threefold way: they have lost their status as the people of god; jerusalem and the temple now lay desolate; and israel has turned into a wasteland and an appointed desolation. a review of this polemical text of de espina gives us an example of what some medieval christians were thinking in terms of the consequences of denying that jesus was the messiah and that he rose from the dead on easter sunday morning. such literature demonstrates that the jewish rejection of jesus’ messiahship and resurrection shows that jews did not know how to read their own scriptures. this not only harmed them in the present life (their subservient status) but also blinded them to their own fate in the next life, i.e., eternal damnation.15 such 15 de espina gives a lengthy interpretation of isaiah 65:13-16, in which he shows how the positive statements for the “true servants” (the christians) signify that they will be rewarded and how the negative statements for the unfaithful, the jews, reveal that they will be eternally punished. what should clearly lead the jews to see the association of these texts with jesus of nazareth is thwarted by the jewish way of misinterpreting the scriptures they share. the use of the talmud and midrashim by the jews leads to their misinterpreting their own scriptures, and confirms what jeremiah said about the jews: you have perverted the words of the living god, the lord of hosts (jeremiah 23:36), and does not speak the truth. the jews have taught their tongue to speak lies (jeremiah 9:5). having asserted this, de espina can then mcmichael, the resurrection of jesus and human beings mcmichael 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): mcmichael 1-18 blindness led them to much confusion not only about the identity and role of messiah but also about the doctrine of the resurrection. thus they were divided about who and what would be raised in the general resurrection of the dead. they were also ignorant of who was the real agent of the resurrection, i.e., jesus himself. from de espina’s perspective, the jews were merely “rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.” in other words, they were arguing and discussing issues among themselves that prevented them from recognizing not only their own blindness about their present status in salvation history but also about their own future status as the final age of the world came to a close.16 the present punishment for not recognizing jesus as the messiah was bad enough; the eternal agony for jewish unbelief was unspeakable. medieval christian polemicists such as alonso de espina were aware of the diversity of beliefs among jews in regard to the resurrection, and they used this knowledge to attack judaism.17 for example, in chapter three of book iii of the fortalitium fidei, de espina shows how divided the jews were among themselves regarding the existence of souls after death, the resurrection of the dead, and the identity and role of make the following observation: “behold how clear in their books they are condemned as falsifiers and liars who have changed the word of god. it is holy spirit that proclaims that all things in the talmud are lies and false so that through the word the blindness of the jews is confounded. ” the latin text reads: “nec consensit spiritus sanctus quod omnia in talmuth essent mendacia et falsa ut per verba ibidem inserta confunderetur cecitas judeorum” (fol. xlvrb). 16 on de espina and eschatological/apocalyptic thought, see steven j. mcmichael, “the end of the world, antichrist, and the final conversion of the jews in the fortalitium fidei of friar alonso de espina (d. 1464),” medieval encounters: jewish, christian and muslim culture in confluence and dialogue, vol. 12, no. 2 (2006): 224-273. 17 this diversity is recounted in ramon llull’s book of the gentile and the three wise men found in doctor illuminatus: a ramon llull reader, trans. anthony bonner (princeton: princeton university press, 1993), 114-115. the messiah.18 concerning the soul, de espina was aware that sadducees did not believe that souls remain after death. he was also aware that other jews (unnamed) did believe that souls remain, but they did not believe in pain or recompense in the world to come. certain medieval jews believe in the transfer of souls from one to another and from one being into another, while others hold that souls are eternal without beginning, and others hold that the souls were created at the beginning of the world. concerning the resurrection, de espina presents the wide spectrum of beliefs among the jews: [some jews] say that souls will exist in another world, refined from every body by retaining the glory of god. others hold that body and soul will be rejoined. some jews hold that they will eat and drink and have sons, and that everyone will eat one fish which is called leviathan.19 and some others say that they will have enough to eat of that fish through the space of two million years, and that they will eat the feminine part of this leviathan, which has been placed in brine for them from the creation of the world; and that they will drink wine, also 18 de espina states that he is quoting from the libro de las batallas de dios (hebrew: milhamot adonay or milhamot ha-sem) written by alfonso de valladolid (abner de burgos) (c. 1270-c. 1350), which is no longer extant. on his work, see biblioteca bíblica iberica medieval, ed. klaus reinhardt and horacio santiago-otero (madrid: consejo superior de investigaciones científicascentro de estudios históricos, 1986), 83-88. benzion netanyahu states that this third consideration “was, it seems, taken in its entirety from the 33rd chapter of avner of burgos’ batallas de dios. espina indicates only the beginning of the quotation” (159). yet, as evidenced in the spanish text found in an article by isidore loeb, rej, 18 (1889), 60-2, almost the whole third consideration is actually borrowed from abner’s mostrador de justicia. 19 the targum to genesis 1:21 states: “god created the great sea monsters, leviathan and his mate, that are designated for the day of consolation, and all living creatures that creep …” quoted from targum pseudo-jonathan: genesis, trans. michael maher (collegeville: the liturgical press, 1992), 41. mcmichael, the resurrection of jesus and human beings mcmichael 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): mcmichael 1-18 being from the creation of the world, that is reserved in their grapes. others believe that they will be without food and drink, and without any union with woman. still others believe that there will not be a resurrection of the dead.20 many jews believe that all will rise. others believe that only the children of israel will rise. other jews say only the just children of israel will rise. others believe that the just of the gentiles will also rise. other jews believe that after the resurrection they will die a second time. others believe that after the resurrection they will never die again. others believe that after the resurrection they will be in a terrestrial paradise. others believe that they will be in a celestial paradise.21 de espina presents these various views to show that jews are a confused and ignorant people. what he wanted to show ultimately was that the jews were “just as sheep without a shepherd…because they have abandoned the true shepherd, whom, from his way and doctrine, they have been distancing themselves, he who was the true messiah jesus christ our 20these are the sadducees. this is one doctrine of the sadducees that the kariates did not accept. 21the latin text reads: “alii dicunt quod anime erunt in alio mundo expoliate ab omni corpore recipiendo gloriam dei. alii dicunt quod erunt ubi anime cum corporibus. alii eorum credunt quod comedent et bibent et facient filios et quod comedent omnes unum piscem qui dicitur leviathan. et aliqui dicunt quod habebunt statis ad comedendum in illo pisce per spacium duorum milium annorum, et quod comedent feminam huius leviathan que est in sale posita pro eis a creatione mundi, et quod bibent vinum quod servatur in suis uvis etiam a creatione mundi. alii eorum credunt quod erunt ibi sine cibo et potu et sine coniunctione cum mulieribus. alii eorum credunt resurrectionem mortuorum numquam futuram. alii eorum credunt quod omnes homines resurgent. alii credunt quod solum resurgent filii israel. alii dicunt quod solum illi qui fuerunt iusti de israel resurgent. alii credunt quod etiam iusti aliarum gentium resurgent. alii eorum credunt quod post resurrectionem iterum sunt morituri. alii credunt quod post resurrectionem numquam amplius morientur. alii eorum credunt quod post resurrectionem erunt in paradiso terrestri. alii eorum credunt quod erunt in paradiso celesti” (fol. lxxxra-rb). lord, who came to them to show them the right way lest they would perish, because he is the way, truth and life (john 14:6).”22 instead of following the way and doctrine of jesus christ, the jews wander in their blindness and infidelity while clinging to “the law of the pharisees.”23 what de espina does not report here—because he might not be aware of it?—is that christians also had problems with the resurrection of jesus, as evidenced from 1 corinthians 15 and 2 timothy 2:17-18 and from the intra-christian debates during the patristic period and middle ages. medieval christians struggled especially over the role of the body and its connection with the soul in the resurrection of the dead. none of these problems within the christian community about the resurrection appear in this polemical literature, illustrating the main problem of the polemical mindset. it “naturally forces those engaged in it to adopt hardened positions, to avoid statements of ambiguity (even where ambiguity might exist), and to characterize their opponents in the harshest black-and-white terms.”24 22 the latin text reads: “… sicut oves sine pastore ab illo tunc quoniam dimiserunt verum pastorem quem hebebant elongantes se ab eius via et doctrina qui fuit verus messias jehus christe dominus noster qui venit eis ad ostendendum viam rectam ne perirent cum sit via veritatis et vita, joannis xiiii. (fol. lxxxrb). 23the latin text reads: “et extunc usque nunc credunt isti judei in lege phariseorum et propter talia accidentia voluuntur semper de una fide in alteram et cursunt devii et mutabiles sicut oves sine pastore ab illo tunc quoniam dimiserunt verum pastorem quem hebebant elongantes se ab eius via et doctrina qui fuit verus messias jehus christe dominus noster qui venit eis ad ostendendum viam rectam ne perirent cum sit via veritatis et vita, joannis xiiii” (fol. lxxxrb). 24 thomas e. burman, “juan de segovia and qur’an reading in europe, 1140-1560.” the quote comes from an earlier version of an article that thomas wrote that is now published in his reading the qur’ān in latin christendom, 1140-1560 (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2007, 178-197. on the problems of the resurrection in early and medieval christian thought, see caroline walker bynum, the resurrection of the body in western christianity, 200-1336 (new york: columbia university press, 1995). mcmichael, the resurrection of jesus and human beings mcmichael 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): mcmichael 1-18 medieval jews were actually aware of their own differences in regard to beliefs about the rewards and punishments accruing from observing or transgressing the commandments. many of these differences are listed in de espina’s presentation. for medieval jews, holding different opinions about what was to be expected during the messianic times and in the world to come was never considered a sign of weakness or as a lack of guidance. maimonides, for example, listed a number of opinions concerning what good was to be expected in the world to come (the goal), but argued that one should rather emphasize performing virtuous acts and avoiding base ones, knowing the truth, and becoming servers of god out of love (the means to the goal). belief in the thirteen principles of faith leads to living out the commandments: “when these fundamental principles are established by a man and he truly believes in them, he then enters into the collective unit of israel, and it is obligatory upon us to love him and to have compassion upon him and to do all that god commended us to do for one another, referring to acts of love and brotherhood.”25 earlier christian anti-jewish writings focused on certain of these positions regarding the resurrection. for example, christian polemicists targeted the jewish belief that “they will be resurrected and that they will once more inhabit the earth.”26 this was very important to the twelfth-century spanish jewish convert petrus alfonsi.27 he wondered: will the jews be raised with their mental powers? what is the role of the body in resur rection? will there be reproduction during the millennium? if so, will the children experience death or will they be immortal? who will lead them? 25 quoted from maimonides, commentary on the mishnah: tractate sanhedrin, 157. 26 tolan, petrus alfonsi and his medieval readers, 25. 27 titulus xi, migne p.l.157, 650-56. on the issues, see tolan, petrus alfonsi and his medieval readers, 26; abulafia, christians and jews in the twelfthcentury renaissance (london/new york, 1995), 100-101; migne p.l.157, 651. on petrus alfonsi and the resurrection, see barbara phyllis hurwitz, “fidei causa et tui amore: the role of petrus alphonsi’s dialogues in the history of jewish-christian debate,” (ann arbor, michigan: university microfilms international, 1983), 71-83. 28 thomas aquinas explicitly attacked the error of both jews and muslims who, he thought, expected eating and sexual activity in the risen state.29 the questions center on the principal theme of the resurrection of the body and its rejoining the soul at the time of the resurrection. this is a major issue in the respective internal debates among christians and jews. christian authors argued against the jewish beliefs that they will inhabit the earth after the resurrection; they will be rewarded with temporal goods; they will live this way eternally with the messiah, who is to arrive for the first time in history and bring the jews back to the promised land; they will begin to worship god once again in the temple, which will be rebuilt by the messiah; they will resume the same offices they executed when they were alive; the gentiles will be subjugated.30 these beliefs are problematic for a number of reasons. according to certain medieval christian writers, jews are never to return to the promised land because they have “betrayed their god and killed his son.”31 according to de espina, the punishment of the jews for killing christ is threefold: they lost their status as the 28 tolan, petrus alfonsi and his medieval readers, 26-27 and abulafia, christians and jews in the twelfth-century renaissance, 101. 29 summa contra gentiles, ch. 83, 316. 30 the sixteenth-century author, francisco machado of the cistercian order, wrote a chapter in the mirror of the new christians (1541) entitled: “how the jews wrongly wait for all to be resurrected and to return again to jerusalem when the messiah comes.” this chapter summarizes the previous medieval polemical literature he was familiar with. even though it was written after the middle ages, it still retains the medieval approach to this subject matter and is therefore appropriate to use in this article. see francisco machado, the mirror of the new christians (espelho de christãos novos), trans. frank ephraim talmage and mildred evelyn vieira (toronto: pontifical institute of medieval studies, 1977), 310-319. 31 machado, the mirror of the new christians, 315. mcmichael, the resurrection of jesus and human beings mcmichael 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): mcmichael 1-18 people of god; jerusalem and the temple lie desolate; israel turned into a wasteland and an appointed desolation. the belief that the jews will hold their previous positions of honor or leadership was considered “imbecilic and irrational.”32 medieval christians also argued against jews (and muslims) on a variety of other issues related to resurrection. according to de espina, a major problem was that jews “expect to be rewarded in another life with carnal lust (delight), riches and other similar things.” they “are expecting a future resurrection to a carnal life and therefore they believe that the happiness of future life consists in the fullness of temporal goods and the tranquility of peace.”33 belief in post-resurrection physical existence posed other problems. de espina is correct in stating that certain jews believed that they would be resurrected to a physical existence in the world to come. but not all jews shared this belief, as evidenced by the thought of maimonides and those who proposed a totally spiritual post-resurrection existence. jewish belief that the temple would be rebuilt was also a challenge to christians, who held that the temple would never be rebuilt, since jesus christ had accomplished the one true sacrifice on the cross.34 finally, jewish belief that the gentiles would eventually be subjugated and embrace the true faith did not fit into the christian perception of the final age, in which the jews would convert to christianity, the true faith. 32 machado, the mirror of the new christians, 317. 33 about the muslims, alonso states: “saraceni, qui expectant in alia vita in voluptatibus carnalibus et divitiis et aliis consimilibus premiari,” and about the jews, alonso states: “similiter judei resurrectionem futuram expectant ad vitam carnalem et ideo felicitatem vite future credunt consistere in bonorum temporalium plenitudine et pacis tranquillitate” (fol. xlvira). 34 the main scriptural text for the belief that a third material temple would be built comes from hosea 6:1-3. according to de espina, rashi held that the third temple, representing the third day, would be rebuilt by the messiah as foretold at the end of ezekiel. de espina considered rashi’s interpretation of hosea to be totally false because no third material temple will be built by the messiah. he read it thus: two days refers to the death and burial of the messiah himself; and the third day refers to the resurrection in which human beings will be raised up for eternal life. de espina cites the apostle paul’s resurrection in medieval judaism medieval intra-jewish theological debates centered on such issues as the nature of god (existence, unity, immutability, and incorporeity), torah, creation, prophecy, the commandments, and the final things (messiah, resurrection, and the world to come).35 in debates about the final things, there were three interconnected ideas: the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the dead (tehiyyat ha-metim), and the doctrine of the messiah.36 questions concerning the resurrection of the dead included the following: will those who arise in the messianic era die again and be reborn in the world to come (i.e., will there be one resurrection or two)? is there a difference between the messianic era and the world to come? will there be bodily enjoyment in the world to come? will the body and soul live on for all eternity? what form will the body take in the world to come? will everyone rise or only a select group (e.g., the righteous of israel)? teaching of 1 corinthians 15:20-22: “but now christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. for since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being. for just as in adam all die, so too in christ shall all be brought to life.” this allegorical interpretation is important to de espina because it not only confirms the resurrection of jesus, it also contradicts one of the key elements of jewish belief about the coming of the messiah: that the messiah will rebuild the temple in jerusalem. 35 on medieval jewish theology in general, see menachem kellner, dogma in medieval jewish thought: from maimonides to abravanel (oxford: the littman library of jewish civilization, 1986). 36 louis jacobs, principles of jewish faith: an analytical study (new york: basic books, 1964), 307. mcmichael, the resurrection of jesus and human beings mcmichael 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): mcmichael 1-18 in medieval jewish theological reflection, resurrection of the dead is part—usually the last part—of the entire scenario of messianic redemption and jewish theology in general. saadia gaon (882-942) and maimonides (1135-1204) were instrumental in offering their view since it is rooted in the mishnaic code and in the talmud.37 the book of beliefs and opinions of saadia gaon does not begin with the theme of resurrection, but the subject takes up considerable space later in his work.38 his main objective in the book of beliefs and opinions was to prove the reasonableness of the resurrection of the dead in relation to jewish tradition and revelation. it is important to acknowledge that his main focus was on the question of reason and faith and not on a response to the christian community (especially since he lived in an islamic environment). in other 37 y.even-shemu’el, midreshei ge’ullah (midrashim of redemption): pirqei ha-’apocalypsah ha-yehudit, 2nd ed. (tel aviv: mossad bialik, 1953-54). as depicted especially in early jewish apocalyptic literature, the resurrection comes after the entire messianic scenario that will be played out historically on the world’s stage. according to moshe idel, these apocalyptic writings “elaborate on the signs preceding the coming of the messiah, the wars and death of the messiah ben joseph, as well as the arrival and final victory of the messiah ben david. though written during a period of several hundred years (between the seventh and the twelfth centuries), this literature is relatively unified from the conceptual point of view. it is mythical in its approach to reality: god and the messiah are conceived of as powerful enough to disrupt the course of nature and of history. this messianism is strongly oriented toward a redemption that will take place in both time and space, and unlike the more mystically orientated individualistic forms of redemption, it has an obvious restorative nature, one that includes the rebuilding of the temple, the descent of jerusalem from above, and the victory of judaism as a universal religion.” quoted from moshe idel, “jewish apocalypticism: 670-1670,” in the encyclopedia of apocalypticism, volume 2, apocalypticism in western history and culture, ed. bernard mcginn (new york: continuum, 2000), 208-209. 38 the topics covered are: the creation of the world; god’s unity and other divine attributes; the commandments of god and the means of their revelation; man’s freedom to either obey or disobey god; virtue and vice; man’s soul and its immortality; the doctrine of the resurrection; the age of the messiah and of israel’s redemption; reward and punishment in the hereafter; the golden mean. see saadia gaon, the book of beliefs and opinions, trans. samuel rosenblatt, rev. ed. (new haven: yale university press, 1976), xxv. words, this is an apologetic text written for the jewish community and not a polemical work written against christianity. his discussion of resurrection appears within a wider context of issues: the nature of reward and punishment, the nature of the soul, and redemption. some of his main questions in regard to resurrection include: is it reasonable to believe in the resurrection of the dead (i.e., is it necessary and logical)? what happens to the body in the resurrection? will the resurrection of the dead happen at the time of messianic redemption or in the world to come? who will be resurrected?39 in discussing these questions, saadia gaon never mentions jesus. in fact, the resurrection of jesus plays no significant part in any intra-jewish discussions about resurrection and, as we shall see, it plays a minor but noteworthy role in jewish polemical literature against christianity. the only place in which the gaon mentions jesus is in a discussion about redemption. here he argues that the messiah did not appear during the time of the second temple. this means that jesus was not the messiah and did not bring redemption to the world. the christian doctrine that jesus himself is the agent of resurrection is not discussed at all. for medieval jews, the agent of resurrection is god alone.40 they assert that the only prophetic 39 saadia gaon holds that only the virtuous jews and jewish sinners who repent will enjoy the first resurrection into the world to come; all humankind will experience a second resurrection into the world to come. crescas holds that “not everyone will be resurrected. resurrection will be limited to the completely righteous and the completely wicked of the people of israel. the righteous will experience reward, and the wicked will be punished. the souls of persons of an intermediary status, as well as the righteous of the nations of the world, will be rewarded, but they will not merit the wondrous miracle of resurrection.” quoted from j. david bleich, with perfect faith: the foundations of jewish belief (new york: ktav publishing house, 1983), 620-621. 40 since christians understand the god the father and jesus the son share a divine nature, they would see that both the father and the son are mutual agents as far as they share the divine nature. medieval theologians would also make the distinction between the divine nature itself (god in three persons) and the proper actions of the divine persons, therefore a distinctive role mcmichael, the resurrection of jesus and human beings mcmichael 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): mcmichael 1-18 figure that will appear during the last days will be elijah, who ascended into heaven (2 kings 2:11). he will be sent prior to the coming of the messiah in historical time (malachi 3:23). the day of resurrection will follow the age of the messiah.41 the resurrection of the dead is included in maimonides’s thirteen principles of faith: “the one who denies the resurrection of the dead is denied a share in the world-to-come.”42 the controversy that arose because of maimonides’s position— or what subsequent authors thought he was saying in his mishneh torah—certainly shows that the resurrection was very important in jewish theology. maimonides treats the resurrection of the dead in the context of dealing with “the problems of god’s unity, the messianic age, resurrection, and the world to of the one who rose from the dead, christ, is the one who will raise all of the dead. therefore, according to thomas aquinas, the efficient cause of the resurrection of human beings is christ. see the summa theologica, iii, 56, article 1. we see a parallel to this focus on jesus in medieval art. for example, in the upper basilica of saint francis in assisi, we see in the panel presenting the act of creation (genesis 1), it is jesus as logos who appears as creator rather than god the father (who is creator in earlier art). 41 saadia gaon, 158. “i noted also in the last of the prophecies a direct admonition in regard to the observance of the torah of moses until the day of the resurrection, which latter would be preceded by the sending of elijah.” this belief is founded on the prophetic text of malachi 3:22-23. for some medieval jews, the divinely appointed agent for the accomplishment of the resurrection is elijah. “the resurrection of the dead will come through elijah (sot. ix, 15), who will likewise act as the herald to announce the advent of the messiah (see mal. iv, 5). the reawakened will be of endless duration…the righteous whom the holy one, blessed be he, will restore to life will never return to their dust” (sanh. 92a). quoted from abraham cohen, everyman’s talmud, 364. the jews mainly objected to christians claiming that jesus is the agent of the resurrection—in other words, that it is through jesus that the resurrection of bodies is to come about. thomas aquinas deals with this in the summa contra gentiles, book four on salvation, chapter 79. 42 mishneh torah, hilkhot teshuvah 3:5. quoted from bleich, with perfect faith: the foundations of jewish belief, 619. come.”43 he wrote about the resurrection in his commentary on the mishnah (tractate sanhedrin) and in the mishneh torah. underlying this subject in his works are the fundamental issues of the relationship between faith and rational explanation, matter and spirit, and bodily resurrection and immortality. the major question that arose during the resurrection debate sparked by maimonides’s comments in his mishneh torah, was: what happens to the body when the soul is raised from the dead? in his main works, maimonides held that there was a complete separation between this world (ha-’olam hazeh) and the hereafter or the world to come (ha-’olam ha-ba). the reign of the messiah was to happen in this world, and therefore was not an eschatological event as we find in christian eschatology. the individual who dies is raised in the life to come and experiences freedom from death, evil, and the physical existence of the body. the reward based on the knowledge of god and righteous deeds on earth will be given to the soul in the world to come. the wicked, according to maimonides, will experience the death of their souls, and thus the wicked will experience both a bodily and spiritual death.44 what then of the body in the resurrection process? maimonides denies the physical resurrection of the dead, and this denial becomes the centerpiece of the intra-jewish debate about the resurrection of the dead in the middle ages. as with the gaon, maimonides focuses on answering jewish questions about the resurrection. he does not engage in a polemic against christianity. because of his position on the age of the messiah and on the role of the body in the resurrection process, we can assume that maimonides never had to deal with 43 moses maimonides’ treatise on resurrection, trans. fred rosner (lanham: rowman and littlefield publishers, inc., 1997), 15. 44 lea naomi goldfeld, moses maimonides’ treatise of resurrection: an inquiry into its authenticity (new york: ktva publishing house, inc., 1986), 128. mcmichael, the resurrection of jesus and human beings mcmichael 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): mcmichael 1-18 the resurrection of jesus. if the body has no existence in the world to come, there is no relevance to the bodily resurrection of jesus. one of the major questions in the world of maimonides scholarship is whether maimonides himself wrote the treatise on resurrection in 1191 in answer to his jewish opponents who thought that he denied the resurrection of the dead.45 it appears that medieval jews thought so, but there are significant differences between what maimonides held in his major publications and what appears in this treatise. the treatise states that there will be two resurrections, one in which the body will reunite with the soul during the time of redemption and the other in which the soul separates from the body to enjoy a totally spiritual existence in the world to come.46 once 45 on this issue, lea naomi goldfeld argues against the authorship of maimonides in her moses maimonides’ treatise of resurrection: an inquiry into its authenticity. joel kraemner holds that its authenticity is now beyond doubt; see his “moses maimonides: an intellectual portrait,” in the cambridge companion to maimonides, ed. kenneth seeskin (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2005), 10-57. kraemer shows that maimonides’s belief could have been associated with the islamic environment he was living in: “samuel ben eli’s allegation [that he denied the resurrection of the dead] could have embroiled maimonides with the ayyūhid political and religious authorities. the philosopher shahāh ad-dīn as-suhrawardī had been executed in the same year for heresy, including the denial of the resurrection.” quoted from p. 44. kraemer explains why maimonides wrote this letter: “in a letter to joseph ben judah, maimonides asserted that people distorted his views on resurrection. he had to convince his audience that he believed in it, and explained that resurrection is a generally accepted belief among the religious community and that is should not be interpreted symbolically. by ‘generally accepted belief’ maimonides meant a commonly accepted opinion, unproven but believed by broad consensus and worthy of consent. resurrection of the dead is a foundation of the religious law by consensus within the religious community. all who adhere to the community are obligated to believe in it, but it falls short of being a philosophical truth.” (p. 45) 46 in other words: “his treatise on resurrection, written in arabic in 1191, explicitly affirms physical resurrection. this tehiyyat ha-metim, however, is to be followed by a second bodily death and eternal life of the soul in a purely spiritual ‘olam ha-ba.” quoted from bernard septimus, hispano-jewish again, the separation of the messianic age and the world to come explains why the resurrection of jesus had no impact on the intra-jewish theology of resurrection. for maimonides, the messiah does not raise the dead because the real agent of resurrection is god almighty and not another. that which we asserted that the messiah will not be required to perform a miracle such as splitting the sea or resurrecting a dead person in a miraculous way means that a miracle will not be asked of him since the prophets whose prophecies have been verified have foretold his advent. it does not follow from this treatise that the almighty, at the time of his choice, will not resurrect those he wishes to resurrect, whether during the era of the messiah or before him or after his death.47 since jews focused their attention on the messianic age and the world to come as two distinct periods and did not believe that the messiah would have any role in the raising of the dead, they would not acknowledge the messiahship of jesus and his role in the resurrection of the dead. culture in transition: the career and controversies of ramah (cambridge: harvard university press, 1982), 52. 47 moses maimonides’ treatise on resurrection, 37. rosner explains this teaching of maimonides: “in the body of the treatise, maimonides states that some people are disturbed by his remark in the mishneh torah that, among others things, the messiah should not be expected to resurrect the dead. they thought that this was a flat contradiction to his statement in the commentary on helek that resurrection is a principle of faith. but if the messiah is not to bring the dead back to life, it does not follow that neither will god. indeed he may achieve this at any time, whether before, after or during the lifetime of the messiah” (p. 19). asher finkel claims that this is not the issue of maimonides as he is offering a view of life after death for the individual without resurrection but as a spiritual reality. he never refers to the messiah in his accounting of repentance as evidenced in his mishnah torah, chapter 8. mcmichael, the resurrection of jesus and human beings mcmichael 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): mcmichael 1-18 for maimonides, the central question regarding christians is not about how judaism is related to christianity but how christianity is related to judaism. this is so for two reasons. first, jesus was not the messiah. second, christianity itself is an instrument or forerunner of the coming of the actual kingmessiah, who will re-establish judaism as the only religious and political institution that will rule in the age of the messiah. thus maimonides sees christianity as a “dilution” of the original revelation, and it will be corrected—brought back to pure judaism—when the days of the messiah arrive. maimonides looks favorably upon christians who abide by the noahide commandments. hopefully, they will convert to judaism by accepting the mosaic law.48 in this vision of the messianic era, the resurrection of jesus has no historical or theological role.49 many medieval jews did not accept the rationalistic theology of maimonides, especially when it came to the resurrection of the body. these writers held that there would be a bodily existence in the world to come, and they based this position on biblical and talmudic proof texts. underlying the resurrection controversy of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were exegetical methodologies and literal and non-literal interpretations of the torah. writers like ramah (r. meir halevi abulafia, c. 1165-1244) were critical of the rationalistic approach to the resurrection question, especially as evidenced in the major works of maimonides and those who supported him. ramah identifies two sources of philosophical dissatisfaction with the traditional doctrine of resurrection. first is a rationalist spirituality based on a sharp body-soul 48 this was one of the main points of asher finkel’s paper at the 2006 kalamazoo conference entitled “rabbinic views of christianity and the noahide covenant.” 49 this is explained in david novak, jewish-christian dialogue: a jewish justification, 57-67. dualism: the soul (that is, intellect) is what really counts; the body is an impure impediment to perfection. second is a tendency to extend the domain of natural causation at the expense of divine intervention or even omnipotence. these factors underlie rejection of the miracle of permanent bodily resurrection in favor of natural immortality of the soul, along the lines of the philosophers.50 although there were medieval jews who held that bodily resurrection was still to be upheld and defended, there appears to have been no appeal to the christian belief in the resurrection of the dead as an extension of jewish belief in the resurrection of the body as well as the soul coming out of a first-century jewish context (the pharisees and their belief in the resurrection of the body). the resurrection of jesus in medieval jewish antichristian polemical literature certain jewish polemical authors saw the importance of the resurrection in their rebuttal of christian truth claims. for example, a major polemical text, the book of redemption of moses nachmanides (1194-1270) concerns the theme of the messiah with its connection to the theme of jesus’ resurrection. his reaction to christian truth claims came primarily from observations concerning the interpretative authority of sacred texts, the interpretative tools used in biblical and talmudic hermeneutics, and the proper reading of sacred history.51 the book is a reaffirmation that the messiah has not yet come, and israel awaits with patient hope the future redemption that the messiah will bring. rather than an earthly vision of the redemp 50 bernard septimus, hispano-jewish culture in transition: the career and controversies of ramah (cambridge: harvard university press, 1982), 58. 51 on this issue, see nina caputo, nahmanides in medieval catalonia: history, community, and messianism (notre dame: university of notre dame press, 2007). mcmichael, the resurrection of jesus and human beings mcmichael 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): mcmichael 1-18 tive era, nachmanides hopes for a more spiritual paradise.52 the days of the messiah lie in the future, since the jews are still in exile, living among the nations (a situation that causes the jews to sin); and they are still in a state of impurity, which will be removed once the messiah comes, as some jews believe.53 nachmanides was also aware that certain jewish scholars held that the messiah arrival was directly dependant on israel’s repentance: “therefore, g-d prolongs it from generation to generation, even beyond the decreed end, until the coming of the proper generation which will repent, just as he has prolonged [the coming of the messiah] from the generation of hezekiah until the present.”54 nevertheless, nachmanides held out hope that the jews will someday worship in a restored 52 nachmanides states: “the ultimate goal of our reward in the era of the messiah is not the eating of the fruits of the land [of israel], bathing in the warm springs of tiberias, and other similar pleasures, nor is the goal of our desire the offerings and the service in the sanctuary. our reward and hope lie rather in the world to come, in the enjoyment of the soul in the pleasure called garden of eden, and in being spared from the punishment of gehenna. notwithstanding all this, we persist in the belief in the redemption because it constitutes known truth among masters of the torah and prophecy. with it, we strengthen [the hearts of] those who are asleep in the anguish [of the exile], and with its proofs, we shut the mouths of the heretics. we delight in its words because we look forward in our hope [to the redemption] when we will achieve closeness to g-d by being in his sanctuary with his priests and his prophets. additionally, [we will be closer to g-d because] we will have purity and sanctity, we will be in the chosen land, and his presence will dwell with us.” quoted from the law of the eternal is perfect in ramban (nachmanides): writings and discourses , vol. i, trans. charles b. chavel (new york: shilo publishing house, inc., 1978), 45. 53 the law of the eternal is perfect in ramban (nachmanides): writings and discourses , 45. 54 the book of redemption in ramban (nachmanides): writings and discourses , vol. ii, trans. charles b. chavel (new york: shilo publishing house, inc., 1978), 600. yet nachmanides reported that there was also a third opinion on this issue: “among the sages of israel, however there is one sage, rabbi yehoshua, who concluded that even if the israelites will not repent, they will [nevertheless] be redeemed [at the decreed end]. quoted from page 601. temple and live in a re-established israel. this “worldly” restoration is precisely what christians disputed. thus, disagreement concerning the role of the messiah set the tone for much of the polemical writings about resurrection on the part of both jews and christians in this era. christians felt compelled to persuade jews to identify the future leader/servant prophesied in the old testament with the messiah. they argued that all these prophetic texts were fulfilled in the person of jesus of nazareth. jews read these same texts differently because of their different expectations regarding the role the messiah would play in salvation history.55 concerning the messiah’s death and resurrection, he was projected to die a natural death. the messianic kingdom would then live on in his 55 samson h. levey provides us with a summary of jewish belief in the messiah in the middle ages: “the messiah will be the symbol and/or the active agent of the deliverance of israel. he will be of davidic lineage, though he may have a non-davidic predecessor, the ephraimite messiah, who will die in battle. elijah will herald his coming and will serve as his high priest… the messiah will bring an end to the wandering of israel, and the jewish people will be gathered in from their dispersion to their own land. the northern kingdom will be re-united with judah. the drama of the exodus from egypt will be re-enacted; in this drama moses may participate, made possible by a resurrection of the dead. the messiah will live eternally. he will restore the temple and rebuild jerusalem, which will enjoy divine protection for itself and its inhabitants. he will have sovereignty over all the world and make the torah the universal law of mankind, with the ideal of education being realized to the full. the messiah will have the gift of prophecy, and may have intercessory power to seek forgiveness of sin, but will punish the unrepenting wicked of his people, as well as of the nations, and have the power to cast them into gehenna. there will be a moral regeneration of israel and of mankind. the messiah will be a righteous judge, dispensing justice and equity, the champion of the poor and the oppressed, the personification of social justice. he will reward the righteous, who will surround him and eternally enjoy the divine effulgence. the essence of the messiah will be faith in god; and he will vindicate that faith, and the faithfulness of israel, in the eyes of all the world.” quoted from samson h. levey, the messiah: an aramaic interpretation: the messianic exegesis of the targum, monographs of the hebrew union college, no. ii (cincinnati/new york/los angeles/jerusalem: hebrew union college-jewish institute of religion, 1974), 142-43. mcmichael, the resurrection of jesus and human beings mcmichael 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): mcmichael 1-18 descendents, as maimonides held.56 according to nachmanides, the messiah would be a human being (neither god nor a divine being), who would neither die nor be resurrected: “the messiah will be endangered, will be willing to accept his death at the hands of his enemies, but will not in fact die. as predicted by isaiah, he will be vindicated and will live to see victory and progeny in a thoroughly this-worldly mode.”57 a psychological and naturalistic reading of the suffering servant passages (isaiah) led nachmanides to conclude that jesus did not fit the description of what the messiah was to be and do.58 even though the messiah was not required to die, if he will die then he would do so only “in the most natural fashion, after a long and distinguished life.”59 his death would come about because “the messiah is but a king of flesh and blood” like any other earthly king.60 thus the death (or non-death) of the messiah does not lead to any sort of redemptive activity or resurrection. as for the role of the messiah, christians focused their attention on supernatural and salvific elements. jewish authors, like nachmanides and maimonides, however, focused on what 56 jacobs, principles of jewish faith, 371. 57 chazan, fashioning jewish identity in medieval western christendom, 175. nachmonides held that the suffering servant would not “be delivered into the hands of his enemies, nor that he would be killed, nor that he would be hung on a tree. rather that he would see offspring and live a long life, that he would be exalted, that his kingdom would be raised to heights among the nations, and that powerful kings become his booty.” quoted in chazan, 173. 58 chazan, fashioning jewish identity in medieval western christendom, 174. 59 chazan, fashioning jewish identity in medieval western christendom, 175. 60 nachmonides makes this statement in front of king jaime i of aragon during the famous barcelona disputation of 1263. quoted from the disputation at barcelona in ramban (nachmanides): writings and discourses, 672673. the messiah was to do here on earth. nachmanides held that “when the true king messiah will arise and succeed [in overcoming israel’s enemies, in building the sanctuary on its former site in gathering the dispersed of israel], and he shall be exalted and lifted up, then all [the nations] will at once turn and know that their fathers have inherited lies and that their prophets and fathers have misled them.”61 maimonides held that the messiah was to rebuild the temple on its proper site, gather the dispersed of israel, and reconstitute the sacrificial rites. maimonides did not believe the world would change: “let no one think that in the days of the messiah any of the laws of nature will be set aside, or any innovation introduced into creation. the world will follow its normal course.”62 he specifically denied that the messiah would usher in the resurrection: “do not think that the king messiah will have to perform signs and wonders [i.e. miracles], bring anything new into being, revive the dead, or do similar things. it is not so.”63 this belief was based on the rabbis’ careful distinction “between the era of the messiah and the future world, which is the world after the resurrection.”64 conclusion the resurrection of human beings from the dead is an important issue in medieval jewish and christian theology in general. both communities found in this belief the hope that 61 the law of the eternal is perfect in ramban (nachmanides): writings and discourses , 40. nachmanides held, therefore, a different interpretation of a key christian messianic proof text (isaiah 52:13) as the christian reading of and he shall be exalted and lifted up signified the resurrection and ascension of jesus. 62 menachem kellner, “messianic postures in israel today,” in essential papers on messianic movements and personalities in jewish history, ed. marc saperstein (new york: new york university press, 1992), 506. 63 menachem kellner, “messianic postures in israel today,” 506. 64 ramban (nachmanides): writings and discourses , 523 mcmichael, the resurrection of jesus and human beings mcmichael 16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): mcmichael 1-18 eternal life with god was possible, either for all human beings or at least for a segment of humanity (the righteous). since belief in resurrection was central to both the jewish and christian systems, it is not surprising that it would appear in medieval jewish and christian polemical literature. what is surprising is that it did not get more attention than it did. nevertheless, this is a case in which quality is more important than quantity. for medieval jews, the issues of the trinity, the incarnation and divinity of jesus, and his role as messiah took center stage in polemical literature. they concentrated on rebutting these particular christian doctrines. this did not prevent them from dealing with the resurrection of jesus and with the other christian doctrines of salvation and redemption based on the foundation of his resurrection. but they believed that once the former doctrines were disproved, especially the nonmessiahship of jesus, the latter doctrines (such as the resurrection of jesus) would become in a way non-issues. much of their attention, then, was focused on proving that jesus was not the messiah and that it was impossible for him to be an incarnate divine being, thereby rendering the resurrection of jesus devoid of any redemptive significance. it was also important for the jews to hold that it is god alone who will raise the dead and not a human agent. the only human being who had any role in resurrection was elijah, but even his agency was under the auspices of god’s power and will.65 a survey of the polemical literature of medieval christians shows that they followed the pattern set by the main theological texts of the period. most theological treatises, especially the sentences and the summae, begin with god (one and 65 abraham cohen, everyman’s talmud, 364. the jews mainly objected to christians claiming that jesus is the agent of the resurrection—in other words, that it is through jesus that the resurrection of bodies is to come about. thomas aquinas deals with this in the summa contra gentiles, book four on salvation, chapter 79. three) and work their way through creation, the incarnation, the sacraments, culminating in the final things, which include the resurrection. most polemical writings focus first on the trinity and then on divinity and messiahship issues. resurrection is embedded in sections of these texts that treat of the divinity and messiahship of jesus, but it does not stand out in relation to these other theological issues. christian writers were compelled first to prove that jesus was the messiah. once that identity was established, they were able to demonstrate how texts showing that the messiah was to rise from the dead were to be applied directly to jesus. the messiah, jesus, who had risen from the dead, will be the agent of resurrection for human beings. the debate about the resurrection of jesus was not simply a matter of hermeneutics, i.e., how the old testament (the hebrew scriptures) was to be read properly. rather, it was a matter of vision about the final age of the world and the role the messiah would have in it. the medieval christian and jewish perspectives on the role of the messiah had direct ramifications for the future function of the earth, jerusalem, and the temple. likewise, the resurrection of jesus had ramifications for the possibility of life after death and the vision of what that post-mortem life would be like: would it be an earthly or a heavenly state of being? would it be a bodily/spiritual existence or exclusively spiritual existence? for christians, the resurrection of jesus gave them the assurance that their own resurrection to new life after death was possible, as was the possibility of salvation. for jews, the testimony of the hebrew scriptures and the teachings of the early rabbis gave them assurance that resurrection and redemption were possible, at least to the righteous of israel and the nations. the issue of jesus’ resurrection, therefore, is directly linked to two principal areas of medieval theology—eschatology and soteriology. mcmichael, the resurrection of jesus and human beings mcmichael 17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): mcmichael 1-18 the resurrection of jesus, therefore, played a significant role in medieval christian-jewish polemical literature. we see that the subject of the resurrection still contributes to an understanding of other theological issues, especially relative to the messiah, eschatology, and soteriology. further research may also lead to a better understanding not only of differences but also of similarities in jewish and christian religious views in the middle ages. mcmichael, the resurrection of jesus and human beings mcmichael 18 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): brown-fleming r1-4 wolf, pope and devil brown-fleming r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr hubert wolf pope and devil: the vatican’s archives and the third reich kenneth kronenberg, translator (cambridge: belknap press of harvard university press, 2010), hardcover, 325 pp. suzanne brown-fleming, center for advanced holocaust studies, united states holocaust memorial museum in february 2003, in an unprecedented break with vatican secret archives policy, the holy see opened those records pertaining to the munich and berlin nunciatures (vatican diplomatic headquarters) for the period 1922 to 1939. during these years, eugenio pacelli, the future pope pius xii (1939-1958), served as nuncio to bavaria and germany (1917-1929) and secretary of state to pope pius xi (1930–1939). in 2006, pope benedict xvi released “about 100 thousand [additional] archival units, each containing up to a thousand pages” when he opened all files in the vatican secret archive relating to the pontificate of pope pius xi (p. 309). in pope and devil, wolf, accessing these new sources, analyzes the “view from rome” on five general areas, broken into five individual chapters: (1) the vatican secretariat of state’s (and pacelli’s) aims and goals in germany from 1917-1929; (2) amici israel and the ugly circumstances surrounding the march 1928 holy office decree on anti-semitism (see p. 82); (3) the role played by pacelli and pius xi in the fraught months between january and july 1933, the period of the enabling act, the retraction of the mainz declaration, and the concordat between the holy see and nazi germany; (4) pacelli, pius xi, and the persecution of jews, focusing on 1933 and 1938; and (5) the relationship between catholic worldview and nazi ideology from 1933 to 1939. wolf cites four schools of thought that have emerged regarding catholic attitudes toward jews: (1) the “resistance thesis,” that “because of their faith catholics fundamentally rejected national socialism along with its racial theories”; (2) the “indifference thesis,” that “the majority of catholics were neither for nor against jews”; (3) olaf blaschke’s model of “endogenous catholic antisemitism,” that “catholics needed jews as a ‘scapegoat’ to stabilize the catholic milieu”; and, finally, (4) the “ambivalence thesis,” that “although catholics distanced themselves from ‘racial’ anti-semitism, they did not reject all anti-semitism, but instead supported the ‘better’ christian anti-semitism” (p. 119, quoting urs altermatt, katholizmus und antisemitismus. mentalitäten, kontinuitäten, ambivalenzen. zur kulturgeschichte der schweiz, 1918-1945, frauenfeld: huber [1999], p. 51). wolf characterizes the evidence he brings forth as fitting most closely with the “ambivalence thesis,” especially the 1928 debates concerning amici israel. wolf is especially interested in pacelli’s motivations. for example, wolf argues that pacelli’s failure to secure an armistice in world war i in 1917 drove his subsequent rejection of “all calls for [vatican] intervention in such conflicts,” and led him to firmly embrace instead his mentor pietro gasparri’s conviction “that the holy see…remain absolutely neutral in political and military conflicts” (p. 43). as nuncio to bavaria and germany (1917-1929), pacelli believed in a review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): brown-fleming r1-4 wolf, pope and devil brown-fleming r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr “rome-centered model of the church,” codified in the 1917 codex iuris canonici, and strongly critiqued german catholic intellectuals who “rejected the church of law, instead holding forth for a church of love” (p. 62). pacelli was, as a july 1933 article in the german social democratic newspaper for the saar region volksstimme called him, a leader of “the compromise camp.” wolf writes that pacelli took the position of “strict neutrality for the holy father in all political controversies, which for [pacelli] included the jews” (p. 212). in september 1941, in a letter available to scholars since 1966, pacelli wrote to bishop preysing to comment, among other things, on the august 1941 anti-euthanasia sermons by the bishop of münster: “the church in germany is all the more dependent on your public action, as the general political situation in its difficult and frequently contradictory particularities imposes the duty of restraint on the supreme head of the entire church in his public proclamations” (p. 222). behind the scenes, pacelli was a master political tactician, as so intriguingly demonstrated by wolf in his discussion of the 1927 holy office ban on german catholic participation in ecumenical activities just as pacelli was negotiating the prussian concordat (pp. 232-245). wolf says pacelli disapproved of german right-wing anti-semitism yet was susceptible to antisemitic stereotypes. wolf does not provide new evidence on this score, citing two documents: pacelli’s april 30, 1919 reference to “grim russian-jewish-revolutionary tyranny” in describing the second soviet republic in bavaria (april 12–may 3, 1919) (p. 79), and the much-discussed april 1919 report about the munich revolutionaries from pacelli to gasparri, which first appeared in emma fattorini’s 1992 book germania e santa sede: la nunziature di pacelli tra la grande guerre e la reppublica di weimar (bologna: societa editrice il mulino), and became sensationalized by cornwell’s reference to it in his highly-critiqued 1999 book hitler’s pope: the secret history of pius xii (new york: penguin). some cases brought to light for the first time are heartbreaking. on april 9, 1933, viennese rabbi arthur zacharias schwarz wrote to pope pius xi in the latter’s capacity as pope but also on the basis of a long-time scholarly and personal relationship, which was deeply meaningful to the rabbi according to his letter. “your holiness can hardly know the effect that a word coming from your supreme person would have on pious jews, who, like me, reject all radicalism. if it were possible for your holiness to express that the injustice committed against the jews remain an injustice [emphasis in original], such a word would lift up the courage and morale of millions of my jewish brethren,” wrote rabbi schwarz to his long-time acquaintance. rabbi schwarz enclosed this letter in one to pacelli, with the request that pacelli “be so good as to convey it to his holiness,” and explained their history together, dating back to 1907. pacelli, writes wolf, “never gave [pius xi] the rabbi’s petition.” rabbi schwarz was arrested and tortured by the gestapo after the annexation of austria. he died in palestine in february 1939 (pp. 192-195). for the specialist, there are many gems in this book: pacelli’s unflattering opinion of adolf cardinal bertram, chair of the fulda bishops conference (pp. 48-50); pacelli’s direct hand in installing his favorite, konrad von preysing, as bishop of berlin in 1935, so as to act as pacelli’s “liaison to the german episcopate and to the government of the reich” (pp. 55-59); and pacelli’s love for his custom-built mercedes benz, received as a gift from center party chair matthias erzberger when pacelli arrived in munich in may 1917, complete with papal coats of arms on the door mountings (p. 76). those scholars eager to cite the supposedly enlightened views of jews and judaism on the part of pope pius xi will want to read carefully chapter two and the may 1928 commentary in civilità cattolica, “il pericolo giudaico e gli ‘amici d’israele,’” printed at the direct behest of the pope and featuring adjectives like “presumptuous and powerful” and “danger[ous]” to describe jews (p. 116). pius xi, we now know due to evidence brought forth by wolf, explicitly supported the retention of “perfidious jews” in the good friday liturgy (p. 121). wolf duly notes pius xi’s very different position ten years later, when in 1938 he “tried in concrete ways to assist studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): brown-fleming r1-4 wolf, pope and devil brown-fleming r 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr persecuted jewish in germany, austria and italy,” and, better known, his statements during an audience with belgian pilgrims in september 1938 (pp. 206-08). nonetheless, wolf implicitly critiques pius xi as someone who erred on the wrong side of what he calls the “typically roman compromise between dogma and diplomacy” (pp. 269-70), with diplomacy consistently winning the day. wolf’s discussion of the famous encyclical mit brennender sorge is particularly interesting in this respect. the newly released materials demonstrate the extent to which years-long discussions, deliberations, and written texts by consultors in the holy office regarding placing mein kampf on the index of forbidden books made their way into the text and spirit of mit brennender sorge. wolf writes that the “dangerous opinions to be found in mein kampf had been refuted in the syllabus of the congregation of studies and contrasted to the true catholic doctrine in the encyclical mit brennender sorge. in this respect, the pope met the requirements of pure doctrine. nonetheless, he was not prepared to name names because he was unable and unwilling to attack the führer and reich chancellor [adolf hitler] personally” (p. 270). wolf’s flair for sharp narrative engages and even provokes the reader: “for pacelli, the bishops were little more than papal head altar boys, called on to act only on the instructions of the pope…rome wanted yes-men with child-like devotion to the holy father. this was pacelli’s crucial criterion for a good bishop, and he bent every effort to install just such men and to stamp out the independence of the german church” (p. 74). wolf is unsparing in describing the cowardice of abbot ildelfons schuster in revoking his opinion submitted to the congregation of rites that the good friday prayer be reformed (pp. 114-115). wolf remarks that “christian or catholic antisemitism” is “usually called anti-judaism to make it more palatable” (p. 119). at one point he sums up pius xi as having “wasted his big chance,” adding unflinchingly that “it took decades and more than six million murdered jews for the church to summon the courage to cleanse its relationship with the jews of anti-semitism, even in the liturgy” (p. 121). wolf concludes his book with the following brutal sentence: “hitler remained a member of the catholic church until the day he died. like the pope, even the devil could be catholic” (p. 271). most fascinating is wolf’s argument that two 1928 articles by jesuit enrico rosa mark the birth of a still-highly-problematic debate within church and scholarly circles today. the first is the aforementioned one in civilità cattolica and the second the essay “semitismo e antisemitismo” in l’avvenire d’italia (may 1928), which distinguished between “evil, biologically motivated racial anti-semitism” rejected by the church, and supposedly “good” theologically motivated antisemitism (p. 117). anti-judaism (father rosa’s “good” anti-semitism) is understood as prejudice against jewish peoples based on their distinctive religious practices, resulting in political and legal measures against the practice of judaism and the social and civil rights of jews themselves. dating back to the pre-christian greco-roman world, some understand it as a precursor to—but distinctive from—anti-semitism, the term coined in the writings of german journalist wilhelm marr in 1879 to describe hostility toward jews on the basis of biological, political, cultural, and economic differences between jews and their gentile neighbors in an increasingly secularized europe. others, including kevin spicer and this author, argue that centuries-old anti-judaism and 19 th -century-born anti-semitism, while distinctive from one another in the root causes of their anti-jewish animosity, differ not at all in their deadly effect on jews. wolf recognizes the limits of his study. scholars still have “little understanding of the popes’ stance toward the persecution of the jews and the holocaust” (p. 309). it is, he says, “too early to render a judgment” (p. 17). it will “take years, if not decades, of responsible archival research to develop the understanding” that might make comprehensive analysis of the vatican-national socialist relationship possible” (p. 309). at one point, wolf remarks that the curia “had little studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): brown-fleming r1-4 wolf, pope and devil brown-fleming r 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr scope…to achieve anything, even in individual instances [when aid was requested on behalf of jews].” he continues, “the question of how beneficial in practice a public declaration by the pope would have been must at least be raised” (p. 199). while wolf may be correct to question real-time positive effects of a papal denunciation of nazi anti-jewish measures specifically, the effect on subsequent generations of post-world war ii catholics would have meant the ability to be proud of the nazi-era record of one’s institution, rather than ashamed. ------------ note: the views as expressed are the author’s alone and do not necessarily represent those of the united states holocaust memorial museum or any other organization. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review david h. price johannes reuchlin and the campaign to destroy jewish books (oxford: oxford university press, 2011), hardcover, ix + 355 pp. michael t. walton, independent scholar in 1509, the jewish convert to christianity, johannes pfefferkorn, supported by the dominicans and the franciscans, persuaded holy roman emperor maximilian i to authorize the confiscation and burning of jewish books. opposing pfefferkorn stood the german christian lawyer and greek and hebrew scholar johannes reuchlin. david h. price has produced a study of the “battle of the books” that stands in the historical tradition of the work of nineteenth-century scholars heinrich graetz and leopold zunz. he adds much to what we know about the episode and what it tells us about christian hatred of jews, jewish economic and political power, and the rise of humanistic language studies and biblical exegesis. johannes reuchlin and the campaign to destroy jewish books constitutes almost three books. the largest number of pages is dedicated to reuchlin and humanism. price presents a focused and meticulous biography of reuchlin’s education and how he became the leading greek scholar in germany. his study of hebrew (he produced a hebrew grammar and dictionary for christians) made him a prominent hebraist. his academic stature and mastery of hebrew led to his appointment to a committee formed to evaluate the campaign to confiscate and destroy jewish books that pfefferkorn claimed defamed christianity. price’s second focus is on pfefferkorn and his role in antijewish propaganda, which led to the confiscation of jewish books. pfefferkorn’s conversion, life, and works are presented studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) in detail and accompanied by insightful analysis. perhaps no intellectual treatment of pfefferkorn is so informative and clear. after his conversion, pfefferkorn was tireless in encouraging persecution of jews. his efforts to secure imperial permission to confiscate and destroy jewish books were a culmination of his efforts to suppress judaism. price’s third focus is the story of how the jews of frankfurt am main, with the help of other german and italian jews, successfully thwarted pfefferkorn and the theology faculty of the university of köln that supported him. by using their financial and political contacts, the leaders of the frankfurt jewish community persuaded emperor maximilian to revoke pfefferkorn’s warrant and to have their books returned. the efforts of the jews exposed the conflict between reuchlin, pfefferkorn, and the köln theologians, especially jacob hoogstraeten, as one that concerned not the jews alone but also the conflict between humanism and traditional scholastic theology. when reuchlin, to the surprise of pfefferkorn and the theologians, opposed destroying jewish books, fault lines between the humanists’ biblical studies based on original languages and established doctrines appeared. matters worsened when reuchlin was charged with heresy. as a friend of pope clement vii and several humanist cardinals, reuchlin had powerful allies. nonetheless, legal maneuvering kept the conflict alive for more than a decade. price details the charges, countercharges, briefs, and behind-the-scene politics with great skill. he is especially good at dealing with the effects of luther’s appearance on the stage of history and how that complicated matters. humanists throughout europe came to take reuchlin’s side because they saw the theologians as enemies of their linguistic approach to scriptural studies. nonetheless, price is quite clear that the humanists, perhaps especially erasmus, hated jews as much as did pfefferkorn and the theologians of köln. they were defending the study of greek and, to a much lesser studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr extent hebrew, as necessary to understanding the bible and correct christian doctrine. but judenhass was one issue upon which almost all, humanist and scholastic theologian, could agree. reuchlin emerges as an evolving scholar. he began defending the jews’ books to preserve a source of scholarly understanding. as one of the elite lawyers in germany, he was suited to that task. as time went on, he came to evince less dislike of jews. toward the end of the dispute and with his vindication from heresy charges, reuchlin glimpsed the humanity and genuine religiosity of jews. (only one other contemporary christian scholar, who was not as significant as reuchlin, seems to have dared to speak of jews with understanding and admiration. that man was johann boesenstain, who in about 1523 translated some hebrew prayers into german. price does not mention boesenstain, who was not involved in reuchlin’s travails, but both men were unusual in a world where even defenders of jewish and hebrew works despised jews.) a brief review cannot do justice to price’s careful research and telling of an important story about the relationship between christians and jews and christians and christians. price has done more than one would think possible in a few hundred pages. most of us who work in sixteenth-century german jewish studies would be proud to have written johannes reuchlin and the campaign to destroy jewish books. scjr 18, no. 1 (2023): 1-3 emily michelson catholic spectacle and rome’s jews: early modern conversion and resistance (princeton and oxford: princeton university press, 2022), hardcover, xiii + 331. kenneth stow krstow@gmail.com university of haifa, emeritus, haifa, 3498838, israel emily michelson has shed valuable light on the question of forced preaching in the roman ghetto. we have long known the problem, and various scholars have contributed worthwhile essays on individual preachers, as well as on the many converts who spoke out against their former religion. where michelson has dared to innovate is in approaching the topic as a whole and integrating the work of many of these preachers, concentrating on two or three, which is a prudent editorial election, but mostly gregorio boncompagni, a dominican and descendent of the noted boncompagni-corcos family, whose conversion must have shaken the late sixteenth-century roman jewish community. apart from gathering together an enormous amount of previous research—the bibliography of printed secondary literature extends over an unprecedented forty pages—michelson has worked her way into the oft-daunting roman archives, whether of the vatican, the papal vicar, the archive of state (the city), and the inquisition. the archive of the roman jewish community is utilized mildly, although the material in this archive tends to protests rather than collecting the sermons themselves that are the essence, and most of which have remained in manuscript. the sermons are not easy to read, and we must thank michelson for her willingness to take on this painstaking task. doubters need but cast their eyes on the so difficult to decipher manuscript pages reproduced in the book. in addition, a flock of early modern books that speak of preachers and conversion have been studied, in, of course, their original language. michelson’s argument is that preaching was based on a series of theological commonplaces. these principally steered clear of arousing passions, whether of christians, including the many, often clerics, who frequented the sermons, but also of sometimes more volatile common folk. care was taken, she says, not to offend the jews themselves, who protested, whether in writing or personal entreaty, as did the leading rabbinical figure of the ghetto period tranquillo manoah corcos. during the sermons, jews stuffed wax in their ears, talked, laughed, or were stow: michelson’s catholic spectacle and rome’s jews 2 boisterous—acts that were rewarded with a poke from a verger’s truncheon, also a source of complaint. explaining the restraint is that preachers were addressing an audience composed as much, if not more, of “mythical jews” than the real ones filling the benches of the oratory where sermons were delivered. mythical jews, after all, go back to st. paul himself, who pictured jews as the physical descendants of abraham, as opposed to the christians who were his spiritual heirs and bearers of the truth, which, indeed, christians grasped, while jews remained stubbornly blind. preachers sometimes abandoned the limits and spoke of real jews, which was prompted as often as not by frustration. preaching yielded little fruit, certainly less than incursions—at times led by preachers themselves—into the ghetto to “kidnap” persons, especially young children, “offered” by converted relatives to the church. why then all the effort? because the fate of the jews, themselves for the most part forlorn, poor, and ghettoized, was taken to illustrate the glory and triumph of the counter-reformation church, especially as displayed in theatrical baptismal ceremonies frequently celebrated by a high cleric and, rarely, by the pope himself. that the church sought glory and reassurance through public baptismal splendor has been said before, but michelson in treating of the sermons makes the point more forcefully by far than in the past. her opening chapter deals at length with the importance of conversion, followed by one on the structure of the sermons. we then hear of the preachers with details of the sermons. as expected, sermon contents repeat, and repeat again, old christian talking points. jewish rejection was guaranteed, for the most part. that michelson suggests once or twice during the book that a moderate sermonic approach may have been acceptable to jewish listeners seems to me a touch naive. roman jews, as a rule, who, as michelson properly insists, had been romans before christianity, found christianity illogical, and often worse, a source of derision. no wonder that preachers like the jesuit antonio possevin, who is discussed for his sermons, also insisted that the draconian laws put in place by paul iv, in 1555, be rigidly enforced. michelson points to good relations between jews and christians in rome, but later in the book admits that there were flash points and mockery. preachers could be on both sides of the fence, for example, antonio virgulti. i wondered that she did not find gregory boncompagni’s sermons lauding pius v perplexing, just as she suggests that boncompagni modified his arguments in response to jewish protest. however, pius v was surely despised in the ghetto. he had renewed the burdensome restrictions of paul iv and innovated in papal policy by expelling jews—admittedly, into the ghetto from various small towns of the papal states— rather than beyond its borders as had happened in france, england, spain, and the kingdom of naples. to preach on this pope in order to illustrate the glories of sainthood was to throw sand in jewish faces. similarly, tranquillo corcos’s responses to the sermons, protesting the verger and his actions, must be read as ironic. with his enormous knowledge of christian texts, corcos’s attitude toward the sermons must be read as taunting through obligatory obsequiousness, which any jew who read him would have spotted immediately as tongue-in-cheek. corcos, i believe, was not, as michelson suggests, looking for common ground. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2023) i have some reservations about references, for instance, to an article by renata segre, valuable as it is unto itself, to introduce the conversionary revolution of paul iv. there are more direct discussions. a listing in the bibliography of marina caffiero as the editor of the so-called diary of anna del monte should have been substituted by a reference to the original italian edition by giuseppe sermoneta, which caffiero, as she herself says, reproduced (with errors), just as this author’s english translation of the diary, relevant to the principally english readers of this book, is unmentioned (albeit the book containing the translation is noted elsewhere). and the reference to changes in taxation strategies in the years just before the start of the roman ghetto lacks a footnote, even though an entire book has been devoted to it. with respect to overall structure and the discussion of the sermons, there is a sense of repetitiveness, though sometimes the material itself really left no choice. nonetheless, emily michelson has succeeded in gathering together and creating a unity of two centuries of materials, showing consistent themes and pointing the way to intensive research, in some of which i would imagine she herself is now engaging, further to elaborate the riches in the materials we have now been presented. the book is an important contribution. scjr 16, no. 1 (2021): 1-3 benjamin e. fisher amsterdam’s people of the book: jewish society and the turn to scripture in the seventeenth century (cincinnati: hebrew union college press, 2020), 318 pages. joseph davis jdavis@gratz.edu gratz college, melrose park, pa 19027 in the modern period, historical criticism has had two contrary uses. since spinoza, it has often been used as a basis for rejecting the authority of scripture. but since luther, it has also been used to defend claims of scriptural authority and to support efforts at religious reforms. moreover, christians have not confined their efforts to their own religion, but have sometimes sought to intervene in favor of reforms to judaism; jews, in a smaller but still important way, have done the same to christianity. fisher’s book is set in mid-1600’s amsterdam, among a young spanish-portuguese jewish community. they were descendants of conversos (jewish converts to christianity) from spain and portugal who fled the inquisition and went to amsterdam. fisher’s book argues convincingly that this very distinctive community of jews approached the bible in a different way from other jewish communities of the time. they foreshadowed both later trends of skepticism about the bible and a later turn toward the hebrew bible in modern judaism. amsterdam jews also developed a new and distinctive view of “true” unitarian christianity and of jesus. fisher focuses on two leaders of the amsterdam jewish community, menasseh ben israel and saul morteira. menasseh is famous for, among other things, his contacts with rembrandt. morteira is mainly known for signing the writ of excommunication against the philosopher baruch spinoza. spinoza’s theologicalpolitical treatise, published in 1670, laid the groundwork for modern biblical criticism, and spinoza would become the first western philosopher to openly reject the authority of scripture. fisher argues that menasseh and morteira, as well as spinoza, were all committed to intense study of scripture and humanist historical study and cultivated similar contacts with contemporary radical christians. menasseh ben israel’s main study of scripture was a voluminous work, the conciliador, analyzed carefully by fisher, that listed scriptural verses that contradict one another and to which he offered harmonizing solutions. menasseh (and davis: benjamin e. fisher’s amsterdam’s people of the book 2 fisher) focused particular attention on the biblical chronology of the kings of israel and judah, which includes counts of years that are difficult to reconcile. it has frequently been observed that menasseh’s readers, if they rejected menasseh’s sometimes strained efforts at harmonization, would find an arsenal of proofs that the bible frequently contradicts itself and therefore cannot be literally true. indeed, spinoza seems to have done just that. what then inspired menasseh to work so assiduously on a book that could so easily be put to heterodox uses? it must be, fisher argues, that many amsterdam jews were already troubled by these contradictions. they were influenced, fisher argues convincingly, by new (modern) assumptions about fact, truth, and certainty, such as the insistence that columns of numbers must add up precisely. equally important are the writings of saul morteira. morteira is a less studied figure; here fisher breaks new ground. morteira, fisher argues, began his time in amsterdam in the 1620’s as a bitter opponent of christianity. however, as fisher shows, by the time morteira wrote a later work, in 1660, he had developed a very different attitude. fisher emphasizes, by way of explanation, a passage in which morteira describes a conversation, around 1635, with an unnamed christian scholar who was a socinian (i.e., an anabaptist or unitarian). morteira was so delighted, fisher writes, at his discovery of unitarian christians that his entire attitude towards christianity was transformed. in his 1660 book, morteira continued to defend judaism and to argue against christianity. indeed, one section of his new polemic sharply critiques the new testament. much as spinoza would do to the hebrew bible just ten years later, morteira used historical analysis of the authorship of the new testament to attack the work’s authority. morteira also argued that what many considered to be christian doctrines such as the virgin birth, deicide, and the trinity, were later accretions to christianity and based on pagan beliefs. (fisher does yeoman’s work tracing the sources of morteira’s data about early christians, gospel authors, and pagan religion.) but morteira’s new book did not merely polemicize against the new testament and christianity. it also pointed in the direction of a new reading of the new testament and a new conception of the historical jesus. in rejecting major parts of the new testament, christians would—this was the prize that morteira offered them, as spinoza later would as well—draw closer to jesus himself. as morteira saw it, they should reject the notion that jesus believed the pagan, non-jewish, and non-rabbinic doctrines foisted on him by the untrustworthy gospel authors. morteira’s jesus was not spinoza’s jesus. spinoza depicted jesus as a sort of philosopher, the proponent of a universal ethic of loving one’s neighbor, an ethic that all humankind should accept. morteira’s jesus, by contrast, is a faithful rabbinic jew, teaching obedience to the torah and agreeing with the rabbis on nearly all points. building on his jewish predecessors in the middle ages, whose works fisher also analyzes carefully, morteira constructed a picture of jesus the jew. fisher is not certain whether spinoza was ever morteira’s student, nor can he prove that spinoza read morteira’s 1660 polemic. but that does not matter. as fisher shows, morteira and spinoza used the same tools of historical criticism, 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 16, no. 1 (2021) spinoza against the authority of the hebrew bible, morteira against the new testament. both were influenced by their contacts with amsterdam’s most radical christians and both distinguished the teachings of jesus from those of the new testament. seventeenth century amsterdam was the center of europe, and it was there that modern science and modern liberal democracy took form. these created new questions of scriptural interpretation, scriptural authority, and jewish-christian relations. anyone who is interested in the history of bible interpretation or the history of jewish-christian relations should thank fisher for this excellent, carefully researched work. he uncovers a crucial moment in which both the most orthodox of rabbis and the most freethinking of philosophers dreamed of a new christianity that, drawing closer to the historical jesus, would become friendlier towards jews. the apostle paul in the popular jewish imagination: the case study of the british jewish chronicle langton, the apostle paul in the popular jewish imagination langton 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college the apostle paul in the popular jewish imagination: the case study of the british jewish chronicle daniel r. langton   center for jewish studies, university of manchester volume 4 (2009) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): langton 1-12 langton, the apostle paul in the popular jewish imagination langton 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 the subject of jewish views of the apostle paul has not attracted great scholarly attention. those few studies that have been written have tended to address the interests and concerns of theologians and new testament scholars,1 and have had nothing to say about popular jewish attitudes. this seems reasonable enough since, at first sight at least, is seems that paul barely registers on the popular jewish cultural radar. if an individual’s significance to a community is determined by his historical reception within that community as a whole, then one must admit that paul’s impact on the jewish imagination has been a very minor one. and yet the influence of his life and teachings upon the history of judaism and the jewish people is arguably quite profound. was he not, as one commentator provocatively put it, ‘single-handedly responsible for two thousand years of anti-semitism and christian brutality towards jews’?2 if so, would one not expect some interest in the apostle to the gentiles to be reflected at a popular level? our aim here, then, is to attempt to set out for the first time an outline of the ways in which paul has featured in modern cultural jewish discourse. 1 for example, daniel r. langton, “modern jewish identity and the apostle paul: pauline studies as an intra-jewish ideological battleground,” journal for the study of the new testament 28.2 (2005), pp.217-258; daniel r. langton, “the myth of the ‘traditional jewish view of paul’ and the role of the apostle in modern jewish–christian polemics,” journal for the study of the new testament 28.1 (2005), pp.69-104; pamela eisenbaum, “following in the footnotes of the apostle paul” in jose ignacio cabezón & sheila greeve davaney, eds, identity and the politics of scholarship in the study of religion (london: routledge, 2004), pp.77-97; stefan meissner, die heimholung des ketzers: studien zur jüdischen auseinandersetzung mit paul (mohr: tübingen, 1996); nancy fuchs-kreimer, “the essential heresy; paul’s view of the law according to jewish writers, 1886-1986,” phd thesis, temple university (may 1990); donald a. hagner, “paul in modern jewish thought” in donald a. hagner and murray j. harris, eds, pauline studies: essays presented to f.f. bruce (exeter: paternoster press, 1980), pp.143-165; halvor ronning, “some jewish views of paul as basis of a consideration of jewish-christian relations” in judaica 24 (1968), pp.82-97. 2 pamela eisenbaum, “is paul the father of misogyny and antisemitism?” in cross currents 50:4 (winter 2000-01), 506. a comprehensive survey of popular sources in europe and the united states is beyond the scope of this paper and continues to await the scholarly attention it deserves. in the meantime, as the premier communal newspaper for the anglojewry since 1841 and as the oldest continuously published jewish weekly in the world, it is suggested that the jewish chronicle can be regarded as a useful case study, indicative of jewish thought and discourse in the public domain over a sustained period, at least in one corner of the english-speaking world. after all, it has been both reflective of popular anglojewish opinion and influential in terms of shaping it for around 160 years. as the author of its official history has observed, “by interpreting the world to the jews in britain and representing them to the majority society, the jewish chronicle played a fundamental role in shaping anglo-jewish identity. it defined the parameters of debate for communal and other issues…[and] it functioned as a forum for the discussion of judaism.”3 debates initiated by learned articles and bookreviews gathered momentum within its letters pages, editors pontificated on the great concerns of the day, columnists explained what’s what to a lay readership anxious to make sense of the often-confusing christian culture that surrounds them, and, through a mysterious, interactive process, popular opinion was formed. in the case of st. paul, popular opinion occasionally needed to be reminded why the apostle was an appropriate topic for debate. as one columnist noted in 1922, the conversion of paul has had such a tremendous influence upon jewish history, it opens up so many questions in which jews are vitally 3 the jewish chronicle has held a monopoly over anglo-jewish press for much of the last century and a half and has succeeded in maintaining a consensual position and thus a commanding authority. david cesarani, the jewish chronicle and anglo-jewry, 1841-1991 (new york: cambridge university, 1994), ix. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): langton 1-12 langton, the apostle paul in the popular jewish imagination langton 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 interested, that some account of it may fitly form the subject of comment in a jewish newspaper…4 generally speaking, paul frequently appears in the chronicle when the origins of christianity are discussed, when an attempt is made to account for its characteristic doctrines, or when someone seeks to define judaism against the essence of christianity. a few examples will suffice. as an editorial from 1857 makes clear, it is no longer jesus who should be held accountable for the transformation of a small jewish following to a world-shaping religion: it is the fiery rabbi of tarsus who is the real founder of gentile christianity as developed in process of time. it is paul who gave the impetus to the small particle detached from judaism which sent it down to remote ages, and which, as it rolled on, avalanche-like gathered and gathered until it overwhelmed the existing forms of religion.5 and in reaction to a public lecture by a christian religious leader in 1861, the editor made the case more explicitly still. [w]e cannot admit that it was the teacher of nazareth [jesus] that produced the greatest change ever wrought on the face of the earth. this honour is due to rabbi saul of tarsus, commonly called st. paul, and not rabbi joshua of nazareth. had the fiery spirit of the rabbi of tarsus not boldly broken down the barrier, that separated the gentile from the jewish world, and which jesus left intact, the latter might have passed as the founder of some obscure jewish sect…the true founder of christianity, such as it necessarily 4 theologicus, “paul and paulinism,” the jewish chronicle (27 january 1922), iii. 5 editorial (abraham benisch), the jewish chronicle (17 july 1857), 1076. this is a response to a recent christian enquiry as to why a hebrew should not embrace christianity. must have shaped itself the moment the flood-gates of the gentile world was opened, and the original jewish nucleus swept away, is st. paul, the man who was everything to everybody; among the jews a jew, and a gentile among the gentiles; who united the simplicity of the dove with the cunning of the serpent, and who, by his cunning, effected between judaism and paganism that compromise which in process of time was enlarged and developed into historical christianity such as prevails now in the civilized world. the pope of rome ought to style himself the successor of st. paul, the real founder of the gentile church, which absorbed the primitive jewish churches, just as the rod of aaron swallowed up the rods of the rival magicians.6 although references to paul are by no means numerous, this way of making sense of him is characteristic of the coverage of the jewish chronicle. general remarks to the effect that “christianity is to a far greater extent the religion of paul than that of jesus”7 represent the most frequent type of discourse in which the apostle appears. key characteristics of christian thought, and certainly those which can be regarded as hostile to judaism, are also often understood to be derived from paul, rather than from the jewish jesus. the report of a public lecture by a reform minister in 1908 is typical in this respect. as impartial readers of the new testament, we [reform jews] are able to see clearly to what a great extent that part of christianity which is opposed to judaism, which abrogates it, and places it aside, is distinctly apart from the 6 editorial (abraham benisch) on a lecture given by the archbishop of dublin in the jewish chronicle (5 april 1861), 7. 7 mentor, “jews and jesus” in the jewish chronicle (2 april 1923), 9. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): langton 1-12 langton, the apostle paul in the popular jewish imagination langton 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 teachings of jesus and is as distinctly traceable to the effect of the teaching of the apostle paul.8 a reader who regularly perused the pages of the chronicle would be exposed to book reviews of protestant new testament scholarship in which he would be reminded that many of the christian teachings regarded as “absolutely repugnant to the jewish mind…[such] as those of the supernatural character of jesus, the trinity, the incarnation, and the atonement, were the product of paul’s imagination.”9 paul’s theological creativity was to be held responsible for the parting of the ways, or, as another book reviewer put it, a jew [i.e. paul] who speaks of the ‘curse of the law’ and believes in a pre-existent christ, who is the only son of god, who needs an incarnation and resurrection to effect the salvation of the elect, such a believer has denied his ancestral religion and stands outside the camp of israel.10 it would be difficult to find an alternative to the ubiquitous presentation of paul’s invention of christianity as a paganinfluenced theological system against which the superiority of judaism could be defined. as such, it represented a useful foil against which to contrast the jewish religion. as one contributor explained in 1978, 8 rev a.a. green, lecture to the cambridge university nonconformist union (26 january 1908) in the jewish chronicle (31 january 1908), 7. 9 a book review of the hibbert lectures by prof. pfleiderer of berlin 1885 on “the origin of paulinism and its influence on christianity.” the claim is also made that “it was paul who widened the breach beyond the possibility of repair.” the jewish chronicle (17 april 1885), 5. elsewhere, in a report on a lecture by m. frank at the societé des etudes juives, paul was also blamed for the doctrine of “original sin”. the jewish chronicle (1 january 1886), 9-10. 10 a book review by ‘g.f.’ of schweizer’s paul and his interpreters in the jewish chronicle (15 november 1912), 24. st. paul it was, and not jesus, who originated christianity in the name of jesus, a jesus long dead and in no position to protest. pauline christianity—there is no other variety extant —is a continuation of greek saviour cults plus some confusion with and accommodation to judaism…it presents little difficulty to show on theological and religious grounds, that paul was profoundly mistaken, that judaism and christianity have divergent world views, that the hebrew bible and greek new testament are antithetical in just about every consideration…11 but in attempting to do justice to the popular jewish view of paul, one cannot leave the reader with the impression that it begins and ends with his reputation as the founder of christianity who synthesized jewish and non-jewish elements to create a new faith and who attacked the law. to anyone even remotely familiar with his place within the jewish imagination, it is apparent that the general attitude towards the apostle to the gentiles is overwhelmingly hostile, even pathologically so. in scholarly and popular sources alike, one will often find references to the apostle couched in vitriolic and hyperbolic language. abandoning the pages of the jewish chronicle for a moment, one can readily locate descriptions of paul as “pharisaism’s greatest enemy”12 and “a bitter and violent enemy of the law”13 who called for the “dissolution of judaism.”14 he was someone who exhibited “jew-hatred”15 and 11 s. levin, ”children and the greek malady” in the jewish chronicle (22 december 1978), vii. 12 salo baron, a social and religious history of the jews, second edition (new york: columbia university press, 1966), i, 221. 13 abba hillel silver, where judaism differed; an inquiry into the distinctiveness of judaism (new york: macmillan, 1956), 113. 14 paul goodman, history of the jews, revised by israel cohen (london: j.m. dent & sons, 1951), 38. 15 kaufmann kohler, “saul of tarsus.” jewish encyclopedia, xi, 85. “antisemitism within christianity originated with paul.” ralf biermann, “the false apostle paul” in the jewish times, 27 april 2004. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): langton 1-12 langton, the apostle paul in the popular jewish imagination langton 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 whose “turn-coat theology” created a movement that “would become the primary source of anti-semitism in history.”16 as one polemicist saw it, paul was the first enemy of the jews among the christians, the first jewish informer among the gentiles, the first falsifier of judaism to the gentile world, the foe of israel, and the foe of the torah. when among christians everywhere in the world one hears or reads that jews are a materialistic people devoid of spirit, a practical people devoid of soul, the source is paul. when in evil times christians drag forth our scrolls of the law, dishonour them, rend them and burn them, it is owing to paul, who taught them that the torah is the quintessence of sin, its apotheosis.17 such sentiments are by no means limited to the marginal. chief rabbi jonathan sacks, writing in 1993, even appeared to identify a genocidal ring to the apostle’s teachings, observing that he was the architect of a christian theology which deemed that the covenant between god and his people was now broken… pauline theology demonstrates to the full how remote from and catastrophic to judaism is the doctrine of a second choice, a new election…no doctrine has cost more jewish lives.18 [italics added] these charges, it should be obvious, go further than simply acknowledging paul as the individual who marked the dividing line between judaism and christianity, or the one with whom 16 tibor krausz, review of bruce chilton, rabbi saul (2004) in the jerusalem report (7 march 2005), 41. 17 chaim lieberman, the christianity of sholem asch: an appraisal from the jewish viewpoint (new york: philosophical library, 1953), 87-88. 18 jonathan sacks, one people? tradition, modernity, and jewish unity (london: littman library, 1993), 206-207. the christian church began. it has been suggested that the animus of the popular view can be explained as resentment for the way in which later christians used paul to justify ideas such as jewish culpability for jesus’ death,19 or for the denigration of judaism explicit in the traditional western christian reading of paul.20 but such explanations assume a more informed, rational basis for jewish popular feeling than is perhaps warranted. listening carefully to such emotive allegations, it seems that the raw power of the negative view of paul is better explained by reference to the wider cultural landscape and, in particular, a complex array of ideas and attitudes that possess profoundly negative historical, sociological, and psychological 19 having observed that “generally paul has been something of a lightning rod for jewish anger and criticism of christianity,” the conservative jewish professor of religious studies at manhattan college, claudia setzer, goes on, “where did all this animus come from? in part, it comes from the way paul has been used against the jews. for example, his first letter to the thessalonians contains the earliest example of the charge that the jews killed jesus (2:14-16).” claudia setzer, “understanding paul,” unpublished paper given at the twelfth nostra aetate dialogue, fordham university (october 2004), 2. 1 thessalonians 2:14-16 reads “for you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of god in christ jesus that are in judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the jews, who both killed the lord jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. they are not pleasing to god, but hostile to all men, hindering us from speaking to the gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins but wrath has come upon them to the utmost.” 20 in discussing “the standard view [of paul] held by jews up to at least 1950” eisenbaum asks the question: “why was paul the bad guy? the reason lies with the traditional reading of paul which has prevailed through most of western christian history, one that was given unparalleled, paradigmatic credibility by luther, reformation theology, and the rise of modern biblical scholarship... paul is understood to have rejected his judaism, which was a legalistic religion in which one achieved salvation through the accumulation of meritorious acts,..judaism is seen to be exclusivist and elitist, ethnically peculiar, and requiring of its members a plethora of arcane rituals.” pamela eisenbaum, “following in the footnotes of the apostle paul” in jose ignacio cabezón & sheila greeve davaney, eds., identity and the politics of scholarship in the study of religion (london: routledge, 2004), 83-84. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): langton 1-12 langton, the apostle paul in the popular jewish imagination langton 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 connotations for many jews, and which populate modern jewish literature and public discourse. these include attitudes towards apostasy, towards conversion and christian missionary work, towards those who abandon or subordinate torah, and towards those who would blur the boundaries of jew and christian, to say nothing of threat of jewish self-hatred. it is the conscious or unconscious association of these categories with paul, a kind of conceptual projection or displacement that accounts for the strong emotion, the widespread acceptance and the longevity of the negative jewish view of paul in modern times. while it is by no means easy to demonstrate the veracity of such a claim, it will prove useful to return to the jewish chronicle for establishing the kinds of popular discourse in which paul appears. in addition to presenting paul as the creator of christianity, then, the columns of the chronicle also portray the apostle as an apostate and frequently associate him with conversion. he is described as a renegade, where “the meaning of renegade is to be understood as an apostate, one who has abandoned his religious faith.”21 moreover, he had been a disloyal opportunist who ‘cannot escape the reproach of tergiversation and of a turn-coat, who, when it suited him, was a pharisee of the pharisees.”22 in the context of more general discussions on conversion, or in the condemnation of particular examples in modern times, paul’s name frequently appears. the typical convert is described as having “quitted the law of moses for the precepts of st. paul,”23 or having chosen “to obey the dictates 21 letter from ‘i.r.p’ to the editor in the jewish chronicle (20 february 1852), 158-159. 22 editorial (abraham benisch), “an analysis of religious belief” in the jewish chronicle (23 june 1876), 187. 23 james picciotto, “sketches in anglo-jewish history: hebrew capitalists” in the jewish chronicle (3 october 1873), 447. of st. paul,”24 or being, “according to paul, an apostate from moses.”25 the account of one jew who converted to christianity, an allegedly gluttonous jew who apostatized to avoid the dietary laws, ends with a condemnation of his claims to have been persecuted by jews and that, “like another st. paul,” he had been converted by a miracle.26 there is often disgust expressed at the high estimation in which converts were held in the eyes of christians, one commentator noting caustically that, in the mould of paul, “a jew when converted becomes a blessing chiefly to the gentiles.”27 in this context, one may also note the bitter resentment felt by the jewish community at christian efforts to convert its members. unsurprisingly, paul is seen as the archetypal missionary, whose methods were strongly suspect. his work among the pagans revealed him to be “an adept opportunist…[who] saw that to be ‘accepted’ he must inject into the doctrines of jesus some of the pagan beliefs which the heathens held.”28 nevertheless, his approach, which preferred expediency to principle,29 had had little effect on the jews of his own day. and it was thought that this point was worth emphasizing in denouncements of modern evangelical missionizing efforts. can these deluded persons [i.e. those who support a christian mission to the jews]…really believe that the 24 james picciotto, ”sketches in anglo-jewish history: isaac d’israeli” in the jewish chronicle (14 august 1874), 314. this appears in the context of a discussion of portuguese converts to christianity. 25 editorial (marcus bresslau), “clerical defamation of jewish character” in the voice of jacob / the jewish chronicle (14 march 1845), 121. 26 an old traveller, “christian prejudice fostered by jewish converts” in the jewish chronicle (2 august 1850), 340. 27 editorial (leopold greenberg), the jewish chronicle (2 may 1930), viii. 28 editorial (leopold greenberg), the jewish chronicle (20 december 1929), 10. 29 letter to editor by g. friedlander in the jewish chronicle (24 june 1910), 24. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): langton 1-12 langton, the apostle paul in the popular jewish imagination langton 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 unhallowed words of some salaried missionary will produce a deeper impression on the mind of the modern jew than the potent preaching of st. paul to his hebrew contemporaries?30 to label paul an apostate and to associate him with conversion and missionary activities was to invoke the history and communal memory of painful treatment of the jewish people at the hands of its most bitter enemies. from a social perspective, the apostate had been traditionally treated as an outcast, totally ostracized from the community. despised for moral weakness, for succumbing to threats or persecution, for switching sides, the apostate had become a figure of hate. baptism into christianity was especially reviled since many of its doctrines (for example, the trinity and the incarnation), not to speak of its practices (for example, sacramentalism and veneration of the saints), were regarded as idolatrous. in the medieval and ancient periods, attempts to convert jews to christianity were generally unsuccessful (with the exception of spain and portugal, where there were forced conversions). nevertheless, a number of high profile apostates went on to become notorious persecutors of the jews such as the thirteenth-century disputants nicholas donin (paris 1240) and paul christian (barcelona 1263).31 furthermore, baptism of jews in the modern period most commonly occurred as a means by which socially ambitious jews believed they could partake of a wider non-jewish society which attracted them but 30 editorial (abraham benisch), the jewish chronicle (8 may 1863), 4. 31 for a useful introduction to the subject, see the translations of and commentaries on the disputations in hyam maccoby’s judaism on trial (london: littman library of jewish civilization, 1993). which refused to accept them as jews.32 such assimilates were roundly condemned by those within the jewish community for selling their jewish identity so cheaply, exchanging their nominal jewish beliefs for nominal christian beliefs. a number of these also turned their back on their origins and expressed their own contempt of the primitive tribe from which they had found relief in the superior, cultured world of christian society. a well-known example was karl marx, whose parents had had him baptized as an infant, and who was capable of regarding judaism as the chief representative of mammon. others, for complex reasons we shall shortly explore, were obsessively antagonistic towards jews and became known as self-haters. the implications for modern perceptions of paul are obvious. in so far as he is regarded as a convert, he has been construed as a traitor to his people and as someone who not only sold his judaism cheap, but went on to sell it on cheaply to the gentiles. the apostle to the gentiles can also be thought of as the great apostate, the prototype of all jewish converts to christianity to come, whose theological writings would provide the foundations for fractious debate for millennia to come and who could be held responsible for christian mission, that perennial thorn in the flesh of the jewish community. whether paul was regarded primarily as the inventor of christianity, an apostate, a convert or as a missionary, all who contributed to the jewish chronicle agreed that his attitude to the law was lamentable. writers often complained about charges of legalism and “st. paul’s indictment of judaism as a religion of the dead, a bondage to an obsolete law.”33 liberating his followers from the law was regarded as being integral to his 32 for a comprehensive and varied treatment of the subject of cultural assimilation, see the edited collection of essays, todd m. endelman, ed., jewish apostasy in the modern world (new york: holmes & meier, 1987). 33 rev. dr. abelson, “a medieval theologian” in the jewish chronicle (24 june 1921), vii. abelson’s focus is that of the eleventh-century philosopher bahya ben joseph. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): langton 1-12 langton, the apostle paul in the popular jewish imagination langton 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 program of gentilization.34 as a result of his innovations, gentile christianity discarded many requirements of the law, such as the keeping of the sabbath,35 while spiritualizing others, for example, converting dietary impurities into moral ones.36 in contrast to the jewish law, the apostle even undermined the position of women.37 “no wonder,” observed one regular columnist, that paul was regarded in his day as “an apostate from the law”. for, he goes on: paul was not only opposed to jewish law and its ceremonial observances, but to all law, whether moral or legal. his attitude is thoroughly antinomian…emancipation from law is one of the foundation principles of the pauline system… paul’s teachings, with their opposition to the law and their pessimistic view of the world, were in direct antagonism to nine-tenths of the teaching of the [judaism of the] old testament.38 34 regarding “paul’s contest about the law (torah)…he succeeded in gaining the greatest object that lay closest to his heart─the freedom of his gentile christians from the torah.” letter from ‘yehudi’ to editor in the jewish chronicle (4 may 1923), 13. 35 “the gentile christians─and it is they who have formed orthodox christianity as it now is─did not keep the sabbath since the days of st paul. in conformity with his teaching, who classified it among the beggarly elements from which christ had freed his followers, they scorned and even opposed the sabbath.’” editorial (abraham benisch), “the sunday opening of museums” in the jewish chronicle (24 march 1876), 828. 36 editorial (abraham benisch), the jewish chronicle and hebrew observer (18 october 1861), 8. 37 in a passionate piece about the place of women in religion, it is asserted, “[t]here is no doubt that the apostle’s writings do betray the utmost contempt for the gentler sex…these reactionary teachings of the christian apostle certainly had the effect of causing women to occupy a lower and more restricted position, during the early centuries of the christian church than she had held among the israelites.” editorial (asher myers?), the jewish chronicle (6 october 1893), 6. 38 theologicus, “paul and paulinism” in the jewish chronicle (27 january 1922), iii. the article is complementary of the work of claude montefiore, who this view of paul as the iconic abrogator of the law means that he frequently appears in the context of inter-jewish ideological debate, where his name is employed as a term of abuse to fling at one’s opponents. in particular, the orthodox authorities are often reported as condemning progressive jews with unflattering references to paul. thus in the years following the establishment of reform judaism in england in the mid nineteenth-century, one could find such pointed criticisms as: god almighty did not require either the correction of st. paul or any other mortal. the assertion that a commandment may be broken in word and yet observed in spirit is one of the most dangerous doctrines that was ever brought forward.39 and after the establishment of the liberal jewish synagogue a few generations later, chief rabbi j.h. hertz reportedly warned his flock that anglo-liberal jewish attitudes to the bible and to “the bondage to the law” are nothing “but an echo of paul, the christian apostle to the gentiles.”40 the significance of this link between paul and liberal attitudes towards the torah cannot be over-stated. for nineteenthand twentieth-century progressive jews, the law was viewed as the source of judaism’s ethical teaching, but was also regarded as having evolved over time and in accordance with the development of mankind. biblical criticism, which assumed the human authorship of the scriptures and emphasized a rational, analytical approach to understanding the word of god, alarmed the traditionalists, who believed that it devalued the law and contributed to the continued decline of torah observance that had begun with the wrote judaism and st. paul: two essays (london: macmillan, 1914), but is more critical of paul. 39 editorial (abraham benisch), “the seven words against the lord jesus” in the jewish chronicle and hebrew observer (20 september 1863), 3. 40 chief rabbi joseph hertz, “the new paths: whither do they lead?” in the jewish chronicle (25 december 1925), 14. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): langton 1-12 langton, the apostle paul in the popular jewish imagination langton 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 enlightenment. such progressive forms of judaism exhibited a relaxed attitude towards halakhic observance. while some reform leaders adopted an openly hostile stance towards rabbinic authority and interpretation of the law, others came to see the ethical teachings of the hebrew bible and the developments of the rabbis as part of the wider revelation that included non-jewish religious thought. the suspicion of many within the orthodox camp that the reformers had been unduly influenced by christian thought and practice, made the association with paul all the more appropriate. the schism regarding the status of the law and its binding nature upon the jew became a gaping chasm, an unchanging post-enlightenment landmark around which intra-jewish religious debates continue to rage. the same holds true for the highly fraught context of the secular-religious divide within the modern state of israel, where the practice of likening paul to one’s enemies remains alive and well. when, for example, the israeli political party shas gained in 1999 a concession that obligated senior cabinet members to avoid public desecration of the sabbath, the chronicle suggested “they have probably done more damage to the purity of judaism than any misguided believer since saul of tarsus.”41 in controversies over the meaning of the law in modern jewish life, the apostle to the gentiles has come to be so closely implicated that it is by no means obvious where antagonism towards one’s ideological opponent ends and hostility towards paul begins. 41 the reason given was that the law actually undermined the sanctity of the sabbath. “for when, in return for recognizing the government, a group, with rabbinical authority, outlaws public sabbath breaches by senior ministers, it is, by implication, allowing junior ministers to do what they like on the seventh day (and senior ones to break sabbath in private).” norman lebrecht, “when ministers get their hands on the ministries” in the jewish chronicle (9 july 1999), 25. in more recent times, it is possible to find allusions to paul in the context of criticism of the messianic jewish movement within the pages of the chronicle. the controversial claimants of this hybrid religious identity, whose jewish authenticity is uniformly denied by the jewish community as a whole, have been likened to the apostle for, amongst other things, their missionary activities.42 the biting dismissal of one well-known sub-group, the evangelical “jews for jesus,” is representative: “ever since the days of paul, there has been a technical name for jews for jesus: christians.”43 the association is by no means a coincidence. the messianic jew or hebrew christian represents for the vast majority of jews a deceptive and misleading confusion of the jewish and christian traditions. such messianic groups are resented for the misappropriation of religious language, symbols, institutions, and objects. similarly, it is easy to see how paul can be viewed as someone who confuses the categories of jewish and christian, who in fact deliberately set out to blend ideas and teaching from jewish and non-jewish sources, not least with his emphasis on the messiah as the son of god and his allegorical reading of the bible. paul was also, of course, a seasoned missionary to both jew and gentile, whose attitudes and activities towards the dissemination of the gospel have provided the inspiration and model for centuries of christian—and by association messianic jewish—missionary practice to follow. the fact that messianic judaism, in the forms with which we are familiar, emerged largely in the nineteenthand twentieth-centuries,44 does not in any way negate the displacement of the intense jewish 42 a critique of messianic judaism by arye forta begins by referring to paul. “in the first century…paul roamed the graeco-roman world trying to convince jews that their religion was a temporary thing, to be abolished as soon as jesus came along.” rabbi arye forta, “misguided missions” in the jewish chronicle (9 june 1989), 31. 43 john diamond, “right envelope but with the wrong message” in the jewish chronicle (12 november 1999), 31. 44 for a useful overview of the history of messianic judaism, see dan cohnsherbok, messianic judaism (london: continuum, 2001). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): langton 1-12 langton, the apostle paul in the popular jewish imagination langton 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 resentment of such groups onto the messianic jew from tarsus. if one were to attempt to generate an artificial, composite image of paul from the pages of the jewish chronicle, the figure produced would have few redeeming features. to speak of the ways in which the apostle to the gentiles appears in popular discourse is to speak of a patchwork quilt of suspicion and hostility that regarded him both as the creator of christianity and as a convert to it, as an embittered apostate from judaism and as the translator of jewish teachings for the gentiles. in the mind of the modern jew, the unfamiliar yet threatening figure of paul was to be associated with progressive theological trends which undermined the authority of the law, resented as the exemplar for opportunistic christian missionary activities, and despised as a forerunner of the messianic jews who blurred the boundaries between jew and christian. he was the very personification of all the pain and destruction that the christian church had wrought upon the jew in nineteen hundred years. finally, in the context of exploring the ways in which the popular jewish view of paul maps onto existing social categories with negative connotations, one might also point to the shadow cast by the phenomenon of jewish self-hatred. after all, paul’s story appears to echo the familiar story of the modern jewish self-hater, as some have pointed out. kaufmann kohler is perhaps the most influential scholar to have so described the apostle, but other commentators who have addressed the question of pauline self-hatred or jew-hatred, include lapide, fuchs-kreimer, and brumbergkraus.45 unfortunately, here it is necessary to abandon the firm 45 kohler’s scholarship emphasizes “pauline jew-hatred” and the apostle’s “hatred of judaism and the jew.” kaufmann kohler, “saul of tarsus,” jewish encyclopedia, xi, 85, and the origins of the synagogue and the church (new york: macmillan, 1929), 266. lapide suggests that his own view is ground of the jewish chronicle and enter the realm of speculation, for evidence is not easy to come by, not least because “jewish self-hatred” lies in the eye of the beholder. theodore lessing first coined the term in his book jewish selfhatred (1930)46 in which he utilized clinical reports on jews who regarded the jewish people with utter disgust, as vermin and as a stain upon mankind, who urged aryans to exterminate them, and who themselves deliberately remained childless or committed suicide. such self-haters believed that ultimate responsibility for his ill-treatment lay with the jew himself. in its extreme form lessing regarded the phenomenon as an acute pathology of psychosis. in jewish self-hatred (1986), sander gillman articulated the phenomenon as an internalization of non-jewish constructions of jewish identity, and expanded jewish self-hatred to include jewish anti-judaism and jewish anti-semitism.47 todd endelmann in an essay entitled “jewish self-hatred in britain and germany” (1999) criticized the tendency among some in the jewish community to use the term as a means by which to undermine and express contempt of another’s view, citing the debates around declining religious observance, intermarriage, and the arab-israeli conflict. unlike that of other jews who, having read christian accounts of paul, have asked “is he the father of that enmity towards jews which claims to be christian? or might he not even have contracted the malady of jewish self-hatred?” pinchas lapide and peter stuhlmacher, paul: rabbi and apostle (trans. lawrence w. denef; minneapolis: augsburg publishing house, 1984 [1981], 32-33. fuchs-kreimer admits that “in the symbolic world of modern judaism, paul became the arch self-hating jew who left his people for convenience.” nancy fuchs-kreimer, “the essential heresy; paul’s view of the law according to jewish writers, 1886-1986,” doctor of philosophy, temple university (may 1990), 79-80. brumberg-kraus also accepts that jewish scholars have labelled paul as an “alienated or as a self-hating jew.” jonathan d. brumberg-kraus, “a jewish ideological perspective on the study of christian scripture,” jewish social studies 4/1 (1997), 124. 46 theodore lessing, der ju�dische selbsthass (berlin: ju�discher verlag, 1930). 47 sander gilman, jewish self-hatred: anti-semitism and the hidden language of the jews (baltimore: johns hopkins, 1986). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): langton 1-12 langton, the apostle paul in the popular jewish imagination langton 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 nevertheless, he argued that the term was useful in a historical context, if one focused upon actions and motivations. his preferred definition distinguished self-haters from converts, assimilationists, and other jews who had severed their ties to jews and judaism for a wide variety of reasons and by drawing attention to the inability of the self-haters to move on and their obsession with articulating anti-jewish views, disparaging, belittling and cursing their origins and fate.48 he maintained that self-hatred should not be confused with either jewish self-criticism, which he viewed as a hallmark of the modern jewish world, or some kind of disease or mental-illness, since jewish internalization of non-jewish values and perspectives was widespread throughout the modern western world, and since the strength of feeling did not always lead to self-hating behavior. so what has the concept of jewish self-hatred got to do with paul? conceivably, paul could be categorized as a self-hater in so far as he is perceived to be a jewish opponent of jews and judaism, or because his views are regarded as antagonistic to judaism. but there is more to it than that. the very concept of a self-hating jew, which is strictly speaking a modern phenomenon, provides yet another means, another social category, by which to make sense of this first-century jew. arguably, paul can be viewed as a diaspora jew who ceased to regard the jewish way of life as superior to that of the gentile. crucially, he appears obsessed with a common christian criticism relating to the burden of the law, and with defining jewish observance in terms of this burden. the all-consuming nature of paul’s apparent critique of judaism suggests the ultimate self-hater, one who could not simply move on and leave the jews alone. here, the point is not whether the wider jewish community has been conscious of their displacement of 48 todd endelmann, “jewish self-hatred in britain and germany” in m. brenner, ed., two nations: british and german jews in comparative perspective (tübingen: mohr siebeck, 1999), 335. the concept of the “self-hating jew” onto paul─they are not, or, at least, there is no hint of this in a source such as the jewish chronicle. rather, it is simply to suggest that such a displacement, such a conceptual spillage, might have played some part in the development of the modern appreciation of the jewish saul of tarsus who became paul, apostle to the gentiles. conclusion as it happens, the occident, a jewish monthly national newspaper that ran from 1843 until 1869, reveals similar emphases to those we have been discussing among north american jewry on the rare occasions it mentioned paul. once, after the editor of the jewish chronicle had rather uncharacteristically criticized the occident for its cynicism in regarding all converts as insincere and had gone so far as to defend the sincerity of the conversion of the great apostate himself, a biting response had been offered by isaac leeser, the renowned sephardic rabbi, preacher, and founder of the jewish press of america: we do not esteem paul greatly…of course saul or paul was a jew; but he taught in opposition to judaism…the apostles themselves had surely no great sympathy with paul; he went to the gentiles, while they adhered to the jews, and kept the law…indeed, we hold him to have been a man of consummate skill; he wanted to spread judaism among the gentiles; but of ceremonial judaism this was impossible, so he divested it of ceremony, and added the plurality in the deity, as a doctrine better suited to the heathen world than the pure unity of the jews. we would respectfully ask the editor of the chronicle, whether he discovers not many inconsistencies in the character of saul of tarsus? at times with the jews, then with the gentiles; at times entering the synagogues, and then saying, he quits his brethren; at times living as a jew, and then neglecting the ceremonies totally. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): langton 1-12 langton, the apostle paul in the popular jewish imagination langton 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 we cannot reconcile all this; hence we do not esteem his character, even assuming all that is said about him in the acts as literally true.49 and on another occasion, responding to christian missionary efforts, leeser asserted forcefully that “the jew wars against the very ideas paul puts forth, and to enforce which oceans of blood have been shed; and that…we will resist them as we have done hitherto.’50 it seems fair to conclude, then, however tentatively, that the intensity of negative feeling towards the apostle within the popular jewish imagination─insofar as it is reflected in a communal newspapers like the jewish chronicle and the occident─is best explained in terms of an association, conscious and unconscious, of the apostle to the gentiles with 49 isaac leeser, “the jewish chronicle and the occident,” the occident iii:1 (april 1845), 44. 50 editorial (isaac leeser), “the presbyterian synod of new york and the jews,” the occident vii:10 (january 1850), 483. wider cultural attitudes towards apostates and converts, those who would abrogate the torah, those who would confuse the distinction between jew and christian, missionary activities, and, arguably, the phenomenon of jewish self-hatred. it is useful to remember that such articulations of paul, and of the antagonism that the wider jewish community has felt towards this shadowy, disturbing first-century figure, do not simply reflect popular jewish attitudes towards christianity and christian culture in the modern world, but undoubtedly also act as a powerful influence upon them. scjr 17, no. 1 (2022): 1-3 manoela carpenedo becoming jewish, believing in jesus (oxford university press, 2021), 300 pp. rachel z. feldman rfeldman@fandm.edu franklin and marshall college, lancaster, pa 17603 since the end of the 20th century, philosemitic, zionist, and judaizing christian movements have been proliferating rapidly across the formerly colonized countries in the global south. these trends have been the subject of numerous journalistic accounts and have been theorized in the scholarly literature. however, there are few truly in-depth ethnographic works that thoroughly document such important religious and political trends through the use of long-term and immersive fieldwork. manoela carpenedo’s account of a judaizing evangelical movement in brazil does considerable work toward filling this gap in the literature, providing us with a fine-grained account of judaizing evangelical practices and theological adaptations. she offers us a glimpse into the intimate spiritual lives of her informants while still carefully situating the judaizing movement within broader post-colonial dynamics. alongside ethnographic vignettes and rich interview material from her case study, carpenedo considers social, political, and theological trends in brazil that have energized a climate of grassroots religious diversification and exploration, trends that now pose a significant counter-force to the long-standing catholic hegemony. in the first half of the book, carpenedo helps us to understand exactly how judaizing evangelicals, an offshoot of charismatic evangelicalism, coalesced to form a transnational religious moment. she describes in detail how evangelical participants came to identify as “jewish” after periods of spiritual seeking and denominational shifting within the evangelical world. what distinguishes judaizing evangelicals from other related sub-groups such as messianic judaism, she explains, is their specific desire to go beyond a superficial incorporation of jewish symbols, the sabbath, and jewish holiday celebrations. carpenedo’s interlocuters are specifically interested in adopting the legal and ritual strictures of orthodox judaism that govern everyday life, including halachic (jewish law) regulations regarding modest dress, ritual purity, and kosher food. what i found most enlightening about this discussion was the way that carpenedo fully explicates the process by which her informants gradually departed from widespread and traditional christian hostility toward jewish law and so-called “legalism.” in turn, she feldman: carpenedo’s becoming jewish, believing in jesus 2 argues, judaizing evangelicals come to embrace halacha as a mode of purifying their christian faith from pagan influences. simultaneously, they are drawn to jewish orthopraxis and the conservative religious lifestyle it demands as means of rejecting the corrupting moral influences of modernity. carpenedo’s account of her informants’ conversion journeys is thorough and conveyed in a respectful and deeply humanizing manner. i was, however, left wanting more information about the community’s specific relationship to orthodox jewish textual sources, institutions, online resources, and rabbinic authorities. carpenedo mentions that the community obtained information about orthodox practices online, that they managed to purchase a torah scroll and kosher meat in a local jewish community, that they underwent ritual circumcision, and that they study hebrew and the talmud. while the community clearly does not view itself as beholden to rabbinic authorities or needing an official orthodox jewish conversion to identify as jews, i was left wondering: why not? how exactly do judaizing evangelicals make sense of their relationship, or lack thereof, to the orthodox jewish world, especially when it is clear that they still rely upon it for essential resources, and when they look to orthodox jews as models for how to act and dress? how did carpenedo’s interlocuters convince members of the “mainstream jewish community in brazil” to perform ritual circumcisions and how exactly did they purchase the torah scroll (114)? it would be helpful for the reader to know which “mainstream” jewish community carpenedo is referring to here and how this relationship was forged. i raise these questions because the performance of ritual circumcision on men who have not undergone any official orthodox jewish conversion, and even the sale of a torah scroll to a non-jewish community, would meet strong resistance from most orthodox jews. future research might address how judaizing evangelicals navigate their liminal position as individuals who identify as jews within a christian social landscape, and how exactly they obtain essential resources from local jewish communities who still view them as christians. in chapter 4, carpenedo illustrates how the adoption of jewish orthopraxis extends beyond a process of theological hybridization and actually results in an ethnic re-identification with jews. judaizing evangelicals deepen their connection to judaism by claiming blood-line descent from bnei anussim (the descendants of sephardic jews who were forced to convert during the spanish inquisition and later resettled in latin america, where many continued to practice their jewish faith in secret). identifying as bnei anussim, carpenedo argues, more firmly secured her interlocuters’ sense of religious distinction and separation from evangelical christianity, a socio-cultural milieu that judaizing evangelicals have come to view as theologically weak and morally lax. the embrace of a racialized jewish identity and desire for ethnic particularism, carpenedo claims, is simultaneously the result of collective disillusionment with homogenizing mestizo identities and the multicultural ethos present in brazil today. moreover, as we see in chapter 5, for judaizing evangelical women in particular, jewish identification and a sense of ethnic identity is reinforced, not only through a reimagination of the collective ancestral past, but through the adoption 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2022) of female-specific orthodox jewish practices such as tzniut (modest dress and head-covering) and niddah (observance of menstrual taboos and of required periods of sexual abstinence). carpenedo examines the personal motivations that lead judaizing evangelical women to adopt willingly a more conservative religious lifestyle and affiliate with an arguably less egalitarian religious community (in contrast to their previous charismatic churches). by placing her work in conversation with recent studies of female agency in islamic and jewish movements, carpenedo cogently illustrates how the more constraining aspects of jewish orthopraxis, while deemed challenging at first by her informants, are eventually experienced as empowering and as precious opportunities for personal spiritual growth. for example, carpenedo demonstrates how the practices associated with niddah empower judaizing evangelical women by affording them greater control over sexual intimacy in their marriage, in contrast to expectations of sexual availability that previously defined their lives as charismatic christians. carpenedo has produced a highly lucid and rigorous account that will be broadly accessible to scholars, clergy, and undergraduate students. the book strikes an elegant balance between detailing personal conversion journeys and mapping out the broader social trends that are transforming brazil’s christian landscape. her very thorough review of the literature on conversion throughout the book will be particularly useful to scholars working to conceptualize their own studies of new religious movements. carpenedo’s research advances the field of conversion studies specifically by challenging portrayals of conversion as ideological rupture through empirically grounded documentation of theological shifting and religious hybridization, as evangelicals integrate elements of jewish orthopraxis into preexisting christian ideological frameworks. the result is a new hybrid religious culture, one that introduces new moral sensibilities and value systems compatible with orthodox jewish lifestyles. the past, carpenedo amply illustrates throughout the book, is just as important as the present when analyzing contemporary conversion trends. it is precisely their previous and deeply formative experiences in charismatic churches, alongside the influence of an imagined ancestral jewish past, that can help account for how and why increasing numbers of evangelicals are choosing to live their lives according to the strictures of jewish law. a study of covenant studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kessler cp 1-6 conference proceeding a s t u d y o f c o v e n a n t e d w a r d k e s s l e r the woolf institute of abrahamic faiths, cambridge university presented july 6, 2009 at the iccj conference, berlin this paper by dr. edward kessler was presented as a response to the plenary presentation (in german) by bishop dr. heinrich mussinghoff, aachen, germany: the necessity of developing theologies of judaism that affirm judaism and christianity’s distinctive integrities. (über die notwendigkeit, theologien des judentums zu entwickeln, die die unterschiedliche integrität von judentum und christentum bejahen). kessler’s response is in english with a german introduction. bischoff mussinghoff, liebe freunde, aus respekt für unseren ausgezeichneten hauptredner und die stadt, in der unsere konferenz stattfindet, beginne ich meinen vortrag auf deutsch. vielen dank dass sie ihre tiefsinnige betrachtung der beziehungen zwischen katholiken und juden mit uns teilen. ich begrüsse ihren aufruf zur entwicklung neuer theologien des judentums und werde darauf bezug nehmen. bei der betrachtung theologischer aspekte im jüdisch-christlichen dialog trifft man unmittelbar auf ein hindernis: es gibt sehr viel mehr christliche theologische schriften über das judentum als jüdische über das christentum. lieber bischoff, sie haben wichtige deutsche autoren erwähnt. in der englischsprachigen welt sollten wir katholische gelehrte wie boys, cunningham und pawlikowski nennen; protestantische gelehrte wie die eckardts, soulen und van buren. sie alle haben bedeutende beiträge zu christlichen theologien des judentums geleistet. soweit es jüdische autoren angeht, fallen mir die namen signer, wyschogrod, novak und greenberg ein. aber obwohl sie alle artikel über die jüdische beziehung zum christentum geschrieben haben, hat keiner eine detaillierte jüdische theologie des christentums angeboten. mir scheint, dass der aufruf von claude montefiore nach der schaffung einer jüdischen theorie des christentums vor 75 jahren immer noch unbeantwortet ist. es ist wichtig, den grund für diese einseitigkeit zu verstehen. der anstoss zu einem dialog kam zwangsläufig von der christlichen seite. aus christlicher perspektive erneuerte das wiedererkennen sowohl der tatsache, dass das christentum aus dem judentum entstand, als auch der erkenntnis dass die christliche lehre einen bedeutenden beitrag zum leiden der juden machte, das interesse am judentum. zusätzlich zum anhaltenden vermächtnis des holocaust muss ein weiterer faktor bei der schaffung von theologien des jüdisch-christlichen dialogs ins zentrum der aufmerksamkeit rücken—die existenz von lehren, die am besten als „glaubenseigenarten“ beschrieben werden können. kessler, a study of covenant kessler cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 http://www.iccj.org/de/?item=473 http://www.iccj.org/de/?item=473 http://www.iccj.org/de/?item=473 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kessler cp 1-6 diese bezeichnung kann als jene punkte beschrieben werden, für die christen und juden eine universelle bedeutung und endgültigkeit beanspruchen. aus jüdischer perspektive beinhalten sie zum beispiel eine hervorhebung der torah, die überzeugung, dass der bund gottes mit dem volk israel andauert und dass die jüdische bindung zum land israel göttliche billigung hat. aus christlicher perspektive beinhalten sie die christliche überzeugung, dass gott mit dem leben, dem tod und der auferstehung christi eindeutig für die gesamte menschheit gehandelt hat. das christentum kombiniert einen anspruch auf universellen geltungsbereich mit der forderung nach glaubensexklusivität: christus ist der herr aller und der erlöser aller. am ende des matthäusevangeliums (28:19) schreibt jesus den befehl zu „gehet hin und machet zu jüngern alle völker“. derselbe christus wird beschrieben gesagt zu haben „ich bin der weg, die wahrheit und das leben: niemand kommt zum vater denn durch mich“ (johannes 14:6). und die aufzeichnungen frühchristlicher predigten beinhalten den oft wiederholten text „und in keinem andern ist das heil, auch ist kein anderer name unter dem himmel den menschen gegeben, durch den wir sollen selig werden“ (apostel 4:12). das bedeutet, dass dialog nicht einfach nur auf gemeinsame bereiche beschränkt werden kann, auch wenn diese immer eine brücke bieten werden. wer im dialog engagiert ist, muss die existenz dieser „glaubenseigenarten“ anerkennen. wenn wir den schwung wieder erreichen wollen, der der bahnbrechenden veröffentlichung der nostra aetate beim 2. vatikanischen konzil 1965 folgend, während des pontifikats von johannes paul ii aufgebaut wurde, müssen wir über die tatsache nachdenken, dass sowohl judentum wie christentum bestandteile beinhalten, die, obwohl sie im prinzip geteilt werden, in der praxis spaltend wirken, wie zum beispiel die frage der identität des volkes israel. aus beider perspektive sind diese merkmale ein zentraler punkt in ihrem verständnis vom willen gottes. all dies überzeugungen sind strikt unreduzierbar. obwohl die glaubenseigenarten von aussen gesehen besitzergreifend erscheinen mögen, so spiegeln sie von innen jedoch eine erfahrung wieder, die nicht ignoriert werden kann. es ist nicht hilfreich, solche erfahrungen als arrogant zu verdammen, denn ihre bedeutung ist von solch grosser bedeutung, dass sie abzustreiten wie ein akt der leugnung des eigenen glaubens erscheinen würde. ein echter dialog wird nicht durch die anerkennung dieser glaubenseigenarten verhindert, genauso wenig wie durch die annahme beider partner, dass die äusserste und tiefste erkenntnis vom willen gottes bei ihnen liegt. vertrauen wir uns genug als partner und freunde, um zu beginnen, theologien des jüdischchristlichen dialoges zu schaffen, die es gegensätzen erlauben nebeneinander zu bestehen, ohne vorzugeben dass sie kompatibel gemacht werden können? sind wir reif genug, um meinungen zu respektieren, die mit unseren eigenen im konflikt stehen, ohne eine naïve űbereinstimmung erreichen zu wollen? das sind die fragen, die bei der erstellung von theologien des jüdisch-christlichen dialogs erörtert werden müssen. ich werde kurz ein schlüsselkonzept untersuchen, nämlich den bund, der so im mittelpunkt von vielem, was sie gesagt haben, steht. da ich dieses konzept im detail analysieren möchte, vergeben sie mir bitte, wenn ich meine überlegungen und meine antwort auf englisch fortsetze. few biblical concepts have been as troubling to jewish–christian relations as covenant. more specifically, the christian claim to be the successor covenant people, elected by god to replace kessler, a study of covenant kessler cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kessler cp 1-6 israel because of the latter’s faithlessness, led to the substitution theory, also known as replacement theology. this is the teaching that, since the time of jesus, jews have been replaced by christians in god’s favor, and that all god’s promises to the jewish people have been inherited by christianity. there is a dilemma at the heart of today’s christian understanding of judaism, demonstrated by nostra aetate. on the one hand, the document states that “the church is the new people of god” while, on the other, “the jews remain most dear to god because of their fathers, for he does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues (cf. romans 11:28-29)”. this dilemma introduces us to a crucial question in today’s relationship—can christians view judaism as a valid religion in its own terms (and vice versa)? directly related to this is the need, from a christian perspective, for reflection on the survival of the jewish people and of the vitality of judaism over 2000 years. this is the ‘mystery of israel’, upon which paul reflected in his epistle to the romans and which you, dear bishop, considered in your talk. questions also need to be considered from the jewish perspective. what was the divine purpose behind the creation of christianity? what are the implications for jews that as a result of the jew jesus, two billion christians now read the jewish bible? martin buber for instance, considered jesus as “my elder brother.” buber’s writings have greatly influenced christian theology, notably his remark that “the covenant has not been terminated,” pre-empting and possibly prompting re-consideration of paul’s message in romans 9-11 that god has not forsaken the people of israel. nostra aetate also demonstrates christianity’s abandonment of its historical religious animosity and misleading caricature of judaism. positively this might be expressed as the necessity to understand the faith of the other in terms of his or her self-understanding. this process has not led to a separation from all things jewish (as proposed by the second century heretic, marcion, who called for a total separation from the hebrew bible and much of the new testament) but, in fact, to a closer relationship with “the elder brother.” for christians, the question of the validity of judaism challenges some of the proclamations of christian triumphalism. the issue at stake is whether christianity can differentiate itself from judaism without asserting itself as either opposed to judaism or simply as the fulfillment of judaism. i believe a study of covenant may help us. cardinal walter kasper, alongside archbishop rowan williams and chief rabbi sir jonathan sacks, suggested in an address at the centre for the study of jewish-christian relations in cambridge that ‘the term “unabrogated covenant” should become the starting point for a renewed theology of judaism. reflection on conversation about covenant will further the growing chevruta, partnership, between jews and christians and fulfill anselm’s dictum, fides quaerens intellectum (‘faith in search of understanding’). it is unfortunate that although paul’s comments on the people of israel and their relationship with god are complex and sometimes hard to follow, they are commonly and misleadingly simplified. he is generally viewed as arguing that membership of the true israel is not determined simply on physical descent from abraham, but rather on the spiritual affinity to abraham’s trusting relationship with god. in other words, israel is simply composed of a combination of jews and gentiles. the former, due to their spiritual past, include those who have extended their trust relationship in god to a dependence upon jesus as lord; the latter kessler, a study of covenant kessler cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kessler cp 1-6 includes those gentiles who have entered into the covenantal relationship with god by their acceptance of jesus. this, however, is a facile interpretation of paul’s assessment for it simply imputes to him the view that the old becomes new. as you mentioned, bishop, paul struggles deeply with the meaning of the election of israel and the election of the church. it is true that the church fathers, such as justin martyr, (and even the epistle to the hebrews) believed that christians are the true israel (verus israel), and not the jewish people. and within a few decades of the formation of christianity, christians, not jews, were viewed as the children of abraham and god’s covenant with abraham was effectively established with gentile christians.—jews were excluded. reflection on the biblical concept of covenant will remind christians that the jewish people remain part of the people of god. indeed, we might suggest that both israel and the church are elect and both participate in the covenant of god. paul’s attempt to explain what he identifies as the ‘mystery of israel’ is based upon his interpretation of the 'remnant' of the jewish people. this emphasis is not simply dependent upon the existence of the remnant but upon the impossibility for him that the jewish people as a whole could first have been elected by god and then later displaced. for paul, god would not simply elect and then reject. as pope john paul ii said on more than one occasion, the church’s election derives from that of israel but this does not imply that god’s covenant with israel is broken. rather, it remains unbroken—irrevocably (romans 11:29). for paul, the mystery of israel is that their rejection and their stumbling do not mean that they cease to be accepted by god. rather, they allow the gentiles to participate in the peoplehood of israel. indeed, so strongly does paul make this point that he offers a severe warning that gentile christians should not be haughty or boastful toward unbelieving jews—much less cultivate evil intent and engage in persecution against them. tragically, his words remained a warning almost totally forgotten by christians over many, many centuries. christians have remembered jews as “enemies” but not as “beloved” of god (romans 11:28) and have taken to heart paul’s criticisms, forgetting paul’s love for jews (romans 9:1-5). romans 9–11 provides a biblical justification for christians to re-assess attitudes towards jews and maintain the continuing validity of god’s covenant with his jewish people. if the church, as the new israel, replaced the old israel as the inheritor of god’s promises, does this mean that god reneges on his word? if god has done so with regard to jews, what guarantee is there for the churches that he won’t do so again, this time to christians? of course, you could argue that, if jews have not kept faith with god, then god has a perfect right to cast them off. it is interesting that christians who argue this way have not often drawn the same deduction about christian faithfulness, which has not been a notable characteristic of the last two millennia. actually, god seems to have had a remarkable ability to keep faith with both christians and jews, when they have not kept faith with him, a point of which paul is profoundly aware in romans 9–11. he goes out of his way to deny claims that god has rejected the chosen people, and asserts that their stumbling does not lead to their fall. it seems to me that we have reached a moment in the jewish-christian encounter to consider how a negative formulation (‘unabrogated covenant’) can be understood positively. friendship is not built on a lack of hostility but rather on common values and mutual benefit. similarly, the kessler, a study of covenant kessler cp 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kessler cp 1-6 relationship between christianity and judaism requires a positive foundation and i invite christians and jews to reflect on the positive meaning of covenant. reflection is not limited to christians, but is also required by jews, as professor ruth langer will discuss tomorrow. many jews retain an infantile understanding of christianity. there is an urgent need for jews to confront the mark that centuries of christian antisemitism have left on the jewish psyche. it is perhaps for this reason above all that there have been numerous jewish writings which consider the political, historical and sociological relationship with christianity but few which can be categorized as theological. for many jews, the legacy of l’enseignement du mepris (the teaching of contempt), has also led the jewish encounter with christianity to consist primarily of an attempt to educate christians about judaism in order to prevent, or at the very least to minimize the possibility of a resurgence of christian antisemitism. however, a theology of dialogue and a jewish theology of christianity should not be built on removing antisemitism for genuine friendship is more than a lack of hostility. so how should jews reflect on covenant in terms of our relationship with christianity? we might begin with the covenant with noah: “the children of noah (that is, people other than israel) were given seven commandments: laws (i.e. to establish courts of justice), (the prohibitions of) idolatry, blasphemy, sexual immorality, bloodshed, theft, and the limb from a living animal.” (tosefta avoda zara 9.4). these laws are an attempt to formulate moral standards for the world without a concomitant demand for conversion to judaism. as such, they acknowledge the right of peoples to their own formulation of faith provided only that a minimum standard is met. rabbi johanan of tiberias (third century) said: “whoever denies idolatry is called a jew.” (bt megilla 13a.) the rejection of idolatry, rather than any doctrinal definition of god, is the foundation of noahide laws as conceived by the rabbis. the concept of the sheva mitzvot (seven commandments) is a powerful model for contemporary theologians in their search for a theological basis on which to affirm the validity of christianity. there are also other resources already available within judaism to create an environment in which jews can not only regard christians with respect, but also seek to work together for a more just society and a better world. these include some of the practical suggestions made by bishop mussinghoff. a jew might also turn to the concept of ‘righteous gentiles,’ referring to rabbi joshua ben hananya who propounded the view, later generally accepted, that ‘the righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come’ (tosefta ,sanhedrin 13), though they were not converted to judaism. judaism does not have an equivalent to augustine's extra ecclesiam non est salus (‘there is no salvation outside the church’). the concept of ‘righteous gentiles’ provides a basis for the affirmation of the spiritual worth of christians. thus, we seek to create the theological space for christians whilst remaining faithful to the jewish concept of covenant; this perhaps parallels paul’s reflection in romans 9–11, the scriptural and theological basis for nostra aetate and for modern catholic theologies of judaism, which seeks to create theological space for jews whilst remaining faithful to christian interpretations of the significance of the christ event. kessler, a study of covenant kessler cp 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): kessler cp 1-6 one final example, we jews might refer to the rabbinic principles of tiqqun 'olam (‘establishing the world aright’ ), darkhe shalom (‘ the ways of peace’ ) and qiddush hashem (‘ sanctifying god's name’, i.e. behaving in such a manner as to bring credit to god), which can be brought to govern our relationships to christianity. this, it seems to me, is more promising than interpreting christianity (and islam) as ‘preparing the way’ for the acceptance of torah developed by medieval authors such as judah halevi (c. 1075-1141) and moses maimonides (1135-1204). in the medieval jewish mindset, the most positive view of islam and christianity was that they are in error, but can be accommodated as part of the divine design in the process of world redemption, which seeks to bring the nations gradually to god. this medieval view is the counterpart of the christian idea of praeparatio evangelica, or of the muslim claim that jewish and christian scriptures are imperfect forerunners of the final, perfect revelation. even menahem ha-meiri (d. 1315), who expounded a theistic morality and who coined the phrase umot hagedurot hedarkei hadatot ('nations bound by the ways of religion’) only made possible a positive assessment, not of doctrine, but of the christian way of life. however, i believe that the suggestions i have briefly outlined will help jews in their reflection on an appropriate relationship with christianity; a study of the covenant between the jewish people and god, a study of the biblical covenant promised to abraham and revealed to moses; a study of the covenant which emphasizes the unique relationship between the jewish people and god; a study of the irrevocable covenant will enable jews to create the theological space for christians not only to possess their own special relationship with god but to see their reflection in a jewish mirror, which may serve both to deepen christian faith in christ and christian respect for their elder siblings. kessler, a study of covenant kessler cp 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 a study of covenant edward kessler the woolf institute of abrahamic faiths, cambridge university this paper by dr. edward kessler was presented as a response to the plenary presentation (in german) by bishop dr. heinrich mussinghoff, aachen, germany: the necessity of developing theologies of judaism that affirm judaism and christianity’s distinctive integrities. (über die notwendigkeit, theologien des judentums zu entwickeln, die die unterschiedliche integrität von judentum und christentum bejahen). kessler’s response is in english with a german introduction. scjr 18, no. 1 (2023): 1-2 robert w. bleakney evangelical interpretation after auschwitz (atlanta: hebraic heritage press, 2019), 392 pp. john e. phelan, jr. jphelan@northpark.edu north park theological seminary, chicago, il 60625 the shoah changed everything. as the scope of the tragedy became clear, both jewish and christian thinkers struggled to make theological sense of the unabated cruelty and bloodlust, not only of nazis but of the many willing collaborators. while jewish religious leaders and theologians asked serious questions about the apparent silence of israel’s god, some christians began a painful reckoning with the abject failure of many if not most christian leaders to support and defend the jews at their most desperate hour of need. many within the mainline protestant and roman catholic communities also asked not only how millions of christians could participate in the slaughter but how christian theology might have contributed to it. a group of thinkers later called “holocaust theologians” studied, pondered, and agonized over these questions throughout the post-war era. jews and christians in the united states and europe engaged one another as never before. this background is important, for while some christians have continued this engagement, few evangelicals have entered into this dialogue. also, few have been willing to consider the potential anti-jewish (if not antisemitic) character of their traditional theologies and their sacred texts. in recent years there have been fruitful, high-level conversations between jewish and evangelical leaders and academics, but little of this conversation appears to have made its way to ordinary evangelicals. it is not that evangelicals were unmoved by the horror of the murder of 6,000,000 jews, but that many of them appear not to have considered how christian theology and biblical interpretation may have contributed to hatred of jews. several factors have hindered this reckoning. at a very practical level, opportunities for connections with jews are not as easy for evangelicals in, say, mississippi or north dakota as they would be in new york or southeastern florida. some jews are also justifiably wary of engaging evangelicals, fearing that they will be seen as candidates for conversion. finally, evangelicals’ native conservatism makes it difficult for them to consider that their historic understanding of their sacred texts and traditions could be wrong or harmful. robert w. bleakney, an evangelical and an associate professor at hebraic christian college, knows this history. he is especially concerned with how little phelan: bleakney’s evangelical interpretation after auschwitz 2 evangelicals and jews have engaged one another and, especially, with how little evangelical christians appreciate jews’ painful historical experiences with christians. he is concerned that harmful stereotypes long critiqued and rejected within the catholic and mainline protestant communities endure within large segments of the evangelical world. he demonstrates, for example, the startlingly anti-jewish interpretations and readings within popular evangelical study bibles and attempts to redress such readings (193-202). it is as if these commentators have not grasped that their harsh language concerning “the jews” refers not just to an ancient people but to a living and vulnerable community. bleakney discusses the relationship between evangelical christianity and judaism, while also aiming to help evangelicals understand both the nature of contemporary judaism and christianity’s jewish roots. although the two traditions went their separate ways, they share a common story, a common sacred text, and the worship of the one god, the god of abraham, isaac, and jacob. this is not to minimize the differences but to recognize a common heritage. bleakney thinks this is especially important for evangelicals to understand. bleakney throughout the book shares his own engagement with and learning from a variety of jewish scholars and thinkers as a means to educate evangelicals and encourage them to initiate their own conversations. this is a diverse book, addressing many topics and issues. it is less a sustained argument and more a series of essays and reflections. some of these essays and reflections are stronger than others. it is an earnest book. the reader senses bleakney’s concern to speak to his fellow evangelicals, to turn them away from caricatures and stereotypes and toward sympathy and understanding. there is a sense in which the reader is observing bleakney’s own learning and his own growing consciousness and concern for his relationship with jews and judaism. there are few books of this nature by evangelicals, and it represents an important starting point in the ongoing conversation. one hopes the conversation will continue to be refined and enriched by mutual understanding and even love. robert bleakney deserves our appreciation for making a start. microsoft word 172851-text.native.1250636065.doc iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college a time for recommitment: building the new relationship between jews and christians international council of christians and jews volume 4 (2009) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): iccj 1-22 iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 in the summer of 1947, 65 jews and christians from 19 countries gathered in seelisberg, switzerland. they came together to express their profound grief over the holocaust, their determination to combat anti-semitism, and their desire to foster stronger relationships between jews and christians. they denounced antisemitism both as a sin against god and humanity and as a danger to modern civilization. and to address these vital concerns, they issued a call in the form of 10 points to christian churches to reform and renew their understandings of judaism and the relationships between judaism and christianity. now, more than 60 years later, the international council of christians and jews issues a new call─this one to both christian and jewish communities around the world. it commemorates the anniversary of the seelisberg gathering, which was also the genesis of the international council of christians and jews. today’s call reflects the need to refine the ten points of seelisberg, consistent with the advances in interreligious dialogue since that groundbreaking document of 1947. this new call contains 12 points─presented as goals, and addressed to christians and jews, and to christian and jewish communities together. after listing the 12 points and several specific tasks for each one, the document reviews the history of the relationship between christians and jews, which has provided the contextual framework and impetus for our initiative. we members of the international council of christians and jews speak together in this new call as active members of our traditions with a centuries-long history of alienation, hostility and conflict, punctuated by instances of persecution and violence against jews in christian-dominated europe, as well as by moments of graciousness and mutual recognition from which we can take inspiration. spurred by the seelisberg initiaitive, we have worked to overcome the legacy of prejudice, hatred and mutual distrust. through a serious commitment to dialogue, self-critical examination of our texts and traditions, and joint study and action for justice, we better understand each other, accept each other in the fullness of our differences, and affirm our common humanity. we understand that jewish-christian relations are not a “problem” that is going to be “solved,” but rather a continuing process of learning and refinement. perhaps most important, we have found friendship and trust. we have sought and found light together. the journey has been neither simple nor easy. we have encountered many obstacles and setbacks, including conflicts─some quite serious─over theological and historical developments. but our determination to pursue the dialogue in spite of difficulties, to communicate honestly, and to assume our partners’ good will has helped us stay the course. for these reasons, we believe that the history, the challenge, and the accomplishments of our dialogue are relevant for all those who are dealing with intergroup and interreligious conflicts. in that spirit we issue this call to christian and jewish communities around the world. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): iccj 1-22 iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 aa tt ii mm ee ff oo rr rr ee cc oo mm mm ii tt mm ee nn tt :: tt hh ee tt ww ee ll vv ee pp oo ii nn tt ss oo ff bb ee rr ll ii nn a call to christian and jewish communities worldwide we, the international council of christians and jews and our member organizations, resolve to renew our engagement with the ten points of seelisberg that inspired our beginnings. therefore, we issue these calls to christians, jews, and all people of good will. a call to christians and christian communities we commit ourselves to the following goals and invite all christians and christian communities to join us in the continuing effort to remove all vestiges of contempt towards jews and enhance bonds with the jewish communities worldwide. 1. to combat religious, racial and all forms of antisemitism biblically • by recognizing jesus’ profound identity as a jew of his day, and interpreting his teachings within the contextual framework of first-century judaism. • by recognizing paul’s profound identity as a jew of his day, and interpreting his writings within the contextual framework of first-century judaism. • by emphasizing that recent scholarship on both the commonality and gradual separation of christianity and judaism is critical for our basic understanding of the jewish-christian relationship. • by presenting the two testaments in the christian bible as complementary and mutually affirming rather than antagonistic or inferior/superior. denominations that use lectionaries are encouraged to choose and link biblical texts that offer such an affirming theology. • by speaking out against christian misreading of biblical texts regarding jews and judaism that can provide caricatures or animosity. liturgically • by highlighting the connection between jewish and christian liturgy. • by drawing upon the spiritual richness of jewish interpretations of the scriptures. • by cleansing christian liturgies of anti-jewish perspectives, particularly in preaching, prayers and hymns. catechetically • by presenting the christian-jewish relationship in positive tones in the education of christians of all ages underling the jewish foundations of christian belief and accurately describing the ways jews themselves understand their own traditions and practices. this includes the curricula of christian schools, seminaries and adult education programs. • by promoting awareness of the long-lived traditions of christian anti-judaism and providing models for renewing the unique jewish-christian relationship. • studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): iccj 1-22 iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 • by understanding the immense religious wealth found in the jewish tradition, especially by studying its authoritative texts. 2. to promote interreligious dialogue with jews • by understanding dialogue as requiring trust and equality among all participants and rejecting any notion of convincing others to accept one’s own beliefs. • by appreciating that dialogue encourages participants to examine critically their own perceptions of both their own tradition and that of their dialogue partners in the light of a genuine engagement with the other. 3. to develop theological understandings of judaism that affirm its distinctive integrity • by eliminating any teachings that christians have replaced jews as a people in covenant with god. • by emphasizing the common mission of jews and christians in preparing the world for the kingdom of god or the age to come. • by establishing equal, reciprocal working relationships with jewish religious and civic organizations. • by ensuring that emerging theological movements from asia, africa and latin america, and feminist liberationist or other approaches integrate an accurate understanding of judaism and christianjewish relations into their theological formulations. • by opposing organized efforts at the conversion of jews. 4. to pray for the peace of jerusalem • by promoting the belief in an inherent connectedness between christians and jews. • by understanding more fully judaism’s deep attachment to the land of israel as a fundamental religious perspective and many jewish people’s connection with the state of israel as a matter of physical and cultural survival. • by reflecting on ways that the bible’s spiritual understanding of the land can be better incorporated into christian faith perspectives. • by critiquing the policies of israeli and palestinian governmental and social institutions when such criticism is morally warranted, at the same time acknowledging both communities’ deep attachment to the land. • by critiquing attacks on zionism when such critiques become expressions of antisemitism. • by joining with jewish, christian and muslim peace workers, with israelis and palestinians, to build trust and peace in a middle east where all can live secure in independent, viable states rooted in international law and guaranteed human rights. • by enhancing the security and prosperity of christian communities both in israel and palestine. • by working for improved relations among jews, christians and muslims in the middle east and the rest of the world. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): iccj 1-22 iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 a call to jews and jewish communities we commit ourselves to the following goals and invite all jews and jewish communities to join us in the continuing effort to remove all vestiges of animosity and caricature toward christians and to enhance bonds with christian churches of the world. 5. to acknowledge the efforts of many christian communities in the late 20 th century to reform their attitudes toward jews • by learning about these reforms through more intensive dialogue with christians. • by discussing the implications of changes in christian churches regarding jews and their understandings of judaism. • by teaching jews of all ages about these changes, both in the context of the history of jewish-christian relations and according to the appropriate stage of education for each group. • by including basic and accurate background information about christianity in the curricula of jewish schools, rabbinic seminaries and adult education programs. • by studying the new testament both as christianity’s sacred text and as literature written to a large degree by jews in an historical-cultural context similar to early rabbinic literature there-by offering insight into the development of judaism in the early centuries of the common era. 6. to re-examine jewish texts and liturgy in light of these christian reforms • by grappling with jewish texts that appear xenophobic or racist, realizing that many religious traditions have uplifting, inspirational texts as well as problematic ones. the emphasis for all religious traditions should be on texts that promote tolerance and openness. • by placing problematic texts within their historical context, in particular writings from the times when jews were a powerless persecuted and humiliated minority. • by addressing the possible re-interpretation, change or omission of parts of jewish liturgy that treat others in problematic ways. 7. to differentiate between fair-minded criticism of israel and anti-semitism • by understanding and promoting biblical examples of just criticism as expressions of loyalty and love. • by helping christians appreciate that communal identity and interconnectedness are intrinsic to jewish self-understanding, in addition to religious faith and practice, therefore making the commitment to the survival and security of the state of israel of great importance to most jews. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): iccj 1-22 iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 8. to offer encouragement to the state of israel as it works to fulfill the ideals stated in its founding documents, a task israel shares with many nations of the world. • by ensuring equal rights for religious and ethnic minorities, including christians, living within the jewish state. • by achieving a just and peaceful resolution of the israeli-palestinian conflict. a call to both christian and jewish communities and others we commit ourselves to the following goals and invite jews, christians and muslims, together with all people of faith and goodwill, always to respect the other and to accept each other’s differences and dignity. 9. to enhance interreligious and intercultural education • by combating negative images of others, teaching the foundational truth that each human being is created in the image of god. • by making the removal of prejudices against the other a high priority in the educational process. • by encouraging mutual study of religious texts, so that jews, christians, muslims and members of other religious groups can learn both from and with each other. • by supporting common social action in the pursuit of common values. 10. to promote interreligious friendship and cooperation as well as social justice in the global society • by rejoicing in the uniqueness of each person, and promoting everyone’s political, economic and social well-being. • by recognizing as equal citizens members of faith traditions who have migrated to new homelands where they may have become part of a religious minority. • by striving for equal rights for all people, regardless of their religion, gender or sexual orientation. • by recognizing and grappling with the fact that feelings of religious superiority─and an accompanying sense that other religions are inferior─are present in each tradition, including one’s own. 11. to enhance dialogue with political and economic bodies • by collaborating with political and economic bodies whenever possible to promote interreligious understanding. • by benefiting from political and economic groups’ growing interest in interreligious relations. • by initiating discussion with political and economic bodies around the urgent need for justice in the global community. 12. to network with all those whose work responds to the demands of environmental stewardship • by fostering commitment to the belief that every human being is entrusted with the care of the earth. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): iccj 1-22 iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 • by recognizing the shared jewish and christian biblical duty toward creation, and the responsibility to bring it to bear in public discourse and action. to all these challenges and responsibilities, we─the international council of christians and jews and its member organizations─commit ourselves. berlin, germany, july 2009 at the international conference and the annual general meeting of the international council of christians and jews. the story of the transformation of a relationship introduction just over 40 years ago humankind had a first glimpse of earth from the moon, and gained new perspective on the beauty and fragility of our planet. whatever our differences, those photos from the vastness of space showed us our common home. questions about how we care for one another and for our world took on new urgency. for many jews and christians, this view of our planet evoked the psalmist’s cry, “what are human beings that you are mindful of them?” (psalm 8:4) both the ancient poetry of the psalms and the technology that took us to the moon cause us to pause once again to ponder our human calling. reflection compels us to acknowledge the scars our planet bears, including consequences of wars, disparities in wealth and access to the necessities of life, and depletion of earth’s resources. we are mindful that violence tears apart the fabric of humanity and intensifies fear. religion, we confess, has been implicated in that violence. over the ages, men and women have used religion to motivate and justify vilification and persecution of those whose beliefs differ from their own. violence in the name of religion has caused bloodshed and perverted religion itself. whenever religion becomes complicit in violence, it must be questioned. when religions promote service to others and respect for those who are different, they are powerful forces for good. they inspire care for the other and loving-kindness. they challenge us to aspire to a time when people “shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.” (isaiah 2:4) the relationship between christians and jews is one such sword being transformed into a plowshare. the history of these two peoples has been marked largely by rivalry and conflict. centuries of christian disparagement of judaism and abuse of power have contributed to antisemitism and provided fertile ground for nazism’s genocidal assault on jews. confronted by the horror of darkness, jews and christians have turned to one another in dialogue, seeking the light of mutual understanding and friendship. this ongoing dialogue continues the work begun in seelisberg, switzerland, in 1947. there, a multinational group of 65 jews and christians called on christian churches to reflect on and renew their understandings of judaism and their relationship studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): iccj 1-22 iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 with jews. their call came to be known as the ten points of seelisberg. we members of the international council of christians and jews have come together more than six decades after the seelisberg conference, steeped in the spirit of its work. we are mindful that genocide continues to afflict humankind, that hatred of the other continues to fuel violence. yet the healing between christians and jews in the years since seelisberg shows that enmity and hostility can be transformed. this statement has been written collaboratively by jews and christians and addressed to the jewish and christian communities and all people of goodwill. it has been born of our conviction that when religious people commit themselves to the work of reconciliation, our planet becomes more peaceful. the statement rises from this realization and this hope. a. the intertwined lives of jews and christians over the centuries 1. an ambivalent relationship christianity and judaism have a unique relationship among the world’s religions. both jews and christians hold the texts of biblical israel to be sacred scripture, though they organize and interpret those texts in different ways. christians and jews share many religious and ethical principles, although some common terms are understood in different ways. jews and christians both anticipate a similar destiny for the world in a messianic age, although the arrival of that age is envisioned in different ways. christians and jews have been dealing with one another, for good and for ill, for many centuries, sometimes influencing each other’s religious ideas and practices along the way. all of these forces have produced an ambivalent relationship that has shaped their interactions. the two traditions are also linked because jesus was born and died a jew. the first christians were jews and it was centuries rather than decades after the death of jesus that christianity and judaism separated in a process that unfolded differently in various places. the roman destruction of jerusalem and its temple in the year 70 and persecutions of christians were among the factors that motivated the gospel writers and their early interpreters to downplay the roman governor’s role in the execution of jesus. they also sought to explain why many jews disagreed with christian claims about jesus. invective was often the result. christians came to view jews as an obsolete covenant people, replaced by the newly covenanted people of the christian church. christian authors increasingly regarded the christian church as the new and true israel (verus israel). this theology of replacement is often termed “supersessionism.” yet for several centuries many gentile christians continued to be attracted to synagogues and welcomed at services, including at passover. christian leaders such as john chrysostom (c. 350-407) complained about the appeal of the synagogue and delivered vitriolic sermons against jews and judaism, contributing to a literary genre called adversus judaeos. they insisted that jews did not understand the old testament and that the judaism of the rabbis was founded on error. augustine of hippo (354-430) portrayed jews as children of cain whose dispersion and debasement were god’s punishment. jews, he argued, served as witnesses to christian truth and were not to be harmed. this basic theological approach remained influential for the next thousand years. once christianity was established as the official religion of the roman empire in the late fourth century, the situation of jews become more difficult. roman law codes, such as the code of justinian, began to erode jewish legal rights. the erosion took studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): iccj 1-22 iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 place gradually over the next four centuries. at the same time christianized rome was also expending great effort on defeating pagans and those deemed to be christian heretics. by the sixth century, judaism and christianity had fully separated and jewish forms of christianity ceased to exist. through the centuries, however, christians and jews have been entwined in their veneration of the same scriptures. for the most part, what christians call old testament and jews tanakh is one and the same, though their content, structure and the methods used to interpret them differ. hence the saying, “jews and christians are divided by a common bible.” jews and christians are also divided by several theological convictions, notably christian claims about the divinity of jesus. because they were a minority group in both the islamic world and christendom, jews pondered possible reasons for the flourishing of these two traditions. one view held that christianity was a form of idolatry. another categorized christianity according to the noahide laws, which defined gentile moral standards without a demand for conversion to judaism. a third view, propagated by judah ha-levi (10751141) and maimonides (1135-1204), affirmed that christianity introduced the nations to the worship of the god of israel and thus prepared the way for redemption. menahem ha-mein’s (1249-1316) positive argument was that christianity should be understood as a form of monotheism. he coined the phrase “nations bound by the ways of religion” to interpret certain rabbinic laws to enable a more fruitful interaction between jews and christians. widespread expulsions and anti-jewish activity in western europe characterized the later medieval period, roughly after 1000, and led to the social decline or devastation of jewish communities there. as western christendom become more homogeneous, jews were seen as one of the last “different” groups. especially during the first crusade (1096), mob violence inspired by christian preaching wiped out dozens of jewish communities. as time passed, and despite the efforts of various popes, jews were accused of the ritual murder of christian children, of desecrating the consecrated christian sacramental bread and of causing the black death. they were demonized as “children of the devil.” these accusations usually led to group explusions or executions. at the order of pope gregory ix and with the cooperation of the inquisition, thousands of jewish books were burned (paris, 1242). christian leaders preached conversionist sermons which jews were forced to attend and held enforced public disputations (such as paris, 1240; barcelona, 1263). the fourth lateran council (1215) required jews to wear an identifying badge. by the 16th century, jews had been expelled from most of western europe, with the notable exception of rome. beginning in 1555, jews in some cities, among them rome, venice and prague, were confined in ghettoes. travel was severely restricted and jews were often locked at night in their ghettoes. there were some exceptions to this hostility. the convivencia describes the relatively easy “coexistence” of jews, christians and muslims in medieval spain and portugal until the 13 th century. in northern europe, jews and christians generally lived together peacefully and productively. a totally negative picture of jewish life in christian europe in this period overlooks the persistence and spread of jewish settlement there. the 16 th century reformation led to more positive attitudes toward jews among christians. the humanist tradition emphasized the enduring qualities of jewish religious teaching. although religious wars between catholics and protestants also triggered anti-jewish violence, partly inspired by luther’s tractate on the jews and their lies (1543), there were also studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): iccj 1-22 iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 smaller philosemitic christian reform movements. the anabaptist and calvinist churches, for example, looked favorably on judaism’s adherence to old testament teachings, although they said that jews did not fully understand them. this interest in the christian old testament helped to promote tolerance for jews in the netherlands and later in some of the american colonies. by the time of the american revolution, the proliferation of religious groups, the growing desire to separate church and state, and an enlightenment emphasis on the rights of the individual helped create a more hospitable climate for jews. while the theology of supersessionism was brought to the new world by christian settlers and missionaries, its social impact was blunted in regions that stressed basic human rights. also notable in the 16 th century was a small english protestant millenarian movement that emphasized jewish restoration to the land of israel as an essential element in the second coming. this ideal spread to continental europe and in the 18th century to north america. 2. the century before seelisberg in the 19 th century, some discourse between jews and christians became more positive. central and western european jews were allowed out of ghettoes and began to integrate into the dominant european society. the desire to assimilate, however, also caused some jews to conceal or abandon their heritage. some christians, impelled by a missionary intent, began to take more interest in the jewish people and their beliefs and practices. a quest to recover the historical jesus led some scholars to take a greater interest in first-century judaism, often emphasizing, however, differences between jesus and his allegedly corrupt jewish contemporaries. in this period, christians and jews were motivated to communicate for different reasons. jews wanted to improve their lot in society and were concerned for civil rights. christian leaders wanted converts or to facilitate the assimilation of judaism into christianity. antisemitism, increasingly understood according to racist categories, was more and more accepted as a fact of life in european society. the hasty espionage conviction of a loyal french jewish army officer, albert dreyfus, on the basis of highly suspicious evidence, generated a public sensation. state-sponsored persecutions, or pogroms, in russia and eastern europe led to mass emigration to western europe and the united states. such events began to cast a dark shadow over european jewry. some politicians also began to exploit pseudo-scientific claims of aryan racial superiority and jewish inferiority for their own advantage. however, in the late 19 th and early 20 th century, a few jewish and christian scholars began to take a serious interest in each other’s religion. their writings marked the emergence of yet another moment of positive attitudes between members of the two faith traditions. abraham geiger (1810-74), a leading german reform rabbi, was one of the first jewish scholars to place jesus in the context of first-century judaism. herman cohen (1842-1918), a german philosopher and a professor at marburg, began to write extensive critiques of christianity. franz rosenzweig (1886-1929) proposed a doctrine of two covenants. martin buber (1875-1965) accepted christianity as a path to god, hoping christians would do the same with regard to judaism. claude montefiore (1858-1938), a liberal anglo-jewish leader and scholar, wrote a sympathetic study of the gospels. joseph klausner (1874-1958) discussed jesus and paul in the context of jewish messianism. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): iccj 1-22 iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 léon bloy (1846-1917), joseph bonsirven (1880-1958), herbert danby (1889-1953), robert travers herford (18601950), charles journet (1891-1975), and jacques maritain (1882-1973) were among the first christian scholars to write extensively about the talmud, midrash and mishnah or to advocate for affirmative theological approaches to judaism and the jewish people. their scholarship challenged christians to appreciate rabbinic judaism and dispel caricatures of the pharisees. george foot moore (1851-1931) published a threevolume work, judaism in the first centuries of the christian era. james parkes, an anglican clergyman who worked in central europe in the 1930s, was one of the first christians to warn of the dangers of nazism. in the conflict of church and synagogue: a study of the origins of antisemitism, he blamed the centuries of christian anti-jewish teaching for contemporary antisemitism. the early 20 th century also saw the beginnings of scholarly dialogue. a parliament of the world’s religions convened in chicago in 1893. from its inception in 1904, the london society for the study of religions had some jewish members, including claude montefiore. and in 1927, the london society of jews and christians was formed. the world congress of faiths, with members from all religions, was established in 1936. practical matters also were bringing some jews and christians together. in the u.s. presidential race of 1924, alfred e. smith, a roman catholic who unsuccessfully sought the democratic nomination, was subjected to abuse by the ku klux klan whose members were also anti-semitic. their slogan “america for the americans” was a threat to all minorities. to counter their influence, the federal council of churches of christ in america and b’nai b’rith set up a committee on good will between jews and christians. four years later, when smith became the democratic nominee, the roman catholic church joined with protestants and jews to establish the national conference of christians and jews, which from the 1940s through the 1980s was well-known for sponsoring an annual brotherhood week. by the mid-1930s, refugees from nazi germany were arriving in britain where jewish organizations found it increasingly difficult to care for the large numbers. in 1936, a newly-formed inter-aid committee comprised representatives of numerous jewish and christian social welfare agencies. despite numerous failures to help refugees, in 1938, after the general attack on synagogues and jewish property on the so-called kristallnacht, “the night of shattered glass,” a refugee children’s movement was formed to find suitable homes for jewish children who had been sent to england and scotland by their parents. with the outbreak of world war ii, many people failed to see the threat that the nazis represented and some christian leaders supported them. other christian leaders began denouncing nazi antisemitism, at the same time recognizing the overarching need to promote better relations between christians and jews. william temple, the archbishop of canterbury, convened a meeting in march 1942, resulting in the formation of the council of christians and jews. while one of the organization’s goals was to combat all forms of racial and religious intolerance, special emphasis was placed on affirming the moral values shared by jews and christians, and on educational work, especially among the young. william w. simpson, a methodist minister who had been involved in the refugee effort, was appointed secretary. he held that position until 1974. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): iccj 1-22 iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 3. the seelisberg conference and the beginnings of iccj after the end of world war ii, the magnitude of the shoah─the murder of two-thirds of the jews of europe and one-third of the jewish community globally─became known to the entire world. jews and christians started to scrutinize how traditional christian teaching might have contributed to─and even enhanced─the third reich’s industrial genocide. jules isaac furthered the examination when, in jésus et israél (1948), he highlighted the interplay between the anti-judaism in christian theology and racial-biological antisemitism. the title of his second study, l’enseignement du mépris (1962), actually named what needed to be identified and excised from christian theology: the teaching of contempt. when the second world war ended, william simpson and others recognized that a new relationship between jews and christians had to be built internationally. a conference was held in oxford in 1946. dean grüber from berlin and herman mass from heidelberg, both christian pastors, received special permission to attend. rabbi leo baeck, leader of the german jewish community during the third reich, survivor of theresienstadt, and a post-war émigré to london, was one of the speakers. conference participants decided that an emergency meeting on the problem of antisemitism in europe should be held as soon as possible. it took place in the swiss village of seelisberg in 1947. in the history of jewish-christian dialogue, the seelisberg conference is referred to primarily because of its ten points, which were specifically addressed “to the churches.” the first four points emphasized the deep and fundamental roots of christianity in judaism. the next six made it clear that judaism must no longer be presented negatively in christian teaching. this challenge established one of the foundations for subsequent research on the complex relations between the two religious traditions. although numerous christians at that time understood the ten points as a bold statement, it is now increasingly obvious to jews and christian alike that the document demands updating and new perspectives. for instance, the seelisberg document never discusses the importance of covenantal theology. it does not address religious pluralism or the state of israel, critically relevant topics that contemporary interreligious dialogue explores. the ten points were addressed only to christians. today, after six decades of expanded dialogue, a new text would properly address both christians and jews. the introduction to the ten points also reflects the influence of third reich-era terminology, use of the phrase “a jewish problem,” for example, as if antisemitism were not first and foremost a “gentile problem.” while the ten points of seelisberg have contributed to the improvement of jewish-christian relations in a number of ways over decades, the time is now ripe to refine the statement in the interests of refuting contemporary anti-jewish theology and antisemitism, and for jews and christians together to address wider human needs. while the ten points of seelisberg have contributed to the improvement of jewish-christian relations in a number of ways over decades, the time is now ripe to refine the statement in the interests of refuting contemporary anti-jewish theology and antisemitism, and for jews and christians together to address wider human needs. the 1947 emergency conference on antisemitism in seelisberg also called for the establishment of an international council of christians and jews “without delay.” the following year in fribourg, switzerland, a constitution for the nascent studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): iccj 1-22 iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 organization was adopted, an office in geneva was opened and an address in london was established. the initial phase of iccj’s existence lasted only a short time. the member organization from the united states─the national conference of christians and jews─concluded after the fribourg meeting that an international council of christians and jews would have an agenda both too narrow and too religious to combat antisemitism and other forms of intergroup prejudices effectively. it set up a world brotherhood project, while the european christian-jewish dialogue groups continued to focus particularly on improving the relations between jews and christians. the iccj office in geneva was closed, although the london address continued. a number of important statements and documents were published in the first years after world war ii. at its first assembly in amsterdam in 1948, the world council of churches declared that antisemitism, “no matter its origin [was]…absolutely irreconcilable with the profession and practice of the christian faith….[it] is a sin against god and man.” although this statement was powerful and accurate, what still demanded exploration were the ways in which christian anti-jewish teachings and actions had informed and nurtured antisemitism, a topic of particular interest to the embryonic iccj. another challenge arose when in 1950 a vatican directive charging the iccj to be “indifferentist,” meaning that it allegedly held all religions to be of equal status, precluded catholics from cooperating with the iccj. this limitation changed completely when the catholic church adopted a more positive outlook toward other religions during the second vatican council. nonetheless, a growing number of european jewish-christian dialogue groups cooperated in the formation of an “informal liaison committee” in the mid-1950s, and in 1962 of an “international consultative committee” supervised by william simpson. after the nccj joined the consultative organization, its representative proposed in a 1974 meeting in basel, switzerland, that the committee’s name become the “international council of christians and jews.” thus, 26 years after its first establishment at the 1948 fribourg conference, the iccj finally came into full existence. b. six decades of growth 1. developments in biblical scholarship scholars devoted to the historical-critical study of the christian old testament made great progress during the 19 th century: biblical texts were examined against the background of contemporary writings, philological research flourished, and there was great interest in reconstructing the history of ancient israel. however, some influential scholars, such as julius wellhausen (1844-1918), expressed christian teaching of contempt against jews in asserting that old testament passages could be dated by the extent to which they reflected “genuine spirituality.” wellhausen and others argued that texts they judged to be narrow-minded and rigid demonstrated a decline from the high spirituality of the hebrew prophets to a sterile legalism that supposedly prevailed in judaism after the babylonian exile. the unspoken message─made explicit by some later christian scholars─was that the jesus movement was a religious reformation that returned to its authentic hebrew sources and interpreted them in their original sense, before their distortion by legalistic judaism. the latter characterization was given the technical term spätjudentum (“late judaism”), a supposed but far from neutral way to describe jewish faith and life at the time of jesus. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): iccj 1-22 iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 if, according to this construct, post-exilic or second temple judaism can be described as a religious failure marked by a soulless spirituality, and if judaism at the time of jesus can be described as “late,” then a spiritually legitimate judaism would have ceased and judaism today would have no reason to exist. post-world war ii biblical studies have challenged such self-serving arguments. the discoveries of texts─e.g., the library of nag hammadi and the dead sea scrolls in qumran─have reminded biblical scholars that there was considerable variety in christianity and judaism during the first centuries of the common era. scholars studying the historical jesus and paul have also realized that their own agendas and methods have sometimes rested on tenuous presuppositions. although previous generations of scholars portrayed jesus and paul as constantly in conflict with their contemporaries, a growing number now address the historical fact that jesus’ and paul’s debates with their jewish contemporaries reflect their firm grounding in judaism and continuing identification with it. new testament scholar lloyd gaston has argued that in critical scholarship anything that makes jesus sound like a first-century jew is to be preferred to anything that makes him sound like a twentieth-century christian. the most obvious example of scholarly reassessment concerns the role of the law in the new testament. scholars used to describe the law as having been “abrogated,” “annulled” or “replaced.” contemporary scholarship generally avoids these anachronistic and antinomian presentations of earliest christianity. jesus is often presented not as a teacher who contested the law, but as one who based his teaching on the torah (the pentateuch), neviim (the prophets) and ketuvim (the writings). texts such as matt. 5:17: “do not think that i have come to abolish the law or the prophets. i have come not to abolish but to fulfill,” receive greater weight in contemporary studies. recent scholarship increasingly portrays the historical paul first and foremost as “an apostle to the gentiles” (cf., rom 11:13; gal 2:8). his mission was not to condemn jewish torah-piety but to invite gentiles into a covenantal relationship with the god of israel. the motivating force in his theology is inclusion rather than exclusion. arguably, his apostolic vision is nowhere presented more clearly than in rom. 15:8ff: “christ has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of the truth of god in order that he might confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, and in order that the gentiles might glorify god for his mercy.” one of the perennial issues confronting biblical scholarship is the “deicide charge,” the accusation against jews that they, collectively and individually, are guilty of murdering god (as suggested, for instance, by 1 th 2:14-16; mt 27:25; jn 19:13-16; acts 3:14-15). given this accusation’s history of inciting christian antipathy toward jews, the relevant new testament texts that narrate a “trial” leading to the execution of jesus are of great importance. many researchers hesitate to use the word “trial” to describe these passages because there are so many questions about their historical accuracy. a substantial consensus of scholarly opinion agrees with krister stendahl: that “…as the story grew and developed the burden of guilt for jesus’ crucifixion shifted from pilate to the high priests, from the high priests to the pharisees, and on to ‘the jews.’” historical research around the death of jesus emphasizes often-forgotten facts such as pontius pilate’s reputation. the writer philo cites “the briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injuries, the executions without trial constantly repeated the ceaseless and supremely grievous cruelty.” in addition, the temple leadership was co-opted by the studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): iccj 1-22 iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 roman authorities and caiaphas could function as the high priest only with pilate’s consent; crucifixion was used by the romans for crimes against the state and jesus was crucified as a pretender “king of the jews;” only a tiny fraction of the jewish people would even have heard of jesus at the time of his death, and most important, jesus seems to have been popular with the common people (cf., luke 20:19). both caiaphas and pilate were interested in maintaining the peace during the volatile passover season, and jesus, who regularly proclaimed the coming of a “kingdom of god,” was perceived as a threat of order and stability. any christian inclination to accuse the jewish people of the death of jesus lacks historical plausibility. the view is also theologically meaningless. from a christian point of view, everyone is blameworthy in the death of jesus. s. mark heim has said, “the moment we point a finger at some ‘they’ as jesus’ killers, we have enacted the sin that the very particularity of the cross meant to overcome.” tragically, the practice of interpreting new testament texts to prove that jews were cursed by god and should be demeaned in christian society became habitual in european christendom. today it is self-evident that christians have a particular responsibility to interpret with great care those new testament passages that have provoked disregard and antagonism toward judaism. 2. the impact of the shoah any consideration of the holocaust must include elie wiesel’s dictum that “to forget the victims is in fact to kill them a second time.” preserving the memory of those who perished under nazism must remain a prime obligation both of jews and christians. the shoah opens the door for powerful reflection on a number of central issues challenging global society. for people of faith, understanding how god relates to the well-being of humanity emerges as a central question. if god is portrayed as all-powerful and deeply involved with humanity, the shoah can leave us with the image of an uncaring god who did not use divine power to save those with whom god was in a covenantal relationship. in another sense, to marginalize god’s influence on human society leaves a void easily filled by a disastrous ideology. so the challenge is to refine the relationship between god and the human community in a way that sees them as covenantal partners with co-responsibility for the future of all creation. reflection on the shoah propels the effort to place human rights and human dignity at the core of religious faith. that the nazi campaign of mass murder was necessary to initiate international covenants supporting human rights and opposing genocide is nothing short of tragic. it is incumbent on faith communities to acknowledge that their existence can never be pursued in ways that neglect or undercut human dignity and rights of others. the shoah presses upon people of all faiths a responsibility to combat religious bigotry and violence. classical christian antisemitism, while not the sole cause of the holocaust, contributed to its implementation and weakened christian opposition. no religious tradition can assume moral leadership until it first rids itself of all violent tendencies, including demeaning and hateful language and imagery towards those outside its community of belief. this represents a special challenge for religious education and preaching. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): iccj 1-22 iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 the shoah reflects the importance of building solidarity across racial, ethnic and religious lines in times of relative social peace. if such bonds are not in place when social crises arise, it will prove difficult or impossible to build them on short term notice under duress. study of the rescuers during the shoah demonstrates that moral education must be implanted in people at an early age, particularly within the family. concern for the other must become a deeply ingrained, natural response. 3. changes in institutions and their teachings in the six decades since seelisberg, numerous christian churches have issued statements, with varying degrees of authority, on the subjects of jews and judaism and of christian-jewish relations. these are the result of self-examinations generated by the shoah and of an unprecedented number of serious dialogues between jews and christians. some statements address historical matters, particularly the shoah, while others treat biblical or theological issues. those churches with centralized authority structures have tended to produce a greater number of documents whose goal is to alter education and practice, while more congregationally organized churches have tended to compose texts for study and discussion. in all cases, it is challenging to internalize new perspectives and attitudes throughout each faith community. among catholic and traditional reformation churches in the west, the following ideas have been expressed frequently. in general, eastern christianity is only beginning to grapple with the fuller implications of positive relations with jews. 1. jews remain in a covenantal relationship with god. the christian churches’ “new covenant” did not terminate israel’s covenantal life with god lived through the torah. 2. the denigration of judaism and all forms of antisemitism are sins against god. 3. over the centuries, christian teaching and preaching have contributed to antisemitism. certain new testament texts have regularly been misinterpreted or taken out of context and used to promote hostility. no divine curse on jews can be asserted on the basis of the new testament. 4. there exists a divinely willed ongoing relationship between judaism and christianity, a relationship that is unique among the world religions. judaism has its own distinctive purpose in the divine plan that goes beyond the preparation for christianity. 5. jesus was and always remained a jew, a son of israel. he was not opposed to the torah or the judaism of his day. 6. christians must learn to understand and affirm jewish self-understanding of their own religious experience. this includes respect for jewish attachment to eretz yisrael─the land of israel. 7. christians can learn more about the one god and their relationship with god, as well as about christianity, from the traditions of judaism over the centuries and from the living faith of contemporary jews. 8. the hebrew scriptures (tanakh) have spiritual value as revelatory texts irrespective of later christian re-readings of them through the lens of faith in christ. 9. christian understandings of the relationship between the “old testament” and the “new testament” in terms of promise and fulfillment must be seen as still awaiting the complete fulfillment of god’s designs in the coming kingdom. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): iccj 1-22 iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 10. jews and christians both have the covenantal duty to prepare for the age to come or reign of god by pursuing justice, peace and the integrity of all creation. these convictions represent authentic changes, in some cases total reversals, of attitudes that prevailed among christians for almost two millennia. they pose profound theological challenges to christian self-understanding. jews are also challenged by such unfamiliar christian teachings. to the degree that jewish self-understanding has been influenced by christianity, significant reforms in christian attitudes inevitably affect jewish thought as well. this includes the development of a positive jewish religious view of christianity as a legitimate, non-idolatrous faith. it is not surprising that some members of both communities prefer to avoid or marginalize dialogue. the core identity questions arising from substantive christian-jewish dialogue are seen as threatening or diminishing previous understandings. the iccj, however, believes that dialogue between jews and christians must intensify along with the mutual trust and respect that strengthens participants in their respective religious identities and practices. 4. lessons learned from decades of dialogue since the seelisberg conference, the deepening encounter between jews and christians has demonstrated that a sustained relationship can produce real change. we have progressed from the initial, tentative conversations in which we first had to set aside our preconceptions and learn about the “other” through that person’s own self-understanding. we are now at a point where empathy and honest self-criticism have made possible open discussion of fundamental differences and frank treatment of the disagreement and conflicts that conflicts that inevitably arise. the critical study of religion and history has provided a much clearer, shared understanding of the complexity of the historical, scriptural and theological issues that both unite and divide christians and jews. we understand that jewish-christian relations are not a “problem” that is going to be “solved” but rather a continuing process of learning and refinement. this process not only makes it possible for us to live together in peace but also enriches our understanding of our own tradition and of ourselves as children of god and religious people. even within the community of dialogue, we continue to learn the deep-seated patterns of thinking and fear that are obstacles to true mutuality. we are keenly aware that there are parts of the jewish and the christian worlds that remain untouched by dialogue and are resistant or even opposed to it, with much work remaining. in some cases, advances based on the dialogue have been ignored or reversed. this points to the need for the development of theologies across both traditions that affirm the permanent religious authenticity and integrity of the jewish or christian other. we are learning to better appreciate the different memories and agendas that christians and jews bring to their exchanges. we are convinced that authentic dialogue never seeks to persuade the other of one’s own truth claims, but rather to change one’s own heart by understanding others on their own terms, to whatever degree possible. in fact, interreligious dialogue in the fullest sense of the term is impossible if any of the parties harbor desires to convert the other. it is also the general experience of both christians and jews that interreligious studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): iccj 1-22 iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 18 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 dialogue provides deeper insights into one’s own religious tradition. most dialogue has occurred where jews and christians live in geographical proximity. it is important to eradicate stereotypes and promote accurate understandings of each other’s traditions among those who may live at great distance from the other community or have no contact with it. we are also committed to the belief that the example of jewish-christian dialogue can be an inspiration and a model for other religious groups in conflict. in recent years, both jews and christians have come to understand the critical need to build a dialogue with muslims. this realization makes it tempting to assume that the work of jewish-christian relations is done and our attention can now be turned to our muslim brothers and sisters. while the need for dialogue with islam is pressing, it would be a mistake to abandon the jewish-christian effort, both because it serves as a successful model and because the work is unfinished. to ignore islam would also be a mistake, both because of the size and geo-political significance of the muslim community and because of the convergent and divergent religious claims among the three traditions. engaging islam in interreligious dialogue is not as simple as merely placing another chair at the table; while we have learned important lessons from the jewish-christian conversation, the one with islam will develop its own methodologies reflecting the different dynamics that emerge in both bilateral and trilateral encounters. as jews and christians we have come to understand more and more deeply that the lasting meaning of our dialogue will come from something more than promoting tolerance and understanding, as laudable as these goals are. it must also enable us as religious people to work together to address the challenges in today’s world─perhaps most notably, responsible stewardship of the environment and protection of human life and freedoms. 5. christian-jewish dialogue and the state of israel the foundation of the state of israel has had a profound impact on contemporary jewish self-understanding, and by extension, on dialogue between christians and jews. for several reasons conversations about the state of israel and the middle east are often difficult and contentious, even where there is mutual trust between jews and christians. first, religious and political factors combine with the complex geopolitics, disputes and history of the region in ways that are not easily understood. second, there is a range of viewpoints about the state of israel within the jewish and christian communities. third, jews and christians generally have a fundamental difference in perspective about the significance of the land─as distinct from the state─of israel. this difference is rooted in the ways in which the two groups developed as they separated from one another, especially in how they responded to the roman destruction of the temple of jerusalem in the year 70 and to the definitive loss of jewish self-rule after 135. the early rabbis substituted the jewish home for the vanished temple as the central locus of celebration, and communal prayer and study took the place of the temple’s sacrificial rituals. the rabbis’ creative work allowed judaism and the jewish people to survive without a homeland. yet attachment to the land of israel remained enshrined in jewish historical memory, finding expression throughout rabbinic culture, tradition and liturgy throughout the centuries when no state of israel existed. new interpretations and understandings of the temple and the studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): iccj 1-22 iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 19 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 land also began to take shape among the jews and gentiles in the earliest churches. for nascent christianity, the resurrected jesus became the focus of worship. his victory over death itself was seen as important for all humanity and not restricted to a specific geographic location. this universalist view was later coupled with a polemic that interpreted the jews’ loss of national sovereignty as evidence of divine punishment for their refusal to accept jesus christ. over time, christians have had conflicted attitudes about the land of israel. while some focused on the heavenly jerusalem in the afterlife, others promoted pilgrimages to the places where jesus walked. in recent centuries, some strands of christian evangelicalism anticipated a jewish ingathering to their ancestral homeland as a pre-condition for the return of jesus christ. although some christians did not see any religious significance in the 1948 foundation of the state of israel, many welcomed its creation as a haven for oppressed jews everywhere. others saw the demise of the notion that god intended jews to be homeless wanderers, while still others saw the possible dawning of the end of days. these various perspectives interacting within and among christians are one important factor when christians dialogue with jews about the state of israel. among jews, the idea of re-establishing a national homeland arose in the 19 th century in a movement called zionism, one of many nationalistic movements of the time. zionism was a pluralistic endeavor comprising many different points of view: religious and secular, liberal and conservative, socialist and capitalist. not all zionists were jews, and not all jews were zionists. however, the shoah convinced almost all jews, including those who had previously been indifferent or opposed, of the need for a jewish homeland where jews could control their own destiny. the foundation of the state of israel was the most important collective project of the jewish people in modern times. its safety and security now constitute a priority for the vast majority of jews everywhere, who link their survival as a people with the survival of their national homeland. this is a conviction that many jews bring to interreligious dialogue. recognizing and honoring this central jewish connection to israel does not mean that any specific religious perspective─jewish, christian or muslim─can or should resolve current political conflicts. the birth of the state of israel as a political reality has led many thoughtful christians to reevaluate their theological presuppositions about the exile and return of the jewish people, the people of israel. but a renewed theology does not provide answers to specific political problems. similarly, muslim territorial claims to the land of palestine─or any land─based on islamic theology, cannot provide the sole grounds for political solutions, neither can territorial assertions made by jewish groups based on religious claims. in short, territorial claims and political stability cannot rest on debated interpretations of different scriptures or theologies. issues of legitimacy, borders, rights, citizenship, recompense and security can only be resolved through the agreement of all relevant parties on the basis of international law and backed by credible measures of implementation. among the most pressing political and social problems is the catastrophic plight of the palestinian people. arguments over the many contributing causes of this situation must not distract the international community, including israel and neighboring arab states, from the urgent need to address the suffering and rehabilitation of palestinian refugees. a concomitant palestinian recognition of israel’s self-understanding is also urgently required for the establishment of peace and stability. the state of israel has many achievements and accomplishments, but also faces many problems and challenges in living up to its state ideals, including guaranteeing equal status for all studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): iccj 1-22 iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 20 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 its citizens. it is not unique among the nations of the earth in this respect. when jews, christians and muslims engage in interreligious dialogue about these matters there is always the potential for antisemitism and islamophobia and for hypersensitive perceptions and allegations of these twin curses. those engaged in dialogue ought to be able to criticize freely the government of israel and its policies without being automatically accused of antisemitism or anti-zionism. likewise, they should be free to critique the failings of muslim leaders─secular or religious─and the policies of muslim nations without being charged with harboring irrational fears of islam. local christian leaders can also be critiqued without invoking charges of anti-christian motives. on the other hand, when criticism singles out the state of israel according to standards not demanded of other nations, when israel is denounced for military reprisals without condemnation of the attacks that provoked them, when islam is branded as the religion of terrorists on the basis of statements and actions of radical extremists, when palestinians are refused recognition as a distinct nationality─in short, whenever stereotypes and canards are invoked, the presence of ethnic or religious bigotry must be acknowledged and confronted. jews can expect their dialogue partners to support the rights of the state of israel as a nation without expecting they will defend all its actions and policies. muslims can expect their dialogue partners to defend the rights and needs of palestinians without expecting them to support all their claims and actions or to overlook failures. christians can expect their dialogue partners to recognize the plight of christians in the region, who are often buffeted minorities caught between contesting religious majorities, without expecting them to abandon their own priorities. and those christians too should expect criticism if their declarations serve anti-semitic purposes. we believe that interreligious dialogues cannot avoid difficult questions if meaningful and lasting relationships are to develop. bilateral and trilateral interreligious dialogues can contribute to peace by eliminating caricatures and promoting authentic mutual understanding. interreligious dialogue can also encourage political leaders to seek the welfare of everyone, and not simply of one’s own religious or ethnic group. c. the road ahead 1. the changing world of the 21st century today’s world is a place of turmoil and rapid change. in the nearly 70 years since the outbreak of world war ii, about 28 million persons have been killed in wars and other conflicts. about 75 million people have been made refugees. these refugees fleeing war and persecution, and immigrants fleeing poverty and hopelessness have changed the demographics of western europe and the americas. many have encountered prejudice and discrimination in their new settings. some have brought with them hatred and prejudice nurtured in other conflicts and cultures. populations once dominant in a particular place can find themselves slipping towards minority status. both growing minorities and dwindling majorities are tempted to respond to shifting demographics by adopting a “siege mentality” that reinforces religious dogmatism and fundamentalist perspectives. many people living amid reshuffling populations have struggled with the problem of multiple identities, as they have tried to balance national, ethnic, religious, gender and age-related issues at any given time. in these environments, interreligious dialogue is more necessary and more difficult. yet dialogue empowers people to studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): iccj 1-22 iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 21 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 explore their experiences of grappling with competing identities. we are more acutely aware of conflicts engendered around the globe by a process of globalization that both shrinks and enlarges our world. it is larger because a century ago, despite huge waves of immigration to the new world, most people were likely to be born, grow up, live and die within a small geographical area. their experience of the world was limited by the ranges of train and ship, with air travel increasing by mid-century. today, no place on the planet is beyond reach. media reports supplement physical travel, showing countries and cultures beyond the experience of most. we have been exposed to the unfathomable diversity of human life, and our horizons have widened. the world seems larger. the same technologies that bring every corner of the globe onto our television and computer screens are also shrinking our world. an exploding volcano, a tsunami, a bomb blast is known globally within minutes and has global repercussions. the promise of instant communication─that it would bring the world together, facilitate understanding, and overcome barriers─has often soured with the realization that it can spread calumny and advance hatred. while technology is a priceless tool for communication, information and research, its outlets are sometimes infected with misinformation and defamation. internet hate sites abound, slander proliferates at electronic speed, and rampant pornography dehumanizes and objectifies people. while we oppose all prejudice based on race, ethnicity and ideology, whatever is rooted in religious bias and bigotry must especially concern us as committed religious individuals and organizations. the rapid shifts in population, technologies and societies that characterize civilization today challenge christians and jews, as they do all people, and raise new insecurities. thus the need is unprecedented for interreligious dialogue, understanding and cooperation that keeps pace with our changing world, helping us face its challenges together. 2. iccj and the future we, the international council of christians and jews, coming together to mark the promulgation of the ten points of seelisberg, have reflected on the intervening six decades as well as the unique challenges of the 21 st century. at this point in the history of our world and of our respective religious traditions, traditions, we stand more committed than ever to the work of building understanding and solidarity among jews and christians. it has become clear to us that the emerging realities of the 21 st century require a reassessment of our interreligious relationships and new priorities for the future. this realization gives rise to the present document. we invite jews and christians everywhere to join us in pursuing the goals we have set for ourselves, goals which spring from our common conviction that god wants us─precisely as jews and christians─to prepare the world for the reign of god, the age to come of god’s justice and peace. we urge all women and men with similar ideals to collaborate in promoting human solidarity, understanding and prosperity. we invite everyone to walk with us as together we continue to build a new relationship between jews and christians and among all peoples. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): iccj 1-22 iccj, a time for recommitment iccj 22 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 acknowledgments the international council of christians and jews acknowledges the contribution to this document by: the authors: australia: marianne dacy austria: marcus himmelbauer germany: hanspeter heinz, friedhelm pieper israel: michael mcgarry, deborah weissman italy: joseph sievers netherlands: judith frishman, dick pruiksma poland: stanislaw krajewski sweden: jesper svartvik switzerland: martin klıckener united kingdom: marcus braybrooke, edward kessler united states: judith banki, mary c. boys, philip a. cunningham, ruth langer, john pawlikowski, david sandmel, michael signer external readers: united states: amy-jill levine, peter pettit external editor: united states: barbara king lord and for their helpful observations: australia: ehud bandel germany: anika bıhm, gunnel borgegard, daniela kıppler, abi pitum, eva schulz-jander, andrew steinman, martin stıhr, andrea thiemann israel: edward breuer, ophir yarden united kingdom: david gifford, andrew goldstein, marc saperstein, ruth weyl united states: amy eilberg, eugene j. fisher, richard sklba studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review brooks schramm and kirsi i. stjerna martin luther, the bible, and the jewish people: a reader (minneapolis: fortress press, 2012) eric w. gritsch martin luther’s anti-semitism: against his better judgment (grand rapids, michigan and cambridge, u.k.: eerdmans, 2012) franklin sherman, muhlenberg college (emeritus) in their new book, brooks schramm and kirsi i. stjerna give clear evidence that martin luther’s anti-jewish animus is not something that developed only in his later years, as is often thought, but rather was a life-long theme. they present selections from 27 luther texts containing comments on the jews and judaism, ranging from his early lectures on the psalms (1513-15), which were never published in luther’s lifetime but survived in manuscript, to his “admonition against the jews,” delivered just days before his death in 1546. the dominant theme throughout is that of the jews as a reprobate, disobedient, blind, and stubborn people who are condemned to lives of wandering and desolation, and who deserve no aid from the christian population; indeed, luther is incensed that they have not yet been driven completely out of germany. the notable exception is his treatise of 1523, “that jesus christ was born a jew,” but even this can be seen as largely tactical in nature, with luther urging that the jews be treated with kindness rather than scorn “in order that we might convert some of them.” the authors, who are a married couple, are both on the faculty of the lutheran theological seminary at gettysburg, pa, schramm as professor of biblical studies and stjerna as studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) professor of reformation church history and director of the institute of luther studies. the book originated in a seminar they taught jointly, and involved research in major libraries in europe as well as the united states. schramm contributes an introductory overview of “martin luther, the bible, and the jewish people,” while stjerna provides an extensive, historically nuanced essay on “the jew in luther’s world.” they provide theological and contextual introductions to each selection, as well as a jointly-authored afterword devoted to a plea to contemporary christians, including lutherans, to dissociate themselves from luther’s views. appropriately, they include as an appendix the statement in which the evangelical lutheran church in america does just that, its 1994 “declaration to the jewish community.” what were the sources of luther’s information or misinformation about jews and judaism? he relied chiefly on treatises by converted jews, who were eager to cast their former faith in an unfavorable light, as well as popular superstitions and caricatures. as schramm and stjerna poignantly write: martin luther never danced at a jewish wedding. he never broke bread at passover. he never shared a cup of sabbath wine. he never studied torah with a rabbi. he never held in his arms a newly circumcised jewish boy. he never saw the anguish of expelled jewish families vandalized at the hands of an irate christian mob. he never smelled the smoke of burning jewish martyrs (p. 203). what was active in luther’s mind was a phantasm of the jew, a concoction of all the negatives drawn from late medieval culture, and also from the bible. luther loved the old testament, in which by dint of creative exegesis he found christ and the gospel everywhere. but he practiced too often the exegetical trick of applying the prophets’ critiques of their own people and the psalmists’ confessions of guilt to the jews, while applying the promises of grace and forgiveness to the christians. schramm and stjerna maintain, indeed, that the studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr image of the jews as practitioners of works-righteousness, selfjustification, and empty ceremonies is the essential mirroropposite to luther’s most central doctrine, that of justification by faith. the authors provide a lengthy classified bibliography and a very useful chronology, including not only the events of luther’s lifetime but also an overview of the major expulsions and pogroms against the jewish people throughout europe from the 12th century onward. the book is further enriched by the inclusion of a number of woodcuts from luther’s time, which show only too clearly what the image of the jew was for his contemporaries. valuable, too, is the inclusion of the letter of the famous rabbi josel of rosheim protesting against luther’s outbursts. it is tragic, as the authors note, that luther refused rabbi josel’s request to meet with him for a personal discussion of the issues. an unavoidable weakness of the book is that since most of the selections are brief excerpts from longer works, the reader does not get the full impact of the relentless, pounding nature of luther’s arguments and accusations against the jews—in one case (“on the jews and their lies,” 1543), going on for 169 pages in the english translation. the authors themselves acknowledge that their approach is more calculated to display the “breadth” than the “depth” of the problem (p. 39). in a class or seminar, the solution would be to assign a longer reading from one of the treatises together with some or all of the selections in this volume. by a remarkable coincidence, a book on luther and the jews was also published in 2012 by the noted historian eric w. gritsch, who for more than a generation had held the same chair in reformation history at gettysburg now held by kirsi stjerna. gritsch, who after his retirement from gettysburg taught at st. mary’s university in baltimore and the melanchthon institute in houston, died in december, 2012; thus this would be his last publication. studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 8 (2013) gritsch fully agrees with shramm and stjerna that luther’s anti-jewishness was a lifelong phenomenon. he periodizes luther’s career in this respect as follows: “traditional polemics”(1513-21); “an interlude of pastoral evangelism” (152137); “a tragic conclusion” (1538); and “demonizing attacks” (1539-46). the citations gritsch presents, however, indicate that the second, benign period—centered on the 1523 treatise “that jesus christ was born a jew”—lasted much less than the 16 years he suggests; see, for example, the anti-jewish polemic in luther’s 1526 letter to the queen of hungary (pp. 57f.). as to 1538, which gritsch identifies as a pivotal date, that was the year that luther, in response to reports of christians in moravia being converted to a kind of 16th-century version of seventh-day adventism (worship on saturday, etc.), wrote his treatise “against the sabbatarians,” condemning these “judaizing” tendencies, and announcing, in effect, that he had “given up” on the jews, and would leave them to god’s judgment. it remained only for luther to become all too specific, in his final treatises and utterances of 1543-46, regarding how that judgment should be carried out by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. gritsch’s citations from luther nicely supplement those of schramm and stjerna, since the latter focus particularly (though not exclusively) on luther’s exegetical works, whereas gritsch quotes extensively also from his sermons and treatises. the result, putting the two together, is an overwhelming impression of both the intensity and the extent of luther’s antisemitism. as to that term, despite the fact that it is of 19thcentury origin, gritsch maintains that it is fully appropriate to apply it to luther, rather than the more innocuous term “antijudaism.” if anti-judaism is seen as merely theological—a disagreement about doctrine and exegesis—whereas antisemitism implies a hostility or hatred toward the jewish people as such, it is clear that martin luther crossed into the latter, and forcefully so. in his final chapter, gritsch surveys the complex after-history of luther’s anti-jewish writings. for long periods they were studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr unknown or ignored, then surfaced again on the initiative of one or another antisemitic individual or movement. as gritsch indicates, they played no small part in the organized antisemitism that led up to and was tragically consummated under nazism. in the course of his exposition, gritsch passes in review the comments on this topic of numerous other luther scholars, vigorously rejecting any attempt to excuse luther’s views or exonerate him from any blame for their effects. luther’s antisemitism, says gritsch, represents “the dark underside of his life and work,” a reality that must not be obscured (p. 141). microsoft word 154049-text.native.1234902321.doc henrix, good friday prayer in europe henrix 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college the controversy surrounding the 2008 good friday prayer in europe: the discussion and its theological implications h a n s h e r m a n n h e n r i x catholic academy of the aachen diocese, germany volume 3 (2008) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): henrix 1-19 henrix, good friday prayer in europe henrix 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 good friday of the year 2008 has a unique place in the history of catholic-jewish relations. the good friday prayer “for the jews” that was promulgated by pope benedict xvi and published in a note from the secretariat of state on february 4, 2008 triggered significant controversy affecting catholic-jewish relations. the 2008 text of the intercession reads: let us pray for the jews. that our god and lord enlighten their hearts so that they recognize jesus christ, the savior of all mankind. let us pray. let us kneel down. arise. eternal god almighty, you want all people to be saved and to arrive at the knowledge of the truth. graciously grant that when the fullness of nations enters your church, all israel will be saved. through christ our lord. 1 both the way the publication and communication were handled and the theological implications of the intercession generated this controversy. this article records the basic themes of the european discussion on this matter, reporting on the political dialogue accompanying the controversy. it will also raise questions about whether the 2008 good friday prayer should be understood as an opening for further catholic liturgical changes and about whether requests for jewish reciprocity liturgically are relevant. finally, this article will analyze the 2008 text, asking what criteria should apply to liturgical prayer; and it will present the coexistence of the two 1 “nota della segreteria di stato – 4 febbraio 2008,” l'osservatore romano – giornale quotidiano politico religioso, cxlviii n. 31 (wednesday, february 6, 2008), 1; in german: “note des staatssekretariats – february 4, 2008,” l’osservatore romano. wochenausgabe in deutscher sprache, 34, no. 6 (february 8, 2008), 1; quoted (with some changes) according to: reformulated tridentine rite prayer for jews, in: http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/ cjrelations/news/prayer_for_jews.htm. good friday prayers for the jews – that of the 1970 missal and that of the year 2008 – as a challenge for further theological reflection. i. the european discussion: differences in intensity and content in various countries european communities have engaged this controversial discussion in various ways and with differing intensities: in some places it continued actively for weeks in an argumentative or even polemical fashion among the religious communities and in the general public; in others it was reported in neutral terms, without bias towards one position or another. a. germany in germany, the controversy occupied the media and the general public for several weeks. there were many and various reactions, analyses and commentaries. rabbis and jewish representatives protested, saying that the good friday prayer “demeaned the jews,” and they lamented over a “rupture” in the mutual trust that had grown particularly under pope john paul ii. the central council of jews, representing the jewish community in germany, voiced the opinion that it was not possible to have dialogue with the vatican as long as the 2008 good friday prayer was not withdrawn. in addition, catholic voices, from the church and theology faculties, also expressed criticism of the new good friday prayer. a declaration by the discussion group “jews and christians” of the central committee of german catholics entitled “neue belastung der christlich-jüdischen beziehungen” [a new burden on christian-jewish relations] received much attention. 2 2 dated 29 february 2008. the declaration was repeatedly published – for example in: christ in der gegenwart 60:11 (march, 16, 2008): 122; kirche und israel 23 (2008): 86-88 and freiburger rundbrief nf 15 (2008): 193196 – and was rapidly translated into english as well. see “a new burden on christian-jewish relations – statement of the discussion group ’jews and christians‘ of the central committee of german catholics on the studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): henrix 1-19 henrix, good friday prayer in europe henrix 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 right after the news broke that the vatican secretariat of state intended to permit the general use of the 1962 missale romanum, this discussion group declared on april 8, 2007 that the 1962 missal’s language of the “blindness” of the jewish people and of its “darkness” contradicted “the conciliar declaration nostra aetate in a glaring way.” 3 their 2008 statement on the new good friday intercession outlined the theological problematic it posed, raising the following issues: irritating questions are raised by this prayer. if the tridentine rite of 1570 (last revised in the roman missal of 1962) spoke of blindness and darkness, and now, however, the new intercession prays for ”enlightening,” the question arises whether this is not only a friendlier sounding phrasing of the same thing. if the jews are to arrive at the realization and thus acknowledgement of jesus christ as the savior of all humanity, do they have then to convert to believing in jesus christ – in the course of history or only at its end? or will they see the savior of the world, when history, which is the time of faith, has come to an end? is the jews’ acknowledgement of jesus christ – when and however it takes place – a condition for their salvation? or are there two ways of salvation: one for the peoples entering into the church, and another for israel without the church? does the church go on with her hoping and praying for israel to be saved by leaving it to god? or must the church feel obliged to invite the jews by the evangelizing message – certainly without any coercion and without any compulsion – to believe in jesus christ and the gospel?” good friday prayer ’for the jews‘ in the extraordinary rite version of 2008,” at: http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=2937. the following quotation is according to this translation. 3 statement of the discussion group “jews and christians” of the central committee of german catholics (zdk), “störung der christlich-jüdischen beziehungen – zur wiedereinführung des tridentinischen ritus” [disturbance of christian-jewish relations – on the re-introduction of the tridentine rite], easter/pesah 2007 (manuscript). in the background, behind this statement, one could hear catholic voices expressing dismay over the contents and effect of pope benedict’s prayer of intercession. 4 at first the german bishops refrained from public comment. they were certainly grateful to walter cardinal kasper for his public statement concerning the criticism of the good friday prayer, published in the holy thursday edition, on march 20, 2008, of one of the most important german newspapers, the frankfurter allgemeine zeitung. cardinal kasper wrote that the new wording was necessary “because parts of the old wording were found insulting on the jewish side and were also found offensive by many catholics.” the cardinal primarily had catholic readers in mind when he drew attention to the jewish irritation over the new prayer of intercession, explaining, “the irritation on the jewish side is to a great extent not rationally but emotionally based.” he dedicated most attention to the question, “should christians pray for the conversion of the jews? can there be a mission to the jews? in the reformulated prayer the word conversion is not to be found. but it is there implicitly – in the petition that the jews be enlightened so that they recognise jesus christ.” 4 johannes röser, “neue ’tridentinische‘ karfreitagsfürbitte,“ christ in der gegenwart 60:8 (february 24, 2008): 83f., writes, “ich sehe eine deutliche kurskorrektur.“ see also the theologian albert gerhards on the changed good friday prayer in schwäbische zeitung (thursday, february 28, 2008); hanspeter heinz, “so darf die kirche nicht beten! eine neue karfreitagsfürbitte im alten geist,“ herderkorrespondenz 62 (2008): 228231 and freiburger rundbrief nf 15 (2008): 196-202; and “ernste störungen der christlich-jüdischen beziehungen,“ kirche und israel 23 (2008): 54-57; heinz-günther schöttler, “die neue karfreitagsfürbitte und ihre theologie: eine nachhaltige störung der christlich-jüdischen beziehungen,“ bibel und liturgie 81 (2008): 145-152; hanspeter heinz, “wenn ein gebet zum ärgernis wird: zur neuen karfreitagsfürbitte benedikts xvi. im tridentinischen ritus,” concilium 44 (2008): 368-372. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): henrix 1-19 henrix, good friday prayer in europe henrix 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 in his analysis of the prayer, cardinal kasper emphasized that pope benedict was referring to romans 11, where paul speaks of the salvation of all of israel once the full number of the gentiles has been saved. “so one can say that it is not on the basis of a mission to the jews, but on the basis of a mission to the gentiles that god, at the end, when the full number of the gentiles has come in, will bring about the salvation of israel.” he underlined his understanding of the prayer by means of a more focused theological statement: prayers for the coming of god’s kingdom and for the fulfilment of the mystery of salvation…respect the complete inscrutability of the hidden god. so with this prayer the church does not take direct charge of the fulfilment of the unfathomable mystery. she just cannot do that. rather, she leaves the when and the how wholly in god’s hands. god alone can initiate the kingdom of god in which all israel is saved, and eschatological peace is granted to the world. of course, the eschatological interpretation of the good friday prayer does not exclude that christians must witness “to their ‘elder brothers and sisters in the faith of abraham’ (john paul ii).” 5 cardinal kasper’s important commentary did not really succeed in calming public discussion in germany. the critical voices did not cease, and so karl cardinal lehmann finally saw the need to intervene. as president of the german bishops conference, he had written to the secretary of state tarcisio cardinal bertone on 5 walter cardinal kasper, “das wann und wie entscheidet gott,“ frankfurter allgemeine zeitung 68 (thursday, march 20, 2008): 39; republished with slight changes and many added footnotes as ”zur diskussion um die geänderte karfreitagsfürbitte,“ l’osservatore romano: wochenausgabe in deutscher sprache 38:16 (april 18, 2008): 11. quotations here according to the english translation, “god decides the when and the how,“ pdf available from: http://billcork.wordpress.com/ 2008/04/08/walter-kasper-on-christians-and-jews/ (april 8, 2008). october 21, 2007 requesting that when revising the good friday liturgy of the 1962 missale romanum, the prayer of intercession for the jews be copied from the ordinary rite. now that the discussion of the 2008 good friday prayer was not calming down, he commented on the current controversy under the title: “nicht grenzenlos belastbar” [not to be burdened endlessly]. there he opined, among other things: even if it is to be regretted that there are now two versions (of the good friday prayer for the jews), many interpretations not only express a misunderstanding, but are also expressed with vocabulary that really gives reason for criticism: “ice age,” “step backwards,” “unreasonable demand,” “burden”… many egregious reproaches (that are) absolutely unfounded. for example, try as i might, i find here no call, not even an indirect one, for mission to the jews. not one jot is taken away from our esteem for judaism. official voices are already saying that “without the withdrawal of the good friday prayer, no conversations with the catholic church” will be possible anymore. walter cardinal kasper, who is also responsible in the vatican for religious dialogue with judaism, has said what is necessary concerning this reproach. 6 several contributions in a new anthology precisely on the new good friday prayer for the jews nevertheless referred critically to cardinal kasper’s analysis. 7 in particular, some of the seven jewish authors in the book expressed bitterness over the cardinal’s statement, “the irritation on the jewish side is to a great extent not rationally but emotionally based.” the ten catholic authors 6 karl cardinal lehmann, “nicht grenzenlos belastbar: zur diskussion um die karfreitagsfürbitte im jüdisch-christlichen dialog, gastkommentar,” glaube und leben: kirchenzeitung für das bistum mainz 64:14 (april 6, 2008): 9. 7 “… damit sie jesus christus erkennen.“ die neue karfreitagsfürbitte für die juden, ed. walter homolka, erich zenger (freiburg: herder, 2008). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): henrix 1-19 henrix, good friday prayer in europe henrix 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 evaluated the current catholic-jewish relationship and discussed the theological questions raised by the good friday prayer; most of them were critical, but others presented a more positive reading of the 2008 prayer of intercession. b. austria in austria, the country’s israelitische kultusgemeinde [jewish religious community] declared its objection to the 2008 good friday prayer by suspending official contacts with the catholic church. in light of this public protest, the archbishop of vienna, christoph cardinal schönborn, repeated his understanding of the good friday prayer, which he had first published as “judaism’s way to salvation” in the british periodical the tablet, an article that was much discussed in europe and beyond. in it, the cardinal linked the good friday prayer directly with the question regarding mission to the jews: again and again, most recently concerning the revised good friday prayer for the ”old rite,” this question of the ”mission to the jews” keeps arising. some theologians today are of the opinion that christians should give up all attempts to missionize the jews. some go even further and think that there is no need to offer the jews entry into the new covenant in jesus christ as god's covenant with the people of israel was never revoked. the ”old covenant” is the way to salvation for the jews and the ”new covenant” the way to salvation for gentiles, they say. this theory of ”two ways to salvation”’ is, however, rightly seen as incompatible with the catholic belief in one salvation in jesus christ, as avery cardinal dulles pointed out in the jesuit journal america in october 2002. the cardinal emphasized that although according to the new testament and the christian view there is only one salvation in jesus christ, there are nevertheless two modalities for proclaiming and accepting this salvation, and they need to be distinguished clearly: god's choice of the jews in his plan for the world…calls for particular attention on the part of the church regarding the way in which the gospel message is proclaimed to the jews by her children. the individual conscience must always be respected. religious liberty requires this of everyone. but the vocation of the jews requires christians to recognise the mystery of the specific choice of those to whom belong “the adoption [as children], the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the messiah” (rom 9:4-5). the fact that the church has apologised for the diverse forms of compulsion which they have had to suffer throughout the christian era implies that christians have now irrevocably renounced all forms of proselytism. 8 the cardinal repeated his position in another article, in which he explained again: …that according to new testament and christian understanding, there is only one salvation through jesus christ, but there are two modalities for proclaiming and accepting this salvation, which must be distinguished clearly. in this sense it must also be made clear that the offer to the jews to recognize in jesus of nazareth the messiah of israel cannot simply be equated with jesus’ commission to make all (pagan) nations his disciples (cf. mt 28:18-20). 9 8 christoph schönborn, “judaism’s way to salvation,” the tablet (march 29, 2008), http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/11223/. 9 “karfreitagsfürbitte: israelitische kultusgemeinde beendet dialog kardinal schönborn veröffentlicht klarstellung,” katholische nachrichten (april 17, 2008), http://www.kath.net/detail.php?id=19574. in a series of articles in their editions from march 22–26, the viennese daily newspaper der standard (vienna: standard verlagsgesellschaft) commented on the studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): henrix 1-19 henrix, good friday prayer in europe henrix 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 c. switzerland in switzerland, the jewish community’s public position was gentler than that in germany and austria. the schweizerische israelitische gemeindebund [swiss federation of jewish communities] deplored the “clear setback” from the teachings of the second vatican council. 10 catholic voices took part by lamenting that the prayer contains “not one word about…god’s covenant with his people that was never revoked” and that “christian sensibility about judaism was sacrificed for the sake of other interests.” 11 in a carefully argued contribution that controversy. they began with a polemical article by the editor alexandra föderl-schmid, who spoke of a “ridiculing of the jews,” a “relapse into the anti-judaism that was believed to have been overcome,” and of a “crusade” by the pope. others contradicted this assessment, or supported it, albeit in toned down form. on the one hand, paul schulmeister reproached it as showing “a lack of knowledge regarding the catholic position on the place of the ‘old covenant’ (that was never revoked) in salvation history.” kurt appel raised the corresponding necessity to understand the new good friday prayer against the background of “the awful passages about the blindness of the jews” in the earlier prayer of intercession. on the other hand, bert rebhandl wrote, “the new good friday prayer for the extraordinary rite...shows that the christian relationship to the jews had been defused over the past decades frequently for reasons of political correctness.” barbara coudenhovekalergi remarked critically concerning the new good friday prayer, “whoever knows how to read symbols will understand its language: discussion with the religious other is not the goal, but rather their conversion.” an austrian theological journal enabled a jewish voice to join the conversation. see walter homolka, “von der versöhnung zur eiszeit? katholische kirche und judentum entzweien sich über judenmission,” theologisch-praktische quartalsschrift 156 (2008): 247-258. 10 cf. michael maier, “juden aufgebracht über geändertes gebet zu karfreitag” tages anzeiger (march 18, 2008), http://sc.tagesanzeiger.ch/ dyn/news/ausland/852861.html. 11 jan-heiner tück, ”’für die juden:’ irritationen über die abgeänderte karfreitagsbitte,” neue zürcher zeitung, (friday, february 8, 2008), quotation according to: http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/kultur/aktuell/fuer _die_juden_1.667488.html; christian m. rutishauser sj, “unverständliches als anlass für tieferes verstehen karfreitagsfürbitte für die juden,” tachles, das jüdische wochenmagazin (march 7, 2008): 12. reconstructed the path towards the 2008 prayer, nikolaus klein, sj underlined that “the present-day debate on the wording of the good friday prayer is not over a trivial matter; rather, it wrestles with the church’s understanding of itself.” he sharpened his criticism with the point, “by omitting these themes (the irrevocability of god’s covenant with israel, and the fidelity of the jews to this covenant) from the prayer’s new wording, the fundamental thought process of the council’s declaration nostra aetate falls from sight.” 12 d. italy in italy, as in germany, austria and switzerland, well-known representatives of the jewish community expressed disappointment at pope benedict’s good friday prayer. riccardo di segni, the chief rabbi of rome, lamented a serious step backwards that represented a fundamental obstacle to progress in christian-jewish relations. similarly, giuseppe laras, the former chief rabbi of milan and current president of the italian conference of rabbis, spoke in favor of a pause for reflection in dialogue with the catholic church. in contrast, other jewish personalities defended the church’s right to define its own truth and thus also to desire the conversion of the jews. 13 these voices can be understood as an internal jewish echo of jacob neusner’s opinion, published in an article titled (in its english version) “catholics have a right to pray for us,” where he referred to the synagogue’s praxis of praying for non-jews. consequently, he claimed, other monotheists, including the church, should have the same right without anyone feeling 12 nikolaus klein, “israels glaubenszeugnis und die kirche,” orientierung 72 (2008): 82-84; quotations on p. 84. 13 luigi accattoli, “nuova preghiera per gli ebrei i rabbini: il problema resta il papa cambia. di segni e laras: no alla conversione,” corriere della sera (february 6, 2008): 25, http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2008/febbraio/ 06/nuova_preghiera_per_gli_ebrei_co_9_080206022.shtml. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): henrix 1-19 henrix, good friday prayer in europe henrix 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 offended. “any other policy toward gentiles would deny their access to the one god whom israel knows in the torah. and the catholic prayer expresses the same generous spirit that characterizes judaism at worship.” neusner justified his opinion by pointing out that in the alenu prayer, the synagogue liturgy thanks god for not having made his people like the other peoples, and it asks that the whole of humanity call upon god’s name and that every knee bow before him. judaism’s daily liturgy leaves no doubt as to israel’s request that god enlighten the hearts of the nations. these normative prayers in judaism form “the counterpart to the catholic one that asks for the salvation of all israel ‘in the fullness of time, when all mankind enters the church’.” 14 nevertheless, the amicizia ebraico cristiana [jewish christian friendship association] in naples came out with a statement supporting jewish criticism. 15 more than four hundred jewish and catholic figures in interreligious engagement, theology, and ecumenism in italy signed a statement on the jewish-catholic controversy “regarding the ‘prayer for the jews’.” they summed up their assessment of the prayer of intercession by saying, “we could not fail to express our regret over a decision which places more than forty years of dialogue at serious risk, insofar as anything that can make people think of attempts at conversion is irreconcilable with recognizing 14 jacob neusner, “monotheistische logik,” tagespost (february 23, 2008), http://www.die-tagespost.de/archiv/titel_anzeige.asp?id=38204; in italian as “un vescovo e un rabbino difendono la preghiera per la salvezza degli ebrei,” chiesa (march 7, 2008), http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/ articolo/193041; and in english, “catholics have a right to pray for us,” the forward (february 28, 2008), http://www.forward.com/articles/12787/. quotation according to jacob neusner, “catholics have a right to pray for us,“ (march 5, 2008) at www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=2936. 15 cf. letter of the jewish-christian friendship association [amicizia ebraico cristiana] of naples, in: www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/ pdf/naples_prayer_jews.pdf. and respecting the truth in another’s faith.” 16 otherwise, theologians largely refrained from public comment – awaiting a scholarly liturgical reconstruction of the new prayer’s sources. 17 those who tried to transmit the good friday prayer’s intentions in a positive way in italy were representatives of the church’s teaching body or the papal curia. archbishop gianfranco ravasi, an internationally renowned biblical scholar and the president of the papal council for cultural affairs, drew attention to the text’s form in a theological commentary: the first is strictly a “textual” consideration: we should recall that the word textus refers to the idea of “textile,” a fabric woven from different threads. the thirty-odd latin words that make up the oremus thus form a “fabric” woven exclusively of new testament threads. it is thus a language that belongs to sacred scripture. the archbishop reminded his readers that according to the church’s faith and hope, jesus christ is the source of salvation for everyone, and he continued, “it is neither a programmatic proposal of theoretical adherence nor a missionary strategy for conversion. it is the characteristic attitude of the prayerful invocation according to which a reality held precious and salvific is also desired for people considered as close, beloved and significant.” 18 cardinal 16 “a proposito della “preghiera per gli ebrei,” mosaico (march 25, 2008), http://www.mosaico-cem.it/article.php?section=intervento&id=67. 17 anthony ward, “sources of the new good friday intercession for the jews in the 1962 ’missale romanum‘,” ephemerides liturgicae 122 (2008): 250-255; the article ends by remarking, “it is difficult to know what the sequel to this latest development might be. since, however, the recent choice was not that of integrating into the 1962 edition of the missale romanum the text found in the 1970-2000 editions, it might well be that it, too, is not destined for a long time.” 18 gianfranco ravisi, “preghiamo per il fratello maggiore,” il regni documenti (march 10, 2008), 129ff. quoted according to: archbishop gianfranco ravasi, “oremus et pro iudaeis of the good friday liturgy. theological commentary,” l'osservatore romano. weekly edition in english march 12, 2008), 4. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): henrix 1-19 henrix, good friday prayer in europe henrix 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 kasper’s commentary on the good friday prayer was made available to the italian public in the april 10 italian edition of l’osservatore romano. 19 in his own way, he contributed towards calming the controversy in italy. e. france in other european countries such as france or poland, there were fewer original contributions to the controversy. some newspapers and internet sites did report extensively on the discussions in italy or germany. in so doing, french accounts and articles assured the readers that the text of the 2008 good friday prayer was a pastoral concession to groups at the margin of the catholic church and that it in no way changed the attitude towards judaism expressed in theology and dialogue. french translations of the commentaries by archbishop ravasi and of jacob neusner’s statement were also made available. in a letter to the editor of the newspaper la croix on march 3, the president of the “amitié judéo-chrétienne de france,” paul thibaud, wrote: to pray for someone means to enter into that person’s life, but as far as possible not from our perspective but rather from the perspective of god, our common father. to pray for others means to become free of our own wishes and decisions in order to seek the place where we can live with them in peace and can share the deepest longings. so there is an ethic of prayer, which is an ethic of communio, distinct from the ethic of dialogue, which identifies and explains differences. according to thibaud, the prayer for the jews in paul vi’s missal preserves this ethic. but he continues critically, asking whether the 2008 good friday prayer, with its intention that the jews recognize 19 walter kasper, “la discussione sulle recenti modifiche la preghiera del venerdì santo per gli ebrei,” l'osservatore romano – giornale quotidiano politico religioso cxlviii: 84 (thursday, april 10, 2008), 1f. jesus as the savior of all human beings, seeks this place of meeting and community. 20 f. poland in poland, important newspapers, such as the rzeczpospolita, and agencies reported on the current controversy so that the polish public was equally informed about the protests of jewish representatives in various countries and about the theological commentaries by cardinal kasper or archbishop ravasi. they also highlighted rabbi jacob neusner’s statement that catholics have the right to pray for the enlightenment of the jews. furthermore, reports pointed to traditional catholic groups that thanked and supported the pope for his good friday prayer by collecting signatures. 21 g. england in england, the jewish scholar and director of the cambridge institute of abrahamic religions, edward kessler, raised a critical voice in a pair of articles. he expressed that “the main reason that the prayer has touched a raw nerve in jewish-christian relations is because it deals with the themes of 20 for french responses including the french translation of jacob neusner’s statement, cf. the file at: http://www.sion.org/liturgie%20 tridentine.htm and the contribution by michel remaud, “dialogue et profession de foi,” at http://www.sion.org/juifsvendredisaint.htm . 21 see reports like the following, posted on the website polska rada chrześcijan i śydów: “rabini protestują, a katoliccy tradycjonaliści zbierają podpisy: rabini przeciw nawracaniu śydów” (february 21, 2008), http://www.prchiz.free.ngo.pl/prchizrabiniatrydpopup.html; romuald jakub weksler waszkinel, “odwrotu od dialogu nie będzie,” (no date) http://www.prchiz.free.ngo.pl/prchiztekstkswekslerapopup.html; “rabin jacob neusner, profesor historii i teologii judaizmu w bard colleg w nowym jorku, broni papieŝa przed krytyką ze strony ŝydowskiej,” (march 4, 2008), http://www.prchiz.free.ngo.pl/prchizrabinneusnerpopup.html; or archbishop ravasi, “modlitwa za śydów nie wyraŝa strategii nawracania” (no date) http://www.prchiz.free.ngo.pl/prchizabprawasipopup.html. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): henrix 1-19 henrix, good friday prayer in europe henrix 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 mission and conversion. for jews, christian missionary activity conjures up images of centuries of christian persecution.” since, in its new attitude towards judaism since the second vatican council, the church has turned to modes other than that of mission, “the revised prayer” now opens up “…a new and difficult conversation between catholics and jews on the meaning of christian mission.” 22 kessler pointed to the important statement in the new catechism of the catholic church 839 that “the jewish faith, unlike other non-christian religions, is already a response to god’s revelation,” and he linked this with what is said in the good friday prayer in the ordinary missal of 1970 “that jews will be deepened in the faith given to them by god.” in his opinion, the language of the 2008 intercession cannot be made congruent with this. rather, the latter intercession shows “that two divergent theological positions now exist.” the first position is held by a minority and holds “that the roman catholic church alone is the verus israel, the true israel, whose election is solely in christ and grasped in faith.” the other position is held by the church’s mainstream, that “jews are still the elect of god, part of the one people of god… they remain in an irrevocable covenant and in a special sense beloved by god.” although the catholic church does not include any expressly approved groups whose intention is to convert the jewish people to christianity, he suggests that the new prayer of intercession creates ambivalence as to the relationship between mission and the jewish people. 23 ii. the handling of the controversy around the 2008 good friday prayer the european discussion and controversy around the 2008 good friday prayer was most vehement in germany. two reasons 22 edward kessler, “more than mere satchel bearers,” the tablet (february 16, 2008), 11f. 23 edward kessler, “a church that looks both ways,” the tablet (february 23, 2008), 10f. for this can be identified. on the one hand, because of the burden of history of the shoah, the christian-jewish relationship receives continuing heightened attention from the german public. on the other hand, the publication of the good friday prayer occurred during the preparatory period for the 97 th katholikentag [congress of catholics], on the theme of “you set me free in the open (ps 18:20),” held may 21-25 in osnabrück. the weeks of preparation as well as the days during which this major event took place presented multiple opportunities for reports and commentaries on the good friday prayer. the katholikentag is held every two years in changing locations in may or june, beginning on a wednesday evening and continuing until noon on sunday. depending on the location, the number of participants varies from between thirty thousand to a hundred thousand. this year there were more than forty-five thousand. for almost forty years, the traditions of the katholikentag have included a central and well attended programmatic element with christian-jewish biblical dialogue, lectures and round table discussions as well as a celebration of community in which catholics and jews gather to pray. after the publication of the good friday prayer, a number of jewish guest speakers and rabbis who had agreed to collaborate on the 2008 katholikentag withdrew in protest. each withdrawal resulted in reports in the press and the media. the controversy around the good friday prayer was discussed at individual events during the katholikentag itself. jewish participants had the opportunity freely to express to catholic listeners their critical queries regarding pope benedict’s prayer. the gathering for prayer attended by almost one thousand faithful drew the most attention. rabbi henry brandt functioned as the jewish liturgist. using the theme of the katholikentag, “you set me free in the open,” he asked whether, after the christian-jewish relationship had been brought out into the open through the second vatican council and during the pontificate of john paul ii, a time of frightening narrowing was now following. it had taken the shoah to generate “the church’s alarmed awakening” and “a studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): henrix 1-19 henrix, good friday prayer in europe henrix 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 dramatic change” in the relationship between christians and jews. through the new good friday prayer “the jewish soul, particularly in germany, was wounded; people felt insulted.” rabbi brandt asked, “is this a change to the change?” the catholic liturgist, archbishop robert zollitzsch, president of the german bishops conference, responded to this question in his homily. he said that christians had had painstakingly to learn that the jews are “the people of the covenant that was never revoked.” this remains the teaching. “there will be no change to the change. the path leads forwards, and i stand here in order to guarantee that!” the participants in the celebration applauded enthusiastically. and when at the end the rabbi and the archbishop spontaneously exchanged the kiss of peace, the applause burst forth again and went on forever. 24 this as well as many reactions, questions, opinions and contributions from the participants in other events in osnabrück, showed the jewish guests that there exists among german catholics a strong acceptance of the second vatican council and its attitude of respect towards the jewish people and judaism. this was perceived in the wider german public as well, leading rabbinic conferences and jewish scholars to declare that they wanted to continue the dialogue with the catholic church. as of the fall of 24 cf. the articles, “im gespräch bleiben, katholikentag: juden und christen wollen dialog fortsetzen,” domradio (may 22, 1008), http://www.domradio.de/includes/katholikentag_2008/artikel_41431.html; “frust über vatikan: "welcher teufel reitet benedikt?" spiegel on line (may 23, 2008), http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,554908 ,00.html; “zollitzsch und brandt umarmen sich“ deutscher katholikentag osnabrück 2008 pressezentrum nachrichtenredaktion meldung nr. 146 (22. mai 2008), linked from http://www.katholikentag.net/2008/presse /nachrichten/ergebnis.php?sf0=datum&sf1=referent&sf2=veranstaltung&s o0=contains&so1=contains&so2=contains&sc0=and&ss0=&ss1=&ss2=&b s=20&_ds=1&bn=6&do=suchen; “der ergreifendste moment des katholikentags,“ christ in der gegenwart 60 (2008): 245; alwin renker, “’du führst uns hinaus ins weite,’ 97. deutscher katholikentag in osnabrück,” freiburger rundbrief nf 15 (2008): 284-289. 2008, it is clear that the controversy around the 2008 good friday prayer in germany has been calmed through political dialogue, even if the optimism of the past years has sobered. something comparable can surely be said for the situation of catholic-jewish dialogue at the world level. as of the fall of 2008, it appears that there has been a doublefaceted calming of the controversy around the 2008 good friday prayer “for the jews:” first, with the secretary of state tarcisio cardinal bertone’s letter of may 14, 2008 to the chief rabbinate of israel, the crisis has been worked through at the level of the official political dialogue. the secretary of state’s letter explicitly confirms “the catholic church's firm commitment, especially in the wake of the second vatican ecumenical council, to promote and develop relations with the jews through dialogue marked by profound respect, sincere esteem and cordial friendship. this commitment remains unchanged, especially in view of the spiritual links that exist between jews and christians.” 25 in its wording, this is a clear declaration of commitment to the epoch-making progress in the catholic-jewish relationship in recent decades. the explicit statements by the vatican granting a high degree of authority to walter cardinal kasper’s commentary on the new good friday prayer makes this general confirmation concrete and applies it to this particular controversy. cardinal bertone explicitly cited as the main point in cardinal kasper’s interpretation that “the new oremus et pro iudaeis is not intended to promote proselytizing among jews…and it opens up an eschatological perspective.” the double assurance, that the catholic church does not intend any proselytizing missionary activity and that the theological statement about recognizing jesus christ is a statement of eschatological faith, apparently gave the chief rabbinate of israel a basis for 25 quoted according to ”letter of card. tarcisio bertone in response to concerns on the revised good friday prayer,“ (may 15, 2008), http://www.sidic.org/en/doconlineview.asp?class=doc00604. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): henrix 1-19 henrix, good friday prayer in europe henrix 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 reopening the possibility of official contacts with the catholic church. it also seems that the irritation caused by the 2008 good friday prayer does not weigh heavily enough to cause the international jewish committee for interreligious consultations, the partner in the official catholic-jewish dialogue, to desist from this dialogue. 26 secondly, though, this important process of political dialogue has not clarified all of the theological questions raised by both jews and catholics about the good friday prayer. some of these questions were quoted above and are a task for ongoing catholic theological discussion as well as for catholic-jewish dialogue. they concern the worry that the 2008 good friday prayer might replace the prayer of intercession in the 1970 missale romanum. but they also address the problems presented by upholding two theologically inconsistent forms of the liturgical rite as well as those presented by the text of the 2008 intercession itself, its relationship with scripture and with wirkungsgeschichte, the lived history of this scripture and liturgy. reflection on these and other issues superimposes internal church matters on aspects of the church’s relationship with the jews and judaism. iii. does the 2008 good friday prayer open the door for other liturgical changes? initially, catholic theologians involved in catholic-jewish dialogue reacted spontaneously to the publication on february 4, 2008 of the new prayer of intercession with the concern that this revised prayer of intercession might be just a first step. some asked worriedly whether the good friday prayer of the 1970 missal would be changed so as to be closer to the 2008 good friday prayer. 27 as a theologian for whom the prayer of intercession in 26 thus some members of the ijcic in personal correspondence. 27 see the cautious note by anthony ward, “sources…,” 225: “it is difficult to know what the sequel to this latest development might be.” similarly, albert gerhards, “die fürbitte für die juden in ihrem liturgischen kontext,” the 1970 missal represents the heart of an ecumenically determined new post-conciliar “theology of judaism,” i shared this initial concern. but i reminded myself of the essential features in joseph cardinal ratzinger’s/pope benedict xvi’s theological view of israel. this 2008 good friday prayer, which benedict himself formulated, does not express the entirety of his theological view of the relationship between the church and the jews and judaism. as is apparent in cardinal ratzinger’s writings, his interest in the church’s relationship with jews and judaism grew during the 1990’s. his reflection rests on the fundamental conviction that jews and christians should accept one another, not by ignoring their specific faith or denying it, but from the center of that faith itself. thus, in the encounter of jews and christians, faith encounters faith – and this in the sense of the famous paragraph 839 of the catechism: “the jewish faith, unlike other non-christian religions, is already a response to god’s revelation.” hence, jewish faith is not a lack of faith or a heretical faith. pope benedict’s admonition to christians to “acknowledge god’s decree, according to which god apparently gave israel its own mission during the ‘time of the pagans’,” indirectly informs the theological problem posed by the good friday prayer. “the fathers say that the jews, to whom holy scripture was first entrusted, must remain alongside us as a witness to the world.” 28 the acknowledgment of the abiding reality of the church and israel as alongside one another is in its content close to the text of the 1970 intercession. that the highly respected 2001 document of the pontifical biblical commission, the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible, was written under cardinal ratzinger’s chairmanship, is also important in understanding the pope’s view of israel. this document insistently in “… damit sie jesus christus erkennen“…, 115-125, 124: „man fragt sich, ob diese modifikation der letzte eingriff gewesen ist.“ [“one wonders whether this modification will have been the last intervention.”] 28 joseph cardinal ratzinger, many religions, one covenant: israel, the church and the world, trans. graham harrison (ignatius, 1999), 104. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): henrix 1-19 henrix, good friday prayer in europe henrix 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 highlights the abiding theological dignity of post-biblical judaism. 29 finally, in his book on jesus, pope benedict reaffirmed a hermeneutically significant fact through his literary conversation with rabbi jacob neusner’s understanding of jesus: jewish voices have authority in christian theology’s search for understanding, and that applies even when the latter is occupied with and developing its christology. moreover, by characterizing jesus christ as “god’s living torah” in his book on jesus, pope benedict laid a foundation of continuity between the church and israel. he calls on christian theology to reflect further on this. 30 this evidence allows me to conclude that the 2008 good friday prayer will not open the door for further changes, and that benedict will not replace the intercession in the 1970 missal with his 2008 wording, but rather that the former will remain the ordinary liturgical form. the problem remains that two very different forms of the church’s liturgical prayer give expression to a serious ambivalence in public ecclesial prayer for the jews. this problem is an important aspect of the fundamental question regarding the co-existence of a double custom, the “ordinary” and the “extraordinary” form of the liturgy. catholic liturgists argue among themselves about this problem and the considerable ambivalence it creates. 31 29 available at: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/ pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html. on the german discussion, see eingebunden in das volk gottes: jüdischchristliche blickpunkte zum dokument der päpstlichen bibelkommission “das jüdische volk und seine heilige schrift in der christlichen bibel,“ ed. chr. dohmen (stuttgart: katholisches bibelwerk, 2003). 30 joseph ratzinger/benedikt xvi., jesus von nazareth. erster teil von der taufe im jordan bis zur verklärung (freiburg: herder, 2007); the pope’s conversation with jacob neusner’s book ein rabbi spricht mit jesus. ein jüdisch-christlicher dialog (freiburg: herder 2007) can be found on pp. 131-160. 31 ein ritus – zwei formen. die richtlinie papst benedikts xvi. zur liturgie, ed. albert gerhards (freiburg: herder, 2008). iv. “catholics have a right to pray for us” – on reciprocity and asymmetry in the christian-jewish relationship reports on the european discussions about the good friday prayer pointed out that rabbi jacob neusner, unlike numerous critical jewish voices, expressed understanding for pope benedict’s good friday prayer. he pointed to the synagogue’s praxis of praying for non-jews and referred to the alenu prayer in which the jewish community implicitly asks god to enlighten the hearts of the nations. this prayer is “the counterpart to the catholic one that asks for the salvation of all israel ‘in the fullness of time, when all mankind enters the church’.” 32 in rejecting jewish criticism of benedict’s good friday prayer, rabbi neusner presupposed that reciprocity is at issue. the vatican’s secretary of state tarcisio cardinal bertone in a subsequent interview in baku, azerbaijdan, called for “reciprocity” in the matters causing irritation between the jewish and the ecclesial faith communities. he said that, as highly respected jewish representatives had written, there are prayers on both sides that could be changed and that also possibly should be changed. what was required was an attitude of reciprocity and of respect while strengthening one’s own identity, and performing this without any desire for forced conversion whenever speaking of one’s own faith with the greatest possible respect for the other faith. 33 however, it does seem that in his call for reciprocity, cardinal bertone lost sight of the asymmetry that reigns both in the present case and in the fundamental relationship between christianity and judaism – because of their differences in age, in identity structure, and in the burdens of history they carry. 32 jacob neusner, “catholics have a right…”. 33 card. tarcisio bertone, “reciprocità sulla preghiera degli ebrei,” rinascimento sacro: blog del movimento liturgico benedettiano per la promozione della liturgica romana nella forma straordinaria (march 19, 2008), http://www.rinascimentosacro.com/2008/03/bertone-reciprocit-sulla -preghiera.html. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): henrix 1-19 henrix, good friday prayer in europe henrix 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 consequently, his expectation that the jewish side might change an old prayer seems not to take several things into account. already in the middle ages and into the 18 th century, the alenu prayer of which neusner spoke was associated with significant christianjewish controversy. it was sung by the martyrs as they died in the persecution of the jews of blois in 1171, and it caused astonishment among the persecutors, who had never heard a melody like that of the alenu prayer. 34 a christian guest at a jewish service will hear or read this prayer with the congregation with respect and a component of shame when he or she remembers that this prayer was recited as a confession of faith in a situation of persecution. in contrast to this, in the history of christian piety, good friday with its prayer for the conversion of the jews goaded misguided christians at the end of the middle ages and at the beginning of modern times into expressing their compassion for the crucified lord by inflicting suffering on jews and by persecuting them. a further asymmetry between the alenu prayer and the new good friday prayer lies in the fact that a present-day change is the cause of the current irritation. v. the 2008 good friday prayer: according to scripture – the only norm for liturgical prayer? once one ceases to focus on reciprocity, one can turn to analyzing the actual text of the 2008 good friday prayer. in the course of the current controversy, many have taken this path. in discussing the wording of the 2008 good friday prayer, 35 they have repeatedly suggested a reading that focuses on the extent to 34 for more on this, see the articles “aleinu le-shabbe’ah“ in: encyclopaedia judaica (jerusalem, keter publishing house, 1971), 2:555-559; „alaynu“, in macy nulman, the encyclopedia of jewish prayer: ashkenazic and sephardic rites (northvale/london: jason aronson, 1996), 24-26; and „alénou le-chabbéah“, in: alan unterman, dictionnaire du judaïsme. histoire, mythes et traditions (paris: thames & hudson, 1997), 22. 35 for the discussion, see the anthology “… damit sie jesus christus erkennen“… which its theological statement is in accord with scripture or uses new testament language. this reliance on scripture is evident already in the invitation to prayer: “we pray for the jews. that our god and lord enlighten their hearts so that they recognize jesus christ, the savior of all mankind.” ii corinthians 4:6 and ephesians 1:18 speak of the light’s shining in the hearts or of the enlightenment of (the eyes of) the hearts. the call to prayer here speaks of the “savior of all mankind” – the gospel according to john speaks similarly of jesus christ as the “savior of the world” (jn 4:42; cf. also 1 jn 4:14) – and this seems to be inspired by 1 tm 2:4, where it teaches that god “wills everyone to be saved.” this invitation to prayer does not make israel’s unique significance within salvation history explicit, but rather uses a wording – corresponding in its content with such texts as acts 4:12 or rom 1:16 and other passages in the new testament – that is universal and that includes israel in this universality. those interpreting the body of the prayer have noted other biblical or new testament connections: “eternal god almighty, you want all people to be saved and to arrive at the knowledge of the truth. graciously grant that when the fullness of nations enters your church, all israel will be saved. through christ our lord.” 36 god’s will to save all human beings alludes to old testament statements, like those about the covenant with noah (gen 9:1-17, especially 15-17) or the covenant with abraham (gn 12:3 and 18:18), or in prophetic visions (is 25:6-8; 45:21-24 and others), but like in the invitation to prayer, more understand it as an explicit quotation of 1 tm 2:4 and its statement: “(god) wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.” the prayer’s continuation alludes to rom 11:25 and 26, without of course quoting that text verbatim: “[… a hardening has 36 quoted (with some changes) according to “reformulated tridentine rite prayer for jews,” http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/ cjrelations/news/prayer_for_jews.htm. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): henrix 1-19 henrix, good friday prayer in europe henrix 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 come upon part of israel,] until the full number of the gentiles has come in. and so all israel will be saved.” regarding this allusion, many have pointed out that where the new testament speaks about the pagans or the full number of the gentiles attaining salvation, the 2008 prayer speaks of the entry of the fullness of nations into your church. it thus presents the pagans or gentiles as oriented towards the church. but rom 11:25 does not express such a correlation between the gentiles and the church. most have understood the prayer’s statement “when the fullness of nations enters your church” as pointing to the end of time, so that the request that “israel will be saved” looks towards the eschaton. according to the explicit wording of the 2008 good friday prayer, the salvation of all israel will not occur because of an initiative taken by the church, but is to be understood as an action of christ of the parousia. thus the intercession is not to be understood as a missionary approach by the church towards the jewish people – what cardinal kasper particularly emphasized in his interpretation. the 2008 good friday prayer is close to scripture and accords with scripture. but does this mean that the uneasiness bemoaned by many is misguided? might biblical statements have lost their “innocence” through their wirkungsgeschichte, through the effect they have had throughout history? some catholic voices have insisted that the new prayer of intercession indeed only expresses in friendlier language what was prayed for for centuries until the 1970 liturgical reform. the 1962 missal and its good friday prayer for the jews speaks of the “blindness” of the jews and of the “darkness” from which they had to be removed – definitely a severe insult and humiliating to the jewish people. according to several opinions, while pope benedict did not explicitly repeat the earlier insulting language when speaking in his new formulation about the enlightenment of the hearts of the jews, he did still evoke it through association. 37 jewish voices responded by saying that 37 erich zenger laments: “i would not have thought it possible that precisely a german pope would make a decision in such a historically forgetful way,” in his contribution: “das nein heutiger juden zu jesus als not only jews need god to enlighten their hearts; but that christians and all human beings also need this. without a doubt, with its requests for jewish (ac)know ledge(ment) of jesus christ, its prayer for the enlightenment jewish hearts and its hope that jews will come to knowledge of the truth, the 2008 good friday prayer touched a raw nerve among jews, arousing a response that christians must grant its own authority. this nerve includes the jewish memory of a long history in which they faced social and economic limitations, endangerment, persecution and even death by christian hands, especially during the second millennium ce. in his discussion of the prayer, cardinal kasper said, “the irritation on the jewish side is to a great extent not rationally but emotionally based.” this characterization led to bitter jewish commentaries and gave rise to the rabbinic query, “are we all nothing but [oversensitive] mimosa plants?” 38 for this so-called “emotional” reality is actually the rational one and an important indication of history’s obstinacy. this history’s hermeneutic authority expresses itself emotionally, especially around good friday. experiences of christian contempt, humiliation and hostility on that day are burnt deeply into the jewish memory over generations, a memory that the 2008 good friday prayer evoked. when this memory became active, it included a sense of being threatened. this arose from an intuitive knowledge of the danger arising from christian pious responses to the passion and the memory of experiences of persecution and suffering. cardinal kasper knows this, of course, for he added, “one should however not dismiss [this emotional response] as an expression of oversensitivity. collective memories of forced catechesis and forced conversions are still alive even among ihrem retter ernst nehmen”, in “… damit sie jesus christus erkennen“…, 207. 38 thus rabbi jonah sievers in: “… damit sie jesus christus erkennen“…, 74-77, but see also the uncharacteristically sharp refutation by micha brumlik, 28-35. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): henrix 1-19 henrix, good friday prayer in europe henrix 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 jewish friends who have been involved for decades in intensive conversation with christians.” 39 when in today’s church, the words of a prayer call to mind negative experiences in christian-jewish history, they should not be used as the church’s prayer, even if they are in accord with scripture. their scriptural grounding is an insufficient criterion. liturgical prayers are not the same thing as liturgical readings. when a reading, say from the new testament, contains texts with an anti-jewish wirkungsgeschichte, the preacher has the opportunity, even the obligation, to interpret these texts and recall their ill-fated effect. public prayer on the other hand is an act of affirmative proclamation that presents no opportunity for restrictive interpretation. it must have its own immediate integrity. 40 prayer has integrity when its effect is to bless the one for whom the prayer intercedes. 41 the good friday prayer of intercession in the 1970 roman missal has such integrity and it functions as a blessing from all perspectives. both in its invitation to prayer – “let us pray for the jewish people, the first to hear the word of god, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant” – and in the prayer itself – “almighty and eternal god, 39 cf. kasper, “god decides the when and the how.” 40 paul thibaud’s thinking in his statement on the good friday prayer was similar when he spoke of the difference between the ethic of prayer and the ethic of dialogue; see the untitled file of french responses posted at: http://www.sion.org/liturgie%20tridentine.htm (april 11, 2008). 41 this is in agreement with michael a. signer’s expectation that prayer have the nature of a blessing; see his “wenn ein gebet kein segen ist,” in “… damit sie jesus christus erkennen“…, 78-90,especially 87f. of course, this generalization applies only in reference to the close link between the good friday prayer for the jews and the burden that good friday represents for the catholic-jewish relationship. if it were to apply universally, questions would arise for example regarding the jewish prayer concerning heretics, the birkat haminim, which is not a text of blessing. long ago you gave your promise to abraham and his posterity. listen to your church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption” 42 – this prayer turns away from the historic rejection of judaism and signifies “turning towards judaism with love and care.” 43 the 1970 good friday prayer implements in worship the second vatican council’s acknowledgment of israel’s dignity in the history of salvation and in theology, as expressed in its declaration nostra aetate. this prayer is the liturgical heart of the attitude and teaching of the church’s respect for judaism and the jewish people. it expresses great esteem for the jewish people as the people chosen by god. the 2008 prayer of intercession lacks an explicit and unequivocal confirmation of israel’s theological dignity post christum. pope benedict obviously sought to bring the faithful who celebrate the liturgy according to the 1962 rite from the margin of the church to its center, and he did not want to overtax them with a prayer that does not explicitly name jesus christ. he presumably feared that these faithful would not accept a prayer without this mention, and he thus gave rise to a crisis in catholic-jewish relations. if this indeed was the pope’s inner-ecclesial wish, it is puzzling that, before promulgating this prayer of intercession, he did not discuss his intention to introduce a new good friday prayer 42 quoted from: http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/ cjrelations/news/prayer_for_jews .htm. for the german translation, see die kirchen und das judentum. band i: dokumente von 1945 bis 1985, eds. rolf rendtorff, hans hermann henrix, (paderborn-frankfurt: bonifatius gütersloher verlagshaus, 20013), 57; this includes a diagram, pp. 56-60, of how the good friday prayer for the jews developed since 1570. on the interpretation and analysis of the good friday prayer in the 1970 missal, see for example: albert gerhards, “universalität und toleranz. die großen fürbitten am karfreitag als maßstab christlichen glaubens, betens und handelns,” gottesdienst 24 (1999): 41-43 and hans hermann henrix, gottes ja zu israel. ökumenische studien christlicher theologie (berlin/aachen: institut kirche und judentum/einhard, 2005), 15-18. 43 zenger, 205. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): henrix 1-19 henrix, good friday prayer in europe henrix 16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 with jewish partners in the official catholic-jewish dialogue. equally, one might ask why he did not promulgate alongside the prayer either his own interpretation or one written by the person in the curia who is responsible for this area, cardinal kasper. such an interpretation would have clarified the prayer’s intention; it would have taught explicitly that the attitude of respect towards jews and judaism that has been taught since the second vatican council remains valid, and it would have indicated how the new prayer’s text allows this. without this clarification, even cardinal kasper’s subsequent interpretation was not received immediately by all as credible and convincing. pope benedict’s gestures of good will on april 17, 2008 44 during his visit to the united states similarly seemed to fall short, as the commentary by james rudin entitled “symbolism, yes. substance? not yet” showed. 45 these words are harsh. i do not want to make them my own. and yet, pope benedict’s addresses since the beginning of his pontificate concerning the church’s relationship to jews and judaism (and israel) 46 can lead one’s theological thinking in this 44 his message to the jewish community for the feast of passover: “our easter and your pesah, while different and distinct, unite us in our common hope centered on god and his mercy,” l’osservatore romano. weekly edition in english, 38:17 (april 25, 2008): 11. the picture of the pope with the rabbi of the park east synagogue on april 17 – on the first page of the new york times, for example – “reconfirmed the commitment of the catholic church to the dialogue inspired by nostra aetate of the second vatican council more vividly than words alone could.” thus robert imbelli, “he won the hearts of the multitudes pointing to ‚christ our hope’” l’osservatore romano. weekly edition in english 38:18 (april 30, 2008): 8; in german: “überwältigendes medieninteresse am papstbesuch,“ l’osservatore romano. wochenausgabe in deutscher sprache, 38:18 (may 2, 2008): 2. 45 new york times blog “a papal discussion” (april 21, 2008), http://thepope.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/symbolism-yes-substancestill-waiting/#more-73. 46 on this, see also the assessment by john t. pawlikowski, “wir müssen die stagnation im katholisch-jüdischen verhältnis überwinden!,” in “… damit sie jesus christus erkennen“…, 149-158, 151f. direction. hardly any recent pope has presented himself as a theologian as clearly as benedict. without question, he understands the church’s relationship to jews and judaism as faith facing faith and thus as a fundamentally theological relationship. it is thus all the more surprising that in his discourses he does not approach the astonishing breadth of theological horizon demonstrated by pope john paul ii. in his address to a delegation of the international jewish committee for interreligious consultations on june 9, 2005 in the vatican and during his visit to the cologne synagogue on august 19, 2005, benedict reassured his listeners that he would “continue to advance” on the road of pope john paul ii of improving relations with the jewish people. 47 so far, he has not honored this promise theologically. in his words at catholic-jewish encounters, benedict’s remarks have only addressed parts of john paul’s theological horizon. on such occasions he articulates most strongly the moral aspects of the ecclesial-jewish relationship, such as the behavior of christians – but not of the church as church. however, he refrains from speaking of the theological relationship of the church to jews and judaism. this corresponds indirectly with the (american) orthodox jewish restriction of christian-jewish dialogue to social and ethical issues, excluding more specifically dogmatic theological issues. vi. the 2008 good friday prayer: a challenge for further theological discussion the crisis created by the 2008 good friday prayer teaches us that the catholic-jewish relationship is still one prone to 47 see pope benedict’s the addresses of june 9 and august 19, 2005 at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/june/ documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050609_jewish-committee_en.html as well as at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/ august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050819_cologne-synagogue_ en.html and http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/ speeches/ 2005/august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050819_colognesynagogue_ge.html . studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): henrix 1-19 henrix, good friday prayer in europe henrix 17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 disturbances. but in spite of this, the emerging relationship has generated structures and involved people from both sides who can address the disturbances, controversies, and conflicts that arise and who can sometimes resolve them constructively too. this itself is a major step forward, not to be discounted. as we address the present crisis, sobriety demands that we presume that the 2008 good friday prayer will remain the “tridentine” form of ritual. so under these circumstances, what is necessary for the catholicjewish relationship to continue to move forward? first of all, the church’s commissions for religious relations with jews, internationally and locally, will have to prove themselves as forums in which the implications of the controversy around the 2008 good friday prayer can be discussed freely. this process has already begun. in germany, representatives of the orthodox and reform rabbinical conferences had a productive meeting in september 2008 in cologne with the bishop’s commission for religious relations with judaism. the final day of the november 2008 meeting in budapest of the international catholic-jewish liaison committee also provided a forum for serious dialogue about this issue. secondly, any further discussion of this issue will need to take account of the inner-ecclesial status of the 2008 good friday prayer. this prayer is only valid for the exceptional form of the catholic rite and is celebrated by a very small number of faithful. the overwhelming majority of catholics celebrate the ordinary form in conformity with the 1970 missal that was promulgated by pope paul vi. its good friday prayer remains the catholic church’s “main prayer” for the jews; it is marked by the acknowledgment that the jews stand in fidelity to god’s covenant and in the love of god’s name, and it prays that they may progress in this according to god’s will. it is the particular responsibility of the bishops to see that this is and remains the “main prayer.” however and thirdly, the specific and unique task of discussing the problem of upholding the two contradictory good friday prayers for the jews alongside each other, that of 1970 and that of 2008, belongs to the realm of theology. resolving this is not the task of liturgists. 48 in my opinion, the key issue is not that of mission to the jews. here, cardinal kasper’s analysis and interpretation of the 2008 prayer is convincing. the issue is rather the question of salvation or, more precisely, the tension between the fact that god’s covenant with the jewish people has not been revoked 49 and the universal salvific significance of jesus christ. the discussion group “jews and christians” of the central committee of german catholics, that which expressed itself so clearly in the controversy around the 2008 good friday prayer, had previously addressed precisely this theological tension. the group not only decidedly rejected mission towards the jews, but it also discussed whether it is possible to create a christian-jewish bridge by referring to jesus christ. the answer given by the group to this question was affirmative with two conditions: 1. according to christian faith, jesus christ is the “yes” and the “amen” (2 cor 1:20) of god's irrevocable fidelity to israel and to the whole world; 48 thus pawlikowski,” wir müssen,” 153, 156f. 49 on the matter of the covenant that has not been revoked, see for example: norbert lohfink, der niemals gekündigte bund. exegetische gedanken zum christlich-jüdischen dialog (freiburg: herder, 1989); albert vanhoye, “salut universel par le christ et validité de l’ancienne alliance,” nouvelle revue théologique 116 (1994): 815-835; der ungekündigte bund? antworten des neuen testaments, ed. hubert frankemölle (freiburg: herder, 1998); hans hermann henrix, judentum und christentum – gemeinschaft wider willen (regensburg: pustet, 2008, 2nd edition), 85-109. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): henrix 1-19 henrix, good friday prayer in europe henrix 18 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 2. nevertheless, there is salvation for jewish people who do not believe in jesus as the christ because of god's covenant with them. 50 this position caused cardinal kasper to enter into dialogue and respond critically to the discussion group. he underlined that the main point in the question is the uniqueness and universality of salvation in jesus christ. he said that theology has developed various theories in order to solve the seeming contradiction “that on the one hand, salvation is only possible through jesus christ, and on the other hand, it is also possible without (explicit) faith in jesus christ.” cardinal kasper expressed his surprise over the fact that the discussion group had “tacitly broadened the axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus in such a way as to make salvation also possible extra christum.” according to christian conviction, “the old covenant continues because of its christological confirmation and fulfillment.” 51 in his answer to cardinal kasper’s objection, the president of the discussion group, hanspeter heinz, stated, “for the christian members of the discussion group, the uniqueness and universality of salvation in jesus christ is beyond question, whereas the jewish members oppose this claim of our faith.” however, the christian and the jewish members agree that the disagreement about the confession of christ definitely has a place in their theological dialogue. 50 discussion group “jews and christians” of the central committee of german catholics, jews and christians in germany, “responsibility in today’s pluralistic society,” coming together for the sake of god: contributions to jewish-christian dialogue from post-holocaust germany, eds. hanspeter heinz, michael signer (collegeville: liturgical press, 2007), 112-131, 123. 51 kardinal walter kasper, hanspeter heinz, “theologische schwerpunkte im christlich-jüdischen gespräch,” freiburger rundbrief nf 14 (2007): 1821 and 21-25, quotation: 21. cardinal kasper repeated his position in his new book with daniel deckers, wo das herz des glaubens schlägt. die erfahrung des lebens (freiburg: herder, 2008), 279-296. that has consequences for our interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. of course the church maintains that jesus christ brought about the salvation of the whole world, including the jews, and that the church as the body of christ participates in this salvific event. but the thrust of our declaration heads in another direction. the question we are dealing with is whether faith in jesus christ is the universal prerequisite for attaining salvation. in this, we advocate for the view that the decisive condition is to fulfill god’s will, which the jews know from the torah and their faith tradition, and which we christians recognize in addition and above all in jesus christ, according to the new testament and the church’s tradition. in his universal desire to save, god also grants the hope for salvation of those who direct their lives according to his will, without their being members of the catholic church or sharing its faith in jesus christ. 52 is there anything more to be said regarding the christian conviction expressed here that jews who direct their lives according to the will of god as revealed in the torah will be granted god’s salvation? the bible in both the old and new testaments testifies to god as the one who makes human beings, and especially the children of israel, his covenantal partners and who wants to grant them his salvation. god takes the initiative, and his grace and mercy always lead humans on the way. jesus of nazareth was born as a son of the covenanted people israel and he lived according to this covenant. because he lived according to this covenant and in conformity to the torah of this covenant, he confirms the covenant and the torah. thus pope benedict can speak of jesus as the “torah…in person,” as “god’s living torah” or as the “torah itself.” 53 only through and out of god’s covenant with israel, can jesus be recognized and understood as the christ. 52 “theologische schwerpunkte…,” 23. 53 joseph ratzinger/benedikt xvi, jesus von nazareth, 144, 206 and 364. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): henrix 1-19 henrix, good friday prayer in europe henrix 19 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 faith in jesus christ, who is god’s “yes” and “amen” and thus the personification of god’s fidelity to his promises, would also lose its foundation were god’s covenant with israel revoked, finished, or enfeebled. on this rests the christian conviction that jewish life according to israel’s torah has god’s blessing and brings about salvation. for that which is salvific for jews – life according to the torah, trust in god’s word, faith in his promise – is in an inner contact with jesus christ and is embodied in him, and he confirms and affirms it. for jesus christ is obedient to the torah and fulfills it. he does not abolish it, but performs it and fulfills it. he teaches the torah, his way and his life are lived torah, he is the torah become a living form, he is torah incarnated. because of jesus christ’s link with the torah, from the christian point of view, the person who as a jew follows the torah goes his or her way in communion with him who is torah incarnate. in this way, christian theology’s trust in salvation can be anchored in the faith that god’s torah makes it possible for the jew to respond to god’s teaching in a way that works salvation, without explicit faith in jesus christ. 54 thus one can also say: jewish faithful witness to torah and christian witness of lived discipleship to jesus christ (the torah incarnate) do not stand opposed and disconnected from one another; from a christian perspective, they intersect and are not parallel and independent ways of salvation. when christians speak of the fulfillment of the torah through jesus christ, they have no right to claim superiority over jewish performance of torah. rather, in speaking thus, they can affirm the tension between their hope of salvation that is grounded in christ and between jewish salvation “without explicit faith in jesus christ.” 55 the reflections presented here as an opinio theologica are accompanied by the deep conviction that the church can pray without any inner reservations and with complete affirmation, “let us pray for the jewish people, the first to hear the word of god, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant.” this prayer remains the church’s primary prayer for the jews. it belongs at the heart of a christian theology of the church’s relationship with jews and judaism. 54 see also hans hermann henrix, “a christian theology of salvation and redemption”, face to face xiv (spring 1988): 12-15. 55 the pontifical biblical commission affirmed an analogous tension when they described the interface of christian and jewish readings of the bible in their 2001 document, the jewish people…, no. 22 as follows: “christians can and ought to admit that the jewish reading of the bible is a possible one, in continuity with the jewish sacred scriptures from the second temple period, a reading analogous to the christian reading which developed in parallel fashion. both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. consequently, both are irreducible.” scjr 18, no. 1 (2023): 1-3 cynthia holder rich, ed. christian zionism in africa (lanham, md: lexington / fortress, 2020), 288 pp. manoela carpenedo m.carpenedo.rodrigues@rug.nl university of groningen, 9712 cp groningen, netherlands this is a timely edited collection dedicated to a neglected aspect of christian zionism. while theological, historical, and social scientific analysis on the development of christian zionism in the global north abound, the rise of the phenomenon in the global south has been largely neglected in the literature. this makes christian zionism in africa, edited by cynthia holder rich, very welcome. the book is relevant because of its focus on how christian zionism is being received in one of the most important new centers of christianity: the african continent. while some of the thirteen contributors draw their analyses from fields such as history, politics, anthropology, and law, the book is heavily anchored in theological discussions and prioritizes the elaborations of protestant christian theologians and clergy, particularly lutherans. the book includes a range of case studies based on different countries such as ethiopia, ghana, south africa, and tanzania, to name a few. moreover, the fact that most contributors are either african or at least based in africa is highly appreciated. after a forward by walter brueggemann, the book is divided into three parts. in part i, “history, law, and politics,” the reader is invited to explore the roots of the christian zionist movement and its reception in africa. for instance, by analyzing gospel songs in east africa, samwel shanga mahjida demonstrates how such songs could reinforce ideas about the connection between biblical and physical israel while also promoting zion as a place of african memory and belonging. in a different vein, suraya dadoo’s great chapter unpacks the development of proisrael messages in ghanaian pentecostalism. the author investigates how gen 12:3, understood as god’s promise to bless those who support the modern state of israel, has been mobilized in pentecostal prosperity gospel teachings. she also indicates how these sentiments contributed to ghana’s foreign policy shift towards israel. part ii, “biblical and theological aspects and impacts,” presents a range of theological arguments examining the different ways in which christian zionism impacts the theologies and the lives of christians in africa. the contributors offer theological analyses largely critical of christian zionism. mark rich describes carpenedo: holder rich’s christian zionism 2 christian zionism as heresy. nehemia g. moshi stresses the role of local african indigenous religions and their heritage in inspiring pro-israel sentiments among african christians. rich highlights the importance of taking into consideration issues such as race and particularly whiteness in theological interpretations of the phenomenon. contributors to part iii, “ministry in the church,” analyze the impact of christian zionist teachings in african christian ministries, specifically in pentecostal, lutheran, and independent african churches. for example, the analysis conducted by modestus lukong shows the reception of christian zionist ideas among tanzanian lutheran pastors. after interviewing 100 pastors from the eastern and coastal diocese of the evangelical lutheran church, lukong concludes that most lutheran pastors openly support the modern state of israel for scriptural and prophetic reasons. while controversial, this evidence shows the spread and the traction of christian zionist ideas among african protestant clergy. the book brings insights into how theological interpretations equating ancient israel to the modern state of israel are being mobilized in some sectors of african christianity. by geopolitically protecting israel, african christians seek to fulfill gen 12:3 and bring blessings and prosperity to their lives and their nations. the book also examines the theological contradictions of christian zionist ideas in relation to key christian teachings, particularly the command to love your neighbour as yourself, focusing on claims that the modern state of israel treats palestinians with prejudice and openly violates their human rights. overall, christian zionism in africa is a very good book for readers interested in knowing more about how some african protestant theologians receive and respond to christian zionist ideas from a confessional perspective. however, the book falls short of expectations for readers interested in unpacking the rise of christian zionism in africa as a broader religious, social, and political phenomenon. with some exceptions, throughout the collection, there is a general and sustained anti-christian zionist rhetoric that hinders an understanding of the complexity of this growing religious movement across the african continent. this view can be problematic as grassroots religious actors—african christians embracing zionist views—are not fully comprehended nor are their beliefs fully considered. this topdown perspective prevents us not only from understanding the appeal of christian zionism among african christians but also from having a better grasp on how these lived theologies are negotiated in their own vernacular terms in african christianity. therefore, many readers would have appreciated an approach in line with current developments, particularly in the field of world christianities, that takes into consideration the lived theologies experienced by christians across the world. furthermore, the collection does not touch on key historical and social-political themes at the heart of the debate. for instance, the authors miss the opportunity to consider the rise of philosemitic sentiments in african christianity and to make important connections between the spread of christian zionist ideas and the growing number of emerging jewish groups across the continent, such as the igbo in nigeria, the house of israel in ghana, and the lemba in south africa. relevant and nuanced historical aspects of the diplomatic relations between african states 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2023) and israel are also not fully considered. the interest of israel in the african continent is not new. in the 1960s, when most south african states achieved independence, africa had a central place in israel’s foreign policy. in the context of good diplomatic relations, zionism and jewish nationalism served as a model for the emerging black nationalism and liberation of africa, and some african intellectuals even called their emancipation movement “black zionism.” in this period, israel also expressed its aversion to apartheid and white rulership in african countries. this relationship deteriorated with the growing diplomatic and economic influence of arab countries in the african continent and after the yom kippur war of 1973, which marked the severance of diplomatic relations between israel and many african countries. it was only after israel withdrew from the sinai peninsula and established peace with egypt in the 1980s that it resumed diplomatic relations with some african states. these developments prompted israel to initiate increased outreach in africa. in this context, religion and christian zionist sentiments have been important tools in israeli diplomacy toward africa. today, with the explosion of pentecostalism and its variants in the continent promoting the spread and support of christian zionist teachings, the zionist rhetoric finds fertile ground in african politics. in sum, christian zionism in africa is a very good book for readers who want to learn more about how african protestant theology comprehends and responds to christian zionism. the book is also a good resource for social scientists and historians interested in learning more about christian theological debates and controversial theological aspects of christian zionism. however, this edited collection does not fully meet the expectations of readers interested in understanding christian zionism in light of broader historical, social, and geopolitical developments. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): stahl r1-2 feldman, glory and agony stahl r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr yael feldman glory and agony: isaac’s sacrifice and national narrative (stanford: stanford university press, 2010), hardcover, xv + 421 pp. neta stahl, johns hopkins university yael feldman’s glory and agony is a journey into the israeli psyche and the history of its formation. in one of the most comprehensive and impressive historiographies of hebrew national culture, feldman elegantly yet passionately presents a multi-dimensional narrative of the israeli preoccupation with genesis 22, the near-sacrifice of isaac known in hebrew as the aqedah (the binding). feldman uses this topos in order to analyze the changes in views of national sacrifice in diverse sources including non-fiction, fiction, poetry, drama, and memoir. in many senses her book does even more than that. it contextualizes this national obsession within its religious, philosophical, historical, and artistic frameworks, and by doing so, offers a new and fresh methodology for cultural national historiography. it also makes a contribution to our understanding of the ways that israelis appropriated christian symbolism, especially images of jesus’ sacrifice, which they juxtaposed to isaac’s near-sacrifice. starting at the beginning and culminating at the very end of the 20 th century, the book follows the changes in perceptions of the aqedah, and specifically the preoccupation with its “heroes,” to borrow poet yehuda amichai’s reference to abraham’s, isaac’s, and god’s roles in this story. in his poem “the real hero of the aqedah,” amichai actually anoints the ram as “the real hero,” but, as feldman shows, the question, at least since the second half of the 20th century, was not so much “who is the hero or the protagonist of the story?”, but rather “who is its sacrifice or victim?” (p. 273). the fact that in modern hebrew the word qorban means both “sacrifice” and “victim” is only one explanation, as feldman shows, for this victim-victimizer and sacrificesacrificer discourse. in the first part of the book, feldman discusses the roots of the secularization of the biblical aqedah and the ways it was transformed from a religious text into “a trope for heroic national sacrifice” (p. 34). she shows that though the ideas of martyrdom and sacrifice were central to the ethos of early 20 th -century israeli political writing, the aqedah itself was not. feldman traces this rhetorical shift from martyrdom to aqedah, analyzing its literary, cultural, theological, and historical meanings. for the writers of the first half of the 20 th century, the sacrifice was isaac’s, not abraham’s, and it was perceived as a model of a noble way of giving of or sacrificing oneself. this perception was influenced by post-biblical, including christian, perceptions of sacrifice, which allowed for a richer psychological portrait of isaac. feldman argues that this kind of understanding of isaac was related to the common use of christian symbolism in hebrew literature in palestine during the 1920s and 1930s. indeed, the figure of jesus plays a central role in this literature, representing a “positive spiritual model,” as feldman puts it (p. 111). she offers two different examples for the adoption of both jesus and isaac in the aqedah. the first example is that of the poet uri zvi greenberg. in review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): stahl r1-2 feldman, glory and agony stahl r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr greenberg’s 1920s poetry, the figure of jesus functions as a symbol of universal and jewish suffering, and the aqedah is hardly mentioned. in the aftermath of the holocaust, greenberg invokes the aqedah not so much as an emblem of victimhood, but rather as a symbol of sacrificial devotion. the second example is that of avraham shlonsky, whose poetry was influenced by the secularized religious symbolism of the russian revolution. here the figure of jesus plays a different role, adopted as a “metaphor for secular, even socialist, messianism” (p. 113). interestingly, shlonsky rewrote the aqedah in his poetry, using christian symbolism for the zionist pioneers’ sacrifice. shifting from the martyrological figures of previous generations, and using the trope of the mythological “holy family” of christianity as a bridge to the more personal images of the aqedah, shlonsky and his peers shifted the collective images of martyrdom to personal ones. it is this modernist individuality and desire for a myth of the individual rather than the collective that, according to feldman, shaped israelis’ discourse and their unique perceptions of the aqedah. more specifically, it was “freud’s morbid emphasis on the aggression animating human psychology and family dynamics” that became a common theme in the re-writing of the biblical narrative (p. 116). in the second part of the book, feldman deals with the “transition from glory to agony and then to agon” between 1945 and 1995 (p. 43). she argues that in each decade a new generation of israeli writers faced different challenges, including war, and as a result changed the narrative of the aqedah and the conception of its sacrifice/s and victim/s. three major themes dominated the re-writing of the aqedah in the 1940s-50s according to feldman: a new look at the zionist pioneering enterprise, the holocaust, and the 1948 war. the surprising aspect of the return to the biblical story is authors use the very same trope in constructing two opposing experiences, that of a willing sacrifice and of a tragic victim. in the 1960s, there was a turn to an agonistic revision of the aqedah, which developed into a psycho-political debate. this generation read the story of isaac through the post-biblical rewriting of the aqedah as a freudian narrative, turning the binding into sacrifice and even murder. this “un-glorified aqdeah” was a sort of synthesis of the biblical-jewish and the greek-oedipal models (p. 194). the “isaac generation” of 1967-1973 identified with the son “only to reject his self-immolation,” protesting against the harmonic inter-generational relationship between father and son of most traditional depictions of the story (p. 217). the yom kippur war in 1973 brought an even sharper revision of the story that again looked at both the lamenting parents and their sacrificed sons, in particular, the different isaacs / ishmaels that were slaughtered. this “theology of sacrifice,” as feldman calls it, becomes an object of struggle for israeli writers throughout these decades (p. 209). christian images influence many of these writers. the image of jesus as lamb is both present and rejected in many of these works on the aqedah. the last “isaac” in the book (before the afterword) is the assassinated israeli prime minister yitzhak rabin (1922-1995). feldman asserts that rabin, despite his name (yitzhak is hebrew for isaac) “was no isaac,” but rather an “abrahamic paternal figure,” and that the assassination by an israeli jew was a “violently oedipal breach” (p. 309). but we should note that in the eyes of the shocked israelis, the dead father was perceived as the sacrificed, or perhaps crucified, son-lamb, at least judging from the fact that the music the israeli broadcasting authority chose to accompany the broadcast of his memorial was none other than johann sebastian bach’s matthews-passion. feldman’s book is an outstanding achievement that is likely to engage scholars and readers for many years to come. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): berger r1-3 small and rosenthal, let us reasontogether berger r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr joseph d. small and gilbert s. rosenthal, eds. let us reason together: christians and jews in conversation (louisville: witherspoon press, 2010), paperback, xiv + 176 pp. alan l. berger, florida atlantic university this volume emerges from a series of four jewish-presbyterian consultations convened by the presbyterian church u.s.a. and the national council of synagogues between 2005 and 2009. the views of fifteen distinguished jewish and presbyterian thinkers are presented in four sections: “probing the relationship,” “the land,” “evangelism,” and “identity.” it preserves the dialogic format of the consultations by pairing most of the presentations with responses from members of the other religious group. they focus on the key points raised in the 1987 document a theological understanding of the relationship between christians and jews (turcj), which was adopted by the presbyterian church as a pastoral and teaching document. among the contributors are joseph d. small, stephen r. haynes, anna case-winters, leanne van dyke, and rebecca weaver (on the presbyterian side), and david berger, reuven hammer, and steven m. cohen (on the jewish side). their dialogue reveals both points of theological contact and areas of disagreement. at the start they recognize that contemporary christian-jewish dialogue is fraught with mixed signals and a widespread lack of historical and theological awareness. one of the many asymmetries in the dialogue is that while judaism does not require christianity for its selfunderstanding, christianity very much depends on “truthful theological and ecclesial understandings of the relationship between the two people of god” (p. x). the editors of this slim but valuable volume have produced an important study for those wishing to join the ongoing quest for a positive relationship between christian and jewish communities. this quest, rosenthal and small trenchantly observe, is “always fragile, especially when [it is] not accompanied by regular consultation and dialogue” (p. x). the 1987 statement, included in the volume, consists essentially of three types of guidelines. some of them are self-evident and non-controversial. for example, it says that contemporary theology is done in an expanding global and pluralistic milieu which is both interpersonal and inter-communal. many guidelines have been well-received by jews, such as the demand that dialogue be “entered into with a spirit of humility and a commitment to reconciliation” (p. 9), eschewing all proselytism, and reflect the insistence that “the church’s attitudes must be reviewed and changed as necessary so that they can never again fuel the fires of hatred” (p. 10). other sections reveal a more critical view of israel. for example, the statement contains a confession of “[presbyterian] complicity in the loss of land by palestinians,” and a call to “join with those of our jewish sisters and brothers who stand in solidarity with palestinians as they cry for justice as the dispossessed” (p. 11). stephen haynes’ assessment of turcj is helpful. he makes several noteworthy points. supersessionism, a commonplace of traditional christian belief, remains a threat to presbyterianreview studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): berger r1-3 small and rosenthal, let us reasontogether berger r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr jewish understanding. reflecting on the document’s assertion that both jews and presbyterians are elected by god, haynes notes this is a “reminder for contemporary presbyterians of an important theological truth—that election is about what god does, not about how we respond” (p. 19). but, he notes, this claim stands in tension with the church’s views of evangelism. when discussing evangelism, the pcusa claims that “jesus christ is the only savior and lord” and makes no “references to the unique relationship between christians and jews” (p. 20). haynes also urges the church to make a “stronger statement” concerning the evils of slavery and the holocaust and to humbly apologize for the “results of bad theology and biblical interpretation” (p. 21). the author also warns against the document’s facile utilization of liberation theology and its undue influence on “presbyterian views of israel-palestine” (p. 23). the topic of the land is, as one might expect, the one that elicits the most passionate views. reuven hammer distinguishes eretz yisrael—the land of israel—and medinat yisrael—the state of israel. the former is a theological category while the latter is a secular-political one. despite this distinction, he notes that for contemporary jews “the [s]tate has a status more important than a mere political entity” (p. 90). the land itself plays an irreducible role in the divine-human drama. it is the only place where the jewish people can completely aspire to fulfill god’s will, which in the end will result in “the establishment of the sovereignty of god on earth” (p. 93). it is, argues hammer, “vital that christians understand the centrality of the land to jewish belief” (p. 94). rebecca weaver’s thoughtful response to reuven hammer illustrates the tension between their views of israel. she asks the question vital to any fruitful dialogue: “why is it so difficult for those of us who are christians to grasp your meaning?” (p. 98). weaver asks hammer’s help in seeking to understand why the contemporary state of israel is necessary for the “fulfillment of that obedience [to the commandments] or the accomplishment of the divine purpose.” she admits that “we [presbyterians] simply do not understand” this claim (pp. 98-99). weaver attests that, because of the christ-event, the land of ancient israel is part of who christians are as well. yet she concludes her essay by observing a crucial difference between jews and christians, especially presbyterians; for jews the land of israel represents not only memory but hope. professor weaver cogently calls for a joint exploration of this difference (p. 105). the essays on identity written by steven m. cohen and joseph s. small reveal several commonalities between american judaism and presbyterianism, especially in the area of group identity. cohen observes that, “in contrast with just fifty years ago, today’s jews have far fewer jewish spouses, friends, neighbors and co-workers” (p. 147). small notes that for christians, “the church is only one of a profusion of religious options ranging from enduring traditions such as islam, buddhism and hinduism to new age spiritualities. americans see themselves as spiritual, but not religious” (p. 166). both seem to agree that the world is simply too much with us. there is widespread acceptance of many truths as opposed to an absolute truth in the realm of religion. spiritual healing is as likely to come from yoga classes as it is from attending church or synagogue services. consequently, small refers to the “cultural disestablishment [of christianity] and a pervasive pluralism…exacerbated by internal theological disarray” (p. 108). cohen likewise points to the “many ways outside of religious congregational life in which american jews are jewishly engaged” (p.155). this volume is a good primer of presbyterian-jewish relations. it is, however, flawed, in refraining from discussing—or even mentioning—the contentious and potentially destructive issue of the political battle against israel being waged by certain groups in the church. i refer to the socalled bds (boycott, divestment, sanction) movement, which propounds a dualistic (i.e., antiisrael, pro-palestinian) reading of the middle east conflict. this conflict is complex and requires studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): berger r1-3 small and rosenthal, let us reasontogether berger r 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr great nuance and understanding. the bds movement displays neither of these attributes. this matter illustrates that dialogue, if it is to be serious and meaningful, must deal with vital issues. the contributors to this volume reveal that such a dialogue can occur in a civilized, historically informed, and articulate manner. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): kaell r1-2 schultz, tri-faith america kaell r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr kevin m. schultz tri-faith america: how catholics and jews held postwar america to its protestant promise (new york: oxford university press, 2011), hardcover, vii + 209 pp. hillary kaell, concordia university tri-faith america examines how mid-twentieth century americans shed their belief in the “protestant nation,” replacing it with three distinct, equally patriotic faiths: protestant, catholic, and jewish. this tripartite division—made famous in will herberg’s protestant-catholic-jew (university of chicago press, 1960)—is not, of course, news to historians of religion in midcentury america. however, author kevin schultz gives us the most thorough history to date and does an excellent job showing how the tri-faith ideal developed and became widely accepted. he traces its beginnings to liberal protestants in the 1920s, who were motivated both by feelings of a brotherhood of all americans after the first world war as well as a revulsion toward increased nativism, the kkk and, later, fascism and totalitarianism. they sought ways to define their democratic nation against these european trends and to eradicate deep-seated antisemitism and anti-catholicism. particularly welcome here is schultz’s discussion of the invention (and popularization) of the term “judeo-christian,” which remains widespread and misunderstood today (pp. 58-59). schultz then traces how, in the 1950s, catholics and jews took the lead in the tri-faith movement, holding the nation to the “protestant promise” of individual conscience and liberty. tri-faith movement proponents saw it as a bulwark against totalitarianism (memories of hitler loomed large) and communism, while also focusing attention away from more controversial questions emerging about race (e.g., pp. 55-56). by the early-1960s, however, tri-faith leaders embraced civil rights, finally supplanting their own cause as they began to see race, rather than religion, as the nation’s most prominent division and pressing problem (chapter 8). schultz is particularly good at illustrating interactions between catholics and jews. for example, he shows how catholics worried at first about being “lured” into protestant-run groups that would then claim to speak for christians as a whole, the inclusion of jews—making dialogue groups “tri-faith” rather than “bi-faith”—reassured catholics and encouraged their involvement (p. 34). as the movement gained momentum in the post-war period, catholics and jews remained in fundamental agreement about the need to confront the de facto protestant establishment (pp. 120-121) but they clashed repeatedly about the role of religion in the public sphere. catholics, as a large christian minority (25% of the population), fought for non-denominational public christianity. most jews, as a very small non-christian minority, regarded any governmental support for religion (especially in public schools) with suspicion, using the courts to block its expression. schultz points out that, in fact, 1950s catholic religious pluralism was narrower than the jewish conception. while most catholics did not want non-christian (jewish) holidays in schools, for example, most jews agreed that christian holidays might be celebrated as long as other faiths were included as well (p. 127). scholarly discussions of this period often focus on public schools and suburbs; schultz takes the tri-faith notion further, looking at university fraternities (chapter 6) and the 1950s debates about gathering data about religion on the u.s. census (chapter 7). both review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): kaell r1-2 schultz, tri-faith america kaell r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr topics offer good examples of how catholic and jewish approaches to tri-faith differed and shed light on corners of american history not often explored. schultz’s conclusion (and much of the introduction) is devoted to evaluating the mixed legacy of the tri-faith movement. it is a topic of continuing relevance to religious communities today, since, as schultz points out, although establishment protestantism and nativism waned in influence, catholics and jews suddenly found themselves facing new challenges. the (perhaps bitter) irony of the tri-faith movement is that it led to increased secularization, which was never the intended goal. moreover, as catholics and jews were accepted into “protestant” colleges, clubs, and mixed suburbs, they lost much of what had made them culturally and sociologically distinct, leading to assimilation and intermarriage. schultz includes an affecting quote from jewish sociologist daniel bell, characterizing post-1960s american judaism as “a community woven by the thinning strands of memory” (p. 205). the author adds that today conservatives in each faith have more in common with each other than with the liberals in their own denominations (pp. 11, 208). this idea is often repeated in academic circles and presumably refers to political commonalities, rather than those based on theology, sociology, or even culture. my one complaint, then, is that schultz neither explores nor substantiates this conclusion other than including a brief footnote attributing this “story” to robert wuthnow’s the restructuring of american religion (princeton university press, 1990) (p. 212). it is a letdown after the author’s thought-provoking questions about the jewish and catholic focus on continuity. this, however, is a minor complaint about an otherwise excellent book. tri-faith america incorporates significant archival material, touches on important issues, and moves effortlessly from elite perspectives to popular culture. kevin schultz does it all without producing a text that feels ponderous or over-written. scholars will certainly profit from this book, but i would not hesitate to recommend it more widely or to assign sections to an undergraduate class (e.g., chapter 4 on the suburbs). this is a helpful historical survey that also poses some deep questions about the pluralistic society we have built: is it good or bad for american religions? jews and judaism in european catholic catechisms and textbooks studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): brutti cp1-7 conference proceeding jews and judaism in european catholic catechisms and textbooks m a r i a b r u t t i theological institute of viterbo prepared for the international catholic-jewish liaison committee meeting cape town, south africa, november 4-7, 2006 i. french, italian and spanish catechisms the aim of this research is to examine, in general terms, the approach to jews and judaism found in a selection of catholic catechisms. the following topics are considered : 1) the “chosen people” and their replacement by the “new people;” 2) jesus the jew and the pharisees; 3) the texts’ hermeneutics: jewish and christian readings of the bible. the catechisms examined can be classified in three groups: 1. catechisms published by the conference of italian bishops (cei)1 2. catechisms published by the conference of spanish bishops2 3. catechisms from some french dioceses (“parcours de catechism”). the italian (cei) catechisms are particularly relevant to this research, both because they are more numerous, covering a wider age range, and because they have been translated into many other languages for use in european and non-european countries.3 a. the “chosen people” and their replacement by the “new people of god” in the catechisms of the cei, developed for the first stages of christian instruction (from pre-school to twelve years of age), the jewish people is above all portrayed as jesus’ people,4 a people that is often depicted in negative terms: it has rejected jesus, has persecuted the first christians5 and is hard-headed.6 the category of “chosen people” is also interpreted negatively: 1 the following are noteworthy: 1) catechisms for the first stages of christian instruction: a) catechism for early childhood [cech]: lasciate che i bambini vengano a me (1973/1991, for children younger than six years); b) catechisms for children and young teenagers [cch/cyt]: io sono con voi (1974/1991, 6-8 years); venite con me (1975/1991, 8-10 years); sarete miei testimoni (1976/1991, 111-12 years); vi ho chiamati amici (1982/1991, 11-12 years); 2) catechisms for teen-agers and young adults [ct/ya]: io ho scelto voi/1 (1995, 14-18 years); non di solo pane (1979) and venite e vedrete/2 (1997, 18-25 years); 3) catechisms for adults [ca]: signore da chi andremo? (1982) and la verità vi farà liberi (1995, 25+ years). 2 comisión episcopal de enseñanza y catequesis: 1) padre nuestro. first catechism for the christian community (1980, 5-6 years); 2) jesús el señor. second catechism for the christian community (1982: for children); 3) ésta es nuestra fe, ésta es la fe de la iglesia. third catechism for the christian community (1986, for teenagers and adults). 3 see catechisms for the italian conference of bishops: translations. 4 cch, io sono con voi, 1974-75/1991, p. 53. 5 cyt, sarete miei testimoni, 1976/1991, pp. 35; 66; 69. brutti, jews and judaism in european textbooks brutti cp 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): brutti cp1-7 according to the catechism for young people (1993), this concept would have been understood by the jewish people as an entitlement to god’s special protection, regardless of their behavior, even including infidelity.7 although the accusation of deicide is not explicitly made, the catechisms seem to revive the old category of “substitution,” according to which the old and unfaithful people of god would be replaced by the new people of god: the church, the people of the new covenant.8 this concept has a parallel in the third catechism of the conference of spanish bishops (1986), where the church is not only defined as the new people of god but also as god’s new israel, and where it is affirmed that between the old and the new peoples of god there is continuity, but also a certain disruption as there is between the old and new covenant.9 only in 1995, the cei’s catechism for adults rejected the accusation of deicide [441], in accordance with what has been declared in the second vatican council10 thirty years earlier. this catechism declares explicitly that the ancient covenant has never been revoked but perfected by the new covenant [443].11 in conclusion, even today the official catechesis for children, teenagers and young adults seems to be based on texts that also contain statements that create difficulties in the relationship between jews and christians. b. jesus the jew and the pharisees a problem that, to some extent, is parallel to that mentioned above is the issue of jesus’ jewishness and his relationship with the pharisees. the catechisms of the cei, corresponding to the first stages of religious instruction, seem to acknowledge without difficulty jesus’ jewishness: the historical and geographical context of his birth, his adherence to jewish religious traditions such as the practice of prayer, the observance of the shabbat and his attendance in the temple,12 whereas it is harder to find accurate descriptions of the pharisees. 6 this definition, that picks up the quotation of matthew 19:8 in reference to the mosaic law, has not been found in a catechism but in p. raimondo, guide to catechism: “vi ho chiamato amici”, i, elledici, series progetto magnificat, 2005, p. 34. 7 ct, io ho scelto voi, p. 122. 8 cyt, sarete miei testimoni, pp. 24; 32; 51; 68. see also guide to catechism, p. 51. a french catechism of a later date seems to go along a different path: it reconstructs the stages of the history of salvation, from abraham to jesus, and in doing so it declares that god’s covenant with his people is eternal and definitive, but it needed to be renewed through jesus the son. see pour grandir dans la foi – jésus t’appelle à vivre avec le peuple de dieu – parcours de catéchisme, 2nd étape. réalisé sous la responsabilité du service de la catéchèse du diocèse de paris et du service de la catéchèse du diocèse de fréjus – toulon, publishing house le sénevé/cerp, paris 2000, pp. 34-35. 9 ésta es nuestra fe, ésta es la fe de la iglesia, 168 “cierta ruptura, como también la hay entre la antigua y la nueva alianza.” 10 nostra aetate, 4. see also venite e vedrete, ct/ya/2, p. 152, where it is clearly stated that there is no valid justification – neither theological nor historical – for the attribution of jesus’ death sentence to the whole of the jewish people of the time, and yet less justification for blaming the jewish people of successive centuries. 11 the catechism of the catholic church, published in 1992 by pope paul ii, which inspires the catechism for adults (see la verità vi farà liberi, foreword, p. 8), states in section 63 that “israel is the priestly people of god…and the first to hear the word of god.” see also the french catechism by la diffusion catéchistique de lyon, ta parole est un trésor. document biblique du parcours trésors de la foi, publishing house tardy, 1994, p. 8 where it is said that: “cette ancienne alliance est toujours valuable.” 12 io sono con voi, pp. 38.53; venite con me, p. 47; jesύs es el señor, pp. 1.17; ésta es nuestra fe, ésta es la fe de la iglesia, pp. 1136-137; io ho scelto voi, p. 67; pour grandir dans la foi, p. 17. brutti, jews and judaism in european textbooks brutti cp 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): brutti cp1-7 associated or identified with the scribes, the pharisees are depicted in the catechisms in a variety of contrasting ways: as rabble-rousers,13 rigid followers of the traditions of the fathers, despisers of sinners and of the people ignorant of the law,14 but also as a group with a close alliance to the people, showing concern for its problems and object of affection and goodwill.15 the attitude towards the pharisees shifts towards the positive side in the catechism for young adults/2, where there is recognition of the more complex and structured dimension of the pharisaic movement of jesus’ times. this catechism also affirms that there is a contrast with the description that seems to emerge from the gospels, where the figure of the pharisee has been simplified and some negative traits have been exaggerated.16 c. the texts’ hermeneutics – jewish and christian readings of the bible this is perhaps the biggest problem regarding catholic catechesis and the catechisms: the lack of attention to the hermeneutics employed for biblical texts. this becomes particularly evident in the reference to the gospels’ accounts of the passion. ever since the first of the cei’s catechisms, parents and educators have been constantly advised to read passages of the bible (ot/nt) to children, especially the gospels’ accounts of the passion, without, however, offering adults any adequate form of interpretation.17 in italian and spanish catechisms of the episcopal conferences, the accounts of the passion are reported in three different ways: a) through the procedure of harmonizing the gospels’ texts; b) by inserting arbitrary additions; c) summarizing. all three methods – consciously or unconsciously – tend to further accentuate the responsibility of the entire jewish people in jesus’ death.18 but, more generally, the problem also concerns the relationship and the difference between the reading of the bible by jews and by christians. in accord with catholic faith, the catechisms see the old testament texts in the light of jesus’ death and resurrection. however, not a word is written – not even in the catechisms for teenagers and adults – about the intrinsic value of the old testament as revelation,19 nor, above all, about the fact that the christian reading does not necessarily match the jewish reading of the texts. 13 vi ho chiamato amici, p. 35. 14 io ho scelto voi/1, p. 192. 15 ésta es nuestra fe, ésta es la fe de la iglesia, pp. 70-71. 16 venite e vedrete, p. 49. see also the catechism of the catholic church, section 575. 17 lasciate che i bambini vengano a me, p. 102. 18 for example, the catechism for children: io sono con voi (6-8 years), in the introduction, p. 72, states its intention of following st. mark’s gospel, but on page 81, to pilate’s question: “why, what evil has he done?” (mk 15:14), it is added: “i find no basis for a accusation against this man.” (lk 23:4). see also the spanish catechism jesύs el señor, p. 38, where in the summary of the account of mark’s 14:32-15:37, in the sentence: “los hombres le golpearon con látigos” the term “soldados” has been arbitrarily substituted with “hombres.” see instead ta parole est un trésor, pages 365-376, where there is a synoptic reading of the accounts of the passion, but the problems regarding these texts, especially that of the guilt of the jewish people as a whole, is not considered. 19 see the catechism of the catholic church, sections 122-123. brutti, jews and judaism in european textbooks brutti cp 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): brutti cp1-7 as suggested by a document issued by the vatican commission for religious relations with the jews in 1985, “christian identity and jewish identity should be carefully distinguished in their respective reading of the bible.”20 certainly, catechesis is still too far from the official position adopted by the catholic church many years ago. beyond the problems already discussed, two major omissions deserve special mention: a) there is no mention of the holocaust in any of the official spanish, italian and french catechisms that have been examined;21 b) the jewish-christian dialogue is almost completely ignored.22 nevertheless, there is a certain general improvement in the catechisms, regarding the increasing interest towards the bible, including the old testament, the hebrew bible that – as is said in a french catechism – “the people of israel had passed on for centuries and that jesus, as well as the jews of his time, used to read and ponder. the book in which god is revealed in the history of his people and in his son, jesus, the christ.”23 this common awareness of the revelation, regardless of the diversity of both religious faiths is a reason to feel hopeful about the future. ii. jews and judaism in a selection of italian catholic religion textbooks (1988-2006) this section concerns the teaching of jews and judaism in fifteen italian religion textbooks for 12-18 year old students, published between 1988 and 2006. the issues considered are: a) attitudes toward jewish people and the pharisees; b) the jewishness of jesus and the relationship between jews and christians today; c) the relationship between the hebrew bible and the old and new testaments; d) the holocaust. a limited number of religion textbooks from some other european countries and countries outside europe regarding the above subjects have been compared with italian textbooks in the notes. a. attitudes toward jewish people and the pharisees the first problem is connected to the blame placed upon the jewish people as a whole for the death of jesus. some textbooks discuss the overall collective responsibility24 or underline that vatican council ii finally excused the jews of this terrible accusation and a new era in the relationship between judaism and catholicism began.25 in many textbooks particular interest is 20 notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in teaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church, ii, 6. 21 the only hints are to be found in ct io ho scelto voi/1, p. 216, where there is a generic call to the condemnation of the persecutions and the hatred – both due to unjustified prejudice – to which the jewish people has been subjected. see also a french catechism: il s’appelle jésus, 1998, éd. tardy-la diffusion catéchistique-lyon, series: trésors de la foi, p. 91. 22 only ct io ho scelto voi/1, p. 239 remembers the 17th of january as the day dedicated to the dialogue between jews and christians. 23 see vv.aa, ta parole est un trésor, p. 6 “ se révèle à travers toute l’histoire de son peuple et à travers son fils, jésus, le christ.” 24 f. pajer, religione, scuola secondaria di ii grado, ed. sei, 2003, p. 182. 25 see m. genisio, il tesoro che c’è, scuola secondaria di i grado, ed. marietti scuola, 2006, p. 342. in the non-italian textbooks examined, in effect, the appreciation of this new era was never properly recognized. brutti, jews and judaism in european textbooks brutti cp 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): brutti cp1-7 shown towards the history, religious practices and festivals of the biblical jewish people. some of them also show both the strong connection between christianity and judaism26 and the continuity and vitality of judaism today.27 however, alongside these positive elements the textbooks also have unresolved problems. the first is the attitude towards the pharisees, whose depiction is often incomplete and sometimes ambiguous. they are considered as devout laypersons, powerful leaders of a religion based on strict observance of religious precepts, more exterior than fervent, so much so that they were often used as examples of hypocrisy.28 they are enemies of jesus and attack him because of his outrageous preaching and his liberal attitude.29 there is no reference in any of the examined textbooks to the positive relations between jesus and some of the pharisees, as they are depicted in the gospels.30 only one among the italian textbooks examined seems to follow the guidelines of the church documents regarding this issue31 and claims that the pharisees were deeply religious people who lived their lives according to the words of the bible.32 moreover, albeit without explicit accusation, the question about the blame borne by the jews for the death of jesus is still present in textbooks to this day, pervading their presentations of the gospels’ passion narratives. the textbooks often feature an ambiguous and uncertain reading of the events.33 the depiction of the jewish authorities’ cunning, of the roman procurator pontius pilate’s ineptitude, and the stress laid on the crowd’s unanimous sentence34 might contribute to the formation of a negative concept of the jewish people and could lead the students to transfer a negative image of the jews at the time of jesus to present-day jews. 26 see g. margaria, beati voi, scuola secondaria di i grado, ed. marietti, 2004, p. 84. compare two ideas which may seem to be conflicting; vv.aa., icons, a religious education programme for 11-14, 2, department of catholic education and formation, bishops’ conference of england and wales, 2002, p. 70 claims that: “the catholic church believes that god’s revelation has come through the jews…”, whereas secretariado de la comisión episcopal de enseñanza, el encuentro con dios – a través de la istoria, educación secondaria obligatoria 3, 1995, pp. 98-99 insists rather on the rejection of jesus by the jewish people. 27 see f. bassi-l. bavagnoli-e. malvicini, ovunque io sia, i, scuola secondaria di i grado, ed. d’anna-città nuova, 2006, p. 81; g. kannheiser-w. ruspi, nuovo obiettivo vita, scuola secondaria di ii grado, ed. edb, 2002, ii, p. 99. see also icons, 2 p. 70, where the story of the jewish community in england and wales is studied. 28 see ovunque io sia, i, p. 96. the accusation of hypocrisy as seen also in non-italian textbooks, see l. papineau, mon jardin interieur, enseignement moral et religieux catholique, 2nd secondaire, ed. marie france, quebec (canada) 2001, pp. 124-125 e secretariado de la comisión episcopal de enseñanza, el encuentro con dios – dios toma la iniziativa, educación secondaria obligatoria 1, 1996, p. 65. it can be said that, generally the attitude towards the pharisees, also in non-italian textbooks, appears conflicting and almost always negative: see also the belgian catholic religin textbook by y. nissen, le rêve de dieu, i, coll. passion de dieu, passion de l’homme, ed. de boeck, p. 77; p. guenette, en avant la musique, enseignement morale et religieux catholique, 1st secondaire, ed. novalis, quebec (canada) 2000, pp. 124-125 and aa.vv., icons, 2, pp. 12-13 and 59. 29 see pajer, religione, p. 192. 30 see luke 7:36; 11:37; 14:15; john 3:1. 31 see bishops’ committee on the liturgy, national conference of catholic bishops, guidelines on the presentation of jews and judaism in catholic preaching, september, 1988, n. 19. 32 see kannheiser-ruspi, nuovo obiettivo vita, scuola secondaria di i grado, i, p. 121. 33 see, for instance, the report of margaria, beati voi, p. 203. see also le rêve de dieu, i, 88-89 that, alongside the responsibility of the romans and herod, underlines the insecurity and fear of the jews regarding jesus’ message, to the point that they: “essaieront de tuer jésus, ou ils laisseront faire.” a tendency which is present in some textbooks is that of completely ignoring the historical question and insisting only on the theological interpretation of the death of jesus, see el encuentro con dios=dios toma la iniziativa, 1996, p. 101. 34 ovunque io sia, i, p. 111. brutti, jews and judaism in european textbooks brutti cp 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): brutti cp1-7 b. the jewishness of jesus and the relationship between jews and christians today the idea of the jewishness of jesus is introduced into the teaching in the italian catholic textbooks with a certain difficulty and perplexity.35 mainly between the end of the 90s and the beginning of the new millennium and today, the content of the textbooks seems to focus on knowledge of the bible and its historical and environmental background. the attention paid to the biblical text is precisely the starting point from which the italian school textbooks acknowledge the problem of the jewishness of jesus, by recognizing the strong link between jesus and israel and that it is not possible to know christ without knowing the history of israel.36 anyway, this awareness does not seem to include the evidence that the relationship between jesus and biblical israel is at the basis of a new relationship between today’s jews and christians. the textbooks in fact seem to disregard the changes that have taken place in relations between jews and christians during the post-conciliar period. among the many texts considered, only one refers to the jewish-christian dialogue by citing the historical meeting in 1986 between chief rabbi elio toaff and pope john paul ii.37 c. the relationship between the hebrew bible and the old and new testament in the textbooks, the relationship between the hebrew bible and the old and new testament is not always clear. the old testament seems to be the object of special attention, but we can observe the persistence of a certain difficulty in making the distinction between the jewish, christian and catholic bibles.38 moreover, the reduction of the old testament into “law” causes an incomplete and historically biased misunderstanding of hebrew bible and judaism, according to which the law is opposed to love, the latter being an exclusive prerogative of the new testament and christianity. the stress laid on the novelty of jesus with respect to the observance of the practices of the law, and his depiction as he who affirms the love of god and of the neighbor, alienating him from his environment and his historical background, defines him as one entirely opposed to judaism.39 therefore, the reading of the gospels lacks both the needed regard for the context in which they were written and the necessary attention to hermeneutics.40 d. the holocaust in spite of initiatives and projects undertaken by italian schools in general,41 one of the biggest problems that still remains is precisely that of the textbooks, especially the religious instruction 35 see, for example, g. del bufalo-a.quadrino-p. troia, l’altro perché,scuola secondaria di ii grado, ed. edb, 1996, ii, pp. 61-62. 36 m. contadini, itinerari di irc, elledici, scuola secondaria di ii grado, 2004, p. 68. also in some non-italian textbooks, the jewishness of jesus is clearly stated from the history of salvation. see le rêve de dieu, p. 48 ss.; p. guenette, en avant la musique, pp. 46, 49; icons, ii, pp. 7-12. 37 pajer, religione, p. 73. 38 see g. del bufalo-c. dotolo-a. quadrino, la parole chiave, scuola secondaria di ii grado, ed. edb, 2000, i, p. 193. 39 this concept is also clearly expressed in some non-italian textbooks, see e.g., m. boucher, appelé(e) à l’amour, enseignement morale et religieux catholique, 4th secondaire, ed. lidec, quebec (canada), 1991, pp. 114-115; icons, 3, p. 45; el encuentro con dios-dios toma la iniciativa, p. 25. 40 as previously stated, this is particularly important for the stories of the passion, see notes 10-11. see also le rêve de dieu, i, p. 69, regarding the comment by mk 7:24-30. 41 find further information about this issue on the website: www.istruzione.it/shoà: “holocaust education.” brutti, jews and judaism in european textbooks brutti cp 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 http://www.istruzione.it/sho%c3%a0 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): brutti cp1-7 textbooks. indeed, they are distinguished by their scarcity, superficiality and unreliability regarding the information they provide.42 elsewhere, the subject is approached in a generic and wholly insufficient fashion, by linking the question of the holocaust with the more general one of human suffering43 or of the dialogue with the religions. reference is made to the jewish-christian dialogue, to the shoah and to the issue of anti-semitism in the words of john paul ii in the speech he made in st. peter’s square on april 18th, 1993, but any reference to the responsibility of the church and of christians is avoided.44 also the visit of pope john paul ii to the mausoleum of yad vashem in jerusalem, on march 23rd, 2000 is cited,45 but not a word has been written about yad vashem, nor about the history of the holocaust.46 in conclusion, the road of italian catholic religion textbooks leading toward an accurate education about jews and judaism is still a very long one. however, we can observe, as a positive element, the presence of some texts which explicitly recognize the importance and the value of the religious experience of jewish people for the understanding of christianity47 or affirm their aim to recuperate signs or symbols of the jewish christian tradition present in our culture.48 but perhaps the most important element to emerge from this research is the recognition of jewishness of jesus, expressed both openly and by intimation. the “incarnation” of jesus, his humanity and therefore his ability to feel and suffer as a man,49 is recognized today in the majority of school textbooks in an accurate historical-geographical context, with his jewish origin. as suggested by a religion textbook published in quebec, belief in jesus “c’est admettre l’existence historique de jésus.”50 and it is precisely this recognition that could change the situation between the two different religious communities jews and christians – from one of conflict to one of dialogue and discussion. 42 see, for example, the definition of “holocaust” in l’altro perché, ii, p. 396. 43 see la parola chiave, pp. 1-2 and m.r. poggio, la radice de jesse, scuola secondaria di i grado, ed. sei, 1999, p. 109. 44 see itinerari di irc, p.320 45 kannheiser – ruspi, nuovo obiettivo, ii, p. 169. 46 also the non-italian textbooks showed indifference to this problem. 47 see la radice di jesse, p. 1. see also icons, 2, 70 where we read: “the catholic church believes that god’s revelation has come through the jews; it calls its members to remember that jesus was born of a jewish mother and that the apostles and first disciples were jews.” 48 see the study of the passover seder in l. cioni-b. pandolfi, questa è la storia di un capretto…dall ‘esodo all storia ebraica. unità di approfondimento per il biennio della scuola secondaria di 2nd grado, quaderni itinera, 2005, pp. 3-4. 49 vedi, ad esempio, secretariado de la comisióm episcopal de enseñanza, el encuentro con dios – respuesta de fe, educación secondaria obligatoria 2, 1995, p. 68. 50 m. boucher, un amour infini. enseignement morale et religieux catholique, 3rd secondaire, ed. lidec, 1991, quebec (canada), p. 117. brutti, jews and judaism in european textbooks brutti cp 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 jews and judaism in european catholic catechisms and textbooks maria brutti michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): schoenfeld r1-2 freidenreich, foreigners and their food schoenfeld r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr david m. freidenreich foreigners and their food: constructing otherness in jewish, christian, and islamic law (berkeley and los angeles: university of california press, 2011), hardcover, xiii + 325 pp. devorah schoenfeld, loyola university chicago one paradox apparent in the comparative study of religions is that often religions are most similar in the means they use to distinguish themselves from each other. in this impressive, wideranging, careful study of jewish, christian, and islamic food restrictions in the second to twelfth centuries, freidenreich shows convincingly that legal scholars in all three religions used restrictions about food prepared by people of other religions in order to more firmly establish boundaries between them. freidenreich traces the complicated interactions of two forms of food prohibitions: ingredientbased prohibitions, in which food is prohibited because of the ingredients they contain (e.g., pork, shellfish, mixtures of meat and dairy), and commensality restrictions, in which food is prohibited because of something about the person who prepared it or in other ways came into contact with it. in basic terms, ingredient-based prohibitions are about restricting consumption of a certain kind of food, and commensality prohibitions are about restricting contact with a certain kind of person. but freidenreich shows the slipperiness of these two categories, as they sometimes meld into one another. a commensality-based restriction can reflect fear that people of another religion might introduce prohibited ingredients that they customarily use. an ingredientbased restriction can in practice be used to restrict commensality. freidenreich illustrates this slipperiness through his history of jewish food restrictions, which began as primarily ingredient-based. the laws of leviticus, for example, distinguish permitted animals from non-permitted animals, just as god has distinguished israel from all other nations. however, these restrictions but do not require israelites to abstain from food prepared by nonisraelites. a distinction began to appear in the hellenistic period. some writers, such as philo and other alexandrians, continued to view jewish food restrictions as ingredient-based and a purely symbolic representation of jewish difference. by contrast, judean writers like the authors of second maccabees and other apocryphal works understood food prepared by non-jews as prohibited. later, in the rabbinic codification of jewish law in the mishnah and tosefta, some food preparation activities were restricted to jews, such as the slaughter of animals, while other kinds were not, such as the pressing of olive oil. in many cases, rabbis rationalized forbidding food prepared by foreigners because they might introduce prohibited ingredients. for example, rabbis forbade cheese made by gentiles because it might be made using animal rennet, even though it is not clear why animal rennet should be forbidden in all cases. christian food restrictions, as freidenreich shows, developed as a way for christians to distinguish themselves from both jews and pagans. their food restrictions were primarily based on commensality, as can be seen in paul’s writings. unlike pagans, they were forbidden to eat food review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): schoenfeld r1-2 freidenreich, foreigners and their food schoenfeld r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr offered to idols or to eat together with idolaters or immoral persons (1 corinthians 5:11). by contrast, and unlike jews, they did not adhere to a specific list of prohibited ingredients (romans 14:14-15, 20-21). in the fourth century these commensality restrictions expanded to include any food made by jews for ritual use. the sixth-century bishop caesarius of arles extended these rules to prohibit consumption of any food made by jews at all. in a fascinating late medieval dispute, christians debated whether or not it was permitted to eat the hindquarters of an animal that had been slaughtered by a jew according to kosher law. (jews did not eat this part of the animal, instead selling it to non-jews.) some christian authorities prohibited it, considering it “jewish food” and hence unacceptable (p. 121). others permitted it, viewing refusal to eat food that jews refused to eat as implicit acceptance of jewish food restrictions and paradoxically even judaizing. islamic ingredient-based food restrictions steered a middle way between jewish and christian approaches. muslims prohibited the consumption of pork while permitting the consumption of other animals prohibited in leviticus since these latter prohibitions were, according to the qur’an, intended only for jews. islamic commensality-based food restrictions, on the other hand, drew a distinction between jews and christians, who were “less foreign” foreigners, and pagans, who were more foreign (p. 8). sunni law permitted meat slaughtered by jews and christians, while prohibiting meat slaughtered by pagans. shi'i authorities prohibited meat slaughtered by jews and christians, in part to make a distinction between themselves and sunnis who ate meat slaughtered by foreigners. freidenreich shows that some islamic food restrictions were not only intended to distinguish between muslims and non-muslims, but even to distinguish between different types of foreigners, such as pagans, other monotheists, and other muslims. as freidenreich shows, restrictions intended to separate one’s own group from another did not always involve deep, or for that matter any, understanding of the other group’s religious traditions. for example, rabbis in the talmud prohibited wine touched by gentiles on the grounds that they might have offered it to idols, though they knew little about the use of wine in the rituals of the gentiles with whom they were in contact. islamic thinkers had lengthy legal discussions about food prepared by sabians, a group mentioned in the qur’an, though both modern scholars and even medieval muslims seem entirely unclear about who they were (p. 153). freidenreich's writing is clear, and he demonstrates similarities in the ways in which jews, christians, and muslims use food restrictions to separate themselves from each other. since he is writing about multiple traditions, he clearly explains technical terms from each tradition for people who might not be familiar with them. his analysis of complicated legal passages from the talmud, the hadith, and patristic literature are all remarkably accessible even for someone with no previous experience with these texts. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review yaacov deutsch judaism in christian eyes: ethnographic descriptions of jews and judaism in early modern europe, trans. by avi aronsky (oxford and new york: oxford university press, 2012), hardcover, ix + 304 pp. debra kaplan, yeshiva university yaacov deutsch’s book provides a careful examination of a fascinating corpus of material composed in the early modern period. over seventy-five texts that describe jewish ritual life, often in great detail, were written by both jewish converts to christianity and christian hebraists between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. deutsch terms these texts “polemical ethnographies” (p. 2). in his initial chapter, deutsch provides an exhaustive survey of the polemical texts. at “the heart of the book” are three case studies that convincingly demonstrate the polemical aspects of these texts (p. 32). in a fifth chapter he provides an overview and synthesis of the main themes of the book. as deutsch acknowledges, the minutiae included by the early modern authors necessitated detailed discussions for each of the three topics; as such, deutsch’s final chapter is sometimes redundant as it reviews themes with which he already dealt. that said, this chapter is a useful overview for undergraduate students. deutsch’s main argument is that a careful examination of the choices that these authors made when composing their texts reveals the polemical nature of the genre. in chapter two, for example, deutsch surveys the authors’ descriptions of yom kippur, and notes that most authors chose to focus on rituals such as kapparot (symbolic transfer of one’s sins to an animal, usually a rooster or hen) and lashes. this stands in sharp studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) contrast to contemporaneous jewish custom books, which highlighted liturgy. by choosing to highlight certain rituals rather than others, the authors of the ethnographic texts created an opportunity to point to what they perceived as antichristian and superstitious elements of jewish practice. deutsch makes the nuanced point that the ethnographers’ descriptions were often quite accurate; it was what they opted to include or omit that gave the texts polemical overtones. this comes across in his discussion of rituals surrounding jewish food. deutsch explains that the authors did not focus on special or uniquely jewish foods. indeed, one can see that jews and christians often ate similar foods. rather, the authors included lengthy discussions of practices such as ritual slaughter, which allowed them to highlight the ways in which jewish practice was a “misguided” interpretation of the old testament (pp. 227-28). that authors’ editorial decisions were the key element in the construction of these polemical ethnographies is made explicit in deutsch’s discussion of descriptions of jewish circumcisions. he compares the polemical ethnographers’ descriptions with three types of (non-jewish) contemporary texts by other authors: travel literature, ethnographic descriptions of muslim circumcisions, and christian discussions of ancient circumcision practices. the polemical ethnographers, unlike the other authors, highlighted the cruelty and/or the supposed antichristian aspects of this jewish ritual (chapter 3). the comparison of these texts with other contemporary european ethnographies of “foreign” cultures underscores some of the reasons for the emergence of polemical ethnography during the early modern period. the polemical ethnographies were a subgenre of descriptive texts that were part of an emerging print culture, made popular as european exploration led to contact with new peoples and cultures. the religious battles between catholics and protestants were also an important context for some of the polemical aspects of this genre, as some of the characterizations of jewish ritual as superstitious could be “interpreted as veiled criticism against catholics” (pp. 29-30). studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr through his meticulous analysis of texts written over a threehundred-year period, deutsch establishes polemical ethnography as a discrete early modern stage in the history of jewishchristian polemics. previous scholars have traced other developments in polemical literature, noting how polemics about the bible were expanded in the twelfth century to include references to rationalism. the thirteenth century witnessed the emergence of disputes about the talmud. deutsch explains that the early sixteenth-century converts who initiated polemical ethnography were heavily influenced by the spanish dominicans who served as their patrons (pp. 230-38). like medieval mendicants and converts, these sixteenth-century authors sought to reveal “jewish secrets” to their readers and to justify their own conversions; the secrets that they revealed were about the ritual practices of contemporary jews. by contrast, christian-born authors who also composed polemical ethnographies focused on the divergence between jewish praxis and biblical law (pp. 28, 118). the polemical ethnographies were mostly written in german lands, one of the only places in which there was a jewish presence in western europe during the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries (pp. 242-46). the genre is not only crucial because it influenced no less a theologian than martin luther, who cites antonius margaritha (p. 26), but also because the texts were extremely popular, as documented by the many different volumes and multiple editions which are surveyed by deutsch (pp. 51-76). these texts proliferated in the seventeenth century, when there was a surge in jewish conversion to christianity (pp. 238-42), and by the mid-eighteenth century, the texts took on a less polemical tone, as enlightenment-era debates about the political status of the jews replaced these ethnographic inquiries (pp. 254-57). deutsch sees this shift in the genre as a “connection between the ethnographic accounts of the jews and the emergence of the modern critical approach to judaism…that deems human wisdom to be the most appropriate tool for making sense of the history, laws, and institutions of judaism” (p. 254). this provocative idea, which connects converts’ writings, contemporary jewish studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 8 (2013) critiques about judaism, and modern critical jewish studies could have been expanded upon slightly in the conclusion. deutsch’s work accurately captures the painstaking descriptions provided by ethnographers, providing readers with a book as rich in detail as the texts which he examines. scholars, theologians, and students will benefit from deutsch’s identification of an important stage in jewish-christian polemics and from his close readings of these influential texts. the impact of christian-jewish dialogue on catholic biblical studies studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-5 conference proceeding the impact of christian-jewish dialogue on catholic biblical studies eugene j. fisher, associate director emeritus secretariat for ecumenical and interreligious studies, u.s. conference of catholic bishops delivered at catholic historical association, january 2008 the origin of this essay lies in 1943, with pope pius xii’s encyclical, divino afflante spiritu. just as mystici corporus, also issued by pius in 1943, was a precursor of lumen gentium by advancing beyond the neoscholastic ecclesiologies of the time and re-embedding the catholic church in history, so in divino afflante spiritu pius xii called for a “fresh investigation” of scripture, freeing catholic biblical scholars for the first time to apply biblical-critical methodology to the understanding of sacred scripture. this in turn made possible the fresh interpretations of scripture, especially romans 9-11, which cardinal augustin bea included so effectively in nostra aetate. bea, of course, was a biblical scholar whose work was profoundly influenced by pius’ 1943 encyclical, and so was able to accept john xxiii’s mandate that the council take up the question of the catholic church’s understanding of its relationship with the jewish people armed with and ready for new understandings of new testament texts long interpreted as solely negative about jews and judaism. an excellent series of papers on the history and significance of nostra aetate has recently been published. it is based on the proceedings of an international conference on the subject held in jerusalem in 2005 in conjunction with the fortieth anniversary of the promulgation of the document on october 28, 1965.1 i will not repeat that history, save for identifying several points of interest. first, it may be noted that section four of nostra aetate, devoted to the jews, is very short. only fifteen sentences in latin, each word was most carefully constructed after long and searching debates by the bishops, consultors and staff of the pontifical secretariat (later,council) for christian unity, which was headed by bea. the council had an enormous amount of initial material to work with. fr. thomas stransky, csp, who was the youngest member of the staff and the only one still alive, refers to the materials sent in by the french jewish scholar, jules isaac (whose june 1960 meeting with the pope inspired the idea to take up the issue) which included the famous 10 points of seelisberg2; a “council-like” statement submitted by a group of european catholic scholars headed by dutch priest anton remselaar; a report submitted by msgr. john oesterreicher’s institute for judeo-christian studies at seton hall unversity in new jersey, which had been founded in 1953 as the first such academic institute in he history of christianity; and several studies and statements of the world council of churches.3 the fact that so much was distilled in such a brief statement illustrates the depth of the efforts of those 1 neville lamdan and alberto melloni, eds., nostra aetate: origins, promulgation, impact on jewish-catholic relations (berlin: lit verlag, 2007), distributed in north america by transaction publications of new brunswick. 2 stransky in ibid, pp. 30-31. 3 ibid., p. 36. fisher, the impact of christian-jewish dialogue r1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-5 who worked on it. it is also worth noting in this context that the statement on the jews was one of the earliest undertaken during the council and among the last to be voted upon, which again testifies to the enormity of the task that was being undertaken: reassessing almost two millennia of negative assumptions about jews and judaism. stransky’s article notes the numerous severe setbacks the tiny document faced, as well as the creative solutions to seemingly insurmountable obstacles. second, nostra aetate is distinctive among the conciliar documents in not referring to a single previous ecumenical council or father of the church. cardinal bea’s successor, cardinal johannes willebrands, on more than one occasion stated that this was because “never before ha[d] a systematic, positive, comprehensive, careful and daring presentation of jews and judaism been made in the church by a pope or council.”4 statements of previous popes and councils, such as the four discriminatory canons of the fourth lateran council (1215) were disciplinary laws only and, while assuming the negative theological framework of the times (which jules isaac quite accurately called “the teaching of contempt), did not actually take it up as such and therefore had no doctrinal significance for church teaching. therefore the second vatican council was able to go directly to the biblical text itself and begin afresh to form catholic tradition concerning the mystery of israel. in this renewed understanding of the church and the jewish people the most crucial text was considered to be that of st. paul’s considerations in romans 9-11. i will not present a detailed exegesis of the biblical and theological implications of nostra aetate, § 4. this has been done elsewhere by myself and others, most recently in a volume of essays from an international colloquium held at the pontifical gregorian university’s cardinal bea centre for judaic studies on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the conciliar declaration.5 among other key documents the volume includes (i believe for the first time all together in print) the full texts of all seven drafts of the declaration, as well as essays by catholic leaders such as cardinals walter kasper, jorge mejia, and achille silvestrini, and present and past secretaries of the pontifical commisssion for religious relations with the jews, fathers pier francesco fumagalli and norbert j. hoffman, sdb. i will, however, provide a simple illustration of the profound new understanding of rom 9-11 that is to be found in the document’s unprecedented positive revisiting of paul’s words by comparing the chapter and subchapter headings of the 1970 new american bible (nab), which did not yet reflect conciliar teaching, and that of the 1990 nab version. i personally wrote the headings for the latter version after pointing out to the catholic biblical association, which puts out the new american bible, that the 1970 headings did not at all reflect the spirit of nostra aetate, § 4. 4 cited by eugene j. fisher in “evolution of a tradition: from nostra aetate to the notes,” in international catholicjewish liaison committee, fifteen years of catholic-jewish dialogue, selected papers, 1970-1985 (vatican city: libreria editrice vaticana, and rome: librerice editrice lateranense, 1988) p. 240. interestingly, two years preceding this volume, a volume edited by eugene j. fisher, a. james rudin and marc h. tanenbaum, entitled twenty years of jewish-catholic relations (new york/mahwah: paulist press, 1986) was published in the united states. this illustrates the pioneering role of catholic-jewish dialogue in the united states, due to the size and institutional depth of the two communities in this country and the fact that here, unlike in europe, the catholic community was never in a position of power over the jewish community. both were immigrant groups equally discriminated against by “the protestant establishment.” 5 philip a. cunningham, norbert j. hofmann, sdb, and joseph sievers, eds., the catholic church and the jewish people: recent reflections from rome (new york: fordham university press, 2007). fisher, the impact of christian-jewish dialogue r2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-5 1970 overall heading for romans 9-11: “israel’s present rejection” 9:1 grief for the jews 9:6 god’s free choice 9:25 witness of the old testament 9:30 israel’s unbelief ch. 11: partial rejection of israel 11:11 israel’s fall the gentiles’ salvation 11:25 israel’s final conversion 11:30 triumph of god’s mercy 1990 overall heading for romans 9-11: “jews and gentiles in god’s plan” 9:1 god’s love for israel 9:6 god’s free choice 9:25 witness of the prophets 9:30 righteousness based on faith ch. 11: god’s irrevocable call 11:11 the gentile’s salvation 11:25 god’s irrevocable call 11:30 triumph of god’s mercy this effectively illustrates how the same text can be understood differently, depending on how one engages it. in this case – which represents the clear and unambiguous approach of the council – the change in meaning when the negative notions about collective guilt and punishment are removed, is profound. one small but significant change was made in the translation itself. rom 9:4-5 had been translated in the past tense: “theirs were the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law-giving, and the promises; theirs were the patriarchs, and from them came the messiah.” i informed nab editorial staff members that nostra aetate very pointedly translates the same text in the present tense, “theirs are the adoption…theirs are the patriarchs…” the underlying reason for the correction of this consistent past tense negative gloss on the text is not only theological, but biblical. in greek the two verses have no verb, saying simply “theirs the adoption,” etc. however verse 3, which immediately precedes them, is in the present tense. the presumption in the greek is that the tense in such situations does not change unless it is specifically changed, which would have required a past tense verb in at least verse 4. what had happened over the centuries, of course, is that the negative “teaching of contempt” about jews and judaism had so permeated the mind-set of christians that it was imposed on a text in a place where the constext clearly indicates that paul’s obvious intent was positive and which, on linguistic and exegetical grounds, demanded to be translated in the present. now it is. toward a dialogical hermeneutic twenty-five years ago in a paper given at meetings of the catholic biblical association and the american academy of religion, i approached the topic of the present paper with “a tentative tone.”6 today, after a quarter century of continuing progress, i can be more certain of the results. also, twenty-five years ago, i could be reasonably sure that i had covered virtually all of the relevant literature. today, i can only say i have over the years kept up reasonably well. but the field of christian-jewish studies and the biblical studies relevant to it have exploded beyond the point where one person can claim to have read all the related resources. so this study, while by 6 eugene j. fisher, “the impact of christian-jewish dialogue on biblical studies,” in richard w. rousseau, sj, christianity and judaism: the deepening dialogue (scranton, pa: ridge row press, 1983), 117-138. fisher, the impact of christian-jewish dialogue r3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-5 no means exhaustive, can be said to be based on a reasonable, ongoing sampling of the literature over the years. since i first undertook the study of this topic the field of catholic biblical studies has undersone immense change. when i presented that paper twenty-five years ago i was likely one of the few if not the only layperson in a room filled with catholic priests. none of us in the room would have guessed that only a quarter of a century later the book review editor for the new testament would not only be a woman, but a jew! my conviction of twenty-five years ago still holds today; my analysis can be said to be as much about the impact of biblical studies on the catholicjewish dialogue as it is about the latter’s impact on the former. in my 1982 article i noted that the neutral interpretive language of the historical-critical methodologies enabled jews and christians to approach the scriptures together. i identified five areas of biblical studies that were being enriched by the “dialogical hermeneutics” implicitly called for by nostra aetate’s appeal for a dialogue of “mutual esteem” between catholics and jews. the first area to benefit from dialogical interpretation of scripture was exegesis itself. text criticism was improved. a number of related issues were clarified, such as understanding that, while it is not invalid for christians to read chapters two and three of genesis to bolster our christian understanding of original sin, it is also not the sole valid interpretation of the text. similarly, removing the notion of collective guilt from our understanding of jews has led to new insights in pauline, synoptic and johannine studies. a second area is the change in the biblical-critical enterprise itself. it is now understood as a collaborative effort among catholic, protestant and jewish scholars rather than a means to use the scriptures to “score points” against one another. this has led to a new appreciation of pharisaism, and understanding that the polemics against the pharisees in the gospel of matthew reflect the needs and disputes of matthew’s own time and place more than events or realities in jesus’ lifetime. two excellent publications by fordham university press can serve as examples of what catholics can learn from jews in understanding sacred scripture: two articles by jeanpierre sonnet, sj in the 2007 volume, friends on the way: jesuits encounter contemporary judaism, and gersion appel’s a philosophy of mitzvoth: the religious and ethical principles of judaism, their roots in biblical law and the judaic oral tradition, (2008). while the latter does not deal directly with the biblical texts or with pharisaism, since it is centered on a 13th century rabbinic text, it illuminates the general ongoing pharisaic/rabbinic tradition within which jesus’ teaching is most properly interpreted and understood. the third area of hermeneutics raises the question. “is the new testament anti-semitic?” the matter has been debated by numerous scholars, both jewish and christian. while clarifying our understanding of the polemical nature of some new testament passages, these studies have also put them in a larger perspective. it is imperative that a significant distinction is made between the polemical strands of the new testament which were a common characteristic of the main disputes among jesus’ jewish contemporaries, and modern racial anti-semitism with its genocidal potential. we are left with the question: are roots of anti-semitism to be found in the new testament? the answer to this is a nuanced “yes” since the misunderstandings of the new testament that led to the “teaching of contempt” began as early as the second century, imposing themselves on the reading of the new testament for subsequent generations. it took many centuries and many subsequent developments for the christian teaching of contempt to play its role as one of the factors leading to modern, racial anti-semitism. fisher, the impact of christian-jewish dialogue r4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 3 (2008): cp1-5 the fourth area is that of the relationship between the scriptures. in the past an unbridgeable chasm stressed the discontinuity between biblical and post-biblical judaism such that the presumed “legalism” of judaism became a foil for the superiority of every aspect of christianity. however, the new testament authors, beginning with paul, draw a relationship, not of discontinuity, but of essential continuity: promise/fulfillment. the inherent problem is that “fulfillment” theology easily slides, as it has in the past, into supersessionist or replacement theology. as the 1974 vatican guidelines put it: an effort will be made to acquire a better understanding of whatever in the old testament retains its own perpetual value . . . when commenting on biblical texts, emphasis will be laid on the continuity of our faith with that of the earlier covenant, in the perspective of the promises, without minimizing those elements of christianity which are original. we believe that these promises were fulfilled with the first coming of christ. but it is nonetheless true that we still await their perfect fulfillment in his glorious return at the end of time.7 in mainz in 1980, pope john paul ii made the following remarkable assertion: “[t]his dialogue, that is the meeting between the people of god of the old covenant, never revoked by god (cf. rom 11:29), and that of the new covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our church, that is to say between the first and second part of her bible.” the 2002 document of the pontifical biblical commission, the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible8 thus stresses that the jews are not wrong to still await the coming of the messiah, and will not wait in vain. or, to put it liturgically, we must always remember all three parts of the church’s proclamation: “christ has died, christ is risen, christ will come again!” finally, what had been a model of discontinuity and triumphalism is now seen as a mandate for jews and christians together to witness to the world the truths of the scriptures we share. the 1985 vatican notes on the correct way to present jews and judaism in catholic preaching and teaching issued the following ringing call: attentive to the same god who has spoken, hanging on the same word, we have to witness to one same memory and one common hope in him who is the master of history. we must also accept our responsibility to prepare the world for the coming of the messiah by working together for social justice, respect for the rights of persons, and for social and international reconciliation. to this we are driven, jews and christians, by the command to love our neighbor, by a common hope for the kingdom of god and by the great heritage of the prophets.9 7 the full text can be found on the website, www.bc.edu/cjlearning or in eugene j. fisher, faith without prejudice: rebuilding christian attitudes toward jews and judaism (new york: crossroad, 1993), 133-141. 8 published by libreria editrice vaticana with an enthusiastic introduction by cardinal joseph ratzinger, to whose congregation for the doctrine of the faith the pontifical biblical commission reported the document, it deserves study as a reflection of the state of the art of the field of catholic biblical scholarship and theology. 9 the text can be found in fisher, faith without prejudice, pp. 144-155. fisher, the impact of christian-jewish dialogue r5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3 http://www.bc.edu/cjlearning the impact of christian-jewish dialogue on catholic biblical studies toward a dialogical hermeneutic studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review elisheva carlebach and jacob j. schachter, eds. new perspectives on jewish-christian relations: in honor of david berger (boston and leiden: brill, 2012), 547 pp. ruth langer, boston college david berger has been a trailblazer and leader among jews studying the relationship between jews and christians, especially in the medieval world. it is thus entirely appropriate that this massive festschrift honors him with important contributions from many of the other leading scholars in the field, all but one of them jews. this wide-ranging collection presents many of the approaches to the study of the relationship between jews and christians typical of orthodox participants in the world of jewish studies today. the editors have loosely organized the volume into a series of thematic sections, each collecting several narrowly focused, detailed articles. it begins with a rather miscellaneous section titled “christian triumphalism and anti-jewish violence,” that, in four articles, spans from josephus to the anti-jewish riots in spain in 1391. the second section, titled “christian mission and jewish conversion,” moves from the thirteenth to the eighteenth centuries, also in four articles. the third, “the imprint of christian society on internal jewish cultural patterns,” consists of three studies of cases that demonstrate the integration of medieval european jews into their wider communities. the fourth, “jewish evaluations of christianity,” ranges from the meiri and the tosafists to eighteenth-century concerns about sabbatianism and frankism, also in four articles. the fifth, “jewish polemical strategies in light of christianity and islam,” also ranges widely in five articles, most of which focus on medieval biblical hermeneutics. finally, the volume concludes with “contemporary jewish-christian relations,” which receives only two articles. studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) the “new perspectives” offered by this volume never address large, overarching themes. instead, the articles each focus narrowly on a very specific topic, presenting new documents or new interpretations of known texts. this makes for a volume filled with individually excellent articles, each expanding our knowledge in some “new” way, but they neither individually nor collectively provide the breadth of interpretation or method implied by the volume’s title. many fascinating articles will be accessible to the reader not versed in the discourse of rabbinic judaism. this, in general, includes the articles on antiquity. of those discussing later periods, william chester jordan traces transformations in the presentation of jews in medieval passion narratives. benjamin gampel has dug deeply into archival material from aragon to determine how the action or inaction of governmental authorities actually impacted the course of the 1391 riots. elisheva baumgarten argues that there is evidence for jewish and christian cultural interchange in shared understandings of the efficacy of trial by fire to demonstrate spiritual power, especially in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. miriam bodian analyzes the forces shaping the views of christianity among the early modern portuguese jews of amsterdam in light of their own converso pasts. jacob j. schacter’s discussion of the eighteenth-century rabbi jacob emden’s attitudes to christianity and their intersection with his inner-jewish polemics against sabbatianism and frankism is an exceptionally clear and nuanced presentation of a complex topic. daniel lasker presents a concise summary and analysis of changing karaite thinking about christianity. michael wyschogrod’s essay responds, from a jewish perspective, to the pontifical biblical commission’s 2001 document “the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible.” in contrast, a significant number of the articles will not be accessible to many readers because of their technical nature. for example, judah galinsky’s essay on “the different hebrew versions of the ‘talmud trial’ of 1240 in paris” is important, but presumes significant knowledge about this event. yaakov studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr elman’s article “meiri and the non-jew: a comparative investigation” presumes familiarity with previous discussions, some of them in hebrew, and while it presents lengthy texts in translation, does not help the reader unfamiliar with medieval rabbinic terminology to make sense of them. ephraim kanarfogel’s article on the tosafists’ changing attitude to apostates is similarly technical. robert bonfil provides a fascinating analysis of a sixteenth-century sermon preached by a six-year-old convert to christianity, but then publishes the sermon itself only in its original italian. debra kaplan discusses the changing applications of halakhic restrictions on jewish women’s being in the presence of christian men in light of changing economic conditions, but does not sufficiently contextualize her discussion of the (today “difficult”) presumptions about the nature of non-jews on which this is based. sid z. leiman primarily is correcting earlier readings of texts about rabbi jonathan eibeschuetz and his supposed heretical leanings. several other articles are slightly more accessible and worth delving into by those interested in pursuing their topics, as they address the thinking of very influential figures or texts. these include avraham grossman’s article on the intersection of rashi’s understanding of prophecy among the nations and medieval polemics. martin i. lockshin continues this question of medieval exegetical method in his discussion of interpretations of genesis 36. elliot horowitz discusses interpretations of isaiah’s suffering servant and the history of the neubauerdriver collection of commentaries. mordechai z. cohen discusses maimonides’ attitude to christian biblical hermeneutics. for readers of scjr, perhaps the most important article here is that of david shatz, titled “morality, liberalism, and interfaith dialogue.” although admittedly somewhat inconclusive, shatz opens a philosophical discussion between jews participating in dialogue with christians and those refusing to because of rabbi joseph soloveitchik’s teachings. he offers analyses of both sides of this discussion, suggesting that the objections to proselytization among those participating in studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 8 (2013) dialogue are not well-grounded philosophically. however, he notes, soloveitchik’s objection to proselytization was grounded in an argument for the privacy of religious commitment. shatz suggests that this argument itself provides a meeting point, allowing the jewish world to think more deeply and productively about how and why it engages its christian neighbors. shatz’s essay requires development beyond what was possible for this context, but it deserves serious attention and discussion. thus, this tome truly honors david berger with a collection of twenty-two essays, most of the highest quality. all contribute to the field in significant ways, and in this, they pay deepest tribute to berger’s own leadership. they vary primarily in what audiences, beyond berger himself and his immediate circle, will readily be able to benefit from them. the binding of isaac, religious murder and kabbalah: seeds of jewish extermination and alienation? studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): jospe r 1-4 review lippman bodoff the binding of isaac, religious murder and kabbalah: seeds of jewish extremism and alienation? (jerusalem and new york: devora publishing, 2005) reviewed by raphael jospe, bar ilan university twice every year, on rosh ha-shanah and on the sabbath, a few weeks later, when genesis 22 is read as part of the annual cycle of reading the torah in the synagogue, jews are confronted by the drama of the akedah, abraham’s “binding” of isaac in an ultimately aborted attempt to offer his beloved son as a sacrifice to god. on many sabbaths, and on festivals when the yizkor (memorial) prayers are recited, ashkenazi jews have the custom of reciting the av ha-rahamim, an anonymous prayer from the thirteenth century commemorating jewish communities martyred in germany during the first crusade. masada, where, after the fall of jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, some 960 jewish zealots and their families held off the roman army and finally, facing the inevitable, committed mass suicide in 73 ce rather than surrender, is not merely a spectacular historical and archeological site; it has become a site of pilgrimage, where israeli soldiers proclaim “masada shall not fall again,” and where many youngsters celebrate their becoming bar/bat mitzvah. the common thread to these three jewish practices is what lippman bodoff calls “religious murder.” to offer one’s child as a sacrifice to god is murder. to kill one’s family and then commit suicide, even under extreme circumstances, as jewish husbands and fathers did at masada, and then a thousand years later in the face of crusader mobs in the rhineland (1096), and again a century later in york, england, on the sabbath before passover, 1190, is, bodoff argues passionately, murder, and a violation of the moral teachings of judaism. the story of the akedah, he shows, was used to justify medieval jewish martyrdom, in which jews killed their children and themselves, rather than finding a creative way to resist. by this religious murder and suicide, they violated “the laws of religious martyrdom [which] specified that one should die at the hands of the enemy – not by one’s own hand, not by the murder by one jew of another,” let alone of one’s children. “the martyrs could have resisted until death, as other rhineland jews did, or agreed to allow themselves to be dragged to the baptismal font, visibly resisting and protesting as they did so, only to return to judaism later, after the crusaders moved on, or after moving on themselves to another city or town. but they chose not to do so, and to abandon jewish law in the process…they looked to abraham at moriah (the akedah) as the model of spiritual perfection by his willingness to kill his beloved son, isaac” (p. 188). the title of bodoff’s book, the binding of isaac, religious murder & kabbalah: seeds of jewish extremism and alienation?, sums up his thesis. bodoff is less interested in biblical and historical scholarship for its own sake (although his copious notes reflect serious reading of such scholarship as well as of the classical texts) than he is in the existential predicament of jews and judaism today, resulting from misreading biblical and rabbinic texts, ignorance of jewish history, bodoff, the binding of isaac jospe r 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): jospe r 1-4 and misunderstanding and even perversion of jewish ethical and halakhic imperatives. these are not merely theoretical points, as bodoff points out. in 1994, baruch goldstein murdered arab worshippers in the machpelah cave; and, in new jersey (where bodoff lives), avi kostner killed his two children to prevent their being raised as christians by their mother. the next year, yigal amir assassinated prime minister rabin. bodoff does not make the academic mistake, for which gershom scholem blamed rationalist historians, of ignoring or underplaying the powerful forces of mysticism in much of traditional judaism, but, again, bodoff’s interest in defending a rationalist or enlightened, modern orthodoxy is existential and forthright, in the face of “jewish mysticism: medieval roots, contemporary dangers and prospective challenges.” and so, he argues, “orthodoxy today is mystical in outlook, with little interest in hokhmah, general knowledge and wisdom, even as to jewish nationalism in its land. from this standpoint, only the modern orthodox can be considered as carrying on the classical biblical and rabbinic judaism of the first millennium” (p. 18). in bodoff’s view, these mystical developments are a result of exile: “classical judaism, designed to guide jews in every facet of an active, and interactive, life in this world, was transformed by the exilic oppression under a powerful and hostile european christianity into an insular, withdrawn, ascetic, ecstatic, magical and mystical culture” (p. 21). it seems to me, however, that this diagnosis, blaming conditions in christian european society for the mystical developments in judaism, is somewhat facile and fails to take sufficiently into account internal jewish dynamics: the phenomenal growth, in the last decades of the twentieth century and first years of the twenty-first, of haredi (ultra-orthodox) jewish religion, not in christian contexts, but in the state of israel and in largely secular america. it does seem to be easier to take the jew out of the cultural and spiritual ghetto than it is to take the ghetto out of the jew. if, then, mysticism is, as bodoff claims, a “contemporary danger,” the danger may be all the greater for its being the outgrowth of the very sources bodoff reads with such love and affirmation. bodoff brings his rich educational background and professional perspectives to this wide-ranging collection of essays on a variety of themes, which appeared over some twenty years in different journals. an attorney and retired assistant general counsel of at&t technologies, bodoff is also a trained cantor and a former associate editor of the journal judaism. his essays include such disparate discussions as “kabbalistic feminism in agnon’s betrothed,” “secular humanism and creation science in the public schools,” and “music in jewish liturgy: art for whose sake?” the first section of the book presents bodoff’s provocative reading of the akedah. abraham’s faith, for which he was rewarded with divine blessing, was not (as frequently argued) that it was actually god who had commanded him to kill his son, but that god would intervene and stop the murder, just as god had avoided killing the innocents in sodom and had promised abraham that hagar and ishmael would be safe. this is what bodoff calls “a remarkable, coded, countermessage in the akedah, that exists in parallel with the traditional meaning of the text” (p. 30). in this sense, it is not merely that god was testing abraham, but that abraham was testing god and himself. unlike the earlier incident at sodom, however, where abraham directly challenged god’s justice (“will not the judge of all the earth do justice? – gen. 18:25), now abraham adopts the tactic of a bureaucracy: not to rush to execute an order, nor to defy overtly one’s superior, but to stall and play for time, to let one’s superior come around to the correct decision: “at each step abraham was waiting for god…to withdraw his command: when that was not forthcoming, abraham took the next step, and put the almighty to the next test – as it were – always showing obedience…at the very end, when abraham took the last step before he would have been forced by his conscience to stop and challenge god’s command, the angelic order to stop finally came” bodoff, the binding of isaac jospe r 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): jospe r 1-4 (p. 40). so abraham was testing god, just as god was testing abraham, not to see whether abraham would obey the command, but to see whether abraham would remain faithful to the divine moral law by violating an immoral command, even when that command came from god himself. bodoff’s moral concern and legal analytical talents are also evident in an essay, “was yehudah halevi racist?” halevi had attempted to explain the anomaly of jewish survival from ancient times and the uniqueness of israelite prophecy, in what were for him scientific terms. if, as rationalist philosophers (such as sa`adiah gaon and maimonides) claimed, prophecy is inherently a rational process, how can one explain the historical fact that no philosopher was ever a prophet and no prophet a philosopher? since the faculty of reason is common to all humans, how can one account for the fact that prophecy is not a universal phenomenon and that the only prophets recognized as such by other religions are the prophets of israel? halevi’s answer is that the jewish people have a biological faculty transcending reason, the amr ilahi (hebrew: inyan elohi), the divine power, which enables them to prophesy. a convert to judaism, therefore, is equal in all other respects but can never attain prophecy. (nor can native-born jews any more, in the absence of the sacrificial cult of the temple that activated that latent prophetic faculty). in answering his question – is halevi’s racial theory racist? – bodoff points out that halevi wrote his kuzari to reinforce jewish identity and restore jewish self-respect, at a time when jews and judaism were universally despised and regarded as inferior. after comparing the status of proselytes in judaism with catholic treatment of conversos (given the spanish fixation on limpieza de sangre, the purity of blood), and the american constitutional requirement that only native-born citizens can become president, bodoff concludes that for halevi, a proselyte’s progeny presumably could attain prophecy and that the inequality of the first-generation proselyte reflected his or her prior religious status and not present spiritual inferiority; therefore, the inequality is not racial in nature. conversion to judaism, he argues, means joining the jewish nation as well as religion, and birth is pertinent to national identity. this is not, he argues, the same as racism. the point is debatable, and my students in medieval jewish philosophy enjoy the mock trial of halevi i invite them to hold, on the charge of racism. but the fact that bodoff’s conclusions here cannot be proven conclusively in no way detracts from the importance of the discussion. the same may be said of bodoff’s reading of the akedah and his judgment regarding the martyrs of masada and the medieval jewish communities. some of bodoff’s other conclusions are also debatable. in his essay “challenging lubavitch’s new messianic claims,” he states that “messianism, like mysticism and apocalypticism, is a response to trauma of some unbearable reality” (p. 294). that certainly sounds reasonable. the problem is that jewish history all too frequently seems to defy reasonable explanation. lubavitch messianism has certainly become more extreme, more desperate, after their beloved rebbe’s death (which some of them deny and others explain in messianic terms), but it long preceded his death and indeed was at least tacitly, if not overtly, encouraged by the rebbe himself. therefore, it cannot simply be reduced to the trauma of his death. gershom scholem’s classic study of “the mystical messiah” shabbetai tzevi also challenges such common-sense explanations of messianism in terms of suffering and despair, as he pointed to strong opposition to shabbetai tzevi in areas of poland that had experienced the chmielnicki massacres and support for him in free and prosperous amsterdam. how, also, shall we explain the spread of messianic fervor (typically, rabbinic sermons inevitably ending with the expressed hope for the messianic redemption) in other branches of orthodoxy, including bodoff’s modern, zionist type, in israel and abroad, since the six day war of 1967 – certainly no traumatic defeat or “unbearable reality,” and apparently (at least at the time) a phenomenal victory? bodoff, the binding of isaac jospe r 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): jospe r 1-4 another example of jewish history violating common-sense explanation may be found in the controversy over maimonides and over philosophy in the century following his death (1204), which bodoff attributes to the mystics, crediting (or blaming) nahmanides for the fact that “we are still struggling with this dispute, and writing about it, to this day” (p. 234). but, as abba eban once noted, there are things too strange to be believed, but not too strange to have happened in jewish history. the research of dov schwartz into medieval jewish astral magic, and into the maimonidean controversy, has shown that use of magic for medical purposes by rationalist philosopher-physicians (yes, the rationalists!) was one of the grounds for protest by the opponents of philosophy (whom bodoff lumps together as mystics). at which point, haven’t our neat categories of rationalists and mystics broken down? so there’s room for disagreeing with some of bodoff’s conclusions and interpretations, which are always well argued and reasonable, even if they’re not always necessarily correct. however, as is the case with stimulating thinkers, the questions bodoff asks are ultimately far more important that the particulars of his answers, and the answers, whether or not one ultimately accepts them, provoke thought and concern. which is why this is an interesting and valuable book for both jews and non-jews. bodoff, the binding of isaac jospe r 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 reviewed by raphael jospe, bar ilan university 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-2 james bernauer and robert a. maryks, eds. “the tragic couple”: encounters between jews and jesuits (leiden and boston: brill, 2014), 357 pp. mark edward ruff ruff@slu.edu st. louis university, st. louis, mo 63103 originating out of a conference at boston college in july 2012, this collection of eighteen erudite essays traces how jesuits related to and thought about jews. in a symmetrical arc of four centuries, it demonstrates how for much of the 16 th century and again after 1965, jesuits showed a greater openness toward jewish converts, admitting some to the order. however, for the three centuries in the middle, prejudice dominated. some of this was racial, as jesuits barred those of non-christian blood from entering the order. as this brief synopsis suggests, the volume’s title is misleading. promising a description of encounters between jews and jesuits in the vein of a “tragic couple,” it tilts its focus instead to only one of the two partners – the jesuits. it rarely speaks of jewish views of their jesuit partners. it elucidates instead jesuit preconceptions of jews and jewish converts and the reasons for shifts in understanding over the century. it is divided into four episodes that occasionally overlap chronologically. its first section, “jesuits and new christians,” focuses on the era from the founding of the jesuits in 1540 through the early 17 th century. ignatius loyola (1491-1556) and other early jesuits, the volume shows, were free of common prejudices and did not believe that converts presented a menace to the order. yet by 1593, the jesuits altered their policy on membership. new members could no longer be of “hebrew or saracen stock.” these regulations requiring purity of blood, in fact, remained in place through 1946. what changed at the end of the sixteenth century? after all, societal prejudice towards conversos and new christians had existed for more than century and had helped shape structures of the inquisition. though it points to leadership changes at the highest ranks of the order, this volume does not provide conclusive answers, lacking a separate chapter examining why hostility toward converts grew later in the 16 th century. the four chapters examining the 16 th through the 18 th centuries in this volume’s second section, “jesuits, jews, and modernity,” cast a wide net from germany and italy to china. one chapter examines diatribes against jews and jesuits in early modern germany within the context of the processes of 16 th and ruff: bernauer and maryks’ “the tragic couple” 2 17 th century confessionalization. both groups were marginalized, but did not make common cause with each other. in fact, dynamics shifted in the 18 th century, as the jesuit order was suppressed in 1773 by the church and the jews were emancipated, beginning with the french revolution. but widespread suspicions remained, of both wandering jews and jesuits. focusing on how jews and jesuits were portrayed in the european feuilleton and during the spanish civil war, the two chapters comprising this volume’s third section, “hateful visions,” comprise the shortest section of this work. the majority of this volume is to be found in its fourth section, “in the shadow of 20 th -century catastrophe,” which offers two chapters on french struggles, five chapters on italian struggles, and two chapters on the jesuits and antisemitism in the united states. the centerpiece of the volume are the discussions of the antisemitic articles found in the jesuit journal, la civiltà cattolica, particularly those from the early 1880s. were these articles representative of a more pervasive antisemitism within the larger order and, if so, were they part of an orchestrated campaign? david lebovitch dahl argues that these articles were, in fact, not representative of the order itself; their authors soon found themselves marginalized. but that these utterances of hatred were never publicly denounced or disowned indicated a climate of permissiveness towards antisemitism. equally weighty are the two articles focusing on pietro tacchi venturi (1861-1956). though lacking an official position in the secretariat of state, he nonetheless came to serve as pope pius xi’s personal emissary to mussolini. in 1938, tacchi venturi helped orchestrate a deal between the vatican and the italian dictator. the vatican would not speak out against mussolini’s planned antisemitic laws in exchange for an easing of pressure on italian catholic action. this deal set precedents that would continue through 1943, when german troops conquered rome. yet at the same time, tacchi venturi assisted in the rescue of italian jews, and not just converts to christianity but even those remaining true to their faith. this volume also touches on changes in jesuit attitudes toward jews in the post-war era. the shock of the holocaust undoubtedly shaped the decision of 1946 to allow converts into the order. prominent jesuits were involved in the drafting of nostra aetate, the famous statement from 1965 of the second vatican council. here too, however, an additional chapter on the second vatican council might have presented an even more rounded picture. its omissions notwithstanding, this volume is of the highest order. it contains an all-star cast, bringing together prize-winning scholars like david kertzer and charles gallagher, s.j. remarkable is its nearly total absence of second-rate chapters; all eighteen essays engage with historiographical questions and shed new light onto the often painful relationships between jews and jesuits. for specialists, this volume will be a tremendous asset. it is a window into the historiography and a fount for reflection. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): boesel r1-3 hunt, perspectives on our father abraham boesel r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr steven a. hunt, ed. perspectives on our father abraham: essays in honor of marvin r. wilson (grand rapids, mi: wm. b. eerdmans, 2010), hardcover, xiii + 396 pp. chris boesel, drew theological school perspectives on our father abraham is a festschrift for marvin r. wilson on the occasion of his seventy-fifth birthday and in honor of almost fifty years of teaching, scholarship, and activism. wilson spent most of those years at gordon college, introducing young evangelical students to the hebrew bible and modern jewish culture. he has also been a leading figure in initiating and pursuing dialogue between evangelicals and jews in the united states. perspectives (whose title recalls wilson’s 1989 work, our father abraham) includes eighteen essays on the figure of abraham and the patriarchal narratives in the hebrew and christian scriptures and in jewish and christian histories of interpretation from the early rabbinic and patristic periods to the present. while most of the essays are from evangelical colleagues at gordon, there are several contributions by jewish colleagues and friends and one co-authored entry, a jewish-christian collaboration. the book is divided into three sections. the first two sections are on the hebrew and christian scriptures, respectively, in which the authors employ historical, exegetical, and archaeological approaches common in biblical scholarship. the third section is “interdisciplinary” and contains essays on the meaning and significance of abraham across a variety of historical and interpretive contexts. these essays are comparatively less focused with regard to discipline and methodology than those in the first and second sections. this section also includes two essays explicitly addressing the contemporary state of jewish-christian—and more particularly jewishevangelical—relations, one by a rabbi (a. james rudin) and one by a christian zionist (joann g. magnuson). in my reading, the book has two main points of interest with regard to wilson’s impact: the state of contemporary evangelical biblical scholarship, and evangelicals’ relation to theological anti-judaism and supersessionism. two-thirds of these essays are works by biblical scholars doing academic biblical scholarship. there are two things that are notable here. first, virtually all of these authors are unapologetic about their use of the tools of modern biblical scholarship and offer no warnings about the dangers they pose to evangelical, biblical faith commonly heard in evangelical educational settings. while there are hints of traditional evangelical concerns over authorship, dating, and inerrancy in several of the essays, these issues—together with the sense that absolute theological claims are at risk—are mostly absent. this freedom from the relatively narrow range of traditional evangelical concerns allows a broader range of methodological approaches. we find historical-critical (edwin m. yamauchi on biblical archaeology), canonical-intertextual (ted hildebrant on psalm 105), rhetorical (gordon d. fee on paul), and—in the essay most different from the others— liberationist-tinged postcolonial readings (roy ciampa on galatians). the evangelical commitments of most of the authors, while less prominent when compared to earlier evangelical biblical scholars, are discernible in attempts to affirm traditional and doctrinally orthodox claims. for review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): boesel r1-3 hunt, perspectives on our father abraham boesel r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr example, we find efforts to use the methods of modern biblical scholarship to demonstrate the greatness of the biblical god’s character and god’s faithfulness in dealing with israel and the christian community. we also find traditional christological readings of both hebrew and christian scriptures and accompanying theological affirmations of the unity and continuity of the two. wilson’s own concerns and influence are most clearly seen in the last thematic focus of the collection, on the unity of the scriptures. the extent to which the second theme—traditional christological readings across both testaments—reflects his own work is less clear. this raises the second and more notable feature of the sections on biblical scholarship, and of the collection as a whole: the unapologetic and unexamined presence of a form of christian supersessionism in a book honoring a scholar’s contribution to improving jewish-evangelical relations. it is true that replacement supersessionism that holds that god cast off the people of israel and replaced them with the church, and the christian “teaching of contempt,” is rejected on every page of the book—either explicitly or implicitly—as theologically unsound and ethically deplorable. however, this admirable rejection occurs by means of a softer, “fulfillment” form of supersessionism (e.g., pp. 136, 152, 156, 172, 220). numerous authors, such as john n. oswalt, gordon d. fee, and william b. barcley, affirm the provisionality of the hebrew scriptures and judaism’s interpretation of them relative to the gospel’s proclamation of jesus as the messiah of israel. it is this that is the fulfillment of god’s covenantal promise to abraham regarding both israel and the nations. an affirmation of the unity and continuity of the two scriptures does indeed support the rejection of replacement supersessionism. however, it necessarily implies that the two testaments are about the same thing—the same god making and fulfilling the same promises, acting consistently and faithfully in and through history to fulfill the same redemptive will. more specifically, some authors imply that what happens in the church’s new testament is a continuation of the will and action of the god of israel recorded in the hebrew scriptures; the new testament’s proclamation about jesus christ names the one who is promised and expected in the hebrew scriptures. for example, barcley argues against the christian supersessionist tradition that sees a stark, pejorative contrast between the abrahamic covenant (a covenant of “faith,” as interpreted in the new testament and christian theology) and the mosaic (read: jewish) covenant of “law,” with the former, better, eternal covenant surpassing the latter. this is a clear argument against the hostile logic of replacement supersessionism. however, the grounds given for the unity and continuity between the two covenants are their mutual fulfillment in jesus christ as he is proclaimed in the christian scriptures and in christian faith as the eternal ground and goal of both. in another essay, steven a. hunt argues that jesus christ, as the pre-existent word, appeared to abraham on mt. moriah. this reflects the assumption that the god of israel referred to in the hebrew scriptures is the trinitarian god known in christian faith, a god quite specifically not known and / or acknowledged by rabbinic jews according to their own readings of the hebrew scriptures. the unavoidable implication of both these examples is that jews’ knowledge of the god of their own scriptures is only partial in relation to christians’ fuller knowledge and interpretation of the scriptures. it is not surprising that this kind of supersessionism should be present in evangelical biblical scholarship and theology, even among moderate and progressive voices like those found here. indeed, it is to be expected. for inasmuch as evangelicals confess jesus christ as the eternal god incarnate and israel’s promised messiah, sent for the redemption of israel and the nations, their theology is essentially supersessionist though not essentially replacement supersessionist in relation to jews’ self-definition and self-understanding. what is surprising is that fulfillment supersessionism goes unremarked and unexamined in a collection informed by and in celebration of advances in jewish-evangelical conversation and mutual understanding. there is simply studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): boesel r1-3 hunt, perspectives on our father abraham boesel r 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr no mention of it as a sensitive and problematic issue, even though supersessionism on some level contributed to the ugly history of christian anti-judaism and antisemitism and that is so clearly deplored and rejected throughout the book. what is perhaps most surprising is that the jewish contributions to the collection are equally silent on the issue. rabbi rudin, an early partner with wilson in pioneering jewish-evangelical dialogue in the 1970s, praises wilson’s attack on replacement supersessionism and pejorative assessments of judaism as “an incomplete religion devoid of intrinsic spiritual value” (p. 318). however, the supersessionist basis for much evangelical support for the state of israel—belief in “a divine economy that calls for a jewish ingathering of exiles as a prerequisite for the second coming of jesus” (p. 316)—is acknowledged without critique. given that rudin is clear about his discomfort with just this kind of supersessionist logic in other works, the reader is left to speculate as to the extent to which his silence here is a matter of judicious respect for the festschrift context or more generally reflective of the nuanced politics of jewish-evangelical dialogue in which he and wilson have played such a significant role. the other jewish contributions, which together make up roughly half of the interdisciplinary section of the book, avoid theological analysis altogether. focusing on rabbinic (david j. zucker) and modern jewish cultural (david klatzker) interpretations of abraham, sarah and hagar, they seem largely intended to familiarize and educate evangelical readers about the interpretive practices and thought patterns of jewish tradition up through modern times. i recommend this book to all those interested in the above issues and questions. it is a worthy celebration of wilson’s exemplary career of moderate to progressive (depending on one’s perspective) evangelical scholarship, teaching, and activism. it will be especially useful to those committed to finding ways to continue to address the intractable complexity of the issues and questions wilson has raised with the self-critical honesty, transparency, and sensitivity required for both intraand inter-religious theological and ethical responsibility. ramelli, philo as origen’s declared model ramelli 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college philo as origen’s declared model: allegorical and historical exegesis of scripture 1 i l ar i a l. e. ram el l i c a t h o l i c u n i v e r s i t y o f t h e s a c r e d h e a r t , i t a l y volume 7 (2012) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol7 1 earlier drafts of this study were presented at invited lectures and seminars at the jewish theological seminary and the union theological seminary, new york, in november 2011 and at the university of haifa and the hebrew university of jerusalem in march-april 2012. i am most grateful to the colleagues who invited me and to all the participants for the engaging discussions we enjoyed, especially paula fredriksen, orna harari, ben isaac, richard kalmin, vered lev kenaan, john mcguckin, maren niehoff, jonathan price, and tessa rajak. special thanks to kevin spicer and the anonymous readers of scjr for their helpful comments. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): ramelli 1-17 ramelli, philo as origen’s declared model ramelli 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr origen and jewish exegesis: close interactions i am going to focus on the relations between origen of alexandria († 255 ca.), the great and extremely learned christian exegete, theologian, and philosopher, and judaism as regards biblical exegesis. i will investigate how philo and origen used the instrument of allegory to read the bible in the light of philosophy, but both of them reacted against a sheer allegorization of scripture (sc. one that denies the validity of the literalhistorical plane as well), which existed both among the jewish allegorizers who preceded philo and among ‘gnostic’ christian allegorizers. even philo and origen, however, thought—unlike subsequent rabbinic and christian exegetes—that the genesis account of creation had a special status and required to be interpreted not literally, but only allegorically. i will argue for a platonic influence on this conception and point out how origen emphasized the jewish antecedents to his own philosophical allegoresis of scripture. i will show that, for origen, philo the jew was a better exegete and theologian than christian ‘heretics’ were, and i will demonstrate that origen’s attitude toward philo as his predecessor in scriptural allegoresis is not ambivalent as it may appear, but definitely positive. i will also point to the chiefly rhetorical and apologetical nature of the “jewish literalism” topos in origen, who was all too well aware that ‘literalists’ existed also among christians (and were his own enemies), and that, conversely, jewish biblical exegesis was also allegorical. philo and aristobulus are the most conspicuous examples of this, and origen overtly claims them as his predecessors. rabbinic exegesis was more—although not exclusively—‘literal’; however, recent and less recent assessments of the relation between origen and rabbinic judaism have more and more brought to light the closeness of the rabbis’ and origen’s interpretation of the hebrew bible. it is increasingly clear that each side developed its own exegesis in the awareness of the exegesis of the other side, which implied interactions, influences, and sometimes also polemical responses. a good albeit partial synthesis, also with overview of past scholarship, today is anna tzvetkova-glaser’s monograph. 2 existing scholarship had already acknowledged in some cases that origen relied on haggadic traditions. conversely, influence of christian exegesis on genesis rabba has also been discovered (see below). the same is revealed by some contributions to the volume, the exegetical encounter between jews and christians in late antiquity, 3 especially those of philip alexandre 4 and marc hirschman. 5 philo is never mentioned by rabbinic authors, but an influence of his exegesis of genesis may have reached them indirectly or directly through origen. for instance, the rabbis assimilated the notion that god created the world having a plan in his mind; this notion was found both in philo and then in origen, as i have demonstrated. 6 origen may have transmitted philo’s concept to the rabbis, but these may also have read philo on their own. also, in the rabbinic counterpart to the christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, a particularly interesting account is given of rabbi gamaliel’s teaching on the original elements in a debate with an unnamed philosopher, which, if the gamaliel in question is gamaliel ii, 7 is set toward 2 anna tzvetkova-glaser, pentateuchauslegung bei origenes und den frühen rabbinen (frankfurt am main: peter lang, 2010). 3 emmanouela grypeou and helen spurling, eds., the exegetical encounter between jews and christians in late antiquity (leiden-boston: brill, 2009). 4 philip alexandre, "in the beginning: rabbinic and patristic exegesis of genesis 1:1," in the exegetical encounter between jews and christians, 1-29. 5 marc hirschman, "origen’s view of ‘jewish fables’ in genesis," in the exegetical encounter between jews and christians, 245-254. 6 ilaria l. e. ramelli, "clement’s notion of the logos ‘all things as one.’ its alexandrian background in philo and its developments in origen and nyssen,” in alexandrian personae: scholarly culture and religious traditions in ancient alexandria (1st ct. bce-4ct. ce), ed. zlatko pleše (tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2013). 7 rabbi gamaliel i and rabbi gamaliel ii are often confused in rabbinic literature. see jacob neusner, the rabbinic traditions about the pharisees before 70 (leiden: brill, 1971), 341-342. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): ramelli 1-17 ramelli, philo as origen’s declared model ramelli 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the end of the first century (reported in gen. rab. 1.9). 8 even if the source itself is late and, according to jacob neusner, stems from the fourth century ce, 9 the elements that gamaliel claims to have been created seem to me to be identical to those which appear in bardaisan of edessa’s cosmology. the latter was likewise based on the genesis account, interpreted in the light of plato’s timaeus, 10 and shows other affinities with jewish traditions that are worth exploring further. the presence of the same material in bardaisan († 222 ce) suggests that the midrash in this case can preserve a tradition that is earlier than the fourth century ce. rabbinic interpretations of the commandment of circumcision, with their aversion to any allegorization of that commandment, responded to the demands of the rabbis’ polemic against pagan and christian criticisms. 11 the rabbis too, however, accepted a moral exegesis of circumcision, provided that this did not obliterate the literal observance of the commandment. this was also the position of philo, who offered a moral interpretation of circumcision, but did not at all mean that the material observance of the commandment should be superseded. as i shall point out, this was also origen’s own general attitude in scriptural exegesis, and it was identical to philo’s attitude: both of them contrasted sheer allegorizers of scripture as well as people who refused to allegorize the bible at all. the similarities between the rabbinic and the early christian interpretations of the sacrifice of isaac 12 are even 8 juda theodor and hanoch albeck, eds., midrash bereshit rabba, second ed. (jerusalem: wahrmann books, 1996). 9 jacob neusner, judaism and christianity in the age of constantine (chicago: university press, 1987). 10 for a recent and sound reassessment of his thought see ilaria l.e. ramelli, bardaisan of edessa. a reassessment of the evidence and a new interpretation. also in the light of origen and the original fragments from de india (piscataway: gorgias, 2009). for his cosmology see 314-355. 11 tzvetkova-glaser, pentateuchauslegung, 179-180. 12 tzvetkova-glaser, pentateuchauslegung, 186-202. more impressive. for instance, isaac’s willingness to be offered in sacrifice and the redemptive character of his sacrifice in rabbinic exegesis resemble very closely the christological interpretation of that episode by the early christian exegetes, in whose view isaac is the typos of christ. as a consequence, it is discussed whether the rabbinic exegesis of that episode depends on the christian or vice versa. at least some rabbinic traditions, such as those of isaac’s true death and subsequent resurrection (which has no grounds in the biblical text), and of his action of bearing the “cross” on his shoulders, seem to me to reveal a sure influence of christian accounts. the date itself of the sacrifice of isaac on 15 nisan reveals a striking closeness to the date of jesus’ (the new isaac’s) death, also toward mid nisan. origen’s reading of isaac as both the priest who offers the sacrifice and at the same time as the sacrificial offering itself clearly assimilates isaac to christ, whose functions as sacrificial offering and as high priest origen especially highlighted in his interpretation of hebrews. also, if origen refused to see in the paschal lamb a prefiguration of the suffering of christ on the cross, this is because he rejected the etymology of πάσχα from πάσχω and adopted the correct hebrew etymology “passage.” origen also seems to have known haggadic traditions in connection with the interpretation of ex 13:1714:31. 13 there is, thus, a significant reciprocal influence between origen and the rabbis; origen also learned hebrew and received copies of the hebrew bible from contemporary jews and even cited rabbinic interpretations of scripture. however, if one wishes to find out the most significant dependence of the christian alexandrian on jewish exegesis, one must certainly turn to investigating the close relationship between philo of alexandria—the greatest jewish hellenistic exegete—and origen. as i shall show, indeed, origen himself claimed that philo and other hellenistic jewish exegetes, such as 13 tzvetkova-glaser, pentateuchauslegung, 276. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): ramelli 1-17 ramelli, philo as origen’s declared model ramelli 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr aristobulus, were his own primary sources of inspiration for his philosophical and allegorical exegesis of scripture, which was being heavily contested both by ‘pagan’ middle platonists and by some groups within christianity (and possibly also by some contemporary rabbinic exegetes). philo’s influence on origen’s exegesis—and, through origen, on a good deal of subsequent christian exegesis—is both structural and often extending even to minimal exegetical details. i have already examined several examples of the common exegetical details in a past study. 14 now some most interesting and in part overlooked aspects of the structural impact of philo’s hermeneutics of scriptures on origen’s hermeneutical theory and praxis will be pointed out in the following investigation. philo’s most general structural influence on origen: reading the bible allegorically through platonism philo had been the first systematic philosophical interpreter of the bible who read it allegorically, exactly as origen did in his footsteps in christianity. however, philo in turn had had some precursors in hellenistic judaism such as aristobulus, the essenes, the therapeutae, and others. it is philo himself who attests allegoresis of scripture as a regular practice among essenes and therapeutae in prob. 75ff. and de vita contemplativa. more specifically, philo also informs that the story of joseph in egypt was interpreted allegorically by other exegetes before him (jos. 151). allegory was a powerful tool that allowed philo to interpret scripture in the light of platonism, especially a form of platonism that is conventionally called middle platonism, as well as of stoicism (although from the metaphysical point of view stoic immanentism was incompatible with philo’s theology), and pythagoreanism. remarkably, these are the very same philosophical lines in the light of which 14 ilaria l. e. ramelli, “philosophical allegoresis of scripture in philo and its legacy in gregory of nyssa,” studia philonica annual 20 (2008): 55-99. origen too read the bible. 15 also, both philo’s and origen’s attention focused first of all on the bible itself, so that we can say that it was exegetical first and philosophical after. origen indeed was very well acquainted with philo’s works, or at least a good part of them, and was interested in those works of philo in which the allegorical exegesis of the bible is predominant. what is more, origen closely depended on philo’s approach, both from the point of view of the philosophical approach to scripture and for the allegorical interpretation that both of them applied to the sacred text. this interpretation, as i shall point out, is not the only one contemplated and provided by philo and origen: it always parallels the literal, historical interpretation, which keeps its validity in almost all cases. origen of alexandria, the biblical exegete, was a christian philosopher, 16 no less christian for being a philosopher and 15 for origen one should add aristotelianism (see ilaria l. e. ramelli, “alexander of aphrodisias: a source of origen’s philosophy?,” philosophie antique 13, forthcoming in 2013), but this debt of his is unacknowledged by origen who, considered aristotle’s philosophy contrary to christian belief because it denied that divine providence reaches the earth. it is possible that, when origen refused to teach atheistic philosophical movements, he included both epicureanism and aristotelianism among these. neither epicurus nor aristotle in fact denied the existence of the divine, but the denial of divine providence was enough to place these thinkers among “atheists” broadly conceived. 16 he might even have been the same person as origen the neoplatonist. see ilaria l. e. ramelli, “origen, patristic philosophy, and christian platonism: re-thinking the christianisation of hellenism,” vigiliae christianae 63 (2009): 217-263, and idem, “origen the christian middle/neoplatonist,” journal of early christian history n.s. 1 (2011): 98-130. this position is shared, among other scholars, by pier franco beatrice, “porphyry’s judgment on origen,” in origeniana v, ed. robert j. daly (leuven: peeters, 1992), 351–67; idem, “origen in nemesius’ treatise on the nature of man,” in origeniana ix, ed. györgy heidl and robert somos (leuven: peeters, 2009), 505–532; idem, “the oriental religions and porphyry’s universal way for the soul’s deliverance,” in les religions orientales dans le monde grec et romain: cent ans après cumont (1906–2006), ed. corinne bonnet, et al. (bruxelles: institut studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): ramelli 1-17 ramelli, philo as origen’s declared model ramelli 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr no less of a philosopher for being christian. origen had been educated in the liberal arts and the study of philosophy—one of his teachers, ammonius saccas in alexandria, was the same who also taught plotinus—and never rejected philosophy. on the contrary, he used it and continued to teach it all his life. in a letter preserved by eusebius 17 he even defended as perfectly legitimate the position of a christian philosopher or a philosopher presbyter against the criticisms of his detractors, who did not approve of a christian who was a philosopher. he adduced the examples of both pantaenus and heraclas to support his case. both philo and origen deemed judaism—in the case of origen, both judaism and christianity as its offspring—the true philosophy. in this light it was natural for them to interpret the jewish scripture in the light of philosophy. according to a jewish-christian apologetical argument that both of them shared, greek philosophers were in fact inspired by “moses,” the hebrew scripture, or at least by the same logos that is expressed in scripture, that is, god’s logos (for philo, this is the most important power of god and almost an independent figure; for origen, this is christ-logos, whom he obviously read in every reference of philo to the divine logos). philo was so deeply persuaded that the mosaic scripture and platonism were historique belge de rome, 2009), 343–368; thomas böhm, “origenes – theologe und (neu-)platoniker? oder: wem soll man misstrauen: eusebius oder porphyrius?” adamantius 8 (2002): 7–23; elizabeth depalma digeser, “origen on the limes: rhetoric and the polarization of identity in the late third century,” in the rhetoric of power in late antiquity, eds. robert m. frakes, elizabeth depalma digeser, justin stephens (london–new york: tauris academic studies, 2010), 197-218.; eadem, a threat to public piety: christian, platonists, and the great persecution (ithaca-london: cornell university press, 2012), 18, 51, and passim. for the sake of the present argument, however, it is not necessary to suppose that the two origens were one and the same person. 17 analyzed by ilaria l.e. ramelli, "origen, patristic philosophy, and christian platonism: re-thinking the christianization of hellenism," vigiliae christianae 63 (2009): 217-263. inspired by the same logos as to insist that scripture actually expounded the famous platonic doctrine of the ideas, especially in ex 33:18 (which he interprets in spec. 1.41.45-48) and 25:40, as is clear from qe 2.82 and mos. 2.74-76. it is significant, but not surprising, that philo’s exegesis was soon taken over by origen. on the basis of this conception, philo understood the hebrew scripture as an allegorical exposition of platonic doctrines. and origen followed in his footsteps. both of them, indeed, were so committed to scripture as the only ultimately authoritative text that they would never have embraced platonism if they had not been convinced that platonism was in fact taught by scripture. it is interesting that this operation of interpreting scripture in the light of philosophy, and especially of platonism, was performed by philo and origen in a period in which the religious tradition, in turn, began to work as an important foundation of philosophy, e.g., in the middle-platonist plutarch and, subsequently, in later neoplatonists. philosophy tended to become more and more a religion when judaism and christianity had begun to present themselves as philosophy. philo and then origen had to defend the legitimacy of a philosophical allegoresis of the bible—that is, of reading scripture allegorically and finding philosophical doctrines in it—both against internal attacks and against external ones. indeed, in both judaism and christianity, some criticized the allegorical interpretation of the bible. and outside judaism and christianity likewise, there were allegorists, especially neoplatonists, who denied that the bible could ever be interpreted allegorically, simply because the hebrew and christian scriptures contained no profound philosophical meanings to be disclosed by means of allegoresis. this was the position of middle platonists such as celsus or neoplatonists such as porphyry. exceptions to this trend are very few. the most outstanding is surely numenius of apamea, who lived in alexandria—like philo and origen—and was close to both middle platonism and neopythagoreanism. not only did studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): ramelli 1-17 ramelli, philo as origen’s declared model ramelli 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr he not blame jewish and christian philosophical allegorists of scripture, but he even applied allegoresis to the jewish and christian scriptures himself. 18 origen was well acquainted with his work, as is attested both by his explicit, appreciative mentions of numenius and by porphyry ap. eus. he 6.19. here porphyry lists numenius among origen’s favorite readings, naming him even in the second place just after plato himself. there are several examples i noticed that lead to what seems to me an all-important remark: origen tends expressly to refer to philo as a predecessor precisely in points that are crucial to his scriptural allegorical method. this strongly suggests that philo was his main inspirer for the very technique of philosophical allegoresis of scripture, and that origen both was well aware of this and acknowledged his debt. an interesting example is found in comm. in matt. 10.22, with the mention of philo, ebr. 208-209, concerning pharaoh, who is in fact a core character in origen’s exegesis, and in his reflection on free will and providence in princ. 3. moreover, both passages by origen and philo, blaming the celebration of pharaoh’s birthday, are inspired by the fundamental idea that the true imperishable life to be celebrated is not the earthly life. indeed, it seems to me most significant that precisely in connection with the spiritual interpretation of death as sin, a key concept for all of origen’s ethics and anthropology, we find in origen one of the few references to philo as quidam ex his qui ante nos interpretati sunt locum hunc (“some of those who before us have interpreted this biblical passage,” hom. in num. 9.5). origen had in mind her. 201, where philo too had already interpreted the “dead” as the impious and foolish. another significant example is in comm. in matt. 17.17, where the inspiration from philo, deus 52-53, is close and declared: “one of my predecessors, who has composed books of allegory of the sacred laws.” now, both philo and origen in these passages are dealing with one of the pivotal motifs of their allegorical exegesis, namely the 18 see frs. 1c and 10a des places = origen cc 4.51. therapeutic and pedagogical purpose of scripture’s anthropomorphic expressions referring to god: not only hands, shoulshoulders, and the like, but also anger, punishment and threats are applied to the divinity. all of these expressions, both philo and origen maintained, have a didactic purpose and must not be taken at face value, but rather must be interpreted allegorically. the last instance i pick out is probably the most important in this connection: origen clearly refers to philo as a predecessor (in the phrase, “some of those before us have taught...”: cc 7.20) precisely in relation to the basic methodological feature of his exegesis: the distinction between a literal and a spiritual meaning in the law—“the law is double: according to the literal sense and according to the implied meaning”—which is the presupposition itself of the practice of allegorical interpretation of scripture. it is therefore possible to conclude that origen tends to openly refer to philo precisely in those cases—among the very many other instances of origen’s dependence on him—in which a particularly important aspect of his allegoresis or his thought is involved. this entails that origen wanted to present philo the jew as his principal inspirer in fact of biblical philosophical allegoresis, what indeed philo was. this is all the more significant in that philosophy, and especially middle and neoplatonism, and allegorical exegesis of the bible are very closely interrelated in both philo and origen. indeed, many theological and philosophical conceptions passed from philo to origen through allegory. 19 philo was the first systematic philosophical interpreter of the bible who read it allegorically, and origen was the first, and the greatest, who did so in christianity. if origen’s monumental commentary on genesis were not lost, his debt toward his jewish predecessor would very likely be all the more conspicuous to his readers. it must be observed that origen cites philo explicitly and by name in contra celsum—as i have remarked—, a scholarly 19 full demonstration of this point in my “philosophical allegoresis.” studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): ramelli 1-17 ramelli, philo as origen’s declared model ramelli 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr work against a middle platonist, while in his homilies he refrains from mentioning him by name. but in the homilies origen regularly omits nominal citations, not only of philo, but of any other auctoritas apart from scripture. this is a general strategy of origen rather than a sign of ambivalence or embarrassment toward philo. origen himself explains the reason why in his homilies he omits citing nominally either philo or any other author outside biblical ones: “but i have to omit many details, because now it is not the appropriate occasion to make a scholarly commentary, but i must rather edify the church of god, and stimulate with the example of the saints and allegorical explanations those listeners who are too lazy and indolent” (hom. in gen. 10.5). 20 origen in fact abundantly cites philo as his authoritative albeit unnamed “predecessor” in both his homilies and his commentaries: τις τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν (comm. in matth. 10.22); τῶν πρὸ ἐμοῦ τις (comm. in io. 14.5); τινες (comm. in io. 6.217); τις τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν (cat. in ex. pg 12.285a); τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν τινες (cc 7.20); τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν τις (ibid. 5.55); τις and τινες (cat. in gen. b pg 12.116a and 97bc); quidam ante nos (hom. in ex. 9.4); ante nos quidam (ibid. 2.1-2); ante nos quidam (hom. in ios. 16.1); quidam ante me (hom. in lev. 8.6); τῶν παλαιῶν τις (cat. in lev. 8.6); aliquem qui fuit ante nos exponentem (comm. in matth. ser. 69); quidam ex his qui ante nos interpretati sunt locum hunc (hom. in num. 9.5); aliquanti (hom. in gen. 14.3); et a prioribus nostris et a nobis saepe iam dictum est (ibid. 27.4). in all of these cases a comparison with philo’s exegesis of the scriptural passages at stake makes it certain that origen’s “predecessor” is indeed philo’s. but it is in two passages of his against celsus—and not in any homily—that origen mentions philo nominally, and it is only in a passage of a scholarly commentary that he cites him almost nominally, that is, indicating, if not his name, a specific 20 sed ut omittamus plurima – neque enim commentandi nunc tempus est, sed aedificandi ecclesiam dei et pigriores ac desides auditores exemplis sanctorum et mysticis explanationibus prouocandi. work of his: the allegories of the laws. in cc 6.21 origen is speaking of jacob’s vision of the ladder on which angels went up and down (gn 28), in relation to a possible platonic exegesis that contemplates the descent of souls onto the earth through the planetary spheres. origen, with a typical apologetic move, vindicates the anteriority of moses over plato and avers that moses’ story of jacob’s ladder hides “a greater allegorical meaning.” now, this meaning—he maintains—was already detected by philo, and here origen not only cites philo by name, but also recommends his work on dreams (de somniis) in the highest terms: “there is a book by philo on the ladder story, which is worthy of wise and intelligent examination on the part of those who love the truth.” 21 cc 4.51 is the pivotal passage on which i have already commented, concerning philo and aristobulus as origen’s declared inspirers in fact of biblical allegoresis. finally, in comm. in matth. 17.17, which i have mentioned as a crucial passage in relation to scriptural allegoresis, since it deals with the interpretation of biblical anthropomorphisms, origen refers to philo as his predecessor and the author of the allegories of the laws: τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν ποιήσας τις βιβλία νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίας. therefore, the examination of the passages of origen’s scholarly works— against celsus and commentary on matthew—that cite philo nominally strongly confirms that origen refers back to philo as an authority in an explicit way precisely in connection with crucial issues that bear on biblical allegoresis. this signifies that philo, whom origen often calls his “predecessor,” was origen’s great inspirer in the allegorical philosophical interpretation of scripture. beside these, there are innumerable echoes of philo in origen, most of them undeclared. to those listed by annewies 21 περὶ ἧς καὶ τῷ φίλωνι συντέτακται βιβλίον, ἄξιον φρονίμου καὶ συνετῆς παρὰ τοῖς φιλαλήθεσιν ἐξετάσεως. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): ramelli 1-17 ramelli, philo as origen’s declared model ramelli 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr van den hoek in her careful study 22 i add one example concerning origen’s double notion of virginity, of the body and of the soul, which would prove especially influential on the holistic concept of virginity held by methodius and then gregory of nyssa. 23 origen expresses his double notion of virginity in hom. in gen. 10.4 commenting on rebecca as presented in gn 24:16: “it is not enough for the soul that she is continent in the body […] for it may happen that one has bodily virginity, but knows this execrable male, the devil, and receives from him the arrows of concupiscence in one’s own heart, and thus the virginity of the soul is lost. thus, because rebecca was a virgin, pure in both body and spirit, this is why scripture doubles her praise and says: ‘she was a virgin; no man had known her.’” 24 now philo, commenting on the same passage, in quaest. in gen. 4.99, 323 aucher, had written: “scripture wants to make it clear that she has a double virginity, one according to the body and another according to the soul. for she was beautiful both physically and spiritually.” 25 22 annewies van den hoek, “philo and origen: a descriptive catalogue of their relationship,” studia philonica annual 12 (2000): 44–121. 23 see ilaria l. e. ramelli, “l’inno a cristo-logos nel simposio di metodio di olimpo,” in motivi e forme della poesia cristiana antica tra scrittura e tradizione classica. incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana roma, augustinianum, 3-5 maggio 2007 (rome: augustinianum, 2008), 257-280. 24 non ergo sufficit animae ut casta sit corpore […] potet enim fieri ut quis habeat in corpore uirginitatem et cognoscens istum uirum pessimum diabolum atque ab eo concupiscentiae iacula in corde suscipiens animae perdiderit castitatem. quia ergo rebecca uirgo erat sancta corpore et spiritu, idcirco eius duplicat laudem et dicit: uirgo erat, uir non cognouerat eam. 25 uult autem declarare quod duplicem habeat uirginitatem, unam secundum corpus, alteram secundum animam. erat enim tam uisu quam intellectu pulchra. another structural aspect of philo’s influence on origen’s exegesis: the coherence of scripture and the reaction against extreme allegorization an important, constitutive parallel between philo and origen not only as allegorical exegetes of scripture, but also as theorists of biblical allegoresis, concerns the notion of the literal and spiritual meaning of scripture as, respectively, the body and soul of the bible. this notion is paramount in origen’s theory of scriptural allegoresis in the fourth book of his de principiis and is developed into a threefold division of “body,” “soul,” and “spirit” of scripture. now, this core conception is already present in philo, who in turn ascribes it to the therapeutae (contempl. 78). in this connection, it is not accidental that philo himself attributes to these jewish ascetics the practice of allegorical exegesis of the bible, as i have mentioned. it is irreleirrelevant to the present investigation to determine whether these ascetics were an invention of philo, as some scholars have suggested, 26 or existed historically, as most scholars think. what is more interesting within the present analysis is that eusebius, a christian platonist and a biblical allegorist himself, who admired origen a great deal and was also well acquainted with philo’s work, presented the therapeutae described by philo as christian first-century ascetics (he 2.17.1). in this way eusebius endeavored to project scriptural allegoresis back to the very beginning of christianity, as the truest and very best exegetical practice (all the more so in that in his day it was under attack, within the frame of wider criticisms leveled against origen). eusebius was well aware that this was both philo’s and origen’s practice, which he intended to ennoble. eusebius was certainly also conscious of the strong influence of philo, as an allegorical exegete and a reader of scripture in 26 for example, see troels engberg-pedersen, “philo’s de vita contemplativa as a philosopher’s dream,” journal for the study of judaism 30 (1999): 40– 64. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): ramelli 1-17 ramelli, philo as origen’s declared model ramelli 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the light of platonism, on origen; this is also why he portrayed philo along the very same lines as he portrayed origen. 27 origen also adhered to philo’s allegorical methodology when in his scriptural exegesis he constantly sought, and insisted on, unity, coherence, and wholeness. philo likewise had deeply felt the structural unity of the allegorical system throughout scripture, as a counterpart of the deep internal unity of the divine scripture itself. philo’s and origen’s allegoresis, in this respect, was very different from stoic allegoresis, which tended to be more fractioned and episodic. 28 origen and philo seem to share a common demand for unity and coherence in their allegoresis, while stoic allegorists cared less for this. stoic allegorists were aware of the principle of interpreting homer with homer—a hellenistic philological principle, which was also used for philosophy—, but they did not derive a strong demand for unity from this. on the contrary, both philo and origen, transposing that principle to scripture (so to interpret scripture with scripture), 29 drew from it the idea that both scripture itself and, consequently, its allegorical interpretation must form a consistent unity. this also parallels the methodology used in their biblical exegesis by the rabbis, who interpreted scripture with scripture. exactly like the early rabbis, origen used an intrabiblical comparative method. that is to say, when he had to explain a biblical passage, he turned to other relevant biblical passages for inspiration. he did so because the bible, 27 ilaria l. e. ramelli, “the birth of the rome-alexandria connection: the early sources on mark and philo, and the petrine tradition,” the studia philonica annual 23 (2011): 69-95, here 79-80. 28 see ilaria l. e. ramelli, allegoria i: l’età classica (milan: vita e pensiero, 2004), ch. 9. 29 for the influence of homeric exegesis on philo see maren niehoff, jewish exegesis and homeric scholarship (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2011). a similar study for origen is missing. according to him—just as according to philo and the early rabbis—forms a coherent unity within itself. philo and origen in particular, with their allegorical interpretation, tended not to take into account a single, isolated allegorical point, but rather a whole passage in its allegorical system. as a support for his practice, in cc 4.71 origen quotes 1 cor 2:13, with its exhortation to comparing spiritual realities with other spiritual realities. origen here takes “spiritual realities” as the allegorical, spiritual meaning of one passage in scripture, and “other spiritual realities” as the allegorical meaning of other related passages in all of scripture. therefore, he can be said to have used a comparative hermeneutical method. in philoc. 2, from the commentary to psalm 1 (cf. chs. 1-7 too), origen assimilates the divine providential power, which pervades everything, to the divine inspiration that pervades all of scripture, down to the smallest details. “traces” and “hints” of the divine wisdom are found everywhere, “in each letter;” for, “as the jewish masters asserted,” the words of scripture have been calculated “with the utmost accuracy.” this is why in the bible not a single word or even letter is superfluous, again exactly as the rabbis maintained. 30 another momentous structural parallel between philo’s and origen’s biblical exegesis is the following. both philo and origen maintained the validity and truth of the literal-historical plane of scripture, together with its deeper meanings. in this respect, their allegoresis remarkably differed both from the stoic and from “pagan” middle and neoplatonic allegoresis. origen here deliberately chose to take over philo’s allegoresis rather than the stoic or “pagan” middle platonic one, and he did so clearly in order to safeguard the historicity of scripture. this is why, remarkably, origen used the greek terms allēgoria, allēgoreō and the like very sparingly, since he regarded them as compromised by “pagan” allegorical practice. not by chance, 30 phil. 6; comm. in matth. 16.2; comm. in matth. ser. 89; hom. in num. 3.2; 27.1; hom. in ios. 15.3; comm. in io. 19.40.89. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): ramelli 1-17 ramelli, philo as origen’s declared model ramelli 10 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr origen’s treatise against the “pagan” middle platonist celsus is the work in which origen employs the term allēgoria and related terminology most often. this clearly confirms that he associated such terminology with “pagan” allegoresis. 31 it is important to observe that origen was also familiar with “gnostic”—particularly valentinian—allegoresis of scripture. he was friends with ambrose, a rich valentinian “converted” by him to the great church, who placed scribes at his disposal for the publication of his writings. 32 a disciple of valentinus’s who lived in the second half of the second century, shortly before origen, was ptolemy, who interpreted allegorically the prologue of the gospel of john and saw in it many references to the ogdoad. 33 heracleon, another “valentinian,” wrote the earliest christian exegetical commentary we know of: it interpreted the gospel of john and origen himself preserves several fragments of it in his own commentary on john. here origen engaged in a debate with heracleon’s interpretation, which was purely allegorical. 34 for instance, capharnaus according to heracleon is a symbol of matter because it is located on the stagnant water of a lake (f 11.40); the samaritan woman represents the valentinian “spiritual/pneumatic human being” as opposed to the hylic and the psychic; the deep well is 31 john david dawson, christian figural reading and the fashioning of identity (berkeley, ca: university of california press), 2002. 32 eusebius he 6.18.1; 23.1-2. origen actually helped the “great church” to regain educated persons who inclined to “gnosticism,” keeping up the philosophization and rationalization of christianity already attempted by justin, pantaenus, and clement of alexandria: so, after their efforts, it was more difficult to accuse christianity of being a religion for uneducated and fanatic people. 33 on the allegorical interpretation of christ's vicissitudes by valentine see karen l. king, what is gnosticism? (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2003), 155ff. 34 see bart ehrmann, “heracleon, origen and the text of the fourth gospel,” vigiliae christianae 47 (1993): 105-118; manlio simonetti, “eracleone e origene,” vetus testamentum 3 (1966): 111-141; and ansgar wucherpfennig, heracleon philologus (tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2002). a symbol of the “psychic” condition from which she must elevate herself (f 17). origen does not criticize allegoresis per se, but an interpretation of scripture that is exclusively allegorical. origen’s anti-gnostic exegesis of the gospel of john perfectly reveals his deep concern for the preservation of the historical level of scripture, including the fact of the incarnation of the logos, and for offering an allegorical exegesis that is consistent with the literal level. for this reason origen criticizes heracleon because he interpreted allegorically the gospel of john without maintaining consistency with the literal sense, and without scriptural support (comm. in io. 2.103 and 139; 6.306; 13.427). 35 in addition, origen in cc 4.71 quotes 1 cor 2:13, which invites the reader to compare spiritual realities with other spiritual realities. on this basis, he uses a comparative hermeneutical method, bringing together the allegorical meaning of one scriptural passage with the allegorical meanings of other scriptural passages, of both the old and new testaments (see, e.g., comm. in matth. 10.15; hom. in lev. 1.7). this, again, contrasts with the break between the two testaments introduced by marcionites and some “gnostics” alike. indeed, the latter are explicitly criticized by origen because “they do not respect the expositive harmonic interconnection of scripture from the beginning to the end” (comm. in io. 10.42.290). 36 it is noteworthy that precisely on the grounds of the double meaning of scripture, literal and allegorical, origen refutes those— mainly “pagans” and, again, “gnostics” —who criticized the hebrew-christian scripture as a rustic text (as it will famously appear to augustine too prior to his conversion): “these observations show that the divine scripture has not been 35 see also dawson, christian figural reading, 127-137. on origen’s ideal of coherence between littera and allegoria see princ. 4.2.9; 3.4.6; comm. matth. 10.14-15; 15.1. 36 see ilaria ramelli, “la coerenza della soteriologia origeniana: dalla polemica contro il determinismo gnostico all’universale restaurazione escatologica,” in pagani e cristiani alla ricerca della salvezza, secoli i-iii. atti del xxxiv incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana, roma, istituto patristico augustinianum, 5-7 maggio 2005 (rome: augustinianum, 2006), 661-688. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): ramelli 1-17 ramelli, philo as origen’s declared model ramelli 11 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr composed—as it seems to very many people—in an unlearned and rustic style, but it has been put together according to the discipline of divine teaching, and it aims at offering not so much historical reports as mystical meanings” (hom. in gen. 15.1). 37 origen, thus, criticized the exclusively allegorical method of heracleon and other “gnostics,” and it is noteworthy that he did so in the very same way as philo had criticized some hellenistic jewish allegorists of the bible who preceded him. for both these jewish hellenistic exegetes and the “gnostics” of origen’s day, in their exclusively allegorical reading, cancelled the historical value of the bible. and neither philo nor origen after him were willing to discard the historicity of scripture, even if neither of them admitted only of the historical, literal meaning of scripture, but both philo and origen also allowed for one or more allegorical meanings. indeed, philo was praised by origen with a reference to those jews who interpreted the law not only literally, but also “allegorically” (cc 7.20): also, but not exclusively. both in philo’s and in origen’s view there are only very few cases in all of scripture in which the literal, historical meaning is absent and only an allegorical meaning is possible. these exceptions have precisely the function of signaling that in scripture the reader must search for deeper meanings beyond the literal plane. but normally the historical level must be maintained, along with the spiritual meanings. the bible, for both philo and origen, almost always recounts historical facts that really happened at a certain time, and not just symbols. in princ. 1, praef. 8 origen presents as a doctrine taught by the church that “all the law is in fact spiritual.” origen maintains that this is taught by the church obviously because it is taught 37 quae obseruationes ostendunt scripturam diuinam non, ut plurimis uidetur, inerudito et agresti sermone compositam, sed secundum disciplinam diuinae eruditionis aptatam, neque tantum historicis narrationibus quantum rebus et sensibus mysticis seruientem. by st. paul (rom 7:14). but at the same time the law—and by extension all scripture—also keeps its historical sense in origen’s view, just as philo also maintained. origen thought that the literal, historical level of scripture retains its full value in almost all cases. very few in the bible are the passages that are deprived of literal meaning, due to absurdities, paradoxes, or impossibilities. 38 origen emphasizes that those passages which are true at the historical level in the bible are “much more numerous than those which have a bare spiritual meaning” not wrapped up in a literal sense (ap. pamph. apol. 123). as a consequence, for instance, origen (ibid. 125) maintains that the story of the patriarchs, as well as the miracle of joshua, really happened historically. philo clearly agreed on this score, as well as the rabbis. in almost all of scripture, both the historical and the allegorical planes go together: “even if these passages have a spiritual meaning, however their spiritual sense must be received only after first maintaining their historical truth” (ibid. 113). the full historicity of the biblical narrative is not in question either for origen or for philo, who in this respect definitely differed from stoic and middle and neoplatonic allegorists of myths, as well as from some jewish hellenistic allegorists and some ‘gnostic’ allegorists of scripture. in princ. 4.2.9, origen observes that the very few biblical passages that only have a spiritual meaning, because their literal meaning is impossible, were placed there by god specifically “for the sake of those who are more expert and particularly fond of investigation, that, applying themselves to the toil of the examination of scriptures, they may be persuaded by reason that in scriptures it is necessary to look for a meaning that is worthy of god.” origen notably applies here the lexicon of philosophical investigation to the exegesis of scripture. this is because in his view, exactly as in philo’s view, the allegorical exegesis of the bible is an important part of philosophy; precisely in this connection philo spoke of mosaic philosophy. 38 princ. 4.2.5; 4.2.9; 4.3.1-4. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): ramelli 1-17 ramelli, philo as origen’s declared model ramelli 12 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the literal level is useful to “edify” those who cannot understand scripture more profoundly (princ. 4.2.6; 8-9). it is because of his attention to this level that origen produced his monumental critical edition of the whole of scripture, the hexapla. with this he intended to fix the scriptural text on the basis of the hebrew bible and its greek translation, the septuagint, besides later greek versions such as those of aquilas, symmachus, and theodotion. on the basis of this edition he discussed philological points in his commentaries. in this respect origen proved, so to say, even more jewish than philo, who only knew the septuagint and had recourse to etymological lists written in greek for the etymologies of biblical hebrew names. origen studied hebrew on purpose and produced an edition of the bible in which the first two columns were devoted to the hebrew text and its transliteration, and the rest to its correct translation into greek. also, it is above all from philo that origen drew the moral interpretation of scripture, that is, the exegesis that refers what is recounted in the bible to the moral life of the soul. 39 for already philo read the scriptural text as an allegory of the moral vicissitudes of the soul and its choice of good or evil. origen considers this level to be the “soul” of scripture (princ. 4.2.4). such moral allegoresis in his view is useful for those who are making moral progress, according to a category that was drawn from hellenistic moral philosophy and was well known to both philo and origen. very interestingly, in cc 5.44 origen states that the jewish priests, “in secret,” researched and explained the symbolic meaning of scripture. it is unclear whether origen here was referring (1) to hellenistic jewish exegetes like philo himself (who was de genere sacerdotum, “of priestly descent” according to jerome, vir. ill. 11, but whose primary activity was 39 moralis interpretatio, moralis locus (hom. in gen. 2.6); moralis doctrina vel ratio (hom. in num. 9.7). not priestly, but rather literary and political, and whose allegorical reading of scripture was not carried out “in secret” but overtly) or (2) to other priests of second temple judaism, such as the teachers of st. paul, in whose letters in fact origen constantly sought a scriptural justification to his own allegorical exegesis of the bible, or else still (3) to the early rabbis of post-temple judaism. in this case origen would be alluding to a contemporary situation with which he had a direct acquaintance. in the light of what i have expounded at the beginning of this study concerning the close relationship between origen and rabbinic exegesis, hypothesis (3) would seem no less probable than hypothesis (2). in any case, it is remarkable that origen was endeavoring to assimilate his own allegorical exegesis of scripture to a parallel judaic practice. while “pagan” platonists and allegorists such as porphyry accused him of arbitrarily transposing the technique of allegoresis from stoic philosophy—which applied allegoresis to “pagan” classical myths—to a “barbarian” text such as the bible, origen insisted that he owed his allegorical method (applied to scripture) to philo, aristobulus, and “the jewish priests.” i shall soon return to this momentous point and its equally consequential implications. it is certainly the case that origen repeatedly denounces the literal meaning as “jewish” and thus missing the christian allegorical meaning of the old testament. but this operation, predominantly found in his homilies—where he had to apply simplifications most—, is mainly rhetorical. and for rhetorical and pastoral reasons origen was even willing to give up one of his most distinctive and boldest theological doctrines: that of apokatastasis or universal restoration. 40 that he 40 see ilaria l. e. ramelli, the christian doctrine of apokatastasis: a critical assessment from the new testament to eriugena (forthcoming in 2013). on origen’s caution in proclaiming this doctrine to the less spiritually advanced see mark scott, “guarding the mysteries of salvation,” journal of early christian studies 18 (2010): 347-368. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): ramelli 1-17 ramelli, philo as origen’s declared model ramelli 13 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr maintained the opposite of this doctrine when addressing a certain audience does not mean that he did not uphold this doctrine. indeed, “jewish literalism” is mainly a rhetorical construct, which served the apologetical purpose of showing that if contemporary jews rejected jesus christ and observed the law literally (keeping the circumcision, the sabbath rest, etc.) it was because they did not want to recognize that the law is spiritual and that the hebrew bible figurally speaks of christ. thus, jewish literalism is a rhetorical label useful for a theological polemic in a christian apologetical perspective. but origen was all too well aware that not all jews supported an exclusively literal interpretation of scripture, and that, vice versa, not all literalists were jews. in fact he knew and declared without problems both that literalists existed also among christians and were his enemies (he repeatedly dubs them philistini in his homilies on genesis), and that allegorical exegesis was practiced by jews as well: as he explicitly says, not only by aristobulus and philo, but even by “jewish priests.” unless with “jewish priests” he meant again philo himself, who is reported by jerome, as i have mentioned, to have been a priest. in hom. in gen. 13.4 origen identifies the abovementioned philistini with those christians who did not want him to speculate about the causes for jacob’s election and esau’s repudiation—which according to origen lie in his grand doctrine of the logika, their fall, and their restoration—: “i too wanted to ask him: ‘lord, who sinned, this man, esau, or his parents, that he should be born all full of hair like this, and that he should be supplanted by his brother already in the womb?’ but if i want to ask god’s logos about this and make an investigation, some philistines will immediately attack me and level calumnies against me!” 41 these were christians who criticized origen’s 41 et ego uolebam interrogare eum et dicere: domine, quis peccauit, hic esau aut parentes eius, ut sic totus hirsutus et horridus nasceretur, ut in utero supplantaretur a fratre? sed si uoluero de his interrogare uerbum dei et inquirere, statim mihi lites philistini et calumnia mouent. allegorical exegesis of scripture and the theological and anthropological doctrines that he drew from it. in the same passage origen is clear that these people opposed his spiritual and allegorical interpretation of the old testament, here represented by the notion of digging deep to find living water (sc. the hidden and salvific meaning of scripture): “for if i want to dig deep and open hidden veins of living water, immediately some philistines will appear and attack me; they will altercate and level calumnies against me, and will begin to fill my wells with their earth and mud.” 42 the identity of these opponents of origen as christian literalists, present even in the congregation he was addressing, is confirmed ibid. 13.2-3: who are these people who fill wells with earth? no doubt they are those who limit the interpretation of scripture to the earthly and fleshly law, while they preclude the spiritual and mystical interpretation. […] if i attempt to find out the spiritual sense of scripture, to remove the veil of the law and show that what is written is allegorical, indeed i dig wells, but immediately the friends of literal exegesis will level calumnies against me, and will ambush me; they will instantly machinate, preparing hostilities and persecutions, claiming that truth cannot be found but on earth. 43 the correct attitude to scripture, instead, and especially the old testament narratives, is indicated by origen for instance in 42 si enim uoluero in altum fodere et aquae uiuae latentes uenas aperire, continuo aderunt philistini et litigabunt mecum, rixas mihi et calumnias commouebunt, et incipient replere terra sua et luto puteos meos. 43 qui sunt isti, qui terra puteos replent? illi sine dubio, qui in legem terrenam et carnalem intelligentiam ponunt, et spiritalem ac mysticam claudunt. […] si sensum in iis quaerere spiritalem, si conatus fuero uelamen legis amouere et ostendere allegorica esse quae scripta sunt, fodio quidem puteos, sed statim mihi mouebunt calumnias amici litterae et insidiabuntur mihi, inimicitias continuo et persecutiones parabunt, ueritatem negantes stare posse nisi super terram. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): ramelli 1-17 ramelli, philo as origen’s declared model ramelli 14 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr hom. in gen. 10.2: “do you think that these are myths? do you think that the holy spirit in scriptures just tells stories? this is rather teaching for souls, a spiritual instruction, which educates you […] all that is written in scripture is mysteries,” 44 that is, allegories. in the same way origen insists with wonder ibid. 9.1: “the more we go on reading, the more a heap of symbolic meanings increases before us […] so immense a sea of mysteries,” 45 that is, again, allegories. the most overlooked but weighty structural influence of philo on origen’s exegesis: the special status of the scriptural account of the beginning according to both philo and origen, the scriptural narrative concerning the origin of the world seems to be subject to special hermeneutical rules. indeed, origen certainly had both philo and plato in mind when he interpreted the scriptural narratives on the arkhē and the telos in a different way than the rest of the bible. for, within the bible, narratives concerning the arkhē and the telos escape the aforementioned composite model of interpretation at the same time literal and allegorical. these narratives endowed with such a special hermeneutical status are the very first sections of genesis, which contain the account of the creation of the world and of the human being, and, for origen, revelation, with the account of the end of the world. philo of course could not even know the latter book, which was composed after his death; philo anyway was not interested in the end of the world (i have explored elsewhere the reason for that, 46 which also results in his noneschatological notion of apokatastasis, different from origen’s 44 haec fabulas putas esse et historias narrare in scripturis spiritum sanctum? animarum est ista eruditio et spiritalis doctrina, quae te instituit. […] mysteria sunt cuncta quae scripta sunt. 45 quantum legentes progredimur, tantum nobis sacramentorum cumulus augetur […] tam uastum mysteriorum pelagus. 46 see ramelli, “philosophical allegoresis of scripture.” eschatological concept 47 ), but he was certainly highly interested in the creation narrative. the literal and historical meaning of the creation account was probably the most insubstantial in the whole bible in both philo’s and origen’s view. in the prologue to his commentary on the song of songs origen refers to a jewish tradition that ascribed a peculiar standing to the first chapters of genesis, those including the creation story. these ought to be studied after all the rest, just like the song of songs (which is of course the main focus of his interest in this commentary). for these biblical books are the so-called δευτερώσεις, “second/subsequent objects of study,” because they should come after all the other biblical books in one’s study plan. this is because the genesis account of creation, just as the song of songs, ought to be exclusively allegorized. they cannot absolutely be taken literally. this is why they require a mature student. very interestingly, origen claims that it was the jewish tradition that chose these δευτερώσεις. in this way origen is once again expressly founding his exegetical practice on the jewish tradition. indeed, the song of songs was almost always allegorized in the rabbinic tradition as well. with respect to the exclusively allegorical interpretation of the creation story, both origen and philo were probably inspired by plato’s philosophical myths, which origen explicitly appreciated as the only way of speaking of what is impossible to expound theoretically (cc 4.39). plato could only use a mythical, and not theoretical, language when he dealt with the origin of the world and the soul in his timaeus, with which both philo and origen were intimately familiar. that origen read genesis with plato on his mind is confirmed, i think, by the fact that he explicitly assimilated plato’s myth of poros to the 47 a comparison between philo’s and origen’s notions of apokatastasis is sketched in ramelli, the christian doctrine, but a specific study will be needed. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): ramelli 1-17 ramelli, philo as origen’s declared model ramelli 15 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr genesis account of creation, both in cc 4.39 and in his lost commentary on genesis. likewise, in cc 6 origen claims that the genesis story of the protoplasts’ sin and their being covered with “skin tunics” as a result of that sin must not be taken literally, but has a “mystical and secret meaning,” which he assimilates again to the symbolic meaning of plato’s myth of the descent of the soul. the genesis story of the creation and fall of the human being and plato’s myths of poros and penia and of the fall of the soul, in origen’s view, expressed the same content in a symbolic way, and both of those mythical accounts had to be interpreted exclusively allegorically. origen projected plato’s mythical accounts of the arkhē and the telos onto his own exegesis of the scriptural accounts of the arkhē and the telos, according the same epistemological status to both plato’s myths and the biblical mythical accounts, so that origen’s exegesis of the paradise and the initial sin is exclusively allegorical. exactly in the same way, philo provided an allegorical exegesis of the paradise as virtue and eden as luxury (leg. 1,45). his exegesis was of course known to, and inspired, origen. in princ. 4.3.1 origen explicitly included the whole account of the paradise and the whole story of creation in genesis among the scriptural passages deprived of a literal meaning and susceptible only of an allegorical interpretation: “these things indicate symbolical truths in an allegorical way, by means of what looks like a historical account, and yet has never happened corporeally.” this is a clear statement that in the case of the first chapters of genesis exegetes are faced with a myth, and not history. the story of adam never happened literally and historically, but it is to be interpreted allegorically, in that it encompasses “mysteries,” truths expressed in a symbolic way. thus, for instance, we find many examples of allegorical exegesis of the creation and the paradise in origen’s own exegetical production. 48 origen, like philo, allegorized the 48 e.g., “intelligible trees” (hom. in gen. 2.4), “intelligible rivers” and “intelligible woody valleys” in paradise (sel. in num. pg 12.581b); the etymology of “eden” as ἤδη, “once upon a time,” to signify a primeval state (fr. in gen. creation account, and attributed to it an epistemological standing similar to that of plato’s creation myth. origen’s own explanation of the reason why striking similarities emerge between plato’s myth and the genesis myth goes much in the same direction as—once again—jewish hellenistic apologetics: “it is not quite clear whether the myth of poros occurred to plato’s mind by chance or, as some believe, during his sojourn in egypt plato also ran into people who adhered to the philosophy of the jews” (cc 4.39). origen intentionally speaks of a jewish philosophy, and not a religion, because the allegorical interpretation of the bible is in his view a philosophical task, and he knew and wanted to highlight that this task had already been performed by jewish authors, such as philo himself and aristobulus, and other predecessors of philo. indeed, in cc 4.51, after reporting celsus’ declarations against any allegoresis of the bible, origen observes that those statements are not only an attack on christian allegoresis of the bible, but also on jewish allegoresis of it as represented by philo, aristobulus, and others: “he gives the impression of saying so concerning the treatises of philo or of those even more ancient exegetes, such as aristobulus. i suppose celsus had not even read those books.” origen is clearly creating for himself, once again, a jewish ancestry in the field of philosophical allegoresis of scripture. this ancestry seems to have been completely overlooked—most probably intentionally—by middle and neoplatonists who opposed biblical allegoresis, such as celsus and porphyry. the latter preferred to accuse origen of unduly transporting the allegorical technique from stoic exegesis of myths (he mentioned cornutus and chaeremon in 236; d15 metzler). the whole of the first homily on genesis bristles with passages from the creation story of which only an allegorical explanation is given. the same claim that the creation account must be allegorized emerges even from hom. 1 in ps. 36. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): ramelli 1-17 ramelli, philo as origen’s declared model ramelli 16 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr this respect 49 ) to the jewish scriptures; this is why he was unwilling to admit that jewish hellenistic exegetes, such as aristobulus, philo, and others had already done what origen was doing: a philosophical allegoresis of scripture. by contrast, origen proudly cited these jewish antecedents to his own allegorical exegesis. epilogue: philo the jew as a better exegete and better theologian than christian “heretics” origen was criticized for his biblical allegoresis not only by “pagans” such as porphyry, but also by christians. some christians were so suspicious of allegory as a whole—which they saw as “pagan” and in some cases also as “gnostic,” something that origen too perceived—that they definitely refused any application of allegoresis to the bible. there was also a specific reaction from the christian side against origen’s allegorization of the genesis narrative, which also accounts for the loss of his commentary on that book. 50 philo’s allegoresis of scripture, too, was rejected by certain sectors of judaism, both in his own day and in later judaism. indeed, in rabbinic judaism his memory seems to have been obscured, although feeble traces of his influence have been detected here and there, as i have mentioned at the beginning of this essay. however, his reception and the very preservation of his works entirely depended on christianity. 51 but philo significantly enjoyed no appreciation in those sectors of the christian patristic tradition that were hostile to biblical allegoresis. he only enjoyed a very 49 see ilaria l. e. ramelli, “origen and the stoic allegorical tradition: continuity and innovation,” invigilata lucernis 28 (2006): 195-226. 50 these polemics are echoed in epiphanius pan. 55.1-2; 58.6-8 and the antiochenes. 51 see david runia, philo in early christian literature. a survey (assen: van gorcum, 1993), and idem, philo and the church fathers. a collection of papers (leiden: brill, 1995). positive reception in the christian allegorical tradition, i.e., the origenian tradition. 52 as i mentioned earlier, in his allegorization of the bible origen countered “gnostic” and marcionite claims that the old testament had to be separated from the new as a product of an inferior god or an evil demiurge, and consequently could not contain philosophical truths to be decoded by means of allegoresis. in hom. 5 in ps. 36, 5 origen is targeting marcionites and some “gnostics” when he denounces their distinction between god the creator and a different, good god superior to the former: “they are inspired by the demons in their claims against god, the creator of all, and if they are so mistaken in their thoughts it is because they interpret the law exclusively in a literal sense, and ignore that the law is spiritual.” very interestingly, origen here indicates the reason why, in his view, marcionites and “gnostics” erred: precisely because they did not read the old testament allegorically. this is why they found there many anthropomorphisms attributed to god and other details that are unworthy of god, and therefore concluded that the old testament, as well as the material world, was a product of an evil demiurge. if they had read the old testament allegorically, as philo had done, they would have found it worthy of god. therefore, according to origen, philo the jew was a much better exegete, and consequently a much better theologian, than these christian “heretics.” philo knew what paul, his contemporary and origen’s hero, stated: that the law, and by extension the rest of scripture, has a spiritual meaning. the law is spiritual (rom 7:14). paul had learned this from his jewish teachers, first of all rabbi gamaliel. these may be the jewish priests origen was thinking of when he stated that they interpreted scripture allegorically, albeit “in secret.” origen, however, just as philo had done against some predecessors of his in jewish hellenism, criticized those extreme allegorists of scripture, such as some “gnostics,” who refused to admit of the 52 clement, origen, eusebius, gregory of nyssa, ambrose, jerome, etc. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): ramelli 1-17 ramelli, philo as origen’s declared model ramelli 17 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr historicity of the bible and offered an exclusively allegorical reading, as though scripture were entirely a myth totally deprived of historical value. origen, instead, drawing inspiration from philo, treated only few, very limited parts of scripture as myths, but not most of the bible itself. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review robert chazan reassessing jewish life in medieval europe (new york: new york university press, 2010) benjamin fisher, towson university was the christian encounter with jewish society in medieval europe defined by the emergence of a “persecuting mentality,” in which jews and other subalterns were subjected to an aggressive policy of social and political exclusion, as framed by robert moore in his seminal book, the formation of a persecuting society? 1 should the jewish experience in medieval christian europe be viewed as a “lachrymose” narrative of oppression, expulsion, and marginalization (to use salo baron’s phrase)? or—as jonathan elukin has argued—does the image of a “persecuting society” give undo centrality to a small number of violent “disconnected outbursts” that constitute exceptions to the rule of peaceful coexistence of jews and christians? 2 the ways in which the ebb and flow of periods of violence and normality should be integrated into the broader depiction of jewish-christian relations in medieval and early modern times has been the subject of much scholarship in recent years, and it is to this weighty issue that robert chazan dedicates his efforts in reassessing jewish life in medieval europe. chazan seeks to distance himself from the so-called “lachrymose” school of jewish history criticized by his teacher baron, but stops short of accepting elukin’s opposite belief that jewish-christian relations were overwhelmingly characterized by peaceful coexistence (pp. xix-xx). chazan deftly and judiciously charts a middle course that sidesteps the need to champion one perspective or the other by crafting an image of 1 r. i. moore, the formation of a persecuting society: authority and deviance in western europe, 950-1250 (oxford, 1987). 2 jonathan elukin, living together, living apart: rethinking jewishchristian relations in the middle ages (princeton university press, 2007), 95-96. studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) jewish society in western christendom that captures the nuance and ambiguity of medieval jewish-christian relations between 1000-1500 and conveying it to an audience of general readers. the book is divided into two parts. in part i (chapters 1-4), chazan insists that the popular perception of the medieval period in general, and jewish-christian relations in particular, has been colored (and distorted) by the legacies of jewish and christian “group narratives” (p. ix), and the agendas of the protestant reformation, renaissance humanism, and postholocaust scholars, all of which, chazan explains, found great advantage in misrepresenting medieval times as bleak and backward for ideological reasons. in contrast, chazan’s depiction of the jewish experience in medieval christian europe emphasizes the negative and the positive, the dynamic and the destructive aspects of the jewish-christian encounter. in so doing, he hopes to refocus the monolithically negative perception of jewish-christian relations in medieval europe. in part ii (chapters 5-9), chazan confronts the dissonance between contemporary assumptions regarding medieval jewish society and the historical reality. chazan addresses misconceptions about “pervasive demographic instability,” jewish economic exclusion and marginalization, jewish political subjugation, and the omnipresent threat of jewish-christian violence (p. 86). the final chapter confronts equally incorrect idealization of medieval judaism as being pristinely free from the influences of christian beliefs, practices, interpretations, and traditions. it is within these chapters that chazan’s vision of medieval jewish-christian relations coalesces. throughout the monograph, chazan generally offers nuanced evaluations of the jewish encounters with christian society, creating a balanced portrait. he is very largely successful in his overall aim of dislodging the negative stereotypes surrounding jewishchristian relations in the popular imagination. in chapter 5, chazan surveys the expulsion of jews from england in 1290 and from france in 1306 in great detail. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr additional expulsions took place in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries in spain, southern europe, and germanic territories. the pattern of expulsions in central and western europe “reinforced” the eastward movement of medieval european jewry (pp. 99-100). far more important than expulsion, however, was the more common voluntary migration of jews evaluating the pros and cons of different potential settlement locations. european jewish society, he points out, has its very origins in voluntary migration from muslim countries, and northern european jewry in particular came into existence because of a confluence between the aims and aspirations of european rulers and jews. above all, the establishment of what would become the world’s largest jewish community—that of eastern europe—is indebted to western and central european jews who “were in the position of making decisions about relocation,” weighing the “disadvantages of their circumstances in the germanic lands…against the advantages offered in the developing areas of eastern europe” (pp. 100-06). at times, chazan’s goal of demonstrating the importance of voluntary migration leads him to underestimate the effects and the scale of forced population movements. the fifteenthcentury expulsions from central and western europe that jonathan israel describes as leading to the “virtual elimination” 3 of these jewish communities are here described in vague terms as “limited expulsions” by “local authorities” (p. 100). this “forced demographic movement through the central areas of europe—from italy in the south northward into germany,” was merely a “reinforcement” to a broader eastern migration of medieval european jewry (pp. 99-100). in general, however, chazan’s observations and arguments provide a very useful counterbalance to the perception of a jewish society shaped overwhelmingly, if not totally, by expulsion and forced relocation. 3 jonathan israel, european jewry in the age of mercantilism (oxford, 1985), 1-34. studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 8 (2013) in chapter 6, “economic activity,” chazan’s readers encounter a view of the jewish economic role in medieval christian europe that transcends the image of shylock and the strictly negative image of jewish economic specialization in early modern europe. concentration in money lending—while not without its costs—also had positive consequences. while it made jews vulnerable to royal extortion and popular resentment, it also provided an important source of prosperity, security, and political influence to jewish families and communities. chazan persuasively illustrates the important role played by jewish money lenders in the early formation of medieval european states and the prosperity and the secure place that they enjoyed—for a time—in these societies. in chapter 7, “status,” chazan concisely presents the complexities of jewish political status in medieval europe. he surveys the competing ecclesiastic, royal, and baronial authorities who competed for control over local jewish populations. while various authorities could impose restrictions that deeply harmed jewish interests (such as prohibitions against geographic mobility and high interest levels), they also offered protection and security to their jewish subjects. chapter 8, “relations with the christian populace,” confronts one of the most pervasive images about medieval jewish-christian relations in contemporary culture: the idea that violence and assault constantly hovered over jewish communities in medieval europe like the sword of damocles. rather, chazan argues, “alongside the outbreaks of violence were periods of tranquility, which enabled jews to live normally” (p. 163). furthermore, such episodes of violence as there were “represent the exception rather than the rule for medieval jews” (p. 182). there is, again, sometimes a sense in which the effort to accentuate the positive alongside the negative leads to a downplaying of the latter. in an earlier chapter, for instance, the forced conversion of portuguese jews to christianity is absent from a discussion of expulsion and violence in the iberian peninsula (pp. 97-99). on the whole, however, chazan’s portrayal of physical violence as a real phenomenon, but one that was normally constrained by ruling authorities within the state and church, is nuanced and convincing. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr chazan’s efforts to counter misconceptions held regarding medieval jewish history are balanced and judicious. by the end of the book, the reader has encountered a coherent synthesis of medieval jewish history between 1000-1500 emphasizing the positive and negative aspects of the jewish experience. the scholarly community will find much of the material familiar, as chazan himself acknowledges on a number of occasions. the book that he has written will serve as an important educational resource for undergraduate students and a broader community of interested readers. transmitting the findings of many scholars in an accessible and synthetic way, reassessing jewish life in medieval europe makes a valuable and influential contribution. 1 scjr 17, no. 1 (2023): 1-24 in the wake of the holocaust: massimo vitale, pius xii, and the battle over the good friday prayer for the “perfidious jews” david i. kertzer roberto benedetti david_kertzer@brown.edu roberto.benedetti24@gmail.com brown university, providence, ri 02912 04100 latina, italy while the good friday prayer, with its reference to perfidis judaeis, had long been a source of unhappiness in the jewish community, the holocaust triggered new efforts to have it changed.1 the recent opening of the vatican archives for the papacy of pius xii (1939-1958) now permits a much fuller understanding of these pressures and how the pope and those around him dealt with them. previous examinations of this question have given considerable attention to the role of the french jewish historian jules isaac, who, in meeting with pius xii in october 1949, expressed his unhappiness with the prayer and who, in his influential 1956 book, genèse de l’antisémitisme, portrayed it as part of the larger demonization of jews that had recently had such catastrophic consequences.2 the newly available documents highlight the key role in this campaign played by massimo adolfo vitale, leader of italian jewry’s efforts to determine the fate of the thousands of jews who had been deported from that country to nazi concentration camps in the war. the case offers insight as well into the larger question of how the vatican confronted the legacy of the holocaust.3 the good friday prayer the good friday liturgy, commemorating the anniversary of the death of jesus, is one of the holiest ceremonies of the year in the roman catholic church. for centuries it has entailed the reading of new testament accounts of the crucifixion and, inter alia, the reciting of a series of nine orationes solemnes [prayers of the 1 the authors would like to thank kevin p. spicer, c.s.c. for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article, as well as thank the journal’s two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions. 2 jules isaac, genèse de l’antisémitisme (paris : calmann-lévy, 1956); pierre pierrard, juifs et catholiques français (paris : cerf, 1997), 358. see also isaac’s jésus et israël (paris: albin michel, 1948). 3 for an earlier study of efforts to change the good friday prayer which examines vitale’s role, based on materials found in italy’s jewish organizational archives, see ombretta pisano, “a cinquant’anni dalla soppressione del ‘perfidis judaeis’: note storiche alla luce di materiali inediti,” rivista liturgica 96 (2009): 937-67. kertzer and benedetti: in the wake of the holocaust 2 faithful]. of these, one focuses on jews. while the prayer has a much earlier origin, its modern form was defined in the seventeenth century. the latin text calls for praying “pro perfidis judaeis” and refers to “judicam perfidiam.” vernacular translations differed and were under the control of local archbishops. a common translation, as found in the 1946 english language edition of holy week masses, bearing the imprimatur of samuel cardinal stritch, archbishop of chicago, reads: “let us pray. also for the perfidious jews: that our god and lord would remove the veil from their hearts that they also may acknowledge our lord jesus christ.” in other prayers in the series directed at non-catholics, that initial call to prayer is followed by the priest’s instruction for all present to genuflect. in the case of the call to pray for the “perfidious jews,” however, a different instruction is found: “the genuflection in the prayer for the jews is omitted to signify their refusal to believe in the divinity of christ.”4 the prayer then continues: “almighty and everlasting god, who drivest not away from thy mercy even the perfidious jews, hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people: that acknowledging the light of thy truth, which is christ, they may be rescued from their darkness.”5 as observed by church historian daniele menozzi, the prayer for the jews expresses “in effect the double reference to the “perfidy,” a vocabulary not found in the new testament lexicon, designed to view the jews not in terms of difference, but hostility.” he points out that this hostile attitude is reinforced by the instruction not to genuflect.6 the friends of israel while jews had long resented the good friday prayer and it had prompted occasional expressions of concern from catholic theologians as well, the first major 4 the other prayers in the series call for congregants to genuflect. 5 holy week masses (chicago: paluch, 1946), 61. on the early history of the prayers and on the controversy over the “perfidious” characterization of jews, see robert anchel, “la prière pro judaeis,” l’univers israélite, 21-28 août 1936, 711-12; david assael “‘giudaica perfidia’. uno stereotipo antisemita fra liturgia e storia,” rassegna mensile di israel 81 (2015): 161-64; annibale bugnini, “una particolarità del messale da rivedere. la preghiera pro iudaeis al venerdì santo,” in miscellanea giulio belvederi (vatican city: pontificio istituto di archeologia cristiana, 1954), 117-32; louis canet, “la prière pro judaeis de la liturgie catholique romaine,” revue des études juives 32 (1911): 213-21; paul démann, “les modifications de la prière pour les juifs du vendredi saint,” évidences 2 (1959): 78, 2530; andrea nicolotti, “perfidia iudaica. le tormentate vicende di un’orazione liturgica prima e dopo erik peterson,” in ed., erik peterson. la presenza teologica di un outsider, ed., giancarlo caronello (vatican city: libreria editrice vaticana, 2012), 477-514; daniele menozzi, ‘giudaica perfidia’. uno stereotipo antisemita tra liturgia e storia (bologna: il mulino, 2014); marino ruzzenenti, preghiamo anche per i perfidi giudei. l’antisemitismo cattolico e la shoah (roma: derive approdi, 2018); sacra rituum congregatio, “variationes in missali et in rituali romano in precibus pro iudaeis,” ephemerides liturgicae 74 (1960): 133-4; lorenzo tabarrini, “alle origini del ripensamento sulla ‘perfidia giudaica’: ebrei, cristiani e chiesa nella storiografia di félix vernet (1863-1942),” rivista di storia del cristianesimo 11 (2014): 1, 161-88. on the history of the roman missal, see https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09296a.htm. 6 menozzi, “giudaica perfidia,” 18-19. see also marina caffiero, legami pericolosi. ebrei e cristiani tra eresia, libri proibiti e stregoneria (turin: einaudi, 2012), 296-33. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09296a.htm 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2023) attempt from within the church to have the language changed came only in the 1920s as a result of the efforts of the friends of israel. the international organization, composed of roman catholic clergy centered in europe, was founded in 1926. in january 1928, its president called on pope pius xi to eliminate the words “perfidis” and “perfidiam” from the prayer. contending that these phrases connoted “something hateful and hated,” he argued that they interfered with the friends of israel’s goal of encouraging jewish conversions.7 the pope passed the request on to the liturgical commission of the vatican's congregation of rites. the commission endorsed the change, but to go into effect it would need the support of the holy office. that office, under the direction of the notoriously antisemitic cardinal rafael merry del val,8 rejected the proposal, and asked that the friends of israel be dissolved and its leaders summoned to rome to make vatican displeasure with their work known. as the pope’s approval was required before the holy office’s recommendation could be acted upon, cardinal merry del val met with pius xi on march 8, 1928, to discuss the matter. in his internal holy office memo, the cardinal explained, “hebraism with all its sects inspired by the talmud continues perfidiously to oppose christianity.”9 the pope agreed with the holy office recommendation, rejecting any change in the good friday liturgy. moreover, as merry del val observed, “the holy father, after due consideration and taking into account the alarming, mistaken and dangerous turn which the committee in its deliberations has taken in this matter. . .has decided to disband this body.”10 offering a public explanation for the decision, enrico rosa, s.j., the director of the vatican-supervised jesuit journal, la civiltà cattolica, following a request from the pope, published an article in the journal’s may issue titled “the judaic danger and the ‘friends of israel’.” rosa argued that the friends had failed to recognize the “danger emanating from the jews.” ever since jews had been given equal rights to christians in the previous century, he wrote, the jews had become “bold and powerful,” seeking world domination.11 7 hubert wolf “the good friday supplication for the jews and the roman curia (1928-1975),” in the roman inquisition, the index and the jews, ed. stephan wendehors (leiden: brill, 2004), 240-43; wolf, “‘pro perfidis judaeis.’ die ‘amici israel’ und ihr antrag auf eine refrom der karfreitagsfürbitte für die juden (1928). oder: bemerkungen zum thema katholische kirche und antisemitismus,” historische zeitschrift 279 (2004): 611-658; wolf, pope and devil. the vatican’s archives and the third reich, translated by kenneth kronenberg (cambridge, ma: harvard university press, 2010). 8 on merry del val’s attitudes toward jews, see david i. kertzer, the popes against the jews (new york: knopf, 2001), 219-20 et passim. 9 quoted in john connelly, from enemy to brother, the revolution in catholic teaching on the jews, 1933-1965 (cambridge: harvard university press, 2012), 170. 10 kertzer, the popes, 249-50. 11 enrico rosa, “il pericolo giudaico e gli ‘amici d’israele,’” civiltà cattolica 79 (1928): 2, 335-44. for a fuller examination of rosa’s article, see kertzer, the popes, 270-72; wolf, “the good friday supplication,” 253-54; daniele menozzi, “‘perfidie judaïque’: un débat sur l’accueil de la modernité dans l’église, ” in le pontificat romain dans l’époque contemporaine, ed. giovanni vian, (venice: edizioni ca’foscari, 2018), 90; maria paiano, “il dibattito sui riflessi dell’antisemitismo nella liturgia cattolica,” studi storici 41 (2000): 3, 661-71. the holy office file dealing with the friends of israel affair is found at archivio del dicastero per la dottrina della fede (addf), r.v. 1928, n.2, prot. 0125/1928. kertzer and benedetti: in the wake of the holocaust 4 catholics would continue to pray for the conversion of the “perfidious jews” on good friday for decades to come.12 immediate postwar years the third reich’s attempted extermination of europe’s jews prompted new attention to the good friday prayer. in his march 1945 audience with pius xii, israel zolli, the recently baptized former chief rabbi of rome, urged the pope to put an end to the prayer’s “jewish perfidy” language. menozzi, in describing that meeting, observed that whether the pope’s refusal to do so could be linked to his anti-jewish sentiments could only “be verified at the moment when the archive for his pontificate becomes accessible.” with the opening of the vatican archives for the pontificate of pius xii in 2020, that moment has now arrived.13 zolli’s plea appears to be the first to come to the pope as the holocaust came to its end, a sign of a burgeoning interest in the church’s history of vilifying jews, which would soon lead to many other appeals for the pope to act. in september 1945, leon kubowitzki, secretary general of the world jewish congress, met with pius xii and asked that he issue an encyclical denouncing antisemitism.14 a year later, kubowitzki met with the then french ambassador to the holy see, catholic theologian jacques maritain, who had similarly become concerned about the role that church demonization of jews had had in making the holocaust possible.15 kubowitzki recalled their conversation in his diary: i told [maritain] of my interview with the pope and my ideas about an encyclical on the jewish question. he smiled and told me that he had urged a similar proposal on the pope and on monsignor montini. both had been very friendly though his impression was that they were afraid to carry out the idea. he reminded me how much he had been saddened by the pope's silence during the war concerning the persecution of the jews and by his attempts to evade any direct mention of the matter, confining himself to roundabout statements. i asked maritain whether the pope would not be interested in having his name connected with such an important document, which would be of considerable 12 perhaps the most significant dissenting voice in these years came from the theologian erik peterson, expressed in an article published in 1936 in ephemerides liturgicae, the organ of the pontifical liturgical academy and regarded as the authoritative interpreter of the deliberations of the vatican’s congregation of rites. although he did not advocate changing the latin text of the prayer, he argued that a more authentic translation of the words perfidia and perfidus would be “disbelieving” rather than “perfidious.” he was conscious, however, that his was a minority opinion (paiano, “il dibattito,” 674). 13 menozzi “giudaica perfidia.” on zolli and his conversion, see gabriele rigano, il caso zolli (milan: guerini, 2006). 14 archivio apostolico vaticano (aav), segr. stato, an. 1945, istituti, pos. 181. 15 on maritain and his lobbying of the pope to publicly condemn antisemitism, see also archivio storico della segreteria di stato – sezione per i rapporti con gli stati, vatican city (asrs), aa.ee.ss., periodo v, parte asterisco, stati ecclesiastici, pos. 575*, “aiuto e assistenza ai profughi per motivi di razza e di religione,” ff. 2404-2409, 2433-37. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2023) historical significance. he replied, "i would not hesitate to answer in the affirmative, if we were speaking about his predecessor."16 maritain’s contrast of a cautious, diplomatic pius xii with his outspoken predecessor, pius xi, was one shared by a number of the foreign diplomats at the vatican who had known both men.17 as the reference to maritain suggests, these concerns about age-old christian demonization of jews were now coming not only from jewish sources but from important voices among catholic intellectuals.18 among the examples now accessible due to the recent opening of the vatican archives for these years is a long letter sent in april 1946 by the theologian vincenzo barale, secretary to turin’s archbishop. two years earlier the germans occupying turin had arrested barale, charging him with hiding jewish and other refugees.19 barale’s letter, which made its way to the congregation of rites at the vatican, was prompted, he explained, by the easter season. he had long been “obsessed” by the anti-jewish language of the good friday prayer and, he wrote, he would only regain his tranquility “when you tell me that there is nothing to be done, or you let me know that what i say here will be taken into consideration.” since he had been a child, he recalled, he had been upset by the prayer’s anti-jewish language. “naturally,” he added, “i never took the liberty of correcting the holy mother church.”20 three months later, jacques maritain, having only two months earlier presented his credentials as the new french ambassador to the holy see, wrote to monsignor giovanni montini.21 as sostituto, montini was one of the two prelates overseeing the major divisions of the vatican secretary of state office, the sostituto overseeing “ordinary” affairs, those dealing with internal church relations. maritain had known montini for two decades. maritain’s appeal was much like kubowitzki’s of the year before, a direct reaction to the recent slaughter of europe’s jews. he wrote, he explained, because he felt “impelled as a catholic to 16 quoted in michael marrus, “the ambassador and the pope.” commonweal 131 (2004), 18-19. 17 on this contrast, see giovanni miccoli, i dilemmi e i silenzi di pio xii (milan: rizzoli, 2000); emma fattorini, pio xi, hitler e mussolini (turin: einaudi, 2007); david i. kertzer, the pope and mussolini (new york: random house, 2014). 18 see in particular connelly, from enemy, chapter 7. also see elena mazzini, l’antiebraismo cattolico dopo la shoah. tradizioni e culture nell’italia del secondo dopoguerra (1945-1974) (rome: viella, 2012). 19 a jewish telegraphic agency obituary of barale (dated january 24, 1979) recalls that he was honored with a gold medal by the italian jewish community for his aid to jews during the german occupation (https://www.jta.org/archive/msgr-vincenzo-barale-dead-at-75). 20 vincenzo barale to monsignor rosso, april 18, 1946, archivio della congregazione delle cause dei santi (accs), positiones decr. et rescr. liturgica, 1948 r 29/48. 21 on montini’s relation with maritain, see philippe chenaux, paul vi et maritain. les rapports du ‘montinianisme’ et du ‘maritainisme’ (rome: studium, 1994); robert royal, jacques maritain and the jews (mishawaka, indiana: american maritain association, 1994). on maritain and the catholic response to antisemitism see daniele lorenzini, “jacques maritain on anti-semitism and human rights.” journal of human rights practice 10 (2018): 536-545; and maritain’s own writings on the subject: “a propos de la question juive,” la vie intellectuelle, 4 (1921), 2, 305-10; les juifs (paris: plon, 1937) antisemitism (london: centenary press, 1939); contro l’antisemitismo. dignità della persona, mistero d’israele, sionismo, ed. daniele lorenzini (brescia: morcelliana, 2016). https://www.jta.org/archive/msgr-vincenzo-barale-dead-at-75 kertzer and benedetti: in the wake of the holocaust 6 present an appeal at the feet of the holy father…. during the war six million jews have been liquidated, thousands of jewish children have been massacred, thousands of others torn from their families and stripped of their identity.... nazism proclaimed the necessity of wiping the jews off the face of the earth.” after adding an obligatory reference to the pope’s “tireless charity” and his efforts to “protect the persecuted,” maritain came to his point: "however, what jews and also christians need above all is a voice—the paternal voice, the voice par excellence, that of the vicar of jesus christ—to tell the truth to the world and shed light on this tragedy. this has been, permit me to say it, greatly lacking in the world today." the pope had argued that out of fear for provoking even greater dangers he “had abstained from speaking directly to the jews and from calling the solemn and direct attention of the whole world to the iniquitous drama that was unfolding.” yet, maritain wrote, “now that nazism has been defeated, and that the circumstances have changed, could it not be permitted, and that is the reason for this letter, to transmit to his holiness the appeal of so many anguished souls, and to beg him to make his voice heard?”22 four days after sending his letter, maritain met with the pope to discuss his appeal. the pope said he had already spoken on the matter and gave no indication he planned to do anything further. maritain, after meeting with montini a few days later, expressed his frustration in his diary: “visit to montini. i speak to him of jews and anti-semitism. the holy father never even named them (emphasis in original). catholic conscience is poisoned, something has to be done.” following up a month later, maritain wrote to montini, this time specifically asking him to do something about the antisemitic language in the good friday prayer.23 the immediate postwar years saw interest among other catholic theologians in eliminating the anti-jewish language in the good friday prayer.24 most notable was an article by john oesterreicher, an austrian priest who would later become a significant figure in drafting the 1965 vatican statement, nostra aetate, which would finally bring the church’s demonization of jews to an end. in his 1947 article in theological studies, oesterreicher argued that the translation of the term “perfidus” in the good friday prayer as “perfidious” was an error: “it is our contention that perfidus denotes neither ‘perfidious’ nor ‘faithless’ nor ‘unfaithful’ in their present connotations, but ‘unbelieving’ or ‘disbelieving’. the liturgy does not pass moral judgments, nor would it label the jews ‘treacherous’ or ‘wicked’.” viewing the latin text of the prayer as sacrosanct, oesterreicher limited his appeal to a 22 quoted by marrus, “the ambassador,” 16. the recently opened vatican archives contain a record of maritain’s meeting with the pope to discuss his plea for the pope to speak out against antisemitism and an indication that pius xii read maritain’s letter to montini (asrs, aa.ee.ss., periodo v, parte asterisco, stati ecclesiastici, pos. 575*, ff. 2404-2409, 2433-2437). 23 the lack of a papal response to maritain’s pleas appears to have affected the frenchman’s view of the pope. in a letter to a friend written two years later, he contrasted the growing personal affection he felt for the pope with his “growing disappointment with regard to his actions.” marrus, “the ambassador,” 18. 24 on the christian-jewish dialogue in the postwar years, see anna foa, diaspora. storia degli ebrei nel novecento (rome: laterza, 2011), 224-28. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2023) change in the vernacular translations employed in the good friday liturgy.25 the austrian theologian at the same time took aim at the liturgy for the baptism of jews, as specified in the rituale romanum, which directed the officiant to address the jewish convert with the words: “horresce judaicam perfidiam, respue hebraicam superstitionem.” this, the theologian argued, should not be translated as was currently the practice, “abhor jewish perfidy, reject hebrew superstition,” but rather: “abhor the jewish unbelief, reject the hebrew error [the vain conviction that the messiah has yet to come].”26 in fact, concerns about the language in the good friday prayer had led to a change in the vernacular of the new york edition of the roman missal initially published in 1937 with the imprimatur of patrick cardinal hayes, archbishop of new york. there, alongside the latin text, the phrase “perfidis judaeis” was translated “the unfaithful jews,” and “judaicam perfidiam” as “jewish faithlessness.” the absence of an instruction to kneel following the prayer for the jews remained, but no explanation for that absence was offered in the missal.27 massimo adolfo vitale in the wake of the holocaust and the controversy over the pope’s actions— and inactions—as the germans went about their systematic attempts to exterminate europe’s jews, italy’s jewish community registered its displeasure with the continued church use of what it viewed as an antisemitic good friday liturgy. the attempts to sway pius xii were spearheaded by the head of a new national italian jewish organization formed to identify the fate of the thousands of italian and nonitalian jews who had been deported from italy by the germans. the comitato ricerche deportati ebrei (crde) [committee to locate jewish deportees], sponsored by the union of italian jewish communities (ucii), had been formed in september 1944, three months after the liberation of rome. in may 1945, massimo adolfo vitale was appointed president. indefatigable in tracking down italy’s jewish deportees, vitale took special interest in combatting what he saw as the vilification of jews spread by the roman catholic church. among those efforts was his campaign to convince pius xii to end the negative portrayal of jews in the good friday prayers. born in turin in 1885, vitale was a university graduate in law. he then trained as a military pilot, and in italy’s libyan campaign in 1911 was one of the first pilots in the world to fly a plane in war. following his subsequent service in the first world war, he served in italy’s african colonies, first in the military, and then as a civilian in the ministry of the colonies. in all, he spent a quarter century in africa before being dismissed from his government post in march 1939 following the imposition of italy’s racial laws. he went into hiding during the war, but both his 25 john m. oesterreicher, “pro perfidis judaeis,” theological studies 8 (1947), 1, 80, 82. 26 ibid. pp. 84-85. 27 the new roman missal in latin and english, eds. rev. f.x. lasance, rev. francis a. walsh, and rev. william r. kelly (new york: benziger brothers, 1937/1942). kertzer and benedetti: in the wake of the holocaust 8 elderly mother and his sister were arrested by italian police in turin in may 1944 and deported to their death at auschwitz. on his return to rome following the city’s june 1944 liberation, vitale was reintegrated into italian government service and appointed director of the italian african museum.28 while in the wake of the war italians crafted a narrative of the basically good italian people which would absolve them of responsibility for the war’s horrors, vitale insisted on italian—and vatican—responsibility.29 in 1947 he presented a report, “the persecutions against jews in italy, 1938-45,” at a european conference on the holocaust held in paris, linking the experience of the shoah to the italian fascist regime’s antisemitic campaign.30 but it was vitale’s brother, enrico vitale, a lawyer, who in a 1947 article in le monde juif first publicly focused on the good friday prayer, portrayed as part of the centuries-long church demonization of jews that helped make the holocaust possible. the article highlighted the use of the terms “perfidis judaeis” and “judaicam perfidiam” contained in the prayer.31 in february of the following year enrico vitale wrote directly to pope pius xii, attaching a copy of his article. he explained that he had initially been planning to publish an open letter to the pope but, on advice of friends, decided instead to send his letter privately. he called on pius xii to intervene both to have the good friday prayer changed and to offer a public denunciation of antisemitism. he cited by way of example of continued church responsibility for the vilification of jews a recent italian national radio broadcast by a catholic priest that was clearly antisemitic. “a benevolent statement by your holiness would prove dear to all those who now have long faithfully waited for…the comfort to the families of the innumerable victims of the nazi-fascist monstrous cruelty and would assure the success of the speedy and enthusiastic work of the various international committees of christians and jews which require the highest support of an intervention by your holiness.”32 the pope referred enrico vitale’s letter with its accompanying article to the vatican’s congregation of rites, which in turn sent it for an opinion to a theological consultant, father giuseppe lörn. as the theologian’s analysis of vitale’s article 28 for biographical details on massimo vitale, see roberto bassi “ricordo di massimo adolfo vitale,” rassegna mensile di israel 45 (1979), 1/3, 8-21; and costantino di sante, auschwitz prima di « auschwitz ». massimo adolfo vitale e le prime ricerche sugli ebrei deportati dall’italia (verona: ombre corte, 2014). information on his work in africa is found in archivio centrale dello stato (acs), ministero africa italiana, direzione generale affari generali e personale, fasc. del personale, b. 288. 29 on the attempts by italians to craft a history of their participation in the war that casts them in a good light, see, among other works, filippo focardi, nel cantiere della memoria. fascismo, resistenza, shoah, foibe (rome: viella, 2020); david bidussa, il mito del bravo italiano. (milan, saggiatore, 1994); focardi, il cattivo tedesco e il bravo italiano (rome: laterza, 2013). 30 anna koch, “‘but there is always hope in the human heart’: italian jews’ search for the deported in the immediate aftermath of the holocaust,” holocaust and genocide studies 34 (2020), 2, 306. 31 the article appeared in the september 1947 issue of the journal (n. 12). 32 the letter, dated february 16, 1948, is found in accs, positiones decr. et rescr. liturgica, 1948 r 29/48. the international council of christians and jews had been founded the previous year. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2023) explained: the author, readily dramatizing the fact of the solemn recitation of these prayers on good friday in all of christendom and for many centuries, sees in them a perennial source of hatred against the jews which imbues every christian from early childhood…. the author calls in his article for an authoritative intervention by the holy pontiff so that on the one hand the word perfidia be substituted in the liturgical texts with a less offensive word, and on the other that catholic sermons forever stop spreading the above-mentioned interpretation of the evangelical text cited [matthew 27:25 on the divine curse lodged against the jews for the death of jesus]. lörn offered a detailed historical analysis of the wording of the good friday prayer for the jews, which he traced back to the fifth century. he advised that, as the words of the prayer reflected long-held church doctrine, they could not be changed. he added: “it is necessary to warn those overly zealous partisans of an innovation on the grounds of an inopportune antisemitism to be eliminated that the catholic church, notwithstanding the deplored perfidia iudaica, prays for these same misguided jews, and calls on the christian people throughout the world and at all times, not to hate the jews, but to pray in a christian manner for their conversion.”33 the month after enrico vitale sent his letter to the pope, massimo vitale wrote to jacques maritain. there were two issues raised by the recently formed international council of christians and jews, reported vitale, that required immediate church intervention. one involved removing depictions of jewish ritual murder still found in some catholic churches in poland.34 the other concerned the good friday prayer. vitale, enclosing a copy of his brother’s le monde juif article, told maritain that his brother had sent it to the pope but had yet to receive a reply. maritain wrote back immediately, and after expressing confidence that the polish ritual murder depictions were being looked into, expressed caution about efforts to change the good friday prayer “you are not unaware of the fact that it is always difficult to obtain a change in a liturgical text that has been in use for centuries.” what might be hoped for, wrote maritain, is that “the translations in local languages cease being in the odious sense,” but rather follow what maritain took to be the correct historical interpretation, referring to jews as “unbelievers” rather than “perfidious.”35 33 accs, positiones decr. et rescr. liturgica, 1948 r 29/48. lörn’s seven-page analysis is dated september 8, 1948. the capitalizations are in the original. 34 see aav, segr. st., commissione soccorsi, b. 456, fasc. 2291, “varia 1948,” which lists as subject: “col. massimo adolfo vitale, a nome del comitato ricerche deportati ebrei, scrive ai cardinali hlond e sapieha circa un quadro mostruoso di ebrei che assassinano una ragazza cristiana e ne accolgono il sangue.” 35 maritain to massimo vitale, march 27, 1948, unione delle comunità israelitiche italiane (ucii), crde 16. the maritain-vitale correspondence is in french. kertzer and benedetti: in the wake of the holocaust 10 the vitale brothers did what they could to keep up the pressure on the vatican, as two days after massimo’s letter to maritain, enrico wrote a long letter to cardinal clemente micara, prefect of the congregation of rites. he had learned from “authoritative friends” that his letter to the pope, along with the attached documents regarding the good friday prayer, had been sent on to the cardinal. “of utmost gravity,” wrote vitale, “beyond any doubt, appears the failure to accede to the hoped for and long-awaited measures…the clear condemnation of antisemitism.”36 several weeks after receiving vitale’s letter, cardinal micara received the letter on the same subject that jacques maritain had sent to monsignor montini. apparently in reaction to vitale’s appeals regarding the good friday prayer, the pope had not only sent the vitale material to the congregation of rites, but also asked montini to look into the matter. knowing of maritain’s interest in the question, montini had asked him to send a bibliography of relevant publications. on april 12, maritain did so, and montini then sent it to cardinal micara.37 after he had sent the bibliography to montini, maritain wrote back to massimo vitale. he wanted to let him know that he “had been assured at the secretariat of state that the questions about which i had directed their attention were being looked into, such that i have good reason to believe that a favorable solution will be brought about.”38 montini and maritain continued to be in close contact about the good friday prayer. on june 3, 1948, montini sent the frenchman an update: “the question of the good friday liturgy is on a good course. instructions will be given regarding its translation. and in the next edition of the missal, they are willing to replace ‘perfidis’ with another word. cardinal micara is favorable.”39 immediately on receiving montini’s letter, maritain wrote vitale, taking issue with vitale’s characterization in his previous letter of the vatican as pervaded by an “antisemitic attitude.” your assertion, wrote maritain, “greatly wounded me…. i would very 36 enrico vitale to cardinal micara, march 29, 1948, accs, positiones decr. et rescr. liturgica, 1948 r 29/48. 37 montini’s cover note to micara, dated june 9, 1948, and the bibliography sent by maritain are found at aav, segr. stato, an. 1950, popolazioni, pos. 296, ff. 2r, 8r. the titles included on maritain’s list included both peterson’s 1936 article and oesterreicher’s 1947 article among others. 38 maritain to massimo vitale, april 21, 1948, ucii, crde 16. in these immediate postwar years, massimo vitale was also actively following the efforts to bring axis war criminals to justice, and in 1947 he served as italy’s official observer at the war crimes trial of rudolf hess in poland. di sante (auschwitz, 93-117) has published the reports vitale wrote on his visits to various concentration camps and to the center for the study of german criminality in cracow during that trip. when, in april 1948, italy’s newspapers published an appeal by pius xii which, as vitale phrased it, “asked that the war crimes committed by the nazis in poland be forgotten and forgiven,” he sent a letter to rome’s leftwing newspaper il paese. undoubtedly at his request, the letter was published unsigned. in the pope’s appeal, wrote vitale, “one would search in vain for any mention of any criticism of the guilty or any thought of mourning for or concern for the victims.” his letter was published on april 26, 1948. vitale sent the clipping to the union of italian jewish communities on that same day: ucii, fondo attività dal 1934, b. 80, fasc. 44 a2. 39 quoted in pisano, “a cinquant’anni,” 947. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2023) much regret it if you thought you had to adopt such a polemic attitude toward the holy see, one that would be as unjust as it would be inopportune.”40 the declaratio in fact, on june 10, 1948, vitale’s repeated pleas, as mediated by montini and maritain, would have their effect. the congregation of rites issued a declaration in response to what it termed various requests regarding the authentic meaning of the latin expressions in the good friday prayer for the jews. the declaration concluded: “this holy congregation of rites, interrogated in this regard has decided the following: in translating these words use of the expressions “disbelief” and “unbelievers” is not to be faulted.” the document was signed by the congregation’s prefect, cardinal micara.41 vitale’s initial reaction to the vatican declaration was positive, indeed triumphalist, as he claimed credit for the change. writing to rome’s chief rabbi in september, vitale recounted the efforts he and his brother had been making since 1945 to have the good friday prayer changed. they had brought pressure through articles written for foreign journals and “then we began the ‘campaign’ with letters, pressure, discussion. a plea was made to his holiness pius xii, letters were repeatedly written to cardinal micara, to ambassador maritain, to various other cardinals, and finally….[sic] ‘victory’ was reached!”42 vitale’s initial elation over the vatican declaratio would soon turn to disillusionment, as it became clear that the congregation of rites statement had not mandated any change in the translation of the offending words, and few churches were making any such change. by early 1952 vitale was again complaining to montini about the prayer.43 in december of that year vitale decided to write directly to the pope. he sent his letter, as he would for his many future appeals to the vatican, on the stationery of the comitato ricerche deportati ebrei. the vatican’s 1948 decision to issue the declaratio regarding the good friday prayer had been greeted with great joy, wrote vitale. “unfortunately, however, the advice expressed in the above-cited ‘declaratio’ has not been followed by anyone, at least from what one can see in italy where more than one recent edition of the roman missal has reproduced identical version of the phrases involved.” vitale’s letter in the vatican archive bears the stamp: “ex audientia ss.mi” indicating it was shown to and discussed with the pope on december 17, 1952, along with the handwritten instruction from the pope: “verify.”44 following up, three days later, the secretariat of state, most likely in the person of monsignor 40 montini to massimo vitale, june 5, 1948, ucii, crde 16. 41 the latin text is found on the stationery of the sacra congregatio rituum at aav, segr. stato, an. 1950, popolazioni, pos. 296, f. 15r. it was published in the official acts of the vatican: sacra rituum congregatio. “declaratio,” acta apostolicae sedis, 40 (1948), 342. 42 vitale to rabbino capo davide prato, roma, september 20, 1948, ucii, crde 16. 43 in february 1952 montini prepared a response to vitale’s new protests, which can be found at aav, segr. stato, an. 1950, popolazioni, pos. 296, ff. 16r-17v. 44 massimo vitale to pius xii, december 11, 1952, aav, segr. stato, an. 1950, popolazioni, pos. 296, f. 12r. kertzer and benedetti: in the wake of the holocaust 12 montini, who continued to coordinate the question for the pope, sent a letter to the secretary of the congregation of rites along with a copy of vitale’s letter.45 the congregation of rites’ reply came the following month in the form of a letter addressed to monsignor montini from enrico leonida dante, the congregation’s sostituto. the congregation, dante reported, had authority only over the latin text of the roman missal, and that ancient text, praying for the conversion of the jews, “solemnly recited every year on the sacred day of the death of the lord,” could not be changed. the translations into local languages of the text were not under the supervision of the congregation, but rather “were placed by canon laws under the authority of the individual [local] bishops.” this letter too bears the stamp of having been shown to pius xii.46 in march, having apparently not received any response to his december 1952 letter to the pope, vitale wrote a joint letter to monsignor montini and to domenico tardini, head of the other major division of the vatican secretariat of state office, that dealing with relations with foreign states. vitale attached a copy of his december letter. vitale’s new letter was provoked not simply by the lack of a reply to his earlier letter, but by a recent incident, one of many such manifestations of antijewish animus in the church he would complain about over the following years. a catholic publication in turin had reprinted the advice that a parish priest had given in his parish bulletin. vitale included the clipping, quoting the priest as advising his parishioners “do not rent to or host in your home protestants or jews. we must keep those of a different religion far from us in order not to endanger our faith.”47 monsignor angelo dell’acqua since the beginning of his papacy, when matters regarding jews had come up pius xii had regularly turned to a man who was initially a junior member of the secretariat of state staff, monsignor angelo dell’acqua.48 the pope’s confidence in dell’acqua was evident from his increased stature over the following years, and in february 1953 the pope appointed him as the sostituto of the secretariat of state, appointing montini to the new position of deputy secretary of state. in dealing with vitale’s latest letter, the pope, shortly after appointing dell’acqua sostituto, requested his opinion. it came in the form of a memo, the first of many as dell’acqua became the pope’s primary intermediary in dealing with vitale. dell’acqua wrote that he could see nothing wrong with the advice the parish priest had given regarding dealing with jews, although, he added, “perhaps he might have been a bit gentler.” contact between catholics and jews was to be 45 aav, segr. stato, an. 1950, popolazioni, pos. 296, f, 13r. 46 enrico dante to montini, january 20, 1953, aav, segr. stato, an. 1950, popolazioni, pos. 296, ff. 14rv. 47 aav, segr. stato, an. 1950, popolazioni, pos. 296, ff. 27r-29r. 48 see david i. kertzer and roberto benedetti, “pope pius xii’s advisor on dealing with jews: monsignor angelo dell’acqua and the holocaust,” revue d’histoire de la shoah 218 (2023), 125-146. 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2023) avoided. as for vitale’s continued complaints about the good friday prayer regarding the “perfidi judei,” added dell’acqua, “with all humility permit me to say that i would not be of the opinion to send anything in writing to signor vitale: it is too delicate a matter and it is well known that the jews are ready to exploit everything.” dell’acqua proposed that instead he invite vitale to the vatican to meet with him and he would attempt to calm him down. reviewing dell’acqua’s memo, pius xii indicated his approval and on march 31 vitale was sent a secretariat of state note card inviting him to confer with dell’acqua the following day.49 as dell’acqua described it in an internal office note, vitale seemed satisfied with the explanation he gave in their subsequent meeting in the apostolic palace regarding both the good friday prayer and the parish priest’s advice column. immediately following their meeting, dell’acqua contacted the congregation of rites to ask if any new italian-language prayer book had recently been published. the reply informed him that the last such publication was from 1943. dell’acqua in turn had an assistant phone vitale’s office leaving word of this report.50 vitale did not wait long before sending the new sostituto a long, impassioned letter objecting to his explanation of the status of the good friday prayer. “i have reason to believe,” wrote vitale, that the news he had received by telephone from dell’acqua’s office “must have been imperfectly transmitted to me because it gave me assurance that ‘no edition in translation into modern languages of the roman missal had been published or even planned after 1943’.” in conducting his own rapid and incomplete inquiry, wrote vitale, he found four italian, french, and english editions published since 1950 and all contained the “perfidious/treacherous” jews wording. to these four, he asserted, one could add a florentine edition of the past year, “and who knows how many others in the world.” given the number of years that had passed since the declaratio, argued vitale, he could not see any reason for the delay in mandating the change, “thus avoiding the incommensurable damage of a universal and capillary antisemitic propaganda.” having now recognized the “baleful consequences and the complete uselessness of the ‘declaratio’,” wrote vitale, “there can be no doubt that his holiness will now want to ensure, with his high sense of justice, that an end is put to a bitter situation which provokes not unfounded resentment on the part of the victims who have already been so unjustly affected.51 49 dell’acqua’s memo is dated march 20, 1953. he notes that he had previously had occasion to meet with vitale “back during the time of the campaign against the judaics.” aav, segr. stato, an. 1950, popolazioni, pos. 296, f. 11r. the secretariat of state invitation to vitale, dated march 31, is found at centro di documentazione ebraica contemporanea (cdec), fondo vitale, b.4, fasc. 157. 50 dell’acqua’s note on vitale’s visit, dated april 3, 1953, is found at aav, segr. stato, an. 1950, popolazioni, pos. 296, f. 23r. for dell’acqua’s request to monsignor dante, dated april 3, and dante’s reply, see aav, segr. stato, an. 1950, popolazioni, pos. 296, f. 24r. the next day, dell’acqua also sought information from monsignor de marchi on publication plans for the new roman missal (ibid., f. 25r). dell’acqua subsequently sent word on april 9 to vitale of what he had learned (ibid., f. 26r). 51 vitale to dell’acqua, april 14, 1953, aav, segr. stato, an. 1950, popolazioni, pos. 296, ff. 31r-32r. for the state of concerns over antisemitism in the catholic liturgy at the time, see paul démann and renée bloch, “formation liturgique et attitude chrétienne envers les juifs,” cahiers sioniens 7 (1953), 115-78. kertzer and benedetti: in the wake of the holocaust 14 when a month later vitale had still received no reply from his latest complaint, he wrote again to dell’acqua, offering additional evidence: a 1951 french prayer book, bearing the imprimatur of the archbishop of paris, contained the offending good friday phrases.52 on receiving the letter, dell’acqua, clearly tiring of vitale’s insistence, sent instructions to a secretariat staff member to phone vitale and assure him that he was taking his letter into consideration.53 yet vitale kept pressing, following up a few weeks later with another letter asking dell’acqua whether any progress had been made toward a new pontifical edict on the good friday prayer.54 again, dell’acqua decided it best not to offer vitale any written document he might make use of. he directed a staff member to respond by phone to vitale: “could you explain to the interested party that the matter is present in the secretariat of state but that it cannot be resolved in the span of just a few months?” clearly exasperated by vitale’s ceaseless pleas, dell’acqua added in his note to his assistant: “a little patience!”55 the duel between dell’acqua and vitale would continue over the next months. in early october, vitale again wrote to the monsignor, thanking him for his july telephone message which, he said, “gave me the hope of a happy resolution in the near future of what all ‘men of good will’ desire.” yet, he added, any further delay “could give the impression of a hostility that, i am certain, is far from existing.” at the bottom of vitale’s letter, dell’acqua sent another message to his assistant: “please (by voice) tell him to remain patient.”56 for vitale, the urgency of making the change in the good friday prayer was intimately bound to the larger issue of the church’s centuries-long demonization of jews, and after hearing nothing more from the vatican over the next months, he again wrote to dell’acqua.57 he had been told to be patient, he said, but it had now been five years since “unfortunately, the unobserved ‘declaratio’” had been issued, giving the relevant vatican offices more than enough time to prepare a new statement. to illustrate the larger problem caused by the failure of a stronger papal condemnation of church vilification of jews, vitale cited a recent case that a close, catholic friend of his had brought to his attention. while attending a sunday mass on the italian island of giglio, his friend heard the parish priest, in praising the 52 vitale to dell’acqua, may 10, 1953, ibid., f. 37r. 53 dell’acqua’s instructions are found in a note dated may 12, 1953, ibid. f. 36r. vitale’s note of the phone conversation, bearing the same date, is found at cdec, fondo vitale, b.4, fasc. 157. 54 vitale to dell’acqua, july 3, 1953, aav, segr. stato, an. 1950, popolazioni, pos. 296, f. 38r. 55 dell’acqua’s memo, dated july 6, 1953, is found at ibid., f. 40r. vitale’s memo recording the subsequent phone message, dated july 16, is at cdec, fondo vitale, b.4, fasc. 157. the secretariat staff members account of that conversation, carrying the same date, is at aav, segr. stato, an. 1950, popolazioni, pos. 296, f. 35r. 56 vitale to dell’acqua, october 6, 1953, ibid., f. 41r. that the telephone message came through as instructed is evident from vitale’s secretary’s own account of the resulting call: “this is the vatican speaking. monsignor dell’acqua asks that colonel vitale be told to remain patient for a little longer.” comunicazioni telefoniche, october 8, 1953, cdec, fondo vitale, b.4, fasc. 157. 57 also of note in these years in the battle to get the roman catholic church to come to terms with its centuries-long demonization of jews was the work of jules isaac. for his analysis of the problem, see his the teaching of contempt (new york: holt, rinehart, and winston, 1964). 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2023) “regality of christ,” speak of “the evil jewish people.” “one cannot say,” argued vitale, “that the matter has no importance for facts of this kind may be repeated in every part of the world, through the infinite number of priests who are in contact with the uneducated masses.” it was just such teachings that produced hatred “toward these jews whom many know only second hand.” such hatred, argued vitale, is what made the holocaust possible.58 for vitale, whose mother and sister had been murdered at auschwitz, and who had dedicated the previous several years of his life to learning the fate of the thousands of jews in italy who had been deported to the death camps, the link between the christian demonization of jews and the holocaust was fundamental. a january 1954 request from a roman political weekly asking for his thoughts on whether there existed in italy “an initiative destined to demolish the barrier of prejudices that divide christians from jews” prompted an emotion-laden response. along with his reply, in march, he sent a cover letter explaining that “for personal reasons,” his note, if published, would have to remain anonymous. he did not want to do anything that might antagonize his interlocutors in the vatican as he was engaged in his attempts to have the good friday liturgy changed. his text read: during the tragic years of the nazi-fascist persecution, the vatican did nothing in defense of judaism; the voice of the head was never raised, and the rare episodes of hospitality offered to the persecuted, served only to save the life of some hundreds of people when millions had already been murdered in the gas chambers or in the rigors of the death camps in germany and in poland, while a timely action at the beginning would have changed the course of the most tragic event, probably also in germany, but certainly in italy and in france. vitale recalled the mass roundup of rome’s jews by the ss on october 16, 1943: a word of the head would have sufficed, and the innocent roman victims would have been saved; and on every other occasion the word of the head would have had a similar result. and it was not uttered! and the ferocious persecutors themselves were certain they would hear it, they feared it, and they marveled at the silence, which was so useful to their monstrous projects and their evildoing. vitale then turned to the common argument of vatican defenders who pointed to the testimony of jews who had survived the war: “and so, the numerous testimonies of gratitude of those few, very few, who were saved, have little value, if placed aside the monstrous figure of six million, for whom there was not even the attempt to devote that most authoritative word that, i repeat, would have probably changed the course of that which was such a tragic event.” this then led vitale into 58 vitale to dell’acqua, december 10, 1953, cdec, fondo vitale, b.4, fasc. 157. kertzer and benedetti: in the wake of the holocaust 16 a long discussion of “the vain efforts of these last six years on the part of jewish organizations” to change the good friday prayer. he asked that the letter be signed “a faithful reader.”59 in may 1954 the lack of any further response from the vatican regarding the good friday prayer led vitale to write directly to the pope. he had been told by phone many months earlier to be patient, he told pius xii, yet since then he had heard nothing. “we cannot and the jewish world will never again allow itself to fail to interest itself in this matter; it is too important given the pernicious value of the propaganda flowing from the erroneous widespread translations.” “such an error,” vitale told the pope, “has certainly contributed and continues to contribute each day to spreading hatred and contempt.” dell’acqua discussed vitale’s letter with the pope on may 22, and the pope agreed with him that written correspondence with the jewish representative should be avoided.60 as a result, dell’acqua summoned vitale to the apostolic palace, where they met on june 24. vitale subsequently recorded their conversation in a memo. after the usual pleasantries were exchanged, dell’acqua told vitale he had nothing new to tell him. vitale complained that he had learned of new editions of the roman missal containing the much-deprecated good friday verbiage. dell’acqua responded that these were not new editions but rather the reprinting of old editions, for which vatican authorization was not required. it was necessary, insisted the monsignor, that he be patient. upon getting dell’acqua’s assurances many months earlier that the matter was being swiftly dealt with, responded vitale, he had spoken with many italian and foreign journalists telling them that the good friday prayer change would soon be announced, and he now felt embarrassed that nothing had yet happened. he went on to complain that continuing recitation of the prayer was promulgating hatred of jews among a new generation of the faithful. it was all, he argued, part of the larger church practice of spreading hatred toward jews. recognition of this fact should prompt the vatican “to change all that it is possible to change, while so many priests continue to incite the believers from the pulpit against the jews and write in publications that go into the hands of the masses of people and are ruinous.” all he had to do was bring such cases of the wayward priests to his attention, replied dell’acqua, and he could be sure that the matter would be dealt with. it was necessary, he repeated, to have a little more patience, and the good friday matter would be resolved. vitale refused to give up. in december, he wrote dell’acqua yet another reminder, expressing his hope that the coming new year would see at last the 59 the request from the magazine, epoca, to vitale, dated january 18, 1953, and vitale’s letters in response, dated march 21, are found at cdec, fondo vitale, b. 4, fasc. 164. 60 in dell’acqua’s own brief note on their meeting, the monsignor wrote: “i recommended that he be patient…the jews too are often very agitated with regard to catholics” (vitale to pius xii, may 11, 1954, aav, segr. stato, an. 1950, popolazioni, pos. 296, f. 44r, 43r). 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2023) resolution of the good friday question.61 in april 1955, vitale wrote again, and again referred back to their most recent conversation, of ten months earlier, reminding the prelate as well of his subsequent letter on the subject in december.62 as he had in the past, dell’acqua replied by having an assistant telephone vitale: “by voice,” instructed the sostituto, “repeat to him to still have a little patience!”63 the duel between vitale and dell’acqua continued, as vitale peppered the vatican with his pleas. vitale’s new appeal to dell’acqua in october 1955 led to a remarkably similar response, as the monsignor had his assistant again phone the jewish leader and urged patience.64 in fact, the next month the congregation of rites issued a document devoted to the revision of the holy week rites, bearing pius xii’s approval. maxima redemptionis nostrae mysteria offered many new instructions for the proper performance of holy week ceremonies, including those for good friday, but did not address the prayer for the jews.65 the following year the battle continued. in april 1956 vitale wrote dell’acqua complaining of the recent publication in milan of a “new holy week liturgy,” bearing the archdiocesan imprimatur and distributed to all the catholic churches of the archdiocese, still containing the phrases “perfidious judaics” and “judaic perfidy.”66 “if this is to be found,” wrote vitale, “i would say practically under the eyes of the holy father, what will they be doing further away?”67 this time, rather than have an assistant phone vitale and ask that he be patient, dell’acqua responded in a brief note to vitale reporting that he had brought his letter to the attention of the relevant office, the congregation of rites. in fact, discussions in the congregation of rites regarding the easter friday prayer for the jews were continuing, marked by considerable differences of opinion regarding both the appropriate vernacular translations of the latin language and the question of whether the latin wording itself might be changed.68 vitale’s next letter came to the monsignor the following month, prompted by the appearance in a catholic bookstore of a new antisemitic volume titled tragic triangle, referring to the presumed triangle linking judaism, communism, and the 61 vitale to dell’acqua, december 18, 1954, ibid. f. 48r. dell’acqua this time responded simply in the form of a printed card of new year’s best wishes on december 27, cdec, fondo vitale, b.4, fasc. 157. 62 vitale to dell’acqua, april 6, 1955, aav, segr. stato, an. 1950, popolazioni, pos. 296, f. 49r. 63 dell’acqua note, ibid., f. 50r. for vitale’s account of their conversation see cdec, fondo vitale, b.4, fasc. 157. 64 vitale to dell’acqua, october 23, 1955, aav, segr. stato, an. 1950, popolazioni, pos. 296, f. 53r; vitale notes, october 27, 1955, cdec, fondo vitale, b.4, fasc. 157. 65 the english text of maxima redemptionis, dated november 16, 1955, is found at https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=11136. further explication is offered by the prefect and secretary of the congregation of rites: gaetano cardinal cicognani and alfonso carinci, “regulations concerning easter ceremonies,” the furrow 8, (1957), 3, 198-202. 66 the question of changes in the holy week liturgy in these years is discussed, inter alia, in annibale bugnini and carlo braga, la liturgia della settimana santa (rome: edizioni liturgiche, 1957); giovanni berti, la settimana santa. commento storico, dogmatico e pastorale al nuovo ordo (milan: opera della regalità, 1957). 67 vitale to dell’acqua, april 9, 1956, aav, segr. stato, an. 1950, popolazioni, pos. 296, f. 55r. 68 dell’acqua to vitale, april 14, 1956, cdec, fondo vitale, b.4, fasc. 157. on the discussions in these years in the congregation of rites regarding the prayer for the jews, see paiano, “ebrei italiani,” 68589. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=11136 kertzer and benedetti: in the wake of the holocaust 18 masonry, an old theme of catholic anti-jewish writings. along with this complaint vitale again raised the issue of the good friday prayer.69 this time, in what dell’acqua clearly hoped would put an end to vitale’s missives, the monsignor decided to respond by letter. he adopted an impersonal tone: “illustrious signore, with reference to your precious letter of may 8 of the current year, i must clarify for you that a response to your requests regarding variations in the liturgical prayers of the church is not of the competence of this secretariat of state.” it was instead a matter for the congregation of rites. as for the bookstore offering the offending publication, vitale was informed, he should feel free to take the matter up with the “interested persons” there.70 if monsignor dell’acqua thought that this letter of dismissal would put an end to vitale’s repeated requests, he would quickly discover he was mistaken. in october 1956 vitale sent a long letter to dell’acqua, recalling his postwar complaints to the vatican about depictions in various polish churches of jewish ritual murder of christian children. he wrote now, he said, because he had learned that such an image of ritual murder was still to be found in two austrian churches. “in both,” he wrote, “the shameful lie is offered as if it were a truth revealed in the gospel.” “as in poland,” continued vitale, "it is well known that a good part of the austrian population does not nourish favorable feelings toward the jews and that, especially among the mass of the people of the countryside…these are sentiments of hatred and contempt that only the church can extinguish.”71 dell’acqua’s reply was curt. indeed it consisted not of a signed letter but an embossed secretariat of state card accompanied by an unsigned response. after contesting the existence of a portrait of jewish ritual murder in one of the austrian churches cited by vitale, it explained that the other church had “some that represent the martyrdom of blessed andrea, whose relics are conserved in that same church. according to tradition, it is the case of a young boy who died at the hands of some israelites.” the note continued: “one can be certain, however, that such paintings do not cause any antisemitic sentiment, in the same way that no such sentiment is caused in vienna’s duomo of saint stephen which portrays the saint in the act of being stoned to death by the judaics.” at the bottom of the page vitale penciled in his reaction: “this note is fantastic!!!”72 over the next months, vitale continued to direct pleas to dell’acqua, combining his repeated calls for action to be taken in dealing with the good friday prayer with a series of reports of antisemitic images and sermons in europe’s churches. in one of these letters, in july 1957, he told of a report he had received from a catholic friend from turin. as she had recalled in her letter, at a sunday mass she attended, “the priest gave a sermon that was an ode to antisemitism.” vitale added, “it is to be observed that facts of this kind are not rare” and he concluded: “only 69 vitale to dell’acqua, may 8, 1955, aav, segr. stato, an. 1950, popolazioni, pos. 296, f. 59r. 70 dell’acqua to vitale, may 11, 1956, ibid., ff. 61rv. 71 vitale to dell’acqua, october 19, 1956, cdec, fondo vitale, b.4, fasc. 157. 72 idem. the secretariat of state to vitale note is dated november 26, 1956. vitale’s underlining is in the original. 19 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2023) authoritative central intervention can avoid the repetition of this, and, certainly, the publication of the much desired “decretum” would give a clear indication of the reality of these sentiments.” dell’acqua responded a few days later thanking vitale for bringing the matter to his attention. he added, “should this occur again be so good as to let me know and it will be my duty to inform the most eminent cardinal archbishop of turin.” on receiving the monsignor’s reply, vitale underlined his phrase “should this occur again,” and in the margin penciled in four exclamation points.73 two months later vitale again wrote dell’acqua to complain about yet another incidence of antisemitism in official church publications. “the incredible fact involved bears the official sanction of a high catholic church authority.” the heavily illustrated book in question, published the previous year, titled “i am the life the gospel for children,” bore the imprimatur of the archdiocese of milan. “what gospel,” asked vitale, “can promulgate hatred, contempt, and lies?” vitale offered a quote from its text recounting for children the crucifixion of jesus: “the jews retreated into their homes for dinner. some are repentant. they beat their chests exclaiming ‘what have i ever done!’ others no. they sneered. and their foul laughter has been passed down from generation to generation. and it has reached down to us. and we all know these traitors who every day with their evil works continue to kill jesus a little.” vitale asked that the vatican take immediate action to prohibit use of the book in church schools and to prohibit sale of the book in catholic bookstores until such time as the offending language was removed.74 vitale’s complaint prompted dell’acqua to arrange to talk to him by phone. our only record of that conversation comes indirectly, via vitale’s follow-up letter to the monsignor, sent a week after his initial letter. “your excellency,” wrote vitale, had argued that vitale had given an “erroneous interpretation” to the children’s text. the reference in the text, dell’acqua had claimed, “refers to the stubborn sinners but not to all the jews.” “permit me,” replied vitale, “to repeat what i said then.” even if this were a volume to be read by well-educated adults, few would grasp the subtle distinction dell’acqua was making. “but instead this is a case of a volume destined for children, presented to them as the gospel.” reading the text, and having been taught the inerrancy of the gospel, such children would have clearly called to their minds “that ‘the judaics’ each day carry out evil works against he who in his spirit is the source of all light and all good; and from that can only deduce sentiments of horror, of hatred, of contempt.” dell’acqua had told vitale that he would see whether something might be done to “improve” the text in question, yet, argued vitale, clearly more than some “improvement” was needed, but rather “a complete transformation.” in concluding, as he was wont to do in his now massive correspondence with the sostituto, vitale tied this latest instance of church demonization of jews to the failure to address the good friday liturgy. for the necessary transformation of the children’s text, 73 vitale to dell’acqua, july 3, 1957, aav, segr. stato, an. 1950, popolazioni, pos. 296, ff. 65r, 64r; and dell’acqua to vitale, july 8, 1957, cdec, fondo vitale, b.4, fasc. 157. 74 vitale to dell’acqua, september 12, 1957, cdec, fondo vitale, b.4, fasc. 157. kertzer and benedetti: in the wake of the holocaust 20 wrote vitale, “i trust in your excellency’s high authority, as i still trust in it (still after so many years and so many requests…) for the publication of the much desired ‘decretum’ in the exceedingly important question of the good friday prayer.”75 as 1957 was drawing to a close, and vitale had still received no word of vatican action on the good friday prayer, he sent another long, impassioned letter to dell’acqua. he began by reviewing the “innumerable verbal, telephonic, and written communications” he had exchanged with the vatican’s sostituto. after all of them, he asked, “does it not seem to you, most reverend excellency, that very very little has been accomplished in reaching a better understanding between catholics and jews, a question which, given the monstrous events that have occurred in recent times against the jews,” should concern all honest men? vitale reviewed the efforts he had made to have the language of the good friday prayer changed. from the time of the “declaratio” by the congregation of rites in 1948, he wrote, “my communications with your most reverend excellency on the matter have been innumerable” yet the language in the roman missals had remained unchanged. in 1956, “in rome, under the eyes of the holy father himself, the “new liturgy of holy week” was published still containing “the injurious and false phrase of ‘perfidious judaics’ and ‘perfidious judaism.’” and while he had brought to the monsignor’s attention the publication of the children’s gospel volume with its vilification of jews: what public criticism, what disciplining of those responsible was effected? how is it possible that the indescribable horrors perpetrated by the nazi-fascists against the jews do not inspire continuous, immediate, and severe sanctions against those who are guilty?... does it not seem to you, most reverend excellency, that these failures to act can appear as an incomprehensible deficiency in the high ministry of the church?76 accompanying vitale’s letter in the vatican secretariat of state archive is a note written by antonio travia. travia, who had been montini’s secretary while he served as sostituto, had subsequently come under dell’acqua’s authority. it was travia who had frequently made the phone calls to speak with vitale at dell’acqua’s request. travia offered his characterization of vitale’s new letter: “before kicking off the beginning of 1958, the president of the union of jewish communities, signor massimo adolfo vitale, with semitic tenacity and stubbornness, proposes his usual requests once again for the new year.”77 75 vitale to dell’acqua, september 19, 1957, idem. 76 vitale to dell’acqua, december 30, 1957, aav, segr. stato, an. 1950, popolazioni, pos. 296, ff. 67r-69r. 77 travia’s note is found at ibid., f. 66r. he here mistakes the organization that vitale headed, which was the committee to locate jewish deportees, not the union of italian jewish communities. a subsequent handwritten note on vitale’s letter indicates that copies were sent both to the congregation of rites and the congregation of the council. the latter was the office, dating from the sixteenth century, 21 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2023) a month later, on january 31, 1958, vitale, frustrated by what he took to be the stalling tactic adopted by the pope’s representatives, sent a letter in english to the heads of the principal jewish organizations in the u.s. and england reviewing his efforts to convince pius xii to do something about the good friday prayer. he began by describing the decision in 1948 to issue the “declaratio” by the congregation of rites. “this,” he explained, “was the result of my numberless interventions with the vatican in order to eliminate the century-old incitement to anti-semitism which the incorrect and malicious interpretation of the latin phrases produces in the catholic masses.” ten years had passed since that time yet with few exceptions, “all the new editions of the ‘missale romanus’ in modern languages still have unvaried the insulting anti-semitic phrases.” vitale suggested that, to much of the catholic world, the ambiguous language of the 1948 declaratio had “concealed the [vatican’s] wish that the question be left unchanged!!!!! and this was the interpretation of numberless bishops whose ‘imprimatur’ gives formally sanction to the new anti-semitic editions of the wide-spread liturgical books.” as a result, he had been battling for years to have the vatican issue a “decretum,” which, unlike the declaratio, would act as “an order to which the catholic world must conform.” he added, “as you can see from the enclosed letter addressed to the vatican on december 30th, 1957, i …..[sic] continue my “fight”!!!!!!!!” 78 a new pope the stalling action on the good friday prayer adopted by monsignor dell’acqua in dealing with vitale’s efforts continued through the rest of pius xii’s papacy. it undoubtedly reflected the pope’s own reluctance to have changes made in the good friday prayer or to take other public actions to alter centuries-long church views of jews.79 while in his correspondence with the pope, vitale always adopted a respectful tone, his views of pius xii were far from benign. a month after pius xii’s october 1958 death, an editor of london’s jewish chronicle wrote vitale to ask his opinion on the new pope. vitale’s response is revealing: the new pope undoubtedly has a personality much different from pio xii (who was among the worst enemies of the jews) but we must remember that the vatican policy was—is—and will be always the same: on the one hand good and friendly words and smiles; on the other hand (also at the same time) dislike and active opposition. which oversaw the correct interpretation and application of the canons introduced by the council of trent and had responsibility for overseeing the secular clergy. 78 vitale’s january 30, 1958, letter is found at cdec, fondo vitale, b.4, fasc. 157. the numerous exclamation marks are in the original. 79 the pope’s reluctance to address the implications of christian anti-jewish teachings in the aftermath of the holocaust is reflected in the larger disinclination to do so in the church. “through the 1950s,” observed john connelly, “the catholic press— whether the french études, the american commonweal and america, the british the month, the polish tygodnik powszechny, or the german stimmen der zeit and hochland— featured next to nothing on the shoah, let alone suggested that this event should unleash soulsearching within the church about its past” (connelly, from enemy, 179-180). kertzer and benedetti: in the wake of the holocaust 22 pius xii’s death had occasioned a series of public statements by jewish leaders praising the pope, and this clearly irritated vitale. in his reply to the british publication, he enclosed a clipping of a long letter, bearing the title “pius xii and the jews,” which had recently been published in a milanese newspaper. the author, taking issue with the newspaper’s positive editorial offering a tribute to the recently deceased pope, gave a detailed account of the pope’s failures to oppose the nazi and fascist murderous campaign against the jews. as for the words of praise coming in from jewish organizations in the wake of the pope’s death, vitale remarked that they were “completely undeserved” and added, “let jewish and non-jewish people in england know the truth.”80 on november 23, barely a month after john xxiii’s election, vitale decided to write to the new pope. he recalled the 1948 “declaratio,” and added: “unfortunately, as was predictable, no result was forthcoming, which is to say, for over ten years we have been waiting for the requested ‘decretum’ that would put an end to a clear, humiliating injustice.” vitale went on to make the link for john xxiii between the vatican’s continued embrace of the good friday prayer for the jews and the actions of his predecessor during the holocaust and its aftermath: the layman cannot understand the reasons that prevented the holy see in that most troubled time from excommunicating hitler, mussolini, and their collaborators, for the evils they committed…. equally laypeople cannot understand the reasons that led the holy see to grant generous hospitality to the executioners of innocent victims…. but after such a horrible and painful past, one trusts that by your holiness’s paternal benevolence the humiliating insult that continually results from an inevitable, widespread ecumenical propaganda of various catholic liturgical texts…will finally be cancelled. for further details on the question, vitale suggested that the pope consult monsignor dell’acqua, with whom he had had “very numerous contacts on the question from 1953 to 1958.”81 with a speed that may have surprised vitale, the new pope acted to make the change that his predecessor had long resisted. for the first good friday mass of his papacy, held on march 27, 1959, john xxiii directed cardinal micara, then cardinal vicar of rome, to have the terms “perfidis” and “perfidia” stricken from the prayer for the jews in the diocese of rome. this was followed in may with a letter 80 the request, dated november 19, 1958, came from the foreign editor of the jewish chronicle. vitale’s response is dated december 13. cdec, fondo vitale, b. 4, fasc. 164. the clipping vitale enclosed, “pio xii e gli ebrei,” by giorgio sabetti, was published in the november issue of l’incontro (ucii, fondo attività dal 1934, b. 230). 81 vitale to pope john xxiii, november 23, 1958, cdec, fondo vitale, b.4, fasc. 157. an unsigned letter to vitale on vatican secretary of state stationery, dated december 11, 1958, informed him that his letter had been transmitted to the congregation of rites. 23 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2023) from the congregation of rites announcing the application of the decision worldwide.82 indeed, the new pope went further, eliminating other negative references to jews in the catholic liturgy, including the invocation in the baptism of jews, “horresce iudaicam perfidiam, respue hebraicam superstitionem,” a request that neither vitale nor any jewish organization had been pressing.83 conclusions vitale’s tenacious efforts to have the vatican end the church’s negative depiction of jews contained in the good friday prayer was, as we have seen, intimately connected to his belief in the role played by the roman catholic church, and the christian churches more generally, in the vilification of jews that made the holocaust possible. in the wake of the nazi murder of his own sister and mother, and his ongoing attempts as head of the cdre to ascertain the fate of the thousands of jews in italy who had been deported to death camps by the germans, vitale was incensed by pius xii’s failure to show any sense of urgency in dealing with the church’s ongoing casting of jews as sources of evil. 84 in her book on catholic antisemitism in the postwar years, italian historian elena mazzini points out that the vatican’s behavior reflected a larger “politics of memory” that characterized italy. “the shoah,” she writes, “became a matter of shared public memory only beginning in the 1960s. the catholic world, then, did not behave differently from the rest of italian society.” italians took no more responsibility for their role in the holocaust than the church did for its role.85 in his recent book on pius xii and the holocaust, andrea riccardi similarly calls attention to the vatican’s resistance in the postwar years to the efforts of catholic clergy to reach out to a jewish people who had just suffered indescribable horrors and mass murder. when american and british elements of the catholic church began to take part in the efforts of the new international council of christians and jews, among whose honorary presidents was jacques maritain himself, the cardinals of the holy office urged great caution. interfaith organizations and activities were to be discouraged. a holy office 1954 directive to a british bishop, approved by pius xii, called on him to ensure that the vatican policy was followed. a draft of the document contained the phrase—dropped however from the final 82 menozzi, “perfidie judaïque,” 106-107. elena mazzini has referred to the pope’s action as “far from expected” (“aspetti dell’antisemitismo cattolico dopo l’olocausto,” in storia della shoah in italia, vol. 2, ed. marcello flores et al. (turin: utet, 2010), 320-35. 83 paiano, “il dibattito,” 705-706. however, the good friday service continued to contain a prayer for the conversion of jews. this would be changed only with the second vatican council and reflected in the new missal in 1970 (wolf, “the good friday,” 254). 84 along these lines, connelly quotes the june 1949 comment by john cogley, former editor of the chicago catholic worker: “when one considers the enormity of the nazi bloodcarnival, it never ceases to be amazing that the christian conscience has been so slightly disturbed” (connelly, from enemy, 180. 85 elena mazzini. l'antiebraismo cattolico, 62. kertzer and benedetti: in the wake of the holocaust 24 draft—“the catholic church is currently suffering persecutions in countries where the jews predominate in the government.”86 much attention has been given to pius xii’s failure to speak out against the ongoing attempts of the nazis to exterminate europe’s jews during the second world war. the question of the pope’s reluctance, in the wake of the holocaust, to confront the question of church responsibility for casting jews as threats to healthy christian society has received much less attention. the path to such recognition in the years following pius xii’s papacy has been far from direct. john xxiii’s rapid actions to alter the good friday prayer as well as the wording used for the conversion of jews was followed in 1965 by pope montini’s (paul vi) issuing of the historic nostra aetate, calling for an end to church demonization of jews. yet in 1998, the vatican issued its “we remember” statement, its preface written by pope john paul ii himself, rejecting the claim that centuries-long christian demonization of jews bore any relation to the hatred of jews that made the holocaust possible.87 the case of the efforts to alter the good friday liturgy offers a window into the pressures the pope faced in the immediate postwar years to deal with these issues. the recent opening of the vatican archives for the papacy of pius xii offers a much clearer view than previously available into how the pope, and his closest advisors, fended off such a reckoning. the resulting picture offers further evidence of just how dramatic were the actions taken by pius xii’s successor. 86 andrea riccardi, la guerra del silenzio (rome: laterza, 2022), 320-23. 87 on this, see kertzer, the popes. by contrast, a number of national roman catholic church hierarchies have issued statements recognizing their responsibility and offering apologies (e.g., for the german case, see the 2020 statement of the german bishops’ conference at https://www.dbk.de/fileadmin/redaktion/diverse_downloads/presse_2020/2020-04-29_db_107_englisch.pdf, discussed in mark ruff, “the german catholic bishops and the second world war: a historic reappraisal,” contemporary church history quarterly 26 (2020): 1/2. https://www.dbk.de/fileadmin/redaktion/diverse_downloads/presse_2020/2020-04-29_db_107_englisch.pdf https://www.dbk.de/fileadmin/redaktion/diverse_downloads/presse_2020/2020-04-29_db_107_englisch.pdf studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review alan l. berger, ed. trialogue and terror: judaism, christianity, and islam after 9/11 (eugene, oregon: cascade books, 2012), paperback, xv + 271 pp. noam e. marans, american jewish committee alan berger has brought together 15 interreligious relations luminaries at the nexus of scholarship and practice to ponder abrahamic trialogue in the post-9/11 era. in his helpful conclusion, berger identifies the jewish, christian, and muslim themes of the fifteen essays, summarizing the five contributions from each of the three traditions. but as he readily acknowledges, each of the essays stands on its own, representing diverse reflections on a vast question: as 9/11 moves closer to history than experience, has this epochal event altered the interreligious landscape? the volume is a record of the 2007-2010 global shemin trialogues at florida atlantic university, where berger serves as a professor of holocaust and judaic studies. the book’s topics are as diverse as the authors, including bible (theresa sanders); geopolitics (akbar s. ahmed); human rights (donald j. dietrich); afterlife (david patterson); interreligious journeys (mary c. boys, muhammad shafiq); jewish-muslim history (anouar majid); education (deborah weissman); salvation (gilbert s. rosenthal); evangelization (john t. pawlikowski); peace (a. rashied omar) and the evolution of interreligious relations (a. james rudin, ricardo di segni, eugene j. fisher, and khaleel mohammed). in short, there is something for everyone here: academicians, clergy, and laypeople. berger presents the representatives of the three abrahamic religions in order of their faith’s appearance in the world— studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) judaism, then christianity, and finally islam. the opening essay in each section is a tour d’horizon, featuring respectively, a. james rudin (judaism), eugene j. fisher (christianity), and khaleel mohammed (islam). they each excel in telling us where we were, are, and need to go. rabbi rudin, the american jewish committee director of interreligious affairs during the pre-9/11 decades, opens the volume with a sobering assertion: the interreligious golden age now faces serious complications. the passing of pope john paul ii, initiatives by mainline protestant churches to divest from corporations doing business with israel, and the significant challenges in muslim-jewish relations post-9/11 combine for a difficult letdown after the heyday of interreligious relations in the post-holocaust era. it is hard to surpass the catholic-jewish transformations of nostra aetate and john paul ii’s papacy. liberal protestants and jews have been mired in disagreements over israel for close to a decade. notwithstanding some progress, muslims and jews remain wary of one another. dr. fisher directed catholic-jewish relations for the u.s. conference of catholic bishops for thirty years. as fisher notes in his contribution, during the first ten years he also served as the de facto director of catholic-muslim relations. fisher writes, “september 11 may have inaugurated a world of fear and terrorism...but it also prompted innumerable people of goodwill...to turn toward one another in dialogue.... sometimes, good can be wrung out of evil” (p. 100). islam, fisher asserts, did not have to face the enlightenment challenges to religious tradition the way judaism and christianity did. “this imbalance...means that the three are not on the same page, or even in the same chapter, in their respective histories” (p. 100). no doubt it is the writings by muslim contributors that will be read with greatest interest, because it is about islam that most americans interested in the possibilities of trialogue feel a gap in their knowledge. khaleel mohammed begins to narrow that studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr gap. he is a controversial figure who has been attacked for his unconventional views, and he does not cower here. with chilling candor he writes, “it is easier to start a new religion than to seek to reform any of the cherished constructs of islam. later triumphalist, absolutist teachings have so supplanted the pristine qur’anic worldview that they are now viewed as the pure islam of the early generations” (p. 178). but he concludes with hope: “in the muslim world, there is a rising swell against retrogression and malaise” (p. 182). beyond the heavy analysis, there are also artfully crafted pearls of wisdom. rabbi rosenthal, a veteran interreligious relations scholar and practitioner, offers my favorite in the book: “when people do not speak to one another, they do unspeakable things to one another” (p. 36). trialogue and terror moves us closer to the speaking and further from the unspeakable. appropriately, this collection does not offer a pollyanish view of trialogue. of course, the writers reveal a passion for interreligious relations and the personal transformations inherent in their respective journeys. but notwithstanding the significant advances of select trialogue endeavors, trialogue and terror affirms the challenges of trialogue when two of the communities (judaism and christianity) have significant mutual histories in modern interreligious relations and one (islam) does not. we need more practice juggling with two balls (muslimchristian and muslim-jewish) before we can perfect juggling with three. berger writes in his introduction, “everywhere with the exception of western europe, religion appears resurgent” (p. 2). yet in his conclusion, he suggests, “commitment to organized institutional religion appears to be waning” (pp. 253-54). the contradiction is resolved in this fine collection. the human need for religious insight has only increased since 9/11. it is the institutions of religion and religious views of the other that need to catch up. the essayists in this volume, or perhaps their disciples, will play an important role in that process. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): kaminsky r1-2 thiessen, contesting conversion kaminsky r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr matthew thiessen contesting conversion: genealogy, circumcision, and identity in ancient judaism and christianity (oxford: oxford university press, 2011), hardcover, x + 246 pp. joel s. kaminsky, smith college this dense but carefully argued monograph posits that a strictly genealogical definition of israelite and later jewish identity persisted in some streams of jewish thinking longer than commonly recognized, and that this should change our view of certain new testament texts. the first section of the book is focused on precisely how circumcision acts as a distinguishing mark to separate israelites from non-israelites in various passages throughout the hebrew bible. thiessen’s major contention here is that it is not circumcision per se, but rather circumcision conducted exactly on the eighth day that brings israelites into the covenant. in the second part of the book, he turns to jubilees’ strong statements about eighth day circumcision and also examines various hellenistic jewish texts that take up the issue of whether circumcised idumeans like herod were universally recognized as being jewish. finally, he turns to the new testament, most particularly luke-acts, to show how the claim that one can become a jew only by circumcision on the eighth day allows us to grasp why this author treats the circumcision of certain jews like jesus and john the baptist rather positively, but gentile circumcision negatively. while thiessen convincingly shows how the issue of eighth day circumcision, which is central to texts like jubilees, explains the differing treatment of jewish and gentile circumcision in lukeacts, he is on shakier ground when he tries to argue that eighth day circumcision sits at the heart of the hebrew bible’s attempt to distinguish israelites from circumcised non-israelites. thiessen is correct that genesis 17 (a text attributed to the priestly [p] source) presents an enigma in that ishmael who is explicitly excluded from the covenant is circumcised along with all the foreign slaves in abraham’s household, people also not likely included in israel’s special covenant. but thiessen’s attempt to solve this enigma by arguing that only those descendants fathered by abraham and circumcised on the eighth day are included in god’s covenant with israel fails to explain how abraham, who is ninety-nine years old when he undergoes circumcision, manages to become the first israelite. furthermore, if the text wanted to be sure to distinguish israelites from non-israelites by eighth day circumcision, why does genesis 17 not include a clause prohibiting the circumcision of household slaves on the eighth day? in fact, genesis 17:12 implies that future foreign slaves born in israelite households should be circumcised on the eighth day, thus undermining substantial portions of thiessen’s analysis of the hebrew bible texts he examines. here it appears that thiessen is reading some of the binary dualism found in texts like jubilees back into genesis. while it is true that abraham’s foreign slaves in genesis are not actually turned into israelites through the act of circumcision, this need not mean these circumcised slaves are total outsiders, as, say, jubilees would suggest. these circumcised slaves might occupy some middle position between outsiders and born israelites. it seems quite possible that they have a similar status to resident aliens who wish to partake of the passover sacrifice in review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): kaminsky r1-2 thiessen, contesting conversion kaminsky r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr exodus 12:48. contrary to the solomon zeitlin quote thiessen approvingly cites several times, which claims that within the torah and prophets anyone who was not a genealogical descendant of the patriarchs could not worship yhwh, these circumcised slaves and resident aliens are able to participate in israel’s cultic worship of god while remaining non-israelites (a point thiessen acknowledges but minimizes). in other words, certain non-israelites, through the act of circumcision, seem to be functionally joined to the community of israel in the priestly author’s mindset. and over time, this fact, along with the recognition that even abraham was not circumcised exactly on the eighth day, likely contributed to the acceptance of gentile conversion to judaism. while jubilees grounds its strict genealogical definition of israelite identity in genesis 17, that does not mean that p holds the same view as jubilees concerning who can participate in israel’s cultic life. in short, both p and the larger canon of the hebrew bible may have more categories of identity and more flexible categories of identity than thiessen allows. the above criticisms should not obscure the fact that thiessen has written an important monograph that should be read by anyone interested in questions surrounding israelite and jewish identity in antiquity. he has demonstrated how persistent a strict genealogical definition of judaism was, how this view was grounded in various biblical passages, and how in certain strands of hellenistic jewish thinking this meant not only being born to jewish parents but being circumcised precisely on the eighth day. furthermore, he has offered a fresh and insightful way to make sense of apparent tensions surrounding the question of circumcision in luke-acts. thiessen argues that “luke does not collapse the categories of jew and gentile into each other.” “jewish believers in jesus continue to show their piety through rituals such as circumcision.” however, “gentile believers do not need to become jews, and in fact cannot do so” (p. 148). perhaps most provocatively, thiessen suggests that those jewish members of the early church who were concerned that jewish law was being abrogated may well have held a more inclusive understanding of judaism than did the author of luke-acts, who subscribed to a rigid genealogical definition of judaism. in summary, thiessen’s attempt to draw strong connections between the views of jubilees and luke-acts is cogent and illuminating, but his attempt to argue that jubilees is itself an extension of p’s thinking is built on a host of tenuous readings and presuppositions that leave this reader ultimately unconvinced. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr ccjr annual meeting proceeding reflections on reflections: jesus, judaism, and jewish-christian relations amy-jill levine, vanderbilt university for the october 2012 ccjr plenary, ruth langer and philip cunningham convened a session to address the question, “why is jesus’ jewishness important?” as professor cunningham explained, the goal was for professor arthur j. dewey and me to “give parallel presentations that will serve as the basis for follow-up question and answer and discussion with ccjr members and the local public.” for the panel, i offered three broad questions; my intention was not to resolve issues, but to formulate them in a way that would prompt discussion. 1. why has the relationship between jesus and judaism caught popular as well as scholarly imagination, with multiple volumes authored by such major scholars as john meier, james charlesworth, peter schäfer, daniel boyarin, the collection edited by zev garber, and numerous churches and synagogues sponsoring programs/lectures? i admit to participating in this process myself. 2. how are we defining “jewishness” and “important”? 3. what are the implications of jesus’ jewishness for jewish/christian relations? the result was a rich conversation with the people in attendance; it was also, for me, an opportunity to develop my own thoughts in dialogue with professor dewey. the remarks below are the result of that gathering. studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) jesus, judaism, and the popular imagination the interest in jesus among the jews, from modern orthodox through secular humanist, is at an unprecedented high. this fact is demonstrated on the academic level by the 51 jewish contributors to the jewish annotated new testament; it is apparent on the popular level by the growing number of joint church/synagogue scholar-in-residence programs on jesus in his jewish context, the increasing quantity of articles about jesus appearing in jewish magazines, and the many recent books on jesus, both popular and scholarly, written by jewish authors. jews are not alone in this interest: jesus’ jewish context is also of interest to many roman catholics, evangelicals, and liberal protestants. and yet, professor dewey’s comment, “…for many, jesus is so removed from history that he cannot be imagined as jewish,” is, i fear, closer to the consensus view than the optimistic image that i want to hold. he is correct: numerous people do not know that jesus was a jew; many, both jewish and christian, do not want to acknowledge this fact. still present are claims that jesus was an aryan, or that he came to do away with judaism, or that he learned his wisdom from buddhist monks or hindu scholars or egyptian priests or sub-saharan shamans or extra-terrestrials…that is, from anyone but his fellow jews or from the scriptures of israel. bigotry and ignorance go hand in hand. as for those who do see an import in the connection between jesus and judaism, the question is why. here are a few suggestions. from the jewish side, first, there is pride in reclaiming jesus as one of ours. if we jews can celebrate other notable jews-sigmund freud, henri bergson, boris pasternak, nadine gordimer, albert einstein, elena kagan and ruth bader ginsberg, 20% of the nobel prize winners, everyone listed in each of adam sandler’s “hannukah songs”—then surely we can list jesus. this interest in jesus and the new testament is studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr quite a shift from a generation or so, when jesus was seen as the apostate and the nt was deliberately avoided. second, jesus specifically and much of the new testament in general provide jews with information on our history. our religious educational programs typically go from the maccabees in the second century bce to the mishnah (to appeal here to the title of shaye cohen’s classic study), with no attention to the first century aside from possible quick mentions of yavneh (jamnia) or josephus. the gospels, along with josephus, the dead sea scrolls, and archaeological finds, are among our best sources for reconstructing jewish life in first-century galilee and judea. they tell us about synagogue gatherings and sabbath observance, women’s roles as independent householders, relations with rome, tenant farming and passover celebrations, and so much more. third, increasing numbers of jews are interested in jesus for apologetic and sometimes polemical purposes. some want information to counter the false and ugly stereotypes about jesus’ jewish context not infrequently promulgated by misinformed christians; others seek ammunition to counter christian missionaries. fourth, and in my view the most encouraging when it comes to interfaith relations, some jews are genuinely curious about the figure so central to the lives of their christian friends. not only to admit to an interest in the historical jesus but also to seek information about him indicates jewish comfort with our own identities, respect for the beliefs of our christian neighbors, and the refusal to be cowed by the few ultra-orthodox thinkers who would restrict knowledge. for traditional roman catholics, interest in the jesus’ jewish context is encouraged not only by the close relations developed personally between catholics and jews, but also by ecclesial prompts, both from the vatican and from the u.s. bishops. for example, this interest is part of the larger project promoted by the 1943 encyclical divinu afflante spiritu of studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 8 (2013) opening up catholic biblical study to higher criticism. understanding jesus and the gospel texts is necessarily enhanced by historical-critical observations. since jesus and the gospels come from a time before any formal separation between judaism and christianity or synagogue and church, knowledge of christian origins necessary requires attention to jesus’ jewish context and to the gospels’ depictions of jews and judaism. roman catholic interest in jesus as a jew is also part of the larger movement in catholic-jewish relations, a grace [that is exactly the right word] signaled by vatican ii’s nostra aetate and continued in such texts as the u.s. conference of catholic bishops’ 1988 “god's mercy endures forever: guidelines on the presentation of jews and judaism in catholic preaching.” this document offers considered ecclesial warrant for locating jesus within his jewish context: it notes “the strongly jewish character of jesus' teaching and that of the primitive church” which “was culturally adapted by the growing gentile majority and later blurred by controversies alienating christianity from emerging rabbinic judaism at the end of the first century.” lamenting this alienation, it insists, “the christian proclamation of the saving deeds of the one god through jesus was formed in the context of second temple judaism and cannot be understood thoroughly without that context.” the document then provides examples of how that context influences praxis and theology. it begins by remarking, “jesus was observant of the torah (e.g., in the details of his circumcision and purification given in lk 2:21-24).” on this point, mary and joseph are in fact the observant ones; the infant jesus had little choice in his circumcision. however the notice does show a connection between jewish and catholic practice. the remark implicitly adverts to the practice of infant baptism: jesus is initiated into his community by his parents, the priests in the temple, and the community members present. jesus, mary, and joseph participated in the practices and not just the beliefs of judaism. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr continuing, the bishops mention, “jesus shared with the pharisees a number of distinctive doctrines: the resurrection of the body; forms of piety such as almsgiving, daily prayer, and fasting; the liturgical practice of addressing god as father; and the priority of the love commandment.” they observe, “jesus taught in the synagogues (see mt 4:23 and 9:35; lk 4:15-18; jn 18:20) and in the temple, which he frequented, as did the disciples even after the resurrection (see acts 2:46; 3:lff).” notable in these descriptions again is the concern for action as well as belief, for practice as well as doctrine. finally, the bishops remark that jesus “extolled respect for [torah] (see mt 5:17-20), and he invited obedience to it (see mt 8:4).” it is on jesus’ interpretation of torah that jews and christians today have much to discuss. whereas jews, roman catholics, and all protestants have the common root of the hebrew text (eastern orthodoxy, which follows the septuagint, is a separate issue), we have distinct interpretations. the usccb correctly adds, “while jesus showed uniqueness and authority in his interpretation of god's word in the torah—in a manner that scandalized some jews and impressed others--he did not oppose it, nor did he wish to abrogate it….” rabbinic judaism understands that the study and practice of torah are community concerns; an individual cannot dictate either orthodoxy or orthopraxy. thus, jesus’ arrogation to himself of the right to interpret texts on his own authority would not have pleased some of his contemporaries. nevertheless, the interpretations jesus offers are jewish readings, consistent with the rabbinic practice of “building a fence” about the law. to “you shall not murder,” jesus added loving enemies. to “you shall not commit adultery,” he condemned lust. to “do not swear falsely,” he said, “let your word be ‘yes, yes’ or ‘no, no’; anything more than this comes from the evil one” (matthew 5:37). jesus also uses rabbinic exegetical forms, such as the qal v’homer (from the lesser to the greater) argument (e.g., matthew 12:11-12, “suppose one of you has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath; will you not lay hold of it and lift it out? how studies in christian-jewish relations 6 scjr 8 (2013) much more valuable is a human being than a sheep. so it is permitted to do good on the sabbath”) and arguing from precedent (e.g., mark 2:25-27, where he justifies plucking heads of grain on the sabbath by [a problematic] appeal to king david’s actions in the temple at nob [1 samuel 21]). for evangelicals, jesus’ jewishness is recently coming to the fore for various rationales. for some, it is part of the greater interest in (re-)claiming the “historical jesus” from the liberals who want to strip out christological confession and miraculous acts. seeking to demonstrate how the christ of faith makes sense in a first-century jewish context, some evangelical biblical scholars are now utilizing the criteria of authenticity, while many scholars to the left are realizing that the criteria do not work. next, some evangelical christians as well as members of some messianic jewish groups have recognized that emphasizing jesus the jew facilitates missionary work: if jesus can be shown as fully jewish, so the argument goes, then jews today can be fully jewish and accept jesus as lord and savior. for yet others, interest in jesus’ jewish context is part of the broader phenomenon usually called “christian zionism.” the phenomenon is not restricted to dispensationalist views; it has various motivations, from the interest in protecting america’s ally in the middle east to an “america first” theology that regards the promises to abraham in genesis 12:3 (“i will bless those who bless you…”) to be related to support for the jewish state, to a recognition that israel is the national homeland of the jewish people. concerning liberal protestants and others with comparably lower christologies, interest in jesus’s jewishness can serve as a means to deflect high christological claims. while evangelicals find jesus the jew is consistent with jesus the divine son of god, for some liberals, jesus the jew is the human jesus: the teacher, healer, exorcist, social critic, peasant organizer, and so forth, but not the second person of the trinity. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 7 www.bc.edu/scjr whereas this emphasis on the human jesus, embedded in his social context, should have promoted a generous, appreciative reading of jesus’ jewish context, at times the opposite is the case. here professor dewey’s observations on the category of “difference” or “uniqueness” are spot on. if one begins with a high christology—jesus is divine, his mother was a virgin prepartum, in partu, and post-partum, he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven—then he’s “different,” indeed, divine. but if he’s just a very interesting teacher, there is no reason to worship him. by constructing jesus’ jewish context as epitomizing what is bad in today’s world and then locating jesus as standing against it, some new testament readers makes jesus both “different” and relevant. thus jesus is the feminist amid a judaism that, as former president jimmy carter states in his bible tapes, resembles the taliban; jesus is a caesar chavez within a judaism seen to view the rich as pious and the poor as sinful; jesus is a martin luther preaching against what some biblical scholars have taken to calling the “temple domination system”; he is a martin luther king, jr. preaching against a presumed jewish xenophobia; he is a saul alinksy—who knew?—against pharisaic retainers who have a hold on taxes and tithes (that pharisees were neither temple agents nor revenue receivers is irrelevant to the construct); jesus is the palestinian activist “crucified” by the jews. the mantra that jesus came to replace a “system of holiness” or “system of purity” with a “system of compassion” is sometimes heard, with few noting that holiness/purity and compassion are not antonyms. still popular is the view that jesus invented calling god “abba,” that “abba” means “daddy,” and that it is a designation all other jews would find blasphemous. the goals underlying these various moves—proclaiming justice, promoting an intimate theology, etc.—are all worthy; the rhetoric however relies on anti-jewish stereotypes. these readers do not deny jesus’ jewishness, but they do narrowly circumscribe it. for them, jesus’ jewishness is grounded in the liberating word of the prophets and the social justice of deuteronomy. it is divorced, however, from halakhic practice, studies in christian-jewish relations 8 scjr 8 (2013) synagogue attendance, or temple sacrifice. the underlying message is that the scriptures of israel are usable resources, but somehow everyone in second temple judaism save jesus misunderstood them (see 2 corinthians 3:14-15). this view of jesus in distinction to his jewish context, and the attendant negative categorizing of that context, is in part the legacy of centuries of protestant, anti-catholic exegesis. constructions of “works-righteousness” undermine attention to jesus’ halakhic fidelity as well as that of his jewish followers. undermined as well is the recognition that halakhah promotes the very multiculturalism that many of these critics would commend: following torah allows jews to celebrate their tradition ever hour of every day by promoting sanctification of the body even as it helps them in resisting assimilation (as archaeological evidence of stone vessels, ritual baths, and lack of pig bones in jewish lower galilee attest). it is on this question of jesus’ distinctiveness that professor dewey’s comments prompt well-taken warnings. professor dewey observes that in roman thought, “to call someone a ‘son of god’ meant that one was in some way ‘different’ from others.” i do wonder if this “roman thought” or broadly “gentile” thought that the usccb document laments influences the tendency to take jesus out of his jewish context and render him as different. in second temple jewish thought broadly construed, the designation “child of god” need not indicate a divine being. as jesus states in matthew 5:9, “blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children [literally, “sons”] of god.” paul states, “for all who are led by the spirit of god are children of god” (romans 8:14; see also 8:16, 19, 21; 9:8; galatians 3:26; philippians 2:15). even luke, the most goyyish of the gospels, makes the point in jesus’ genealogy, for jesus “was the son (as was thought) of joseph son of heli…. of enos, [son] of seth, [son] of adam, [son] of god” (luke 3:23-38). studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 9 www.bc.edu/scjr definitions of “jewishness” the question “who is a jew” was a problem in antiquity, and it remains a problem today. scholars have sometimes set up constructs of what jews think and do, and then checked to see whether jesus fit the predetermined definitions. for example, the jesus-seminar consensus of a non-apocalyptic jesus was seen by some scholars as a de-judaizing of jesus; in these critiques, apocalyptic eschatology is a necessary marker of second temple jewish thought. we have more or less gotten past this view that all jews were eschatological, or that a noneschatological jesus is a non-jewish jesus. whereas i do see jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, i also see him as a teacher of profound ethics, for the two are not exclusive, as the pages of apocalyptic/wisdom texts ranging from 1 enoch and daniel to revelation, 4 ezra, and 2 baruch demonstrate. but i do agree with professor dewey that jesus may be among the early jewish stand-up comics, in a line begun much earlier, with the writers of parts of the torah, nevi’im, and ketuvim, with special nods to the authors of jonah, ruth, and esther. as i understand jesus, his apocalyptic sensibilities are connected to the meaning his death had for himself and for his followers. professor dewey remarks, “not all of jesus’ followers were concerned with determining a meaning for his death” and cites in support the hypothetical q document, the didache, and the gospel of thomas. yet he also notes that jews of the time were concerned with the meaning of death, and especially with understanding the implications of martyrdom. perhaps jesus did think his death would be efficacious in redeeming people from sin or in bringing about the kingdom he proclaimed; these would be views well within the jewish mainstream. perhaps those people who compiled q—if q exists (i think it does, but i would not bet on it)—also thought deeply about jesus’ death, just as the people who compiled the book of proverbs and the wisdom of solomon knew of torah. a text is not a community; a single book does not tell us the ethos of its readers. studies in christian-jewish relations 10 scjr 8 (2013) notable for the purposes of the ccjr meeting is that professor dewey and i disagree on our understandings of both jesus and the people responsible for preserving some of his sayings, but the disagreement is not based on a restricted view of early judaism. other scholars, operating with a somewhat restricted view of what early judaism could accommodate, concluded that the words of institution, the eucharist, must have come from pagan tradition, because no jew would have analogized human flesh and blood to bread and wine and encouraged its consumption. we have gotten past this as well. jews, including jesus, are not exempt from using provocative images. that some found the language distasteful (see john 6:60) does not make the language ahistorical. or scholars concluded that jesus could not have proclaimed himself the messiah, or related to god, because that would have compromised jewish monotheism. but we realize today how fluid monotheism was, and how jewish thought in the first century—if not in the fifth—could accommodate the divine descending to earth as well as the traditions which did not hold the messiah to be divine. today the gospel of john is increasingly seen as containing substantial “historical jesus” material. i suspect professor dewey and i would disagree here as well, but again, the disagreements are not based on a limited view of early judaism. for a fairly small contingent in the biblical studies guild, jesus is not a “jew” at all, for they insist that the term “jew” has no meaning prior to the codification of the talmud. these readers prefer that the greek term ioudaios, the new testament term normally translated “jew” (as in the titulus on the cross, “king of the jews” [matthew 27:37; mark 15:26; luke 23:38; john 19:19]) be translated “judean” and so receive a geographical and ethnic rather than religious emphasis. the translation is viable. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 11 www.bc.edu/scjr whether the translation is historically warranted is another question. if we translate ioudaios as “judean,” we divorce jesus from judaism in two ways. first, we eliminate jews from the bible and thus create a judenrein text, a text purified of jews (yes, the german is overdetermined). thus neither jesus nor anyone else in the bible is a “jew.” we then note that jesus was not a judean, but a galilean. as professor dewey may remember, since i remarked on this point at the one meeting of the jesus seminar i attended, i was curious about the use of the translation “judean” instead of “jew” in popular culture, so back around 2006 i googled “jesus, jew, and judean” to see what i would find. the result: websites for kkk and neo-nazi sympathizers. take jews out of the new testament and make jesus a galilean rather than a judean, and the next step is to make him an aryan. i do not find this helpful. that many scholars who render ioudaios as “judean” also often refer to judea and the galilee as “palestine,” a non-biblical term with its own host of overdetermined implications, creates a whole other set of problems. today, the greater problem in the church, and to some extent in scholarship, is that while pretty much everyone agrees that jesus was a jew (although on occasion is heard the plaintive comment, “surely not the blessed mother”), there remains a lack of agreement, or even awareness of what that label “jew” means. to characterize jesus as a jew should mean more than simply an ethnic definition. jesus was a jew not only by descent, but also in practice, in discourse, and in his reception by his fellow jews. definitions of important the term “important” is—like the term “significant”—empty of meaning without explanation. important to whom, for what? if we are discussing jesus as the second person of the trinity or as the image of the divine on earth, then i would not privilege his jewish identity any more than i would privilege his being male or galilean. however, if we are discussing the jesus of history, then his jewishness is central to his life. he is a studies in christian-jewish relations 12 scjr 8 (2013) galilean jew and not a gentile roman; his “spiritual formation” is in the context of the scriptures of israel as interpreted by his fellow jews and not stoic philosophy or homeric verse; his message, although adaptable beyond his context, is framed in jewish idioms directed to jewish people. jesus’ jewishness is also “important” in christian salvation history. as paul avers in romans 9:4-5, “they are israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the messiah, who is over all, god blessed forever. amen.” theologically, judaism and christianity both claim to be historical religions and to proclaim a god who self-reveals in history. that means that jesus’ jewishness is an indication of divine fidelity. for jewish-christian relations—which moves us into our final topic, the connection between jesus and judaism is “important”--indeed, essential. were jesus not a jew, matters would be substantially different, probably over the past 2,000 years. i am not, however, interested in alternative histories, and i see little reason to speculate on what the change would have been. jewish-christian relations for this section, i offer several questions that might help us focus conversation and that might lead to new studies. 1. how does the reclamation of jesus by jews, the focus on jesus as a jew, and the recognition that all of jesus’ immediate followers were jews impact our understanding today of the various forms of messianic judaism? 2. how might understanding of jesus as a first-century jew who engages in the distinctive practices of this tradition help american, relatively secularized people, better appreciate such traditions as ritual purity, law as sanctification rather than as oppressive yoke, pilgrimage, and sense of communitarian religiosity? studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 13 www.bc.edu/scjr 3. at the same time, might understanding jesus as a first-century jew help both jews and christians today recognize our common roots? 4. how might understandings of jesus as a jew help interreligious families (e.g., could the “our father” serve as a bridge between christian grandparents and jewish grandchildren); more broadly, could jesus serve as a bridge rather than a wedge? 5. how might recognizing the vibrancy of jewish culture at the time of jesus, and jesus’ place within it, help in eliminating or correcting the anti-jewish comments that continue to infect sermons, bible studies, sunday school curricula, and sometimes the classroom—and in turn, how might understanding jesus as a jew help in eliminating or correcting the anti-christian comments that i have heard in synagogues, torah study sessions, and hebrew schools? we have much to discuss. on the jubilee year of vatican ii, how appropriate that a catholic institution welcomes a gathering of catholics, protestants, jews, and others, to discuss in a context of religious respect, academic rigor, and pastoral concern, jesus, judaism, and jewish-christian relations. my thanks to the conveners of this program, to xavier university for this hospitality, and to professor dewey for his palpable commitment to the concerns that occupied the prophets of israel and jesus of nazareth. we do not reconstruct the history the same way, and we do not see jesus through the same lenses. i would like to think that the ongoing work in which we engage is, as the rabbis put it, “a controversy waged in the service of god” (pirke avot 5.20). and i would like to think that jesus the jew will become someone recognized by jews and christians both, with both “jesus” and “jew” understood respectfully, generously, and historically. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-3 e. p. sanders paul: the apostle’s life, letters, and thought (minneapolis: fortress, 2015); pp. xxxv + 862 michael j. gorman mgorman@stmarys.edu st. mary’s seminary & university, baltimore, md 21210 imagine sitting in a lecture hall listening to one of the twentieth century’s greatest scholars of paul of tarsus holding forth for one last semester. he reconstructs historical circumstances; carefully explains texts, often connecting them to the work of other ancient jewish, christian, and pagan writers; and stresses what he finds most significant, difficult to decipher, or hard to swallow in the modern or postmodern world. such is the nature of this book, and thus also the experience of reading it. e. p. sanders is widely identified as one of the principal architects of the “new perspective” on paul that emerged in the late 1960s to the early 1980s. his 1977 book paul and palestinian judaism: a comparison of patterns of religion sparked a revolution in pauline studies and, indeed, in early jewish and early christian studies more broadly. one might even say that it established part of the foundation for a sea-change in jewish-christian relations, at least among academics and well-educated religious leaders. sanders then published additional studies, academic as well as more popular, that both furthered the new perspective and exposed it to wider audiences. thus the publication of this book is the capstone of a long and distinguished scholarly career. (sanders turns 80 in 2017.) many people have been awaiting the publication of another big sanders book for a long time, and for that reason some may find this volume simultaneously worthy of the wait and not quite what they had hoped for. it is indeed a big book, but it is designed primarily for undergraduate students and educated general readers. the sanders revolution made the obvious a scholarly non-negotiable: that paul was a late second temple-period jew and must be interpreted as such. what second temple judaism(s) actually looked like, and how paul fit within that context—the more specific concerns of sanders—remain active, wide-ranging, and highly disputed scholarly issues. the primary disappointing aspect of the book is that sanders does not really enter into the contemporary fray. gorman: e. p. sander’s paul: the apostle’s life, letters, and thought 2 the book itself is almost exclusively an historical treatment divided into two parts: four chapters on paul’s life and nineteen on his letters, followed by a conclusion, two appendices, a glossary, and three indices. of the thirteen new testament letters bearing paul’s name, sanders treats only the seven that are “undisputed” as to their authorship by paul. he dates the letters a few years earlier than many scholars (early 40s to mid-50s ce versus late 40s to late 50s ce; see pp. 157-61), and he generally discusses them in chronological order, arguing (in contrast to some of his earlier work) for some development in paul’s thinking over time. sanders is a first-class historian who writes in a straightforward but engaging, lecture-like style. he sets as his goal to identify the topics paul deals with and paul’s conclusions about those topics, but he devotes the greatest effort to analyzing the arguments for those conclusions (how paul interprets scripture, for example). sanders repeatedly claims that paul’s main point is normally quite clear, even when his argumentation and / or ultimate rationale are not, so sanders also wants to explain the reasons behind those conclusions and arguments. part i on paul’s life is a fascinating study of paul’s world and of paul himself. sanders describes paul as a “full-time religious zealot, first as a persecutor of christianity, next as an apostle on its behalf” (p. 5). throughout the book he emphasizes that paul was a diaspora jew, which explains a lot of his basic theology and ethics (especially sexual ethics). yet unlike some scholars, sanders does not hesitate also to call paul a “christian” or to speak of paul’s “conversion to christianity” as historically appropriate descriptions (pp. 9-10; 100-102). in line with his early, groundbreaking work, sanders again stresses that judaism was not a religion of “works-righteousness” (a protestant term for “selfsalvation”) but of grace that includes both human responsibility and divine discipline within a covenant relationship. a “major point” (p. 498) of the book is the sharp difference between “works of law” such as circumcision (unnecessary for entry into christ) and “good deeds” (required of all who are in christ). however, paul, a “renegade jew” of sorts (p. 111), differs from his fellow jews by believing that everyone, jew and non-jew alike, needs to be saved through christ and enter the (new) covenant (p. 48). paul, says sanders, sees himself as the preeminent “apostle to the gentiles in the messianic era” (p. 105; emphasis in original), working to fulfill the prophetic promises that the nations will one day worship the one true god. this discussion raises the question of paul’s relationship to the synagogue and his mission, if any, to jews. sanders argues that paul did spend time in synagogues, exhorting jews to accept jesus as messiah (e.g., pp. 110-11). part ii is a careful study of the letters, guided by what sanders calls “two interpretive threads” (pp. 171-72): (1) the link between justification by faith and participation in christ (paul’s “mysticism” and the “heart” of his soteriology [p. 666]), and (2) the assumption of development in paul’s thought. the former concern goes back at least to his 1977 book, and in light of its importance in current scholarly discussion, is a welcome feature, though it could have received even more robust analysis. sanders rightly argues that paul sees 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) justification by faith and participation in christ as essentially synonymous (e.g., pp. 568, 720-25). the latter concern (development in paul’s thought) makes for interesting reading, but also for some rather speculative interpretations that may sometimes misinterpret contingent differences in emphasis as more substantive developments. throughout the book, sanders is especially sensitive to the impressive rhetoric of paul’s writing. of paul’s various rhetorical and theological claims, the one that seems to grasp sanders most passionately is the notion of divine power in human weakness (e.g., pp. 251-66, 716-20). his most thorough discussions of paul’s theology, however, are of the theme of resurrection (chs. 13-14) and of romans (chs. 21-23). as one would expect, sanders’s historical reconstructions and exegetical interpretations are always carefully worked out, informative, and plausible, if not always fully persuasive. the book also contains some oddities, however, such as devoting 60 pages to homosexuality. and there is relatively little attention (especially in contrast to, say, n. t. wright) to how this diaspora jew’s worldview was reconfigured by his experience of jesus and the spirit. what is most disappointing, however, is the book’s overall lack of interaction with contemporary scholarship in general; with other proponents of the new perspective; and with recent developments in pauline studies that stress paul and politics, paul and apocalyptic theology, and paul within judaism in ways that go beyond the new perspective. nonetheless, anyone looking for a solid, historical treatment of paul the jewish-christian in his first-century context will benefit from this fine study. scjr 18, no. 1 (2023): 1-3 william s. campbell romans: a social identity commentary (london: t&t clark, 2023), hardcover, xiv + 465 pages. rafael rodríguez rrodriguez@johnsonu.edu johnson university, knoxville, tn 37998 the t&t clark social identity commentaries on the new testament apply social identity theory (sit) to new testament exegesis. william s. campbell offers the first commentary on romans, to my knowledge, compatible with the socalled “paul within judaism” reading of paul, though he clarifies that his reading of romans, especially chapters 9–11, “coheres with but is not dependent on ‘paul within judaism’ scholarship, which it [i.e., campbell’s previous research] precedes by at least two decades” (247 n.1). like a standard commentary, campbell offers a sustained exegetical discussion of paul’s letter to the romans. key ideas that undergird campbell’s exegesis include paul’s epistolary address to “ethnē in christ at rome” (6; see also 17-22), who, he writes, are the audience for paul’s apostolic vocation as “a jewish apostle to the nations” (18). romans is a genuine letter written to the groups of christfollowers in rome and addressing the specific circumstances of those groups (12– 16; see also excursus i). campbell also summarizes significant tenets of sit (22– 32). there are four substantive excursuses on the following topics: “paul’s use of diatribal style in romans” (excursus i); “the wrath of god against all idolatry— a trajectory from zephaniah to romans” (excursus ii); “slavery to god” (excursus iii); and “supersessionism at rome” (excursus iv). these topics—especially the last—offer some insight into the issues campbell finds significant for an historically coherent reading of romans. this commentary also includes an extensive bibliography (“references”) and three indices (ancient sources; biblical texts; modern authors). campbell’s volume stands apart from the commentary tradition on paul’s longest letter, especially inasmuch as he builds appreciatively upon the scholarly reevaluation of paul’s relationship with his contemporary jews and their judaisms. this reevaluation, which is coming to be known as the “paul within judaism” perspective, views paul as a torah-observant jew even after his encounter with jesus. campbell’s is the first formal commentary that reappraises paul’s letter in light of this shift in our perspective on paul (though see rafael rodríguez, if you call rodríguez: campbell’s romans: a social identity commentary 2 yourself a jew [eugene, or: cascade, 2014], which campbell engages throughout). we might take note of campbell’s reading of romans 9–11. campbell notes that paul, in the opening verses of these chapters, “identifies with the people of israel” and “confirms the continuing promises that god has given them” (247). paul’s aim in these chapters is to prove the proposition, “it cannot be that the word of god has failed” (9:6a), by which paul refers to “god’s ongoing covenantal relationship with israel” (249). campbell renders 9:6b as a rhetorical question (“all those from israel are israel, are they not?”; see 250–53), which construes paul’s meaning exactly opposite to the traditional translation “not everyone from israel is israel.” romans 9, then, addresses how israel came into being, with a distinction drawn between abraham’s and isaac’s children, but not between jacob’s (= israel’s) children. israel may be “presently unconvinced” by paul’s gospel, but israel’s god remains patient to reconcile himself to his unconvinced people (264– 65). paul thus confronts and corrects an arrogant misperception among the roman ethnē that god has rejected israel and transferred his election to gentiles in christ, a misperception that campbell infers from rom 11:17–19. campbell, therefore, goes beyond offering an anti-supersessionist reading of romans and regards romans as itself an anti-supersessionist letter, confronting and correcting the supersessionist views of its gentile, christ-following readers. rather than casting israel as “guilty and worthy of punishment,” paul demonstrates in romans 9–11 “god’s continuing fidelity to israel despite her temporary obstinacy” (283). campbell’s discussion of these chapters is creative and insightful. nevertheless, some of his exegetical decisions are open to debate. for example, it is not necessary to read romans as directed against an emerging anti-judaic arrogance among rome’s gentile christ-followers, as campbell does. given paul’s apparent assumption that his readers continued to value certain jewish theologoumena (the god of israel as the one creator god; jesus as that god’s messiah; an interest in the texts of torah and the prophets; etc.), i do not find any evidence of disdain for jews or judaism among paul’s readers. given that paul’s gentile readers apparently cared about the value of circumcision, the identity of abraham’s children, the nature of adam’s transgression, and the τέλος of the jews’ torah, it is doubtful that they also came to believe that jews were covenantal detritus, cast off by israel’s god and now to be pitied (at best) or despised. paul’s hypothetical statement, “you will say: branches were broken off so that i could be grafted in” (rom 11:19), does not appear to me sufficient basis for campbell’s claim, and not much else in romans supports it. similarly, the rendering of rom 9:6b as a rhetorical question expecting an affirmative answer enables campbell to avoid reading paul as drawing a distinction between jacob’s (= israel’s) children. what is gained at 9:6b, however, is lost at 11:7, where campbell acknowledges, “here we have a division within israel, ‘the elect’ and the ‘the rest’” (291). while campbell admirably resists readings of 9:6b—and of romans as a whole—that imagine paul’s stripping israel of her covenantal election and giving that election to others, it nevertheless remains more likely that rom 9:6b introduces a distinction among israel’s children that appears 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 17, no. 1 (2023) again in 11:7. perhaps paul is making a distinction (or a division) within israel without also writing israel out of the covenant. finally, campbell can give the impression that paul’s sorrow for israel is caused by her failure to recognize the gospel’s efficacy for gentiles more than her rejection of the gospel itself. to be sure, campbell acknowledges that, for paul, israel’s failure vis-à-vis the gospel consists of “not being persuaded that the messiah is jesus” (269) and that the gospel’s “revelation of righteousness” is “for everyone, both jews and the nations” (275; italics in the original). campbell’s emphasis, however, falls on israel’s failure to recognize the gospel’s inclusion of gentiles as gentiles. for example, in rom 10:4 paul “can only be understood as saying that for ethnē ‘christ is the goal and completion of the law’” (273). those today committed to christian-jewish relations understandably avoid identifying a lack of faith in jesus as a critique of jewish religiosity. it is not so clear, however, that paul harbored the same hesitation. i would be genuinely interested to know how campbell would explain the christological disagreements between paul and his jewish contemporaries beyond paul’s defense of gentile worshippers of israel’s god and followers of israel’s christ. these disagreements should not detract from the enormous achievement of this commentary. campbell has provided an original and creative reading of an oftread letter. he has resisted the pull of traditional and "new perspective on paul" readings of romans and taken seriously the letter’s character as a text written by a jewish author to gentile readers. one hopes that such readings become more common, both among scholars and also among students and preachers of paul. toward that end, campbell’s penchant for certain scholarly shibboleths (e.g., his preference for “christ-following” over “christian”; or translating πίστις as “trust” rather than “faith”; or a preference for the untranslated, unitalicized ethnē instead of “gentiles”; etc.) may present obstacles for uninitiated readers. the $130 (usd) list price will likely be a hindrance to this book’s widespread reception. one hopes t&t clark will offer an affordable version of this book for individual readers. if that happens, every student of romans and paul should add this volume to their library and consult it often. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): lenk r1-2 donaldson, jews and anti-judaism lenk r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr terence l. donaldson jews and anti-judaism in the new testament: decision points and divergent interpretations (waco: baylor university press, 2010), xi + 176 pp. marcie lenk, boston university in his most recent book, terence donaldson studies new testament texts that have been found by many to be painfully (and by some, irredeemably) anti-jewish. while confronting texts that are heavily fraught with a history of anti-jewish interpretation, he resists the urge to minimize that history either for the sake of his christian faith or his sensitivity to the danger they pose and the damage they have done. donaldson demonstrates in chapter after chapter, in interpretations of text after text, that passages in the new testament can be and have been interpreted in ways that have distanced christians and jews. however, he refuses simply to defend or reject these texts. rather, he insists that critical study of the history of the communities that produced these texts, as well as of later communities who used them, reveals levels of complexity for interpreters. in each chapter donaldson demonstrates that the writings of the new testament have been interpreted in ways that point to very different and even contradictory ideas about the relationship between christians and jews. donaldson begins by presenting the problem of anti-judaism in the new testament within the context of the history of christian anti-semitism, the holocaust, and post-holocaust christian theology. after analyzing the terms “anti-semitism,” “anti-judaism,” and “supersessionism” in relation to the writings of the new testament, he presents the matrix of variables he will use in his study. in order to interpret statements relating to jews and judaism in the various books of the new testament, he examines the ways that the original author “understood and constructed the identity of the group to which he and his readers belonged” vis-à-vis the jewish community. he then turns to the “location of the author and intended readers” in the ongoing process of separation between “christianity” and “judaism.” (donaldson uses quotation marks, pointing to the problematic nature of these terms in the first centuries.) the final variable is “the rhetorical character of the text,” which includes features such as tone and polemic, which are necessary for analyzing the author’s reasons for writing (p. 28). the distinction between the first and second variables is not always clear, and donaldson applies different tools to different books. for example, the interpretive challenges for paul’s letters are different from those for the gospels, since, as donaldson writes, in the letters “we have much more explicit information about the identity and life-situation of the author and his intended readers than was the case” with the gospels (p. 137). still, the idea of applying a more or less consistent historical and rhetorical methodology to different and diverse books of the new testament is a very helpful model of interpretation in general. the main body of the book contains four chapters in which donaldson employs his matrix of variables in order to determine whether or not troubling passages in matthew, john, luke-acts, and the writings of paul should be judged as anti-jewish or supersessionist. for example, is jesus' accusation that the jews are descended from “the devil” (john 8:44) an indictment of jews for all review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): lenk r1-2 donaldson, jews and anti-judaism lenk r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr time? in contrast to the synoptic gospels, which emphasize specific groups of jewish leaders as jesus’ opponents, the gospel of john condemns “the jews.” for some interpreters, the fact that john’s dualism places the jews together with all that is evil in the world (in contrast to jesus, who is light and life) has led some of the faithful to feel an aversion to all jews at all times (p. 83). others have defended the gospel of john, arguing that the rhetoric must be understood in light of the historical context of the author of the fourth gospel. the evangelist knew that jesus and his earliest followers were all jews, of course. perhaps “the jews” condemned in this gospel are only the jews of john’s time, who refused to recognize jesus as the messiah. donaldson helpfully evaluates these various interpretations with balance. here and elsewhere, he succeeds in showing that many texts in the new testament are somewhat less troubling when viewed within the context of early christian struggles for identity. however, he does not hesitate to show that the use of these new testament texts and ideas is never “innocent” (p. 156). interpretations often have real-life consequences. also, he does not simply leave the reader with multiple interpretive possibilities. in his final chapter, he offers a series of principles upon which to base interpretations that both “treat the new testament with integrity as…canonical scripture” and “is sensitive to the church’s legacy of supersessionism, anti-judaism and anti-semitism” (p. 153). many books have been written about anti-judaism in the new testament, as donaldson demonstrates in his useful bibliography. indeed, he discusses many of those studies in his own review of interpretive possibilities. but jews and anti-judaism in the new testament is written clearly and without academic jargon, making it an accessible introduction to the subject. donaldson includes an excellent bibliography, and he refers his readers to many important studies on the topic. this book should be read by graduate students and jewish and christian clergy, and by anyone concerned with the relationship between jews and christians. indeed, he provides a model of an academically rigorous approach to this set of troubling religious texts while also recognizing their centrality to christian faith. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-2 andré lacocque jesus the central jew: his times and his people (atlanta: sbl press, 2015), paperback xii + 337 pp. david fox sandmel dsandmel@adl.org anti-defamation league, boston, ma 02108 in this thoroughly researched and carefully argued book, lacocque sets out to demonstrate that jesus was “totally and unquestionably” a jew (p. 8). in this regard, he uses the term “central” not in contrast to john meier’s use of the term “marginal” but rather to complement it. for meier, jesus was marginal as a galilean, and, more importantly, in his relationship both to jewish authorities in jerusalem and to the roman imperial powers with whom he was in conflict and who were ultimately were responsible for his execution. lacocque sets out to demonstrate that “[s]pritually and religiously … jesus is the central jew” (p. 2) and to show, quoting martin buber, “jesus assuming his vocation as ‘appointed human centre’ of the kingdom of god” (p. 10). to make his case, lacocque focuses primarily on the synoptic gospels, which, if read carefully, he says provide a more reliable picture of the historical jesus than either paul or john, both of whom “draw their conclusions about the person of the christ after the fact, that is, in the light of the resurrection” (p. 13; emphasis in original). by “historical,” lacocque “insert[s] the galilean jesus into the particular history of his time. the historical jesus is thus to be distinguished from the “‘true’ jesus, which no one can ever retrieve” (p. 5). he shares with flusser a “confidence in the authenticity of matthew, mark, and luke regarding the sayings and doings of the historical jesus” (p. 4). this is a position with which many will take issue, but having taken it, lacocque draws a compelling portrait of his central jew. he does so by first addressing a series of topics about jesus’ relationship to and understanding of the judaism of his day. there are chapters devoted to “jesus the messiah,” “jesus son of man / son of god,” “jesus as healer,” “jesus and torah,” “jesus and moses,” and “jesus and israel.” lacocque describes jesus as deeply rooted in judaism, even when he critiques it or attempts to reform it. after a chapter on jesus’ use of parables, lacocque devotes the subsequent chapters to the birth narratives, jesus’ baptism, his self-consciousness, his betrayal, and his passion. there is a chapter on the phrase egō eimi and one on “the great cry of sandmel: andré lacocque’s jesus the central jew 2 jesus on the cross.” the penultimate chapter, before the conclusion (see below) treats the resurrection. lacocque makes frequent reference to rabbinic literature, though he does so with the requisite caution that these sources post-date the period of jesus (sometimes by centuries). nonetheless, he occasionally makes statements about rabbinic practice or influence in the first century ce that are not, in my view, supportable. for example, he states that “jesus himself is called ‘rabbi,’ which, for all practical purposes identifies him as belonging to the synagogal, not the priestly, form of judaism” (p. 20). at that time, the term “rabbi” had a broad range of meanings, including “teacher” or “master,” but it was also a general title of respect for someone of means or stature. the connection of rabbis (in this case narrowly defined as those “ordained” in the rabbinic tradition) to the synagogue probably does not emerge until at least the third century. similarly, he states that the last supper “follows … the seder ritual” and then makes a point about the fourth cup of wine (p. 51). the seder ritual was developed by the rabbis to enable jews to celebrate the passover after the destruction of the temple. therefore, i am not nearly as confident as lacocque that the details of the rabbinic seder existed during the time of jesus. finally, he translates the term mitzvoth as “good deeds,” which fails to convey the fundamental significance of “divine commandment” (p. 27). some christian readers may be challenged, if not shocked, by the harsh language of lacocque’s conclusion. for example, as the early church became increasingly “pagan-christian … [i]t became instead of a jewish sect, a standalone religion … more indebted to plato, aristotle and plotinus than to moses.” it was “unabashedly anti-judaic, even anti-semitic” (p. 274; emphasis in original). by the fourth century, “jesus christ became god himself … a very serious disassociation from the jewish way of thinking … that borders on polytheism” (pp. 275-276). “the inevitable result is a mythologized jesus with superhuman, divine powers, born of a perpetually asexual mother and a castrated father” (p. 277). in this transformation, “the main victim … was jesus, the central jew.” this is a book for the advanced new testament student and scholars. it is replete with references to quite a broad range of primary and secondary literature— the index of passages cited alone is 37 pages—and in order to get the most out of the book, access to a good library or biblical software is highly recommended. those who do so, whether they accept all of lacocque’s assumptions or not, will be amply rewarded. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): leighton r1-2 eisen, the peace and violence of judaism leighton r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr robert eisen the peace and violence of judaism: from the bible to modern zionism (new york: oxford university press, 2011), hardcover, x + 265 pp. christopher leighton, institute for christian & jewish studies in his most recent book, the peace and violence of judaism, robert eisen, professor of religion and judaic studies at george washington university, has left the comforts of the ivory tower and taken up residence at the dangerous intersection where religion and politics converge. in prose purged of arcane academic jargon and in a format organized to provide a clear and comprehensive overview, eisen conducts a tour into the conflicted heart of the jewish tradition. over the course of five chapters, the reader moves from the bible to classical rabbinic texts to medieval jewish philosophy and kabbalah before entering the vexed territory of modern zionism, where religious and secular sensibilities are frequently entangled. at every juncture, eisen surveys the prevailing jewish views of the non-jew and then proceeds to trace the currents of the tradition that advance peace as well as the countervailing teachings that sanction violence. eisen’s overview provides a welcome corrective to the reductionist indictments of richard harris, richard dawkins, christopher hitchens, and others who fabricate a categorical boogeyman known as “religion” and argue that it is essentially, and therefore irreparably, bellicose (p. 10, 17). this volume dispels such simplisms without minimizing the difficulties of disarming the toxic legacies of our religious communities. as eisen unflinchingly acknowledges, there are alarming obstacles within the jewish tradition to confront (which of course are mirrored and exaggerated within christianity and islam). he graphically illustrates the point in his analysis of traditional kabbalistic claims that jewish souls emanate from the realm of sefirot, while non-jewish souls stem from a domain of impurity and evil and do not reflect “the image of god” (p. 132). this metaphysical assertion represents a revealed truth and therefore is not subject to rational critique. to offset disturbing claims about “jewish souls” over and against their non-jewish inferiors, eisen notes the historical circumstances of political, economic, and social oppression of the jewish community to account for (although certainly not to excuse!) the demonization of gentiles. furthermore, he profiles adherents of kabbalah who espouse far more positive assessments of non-jews and recapitulate rabbinic teachings about so-called righteous gentiles who will receive their divine rewards in the world to come. this pattern of juxtaposing the dangerous dimensions of the jewish tradition alongside teachings that blunt polemical excesses and advocate more irenic positions is utilized in each chapter, and the result is a study that brings the reader into an insoluble ambiguity within judaism. the tradition contains texts that, for example, demean gentiles as latter-day manifestations of the biblical foe amalek and justify violence. at the same time, the tradition is loaded with counter-examples of teachings that deepen understandings of a common humanity and promote peace. there were occasions when i longed for a fuller and more thorough exposition. while the footnotes provide indispensable information about sources, many of the most challenging philosophical and theological tensions are relegated to fine print. the long chapter on modern zionism was the review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): leighton r1-2 eisen, the peace and violence of judaism leighton r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr welcome exception. here eisen draws on the statements of a wide variety of religious, political, and intellectual leaders to probe the complexities and entanglements of secular and religious thought. he demonstrates that the lines between religious and political domains are porous, and he brings into sharp focus tensions that in large measure shape the sensibilities of israeli society. throughout this volume, eisen strives for balance. only at the end, in his epilogue, does he disclose his own political-religious views. relying on a consequentialist ethic that emphasizes practical outcomes and that he finds in both western philosophical and traditional jewish thought, he argues that jewish survival is best served by a more diplomatic approach to the israeli-palestinian conflict. although he is no pacifist, he worries about israel’s long-term viability if a right-wing perspective, which he thinks overstates israel’s ability to successfully deploy military strength, prevails. eisen largely focuses on those facets of the jewish tradition that enshrine “the other” as a threatening outsider. he deals less often with the fact that the bloodiest of battles are more often than not family affairs, though he rightly discusses the assassination of prime minister yitzhak rabin by a radical jew (p. 158). it is proximity rather than distance that often proves lethal. this dynamic is especially pertinent with respect to the future of zionism and the state of israel. to be sure, the potential for cataclysmic violence between israelis and palestinians looms large, but this prospect should not deflect our attention from the polarization of religious and secular sectors of israeli society. the differences between right-wing and left-wing israelis may be held in check by external enemies, but what will become of israel’s civil order if a negotiated peace calls for the relocation of hundreds of thousands of settlers? these topics are raised, and i would have welcomed even greater attention to the dangers that well up from within a community and that threaten societies with internecine strife. the most destabilizing outbursts of violence may break through these fissures within israel and the larger jewish community. eisen’s work will hopefully provoke searching conversations within the jewish community by bringing to light ambiguities and tensions that many would prefer to ignore or deny. he offers an important model to christians and muslims who must confront similar challenges and far more deadly legacies. were jews, christians, and muslims willing to attend to the double-edged character of their respective traditions and to highlight those particular strategies of interpretation that defang their venomous excesses, they just might discover that they have something of vital importance to learn from one another and to offer the world. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): donaldson r1-3 levine and brettler, the jewish annotated donaldson r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr amy-jill levine and marc zvi brettler, eds. the jewish annotated new testament (oxford: oxford university press, 2011) terence l. donaldson, wycliffe college the jewish annotated new testament is a landmark publication, not only for what it accomplishes but also—perhaps more importantly—for what it represents. annotated versions of the christian bible have a long tradition and are widely available; the new oxford annotated bible (to stay within the same publishing house) is a well-known example. also available from oxford is the jewish study bible, based on the jewish publication society’s translation of the tanakh. both volumes contain the biblical text in english translation, together with other elements of the genre: introductions to each book; section-by-section notes and comments at the bottom or side of each page; maps and charts (and, in the case of the noab, short sidebar notes); and longer explanatory essays on various topics. it is surely not a coincidence that one of the editors of both the noab and the jsb was marc zvi brettler, the co-editor (along with amy-jill levine) of the jewish annotated new testament. while it follows a similar format, what sets this new work apart is that it is, in several respects, a jewish edition of the christian new testament. in the first place, it is jewish in that all of the contributors—some fifty in all—identify themselves as jewish. some are new testament specialists; many of them specialize in some aspect of judaism in the second temple period and late antiquity; all of them are experts in some pertinent area of jewish studies. second, it aims to place the new testament in a jewish context, highlighting aspects of the new testament that are illuminated by a knowledge of judaism of the period and drawing out connections between the new testament and later jewish literature. third, it is directed in part to a jewish readership, with the aim of helping jews to overcome any residual reluctance to explore this christian book. for example, authors address the various apparently anti-judaic statements, themes, and interpretations that underlie much of this reluctance. the work is thus addressed to a mixed audience—jews, christians, and other interested non-jews. after a brief preface by the editors in which they describe the nature and purpose of the work and a helpful list of abbreviations, the volume moves directly to the new testament itself. for each of the twenty-seven writings (even the very brief ones), there is an introduction (usually a page or two, but sometimes longer), followed by the text itself, with section-by-section annotations at the bottom of the page and a number of sidebar notes and maps. this is followed by a set of thirty articles on various pertinent topics, a number of helpful charts and lists (e.g., tannaitic and amoraitic rabbis; chapter and verse differences between the hebrew tanakh and standard english translations; divisions and tractates of the mishnah and related works), a glossary (everything from “ad” to “zohar”), and an index. in the introductions, annotations, and sidebar notes, the individual commentators (a different one for each new testament writing) are generally successful in addressing the mix of intended readers of the jant, within the necessary constraints of the genre of the study bible. most of the review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): donaldson r1-3 levine and brettler, the jewish annotated donaldson r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr introductions deal in one way or another with the relationship between the writing under discussion and particular jewish concerns or material, but only in some cases does this appear within distinct subsections (e.g., “matthew and judaism”; “jews and judaism” [john]; “reading revelation as a jewish text”). the needs of the reader might have been better served if there had been more uniformity in the structure of the introductory sections. the annotations contain a wealth of pertinent and helpful information, though more thorough cross-referencing (to the essays and glossary) would have enhanced the usefulness of the volume as a whole. while the article on the “translation of the bible” starts with a good discussion of matthew’s use of is 7:14, for example, there is no cross-reference to this article in the section on matthew, either in the annotations or in the sidebar on the virgin birth. the essays at the end of the volume, which represent a stellar line-up of authors, are without exception highly informative and very helpful. while it may be invidious to single out only a few of them, i hope the contributors will forgive me if i mention the essays written by the co-editors. levine’s “bearing false witness: common errors made about early judaism” is something that i will recommend to all my students, especially those who are training for christian ministry. brettler’s “the new testament between the tanakh and rabbinic literature” does a very nice job of portraying the new testament and the literature of rabbinic judaism as analogous enterprises of “appropriat[ing] and interpret[ing] the tanakh” (p. 505). still, looking at the essays as a whole, one notes a number of gaps and overlaps. for example, why is there an essay on “paul and judaism” but not, say, on “the synoptic gospels and judaism” or “john and judaism”? at the same time, there is a fair degree of overlap, in topics at least, among various essays (e.g., “judaism and jewishness” and “ioudaios”). one gets the impression that the selection of topics is due more to the interests of the available authors than to an overall plan of the topics that would be most helpful to the intended readership. of course, the editors of any multi-author project inevitably face challenges of this sort, and so it is better to be grateful for the essays that appear than to lament those that might have been included. i approach this volume as a gentile, a christian, and a scholar with a particular set of interests, most prominent among which are these: the inclusion of gentiles within the early christian movement; the so-called “parting of the ways” between early “christianity” and “judaism” (both terms require careful definition and qualification); and the history of anti-judaic interpretation of scripture (both the new testament and the christian “old testament”) by christians. from this perspective, let me make a few observations by way of conclusion. first, while the early christian movement was characterized by its interest in including non-jews within its communities, this did not make them unique in the jewish world. many other jews in the first century c.e. were also interested in finding a place for non-jews within their torahcentered frame of reference, and early christian disputes over the terms by which gentiles might be included mirrored in many respects debates that were already happening within the jewish community more broadly. more attention might have been paid in the volume—both in the annotations and the essays—to this aspect of judaism and its significance for the understanding of early christianity. second, while “the parting of the ways” might not be the most accurate model for understanding the emergence of christianity as a socio-religious phenomenon separate from judaism, it nevertheless draws attention to the jewish character of the christian movement at its outset—a renewal movement entirely within the jewish world. it thus at least poses the question of why the two ended up as separate and distinct. the issue is touched on, especially in charlotte elisheva fonrobert’s “judaizers, jewish christians, and others” and claudia setzer’s “jewish responses studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): donaldson r1-3 levine and brettler, the jewish annotated donaldson r 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr to believers in jesus,” though neither essay title indicates this, and it could well have warranted an essay of its own. finally, in their introductory essay, the editors make reference to krister stendahl and one of his rules for interreligious dialogue: adherents of any one religion should learn to cultivate a “holy envy,” that is, an appreciation for elements of another religion that one recognizes as beautiful or meaningful. as a christian with a long-standing interest in understanding the jewish roots of my own tradition, i hope that i have come to develop such a “holy envy.” be that as it may, i can nevertheless say without question that, the more i have investigated the ways in which christians have interpreted their own scriptures, i have developed a “holy shame” for the extent to which my fellow christians have felt the need to buttress their own beliefs by misrepresenting, denouncing, and slandering their jewish cousins. among the strengths of this volume are the ways in which it both quietly calls attention to such anti-jewish interpretations and demonstrates a kind of “holy envy”—in the authors’ respectful and generous interpretations of christian scripture—that christians would do well to emulate when studying judaism. for these reasons and more, this volume is to be warmly and enthusiastically welcomed. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review edwin k. broadhead jewish ways of following jesus: redrawing the religious map of antiquity (wunt 266; tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2010), hardcover xx + 440 pp. matt jackson-mccabe, cleveland state university this study of what edwin broadhead calls “jewish christianity” begins with a provocative comparison of traditional jewish and christian historiography with colonial rhetorical strategy. british colonizers, we are told, justified their occupation of australia by decreeing that there had been no prior claims on the land despite tens of thousands of years of aboriginal presence. in much the same way, the orthodox christians and rabbis of late antiquity “imposed their dominance upon the religious map of their own time” by means of “[a]n ideological form of terra nullius,” not least with respect to “jewish christians” (p. ix). the orthodox winners, for example, asserted their own “primal status” by either entirely reading jewish christians “out of existence” or by “incorporat[ing] them into the identity and history of the victor[s] themselves” (pp. ix, 47). the central aim of this book is “to isolate and to collect” the surviving “historical markers” for this “jewish christianity” in order to place it back on the map and thus to “lay to rest any assertion that jewish christianity did not exist or that it did not matter” (p. 2). in the process, it seeks to problematize the “parting of the ways” paradigm of traditional scholarship by calling attention to the existence of groups throughout antiquity for whom judaism and christianity were not mutually exclusive alternatives. after an initial section, part one, addresses past scholarship (chapter 1) and the methodological issues involved in definition (chapter 2) and historical reconstruction (chapter 3), the studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) great bulk of the study proceeds to its central task of identifying such “historical markers.” the data is divided into three categories. “points of origin,” which is to say the jewish character of jesus, the earliest communities of his followers, and the earliest christian literature, are examined in part two (chapters 4-6). “patristic representations” are discussed in part three (chapters 7-11). a hodge-podge of “other evidence,” namely “texts ascribed to jewish christians” (chapter 12), “rabbinic evidence” (chapter 13), and “archaeological evidence” (chapter 14) is found in part four. the final section, part five, presents a brief review of scholarship on the socalled “parting of the ways,” and a still briefer critique of the whole model in light of the “historical markers” the book has assembled (chapter 15). a final chapter presents a general review of basic findings (chapter 16). the end result is a wide-ranging survey of evidence traditionally associated with the category “jewish christianity.” in this sense it is broadly analogous to oskar skarsaune and reidar hvalvik’s edited 2007 volume jewish believers in jesus, though from the point of view of a single author, and with subjects treated in less depth. while the specialist may find little that is radically new, the book provides an accessible introduction to, and a useful conversation partner in, an increasingly important field of research. as always in studies of “jewish christianity”—a notoriously variable category over the history of scholarship—matters of definition and classification are crucial. this is particularly so in a survey of this kind: in order to identify the remains of something and thus establish its ongoing existence and significance over centuries, one must have a clear sense of what that something is, and thus what will count as an instance of it. in the chapter on definition, broadhead defines the “jewish christianity” with which he is concerned as those in antiquity who both “follow jesus” and “maintain jewishness,” particularly by “present[ing] themselves as faithful jews standing in continuity, in both thought and deed, with god’s covenant with israel” (pp. 56-57). to the extent that this definition studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr emphasizes self-understanding, it represents an approach that is potentially more helpful than the usual focus on torah observance as the definitive feature of “jewish christianity.” this move, however, stands in some tension with the author’s decision to present the phenomenon as “jewish christianity,” a term that is not a part of the self-identity of any of the individuals or groups in question, and which in fact creates problems that surface elsewhere in the study and are never adequately resolved (compare p. 79 and p. 158, where the term “jewish christianity” is conceded as being problematic when applied to jesus and to the synoptic sayings source, respectively). there is also at times a certain disconnect between this theoretical definition and the actual practice of classifying data on which the book’s general thesis depends. the identification of the earliest literary remains of “jewish christianity” in part two, for example, relies largely on a set of criteria whose relationship to the book’s working definition of “jewish christianity” is rather ambiguous. thus the didache is identified as “jewish christian” on the basis of its appropriation of “jewish source materials”; its use of “the old testament” as an authority; a jewish “prophetic model” for community leadership; its christology; and its eschatological orientation (pp. 131-33). a broadly similar set of criteria are brought to bear on the letter of james (pp. 133-34), while the letter of jude is said to stand “firmly in the realm of jewish christianity” (p. 135) simply due to a “conceptual world…built upon the literature of palestinian judaism” (p. 134) and a “guiding ethos…of jewish apocalyptic thought” (p. 135). such judgments seem to assume something more akin to the (long abandoned) “jewish thought-form” construction of “jewish christianity” of jean daniélou in his 1964 book the theology of jewish christianity than to the identity-oriented approach postulated by broadhead’s own theoretical statement. why we should assume, in the case of these works, that such traits correlate with claims on jewish identity and on israel’s covenant in particular is not said. nor is it clear, conversely, why a supposedly more hellenistic “tone” and self-consciously postapostolic orientation in themselves suggest that the same traits studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 8 (2013) are less likely to signal “jewish christianity” in the case of 2 peter (p. 135). while such issues underscore the as-yet unsettled problem of the utility of “jewish christianity” as an interpretive construct, this book presents a useful entrée into the data that have given rise to it. both those new to the field and specialists will find the book useful in their own ways. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-3 robert mckim, editor religious perspectives on religious diversity philosophy of religion series. world religions, volume 6. (leiden and boston: brill, 2016), ix + 258 pp. francis x. clooney fclooney@hds.harvard.edu harvard university, cambridge, ma 02138 religious perspectives on religious diversity crosses the boundaries, too often strictly policed, that divide the philosophy of religion, theology, and interreligious learning. robert mckim introduces the volume with questions that guide the nine essays: what do insiders to a religious tradition say about outsiders, in terms of rationality, virtue, and possible salvation? to what extent are those religions legitimate (at least for their members)? how are we to think of ourselves and our traditions in light of those other traditions, particularly when their members have in the past often been judged not entirely rational or wicked or liable to damnation? this book offers diverse responses to these questions regarding the religious other by scholars from diverse religious perspectives, including jerome gellman and eugene korn (jewish), john sanders, daniel madigan, and diego sarrio cucarella (christian), and mohammed khalil and imran aijaz (muslim). the final essays by paul eddy, david basinger, and robert mckim are more pronouncedly philosophical, exploring how diversity is best negotiated religiously, in a way that is clear and consistent. the essays by sanders and by madigan and sarrio cucarella review and rethink the theological positions and attitudes of western christians on other religions. sanders, surveying a range of views in “christian approaches to the salvation of non-christians,” focuses on universalist and inclusivist dimensions that are coherent and also attentive to biblical tradition. in their very fine essay, madigan and sarrio cucarella re-read the major catholic documents since vatican ii with a certain fresh serenity, attentive to how people of other faiths are presented in catholic teaching. with respect to the catholic inclusivist viewpoint, they argue that the core norms are health and the human good, orientation to the goals embodied in christ, and human solidarity, all for the sake of fostering full and inclusive human communities. jewish scholars gellman and korn and muslim scholars khalil and aijaz present their traditions’ views of the other, which will likely be less familiar to an english-reading audience. they also break new ground, pioneering territory less traveled in previous research. (some important precedents to their work should be clooney: robert mckim’s religious perspectives on religious diversity 2 noted as well. a 2003 issue of theological studies was dedicated to the theme, “the catholic church and other living faiths in comparative perspective,” on the theme of attitudes toward other religions. it contained substantive essays on hindu, buddhist, jewish, muslim, and japanese perspectives. more recently, in 2012 alan brill authored judaism and world religions: encountering christianity, islam, and eastern traditions.) in “jewish chosenness and religious diversity,” gellman honors the core jewish sense of divine chosenness, but in a way that refuses to privilege “ethnocentric supremacy, cultural isolation, and the defamation of other religions” since “god loves all nations equally” (p. 21). in “extra synagogam salus est?,” korn too keeps in play both particularist understandings and a sense of universalism, refusing to settle on one to the exclusion of the other. khalil’s “islam and the salvation of others” charts a spectrum of muslim views of the other, ranging from ibn taymiyya, to ghazali, to ibn arabi, concluding that they and their modern inheritors are largely inclusivists. aijaz reaches the same conclusion by a more constructive philosophical path in “the islamic problem of religious diversity.” he shows how there is a growing consensus among muslim intellectuals that despite some tensions with earlier muslim teaching it is necessary to recognize that there are many people who are rational, virtuous, and yet not muslim. the final essays take a more philosophical turn. in “typology and terrain,” eddy wishes to defend the usefulness of the categories of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism, even if they have been used excessively and sometimes in needlessly imprecise ways. he addresses a number of objections against them, including gavin d’costa’s effort to collapse inclusivism and pluralism into a kind of exclusivist certainty about one’s own position. eddy argues for a constitutive inclusivism, in which christ is absolutely central and decisive, but without reducing that centrality to a norm by which one can then rank and judge other traditions. in “the role of religious diversity in meaningful religious belief,” basinger explicitly draws on his long experience in teaching to argue that students learn best both when informed about other religions and ideally in the presence of members of other religious traditions. this helps them to gain better understandings of their own beliefs. his pedagogical turn calls to mind the recent comparative theology in the millennial classroom: hybrid identities, negotiated boundaries (edited by mara brecht and reid b. locklin, 2016), and in particular rita george-tvrtkovic’s “what muslims can teach catholics about christianity.” she explores how students learn differently when others in the class, coming from other traditions, provide them with information about their tradition as well as offer deeper insights into their beliefs. since eddy and basinger make no specific references to non-christian religious views, it was wise to place their essays at the end rather than at the beginning of the volume, lest learning within traditions appear supplementary to more abstract and formal considerations. in the concluding “i’m okay, you’re okay,” mckim proposes an epistemic humility and magnanimity. continuing with a theme addressed in earlier works 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) such as religious ambiguity and religious diversity and on religious diversity, mckim argues that a measured acceptance of the religious other makes good sense, given the ambiguity of what we know and believe in relation to what others know and believe, and the fact that we can never know enough of the other. hence, we are wise to be open to the religious other and ready always to keep learning. inclusivism (sometimes critiqued as ambiguous or too narrow) unsurprisingly turns out (rather than pluralism) to be the default position in this volume, since the authors insist on balancing attention to the religious other with fidelity to the inner requirements of their traditions. inclusivism marks the right balance of tradition and the often strong views expressed in scripture, along with the recognition that other religions flourish and their believers cannot be written off merely as ignorant or ill-willed. but if inclusivism emerges as the most persuasive position, this should then serve as the ground for a deeper learning from the other traditions. more sensitive and realistic theologies of religions do not replace, but only pave the way for, the work of interreligious and comparative theologies. while much work has been done in this regard, much more is required, particular beginning from perspectives other than the christian. i think here for instance of same god, other god: judaism, hinduism, and the problem of idolatry (2016), in which alon goshengottstein makes the case for how the jewish prohibition of idolatry, properly understood, does not exclude entirely hindu worship, properly understood. while a christian response to hindu image worship could be similarly nuanced, it would have different key features. i conclude by wondering aloud how this important conversation might develop were asian perspectives such as the hindu and buddhist, included, or voices from smaller and local traditions worldwide. we might expect similar philosophical and theological motifs to recur, but with still other nuances particular to the traditions involved. for now, though, we must be grateful for the breadth of this fine volume. the death of jesus korn, covenantal possibilities in a post-polemical age korn1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college covenantal possibilities in a post-polemical age: a jewish view* e ugene k or n c e n t e r f o r j e w i s h c h r i s t i a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d c o o p e r a t i o n i n i s r a e l volume 6 (2011) http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): korn 1-13 korn, covenantal possibilities in a post-polemical age korn 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr polemics and beyond polemics were salient in christian and jewish conceptualizations of each other during the middle ages and the most prominent characteristic of medieval disputations that christian authorities forced upon jewish leaders. in the words of one scholar, these debates were designed to prove that “the truth of christianity would be rendered manifest to destroy the errors of the jews, that jesus was the messiah, and that jewish legal and ceremonial rules were discontinued and that they (were) never to be resumed after jesus.” 1 polemics thus exhibit a binary logic that dictates that if christianity is true, then judaism must be false. conventional wisdom has it that in facing christianity’s polemical posture toward judaism, jews responded with their own polemical understanding of christianity. thus polemics were a theological duel to the death—a duel which for a variety of historical and political reasons medieval jews could not afford to win or to lose. whether overtly hostile a la the middle ages or more polite as in some modern jewishchristian discussion, a tell-tale indicator of polemics is the use of the biblical personnae of jacob and esau as metaphors for the relationship between christians and jews. both judaism and christianity understood this fraternal relationship as a *this paper was delivered at the 2011 corcoran chair conference, are jews and christians living in a post-polemical world? toward a comparison of medieval and modern christian-jewish encounters on march 28-29, 2011 at boston college. i thank prof. daniel lasker and center for christian-jewish learning at boston college for organizing this conference and for their invitation for me to speak there. the majority of the research for this paper was done under the aegis of the institute for theological inquiry, which is a division of the center for jewish-christian understanding and cooperation in israel. 1 gilbert dahan, the christian polemic against the jews in the middle ages (notre dame, indiana: university of notre dame, 1991), 36-37. permanent, even ontological, rivalry for god’s blessing and covenantal promise. 2 the title of this paper assumes, of course, that we now live in a post-polemical world; yet this assumption is hardly self-evident. polemics are a function of discourse and discourse varies widely among particular speaking and listening communities; while some jews and christians today may inhabit a post-polemical world, others remain committed to extending the logic and vocabulary of traditional polemical theologies and arguments. so if some jews and christians no longer assume an antagonistic cosmic rivalry between the faiths, many still do, even if in softer tones. one catholic example is cardinal avery dulles, who not long ago responded vehemently against those catholic theologians and usccb bishops who proclaimed that judaism was “salvific” for jews because god’s grace in christ is available to all and that “campaigns that target jews for conversion to the catholic church are no longer theologically acceptable”. 3 dulles 2 see gerson d. cohen’s pivotal study, “esau as symbol in early medieval thought,” jewish medieval and renaissance studies (cambridge, ma: harvard university press, 1967), 19-48. cohen showed how both faiths made heavy use of this biblical metaphor in the middle ages, each laying claim to identification with the blessed son jacob, and understanding the other faith as the evil esau, who was a mortal threat to the younger purer brother. for more recent treatments of this topic see israel jacob yuval, two nations in your womb (berkeley ca: university of california press, 2006), 1-26 and 92-129, and jon d. levenson, the death and resurrection of the beloved son: the transformation of child sacrifice in judaism and christianity (new haven: yale university press, 1993) 60-68 and 200-232. on pp. 225-226, levenson raises the ultimate reconciliation between jacob and esau indicated in genesis 33:11-17, a subject rarely found in the medieval treatments of the fraternal rivalry, but one which holds rich potential for contemporary christian-jewish relations. 3 in a document titled “reflections on covenant and mission,” available at http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-andstatements/interreligious/bceia-ncs/1056-ncs-bceia02aug12 (accessed january 8, 2012.) for avery dulles’ published responses, see his “covenant and http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/interreligious/bceia-ncs/1056-ncs-bceia02aug12 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/interreligious/bceia-ncs/1056-ncs-bceia02aug12 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): korn 1-13 korn, covenantal possibilities in a post-polemical age korn 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr relied on heb 8:13 and 7:12 to advocate that the sinai covenant (and mosaic law) have lost their validity and he encapsulated his view that christianity has eclipsed judaism by quoting heb 10:9: “(christ)…abolishes the first [covenant] in order to establish the second.” this is the doctrine of “hard supersessionism,” 4 i.e., that with the appearance of christianity, the new covenant completely replaced the “old covenant” of moses and israel, thus terminating the theological efficacy of judaism. more anecdotally, i can personally attest that polemical motifs (both explicit and subtle) are common today in attitudes of some traditional jews toward christianity. largely oblivious to the fundamental changes that have taken place in contemporary christian theology about judaism and in jewishchristian relations, these views draw from traditional texts like the rabbinic adage, “it is a well known law that esau hates jacob” 5 and the medieval theological critiques by authorities like sa’adia ga’on and maimonides. indeed, there is truth to the quip that “not all medievalists lived in the middle ages.” unlike dulles, many christian thinkers today reject hard supersessionism regarding jews and judaism. their theologies come in a number of varieties, including soft supersessionism and non-supersessionism, which i will discuss in more detail below. they acknowledge the permanent or at least the continuing temporary theological legitimacy of judaism, which lessen the impulses today to refute judaism or defeat jews logically, theologically and physically. mission,” america 187:12 (21 october 2002), 8–16. see also dulles’ “the covenant with israel,” first things (november 2005), 16–21. 4 david novak makes the useful distinction between “hard supersessionism” and “soft supersessionism” in “the covenant in rabbinic thought,” in two faiths, one covenant?, ed. eugene korn and john pawlikowski (lanham, md: rowman and littlefield, 2005), 65-80. more on the distinction and soft supersessionism later. 5 genesis rabbah on gn 33:4, quoted by the popular medieval rabbinic commentator shlomo yitshaki (rashi) ad loc. one might think that it is naturally easier for traditional jewish theology to adopt a non-polemical posture toward christianity because of the jewish belief in the universal noahide covenant, a doctrine that implies a limited theological pluralism. 6 at one time i did believe that this doctrine could provide the basis for a satisfactory jewish account of christianity and its theological relationship to judaism; however i have now come to realize that the noahide covenant falls short of this task. even if we maintain, as do most—but not all—rabbinic authorities, that faithful christians qualify as benei noaḥ 7 who fulfill the seven divine obligations of that covenant, subsuming christians in the generic category of noahides with all other gentiles ignores both the unique historical relationship between jews and christians and christianity’s unique relationship to judaism’s covenantal religious mission. if we wish to live in a coherent 6 traditional jewish theology maintains that jews are bound to god by the sinaitic covenant and its 613 divine commandments. gentiles outside the sinai covenant are also bound to god by virtue of the universal noahide covenant, which contains seven commandments: the injunction to establish courts ensuring a law ordered society, and the six prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, sexual immorality and eating the limb of a living animal, considered a paradigm of cruelty. for a fuller analysis of the noahide covenant and its commandments, see maimonides, mishneh torah (henceforth, mt), laws of kings and their wars, ch. 9, and david novak, the image of the non-jew in judaism, second edition (littman library of jewish civilization: portland or, 2011). 7 the term “benei noaḥ” or “noahide” is used in rabbinic literature in two different senses. technically, all gentiles are noahides and stand under the seven noahide commandments, whether they observe or violate them. however, the term is frequently applied to only those who observe the noahide commandments and who are contrasted with those who violate those commandments, e.g., an idolator or an “oved avodah zarah.” the towering medieval rabbinic authority maimonides believed that the trinity and incarnation violated the prohibition against idolatry, and hence maintained that christians did not observe the noahide covenant. many follow this position of maimonides. as will be cited later, most later rabbinic authorities living in christian europe disagreed with maimonides and believed that christians do not violate the noahide prohibition against idolatry and do in fact observe the noahide commandments. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): korn 1-13 korn, covenantal possibilities in a post-polemical age korn 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr post-polemical world today, one challenge is to find a more adequate jewish theology of christianity. jewish theology and christianity what tools are available within rabbinic and halakhic tradition to carve out a non-polemical understanding of christianity? further still, we should ask if there are authentic and traditional grounds for a new theological relationship in which jews see christians as participating in a cooperative, not competitive or polemical, religious mission with them? and if so, what are the boundaries of this commonality? because of the painful historical experience that jews endured with christians almost since christianity’s inception, most rabbinic authorities have lacked incentive to view christianity as a positive phenomenon. nevertheless there was a perceptible shift in the rabbinic understanding of christianity over time. one can plot four stages in the evolution of rabbinic thinking about christianity in different historical eras: 8 (1) in the first and second centuries, jewish christians were first a tolerated sect in the jewish community and later came to be regarded as heretics or apostates from judaism. belief in jesus as the messiah and in the “new covenant” were considered illegitimate and prohibited doctrines for jews, i.e., avodah zarah or “foreign worship” often connoting idolatry. (there is little rabbinic discussion about the status of gentile christians between the third century and the early middle ages.) (2) during the middle ages when jews lived in small communities in christian europe and were dependent 8 for extensive details of this evolution and the logical map of rabbinic opinions regarding christianity, see my “rethinking christianity: rabbinic positions and possibilities,” in jewish theology and world religions (london: littman library of jewish civilization, forthcoming in 2012), ch. 9. on economic interaction with christians, most medieval rabbis in germany, france and italy (rishonim) ruled that gentile christians were not considered the same as the idolaters found in the bible or the talmud. 9 nevertheless, because of the doctrines of the trinity and the incarnation, most rabbinic authorities considered christianity to be illicit worship (avodah zarah). under this legal position, christians were considered observing noahides who—for technical reasons—did not violate the prohibition against idolatry. 10 (3) in the late middle ages and early modernity, the majority of rabbis living in christian europe (aḥaronim) did not consider christianity to constitute avodah zarah for gentiles. they ruled that while jews were obligated to believe in absolute monotheism, gentiles were not so obligated by the terms of the noahide covenant. hence christianity was seen as a valid belief system for gentiles. (4) from the 17 th century through the 20 th century when christian toleration of jews grew, 11 a number of rabbinic 9 that is, the biblical and talmudic legal restrictions on commercial and social interactions with idolaters did not apply to christians. 10 the legal possibility that christianity is avodah zarah yet christians would not be considered worshippers of avodah zarah is based on the opinion of r. yohanan: “gentiles outside the land of israel are not worshippers of avodah zarah, but only follow the traditions of their ancestors” (babylonian talmud, ḥulin 13b). although the precise meaning of this statement is unclear, its legal import is not: gentiles in the talmudic and post-talmudic eras are not subject to the halakhic restrictions applicable to the worshippers of avodah zarah. 11 jacob katz advanced the causal thesis that it was the budding christian tolerance during this period that significantly influenced the development of a positive halakhic attitude toward christians held by traditionalist orthodox rabbis of the time: “the first signs of tolerance toward jews...gave rise to corresponding attitudes on the part of jews to christians.” exclusiveness and tolerance (new york: schocken,1962), 166. it is evident from the statements of rivkis, emden and ya’ir bacharach (to which katz is referring) that this positive attitude referred not only to christians, but also to christianity qua religious belief system. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): korn 1-13 korn, covenantal possibilities in a post-polemical age korn 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr authorities began to appreciate christianity as a positive historical phenomenon and an unobjectionable theological system for gentiles because it spread many fundamental principles of judaism (e.g., existence of god, creatio ex nihilo, noahide moral norms and the belief in sinaitic revelation) and thus advanced the jewish religious mission. i wish to explore this fourth category for two reasons: it is the closest to our contemporary era and it holds the most potential for fashioning a non-polemical understanding of christianity in light of contemporary jewish-christian relations. here are some examples of this category of opinions that express a new theological appreciation of christianity: r. moses rivkis (17 th century lithuania): the gentiles in whose shadow jews live and among whom jews are disbursed are not idolaters. rather they believe in creatio ex nihilo and the exodus from egypt and the main principles of faith. their intention is to the creator of heaven and earth and we are obligated to pray for their welfare. 12 rabbi jacob emden (18 th century germany): the nazarene brought a double kindness to the world… on the one hand he supported and observed the torah of moses with full strength...in a way that is impossible to deny….on the other hand, for gentiles he brought much good….he eradicated avodah zarah, removed idols [from the nations] and obligated them in the seven commandments of noah so that they would not behave 12 gloss on shulhan arukh, hoshen mishpat, section 425:5 like animals of the field, and instilled them firmly with moral traits….. 13 christians and moslems are congregations that [work] for the sake of heaven; [they are people] who are destined to endure, whose intent is for the sake of heaven and whose reward will not denied. 14 the goal of [christians and moslems] is to promote godliness among the nations...to make known that there is a ruler in heaven and earth, who governs and monitors and rewards and punishes….we should consider christians and moslems as instruments for the fulfillment of the prophecy that the knowledge of god will one day spread throughout the earth. whereas the nations before them worshipped idols, denied god's existence, and thus did not recognize god's power or retribution, the rise of christianity and islam served to spread among the nations, to the furthest ends of the earth, the knowledge that there is one god who rules 13 emden published two versions of this statement. the first in seder olam rabbah vezuta (hamburg, 1757) and then as resen mat’eh of sefer shimush. this quote is taken from a scholarly version of both editions published by lior gottlieb, “resen mat’eh le-rabbi ya’akov emden—mahdurah kamma’ u’vatra,” in be-darkhey shalom: ‘iyyunim be’hagut yehudit mugashim leshalom rosenberg, ed. benyamin ish shalom (jerusalem, 2007), 307-308. the most comprehensive analysis of emden’s position is by jacob j. schacter, “rabbi jacob emden, sabbatianism, and frankism: attitudes toward christianity in the eighteenth century,” in new perspectives on jewishchristian relations—in honor of david berger, ed. elisheva carlebach and jacob j. schacter, (boston: brill, 2012), 359-396. see also: harvey falk, “rabbi jacob emden’s views on christianity,” journal of ecumenical studies 19:1 (winter 1982):105-111; and moshe miller, “rabbi jacob emden’s attitude toward christianity,” turim, studies in jewish history and literature, volume two, ed. m. shmidman, (new york, 2008), 105-136. 14 leḥem shamayim (commentary on mishnah) vol. 2, (altona, 1768), 49b. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): korn 1-13 korn, covenantal possibilities in a post-polemical age korn 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the world, who rewards and punishes and reveals himself to man. 15 and rabbi samson raphael hirsch (19 th century germany): although disparaged because of its alleged particularism, judaism….has been at pains to stress that, while in other respects their views and ways of life may differ from those of judaism, the peoples in whose midst the jews are now living [i.e. christians] have accepted the jewish bible of the old testament as a book of divine revelation. they profess their belief in the god of heaven and earth as proclaimed in the bible and they acknowledge the sovereignty of divine providence in both this life and the next. 16 israel produced an offshoot [i.e., christianity] that had to become estranged from it in great measure, in order to bring to the world—sunk in idol worship, violence, immorality and the degradation of man—at least the tidings of the one alone, of the brotherhood of all men, and of man’s superiority over the beast. it was to teach the renunciation of the worship of wealth and pleasures, albeit it not their use in the service of the one alone. together with a later offshoot [islam] it represented a major step in bringing the world closer to the goal of all history. 17 note that these later rabbinic authorities judge christians positively because of their beliefs. that is, unlike the early medieval rabbis who had to downplay christian theological 15 ‘etz ‘avot (commentary on ethics of the fathers) (amsterdam, 1751), 4:11. 16 the collected writings, vol. vii, jewish education “talmudic judaism and society,” (new york: feldheim, 1984), 225-227. 17 nineteen letters on judaism, edited and annotated by joseph elias (jerusalem, 1995), 271. beliefs in order to develop the legal ground for productive jewish-christian interaction, these early moderns appreciated christians because of the influence of christianity on christian behavior and belief. implicitly then, these authorities made theological statements regarding christianity, not merely about christians. however, their statements do not yet constitute a theology of christianity that takes seriously christian selfperception and the positive relationship of christian belief to jewish covenantal self-understanding. christian theologies have always insisted that christians are the heirs to the jewish covenant. the church has traditionally construed itself as part of the unfolding history of israel. indeed, it is “the new israel,” which for christians often meant the replacement of the “old” israel. christians have seen themselves as the contemporary recipients of the divine blessing given to abraham and as members of the covenantal chain from abraham to moses that culminated in the new covenant established with the blood of jesus. 18 in other words, christians see themselves as the new chosen people, not merely as b’nai noaḥ, or people connected to god through the noahide covenant, undifferentiated from other peoples. this has been an unacceptable thesis for jewish theology, as traditional jewish thinkers have consistently maintained that jews and christians do not share any post-noahide 18 this is the formulation of irenaeus of lyon, in heresies iii.11.8, found in irenaeus of lyons, translated by robert m. grant (new york: routledge, 2007), 132. more recently, cardinal dario castrillon hoyos put it this way: “abraham is the father of faith, but in a chain of salvation in which the messiah is expected. and the messiah has arrived.” see mary c. boys, “does the catholic church have a mission ‘with’ jews or ‘to’ jews?” in studies in christian-jewish relations 3 (2008): 9, found at http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/view/1482 (accessed january 8, 2012). http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/view/1482 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): korn 1-13 korn, covenantal possibilities in a post-polemical age korn 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr covenant. 19 (of course, jews are obligated by the noahide covenant, but jews do not identify themselves as noahides.) rabbinic thinkers have resisted acknowledging the christian claim to the abrahamic covenantal legacy for historical and theological reasons to be discussed later. yet the matter cannot remain settled with this denial, for it is clear that christianity is closer to judaism in history, mission and content than, for example, any asian religion that may teach the noahide commandments. for whatever reasons, god has closely intertwined jews and christians throughout history, and as we have seen from the previous rabbinic acknowledgements, judaism and christianity are also interrelated theologically. for judaism, then, christians cannot be mere noahides. christianity must stand theologically somewhere between the noahide religion and the judaism of the sinai covenant. if we combine the above cited modern rabbinic appreciation of christianity with the recent sympathetic christian theologies toward judaism, we open up fresh possibilities for rethinking a jewish covenantal relationship with christianity and fashioning new jewish-christian cooperation in pursuit of common values. 19 three modern jewish thinkers have advocated a sharing of the covenant. this is a central thesis of the non-traditionalist academic michael kogan in his book, opening the covenant (new york: oxford university press, 2008). his book never drew any attention from traditional rabbis or orthodox thinkers, undoubtedly because of the bold untraditional nature of his project. the thesis was also offered (with qualification) by the orthodox rabbi and thinker, irving greenberg in for the sake of heaven and earth (philadelphia: jewish publication society, 2004). this book, however, further marginalized greenberg in traditional circles, indicating the radical nature of his claim of the theological affinity between judaism and christianity. most recently, the orthodox rabbi shlomo riskin has moved in this direction in his oral presentations and has written of this in “covenant and conversion: the united mission to redeem the world,” in the forthcoming volume, covenant and hope: christian and jewish reflections, essays in constructive theology from the institute for theological inquiry (eerdmans, 2012). it is too early to determine if riskin’s theological claims will gain any resonance in traditional or rabbinic circles. classical and modern jewish thinkers believed that abraham’s covenantal mission consisted in spreading the knowledge of god as well as bearing witness and teaching divine moral values to the world. 20 rabbinic authorities and jewish philosophers understood these values as fundamental requirements for human welfare. 21 in the philosophic eyes of maimonides, spreading the knowledge of the one god of heaven and earth throughout the world was the primary vocation of abraham. 22 it is interesting to note that this traditional rabbinic understanding of abraham’s mission is 20 see commentaries of isaac abravanel and menachem recanati on gen 12:2, maimonides, mt, laws of idolatry 1:3 and guide for the perplexed 3:29, and yehudah leib alter, sefat emet, sukkot 5664. this interpretation is supported by the numerous passages in genesis where abraham “calls the name of the lord.” (gn 12:8; 13:4; 21:33). isaac does the same in 26:25. gerald blidstein claims that maimonides “points to israel’s universalistic mission of the jewish people as instructors of humankind in the worship of god” when he codifies in mt, acts of sacrifices, 19:16, that jews may teach gentiles how to offer sacrifices to god. see blidstein’s “maimonides and me’iri on non-judaic religion,” in scholars and scholarship: the interaction between judaism and other cultures, ed. leo landman (new york: yeshiva university press, 1990) 31, n. 12. 21 this also has biblical support in gn 18:19. see also maimonides, mt, laws of kings 10:11, who states that the noahide laws with their requirement of a legal order were given to humanity help ensure that “the human society is not destroyed.” 22 mt, laws of idolatry 1:3; book of commandments, positive commandment no. 3; guide for the perplexed, iii: 51. while some famous rabbinic figures (the talmudic sages r. nehorai [bt qiddushin 82a] and rav [bt yoma 28b] and the medieval commentator, rabbi shlomo yitzḥaqi [rashi]) saw abraham as living the same life as a post-sinaitic jew and observing all the uniquely jewish 613 commandments, most rabbinic authorities and biblical exegetes rejected this ahistorical notion and insisted that abraham functioned as a witness for the reality of god and observed only the noahide laws plus circumcision and perhaps prayer. see commentaries on genesis 26:5 by rabbis david qimḥi (radaq), ovadiah seforno, moses ben naḥman (naḥmanides), abraham ibn ezra, samuel ben meir (rashbam), ḥizqiya bar manoaḥ (ḥizquni). see also maimonides, mt, laws of kings, 9:1. for a contemporary expression of this position by a traditionalist rabbinic authority, see joseph b. soloveitchik, abraham’s journey, ed. david shatz, joel b. wolowelsky and reuven ziegler (jersey city: ktav, 2008), 58. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): korn 1-13 korn, covenantal possibilities in a post-polemical age korn 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr nearly verbatim the mission and historical impact of christianity according to rivkis, (“[christians] believe in creatio ex nihilo and the exodus from egypt and the main principles of faith. their intention is to the creator of heaven and earth”), emden (“the christian removed idols [from the nations] and obligated them in the seven mitzvot of noah so that they would not behave like animals of the field, and instilled them firmly with moral traits…the goal of [christians and moslems] is to promote godliness among the nations...to make known that there is a ruler in heaven and earth”) and hirsch (“the peoples in whose midst the jews are now living [i.e., christians] have accepted the jewish bible of the old testament as a book of divine revelation. they profess their belief in the god of heaven and earth as proclaimed in the bible and they acknowledge the sovereignty of divine providence...their acceptance of the practical duties incumbent upon all men by the will of god distinguishes these nations from the heathen and idolatrous nations of the talmudic era…judaism produced an offshoot [christianity]…in order to bring to the world—sunk in idol worship, violence, immorality and the degradation of man—the tidings of the one alone.”) 23 in effect, rifkis, emden and hirsch viewed christianity as playing a role in the fulfillment of the covenant of abraham. their statements can thus provide the basis for contemporary jews to view christians as partners in that covenant. 24 it means that 23 it is because hirsch believed that the fulfillment of god’s covenant as spreading the reality of god throughout the world constituted the telos of sacred history that he could claim that christianity [and islam] “represented a major step in bringing the world closer to the goal of all history.” see his commentary on ex 19:6. 24 for a fuller explication of this claim, see eugene korn, “the people israel, christianity and the covenantal responsibility to history,” in covenant and hope: christian and jewish reflections: essays in constructive theology from the institute for theological inquiry (eerdmans) forthcoming in 2012.the 20 th century jewish theologian, steven schwarzchild, and his student the noted contemporary maimonides scholar, menachem kellner, have argued that maimonides believed that some theologically advanced gentiles were christianity qualifies as a religion that emerges somehow out of the abrahamic covenant, and jews and christians can see each other as sharing abraham’s covenant. 25 they can legitimately understand themselves to be working toward the same spiritual goals of sacred history, but under different systems of divine commandments and charged with differentiated functions in god’s plan for humanity. this may be a common assumption in christian theology, but it is a new claim for jewish theology. 26 correctly understanding that christians are closer to judaism than are noahides, mary boys once suggested to me that christians should be seen as somehow having stood with jews at sinai. i find it difficult to go that far, and fail to see how jews (or even contemporary non-supersessionist christians) believing in the enduring validity of the sinai covenant can logically understand christians as partners in the sinaitic covenant. that christians are not obligated to observe all the sinaitic mitzvot implies that at least part of sinai covenant has been included in the designation “israel” as “israel of the mind.” see kellner’s maimonides confrontation with mysticism (london: littman library of jewish civilization, 2006), ch. 7. this idea strengthens the idea that non-jews could also be members of the same covenant god made with the jewish people. of course, however, maimonides would not have included christians in that category because of their belief in the trinity, a belief tantamount to idolatry for maimonides. 25 old-new problems remain with this claim, foremost among them that circumcision was an obligatory sign for members of abraham’s covenant. how uncircumcised christians could be members of the covenant needs to be addressed. title to the land of canaan, which was promised to abraham’s covenantal descendants, is less problematic, as that can be understood as limited to the biological descendants of isaac (see gn 21:10-12). shlomo riskin’s distinction between “zera avraham” (“the seed of abraham”) and benei avraham (“the children of abraham”) may alleviate these problems. see note 18. 26 jewish thinkers have always assumed that gentile nations could be genealogically descended from abraham (e.g., arab muslims), but that no gentile could be within the particular covenant that god made with abraham. that was reserved for the jewish people alone. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): korn 1-13 korn, covenantal possibilities in a post-polemical age korn 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr superseded. 27 for example, the sinaitic decalogue prohibits making images of god and requires the observance of the sabbath on the seventh—not the first—day of the week, two commandments that christianity does not acknowledge as binding and that christians do not observe. the problematics of sharing the covenant there are two principal reasons why jews have always rejected the christian claim to be included in the covenant of israel. the first problem was the exclusive and supersessionist character of traditional christian theology. christianity’s claim to the same covenantal promises god made to the jewish people was the very source of intense theological rivalry, the delegitimization of judaism, and often the christian persecution of jews over the course of jewish-christian history. only a few early christian thinkers entertained the notion of what has come to be called soft supersessionism, the idea that the church has been grafted onto the living tree of the jewish people. this theology still insists that the new covenant is the ultimate fulfillment of the still living jewish covenant, but in the interim, both the mosaic covenant and the new covenant are simultaneously valid. this doctrine carries the implication of de jure theological coexistence between both covenants and faiths. but this idea was ultimately rejected by early normative christian theology, which was so heavily shaped by augustine’s hard supersessionist understanding of covenantal history. 28 27 indeed, josef ratzinger (now pope benedict xvi) asserted the supersession of the sinai covenant in the very same passage in which he insists on christian participation in that covenant. many religions, op. cit, 70-71. 28 see steven mcmichael, “the covenant in patristic and medieval christian theology,” in two faiths, one covenant?, ed. eugene korn and john pawlikowski (lanham, md: rowman and littlefield, 2005), 49-51. hard supersessionism became the long-standing christian teaching regarding judaism and jews. this taught that the new covenant and new israel replaced the jewish covenant and the old israel and that, after jesus, god rejected the jews in favor of the church. the new covenant of the spirit rendered the mosaic covenant limited in its validity to human history before jesus’ death and resurrection. with the advent of the new covenant of the spirit, the mosaic covenant became meaningless, even an obstacle to future salvation history, because if christianity is true, post-temple judaism must be false—or at least dead. no room was left for the continued theological integrity of the jewish people or its distinct and independent covenantal mission. bringing the jews into the universal church assumed an immediate urgency. this rival claim to the same covenant was a life and death struggle, and since jews were never inclined toward physical or spiritual suicide, they consistently rejected the christian claim. the second obstacle to jews seeing christians sharing their covenantal identity is rooted in the doctrines of the trinity and the incarnation, both of which posed formal problems for jewish legal authorities and theologians. jews understand the second of the ten commandments “there shall be no other gods for you besides me,” (ex 20:2) 29 as demanding absolute monotheism that excludes any trinitarian dimension. the denial of god’s absolute unity would violate the divine essence. 29 interestingly, it was the literal reading of this verse in hebrew that opened up the logical possibility for many early modern rabbinical authorities to consider christianity non-idolatrous for gentiles, while remaining idolatrous for jews. they understood that the prohibition “there shall be no other god for you…” was addressed exclusively to the jewish people at sinai (“for you”), and thus the christian concept of a trinitarian deity that included the one creator of the universe along with other associations with the creator could be permitted to gentiles. this became known in jewish legal and theological parlance as “shituf” (partnership or associationism) and is based on the commentary of the tosafists on the babylonian talmudic tractate sanhedrin 63b, s.v. “assur.” studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): korn 1-13 korn, covenantal possibilities in a post-polemical age korn 10 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr moreover, jews understood the incarnation to violate the second half of that same commandment: “you shall not make for yourself a sculptured image, or any likeness of what is in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth” (ex 20:3). the creator of the material world could never become a human (or any being) with a physical form. philosophically inclined jewish theologians saw these two restrictions as logically identical, for to predicate any division of god is to imply that god is physical, limited and imperfect, i.e., not god at all. 30 thus, prior to the 16 th century many rabbinic and jewish philosophical thinkers understood judaism and christianity as referring to different gods, and if so, jews and christians could hardly share membership in the same divine covenant. today, however, we have the means to overcome both these problems. the post-holocaust change in christian thinking about jews and judaism has significant implications for the jewish understanding of christianity and its relationship to the covenant. this is so because jewish theology is neither dogmatic nor derived exclusively from theoretical “first principles;” rather it is vitally influenced by the experiences of the jewish people through history. as god’s living witnesses, jews understand god and divine providence mediated through their experiential reality as a people. after the moral and physical devastation of the holocaust in the heart of christendom, a number of christian thinkers understood where the traditional hard supersessionist teachings led: directly to christian acceptance of the final solution and indirectly to auschwitz. 31 as a result, christians 30 maimonides, guide of the perplexed, i: 50. 31 see boys, has god only one blessing?, chap. 4; james carroll, constantine’s sword (boston: houghton mifflin, 2001); edward flannery, the anguish of the jews (new york: paulist press, 1985); malcolm hay, europe and the jews (chicago: academy, 1992); jules isaac, jesus & israel (austin, tx.: began to develop more tolerant soft supersessionist teachings about jews and judaism that maintain that god’s covenant with the jewish people was never revoked, that judaism continues to occupy a role in salvation history and that jews are not a rejected people. 32 this is the dominant position of the catholic church today as a result of nostra aetate and the theological approach to judaism that has grown out of the second vatican council. major protestant churches have followed suit and a number of evangelical theologians make a similar argument. 33 in most of these views, however, christianity and the new covenant remain the highest fulfillment of the old covenant, and jewish conversion to christianity is still a theological desideratum—for god, the church and for jews themselves. yet the soft supersessionism that now appears in most official christian theological circles decreases the urgency and imperative to convert jews. one important version of soft supersessionism is “eschatological supersessionism”—evidently the position of pope benedict xvi. in 1999 as cardinal joseph ratzinger he wrote: “sinai is indeed superseded…but theological unification (i.e., the conversion of jews to christianity) is hardly possible within our historical time, and perhaps not even desirable.” 34 and in his 2011 book, jesus of nazareth, he wrote that that the conversion of jews should be left “in god’s hands and in god’s time” 35 and that it should come after the full conversion of the holt, rinehart, & winston, 1971); idem, the teaching of contempt: christian roots of anti-semitism (new york,1964); joshua trachtenberg, the devil and the jews (philadelphia: jewish publication society, 1984); robert wilken, john chrysostom and the jews: rhetoric and reality in the late 4th century (portland, or.: wipf & stock, 2004). 32 nostra aetate (1965) is the most famous articulation of this soft supersessionist teaching. 33 documented in boys, has god only one blessing?, 249-266. 34 joseph ratzinger, many religions, one covenant, 109. 35 joseph ratzinger, jesus of nazareth, part ii (san francisco: ignatius, 2010), 46. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): korn 1-13 korn, covenantal possibilities in a post-polemical age korn 11 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr gentiles. in this theology, christianity remains the highest fulfillment of god’s word to all on earth, but the full unification of jews with the church occurs at the end of time, or at least in the far distant future. finally, some christian theologians deny any form of supersessionism. they assert that judaism is salvific for jews, equal in validity for jews as christianity is for christians, and therefore converting jews to the church is theologically unacceptable. 36 churches long ago lost their temporal power and the capacity for physically threatening the jewish people. moreover, the recent emergence of soft supersessionist, eschatological supersessionist and non-supersessionist theologies render christian theology less threatening to judaism and jewish covenantal integrity. these recent theologies remove, or at least significantly lessen, the christian theological attack on the continuing vitality of the jewish covenantal mission in history. understanding this, jews need not be hesitant about adopting a positive theological approach to christianity. jewish and 36 see “reflections on covenant and mission,” in consultation of the national council of synagogues and the bishops committee for ecumenical and interreligious affairs, united states conference of catholic bishops, august 12, 2002, available at http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-andstatements/interreligious/bceia-ncs/1056-ncs-bceia02aug12 (accessed january 8, 2012.) this claim elicited strong dissenting reactions from a number of traditionalist catholic and protestant theologians, who interpreted this as a two covenant theology that is inherently invalid for catholic theology. for a prime example, see avery dulles, op cit, and response by mary c. boys, philip a. cunningham and john t. pawlikowski, america 187:12 (21 october 2002), 8–16, and dulles’ “the covenant with israel” first things (november 2005), 16–21. cunningham denies that this statement entails a two covenant theology. see also the essays in the volume christ jesus and the jewish people today, ed., philip a. cunningham, joseph sievers, mary boys, hans hermann hendrix (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 2011), especially those of cunningham and didier pollefeyt (183-201), adam gregerman (221-228), christian rutishauer (229-250) and ruth langer (287-295). christian theologies are no longer engaged in the medieval duel to the death, and jews need not fear a sympathetic covenantal understanding of christianity consistent with the jewish understandings of the bible, jewish law and theology. it is crucial to note that this new covenantal understanding does not demand either christians or jews to give up their eschatological convictions. both soft supersessionism and eschatological supersessionism continue to insist that christianity is the highest fulfillment for everyone, including jews, and that all will join the church when truth is revealed in the distant future or at the end of time. traditional jews, too, are free to continue “believing with great passion in the ultimate truthfulness of their views, praying fervently for and expecting confidently the fulfillment of their eschatological vision when their faith will rise from particularity to universality will impress their peers of the other faith community,” 37 should they wish. however, the new covenantal relation does require that christians and jews give up intense rivalry in their pre-eschaton activities, that they allow their discourse to rise above simple binary logic and that they begin to view each other as partners in carrying out god’s covenant rather than striving in the here and now to triumphantly vanquish the other and his religious convictions. 38 surely, before the eschaton god has more than enough blessings to bestow upon both of his children. 37 joseph b. soloveitchik, “confrontation,” tradition 6, no.2 (spring 1964): 25. 38 it seems that the roman catholic church is still working out how this dialectic can be achieved in practice, and is caught in what some scholars have called a “contradictory pluralism” and a “bipolarity of tendencies” entailed by its soft supersessionism, and its struggle to work out a coherent theology about jews and the need for their conversion to the church after nostra aetate and the second vatican council. see mary c. boys, “does the catholic church have a mission ‘with’ jews or ‘to’ jews?,” 719. boys documents the “bipolarity” of official catholic documents and statements regarding the need for converting jews. the issue has become even more controversial since 2008, with the 2009 statements of http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/interreligious/bceia-ncs/1056-ncs-bceia02aug12 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/interreligious/bceia-ncs/1056-ncs-bceia02aug12 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): korn 1-13 korn, covenantal possibilities in a post-polemical age korn 12 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the second more formal theological problem of the unacceptable status of the trinity and incarnation according to halakhah (jewish law) is also resolvable using the late rabbinic distinction between what jews are required to believe about god (absolute monotheism) and what gentiles are permitted to believe (the one creator of the universe with additional associated elements). i have argued elsewhere that this difference in legal requirements leads to a philosophic problem and points to the avoidance of theology by formal halakhah, 39 but the significant covenantal points here are that this distinction allows the acceptance of legitimate, differing jewish and christian beliefs about god, and that it is consistent with jews and christians retaining their differences in worship, their fidelity to their respective faith communities and to viewing each other as mutual partners in god’s covenantal mission. lastly, it is crucial to note that this distinction imposes limits to theological pluralism: conversion to christianity and christological beliefs remain strictly prohibited for jews. conclusion reconsidering an extended membership in abraham’s covenant offers a rich theological agenda and new practical challenges for jews and christians. jews will need to learn how to successfully navigate between their commitment to their exclusive sinaitic covenant and the more open covenant with abraham. and if they share covenantal membership with the usccb on this issue regarding evangelization toward jews and its place in catholic-jewish dialogue and relations. see usccb’s “note on ambiguities of rcm” and usccb’s subsequent revision of “note,” found at http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-andstatements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/578-usccb09june18, accessed on january 4, 2012. 39 see my “rethinking christianity: rabbinic positions and possibilities” in jewish theology of world religions (london: littman library of jewish civilization, forthcoming in 2012), ch. 9. christians, what will be the theological and practical borders of this partnership that ensure the enduring particularity of the jewish people and their mission? i suspect that christians will still have to grapple with the issue of supersessionism, but in a new form: has christianity superseded abraham’s covenant? if not, how does abraham’s more open covenant relate to traditional christology and ecclesiology, both past and contemporary? and of course, the conundrum of the universality of the church coexisting with the continuing validity of the particular jewish covenant still cries out for resolution. is it a virtuous divine mystery that is cause for humble reflection and celebration, 40 or a vicious logical inconsistency to be eliminated? if we are faithful to the biblical account of abraham and his covenant, we must admit that the bible does not portray abraham as a theologian, but as a man of faith, action and morality. 41 his covenant, then, should above all entail a commitment to practical action in sacred history. it is precisely today that the practical teachings of abraham’s covenant assume particular urgency, when both christianity and judaism 40 see richard sklba, "new beginnings: catholic-jewish relations after 40 years," origins 35, no. 31 (january 19, 2006): 509-514, who argues that the tension between the universal theological claim of christianity and the enduring particular validity of the jewish covenant is a mystery to be appreciated. 41 in a dramatic departure from the biblical text, maimonides portrayed abraham as a socrates-like philosopher whose primary religious mission was to rediscover and teach the fundamental metaphysical truths about the nature of god that was lost in the generations between adam and abraham. (mt, laws of idolatry 1:1-4.) this philosophic portrayal of abraham is the exception in jewish tradition and came under severe critique in rabbinic circles. see the stinging gloss of r. abraham ben david of posquieres (ra’avad) on this section of mt. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/578-usccb-09june18 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/578-usccb-09june18 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/578-usccb-09june18 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): korn 1-13 korn, covenantal possibilities in a post-polemical age korn 13 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr are threatened similarly by forces emanating from radical secularist and religious fundamentalist worldviews. neither the pious jew nor the faithful christian can thrive in a world that sees the human person in exclusively materialistic or functional terms and where moral values are considered mere human conventions and relative in esse. nor can they thrive in a world of religious violence and intolerance that is rooted in exclusivity and impervious to reason. like the rabbis of old, i would argue that it is hard to find optimistic prospects for any human flourishing should these ideologies determine our future together as human beings. the transformation of the christian-jewish relationship from polemic to covenantal cooperation is neither a parochial, nor a bilateral affair. it is a profound need for the future of all of god’s children. jews and christians have a critical role to play in this sacred story. together they can fulfill the divine biblical mandate bestowed on abraham: “through you, may all the nations of the earth be blessed” (gn 12:3). 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-4 review essay amy-jill levine short stories by jesus: the enigmatic parables of a controversial rabbi (new york: harperone, 2014), hardcover, 313 pp. david sandmel dsandmel@adl.org anti-defamation league, new york, ny 10158 this review was adapted from an invited panel presentation “a review of amyjill levine’s short stories by jesus: the enigmatic parables of a controversial rabbi,” sponsored by the jewish-christian dialogue and sacred texts group at the society of biblical literature annual meeting (atlanta, ga; november 2015). i want to begin by noting that amy-jill levine is not the first scholar to focus on jesus as a master of parables. i wrote my doctoral dissertation on joseph klausner’s treatment of jesus and early christianity. while there is not a great deal of interest in klausner’s work today, in 1921 he published a groundbreaking book in hebrew, yeshu ha-notzri, which was subsequently translated into english by herbert danby under the title jesus of nazareth. the book itself is now quite outdated, but in its day it was instrumental in demonstrating to christian scholars that when studying the historical jesus they could not ignore jewish literature from the second temple and early rabbinic period, or, for that matter, the contemporary jewish scholarship of klausner’s day. klausner, who was a wellknown hebraist and zionist leader, also helped make the study of jesus a “kosher” topic for jews. despite their differences, both klausner and levine recognize the profundity of jesus’ stories. on the very last page of his book, klausner sums up jesus as “a great teacher of morality and an artist in parable. he is the moralist for whom, in the religious life, morality counts as – everything” (emphases in original). though i am trained in religious studies, with a focus on judaism and christianity in antiquity, and have taught on the seminary level, most of my work has focused on the area of interreligious relations and jewishchristian dialogue with diverse audiences, especially in my current position as director of interfaith affairs at the anti-defamation league. it is primarily from this perspective, rather than as a teacher in the university or seminary classroom, that i will approach my examination of levine’s excellent book. sandmel: amy-jill levine’s short stories by jesus 2 i want to situate levine’s work in this context. there has long been a fruitful interplay between scholarship and interfaith relations. interreligious dialogue is motivated by the desire to promote better understanding between religious communities and to overcome the prejudice and even violence with which we are all too familiar. since academic scholars aspire to neutrality and seek to avoid bias toward one religious tradition, their work can provide an important corrective to the misunderstandings and misuse of history and texts that have often served as the excuse for negative portrayals of “the other.” at the same time, scholars who accept the basic goals of interreligious dialogue may be better positioned to critique scholarship that is distorted by religious prejudice and to produce new research that does not impose later conflicts and theological agendas onto the past. it is for this reason that nostra aetate, whose fiftieth anniversary was recently observed, states: since the spiritual patrimony common to christians and jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues. in christian-jewish dialogue, the past several generations of scholarship on second temple judaism, new testament, and early christianity, beginning with the likes of klausner, danby, and george foote moore but really taking off after the holocaust, have firmly (re)located jesus within his jewish context. we have also become much more aware of the insidious effects that anti-judaism can have on both teaching and preaching. we have seen that these negative depictions of jews and judaism can be recalibrated without compromising the core beliefs of either tradition. however, it is not easy to displace deeply embedded modes of thinking about either jews and judaism or the new testament. levine’s book is a major contribution to this effort. she aims to help the reader to hear the parables as jesus’ first century jewish audiences would have heard them. this provides the proper context for reading the new testament. many christians have never been challenged to look at the new testament in that way. others may be familiar with the basic outlines of the approach; they accept the premise and may understand it conceptually, but have never really applied it to specific texts within the new testament. it is only through the kind of thorough exploration of the texts provided in this book that the implications of “hearing the parables as they would have been heard” can be fully appreciated. the book is a delight to read. levine on the page is very much like levine in person: entertaining, witty, incisive, and provocative. the writing style is conversational—there were times when i really could hear her voice—and the meticulous scholarship is liberally sprinkled with humor as well as references to popular culture and events from history and the headlines. however, some of the references to popular culture, which i found so engaging and entertaining, might be an obstacle for some for whom english is a second language and american 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) culture a mystery. one of the reasons that i raise this is precisely because i believe this book is so necessary, not only for american christians (and jews), but for christians in other parts of the world as well. what works so well in the specific american milieu may not be as effective in other settings. a version of the book that was more accessible to a broader audience would not be nearly as much fun, but might spread levine’s good news “to all the nations.” another challenge that may arise in using this book with some christians comes from the very methodology that i earlier described. levine insists on situating jesus within his first-century jewish context. this requires stripping away from the parables the accretion of centuries of interpretation that levine describes as having tamed their provocative character, including the narrative framework into which the gospel writers or editors placed the parables. it also means reading the parables through a pre-crucifixion, or if you prefer, a pre-resurrection lens. what we gain from the parables as levine has interpreted them is insight into what jesus was attempting to teach his jewish compatriots. this will not be a surprise to those who come to the book having had some exposure to contemporary new testament scholarship, and who may be the primary audience for this book. for other christian readers, however, this may be provocative, even threatening, in that the jesus whom they encounter in this book is the fully human, fully jewish jesus, not the christ of christian faith. as far as i can tell, there is nothing in these interpretations that is incompatible with christian faith, even if some traditional interpretations are shown to be simplistic or anti-jewish. nor is it the job of a jewish new testament scholar to teach christian theology to christians. and, in fairness, levine does address this in the introduction. however, those who teach this book should be prepared for some resistance or pushback from some of those who are encountering this portrait of jesus for the first time. i do not see this as a “problem”; on the contrary, it is a necessary part of the learning process. teachers should be aware of this possibility and be ready to address it respectfully. i do have one small quibble about the use of the term “rabbi.” while it appears prominently in the title of the book, only once in the book itself does levine refer to jesus as a rabbi: “for people who claim to follow jesus today, whether they regard him as the divine son or as a rabbi with superb things to say, the parables cannot remain historical artifacts” (p. 19). it is not clear if levine is promoting this view or simply describing what some christians think. there is also one reference to “rabbi” hillel (p. 107). in contrast, there are also many references to rabbinic literature, culture, and practice, but levine regularly—and appropriately—reminds the reader that these rabbinic texts post-date the time of jesus and therefore must be used cautiously. elsewhere, levine states: “there are connections between first-century pharisees and the later rabbis” and concludes, “thus the pharisees could be seen as “proto-rabbis” (p. 192). (one can say the same about hillel, who is never called a rabbi in rabbinic sources.) because “rabbi” later came to be used as a technical title for one ordained with the rabbinic tradition, calling jesus “rabbi” (especially in the title of the book) seems to blur a boundary that in the rest of the work is carefully maintained. sandmel: amy-jill levine’s short stories by jesus 4 short stories by jesus is an effective and powerful book. levine has provided an invaluable resource for those who teach the new testament in a variety of contexts. 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-3 jackie feldman a jewish guide in the holy land: how christian pilgrims made me israeli (bloomington: indiana university press, 2016), soft cover, xii + 205 pp. deborah weissman debbiew@netvision.net.il international council of christians and jews, 64629 heppenheim/germany in 2015, 56% of the visitors to the state of israel were christian. not all of them would have described the visit as a trip to “israel"; some would call it “the holy land”; others would say “israel / palestine.” a diverse group, denominationally, geographically, and culturally, these christians pose many challenges to the largely israeli-jewish guides and lecturers who work with them. first, like many of their fellow countrymen and women, the guides tend to be quite ignorant about the new testament and christianity, except for the requisite brief introduction they received in their government-sponsored training course. second, some of them may still possess traditional jewish anti-christian attitudes, grounded in the unfortunate shared history of the two communities, and may not be aware of recent positive developments in jewish-christian relations. third, many of them are either orthodox jews or dyed-in-the-wool secularists, with their own strong views. as a licensed guide, dr. jackie feldman has excellent credentials to investigate “how jews [who guide christians] react to faith experiences whose objective nature they deny” (p. 148). a guide who has years of experience working with christians, he brings to study of this topic a valuable combination of his personal background as a traditional jew, his academic credentials in the social sciences, a refreshing sense of humor, and sincere empathy for people and their beliefs. raised in new york, he settled in israel more than thirty years ago. he works mostly for palestinian tour operators who arrange visits and pilgrimages for christians from abroad. feldman draws on his extensive personal experience, social science research (e.g., ethnography and interviews), and the experiences of his colleagues. he truly straddles boundaries, not only between jews and christians, and israelis and palestinians, but also between the theoretical and the practical, the academic and the personal. although he primarily guides north american and british christians, both catholics and protestants (including evangelicals), his research allows him to refer to a broader population. weissman: jackie feldman’s a jewish guide in the holy land 2 feldman is deeply reflective about the nature of guiding work and selfreflective about his own experiences. he indicates—for me, somewhat surprisingly—that some of the christian leaders of the groups do not want the visitors to know that the guide himself is jewish (pp. 118-19). other leaders encourage him to speak of his own jewish identity, prompting some of the members of the groups to express disbelief that someone so knowledgeable about the life of jesus would not be a christian. he writes that he has become “a rabbi for the gentiles” (p. 2). the division of labor between the israeli-jewish guide and the christian group leader is a theme analyzed in depth. other topics covered include denominational differences in the itineraries and reactions to different sites, the authenticity of different narratives, the role of tips, and the role of “shtick” (gimmicks, personal references, and the like) in guiding. feldman is probably one of the few guides who, in a chapter on tips and souvenirs, can analyze both a mishnaic passage on tithing and the anthropological theories of victor turner. feldman writes “…the transactions of pilgrimage are not just about value for money, pleasure and social status; they are profoundly colored by religious values, political conflict and east / west power relations” (p. 92). in his “…inquiry into formation of identity in the contact zone between native and visitor, self and other” (p. 138), he deals with how the changing political and ideological contexts affect guiding at various sites (pp. 14-15.) the heart of the book is a chapter on the separation wall and the competing narratives of two christian groups visiting the holy land, one representing the christian zionist perspective and the other a so-called “living stones” group. the former are influenced by a right-wing jewish narrative of “greater israel,” based on scripture. the latter are influenced by palestinian liberation theology and stress the plight of contemporary palestinians more than biblical promises to the israelites / jews. the two groups differ in their ideologies, both theologically and politically, as well as in their itineraries. both sides typically ignore the complexity of the issues, but in different ways. as feldman notes, “it is rare that a pilgrimage will make efforts to present multiple points of view that risk ‘confusing people with the facts’” (p. 90). he sees it as one of his tasks to offer a more balanced approach. there are some minor flaws in the book. although feldman uses the term “zionism” extensively, he never actually defines it, and there seems to be some confusion with “christian zionism.” one can certainly be critical of some zionist historiography, as he is, without implying that zionism as such necessitates an effacement of the muslim or palestinian-arab connection with the land. in addition, many of the interviews were conducted in 2001. that is a long time ago; a lot has changed. also confusing is feldman’s lack of precision in describing how he has been affected as a result of guiding christian groups, conflating changes in his jewish and his israeli identities. but these are more quibbles than actual criticisms. the book is recommended for anyone who has ever visited the holy land or worked with groups in it. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) i want to offer one bibliographical recommendation relevant to this book: feldman calls israel’s ben gurion airport a “nonplace,” or a “religiously neutral postmodern transitory space” (p. 44). a book that analyzes the deeper meanings of the airport and what they demonstrate about israeli culture is diana pinto, israel has moved (cambridge: harvard univ. press, 2013). michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): peppard r1-3 wilk and wagner, between gospel and election peppard r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr florian wilk and j. ross wagner, eds., with the assistance of frank schleritt between gospel and election: explorations in the interpretation of romans 9-11 (wunt i 257; tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2010), hardcover, xvii + 554 pp. michael peppard, fordham university a professor i know used to have a sarcastic comment at the ready whenever he would meet a ph.d. student in new testament: “about what verse or word will you be writing your dissertation?” the joke is funny, if a bit painful, because of how often it has been true. while the book under consideration here does bring three whole chapters of one pauline letter under its microscope, the reader is nonetheless left with a bit of vertigo from having stared at the same thing for too long. readers of this journal will be rewarded if they choose essays carefully, lest one drown in the “vast oceans of research on rom 9-11 in recent german and english-language scholarship” (p. xii). the book’s essays, in either german (fifteen essays) or english (eleven essays) and spanning over five hundred pages, were developed from a may 2008 conference held near göttingen: “römer 9-11 im spannungsfeld zwischen ‘new perspective on paul’ und christlich-jüdischem gespräch” (“romans 9-11 at the interface between the ‘new perspective on paul’ and jewishchristian dialogue”). about twenty of the authors would be considered neutestamentler, and the others are scholars of hebrew bible (1), systematic theology (3), and religionspädagogik (1). the book opens with a section called “horizons,” which includes keynote addresses on the role of paul in contemporary jewish-christian relations (b. schaller) and the role of rom 9-11 in the “new perspective” (n. t. wright), in addition to two forschungsgeschichten of german and english scholarship on the passage (k. haacker and m. reasoner). in the next section, entitled “contexts,” only some of the authors actually analyze texts or settings from outside the new testament (j. barclay on the wisdom of solomon; a. steudel on qumran; w. campbell on church and synagogue worship). other authors stay within the “contexts” of paul’s letters. for example, d. sänger and s. eastman interpret rom 9-11 in light of paul’s other statements about “jews” (1 thes 2) or “israel” (gal 6), while c. stenschke’s “context” is the literary context of romans as a whole. in the next section called “readings,” the first essay by f. wilk offers a rhetorical analysis of paul’s three-chapter argument within the framework of 9:1-5 and 11:25-36. subsequent authors treat discrete sections in turn (b. r. gaventa on 9:6-29; f. schleritt on 9:30-33; f. avemarie on 10:1-21; e. e. popkes on 11:1-10; m. d. nanos on 11:11-24). the fourth section gathers theological “themes,” such as: the imagery of god as “father and potter” (r. feldmeier); a presentation of paul as a struggling, “god-intoxicated” prophet (a. k. grieb); the multiple referents of the term “israel” (w. reinbold); paul’s diverse characterizations of gentiles (j. r. wagner); and pauline anthropology (k.-w. niebuhr). it is important to note that these essays on theological themes are written exclusively by neutestamentler. i say this not to discount their arguments, but rather to note that they do not engage the categories or traditions of systematic review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): peppard r1-3 wilk and wagner, between gospel and election peppard r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr theology, as one might expect from the way the section is introduced. (one exception is a reference to karl barth in a. k. grieb’s essay). this illustrates a weakness in the book—its lack of methodological diversity. though the book’s contributors include “specialists in biblical studies, judaic studies, systematic theology, and practical theology...from germany, the uk and the usa,” many of the essays consist only of neutestamentlich philological or rhetorical analyses of rom 9-11 (p. xi). some authors never expand their study to texts or contexts outside romans. in general, it is a great challenge nowadays to say anything new about the new testament without looking somewhere outside of the new testament; the challenge is exacerbated when the text under consideration has been one of the most carefully studied texts in the last fifty years. the essays in this work that bear the most fruit, then, situate rom 9-11 in either an ancient context that has not been fully explored or a contemporary context of jewish-christian relations. some of these appear in the fifth section entitled “perspectives.” it contains five essays that will be of interest to readers of scjr, since they deal with the contemporary theological and practical significance of rom 9-11 for jewish-christian relations. the authors work primarily or exclusively within protestant (evangelisch) theological frameworks, but that is a benefit, not a drawback, to the collection. essays examine: how a person’s memory of oneself—and especially one’s biological lineage—becomes a treasury of resources from which religious identity is continually constructed, looking at the example of paul (n. slenczka); paul’s doctrine of election as contingent and historical (k. sonderegger); how anti-judaism has affected christian education in germany (m. rothgangel); and the actual effects of rom 9-11 in contemporary jewish-christian dialogue encounters (r. k. soulen and w. kraus). of the essays dealing with contemporary issues, i will first highlight rothgangel’s adroit blend of wissenschaftlich and pastoralisch approaches in “christliche identität ohne antijüdische kontrastfolie: zur bildungsrelevanz von römer 9-11” (pp. 483-96). using “social identity theory,” he takes a sociological approach to a pastoral problem: how to pass on christian religious identity without always using judaism as a kontrastfolie (a “foil”) or losing one’s religious identity (identitäts-verlust). in the same section, soulen’s essay, “‘they are israelites’: the priority of the present tense for jewish-christian relations,” is effective in its simplicity (pp. 497-504). he describes how christians tend to think of jewish election as primarily “a phenomenon of the ancient past,” and those who “pay a little attention” to scripture might also think of it as “a phenomenon of the eschatological future” (p. 499; italics in original). but soulen emphasizes instead the present tense of rom 9:4 and 11:28b—“the iron brackets which surround paul’s argument and ultimately contain its explosive force”—in order to focus christian readers on the “abiding now of covenant history” for jews, the “shock of the present tense” (p. 499; italics in original). of the far greater number of essays dealing with ancient contexts, i first recommend the essay by nanos, “‘broken branches’: a pauline metaphor gone awry?”, for his thorough pursuit of the famous “olive tree” allegory in connection with ancient agricultural practices (pp. 339-376). “rather than serving to reinterpret reality,” he writes, “this allegory has [usually] been reiterated as if it were a straightforward reflection of reality, as if the metaphorical language described what came to pass, what is and what will be in terms of social reality, without regard for the limitations of metaphorical communication” (p. 340). nanos argues that, by mixing metaphors of “broken” and “cut off” branches in rom 11, paul ended up subverting his own message to self-righteous gentiles and opened himself up to centuries of christian misinterpretation. i conclude by citing the ever-eloquent j. m. g. barclay, whose essay “unnerving grace: approaching romans 9-11 from the wisdom of solomon” packs a punch belied by its deceptively studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): peppard r1-3 wilk and wagner, between gospel and election peppard r 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr simple agenda (pp. 91-109). through a comparison of wisdom of solomon and romans, two texts whose methods of “natural theology” have sometimes been juxtaposed, barclay ultimately presents paul’s vision of god as “thoroughly jewish, but also bizarre, theologically dangerous and extremely unnerving” (p. 92). in contrast to wisdom, paul’s version of israel’s story disregards “cosmic order, symmetry or equilibrium. there is no correspondence between god’s action in the world and any comprehensible moral, rational, or natural order in the cosmos. ...what has twisted paul’s theology into this strange shape is his understanding of a ‘gift’ that has redefined the meanings of χάρις [grace] and ἔλεος [mercy] and that defies explanation or rationale” (p. 109; italics in original). barclay’s concluding line serves as a spur to further dialogue: “rom 9-11 is a highly disturbing text, and if our scholarly labours reduce its offence by microscopic scrutiny or over-familiarity, we have failed to hear its threat, and thus its remarkable promise” (p. 109). michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): korn r1-2 lux, the jewish people korn r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr richard lux the jewish people, the holy land, and the state of israel: a catholic view (mahwah, nj: paulist press, 2010), softcover, xiv + 175 pp. reviewed by eugene korn, center for jewish-christian understanding and cooperation richard lux’s the jewish people, the holy land, and the state of israel: a catholic view is a book long overdue. the author is an experienced participant in christian-jewish dialogue whose primary interest is theology, and the book covers a wide swath of complex topics, primarily from the roman catholic perspective. he has chapters on “church teaching on jews and judaism,” “the jewish people,” “the holy land,” and “the state of israel.” lux also offers a brief synopsis of palestinian (christian) perspectives on israel. much of the book is a crisp overview of material well-documented elsewhere. he reviews the now discredited hard supersessionist theologies that reigned in christendom from the time of augustine until the second vatican council. he also discusses the transformation of those teachings, most prominently the current church’s affirmations of the religious value of judaism after jesus and the role that the jewish people continue to play in god’s sacred history, as well as the importance of both for christian self-understanding. while this is familiar territory to interfaith professionals, lux’s concise retelling carries enormous value. i know from speaking to innumerable audiences that young christians today are unfamiliar with the toxic history of their church’s teaching of contempt. (lux quotes the famous line by edward flannery, in the anguish of the jews, about this history: “it was torn from christian (and secular) books” [p. 1].) christianity’s modern theological volte face is also largely unknown even to historically oriented jews who are generally knowledgeable about modern culture. as a result, both communities fail to truly appreciate the breathtaking changes the church made in this area, which limits their abilities to advance substantive changes in the religious understanding of each other. about half a century after vatican ii, the widespread dissemination of nostra aetate’s teachings remains the church’s most important challenge regarding this theology. lux also takes us on a brief tour of christian covenantal theologies regarding christianity’s unresolved relationship with its elder brother (e.g., are jews and christians members of the same covenant with god?), the christian attachment to the holy land (e.g., is it indeed a holy land, or more precisely just holy sites that were the scene of early christian history?), and the vatican’s ongoing ruminations about its relationship with the state of israel (is the state simply a political entity or does its creation have religious significance?). the book is most engaging when it suggests future directions for some of these topics. outlining the notion of holy land as a “sacrament of encounter” (p. 59), lux points to the need for christians to move beyond the historical significance of the holy land and to probe its meaning for contemporary christian experience and religious life. he also identifies the need for christians to wrestle with the theological significance of the jewish state of israel, something that the review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): korn r1-2 lux, the jewish people korn r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr anglican historian and theologian james parkes called for shortly after israel’s establishment in 1948. parkes’ plea engendered little significant christian discussion—largely, i believe, due to its political incorrectness at that time. later, w.d. davies, marcel dubois, and john pawlikowski all expressed the need for a theological understanding of the jewish return to zion and a reconsideration of the religious significance of “landedness” for christian thought. however, their overtures have not been taken up with great energy. since israel occupies such a central role in jewish thought and self-identification for jews today, i am hard-pressed to think of a topic other than the significance of a jewish return to zion that would be more fruitful in bringing jews and christians together in serious dialogue today. the author deserves credit for raising this topic anew for our serious reflection. lux draws close to jewish theological sensibilities when he outlines the holy land as a sacrament of encounter and discusses a theology of presence that is a function not of history but of the living, personal human-divine encounter. for jews, incarnation cannot be literal, but it is no less theologically or spiritually powerful. jewish scriptures teach that god’s earthly dwelling is among the covenantal people of israel, for they are god’s earthly sanctuary: “let them make me a sanctuary that i may dwell among them” (ex 25:8). thus jews, too, have “a theology of presence” that is centered in the jewish homeland. whether literally or metaphorically, the land is the locus of god’s incarnation and ongoing life with his children. if it is in the land that a christian can sense and relate to god most intensely and where god is most present, as lux argues, then it is not unlike jewish holiness built around covenantal values and promises that are best fulfilled in the land. while jews do not talk of a “sacramental experience” (p. 60), this idea of holiness of the land deserves to resonate with theologically-sensitive jews. the book is slightly marred by occasional errors. for example, jerusalem is not islam’s most important city, but third behind mecca and medina (p. 67), and israel’s sinai campaign was not fought in 1955, but in 1956 (p. 108). however, these blemishes are minor compared to the book’s strong assets as a primer for the uninitiated and as a prophetic call for further theological reflection by jews and christians who have made the dialogue a central part of their spiritual life. on its finest level, richard lux’s the jewish people, the holy land, and the state of israel: a catholic view is an invitation. it is a gift that merits acceptance, and its challenge should be taken up and nurtured. let us hope that unlike parkes’ call, lux’s book finds receptive hearts and minds, and that it succeeds in raising our awareness of the high stakes both communities have in rethinking the jewish people, the holy land, and the state of israel. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review neta stahl other and brother: jesus in the 20 th century jewish literary landscape (oxford and new york: oxford university press, 2013), hardcover, x + 237 pp. barbara mann, jewish theological seminary neta stahl’s new book takes its place alongside recent work by matthew hoffman and daniel boyarin exploring reflections on jesus as a historical and symbolic figure in jewish thought and culture. her study offers an erudite and generally accessible analysis of key texts and authors, many of which are unavailable in english translation. the claim that “the figure of jesus embodied an internal jewish attempt to redefine jewish selfhood by reclaiming jesus for jewish nationalism” (p. 10) is borne out of close readings of 19 th -century hebrew texts in eastern europe, early 20 th -century yiddish writing in europe and the united states, and hebrew literature in the pre-state and post-1948 periods. stahl draws briefly on psychoanalytic and postcolonial models of self and other in her introductory pages, but the imported theoretical frame seems largely unnecessary, even redundant, given the razor-sharp insight brought to the topic by her literary interlocutors. it may come as a surprise to contemporary readers that jesus played such a lively and central role in the modernist literary jewish imagination, but, indeed, his appearance is ubiquitous across a wide variety of cultural discourses. different aspects of his life, especially his suffering, persecution and personal geography, provided important touchstones for jewish belle lettres. stahl’s study persuasively argues that the historical jesus is key for the modern jewish psyche. the first chapter lays the historical and cultural groundwork, exploring foundational texts such as joseph klausner’s jesus of nazareth: his life, times and teaching (hebrew, 1922) and studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) sholem asch’s the nazarene (originally written in yiddish but first published in english in 1939). klausner’s important distinction between christianity’s jesus and what he considered a more “authentic” historical jesus set the stage for later literary treatments. according to stahl, this distinction “was used to emphasize the dichotomy between christian persecutors and their jewish victim” (p. 33). modern yiddish writing such as lamed shapiro’s story “the cross” (1909) included references to the crucifixion within scenes of trauma and antisemitic violence. yet jesus was also a paragon of morality and strength for many hebrew writers and artists. devoted to depicting a modern, rehabilitated jew—a “new hebrew”—these writers were drawn to the realia of jesus’ depiction in the gospels. his physical travails within the palestinian landscape served as an example for the agricultural pioneers depicted in avraham shlonsky’s symbolist hebrew poetry in the 1920s. chapter two reviews the work of uri zvi grinberg, a complex figure whose lifelong dialogue with christian motifs spanned his yiddish writing in poland during world war i to his postholocaust hebrew writing in israel. his poem “uri tsvi in front of the cross inri” (yiddish, 1922), which appeared typographically in the shape of a cross (its image appears on the cover of stahl’s book), is perhaps the most provocative, if not the best-known, evocation of jesus by a modern jewish writer. the poem’s first-person voice (“i am wrapped up, brother jesus, wrapped up jewish skin and bones”), traces the distinction between “jesus’ lost jewish self and his identity as a christian idol” (p. 60). grinberg’s recuperative rescue of jesus for the messianic jewish imagination rivals that of his contemporary, marc chagall. both artists were interested in the creative tension produced through the act of imaginatively inhabiting what was for many jews the ultimate other. chapter three surveys the figure of jesus in israeli literature. unlike their european predecessors, israeli hebrew writers approached the figure of jesus with little ambivalence. though they, too, were drawn to his life, according to stahl, as emblematic of “the long-suffering other,” this estrangement took studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr another form: “this alterity of jesus is the otherness of those who are different—nonconformists—and in many poems the artists themselves” (p. 125). these native, largely secular writers had little truck with the potential stigma and antisemitism often associated with christianity for european jewish writers. in their works, jesus appears as an apocryphal, almost fantastical character in the erotic, elliptical poems of yona wolloch, one of the most influential and polarizing figures in israeli culture. chapters four and five profile two european-born israeli writers, the novelist yoel hoffman and the poet avot yeshurun. while both are canonical figures, the difficulty of their work has rendered them largely marginal within the broader cultural arena. indeed, we may note (though stahl does not) the gradual diminishment of jesus as a figure of fascination for israeli writers, as other forms of cultural and ethnic difference came to preoccupy the israeli imagination, especially in the years following the 1973 war and later in the post-oslo period. the book’s epilogue is organized around the trope of irony, and stahl skips from a reading of toldot yeshu, a hebrew satiric text composed somewhere between the 3 rd and 7 th centuries—largely viewed as kind of “counter-history” to the gospels—to a selection of modern hebrew and yiddish texts which also mock or treat jesus’ suffering in ironic fashion. this concluding chapter reads as a lively reiteration of the book’s central themes, with a focus on irony and difference, as opposed to the sympathy and affinity expressed by the writers studied in the earlier chapters. despite its considerable virtues, this reviewer is troubled by the degree to which stahl’s book seems largely to conflate the category of jewishness (as in the “jewish literary landscape” of its title) with modern hebrew culture, especially, and israelijewish identity, eventually. to be fair, and as the book amply illustrates, the figure of jesus—his suffering, victimhood, and jewish roots—is of enormous importance to 20 th -century jewish culture, many of whose practitioners chose to write in hebrew and in yiddish. but what of those who did not? is there no comparable jesus in german-jewish writing (poetry by else studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 8 (2013) lasker shuler and paul celan comes to mind)? and what of the epic rendering of a jewish jesus in new york in henry roth’s call it sleep (1937)? or texts by alfred kazin and emma lazarus that also refer, obliquely or otherwise, to a jesus figure? stahl’s arguments concern one particular set of currents within modern jewish experience that culminated in the establishment of a national homeland. her arguments would only be further illuminated through comparison with other, equally characteristic, diasporic cultural forms. admittedly, that would be another book, one that would more faithfully and fully depict the “20 th century jewish literary landscape.” indeed, readers of stahl’s book may savor its insights, and their relevance for contemporary jewish-christian relations, but the landscape on display here consists of a very specific topography, a fascinating but limited slice of a more diverse geography. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr review devorah schoenfeld isaac on jewish & christian altars: polemic and exegesis in rashi and the glossa ordinaria (new york: fordham university press, 2013), hardcover, ix + 229. irven m. resnick, university of tennessee at chattanooga devorah schoenfeld’s brief book treats twelfth-century jewish and christian exegesis of a single biblical text, abraham’s nearsacrifice of his son isaac in genesis 22. for jewish interpretation of the text, she turns to rashi (d. 1106), the most influential medieval jewish bible exegete, whose commentaries shaped both later jewish and christian exegesis, including the work of the christian hebraists herbert of bosham, andrew of st. victor, and nicholas of lyra. the second representative text schoenfeld selects, in order to explore twelfth-century christian biblical interpretation, is the glossa ordinaria, which includes both marginal and interlinear glosses on the biblical text. compiled by anselm of laon, ralph of laon, and gilbert of auxerre, and based largely on earlier exegesis, the glossa continued to develop during the twelfth century; about the middle of the twelfth century, peter lombard framed his biblical exegesis as a continuation of the glossa. although rashi lived in a christian culture in northern france and was aware of some christian doctrines, schoenfeld acknowledges that “there is no evidence that rashi read latin or read christian biblical exegesis” (p. 4). similarly, the compilers of the glossa seem to have had no knowledge of hebrew and no direct access to jewish doctrines apart from those transmitted by patristic authors, such as jerome. consequently, schoenfeld does not attempt to demonstrate any direct influence between the two, but rather argues that “the similarities between them are based on their shared biblical studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) (and late antique) heritage and their common presuppositions about how to interpret scripture” (p. 4). she does strive to show, however, that these common presuppositions generated both literal and non-literal interpretations of genesis 22, grounded in medieval assumptions of “the unity of scripture and the multivocality of the divine word” (p. 7). despite their common exegetical methods, however, schoenfeld argues that each text reveals a polemical emphasis that surpasses its sources in order to defend the primacy of its own interpretation. for rashi, the near-sacrifice of isaac is intended to reveal the greatness of abraham and isaac to a non-jewish audience, namely to ishmael, satan, and the nations of the world. to do so, god sent abraham to the place of the future jerusalem temple, and abraham’s willingness to sacrifice isaac (and his actual sacrifice of a ram) anticipates both the temple sacrifices and post-temple jewish prayer and rituals that substitute for those sacrifices. in sum, “for rashi, the purpose of the nearsacrifice of isaac was to refute the claims of ‘others’ (including christians) to divine election, and to justify the election of israel” (p. 91). for the glossa, the near-sacrifice of isaac demonstrates the obedience of abraham, who understood its christological meaning, and the blindness of the jews, who did not. it foreshadows the atoning sacrifice in which jesus offers himself in the heavenly temple, and anticipates the eucharistic sacrifice presented daily on christian altars. schoenfeld concludes that despite heavy reliance on older exegetical sources, both rashi and the glossa manipulate and transform their sources based on exegetical trends specific to twelfth-century france. the glossa generates an anti-jewish polemical reading, while rashi, although he never mentions christianity, develops a polemical interpretation that is intended to undermine christian exegesis. his interpretation of genesis 22 seemingly reacts to the more violent atmosphere surrounding the first crusade, just as the (later) hebrew studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr crusade chroniclers will appeal to isaac’s near-sacrifice in order to justify contemporary jews who sacrificed themselves and their children (in an act of kiddush ha-shem) as proof that they are as worthy of god’s love as was abraham. the reader may question schoenfeld’s understanding of the term polemical, however. is rashi’s exegesis, which never explicitly identifies christians as its object, polemical simply because it proposes an interpretation of genesis 22 that defends the election of israel? in tone, rashi’s commentary is clearly different from the hebrew chronicles of the first crusade which employ extraordinarily harsh language against the christian crusaders, calling them the “uncircumcised,” followers of a dead god, and the enemies of the jews and the god of israel. is it enough that rashi understands the audience for genesis 22 to be “outside” israel, namely ishmael, satan, and the nations? schoenfeld might have clarified for her audience her understanding of polemic. another concern stems from the number of typographical errors in the text. in most cases, the reader can easily supply corrections. for example, on page 26, “polemical” is misspelled as “polemtical.” on page 30, schoenfeld twice omits the definite article: “and given school of laon’s own authorship of polemical literature…” and “these two commentaries do in fact interpret near-sacrifice of isaac polemically…” on page 117, she doubles the verb: “rashi gives both are equal space and their tests equal weight.” in other instances, errors appear in her transcriptions or translations that may prove puzzling. for example, on page 28 her translation of the glossa reads: “it must be feared that not you may receive not him, but another” whereas the latin text states: “it must be feared that you may receive not him, but another” (sed timendum est…ut non ipsum sed alium suscipiatis.) similarly, one finds an occasional error in the latin transcription: for example, explicatio spiritalis for explicatio spiritualis (p. 71). and, finally, sometimes her translation of the glossa appears to paraphrase rather than translate closely the latin (see pp. 83, 101, and 104). studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 8 (2013) despite these shortcomings, schoenfeld’s study deserves attention. scholars will very much appreciate the two appendices to the study: appendix a (pp. 124-63), which establishes a critical edition of the glossa ordinaria on genesis 22, and appendix b (pp. 164-73), which presents a hebrew edition that documents major manuscript variants in rashi’s commentary on genesis 22. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): gillis r1-2 lane, stepping stones to other religions gillis r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr dermot a. lane stepping stones to other religions: a christian theology of inter-religious dialogue (maryknoll, ny: orbis books, 2011), paperback, 328 pp. chester gillis, georgetown university dermot lane, president of mater dei institution at dublin city university, has provided a thorough reprise of interreligious theology while arguing for a pneumatological direction going forward. he demonstrates wide-ranging acquaintance with pertinent literature of the past fifty years or so, going back to bernard lonergan and karl rahner and citing david tracy, walter kasper, and gavin d’costa among many other contemporary theologians. this results in wideranging coverage of the terrain surrounding interreligious dialogue. the book is organized largely, but not exclusively, historically. after a brief examination of the contemporary situation that invites a new christian theology of other religions, lane takes the reader through the development of christian theology on interreligious dialogue. the uninitiated will learn why this area of theological development commands attention today, and the seasoned scholar will benefit from what can best be characterized as a growing chorus that calls for a spirit-based theology of dialogue. the theological roots of such dialogue originate in the documents of vatican ii, in particular, nostra aetate, that were fostered, especially with the jewish community, during the papacy of john paul ii, and then expanded largely to include islam under benedict xvi. before his papacy, benedict, in his work as the head of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith and in a pointed way in the congregation’s document dominus iesus (2000), narrowed the theological possibilities for catholics in dialogue with other religions by insisting on the preeminence of christianity among religions. the wide scope of theological terrain covered (theologians, church documents, and theologies) constitutes one of the virtues of this book. all of it, in one way or another, contributes to the thesis of the work that a spirit-grounded theology provides the most beneficial lens through which to view christianity’s relation to other religions. this will be familiar to veterans of interreligious dialogue and theology of religions since a number of contemporary theologians such as jacques dupuis, roger haight, and peter phan, each in varying ways, rely upon pneumatology to construct their theologies of religions. these theologians have also encountered resistance to their ideas from those who guard orthodoxy within the catholic church. lane works carefully to ground his understanding of pneumatological theology in the writings of influential thinkers within the tradition such as karl rahner, bernard lonergan, and yves congar. much of the book understandably depends upon the original insights of these theological luminaries. however, such reliance tends to temper lane’s own contribution to the complex issue of christianity’s relation to other religions. in a number of instances, the author is tentative about advancing his own thesis. for example, he writes: “these developments call for a renewed fundamental theology of the holy spirit—a task that is beyond the scope of this chapter” (p. 169); “the purpose of this chapter is not to answer these questions but to provide perspectives from review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): gillis r1-2 lane, stepping stones to other religions gillis r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr which we might address these questions” (p. 204); “without pretending to present a full-blown spirit christology, we will offer a sketch of the shape that a spirit christology might take in light of the above principles and that might enable christianity to enter into dialogue with other religions” (p. 249). the tentative nature of his position may simply be a humble acknowledgement that this complex theological terrain does not lend itself to simple solutions. it may also, however, signal a reluctance to proffer creative assertions that could invite unwelcome scrutiny from church officials who take it as their charge to preserve definitive christian theological claims when dealing with other competing claims, particularly about soteriology. even though lane’s contribution may be viewed as derivative, his book moves in the most promising direction for dialogue. pneumatology, coupled closely with a spirit-christology, provides a theological path for christians to affirm the legitimacy of other religions by acknowledging the spirit’s presence at creation, its identification within the jewish scriptures, and its promise for connections with other religions, without denying central tenets of christianity. lane’s voice joins a growing community of theologians that takes seriously the theological claims of christianity and respects the positions of other religions in relation to the transcendent and the role of all religions in attempting to offer consolation, hope, and healing. after all, what counts is not only what they believe but what they do, and lane, in the vein of paul knitter, is careful to attend to the effects of theologies and religions in the world. this book provides a useful historical summary of catholic theologies of religion. lane also favors a christian position that holds the most promise for the future of dialogue among religions. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): svartvik res1-12 svartvik, life on other planets svartvik res 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr what if there is life on other planets? reflections on kurt cardinal koch’s inaugural lecture jesper svartvik 1 , lund university and the swedish theological institute in jerusalem a response to cardinal kurt koch’s october 30, 2011 keynote address at seton hall university during the 10 th annual meeting of the council of centers on christian-jewish relations towards the end of 2011, the media reported on the recently discovered planet kepler 22b, where conditions were such that it was not beyond the realm of possibility that life might exist. when reading about this discovery, we find ourselves wondering: what if there is life on other planets? if the inhabitants are anything like us, what are their personalities, their history, their cultures, their religions, etc.? that there may be life on other planets is a staggering thought, but the opposite is also staggering: what if there is no life in the universe except here on our planet? what if we are completely alone in the entire universe? my thoughts went to the news about kepler 22b when invited to comment on kurt cardinal koch’s inaugural lecture on jewish-christian relations, given at seton hall university in south orange, new jersey: “theological questions and perspectives in jewish-catholic dialogue”. 2 needless to say, i am deeply honoured and most grateful for this opportunity to comment on his lecture in the journal studies in christian-jewish relations. due to considerations of space, i will have to limit myself to ten brief comments on his rich and thought-provoking lecture. it is impossible to address here the whole panoply of issues in his address. 1. jews and christians divided by a common language cardinal koch begins by pointing out the duality that characterizes jewish-christian relations: there is both nearness and distance, kinship and alienation, affection and loathing. jesus cannot be understood outside of second-temple judaism, and christianity cannot be understood without judaism. he points out that the schism between what we today call “judaism” and “christianity” actually took far longer to develop than the scholarly world previously assumed: the gradual parting of the ways probably extended over hundreds of years. he uses erich przywara’s helpful concept of “the primal rift” to describe the relationship, and it is an apt description. we find this discourse of gradual separation already in the new testament, e.g., in the gospel of john. 1 this is a translated and revised version of a public lecture given in the auditorium at lund university on december 16, 2011. heartfelt thanks are due to raymond cohen, tamara cohn eskenazi, göran larsson, inger nebel, michael swirsky, thaddeus umaru, and jakob wirén for stimulating conversations and helpful comments. in addition, i would also like to thank michael swirsky for correcting and improving my english. 2 the cardinal had previously given this lecture three days earlier, but in europe and in german. his lecture at seton hall university was the eighteenth annual monsignor john m. oesterreicher memorial lecture. response studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): svartvik res1-12 svartvik, life on other planets svartvik res 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr not surprisingly, the cardinal quotes john paul ii’s well-known address at the great synagogue in rome on april 13, 1986. in this speech the pope stated that the jewish faith tradition’s relation to christianity is not extrinsic but intrinsic; it does not come from outside but from within. differently expressed, with the help of a narrative, when christians come to the classroom to study interreligious relations and are preparing to invite a muslim, a hindu, a buddhist, and a jew for conversation, they suddenly realize that the jewish representative is already there, that he was there even before the christians entered the room, reading the holy texts of the christian tradition in the original hebrew. it remains imperative to recall the words of john paul ii on the dialogue: “with judaism we therefore have a relationship we do not have with any other religion.” at the same time, however, the jewish-christian relationship is always pointing beyond itself. the christian interreligious conversation starts there, but it does not end there. this is particularly apparent in the document “a sacred obligation: rethinking christian faith in relation to judaism and the jewish people,” published on september 1, 2002. its sixth paragraph reads: affirming god’s enduring covenant with the jewish people has consequences for christian understanding of salvation. christians meet god’s saving power in the person of jesus christ and believe that this power is available to all people in him. christians have therefore taught for centuries that salvation is available only through jesus christ. with their recent realization that god's covenant with the jewish people is eternal, christians can now recognize in the jewish tradition the redemptive power of god at work. if jews, who do not share our faith in christ, are in a saving covenant with god, then christians need new ways of understanding the universal significance of christ. 3 in other words, what would be the consequences for other interreligious relations if this notion were accepted in the jewish-christian encounter? there is more here than meets the eye, more at stake than we might at first think. even when the focus is on jewish-christian relations, we may also discern there—between the lines, so to speak—the attitude of the roman catholic church towards muslims, hindus, buddhists, and others. cardinal koch is responsible for innerchristian and jewish-christian relations. in spite of the fact that judaism is patently nonchristological in its hermeneutics, soteriology, and liturgy, it is almost seen as part of the ecumenical family. following george bernard shaw’s well-known quip about britain and america, we might say that jews and christians are two nations divided by a common language. 4 in a nutshell, it is the similarities that define the particularity. 2. the shoah and christendom no programmatic lecture on jewish-christian relations by a roman catholic cardinal can avoid the topic of the shoah. the fact that the shoah took place on the continent that more than any other has been influenced by christian teaching and preaching is the reason for the theological self-examination that christians throughout the world must undertake: what in christian nomenclature and doctrine may have contributed to the agonizing fact that, when the bells tolled, so many christians were lacking in common decency? 3 mary boys (ed.), seeing judaism anew: christianity’s sacred obligation (lanham et alii loci: rowman & littlefield, 2005), xvi. 4 the statement is attributed to a number of persons, e.g., oscar wilde, dylan thomas and bertrand russell. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): svartvik res1-12 svartvik, life on other planets svartvik res 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr already in the documents that deal with these issues—above all, i am here thinking of “we remember: a reflection on the shoah”, presented on march 16, 1998 by edward cardinal cassidy—we may identify three arguments in the roman catholic discourse: (a) first, nazism was a godless, anti-christian and neo-pagan movement. eventually, nazi hatred of jews and judaism would have turned against christianity in a similar way. cardinal koch refers to the diaries of goebbels that, he argues, show that hitler hated christianity as much as judaism. hitler saw catholicism as a trojan horse that had brought judaism in. (b) second, as is customary, cardinal koch distinguishes between christianity and christians, between the church, on the one hand, and the sons and daughters of the church, on the other. it should be made clear, however, that whenever the category “the sons and daughters of the church” is used in the discussion, it actually also includes the leaders of the church. they, too, are the sons of the church. it is, in fact, primarily from the pulpits, not by the men and women in the pew, that “the teaching of contempt” has been spread throughout the ages. there is a risk that the expression “the sons and daughters of the church” may lead us to think that it is only the laity who have been influenced by and have given vent to anti-jewish teaching. (c) the third point is the distinction between the racist antisemitism of nazism, on the one hand, and distinctively christian anti-judaism on the other. my own take on this is that since there are more than these two forms of what helen fein calls “a persisting latent structure of hostile beliefs towards jews as a collectivity,” we need to draw further distinctions. 5 nevertheless, we should also take into consideration the fact that the limpieza de sangre controversy in spain after 1492 took place in a christian context, not in a secular, post-christian, or anti-christian milieu. 6 hence, the distinction between antisemitism and anti-judaism should not be used as a basis for the claim that the roots of antisemitism are to be found exclusively outside of christendom. having presented these three points (i.e., the godlessness of nazism; the dichotomy of church versus the sons and daughters of the church, and the essential difference between antisemitism and anti-judaism), cardinal koch emphasizes that christians have every reason to remember how they encouraged and even participated in the terrible developments that culminated in the holocaust. he sees the shoah as a turning point in christian theological reflection, although we are not told what this change consisted of: it would have been most helpful if he had explained more clearly what parts of their discourse christians now felt a need to refine, redefine, and also refute. he concludes with what may seem like a daring idea: the fact that hitler was opposed to both christianity and judaism implies an “intrinsic relationship” between the two faith traditions. the question has to be posed, however, whether the rhetorical benefit of this statement is not outweighed by its theological costs. unfortunately, it is easy to get the impression that koch somehow equates jewish and christian suffering during the third reich era. by any standard, antisemitism played a far more central role in nazi ideology than the animus toward christianity. 7 5 helen fein, “dimensions of antisemitism: attitudes, collective accusations, and actions,” the persisting question: sociological perspectives and social contexts of modern antisemitism (ed. helen fein; berlin / new york: walter de gruyter, 1987), 67. 6 see, e.g., george m. fredrickson, racism: a short history (princeton: princeton university press, 2002), 32. 7 see, e.g., doris l. bergen, twisted cross: the german christian movement in the third reich (chapel hill / london: university of north carolina, 1996). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): svartvik res1-12 svartvik, life on other planets svartvik res 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr 3. liberal christianity and jewish-christian relations an important and helpful remark in koch’s presentation is that there are problems not only in what he calls the “traditionalist” theological context; liberal christians, too, need to reflect on the relationship between jesus and the people of jesus, between early christianity and contemporary second-temple judaism. liberals tend to use the tensions between jesus and some of his contemporaries as the basis for a critique of judaism itself, as a religion that weighs people down with ritual commandments, and that jesus freed men and women from these outdated and useless encumbrances. however, the cardinal’s point is weakened somewhat by his choice of words: unfortunately and remarkably, he describes the conflict as one between jesus and “the judaism of his days” [sic], which is not very far removed from the very dichotomy that he criticizes. nevertheless, he has an important point. far too often the essentially inner-christian selfcriticism of liberal christianity mutates into anti-jewish criticism, so that jesus’ historical context is presented as one of theological conflict. jesus is then deprived of his jewishness. he becomes a gentile in a foreign country, surrounded by hostile jews. ultimately, such a presentation of the protagonist in the new testament constitutes a threat to the christian doctrine of incarnation. leo baeck’s admonition is still valid: “man muss die juden kennen, wenn man das evangelium verstehen will.” 8 4. scriptural hermeneutics the cardinal also discusses how jews and christians interpret their holy scriptures. how do the two parts of the christian bible relate to each other? interestingly, he describes marcion’s theology using the images of the moon and the sun: the jewish moon is replaced by the christian sun. but is it really marcionism that is best described by the sun and moon metaphors? is it not rather anti-marcionite, mainstream christian theology that should be described thus? marcion’s understanding was that there actually was a jewish light but that it would be wrong to follow it. a more accurate metaphor for marcion’s view would be that the new testament is a lighthouse that may be relied on to guide ships at sea, while the light of the jewish scriptures must not be mistaken for a beacon. unlike the moon, it does not illuminate, but rather distracts and diverts us. going back to the cardinal’s sun-and-moon illustration, we need to keep in mind that it is not the moon itself that shines; it simply reflects light from the sun. intriguingly, his sun-and-moon analogy fits the supersessionist theology of the church fathers much more than the theology of marcion. a number of the patres would argue that it is christocentric hermeneutics that make the old testament worth reading. the latter is like the moon that shines at night only because it reflects the sun, i.e., the christ of the church. nonetheless, it is difficult to determine koch’s intention here. this picture, too, seems to detract more than it adds. after a discussion of traditional models for the relationship between the old and new testaments and between judaism and christianity, koch stresses that rabbinic judaism and christianity are both responses to the fall of the temple. referring to pope benedict xvi, he states that “two new ways of reading the old testament [emerged] after the year 70”—an important statement. he goes on to propose that jews and christians should initiate a dialogue on scriptural hermeneutics in order to better understand god’s word and god’s will. he refers to the text “the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible” and underlines what 8 leo baeck, harnacks vorlesungen über das wesen des christentums (breslau: koebner, 1902), 28. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): svartvik res1-12 svartvik, life on other planets svartvik res 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr has already been established there: “…the jewish reading of the bible is a possible one” and “…both [readings] are irreducible.” how, then, are the relations between the two faith communities and the two parts of the christian bible best understood? it is not, he says, a question of annulment or replacement, but rather of fulfillment. the obvious question is what this actually means: what does this particular consummatum est imply? is it not true that many christians mean annulment and replacement when they say fulfillment? can fulfillment really be imagined without some sort of annulment and/or replacement? what does fulfillment look like? what do christians mean when they use this term? and in what way does the sun-and-moon metaphor contribute to the discussion? this section of his lecture is one of the most constructive and helpful in the entire lecture, but there is nevertheless more to be said if we are to avoid what might be called a “comparative hermeneutics” in which one religious tradition is presented as fulfilling the other. 5. one people or two peoples? a central section of cardinal koch’s lecture is the discussion of the concept of god’s people: how should the jewish people and the christian church be described? is there one such people or two? he quotes with approval an article written by gregor maria hoff in the recently published anthology christ jesus and the jewish people: new explorations of theological interrelationships. hoff argues that judaism and christianity are “inseparable and distinct.” 9 those who know their church history instantly recognize that behind this expression lies the discussion of christ’s nature(s) at the council of chalcedon. the question of whether jews and christians are one people or two is answered by different groups in different ways. (a) is only the church god’s people? for a long time, this was the only conceivable answer for christians. although the cardinal quotes a protestant theologian, paul althaus, i would guess that he could have cited a roman catholic theologian as well, had he chosen to do so. indeed, one might argue that it would have been more appropriate in this context to quote someone from the roman catholic tradition. as we all know, christian supersessionism is hardly a late phenomenon and in no way an exclusively protestant one. (b) what if only israel is god’s people? this view is probably most common among christians who are strongly committed to the jewish people and also to the state of israel. the problem is that some of those who adhere to this position seem to be completely indifferent to the plight of their sisters and brothers in christ in the middle east. 10 i do not mean that christians should be committed only to christians, but the problem with this position becomes particularly apparent when christian pilgrims come to visit israel but not the palestinian territories and when they celebrate the jewish feast of tabernacles but do not worship with their christian sisters and 9 gregor maria hoff, “a realm of differences: the meaning of jewish monotheism for christology and trinitarian theology,” christ jesus and the jewish people today: new explorations of theological interrelationships (eds. philip a. cunningham et alii; grand rapids / cambridge: eerdmans, 2011), 218. 10 for a presentation of arab christians, see, e.g., kenneth cragg, the arab christian: a history in the middle east (london: mowbray, 1992) and betty jane bailey & j. martin bailey, who are the christians in the middle east? (grand rapids / cambridge: eerdmans, 2 nd ed. 2010). for the predicament of palestinian christians, see, e.g., rifat odeh kassis, kairos for palestine (ramallah: baydal/alternatives, 2011). see also jean corbon, “middle east,” a history of the ecumenical movement (eds. john briggs, mercy amba oduyoye & georges tsetsis; geneva: world council of churches, 2004), 591–608. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): svartvik res1-12 svartvik, life on other planets svartvik res 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr brothers. 11 i have a distressing feeling that the concept of “god’s people” contributes to this theological myopia. (c) is the answer, then, that there are two peoples of god, i.e., the jews and the christians? cardinal koch strongly emphasizes that there can only be one people. we will return to this point in the discussion below on soteriology. (d) since the people-of-god discourse is inherently problematical, i have in various contexts (e.g., a conference hosted by world council of churches in bern in 2008 and a consultation in istanbul in 2010, and also at the faith and order consultations in zürich in 2006 and in copenhagen in 2011, etc.) proposed that christians instead use the corpus christi discourse, i.e., that christians think of themselves as the visible presence of christ in this world. it is a metaphor with ancient roots (it can be found in some of the pauline epistles), it is christocentric (christ being the head), it encourages christians to celebrate diversity (we are likened to different parts of the body, members that are all needed in different ways), and it does not come at the expense of other religious communities (as there is no other faith community that thinks of itself and calls itself the corpus christi). 6. soteriological discourse soteriology is never far away in the jewish-christian dialogue—when christians have the floor. in his speech the cardinal maintains that god has never revoked the covenant with israel, a remarkable statement first made by john paul ii, probably in mainz in 1980, when he referred to: “… the people of god of the old covenant, which has never been revoked by god”. 12 nevertheless, the cardinal emphasizes that there cannot be two ways to salvation: the assumption that there may be two different paths to salvation…would in fact also endanger the foundations of christian faith. […] from the christian confession that there can be only one path to salvation; however, it does not in any way follow that the jews are excluded from god’s salvation because they do not believe in jesus christ as the messiah of israel and the son of god. […] that the jews are participants in god’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing christ explicitly is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery. he thus poses the question of how the two faith traditions are related to each other—and responds by referring to a divine mystery. one is inclined to ask whether more could not be said on this matter. it is easy to get the impression that koch is positive about the answer but disapproves of its rationale; that he appreciates the solution, but objects to the arguments supporting it. in a nutshell, he wants the gate to be unlocked, but he does not want the key to be used. the latter metaphor takes us to romans 9–11, which is certainly the key passage in the new testament for jewish-christian relations. this point is made by eugene j. fisher, among others, in his article on “nostra aetate” in a dictionary of jewish-christian relations. stressing the importance of this 1965 document, he states that “[i]t is easily the most significant document 11 for statistics, see, e.g., victoria clark, allies for armageddon: the rise of christian zionism (new haven / london: yale university press), 230. 12 see, e.g., norbert lohfink, the covenant never revoked: biblical reflections on christian-jewish dialogue (new york / mahwah: paulist press, 1991), 5. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): svartvik res1-12 svartvik, life on other planets svartvik res 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr concerning jewish-christian relations in church history since paul in romans 9–11.” 13 this statement by fisher says a lot about the tremendous importance both of the documents of the second vatican council and of the three chapters in the pauline epistle. the cardinal then refers to the pauline discussion of the romans, noting that paul ends the eleventh chapter with a doxology. krister stendahl often pointed out that the discourse of this doxology is theocentric; when paul in this paragraph, in what we argue is the key passage for jewish-christian relations, concludes by praising god, he does so with a non-christological doxology. 14 to what extent do we allow this observation to inform christian theology? does it tell us something about the direction we should take in seeking answers to these questions? cardinal koch also writes the following: the focus of jewish-christian conversations must therefore remain the highly complex theological questions of how the christian belief in the universal salvific significance of jesus christ can coherently be conceptually combined with the equally clear statement of faith in the never-revoked covenant of god with israel. but is the need for such a focus indisputable? is this really the only possible agenda for jewishchristian relations? what do jews think and say about this? are there not other issues to discuss as well? raymond cohen has pointed out that, strictly speaking, nostra aetate is not a dialogical document; it is an inner-christian text that seeks to distance the church from its own triumphalistic theology of earlier times. 15 i would therefore like to rephrase the cardinal’s statement: christian reflection should continue to focus on the highly complex theological questions of how christian belief in the universal salvific significance of jesus christ can cohere conceptually with an equally clear belief in the never-revoked covenant of god with israel. it is right and proper for christians to do such reflection—but it need not necessarily be on the agenda of jewish-christian dialogue. instead, jews and christian may discuss other important issues, e.g., jewish and christian scriptural hermeneutics, the question of how to be faithful to one’s vocation in a secular society, etc. 7. the issue of mission cardinal koch points out that the roman catholic church—in contrast to many other christian denominations—does not make organized efforts to convert jews to christianity. he refers to karl lehmann, who points out that even in the past there were few such catholic efforts. here the augustinian heritage is quite evident: there is a role for jews and judaism to play also post christum. 16 but having said this, the cardinal continues: …the christian church is obligated to perceive its evangelization task in respect of the jews, who believe in the one god, in a different manner from that to the nations. 13 eugene j. fisher, “nostra aetate,” a dictionary of jewish-christian relations (eds. edward kessler & neil wenborn; cambridge: cambridge university press, 2005), 320. 14 see, e.g., krister stendahl, final account: paul’s letter to the romans (minneapolis: fortress, 1995), 7: “… he wrote a doxology, the only doxology paul ever wrote in god-language, without any mention of christ or jesus.” 15 raymond cohen, “catholic-jewish reconciliation: from theology to diplomacy,” do i know you? religious stereotyping and interreligious relations (eds. jesper svartvik & jakob wirén; forthcoming 2012). 16 see, e.g., james carroll, constantine’s sword: the church and the jews (boston / new york: houghton mifflin, 2001), 208–219, and paula fredriksen, augustine and the jews: a christian defense of jews and judaism (new york: doubleday et alii loci, 2008). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): svartvik res1-12 svartvik, life on other planets svartvik res 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr in other words, christian faith means something different for jews than for others. in the language of john paul ii, this has to do with the intrinsic (as opposed to extrinsic) relationship between jews and christians: through their texts (the so-called “old testament”), tradition (church history), and trust (in the god who is revealed in these texts and in the tradition), jews and christians are forever united. however, the cardinal points out, catholics will not let this prevent them from testifying about their christian faith: …from bearing witness to their faith in jesus christ also to jews, but [they] should do so in a humble and unassuming manner, particularly in view of the great tragedy of the shoah… but he says nothing about how the shoah should influence—or even shape—the jewishchristian relationship. is it only a question of how to convey the message—or is it rather a question of reviewing the message itself, in order to make sure that it is “humble and unassuming”? if the latter answer is to be preferred, the work has only begun. i, for one, would have preferred that the cardinal be clearer in this passage of his lecture, because it has major implications. he could, for example, have referred to the advice given in 1 peter 3:15: “always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence.” there is a tremendous difference between, on one hand, responding when someone wants to know more about your faith and, on the other hand, providing answers even when questions have not been posed. 8. the cross as a sacrament of reconciliation towards the end of his lecture, cardinal koch discusses the cross, more in terms of what it symbolizes than as a historical event: because the cross of jesus christ has again and again in the course of christian history been misused as an anti-sign of hostility and hatred towards the jews by condemning them as deicides, christians today have every reason and a strict obligation to proclaim and testify also to the jews the cross of jesus as a sacrament of reconciliation. first of all, we need to keep in mind that there is no christian symbol that makes jews feel as uneasy as the cross, especially if it is a crucifix. 17 therefore, it is highly relevant to ask how the cross can serve as “a sacrament of reconciliation.” i often think of the pauline expression in 2 cor 5:19, where the apostle states that christians are called to proclaim “the word of reconciliation” (greek: ho logos tês katallagês). this is often translated as “the word about the reconciliation” (i.e., with an emphasis on the proclamation per se), but it could also be understood as “the word that is reconciliation,” the word that brings about and accomplishes reconciliation (i.e., with an emphasis on the outcome). in other words, in what way can christians promote reconciliation in this world? cardinal koch writes that the cross must be a sign and a tool for reconciliation in the world. it is easy to understand that it is a sign—for christians, that is—of reconciliation, but how will it become a tool for reconciliation with non-christians, especially jews? the sacramental discourse is exceptionally powerful, but it might not always be helpful when discussing the cross as a 17 see, e.g., ruth langer, “liturgy and sensory experience,” christianity in jewish terms (eds. tikva frymer-kensky et alii; boulder: westview, 2000), 193. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): svartvik res1-12 svartvik, life on other planets svartvik res 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr historical event or a symbol: the notion of a sacrament being effective ex opere operato can blind christians to the uneasiness that many jews feel when confronted, whether visually or theologically, with the cross. there is more to say here. suffice it now to state that much work remains to be done. 9. revelation and particularity finally, something ought to be said about the lecture’s concluding passage, which, in the view of the present writer, is the most important part of it: that even after a “complex and not infrequently painful” history reconciliation can be and indeed is possible, that is attested by the jewish-christian dialogue over the past decades, and this is a sign of hope for continuing the pilgrim fellowship of reconciliation in faith in the shechina of god in the torah and in the incarnation of god in jesus christ. the passage is significant in that: (a) it acknowledges that jewish-christian relations have historically been very bad; (b) it refers to the motif of pilgrimage (i.e., that we are all on our way); and most importantly, (c) it describes the religious other using the latter’s own nomenclature. in other words, koch allows the religious others to define themselves. to speak about “salvation in jesus” and to refer to pauline texts is and will remain important in christian discourse, but if we really want to understand the others and allow them to define themselves, we must describe them in ways that they themselves find recognizable. cardinal koch does this in an earlier passage in the article: if christian theology succeeds in credibly demonstrating that the incarnation of god in jesus of nazareth is to be understood as the culmination point and fulfilment of the selfrevealing god of holy scripture who turns towards the world, condescends into history and engages in it, jews for their part could perceive god’s self-exposition in bestowing the torah and in sending the shechina to the people of israel as anticipations of what the christian faith was to develop in the doctrine of the trinity. christians speak about the revelation that they know and have experienced, i.e., incarnational theology; jews talk about what is central to their belief, the torah. my own experience is that of all questions that we can pose in interreligious dialogue, there is none that generates trust as effectively as the following question: “according to your tradition, how does god reveal godself?” this is exactly what the cardinal does when he utilizes what i would like to call the dual theological epistemology to speak about the mystery of incarnation for christians and the shekhinah (i.e., the divine presence) in the torah for jews. in certain senses, jesus christ is to the christian church what the torah is to the jewish people. 18 it is in this context that the words of the johannine prologue should be understood: “the word…resided [greek: eskênôsen; “tabernacled”] among us, and we saw its glory…filled with mercy and truth.” the difference between jews and christians is not over the belief that the word is present among us human beings; the difference is that it is the torah that jews 18 a particular radical formulation is “just as early christian exegetes saw in christ god made flesh, so the rabbis conceived of the torah as the incarnation of the image of god,” see elliot r. wolfson, “judaism and incarnation: the imaginal body of god”, christianity in jewish terms (eds. tikva frymer-kensky et alii; boulder: westview, 2000), 247. see also norman lamm, torah lishmah: torah for torah’s sake in the works of rabbi hayyim of volozhin and his contemporaries (new york / hoboken: yeshiva university press / ktav, 1989), 103f.: “in that case, torah is a direct facet of god, and in it and through it one can experience god’s presence immediately and without interference. torah is then, in a sense, part of god himself rather than the product of his will …” studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): svartvik res1-12 svartvik, life on other planets svartvik res 10 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr spontaneously think of as the word. similarly, the talmudic statement dibra torah bilshon benei adam (“the torah speaks the language of human beings”) is intriguingly analogous to the statement that jesus of nazareth is totum verbum, sed non totum verbi. 19 the difference between the understanding of the torah and of jesus of nazareth should not obscure the fact that the two traditions—in this very sense—are both revelational. 20 it is true that there is no rabbinical dogma of divine presence that goes as far as the christological discourse within christianity, but there can be no doubt that both traditions proclaim that god reveals godself, and that god dwells (“tabernacles”) among us (see, e.g., ex 25:8). 10. continuing challenges finally, something ought to be said also about what eric greenberg calls “the continuing challenges facing catholic-jewish relations.” 21 (a) first, it would have been advantageous to hear more about the jewish perspective on the dialogue. it has already been mentioned that cardinal koch’s references to the shekhinah and the torah are helpful—they prove that he is eager to understand the other religious tradition—but he could have made this point in other ways as well, e.g., in his discussion of scriptural hermeneutics. to be sure, he refers to jacob neusner (presented as a rabbi, although to the scholarly world he is known as a distinguished professor), but neusner is hardly a leading practitioner of jewish-christian dialogue. the cardinal could have referred to jewish theologians who have as much, if not more, experience in the field of jewishchristian relations, e.g., edward kessler, ruth langer, michael signer, and deborah weissman. 22 (b) secondly, how is one’s own theology influenced by the presence of the other? cardinal koch describes jews and christians as thorns in each other’s sides, which is not a reference to the crucifixion (although some who have commented on his speech seem to be under that impression) but to a pauline statement in which he says he has “a thorn in the flesh” (2 cor 12:7). referring to the religious other as “a thorn in the flesh” (what paul calls “an angel of satan”) is certainly suggestive, especially given that its purpose is a positive one: “… to keep [paul]…from being made too haughty by the abundance of revelations [that he has received]”; but might there not be more conciliatory, enriching, or constructive metaphors to use? some kind of thorn tormented paul, but thanks to the grace of god it was possible for him to prevail over it. what good can such a metaphor do? is this really what we want to say about the religious other? is it only because of divine grace, which “…is sufficient for you, my power [being] made perfect in weakness,” that we are able to tolerate the religious other? 23 several metaphors are used in discussions of interreligious relations: is the religious other my enemy to be combated; an acquaintance, whom i greet when we meet a few times a year; a friend to whom i come in difficult times; or perhaps a relative, to whom i am forever related? the question is whether the sibling metaphor is the most accurate and viable one. siblings are related to each other because 19 nedarim 3a and christianismus et religiones i.5 (21). 20 see, e.g., carroll, constantine’s sword, 106: “how is god present to the world, not in the abstract but in the concrete, which is the only meaning ‘present’ can have? as a christian believer answers ‘in jesus,’ and a muslim ‘in the koran’ (not muhammad), so a jewish believer today might answer, ‘through torah.’ […] following a tradition that begins with the temple, all three religious impulses are incarnational” (italics added). 21 eric greenberg, “organizers defend cleric’s remarks” (http://njjewishnews.com/article/7031/interfaith-dialogue-hitsits-stride-on-second-day). 22 deborah weissman is the president of the international council of christians and jews. for the other three scholars, see, e.g., philip a. cunningham et alii, christ jesus and the jewish people today: new explorations of theological interrelationships (grand rapids / cambridge: eerdmans, 2011). 23 2 cor 12:9. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): svartvik res1-12 svartvik, life on other planets svartvik res 11 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr of their common origin: it is not the similarities per se that bring them together but the provenance. siblings are related in spite of possible differences and not because of similarities, as friends tend to be. 24 this was pointed out by kurt koch’s predecessor, walter cardinal kasper: “…[with nostra aetate] we catholics became aware with greater clarity that the faith of israel is that of our elder brothers…” 25 what can jews and christians learn from each other? cardinal koch writes that jews remind christians that the world has not yet been redeemed; they represent “the experience of [the] unredeemedness of the world.” this is, i would say, an important observation. however, this notion is also related to a motif that has played a major role in the negative christian perception of the jew. the yearning to address jews has had and still has an apocalyptic dimension. far too often in history, the emphasis has been on the unredeemedness of the jewish people. so what might christianity’s contribution to jewish thought be? unfortunately, cardinal koch’s next statement is not as helpful: on the other hand, where the christian church remains true to its divine mission, it is and remains a thorn in the flesh of judaism, in that it bears witness to the already bestowed reconciliation of god with mankind, without which there can be no well-founded hope for redemption. many who are involved in dialogue would hesitate to describe this as a fruitful approach. does he in fact mean that there is no future and no hope, even from a jewish perspective? we ought to ask ourselves whether there might not be an alternative position that could evoke what krister stendahl felicitously described as “holy envy,” i.e., a position that allows one to learn from other faith traditions. holy envy comes from the discovery of something positive and delightful in the other tradition, something that can be acknowledged without being appropriated, allowing it to remain the treasure of the other. for a christian this means a willingness to discern, recognize and celebrate something in another faith tradition without immediately baptizing it. 26 i think it would have been better if the starting-point were the relation to the nations of the world. jews understand judaism as the religion of and for the jewish people, as the covenant of god with the jewish people—but what are the consequences of this understanding for the nations, for the other peoples? how does the god of israel communicate with the peoples; what is it that god wants for and with the peoples? to pose these questions, i believe, would be a more fruitful approach. “if so, god would be bigger than we thought” when krister stendahl, the legendary harvard professor, dean of the harvard divinity school, and bishop of stockholm, passed away in 2008, many newspapers published extensive obituaries of him. in his article in the new york times, douglas martin referred to an interview on national public radio, broadcast in 1996, in which stendahl expressed hope that life existed on other planets. “if so”, he said, “god would be bigger than we thought.” this quotation says quite 24 see, e.g., jesper svartvik, “geschwisterlichkeit: realizing that we are siblings,” kirche und synagoge: ein votum aus luterischer sicht (ed. folker siegert; göttingen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2012), 315-330. 25 walter kasper, “address on the 37 th anniversary of nostra aetate” (http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/kasper_na37.htm). 26 see, e.g., yehezkel landau, “an interview with krister stendahl”, harvard divinity bulletin 35:1 (2007), 31. for the expression “to discern, recognize and celebrate,” see kasper, “address on the 37 th anniversary of nostra aetate.” studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): svartvik res1-12 svartvik, life on other planets svartvik res 12 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr a lot about stendahl’s personality and theology. it also says something about the challenge of the theology of religions. what if there is life on other planets? according to our theology, would god be “bigger” if there were genuine and vibrant spirituality in other religious traditions? few questions are more important to address than this one. the cardinal’s inaugural lecture poses significant questions and addresses important issues. i am most grateful for the invitation to comment on his stimulating and challenging text. i would also like to take this opportunity to wish him every success in his endeavors. to promote understanding and reconciliation between jews and christians is one the greatest imperatives in interreligious relations today. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): langer and spicer res1 langer and spicer, introduction langer and spicer res 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr editors’ introduction: koch symposium ruth langer and kevin spicer, csc editors’ introduction to responses to cardinal kurt koch’s october 30, 2011 keynote address at seton hall university during the 10 th annual meeting of the council of centers on christian-jewish relations on october 30, 2011, the council of centers on jewish-christian relations was privileged to welcome cardinal kurt koch, president of the commission of the holy see for religious relations with the jews, to its tenth annual meeting as its keynote speaker. this lecture was simultaneously the 18th annual monsignor john m. oesterreicher memorial lecture at seton hall university, the host of the meeting and cardinal koch’s first major discussion of catholicjewish relations since his appointment to his current position in july 2010. such an address by a leading prelate of the catholic church becomes a point of reference with some significant authority in the development of catholic teachings about jews and judaism and one to which those involved in catholic-jewish relations will look to inform their own teaching and writing. studies in christian-jewish relations, the journal of the council of centers, is grateful that cardinal koch agreed to publish his address here and to open a discussion of its contents in this context. our forum continues and deepens a dialogue that began in the evening after the cardinal’s address with members of the council of centers. we publish here the responses of six leading participants in today’s dialogue: two catholics, philip a. cunningham (st. joseph’s university, philadelphia, pa) and peter c. phan (georgetown university, washington, d.c.); two protestants, karla suomala (luther college, decorah, ia) and jesper svartvik (lund university, sweden; swedish theological institute in jerusalem, israel); and two jews, adam gregerman (institute for christian-jewish studies, baltimore, md) and eugene korn (center for jewishchristian understanding and cooperation, efrat, israel). discussion in october was naturally limited to first impressions, as only a few had seen the cardinal’s text in advance. however, cardinal koch’s address was and is a carefully crafted study of the state of the dialogue, complete with proposals for future pathways. our six respondents have read his talk carefully, parsing his language and offering helpful analyses of it. they have also accepted his invitation to dialogue, discussing his proposals and critiquing them. by publishing the cardinal’s talk here alongside these responses, we hope that such a symposium will serve as an incremental step forward in the catholic-jewish dialogue, a dialogue we look forward to continuing. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-3 david nirenberg neighboring faiths: christianity, islam, and judaism in the middle ages and today (chicago and london: university of chicago press, 2014), hardcover, v + 341 pp. hannah johnson hrj4@pitt.edu university of pittsburgh, pittsburgh, pa 15260 neighboring faiths is in the main an edited and reworked collection of previously published articles (only the introduction and chapter 4 are original to this volume), and the book shows some traces of this, despite those editorial interventions. chapter 1, titled “christendom and islam,” for example, was originally composed for an introductory collection, the cambridge history of christianity, and the careful exposition here still reads like what it is: a smart, sure-footed general overview offered by an expert teacher. because of this history behind the book’s composition, readers hoping for a work systematically constructed around the major terms listed in the title—christianity, islam, and judaism—may be somewhat disappointed by the comparatively less attention given to islam in these pages. however, the conceptual richness of the material more than justifies the decision to gather this work together in one volume. the arguments in the different chapters enter into productive dialogue with one another, resounding with shared concerns even when they do not precisely line up as different pieces of a single thesis, as chapters in a monograph typically do. in this context, the title should perhaps be imagined as a heuristic device, referencing the major terms that appear in these pages, certainly, but also signaling the book’s ambition to open up a more nuanced and wide-ranging analysis of what nirenberg calls the “coproduction” (p. 5, et passim) of religious identity between these different faith traditions, particularly in medieval iberia. with this term, nirenberg signals the importance of group identity formation in constant relation to neighboring communities, in which christians, muslims, and jews define their own identities through acts of measuring, distancing, and sometimes appropriating aspects of other communities’ formations. while nirenberg is not the first to explore this model of identity formation in relation to religious communities, he nevertheless offers a number of new insights regarding its historical functioning “on the ground,” particularly in his analysis of significant cultural shifts leading to some well-known developments, such as the emergence of the late medieval purity of blood statutes. johnson: david nirenberg’s neighboring faiths 2 the early chapters explore some of the complexities of inter-faith relations in medieval iberia. after his overview of christian-muslim relations, nirenberg explores anxieties and prohibitions concerning sexual relationships across religious lines. in “love between muslim and jew” (chapter 2), nirenberg considers these complex views of sexuality as they relate to inter-group politics and social relations. he illustrates how each community’s response to issues of sexual dalliance, conversion, and marriage was conditioned by its place in a complex religious hierarchy. this hierarchy itself was unstable, notably shifting, nirenberg argues, after the tumultuous events of the late fourteenth century described in later pages. in chapter 3, “deviant politics and jewish love: alfonso viii and the jewess of toledo,” nirenberg excavates the political resonances of accusations of “jew love” (p. 63) in medieval castile, where stories about a king’s jewish concubine could function as intricate political parables about proper governance, administration, and authority. the structural center of neighboring communities is arguably chapter 4, “massacre or miracle? valencia, 1391,” composed specifically for this volume, which functions as a lynchpin for arguments that come before and after it. nirenberg highlights the pivotal importance of that year, when massacres and mass conversions of jews in several iberian polities profoundly reshaped the religious landscape. using the example of valencia, nirenberg illuminates how king joan’s efforts to quell the violence and punish those who instigated it encountered significant challenges, as valencia’s city fathers framed the events as evidence of a “miraculous” intervention that trumped the king’s authority. like so many chapters in this volume, the argument here is nuanced in ways that resist brief summary. however, this piece emphasizes an essential theme explored in most of the remaining pages, as nirenberg writes that the aftermath of 1391 eventually “produce[d] a revolution in the social and theological understanding of what it meant to be christian” (p. 76). this is where nirenberg’s argument about the “coproduction” of identities shifts into high gear. in the following four chapters he examines specific moments in this process by which mass jewish conversions introduced both disorientation among christians about the boundaries of religious identity and a growing desire to reestablish those boundaries. these chapters cover considerable ground: post-1391 renegotiations of sexual and social boundaries called into question by conversions (chapter 5); the discourse of judaism and jewishness as an evolving poetic trope in the medieval canconiero, linked in complex ways to issues of both identity and some familiar dualities from christian theology (chapter 6); the emergence of a “genealogical turn” (p. 167) in the century after the mass conversions among old christians, new christians, and jews that recalibrated the relations between genealogy, status, and identity (chapter 7); and a reflection on the place of late medieval iberian history, with its preoccupations about blood and identity, in debates about the history of race (chapter 8). each of these chapters merits its own lengthy consideration. each is a thoughtful and even-handed re-examination of some received scholarly wisdoms as well as an argument on its own terms. collectively, these chapters paint a multi-faceted por 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) trait of evolving inter-group relations in late medieval iberia. there is nothing pre-ordained about this evolution, in nirenberg’s view, nor are these processes inexplicable. instead, through careful analysis and synthesis of an impressively wide field of evidence, nirenberg is able to engage with the specific contours of medieval iberian thinking across religious lines as concepts of identity evolve. he emphasizes how newly unsettled ideas about religious classification following the conversions of 1391 gradually yielded increasingly insistent efforts to assert and control those categories once more, using the tools of genealogy and legislation to these ends. readers of nirenberg’s previous works may see a certain continuity of emphasis in these pages on historical, local specificity and a refusal of a teleological view of inter-religious relations, in which early beginnings predict much later historical developments. there is a modest return to a certain “myth-busting” ethos in the final chapter (chapter 9), where nirenberg anatomizes two modern western modes of engagement with islam—exclusion and inclusion—that paradoxically reinforce broadly similar patterns of thought. here the book’s references to some continuing modern dilemmas of identity and relation, signaled many times, are most thoroughly developed. neighboring communities is the work of a mature and sophisticated scholar with much to teach us about some questions of religious identity and inter-group relations that continue to be relevant to our own tumultuous times. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): gregerman res1-13 gregerman, jewish theology and limits gregerman res 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr jewish theology and limits on reciprocity in catholic-jewish dialogue adam gregerman, institute for christian & jewish studies a response to cardinal kurt koch’s october 30, 2011 keynote address at seton hall university during the 10 th annual meeting of the council of centers on christian-jewish relations the catholic church, more than any other christian group or institution, has made a dramatic break with centuries of anti-judaism. it has persisted in revising its teachings despite enormously complex and fraught theological issues about god, christ, and salvation. cardinal kurt koch’s speech at seton hall university on october 30, 2011 continued this trajectory. he was theologically sophisticated, gracious, and also controversial. his speech, with its mix of unproblematic and also provocative claims, illustrates the difficult process by which catholics rethink their views about jews and judaism. importantly, he nobly commits himself and the church to improved interreligious relations, and his speech makes a valuable contribution to theological reflection on issues related to the ongoing legitimacy of the jewish covenant with god. however, he also presents some claims about judaism that are questionable and makes some requests of jews that will be met with reluctance and even judged unacceptable. in my response to his speech, i will first situate his statements in the context of earlier catholic statements about jews and judaism. i will highlight examples of both continuity and discontinuity and offer possible explanations for some of the distinctive claims he makes. i will then consider in more depth selected passages that contain important but controversial statements. these passages, i will argue, employ a reciprocal, dialogical format, and express requests to jews for some type of change in belief in response to catholic theological changes. these, i believe, are likely to meet with jewish resistance. however, i intend for my comments to be read not just as dissents but as opportunities for continuing reflection and learning. koch and earlier catholic statements on jews and judaism many of the claims in koch’s speech resemble those found in seminal catholic texts from the previous few decades. he often refers to or echoes vatican documents, such as nostra aetate 1 (1965) and notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church 2 (1985), and statements by the two most recent popes. the latter category is well-represented, in light of john paul ii’s and benedict xvi’s interest in these subjects and relatively frequent references to them in speeches and writings. not surprisingly, koch, as a representative of the church, emphasizes continuity with these earlier views. the touchstone of all post-shoah catholic reflection is the path-breaking nostra aetate. 1 http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostraaetate_en.html. 2 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jewsdocs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_jews-judaism_en.html. response studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): gregerman res1-13 gregerman, jewish theology and limits gregerman res 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr as a sign of a subtle evolution in recent catholic views of jews, the rejection of the accusation that the jews eternally bear responsibility for the crucifixion was an especially notable (and controversial) claim at vatican ii in the 1960s. however, it was only after some time that the brief remarks in nostra aetate about god’s continuing covenant with the jews, not the rejection of the deicide charge, took center stage. that trend is evident here as well. as a jew, i am of course pleased with the shift. while the deicide charge was scurrilous and often dangerous, topics such as covenant, election, and salvation are appropriate for serious and constructive reflection. for obvious reasons, they are also far more conducive to dialogue with jews. koch largely focuses on these topics, all of them premised on the church’s affirmation of the jewish covenant with god. i recognize with genuine sympathy the complexity of this inquiry. acceptance of the legitimacy of judaism has profound implications for catholic faith. in the words of mary boys, “once one pulls out the thread of supersessionism, it becomes necessary to reweave the entire cloth.” 3 while koch might not express the challenge so radically, in the first three sentences alone he notes three times (and many times afterward) just how “complex” his task is. likewise, he situates his response to the challenge in catholics’ experiences of living in “multi-religious” societies. rather than minimize the influence of “daily contact” between catholics and others, he recognizes that an encounter with diversity can be a healthy spur to new theological thinking. 4 prior to the theological reflections that comprise the bulk of the speech, koch wades into some contentious historical issues. he reiterates past catholic statements that originally provoked disagreement, especially regarding the shoah, but, importantly, adds sometimes oblique observations that seem to explain or mitigate them. (to his credit, in no case does he appear to ratchet up the controversy.) this mixed response is evident in a comparison of his statement with the highly controversial vatican document we remember: a reflection on the shoah 5 (1998). on the one hand, koch reinforces some of the divisive claims in we remember. just as in the document, he categorically denies any connection between christian anti-judaism and nazi antisemitism. the roots of the latter lie in anti-christian paganism that has “nothing in common with christianity.” stylistically, he employs some of the same awkward negative phraseology found in we remember: christians “did not display that vigour and clarity which one should by rights have expected,” and “not a few christians” held anti-jewish views. on the other hand, he subtly and constructively alters some earlier ideas. he says nothing about christian aid to persecuted jews, perhaps recognizing that the claim in we remember that “many” gave “every possible assistance to those being persecuted” was an overstatement. also, the 1998 text distanced the church and its leaders from nazi atrocities. for example, the guilty were “sons and daughters of the church,” never clergy or anti-jewish preachers. koch speaks 3 mary c. boys, "the nostra aetate trajectory: holding our theological bow differently," in never revoked: nostra aetate as ongoing challenge for jewish-christian dialogue, ed. marianne moyaert and didier pollefeyt (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 2010): 133-57, 133-34. 4 this view was recently expressed by two catholic theologians: “interreligious dialogue is therefore an important touchstone for every theological enterprise that considers religious others,” in philip a. cunningham and didier a. pollefeyt, "the triune one, the incarnate logos, and israel's covenantal life," in christ jesus and the jewish people today: new explorations of theological interrelationships, ed. philip a. cunningham, et al. (grand rapids, mi: william b. eerdmans, 2011): 183-201, 193-94. 5 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en. html. on the controversy over we remember, see kevin madigan, "a survey of jewish reaction to the vatican statement on the holocaust," in remembering for the future: the holocaust in an age of genocides, ed. john k. roth and elisabeth maxwell (new york: palgrave, 2001): 425-36. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): gregerman res1-13 gregerman, jewish theology and limits gregerman res 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr more inclusively about the failure of “us christians” to stop nazi atrocities. implicitly, he critiques the tendency to leave hard questions unanswered. we remember asked but did not answer the question, “did anti-jewish sentiment among christians” make them indifferent to jewish suffering? koch is more forthright: “anti-judaism had been in effect for centuries, fostering a widespread anti-semitic apathy against the jews” that abetted nazism. what was originally tentative is now declarative. admittedly, it is difficult to ascertain just how significant some of these sentences and phrases are; koch never openly signals any disagreement. however, the clear echoes of the earlier text suggest thoroughgoing familiarity with it and the likelihood that he is involved in an ongoing refinement of the church’s views. similarly, koch engages with benedict’s speech at auschwitz in 2006, sometimes affirming his claims, other times subtly modifying them or responding to negative reactions to them. 6 among the pope’s most controversial statements was that nazi hostility to the jews reflected a “desire to tear up the taproot of christian faith.” this statement, some critics said, placed christians on the side of the murdered jews and cast members of both religions as actual or potential victims of an irreligious ideology. 7 koch does not entirely disagree. he reinforces benedict’s broader argument, attacking secularism and a “heathen world view” that disdained theistic faith. he too thinks fault for these events lies with modern racist trends above all, which led to nazi anti-jewish violence and would have led to widespread “anti-christian” violence as well. however, he indicates his awareness that the speech was criticized for presenting christians as (potential) victims. referring to such criticism, he denies that benedict’s statement was intended to be “an evasion of the guilty complicity of christians.” rather, koch takes the idea of shared vulnerability in benedict’s speech in a different direction than benedict. benedict included a highly provocative reference to edith stein, a jewish convert to catholicism murdered as a jew in auschwitz. (she is the only jew he mentioned by name.) many jews and catholics were critical of the church’s designation of her as a martyr, for she was murdered as a jew. 8 benedict, however, rekindling memories of the dispute over stein as he spoke at this location, effaced the differences between the two religions and the different consequences for members of each under nazism, calling her both “a christian and a jew.” koch not only omits any mention of stein but draws on benedict’s speech to develop a different argument about the “shared patrimony” of the two faiths. he does not efface their distinctiveness, but affirms both a deep connection between them along with historical and theological separation. he stresses a theological unity, manifest in fidelity to shared scriptures and to the god of israel by jews and christians alike. he also grants the “divergence” between them, which contributed to mistrust and often hostility. this important argument, glimpsed in his discussion of auschwitz, reappears in various forms throughout the entire statement, though here it hints at a possible shift away from some of less palatable parts of benedict’s speech. more importantly, he signals his interest in exploring the nature of the connection between these two religious traditions. and it is this theme that will occupy koch for most of the remainder of his statement. 6 http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/may/documents/hf_benxvi_spe_20060528_auschwitz-birkenau_en.html. 7 see john l. allen, jr., "attempting to slay god was auschwitz's greatest evil, pope says," national catholic reporter, may 28, 2006; peter manseau, "catholics & the shoah: appropriating the suffering of others," commonweal, march 13, 2009. similar claims to benedict’s at auschwitz were expressed earlier in we remember: a reflection on the shoah. 8 a vatican statement on stein can be found at http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/saints/ns_lit_doc_19981011_edith_stein_en.html. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): gregerman res1-13 gregerman, jewish theology and limits gregerman res 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr koch’s reflections on judaism and requests to jews i next want to focus closely on three passages that reveal koch’s sophisticated reflections on “the elementary tension in the relationship of the two faith communities.” these passages, which already have prompted lively discussions among jews and catholics, are some of the most provocative and controversial in his speech. i have chosen them because they raise issues with great contemporary relevance to jewish-catholic relations generally. unlike the more numerous, less controversial passages, these impel us to grapple with unsettled and difficult issues. also, i have chosen them because they reveal a shift in the form of the reflections by church leaders. not only does koch report on the results of internal church discussions about jews to jews and others in these passages (as commonly happens in such statements), but he introduces a dialogical format that includes requests for a specific response from jews. however, i will argue that such theological reciprocity to koch’s requests is probably impossible because he makes some unacceptable demands of jews. also, the dialogical format is undermined by his posing questions that seem to emerge entirely from catholic theological concerns rather than from discussions with jews about issues important to both communities. nonetheless, the requests he makes in these passages offer fruitful opportunities for continuing jewish-catholic discussions. therefore, my critical evaluations should not obscure my deep appreciation for his contribution, and above all for his insistence on mutual respect and even love. this is surely a reciprocal obligation. quotation 1: “…jews could with regard to the abrahamic covenant arrive at the insight that israel without the church would be in danger of remaining too particularist. in this fundamental sense israel and the church remain bound up with one another according to the covenant and interdependent on one another” (part 2b). a prominent topic in koch’s statement, and in recent catholic statements about jews and judaism, is the abrahamic covenant. 9 koch affirms the centrality and eternality of the abrahamic covenant in jewish religious identity. such a covenant could not be broken, for god is faithful. koch also emphasizes the universal aspects of god’s promises to abraham and the patriarchs in order to ground christian faith, which extends beyond the bounds of israel to “all peoples,” in this foundational and shared biblical covenant. importantly, and not surprisingly, he argues that this expansion of faith to all was not accidental but “originally intended” by god when the abrahamic covenant was made. that is, the offer of faith in the god of israel to gentiles through christ is an inherent part of the abrahamic covenant from its inception. though he does not quote relevant verses in genesis (e.g., 12:3; 17:4-5; 28:14), he surely has in mind biblical references to the blessings of the nations and families of the world included in god’s promises to abraham and his descendants. 10 christian allusions to and citations of biblical passages that demonstrate divine solicitude for the nations are ubiquitous from the first century through the present. many refer to the promises to abraham to legitimate the emergence of a church not restricted by the boundaries of the people 9 e.g., the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible 28, 37; at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popoloebraico_en.html. 10 e.g., jewish people 54. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): gregerman res1-13 gregerman, jewish theology and limits gregerman res 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr of israel. 11 until the shoah, most christians read such texts as if god’s covenantal promises to the jews were canceled and transferred to believing christians. however, in the post-vatican ii church, such passages are no longer read as applying exclusively either to christians or to jews. koch exemplifies this recent and welcome trend, breaking with an older, zero-sum view of covenantal blessings. abraham “is not only the father of israel but also the father of the faith of christians,” he writes. the present tense (“is…the father”) is significant, making clear that his claim applies not only to jews in the pre-christian period but to jews who lived and live after jesus, up through the present. 12 even those jews who refused and refuse to believe that jesus was the promised messiah remain in this covenant. this argument, while breaking little new ground theologically, continues a salutary trend in catholic teachings about jews and judaism. i heartily welcome this affirmation. it fits with longstanding jewish theological claims about the enduring status of the covenant with abraham. it is especially important after a long and hostile christian supersessionist tradition. while there is more that could be said about his interpretation of the abrahamic theme, i want to focus on his conclusion (quoted above), for here he introduces a distinctive idea. in essence he asks: since the church affirms that god covenanted and covenants with the jewish people, might jews affirm a divine intention to spread faith in the god of israel to the nations and bring them into the abrahamic covenant through christianity? before considering the form of this claim—an implicit request to jews to “arrive at the insight” he offers—i want to explore the content of the argument he makes about this expansion of covenantal membership and the ways it rests upon a contrast between jewish particularism and christian universalism. koch alludes to traditional tropes about a lack or insufficiency in judaism that christianity remedies and about divine intentions that christianity fulfills. specifically, he posits a “particularistic” judaism that limits the expansion of the abrahamic promises to non-jews. without christianity, the original goal of the promises would be dashed. christianity is therefore a corrective to jewish exclusivism, bringing what god intended to its fruition. koch is undeniably correct to note restrictive elements in jewish interpretation of the covenant. jews traditionally defined the boundaries of their religious community in terms of descent from abraham. there are limits on religious membership, though these are not impermeable or biological; converts are acceptable. faith in the god of israel or the performance of moral actions, for example, do not alone suffice to bring a gentile into the covenant with abraham. with a very few possible exceptions, jews did not and do not missionize. the implications of these views, however, are not explored by koch, which obfuscates his claim that jewish particularism poses some type of (theological) “danger.” on the contrary, i believe jewish views of the covenant with abraham could just as easily be described as exceedingly welcoming to gentiles. traditionally, those outside the jewish community are not thereby cut off from god. for example, many jewish texts do not reflect a dualistic division of humanity into the saved (meaning jews in the covenant) and the damned (meaning 11 on the place of abraham in these promises, see jeffrey s. siker, disinheriting the jews: abraham in early christian controversy (louisville, ky: westminster / john knox, 1991). 12 this follows similar statements in notes on the correct way 33. despite this statement, however, it should be noted that koch gives very little attention to post-jesus judaism. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): gregerman res1-13 gregerman, jewish theology and limits gregerman res 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr gentiles outside the covenant), with the latter categorically deserving of divine punishment. 13 jews, without having reason to worry about the dreadful fate that awaits gentiles, lack any motivation to bring gentiles into the covenant community. this undermines the idea that jewish particularism regarding the covenant with abraham poses some unspecified kind of “danger.” 14 rather, a prominent idea in jewish thought, already in biblical and rabbinic texts, sees “particularism” (perhaps better, chosenness or election) without any negative implications for the unchosen. from a jewish perspective, there is no harm to gentiles in a restrictive understanding of the abrahamic covenant; perhaps the blessings to the nations could be mediated in other ways. 15 koch, however, uses a specifically christian standard to evaluate the abrahamic covenant in judaism: does the covenant allow for the full inclusion of gentiles into the contemporary religious community? it is this standard he uses to judge the boundaries a religious community sets up between insiders and outsiders. by this explicitly christian standard, judaism is judged wanting, for it does not have provisions for incorporating gentiles as gentiles. unlike christianity, jewish particularism undermines the intrinsic universality of the abrahamic promise that was intended from the start. after first stating the problem of the non-universality of judaism, he therefore presents christianity as a solution to this problem. that is, the first claim leads to the second claim, that christianity accomplishes this goal: through the church the abrahamic covenant “has obtained that universality for all peoples which was of course originally intended.” yet without a supposed problem of jewish particularity, there would be no need for any solution, let alone a specifically christian one. therefore, i would argue that koch moves from solution (christian universalism) to problem (jewish particularism). 16 this makes sense if one accepts his theological assumptions, but it is not an intrinsic failing of judaism. though i am questioning the grounds upon which koch makes his critique, i want to consider his argument sympathetically. he is not constructing an anti-jewish polemic. on the contrary, in general he wants to affirm judaism and christianity. his overriding goal is to include gentile believers in the covenantal community, an idea found as early as paul (rom 4; gal 3 17 ) and central to much subsequent christian theology. it is more problematic, however, when he does this comparatively, by suggesting that such a goal was unobtainable by an alternative, i.e., jewish, approach. he wants to demonstrate the unique contribution, indeed necessity of christianity. through faith in christ gentiles are brought into the abrahamic covenant. judaism, by contrast, did not and does not include gentiles, and is judged deficient by this standard. again, jews could accept this description, for jews do not share this generic goal (let alone its specifically 13 with some exceptions, such as the idolatrous canaanites; see joel s. kaminsky, yet i loved jacob: reclaiming the biblical concept of election (nashville: abingdon, 2007). 14 one could also question whether christianity, which traditionally makes salvation available to all universally who affirm a particular faith claim, does not enshrine an alternate form of particularism of its own. 15 for example, in jewish texts as far back as the second temple period we find discussions of very minimal standards for righteous gentiles in the so-called noahide laws; important recent studies on jewish attitudes toward gentiles include alan brill, judaism and other religions: models of understanding (new york: palgrave macmillan, 2010); terence l. donaldson, judaism and the gentiles: jewish patterns of universalism (to 135 ce) (waco, tx: baylor university press, 2008). 16 i allude to e. p. sanders’ famous description of paul as moving from “plight” to “solution” in paul’s assessment of judaism, in e. p. sanders, paul and palestinian judaism: a comparison of patterns of religion (minneapolis: fortress, 1977), 482. 17 siker, disinheriting the jews: 28-76. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): gregerman res1-13 gregerman, jewish theology and limits gregerman res 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr christian fulfillment). it is therefore accurate to note that judaism is in his words “particularistic.” however, it is only according to his non-jewish, christian standard that this is a deficiency. 18 to demonstrate the correctness of christianity, then, koch relies on a comparative approach. if judaism were not particularistic, christianity might then simply be superfluous. i appreciate that he faces a serious challenge of both affirming judaism generally while criticizing those specific aspects of judaism that christianity broke with or changed. christian claims that clash with judaism require explanation. he does not say both approaches are correct. aware of the importance of including gentiles in the covenant, koch implies that christianity fulfills god’s will. it is therefore troubling that koch presents his views in the form of an implicit request to jews. at the conclusion of his discussion, the statement almost imperceptibly takes on a different format and becomes, we might say, dialogical. he puts this in terms of a question: if jews recognize this more restrictive description of jewish views of the abrahamic covenant, can they next “arrive at the insight” that “the church” is the means for remedying this lack or insufficiency? he subtly but profoundly shifts away from just presenting a report about catholic reflection on the abrahamic covenant and, as noted, asks jews to agree with his interpretations of both judaism and the essential role of the church. this is an unreasonable expectation. jews would have to accept his unflattering portrayal of “particularistic” judaism. jews would also have to accept koch’s uniquely christian assumptions about the church’s role in fulfilling biblical promises to the nations. i do not want to deny that some jews have praised christianity for bringing knowledge of the one god to the gentiles. 19 however, koch’s claim goes far beyond this. after asking something of christians (that they recall their rootedness in the abrahamic covenant), he makes a reciprocal demand of jews (that they recognize that their own view of the covenant might undermine god’s universal purpose “for all peoples”). koch’s favorable statements about judaism co-exist uneasily with a model of reciprocity that unfortunately is not jewishly acceptable or genuinely dialogical. it rests on christian assumptions and appears to have been developed without substantive interaction with jewish sources or scholars. (both would have challenged his views.) i am pleased that koch repeatedly affirms the legitimacy of judaism and, in this case, the unrevoked covenant between god and israel. yet he asks that this undeniably generous catholic view of jewish self-understanding likewise be met by a generous jewish view of catholic self-understanding. that is, the first and no doubt central part of his argument about god’s faithfulness to the jews is linked directly (“by the same token”) to a reciprocal demand on them. to his credit, he does not hint that a jewish refusal to accept his “insight” imperils their present covenant with god. however, he lays out this inherent contrast in approaches to the salvation of the gentiles to argue that christianity, not judaism, achieves what god intended. therefore i would suggest that the claim that universalistic christianity transcends particularistic judaism should not be followed by the implicit question: do jews agree? 18 on imprecise and often polemic uses of the terms “universalistic” and “particularistic,” see anders runesson, "particularistic judaism and universalistic christianity? some critical remarks on terminology and theology," journal of greco-roman christianity and judaism 1 (2000): 120-44. 19 see brill, judaism and other religions: 63-98; abraham joshua heschel, "no religion is an island," in no religion is an island: abraham joshua heschel and interreligious dialogue, ed. harold kasimow and byron l. sherwin (maryknoll, ny: orbis, 1991): 3-22. see also philip a. cunningham, "no religion is an island: catholic and jewish theologies of each other," modern judaism 29 (2009): 27-33. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): gregerman res1-13 gregerman, jewish theology and limits gregerman res 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr quotation 2: “if christian theology succeeds in credibly demonstrating that the incarnation of god in jesus of nazareth is to be understood as the culmination point and fulfillment of the selfrevealing god of holy scripture who turns towards the world, condescends into history and engages in it, jews for their part could perceive god’s self-exposition in bestowing the torah and in sending the shechina to the people of israel as anticipations of what the christian faith was to develop in the doctrine of the trinity. in the light of this, jews and christians could at least live in mutual respect for one another, or more precisely in respect for the fact that on the one hand jews, on the basis of their own faith convictions, cannot possibly read the old testament other than in the expectation of the unknown one who is to come; and that on the other hand christians, on the foundation of the common abrahamic faith, live and testify their faith conviction that the one whose coming is awaited by the jews will be identical with the christ whom they believe as the one who has already come” (part 3). in part 3, on monotheism and trinitarianism, koch argues that the appearance of discontinuity between christianity and the hebrew bible (and jewish interpretations of it) does not trump continuity and thereby leave christianity unmoored (a la marcion). rather, christian interpretations are fundamentally rooted in these biblical traditions. claims about jesus are not a revelation of a “new concept of god.” therefore, christianity should not be seen as the “betrayal, but as the critical modification of jewish monotheism” and fulfillment of the biblical promises. though he says that jews have long denied “the christian doctrine of the trinity” and that this divides the two communities, he nonetheless insists that such denial does not sever jesus, and claims made about him, from his biblical and jewish roots. this effort to find a balance between recognizing discontinuity and disagreement while affirming underlying continuity is not itself remarkable. it reflects a traditional christian conviction that the hebrew bible offers a genuine witness to jesus, despite differences from (and historically disputes over) the ways it is read by jews. for both religions, the stakes are high, for these disputes center on the nature of god and god’s involvement with humanity. koch is also aware of a long history of polemics between jews and christians about christology and trinitarianism. christians frequently claimed that the bible clearly indicates later trinitarian ideas but that jews were too stubborn or blind to see this. early defenders of trinitarianism (as far back as the first few centuries ce) used passages from the hebrew bible as evidence for multiple persons in the godhead. 20 traditional christian denunciations of the jews for failing to understand or accept trinitarian claims have been purged from liturgy and educational resources in most catholic and (western) protestant churches. most prominently, in the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible (2001), the pontifical biblical commission, reflecting the catholic church’s acceptance of historical-critical and literary-critical scholarship, 21 critiqued “excesses of the allegorical method” in pre-modern eisegesis upon which some trinitarian arguments were based. such arguments include those that jews found unpersuasive. this modern shift does not, however, mean that the commission, or the church, rejects any biblical witness to the trinity, or to 20 e.g., justin, dialogue with trypho 56; tertullian, against praxeas 31; see ellen t. charry, "the doctrine of god in jewish-christian dialogue," in oxford handbook of the trinity, ed. gilles emery and matthew levering (oxford and new york: oxford university press, 2011): 559-72. 21 this is not a new idea. endorsement of some of the methods of academic historical-critical study of the bible is usually dated to the 1943 encyclical divinio afflante spiritu. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): gregerman res1-13 gregerman, jewish theology and limits gregerman res 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr christian theological claims based on the hebrew bible generally. rather, the commission affirms as legitimate the discovery of a “potentiality of meaning” actually present in the hebrew bible. 22 this refers to an approach to biblical texts that, even “opaquely,” uncovers “ternary [i.e., trinitarian] symbolism” eventually manifest with the coming of jesus. 23 in contrast to the first (criticized) approach of excessive allegorization, this second approach, the commission says, is valid in the church. for those with “christian eyes,” it is a type of “retrospective” recognition of a progressive revelation of christian truths actually present in scripture. this means that jews, who lack this perspective, should not be denounced for rejecting christian interpretations. 24 they cannot be expected to see “what has been proclaimed in the text” by christians. just as christians approach biblical texts with christian assumptions, jews, the commission declared, approach biblical texts with jewish assumptions and offer interpretations that are also “possible.” this is a path-breaking statement, reflecting a new tolerance for alternative interpretations without denying the truth of christian interpretations. in his discussion of monotheism and trinitarianism, koch partially neglects this awareness of the ways our assumptions shape our reading of scripture. in both content and form he steps back from recent demands made to accept jewish disagreements in this and other catholic documents and statements. instead, he presents his request that jews accede to at least some of the church’s interpretations. before looking at koch’s view it is helpful to consider another, slightly earlier response to the jewish “no” by koch’s predecessor at the pontifical council for promoting christian unity, cardinal walter kasper. he wrote, “the basis for dialogue must rather be the realization that jews and christians differ on these issues [i.e., christology and trinitarianism] and must respect and appreciate the other in their otherness.” 25 by comparison, koch, while not denying the disagreement, does not just note it or enjoin, like kasper, greater “understanding.” rather, he hopes that “[i]f christian theology succeeds in credibly demonstrating” the truth of trinitarian claims, it might spur a new understanding by jews of christian interpretations (parallel to christians’ new understanding of jewish claims). the linkage between christian claim and jewish response is explicit: christian arguments with credibility or believability—presumably according to some external or objective standard—require a reciprocal jewish response. as in the first passage considered above, the format of koch’s argument is striking. he shifts from reporting on catholic theological reflections about jews to requesting some type of theological response from jews. again assuming the persuasiveness of his argument, he tells jews what they can “perceive” about god’s activity. he tells jews how they can “read” the bible messianically. he clearly links his christian affirmation of the validity of jewish faith in a future redemption (an affirmation i welcome) with his expectation that jews affirm continuity between god’s “self-exposition” in the bible and the trinity (an expectation i of course do not welcome). while koch’s sentences are seldom short, we have a hint of the breadth of the claim he presents for a jewish response in a lengthy and detailed phrase: “…the incarnation of god in jesus of nazareth is to be understood as the culmination point and fulfillment of the self-revealing god of holy scripture who turns towards the world, condescends into history and engages in it…” it is vital that jews too might at least accept that he proves the biblical roots of this idea. the request is firm and clear. 22 jewish people 64. 23 jewish people 65. 24 jewish people 21-22. 25 walter cardinal kasper, "foreword," in christ jesus and the jewish people today: new explorations of theological interrelationships, ed. philip a. cunningham, et al. (grand rapids, mi: william b. eerdmans, 2011): x-xviii, xiii. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): gregerman res1-13 gregerman, jewish theology and limits gregerman res 10 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr koch’s request seems intended to buttress the legitimacy of his catholic claim of continuity between the hebrew bible and trinitarianism. this claim is strengthened if those with whom catholics share the bible (i.e., jews) at least affirm that later theological developments, above all the trinity, have their roots in scripture. he asks for a reciprocal response: jews “for their part” might respond to koch’s statements by affirming something quite dramatic and unprecedented as well about christianity. koch clearly does not believe he is asking jews to go too far. he believes he is only asking them to affirm what the bible says—that god’s actions in scripture are “anticipations” of the trinity—and not what he as a christian sees with “christian eyes” (to quote jewish people). while koch’s request reflects christian assumptions about the bible that he sees as given and incontestable (“credibl[e]”), it is equally unacceptable to jews. these assumptions are unavoidable, for they reflect our prior religious commitments, and therefore they color our interpretations. there is no objective or neutral perspective from which such claims can be evaluated. 26 my dissent to his claims reflects my jewish assumptions that the tanakh does not foreshadow the trinity. while i would not criticize christians’ reading with “christian eyes,” he displays a lack of awareness that he is doing so by turning to the jewish community for a reciprocal and positive response to a christian interpretation. in light of his insistence on cultivating mutual respect between religions—manifest in his affirmation of the legitimacy of jewish messianic hopes—jews cannot but seem ungracious by refusing to agree with him. this is a difficult position for jews to be put in. quotation 3: “in this mutual respect jews and christians can each fulfill a reciprocal service toward the respective faiths of the other. where it remains true to its divine calling, judaism is and remains a thorn in the flesh of christians, in that it calls christians to remember the experience of unredeemedness of the world, as franz rosenzweig has expressly emphasized: ‘this existence of the jew constantly subjects christianity to the idea that it is not attaining the goal, the truth, that it ever remains—on the way’. on the other hand, where the christian church remains true to its divine mission, it is and remains a thorn in the flesh of judaism, in that it bears witness to the already bestowed reconciliation of god with mankind, without which there can be no well-founded hope for redemption. in this reciprocal service to the faith of the other judaism and christianity, synagogue and church remain inseparably bound to one another, as the reformed theologian jürgen moltmann expressed it in an abiding directive for jewish-christian conversation: ‘for the sake of the jew jesus there is no final separation of church and israel. for the sake of the gospel there is for the present also no fusion into the eschatological future. but there is the pilgrim fellowship of the hopeful’” (part 4). in his last section, koch continues to grapple with, among other things, the jewish “no” to christian theological claims. importantly, he also broadens this to include christians’ dissent from jewish theological claims. again, his approach is irenic: out of “mutual respect,” jews and christians should accept that they can disagree without this provoking conflict or hostility. as an alternative to past polemics, this is a tolerant model of religious interaction. it can even be constructive, he says, as each side can learn from the issues that divide them. still, the relationship remains an inherently conflictual and difficult one. koch vividly describes each side as a “thorn in the flesh” of the other, causing pain but also providing an opportunity for 26 cunningham and pollefeyt, "the triune one," 193. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): gregerman res1-13 gregerman, jewish theology and limits gregerman res 11 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr “reciprocal service” to the other. 27 in a phrase taken from rosenzweig, he sees the “existence of the jew” itself as a challenge to christian faith. 28 the theological problem caused by the inexplicable, continuing presence of judaism has a long history in christianity. the existence of jews after christ raised complex questions for supersessionist christians, who assumed that they would have converted or disappeared. 29 koch, to his credit, departs from the most negative formulation of the challenge of judaism. alongside his generic (and i would add unwelcome) reference to the idea of jewish existence as such as puzzling, he apparently has in mind more specifically jews’ expectation of a messianic age still to come. 30 the jewish conviction that the world remains “unredeemed” clashes with the christian claim that the eschatological fulfillment was inaugurated with the death and resurrection of jesus. koch believes the jewish conviction (expressed by rosenzweig) that “the goal…ever remains— on the way” can help to moderate a potentially excessive christian emphasis on redemption as having already occurred. that is, this eschatological tension between “already” and “not-yet” has historically sometimes tilted too much in favor of “already.” this distorts christian expectation about the final redemption at the return of christ. koch therefore welcomes the dissenting influence of jewish thought on this complex topic. though he does not say this, jews have a stake in this balance, for christians have often resented their refusal to recognize the dawning of a new age. 31 for jews as well, koch says, christianity posed and poses profound challenges. revealingly, koch ignores more common and mundane reasons that some jews paid attention to christianity, such as its stunning growth and acquisition of worldly power. he instead focuses on strictly theological issues such as redemption and eschatology. koch argues that, just as christians cannot but be challenged by jewish futuristic eschatologies, jews too are challenged by the christian conviction that in jesus humanity experiences the “already bestowed reconciliation of god.” the parallelism is explicit: each religious community is provoked by the other and encouraged to respond. however, the nature of the provocation, though ostensibly reciprocal, is very different, and, i believe, more serious and portentous for jews. as a counterpart to the jewish challenge to christianity noted above, koch says that, to the jews, “the christian church…bears witness to the already bestowed reconciliation of god with mankind.” this explicitly identifies the goal or benefit to humanity, “reconciliation,” and implicitly identifies the way it was achieved, through christ. koch could surely imagine no one else who “already” initiated this process. 32 christ’s saving work is universal, salvific, and (at least partly) accomplished. though koch earlier suggested 27 the phrase a “thorn in the flesh” presumably is intended to recall paul’s statement that “a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of satan to torment me, to keep me from being too elated” (2 cor 12:7). koch’s allusions to the quotation, with its references to satan and paul’s murky personal struggles, seem out of place in this context. 28 on rosenzweig’s views of jewish-christian dialogue, see leora batnitzky, "dialogue as judgment, not mutual affirmation: a new look at franz rosenzweig's dialogical philosophy," journal of religion 79 (1999): 523-44. in light of her persuasive interpretation, it is likely that rosenzweig would not support the use to which koch puts him. 29 for example, augustine famously sought an answer to the question (as phrased by paula fredriksen), “why does a provident god continue to guard jewish practice, jewish presence, jewish lives?” in paula fredriksen, augustine and the jews: a christian defense of jews and judaism (new york: doubleday, 2008), 371. 30 this may be a reference to jewish people 21: “jewish messianic expectation is not in vain.” 31 on the implications of this idea for jewish-christian relations, see john pawlikowski, christ in the light of the jewish-christian dialogue (ramsey, nj: paulist, 1982), 74; rosemary ruether, faith and fratricide: the theological roots of anti-semitism (minneapolis: seabury and winston, 1974), 244-45. 32 there is an echo here of rom 8:18-24, esp. vv. 22-24, a passage that uses similar language and also reflects intense eschatological tensions. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): gregerman res1-13 gregerman, jewish theology and limits gregerman res 12 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr that jews and christians could, in a sense, agree to disagree, the christian “thorn” is really about a fundamental soteriological claim. this is a highly problematic request to jews, undermining the sense of agreeable disagreement. koch casts the christian “thorn” to the jews as a non-negotiable theological claim about “redemption” in christ. the jewish “no” cannot but be a rejection of that which is unquestionably necessary. unlike the salutary reminder the jewish “thorn” offers to christians, here the stakes to the jews of the christian “thorn” could not be higher, for without this reconciliation in christ, koch says, “there can be no well-founded hope for redemption.” though seemingly offering a parallel request to the one jews make to christians, koch asks jews to accept not just an eschatology that is “already” but the christian content of that eschatology (for koch can have no one but jesus in mind). jews inevitably would refuse to accept this, undermining the possibility of reciprocity. for christians, the jewish “thorn” is a welcome reminder of that which they should not neglect: that eschatological expectations need to remain in balance, an idea already present in the christian tradition. it contains no implication that they are wrong. for jews, however, the christian “thorn” about the salvific gifts of jesus for all mankind could never be granted, and yet refusal risks misunderstanding, if not jeopardizing, “redemption.” while members of both faiths can offer “reciprocal service” to each other, jews face a sharper implicit critique and a stronger demand than christians. in light of earlier statements that jews need not believe in christ in order to be saved, koch here seems not to make salvation contingent upon acceptance of christ’s role in redeeming all of humanity. however, it does appear that he would welcome jewish recognition of this without their actual conversion. (the different between these two is not explored.) while there is “truth” in the jewish challenge to christians—a truth christians could grant without much difficulty—there is theological necessity in the christian challenge to jews. “redemption,” koch says authoritatively, is possible in this—christian—way alone. i do not think it is reciprocity to encourage christians to become better christians, and to encourage jews to accept christian claims about christ. conclusion reciprocity has an obvious and genuine appeal. the term has positive associations of mutuality. it suggests openness to change and new realizations in response to dialogue with and awareness of the views of the other. koch certainly means to use it this way, repeatedly linking it with “understanding” and “mutual respect.” these are noble goals, though they can also entail potential costs. a problem arises when the costs are too high or the requests are unrealistic. koch puts jews in a difficult position of either failing to reciprocate or breaking with central jewish religious convictions. at the risk of seeming ungracious, i choose the former rather than the latter, for i am unwilling to heed some of his requests. this is disappointing to me, as i would like to respond as favorably as possible, especially in light of his (and the catholic church’s) remarkable changes in teachings about jews and judaism. fortunately, i believe the problem is not with reciprocity per se but is limited to the content of koch’s requests. i expected a more accurate assessment of the possibilities for reciprocity than koch seems to have considered, at least on these most contentious issues. furthermore, i expected more awareness that jews and christians enter the dialogue from different starting points, with different histories, and with different interests. koch, as a catholic, speaks of an “irreducible uniqueness” in the jewish-christian relationship. he says he cannot but grapple with this tension between connection (e.g., shared scripture, fidelity to one god) and division (e.g., historical separation, disagreement about christ). jews, of course, see things differently. for obvious reasons, jews traditionally have less interest in grappling theologically with studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): gregerman res1-13 gregerman, jewish theology and limits gregerman res 13 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr christianity. 33 jews’ willingness to accept proposals for changes therefore differs from christians’ willingness. jews too have serious and constructive theological questions about christianity, though a deep sense of spiritual kinship is more strongly and unavoidably felt by christians. there is also an imbalance in the depth of the changes that koch proposes. the requests koch makes in the passages above, are, i believe, less threatening to core christian convictions than his requests that jews accept some of his claims about christ. on the other hand, koch’s requests for reciprocity should not only be seen negatively. his boldness in making such requests reflects a sense of comfort and trust. speaking to an audience that includes jews (literally and figuratively), he says clearly both what is important to him as a catholic and what he hopes for from his jewish “brothers” (and sisters). he speaks forthrightly and without rancor, and expresses himself with care and warmth. that i as a jew ultimately deem some of his requests unacceptable does not close the door but rather opens it further. i do not think he would disagree. there remain valuable opportunities for future dialogue, as koch, speaking in a generous and dialogic spirit, says as well: “jewish-christian dialogue over the past decades…is a sign of hope for continuing the pilgrim fellowship of reconciliation in faith.” none of my critiques should invalidate this type of discussion. expressions of hope that one’s dialogue partner might be changed by the process or see one’s views more sympathetically are appropriate and reasonable. 34 i welcome the profound challenge christian theologians have offered jews to rethink jewish views of others, for example. from numerous christian colleagues and friends i have movingly heard of the desire to be seen by jews as more than generic noahides. their deep sense of connection to the god of israel, found in koch’s speech as well, raises important questions about the nature of the jewish covenant. this request, though almost never put in reciprocal terms, nonetheless appropriately reflects a sense that christian views of jews and judaism have changed dramatically, and that jews might reconsider their own views. reciprocity is not a demand (and never a threat), but a reflection of a healthy relationship open to change. it is a dialogue worth continuing, as koch says, and improving. [acknowledgments: i want to thank rosann catalano, phil cunningham, celia deutsch, and christopher leighton for their valuable feedback and observations about the issues raised by cardinal koch’s presentation.] 33 on this difference as it relates to jewish-catholic relations, see the recent discussion in jon d. levenson, "can catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?," studies in christian-jewish relations 1 (2005): 170-85, 184. 34 on this issue i dissent from the far more restrictive view of rabbi joseph soloveitchik, who wrote before many of the dramatic changes in jewish-christian relations. he opposed interreligious dialogue for, among other reasons, a concern that members of one group would demand changes in the beliefs of another. the temptation was, in his words, to make requests to “trade favors pertaining to fundamental matters of faith,” which he thought were especially dangerous for a weak jewish “community of the few” facing an aggressive “community of the many.” see joseph b. soloveitchik, "confrontation," tradition 6 (1964): 5-29, 25. i want to thank phil cunningham for his insights on this topic. the death of jesus harris, the book of leviticus interpreted as jewish community harris 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college the book of leviticus interpreted as jewish community 1 r ober t a. h ar r is j e w i s h t h e o l o g i c a l s e m i n a r y volume 6 (2011) http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr 1 i humbly dedicate this article to the beloved memory of michael signer, בטוב תלין נפשו. i delivered an earlier version to the ―society for the study of the bible in the middle ages,‖ an organization to which michael introduced me, at the international medieval congress in kalamazoo, michigan, in may, 2009. i am grateful to my teacher, professor edward l. greenstein, who read a subsequent draft; his valuable suggestions greatly improved the final version. i also wish to express thanks to the anonymous readers whose critique challenged me to better prepare this article for publication. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): harris 1-15 harris, the book of leviticus interpreted as jewish community harris 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr in 2001, john van engen published an essay entitled "ralph of flaix: the book of leviticus interpreted as christian community.‖ in van engen‘s words, ralph‘s voluminous commentary, composed and published in the mid-twelfth century, aimed at ―refuting jewish arguments‖ about leviticus and the nature of the levitical law, particularly as these jewish arguments might influence young christian clerics who were ―fascinated and troubled by a close reading of the biblical text.‖ 2 van engen portrays ralph as facing a christian monastic community that was no longer satisfied with patristic florilegia and early medieval commentaries on leviticus that offered ―christocentric‖ or moralistic interpretations but did not offer a systemic accounting of this ―old testament‖ book that made sense for the community as christian scripture. moreover, ralph‘s community was well-aware that their jewish neighbors did read leviticus, a mostly legal book, as central to their own sense of self-expression—and this posed a significant challenge to young and generally uneducated christian clerics who might otherwise be influenced or even persuaded by jewish arguments. thus, ralph set out to provide a thorough and comprehensive commentary that would take account of and refute jewish interpretations, and enable christians to incorporate leviticus into their own sense of community through identification with scripture. as van engen understands it: jews claimed, as ralph heard it, to keep faith with and submit themselves to biblical law. 3 that resonated for 2 john van engen, "ralph of flaix: the book of leviticus interpreted as christian community," in michael a signer, and john van engen (eds.), jews and christians in twelfth-century europe (notre dame, indiana: university of notre dame press, 2001), 159. for an earlier study of this commentary, see beryl smalley, "ralph of flaix on leviticus," recherches de theologie ancienne et medievale 35 (1968): 35-82.; see also beryl smalley, "an early 12th century commentary on leviticus," recherches de theologie ancienne et medievale 36 (1969): pp. 78–99. 3 van engen refers his readers at this point to his note 15, p. 167. him in a double sense: it was an assertion both that they rightly understood and kept levitical law, and that they enjoyed god‘s unique sanction for their ―law,‖ their community practices. 4 in my opinion, van engen has interpreted jewish attitudes correctly: from antiquity through the middle ages and into modern times, jews have claimed that their observance of the specific injunctions and precepts of the torah (as interpreted by the rabbinic sages, as we shall see) represent nothing less than the unbroken covenant that the people of israel have enjoyed with god since the revelation on mount sinai. jews have maintained this belief about leviticus as much as about any other section of the torah, despite the book‘s large number of commandments and practices relating to the (destroyed) temple, such as sacrifices and purity laws. this essay will examine the ways that three medieval rabbinic commentaries on leviticus show evidence for this interaction, those of rashi (d. 1105), rashbam (1085–c.1174) and r. joseph bekhor shor (mid–to–late 12th century). rashi demands our attention, not only because of the excellence of his commentary and because it represents the earliest northern french expression of the role leviticus played in the study-life of the jewish community, but also because of the pervasive influence it had on all medieval (and modern) jewish exegetes. rashbam, rashi‘s grandson, represents the pinnacle of northern french rabbinic commentaries devoted exclusively to peshat, or ―contextual,‖ approaches to biblical literature. bekhor shor, perhaps a student of rashbam but most assuredly a disciple of rashbam‘s younger brother (r. jacob, known as ―rabbenu tam‖), represents the latest expression of northern french peshat exegesis whose authorship is undisputed. (there is a body of anonymous exegesis produced by jewish 4 van engen, 152. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): harris 1-15 harris, the book of leviticus interpreted as jewish community harris 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr commentators in the 13th century, whose work will not be considered here.) examining the ―close reading‖ through which these three exegetes interpreted specific biblical texts will enable us to determine whether or not the rabbinic exegetes presented what might be considered as ―the book of leviticus interpreted as jewish community‖ and as such conveyed what may have been the types of arguments with which ralph was in conversation. please note, however, that i am not attempting to demonstrate a direct correspondence between specific jewish and christian exegetes, nor am i claiming that such a one-toone relationship existed. what the evidence indicates—in both van engen‘s article and my own—is that the content and form of 12th century jewish and christian biblical exegesis bespeak a type of conversation among those using the literary genre of ―commentary writing,‖ and that it is possible to gain an understanding of the contours of that conversation through analysis of the commentaries they wrote. 5 before beginning, however, we must offer a caveat. it 5 it is, of course, also possible (and perhaps more straightforward) to gain an insight into the nature of the ―conversation‖ through examination of the more overtly ―polemical literature‖ written by both jews and christians in the high middle ages. however, we would do well to remember that the distinction between ―exegetical‖ and ―polemical‖ literature may be more of a modern distinction than medieval. with that caveat in mind, see gilbert dahan, the christian polemic against the jews in the middle ages (notre dame, indiana: university of notre dame press, 1998); david berger, "mission to the jews and jewish-christian contacts in the polemical literature of the high middle ages," the american historical review 91:3 (1986): 576–91; avraham grossman, "the jewish-christian polemic and jewish biblical exegesis in twelfth century france (on the attitude of r. joseph qara to polemic) [hebrew]," zion 51:1 (1986): 29–60; idem, "the commentary of rashi on psalms and the jewish-christian polemic [hebrew]," in studies in bible and education presented to professor moshe ahrend, ed. dov rappel (jerusalem: touro college, 1996), 59–74; sara japhet, "exegesis and polemic in rashbam's commentary on the song of songs," in jewish biblical interpretation and cultural exchange: comparative exegesis in context, ed. natalie dohrmann and david stern (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2008), 182-95, 304-310 (notes). would seem unnecessary to demonstrate that the book of leviticus could be ―interpreted as jewish community.‖ any law of leviticus that still figures as the source for rabbinic halakha (post-biblical jewish law) would of course be ―interpreted as jewish community‖—and there are dozens of halakhot, jewish legal practices, based on leviticus! whether one considers the honored central position that the book occupies in the torah, or its pride of place as the first text taught to jewish children according to traditional rabbinic lore, 6 it could well be argued that the answer is so obviously ―yes‖ that any effort to demonstrate it would be beside the point. however, what we are interested in is not a demonstration of ―leviticus as jewish community‖ in the abstract, but in the polemical dialogue that existed between jews and christians in the 12th century. in other words, in what ways might medieval jewish exegetes have advanced arguments in their commentaries that were intended to sustain the jewish community in their observances and belief structures against the increasing tide of christian hegemony? 7 to what degree were 6 see leviticus rabba 7:3; in mordecai margulies, midrash wayyikra rabbah: a critical edition based on manuscripts and genizah fragments with variants and notes (new york and jerusalem: the maxwell abbell publication fund; the jewish theological seminary, 1993), i:156. for an english translation, see harry freedman and maurice simon, midrash rabbah (london, soncino press: 1961), iii, 95. for further information about this rabbinic source, see jacob neusner, judaism and scripture: the evidence of leviticus rabbah (chicago studies in the history of judaism. chicago: university of chicago press, 1986). 7 the growing aggressiveness of the church in establishing its own prerogatives was manifested between the 10th–13th centuries not only against the jews and judaism but also within european christendom and against its foreign opponents. for example, the long struggle over investiture spanned many years and only ceased in a manner of speaking with the concordat of worms (1122); the first formal inquisition was established to fight heresy within the catholic church in 1184; and beginning in 1096 and continuing for centuries a series of crusades were launched both against muslims and eastern christians. however, certainly by the 12th century if not earlier, eustudies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): harris 1-15 harris, the book of leviticus interpreted as jewish community harris 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr rabbinic exegetes responding to christian claims that threatened jewish ownership of the meaning of scripture and/or countered the positive nature of god‘s continued, covenantal relationship with the jewish people? michael signer addressed these issues in his article that appeared with van engen‘s in their co-edited volume. 8 most of the specific comments that signer adduced were rashi's initial glosses to each of the torah‘s five books. 9 let us, therefore, begin with a review of rashi‘s comment on leviticus 1:1: : לכל דברות ולכל אמירות ולכל ציוויים ויקרא אל משה קדמה קריאה, לשון חיבה, לשון שמלאכי השרת . אבל לנביאי וקרא זה אל זהמשתמשין בו, שנאמר: אומות העולם נגלה עליהן בלשון עראי, בלשון טומאה, .ויקר אלהים אל בלעםשנאמר: and he called to moses: for all speech-acts and for all sayings and for all commands, 10 a rope was at least nominally and institutionally christian; only the jews remained as ―hold outs‖ against a europe that came to consider itself ―christendom.‖ it is only natural that during this period we see redoubled christian efforts to convert the jews, and this aggressiveness is to be seen both in such trends as the establishment of the mendicant orders (particularly the dominicans) and eventually in the adoption of strategies of trials, disputations, and other practices of the 13th century and beyond that further marginalized and ultimately demonized the jewish people. see, e.g., dominique iogna-prat, order & exclusion : cluny and christendom face heresy, judaism, and islam (1000-1150). conjunctions of religion & power in the medieval past (ithaca: cornell university press, 2002). 8 michael a signer, "god's love for israel: apologetic and hermeneutical strategies in twelfth-century biblical exegesis," in jews and christians in twelfth century europe, ed. michael a signer, and john van engen (notre dame: university of notre dame press, 2001), 123–149. 9 i have treated these comments, and others, in my article, "rashi‘s introductions to his biblical commentaries," in shai le-sara japhet: studies in the bible, its exegesis and its language, ed. moshe bar-asher et al. (jerusalem: the bialik institute, 2007), 219*–41*. 10 the hebrew term here is not the familiar mitzvot, ―commands,‖ but, curious―calling‖ came first, the language of affection, the language which the ministering angels use, as it is said: and one called to another (isaiah 6:3). but with regard to the gentile prophets, god is revealed to them in the language of happenstance and defilement, as it is said: and god happened [to appear] to balaam (numbers 23:4; see also 23:16). 11 in this comment, rashi understands god‘s ―calling‖ to moses (hebrew root א-ר-ק ) to self-evidently connote god‘s affection for the jewish people. rashi bases this on earlier midrashic use of scriptural prooftexts. 12 however, as rashi interprets this, the opening verse of leviticus contains an additional polemical aspect. it contrasts god‘s loving call to israelite prophets (here, moses), to god‘s call to gentile prophets, which he associates with ritual defilement. when god makes god‘s own self manifest to balaam, the torah apparently employs the root י-ר-ק , meaning, ―to happen [to do something],‖ a verb that the rabbis use to refer to the ritual impurity of nocturnal sexual ly, tzivuyyim, literally ―commandings.‖ 11 for a different translation of this text, see michael a signer, "god's love for israel: apologetic and hermeneutical strategies in twelfth-century biblical exegesis," 13. my convention for the citation of rabbinic texts is to present the biblical text that the exegete is glossing in bold-faced type; the commentary itself in regular font; and any biblical verses cited by the commentator in italics. 12 see my, ―rashi‘s introductions,‖ shai le=sara japhet, 299–300. there, 299, n. 27, i point out that in this example, rashi adopts the term לשון חיבה, ―(this is) affectionate language‖ from its midrashic context in lev. rab. 2:8 (where it expounds the word ―man‖ in leviticus 1:2) and applies it instead to the significance of god‘s ―calling out‖ to moses before ―speaking‖ to him in leviticus 1:1, which he has learned from sifra. of course, the ancient rabbis made a connection between the verb א-ר-ק and the idea of affection in other contexts, as well; see the discussion in betsal'el mayani, et al., pentateuch, with rashi hashalem (jerusalem: ariel united israel institutes, 1986), 4:2–5, nn. 1–2. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): harris 1-15 harris, the book of leviticus interpreted as jewish community harris 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr emissions. 13 perhaps the term may as well be understood to have connotations of ―hostility‖ or ―disloyalty,‖ as the biblical hebrew noun קרי is found repeatedly with those meanings in such texts as leviticus 26. signer indicates that the significance of rashi‘s citation of numbers 23:4 is even more ―pointed towards disparaging christianity, since balaam (the speaker in the verse) was often utilized by the rabbis as a cipher for jesus.‖ 14 thus, rashi has guided his readers towards considering leviticus as an example of god‘s continued loving kindness towards israel and simultaneously of god‘s disparagement of a gentile nation that — especially if signer‘s inference is on the right track — considers its ―prophetic‖ understanding of scripture to be primary. another verse has long been considered to contain teaching central to at least a large section of the book of leviticus. since antiquity, rabbinic sages had approached leviticus 19 as containing, like the decalogue, the central principles of judaism. 15 in his brief comment on leviticus 19:2 ( בֵּר דַּ דֹוש ֲאנִי ה יּו ִכי קָּ ִֹּשים ִתהְּ ד תָּ ֲאלֵֶּהם קְּ רְּ ל וְָּאמַּ אֵּ רָּ נֵּי־יִשְּ ת בְּ ’ ֶאל־כָּל־ֲעדַּ יֶכם -speak to the entire community of the children of isra― ,ֱאֹלהֵּ el, and say to them: you shall be holy, for i, the lord your god, am holy‖), rashi pithily reflects that ancient understanding: 13 see rashi on numbers 23:4. there, concerning the biblical expression ויקר, ―(god) encountered (balaam),‖ he comments: לשון גנאי לשון טומאת קרי, ―(this is) the language of disgrace, the language of the impurity of a sexual discharge…‖ 14 signer (2001), 137. there, signer cites judith reesa baskin, pharaoh's counsellors: job, jethro, and balaam in rabbinic and patristic tradition, brown judaic studies; no. 47 (chico, calif: scholars press, 1983) as his source. 15 e.g., see r. aqiba‘s celebrated claim that leviticus 19:8 (―you should love your neighbor as yourself‖) contained ―the great principle of the torah‖; sifra, ad. loc. see also y. ned.9:4; gen. rab. 24:7, and rashi, ad. loc. : מלמד שנאמרה פרשה זו דבר אל כל עדת בני ישראל ין בה.בהקהל, מפני שרוב גופי תורה תלוי speak to the whole assembly of the children of israel: this teaches us that this section was proclaimed in full assembly because most of the fundamental teachings of the torah are dependent on it. 16 the word rashi employs here (הקהל), that i have translated as ―in full assembly,‖ is actually a technical, rabbinic term. it refers to the biblically-ordained rite of reading the torah aloud once every seven years, during the time when the people are gathered at the temple during the fall sukkot festival. 17 like the ancient midrash, rashi wants to know why god did not simply instruct moses to convey god‘s instructions to בני ישראל, the ―children of israel‖; why did god elaborate by sending that moses should speak אל כל עדת בני ישראל, ―to the entire congregation of the children of israel.‖ rashi‘s answer, that this section of leviticus contains ―the fundamental teachings of the torah,‖ speaks to its importance not just with regard to what modern scholarship calls ―the holiness code‖ (i.e., leviticus 17–26), but to the entire five books of moses. leviticus rabbah, a classic rabbinic midrash, holds that leviticus 19 contains the essence of the decalogue—the only biblical ―commandments‖ viewed as still in force by the christian church. however, rashi prefers to up the ante, as it were, and cites sifre, a different midrash, that would have us understand that the chapter encompasses the entire torah. in particular, rashi states that the chapter was read aloud to the entire people, in solemn assembly, just as deuteronomy commanded vis-à-vis the entire torah. 18 the jewish community that rashi 16 or: ―contained in it.‖ see sifra; lev. r 24. 17 see deuteronomy 31:10–13. 18 for the assertion that leviticus 19 contains the essence of the decalogue, see r. levi‘s statement in leviticus rabbah 24:5. for the claim that the chapstudies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): harris 1-15 harris, the book of leviticus interpreted as jewish community harris 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr addressed confronted a christian church that functionally did not much value the five books of moses beyond the narratives of genesis and the so-called ―ten commandments.‖ 19 by connecting this passage to the sinai revelation in exodus, on the one hand, and to deuteronomy‘s command that israel read the whole torah, on the other, rashi emphasizes the continued, essential nature of leviticus and the entirety of torah in jewish perspective. similarly, rashi addresses the text of leviticus 25:1 (likewise part of the holiness code), with a famous rabbinic question that addresses the alleged anomalous nature of the verse: : מה ענין שמיטה אצל הר סיני? והלא כל המצות בהר סיני נאמרו מסיני? on mount sinai: for what reason is the sabbatical year mentioned specifically with regard to mount sinai? his answer affirms the significance of its message: קיה מסיני, אף כלן אלא מה שמיטה נאמרו כללותיה ודקדו נאמרו כללותיהן ודקדוקיהן מסיני; כך שנויה בת"כ. ונראה לי שכך פירושה: לפי שלא מצינו שמיטת קרקעות שנשנית ter encompasses not only that but the entire torah, see likewise leviticus rabbah 24:5 and sifra on leviticus 19:1; again, it is the latter midrash that rashi cites in his comment on the verse. 19 the term ―ten commandments‖ itself expresses an essentially christian and not a jewish idea, as though they are the only ones worth keeping, as opposed to the rabbinic understanding that the torah contains ―613 commandments.‖ we do well to remember that the rabbis called them not the ―ten commandments‖ but the עשרת הדברות, literally ―the ten words‖ (or statements/proclamations); this rabbinic hebrew phrase translates the biblical hebrew of such texts as exodus 34:28 (עשרת הדברים). thus, the term ―decalogue‖ (from the greek, deka logos, or ―ten words‖) is a more accurate english representation of the jewish understanding. בערבות מואב במשנה תורה, למדנו שכללותיה ופירושיה ופרטותיה כלן נאמרו מסיני, ובא הכתוב ולמד כאן על כל יהן ודקדוקיהן, דבור שנדבר למשה שמסיני היו כלם, כללות וחזרו ונשנו בערבות מואב. were not all of the commandments stated on sinai?! rather (the juxtaposition between the term "sabbatical year" and the words ―on mount sinai‖ teaches) that just as both the general rules and details of the sabbatical year were stated at sinai, so too were the general rules and details of all of the commandments stated at sinai. thus it was taught in sifra, 20 and it seems to me that this is its explanation: since we do not find that the sabbatical release of lands was repeated in the plains of moab, in deuteronomy (15:1–2), we learn that its general rules, explanations and details were all stated at sinai. and the text has come and taught here concerning all of the statements that were spoken to moses, that they were all from sinai, both generalities and details, and they were repeated and taught in the plains of moab. first, let us unpack this comment. the rabbinic question that rashi reiterates is why would the torah go out of its way to state that the law of the sabbatical year was given ―at mount sinai‖ when leviticus 1:1 already stated that the laws in the book were revealed in the tent of meeting—while israel was still at sinai. the israelites do not depart from mount sinai until numbers 10:11. moreover, leviticus concludes by stating that the laws contained in the book were revealed at mount sinai. 21 so what is the special significance of the mention of ―mount 20 sifra 1:1. 21 see leviticus 26:46 as well as the final verse of the book‘s ―appendix,‖ leviticus 27:34. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): harris 1-15 harris, the book of leviticus interpreted as jewish community harris 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr sinai‖ in leviticus 25:1? rashi‘s reply is rooted in the eighth of the rabbi ishmael‘s thirteen exegetical principles by which the torah may be expounded 22 : if anything included in a general proposition is made also the subject of a special statement, it is intended that what is thus predicated upon it shall apply also to everything included in the general proposition. what then is stated about the sabbatical year? that god spoke to moses on mount sinai giving him not alone its main provisions but also supplying their elaboration—presumably found in the oral torah that the rabbis considered was revealed to moses along with the written torah. if it is true about the sabbatical year, goes the rabbinic reasoning, so too must it be the case regarding all of the commandments. 23 lest we get lost amidst the trees, what is the ―forest‖ that we are seeking to find in this comment? here, rashi returns to a theme that he has emphasized elsewhere in his commentary. 24 where christian tradition holds that only the ten commandments, and the bible‘s ethical content, are still in effect, none of the ceremonial or ritual biblical commandments are still in force; certainly christianity would aver that none of the rabbinic traditions about biblical 22 see the ―baraita de-rabbi ishmael‖ with which sifra begins; louis finkelstein, sifra on leviticus (new york: the jewish theological seminary, 1983), ii, 3–4 (the midrashic illustration of the exegetical principles are found in the continuation, 5–9). 23 the remainder of rashi‘s comment addresses the complementary nature of leviticus 25 and deuteronomy 15:1–2: the first text teaches the sabbatical year regarding fields, whereas the second one teaches the sabbatical release of debts. 24 see also rashi‘s comment on exodus 21:1, where he similarly teaches that not just the ten commandments but all of the laws following exodus 20 (thus including virtually all of the torah‘s legal material), including their exposition in the oral torah, were all revealed by god to moses on mount sinai. see my fuller treatment of this text in the excursus to my article, "rashi‘s introductions to his biblical commentaries," 238*–241*. commandments were ever valid. rashi demonstrates that judaism (properly understood!) regards all of the torah‘s provisions—whether general or specific in nature, and whether directly of sinai origin (―written torah‖) or indirectly stated and understood by proper rabbinic authority (―oral torah‖)—as of continuing significance and binding. while it is true that rashi‘s claims are primarily theological and legal, it is nonetheless true as well that his comments point to social and communal implications, as the three comments we have examined thus far indicate. in his gloss on leviticus 1:1, rashi stressed what he considered to be the unique and loving relationship of god to israel, as contrasted with that between god and the gentile nations; at leviticus 19:1, rashi stressed that the verse—standing not only in the place of the decalogue but in essence for the entire torah— addressed the entire nation of israel in solemn assembly; on leviticus 25:1 rashi taught that all of the ―generalities and details‖ of the revelation at sinai covenant (constituting, in essence, the totality of rabbinic judaism) continued through their reiteration on the plains of moab and, by implication, up to and including rashi‘s own generation. all three insights (god‘s love for israel; the entirety of the nation being addressed by god; the comprehensive regimen of rabbinic ordinances supposed to be practiced by the community being nothing less than the continuation of the active covenant that originated at sinai) bespeak some of the most prominent hallmarks of jewish communal self-image throughout the middle ages and certainly in the jewish community of 12th century northern france. 25 25 see, e.g., salo wittmayer baron, a social and religious history of the jews (new york and london: columbia university press; philadelphia: the jewish publication society of america, 1965), v: 60–81. there baron writes (p. 80), ―within that jewish quarter jewish law reigned supreme… [jewish communal life] was hallowed by ancient custom and reinforced by legal sanctions which, everyone believed, were of divine origin.‖ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): harris 1-15 harris, the book of leviticus interpreted as jewish community harris 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr let us turn to one final comment that illuminates the broader issue of the role of leviticus in framing the jewish communal self-concept. it is found in an unlikely context, the laws concerning sacrifice in leviticus 2:13: בַּן מִ רְּ ָך בֶַּמלַּח וְּכָּל־קָּ תְּ נְּחָּ ִריב קְּ נְָּך תַּ בָּ רְּ ל כָּל־קָּ ֶתָך עַּ ל ִמנְּחָּ עַּ ח בְִּרית ֱאֹלֶהיָך מֵּ ִבית ֶמלַּ שְּ ח וְֹּלא תַּ לָּ ִתמְּ ;you shall season your every offering of meal with salt― ,ֶמלַּח you shall not omit from your meal offering the salt of your covenant with god; with all your offerings you must offer salt.‖ r. joseph bekhor shor, late in the 12th century, finds in this verse not only a rite of the ancient temple but also a very practical, reasonable requirement—and one that helps him establish the eternal and grand purpose of the commandments in connecting god and israel: : מלח דבר המתקיים, לפיכך צוה מלח ברית אלהיך ה להקריב במנחות ובקרבנות, להראות שהקרבנות ’’הקב ברית קיים לעולם לכפרה. וכבר פירשו כן, הכל יודעים כי ה אינו צריך לא לריח ולא לשום הקרבה, אלא לזכות ’’הקב ה צריך, אלא ’’וכן כל המצות אין הקב… בהם את ישראל ה ’’כמו שאמרו רבותינו: רצה הקב לזכות את ישראל, לזכות את ישראל, לפיכך הרבה להם תורה ומצות. the salt of your covenant with god: salt is a preservative, 26 therefore the holy one commanded to sacrifice grain and animal offerings with it, to demonstrate that the sacrifices (function as) an enduring, eternal covenant for atonement. and (the rabbis) have already explained (it) so: all know that the holy one requires neither aroma nor any type of sacrifice, but rather (has commanded the sacrifices) for the purposes of granting merit through them to israel… and so too all of the commandments, god does need them, but wants to grant merit to israel. this is as our rabbis have said: the holy 26 literally, ―salt is a thing that endures.‖ one wanted to grant merit to israel, therefore did he increase for them torah and commandments. it is hard to imagine a more direct response to christian claims that israel‘s covenant with god is no longer in effect. not only does torah stand over and above christ as the source of human ―merit,‖ but bekhor shor also finds an enduring role for the rites of the ancient sacrificial service, extrapolating from them to the enduring, continually practiced commandments. bekhor shor is, however, not speaking about the performance of the sacrificial rites which had not been practiced in his time for over a thousand years. he alludes to a concept that would be understood by any contemporary rabbinic jew. the understanding that the study of all of the precepts, even those no longer in effect (such as biblical laws of sacrifice), grants merit equal to the performance of the rites themselves shaped the ongoing practices of his community. 27 what he does state explicitly is even more important. israel receives merit for the performance of all torah commandments; the more commandments there are to perform (including the study of those, like sacrifices, no longer observed), the more merit israel can receive. bekhor shor‘s comment about ―the granting of merit‖ thus refers to an idea deeply rooted in rabbinic culture. 28 27 this idea is driven home in many rabbinic texts, e.g., lev. rabbah 7:3: אמר ה: הואיל ואתם מתעסקין בהן מעלה אני עליכם כאילו אתם מקריבין אותם“להם הקב , ―the holy one said to them (i.e., to israel): as long as you occupy yourselves in their study (i.e., the laws of sacrifice), i will consider it as though you have actually performed them.‖ indeed several rabbinic statements (e.g., m. peah 1:1; b. shabbat 127a) regarding the ultimate importance of torah study (over and above the performance of the commandments) are included in many rabbinic liturgies intended for daily recitation. 28 in the continuation of his comment (not cited above), bekhor shor specifies almsgiving as another commandment for which god grants merit to israel. a comprehensive presentation of the role of ―credit and debit terminology‖ for expressing ideas about ―sin‖ and ―merit,‖ as these terms are employed in biblical, post-biblical and rabbinic literature, is found throughout gary a. anderson, sin : a history (new haven: yale university press, 2009). see in studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): harris 1-15 harris, the book of leviticus interpreted as jewish community harris 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr having established the macro issues concerning the overall role of leviticus in the jewish construction of community (god‘s love for israel; the perception of a vibrant covenantal relationship with god, expressed through the practice of numerous laws and customs; that loyalty to this way of life was endowed with merit in god‘s eyes), especially insofar as these beliefs and practices radically differentiated the role the book occupied in judaism from that played in christianity, let us now turn to some of the micro issues where jews and christians dispute. for example, it is clear that biblical dietary laws in leviticus 11 and the elaboration of these in rabbinic literature provided one of the main cultural and religious distinctions between judaism and christianity. rashbam‘s comment on leviticus 11:3 may be taken as one example that highlights the polemical nature that the exegesis of this chapter conveyed to these two communities: ולפי פשוטו של מקרא ותשובת המינים: כל הבהמות … והחיות והעופות והדגים ומיני ארבה ושרצים שאסר ם את ה לישראל מאוסים הם, ומקלקלים ומחממי’’הקב הגוף, ולפיכך נקראו טמאים. ואף רופאים מובהקים אומרים כן. ואף בתלמוד: גוים שאוכלים ]שקצים[ ורמשים חביל גופייהו. …and according to the context of scripture and as a response to the christians: all of the beasts and animals 29 and fowl and fish and species of locust and crawling things that the holy one forbade to israel are disgusting, and destroy and heat up the body, and therefore are they called impure. moreover, even expert physicians say so. and even in the talmud (it is taught) gentiles who eat creepy crawling things—this heats up particular anderson‘s discussion beginning on p. 27 and 135–151. 29 it is possible that rashbam is making a distinction between domesticated animals and wild animals. their bodies. 30 the gist of rashbam‘s comment before this excerpt was to oppose rashi‘s interpretation of the nature of the split hoof that defines animals whose flesh is fit for israelite consumption. 31 but it is clear from the continuation that rashbam is aware of the christian critique of the continued jewish observance of these precepts. the operative indicator is the phrase תשובת ‖i have translated this as ―a response to the christians .המינים although in its original talmudic context the term מינים—which merely means ―types‖—probably meant ―heretic‖ (or even ―rebel‖). 32 by the 12th century, though, it was understood as a reference to christians. 33 rashbam, a good representative of 30 see, e.g., b shabbat 86b.. the hebrew root ל-ב-ח generally has the meaning ―to harm‖; in his glossing the verse with both םילקלקמו and םיממחמ, rashbam seems to want to have the word ליבח express a semantic range of both ―harm‖ and ―heat up.‖ for a consideration of how the talmudic sources influence our understanding of rashbam‘s comment, see martin i. lockshin, rashbam's commentary on leviticus and numbers: an annotated translation (providence: brown judaic studies, 2001), 60, n. 56. 31 see rashi‘s comment ad loc; for the dispute between the two, see lockshin (2001), 59, n. 52. 32 see shaye j.d. cohen, "the significance of yavneh: pharisees, rabbis and the end of jewish sectarianism," hebrew union college annual 55 (1984): 27-53. 33 there is a long history of attention to the medieval use of the phrase in contemporary scholarship. for an excellent summary, see mayer i. gruber, rashi's commentary on psalms (leiden-boston: brill, 2004), 179-180, n. 6. in addition to the sources cited by gruber, see avraham grossman, "the jewish-christian polemic and jewish biblical exegesis in twelfth century france (on the attitude of r. joseph qara to polemic) [hebrew]," zion 51:1 (1986): 29–60; idem., "the commentary of rashi on psalms and the jewishchristian polemic [hebrew]," in studies in bible and education presented to professor moshe ahrend, ed. dov rappel (jerusalem: touro college, 1996), 59–74. some older articles that still bear attention are: erwin rosenthal, "anti-christian polemic in medieval bible commentaries," journal of jewish studies 11 (1960): 115–35; judah rosenthal, "anti-christian polemics in the biblical commentaries of rashi," in studies and texts in jewish history, literature and religion (jerusalem: reuben maas, 1967), 101–116. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): harris 1-15 harris, the book of leviticus interpreted as jewish community harris 10 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the so-called ―renaissance‖ spirit of the age, appeals to reason to find a reason for the commandment: prohibited animals are ―disgusting.‖ supporting this judgment, rashbam first appeals to (contemporary?) physicians, and then to the talmud. a rational, health-oriented interpretation acknowledges that this meat is harmful for humans, and this is why god has forbidden it. 34 that there is polemical import to the passage may already be seen in rashi‘s comment on leviticus 11: 2: : את כולם השוה להיות שלוחים דברו אל בני ישראל בדיבור זה, לפי שהושוו בדמימה וקבלו עליהם גזרת : לשון חיים, לפי שישראל זאת החיההמקום מאהבה. דבוקים במקום וראויין להיות חיים, לפיכך הבדילם מן הטומאה וגזר עליהם מצות, ולאומות לא אסר כלום, משל כדאיתא במדרש רבי ’, ולה וגולרופא שנכנס לבקר את הח תנחומא. speak to the children of israel: the word ―speak‖ is in the plural… he made all of them alike his messengers with regard to (communicating) this speech, because they were all alike in remaining silent and they lovingly accepted the decree of the omnipresent. 35 this, the living 36 : this (the word חיה) is an expression denoting life. 37 because israel cleaves to the 34 see lockshin‘s insightful comment, 59–60, n. 54. 35 i.e., in respect to the death of nadab and abihu (see sifra 1:1). 36 i have deliberately translated awkwardly. as will be made clear, rashi‘s first interpretation of the words זאת החיה does not regard the words as a reference to the prohibited animals (which he relegates to the second incipit, not included here) but rather as an address to the israelites. as rashi himself makes explicit, this interpretation is midrashic in origin, from tanhuma (shemini 6). the words זאת החיה may be taken to mean: ―this is the type of living thing that you may eat…‖ but see the discussion below. 37 …and is purposely used here in preference to המהב to express the followomnipresent and therefore deserves to remain in life, he therefore separated them from what is unclean and imposed commandments upon them. whereas to the other nations who do not cleave to him he did not prohibit anything! a parable: it may be compared to the case of a physician who goes to visit a sick person, & etc.; as may be found in the midrash of r. tanchuma. 38 first, i have included the initial segment of rashi‘s comment on leviticus 11:2 (on ―speak to the children of israel‖), although it may have no direct relevance here. based on rashi‘s comment on leviticus 1:1, it is apparent when he writes, ―he made all of them alike his messengers…,‖ he refers to moses, aaron, eleazar, and ithamar. further, his ―they were all alike in remaining silent and lovingly accepted the decree of the omnipresent…‖ seems to evoke a midrashic expansion of the biblical narrative concerning the sudden death of aaron‘s sons, nadab and abihu in leviticus 10:1–2. not only did aaron accept god‘s killing of his sons in silence (v. 3), but so also did moses, eleazar, and ithamar. rashi juxtaposes this to his presentation of the dietary laws. thus, their silence and acceptance apparently speak directly to the continued jewish commitment to observing the dietary laws, despite all difficulties: ―they were all alike in remaining silent and they lovingly accepted the decree of the omnipresent… these are the animals that you may eat…‖ this juxtaposition was not necessarily a deliberate and conscious exegetical move. 39 however, it is ing idea… 38 shemini, parasha 6. 39 the idea that authors—and, by extension, medieval exegetes—may work unconsciously is, of course, not new; the classic article on the subject is william k. wimsatt and monroe c. beardsley, "the intentional fallacy," sewanee review 54 (1946): 468-88. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): harris 1-15 harris, the book of leviticus interpreted as jewish community harris 11 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr indeed striking, and when one considers the relative freedom exercised by rashi in his appropriation of the wide variety of midrashic sources at his disposal, one may wonder at the message that the conjunction of the two comments engenders. rashi, however, definitely appeals directly to polemical issues in his following comment. the hebrew words זאת החיה literally read ―this is the animal,‖ but i have rendered them as ―this, the living‖ because reading them to mean ―the living nation (of israel)‖ is more faithful to the spirit of rashi‘s interpretation. 40 the parable to which rashi alludes teaches that a physician only prescribes specific medicinal foods for the patient he expects will survive. the one who will die may eat what he wants. thus, rashi is obviously distinguishing between israel, who requires kosher food that will help it ―recover‖ and gain entrance to life eternal, and the gentile nations, which in rashi‘s estimation are not destined en masse for such eternal life and do not therefore require the discipline of the cure. 41 they may thus eat whatever they want to eat. 42 40 indeed, one popular translation of rashi into english offers, ―this, o living nation‖; see m. rosenbaum, a.m. silverman, pentateuch with targum onkelos. haphtaroth and prayers for sabbath and rashi's commentary translated into english (london: 1946), ad. loc. 41 rashi does not here address the presumed fate of individual gentiles, for whom the promise of life-eternal in the world to come could be gained through righteous behavior. see tosefta sanhedrin 13 ("the righteous of the nations of the world have a share in the world to come"); see also bavli sanhedrin 105a. in the century following rashi, maimonides standardized the positions expressed in those ancient rabbinic sources in his great code of jewish law; see mishneh torah, repentence 3:5. of course, one might argue that rashi would disagree with these positions. however, it is known that rashi had amiable relations with at least some of his christian neighbors, and there is no reason to doubt—despite the pain he suffered over the murder of so many friends and colleagues in the first crusade—that he recognized the possibility of the ultimate redemption of righteous gentiles. see avraham grossman, rashi: religious beliefs and social views [hebrew] (alon shevut, israel: tevunot, 2008), 152-154. 42 following the homily, rashi does provide a more ―plain sense‖ interpretarashi‘s understanding, that israel‘s observance of the levitical dietary laws will help it to gain entrance to heaven, appears also in his comment on leviticus 11:43 ( צּו קְּ שַּ ַאל־תְּ ֶתם בָּם מֵּ אּו בֶָּהם וְּנִטְּ מְּ ץ וְֹּלא ִתטַּ ֹּרֵּ ש ֶשֶרץ הַּ יֶכם בְּכָּל־הַּ ֹּתֵּ ש you― ,ֶאת־נַּפְּ shall not draw abomination upon yourselves through anything that swarms; you shall not make yourselves impure through them and thus become impure through them‖): , ואין שיקוץ נפשותיכם, באכילתן. שהרי כתיב: אל תשקצו : אם ונטמתם בםבאכילתם. ולא תטמאו נפש במגע. וכן: אתם מטמאין בהם בארץ, אף אני מטמא אתכם בעולם הבא ובישיבת מעלה. you shall not draw abomination upon yourselves by eating these. (this must be the meaning), because it is written you shall not make your souls abominable and no ―abomination of the soul‖ arises from touching them. 43 and similarly the words become unclean through them 44 : if you become impure through them on earth, even so will i make you as impure in the world to come and in the heavenly academy. 45 in this comment, rashi extrapolates, directly from the biblical text, as it were, legal rulings of the ancient rabbis concerning a distinction between eating the flesh of the forbidden animals and merely touching them; these arguments and interpretations do not concern us. however, we see the import rashi attaches tion of the words, but these are not germane to our discussion. 43 i.e., touching the creatures. the rabbis ruled that touching the carcass of forbidden animals is not prohibited by the verse. see, e.g., b. rosh hashanah 16b and rashi and bekhor shor on deuteronomy 14:8. 44 i.e., rashi is reading that here, too, the words become unclean through them must mean: by eating them. 45 see b. yoma 39a. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): harris 1-15 harris, the book of leviticus interpreted as jewish community harris 12 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr to these interpretations by his final, homiletical comment: eating the flesh of forbidden animals would have severely negative implications for israel in the world to come. now, to be sure, christians are not governed by jewish dietary laws, and their consumption of foods that would be illicit for jews does not on the surface have implications for any polemical dialogue with christians in rashi‘s comment. yet, ―jewish carnality‖ was a common accusation of christian polemicists against the validity of continued jewish adherence to the ritual laws of the pentateuch; 46 observance of the dietary laws was from time immemorial one of the most obvious cultural markers of jews in christian society. while not explicitly and consciously reacting to christian polemics against jewish dietary laws, rashi nonetheless chooses this opportunity to encourage jews to observe them literally (and not, say, honor them in some figurative way). much is at stake: rashi states that the jews‘ very status in gaining the world to come, i.e., the equivalent of christian salvation, is predicated upon their observance of the levitical dietary laws. rashbam‘s comment on leviticus 11:34 provides further demonstration that the interpretation of the dietary laws continued to be an exercise through which the jewish and christian exegetes found differing expressions of ―community‖ in their reading of the biblical text. here he addresses the question of the reason for the law, יו לָּ ֶֹּכל ֲאֶשר יֵָּאכֵּל ֲאֶשר יָּבֹוא עָּ א ִמכָּל־הָּ א מָּ יִם יִטְּ as to any food that may be eaten, it shall become― ,מַּ impure if it came in contact with water.‖ וות : מי שרוצה לתת טעם במצאשר יבא עליו מים יטמא לפי דרך ארץ ולתשובת המינין, לא הזקיק הקב"ה טומאה למיני אוכלים ומשקין עד שתיקנם לצורך מאכל; ונתינת מים היא תחילת תיקונם ועיקר חשיבותם לצורך אכילה. 46 see anna sapir abulafia, "jewish carnality in twelfth century renaissance thought," in christianity and judaism, ed. diana wood (oxford, england and cambridge, massachusetts: blackwell publishers, 1992), 59–75. if water comes upon it, it shall become impure: whoever wishes to give a rationale for the commandments 47 , according to the way of the world and as a response to christians [should explain as follows]: the holy one did not cause a requirement of impurity to be designated for various kinds of food and liquid until someone has made them fit to be considered as food; and contact with water is the beginning of that designation and the essential way of considering them to be food. why would this verse in particular be a cause for debate? as martin lockshin has already argued, ―christians presumably argued that the rules of kosher food and the rules of ritual impurity make no sense on the literal level. only an allegorical christological explanation would make sense of them. rashbam and other jews argue, then, that these rules have some form of logic or at least common sense on the literal level.‖ 48 in this case, rashbam claims that the touch of water to a ―potential food substance‖ in its natural state is the beginning of that process that leads it to be considered afterwards as ―actual food‖—and hence, subject to possible impurity. 47 lockshin suggests that rashbam‘s use of the term טעם במצוות, ―the rationale for the commandments‖ may be the earliest attestation for the term that later came into standard use in the rabbinic literature that attempted to provide reasons for the torah‘s commandments; see lockshin (2001), 65, n. 74. but cf. rashi‘s comment on exodus 21:1 (ד"ה אשר תשים לפניהם), where he uses the expression טעמי הדבר ופירושו, ―the reasons of a matter and its explanation,‖ which seems to refer to the same notion. 48 lockshin (2001), 65, n. 76. see there also his citation of elazar touitou, "the method of rashbam's commentary on the halakhic parts of the torah [hebrew]," millet 2 (1985): 275–88, which finds its expression also in elazar touitou, exegesis in perpetual motion: studies in the pentateuchal commentary of rabbi samuel ben meir [hebrew] (ramat gan: bar ilan university press, 2003), 177–188. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): harris 1-15 harris, the book of leviticus interpreted as jewish community harris 13 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr one final issue contributes to our understanding of the differing jewish and christian notions of ―levitical community.‖ in an appendix to his edition and translation of the medieval polemical work, sefer nitzahon yashan, ―the ancient book of victory,‖ david berger addresses the age-old christian inclination to find ―absurdities, contradictions, or at least improbabilities in the literal content of a given precept‖ in order to ―establish the necessity of‖ christian allegory to replace the jewish interpretation. 49 an example of just such a place where christian exegesis would vie with rabbinic tradition was leviticus 19:19: ע ָך ֹלא־ִתזְּרַּ דְּ ִביעַּ ִכלְַּאיִם שָּ רְּ ָך ֹלא־תַּ תְּ ֹּרּו ,בְֶּהמְּ מ י ִתשְּ ֹּתַּ ק ֶאת־חֺּ טְּ עַּ ָאיִם ּוֶבֶגד ִכלְַּאיִם שַּ ֶליָך ִכלְּ נֵּז ֹלא יֲַּעֶלה עָּ , ―you shall observe my laws. you shall not let your cattle mate with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; you shall not put on cloth from a mixture of two kinds of material.‖ the question of why god would prohibit wearing such a cloth—shaatnez, is the biblical term, one that still defies precise etymological definition—and wish to regulate the other actions mentioned in the verse is the stuff of age-old jewish-christian debate. 50 rashbam‘s comment immediately demonstrates that he is aware of the polemical import of the verse: 49 david berger, the jewish-christian debate in the high middle ages: a critical edition of the nizzahon vetus: introduction, translation, and commentary (northvale, new jersey: jason aronson inc, 1996), 355–361. berger translates this polemical treatise as ―the old book of polemic,‖ which is certainly accurate. i chose to translate the way i did because the medieval author employed the word ―victory‖ for the title of his treatise, which he hoped would enable jews to be victorious in their polemical battles with christians. 50 the egyptian etymology of lambdin is persuasive: שזנטע must be a foreign word, and an egyptian origin for something related to cloth would make sense; see thomas oden lambdin, "egyptian loan words in the old testament," journal of the american oriental society 73:3 (1953): 145-55. see also yoshiyuki muchiki, egyptian proper names and loanwords in northwest semitic, society of biblical literature dissertation series, vol. 173 (atlanta: society of biblical literature, 1999), 257, even though muchiki is uncertain. i am grateful to edward l. greenstein, for this observation. : לפי דרך ארץ ותשובת המינין: בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים כשם שציוה הכתוב שכל אחד ואחד יוציא פרי למינהו במעשה בראשית, כך ציוה להנהיג את העולם בבהמות ובשדות ואילנות; וגם בחרישת שור וחמור שהם שני מינים; וגם בצמר ופשתים, שזה מין בהמות וזה מין קרקע רתי הצמר צבוע והפשתן איננו צבוע, וגידוליו. ולמינים אמ וקפיד בבגד של שני מראות, והודו לי. you shall not let your cattle mate with a different kind: according to the way of the world and as a response to the christians, (interpret as follows): just as the text commands that each and every species bring forth a fruit of its kind, during the ―making of creation,‖ 51 so, too did it command that we guide the world with regard to animals, fields and trees; and also with regard to the plowing of an ox and a donkey together, since they are two (separate) species; and also with regard to wool and linen (clothing), since one is a species of animal (life) and the other is a species of the earth and its growths. to the christians i said that wool is dyed and linen is not dyed, and it (scripture) is stringent about clothes of two appearances. 52 rashi had previously commented on this verse, חקים אלו גזירת these statutes are decrees of the king, for― ,מלך שאין טעם לדבר which no reason can be provided.‖ rashbam disagrees, and offers what we earlier saw he calls a טעם במצוות, a ―rationale for the commandments.‖ as lockshin has noted, rashbam specifically claims that ―his explanations are appropriate ways of neutralizing non-jewish criticism.‖ 53 51 this is the rabbinic name for the creation narrative of genesis. 52 lockshin translates ―colors,‖ which is, indeed, the sense of this passage; see his note 3, p. 77. 53 lockshin (2001), 107, n. 34. as it happens, r. joseph bekhor shor adstudies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): harris 1-15 harris, the book of leviticus interpreted as jewish community harris 14 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr conclusion i began this study by referring to john van engen‘s essay, ―ralph of flaix: the book of leviticus interpreted as christian community.‖ one of the central questions animating van engen‘s article was, ―if jewish positions ostensibly occasioned [ralph‘s] commentary, to what degree did jews represent a real alternative, a threat in any sense, even real people?‖ 54 one conclusion that we can draw from our study of the rabbinic exegetes contemporary with ralph is that they saw christian ―alternatives‖ as ―threats‖ to the jewish community in a manner not so dissimilar from the jewish positions observed by ralph. if, as van engen describes, ralph faced a monastic community that was curious about, if not actually persuaded by, jewish exegetical interpretations, then what was required, ralph felt, was a comprehensive, verse-by-verse interpretation of leviticus that both accounted for ad litteram exegesis but also turned christian readers in the direction of christian verities. 55 if ralph was indeed aware of a nobleman whom guibert of nogent called a ―‗neuter,‘ for he neither followed the [jewish] laws he praised…nor praised the christian laws he seemed to follow,‖ 56 and saw fit to gloss the bible on behalf of those who may have been poised between competing avenues of dresses this verse (leviticus 19:19), and offers a brilliant, innovative interpretation; however, his comment does not fully address our question of considering leviticus ―as jewish community.‖ however, see edward l. greenstein, "medieval bible commentaries," in back to the sources, ed. barry holtz (new york: summit books, 1984), 246–247, for an insightful analysis and translation. 54 john van engen, "ralph of flaix: the book of leviticus interpreted as christian community," 151. 55 john van engen, "ralph of flaix: the book of leviticus interpreted as christian community," 150–151. 56 john van engen, "ralph of flaix: the book of leviticus interpreted as christian community," 153. interpretive discourse, then it stands to reason that jewish exegetes like rashi and rashbam would address themselves to a jewish community who may have been similarly attracted to their neighbors‘ religious beliefs (and surely actual conversion of jews to christianity is much better attested than the reverse, although the latter is known also). 57 as van engen correctly observes, ―contact between jews and christians—in neighborhood streets, in marketplaces, at princely and ecclesiastical courts—could provoke questions, even doubts, about which ‗law‘ was right.‖ 58 it hardly matters which chicken came before which particular egg! the two communities came to depend on biblical exegesis that reacted to and anticipated the other in both overt and covert ways. while it is, of course, true that on occasion christian exegetes would explicitly mention jews (or more often ―hebrews‖) in christian exegesis, and jews would likewise refer to christians (either as minim, for ―heretics,‖ as above, or less often as ―nazerines‖), 59 it is more often the case that exegetes on both sides would employ covert arguments to address matters pertaining to the faith of the other. but in either case, both jews and christians, whether explicitly or covertly, are constructing senses of sacred communities through their exegesis of leviticus, both in terms of self-image as well as 57 a classic study that addresses some of these concerns is amos funkenstein, "changes in the patterns of christian anti-jewish polemics in the twelfth century [hebrew]," zion 33 (1968): 125—44. see also ivan marcus, "jews and christians imagining the other in medieval europe." prooftexts 15:3 (1995): 209-26; ben zion wacholder, "cases of proselytizing in the tosafist responsa." jewish quarterly review, ns 51:4 (1961): 288-315. 58 john van engen, "ralph of flaix: the book of leviticus interpreted as christian community," 153. 59 see rashbam on exodus 20:13; bekhor shor on numbers 12:7; and radak on psalms 19:10 or 110 (end) for some of the most explicit considerations of christianity in the overtly ―exegetical,‖ as opposed to the ―polemical,‖ literature. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): harris 1-15 harris, the book of leviticus interpreted as jewish community harris 15 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr through reference to the other. 60 while the 12 th -century biblical exegesis—in hebrew, by and for the jews, and in latin, by and for the christians—offered at least the semblance or the possibility of true intellectual discourse and debate, 61 it soon and unfortunately gave way to the explicitly polemical literature and poisoned social, religious, and legal atmosphere of the 13th century and beyond, yielding a world in which co-existence of the two religious communities no longer was possible, a world of disputation, eventual destruction, and exile of the jewish community. 62 60 for an insightful discussion of this idea as it plays out in the 12th century exegesis of rupert of deutz and the sefer nitzahon yashan, see david e. timmer, "biblical exegesis and the jewish-christian controversy in the early twelfth century," church history 58:3 (1989): 309-21 (esp. p. 319). 61 consider rashbam‘s comment on leviticus 13:2 and andrew of st. victor‘s (lockshin, 72, note 11). 62 for an important study of the shift between the 12th and the 13th centuries in christian anti-jewish attitudes, see jeremy cohen, the friars and the jews: the evolution of medieval anti-judaism (ithaca: cornell university press, 1982). 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-3 a. chadwick thornhill the chosen people: election, paul, and second temple judaism (downers grove, il: ivp academic, 2015), paperback, 288 pp. jason a. staples jasonastaples@gmail.com duke divinity school, durham, nc 27708 in this revision of his 2013 liberty university dissertation (directed by leo percer), thornhill examines the concept of election in the pauline letters and in a variety of early jewish texts. thornhill’s central thesis is that the concept of unconditional individual election is foreign to both the early jewish and pauline material. rather, “god preserves the chosen people as a whole, [but] each individual’s fate is [conditional]” (p. 82), though which conditions are emphasized as necessary for the individual to be included among the elect differ throughout the literature surveyed. after a short introductory chapter, thornhill spends chapters two through six examining specific aspects of election in several early jewish sources and then applying the insights from those sources to the exegesis of specific pauline passages on election. in the seventh chapter, he offers a rereading of rom 8:26– 11:36, arguing that paul is working within a typical jewish framework of conditional covenantal participation in the people of god. chapter eight provides a brief closing summary. with respect to the early jewish material, thornhill largely depends on and develops the work of mark elliott, sigurd grindheim, and chris vanlandingham. he argues that e. p. sanders’ correction of the traditional caricature of early judaism as a graceless religion of works-salvation “may have swung the pendulum too far as it relates to jewish beliefs concerning election” (p. 20). sanders’ model, he argues, has led many to ignore the conditional aspects of the covenant. as for the pauline material, thornhill aims to dismantle predestinarian readings of paul, particularly the doctrine of double predestination in which god unilaterally chooses individuals for salvation or damnation (the work of thomas schreiner serves as the primary foil for his argument here). the topical structure of the book may make it more accessible to readers less familiar with early jewish texts. this approach, however, also has the effect of flattening the differences among the texts and results in redundancies, as some texts are covered multiple times from slightly different angles. partly as a result, staples: a. chadwick thornhill’s the chosen people 2 scholars of early judaism are likely to find the treatment of that material somewhat thin and lacking in nuance, though thornhill commendably does not fall into the all-too-common trap of introducing early jewish material only to serve as a foil for views in paul’s writings. his argument that the deterministic aspects of early jewish apocalyptic literature have frequently been overemphasized at the expense of the conditional and imperative statements found in the same works is both nuanced and penetrating (pp. 186–203). the core of the book is the exegesis of key pauline passages at the end of each of the topical chapters. three sections, each of which focus on the spatial (or what thornhill calls “spherical”) aspect of paul’s language—that is, how paul “speaks more in terms of [communal] ‘identity’ than [salvific] ‘modality’” (p.136)—are especially noteworthy. in the first, he argues that in gal 2:15–3:14 (pp. 135–45) paul is participating in a long-standing jewish discussion about “what condition or marker defines god’s people” (p. 146). specifically, it is the reception of christ’s spirit that marks “insiders” from “outsiders” (“who live as if the work of the messiah had not occurred” [p. 145]). similarly, in his discussion of rom 3:21–4:17 (pp. 170–78) he argues that “paul continues his understanding of jewish advantage whereby the jews already had a position ‘from within’ (ἐκ) the covenant while gentiles came in as outsiders ‘through’ (διά) jesus’ faithfulness” (p. 174). that is, although both groups must ultimately participate in jesus’ faithfulness, for jews (who are “insiders”) it is a renewal of the covenant, whereas gentiles are newly incorporated from outside. analyzing rom 8:1–17 (pp. 212– 18), thornhill rejects a “unilateral or meticulous view of divine agency, to the extent that the role humans play becomes minimal or nonexistent” (p. 212). he rightly recognizes that the primary problem in this section is not the law but sin, as “paul contends that god has rescued the law, which ‘sin’ prevented from fulfilling its purposes, has condemned ‘sin,’ and placed the law in the proper sphere of the spirit” (p. 218), thereby enabling proper fulfillment of the law within that sphere. although (perhaps overly) brief, these sections are incisive and make a worthy contribution to reconstructions of paul’s soteriology. unfortunately, thornhill does not always apply comparable exegetical precision to the jewish sources. for example, much of chapter two relies on the argument that when the terms “elect” and “holy” are paralleled, this “emphasize[s] the character or office of the elect rather than their soteriological status” (p. 33). this, however, misconstrues the meaning of “holy” (קדש; ἅγιος), which does not refer to piety or character but rather denotes being set apart or consecrated—by definition the consequence of election. and although many early jewish texts do express hope for the eschatological salvation of at least some gentiles, that does not necessarily mean “the inclusion of the nations in the people of god,” as assumed on p. 167 and elsewhere. jewish parallels do exist for paul’s argument that gentiles may be saved through their inclusion within the ekklesia (for example, thornhill cites 1 enoch’s animal apocalypse, which suggests something resembling such inclusion). but many other jewish sources, such as tobit, the testament of moses, and the sibylline oracles, only suggest that many among the nations will worship yhwh and participate in the blessings of the es 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) chaton, not that they will be incorporated into yhwh’s people. the repeated assertion that the dead sea scroll sectarians regarded themselves as the “true israel” (e.g., pp. 62, 77, 156) is also problematic, as the sectarian literature instead suggests that they regarded themselves as a faithful subgroup of israel rather than claiming their group was all that remained of israel. a more sustained engagement with the work of graham harvey, e. p. sanders, and especially john bergsma on this point would have been beneficial. it is a pity that one of the book’s most important observations—that election need not mean salvation but often refers to selection for a particular function— appears in chapter two but is inconsistently applied in much of the rest of the book, where the two concepts are often treated as equivalent. thornhill’s exegesis of the potter / clay passage in rom 9 may have benefited from application of this insight, for example. these flaws notwithstanding, the book does successfully demonstrate that early jewish and pauline texts represent the concept of election in a variety of ways and that election cannot simply be glossed as the unconditional predestination of individuals for salvation (or otherwise). rather, thornhill shows that studies of election must take seriously the corporate and conditional aspects of the covenantal framework. given how frequently this conditionality has been ignored in scholarly discourse, thornhill’s volume provides an important corrective and a potentially fruitful starting point for further discussion and more precise future scholarship on the concept of election. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): fisher r1-2 rudin, christians & jews, faith to faith fisher r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr james rudin christians & jews, faith to faith: tragic history, promising present, fragile future (woodstock, vt: jewish lights, 2011), hardcover, xii + 267 pp. eugene j. fisher, saint leo university rabbi james rudin has been involved in jewish-christian relations for over forty years and has been one of the pioneering leaders in the dialogue for much of that time. in this book, he looks back over the post-shoah relationship, in which he has played such a vital role, and also over the previous two millennia which led up to the tragic events of the mid-twentieth century in “christian” europe. he offers a narrative and a series of reflections that introduce people to the field and also deepen the understanding of those of us who have been involved in it. recently, i used rudin’s book as one of two required texts for a graduate course in catholicjewish studies at saint leo university, along with the now-classic introduction to the field by the catholic scholar mary c. boys, has god only one blessing? judaism as a source of christian self-understanding (new york: paulist press, 2000). i can attest to the usefulness of rudin’s work not only for dialogue groups but in more formal coursework as well. his jewish perspective was especially valuable since virtually all my students were catholics, with two protestants and no jews. to illustrate the complexity of competing religious identities, rudin begins with a reflection on the possible names for the jewish people, citing the biblical terms “hebrews,” “israelites,” and “jews,” and noting the positive and pejorative uses of the terms over the ages. against these, he notes traditional christian claims to be the true israel, which directly clash with these jewish claims. similarly, in a later chapter, he mulls over the differing names for the hebrew scriptures, naturally preferring the hebrew tanach, which refers to the books jews and christians share as sacred texts but excludes those additional texts which catholics, following the septuagint, include. such sharp disputes about scripture and claims to the biblical heritage, which paradoxically unite and divide jews and christians, illustrate the vagaries and inconsistencies of relations across the many centuries. i might have made “rule number 1” in his “user’s guide” to the dialogue, which rudin handily and helpfully includes at the end of his volume, “agree to disagree agreeably” (which, i know from experience, rudin does quite well). rudin’s approach is partly chronological. early in the book he discusses the first few centuries ce. however, his emphasis is on key topics. he raises the core historical or theological issues from our ancient, mutual past (e.g., the teaching of contempt and the shoah; mission and witness; notions of covenant with the one god of israel; and jerusalem, the holy land, and the state of israel). he concludes with recent developments in the dialogue and thoughts on how to take the next steps toward deeper understanding. rudin takes into account muslim views and the growth of a jewish-christian-muslim three-way relationship (or “trialogue” as i prefer to call it), since this tripartite relationship differs essentially from that between the two peoples, jews and christians, especially in light of their shared texts. review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): fisher r1-2 rudin, christians & jews, faith to faith fisher r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr i recommend this book most highly to readers of this journal for personal reading as well as for use in academic and in less formal dialogical settings. this does not mean that i do not have some disagreements with rudin. chief among these is rudin’s treatment of paul, whom he sweepingly describes as having “rejected many jewish observances, especially the kosher dietary laws and ritual circumcision” (p.48). many scholars have argued (correctly, in my view), that paul is arguing only that gentile converts need not observe all jewish laws. for them, observance of the requirements of the jewish “noahide covenant” are sufficient for the gentile “branches” to be “engrafted” upon the root of the chosen people, israel (cf. romans 9-11; acts 15). also, rudin (citing christian scholar barrie wilson) argues that paul envisioned “a brandnew religion entirely,” separate from judaism. but paul may not have seen it that way, nor would he have viewed his turn to faith in christ as a “conversion” to another faith but rather as a deepening of his own jewish faith. most early christians, as jews, understood themselves in similar ways. interestingly, rudin rightly acknowledges that the “parting of the ways” took many centuries and was not accomplished by the late 40’s of the first century of the common era, which his view of paul as leaving judaism would require if true. rudin, while rightly castigating the “teaching of contempt” against jews and judaism developed by the fathers of the church in the centuries parallel to the development of rabbinic tradition and the talmud, omits the crucial and benign role played by st. augustine and his theology of the jews as witnesses to the validity of the hebrew scriptures. he argued that in their disbelief they played a crucial role in the spread of the gospel, an idea that laid the theological groundwork for the acceptance of judaism as a religio licita when christians gained political power over jews. the adoption of st. augustine’s counsel that the jews should be allowed to live among christians and to worship freely was accepted by the church, and especially by pope st. gregory the great, who made it indelible papal policy over the centuries to protect the rights of jews. thus it was due to augustine and gregory that judaism alone of all the non-christian religions of the roman empire was allowed to survive, and in places even to thrive, within triumphant christendom. the worst christian beliefs about and practices against jews and judaism, in fact, did not appear or begin to prevail until after the massacre of jews during the first crusade in 1096. rudin, however, fails to precisely place such things as blood libels, pogroms, expulsions, ghettoes, and distinctive clothing in their correct periods, implying they were present during the entire history of christianity. the fact that a full millennium had to pass, i would argue, before these evil beliefs and practices became common is a significant fact that jews no less than christians need to take into account when narrating christian history and evaluating christian theology. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-3 shira l. lander ritual sites and religious rivalries in late roman north africa (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2016), hardcover, xvii + 253 pp. robin m. jensen rjensen3@nd.edu university of notre dame, notre dame, in 46556 lander’s study focuses on a particular region of the roman empire—north africa—and a particular time—the fourth-sixth centuries. she chose to concentrate on this area because, in her words, it both has seldom been studied and was a place where narratives of spatial contestation were particularly rooted in intrachristian strife and then applied to “paradigms of relations with non-christians” (p. 2). her selection not only anchors her arguments in a specific time and place but the choice makes good sense. during this time, this part of the world was especially embroiled in struggles for religious dominance. some of the results of this were confiscation, destruction, desecration, and appropriation of temples, churches, altars, synagogues, and divine images. these acts not only targeted different religious communities but also rival christian groups (e.g., catholics vs. donatists or arian vandals vs. african nicenes). in some cases these incidents were less violent or frequent than one might gather from the propagandistic rhetoric of the victims or triumphalist claims of the perpetrators, but this actually makes the circumstances more fascinating. furthermore, by concentrating on the ways that actual buildings came to symbolize ascendant power or political status, lander provides concrete examples of both “architectural dispossession and spatial supersession” (p. 33). her attention to the material evidence and fine use of archeological studies thus is not simply enrichment but is essential to her argument. after a brief introduction to her project (“scaffolding”), the book opens with a chapter that lays out lander’s method, sources (both ancient and modern), and underlying theories of sacred space and religious violence. it continues very coherently, moving from a study of how christians generally regarded their places of worship (chapter 2) to a summary of the conflicts among african christian communities in the fourth and fifth centuries (chapter 3). without getting too bogged down in a synopsis of the so-called donatist controversy, lander keeps her eye on the ways that buildings played a symbolic role in the struggle over legitimacy, property, and claims to be the true and holy church. the final two jensen: shira l. lander’s ritual sites and religious rivalries 2 chapters look beyond the internecine battles among christian groups to examine the ways that christians regarded both the sanctuaries of the traditional roman cults and jewish synagogues. lander explores the similarities of christian-built worship spaces with temples and the ways christians modified those pre-existing structures for their assemblies. a particularly vivid example is the transformation of a temple cella into a baptistery (p. 212). in chapter 5, lander looks closely at the evidence for christian appropriation and repurposing of synagogues. she notes that the archaeological record for actual confiscation is thin, a problem compounded by the lack of textual evidence from actual jewish communities in north africa. lander remarks on the dearth of scholarly studies of jewish-christian relations in that region (making special exception for karen stern’s 2008 monograph, inscribing devotion and death: archaeological evidence for jewish populations of north africa). she also laments both the over-reliance of historians on christian sources and their tendency to over-generalize from studies of jews in other parts the roman world. nevertheless, lander turns to the “meager” evidence provided by the jewish synagogues at hammam lif in tunisia and lepcis magna in libya. turning to non-jewish sources, she likewise considers both african christian writings about jews (especially from tertullian and augustine) that—following the work of paula fredriksen—indicate a kind of “conventional co-existence” (p. 221). similarly, roman legislation seems to indicate a relatively low level of synagogue disturbance in africa as compared with other regions of the empire. still, while acknowledging the “less prevalent” evidence for christian synagogue dispossession, lander concludes that the recorded words of north african christians nonetheless reveal an adversarial narrative (p. 236). several excellent, recent scholarly works attend to the role of both built and natural sacred spaces (or places) in the religious practices and spiritual topography of ancient communities, be they jews, polytheists, or christians. similarly, new studies have appeared that examine the role of religiously motivated (or justified) violence in late antiquity. among these, the works of ann marie yasin, anna leone, maijastina kahlos, leslie dossey, christine shepardson, and brent shaw stand out, and have significantly advanced and complicated our ways of thinking about these matters. to this excellent group we should now add shira lander, whose new monograph considers these issues together to produce an illuminating study of the diverse ways rival religious communities regarded space as a tool for defining boundaries while often characterizing others’ sacred places either as potentially dangerous or valuable property to be seized and occupied. the extent to which one group genuinely believed they were obliged to destroy the cult buildings or furnishings of another or whether such actions were more likely prompted by desire for basic building materials and land is one of the key questions that winds through lander’s chapters. additionally, she explores the often-unpredictable role of imperial patronage, ecclesial and secular legislation, and elements of ethnic or social identity. these may have fueled conflicts or emboldened competing local groups, some of whom believed themselves to be victims of economic or political injustice. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) in summary, this is a fine and balanced study of the subject of religious rivalries over sacred places and religious sites. lander’s focus on the north african evidence allows a nuanced analysis that provides welcome fine-tuning to more broad discussions of the subject. i have only one serious complaint, and that is the absence of a bibliography, which would help the reader who otherwise must dig back through footnotes to find the original citation of a secondary work. this may have been the decision of the publisher and not the author and, in my view, is the only flaw in a very fine work. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-14 the uniqueness of the christian-jewish dialogue: a yes and a no john pawlikowski jtmp@ctu.edu catholic theological union, chicago, il 60615 this article was generated from the february 2016 saint joseph’s university “consultation on the newest statements about the christian-jewish relationship.” 1. introduction: “uniqueness” in the holy see’s 2015 statement the second section of the document released on december 10, 2015 by the holy see’s commission for religious relations with the jews (part of the pontifical council for ecumenism) titled “ ‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’ (rom 11:29): a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations on the occasion of the 50 th anniversary of nostra aetate (no. 4)” (hereafter, g&c) focuses on the special theological status of the jewish-catholic dialogue within the wider context of the interreligious dialogue as a whole. the claim has been around for some time, especially in catholic christian circles. it has been posited both by pope john paul ii’s 1 (and indirectly by pope benedict xvi 2 who at the beginning of his pontificate reaffirmed john paul ii’s views on the church’s relationship with jews and judaism as his own) and cardinal walter kasper 3 during his tenure as president of the holy see’s commission for religious relations with the jews. such a claim by catholic leaders raises a twofold question: is the claim accurate and does it marginalize the christian-jewish dialogue in an increasingly global church. put another way does it render christian-jewish relations an exclusively “north atlantic” concern as some have termed it at a time when christianity is growing in africa and asia and showing significant decline in the west. these are issues i will address in the following pages. g&c boldly states its claim of uniqueness for the christian-jewish relations is the opening sentences of section #2. despite considerable conflict between the church and the jewish people over many centuries the church proudly acknowl 1 cf. eugene j. fisher and leon klenicki, eds., spiritual pilgrimage: texts on jews and judaism 1979-1995. pope john paul ii. (ny: crossroad and adl, 1995). 2 pope benedict xvi “pope benedict’s speech in rome synagogue,” (holy see press office, january 17, 2010). 3 cardinal walter kasper, “the good olive tree,” america, 185:7 (september 17, 2010); “christians, jews, and the thorny question of mission,” origins 32:28, (december 19, 2004): 464. pawlikowski: the uniqueness of the christian-jewish dialogue 2 edges its continuing jewish roots and its enduring continuity with the jewish people. hence the church never treats judaism as just another non-christian religion. jews continue to be seen within christianity as our “elder brothers,” our “fathers in faith.” g&c goes on to emphasize the strong positive influence of jewish teachings and ritual practices on jesus, his disciples and the early church. it also accepts the developing perspective among contemporary scholarship sometimes referred to as the “parting of the ways” research which sees the separation of judaism and christianity as a slow process developing over several centuries rather than something that transpired during jesus’ own lifetime or shortly thereafter. 4 g&c is quite correct in its insistence on the unique aspects of the christianjewish relationship in comparison with the dialogues the church maintains with other non-christian religious communities. to fully comprehend the teachings of jesus in the new testament it is absolutely necessary to place them within the jewish context of the first century. not to do so frequently distorts jesus’ perspectives. amy-jill levine has shown how this has often happened in the case of jesus’ parables, often leading to an interpretation of these texts as anti-judaic. 5 there is little doubt that the scholarship on the first several centuries of the jewish-christian relationship over the past several decades, including the very significant new scholarship regarding the apostle paul’s outlook on judaism, 6 has significantly altered christianity’s self-identity as well as our understanding of the origins and development of the church. as a result, our understanding of the christian-jewish relationship has been profoundly altered by the scholarship of the last several decades, an alteration which has left a permanent impact on how the church defines itself today. such a re-definition of fundamental ecclesial identity needs to be carried over into any dialogues we develop with the jewish community, as well as other religious communities. this realization of the church’s redefinition in light of the dialogue with judaism and the new scholarship this dialogue has generated leads me to restate a basic point i emphasized in a recent plenary address on the implications of chapter four of nostra aetate for an asian context given at a conference in hong kong. in that presentation i asked the question whether chapter four of nostra aetate which deals with the relations with jews and judaism carries any relevance for the church in asia where dialogue is hardly possible with jews because of he almost total absence of the jewish community on that continent. my answer was that indeed chapter four has relevance everywhere because it raises issues of basic christian identity, especially with regard to christology and ecclesiology. hence 4 for a sampling of the “parting of the ways” scholarship, see adam h. becker and annette yoshiro reeds, eds., the ways that never parted: jews and christians in late antiquity and the early middle ages. (tubingen: mohr siebeck, 2003). 5 amy-jill levine, short stories by jesus: the enigmatic parables of a controversial rabbi. (ny: harper one, 2014). 6 for a sampling of the new scholarship on paul, cf. reimund bieringer and didier pollefeyt, eds., “paul and judaism: crosscurrents in pauline exegesis and the study of jewish-christian relations.” (london: t&t clark, 2012). 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) the perspectives emerging from this dialogue need to be brought into discussion between christians and other non-christian faith communities. christian-jewish dialogue according to g&c can be called “interreligious dialogue” in an analogical way. g&c argues that the two religious communities are so intrinsically linked that they cannot be regarded as totally distinct religious traditions. i have to say that i have found almost no jewish religious leader and/or scholar who are willing to embrace such a view. one problem here is certainly the almost total reliance on interpreting judaism as exclusively a biblical religion on the part of many christians. this is one of the most frequent criticisms of christian documents on the relationship with judaism in jewish scholarly circles. judaism should not be equated with biblical israel, despite the importance of the biblical texts for jews. judaism today is also deeply rooted in the post-biblical rabbinic commentaries. without question there is a special linkage between judaism and christianity that i not present in the relationship between christianity and other faith traditions. the closest other link is with islam, but it is quite different from that with judaism, especially on the theological level. hence i certainly applaud the vatican document for is stress on this reality in section two. but i believe it is necessary to critique g&c for an overly exclusive approach to the christian-jewish relationship. this has the effect of isolating christian-jewish relations from any positive impact on other interreligious dialogues and tends to reduce their impact to the north atlantic region. a number of prominent catholic scholars working in the wider interreligious dialogue, such as john borelli, formerly of the united states conference of catholic bishops and now at georgetown university, have expressed discomfort with the effort evident in g&c to separate the christian-jewish dialogue from the remainder of the interreligious scene. the end result of this separation has been o see judaism frequently omitted from programming on interreligious relations. if such a hard line is maintained by proponents of catholic-jewish dialogue it will lead to further marginalization of the christian-jewish dialogue at a time when the church is becoming more and more global. in my view such marginalization will prevent the christian-jewish dialogue from playing a constructive role in the wider interreligious dialogue. 2. integration of christian-jewish dialogue into the wider interreligious dialogue in recent years i have begun to argue that new developments in understanding the jewish context in which the christian church arose, developments which affect christian self-understanding need to be integrated into dialogues with islam, hinduism, buddhism, and other religious traditions. we cannot present christianity in such discussions as though the christian-jewish discussion has had no effect on how we perceive christian origins today. while christianity is never going to retreat to the status of a jewish sect we must bring to the wider interreligious dialogue a deeper understanding of how the repositioning of early pawlikowski: the uniqueness of the christian-jewish dialogue 4 christianity within a jewish setting has altered our sense of the church’s emergence from the judaism of the first century. it may be that, as john borelli has suggested to me in a personal exchange, we should drop the term “unique” with regard to the christian-jewish relationship and replace it with the term “distinctive.” 7 the new emphasis on the church’s gradual emergence from judaism over a period of several centuries i becoming the dominant scholarly view, thanks largely to what has been termed “the parting of the ways” research. christians, whether in the west or in asia or africa, can no longer simplistically argue that jesus established a totally new religious entity, apart from judaism, during his own lifetime. increasing scholarly evidence undercuts such an ecclesiological outlook. some christian biblical scholars such as john meier now doubt that jesus had any intention of establishing an ecclesial community totally separated from judaism. according to meier, jesus showed no interest in creating even a separatist sect or a holy remnant along the lines of the qumran community. but he did envision the development of a special religious community within israel. the idea that this community “within israel would slowly undergo process of separation from israel as it pursued a mission to the gentiles in this present world—the long term effect being that his community would become predominantly gentile itself—finds no lace n jesus’ message or practice.” 8 such scholarship, generated to a significant extent by chapter four of nostra aetate, needs to be incorporated throughout global christianity in any statement of ecclesiology. this is another example of how nostra aetate’s section on jews and judaism remains in every interreligious dialogue in which the church is involved. what i have just underscored about interpretation of the christian message in terms of its original jewish base becomes crucial for any dialogical encounters. in dialogues with representatives of the asian religions christian participants need to present their tradition in light of the revised perspectives on christology and ecclesiology that have emerged from the scholarship generated as a result of chapter four of nostra aetate. 9 while g&c does acknowledge the impact of first century judaism on the teachings of jesus and the initial christian communities it does not draw out the full implications of that influence for christian self-identity today. and the separation of chapter four from chapters one to three in the vatican’s ongoing implementation of nostra aetate remains an obstacle to the 7 john borelli proposed the term “distinctive” rather than “unique” in personal correspondence in june 2016. 8 john p. meier, a marginal jew: rethinking the historical jesus, volume 3, “companions and competitors.” (ny: doubleday, 2001), 251. 9 important works that reflect the spirit of nostra aetate include anthony j. saldarini, “jews and christians in the first two centuries: the changing paradigm,” in shofar 10 (1992): 32-43; matt jackson-mccabe, ed., jewish christianity reconsidered: rethinking ancient groups and texts (minneapolis, mn: augsburg/fortress press, 2007); dabian udoh, ed., redefining first century jewish and christian identities: essays in honor of parish sanders. (notre dame, in: university of notre dame press, 2008); hershel shanks, ed., partings: how judaism and christianity became two. (washington, dc: biblical archeology society, 2013); and zev garber, ed., teaching the historical jesus: issues and exegesis (london: routledge, 2015). 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) integration of the church’s newly reappropriation of its original jewish roots into the dialogues with other religious communities. so-called “parting of the ways” scholarship also affects how we present jesus’ own identity and his ministerial objectives and how and when the church took over responsibility for promulgating his message, a process that developed gradually over several centuries. buddhists, jains, hindus, muslims and other religious communities that have chosen to engage in dialogue with christians must come to understand christianity through this new lens. only in this way can religious traditions outside of christianity understand its origins and evolution as we have come to perceive christian identity today in light of recent scholarship on the jewish roots of the church. thus the christian-jewish dialogue to which chapter four gave birth remains pivotal outside the north atlantic region even where an actual jewish presence may be negligible or non-existent. thus the christian-jewish dialogue cannot be isolated from the wider interreligious context. and if we are to be successful in integrating it into dialogues outside the north atlantic area then we must modify overstated claims about its uniqueness. christian-jewish dialogue should be included under the generic umbrella of “interreligious dialogue” while continuing to affirm its important distinctive features. no jewish leader i know would define jewish identity as centrally rooted in a bond with christianity. christians who make such a claim about the jewish-christian relationship do so largely because, as i have said earlier, they overemphasize judaism as a biblical religion and give insufficient attention to the central role of post-biblical commentaries and such experiences as the shoah and the re-establishment of the state of israel in the foraging of contemporary jewish identities. without question there are definitely distinctive aspects in the christian-jewish encounter that have no parallels in other interreligious dialogues. christians do share a part of the bible with the jewish community even though we have often interpreted our common biblical texts in quite different ways. and we regard jews as having authentic revelation from the christian theological perspective, as cardinal walter kasper has stressed, 10 something christians do not admit with regard to any other interreligious relationship. and as i have stressed above a realistic understanding of the christian theological outlook is quite dependent on locating it within its original jewish matrix. all of this does indicate a certain specialness for christian-jewish dialogue. nonetheless by overstressing these distinctive aspects of the christian-jewish dialogue in comparison with other interreligious encounters we run the risk of giving the discussion with jews and judaism a measure of superiority, of special privilege, which as the effect of downplaying other dialogues, leaving the impression that they are of secondary importance. but in fact in many parts of the world some of the other interreligious encounters in which the church is involved matter far more on the ground. here wesley ariarajah has made this point, 11 10 cf. note 3. 11 wesley ariarajah, “towards a fourth phase in christian-jewish relations: an asian perspective,” unpublished paper, conference on christian-jewish dialogue, temple emanu-el, new york, co pawlikowski: the uniqueness of the christian-jewish dialogue 6 which i think is partially valid, although i would insist that even in buddhistchristian dialogue the rootedness of the church in judaism needs to be maintained. this is something that ariarajah seems unwilling to acknowledge. and from my experience in some encounters coordinated by the world council of churches, he is not alone in this outlook. the “superiority mindset” sometimes found in christian-jewish dialogue and evident to a degree in g&c does little to counteract the views of scholars such as ariarajah. in fact, it tends to harden their position. the result can be the development of a rather negative attitude towards the importance of the christian-jewish encounter and accounts in part for the frequent exclusion of the christian-jewish dialogue from conferences dealing with interreligious relations. it should be noted that there is in fact one sentence in g&c on chapter four of nostra aetate which does posit a connection between the christian-jewish dialogue and the wider interreligious scene: “the relationship with judaism can in that sense be seen as a catalyst for the determination of the relationship with the other world religions” (§ 19). unfortunately this statement receives no further explication and is rather overwhelmed by the strong emphasis on the absolute uniqueness of the christian-jewish encounter. 3. a positive effort at integration one scholar of asian background who has attempted to bring together the two sections (the first three chapters dealing with interreligious understanding and chapter four on jews and judaism) of nostra aetate is peter phan. while the primary orientation of his scholarly work has been the church’s dialogues with asian religions, in which he remains a central figure, he has also been directly involved in christian-jewish dialogue as a former member of the ecumenical christian scholars group on christian-jewish relations. he has also occasionally written in this area. 12 with regard to the first three chapters of nostra aetate, phan is quite clear in rejecting any excessively negative notions about religions other than christianity. each, according to phan’s reading, plays a singular constructive role in the process of ultimate salvation for humanity and all of creation. he writes as follows: religious plurality, then, is not just a matter of fact but also a matter of principle. that is, judaism and other non-christian religions should be seen as part of the plan of divine providence and endowed with a particular role in sponsored by the center for interreligious understanding and the office of interreligious affairs of the world council of churches, nov. 2003. 12 peter phan, “jews and judaism in asian theology; historical and theological perspectives,” gregorianum 86 (2005): 806-836; “jesus as the universal savior in the light of god’s eternal covenant with the jewish people: a roman catholic perspective,” in mary c. boys, ed., seeing judaism anew: christianity’s sacred obligation. (lanham, md: rowman & littlefield, 2005), 127-137. for phan’s overall perspective on interreligious relations, see peter c. phan, being religious interreligiously: asian perspectives on interfaith dialogue, (maryknoll, ny: orbis, 2004). 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) the history of salvation. they are not merely a “preparation” for, “stepping stones” towards, or “seeds” of christianity and thus destined to be “fulfilled” by it. rather, they have their own autonomy and their proper role as ways of salvation, at least for their adherents.” 13 turning to judaism phan strongly asserts that the christian understanding of judaism must begin with an unambiguous and explicit rejection of any claim that the coming of christ abrogated judaism. judaism, in light of nostra aetate, must be seen as having continuing vibrancy. it continues to complement christianity in consort with other religious traditions. while phan certainly recognizes a special dimension to the christian-jewish relationship he does not view this relationship as totally unique. for him the church’s relationship with judaism and the jewish people is part of the wider complementary role played by the global religious family with regard to christianity. so i suspect he would remain rather critical of any attempt to isolate judaism from the wider interreligious scene. the challenge for christianity in all of its interreligious encounter is how to maintain the validity of the faith perspectives of other religious communities while continuing its traditional belief that human salvation inevitably runs jesus christ. maintaining this twofold perspective becomes especially challenging with regard to judaism. many christological visions have viewed the christ event as the termination of judaism’s authentic mandate. while some ambiguity remains in the way phan has tried to resolve this tension regarding judaism’s status post-easter and whether that status is unique in contrast to other religious traditions and faith communities, he basically argues for complementariness between christianity and judaism and the other world religions. awareness of this complementariness through which non-christian religions can positively impact christian faith understanding constitutes one of the major benefits of interreligious dialogue. because judaism and the other religious traditions add to christian self-understanding they should never be seen as serving merely as a “preparation” for eventual “fulfillment” by christianity. these other religions maintain their autonomy in the overall religious sphere. phan puts his position this way: there is then a reciprocal relationship between christianity and judaism and the other religions. not only does christianity complement the non-christian religions, but also the other religions complement christianity. in other words, the process of complementarity, enrichment, and even correction is two-way, or reciprocal. this reciprocity in no way endangers the christian confession that the church has received from christ the fullness of revelation, since it is one thing to receive the definitive gift of god’s self-revelation in jesus, and quite another to understand it fully and live it completely. indeed, it is only in a sincere and humble dialogue with other religions that christianity can come to a fuller realization of its own identity and mission and a 13 peter phan, “jesus as universal savior,” 133. pawlikowski: the uniqueness of the christian-jewish dialogue 8 better understanding of the constitutive revelation that it has received from christ. 14 phan then turns to the key phrase in the 2001 document from the pontifical biblical commission titled “the jewish people and their sacred scripture in the christian bible.” in part 1:21, the document asserts that when the expected jewish messiah appears he will exhibit some of the traits christians already find in jesus. 15 if this is indeed the case then phan believes we can posit two distinctive paths to an understanding of human salvation. the first is through the christological symbols associated with jesus; the second (here phan is speaking in the context of the christian-jewish dialogue) through the religious symbols of judaism, including that of the jewish messiah. but i believe phan would be open to expanding this second set of symbols beyond the parameters of judaism to the religions of asia. here is yet another example of how developments flowing from chapter four of nostra aetate may open important doors for the wider interreligious dialogue. i would join phan in suggesting that this perspective from the christianjewish dialogue establishes the possibility that specific christological symbols associated historically with the christian tradition may not be the only way of expressing the salvific reality that became apparent through the ministry and person of jesus. how the varied symbols for expressing this reality might eventually coalesce is something beyond our current comprehension. salvific reality is one; but the symbolic expression of that reality may be varied. this, it seems to me and to phan as well, is a possibility introduced into the dialogical encounter by this passage from the pontifical biblical commission’s document. it may be something that the pontifical biblical commission will need to pursue further since the pontifical biblical commission does not have a mandate to do theological reflection. 4. turn to the spirit in interreligious dialogue to bring these brief reflections to a close i would refer to a presentation i made in may 2016 at an international conference hosted by the theological faculty of the catholic university of leuven (ku leuven) that focused on the holy spirit, hermeneutics and dialogue. 16 that paper stressed the importance of a spirit christology in which christ and the spirit are fully integrated, may provide a better starting point within christianity than other christologies for developing a theology of religious pluralism. developing a spirit christology may in fact be a task that the asian church in particular take up as the dominant religions in asia are ones in which some notion of spirit plays a central role. but even in the chris 14 peter phan, “jesus as universal savior,” 134-135. 15 pontifical biblical commission, “the jewish people and their sacred scripture in the christian bible,” (vatican city: liberia editrice vaticana, 2002). for a discussion of the document, including my own reflections, cf. the special issue of the bible today (may/june 2003). 16 the papers from this conference will be published by peeters publishing in leuven. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) tian-jewish dialogue an emphasis on the spirit, a notion certainly present in judaism as michael lodahl argued some years ago, 17 may bring us somewhat beyond the wall that christology by itself has erected between the two faith communities. thus building a christian theology of religious pluralism upon a spirit christology rather than on christology alone may in the end prove a sturdier bridge towards interreligious reconciliation and collaboration. one other topic relevant for any discussion of the “uniqueness” of christianjewish relations and nostra aetate emerges from a proper understanding of the forces that helped generate the final text. it is often said, somewhat inaccurately, that the first three chapters of nostra aetate resulted pressure from bishops living in muslim majority societies who feared the writing of a document devoted solely to christian-jewish relations could endanger their minority congregations. there is some truth to this perspective. certainly the original impulse for the document was the result of the historic meeting between the french jewish historian jules isaac who lost most of his family in the shoah. in that meeting professor isaac urged pope john xxiii to have the forthcoming council take up the issue of antisemitism and its damaging consequences over the centuries, including during the nazi era. but as john borelli has shown as a result of his extensive collaboration with thomas stransky, c.s.p., the secretary of the drafting commission during the council, that there were influential groups of bishops and experts who had been involved with a positive re-evaluation of islam along the lines of the french catholic scholar louis massignon. in the end, they proved an important force in expanding the document beyond the borders of the christian-jewish relationship. so the inclusion of material about islam in the text, as well as in a less developed way material on other asian religions, was dues to positive energy on the wider interreligious context at the council and not merely fear of repercussion in the muslim world. knowing this history prevents us in my view from isolating the christian-jewish encounter from the other interreligious encounters the church maintains. over the years christology has continued to be a major stumbling block for christian-jewish relations. but it also poses difficulties for the other interreligious dialogues in which christians are engaged. this is particularly the case with regard to islam, which claims some links both with judaism and christianity and their sacred texts, but also posits a revelatory claim beyond that of the two prior traditions. this claim is especially troubling for the christian churches given their traditional proclamation of revelatory finality in and through jesus the christ. as one who has struggled with this theological dilemma in a number of my writings over several decades i have come to recognize that as christians we will never deepen and expand the foundations of our theology of interreligious dialogue, whether with the jews or any other religious community, until we begin to develop a theological perspective which transforms our understanding of the christ event in a way that does not automatically reduce jews and members of all 17 michael e. lodahl, “shekhinah/spirit: divine presence in jewish and christian religion,” (mahwah, nj: paulist press), 1992. pawlikowski: the uniqueness of the christian-jewish dialogue 10 other religious traditions to a fundamentally inferior status. is there a way christians can maintain a belief in the universal meaning of the christ event while recognizing distinctive contributions within jewish revelatory experiences. an international study group supported by cardinal walter kasper, who at the time headed the holy see’s commission for interreligious relations with the jews, identified this as the “mega question” for christian-jewish relations today. 18 but this “meta-question” also extends to all other interreligious dialogues in which the churches are currently engaged. in my address at ku-leuven i presented a tentative exploration of whether a move to an emphasis on spirit christology might enhance the emergence of a theology of religious pluralism on the part of christianity. the key, in my perspective, would be a much greater emphasis on the presence and power of the spirit in any effort by christians to construct a viable theology of religious pluralism, a theology that might find a greater hearing among people of other faith communities who might otherwise still see a “pure” christology as an unbridgeable stumbling block but who have some sense of the spirit in their religious selfperception. spirit christology has been a part of the theological scene in christianity for many centuries. mention has already been made of michael lodahl’s volume on the theme of spirit in judaism. his volume, which received scant attention when it appeared in 1992 deserves a second look even though one rabbinic colleague in the catholic-jewish dialogue in chicago rabbi yehiel popuko of the jewish federation has argued that lodahl presents a much too “activist” view of “shekhinah” in judaism. popuko claims that the term in judaism is merely presence unlike the “active” spirit of the christian tradition. but even if popuko is correct, and this requires further exploration in jewish source material, there is at least some connection between christian and jewish understandings of spirit at the level of “presence.” in recent years we have seen something of a renaissance not merely in spirit christology approaches that remain deeply rooted in chalcedon and trinitarian theologies, but others as well which go beyond this more classical version of spirit christology. such theologies propose a christological outlook in which the spirit replaces christ jesus as the principal christological focal point. theologians espousing such a perspective see their form of spirit christology superceding earlier versions of this approach generally known as logos christology. these theologians regard the emphasis on the spirit in christology as considerably more palatable to modern religious consciousness, as well as to interreligious dialogue, than a stress on the incarnate son. 19 however, this approach has been criticized. baptist theologian greg liston regards the effort by the above theologians to replace logos christology with their version of spirit christology as a “return” to 18 philip a. cunningham and others, eds., christ jesus and the jewish people today: new explorations of theological interrelationships, (grand rapids, mi: william b. eerdmans, 2011). 19 ralph del colle, roger haight, d. lyle dabney and greg liston are theologians who have written on this theme in recent years. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) some very early christological perspectives, giving this modern version the name of spirit-ebionism. he writes: in attempting to replace the category of logos with the category of spirit in the person of jesus this stream of researchers essentially replicates the errors of the early church in its initial spirit christological explorations. openly rejecting the chalcedonian and nicene formulations, they invite the same critique and suffer from the same flaws as their early church counterparts. to fully understand jesus’ identity, neither the spirit nor the son can be denied or neglected. 20 at this point i will refrain from any discussion of his critique of the theologians who have advocated a turn to spirit christology in recent years. my initial assessment is that his critique does not do their perspectives total justice. despite this critique liston expresses some openness towards a “spirit christology.” it would be a spirit christology in which the trinitarian understanding of the godhead is thoroughly integrated into christological expression. but the integration cannot be such that it in any way obscures the reality of jesus christ as truly the son of god. i have some sympathy for liston’s critique, as well as his approach to spirit christology. nonetheless i also harbor some reservations. yes, i do believe that in any authentic form of spirit christology the bodily dimension of the incarnation must remain front and center. but, as i see it, this bodily dimension is ultimately dependent on the spirit’s “anointing” of the jewish man jesus, which the new testament refers to as “conceived of the holy spirit” (mt 1:20); (cf. lk 1:35 “the holy spirit will come upon [mary]”). without this anointing he remains a jewish preacher of the first century; with this anointing he becomes jesus the incarnated christ. while liston rightly calls for an integration of christ and the spirit, in my judgement he keeps them in somewhat separate boxes. by turning to the analysis offered by lodahl in the volume already mentioned we may be able to move the discussion to a new constructive phase, one that can also prove useful in any consideration of a christian theology of interreligious encounter. for out of a context of the christian-jewish relationship he puts forth a vision which preserves jesus’ concrete humanism while interpreting the presence of the spirit in the man jesus in a way that might open some links with religious perspectives beyond the parameters of christianity. lodahl strongly emphasizes at the outset of his book that he is not presenting a vision of trinitarian theology, or put another way, an exposition of the third person of the trinity. rather his is an effort to comprehend god’s relatedness with all of creation. his own words go as follows. spirit christology is “a way of 20 greg liston, “a ‘chalcedonian’ spirit christology,” irish theological quarterly, 18:1 (february 2016): 74-93. pawlikowski: the uniqueness of the christian-jewish dialogue 12 talking about god ‘as near’ or in an active relation to creation, and especially to humanity.” 21 throughout his book lodahl strongly emphasizes the profound connection between the jewish man jesus and the spirit. but his approach is not primarily metaphysical such as a path through the johannine logos but through the witness of jesus during his public ministry. the spirit, fully imbedded in the physicality of jesus, enabled him to express the dynamic presence of god within humanity. for lodahl every encounter with jesus and the spirit is ultimately, and primarily, a direct encounter with god. in this regard, lodahl is close to the thinking of the late paul van buren. van buren, who authored three volumes on the christian-jewish relationship, 22 argued that what christians have experienced through jesus and his ministry is greater transparency regarding the profound integration of the divine presence within humanity and all of creation. van buren appeared to imply that this enhanced transparency was a unique dimension of the christian vision, although this claim was primarily presented in discussions of the christian scholars group and never published. he was to have produced a fourth volume detailing how the christian-jewish dialogue impacts wider interreligious understanding. however, that book took a different turn in the end as he returned in some ways to his earlier barthian roots and soon thereafter died of cancer. but i have come to identify with van buren’s emphasis on transparency, particularly if it is tied to lodahl’s insistence on the spirit at work in the ministry of jesus. the issue that remains for discussion is whether that transparency remains totally unique to jesus or perhaps might be grasped through some other religious lens even if only partially. this issue is key for any discussion of the spirit in terms of a catholic theology of religious pluralism. if the answer is in the affirmative, then spirit christology may indeed open new doors for the church’s vision of other religious communities. if we focus on the christological dynamic present in jesus and manifested in his ministry rather than primarily, or even exclusively. on the metaphysical dimensions of christology we may be able to move towards a greater spiritual solidarity with people in other religious traditions, a solidarity that will also manifest itself in the socio-political sphere. 5. jewish context of jesus’ teachings as i bring these reflections on section two of g&c to a close, a focus on two additional issues raised in that section would provide useful. the first relates directly to the just concluded discussion on spirit christology as the methodological center for interreligious dialogue, including christian-jewish relations. it concerns the positive impact of judaism on jesus’ own self-identity as well as his teachings. the second involves the proper interpretation of the passages in hebrews where the original covenant is contrasted with the “new” covenant 21 michael e. lodahl, shekhinah/spirit, 3. 22 cf. paul van buren, discerning the way (ny: seabury, 1980); a christian theology of the jewish people, (ny: seabury, 1983); and a theology of the jewish-christian reality: christ in context (san francisco, ca: harper & row, 1988). 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) in a way that appears to render the original covenant totally obsolete after the christ event (cf. 8:7; 8:13; 9:15; 12:24; 13:20). as for the first issue, g&c deserves commendation for its strong emphasis on the jewish context of jesus’ teachings and the importance of understanding this jewish milieu for any authentic exegesis of these teachings. but then the document falls into fairly traditional language about jesus being a “stumbling block” for jews without in any way suggesting that our new focus on the profound links between jesus and judaism may require some reconsideration of how we describe the “divine” side of jesus. his jewishness, in my judgement, does carry implications for his divine side as well as his humanness. but g&c fails to take up this question. it also seems oblivious to the fact that at least a few important jewish scholars such as daniel boyarin, elliot wolfson, and shaul magid have turned their attention to the appearance of “incarnation” in the judaism of jesus’ day. boyarin even refers to christology as a “job description” already present in judaism and applied to rather than created for jesus. 23 there is hardly a groundswell of support for such research within contemporary jewish religious scholarship. but neither does the wall with regard to christology between jews and christians seem as hopelessly impenetrable as has been the case for centuries. several christian theologians, myself included, have tried to penetrate that wall. the december vatican document is content to let the wall stand as is despite its call for continued theological reflection. 6. the letter to the hebrews: its continuing challenge for interreligious dialogue the second issue, the passages in hebrews, are treated by the authors of g&c in a constructive way that seems to reflect acquaintance on the part of the document’s authors with the new scholarship on hebrews by scholars such as the swedish exegete jesper svartvik. 24 the document rightly asserts the limited scope of this new testament text. it is not meant to pronounce on the overall theology of the church’s relationship with judaism but rather was intended to support the still fragile faith of jewish christians. because of this limited context, hebrews was not utilized in the creation of the text of nostra aetate. this is contrary to the assertions of cardinal avery dulles on the occasion of the celebration of nostra aetate’s fortieth anniversary in 2005 that its omission from nostra aetate makes 23 cf. daniel boyarin, the jewish gospels: the story of the jewish christ. (ny: the new press, 2012); elliot wolfson, “gazing beneath the veil: apocalyptic envisioning the end,” in john pawlikowski and hayim g. perelmuter, eds., reinterpreting revelation and tradition: jews and christians in conversation, (franklin, wi: sheed & ward, 1997), 77-103; and sahul magid, hasidism incarnate: hasidism, christianity and the construction of modern judaism, (palo alto, ca: stanford university press, 2015). 24 jesper svartvik, “stumbling block or stepping stone? on the reception history of hebrews 8:13,” in gabriella gelardini and harold w. attridge, eds., hebrews in context, (leiden: brill, 2016), 316324. pawlikowski: the uniqueness of the christian-jewish dialogue 14 any proclamation of the continued validity of the jewish covenant after the coming of christ somewhat problematical. 25 overall, g & c does encapsulate many of the positive developments brought about by nostra aetate’s chapter four. and its call further theological discussion is certainly welcome. unfortunately, despite this call for further reflection, it continues to use an old framework rather than think outside the box and adopts a theological rigidity regarding a single covenant that will not stand the test in current interreligious scholarship. 25 cardinal avery dulles, s.j., “evangelization and the jews,” with a response by mary c. boys, philip a. cunningham and john t. pawlikowski, america 187:12 (october 21, 2002): 8-16; and “the covenant with israel,” first things (november 2005). jewish philosophical and psychological approaches to the apostle paul studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college modern jewish philosophical approaches to the apostle paul: spinoza, shestov, and taubes d a n i e l r . l a n g t o n university of manchester volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 114 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 introduction jewish attitudes towards the apostle to the gentiles have been the subject of a number of studies in recent years. these have tended to focus on new testament or pauline studies, on theologians and religious leaders.1 this is because those conducting the surveys have been interested primarily in interfaith dialogue and the theological issues, not least the question of what to make of paul’s apparent hostility towards the law. for those interested in jewishchristian relations in a wider cultural context, however, this theological bias is unfortunate. after all, by remaining in the realm of interfaith studies, one is very often excluding socalled marginal jews who, for obvious reasons, are uncomfortable championing their community’s received traditions and dialoguing with representative members of the christian fraternity. there are many ways to define jewishness, and an exploration of the intellectual worlds of those who regard themselves as jewish, in some sense, even if they are not committed to any kind of judaism, is arguably every bit as 1 for example, daniel r. langton, “modern jewish identity and the apostle paul: pauline studies as an intra-jewish ideological battleground’” in journal for the study of the new testament 28.2 (2005): 217-258; daniel r. langton, “the myth of the ‘traditional jewish view of paul’ and the role of the apostle in modern jewish–christian polemics,” in journal for the study of the new testament 28.1 (2005): 69-104; pamela eisenbaum, “following in the footnotes of the apostle paul” in jose ignacio cabezón & sheila greeve davaney, eds, identity and the politics of scholarship in the study of religion (london: routledge, 2004), 77-97; stefan meissner, die heimholung des ketzers: studien zurjiidischen auseinandersetzung mit paulus (mohr: tübingen, 1996); nancy fuchs-kreimer, “the essential heresy; paul’s view of the law according to jewish writers, 1886-1986,” phd thesis, temple university (may 1990); donald a. hagner, “paul in modern jewish thought” in donald a. hagner and murray j. harris, eds., pauline studies: essays presented to f.f. bruce (exeter: paternoster press, 1980), 143-165; halvor ronning, “some jewish views of paul as basis of a consideration of jewish-christian relations” in judaica 24 (1968): 82-97. valuable for understanding the modern history of jewishnon-jewish inter-relations.2 furthermore, such a restrictive program automatically excludes those jewish thinkers who might have alternative reasons for reading paul’s writings and who believe that he has relevance for other kinds of scholarly discourse. for those engaged in philosophical endeavors, for example, the attraction to paul appears to be his implicit critique of society in the construction of the church, composed of both jews and gentiles. in the philosophical writings of baruch spinoza, lev shestov and jacob taubes, the claim is made that the church has seriously misunderstood the apostle and has failed to recognize the threat that he represents to the established social order. what follows, then, is not a survey of jewish pauline scholarship or contributions to interfaith dialogue by recognized jewish theologians, but rather a study of the place of paul in the jewish politico-philosophical imagination. we will begin with a figure who features in every book of jewish philosophy but whose interest in paul is rarely commented upon. baruch spinoza baruch spinoza (1632-1677) was born of portuguese jewish parents in amsterdam and died in poverty, reviled for 2 the approach adopted here is deliberately non-essentialist, an approach that does not pre-determine the outer limits of ‘jewishness’ and that allows one to take into account the rich variety of jewish experience; ‘deviancy’ or ‘marginality’ are terms with no useful meaning in this context. alternative approaches tend to essentialize by classifying phenomena as ‘jewish’ only in so far as they conform to the assumed essence of a ‘normative jewishness’ (which may or may not be related to theological criteria such as matrilineal descent, conversion to a particular tradition or set of beliefs, adherence to a certain body of law, or non-theological criteria such as racial or cultural definitions); all else is to be excluded as deviant. langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 115 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 his free thought and largely unrecognized for his profound contributions to modern western philosophy, political theory, and biblical criticism. expelled from the synagogue and estranged from the jewish community, many commentators have concluded that his jewishness was of little relevance to him or to his philosophical work. certainly, one of his chief aims was to free philosophy from religious authority, and in a theologico-political treatise (1670)3 he attempted to place religion on a new basis, one far more natural and political than traditional and theological. from this perspective, his view of the law as a product of the jewish people (and not vice versa) amounted to its abrogation.4 on the other hand, more recently, other commentators have noted that his writings represent a continuous dialogue with the torah, the prophets, and philosophers such as maimonides, that he sought the transformation of the jews rather than their conversion, and that he himself never converted to christianity. from this point of view, spinoza should be regarded as a forerunner of the modern emancipated secular jew and credited with the emergence of a critical attitude to tradition within jewish thought.5 while we 3 tractatus theologico-politicus (hamburg: apud henricum ku�nraht, 1670), published anonymously. the edition used here is benedict de spinoza, a theologico-political treatise, trans. r.h.m elwes (new york: dover publications, 1951), a reprint of r.h.m elwes, works of spinoza, i (london: g. bell & son, 1883). 4 such luminaries as herman cohen, emmanuel levinas, and leo strauss have regarded spinoza as a self-hating jew, anti-jewish, and demeaning of judaism. see steven b. smith, spinoza, liberalism, and the question of jewish identity (new haven: yale university press, 1997), 16-20, 166196, for an excellent overview of previous jewish (and non-jewish) appreciations of spinoza. 5 perhaps the most convincing presentation of such a view is offered in steven b. smith, spinoza, liberalism, and the question of jewish identity (new haven: yale university press, 1997). smith argues, “spinoza put jewish concerns and problems at the forefront of his thought in order to exercise a profound transformation of them. not conversion but secularization was the final aim of the treatise. it was an attempt to turn judaism from an possess no definitive evidence of his self-understanding,6 few nowadays would dismiss entirely the idea that it included a jewish dimension. one of spinoza’s purposes in writing a theologico-political treatise was to make the case for freedom of thought as a stabilizing force for society.7 he maintained that the people were controlled by the clergy whose authority was built on irrational and superstitious teachings, observing that authoritative body of revealed law into what today would be called a modern secular identity.” he also observes, “the treatise is, to my knowledge, the first modern work to advocate the restitution of jewish sovereignty and a jewish state.” ibid, xiii, 19. see also yosef yerushalmi, freud’s moses: judaism terminable and indeterminable (new haven: yale university press, 1991), 10, where spinoza is held up as the first example of the modern secular jew. 6 the evidence is notoriously ambiguous. taking just one letter as an example, spinoza can be understood to express pantheistic, jewish and christian sentiments: “i hold an opinion about god and nature very different from that which modern christians are wont to defend. for i maintain that god is, as the phrase is, the immanent cause of all things, but not the transcendent cause. like paul…i assert that all things live and move in god...i would dare to say that i agree also with all the ancient hebrews as far as it is possible to surmise from their traditions, even if these have become corrupt in many ways...i say that it is not entirely necessary to salvation to know christ according to the flesh; but we must think far otherwise of the eternal son of god, that is, the eternal wisdom of god, which has manifested itself in all things, more especially in the human mind, and most of all in christ jesus.” letter from spinoza to henry oldenburg (november or december 1675), reproduced in franz kobler, ed,, a treasury of jewish letters: letters from the famous and the humble ii (new york: jewish publication society, 1953), 553. 7 the subtitle of the treatise reads “containing a number of dissertations, wherein it is shown that freedom to philosophize can not only be granted without injury to piety and the peace of the commonwealth, but that the peace of the commonwealth and piety are endangered by the suppression of this freedom.” langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 116 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 in despotic statecraft, the supreme and essential mystery be to hoodwink the subjects, and to mask the fear, which keeps them down, with the specious garb of religion… [t]he ministries of the church are regarded by the masses merely as dignitaries, her offices as posts of emolument – in short, popular religion may be summed up as respect for ecclesiastics. the spread of this misconception inflamed every worthless fellow with an intense desire to enter holy orders, and thus the love of diffusing god’s religion degenerated into sordid avarice and ambition…[f]aith has become a mere compound of credulity and prejudices – aye, prejudices too, which degrade man from rational being to beast, which completely stifle the power of judgment between true and false, which seem, in fact, carefully fostered for the purpose of extinguishing the last spark of reason! piety, great god, and religion are become a tissue of ridiculous mysteries.8 he argued that by allowing people to think and philosophize freely the foundations of society would be established more securely. contrary to his enemies’ aspersions, his famously unorthodox identification of god with ‘nature’ did not lead him to reject religious practice altogether. rather, he believed that religious observance should be protected by a sovereign who required of his subjects adherence only to a simple creed which was acceptable to a wide variety of existing sects, and who otherwise respected freedom of conscience.9 in this way, the influence of the clergy would be minimized and philosophers such as himself would be able to concentrate on the advancement of knowledge and the betterment of society without concern for the constraints of traditional authority. in this ambitious project, the apostle paul was to prove useful to spinoza in a number of ways. 8 b. spinoza, a theologico-political treatise, 5, 6-7 (preface:18, 25-29). 9 b. spinoza, a theologico-political treatise, 211-212 (16:100-110). firstly, paul bridges the gap between the religious and the philosophical in that, according to spinoza, “none of the apostles philosophized more than did paul.”10 by this he meant that paul appeared to favor rational argument to a greater extent than did the other disciples whose claim to authority more often appealed to divine revelation. in this context, moses, too, was also compared unfavorably to the apostle to the gentiles. all the arguments employed by moses in the five books are…not drawn from the armory of reason, but are merely modes of expression calculated to instill with efficacy, and present vividly to the imagination, the commands of god…thus moses, the chief of the prophets, never used legitimate argument, and, on the other hand, the long deductions and arguments of paul, such as we find in the epistle to the romans, are in nowise written from supernatural revelation.11 while he was prepared to take seriously both the old and new testaments (after applying rationalist criteria to their reading) spinoza was a good deal more skeptical of the authority of contemporary priests. their authority was founded upon tradition and unverifiable claims to special knowledge of the divine will. scholastic assertions that “the natural light of reason” could teach nothing of any value concerning salvation could be dismissed easily for, as decriers of reason, they were not entitled to use it to defend their non-rational views; their insistence on something 10 spinoza puts this down to paul’s need to find a language appropriate for the gentiles. he goes on, “other apostles preaching to the jews, who despised philosophy, similarly adapted themselves to the temper of their hearers (see gal 2.11) and preached a religion free from all philosophical speculations.” b. spinoza, a theologico-political treatise, 164 (11:56). 11 b. spinoza, a theologico-political treatise, 159 (11:18-20). langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 117 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 superior to reason was “a mere figment.” as paul himself suggested, the shortcomings of their worldview would be clear for all to see. but there is no need to dwell upon such persons. i will merely add that we can only judge of a man by his works. if a man abounds in the fruits of the spirit, charity, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, chastity, against which, as paul says (gal 5:22), there is no law, such an one, whether he be taught by reason only or by the scripture only, has been in very truth taught by god, and is altogether blessed.12 thus paul was not only a model of philosophic integrity whose teaching method was superior to those of both christian and jewish founding fathers, but also a potent weapon to wield against the contemporary enemies of reason. secondly, paul’s universalistic teachings are of great interest and are drawn upon early on in the treatise to demonstrate that god cannot be delimited by any creed or claimed as the property of any one people. once again, it is moses, together with his parochial descendents, who is contrasted negatively with paul. contemporary jewish teachers, to whom spinoza refers as pharisees, claimed that the divine gift of prophecy or revelation had been given only to the hebrew nation. to prove this, they pointed to the passage in exodus where god makes a covenant with them as a result of moses’ petition. after a sideswipe at the jews as a “rebellious…stiff-necked people” whose “disposition and spirit” provoked moses’ plea for “the special election of the jews,” spinoza offers a plain reading of the story to argue that nothing in the text indicated god’s refusal to reveal 12 b. spinoza, a theologico-political treatise, 80 (5:91-97). himself to other nations.13 intriguingly, he admits that paul seemed to disagree with him. i confess that in paul’s epistle to the romans, i find another text which carries more weight [than exodus 23 and 34], namely, where paul seems to teach a different doctrine from that here set down [by spinoza], for he there says (rom 3:1): “what advantage then hath the jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles [or prophesies] of god.”14 it is revealing that such is his predilection for paul that spinoza is prepared to gloss over this apparent discrepancy as an anomaly. instead he places greater emphasis on the universalism in paul’s thought and continues by demonstrating how the apostle made no distinction between different peoples when it came to the human condition of sin, consciousness of which accompanied knowledge of the law. and since all mankind experienced this sin, the ‘law’ that accompanied it, and which was also familiar to all, must refer to a universal sense of right and wrong rather than to the mosaic law developed by the ancient hebrews. but if we look to the doctrine which paul especially desired to teach, we shall find nothing repugnant to our present contention; on the contrary, his doctrine is the same as ours, for he says (rom 3:29) “that god is the god of the jews and of the gentiles”…further, in chap. 4 verse 9, he says that all alike, jew and gentile, were under sin, and that without commandment and law there is no sin. wherefore it is most evident that to all men absolutely was revealed the law under which all lived – 13 b. spinoza, a theologico-political treatise, 52-53 (3:73-80). 14 b. spinoza, a theologico-political treatise, 53 (3:81-82). langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 118 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 namely, the law which has regard only to true virtue, not the law established in respect to, and in the formation of a particular state and adapted to the disposition of a particular people…so that paul teaches exactly the same as ourselves.15 spinoza has no difficulty taking the next step and suggesting that the internal sense of ethical behavior possessed by all peoples was possible precisely because all men could come to know god’s laws through rational thought and observation of nature. this idea was an important one to spinoza (and to later enlightenment thinkers and deists) and, once again, he chooses to justify it by reference to paul. [w]e must by no means pass over the passage in paul’s epistle to the romans, 1:20, in which he says: “for the invisible things of god from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead; so that they are without excuse, because, when they knew god, they glorified him not as god, neither were they thankful.” these words clearly show that everyone can by the light of nature clearly understand the goodness and the eternal divinity of god, and can thence know and deduce what they should seek for and what avoid…16 and what were the practical implications of such a natural law? for spinoza, the just society would base its laws on those common ethics that inculcated good relations between men. in a section headed, “it is shown that scripture teaches only very simple doctrines, such as suffice for right conduct,” spinoza drew upon paul to argue, 15 b. spinoza, a theologico-political treatise, 53 (3:83-88). 16 b. spinoza, a theologico-political treatise, 67-68 (4:95-96). furthermore, as obedience to god consists solely in love to our neighbor for whosoever loveth his neighbor, as a means of obeying god, hath, as st. paul says (rom. 13:8), fulfilled the law it follows that no knowledge is commended in the bible save that which is necessary for enabling all men to obey god in the manner stated, and without which they would become rebellious, or without the discipline of obedience.17 thirdly, spinoza argues that a close reading of paul’s writings suggests the proper approach to the sacred scriptures, the interpretation of which was conventionally regarded as a priestly prerogative. the readiness of the apostle to distinguish between teachings revealed through prophecy and his own teachings demonstrates the need to discern between revelation and other forms of knowledge.18 paul himself is capable of making this distinction, and spinoza is quick to point out that “paul speaks according to his opinion and [that as a result of human error] in many passages we come across doubtful and perplexed phrase”; he also has no trouble finding examples where the apostle “corrects himself as speaking merely humanly and through the infirmity of the flesh.”19 using the epistles to suggest that the language of the bible is a flexible tool adapted in different ways at different times for the purposes of effective communication could, he believed, also lead to a more profound understanding of, amongst other things, the very nature of god.20 17 b. spinoza, a theologico-political treatise, 176 (13:10). 18 spinoza’s conviction is that “the bible leaves reason absolutely free, that it has nothing in common with philosophy, in fact, that revelation and philosophy stand on totally different footings.” b. spinoza, a theologicopolitical treatise, 9 (preface:42). 19 spinoza offers 1 cor 7:25,40; rm 3:5,28; 6:19; 8:18. b. spinoza, a theologico-political treatise, 40 (2:118), and 157 (11:4). 20 paul is only one of the new testament disciples who adapted their message as necessary. “[l]est its novelty should offend men’s ears it had langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 119 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 spinoza’s conception of the deity is notoriously problematic, not least for the difficulty in reconciling it with the god of biblical tradition. whatever the precise meaning spinoza retained for the term ‘god’, it was to some extent synonymous with ‘nature’, a power without a personality, closely related to the universal, deterministic laws of the cosmos. it therefore comes as something of a surprise to find him claiming paul in support of this idea. [paul] never himself seems to wish to speak openly, but, to quote his own words (rom 3:6, and 6:19), “merely humanly.” this he expressly states when he calls god just, and it was doubtless in concession to human weakness that he attributes mercy, grace, anger, and similar qualities to god, adapting his language to the popular mind, or, as he puts it (1 cor 3:1, 2), to carnal men. in rom. 9:18, he teaches undisguisedly that god’s anger and mercy depend not on the actions of men, but on god’s own nature or will…we conclude, therefore, that god is described as a lawgiver or prince, and styled just, merciful, etc., merely in concession to popular understanding, and the imperfection of popular knowledge; that in reality god acts and directs all things simply by the necessity of to be adapted to the disposition of contemporaries (2 cor 9:19,20), and built up on the groundwork most familiar and accepted at the time.’ b. spinoza, a theologico-political treatise, 163-164 (11:55). supernatural imagery was one way of accomplishing this, and paul was by no means the only biblical writer to engage in this kind of language. “[t]he prophets perceived nearly everything in parables and allegories, and clothed spiritual truths in bodily forms, for such is the usual method of imagination. we need no longer wonder that scripture and the prophets speak so strangely and obscurely of god’s spirit or mind (cf. numbers 11:17, 1 kings 22:21, &c.), that the lord was seen by micah as sitting, by daniel as an old man clothed in white, by ezekiel as a fire, that the holy spirit appeared to those with christ as a descending dove, to the apostles as fiery tongues, to paul on his conversion as a great light. all these expressions are plainly in harmony with the current ideas of god and spirits.” b. spinoza, a theologico-political treatise, 25 (1:121). his nature and perfection, and that his decrees and volitions are eternal truths, and always involve necessity.21 while other jewish thinkers might have drawn upon maimonides,22 here paul is brought to bear in an argument that the biblical language which endows god with a personality is a necessary evil, a concession to untutored minds, which no philosopher need take seriously. rather, god appears as something akin to the stuff of the universe, whose nature we glimpse only through the eternal laws and predetermined mechanisms of creation. according to spinoza, then, paul and the biblical authors in general were prone to error, constrained by the conventions of their times, and consciously adapted their language to their specific audiences – to such an extent that the very nature of god had been profoundly misunderstood. in all this, spinoza implies, the bible should be read with a willingness to recognize what is authoritative and what is not. he looks forward to the day when this critical approach would free religion from unauthoritative teachings, which he calls superstitions.23 ultimately he argues that, for the 21 b. spinoza, a theologico-political treatise, 65 (4:73-76). 22 spinoza was disinclined to draw on maimonides as a result of the twelfth-century philosopher’s attempt to equate judaism with rationalism. as feld put it, “the first six chapters of the theologico-political treatise are an extended argument with maimonides: spinoza many times explicitly indicates that maimonides is the one who holds the position he is seeking to demolish. it is the maimonidean identification of judaism and rationalism which takes the full brunt of his criticism and his argument that prophets are not philosophers is offered to free philosophy from its religious connection.” edward feld, modern judaism, 9:1 (1989), 109. 23 spinoza believed that “many quarrels and schisms distracted the church, even in the earliest times, and doubtless they will continue so to distract it for ever, or at least till religion is separated from philosophical speculations, and reduced to a few simple doctrines taught by christ to his disciples…how blest would our age be if it could witness a religion freed langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 120 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 purposes of a just society based on solid rational foundations, only those biblical teachings that encourage right conduct are necessary. of course, spinoza would have been quite capable of making the arguments outlined above regarding the importance of reason, the universal conception of god, and his proto-biblical-criticism without reference to paul. why is it that the apostle featured in such a positive way in the alternative vision of society described in a theologicopolitical treatise – especially considering that spinoza was forced to overlook those aspects of pauline theology with which he was at odds? the answer lies in the difficulties of articulating his political theory in the dangerous historical context in which he wrote, a context in which power remained in the hands of christian authorities. if spinoza had called for a “universal religion of human reason that transcends the historical differences between the revealed faiths and that can serve as an ethical basis for a free, open and tolerant society,” as has been suggested,24 then this would explain both his apparent anti-judaism and his apparent high regard for paul. on the one hand, in order to undermine the authority of revelational religion in general, he had launched a polemical attack on judaism in particular, ostensibly contrasting christianity favorably; and yet many of his christian contemporaries had realized that his criticisms could just as easily be applied to their own faith. on the other hand, spinoza himself suggested that it was useful to support his arguments from scripture; and certainly, for the majority of his audience who belonged to one christian also from all the trammels of superstition.” b. spinoza, a theologicopolitical treatise, 163-164 (11:56-57). 24 smith argues persuasively that spinoza was not denigrating judaism in order to champion christianity but was just as concerned to undermine christianity’s claims to revelational authority. s. smith, spinoza, liberalism, and the question of jewish identity, 105-118, 197. church or another, it is clear that paul functioned as a familiar and powerful figure of biblical authority.25 thus the seventeenth-century marginal jew made a conscious effort to clothe his arguments in the apparel of the apostle to the gentiles. or, as he once put it, [l]est its novelty should offend men’s ears it had to be adapted to the disposition of contemporaries...built up on the groundwork most familiar and accepted at the time.26 lev shestov while spinoza had valued paul for his rationality, the russian jewish philosopher and bitter critic of spinoza, lev shestov (1866-1938),27 was attracted to paul precisely because he regarded him as part of a long-term judeochristian critique of western rationality. although the professor of russian literature at the university of paris produced no dedicated study, the apostle is frequently in shestov’s thought, informing his language and reinforcing his arguments throughout a wide selection of his writings. shestov’s particular brand of existentialist philosophy is notoriously difficult to articulate, not least because language 25 in a discussion about the nature of apostolic authority, spinoza writes, “if we call reason to our aid we shall clearly see that an authority to teach implies an authority to choose the method. it will nevertheless be, perhaps, more satisfactory to draw all our proofs from scripture; we are there plainly told that each apostle chose his particular method...” b. spinoza, a theologico-political treatise, 163 (11:49-50). for the same reason jesus appears frequently in the treatise, where he is also presented positively as a philosopher. 26 in fact, spinoza is here describing paul’s own approach. b. spinoza, a theologico-political treatise, 163-164 (11:55). 27 born yehuda leyb schwartzman in kiev of a wealthy jewish family, he emigrated to france in 1921 and remained in paris until his death. langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 121 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 was part of the system that he wanted to critique. fascinated by paradox and the subjective experience of the individual, he was convinced that the western tradition of rational philosophy was bankrupt. this was because rational thought tries to describe the world in generalizations and unchanging laws that delimit what is and is not possible. drawing upon european philosophy and literature, with which he was intimately familiar, shestov tried to show how mankind experienced despair and loss of freedom as the result of having embraced the intellectual restrictions of the scientific worldview. the very attempt to rationalize suppressed the raw experience of lived reality and failed to address the most meaningful questions of individual existence.28 what, then, was the alternative? shestov eventually came to believe that the biblical tradition best captured the frightening yet liberating insight that everything was possible, that nothing was fixed or certain, and that, ultimately, all was beyond man’s control.29 this way of understanding life as potentiality, which he described as ‘faith’, was ‘biblical’ in the sense that its god was not the god of the philosophers, the unmoved mover, but rather the capricious god of abraham, isaac and jacob – and of the apostle paul. shestov’s ‘religious existentialism’, which is most famously given expression in 28 “[modern philosophy] sweeps away beauty, good, ambition, tears, laughter, and curses, like dust, like useless refuse, never guessing that it is the most precious thing in life, and that out of this material and this alone, genuine, truly philosophic questions have to be moulded. thus the prophets questioned, thus the greatest sages of antiquity, thus even the middle ages. now only rare, lonely thinkers comprehend this.” l. shestov, in job’s balances, ii:16 29 “the business of philosophy is to teach man to live in uncertainty man who is supremely afraid of uncertainty, and who is forever hiding himself behind this or the other dogma. more briefly, the business of philosophy is not to reassure people but to upset them.” lev shestov, apotheosis of groundlessness: an attempt in adogmatic thinking (st. petersberg: obshestvennaia pol’za, 1905), i:11, reprinted in bernard martin, ed,, all things are possible & penultimate words and other essays (ohio university press, 1977), trans. s.s. koteliansky. in job’s balances (1929)30 and his magnum opus athens and jerusalem (1938),31 can therefore be understood to combine a radical skepticism with a profound religious sense.32 shestov’s interest in the bible began relatively late, after he had left revolutionary russia for france in the 1920s and two decades since he had first begun his crusade against reason.33 one commentator has suggested that it was partly 30 leo chestov, in job’s balances: on the sources of the eternal truths, trans. camilla coventry and c. a. macartney (london: j.m. dent and sons, 1932). originally published in russian (annales contemporaines: paris, 1929). 31 lev shestov, athens and jerusalem, ed. § trans. bernard martin (ohio university press, 1966). originally published in french and german athиnes et jerusalem; essai de la philosophie religieuse (paris: 1938); athen und jerusalem: versucht einer religiosen philosophie (1938). 32 shestov’s dismantling of all philosophical edifices has been described as “an anguished religious quest, casting away all forms of idealism – indeed, of all moral and epistemological certainty and reassurance – in order to encounter the living god: unpredictable, irrefrangible, absurd.” michael weingrad, “new encounters with shestov” in the journal of jewish thought and philosophy 11:1 (2002), 49. 33 initially, there was nothing religious about his existentialism. from early on in his career shestov had been convinced of the failure of philosophy to provide solace to individuals in despair, illustrating his argument by means of poetic truths penned by shakespeare, among others. thus the turbulent experiences of hamlet and king lear culminated in increased knowledge of their own inner worlds, he argued, 33 “[modern philosophy] sweeps away beauty, good, ambition, tears, laughter, and curses, like dust, like useless refuse, never guessing that it is the most precious thing in life, and that out of this material and this alone, genuine, truly philosophic questions have to be moulded. thus the prophets questioned, thus the greatest sages of antiquity, thus even the middle ages. now only rare, lonely thinkers comprehend this.” l. shestov, in job’s balances, ii:16 33 “the business of philosophy is to teach man to live in uncertainty man who is supremely afraid of uncertainty, and who is forever hiding himself behind this or the other dogma. more briefly, the business of philosophy is not to reassure people but to upset them.” lev shestov, apotheosis of groundlessness: an attempt in adogmatic thinking (st. petersberg: langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 122 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 to make his philosophy more intelligible to a european audience that the hebrew bible began to feature in shestov’s work. in any case, his conception of biblical faith emerged as a positive compliment to his negative evaluation of logical positivism. a non-practicing jew who eschewed orthodox tradition, shestov was wary of institutional religion and collective religious experience. in his bible, which appeared to consist primarily of genesis and some of the prophetic writings, shestov found a powerful precedent for his idea, for the ancient texts told of various individuals’ direct experience of a living god whose sovereign rule over existence appeared to them as arbitrary as it was absolute. nor was the insight of the hebrews limited to the old testament. the new testament could, in this very important sense, be regarded as one with the old, and this explains how shestov came to see the apostle to the gentiles as part of a jewish biblical tradition that questioned worldly wisdom. obshestvennaia pol’za, 1905), i:11, reprinted in bernard martin, ed., all things are possible & penultimate words and other essays (ohio university press, 1977), trans. s.s. koteliansky. 33 leo chestov, in job’s balances: on the sources of the eternal truths, trans. camilla coventry and c. a. macartney (london: j.m. dent and sons, 1932). originally published in russian (annales contemporaines: paris, 1929). 33 lev shestov, athens and jerusalem, ed. § trans. bernard martin (ohio university press, 1966). originally published in french and german athиnes et jerusalem; essai de la philosophie religieuse (paris: 1938); athen und jerusalem: versucht einer religiosen philosophie (1938). 33 shestov’s dismantling of all philosophical edifices has been described as “an anguished religious quest, casting away all forms of idealism – indeed, of all moral and epistemological certainty and reassurance – in order to encounter the living god: unpredictable, irrefrangible, absurd.” michael weingrad, “new encounters with shestov” in the journal of jewish thought and philosophy 11:1 (2002), 49. 33 initially, there was nothing religious about his existentialism. from early on in his career shestov had been convinced of the failure of philosophy to provide solace to individuals in despair, illustrating his argument by means of poetic truths penned by shakespeare, among others. thus the turbulent experiences of hamlet and king lear a knowledge that shared next to nothing with the world as described by rationalists. this experience of the individual, shestov maintained, was frequently of greater import than the abstract logic of philosophy, even though the tendency was to set it aside as inferior. for an account of the evolution of shestov’s thought, see brian horowitz, “the tension of athens and jerusalem in the philosophy of lev shestov” in the slavic and east european journal, 43:1 (spring 1999). 34 as far as shestov is concerned, paul’s message was “true jewish thinking”35 and the man himself a visionary whose teachings should be read alongside those of the hebrew prophets themselves.36 indeed, shestov regards the apostle as an astute interpreter of older biblical insights. he is particularly keen to stress how paul confronted the 34 “the bible remains the book of books, the eternal book. it would be no loss to exchange the theological literature of a whole generation of later epochs against a single epistle of st. paul or a chapter from isaiah.” l. shestov, in job’s balances, ii:7. “in the letter to the romans the apostle repeats the same thing and even more strongly: ‘for what does scripture say? ‘abraham believed god, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’” (romans 4:3). the whole bible – the old and the new testament – is supported by this kind of a justification, and most of the letters of the apostle paul speak of this truth that is incomprehensible and goes contrary to all the habits of our thinking, a truth that revealed itself many thousands of years ago to a small, half-wild people.” l. shestov, speculation and revelation, 5. 35 in a conversation with his disciple benjamin fondane (26 july 1928), shestov mused, “i think that hitler really has a lot of intuition – he hates st paul: it’s true jewish thinking.” when fondane asked him whether “paul had betrayed the spirit of the bible when he opened to the gentiles the privileges of the chosen people? didn’t god say: ‘i have loved jacob but esau i have hated’?” shestov answered “of course! and yet...in the beginning there was no such thing as jews and non-jews...” “entretiens avec leon chestov” in nathalie baranoff and michel carassou, eds., rencontres avec leon chestov (paris: plasma, 1982). elsewhere he described paul ironically as “an ignorant jew” (l. shestov, potestas clavium, preface) and affectionately as “an old jew” (l. shestov, in job’s balances, ii:5:33). 36 “the prophet isaiah and st. paul have warned us that human wisdom is foolishness before god and that god’s wisdom is foolishness in the eyes of men.” l. shestov, in job’s balances, iii:5. langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 123 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 philosophy of his own day, drawing heavily upon isaiah and jeremiah.37 for example, st. paul says: isaiah dared to say: “i was found by those who did not seek me, i manifested myself to those who did not inquire after me.” how can one accept such audacious words? god, god himself violates the supreme law of justice: he manifests himself to those who do not inquire after him, he is found by those who do not seek him. can one then exchange the god of the philosophers, the single, immaterial truth, for such a god as this?38 likewise, the story of abraham, which shestov himself adapts as an allegory for the philosopher’s journey,39 was of tremendous significance to paul, who referred to it repeatedly in his attempt to confound the wisdom of the greeks with the vital reality of the life of faith. it would be too easy to multiply quotations to prove that what st. paul said of abraham, who went he knew not where, would have appeared to the greek thinkers the height of folly. and even if abraham had arrived at the 37 “the basic motif of paul in all of his letters is as follows: ‘but god chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise’ (i cor, 1:27). he constantly cites the most enigmatic and mysterious sayings of the prophets, and the more audacious the prophet the more joyfully does the apostle welcome him. ‘therefore, as it is written: “let him who boasts, boast of the lord’” (i cor, 1:31), he repeats after jer 9:24. and after is 64:4: ‘what no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what god has prepared for those who love him’ (i cor, 2:9). i could write out quotations from the letters of paul endlessly but, indeed, there is no need for this; all know them without me.” l. shestov, speculation and revelation, 5. 38 l. shestov, in job’s balances, iii:7. 39 “st. paul says that when abraham went to the promised land he departed without knowing where he was going. this signifies that only he attains the promised land who takes no account of knowledge, who is free of knowledge and of its truths: where he arrives will be the promised land.” l. shestov, athens and jerusalem, ii:14. promised land, his act, in the judgment of the greeks, would have been as absurd as if he had not arrived anywhere. what vitiates his act, in their eyes, is precisely what confers its immense value upon it, according to the apostle [paul] and the bible: abraham does not ask reason, he refuses to admit the legitimacy of the pretensions of knowledge…what strikes and charms the apostle [paul] in abraham, what he sees in him as the highest virtue, appears to plato as a truly criminal frivolity. how indignant he and socrates would have been if it had been given them to read what st. paul writes in the epistle to the romans: “for what saith the scripture? ’abraham believed god and this was imputed unto him for righteousness.’” (rom 4:3)40 the still more ancient story of the tree of knowledge was another example from the hebrew bible that shestov found to be in accordance with both his own and st. paul’s teachings.41 fired by his all-consuming philosophical agenda, shestov could not but see the same truth repeated a thousand times – and what difference did it make whether one read it in the story of the fall or in an epistle from the apostle to the gentiles? ultimately, knowledge, death, sin 40 l. shestov, athens and jerusalem, iii:6. 41 “but ‘knowledge’ and ‘works’ if one accepts the mysterious biblical legend [of the fall] were precisely the source of all evil upon earth. one must redeem oneself in other wise, through ‘faith’ as st. paul teaches, through faith alone, i.e. through a spiritual exertion of quite peculiar nature, which we describe as ‘audacity.’ only when we have forgotten the ‘laws’ which bind us so fast to the limited existence, can we raise ourselves up above human truths and human good. to raise himself man must lose the ground under his feet.” l. shestov, in job’s balances, ii:7. “faith, in the prophets and apostles, is the source of life; faith, in the philosophers of the middle ages educated by the greeks, is the source of the knowledge that understands. how can one not recall in this connection the two trees planted by god in the garden of eden?” l. shestov, athens and jerusalem, iii:6. langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 124 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 and the law were all terms relating to the same phenomenon. as he explained, the knowledge of good and evil, as well as of shame, came to [man] only after he had tasted the fruits of the forbidden tree. this is incomprehensible to us, just as we do not understand how these fruits could bring him death. and relying on the infallibility of our reason, we wish with all our powers that the mind should be dormant in the man who does not know the difference between good and evil. but the bible does not say this. the bible says, on the contrary, that all the misfortunes of man come from knowledge. this is also the meaning of the words of st. paul…‘all that does not come of faith is sin.’ in its very essence knowledge, according to the bible, excludes faith and is the sin par excellence or the original sin.42 from this we see that, at the same time as viewing paul as a faithful transmitter of the core teachings of the ancient hebrews, shestov readily acknowledged that the author of the epistles offered him a new vocabulary with which to communicate his idea. indeed, he believed that paul’s abrogation of the law had become one of the classic expressions of a tradition of anti-rationalist thought.43 thus, when the apostle had exclaimed “the law entered that offence might abound” (rm 5:20) what he had meant was 42 l. shestov, in job’s balances, ii:14. 43 shestov identified this tradition with a christian antinomian one. “there is a tradition of thought, or a question, that has run back from st. augustine, and past st. augustine to st. paul, past st. paul to what paul found in certain passages of isaiah, and in the biblical story of the fall. the same question which had confronted luther a century earlier, presents itself to pascal: whence does salvation come to man? from his works, that is to say, from his submission to eternal laws; or from a mysterious force which, in the no less mysterious language of the theologians, is called the grace of god?” l. shestov, in job’s balances, iii:7. that the law was “a hammer in god’s hands, that he may break man’s assurance that living beings are ruled by eternal, immaterial, and sovereign principles.”44 shestov was also very quick to adopt paul’s language for his own purposes more generally: to speak of ‘grace’ as the only hope,45 to warn against the eternal threat of rationality as “the enemy [who] is alert, skilful, cruel and watchful,”46 and to recognize that even though one might “understand all mysteries, and [have] all knowledge…[yet] knowledge, it shall vanish away.”47 and so shestov takes the remarkable position as a jew and as a philosopher that paul’s emphasis on faith (so often contrasted negatively with rationality or knowledge) is the correct one, and that his teachings concerning freedom from the ‘law’ (here understood as immaterial and eternal truths to which one subjugates oneself) could be counted amongst mankind’s most important insights into the nature of existence. 44 l. shestov, in job’s balances, iii:8. 45 “augustine, quoting st. paul and the prophet isaiah, spoke of grace.” l. shestov, in job’s balances, ii:4:28. 46 here shestov actually paraphrases peter’s admonition (1 pt 5:8), mistakenly thinking it to be paul’s: “the last warning of an old jew, the apostle paul, in whose name they were speaking. the enemy is alert, skilful, cruel and watchful. if one yields to him all is over.” l. shestov, in job’s balances, ii:5:33. 47 “arithmetic has power only in the ‘ideal’ world subject to man, chiefly and perhaps even exclusively because this world was created by man himself and consequently obeys its author. but in the real world a different hierarchy prevails: there that which in the ideal world is smaller is ‘greater.’ the laws in general are different there; it may even be that there cannot be any question of laws there, that one wishes to know nothing about our laws there. st. paul teaches: ‘though i speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, i am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. and though i have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though i have all faith, so that i could remove mountains, and have not charity, i am nothing...charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away’ (i cor. 13).” l. shestov, potestas clavium, preface. langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 125 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 furthermore, shestov employed paul’s own life-story to support his privileging of individual experience over abstract philosophy and to show how certain assumptions (or ‘theory’) could blind mankind to the deeper truths of inner knowledge (or ‘facts’), which were too often discounted as unreal. history, he argued, “agrees to admit only what is important for a large number of people.” st. paul’s revelatory experience on the road to damascus held an honored place in history precisely because “st. paul was always persuaded that he had really seen the christ,” because he had managed to persuade people to believe his account, and because he was concerned to have the memory of his vision preserved. but what of the many others down through the centuries who had been less persuasive, or who, unlike paul, had come to doubt their own experiences? posterity had forgotten them. shestov believed that paul would have agreed with him that “the theory of fact hides from men the most important realm of being, and that those facts which theory does not admit are precisely the most precious and the most significant.”48 48 l. shestov, athens and jerusalem, iv:4:38. earlier he explained, “we have no right to reject an unusual experience, even though it does not agree with our a priori notions. i have already shown that nietzsche underwent a similar experience, and from it he derived the idea of his ‘beyond good and evil,’ which is simply a modernized translation of luther’s sola fide. and unless we are much mistaken, st. paul’s vision on the road to damascus was another instance of the same thing. to st. paul, who was persecuting christ in the name of the ‘law,’ it became suddenly clear that ‘the law entered that the offence might abound’...oh, how precious are these ‘sudden” findings, and how little does philosophy know how to make use of them, thanks to its traditional methods and its fear of the irrational ‘ego’! it is difficult to realize the shock that a man experiences when he makes such a ‘discovery,’ and still harder to understand how he can go on living.’ l. shestov, in job’s balances, iii:7. insofar as the apostle added credibility to shestov’s lifelong rage against reason,49 paul was also useful in attacking shestov’s opponents, both ancient and modern. the greeks would have despised the ignorance of those, like paul, who privileged faith over reason. as shestov put it, the greek wisdom could admit neither abraham, the father of faith, nor st. paul, nor the prophets of the bible to whom the apostle constantly refers. the indifference, the ‘proud’ scorn of knowledge, would be pardoned neither in this world nor in the other. st. paul and his abraham are only pitiful ‘haters of reason,’ who must be fled like the plague. 50 part of the reason for the hostility of their heirs towards paul lies in the diametrically opposed views of how salvation is to be achieved. traditionally, paul’s faith had been set in contrast to works-righteousness, but the real dichotomy is between faith and knowledge. for the greek philosophy…believed that knowledge was the only way to salvation: “to him who has not philosophized, who has not purified himself through philosophy and who has not loved knowledge, it is not given to unite himself with the race of the gods.” if 49 camus described shestov’s writings, obsessed as they are with his one idea, as “wonderfully monotonous.” albert camus, the myth of sisyphus, new york, 1955, vintage books (originally published in france in 1942 by librairie gallimard), 19. against the charge that he misrepresented the views of ancient authorities so as to strengthen his own position, shestov freely admitted another might criticize his choice of texts as highly selective, over-emphasizing the accidental or throw-away comment. “but the goal of these reflections.” he insisted, “consists precisely in seizing and saving from oblivion the ‘accidental’.” l. shestov, potestas clavium, preface. 50 l. shestov, athens and jerusalem, iii:6. langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 126 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 abraham and st. paul are not ‘thinkers,’ if they do not love and seek knowledge, they will never obtain salvation. the greeks knew this well and they would never have agreed to grant anyone the right to raise and resolve the question of knowledge and the salvation of the soul: aristotle has told us that philosophy itself resolves all questions. 51 thus paul’s arrogant declaration that “all that does not come of faith is sin” (rm 14:23) sets him forever at enmity with the classical philosopher, who cannot accept the terrible idea that a lifetime of rational speculation was a lifetime wasted. shestov delights in acknowledging that “most of the ideas that [paul] develops in his epistles and the quotations from the old testament with which his reflections are interspersed can awaken in educated people only feelings of irritation and revulsion.”52 significantly, shestov developed his diatribe to include the attempt by theologians to reconcile faith with reason.53 thus the apostle could be held up as a corrective to the pursuits of the giants of modern theological rationalism, including amongst others, spinoza. the fundamental opposition of biblical philosophy to speculative philosophy shows itself in particularly striking fashion when we set…spinoza’s “to rejoice in true 51 l. shestov, athens and jerusalem, iii:6. 52 “what good, then, is plato’s catharsis, the stoics’ struggle, the monks’ exercitia spiritualia, and the rigorous itineraria of the martyrs, ascetics and mystics? will all these tremendous, superhuman and glorious works then have served for nothing? is it possible to ‘defend,’ through rational arguments, the god of the bible against these accusations that are so well founded on rational thought? obviously not.” l. shestov, athens and jerusalem, ii. 53 to subject revelation to the judgment of reason is folly or, as he put it, “even moses himself could speak face to face with god only as long as he held to the heights of sinai; as soon as he descended into the valley the truth that had been revealed to him was transformed into law.” l. shestov, athens and jerusalem, ii:10. contemplation” opposite st. paul’s words, ”whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” [for the] precondition of…spinoza’s ‘true contemplation’ is the willingness of the man ‘who knows’ to renounce god’s ‘blessing’ [i.e. god’s sovereign, arbitrary control] by virtue of which the world and everything that is in the world were destined for man’s use.54 strictly speaking, paul’s theology is not a necessary element in shestov’s philosophical program. undoubtedly, one reason he features so prominently is because shestov, like spinoza, recognizes the moral authority of paul within the wider christian society and his usefulness as a common frame of reference. from this point of view, the russian philosopher’s apparent lack of compunction only supports those commentators who have questioned his jewish authenticity.55 and yet, shestov’s interest in the tyrannical 54 l. shestov, in job’s balances, forward 2. 55 “while the heroes and stories of the bible captivated shestov, it is clear that the actual religion left him less enthusiastic. he did not reflect on the laws and rituals of judaism, the institution of the rabbinate and ignored the history of the jewish people and the problems of ‘chosenness.’ in short, he accepted only those aspects consistent with his teaching: the miracles of the bible and the individual images of stubborn allegiance to god… by accepting both judaism and christianity, he maintains allegiance to the religion of his birth, yet was simultaneously free to employ christianity’s spiritual wealth.” brian horowitz, “the tension of athens and jerusalem in the philosophy of lev shestov” in the slavic and east european journal, 43:1 (spring 1999): 168-169. “he cared too much for inwardness, for inner experience as an access to salvation, to rest within what was orthodox in judaism. at the same time he was too dismayed with the logos of the fourth gospel, too smitten with love for the old testament god, with all his arbitrary caprice, to have other than short shrift for conventional or churchly christianity. yet shestov was both a jew and a christian; and for him the fundamental antinomies were not between the old and new testament, or even between religion and atheism, but rather, as the titles of his last two books clearly state, between speculation and revelation, and athens and jerusalem (1938).” sidney monas, “shestov, lev” in encyclopedia judaica (1972). langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 127 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 rule of rationality down through the centuries did make the apostle important in one special sense. since paul (and readings of paul by men such as augustine and luther) continued to shape western civilization, the correct reading of the epistles really mattered. if his theology had actually been more radical than was commonly understood, if he had not simply offered a critique of judaism or of legalism but had in fact sought to bring the counter-cultural message of the ancient hebrews to those living in his own day, just as shestov himself was attempting to do in contemporary terms, then there would be profound, if not revolutionary, implications for society. after all, in contemporary terms, the message was that the very scaffold upon which western theology and philosophy had been hung was rotten to the core. of course, it was precisely because shestov interpreted paul’s abrogation of the law as a critique of the high value placed on reason that his warning cry to european civilization was entirely the reverse of spinoza’s. the seventeenth-century philosopher had painted a political vision of a better society, a world where a rational apostle set the example and where one might collectively challenge the authority of those who would control by way of superstition. for shestov, paul is rather one of the enlightened few who grasps the absurdity of such a vision, and who gives the lie to the claim that there is a rational basis to faith. in terms of social activism, however, shestov appears impotent beside spinoza. he cannot use paul to offer a constructive blueprint for action, other than to point the individual inwards on a quest to confront the mystery, unintelligibility, and seeming injustice of the divine will. in time, an even more systematic negative political theology would be offered, again justified by reference to pauline thought. jacob taubes the viennese-born jewish philosopher of religion, jacob taubes (1923-1987), was professor of judaism and hermeneutics at the free university of berlin. while a trained-rabbi and a self-proclaimed ‘arch-jew,’56 he was also deeply interested in marginality and limits, and described himself as living an “uneasy ahasueric lifestyle at the borderline between jewish and christian, at which things get so hot that one can only [get] burn[ed].”57 his academic career was concerned with religio-philosophical issues such as the theological legitimization of political authority and modern conceptions of apocalyptic thought, both of which informed his treatment of the apostle paul.58 in heidelberg in 1987, a few weeks before he died of cancer, he gave a series of lectures on paul that he described as his spiritual testament.59 the result was a carefully edited work of oral 56 letter from jacob taubes to carl schmitt (18 september 1979), reproduced in appendix b of j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 110. 57 cited by aleida assmann in j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 143. ahasuerus was one of the names given to the wandering jew of medieval legend, who mocked christ on route to the crucifixion and, as a result, was condemned by god to exile until the second coming. 58 key influences on his thought were his teacher and german-jewish historian of jewish mysticism, gershom scholem (1897-1982), the german-jewish philosopher walter benjamin (1892-1940) and german catholic political theorist carl schmitt (1888-1985). taubes was dependent on scholem for his understanding of sabbatianism and kabbalah; he concurred with benjamin’s pessimistic view of time as moving towards a cataclysmic ending and the call to act ethically in whatever time remains; and he agreed with schmitt that all significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts, although he disagreed as to the precise nature and implications of this special relationship. 59 “taubes did not understand his works on paul as an academic obligation or exercise. he regarded them as an account of what lay at the langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 128 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 testimony that was published as the political theology of paul in 1993.60 whatever his own philosophical agenda, taubes was explicit that he wanted to approach paul from a jewish perspective,61 and sees himself contributing to a liberal jewish interpretative tradition.62 this tradition had taken a dim view of the apostle to the gentiles in the past, in sharp contrast to the generally positive appreciation of his master, jesus. as taubes puts it, a jewish reclamation of paul is “a borderline that’s hard to cross.”63 he is generally suspicious centre of what unsettled him intellectually.” preface by aleida assmann in j. taubes, the political theology of paul, xiii. 60 the four lectures were held at the protestant institute for interdisciplinary research (fest) in heidelberg, 23-27 february, 1987 and originally published in german (based on the audio recordings of aleida assmann) as jacob taubes, die politische theologie des paulus (münchen: wilhelm fink, 1993). the english edition is jacob taubes, the political theology of paul, ed. aleida and jan assmann, trans. dana hollander (california: stanford university press, 2004). despite the editors’ best efforts, one commentator has observed of the book: “[t]he tone – by turns confiding, anecdotal, and trenchantly judgemental – and the form – digressions, understatements, circular thought, incomplete demonstrations – are both bewildering.” alain gignac, “taubes, badiou, agamben: reception of non-christian philosophers today,” society of biblical literature 2002, section 2.1. the afterword in the english edition by wolf-daniel hartwich, alieda and jan assman (115-142), which provides an overview and commentary on the text, has proven to be an indispensable guide for making sense of taubes’ highly idiosyncratic lectures in the presentation offered here. 61 “in the course of this lecture i want to try to convey to you why paul concerns me as a jew…” j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 4. 62 taubes is dismissive of klausner and schoeps, complimentary about baeck and flusser, and interested to engage with buber and freud. j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 5-11, 136-138. 63 “of course i’m not speaking ex nihilo here [in this lecture]. this means that i still owe you a scholarly answer to the question of what tradition of jewish religious history i stand within. now it happens that the jewish study of paul is in a very sad state. there is a literary corpus about jesus, a nice guy, about the rabbi in galilee, and about the sermon on the of the motives of those who had written before him, and is keen to distance himself from any interest in improving jewish-christian understanding.64 what appeals to taubes is the possibility of reclaiming certain patterns of thought for judaism that had become associated with christianity in general and pauline theology in particular. but before exploring these matters, he wanted to properly categorize the apostle.65 for taubes, the matter is clear: paul had been an authentic jew. as he explains, [the reason why] little jacob taubes comes along and enters into the business of gathering the heretic [paul] back into the fold, [is] because i regard him – this is my own personal business – as more jewish than any reform rabbi or any liberal rabbi, i ever heard in germany, england, america, switzerland or anywhere.66 taubes feels a strong sense of familiarity with paul, ‘a diaspora jew’ who reminds him of the cocky, aggressive mount; it’s all in the talmud and so on…this apologetic literature proliferated in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and there is a consensus in liberal judaism (not in orthodox judaism, which hasn’t moved an inch), that is, a sort of pride in this son of israel. but when it comes to paul, that’s a borderline that’s hard to cross.” j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 6. 64 “[t]o the present day…nothing has changed, and all of this blahblah about jewish-christian understanding is not worth mentioning – the world is divided into jews and gentiles. that there are christians is something that has not entered [the jewish] consciousness, so to speak. whoever tells you anything different is an interested party. that’s how it is.” j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 20. 65 “names are not sound and smoke, but word and fire, and it is to names that one must be true.” cited by aleida assmann in j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 143. 66 j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 11. langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 129 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 jewish american college students he had seen in israel.67 the apostle’s jewishness means that taubes believes he can understand the epistles better than non-jews,68 but paul’s was a special kind of jewishness, and one with exciting potential for any philosopher interested in marginal identity. as taubes sees it, paul had lived and worked in a unique atmosphere, one in which the conflict between jewish and gentile christians was still raging and in which the political and economic relationships within the mixed congregations was very different from the situation pertaining after the destruction of the temple, when he believes that the spirit of the jewish-christians had been broken. thus paul had inhabited a world where what was ‘jewish’ and what was ‘christian’ had not yet been decided.69 67 “i am inclined to assume that paul was a diaspora jew. whether his family originated in palestine, whether he belongs to the tribe of benjamin – he says he belongs. if he comes from the galilean tradition, then it makes a lot of sense to me that he also calls himself a ‘zealot’. someone with zeal for the law…if you go to israel [today] and look…then you will notice that there is a whole zealot group of american college boys…who are cocky [frech], like any american, and, on top of that, aggressive when they want to accomplish something. anyway, this type of zealot diaspora jew who is to the core holier than thou, that is, who wants to outdo the normal level of piety, this is what we have before our eyes today, so to speak. you can just smell it...that’s the type he was. a diaspora jew, but nevertheless sent by the family to jerusalem.” j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 25-26. 68 taubes reports as evidence a conversation he once had with the germanist and greek scholar emil staiger: “you know, taubes, yesterday i was reading the letters of the apostle paul. to which, he added, with great bitterness: but that isn’t greek, it’s yiddish! upon which i said: yes, professor, and that’s why i understand it!” j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 3-4. 69 “during the time of paul…the political balances and the economic balances were different…[the roman congregation] is a mixed congregation, and the conflicts within it are between jewish christians and gentile christians...the whole question of commensality, of the common table, these are very concrete problems. does one eat together? does one sleep together? is this a congregation or is this not a congregation? to accomplish his reclamation, taubes needed to undermine the christian image of paul. rather than emphasize the conversion of paul (from judaism to christianity), whereby paul’s faith is understood in terms of freedom from the law, he stresses the calling of paul (in-line with other jewish prophets). starting with rm 1:1, in which paul introduces himself as “a servant of jesus christ, called to be an apostle,” taubes argues, so what we have here is not a conversion but a calling. whoever looks at what galatians 1:15 says about what is commonly called the conversion, the damascus [road] experience, knows that what is being talked about here is not conversion but a calling, and that this is done in the language and the style of jeremiah [1:5 ‘before i created you in the womb, i selected you. before you were born, i consecrated you. i appointed you a prophet concerning the nations.’]… and this is how paul sees himself called to be an apostle – one has always to add this, otherwise one misses what is essential – from the jews to the gentiles.70 so, while paul was undoubtedly a jew, he was a jew with a very special mission. what precisely had this mission entailed? taubes reads rm 9-11 as paul’s declaration that, that wasn’t as simple as it seems now. after 70 it was all smooth sailing… with that [the destruction of the temple, interpreted as divine punishment] the will of the jewish christian congregation is broken by both the jews and the gentile christians. what is exciting about paul is that we are just before this turning point, and the balances are totally different…[t]he word ‘christian’ – this i ask you to get into your heads – doesn’t yet exist for paul. one mustn’t be cleverer than the author and impute to him concepts that he doesn’t have and doesn’t want to have.” j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 20-21. 70 j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 13-14. langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 130 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 like moses, he was the founder of a new people and the representative of a new law.71 for paul, the task at hand is the establishment and legitimation of a new people of god. this doesn’t seem very dramatic to you, after two thousand years of christianity. but it is the most dramatic process imaginable in a jewish soul.72 the letter of romans can only be understood, suggests taubes, if it is read alongside ex 32, for always in paul’s mind is the story of moses. god’s anger at the rejection of his messiah had mirrored god’s anger at the rejection of the law and the worship of the golden calf. moses and paul had both been with israel at the awful moment when relations had hung in the balance; but while moses had been able to change god’s mind, to convince him to adhere to the original covenant, and had rejected the idea of founding a new people,73 paul had become the anti-moses who took responsibility for the new foundation or covenant of the people of god. “the crux of the thing,” taubes continues, lies in the fact that paul faced the same problem as moses. the people has sinned. it has rejected the messiah that has come to it. it is only from this, after all, that the calling of paul results, as it says in galatians… all of what i have said appears to me to be necessary in order to understand just what paul means when he says he wants to be accursed by christ. these are not rhetorical flourishes, but rather the [expression of] devastation about the people of god no longer being the people of god. 71 taubes relates a story of how he was summoned to plettenberg in the autumn of 1979 to talk with carl schmitt about romans and generated his idea of moses who, twice, “refused the idea that with him begins a new people and that the people of israel should be eliminated – and of paul who accepts the idea.” according to the story, schmitt had said, “taubes, before you die, you must tell some people about this.” j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 2-3. 72 j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 28. 73 taubes cites ex 32-34 and nm 14-15. 74 in offering further support for the idea that paul had sought to create a new people, taubes directed his attention to the pauline reduction of jesus’ dual commandment (which had already reduced the 613 commandments to two, love of god and love of neighbor) to the single commandment, love of neighbor. no dual commandment but one commandment. i regard this as an absolutely revolutionary act…[jesus’ dual commandment] belongs to the primordial core of jesus’s christian tradition. and that paul couldn’t have missed.75 why had paul done this? it made good sense, taubes suggests, if paul had been concerned not with the individual so much as the new community he had founded and the need to integrate jews and gentiles within it. nevertheless, taubes is insistent that paul’s vision of a new people had not negated his sense of belonging to the old people and that it was this loyalty that accounted for his heartfelt pain and readiness to suffer for their sake as a scapegoat that might neutralize god’s anger (just as moses had done for israel’s salvation). for taubes’ paul, the enmity of god for the jews (for their rejection of the messiah) had been part of an ancient love story and certainly had not implied the rejection of the jews for the sake of the gentiles. the election of the gentiles had been a chapter in this story, whereby god had attempted to draw back his people to him. 74 j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 37-38. 75 j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 53. langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 131 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 the whole business about going to the gentiles turns out in this context to be a scene of jealousy in order to make the jews, to whom this message is directed, jealous. i didn’t invent that; it says so in the text. because he doesn’t want to cast away the people, but to make them jealous.76 in any case, what most interested taubes in paul’s opening up of the covenant to the gentiles was the authority he claimed for the consequent creation of a new community. in paul’s day, he observes, there had been only two models of human relations: the ethnic community, such as the people of israel, and the imperial order of the roman empire. paul is understood to have offered a third option, which he had defined against both. thus the epistle to the romans relativizes rome’s world imperialism with the messiah’s claim to world dominance, and at the same time challenges israel’s self-understanding by asserting the new israel’s independence of law (nomos) and peoplehood (ethnos). as taubes put it elsewhere, i read the epistle to the romans as a legitimation and formation of a new social union-covenant, of the developing ecclesia against the roman empire, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, of the ethnic unity of the jewish people.77 his image of paul was of a revolutionary thinker who, having rejected all political and ethnic conceptions of identity, went on to disregard any authority that defined itself in these terms. and this is the context in which he offers another 76 j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 50. 77 this is from a course description of a lecture course “on the political theology of paul” (1986), cited in j. taubes, the political theology of paul, afterword by wolf-daniel hartwich, alieda and jan assman, 117. corrective to christian traditional interpretation, this time regarding the law. for taubes, it is important to jettison the traditional dichotomy of law and works-righteousness, and to acknowledge the error of regarding pauline theology as, essentially, a critique of the torah or jewish religious law. instead, he believes that the “nomos” or “law” that paul had condemned should actually be understood as referring to the “hellenistic theology of the sovereign.” in stark contrast with other interpretations of what paul had meant by the law,78 taubes maintains that paul’s critique of the law represents a negation of the use of law per se – whether imperial or theocratic79 – as a force of political order: for the apostle, legitimacy is denied to all sovereigns of the world. as taubes puts it, “it isn’t nomos but rather the one nailed to the cross by nomos who is the imperator!” 80 taubes’ paul offers, then, a “negative political theology” in that he offers no political alternative in his program to undermine the law as a power to dominate; and this, says taubes, has important implications for those interested in using paul for their political theologies, for while many oppressed groups might identify with his revolutionary objectives, they could not claim the authority of paul for the new political orders for which they called. 78 taubes takes exception to bultmann’s assertion that paul shares in the same kind of universality found elsewhere in the jewish-hellenistic world, so that his concept of the law incorporates the torah, the law of the universe, and natural law. j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 24. 79 paul goes beyond the zealots who only deny the legitimacy of roman imperial law, and who hope for a new national form of rule, a theocratic law. in this context, taubes praises bruno bauer who was the first to recognize in christ and the caesars (1877) that “christian literature is a literature of protest against the flourishing cult of the emperor.” j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 16. 80 j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 24. langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 132 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 in offering this unusual interpretation of paul’s view of the law, taubes not only tried to develop a political-theological critique of the foundations of legal authority, but also to build a case for the categorization of anti-nomism as a legitimately jewish enterprise. judaism and christianity have traditionally been stereotyped as two different approaches to religion: one is said to exemplify “reconciliation by ritualization” or ritualistic religiosity, whereby obedience to the law is prized above all else; the other exemplifies “redemption by liberation” or spiritual religiosity, whereby freedom from the law is regarded as the key. and yet, historically, both approaches have each had proponents within the two religious systems. taubes’ original contribution was to focus on ”redemption by liberation” in the jewish context, for which he held up paul as his jewish champion. (traditionally, of course, paul had been regarded as the christian exemplar of “liberation” from the law). for taubes, paul’s critique of the law had not been a christian polemic against judaism or jewish law or torah, but rather one of a series of jewish attempts to find freedom from the law itself.81 another controversial example he gives is the seventeenth-century self-proclaimed messiah sabbatai zvi. the story of sabbatai zvi (1626-1676?) and his apostle nathan of gaza (1643-1680) provided taubes with the evidence he needed to justify his categorization of paul’s anti-nomian theology as authentically jewish. after all, both nathan and paul had been concerned to answer a profoundly jewish question, namely, how does one rationalize the apparent failure of the messiah?82 in comparing what he called the ‘messianic logic’ of the two theologians, taubes hoped to demolish the common view of paul’s conception of faith and his attitude towards the torah as evidence of his non-jewish or christian character. basing himself heavily on his friend gershom sholem’s work, taubes explains that lurianic kabbalah teaches that every jew partakes of the restoration (tikkun) of creation by means of the “progressive separation of good from evil” accomplished through “performance of the commandments of the torah.” 81 j. taubes, the political theology of paul, afterward by wolf-daniel hartwich, alieda and jan assman, 116-117. 82 “if there is something like a catalogue of jewish virtues, and there is such a thing, then the word emunah [faith] plays a very subordinate role. that is, if you read the moral literature of the talmud or of thirteenthcentury spain or of the fifteenth-century… if you read this moral literature, then [it’s true that] you will also find, among the wide variety of virtues they 83 nathan of gaza had replaced the redeeming function of the “works of the law” (which had been assumed by luria) with legitimation by means of “pure faith” in the messiah. just as paul had written “the righteous shall live by his faith.”84 so nathan had exclaimed “he whose soul is justified by faith shall live.”85 just as paul had offered a theological rationale of the crucifixion (that is, the pure messiah must, paradoxically, become impure so as to sanctify those who are impure),86 so too had nathan for sabbatai zvi’s conversion to islam. in nathan’s case, the idea appears to have been that evil is so thoroughly woven into the cosmos that its division from good is impossible; the good must fully identify with evil, transcending the torah which distinguishes between good and evil, in order to have there, the word emunah. [but in contrast] in the sabbatian literature the coverage is very dense. this is in the first place a statistical finding: suddenly the word emunah appears six, seven times on each folio page. this statistical finding is incredibly instructive. the sabbatian drama is a caricature of the christian drama. by caricature i don’t mean that it is imitated [but that both histories are those of the apparent failure of a jewish messiah for which an explanation must be found].” j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 8. 83 gershom scholem, sabbatai sevi: the mystical messiah, 1626-1676, trans. r.j. zwi werblowsky (princeton: princeton university press, 1973), 42. 84 rm 1:17, referring to hb 2:4. 85 g. scholem, sabbatai sevi (1973), 282, 284. 86 taubes cites 2 cor 5:21. langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 133 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 transcend it. thus faith for paul and nathan is not a matter of belief in god. what both are calling for was, in fact, the impossible – to believe, despite the evidence to the contrary, that jesus or sabbatai zvi was the messiah – and they were prepared to recognize this feat as the greatest spiritual accomplishment of all. it was clear that, to achieve this, the believer needed to discard previous assumptions along with any and all authorities upon whom they had previously depended. [t]he principle is clear: the inner experience of redemption is going to be reinterpreted in light of an external catastrophe and a slap in the face…[t]he internal logic of events demanded a faith that is paradoxical, that is contradicted by the evidence. paul comes and says: here is the messiah. people must know that he died on the cross. after all, word has gotten around…here is the son of david hanging on the cross!... now try to think from the centre in a jewish way: expelled from the community he hangs there, accursed, and has to be taken down in the evening lest the ground become impure. this is a total and monstrous inversion of the values of roman and jewish thought…87 the faith in this defamed son of david becomes an equivalent for all – now we’re speaking in pauline terms – works. this faith is more important than any works… here something is demanded at such a high price to the human soul that all works are nothing by comparison – to consider it for a moment from the perspective of religious psychology instead of theology…faith according to paul must be understood in the emphatic sense as faith in the messiah, who by an earthly measure cannot be the messiah who hangs condemned on the cross…this 87 j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 9-10. paradoxical faith…[this] messianic logic in the history of jewish mysticism, is a logic that is repeated in history.88 once again, then, taubes was offering a corrective to the christian tradition. paul’s faith had had little to do with an individual’s ahistorical spiritual experience of salvation as understood in terms of a new relation with god. nor could it be used to justify any claim to power. rather, it had been founded on the historical experience of a catastrophe and the paradoxical realization that salvation was to be achieved by the overturning of the previous rational universe, the abandonment of the law and works, and the transfer of allegiance to a higher authority than that of any earthy rulers. pre-empting any queries as to how this anti-authoritarian reading of the apostle could be reconciled with his apparently quietistic passages which called for the status quo and obedience to existing worldly powers,89 taubes reasons, under this time pressure, if tomorrow the whole palaver, the entire swindle were going to be over – in that case there’s no point in any revolution! that’s absolutely right, i would give the same advice. demonstrate obedience to state authority, pay taxes, don’t do any thing bad don’t get involved in conflicts, because otherwise it’ll get confused with some revolutionary movement, which, of course, is how it happened. because, after all, these people have no legitimation, as, for instance, the jews do, as a religio licita [legal religion]… 90 thus paul’s apparent quietism actually reflected his radical apocalypticism: if you expect the imminent end of the world 88 j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 49-50. 89 for example, rom 13:11ff and 2 cor 7:29ff. 90 j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 54. langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 134 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 and believe that god has called you to found a new social order, then there is no time to waste revolting against meaningless worldly authority.91 with this highly original interpretation of the apostle’s theology, taubes believed that he had returned paul the heretic to the jewish fold (because a messianic logic is a jewish logic) and, in so doing, had also developed a more sophisticated understanding of judaism itself – one which saw judaism as a phenomenon that has historically, from time to time, demonstrated a tendency to seek liberation from the law. this is, of course, a highly problematic argument. it is by no means self-evident that messianism is an exclusively jewish phenomenon, for christianity arguably shares this trait. it is also somewhat naïve for taubes to think that his assertion that paul and nathan both understood the law in terms of religio-political authority would be accepted without further debate. and the same is true for their “messianic logic,” whose anti-nomism would – by definition – disqualify its jewish categorization as far as many in the jewish community are concerned. nevertheless, as we shall see, this allegedly jewish messianic understanding of faith, as espoused by paul, represented a powerful means by which taubes could critique certain ideas within modern political theology. 91 for an excellent overview of taube’s key philosophical interests, including his apocalypticism and political-theological legitimization of authority, see joshua robert gold, “jacob taubes: apocalypse from below” in telos 134 (march 2006): 140-156. see also the comparative study of taubes’ political theology in marin terpstra and theo de wit, ‘“no spiritual investment in the world as it is’: jacob taubes’s negative political theology” in ilse n. bulhof and laurens ten kate, eds, flight of the gods: philosophical perspectives on negative theology (new york: fordham university press, 2000), 320-353. in occidental eschatology (1947),92 taubes had argued that if one accepted the idea that time would one day come to an end, as he himself did, then there were profound implications for political thought. while in ‘nature’ time was experienced as an eternal cycle of events, ‘history’ was defined as the realm of time in which men’s actions altered the progression of events. a man’s decision, then, really mattered. such a philosophy demanded that individuals take responsibility for their own actions and shake off all authorities that claimed to act on their behalf.93 this theory, which he called apocalyptic, was deeply unnerving to many observers and went a long way towards earning him his reputation as a non-conformist, maverick thinker. it certainly colored his debate with carl schmitt (1888-1985), the german political theorist. in this intellectual engagement, two theoretical possibilities for relating divine and secular power had been discussed in the light of paul’s theology. in 1922, schmitt had famously written in political theology that “all significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts,”94 thereby stressing the structural similarities between the function of political theory in legitimating state power and the function of theology for justifying god’s power. the idea that god intervenes miraculously as part of his providential role for the world correlated to the ruler’s acting above the law in the interest 92 jacob taubes, abendländische eschatologie (bern: a. francke, 1947). 93 as he put it elsewhere, “this has consequences for the economy, actually for all life. there is no eternal return, time does not enable nonchalance; rather it is distress.” interview with jacob taubes (1987), cited in joshua robert gold, “jacob taubes: apocalypse from below” in telos 134 (march 2006), 145. 94 carl schmitt, political theology, trans. george schwab (cambridge, ma: mit press, 1985), 36. the translation is of the 1934 second edition; the first edition was published as carl schmitt, politische theologie: vier kapitel zur lehre von der souveränität (münchen: duncker & humblot, 1922). langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 135 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 of state order; to ‘decide on the exception’ was therefore the justifiable action of a sovereign.95 ominously, schmitt argued elsewhere that membership of the state was defined against a common enemy who was “existentially something different and alien.”96 the appeal of such ideas to the nazi regime are obvious and explain in part schmitt’s prestige and influence as a jurist during its early years. a lifetime later, in september 1979, schmitt invited him to his home in plettenberg.97 taubes’ own account makes it clear that the category of enemy was discussed in the context of paul’s attitude to the jews as portrayed in rm 11:28, “enemies [of god] for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their forefathers.” while schmitt focused on the earlier part of the sentence, believing that paul’s new community had been defined against and in opposition to the jewish people who had become the enemies of god himself, taubes emphasized the latter part of the sentence, stressing the ongoing covenant with israel. and this is the point i challenged schmitt on, that he doesn’t see this dialectic that moves paul, and that the 95 carl schmitt, political theology (1985), 5. 96 carl schmitt, the concept of the political, trans. george schwab (university of chicago press, 1996), 27. originally published as carl schmitt, “der begriff des politischen” in archiv fur sozialwissenschaft und sozialpolitik, 58 (1927). 97 in 1952, schmitt had been forwarded a copy of a letter in which taubes had described him as “the intellectual capacity that stands above all the intellectual scribbling” (see appendix b in j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 107) and began sending him copies of his books; he circulated the letter, commenting, “letter from a jewish intellectual who understands me better than any of my followers.” taubes had ignored the ex-nazi jurist, until in 1979 he wrote asking to see him. for an overview of the schmitts-taubes relationship, see marin terpstra and theo de wit, ‘“no spiritual investment in the world as it is’: jacob taubes’s negative political theology” in ilse n. bulhof and laurens ten kate, eds, flight of the gods: philosophical perspectives on negative theology (new york: fordham university press, 2000), 327-336. christian church after 70 has forgotten, that he adopted not a text but a tradition, that is, the folk traditions of church antisemitism, onto which he, in 1933-36, in his uninhibited fashion, went on to graft the racist theozoology. that is something that he, the most important state law theorist, did indeed receive as a lesson. ‘that i did not know!’ it is possible to read texts without noticing what their core point is.98 [italics added] in general terms, taubes agreed that political theory and theology were intimately related. but the implications, as he saw them, were very different from those suggested by schmitt, whose theoretical conception of “enemy” showed him to be a victim of the seductive power of the traditional, but mistaken, christian interpretation of pauline thought. for taubes, the structure of theology – that is, the logic of messianic and apocalyptic thought – did not somehow legitimate the political power, but rather pointed to the usurpation of all authority and the de-legitimization of state sovereignty. and this view, which made pointless any accommodation to the prevailing political establishment, was a good thing. as taubes tries to explain in his heidelberg lectures, schmitt had been interested in only one thing, namely, that the chaos not rise to the top, that the state remain. no matter what the price…i [taubes] have no spiritual investment in this world as it is. but i understand that someone else [e.g. schmitt] is invested in this world and sees in the apocalypse, whatever its form, the adversary, and does everything to keep it subjugated and suppressed, because from there forces can be unleashed that we are in no position to control. you see now what i want from schmitt – i want to show him that the separation of powers between worldly and spiritual is 98 j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 51. langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 136 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 absolutely necessary. this boundary, if it is not drawn, we will lose our occidental breath. this is what i wanted to impress upon him against his totalitarian concept.99 it would be surprising if, in making this argument to schmitt himself in 1979, taubes had not drawn heavily upon paul’s jewish messianism, which he believed offered the antidote to the poisonous assumptions underlying schmitt’s political theology.100 as a post-holocaust jew, taubes had been understandably concerned to question the foundations of political authority, and especially its theology legitimation. partly because influential western political theoreticians such as schmitt appeared to have been influenced by pauline theology, in one way or another, it seemed imperative to taubes to offer a critique of paul. in his reclamation of the “jewish apostle to the gentiles,” taubes suggested that the study of paul’s milieu offered an insight into a time when borders between jewish and christian thought had not been finalized; there was, in his view, a tantalizing possibility to reach back and reclaim certain traditionally christian ideas as jewish. one such idea was the tendency to look for liberation from the law – in the sense of freedom from political authority. in other words, his focus on paul’s creation of a new people, “a subterranean society, a little bit jewish, a little bit gentile,”101 and the justification the apostle offered for doing so, allowed him to criticize both christian and jewish culture more generally. the christian community had missed the political import of paul’s language of “faith” and “law,” while the jewish community had been wrong to regard anti-nomism as entirely alien to judaism and jewish thought. 99 j. taubes, the political theology of paul, 103. 100 gold has demonstrated that from early on in his career, taubes had read paul’s theology along apocalyptic lines; thus the pauline community had been constituted of those who “have freed themselves from all natural, organic attachments – from nature, art, cult and state – and for whom emptiness and alienation from the world…accordingly reached a high state.” j. taubes, abendländische eschatologie (1947), cited in joshua robert gold, “jacob taubes: apocalypse from below” in telos 134 (march 2006), 153. 101 jacob taubes, the political theology of paul, 54. conclusion the philosophical treatments of spinoza, shestov and taubes, despite their differences, nevertheless share certain aims in common. all three orientated their work around a revolutionary vision of society, and all three regarded paul as an influential voice in western civilization whose support was essential for persuading their mainly non-jewish readerships of the failings of (christian) authority. all three were also interested in relating paul to rational discourse, although in different ways. spinoza’s inclination was to use the apostle in the construction of a pro-rationalist, antisuperstitious platform from which to undermine the church’s interference in secular power. shestov also challenged the established orders but, in his case, paul helped destabilize what was regarded as the overly rationalist assumptions of the judeo-christian tradition. taubes, like spinoza, was particularly interested in paul’s universalism, although he was less concerned about questions regarding the universality of reason and more interested in the apostle’s creation of a universal society that implied the subjection of all rational forms of political authority. here, taubes’ messianic, apocalyptic logic shared a good deal in common with shestov: both men were theoretically anti-nomian, although only taubes tried to show that this was an authentically jewish stance. it is also worth noting that, however much each drew upon paul in their work, the apostle can in nowise be regarded as having shaped their ideas or their sense of identity; quite the reverse, it should be clear that it is their pre-existing ideological programs which langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 137 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 dictated their understanding and use of him. of course, in making such observations about the incorporation of the apostle to the gentiles in the writings of spinoza, shestov and taubes, and in identifying their primary aims as politicophilosophical critiques of christian society and of the rational foundations of western civilization in general, a certain question naturally arises: to what extent should such interpretations of paul actually be regarded as jewish interpretations? modern jewish identity is a complex matter. after the enlightenment and the attendant phenomena of the dissolution of the ghetto and the widespread establishment of legal emancipation, there was no longer one norm of jewish existence (if there ever had been). spinoza was amongst the first wave of jews to find themselves living outside the jewish community despite the fact that they had not abandoned judaism for another faith. in earlier times, the existence of a jew who was at odds with his community, who held ideas that were deemed by the religious authorities as heretical, and who was attracted to non-jewish ways of thinking, was untenable. and yet, over time, as a result of a tremendous variety of pressures and influences that accompanied modernity, the ‘secular jew’102 emerged to become a permanent feature of the jewish landscape. the reason why such individuals should continue to regard themselves, or be regarded as others, as in some sense jewish, is a matter of on-going debate. one seminal contribution was a collection of essays entitled, the nonjewish jew (1968), in which the polish-jewish journalist isaac deutscher made an impassioned defense of this new 102 yerushalmi has described spinoza as “the first great culture-hero of modern secular jews.” yosef yerushalmi, freud’s moses: judaism terminable and indeterminable (new haven: yale university press, 1991), 10. species of jew.103 insistent that “the jewish heretic who transcends jewry” was part of a jewish tradition whose revered membership had begun with spinoza, he went on to describe some of their characteristics. the non-jewish jews, he says, who went beyond the boundaries of the jewish community and who looked for ideals and fulfillment elsewhere, nevertheless had in themselves something of the quintessence of jewish life and of the jewish intellect…[t]hey dwelt on the borderlines of various epochs. their minds matured where the most diverse cultural influences crossed and fertilized each other…each of them was in society and yet not in it, of it and yet not of it. it was this that enabled them to rise in thought above their societies, above their nations, above their times and generations, and to strike out mentally into new horizons and far into the future…all of them had this in common, that the very conditions in which they lived and worked did not allow them to reconcile themselves to ideas which were nationally or religiously limited and induced them to strive for a universal wesltanschauung [worldview]…their manner of thinking is dialectical, because, living on borderlines of nations and religions, they see society in a state of flux. they conceive reality as being dynamic, not static… [they] comprehend more clearly the great movement and the great contradictoriness of nature and society…[and] agree on the relativity of moral standards. none of them 103 isaac deutscher, “the non-jewish jew” in the non-jewish jew and other essays (oxford: oxford university press, 1968), 25-41. later, deutscher observed, “the definition of a jew is so elusive precisely because the diaspora exposed the jews to such a tremendous variety of pressures and influences, and also to such a diversity of means with which they had to defend themselves from hostility and persecution…to speak of the ‘jewish community’ as if it were an all-embracing entity, then, is meaningless.” i. deutscher, “who is a jew?” in the non-jewish jew, 51-52. langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 138 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 2, issue 2 (2007): 114-139 believe in absolute good or absolute evil. they all observed communities adhering to different moral standards and different ethical values…[t]he genius of the jews who have gone beyond jewry has left us the message of universal human emancipation.104 here, deutscher reminds us of three important aspects of modern jewish identity. firstly, that jewish selfconsciousness, however difficult to describe or account for, is no less real for having abandoned the two ideological pillars of religion and nationalism. secondly, that those jews who no longer feel at home within the jewish community continue to feel a sense of alienation from the wider society. yet this experience of living in an ideological and cultural crossroads had the benefit of bestowing upon them a more flexible view regarding prevailing assumptions, even ethical assumptions, and of encouraging them to strike out intellectually in contrary directions. thirdly, having escaped from one intellectual ghetto, such jews are determined not to be imprisoned in another, and are drawn as moths to the flame to grander, more universalistic visions of human endeavor. having completed a brief survey of three philosophers who have drawn upon the apostle paul in their work, it is worth noting that, whilst jewish-born, all inhabited the no-man’s land of jewish marginality. two did not adhere to religious practices whatsoever and, arguably, all three attempted to transcend their jewishness through the more universal worldviews of philosophy. in this regard, several of deutscher’s observations appear to apply. all three sought to challenge, even to subvert, a culture which was regarded as dangerously dominated by christian norms of thought. each one found a perspective that offered an alternative, 104 i. deutscher, the non-jewish jew, 26-27, 30, 35, 36, 41. historically unconventional view, whether it was rationalism (spinoza), anti-rationalism (shestov), or messianic apocalypticism (taubes). all aimed to strike at the heart of the sources of power within society, be it the fearful sway of superstition (spinoza), dogma and idealism (shestov), or legal authority (taubes). in so doing, they can be regarded as having joined the ranks of religious jews in the modern period who have offered a critique of christian thought by means of engaging with the apostle, with the key difference that here their focus was not upon theology per se but upon the legacy of paul for understanding the place of religion in society. what is rather remarkable is that, in each case, it was asserted that paul supported their perspective and stood with them in making their social critique. the question is why the apostle to the gentiles assumed such a positive role in the imaginations of these philosophers. it has already been suggested that, as a figure of great authority within christianity and christian culture, who had influenced generations of theologians and leaders and had profoundly shaped the course of western civilization, it made sense for jewish writers to engage with and claim the support of the apostle, who was, himself, regarded as jewish. but it is also possible to see in their attraction to the complex figure of paul a reflection of their own complex issues of identity. after all, paul’s life had been one lived in the borderland between the jewish and the gentile communities, distanced from the jewish people, even as he remained connected to it. and he, too, had been profoundly affected by his engagement with the wider world, having broken through the boundaries of jewish religion and nationalism. there was surely a degree of identification with the apostle amongst these thinkers, and, perhaps, some cold comfort in finding in this misunderstood jew an ideological ally. langton, “modern jewish philosophical approaches to paul” 139 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/ modern jewish philosophical approaches to the apostle paul: spinoza, shestov, and taubes scjr 13, no. 1 (2018): 1-2 amy-jill levine and marc zvi brettler, eds. the jewish annotated new testament, second edition (oxford and new york: oxford university press, 2017), hardcover, xxix + 824 pp. matthew thiessen thiessem@mcmaster.ca mcmaster university, hamilton, on l8s 4l8, canada since many of my students self-identify as christians, one of my central goals in introductory courses to the new testament has been to teach them the new testament in a way that does not divorce it or its writers from the judaism of the first century ce (or from the greco-roman world more broadly). while i have been able to exercise control over the content of my own lectures, i have rarely been satisfied with introductory textbooks, which often were understood to remove jesus and the early jesus movement from their jewish milieu. further, as someone who has been exposed to new testament introductory courses in various roles (as a student, as a teaching assistant, and as a professor), i know how easy it is for students to read the textbook summary of a nt text instead of reading the actual text itself. consequently, in 2011 i experimented with using the jant as my primary textbook and found that it supported my pedagogical goals of (a) understanding the new testament texts within their socio-historical context and (b) emphasizing student interaction with primary literature. as happy as i have been with the first edition, the second edition is a substantial improvement and expansion. this expansion can be seen most clearly in the addition of 24 new topical essays to the original 30. to give the reader a sense of the diversity of these essays, let me list a few of the topics covered: “judaism and jewishness,” “marriage and divorce,” “pharisees,” “jewish views of gentiles,” and “the new testament and jewish-christian relations.” the 54 essays, taking up almost 200 pages, are succinct introductions to a vast array of topics that arise for readers of the new testament. supplementing these essays is a glossary of terms almost twenty pages in length. more important to this reader, the second edition of jant has also greatly supplemented the annotations that accompany the new testament texts. what the jant provides for all readers, christian, jewish, and other, is detailed evidence of thiessen: levine and brettler’s the jewish annotated new testament 2 the jewish nature of the documents that now make up the new testament. in contrast to most introductory textbooks, the jant can function as a lifelong resource. readers struggling with the meaning of this or that verse and how it might relate to judaism can find a wealth of information in the annotations. in contrast to many other annotated or study bibles, the jant does not contain theological platitudes; rather, it presents illuminating references and comparisons to contemporaneous jewish literature. it is, in other words, a treasure for people looking for a historically contextualized approach to reading the various documents that make up what we now call the new testament in the milieu of early judaism. briefly, let me note two lacunae in the volume. i do so not to quibble with the editors, who had to make difficult decisions about what to include. however, i want to suggest areas that they might address in any further editions and which would be of real value to christian readers in particular. while both the introductory essay to the book of revelation and the glossary briefly discuss apocalyptic literature, the genre of jewish apocalypses (or apocalyptic thought more generally) merits its own essay. christian readers would benefit from further information about such literature in order to counter the dominant discourse (in north america, at least) about the book of revelation. additionally, given both common misconceptions about ancient purity discourses and the fact that the synoptic gospel writers depict jesus coming into contact with people who endure the three categories of ritual impurity (lepra [often erroneously translated as “leprosy”], genital discharges, and corpses), i was surprised to see no essay devoted to the concept of (ritual and moral) impurity in ancient jewish thought. in the preface to the first edition, levine and brettler articulate the hope that the jant will help jews and christians better understand each other’s common histories. this is both a noble and an ambitious goal. the jant makes the new testament accessible to jewish readers while simultaneously making ancient jewish texts accessible to christian readers and providing them with a new lens through which to read their own scriptures. the popularity of the first edition and the publication of a second edition are a clear testament to the fact that readers have found their work an invaluable contribution to this laudable pursuit. we are indebted to levine, brettler, and their impressive collection of jewish contributors for this wonderful resource. * adam gregerman, reviews editor for the journal, did not serve as the editor for this review. scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-3 adam gregerman building on the ruins of the temple tests and studies in ancient judaism 165 (tubingen: mohr siebeck, 2016), xiv + 266 pp. peter a. pettit papettit@muhlenberg.edu muhlenberg college, allentown, pa 18104 adam gregerman’s columbia university doctoral dissertation was the original form of this detailed and thoughtful volume, which claims a helpful place in several scholarly arenas. it has become standard fare to note that “the parting of the ways” between judaism and christianity happened neither in a single moment in 70 ce or any other year, nor in the same way in different places. that negative conclusion has opened the way to exploring the dynamics that obtained between varieties of early judaism and early christianity, and gregerman makes a contribution to our understanding of at least part of the palestinian scene in the 2 nd to 4 th centuries ce. he also contributes well to our picture of the impact of the temple’s destruction on jewish thought during the emergence of rabbinic judaism and to the range of theodicy represented in jewish texts dealing with that historical caesura. on the latter points, his detailed exegesis of texts in midrash rabbh on lamentations argue persuasively both that there was “a powerful sense of shock, disappointment, and theological confusion over the event” (225) and that this generated midrashim showing “coherent and sophisticated responses to the destruction that strongly challenge common scholarly views of uniformity in rabbinic theodicy” (226). without denying the presence in many rabbinic texts of a deuteronomistic theodicy “that exculpated god…and/or that blamed the jews’ suffering on their misdeeds” (225), gregerman marshals a substantial body of material that demonstrates other approaches to the apparent injustice and shame of god’s failure to act in the face of the roman assault on the temple. to the first point, he sets the midrashic material alongside early christian texts from justin martyr, origen, and eusebius of caesarea, in which the destruction “has a prominence practically unequalled in other early christian texts” (226). each author’s handling of the event in a central work receives thorough analysis, with particular attention to the way in which the destruction contributes to their respective constructions of christian identity. thus we gain careful readings of the dialogue with trypho, contra celsum, and the extant chapters of the pettit: adam gregerman’s building on the ruins of the temple 2 demonstratio evangelica at the points at which the destruction is addressed. particularly with origen’s contra celsum, this systematic attention to references to the destruction is a welcome advance on prior analyses. collectively, the three studies add important detail to our image of the anatomy and physiology of the body of adversus judaeos literature. gregerman builds a judicious and conservative case for seeing the christian writers and the midrashic authors in a virtual conversation with each other. he grants that there is not sufficient evidence to establish any direct contact among them. so he draws on j. l. north’s model of a religious market-place in late antiquity to argue his case. oral transmission practices, the close proximity of communities in urban settings, and the physical evidence of the destruction within the region provide him with the critical minimum of awareness sufficient to enable reciprocal apologetic formulations by jews and christians. moreover, the significance of the temple and its destruction as key symbols in both communities’ theologies, touching centrally on identity and covenant, would generate the motivation to advance and defend their respective claims against contravening interpretations. thus, in a “zero-sum” stand-off, each community claims the heritage of biblical israel as its own in asserting its identity as god’s (true) people, and both use the event of the temple’s destruction as evidence to establish this claim. one of the greatest strengths of gregerman’s work is his careful exegesis of both the christian and the midrashic texts. to name just three examples among many: he teases out masterfully origen’s hermeneutics for historical periodization in contra celsum 4:31-32 (85f.); he elegantly demonstrates the import of the use of ezekiel 9 in lamentations rabbah 2:3b by comparison with a parallel text in the talmud (177f.); and, he draws out expertly a few brief lines in lamentations rabbah 5:1b to show how they “reveal deep anxieties about israel’s relationship with god” (209). however, the reader is well advised to keep the primary texts close at hand; the publisher might have afforded more room for full-text citations throughout the book. there is also a repetitiveness that develops as gregerman works his way through a few dozen texts (perhaps attributable to the work’s origin in a dissertation), but one can appreciate the detail when turning to a single section for reference, rather than reading through the work seriatim. a robust citation index also facilitates this function of the book. there are a few elements that one wishes gregerman had developed further. one of the theoretical points that he advances addresses the relative place of arguments from prophecy or from history. however, he articulates clearly and convincingly neither this distinction itself nor its exact value. when he observes, for example in justin’s work, that “history confirms [a particular understanding], as he applies prophetic quotations to the losses experienced by the jews” (48), the distinction between prophecy and history as the warrant for an argument becomes complicated. the impression that emerges repeatedly, and not only in justin, is that historical events are probative in light of a broadly—once might suggest “canonically”—construed prophetic hermeneutic, without which their meaning would be ambiguous, at best. how might the event and the scriptural hermeneutic 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) that valorizes it be distinguished in the argument, and is it necessary or helpful to do so? the “anti-theodicy” that gregerman sees developed in lamentations rabbah also deserves more of his attention, in this case because he very effectively lays the foundation for greater discernment of the midrashists’ meaning than he actually ventures. the dimensions of the anti-theodicy emerge clearly; it serves to console those in trauma and doubt. the jewish community is already suffering rebuke from their putative christian antagonists for an unfaithfulness or treachery that led to the temple’s destruction. they are thus a people more in need of defense than god is. consequently, the midrash criticizes, even rebukes, god, who is thus rendered variously in these texts “as weak, duplicitous, foolish, or cruel” (223). yet, says gregerman, the midrashists are reticent to draw implications about the status of the covenant from their portrayals of god. perhaps he is right to see this reticence serving the apologetic interest of protecting the community from christians who are using the destruction to argue that the covenant is thoroughly and permanently abrogated. yet the fact that he recognizes how much must be taken by inference from these “characteristically terse and exegetical” texts (223) would also justify asking further where such an anti-theodicy leads. could one not infer that these midrashists may have questioned what value a covenant could possibly have if it created a bond with such a debilitated god? or that they may have asked about the reality of that god, even if the value of the covenant were protected for the sake of the community’s identity? such questions take on a particular interest when one reads gregerman’s work with an awareness of the paths into which post-shoah and post-zionist thought have moved. he notes that the opposition to which the midrashim seem to be responding is grounded not in israel’s actions but in its very identity (211f.) and is exacerbated by the public shame and rebuke to which israel is subjected before the other nations (196). as similar dynamics have emerged over the past century and in recent decades, gregerman’s entire project, his development of the idea of anti-theodicy, and the examples he provides of an ancient response to questions hauntingly similar to some of our own may serve as models for contemporary theological conversations; their value is not limited to scholarship on early judaism and early christianity. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): zaas r1-4 garber, the jewish jesus zaas r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr zev garber, ed. the jewish jesus: revelation, reflection, reclamation (west lafayette, indiana: purdue university press, 2011), viii + 405 pp. peter zaas, siena college the jewish jesus is a collection of essays, about half of which are by scholars who presented papers at a symposium entitled “jesus in the context of judaism and the challenge to the church,” held at the samuel rosenthal center for judaic studies at case western reserve university in may 2009. this group of essays appeared first in the journal shofar (spring, 2010), were re-edited, and then were joined with a similar number of new essays and compiled in this volume. the original group of symposium papers was centered on plenary addresses by zev garber (whose contribution appears in this volume as “the jewish jesus: a partisan’s imagination”), eugene fisher (“typical jewish misunderstandings of christ, christianity, and jewishchristian relations over the centuries”), and richard rubenstein (“what was at stake in the parting of the ways between judaism and christianity?”). other conference presentations in the volume include papers by ziony zevit (“jesus stories, jewish liturgy, and some evolving theologies until circa 200 ce: stimuli and reactions”), james f. moore (“the amazing mr. jesus”), herbert basser (“avon gilyon [document of sin, b. shabb. 116a] or euvanggeleon [good news]”), steven bowman (“jewish responses to byzantine polemics from the ninth through the eleventh centuries”), henry knight (“before whom do we stand?”), and steve jacobs (“can we talk? the jewish jesus in a dialogue between jews and christians”). some of these contributions differ from the papers the authors presented at the symposium. because this is a one-volume collection of conference papers and invited papers there is a certain amount of disharmony, both in content and in tone. only symposium presenters had the benefit of responses, formal and informal, from others who were there, as well as responses from the editor of this volume. nonetheless, garber has edited a volume whose contribution to the field will endure long beyond the memory of the symposium he organized. one helpful aspect of this volume is that it provides a snapshot of contemporary scholarship on the question of the jewish jesus. the contributors cover a wide range of fields related to research about jesus. they include professors or retired professors of judaic or jewish studies (garber, basser, bowman, jacobs, shaul magid, and rivka ulmer), religion (bruce chilton, rubenstein, and emily leah silverman), intertestamental and early christian literatures (michael cook, who teaches in a rabbinical seminary), history (yitzchak kerem), holocaust studies (knight), classics (sara mandell), theology (moore), archaeology (joshua schwartz), english (norman simms), jewish-christian studies (christina smerick), and biblical studies (zevit). the former lay associate director of the secretariat for ecumenical and interreligious affairs of the united states conference of catholic bishops (fisher) has contributed an essay as well. only a handful of these scholars have focused the majority of their academic attention in the past on the new testament or on second-temple judaism specifically, and so the volume offers fresh, if polyphonous, perspectives on the jewishness of jesus. it is worth noting that review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): zaas r1-4 garber, the jewish jesus zaas r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr some notable scholars are absent from this volume, such as amy-jill levine, peter schäfer, daniel boyarin, paula frederiksen, and shaye cohen. garber’s introduction sets the tone for the volume (as it presumably set the tone for the conference), but it also sets the volume within its historical and theological contexts. garber considers john paul ii to have added the flourish to an era of improved catholic-jewish relations that began with nostra aetate in 1965. he credits this pope with doing more than anyone else to rid the roman catholic church of antisemitism. further he credits him with formulating a positive appreciation of judaism as christianity’s “elder brother” (p. 6). the editor dedicates this volume to its contributors, but clearly john paul ii was a source of inspiration as well. it would be foolish to attempt to summarize, much less comment upon, nineteen scholarly essays on the topic of the jewish jesus in order to identify common themes, lacunae, and blind spots. all treat the topic but the essays are very diverse. i will thus focus on one group of essays that focus on the new testament and the jewish jesus. there are other subtopics, such as jewish-christian dialogue, that are well represented (in essays by smerick, mandell, knight, silverman, jacobs, and magid), but space precludes a fuller discussion. in addition to his introduction, garber also offers the first essay in the volume, entitled “the jewish jesus: a partisan’s imagination.” garber is strongly in the s. g. f. brandon/hyam maccoby camp (recently popularized by rabbi shmuley boteach). they see jesus as a sympathizer with the zealots and believe mark attempted to cover up jesus’ political involvement. garber’s essay is as succinct an exposition of this position as i have seen, but contributes nothing especially new to it. garber concludes his essay by endorsing a view of jesus strongly contrary to the view of “pre-vatican ii catholic traditionalis[ts]” (p. 16). this view was recently apparent in mel gibson’s movie “the passion of the christ,” which garber speculates reflects the filmmaker’s antagonism toward the reforms of vatican ii more than a genuine concern for a historically reliable presentation. ziony zevit engages in a somewhat speculative foray into comparative narratology, theology, and jewish liturgy in a study of christian and rabbinic texts from the first few centuries ce, though his argument is too unfocused. zevit argues that the issue that alienated the nascent jesus movement from other jews was not so much the claim that jesus was messiah but that he was god. this is not a surprising conclusion, and prof. zevit’s route to it is difficult to follow. zevit’s argument begins with some assumptions about paul. prior to his conversion, paul must have had knowledge of stories about jesus that he found disturbing. then, his visionary experience “transformed the significance of what he had once held to be true and important” and led paul to no longer reject claims about jesus as false (p. 66). during his sojourn in damascus following this experience, paul would have heard more stories about jesus. these stories formed the core of paul’s apostolic preaching to his new churches. the problem with this argument, which is only the first stage in zevit’s extended discussion of narratological conflict in the generations following jesus’ crucifixion, is that it is almost entirely speculative. the evidence in paul’s letters does not support zevit’s claims. paul insists that the only message he preached about jesus to his corinthian audience was “jesus the messiah, and him crucified” (1 cor 2:2). that is certainly a jesus story, but it is only one story, and paul’s letters are famously bereft of much more about jesus. paul’s report of the lord’s supper (1 cor 11:23-26) is the fullest account of jesus’ life, and it has a very specific purpose in his letter, as he says it did in his missionary preaching. there can be no doubt that paul narrated jesus’ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): zaas r1-4 garber, the jewish jesus zaas r 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr crucifixion and his resurrection, but there is little evidence that he was a transmitter of other stories about jesus. if paul is taken out of the picture, zevit’s reconstruction of the conflict of stories that explained the separation between post-70 judaism and nascent christianity is compelling. particularly interesting to consider is the baraita about eliezer ben hyrcanus, who was once “captivated” by a word of “minut” (some type of heresy) in the name of jesus son of pantera in sepphoris some years before he was himself charged with “minut” (tosefta hullin 2:24). that an orthodox sage could feel tempted by heretical words and then ashamed suggests that the growing rift between jews and christians was at least in part a rift between stories. the second half of zevit’s article uses a jewish liturgical text to argue that the christian claim that jesus was god was early. he argues that the predications about god in the shmoneh esreh (“the eighteen blessings”) may be compared to the predications made about jesus in the gospels (pp. 74-76). the parallels between predicates of god and of jesus are not very convincing. anyone wishing to employ this type of argument needs to be more rigorous. ziony zevit is among the world’s most prominent scholars in near eastern studies, not in the study of the new testament nor any other field connected directly to jesus research. herbert basser, on the other hand, has emerged as the dean of scholars interested in exploring the connections between the thought-worlds of the gospels and of the rabbinic corpus. basser’s own thought-world can occasionally be difficult to penetrate, but those who have persevered have been more-than-amply rewarded. in his contribution to this volume basser goes beyond his current work on the connections between the gospel of matthew and the rabbis, taking up the question of the jewish self-identity of jesus. basser addresses this topic with a series of questions (in a style familiar to those who know his work): “was jesus a good jewish boy with some constructive critiques of the status quo?” more specifically, and less importantly, he asks, “was he executed by rome for his anti-rome sentiments?” and “was he a rebel trying to destroy the foundations of old jewish life so he would begin a new sect of righteousness?” (p. 93). basser’s jesus is very jewish, not estranged from judaism or seeking to create a new religion. basser turns to matthew 10:24-25 as the text on which he bases his main argument in the essay, that jesus was not antagonistic to judaism but those after him, in the early christian movement, were. basser previously treated this passage with reference to rabbinic discussions of the relationship between teacher and student (in his the mind behind the gospels). in the present essay, he extends the analysis by bringing in one of his own spiritual progenitors, the baal shem tov, the description of whose ministry (to use a term rarely applied to him) is replete with accounts of both religious reform and of miracles. basser’s comparison is both bold and intellectually rigorous, and draws on the important insights of harry a. wolfson in his 1962 essay “how the jews will reclaim jesus” (p. 95). perhaps the most suggestive aspect of basser’s essay is its title, “avon gilyon (document of sin, b. shabb. 116a) or euvanggeleon (good news)." the title alludes to attempts by talmudic rabbis meir and yohanan to outdo each other in their mockery of the gospel text, one punning on euvanggeleon with aven gilyon (“document of falsehood”), spelled with the hebrew letter ‘ayin, and the other with avon gilyon, spelled with an aleph (“document of sin”). neither of these are very good news. this verbal contest occurs in the babylonian talmud immediately before the much-discussed story of imma shalom and the question of whether daughters can inherit (bshabb. 116b). this is the story basser examines in this essay, taking it as an account of a historical encounter over a distinction between jewish and christian inheritance law. if it is historical it certainly speaks to the dismissiveness of the sages toward christianity and at least the views studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): zaas r1-4 garber, the jewish jesus zaas r 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr of some early christians. the text, as basser points out, has been much discussed at least since travers herford, with recent contributions by burton visotzky and peter schäfer, but in greatest detail by tal ilan (in mine and yours are hers from 1997). ilan comes to a different conclusion from basser’s, namely that the babylonian talmud “re-costumes” (her phrase) a standard account of a corrupt judge to indict christian ethics generally. basser’s point does not entirely depend on the trope originating as a first-century anti-christian polemic, however, and he must be correct in locating the particular version of it as illustrating an encounter between jews and christians, probably in the time of the talmud itself. there is no way to encompass the riches of this volume in a brief review. the appearance of these essays, with whom many will find constructive engagement, is a welcome gift to a field of scholarship replete with recent gifts. add it to your “jesus and judaism” library. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): sandmel r1-2 lewis, the origins of christian zionism sandmel r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr donald m. lewis the origins of christian zionism: lord shaftsbury and the evangelical support for a jewish homeland (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2010), hardcover, xiii + 365 pp. david fox sandmel, catholic theological union in his book the origins of christian zionism: lord shaftesbury and the evangelical support for a jewish homeland, donald m. lewis examines the “evangelical mindset” of 19 th -century british protestantism in order to “account for the distinctive influence that this religious culture had on popular attitudes to the jews, and particularly on the idea of the „restoration‟ to palestine” (p. 8). he seeks to address “the skepticism of jewish scholars who look for a self-serving, recondite explanation of both evangelical philosemitism and christian zionism [and to] help make sense of these puzzling aspects of evangelical protestant attitudes toward the jews" (ibid.). lewis also promises to prove that, in contrast to the “teaching of contempt” that characterized the roman catholic church at the time, evangelical protestants, and british protestants in particular, promoted a “„teaching of esteem‟ toward the jews,” which lewis defines as identifying the jews as god‟s chosen people and “countering any mistreatment of jews” (p. 12). anthony ashley cooper (1801-1885), the seventh lord shaftesbury, was a philanthropist, social reformer, politician, and “the leading christian zionist of the nineteenth century” (p. 10). his life and career, therefore, provide a convenient frame for lewis‟ study. in the first part of the book, “the rise of british evangelical interest in the jews,” lewis presents a thorough and detailed exploration of the roots of philosemitism and restoration theology in protestant thought, an area of european protestant theology that, he says, scholars have largely ignored (p. 13). he then focuses on the specifically british expressions of this theology, especially the identification of both the british people and nation with ancient israel. as god‟s elect, britain had an obligation to protect the original chosen people and to facilitate their return to their ancestral homeland, an essential component of evangelical eschatology, both preand post-millennial. this reflected not only a sense of british exceptionalism but also a strong vein of anti-catholicism. lewis states: “philosemitism became an important marker of evangelical identity and a way of further distinguishing protestantism (apostolic christianity) from its roman catholic and tractarian counterfeits” (p. 102). in the second part, “shaftesbury and the jews,” lewis traces the career of lord shaftesbury, the development of his religious views toward the jews, and his emergence as “one of the most important figures in british and indeed worldwide evangelicalism during the nineteenth century” (p. 107). as a popular evangelical leader, he was able to influence public attitudes toward the jews, and as a member of parliament and the aristocracy, he could build on that public sympathy to influence british foreign policy to pressure the ottomans on behalf of the jews and jerusalem. he encouraged the growing interest of the international community in the development of jerusalem. by shaping both public opinion and government policy, he laid the foundation for british review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): sandmel r1-2 lewis, the origins of christian zionism sandmel r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr attitudes toward jewish nationalism that eventually led to the balfour declaration in 1917 (more than thirty years after shaftesbury‟s death). the third part of the book, “evangelicals and pietists together: the mission to the jews of palestine,” focuses more directly on shaftesbury‟s efforts in promoting both a christian presence in palestine and the return of the jews. “shaftesbury‟s three aims—a british consul in jerusalem, an anglican church, and a joint anglican-lutheran bishopric—were all achieved by 1849” (p. 313). the achievement of these goals was far from easy, given the political complexities of the relationship between the ottoman empire and the european powers, as well as those between the german pietists and british evangelicals, whose fragile coalition in the joint jerusalem bishopric fell apart in 1885. lewis contends that protestant activity served as a catalyst for significant economic investment in the area, laying the groundwork for its continued growth. it also stimulated the involvement of western jews in supporting the jewish community and jewish institutions in palestine. while shaftesbury‟s efforts did not yield immediate results in terms of jewish immigration, he remained committed to their restoration. in the final section of the book, “shaftesbury‟s final years,” lewis describes shaftesbury‟s ongoing efforts on behalf of jewish restoration and the continued influence of philosemitism on british foreign policy. shaftesbury was particularly alarmed by the outbreak of anti-jewish pogroms in russia in 1881, and he led efforts to provide relief for the jews and to mobilize public protest and political pressure on the russian government. toward the end of shaftesbury‟s life and into the beginning of the 20th century, evangelical interest in restoration waned, though its influence remained potent enough within british culture to affect the drafters of the balfour declaration. lewis is most successful in his depiction of the evolution of philosemitism and christian zionism in european protestantism and especially the interweaving of this theology with british selfidentity during the 19 th century. he is correct that the subject of philosemitism and christian zionism has not received the attention it deserves from scholars; this book in an important contribution to an under-appreciated phenomenon. his careful research is evident throughout the book. for example, in several instances he offers corrections to, and points out lacunae in, the published version of shaftesbury‟s diaries. readers of this journal will be intrigued but ultimately disappointed by lewis‟ provocative suggestion regarding a “teaching of esteem.” lewis demonstrates convincingly the interest in restoration among evangelical christians and makes some reference to action on behalf of jews by shaftesbury and his colleagues (e.g., during both the damascus blood libel and the russian pogroms). however, he does not delve into the nature of this “esteem” to consider questions such as the tension between “esteem” and the goal of the conversion of the jews, nor does he consider whether this “esteem” extended to judaism itself. indeed, with some exceptions (e.g., moses montefiore), “real” jews are mostly invisible in this book. those who most regularly appear are jewish converts to christianity, whose influence on the development of philosemitism was substantial. what the jews of britain or palestine thought of shaftesbury and his efforts receive little attention. this underscores lewis‟ contention, with which i concur, that the subject of philosemitism, especially when compared to antisemitism, has largely been ignored by the scholarly world. thus, while lewis might have explored these topics more fully, he has, at the very least, raised important questions that demand further investigation. in sum, the origins of christian zionism: lord shaftsbury and the evangelical support for a jewish homeland is an important contribution to the study of christian zionism and jewish-christian relations. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): kensky r1-3 rudolph, a jew to the jews kensky r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr david rudolph a jew to the jews: jewish contours of pauline flexibility in 1 corinthians 9:19-23 (tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2011), cloth, xii + 290 pp. meira z. kensky, coe college this monograph, originally the author’s dissertation, is devoted to understanding whether it is possible to interpret paul’s views in 1 cor 9:19-23 as within the boundaries of “pluriform second temple judaism” (p. 19). rudolph argues that what he calls “the traditional view” of scholars— that this passage reveals that paul no longer observed jewish law—does not stand up to critical scrutiny, and that the time has come for a full-length re-examination of the issue. rudolph ultimately argues that 1 cor 9:19-23 “does not preclude a torah-observant paul.” instead, this passage, alongside its “recapitulation” in 1 cor 10:32-11:1, demonstrates that paul is following jesus’ example of “accommodation and open table-fellowship,” in other words, jesus’ example of regularly eating with “ordinary jews, pharisees, and sinners,” thus being flexible in matters of personal piety when it came to matters of ministry (p. 19). rudolph first presents the “traditional view” by briefly reviewing previous scholarship on this passage and the question of paul’s law-observance. though rudolph initially sets up the discussion around statements by charles cosgrove, it is understandably e. p. sanders who occupies most of rudolph’s attention in this section (which also includes very brief reviews of more recent works like those of wolfgang schrage, and roy ciampa and brian rosner). he discusses previous scholars’ attempts to reassess the traditional view, particularly those of peter tomson (though he notes that tomson’s work was widely rejected), and mark nanos, whose work he returns to throughout his study. rudolph breaks down arguments for the traditional reading into three rationales—the “intertextual,” “contextual,” and “textual” arguments—and devotes a chapter to refuting each one before proposing a new interpretation of the passage in the final chapter. in chapter two, rudolph takes on what he calls the “intertextual” argument that “1 cor 9:19-23 is part of a group of texts in the pauline corpus and acts that depict paul’s jewishness as erased or inconsequential in christ” (p. 23). this chapter examines the texts that are used to support the traditional view that paul only “occasionally conformed” to the law, and then the texts that lend support to rudolph’s thesis that paul remained a torah-observant jew. though individual discussions of particular passages are strong, such as rudolph’s discussion of the “calling” language in 1 cor 7:17-24, the organization of the chapter as a whole is lacking. it is not clear why the chapter proceeds in the order it does: is it meant to indicate relative strength of arguments? it is unclear, for example, given the serious question of the relationship between the paul of the letters and the paul of acts, why the chapter begins with discussion of acts 16 rather than discussion of other pauline passages. is this because proponents of the traditional view point to this passage as the most compelling? rudolph’s argument would be strengthened if he explained his choice of texts and his reason for working through them in the present order because at times his analysis seems wanting. rudolph’s discussion of the meaning of paul’s “former life” language (gal 1:13; phil 3:8) is unpersuasive, as it seems like it pushes past the plain sense of review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): kensky r1-3 rudolph, a jew to the jews kensky r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the text. the brevity of his treatment of this passage is suspect—is this the strongest argument against rudolph’s thesis? readers would be served by having a sense of what rudolph believes is the most difficult evidence to overcome. in chapter 3, rudolph turns his attention to refuting the “contextual” argument that “1 cor 9:19-23 is consonant with paul’s permissive stance on idol-food in 1 cor 8 and 10, which was a radical break from judaism” (p. 90). rudolph strongly disagrees with the traditional view that paul held “a permissive stance” on the eating of idol-meat; rather, rudolph believes that paul advocated a position that was at home in second temple judaism, namely, that one should not eat food when its provenance was known to be a pagan temple, but that one could eat food if its provenance was unclear. unfortunately, rudolph does not have clear evidentiary support here. rudolph builds most of this argument on mishnaic texts (such as m. yoma 8.5-6) which he reads as supporting “lowering the bar somewhat concerning indeterminate or forbidden foods” (p.102), and on reasonable conjecture. he is on sturdier ground in his claim that qumranic texts (including the damascus document and 4qinstruction) interpret “stumbling block” metaphorically, demonstrating that paul’s ethic in 1 cor 8:13 with regard to not causing weaker members to stumble is in line with aspects of second temple judaism. in chapter 4, which closes out the first section of the monograph, rudolph deals with “textual issues,” by which he means attention to matters of greek syntax and language. he argues that one does not need to understand paul’s language to mean that he no longer considers himself jewish. rudolph argues, for example, that when paul says that he became as one “under the law” (1 cor 9:20), what he means is that he is no longer under sectarian interpretation of the law, as he was in his former life as a pharisee. rudolph argues that the modifying clause in 1 cor 9:21, “for i am not without the law of god but am under the law of christ,” points back to the calling language in 1 cor 7:17-20, and that “the two passages (1 cor 7:17-20; 9:21) side by side suggest that paul continued to live according to ‘god’s law’ (i.e., ‘the law of moses’ of 1 cor 9:89)” (p. 162). rudolph thus sets the table for his constructive argument. in the final chapter, rudolph presents a constructive case for understanding paul’s statements in 1 cor 9:19-23 as reflecting “paul’s ethic of imitating christ’s accommodation and open tablefellowship” (p. 173). crucial to rudolph’s thesis is his discussion of the relationship between this and 1 cor 10:32-11:1, where paul, at the close of this section on table issues, tells the corinthians to “be imitators of me, as i am of christ.” rudolph argues that we should understand paul’s words in 1 cor 9:19-23 as being part of the same discussion. rudolph argues that jesus had an ethic of adaptation, which paul here encourages the corinthians to imitate, and therefore “as jesus became all things to all people through eating with ordinary jews, pharisees and sinners, paul became ‘all things to all people’ through eating with ordinary jews, strict jews (those ‘under the law’) and gentile sinners” (p. 190). rudolph’s overall thesis is persuasive and compelling, particularly in light of his thoughtful analysis of paul’s “calling” language in 1 cor 7:17-24, where he persuasively demonstrates that paul intended jewish christians to continue following jewish law, while gentile christians need not adopt these precepts. each was to remain “called” in the state they were in. rudolph argues that this provides the lens through which we should understand paul’s own relationship to jewish law. often, however, his constructive comments are drowned out by the organization of his work, which places the emphasis on refutation of others rather than construction of a sustained argument. rudolph demonstrates real problems in the “traditional” understanding of 1 cor 9:19-23, but does not fully engage the broader issues. there is no discussion, for example, of how this pericope fits into 1 corinthians as a whole, a notable absence given rudolph’s keen interest in 1 cor 7. in addition, rudolph’s crucial and extensive discussion of the implications of paul’s studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): kensky r1-3 rudolph, a jew to the jews kensky r 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr language in 1 cor 7 is buried in the middle of a long and somewhat unwieldy chapter, rather than being given the place of prominence it needs as part of a systematic constructive argument. one major problem with the work as a whole is the lack of a systematic discussion of rudolph’s methodology for using acts as a source for determining paul’s relationship to judaism. in the introduction, for example, perhaps the place for a serious discussion of the issue, rudolph adopts a surprisingly uncritical attitude towards acts and offers no discussion of the extensive literature about the relationship between the paul of acts and the letters. things improve somewhat over the course of the study, although when rudolph does address this question, he does so in piecemeal fashion: first dispensing with the issue in a footnote in chapter one, then engaging in a slightly longer discussion when it comes to the use of acts 21 in chapter two. rudolph believes strongly that “an investigation of the evidence for the historical reliability of acts as a whole, or the ‘we-passages’ in particular, is beyond the scope of this study” (p. 66), but this is not satisfactory, given how heavily rudolph relies on this material for his presentation of paul. rudolph is heavily invested in luke’s presentation of the apostolic decree, for example, but he never deals with the question of whether we can trust luke’s presentation of the decree or the relationship between paul and the jerusalem church. given the important work of ian elmer on this matter, this is a serious deficit, leading rudolph to draw problematic inferences such as “there is no direct evidence in acts or the pauline corpus that paul ever rejected the decree” (p. 101), a misleading statement since there is no direct evidence even of the decree from the pauline corpus. despite these critiques, overall this work is cogent and provides a good corrective to the mainstream of scholarship on 1 cor 9:19-23, though it may actually be rudolph’s discussion of 1 cor 7:17-24 that proves the most fruitful for future research. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): lux r1-3 grob and roth, anguished hope lux r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr leonard grob and john k. roth, eds. anguished hope: holocaust scholars confront the palestinian-israeli conflict (grand rapids: william b. eerdmans, 2008) paperback, ix + 253 pp. richard c. lux, lux center for catholic-jewish studies at sacred heart school of theology this book is a collection of thirteen essays presented over a number of years at a biennial meeting of holocaust scholars in oxfordshire, england, at the wroxton college campus of fairleigh dickinson university. this group, composed of 36 members, “is devoted to international, interfaith / intergenerational, and interdisciplinary dialogue” (p. 6). in this work, their purpose is to provide a moral response to the human tragedy of the palestinian-israeli conflict, a conflict in which both sides see themselves as victims. they situate their work in the post-holocaust context and are aware of how this conflict fills many with despair. for this reason, the jewish and christian “contributors acknowledge (explicitly or tacitly) that traditional paradigms of moral conduct or of theological understandings cannot provide reliable lenses through which to view the middle east conflict” (p. 4). the editors admit that the contributors are not middle east specialists. rather, they draw on their training in religion, literature, and philosophy and “share a focus on the holocaust as a common point of departure” (p. 5). the work, edited by a jew (grob) and a christian (roth), is divided into three sections: in part i contributors identify “challenges,” in part ii they note “risks,” and in part iii, entitled “possibilities,” they work “toward tikkun olam, the ‘repair of the world,’ in the course of setting forth possibilities” (p. 5). each essay is followed by challenging questions from other participants and then a response by the author. the structure of the book is a model of the dialogical process that engages jews and christians. there are five essays in part i. in the first, “moral visions in conflict: israeli and palestinian ethics,” peter j. haas, a reform rabbi, reflects upon “the monolithic narrative constructed by the nazis during the 1930s and 1940s,” in which aryans were the only true humans and jews were sub-humans (p. 9). that type of demonizing rhetoric often characterizes grand narratives about “the israelis” (or “the jews” or “the west”) and about “the palestinians” (or “the arabs” or “the muslims”). until each side’s narrative makes room for “the other,” there will be no peace. john k. roth, a presbyterian, in “duped by morality? defusing minefields in the israeli-palestinian struggle,” discusses the divestment and boycott proposals made by the presbyterian church (usa). he argues that proponents forget the jewish memory of boycotts preceding the holocaust. instead of divestment and boycotts, he proposes a prophetic action of investment in israeli and palestinian projects that contribute to peace. david blumenthal, in “beware of your beliefs,” encourages fellow jews to question some common western beliefs, such as widespread “faith in reason” and openness to self-criticism, in light of implacable muslim opposition to israel. he concludes “that almost all palestinians are not partners for real peace. . .” (p. 66). one of the most challenging essays is leonard grob’s “‘forgetting’ the holocaust: ethical dimensions of the israeli-palestinian conflict.” he says that an exclusive focus on ensuring that “never again will review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): lux r1-3 grob and roth, anguished hope lux r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr jewish blood…be shed with impunity,” while a vital lesson, has promoted a jewish culture of victimhood that prevents israel from taking the risks necessary for peace (p. 75). britta fredewenger, a german catholic, in “dimensions of responsibility: a german voice on the palestinian-israeli conflict in the post-shoah era,” argues that germans must move from feelings of guilt to those of responsibility for the prosecution of the remaining war criminals, take particular responsibility for the safety and well-being of the jewish people, and keep alive the memory of the shoah. part ii contains four essays on the risks to be taken in response to the types of challenges posed in part i. margaret brearley, an anglican, in her essay “national socialism, israel, and jewish / arab palestinian history: myths and realities,” challenges the assertion that zionism equals nazism while stressing that israel must take risks for peacemaking. david patterson, in “toward a post-holocaust jewish understanding of the jewish state and the israeli-palestinian conflict,” states that the land of israel and covenant are inseparable in judaism. as the locus of divine revelation, for jews that land is holier than all other lands. didier pollefeyt, a belgian catholic theologian, contributed “between a dangerous memory and a memory in danger: the israelipalestinian struggle from a christian post-holocaust perspective.” although he acknowledges “the historical and theological legitimacy of the claims of the jewish people on the land of israel,” he argues not for a two-state solution but a bi-national, one-state solution (p. 136; emphasis in original). however, he does not consider the implications of this approach, and the possibility that a jewish state would be voted out of existence and “israel” would become another arab muslim state in the middle east. myrna goldenberg, in “the middle east conflict, the responsibility of history and memory, and the american jew,” considers whether there should be limits on american jews’ criticisms of israel and also encourages them to actively support efforts to reach a two-state solution. part iii contains four essays on “possibilities” and invites the reader to consider creative approaches to the conflict. christian theologian and methodist minister henry f. knight, in “beyond conquest: post-shoah christian anguish and the israeli-palestinian dilemma,” cautions against the dangers of supersessionism and exclusivist claims of jews, christians, and muslims. he argues that the hospitality shown even by the rival siblings of genesis offers a possible model to israelis and palestinians for sharing blessings and land. in the essay, “the holocaust, israel, and the future of jewish-christian relations in the united states,” the african-american christian hubert locke recognizes that for jews antisemitism is “the most basic” issue in the conflict (p. 198). however, he argues that it is not “a special case in the interminable list of racial hatreds that have marked and marred western societies virtually since their inception” (p. 202). locke’s views largely reflect his african american identity, with less attention to the centrality of antisemitism in 2,000 years of christian history. he also does not believe jewish existence is dependent on the survival of israel since jews have survived 2,000 years without a state. the jewish philosopher, amy h. shapiro, in “critical thinking and self-identity: educating for peace between israelis and palestinians,” proposes a new model for developing critical thinking among israelis and palestinians, instead of education geared toward conflict resolution or peaceful coexistence. the last essay by rachel n. baum, “after the peace: the moral responsibility of survival,” is the most challenging and creative in this entire collection. baum, reviewing jewish history, and in particular the exodus / passover and the establishment of israel after the shoah, writes that “we [jews] were victims, we were victimizers...but we are no longer” (p. 228). this, she says, holds true for arabs as well. at the center of suffering need not be victimization but rather redemption. the emotional response to these experiences should not be sympathy but compassion, since both peoples were in some sense “slaves and because we are not now, we must pursue justice” (p. 226). she imagines a time in the future when there is peace between israelis and palestinians. this is a fitting conclusion and climax to this collection. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): lux r1-3 grob and roth, anguished hope lux r 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr this valuable collection of essays needs to be part of the on-going dialogue of the future between jews and christians in a post-holocaust world. not every essay is equally useful in the dialogue, but all will elicit a vigorous response from the reader. summaries of each essay at the beginning of each section will help the reader. this book should be required reading for those engaged in holocaust studies as well as those interested in middle east peace. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-3 albert vanhoye, s.j. the letter to the hebrews: a new commentary translated by leo arnold, s.j. (new york: mahwah, nj: paulist press, 2015), softcover, v + 266 pp. kevin b. mccruden mccruden@gonzaga.edu gonzaga university, spokane, wa 99202 proof of the allure of the anonymous letter to the hebrews is evident in the increasing number of scholars venturing into the study of this mysterious firstcentury homily. albert vanhoye, a pioneering commentator on hebrews, adds to an already accomplished body of work on the letter with a commentary that chiefly explicates the contours of the high priestly christology of the epistle. vanhoye begins by engaging the principal literary and historical questions long associated with hebrews in contemporary scholarship. most notable is his proposal for an explicit personal connection between hebrews and the apostle paul. the epistolary character of chapter thirteen, the personal reference to timothy in that chapter, and the early association of hebrews with paul in the east suggest to vanhoye that paul plausibly wrote the concluding section of hebrews (13:22-25) in order to offer his endorsement of hebrews’ theological assessment of christ. this proposal, while intriguing, is not persuasive. it is far less persuasive than claims about paul’s indirect connection to disputed letters such as colossians. whereas the personal presence of paul—whether genuine or not— is made unmistakably clear by the time we arrive at the conclusion to colossians, there is little in hebrews 13:22-25 that signals the personality of paul. if paul did append to hebrews a “dispatch note” as vanhoye argues, then one would have to assume that he was being extremely subtle about it (p. 233). further weakening vanhoye’s proposal is the absence of anything like hebrews’ high priestly christology in the uncontested letters of paul. the main body of the commentary is divided into five sections. in the first three sections vanhoye skillfully shows how the author of hebrews progressively unfolds his unique portrait of jesus. a key aspect of vanhoye’s argument is that the anonymous author of hebrews slowly draws out the high priestly character of jesus only after rehearsing the more traditional exaltation christology derived from psalm 110 (lxx 109). vanhoye then turns his focus in sections four and mccruden: vanhoye’s the letter to the hebrews 2 five of the commentary to the topic of how hebrews’ priestly christology is applied by the author to the task of the ethical and communal transformation of the original audience of the letter. a real strength of the commentary is to be found in the detailed and profound theological reflection that vanhoye brings to bear on the portrait of christ as high priest. in particular, he takes seriously what seems to be a clear emphasis in the letter on the topic of the transformation of jesus’ humanity. this transformation has two components. on the one hand, jesus’ entrance into the heavenly sanctuary entails the transformation of his human body into a glorified, resurrected body. although he did not qualify as a priest on earth, jesus becomes a qualitatively different priest from the temple priests for he effects a superior means of expiation as a consequence of the resurrection. put another way, jesus mediates god to humanity in the closest possible way by entering into god’s presence with a transformed and glorified human body. on the other hand, vanhoye points out that christ’s transformation entails the entire ethical dimension of jesus’ human career. according to vanhoye, the human jesus truly matured and developed in the sense that he responded to the prospect of suffering and death in a manner that demonstrated his radical openness and obedience to god. in other words, the human jesus arrived at a state of sinlessness by the very personal ethical choices he made. on this reading, the resurrection of jesus constitutes god’s concrete honoring of the selfless character of christ’s human career. with these reflections vanhoye also provides an insightful construal of the concept of atonement as it appears in hebrews. atonement is achieved not simply as a result of jesus’ glorification or as a consequence of his death on the cross alone; instead, vanhoye insists, the two events have to be connected. without the living response of selflessness exemplified by jesus throughout his human career the glorification of his body is not even possible. as vanhoye notes well, it is “with terribly real events” that the process of atonement, which is brought ultimately to completion in god’s presence, first begins (p.143). such a balanced way of viewing the concept of atonement in hebrews has the added virtue of complementing more recent contemporary studies that emphasize the role of life, as opposed to death, in ancient notions of sacrifice. vanhoye is less helpful when he ventures into the relationship between hebrews and the symbolic world of the hebrew bible. while he helpfully displays how the anonymous author of hebrews selectively appropriates scripture, his observations sometimes strike an unfortunate tone of supersessionism. for example, employing problematic terminology, vanhoye posits a troubling dichotomy between the old testament and the new testament in terms of the idea of the availability of salvation which vanhoye states is offered only in the latter (p. 71). supersessionist comments especially emerge in his otherwise exegetically solid comments concerning the ubiquitous theme in hebrews regarding jesus’ solidarity with humanity. one can fully appreciate the emphasis we see in hebrews on the compassion of jesus without contrasting it with a presentation of the jewish high priesthood as characterized by separation and a lack of compassion. problematic as well is vanhoye’s suggestion that authentic access to god, while 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) available to “christians,” is unavailable in the “old testament” alone (p. 97). it is difficult to square such language with the renewed way of thinking about the relationship between contemporary christianity and judaism as expressed in such vatican ii documents as nostra aetate. even with these reservations, vanhoye’s commentary can be recommended as a theologically rich exegetical treatment of hebrews’ priestly christology in general, and of hebrews’ conception of the atonement specifically. scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-4 nicholas r. brown for the nation: jesus, the restoration of israel and articulating a christian ethic of territorial governance (eugene, or: pickwick publications, 2016), xiii + 216 pp. christopher m. leighton cleighton@icjs.org institute for islamic, christian, and jewish studies, baltimore, md 21204 nicholas brown has provided a thoroughly researched and elegantly constructed volume that upends long-standing assumptions and opens up vexing questions about the land of israel within the life of jesus and the early church. brown has tightly packed within two hundred pages an argument that contests interpretative traditions that are deeply embedded in both the academy and the church. brown’s work will most immediately claim the attention of readers who make contemporary new testament scholarship a part of their regular diet. however, the issues that he frames carry immense significance for christians who are struggling to come to terms with a history that continues to shape political and theological sensibilities about the current palestinian-israeli impasse and the ethics of territorial governance. brown sets the stage for his inquiry by offering a brief overview of the scholarship that emerged out of the “third quest” for the historical jesus, a term coined by n.t. wright in the early 1990s. this historical study situated jesus and the early church within the context of late second temple judaism and helped reverse a noxious legacy that had pitted jesus over and against judaism and his jewish contemporaries. instead of dismissing second temple judaism as a depleted and calcified religion, these new testament scholars recognized an ancient community brimming with vibrant and diverse expressions. they noted that the jesus movement emerged out of this complex jewish matrix; indeed, the movement was unimaginable without the innovative revolutions enacted by jewish groups, most especially the pharisees. this strain of contemporary scholarship provides the foundation on which brown builds his case. he advances his investigations by training his gaze on the eschatological visions that animated second temple judaism and, by extension, the hopes and dreams of jesus and his followers. brown charts the views of some leighton: nicholas r. brown’s for the nation 2 notable protestant scholars who attempt to reconstruct the kind of future that these ancient communities imagined, evident in their narrative constructs about the in-breaking of the kingdom of god. brown proceeds by systematically parsing the conclusions that w.d. davies, marcus borg, and n.t. wright reached in their surveys of jewish literature from this period, most especially those writings that expressed the expectation of a radical transformation in the world order. briefly summarized, the restorational themes of second temple judaism include (1) the rebuilding of the jerusalem temple, (2) the return of exiles from the diaspora, (3) the re-establishment of davidic leadership, (4) the reconstitution of the twelve tribes, and (5) the submission / salvation of the gentiles (p. 3). yet this vision of an eschatological kingdom where justice and peace are fully embodied was inseparable from the restoration of jews within the land of israel. the future that was etched into the hearts and minds of the jewish people was barren and uninhabitable without territorial grounding. according to all three of these nt scholars, jesus overthrows this paradigm by uncoupling his own eschatological hopes from the reclamation of the land of israel. they maintain that the arrival of the kingdom of god entails the repudiation of a jewish nationalism that perpetuates militaristic violence and ethnocentrism. in contrast to the predominant jewish blueprint, jesus champions a path of individual transformation where compassion and inclusivity eclipse the communal demands of holiness and purity. a state of ethical praxis and mystical communion with god replaces jewish expectations of a territorial restoration. differently stated, the land of israel is spiritualized, and jesus becomes the locus of redemption here and in the world to come. dwelling within the body of christ eclipses “being in the land as the ideal life” (p. 23). this landless interpretation of the kingdom is presented as an essential achievement that distinguishes jesus from his jewish contemporaries. indeed, proclamations about the kingdom of god that elide territorial expectations are presented as an indispensable reorientation that removes a central obstacle to the reconciliation of jews and gentiles. freed from the attachment to a particular chunk of real estate, the early church defined a heavenly kingdom without geographical boundaries and so became radically inclusive (as illustratively reflected, for example, in galatians 3:28). this reading of jesus’ eschatology dominates the academy and the mainline protestant church, and brown shoulders the daunting task of overturning this tradition of interpretation. his argument is multi-pronged and aims to expose the shortcomings of the a-territorial position on scriptural, ethical, and theological grounds. the centerpiece of the book is a demonstration of the depth and breadth of the territorial eschatology within jewish literature. brown directs particular attention to jeremiah, isaiah, the book of jubilees, and psalms of solomon. he then scrutinizes a series of new testament texts to demonstrate that jesus and his early followers were aligned with these restorational visions of the future. he builds this case with his readings of the beatitudes (“blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth”), the lord’s prayer, and jesus’ proclamation of the jubilee in 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) luke 4. each passage is enlisted to demonstrate that god’s coming kingdom is anchored to the land of israel. furthermore, brown notes that de-territorialized readings slide in the direction of a gnosticism that denigrates the creation and sidesteps the ethical rigors of governance in the midst of multiple ethnicities and conflicting interests. scholars such as john howard yoder aim to transcend these tensions by valorizing a diaspora existence as the precondition for christians who strive for a non-violent and peaceable kingdom. yet a broad array of socio-economic issues revolves around the just stewardship of the land, and an ungrounded ethic swerves into spiritual abstractions far removed from the earthy challenges of adjudicating environmental and political disputes. finally, these interpretations are difficult to reconcile with a theology that takes embodiment seriously. just as christians claim that god is uniquely disclosed in the particularity of the man from nazareth, many jews insist that living in the land of israel reveals dimensions of a torah-observant life that cannot be realized anywhere else on the globe. both make scandalous claims about the ways in which god moves through the particular to reach the universal. the coherence and integrity of the scriptural witness collapse if the particular is sacrificed on the altar of the universal. or in brown’s words, “paradoxically then to deny the territorial particularity of israel’s kingdom is to deny the universal sweep and scope of its covenant” (p. 111). more often than not a de-territorialized reading of the scriptures reinstitutes a version of christian supersessionism. once jesus is set up as an opponent of israel’s restorational vision, the stage is set for branding the jewish people as idolatrously attached to the land. justice and peace then demand that the followers of jesus transcend the carnal bonds linking the jewish people to the land of israel. the zionist enterprise is framed as the inexorable agency of injustice. brown is keenly aware that protestants are becoming increasingly polarized in their assessments of the land and peoples of israel. those who take their lead from biblical scholars such as gary burge and stephen sizer routinely denounce the state of israel for its failures to live up to the ethical standards of the prophets, and they repudiate any claims regarding the sacredness of the land of israel. at the other end of the spectrum, christian zionists, such as john hagee, argue that the state of israel plays an instrumental role in ushering in god’s kingdom. any criticism of israel’s settlement policies is therefore impugned as an act of apostasy and an expression of anti-semitism. how then do christians avoid an interpretive trajectory that reinforces an enduring legacy of supersessionism without then slipping into a fundamentalist camp that endorses any and every policy of the israeli government regardless of the consequences? brown insists that a reading of the biblical narrative that affirms territorial aspirations offers important resources to advance an ethic of just governance. this approach resists the extremes and serves to counter political and theological polarization. he invokes the work of michael walzer to champion the ideal of “reiterative universalism.” as walzer observes, every nation aims to build a vibrant sense of “one out of the many.” yet “this unity can be achieved in leighton: nicholas r. brown’s for the nation 4 very different ways: by accommodating difference (as in the case of religious tolerance) as well as repressing it, by inclusion as well as forced assimilation, negotiation as well as coercion, federal or corporate arrangements as well as centralized states” (p. 197). a preposterous leap of faith is required to imagine that the restoration of the land of israel will serve as the site where the kingdom of god will take hold and from whence peace will reverberate outward, transforming the entire world. brown maintains that the biblical witness cradles an extravagant promise: a vision of the future is etched into our scriptures that can inform and shape ethical conduct of both individuals and nations in the here and now. how are we to embody this biblical inheritance so that just governance might bring the current conflict to a peaceful conclusion? well, brown has yet to plant this possibility on firm soil, and we’ll await his next volume for greater clarification. readers will therefore emerge from this book with more questions than they had when they began. can the religious sensibilities shaped by a grounded reading of the scriptures mesh with the ideals and behaviors of a liberal democracy? what critical dispositions and disciplines do our scriptural ethics make possible or inhibit? to what extent can jews, christians, and muslims share holy land, and how do they guard against the eruption of new crusading and colonial ventures? yet, if the divine shows up in the most unlikely of places and among the most unlikely of peoples, perhaps this particular land and the particular peoples who battle for the inheritance will somehow, someway serve to break the spell of cynicism and become a light to the nations. in this regard, brown’s book reinstates extravagant expectations. our stories may begin anywhere, but they are seen as ultimately converging somewhere with a known address, a place that, judged by the world’s standards, seems impossible. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): sax r1-3 gottlieb, moses mendelssohn sax r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr michah gottlieb, ed. moses mendelssohn: writings on judaism, christianity, and the bible (waltham, ma: brandeis university press, 2011), softcover, xxvii + 267 pp. benjamin e. sax, virginia tech michah gottlieb’s edited volume moses mendelssohn: writings on judaism, christianity, and the bible offers the english-reading public new insights into the thought of the german-jewish enlightenment thinker moses mendelssohn. even though mendelssohn was an extraordinarily prolific writer, much of his work is not translated from the original german; many english language scholars therefore rely on secondary accounts of his work. gottlieb’s volume provides english translations of some of mendelssohn’s hebrew and german writings (by curtis bowman, elias sacks, and allen arkush). gottlieb’s goal in doing this is, as he puts it, to provide the english reader “with a more comprehensive picture of mendelssohn’s attempt to balance judaism and the enlightenment than has been available until now” (p. xxi). indeed, his volume addresses the long-lamented scholarly neglect of mendelssohn’s contributions to the european enlightenment, and specifically to the enlightenment in jewish society (the haskala), as well as of his myriad commentaries on the hebrew bible. the time, it seems, was ripe to look beyond mendelssohn as merely the first “modern jew” (as he is often called). this is no minor or unimportant task. gottlieb arranges his translations both thematically and historically, framing mendelssohn’s writings on judaism and christianity within three major controversies during his lifetime: the lavater affair, the controversy that inspired jerusalem, and the pantheism controversy. gottlieb wants these translations to guide students and scholars to revisit the salient theological and political questions of the enlightenment and to allow them to hear mendelssohn’s concerns. mendelssohn was a literary polymath. his interests spanned an impressive disciplinary spectrum, and his acumen in discussing these matters is equally impressive. by peering into the small window gottlieb provides onto mendelssohn’s writings, we are able to read the work of a precise scholar who was at home in jewish and non-jewish communities, and who was also a religious thinker engaged in the most important issues of his time. gottlieb’s contribution here cannot be understated. gottlieb’s volume depicts mendelssohn as intimately connected to his judaism (his short letter to naphtali herz homberg in september, 1783, is a poignant example [p. 124]) as well as to the general philosophical, cultural, and theological issues of his time. the book is divided into three sections—the polemical writings, the writings on the bible, and miscellany (including most of mendelssohn’s writings on rational theology)—though the first section is much longer than the second and third. this is important in that it demonstrates mendelssohn’s involvement in numerous controversies, often with christians. it also offers readers a glimpse into his polemical strategies, for he writes provocatively and with an awareness that much is at stake. take for example johann casper lavater’s public challenge to mendelssohn to accept the swiss philosopher and scientist charles bonnet’s “philosophical investigation of the proofs of christianity” as review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): sax r1-3 gottlieb, moses mendelssohn sax r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr irrefutable (p.5). lavater even had the temerity to imply that socrates would have converted to christianity after having read this work. mendelssohn, in an open letter to lavater included here, points out the hypocrisy of asking a “tolerated minority” to speak out against the majority in relation to truth and justice. reminding his interlocutor that enlightened theism unites all people, including christians and jews, mendelssohn wrote: “i readily believe that i can recognize the national prejudices and erroneous religious opinions of my fellow citizens, and yet am obliged to remain silent if these errors do not directly lead to the destruction of either natural religion or natural law but rather are accidentally connected to the promotion of the good” (p. 12). in other words, if lavater genuinely believed in truth and justice, he would not have put mendelssohn in a position to critique christianity publicly, thus reminding his audience of the precarious situation of jews in christian society. because gottlieb’s volume is the first of its kind, most criticism of it will likely focus on his choice of texts. mendelssohn’s collected writings fill thousands upon thousands of pages, so the selection of these texts is, as gottlieb mentions in his introduction, debatable. with his selections, gottlieb paints a picture of a mendelssohn unconflicted, a thinker whose thought remained consistent across time. gottlieb is successful in presenting mendelssohn’s thought as synthesizing the concerns of the enlightenment with his judaism. however, notably missing from gottlieb’s volume are mendelssohn’s writings on translation in general, though gottlieb does include part of mendelssohn’s introduction to his translations of the psalms. in the preface to mendelssohn’s highly idiosyncratic translation of the hebrew bible into german (written in hebrew script), for example, mendelssohn distances himself from enlightenment critiques of the hebrew bible. he maintains that moses was the true author of the bible despite biblical references to moses in the third person and descriptions of his death. at the same time mendelssohn defends the canonization of the hebrew bible as a necessary evil because of its historical context. in another tension between traditional and enlightenment perspectives, mendelssohn even situates himself within a prestigious lineage of jewish translators of the bible, maintaining the sanctity of hebrew as the national language of jews but arguing that german could emerge as a modern-day aramaic (i.e., the common language of jews in antiquity, used even for religious texts). the inclusion of the introduction to his hebrew bible translation would provide an even more nuanced portrayal of these tensions in mendelssohn’s thought. also, it would provide an important context for mendelssohn’s philosophical nachleben, in order to contextualize heinrich heine’s and heinrich graetz’s (perhaps unfair) charges that mendelssohn was the jewish luther, since it is clear that mendelssohn remained to a large extent stylistically committed to rabbinic and medieval jewish hermeneutical forms. of course, mendelssohn himself was aware of the methodological dangers in translations of this sort. in the “introduction to translation of the psalms” (1783), while acceding some merit to luther’s translation of the hebrew bible, mendelssohn writes, “wherever he correctly translated something, it seems to me that he also felicitously germanized it; and i have not shied away from the hebraic figures of speech that he first admitted into the language, even though they may not be proper german” (p. 183; italics in original). mendelssohn’s observation here is relevant to the translations collected in gottlieb’s volume. in a few instances, gottlieb critiques a few other translations of mendelssohn’s writings into english as “quite free” (p. xxi). it is hard to know exactly what he means by this. for example, elias sacks’ english translations of mendelssohn’s hebrew writings, included in this volume, sound far more florid and philosophically sophisticated than mendelssohn’s hebrew, which i would characterize as “quite free” as well, even though i would call this a strength of the translation. sacks’ translations are lucid, crisp, and accessible. however, in his introduction, gottlieb writes “[mendelssohn] developed such proficiency in german that christians celebrated his style” (p. xiii). when read in english, both sacks’ translation of studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): sax r1-3 gottlieb, moses mendelssohn sax r 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the hebrew and curtis bowman’s translation of the german come across similarly. again, this can be misleading. mendelssohn was writing to two audiences, with two different, though not entirely mutually exclusive, goals. style was important. one of the strongest philosophical influences on mendelssohn was that of a young johann herder who made famous the exhortation that the spirit of a language is inexorably related to the spirit of a people. national renewal through philosophy or literature is intimately tied to its original sources. the differences between the two thinkers are profound yet still subtle enough to require some exigency in translating mendelssohn’s style in both languages. how does gottlieb deal with mendelssohn’s biblical allusions? he writes, “if, for example, mendelssohn writes that the bible states something, i identify the reference, but if he uses a phrase drawn from the bible without specifying that he is doing so, i do not supply the reference” (p. xv). i would argue that inclusion of these references would better demonstrate the strength of mendelssohn’s writing. without explaining mendelssohn’s allusions, puns, and use of rabbinic rhetorical strategies, how can the reader discern, let alone appreciate, the nuances in mendelssohn’s arguments? why privilege one style of writing—the european-philosophical—over the other—the hebrew / rabbinic? my guess is that gottlieb does this to place mendelssohn on the shelf with immanuel kant and herder auf deutsch rather than with rabbis jacob emden and jonathan eibeschütz in the aron kodesh. these quibbles are, however, small relative to the overall contribution of gottlieb’s work. we should be indebted to gottlieb for providing the english-speaking community greater access to mendelssohn, and especially those interested in teaching mendelssohn’s writings (gottlieb’s stated reason for the volume [p. xxii]). mendelssohn has always deserved a place in our philosophy and general religious studies curricula. thanks to gottlieb, this is now possible. watson, “the best pope the jews ever had” watson 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college “the best pope the jews ever had”: jewish reactions to the death of pope john paul ii m urr ay w at son l o n d o n , o n t a r i o volume 7 (2012) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol7 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): watson 1-18 watson, “the best pope the jews ever had” watson 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr when, on april 13, 1986, pope john paul ii made his historic first visit to the great synagogue of rome, he was famously welcomed by its venerable chief rabbi, dr. elio toaff, a man who had already been serving in that capacity for thirtyfive years. the history of rome’s ancient jewish community has been closely intertwined with that of the papacy almost from the start, and toaff had himself been witness to—and a significant protagonist in—some of the most remarkable decades of that history. indeed, several historians record that in june of 1963, toaff had led a small delegation of congregants from the great synagogue to st. peter’s square, where they had joined the tens of thousands gathered there, praying for the much-loved pope john xxiii on the night before he died. 1 at the time of his death, john xxiii was hailed as “the best pope the jews had ever had,” 2 and there is no question that, in 1963, he was justly deserving of that title. as pinchas lapide reports: “his constant efforts to eradicate hatred will forever be inscribed in the memory of our people,” said president 1 carl bernstein and marco politi, his holiness: john paul ii and the hidden history of our time (new york: doubleday, 1996), 649; darcy o’brien, the hidden pope: the untold story of a lifelong friendship that is changing the relationship between catholics and jews: the personal journey of john paul ii and jerzy kluger (new york: daybreak books, 1998), 24. john paul himself alluded to that event in his address at rome’s great synagogue: “i am … well aware that the chief rabbi, on the night before the death of pope john, did not hesitate to go to saint peter's square; and accompanied by members of the jewish faithful, he mingled with the crowd of catholics and other christians, in order to pray and keep vigil, as it were bearing witness, in a silent but very effective way, to the greatness of soul of that pontiff, who was open to all people without distinction, and in particular to the jewish brethren.” (“address at the great synagogue of rome,” april 13, 1986, dialogika, accessed february 15, 2013, http://www.ccjr.us/dialogikaresources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/305jp2-86apr13 ). 2 judith herschcopf banki and eugene j. fisher, eds. a prophet for our time: an anthology of the writings of rabbi marc h. tanenbaum (new york: fordham university press, 2002), 25. shazar of israel. chief rabbi nissim deplored his death as “a bitter blow not only to the whole of christendom, but also to lovers of peace throughout the world.” and the minister of religious affairs, dr. z. wahrhaftig, eu logized pope john as “one of the truly righteous men of the world, whose loving spirit and respect for mankind extended to the jewish people as well.” a few days later in jerusalem, priests, pastors, rabbis, nuns, monks and teachers of eleven different creeds united in paying heartfelt tribute to an indefatigable seeker after truth and justice. 3 forty-two years later, in april 2005, it was john’s successor, john paul ii, who lay dying in the apostolic palace. and once again, in a remarkable display of tenderness, loyalty and friendship, members of rome’s jewish community came to offer their prayers for the health of a man who, over the course of nearly twenty-seven years of papal leadership, had transformed the jewish-catholic relationship in ways that john xxiii could only have imagined. 4 this time, the roman jewish delegation was led by toaff’s successor, rabbi dr. riccardo di segni, 5 who said that he had come “to pray here in the piazza as a sign of sharing in the grief of our brothers for their concerns, and as 3 pinchas e. lapide, the last three popes and the jews (london: souvenir press, 1967), 344. 4 it was not merely roman jews, however, who offered their prayers for the pope’s recovery. as lisa palmieri-billig reported in the jerusalem post, “approximately 30 rabbinical members of the world union of progressive judaism led by rabbis mark winer and uri regev gathered at the hospital's entrance to pray for him.” (“the tikkun olam pope,” jerusalem post [april 3, 2005], 1, lexisnexis academic, web, accessed february 15, 2013). 5 “chiesa: il mondo prega per il pontefice morente,” rai news (april 4, 2005), accessed february 15, 2013, http://www.rainews24.it/it/news.php?newsid=53457. explaining his choice of prayers, during a press conference called at the synagogue just before shabbat, di segni said, “psalms belong to both of our traditions and are a very strong expression of prayer. let’s hope the pope’s strong fiber will help him overcome even this crisis.” (palmieri-billig, “tikkun olam pope.”). http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/305-jp2-86apr13 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/305-jp2-86apr13 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/305-jp2-86apr13 http://www.rainews24.it/it/news.php?newsid=53457 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): watson 1-18 watson, “the best pope the jews ever had” watson 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr a sign of warmth for this pope and for all that he has done.” 6 it was no coincidence that the epithet once conferred on john xxiii—“the best pope the jews had ever had”—was now being widely applied to john paul ii by jewish leaders and media commentators. nearly eight years after the death of pope john paul, on april 2, 2005, it is both nostalgic and instructive to re-read some of the many comments that were spoken and published in the hours and days after his passing, both by israeli leaders, and by jewish sources worldwide, and to reflect on what they say about his truly historic impact on the jewish-catholic relationship. in this article, i will examine a broad (but, i believe, representative) cross-section of the post-mortem jewish reactions to john paul, highlighting some of their key messages about who pope john paul was, what he did, and how his pontificate had been viewed by jewish leaders and spokespersons on the international and local levels. because of the complexity of this pope and of the jewish community itself, it would be reductive to do anything but convey the broad range of opinions expressed in the jewish community about the strengths and weaknesses of the deceased pontiff. through the collage of materials presented, this article therefore primarily presents a portrait of this historical moment. one of the first jewish voices to offer a tribute to the late pope was rabbi eric yoffie, the president of the union for reform judaism. yoffie referred to pope wojtyla as “a treasured friend” of the jewish community, and enumerated the milestone accomplishments of his papacy: his ground-breaking 1986 visit to the rome synagogue, his repeated denunciations of antisemitism, his affirmation of the continuing validity of god’s covenant with the jews, and his placing of the shoah at 6 ”world prays for pope’s recovery,” the guardia, (april 1, 2005), http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/01/catholicism.religion2, accessed february 15, 2013. the center of contemporary catholic reflection on judaism. it was under john paul, yoffie recalled, that diplomatic relations had been established at last between israel and the holy see in december 1993, and john paul’s jubilee pilgrimage to the holy land had been both a spiritual and political coup. he continued: the jewish community also admired his leadership in advancing democracy in eastern europe, his clarion call for caring for the world’s neediest, and his resolute op position to the death penalty. while we had our dis agreements—on gender equality, reproductive rights, and the rights of gays and lesbians—we never doubted for a moment that he was a man of profound principle, courage, and vision. even when our religious traditions led us to different conclusions, john paul ii always found new opportunities for reengaging in our common purpose of bringing justice with mercy into the human community. in the jewish tradition, we say of those who have left us: “may his memory be a blessing.” we say this today of john paul ii, knowing that his memory is and will con tinue to be a blessing for countless millions throughout the world, and that the jewish community joins his flock in grieving for this courageous shepherd. 7 yoffie’s words—generous but also realistic—stood at the beginning of a flood of condolences and words of praise from jewish leaders. in its statement, the anti-defamation league honoured the deceased pontiff for his “compassion, leadership and 7 "the jewish community has lost a treasured friend", union for reform judaism, http://urj.org/about/union/pr/2005/pope/, accessed february 6, 2013. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/01/catholicism.religion2 http://urj.org/about/union/pr/2005/pope/,%20accessed%20february%206,%202013. http://urj.org/about/union/pr/2005/pope/,%20accessed%20february%206,%202013. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): watson 1-18 watson, “the best pope the jews ever had” watson 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr understanding”; it pointed out that john paul’s commitment to jewish people dated back many decades, to his years as a young man—and later a young priest—in poland. after offering a similar litany of the pope’s significant statements and actions, adl executive director abraham foxman said: most importantly, the pope rejected the destructive con cept of supersessionism and has recognized the special relationship between christianity and the jewish people, while sharing his understanding of judaism as a living heritage, of the permanent validity of god's covenant with the jewish people. he was a man of god in every sense and a true friend whose visionary leadership will be sorely missed. 8 the adl certainly had, at times, raised sharp questions about john paul’s actions and decisions, but in death, there was simply a respectful acknowledgement of the many significant accomplishments that had made up the lengthy and momentous pontificate just ended. rabbi david rosen, the ajc’s director of interreligious affairs, and a man whose interreligious work on an international level had frequently brought him into contact and conversation with pope john paul, wrote in haaretz of how the late pope—a former actor—had used the power of gestures and actions to communicate a message that went beyond merely words. “the scene of john paul embracing the chief rabbi of rome, elio 8 “adl mourns the loss of pope john paul ii,” anti-defamation league, http://archive.adl.org/presrele/vaticanjewish_96/4679_96, accessed february 6, 2013. in a particularly poignant personal footnote, the adl communiqué noted that foxman had himself been saved from death by a polish catholic nanny, who had him baptized and raised him as a catholic until he was returned to his family after the war. see: barbara demmick, “holocaust survivor credits john paul: ‘he saved me’,” san jose mercury news, march 24, 2000, 14a, lexis nexis academic, web, accessed february 13, 2013. toaff, reached millions of believers who did not choose to or who could not read his writings.” in addition, the pope’s visit to israel in the year 2000 had exercised a powerful effect on many israelis, for whom catholicism was largely an unknown. rosen continued: [it] opened the eyes of israelis to a new reality. not only was the church no longer an enemy, its head was a true friend! to see the pope at yad vashem, demon strating solidarity, weeping at the suffering of the jewish people, to learn that he had helped save jews during the holocaust and that subsequently, as a priest, he had returned jewish children adopted by christians to their jewish families, to see the head of the catholic church placing a prayer of atonement for the sins of christians against jews between the stones of the western wall—all of these scenes had a profound ef fect on many israelis… 9 and, rosen correctly pointed out, many christians as well. “no pope has devoted himself as much to advancing positive relations between the christian world and the jewish people as this pope,” rosen said elsewhere. 10 john paul had been “the true hero of christian-jewish reconciliation,” even if some of his judgements and words had at times provoked consternation, tension and pain on the part of his jewish interlocutors. 11 9 david rosen, “the real hero in reconciling christians and jews,” haaretz (april 3, 2005), http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/the-real-hero-inreconciling-christians-and-jews-1.154862, accessed february 13, 2013. 10 sam ser, “what will follow the ‘best pope the jews ever had’? beatification of pius xii, non-european successor could seriously strain jewishcatholic relations,” jerusalem post (april 4, 2005), 3, lexis nexis academic, web, accessed february 15, 2013. 11 rosen, ”the real hero…” http://archive.adl.org/presrele/vaticanjewish_96/4679_96 http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/the-real-hero-in-reconciling-christians-and-jews-1.154862 http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/the-real-hero-in-reconciling-christians-and-jews-1.154862 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): watson 1-18 watson, “the best pope the jews ever had” watson 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr writing in the jerusalem post, journalist lisa palmieribillig spoke of the way in which the historical context of john paul’s upbringing instilled in him a particular sensitivity to indignities committed against any human beings, and against jews in particular: born with a talent for communication, an overpowering sensitivity and empathy for the human condition, steeped in a deeply religious polish catholic environ ment but surrounded by jewish friends and classmates, he consequently embraced the moral imperative of transforming consciences according to his faith…a vi sion of human dignity and respect for the sanctity of life based on the biblical statement that humankind was created in the image of its creator made john paul ii not only a wielder of religious and political transformations, but also a man of dialogue with judaism first, and sec ondly with other world religions. and yet there was no skirting the fact of the problematic aspects of catholic-jewish relations, both those which resulted from the pope’s personal decisions, and those over which he merely presided as the church’s leader. she continued: …[h]is theological positions have sometimes clashed with jewish sensitivities (such as his reference to auschwitz as a “golgotha” of the jews, implying that jews were sacrificial victims of salvation rather than simply victims of evil) …it was his respect for jewish sensitivity that led him in 1989 to intervene with a per sonal request to the carmelite nuns in auschwitz to transfer their convent out of the nazi concentration camp. he himself had helped set up the foundation, the church that suffers, which helped finance the building of the convent, but when he understood the jewish per ception that the nuns' presence there, as well as a huge, neighboring cross, was “christianizing” the memory of a genocide whose jewish victims comprise approximately 90 percent of the total, he took the un precedented measure… 12 at a prayer-gathering in the hours before john paul’s death, rabbi michael schudrich, the chief rabbi of john paul’s native poland, had highlighted the unique affection poland— and its jewish community—felt for the first son of poland to sit on the chair of st. peter, stating: we jews feel a special attachment to pope john paul ii because of everything he has done for us. through his teachings he created that space in the life of poland to day in which polish jews can try to live in poland again …pope john paul ii has changed the soul and spirit of the church so much that we have no choice but to con tinue his work. 13 in addition to his specifically religious efforts, john paul’s acknowledged political influence (especially in the fall of polish communism) had contributed to a poland in which jewish life could be lived more freely and easily. the tributes were truly international. france’s chief rabbi, joseph sitruk, issued a statement of condolence to the world’s catholics on the loss of their chief shepherd which read: the pontificate of john paul ii was particularly dense, so it is very difficult to highlight just a few key moments …in his relations with the jewish people, he crafted a 12 palmieri-billig, “tikkun olam pope.” 13 meron rappaport, jack khoury and news services, “pope john paul ii dies at the age of 84,” in haaretz (march 31, 2005), http://www.haaretz.com/news/pope-john-paul-ii-dies-at-the-age-of-841.154670, accessed february 15, 2013. http://www.haaretz.com/news/pope-john-paul-ii-dies-at-the-age-of-84-1.154670 http://www.haaretz.com/news/pope-john-paul-ii-dies-at-the-age-of-84-1.154670 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): watson 1-18 watson, “the best pope the jews ever had” watson 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr true fraternal dialogue. he initiated a very courageous call for repentance, acknowledging the church’s responsibility in anti-semitism…his death leaves such a great emptiness. but did not the prophets say that “the memory of the righteous is a blessing”? amen. 14 from argentina came similar words of warmth and appreciation from a number of rabbis. rabbi angel kreiman said that john paul had been “the best friend the jews have had since alexander the great…he especially valued the jewish people and the state of israel.” rabbi daniel goldman noted that many people still do not realize how much has changed, and others may still consider it inadequate. nonetheless, it was undeniable that “there have been tremendous strides in the relationship between the hierarchy of the catholic church and the jewish people.” furthermore, goldman said that, by john paul’s statements regarding the shoah and antisemitism, and by his comments favorable to the state of israel, the pope had allowed bridges to be built much more quickly between jews and catholics. rabbi adrian herbst spoke of the pope’s magisterium as establishing a clear-cut threshold in religious history. he said, “there will be a ‘before’ and ‘after’ in history, thanks to john paul ii…he speeded up a church that had been frozen in the middle ages, turned it around and led it into the modern age.” 15 what was perhaps most striking and unprecedented about the reaction to the pope’s death, however, were the eloquent and numerous voices emanating from the state of 14 “message du grf à l’occasion du décès du pape jean-paul ii” (april 6, 2005), http://www.col.fr/article.php3?id_article=748, accessed february 17, 2013, (my translation from the french original). 15 “el santo padre es el ‘mejor amigo’ del pueblo judío,” infobae (april 2, 2005), http://www.infobae.com/notas/nota.php?idx=175484&idxseccion=100439, accessed february 13, 2013 (my translation). israel—religious and political figures who were able to speak about the late pope with a degree of personal familiarity, something never possible with his predecessors. this was a pope who had met with numerous israeli delegations, and whose great jubilee journey to israel was so markedly different from the brief, politically abstract and diplomatically tense visit of paul vi in 1964. from across the spectrum of jewish movements and israeli political parties, there was a palpable sense of loss that would normally have seemed strange coming from jews, but that demonstrated the imprint of john paul’s presence and gestures on the peoples of the jewish state. israeli minister of foreign affairs, silwan shalom, spoke of the pope’s death as a loss, not just for catholics or christians, but for humanity as a whole, and the ministry of foreign affair’s communiqué spoke of the pope’s efforts at bringing about greater historical consciousness of past injustices and of his committing his flock to a path of teshuvah (repentance). it stated: in the build-up to the millennium, pope john paul ii called on the catholic church to conduct soul-searching regarding its relations with the jewish people and all those who have suffered as a result of the church's teachings. prior to his historic visit to israel in 2000, the pope asked the jewish people for forgiveness for the crimes that have been perpetrated against it in the name of the church. 16 he later wrote that message on a piece of paper which he placed between the rocks of 16 in fact, the pope did not specifically ask jews for their forgiveness on this occasion, but prayed for god’s forgiveness for sins committed by christians against jews. an english translation of the pope’s prayer for forgiveness (which he later inserted between the stones of the western wall) is available online at dialogika: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-andstatements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/338-jp2-00mar26. http://www.col.fr/article.php3?id_article=748 http://www.infobae.com/notas/nota.php?idx=175484&idxseccion=100439 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/338-jp2-00mar26 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/338-jp2-00mar26 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): watson 1-18 watson, “the best pope the jews ever had” watson 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the western wall, judaism's holiest site, during his visit to jerusalem. 17 that moment, deeply imprinted in the memory of many jews and christians, had—even in those five years—become an icon for the positive kinds of changes for which john paul had been a catalyst. 18 in its concluding words, the foreign minister’s statement said, “israel, the jewish people and the entire world, lost today a great champion of reconciliation and brotherhood between the faiths.” 19 one of the major achievements of john paul’s papacy had been the establishment of an official committee for dialogue between the chief rabbinate of israel and the holy see. 20 john paul had met with both of israel’s chief rabbis, yona metzger and shlomo amar, and had visited their predecessors at the chief rabbinate’s headquarters, hekhal sholomo, on march 23, 2000, as part of his jubilee pilgrimage. 17 “statement on the death of pope john paul ii,” israel ministry of foreign affairs (april 2, 2005) http://www.mfa.gov.il/popeinisrael/israelvatican/statement+on+the+passing+of+pope+john+paul+ii+2-apr2005.htm, accessed february 15, 2013. 18 the chief rabbi of the united kingdom, dr. jonathan sacks, said, “that one act of atonement for the suffering caused to jews by the church was one of the great healing moments of our time.” see: “pope john paul ii 19202005: world hails a leader who inspired faith and hope: the last 24 hours,” the observer (april 3, 2005), 2, lexis nexis academic, web, accessed february 15, 2013. 19 israel ministry of foreign affairs, “statement…” 20 for david rosen’s discussion of the significance of this orthodox jewish involvement, see “‘nostra aetate,’ forty years after vatican ii: present & future perspectives,” the holy see (october 27, 2005), http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jewsdocs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20051027_rabbi-rosen_en.html, accessed february 15, 2013. he notes that “this bilateral commission [for dialogue between the vatican and the chief rabbinate] is nothing less than a historic achievement that also represents the remarkable fruit of nostra aetate and pope john paul ii’s personal commitment and contribution to its fulfillment.” after his death, their spokesman noted that both of the chief rabbis had met the pope and appreciated his love for the jewish people. “the pope, who declared judaism’s senior position among the world’s religions, and who decried anti-semitism and terrorism, was a committed champion of peace and justice. our hope is that his successor will continue his legacy, struggle for peace and freedom, fight antisemitism and terrorism and deepen the christian world’s awareness that the jewish people are the forerunners of monotheistic religions.” 21 the unfortunate fact that preparations for passover coincided with the pope’s funeral, however, necessarily prevented them from travelling to rome to take part in those ceremonies. as the jerusalem post reported: “pessah is just a few weeks away and the rabbi [rabbi shlomo amar] has a lot of work to do,” said an amar aide. “there is the whole kashrut apparatus to oversee, the sale of hametz, not to mention the rabbi’s duties as head of the rabbinic court system.” ashkenazi chief rabbi yona metzger will also not make it to the vatican. “the rabbi cannot go because it entails being there for shabbat,” said an aide. “he has previous engagements and, therefore, cannot be outside israel for shabbat.” instead, oded weiner, director-general of the chief rabbinate, who is not a rabbi, will take part in the funer al, as will haifa chief rabbi she’ar-yashuv cohen. 22 21 mati wagner, “chief rabbis won’t attend pope’s funeral, but katsav will,” jerusalem post (april 8, 2005), 3, lexis nexis academic, web, accessed february 15, 2013. 22 wagner, “chief rabbis…” several news stories highlighted the unprecedented number of non-christian representatives who took part in the pope’s funeral. as was reported in the daily telegraph, “the last sight of the coffin of a loved one is usually a melancholy moment but that was not how it seemed yesterday … if anything, there was optimism in the air. it may have been the sight of so many different nations and confessions coming together in an atmosphere of respect. the section of the congregation set aside for religious leaders contained sheikhs and imams in turbans, patriarchs in the elaborate headgear of the orthodox church, and black-clad rabbis in skullcaps. all in all, http://www.mfa.gov.il/popeinisrael/israel-vatican/statement+on+the+passing+of+pope+john+paul+ii+2-apr-2005.htm http://www.mfa.gov.il/popeinisrael/israel-vatican/statement+on+the+passing+of+pope+john+paul+ii+2-apr-2005.htm http://www.mfa.gov.il/popeinisrael/israel-vatican/statement+on+the+passing+of+pope+john+paul+ii+2-apr-2005.htm http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20051027_rabbi-rosen_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20051027_rabbi-rosen_en.html http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): watson 1-18 watson, “the best pope the jews ever had” watson 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr israel’s prime minister ariel sharon—who had sometimes found himself at odds with the pontiff on political issues— nevertheless remembered john paul with warmth and respect as he opened a cabinet meeting on april 3, saying, “pope john paul ii was a man of peace and a friend of the jewish people, who was familiar with the uniqueness of the jewish people and who worked for an historic reconciliation between the peoples …yesterday, the world lost one of the most important leaders of our generation, whose great contribution to rapprochement and unity between peoples, understanding and tolerance will be with us for many years.” 23 in an editorial on april 3, the jerusalem post wrote with obvious affection—and untempered honesty—about the impression the pope had made in israel, and what type of legacy his papacy would leave. “it was hard to fail to be touched by the compassion and dignity of this man who, though he represented one religion, came to symbolize the religious spirit to people of many faiths.” the editors spoke of the pope’s “sincerity and empathy…in embodying the new doctrine [of vatican ii] into word and deed”—but they also pulled no punches in terms of actions by john paul that had, at times, disappointed, confused or enraged world jewry. they continued: it is a measure of how far there is to go in relations be tween the church and the jews that even this pope chose to meet yasser arafat, for the first of 10 times, as 142 non-roman catholic religious leaders came to the funeral.” see: patrick bishop, bruce johnston and jonathan petre, “united by grief, they put aside their differences to celebrate the life and works of a man who had touched their lives,” daily telegraph (april 9, 2005), 2, lexis nexis academic, web, accessed february 15, 2005. 23 agence france-presse, “israelis, palestinians unite in homage to pope as champion of peace,” the lebanon daily star (april 4, 2012), http://www.dailystar.com.lb/news/middle-east/apr/04/israel-and-palestineunited-in-honoring-pope.ashx#axzz1yx21hnhg, accessed february 15, 2013. far back as 1982—which was before the plo had re nounced terrorism and when both the us and israel had branded it a terrorist organization. one also wonders why in november 2003, while suicide attacks against israeli civilians continued, the pope condemned terror ism, but also said of the security fence israel was build ing to stop terrorists, “the holy land doesn’t need walls, but bridges.” 24 interestingly, perhaps two of the most strident postmortem criticisms of the late john paul came from very different ends of the jewish theological and political spectrum. the first came from the outspoken media commentator shmuley boteach, an american rabbi associated with the chabad lubavitch movement. in an april 4 article in the jerusalem post, boteach argued that john paul had been “the pope who loved too much.” the overall tone of his criticism (following upon considerable praise earlier in the article) stands out, precisely because it is so different from that of many other spokespersons in the jewish community worldwide. rabbi boteach speaks witheringly of john paul’s outreach to saddam hussein’s deputy prime minister, the chaldean-rite catholic tariq aziz, in the lead-up to the second u.s. war in iraq, 25 and of the papal words of condolence expressed at the death of plo leader yasir arafat, and he voices his own perception that the pope had not spoken out forcefully enough to condemn osama bin laden and his followers. such actions—or lack of action— were, boteach said, unworthy of a man who was, in so many other ways, a leader and example on the world stage. such lapses of judgement, boteach argued, reflected “an inexplicable 24 “pope john paul ii,” editorial, jerusalem post (april 4, 2005), 13, lexis nexis academic, web, accessed february 15, 2013. 25 “pope tells iraq to respect un,” bbc news (february 14, 2003), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2760005.stm, accessed february 15, 2013. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/news/middle-east/apr/04/israel-and-palestine-united-in-honoring-pope.ashx#axzz1yx21hnhg http://www.dailystar.com.lb/news/middle-east/apr/04/israel-and-palestine-united-in-honoring-pope.ashx#axzz1yx21hnhg http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2760005.stm studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): watson 1-18 watson, “the best pope the jews ever had” watson 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr moral blindness [that] shall forever remain a stain on the legacy of an otherwise great man.” he continued: like a parent who cannot see the failings of a child, john paul refused to accept that real evil lurks in the heart of men. he could not see that there were those whose actions had forever severed themselves from a compassionate creator. john paul loved the innocent but he never hated the wicked. he loved justice, but he all too seldom condemned injustice. he fought for the poor and the oppressed, but he would not—aside from soviet communists—fight their oppressors. declaring in word and deed that hatred of any sort was an ungodly emotion, john paul ii never summoned the faithful to have contempt for the wicked but instead ex tended them the considerable softness of his gentle touch. the result of such misguided affection is that as he departs this world widely loved and admired, he leaves behind a planet where it is american soldiers, fighting and dying for democracy, who are doing more to create a godly earth than even john paul’s priests and pastors. as a jew, i shall forever remain indebted to john paul for the respect and affection he extended to the jewish people…but as an american i shall remain saddened that, as the world condemned america for removing the taliban in afghanistan and establishing a democracy in iraq, the pope did not say that the real enemy is not those who fight evil, but those who soil god’s green earth by drenching it in the blood of innocents. 26 26 “the pope who loved too much,” jerusalem post (april 4, 2005), 14, lexis nexis academic, web, accessed february 15, 2013. it probably goes without saying that boteach has somewhat overstated his case here; john paul did, on dozens of occasions, publicly denounce violence, terrorism, ex the second prominent voice that castigated john paul in the hours after his death was the well-known american rabbi michael lerner, the founder of tikkun magazine and the leader of the tikkun social justice and spirituality movement (later the network of spiritual progressives). although lerner offered some brief positive comments on the late pope’s contributions, the vast majority of his assessment of john paul (close to three pages in print) was negative. he explained this, writing: it is the jewish tradition that in remembering the dead, we talk honestly and not just say the good things. in fact, we consider it more of a respecting of the dead to acknowledge the full picture, and not only say what we admired, but also what challenged us. and we do that starting with the first times that we talk about the dead, in the eulogy, and during the period of mourning. our tradition teaches us that it is this honest accounting that allows us to return from sadness in a healthy way, rather than by covering up parts that disappointed us or hurt us. lerner then offered a lengthy litany of his grievances with official catholicism under the late pope: the silencing of progressive theologians (leonardo boff, matthew fox, etc.), john paul’s judgement that the church was not empowered to ordain women as priests, and the marginal role in which homosexuals were kept in church life (he spoke of these last two issues as “[reaffirming] the most sexually repressive aspects of his tradition”). he contrasted the church’s position regarding the inability of divorced and remarried catholics to receive communion with “the more humane attitudes of the torah on this question and of most post-patriarchal societies and humane religious traditions.” the appointment of “the most tremism and hatred, sometimes generically and sometimes in very specific terms, as even a cursory perusal of his wednesday audience and sunday angelus addresses makes clear. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): watson 1-18 watson, “the best pope the jews ever had” watson 10 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr conservative and least socially conscious elements” to positions of leadership and influence, lerner suggested, ensures that the church “will continue to play a repressive and reactionary role in these matters.” issues of human sexuality— particularly of birth control and access to abortion—became “the litmus test of seriousness and commitment to catholic principles,” especially for those in public life: the decision to privilege the sexual issues over the so cial justice issues was a response to the spirit of this papacy, and it was a moral disgrace to the catholic world on the same level as the uncritical support for israel’s treatment of the palestinian people has been a moral disgrace for the jewish world or the lack of criti cism of anti-semitism and terrorism has been a moral disgrace for much of the islamic world … lerner then touched on a number of issues more directly relevant to the holocaust, and the way the pope’s decisions impacted on a jewish community still deeply marked by its horrors: we at tikkun organized a demonstration against this pope when he visited san francisco shortly after he had met with former nazi soldier and later president of aus tria kurt waldheim…we add with great sorrow that this pope contributed to making pope pius xii a saint—the pope who made a concordat with hitler and who did pa thetically little to save the jewish people when we were being massacred in europe. though merely symbolic, that action symbolizes an unwillingness of the church to really take account of its disgraceful role not only with hitler but with many other dictators in making accom modations to the most oppressive regimes in the mod ern world rather than fighting those regimes with every inch of its moral authority. it was not, however, out of a sense of hatred for john paul or for catholicism that lerner felt compelled to speak out so strongly, but in reaction to what he saw as an unbalanced and uncritical popular “canonization” of the pope. lerner saw his analysis as rooted in an appreciation for the deepest core values of catholicism, and its traditional commitment to social justice and “progressive” thinking. …[i]t is actually only because i feel a strong solidarity, an intrinsic connection, between my own connection to god and the connection to god of the catholic world, and a strong affirmation of all that is deeply beautiful and moving in the [catholic] tradition, that i feel a need to speak the deepest truth that i know as we witness a global mourning that partly obscures the reality of this pope and his legacy. but let me hasten to add that i cri tique some of his policies, but do not pretend to have any right to judge this person as a human being beyond the political impact he had on the world. i imagine that he was faced with immense pressures and constraints, that he moved as far as he could within the worldview that he inherited, and that his fundamental reality was that of a decent and good human being trying his best to serve god and humanity. you see that in his state ments against war and violence. you see that in his at tempts at [ecumenism] with other branches of christi anity. you see that in his statements on behalf of the downtrodden. so i pray [that] he will rest in eternal peace and be remembered also for all the good that he did. 27 27 “a truly heroic figure,” beliefnet, http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/catholic/2005/04/a-truly-heroicfigure.aspx?p=2, accessed february 15, 2013 (several typos in the original version of lerner’s post have been corrected here). according to http://www.resourcesforlife.com/library/people/michael-lerner/, lerner circulated this by email on april 3, 2005. this site does not indicate to whom the email was sent. http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/catholic/2005/04/a-truly-heroic-figure.aspx?p=2 http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/catholic/2005/04/a-truly-heroic-figure.aspx?p=2 http://www.resourcesforlife.com/library/people/michael-lerner/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): watson 1-18 watson, “the best pope the jews ever had” watson 11 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr what becomes very clear in reviewing some representative jewish reactions to john paul ii’s death is that the evaluation differs—sometimes dramatically—according to the theological and moral yardstick that is used to measure him. to the degree that he is judged on his specific contributions to jewish-christian dialogue, voices are almost unanimous in lauding the deceased pontiff’s revolutionary leadership in religious and political terms. they recognize that his lengthy papacy succeeded in putting jewish issues solidly at the very heart of catholic thinking and acting, and that many of his more “symbolic” actions communicated to the world a love and respect for the jewish people that was shaped by his experience of pre-war and wartime poland. on a personal level, and in his theological approach, judaism was an esteemed “older brother” to christianity, with whom a relationship of dialogue and sharing was both desirable and necessary. from the earliest days of his pontificate, until the final weeks before his death, judaism and jews were always on john paul’s “radar screen,” and he was prepared to take radical—and sometimes very controversial—steps to mend the jewish-catholic relationship and lead it in a very different direction. both jewish and non-jewish analysts at the time of his death agreed that this would be a major piece of the pope’s historical legacy. for those who saw the catholic-jewish relationship primarily through the lens of political issues and social justice, there was no question that john paul’s papacy was considerably more ambiguous. his meetings with world leaders like kurt waldheim and yasir arafat—after considerable protests from international jewish groups—were seen as insensitive and wholly inappropriate, giving the tacit approval of the holy see to figures whose past or present views were antithetical to judaism and the state of israel. the church’s advocacy of political and social positions at odds with mainstream jewish thinking often made that relationship a strained and awkward one. under john paul ii, the catholic church could be (and was) viewed by some jewish leaders as hide-bound and overly conservative, focusing on the wrong issues and issuing ambivalent statements on important topics such as terrorism in and against israel. on issues of women’s rights and approaches to homosexuality, some jewish groups simply concluded that they had little common ground with official catholicism—and some simply decided that there were other, more strategic, battles worth fighting. as some commentators have suggested, john paul’s upbringing, in a poland steeped in fairly traditional catholicism, was, in turns, both his strength and his weakness. 28 it nourished his unshakeable commitment to social justice and human dignity, and provided him with the intellectual and lived framework out of which to view judaism and jews with respect, humility and commitment. jews were not theoretical constructs to him, but had been among his closest friends from his childhood in wadowice, and his deep theological reverence for judaism as a biblical reality was matched with a sober awareness of judaism as an ongoing living tradition, whose members in europe had suffered horrifically for remaining faithful to their identity. perhaps tullia zevi, the former president of the union of italian jewish communities, captured the challenge of john paul’s identity best when she said, “for me, he is two popes. he was the man of these solemn, groundbreaking acts who was open to the rest of the world, and he was the guardian and custodian of tradition. and in a certain sense, the ambiguity of his personality is also his greatness.” 29 in that sense, the jewish response to john paul was not entirely dissimilar from the catholic response. many 28 gerard mannion, the vision of john paul ii: assessing his thought and influence (collegeville, mn: liturgical press, 2008), 4-5. 29 glenn frankel, “pope reconciled with many but made special effort with jews,” washington post (april 7, 2005), a17, lexis nexis academic, web, accessed february 15, 2013. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): watson 1-18 watson, “the best pope the jews ever had” watson 12 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr catholics lionized pope john paul, for his championing of traditional catholic values in an increasingly secularized west, or for the very public face he gave to catholicism, through his frequent international pilgrimages and articulate public speeches and writings. conservative commentators appreciated the clarity and coherence of his moral vision, his refusal to yield to the demands of political correctness, and his emphases on evangelization, piety and a more “evangelical” catholicism. there were many other catholics, however, who felt effectively frozen out of john paul’s vision of church, which they experienced as more patriarchal and less open to theological exploration, more centralized, and with less breathing room for local episcopates and the legitimate needs of inculturation. it was undoubtedly a more confident version of catholicism—but had that confidence been accompanied by a diminishment of many of the promising directions of vatican ii, a certain theological and cultural “retrenchment”? even today, john paul ii remains an often divisive figure in a church which is fragmented by a variety of ecclesiological models and visions. he is a lightning-rod for criticism, and a standard-bearer for all that many people see as best and more beautiful in catholicism. there is certainly no unanimity about how his nearly twenty-seven years as pope should be evaluated. it may take decades before john paul’s impact on interreligious relations—and the jewish-catholic relationship in particular—can be fully and objectively analyzed. but even now, it is beyond question that the pope born karol wojtyła gave judaism and jews a prominence in catholic public life and teaching that they had never previously enjoyed. he spoke and acted as a friend and ally of the jews and broke down historic barriers of misunderstanding and suspicion in a way that was both bold and encouraging. and if the constraints of his position, and of his own personality, did not always allow him to be the pope some jews (and some catholics) would have liked, the progress he promoted created a space in which jews and catholics could address each other with greater passion and directness, saying sometimes difficult things to each other in charity and respect. paradoxically, the fact of the occasionally trenchant criticisms of john paul by jewish spokespersons attests to the solidity that relationship attained under him, which no longer necessitated the polite delicacy and diplomatic niceties of the early, uncertain years of jewish-catholic conversation. strangers must speak to each other with a certain amount of restraint and hesitancy; friends can speak to other from the heart, even when their words may, for that very reason, be challenging and difficult to hear. dozens of images and metaphors were used for john paul in the wake of his death: he was the “tikkun olam pope,” “the true protagonist of catholic-jewish rapprochement” and, for more than a few people, “the best pope the jews ever had”—inheriting, and rightly so, an accolade first spoken of john xxiii in 1963. pope wojtyła’s tremendous contributions to that partnership necessarily left an immense void in the conversation when he died—and fears as to whether his impact would be a lasting one. was john paul ii a “blip on the radar screen” of catholic history, or had his words and actions succeeded in rooting a new understanding deeply enough that backsliding was now impossible? rabbi james rudin, the senior interreligious advisor for the american jewish committee, and a veteran of catholic-jewish dialogue, summed up the concern of many in april 2005, saying , “we know [john paul’s] teachings while he was alive. now that he’s gone, what will happen? that is the question…there is a concern that the new batch of priests may not be as enthusiastic about the reforms as their teachers and predecessors.” 30 30 quoted in eric j. greenberg, “interfaith leaders ponder future of jewishcatholic ties; pope john paul ii,” the forward (april 8, 2005), 8, http://forward.com/articles/3247/interfaith-leaders-ponder-future-of-jewishcatholi/, accessed february 15, 2013. http://forward.com/articles/3247/interfaith-leaders-ponder-future-of-jewish-catholi/ http://forward.com/articles/3247/interfaith-leaders-ponder-future-of-jewish-catholi/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): watson 1-18 watson, “the best pope the jews ever had” watson 13 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr of course, the same concern may now be voiced about benedict and his successor. a full analysis of benedict’s legacy deserves its own article, so i offer here just some points of comparison with that of his predecessor. there is no denying that the very different personal histories of john paul and benedict yielded very different prioritizations of the question of (and the importance of) jewish-catholic relations on the catholic church’s agenda. john paul’s own childhood friendship with jews, combined with his closer experience of the shoah as a young man in poland, instilled in him a sensitivity to and interest in judaism unparalleled in the modern papacy—and probably in the entire history of the papacy itself. both in his words and in his gestures, john paul was a consummate communicator, always cognizant of the power of his global reach to provide leadership, sometimes in ways that were prophetic, unprecedented and controversial, even within his own circle of advisors. there can be no denying the groundbreaking quality of john paul ii’s papacy as regards judaism and israel. there can equally be no denying that even this most “jewishly sensitive” of popes sometimes made missteps and questionable judgements: the waldheim audience in june 1987; aspects of the canonization processes of edith stein, maximilian kolbe, pius ix and pius xii; his 1979 reference to auschwitz as “the golgotha of the modern world.” 31 these were salutary reminders that even this most respectful of catholic leaders did not always understand or conform to jewish sensitivities, especially when they might seem to be at odds with his own understanding of the papacy, his personal spirituality, or the inescapably polish catholic matrix out of which he acted. as avant-garde as he was in many ways, and as many precedents as he set, even john paul’s record was a mixed one. whether that was due to theological inconsistencies in his own mind and heart, external political factors, or the challenges 31 kenneth l. woodward, loren jenkins and paul martin, “the pope’s triumph,” newsweek (june 18, 1979), 92, lexis nexis academic, web, accessed february 15, 2013. unique to the office of the papacy is for his biographers to determine. although much was initially made of joseph ratzinger’s german background and his short service as a conscript in the german war effort, 32 most of those involved in jewish-catholic dialogue acknowledge that benedict has firmly and repeatedly denounced the nazi atrocities 33 and has shown a genuine interest in and commitment to the burgeoning jewish-catholic relationship. in some ways, comparisons between the two pontiffs are awkward and necessarily unbalanced: john paul became pope at the age of 58, and led catholicism for nearly 32 see, for example: richard bernstein and mark landler, “pope benedict xvi: the nazi years; few see taint in service by pope in hitler youth,” new york times (april 21, 2005), a12, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9d00efdf1731f932a15757 c0a9639c8b63, accessed february 15, 2013. during his visit to the auschwitz-birkenau concentration camp complex in may 2006, benedict spoke of himself “as a son of the german people, a son of that people over which a ring of criminals rose to power by false promises of future greatness and the recovery of the nation's honor, prominence and prosperity, but also through terror and intimidation” (“address at auschwitz,” may 28, 2006, dialogika, http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/pope-benedict-xvi/413-b1606may28, accessed february 15, 2013). 33 in a january 28, 2009 papal audience, benedict spoke of “the ferocious extermination of millions of jews and other innocent victims,” and said, “while i renew my affection for and complete solidarity with our brothers of the first alliance, i urge that the memory of the shoah lead humanity to reflect on the unforeseeable power of evil when it conquers the human heart. may the shoah be a warning to all against oblivion, against denial or revisionism, because violence committed against any one single human being is violence against all humanity … the shoah teaches both the new and older generations that only the demanding journey of listening and dialogue, of love and forgiveness can lead the world’s peoples, cultures and religions towards the desired goal of brotherhood and peace in truth. never again may violence humiliate the dignity of man!” (“pope on shoah: never again may violence humiliate the dignity of man!”, vatican radio, http://storico.radiovaticana.va/en1/storico/200901/261984_pope_on_shoah_never_again_may_violence_humiliate_the_digni ty_of_man.html, accessed february 15, 2013.) http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9d00efdf1731f932a15757c0a9639c8b63 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9d00efdf1731f932a15757c0a9639c8b63 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-benedict-xvi/413-b1606may28 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-benedict-xvi/413-b1606may28 http://storico.radiovaticana.va/en1/storico/2009-01/261984_pope_on_shoah_never_again_may_violence_humiliate_the_dignity_of_man.html http://storico.radiovaticana.va/en1/storico/2009-01/261984_pope_on_shoah_never_again_may_violence_humiliate_the_dignity_of_man.html http://storico.radiovaticana.va/en1/storico/2009-01/261984_pope_on_shoah_never_again_may_violence_humiliate_the_dignity_of_man.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): watson 1-18 watson, “the best pope the jews ever had” watson 14 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr 27 years; benedict was elected at the advanced age of 78, and his papacy only spanned eight years. benedict is, by many accounts, a somewhat more private and bookish person than john paul, more reserved and less prone to dramatic public acts or statements. he has sought to move beyond the “first generation” of jewish-catholic dialogue (characterized by growing familiarity and warmth, and, at times, a certain “polite” delicacy or reticence in the relationship) to engage with some of the more substantive and debated theological matters about which jews and christians disagree. as was reported about a 2008 meeting with interreligious leaders: the pope said that in their attempt to discover com monalities, religious leaders perhaps “have shied away from the responsibility to discuss our differences with calmness and clarity”…pope benedict said that “only by addressing these deeper questions can we build a solid basis” for peace and security…today, pope benedict said, religious leaders have a duty to place these truth-seeking questions “at the forefront of human consciousness.” 34 this was clearly not a man who was going to skirt the more challenging issues raised by interfaith dialogue today. although he often spoke to religious groups about the importance and value of interreligious dialogue, benedict also raised theoretical questions about the degree to which it is, strictly speaking, even feasible. in a 2008 private letter to italian senator marcello pera, the pope, commenting on ideas put 34 regina linskey, “pope meets interreligious leaders, says dialogue discovers truth,” catholic news service (april 17, 2008), http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802110.htm, accessed february 15, 2013. forward in pera’s book, why we should call ourselves christians, 35 said: you explain with great clarity that an interreligious dia logue in the strict sense of the term is not possible, while you urge intercultural dialogue that develops the cultural consequences of the religious option which lies beneath. while a true dialogue is not possible about this basic option without putting one’s own faith into paren theses, it’s important in public exchange to explore the cultural consequences of these religious options. 36 in light of the ongoing debate about the role of christianity in the cultural dna of the european union, benedict (like senator pera) sought to rally europe’s jews and christians, to resist what he sees as an aggressively secularist agenda, undermining the spiritual and moral foundations of western culture. 37 as he said to a conference of european bishops in 2007: …an authentic european “common home” cannot be built without considering the identity of the people of this continent of ours. it is a question of a historical, cultural, and moral identity before being a geographic, economic, or political one; an identity comprised of a set of 35 encounter books, 2011 (italian original edition: perché dobbiamo dirci cristiani: il liberalismo, l’europa, l’etica. [mondadori, 2008]). 36 the original letter is available on senator pera’s personal web site: http://www.marcellopera.it/index_en.php?page=english_zoom.php&sct=1&cnt =106. 37 for example, in his 2010 address at the great synagogue of rome, he said, “reawakening in our society openness to the transcendent dimension, witnessing to the one god, is a precious service which jews and christians can offer together.” (“address at the great synagogue,” january 17, 2010, dialogika, http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-andstatements/roman-catholic/pope-benedict-xvi/660-b1610jan17, accessed february 15, 2013). http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802110.htm http://www.marcellopera.it/index_en.php?page=english_zoom.php&sct=1&cnt=106 http://www.marcellopera.it/index_en.php?page=english_zoom.php&sct=1&cnt=106 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-benedict-xvi/660-b1610jan17 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-benedict-xvi/660-b1610jan17 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): watson 1-18 watson, “the best pope the jews ever had” watson 15 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr universal values that christianity helped forge, thus giv ing christianity not only a historical but a foundational role vis-à-vis europe. these values, which make up the soul of the continent, must remain in the europe of the third millennium as a “ferment” of civilization. if these values were to disappear, how could the “old” continent continue to function as a “leaven” for the entire world? if … the governments of the union wish to “get nearer” to their citizens, how can they exclude an element essen tial to european identity such as christianity, with which a vast majority of citizens continue to identify? 38 already in 2004, then-cardinal ratzinger had said, in a published french interview: europe is a cultural, and not a geographic, continent. it is its culture which gives it its common identity. the roots which have formed—and have allowed the for mation—of this continent are those of christianity; that is a simple fact of history. i have difficulties, therefore, with the resistance that has been expressed against the acknowledgement of such an undeniable fact…we must continue the debate about this question, because i fear that, hidden behind this opposition lies europe’s hatred of itself, and of its great history. 39 38 “address of his holiness benedict xvi to the participants in the convention organized by the commission of the bishops’ conferences of the european community (comece),” march 24, 2007, the holy see, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/march/docume nts/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070324_comece_en.html, accessed february 15, 2013. 39 sophie de ravinel, “identifier la turquie à l’europe serait une erreur,” le figaro (august 13, 2004), http://home.scarlet.be/vexilla/asn/ratzingerturquie.pdf, accessed february 15, 2013 (the original article is now available only to paid subscribers; my translation). see also pope benedict’s book without roots: the west, relativism, christianity, islam (basic books, 2007). only days before his election as pope, benedict stressed how this conception of europe as an essentially christian region was, in fact, based upon (and therefore basically compatible with) the convictions at the heart of jewish faith: neither are our jewish fellow citizens offended by the reference to the christian roots of europe, in as much as these roots go back to mount sinai: they bear the sign of the voice that made itself heard on the mountain of god and unite with us in the great fundamental orien tations that the decalogue has given humanity. the same is true for the reference to god: it is not the men tion of god that offends those who belong to other reli gions, but rather the attempt to build the human com munity absolutely without god. 40 in some ways, benedict xvi could be viewed as unoriginal, treading familiar turf and reprising some of john paul ii’s more historic visits—to auschwitz in may 2006, to the holy land in may 2009, and to rome’s great synagogue in january 2010. in the first five years of his papacy, however, benedict had already visited more synagogues than john paul (including the cologne synagogue in 2005 and the park east synagogue in new york in 2008). he interpreted, extended and built upon his predecessor’s substantial legacy, and vatican observers reminded the world that the former cardinal ratzinger had, in 40 “cardinal ratzinger on europe’s crisis of culture (part 4),” zenit news agency (april 1, 2005), http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/cardinal-ratzinger-oneurope-s-crisis-of-culture-part-4, accessed february 15, 2013. one of benedict’s great religious allies in this debate was great britain’s chief rabbi, dr. jonathan sacks, who has frequently issued similar warnings and critiques, such as his 2011 lecture in rome, “has europe lost its soul?” pontifical gregorian university/cardinal bea centre for judaic studies, december 12, 2011, http://www.unigre.it/eventi/lord_sacks/documenti/111212_pug_bea_testo_ lord_sacks_en.pdf, accessed february 15, 2013. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070324_comece_en.html http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070324_comece_en.html http://home.scarlet.be/vexilla/asn/ratzingerturquie.pdf http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/cardinal-ratzinger-on-europe-s-crisis-of-culture-part-4 http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/cardinal-ratzinger-on-europe-s-crisis-of-culture-part-4 http://www.unigre.it/eventi/lord_sacks/documenti/111212_pug_bea_testo_lord_sacks_en.pdf http://www.unigre.it/eventi/lord_sacks/documenti/111212_pug_bea_testo_lord_sacks_en.pdf studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): watson 1-18 watson, “the best pope the jews ever had” watson 16 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr fact, actively collaborated in many of john paul’s more memorable actions in the field of jewish-catholic relations. if there is a single issue that perhaps overshadowed and distracted from benedict’s more positive gestures in jewish-catholic dialogue, it was his concerted attempts to foster reconciliation with the disciples of the late archbishop marcel lefebvre, who effectively rejected key aspects of the teaching of vatican ii—including its more positive, open approach to judaism. benedict’s liberalization of the 1962 latin mass (with its good friday characterization of jews as blind and benighted), and his lifting of the excommunications levied against four lefebvrist bishops (one, richard williamson, a notorious minimizer of the holocaust) provoked consternation among both jews and catholics, concerned that perhaps they were witnessing a symbolic backing-away from vatican ii’s hard-won gains. the vatican has, however, recently gone to considerable lengths to allay those fears, reasserting the indisputability of the conciliar magisterium, and denouncing the kinds of old-style antisemitism that have too often tainted the writings and speeches of some lefebvrist spokespersons. 41 the interfaith magisterium of benedict xvi clearly bore benedict’s distinctive theological and pastoral stamp. it also demonstrated a profound continuity with john paul’s overall orientation, regularly citing his words and extolling his example. eight years after his death, john paul ii remained very much alive and directive in jewish-catholic relations. *** few people were as actively involved in catholic-jewish relations as rabbi leon klenicki. before his death in january 41 cindy wooden, “catholics must accept vatican ii, including on judaism, cardinal says” catholic news service (may 17, 2012), http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1202023.htm, accessed february 15, 2013. 2009, he had served with distinction for many years as the director of interfaith affairs for the anti-defamation league, working closely with the vatican and the pope. among klenicki’s numerous publications was a volume bringing together all of john paul’s speeches and writings on judaism, which klenicki and eugene fisher had jointly edited, and which became a standard reference in jewish-catholic conversations. 42 at the end of his essay introducing the final edition of this book, klenicki wrote: as no other pope in history has been, pope john paul ii will be forever recognized as the pilgrim of shalom and the apostle of reconciliation to the whole world. strong and vital, sick and frail, he visited innumerable coun tries, bringing with him a spirituality cherished by catho lics and much appreciated by those who were neither catholic, nor even christian. wherever he went, he preached the word of god, sharing his experience of god’s presence, projecting the example of a committed religious life in an ideologically stormy and complicated spiritual time. it is hoped that his message of shalom will inspire all the people of the middle east and the world. 43 klenicki’s words captured, i believe, much of what was best, most memorable and most worthy of imitation about the polish pope. there can be no denying that judaism and jews were a central theological and cultural motif of his papacy, from the 42 the first edition, published in 1987, was simply titled pope john paul ii on jews and judaism: 1979-1986. the second, expanded 1995 edition was called spiritual pilgrimage: texts on jews and judaism, 1979-1995. the third and definitive edition, published in 2011 (and thus after klenicki’s and john paul’s deaths), was the saint for shalom: how pope john paul ii transformed catholic-jewish relations (new york: crossroad/anti-defamation league). 43 klenicki, “from historical mistrust to mutual recognition,” in klenicki and fisher, the saint for shalom, 8. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1202023.htm studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): watson 1-18 watson, “the best pope the jews ever had” watson 17 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr days after his election until the final weeks before his death at the age of 84. and yet klenicki also pointed out that john paul’s truly epic contributions had often failed to be effectively communicated to the grassroots of catholicism in a way that made a difference in local life and practice. as klenicki said at the time of john paul’s death, “unfortunately, much of the good the pope has done in improving the church’s relationship with the jewish people has not reached the pew level.” 44 eight years after john paul’s passing, and especially with benedict’s resignation, questions persist about the direction and nature of catholic relations with jews, and what priority they will hold for the vatican in the future. 45 there continue to be strident (though fairly marginal) voices critical of john paul’s active engagement with non-catholics and 44 as quoted in greenberg, “interfaith leaders ponder…” 45 john l. allen, jr., the future church: how ten trends are revolutionizing the catholic church (new york: random house, 2009), 96, 132, discusses the challenges created by the demographic shifts in the church away from its traditional european center and the consequences this will have for its leadership’s dialogic priorities. especially islam but also asian religions will play a greater role. while allen’s observations may be correct on the demographic, geo-political and cultural levels, nevertheless the catholic church’s connection to judaism exists in a category by itself, both historically and theologically, since judaism is necessarily inherent in christianity’s “religious dna”. as john paul said at the rome synagogue in april 1986, “the jewish religion is not extrinsic, but, in a certain way, is intrinsic to our religion. with judaism … we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. you are our dearly beloved brothers, and in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers.” (“address at the great synagogue of rome,” dialogika). christianity has an organic relationship to judaism that it does not have to any other faith, which is one of the key reasons why judaism is the only one of the world’s major religious faiths that is not included under the competence of the pontifical council for interreligious dialogue, but falls under the jurisdiction of its own, smaller dicastery, the vatican’s commission for religious relations with jews (political issues are dealt with by the secretariat of state, the diplomatic arm of the holy see). non-christians, who view his “assisi mindset” 46 as pastorally misleading and theologically flawed. 47 what is almost certain is that that no future pope will have the degree of personal familiarity with or commitment to judaism that john paul ii or even benedict had. will john paul’s example and legacy endure long in the church? it was with this question, and this concern, in mind that rabbi gerald zelizer, of neve shalom synagogue in new jersey, offered what was, i believe, one of the most poignant—and hopeful—evaluations of john paul’s legacy in terms of catholic-jewish dialogue: when michelangelo was on his deathbed, his students at his bedside wailed: “michelangelo, how will rome ever get along without you?” to which, it is reported, michelangelo faintly waved his hand to the window, with its vision of his sculptures and architecture, and whis pered, “rome will never be without me.” surely, john paul would not be so boastful. but because he has re shaped the catholic church during his long tenure, we 46 this term is sometimes used disparagingly of the ecumenical, jewishcatholic and interreligious outreach which characterized john paul’s papacy, and was summed up in the three interreligious gatherings he organized in assisi, the hometown of st. francis, in october 1986, january 1993 and january 2002, to which he invited leaders of the all world’s major religious traditions (the community of sant’egidio has organized subsequent assisi gatherings, including one in 2011, which benedict addressed). to those who consider interreligious dialogue and shared prayer as a falsification of traditional catholic teaching, the assisi gatherings came to symbolize for them all that was wrong with the (post-conciliar) catholic church. 47 see, for example, the numerous articles on the web site of the united states district of the society of st. pius x: http://www.sspx.org/news/assisi_iii/assisi_iii.htm. http://www.sspx.org/news/assisi_iii/assisi_iii.htm studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): watson 1-18 watson, “the best pope the jews ever had” watson 18 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr jews, “the elder brother,” are hopeful in declaring, “we jews shall never be without you.” 48 a traditional jewish expression of sympathy in the wake of a death is zikhrono li-verakhah—“may his memory be for a blessing.” there seems little doubt that john paul ii’s life and papacy were, in so many ways, a blessing for the catholic and jewish communities, and for the renewed relationship between them. for his immediate successor, benedict xvi, he clearly also served as a model. future popes can choose to allow his memory to serve as a paradigm, a springboard and an inspiration, so that another generation of catholics and jews can commit themselves to pursuing with energy, commitment, respect and faith the dialogue which was so close to pope john paul’s heart, and which will remain such a key part of his historical legacy. 48 “respect for faith’s ‘elder brother’,” usa today (april 5, 2005), http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2005-04-05-elderbrother_x.htm, accessed february 15, 2013. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2005-04-05-elder-brother_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2005-04-05-elder-brother_x.htm 1 scjr 18, no. 1 (2023): 1-10 remembering the shoah without jewish voices: we remember1 as a failure of memory peter admirand peter.admirand@dcu.ie dublin city university, dublin 9, ireland the process of how, why, and what we remember is rooted in ethics,2 especially when such memory goes beyond the commemorative and seeks restoration or reform. the same elements are entailed in how, why, and what we forget. biblically, memory is rooted in god’s reminder and invitation to the jewish people to recall and uphold the various biblical covenants,3 and for christians, the story of the last supper celebrates the eucharist and liturgy as a sacrament and sign of christian discipleship. remembering and forgetting are entwined on both separate and coinciding scales; sometimes the best forgetting is a partial or manipulated memory; sometimes the most powerful memories include a very powerful forgetting. too often, though, unconscious or unintended forgetting or biased memory can go unrecognized without outside intervention—especially without listening to those victimized or injured. this is why a victim-centered approach to justice, reconciliation, and reformation is essential; and for our purposes, remembering. note also that ethical memory can be “multidirectional”—in this case, memory of the shoah reinforces and complements memories—and responsibility—regarding other genocidal atrocities.4 unfortunately, regarding christian assessments of christian action or inaction towards and during the nazi implementation of the destruction of the jews, moral 1 commission for religious relations with the jews, “we remember: a reflection on the shoah.” issued march 16, 1998. available here: https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/we_remember.htm. 2 as john k. roth writes: “if ethics is to be a safeguard against its own failures, the people who try to be ethical have to acknowledge their failures, own them when they should, and protest against them” (the failures of ethics: confronting the holocaust, genocide, and other mass atrocities [oxford: oxford university press, 2015], 7). the field of ethics and remembering is vast, but see jeffrey m. blustein, forgiveness and remembrance: remembering wrongdoing in personal and public life (oxford: oxford university press, 2014) and avishai margalit, the ethics of memory (cambridge: harvard university press, 2002). 3 yosef hayim yerushalmi, zakhor: jewish history and jewish museum (seattle: university of washington press, 1996). 4 michael rothberg, multidirectional memory: remembering the holocaust in the age of decolonization (stanford: stanford university press, 2009), 17-19. https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/we_remember.htm https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/we_remember.htm admirand: remembering the shoah without jewish voices 2 gaps and amnesia predominate.5 the 1998 vatican document, we remember, while a tentative step in the direction of what i call an interfaith and liberatory memory, is nevertheless stymied by a failure in robust humility and moral vision. while critiques of we remember have a long history,6 my main aim, is a simple one: a call and reminder to let shoah testimonies and witnesses, especially from jews, be christians’ leading teachers, challengers, and guides when trying to remember the shoah. my understanding here of remembering also entails working to prevent and halt such horrors and never be complicit or indifferent to them. in essence, if there was to be another we remember, the main text and footnotes should be replete with testimonies from those like sara nomberg-przytyk and primo levi, and historians like raul hilberg or christopher browning. the 1998 document predominantly cites papal and vatican texts. the church, interfaith memory, and testimonies of mass atrocity we remember was a much anticipated but unenviable document to be produced, as mere words could never undo, justify, or fully heal the catastrophic loss of jewish life, not to mention restoring christian and church credibility. obstacles (and there were many) included a differing jewish verse christian understanding of repentance7 and a misunderstanding in jewish (and christian) circles on what constitutes the church regarding moral responsibility for christian anti-semitism and genocidal participation.8 for some, christians in the shoah were predominately victims and have little need to apologize for the moral failures of nazis (some of 5 taking rothberg’s idea, i would speak of “multidirectional” forgetting as similar characteristics are noticeable in church views towards indigenous peoples and the negative impact of the church on indigenous life and history in the americas, africa, asia, and australia. the forgetting in one area reinforces forgetting in another. 6 see, for example, international jewish committee on interreligious consultations, “response to vatican document ‘we remember: a reflection on the shoah,’” in bridges: documents of the christianjewish dialogue, ed. franklin sherman (mahwah, nj: paulist press, 2011); robert wistrich, “the vatican and the shoah,” in modern judaism 21.2, (may, 2001): 83-107; randolph l. braham, “remembering and forgetting: the vatican, the german catholic hierarchy, and the holocaust.” holocaust and genocide studies 13.2 (fall 1999): 222–251, https://doi.org/10.1093/hgs/13.2.222; and kevin madigan, “a survey of jewish reaction to the vatican statement on the holocaust” in cross currents 50.4 (2001): 488-505. 7 a good place for christians to start is maimonides, “laws of repentance.” in maimonides-essential teachings on jewish faith and ethics: the book of knowledge and the thirteen principles of faith, edited and translated by marc d. angel (woodstock, vt: skylight paths, 2012). 8 note that for non-theologians especially, “the church” is a pliable and vague term. it is muddled by intra-christian spats (confer the cdf contending certain protestant churches are not really churches); a separation of what is deemed (often negatively) the institutional church and the people of god; or a mystical, theological notion of the church as the body of christ, who being god incarnate and thus sinless, renders a sinful church a contradiction and impossibility. in this mystagogical notion, while the church is composed of sinful people, this reality has no bearing on the ultimate and inherent purity of the church instituted and in-spirited by christ. how these strands form a unified term, especially to jews who look to the church for apologies and repentance, is noteworthy. https://doi.org/10.1093/hgs/13.2.222 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) whom believed in a perverted christianity) while others want structural and ecclesial reform and repentance.9 it is also important to note how the vatican constructed we remember in a perceived place of power and societal relevance. while the catholic church in asia has always known what it is like to be marginalized as a minority religion, the church in the west has still not accepted its new status with grace. benedict xvi saw a church remnant under siege, but instead of responding with isolation, bitterness or unhealthy nostalgia, this humbled place can become a site of greater interfaith listening, partnership, and learning. if we remember were written today, especially under the example and leadership of pope francis, the tone, structure, and content would be radically different because the church and its place in the world are different. the process of remembering the shoah is also different, with all, if not most perpetrators dead, and few living witnesses. the document would also benefit from a further twenty-five years of jewish-christian dialogue and so a more robust interfaith memory.10 tragically, in its fear of facing the moral failure and many deaths of the church in the shoah, the vatican (emblematic in we remember) inordinately focuses on nazi persecution of christians (which should not be overlooked11) or the inspiring (but still rare) stories of “righteous gentiles.”12 this slanted memory and intentional forgetting paint a picture of most christians as co-sufferers with jews or of christians and christianity as the saviors of jews, when six million jews would not have perished if either, let alone both, claims, were more abundantly true.13 this 9 in hindsight, i would also add the catholic church had not yet been fully humbled, or made almost irrelevant in some circles: these are strong words but seem far truer today after the child abuse scandal and a differing cultural and religious landscape in much of the west. as an aside, with peter phan, i would promote a kenotic church, which minimizes and constricts to leave moral space for the other— not the reality of a shrinking church in the west because of ecclesial failures to address the child abuse scandal or to speak to the many burning issues of our day (or to do so “too late,” after the damage has been done). in ireland, where i write, the church is now an afterthought in most people’s minds. also note that a church made irrelevant need not be an irrelevant church if it continues to speak for the most marginalized, poor, and forgotten. an “irrelevant” church, if deemed so because it questions society’s inordinate focus on wealth or its hypocrisy regarding inequality, war, or ecological destruction, provides an essential and indispensable voice. here i contend a church on the margins is a more potent church simply because history shows that a church linked with power fails everyone, especially the most vulnerable. 10 see also barbara meyer’s explanation of the “interreligious dimension of christian memory” in terms of the jewishness of jesus. see barbara u. meyer, jesus the jew in christian memory: theological and philosophical explorations (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2020), 27. 11 see joseph m. malham, by fire into light: four catholic martyrs of the nazi camps (leuven: peeters press, 2002). 12 see martin gilbert, the righteous: unsung heroes of the holocaust (new york: random house, 2002). 13 note that diversity in shoah memoirs will also give instances of christians (or nazis) who do kind or heroic deeds or jewish survivors who praise christians. philip bialowitz, a survivor of the sobibor uprising, includes an amazing story of an ss officer named fritz who was actually jewish and sought to save jewish lives and an extended passage praising the work of john paul ii (see philip bialowitz, with joseph bialowitz, a promise at sobibor: a jewish boy’s story of revolt and survival in nazioccupied poland (madison: the university of wisconsin press, 2010), 40-42 and 182, respectively. admirand: remembering the shoah without jewish voices 4 position need not and does not remove the spiritual richness and inspiring testimonies of a christianity rooted in the following of christ and so truly embodying love of neighbor and enemy. but such a turn must be prepared to hear difficult truths from non-christians on christian failures and complicity. here is where the turn to witness testimonies are especially important, what i have called elsewhere, testimonies of mass atrocity.14 era of the witness annette wierviorka coined the term era of the witness15; and in the wake of a disparagement of witness testimony in early judicial and historical records in the immediate aftermath of the shoah, the status and role of witness testimonies in both shoah studies and all genocidal investigations are now beyond dispute. as wendy lower writes: the historian saul friedländer observed that scholars had failed for decades to write an integrated history of the holocaust because they privileged nazi documentation over other testimony. these academics were skeptical of the factual reliability of victims’ accounts and those of other non-german witnesses speaking after the war.16 while there have been notable instances of fraud like the binjamin wilkomirski case, and historians and scholars should always investigate and examine witness testimony from the evidence available, sometimes all we have are the voices and words of survivors and the bodies of victims. we know regimes seek to bury and hide the horrors they inflict.17 in theological circles, however, the turn to testimonies of mass atrocity remains too infrequent, despite the reality that such individuals or groups experienced the horrors firsthand. survivors’ words, not surprisingly, can be frightening, shocking, and sickening: who wants to hear about babies burned alive or grandmothers sexually tortured? and yet, if the church really seeks to remember the shoah, to uphold the memory of the victims, and harness that memory to prevent its similar recurrence, shielding christians from these harsh truths perpetuates both amnesia and superficial memory. if the memory of the shoah does not rattle one’s faith and hijack 14 peter admirand, amidst mass atrocity and the rubble of theology: searching for a viable theodicy (eugene: cascade books, 2012). 15 annette wieviorka, the era of the witness, trans. jared stark (ithaca: cornell university press, 2006). 16 wendy lower, the ravine: a family, a photograph, a holocaust massacre revealed (london: head of zeus, 2021), 63. see also christopher browning, remembering survival: inside a nazi slavelabor camp (new york: w.w. and norton company, 2011), 9; and dan stone, the holocaust: an unfinished history (dublin: pelican books, 2023), xx. 17 for state-sponsored, systemic attempts to erase people’s memory of state sponsored atrocity, see louisa lim, the people’s republic of amnesia: tiananmen revisited (oxford: oxford university press, 2015). 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) one’s thoughts with despair and emptiness, then what is being remembered is not the shoah. the most potent way to remember the shoah is to turn to the words, stories, and in some cases, mass graves, of the victims, and in particular, jewish victims. theology, including vatican reflections, are not irrelevant, but become so if not formulated in what irving greenberg’s creed famously notes, “in the presence of the burning children.”18 we remember seemed too far removed from such a holy site. in the next section, i will highlight a few examples of witness testimony and how their inclusion in a document like we remember would have been morally cathartic and theologically illuminating for christians. including testimonies of mass atrocity in we remember for the overwhelming majority of the six million jews murdered in the shoah, there was no possibility for testimony, and for many of those victims, no trace remains of their last days or of their physical remains. we have some pieces of paper desperately tossed from cattle cars or diaries buried—but only the survivors were able to speak, and even then, not every survivor could do so, especially in the immediate aftermath of the shoah. once holocaust oral testimonies and archives were finally established and publishers finally supported books on the shoah, there is now more individual testimony than one person can read or listen to—especially if not conversant in the many languages of the survivors.19 the examples below, then, are selective and could easily be interchanged or supplemented with thousands of others. what matters is the overall point that shoah testimony, especially from jews and other non-christians, should fill we remember and related vatican documents if the aim is really to remember the shoah and face christian failures and complicity. i first turn to notes from the warsaw ghetto, jewish social historian emmanuel ringelblum’s courageous project to document and preserve jewish life in the ghetto.20 in one entry, for example, we read: “death lies in every street. the children are no longer afraid of death. in one courtyard, the children played a game tickling a corpse.”21 despite the severity and desperation of the situation, in a later 18 irving greenberg, “cloud of smoke, pillar of fire: judaism, christianity and modernity after the holocaust.” in auschwitz: beginning of a new era? reflections on the holocaust, edited by eva fleischner, 7–55 (new york: ktav, 1977). 19 for an argument on the need for testimony in local contexts with local languages (spoken and unspoken), see hannah pollin-galay, ecologies of witnessing: language, place, and holocaust testimony (new haven: yale university press, 2018), 266. 20 emmanuel ringelblum, along with his wife, born yehudit herman, and their son, uri, were murdered in march 1944 (scholars believe march 10) amid the ruins of the warsaw ghetto. the hidden notes were found in 1946 and later 1950. 21 notes from the warsaw ghetto: the journal of emmanuel ringelblum, ed. and trans. jacob sloan (new york: schocken books, 1974), 174 (may 11, 1941 entry). playing among corpses was a sadly common experience during the war, though it does not belie the trauma that could later result upon reflection. for another example, see tomi reichental, i was a boy in belsen (dublin: the o’brien press, 2013), 160. admirand: remembering the shoah without jewish voices 6 entry from december 14, 1942, jewish leaders seeking a plan to rescue jews from the ghetto, worried about “soul snatching. the catholic religious leaders have always exploited such difficult moments in jewish life as progroms, deportations, etc;”22 and further on: “until now, the polish christian spiritual leaders have done very little to save jews from massacre and ‘resettlement,’ to use their euphemism.” while a document like we remember highlights the christians who saved jews, deeper readings of memoirs reveal many cases of betrayal or an uneasy financial arrangement between the christian protector and the desperately hiding jews.23 moreover, just as jewish leaders in the warsaw ghetto pointed to a pattern of christian leadership seeking to convert jews in moments of crisis, consider this other testimony though not from a jewish witness, but a nineteen-year-old german pow, navy mid midshipman named karl völker. he and other german pows had their interrogations and conversations secretly recorded by british intelligence. for our purposes, völker’s words below point to the on-the-ground results of what jules isaac called “the teaching of contempt.” just as many christians erroneously believed jews killed christians for blood and that all jews everywhere (and not the roman empire) executed jesus (whom some christians also forgot was jewish), we hear völker maintain: i know what the jews did. about 1928 or 1929 they carried off the (christian) women and raped them and cut them up and the blood—i know of many cases—every sunday in their synagogues they sacrificed human blood, christian blood…never in my life have i enjoyed anything more than the time when we smashed up the synagogues. and after speaking of the german soldiers (presumably also himself) undressing and raping five jewish women brought to the synagogue: he continues: we shot them all mercilessly. there certainly will have been some innocent ones amongst them, but there were some guilty ones, too. it doesn’t matter how much good you do, if you’ve got jewish blood, that’s enough!24 note that while i contend such testimony could be part of a christian liturgy and event commemorating the shoah, i would hesitate to have this included above, not because of the horrific image of killing by the christian german soldiers, but because i would fear the slander against jews might not be seen as pure lies in some contexts. as a second example, i turn to charlotte delbo, a french author imprisoned in auschwitz because of her political resistance to the nazis. she was not jewish but 22 notes from the warsaw ghetto: the journal of emmanuel ringelblum, ed. and trans. jacob sloan (new york: schocken books, 1974), 336. 23 this is not to say these christians were not taking risks as harboring jews in some contexts could have severe consequences, but the financial arrangement was often a strong factor. 24 sönke neitel and harald welzer, soldaten: on fighting, killing, and dying: the secret wwii transcripts of german pows (new york: alfred a. knopf, 2012), 233. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) was a member of the french resistance. in her celebrated auschwitz and after, we read: i came back from the dead and believed this gave me the right to speak to others but when i found myself face to face with them i had nothing to say. because i learned over there that you cannot speak to others.25 like other survivors, delbo is haunted by this sense of still being alive while feeling she died in the camps, and has learned that talking to others (and here i see others as principally non-political christians) is impossible because of the lies and violence. what is there to say to such perpetrators or bystanders now that can be believed? silence and non-dialogue make any theological decrees challenging and a document like we remember has to stay and linger with this uncomfortable silence. and why such silence? in we remember, we are given no story or testimony, but for delbo such hellish scenes cannot be forgotten: one morning before roll call, little simone, who had gone to the latrines behind block 25, returned all shaken. “alice’s leg is over there. come see.” behind block 25 was the morgue, a wooden hut where they piled up the dead hauled from the charnel house. stacked one on top of the other, the corpses awaited the truck that would carry them to the crematorium. through the doorless opening one could see the heap of naked corpses and the glittering eyes of the rats darting to and fro. when there were too many of them, they were piled up outside.26 weeks go by and alice’s leg remains in the snow. each day delbo and her companions would look for the leg, thinking of alice alone and dead. delbo continues: “one day it was not there anymore. someone must have filched it to make a fire. a gypsy woman surely, no one else would have dared.”27 testimony is messy. here we have both the witnessing and memory of an individual murdered—alice—but then also this comment about a “gypsy,” whom we instead refer to as the roma, a group also decimated in what they call the porajmos. including such a line, i.e., not sanitizing the witness testimony, is deeply 25 ibid., 228. 26 charlotte delbo, auschwitz and after, trans. rosette c. lamont (new haven: yale university press, 1995), 41. 27 ibid., 41. admirand: remembering the shoah without jewish voices 8 important to uncover parallel or competing injustices—here those against the roma.28 returning to the scale and absurdity of the genocide against the jews, an absurdity that was not clearly displayed or heard in we remember, i turn to hungarian-jewish survivor of auschwitz, olga lengyl, who writes: on december 31, 1944, the s.s, high command asked the camp of birkenau for a general report on the interned children…the germans decided that they must disappear—and that it must be done quickly and cheaply. should the children be thrown into a concrete pit with gasoline poured over them and a firebrand applied, as always before? no, gasoline was scarce. and munitions were needed at the front. but the germans never lacked resourcefulness. we received the order to “bathe” the children. at birkenau one did not discuss an order. one carried it out no matter how revolting it might be. on the endless lagerstrasse, the road to calvary of so many millions of martyrs, the little prisoners started out in a long procession. their hair was cropped shirt. they trampled barefoot, in rags. the snow had melted underfoot, and the camp road was coated with ice. some of the youngsters fell. each fall brought a slashing blow from a cruel whip.29 thus, the plan was to lead the children to the showers where other prisoners would “bathe” the children in icy water and then without drying them, lead them outside to stand in the freezing winter weather for hours for roll call. “‘little jesus will come for you presently,’ sneered a german guard at one child who was waiting with blue lips, utterly benumbed…”30 how would these words from the german soldier be inserted in a document like we remember? how disturbing to think someone could involve the infant jesus so coldly and ironically in the act of literally killing children? note, i read “german soldier” as a “christian,” if not an actual or still practicing christian, then one likely reared by christianity. words like nazi or german or polish or ukrainian (when meant to distinguish them from jews who may have been german, polish, or ukrainian) belie the fact that most of these perpetrators were christian. this, too, is important, because we remember wants to paint a picture of christian victims or a minority of perpetrators who might have been nominally christian, but not really christian. 28 it is also a reminder that witness testimony needs to be scrutinized and carefully critiqued. 29 olga lengyel, five chimneys: a woman survivor’s true story of auschwitz (chicago: academy chicago publishers, 1995), 226-227. 30 ibid., 227. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) conclusion: “the bad memories have erased the good.”31 beyond the mere inclusion of testimony, deeply critical and trenchant testimonies regarding christianity should also play a prominent role in any christian remembering of the shoah. the turn is thus selective and intentional, highlighting, or at least being unafraid to include, difficult, offensive, and disturbing voices. part of this turn to jewish testimony is rooted in the recognition of a fractured christian community, often split under liberal or conservative lenses, that will seemingly always stand opposed on issues like pius xii; the teaching of contempt and its role or responsibility in the shoah; gospel passages like matthew 27:25; the salvation of jews through jewish ways; whether the church and not just some christians morally failed during the shoah; and so on. it is hoped that greater use of witness testimony can help to move the discussions away from some inter-christian disagreements and towards deeper repentance. klara frelich, a shoah survivor, hidden in a bunker while the germans and local ukrainians liquidated her village in bolechow, replied with those words above when asked about her best memories before the germans came—“the bad memories have erased the good.” we remember, failing to rely upon and focus their act of remembering with jewish voices, seems to do the opposite: erasing the bad memories with the good, or at least avoiding the bad memories with vague notions of complicity and a conflation of minority acts of christian goodness with a majority of christians’ inaction or complicity in the genocide against jewish people, life, and culture. as touched upon below, the acts of memory and forgetting, while complex and nuanced, are rooted in the ethical, and for jews and christians, in the biblical call to remember what god has done for god’s people and a clear sense of love of god and love of neighbor. testimony itself may not automatically lead christians to right remembering about the shoah. testimonies still need to be heard and interpreted. whether one uses a soft supersessionist lens or a humble and pluralist lens, for example, may lead to different analysis and responses. but keeping the jewish voices front and center is not only an intentional practice of ethical and interfaith remembering but reminds christians about three core truths: 1. the shoah was a rupture in jewish life and a genocide perpetrated in a predominantly christian setting. 2. individual testimonial voices will conflict or overlap at times, but such is the messiness of genocides that cannot be tidied up by theological statements or decrees.32 and 3. if christians really want to remember the shoah they need to grapple a lot more with what they too often forget (see truths one and two). 31 daniel mendelsohn, the lost: a search for six of six million (london: harper perennial, 2008), 372. 32 elie wiesel, night. in the night trilogy. trans. marion wiesel (new york: hill and wang, 1985), 72. admirand: remembering the shoah without jewish voices 10 ____________________ peter admirand was finishing his senior year at the catholic university of america when we remember was issued in march 1998. during the previous year, he visited his first nazi concentration camps and then wrote his university honors thesis on the response to evil in testimonies. this initial foray later became a basis for his phd thesis in 2008 and his first book in 2012. as a catholic theologian involved in interfaith dialogue and church renewal and repentance, he has viewed we remember as a missed opportunity. he is now deputy head of the school of theology, philosophy, and music and the director of the centre for interreligious dialogue at dublin city university. he is also the chair of the irish council of christians and jews. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr peer-reviewed article a catholic theology of the land?: the state of the question 1 philip a. cunningham, saint joseph’s university 1. introduction for the new relationship between catholics and jews that began with the second vatican council, one of the most important building blocks was articulated in the 1974 “guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate, no. 4.” its preamble states, "christians must...strive to acquire a better knowledge of the basic components of the religious tradition of judaism; they must strive to learn by what essential traits jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience." however, for christians it is especially difficult to appreciate one particular aspect of jewish self-understanding: the centrality of the land of israel (eretz yisrael). this is because there is no analogous sentiment in christianity. the land of israel is scarcely mentioned in the new testament and it is not inextricably connected to christian theology. the land has no central place in the christian effort to live as christ, and christians have no visceral liturgical yearning for the land or for jerusalem, except perhaps in the sense of the heavenly or eschatological city. 1 an earlier version of this essay was delivered orally at the semi-annual consultation of delegates of the national council of synagogues and the bishops' committee on ecumenical and interreligious affairs, u.s. conference of catholic bishops on may 7, 2013, at the jewish theological seminary, by invitation of rev. dr. dennis mcmanus. studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) it is true that for christians, the region has a historical or even a sacramental aspect 2 as the place where jesus lived and died, and so there is also a long history of pilgrimages there. it is also true that palestinian christians have a distinctive self-understanding as being the "living stones" whose church communities have continuously witnessed to the events of jesus' life in the places where they physically occurred. in general, though, christianity strongly emphasizes that god can be encountered anywhere, that holiness may be found in any land or place. indeed, far from resonating with the centrality of eretz yisrael for judaism, christianity has taught what might be called "a counter-history," denying the jewish covenantal bond with the land. supersessionist christianity claimed that jews had forfeited any religious tie to the land because of their alleged collective guilt for the crucifixion of jesus. those who polemicized against judaism argued that god had cursed all jews, as evidenced by the destruction of the temple and the supposed condition of jews as homeless wanderers. as is well known, this outlook was expressed by pope pius x to theodor herzl in 1904. according to herzl, who was seeking papal approval for his zionist project, pius said, "the jews have not recognized our lord, therefore we cannot recognize the jewish people. ...the jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superseded by the teachings of christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity." 3 all of these factors make it very difficult for most christians to resonate with the spiritual significance of the land of israel for jews. we have no cognate covenantal connection, we stress the universality of the christian gospel, and we have long precedents of rejecting any ongoing jewish spiritual ties to the land. prior to the second vatican council, 2 see richard c. lux, the jewish people, the holy land, and the state of israel: a catholic view (mahwah, new jersey: paulist press, 2010). 3 raphael patai, ed., the complete diaries of theodor herzl (new york/london: herzl press/thomas yoseloff, 1960), 4: 1603. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr magisterial or papal documents would have posited that jewish covenantal life had been either divinely revoked or cursed, as in the case of pius x. this creates a serious challenge for today's post-supersessionist catholic church that recognizes the ongoing validity of the jewish covenant with god. how can we develop a theology that respects the land’s significance for our jewish brothers and sisters? a survey of the state of the question in post-nostra aetate catholicism will make it possible to sketch out the current parameters within which such a theology of the land in the catholic community today can authentically develop. 2. “notes on the correct way to present jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church” the vatican ii declaration nostra aetate made no reference to eretz yisrael, except perhaps indirectly when it stated that: "...in her rejection of every persecution against any [person], the church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the jews and moved not by political reasons but by the gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-semitism, directed against jews at any time and by anyone." 4 the phrase "not by political reasons" responded to opposition to the declaration stemming from the arab-israeli conflict (as it was then called). some council fathers argued that any positive statement about judaism would be seen as favoring the state of israel and might bring retaliation upon the christian minorities living in predominantly muslim countries. 5 thus, nostra aetate sought to separate its theological 4 second vatican council, nostra aetate, §4 (1965), available at http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/v at-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html, accessed july 19, 2013. emphasis added. 5 see, e.g., the interventions of cardinal ignatius gabriel tappouni and archbishop joseph tawil during the second vatican council's "great debate" on what would become nostra aetate, respectively on sept 28 and 29, 1964; available at: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate, accessed july 16, 2013. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 8 (2013) inspiration from any political considerations. this motivation, incidentally, probably also contributed to pope paul vi's careful avoidance of the word "israel" in his historic visit to the “holy land” in january 1964. an ill-chosen sentence uttered during his closely scrutinized pilgrimage could have scuttled nostra aetate's chances in the council. although it had precursors from various national bishops’ conferences, 6 the first post-conciliar vatican text to fully engage the existence of the modern state of israel came from the pontifical commission for religious relations with jews (and note, again, the adjective "religious" in the commission's title). its 1985, “notes on the correct way to present jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church” stated the following: the history of [the community of] israel did not end in 70 a.d. it continued, especially in a numerous diaspora which allowed israel to carry to the whole world a witness—often heroic—of its fidelity to the one god and to “exalt him in the presence of all the living” (tobit 13:4), while preserving the memory of the land of their forefathers at the heart of their hope (passover seder). christians are invited to understand this religious attachment which finds its roots in biblical tradition, without however making their own any 6 see, for example, the french bishops' committee for relations with jews, "statement" (april 16, 1973), v and the national conference of catholic bishops (usa), "statement on catholic-jewish relations" (nov 20, 1975). the former is available at http://www.ccjr.us/dialogikaresources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/other-conferences-ofcatholic-bishops/483-cefr1973 and the latter at http://www.ccjr.us/dialogikaresources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-ofcatholic-bishops/479-nccb1975. accessed july 16, 2013. as with the 1985 vatican "notes," both of these documents urge christians to understand and respect jewish ties to eretz yisrael, but not to embrace any particular religious understanding of the foundation of the modern state of israel. they also all recognize that there are legitimate political claims on the part of local arab peoples. how to hold all these goals together remains an unanswered question. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/other-conferences-of-catholic-bishops/483-cefr1973 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/other-conferences-of-catholic-bishops/483-cefr1973 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/other-conferences-of-catholic-bishops/483-cefr1973 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/479-nccb1975 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/479-nccb1975 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/479-nccb1975 studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr particular religious interpretation of this relationship. the existence of the state of israel and its political options should be envisaged not in a perspective which is in itself religious, but in their reference to the common principles of international law. the permanence of israel (while so many ancient peoples have disappeared without trace) is a historic fact and a sign to be interpreted within god's design. we must in any case rid ourselves of the traditional idea of a people punished, preserved as a living argument for christian apologetic. it remains a chosen people…” 7 this paragraph sets forth the vatican’s highly nuanced distinction between the theological and politico-historical aspects of christian attitudes toward the state of israel. it could be summed up in these three points: 1. catholics cannot think of jews as punished and so divinely detached from eretz yisrael. 2. the continued existence of the jewish people, b’nai yisrael or ‘am yisrael, is god’s will. 3. catholics should respect and seek to understand jewish attachment to the land of israel (eretz yisrael), but the existence of the modern state of israel (medinat yisrael) should not be interpreted by catholics primarily in religious or biblical categories, but according to international legal principles. to elaborate on this third point: the state of israel (medinat yisrael) is a nation-state whose citizens are not coextensive with the covenanting community of b’nai yisrael, even though the land of israel (eretz yisrael) is a defining reality for the jewish people as a whole. the 1985 “notes” thus expressed an unresolved tension: methodologically, how do 7 commission for religious relations with the jews, "notes on the correct way to present jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church", (1985): vi, 25. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogikaresources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/234notes; accessed july 16, 2013. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/234-notes http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/234-notes http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/234-notes studies in christian-jewish relations 6 scjr 8 (2013) catholics go about respecting the religious centrality of the land of israel for jews while considering the modern state of israel only in terms of distinct non-religious international legal norms? this tension is part of a larger modern issue: the catholic magisterium acknowledges that theological activity (beginning with the composition of the bible itself) is historically conditioned. 8 although making distinctions is possible, a recognition of historical conditioning would seem to lead to the conclusion that the religious and secular realms cannot be fully separated. 9 this tension between religious convictions and modern geopolitics is also present among jewish thinkers. for example, rabbi henry siegman made a presentation to the 1976 jerusalem meeting of the international catholic-jewish liaison committee, 10 in which he observed, on the one hand, that: the state of israel is the result not only of modern forces of nationalism, or even of the persecution of the 8 franjo cardinal seper, mysterium ecclesiae (declaration in defense of the catholic doctrine on the church against certain errors of the present day), congregation for the doctrine of the faith (june 24, 1973), 5, available at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con _cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_en.html, accessed july 16, 2013. 9 this point is also relevant to another element in catholic-jewish relations, namely, the way in which rabbi joseph soloveitchik's essay "confrontation" is used by some orthodox jews to seek to restrict conversation between jews and catholics to only secular or civil topics. see the panel discussion “rabbi joseph soloveitchik on interreligious dialogue: forty years later,” (november 23, 2003), at http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/center/confere nces/soloveitchik/index.html, accessed july 19, 2013, for the original text and discussion of it. 10 henry siegman, “ten years of catholic-jewish relations: a reassessment” in international catholic-jewish liaison committee, fifteen years of catholic-jewish dialogue, 1970-1985: selected papers (libreria editrice vaticana, 1988), pp. 26-45. see especially the section on “the state of israel,” pp. 33-37. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_en.html http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/center/conferences/soloveitchik/index.html http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/center/conferences/soloveitchik/index.html studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 7 www.bc.edu/scjr jew. ...the jew is driven by a force as old as the bible to reunite with the land. the importance of this 'internal' significance of israel is one which christians (and jews) often fail to grasp. on the other hand, rabbi siegman cautioned that: [t]he recognition that judaism―unlike christianity―is a faith uniquely dependent on the national existence of a particular people does not translate itself automatically into an argument for jewish political rights in palestine. we have been less than meticulous in making those necessary distinctions that need to be made when invoking religious tradition and biblical texts. ...to raise this concern is not to bring into question the fundamental jewish unity of faith, land and people. this unity remains at the core of our identity and existence. what it does emphasize is the danger of blurring the crucial distinction between the religious meaning that jews appropriate...from political events (a biblically-conditioned jewish reflex), and imbuing these events with an absolute sacredness that removes them from the realm of history. the latter is jewishly uncharacteristic, and can lead to a chauvinism that is oblivious to the rights and aspirations of others. in theological terms, it risks becoming avodah zarah―idolatry. 3. the catholic biblical renaissance for catholics, this need to distinguish between the intertwined political and religious realms is augmented by the renaissance in catholic biblical studies that began in 1943 with pope pius xii’s encyclical letter, divino afflante spiritu. in brief, catholic teaching today insists that “for the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of perceiving, speaking, and narrating which prevailed at studies in christian-jewish relations 8 scjr 8 (2013) the time of the sacred writer...” 11 as the pontifical biblical commission explained, this is because “holy scripture, inasmuch as it is the 'word of god in human language,' has been composed by human authors in all its various parts and in all the sources that lie behind them.” 12 for this reason, catholic teaching rejects what is commonly called a “fundamentalist” approach to the bible: it refuses to admit that the inspired word of god has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. ...[f]undamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. it injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations. 13 this defining catholic scriptural orientation rules out the facile application of biblical land promises to the modern world. catholic hermeneutical principles understand the act of interpretation as “a question of overcoming the distance between the time of the authors and first addressees of the biblical texts, and our own contemporary age, and of doing so in a way that permits a correct actualization of the scriptural message so that the christian life of faith may find nourishment.” 14 this correct interpretation of the bible should “involve an aspect of creativity; it also ought to confront new questions so as to 11 second vatican council, dei verbum (1965), §12. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/second-vatican-council/806-dei-verbum, accessed july 16, 2013. 12 pontifical biblical commission, "the interpretation of the bible in the church" (1993), i, a. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documentsand-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/287-pbc-1993, accessed july 16, 2013. 13 ibid., i,f. 14 ibid., ii,a,2. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/806-dei-verbum http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/806-dei-verbum http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/287-pbc-1993 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/287-pbc-1993 studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 9 www.bc.edu/scjr respond to them out of the bible.” 15 biblical texts, in the catholic understanding, have to be “reread in the light of new circumstances and applied to the contemporary situation of the people of god.” 16 how precisely this applies to the biblical land promises is a critical and difficult topic, one beyond the scope of this essay. thus, the catholic community today finds itself in the unprecedented situation of renouncing its supersessionist past and grappling with the centrality of eretz yisrael for jews in the context of the existence of a modern jewish nation-state. one pathway closed to us is a simplistic “fundamentalist” implementation of biblical land promises. 4. jews as the “chosen people” another pathway closed to catholics is to backslide into a sort of “default position” that denies or minimizes the vitality of jewish covenantal life. this was vividly illustrated recently when after the 2010 special bishops' synod on the middle east in the vatican, melkite archbishop cyril bustros said in a news conference conducted in french: [w]e say that we cannot resort to theological and biblical assumptions as a tool to justify injustice. we want to say that the promise of god in the old testament, relating to the “promised land”…as christians, we’re saying that this promise was essentially nullified [in french, “abolished”] by the presence of jesus christ, who then brought about the kingdom of god. as christians, we cannot talk about a “promised land” for the jews. we talk about a “promised land” which is the kingdom of god. that’s the promised land, which encompasses the entire earth with a message of peace and justice and equality for all the children of god. 15 ibid., iii,a,3. 16 ibid., iv,a. how these catholic hermeneutical principles relate to jewish interpretative practices would be a worthwhile subject for discussion. studies in christian-jewish relations 10 scjr 8 (2013) there is no preferred or privileged people. all men and women from every country have become the “chosen people.” this is clear for us. we cannot just refer to the “promised land” to justify the return of the jews in israel, and [ignore] the palestinians who were kicked out of their land. five million jews kicked out three or four million palestinians from their land, and this is not justifiable. there’s no “chosen people” any longer for christians. everybody is the “chosen people.” what we say is something political. sacred scripture should not be used to justify the occupation of palestinian land on the part of the israelis. 17 it should be clear from my comments about catholic biblical interpretation that archbishop bustros was quite correct in saying that old testament land promises cannot be simply transposed into the twentieth or twenty-first centuries. however, in rejecting this fundamentalist procedure, he drew upon supersessionist argumentation originating from the patristic period; namely, that christian universalism has supplanted jewish particularism. 18 in his apostolic letter in response to the synod on the middle east, pope benedict xvi seemed to be responding to archbishop bustros when he wrote: 17 john l. allen, jr., "thinking straight about israel, the jews, and the archbishop," ncr online (oct 27, 2010). http://ncronline.org/blogs/allthings-catholic/thinking-straight-about-israel-jews-and-archbishop, accessed july 16, 2013. 18 so, for example, origen (contra celsum, iv, 22): "one of the facts which show that jesus was some divine and sacred person is just that on his account such great and fearful calamities have now for a long time befallen the jews… for they committed the most impious crime of all, when they conspired against the savior of mankind, in the city where they performed to god the customary rites which were symbols of profound mysteries. therefore that city where jesus suffered these indignities had to be utterly destroyed. the jewish nation had to be overthrown, and god's invitation to blessedness transferred to others, i mean the christians, to whom came the teaching about the simple and pure worship of god. and they received new laws which fit in with the order established universally.” http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/thinking-straight-about-israel-jews-and-archbishop http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/thinking-straight-about-israel-jews-and-archbishop studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 11 www.bc.edu/scjr the bonds uniting christians and jews are many and they run deep. they are anchored in a precious common spiritual heritage. there is of course our faith in one god, the creator, who reveals himself, offers his unending friendship to mankind and out of love desires to redeem us. there is also the bible, much of which is common to both jews and christians. for both, it is the word of god. our common recourse to sacred scripture draws us closer to one another. moreover, jesus, a son of the chosen people, was born, lived and died a jew (cf. rom 9:4-5). mary, his mother, likewise invites us to rediscover the jewish roots of christianity. these close bonds are a unique treasure of which christians are proud and for which they are indebted to the chosen people. the jewishness of the nazarene allows christians to taste joyfully the world of the promise and resolutely introduces them into the faith of the chosen people, making them a part of that people. yet the person and the deepest identity of jesus also divide them, for in him christians recognize the messiah, the son of god. 19 the affirmative use of the phrase “chosen people” three times in one paragraph is certainly noteworthy in this context. the pope is implicitly correcting archbishop bustros's universalization of the concept of chosenness when that denies the ongoing covenantal status of the jewish people. or to put it another way, catholic theology must affirm that the jewish people are “chosen,” i.e., are covenanting with god. the challenge for catholic theology is to discern what this affirmation means in terms of jewish covenantal attachment to eretz yisrael, an aspect of covenantal life that is foreign to the christian mode of covenanting in christ. 19 benedict xvi, ecclesia in medio oriente (sept 14, 2012), §20. emphases added. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/docum ents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20120914_ecclesia-in-medio-oriente_en.html, accessed july 16, 2103. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20120914_ecclesia-in-medio-oriente_en.html http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20120914_ecclesia-in-medio-oriente_en.html studies in christian-jewish relations 12 scjr 8 (2013) it does seems clear, though, that catholic theological engagement with the centrality of eretz yisrael for jews can endorse neither a fundamentalist extreme that blithely asserts, “the bible says that god gave the land to the jews,” nor a supersessionist universalization that dismisses the particularity of the jewish covenantal experience. the task awaiting us is to articulate a positively formulated centrist hermeneutic. 5. the pastoral predicament of palestinian catholics archbishop bustros was caught in this unresolved theological challenge: how should catholics critically actualize biblical land passages in the twenty-first century? 20 given their experience of statelessness and israeli governance, it is plainly and understandably difficult for palestinian catholics to embrace the post-vatican ii renunciation of classic supersessionism because they perceive this renunciation as legitimating the claims of right-wing jewish settlers and western christian zionists that the bible demands their own physical supersession by israelis. there is an additional spiritual problem for middleeastern catholics that has been raised in dialogues between the international council of christians and jews (iccj) and some signatories of the december 2009 statement, “kairos palestine: a moment of truth: a word of faith, hope, and love from the heart of palestinian suffering.” 21 palestinian christians find it difficult to draw spiritual sustenance from the 20 “actualization” is here understood here as the companion activity with “explanation” in the dialectical process of biblical interpretation. the interpreter exegetes the biblical text to “explain” it in its own frames of reference but also actualizes the text to understand its significance for today’s world by putting ancient witnesses to faith into dialogue with today’s faith community. see pbc, "the interpretation of the bible in the church" (1993), iv (op. cit.). 21 available at http://www.kairospalestine.ps/sites/default/documents/english.pdf, accessed july 19, 2013. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/287-pbc-1993 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/287-pbc-1993 http://www.kairospalestine.ps/sites/default/documents/english.pdf studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 13 www.bc.edu/scjr old testament. 22 understandably, they tend to react negatively to biblical references to “israel” because they relate them to their experiences of the modern israeli state. to quote from a recent text of the iccj: those scriptures—which because they emerged from situations of oppression (e.g., exodus), despair (e.g., lamentations) and suffering (e.g., job), and have over the centuries brought hope to countless distressed people—are tragically unhelpful to many palestinian christians. we admire and encourage those christian pastors who are struggling valiantly against circumstances that promote a kind of modern neomarcionism, a very early distortion of christianity that discarded the hebrew scriptures. 23 some might wonder if i have digressed from the main focus of these remarks: the challenges catholic theology faces in respectfully encountering what rabbi siegman called, “the fundamental jewish unity of faith, land and people.” to me, this seeming excursus serves to underscore the heightened challenges confronting palestinian catholics on these matters, which i think all catholic theologians should bear in mind. in addition, to paraphrase the late rabbi leon klenicki, i think we should all make a special effort to “have mercy upon words” when discussing the volatile subject of theologies of the land in the context of the israeli-palestinian conflict. 24 22 see the relevant comments in patriarch michel sabbah, "reading the bible in the land of the bible" (nov. 1993). http://www.lpj.org/newsite2006/patriarch/pastoralletters/1993/readingthebible_en.html, accessed july 16, 2013. 23 iccj, "'as long as you believe in a living god, you must have hope': reflections on the role of religious and interreligious groups in promoting reconciliation about and in the troubled middle east," (may 13, 2013), §5. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-andstatements/interreligious/1219-iccj2013may13, accessed july 16, 2013. 24 see iccj, "'let us have mercy upon words': a plea from the international council of christians and jews to all who seek interreligious understanding" (july 26, 2010). http://www.lpj.org/newsite2006/patriarch/pastoral-letters/1993/readingthebible_en.html http://www.lpj.org/newsite2006/patriarch/pastoral-letters/1993/readingthebible_en.html http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/interreligious/1219-iccj2013may13 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/interreligious/1219-iccj2013may13 studies in christian-jewish relations 14 scjr 8 (2013) i end this survey of vatican texts relevant to a catholic theology of the land by noting that the holy see maintains a diplomatic corps and has formal ambassadorial-level relations with many nations, including the state of israel. 25 this is one factor that sets relations between israel and the catholic church on a different footing than the jewish state's interactions with other christian communities. 6. conclusion: an unresolved hermeneutical and theological challenge i suggested above that catholic theologians today are challenged by the question: how should catholics critically actualize biblical land passages today? the question is even further complicated by an observation made by the u.s. catholic bishops in 1975: “in dialogue with christians, jews have explained that they do not consider themselves as a church, a sect, or a denomination, as is the case among christian communities, but rather as a peoplehood that is not solely racial, ethnic or religious, but in a sense a composite of all these.” 26 does this mean that catholic theology must distinguish among the various ways―religious, spiritual, ethnic, political, historical, etc.― in which the land is central to jewish identity, and if so how, and by what criteria? i also suggested earlier that, mutatis mutandis, jewish thinkers are also challenged by the question of how to relate biblical and rabbinic texts regarding eretz yisrael to the reality of the modern nation-state of medinat yisrael. in other words, http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todaysdialogue/isrpal/855-iccj2010july26, accessed july 16, 2013. 25 the 1993 "fundamental agreement" (http://www.ccjr.us/dialogikaresources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/292state-1993, accessed july 16, 2013) between the holy see and the state of israel does not contain any elements useful in developing a catholic "land theology" and so has not been quoted here. some legal aspects of that agreement, as of this writing, still have not been fully implemented despite years of negotiations. 26 nccb, "statement on catholic-jewish relations" (1975), op. cit. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/isrpal/855-iccj2010july26 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/isrpal/855-iccj2010july26 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/292-state-1993 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/292-state-1993 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/292-state-1993 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/479-nccb1975 studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 15 www.bc.edu/scjr both jews and catholics are challenged to actualize the land dimensions of judaism’s covenantal life—couched in ancient political systems and worldviews—in our very different social, historical, and religiously plural contexts today. the different jewish and christian perspectives are not to be trivialized. there are great contrasts, for instance, between the jewish sense of peoplehood and their minority longing for security on the one hand, and the christian global reach with its emphasis on the universality of god's salvation in christ on the other. nevertheless, is it not conceivable that we could collaborate in bringing our different traditions of interpretation to bear on these complex issues? since we both find this question perplexing within our respective frames of reference, perhaps we could creatively open up new approaches if we intensified our dialogue in a sustained and focused way. perhaps we could each make progress, not despite our different traditions and perspectives, but actually because of them. our blessed, if still youthful, “new relationship” gives us opportunities for a mutually enriching interreligious synergy that our ancestors could not have imagined. let's not squander this opportunity as the fiftieth anniversary of nostra aetate approaches. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-3 susan j. wendel and david m. miller, eds. torah ethics and early christian identity (grand rapids, mi: william b. eerdmans publishing company, 2016), ix + 271 pp. nathaniel desrosiers ndesrosiers@stonehill.edu stonehill college, north easton, ma 02357 the volume is a festschrift in honor of stephen westerholm and includes thirteen essays from colleagues and former students. it makes useful contributions by focusing essays around a primary framing question: among early christians, how did the law (or torah) “continue to serve as a reference point for christbelievers regardless of whether they thought torah observance was essential?” (p. 2). while no single work can address this complex issue, this book does cover a generous though not exhaustive range of texts and authors. in doing so, the individual essays consider the ongoing influence of torah as an ethical guide in the teachings of jesus and the writings of early christ-followers through the early third century. the first section, “torah ethics in early judaism,” features two essays that help to frame the discussion of early christian viewpoints on the law in the chapters that follow. anders runesson begins the volume with his essay “entering a synagogue with paul: first-century torah observance.” he argues that at that time there was no single overarching jewish view of how to observe the torah. while there was relative fluidity in torah interpretation, runesson argues that purity laws were a key defining point for individual communities, which in turn influenced pauline perspectives on moral purity. in “the meaning and function of the law in philo and josephus,” john martens examines the role that the law played in the formation of jewish identity for each of these authors. although both figures emphasize the importance of torah-based ethics, each has a different perspective on how to incorporate their jewish views in terms drawn from their hellenistic thought world. while neither of these essays are ground-breaking interpretations, they may serve as helpful and accessible summaries that could benefit both academic and novice readers. the second section, “torah ethics and the new testament,” is the largest, containing eight essays. wesley olmstead, in “jesus, the eschatological perfection of torah, and the imitation dei in matthew,” argues that matthew believes the torah is still binding on followers of jesus. however, for the evangelist the law finds its eschatological fulfillment in jesus. while this is not a novel claim, desrosiers: wendel and miller’s torah ethics and early christian identity 2 the chapter is commendable for emphasizing the coherence of matthew’s message about the law for believers, rather than seeing his views of the law in tension with his claims about christ (as is so often the case in scholarship on the topic). s. a. cummins posits similar conclusions in “torah, jesus, and the kingdom of god in the gospel of mark,” emphasizing that mark presents the torah positively, and that its ethical priority persists through jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. david miller, in “reading law as prophecy: torah ethics in acts,” argues that luke-acts describes the law as a positive model for ethical behavior, albeit a model that is observed differently by jewish and gentile christians. a highlight of this section is adele reinhartz’s “reproach and revelation: ethics in john 11:1-44,” in which she argues that jesus did not always act ethically according to contemporary jewish precepts. through a “resistant reading” (p. 94) of the lazarus story, she suggests that the positive resolution to the story does not justify jesus’ ethical breach. reinhartz concludes that torah ethics in john are not explicit but rather inferred by readers historically. scot mcknight, in “the law of the laws: james, wisdom, and the law,” thoughtfully outlines the deep positive connections between james and the torah, highlighting the transformation of jewish legal quotations into jesus-centered wisdom. however, his argument is more confessional than critical, and is weakened by an insistence that james was the brother of jesus whose close connection to the teacher enabled him to transmit the “absorbed” teachings of christ (p. 117-119). in “questions about nomos, answers about christos: romans 10:4 in context,” beverly roberts gaventa posits that paul did not see the torah as an ethical guide for jesus-followers. while gaventa presents a thorough discussion of paul’s words on the law in romans, some readers may find her conclusion that jesus is the replacement of and hence supersedes the law somewhat unpersuasive. likewise, terence donaldson suggests that the identity-building and identity-affirming role of the law for jews has been replaced by christ in “paul, abraham’s gentile ‘offspring,’ and the torah.” donaldson argues that paul’s damascus experience led him to see overlap between jewish law and natural law, allowing gentiles to become abraham’s seed without circumcision or proselytism. while both gaventa and donaldson present thorough discussions of paul’s words on the torah, some readers may disagree with their conclusions that paul was arguing for the end of the law. at minimum, the notion that jesus is the replacement who supersedes the law does go against the tide of much recent critical scholarship. the section is concluded with a reprint of “the conversion of the imagination: scripture and eschatology in 1 corinthians” by richard hays. hays suggests that paul sees the torah as a moral framework for the corinthian church. through an eschatological reading of scripture, the corinthians could come to see themselves as participants in israel’s story. “beyond the new testament,” the third section, covers writers from after the new testament period. it includes three essays. susan wendel, in “torah obedience and early christian ethical practices in justin martyr,” examines christian apologetic views that describe christian ethics as both guided by the law and superior to those of both jews and greeks. in “the law, god, and the logos: 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) clement and the alexandrian tradition,” peter widdicombe continues this theme by explaining how clement saw torah as an ethical guide and a path to virtue, but one that paled in comparison to the ultimate revelation of the logos in christ. these two essays are noteworthy because they are thematically connected with earlier essays in the volume delineating the evolution of early christian views on the law, which helps to bind the volume together. finally, stephen westerholm, moving beyond the first few centuries, in his concluding essay “canonical paul and the law,” suggests that for modern christians there is a need for a coherent scriptural interpretation of torah in christianity. this provides a fitting end to this volume. overall, the volume is commendable for its sustained examination of the reasons why christians ultimately decided not to observe all the commandments of the law. the volume could be stronger if there were more connections and internal dialogue between the essays, as these would provide greater coherence and opportunities for addressing apparent ancient contradictions and modern disagreements. also, as indicated above, some contributions are somewhat conservative theologically, which may not appeal to all readers. the book valuably helps readers to decipher the role of the torah in ancient and modern christianity. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-5 review essay amy-jill levine short stories by jesus: the enigmatic parables of a controversial rabbi (new york: harperone, 2014), hardcover, 313 pp. adam gregerman agregerm@sju.edu saint joseph’s university, philadelphia, pa 19131 this review was adapted from an invited panel presentation “a review of amyjill levine’s short stories by jesus: the enigmatic parables of a controversial rabbi,” sponsored by the jewish-christian dialogue and sacred texts group at the society of biblical literature annual meeting (atlanta, ga; november 2015). the contemporary jewish-christian relationship has only recently turned from centuries of hostility and estrangement toward respect and occasionally even mutual enrichment. this new phase not only reflects strikingly different attitudes toward the other tradition shaped over the last half-century (largely in the wake of the shock of the shoah) but is grounded in solid scholarship. scholars are learning to discard long-standing biases both on academic and on moral grounds, as unfounded distortions unworthy of serious study, and also as morally objectionable presentations of other religious texts and traditions. for this valuable endeavor, there is no one whose work is more deserving of attention than that of amy-jill levine. her newest book, short stories by jesus: the enigmatic parables of a controversial rabbi, continues her remarkable trajectory of path-breaking research combined with a deep commitment to improving jewish-christian relations. or, to use my previous terms, she is driven by impressive scholarly and moral commitments. importantly, in this volume as well as in many of her writings, she has shown that these are complementary goals. first, she writes that “ahistorical or anachronistic” interpretations distort the meaning of a text, undermining our efforts to properly understand, in this case, passages in the gospels (p. 18). second, polemical interpretations have long buttressed negative, even hateful messages. because the canonical status of biblical texts makes them highly influential millennia after their composition, even when they are badly misunderstood, levine’s work is very significant. she has elevated scholarly discourse as well as the discourse in our religious communities gregerman: amy-jill levine’s short stories by jesus 2 through her accessible scholarship and devotion to frequent speaking and nearconstant travel. it is therefore a signal virtue of levine’s insightful new book that she has applied her energy and talents to studying such difficult texts as jesus’ parables. the gospel writers themselves admit this difficulty, as when the marcan jesus tells his disciples that they should be grateful to hear his message in non-parabolic form. he states that to outsiders, “everything comes in parables” and is murky (mark 4:11), while they have jesus as their guide. unlike these disadvantaged outsiders, today’s readers benefit by having levine to guide them. she seeks to cut through the clutter of questionable or imposed interpretations in order to understand what the parables meant in their original first-century context. what might jesus have intended? what did his listeners hear and think? for starters, she reminds us that, while the gospel parables are inherently complex texts, they are also undeniably first-century jewish texts, and can be situated in their distinct political, social, and religious milieus. this, she rightly argues, is the way to best hear them as they would have originally been heard. remarkably, this approach has seldom been followed, as she illustrates with some stunningly strange and far-fetched interpretations from both traditional and even contemporary sources. she likens her form of critical methodology humorously but insightfully to the children’s toy, mr. potato head. (before considering this metaphor, i should note parenthetically that while few academic books make me laugh out loud, levine’s many works are notable even in this regard. for example, she wittily insists that the employer’s offer of payment in matthew 20 makes him sound more like god the father than mario puzo’s godfather. such examples abound.) to return to the toy, she says it is the potato itself that has a nutritious core. the eyes, ears, and other parts are flourishes and interchangeable, much as later interpretations are. they are not essential to the potato and in fact produce sometimes new and often bizarre creations. much of her book profiles and then draws out the implications of such interpretive additions. as noted above, one of the things she demonstrates, shockingly but perhaps predictably, is how badly the potato gets decorated, that is, how poorly texts get interpreted. just like a child putting mr. potato head’s pieces in upside down and in the wrong places, commentators on the parables, levine shows, have offered readings that misrepresent jewish and biblical traditions. unlike the child at play, who quickly moves on to other toys, many commentators consistently misread the parables in strikingly anti-jewish ways and with baleful consequences for christian perceptions of judaism and, indeed, for their own understanding. this is a trend with a long history and, sadly, it is still operative. she shows how too many commentators rely on what we could call a “contrasting approach” that improperly extracts jesus from his actual jewish milieu. they unfavorably contrast jesus’ supposedly progressive views with supposedly xenophobic or misogynistic jewish teachings. rather than situate him in his jewish milieu, seeing him as engaging with and even challenging parts of the tradition, some cast him as an outsider nullifying central features of the tradition. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) the bizarre creations that result, usually due to the commentators’ imposed agendas have, we might say, rearranged the parts in the wrong places. many interpreters, motivated by ideological or political commitments (even admirable ones), nonetheless ignore historical scholarship that might better illuminate the context of the parable and forestall using judaism as a negative foil. that this happens in patristic or medieval writings is not surprising; its appearance in contemporary, supposedly objective commentaries is depressing. importantly, levine shows that this is not an inherited polemic present only or largely in ancient or traditionally-minded modern commentaries. paradoxically, some of those commentators who otherwise cast a critical eye on traditional christian views of other issues nonetheless recapitulate traditional christian anti-jewish claims, only now in service of counter-imperialism or post-modernism, for example. the term levine uses to characterize the ways distortions make their way into interpretations is “domestication” (p. 15). this does not start only with postbiblical interpreters. it was done by the evangelists who redacted the extant gospels or by later christians, though the former is more complicated for it introduces form-critical issues. these occurred when the likely original parable was presumably altered or surrounded by added statements so as to give it a different, usually tamer, less challenging, or appropriately ‘spiritual’ meaning. levine’s statement that the evangelists are the “first known interpreters of the parables” is extremely important, for very early they began this domestication process, complicating the work of later interpreters (p. 16). of course, we do not simply have the parables jesus presented, but only longer texts, with parables embedded into literary units. the statements or other texts that usually precede or follow them sometimes seem intended to enlist the parable to support some view of the evangelist. luke, for example, downplays some of the more worldly or radical implications of the parables. he prefers to draw out pious lessons for the benefit of his readers. in chapter 18, which includes the parable of the widow and the judge, he almost certainly added his own insistence on the need to “always pray” (v. 1). the parable itself, limited to verses 2-5, has no concern with such a lesson. levine’s skeptical approach is generally sound and usually insightful. however, while it is tempting to exclude verses that seem to be additions and meant to draw out some lesson, a search for the core parable text may be too restrictive. while some statements can plausibly be said to be late and so post-date jesus, others may be from jesus himself and therefore are an integral part of his message. thus, levine identifies some apparent additions, which seem to be separate from the content of the parable itself strictly defined. however, the claim that they are also extraneous to the meaning of the parable or attributable to the evangelist and not to jesus is more questionable. rather, it also seems reasonable to suppose that jesus may have linked mundane features of the parable to religious ideas about salvation or divine justice or even his own role, topics he was of course also interested in. i therefore wonder whether levine’s general judgment about parables may be too broad. this is seen, for example, in a discussion of the pharisee and the tax collector, where she says the parable text itself, without the gregerman: amy-jill levine’s short stories by jesus 4 additions she identifies around it (e.g., lk 18:14b), leaves us “without full resolution, which is what a good parable should do” (p. 193). i am not sure that a reliable standard for discerning if a parable was by jesus is if it left his listeners with unresolved questions. i raise this note of caution against too strictly separating the jesus-core from the evangelist-addition. if we want to know something about jesus’ original teaching (and not just limit this to the putative original parable), these statements may warrant more attention. admittedly, they may redirect us from the immediate challenge of the parable itself or hint at a resolution, but they may also reflect an integral part of jesus’ own message. for the search levine is doing, i wondered if these statements might be worth more attention. i want to draw upon an admittedly inexact parallel. we certainly learn much from the statements that follow rabbinic parables and that are meant to help readers or listeners to draw out their deeper meaning, whether these are later additions or part of the original midrash (which often we do not know). in the classic format, the mashal (the parable itself) is followed by a nimshal (a statement that facilitates understanding of the text as the rabbis wanted it to be understood, as david stern and others have shown). the nimshal is an integral part of the parable, for most often it connects the generic characters of the mashal—the king, the wife, the servant, etc.—with religiously significant characters—god, the prophet, the people of israel, etc. sometimes it works well; other times it is imprecise or clumsy. but it is a regular feature and intended to preclude too much openendedness. it gives the mashal a resolution and an application. i raise this rabbinic parallel about the framing statements to the gospels’ presentations (perhaps additions) to underscore the essential role of the nimshal. many are not additions to parables, distorting their meanings, but necessary for interpretation and likely present from the start. an attempt to isolate the core parables of jesus may be useful, but what seem like “accessories”—that is, evangelists’ additions—may also reflect the lessons that jesus himself sought to make (p. 15). i want to remain with these topics of domestication and framing of the parable and note the ubiquity of this approach in christianity, especially in interpretations undeniably at odds with what seems like the content of the original parable. levine’s study makes one realize that so few christians, past or present, made the parable itself their focus. again, using the potato metaphor, she sees the potato itself as providing the nutrition. by contrast, while some modern scholars and some modern christians might be nourished too, many more christians now and in the past seem to find the parable to be at best an hor d’oeuvre, perhaps tasty but not much of a meal. more often, they find it to offer little to no nourishment at all, for the content she skillfully uncovers often has been and still is ignored. instead, she reveals a near-universal indifference to the parables themselves, along with the proclivity for often wild allegorization or distortion, even among modern scholars. this demonstrates just how little influence the parables had and have, with their challenging economic messages or playful portraits of provocative social interactions. whether we read the writings of jerome or calvin or of various post-x (that is, post-modern, post-colonial, post-critical, etc.) academics, nearly all these parables were soon cast in exclusively theological terms 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) of relevance to a gentile church in opposition to judaism and far removed from jesus’ milieu. parables about how one treats one’s workers or social inferiors, for example, were and even are seen as generally far less interesting than the putative theological messages they contained, especially when the parable is allegorized. this approach, rather than a plain sense approach, predominates. a theological interpretation is not necessarily unrelated to the parable itself, and as i note, may genuinely reflect jesus’ own views, but, as levine shows in her survey of interpretations, many are highly questionable. whether one is or is not a christian, it is striking to realize that the plain sense meanings of these parables actually need to be recovered today. to connect this to the topic of jewish-christian dialogue, one of levine’s prominent interests, it would be helpful to consider further how this type of study could “be a place where today jews and christians might find some common bonds, or at least common challenges” (p. 18). the jesus who emerges in the parables as she isolates them is a witty teacher, a social critic, and very much a firstcentury jew. the christ of faith, needless to say, is not her focus, nor does he much emerge in her study of these passages, despite of course their inclusion in the gospels. in her skillful efforts to recover a largely neglected view of jesus, however, the strangeness of the portrait only underscores the historic proclivity of christians to prefer a very different view of jesus. while presumably not exactly making a conscious choice, christians chose not to explore the aspects of jesus’ teachings highlighted by levine, whether because the passages lacked resolution or were too distant from their own experiences, or because christians simply had other interests. even some who sought to recover neglected aspects today, as levine shows, introduce distortions in using these to critique imperialism or jewish views of women. for jews, levine’s portrait of jesus may be more familiar, not surprisingly. in his own way, he appears quite rabbinic, engaging with jewish tradition and culture, a lively teacher and speaker, even if some things he says seem quite strange or unexpected. without saying such traits are inherently more rabbinic than christian, i do wonder how christians would receive levine’s provocative portrait of jesus, who teaches without offering “closure” (p. 244) or who fails to clearly state what constitutes virtues such as “fairness” (p. 245), for example. that there are jewish precedents and parallels in midrashic literature may do little to make this portrait of this first-century jew eventually elevated to divine status in christianity especially welcome to christians. that is not levine’s main purpose, of course, though i expect this might make the reception of her remarkable book—for christians and for those involved in jewish-christian relations—challenging in the fullest sense of the term. levine deserves high praise for presenting such challenges before us. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-3 michael g. azar exegeting the jews: the early reception of the johannine “jews” (leiden and boston: brill, 2016), hardcover, xii + 259 pp. arthur p. urbano aurbano@providence.edu providence college, providence, ri 02918 in a march 2017 open letter protesting the italian biblical association’s choice of a title for its upcoming annual meeting, rabbi giuseppe laras of milan also remarked that the advances in catholic-jewish relations made since vatican ii are “contradicted on a daily basis by the homilies of the pontiff, who employs precisely the old, inveterate structure and its expressions.” rabbi laras was referring to pope francis’ tendency to revert to the centuries-old stereotypes of pharisees as cold-hearted, legalistic critics of jesus in his daily domus sanctae martae homilies. jewish and catholic commentators have noted that the pope often deploys these tropes not against contemporary jews but against his critics within the catholic church. thus “the pharisees” become a site for current debates within the church. as michael a. azar demonstrates, this exegetical and rhetorical strategy is not new to the christian world. his monograph, published in brill’s “the bible in ancient christianity” series, is a revision of azar’s fordham university doctoral dissertation. the starting point for this volume is a critical examination of the modern scholarly assumption that the reception history (wirkungsgeschichte) of the gospel of john and, in particular, its polemic against “the jews” has been at the foundation of modern antisemitism. azar aims not to deny that anti-jewish themes are present in patristic readings of the new testament, but rather to demonstrate that john’s “jews” were often understood within the framework of spiritual exegetical methodologies and thus read as types of various opponents within the church. azar closely examines the three sole greek patristic texts which systematically interpret the gospel of john in their entirety: origen’s commentary on john, john chrysostom’s homilies on john, and cyril of alexandria’s commentary on john. these works, according to azar, read john’s “jews” not as referents to contemporary jews, but as typologies of other christians. in a succinct introduction, azar calls into question “the stereotyping and totalizing manner in which contemporary scholars have often understood gentile urbano: michael g. azar’s exegeting the jews 2 readings of john’s ‘jews’” (p. 7). he therefore recommends a critical reassessment of the wirkungsgeschichte of john’s gospel that uncritically “links these late ancient thinkers to modern antisemitism” (p. 8). in each of the next three chapters, he studies one of the patristic authors named above and then presents a conclusion with a summary and his reflections. in chapter one he reviews twentieth-century scholarship linking the gospel of john and its reception in early christianity to antisemitism. azar singles out james parkes, jules isaac, fadiey lovsky, gregory baum, and rosemary ruether, who had great influence on reassessments of jewish-christian relations and specifically of john. he next considers the influence of these thinkers on biblical scholars for whom the identity of john’s “jews” became a central question starting in the middle of the twentieth century and of increasing importance over time. conspicuously absent in this section is discussion of the scholarship of raymond e. brown, who made major contributions to our understanding of john and to jewish-christian relations. (brown is mentioned miniminally in otherwise very detailed footnotes and not listed in the index). obviously, choices about sources have to be made, though brown’s work is relevant. however, this omission does not detract from the author’s ability to navigate and summarize the enormous body of scholarship. azar concludes that “the vast majority of modern scholarship...continues to assume an entirely hostile [i.e., anti-jewish] wirkungsgeschichte,” stemming from an “ethical awareness” of anti-judaism in the period after vatican ii and due to growing jewish-christian engagement (p. 47). without ignoring anti-jewish attitudes in patristic writings, the next three chapters expose how this totalizing assessment of modern scholarship on the gospel of john does not adquately reflect the complexity of patristic exegesis. azar notes that the “jews” often served a paraenetic purpose, functioning as “a scriptural resource for the spiritual formation and delineation of [the church fathers’] christian communities” (p. 51). chapter two focuses on origen commentary on john, a work begun in alexandria at a time when there was a minimal jewish presence in that city and completed in caesarea where there was a vibrant and active rabbinic community. nevertheless, origen reads the johannine jews not as referents to contemporary jews, but, when read according to alexandrian exegetical principles, as “types” of origen’s opponents— “corporeal christians” (p. 70)—who rejected his spiritual teaching and adhered to a literal understanding of christ and the biblical text. chapter three treats john chrysostom’s homilies on john. despite chrysostom’s notorious hostility against jews in his orations against the jews, azar maintains that the traditional assumptions about his exegesis are complicated by the homilies in which the conflict between jesus and “the jews” typologically reflects john’s own struggle to bring moral reform to his congregation. chapter four deals with the complex figure of cyril of alexandria and his commentary on john. while cyril certainly came into conflict with alexandrian jews during his episcopacy, his exegesis of the fourth gospel reads “the jews” as symbols of christians who rejected fifthcentury doctrinal orthodoxy. christ is presented as an orthodox theologian and 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) “the jews” are anti-nicene christians. in all of these cases, azar notes that the figure of “the jews” in these works is malleable and dependent on the thematic context. through close and careful reading of these patristic texts, this excellent study sheds important, critical light on the connections between exegetical tradition and the history of jewish-christian relations. two questions remained for this reviewer. first, while the author’s argument is convincing, the christian “opponents” at issue remain rather shadowy. perhaps this is the nature of the evidence, but more attention might have been given to reconstructing the real ecclesial dynamics at the base of these exegeses. second, scholars have noted that the distinction between “rhetorical” and “real” jews is not always so clear. i suspect this may be true here. nevertheless, azar’s study is an important contribution that brings attention to the complexities of anti-jewish rhetoric and its intra-eccesial dynamics. the death of jesus gribble, saints in the christian tradition gribble 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college saints in the christian tradition: unraveling the canonization process r i c har d gr i bbl e, c. s. c. s t o n e h i l l c o l l e g e volume 6 (2011) http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): gribble 1-18 gribble, saints in the christian tradition gribble 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr it would not be atypical in contemporary parlance to describe a significant friend or other person we know as a “living saint.” what do we mean by calling one a “saint?” various responses could be given, but most agree that the term speaks in a very positive sense, and often refers to how one manifests holiness, close proximity to god, or other general qualities that society sees as attractive or desirable. people are honored when others, especially those beyond their family associations, refer to them in such a laudatory way. historically, many religious traditions, but most especially roman catholicism, have honored people who in some way have manifested (a sense of) holiness in their lives. buddhists venerate arahants, their bodhisttvas and for tibetans, their lamas. hindus revere a range of divinely human and humanly divine figures, including their personal gurus and spiritual leaders. muslims have their awliya allah (close friends of allah), and their revered sufi masters. even in judaism, one finds popular devotion to abraham and moses, beloved rabbis and other tsaddikim (just men). the roman catholic christian tradition, however, is most associated with the concept of saints. the church‟s 2000-year history has seen the process for the proclamation of saints, a procedure not well understood even by faithful catholics, develop significantly with time. indeed, for the majority of peoples of all faiths, this process, known as canonization, has been shrouded for many generations in mystery and ignorance. the religious historian and journalist, kenneth woodward, quoting a popular history of the vatican, commented on the mysterious nature of the canonization process: “the mystery of sainthood and the canonic process, with all its spiritual dimensions of divine intercession, relics and miracles, probably is the church‟s greatest enigma outside the mass itself.” 1 1 kenneth woodward, making saints: how the catholic church determines who becomes a saint, who doesn’t and why (new york: simon & schuster, 1990), 77. unraveling the puzzle of the canonization process through an analysis of the administrative process followed historically by the church to officially declare one a saint is the subject of this article. after an initial discussion of the concept of sainthood, an historical overview of the development of the canonization process will be given. this process was most recently transformed by blessed pope john paul ii, 2 whose long pontificate (1978-2005) produced not only the most beatified and canonized servants of god of any pope in history, but also, appropriately was the source of the most recent transformation (streamlining) of the canonization process. the concept of sainthood what do we mean when we call a person a saint? etymologically, the word saint is derived from the greek hagios and latin sanctus, which generally refer to a “holy person.” various classes of people, emperors, gods, deceased relatives, and other significant people could generally be classified as “saints.” with the dawn of the christian era a more technical meaning for the word became normative. on a basic level, a saint was seen as one whose holiness was recognized as exceptional by other christians. referring to galatians 2:20, the jesuit theologian paul molinari describes the saint in this way: every age, every environment, has seen and still sees countless christians who have like him [paul] “clothed themselves in christ” (gal 3:27, eph 4:24), surrendering themselves unconditionally to the graces of his spirit in responding spontaneously to the divine proffer. it is these people who are justly called “saints.” 3 2 john paul ii was beatified on may 1, 2011. 3 paul molinari, sj, “the theology of canonization,” way supplement 39, (winter 1980), 9. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): gribble 1-18 gribble, saints in the christian tradition gribble 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr vatican ii's “dogmatic constitution on the church” (lumen gentium) presents a different perspective of being transformed by the power of jesus christ: in the lives of those who, sharing in our humanity, are however more perfectly transformed into the image of christ, god vividly manifests his presence and his face to men. he speaks to us in them, and gives us a sign of his kingdom, to which we are strongly drawn, having so great a cloud of witnesses over us and such a witness to the truth of the gospel. 4 for centuries, christians have delighted in and given veneration to those exceptional individuals whom they claim to be “saints.” thus, it is important to note that saints exist for others; they are proclaimed for the way they have modeled the life of christ, by their willingness to undergo a powerful conversion, willingly giving away (in the case of martyrs) or living their lives as disciples of jesus. what qualities do these men and women who over the christian era have been recognized as saints possess? first, it is important to realize that saints are not perfect; like all human beings they were incomplete and broken people who had their failures and at times did not lead lives consistent with their saintly recognition. indeed, molinari has written of the limitations of those declared to be saints. furthermore, these people are as human as ourselves in their limitations, their characters, their genius, their capabilities and gifts, their learning and culture. they inhabit the same world as we do, are children of the same times, and have the same human predicament. the difference is that they live in 4 lumen gentium, #50. such close contact with him [god] as to be wholly taken up with him, moved and directed by his spirit. when we come into contact with such people, we experience a lively sense of presence—of the god who has turned their lives upside down by the force of his love. 5 augustine, the fourth and fifth century bishop and theologian, and one of the most well-known saints, serves as a good illustration. he wandered rather aimlessly during his youth and early adult life, even fathering a child out of wedlock, until his conversion to christianity. yet, augustine and the many others who have been proclaimed as saints, did, in the end, demonstrate important qualities that have led others to view them as saintly figures. historically, the basic qualities of the saints are collected into two major categories: martyrdom, shedding one's blood for the faith, and heroic virtue. referencing lumen gentium, pope john paul ii in his apostolic constitution, divinus perfectionis magister, stated: “at times god chooses from among those many who, having followed more closely the example of christ, give outstanding testimony to the kingdom of heaven by shedding their blood or by an heroically virtuous life.” 6 the theologian richard kieckhefer has identified five essential elements found in christian saints. under the category of moral elements, he describes asceticism, contemplation, and action. associated with extraordinary manifestations of power, he lists miracles and visions. he does not suggest that these abilities and qualities are absolutely necessary, but rather that they are 5 molinari, “theology of canonization,” 10. 6 pope john paul ii, apostolic constitution, divinus perfectionis magister, january 25, 1983. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): gribble 1-18 gribble, saints in the christian tradition gribble 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr commonly manifested in the lives of saints. 7 in general, the saints make jesus known to others in an experiential way; the face, actions, and message of christ are manifested to the world in the person of another. 8 while it can be said that people generally appreciate the qualities of saintliness and respect for the people who manifest them, it still must be asked: why is there a need for saints? first, people are always looking for mentors and role models who can provide solid advice and example that can be directly applied to one's own life. many, so moved by what they experience in another, have chosen to pattern their lives after an individual. in a similar way, over the christian centuries, saints, inspired by christ, have become superior role models for countless numbers of people. another critical dimension of the presence of saints is their role of continuing the mission of christ in the world today. molinari has commented: christ lives and works in them [the saints] not simply in order to establish that intimacy of relationship which delights him so much, but also to prolong in them his mission, his labours and the abundance of his gifts. 9 lawrence cunningham, the noted theologian and professor at the university of notre dame, suggests that the life and witness of saints signifies one of three things: (1) the perennial value of the religious tradition by showing that tradition in a vigorously lived fashion, (2) a model for new ways of living out the religious vision of a given tradition, and (3) a prophetic judgment on those who share the religious tradition but failed to 7 richard kieckhefer, “imitators of christ: sainthood in the christian tradition) in sainthood: its manifestations in world religions richard kieckhefer and george d. bond, eds. (berkeley: university of california press, 1988), 7. 8 molinari, “theology of canonization,” 11. 9 ibid. reach up to its claims and/or ideals. 10 there will always be a need for saints. indeed, the famous french philosopher and christian mystic, simone weil, in her book waiting for god concluded, “the world today needs saints, new saints, saints of genius.” 11 society‟s need for models and mentors requires that some system or guidelines for recognizing saintly qualities be developed. it first must be understood that saints are the work of god, not the church. archbishop edward nowak has articulated this distinction: “it is evident that sanctity is a gift from god. the lord makes saints. the church has the task of finding these gifts and presenting them to the faithful.” 12 as mentioned earlier, the concept of a saintly figure is found in many world religions, but only roman catholicism possesses a formal process for a declaration of sainthood. considering catholicism's 2000 years of history and tradition, it is understandable, even expected, that the process to formally declare a saint would develop over time. the belgian sociologist pierre delooz points out that saints are understood within their historical context; thus changing conditions will dictate what process might be utilized. he writes, “since saints were the witnesses to the group [people of the time period] considered by the group to be ideal models, they will doubtless reveal its successive changes and structures.” 13 the fact that 10 lawrence s. cunningham. the meaning of saints (san francisco: harper & row, 1980), 73. 11 quoted in roland cluny, holiness in action (new york: hawthorn books, 1963), 18. 12 edward nowak, “the new evangelization with the saints,” address, november 6, 2001 in woestman, canonization, 55. 13 pierre delooz, “towards a sociological study of canonized sainthood in the catholic church,” in stephen wilson, ed. saints and their cults: studies in religious sociology, folklore and history (cambridge, england: cambridge university press, 1983), 189. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): gribble 1-18 gribble, saints in the christian tradition gribble 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr procedures for declaring saints have changed with time provides evidence that an accurate list of men and women over history so designated as saints would be virtually impossible to generate. again, delooz has commented: even if a definition of a catholic saint can be…agreed upon—a person whose cult is officially sanctioned by the church—it is impossible to draw an exact list of those to whom their definition may be applied. 14 saints of the patristic era: first to sixth centuries the concept of honoring christian men and women, and developing cults to their memory, started as a direct result of the roman persecutions perpetrated on the early followers of jesus. the dominant roman influence of polytheism clashed directly with the monotheism of judaism and christianity. in particular, it was the nascent christian community which was rapidly growing that was viewed as problematic and, therefore, was proscribed throughout the empire. at times severe persecutions, both local and general, arose against christians, generating numerous martyrs. for example, local roman persecutions were inaugurated by the emperors nero (64-66), domitian (95), trajan (111), marcus aurelius (161-180), and septimus severus (202-203). general persecutions of christians occurred under decius (249-251), valerian (258-260), and diocletian (303-305). 15 this era ended with constantine‟s edict of toleration in 313. the freedom brought to christianity through constantine was clearly the catalyst that drove the machine for 14 ibid., 189-90. 15 see jean daniélou and henri marrou, the first six hundred years (new york: paulist press, 1983), 81-114, 223-38. recognizing martyrs as saints. indeed, the church historian yves beaudoin, describing the church after 313, has written: “the cult of martyrs developed with great enthusiasm and without any opposition. freedom gave greater solemnity to celebrations. many people gathered for the celebrations. often christians built churches—basilicas at times—over the sites of these burials.” 16 the basilicas of st. peter and st. paul outside the walls in rome are primary examples of this reality. public veneration of many of these martyrs, generally celebrated on the date of their death, was in evidence as early as the second century. the patristic scholar, peter brown, has written, “the cult of the saints as it emerged in late antiquity, became part and parcel of the succeeding millennium of christian history to such an extent that we tend to take its elaboration for granted.” 17 while christians regarded all the baptized as saints, dying for the faith was particularly noteworthy and was awarded with special veneration. sanctity and martyrdom were virtually indistinguishable in the christian consciousness. as jesus died obedient to the father, so the saints died for and in obedience to christ. cults to individual saints, almost exclusively local in nature, arose. indeed, one of the early definable objective criteria for one to be called a "saint" was the existence of a public cult. 18 pierre deleooz has commented on this concept: "saints are saints for other people [emphasis delooz] but they are also saints made by other people [emphasis delooz]. the opinion of others is not 16 yves beaudoin, o.m.i. “brief history of canonization,” in woestman, canonization, 22. 17 peter brown, the cult of the saints: its rise and function in latin christianity (chicago: university of chicago press, 1981), 1. 18 cunningham, meaning of saints, 8-12; woodward, making saints, 52-53; delooz, “sociological study,” 193. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): gribble 1-18 gribble, saints in the christian tradition gribble 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr sufficient in itself to create a saint. opinion must be strong enough to provide a public cult.” 19 in this era there were generally no inquiries, tribunals, or judgments concerning saints; rather the martyrs were claimed as saints by public acclamation. this was a period of popular canonization when spontaneous reputation for sanctity could lead to sainthood. 20 the early patristic era was a time when sainthood was basically defined by martyrdom, yet the universal call to sanctity was never lost. this reality was acknowledged by pope john paul ii: the church…from the earliest beginnings of christianity has always believed that the apostles and martyrs are more closely joined to us in christ and has venerated them, together with the blessed virgin mary and the holy angels, with special devotion, devoutly imploring the aid of their intercession. 21 the british patristic historian w.h.c. frend, describing the state of the church in north africa in the third century, concurs with the pope‟s ideas, while adding specifics on common practices of the cult: in this environment confessors and martyrs were held in the highest honour. vigils outside their prisons, services in the creae in which they were buried, the cult of their anniversaries (natalica) and powers of forgiveness universally subscribed to them, raised their status beyond that of the clergy. 22 19 delooz, “sociological study,” 199. 20 beaudoin, “brief history of canonization,” 27. 21 pope john paul ii, divinus perfectionis magister, apostolic constitution, january 25, 1983. 22 quoted in cunningham, meaning of saints, 12. still, the roman martyrology praenotanda of pope gregory xiii (1583) speaks of the universal call to sanctity: 1. god the father wants the salvation of all men and women made according to the divine image and that they come to a knowledge of the truth, which is christ, the way for all to the father. all, and first of all christ's faithful, of whatever rank or status, are called to the fullness of the christian life and to the perfection of charity; by this sanctity a more human manner of living is promoted in this earthly society. 2. rather god the father manifested his will, namely the sanctification of all, which through christ, with christ, and in christ, increases each day for the greater glory of the one and undivided trinity and greater holiness in the life of christ's faithful. 23 the cult of the saints, as suggested by peter brown, was the way christians broke down the imaginative barrier between heaven and earth. he writes, “it [the cult of saints] designated human beings as the recipients on unalloyed reverence, and it linked these dead and invisible figures in no uncertain manner to precise visible places and, in many areas, to precise living representatives.” 24 indeed the graves of the saints, fragments of their bodies, or even objects they had made almost became centers of ecclesiastical life for a region, where the contrast between heaven and earth met. brown describes a sixth century layman who wrote to his spiritual father: “when i find that i am in a place where there are relics of the holy martyrs, i am obsessed by the need to go in and venerate 23 roman martyrology praenotanda, paragraph 1 in woestman, canonization, 3. 24 brown, cult of saints, 11. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): gribble 1-18 gribble, saints in the christian tradition gribble 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr them. every time i pass in front of them, i feel i should bow my head.” 25 the concept of public veneration and acclamation of saints, conducted with virtually no controls, began to disappear between the fifth and tenth centuries when local bishops began to exert significant influence on the process of declaring saints. during this era it became normative that before a new name was added to the calendar of saints, bishops insisted that petitioners provide a written account of the candidate‟s life, virtues, death, accounts of miracles, and where applicable martyrdom. this vita was typically a stereotypical account filled with legends and hagiography. often witness testimony was second or third hand. saints were identified by: (1) their reputation, especially among the people, (2) the stories and legends into which their lives were transmitted as exemplars of heroic virtue, and (3) their reputation for producing miracles, especially those worked at their shrines or through relics. at this time saints still remained objects of cult, not investigation or inquiry. however, some bishops began to see the need for a more serious examination of the candidate‟s life. 26 control on cults was a means to wrest control from local pious people to a more central authority. this is in evidence in the roman martyrology praenotanda: it is permitted to venerate by public cult only those servants of god who are listed among the saints and blessed by the authority of the church. their authentic relics and their images are held in veneration, for the cult of saints in the church proclaims the wonderful deeds of christ in his servants and provides the faithful with examples suitable for imitation. 27 25 ibid. 26 woodward, making saints, 62, 65. 27 roman martyrology praenotanda #1 paragraph 15, in woestman, canonization, 6. by the end of the 10th century there was a call for the pope, in virtue of his supreme authority, to grant sainthood, the process which eventually became canonization. 28 sacred relics, 29 especially those associated with the martyrs, was another concept associated with the veneration of saints that, due to abuses, led to greater controls. relics circulated widely and in many ways became portable shrines for public and private veneration of the saints. this idea became so integral to general public worship that by decree of the second council of nicaea (767) church altars were required to have embedded in them a relic from a saint. 30 tracts, known as the passio, contained accounts of miracles, especially healings that became part of the cult. even speeches given by great orators at various sites of relics were preserved. 31 the importance of relics for public and private worship generated the practice of transferring them to different locations. in the eastern church, which laid little claim to martyrs compared with rome, local churches began to “import” relics by moving the bodies of saints. this practice of "translation" of relics led to many abuses. people, even monks and other religious, stole relics for their personal use. this abuse reached its apex in the 12th century when crusaders stripped constantinople of its relics and carried them back to churches in the west. 32 this abuse eventually created a need to end the practice of public cults associated with reputed saints until after an individual had been publicly proclaimed by the official church to be a saint. 28 woodward, making saints, 65. 29 catholicism speaks of two different levels of sacred relics. first class relics would be some portion of the saint‟s body, such as a bone chip or hair sample. second class relics are something that came in contact with the saint‟s body, such as clothing. 30 ibid., 59. the practice of embedding the relic of a saint in an altar continues today. 31 beaudoin, “brief history of canonization,” 24. 32 ibid., 59, 63. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): gribble 1-18 gribble, saints in the christian tradition gribble 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr stopping the practice of public cults was a boon to the church‟s desire to secure an impartial judgment concerning candidates for sainthood, one that was not influenced by public opinion. 33 veneration of the saints and their relics, while a practice that honored all those considered to have lived extraordinarily close to christ, was, as indicated earlier, centered in the cult of martyrs. such was the case during the patristic era and beyond. while the romans venerated their dead, their general practice was cremation. christians, on the other hand, possibly following the idea of jesus‟ burial and jewish custom (which was totally opposed to cremation), buried their dead outside city walls as was required by law. these cemeteries (which became the origins of the catacombs in rome) were sites where the faithful came to celebrate the anniversary of death of the individual. this custom was first described in the martyrium polycarpi (155-156), which speaks of how the community of smyrna celebrated the martyrdom of their bishop polycarp. the depositio martyrum of the church of rome (early fourth century) contains the oldest list of roman feasts of martyrs, giving their anniversaries of death and the cemetery where the martyr was buried. 34 how has the church defined martyrdom over the centuries? while a general idea of one who died for the faith was in vogue for centuries, pope benedict xiv (1740-1758) in de servorum dei beatiicatione et beatorum canonizatione (only published in 1840) defined the practice: “martyrdom is the voluntary suffering or acceptance of death because of faith in christ or another active virtue related to god." additionally, it is necessary that the individual persevered, undefeated and patiently, until death. 35 for one to be officially proclaimed a 33 woestman, canonization, 36-37. 34 beaudoin, “brief history of canonization,” 20-22. 35 quoted in robert sarno, “theological reflection on canonization,” in woestman, canonization, 11. see also, woestman, canonization, 43. martyr, two elements had to be proved: (1) the death of the individual really took place and (2) the person was killed (a) out of hatred for faith in christ or (b) for an active virtue connected with god. 36 this idea has been synthesized in a recent document published by the congregation for the causes of saints (one of the many roman curial offices): “the reputation of martyrdom is the opinion that has spread among the faithful about the death endured by the servant of god for the faith or for a virtue connected to the faith." 37 martyrs are witnesses of christ, not only through their profession of faith, but also through the individual‟s life and death. they are seen as paradigms of christian living and a locus of spiritual power. referencing vatican ii‟s dogmatic constitution on the church (lumen gentium), theologian robert sarno comments, christian heroism is found par excellence in the most sublime practice of charity that is martyrdom by which a disciple is transformed into an image of his master by freely accepting death for the salvation of the world as well as in conformity to christ in the shedding of his blood. 38 martyrdom was clearly the initial and most obvious path for one to find official church recognition as a saint, but with the end of the roman persecutions after 313 and the consequent reduction in martyrs, another avenue to sainthood had to be formulated. christians began to view the heroic exercise of virtue, of penance and prayer, as equivalent to martyrdom. 36 robert j. sarno, “theological reflection on canonization,” in william woestman, omi, ed. canonization: theology, history, process (ottawa, canada: faculty of canon law of st. paul university, 2002), 11. 37 “instruction for conducting diocesan or eparchal inquiries in the causes of saints,” may 2007, article 5, #2. 38 cunningham, meaning of saints, 13; sarno, “theological reflection,”15. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): gribble 1-18 gribble, saints in the christian tradition gribble 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr hagiographical accounts of the fourth century began to point out that the confessor (one blessed with heroic virtue) was not inferior to a martyr. this thinking led to the creation of the cult of great heroes who, by their virtue, penance, and prayer life, had drawn exceptionally close to god. saints so recognized under this new category were: in the east, st. antony of the desert (died 356), st. hilary (died 372), st. athanasius (died 373); in the west, st. sylvester (died 335), st. martin of tours (died 397) and st. augustine (died 430). 39 heroic virtue was manifested in general and specific ways. in a generic sense, it was the exemplary example of the individual which was touted as heroic virtue. sarno comments: the heroic exercise of virtue signifies instead that a person in his or her whole way of acting was faithful to the faith, animated by charity, sustained by hope, and that as a consequence, practiced the cardinal virtues.… the person's whole mode of life is to be considered exemplary. 40 more specifically, at the dawn of the sixth century, the miraculous became the criterion for establishing the cult of a confessor. professor agostino amore, speaking of the early church concept of saints, comments, "a confessor is a saint because he performs miracles (both in his lifetime and after his death, and the more numerous, the more extraordinary, and the more stupefying the miracle the greater sanctity reputed to the person." 41 indeed, the miraculous often totally overshadowed any good works or noteworthy accomplishments the person achieved in life. 39 ibid., 205-06; beaudoin, “brief history of canonization,” 24-25. 40 sarno, “theological reflection,” 14. 41 quoted in cunningham, meaning of saints, 18. a person of heroic virtue must hold as central the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, and the four moral or cardinal virtues of fortitude, justice, prudence, and temperance. for a religious, observance of the evangelical counsels, the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, and the rule of the community were also essential. the christian hero was seen as one who lived these virtues in an extraordinary life of faith and constancy by being christ-like in every manner. robert sarno has captured the essence of christian heroic virtue: the constant, faithful, and joyful fulfillment of all the duties of one's state in the midst of the difficult daily trials is called heroic [emphasis sarno]. in a word it is the practice of the virtues in a way that is essentially superior to that of good christians who live in the same state and circumstances of life. 42 this same sentiment has been expressed in the most recent vatican document on the subject: "the reputation of holiness is the opinion that has spread among the faithful about the purity and integrity of life of the servant of god [candidate for sainthood] and about the virtues practiced by him to an heroic degree.” 43 clearly the achievement of heroic virtue as described herein is rather utopian. thus, it must be understood that while these virtues (and others could be added) are the goals, many saints have struggled with fulfilling them. the humanity of the saints must never be forgotten. the era of papal control: canonization the medieval period of church history was a time of significant centralization of the procedures for declaring martyrs and men and women of heroic virtues as saints. greater control 42 sarno, “theological reflection,” 15. 43 “instruction for conducting diocesan or eparchal inquiries in the causes of saints,” may 2007, article 5, #1. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): gribble 1-18 gribble, saints in the christian tradition gribble 10 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr was deemed necessary due to many abuses, such as those previously mentioned associated with relics as well as the mixing of cults with pagan ritual. additionally, it became clear that many had been declared saints without sufficient investigation. although rather dismissive in his analysis, pierre delooz captures the essence of the problem: several people…have been considered to be saints… without anything being known about them beyond a few scraps of legend: in the last resort saints do not need to have existed at all, and this is true of more than one. 44 lawrence cunningham raises a similar concern: the historical corruption of the biographies of the saints takes many forms and undergoes any number of permutations in the medieval period. in its most basic form, there was the inclusion of people who never existed but it took on a fictionalized persona because of the accretion of various stories, legends, and romances attached to real historical events. 45 initially in an attempt to correct possible abuses, local episcopal control was implemented. as one example, the council of mainz in 813 decreed that it was forbidden to canonize anyone without the agreement of the prince (emperor or pope) and permission of the bishops. people of that era did not see the bishop‟s intervention as any sort of human control on what god had done in the saint‟s life, but rather a solemn 44 delooz, “sociology study,” 195. although delooz‟s attitude is rather dismissive, his concern about proclaiming as saints individuals who possibly did not exist has been raised recently with the canonization in 2002 of juan diego, an aztec peasant who was the seer to a series of apparitions of the blessed virgin mary in mexico in 1531. 45 cunningham, meaning of saints, 39. thanksgiving to god for his benevolent action through the saint. the basic procedure started when a cult arose from the people, based not only on miracles, but holiness of life. a passio (biography) of the individual was then generated with emphasis on miracles. after the aforementioned council at mainz, the local bishop conducted a study that led to a decree permitting the elevatio (elevation) et translatio (translation), a process whereby the individual was officially recognized. this drew attention to the saint, local community, and the place privileged to be the guardian of the saint‟s relics. nevertheless, the era of local episcopal control was fraught with its own problems. indeed, beaudoin comments: from a study of the sources, it can be said that often episcopal canonizations were done with great ease, little discernment, and no critical sense concerning the means used or the proofs accepted to determine the decision. 46 centralization of the canonization process led to greater hierarchical control and consequently, a more formalized process. the basic procedure began when a cult arose from the people. this was based not only on miracles, but holiness of life. the greater the authority of the church official who performed the rights of elevatio and translatio, the more god was glorified and the more the saint was recognized. this was the initial reason why bishops often requested intervention of the pope to formally proclaim one a saint. in turn, papal confirmation accentuated the pope's authority. 47 pope innocent i (401417) was the first pontiff to intervene by authorizing a cult and conducting the canonization outside rome. over the ensuing centuries, several popes issued decrees permitting 46 beaudoin, “history of canonization, 28, 32. 47 cunningham, meaning of saints ,48-49; beaudoin, “history of canonization,” 30. from the period of the patristic church (100-600) the ritual of raising up and exposure of the body of a saint was known as elevatio and translatio. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): gribble 1-18 gribble, saints in the christian tradition gribble 11 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr canonizations, but in other cases the pope traveled to the site to perform the canonization. for example, in 1052, pope leo ix (1049-1054) traveled through germany and conducted several canonizations. 48 the medieval papacy, beginning with pope alexander iii (1159-1181), with some interruptions, saw a long series of medieval lawyer popes who fashioned roman catholicism into europe's first state governed by laws. included in this development was the process of canonization. in 1179 alexander reprimanded the swedes for venerating a man who had died drunk. in his letter audivimus he wrote, “even if there are miracles, it is not permitted to consider any one a saint and to venerate them without the authorization of the church of rome." 49 this important statement was included in the decretals (1234) of pope gregory ix which brought greater clarity, as well as complexity and centralization, to the canonization process. through gregory's efforts, canonization became a legal trial between petitioners, represented by an official procurator, and the pope, represented by a new curial official, the "promoter of the faith,” popularly known as the “devil‟s advocate.” it was at this time as well that the papacy introduced the distinction between sancti (saints) and beati (blessed). the former were so declared by the pope, the latter by local bishops. after 1234 canonization was reserved to the pope, even though other bishops until 1634 continued to approve, at least indirectly, the popular cult of saints. 50 the shift to a more centralized canonization process brought consequent change in the types of individuals who were canonized. members of religious orders and royal houses in favor with a particular pope were given priority. most notably 48 beaudoin, “history of canonization,” 31. 49 quoted in ibid. 50 ibid., 30; woodward, meaning of saints, 68-70. was the obvious diminution of martyrdom as the litmus test for sainthood. the french medieval historian andré vauchez has written, “the identification of sanctity with martyrdom was no more than a mere memory.” 51 servants of god who combined radical poverty, chastity, and obedience, such as francis of assisi (canonized only two years after his death) were favored. the learned cleric, such as st. dominic, canonized in 1234, and thomas aquinas, canonized in 1323, was another favored category. kenneth woodward has commented, “in sum, the development of canonization as a papal process meant a shift in focus from popular concern with miracles to elite concern with virtues.” 52 while centralization of the canonization procedure propelled sainthood beyond martyrs, it did little to encourage the church to declare lay men and women as saints. indeed, the most underrepresented group in the ranks of the canonized is the laity. between 993 and 1978 only 19% of canonized saints were of the laity. from the 17th century to the elevation of john paul ii in 1978, only 35% of those beatified were members of the laity. the statistics are more striking one observes when the majority of lay saints are not individuals, but rather anonymous members of persecuted groups who were martyred, such as the ugandan, japanese, and korean martyrs. between 1978 and 1987, when the church celebrated the “year of the laity,” not one layperson was canonized for heroic virtue. 53 while many reasons can be postulated for these numbers, one significant reason most assuredly was the general perception prior to vatican ii that priesthood and religious life was a higher order than choice of the single or married life. surely, the fact that the process of canonization was completely controlled by clerics 51 quoted in woodward, meaning of saints, 69. 52 ibid., 69-71. 53 ibid., 118-20, 340-46. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): gribble 1-18 gribble, saints in the christian tradition gribble 12 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr brought a blinding effect to the contributions of laity and an overemphasis on the contribution of clergy and religious. despite the centralization of the canonization process between 1234 and 1634, the broadening of saints beyond martyrs, and pope gregory ix‟s edict that forbade bishops from auauthorizing a cult for a prospective saint, local ordinaries often continued to tolerate the popular cult of new saints, generating new abuses. indeed, the dutch historian johan huizinga, referring to the church on the eve of the reformation, describes a society drenched in saints in which “excesses and abuses result[ed] from an extreme familiarity with the holy.…too large a part of the living faith had crystallized in the veneration of saints, and thus arose a craving for something more spiritual.” 54 during the reformation era, martin luther rejected the concept of saints as mediators. 55 rome responded at the council of trent (1545-1563) by reaffirming the cult of saints and their relics. still, the church did reform its procedures. in 1588, pope sixtus v created the congregation of rites and gave its officials responsibility for preparing papal canonizations and for the authentication of relics. the counter reformation era was also the catalyst for the work of the bollandists, a group of jesuit priests who, beginning in the 17th century, defended the cult of saints against protestants and the general skepticism against saints promoted during the enlightenment. their commitment to scrupulous scholarship and exacting standards anticipated the great flowering of historiography in the latter half of the 19th century. their work, the acta sanctorum bollandistarium (62 volumes by 1988), became the standard against which all hagiographic works were measured. the bollandists showed the 54 quoted in ibid., 74-75. 55 in an interesting quirk of history, luther‟s original decision to become a priest was traced to the intercession of st. anne (the mother of the blessed virgin mary) to whom he prayed asking to be spared from a violent thunderstorm. church had nothing to fear from critical historical investigation. 56 the centralization of the canonization process continued apace throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. during the pontificate of urban viii (1623-1644), the papacy gained complete control over the declaration of saints. one of urban‟s dedecrees forbade any form of public veneration, including the publication of books of miracles or revelations attributed to the supposed saint, until the person was beatified or canonized by solemn papal declaration. his one exception was if a cult had existed "from time immemorial" or could be justified on the strength of what the fathers or saints had written about the individual. 57 prospero lambertini, a brilliant canonist who rose through the ranks of the congregation of rites to become pope benedict xiv, conducted a thorough review of church policy on saints. his five volume de servorum dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione (on the beatification of servants of god and canonization of the blesseds), published between 1734 and 1738, is even today a significant reference text for the canonization process. 58 canonization and the 1917 code of canon law beginning with the publication of the code of canon law in 1917, the canonization process became codified. specifically, 143 canons were present in the 1917 code that dealt with beatification and canonization. the previously presented survey of the historical development of this process demonstrates how a need for an organized system to root out abuses and provide a common ground for the process for canonization 56 ibid., 74-75, 96; kieckhefer, “imitators of christ, 4-5. 57 beaudoin, “brief history of canonization, 29; woodward, making saints, 75-76. 58 woodward, making saints, 75-76. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): gribble 1-18 gribble, saints in the christian tradition gribble 13 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr was necessary. 59 writing in 1980 when the church was operating under the 1917 code, lawrence cunningham describes the efficacy of the process: "the present canonization process has served the church well by providing some kind of „quality control‟ over those who enjoy the public recognition of the liturgical calendar." 60 codification made the process of canonization even more formal. canonization became known as an act by the supreme pontiff to declare in a definitive and solemn way that a catholic christian was actually in the glory of heaven, interceding for humanity before god. the two categories of martyrdom and heroic virtue continued to be the avenues one could traverse to be declared a saint. 61 the 1917 code also clearly delineated a nine step process to determine juridical canonization. (1) pre-judicial phase: at least 50 years was required after the candidate‟s death before any process could be initiated. this was to assure the individual's reputation for holiness was sound, not a passing phase. financial and spiritual support for the process could be gathered by the initiators of the cause, known as "the petitioners." (2) informative phase: the local bishop initiated a tribunal or court of inquiry, summoning witnesses for testimony. he was to assure that no public veneration of the candidate was ongoing. (3) judgment of orthodoxy: officials were asked to collect all the writings of the candidate which were checked for orthodoxy. (4) roman (apostolic) phase: once the information gathered had arrived in rome, responsibility for the case was assigned to a postulator. both the postulator and the defender of the faith (devil‟s advocate) prepared briefs. this generated 59 woestman, canonization, 34. 60 cunningham, meaning of saints, 48. 61 sarno, “theological reflection,” 10. material in total was called the positio. this material was studied by officials of the congregation for the causes of saints. a positive review/judgment from this congregation signified sufficient grounds for a trial or processus. the pope then gave his approval to enter the apostolic phase. new questions were raised and returned to the local bishop. in effect, the apostolic phase was a more exacting version of the local diocesan process. its purpose was to prove the candidate‟s reputation for holiness or martyrdom was based on fact. from this, an informatio was generated and studied by the congregation. the process was repeated a third time with the pope as a participant. if the candidate (servant of god) was judged to have lived the christian virtues to an heroic degree, the title "venerable" was given. (5) historical section: in 1930, pope pius xi established a special historical section if a cause required specialized archival research that a normal juridical process could not adequately provide. (6) examination of corpse: before the beatification of the candidate, the individual's body was exhumed for identification only. (7) miracle process: after rigorous human investigation (but fallible) beatification and canonization required a divine sign, confirming the church‟s judgment. a divine sign is a miracle performed through the intercession of the candidate. it must be established that (a) god performed a miracle—usually a physical healing and (b) the miracle occurred through the intercession of the servant of god. this material was judged by a team of medical professionals. (8) beatification: before beatification, a general meeting of the congregation for the causes of saints and the pope was held to decide if the process could go forward. a favorable decision led to beatification. (9) canonization: after beatification the cause lay dormant until an additional divine sign was given. when this second required miracle was accepted, the pope issued a bull of canonization. 62 62 woodward, making saints, 79-85. the 1917 code has many canons that addressed the canonization process. some relevant numbers are: 2115studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): gribble 1-18 gribble, saints in the christian tradition gribble 14 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr this nine step process can be broken down into two basic parts, the informative process on the diocesan level and its review by the roman congregation for the causes of saints and the adjudication of miracles. the informative process sought to gather information concerning the general reputation for sanctity of the candidate and information about reputed miracles. the 1917 code required at least ten witnesses, at least two of whom were called by the promoter of the faith (devil‟s advocate), the remainder by the postulator. 63 questions to the witnesses were presented by the diocesan tribunal from those submitted by the postulator and promoter of the faith. a court of inquiry was convened to adjudicate the case. a favorable vote sent the process to the next level in rome. 64 the roman procedure began by a review of the informative process, with objections raised and problems resolved, but then moved onto an in-depth analysis of other areas that required scrutiny. the congregation of rites conducted a careful review of the writings of the candidate to make certain that nothing contrary to faith or morals was contained therein. 65 an investigation of miracles, which always had been seen as an obligatory criterion for sainthood (save for martyrs), was conducted. pierre delooz explains the church‟s understanding of the value of miracles: "the catholic church thus sees miracles as revealers [emphasis delooz] of sainthood; this means that an event [emphasis delooz] can signify to others [emphasis delooz] that a given person intervened in 2118 and 2134-2138. see the 1917 or rio-benedictine code of canon law (san francisco: ignatius press, 2001). 63 see canons 1764 and 1767. 64 woestman, canonization, 34-38. 65 in order to obtain all the candidate‟s writings, the local ordinary issues a decree to be read in every parish and religious house seeking such writings. if writings are present outside the diocese, church officials in these other locations are asked to cooperate. it precisely as a saint.” 66 a cure under consideration must be complete and lasting; it must be inexplicable by all scientific measures. the consulta medica, a team of over 60 physicians, was responsible for validating a physical cure as miraculous. 67 under the 1917 code, once an individual was beatified, canonization required two additional miracles wrought through the candidate‟s intercession. 68 the procedures defined by the 1917 code of canon law were utilized until pope paul vi modified them in march 1969. in his motu proprio, sanctitas clarior, 69 the pope simplified the norms for beatification. instead of repeating the informative process on both episcopal and roman levels, the pope called for the diocesan bishop to initiate the process once it received approval of the holy see. similarly there was to be only one process to investigate the servant of god‟s writings, life of virtue or martyrdom, and absence of a public cult. the bishop was also allowed to investigate purported miracles once he had received instructions from the congregation of rites on how to proceed. this change greatly simplified the process. 70 the canonization process today in 1983, a wholly revised and simplified system for the canonization of saints was inaugurated. that year a new code of canon law was promulgated with only one canon (1403) 66 delooz, “sociology study,” 208. 67 woodward, making saints, 54-55. members of the consult medica are appointed by the pope to their position. most are professors or heads of departments at roman medical schools. their specialties range from surgery to tropical diseases. while these physicians are provided a stipend for their service, their reports which typically run to 1500 pages, are basically a pro bono exercise. 68 woestman, canonization, 41. 69 pope paul vi, apostolic letter sanctitas clarior, march 19, 1969. 70 woestman, canonization, 42. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): gribble 1-18 gribble, saints in the christian tradition gribble 15 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr which dealt directly with the process of beatification and canonization. 71 the major change came on january 25, 1983 when pope john paul ii issued the apostolic constitution divinus perfectionis magister. this document, while bringing sweeping changes, reaffirmed from the outset the rationale for canonization: from the earliest beginnings of christianity, the church, in turn, which has always believed that the apostles and martyrs were quite closely joined to us in christ, has shown them, together with the blessed virgin mary and the holy angels, particular veneration and has devotedly implored the aid of their intercession. to these were soon added others also who had imitated more closely the virginity and poverty of christ and, finally, others whose outstanding practice of the christian virtues and the divine charisms recommend them to the pious devotion in imitation of the faithful. 72 while continuity of purpose was maintained by the pope, his 1983 constitution mandated a thorough reform of the whole canonization process, inaugurated by urban viii in the 17th century and codified in 1917. the goals of this reform were to make the canonization process simpler, faster, less expensive, more collegial, and ultimately more productive. the changes were manifested in two fundamental ways: (1) the entire responsibility for gathering evidence in support of the cause was placed in the hands of the local bishop. instead of two canonical processes, episcopal and the roman, there would be one, directed by the local bishop. (2) divinus perfectionis magister abolished the entire series of legal dialectics between the postulator and the promoter of the faith. a new group of officials, "the college of relators" supervised the writing 71 ibid., 71. 72 divinus perfectionis magister, january 25, 1983. of the historical-critical account of the candidate‟s life and virtues. the chief sources of information would be historical, especially a well-documented critical biography. 73 the pope provided significant rationale for changing the canonization process. he wrote: some recent progress in the field of historical studies has shown the necessity of providing the competent congregation with an apparatus better suited for its task so as to respond more adequately to the dictates of historical criticism. additionally, the pope said that an updated process was needed as the bishops had asked for a simpler procedure while maintaining “the soundness of the investigation in matters of such great import.” 74 divinus perfectionis magister created a paradigm shift in how saints were declared. no longer did the process use a courtroom model for determining a truth concerning the saint‟s life, but rather it employed the academic model of research and writing. replacement of the postulator and defender of the faith with the college of relators was arguably the most significant change for it transformed the process from a trial to an investigation. the criteria for initiation of a cause were also modified. first, the 50-year waiting period was reduced to five years, although even this could be waived by the holy father for pastoral reasons. 75 additionally, the cause was not to be introduced unless there existed a true and widespread acclamation, namely spontaneous, genuine, and broadly held, among the faithful that one was in heaven either through an 73 woodward, making saints, 90-91. 74 divinus perfectionis magister, january 25, 1983. 75 this was waved with respect to both the causes of blessed mother teresa of calcutta and blessed john paul ii. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): gribble 1-18 gribble, saints in the christian tradition gribble 16 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr active martyrdom or because of living life in an heroic manner over and above the actions of upright men and women. 76 today, as a result of pope john paul ii's changes, the process of canonization proceeds in three phases. it begins with the institution of a diocesan inquiry which consists of a series of investigations initiated by a competent diocesan bishop who wishes to raise a cause of canonization. this inquiry has as its goal the collection of information concerning the life, heroic virtue, or martyrdom, reputation of sanctity or martyrdom of the servant of god, as well as proof of any possible miracles. second, after the information has been collected, it is sent to the congregation for the causes of the saints, presided over by a cardinal prefect, which conducts a study of the case, concluding with the preparation of the positio. lastly, the congregation for the causes of the saints discusses and passes judgment on the merits of the cause leading, with the approval of the pope, to beatification or canonization. 77 in may 2007, the present pontiff, benedict xvi, issued “instruction for conducting diocesan or eparchal inquiries in the causes of saints.” the document was issued to clarify currently existing procedures, to facilitate their application, and to indicate the ways of executing them both in recent and ancient causes. most importantly the document clarified the rationale for canonization by reiterating, using different language, what had been stated in earlier documents: the cause of beatification and canonization regards a catholic who in life, in death and after death has enjoyed a reputation of holiness by living all the christian virtues in an heroic manner; or engages a reputation of 76 woestman, canonization, 78; sarno, “theological reflection,” 10. 77 woestman, canonization, 72. martyrdom because, having followed christ more closely, he has sacrificed his life in the act of martyrdom. 78 the document also provides greater clarity on the role and duties of the postulator, stating that the one should be an expert in theology, canon law and history, as well as understanding the work of the congregation for the causes of the saints. 79 the process of canonization, which has clearly developed over history as described in this article, continues to generate questions for people today. while some will always question the basic concept of sainthood and the procedures used to declare one a saint, the most prominent issue during the recent pontificate of john paul ii was the plethora of beatifications and canonizations conducted during his tenure as the supreme pontiff (1978-2005). 80 in response to the critique that john paul ii created a "saints factory,” archbishop edward nowak has written: since each individual has his or her own, unique, and irrepeatable personality, the situation with human beings is diametrically opposed to such a concept. this is even 78 “instruction for conducting diocesan or eparchal inquiries in the causes of saints.” may 17, 2007, article 4, #1. 79 ibid., articles 9 and 12. 80 as a matter of comparison, between the sixth and 10th centuries approximately 750 men and women were canonized; from 1002 to 1234 another 600 were canonized. from 1234 to 1588 another 600 were canonized. between 1592 and 1978, 302 were canonized. during the pontificate of john paul ii, 1338 were beatified and 482 were canonized. obviously, the numbers of the beatified and canonized during the reign of john paul ii were significant. see beaudoin, “history of canonization,” 29 and http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/ponti ficato_gpii/pontificato_datistatistici_en.html#beatificazioni%20e%20canonizzazioni http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/pontificato_gpii/pontificato_dati-statistici_en.html#beatificazioni%20e%20canonizzazioni http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/pontificato_gpii/pontificato_dati-statistici_en.html#beatificazioni%20e%20canonizzazioni http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/pontificato_gpii/pontificato_dati-statistici_en.html#beatificazioni%20e%20canonizzazioni studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): gribble 1-18 gribble, saints in the christian tradition gribble 17 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr more so when it is a question of saints. a saint is an exceptional person for many aspects: each one is different, each is great, outright a genius in his or her genus. each saint is a masterpiece of god and with the cooperation of the individual, profoundly personal and always unique. god does not have a factory with an assembly line for the making of saints; nor does he employ cloning, to use a modern expression. 81 the other significant question, both today and in the past, has concerned the infallibility of canonizations. for at least seven centuries, roman catholic theologians have argued over whether the pope can err in declaring one a saint. thomas aquinas, one of the first to raise the issue, was of the opinion that “the honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory and is to be piously believed that even in this, the judgment of the church is not able to err.” kenneth woodward suggests that the judgment of the congregation for the causes of the saints concerning canonizations is infallible and irrevocable, based on theological necessity and tradition. the council of trent declared saints to be venerated by the church. thus, the church has the power to canonize. the second argument is given by the words used by the pope in declaring one a saint: “we solemnly decide and find that [name] is a saint and inscribe him in the catalog of saints, stating that his memory shall be kept with pious devotion by the universal church.” the key phrase is “solemnly decide and define,” the same words used by popes and councils in defining dogmas of faith. still, the church has never issued a doctrinal statement on this issue. many theologians, therefore, question the infallibility of canonizations. 82 this question has become more prominent recently as a result of the 81 edward novak, “the new evangelization with the saints,” in woestman, canonization, 48-49. 82 woodward, making saints, 121-22. work of stafford poole and others who question the historical reality of st. juan diego. 83 the saints and the liturgical life of the church the process of canonization leads to the proclamation of men and women as saints who are celebrated within the liturgical life of roman catholicism. throughout the liturgical year, a journey that begins with the season of advent and moves through christmas, lent, easter, and ordinary (ordinal) time, canonized saints are celebrated. depending on several factors, including significance of the saint in church history and tradition, saints have been assigned a certain day that is celebrated as that individual‟s "feast" day. a hierarchy of celebrations, moving from greatest to least, is assigned to each saint. thus, the feast days of saints are celebrated as solemnities, feasts, obligatory memorials, or optional memorials. in each case, specified prayers, pertinent to the saint‟s life and work, are used in the celebration of mass and the daily recitation of the divine office. 84 in this way the saints become an almost daily example of the qualities one should seek in being a follower of jesus christ. 83 the historian priest stafford pole has challenged juan diego‟s existence. basing his conclusion on the lack of any historical record during the episcopacy of juan zumarraga, the first bishop in mexico, of juan diego or data concerning the apparitions, known as our lady of guadalupe, poole‟s work once again raised the specter of historical accuracy with respect to the process of sainthood. see stafford poole, c.m. “did juan diego exist? questions on the eve of canonization,” commonweal 129(12) (june 14, 2002): 9-10. 84 for more detailed information on the liturgical life of the church and the role saints play in it, see mary ann simcoe, ed. the liturgy documents: a parish resource (chicago: liturgy training publications, 1985). the divine office, commonly known as the breviary, is the daily prayer required of priests and utilized by many religious and lay men and women in their daily prayer life. the office contains special prayers, depending on the rank of the feast, for all saints on the liturgical calendar. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): gribble 1-18 gribble, saints in the christian tradition gribble 18 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr conclusion a popular christian hymn begins, “for all the saints who from their labors rest, who thee by faith, before the world confess.” 85 the lyrics of this song aptly describe the basic foundation upon which roman catholicism has built its tradition of sainthood. saints, those men and women who have gone before us, marked by the sign of faith, and have been recognized as martyrs or people of heroic virtue, stand as models for people of faith today. fidelity to christian teaching that calls one to be a disciple of jesus necessitates a countercultural perspective on the world. saints of the past, present, and future have made, continue to make, and will in the future be forced to make a basic decision for the world or for god. the saints of history have in many ways been ordinary men and women who have struggled to live in the world but not of the world. still, some have been officially recognized for their exemplary lives. over the 2000 years of christian history, the process of canonization has become much more refined, transparent, and historically verifiable. yet, the basic criterion of recognition by the official church, that one lived an extraordinary life dedicated to the teachings of christ and his church, has remained constant throughout the common era. the unraveling of this perceived mysterious process, by examination of its historical development, can bring greater appreciation to those who have been so recognized as saints, validity to the whole process, and greater understanding to the roman catholic church, under which the process is conducted. solving the puzzle of the canonization process and bringing one to greater appreciation of this procedure, benefits peoples of faith, both now and in the future. 85 “for all the saints” was composed as a processional hymn by anglican bishop william walsham and published in 1864. reinhold niebuhr's approach to the state of israel: the ethical promise and theological limits of christian realism studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college reinhold niebuhr’s approach to the state of israel: the ethical promise and theological limits of christian realism c a r y s m o s e l e y school of divinity, edinburgh university volume 4 (2009) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 moseley, reinhold niebuhr’s approach to the state of israel moseley 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): moseley 1-19 reinhold niebuhr was the most prominent liberal protestant theologian to support zionism in the united states in the mid-twentieth century. only a minority of theologians, clergy, and laity in the mainline churches ever supported zionism. some argue that because niebuhr’s zionism was not grounded in dogmatic theology and biblical exegesis, it was not transmitted to the next generation of mainline protestants. furthermore, the structure of his thought left open the possibility of an antizionist approach. this article assesses the tensions between theology and ethics in niebuhr’s zionism, and links it to his conception of both israel and america as messianic nations with civilizational missions. first, it assesses niebuhr’s support for a jewish return to palestine in relation to protestant and jewish relocation of the promised land. the second section argues that niebuhr’s zionism was integral to his christian realism. the third section probes his shift from viewing jews as a messianic people to understanding america as a messianic nation, subsuming israel under america’s civilizing mission. the fourth section argues that niebuhr’s natural theology, which was the basis for his understanding of history and divine transcendence, constrained what he could say concerning the “biblical myths” of covenant and election regarding israel. the final section argues that niebuhr located his zionism within his reconstruction of natural law and subjected it to his critique of nationalism and religion. as his zionism was not theologically grounded, his support for israel could not be persuasive theologically for subsequent generations of mainline protestants. 1. the promised land as zion: relocation from america to palestine the relocation of the idea of zion, the promised land, from america to palestine occurred in the 19th century among american protestants and in the 20th century among american jews.1 niebuhr’s zionism is located midway between the two. the congregationalists and puritans who came to new england in the 17th century saw america as zion.2 many american religious people changed from seeing america as the holy land to seeing the land of israel as the holy land. american congregationalist missionaries in the 19th century believed the second coming was imminent, and set off in 1819 to found missions, despite catholic and muslim turkish opposition.3 nineteenth-century american congregationalist missionaries “helped replant the sacred territory of scripture from america to the land of israel, including its eschatological ramifications.”4 this approach was an important source for american evangelical attitudes to israel. however, liberal protestants interpreted the issue differently. gershom greenberg compares reinhold niebuhr’s attitude to that of two other prominent liberal protestant churchmen of the first half of the 20th century, adolf a. berle, sr. and harry emerson fosdick. the distinctions between them, and between niebuhr and fosdick in particular, correspond to the subsequent divide among mainline protestants over israel. berle was an american congregationalist pastor from boston, who penned a volume entitled the world significance of a jewish state in 1918.5 in it he idealizes jews and judaism as superior to christianity, which had failed both to avert the 1. i am indebted to the account of gershom greenberg for the basic tenets of this section. see his the holy land in american religious thought, 16201948: the symbiosis of american religious approaches to scripture’s sacred territory (lanham, maryland: university press of america, 1994). 2. greenberg, holy land, 15-45; robert t. handy, a christian america: protestant hopes and historical realities (new york: oxford university press, 1971), chs.1 and 2. 3. greenberg, holy land, 113-141. 4. greenberg, holy land, 132. 5. adolf a. berle, sr., the world significance of a jewish state (new york: mitchell kennerly, 1918); greenberg, holy land, 281-282. moseley, reinhold niebuhr’s approach to the state of israel moseley 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): moseley 1-19 first world war and mitigate its consequences. he looked for the religious rehabilitation and unification of jews and the formation of a jewish state on this basis. he envisioned a hebrew commonwealth in which the hebrew language and literature would thrive. this would enable the renewal of ancient israelite law and national structures. the jewish state would display its national traditions and idealisms, which had made the politics of the israelite prophets such an integral part of christianity. as a result, anti-semitism would be eliminated. jewish return to israel would be the occasion for “world instruction in the religion of israel, which has never been vouchsafed to any other cult in the history of mankind!”6 berle considered judaism as “the barometer of civilization,” a future moral paradigm. in this, he represented a shift away from seeing america as the world’s exemplary nation. placing responsibility upon a future jewish state for “improving the world” due to disenchantment with christianity was a significant move, as it opened the door to later liberal protestant disenchantment with israel for not being morally perfect. harry emerson fosdick, a prominent new york baptist minister, toured palestine in 1920.7 fosdick was disappointed with the land, and disagreed with theodor herzl’s slogan that it was “a land without a people,” given that there were more than half a million arabs living there. fosdick, like many american liberals, sympathized with the arabs’ view that they had been betrayed by the british when they were not granted autonomy in return for winning the first world war against the ottoman turks. fosdick sympathized with the arab fear that jews would try to rebuild solomon’s temple, thus provoking conflict with islam. (this was somewhat disingenuous given that he knew most jews to be secular.) he wanted to restrict the number of jewish refugees allowed into palestine, but like berle, he also wanted jews to reside in the land in a way that would somehow “benefit mankind.” fosdick spoke about zionism to staff and students at union theological seminary in new york in 1927. zionism for him was a form of nationalism and as such an idol. he would only support a zionism that was a cultural and educational revival such as that espoused by rabbi judah magnes (1877-1948), then chancellor of the hebrew university of jerusalem. this influenced subsequent mainline protestant attitudes, for magnes and other intellectuals at the hebrew university were convinced anti-zionists, favoring the idea of a binational jewish-arab state. the most important proponent of this view was martin buber, who advanced the concept of the “true zionism” of the soul. 6. berle, world significance, as cited in moshe davis, america and the holy land (westport, connecticut: praeger, 1995), 64, fn. 5. 7. greenberg, holy land, 282-284. 8 from the time of his critique of liberalism onwards, niebuhr differed from both berle and fosdick in placing fewer moral expectations upon jews to redeem the human race. he eschewed moralism, mounting a sharp critique in the early 1930’s of the liberal social gospel movement and its perceived optimism concerning human perfectibility and the gradual progression of history. niebuhr saw palestine as a home for the jews, not as a project that was supposed to “benefit mankind” (fosdick) or “improve the world” (berle). thus he did not tend to hold jews and israel to a higher standard than other nations. he definitely did not want to see ancient israelite law revived, and was almost paranoid about israel’s becoming a theocracy. israel for niebuhr was neither a displacement of christian hopes for worldly redemption and progress onto jews, nor a displacement of christian hopes for religious resurgence. his secularized zionism was an alternative to more evangelical forms of christian support for zionism. 8. martin buber, a land of two peoples: martin buber on jews and arabs, ed. paul r. mendes-flohr (chicago: university of chicago press, 2005), 220224. for strong zionist criticism of buber’s role in israel, see yoram hazony, the jewish state: the struggle for israel’s soul (new york: basic books, 2001), 181-193, 267-283. moseley, reinhold niebuhr’s approach to the state of israel moseley 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): moseley 1-19 niebuhr would grasp the “creational” aspects of zionism, as opposed to its soteriological and eschatological aspects. in this respect, his thinking was closer structurally and substantially to that of reform and secular jews than to that of fellow protestants. louis brandeis’ case for jewish assimilation in the united states along with the founding of a jewish state influenced niebuhr, as both men shared a commitment to the united states as a liberal democracy.9 brandeis’ argument was that nations have rights and duties to develop and promote the higher goals of civilization, because they are just as “individual” as persons. niebuhr also agreed with his friend justice felix frankfurter that palestine would rescue jewish national identity.10 frankfurter had been recruited to american jewish zionism by brandeis even before woodrow wilson led america into the first world war.11 his unofficial diplomacy would prove to be both significant on the jewish side and supportive of niebuhr’s efforts.12 2. niebuhr’s zionism expressed as christian realism early in his career niebuhr encountered american jews. his friendships with them nourished a belief that judaism’s sense of social justice was superior to that of contemporary american protestantism. as a result he became a convinced zionist, expressing this conviction through his method of “christian realism.” the israeli political theorist eyal naveh has recently argued that niebuhr’s support for zionism formed part of a “non-utopian liberalism:” 9. reinhold niebuhr, “jews after the war: parts i and ii,” in love and justice: selections from the shorter writings of reinhold niebuhr, ed. d. robertson (louisville, ky.: westminster john knox press, 1992), 133-134, 138-139. 10. greenberg, holy land, 341. 11. paul charles merkley, the politics of christian zionism, 1891-1948 (london: frank cass, 1998), 87-88. 12. daniel f. rice, “felix frankfurter and reinhold niebuhr, 1940-1964,” journal of law and religion 1, no. 2 (1983): 325-426. as one who always opposed any simple identification between historical events and the divine cosmic structure, niebuhr refused to give any religious meaning and redemptive significance to the destiny of the jews. he considered zionism as a legitimate political movement; a possible, not necessarily inevitable solution; one, not necessarily exclusive, remedy for the jewish problem in the twentieth century. he admitted, however, that “the ideal of a political homeland for the jews is so intriguing that i am almost willing to sacrifice my conviction for the sake of it.”13 niebuhr’s zionism was central to his christian realism, which itself was deeply rooted in his favoring what he considered to be the “hebraic” moral aspect of the western christian tradition over its “hellenic” metaphysical aspect. the development of niebuhr’s zionism reflects the continued co-ordination of christian realism’s three components: political, moral and theological.14 political realism involves taking into account all the different kinds of forces involved in making political decisions. accordingly, the human condition is too complicated to allow pure moral idealism to affect such decisions, as it risks disempowering political agents through lack of worldly wisdom. niebuhr’s subtlety on this matter has been overlooked, both by critics and supporters. john howard yoder accuses niebuhr of introducing into christian ethics extraneous concepts that found his political realism upon national self-interest rather than on any christian 13. eyal naveh, reinhold niebuhr and non-utopian liberalism: beyond illusion and despair (brighton/portland, oregon: sussex academic press, 2002), 83, citing reinhold niebuhr, “judah magnes and the zionists,” detroit times (december 28, 1929): 16. 14. for this categorization, see robin w. lovin, reinhold niebuhr and christian realism (cambridge: cambridge university press, 1995), 3-24. moseley, reinhold niebuhr’s approach to the state of israel moseley 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): moseley 1-19 moral considerations.15 the influential international relations theorist hans morgenthau, on the other hand, read niebuhr in a reductionist fashion, as if he were denying the importance of moral values for politics and implying that they are reducible to self-interest.16 this matters because niebuhr was committed to an underlying moral realism, a conviction that moral statements are true or false independent of the individual or community that espouses them. this rules out ethics solely guided by selfinterest as well as moral relativism. niebuhr formulated his version of moral realism by reconstructing protestant natural law theory along the lines of “ethical naturalism.” this will receive further attention below in section 5. for now it is enough to say that a proper understanding of human nature is necessary to make right action possible. niebuhr’s theological realism is intertwined with the morally realist pursuit of justice. this rests on a belief that god is love, and that this love requires justice of human beings. deflecting fears of moral authoritarianism whereby all theological realists would be required in advance to know or agree on the content of ethics, niebuhr implies that due to god’s transcendence over creatures, no one has complete knowledge of the divine will and purpose on any particular issue. this feeds his critique of religion in relation to nationalism, which will also be considered below in section 5. niebuhr’s key writings on zionism demonstrate his application of this threefold realism. he started speaking and writing publicly in support of american jewish zionism in the 15. john howard yoder, “reinhold niebuhr and christian pacifism,” mennonite quarterly review 29, no. 2 (april 1955): 101-117. 16. see lovin, reinhold niebuhr and christian realism, 10; daniel f. rice, “reinhold niebuhr and hans morgenthau: a friendship with contrasting shades of realism,” journal of american studies 42 (2008): 255-291. 1930s, as he realized that the situation of jews in europe was worsening. european jews were attempting to flee nazi persecution by emigrating to british mandatory palestine. in 1938 niebuhr addressed hadassah, the women’s zionist organization, supporting a jewish home in palestine. admitting the real difficulty of this occurring on land claimed by arabs, he first compared it to other situations across the world affected by heavy migration. he assumed the realist perspective that “nothing in the realm of politics can be done without friction.” he concluded that “palestine must not be abandoned,” not only due to lack of an alternative location for zion, but also “because the years of expenditure of energy, life and treasure…must not be sacrificed.”17 addressing the 44th annual convention of the zionist organization of america in cincinnati in september 1941, he said that when all had been said about the problem of relating diaspora jews to the land of israel, the justice of zionism enters because “there is no spirit without a body, and there is no body without geography.”18 this is the single most important zionist statement that niebuhr made, because he connected the land of israel with creaturely embodiment and statehood, as they were in the bible. it also articulates in a nutshell his reconstruction of natural law theory to incorporate freedom, here expressed as “spirit.” niebuhr’s most important publication on zionism was his 1942 article “jews after the war.” it demonstrates a far-sighted approach unmatched by other christian ethicists. reintegrating jews into europe would be unrealistic due to prospective postwar impoverishment and endemic anti-semitism. assimilation alone would be ethically unacceptable as this would bring about the disappearance of jews as a nationality. nationality, not 17. reinhold niebuhr, “my sense of shame,” hadassah newsletter 19 (dec. 1938): 59-60. 18. reinhold niebuhr, september 9, 1941, cited in charles c. brown, niebuhr and his age: reinhold niebuhr’s prophetic role and legacy (philadelphia: trinity press international, 1992), 142. moseley, reinhold niebuhr’s approach to the state of israel moseley 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): moseley 1-19 religion, represented that which is unique to jewish life.19 jews render no service either to democracy or to their people by seeking to deny this ethnic foundation of their life, or by giving themselves to the illusion that they might dispel all prejudice if only they could prove that they are a purely cultural or religious community.20 in this, niebuhr reflects louis brandeis’ arguments for zionism. he astutely observes that poorer jews had not been able to enjoy the benefits of emancipation and assimilation as richer jews had, because “majority bigotry” always falls much harder on the poorer members of an ethnic group. poorer jews thus had a very strong need to return to the land of israel.21 zionism was therefore seen as the socialism of poor jews. due to niebuhr’s christian realist critique of marxism as a myth or religion capable of corrupting politics, he never carried this argument to the logical conclusion expressed in marxist strands of early zionism. those saw emigration to palestine as necessary for poor jews to win the class struggle against their more privileged brethren.22 christian realism is articulated in nuce in his statement that zionism represents “the wisdom of common experience against the wisdom of the mind, which tends to take premature flights into the absolute or the universal from the tragic conflicts and the stubborn particularities of human history.”23 19. niebuhr, “jews after the war,” 134. 20. niebuhr, “jews after the war,” 135. 21. niebuhr, “jews after the war,” 136. 22. on niebuhr’s use and subsequent critique of marxist ideas, see langdon gilkey, on niebuhr: a theological study (chicago: university of chicago press, 2001), 33f. on jewish marxist zionists, see david j. goldberg, to the promised land: a history of zionist thought (london: penguin, 1996), 113134. 23. niebuhr, “jews after the war,” 137. niebuhr viewed israel as an outpost of western civilization in the middle east. indeed, this seems to have become intertwined for him with the idea of a jewish refuge from persecution as israel’s raison d’être. as primary spokesman of the american christian palestine committee, niebuhr favored free immigration, unlimited settlement by jews and the development of a jewish majority in palestine empowered to establish a democratic government. he advocated that palestine should be “set aside for the jews,” and that the arabs should be “otherwise compensated.” it is vital to understand this through the prism of niebuhr’s own german descent, which enabled him to have contact with german zionists during the nazi era. this deepens the impact of his painful acknowledgement to american jews that he was ashamed that “an allegedly christian civilization” could stoop to the level of systemic anti-semitism.24 what surfaces is awareness of the deep cultural link between western europe and the united states. proper appreciation of this very american sentiment is necessary to grasp the importance for niebuhr of israel as carrier of western civilization, specifically one not tainted by the currents that fed nazi ideology. in order to defend christian realism and advance the zionist cause, he founded the journal christianity and crisis, soberly telling his american audience that the nazi regime really intended to annihilate the jewish people and to destroy christianity as well. in 1942, forty mainline church leaders and scholars, including niebuhr, formed the christian council for palestine to support zionism. on january 10, 1946, niebuhr appeared before the joint anglo-american committee of inquiry, formed after the war ended, on behalf of the christian council for palestine, making the following statement: there is in fact no solution to any political problem. the fact, however, that the arabs have a vast hinterland in 24. niebuhr, “jews after the war,” 137. moseley, reinhold niebuhr’s approach to the state of israel moseley 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): moseley 1-19 the middle east, and the fact that the jews have nowhere to go establishes the relative justice of their claims and of their cause.25 he supported transfer of arabs out of palestine, including herbert hoover’s idea that they should be resettled in iraq.26 building upon the critical defense of democracy as the only seriously viable form of government that he had developed in his 1944 book the children of light and the children of darkness, niebuhr then continued: christians are committed to democracy as the only safeguard of the sacredness of human personality…the opposition to a jewish palestine is partly based on the opposition of arabs to democracy, western culture, education and economic freedom. to support arab opposition is but supporting feudalism and fascism in the world at the expense of democratic rights and justice.27 whilst niebuhr did not explain what he meant by “fascism,” the available historical evidence strongly suggests that he has in mind the active support for hitler, the shoah and instigation of arab attacks on zionist jews in palestine by haj muhammad hamin al-husseini, appointed the grand mufti of jerusalem in 1921 by sir herbert samuels, the british 25. merkley, politics, 171, citing “statement to anglo-american committee of inquiry,” reinhold niebuhr papers, library of congress; also, central zionist archives/box f40/file no. 59; both references in merkley, politics, 201, fn. 34. 26. raphael medoff, “communication: a further note on the ‘unconventional zionism’ of reinhold niebuhr,” studies in zionism 12, no. 1 (1991): 85-88. the british labour party also supported transfer. 27. niebuhr, “statement”; cf. reinhold niebuhr, the children of light and the children of darkness: a vindication of democracy and a critique of its traditional defense (new york: charles scribner’s sons, 1944), 84-104. governor.28 there are no other serious explanations possible for niebuhr’s use of the term “fascism” here. the fact that niebuhr would later complain of the eisenhower administration’s combined influence with the ussr in the united nations to keep general nasser in power in egypt and carry on with “nazi measures,” i.e. intention to destroy israel, corroborates this judgment.29 in 1947 britain followed ernest bevin’s advice and referred the issue of palestine to the united nations. in november of that year, the un passed a resolution calling for the land to be partitioned into jewish and arab states─the first instance of a “two-state solution.” britain was to evacuate the land by may 1948. niebuhr supported this two-state solution against the idea of a binational state, which was popular with mainline protestants as well as jewish anti-zionist intellectuals such as martin buber and hannah arendt. the decision of the united nations assembly to partition palestine and to create a jewish and an arab state brings several interesting and perplexing chapters of contemporary history to a conclusion. on the purely political level it represents the first real achievement of the united nations…the “right” of the jews to palestine is established partly by the urgency of the problem of their collective survival and partly by ancient claims and hopes which found their classical expression before the jewish dispersion…the right of the arabs is quite simply…the 28. see jeffrey herf, “convergence the classic case: nazi germany, antisemitism and anti-zionism during world war ii,” journal of israeli history 25, no. 1: (march 2006): 63-83. 29. reinhold niebuhr, “seven great errors of us foreign policy,” the new leader 24-31 (december 1956): 3-5. on niebuhr and mainline protestants in relation to post-war us foreign policy, see william inboden, religion and american foreign policy, 1945-1960: the soul of containment (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2008). moseley, reinhold niebuhr’s approach to the state of israel moseley 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): moseley 1-19 right of holding what one has and has had for over a thousand years.30 he went on to say that the arabs lagged behind the jews in terms of cultural development, such that “this whole near eastern world has fallen from the glory where the same lands, which now maintain only a miserable pastoral economy, supported the great empires in which civilization arose.” in response to the argument for a binational state, niebuhr simply pointed out that the united nations had already rejected this “primarily because the arabs were unwilling to grant the jews any freedom of immigration in such a bi-national state.”31 niebuhr defended israel’s wars against its arab neighbors as defensive wars against intentions to annihilate the jewish state.32 commenting on israel’s victory against the attack of its arab neighbors upon it as soon as it had declared independence, niebuhr said: it now seems probable that the new state of israel will be able to establish itself the hard way, by an armed defense of its existence against arab attacks…the arabs were, of course, intent upon preventing this new political force from challenging their sovereignty, and also their pastoral-feudal social organization…one cannot speak of this victory as a morally unambiguous one. no political victory can be so described.33 30. reinhold niebuhr, “the partition of palestine,” christianity and society 13 (winter 1948): 3-4. 31. reinhold niebuhr, editorial note, christianity and crisis 8 (march 15, 1948): 30. 32. for a lucid defense of israel’s wars as necessary to defend the country’s very existence, see yaacov lozowicz, right to exist: a moral defense of israel’s wars (new york: anchor books, 2003). 33. reinhold niebuhr, “the future of israel,” messenger 13 (june 8, 1948): 12. he recognized that christian missionaries to middle eastern arabs had opposed zionist goals as “unjust invasions of the rights and securities of the arab world.”34 at the same time, he wanted america to lift its embargo on supplying zionists with arms, noting that army strategists opposed it for fear of an arab embargo on oil. niebuhr seems to have been willing for america to risk losing oil for the sake of arming the zionists (cryptically saying that lifting the arms embargo would allow arab self-defense to be organized). he believed such a policy “would have more meaning in preventing a larger war.”35 the plight of the arab refugees who fled or were driven out during 1947-1949 concerned niebuhr, who saw it as a tragic outcome of the foundation of israel. he was aware of missionary reports of atrocities never reported in american newspapers.36 in 1951, he endorsed a proposal to resettle these refugees in the surrounding countries, in areas that were controlled by the united nations. the proposal also included the development of waterways and other material resources in those arab countries. the funding would have come from israel and other united nations member states. the arab countries refused this offer.37 raphael medoff provides evidence that the prominent american zionist leader, rabbi stephen wise, privately thanked niebuhr for publicly supporting the idea of arab transfer. jews could not articulate this view publicly for fear of reprisals. medoff suggests that niebuhr’s support for transfer was part of what naveh calls his “anti-utopian liberalism,” as well as being part of the post-war ethos by which the superpowers effected the transfer of germans from eastern 34. reinhold niebuhr, “christians and the state of israel,” christianity and society 14, no. 3 (1949): 3. 35. reinhold niebuhr, “palestine,” christianity and society 13 (winter 1948): 5. 36. reinhold niebuhr, “christians and the state of israel,” 3, 4. 37. “$800, 000, 000 asked for arab refugees,” new york times (december 19, 1951): 1, 20, cited in brown, niebuhr and his age, 142. moseley, reinhold niebuhr’s approach to the state of israel moseley 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): moseley 1-19 european countries for the sake of peace.38 critics may argue that niebuhr’s support for the foundation of israel, even of a two-state solution, constituted a flight into idealism, but it is consistent with his threefold realism. the combination of european anti-semitic persecution and arab hostility had pushed niebuhr to a morally and politically realist support for zionism alongside liberal jewish assimilation in the diaspora. responding to the suez crisis of the mid-1950’s, niebuhr consolidated his support for israel’s survival as a jewishmajority state. the central issue was saving israel from annihilation by its arab neighbors, especially by egypt under nasser. niebuhr never let go of this central moral goal. he argued that the very existence of israel was offensive to the arab world for three reasons. first, niebuhr argued that “it has claimed by conquest what the arabs regard as their soil.” however, this is simplistic reasoning. the early zionists legally purchased land from absentee arab landlords during the time of turkish and later british rule. niebuhr may be conflating this with the flight and expulsion of palestinians in 1947-1949.39 he believed that the second reason israel’s existence was offensive to the arabs was his own discovery that the arab states refused to resettle these refugees, and that israel could not reabsorb them without endangering its security as the refugees were intrinsically hostile. this problem continues to this day. niebuhr believed that the third reason for arab hostility to israel was the strongest. the state of israel is, by its very technical efficiency and democratic justice, a source of danger to the moribund feudal or pastoral economics and monarchical political forms of the 38. raphael medoff, “communication,” 88. 39. see benny morris, the birth of the palestinian refugee problem (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2004). islamic world and a threat to the rich overlords of desperately poor peasants of the middle east.40 he believed that the survival of israel “may require detailed economic strategies for the whole region and policies for the resettlement of arab refugees.” recommending economic development as a remedy for arab grievances against zionism was ironic given that in his visit to the ussr in 1930, niebuhr had worried that industrial efficiency was elevated above other values.41 his approach to the arab question betrays lingering traces of his employment of certain marxist concepts originally used to criticize the social gospel movement for its progressivist view of history.42 stone gives a thorough analysis of niebuhr’s engagement with marxism. he argues that “some ideas from his marxist philosophy remain” in his later writings “but they have found independent justification in his thought.”43 niebuhr’s hope for economic development also was naive in ignoring the fact that the process of israel’s foundation dealt not only a socio-economic blow to palestinian arabs, but constituted jewish emancipation from centuries of islamic rule over territory claimed by islam.44 finally, niebuhr compared the six day war to the combat between david and goliath. like many other observers, niebuhr understood the war as motivated by a serious intention 40. reinhold niebuhr, “our stake in the state of israel,” new republic 136 (february 4, 1957): 9-12. 41. ronald h. stone, reinhold niebuhr: prophet to politicians (washington, dc: university press of america, 1981), 61. 42. stone, reinhold niebuhr, 55. 43. stone, reinhold niebuhr, 91. 44. hyam maccoby, antisemitism and modernity: innovation and continuity (london/new york: routledge, 2006), “muslim antisemitism,”150. on palestinian support for zionism, see hillel cohen, army of shadows: palestinian collaboration with zionism, 1917-1948 (berkeley, california: university of california press, 2008). moseley, reinhold niebuhr’s approach to the state of israel moseley 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): moseley 1-19 by israel’s neighbors to annihilate it. he bluntly proclaimed that “a nation that knows it is in danger of strangulation will use its fists.” at the same time, the survival of israel was “a strategic anchor for a democratic world” and “an asset to america’s national interests in the middle east.”45 this “special relationship” was to be cloaked in the theologically ambiguous notion of national messianism. 3. america as a messianic nation niebuhr drew on the myth of america’s election, which stretches back to the colonial era of us history, to forge his notion of america as a messianic nation with a mission. this myth of america as “god’s new israel” has been expressed in two different versions.46 the first claims that god called people out of the old nations to america, which, from the puritan period onwards, became the “promised land” given to this people and their descendants as a place suitable for the growth of a free society. america was to be “a light unto the nations,” an example of a free society for other nations to emulate. drawing on puritan roots, this version was important in the american revolution and lies at the root of isolationist tendencies in american politics. the second version expresses the belief that america is required to spread the fundamental values enshrined in the bill of rights and to spread democracy globally. this underlay nineteenth and twentieth century american christian missions and has influenced generations of american foreign policy. cherry argues that it has “unlovely manifestations” such as imperialism concealing national selfinterest and the myth of anglo-saxon superiority.47 niebuhr’s sense of american messianism is a critical reworking of this 45. reinhold niebuhr, “david and goliath,” christianity and crisis 27 (june 26, 1967): 141. 46. conrad cherry, god’s new israel: religious interpretations of american destiny (chapel hill: university of north carolina press, 1998), 19. 47. cherry, god’s new israel, 20. second version, one that he did not originally espouse. his theology of american messianism was not closely tied to or driven by active interest in american christian missions abroad.48 early on, niebuhr had taken a similar view to berle in viewing the jews rather than americans as a messianic people. this was because they embodied for him the values of the social gospel movement better than did protestants. the social gospel movement promised redemption within history through moral progress.49 the reason niebuhr dropped the link between messianism and jews was his encounter with orthodox jews who regarded literal messianism as blasphemous. this coincided with niebuhr’s disenchantment with the whole idea of the social gospel as built on an overly benign understanding of human nature.50 in moral man and immoral society, niebuhr denied that the kingdom of god would ever be brought to earth.51 this represented a clear repudiation of the postmillennialism of the social gospellers, or the premillennialism of the evangelicals and fundamentalists. niebuhr never demurred from this conclusion, and this also explains why he remained silent about any possible theological significance to 48. by contrast many other american mainline protestants connected foreign missions and foreign policy. see james h. moorhead, “the american israel: protestant tribalism and universal mission,” in many are chosen: divine election and western nationalism, ed. william r. hutchison and hartmut lehmann (minneapolis: fortress press, 1994), 145-166. niebuhr repudiated christian mission to jews in a sermon preached on 10 january 1926. this discovery was made by dieter splinter and is recorded in franklin h. littell, “reinhold niebuhr and the jewish people,” holocaust and genocide studies 6, no. 1 (1991): 45-61, citing the reinhold niebuhr papers, library of congress, container xiv, 1, folder 15. 49. reinhold niebuhr, leaves from the notebooks of a tamed cynic (new york: willett clark and co., 1929), 187-188. 50. reinhold niebuhr, “the return of primitive religion,” christendom 3 (winter 1938): 1, 6. 51. reinhold niebuhr, moral man and immoral society (new york: charles scribner’s sons, 1932), 19-21. moseley, reinhold niebuhr’s approach to the state of israel moseley 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): moseley 1-19 the foundation of israel in 1948 or its victory in the six day war, as these were regarded by premillennialists as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and as signposts towards the coming millennial kingdom. the social gospel movement held that israel’s end had come in the universalism of the christian religion, reiterating the traditional christian understanding of israel’s national supersession.52 nevertheless it was impossible for any subsequent nation to be the exact counterpart to ancient israel. james h. moorhead articulates this attempt at balancing notions of israel’s and america’s election: individual nations might, by providential circumstances, play a unique role in the advancement of god’s purposes, and the israel of the old testament might function as a paradigm for the righteous nation in covenant with god. in this sense, analogies between america and israel were deemed legitimate and were frequently made; the comparison, however, could never be exact.53 what moorhead does not demonstrate is that the difficulty of making and sustaining the analogy is due to the fact that whilst israel’s election is a doctrine rooted in traditions of biblical exegesis, notions of america’s election obviously cannot be directly based on exegesis, but are built upon speculative providential interpretations of american history. failure to make this distinction is also a problem in niebuhr’s own writing on the subject. in his 1943 article “anglo-saxon destiny,” niebuhr spoke of america as a nation with a mission to spread democracy and international justice around the globe. this was required by the new anglo-american alliance which “must be the cornerstone of any durable world order;” its 52. moorhead, “the american israel,” 149. 53. moorhead, “the american israel,” 149. position was only intelligible for niebuhr as a manifestation of “destiny.”54 fleshing out the ethical implications, he compared amos’ view that israel’s destiny as elect gave it a “special peril,” not a “special security,” to america’s supposed destiny as chosen. “god has chosen america in this fateful period of world history…the real fact is that we are placed in a precarious moral and historical position by our special mission.”55 here niebuhr’s notion of america’s being “chosen” by god seems to be a belief in temporary rather than eternal election, as well as based on a political and cultural rationale rather than an inscrutable divine decree. this is evident from the fact that niebuhr utilized the notions of “chosenness” and “destiny” to account for the fact of anglo-american global power and influence. niebuhr’s writings from the post-war period leave the door open for the national supersession of israel, i.e. its replacement by another nation in the providential divine economy. this is closely tied to the aforementioned increasing tendency to view america as a chosen nation. in the winter of 1948, niebuhr questioned whether the jewish prophets’ universal salvific vision betrayed the jewish claim to the land.56 however, he did not support this with an exegetical argument that could have opened up ecumenical and interfaith dialogue on the issue.57 addressing the first general assembly of the world council of churches, he spoke of the task of christian mission to entire nations, noting that “jesus wept over jerusalem and regretted that it did not know the things that 54. in christianity and crisis 3 (october 4, 1943), reprinted in cherry, god’s new israel, 296. 55. niebuhr, “anglo-saxon destiny,” 3. 56. niebuhr, “the partition of palestine,” 3. 57. niebuhr has been criticized for not really engaging in exegetical discussion in his ethics. see jeffrey s. siker, scripture and ethics: twentiethcentury portraits (new york: oxford university press, 1997). moseley, reinhold niebuhr’s approach to the state of israel moseley 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): moseley 1-19 belonged to its peace.”58 this wording echoes the lucan account of the lament over jerusalem.59 this is an odd choice, given that he included no discussion of parallel lucan passages readable as references to the sack of jerusalem, the end of gentile rule over it and final jewish acceptance of jesus. niebuhr only reiterated traditional christian teaching that the second jewish exile was a punishment for rejecting jesus, without introducing the hope and promise of a second return. by not grounding his support for jewish return theologically, he left the door open for covert and overt christian views that jewish return was unjustified. in his 1963 volume, a nation so conceived, niebuhr unashamedly says that america is a messianic nation. most of the nations, in western culture at least, have acquired a sense of national mission at some time in their history. our nation was born with it. england acquired it after the revolution of 1688 and viewed the magna carta retrospectively in the light of its newly developed democratic mission. russian messianism was derived from its consciousness of being the “third rome.” like israel of old, we were a messianic nation from our birth. the declaration of independence and our constitution defined the mission. we were born to exemplify the virtues of democracy and to extend the frontiers of the principles of self-government throughout the world.60 he does not acknowledge that these older nations’ sense of mission derived from national supersession of ancient israel. niebuhr does not provide an adequate understanding of 58. reinhold niebuhr, “the christian witness in the social and national order,” in his christian realism and political problems (london: faber & faber, 1956), 112. 59. lk 19: 41-44. 60. reinhold niebuhr, a nation so conceived: reflections on the history of america from its early vision to its present power (london: faber & faber, 1963), 123. the convergence and divergence between older european and american notions of national election to a mission. his failure to provide theological and exegetical warrant for american messianism is a problem, because omission of theological and exegetical sources for his position deprived him of the possibility of connection and debate with other western christian and jewish notions of messianism. these include various interpretations of the messiah and/or israel as god’s suffering servant (based on isaiah 53), christian belief that jesus is the messiah anticipated by the jewish prophets, the succession of jewish individuals claiming to be the messiah through the centuries, political hopes for a messianic age, and hopes that a contemporary restored israel would be a messianic nation.61 given his critique of religion in relation to nationalism, niebuhr would not have endorsed religious messianic strands of zionism.62 niebuhr’s view of israel as an outpost of western civilization in the middle east is linked to its being a democracy, an important element of his understanding of america. he observed that the “messianic consciousness” of america was “very robust” because of the covenant in the constitution, as well as puritan millenarian and enlightenment influence. america would fulfill the reformation of christendom. the notion that america’s national mission was to safeguard republican democracy became part of the deep fabric of national consciousness, encapsulated by woodrow wilson’s view of the first world war as intended “to make the world safe 61. for a comprehensive survey of jewish forms of messianism, see dan cohn-sherbok, the jewish messiah (edinburgh: t & t clark, 1997). for studies on biblical material and the early centuries of the common era, see william horbury, messianism among jews and christians: twelve biblical and historical studies (london: t & t clark, 2003). on pre-enlightenment jewish methods of calculating the coming of the messiah, see abba hillel silver, a history of messianic speculation in israel: from the first through the seventeenth century (new york: macmillan, 1927). 62. cohn-sherbok, the jewish messiah, 153-158. moseley, reinhold niebuhr’s approach to the state of israel moseley 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): moseley 1-19 for democracy.”63 however, niebuhr warned that such a missionary and messianic self-belief can be confusing, because nations then hide from themselves “the will to power” that they posses, behind “the veil of ideal purposes.” the danger is that the nation conceives of its mission purely in terms of its original content, a comment that reflected his strong pragmatism. nevertheless, with a self-confidence that many today would find difficult, niebuhr said that “fortunately the substance and content of our national sense of mission, namely the presservation and extension of democratic self-government, is more valid than other forms of national messianism.”64 niebuhr was also troubled by wilson’s view of the war because wilson omitted to give clear notions of how democracy may be universally valid and neglected to inquire “in what sense it was an achievement of european culture, requiring political skills and resources which may be beyond the reach of primitive or traditional cultures.”65 still relevant is niebuhr’s question as to whether all countries have “the elementary preconditions of community, the cohesions of a common language and race,” which helped prepare the way for democracy in europe. the question loomed large over whether and to what degree traditional cultures had acquired the skills to “put political freedom in the service of justice.” finally, niebuhr was aware that around the world, peoples “desire national freedom, but have no knowledge of, or desire for, individual freedom except as it has validated itself as a servant of justice and community.”66 with regard to palestinian nationalism as well as israel’s other neighbors, this continues to be a serious theological, ethical and political question. 63. niebuhr, a nation so conceived, 126. 64. niebuhr, a nation so conceived, 127. 65. niebuhr, a nation so conceived, 139ff. 66. niebuhr, a nation so conceived, 150. ultimately niebuhr’s cautions about american messianism ring hollow when applied to israel because he perpetuated national supersessionism. as long as american mainline protestant theology ignores the doctrines of election and providence in relation to israel, it will also be incapable of repairing this problem. these factors combined to open the door to something that niebuhr himself would not have wanted, namely one of his students suggesting removal of jews from the middle east, should support for israel conflict with american interests.67 this brings us to inquire into the adequacy of niebuhr’s theology for supporting his ethics. 4. natural theology as the basis of niebuhr’s ethics niebuhr’s ethics is undergirded by a natural theology,68 meaning, a realist acceptance of the world external to the psyche that is bound up with a religious acceptance of transcendence, creation and historical events. in order to understand this, though, we must first understand his theology of revelation. this presumes the classic christian distinction between natural and dogmatic theology, or in niebuhr’s terms, general and special revelation. general revelation is learned from observation and is constituted by experiences that are inescapable in worldly terms. these experiences lead one to comprehend the presence of a transcendental reality, leading to a sense of moral obligation, a desire to be forgiven and a sense of awe and dependence. special revelation is required to illumine general revelation. forms of special revelation correlate with the three elements of general revelation. the sense of moral obligation corresponds to yahweh’s covenantal relation with israel, and the human desire to be forgiven with the life and death of jesus christ. both “answers” to the human 67. ronald h. stone, prophetic realism: beyond militarism and pacifism in an age of terror (new york/london: t & t clark/continuum, 2005), 163-64. 68. this is set out in niebuhr’s the nature and destiny of man: a christian interpretation (new york: charles scribner’s sons, 1941), i: 141-160. moseley, reinhold niebuhr’s approach to the state of israel moseley 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): moseley 1-19 moral sense and desire respectively are historical events in which the eyes of faith perceive divine self-revelation and demonstrate god as judge and redeemer. the human sense of awe and dependence grows from perceiving god as the creator.69 niebuhr also expresses the distinction between general and special revelation (and therefore natural and dogmatic theology) more politically as private versus public revelation. public revelation is historical and corrects the ambiguities of general or private revelation. however, private revelation came first historically and is bound up with apprehension of external reality. there is a dialectical relationship between public and private revelation. this experience is what enables people “to entertain the more precise revelations of the character and purpose of god as they come to them in the most significant experiences of prophetic history.”70 the nature and significance of this political division between the two forms of revelation has not been noted by niebuhr’s critics. it is part of his overall repudiation of mysticism and pietism as anti-political and, as such, irresponsible. clearly, for him, the history of ancient israel constituted public or special revelation, yet he does not seem to view the rise of modern zionism as its continuation. two major contemporary christian readers of niebuhr, robert song and stanley hauerwas, have criticized the natural 69. noting that for niebuhr these historical events are the key to history’s meaning, robert song correctly refutes paul ramsey’s charge that niebuhr’s theology was simply derived from anthropology. robert song, christianity and liberal society (oxford: oxford university press, 1997), 54, citing paul ramsey, speak up for just war or pacifism: a critique of the united methodist bishops’ pastoral letter “in defense of creation” (university park, pa.: pennsylvania state university press, 1988), 114. 70. reinhold niebuhr, the nature and destiny of man i: 127, 70. theology that underlies his ethics.71 song finds it insufficiently trinitarian, and therefore inadequate for generating a proper christian ethic and defending the meaningfulness of history. he thinks that niebuhr declined to use the strongest theological case for this, namely a full account of the incarnation as the divine assumption of human flesh.72 turning to niebuhr’s eschatology, song argues that its structure, coupled with niebuhr’s reluctance to espouse a doctrine of the general resurrection, means that his theology “is ultimately focused not on god, but on the project of giving significance to human finitude,” and in particular to prompting people to “accept their historical responsibilities gladly.”73 in other words, ethics and politics are driving theology. song concludes that niebuhr’s god is “more a principle of transcendence than the living god of abraham, isaac and jacob.”74 song thus unsubtly assumes that a theology that is not fully trinitarian cannot be a witness to the god of the old testament; rather, it is necessarily reduced to being a philosophy. at the root of song’s criticism is inattention to niebuhr’s hebraic turn to the old testament as source for christian realist ethics, in contradistinction to what he perceived as the unworldly asceticism of jesus. niebuhr taught his students that the old testament had given rise to two ethical tendencies: prophetic messianism, fulfilled by christianity, and legalism, which he believed to have been both resurrected by secular jewish zionism as well as fulfilled in the coming of christ and 71. song, christianity and liberal society, 114; stanley hauerwas, with the grain of the universe: the church’s witness and natural theology (london: scm, 2002), 115-116, n. 6. 72. song, christianity and liberal society, 79. 73. song, christianity and liberal society, 82, citing reinhold niebuhr, the nature and destiny of man, ii: 332. 74. song, christianity and liberal society, 83. moseley, reinhold niebuhr’s approach to the state of israel moseley 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): moseley 1-19 the eschatological promise of universal peace.75 jesus himself was for niebuhr “presented more as a messianic figure rather than as a teacher of ethics.”76 there is a sharp distinction between the perceived legalism and realism of the old testament, and the prophetic messianism and unworldly asceticism of jesus and the new testament on the other. essentially, niebuhr wants to say that legalism was fulfilled both in the coming of christ and in secular jewish zionism. his belief that jews do not need to become christians meant that he was unlikely to use the doctrine of the trinity to undergird his support for zionism, e.g. by arguing that its legalism was part of a hidden work of christ as fulfillment of the old testament law. niebuhr’s reluctance to use the doctrine of the trinity a lot is probably also due to apologetic reserve, deemed necessary when speaking publicly about matters of social justice with non-christians, including and especially jews. in his gifford lectures on niebuhr, stanley hauerwas makes the charge that niebuhr’s “god” was merely william james’ sense that “there must be more.”77 hauerwas thinks niebuhr has not adequately responded to gustave weigel. weigel had criticized niebuhr for believing in the trinity “symbolically but not literally,” accusing him of believing that the trinity is little more than an idea attempting to describe our “experience” of god. hauerwas expresses surprise that in his pastoral work, niebuhr did “use trinitarian language without apology.”78 he refuses to take niebuhr entirely at his word when he wrote that he was incompetent in “nice points of pure 75. ronald h. stone, professor reinhold niebuhr: a mentor to the twentieth century (louisville, ky.: westminster john knox press, 1992), 58ff. 76. stone, professor reinhold niebuhr, 62. 77. hauerwas, with the grain of the universe, 122. 78. hauerwas, with the grain of the universe, 128, n. 31, citing reinhold niebuhr, “the hazards and the difficulties of the christian ministry,” in justice and mercy, ed. reinhold niebuhr and ursula m. niebuhr (new york and london: harper & row, 1974), 129-130. theology.”79 the reason is that he insists that niebuhr really assumes these are “jamesian over-beliefs that cannot be true or false.” this is necessary for hauerwas’ “barthian” strategy of rendering niebuhr a feuerbachian whose theology is really reducible to anthropology. hauerwas later makes the revealing admission that niebuhr’s doctrine of creation signifies that “the world in its totality [is] a revelation of his majesty and selfsufficient power.”80 niebuhr observes, and i confess i have never under-stood what he means, that the biblical doctrine of creation is itself not a doctrine of revelation but the basis for the doctrine of revelation. he attempts to explain this claim by observing that the doctrine of creation perfectly expresses the basic biblical idea that god is at once transcendent and in an intimate relation to the world. but why do you need the doctrine of creation to express the transcendence and immanence of god? all you need is [william] james’s account of the “more.”81 what niebuhr most likely means is that the doctrine of creation expresses his notion of general revelation, and that our apprehension of special revelation (what hauerwas calls in barthian fashion “the doctrine of revelation”) depends on our prior acceptance of general revelation in history. hauerwas is being both mischievous and cynical when he proceeds, despite professing not to understand niebuhr on this matter, to defend to the hilt his view that niebuhr is only really a jamesian. this is his way of discrediting niebuhr for adhering to a natural theology. it should be obvious that “the jamesian ‘more’” is not enough for niebuhr, because he does not want to support mystical and pietistic versions of christianity with their desertion of history and politics. this is why he cites romans 1:20 to 79. hauerwas, with the grain of the universe, 114. 80. niebuhr, the nature and destiny of man, i: 132. 81. hauerwas, with the grain of the universe, 123, n. 22. moseley, reinhold niebuhr’s approach to the state of israel moseley 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): moseley 1-19 defend his dialectical notion of revelation as both private and public, which hauerwas himself cites! the relevance of hauerwas’ critique of niebuhr for zionism is that hauerwas wants to set up a parallel with the debate between karl barth and emil brunner on natural theology in the 1930s.82 hauerwas plays the role of barth with niebuhr cast as brunner. this has obvious political resonance, because whilst barth feared that brunner’s theology could be used in complicity with the antisemitic and anti-zionist nazi regime in the 1930’s, hauerwas’ tendency is to worry that niebuhr’s natural theology is used to underwrite certain kinds of christian ethical support for the american state and notions of western civilization.83 robert song argues that niebuhr’s theology is dubious because it is serving “the less than ethical requirements of civilization.”84 this requires further elaboration, for the concept of civilization can be linked back to a reading of genesis as being concerned with the twin rise of agriculture and civilization. in reality, both genesis and historical research show that agriculture and civilization rose together, and are thus ethically intertwined. debates over the foundation of contemporary israel included debates about the viability of developing israeli agriculture. this matters theologically because in speaking of the return of the jews to the land, ezekiel speaks of the gentiles saying, “this land that was desolate has become like the garden of eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined towns are now inhabited and fortified.”85 this is how the gentile nations will know that the god of israel is the lord of all 82. hauerwas, with the grain of the universe, 115-116, n. 6; 123, n. 23. 83. the fact that niebuhr supported zionism on the basis of his natural theology, whereas barth supported zionism on the basis of a doctrine of election and opposition to the kind of natural theology espoused by niebuhr, goes unnoticed by hauerwas. see karl barth, church dogmatics iii/3 (london & new york: t & t clark, 2004), 211-226. 84. song, christianity and liberal society, 84. 85. ez 36: 35. creation. eden is here a type of the land of israel. as a garden, it is inextricably linked to the project of civilization. song’s critique misses the real problem, which is lack of serious attention to the very concept of civilization by christian ethicists. niebuhr would have been very suspicious of its rejection, given his lifelong view that america is “spiritually a part of europe,” and that the fall of european civilization would adversely affect it.86 christian ethics would in his eyes need to absolve itself of the charge of retreat into the sphere of the church as community of virtue. the “barthian” rhetoric of song and hauerwas’ criticisms promises more than it actually delivers. unlike niebuhr’s contemporaries, these critics show little awareness of niebuhr’s hebraic turn. also, song and hauerwas are respectively british and american ethicists unhappy with any christian ethic that will support “civilization” and the state. in practice it means that niebuhr tends to be repudiated on methodological grounds without an adequate appreciation of the link between his method and his substantive commitments. niebuhr saw jewish nationhood as one of the oldest and most legitimate in history, and that it was granted in “a religious covenant experience.”87 this contradicts eyal naveh’s view that niebuhr’s zionism was only based on pragmatism.88 it was based on respect for an ancestral claim, not on a dogmatic belief. niebuhr argued that christian doctrines were based on “biblical myths” that had universal significance: creation, fall, 86. reinhold niebuhr, “america and europe” in young reinhold niebuhr: his early writings, 1911-1931, ed. willam g. chrystal (new york: the pilgrim press, 1977), 141. 87. reinhold niebuhr, discerning the signs of the times: sermons for today and tomorrow (new york, 1946), 75-76; the self and the drama of history (new york, 1955), 40, 87; the structure of nations and empires (new york, 1959), 161-162. 88. eyal naveh, “the hebraic foundation of christian faith according to reinhold niebuhr,” judaism 41, no. 1 (1992): 42. moseley, reinhold niebuhr’s approach to the state of israel moseley 16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): moseley 1-19 redemption and love. myth was the dialectical counterpart of logic and rationality, expressed as story, proposition, image or symbol, grasping “the world as a realm of coherence and meaning without denying the facts of incoherence.”89 the covenant was not one of these myths. perhaps he believed that its being connected both to the particular history of ancient israel and to the church threatened to disrupt the universal appeal and intent of his apologetic theology. proof of this is found in his book faith and history, published in 1949, where he compares abraham, the father of the jewish nation with whom yahweh made his covenant, with abraham lincoln as the “father” of america,” thus relativizing the uniqueness of the jewish abraham and of the covenant made with him. he also criticizes the jewish prophets for being unswervingly nationalist.90 this echoes his supersessionist shift from israel to america as the messianic nation. 5. the critique of natural law, nationalism and religion conceiving of jewishness and zionism in secular national terms enabled niebuhr to circumvent debates about the covenant of righteousness that christians had traditionally used to deny theological validity to jews returning to the land before first becoming christians. niebuhr managed to connect zionism to what he perceived as the ethics of the old testament, which held nationalism and internationalism in tension. consequently, the texts themselves require a theological realist reading that does not claim that the entirety of the divine will for israel’s history can be worked out in advance. basing zionism on jewish nationality also enabled niebuhr to set aside potential christian theological demands for a coherent system justifying the movement. 89. naveh, reinhold niebuhr and non-utopian liberalism, 34. 90. reinhold niebuhr, faith and history: a comparison of christian and modern views of history (new york: charles scribner’s sons, 1949), 23-24, 106. niebuhr begins his essay “coherence, incoherence and christian faith” by stating the realist claim that “the whole of reality is characterized by a basic coherence. things and events are in a vast web of relationships and are known through their relations.”91 he argues that coherence must not become the basic test of the truth of an intellectual system for four reasons. first, some things and events are unique, and thus cannot fit into any system. unique moral situations exist “that don’t simply fit into some general rule of natural law.” we may understand the founding of israel as one such situation, given that niebuhr’s theology did not adequately account for the promise of the land to the jews and that niebuhr realized that zionist and arab claims to the land clashed. the second reason that coherence must not be the main criterion of truth is that “realms of coherence and meaning stand in rational contradiction to each other.”92 here he has in mind theo logical doctrines such as trinity and christology, philosophical attempts to relate being and becoming, essence and existence. this gives away niebuhr’s anti-metaphysical “hebraic” tendency and shows why he shied away from developing a fullyfledged systematic theology for his work. third, some things stand above every system, so man is both in and above nature. fourth and related, genuine human freedom does not fit into any system. in line with my argument for the first reason given above, a fitting instance of this can be seen in the reality of jews declaring independence in 1948 and exercising genuine freedom outside the bounds of “christendom.” niebuhr’s suspicion of metaphysics accords with a reluctance to formulate a doctrine of providence, the doctrine christians often used to deny jewish aspirations to return to the 91. reinhold niebuhr, christian realism and political problems (london: faber & faber, 1956), 165. 92. niebuhr, christian realism, 166. moseley, reinhold niebuhr’s approach to the state of israel moseley 17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): moseley 1-19 land. 93 providence could easily be joined to natural law thinking to defend the socio-political status quo as based on the divine will. john milbank has criticized niebuhr for allegedly appropriating stoicism into his reconstruction of natural law.94 john burk astutely refutes milbank on this, noting that niebuhr actually wanted to pull protestant ethics away from the excess of stoicism found in older orthodoxies.95 this was precisely because he perceived “hellenic” thinking as more cosmic and static, less interested in the historical dimensions of human life. niebuhr had already written in 1935 that the law of love actually “suggests possibilities which immediately transcend any achievements of justice by which society has integrated its life.”96 given that at this time niebuhr was becoming supportive of zionism, his very support may be viewed as an instance of the “law of love” at work. as burk explains, milbank erroneously understands niebuhr as positing a conflict between the essential (love) and the existential (human life), in a replay of the stoic conflict between what is ideal and what is real. actually what interests niebuhr are conflicts within the real historical realm of human life. this is precisely why his support for zionism cannot be dismissed as a flight into idealism based on passionate personal conviction. 93. niebuhr nevertheless insisted on positing providence in order to remind christians that history is not within our control. however, avoiding a fullyfledged doctrine comports with his theological realist refusal to understand specific events and programs as unfolding a single divine purpose. see his “providence and human decisions,” christianity and crisis, (january 24, 1949): 185-186. 94. john milbank, “the poverty of niebuhrianism” in his the word made strange: theology, language, culture (oxford: blackwell, 1997), 233-254. 95. john burk, “moral law, privative evil and christian realism: reconsidering milbank’s ‘the poverty of niebuhrianism’,” studies in christian ethics 22, no. 2 (2009): 221-228. 96. burke cites reinhold niebuhr, an interpretation of christian ethics (new york: harper & brothers, 1935), 144. niebuhr’s ethical critique of religion and nationalism aids our understanding of his approach to zionism. he himself acknowledged israel’s right to choose to be a secular or religious society. he preferred the former because he feared religion’s ability, especially when it was espoused as “true belief,” to identify itself with god’s exclusive will on a particular issue.97 niebuhr did not give a theological grounding to his ethical criticism of nationalism, because he feared that introducing religion into the conflict would absolutize the issues and render compromise impossible. in other words, it would compromise his threefold realism. he became conscious of this in the 1930’s when, as part of his reconstruction of natural law theory, niebuhr went beyond marxism in allowing that the interest of the dominant economic classes within nations accentuate conflicts, but are not the only reason for them. niebuhr saw the conflict between jews and arabs in british mandatory palestine as an example of such a conflict. there were two key factors: the natural will-to-live of two collective nationalities and religions; and the economic differences between the feudalism of the arabs and the technical civilization which the jews were able to introduce into palestine. the participants cannot find a common ground of rational morality from which to arbitrate the issues because the moral judgments which each brings to them are formed by the very historical forces which are in conflict. such conflicts are therefore suband supra-moral.98 niebuhr’s analysis here is clear-sighted, for he recognizes the mutually exclusive nature of the each party’s claim to the land. he also demonstrates how a realist approach would need to be pragmatic, requiring his reconstruction of 97. niebuhr, christian realism and political problems, 97-98. 98. niebuhr, an interpretation of christian ethics, 126-127. moseley, reinhold niebuhr’s approach to the state of israel moseley 18 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): moseley 1-19 natural law precisely because the liberal tendency to ground natural law only in reason will not succeed in this conflict. he even prefigures contemporary dimensions of the conflict. the effort to bring such a conflict under the dominion of a spiritual unity may be partly successful, but it always produces a tragic by-product of the spiritual accentuation of natural conflict. the introduction of religious motives into these conflicts is usually no more than the final and most demonic pretension. religion may be regarded as the last and final effort of the human spirit to escape relativity and gain a vantage-point in the eternal. but when this effort is made without a contrite recognition of the finiteness and relativity which characterizes human spirituality, even in its moments of yearning for the transcendent, religious aspiration is transmuted into sinful dishonesty. historic religions, which crown the structure of historic cultures, thus become the most brutal weapons in the conflict between cultures.99 here we arrive at the limits of niebuhr’s legacy for supporting israel. he was insufficiently immersed in theology, as opposed to ethics, to be able to imagine ways in which the different parties could envisage mutual coexistence by at least partial use of religious discourse. his reconstruction of natural law privileged individual freedom, yet this is precisely what is so problematic to israel’s neighbors where islamic fundamentalism now thrives. niebuhr placed modern israel and zionism outside his theology, because he wanted to communicate with several audiences who did not share similar theological beliefs. consequently, the centrality of zionism to his christian realism has not been appreciated and his reasoning for israel’s right to exist as a jewish state has not been passed on to the mainline protestant churches. instead the idea of the binational state has reappeared, this time on the grounds of palestinian liberation theology. in addition, ronald h. stone, a prominent student of niebuhr, has suggested that should the longenvisaged two-state solution not succeed in abating islamist terrorism, jews should be removed from the middle east and live in the united states. 99. reinhold niebuhr, an interpretation of christian ethics, 126-127. 100 this contradicts niebuhr’s threefold realism, which was moral and took into account america’s relation to europe as well as the middle east. it is incredibly naïve to think that dismantling the state of israel would succeed in lessening islamist terrorism. terror would still strike against western countries, precisely because abandoning israel would be perceived as the “defeat” of the alleged “zionist-crusader conspiracy.” america would presumably still need to learn that niebuhr’s vision of her as “messianic” was heretical. christians and others supportive of israel’s existence living in middle eastern countries would face innumerable problems. unfortunately prominent niebuhr scholars have simply ignored his zionism; so far i have not found rebuttals of stone’s argument in academic literature. ultimately, niebuhr lost the opportunity to articulate a non-supersessionist christian theology that could undergird mainline protestant support for the state of israel. one result is today’s mainline protestant ambivalence towards israel. 100. ronald h. stone, prophetic realism, 165. moseley, reinhold niebuhr’s approach to the state of israel moseley 19 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-2 matthias konradt israel, church, and the gentiles in the gospel of matthew (trans. kathleen ess; baylor-mohr siebeck studies in early christianity; waco: baylor university press, 2014), hardcover, xiii + 485 pp. james w. barker james.barker@wku.edu western kentucky university, bowling green, ky 42101 in the gospel of matthew, jesus twice dispatches his disciples to go and preach. he first focuses exclusively on israel and prohibits ministry to gentiles (mt 10:5), but the resurrected jesus sends his disciples to the gentiles / “nations” (mt 28:19-20). konradt joins previous studies in interpreting the two missions as complementary, such that the disciples’ mission to israel is unending. therefore, according to matthew, neither the gentiles / “nations” nor the church / ekklēsia replaces israel. this point was previously argued by amy-jill levine in the social and ethnic dimensions of matthean social history: “go nowhere among the gentiles” (matt. 10:5b) (studies in the bible and early christianity 14; lewiston: edwin mellen, 1988). konradt’s volume makes a number of other perceptive insights. for example, he elucidates the logic behind the title “son of david,” arguing that because jesus does not become a king like david, the title must refer to david’s earlier role as shepherd. according to konradt, matthew creatively associates jesus’ healing ministry with the davidic messiah, since miraculous healings demonstrate jesus’ care for his people. next, konradt presents an illuminating, thoroughgoing study of the matthean “crowds” (ὄχλοι). matthew consistently reworked his sources, mark and q, to depict the crowds in a positive light. the crowds sharply contrast with jesus’ opponents, namely the pharisees, scribes, and priests. yet konradt overstates (p. 143) by differentiating a crowd of galilean pilgrims lauding jesus’ entry into jerusalem (mt 21) from a crowd of jerusalem’s permanent residents who reject jesus a few days later (mt 27). while adroitly demonstrating how the crowds always align closely with jesus and the disciples, konradt’s argument could be strengthened by recognizing the presence of this theme elsewhere, for example, in mt 26:56b, when “all the disciples left [jesus] and fled.” despite their failure, the risen jesus regathers and recommissions the disciples. the theme of rehabilitation could support konradt’s thesis: the crowd’s culpability in jesus’ condemnation does not undo their earlier positive reception of jesus, and the crowd’s rejection of jesus should not be generalized as all jews rejecting jesus. barker: matthias konradt’s israel, church, and the gentiles 2 in konradt’s reading of matthew, the jewish authorities are the ones who most forcefully reject jesus, and the destruction of jerusalem—especially the temple—in 70 ce is the most significant consequence. matthew prefigures this outcome by a trilogy of parables in chapters 21–22, but these, konradt argues, should not be interpreted as generalizing a rejection of jesus by all israel. matthew never uses the words “judaism” and “christianity,” and it is commendable that konradt focuses on matthew’s terms “israel” and “church.” although konradt argues that in matthew the church does not supersede israel, konradt does read matthew as replacing the priests and the pharisees (p. 379). moreover, according to konradt’s reading of matthew, israel can only find salvation inside the church (p. 379). if that be the case, then matthew may not avoid the charge of supersessionism entirely. regarding matthew’s purported antijudaism, konradt contends, “inasmuch as the pharisees do not represent judaism in matthew ... it would be historically imprecise to label the gospel’s antipharisaic thrust as anti-judaism” (p. 380; emphasis in original). on the related question of jesus’ jewish praxis, konradt rightly points out jesus’ “explicit affirmation of the fundamental validity of all commandments” (p. 357, emphasis in original). yet konradt reads matthew in conformity with galatians 2 and acts 15, such that the matthean church most likely included gentiles who were not required to be circumcised (pp. 320 n. 295; 363). konradt intentionally demurs from the interpretation of matthew’s church as requiring circumcision in direct opposition to paul’s teaching (e.g., david c. sim). conversely, konradt establishes a mediating position, offering a helpful corrective to interpretations of matthew whereby jesus sharply breaks with, or supersedes, torah (e.g., donald a. hagner). the original german edition appeared in 2007, and this series—edited by wayne coppins and simon gathercole—translates “works by leading german scholars that represent outstanding contributions in their own right” (p. ix). konradt’s significant work of matthean scholarship can now have broader influence. konradt’s volume exemplifies meticulous research, astute insights, and measured conclusions. kathleen ess’s excellent english translation is most welcome, and she has ensured that israel, church, and the gentiles in the gospel of matthew will remain relevant to conversations on early jewish–christian relations for the foreseeable future. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012) recent anthologies and resources gregerman r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr compiled by adam gregerman, review editor duchesne, jean, ed. cardinal jean-marie lustiger on christians and jews. mahwah, nj: paulist, 2010. contains speeches by and interviews with cardinal lustiger, archbishop of paris and a convert to catholicism from judaism. fisher, eugene j., and leon klenicki, eds. the saint for shalom: how pope john paul ii transformed catholic-jewish relations. new york: crossroad, 2011. a collection of pope john paul ii’s statements on judaism and jewish-catholic relations throughout his entire papacy, 1979-2005. fisher, eugene j., ed. memoria futuri: catholic-jewish dialogue yesterday, today, and tomorrow; texts and addresses of cardinal william h. keeler. mahwah, nj: paulist, 2012. a collection of statements by cardinal keeler, archbishop of baltimore from 1989-2007 and moderator for catholic-jewish relations for the united states conference of catholic bishops. sherman, franklin, ed. volume one: the road to reconciliation (1945-1985), bridges: documents of the christian-jewish dialogue. new york and mahwah: paulist, 2011. an extensive collection of texts from religious bodies and groups of scholars and clergy from 1945-1985, organized in five parts (protestant statements, roman catholic state ments, ecumenical [christian] statements, joint jewish-christian statements, and jewish viewpoints). introductions by alice l. eckardt, philip a. cunningham, and michael s. kogan. recent anthologies and resources studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): korn res1-7 korn, a jewish response korn res 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr a jewish response to “theological questions and perspectives in jewish-catholic dialogue” by cardinal kurt koch eugene korn, center for jewish-christian understanding and cooperation (israel) a response to cardinal kurt koch’s october 30, 2011 keynote address at seton hall university during the 10 th annual meeting of the council of centers on christian-jewish relations i want to thank the editors of studies in christian-jewish relations for giving me the opportunity to study and to respond to cardinal koch’s recent address given at the 10 th annual meeting of the council of centers on christian-jewish relations, particularly since i was unable to attend the meeting and hear the presentation at that time. i am neither a historian, nor son of a historian. hence, i should not comment on the historical claims (e.g., the nature of “the primal rift,” the extent to which the shoah can(not) be traced to christianity, the degree of christian resistance to the nazi final solution.) as a rabbi and philosopher i am most interested in the theological issues of the unity and differences between our faiths, the relation of christian scriptures to shared scriptures, the conceptions of salvation, mission and monotheism, and the idea of reconciliation that cardinal koch has raised. how much agreement can we attain over these essential religious concepts? what are the implications for catholic-jewish relations in the areas of theology and practical cooperation? what are their roles in proper catholic-jewish dialogue? and perhaps most importantly, how can we ensure that our “shared patrimony” blossoms into a “shared future”? these issues have been at the core of the often hostile catholic-jewish rivalry throughout our troubled history. yet one of the truly wonderful signs of the new-found catholic-jewish friendship (in cardinal koch’s words, “the fundamental new beginning”) is the degree to which the tone and substance of cardinal koch’s address is free of polemics or contention when treating these core subjects. to be sure, tensions remain between jewish and catholic positions on these issues, but i suspect at least some of them have their source in semantics—particularly regarding “reconciliation”—and even where substantive i sense a palpable ambience of cooperation and empathy in cardinal koch’s stance toward the jewish people and judaism. for this, we should all be grateful. i. unity and difference we should pay close attention to cardinal koch’s words regarding the uniqueness of christianjewish relationship in the context of general inter-religious dialogue. i have frequently been challenged to add muslims (and islam) to this dialogue. certainly christian-muslim and jewishmuslim understanding is critical for the future of our ever-shrinking world in which willy-nilly we response studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): korn res1-7 korn, a jewish response korn res 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr are increasingly thrown together, but to do so would only dilute the distinctive jewish-catholic relationship and obscure the unique issues that we must work out together. yet a problem—both theoretical and practical—rears its head in cardinal koch’s accurate formulation of our relationship. judaism is ‘intrinsic’ to christianity but christianity holds no such essential relationship to judaism. most jews believe that they can come to a coherent theological understanding of judaism without encountering christianity at all. hence, there is a greater need to supply reasons to jews for pursuing a rich jewish-christian encounter than there is for knowledgeable and theologically sophisticated christians. and practically, the wounds of past christian-based antisemitism are still open for many jews. thus, whereas our joint encounter is urgent for christians, it seems not so for jews. yet, as cardinal koch correctly implies, faithful jews and christians now stand together on the defensive as cultural and sometimes demographic minorities. we face the same powerful ideologies, foes and political forces that seek to defeat us, both physically and spiritually. this too makes our contemporary relationship even more distinctive and should naturally provide impetus to greater dialogue and cooperation between us. cardinal koch reiterates pope benedict’s call for jewish and christian understandings of holy scriptures to enter into dialogue with one another. this is surely a fruitful and as yet largely untapped agenda for future dialogue. yet aside from the benefits of pure scholarship and the blessings earned from learning more deeply about each other, we need to think carefully about what this dialogue around the bible would look like and toward what ends it would be best directed. here we encounter another fundamental asymmetry: christians can and should approach jewish scriptures as holy and possessing divine dimension, yet jews need not— indeed cannot if they are to be faithful to rabbinic tradition—ascribe the same theological characteristics to exclusively christian scriptures. thus it would seem that if this joint biblical dialogue is not to lapse into mere academic scholarship and proceed as a religious enterprise, it would need to be limited to shared scriptures. is this indeed what rome intends? catholics and jews should spend more time plumbing the meaning of the claim that “the jewish reading of the bible is a possible one.” if this jewish reading that is void of any christology or christian doctrine is possibly correct, how can a christian not see it as separate from the good news of christian scriptures—i.e., marcionism or some form of supersessionism? is it possible for the jewish reading to be (objectively) correct for jews but of necessity objectively incorrect for faithful christians? this is the kind of relativism that for good reason the church usually rejects. on the level of mutual recognition and good relations, this idea is welcome, but it is not apparent to me that it can be made to be theologically coherent. i do not have any definitive answers to these conundrums, but they seem to me to be worthy of systematic pursuit by jews and christians, both together and by themselves. ii. covenant perhaps, then, the joint understanding of the jewish and christian scriptures as literature prefigures some doctrinal and theological issues that jews and christians must confront if they are to understand god’s covenant as the foundation of their religious lives and their relationship with the holy one. most jews have difficulty sharing their covenantal history with christians. this is true both for historical reasons (vying for the same covenantal love led frequently to a harsh and sometimes violent sibling rivalry) and for theological reasons. for jews, covenantal history reached its studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): korn res1-7 korn, a jewish response korn res 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr definitive pre-eschaton apex with revelation at sinai and the mosaic commandments. if so, it is difficult to see christianity as a continuation of that same covenantal history and christians as partners in that covenant without entailing some form of supersession or cancellation of the torah of moses. indeed, as pope benedict has observed in this context, the sinai covenant has been superseded. 1 christians do not understand themselves as obligated in the observance of all the sinaitic commandments. for example, the sinaitic decalogue prohibits making any physical likeness or image of god and requires the observance of the sabbath on the seventh—not the first—day of the week, two commandments that christianity does not acknowledge as binding and that christians do not observe. in sum, i see no way for christians to stand together with jews at sinai. i do applaud cardinal koch’s insistence that jews and christians are both included in the abrahamic covenant reaching back to the very origins of jewish history and judaism, and that were christians to lose their identification with that covenant, they would also lose their historical legacy and spiritual moorings. to be sure, christianity has been greatly successful in fulfilling god’s universal charge to abraham to bring the knowledge of god and his morality to the world: “through you all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.” 2 if the jewish people remain particular and limited through their fidelity to the sinaitic covenant, the church has promoted this abrahamic covenantal telos by spreading god’s word and moral law to the nations. 3 and here the church serves a vital function to israel, reminding us that our commitment to the particularist mosaic legislation must never be allowed to eclipse the universal covenantal vision that god had for all of abraham’s children. now that christianity is no longer a threat to jews and judaism, jews must admit that covenantally, both jews and faithful christians are children of abraham. how jews and christians can share abraham’s covenant, and yet preserve our differentiated roles in divine history so that our continuing distinctive identities are enriched and not threatened, is no trivial challenge. this seems to me to be an essential task for our dialogue. 4 i also deeply appreciate cardinal koch’s insistence that jewish people as the people of god is an ethnological fact in god’s plan, not only a theological community. this point has been often missed on christian thinkers who insist on seeing israel in terms similar to the church—a faith community rather than a people. biblically and historically, jews are a people with both national and cultural characteristics that are essential to our identity and which carry with them the rights and protections accorded to all nations and peoples. it is the people of israel and its permanent endurance in history that provides powerful witness to god’s existence and promise. pope benedict recognized this theological significance of jewish existence when he boldly proclaimed during his visit to auschwitz in 2006: “if this people, by its very existence, was a witness to the god who spoke to humanity and took us to himself, then that god finally had to die and power had to belong to man alone—to those men [nazis], who thought that by force they had made themselves masters of the world.” 1 josef ratzinger (now pope benedict xvi) asserted the supersession of the sinai covenant in the very same passage in which he insists on christian participation in that covenant. many religions one covenant (san francisco, 1999) pp. 70-71. 2 gn 12:3 3 this point was acknowledged by the traditionalist rabbinic authorities maimonides (12 th century) mishneh torah, laws of kings 12:1, jacob emden (18 th century) seder olam rabbah 35-37, sefer ha-shimush 15-17, and commentary on ethics of the fathers 4:11, and samson raphael hirsch, principles of education, “talmudic judaism and society,” 225-227, and nineteen letters on judaism, edited and annotated by joseph elias (jerusalem, 1995). 4 for additional reflections on sharing the abrahamic covenant, see my “covenantal possibilities in a post-polemical age” in studies in christian-jewish relations vol. 6 (2011) found at http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr. http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): korn res1-7 korn, a jewish response korn res 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr important corollaries flow from this recognition. if as both pope benedict and cardinal koch insist, the existence of the jewish people today is no mere political or empirical datum but one that is pregnant with theological significance constituting witness to god, to his covenant and to sacred history, then protecting the existence and security of the jewish people must be a religious obligation—both for jews and the church. and this practical obligation is most urgent today in light of cardinal koch’s observation that “the scourge of anti-semitism seems to be ineradicable in today’s world.” in our time, the state of israel is the home, indeed the body of the jewish people. it is also the best guarantor of jewish survival. if post-holocaust jews have any rational grounds for believing in the survival of the jewish people and that our future is not as precarious as our past, it is only because of the strength of the jewish state to protect them and the friendship of the church and the more than two billion christians around the world. yet the most virulent and acceptable form of antisemitism is anti-zionism. here i refer not merely to opposition to particular israeli policies, but to the denial of the right of the jewish people to their own country, and the aggressive public threats to destroy it politically and militarily. this virulent anti-zionism can be found in extreme leftist political circles, most muslim countries, palestinian liberation theology, some groups within mainline protestant churches and it is now making headway even within the catholic church. while in the past destroying the jewish people took the forms of anti-judaism and racial extermination, today it takes the form of attempts to destroy the jewish state and its citizens. if the continued existence of the jewish people is truly testimony to god’s promise and his faithfulness that the church holds dear, if it is “the taproot of the christian faith,” then it would seem that forcefully and unequivocally supporting the state of israel—but not necessarily all its policies—from its existential enemies is a religious obligation devolving upon the church. this is not a contingent political issue, but a theological necessity. 5 sensitive to the church’s political interests as well as to its responsibility for christians in the middle east, supporting israel’s security and existence must be done carefully. however there seems no theological justification for neutrality or diplomatic silence regarding defending israel— both the people and the state—before the world. aside from the implications for church policy, the theological significance of the jewish people’s return to their covenantal homeland should be a topic for jewish-catholic religious dialogue. the idea of reconciliation, so important in catholic discussions of contemporary catholic-jewish relations and so prominent in cardinal koch’s address, requires fuller exploration and explication. is it primarily the historical reconciliation of old enemies? the moral reconciliation of resolving the claims of each upon the other? the theological reconciliation of our differences and beliefs? if so, to what extent? or the existential reconciliation of two disparate communities that will take place in the distant eschaton? what meaning do jews and christians give to each of these ideas and are they indeed desirable or perhaps threatening? cardinal koch stresses that salvation for jews need not entail conversion to christianity, that jewish witness is still vital to christian faith, and that “unification with the church may occur at a determined point in time which cannot be anticipated.” 6 this i hope reinforces the recent usccb 5 at a november 2011 meeting in new york between cardinal koch and jewish leaders, i was shocked to hear a vatican representative in the cardinal’s delegation imply that a vigorous vatican defence of israel would be a quid pro quo for israeli flexibility in negotiations regarding israel-vatican accords. this exclusively political conception of the relationship was theologically wrong-headed, as well as deeply disturbing to jewish leaders. 6 i take this to mean not in our time but in the distant eschaton, as put by cardinal ratzinger “theological unification is hardly possible within our historical time and perhaps not even desirable.” many religions one covenant, p. 109. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): korn res1-7 korn, a jewish response korn res 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr clarification that efforts at conversion per se have no place in catholic-jewish dialogue. 7 if so, i see no reason whatsoever why any jewish person should object to the church’s insistence in the universal salvific significance of jesus. if the universal significance of jesus is freed from any connotation of conversionary mission “to” the jews 8 , this theological point seems a strictly internal matter of catholic doctrine. of course, it is acutely interesting for students of rational theology and logic to observe how catholic thinkers approach the paradox of jesus’ universal significance and the enduring legitimacy of judaism and jews who continue to deny jesus’ divinity and salvific character. is this divine paradox a vicious inconsistency to be eliminated or a virtuous mystery that is cause for humble reflection and celebration? 9 perhaps the catholic approach to this mystery can guide jews in dealing with some of our own dilemmas, such as how we can be god’s singular chosen people and yet see gentiles also as god’s people. nor should there be any problem with dialogue taking up the difference between the christian belief in the trinity and the jewish denial of it, as long as such discussion avoids the metaphysical question of the ultimate truth of god’s nature (absolutely one or trinitarian). the rabbis long ago made peace with the legitimacy of christians believing in a trinitarian god while prohibiting that belief to jews, who are required to believe in an absolutely monotheistic god. 10 from the point of view of jewish theology and our task together, what is crucial is that we both believe in the one creator of heaven and earth who is in covenantal relation with us. on this point, cardinal koch does us a great service by advancing the promising idea that the best meaning of the trinity to be taken up for development in catholic-jewish dialogue is “god’s devotion to the world initiated already in creation and continued salvation history, so that god lives in a relational unity with his people.” this is a wonderful fertile path for dialogue to follow. if we take up cardinal koch’s call and focus both on the practical meaning of god’s devotion to the world through his relatedness to covenanted peoples, we return to jews and christians being partners in the covenant of abraham and functioning as god’s witnesses. how shall we live the covenant of abraham and by testifying as he did? if we are true to the biblical account of abraham, we must admit that the bible does not portray abraham as a theologian, but as a man of faith, action, and morality. his covenant, then, should above all entail 7 see usccb statement of principles for catholic-jewish dialogue, october 2, 2009 found at http:/www.usccb.org/sia/statementofprinciples.pdf, accessed on february 26, 2012. 8 i urge caution and the need for clarification on this point. cardinal koch quotes walter kasper as stating that “the mission command is just as valid for jews as for the other nations, but it must be realized differently for the jews.” the details of just how mission is different for jews needs to be explicated, and here the details make all the difference for our relationship. perhaps—but not necessarily—kasper’s earlier statement on mission is of help here: there is “no mission to the jews,” either in dialogue or outside of it. there is only “mission with the jews.” there is dialogue with jews; no mission in the proper sense.” (paper delivered at the 17 th meeting of the international catholic-jewish liaison committee, new york, ny, may 1, 2001, 3, published in america magazine, vol. 195, no. 7, september 17, 2001 and www.bc.edu/research/cjl/jcrelations/resources/articles/#dominusiesus.) 9 see richard sklba, "new beginnings: catholic-jewish relations after 40 years," origins 35, no. 31 (january 19, 2006): 509-514, who argues that the tension between the universal theological claim of christianity and the enduring particular validity of the jewish covenant is a mystery to be appreciated. 10 tosefot, b.t. sanhedrin 63b, s.v. assur. see my rethinking christianity: rabbinic positions and possibilities, (littman library of jewish civilization, 2012) pp. 189-215, particularly pp. 197-199. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): korn res1-7 korn, a jewish response korn res 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr a commitment to effective moral testimony and to practical action in sacred history. covenantal jews and christians, therefore, must heed god’s call to bring blessing to the world. when we do this we play an essential role in sacred god’s plan for human history—indeed for the survival of humanity. we do this together by publicly bearing witness to god’s covenantal values. and it is precisely today, after the holocaust and in the midst of cultural forces dominated by materialism, relativism, and extremism that the practical values of abraham’s covenant assume particular urgency. neither catholics nor jews—nor, i believe, humanity—can flourish when these cultural forces dominate human life. following the model of covenanted abraham, defending divine moral values needs to be foremost in our behaviour and theology. 11 simply put, there is no justification for any teleological suspension of the ethical—whether the telos be theological, political, financial, or personal. and general theological agreement on this point does not suffice. both god and human experience are in the details. we need specific testimony and i suggest the following: 1. there is a spiritual center to the universe because the world was created by a loving god, who is intimately involved in human lives and who yearns to redeem his children. jews and christians should be unembarrassed about teaching this reality, as was abraham who made god known as the “god of heaven and earth.” 2. as creator, god is the transcendent authority over human life and who establishes the validity of moral values. although sometimes difficult to apply, moral values are neither relative nor human conventions, but intrinsic parts of the universe that are essential for human flourishing. the fundamental moral values must remain primary to all human endeavors. 3. all persons are created in the image of god, and each person has intrinsic sanctity deriving from this transcendent quality. all persons therefore possess inherent dignity and much be treated as such. because human life has this spiritual character, human worth cannot be measured solely in utilitarian or materialistic terms. the divine essence of each person ensures that individual human life is not a process of biological decay toward death but a journey of spiritual growth toward life. and because every person is created in the divine image, any assault on innocent human life is an assault on god that diminishes the divine presence in the world. 4. abraham learned from the binding of isaac that god loves human life and abhors death. thus, abraham’s covenanted children must teach that killing in the name of god is contrary to the god of abraham, and all forms of irrational religious extremism and religious violence 12 are false idolatries that the world must reject. 5. as abraham defended and taught justice and righteousness before the destruction of sodom and gomorrah, his children are duty bound to teach social justice and display individual righteousness. it was abraham’s moral protest to god and concern for the moral treatment of others that distinguished his righteousness from the self-righteousness of noah, and that earned him the privilege to be the father of the covenant. our commitment to justice and righteousness for 11 in the bible (gn 18:17-19) as well as jewish theology, abraham merited being father of the covenant because he demonstrated that “he would instruct his children and his posterity to keep the way of the lord by doing righteousness and justice.” 12 i exclude from this category capital punishment, which draws its justification from biblical and theological sources according to many religious theories of legal justice, as well as actions in self-defense against verifiable and imminent physical threats. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): korn res1-7 korn, a jewish response korn res 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr all human creatures is the test of our fidelity to god’s covenant that is designed to bring blessing to the world. 6. as faithful christians and jews believing in messianic history, we must teach the eternal possibility of human progress and moral reform as part of human history. we cannot fall prey to pessimism, nihilism, cynicism masquerading as “political realism,” or a malthusian acceptance of war, disease, and oppression as permanent features of human destiny. hope in possibility of a peaceful humanity is the meaning of our messianic belief. although critical theological differences exist between us, both jews and christians believe that god yearns to enter the world and that human history will culminate in messianic redemption. our task today is to make the world a better place through teaching and witness, to create a place where god can enter. but neither faith can do this in isolation from our covenantal partner. overcoming our adversarial past is a slow and painful task. will we have the courage and wisdom to do so? the ground for this holy task has been broken by our leaders in the past 60 years, and we must continue to till this still tender vineyard. our covenantal father demands nothing less from us. scjr 13, no. 1 (2018): 1-4 william l. krewson jerome and the jews: innovative supersessionism (eugene, oregon: wipf and stock, 2017), paperback, x + 208 pp. matthew kraus matthew.kraus@uc.edu university of cincinnati, cincinnati, oh 45221 the fourth-century c.e. is a fascinating period. as a liminal moment during a time of increasing christianization of the roman empire and of flourishing christian, jewish, and pagan cultures, scholars of the period face exciting questions about the interactions between these worlds. it is a time of both defining and simultaneously transgressing boundaries. this especially applies to the christian scholar jerome (ca. 348-419), who famously translated the bible from hebrew to latin (“according to the hebrew truth”), later known as the vulgate. he had unique encounters with the hebrew text, jewish traditions of interpretation, actual jews, and the promised land. in a new monograph, william l. krewson addresses these subjects in great detail by directly confronting a long-standing scholarly crux: how can we explain jerome’s positive assessment of jewish scholarship with his hostile statements about jews and judaism? according to the author, the answer lies in his radical engagement with jewish texts, biblical exegesis, and the land of israel, all of which shape an innovative theology of supersessionism. in contrast to the prevailing view that his inconsistent portrayal of jews can be attributed to rhetorical positionings, ad hoc contingencies, or personal idiosyncrasies, krewson argues that “jerome’s ambivalence [toward the hebrew text and canon, and more broadly, toward jews and judaism] is not a problem to be solved but a reflection of his agenda” (p. 63). krewson extends the historical argument even further to suggest that jerome’s approach to supersessionism offers a basis for contemporary approaches to christian-jewish relations. the work is well-written, and his study of supersessionism in terms of text, interpretation, and geography is useful. while claims for the unique impact of jerome’s approach to supersessionism are disputable, his giving prominence to this issue and connecting jerome to contemporary narratives of christians as the “true israel” should be applauded. the book consists of an introduction and five chapters. in addition to summarizing the main arguments of the book, the introduction describes r. kendall kraus: william l. krewson’s jerome and the jews 2 soulen’s three types of supersessionism: “economic” (jewish tradition is preparatory and dispensable), “punitive” (jews receive divine retribution for rejecting jesus christ), and “structural” (jews are ignored in ecclesiastical discourse) (pp. 2-3). krewson argues that jerome is an economic and punitive supersessionist, not a structural one, since he also embraces jewish elements in his work. considering jerome’s thought according to the rubrics of text, exegesis, and land, he asks three corresponding questions: how does jerome’s dependence on the hebrew scriptures relate to his claims of christian superiority? why does he advance certain contemporary jewish biblical interpretations while maintaining the “christological fulfillment of the old testament” (p. 4)? why does jerome settle in the jewish homeland and continue his study of hebrew and jewish traditions? before delving into these topics, however, krewson offers a brief literature review, relying heavily on english-language scholarship. in chapter one, “a survey of recent scholarship,” he traces the evolution of scholarly models regarding ancient judaism and christianity, and especially christian supersessionism, by looking first at scholarship on the so-called “parting of the ways,” and then looking at those who question whether “parting” and “ways” are even adequate terms. krewson says that daniel boyarin, in his book dying for god: martyrdom and the making of christianity and judaism (stanford: stanford university press, 1999), exemplifies the recent scholarly turn from a “parting of the ways” model, with his preference for a metaphor of waves that may diverge or converge. this better accounts for a fluid understanding of judaisms and christianities which cannot be described as “ways” and therefore cannot have “parted.” then he briefly surveys recent developments in hieronymian scholarship, highlighting the character and rationale of jerome’s use of the hebrew text and of jewish traditions. jerome’s justifications for such use reflect a sophisticated approach to hebrew sources, literary attempts to construct an authoritative identity, and / or a colonialist assertion of power over jews by controlling their texts and traditions. missing in krewson’s account is adequate attention to jerome’s background in classical (non-jewish) texts, a feature that cannot be separated from his relationship to jewish traditions. the subsequent chapters explore jerome’s ambivalence toward jewish traditions, studying topics previously covered by others, although without the same detail and orientation. in chapter 2, “return to the source: jerome’s ambivalent pursuit of jewish scriptures,” krewson catalogues jerome’s positive and negative views concerning the hebrew biblical text, the septuagint, and the hebrew and greek canons, thereby highlighting his inconsistency. krewson, in chapter 3, “‘back to the hebrew truth’: jerome’s ambivalent quest for jewish truth,” traces his praises of and derogatory references to the “hebrew truth” in his letters, prologues, and commentaries to show how he reshapes “christian supersessionism into a more relational model of appropriation and appreciation” (p. 71). more specifically, jerome acts as an iconoclast, traditionalist, and gatekeeper between jewish and christian traditions. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) in chapter 4, “‘bethlehem…now ours’: jerome’s ambivalent remapping of jewish land,” krewson demonstrates that his ambiguous attitude toward the jewish text and jewish exegesis within the framework of supersessionism parallels his attitude toward the holy land. this is evident in his advocacy of christian pilgrimage as a way to displace jewish attachment to the land. further, he seeks to elevate the status of bethlehem over jerusalem. similarly, his supersessionism is evident in his translation and update of eusebius’ onomasticon, seen for example in his addition of references to events in christian history at many sites. krewson notes parallels in jerome’s writings between literally living in the holy land and metaphorically inhabiting jewish texts and traditions, though otherwise much in this chapter has been presented by brouria bitton-aschkelony, andrew jacobs, andrew cain, and others. krewson makes the case in chapter five, “‘ask the jews!’: transforming jerome’s supersessionism into a basis for christian-jewish relations,” for using jerome as a foundation for christian-jewish relations. he argues that jerome provides “useful paradigms for insights into contemporary christian and jewish interaction” (p. 139). in his efforts to apply jerome as a model for contemporary jewish-christian relations, krewson has to repeat previous material, but this enables the chapter to stand by itself. the author does a competent job laying out the evidence for jerome’s ambiguous attitude toward jews and judaism. his claim, however, that these ambiguities represent an innovative supersessionism is not convincing largely because krewson gives insufficient attention to the ways classical thought influenced jerome. this can be seen, for example, in his description of jerome as a “complex mixture of an iconoclastic christian hebraist, a traditional christian supersessionist, and authoritative dispenser of hebrew truth for the christian church” (p. 98). his continuous engagement with his beloved cicero, virgil and the rest of the formative authors from his early education are literally absent from the mix. a specific illustration of why neglect of his classical learning is problematic can be found in his mistranslation of jerome’s prologue to daniel. it is not his jewish instructor who says “by his language ‘persistent work conquers all’,” but rather the hebrew interlocutor repeats “that saying [from virgil’s georgics 1:146] ‘persistent work conquers all’ in his own tongue” (p. 77). it has long been accepted by scholars that jerome was drawn to the hebrew language and traditions because of his studies in the classical philological tradition, and so it is the similarity of a hebrew adage to a classical text by virgil that gave him (in krewson’s words) “personal solace from one of his hebrew instructors.” by not addressing the classical background, krewson overstates jerome’s iconoclasm. in his fourth century context, with flourishing jewish, christian, and classical cultures and the christianization of the roman elites, his attempt to improve the latinity and authority of the bible based on sound philological principles would not be iconoclastic or controversial. in fact, jerome had many supporters of his work. what primarily provoked controversy were the extreme effects of jerome’s asceticism on roman women and his brush with origenist theology, not his biblical studies. kraus: william l. krewson’s jerome and the jews 4 krewson’s omission of augustine’s views of jews and judaism is especially acute. he does appear in the book, but as a defender of the septuagint. however, his argument that the jews should remain a protected but degraded minority under christian rule (a position later encoded in roman law) and thereby serve as a cautionary illustration of unfaithfulness to god is not much at odds with jerome’s views. a similar overstatement of jerome’s iconoclasm is krewson’s description of him as a self-proclaimed translating “prophet” (p. 65); krewson later seems to reject this claim, noting that jerome portrays himself as a scholar who “has no need to promote himself as a divine prophet” (p. 96). for krewson, the usefulness of jerome for contemporary christian-jewish relations depends on his claim that jerome has a systematic theology of supersessionism that can account for his ambiguous characterization of jews, judaism, and jewish tradition. however, he does not make a convincing case for the coherency of this position because the evidence suggests that jerome’s initial interest was in hebrew and biblical studies with the need to assert his supersessionism so enthusiastically emerging as a by-product. nevertheless, there is much to recommend an attempt to connect jerome to contemporary christian-jewish dialogue. after all, he surely had an interest in jewish traditions and the hebrew bible, and his residence in the holy land put him in dialogue with actual jews. even so, using jerome as a paradigm is somewhat of a stretch, since as the author himself argues, jerome believes that the covenant with the jews has been abrogated, “a version…of ‘strong supersessionism’” which is still found among some contemporary christians and which “has changed little since jerome’s time” (p. 151). since jerome did not support such a theological dialogue, i wonder if it is the study of jerome rather than the content of his arguments that ultimately might benefit the jewish-christian conversation. perhaps the real lesson from jerome is that christians who legitimize jewish texts, biblical interpretations, and the claim to the holy land might open up a valuable dialogue regarding supersessionism. scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-3 will stadler palestinian christians and the old testament: history, hermeneutics, and ideology (minneapolis, mn: fortress press, 2015), xxxiii + 422 pp. björn krondorfer bjorn.krondorfer@nau.edu northern arizona university, flagstaff, arizona 86011 bringing to the attention of american and european christians the plight of palestinian christians and evaluating the writings of palestinian theologians and church leaders are important tasks. too often in the west, palestinians are presented in pejorative terms and are viewed solely as muslims, though a portion of the overall palestinian population is christian (including many who may not be religious). on the other hand, there are westerners who have become advocates for the palestinians, sympathizing with their experience of oppression and efforts to find hope and resilience while living under israeli military occupation. in particular, some western christians have been exposed to and in turn championed a distinctive palestinian version of liberation theology. hence, there is a need for a critical study of palestinian christian theologies that is attuned to the plight of palestinians while also judicious in its assessment of them. the title of stadler’s book promises to offer just such a study but, regrettably, it largely disappoints. the stated goal of the study is to tease out the hermeneutical elements and premises that operate in various writings of contemporary theologians “commonly identified as ‘arab christians’ who live in israel and palestine” (p. 4). stadler seeks to answer this central question: “how [do] palestinian christians read the old testament in a context in which biblical texts are routinely read as an endorsement of their suffering?” (p. xix). to approach this question, the author proposes to investigate and advance what he calls “pchot,” a palestinian christian hermeneutics of the old testament. stadler looks at contemporary theologians from different christian denominations including anglican naim ateek, lutheran mitri raheb, baptist naim khoury, evangelical yohanna katanacho, catholic michel sabbah (former latin patriarch), and greek orthodox atallah hanna (archbishop at the church of the holy sepulcher). their differences are briefly sketched in the opening chapter, and we thus gain insight into the spectrum of theological approaches to palestinian christian identity after the creation of the modern nation state of israel. this chapter is perhaps the most valuable part of the book. whereas, for example, naim khoury largely adopts the dispensationalist belief of evangelical krondorfer: will stadler’s palestinian christians and the old testament 2 fundamentalism and hence gives “unconditional support for the jewish people and israel” (p. 47), naim ateek expressly develops a palestinian theology of liberation. christ is seen as a hermeneutical key to reading the old testament, allowing him to sidestep “nationalist torah-oriented traditions” (p. 35). in another example, mitri raheb, trained in the german-lutheran tradition that emphasizes the primacy of scripture, reads the bible as “a book about a minority” for whom persecution was an “unfortunate reality” (p. 42). he therefore places the crucifixion, as an experience of persecution, at the hermeneutical center. he also nuances luther’s law-gospel distinction to support an eschatological message of hope for palestinians in the “midst of catastrophe” (p. 45). greek orthodox hanna is embedded in a tradition of replacement theology and “typological interpretations of the old testament” (p. 72). these theological stances allow him to advance a palestinian identity in “opposition to the modern state of israel” (p. 67). this helpful opening chapter stays entirely descriptive, setting up a reader’s expectation that it will be followed by an in-depth, critical analysis of the different hermeneutical keys employed in these theologies. instead, the next three chapters, while also largely descriptive, offer historical sketches of the increasingly deteriorating relations between palestinians and the newly arriving jews settling in the land of israel. this history is traced from the “dawn of zionism” (chapter 2) to the periods of the british mandate (chapter 3) and then following the creation of the state of israel, with its succeeding wars and intifadas (chapter 4). each chapter begins with a very general historical summary that should have been placed into footnotes. more interesting and controversial aspects of these historical narratives (such as comparisons between the creation of the state of israel and the palestinian nakba) are avoided with phrases such as “th[is] debate will not be rehearsed here” (p. 176). surprisingly, no longer are the writings of the contemporary theologians introduced earlier central to these chapters. instead, he quotes from numerous church and council statements. these are an altogether different genre that requires other tools for textual-political analysis. there is an interesting attempt in chapter 4 to distinguish four political phases that influenced different hermeneutical assumptions (1948-1967; 1967-1975; 1983-1987; post1987), but the brevity with which they are treated leaves the reader wanting more. a reader assuming that chapters 2-4 were intended as an historical interlude offered in order to enrich the investigation of the hermeneutics of contemporary palestinians theologians will be frustrated with the final two chapters. a coherent argument is no longer discernible. chapter 5 introduces three non-palestinian theologians who addressed the israeli-palestinian conflict: michael prior, a catholic biblical and liberation theologian in great britain and outspoken critic of zionism and israel; american marianist priest charles h. miller, who advocates a reading of the old testament for palestinian spirituality only within the “living tradition of the [catholic] church” (p. 222); and gershon gerel, a messianic jew and biblical tour guide with a ph.d. from hebrew university who accuses palestinian theologians of “de-judaizing” the bible (p. 336). summarizing each of their approaches, stadler adds what he calls a “critique” of their hermeneutics, but 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) those are rather short and flat. he never persuasively explains what these three men contribute to the main question of his book finally, in chapter 6 stadler shifts to an entirely different topic, an extensive exegesis of deuteronomy 7. in great detail, this chapter follows the conventions of source, literary, and rhetorical analysis, and presents verse-by-verse interpretations of prior exegetes. stadler justifies this move because he sees in deuteronomy 7 a key text that epitomizes the problems palestinian christians have with integrating the old testament into their theologies. central here is his interpretation of the term herem, which, he says, can be translated quite broadly. often, it has violent and triumphalist implications (ban, exclusion, rendering harmless, purification, total destruction, etc.). however, stadler suggests that herem can be rendered in a more positive light as a means of “bringing two disparate communities together with the purpose of uniting them politically and religiously” (p. 315). he thus hopes to “provide a significant and substantial resource for palestinian christians” to re-appropriate positively the old testament and also to “provide a way forward for jewish-christian relations” (p. 342). while his intentions are laudable, it is hard to see how this specific exegetical study of the term herem relates back to the larger concerns of palestinian christians as summarized and outlined in mostly descriptive terms in the book’s previous chapters. this overall lack of focus is perhaps the most serious weakness of palestinian christians and the old testament. regrettably, the author missed many promising opportunities to make a real contribution to our understanding by failing to provide an empathetic reading and critical analysis of contemporary palestinian christian theologies. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): knitter r1-2 brill, judaism and other religions knitter r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr alan brill judaism and other religions: models of understanding (new york: palgrave macmillan, 2010), hardcover, xiv + 275 pp. paul f. knitter, union theological seminary in this book, alan brill has set himself a formidable task: not to offer a jewish theology of religious pluralism (which would be formidable enough), but to collect the building materials for such a theology. he wants to assemble, rather than to construct; to gather, rather than to select. fortunately, he does not entirely succeed. he does not, because he (or anyone) cannot, keep the two moves entirely separate. while he assembles and gathers, he reveals preferences for construction. that is a big part of the significance, and the charm, of his book. he first announces the dire situation he hopes to repair. contemporary jewish theologians, in contrast to their christian counterparts, have “sorely neglected” the need to make sense of the perduring fact of religious diversity (p. 8). but to rise to this task, jewish scholars will have to abide by their tradition’s hermeneutical leitmotif: “the criterion of textuality” (p. 11). he explains: “the discussion [about other religions] cannot go forward without a sound grounding in the past texts and engagement with past theological rubrics” (p. 225). this book will take up the task of providing such grounding and such rubrics, mainly from “the rabbinic literature” which provides “the core texts of the jewish tradition” (p. 41). having identified the primacy of “textuality” for any jewish theology of religions, brill proceeds, in the bulk of the book, to show how the multiple voices and visions in the bible, rabbinic thought, and jewish tradition can be categorized, sometimes neatly and sometimes awkwardly, within the categories used by christian theologians of religions: as exclusivist, inclusivist, pluralist, or (here he adds an ambiguous new category) universalist. but he makes it clear from the beginning (though he may not be so clear at the end) that he is not out to privilege one model over the others. indeed, he proposes these models as a wardrobe from which jews can choose depending on the occasion: “as dutiful jews we need not always choose one position over the others…[we can] shift our stories between inclusivist, exclusivist, and pluralist positions in accordance with our own inner dialogues, external contexts, and practical situation” (pp. 21-22). although he insists on the fluidity and relativity of all the models, he is quite clear on locating people and texts within them: ▪ exclusivist views, which hold the torah and judaism as “the sole revealed religion” and tend to classify other religions as demonic and idolatrous, are found especially in juridical appraisals in the halakhah, as well as in the “demonic dualism in the kabbalah.” brill notes that such castigating assessments were often forged in historical contexts of persecution and then raised to “metaphysical abstraction” (pp. 151, 163). ▪ inclusivists are inclined to view other religions as “part of a greater entity of religion” and to see them as playing “providential role[s]” (p. 97). while acknowledging other religions, they hold to review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): knitter r1-2 brill, judaism and other religions knitter r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr jewish particularity, which sometimes is understood to supersede the others. he finds this view represented by yaakov emden (1697-1776) and abraham isaak kook (1865-1935). ▪ although brill offers two different chapters on universalist and pluralist perspectives, in the end, it is somewhat difficult to identify defining differences between them. universalists in his view seem to affirm the validity of many religions based on their commonalities, while pluralists do the same in view of diversity: “universalism opens us to the natural human elements in coming toward god and the brotherhood of man [sic], the basis of religious humanism. pluralism lends dignity to human difference and diversity” (p. 225). he offers a line-up of contemporary jewish pluralists—david hartman, zalman schachter-shalomi, irving greenberg, elliot dorff, michael kogan, and jonathan sacks—and suggests that they represent a “camouflaged universalism” (pp. 130, 148). although brill suggests that we will have to wait for a future book for a clearer statement of his own views (his judaism and the world religions has subsequently appeared), in his final chapter he seems to opt for what looks like a pluralist model for a contemporary jewish theology of religions. given the “new religious landscape in america” and in much of the world calling for interreligious co-existence and collaboration; given the changing attitudes of christians toward jews (in which churches are “moving from persecutor to greatest friend” of jews [p. 235]); given the greater security and “sense of at-homeness” that brill sees as necessary for any positive jewish view of other religions (p. 169); and given this general state of the world and of judaism, brill boldly announces that: it is time for judaism to take its rightful place as part of the global parliament of religions …it is time for us to put aside the role of a nation of victims that we assumed due to circumstances of history, and return to the role played by our ancestors abraham, isaac, and jacob: heroes of divine history…(p. 231). instead of tagging his theology of religions as “pluralistic,” he calls it “hospitable.” hospitality towards those of other religious ways is the moral demand on contemporary jews, at least in the united states: “tolerance is not enough…we need hospitality” (p. 226). and hospitality calls for “conversation, graciousness, listening and mutual respect…genuine openness to the other” (pp. 227-28). such a pluralistic hospitality toward others will in no way diminish or threaten jewish identity and particularity, but it will require “moving forward…beyond provincialism toward understanding judaism as a faith among faiths” (p. 239). brill has done a notable, indeed a remarkable, service in this book, primarily for his fellow jewish believers and theologians but also for christians, muslims, and others engaged in interreligious dialogue. he has admirably carried out the formidable task he assigned himself—to take the necessary first step of gathering the abundant sources for a jewish theology of religions. but he has also made clear some of the next steps that those sources make possible, or even demand. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): leonhard r1-2 langer, cursing the christians? leonhard r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr ruth langer cursing the christians? a history of the birkat haminim (oxford and new york: oxford university press, 2012), hardcover, 389 pp. clemens leonhard, university of münster cursing the christians? discusses the history and the broad array of meanings of one of the most controversial and unstable jewish prayers, the so-called “blessing”—a euphemism for the “curse”—“of the heretics,” which is found in the amidah (standing prayer) of the weekday liturgy. even if the occasional visitor to a sabbath or festival synagogue service may not be exposed to this prayer, it plays a role of paramount importance in the history of the relationship between judaism and christianity. while this “blessing” did not emerge as a specifically anti-christian curse, it is clear that some jews and christians interpreted this prayer as such later on. in this book, langer illustrates the multifarious historical meanings of the different forms of this text, which also reflect the rich humanistic heritage of judaism. the book is divided into two parts. in the first half (pp. 3-181) langer provides a concise description of the history of the birkat haminim and diverse formulations of it. in the second half (pp. 187-254) langer presents the data on which her conclusions and descriptions are based. five appendices give critical editions of the various versions of the prayer. an extensive apparatus of notes as well as a glossary, a comprehensive bibliography, and elaborate indexes guide the readers through more complex aspects of the discussion. thus, the book is both a history of this prayer and a rich archive of sources and their interpretation. langer’s arguments are presented clearly and well-structured. she discusses other opinions equitably, concisely, but with sufficient sophistication. she does not make extensive use of technical terminology and explains her presuppositions. the brevity of her presentation has its price. readers are advised to equip themselves with translations of the talmud and to be prepared to read some paragraphs twice. consequently, they will be drawn into an intriguing scholarly narrative and rewarded greatly for their efforts. langer’s methods for studying the highly diverse versions are impressive. after all, forms of this prayer originated in the first half of the first millennium and versions were continuously recited until today. the few rabbinic and patristic texts that seem to hint at the blessing do not yield reliable data about its origins. the birkat haminim and many other sources for the development of jewish (and christian) liturgies of late antiquity must be reconstructed on the basis of later manuscripts or dubious sources, like short polemical remarks by ancient christian authors about what “the jews”—perhaps from their time, perhaps from earlier generations—are allegedly doing in their synagogues. langer rightly emphasizes that there is no ground for reconstructing any form of the prayer antedating the middle ages. thus, the paucity of early sources is in stark contrast to the overwhelming range of later material, especially versions found in the cairo geniza. nearly every written or printed version of the amidah as well as literature that expounds aspects of the prayer book and halakhic (legal) treatments of the prayers are sources for langer’s study. review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): leonhard r1-2 langer, cursing the christians? leonhard r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr she masterfully generates plausible hypotheses for the early times for which little data is available and retains control of the complex history of the great number of later texts. she argues that liturgical texts are not transmitted as texts that must be preserved unchanged (like the hebrew bible). rather, they are adapted to later jews’ own needs. these adaptations are found in actual liturgical texts and influence ideas about ideal liturgical practices and reconstructed liturgical practices of a past epoch. finally, some jews, to avoid censorship, altered prayers for use in printed books. langer also gathers material that shatters facile assumptions about the social impact of this prayer. for example, she notes the differences between the versions from islamic and christian contexts and the absence of any known muslim reactions to the birkat haminim (even with the inclusion of several categories of “evildoers” that might have provoked muslims too). langer’s book has important implications for contemporary theological thinking about the relationship between jews and christians, their perceptions of each other, and their willingness to grapple with a most troubling past, as is evident in their liturgies. the birkat haminim is studied by modern scholars who are members of the religious communities that inherited the memories of their past conflicts. against christian assumptions that judaism is an outdated and petrified remnant of a much earlier era, langer’s study of jewish liturgy demonstrates that judaism was and is a thriving religious system. jews were and are prepared to change their liturgies and customs and have always remained alert observers of their social contexts. in her short afterword on modern discussions of the birkat haminim (pp. 183–85), langer points out how jews went to great lengths to reassess their relationship toward christianity already many decades before the path-breaking statement nostra aetate on judaism at the second vatican council from 1965. just as this statement and others illustrate efforts by the catholic church (and other churches which offered similar statements) to rethink relations with jews, langer shows how some jews minimized the anti-christian aspects of the birkat haminim in the last few centuries out of conciliatory and humanistic motives. this is a contrast to earlier times, when jewish scholars produced apologetic explanations that the text was not directed against christians. cursing the christians? is first-class liturgical scholarship and makes a powerful theological statement about modern jewish-christian relations. the book will be of interest to a variegated readership. it is the best and most comprehensive treatment of its subject available today and will remain the magisterial study of this topic for a long time. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): lucci r1-3 nelson, the hebrew republic lucci r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr eric nelson the hebrew republic: jewish sources and the transformation of european political thought (cambridge ma: harvard university press, 2010), hardcover, 229 pp. diego lucci, american university in bulgaria this book by eric nelson, professor of government at harvard university, is a significant contribution to the current debate on the use of jewish sources in early modern political thought, particularly in the republican currents of the 17th century. according to nelson, while renaissance humanists concentrated on the pagan inheritance of greek and roman antiquity, “in the seventeenth century, in the full fervor of the reformation, …political theology reentered the mainstream of european intellectual life. the protestant summons to return to the biblical text brought with it incessant appeals to god’s constitutional preferences as embodied in scripture.… during this period, christians began to regard the hebrew bible as a political constitution, designed by god himself for the children of israel. they also came to see the full array of newly available rabbinical texts as authoritative guides to the institutions and practices of this perfect republic” (pp. 2-3). nelson thus examines the origins of some central ideas of modern political thought, generated “not as a by-product of advancing secularization, but rather out of the deeply theologized context of the biblical century” (p. 3). in fact, in the 16th and 17th centuries the hebrew bible, the talmud, and several rabbinic writings were printed and made available in their original language to christian scholars. moreover, hebrew masterpieces such as the zohar, the targums, numerous midrashic commentaries, several talmudic treatises, and the works of maimonides and other major jewish thinkers were translated into latin. the hebrew revival hence contributed to transforming “european literature and criticism, medicine and science, theology and ecclesiology, and philosophy and law” (p. 16). however, nelson’s book “is concerned with one aspect of the phenomenon in particular: its intersection with political thought” (p. 16). the first chapter of the book deals with the rise of republican exclusivism. nelson points out that, until the renaissance, “republicanism was always a relative position…characterized by the claim that republics are better than monarchies” (p. 23). it was in the 17th century that the idea that republics are the only legitimate regimes emerged and spread, particularly among english puritan intellectuals. nelson focuses especially on the use that john milton made of rabbinic materials to infer that the state established by moses was a republic and that “monarchy is itself a sin; it is everywhere and always the act of bowing down to flesh and blood instead of god, and is therefore tantamount to idolatry” (p. 37). in fact, milton’s position, which strongly influenced other english republican thinkers, such as james harrington and algernon sidney, was based on a combined reading of deuteronomy (especially chapter 17), the first book of samuel (particularly chapter 8), and the midrashic commentary on deuteronomy. another modern political concept dating back to the 17th century is that of wealth redistribution, which is examined in the second chapter of the volume. nelson observes that the issue of redistribution resulted from the renaissance rediscovery of the roman agrarian laws, and the rise of theories of redistribution was furthered by the consideration of the biblical land laws. in fact, it review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): lucci r1-3 nelson, the hebrew republic lucci r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr was through the medium of rabbinic commentaries on the torah that the dutch scholar petrus cunaeus, author of de republica hebraeorum (1617), found a justification for land redistribution in the biblical text. cunaeus’ position in favor of redistribution was later adopted by harrington and thus entered the debate on land and property in puritan england. (i would add that the puritan debate on redistribution was particularly acute because of the need to reward those who had served parliament during civil wars.) the third chapter deals with the theme of the hebrew theocracy in the development of the early modern theories of religious toleration, particularly in the erastian milieus of the netherlands and the english revolution. erastianism is the theory that the state ought to have jurisdiction over religious matters. however, erastian theorists disagreed among themselves about the degree to which the civil magistrate should regulate religious observance. cunaeus played a crucial role in promoting a broad view of religious toleration, and he based his theory of toleration on an interpretation of the torah as mediated by the talmud and maimonides. to the dutch hebraist, not only the gentiles who lived in the “hebrew republic,” but also the jews were bound by the law to observe only principles necessary for establishing a political society and maintaining the civil peace. his position was later confirmed by the english hebraist john selden and especially by james harrington, who, in the commonwealth of oceana (1656), highlighted the necessity of extensive religious freedom in the ideal political community. nelson’s criticism against the mainstream narrative of the development of modern political thought explicitly targets mark lilla’s, jonathan israel’s, and the late perez zagorin’s views of the rise of republicanism and toleration in the early modern era. nelson challenges the idea that the modern concepts of toleration, liberty, equality, and justice emerged merely from a process of secularization, in which all appeals to a higher revelation came to be considered illegitimate and a separation between church and state was regarded as necessary. his analysis shows that the rise of republican exclusivism, redistribution theories, and religious toleration was strongly indebted to the “hebrew revival” of the biblical century. he therefore concludes his book with a brief analysis of spinoza’s and locke’s borrowings from 17th-century erastianism in their works on the civil government and religious toleration. the fact that nelson’s analysis of spinoza’s and locke’s ideas of government and toleration is very short, and hence partial, is the only significant flaw in this brilliant volume. had nelson offered a more complex assessment of spinoza’s and locke’s erastian roots, and had he examined the reasons for the significant differences between those two influential authors’ works and their erastian sources, especially regarding spinoza’s view of philosophy and revealed religion and locke’s distinction between the spheres of politics and religion, he would have provided an even more convincing discussion of the idea that modern political thought resulted merely from a process of secularization. moreover, nelson presents an excellent analysis of the connections between the development of christian hebraism and the transformation of republican thought. however, as regards the origins and implications of the christian interest in jewish political traditions and sources, he concentrates especially on academic environments, and does not focus enough on the social and political contexts that contributed to, and were affected by, the intellectual phenomenon under consideration, particularly in the netherlands, before and after the controversial synod of dordt, and in england at the time of the puritan revolution and the commonwealth. all the same, the hebrew republic is in many respects a groundbreaking volume. in fact, it presents a comprehensive and original analysis of a significant theme and opens new research perspectives. it would indeed be interesting to study the reciprocal influences between christian and jewish views of the hebrew republic in the 17th century, with special focus on rabbi studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): lucci r1-3 nelson, the hebrew republic lucci r 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr simone luzzatto’s unorthodox interpretation of mosaic judaism as a political model inspired by “reason of state,” already highlighted by historians bernard septimus, abraham melamed, and benjamin ravid. another issue still to be examined is the impact that the 17th-century theories of the hebrew republic had on republican authors of the 18th century. (the only exception in this respect is the work of the freethinker john toland, whose interpretation of mosaic judaism, strongly influenced by cunaeus, harrington, and luzzatto, has been studied by several historians, most prominently by justin champion.) the issue of the long-term impact of those 17th-century theories is relevant, more generally, to the evolution of christian-jewish relations in the context of the intellectual, cultural, and social dynamics that paved the way to the age of enlightenment. nelson points out that his book focuses on “how european christians in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries interacted with a foreign corpus of political and theological writings. although…jews played an important role in the dissemination of the hebrew texts with which this study is concerned, the political debates that these texts came to structure took place among christians—christians who, it must be said, had for the most part never met a jew, and who were (again for the most part) anything but philo-semites” (p. 7). though nelson does not look to later periods, we should note that the hebrew revival of the 17th century brought about the gradual emancipation of jewish studies from the dominion of christian theology. this process favored a rethinking of judaism and jewish history, and hence of the jews’ status in christian europe, that was largely uninfluenced by traditional, christian, supersessionist views and concepts. this phenomenon had significant consequences in the age of enlightenment, as it led, on the one hand, to the debate on jewish emancipation, and on the other, to the development of new, secular forms of anti-jewish hostility. nelson’s intellectually lively and immensely erudite study can thus contribute also to the ongoing historiographical debate about the long-term cultural, social, and political implications of christian engagement with jewish thought in the early modern era—a subject on which such scholars as ronald schechter, adam sutcliffe, and jonathan karp have written excellent essays in the last few years. in conclusion, nelson’s book is an extremely important contribution to the debate on the roots of modern political thought. in fact, this brilliant study in intellectual history questions some prominent elements of the conventional narrative of secularization and explores a topic crucial to understanding the evolution of christian attitudes toward judaism in the early modern era. nelson’s analysis will thus lead to a rethinking of the origins of some of the foundational political concepts of modernity, especially religious toleration, distributive justice, and civil equality, in light of the attention that a number of 16thand 17th-century christian scholars devoted to jewish political and legal traditions. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-3 richard kalmin migrating tales: the talmud’s narratives and their historical context (berkeley: university of california press, 2014), hardcover, xxii + 282 pp. malka z. simkovich msimkovich@ctu.edu catholic theological union, chicago, il 60615 in recent decades there has been a renewed interest in studying talmudic texts as self-contained literary units that were carefully structured and edited. scholars using this approach tend to analyze rabbinic literature outside of its historical context. other scholars, however, prefer to explore how traditions preserved in rabbinic literature respond to, or influence, non-jewish texts and traditions. richard kalmin’s latest book is a remarkable contribution that fuses both of these approaches by studying the literary elements of talmudic passages alongside non-jewish parallels. these parallels, kalmin suggests, reflect cultural sharing between rabbinic and non-rabbinic communities. kalmin studies eight legends that are preserved in the babylonian talmud alongside an array of parallel traditions in texts deriving from the eastern provinces of the roman empire. he argues that these traditions were shared in communities that were home to christians, jews, and pagans. the book ultimately makes a compelling case for looking beyond the rabbinic world when studying talmudic legends. according to kalmin, the fourth century ce saw an increase in rabbinic awareness of cultural material that was circulating in the roman east. this increased awareness led to the refashioning and incorporating of non-rabbinic material into rabbinic texts. as rabbinic authors synthesized non-rabbinic traditions with their own material, they reworked these traditions and incorporated them into their own new arguments. cultural exchange between the rabbis and others in the roman east went in both directions; some talmudic tales in turn influenced non-jews. in his lucid and accessible writing style, kalmin examines eight cases of talmudic legends which show parallels to non-rabbinic sources. in chapter one, he explores the legend about the biblical prophet isaiah being sawed in half. kalmin traces the tradition from its first appearance in the ascension of isaiah, which he regards as a first or second-century ce document likely composed in simkovich: richard kalmin’s migrating tales 2 the land of israel, and then onward in the yerushalmi, in the writings of the church fathers, in texts written by persians, and in the babylonian talmud. kalmin views the parallel traditions found in these texts as evidence of increasing “cultural unity” in the fourth century (p. 52). in his second chapter, kalmin argues that rabbinic sources appropriated christian texts regarding the exorcist st. bartholomew by depicting bartholomew himself as a demon. in chapter three he considers the legend of the translation of the hebrew bible into greek, which began in the third century bce. kalmin studies accounts of the translation preserved in the babylonian talmud and in jewish texts such as the letter of aristeas and the writings of philo and josephus, alongside christian texts written in greek, latin, and syriac. fourth-century ce sources seem to pick up on the legend and expand it. in chapter four, kalmin explores the trope of solomon’s interactions with demonic figures that makes its way into the talmud as well as into the testament of solomon, along with early christian texts found at nag hammadi. in chapter five, perhaps the book’s most elegant and complex chapter, kalmin studies how the legend of the prophet zechariah’s murder in the jerusalem temple is mentioned in non-jewish legends that were written from the first through the thirteenth century. kalmin in chapter six explores traditions regarding the pharisees. he shows that legends about the pharisees in the babylonian talmud have parallels with legends in josephus and in the new testament. in the seventh chapter, kalmin focuses on the theme of astrology, using bshab 156a–b as a starting point, and compares it with passages in the yerushalmi, in genesis rabbah, and in tannaitic midrashim, and then moves on to non-jewish sources. he traces the rabbinic idea that jews, unlike gentiles, are not governed by astrological forces. kalmin notes that some roman sources use the term mazla (which can be translated as a constellation or heavenly body) in the same way that fourth-century rabbis do. kalmin in his final chapter notes similarities between talmudic accounts about alexander the great and the alexander romance, a collection of legends about the adventures of alexander the great. kalmin suggests that the alexander stories in the talmud critique the human desire to strive for as much as possible, for humans will never truly be satiated. the eight legends studied by kalmin do not emerge from the same nonjewish traditions. the legend of isaiah’s death, for example, is preserved in christian, muslim, and persian sources. traditions about the pharisees found in the babylonian talmud have parallels in the jerusalem talmud, the writings of josephus, and the new testament. the diverse traditions that kalmin studies, therefore, cannot necessarily be taken together to make general conclusions about the non-rabbinic sources that he is using. while kalmin does not offer precise dates for the talmudic material he studies, he isolates original (and sometimes competing) sources by locating shifts between aramaic and hebrew. this distinction is especially important to his work on the bartholomew tradition in chapter two and on the alexander romance in chapter eight. according to kalmin, a switch in language may indicate 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) the presence of both earlier and later sources, perhaps prompted by a later rabbi’s dissatisfaction with an earlier source. kalmin relies on the parallels between talmudic statements that are attributed to fourth-century rabbis and statements appearing in contemporaneous nonrabbinic sources. these connections indicate an increase in cultural sharing among rabbis and non-jews in the roman east. most of the book’s eight chapters compellingly make this point, but some chapters give rise to further questions. for example, in chapter six kalmin compares passages in the talmud about the pharisees with passages in the new testament. however, the new testament authors were likely in closer cultural contact with the rabbinic community than authors of roman and persian sources. it is therefore harder to make the case that there was conscious borrowing in this instance; perhaps these legends were simply “in the air.” kalmin’s work also raises important questions regarding parallels between non-rabbinic legends in the greek, latin, syriac, persian, and arabic texts and legends that also appear in the babylonian talmud. do these variations evince distinctive qualities that are specific to the communities behind the texts? such patterns, if they exist, could shed light on what kinds of changes these communities made to earlier legends. these questions aside, kalmin’s excellent book will serve as a rich resource for students of rabbinic literature who seek to understand how legends were borrowed and retold among rabbis and non-jews in the roman east. this book will also serve as a methodological guide for scholars interested in studying cultural sharing among a wide range of traditions. the death of jesus grazi, a jewish construction of a catholic hero grazi 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college a jewish construction of a catholic hero: david levi’s “a pio ix” a l ess andr o g r az i u n i v e r s i t y o f g r o n i n g e n 1 volume 6 (2011) http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr 1 i am very grateful to prof. cristiana facchini and dr. asher salah for their valuable advice on various points. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): grazi 1-15 grazi, a jewish construction of a catholic hero grazi 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr along with liberals and patriots, many italian jews rejoiced on june 16, 1846, when giovanni maria mastai ferretti was elected pope pius ix. 2 his progressive policies as archbishop of spoleto and bishop of imola as well as the reformist course he outlined for the papal state 3 earned pio nono (as he was called) a name as a liberal. patriots and liberals expected the new pope to reform the papal state and to favor italy’s unification, the goal of the risorgimento national movement. italian jews suffered from a lack of civil rights, to different degrees within each italian state. therefore, they saw the risorgimento as an opportunity to overthrow the regimes imposed on the different italian regions by the congress of vienna and consequently as a way to achieve full civil emancipation. for italian jews, the struggle for emancipation and the risorgimento movement coincided. 4 2 it is important to clarify that when mentioning three distinct categories (patriots, liberals and jews), i do not imply a separation between them. obviously, as actually often happened, one could be a jew, a patriot, and a liberal at the same time. 3 giovanni maria mastai ferretti, “pensieri relativi alla amministrazione pubblica dello stato pontificio,” in pio ix, giovanni maria mastai ferretti dalla giovinezza alla morte nei suoi scritti e discorsi editi e inediti, ed. alberto serafini,volume i: le vie della divina provvidenza (1792-1846) (vatican city, 1958). 4 on the italian jews during the risorgimento see: franco della peruta, “gli ebrei nel risorgimento fra interdizioni ed emancipazione,” in dall’emancipazione ad oggi, vol.2 of gli ebrei in italia, ed. corrado vivanti (turin: einaudi, 1997), 1135-1170; gadi luzzatto voghera, “aspetti della cultura ebraica in italia nel secolo xix,” in dall’emancipazione ad oggi, vol.2 of gli ebrei in italia, ed. corrado vivanti (turin: einaudi, 1997), 1215-1244; attilio milano, storia degli ebrei in italia (turin: einaudi, 1992), 338-390. for recent scholarship, reassessing the actual extent and quality of the italian jews’ contribution to the risorgimento in light of their narratives about it see in particular: asher salah, “steinschneider and italy”, in studies on steinschneider moritz steinschneider and the emergence of the science of judaism in nineteenth-century germany, ed. reimund leicht and gad freudenthal (leiden: brill, 2011), 411-456; tullia catalan, “juden und judentum in italien von 1848 bis 1918”, in judentum und antisemitismus im modernen italien, ed. gudrun jäger and liana novelli-glaab (berlin: trafo recent studies have begun to analyze the rich narrative that the italian jews constructed around their support for the risorgimento. part of this jewish narrative is david levi’s poem “a pio ix” (to pius ix), which was composed in 1846 to honor pio nono and to invite him to promote italy’s unification and the consequent emancipation of the italian jews. this paper presents an analysis of levi’s poem on a number of levels. not only does this poem demonstrate the jews’ desire to praise the newly elected pope pius ix, but from a historical point of view, it also illustrates how italian jews’ objectives in the 1840s coincided with those of liberals and patriots. perhaps this poem’s most striking feature, though, is levi’s use, along with the more secular symbolism of the enlightenment, of catholic and christological symbolism as a feature requiring interpretation and contextualization since it comes from a jewish author. in addition, i hope to show how, through these verses, levi envisions pio nono’s role in the risorgimento, both as supporter of italy’s unification and of jewish emancipation. historical background understanding pius ix’s activity prior to his papal election is fundamental to comprehending his career’s successive developments and his perception by patriots, liberals and jews. recent studies have considered mastai ferretti’s attitude towards the italian jews, analyzing in particular the political activity that earned him a name as a liberal among them. 5 however, frank coppa points out that both nineteenth-century jews and subsequent historiography have apparently misinterpreted the reasons which led to his benevolent attitude by verlag, 2007), 71-86; cristiana facchini, david castelli – ebraismo e scienze delle religioni tra otto e novecento (brescia: morcelliana, 2005); and gadi luzzatto voghera, il prezzo dell’ugualianza – il dibattito sull’emancipazione degli ebrei in italia (1781-1848) (milan: franco angeli, 1998), 6-12. 5 frank j. coppa, “pio nono and the jews: from ‘reform’ to ‘reaction’: 18461878,” the catholic historical review (2003): 671-695. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): grazi 1-15 grazi, a jewish construction of a catholic hero grazi 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr paying insufficient attention to pio nono’s religious motivations. 6 his positive acts towards the jews were prompted by christian solidarity with the poor and the oppressed—neither by sheer sympathy for the jewish cause, nor by his sharing their aspiration for full civil rights. according to coppa, “pio nono did not envision a christian-jewish reconciliation. his reforms were designed to correct abuses and offer assistance rather than to change prevailing structures in either the church or the papal state.” 7 there were three phases of mastai ferretti’s career that were primarily responsible for causing liberals, patriots and jews to misinterpret his intentions. in spoleto, he pawned his furniture and donated the resultant funds to the poor. during the 1831 uprisings, he mediated between the papal army and the insurgents, giving the order not to shoot and instead to find an agreement. 8 while these actions were seen as progressive, in religious terms, however, he always remained a conservative. an analysis of his sermons in both spoleto and imola reveals that mastai ferretti was mainly concerned with themes of christian charity and love, and that, at least initially, he was interested in attempts at reconciliation between catholicism and modernity. 9 these interests probably spurred his proposed reform of the papal state. the fifty-eight points he drafted in 1845 before his elevation to the papacy called for a prudent modernization of the papal state but proposed neither religious reform nor the civil emancipation of the jews. nevertheless, he earned a reputation as a liberal. these and other political maneuvers and reforms contributed to his emergence as a quasi 6 ibid., 674. 7 ibid., 672-673. 8 on giovanni maria mastai ferretti’s life and political activity before his papal election see carlo falconi, ilgiovane mastai (milan: rusconi, 1951). 9 coppa, “pio nono and the jews,” 673. “heroic figure” among the italian patriots and liberals. this image, again described as a misinterpretation by coppa, has also been labeled the “myth…of the good and liberal pope.” 10 it is no surprise that the election of a “liberal” pope fed the hopes of all those who wished that the catholic church would adopt a new political approach. they wanted a curtailment of the church’s temporal power, if not complete eliminaelimination of it, thus facilitating the formation of a future italian state and ameliorating the jews’ condition. a number of intellectuals explicitly delineated a new role for the papacy in the future united italy in pamphlets and essays published in the years preceding pio nono’s election. these pamphlets often also advocated full emancipation of the jews. two are especially interesting for us: 11 vincenzo gioberti’s il primato morale e civile degli italiani (moral and civil primacy of the italians, 1843), 12 and massimo d’azeglio’s dell’emancipazione civile degli israeliti (civil emancipation of the israelites) 13 written at the end of 1847 and addressed directly to pope pius ix. vincenzo gioberti (turin 1801–paris 1852) 14 was a catholic priest, a moderate liberal intellectual and one of the risorgimento’s main figures. his il primato morale e civile degli italiani was published in two volumes in brussels and has been defined as a “major influence on moderate liberal thinking in the 10 giacomo martina, pio ix (1846-1850), vol.1 (rome: universitá gregoriana editrice, 1974), 2. 11 apart from the two pamphlets considered here, another influential work was carlo cattaneo, ricerche economiche sulle interdizioni imposte agli israeliti (milan: de cristoforis, 1836). 12 bruxelles: meline, 1843. 13 florence: le monnier, 1848. 14 on gioberti’s biography see giorgio rumi, gioberti (bologna: il mulino, 1999). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): grazi 1-15 grazi, a jewish construction of a catholic hero grazi 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr risorgimento.” 15 in this large book, gioberti touches upon several topics including the jews’ emancipation, a new role for the papacy, and a supporting argument for italy’s unification as a federation of states. it was influential on pio nono, perhaps because it was written by a catholic priest, albeit a moderately liberal one, and also because, in spite of advocating a new role for the papacy, it does not envision (or in any way explicitly support) major reforms in the papal states. 16 concerning the catholic church’s political role, gioberti invites the church to understand and embrace the spirit of the time. 17 only then will the church be able to contribute to the unification of italy as a federation of states, led by the symbolic figure of the pope. as a moderate liberal, gioberti naturally supports the jewish pursuit of civil emancipation. trying to reverse some of the current stereotypes, he maintains that the negative habits and morals of some jews are only due to the unequal situation in which they live and that, if granted equality with the other citizens, they would easily integrate. he urges christians to act with brotherly love towards the jews and critiques that small part of the catholic church that, in his view, has wrongly insisted on accusing the jews of deicide. 18 in contrast, d’azeglio’s pamphlet focuses solely on the jews’ condition and not on the papacy. that a politically influential liberal intellectual like d’azeglio addressed his work directly to the pope after pius ix had implemented his first reforms in favor of jews late in 1847 further confirms the high 15 quotation from "political union without social revolution: vincenzo gioberti's primato," the historical journal 41 (1998): 705. 16 ibid., 712. 17 ibid., 708. 18 a good analysis of gioberti’s stance towards the jews can be found in giorgina arian levi – giulio disegni, fuori dal ghetto – il 1848 degli ebrei (rome: editor riuniti, 1998), 72-75. hopes italian liberals had for the reign of this pope. in his essay, d’azeglio follows the convention of other liberal thinkers and focuses his work on demonstrating the invalidity of jewish stereotypes. he tries to demonstrate how civil emancipation would remove those obstacles preventing jews from enlarging the scope of their professions and activities, thus facilitating their integration into italian society. initially, pio nono did not disappoint, taking concrete political measures that encouraged the hopes of liberals. in response to the enthusiastic atmosphere created by these italian intellectuals and pushed by the aforementioned religious motivations, rather than by a specific plan for the emancipation of the jews, the newly elected pope accepted the need to make some concessions. for example, at the end of 1846, when the tiber river overflowed and partly flooded the jewish ghetto, pio nono allowed a number of jewish families to live outside of the ghetto. this also improved the quality of life within the ghetto itself. he also modified some minor restrictive laws, which, while not earth shattering, did aid him in acquiring the roman jews’ approval. under these changes, for instance, jews were allowed to serve in the civic guard, albeit grouped into one distinct battalion. the “balzello,” a tax the jews had to pay in order to finance the carnival games preceding lent, was reduced (though not completely cancelled). their forced attendance at public sermons and obligatory homage to the capitolium’s senator were repealed. 19 current scholarship suggests that the value of these minor measures was actually amplified by the enthusiasm and atmosphere generated around the pope. they thus contributed to the reinforcement of pio nono’s liberal reputation. 20 19 on the measures taken by pope pius ix in favor of rome’s jews see: milano, storia degli ebrei in italia, 358-369 and cecil roth, the history of the jews of italy (philadelphia: the jewish publication society of america, 1946), 421-473. 20 coppa, “pio nono and the jews,” 674. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): grazi 1-15 grazi, a jewish construction of a catholic hero grazi 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr of all the laws decreed by pius ix, however, the one that made the biggest impression among the italian patriots and jews was his july 1846 amnesty for political prisoners within the papal state. this step had a strong emotional impact for two reasons: first, it was a substantive measure, and second, it occurred at the very beginning of his pontificate (only one month after his election). this confirmed the impression of his liberal attitude. this amnesty was also the inspiration for david levi’s poem “a pio ix,” as we will see, as well as for numerous other poems written by italians in praise of the pontiff. the enthusiasm around pio nono led jews, patriots and liberals to overlook his first encyclical, qui pluribus, published in november 1846. in it, pius ix showed his fully traditional attitude to religious matters, bashing non-believers and other enemies of christian truth. he also revealed he was not a liberal at all by condemning rationalism, indifferentism, latitudinarianism and supporting pope gregory’s banishment of liberalism. 21 this encyclical did not curb the liberals’ enthusiasm, which was refueled in 1848. once again, pushed by the international political situation, in particular by the uprisings in palermo and paris, pius ix promoted the drafting of a papal state constitution in order to show liberals and patriots he was willing to make further reforms. however, he made sure his collaborators would entirely preserve the pope’s spiritual power while only slightly limiting his temporal realm. on april 17, 1848 rome’s ghetto gates were torn down, although roman jews were not granted full civil emancipation. this act marked the high point of enthusiasm and positive opinion towards pio nono by italian jews. in spite of all these concrete political actions, it did not take long for a radical change in pio nono’s attitude towards 21 claudia carlen (ed.), the papal encyclicals 1740-1878 (ann arbor, michigan, 1981).277-284 both the risorgimento national movement and the italian jews to become clear. when the pontiff’s religious jurisdiction in addition to his temporal power received a serious threat, his attitude became extremely defensive and reactionary. in his famous allocution of april 1848, he declared his opposition to the war of independence against austria, a traditionally catholic empire. subsequently, on november 24, he decided to flee rome. between february and july 1849, rome had a very brief democratic regime, the so-called repubblica romana (roman republic). during this, equal rights were granted to all citizens, including the jews. from his exile in gaeta, pio nono strongly condemned the laws enforced by the repubblica romana, and, once he regained power in july 1849, he not only voided the constitution of the roman republic but he also made the papal state’s laws more stringent. “the events of 1848-49 led this pope to abandon his early reformism, concluding that constitutionalism was incompatible with the government of the states of the church.” 22 this turned out to be the act that drove a wedge between pius ix and the italian jews, liberals, and patriots. in spite of some small improvements to the roman jews’ condition, which the pope conceded little by little, his position was, as epitomized by coppa, “christian charity to the jews, yes; jewish equality, no!” 23 the distance between pio nono and the jews increased further in 1858 with the infamous mortara affair 24 and in 1864 with the encyclical quanta cura to which he attached a syllabus of errors. here he again and more directly attacked the modern principles of liberalism and listed a number of errors of the modern times: pantheism, naturalism, 22 coppa, “pio nono and the jews,” 680. 23 ibid., 686. 24 edgardo mortara was a jewish child who was forcefully baptized and brought to the pope’s residence, where he lived most of his life. on this case see david i. kertzer, the kidnapping of edgardo mortara (new york, 1997). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): grazi 1-15 grazi, a jewish construction of a catholic hero grazi 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr materialism, rationalism, indifferentism and false religious tolerance. he finally stated explicitly how the restrictions on the jews in the papal state ought to be maintained. 25 roman jews achieved their final emancipation only in 1870, with rome’s annexation to the kingdom of italy. however, we have seen how the atmosphere at the time of pius ix’s accession to the papal throne in 1846 was completely different. it is in this light that we must view the work of david levi. he was inspired by the fervor surrounding the newly elected pope and wrote a poem celebrating him. levi has gained some scholarly attention in recent years, particularly within italian academia, but he is still virtually unknown in international scholarship. by sketching out his background, we can better understand the poet’s social and literary point of departure. david levi david levi 26 was born in chieri, in the vicinity of turin, on november 6, 1816. his personality is difficult to grasp due to a scarcity of secondary literature and the limited analysis of his oeuvre to date. his character was complex and many factors played a role in his life. nevertheless, exhaustive biographical information about levi may be found in his unpublished autobiography. he also included parts of this work in two of his published books: vita di pensiero: ricordi e liriche (life of 25 carlen, the papal encyclicals, 381-386. 26 there is not a lot of literature written on david levi and no full-fledged monograph. however, some important bibliographical references are as follows: luigi bulferetti, socialismo risorgimentale (turin: einaudi, 1975); augusto comba, “giuseppe david levi profeta del risorgimento,” in isacco artom e gli ebrei italiani dai risorgimenti al fascismo, ed. aldo alessandro mola (foggia: bastogi, 2002), 109-116; francesca sofia, “gli ebrei risorgimentali fra tradizione biblica, libera muratoria e nazione,” in la massoneria, ed. gian mario cazzaniga (turin: einaudi, 2007), 244-265. thought: memories and lyrics) 27 and ausonia, vita d’azione (dal 1848 al 1870) (life of action). 28 his family was rather wealthy, allowing david to be well educated. in 1830, he enrolled in the jewish college of vercelli, called “foà institute,” which taught both traditional jewish and secular subjects, consistent with italian jewish tradition but rather modern when compared to most of the jewish educational systems around europe at the time. levi demonstrated literary talent at a young age and grew up with an excellent philosophical education. because university education was not allowed to jews in piedmont at the time, he enrolled at the university of parma and piacenza and later at the university of pisa (always supported by his family’s wealth). his stay in pisa turned out to be fundamental for the formation of his ideological principles. there he met giuseppe montanelli 29 (fucecchio 1813–1862), who introduced him to the philosophy of saint-simonism, a form of utopian radical socialism derived from the french enlightened philosopher saint-simon, trendy in france and some areas of italy in the first half of the nineteenth century. saintsimonism was levi’s creed throughout his political career. 30 this philosophical system characterized his entire weltanschauung, not only his socialist political views, but also his approach to other important elements of society, such as art and religion. in tuscany in the 1830s, levi became acquainted with two other institutions which accompanied him throughout his 27 milan: battezzati, 1875. 28 florence: loescher, 1882. 29 giuseppe montanelli was an italian writer and politician, very active during the risorgimento. 30 although some scholars argue that levi’s political ideology changed during the second half of his career. see in particular luigi bulferetti, socialismo risorgimentale. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): grazi 1-15 grazi, a jewish construction of a catholic hero grazi 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr life. he was initiated into freemasonry and became affiliated with the giovine italia, mazzini’s secret society, which plotted for italy’s liberation and unification. finally, levi moved to the university of siena, where he graduated in 1840. during the 1840s, levi traveled abroad extensively. in particular, he lived in paris for a few years, where he became acquainted with several italian exiles plotting for italy’s unification. the years in paris were also fundamental for levi’s intellectual growth. in the french capital, he attended the university courses of some of the major french intellectuals of the time, such as the historians edgar quinet (bourg-en-bresse 1803–versailles 1875) and jules michelet 31 (paris 1798–1874). influenced by all the cultural experiences of his youth, levi became one of the risorgimento’s protagonists and one of the main advocates of the jewish cause. after italy’s unification in 1861, levi continued his political career at the highest level. in fact, he was among the first jewish members of the national parliament, where he was elected as a member of a left wing party. in the late 1870s he retired and focused on his literary activity. he died in turin in 1898. his literary activity was strongly influenced by the four main elements of his identity, constantly amalgamating throughout his life: his being a jew, an italian, a freemason and a saint-simonian. he actually rejected the religious part of his judaism from a young age, but always felt strongly about the social and cultural elements of his jewish identity. his oeuvre includes treatises, poems and what he himself calls “historical dramas,” in addition to his many contributions to french and italian rationalist and liberal journals. his historical dramas, in good nineteenth-century fashion, bring the past to the stage in order to reflect on the present. thus, they deal with 31 historian of huguenot tradition. levi’s meeting with these important characters are also reported by a. comba, “giuseppe david levi profeta del risorgimento,” in a. a. mola, isacco artom e gli ebrei italiani dai risorgimenti al fascismo (foggia: bastogi, 2002), 111. themes connected to jewish and italian identity. the plays with a romantic touch are his only works so far to receive scholarly attention. his two most important works are certainly il profeta. la passione di un popolo (the prophet: the passion of a people) 32 and giordano bruno, o la religione del pensiero: l'uomo, l'apostolo e il martire (giordano bruno, or the religion of the intellect: the man, the apostle, the martyr). 33 however, the ongoing research into levi’s oeuvre is still at such an early stage that many elements of his personality and thought deserve much deeper investigation and will certainly yield extremely interesting results. levi’s poem dedicated to pope pius ix has not previously received sufficient scholarly attention. levi’s poem “a pio ix” “a pio ix” has to be considered within the wider context of celebratory texts written to hail pius ix’s accession, consisting mainly of odes to the pope. 34 there are no scholarly studies of these poems, only anthologies and collections that record the elevated expectations of many italian intellectuals. similar literary celebratory works were also composed outside of the italian peninsula. 35 levi’s poem is unique, however, for its jewish perspective and rich content. “a pio ix” is a relatively long poem, comprising 188 verses. it was published in 1848 within an anthology of poems, 32 turin: societá tipografica editrice, 1866. 33 turin: carlo triverio, 1887. 34 many of which can be found in ragguaglio storico di quanto è avvenuto in roma e in tutte le provincie dello stato pontificio in seguito accordato dalla santita' di n.s. papa pio ix. come dal suo editto del 16 luglio 1846 (rome: ajani, 1846). 35 frank paul bowman, for instance, informs us that positive poems and articles appeared in france. see his le christ romantique (geneva: libraire droz, 1973), 89-90. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): grazi 1-15 grazi, a jewish construction of a catholic hero grazi 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr collected by the author himself, called patria ed affetti. canti storici e liriche (homeland and affections: historical poems and lyrics), 36 the patriotic and romantic content of which is indicated in the title. in this work, one of levi’s earliest, the author included a number of poems expressing the enthusiasm and strong patriotic sentiments of those frantic and tumultuous years. his original intention, detailed in the book’s preface, was to dedicate the parts of this volume to different italian cities for which they were written. the literary and political fervor of the time, however, led him to write and thus include more poems, so that his original partition by city was only partly preserved in the published edition. after the preface and the poem examined here, which was placed before all of the following categories, he divided the volume into three parts. the first section contains eighteen lyrical poems, called “canti storici” (historical poems) followed by footnotes with historical explanations, typical of david levi’s style. the second part, apparently following his original categorization by city, is titled “notti veneziane” (venetian nights) and includes seventeen poems dedicated to the city of venice. finally, the last chapter, titled “liriche diverse” (miscellaneous lyrics), contains eleven lyrics on various themes, from personal to patriotic. “a pio ix” takes primary position within the book, thus emphasizing both the hopes of the italian liberals for a radical change in the catholic church’s attitude toward the risorgimento national movement and their perceptions of the importance of pius ix’s election as pontiff. in a footnote to the poem, levi indicates that he wrote it in june 1846 when the pope decreed a general amnesty for political exiles. however, the general amnesty was granted on july 16, 1846, suggesting either that levi wrote the whole poem later than he states or that he at least added the footnote at a later stage (i.e., earlier than 1848, the year of publication, but long enough after the 36 turin: zecchi & bona, 1848. events to confuse the month of the pope’s election [june] with the month of the amnesty [july]). as previously discussed, the italian jews’ positive perception of the pope was still intact in 1848 when the volume was published; their political disappointment would have occurred later. surprisingly, in a footnote to the 1884 edition of his masterpiece il profeta, levi cites his own poem “a pio ix” and adds that he does not disavow it, in spite of the changed attitudes to pio nono. 37 “a pio ix” is partly a lengthy praise of the newly elected pope and partly a fervent expression of levi’s political aspirations for italy’s unification and the jews’ emancipation. the poem’s content can be divided into eight unequal parts. it begins with five lines announcing the election of pius ix as a positive event. the second part (vv. 6-31) describes the feelings of anticipation and the turmoil which characterized the historical period immediately preceding the election. here levi brings the pope’s liberal attitude and actions in his previous ecclesiastic appointments to the reader’s attention as a reason for hope. in the third part (vv. 32-76), levi appeals directly to the pope, asking him to listen to italy’s lamentation, a result of its being divided into many small states and oppressed by foreign powers. the fourth part (vv. 77-106) presents italy’s lamentation. levi sets this off with quotation marks and its words function as a sort of dramatic choir. the fifth and sixth parts (vv. 107-116 and vv. 117-154) are again a direct appeal to pius ix, first through personal praise and then as a demand to renew the catholic faith, thus uniting the italians, in order to bring about the country’s unity. the last two parts are more personal. in the seventh part (vv. 155-174), the poet reveals his identity as jewish and describes the jews’ negative condition. levi then concludes, in the last part (vv. 175-188), with one last, 37 david levi, il profeta o la passione di un popolo: dramma – vol. ii: l’occidente (turin: unione tipografico-editrice, 1884), iv. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): grazi 1-15 grazi, a jewish construction of a catholic hero grazi 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr strong, heartfelt appeal to the pope that he grant particular attention to resolving the jewish question in italy. although never explicitly stated, a few indicators and metaphors throughout the poem before the final sections reveal the author’s jewishness and the importance he attributes to the jewish cause. nevertheless, the words “jew” or “jewish” never appear even in these final sections. only by knowing the context do we know that the poet is jewish when he writes, “me, figlio dell’antico sui popoli del mondo (…) voce percosse di tue gesta, o pio” (the news of your actions, o pius (…) hit me, son of the world’s most ancient people), 38 or refers shortly thereafter to “fratelli miei di fede, e di sventura” (my brothers in faith and misfortune). 39 the author’s two-fold identity, italian and jewish, emerges at verses 160-161: “ma doppia sul cor mio, voce risuona di martir, di pianto” (but the sound of martyrdom, of cry, resounds doubled in my heart). 40 in my interpretation, levi wants to point out how his suffering for italy’s condition is dual, both as jew and as an italian. more hints are present earlier in the poem, but they indicate a jewish author only to a reader who is already aware of the writer’s identity. for instance, at line 45 levi quotes almost literally exodus 13:21, (the lord went in front of them in a pillar of cloud by day, to lead them along the way, and in a pillar of fire by night, to give them light, so that they might travel by day and by night) 41 when he writes “la colonna é di fuoco, e dio la guida?” (the pillar is made of fire, is god leading it?). the quotation marks within the poem let the reader know that this verse is intended as a citation. evidently, levi uses this reference to the events of 38 david levi, “a pio ix,” in his patria ed affetti. canti storici e liriche, (turin: zecchi & bona, 1848), p. 31. 39 ibid., 31. 40 ibid., 31 41 ibid., 27. nrsv english translation the jewish people’s liberation from egypt to urge the italian people to awaken and, with god’s help and protection, to liberate themselves from foreign powers and to unify. this reference to the vicissitudes of the jewish people and, in particular, their escape from egypt, needs not indicate the writer’s jewish identity. references to the history of the jews (not only the exodus) were actually quite popular among the risorgimento intellectuals and were often used as a metaphor for italy’s liberation. a poet and playwright like levi was certainly aware of one of the most famous references to the jews among his contemporaries, giuseppe verdi’s opera “nabucco,” first presented at milan’s la scala in 1842. however, by the end of levi’s poem, the reader realizes that the author is jewish and in retrospect this exodus reference further verifies his identity. levi, however, expresses himself in ways that could not be perceived as arrogantly boasting his own identity. on the contrary, he repeatedly employs language that emphasizes positive christian or specifically catholic elements. indeed, readers unaware of the poet’s identity would perceive this as a christian poem, at least until the last lines, when levi subtly reveals his judaism. “a pio ix” is not only a hymn of praise addressed to pope pius ix, but it also functions as a sort of pact between italian judaism and catholicism. this explains its catholic references. these are best contextualized within the italian jews’ desire, common during the risorgimento, to demonstrate their loyalty to the future italian nation whose vast majority was catholic, shaping every element of italian culture. furthermore, the poem itself was designed to be received as a present and read by the pope himself. thus, the richness of references to catholicism and jesus christ function also as a sign to pio nono that the opposition of the italian jewish intellectuals would apply only to the church’s temporal power and not to the pope or the catholic church per se. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): grazi 1-15 grazi, a jewish construction of a catholic hero grazi 10 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr levi gathered all the characteristics that he considered positive about catholicism into this one poem, leaving out all the elements that he criticizes in his other writings. he knew his audience and wrote appropriately for the occasion. despite the negative stereotypes to the contrary and the restrictive laws against them, italian jews were in fact quite integrated into italian society. therefore, it was not uncommon for jewish intellectuals to be familiar with catholic theological themes and to discuss them with catholic intellectuals or even priests, with whom they at times shared sincere friendship. for instance, niccolò tommaseo (šibenik 1802–florence 1874), a prominent catholic intellectual who played an important role in the risorgimento, can be considered a bridge between the catholic and the jewish worlds in italy. 42 david levi himself had met tommaseo during his sojourn in venice and was a good friend of his. nevertheless, the interpretation of levi’s christological references should not be limited to a socio-political reading; they should be contextualized within the general european intellectual streams of the nineteenth century and more specifically within jewish approaches to the christian/catholic world and its teachings. in levi’s time, the german-jewish wissenschaft des judentums school had begun to produce studies of the origins of christianity as a corollary to their historical critical analysis of judaism. 43 in the italian peninsula too, some among the most prominent jewish intellectuals dealt with historical interpretations of the life of jesus christ, following the european trends. 42 bruno di porto, “niccolò tommaseo e gli ebrei: una meditata simpatia,” rassegna mensile di israel 35 (1969): 505-514. 43 for an overview of the german jews who dealt with christianity and jesus’ life, see susannah heschel, abraham geiger and the jewish jesus (chicago: chicago university press, 1998). in italy, however, this phenomenon took place mostly in the second half of the nineteenth century. it is not easy to reconstruct what their main sources were; christological references by italian jewish intellectuals are scattered in different works and not gathered in monographs or homogenous treatises on the theme. 44 however, in 1903, the italian philosopher baldassare labanca suggested that the works of david strauss and ernst renan were formative for these italian writers. 45 this observation provides a starting point from which we can offer a more detailed analysis of levi’s references to the catholic church and jesus christ. levi’s use of christological symbolism from a jewish perspective in such a direct and explicit way in the 1840s is quite exceptional—making this perhaps the most interesting feature of “a pio ix.” the primary although not exclusive lenses shaping levi’s interpretation of christianity, at least up to the year of publication of “a pio ix,” were the philosophical system of saint-simonism and the universalist ideas circulating in the masonic lodges he frequented. 46 reconstructing other influences is a more difficult task, as levi offers scarce clues. perhaps wishing to justify (maybe for potential jewish readers?) what he meant by christ, levi added an explanatory footnote at the end of the poem that clarified that he did not mean christ as reshaped throughout the centuries by christianity, but rather “il cristo ideale, quale fu concepito da molti dei primi padri della chiesa, e da alcuni moderni pensatori, 44 good indications of the italian jews’ interpretation of jesus christ can be found in: cristiana facchini, david castelli – ebraismo e scienze delle religioni tra otto e novecento (brescia: morcelliana, 2005), in particular pp. 173185. 45 baldassarre labanca, gesù cristo nella letteratura contemporanea straniera e italiana (turin: fratelli bocca, 1903), 1-60, 229-286. 46 francesca sofia, “gli ebrei risorgimentali fra tradizione biblica, libera muratoria e nazione,” in gian mario cazzaniga, la massoneria, in storia d’italia – annali 21 (turin: einaudi, 2007) 248-261. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): grazi 1-15 grazi, a jewish construction of a catholic hero grazi 11 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr massime della scuola tedesca, ecc.” (the ideal christ, as he was conceived by many among the first church fathers and by some modern thinkers, especially of the german school, etc.). 47 to which german thinkers was he referring? here we can only hypothesize. it is well known that christian german scholars in the second half of the eighteenth century offered historical interpretations of the life of jesus christ. 48 the pioneering work of hermann samuel reimarus 49 prompted subsequent investigations by a number of german intellectuals, including hegel 50 and the aforementioned david strauss. 51 thus, we can conjecture that these, among others, were the scholars referred to by levi as “the german school.” through a survey of levi’s direct citations of other authors in his later works, it is possible to identify his primary literary and philosophical sources. for example, in the introduction to the second volume of his main work, il profeta, levi discusses christianity and jesus christ at length and directly cites david strauss. therefore, it seems reasonable that strauss’ das leben jesu had a major influence on levi’s thought, and it is possible that levi was familiar with it already 47 david levi, “a pio ix,” 31. 48 two useful tools for the reconstruction of the main european critical analyses of jesus’ life between the eighteenth and nineteenth century, especially in the leading intellectual contexts of germany and france, are: frank paul bowman, le christ des barricades, 1789-1848 (jesus depuis jesus) (paris: cerf, 1987) and albert schweitzer, the quest of the historical jesus (london: a. and c. black, 1910). 49 his work on the life of jesus was actually published posthumously by gotthold ephraim lessing, fragmente eines ungenannten (wolfenbütteler fragmente,1774-1778). 50 hegel’s work on jesus was also published posthumously by eugen diederich, das leben jesu (jena, 1906). 51 david strauss, das leben jesu kritisch bearbeitet (tübingen, 1835-1836). in 1846. 52 however, several french intellectuals were simultaneously engaging in this topic, in parallel to the german discussions. given levi’s years living and studying in france and his familiarity with french philosophers, we cannot rule out their influence on his views on jesus. 53 the french philosopher henri de saint-simon 54 deeply influenced levi’s discussions of christianity, and his teachers in paris included quinet and michelet, who themselves wrote about christianity and jesus christ. in short, both the german and the french “schools” addressing the theme of jesus christ serve as potential background for levi’s presentation of christianity. the first christian element of the poem is apparent on its very first page; between the title and the text, levi inserted two quotations in latin from the new testament. these verses are: i corinthians 6:15, “nescitis quoniam corpora vestra membra sunt christi?” (do you not know that your bodies are members of christ?); and colossians 3:11, “et non est gentilis et iudeus, barbarus et scytha, servus et liber; sed omnia et in omnibus christus” (there is no longer greek and jew, barbarian, scythian, slave and free; but christ is all and in all). 55 if the quotation of a verse from the hebrew bible, as we have already seen, is consistent with jewish textual tradition, a citation by a 52 the main problem is whether at such an early stage levi knew german sufficiently to be able to read a philosophical text. however, a french translation of strauss’s das leben jesu by emile littrè appeared in 1839, and levi could have consulted this instead. 53 ernst renan’s influential writings on jesus and christianity appeared much later than levi’s “a pio ix.” renan’s great influence on levi’s thought can be seen in later writings. a likely influence is joseph salvador, jesus-christ et sa doctrine (paris, 1838). 54 henri de saint-simon, nouveau christianisme (paris, 1825). 55 ibid., 25. nrsv english translation. the original latin version also includes “circumcision et praeputium” (circumcised and uncircumcised) but levi skipped this in his quotation, perhaps deliberately. in any case, he neither indicated this omission, nor explained it. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): grazi 1-15 grazi, a jewish construction of a catholic hero grazi 12 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr jew from the new testament is unusual and, therefore must be correctly interpreted. the superficial meaning of the selected verses is evident: levi wants to emphasize the equality of all peoples as limbs of christ. italian jews thus also deserve their place within the larger italian community. a deeper analysis, examining these verses through his saint-simonian philosophy, allows the extrapolation of additional meaning from the verses chosen by levi. one of saintsimonism’s primary features was that it differentiated itself from other forms of socialism by not dismissing religion per se and not suggesting an entirely materialistic and secular view of the world. instead, it maintained that the economic and moral situations were inseparable and that the latter could not be isolated from the religious sphere. convinced of society’s inability to completely rid itself of religion, saint-simon proposed a religious synthesis that would become the universal religion of humanity. he called this “new christianity.” 56 levi explained without hesitation that “new christianity” did not retain anything of christianity and, in fact, was renamed by saint-simonian adherents as a generic new universal religion. in light of his adherence to saint-simonism, levi’s use of the verse “sed omnia et in omnibus christus” can also be interpreted as an expression of this new universal religion. although saint-simonism is not the main theme of levi’s poem, we have to refer to his “faith” in this doctrine to explain not only the preamble to the poem, but also some other key verses within the poem itself: 57 dall’ombre incerte ove giacea compresso 56 david levi, “prima fase del socialismo in italia: il sansimonismo,” in nuova antologia 69,4,1 (1897): 5-31, where he quotes entire portions of henri de saint-simon, oeuvres de saint-simon. lettres aux princes, au papeet le nouveou christianisme (paris, 1841), 182. 57 david levi, “a pio ix,” 30. splendido, immenso, ed uno l’eterno ver rifolgori alle genti che tanto spazio, e lunga ira dispaia: dai vertici dell`ande all’imalaia in lui tutte s’abbracciano le menti, dall’uno all’altro polo le membra siam, lo spirit d’un solo. siamo le membra del cristo, che non spento sul golgota spiró, ma eterno, e forte, vive per ogni secolo, e si spande: siam lo spirit del cristo, che ritorte d’ogni gente patí, d’ogni tormento rifulse ognor piú splendido, e piú grande… (from the uncertain shadows where it lay compressed, splendid, immense and one, may the eternal truth reenlighten the peoples, so that so much space, and a long-lasting rage would disappear: from the andes’ peaks to the himalaya may all minds hug one another in him. from one pole to the other we are the limbs, the spirit of only one. we are the limbs of christ, who died on the golgotha but is not lifeless, but eternal, and strong lives through all the centuries, and expands himself: we are the spirit of christ, who suffered chains of all peoples, who shone brighter and greater out of every torment…) in these few lines a plethora of meanings can be found, but they fundamentally explain in more detail the significance of the few verses of the new testament quoted before the poem. here again are both themes: the equality of all peoples as limbs of christ and a universal saint-simonian interpretation of it. the universality is expressed in geographic terms (“from the andes’ peaks” / “from one pole to the other”) but also as humanity (“may all minds hug one another in him”). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): grazi 1-15 grazi, a jewish construction of a catholic hero grazi 13 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the poem’s real focus, however, is pope pius ix. the title and the first verses immediately clarify to whom the poem is dedicated and why: to celebrate his election as pontiff. pio nono is introduced in medias res, emphasized by “te” (you) 58 as a first word in the foreground, in clearly antithetical contraposition with “me” (me), 59 which opens the poem’s last autobiographical section (seventh section). levi emphasizes this antithesis with the positive epithets he attributes to the pope’s figure throughout the poem, such as “tu spirito” and “tu vita” (you, oh spirit; you, oh life), 60 in contrast with the dark adjectives by which he characterizes himself: “oscuro”, “solo” and “nel dubbio chiuso e il duolo” (obscure, alone, closed in my doubts and pain). 61 the description of the poet’s own condition is actually a synecdoche for the situation of the italian jews, since we know that levi’s personal condition, though limited by law, was not comparable to that of poorer jews. levi’s works characteristically describe positive characters with adjectives or terms recalling the rhetoric of romanticism, the enlightenment or of risorgimento (the last used in the original meaning of the term, that is, “rebirth” or “reawakening”). 62 for instance, these lend levi’s use of the word “spirit” here a complex and special meaning. in general, levi refers to “spirit” as an entire set of ideas, values, and sense of identity that can give certain people the strength for selfdetermination and liberation. it is connected to the hegelian concepts of volksgeist and geist, where volksgeist refers to all the information and features characterizing a people’s identity throughout history (represented according to levi by the “moral values” and “feelings of national identity” of the jews or the 58 ibid., 25. 59 ibid., 31. 60 ibid., 29. 61 ibid., 31. 62 this appears profusely in his most famous drama il profeta. italians, for instance) and geist applies the same moral strength and values to the individual’s identity. it is in this second sense, referring to the individual, that levi’s applies the word “spirito” to the person of pius ix. however, two other times in the poem, in vv. 139 and 143, he employs “spirit” in the sense of volksgeist: “le membra siam, lo spirito d’un solo” and “siam lo spirito del cristo” (we are the limbs, the spirit of only one; we are the spirit of christ). 63 the italian people share one spirit, which is the spirit of the ideal christ. words suggesting enlightenment themes are another typical feature of levi’s writings. in particular, a contrast levi often utilizes is the antinomy of light and darkness. the light of knowledge and wisdom symbolizes the mind’s illumination and, therefore, its liberation from medieval obscure stereotypes. the cause and consequence of this intellectual illumination is the equalization of all humanity, since everybody is equal in the light of reason. in general, light characterizes wisdom, knowledge, values, and, through them, freedom. darkness, on the contrary, represents opposite qualities like stupidity, ignorance, lack of values, and, in general, oppression. departing from the common risorgimento rhetoric, levi in his poem associates light with pio nono and even with catholicism as a whole. with this pope’s election, levi calls and hopes for a total renewal of catholicism. he aspires for pius ix to become the harbinger of this renewal, the hero of an illuminated catholicism: 64 la parola cattolica, che nero aere non gravi soffocante, e opprima, ma, sole del pensiero, tutto irraggia, comprende, a sé sublime. 63 david levi, “a pio ix,” 30 64 ibid., 30. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): grazi 1-15 grazi, a jewish construction of a catholic hero grazi 14 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr (may the catholic word not burden and oppress as stifling black air, but may it be as a sun for the intellect, which radiates and comprehends everything, elevating it to itself.) levi’s great mission for his hero (the pope) is the risorgimento’s goal: the unification of italy and the italian people as one nation-state. because of the pope’s past political actions, but also in response to his first concrete gesture as pope in granting political amnesty, he considers pius ix to be particularly liberal. his election gave david levi (and many other italian liberals) strong reason to hope that he would relinquish his temporal power (at least partially), thus favoring the process of italy’s unification. therefore, parallel to the romantic and enlightenment terminology, risorgimento rhetoric pervades this work of levi. as we have seen, the first two sections of the poem focus on describing the strong feelings of anticipation, anxiety and doubt permeating italy during the time immediately preceding the pope’s election, the growing enthusiasm of the people which would lead to the uprisings of 1848, and the “heroic” activity of mastai ferretti as a bishop before becoming pope. then that anticipation breaks into enthusiasm at the pope’s election and becomes an appeal to his liberal attitude. the poem addresses a sort of prayer to the pope that he senses the people’s enthusiasm in this special time and takes advantage of it to finally lead the process of italy’s unification. the repetition of the word “odi” 65 (listen), placed at the beginning of several verses and repeated six times in total, sets the poem’s pace and functions as an invocation to the pope to listen to italy’s cry. the following part (section four) of the poem reports that cry itself. certainly, the repetition of the verb “odi” would quickly remind a jewish reader of the important prayer shema yisrael (listen, o israel!), which is a constant reminder for a jew of the unity of god and of the jewish people. here, 65 ibid., 26-28. then, the call to listen becomes another plea for the unity of italy and the italians. italy is therefore, together with pio nono, at the center of levi’s lyric. this is to such a degree that we can even single out a sort of identification of italy with the pope, in verse 68, right before levi’s desperate appeal for the pope’s help. he describes italy as “desolata”, “fiera” and “pia” (desolate, proud and pious), 66 where “pia” is an obvious reference to the pope’s italian name pio. this creates the effect of identifying the two as one; italy can be united and pious only under pius’ lead. italy’s cry follows the appeal to the pope and is printed in quotation marks in the original publication as if citing the actual words of the country’s lamentation. 67 this section is central to the poem in terms of its location and its unusual length (circa 30 verses). the key lines follow this cry and are a direct petition to pius ix to answer italy’s call and explicitly address what is demanded of him: 68 e t’inviava il ciel. tu l’ansia e’l duolo, che lei da secol tanto agita, e preme consolasti in un giorno, e a maggior volo l’ali sollevi a la prostrate speme: l’opra tu compi, o pio; l’itale genti stringi in un legame che santo diritto, e libertá rinserra, tu ministro al reame, tu spirito, tu vita, ed essi brando; … (and heaven sent you. you consoled in one day the anxiety and the pain that have agitated and oppressed it 66 ibid., 28. 67 ibid., 28-29. 68 ibid., 29. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): grazi 1-15 grazi, a jewish construction of a catholic hero grazi 15 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr [italy] and lift the wings of a worn out hope to a higher flight: you make this possible, o pius; you tie the italian peoples with a bond that is a kept together by a sacred right and liberty, you minister of the kingdom, you spirit, you life, while they [the italians] are the sword; …) conclusion david levi’s poem “a pio ix” is thus important and deserves attention for many reasons. in the first place, it offers further evidence of the positive, and even enthusiastic, attitude italian jews, or at least the liberal intellectuals among them, had for the election of pope pius ix prior to 1848. most historians report this positive reaction as a fact, but this poem substantiates that claim with literary support. secondly, the poem contains a number of rather interesting themes, from enlightenment to romanticism, from saint-simonism to jewish relations with catholicism, that contribute to the understanding of the worldview of its author, david levi. the poem’s most striking feature is perhaps the author’s usage of catholic and christological symbolism for jewish purposes. this allows us to add a piece to the complex puzzle of nineteenth-century historical interpretations of jesus christ, both from a wider european perspective and from a specifically jewish one. further research is needed, in particular through a deeper analysis of levi’s oeuvre, in order to sketch a more detailed picture of his view of christianity and jesus christ and to place it more precisely within his european context, jewish and non-jewish. what has been presented here is just the tip of the iceberg. the death of jesus crane, “heart-rending ambivalence” crane 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college “heart-rending ambivalence”: jacques maritain and the complexity of postwar catholic philosemitism r i c har d fr anc i s cr ane g r e e n s b o r o c o l l e g e volume 6 (2011) http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the author would like to express his gratitude to bernard doering, jonathan judaken, paul mazgaj, brenna moore, and the anonymous peer reviewers of this article for their thoughtful and helpful comments and suggestions. http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): crane 1-16 crane, “heart-rending ambivalence” crane 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr introduction the most important thing that the young philosopher jacques maritain (1882-1973) learned from his godfather, novelist léon bloy, was that “there is but one sadness—not to be a saint.” 1 this was around 1906. for the next six and a half decades of his life, maritain embraced a quest for sanctity at the core of his vocation as a french catholic intellectual. a “veritable mountain of letters” divided between the maritain archives in france and the united states offers a measure of the earthly results of this preoccupation. 2 we can glimpse at one such letter, written in 1941 by a columbia university philosophy professor named ruth nanda anshen: “you are the saint, the miracle and the hope of man in our dark and suffering age.” 3 more recently, in february 2011, the catholic blogosphere came alive to the rumor—at this writing still a rumor—that the beatification process would soon begin for maritain and his wife raïssa. 4 maritain also has been lauded for his sometimes courageous attempts, beginning in the 1930s and reaching a crescendo during the holocaust, to confront anti-jewish prejudice within the consciousness of christians and the teachings 1 jacques maritain, introduction to léon bloy: pilgrim of the absolute, ed. raïssa maritain, trans. john coleman and harry lorin binsse (new york: pantheon, 1947), 23. 2 “edith stein is a canonized saint of the church. jacques maritain and his wife spent their lives in the pursuit of sanctity. in the eyes of many, they achieved it. jacques’ influence on hundreds of souls is recorded in a veritable mountain of letters.” ralph mcinerny, the very rich hours of jacques maritain: a spiritual life (notre dame, in: university of notre dame press, 2003), 3. 3 letter, ruth nanda anshen to jacques maritain, october 25, 1941, maritain archives, kolbsheim. 4 cf. “sainthood for jacques & raissa maritain,” february 16, 2011, http://catholiceye.blogspot.com/2011/02/sainthood-for-jacques-raissa.html (accessed august 26, 2011). of the catholic church. writing in 1947, he identified antisemitism as first and foremost a christian problem: “before being a problem of blood, of physical life and death for jews, antisemitism is a problem of the spirit, of spiritual life and death for christians.” 5 today’s reader might detect in this statement little more than a “christianization of the holocaust.” 6 but one also might discern a decisive change underway in how postauschwitz christians began to see the question of jewish identity and survival in the modern world, not only rethinking the modern jewish question through contemplating christian guilt and atonement, but also confronting a longstanding and notyet-repudiated “teaching of contempt.” 7 maritain has long been identified as a key figure behind the christian reappraisal of jews and judaism after 1945, and the roman catholic reengagement with the modern world and 5 jacques maritain, “lettre à la conférence du seelisberg,” in maritain, le mystère d’israël et autre essais (paris: desclée de brouwer, 1965), 226. the text of the “address to the churches” that emerged from the conference, intended to “prevent any animosity toward the jews which might arise from false, inadequate or mistaken presentations or conception of the teaching and preaching of the christian doctrine…and…to promote brotherly love toward the sorely-tried people of the old covenant,” can be found in the holocaust and the christian world, ed. carol rittner, stephen d. smith, and irena steinfeldt (new york, 2000), 245-46. 6 bernard h. rosenberg and chaim z. rozwaski, contemplating the holocaust (northvale, nj: aronson, 1999), 7-16; “adl says canonization of edith stein is an unnecessary problem,” october 8, 1998, http://www.adl.org/presrele/vaticanjewish_96/3248_96.asp (accessed june 15, 2011); james carroll, constantine’s sword: the church and the jews, a history (boston: mariner books, 2002), 5-12. for a nuanced and systematic discussion of the holocaust as a site for “the ascription of theological import to jewish life and death,” see stephen r. haynes, reluctant witnesses: jews and the christian imagination (louisville, ky: westminster john knox press, 1995), 120-40. 7 the seminal text that traces the genealogy of christian labeling of jews as “christ-killers,” or a “deicide people,” is jules isaac, the teaching of contempt: christian roots of anti-semitism, trans. helen weaver (new york: holt, rinehart, and winston, 1964). http://catholiceye.blogspot.com/2011/02/sainthood-for-jacques-raissa.html http://www.adl.org/presrele/vaticanjewish_96/3248_96.asp studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): crane 1-16 crane, “heart-rending ambivalence” crane 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the second vatican council in the early 1960s. france’s preeminent catholic intellectual between the wars, 8 and a professor at paris’ institut catholique, he had converted to catholicism in 1906, along with his wife raïssa, a russianjewish émigré, and her sister véra. all three found themselves exiles in new york between 1940 and 1944. maritain then served as french ambassador to the vatican between 1945 and 1948, before teaching at princeton university until his retirement in 1952. a renowned exponent of the teachings of saint thomas aquinas, maritain also devoted considerable energies to the promotion of democracy and human rights. 9 although reflecting on the jewish question by no means constituted his main preoccupation, maritain engaged in an early, sustained campaign against antisemitism, starting in the 1930s. in 1997, france’s catholic bishops, issuing a declaration of repentance at the former internment camp at drancy, cited him as a prophetic voice: “why is it, in the debates which we know took place, that the church did not listen to the better 8 maritain’s role in interwar french culture and politics has been examined in detail in several recent monographs: guillaume de thieulloy, le chevalier de l’absolu: jacques maritain entre mystique et politique (paris: éditions gallimard, 2005); stephen schloesser, jazz age catholicism: mystic modernism in postwar paris, 1919-1933 (buffalo, ny: university of toronto press, 2005); philippe chenaux, entre maurras et maritain. une génération intellectuelle catholique (1920-1930) (paris: les éditions du cerf, 1999). earlier, indispensable biographically-based studies include jean-luc barré, jacques et raïssa maritain: les mendiants du ciel. (paris: stock, 1995); and bernard e. doering, jacques maritain and the french catholic intellectuals (notre dame, in: university of notre dame press, 1983). 9 james v. schall, jacques maritain: the philosopher in society (lanham, md: rowman and littlefield, 1998), 210. as samuel moyn states, maritain sought to convince his fellow catholics that “human rights, far from being a dangerous outgrowth of modern secular liberalism, recalled the moral community of christendom through its emphasis on the ‘human person.’” the last utopia: human rights in history (cambridge, ma: belknap press/harvard university press, 2010), 76. see also jacques maritain, the rights of man and natural law, trans. doris c. anson (new york: charles scribner’s sons, 1943). claim of its members’ voices? before the war, both in articles and lectures, jacques maritain tried to open christians up to different perspectives on the jewish people.” 10 historians have echoed this praise, describing maritain as exemplifying a “militant humanism that excluded all forms of totalitarianism and refuted all justifications of antisemitism,” 11 or less effusively, as “one of the several catholic intellectuals renovating their faith in the direction of friendly condescension rather than hateful contempt for the jewish people.” 12 however nuanced some scholarly appraisals appear to be, these and other prevailing interpretations of maritain’s efforts to eradicate antisemitism from the christian conscience simplify this thinker’s motivations and ideas, if not the ambiguities inherent in philosemitism itself. “philosemitism” in its most basic usage denotes what one historian, alan t. levenson, terms “any pro-jewish or pro-judaic utterance or act.” 13 even this general a definition indicates a sentiment that exceeds mere anti-antisemitism, and defies simplification as a polar opposite of antisemitism. arguably, philosemites and antisemites have both tended to essentialize the jewish object of their admiration or antipathy, with occasional, sometimes troubling 10 catholic bishops of france, “declaration of repentance,” september 30, 1997, www.bc.edu/research/cjl/metaelements/texts/documents/catholic/french_repentance.htm (accessed february 10, 2005). 11 michel winock, la france et les juifs de 1789 à nos jours (paris: éditions de seuil, 2004), 214. 12 samuel moyn, a holocaust controversy: the treblinka affair in postwar france (waltham, ma: brandeis university press, 2005), 72. 13 alan t. levenson, between philosemitism and antisemitism: defenses of jews and judaism in germany, 1871-1932 (lincoln, ne: university of nebraska press, 2004), xii. philosemitism can also be associated with “an intricate ambivalence, combining elements of admiration and disdain,” according to the editors of a new volume on the history of philosemitism: introduction to philosemitism in history, eds. jonathan karp and adam sutcliffe (new york: cambridge university press, 2011), 3. http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/documents/catholic/french_repentance.htm http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/documents/catholic/french_repentance.htm studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): crane 1-16 crane, “heart-rending ambivalence” crane 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr overlap between two seemingly disparate modern phenomena. 14 keeping in mind the historically-contingent and often ambivalent nature of philosemitism, this article will incorporate maritain's postwar writings on the jewish question and his interactions with popes pius xii and paul vi, anglican theologian james parkes, jewish historians léon poliakov and jules isaac, and fellow catholic writers paul claudel and françois mauriac. maritain saw the jewish question as forever transformed by the shoah, or as he put it, the passion of israel: all christians needed to reevaluate relations with jews and portrayals of judaism. 15 but this reevaluation also meant grappling with fundamental (and interconnected) ecclesiological and christological questions, as well as historical questions about the roots of modern antisemitism. the shoah as “passion of israel” maritain’s postwar reflections on the jewish question comprise a late stage in what pierre vidal-naquet has called a “parcours,” 16 or journey, that began in the first decade of the twentieth century, following closely the trajectory of political and religious change in modern france. this itinerary included a remarkable, and for many of his fellow french catholics, 14 for example, samuel moyn analyzes philosemitism as a “cultural code” to “argue that philosemitism shared some of the same ground with antisemitism [in post-1945 france], and what matters are the various functions both played.” “antisemitism, philosemitism, and the rise of holocaust memory,” patterns of prejudice 43 (1) (2009), 3. 15 richard francis crane, passion of israel: jacques maritain, catholic conscience, and the holocaust (scranton, pa: university of scranton press, 2010). 16 pierre vidal-naquet, “jacques maritain et les juifs. réflexions sur un parcours,” in jacques maritain, l’impossible antisémitisme, précédé de jacques maritain et les juifs par pierre vidal-naquet (paris: desclée de brouwer, 2003), 7-57. influential, turning away from integral nationalism and antimodern intransigence toward democratic pluralism and outspoken philosemitism. maritain’s views underwent important changes from the publication of his first essay on the jewish question in 1921, in which he decried the negative influence of “jewish intrigues” in the modern world, to his second one in 1937, in which he pronounced the very impossibility of antisemitic prejudice for faithful christians. 17 maritain never succumbed to outright antisemitism himself, but during the 1920s, particularly during the time when he still associated with the monarchist action française, he repeatedly venerated “true israelites” and castigated “carnal jews.” 18 he also showed a willingness to associate with all but the most vicious antisemites. after the 1926 papal condemnation of charles maurras’ movement and his writings, however, maritain increasingly rejected the precepts of the extreme right, including its often virulent antisemitism. his growing enthusiasm for pluralistic democracy—influenced in a positive sense by his christian personalism and in a negative sense by the rising fascist threat—helped him articulate a more coherent position of uncompromising opposition to racist antisemitism by the late-1930s. 19 the “primacy of the spiritual” that guided maritain’s break with maurras also guided his framing of the jewish question and accounts for a certain ambivalence in his philosemitism, largely expressed theologically. 20 in 17 crane, 7-33. 18 see jacques maritain, à propos de la question juive,” in l’impossible antisémitisme, especially 63-4, 68. 19 crane, 35-49. 20 one historian emphasizes the practical limitations of maritain’s primarily theological approach to the jewish question, citing “lingering concerns about the practical utility of the eminent philosopher’s ruminations on the heady events of interwar and wartime europe,” though also acknowledging the “bold, courageous, and indeed prophetic” aspects of his “theological appreciastudies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): crane 1-16 crane, “heart-rending ambivalence” crane 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr “l’impossible antisémitisme,” (1937) maritain identified jews (at least in a corporate, mystical sense) as obstinately and fatally bound to the world. 21 during the wartime years, he wrote of a “forgetful people” finally being made aware of their true messiah through undergoing the unthinkable. 22 for maritain, jewish mass death assumed an unbearably horrific yet hopefully redemptive part of a christian metanarrative. but his understanding of this trauma in the very midst of its unfolding did not rely solely on christian sources, be they saint paul’s enunciation of the “mystery of israel,” 23 or his early mentor bloy’s “apocalyptic fulminations.” 24 maritain acknowledged tion of the intimate relationship between the jewish people and christianity.” robert a. ventresca, “jacques maritain and the jewish question: theology, identity, and politics,” studies in christian-jewish relations 2 (2) (2007): 66. 21 jacques maritain, “l’impossible antisémitisme,” in l’impossible antisémitisme, 76-78. 22 jacques maritain, “on anti-semitism,” christianity and crisis, october 6, 1941, in oeuvres complètes, volume viii (fribourg: éditions universitaires, 1989), 572. 23 rom 11: 11-27. see also jacques maritain, saint paul, trans. harry lorin binnse (new york: mcgraw-hill, 1964), 1-9, 78-88; idem, “the mystery of israel,” in ransoming the time, trans. harry lorin binnse (new york: charles scribner’s sons, 1941), 141-79. 24 doering, 5. brenna moore has written an insightful article that examines the early attempts of bloy, raïssa maritain, and poet charles péguy to revise anti-jewish stereotypes within the french catholic milieu: “building a new tribe in the gathering storm: jews and judaism in the french catholic revival (1900-1945),” the catholic historical review, forthcoming. see also paul chenaux, “léon bloy et sa postérité,” in juifs et chrétiens: entre ignorance, hostilité et rapprochement, eds. annette becker, danielle delmaire, and frédéric gugelot (lille: université charles-de-gaulle-lille 3, 2002), some scholars have posited a pernicious influence of bloy upon his godson. for an indictment of bloy as “one of the most extreme and vociferous anti-semites of turn-of-the-century france,” see john hellman, “the jews in the ‘new middle ages’: jacques maritain’s anti-semitism in its times,” in jacques maritain and the jews, ed. robert royal (notre dame, in: university of notre dame press, 1994), 91. for arthur cohen, bloy and maritain “were clearly philosemites but only up to the possibility of the conversion of the jews.” see “the holocaust and christian theology: an interpretation of the problem,” in judaism and christianity under the impact of national socialism, eds. otto duv jewish influences, including writer maurice samuel’s diagnosis of antisemitism as “christophobia,” and his close friend painter marc chagall’s evocative, haunting series of crucifixion paintings. 25 even if he drew in part on jewish sources, maritain’s wartime reading of what we today call the holocaust as “mass crucifixion” undeniably has problematic, controversial aspects. but his attempt to find redemptive meaning through suffering and sacrifice also entailed transforming christian prejudices toward jews as alleged christ-killers. writing in the jewish frontier in 1944, he denounced the term “deicide race,” demanding that “christian teachers…purify carefully their language.” 26 maritain echoed this sentiment in private to father john oesterreicher, later a drafter of nostra aetate, vatican ii’s declaration redefining catholic relations with jews: “i think that in these days of the passion of israel, we need to speak of the mystery of its faux-pas in a language sufficiently renewed for not running the risk of causing any injury and in order to keep divine things from getting mixed up in the human mélange.” 27 maritain’s spiritual assessment of jewish vocation nonetheless maintained a connection between divinity and humanity. “i believe that the particular vocation of the jewish people, dispersed among nations,” he explained to a predominately jewish audience in new york, “has been to activate and kulka and paul r. mendes-flohr (jerusalem: historical society of israel and zalman shazar center for jewish history, 1987), 479-80. 25 crane, 80-81, 84-85 26 jacques maritain, “the christian teaching of the story of the crucifixion,” in the range of reason, (new york: charles scribner’s sons, 1955), available at www2.nd.edu/departments/maritain/etext/range10.htm (accessed january 30, 2007). 27 jacques maritain to john oesterreicher, july 23, 1943, monsignor john oesterreicher papers, archives and special collections center, seton hall university. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): crane 1-16 crane, “heart-rending ambivalence” crane 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr prod earthly history through that passion for justice, that thirst to have god here below, which is deep-rooted in the heart of israel.” “the jewish people are,” he continued “both the goad and the scapegoat of the world, which revenges itself upon them for the stimulus it receives from them.” 28 maritain still believed in a jewish inclination to unsettle the world, even if he now sanctified this mission, and identified with it. to the swiss theologian abbé charles journet he expressed his doubts that the world had finished revenging itself upon jews, writing the following at the end of 1944: “if there is anything that i literally cannot bear, that kills me, it is this antisemitism that still brews and doubtless will continue to grow. …i feel i have become wedded to the destiny of israel, and it seems that i will henceforth be a wandering jew, without a rock on which to rest my head. spiritually, the exile is not over.” 29 maritain, the vatican, and postwar antisemitism rome comprised the next stage in maritain’s exile, as he assumed the post of france’s ambassador to the vatican. 28 jacques maritain, “the healing of humanity,” undated manuscript, jm 4/02a, jacques maritain center, university of notre dame. these reflections were edited out of the published version of his address: jacques maritain, “world trial: its meaning for the future,” contemporary jewish record 6 (august 1943), 339-47. 29 journet-maritain correspondance, volume iii, 1940-1949 (fribourg: éditions universitaires, 1998), 293. when maritain describes himself as “a wandering jew, without a rock on which to rest my head,” he is citing raïssa’s 1939 poem “chagall,” and not for the first time, as he reproduced part of the poem in an earlier essay: “poor jews from everywhere are walking no one claiming them they have no place on the earth to rest—not a stone the wandering jews…” jacques maritain, “the mystery of israel,” in ransoming the time, trans. harry lorin binsse (new york: charles scribner’s sons, 1941), 178. the head of france’s provisional government, general charles de gaulle, appraising the unsettled state of france after the liberation, and the extent of french catholic complicity in vichy’s national revolution, wanted an eminent, untainted catholic at the holy see. the philosopher, whom de gaulle addressed as mon maître, had condemned vichy since 1940, but avoided london as well, suspecting the general of authoritarianism. though de gaulle made his wishes known over dinner at the waldorf astoria in july 1944, maritain wanted to return to philosophy. 30 the person and the common good, a short work, would appear a few months later. maritain’s most significant study since integral humanism a decade earlier, it showed the extent to which war and genocide had marked his thinking, identifying the materialism behind a “purely biological conception of society” as leading to the cheapening of human life, and a tendency, evident even in liberal democracies, “to disregard the human person in one way or another and in its place, consider willingly or not, the material individual alone.” 31 after his american exile, maritain dreaded further diversions. but to a mind attuned to sacrifice, both as a devout catholic and as a patriotic frenchman haunted by the two world wars, maritain felt undeniable guilt. he admitted to his former student yves simon that while he saw in the rome appointment a “sacrifice which i dread horribly,” it was “impossible to continue to shirk one’s duty in such times.” 32 agreeing to a three year stint, 33 he consoled himself that this “mission 30 charles blanchet, “jacques maritain, 1940-1944: le refus de la défaite et ses relations avec le général de gaulle,” cahiers jacques maritain 16-17 (1988): 39-58. 31 jacques maritain, the person and the common good, trans. john j. fitzgerald (london: geoffrey bles, 1948), 48, 64-66. 32 letter, jacques maritain to yves simon, january 8, 1945, in cahiers jacques maritain 4 bis: 13. 33 julie kernan, our friend, jacques maritain: a personal memoir (garden city, ny: doubleday, 1975), 145-46. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): crane 1-16 crane, “heart-rending ambivalence” crane 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr temporaire” 34 would only slightly postpone his full-time resumption of the philosopher’s craft. some of the more conservative figures in the vatican, such as undersecretary of state monsignor domenico tardini, shared this consolation. 35 even though de gaulle only expected of maritain, accredited in may 1945, a symbolic presence, the ambassador chafed at his post from the beginning. he described his appointment to philosopher mortimer adler as a form of “penance,” feeling “horribly deprived of intellectual leave and philosophical meditation.” 36 to novelist georges bernanos he complained about the “depressing and suffocating” roman summer climate. 37 nonetheless, the new ambassador did more than perform perfunctory, even if interminable, duties. at the end of 1945, he addressed himself to the german guilt question. maritain’s report for the french foreign office built on previous judgments he had formed of german national character going back to the great war, luther having long instilled in his people a “swollen consciousness of self…essentially a consciousness of will.” 38 the nazi war against the jews only 34 maritain to simon, january 29, 1945, in cahiers jacques maritain 4 bis: 1718. 35 tardini extracted, via the new nuncio in paris, monsignor angelo roncalli (the future pope john xxiii), de gaulle’s confidential assurance that in good time a less “political” ambassador would replace maritain. see in particular the january 13, 1945 letter from angelo roncalli to domenico tardini, the january 18 letter from tardini to roncalli, and the january 29 letter from roncalli to tardini in actes et documents du saint siège relatifs à la seconde guerre mondiale, volume 11, la saint siège et la guerre mondiale, janvier 1944-mai 1945, eds. pierre blet, robert a. graham, angelo martini, and burkhart schneider (vatican city: libraria editrice vaticana, 1981), 676, 679, 686. i am grateful to joel blatt for assisting with the translation of these letters from the original italian. 36 jacques maritain to mortimer adler, august 31, 1945, maritain archives, kolbsheim. 37 barré, 532. 38 jacques maritain, three reformers: luther, descartes, rousseau (new york: thomas y. crowell company, 1970), 35. intensified this antagonism, maritain indicting germandom for finding “its temporal sacrament in thor or odin, or in luther and hitler,” and receiving hellish inspiration to fashion “the most perfect machinery of murder and of death.” 39 the collapse of the third reich and the full revelation of mass atrocities made maritain only more adamant that there was something deeply deformed in the german character: “let us not speak of nazi fanatics; suffice to say that the german people as a whole accepted hitler and the demonic principle that he represented as a convenient tool to be made use of for the grandeur of germany, and that it hoped for the victory over the world of a regime that accumulated crimes against the natural law.” 40 the writer of these words understood that he was portraying the german people as collectively irredeemable, or very nearly so. cutting to the heart of the matter, maritain denounced (as if it needed to be ruled out) “the extermination or the mass resettlement of the german people.” 41 was maritain seriously considering a final solution for defeated germany? in deductive logic reminiscent of aquinas’ summa theologiae, maritain asserted that no, on the contrary, the german people had to be capable of some kind of spiritual renewal, starting with a confrontation with collective guilt. otherwise, “the anti-christian theory of a racial curse would also hold true for the germans.” 42 the challenge here addresses itself explicitly to one element of modern antisemitism, nazi racism, and implicitly to another element, christian anti-judaism. maritain evidently did not know that at least one german thinker, philosopher karl jaspers, took very seriously the question of german guilt. jaspers would soon publish the burden of 39 jacques maritain, “ten months later,” in pour la justice: articles et discours (1940-1945) (new york: éditions de la maison française, 1945), 33. 40 maritain ambassadorial report, december 9, 1945, maritain archives, kolbsheim. 41 ibid. 42 ibid. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): crane 1-16 crane, “heart-rending ambivalence” crane 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr german guilt, arguing that all germans bore some measure of responsibility for nazi crimes, and that without facing collective guilt, no postwar recovery would be possible. “no other way,” jaspers wrote, “can lead to a regeneration that would renew us from the source of our being.” 43 yet jaspers also offered an argument against simplifying the guilt question that would have made for a sharp rejoinder to maritain’s confidential report, conceding the obviousness of political guilt but questioning more sweeping judgments: “to pronounce a group criminally, morally, or metaphysically guilty is an error akin to the laziness and arrogance of average, uncritical thinking.” 44 jaspers also would have bristled at maritain’s insistence on germany being permanently partitioned, either for prophylactic or punitive reasons. still, the ambassador had written a diplomatic report, not a systematic philosophical study. and whatever his history of antigermanism, increasingly his critical scrutiny focused not on the german people but on the catholic hierarchy. he looked back with dismay on the german bishops who, meeting at fulda in august 1945, had “recognized that wrongs had been committed by some germans, but…evaded the question of their collective responsibility.” maritain assured himself and the quai d’orsay in may 1946 that the german prelates did not speak for pope pius xii: “[s]ilence on such an important point cannot suffice to purify the moral atmosphere, as the pope himself wishes.” 45 but by 1947, maritain, appalled at the pro-german and antifrench attitude of the papal envoy in occupied germany, 43 karl jaspers, the question of german guilt, trans. e. b. ashton (new york: capricorn books, 1961), 28. this book was published in german in 1946 as die schuldfrage, and first appeared in english translation in 1947. 44 ibid., 42. 45 charles molette, “jacques maritain et la conférence de seelisberg,” nova et vetera 69 (1994): 214. american bishop aloisius muench, 46 became less sanguine about pius’ dependability as a moral force behind german regeneration, or a strong voice denouncing the continued dangers of antisemitism. events outside germany the year before also proved crucial. the murder of approximately forty jews on the fourth of july 1946, in kielce, poland, forced maritain’s action. he approached vatican undersecretary of state monsignor giovanni battista montini, a friend and admirer, and the future pope paul vi. montini encouraged maritain to prepare a memorandum on antisemitism, and as expected, the document referred to antisemitic violence as “not only a crime against justice and natural law…but also a mysterious tragedy.” but maritain also asked for specific action against “the antisemitic psychosis,” calling for “a proclamation of the true thought of the church…a work of enlightenment striking down a cruel and harmful error, [and] also a work of justice and reparation.” 47 the time had come for a papal encyclical denouncing antisemitism. 48 in a papal audience on july sixteenth, maritain found his suggestion rebuffed. he could expect no further statement, let alone an encyclical. why not? the previous november, the 46 michael phayer, the catholic church and the holocaust, 1930-1965 (bloomington, in: university of indiana press, 2000, 152-155. see also suzanne brown-fleming, the holocaust and catholic conscience: cardinal aloisius muench and the guilt question in germany (notre dame, in: university of notre dame press, 2005). 47 jacques maritain to giovanni battista montini, july 12, 1946, reprinted in cahiers jacques maritain 23 (october 1991), 31-33. 48 regarding the pre-war encyclical condemning antisemitism, see georges passelcq and bernard suchecky, the hidden encyclical of pius xi, trans. steven rendall (new york: harvest books, 1997). the book includes the never-promulgated encyclical, itself weighted with anti-judaic tropes, in its entirety, and receives useful contextualization in the following: frank j. coppa, “the hidden encyclical of pius xi against racism and anti-semitism uncovered—once again!” the catholic historical review 84 (1998): 63-72. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): crane 1-16 crane, “heart-rending ambivalence” crane 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr pope had granted an audience to a group of seventy jewish camp survivors, and had deplored “the hatred and folly of persecution which, under the influence of erroneous and intolerant doctrines, in opposition to the noble human and authentic christian spirit, have engulfed incomparable numbers of innocent victims, even among those who took no active part in the war.” 49 the pope’s view that these words from late 1945 sufficed to clarify the catholic church’s position on hatred and violence toward jews remained unshaken even by the kielce massacre, with its sordid background of ritual murder accusations, and its aftermath of near-unanimous silence among the polish clergy. 50 the disheartening response maritain received from the pope not only closed the issue, at least for the moment, it also set the tone for his own reply three days later to an emergency telegram from the jewish labor committee in new york. while the ambassador agreed that “any revival of antisemitism would be a shame for humanity,” he drew the jewish labor committee’s attention to the publicized remarks the pope had made in the audience with jewish refugees in november 1945. 51 even as he remonstrated in vain with the pope to better acknowledge and ameliorate the jews’ continued suffering after 1945, maritain himself maintained diplomatic circumspection. although maritain concealed his disillusionment with pius from himself and others, he never hid his desire to leave diplomacy and return to philosophy. toward the end of what he understood as a three-year term, he received an offer from the president of princeton to teach moral philosophy there. 49 phayer, 180-82; frank j. coppa, the papacy, the jews, and the holocaust (washington, dc: catholic university of america press, 2006), 212. 50 jan gross, fear: anti-semitism in poland after auschwitz (new york: random house, 2006), 152-3. 51 telegram, jacques maritain to jewish labor committee, july 19, 1946, rg-67.001m reel 7, jewish labor committee records, united states holocaust memorial museum archives. despairing of ever receiving a coveted appointment to the collège de france, maritain accepted, explaining to simon that it was “high time to return to my vocation of philosopher.” 52 since the time of kielce, maritain arguably had sought to act in the stead of a pope too preoccupied with political and diplomatic considerations, particularly those stemming from the emerging cold war, 53 to finally, belatedly offer a categorical rejection of antisemitism on behalf of the catholic church. during 1947, france’s ambassador to the vatican petitioned for the amendment if not suppression of the good friday prayer pro perfidis judaeis, 54 prepared a statement for the july thirtieth opening of the international emergency conference on antisemitism at seelisberg, switzerland, and headed the french delegation to the unesco conference in mexico city in november 1947 that helped create the universal declaration of human rights. in mexico, maritain cited recent atrocities that refuted moral indifferentism in politics: “given the crimes against humanity committed by nazi germany, it grabs us by the throat: it is good that people not leave themselves in perplexity on the subject.” 55 52 barré, 532. 53 peter kent, in his study of pius xii and the politics of the cold war, offers a balanced judgment on maritain’s departure from the vatican embassy in part by taking into account the offer of a professorship at princeton: “it was perhaps fitting that jacques maritain resigned his ambassadorial post to accept a position at princeton university; the climate at the vatican was becoming less sympathetic to his personal outlook and values.” the lonely cold war of pope pius xii: the roman catholic church and the division of europe, 19431950 (montreal: mcgill-queen’s university press, 2002), 202. 54 see in particular the april 12, 1948 memorandum from maritain to montini reprinted in philippe chenaux, paul vi et maritain: les rapports du “montinianisme” et du “maritanism” (rome: edizioni studium, 1994), 104-07; yves chevalier, “le combat de jacques maritain contre l’antisémitisme,” sens 8 (2004): 419-40. 55 jacques maritain, “la voix de la paix,” in oeuvres complètes, volume ix (fribourg: éditions universitaires, 1990), 153. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): crane 1-16 crane, “heart-rending ambivalence” crane 10 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr maritain departed rome in may 1948 after what he described as a “warm and memorable” final audience with pius, 56 despite recent scholarly assertions that he resigned his post in protest, 57 claims that make of maritain an unrealistically heroic figure with unambiguous philosemitic credentials. in truth, maritain’s own silence or discretion regarding pius xii has already been seen. this reticence to criticize pius was not necessarily shared by all french catholics, even rather conservative ones such as paul claudel, who in a letter to maritain in 1945 complained of the rather “feeble and vague moans” that the vatican had offered as a response to “the jewish children massacred by the nazis.” 58 more publicly, maritain’s close friend françois mauriac, writing in figaro in february 1948, wondered whether anyone in the vatican had shown the same kind of moral authority during the war that the recently-slain mahatma gandhi had displayed. what if someone, “on one of the hills of the eternal city, had refused to eat or drink?” 59 maritain never 56 journet-maritain correspondance, iii, 628n. 57 “catholic historian michael phayer has criticized pius xii’s posture during this period, basing his criticisms in part on the archives of jacques maritain, the eminent french catholic philosopher, who resigned his post as french ambassador to the vatican in protest over pius’ immediate post-war stance on german catholic guilt.” john t. pawlikowski, “the canonization of pope pius xii,” in rittner, et al., 222. phayer himself puts it somewhat less dramatically: “realizing that his arguments for a papal-led spiritual reawakening in europe in europe would come to naught, jacques maritain resigned his ambassadorship in 1948.” phayer, 182. see also coppa, papacy, 213. the only near-contemporary account regarding maritain’s differences with pius is the retrospective, posthumously-published reminiscences of aryeh l. kubovy (leon kubowitzky): “[in 1949] i heard that maritain had been conducting a courageous fight on behalf of the encyclical, but that the conservative elements in the curia had won the upper hand. in spite of many attempts on my part i have not yet succeeded in obtaining any details about the course of this internal political struggle.” “the silence of pope pius xii and the beginnings of the ‘jewish document.’” yad vashem studies on the european jewish catastrophe and resistance 6 (1967), 25. 58 “une lettre de paul claudel à jacques maritain,” in bulletin de la société paul claudel 143 (3e trimetre) (1996), 1-2. 59 journet maritain correspondance iii, 922. engaged in this kind of direct criticism of pius xii, though he confessed to his friend journet that he felt a “heart-rending ambivalence” toward the holy father. 60 maritain’s true feelings regarding the pope thus offer less of a contribution to an irenic historiography than a reminder of the complexity of catholic philosemitism. 61 the future of christian-jewish relations maritain’s postwar approach to the jewish question embraced issues that affected both christians and jews: the persistence of antisemitism within the christian conscience, the controversial question of whether antisemitism was extrinsic or intrinsic to historical christianity, an appraisal of the catholic church’s new attitude toward jews represented by nostra aetate, and the realization of zionist dreams in the fledgling state of israel. these were new issues in the late-1940s and early 1950s, and for virtually all parties concerned, mediated through something other than a fully-developed “holocaust consciousness,” which only materialized in the 1960s and 1970s after eueurope had risen “from the house of the dead.” 62 60 journet maritain correspondance iii, 622. see also michael r. marrus, “the ambassador and the pope: pius xii, jacques maritain, and the jews,” commonweal 131(18) (october 22, 2004), 14-18. regarding maritain’s relationship with pius xii, marrus emphasizes the “supersessionist theological context that was, at the time, inescapably associated with any vatican-level discussion of the jews,” and which required the linkage of “any declaration about the jews with an assertion of catholic rectitude and universal spiritual hegemony.” michael r. marrus, “a plea unanswered: jacques maritain, pope pius xii, and the holocaust,” studies in contemporary jewry 21 (2005): 10. 61 to the extent that pius xii had remained silent during the holocaust, maritain insisted that the pope’s motives were unimpeachable, as seen for example in “lettre de jacques maritain à andré chouraqui (1969),” notes et documents 11 (may-september 2008): 33. 62 tony judt, postwar: a history of europe since 1945 (new york: penguin, 2005), 803-34. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): crane 1-16 crane, “heart-rending ambivalence” crane 11 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the remarks quoted toward the beginning of this essay, describing antisemitism as a life and death problem for christians, came from maritain’s letter to the seelisberg conference, held between late july and early august 1947. maritain, still ambassador to the vatican, could not attend this meeting of more than sixty-five catholic, protestant, orthodox, and jewish clergy, but his message was read at the beginning of the conference. 63 maritain’s views on the jewish question now contained a far more prescriptive substance than they had before the war, demanding “practical measures.” the seelisberg conference had been called to transform the attitudes of gentiles, not jews, and maritain’s concrete suggestions aimed themselves at christians, who needed to change their attitudes in three key ways. first, they needed to recognize that the selfdebasement of perpetrators constituted the ultimate spiritual tragedy of antisemitism. second, they needed to confront the fact that antisemitism had not abated in 1945, and that christians had no grounds for self-congratulation. third, given the failure of the modern project of assimilation, christians needed to see a jewish state in palestine as inevitable, as provoking increased antisemitism, and as understandably attracting jewish loyalties regardless of whether or not individual jews chose to emigrate there. 64 maritain concluded the letter by demanding that christians purify their hearts of residual contempt, changing the very language they had unreflectively used to describe jews throughout history, and making an effort to empathize with jewish suffering in the diaspora. christian love demanded nothing less. speaking eschatologically, christians needed to make these changes to “prepare for their part the future reintegration which paul proclaimed.” 65 jules isaac, a respected historian, 63 see above, note 5. 64 maritain, “seelisberg,” 226-30. 65 ibid., 230-31. textbook author, and former government official who had lost his wife and daughter at auschwitz, devoted himself to studying the christian origins of antisemitism, and first coined the phrase “the teaching of contempt.” 66 his response to maritain’s seelisberg letter was positive and brief, according to the abbé journet: “he said, from a catholic viewpoint of course, everything i am putting forth in a book on which i am working.” 67 isaac’s jésus et israël, published in 1948, sought to revise a hostile and distorted historical view of jews and judaism, and insofar as maritain has long reminded his fellow christians of the jewishness of jesus, their views coincided. but maritain strongly disagreed with the kind of judgment, underlined by isaac in l’enseignement du mépris (1962), that a direct causal continuity existed between traditional anti-judaism and modern antisemitism. nor would isaac, who was not an observant jew, have found much worth in maritain’s evocation of a common jewish-christian spiritual destiny. that the seelisberg conference dealt with more tangible, glaring problems such as alleged deicide and the “teaching of contempt,” and postponed thorny issues of historical continuity or covenantal theology, therefore seems understandable. 68 maritain objected to a historical connection being drawn between anti-judaism and antisemitism, and defended pius xii 66 see above, note 7. 67 journet-maritain correspondance, iii, 576. 68 instead, isaac, whose frustration with vatican policies would abate when he was received with (literally) open arms by pope john xxiii, clearly appreciated even incremental, relative gains in christian-jewish relations, especially those made at the only conference dealing with christianity and antisemitism in the decade after the war at which jews were invited participants: “only in seelisberg did christian thinkers submit their thinking to jewish colleagues for critique. only in seelisberg was the starting point a jewish critique of christianity, the study paper written by french historian and humanist jules isaac, ‘the rectification necessary in christian teachings: eighteen points.’” victoria barnett, “seelisberg: an appreciation,” studies in christian-jewish relations 11 (2007), 56. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): crane 1-16 crane, “heart-rending ambivalence” crane 12 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr against intimations of antisemitism. in february 1951, the romanian-born léon poliakov, who became france’s most authoritative historian of antisemitism, asked maritain to write the preface to his book bréviaire de l’haine. 69 after reading the manuscript, the latter declined the request, enjoining its author to “demonstrate more objectivity and historical exactitude, and to avoid injuring, in speaking of them in too superficial a manner, those christians who took the side of the persecuted.” nor did maritain find even “a shadow of antisemitism in the thought of the pope.” 70 mauriac in turn agreed to preface the book, and perhaps poliakov revised some of the passages maritain found objectionable, judging by the erstwhile critic’s review: “m. poliakov’s book traces with an implacable and sure objectivity the stages of the enterprise of extermination.” 71 maritain admitted that poliakov’s history had moved him deeply, bringing into clarity the last moments of dear friends such as poet benjamin fondane, who had perished at auschwitz. and he refracted some his further comments through a philosemitism that sent different messages to jewish and gentile readers. in areas where he questioned poliakov’s identification of christianity as a causal factor behind the extermination of european jewry, he avoided direct confrontation with what he saw as interpretive errors and held christians responsible for them: “if m. poliakov, here and there, seems to confound too easily the church and such and such aspect of the temporal christian world, we should be in no position to be 69 léon poliakov, bréviaire de la haine: le troisième reich et les juifs (paris: calman-lévy, 1951). the book appeared in english translation as harvest of hate in 1954. 70 léon poliakov, mémoires (paris: jacques grancher editeur, 1999), 287-88. 71 jacques maritain, review of poliakov in oeuvres complètes, volume x (fribourg: éditions universitaires, 1991), 1153. scandalized. […] based on the sole fact that there had been, and that there still is, despite everything, a christian world, the atrocious implementation of the ‘final solution’ should not even have been possible.” 72 but when the anglican priest james parkes 73 insisted on the inherently christian roots of antisemitism, maritain showed less indulgence. parkes accepted “no break in the genealogical tree between these nonreligious beliefs of modern man and the religious beliefs of their ancestors.” 74 maritain disagreed with this assertion of continuity, arguing that “medieval antisemitism, nefarious as it was… was essentially impatience with those who prevented by their spiritual obstinacy the advent of god’s kingdom on earth. it was totally different from racist antisemitism. the latter, nevertheless, may be regarded as an aggravated metamorphis [sic] and secularization of the former.” in short, parkes could not simply deem antisemitism “a creation of the christian church.” 75 behind the historical argument between parkes and maritian lies not only the subsequent theological assertion that “antisemitism is the right hand of christology,” 76 but also an 72 ibid., 1159-60. 73 parkes’ first major work is still his most influential: the conflict of the church and the synagogue (london: soncino press, 1934). see also antisemitism (chicago: quadrangle, 1963). haim chertok, he also spoke as a jew: the life of the reverend james parkes (london: vallentine mitchell, 2006), offers the most extensive, as well as the most idiosyncratically psychohistorical, biography of parkes to date. 74 james parkes to robert mayer, august 19, 1954, jacques maritain center, university of notre dame. 75 jacques maritain to robert mayer, november 9, 1954, maritain center, university of notre dame. i have found no evidence that maritain and parkes ever corresponded directly. 76 rosemary radford ruether, faith and fratricide: the theological roots of anti-semitism (new york: seabury press, 1974), 116. ruether’s thesis is studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): crane 1-16 crane, “heart-rending ambivalence” crane 13 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr ecclesiological impasse. for maritain and parkes the very word “church” meant something different. they both converted to christianity—be it anglican or catholic—in the first decade of the twentieth century, in the very heat of the modernist controversy. unlike parkes, a liberal protestant, maritain saw the catholic church as the mystical body of christ, as something more than a merely human, fallible institution. 77 no wonder one scholar brands maritain a theological conservative, but also questions whether parkes ultimately believed in anything but human progress. 78 maritain himself has been lauded as progressive catholic, mainly because of his acknowledged role in fostering the second vatican council’s unprecedented openness to the modern world and to dialogue with other religions. the conciliar document nostra aetate, influenced by both maritain and jules isaac, redefined the relationship between catholicism and non-christian religions, particularly judaism. 79 indeed, this document, which had its roots in john xxiii’s call for an ecumenical council, was originally directed challenged by yosef hayim yerushalmi, “response to rosemary radford ruether,” in auschwitz: beginning of a new era? ed. eva fleischner (new york: ktav, 1977), 103. on page 104, yerushalmi’s words can be seen as more-or-less identical to those maritain would have chosen had he been asked to radically condense his position on the origins of modern antisemitism in on the church of christ (1970): “the slaughter of jews by the state was not part of the medieval christian world order. it became possible with the breakdown of that order.” see also paula fredriksen, augustine and the jews: a christian defense of jews and judaism (new york: doubleday, 2008). 77 crane, 119-21. 78 alan t. davies, antisemitism and the christian mind: the crisis of conscience after auschwitz (new york: herder and herder, 1969), 82-84, 141. 79 for an expansive look at “nostra aetate’s tortured genesis” in the context of the second vatican council, and against the backdrop of decolonization, the cold war, and the shadow of the holocaust, see stephen schloesser, “against forgetting: memory, history, vatican ii,” theological studies 67 (2006): 275-319. solely toward the jewish faith and people. 80 the broadening of this document’s focus does not concern us here, but rather what maritain considered the blunting of its salutary impact on christian-jewish relations. though publicly honored by pope paul vi—who often referred to maritain as “my teacher” 81 —in the closing ceremony of the council, he privately seethed at changes made in the 1965 final draft of nostra aetate. “i have suffered a real wound,” he wrote to charles, now cardinal, journet on october seventh, “in seeing that the words ‘and condemn’ after the word ‘deplore’ (hatred, persecution, manifestations of antisemitism) have been suppressed.” 82 he traced such excisions not only to conservative influences within the curia, but also, according to bernard doering, to “pressure from the bishops of the arab states and the political forces behind them.” 83 given the vatican’s historical opposition to zionism and reluctance to recognize the state of israel (until 1993), 84 maritain’s long-held christian zionism and outspoken support for the jewish state anticipated later developments in catholicism, even while demonstrating philosemitic ambiguities. since the 1920s, maritain had advocated a jewish return to palestine both as a temporal answer to antisemitism and as a prelude to 80 robert a. graham, “introduction to the declaration on the relationship of the church to non-christian religions (nostra aetate),” in the documents of vatican ii, ed. walter m. abbott and joseph gallagher (new york: guild press, 1966), 656-59. 81 for a detailed study of the relationship between the pontiff and the philosopher, see chenaux, paul vi et maritain. 82 letter, jacques maritain to charles journet, october 7, 1965, excerpted in cahiers jacques maritain, 23: 35n. 83 doering, 165-7, 225. 84 cf. sergio minerbi, the vatican and zionism: conflict in the holy land: 1895-1925, trans. arnold schwarz (new york: oxford university press, 1995). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): crane 1-16 crane, “heart-rending ambivalence” crane 14 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr fulfilling biblical prophecy. 85 writing a postscript to his 1964 book le mystère d’israël, he regretted that his failing health precluded visiting israel, “the sole country to which…it is absolutely, divinely certain that a people has a right.” 86 insisting that muslim arabs display a “resignation to an event testifying to the will of allah,” 87 maritain also rejected journet’s question of whether the creation of a jewish state in 1948 differed, at least in method, from the historical waging of “holy war” by christians and muslims. the difference, maritain explained, lay in the teleological significance of the event, related both to jewish existence and to covenantal reintegration: “what the surrounding peoples are being asked to recognize is not at all a conquest in the name of holy war or in the name of a messianic mission, it is establishing something in order to exist…should not a christian see in the return of the jews to the promised land a preamble, as far off as it might be, to the final reintegration?” 88 jewish observers of christian zionism have long looked anxiously, if not with hostility, at such sentiments, seeing in them another sinister answer to the jewish question, entailing 85 crane, 20-21. perhaps his christian zionism began before 1914, based on his close friendship with avshalom feinberg, an ardent zionist and a native of ottoman palestine, who died during the great war on an espionage mission for the british. renée neher-bernheim, éclats d’une amitié: avshalom feinberg et jacques maritain (paris: éditions parole et silence, 2005). 86 jacques maritain, “post-scriptum,” in le mystère d’israël, 243. 87 ibid., 244-45. 88 letter, charles journet to jacques maritain, october 22, 1965, reprinted in cahiers jacques maritain, 23 (october 1991): 33-35; maritain to journet, october 27, 1965, reprinted in ibid.: 36-38. the disappearance, if not of jews, at least of judaism. 89 one cannot ignore such concerns, but in the case of maritain they drastically oversimplify one christian’s anguished love for jews. maritain’s philosemitism, along with other aspects of his adult persona, cannot be understood without reference to the centrality of his own conversion, which as he put it, left him “a man whom god has turned inside out, like a glove.” 90 he shared with raïssa a lifelong sense of continual conversion. neither jacques nor raïssa believed that she had ceased to be a jew, or in a larger sense, that god had ever abrogated the covenant with israel. 91 in 1961, maritain, now in retirement at a monastery outside of toulouse, traveled to new york to receive the edith stein prize, which he shared with his recently-deceased wife, to whom he believed he owed “everything good in life,” and who had the “double privilege” of being born a jew and baptized as a christian. 92 he also confided to his journal how he envied this double privilege, having spent decades with raïssa and véra: “i feel myself a debtor to israel…i would like to be as little as possible a goïsche kop; i would like to be a jew by adoption, since i have been introduced by baptism into the dignity of the children of israel.” 93 writing in 1967 to a young woman who had converted from judaism to catholicism, he testified to this sanctified envy while affirming her feelings of being uprooted: 89 for a comprehensive, balanced study of christian zionism, see shalom goldman, zeal for zion: christians, jews, and the idea of the promised land (chapel hill, nc: university of north carolina press, 2009) 90 jacques maritain, réponse à jean cocteau (paris: librairie stock, 1926), quoted in doering,10. 91 crane, 122-23. 92 jacques maritain, “at the edith stein guild,” oeuvres complètes, volume xii (fribourg: éditions universitaires, 1992), 1212. 93 jacques maritain, notebooks, trans. joseph w. evans (albany, ny: magi books, 1984), 4. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): crane 1-16 crane, “heart-rending ambivalence” crane 15 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr “you must bless this condition, not bemoan it, it obligates you to march toward sanctity, in the footsteps of saint paul, and toward the love of this cross by which man became coredemptor with jesus: for the salvation of the world and the accomplishment of israel.” 94 for all the ambivalence in his philosemitism, maritain’s jewish question answered itself in accomplishment rather than extinction. conclusion jacques maritain viewed the jewish question through the perspective of catholic philosemitism. his advocacy for jews and admiration of judaism comprised more than mere opposition to antisemitism, viewing jewish identity within the framework of christian salvation history. the conclusion that both antisemites and philosemites tend to make of jews an essential type, what zygmunt bauman calls allosemitism, 95 can apply to maritain, who sanctified rather than contradicted stereotypes about jewish subversion or gentile resentment of jewish distinctiveness. his prominent role in fostering christian-jewish dialogue after 1945, and in inspiring the catholic church to repudiate the deicide charge against jews, added to his already positive image as a philosemite. but good deeds can be mythologized, as with the apocryphal portrait of maritain as a courageous opponent of pope pius xii who resigned his post as french ambassador to the vatican in protest over the pontiff’s alleged continued silence about the holocaust. in truth, maritain felt a “heart-rending ambivalence” toward pius, despite a frustration at the pope’s 94 jacques maritain, “lettre à un juif chrétien (1967),” cahiers jacques maritain 23 (1991): 41-42. 95 see zygmunt bauman, “allosemitism: premodern, modern, and postmodern,” in bryan cheyette and laura marcus (eds.), modernity, culture, and “the jew” (new york: polity press, 1998), 143-56. unwillingness to issue an encyclical against antisemitism, and an annoyance at his “sympathy and indulgence…in regard to the german people.” 96 this non-event contradicts the historical record. its invocation also risks overestimating the level of holocaust consciousness among christians and jews right after the war, and underestimating the weighty theological issues in christian-jewish relations that have only slowly been addressed since. maritain was neither a systematic theologian who fully engaged the problem of christian supersessionism, nor was he a historian who could hope to settle once and for all the question of whether traditional anti-judaism directly caused modern antisemitism. one should not deemphasize such theological or theological-historical questions, but we also should resituate maritain within the history of twentieth-century french catholicism. it is worth asking to what extent maritain’s philosemitism, embracing an interdependence of christians and jews in the economy of salvation, was accentuated by an appraisal of france as a post-christian society and culture. 97 aside from this philosopher’s dedication to a re-christianization of western culture, one can point to godin and daniel’s 1943 book la france. pays de mission? 98 in any case, maritain’s influence in french catholicism after the war waned. he had long been absent from france, and soon new currents would appear within catholic scholarship, such as the historically-inclined 96 maritain’s final ambassadorial report, in which he gives vent to his annoyance at pius’ apparent pro-german bias, is reprinted in cahiers jacques maritain 4 bis: 91-96. 97 i am grateful to oscar cole-arnal for raising this question. 98 jacques maritain, humanisme intégral: problèmes temporels et spirituels d’une nouvelle chrétienté (paris: éditons montaigne, 1936); henri godin and yvan daniel, la france. pays de mission? (paris: cerf, 1943). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): crane 1-16 crane, “heart-rending ambivalence” crane 16 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr ressourcement that pursued theological inquiry outside the putative confines of thomism. 99 as recent studies have shown, an appreciation of the historical significance of the holocaust as a distinctly jewish catastrophe only gradually permeated french cultural discourse. 100 maritain’s own apocalyptic interpretation of antisemitism soon found itself superseded by more philosophically current interpretations such as the existentialist portrait of the antisemite advanced by jean-paul sartre. 101 but he, like sartre at a later point in his life, developed an approach to the jewish question that involved more than simply constructing an uninformed picture of jews and judaism that served the larger purpose of illustrating a theory, doctrine, or ideology. 102 jacques maritain believed that without a jewish presence in the world, not only would christianity past, present, or future not exist, but the burdens of history, evil, and human separation from god would be unbearable. 103 and so the question of future 99 barré, 518-88. see also jacques maritain, le paysan de la garonne. paris: desclée de brouwer, 1966, in which he identified a “frenzied modernism” after vatican ii, much of it attributable to the influence of pierre teihard du chardin, one of the theologians and philosophers associated with the nouvelle théologie. on this once suppressed and ultimately influential movement within catholic theology, see jürgen mettepenningen, nouvelle théologie—new theology: inheritor of modernism, precursor of vatican ii (london: t & t clark, 2010). 100 see moyn, a holocaust controversy, and joan b. wolf, harnessing the holocaust: the politics of memory in postwar france (stanford, ca: stanford university press, 2004). 101 jean-paul sartre, anti-semite and jew, trans. george l. becker (new york: schocken books, 1948). the book originally appeared as réflexions sur la question juive in 1946. 102 jonathan judaken, jean-paul sartre and the jewish question: antiantisemitism and the politics of the french intellectual (lincoln, ne: university of nebraska press, 2006), 208-39. 103 see jacques maritain, on the philosophy of history, trans. joseph w. evans (new york: scribner’s, 1957); and god and the permission of evil, jewish existence, both historically and eschatologically, was for him a life and death question inseparable from his search for sainthood. trans. joseph w. evans (milwaukee, wi: bruce, 1966). these post-holocaust works highlight maritain’s need, not unlike hegel’s, to find meaning and purpose in modern history. i thank stephen schloesser for this insight. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 peer-reviewed article cracks in the theology of contempt: the french roots of nostra aetate richard francis crane, benedictine college brenna moore, fordham university the authors would like to thank philip a. rolnick and this journal's anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. the fiftieth anniversary of the second vatican council (1962-65) has seen renewed scholarly interest in this epochal encounter between the roman catholic church and the challenges of modernity. a number of scholars have devoted increased attention to the influence of the second world war and the holocaust on the documents of vatican ii, particularly the declaration on the relation of the church to nonchristian religions, or nostra aetate. 1 this declaration fundamentally reconceived catholic-jewish relations, a reappraisal that had begun more than twenty years earlier in a time of dictatorship, war, and genocide. recent scholarship shows that during and after the period of the third reich, central european converts to catholicism challenged the church to acknowledge the evil of anti-jewish hatred. like john (johannes) oesterreicher, most of these individuals were converts from judaism and they struggled to make the church repudiate centuries of anti-judaism and combat the consequent 1 see stephen schloesser, “against forgetting: memory, history, vatican ii,” theological studies 67 (2006): 275-319; neville lamdan and alberto melloni, eds., nostra aetate: origins, promulgation, impact on jewishcatholic relations (berlin: lit, 2007); marianne moyaert and didier pollefeyt, eds., never revoked: nostra aetate as ongoing challenge for jewish-christian dialogue (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 2010); elizabeth groppe, “revisiting vatican ii's theology of the people of god after forty-five years of catholic-jewish dialogue,” theological studies 72 (2011): 586-620. studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) emergence of racist antisemitism. 2 while acknowledging the importance of these german-speaking converts, this article adds a new perspective, highlighting the importance of key french figures and events, a perspective that must be included in any historical-theological appraisal of the background to nostra aetate. the french roots of nostra aetate begin in paris in the first decade of the twentieth century. like their central european counterparts, many of these french thinkers and activists were also converts to catholicism and “border transgressors,” to use john connelly’s term, men and women who maintained a complex sense of religious identity. 3 they exhibited an early willingness to think outside the historically christian prejudice and contempt for jews and look beyond the prevailing racist ideologies of their time. at the forefront of this community is the devout, yet anticlerical novelist léon bloy, who returned to his childhood catholicism as an adult. bloy’s imperfect and sometimes violent rhetoric undeniably expressed revulsion at the antisemitism manifest during the dreyfus affair. 4 indeed, connelly writes of bloy that the “path to vatican ii begins with him.” 5 bloy mentored jacques and raïssa maritain, both converts themselves (jacques from protestantism and raïssa from judaism), who cultivated a philosemitic circle in the interwar period. as the dark years 2 john connelly, from enemy to brother: the revolution in catholic teaching on the jews, 1933-1965 (cambridge, ma: harvard university press, 2012). 3 connelly, 65 and 287. 4 for more on bloy and judaism see philippe chenaux, “léon bloy et sa postérité,” in juifs et chrétiens: entre ignorance, hostilité et rapprochement (1898–1998), ed. annette becker, danielle delmaire, and frédéric gugelot (villeneuve d’ascq: lille, 2002), 47–58; brenna moore, “philosemitism under a darkening sky: judaism in the french catholic revival,” the catholic historical review 99 (2013), 262-287. 5 connelly, from enemy to brother, 185. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 of the 1940s approached, this circle widened to include an eclectic mix of converts, devout catholics, and practicing jews. 6 another insider-outsider intellectual, the secular jewish historian jules isaac, only came to understand jewish scriptures through a deep immersion in christian sources, principally the new testament. his uncovering of the origins of what he called the “teaching of contempt” had a decisive influence on the drafting of nostra aetate. indeed one scholar writes that with this declaration, “isaac’s mission was largely realized,” a quintessential outsider having influenced a number of insiders within the church, including pope john xxiii. 7 on the other hand, henri de lubac, at least at first glance, would seem to embody the insider french catholic perfectly. but even though he was a jesuit priest, theologian, and from an aristocratic french family, de lubac worked closely with french jewish converts such as abbé glasberg. in that wartime center of christian resistance, lyon, a series of projects took shape that aimed at jewish-christian friendship and theological collaboration. de lubac’s friendships and activities enabled him to serve as a leading theologian in the christian re-appraisal of jewish sources and offer unambiguous denunciations of antisemitism which were published clandestinely during the occupation. de lubac is known as the pioneer of ressourcement or “return to the sources,” the impulse that provided the theological orientation for vatican ii. de lubac’s theological commitment to ressourcement focused on the retrieval of the spiritual texts of christian premodernity, a theological approach not known for its entanglements with the tortured time of war and holocaust, or as a response to the widespread catholic acquiescence to antisemitism and nazism. but on closer examination, the ressourcement impulse is 6 jean-luc barré, jacques and raïssa maritain: beggars for heaven, trans. bernard doering (south bend: university of notre dame, 1999), 147-79; nora possenti, “au foyer du meudon,” cahiers jacques maritain 51 (december 2005): 11-31. 7 marco morselli, “jules isaac and the origins of nostra aetate,” in lamdan and melloni, nostra aetate, 27. studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 8 (2013) incomprehensible outside of the painful setting of 1940-44, “those terrible years” as de lubac called them. 8 an appreciation of some key figures in their french theological and cultural setting enables a richer understanding of nostra aetate’s condemnation of antisemitism. the conciliar document proclaimed solidarity with jews arising from the “spiritual patrimony common to jews and christians.” 9 french “border transgressors” 10 helped make this emphasis on unity possible. some of the unanswered questions about nostra aetate, what some have called its “open eschatological vision,” 11 can be traced to these catholic and jewish figures in france. in their mind, their project of christian-jewish reconciliation was only beginning, with several major issues left unresolved, issues that still linger for contemporary catholics. jacques and raïssa maritain: impossible antisemitism although his views underwent considerable development, jacques maritain (1882-1973) has been lauded as a rare catholic voice condemning antisemitism before the shoah. 12 a 8 for a wonderful reading of vatican ii in this direction, see schloesser, “against forgetting”; “terrible years,” from henri de lubac, at the service of the church: henri de lubac reflects on the circumstances that occasioned his writings, trans. anne elizabeth englund (san francisco: ignatius, 1993), 55. see also joseph a. komonchak, “theology and culture at mid-century: the example of henri de lubac,” theological studies 51 (1990), 579-602. 9 nostra aetate, paragraph 4. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/v at-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html 10 connelly, 65 and 287. 11 john connelly, “response,” in “forum essay [on from enemy to brother],” the catholic historical review 98 (2012): 764. 12 in 1997, france’s catholic bishops made a statement of repentance at the former internment camp at drancy, and paid tribute to an early opponent of antisemitism: “before the war, jacques maritain, both in articles and in lectures, tried to open christians up to different perspectives on the jewish people. he also warned against the perversity of the anti-semitism that was developing.” catholic bishops of france, “declaration of repentance,” september 30, 1997, www.bc.edu/research/cjl/metahttp://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/documents/catholic/french_repentance.htm studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 5 disciple of dreyfusard poet charles péguy, he converted to catholicism in 1906 along with his russian-born wife raïssa (1883-1960), a jewish refugee from the tsarist pogroms. 13 the maritains’ godfather, mystic novelist léon bloy (1846-1917), set in motion the profound ambivalences that would characterize the maritains’ subsequent thinking on the jewish question. bloy taught them that “israel blocks history, as a dam blocks a river, to raise its level,” pointing to the chosen people’s undying vocation to stimulate the conscience of humanity. 14 envisioning himself a tireless opponent of antisemitism, bloy insisted that christianity must keep in mind its jewish roots. but bloy also employed violent imagery and denigrating representations of jews that would shock today’s readers. for example, he asserted that the unwillingness of jews to accept jesus as their savior meant that “they have him nailed strongly enough to the cross that he cannot come down without their permission.” 15 these contradictions cannot easily be resolved. jacques maritain long retained bloy’s view of a jewish mission to unsettle the world. during the 1920s the author of antimoderne consorted with extreme right wing antisemites such as action française leader charles maurras. the 1926 papal condemnation of maurras’ movement prompted a shift on maritain’s part toward christian personalism and elements/texts/documents/catholic/french_repentance.htm (accessed february 10, 2005). see also pierre vidal-naquet, “jacques maritain et les juifs. réflexions sur un parcours,” in jacques maritain, l’impossible antisémitisme, précédé de jacques maritain et les juifs par pierre vidalnaquet (paris: desclée de brouwer, 2003), 7-57. 13 on raïssa maritain, see brenna moore, sacred dread: raïssa maritain, the allure of suffering, and the french catholic revival (1905-1945) (notre dame, in: university of notre dame press, 2012). 14 philippe chenaux, “léon bloy et sa postérité,” in juifs et chrétiens: entre ignorance, hostilité et rapprochement, eds. annette becker, danielle delmaire, and frédéric gugelot (lille: université charles-de-gaulle-lille 3, 2002), 48-52. 15 léon bloy, le salut par les juifs (paris: éditions g. crès, 1906). the maritains subsidized this reprint of the book, originally published in 1892. http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/documents/catholic/french_repentance.htm studies in christian-jewish relations 6 scjr 8 (2013) outspoken philosemitism. 16 this shift in attitude was not free of problematic views about jews. a 1937 essay branded antisemitism an affront to christian conscience, yet reiterated an old anti-judaic trope: “the jews chose the world; they have loved it; their suffering comes from having been held to their choice.” 17 nonetheless, maritain also warned of an “evil fire that consumes peoples... extermination and death... a general massacre of the race of moses and jesus.” 18 before the war, his ambivalent philosemitism still balanced a practical antiantisemitism with theological anti-judaism. although his wife raïssa never fully severed ties with judaism, her thinking on the jewish question also underwent significant developments. shortly after she converted to catholicism, her earliest writings relied on the classic binary opposition between the true israelite (as actual or incipient christian) and the false, carnal jew. 19 but by the early 1930s, her understanding evolved considerably, and raïssa came to 16 differing interpretations of maritain’s early writings on the jewish question are offered by the following: john hellman, “the jews in the ‘new middle ages’: jacques maritain’s anti-semitism in its times,” in jacques maritain and the jews, ed. robert royal (notre dame, in: university of notre dame press, 1994), 89-103; robert a. ventresca, “jacques maritain and the jewish question: theology, identity, and politics,” studies in christian-jewish relations 2 (2007); and richard francis crane, “ surviving maurras: jacques maritain’s jewish question,” patterns of prejudice 42 (2008): 385-411. studies that focus more broadly on maritain during the interwar years include guillaume de thieulloy, le chevalier de l’absolu: jacques maritain entre mystique et politique (paris: éditions gallimard, 2005); stephen schloesser, jazz age catholicism: mystic modernism in postwar paris, 1919-1933 (buffalo, ny: university of toronto press, 2005); philippe chenaux, entre maurras et maritain. une génération intellectuelle catholique (1920-1930) (paris: les éditions du cerf, 1999); and bernard e. doering, jacques maritain and the french catholic intellectuals (notre dame, in: university of notre dame press, 1983). 17 jacques maritain, “l’impossible antisémitisme” in maritain, l’impossible antisémitisme, 78. 18 “les juifs parmi les nations,” in ibid, 103-4. 19 raïssa maritain, “récit de ma conversion,” in oeuvres complètes de jacques et raïssa maritain (freiburg : editions universitaires, 1982–2000), xv: 827–37. [hereafter cited as ocjrm]. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 7 be seen by some members of their intellectual circuit as a “pioneer of jewish-christian relations.” 20 in 1935, she published histoire d’abraham ou la sainteté dans l’état de nature, an exegetical reading of genesis to explore the inner life of abraham. 21 raïssa portrayed abraham (whom bloy had once portrayed as an “incomparable blackguard” 22 ) as the first in a long line of mystical heroes whose faith emerged from the dark night of the soul. she thus pushed back on prevailing discourses in europe that claimed the figures from the hebrew bible lacked interiority. she dismantled the classic accusation of jewish legalism by showing how abraham’s fidelity to the law is grounded in love, and abraham consequently becomes the figure who “unites the old and new testaments.” she read the later pauline notion of law as rooted not only in the gospel and but also deuteronomy. 23 raïssa’s essay was republished in the postwar period, expanding the conversation her friend oesterreicher, later one of the drafters of nostra aetate, had been initiating. when monsignor oesterreicher set up an institute of judeo-christian studies at seton hall university in 1953, he launched a series, the bridge, dedicated to exploring the theme “spiritually we are all semites”the famous 1938 words of pius xi. the inaugural 1955 volume included a revised version of raïssa’s histoire d’abraham published in english under the title “abraham and the ascent of conscience.” 24 in histoire d’abraham, raïssa explored jewishchristian unity through common spiritual lineage, but during the war years, she recast it in more personal language. in 1941 20 helene iswolski, light before dusk; a russian catholic in france (new york: longmans, greene, 1942), 179. 21 raïssa maritain, histoire d’abraham ou la sainteté dans l’état de nature (geneva : nova et vetera: revue catholique pour la suisse romande, 1935), reprinted in ocjrm 14:568–617. 22 bloy, le salut par les juifs, 25. 23 raïssa maritain, ocjrm 14:589. 24 raissa maritain, “abraham and the ascent of conscience,” in the bridge: a yearbook of judaeo-christian studies, ed. john m. oesterreicher (new york: pantheon books, 1955), 23-53. studies in christian-jewish relations 8 scjr 8 (2013) and 1944, she wrote her famous two-volume memoirs les grandes amitiés where she presented a vivid recollection of her jewish childhood in russia. she painted jewish family life in strokes that humanized jewish families, and rendered their household piety as quite similar to christianity. 25 among the many reviews of her work and letters she received, one priest wrote that her portrait of jewish household piety “reads like a story of the last supper in the gospel. in fact the rite was the same. no good catholic could possibly take part on hatred or stimulating the hatred of a people who still observe this ritual performed by our lord.” 26 the portrait, as a one reader put it, helped excise the “repulsion” he had previously felt for jews. 27 raïssa placed a footnote among this material to make a direct connection to the horrible events of her day: “of the 9,300,000 jews who lived in the various countries of europe before this war, less than 5,000,000 remain. the nazis have killed all the rest.” 28 they would kill almost two million more. while in exile in america with her husband and her sister, raïssa also wrote a handful of chilling poems. as the horrific violence across the atlantic occurred, she established herself as a voice of catholic lamentation. in 1943, her long poem, “deus excelsus terribilis,” she described europe as “shattered, fouled, ravaged/ famine there, wasting bodies/ the children who will not grow up/ adolescents who are in slavery/ in prison in captivity.” later, “four million jews—and more— have suffered death/ without consolation./ those who are left are promised to the slaughter./ it is your lineage, lord, which is exterminated!/ israel was led to the butchery/ flock without shepherd without fold/ they were tracked down like game/ in the streets of towns and villages.” 29 in this and other poems, 25 raïssa maritain, grandes amitiés, ocjrm 14: 636–37. 26 rev. maurice pierquin, canada, to raïssa maritain, december 13, 1941, jacques and raïssa maritain archives, kolbsheim. 27 rev. maurice pierquin, canada, to raïssa maritain, december 13, 1941, jacques and raïssa maritain archives, kolbsheim. 28 raïssa maritain, grandes amitiés, ocjrm 14:1059. 29 raïssa maritain, “deus excelsus terribilis,” ocjrm 15:563. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 9 she articulated jewish suffering in all of its vivid and ghastly detail, and aimed to inculcate awareness, outrage, and compassion among the vast majority of indifferent catholics. these pleas for compassion had begun in 1938, when she published her poem “chagall,” in which she describes his paintings of pity for the “wandering jews.” 30 raïssa maritain died in 1960, two years before the convening of the council. 31 her influence is therefore less readily visible than others, who sat at the tables of the dramatic proceedings or had crucial audiences with the pope. yet, it is unmistakable that from 1935 until her death, her work influenced the broad, transnational effort of “insider-outsiders,” challenging catholic anti-judaism and antisemitism. along with jacques, her work tilled the soil for what bore fruit in nostra aetate’s repudiation of persecution and emphasis on jewish-christian unity. as for jacques, he characterized what we today call the holocaust as the “passion of israel.” 32 an agonized quest to find redemptive meaning in mass murder led him to conclude painfully that jesus suffered with “his forgetful people whom he ceaselessly loves and calls…in order to gradually conform his people to him.” 33 but it was maritain’s practical measures—refuting the deicide charge and rejecting the image of jews as cursed or forsaken—that would bear fruit at vatican 30 raïssa maritain, “chagall,” ocjrm 15:551–52; english translation by thomas merton, jubilee, 10 (april 1963), 26. 31 on maritan’s death, see brenna moore, sacred dread, 192-200. 32 richard francis crane, passion of israel: jacques maritain, catholic conscience, and the holocaust (scranton, pa: university of scranton press, 2010). 33 jacques maritain, “on anti-semitism,” christianity and crisis, october 6, 1941, in j. maritain and r. maritain, ocjrm 8:572. maritain also drew on jewish influences—writer maurice samuel and his close friend painter marc chagall—in forming a christological interpretation of the shoah. crane, passion of israel, 71, 80, and 83-5. studies in christian-jewish relations 10 scjr 8 (2013) ii. 34 oesterreicher credited his cher ami et maître with recognizing a lasting jewish covenant “years before the second vatican council would renew saint paul’s theology on the jews.” 35 oesterreicher had known maritain since the late1930s, when the latter contributed to the anti-racist priest’s journal die erfüllung (fulfillment). in a 1943 letter, maritain urged oesterreicher “to speak of the mystery of [israel’s] fauxpas in a language sufficiently renewed for not running the risk of causing any injury and in order to keep divine things from getting mixed up in the human mélange.” 36 two decades later, nostra aetate’s drafters would try to accomplish just such a renewal of language. after the war and france’s liberation from nazi tyranny, maritain served as ambassador to the holy see, where he experienced frustration and disillusionment regarding pius xii’s unwillingness to categorically condemn antisemitism. 37 the 1946 kielce massacre in poland demonstrated that, as 34 jacques maritain, “the christian teaching of the story of the crucifixion,” in maritain, the range of reason, http://www2.nd.edu/departments/maritain/etext/range10.htm (accessed 23 january 2007). 35 john oesterreicher, “cher ami et maître,” in royal, jacques maritain and the jews, 256. see also jacques maritain book the living thoughts of saint paul, trans. harry lorin binsse (new york: longmans, green, 1941). 36 jacques maritain to john oesterreicher, july 23, 1943, monsignor john oesterreicher papers, archives and special collections center, seton hall university. 37 see michael r. marrus, “the ambassador and the pope: pius xii, jacques maritain, and the jews,” commonweal 131:18 (october 22, 2004): 14-18. regarding maritain’s relationship with pius xii, marrus emphasizes the “supersessionist theological context that was, at the time, inescapably associated with any vatican-level discussion of the jews,” and which required the linkage of “any declaration about the jews with an assertion of catholic rectitude and universal spiritual hegemony.” michael r. marrus, “a plea unanswered: jacques maritain, pope pius xii, and the holocaust,” studies in contemporary jewry 21 (2005): 10. see also richard francis crane, “heart-rending ambivalence: jacques maritain and the complexities of postwar catholic philosemitism,” studies in christianjewish relations 6 (2011). studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 11 maritain put it to papal undersecretary monsignor giovanni battista montini (the future pope paul vi) “the antisemitic psychosis has not vanished.” 38 rebuffed in his papal audience, maritain found other opportunities to attack the “moral fifth column of the christian conscience.” 39 in a letter read to the christians and jews gathered at the 1947 international emergency conference on antisemitism at seelisberg, switzerland, he asserted that “[b]efore being a problem of blood, of physical life and death for jews, antisemitism is a problem of the spirit, of spiritual life and death for christians.” 40 before leaving rome for princeton, maritain also participated in the 1948 unesco conference that laid the groundwork for the universal declaration of human rights. in the 1960s during the years of the council, jacques dedicated himself to preserving his late wife’s papers and establishing her legacy, confessing to his friend cardinal charles journet that “if any good remains in the work people want me to do, it is owed, every time, to what i receive from her[.]” 41 in december 1965 the widowed maritain emerged from his monastic hermitage to be publicly honored and embraced by paul vi at the end of the council. nostra aetate gratified but also saddened him, as it reflected successive reductive drafts to satisfy curial conservatives and arab prelates. 42 maritain confided 38 jacques maritain to giovanni battista montini, july 12, 1946, reprinted in cahiers jacques maritain 23 (october 1991), 31-33. on the kielce massacre, see jan gross, fear: anti-semitism in poland after auschwitz (new york: random house, 2006). 39 maritain, “on anti-semitism,” 566. 40 jacques maritain, “lettre à la conférence du seelisberg,” in maritain, le mystère d’israël et autre essais (paris: desclée de brouwer, 1965), 226. maritain could not attend the conference, so his message was read to the sixty-five assembled christian and jewish delegates. 41 jacques maritain to charles journet, in journet and maritain, correspondance, vol. 6, edited by rené mougel. (fribourg: éditions universitaires, 1996–2008), 478. 42 see mathijs lamberigts and leo declerck, “vatican ii on the jews: a historical summary, in moyaert and pollefeyt, never revoked, 13-56, particularly 23-51. see also arthur gilbert, the vatican council and the studies in christian-jewish relations 12 scjr 8 (2013) to journet that “i have suffered a real wound in seeing that the words ‘and condemn’ after the word ‘deplore’ (hatred, persecution, manifestations of antisemitism) have been suppressed.” 43 but he also could recognize his long-held hopes in the declaration, having written as early as 1942 that “our relation to the jewish people is not only a human one… it is also a divine one, a relation of spiritual consanguinity within god’s redeeming scheme.” 44 and his vision of christian-jewish rapprochement remained above all eschatological, envisioning a day when the “cross of survival carried by the jewish people and the cross of redemption carried by the church… will recognize themselves finally and will constitute but a single cross.” 45 given the traditional invocation of the cross as an incitement against jews, maritain’s vision must be seen as indicative of the unfinished business of christian-jewish reconciliation. jules isaac: the teaching of contempt jules isaac (1877-1963) is remembered mainly for his unrelenting research of the historical-theological roots of antisemitism. he lobbied the catholic church to rectify centuriesold teachings that reinforced popular prejudices against jews as cursed, deicidal followers of a dead, legalistic religion. isaac took on these labors only in the last two decades of his long life, after the horrors of the holocaust reawakened his own jewishness. 46 the scion of an assimilated french-jewish family, jews (cleveland: world publishing company, 1968), 61-63, 79-105, 150-7 and 179-81. 43 jacques maritain to charles journet, october 7, 1965, excerpted in cahiers jacques maritain, 23: 35n. 44 jacques maritain, “atonement for all,” in pour la justice: articles et discours (1940-1945) (new york: éditions de la maison française, 1945),155-56. 45 jacques maritain, on the church of christ: the person of the church and its personnel, trans. joseph w. evans (notre dame, in: university of notre dame press, 1973), 174-75. 46 isaac numbered among countless french jews, or israelites, who had lost all contact with judaism when they were affected by the vichy regime’s anstudies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 13 his father and grandfather decorated army veterans, isaac considered himself first and foremost a “jew of the republic.” 47 during the dreyfus affair he collaborated with péguy in the name of republican justice, and he was wounded and decorated in the great war. an accomplished historian, he achieved fame and influence as a textbook author, and in 1936 became france’s inspector general for public instruction. the holocaust instilled in the agnostic isaac a new, tragic sense of jewish identity. he lost his post in 1940 under the vichy regime’s anti-jewish legislation. by 1942, the nazi final solution embraced france, and led isaac to inquire into the historical and theological origins of jewish persecution. as he later recalled, his classical education and lack of familiarity with jewish traditions inclined him to mine the christian scriptures rather than the hebrew bible: in that year ’42, i began to reread the gospels. why not the old testament, you might ask? i came to the old by way of the new. i told that to pope john xxiii and he laughed. as a historian i know one should not rely on translations. now, i was enough of a hellenist to read the new testament in the original, but i was not at all a hebraist. thus i was drawn back to the gospels. and after reading them, i wrote about a doz en pages that i sent to maurice blondel and to pastor andré trocmé, in which i noted my discovery, the ba sis for all my subsequent work: on a number of points ti-jewish statutes. his biographer, andré kaspi, quotes him as registering his repugnance to judaism even as the worst antisemitic persecutions began in 1942: “even in the present circumstances, i am loath to judaize. if i were jewish, i would be a christian. […] i will go further: i give thanks to god that there was a greek people, not that there was jewish people, to propagate the passion of religious exclusivism. […] i prefer socrates, man of god.” jules isaac ou la passion de la vérité (paris: plon, 2002), 140 and 150. 47 pierre birnbaum, the jews of the republic: a political history of state jews in france from gambetta to vichy, trans. jane marie todd (stanford, ca: stanford university press, 1996). studies in christian-jewish relations 14 scjr 8 (2013) there is a vast difference between the reality of the gospels and a certain traditional christian teaching. 48 two things are significant about this passage. first, isaac’s rediscovery of his jewish identity through christianity (“i came to the old by way of the new”) is a refrain raïssa maritain and many jewish-born christians like her echoed. raïssa converted to christianity with only a nominal understanding of judaism. along with other jewish converts she had come to know she described themselves as “strangers to the mosaic faith” who through conversion came to understand the meaning of israel. 49 although raïssa maritain was a convert and jules isaac was not, both embodied something of that “insideroutsider” status to both christianity and judaism, a status that helped these religious thinkers think their way out of christian antisemitism. secondly, isaac’s analysis of historical-theological antisemitism was grounded in christian scripture, even as he averred that modern antisemitism is not faithful to the gospels. these intellectual impulses situate him within a broader current of historically-minded french theologians “turning to the sources” in order to gain a new perspective on modern issues. this perspective would appear in a critical line in nostra aetate that urges jewish-christian solidarity to proceed through biblical and theological studies as well as fraternal dialogue. yet unlike most ressourcement theologians, isaac pursued his study of the scriptures and patristic texts in hiding, while his wife and daughter were murdered at auschwitz. his wife’s last message to him urged him to continue the new research he had begun on the christian origins of antisemitism. 50 he dedicated his influential 1948 book jesus and israel to his wife and 48 jean toulat, juifs, mes frères (paris: fayard, 1968), 137. 49 raïssa maritain, “a propos du christianisme de henri bergson,” ocjrm 14:1146. 50 kaspi, jules isaac, 184. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 15 daughter: “martyrs, killed by hitler’s nazis, simply because their name was isaac.” 51 after the war, despite overwhelming grief and health problems, isaac brought his thesis into the public square, engaging interested catholic interlocutors such as henri marrou and priests jean daniélou and paul démann, the latter a hungarian-born jewish convert who himself wrote an influential study of anti-jewish catechesis. 52 in 1947, a year before jésus et israël reached the public, isaac founded les amitiés judeo-chrétiennes and helped draft the ten points of seelisberg, an interfaith statement that reminded the world of christianity’s jewish origins and called for a curbing of antijudaic rhetoric, exegesis, and catechesis. 53 in isaac’s trenchant words, christianity had the god-given power “to break at last with these evil habits of mind and tongue, contracted over a period of nearly two thousand years as a result of what i have called the teaching of contempt—itself the child of bitter polemics now obsolete.” 54 the chorus of praise for his book fell short of universal acclaim. the otherwise sympathetic daniélou rejected isaac’s jewish jesus, and asserted that “m. isaac has mutilated the gospel” by depicting a dechristianized jesus entirely comprehensible within—and limited to—his historical context. 55 this moment of disagreement would not be the only time serious critique arose from the nouvelle théologie 51 jules isaac, jesus and israel, trans. sally gran (new york: holt, rinehart, and winston, 1971), xix. 52 toulat, juifs, 138-9. see also paul démann, la catéchèse chrétienne et le people de la bible: constatations et perspectives (paris: cahiers sioniens, 1952). 53 kaspi, jules isaac, 192. the ten points of seelisberg can be found in, among other places, in carol rittner, stephen d, smith, and irena steinfeldt, eds., the holocaust and the christian world (new york: continuum, 2000), 245-6. 54 jules isaac, the teaching of contempt: christian roots of antisemitism, trans. helen weaver (new york: holt, rinehart and winston, 1964), 146. 55 kaspi, jules isaac, 212-3. studies in christian-jewish relations 16 scjr 8 (2013) pioneers about just what kind of historical methodologies were proper for the historian of theology. 56 certainly, isaac’s own secular approach to the question of what he termed “the teaching of contempt” emphasized a historian’s careful diagnosis and relentless dismantling of what he found to be pernicious readings of the new testament. in jesus and israel, he draws the methodological distinction between the order of faith and that of history: in the order of faith, i agree, there is no comparison possible, even thinkable: the distance between the event and any other event is infinite. in the order of history it is a different matter. by his human, fully hu man life, jesus belongs to history, to the fullness of history. jesus’ trial, his sentencing to death, his nailing to the cross are historic events, as such susceptible of being placed face to face with their ilk—or events of the same family—and as such are subject to all the rules which are requisite in historical inquiry. 57 jules isaac did not share jacques maritain’s faith convictions or eschatological preoccupations. but as an activist he did match maritain’s willingness to carry his convictions to the highest level of the catholic hierarchy. isaac’s encounters with pius xii (1949) and john xxiii (1960) each had a measure of success. pius later reinstated the genuflection during the good friday prayer for the “unbelieving jews,” and his successor suppressed the pro perfidis altogether. most importantly, john’s warm welcome to isaac in june 1960 set the tone for an audience in which the pope assured isaac that the upcoming ecumenical council would face the task of rectifying christian-jewish relations. 58 56 for more on these debates, see brenna moore, “how to awaken the dead: michel de certeau, henri de lubac, and the debates in catholic ressourcement.” spiritus 12 (2012): 172–9. 57 isaac, jesus and israel, 236-7 and 285. 58 morselli, “jules isaac and the origins of nostra aetate,” 26-7. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 17 while we know a great deal about maritain’s reaction to nostra aetate and vatican ii in general, isaac’s likely response (he died in 1963) remains something of a mystery. four months after his audience with john xxiii, isaac learned that no special commission would be established to deal with the jewish question, but that the task would be delegated to the german cardinal augustin bea and the secretariat for the promotion of christian unity, 59 which historian alberto melloni describes as “effectively a secretariat for the unthinkable problems and the impossible missions of roncalli’s curia.” 60 nonetheless, when writing to his friend (and maritain’s) the french-israeli writer andré chouraqui, isaac painted this as a promising step: “this looks to me like a positive initial result, even if it is not completely what i hoped for. the problem is going to be examined and, if i can trust the words of cardinal bea, it will be done so in a favorable setting.” 61 isaac understood from his seelisberg experience the incremental nature of moving from a straightforward repudiation of antisemitism to a laborious reappraisal of theology. 62 but he almost certainly would have seen nostra aetate’s 59 kaspi, jules isaac, 235. 60 alberto melloni, “nostra aetate and the discovery of the sacrament of otherness,” http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/center/conferences/be a_centre_c-j_relations_04-05/melloni.htm (accessed july 23, 2013). 61 jules isaac to andré chouraqui, 10 october 1960, in chouraqui, le destin d’israël: correspondances avec jules isaac, jacques ellul, jacques maritain et marc chagall (paris: parole et silence 2007), 50-51. isaac understood that “the pope... wishes to avoid the uproar that would surround the creation of a special commission (i am summarizing what he wrote to me—doubtless there is resistance).” 62 isaac clearly appreciated even incremental progress in christian-jewish relations, especially those made at the only conference dealing with christianity and antisemitism in the decade after the war at which jews were invited participants: “only in seelisberg did christian thinkers submit their thinking to jewish colleagues for critique. only in seelisberg was the starting point a jewish critique of christianity, the study paper written by french historian and humanist jules isaac, ‘the rectification necessary in christian teachings: eighteen points.’” victoria barnett, “seelisberg: an appreciation,” studies in christian-jewish relations 11 (2007), 56. http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/center/conferences/bea_centre_c-j_relations_04-05/melloni.htm http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/center/conferences/bea_centre_c-j_relations_04-05/melloni.htm studies in christian-jewish relations 18 scjr 8 (2013) implicit renunciation of the centuries old deicide charge as an important step in this process. isaac did not overemphasize his influence on either pius xii or john xxiii. the latter received a number of other pleas and proposals to deal with the jewish question in the upcoming council. oesterreicher, who recounts at least three other missives coming from within the catholic church, concludes: “that jules isaac’s visit had a lasting effect on john xxii cannot in my opinion, be doubted. yet, it is questionable whether his was the decisive influence in moving the pope to act, as has sometimes been asserted. what he did however, was to cause the pope’s sentiments, until then not fully expressed, to come to the fore.” 63 however, according to connelly, in the case of at least one of these catholic initiatives, the memorandum of the apeldoorn working group, which came from a 28-31 august 1960 meeting in the netherlands, “the drafters of these theses were relying upon jules isaac.” 64 so the momentous statement known as nostra aetate was also made possible in part by isaac’s painstaking historical deconstruction of the theological genealogy of antisemitism and his tireless mission to the gentiles. this compelling work involved more than a dramatic papal audience at a key moment, and it helped shape a reappraisal of christian-jewish relations that continues to this day. henri de lubac: ressourcement of the old testament in addition to the lay catholic converts like the bloys and maritains, and jewish intellectuals like isaac, a thorough assessment of the french contributions to the ideas articulated 63 oesterreicher, the new encounter, 108; see also 114-28. for another perspective, from one of oesterreicher’s colleagues, see thomas stransky, “the genesis of nostra aetate: an insider’s story,” in lamdan and melloni, nostra aetate, 29-53. stransky does see this audience as decisive, and describes “the trio—angelo roncalli, augustin bea and jules isaac” as three octogenarians with a “shared dream” that would materialize in nostra aetate and its new perspective on the jewish religion and people (32). 64 connelly, from enemy to brother, 142. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 19 at nostra aetate must also include some key clerical theologians, particularly those active in the french resistance to nazism, such as henri de lubac (1886-1991). according to de lubac, he “never had the slightest personal contact” with john xxiii before the council, and was shocked to pick up an issue of la croix while waiting for a friend one august afternoon in 1960 and see his name listed as consultor to vatican ii’s preparatory theological commission. 65 there had been signs, however, of the new papacy’s affinity for de lubac’s ressourcement project: just after his election, john xxiii made a significant donation to the sources chrétiennes series de lubac and fellow jesuit daniélou launched in 1942, followed by a personal note of appreciation to de lubac. 66 de lubac had established his reputation as the “grand lumière,” and “maître incontestable” of the french catholic theological milieu in the war and immediate postwar period. 67 famously, he described the whole task of theology as the “rediscovering” of christianity by “going back to its sources, trying to recapture it in its periods of explosive vitality.” 68 for de lubac, the “sources” included the church fathers and the new testament, but also, crucially—and less well-known—the hebrew bible. according to de lubac, l’ancien testament had become for christians an “embarrassment rather than a support in their faith...it was a cumbersome treasure which people no longer knew how to use.” 69 de lubac spoke those words in a 1941 lecture under the benign topic “un nouveau ‘front’ religieux,” in which he waged war on the nazi program to purge christianity of judaism and restore it to a purer “aryan 65 henri de lubac, at the service of the church. henri de lubac reflects on the circumstances that occasioned his writings, trans. anne e. englund (san francisco: ignatius press, 1993), 116 66 ibid. 67 for a useful exploration of de lubac’s postwar stature at lyon see étienne fouilloux, bernard hours, dominique avon, les jésuites à lyon, xvie-xxe siècle (lyon: ens éditions, 2005), 124-146, 231-245. 68 henri de lubac, paradoxes of faith (san francisco: ignatius press, 1987), 57-58. 69 henri de lubac, “un nouveau ‘front’ religieux,” in israël et la foi chrétienne (fribourg : éditions de la librairie de l'université, 1942), 9-39. studies in christian-jewish relations 20 scjr 8 (2013) mysticism.” the lecture was published in switzerland in 1942 and circulated clandestinely in france. 70 when de lubac gave this lecture in 1941, he had been involved for more than a year with a group of underground communities focused on jewish-christian friendship in lyon, started by the jesuit pierre chaillet and the ukranian émigré jewish convert, abbé alexandre glasberg. 71 in lyon, with the support of chaillet, abbé glasberg formed an “organization of solidarity” that would be of “an interconfessional character,” that became known as amitié chrétienne. 72 de lubac was an active member of this group (as he was of isaac’s similarly named amitiés judeo-chrétiennes, formed a few years later). 73 among de lubac’s closest colleagues in lyon who also collaborated in amitié chrétienne with glasberg and chaillet, was jesuit professor of the old testament, joseph chaine. chaine initiated the drafting of a statement condemning the second statute of jews emanating from vichy in 1941. the document became known as the “déclaration chaine” (chaine had also helped secure the safe exile of french jewish philosopher henri bergson’s wife and daughter). along with de lubac, other jesuits at lyon assisted chaine with the declaration including fr. joseph βοnsirven (a biblical scholar who in 1938 had held a conference on judaism each week at the institut of paris), and fr. louis richard. after helping draft the chaine declaration with these colleagues, de lubac then joined fellow priests victor fontoyant and jules monchanin in 70 for more on de lubac’s activities in the resistance see renée et françois bédarida, la résistance spirituelle, 1941-1944 : les cahiers clandestins du témoignage chrétien (paris : albin michel, 2001); etienne fouilloux, les chrétiens français entre crise et libération, 1937-1947 (paris: seuil, 1997) ; henri de lubac, christian resistance to anti-semitism: memories from 1940-1944 (san francisco: ignatius. press, 1990). 71 bernard comte, initiatives de théologiens face à la persécution antisémite à lyon en 1941-42 (lyon : institut catholique, 1993), 15-16. 72 on amitié chrétienne, see françois delpech, sur les juifs (lyon: presses universitaires de lyon, 1983), 238-249. 73 ibid., 16-21. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 21 an intensive re-reading of scriptures on the jewish question (fontoyant would eventually publish an influential re-reading of romans xi), intended to reassert a spiritual bond between jews and christians, and mine the enduring theological richness of the jewish sources. 74 de lubac called the meetings between jews and christians “a small oasis of peace in the center of hatred.” 75 de lubac claims to have learned from this community that it “was not possible to separate the two halves of the bible.” 76 in a series of lectures and essays between 1941 and 1945, de lubac began writing on the topics that had been circulating in these clandestine communities. he used meticulous historical research to dismantle nazism’s gross misreading of both christianity and judaism in the fearless language of critique. for example, in january, 1941 in lyon, de lubac gave two lectures on “le fondement theologique des missions.” the lectures exposed pseudoscientific theologians who wanted “to purify” christianity of judaism. he dealt with the same shady cast of characters susanna heschel recently analyzed in her excellent study the aryan jesus, such as arthur de gobineau, houston stewart chamberlain, and hitler’s own racial “expert” alfred rosenberg. 77 he also pulled an excerpt from mein kampf to expose the absurdity of hitler’s claims that religion is a product of blood, and racial hierarchy fundamentally creates different orders of human beings. he spoke of the risk of taking such “bloody filth” too 74 ibid., 16-21. 75 henri de lubac, christian resistance to anti-semitism: memories from 1940-1944, trans. elizabeth englund (san francisco: ignatius press, 1990), 16. 76 ibid. 77 this lecture was published as henri de lubac, “le fondement theologique des missions,” bibliotheque de l'union mission du clergé de france (1941), 3-29. partially reproduced and translated in henri de lubac, theology in history (san francisco: ignatius press, 1996), 367427. also see susanna heschel, the aryan jesus: christian theologians and the bible in nazi germany (princeton: princeton university press, 2009). studies in christian-jewish relations 22 scjr 8 (2013) seriously. 78 he offered authentic christian alternatives to nazi racism and antisemitism. in his speech, de lubac imagines the church as “distributing a spiritual food,” the food of human “universalism, a universalism inherited from israel” in order to defend europe “against itself.” 79 the doctrine of human unity could subvert what he later called the “progressive invasion of hitlerian poison,” a christian doctrine fundamentally indebted to judaism. published in 1942, de lubac’s contribution to the book israël et la foi chrétienne claimed that the broad acceptance of nazism and antisemitism is purely “of the religious and theological order.” 80 de lubac claimed that most christians “know too little about their faith” [trop peu au courant de leur foi].” 81 how else to explain the vast acceptance of ideas that should be condemned for both “their stupidity and their blasphemy?” 82 again and again, de lubac called christians to recall the “indissoluble bond between our two testaments, always, in the final analysis, interpreting the old by the new, but also always basing the new in the old [fondant aussi toujours le nouveau sur l’ancien]… we will thus remain faithful to the teaching of saint ireneaus, which was that of all our doctors: the writings of moses are words of christ.” 83 similarly, joseph chaine wrote “the new testament “does not destroy the old, but there is the most perfect synthesis...between the two testaments there is only continuity.” 84 unity between judaism and christianity animated the wartime activism and scholarship of this eclectic community of french catholics. 78 ibid., 466. 79 ibid., 409. 80 henri de lubac, joseph chaine, louis richard, joseph bonsirven, israël et la foi chrétienne (fribourg: éditions de la librairie de l'université, 1942), 1. 81 ibid., 8. 82 ibid., 12. 83 ibid., 37. 84 joseph chaine, “la révélation de dieu en israël,” in israël et la foi chrétienne, 80. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 23 in addition to identifying judaism as a profound precursor to christianity and asserting the unity of the two faiths, de lubac articulated the inherent spiritual worth of the hebrew scriptures as living resources for the present. the hebrew scriptures were “sources” in the truest sense of that term, in that they shed light on the most profound aspects of the human condition, and could speak to the human sens du sacré. 85 de lubac wrote in israël et la foi chrétienne: the faith of abraham is already our faith... the great men of israel are truly fathers. the prophets shake us still today with the great lesson god charges them to give to his people. they console us in our distress and revive hope in us. the gentleness of the breeze in which the spirit comes to visit elijah announces the gentleness of our christ. the roaring of amos awakens us to justice, yet hosea prepares our souls for love. the majesty of the god of isaiah makes us bow down with him before the face holy three times. jeremiah hollows out a new dimension in our hearts. job exhorts us to a manly patience. the psalms nourish our prayer every day. daniel and the maccabees teach us fidelity. and everywhere, from one end to the other, the fidelity of god is revealed... in truth, all this is our heritage. all this has become our flesh. we will no longer allow them to tear it away from us [nous ne souffrirons pas qu’on nous l’arrache]. 86 de lubac perceived rich resources in the hebrew scriptures; he urged listeners to think about the jewish scriptures as something other than “cumbersome treasure” christians fumbled with or cast aside. the condemnation of antisemitism, positive scholarship on judaism, and efforts at jewish-christian friendship and collaboration helped crack the christian theology of 85 for more on “sources” in this context see the quintessential but anonymously published essay, “la théologie et ses sources,” in recherches de science religieuse 33 (1946): 385–401. 86 henri de lubac, israël et la foi chrétienne, 38-39. studies in christian-jewish relations 24 scjr 8 (2013) contempt and helped conceive the documents of nostra aetate. conclusion when the second vatican council convened, twenty years had passed since the horrible period when de lubac voiced those declarations of the spiritual worth of the hebrew scriptures and the fundamental unity between judaism and christianity. at a first glance, by the 1960s he seemed to have moved far beyond such issues. during the vatican ii period, de lubac’s diaries show he was preoccupied with defending fellow jesuit teilhard de chardin from condemnation, and in the latter half, from stemming the tide of what he saw as a late conciliar tendency to secularize the christian faith (a concern maritain shared). 87 as john w. o’malley recounts the story of nostra aetate’s near death and eventual rehabilitation at the council, unlike jacques maritain, and especially, isaac, de lubac does not figure as one of the main dramatic characters. 88 yet, de lubac’s courageous, meticulous work on the question juive in the context of the occupation in many ways animates the heart of nostra aetate, as much as do the labors of the maritains and isaac. the bond de lubac reiterated again and again was the bond that raïssa maritain aimed to articulate when she claimed abraham “unites the old and new testament.” this impulse at unification comes to the surface when nostra aetate calls us to “remember the bond that spiritually 87 henri de lubac, carnets du concile, 2 vol., ed. loïc figoureux (paris: éditions du cerf. 2007). see the excellent review article by jared wicks, s.j., “more light on vatican council ii” in the catholic historical review 94 (2008): 75-101. on de lubac in the latter half of the council see christopher j. walsh, “de lubac’s critique of the postconciliar church,” communio, 19 (1992): 404–32. also see jacques maritain, the peasant of the garonne: an old layman questions himself about the present time, trans. michael cuddihy and elizabeth hughes (new york: holt, rinehart, and winston, 1967). 88 john w. o’malley, what happened at vatican ii (cambridge: harvard university press, 2010), 247-260. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 25 ties the people of the new covenant to abraham’s stock.” 89 de lubac and raïssa maritain’s reading of the hebrew scriptures as sources that speak to human interiority concurs with nostra aetate’s poetic vision of other religions as answering the “unsolved riddles of the human condition,” which “deeply stir in the hearts of men.” 90 moreover, the story of france and the catholic reappraisal of judaism must also include french jewish intellectuals like jules isaac and others like andré chouraqui. in the interwar period, they intermingled regularly with nonjews in paris—that “catholic” city that had, become one of the largest jewish centers in the world. 91 although isaac, a modern historian par excellence, failed to acknowledge how deeply modernity itself was implicated in antisemitism and genocide, his unsparing examination of antisemitism’s early christian antecedents sealed the post-auschwitz argument. 92 the church could no longer postpone the project of coming to terms with its jewish roots and its long estrangement therefrom. 93 89 nostra aetate, 4 http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/v at-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html 90 nostra aetate 1. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/v at-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html 91 esther benbassa, the jews of france: a history of antiquity to the present, trans. m. b. debevoise (princeton: princeton university press, 1999), 148-149. 92 see zygmunt bauman, life in fragments: essays in postmodern morality (oxford: blackwell, 1995), 219. 93 nostra aetate makes no reference to the shoah, but its terrible shadow figured in the council’s deliberations. when cardinal bea introduced the schema “on the jews” (which would later form the key part of the larger declaration) in november 1963, he addressed the council as follows: “therefore, the aim of this very brief decree is to call to the attention of christ’s faithful these truths concerning the jews which are affirmed by the apostle and contained in the deposit of faith, and to do this so clearly that in dealing with the children of that people the faithful will act in no other way than did christ the lord and his apostles peter and paul. […] but why is it so necessary to recall these things? the reason is this. some decades ago anti-semitism, as it is called, was prevalent in various regions and in a http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html studies in christian-jewish relations 26 scjr 8 (2013) moreover, it was the borderland position of so many of these french intellectuals, and their willingness to learn from their insider-outsider colleagues whose marginal status brought new perspective to the tradition. in a recent essay, thomas stransky, c.s.p, reflected on the influences of people, institutions, and ideas that “flowed into the genesis of nostra aetate.” 94 stransky was an original staff member for the secretariat for promoting christian unity that helped draft nostra aetate. stransky points out often overlooked french circles like the communities consisting of maritain, de lubac, and isaac, all of whom he names. at the end of his remarks on the french scene, stransky poignantly comments on some of the unresolved questions in nostra aetate and in subsequent postconciliar statements on the jews: what is the church’s mission to the jews; and what is the jewish mission to the church in an ecumenical context? he recalls a long conversation with oesterrreicher before he died in 1988, in which stransky sensed that these unresolved questions “privately lingered in [oesterreicher’s] serene twilight years.” 95 these issues also linger within this community of particularly violent and criminal form, especially in germany under the rule of national socialism, which through hatred for the jews committed frightful crimes, extirpating several million of jewish people… it would have been almost impossible that some of the claims of that propaganda did not have an unfortunate effect even on faithful catholics, the more so since the arguments advanced by that propaganda often enough bore an appearance of truth, especially when they were drawn from the new testament and from the history of the church.” augustin cardinal bea, the church and the jewish people: a commentary on the second vatican council’s declaration on the relation of the church to non-christian religions, trans. philip loretz (new york: harper and row, 1966), 157. 94 nelson m. minnich, eugene j. fisher, thomas stransky, susannah heschel, alberto melloni, and john connelly, “forum essay [on from enemy to brother],” the catholic historical review 98 (2012), 758. 95 ibid., 760. this problem of mission figures in a post-council dialogue between daniélou and chouraqui, in which the former insisted that “we cannot give up trying to convert you. we can respect you profoundly in your sincerity and your religious values; we can fully recognize your right to exist as a people; we can condemn all that comes from any pressure whatever to convert you. but there is something i cannot do. i am unable not studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 27 french thinkers and activists such as bloy, the maritains, isaac, and de lubac. de lubac, for example, always believed that the old testament must be read christologically, even as he insisted that contemporary christians needed to “surpass” even the ancient church fathers in better reading the new testament in light of the old. 96 how can one do this simultaneously? similarly, although jacques and raïssa maritain never vulgarly or openly proselytized jews, they never abandoned the hope for jewish conversion. de lubac and the maritains also share nostra aetate’s more deeply ambivalent claims that god “mysteriously concluded the ancient covenant” with israel. the philosemitic projects of french catholics like the maritains and de lubac were imperfect, even episodic, but they carved out a new path to subvert the bigotry that preceded genocidal horrors, and they valiantly contended against these horrors as they occurred. 97 recognizing the importance of holding together the old and new testaments, de lubac also acknowledged the difficulties: “nothing is more wonderful, in the reality of things, than the way the two testaments hinge on one another,” he wrote, and added: “but neither is there anything trickier than the accurate perception of such a fact. christian tradition has been meditating on this for two thousand years, and will go on doing so. it will go on, from one age to another to say to you who sit beside me that in jesus christ the event foretold by the prophets has come, as st. peter told your ancestors on the day after pentecost.” jean daniélou and andré chouraqui, the jews: views and counterviews (westminster, md: newman press, 1967), 70. 96 henri de lubac, medieval exegesis, volume i: the four senses of scripture, trans. mark sebanc (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 1998), 265. 97 for a good historical precedent see thomas kselman “the bautain circle and catholic–jewish relations in modern france,” the catholic historical review 92 (2006): 177-196. for more on the particularities of french antisemitism and philosemitism, see julie kalman, rethinking anti-semitism in nineteenth-century france (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2010); ruth harris, dreyfus: politics, emotion, and the scandal of the century (new york: metropolitan books, 2010); and sarah hammerschlag, the figural jew: politics and identity in french postwar thought (chicago: university of chicago press, 2010), studies in christian-jewish relations 28 scjr 8 (2013) finding in it the mainspring of a solution for the most contemporary and seemingly unknown problems.” 98 in the wake of nostra aetate, it is difficult to imagine the christian tradition meditating on such problems without acknowledging and honoring the jewish tradition, including its scriptures, in its own right. 98 henri de lubac, paradoxes, 145–6. scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-2 silvina chemen and franciso canzani a dialogue of life: towards the encounter of jews and christians (new york: new city press of the focolare and the jewish theological seminary, 2015), paperback, xii + 189 pp. marcus braybrooke marcusbraybrooke4@gmail.com world congress of faiths, london, w1t 4pw, uk this book was a welcome surprise. i expected another summary of the key developments in christian-jewish dialogue, such as are found in statements by various churches. instead, the book focuses on the dynamics of interreligious dialogue itself, which silvina chemen and francisco canzani have discovered in their long partnership. another welcome surprise is that in the book we hear voices from latin america. rabbi silvina chemen studied education at the university of buenos aires and then attended rabbinical school. she now serves a congregation in buenos aires. francisco canzani grew up in uruguay and now teaches ecumenical theology at the university of montevideo. a consecrated lay person, he has been much influenced by the catholic focolare movement, which was founded by chiara lubich and which emphasizes dialogue as an important contribution to building a better world. in some sections, the authors express their own views; other sections are jointly authored. francisco begins by emphasizing the importance of interreligious dialogue, which involves a “dual allegiance” (p. 28) of loyalty to the gifts that god has given us in our respective traditions and “faithfulness to the project of universal brotherhood that god harbors for humanity” (p. 30). silvina speaks of dialogue as “our hope for healing.” the authors largely focus on methodologies of jewishchristian dialogue (such as overcoming stereotypes and the relationship between intrareligious and interreligious dialogue) and discuss some of the stumbling blocks (such as concerns about missionizing). the starting point is to build trust. silvina makes clear that this takes time and “requires perseverance, commitment and some risk” (p. 47). (i learned this myself as a member of the manor house group in britain, which hosted a regular dialogue of jewish and christian clergy for nearly ten years, though larger, less frequent dialogues have both a symbolic importance and promote practical co-operation in the search for peace and the protection of human rights.) braybrooke: chemen and canzani’s a dialogue of life 2 silvina and francisco insist that real listening is essential: “without listening, we don’t understand and will never get close to the other” (p. 69). this message is reinforced in the afterword. they quote the argentinian archbishop of resistencia, the most reverend ramon alfredo dus, who says “without silence, words lose density and content… we allow the one before us to speak and express himself by being silent instead of clinging to our words and ideas” (p. 177). rabbi daniel goldman of the community of beth el in buenos aires, in his “ten principles for dialogue,” emphasizes the personal nature of the “i-thou” relationship. he quotes the story martin buber told of a time when he was a university counselor and a young student shared with him his feelings of despair: “busy with other matters, buber did not give much importance to the conversation. the next day he read in the university newspaper that his student had committed suicide” (p. 171). they give considerable attention to the art of asking questions of others with sensitivity. it is particularly important not to make the other feel defensive. silvina recounts her experience being asked, following a talk she had given in a catechetical seminary, “why don’t you believe in jesus christ?” she replied, “this question does not do any good to anyone. do you intend… to draw us apart again?...we have learned not to slap with a question” (p. 85). dialogue, they insist, does not involve any dilution of a person’s beliefs. still, many people find their perspectives and self-understanding change as they participate in dialogue. for example, as christians have learned more about jews and judaism, the views of individual christians and the teachings of the churches have changed, as rabbi jack bemporand, the director of the centre for interreligious understanding in new jersey, makes clear in his prologue. in light of this focus, they are less interested in historical or theological issues. different ways of thinking theologically in the rabbinic and the christian traditions (the latter much influenced by greek philosophical ideas) are largely ignored, though this may explain some continuing tensions in jewish-christian relations. (for works that grapple with this divide, evident for example in christian creeds, see mary boys’ has god only one blessing? [2000] or hans küng’s judaism [1992].) it is not, however, the purpose of this book to discuss such questions. its approach is more practical, and it will be very helpful for those starting a dialogue group. even for those with long experience of dialogue, the book will encourage them to look self-critically at their own approach. indeed, as one woman said after she had heard talks by silvina and francisco, their insights are “useful not only for interreligious dialogue, but also for all other dialogues, in our homes, in our jobs. how many times we pretend we are listening while all we are doing is preparing our response” (pp. 168-69). (the book was first published in spanish as un diálogo para la vida: haciael encuentro emtre judios y cristianos: a dos voces y al unison, buenos aires: ciudad nueva, 2013.) 1 scjr 18, no. 1 (2023): 1-26 genesis 9 , noah’s covenants and jewish theology of religions alon goshen-gottstein amgogo@fastmail.fm the elijah interfaith institute, jerusalem jews, christians and the reading of scripture jews and christians craft their respective theologies from biblical resources. appeal to the bible, specifically the hebrew bible, is of special importance to their relationship, inasmuch as it provides a common foundation. efforts over the past decades to develop theologies of other religions have often relied on biblical readings, applied through theological constructs to the needs of present-day theology of religions. theology is, in principle, a religion’s internal affair and therefore need not make sense to members of another faith. however, the reality of jewish-christian relations is such that audiences are not clearly distinguished. a jewish theologian is read by christians, while christians author statements, such as the recent vatican document “the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable,” that are not only read by jews but are also intended for jewish ears. this new situation raises interesting challenges for those employing scriptural sources in their theological argumentation. in developing a view of the other, with the religious other as part of the intended audience of the novel theological formulation, must the working out and application of scripture also make sense according to the canons of reading of other religions? the present essay is devoted to the study of a key biblical passage, genesis 9, which has served both jews and christians in formulating a view of other religions. very often, jewish discussions of genesis 9 have had christians in mind, but have not been successful in making themselves recognized and accepted by christian readers. i suggest that an entirely new approach must be adopted towards this key biblical passage, rendering all previous appeal to it largely irrelevant and hermeneutically unsustainable. at the very least, i hope the essay will put on the table the question of what is to be considered a reasonable reading, and what the reasonable reader requires in order to be convinced by a biblically grounded theological argument. if my argument receives a hearing, then going forward, theological application of genesis 9 can no longer be carried out without offering justification for how and why this chapter continues to serve the needs of a covenantal view of judaism, christianity, and other religions. in what follows, i begin by reviewing recent jewish interpretations of genesis 9, an important text in the development of a contemporary jewish theology of goshen-gottstein: genesis 9, noah’s covenants 2 christianity or more broadly of religions. i then move on to study this text in its own right, applying a literary and comparative method of textual analysis in a manner that is common in biblical studies. this return to what i consider to be the plain sense of scripture invalidates the theological reading that has been offered in relation to the biblical passage, to the extent that such validation would depend on a reading that is reasonably close to the bible’s original intention. on the basis of this reading, i then ask whether an alternative theological reading might emerge from genesis 9 that serves the contemporary jewish-christian or, more broadly, interreligious, context. in theological terms, the essay is focused on covenant, a foundational category both for biblical theology and for jewish-christian interreligious understanding. accordingly, i will be asking what views that either side has attached to this central covenantal passage might be found problematic, either in view of a novel reading of genesis 9 or in view of the difficulties of doing interreligious scriptural exegesis. genesis 9—a biblical text in the service of contemporary jewish theology of religions contemporary jewish theological appeal to genesis 9 approaches the chapter as a resource for broadening the notion of covenant1 and making room for christians and others.2 the jewish thinkers studied below explicate the passage from the broader lens of the tension between particularity and universality. genesis 9 holds a key to a jewish view of universality, which includes within it a jewish view of christianity, as well as of other religions. 1 for a review of biblical covenants, including the statement of the inferiority of the covenant with noah as compared with earlier covenants, see g. mendenhall and g. herion, “covenant” in the anchor bible dictionary, ed. d. freedman (new york: doubleday, 1992) vol. 1, 1190. for a review of covenant in biblical sources, see ernest w. nicholson, god and his people: covenant and theology in the old testament (oxford: clarendon press, 1986). on the lack of interest in gen 9 in the context of covenant history, see james barr, “reflections on the covenant with noah” in covenant as context: essays in honour of e.w.nicholson, ed. a.mayes and r. salters (oxford: oxford university press, 2003), 12. to a large extent this derives from the fact that gen 9 does not conform to the pattern of suzerainty treaties, which define the scope of research interest. it is noteworthy that gen 9 is absent from nicholson’s review of covenants. however, it is also absent from many of the major theological presentations of the bible, and this may not depend on the perspective of extra-biblical materials. see katharine dell, “covenant and creation in relationship,” covenant as context, 111. the present essay offers a reading that accounts for all these facts and seeks to reframe gen 9 within the spectrum of biblical covenants. 2 this is also true of some recent catholic uses of the chapter. these require a separate study, and i will only hint at them. the catholic appeal to genesis 9 is undertaken in the context of the broadening of israel’s particular covenant. see the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable (rom 11:29), issued by the commission for religious relations with the jews in dec. 2015, section 32. see further pope benedict, verbum domini, 117. however we may account for the odd theological statement that the covenant with noah extends to gentiles the covenant with abraham, this statement assumes a relational covenant, of a kind with the covenant with abraham. the present essay argues against this understanding, thereby undermining the views put forth by these catholic documents. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) irving yitz greenberg i begin this presentation of jewish voices with irving yitz greenberg because i consider it highly likely that his views have impacted the other two thinkers that follow. his reading of the noah covenant, in terms of universal and particular in relation to later biblical covenants, seems to be the earliest jewish application of this dyad to biblical covenants.3 though the other authors do not cite him, his work may have influenced theirs.4 here is one of several of greenberg’s formulations of how the covenant with noah plays out along the universal–particular axis: the fundamental and universal biblical statement is that god wants creation (the world as it is now) to be redeemed. out of love for humanity, god imposes self-limits and calls humans to be partners in the process of tikkun olam. god commits to uphold the laws of nature that allow humans to live constructive, dignified lives within the framework of a stable, dependable, natural order. humans pledge to live in harmony with the rhythms of the universe—that is, god’s plan—to increase life and improve nature and society to fully sustain the value of life, especially human life with its fundamental dignities. this is the universal covenant with all humanity, biblically called the covenant of noah. this covenant is never superseded. every religion that accepts these values and goals derives its legitimacy directly, its direct access to god and its partnership with the deity from this covenant open to all people, all the time.5 this is possibly the most succinct summary of greenberg’s covenantal theology with regard to noah’s covenant. it is a beautiful and inspiring statement concerning redemption for creation, and grounds it in covenant. covenant is built on divine self-limitation and partnership with humans. there is a reciprocity in this structure that defines the covenant.6 god commits—humans pledge. god commits to uphold a law that offers dignified living; humans pledge to increase life and improve nature and society. some of these elements are traceable to genesis 9; some not. greenberg’s presentation of the divine promise to uphold the rhythms of the universe is a correct rendition of the biblical promise; the framework of meaning of such laws—living dignified, constructive lives—is provided by greenberg. 3 the theological weight attached to genesis 9 is not found in classical or medieval sources, nor among authors of the first part of the 20th century, such as cassuto, benno jacob, or the scholarly consensus reflected in the hertz chumash. it is possible that there is a missing link, jewish or christian, that has already applied genesis 9 to a vision of jewish universality. until such a link is found, i consider this to be one of greenberg’s major theological innovations. 4 i explore this at length in my covenant and world religions: irving yitz greenberg and jonathan sacks on religious pluralism, forthcoming from the littman library. 5 irving greenberg, for the sake of heaven and earth: the new encounter between judaism and christianity (philadelphia: jewish publication society, 2004), 43. 6 this is a fundamental feature of how jewish authors apply the notion of covenant. the one-sided covenant of gift or charter, discussed by biblical scholars, is never integrated into the jewish use of the term. even levenson’s appeal to grace, which befits a description of a grant-covenant, such as noah’s, is balanced by reference to accountability. see further john levenson, “who inserted the book of the torah?,” harvard theological review 68, no 3/4 (july-october 1975): 225. goshen-gottstein: genesis 9, noah’s covenants 4 the commandments of genesis 9 are, however, significantly stretched to signify a pledge to sustain life, especially human life. this is a major extension of the meaning of the series of injunctions in chapter 9. if we consider that for greenberg they may also include the fuller set of the noahide commandments,7 not spelled out in the passage, the reading takes on greater credibility, though it still remains a stretch in relation to the biblical text. the emphasis on the value of life as such, beyond human life, is certainly something imported into the text. it is hard to load the prohibition of eating an unslaughtered animal (gen 9:4) with so much meaning. while the sense of reciprocity and mutual commitment may be justified by the juxtaposition of the two parts of chapter 9, as discussed below, the notions of divine selflimitation and of the partnership between humans and god with the aim of redeeming creation are certainly absent from the text. we recognize elements of the biblical narrative in greenberg’s construct, but in fact these are no more than points of contact between his theological construct and the biblical (and rabbinic) sources. what we have here, then, is a highly creative, highly original formulation that appeals to biblical language and sources while making a completely novel statement. in terms of function, this construct does more than link creation and redemption or ground the value of the human person, created in god’s image, in a covenantal moment. beyond these achievements, it fashions a common universal frame of relationship with god, which applies potentially to all religions. the covenant with noah is religion at its core. all religions are, in the first instance, expressions of the noahide covenant, inasmuch as it provides the basic framework for mutuality and partnership in the common task of redeeming the world.8 accordingly, all particular religious relationships are derivative of the noahide covenant. the importance of this construct, then, is that it provides the basic instrument for a jewish theology of religions, validating all religions that accept these values and goals. the question that arises from this presentation of greenberg’s views is whether they can be upheld in light of the novel reading of genesis 9 i offer below. my own answer to that question is that it cannot, and this answer applies equally to the other jewish voices we shall presently survey.9 7 on these, see david novak, the image of the non-jew in judaism: the idea of noahide law, ed. matthew lagrone (liverpool: liverpool university press, 2011). 8 this perspective is very much at odds with the plain sense of the scope of the noahide commandments, which are primarily moral. this moral dimension is emphasized below by jonathan sacks. 9 a second question arises, though of a different order. how would christians receive greenberg’s making room for them on theological grounds? this construct would make all christians “noahites,” in the sense of coming under noah’s covenant (to be distinguished from the present-day use of “noahites” in light of observance of the noahide commandments. i doubt christians would find this appealing. greenberg himself recognizes that much, and this is what has led him to make room for christians in the covenants with abraham and at sinai. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) jonathan sacks another jewish author who relies heavily on genesis 9, contributing to the universal–particular construct and applying it to the covenants with noah and abraham-israel, respectively, is the late lamented lord rabbi jonathan sacks.10 reading the covenant with noah as the universal counterpart to israel’s particular covenants is foundational to sacks’ thought and appears in a number of his books and talks.11 where for greenberg the challenge was religious pluralism, for sacks the challenge is tolerance, acceptance of particularity and overcoming the specter of intolerance and religiously based violence: i have argued that if we are to find an idea equal to the challenge of our time it must come from within the great religious traditions themselves. i have tried to articulate one possible form of that idea. it is that the one god, creator of diversity, commands us to honour his creation by respecting diversity. god, the maker of all, has set his image on the person as such, prior to and independently of our varied cultures and civilizations, thus conferring on human life a dignity and sanctity that transcends our differences. that is the burden of his covenant with noah and thus with all mankind. it is the moral basis of our shared humanity, and thus ultimately of universal human rights. that is why the later covenant with abraham and his children does not exclude other paths to salvation.12 the key to the covenant with noah is the image of god. the prohibition of murder is extended to encompass mutual respect. the human person is read as the basis for the plurality of human forms. the covenant with noah is then taken as the broad prototype that is balanced by particular relationships with god. sacks offers various alternative formulations, such as reference to a covenant of human solidarity. what is important for our purposes is how he casts the covenant with noah in line with covenant history: what is absolutely clear is that genesis tells the story not of one covenant but of two. the first, with noah after the flood (gen 9), applies to all humanity. the second, with abraham and his descendants (gen 17), does not. it is the covenant of one people, the people with whom god, many centuries later at mount sinai, makes a more highly articulated covenant of sinai with its 613 commands.13 10 see alon goshen-gottstein, “we have lost our greatest teacher,” times of israel, november 8, 2020, https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/we-have-lost-our-greatest-teacher/. 11 it also operates independently of the juxtaposition with the covenant with abraham, especially in his later works. see covenant and world religions. 12 jonathan sacks, the dignity of difference : how to avoid the clash of civilizations (london: continuum, 2002), 206. 13 jonathan sacks, future tense (london: hodder and stoughton, 2009), epub file, chapter 10. the covenant with noah is detached in later works from the religious context and operates more in the moral https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/we-have-lost-our-greatest-teacher/ goshen-gottstein: genesis 9, noah’s covenants 6 the universal–particular construct leads to seeing the covenants with noah and abraham as being of a kind.14 a covenant history offers continuity, and the key distinguishing feature of each covenant is its recipients. the relationship between the initial broader community of recipients, all of humanity, and israel, to whom the covenant is later narrowed down, is a lesson in upholding particularity and accepting the other. jon levenson the third jewish author is a biblical scholar, possibly the most knowledgeable of the three in the study of the biblical covenant and its theological applications; covenant theory has served as the backbone of several of his books. levenson can be credited with harnessing biblical covenantal studies to the development of specifically jewish theological representations of the bible, and more broadly of judaism.15 the relatedness of all members of the human family to each other and to god is underscored and formalized in the announcement of an eternal covenant with noah in genesis 9:1–17. underlying this covenant is a theology that places all peoples in a relationship of grace and accountability with god. the subsequent establishment of covenants with all abrahamites (genesis 17) and with all israelites (exodus 24) is to be read against the background of this universal covenant. israel’s relationship to god is thus both unique and universal: no other people has it, yet all humanity has something of the same order.16 levenson, who had just shared with his readers various definitions of particularity and universality, explains this distinction with reference to covenants. the covenant with noah is universalistic; israel’s is unique (particular). what the covenant with noah achieves is to establish the relatedness of all humans to each other and to god. this seems to be based on the prohibition of killing a fellow human being, made in the image of god (gen 9:6). levenson, like the other commentators realm. see jonathan sacks, not in god’s name: confronting religious violence (london: hodder and stoughton, 2015), 209. 14 the juxtaposition of noah and abraham as two distinct religious configurations has a history that antedates recent discussions of the covenant. the view of the noahide laws as a form of natural religion has led to highlighting this distinction among thinkers of the haskalah from the 18th c. see rivka horwitz, “the model of the religion of the noahides and the religion of abraham in the thought of mendelssohn and samuel david luzzato,” in the faith of abraham: in the light of interpretation throughout the ages, ed. by moshe hallamish, hannah kasher, yohanan silman (ramat gan: bar ilan university press, 2002), 265-280 [hebrew]. the discussions surveyed here show neither awareness of nor continuity with the earlier ones. the earlier discussions take place around the concerns of natural law and revealed religion and make no mention of the covenant. the more recent discussions are all framed in the context of covenantal theory. 15 jon levenson, sinai and zion: an entry into the jewish bible (minneapolis: winston press, 1985); the love of god: divine gift, human gratitude and mutual faithfulness in judaism (princeton: princeton university press, 2016). 16 jon levenson, “the universal horizon of biblical particularism,” in ethnicity and the bible, ed. mark brett (leiden: brill, 2002), 147-8. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) surveyed here, considers the larger literary unit of genesis 9 to constitute the covenant narrative. this allows him to include the prohibition against murder in the scope of the covenant. the covenant, in this understanding, includes commandment, which is the only way one can account for the claim of relatedness between all humans and god. indeed, levenson, like the other jewish authors, collapses the rabbinic concept of noahide commandments into the covenant with noah.17 underlying levenson’s reading is a view of genesis 9 in relational terms. in the course of his presentation one comes across multiple occurrences of “relationship.” if, as i suggest, genesis 9 is not about relationship, then also levenson’s recasting of the chapter cannot be sustained. he describes the covenant with noah as placing all people in a relationship of grace and accountability with god. these two terms are sufficiently full to serve as a counterpoint to israel’s particular covenant. levenson arrives at his interpretation through a high degree of abstraction that makes little appeal to the biblical text. one assumes accountability is found in the prohibition on murder, and grace in the fact that god agrees to no longer bring about destruction. the covenant with noah is understood within a particular structure—the relationship of the universal and the particular. its coherence and substance, however, are provided by an abstraction that supplants the actual contents of scripture. i believe that levenson’s structure, similar as it is to that of the previous two authors, cannot be defended as emerging from biblical foundations once genesis 9 is revisited. it is therefore time to turn to the biblical text itself. a fresh reading will allow us to assess which, if any, elements of these theological constructs really grow from scripture itself and what message genesis 9 might carry for jewish– christian relations—or, more broadly, what universal message the chapter may carry. covenants of peace and covenants of “no harm” let us then move from contemporary theology to my novel reading of genesis 9, whose merits should be seen according to the conventions of broadly practiced aspects of biblical studies. the reading i offer here has come to me almost as a revelation, and i find its clarity and truth irresistible. in the following pages i introduce a fundamental distinction into the analysis of covenants, which opens up a completely new understanding of the covenant with noah in genesis 9. i believe it forces us to rethink the constructs and theological positions described above, and to my mind renders them invalid, inasmuch as they rely on a plain-sense reading of the biblical passage. the common definition of covenant describes obligations undertaken. “a ‘covenant’ is an agreement enacted between two parties in which one or both make 17 levenson cites david novak, the image of the non-jew in judaism (new york: edwin mellen, 1983), as a reference on the noahide commandments. however, novak nowhere identifies the noahide commandments with the covenant with noah. goshen-gottstein: genesis 9, noah’s covenants 8 promises under oath to perform or refrain from certain actions stipulated in advance.”18 this broad definition covers the different types of covenant found in the bible, both between individuals and between god and israel or god and individuals within israel. the question of whether covenant is a one-sided or a reciprocal commitment has occupied most of scholarly attention, and, following ancient near eastern precedents, has led to significant distinctions between types of covenant that either emphasize mutual commitments or a one-sided gift. however, the distinction between “perform or refrain” has not been previously recognized,19 and it seems it has received absolutely no attention in a theological context. it is to this distinction that we now turn. covenants not only set out obligations; they provide relationships with definition and boundaries. that two parties conclude a covenant is essentially a positive thing, inasmuch as it points to something constructive in a relationship that is constituted by means of the covenant. however, underlying this generalization is a significant distinction between two distinct types of covenant. we might describe their difference as analogous to the difference between a warm peace accord and a ceasefire agreement. the first affirms a relationship in its fullness: a peace that leads to sharing, mutual activities, a spirit of friendship, a sense of mutual flourishing. the second specifies what is necessary to prevent two sides from practicing hostility and acting out of enmity. it speaks of restraint, holding back from aggression. while it does incorporate relational dimensions, these are based more on what the rabbis call שב ואל תעשה (sit and refrain from action) than upon the positive relational dimensions that involve action and positivity. the “negative,” ceasefiretype covenant still assumes some kind of relationship, one worth upholding and which is meaningful enough to protect the two parties from descending into violence. however, it lacks what matters most—love, friendship, and a sense of the fullness of the relationship. let us begin by viewing two instances of the negative relational model. the first is that between jacob and laban in genesis 31: “come, then, let us make a covenant,20 you and i, that there may be a witness between you and me.” thereupon jacob took a stone and set it up as a pillar. and jacob said to his kinsmen, “gather stones.” so they took stones and made a mound; and they partook of a meal there by the mound. laban named it yegarsahadutha, but jacob named it gal-ed. and laban declared, “this mound is a witness between you and me this day.” that is why it was named 18 anchor bible dictionary, s.v. covenant, vol. 1, 1715. 19 due to the application of one particular lens, some biblical scholars have had trouble accounting for genesis 9. see claus westermann, genesis: a commentary, english trans. john scullion (minneapolis: augsburg, 1984), 471. joseph blenkinsopp, creation, un-creation, re-creation: a discursive commentary on genesis 1-11 (new york: t and t clark, 2011), 151, similarly struggles with what kind of covenant genesis 9 represents. the thesis offered in the present essay could address many of the challenges this covenant presents, though it does not engage with the documentary reading of scripture. 20 the jps edition here has translated ברית as pact rather than covenant. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) gal-ed; and [it was called] mizpah, because he said, “may the lord watch between you and me, when we are out of sight of each other. if you ill-treat my daughters or take other wives besides my daughters—though no one else be about, remember, god himself will be witness between you and me.” and laban said to jacob, “here is this mound and here the pillar which i have set up between you and me. this mound shall be witness and this pillar shall be witness that i am not to cross to you past this mound, and that you are not to cross to me past this mound and this pillar, with hostile intent. may the god of abraham and the god of nahor—their ancestral deities—judge between us.” and jacob swore by the fear of his father isaac. jacob then offered up a sacrifice on the height, and invited his kinsmen to partake of the meal.21 there is already a relationship between jacob and laban, whose daughters he has married. the relationship is, however, fraught with tension and danger. the final act in their story is not one of friendship or healing. it is a covenant in which each side promises the other to refrain from causing harm. a boundary is defined which must not be crossed. the covenant has many of the elements common to a covenant—divine witnesses, an oath, a shared meal. however, these elements, even the shared meal, do not lend this pact the positive characteristics of a full-fledged covenant of peace. it is a covenant, but of the negative, “ceasefire” type. it is what i shall designate a “covenant of no harm.” another example of such a covenant is found in the following story of isaac and abimelech: and abimelech came to him from gerar, with ahuzzath his councilor and phicol chief of his troops. isaac said to them, “why have you come to me, seeing that you have been hostile to me and have driven me away from you?” and they said, “we now see plainly that the lord has been with you, and we thought: let there be a sworn treaty between our two parties, between you and us. let us make a pact22 with you that you will not do us harm,23 just as we have not molested you but have always dealt kindly with you and sent you away in peace. from now on, be you blessed of the lord!” then he made for them a feast, and they ate and drank. early in the morning, they exchanged oaths. isaac then bade them farewell, and they departed from him in peace.24 the meal, oaths and promises all conform to the pattern of a covenant, which is indeed how this event is described. however, its substance is refraining from harm. the peace is not the peace of friends. it does not involve sharing or dwelling together. significantly, “peace” describes an act of separation and departure, not one of arrival. 21 gen 31:44-54. 22 hebrew: berit 23 while the term “harm” appears here explicitly, the typology of a no-harm covenant does not depend on this word. other terms appear in other contexts, as relevant. 24 gen 26:26-31. see also gen 21:25-32. goshen-gottstein: genesis 9, noah’s covenants 10 the bible also knows of positive covenants. the relationships that ensue from them are characterized as peace and friendship: “so the lord gave solomon wisdom, as he promised him. there was peace between hiram and solomon; and the two of them made a treaty.”25 the covenant here grows on the foundations of peace. earlier in the chapter we are told of the love that existed between hiram and solomon’s father.26 we are then told of their practical collaboration in the building of the temple. all this is significantly more than the pact of non-aggression, which is similarly referred to as berit. most interesting is the case of david and jonathan. we find not one but two covenants concluded between them. in view of the above discussion, i propose that the existence of two covenants reflects the two distinct forms of interpersonal covenant. the one is a covenant of peace and friendship in its full, positive sense. the other is a “negative” covenant that emphasizes lack of harm. the first is narrated as follows: when [david] finished speaking with saul, jonathan’s soul became bound up with the soul of david; jonathan loved david as himself. saul took him [into his service] that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. jonathan and david made a pact, because [jonathan] loved him as himself. jonathan took off the cloak and tunic he was wearing and gave them to david, together with his sword, bow and belt.27 this is perhaps the fullest expression of a human covenant of friendship. it is founded on love that is as whole as one can imagine: “as himself.” the point of the covenant seems to be the relationship itself. it affirms a closeness, and seems to have no specific commitment other than the formation of the bond of love and friendship. this is the kind of friendship that leads to sharing and participation.28 the sharing of clothes is a visible sign of such bonding.29 there is a second covenant concluded between david and jonathan. when david flees saul and is in hiding, jonathan visits him and says: 25 1kings 5:26, nrsv version, which is more faithful to the text and captures terms that are crucial to my discussion. 26 v. 15. 27 1sam 18:1-4. 28 in 1sam 20:8 we learn that this is not simply a human covenant, but a covenant concluded also with god or in god’s presence. 29 “their exchange of clothing underscores the covenantal dimension of their interaction” (stephen chapman, 1 samuel as christian scripture: a theological commentary, [grand rapids: eerdmans, 2016], 159). the problem, however, is that the sharing seems to be one-sided. david does not offer his clothes to jonathan. consequently, other commentators associate the sharing with the transfer of kingly status. see ralph klein, 1 samuel (nashville: thomas nelson, 2008), 182; robert alter, the david story (new york: norton, 1999), 112; heinrich krauss and max kuechler, saul der tragische koenig (freiburg: paulusverlag, 2010), 170. only the immediate literary context enables any inference about the meaning of the exchange of clothing, as there is no analogy elsewhere that might illuminate it. note also that the issue of elements of clothing in the relationship between saul and david had appeared just previously in chapter 17:38-9. our verse could, in theory, have been interpreted as a form of initiation into the military. i consider this interpretation far less likely. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) “do not be afraid: the hand of my father saul will never touch you. you are going to be king over israel and i shall be second to you; and even my father saul knows this is so.” and the two of them entered into a pact before the lord.30 this is a different pact or covenant from the one described above. david is fearful of the harm that might befall him. jonathan assures him that saul will not touch him. in agreeing to be second to david, jonathan further assures him that he too will not harm him.31 the story’s logic is that david, in turn, will not harm jonathan, son of his nemesis saul, when he comes into power. thus, the two types of covenant—positive and negative, avoiding harm and affirming full peace, love, and friendship—are found with reference to the same relationship.32 it is interesting that the fuller relationship provides the background for the covenant of no harm, which becomes a concrete expression of the depth of their love.33 genesis 9—a covenant of no harm with creation all this equips us with new lenses by means of which to study genesis 9, typically seen as describing god’s covenant with noah. the point is surely obvious: the covenant with noah is not a covenant that establishes a relationship. it is what i have described as a negative covenant, rather than a positive one. it is a no-harm covenant rather than one that establishes a relationship in its fullness. there is nothing in genesis 9 that resembles the later covenants with abraham or with israel in terms of the establishment of a relationship. while the term “covenant” is, of course, common to these different sources, as are a number of its features, there exists a fundamental divide, grounded in a typology of covenants, that separates them. let us then proceed to a closer reading of genesis 9, which will anchor this overview in the details of the biblical text. 30 1sam 23:17-18. a third possible reference to a covenant, lacking the term berit, is found in 20:16, following the previous reference to their covenant in v. 8. this too would be understood as a covenant of no harm. 31 one could in theory propose that the covenant is made with reference to jonathan’s willingness to surrender the kingdom to david. i prefer my reading, also because i cannot locate another covenant of a similar nature in the bible. reading this as a covenant of grant seems somewhat far-fetched. none of the commentators addresses the need for a second covenant. it is simply described as “further” (chapman, 184) or “second” (alter, 143). alter does suggest a pattern of incremental repetition, considering this second covenant an “alleged doublet.” the suggestion of different types of covenant takes on greater plausibility when we note how little commentators are able to account for it. 32 regarding the no-harm covenant, we find the use of the plural form ויכרתו. both parties conclude the covenant. the covenant of friendship, while related to both, only references jonathan as the agent, ויכרת, making jonathan the principal actor (see alter, 112). this is also borne out by the one-sided handing over of clothes. it may be that the no-harm treaty requires explicit affirmation of its mutuality, a mutuality that is implied but not stated in the friendship covenant. 33 in theory a negative covenant could grow into a positive one. however, i cannot find an example for that. goshen-gottstein: genesis 9, noah’s covenants 12 the first matter to consider is the scope of the covenant passage. there is a difference, which very often corresponds to the respective identities of jewish and christian readers, regarding the extent of the paragraph relevant to covenant. jews, as i have noted, tend to see the entire chapter as part of the covenant, including the earlier section, verses 1–8, in which commandments are listed. many christian readers argue that only verses 9–17 are relevant to the covenant.34 the difference is textual but also theological. textually, the term berit appears only in the second part of the chapter and not in relation to the commandments stated in the first part.35 and it appears no less than seven times, surely a significant number.36 furthermore, verses 9–17 are framed by an inclusio that references the making of the covenant, lending further support to a reading of these verses, and these alone, as covenant. beyond the textual dimension lies a theological consideration that seems to distinguish christian from jewish readers. the earlier part of the chapter includes legal stipulations. this would mean that commandments are seen in some way as relevant to the covenant, even if they are not strictly speaking covenantal stipulations. accordingly, the covenant would have some dimension of reciprocity to it and would not be a purely free divine gift.37 the notion of covenant is introduced only in verse 9, with the opening “as for me.” what does this opening suggest? is it the other side of a covenantal commitment or is it god making a covenantal promise, independently of the commandments of the earlier verses? both perspectives may be upheld. it is, indeed, a covenant with god, and, like all biblical covenants with god, it is also linked in some way to commandment and obligation.38 nevertheless, what follows the new opening (“as for me”) does not stand in full reciprocity with the earlier part. this is not because the earlier part is divorced from the covenant. rather, the scope of the covenant shifts in the second part of the chapter. here god makes his covenantal promise addressing not only noah or humanity. it is a covenant “with you, and with your seed after you; and with every living creature that is with you, the fowl, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you.” it would be meaningless to consider a covenant of mutual obligation between god and non-humans. it is, 34 the argument is made explicitly by blenkinsopp, creation, un-creation, re-creation, 149. blenkinsopp refers to the terminological concentration and to the inclusio, noted in our discussion. see also jan christian gertz, das erste buch mose genesis: die urgeschichte, gen 1-11 (gottingen: vandenhoeck and ruprecht, 2018), 285. a similar view regarding the literary boundaries of the covenant section is implied in the division into sections by the jewish scholar nahum sarna, the jps torah commentary: genesis (philadelphia: jewish publication society, 1989) as well as by georg fischer, genesis 1-11 (herder: freiburg, 2018). 35 see james barr, “reflections on the covenant with noah,” 19. 36 a likely explanation for the number is linked to the re-establishment of creation following the flood. the sevenfold occurrence of the word berit may be a reference to the significance of the number seven, namely the seventh day, in the original creation narrative. 37 on the question of unilateral vs. reciprocal obligations, with reference to this particular covenant, see barr, 11-13. 38 i have suggested that this is a constitutive feature of biblical covenants with god, regardless of other ways in which they may be classified. see alon goshen-gottstein, in god’s presence: a theological re-introduction to judaism (fortress press, forthcoming), chapter 2. 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) however, quite meaningful to consider a one-sided divine promise that encompasses not only humans but all creatures, a promise never again to destroy the world. in this reading, then, the covenant with noah is something of a misnomer. it is not a covenant, properly speaking, with noah, nor is the heart of the covenant to be found in the prohibitions listed in the first paragraph. the covenant is actually a divine promise to all creation, represented by noah. noah is not the personal covenantal partner but the figurehead, the point person, for a more encompassing divine promise that begins with him and extends to all living creatures. to better understand the complexity inherent in the logic of genesis 9, we should examine how the text itself understands this covenant, as distinct from the many theological overlays it has received at the hands of jewish and christian theologians alike. the three final verses hold the key to its understanding: i will remember my covenant between me and you and every living creature among all flesh, so that the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. when the bow is in the clouds, i will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between god and all living creatures, all flesh that is on earth. “that,” god said to noah, “shall be the sign of the covenant that i have established between me and all flesh that is on earth.”39 these verses provide a definition of the nature of the covenant as well as of its recipient. as the final verse states, it is a covenant between god and all flesh that is on earth, or, as the previous verse states, all living creatures. the previous verse spells out the nature of the covenant—there shall never again be a flood to destroy all flesh. this, then, is a divine covenant of no harm. its recipient is creation. having destroyed creation through the flood, god now makes a covenant with creation in which he promises never to destroy it again.40 we can probably learn from this covenant that god cares for creation, or that he forgives transgression, or that he is willing to come to terms with human weakness and sin. any of these are possible lessons that can be derived from the core covenant. however, god does not conclude or affirm a relationship with creation as such, something that might not even be possible conceptually. rather, he solemnizes his intention or decision to never again bring about a flood by means of a covenant. this leads us to a consideration of noah’s position in this covenant. the noharm covenant is made with all of creation. noah stands in for all creation; he is the intermediary, the instrument through which the covenant is concluded. it is this complexity that accounts for the particularities of genesis 9 and for the division within the chapter. understanding noah’s role is crucial to understanding the covenant itself. it also impacts the basic question of how much of genesis 9 is relevant to the covenant. 39 gen 9:15-17. 40 this leads us to consider the meaning of the sign of this covenant. in context, it seems clear that it refers to the rainbow. however, some interpreters have argued that it relates to the bow of the warrior, which god now hangs in the sky as a sign that he will no longer engage in acts of aggression. see fischer, 504-5. this would be a visible sign of a no-harm covenant. goshen-gottstein: genesis 9, noah’s covenants 14 recent developments in new zealand are very helpful for understanding what is at stake. providentially, the day before i wrote this text, there was a news item about the whanganui river, the third-longest river in new zealand, becoming the first in the world to be considered a legal person, enabling it to be represented in court and having two guardians appointed to speak on its behalf.41 internationally, this is an important precedent. in context, it draws on maori views of the personality of the river. for our purposes, it illustrates the challenge of how nature, or its elements, can become party to legal proceedings. a covenant is a legal mechanism. if god seeks to make a covenant of no harm towards all living beings, how can such a covenant be concluded? the recent announcement holds the key to noah’s position. the river has guardians appointed to speak on its behalf. noah too is a guardian appointed over nature. noah, then, receives the covenant on behalf of all of creation. with this insight, we can now review noah’s role in the covenant as well as the relationship of the first and second parts of the pericope. the final verse (gen 9:17) is spoken to noah, while the substance of the proclamation is god’s covenant with all flesh. this is, however, the only time that we find god speaking to noah exclusively. earlier, god speaks to noah and to his sons. thus, in verse 8, the section begins: and god said to noah and to his sons with him, “i now establish my covenant with you and your offspring to come, and with every living thing that is with you—birds, cattle, and every wild beast as well—all that have come out of the ark, every living thing on earth.”42 noah and his sons receive the covenant, but it is also made with all living beings, here specified in detail.43 it is therefore not noah as the ideal righteous person, as he was described earlier in the biblical narrative, who is receiving the covenant. it is noah as a representative of humanity, along with his sons, who equally constitute the new humanity. once the proxy nature of the covenant with noah is understood, we can turn to the first part of chapter 9, to be understood, in context, as providing the justification and rationale for why and how noah and his offspring can stand in for all of creation in a covenant with god. to this end, the special status of the human person is affirmed. humanity is blessed to multiply. dominion is then given to humans over all forms of life, the same life that will appear in the covenant several verses 41 julia hollingsworth, “this river in new zealand is legally a person. here’s how it happened,” cnn, 11 december 2020, https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/11/asia/whanganui-river-new-zealand-intlhnk-dst/index.html 42 vv. 8-10. 43 the remove of this covenant from other relational covenants made with human partners finds further expression in the naming of earth itself as partner to the covenant in verse 13. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/11/asia/whanganui-river-new-zealand-intl-hnk-dst/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/11/asia/whanganui-river-new-zealand-intl-hnk-dst/index.html 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) later.44 full dominion finds expression in the right to eat other living beings. however, there is an exclusion: the blood of animals must not be consumed, and human blood must not be spilled. the reason is crucial: man was made in the image of god. read in context, this is a much more nuanced statement than the obvious prohibition on murder or the recurrent affirmation of humanity having been created in god’s image, repeating the message of genesis 1:26. here, being in the image of god means that the human person can enter into a covenant with god on the basis of some foundational common ground.45 this is the source of his dominion over other forms of life. it is also the reason why he can play the mediating role that he, in the person of noah and his sons, will immediately play in the covenant with all living beings. being in the image of god, he can enter into a covenant with god, based on a point of commonality. at the same time, his image may consist of, or include, this power of dominion. thus, the human person, made in the image of god, is the perfect intermediary and representative, who can receive the covenant on behalf of creation. it is therefore not noah the righteous who receives the covenant on behalf of all living beings. it is noah the human person, along with his children and all future offspring, who fulfills this role. just as the second part of the chapter was defined by means of an inclusio, describing god’s making of a covenant, so is the earlier part: verses 1 and 7 both contain the blessing to be fruitful and fill the earth. this is to be understood as an expression of dominion. humankind is to expand so that it fills the earth, given to it in blessing. the framing of the first part in terms of blessing46 and of the second part in terms of covenant does not mean that the first part is detached from covenantal concerns. in addition to how humanity’s role in relation to nature, captured as blessing, enables its proxy role in the following covenant, blessing and covenant are also related. there is a pattern, found in other biblical contexts, where blessing is a form of establishing or affirming a covenant.47 blessing can also precede and lead to a covenant.48 if blessing is not only not detached from covenant but serves as a preamble or as a milder form of covenant, the division of genesis 9 into two parts—blessing and covenant—would allow us to view both of these as part of the larger construct of covenant. more can be said, in context, regarding the image of god. if humankind expands and fills the earth, this too may be an expression of the divine image, which 44 there is one discrepancy. fish are mentioned in the earlier part, but not in the later. fish were obviously not destroyed in the flood, so they did not need the divine pledge to not destroy them again. 45 similarly, jon levenson has suggested that israel entered their covenantal relationship with god at sinai not as slaves but as kings, albeit much in debt to the king of kings. see levenson, the love of god, 6. 46 to be clear, the inclusio is about propagation and filling the land. this is expressed in terms of blessing in the opening of the first part. 47 the only way of making sense of the mention of covenants in lev 26:42 is to see them as references to gen 26:2-5; 35:9-12, where “blessing,” not covenant, is used. see further gen 28:3-5 where blessing is the means of passing on covenantal promises. 48 abraham’s story begins with a blessing in gen 12:2, leading to later covenants in gen 15 and 17. these echo some of the themes of the earlier blessing. it is also worth considering the first appearance of the sabbath in gen 2:3, which involves blessing. its following appearances in exod 20 and 31 involve a covenant. goshen-gottstein: genesis 9, noah’s covenants 16 is affirmed just before the closure of the first section and the repetition of the blessing, or command, to fill the earth. having destroyed the earth and now promising to never destroy created life again, god affirms his sovereignty. if god commands humankind to fill the earth, he is in fact extending this sovereignty to them, which is one dimension of what it means to be created in god’s image. the god who promises life’s endurance, just like the god who completes his creative work in chapter 1, places humans, made in his image, to fill, enjoy, and rule over new/renewed creation as an extension of himself. it is the notion of the image of god that makes this possible. there is an even more powerful possibility for how this notion operates in our chapter. i read genesis 9 as a covenant of no harm between god and creation. the examples of such covenants analyzed above related to reciprocal covenants. both sides promise not to harm each other. scholars who have read genesis 9 in light of ancient near eastern treaties have considered noah’s covenant a promissory, granttype covenant. this is the only way to read it if one assumes that the covenant passage only begins in verse 8. however, once we realize how closely related the two sections of the chapter are, a new understanding emerges, relating to mankind’s being created in god’s image. a reciprocal treaty of no harm requires both sides to affirm that they will not hurt each other. god promises not to destroy life, but there is also a reciprocal obligation, which cannot be placed upon all living beings.49 only humans can accept an obligation upon themselves. if god promises not to destroy other creatures, we must expect a reciprocal promise not to destroy god. god, obviously, cannot be destroyed—but his image can. the reason why genesis 9 introduces the prohibition on murder here is in order to create the reciprocal commitment that is required by the covenant of no harm. god does not destroy living beings. man, the only living being who can be commanded, in turn does not destroy god, that is: god’s image.50 this reading helps us solve a big riddle in biblical thought. we typically consider the creation of humankind in god’s image a fundamental religious teaching. in fact, it is a fairly minor teaching when the message of the bible is considered in its entirety.51 it appears in genesis 1, in our passage and nowhere else in the bible. considering how formative these passages are, why is it that the notion does not receive further amplification? one possible answer may be that this idea presents a unique challenge and addresses a unique need. it is only within the nuanced framework of making possible a covenant, even if a covenant of no harm, between 49 the consequences of harming the image of god do, however, apply to animals as well. tamar werdiger points out to me that in verse 5 god promises to punish animals who kill humans. 50 yair lorberbaum has offered a strong reading of god’s image as the divine life inhabiting and being expanded, by means of human persons. if such a reading were adopted for the biblical source, based on the later rabbinic sources he suggests, it would make the present point all the more powerful. see yair lorberbaum, in god's image : myth, theology, and law in classical judaism (new york: cambridge university press, 2015). 51 on the problematics associated with the notion, see alon goshen-gottstein “the body as image of god in rabbinic literature,” harvard theological review 87:2 (1994): 171-195. 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) god and non-human life that we require the notion of the image of god to do the work of representation, as described. noah: one or two covenants? the typological distinction between positive and negative covenants that produce, respectively, the fullness of relationship and the promise of no harm allows us to revisit an interpretative crux in the noah story. noah is mentioned in relation to covenant in two different contexts. our discussion has focused on genesis 9. there is, in addition, a brief mention of covenant in genesis 6:18: for my part, i am about to bring the flood—waters upon the earth—to destroy all flesh under the sky in which there is breath of life; everything on earth shall perish. but i will establish my covenant with you, and you shall enter the ark, with your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives. and of all that lives, of all flesh, you shall take two of each into the ark to keep alive with you.52 what is this covenant? if the english translations almost all give the sense that the covenant will be established in the future, the hebrew והקימותי, vahakimoti, lends itself to an understanding that this relates to an existing covenant that is going to be fulfilled. nahum sarna sums up the confusion when he says: in the present passage it is uncertain whether the governing verb means to fashion a covenant anew or to fulfill one already made. outside the flood narrative, all biblical usages of the phrase favor the latter interpretation. the meaning would then be that the divine blessing made to adam in 1:28 would be fulfilled through noah and his line, an assurance that he and his family would survive and regenerate the world. however, because “covenant” is not used in connection with the blessing of adam, the phrase could imply that a new, unconditional guarantee of salvation is now being given to noah. still another possibility is to take the term here as anticipating the covenant made after the flood, as recorded in 9:8–17.53 the suggested association of blessing and covenant would resolve the problem raised by sarna and allow this covenantal reference to point back to adam. it is worth noting one strand of christian theology, the so-called federal theology of reformed christianity, which views religious history as covenantal history and recognizes adam as the first recipient of such a covenant.54 reformed theologians consider covenant to be associated with creation more fundamentally than the 52 gen 6:17-19. 53 sarna, 53. 54 see aaron chalmers, “the importance of the noahic covenant to biblical theology,” tyndale bulletin 60, no. 2 (2009): 207-216; paul williamson, sealed with an oath: covenant in god’s unfolding purpose (downers grove, il: ivp, 2007), epub file; w. dumbrell, covenant and creation: a theology of old testament covenants (carlisle: paternoster, 1984). goshen-gottstein: genesis 9, noah’s covenants 18 blessing to adam and rely on this verse for support.55 i am unconvinced by this reading. paul williamson makes the astute observation that just as exodus 19:5 refers to a covenant prior to the actual sinai event, so does this verse in genesis 6 announce the coming covenant, which will appear in chapter 9.56 this is an interesting reading and more contextual, as it also relates thematically to other elements in the verse. however, it does seem out of context here. nothing would be lost if we did not have a reference to a covenant in genesis 6. this is not the case with the suggested parallel to exodus 19, where mention of the covenant is part of the overview and definition of all that is to come. by contrast, the focus of genesis 6:18 is the flood and being saved from it. a later covenant to never again bring about a flood is out of context. moreover, the covenant in genesis 6 is with noah and noah alone. in genesis 9, it is never with noah alone, as i have detailed above. if this reading is rejected, only one of the three options remains. this covenant points neither to the past nor to the future, but to the present moment, and is related to noah’s salvation. let us consider this reading. in order to appreciate the particularity of the reference to a covenant in genesis 6, we must take note of the context. the description of the announcement that noah will be saved and of god’s covenant with him follows from the opening description in the same chapter of noah as righteous and blameless. it is therefore an outcome of his particular status and virtue. by extension, not only he but also his sons, and most importantly their wives, are also saved. chapter 9 makes no mention of noah’s status as a righteous person. it also includes no reference to women. instead, it speaks of the generic “human,” made in the image of god.57 the covenant is made with all created beings, not with noah alone, and it is mediated via noah and his sons as humankind, representing god, as proxies in the making of a covenant. there is a different logic governing each of these chapters and therefore each of the references to covenant.58 the conclusion, then, is that genesis 6 speaks of a covenant that is made with noah because he is righteous. the fulfillment of this covenant is the extension of divine protection to him, and through him to his immediate family. this is not the no-harm covenant of chapter 9; rather, it is based on the fullness of relationship that an individual enjoys with god by virtue of his total righteousness. it is positive in the sense that it is built on the virtues of the individual, and this is matched by the active protection extended to that individual by god. it does not include a particular commitment or command. these have been fulfilled previously and their fruit is the designation of noah as a righteous person and the ensuing covenant. it also does not include a specific promise. rather, it is covenant as an expression of relationship and closeness. there is no need for a specific promise. god fulfills the implicit promise or expectation when he saves noah from the flood. god does not 55 see williamson, chapter 3. 56 williamson, chapter 3. 57 the image of god can include women; see gen 5:1-2. however, this is not brought to light in gen 9, even though women were mentioned throughout the story of the flood. 58 most readers throughout the centuries have not recognized this distinction. for an early reading that fails to make this distinction, see sirach 44:17-18. 19 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) need to commit to save noah any more than noah needs to undertake fidelity and obedience to god. these are both implied.59 god’s covenant with noah is best understood along the lines of the covenant of friendship. it is an expression of a special relationship, not of a particular pledge. it is analogous to david’s covenant with jonathan we saw earlier (1 sam 20). that covenant affirmed friendship and sealed a bond of love. it was an expression of closeness and love in a full and positive sense. similarly, god’s covenant with noah in genesis 6 presents us with a form of covenant that is not centered on commitment or promise, neither one-sided nor bilateral. it focuses on the relationship itself, and confers friendship, intimacy and, as we know, by extension also protection. the verb והקימותי, as sarna notes, typically relates to a covenant that was previously concluded. commentators and interpreters have rendered it as “i will establish,” because we do not hear of a covenant previously concluded with noah. there are two ways of meeting this challenge if we seek to maintain consistency of usage of the verb across different biblical occurrences.60 the first is that there was indeed a covenant concluded, but the bible did not tell us about it. we only learn about it when it becomes relevant to the storyline. it is often the case that the bible informs us of elements of the story only after they have occurred, in accordance with its narrative needs.61 there is another possibility, and it has consequences for the relevance of the noah narrative for future generations. it may be that the very attainment of the status of צדיק, righteous person, places one in a relationship with god which can be described as a covenant.62 if so, this covenant is not unique to noah. anyone, including anyone before or after him, who is considered righteous enters a special relationship with god which may be considered or called a covenant, by virtue of the closeness, intimacy, sharing and protection it affords.63 in summary, we may distinguish two kinds of covenant between god and noah, fully analogous to the two covenants we identified between david and jonathan. as a righteous person, noah illustrates how covenant can be a sign of a bond of friendship, given in recognition of righteousness, beyond the particularity of demands and commitments. as the representative member of humankind, he is also 59 see also barr, 13. 60 the thesis that this is a type of friendship covenant does not depend on when the covenant was concluded. in theory, this could be the moment in which it is concluded. 61 this is a feature of narrative generally. see meir sternberg, expositional modes and temporal ordering in fiction (baltimore: university of johns hopkins press, 1978) and see gerard genette, narrative discourse (ithaca: university of cornell press, 1980). with reference to biblical narrative, see meir sternberg, the poetics of biblical narrative: ideological literature and the drama of reading (bloomington: university of indiana press, 1985), 264-320. 62 given that covenant is mentioned only in passing in gen 6:18, thereby posing an exegetical difficulty, this is one theoretical solution. it recasts the problem in positive terms in view of the context, but does not rely on additional sources. 63 the point may be expanded from reference to zaddik to the other characteristics by means of which noah is described in gen 6:9. it is interesting to note that in kabbalistic terminology “zaddik” and “covenant” are both monikers for the same sefira, yesod. when gen 6 is viewed through this lens, a covenant is implied by the very appeal to “zaddik.” goshen-gottstein: genesis 9, noah’s covenants 20 the recipient, following the flood, of a different kind of covenant, the negative covenant of no harm.64 the presence of both in the story of noah serves to further highlight the very existence and particularity of the covenant of no harm that is related in genesis 9. the theological import of noah’s covenant the reading i have offered reveals a typology that undermines the theological constructs surveyed above and which have applied the covenant with noah to relations between religions. a covenant of no harm does not provide a universal basis for particular relationships. the jewish authors who affirmed such a view all sought ways of recasting the covenant with noah in positive terms, thereby altering its fundamental negative nature as a covenant of no harm. they portrayed it as a covenant of relationship, just like the later covenants, thereby treating the covenants as being of a kind. in their understanding, the difference between various covenants is not one of kind; it is only one of recipients—hence the various applications of the distinction between the universal and the particular. the above analysis undermines the basis for these rich but ideologically charged readings, rendering them unsustainable.65 if my reading of genesis 9 effectively invalidates all the theological constructs that have been placed upon it, we must consider anew the question of the theological import of god’s covenant with noah. with this we turn from scriptural exegesis to theologizing, based on the newly discovered understanding of scripture. the question we are concerned with is whether genesis 9 and its covenant can teach us anything regarding a view of and approach to god besides the obvious message of god’s promise to never again destroy his creation. one part of the answer lies in the possibility that there are two covenants with noah, one negative and one positive. the positive covenant in genesis 6 with noah the righteous person is given not as a framework of a relationship, but as an expression of the fulfillment and confirmation of that relationship. the appeal to righteousness is not dependent on a covenantal framework, and it remains a vital element in a biblical view of the human person, including the non-jew. other narratives in genesis continue to employ it as a category that provides definition to individuals, relations, and human and divine actions.66 if so, we can readily recognize a continuity between the story of noah and other biblical stories, of universal scope, while sidestepping the challenges associated with the use of “covenant.” in the same way that noah’s righteousness leads to a relationship with god, other relationships with 64 it may be that the description of the drunken noah in gen 9, immediately following the covenant of no harm, further underscores how this covenant is not related to his status as a righteous person. 65 one prior reading of this covenant that remains relevant is that of the reformed theologians, who link gen 9 to creation and draw the lesson of god’s continuing care for creation. this care provides the framework within which later covenants take place. however, it tells us nothing of the particularity of the covenant concept, nor does it establish any relationship between the covenant with noah and later covenants. 66 gen 18:23; 20:4. 21 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) god can emerge from the practice of righteousness. such relationships, even covenants, can emerge over the course of history. if, as stated above, the very attainment of righteousness is equivalent to a covenant with god, then the path to such a covenant remains open to all as a function of righteousness and spiritual excellence.67 let us now consider the theological import of the covenant of no harm in genesis 9, the weightier of the two covenants and the one that has occupied almost all exegetical and theological imagination concerning noah and the covenant idea. how does it relate to a broader vision for humanity, and specifically to non-jews? the upshot of our discussion is that there is no universal covenant that predates the particular covenants with abraham and israel. covenant, then, does not structure collective relationships with god, other than israel’s. but this does not make genesis 9 irrelevant to the religious recognition of those outside israel and to their approach to god. in what follows, i would like to consider what theological lessons relating to jews and non-jews can be drawn from genesis 9 once we let go of the theological superstructures that have been imposed upon it. if the chapter does not speak of humanity and human diversity, but of all the various forms of created beings, can it speak in any way to the challenges of relating to those who are not part of israel’s covenant? to examine this question we must reflect upon the difference between the positive relational covenant and the covenant of no harm. a positive covenant establishes or confirms a relationship in a full sense. it expresses a paradigm of friendship and love.68 a covenant of no harm may also express god’s love. after all, god loves his creation and therefore refrains from destroying it. but this love does not immediately translate into a relationship. i would like to propose that the covenant of no harm actually makes us aware of the divine power to destroy, a power that god refrains from using, but which continues to inform relational horizons. god is known as power, not as relational partner. it is power tempered by divine decision, compassion, love, or some other force that prevents that force from being unleashed upon creation. but it is as powerful creator that god is encountered in genesis 9, rather than as relational partner. if one does not enter into relationship with god, one can at least know him, and the covenant of no harm becomes a means of knowing god.69 the idea that god is known by means of his power, rather than through a relationship, and that this is a way of distinguishing israel from other peoples, seems to be a very basic biblical perspective. the goal of god’s destructive activities in egypt is to make himself known to the egyptians.70 in order for god to be known, 67 this usage of “covenant” could be integrated in the schemata offered by greenberg and sacks, while sidestepping the difficulties associated with their readings. 68 for a recent review of positions on love and its covenantal associations, ranging from covenantal obedience to the more emotional dimensions of religious experience, see bill arnold, “the love-fear antinomy in deuteronomy 5-11,” vetus testamentum 61 (2011): 551-569. see further jon levenson, the love of god. 69 isa 54:9-10 combines reference to the “waters of noah” with affirmation of divine love. this does not tell us much regarding the use of berit, inasmuch as the term is absent in this oracle. 70 exod 7:5 and more. goshen-gottstein: genesis 9, noah’s covenants 22 someone must be around to know god. someone is the recipient of god’s destructive force, while someone else observes and draws the lesson. the prophets’ prophecies for the nations repeatedly make the same point. this is particularly noticeable in ezekiel’s writing, where the outcome of god’s activity, especially his destructive activity towards the nations, is his being known.71 this pattern may be applied to the flood and to the covenant that follows it. the flood manifests god’s destructive power. the covenant that follows ensures creation’s survival. the god who has the power to destroy and who has nevertheless kept humanity and all of creation alive is one who should be known in the fullness of his power—his destructive power as well as his protective power. this is indeed a universal religious vision. it concerns not the particularity of a relationship but the very foundations of life, as these apply to all people and to all beings. coming to know god cannot be divorced from the moral consequences of such recognition. the god who could, and did, but will no longer, destroy the life he has created expects humanity to act in line with his decision to refrain from further harm and destruction. it is here that the covenantal structure of genesis 9 and its division into two parts is so crucial. while god does not make his promise to no longer destroy creation conditional upon human behaviour, the structure of the two parts of the narrative does assume a reciprocal relationship.72 the reciprocity of the covenantal relationship of no harm leads, as suggested above, to the mutual commitment to not destroy. the bible limits this mutuality to the prohibition of murder, which is well integrated into the theological and narrative logic of genesis 9.73 as we reflect upon the possible meaning of a no-harm covenant with god, it seems we can go deeper in our reflection and broader in presenting the moral consequences of this covenant. the authors described above have imported to the discussion the later rabbinic concept of the noahide commandments. this could be a helpful resource for developing a fuller sense of mutuality in the framework of a no-harm covenant, but it must be first appreciated in proper historical context. often, authors who speak of the covenant with noah include in its scope the rabbinic idea of the seven noahide commandments.74 one can see how the one idea could be extended to the other. the covenant with noah includes the prohibition of murder, which is one of the noahide commandments. the fact that these commandments are called “noahide,” conjuring the memory of noah, facilitates their identification with the 71 see josh 4:24; ezek 21:10, 25:5-17, 26:6, 28:22-26, 29:6-21, 30:8-26, and more. 72 the earliest reader to have recognized this is jubilees 6:4-10. however, jubilees’ reworking makes the absence of berit from the first part of gen 9 all the more striking. see barr, 21. 73 the extent of a no-harm approach must be continually rethought as our understanding grows and as circumstances change. the fact is that god does harm, through various calamities, though he does not destroy, and humans too are entitled to eat animals. full application of the logic of gen 9, as recast here, would have led to adoption of vegetarianism, which is a conclusion the bible did not reach. is it implied in the deep logic of this passage? or should we assume that a full no-harm approach is impossible until the messianic age, as described in isa 11:9? 74 see blenkinsopp, 148. this position is certainly the case for greenberg and sacks, rightly rejected by westermann, 469. all three authors surveyed above assume this identification. 23 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) covenant made with noah. this, however, is a common mistake caused by the particularity of expression.75 a noahide, literally “a son of noah,” is the rabbinic designation for a non-jew. the term “son of adam” is broader and used for jew and non-jew alike. consequently, when the rabbis needed a term by means of which to designate a non-jew, they resorted to the designation “son of noah.” there are seven commandments that relate to a noahide; these, however, were not given to noah. they were given to adam.76 this is a set of basic commandments, which came to be known as the noahide laws. only the last of them, concerning eating an animal only after it has been killed, was given to noah, following the flood, when the eating of meat was permitted. the covenant with noah, strictly speaking, should be kept distinct from the notion of the noahide commandments.77 once this is recognized, we can revisit the idea of morality as this emerges from a no-harm covenant and from the noahide commandments.78 these turn out to be very helpful in articulating a religious response to a god who is known through his power, both as he applies it and as he refrains from applying it. the following reflection on the meaning of genesis 9, understood through the lens of the noahide commandments, recognizes that two of the seven commandments appear there explicitly for the first time. more importantly, it chooses to overlook the distinction between the covenant with noah and the noahide commandments, and to consciously follow the theologians who similarly collapsed the differences, as a matter of theological expediency. let us then consider the logic of the noahide commandments as they relate to a no-harm covenant made by god. what characterizes the noahide commandments is precisely their negative character. one must refrain from killing, stealing, wrong sexual relations, blasphemy, and idolatry. the only positive commandment is the obligation to establish courts of law, which can be understood as an instrument for the prevention of harm within society. the overarching principle of this group of commandments is to avoid harm, either to others or to god.79 and there we have it—the moral lesson 75 i deal with this at greater length in covenant and world religions, where i also refute possible suggestions for upholding the identification of the noahide commandments and genesis 9. 76 bavli sanhedrin 57a; maimonides, laws of kings 9,1. much like the reformed theologians who cannot conceive of creation without covenant, the rabbis cannot conceive of creation, or humanity, without commandment. see williamson, chapter 3. 77 the following discussion puts forth a view of the enduring significance of gen 9 in terms of morality, as this expands a notion of non-harm. a possible alternative approach to the enduring significance of gen 9 emerges from james barr’s discussion, 16. barr lists the contents of gen 9 in a way that allows for an alternative framing. the various commands add up not to a code of morality but to a view of life and subsistence. their overall concern is for the subsistence of life: how to make life, how to nourish, protect and respect it. ensuring life may go beyond a no-harm approach. it also defines reciprocity in terms of mutual affirmation and generation of life. this, of course, has consequences for the continuing appeal to gen 9. this element has been highlighted in the theology of irving greenberg, even though he refers to the noahide commandments. see the passage cited above. 78 while the following move echoes the appeal to the noahide commandments in the context of genesis 9, it does so self-consciously and only after affirming the utilitarian application, as distinct from other understandings that consider them as grounded in this biblical passage. most importantly, unlike other jewish authors, i never ascribe relationality to the covenant in genesis 9. 79 the commandment not to harm animals is focused on limiting their suffering by not eating parts of them while they are alive. goshen-gottstein: genesis 9, noah’s covenants 24 that is derived from a no-harm covenant instituted by god is the recognition that we too must refrain from causing harm to others. there is a kind of reciprocity here that is not based on a relationship with god. rather, it is based on the recognition of our creatureliness, god’s power and the moral imperative that emerges from it. when the noahide commandments are read into the genesis 9 narrative as complementing its spirit and logic, a reciprocal religious vision of non-harm emerges. much attention has been devoted to the question of understanding the noahide commandments as a moral code or a religious framework. the authors quoted above have made valiant attempts to cast the noahide commandments, understood also as the substance of noah’s covenant, in religious terms. but theirs are only the last in a long series of efforts: rabbinic authorities have been troubled for millennia by the lack of a specifically religious character to the noahide commandments. perhaps the earliest attempt to get around this issue is the expansion of their number and the broadening of the scope to include knowledge of god and prayer.80 another way of introducing a consciously religious dimension to their observance is found in maimonides’ requirement that their practice should be based on belief in their revealed status.81 to observe these commandments as revealed by god is to assign them a certain religious value. on the basis of my reading of genesis 9 as a covenant of no harm and following the attempt to establish a universal religious vision upon the foundations of such a covenant, i would take just the opposite approach to the noahide commandments. rather than turn them into positive commandments in the same way that jews understand the practice of their broader set of commandments, we should see them precisely in the context of a no-harm relationship with god. god does not harm or does not destroy. our response is to similarly not harm or destroy in the more subtle ways that transgressing the noahide commandments amounts to. as long as the noahide commandments are seen in their own right, they fall short of being religious. they do not grow out of a relationship with god, they do not express one, nor do they necessarily lead to one. however, if these are understood against the background of genesis 9, they become part of an alternative religious vision. humanity as a whole has the ability, perhaps the responsibility, to know god, and people ought to act in accordance with their status as created beings, who are part of the story that involves god and creation. this is also a relationship. it draws on knowledge of god, fear of him based on his power, a power that was made known in the past, as well as on his good intentions towards humanity—that he has promised to never again destroy. it is reciprocal in that it leads to a no-harm relationship. israel and humanity have very distinct relationships with god. where israel is called into an active mission of love and service of god, humanity is called 80 aharon grunbaum, “the thirty noahide commandments according to rabbi shmuel ben hofni gaon,” sinai 72 (1973): 4-5, 205-221 [hebrew]. see the discussion of the noahide commandments in chapter 3 of my forthcoming in god’s presence. 81 maimonides, laws of kings 8,11. see david novak, the image of the non-jew in judaism (oxford: littman library, 2011), 154 ff. 25 studies in christian-jewish relations 18, no. 1 (2023) to maintain awareness of god and to avoid harm to others on the basis of the core reality of god’s no-harm covenant. the consequences of this religious view extend beyond the individual. they are related to how humanity acts in the broadest sense. a no-harm orientation provides guidance for dealing with some of the most urgent challenges facing humanity, and concerns international and inter-group relations. there is one consequence to this understanding that is urgent today in a way it has never been before. one of the biggest challenges of humanity today is that of its own destruction due to its abuse of nature. it was rabbi sacks who, in his famed address to the lambeth conference, linked genesis 9 to the crisis of climate change.82 how helpful the present reading of the chapter is to this temporary concern! god vows not to destroy creation again. rather than the one-sided promise that genesis 9 is often taken to be, it can now be read as mandating a reciprocal commitment. recognizing that at its root is the covenantal promise of no harm, we are to extend this reciprocity to all forms of harm, including the harming of creation, the very creation that god has promised never again to destroy. in the original story, the human person provided the proxy for receiving the divine promise of no harm. contemporary circumstances bring to light a fuller potential of the biblical narrative. the covenant that seeks to ensure the continuity and integrity of created life is mediated by humanity.83 we can now appreciate the role of the human person not only as the recipient of the divine promise but also as the one who realizes covenantal reciprocity in extending harm-free behavior not only to god’s image in another person but to the entirety of life, upheld and protected through this covenant.84 returning, then, to the question that frames this essay, we are able to establish an alternative universal vision based on genesis 9. indeed, this vision is universal in the broadest sense—it transcends religious particularity and can be applied to all. it is a vision that is also relevant to relations between religions,85 providing a basis for a call to refrain from religiously based violence. today more than ever, the message of non-harm is one that all religions must preach and that binds them 82 jonathan sacks, “faith and fate: the lambeth conference address,” rabbi sir jonathan sacks lambeth conference, filmed 2008, https://rabbisacks.org/address-by-the-chief-rabbi-to-the-lambethconference/. sacks included these concerns in the covenant established following the flood, without accounting for how god’s promise not to destroy translates to the human responsibility towards creation. his method was to generalize from some of the particulars of gen 9. the recognition of the negative nature of the covenant in gen 9 provides a more principled ground for the argument. 83 there is also something of a biblical precedent for this. hosea 2:18-21 can be understood as a covenant of no harm that god makes with creation. this too requires a proxy and israel fulfills that role. accordingly, a covenant of no harm is made between israel and the wild animals. a different combination of motifs is found in ezek 34:24-31. 84 according to the talmud (bavli sanhedrin 56b), there are additional commandments that relate to non-jews beyond the seven fundamental commandments. these can be understood as seeking to preserve the integrity of creation. 85 it is not, however, adequate for purposes of affirming the value inherent in other religions. this would require alternative biblical or theoretical foundations, which are not, in my view, provided by gen 9. https://rabbisacks.org/address-by-the-chief-rabbi-to-the-lambeth-conference/ https://rabbisacks.org/address-by-the-chief-rabbi-to-the-lambeth-conference/ goshen-gottstein: genesis 9, noah’s covenants 26 together. the reading of genesis 9 presented in this essay allows us to affirm its proper universal religious message.86 86 this essay was written when libraries around the world were closed due to covid-19. lukasz poupko op of the ecole biblique of jerusalem has manifested the covenant of solidarity, of which rabbi sacks speaks, in the most concrete way, by facilitating my research and helpfully providing scans and resources that allowed the completion of the essay. i owe him a deep debt of gratitude. i also express my gratitude to the many readers who have offered anonymous reviews, as well as to the editorial efforts of ruth langer, barry walfish, and especially my long time editor-chavruta agi erdos. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-3 faydra l. shapiro christian zionism: navigating the jewish-christian border (eugene, or: cascade books, 2015), paperback, xxiv + 167 pp. jay moses pastorjaym@sbcglobal.net hope presbyterian church, wheaton, illinois 60189 in many ways faydra shapiro’s newest book builds upon her earlier book, building jewish roots: the israeli experience (2005). in that book, shapiro investigated a jewish experiential learning program for non-practicing jews, livnot u’lehibanot (“to build and to be built”), which is similar to the birthright travel programs for young jewish adults begun in the 1990’s. as she immersed herself within this three-month program, she observed the participants, noted their various backgrounds, and chronicled how many were encouraged “to choose” a form of judaism to identify with. what made this research significant, and therefore relevant for her current work regarding christian zionists, was her emphasis on hybridity in the formation of religious belonging, and, as she put it, her awareness of her own slow evolution from “a scientific non-practicing jewish neutral observer, to an orthodox jewish academic of comparative religion.” in her current work, she expands her mode of scholarly exploration (which i will designate as ethnographic witness) to christian zionists. ethnographic witness can be differentiated here from the academic field of ethnography because the researcher is self-aware of their own subjective participation and change through accompaniment with a certain group. it is no neutral qualitative decision which brings shapiro to understand christians and their relationship to jews; at the outset she is a “cautious friend” and invites other jews to join along as part of the research (p. 5). she states “there are some jews who are simply ‘drawn’ for various reasons to christianity. i count myself among them. i find myself . . . aware that this is somewhat of a strange position for an ‘orthodox jew' to be in” (p. 2). it is this awareness of her own “awkwardness” regarding the religious phenomena at hand which gives her conclusions an almost autobiographical voice. an example would be her ambivalence about participating in a pro-israel march of christian zionists in jerusalem that she is studying. she writes: “myself, i am a little uncomfortable—do i belong in the march, or on the sidelines? i am not a christian, but a jew, as are the israeli onlookers. but like the marchers, i am also a foreigner in israel. ultimately i end up walking with the canadian group, confi moses: faydra l. shapiro’s christian zionism 2 dent that no matter where i stood that day, as an orthodox jew investigating evangelicals and israel, i would be out of place” (p. 35). she is “witnessing” not as an outsider or as an insider, but as one who recognizes the attraction of common elements (in this case, judaism and zionism) between two different groups: jews and christians. this self-awareness permeates her work and may even give it resonance to other religious seekers. to study the phenomena of christian zionism, she studies and attends events held by several well-known christian zionist organizations: christians united for israel (cufi), the international fellowship of christians and jews (ifcj), bridges for peace, and the international christian embassy jerusalem (icej). she conducted many interviews, with both leaders and members. what becomes immediately clear from her research is that “christian zionism” is not an essentialist term. many of the supposedly common features of christian zionist thought, such as viewing jews as unwitting actors in a christian apocalyptic scenario, are revealed as simplistic and even incorrect. she observes, “in my research it became clear very quickly that the connection between premillennial dispensationalism and christian zionism has been vastly overdrawn. overwhelmingly my informants either did not consider themselves dispensationalists or—more often—did not know what [this term] or pre-millenialism meant” (p. 12). she disagrees with those who describe evangelical christians’ support of the state of israel as a political ideology masked in religious terms: “christian zionism is indeed a religious movement with profound political implications. but political ideology is not the source of adherents’ commitment or motivation. christian zionists are interested in politics primarily as an arena for expressing their religious beliefs” (p. 45). in her exploration of christian motivations for an attachment to israel and a favorable view of judaism, shapiro finds three undergirding religious beliefs. the first is an attachment to and strong affirmation of the authority of the bible, and with it, a hermeneutic that sees the promises and stories within it as actual, literal, and historical. it is love of this bible which, they say, determines their religious and political views. the second is a feeling of closeness with others who share this same bible, in this case, the jewish people. they are motivated to support jewish causes (such as aid to poor immigrants to israel, as in the case of the ifcj) and the state of israel out of religious gratitude, “a debt owed to jews,” and a belief in the faithfulness of god to a common destiny for both peoples (p. 13). finally, there is an attraction to what shapiro calls jewish-christian values, or to the tradition of jewish “ethical monotheism.” although all of these motivations have been noted before, her research presents these with clarity and, in the process, undermines more jaded accusations of political and apocalyptic rationales. shapiro focuses on christian zionists’ complex views of contemporary judaism. she writes: “this ambivalence—a love of jews coupled with a deep fascination with specific aspects of judaism [i.e., jewish life], and complicated by a doctrine that asserts the insufficiency of judaism—sets the groundwork for one of the greatest theological knots of christian zionism” (p. 90). even in christian zionists’ attraction to all things jewish, there is an age old religious boundary, 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) “judaism,” that remains at the center. she notes, then, that in response, to christian zionists “jewish becomes an ethnic category, stripped of the specifically religious content of judaism. just as there are chinese believers in jesus and arab believers in jesus, there are also jewish believers in jesus. this separation of (ethnic) jewishness from (religious) judaism is one that has significant implications . . . jewishness [for christian zionists] is primarily a kinship category, a shared ethnicity with a biological component” (p. 95, emphasis added). just like other christians, then, christian zionists face the perennial division regarding the divergent religious claims between christians and jews. she wryly notes that for christian zionists “minimally, the ‘right kind’ of jew is one with a sense of [his] jewishness [and] a commitment to his cultural heritage and ancestral homeland. the ‘right kind’ of jew is one who ‘exalts god’s name,’ the precise content of which is to be found in christian social values, fiscal conservatism, and a hawkish approach to israel’s security issues” (p. 86). in evangelicals’ attraction to this “kind of jew,” rather than a reform, humanistic or even non-zionist jew, shapiro finds christian zionists seeking a religious partner made in their own image. throughout her observations, the work of daniel boyarin, and specifically his book borderlines: the partition of judaeo-christianity (2004) is never far from her mind. she finds relevant boyarin’s critique of the so-called “parting of the ways” model of a tidy separation between judaism and christianity in the first few centuries ce. shapiro compares this to her own work: “what boyarin sees as an ongoing process of differentiation . . . in late antiquity, i look for still today in christian zionism. the busy border crossing continues to separate people and ideas at the same time as it serves as the meeting place between them, the uncomfortable place where judaism and christianity rub up against each other” (p. 28). but what is opened up in this post-modern re-imagining of communal identity is not so easy to contain and clarify. shapiro asks probing and delicate questions about the borderlines between christians and jews, but hints that the answers to such questions must be offered by each community, especially as they consider issues of continuity and survival. it is ironic that in a work which promises such glimpses of religious soulsearching and entry into other tradition’s sacred spaces, shapiro is somewhat reticent about more fully disclosing her own journey. perhaps deeper questions about religious longing will be addressed in the next ‘chapter’ of her own life, though she recognizes that this thing called “judaism” is far from simple. she writes, “if christians practice judaism as the root of their faith, what is ‘jewish’ judaism and why ought it thrive in its own right, not just as a supporting player for another religion?” (p. 157). she ends as she has begun in her fascinating journey, as a seeker of judaism through a christian prism. in this valuable and sympathetic study of christians’ views of judaism, she calls herself, with appropriate irony, a “jewish jew for judaism” (p. 2). 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-5 review essay amy-jill levine short stories by jesus: the enigmatic parables of a controversial rabbi (new york: harperone, 2014), hardcover, 313 pp. luke timothy johnson ljohn01@emory.edu emory university, atlanta, ga 30322 this review was adapted from an invited panel presentation “a review of amyjill levine’s short stories by jesus: the enigmatic parables of a controversial rabbi,” sponsored by the jewish-christian dialogue and sacred texts group at the society of biblical literature annual meeting (atlanta, ga; november 2015). i have been an admirer of amy-jill levine’s iconoclastic wit for many years, ever since i happened to read an early essay of hers called, “who catered the q banquet?”, which delicately skewered the sexist assumptions of some historical jesus research. like the importunate widow she discusses in her most recent book, she is fearless, forthright, and often just plain funny; among her many admirable qualities is her inability to suffer fools in any shape or size, and her willingness to slice and dice with equal vigor both academic and ecclesiastic foolishness. in her book short stories by jesus, her target is the long history of interpretation of jesus’ parables—a history that, for levine, begins with the narrative use of these stories by the evangelists—and specifically the ways in which christian commentators and preachers read the parables through a hermeneutical frame of soteriology that was more than a little marcionite in character. she relentlessly catalogues the ways in which the parables are read as good news for christians and bad news for jews, in the process revealing how pervasively and profoundly anti-jewish stereotypes pervade such christian discourse. nor does levine spare the academic critics; she notes how post-colonialist readings of the parables actually perpetuate anti-jewish stereotypes. she seeks to provide an antidote to such toxic interpretations by exposing the reader to more and better knowledge about jews and judaism in the time of jesus, and by demanding a much closer and more critical reading of those details of the stories that are often used to advance antijewish positions. johnson: amy-jill levine’s short stories by jesus 2 to this aspect of levine’s work i offer my warmest approval. such critical assessment of interpretive history—largely a history of christian supersessionism—is an essential ground-clearing stage, if conversations among jews and christians are to move forward in a more constructive manner. in this regard, i see levine’s work as continuing, in greater detail and energy, and with specific attention to the parables, the important work by charlotte klein, anti-judaism in christian theology (1978). such critical work, alas, must evidently be done anew in every generation, for like other toxic ideologies, antisemitism is so deeply ingrained in christian consciousness, and so consistently reinforced by certain forms of christian preaching, that total victory can never be assumed. like any scholar who has devoted honest sweat to the task of exegesis, i have my own views on some of the parables discussed by levine that do not entirely agree with hers. i am more than willing to grant that the story of the lost son in luke 15:11-32 “would not have been heard as… a story of works-righteousness and grace, or a story of jewish xenophobia, and christian universalism,” for example (p. 28). however, i am less confident that it “would not have been heard as a story of repentance or forgiveness,” precisely because the structure of the story so clearly points to such a teshuvah on the part of the younger son and invites such a teshuvah on the part of the older son, and because the theme of conversion is one that is so widely attested in the rabbinic literature on which levine heavily depends otherwise. similarly, i am unconvinced by her effort to render the greek phrase para ekeinon at the end of the parable of the pharisee and tax-collector in 18:14 as “justified alongside the other” or even “because of the other” (p. 209). the structure of the parable—including verse 9, which levine accepts as part of the story—seems to demand a contrast rather than an equivalence or mutual dependence such as she proposes. but these exegetical quibbles do not detract from my admiration for levine’s consistent battle against all stereotypes concerning ethnicity, gender, and social class, and her desire to restore to the parables their complex and often ambiguous connections to actual human experience. i next want to consider whether levine’s overall approach to the parables is in fact the best way to further a constructive dialogue between and among christians and jews. i will do this in the form of three questions. first, are the parables of jesus, once removed from the narrative context given to them by the evangelists, more distinctively jewish? levine’s project involves liberating these stories not only from a long history of anti-jewish interpretation, but also, and in the first place, from the narrative framework of the gospels, which she regards as having begun the process of distorting jesus’ meaning through allegorization. but even if such recovery is possible—and for reasons i will touch on in a moment, it is more problematic than sometimes assumed—it by no means follows that the voice of the story-teller is any more recognizably or distinctively jewish than it was within the gospel narrative. rather, the stories open themselves up to the play of polyvalence, capable of being fitted to any number of interpretive frameworks. certainly, the 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) symbolic world of judaism is one such possible framework, but it is seldom demanded by the stories themselves, once deracinated. exceptions include the story of the pharisee and the tax collector, and the good samaritan. it is hard to escape the historical and cultural rootedness of those tales. but other stories chosen by levine for analysis do not demand a jewish context. indeed, with the three parables of the yeast, of the pearl, and of the mustard seed, levine herself delights in the possibilities of polyvalence. in other cases, levine’s interpretations come close to adolf juelicher’s position that the parables teach universal principles, skirting dangerously close to the edge of what she calls “turning parables into platitudes” (p. 18). thus, in her reading, the parable of the good samaritan has a lesson for all situations of antagonism, the parable of the prodigal son teaches that relationships should be carefully tended, the parable of the laborers in the vineyard stands for sound labor relations in business, and the parable of the widow and the judge reminds the reader that nobody is entirely good or bad. there is, with the exceptions already noted, little here of a “rabbi” jesus whose stories bear some importance for those who live within the tradition of the rabbis. second, should we have such confidence that the parables ought to be read as artifacts of a historical jesus and against the grain of their narrative placement? levine shares the premises of the jesus seminar, and many other students of the parables from joachim jeremias to john dominic crossan, first, that the parables provide us access if not to the actual words of jesus, then to his actual voice, and second, that the framing of the parables by the evangelists should be regarded as tendentious and possibly even a betrayal of what jesus intended. but in fact, neither authorship of jesus nor misuse by the evangelists can be so simply assumed. indeed, there are cases, especially in the gospel of luke, where both the parables and their narrative use are quite possibly to be attributed to the evangelist. this point is particularly pertinent, because eight of the eleven parables that levine considers are found in the gospel of luke, five of them exclusively. is it possible that the necessary—or at least, preferable—starting point for conversations among christians and jews concerning the stories of rabbi jesus is not a hypothetical historical jesus but a very definite jesus of the gospel? take, for example, the parable of the lost son. i have always been a bit surprised when those in the jesus seminar and others accept it as authentically from jesus when it does not in any way meet the famous criteria for authenticity laid out by the same scholars: it is lengthy rather than short; it is not multiply attested; it does not meet the criterion of dissimilarity; and it conforms wonderfully to the tendenz of luke’s gospel. as with the parable of the good samaritan, which equally fails to meet the standard criteria, the story is universally accepted as from jesus because it is a great and gripping tale, and very much the kind of thing we would want jesus to have said. but there are very strong reasons for attrib johnson: amy-jill levine’s short stories by jesus 4 uting to luke not only the placement of the three stories concerning the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son, but also their composition. the two stories of the lost sheep (found also in matthew and the gospel of thomas) and of the two sons (found also in matthew) may indeed have their origins in jesus’ teachings, but we cannot know in what form. efforts to get behind received traditions to some primordial authorial bedrock are always speculative. what is certain is that luke shaped both tales decisively and amplified his point by adding the story of the woman with the lost coin—which i think virtually all commentators agree is a lukan composition—and then elaborated the simple contrast between the obedient and disobedient sons in matthew into a psychologically complex tale of alienation and reconciliation. and here is the main point: absolutely everything in his version corresponds perfectly with what is characteristically lukan: the diction, the syntax, the characteristic moment of introversion (“coming to himself”), the theme of compassion, and the way the use of possessions symbolize relationships. all of this is unmistakably from luke. understood in this way, luke’s narrative introduction to the three parables in 15:1-2 is deliberate and appropriate. luke has not allegorized a free-standing parable of jesus; he has composed the parable precisely as an allegory to serve as a commentary on his own overarching narrative. that luke does this elsewhere is shown by his distinctive kingship parable in 19:11-27, which serves exactly the same sort of narrative function. third, are not the parables in their gospel contexts a better basis for conversation among jews and christians today than the parables removed from their gospel contexts? it may seem as though i am making the same point three different ways, and perhaps i am. but it is worth observing that the real engagement with ancient judaism—and therefore the possibility of a serious conversation about the character of that engagement—is to be found in the narratives of the gospels, not in the parables of jesus. the parables participate in that engagement with judaism to the degree that they are read, not as independent artifacts, but as part of the narrative texture of the gospels. again i take luke-acts as my example, and make only two observations. the first is that luke-acts as a whole makes a powerful narrative argument about god’s fidelity to his people and especially to god’s promises. while god intends that “all flesh shall see salvation” (luke 3:6), this does not mean that god has forgotten his mercy to israel. luke tries to show that gentile believers do not replace the jews, but rather represent the extension of faithful israel. the problem of resolving the rejection of the good news by jews with god’s fidelity to his word to abraham remains no less critical for luke than for paul in rom 9-11. is luke’s narrative argument through his whole composition a basis for fruitful conversation today? does it provide a context for reading the parables of the gospel in a less supersessionist manner? 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) the second point is that in the gospel, luke presents jesus as a prophet, whose words and actions represent a renewal or reform movement within israel. this movement comes into conflict with one of the two other reform movements within judaism at that time, pharisaism (qumran was the other), which was committed to cultivating the holiness of the people through the observance and the teaching of the mitzvoth. because at the time of luke’s writing, the pharisees and the christians were, in the post-temple setting, the remaining rival claimants to the heritage of israel, luke’s characterization of the opposing reform movement carries the polemical weight of ancient competitive rhetoric. but beneath the vituperation, we can see in luke’s portrayal a genuine form of judaism distinct from that of jesus the prophet, which had its own values and arguments and own vision for god’s will to be done. is it not possible to even further flesh out that alternative reform movement once we have cut out the polemical characterizations? i think, in fact, that levine’s own historical work on the rabbinic tradition has taken us a good step in that direction, as in her careful consideration of the parable of the pharisee and the tax-collector. we must disavow the stereotypes embedded in the history of christian interpretation. we must eschew the polemic that arose from the competitive rivalry between two reform movements in ancient judaism. but when we have done that, our conversation has only begun. the death of jesus lasker, the jewish critique of christianity lasker 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college the jewish critique of christianity: in search of a new narrative 1 d ani el j. las k er b e n g u r i o n u n i v e r s i t y o f t h e n e g e v volume 6 (2011) http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr 1 this article was first presented at the 2011 boston college corcoran chair conference are jews and christians living in a post-polemical world? toward a comparison of medieval and modern christian-jewish encounters. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): lasker 1-9 lasker, the jewish critique of christianity lasker 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the old narrative of the jewish critique of christianity was simple: jews criticized christianity as a reaction to the christian mission to the jews; if christians had not attempted to convince jews to convert to christianity, there would have been no reason for jews to say anything negative about the majority religion. judaism is a religion of tolerance, at least towards members of other religions if not towards dissident members of its own religion, and, therefore, it was not a jewish concern how gentiles worshipped. since the pious of the nations have a place in the world to come, as long as a christian is a good person (and did not persecute jews), he or she would be ―saved‖ (to use a christian term). but as medieval christians tried more and more to convince jews to convert, jewish thinkers answered this challenge by developing arguments to be used against christian doctrines. the proliferation of jewish anti-christian polemical treatises, with their sharp attacks on christian doctrines and mores, and their often vituperative language, was solely a defense mechanism against christian attacks. in fact, the stronger the christian pressure on jews, the nastier and more acerbic was their response. left alone to themselves, jews would not have had any need to criticize christianity. as david berger once put it: ―jews had no internal motivation for writing polemics against christians; in times or places where christianity is not a threat, we cannot expect jews to be concerned with the refutation of its claims.‖ 2 2 david berger, the jewish-christian debate in the high middle ages (philadelphia, 1979), 7 (reprinted in idem, persecution, polemic, and dialogue: essays in jewish-christian relations, boston, 2010, 79). the bibliography of medieval jewish-christian polemics and the jewish critique of christianity is extensive, but an overall synthesis is still a desideratum. see, in the meanwhile, samuel krauss and william horbury, the jewish-christian controversy i (tübingen, 1995); heinz schreckenberg, die christlichen adversus-iudaeostexte und ihr literarisches und historisches umfeld, vol. i (1-11 jht), frankfurt a.m., 1982, vol. ii (11-13 jht), frankfurt a.m., 1991, vol. iii (13-20 jht.), frankfurt a.m., 1994; daniel j. lasker, jewish philosophical polemics against christianity in the middle ages (new york, 1977), second ed., oxford, 2007; robert chazan, daggers of faith (berkeley, 1989); ibid., fashioning jewish identity in medieval western christendom, (cambridge, 2004). the traditional narrative can be seen, for instance, in the works of another contemporary expert on the medieval jewish-christian debate, jeremy cohen, in an article entitled: ―towards a functional classification of jewish anti-christian polemic in the high middle ages.‖ 3 describing the early middle ages in christian europe, cohen explains why there were no jewish anti-christian treatises before 1170: ―prior to the crusades churchmen took little initiative in engaging the jews in actual debate.‖ therefore, jews ―had little need of a literature of anti-christian polemic per se—i.e., texts composed expressly for the purpose of religious disputation—and they therefore produced none.‖ instead, jews were satisfied with the traditional genres of exegesis, poetry and chronicles to express any anti-christian sentiments they may have held. by the 12th century, however, christian-jewish polemical encounters were more immediate and more direct. thus, ―jewish respondents to christian invective required more than running commentaries on entire biblical books.‖ referring to the first jewish antichristian polemics, those of jacob ben reuben and joseph kimhi in 1170, cohen states: ―no longer did running commentary on scripture or did other existing textual genres suffice, although protecting the faith of jews—and not the denigration of christianity per se—remained the goal of the new treatises, even as their agenda now followed the lead of their christian opponents (emphasis in the original).‖ the new jewish polemical treatises of the 12th and 13th centuries ―attest to the rising frequency of the new christian challenge to the jewish community and to the concomitant jewish need for guidance in responding.‖ cohen‘s article proceeds in the same fashion, finding an external cause for every 3 in bernard lewis and friedrich niewöhner, eds., religionsgespräche in mittelalter (wiesbaden, 1992) 93-114. the citations are on pp. 96-97, 100-102. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): lasker 1-9 lasker, the jewish critique of christianity lasker 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr change he perceives in the medieval jewish polemical literature. in another article, on the jewish criticism of christianity, cohen outlines the sad history of european jewry and states that "these developments obviously fueled the hatred of the jews for the christian population in whose midst they lived." furthermore, he states: "when removed from real contact with christians and its concomitant dangers, jews did not have much reason to polemicize against christianity. medieval jewish antichristian polemic developed almost completely in response [emphasis in original] to christian antijudaism." 4 two other experts of the medieval debate, ora limor and israel jacob yuval, summarize the traditional narrative in this manner: "throughout the history of the polemic between the two religions the christians have been the initiators while the jews have felt themselves obliged to respond." 5 i, myself, have had recourse to the traditional narrative. when i started writing about medieval polemics over 35 years ago, i also assumed that the jewish critique of christianity was defensive in nature. for instance i explained on the first page of my first book that polemical writings were a function of the fact that many jews did not remain passive in the face of the christian challenge to their religion. on the second page, i mentioned jewish polemics against christianity in islamic countries when jews were not under compulsion to convert to 4 jeremy cohen, ―medieval jews on christianity: polemical strategies and theological defense‖ in eugene j. fisher, interwoven destinies: jews and christians through the ages (new york, 1993), 77-89; the citations are on pp. 78, 80. 5 "skepticism and conversion: jews, christians, and doubters in sefer hanizzahon," in allison p. coudert and jeffrey s. shoulson, eds., hebraica veritas? christian hebraists and the study of judaism in early modern europe (philadelphia, 2004), 159-180; the citation is on p. 160. christianity, but i quickly jumped to western europe where, i wrote, ―the defense of judaism, with its concomitant attack on christianity, reached its fullest development.‖ referring to the twelfth century, i wrote that ―as the christian pressure intensified in that century, jews felt a need to compose books that would help them meet the challenge of the dominant religion.‖ 6 fifteen years later i wrote that: ―it is generally recognized that jewish anti-christian polemical compositions written in christian countries were primarily intended for internal use in the war against missionary activity. when that activity was either limited or fairly nonexistent, i.e., until the end of the twelfth century, there were no jewish literary works devoted to combating the arguments of christians in those countries.‖ 7 these words were written in an article about the jewish critique of christianity in islamic countries, so even though i understood that those latter works had nothing to do with a christian mission, i still propounded the old narrative concerning jewish polemics written in christian countries. soon afterwards, in sarah stroumsa‘s and my edition of the judaeo-arabic qissat mujadalat al-usquf (the account of the disputation of the priest) and its hebrew translation, sefer nestor ha-komer (the book of nestor the priest), we wrote concerning the hebrew version of the polemic: ―nestor represents the transition from the use of antichristian argumentation in an environment in which christianity was not the majority religion, to the use of 6 lasker, jewish philosophical polemics, 1-2. 7 idem, "the jewish critique of christianity under islam," proceedings of the american academy for jewish research 57 (1991): 121. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): lasker 1-9 lasker, the jewish critique of christianity lasker 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the same argumentation under christian rule where the threat of conversion was more explicit. as a result, the language of the disputation becomes more violent…while qissa has no qualms with regard to vulgarity of expression, certain sections of the arabic definitely pale in comparison with their hebrew equivalents.‖ 8 in sum, the accepted wisdom has been to the effect that the jewish critique of christianity was written in response to christian missionary pressure and that the level of its vituperativeness is a function of christian antagonism to jews and judaism. when examining the traditional narrative, we see it has one great advantage—it is very comfortable for jews. jews, especially in the modern period, like to present themselves as tolerant of other religions. they also like to be seen as the victims in interreligious exchanges, always the subject of persecution, discrimination and hostility and never the purveyors of these activities. the lachrymose conception of jewish history, a locution coined by the jewish historian salo wittmayer baron, is quite conducive to the traditional jewish self image. 9 when 19th-century german-jewish historians reviewed the jewish past, they did so in an atmosphere of denial of jewish rights; they were not about to reveal to their readers the historical jewish antagonism to non-jews in general and to christians in particular. thus, a jewish critique of christianity in the absence of a christian missionary threat might mean that jews were taking the initiative and were trying, unprovoked, to convince christians of the falseness of their religion. if, on the medieval playing field, jews were playing offense as well as 8 idem and sarah stroumsa, the polemic of nestor the priest, vol. 1 (jerusalem, 1996), 30. 9 see, e.g., salo w. baron, history and jewish historians, eds. arthur hertzberg and leon a. feldman (philadelphia, 1964), 64, 88, 96. defense, this would be an uncomfortable fact for modern jewish apologists. today, however, jews and christians can attempt to write our joint history with fewer vested interests and with greater honesty as israel yuval states. 10 thus, when it comes to the jewish critique of christianity, we may now begin questioning the traditional narrative and looking for a more historically accurate account of this enterprise. 11 why is the traditional jewish narrative concerning jewish-christian polemics no longer tenable? one may begin with the jewish critique of christianity in islamic countries. for the first 800 years or so of christianity, jewish reactions to the new religion were rather muted. without getting into a discussion of the exact relationship between that which became christianity and that which became rabbinic judaism, a narrative clash in its own right, 12 it is clear that there were many christians in these centuries who wrote treatises in the genre of adversus judaeos, and not one jew who wrote an adversus christianos. 13 anti-christian material in rabbinic writings is often allusive and elusive, rarely mentioning christians and christianity by name. 14 the jewish parody of the new testament, 10 israel jacob yuval, two nations in your womb (berkeley, 2006), 20-21. 11 the search for a new narrative for the jewish critique of christianity is somewhat parallel to the emerging new narrative concerning medieval jewish-christian relations in general; see daniel j. lasker, ―from victim to murderer: the jewish-christian encounter in the middle ages–historiography in the wake of the establishment of a jewish state,‖ remembering and forgetting. israeli historians look at the jewish past (= zion, 74) (2008), 95-108 (hebrew). 12 see, e.g., daniel boyarin, border lines: the partition of judaeochristianity (philadelphia, 2004); idem, dying for god: martyrdom and the making of christianity and judaism (stanford, 1999); and cf. stuart s. miller, ―roman imperialism, jewish self-definition and rabbinic society: belayche‘s iudaea-palaestina, schwartz‘s imperialism and jewish society, and boyarin‘s border lines reconsidered,‖ ajs review 312 (2007): 329-362. 13 see schreckenberg, die christlichen adversus-iudaeos-texte, vol. 1. 14 see r. travers herford, christianity in talmud and midrash, different editions; peter schaefer, jesus in the talmud (princeton, 2007). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): lasker 1-9 lasker, the jewish critique of christianity lasker 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr toledot yeshu (the history of jesus), is intended to ridicule the gospels but not to provide arguments against christian doctrines. 15 thus, even in areas where jews were a minority vis-àvis a christian majority, such as in the byzantine empire, including in the land of israel from the fourth to seventh centuries, there is not one jewish polemical treatise. this all changes under islam. the first jewish polemics were written in judaeo-arabic in the ninth century, some by an identifiable jewish thinker, dawud al-muqammas, 16 the first medieval jewish philosopher, and some in another work, the aforementioned account of the disputation of the priest, by an anonymous author. 17 in the tenth century, anti-christian arguments can be seen at length in the works of the rabbanite rav saadia gaon and of the karaites yaqub al-qirqisani and yefet ben eli. in the 11th and 12th centuries, karaite and rabbanite authors continued to provide arguments against christianity, even if new polemical treatises were not composed. a major center of anti-christian literary activity was in andalusia. it is true that there was a relatively large christian presence in islamic countries, but there was certainly no organized christian mission to the jews which, if the old narrative were to be believed, would be necessary to form the occasion for jewish anti-christian polemics. 18 15 in the absence of a good edition of the text, samuel krauss, das leben jesu nach juedischem quellen (berlin, 1902) is still useful. on the nature of this work, see david biale, ―counter-history and jewish polemics against christianity: the sefer toldot yeshu and the sefer zerubavel,” jewish social studies 6:1 (1999): 130-145. 16 see sarah stroumsa, dawud ibn marwan al-muqammis's twenty chapters ( c ishrun maqala) (leiden, 1989). prof. stroumsa now believes the name should be pronounced al-muqammas. 17 see lasker and stroumsa, nestor. 18 for an overview of the jewish critique of christianity in muslim countries, see lasker, ―jewish critique of christianity under islam.‖ the jewish critique of christianity in muslim countries is not the only indication of such a critique in the absence of christian conversionary pressure on jews. interestingly enough, 17thand 18th-century italy was also the home of much jewish anti-christian literature, both in hebrew and in the vernacular. during this period, there was no organized christian missionary campaign, although italian jews, confined mostly to ghettoes, were made to see themselves as outsiders in christian society. an upswing in the number of jewish conversions to christianity in italy may have motivated some antichristian authors, but the proliferation of polemical treatises does not appear to be a reaction to any particular christian assault on judaism, demonstrating once again that jews do not necessarily need an active christian mission to compose antichristian treatises. 19 if we look at the other side of the coin, namely, what was transpiring in medieval christendom, there are more and more reasons to assume that christians were not as active in their anti-jewish campaigns as was once thought. david berger has argued that in the 12th century the proliferation of christian anti-jewish treatises was a reaction to jewish challenges to christianity and not part of an organized christian attempt to convert jews. berger detects a certain reluctance on the part of 12th-century christian writers to compose their anti-jewish treatises, most of whom claim, at least outwardly, that they were forced to address these issues because of jewish challenges. 20 and when we look at the iconic 13th century, the 19 see, e.g., david j. malkiel, ha-pulmus ha-yehudi-nozri erev ha-et hahadashah: yehoshua segri mi-skandi'ano ve-hiburo “asham talui‖ (jerusalem, 2004); daniel j. lasker, ―anti-christian polemics in eighteenth-century italy,‖ in proceedings of the eleventh world congress of jewish studies, division b, vol. 1 (jerusalem, 1994), 185-192 (hebrew); idem, ―‗sefer herev pifiyyot‘ of saul ben joseph merari (?). an italian jewish anti-christian polemic of the eighteenth century,‖ italia 12 (1996): 7-35 (hebrew section). 20 david berger, "mission to the jews and jewish-christian contacts in the polemical literature of the high middle ages," the american historical restudies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): lasker 1-9 lasker, the jewish critique of christianity lasker 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr century of public disputations and the so-called assault of the friars upon the jews, 21 here, too, new and innovative research has called into question the extent of the christian missionary campaign. robin vose‘s book on 13th-century dominicans in iberia presents dominican archival records which indicate that in general the preaching order gave conversion of the jews very low priority among its various goals. 22 other recent works concerning christian polemical literature question its missionary intent, such as irven m. resnick‘s introduction to his translation of peter alfonsi‘s dialogue against the jews, 23 and alexandra cuffel‘s gendering disgust in medieval religious polemic which discusses the uses made of jewish, christian, and muslim polemics for self-perception and for boundary-marking without their having been necessarily part of a missionary or anti-missionary campaign. 24 there is yet another factor. as part of the traditional narrative, it was assumed that jewish invective against christianity is a function of christian pressure upon jews. attempts have been made at gauging the extent of christian pressure upon jews by measuring the acerbity of jewish polemics. 25 yet, here again, the facts do not always fit the theory. some of the nastiest jewish polemics were composed when there was little or no christian mission to the jews, starting out with the judaeoarabic account of the disputation of the priest. jacob ben view 91:3 (june, 1986): 576-591 (reprinted in idem, persecution, polemic, and dialogue, 177-198). 21 jeremy cohen, the friars and the jews (ithaca, 1982). 22 robin j. e. vose, dominicans, muslims and jews in the medieval crown of aragon (cambridge, 2009). 23 peter alfonsi, dialogue against the jew, transl. by irven m. resnick (washington, dc, 2006), 13-17. 24 alexandra cuffel, gendering disgust in medieval religious polemic, (notre dame, in, 2007). 25 hanne trautner-kromann, shield and sword: jewish polemics against christianity and the christians in france and spain (tübingen, 1993). reuben‘s wars of the lord from 1170 includes nasty passages such as the jewish author‘s telling his christian interlocutor that the latter would accept the jewish arguments if he had a brain in his skull. 26 two-hundred years later, in a period where christian conversionary pressure was much more acute than in jacob's day, shem tov ibn shaprut in navarre wrote his own polemic based on jacob‘s wars of the lord, stating that one of his goals was to tone down the vituperativeness of the earlier work since it was inappropriate in his own time. 27 and if we look at hasdai crescas‘s refutation of the christian principles, 28 written in 1398 in the wake of his son‘s murder in the riots of 1391, it would be harder to find a more restrained, sober polemical work. 29 true, the late 13th-century nizzahon yashan, composed at a time of great christian pressure is full of invective, but at the end of the next century, yom tov lipmann mühlhausen's nizzahon, composed in the wake of the execution of prague jews on the basis of the accusations of a jewish convert to christianity, is much more restrained. 30 in light of these examples, it would seem that one cannot learn anything about the context of a polemic by the tone or argumentation of the author since the styles were often dictated by the author‘s personal predilections or the needs of the audience. 31 in addition, one should remember that jewish invective against christianity also appears in non-polemical contexts, such as in 26 jacob ben reuben and sefer milhamot ha-shem, ed. by judah rosenthal, (jerusalem, 1963), 13. 27 shem tov believed that joseph kimhi was the author of wars of the lord; see josé-vicente niclós, sem tob ibn saprut. “la piedra de toque” (eben bohan). una obra de controversia judeo-cristiana (madrid, 1997), 7. 28 daniel j. lasker, the refutation of the christian principles by hasdai crescas (albany, 1992). 29 heinrich graetz attributed crescas‘s restrained tone to the fact that the intended readership was christian, but that theory is very unlikely; see ibid. 30 limor and yuval, "skepticism and conversion," pp. 168-169. 31 see daniel j. lasker, ―popular polemics and philosophical truth in the medieval jewish critique of christianity,‖ journal of jewish thought and philosophy 8:2 (1999): 243-259. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): lasker 1-9 lasker, the jewish critique of christianity lasker 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the malediction of the minim where, in certain versions in muslim countries, christians are mentioned specifically. 32 thus, one can hardly say that jewish acerbity vis-à-vis christianity in the polemics is purely a function of negative christian behavior towards jews. 33 if the old narrative is no longer viable, is there a new narrative? although some of the conclusions here are tentative, they may point towards the construction of a new narrative. first of all, the old narrative is not entirely wrong. certainly there were times and places where we can see a clear correlation between christian pressures and jewish responses. two good examples are in 13th-century northern europe and late 14thand early 15th-century iberia. in 1240 and in the early 1270s there were two public disputations in paris. the earlier and more famous of these led to the burning of the talmud; 34 the later one was a reprise of the disputation of barcelona in 1263 apparently with the same christian protagonist, pablo christiani. 35 the 13th century was a time of blood libels and host desecration accusations. 36 there also seem to have been a relatively large number of jewish conversions to christianity. it is during this period that the first northern european, or ashkenazic, polemical treatises were composed and there seems to be a direct link between these new works and christian 32 uri ehrlich and ruth langer, ―the earliest texts of the birkat haminim,‖ hebrew union college annual 76 (2005): 63-112. 33 see also the material accumulated by yuval in his two nations in your womb. 34 the literature on this disputation is extensive; see recently saadia r. eisenberg, ―reading medieval religious disputation: the 1240 ‗debate‘ between rabbi yehiel of paris and friar nicholas donin,‖ diss., university of michigan, 2008. a paraphrastic translation is provided by hyam maccoby, judaism on trial (rutherford, 1982), 153-162. 35 joseph shatzmiller, la deuxième controverse de paris (paris-louvain, 1994). 36 see miri rubin, gentile tales: the narrative assault on late medieval jews (philadelphia, 2004). pressure upon jews. the older ashkenazic tradition of reacting towards christianity through biblical exegesis, chronicles, or poetry was, indeed, no longer sufficient. the last quarter of the 14th century and the first half of the 15th century were particularly difficult for iberian jewry. in 1391 there were anti-jewish riots throughout iberia which left many jews dead and others forcibly baptized. in 1413-1414 there was the last major public disputation in tortosa, noteworthy not so much for the arguments adduced but by the length of time in which the prominent rabbis of spain were forced away from their communities to give the christian missionaries free reign to try to convert the leaderless jews. 37 and, indeed, from 1375 to 1440 or so, there are quite a number of iberian jewish anti-christian polemics, many of them marked by a new type of philosophical argument and by innovative genres (for instance, the satirical letter). 38 in this case as well, there is a relation between the historical events of the day and the proliferation of jewish polemical activity. the point, nevertheless, is that this relationship is not necessary. as noted, jews wrote polemical treatises in the absence of a christian conversionary mission, indicating that they did not need a so-called christian threat to refute christian doctrines. why? among other reasons, because christianity arrogates to itself what jews see as their patrimony—the name israel, the god of israel, the patriarchs, the hebrew scriptures, the promises to israel, the concept of messiah—as well as presenting theological challenges concerning the nature of god (triune or internally simple), humanity (sinful in need of redemption or not intrinsically sinful), the validity of the commandments 37 on tortosa, see yitzhaq baer, a history of the jews of christian spain, vol. 2 (philadelphia, 1966), 170-243. 38 these works includes crescas, refutation; profiat duran‘s kelimmat hagoyyim and iggeret al tehi ka-avotekha; shem tov ibn shaprut‘s even bohan, and the polemical chapters of joseph albo‘s book of principles. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): lasker 1-9 lasker, the jewish critique of christianity lasker 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr (abrogation or ongoing validity) and hopes for the future (no jewish restoration or a renewed jewish polity). a jew reflecting on jewish theology would naturally find christianity offensive and worthy of refutation, even more so than islam which did not practice the same sort of appropriation of jewish sancta and whose theology contains doctrines more in line with jewish ones. who were the jews who first reflected on jewish theology? they were not the rabbis of the first christian centuries, and not the jews of christendom in the early middle ages, especially ashkenazic jews, for whom theological reflection was far from their intellectual outlook. the first authors of polemical treatises or arguments were philosopher-theologians: dawud al-muqammas, saadia gaon, and the karaite yaqub alqirqisani. they were also the first jews to discuss god‘s unity in philosophical terms, including issues of divine attributes and what it means that god is one. 39 it would obviously make sense that these thinkers would take on, and refute, the christian doctrine of a triune god just as they refuted gnostic dualism and other unacceptable theological views. living among members of other religions who denied the ongoing validity of jewish law, it was natural for jewish thinkers to refute christian views of abrogation, just as they objected to the same islamic doctrine. and living in what for them was an unredeemed world, they speculated on the meaning of the biblical promises for the salvation of israel, criticizing those who believed that those 39 these discussions were motivated by parallel treatments of these subjects in the branch of islamic theology called kalam; see harry a. wolfson, the philosophy of the kalam (cambridge, ma, 1976); idem, repercussions of the kalam in jewish philosophy (cambridge, ma, 1979). the polemical input into philosophical discussions of divine unity is analyzed by daniel j. lasker, ―definitions of 'one' and divine unity,‖ in s.o. heller-wilenski and m. idel, eds., studies in jewish thought (jerusalem, 1989), 51-61 (hebrew). undoubtedly, the existence of inter-religious polemic in contemporary christian and muslim philosophical works and the active christian-muslim debate served as models for jewish philosophers as well. promises had already been fulfilled. 40 thus, polemics against christianity became an integral subset of jewish philosophy, and most medieval jewish philosophers, from al-muqammas and saadia at the beginning to hasdai crescas, joseph albo and isaac abravanel at the end, reacted negatively towards christianity, without their having been necessarily a relationship to an active christian mission. some jewish philosophers included anti-christian comments in their philosophical works, while others were motivated to write full-fledged polemical treatises. 41 just as christians felt an internal need to react to judaism in the adversus judaeos genre, medieval jewish philosophers, in both muslim and christian countries, used their opposition to christianity as a way of defining jewish thought. if we go from the muslim middle east where jewish anti-christian polemics began, to 11thand 12th-century andalusia, we see that the jews of the peninsula, for whom rational speculation was an important part of their culture, contributed to the anti-christian tradition. the andalusians passed this tradition on to the jews of southern france (collectively called provence in jewish sources), where rational thought, and antijewish polemics, were previously unknown. the jewish rationalists of provence also seemed to have had their own personal need to combat christianity—they had become friends and colleagues with christians and thus they were moved to make sure that the boundaries between the religions were not 40 the relation between these issues and anti-christian polemic are seen clearly in saadia gaon‘s book of opinions and doctrines; see daniel j. lasker, ―saadya gaon on christianity and islam,‖ in daniel frank, ed., the jews of medieval islam: community, society, and identity (leiden, 1995), 165-177. 41 the most prominent medieval jewish philosopher, maimonides, did not write a polemic against christianity, but has multiple negative references to them in his works; see idem, ―tradition and innovation in maimonides‘ attitude toward other religions,‖ in jay m. harris, ed., maimonides after 800 years: essays on maimonides and his influence, (cambridge, ma / london, 2007), 167-182. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): lasker 1-9 lasker, the jewish critique of christianity lasker 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr blurred. 42 this pattern continued for the duration of jewish life in provence until jews were expelled from there. this is the picture, then, at least until the end of the 12th century before the beginning of serious christian conversionary campaigns: 43 the jewish critique of christianity was a facet of jewish philosophy with little relation to an actual christian threat. 44 in the 13th-century, christian pressure intensified and the old narrative is now relevant, so much so that even jews in ashkenaz who were not reflective theologians began composing polemical treatises. the 13th and 14th centuries were times of extreme christian pressure on jews. even if we accept robin vose's conclusions that the dominican archives show that conversion of the jews was not a primary christian concern, we should remember that contemporary jews were not privy to those archives and from their own point of view, they were the center of unwanted christian attention. whatever the purpose of the christian-initiated public debates or the christian protocols which they produced, there is no doubt that certain christians, such as the 13th-century pablo christiani or the 14th-century abner of burgos/alfonso de valladolid, were involved in vigorous missionary activities. 45 those centuries were 42 idem, ―christianity, philosophy and polemic in jewish provence,‖ zion 68:3 (2003): 313-333 (hebrew). 43 see chazan, daggers of faith. 44 when jacob ben reuben and joseph kimhi were writing in approximately 1170, the situation was changing, and both authors indicate that they were reacting to anti-jewish christian pressure. but these were not the only factors which led to their composing polemical treatises; see ibid., and idem, ―jewishchristian polemics in transition: from the lands of ishmael to the lands of edom,‖ in benjamin hary, et al., eds., judaism and islam: boundaries, interaction, and communication (leiden, 2000), 53-65; and idem, ―jewishchristian polemics at the turning point: jewish evidence from the twelfth century,‖ harvard theological review 89:2 (1996): 161-173. 45 nahmanides describes pablo as having engaged him in debate about the trinity in gerona before the events of 1263 in barcelona (judaism on trial, 144); and later he appeared in paris initiating another public debate (shatzmiller, deuxième controverse). abner of burgos wrote treatises in hethe heyday of the jewish critique of christianity, feeding nicely into the traditional narrative of jewish polemics as a response to christianity. the situation of christian pressure and jewish response continued in iberia into the 15th-century, but seems to have abated in other areas of western europe in light of the expulsions of jews from these countries. if, however, we look at the entire course of the middle ages, christian mission was not the only reason for a jewish critique of christianity. 46 in response to the search for a new narrative of the medieval jewish critique of christianity, it would have been nice to find some sort of uniform field theory which covered all jewish argumentation against christianity, one overarching account of why jews engaged in polemics, composing treatises devoted specifically to the defense of judaism and the criticism of christianity. but, as of now, there is no one unique explanation. in sum, a close look at the jewish critique of christianity indicates that some jewish authors were responding directly to overt christian missionary challenges, hoping that their arguments would convince their fellow jews not to abandon the religion of their fathers. others saw criticism of christianity as part of their rational exposition of judaism. others may have understood it as part of jewish self-definition and a marking of borders. one thing seems to be certain: medieval jews did not offer refutations of christianity solely as a reaction to a perceived christian threat. the jewish critique of christianity is much more complex than that. brew intended specifically for jewish audiences; for a comprehensive review of abner‘s life and works, see ryan w. szpiech, ―from testimonia to testimony: thirteenth-century anti-jewish polemic and the monstrador de justicia of abner of burgos/alfonso de valladolid,‖ diss., yale university, 2006. both pablo and abner were converts to christianity from judaism. 46 the state of jewish anti-christian polemics in the early modern and modern periods, such as the proliferation of treatises in italy and the relative dearth of such works in eastern europe, should be studied in light of the conclusions expressed in this paper. palmisano, a phenomenology of return palmisano 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college a phenomenology of return: forgiveness and atonement in emmanuel levinas and abraham joshua heschel j os eph r edfi el d p alm i s ano, sj t h e i r i s h s c h o o l o f e c u m e n i c s t r i n i t y c o l l e g e d u b l i n volume 7 (2012) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol7 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): palmisano 1-13 palmisano, a phenomenology of return palmisano 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr in 1958, emmanuel levinas responded to a talk given by jesuit father jean daniélou on the common—jewish and christian—foundations of a mediterranean civilization. levinas was “very comforted” by the “objective terrain of coexistence and collaboration” daniélou was anticipating as the ground and vision of vatican ii’s aggiornamento catholicism. nevertheless, as a way of encouraging further debate and exploration, levinas drew attention to a lacuna in daniélou’s considerations: “father daniélou completely left out [in his presentation] the element that remains essential to those of us who are jews: the constitution of the talmud.” levinas went on to say to daniélou, …rabbinical judaism, in the centuries that preceded and followed the destruction of the second temple, is the primordial event in hebraic spirituality. if there had been no talmud, there would have been no jews today (it certainly would have saved the world a lot of problems!) or else, we would have been the survivors of a finished world. this is the suggestion that, in spite of everything, persists in catholic thought. we reject, as you know, the honor of being a relic. 1 the talmudic commentary on 2 samuel 21, presented by levinas, on the understanding of atonement and repentance, critically complements the international theological commission’s interpretation of “old testament” forgiveness as presented in the document, memory and reconciliation: the church and the faults of the past. furthermore, levinas’ concern, originally addressed to daniélou, is arguably significant today. a sacred obligation: rethinking christian faith in 1 nb: the levinas text, difficult freedom: essays on judaism, (trans.) sean hand (london: the athlone press, 1990), hereafter df, does not provide reference to the name of the conference or the paper of then fr. jean daniélou (named cardinal in 1969 by pope paul vi). also in 1958, the same year as the conference referred to above, daniélou published théologie du judéochristianisme (paris: desclée & cie, 1958), 175-177, here 175. relation to judaism and the jewish people reminds us, “christians cannot fully understand judaism apart from its postbiblical development, which can also enrich and enhance christian faith.” and this living jewish tradition may enrich the present dialogue between christians and jews. 2 section 2.1 “biblical approach: the old testament,” of the document memory and reconciliation attempts to “clarify,” that is to say, frame the limits of jewish atonement. for example, the document argues that jews of the “old testament,” “did not feel the need to address requests for forgiveness to present interlocutors for the sins committed by their fathers…” 3 the “extensive body” of jewish interpretation challenges the delimiting claims of this conclusion. 4 levinas’ reading of both the hebrew scripture and the talmud challenges the above hypothesis of the commission. specifically, levinas’ consideration of 2 samuel 21 and tractate yebamot challenges the claim that “present interlocutors” did not attempt to make amends for “the sins committed by their fathers.” 5 we will therefore examine the claims of memory and reconciliation through what i call a critically minded, teshuva hermeneutic as proposed by emmanuel levinas. in reading memory and reconciliation through the living tradition of the 2 the christian scholars group on christian-jewish relations, a sacred obligation: rethinking christian faith in relation to judaism and the jewish people (1 september 2002): <http://www.bc.edu/research/ cjl/meta elements/sites/partners/csg/sacred_obligation.htm> accessed on march 18, 2008. 3 international theological commission, memory and reconciliation: the church and the faults of the past (the vatican: 1999): <www.vatican.va> accessed on february 4, 2008, and the following quotes in this section unless noted otherwise; italics added. 4 sacred obligation. 5 memory and reconciliation. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): palmisano 1-13 palmisano, a phenomenology of return palmisano 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr talmud and midrash 6 we may come to a renewed appreciation for how jewish texts, far from being a relic, may challenge catholicism towards a deeper understanding of jewish forgiveness for the benefit of the larger christian-jewish dialogue. while it is arguable that levinas is primarily a jewish philosopher rather than, as some argue, a scholar of the talmud, his insights on atonement and forgiveness are informed from the tremendum heterology of loss and suffering: in 1940 levinas was imprisoned in fallingsbotel, a labor camp, and his lithuanian relatives were murdered by the nazis. how could these experiences not inform his philosophy, which, as he contends, is preeminently an ethical approach? furthermore, how could it not inform his prophetic response to the crimes of the twentieth century? it strikes us that the “ethical” response to the call of the other with the words hineni (here i am!) is a “teaching” (torah) and a “learning” (talmud). 7 6 talmud: (lit. ‘learning’) a comprehensive term for mishnah (codification of the jewish law) and gemara (the traditions, discussions and rulings of the rabbis); midrash: a collection of statements, commentaries that propose to be a discovery of meanings other than the literal one in the bible. 7 michael barnes, theology and the dialogue of religions (cambridge: cambridge university press, 1996), 82: “as a philosopher levinas wants to bring divergent views to bear on the traditional study of the jewish sources, while as a jewish commentator on the talmud he is concerned with maintaining the particularity of judaism and its concept of god revealed through the ethical. the two roles are not contradictory, for levinas tells us that he is simply following one of the great teachers of nineteenth-century lithuanian yeshiva judaism, rabbi hayyim of volozhyn, who wrote that ‘a jew is accountable and responsible for the whole edifice of creation.’ this responsibility for the other is the witness the jew bears before the world.” quoted from: levinas, df, 50-51. also see: hayyim ben isaac of volozhyn, nefesh he’hayyim (soul of life), translated by benjamin gross, with an introduction by levinas, into french (l’âme de la vie, paris: editions verdier, 1986). in the first half of this article, we will begin to appreciate with levinas how addressing present interlocutors radicalizes atonement, where teshuva may become a necessary precondition for constructing an “objective terrain of coexistence and collaboration” between jews and christians. this “terrain,” the place of dialogue, may become an empathic locus wherefrom we may “feel our way into” the sanctity of the other. these considerations on repentance and atonement with levinas will, therefore, in the second half of this article, be set against the horizon of the contemporary considerations of abraham joshua heschel’s commentary heavenly torah: as refracted through the generations. heschel’s considerations may “open the question” for us on why teshuva is important in a twenty-first century post-shoah context of our continuing search for how the depth of holiness mysteriously reaches out and dialectically relates jewish and christian traditions to one another. our methodology of considering heschel on prophetic praxis (vis-à-vis the example of moses) may provide a lesson for how we may engage in the practice of a more reflective, ethical, mystical, and prophetic way of being in the world as jews and christians. let us first turn our attention to consider section 2.1 of memory and reconciliation before (re)reading the text vis-à-vis levinas’ commentary. the international theological commission’s “clarification”: “biblical approach: the old testament” in section 2.1, “biblical approach: the old testament” of the international theological commission’s “clarification,” memory and reconciliation: the church and the faults of the past, the commission, under the leadership of the then cardinal ratzinger, attempted to frame pope john paul ii’s project of purifying memory through the confession of past sins. memory studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): palmisano 1-13 palmisano, a phenomenology of return palmisano 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr and reconciliation asks the question, “[w]hat background does the testimony of sacred scripture furnish for john paul ii’s invitation to the church to confess the faults of the past?” in regards to the hebrew scriptures, the document argues that “requests for forgiveness can be found throughout the bible—in the narratives of the old testament, in the psalms, and in the prophets,” and these requests may be divided into “two principal categories of ‘confession texts’…a) confession texts of individual sins, and b) confession texts of sins of the entire people (and of those of their forebears).” the document, in elucidating the latter category, and its exegesis of the hebrew bible, reveals the following three ‘groupings’ of confessional practice:  a first series of texts represents the entire people (sometimes personified as a single “i”) who, in a particular moment of its history, confesses or alludes to its sins against god without any (explicit) reference to the faults of the preceding generations.  another group of texts places the confession—directed to god—of the current sins of the people on the lips of one or more leaders (religious), who may or may not include themselves explicitly among the sinful people for whom they are praying.  a third group of texts presents the people or one of their leaders in the act of mentioning the sins of their forebears without, however, making mention of those of the present generation.  more frequent are the confessions that mention the faults of the forebears, linking them expressly to the errors of the present generation. by contrast, the document concludes the following from this particular exegesis of hebrew scripture: “from the testimonies gathered that in all cases where the ‘sins of the fathers’ are mentioned, the confession is addressed solely to god, and the sins confessed by the people and for the people are those committed directly against him rather than those committed (also) against other human beings…” 8 the document leaves theologians and others with the following query: “[t]he question arises as to why the biblical writers did not feel the need to address requests for forgiveness to present interlocutors for the sins committed by their fathers, given their strong sense of solidarity in good and evil among the generations (one thinks of the notion of ‘corporate personality’).” memory and reconciliation proposes the following “hypotheses” as to why the israelites did not ask for forgiveness from their “present interlocutors”: (i) there is the prevalent theocentrism of the bible, which gives precedence to the acknowledgement, whether individual or national, of the faults committed against god… (ii) [t]he experiences of maltreatment suffered by israel at the hands of other peoples and the animosity thus aroused could also have militated against the idea of asking pardon of these peoples for the evil done to them. another reading of the hebrew scriptures through the jewish and talmudic hermeneutic may challenge these concluding hypotheses (i-ii) of memory and reconciliation. tractate yebamot: asking for forgiveness from ‘present interlocutors’ levinas reveals, in both his exegesis of 2 samuel 21:16 and his explication of the talmud tractate yebamot, a radical 8 memory and reconciliation, italics added. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): palmisano 1-13 palmisano, a phenomenology of return palmisano 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr example of israel asking for forgiveness from “present interlocutors.” 9 let us first consider 2 samuel 21:1-6 and then levinas’ commentary: david avenges the gibeonites now there was a famine in the days of david for three years, year after year; and david inquired of the lord. the lord said, “there is blood-guilt on saul and on his house, because he put the gibeonites to death.” 2 so the king called the gibeonites and spoke to them. (now the gibeonites were not of the people of israel, but of the remnant of the amorites; although the people of israel had sworn to spare them, saul had tried to wipe them out in his zeal for the people of israel and judah.) 3 david said to the gibeonites, “what shall i do for you? how shall i make expiation, that you may bless the heritage of the lord?” 4 the gibeonites said to him, “it is not a matter of silver or gold between us and saul or his house; neither is it for us to put anyone to death in israel.” he said, “what do you say that i should do for you?” 5 they said to the king, “the man who consumed us and planned to destroy us, so that we should have no place in all the territory of israel— 6 let seven of his sons be handed over to us, and we will impale them before the lord at gibeon on the mountain of the lord.” the king said, “i will hand them over.” there was a three year famine in the land and “[king david] asked the eternal about it and found out that ‘this was because of saul…and because he put the gibeonites to death’…the gibeonites were a canaanite tribe mentioned in the book of 9 levinas, "toward the other: from the tractate yoma, pp. 85a-85b," in nine talmudic readings, trans. annette aronowicz (bloomington, in: indiana university press, 1990), 22-29, hereafter nt; the following quotes in this section are from pp. 25-29, unless otherwise noted. joshua…” the gibeonites were slaves in israel, and saul “‘sought to strike at them in his zeal for israel.’” when david asked god there was a famine in the land, god responded that the famine was the result of an “unredressed” injustice: namely, the extermination of the gibeonites by saul. atonement therefore needs to be done for the injustice and violence done by saul to the gibeonite people (2 samuel 21:1). david decides to rectify the situation. levinas tells us, by way of his commentary, “[the gibeonites] complained to david that king saul had made their presence on the land of israel impossible, that he had persecuted them and had tried to destroy them. they want neither gold nor silver. no compensations!” but what they do ask for is far more dramatic: “seven of saul’s descendants…they will put them to death by nailing them to the rock on the mountain of saul. and david answers: i shall give them.” what insights from the talmudic commentary on 2 samuel 21 may help us understand the lesson behind such a radical gesture? levinas reports: “[b]ut here is what the talmud has to say about it (tractate yebamot, pp. 58b-59a)”—after searching the land for signs of “idolatry” and “debauchery” there seems to be a “more secret” reason for the famine. david concluded, “[t]here must be a political wrong here, an injustice not caused by private individuals” but a wrong committed by a nation against a community of stranger(s). levinas explains, the talmud also knows the fault of saul toward the gibeonites, for which we cannot find a trace in the bible…[i]n executing the priests of nov, saul left the gibeonites who served them without a means of subsistence. the midrash affirms that the crime of extermination begins before murders take place, the oppression and economic uprooting already indicate its beginnings, that the laws of nuremberg already contain the seeds of the “final solution.” 10 10 ibid., 27. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): palmisano 1-13 palmisano, a phenomenology of return palmisano 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr genocide’s originary act of destroying otherness—religious, ethnic, and otherwise—is the imposition of limitations by the state on basic human rights, especially of a minority community. whenever the state engages in such behavior they reduce themselves to totalitarianism. against this horizon, levinas leaves us with the question, in regard to the princes of saul’s household who were given over to the gibeonites, “does one have the right to punish children for the faults of their parents?” the talmud’s answer: “it is better that a letter of the torah be damaged than that the name of the eternal be profaned.” yet is this not a subtle return lex talionis? 11 levinas would want to conclude by way of the talmudic commentary: “[t]o punish children for the faults of their parents is less dreadful than to tolerate impunity when the stranger is injured. let the passerby know this: in israel, princes die a horrible death because strangers were injured by the sovereign. the respect for the stranger and the sanctification of the name of the eternal are strangely equivalent.” 12 malice towards the stranger blasphemes the name of the other; befogging with hatred the imago dei of all and in all. 11 talion: “(lex talionis, ‘law of retaliation’) is a term for a punishment equal to the offense. it is derived from genesis 9:6, ‘whoever sheds a man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.’ most talions were abolished in talmudic times (bk 8. 1) on the grounds that ‘an eye for an eye’ is only superficial justice, i.e., an eye for an eye may be stronger than the other, but nonetheless it was ultimately accepted that the measure by which man measures is the measure by which he will be measured (sat. 1. 7).” from john bowker, the oxford dictionary of world religions (new york: oxford university press, 1997), 944: <www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/t/talion.html> accessed on march 27, 2012. 12 levinas, nt, 25-29. teshuva: the relevance of ‘return’ for dialogue as we may recall, memory and reconciliation proposed the following “hypotheses”: (i) there is the prevalent theocentrism of the bible, which gives precedence to the acknowledgement, whether individual or national, of the faults committed against god. (ii) [t]he experiences of maltreatment suffered by israel at the hands of other peoples and the animosity thus aroused could also have militated against the idea of asking pardon of these peoples for the evil done to them. 13 these above hypotheses are based on the presupposition that jews of the “old testament” did not “feel the need to address requests for forgiveness to present interlocutors” for the sins committed by their leaders. our reading with levinas of 2 samuel 21 and tractate yebamot challenges hypotheses (i) and (ii). the very presupposition from which the above hypotheses are derived is problematic. when david finds out from the eternal that the cause of the famine has something to do with the injustice done to the “strangers” he directly addresses his “present interlocutors” as a way of both (a) ending the famine and (b) doing atonement. in so doing, david—the leader of that present generation—does teshuva with both god and a foreign people. he makes amends for the sins of their father and leader, saul, by directly engaging with his “present interlocutors” the gibeonites. 13 memory and reconciliation. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): palmisano 1-13 palmisano, a phenomenology of return palmisano 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr in regards to hypothesis (i) while it may be argued that there is a prevalent “theocentrism” our readings tell us that there is also a rather dominant anthropocentrism: a concern for the rights and justice of the stranger. again, god prompts david to leave the temple and engage in the project of teshuva: “david said to the gibeonites, ‘what must i do for you and how must i make atonement that you may bless the inheritance of the lord?’ (2 samuel 21:3).” in regards to hypothesis (ii) there clearly exists animosity in the relationship between the israelites and the gibeonites. after all, the gibeonites are not necessarily the most honest interlocutors. let us recall, from the book of joshua: the gibeonites went to joshua at gilgal, and falsely represented themselves as “friends of the lord” from distant lands rather than revealing their status as canaanites. joshua hastily took their word, and swore by the lord god an oath with the gibeonites. in so doing they gained the protection of israel from the other canaanite kings and armies. when the gibeonite deception was discovered, joshua still honored his agreement, for the lord expected joshua to honor his name by honoring the agreement (joshua 9). the gibeonites remained under the protection of israel but they remained as indentured servants within the sanctuary, working for people like the priests of nov. later on in the relationship, for reasons unknown to us, saul first strikes down the priests of nov (tractate yoma), and then “exterminates” the gibeonites (2 samuel 21:5). in contradistinction to memory and reconciliation there appears to be grounds for concluding that a healthy level of “animosity” exists between the two peoples that “militated against the idea” of israel “asking pardon” from the gibeonites. and yet, david recognizes a wrong done to a people by the nation, and in a rather dramatic scene, israel “gives up” its own princes, to be crucified to a rock, for the faults perpetrated by saul: [the gibeonites] said to the king, as for the man who was exterminating us and who intended to destroy us that we might have no place in all the territory of israel, let seven men from among his descendants be given to us…[t]he king replied, ‘i will give them up’ (2 samuel 21:5-6). our contemporary milieu, theological and otherwise, rightly condemns the lex talionis of retributive justice, and one will please excuse the graphic nature of the above example. yet, when set against the tremendum horizon of the shoah, where “good and evil, that were once as real as day and night, have become a blurred mist,” 14 —against such a backdrop, one is required to come to a more sober appreciation of what is at stake when society is heedless to both the sanctity of the stranger and the importance of atoning for wrongs done against both strangers and friends. the jewish doctrinal tradition radicalizes atonement wherein, as levinas argued, “the respect for the stranger and the sanctification of the name of the eternal are strangely equivalent.” the talmud (and midrash) is therefore accomplishing two very important tasks for our reflections: it continues the process of handing down the biblical story into the present time, while concomitantly revealing for post-shoah jews and christians how this narrative-memory, and our empathy with this narrative, may have a dialogical relevance. catholicism has been challenged in recent years to acknowledge the “sins of the fathers” in its relationship to judaism. what is constitutive to this acknowledgement for a postshoah jewish-christian dialogue? a return to empathy may be part of this acknowledgment. empathy means a dialectically 14 abraham joshua heschel, from “the meaning of this hour,” in man’s quest for god: studies in prayer and symbolism (santa fe, nm: aurora press, 1998), 147-151, here 149. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): palmisano 1-13 palmisano, a phenomenology of return palmisano 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr sensitive way of relating sameness to otherness for, as jodi halpern considers, “[t]he work of empathy is precisely trying to imagine a view of the world that one does not share, and in fact may find it quite difficult to share.” 15 but “even this element of distinctiveness and mutual exclusiveness, even this distancing,” levenson argues, “can be a source of closeness in its own paradoxical way. for the jewish and the christian midrashim, different as they are in so many ways, also have profound points of contact.” 16 it strikes us that in a dialogue of atonement not every word needs to be a constant apology. yet, the ‘i’m sorry’ only becomes authentic in the deed. 17 the deed of the righteous welcome of the interreligious other, the “face-to-face” that issues forth in tiqqun ‘olam, may be a profound point of contact with holiness. this way of dialoguing may mean fewer words, humbler words—where my “welcome” of the other is conveyed in a willingness to listen. yet this return (teshuva) to dialogue is the practical work of empathy. returning to the face of the other heschel, in further sharpening our considerations with levinas on teshuva, tells us that the “accepted view” in jewish 15 jodi halpern, harvey m. weinstein, “rehumanizing the other: empathy and reconciliation,” human rights quarterly 26 (2004): 561–583, here 581. 16 jon d. levenson, “can catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?” studies in christian-jewish relations, 1 (2005): 170-185, here 179: <http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol1/iss1/art19> accessed on february 1, 2008. 17 edward kessler, “less sinned against than sinning,” the tablet (september 26, 2009): 8-9, here 9: “true repentance is no mere momentary spasm of remorse to be proclaimed in front of the cameras. repentance must influence and leave its mark in terms of character, action and life. true repentance ends with a life change which must be based upon a real transformation rather than a flimsy but eloquent public apology.” teaching is that “the pardon of sins” consists “of two elements, repentance and atonement, each distinct from the other. repentance was a human responsibility” while atonement is god’s responsibility. repentance is a necessary “precondition to atonement” for “one cannot achieve atonement unless he first repented.” heschel reports that the prophets are “unanimous” on the link between repentance-atonement: “atonement cannot be achieved without repentance. hosea’s call to israel was: ‘return, o israel, to the lord your god’ (hosea 14:2).’” 18 heschel situates the question of repentance and atonement by reflecting with an aggadah (wisdom-story teaching) on the theophany of exodus 33:22-23. 19 the question is: how may we “use the terms ‘back’ and ‘face’ when referring to god? is it not written, ‘i fill heaven and earth, said the lord’ (jeremiah 23: 24) or ‘his glory fills the whole earth’ (isaiah 6:3)? how can we reconcile such lofty prophetic concepts with ‘seeing god’s back but not his face?’” 20 rabbi akiva “did not doubt that moses saw god’s likeness.” indeed, the akivan school of interpretation holds that “when moses declaimed the torah, he was in heaven; and that the divine glory descended upon mount sinai.” 21 the following ninth-century aggadah from the text pirkei de-rabbi eliezer attempts to respond to, and elaborate on, the 18 heschel, heavenly torah: as refracted through the generations (torah min ha-shamayim be-aspaklaria shel ha-dorot) hereafter tmh, ed. and trans. with commentary from gordon tucker and leonard levin (new york: continuum, 2007), 181. 19 exodus 33: 22-23: (v. 22) when my glory passes i will set you in the hollow of the rock and will cover you with my hand until i have passed by. (v. 23) then i will remove my hand, so that you may see my back; but my face is not to be seen. 20 mi shirata 4, in heschel, tmh, 306. 21 heschel, tmh, 307. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): palmisano 1-13 palmisano, a phenomenology of return palmisano 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr theophany of god’s revelation to moses on the day of atonement (exodus 33:23): moses said that on yom kippur he will see the glory of the holy and blessed one. how did moses know this? he said, “master of the universe, show me your glory” (exodus 33:18). whereupon god answered, “you cannot see my glory, lest you die…[but] because of my name which i made known to you, i shall agree to your request. stand at the entrance of the cave and i shall cause all my ministering angels to pass before you, as it is written, ‘i will make all my goodness to pass before you.’ when you hear the name that i have made known to you, i shall be standing there before you. exert all your strength and stand firmly, do not be afraid.” when the angels heard this, they spoke up before the holy and blessed one. “we minister to you day and night; yet we are not permitted to see your glory! yet this man, born of woman, dares to demand to see your glory!” the angels rose in anger and dismay against moses to kill him. he was near to death when the holy and blessed one appeared in a cloud, covered him with the palm of his hand, and saved him. when the holy and blessed one had passed, he drew back his hand, and moses saw the back of the shekinah. 22 set against the horizon of yom kippur, the aggadah conveys a sense of god’s desire to show mercy for the “sin of the calf” 23 as a healer and saver of life. having heard the 22 pirkei de-rabbi eliezer [hereafter pre] 46 in heschel, tmh, 307. 23 footnote 24 in heschel, tmh, 307-308: “the reference to yom kippur in this aggadah is based on the idea—bolstered in several rabbinic texts by a (nearly, but not quite, exact) chronology of moses’ three forty-day stays on mount sinai—that moses descended from the mountain for the third time on the tenth of tishri, carrying the second tablets and announcing god’s forgiveness of the sin of the calf. that day became yom kippur, because it was repentant cries of moses for the sin of the people (exodus 32), god desires to draw near to moses on the day of atonement: “i shall be standing there before you.” this incites the jealousy of the angels. the would-be ministers of the lord’s “goodness” become envious: “we are not permitted to see your glory! yet this man, born of woman, dares to demand to see your glory.” the angels attack moses; unable to “stand firmly,” he collapses and is near death. god’s response is one of protection and healing: “the holy and blessed one appeared in a cloud, covered him with the palm of his hand, and saved him.” in healing and forgiveness, god honors moses over and against the murderous intent of covetous angels, thus elevating the personhood of moses to sanctity, a sanctity extending to all of israel. 24 the lord is made known to those who take seriously the project of teshuva. the revelation of god’s will is the very “face” of the other. heschel’s perspective is disarming in how it presupposes the divine-human proximity of moses with god that is intimate, restorative and empowering of the being-sanctified prophetic witness: “rabbi meir, rabbi judah, and rabbi simeon were all the first act of forgiveness by god for the people as a whole. moses’ beholding god with immediacy on the first yom kippur can be seen as being reenacted to some extent by the high priest entering behind the veil of the holy of holies on subsequent yom kippurs.” 24 heschel, tmh, 309: “the superiority that moses had over the angels, in that he was privileged to behold the divine presence, was shared by the people of israel. in various midrashim it is pointed out that when the ministering angels sang their hymns of praise to god they did so in a loud voice. why because they were a great distance removed from the holy and blessed one and did not know where he was, as it is written, ‘blessed is the divine glory in his place’ (ezekiel 3:12). but when the people of israel stand in prayer they know that god is near to them, as it is written, ‘he stands at the right hand of the needy’ (psalm 109:31).” studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): palmisano 1-13 palmisano, a phenomenology of return palmisano 10 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr quoted as saying, ‘the righteous are greater than the ministering angels.’” 25 there is an ethical heightening of humanity’s status in the near-moment of coming “face-to-face.” the prophetic witness is called to be god-like in recreating god’s righteousness for others. in turning to maimonides, heschel concludes: [w]e are required to be more scrupulous with the commandment of charity than with any other positive commandment, for charity is emblematic of the righteous descendants of father abraham, as it says: “for i have singled him out, that he may instruct his children and his posterity to keep the way of the lord by doing what is just” (genesis 18:19). jewish sovereignty and the true faith itself can only endure through charity, as it says: “you shall be established through righteousness” (isaiah 54:14). through charity alone will israel be redeemed, as it says: “zion shall be saved by her justice, her repentant ones by righteousness” (isaiah 1:27). 26 heschel tells us that what charity means in this instance (lest it be viewed through the lens of christianity’s caritas) is tzedakah. 27 tzedakah accomplishes the righteous act. the righteous (or saintly) person, the “tzaddik” responds to the call of 25 mishnat rabbi eliezer (ed. enelow) p. 292; midrash haggadol to genesis, (ed.) margaliot, pp. 571ff., in heschel, tmh, 777-778. 26 maimonides, mishneh torah, “laws concerning gifts to the poor,” 10:1, in tmh, 777-778. 27 danny siegel, tzedakah: a time for change, ed. karen l. stein (new york, ny: united synagogue of conservative judaism, 2007), 124: “tzaddik (m) … tzadeket(f)’ is often translated as ‘righteous person.’ actually it frequently means a ‘good person,’ a mensch.’ grammatically, ‘tzedakah’ and ‘tzaddik/tzadeket’ are from the same hebrew root … the language itself shows that there is an intimate connection between the tzedakah-act and the person-doing-tzedakah at any given moment.” justice by responding to the other in need. as heschel concludes with the insight from rabenu asher, “‘the holy and blessed one values more those commandments through which the needs of people are satisfied than those that are strictly between a person and the creator.’” 28 this righteousness is made superbly explicit through the event of teshuva. it is grounded in the empathic movements of renewing solidarity with others through a repentance that threatens all that is hateful. the prophet’s face-to-face encounter with god may necessarily mean “returning to a country” in the midst of violence: “rabbi hiyya bar abba said, ‘just as yom kippur atones for man’s sins, so does the death of the righteous.’” 29 righteousness and atonement are intimately linked— giving us a way of proceeding with others in dialogue and friendship. levinas reinforces heschel’s perspectives on the ethical significance of teshuva with the following commentary on the mishna: (i) the transgressions of man toward god are forgiven him by the day of atonement; (ii) the transgressions against other people are not forgiven him by the day of atonement if he has not first appeased the other person (tractate yoma pp.85a-85b). levinas says in regards to (i), “my faults toward god are forgiven without my depending on his good will!” as long as one fulfills the ritual requirements of yom kippur. transgressions 28 rabenu asher [thirteenth-fourteenth century, germany and spain], commentary on misnah peah 1:1, in heschel, tmh, 778. 29 leviticus rabbah 20:12, in tmh, 181. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): palmisano 1-13 palmisano, a phenomenology of return palmisano 11 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr against god by an individual is a matter to be taken up between god and that person. on the day of atonement, this god who is “other, par excellence, the other as other, the absolutely other” is also the god of all mercy and forgiveness for the one who desires to atone for his transgressions against the other. in this sense, “my standing with this god depends only on myself. the instrument of forgiveness is in my hands.” 30 in contradistinction to (i) however, levinas interprets (ii) in the following way: “my neighbor, my brother, man, infinitely less other than the absolutely other, is in a certain way more other than god: to obtain his forgiveness on the day of atonement i must first succeed in appeasing him. what if he refuses? as soon as two are involved, everything is in danger.” gillian rose argues, in “[t]his face to face” what becomes “expressed” is nothing less than “the trace of god which is discernible in the countenance of the neighbor.” for rose, it is this “proximity of the stranger—near and far—that reveals the exaltation and height of god and, equally, it reveals the command to expunge or assuage the suffering of the other.” 31 in the moment of asking for forgiveness one enters the place of dia-logue. it is an unnerving place for at the moment of interchange “everything is in danger”: there exists the possibility of non-reception to the question, “will you forgive me?” all the more reason why, especially in the area of interreligious dialogue, we need to dialogue with the sanctifying intention of teshuva. samuel kobia, general secretary of the world council of churches, in a lecture at the irish school of ecumenics, trinity college dublin, eloquently reminds us that the work of 30 levinas, nt, 16. 31 gillian rose, “is there a jewish philosophy,” in judaism and modernity: philosophical essays (oxford: blackwell, 1993), 11-24, here 16. dialogue will have to be about the work of healing memories, for we have brought with us into the twenty-first century “wounded memories,” and we need to initiate a process for “undergoing a release from this woundedness.” 32 levinas reveals for us through his commentary on the text how a lack of empathy between strangers and the absence of a compassionate concern for others is nothing less than a forgetfulness for the divine. judaism appreciates how this apatheia towards the other shows itself through a disregard for the other(s) through the ‘real-time’ exigencies of injustice, bias, hatred and ultimately murder. indeed, the “taking into account the suffering of the others, the suffering of the foreigner” is, as metz argues, the foundation of atonement: “the basis of a universal responsibility” that is necessary for remembering and redressing injustices. 33 what does this have to do with teshuva? it strikes us that making a return (teshuva) to the other through welcoming the other is a form of atonement whereby repentance means “direct[ing]…penitential energy towards acts of goodness.” 34 in this sense, the fulfillment of atonement is already contained within genuine acts of repentance. and genuine acts of repentance are ratified through the authentic action of righteousness towards others. 35 this fulfillment of the covenantal responsibility 32 samuel kobia, “hope and the healing of memories,” notes taken from a lecture given at the irish school of ecumenics, trinity college (dublin: april 30, 2007). 33 johann baptist metz, “in memory of the other’s suffering,” in the critical spirit: theology at the crossroads of faith and culture, essays in honour of gabriel daly, eds. andrew pierce, geraldine smyth (dublin: columba press, 2003), 179-188, here 181. 34 kessler, “less sinned against than sinning,” 9. 35 sifra emor 102a: “the sin offering, the guilt offering, death, and yom kippur do not bring atonement without repentance”; bt berakhot 23a: “be not studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): palmisano 1-13 palmisano, a phenomenology of return palmisano 12 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr in justice and right relationships aids in the repair of a fragmented world (tiqqun ‘olam). rabbi meir, a follower of rabbi akiva, teaches, “so great is the act of repentance, that if but a single person repents, god pardons not only him but the sins of the world.” 36 concluding remarks far from being a relic, jewish scriptural exegesis and commentary is a “living present-tense memory.” to intimate that jews do not ask for pardon from “present interlocutors” would obscure a hermeneutics of empathy and return. it would be a way of distancing ourselves from the one call; from that fundamental memory of a sanctifying covenant that is mysteriously built upon the pathos of an atoning love. a living jewish tradition is a “system” worthy of respect and recognition in and of itself. 37 it reminds catholics, and all like those fools who sin and bring their offerings but do not repent,” in tmh, 181. 36 bt yoma 86b in tmh, 180-181. 37 levenson, “can catholicism validate jewish biblical interpretation?,” 173: “…[w]e cannot deny that both the classical jewish and classical christian interpretations depend on the conventions of reading of their times, that both are, in a sense, midrashim, not simply the literal or plain sense (what western christians have traditionally termed the sensus literalis and jews, the peshat). this means that these two systems of interpretation derive from a type of interpretation that is to some degree at odds with those types that strive to place the passage within its most immediate literary or historical context. the implication is that what validates interpretation is ‘the vision of their respective faiths,’ [the jewish people, §62] and not simply the intentions of the biblical authors themselves, authors who, i must stress, lived before the emergence of either christianity or rabbinic judaism. this, in turn, implies that judaism and christianity are systems, and one cannot turn to this verse or that in order to score points for one’s own religion at the expense of the other. instead, the systemic reality, the archi-tectonic structure, of each tradition must be a given for its interpreters of sacred scripture.” christians, that our way of doing atonement springs forth from a shared memory of being concerned with the suffering of others. furthermore, this living tradition may correct and extend a onesided christian exegesis while concomitantly encouraging jewish-christian dialogue towards a new depth. at vatican ii, the catholic church publicly acknowledged that the church’s way of “remembering” itself with the suffering other is “in continuity and communion” with judaism. it strikes us that if the church’s memory and rememberingstructure is shared with judaism, then any mission to the jews, as nostra aetate promulgates, is challenged by a more expansive remembering that opens up, in even more radical terms, the possibility of a shared eschatological future through the recognition of a sanctifying righteousness that is living in our religions. 38 the mystery of a shared jewish-christian future only becomes a possibility through an empathic, teshuva-filled dialogue: “[i]n dialogue and encounter we are moved from ‘eschatology’ where we tend to hide our weaknesses, to ‘humility’ where our weaknesses become our only true title, because all the rest is gift.” 39 during a debate on nostra aetate, cardinal lercaro said that the church’s desire for a new relationship with judaism is 38 carlo maria martini, “reflections towards jewish-christian dialogue,” in the catholic church and the jewish people, 29-38; 37: “[i]f we christians believe that we are in continuity and in communion with the patriarchs, those exiled to babylon, and the maccabean martyrs, it is necessary that this communion be realized in all possible ways. this includes communion with those jews who began to codify the misnah at yavneh and redacted the talmud at babylon, and with those jews who were persecuted by the crusaders…” 39 adolfo nicolás, “christianity in crisis: asia. which asia? which christianity? which crisis?” concilium (2005/3): 64-70, here 70. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7(2012): palmisano 1-13 palmisano, a phenomenology of return palmisano 13 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr …[m]uch more due to inner impulses which have come to maturity at the deepest, supernatural core of the life and consciousness of christ’s church, quite apart from any external event and stimulus…she has only now attained a deeper insight into certain aspects of the mystery of her existence…everything that the church has she inherited from the jewish people… 40 a collapsing of distance into the depths of humility raises a necessary proviso for christian theologians, all believers, and all people of good will: the assumption that i already (or may ever) comprehensively know the other may never be the starting point for dialogue. in our study, we have been specifically exploring how christian holiness is deeply rooted and grounded in the holiness of jewish otherness: “everything that the church has she inherited from the jewish people.” this mysterious inheritance that we approach with “humility”—from beyond the intent of a malicious and arrogant cogito—allows us to give heschel the final word: “[h]umility and contrition seem to be absent where most required—in theology. but humility is the beginning and end of religious thinking, the secret test of faith. there is no truth without humility, no certainty without contrition.” 41 40 john m. oesterreicher, the new encounter between christians and jews (new york: philosophical library, 1986), 203-204. 41 heschel, “no religion is an island,” [originally given as inaugural lecture as harry emerson fosdick visiting professor at union theological seminary, new york, and appearing in union seminary quarterly review, 21/1, part 1 (january 1966): 117-134] in ed. susannah heschel, moral grandeur and spiritual audacity, (new york: farrar, straus and giroux, 1996), 245. also see: stanisław obirek, “the jewish theology of abraham joshua heschel as a challenge for catholic theology” in friends on the way: jesuits encounter contemporary judaism, ed. thomas michel (new york, ny: fordham university press, 2007), 71-82. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-3 sonya shetty cronin raymond brown, “the jews,” and the gospel of john: from apologia to apology (london: bloomsbury, 2015), hardcover, xiii + 195 pp. claudia setzer claudia.setzer@manhattan.edu manhattan college, bronx, ny 10471 in this unique study, a revised doctoral dissertation done with david levenson at florida state university, sonya shetty cronin charts the evolution of new testament scholar raymond e. brown’s statements touching on the thorny issue of the depiction of “the jews” in the gospel of john, culled from his earliest publication in 1960 to works published posthumously in 2003. brown’s career began at the same time that the catholic church was re-examining both its teachings on the jews and its attitudes towards scripture. (nostra aetate and dei verbum were both published in 1965.) brown, a faithful catholic, both influenced and was influenced by these changes. in the spirit of full disclosure, i note that brown was my dissertation advisor and friend. after a survey of the background to brown’s biblical interpretation, she begins with brown’s first work on john in 1960, the gospel of john and the johannine epistles. cronin identifies typical replacement theology, an understanding of “the jews” as referring to the jewish leaders, no apparent concern with anti-judaism, and no clear distinction between his own stance and the gospel author’s. in his authoritative anchor bible commentary on the gospel of john (1966-70), he broadens the possible meanings of “the jews” (now in quotation marks) and places the hostility toward the jews in post-70 c.e. conflicts of john’s time, while distancing himself from the evangelist. by 1975, in an article in the journal worship, he identifies john’s deliberate intent to incriminate “the jews,” and in his community of the beloved disciple (1979) he uses the term “antijudaism” for the first time. in the death of the messiah (1994), he first mentions nostra aetate (though finding its theological solution to the deicide charge inadequate) and actively addresses the topic of anti-judaism. his final publication before his death, a retreat with john the evangelist (1998), is a devotional work where the evangelist speaks, via brown’s imagining, in the first person. he acknowledges that his anger over his community’s expulsion from the synagogue setzer: sonya shetty cronin’s raymond brown 2 drove his language about “the jews” of his own time and that he regrets later stigmatizing jews with his words (p. 122). this is the “apology” referred to in the book’s subtitle. finally, she looks at a statement from the pontifical biblical commission, the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible (2001). brown was part of the drafting committee, but the final work, published after his death, muted his concern for anti-judaism and mangled his sympathetic portrayal of non-christian jews. cronin says mildly, “brown would be in disagreement” (pp. 152-53). an illuminating final chapter compares brown to other johannine scholars, who show a stunning range of attitudes regarding the gospel’s depiction of the jews, from ernst haenchen’s utter insensitivity to such issues to alan culpepper’s recognition of the ethical challenge posed by the gospel. cronin sees brown’s as unique in his combination of historical understanding with his direct caution to readers against anti-judaism, as well as the early stage at which he recognized the problem. the work is extremely readable, and cronin has distilled a considerable amount of scholarship by brown and others. sifting the material requires painstaking attention to detail, and because of brown’s caution and fondness for understatement, she must assign weight to what look like minor revisions. the significance of the changes comes into relief when she compares his ideas with other johannine scholars. cronin has captured the essence of brown’s approach in her sentence, “brown thought historical truth was important, regardless of the findings” (p. 181). as she notes, he alienated scholars on the right and left—on one side, because he did not insist that every event in the gospel was historical, and on the other because he did not jettison difficult material. he retained to the end the idea that some jews were implicated in jesus’ death and that members of john’s community were expelled from the synagogue. cronin’s judicious language is reminiscent of brown’s. cronin chronicles brown’s career as it unfolded in tandem with major changes in the catholic church and its relation to judaism. his first book was published in 1960, the same year that jules isaac met with pope john xxiii and encouraged him to reconsider traditional catholic views on jews and judaism. the first volume of his john commentary came out following nostra aetate. a particularly interesting tidbit is the knowledge of brown’s presence at the second vatican council. he served as scholarly advisor to archbishop joseph hurley, who had criticized pope pius xii for doing too little both to oppose the nazis and to help the jews during world war ii. (hurley had ordained raymond brown in 1953.) the author’s appreciation for brown is evident, and although she identifies weak spots in his presentations, she also defends him against all comers. her critique of dominic crossan, who was a critic of what he saw as brown’s ambiguity and of his historical methods, is severe. however, i share crossan’s frustration at brown’s expressions like “not implausible,” especially when the issue at hand is later asserted as probable. she finds it merely “odd” that brown’s introduction to the new testament (1997), published towards the end of his life, did not include a 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) section on anti-judaism. also, she calls brown’s inconsistent presentation of the views of the evangelist (who, he says, both intended and, he imagines in retreat, did not intend to present “the jews” so negatively) as “tricky” (p. 122). finally, are brown’s final remarks in the voice of the evangelist a true apology? she notes that the strange but personal style of retreat can leave us wondering. cronin says that the words of the evangelist (as imagined by brown) are “not exactly an apology” (p. 123). indeed. brown’s evangelist says “quite frankly, i never gave a thought to jews (or others) who had never heard of jesus or jews of future generations and i sincerely regret that my words were applied to them.” perhaps it is the best we can expect, especially as brown elsewhere declines to “condemn or justify” first-century believers or their opponents (p. 99). similarly she says brown was able to “repent” as one linked to the sins of john the evangelist. it is quite a narrow path, to maintain the crucial importance of an accurate reconstruction of john’s historical situation, to assert john’s intentionally negative depiction of the jews, to decline to pass judgment, to argue that future generations must not use this material for anti-jewish actions, and to acknowledge that many christians have done so. perhaps this is repentance, but it is highly qualified. brown as an individual respected judaism and enjoyed his jewish friends’ holidays and practices. cronin shows the intellectual journey that was part of that appreciation. the lack of evidence for a jewish christian countermission in galatia studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college tthhee llaacckk ooff eevviiddeennccee ff roor aa jjeewwii rsshh cchhriissttiiaann ccoouunntt reermmiissssiioonn iinn ggaallaattiiaa aa dd aa mm gg rr ee gg ee rr mm aa nn    iinnssttiittuuttee ffoorr cchhrriissttiiaann aanndd jjeewiisshh ssttuuddiieess,, bbaallttiimmoorree,, mmdd w   volume 4 (2009) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 an earlier version of this paper was presented at boston college on march 16, 2008 at the conference: paul of tarsus: the apostle to the gentiles in his jewish context gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 1. introduction as faith in jesus spread to gentiles in the few decades after the crucifixion, some early jewish christians struggled to respond to the presence of these new believers in religious communities founded by paul and others. though gentile christians in paul’s churches had not formerly been told that they must be circumcised and convert to judaism, some jewish christians thought otherwise. they believed that membership in christian (the term is of course anachronistic) religious communities was limited to jews. this, i believe, is the case with paul’s opponents in galatia, and furnishes their motivation for making the demand for gentile circumcision that paul so vitriolically resists. in my view, these jewish christian opponents, seen by many scholars as competing missionaries with paul, were actually concerned about a much more limited and traditionally jewish issue: threats to the boundaries of their religious community. their demands for circumcision and observance of the torah are meant to accommodate the present influx of gentiles (who had been told by paul that they were full members of the congregation) the only way they know how, by insisting that gentile believers undergo conversion to judaism and take on jewish religious practices. in short, these jews were concerned with gentile inclusion (i.e., how can gentiles be members of their religious community?), not gentile salvation (i.e., how can gentiles be saved?). the issues of mission to and salvation of the gentiles are irrelevant or peripheral at most, just as they were largely peripheral to the concerns of contemporary (nonchristian) jews.1 in my paper i argue that this issue of inclusion is the crux of their—but not paul’s—concern in galatia, separate from any concern with gentile salvation. it is therefore incorrect to say that their demands reflect a conservative (the most frequent scholarly description) or highly restrictive view of gentile salvation.2 actually, we can say little about their views on the methods or even desirability of a mission to gentiles, for all their demands are reactions to prior missionary activities. i demonstrate that the demands are not necessarily related to gentile soteriology at all. rather, their demands reflect different concerns, in that they are like those of nearly all late second temple jews (from the second century bce through the first century ce) when they considered how to include gentiles in jewish communities. naturally, they expected that members would be circumcised and observe the torah. i focus especially on the jewish context of the controversy in galatia, which probably should be dated to the sixth 1 see most recently terence l. donaldson, judaism and the gentiles: jewish patterns of universalism (to 135 ce) (waco, tx: baylor university press, 2008), 3. 2 for examples of scholars’ pejorative descriptions of the galatian opponents’ demand that gentiles be circumcised (it supposedly reflects “conservative” or “extremist” jewish opposition to gentile salvation), see f. f. bruce, epistle to the galatians, the new international greek testament commentary (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 1982), 240; stephen g. wilson, luke and the law (cambridge: cambridge university press, 1983), 107; james d. g. dunn, the parting of the ways: between christianity and judaism and their significance for the character of christianity (philadelphia: trinity press international, 1991), 128; ben witherington, iii, the acts of the apostles: a sociorhetorical commentary (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 1997), 450; ben witherington, iii, grace in galatia: a commentary on st. paul's letter to the galatians (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 1998), 7, 148. gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 decade of the first century.3 i demonstrate its relevance to a study of paul’s opponents there, themselves jewish believers in christ about whom little else is known. i begin by critically reviewing some of the most influential scholarly explanations for the opponents’ demands that gentile believers be circumcised. this section is comparatively long, because i want to illustrate the prominence of the claim i am challenging, that paul’s galatian opponents were eager to bring salvation to the gentiles and are “evangelistic in purpose.”4 this claim, i argue, is not supported by evidence from paul’s letter or the ancient jewish sources often cited for support. my criticisms are intended to bring some methodological clarity to studies of the dispute by offering guidance for future scholarly investigations of this topic that situate paul’s controversy in galatia in its jewish context. i then present my own explanation for the dispute, focusing on the motivations of the opponents. it rests on two complementary arguments. first, i place the opponents in their proper social and religious context, as late second temple period diaspora jews. because we learn little about the opponents in paul’s letter, we should draw on scholarship on contemporaneous judaism, especially regarding gentiles and conversion, to fill in gaps in our knowledge.5 i discuss the 3 most scholars place the letter and the events it describes in this period; e.g., hans dieter betz, galatians: a commentary on paul’s letter to the churches in galatia, hermeneia: a critical and historical commentary on the bible (philadelphia: fortress, 1979), 12; helmut koester, history and literature of early christianity, 2 vols., vol. 2, introduction to the new testament (philadelphia: fortress, 1982), 109-111; raymond e. brown, an introduction to the new testament (new york: doubleday, 1997), 468-69. 4 this is described as the consensus view of scholars in mark nanos, the irony of galatians: paul's letter in first-century context (minneapolis: fortress, 2002), 134. 5 i have been influenced by alan segal’s path-breaking work on paul, demonstrating the benefits of careful attention to the jewish context of the disputes between paul and other early christians; see alan f. segal, paul the convert: strong concern among many jews with maintaining clear boundaries between jews and gentiles, and the prominence of markers of identity such as circumcision. this helps us understand the demand paul’s opponents made. i also draw upon recent scholarship on (the lack of) jewish missionary activity in this period, and argue for its applicability to paul’s opponents as well. in a break with the views of previous generations, scholars have now shown that there is no evidence that jews actively sought to convert gentiles. the same, i argue, likely holds true for paul’s jewish opponents, whose demands can be explained without recourse to a missionary motivation entirely lacking among contemporary jews. second, i consider the evidence of galatians itself, and demonstrate that circumcision, while differently understood by paul and his opponents, was the most prominent, perhaps exclusive source of disagreement.6 i then frame the dispute not as a direct clash between different christian missionary strategies (paul’s and his opponents’) based on different ideas about the same goal—the salvation of the gentiles—but as a dispute about two different goals entirely. specifically, i argue that paul’s perception of what was at stake in the dispute—nothing less than the gentiles’ salvation, church unity, and the spread of the gospel—was not shared by his opponents. rather, they, like other jews of this time, were intent on maintaining the jewish identity of a religious movement whose boundaries were increasingly threatened by the inclusion of unconverted gentiles. though they, unlike most jews, believed that jesus was the messiah, we should not thereby assume that they perceived these threats any differently.7 the apostolate and apostasy of saul the pharisee (new haven and london: yale university press, 1990), e.g., 36, 39, 91, 154, 192-93. 6 quotations from the bible are taken from the nrsv, though i occasionally have made small changes. 7 even jesus himself is said to be quite hostile to gentiles. according to matthew, he shunned them (15:21-28) and forbade his followers to preach to gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 2. scholarship on galatians because i will critique certain prominent and widely shared scholarly views of galatians, it is helpful to review others’ analyses of the motivations of paul’s opponents, and specifically scholars’ use of jewish sources to buttress their views. i begin with two major commentaries on the letter and then consider other important contributions.8 a. j. louis martyn martyn has written a landmark commentary on gal atians for the anchor bible series. because he is especially interested in reconstructing the identity, activity, and motivations of paul’s opponents (the term he uses is “the teachers,” which i will use as well), and because his views often reflect a consensus opinion among scholars, his commentary has a prominent place in my analysis.9 the teachers are, he says, jewish christians. contrasting paul’s vague references to them with his seemingly intimate address to the readers, martyn argues that they came from outside the community. he thinks they may be connected to those who challenged paul from the jerusalem church. along with their preaching about the neces them (10:5-6). some adhered to this until miraculously convinced otherwise (e.g., acts 10:28; 11:3). despite passages in which jesus endorses a gentile mission (e.g., mt 28:19; mk 13:10; lk 24:47; the first and third are postresurrection), it is clear from acts that many knew nothing of these traditions and were wary of contact with gentiles; see stephen wilson, the gentiles and the gentile mission in luke-acts (cambridge: cambridge university press, 1973), 96. 8 in general, the commentaries present mainstream, widely-accepted scholarly views on galatians, and paul’s opponents in particular, and eschew the idiosyncratic and speculative claims found elsewhere; see the discussion in john barclay, obeying the truth: paul's ethics in galatians (minneapolis: fortress, 1991), 47-52. 9 i have adopted his term “the teachers” for paul’s opponents, which is less pejorative than traditional terms such as “judaizers” or “antagonists” and does not define them only by contrast with paul. sity of faith in christ, they added the requirement to observe the torah.10 according to martyn, while circumcision is the most immediate and divisive issue, the teachers’ expectations are broader and include other commandments as well. this is because they are, he emphasizes, zealous jewish missionaries, and manifest their zeal not, for example, by vaguely hoping that gentiles will one day accept the obligation to observe the commandments, but by actively striving to convince gentiles to do so in the present. they are, martyn writes, “in the proper sense of the term evangelists,” spreading the gospel by engaging in a mission that is similar to paul’s in scope and ambition. this mission is not simply reactive, but “positive.” they are impelled by a desire to extend the blessings first offered to abraham and the jews to “all human beings,” and to “invit[e] gentiles to enter the people of israel.”11 in theological terms, their concerns are soteriological. their aim is not simply to accommodate the incorporation of gentile believers in an originally all-jewish religious movement but to achieve their salvation according to their own nomistic standards, for they believed that “god will judge all human beings on the basis of the law.”12 martyn does not just rely on galatians, but also uses other texts, especially jewish texts from the late second temple and early rabbinic periods. these are useful, he says, because he finds “pertinent data” in “jewish traditions [such] as those preserved in sirach and the dead sea scrolls.” he also considers the wisdom of solomon, rabbinic literature, joseph and aseneth, and works by philo. methodologically, he relies on “significant [jewish] parallels” to the views of the teachers. 10 j. louis martyn, galatians: a new translation with introduction and commentary, vol. 33a, the anchor bible (new york: doubleday, 1997), 117-26. 11 ibid., 121-22, 269. italics in original. 12 ibid., 196. gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 he searches for shared (“pertinent”) motifs in galatians and elsewhere that may explain their behavior. for example, referring to the wisdom of solomon and joseph and aseneth, he concludes that the “teachers are thus first cousins, so to speak, of various diaspora jews who dramatically portrayed and even facilitated conversion to judaism.”13 this broad claim is, however, seldom buttressed by jewish sources. for example, his parallels are weakened by the absence of any references to relevant passages in the wisdom of solomon, perhaps because the text says nothing about a torah observant gentile mission. in fact, there is little indication the author of the text hoped that the idolatrous and benighted gentiles might improve their religious behavior and recognize the god of israel, let alone become proselytes.14 martyn also focuses on the strange, highly individualistic ritual of one gentile’s conversion in joseph and aseneth, but grants that the text offers no actual encouragement or plan for broader missionary activity. aseneth’s conversion is also weakened as a relevant parallel by the author’s general disinterest in her observance of the distinctive torah rituals that marked off jews from gentiles. aseneth, we might say, at most converts to a vague ethical monotheism rather than to judaism specifically, at least not judaism as the teachers and most jews understood it.15 elsewhere, martyn adduces texts from rabbinic literature and philo’s writings that present abraham as a model for converts, because the teachers supposedly appealed to abraham in a similar way (3:6-29). yet these texts offer no encouragement for a gentile mission, and should probably be 13 ibid., 118-22. 14 donaldson, judaism and the gentiles, 68. 15 ibid., 148-49. see also rainer riesner, "a pre-christian jewish mission?," in the mission of the early church to jews and gentiles, ed. jostein adna and hans kvalbein (tubingen: mohr siebeck, 2000): 211-250 (227). read simply as illustrations of abraham’s remarkable piety.16 they do not clarify the reasons for the distinctive demand of the teachers that gentiles should undergo circumcision, which is the crux of the dispute in galatians. martyn also refers to rabbinic statements that express the hope that all humanity will observe the torah in trying to explain the galatian teachers’ motivation to “bring the law to the gentiles.”17 however, these rabbinic hopes are also unrelated to any demand that gentiles undergo circumcision. they are strictly eschatological and do not include the commandments given to israel (like circumcision), just a limited number assigned to gentiles only. gentiles would remain gentiles even after the messiah comes, making this claim irrelevant for discussions of conversion (let alone conversion to torah observant judaism).18 paradoxically, martyn agrees with the current scholarly consensus that non-christian jews did not proselytize to the gentiles (see below). this weakens any supposed link between other jews and the teachers, because, again, their distinctiveness is precisely in their supposed zeal for gentile circumcision. he nonetheless insists on some relevance for these jewish texts: “but the rejection of an organized jewish mission to gentiles does not tell us that the motif of hoped-for conver 16 e.g., philo, virtues 219; tanhuma lekh lekha 32a, in martyn, galatians, 125. nancy koyzis has shown that abraham, who is often mentioned in second temple jewish texts as the first proselyte, is generally praised for his rejection of idolatry, rather than his fidelity to the torah. he is therefore not a model for conversion to torah observant judaism; see nancy koyzis, paul, monotheism and the people of god: the significance of abraham traditions for early judaism and christianity (london: t & t clark, 2004). 17 e.g., genesis rabbah 98:9, in martyn, galatians, 125. see also ephraim e. urbach, the sages: the world and wisdom of the rabbis of the talmud, trans. israel abrahams, second ed. (cambridge: harvard university press, 1979), 310. 18 though he does not include them, even texts that do suggest it would be good for gentiles to follow the torah (e.g., philo, virtues 102-04) should probably be seen primarily as paeans of praise to the torah without any practical implications for outreach to gentiles. gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 sions is wholly absent from the literature of diaspora judaism.” in his hermeneia commentary on galatians, betz’s views about the teachers are often broadly similar to those of martyn. they are, he says, jewish christians, perhaps connected with paul’s other opponents from jerusalem. they are also missionaries, and strongly antagonistic to paul and his 19 this is quite a low bar for relevance. while it is true that some jews wondered about and even hoped for the salvation of the gentiles, martyn fails to demonstrate that the occasional presence of hints of this idea contribute much to our understanding of the teachers and their explicitly “evangelical” mission. because such evidence is lacking, he also focuses on other possibly relevant motifs that might explain an interest in conversion: disdain for gentile idolatry and vague beliefs that the torah is god’s instruction to all peoples, jews as well as gentiles.20 again, however, he recognizes that these hopes never encouraged other jews to undertake a gentile mission, and that future hopes for the salvation of the gentiles had no connection to present practices. (it is even debatable whether these motifs can be attributed to the teachers from the limited evidence of galatians.) martyn therefore resists the most compelling conclusion, that jewish texts offer no support for his hypothesis that the teachers were zealous christian missionaries influenced by contemporary jewish ideas about the gentiles. more seriously, he does not consider whether jews’ near universal lack of interest in a torah observant mission to the gentiles is shared by the teachers as well. this, i argue below, is far more likely. b. hans dieter betz 19 martyn, galatians, 119. 20 ibid., 119,122. views of the torah. in particular, betz highlights similarities between the teachers’ preaching and paul’s preaching. he suggests that there is much more that unites than divides them. the conflict, at least from paul’s perspective, is almost entirely limited to a dispute over the necessity for gentiles to observe the commandments of the torah, such as circumcision.21 betz is occasionally more specific about those aspects of paul’s hostility to torah observance that provoked them. he suggests that they may have resisted his claims about the “freedom” (1:4; 2:4) that was gained by the new believers in christ. this may have struck them as indifferent to the power of torah as a guide for holy living, and foolhardy for offering them little help for overcoming sin and temptation.22 analyzing their motivations, betz argues that the demand for circumcision addressed to gentile believers in galatia was not just a reaction to the teachers’ disagreement with paul. like paul, they were evangelists for faith in christ. betz insists on the missionary zeal of the teachers. their motivation was soteriological. they were “serious about the salvation of the gentiles.”23 he recognizes that paul, because of his hostility, cannot be trusted to provide a reliable report of their views, but nonetheless works backwards from paul’s claims to reconstruct theirs.24 paul’s message of christian freedom, which vitiates the necessity to observe the commandment of circumcision, was, betz says, incendiary to them. they “saw [his message] as lawlessness and judged its religious status as leading to eternal condemnation.” just as paul made the salvation of the gentiles his highest priority, they too “turned to making converts among the gentile christians” for the same rea 21 betz, galatians, 5-9. 22 ibid., 8-9, 32, 42. 23 ibid., 7. elsewhere, betz says it is also possible they faced pressure from non-christian jews, who were unhappy that they seemed to welcome unconverted gentiles into their community; see betz, galatians, 316. 24 betz, galatians, 230, 314. gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 sons, for they were in basic agreement with him about this goal.25 the details differ, but they too wanted nothing less than “to ensure the gentile christians’ salvation [i.e., deliverance from eternal condemnation] by subjecting them to circumcision.” betz is strikingly confident in reconstructing these views, and in particular why they preached to the galatians. above all, he elevates their demand that gentiles be circumcised to a theological principle: “they deny that gentile christians can be saved by god’s grace.”26 or, as he says elsewhere, they “denied in the name of christ that ‘faith in christ’ is sufficient for salvation” without torah observance.27 like martyn, betz also cites jewish texts. his argument rests on supposed jewish precedents for the teachers’ preaching torah observance to the gentiles as the only way anyone could be saved. betz suggests a sort of general rule to explain this motivation: “it is one of the principal doctrines of judaism that god gave the torah for the purpose of providing a way for israel into eternal life.” regardless of whether one thinks that betz overstates the centrality of the afterlife in jewish thought, there is a more immediate problem. betz’s statement is inexplicably exclusivist about jewish soteriology. that is, he moves from the claim that jews believed that those who are obedient to the torah are rewarded with eternal life, to the claim that jews believed that those who are not obedient to the torah are decisively cut off from eternal life, as a way to explain the teachers’ activities. this harsh idea, which betz simply calls “the jewish position,” means that (some? all?) jews assumed that, because they were rewarded for (even saved through) torah observance, gentiles could not be saved unless they converted. the teachers were thereby motivated by a 25 ibid., 7. 26 ibid., 90. betz here is commenting on the views of those in jerusalem (2:45), but says “whatever paul says about his opponents in jerusalem applies also to his present opponents in galatia.” 27 ibid., 31. seemingly altruistic desire to ensure that gentiles could share in this eternal life, for they feared that if they did not preach circumcision to them they would inevitably be cut off from it. without this exclusivist assumption, he says, the teachers “would never have required the galatians to accept circumcision and torah.”28 this conclusion is not persuasive, for the second claim (gentiles must observe the torah) does not follow from the first (torah observance brings eternal life), either logically or in the historical sources. first, in his formulation of the “doctrine,” there is nothing exclusivist about such an idea of torah observance. betz fails to demonstrate that its centrality for some jews proves its necessity for all humanity. actually, even if this claim about torah were true, it need not inspire missionary outreach for what could perhaps be described as altruistic motives (i.e., a desire to save the gentiles through torah observance). jews might just as readily accept that they themselves alone were to be saved, and need not strive to bring the demand to observe the torah to the nations.29 second, the jewish texts he cites do not support this exclusivist claim or furnish a motive for proselytism. betz adduces expressions of praise of the torah for its life-giving qualities in biblical, second temple, and rabbinic texts,30 but fails to show that jews accordingly denied such benefits to nonjews who refused to convert. if this claim, that jews believed that the torah in essence condemns all non-jews, is to furnish a motivation for preaching to the gentiles, this lack of contem 28 ibid., 174. 29 of course, the idea that there is a straightforward connection between torah observance and salvation in ancient jewish texts (both from the second temple and tannaitic periods) has been widely questioned, most prominently by e. p. sanders; see e. p. sanders, paul and palestinian judaism: a comparison of patterns of religion (minneapolis: fortress, 1977), 419-28. 30 e.g., dt 30:15-30; 32:47; prov 3:1; sir 17:11; mavot 2:8; 6:1ff. gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 porary evidence is especially problematic for such an important point. in fact, he does not show that the teachers believed this either, and it is simply speculation that they may have had such motives. i do not want entirely to deny that a few jews may have had such exclusivist views of the torah.31 however, it remains unproven that betz’s broad claim (he calls this “its traditional jewish role” for the torah) holds for jews generally or the teachers specifically, or is relevant to their views of gentiles.32 c. other studies of galatians in addition to these two prominent commentaries, i want to consider two additional studies that analyze the motivations of the teachers. the scholars share one basic assumption: the teachers were missionaries, seeking the salvation of the gentiles.33 george howard, for example, in paul: crisis in galatia, while agreeing with this, recognizes that “there does not seem to have been a view [in extant jewish literature] that gentiles as a whole…would join judaism in the present age.” he therefore refuses to draw on jewish parallels to explain the teachers’ behavior. one might have hoped that this would have led him to question whether they did in fact share paul’s “missionary thrust.” instead, he explains what he sees as missionary activity in another, highly speculative way. 31 jubilees 15:24-26 is the most well-known example of this, though this is an especially strict and exclusivist viewpoint; see below. 32 betz, galatians, 173-74. strangely, the only text he cites that may support this claim, that jews were insistent that unconverted gentiles faced eternal damnation and did something about it (i.e., tried to convert them), is from the new testament (acts 15:1)! see betz, galatians, 9. 33 besides those critiqued here, other studies that offer similar interpretations include robert jewett, "the agitators and the galatian congregation," new testament studies 17 (1970-71): 198-212 (200-01); koester, history and literature, 124-25; wayne a. meeks, the first urban christians: the social world of the apostle paul, second ed. (new haven and london: yale university press, 2003), 115. they too argue that paul’s opponents were competing missionaries who insisted on circumcision as a requirement for salvation, though jewett thinks pressure from non-christian jews also may have contributed to the demand. 34 howard sets up a hypothetical contrast between two groups: those who reject any missionary outreach to the gentiles on the one hand, and paul and the teachers on the other. the first group includes those he calls “ultraconservative [jewish] christians,” who shunned the inclusion of gentiles, and nearly all non-christian jews, who ignored questions about gentile salvation or passively deferred them to the eschaton. neither had any interest in proselytism, though many of the jews, howard says, expected that the gentiles eventually would be saved. the other group, paul and the teachers, rejected such inaction. unlike jews who expected that gentiles would be saved at the end of days, they believed that this hope was not eschatological. rather, “the time the gentiles were envisioned to be included” was the present.35 they therefore eagerly sought to convert gentiles. on the surface, this seems reasonable, and howard is to be credited at least for the recognition that there would be something distinctive about the teachers’ demands for circumcision in the present if they were zealous missionaries. however, a logical possibility is not the same as evidence, for howard assumes what he needs to prove. that is, he starts with the assumption that the teachers are missionaries who, like paul in most ways except for the demand for circumcision, endeavored to save the gentiles. he then tries to explain this with a hypothetical contrast to those who did not. the lack of evidence for such a motivation from the views of the teachers themselves, rather than from a reconstruction of their views based on paul’s motivations, undermines the usefulness of 34 george howard, paul: crisis in galatia: a study in early christian theology, second ed. (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2004), xvii-xix, 21. 35 ibid., xxiii. italics in original. gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 such a model. he does not consider whether it is paul who is unusual, even unique, in his views of gentile salvation, which would undermine any comparison of the teachers with paul. surprisingly, his admission that nearly all contemporary jews were not interested in engaging in proselytism does not prompt him to question his assumptions about the teachers, though they were of course another group of first century jews. todd wilson, in the curse of the law and the crisis in galatia, shares the assumptions that the teachers were missionaries and motivated by concerns for the salvation of the gentile believers. his contribution to the topic is his attention to what he sees as one specific motivating factor. they hoped, he says, to spare these new christians a terrible fate. if they failed to undergo circumcision, they would be “cursed” by the law (3:10, 13). the teachers were convinced that those outside the covenant established with abraham in genesis 17 through circumcision were at risk of being “cut off” from god (5:4). they therefore took on the responsibility to warn “the [gentile] galatians of the consequences of failing” to be circumcised.36 wilson assembles biblical passages that link “blessing and life” with “incorporation into abraham” through circumcision, especially from genesis and deuteronomy. he also adduces passages from second temple literature (apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, and dead sea scrolls) that affirm “the inseparability of the law and the covenant during the nt period.” these demonstrate the types of motivations—bringing the otherwise forsaken gentiles into an exclusivist, salvific torah-based covenant—that could explain proselytism.37 however, he admits that few of the biblical texts he cites are actually quoted in galatians. this undermines the rele vance of these jews’ views to the teachers’ message, and threatens wilson’s even more speculative argument, based only on possible allusions, that the teachers took it upon themselves to “warn” the gentile believers. at most, he admits, he detects what he calls “hints” of these passages in the letter. for explaining a central feature of the teachers’ identity, these hints yield little reliable data. 36 todd wilson, the curse of the law and the crisis in galatia: reassessing the purpose of galatians (tubingen: mohr siebeck, 2007), 67. 37 ibid., 57-60. 38 a more serious weakness, already seen above, is that wilson’s passages—whether from the bible or post-biblical literature—seldom say anything about the gentiles. some passages he cites do threaten jews with punishment for disobedience.39 however, it is speculation, unsupported by nearly any texts, that such threats against jews who did not follow the torah were expanded to include uncircumcised, nontorah observant gentiles as well. in these sections, gentiles are not even in view, and we do not know what jews thought about them. furthermore, the connection between such a claim about gentiles and an eagerness to undertake missionary activity to gentiles is even weaker. one should not argue from meager evidence in external sources and galatians itself that the teachers threatened them with “the deleterious consequences of failing to embrace the covenant of circumcision” and then eagerly responded with proselytism.40 actually, wilson fails to show that any other jews shared this concern for gentiles and then undertook a mission to encourage them to be circumcised.41 the connection then between these passages and his reconstruction of the teachers’ views and actions is tangential and possibly irrelevant. 38 ibid., 56-64. he mentions, among other texts, dt 13; 30; sir 24; 32; 39. wilson implicitly grants the weakness of his argument by consistently using very tentative language when suggesting that paul or the teachers have a text in mind even though it is neither quoted nor alluded to. 39 e.g., 4 ezra 7:24; jubilees 30:20-22. 40 wilson, curse, 62. 41 ibid., 53. gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 in my review of past scholarship, i have begun to critique the claim that the teachers were, like paul, missionaries who are eager to bring gentiles to salvation, only with the added demand for circumcision. specifically, i have challenged arguments for the relevance of the views of contemporaneous non-christian jews.42 contrary to these scholars’ views, i believe that the teachers, unlike paul, were not motivated by concerns with gentile salvation, but rather with the problem of an influx of unconverted, non-torah observant gentiles into an originally all-jewish religious movement. their demand for circumcision reflects this. their views, as best as we can reconstruct them, parallel those of nearly all other jews of their time in this concern with maintaining traditional jewish bound 42 alongside my critiques, i should in fairness also note that some scholars do not argue that the teachers’ demand for circumcision primarily or exclusively reflects concerns for the salvation of the gentiles. for example, paula fredriksen and jerry sumney consider possible concerns of jewish christians that they were quickly being outnumbered by gentile christians. this development may have alienated other jews and caused some to think it contributed to a delay in the coming of the end of days, though we lack convincing evidence for this provocative claim; see paula fredriksen, "judaism, the circumcision of gentiles, and apocalyptic hope: another look at galatians 1 and 2," journal of theological studies 42 (1991): 532-64 (561); jerry l. sumney, "paul and christ-believing jews he opposes," in jewish christianity reconsidered: rethinking ancient groups and texts, ed. matthew jackson-mccabe (minneapolis: fortress, 2007): 57-80 (67-74). francis watson suggests the teachers’ demands reflect a desire to remain a reform movement “within the jewish community” rather than to become a sectarian movement estranged from the jewish community; the latter, he says, was only paul’s goal. this observation helpfully underscores the “membership” function of circumcision, though watson nonetheless (and unnecessarily) also affirms another claim, that they sought the salvation of the gentiles as well. however, the claim about membership is sufficient to explain the demand, especially because the claim about a soteriological motive rests on an unproven link between the teachers and other jewish christians from elsewhere; see francis watson, paul, judaism and the gentiles, revised ed. (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 2007), 114-25. also, see e. p. sanders, paul, the law, and the jewish people (minneapolis: fortress, 1983), 18-19; barclay, obeying the truth, 54-55; frank j. matera, galatians, vol. 9, sacra pagina (collegeville, mn: liturgical, 1992), 29. aries, in this case, through the ritual of circumcision. this furnishes an explanation for their demand that is sensitive to the late second temple period context and the jewish identity of the teachers. i next want to turn to this context and consider two related features of judaism in this period: concerns with maintaining jewish communal boundaries, and widespread lack of interest in missionary activity and the salvation of the gentiles generally. later, i turn to the evidence of the letter to the galatians. 3. torah observance, circumcision and the maintenance of jewish communal boundaries in light of the prominence of the teachers’ demand for circumcision, i believe that we should situate them in the context of the widespread concern among other late second temple jews with preserving a distinctive jewish identity. many jews, especially those living amidst gentiles as a minority in the diaspora, accomplished this through observance of rituals and practices like circumcision that established boundaries between insiders and outsiders.43 jewish identity in the late second temple period, as in many other periods, is carefully defined by boundaries. in the bible and in later jewish traditions we find a prominent tendency to demarcate insiders and outsiders in many areas of life: in commandments about food, appearance, and above all religious observance (i.e., worship of and faithfulness to the one god of israel). even commandments not explicitly separatist in intent, such as food laws in leviticus 11, in practice “bind the jewish community together in distinction from others and thus solidify jewish ethnic identity 43 john m. g. barclay, jews in the mediterranean diaspora from alexander to trajan (323 bce-117 ce) (berkeley: university of california press, 1996), 399-444. gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 on a daily basis.”44 not surprisingly, even jesus and his early followers, like other jews, observed these commandments.45 in practice, most jews willingly interacted with gentiles in some ways (e.g., economically) while refraining from other types of interaction (e.g., worship). nonetheless, one could reasonably generalize that many jews in this period, regardless of where they lived, remained committed to maintaining a distinct identity. in the late second temple period jews “always had to work out strategies to maintain their identity,” and therefore “began to emphasize their distinctiveness vis-à-vis the gentiles and to highlight those rituals and practices that would separate them from the nations of the world.”46 this type of concern is especially prominent for jews beginning in the hellenistic era. this was a time of large diaspora communities and, for those in diverse urban centers, an ancient form of religious pluralism. there were abundant opportunities to choose one’s religious identity, prompting many to focus on defining “jewishness” far more explicitly and clearly than before.47 the commandments had the effect of separating jews from gentiles—in their flesh (as with circumcision), in their use 44 ibid., 437. 45 e.g., mt 5:17; 23:1-23; acts 10:14; 21:20-21. despite scholarly disputes over some details of jesus’ views of the commandments, observance of the torah was undeniably valued among many in the first few christian generations; see e. p. sanders, jesus and judaism (philadelphia: fortress, 1985), 245-69. 46 shaye j. d. cohen, the beginnings of jewishness: boundaries, varieties, uncertainties (berkeley and los angeles: university of california press, 1999), 135-36. 47 koester, history and literature, 124; j. l. north, "the development of religious pluralism," in the jews among pagans and christians in the roman empire, ed. judith lieu, john north, and tessa rajak (london and new york: routledge, 1992): 174-93; cohen, beginnings, 109-39; donaldson, judaism and the gentiles, 11. of time (as with sabbath observance), and in their involvement in social or political life in the diaspora (as with the avoidance of idolatrous civic rituals), to mention a few of the most prominent. such separation was viewed positively, at least by jews, and “functioned as identity markers.”48 among these, circumcision, even though not immediately visible, was especially significant. because of its prominent association with abraham in genesis 17, it was a commandment treated with seriousness and zeal.49 it marks the (male) jew’s membership in the covenant made with the patriarchs, and, when done on infants, presages a life of fidelity to the torah and its many ordinances. jews were so deeply committed to its observance that some, a few centuries before paul, circumcised their children despite threats of execution (1 macc 1:60-61). not surprisingly, it became a symbol of both religious and social membership par excellence. gentiles, though often mocking it as selfmutilation, recognized its prominence (and a few were even willing to undergo the dangerous procedure, as in galatia). the ritual “was virtually synonymous with judaism in the roman period.” 50 48 james d. g. dunn, "the new perspective on paul," in jesus, paul and the law: studies in mark and galatians (louisville, ky: westminster / john knox, 1990): 183-214 (194). 49 in light of the bible’s surprisingly infrequent early references to circumcision, its importance seems to have grown over time; see shaye j. d. cohen, from the maccabees to the mishnah (philadelphia: westminster, 1989), 52. 50 john j. collins, "a symbol of otherness: circumcision and salvation in the first century," in 'to see ourselves as others see us': christians, jews, 'others' in late antiquity, ed. jacob neusner and ernest s. frerichs (chico, ca: scholars, 1985): 163-86 (163). relevant texts include philo, migration 89-94; josephus, antiquities 1:192; 13:257-58; 20:38; tacitus, histories 5:5:2; suetonius, domitian 12:2. also, see scot mcknight, a light among the gentiles: jewish missionary activity in the second temple period (minnea polis: fortress, 1991), 82; barclay, mediterranean diaspora, 438-39; erich s. gruen, diaspora: jews amidst greeks and romans (cambridge: harvard university press, 2004), 51. gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 the corollary to this focus on the maintenance of religious boundaries is the insistence on circumcision as the ritual for crossing the boundary and converting to judaism. those who chose entirely to give up their gentile religious identity marked this dramatic change just as abraham did when he first entered the covenant, through circumcision. this ritual was widely seen as a requirement for men who sought to join the jewish community, an early (perhaps first) step to a major, farreaching reorientation of one’s life.51 even though some unconverted and uncircumcised gentiles worshiped in synagogues, undoubtedly making many jews glad to see them recognize and honor the god of israel, they nonetheless remained pious gentiles. without circumcision and other changes (e.g., severing one’s family ties; education in and observance of the torah) they remained outsiders.52 i do not want to minimize some lingering obscurities in our understanding of the role of circumcision in conversion in antiquity or deny that there were diverse meanings assigned to the ritual.53 some scholars have even suggested that there are scattered hints that circumcision was not always required for 51 barclay, obeying the truth, 52-60; mcknight, light, 79-82; martin goodman, mission and conversion: proselytizing in the religious history of the roman empire (oxford: clarendon, 1994), 81-82; donaldson, judaism and the gentiles, 508. 52 mcknight, light, 47. gentiles who frequented synagogues—so called “godfearers”—are found in acts, josephus, and elsewhere, and called by various (likely non-technical) names; see the survey of sources in emil schürer, the history of the jewish people in the age of jesus christ (175 b.c.-135 a.d.), ed. fergus millar and matthew black (edinburgh: t & t clark, 1973), 3:1:15076; judith m. lieu, "do god-fearers make good christians?," in crossing the boundaries: essays in biblical interpretation in honour of michael d goulder, ed. stanley e. porter, paul joyce, and david e. orton (leiden: e. j. brill, 1994): 329-45; cohen, beginnings, 156-74; john j. collins, between athens and jerusalem: jewish identity in the hellenistic diaspora, second ed. (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 2000), 264-70. 53 shaye j. d. cohen, why aren't jewish women circumcised? gender and covenant in judaism (berkeley: university of california press, 2005), 3-54. proselytes.54 these few obscurities notwithstanding, however, i want to emphasize the centrality and ubiquity of the concern with jewish boundaries, including the mark of circumcision, and the prominence of the ritual for converts to judaism. most jews were eager to maintain their distinctiveness and resisted threats to key aspects of their identity. this does not mean that jews denounced all those who were uncircumcised as evil or ultimately cut off from salvation, or disbelieved that the god of israel was likewise the god of the nations and might even care for them as well. however, they did draw distinctions between outsiders and insiders, and set rules for how one becomes and remains among the latter. these concerns with membership and inclusion must be clearly distinguished from concerns with the ultimate fate of the gentiles and their relationship with the god of israel. the former topic relates to communal boundaries; the latter topic relates to soteriology.55 while related, these are not the same. discussions about membership affect the community in the present, and reflect the ways that it defines itself vis-à-vis the gentile world. there is no necessary relationship between these discussions and theological questions about whether gentiles will be accepted or rejected by god, and on what grounds such judgments are made. when i review paul’s letter, i argue that 54 a link between circumcision and jewishness may not have been universally affirmed, and there are hints that some converts were not required to be circumcised; neil j. mceleney, "conversion, circumcision and the law," new testament studies 20 (1974): 319-341; collins, "symbol of otherness," (170-79). mceleney has made this argument most emphatically; see the critiques in john nolland, "uncircumcised proselytes?," journal for the study of judaism in persian, hellenistic, and roman period 12 (1981): 173-94; goodman, mission, 81-82. 55 this distinction is noted by segal, paul the convert, 191. others confuse these categories. for example, dunn writes that jews insist “on certain works as indispensable to their own (and others?) standing within the covenant, and therefore indispensable to salvation,” in james d. g. dunn, the new perspective on paul (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 2008), 16. gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 the teachers’ demand for circumcision reveals not zeal for conversion or concerns with soteriology but entirely predictable concerns with jewish identity. these prompted them to issue a demand identical to that issued by other jews: if one wants to be a member of a jewish religious community, one needs to become a jew. there is a high burden of proof on those who would argue that the teachers, though believers in jesus, were different. when i turn to galatians, i will argue that the evidence points in precisely the opposite direction. 4. lack of evidence for missionary activity in late second temple judaism in order to clarify the motivations and actions of the teachers, i want to draw on an important and relevant trend in recent scholarship on late second temple judaism: the increasingly widespread doubts about the existence of jewish proselytism intended to convert gentiles to judaism. due to the work of scot mcknight, shaye cohen, and martin goodman, to name some of the most prominent scholars, “a new consensus is beginning to emerge according to which…diaspora judaism was not a missionary religion.”56 this is vital for a study of the teachers, for it should at the very least make us skeptical about the oft-heard claim that paul’s opponents, themselves late second temple period jews, were zealous missionaries. while we are given little information about them in the letter, the 56 shaye j. d. cohen, "adolph harnack's 'the mission and expansion of judaism': christianity succeeds where judaism fails," in the future of early christianity: essays in honor of helmut koester, ed. birger a. pearson (minneapolis: fortress, 1991): 163-69 (166). see also mcknight, light; shaye j. d. cohen, "was judaism in antiquity a missionary religion?," in jewish assimilation acculturation and accommodation: past traditions current issues and future prospects, ed. menachem mor (lanham, md: university press of america, 1992): 14-23; martin goodman, "jewish proselytizing in the first century," in the jews among pagans and christians in the roman empire, ed. judith lieu, john north, and tessa rajak (london and new york: routledge, 1992): 53-78; goodman, mission. almost complete lack of evidence that contemporaneous jews sought to convince gentiles to become jews and to join jewish communities is difficult to reconcile with scholars’ frequent attributions of such behavior to the teachers. this consensus, as noted, is relatively recent. many, perhaps most scholars long believed that judaism in the late second temple period was a vigorous missionary religion.57 however, this has been decisively challenged. there is now broad opposition to claims that jews ever engaged in a proselytic mission. mcknight writes, “second temple judaism was largely unconcerned with missionary activity…it was not a missionary religion, even though conversion did take place.”58 this 57 see for example works by prominent scholars such as joachim jeremias, jesus' promise to the nations (london: scm, 1967), 11-17; george foot moore, judaism in the first centuries of the christian era, 2 vols. (new york: schocken, 1971), 1:323-53; dieter georgi, the opponents of paul in second corinthians (philadelphia: fortress, 1986), 96-112. a recent, more nuanced attempt to defend judaism as a missionary religion was made by james carleton paget, "jewish proselytism at the time of christian origins: chimera or reality?," journal for the study of the new testament 62 (1996): 65-103. his claims are critiqued in riesner, "a pre-christian jewish mission?," (217-48); james ware, the mission of the church in paul’s letter to the philippians in the context of ancient judaism (leiden: e. j. brill, 2005), 27. 58 mcknight, light, 7. in addition to the works by cohen, goodman, and mcknight mentioned above, see a. thomas kraabel, "the roman diaspora: six questionable assumptions," journal of jewish studies 33 (1982): 445-64; a. thomas kraabel, "immigrants, exiles, expatriates, and missionaries," in religious propaganda and missionary competition in the new testament world: essays honoring dieter georgi, ed. lukas bormann, kelly del tredici, and angela standhartinger (leiden: e. j. brill, 1994): 71-88; riesner, "a prechristian jewish mission?."; paula fredriksen and oded irshai, "christian anti-judaism: polemics and policies," in the cambridge history of judaism: the later roman-rabbinic period, ed. steven t. katz, 4 vols., vol. 4 (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2006): 977-1034 (990-93). we should exclude the well-known example of the hasmoneans’ supposedly forcible conversion of the idumaeans in the late second century bce as a largely political and military event unrelated to this topic; see richard horsley, gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 alternative claim reflects more sophisticated and precise investigations into jewish attitudes toward and relations with gentiles. i want to summarize these findings, rather than make the argument again from the primary sources, for it has been made repeatedly by others. there is not unanimity among scholars on all details, though the general conclusions are clear and persuasive.59 as is well known, jews and gentiles interacted extensively, especially in the diaspora, and gentiles were often curious about judaism. gentiles attended the synagogue and other religious gatherings. some jews were gladdened by their presence, whether for social, theological, or other reasons. however, activities and attitudes that formerly were cited as evidence for jewish proselytism are now explained differently. for example, while presentations of judaism in positive or generic moral terms may have been appealing to non-jews, they are much more easily explained as written for a jewish audience and need say nothing about a desire or actions to convert gentiles. expressions of eagerness to have gentiles recognize the superiority of the god of israel likewise say nothing about efforts taken to bring this about, or reflect anything other than idealistic yearnings. one could more easily imagine that these were meant to encourage jews to be faithful to their own god or to feel pride in their own traditions. even if such exhortations were intended to persuade gentiles, there are major differences in both motivations and in practical implications between encouraging praise of god and a proselytizing mission that demands that gentiles undergo circumcision. galilee: history, politics, people (valley forge, pa: trinity press international, 1995), 42-52. 59 on the possible exceptions, mcknight says that they are “too scarce and scattered to be considered a commonplace in judaism…the significant data can be reduced to about a handful,” in mcknight, light, 75. while the former is plausible, we lack specific evidence of the latter.60 theoretically, many jewish texts written in greek were accessible to non-jews and could have been intended for missionary activity and outreach. however, at a time before mass production of books, it is highly doubtful that non-jews read them, or could understand the biblical allusions or religious ideas in them if they did.61 such texts reveal nothing about missionary motivations among jews, besides perhaps pious hopes for some change of heart amongst gentiles. some scholars speculated about the dramatic growth in the number of jews in this period and said this could only be the result of proselytism. this claim is undermined by the lack of any clear connection between such growth and proselytism, or even evidence of unusual rates of growth at all.62 in contrast to assumptions about intense jewish interest in proselytism, a more nuanced understanding of the sources now leads scholars to differentiate between a wide range of behaviors and views and actual missionary activity. goodman, for example, helpfully separates the desire to undertake “a mis 60 donaldson, judaism and the gentiles, 489. 61 an early, skeptical view of the proselytic function of jewish literature is victor tcherikover, "jewish apologetic literature reconsidered," eos 48 (1956): 169-93. more recently, see goodman, mission, 3-7; john barclay, "apologetics in the jewish diaspora," in jews in the hellenistic and roman cities, ed. john r. bartlett (london: routledge, 2002): 129-48. 62 see georgi, opponents of paul, 84; louis feldman, jew and gentile in the ancient world: attitudes and interactions from alexander to justinian (princeton: princeton university press, 1993), 293. needless to say, we do not have reliable population figures for this period; see brian mcging, "population and proselytism: how many jews were there in the ancient world?," in jews in the hellenistic and roman cities, ed. john r. bartlett (london: routledge, 2002): 88-106. gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 sion to win converts” from other attitudes that may appear similar but lack this key motivation. he finds evidence for “informa tive” missions (a desire to share general information without altering others’ behavior); “educational” missions (a desire to influence others’ behavior without expecting that they would take on a new belief system); and “apologetic” missions (a desire to convince others to recognize one’s own deity without devoting themselves to that deity’s worship or joining the community of that deity’s followers). “proselytic” missions, on the other hand, would reflect an entirely different motivation: to bring outsiders into one’s religious community in the present.63 similarly, mcknight highlights the issue of intentionality. in particular, he notes the difference between a self-conscious commitment to missionary activity and behavior that may make judaism attractive to gentiles without seeking to bring them into the jewish community. mission can only be “behavior that intends to evangelize nonmembers so that these nonmembers will convert to the religion.”64 activity that incidentally or unintentionally leads to this result, while perhaps informative about jewish relations with gentiles, is nonetheless largely irrelevant to the topic of mission. surveying the second temple sources, both scholars doubt that jews in this period intentionally sought converts. theological beliefs about the gentiles undergird this discussion of mission. scholars even doubt that jews had any theological motivation to convert gentiles to judaism. goodman writes, “[i]t is hard to see why [jews] should have thought 63 goodman, mission, 3-4. 64 mcknight, light, 4-5. his use of the term “evangelize” is inappropriate for the discussion of non-christian proselytism, but his point is clear. also, in an important recent article, riesner argues that “there is ‘no single item of conclusive evidence’ for jewish missionary activity among the gentiles,” in riesner, "a pre-christian jewish mission?," (249). he quotes feldman, jew and gentile, 293. good gentiles needed to become jews to win divine approval.” most jews simply did not believe that was necessary.65 jewish views of the fate of the gentiles are directly relevant to the question of whether any jews thought converting them was a worthwhile endeavor. many believed that some or even most gentiles could be “saved” at the end of days without needing to convert to judaism. such a so-called positive perspective appears often in jewish documents, in expectations and even hopes that god will be favorable to (righteous) non-jews as well.66 this vitiates any motivation to presently seek to convert gentiles to judaism. if gentiles could look forward to a divine reward comparable to that of the jews, there is no reason for any jew to strive to convince them to change their current religious beliefs and practices, let alone undergo circumcision (if male) and take on torah observance.67 yet while common, this is not the only view. negative expectations about the inevitable doom and destruction of the gentiles also can be found. some jews denounced all gentiles. they had no hope that non-jews ever might be acceptable to god or eligible for conversion. these views were often present in the writings of those who were most hostile to gentiles in general because of their supposed immorality and idolatry.68 65 goodman, mission, 169; also, 61. 66 collins, "symbol of otherness," (169); terence l. donaldson, "proselytes or righteous gentiles? the status of gentiles in eschatological pilgrimage patterns of thought," journal for the study of the pseudepigrapha 7 (1990): 3-27; fredriksen, "judaism."; donaldson, judaism and the gentiles, 499-505. 67 paula fredriksen has noted the frequency of the view that gentiles can be saved as gentiles, in fredriksen, "judaism," (546-48). see also goodman, mission, 132. some jews did expect that gentiles needed to give up idolatry to be considered righteous gentiles, at least at the end of days; e.g., tob 13:11; 14:5-6; sir 36:11-17. 68 e.g., jubilees 15:26; pseudo-philo, biblical antiquities 11:1-2; apocalypse of abraham 22:4; see donaldson, judaism and the gentiles, 510. gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 the roots of both of these views (and there are more in between) lie in prophetic passages about the gentiles in the hebrew bible,69 which were then further developed and nuanced over time, especially as jews moved into majoritygentile cities and regions. despite differences in both the positive and negative scenarios, there is a predictable lack of interest in actively seeking to bring gentiles into the jewish community not as sympathetic visitors or outsiders but as converts to judaism. this is a common feature along the entire spectrum of views of gentiles. on the one hand, for those with positive views of gentile salvation, such efforts would be excessive and unnecessary. on the other hand, for those with negative views of gentile salvation, and typically negative views of gentiles generally, such efforts likely would be denounced as a waste of time. fredriksen’s statement applies to both scenarios: “judaism had little reason, ideologically or theologically, to solicit converts.”70 these findings need to be kept in mind when studying the teachers, for jews’ overall lack of interest in missionary activity suggests that the teachers’ demand for circumcision also reflects something other than missionary motivation. a far more likely explanation has already been mentioned: potential members of a jewish religious movement were expected to take on observance of the torah, with the demand for circumcision as the first step. there is nothing especially zealous or even unusual about this demand, nor does it necessarily reveal anything about proselytism. circumcision was widely accepted as an entrance ritual to judaism, and the insistence that gentiles who sought to join the community go through it is typical. 69 see the list of passages in sanders, jesus and judaism, 214-18. 70 fredriksen, "judaism,” (540). 5. the evidence of galatians a. the crux of the conflict: the teachers challenge paul’s views of circumcision and torah as noted, there has long been intense scholarly interest in paul’s galatian opponents. many have sought to recon struct as much as possible about them, especially their precise identity and whether they had a connection with opponents in other places.71 while these are important topics for pauline studies generally, for my investigation into their motivations i address only briefly the murky issues related to the difficult topic of their identity. in my review of the scholarship, i have focused on one topic, their demand for circumcision, and its supposed connection to missionary activity. when turning to the letter itself, my focus remains on what is relevant to this topic, for which it is important to note my agreement with the scholarly consensus that they are jewish christians, committed to observance of the torah.72 above all, they seemed to have focused on circumcision in their preaching, though they probably expected the gentiles to follow the entire corpus of biblical commandments (4:10). 71 j. gunther provides a schematic list of dozens of scholarly opinions through 1973, in john j. gunther, st. paul’s opponents and their background: a study of apocalyptic and jewish sectarian teachings (leiden: e. j. brill, 1973), 1-6. since then, more scholars have offered their own views; see matera, galatians, 2-6. 72 i use the term “jewish christian” in a relatively limited sense for jews who believe in jesus as the christ while affirming the binding authority of the torah and its commandments, just like other non-christian jews who esteemed such observance (of rules for food, worship, circumcision, etc.) a religious requirement. needless to say, there is much scholarly disagreement about so-called “jewish christianity”; see the essays in matthew jacksonmccabe, ed., jewish christianity reconsidered: rethinking ancient groups and texts (minneapolis: fortress, 2007). gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 i believe it is most likely that they were well-known to the galatians. paul does not use their names, but refers to them dismissively as “those” ones (5:12; 6:12). to his dismay, many welcomed them. this is relevant because their demand is more easily explained if they came from the same region or community. presumably they had some standing to intervene, even if they represented a different faction in the same community. their local origins would explain why they have any concern for this congregation, and specifically for the observance of commandments of the torah. this is precisely the type of concern that would most often arise among those who knew each other, especially if they were already worshiping together. even if paul’s church was a majority-gentile church (the actual constituency is unknown), there was likely diversity in other local churches, including jewish christians.73 while some, as noted above, have argued that the teachers were outsiders, especially if they were connected with the community in jerusalem, there is no clear evidence for this.74 on the contrary, we should not presume they are distant interlopers and meddlers. paul never makes this charge, which we might expect were it true. claims about their distant origins indirectly buttress the hypothesis i am challenging, that they are competing missionaries who range widely through the region much like paul with their own message of salvation for the gentiles. 73 paul makes references to multiple churches in a region elsewhere; e.g., 1 cor 16:1; 2 cor 8:1. unfortunately, we know little about the presence of jews in asia minor in this period, though inscriptions reveal their presence in the second and third centuries. this is another complication to studies of galatians, in addition to the well-known obscurities about the specific location of the congregation; see schürer, the history of the jewish people in the age of jesus christ (175 b.c.-135 a.d.), 3:1:17-36; betz, galatians, 4-5; martyn, galatians, 16. 74 jewett, "the agitators,” (204); martyn, galatians, 120; howard, crisis in galatia, 2. compare joseph b. tyson, "paul's opponents in galatia," novum testamentum 10 (1968): 241-54 (252). to understand the teachers’ message, we must next turn to the scanty information paul provides about the history of his relationship with the church. as background, we learn that he founded the community, and he addresses its members as “children” (4:19). he recalls his initial meeting, and the warm welcome he received (4:13-14). paul expected that the gentile believers would remain faithful to his message. they were “running well,” for they affirmed his teachings as true (5:7). this original message he boldly calls “the gospel of christ,” which is his preaching as they first received it (1:7). the history of the community is seen as a series of stages along a religious journey. the gentiles first were pagans, and then went on to believe in his circumcision-free gospel (4:8-9). however, since his founding of the church, others (the teachers) began to present a different message. this is a disruptive step and provokes paul’s angry letter. i want to emphasize a key feature of this brief historical reconstruction, the teachers’ reactive role. as jewish christians, it is highly likely that their message is a targeted response to one problematic aspect of paul’s missionary preaching, his acceptance of unconverted, non-torah observant gentiles, and not a competing missionary endeavor. this is an important distinction, for it affects our understanding of their motivations. we do not know how much time has passed between paul’s original appearance and their intervention, or between their intervention and paul’s letter, but the order of events is clear. the teachers presented their views to gentiles who had already heard paul preach about christ and against circumcision. this latter issue dominates paul’s letter, and likely prompted their intervention in the first place. we cannot ascertain how the teachers learned of paul’s views, though his opposition to gentile observance of gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 the torah was controversial.75 this was not the sole reason paul was challenged by others, but it was undoubtedly a prominent and recurring source of contention, and likely prompted the teachers’ involvement here too. interestingly, paul’s expression of astonishment (1:6) suggests he was taken by surprise. while it is certain that the teachers initiated the conflict with their demands, paul might have expected problems. in fact, he tells us in this same letter that elsewhere he was enmeshed in heated disputes over observance of the torah. jewish believers opposed him, both directly and indirectly, presumably in response to what they had heard (2:4, 12). the specific topics of the disputes are murky and may have varied from circumcision to food laws, but the general issues of torah observance and the pattern of opposition are clear. these other believers, including church leaders, upon becoming aware of paul’s teachings, obstructed and opposed him. like the teachers, they seem to have responded to parts of his message they rejected. paul’s lack of attention to other issues in the letter reveals that the range of the galatian dispute was strictly limited to this issue to which the teachers were responding. this is important for understanding their motives for intervening. they focused on circumcision alone, which was preeminently a marker of jewish religious and social identity and, for gentiles, a ritual for those seeking entry into the jewish community. paul had surely touched on many topics when he originally preached the gospel, but in this letter, he focuses on these topics of circumcision and the torah almost exclusively. nearly every statement he makes, even on seemingly tangential issues, buttresses his rejection of the requirement that gentiles observe the torah, precisely what the teachers showed 75 though luedemann’s theory of a unified anti-pauline front appearing in multiple places is questionable, his survey of the relevant sources on opposition to paul is helpful; see gerd luedemann, opposition to paul in jewish christianity, trans. m. eugene boring (minneapolis: fortress, 1989). up and demanded. there seem not to have been other, broader issues at stake, supporting my focus on the prominence of this religious ritual for the teachers and paul (though for different reasons; see below). i can illustrate the centrality of this issue of the observance of the torah by looking, for example, at paul’s autobiographical statements about both his pre-christian and christian periods. from these we can glean that paul and the teachers were engaged in a tightly circumscribed dispute. when he recounts how far he “advanced in judaism” before god revealed christ to him, he wants to support a specific claim: his critique of the jewish christians’ interpretation of the torah is legitimate (1:13-14). he is aware of an apparent paradox of his present position, as a formerly zealous jew preaching against circumcision (in this case, to gentiles). he therefore justifies this by appealing to his knowledge of and formerly exceptional devotion to the torah, encapsulated in the phrase “i was…zealous for the traditions of my ancestors.”76 in another autobiographical statement, paul links his apostolate to a divine call (1:1, 11-12, 15-20). it was received from god, not from other humans. while his opponents were probably questioning the legitimacy and origins of his call, their attack must be seen in the specific context of the intense dispute regarding his gentile mission. paul’s response should be read not as a general defense of his apostolic legitimacy per se but rather of his missionary message and method. the stress in his claim that god directly charged him to proclaim the gospel to the gentiles should be placed not on ‘god’ but on ‘the gospel to the gentiles’. while both are integral parts of his missionary self-understanding, it is the message to the gentiles that was controversial and provoked the teachers’ opposition. he therefore emphasizes in his defense the reason for his call in the first place—“that i might proclaim [jesus christ] among 76 cf. phil 3:1-9. gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 18 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 the gentiles”—and the divine origins of his opposition to circumcision (1:16). the roots of the gentile mission and message go back to god, who charged him with a unique task. again, this is autobiography for a polemical purpose on a contentious issue.77 the same singular focus on the issue of torah observance can be discerned in another section. in 5:16-26, paul offers ethical guidance regarding proper behavior toward other believers and god. this section also has a specific function in the argument of the letter, as part of his defense of his opposition to gentile circumcision. he offers a stark dichotomy relevant to his critique of the teachers’ demands: one should live a life in “the spirit” rather than a life “subject to the law” (5:1618).78 on the one hand, paul repeatedly lays out the challenges that believers face. he praises right conduct (avoidance of sexual misdeeds, contentiousness, drunkenness, etc.) and insists they avoid desires of the flesh, which, predictably, are linked with all sorts of immoral acts (5:16, 17, 18, 22). on the other hand, he does not focus solely on ethical behavior, but, not surprisingly, includes a polemic against observance of the commandments of the torah. he offers a contrast meant to highlight its irrelevance: “but if you are led by the spirit, you are not subject to the law” (5:18). sins, he says, can be overcome without a need to observe the biblical commandments.79 more radically, in a related section a bit later paul sharpens this antinomy of spirit and flesh by subsuming under the latter the ritual of circumcision. recalling this earlier denunciation in 5:16-26 of immoral deeds in the flesh, he says that those who demand this ritual from the torah want to “make a good 77 luedemann, opposition to paul, 98. 78 on paul’s ethics in galatians 5-6, see barclay, obeying the truth. also, see john barclay, "mirror-reading a polemical letter: galatians as a test case," journal for the study of the new testament 31 (1987): 73-93 (87). 79 see matera, galatians, 207-11. showing in the flesh” (6:12-13). circumcision is thereby linked to the dreadful ‘fleshy’ behaviors listed in 5:19-21. life in the flesh is marked not only by hateful, antisocial, and unrestrained acts, but by circumcision as well. when faced with the requirements to observe the commandment, believers must make a choice between faithfulness to the spirit or observance of the torah.80 paul therefore connects right conduct—the ostensible focus of 5:16-26—with the main polemical point of the letter. circumcision, here as elsewhere, is the pitfall to be avoided, only in this case on ethical grounds. “the last two chapters of galatians presuppose the same polemical situation as the first four.”81 nonetheless, by pointing out this connection, i do not want to deny any inherent significance to paul’s portrait of a spiritual and moral life. such guidance is a feature of paul’s letters.82 however, i do want to emphasize the dominant polemical function of this section as well, for it reveals paul’s (and the teachers’) consistent focus on this one divisive issue. furthermore, paul’s focus on this issue not only reveals its centrality to the dispute, but also suggests a high level of agreement with the teachers on many other issues that, while presumably important, go unmentioned. for example, on the basic conviction that gentile believers must forsake all the other (false) gods they previously worshiped, paul and the teachers held the same position. both naturally shared a traditional jewish abhorrence of paganism.83 this too confirms my claim that the disagreement is quite limited in scope, and should caution readers against assuming much about the teachers beyond their concern for this one topic. paul grudg 80 cf. 3:2-3. 81 sanders, pljp, 49. 82 cf. rom 13:13-14; 2 cor 12:20-21; eph 5:2-6:9, if authentic. 83 e.g., 4:8; see paula fredriksen, augustine and the jews: a christian defense of jews and judaism (new york: doubleday, 2008), 37. gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 19 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 ingly admits that the teachers, as fellow christians, offer “another gospel” (1:6). they seem not to have had much to say about christ, at least not in any way that provokes paul. their views were probably irrelevant or uncontroversial compared to the one pressing and contentious issue of circumcision. in fact, paul’s few christological statements either dir ectly reflect this dispute over the torah, or seem to be entirely straightforward and not contentious. in the first category is a statement such as, “may i never boast of anything except the cross of our lord jesus christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and i to the world” (6:14). this christological statement is a direct critique of those who (he says in the previous verse) supposedly “boast about the flesh” because they convince others to be circumcised (i.e. in “the flesh”) (6:13). paul sets up an implied contrast in which all other forms of boasting, namely, about the torah, are said to vitiate the religious significance of the cross. similarly, we find a christological summary in 4:4-6 that buttresses his argument against the need for circumcision. he writes, “god sent his son, born of a woman, born under the law in order to redeem those who were under the law.” those who would put themselves “under the law” by accepting circumcision would in essence be reversing the process that christ (or, better, paul in his original preaching) first began. elsewhere, the same holds true for those who would symbolically be “crucified with christ” so that christ “lives in [the believer]” (2:19-21). though christ “loved” the believer and “gave himself” for the believer, his death—what paul calls “justification”—is useless if one would observe the torah. the believer must choose one or the other option, “for if justification comes through the law, then christ died for nothing.”84 84 other relevant passages include 3:13-14, 27-29. by contrast, the few other christological statements are not controversial and hint at broad agreement. this is a topic paul largely ignores in this letter unless directly linked with this dispute.85 amazingly, paul only once refers to jesus’ resurrection, at 1:1, in a statement that is formulaic and probably doxological.86 in fact, given his singular focus, paul and his opponents probably agreed about much, including christology. in sociological terms, paul’s intense opposition reflects, on the one hand, just how close the two groups are on many issues, which go unmentioned because of this agreement. on the other hand, their disagreement over the one issue of circumcision was highly contentious and threatening, precisely because the two sides were otherwise so similar.87 again, the scope of the conflict is quite limited. to summarize, we can establish the main and perhaps only issue of contention, and otherwise speculate that there were broad areas of agreement about other fundamental issues. the dispute revolves around the commandment of circumcision in the torah. paul’s teachings provoked the teachers’ intervention, to which paul then responded. while paul, as noted, does raise a variety of issues (such as his call and ethical behavior), this one issue not only dominates the discussion (and provokes repeated angry outbursts [1:6; 3:1-4; 5:12]), but is almost always connected to every other issue. it is therefore reasonable to assume that these other issues were not directly raised by the teachers but by paul himself as he worked through his main argument and only touched upon them in passing. 85 e.g., 1:3; 3:13-14; 6:18. 86 martyn, galatians, 85. 87 this reflects theories about the intensity of social conflict between otherwise similar groups developed by lewis coser, the functions of social conflict (new york: free press, 1956). gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 20 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 b. salvation vs. inclusion: disagreement over what was at stake in the conflict importantly, we should not assume that the teachers’ views on circumcision and torah observance were mirror images of paul’s own. paul of course is vitriolically antagonistic to them. it is highly likely they have a negative view of his teachings about circumcision, but we have no reason to think they agreed with him about what was at stake in the conflict.88 it is simplistic to assume that they rejected what he affirmed and vice-versa with an equal level of intensity and concern. on the contrary, i believe it is far more likely that this issue had an entirely different theological significance for them. while paul saw the demand for circumcision as a profound challenge to his mission to save the gentiles without requiring circumcision, the teachers’ demand is prompted by other concerns, unrelated to soteriology. their motivation is like that of other jews who expected that those who claimed membership in a jewish religious community live like jews, accepting circumcision and obeying the torah. i therefore want to highlight some of paul’s statements about the importance of the dispute, and argue that these reflect paul’s distinctive priorities, which do not similarly apply to his opponents.89 88 barclay, obeying the truth, 40. barclay’s valuable guidance about gleaning information about paul’s opponents from his letters is relevant here as well; see barclay, "mirror-reading." 89 heiki raisanen, in a creative and controversial interpretation of paul’s view of the law, has helpfully sharpened an observation made by others, that paul’s concerns are not necessarily those of his antagonists. in particular, paul sometimes envisions a major dispute over soteriology where his opponents might not have seen anything similar at stake. he writes, “his understanding of his opponents’ position [in antioch and jerusalem] was probably different from theirs. the same was probably true of the galatian situation,” in heikki raisanen, paul and the law (tubingen: j. c. b. mohr (paul siebeck), 1983), 260. one cannot overstate how seriously paul takes the threat posed by the teachers. his highest goal, as missionary to the gentiles, was to ensure that they be brought to and remain “in christ” (2:17; 3:26-28; 5:6).90 these new believers were formerly “imprisoned…under the power of sin” but have now, through faith alone, become “children of god” (3:22-26) and “children of the promise” (4:28). this was achieved through their positive responses to paul’s preaching and marks a profound soteriological shift. gentiles who were cut off from god now “know god” and “are known by god” (4:1-9). furthermore, this change in status is manifest presently and immediately through membership in the church (1:2). the group of believers, metaphorically called the “family of faith” (6:10), is an actual gathering of men and women who came together to hear paul preach (3:1-5). he uses intimate family language (“brothers and sisters” [1:11; 3:15; 5:13; 6:18]) to emphasize that he sees them as equal members of the community.91 paul is terribly anxious over the possibility that they will not all (continue to) be welcome in the community if circumcision is obligatory.92 he therefore sees the teachers’ demands as a direct threat to their salvation, for he believes that the terms they propose for inclusion (circumcision) are mutually exclusive from his own (faith in christ alone). that is, the teachers’ terms will divide the community as some accept and others reject them, so that some, even among those who believe in christ, will get left outside the church, “membership in which provides salvation.”93 putting this in starkest terms, he inverts this (perceived) threat and says that those who disagree with him and are circumcised lose the salvation offered to those who rely on faith alone (5:2-5). if they follow the teachers, they 90 see sanders, pljp, 143. 91 see paul s. minear, images of the church in the new testament, ed. leander e. keck (louisville: westminster john knox, 2004), 169-72. 92 sanders, pljp, 47-48. 93 sanders, ppj, 513. gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 21 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 will “cut themselves off from christ” and “fall away from grace” (5:4). these emphases—on church unity, on faith alone, on not imperiling one’s salvation—are distinctly pauline. he had already seen the community in antioch be divided. justification in christ was put at risk (2:12-16). it caused him pain and anger even to remember it. this type of threat clashed with his entire missionary project, to lead gentiles away from idolatry, into the church, and into a covenant with god. yet there is no reason to suppose that the teachers shared the same ends and only differed with paul on the means. rather, their demand for circumcision reflects a much more limited goal. they directed this traditional jewish requirement to those who were already members of the church. they do not begin at the same place as paul, with unconverted gentiles cut off from god and salvation, but with those who have previously come to believe in christ. i suggest that they saw the omission of circumcision as unacceptable, but not because without it the gentiles are cut off from salvation. while paul thinks in either/or terms (i.e., believers must choose either circumcision or salvation), they react to a more immediate problem, the mixed composition of the community. this is the situation they face, and it likely reflects nothing about their views of gentile salvation. that is, we have no reason to posit the converse of paul’s either/or views, as if they thought believers must choose between no circumcision and salvation. to put this in terms of torah observance, paul sees the commandment of circumcision and belief in christ as mutually exclusive ways of belonging to the community. the believer must choose one or the other. by admitting unconverted gentiles, paul has “redraw[n] the group boundary; the primary boundary is no longer drawn in relation to the covenant with moses, but in relation to being ‘in christ’.”94 the teachers may also hope that gentiles remain in christ, but their concern was not put in either/or terms. rather, it is limited in scope and a direct response to paul’s preaching against circumcision. they aim to establish the group’s boundaries according to the commands of “the covenant of moses” as they understand them. paul’s statement of the teachers’ supposed threat in 4:17—“they want to exclude you”—can be used to illustrate two interpretations of the conflict: as paul saw it and as they saw it. in the first and less likely interpretation, we could imagine that the teachers were offering a positive option, missionizing to gentiles in hopes of bringing them to salvation, only on their nomistic terms. their concern would then be, like paul’s, gentile salvation.95 they therefore insist on circumcision, and, as paul puts it negatively, threaten to “exclude” gentiles who refuse from the church and from salvation. in short, they offer an exclusivist soteriology. the second and more likely interpretation need not reflect this dichotomous concern with gentile salvation at all. even if paul is correct, that they threatened to “exclude” uncircumcised gentiles from the community, or, put positively, offered gentiles a way of remaining in the community through circumcision, it does not follow that they were motivated by a desire to save gentiles. rather, they had requirements for membership they thought all believers should follow that align precisely with those of other jews. addressing a group of unconverted gentiles who were told by paul to see themselves as full-fledged members of the community (“brothers and sisters”), they responded with this requirement in order to delineate the traditional boundaries of a jewish community, namely, circumcision and torah observance. their threats of exclusion 94 sumney, "paul," (69). 95 see martyn, galatians, 124, 423. gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 22 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 were therefore motivated by a concern to see that these continue to be honored. in simplest terms, the pauline link between circumcision and salvation is different from the teachers’ link between circumcision and membership/inclusion. just because paul worries about how gentiles can or cannot be saved does not mean that the teachers did as well. and if they did not, we should not then assign them any broader goal than seeing to it that those who claimed membership in an originally all-jewish movement are or become jews. similarly, the language of necessity in 6:12—the teachers “compel you to be circumcised”—might be read according to two interpretations. the first is through a pauline lens: seeing circumcision as necessary for salvation, the teachers zealously brought their nomistic message to gentiles.96 while paul, in this verse, impugns their motives by suggesting they do this out of fear or vainglory, we know, from similar uses of the same term anagkazo (to compel) in 2:3 and 2:14, that it can refer to broader theological motivations beyond these base motivations. that is, as a direct contrast to paul’s claims, jewish christians, the logic goes, insist that a person is “justified” (to use paul’s standard in 2:16) through circumcision. it is another, equally obligatory route to the same goal that paul seeks, and, the argument goes, furnishes a motivation for proselytism.97 on the other hand, i believe that their insistence on the necessity of circumcision in 6:12 does not at all prove that they were focused on bringing gentiles to salvation through belief in christ and observance of the torah. their concern was likely limited to an insistence that those who were presently in the community and hoped to remain so undergo this membership ritual. this may have been a stern demand, without a hint of 96 for this view, see bruce, galatians, 269; witherington, acts, 450. 97 martyn, galatians, 561. see also jewett, "the agitators," (200). compromise, but nonetheless it was not necessarily related to the missionary motivations paul offers for making his demands.98 in fact, we do not know what they thought about the salvation of the gentiles; perhaps they even believed that some could be saved regardless of their observance of the torah.99 all we know is that they said that membership in the community depends on circumcision, and we should not thereby blur the categories of membership and salvation. paul’s references to the necessity to observe all the biblical commandments if one undergoes circumcision (at 5:3) reinforce the point that the teachers demanded not just circumcision but faithfulness to torah generally. circumcision was an entry ritual to judaism, and a step on the path to complete integration into the community. it therefore receives the bulk of his and presumably their attention, with observance of the rest of the commandments to follow. we should expect nothing else from those who sought to shore up the traditional boundaries of the jewish community. that paul presents the linkage between circumcision and the “entire law” as if the galatians were not yet aware of what else was expected of them is not proof that the teachers demanded circumcision alone or assigned this commandment a higher status than any other.100 rather, paul, with his language of obligation (the be 98 it is difficult to reconstruct the circumstances behind paul’s enigmatic statement at 6:12 that they also demanded circumcision out of fear of persecution, though this is obviously meant to undermine their sincerity. perhaps paul has in mind pressure from other jews who looked unfavorably on acceptance of uncircumcised gentiles as full members of an all-jewish movement, as jewett among others suggests. 99 their views would then be similar to the views of many other (nonchristian) jews, who, as noted above, did not insist that gentiles become jews to be saved. 100 the questionable claim that the teachers emphasized circumcision but not torah observance generally is defended by jewett, "the agitators," (20708); walter schmithals, paul and the gnostics, trans. john e. steely (nashville: abingdon, 1972), 13. gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 23 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): gregerman 1-24 liever “is obliged to obey”), here reveals his own opposition to observance by telling the galatians that the teachers’ demands are onerous.101 this is a plank in his broader opposition to torah observance as a threat to salvation. the tone of surprise hints at his own disbelief that others would consider it, not only because of the difficulty (actually, this is a peripheral issue) but, of course, because it threatens salvation as paul understands it. however, the teachers’ demand is entirely predictable and neatly fits our expectations of late second temple jews. 6. conclusion we are fortunate to possess extensive sources about jewish life in the late second temple period, especially in the diaspora. i have emphasized the importance of correctly situating the teachers in their jewish context, and hope to have shown that, despite the scanty information about them provided by paul, we can responsibly reconstruct their motives. while some scholars have considered this data, often there has been a lack of nuance in establishing the ways that the teachers are similar to and different from both paul and other (especially non-christian) jews. the dominant trend, which i have challenged, has been to see them as zealous missionaries to the gentiles like paul, but with the added requirement of torah observance. scholars’ arguments from jewish parallels are, however, often murky and even irrelevant. some emphasize continuity, focusing on other jews’ supposed interest in missionary activity, while others emphasize discontinuity, focusing on the teachers’ supposed distinctly christian zeal for gentile conversion. in analyzing their concerns and motivations, i have largely stressed the continuities between the teachers and other (non-christian) jews in arguing that they were not zealous missionaries, eager to bring salvation to the gentiles. this should not obscure what may have been distinctive about them. judging from paul’s letter, they seem to have been especially vocal about the necessity of circumcision, perhaps more than other non-christian jews. the latter seem to have been largely content to permit non-jews to attend their religious gatherings, and yet refrained from issuing any demands to these visitors beyond, say, not bringing in non-kosher food. by contrast, we might imagine that a young church or group of churches, increasingly filled with gentiles, was marked by a high level of closeness and intimacy, so that fellow jewish christians such as the teachers did not simply see gentile believers as outsiders, but as partial insiders already. paul had undoubtedly fostered a sense of cohesion and belonging, and the teachers then responded not with indifference but with the demand that membership in a jewish movement requires circumcision (for men) and observance of the torah. this does not, however, make them paul-like missionaries, for as founder of the community he, not they, had taken the first, dramatic step in preaching about christ to them. in this regard, as in so many others, paul may have been unique, and he should not therefore be the model for reconstructing the motives of other jewish christians. 101 cf. acts 15:10, which, in contrast to paul, does say that the commandments are impossible. 102 102 on his remarkable missionary zeal, cf. 1 cor 9:16-23. see also samuel sandmel, the first christian century in judaism and christianity: certainties and uncertainties (new york: oxford university press, 1969), 21-22. gregerman, lack of evidence for a countermission in galatia gregerman 24 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): baird r1-2 putnam and campbell, american grace baird r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr robert putnam and david campbell american grace: how religion divides and unites us (new york: simon and schuster, 2010), hardcover, 673 pp. justus nathan baird, auburn seminary robert putnam and david campbell's american grace is likely familiar to readers of this journal. it has been reviewed widely, by the new york times, wall street journal, and many religious and academic publications and journals. this review focuses on the longer-term implications of american grace on jewish-christian relations in america. among the book’s many findings that observers of jewish-christian relations will surely want to consider, three stand out to this reviewer: (1) the theological gap between clergy and laity; (2) increasing rates of and acceptance of religious intermarriage; and (3) the measurable impact of having acquaintances from different faith communities. putnam and campbell's research is overwhelmingly focused on “views from the pews,” that is, on the religious beliefs of the members of religious communities rather than of the clergy (p. 33). but in the final chapter of the book, the authors consider the remarkable "ecumenism" of americans’ views of salvation by contrasting it with the beliefs of religious leaders. in significant majorities, american christians told researchers that they believe non-christians can achieve salvation. for example, 65% of evangelical protestants, 69% of black protestants, 82% of mainline protestants, 89% of catholics, and 100% of mormons surveyed said that salvation extends to non-christians (p. 536). by contrast, most christian clergy agreed with the statement that "there is no way to salvation but through belief in jesus christ." a majority of clergy from mainline denominations such as the presbyterian church, usa (57%), united methodist church (59%), and the evangelical lutheran church in american (63%), and very strong majorities of clergy from evangelical and black protestant denominations such as the southern baptist convention (97%), lutheran churchmissouri synod (98%), african methodist episcopal church (98%), presbyterian church in america (100%), and church of god in christ (100%), agreed with that statement. clergy were "far more likely to see a single road to heaven" (p. 539). theological gaps between the pulpit and the pews are surely as old as religion itself. however, this particular gap is a stark reminder to those involved in jewish-christian dialogue to pay close attention to whom one is in dialogue with (clergy, lay people, or both), and to refrain from making generalizations about religious groups. the gap suggests that jewish-christian encounters may focus on different issues, depending on whether one is meeting with religious leaders or with laity. the data on intermarriage should spark another rich discussion between christians and jews. american grace puts intermarriage in its historical and multifaith context, providing a new review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): baird r1-2 putnam and campbell, american grace baird r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr lens through which to view intermarriage: "the available data point unambiguously toward a gradual but inexorable softening of the once impermeable social and cultural boundaries among america's various religious traditions. the best evidence suggests that roughly half of all married americans today are married to someone who came originally from a different religious tradition…and a bit fewer than one third of all marriages remain mixed today" (p. 148, emphasis in original). marriages in which one partner converts to his or her spouse’s tradition after the wedding, and those in which both partners convert to a third tradition, account for the gap between the number of ‘originally’ interfaith and currently interfaith marriages. since the first decade of the 20th century, when the national rate was 12%, intermarriage rates have steadily increased. this reflects both the actual rate of intermarriage and attitudes toward intermarriage: "in short, during the twentieth century both the norms governing religious intermarriage and actual marriage patterns moved toward greater interfaith openness and integration, as religiously insular generations were succeeded by their more open-minded children" (p. 153). curious readers may appreciate knowing that opposition to intermarriage is highest among mormons and jews (two-thirds oppose), somewhat strong among evangelicals and black protestants (a little more than half), moderate among catholics (a little more than 40%), and weak among mainline protestants (one-third or less). actual intermarriage rates are lowest among latino catholics and black protestants (less than 20%), and grow among mormons (one third), evangelicals, jews, "anglo" catholics, and mainline protestants (all above 50%). today there are many excellent institutions and support groups dedicated to serving interfaith families. but there does not appear to be a rich conversation between american jews and christians about how we deal with in-marriage and intermarriage. such an exchange could be interesting on many levels. we could ask each other whether we worry about, or celebrate, intermarriage. we could discuss how we are both facing the same american context in our struggle to maintain our traditions for generations to come. we could find out how well intermarried couples are integrated into our communities. we could explore the finding that as many as half of intermarriages become in-marriages over time. we could examine the argument in american grace that intermarriage is part of a pattern of intermingling that has reduced antisemitism in america. that last point about tolerance is a highlight of the book. to the extent that american grace has a thesis, it is that “interreligious mixing, mingling, and marrying have kept america’s religious melting pot from boiling over” (p. 548). putnam and campbell convincingly show that “our friends affect how we perceive the religious groups to which our friends belong.” veterans of jewishchristians relations likely will not be surprised by this conclusion. but when confronted with data that show that who we know changes our attitudes toward others from that group, must not we also ask how such relationships affect our theology, religious practices, and eventually, our traditions themselves? historically, relations between jews and christians have been marked by deep tension. american grace shows that we have entered an era in america that is decidedly different. how might this congenial context influence our patterns of belief and practice? in our generation, jews and christians have read scripture together, experienced each others’ traditions and beliefs in respectful ways, and even engaged in the difficult discussions, for example, about contentious topics such as the contemporary israeli-palestinian conflict. american grace, with its treasure trove of sociological data, promises to expand and deepen jewishchristian relations in new ways. scjr 13, no. 1 (2018): 1-3 eric c. smith jewish glass and christian stone: a materialist mapping of the “parting of the ways” (london and new york: routledge: taylor francis group; routledge studies in the early christian world, 2018), hardcover, xi + 168 pp. joshua schwartz schwaj.josh@gmail.com bar-ilan university, ramat gan, 5290002, israel “stuff matters,” and when it comes to religion, this “stuff” can often tell us just as much, if not more, than texts, creeds, beliefs, and arguments (p. 1). eric c. smith demonstrates this in his study of the emergence of judaism and christianity as separate but related (and intertwined) religions. he does this from a materialist perspective, examining some of the material and objects left behind from the formative years in which their religious social systems and identities developed. the book is comprised of two parts. the first part contains a methodological preface and three chapters that provide an overview of how jewish and christian identity has been understood in the past. he also offers a proposal for how to study the “parting of the ways” in materialist terms. the remaining seven chapters present case studies of particular objects (e.g., glass, clay, marble, and papyrus) using different theoretical frameworks, as smith wrestles with questions raised by a materialist approach to religious identity in this period. normally i would not comment on a preface (“introduction: the geographies of identity”). however, smith, after encouraging scholars to “be honest about who we are” (p. 2), offers a detailed discussion of his appalachian background and his personal spiritual journey. i found this to be overdone and mostly irrelevant to the academic discussions of the matter at hand. none of his discussion of “objectivity” and “bias” is necessary for a materialist account of formative judaism and christianity. chapter 1 (“mountains, valleys, and stones”), the first chapter of the overview, builds upon the epitaph of germanos, a young man who died in 550 ce in avdat, a town in the negev, and whose grave inscription had crosses and (possibly) a menorah. these two symbols, together with a seemingly unrelated text from a third-century ce anonymous christian author who understands judaism schwartz: eric c. smith’s jewish glass and christian stone 2 and christianity as two mountains separated by a valley, serve as the models for smith’s book. it is the valley, though, as a space where identity is “contested, intersectional and complicated” that is of most interest to the author (p. 7). chapter 2 (“mountains: the construction of world religions”) is about how “world religions” have been formed as scholarly categories, and the role of colonialism and imperialism in their construction. these categories are then used to study ancient jewish and christian religious identity. chapter 3 (“valleys: intersectional, material antiquity”) introduces the author’s ingredients of materialism: feminism, critical race theory, intersectionality, and hybridity, as resources for understanding the ways that identity might have been produced. while these, especially hybridity, might be important for a materialist understanding of early judaism and christianity, this reviewer was somewhat surprised at what was missing in his study of material culture: social archaeology and anthropology, and even the technology of ancient realia. “stuff” converses in these languages as well. chapter 4 (“glass: the identities of things”) begins the case studies. the author considers a gold glass from a roman catacomb and asks what it means to state that an object or a place is jewish or christian. he argues very persuasively against applying the category of syncretism and in favor of hybridity as a better way of understanding identities expressed by things. chapter 5 (“clay: the economics of belonging”) considers two oil lamps and a clay stamp seal, all of which display a juxtaposition of attributes of judaism and christianity. the author uses consumer theory to explain the connection of the consumers to the hybrid nature of the objects that they bought, which were likely produced by workers “agnostic about the symbolism” of the objects (p. 83). the hybrid, intersectional nature of the purchased objects represents the hybrid, intersectional religious nature of the purchaser. this seems to make much sense. the author, though, might have been aided by additional evidence available for the study of material culture. for example, we know of manufacturing centers in the galilee, and the quality and provenance of the products they produced, though this omission does not detract from his basic claim regarding the nature of the objects purchased and their meaning. chapter 6 (“marble: stories in stone”) discusses the famous marble statues of jonah depicting him in various poses, some with christian overtones. these are not the types of postures we would expect in light of the themes in the biblical book. the author uses these figures to examine how narrative texts find expression in material forms. smith sees these figures as reflecting hybridity, but in an extremely expansive form embodying haptic functions of touch realized when these figurines perhaps were carried and touched in funeral processions. touch is fairly common in christian ritual; haptic elements are less common in judaism, even in its proposed hybrid form. this interesting point warrants further examination. chapter 7 (“paint: the hollowness of symbols”) considers common symbols associated with judaism and christianity and especially the menorah and the cross. both symbols function religiously and nationalistically and are always inflected with politics, violence, and memory. they are “hollow,” meaning they cannot stand for any pure, uncomplicated identity (p. 111). for some reason 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) smith stresses the menorah in jewish funerary art with hardly any discussion of the symbol when it appears in synagogues. moreover, by restricting the discussion of the menorah in this chapter to “paint,” he neglects important evidence, such as the monumental menorah, pieces of which were found in the ancient synagogue in maon, in the southern mt. hebron region. an analysis of meaning and role of this free-standing menorah, with lions at its base and placed next to the ark, might have impacted upon his understanding of both menorah, cross, and other religious symbols of the time. chapter 8 (“vellum: relations in miniature”) considers the question of manuscript illustration as a case study for the ways judaism and christianity exhibited “relations” with one another (p. 127). chapter 9 (“papyrus: the practice of text”) considers supposed markers of christian and jewish scribal practice. chapter 10 (“the mountains from the valley”) returns to the metaphor of two mountains and a valley between them, discussed in chapter 1. the mountains, supposedly judaism and christianity, may not even exist and may be no more than constructed ideals. materialism points us to the valley and it is there that the complex, transecting, over-lapping, and crossflowing wash of identities play out. reality is the valley and not the mountains. when it comes to ancient judaism and christianity, there is much that commends this view of the author. this is a fairly slender volume chock full of fascinating insights. however, it is far from inclusive. the author picks and chooses the objects of study somewhat too narrowly. what would he do with phylacteries, for instance, or fringes? is there hybridity here? and what about objects of everyday life that may also have functioned within the realms of jewish and / or household religion? finally, as pointed out above, his framework of methodologies of materialism should also be expanded. thus, smith has provided us with prolegomena, an important stepping stone to a materialist mapping of the “parting of the ways,” and as such this book should be required reading for all who study ancient judaism and christianity. scholars should look forward to his future work on materialism and ancient religion. scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-3 david j. wertheim, ed. the jew as legitimation: jewish-gentile relations beyond antisemitism and philosemitism (new york: palgrave macmillan, 2017), hardcover, xv + 304 pp. richard s. levy rslevy@uic.edu university of illinois at chicago, chicago, illinois 60607 more than most anthologies born of scholarly symposiums, this one displays unmistakable birthmarks. the conference, bearing the same title as this book, took place four years ago in amsterdam. seven of the book’s fifteen contributors have affiliations with dutch research institutions and universities. nearly half of the sixteen essays deal with examples drawn from or closely related to the history of the netherlands, beginning in the sixteenth century and ranging up to the present or very recent past. this geographic concentration is one of the strengths of the collection. treatments of jewish-gentile relations, especially in the modern period, often pay scant attention to this area of europe. the uniformly highquality essays gathered here argue for closer scrutiny of this particular realm of interaction. they are wide ranging, as this list of titles illustrates: “the maccabean martyrs as models in early christian writings” (jan willem henten), “alterity and self-legitimation: the jew as other in classical and medieval christianity” (jeremy cohen), “the theological dialectics of christian hebraism and kabbalah in early modernity” (andreas b. kilcher), “christian readings of menasseh ben israel: translation and retranslation in the early modern world” (sina rauschenbach), “ideology and social change: jewish emancipation in european revolutionary consciousness (1780–1800)” (jonathan israel), “postbiblical jewish history through christian eyes: josephus and the miracle of jewish history in english protestantism” (jonathan elukin), “alien, everyman, jew: the dialectics of dutch ‘philosemitism’ on the eve of world war ii (irene zwiep), “the british empire’s jewish question and the post-ottoman future” (james renton), “the action portuguesia: legitimizing national-socialist racial ideology as a dutch sephardic strategy for safety, 1941–1944” (jap cohen), “disowning responsibility: the stereotype of the passive jew as a legitimizing factor in dutch remembrance of the shoah” (evelien gans), “a source of legitimacy: evangelical christians and jews” (yaakov ariel), “settlers in a strange levy: david j. wertheim’s the jew as legitimation 2 land: dutch, swiss, american, and german protestants in nes ammim (israel), 1952–1964” (gert klinken), “how the turn to the jews after the shoah helped open catholics to religious pluralism” (john connelly), “the battle for jewish sympathy: the house of orange, the dutch jews, and postwar morality” (bart wallet), and “geert wilders and the nationalist-populist turn toward the jews in europe” (david j. wertheim). more of a problem is the choice of the word “legitimation,” employed for the sake of thematic continuity. the term is vague. it seems to refer to non-jews’ using jews and judaism, for whatever purpose, though even this usage does not apply to some of the chapters. what emerges from the individual discussions is not so much legitimation as rank exploitation, utilization, and / or instrumentalization of jews. the authors are quite clear that the positive benefits of legitimation are hard to find, either as a goal or even as an unintended consequence of those who essentialized jews or judaism for their own convenience. the idea of seeking to explore the ground between antisemitism and philosemitism, the avowed purpose of the anthology, is laudable. however, the instances discussed and carefully analyzed seem much closer to the antisemitic end of the spectrum than the philosemitic end, even in cases when gentiles did not intend to harm jews. the best example of the ambiguity of “legitimation” is to be found in the key contribution by jeremy cohen of tel aviv university. although much has been written about the augustinian doctrine of jewish witness, the reader will have to look far and wide to find a more succinct, balanced, and illuminating account than this brief essay. augustine, writing early in the fifth century, formulated a rationale for the continued existence of jews and judaism in a christian world. “though worthy of extinction” (in augustine’s words), they had been preserved by god to bear witness to the truth of christianity and to unknowingly testify through their possession of the bible—which they did not correctly understand— the ancient lineage and legitimacy of the christian faith. thus, augustine proclaimed to his fellow christians, “slay them not.” this doctrine, neither wholly recognized by later christians nor uncontested, nevertheless achieved wide acceptance, and, it could be argued, retained influence long after its theological basis and christianity’s influence had lost ground to secularizing forces. it may well have had something to do with the survival of the jews. they did not go the way of the thirteenth century albigensians, the victims of the teutonic knights, or the native peoples of the western hemisphere who were either forcibly converted or put to the sword. however, “slay them not” was only one part of augustine’s formula. the other was the command to “bring them down.” while jews’ lives were to be protected and they were to be permitted to live as jews, they should be degraded, subjugated, and dispersed. to christians, their degraded status served as visible evidence of the punishment they faced for their refusal to believe in christ and as proof of christian supersession of judaism. cohen writes, “eliminating (or converting) them would impede the realization of god’s plan for mankind’s salvation” (p. 35). 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) a thousand years later, at another critical juncture in the history of christianity, jews and judaism were again used to serve the purposes of others. during the reformation era, both protestant and catholic theologians, seeking a return to the purity and holiness of the early church, took up the study of the hebrew bible. andreas kilcher, a zurich-based professor of literature and cultural studies, pursues the subject of “christian hebraism,” which also came to include the study of post-biblical rabbinic and kabbalistic literature. he argues guardedly that at least in some cases and with limited effect, the objective was to include judaism in the christian plan of salvation, or at least to engage in a serious study of jewish thought. this marked a significant departure from previous centuries, when christians often burned jewish writings. jewish scholars and rabbis were sought out as important guides and teachers of the necessary languages, though the christian theologians were seemingly uninterested in these jews’ own views. sina rauschenbach, at potsdam university, continues the theme, fixing upon the famous seventeenth-century figure of menasseh ben israel, best known for his efforts to gain the readmission of jews to cromwellian england. he was unique in the history of christian hebraism, for he was more than a passive jewish figure, enlisted in christian discourse. he tried, in rauschenbach’s phrase, to present “judaism for christians,” tailoring his vigorous publishing program at least in part for christian readers. this was risky business. the writings of menasseh ben israel and other jews involved in christian hebraism were valued by christian theologians, but often christians used them to show other jews the error of their ways (p. 76). about half the essays in this collection deal with one aspect or another of christian-jewish relations. unlike the theological topics discussed above, most remaining essays focus on secular matters. among the most interesting of these is by evelien gans of the university of amsterdam. her firmly centered discussion describes the egregious attempt in certain dutch circles, with at least some support from academic historians, to relieve christians’ consciences in the aftermath of the holocaust in the netherlands. alleged jewish passivity in the face of the nazi threat, they argued, justified their own. gans applies the apt german term to this endeavor: erinnerungsabwehrantisemitismus (antisemitism to fend off [guilty] memory). perhaps even more shameful was the failed attempt, described by jaap cohen, a researcher at the niod in amsterdam, of long-settled and established sephardic jews in the netherlands to escape being classified as jews during the nazi occupation. in this “action portuguesia,” as the effort was labeled, these jews enlisted anthropologists, judges, ethnographers, and historians to demonstrate that the sephardic jews were distinct from, and distinctly superior to, ashkenazi jews in every significant way, including their racial makeup. trying desperately to save themselves, they at least indirectly justified nazi antisemitism as practiced against ashkenazim. ultimately, the germans made no distinctions in which jews they sent to their deaths in the east. as one jewish historian of dutch jewry later asked rhetorically: “did they lose everything, including their honor?” (p. 169). this is a well-edited, worthwhile, and important book. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-12 fulfillment and complementarity: reflections on relationship in “gifts and calling” 1 elena procario-foley eprocariofoley@iona.edu iona college, new rochelle, ny 10801 this article was generated from the february 2016 saint joseph’s university “consultation on the newest statements about the christian-jewish relationship.” introduction pope benedict xvi declared that “dialogue is not aimless conversation: it aims at conviction, at finding the truth; otherwise it is worthless.” 2 certainly, the commission for religious relations with the jews (crrj) intends to stimulate a dialogue of conviction with “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’ (rom 11:29): a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholicjewish relations on the occasion of the 50 th anniversary of nostra aetate (no. 4).” the tone of the document is honest, earnest, and genuinely seeking to advance understanding of the relationship between christianity and judaism. in reflecting further on dialogue between religions, pope benedict taught that “[we] will learn [our] own truth better if [we] understand the other person,” “look for what is positive in the other’s belief” and allow our limited understandings to be corrected by encounter with the other’s beliefs. 3 this stance is reflected in “gifts and calling” (g&c), whose tone is consistently respectful of judaism and the jewish dialogue partners that the document surely intends to engage. we see this through the text’s engagement with jewish sources, the honest statements of an historically painful relationship (§§6, 14) and the direct recognition of the shoah in various places in the document (§§1, 6, 8, 40, 47). it is significant that g&c explicitly acknowledges the history of christian violence toward the jewish people, particularly in the light of recent 50th anniversary discussions about nostra aetate, which have noted that nostra aetate was remiss in this regard. 4 g&c is genuinely struggling to honor the integrity of each tradition. 1 thanks are due to my colleagues in the christian scholars group on christian-jewish relations who provided advice and guidance on an early draft of this paper. 2 joseph ratzinger, mary religions–one covenant israel, the church and the world, trans. graham harrison (san francisco, ca: ignatius press, 1999) 112. 3 ibid., 110. 4 for example, a variety of plenary speakers at the october 2015 ethel lefrak triennial conference on the holocaust at seton hill university noted this lacuna in nostra aetate. see the forthcoming vol procario-foley: fulfillment and complementarity 2 i approach the document, therefore, from the perspective of the care that must be given to cultivating authentic relationships. we can recall the turmoil that occurred when the march 1964 draft of what became nostra aetate was eviscerated by the second vatican council’s coordinating commission—gone were the rejections of deicide and the blood curse, and the rejection of collective responsibility was oddly limited. most significantly, a hope for the conversion of “that [jewish] people into the fullness of the people of god established by christ” was added. 5 as is well known, rabbi abraham joshua heschel famously declared that he would rather go to auschwitz than convert. there was a monstrous sense of betrayal. archbishop of westminster john heenan implored the fathers to reject the new text in favor of the prior text; he declared: “it is impossible that one would not notice how this version differs in tenor and spirit. for, the present declaration is less kind, less gracious, less friendly.” 6 but when the great debate, which was forcefully led by american bishops, was over, rabbi marc tanenbaum of the american jewish committee was so moved that he wrote that the “positions [were] articulated with such friendship, indeed, fraternal love, as to make clear that a profound turning point had taken place in our lifetime.” 7 clearly, g&c wants to honor the many types of friendship that have developed between jews and christians in the post-nostra aetate decades. the document believes in nurturing the turning point that rabbi tanenbaum observed: “the bonds of friendship forged in the meantime have proved to be stable, so that it has become possible to address even controversial subjects together without the danger of permanent damage to the dialogue” (§10). on the basis of the document’s claim to sound friendship, it is worthwhile to interrogate its use of the theologically-freighted words “fulfillment” and “complementarity” as strategies or concepts to describe the relationship between catholics and jews. are these christian soteriological and anthropological terms the best approaches to “theological questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations,” or are they so coded with a binary approach to relationship so as to render them obsolete and to risk subverting the very laudable goals of the document? the authors of g&c intend to cultivate an authentic relationship and presume a firm foundation for so doing (even acknowledging the reality that this is a relatively recent foundation in a two-thousand-year-old relationship). i, therefore, wonder if there are “limit” or “meta” questions for the document as it seeks to ume based on the conference: carol rittner, r.s.m., ed., the holocaust and nostra aetate: toward a greater understanding, (greensburg, pa: seton hill university, 2017). 5 see the council’s coordinating commission’s september 1964 draft at http://ccjr.us/dialogikaresources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-drafts/1027draft1964sept-1. see especially paragraph five. 6 see the address of his excellency john carmel heenan at http://ccjr.us/dialogikaresources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate/1020v21964sept29b#heenan. 7 marc tannenbaum, “vatican ii: an interfaith appraisal: a jewish viewpoint,” in judy banki and eugene fisher, eds., a prophet for our time: an anthology of the writings of rabbi marc h. tanenbaum (new york: fordham university press, 2002), 85, excerpted at http://www.ccjr.us/dialogikaresources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic. http://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-drafts/1027-draft1964sept-1 http://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-drafts/1027-draft1964sept-1 http://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-drafts/1027-draft1964sept-1 http://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate/1020-v21964sept29b#heenan http://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate/1020-v21964sept29b#heenan http://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate/1020-v21964sept29b#heenan http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) raise complex and sensitive theological issues on the foundation of fifty years of transformed relationship. how can a relationship of friends and equals—which g&c sees as complementary (§§13, 31)—be defined theologically? further, how can that relationship be nurtured if the parties harbor any sense of their own superiority in the relationship? the document seems to want to define the catholicjewish relationship as one of equals but the use of fulfillment language throughout calls into question whether it really envisions a relationship between equals. additionally, as we will see below, the use of “complementarity” compounds the difficulty. as in the movements of a symphony, g&c includes distinct leitmotifs in need of a resolution. the many allusions or direct references to rom 11:20 (e.g.: §§18, 27, 35, 36, 38, 39, 43) constitute one leitmotif: the jewish people are in a unique and salvific relation to god. the second leitmotif, though, is that the christian “new covenant” fulfills the promises of the “old covenant” (e.g.: §§27, 30, 33). fulfillment and relationship g&c §4 cites the 1974 guidelines’ critically important instruction that christians “must strive to learn by what essential traits the jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience.” 8 the unqualified and undefined language of fulfillment seems to make it difficult to leave room for jewish self-definition. g&c’s fulfillment language raises for me the necessity of a dialogue about basic theological terms before we can move forward with the weighty questions raised in the central sections, three through six, of revelation, the relationship between “old” and “new” testaments and covenants, salvation, and mission. 9 how does each community understand “covenant” and its role in the life of faith? is “salvation” a term that is equally illuminating for both communities? how does each community think theologically about eschatological matters? are there significant differences between a realized eschatology and a futurist realized eschatology when it comes to fulfillment? are we asking our dialogue partners if our theological and religious vocabulary resonates with their religious and theological concepts? this is nowhere more important than when we discuss mission and bearing witness to the faith (§§40-43). partners in relationships—particularly those described as “complementary”—must be able to navigate their questions of identity in two distinct but related ways. each community must allow for each other’s internal self-definition. then, there will need 8 see the first document from the commission for religious relations with the jews, guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate, no. 4 at http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/277guidelines, 9 for a thorough discussion of theological terms in need of clarification in “gifts and calling,” see philip a. cunningham’s essay, “gifts and calling: coming to terms with jews as covenantal partners” in this issue of scjr. in the same issue, see also william madges, “covenant, universal mission, and fulfillment.” http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/277-guidelines http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/277-guidelines procario-foley: fulfillment and complementarity 4 to be some agreement on key terms or these friends and these partners will end up in misunderstanding and confusion. the document immediately recognizes the historical disparity of the relationship in terms of temporal power and numbers (§1). this recognition is essential for any theological attempt to define catholics and jews as friends and as equals. the historical asymmetry must always remain in view because it impinges in a visceral way on the extremely difficult theological questions at the heart of the document. from a historical perspective, nostra aetate §1 introduced the catholic church to interreligious dialogue using epistemological claims about the unity of knowledge and about god as the source and goal of all people; it did so while posing fundamental existential and religious questions that constitute, as the section notes, the “unsolved riddles of the human condition.” following in this trajectory, g&c needs to allow those questions of theological anthropology, teleology, morality, and theodicy to be defined by each community on its own terms as a basis for authentic friendship and a dialogue of equals. without such clarity on both sides, the theological convictions in the two leitmotifs of g&c risk damaging the bonds of friendship and pressing those bonds of equality into a new asymmetry that will resonate loudly with the pre-nostra aetate era. in 2001, cardinal kasper, reflecting on dominus iesus, famously declared that not “everybody needs to become a catholic in order to be saved by god…god’s grace, which is the grace of jesus christ according to our faith, is available to all. therefore, the church believes that judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the jewish people to god’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because god is faithful to his promises.” 10 this statement seems to uphold the symmetry and equality of authentic friendship. however, kasper explains that the “new covenant” and the “old covenant” “stand with each other in a relationship of promise or anticipation and fulfillment.” 11 even such an explicit statement as kasper’s concerning the salvific character of jewish covenantal life is complicated by a relationship of fulfillment. kasper, however, qualifies “fulfillment” with “relationship,” “promise,” and “anticipation,” thus sounding an eschatological note. placing fulfillment in an eschatological key creates a measure of theological and religious humility that provides space and time for pursuing difficult theological questions in the dialogue. g&c also offers an eschatological perspective and in §36 makes some important acknowledgements: “that jews are participants in god’s salvation is theologically unquestionable but how that can be possible without confessing christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery.” this last phrase crucially recognizes that there are limits to our understanding that will only be made clear at the eschaton. it suggests that the binary thinking that afflicts us today will not prevail eschatologically. does the release of this document, then, signal that a time has come when jews and christians can try to go beyond what so often ends up as binary think 10 17 th ilc meeting, may 1, 2001 new york city (see speaking truth in love, 237) 11 christ jesus and the jewish people today, forward xiv. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) ing—the thinking represented by “fulfillment”—when we are not clear about each other’s terms? 12 can we, from the poverty of our finite perspectives, begin to imagine a different option in an eschatologically renewed relationship to the divine? this thought experiment would be verifiable only at the end of days, but engaging in such an exercise might help us to avoid inadvertent theological hubris and unintended claims of superiority that would damage our carefully cultivated friendship and undermine claims to mutuality in relationship. such futurist eschatological 13 thinking might also help us both preserve yet enrich our distinctive identities as we strive for the conviction and truth of dialogue that pope benedict recommended. that g&c in §31 favorably cites the 2001 pbc document “the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible” 14 as allowing each community’s mutually irreducible readings of scripture seems to open space for such eschatological imagination. 15 eschatological provisos and exercises in theological imagination are important for specialists in the dialogue as they plumb the difficult theological questions examined by the document. but we also must pay attention to how our conversations are heard in the concrete circumstances of pastoral life and religious education. we have to be committed to finding a coherent way to explain to preachers and teachers that the catholic church teaches both the “universal salvific significance of jesus christ” and that the jewish people are saved by god without belief in christ (as the document notes in §37). let me focus for a few moments on section four—the relationship between the testaments and covenants. the document labors consistently to maintain “fulfillment” as distinct from “replacement” and “supersession” (see especially §30). this is a laudable effort but it does create some ambiguity. for instance, we have different images in §27 to explain the relationship between the covenants. the paragraph begins with the direct statement, “the covenant that god has offered israel is irrevocable.” two sentences later, however, we have a statement that explains that the earlier covenants are not revoked by the new covenant but fulfilled by the new covenant. the new covenant “fulfills,” “confirms,” and “perfects” the covenant of god with israel. these are strong terms that seem to contradict the titular premise of the document. on the other hand, the same paragraph states that the new covenant is “never independent of the old covenant” and offers the image that the new covenant is “grounded and based on” the “old” covenant. thus, the document attempts to maintain the integrity of the “old” covenant. the authors of g&c labor to provide a positive theological ar 12 the inclusion of jewish consultants in the final preparations of the document could suggest that a new stage of collaboration even in the writing of documents is at hand. 13 for an exemplary instance of an act of eschatological imagination, see john e. thiel, icons of hope: the “last things” in catholic imagination (south bend, in: university of notre dame press, 2013). 14 see, the pontifical biblical commission, the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible (2001) at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_2002021 2_popolo-ebraico_en.html. 15 §22. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html procario-foley: fulfillment and complementarity 6 ticulation of the post-vatican ii relationship between catholics and jews that honors the new relationship of friendship and that allows for both self-definition and the development of some shared vocabulary. it is undeniable, though, that some juxtaposed phrases and images result in ambiguity regarding the two leitmotifs of the document—the unrevoked covenant and the same covenant as fulfilled by the christian new covenant. a laudable effect of the document is that both catholics and jews can now pose questions of the document and seek ways to resolve the ambiguities. complementarity and relationship i opened this essay by asking if “fulfillment” and “complementarity” are the most felicitous terms with which to pursue a theology of the catholic-jewish relationship. the ambiguities raised with the use of “fulfillment” are redoubled when faced with the concomitant use of “complementarity” in the document. from a stance of complementarity, a number of other questions flow concerning other metaphors such as “cornerstone,” “foundation,” “elder brother,” the idea itself of a “unique theological relationship,” and “intrinsic relation.” complementarity is often understood as a mode of thinking that frames relationships such that each party to the relation is defined in essentialist terms with each side of the relationship having fixed roles. 16 though g&c uses “complementarity” only twice (§§13, 31), it does so by quoting pope francis in evangelii gaudium (§249). 17 it is important to recognize the context of both partial uses of the quotation, which have the effect of invoking papal authority. section 13 is the concluding paragraph of part one of “gifts and calling” (a summary of post-nostra aetate efforts at reconciliation) and it quotes all but the first two sentences of evangelii gaudium § 249. section 31 is at the midpoint of part four, “the relationship between the old and new testament and the old and new covenant”—a quite complicated and important theological analysis. the text in §31, however, quotes only a few words, including “rich complementarity.” 16 for instance, the church has often described the relationship between men and women as well as their respective theological value in terms of distinct roles predicated on natural law. the roles are thus essentialized—they are unchangeable and given by god—and the relationship is one of complementarity. as an example see anne e. carr, transforming grace: christian tradition and women’s experience, (san francisco, ca: harper and row, 1988), 125. in her essay, “justice as the mark of catholic feminist ecclesiology,” susan abraham writes, “. . .the theology of the ‘eternal feminine,’. . . is shored up by the dominant cultural ideology of woman’s nature and biological/essential difference from man. the idea of the ‘eternal feminine,’ therefore, is the basis of gender essentialism, which is the idea that women and men have ‘essences’ that are eternal and immutable. see susan abraham and elena procario-foley, eds., frontiers in catholic feminist theology: shoulder to shoulder (minneapolis, mn: fortress press, 2009), 207. in this same volume, laura taylor explains that in mulieris dignitatem pope john paul ii taught that “human nature is embodied in two distinct but equal forms—male and female. in turn, the male and the female are called to integrate what is masculine and what is feminine into a relationship of complementarity.” see taylor, “redeeming christ: imitation or (re)citation?” in frontiers, 128. 17 see http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papafrancesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) the entire quotation from evangeli gaudium §249 is as follows: god continues to work among the people of the old covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which flow from their encounter with his word. for this reason, the church also is enriched when she receives the values of judaism. while it is true that certain christian beliefs are unacceptable to judaism, and that the church cannot refrain from proclaiming jesus as lord and messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the hebrew scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of god’s word. we can also share many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples. in §13, the authors of “gifts and calling” offer their concluding remarks of a review of the past fifty years of relations between catholics and jews. their use of evangelii gaudium follows earlier statements in that section such as “christians and jews are irrevocably inter-dependent,” “jews and christians can enrich one another in mutual friendship,” and “without her jewish roots the church would be in danger of losing its soteriological anchoring in salvation history and would slide into an ultimately unhistorical gnosis.” the quotation from pope francis is taken from the third section (“relations with judaism”) of part four (“social dialogue as a contribution to peace”) of the fourth chapter of eg titled “the social dimension of evangelization.” “gifts and calling” would have benefitted from quoting the entire section of eg because the two elided sentences clearly support the document’s teaching that god’s relationship with the jewish people is ongoing. they would also reinforce the authors’ hope for a deepening friendship characterized by mutuality (“the church also is enriched when she receives the values of judaism”). by not quoting those positive affirmations from eg, “gifts and calling” risks an essentialized understanding of “complementarity,” which would undercut the authors’ apparent purposes. though the authors of g&c, especially given the use of eg §249, most probably intend “complementarity” to be understood as “mutual friendship,” the use of complementarity, especially in conjunction with the ambiguous use of “fulfillment,” is problematic because it implies relationships that are not fundamentally mutual. complementarity almost always reinscribes an unequal power dynamic. one side of the relationship, the “weaker” or “lesser” party fixed in a particular essence, needs to be completed by the other side. further, it is not always clear if the more powerful party in the relationship is fruitfully changed by relationship with the other. given the historical asymmetry in the jewishchristian relationship, christian theology that purports to heal wounds cannot risk using imagery that implies that judaism needs to be completed by christianity. christopher pramuk states the case about essentialism well in an essay reflecting on how thomas merton and pope francis consider gender issues. it is worth quoting at length: procario-foley: fulfillment and complementarity 8 as merton sees it the problem of essentializing differences goes well beyond a problem of messaging; there is a deeper refusal involved, a refusal to fully see and encounter the other, to know and seek to love the other as a whole person, in all their beauty and complexity. here is the corner into which we constantly paint ourselves: when you nail somebody to a singular definition, a static essence–male/female, black/white, gay/straight, priest/laity, christian/muslim, hindu/jew–there can be no room for change, no room for growth, no room for dialogue, no room for error, and perhaps above all, no room for mercy. in short, depending on your essence, you are either innocent or guilty, never both. there can be no room for freedom or discernment before god in the secret places of conscience. there can be no room for love. 18 innocence, guilt, love (or the lack thereof)—essentialism leaves no space for ambiguity and enforces an unnatural clarity. “gifts and calling” very clearly labors to move beyond the history of contempt and supersessionism. it explicitly recalls and repudiates the christian theological history of anti-judaism that assigns guilt to the jewish community for the crime of deicide. it would be an uncharitable reading of the document to assume anything other than an honest effort to heal division. the document does seek to have christians encounter jews and “to know and seek to love the other as a whole person.” indeed, the entire document is a celebration of the new post-nostra aetate relationship. the christological challenge (how does jesus christ remain universal savior? 19 ) produces a soteriological and anthropological conundrum, however. why must one party to the relationship be fulfilled explicitly by the other party to the relationship? why must there be fulfillment of this one-sided nature if the other is loved in all her integrity? how is that mutual? is not one’s own internal integrity, wholeness, and completion in the divine presence fulfillment enough? how can an insistence on fulfillment in complementarity maintain the distinctive wholeness and integrity of the other? theories of gender complementarity suggest a comparison that will elucidate the deep concern about using the imagery of complementarity and fulfillment as a description of the relationship between christians and jews. the comparison of a theology of fulfillment to describe the relationship between jews and christians to a theology of gender complementarity calls into question claims of wholeness and mutuality between christians and jews. women are classically perceived in christian theology as incomplete without men. in his june 1995 letter to women at the us bejing conference, 20 saint pope 18 christopher pramuk, “god accompanies persons: thomas merton and pope francis on gender and sexual diversity,” merton annual 28, (2015): 71-87, 77. pramuk includes a footnote at the end of the cited paragraph referring to merton’s journal entry of january 31, 1965. pramuk notes that “all manner of dangerous ‘isms’ or phobias of the other” are attributed by merton to “‘the logical consequence of an essentialist style of thought.’” 19 though see g&c, §24. 20 saint pope john paul ii, “letter of pope john paul ii to women,” §7, june 29, 1995 at https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/1995/documents/hf_jpii_let_29061995_women.html 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) john paul ii notes that: “the creation of woman is thus marked from the outset by the principle of help: a help which is not one-sided but mutual. woman complements man, just as man complements woman: men and women are complementary. womanhood expresses the “human” as much as manhood does, but in a different and complementary way” (§7; emphases in the original). because the man was alone, the woman was created to help him. does this mean that there is a divine utilitarian motive to be read into gen 2:18? are women secondary to men because they were created merely to help the lonely man? is their utility only to help the man, the prior creation in this telling, succeed? the pope asserts that “womanhood” and “manhood” are equally human but the assertion falls flat in the ontological dualism that undergirds his position. according to john paul’s beijing letter, “when the book of genesis speaks of ‘help’, it is not referring merely to acting, but also to being. womanhood and manhood are complementary not only from the physical and psychological points of view, but also from the ontological. it is only through the duality of the ‘masculine’ and the ‘feminine’ that the ‘human’ finds full realization” (§7). yet, catholic feminist theological anthropology has demonstrated time and again that such dualism is damaging to both men and women. 21 neither men nor women are whole when understood in complementary molds. when people are reduced to labels, as pramuk notes, identity is static. relationships are frozen in the power relationships that are determined by the ontologically defined identity of the persons involved. neither party to the relationship can achieve full personhood or full humanity. the first feminist critiques described the isolation of women into one sphere of human existence: the private, the domestic, the emotional, and the immanent. men were understood to occupy the public, rational, and transcendent spheres. rosemary carbine notes that john paul’s bejing letter “elaborates a ‘different but equal’ theological anthropology that, in fact, leads to a ‘different and unequal’ status for women.” 22 what then happens if we take the spousal metaphor so embedded in christian language for describing the relationship between church and christ and apply it to the relationship between judaism and christianity in terms of gender complementarity? judaism would be the woman in the relationship. the presumed particularity of judaism relegates it, as a woman, to the domestic sphere, to immanence, and to homebound rituals. as woman is to be a help to man, judaism is to be a help to christianity. the woman is completed (fulfilled) by the man. judaism is completed (fulfilled) by christianity. we can retain the spousal metaphor and think of how the homebound wife supports the success of the man. or we can also think of judaism in this relationship as the mother who gives birth to a new life. yet, the child will grow and surpass the parent. whether imaged as spouse or mother, judaism, the woman, is marginalized to the private, domestic sphere— hidden as it were. christianity is the dominant partner in the relationship, the one 21 carr, transforming grace, 122; michele saracino, “moving beyond the ‘one true story’” in frontiers, 9ff. 22 rosemary carbine, “artisans of a new humanity” in frontiers, 179-180. procario-foley: fulfillment and complementarity 10 occupying the public, universal sphere. with little or no opportunity to emerge from the shadow of christianity, judaism is truly in a different and unequal status in the relationship. a feminist theological lens helps us to see how “gifts and calling” risks essentializing judaism and christianity. judaism, different and unequal, is the utilitarian helper or partner for christianity. in §13, the document declares that “without her jewish roots the church would be in danger of losing its soteriological anchoring in salvation history.” while the necessity of understanding the jewish roots of christianity is critically important to the contemporary relationship between jews and catholics, this particular statement, along with the invocation of “complementarity” in the following sentence, leaves the impression that the current role of judaism is simply to serve as a soteriological foundation to leaven christianity. the partners are unequal. something similar is repeated in §33: “the church without israel would be in danger of losing its locus in the history of salvation.” judaism provides a service to christianity. g&c continues by attempting to provide an equal service for judaism on the part of christianity: “jews could with regard to the abrahamic covenant arrive at the insight that israel without the church would be in danger of remaining too particularist and of failing to grasp the universality of its experience of god.” this sentence sounds alarms. could the phrase “would be in danger of remaining too particularist” be a veiled accusation of legalism or insularity? is the church once again suggesting that judaism is blind to the truth of its own scripture? one hopes this is not the case, but such statements create interpretative difficulties as they do not square with the document’s general affirmations of the integrity of jewish life and of a relationship that is genuinely equal and mutual. 23 g&c suggests that the soteriologically oriented relationships it describes indicate the “interdependence” of judaism and christianity. one has to wonder, however, what “interdependence” means for the writers because the utilitarian imbalance in the relationship that can be detected in the document does not support a robust understanding of whole and equal partners engaged in a relationship of mutuality. though the document uses some variation of “mutuality” or “mutual” eight times and uses “friend,” “friendship,” or “friendly” eight times, i remain concerned that the focus on fulfillment and complementarity undercuts the genuine celebration of and concern for the new relation between jews and christians, post-nostra aetate. elizabeth johnson writes: out of women’s self-understanding comes a different alternative from either dependency or detachment, namely, the coinherence of autonomy and mutuality as constitutive of the mature person. . . .the vision is one of relational autonomy, which honors the inviolable personal mystery of the person who 23 for another exploration of the risk of misinterpreting judaism from a christian theological point of view, see adam gregerman, “jewish theology and limits on reciprocity in catholic-jewish dialogue,” in studies in christian-jewish relations 7:1 (2012). 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) is constituted essentially by community with others. . . .the particular pattern of relationship consistently promoted in feminist ethical discourse is mutuality. this signifies a relation marked by equivalence between persons, a concomitant valuing of each other, a common regard marked by trust, respect, and affection in contrast to competition, domination, or assertions of superiority. it is a relationship on the analogy of friendship…. 24 theories of essentialized complementarity do not support an anthropology of wholeness that yields the type of relationships envisioned by johnson. the integrity of one’s autonomy is a necessary condition for authentic mutuality. without it, attempts at mutuality or interdependence will produce asymmetric relationships. it is the particular responsibility of christians because of the long teaching of contempt against jews to guard against theological and moral asymmetry in the new relationship. “autonomy and relatedness are not mutually contradictory, but grow in direct proportion to each other.” 25 catholic theology needs to discover a language that will allow for the full flourishing of its own identity without dampening the full flourishing of its apprehension of jewish identity. as christopher pramuk noted, in order for there to be room to love, roles cannot be essentialized, defined in static terms, and designed to benefit the religious reality of one side of the relationship. in an essay that explores the relations among jews, christians, and muslims through the prism of the “common father” abraham and “our not-in-common mothers,” 26 nancy fuchs kreimer provides an additional perspective about how relationships can be deformed with claims of superiority and exclusion. her survey of classical and contemporary interpretations of the hagar and sarah narrative demonstrates the destructiveness of asymmetric relations, whether the cause is gender, patriarchy, or claims of religious superiority. the biblical story of hagar and sarah sets up one of them to fail. one must be the villain and one the heroine. 27 fuchs kreimer explains that the new testament writings of paul co-opt sarah for christians and therefore also claim the election of the children of sarah while designating the judaizers (jewish christians) as children of hagar who should be excluded from the community. 28 catholic theologies of fulfillment and complementarity risk fostering the same co-opting of jewish identity and the same exclusion by using judaism as a tool in their narrative of salvation. instead of surrendering to the divisions embedded in the original story of hagar and sarah, fuchs kreimer presents alternatives that allow the children of abraham, 24 elizabeth johnson, she who is: the mystery of god in feminist theological discourse (new york: crossroad, 1992), 68. 25 peter phan, “jesus as the universal savior in the light of god’s eternal covenant with the jewish people: a roman catholic perspective,” in mary c. boys, ed., seeing judaism anew: christianity’s sacred obligation, (lanham, md: rowman and littlefield, 2005), 134. 26 nancy fuchs kreimer, “abraham and his family at the interfaith border edge: asking the overlooked question of gender” in catherine cornille and jillian maxey, eds., women and interreligious dialogue, (eugene, or: cascade books, 2013). 27 ibid., 97. 28 ibid., 91. procario-foley: fulfillment and complementarity 12 hagar, and sarah to see themselves today as pilgrims walking together toward something new 29 while preserving distinct identities—the first step toward genuine mutuality. “gifts and calling” exhibits an earnest and honest concern for friendship between judaism and christianity and a genuine concern for the spiritual integrity of judaism that is undeniable and laudable. the authors intend the document to be a catalyst for discussions that will continue to strengthen the new bonds between catholics and jews. ambiguous theologies of complementarity and fulfillment, unfortunately, lead away from the goal of mutually enriching friendships because the sides are never equal. the scattering of positive words in the document such as “mutual,” “friend,” and “interdependent” masks the consequences of the essentialized use of fulfillment and complementary for soteriology and theological anthropology. one has to ask if fulfillment may be just another word for supersessionism. surely our christian theological imagination can do better. is there a way to salvage the language of fulfillment and complementarity so that when it is used we can recognize actual mutuality between friends and pilgrims concerned for the reign of god in their distinct ways? the answer is beyond the scope of this paper but will require additional explorations that plumb a variety of power relationships within catholic theology. lastly, if it turns out that fulfillment language is as far as catholic language can go as it teaches that both jews and christians are equally embraced by the covenanting love of the divine, then it is imperative for theologians to find ways to translate an inevitably technical language into pastoral use so it does not become in practice the replacement position that is so clearly rejected by g&c. theologians must continue to refine the meaning of “fulfillment” to prevent any minimizing or rejection of jewish life and practice from being part of their interpretations of the word. they must make this rich and complicated theology of the jewish-catholic relation accessible and practical at the level of preaching and pastoral practice. if “gifts and calling” provokes such work, it will have successfully inaugurated the next stage in jewish-catholic reconciliation. perhaps it will also have stimulated a new sense of solidarity such as that envisioned by rabbi lynn gottlieb and songwriter linda hirschhorn as they consider hagar and sarah: we will not survive as strangers; we must speak each other’s name. we must tell each others’ stories, make each other strong, and sing the dream of ancient lands where both of us belong. 30 29 ibid, 105-107. 30 ibid., 98. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 1 www.bc.edu/scjr peer-reviewed article some aspects of rabbinic literature on holy land and covenant 1 burton l. visotzky, the jewish theological seminary of america in the biblical book of deuteronomy 11:31-32, god commands the israelites, “you are crossing the jordan to inherit the land which the lord, your god, has given you. when you inherit it and settle in it; take care to observe the laws and ordinances which i have put before you today.” the earliest rabbinic commentary on deuteronomy, dating from the third century of the common era, tells two tales to illustrate this commandment: once, rabbis yehuda ben beteira, mattiah ben ḥeresh, ḥannaniah…, and rabbi yonatan were leaving the land. when they arrived at the border town of platana, they recalled the land of israel. their eyes brimmed with tears, they rent their garments, and they recited this verse of deuteronomy. they said: dwelling in the land of israel is equivalent to all the other commandments in the torah. or again, 1 two earlier versions of this essay were delivered orally. the first was at the cathedral of st. john the divine on october 16, 2012, by the kind invitation of rabbi leonard schoolman. the second, which included references to the covenant, was given at the semi-annual consultation of delegates of the national council of synagogues and the bishops' committee on ecumenical and interreligious affairs, u.s. conference of catholic bishops on may 7, 2013, at the jewish theological seminary, by invitation of rabbi gil rosenthal. studies in christian-jewish relations 2 scjr 8 (2013) once rabbi elazar ben shamua and rabbi yoḥanan the cobbler were travelling to nisibis in mesopotamia to study torah with rabbi yehuda ben beteira. when they arrived at the border town of sidon they recalled the land of israel. their eyes brimmed with tears, they rent their garments, and they recited this verse of deuteronomy. they said: dwelling in the land of israel is equivalent to all the other commandments in the torah. both of these tales conclude with the statement: “they returned to the land of israel.” 2 these stories are high rhetoric, to be sure. there are many such flourishes in which the rabbis of late antiquity declare this commandment or that commandment equal to all the other commandments—most notably that the commandment to study torah is equivalent to all the other commandments—for torah study leads to performance of all the other commandments. here, the rabbis interpret deuteronomy 11 to teach that the land of israel is the optimal place in which to perform god’s commandments and thus to fulfill the covenantal relationship among god, the people israel, and the land. indeed, outside the land, many of the 613 commandments that the rabbis enumerated simply cannot be performed. sacrifices, agricultural laws, tithing and the like, all are dependent upon the land of israel. so to enact the covenant, nothing outranks being in the land. however, torah study sits atop the rabbinic pyramid of values. in fact, even the talmud of the land of israel teaches that it is permissible to leave the land in order to study torah. 3 while this comes as a relief to me, a professor of rabbinic literature in new york, rabbi elazar ben shamua and rabbi yoḥanan the cobbler took no solace. in tears, they 2 sifre on deuteronomy, # 80 ed. louis finkelstein (new york: jts, 1969 reprint) p. 146. 3 j. berakhot 3:1 (6a). studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 3 www.bc.edu/scjr found themselves unable to cross the border into the diaspora, even for the sake of torah study. these rabbis flourished at a time when rome ruled the land of israel with an iron fist—between the destruction of the jerusalem temple in the year 70 of the first century ce and the disastrous bar kokhba revolt of 132-135. in fact, yehuda ben beteira, who is reported weeping at the border in the first story, is matter of factly reported as living and teaching in mesopotamia in the second story. his colleague mattiah ben ḥeresh ultimately lived in rome, 4 while rabbi ḥannaniah moved to the babylonian town of nehar peqod. indeed, and not surprisingly, the babylonian talmud privileges torah study in rabbinic babylonia over dwelling in the land of israel, even as it praises the holy land. 5 rhetoric and reality are not the same thing. these rabbinic stories do not teach us history, but from these narratives we can learn the rabbis’ love of the land of israel, its inextricable connection to jewish theology, its central place in the covenantal system of commandments, most of all the centrality of the holy city of jerusalem, and the constant yearning for the land and for jerusalem that provides the continuo to the baroque suites that are classical rabbinic literature. 6 let’s turn for a moment to theology and the role of the land. mattiah ben ḥeresh famously taught about atonement 4 or perhaps laodicea in asia minor. 5 see e.g., b. ketubot 110b-111a, where the rabbis praise the land of israel, except when one of their own students wishes to leave babylonia to go study there. 6 what is provided here is a selective survey, by no means exhaustive of the vast literature on both the land of israel and covenant, spread throughout the “sea of the talmud.” see, e. g. robert wilken, the land called holy: palestine in christian history and thought (new haven: yale university press, 1994) and the extensive bibliography referencing both christian and jewish secondary literature. see, too, eugene korn, the jewish connection to israel, the promised land: a brief introduction for christians (woodstock: jewish lights, 2008) for a more popular survey of the subject. studies in christian-jewish relations 4 scjr 8 (2013) when he was living in rome. 7 he listed four means to expiate sin: 1) repentance, 2) the day of atonement, 3) suffering, and 4) death. a ninth-century midrash on the book of proverbs 8 commenting on this early tradition wonders, is it possible that death might not provide atonement? scripture teaches, “behold, i shall open your graves, i shall raise you from your graves, my people, and bring you to the land of israel” (ez 37:12). rabbi eliezer asked rabbi yehoshua, “what is this verse talking about? he replied, “it refers to those who died outside of the land of israel. of those who died in the land of israel it tells us that your land will atone for you, as it says in deuteronomy, “his land will cleanse his people” (32:43). the midrash on proverbs is playing rather fast and loose with scripture here, for while ezekiel does promise that god will bring the exiles to the land of israel after resurrection, deuteronomy does not quite say what the midrash suggests. the modern jewish publication society translation of deuteronomy 32:43 reads that god will “cleanse the land of his people.” 9 that itself would be a very different and most unhappy end—but even then it is not so simple. the translator’s note to that verse suggests: “hebrew uncertain. ugaritic…suggests the rendering ‘and wipe away his people’s 7 here too, laodicea is an alternate locale. see mechilta d’rabbi ismael, ed. horovitz and rabin (jerusalem: wahrmann, 1970, reprint), baḥodesh, yitro ch. 7, p. 228, cf. j. z. lauterbach, mekilta de-rabbi ishmael (philadelphia: jewish publication society, 1933) vol. 2, p. 249 ff. for an english translation, and cf. tosefta kippurim 4(5):8, ed. s. lieberman (new york: jts, 1962), p. 252 with lieberman’s commentary tosefta ki-fshutah (new york: jts 1962) ad loc., pp. 824-25. 8 midrash mishle, ch. 10, ed. b. visotzky (new york: jts, 1990), p. 79. for an alternative translation of these passages cf. idem., the midrash on proverbs (new haven: yale university, 1992), ad loc., passim. 9 the torah (philadelphia: jewish publication society, 1962), emphasis added, p. 389. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 5 www.bc.edu/scjr tears’.” 10 that is certainly a better end than being cleansed from the land! nevertheless, the ambiguities of biblical hebrew give the rabbis the liberty to insist that the land itself has the ability to remit sin. but is this really what they think? the ninth-century midrash on proverbs blithely forges ahead. in chapter 17 we read: better a dry crust in quietude than a house full of feasting in strife (prv 17:1). rabbi yoḥanan interprets this verse: “better a dry crust in quietude” refers to the land of israel, for if a person would eat but a dry crust with some salt while dwelling in the land, he is assured of the world to come! [the latter part of the proverbs verse,] “a house full of feasting in strife” refers to the diaspora which is rife with robbery and violence. rabbi yoḥanan [then quantifies his theological observation explaining], “if one walks but four cubits in the land of israel he is assured of the world to come.” rabbi levi [seemingly ups the ante], saying, “if one dwells in the land of israel, even for an hour, and dies there, he is assured of the world to come. why so? as it is written in deuteronomy, “his land will cleanse his people” (dt 32:43). rabbi nehemiah explains that the land of israel atones for the sins of those who die there. this prompts rabbi zevidah to ask, “so what will you do about the righteous who die outside of the land of israel? we must conclude that while the land atones for the sins of those who die there, in the messianic future, the blessed holy one will command the 10 ibid., n. 1. studies in christian-jewish relations 6 scjr 8 (2013) ministering angels to bring them in underground tunnels from outside to inside the land of israel, and there shall their sins be remitted, as it says ‘you shall be purified upon your land’” (cf. jer. 16:15). 11 this is, i admit, a rather bizarre messianic vision of the covenantal power of the holy land. the rabbis’ faith in its ability to atone is so strong that they imagine celestial travel agents arranging a chunnel voyage, as it were, from the diaspora to the land, when the end time comes. the rabbis not only exaggerate here, but they speculate on the end of time and other messianic concepts that they normally loathe describing. the rabbis usually take comfort in the vagueness of their apocalyptic vision, since they are quite content to fuss about the here and now. however, when it comes to an advertisement for the holy land, they will skate far out onto the thin ice of speculation about future redemption. further, they can be secure in the ultimate ambiguity of hebrew, for what i translated as “underground tunnels,” meḥolot, could just as well be translated as “dance-lines,” as in texas two-step line dancing, or, if you prefer, a messianic conga-line, perhaps, originating at the 116 th street irt stop. in addition, that same word that can be translated as either subway or sarabande, can also be translated quite reasonably that the ministering angels will bring them from outto inside the land with forgiveness. 12 this allows too many possible meanings to be sure of our messianic future, to say the least. yet no matter how we translate, it is clear that in the messianic era, the land of israel will be one very crowded place. the problem of end-time overcrowding in the land of israel was anticipated as long ago as the second century. in the 11 ed. visotzky, p. 134, emphasis added. text in square brackets is implied but not literally in the original. 12 see ed. visotzky, p. 134, line 10, for the reading מחילות and scribal variants. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 7 www.bc.edu/scjr mishnaic tractate pirke avot, the rabbis taught that ten miracles took place in jerusalem when the temple still stood. among them was that people stood together in the temple court pressed up against one another, yet when the time came to bow down in prostration, a miracle occurred and there was plenty of space for everyone. 13 in the fifth century, the rabbis explained that each person had four square-cubits, one cubit on each side, so that a person could not eavesdrop on the prayers of his fellow. they then suggest that this will be the case again in the messianic future. when rabbi yoḥanan asked his teacher rabbi ḥaninah if this would really be so, he received the reply that god would command jerusalem, saying: האריכי הרחיבי קבלי אוכלוסיך (expand, grow long, receive your huddled masses). 14 even in their own day, assuredly well before the messianic era, the rabbis considered the land and especially jerusalem, even while in ruins, to be exceptional places. rabbi zeira, a babylonian rabbi who moved to the land of israel, once said, perhaps as an explanation for his move, “the very air of the land of israel makes one wise.” 15 conveying rabbinic romanticism, the talmud instructs, “ten measures of wisdom were bestowed upon the world. nine were given to the land of israel and one to the remainder.” it continues, teaching, “ten measures of beauty were bestowed upon the world. nine were given to jerusalem, and one to the remainder.” 16 alternatively, not only this beauty, but even wisdom is focused on jerusalem. another later text teaches that “ten measures of wisdom were bestowed upon the world—and nine were given to jerusalem.” 17 13 m. avot 5:5. 14 genesis rabbah 5:7, ed. j. theodor (jerusalem: wahrmann, 1965, reprint), vol 1, p. 37. 15 b. bava batra 158b, and see r. zeira as depicted above n. 5. 16 b. kiddushin 49b. 17 aboth de rabbi nathan, ed. s. schechter (new york: feldheim, 1967, reprint), version b, ch. 48, p. 132. another tradition there has ten measures of torah…nine in jerusalem. studies in christian-jewish relations 8 scjr 8 (2013) jerusalem is singular in the eyes of the rabbis. yet even that exceptionalism has its downsides, so this later text also teaches, “ten portions of suffering were bestowed upon the world. nine were given to jerusalem…” and they further say, “ten portions of hypocrisy were bestowed upon the world, nine were given to jerusalem…” 18 so much for the joys of covenantal chosenness. -|-|-|-| accusing my ancestors of hypocrisy is no small thing— however true it may be. in fact, this accusation of hypocrisy was leveled in the ninth century, more than eight-hundred years after the destruction of jerusalem. indeed, all of the rabbinic literature cited here dates from the third through the tenth centuries—from the period when roman hegemony forced the jewish population northwards into the galilee, through the period of christian-byzantine occupation of the holy land, and including the muslim conquest of the land of israel and the islamification of al-quds. the yearning for return to jerusalem never ceased in that near-millennium, and the vision of the rabbis—like those of st. paul and st. augustine in their christian ideal—turned upward toward a heavenly jerusalem. 19 if heavenly jerusalem was pure and pristine, then it was safe to aver that the reason earthly jerusalem had been destroyed for the jews of yore was due to hypocritical piety and base hatred of one jew for another. as the talmud tells the story: following his public humiliation, during which the rabbis sat silent without protest, a jew named bar kamtsa decided that the rabbis had condoned his 18 ibid. 19 see the essay by ephraim e. urbach, “jerusalem below and jerusalem above,” in jerusalem through the ages, ed. y. prawer (jerusalem, 1969), pp. 156-171 [hebrew]; and see the collected essays in lee i. levine, ed., jerusalem: its sanctity and centrality to judaism, christianity, and islam (new york: continuum, 1999). studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 9 www.bc.edu/scjr humiliation. to get even, he devised a plan of revenge by wounding a calf designated for sacrifice by the romans at the temple in jerusalem. now the calf was wounded on the lip—which according to the talmudic understanding would have still allowed it to be sacrificed in a roman pagan ritual, but not in the jewish ritual. bar kamtza set the game afoot by informing the romans that the jews had rebelled! “how can you prove it?” they asked him. “why, just see if they will offer this calf as a sacrifice for the welfare of the roman empire,” he disingenuously suggested. even though its wound disqualified the calf, the rabbis thought it better to offer the sacrifice for the sake of keeping peace with rome. but an otherwise virtually unknown rabbi named zachariah ben avkulos objected, saying. “that’s all well and good, but then people will say that we offer disqualified animals for sacrifice in the temple!” i should note that this ever so strict interpreter of the covenant has a father with a made-up-sounding greek name. avkulos would be eu kalos in greek—which translates as “well and good.” thus, we are reading story here, not history. but let us return to the story: the rabbis then thought to murder bar kamtza to keep him from further collusion with the roman enemy. rabbi zachariah ben avkulos objected, “shall we murder a man for inflicting a small wound on a sacrificial animal?” rabbi yoḥanan commented that the (false) piety of rabbi zechariah ben avkulos caused the destruction of the temple, the burning of the sanctuary, and the exile of the jews from jerusalem. studies in christian-jewish relations 10 scjr 8 (2013) once the rebellion of 66 ce was in full-swing, the romans besieged jerusalem. the talmud reports—again this is mythic memory, not historic fact—that there was enough food and supplies in jerusalem to hold out against rome for twenty-one years. in fact, the jews held out until the year 70. our talmudic narrative continues: within besieged jerusalem were thugs called biryoni who were spoiling for war. the rabbis said, let us make peace with rome; but the biryoni would not permit it. they in turn said, “let us make war with them.” and the rabbis replied, “you will not have the support of heaven in this battle.” so what did the biryoni do? they burned the storehouses of wheat and barley and a famine ensued. 20 the war ended badly for the jews. jerusalem was destroyed, the temple left in ashes, the altar of god reduced to rubble. rome was triumphant and the jews were, indeed, exiled to the galilee. from both the galilee—where rabbinic judaism grew, flourished, and produced a monumental civilization we today call judaism—and throughout the diaspora, especially in jewish babylonia or iraq, where a parallel community complemented that of the jews of the land of israel and fuelled the growth of rabbinic society—jews yearned for the land of israel, their holy land, in a fit of nostalgia that lasted for two millennia. but every now and again, in the stories that formed rabbinic jewish covenantal identity, there would come a narrator who had the antibody to nostalgia and could tell a tale of hypocrisy and internecine battles. in some of these stories, there was blood on the streets. in others, the battle for 20 b. gittin 55b-56b, here summarized. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 11 www.bc.edu/scjr covenantal theology centered on acts of piety and institutional memory. these tales limned the parameters of behavior in the jewish community: what was right and what went too far; what might express identity and what became impossible as a standard of behavior. the telling of these tales about the land of israel served as a rhetoric of covenantal identity formation for rabbinic jews. the stories we tell teach us who we are and to what we aspire. rabbi ishmael said, “from the day the temple was destroyed, by rights we jews should no longer eat meat nor drink wine, as an expression of mourning for our lost sanctuary. yet it is our principle that the rabbinic court should not enact decrees upon the jews that they will not observe.” he also said, “since the romans have uprooted torah from amongst us through their decrees, we no longer have a raison d’être. so we should decree an end to judaism! let no man marry a wife or bear children. let there no longer be circumcision ceremonies, until the seed of abraham runs its course and is no more.” they said to him, “it is better that the jews continue in error, than that you make such decrees and they continue their behavior in defiance of rabbinic law.” 21 this story tells us about a thwarted rabbi, a would-be law maker who understands that there are genuine constraints on decreeing perpetual mourning on the jewish people over the loss of jerusalem and the temple cult. in his first statement, rabbi ishmael wistfully wishes he could command and all would obey his severe demand for asceticism as a response to rome’s destruction of jerusalem, but he is realistic. no one would obey such a rabbinic enactment. folks like to eat a 21 tosefta sota 15:10, ed. s. lieberman (new york: jts, 1973) p. 241. see the treatment of this passage in b. visotzky, sage tales:wisdom and wonder from the rabbis of the talmud (woodstock, vt.: jewish lights, 2011), pp. 196-203. studies in christian-jewish relations 12 scjr 8 (2013) steak and drink a glass of wine now and then. so rabbi ishmael admits defeat. he and his colleagues are wise enough not to undermine their own power by demanding things that their jewish followers will never do. that did not mean that others would nonetheless try to persist in a foolish holier-than-thou attitude that could threaten the very existence of the holy land. i close with one final story of a rabbi confronting those ultra-orthodox ascetics. when the last temple was destroyed, separatists multiplied among the jews, who would not eat meat or drink wine. rabbi yehoshua dealt with them. he said, “my children, why do you not eat meat?” they replied, “shall we eat meat, which was offered daily as a perpetual sacrifice upon the altar, but it is no more?!” he said, “fine, we shall not eat meat. but why do you not drink wine?” they replied, “shall we drink wine, which was daily poured as a libation upon the altar, but it is no more?!” he said to them, “fine, we shall not drink it. but if so, perhaps we should not eat bread; for they brought two ceremonial loaves and the showbread in the temple. and perhaps we should not drink water, which was also poured as a libation upon the altar. and then we should not eat figs or grapes which were brought as first fruit offerings at pentecost.” they were silenced. 22 we can be assured of the fantasy nature of this reductio ad absurdum encounter by the very silence of the separatists. ultrapious jews do not, in my experience, lapse into silence. but let us indulge the rabbinic fantasy and give rabbi yehoshua the last word: 22 tosefta sotah 15:11. studies in christian-jewish relations scjr 8 (2013) 13 www.bc.edu/scjr he said to them, “my children, it is not permissible to mourn excessively. yet neither is it permissible to not mourn at all. rather, this is what our sages suggest, ‘one should paint his house with lime, but leave a small patch unpainted, as a remembrance of jerusalem. one should prepare all the dishes for a banquet, yet refrain from serving one, as a remembrance of jerusalem. and a woman should put on her jewelry, yet remove a piece, as a remembrance of jerusalem.’ as it is said, ‘if i forget you jerusalem, may my right hand wither, may my tongue stick to my palate if i do not remember you; if i do not place jerusalem above my highest joy’ (ps. 137:5-6). for all who mourn jerusalem will merit seeing her joy, as it is said, ‘rejoice with jerusalem and be glad for her, all who love her; all who mourned her will rejoice with her!’ (isa. 66:10)” 23 this story, and the ones we have shared in this brief survey, show the interplay of holy land and covenant in some aspects of rabbinic literature. through their telling and reception over a millennium and more, they have helped jews form an attachment to the law, the land, and the holy city. may all who love jerusalem, al quds, the holy city, rejoice with her! 23 tosefta sotah 15:12-15. michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise: judaism and christian-jewish relations studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ochs r1-3 boesel, risking proclamation, respecting difference ochs r 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr chris boesel risking proclamation, respecting difference: christian faith, imperialistic discourse, and abraham (eugene, or: cascade books, 2008), paperback, xix + 286 pp. peter ochs, university of virginia this book is of primary importance for christians, jews, muslims, and especially for readers of scjr. christian theologian chris boesel addresses the question of how can christians honor judaism’s enduring covenant without abandoning christianity’s classical proclamations about jesus: “he is risen” and “he is messiah”? boesel answers in what i agree is the most satisfactory way today: to take this as a question of scriptural hermeneutics as much as a question of ethics and doctrine. once the question is pursued this way, then the answer—of its own hermeneutical weight—leads to an answer, as well, to another question: how can christians honor other faiths beyond judaism without dishonoring its own faith? boesel presents the questions and answers through a disciplined progression of arguments noteworthy not only for their fruit but also for the way the fruit is planted. the book reads very well and it is reasoned with rigor. overall, boesel contrasts two 20 th -century approaches to supersessionism and christology. one, illustrated by the work of karl barth, appears initially to define a contemporary version of classic supersessionism: god elected the people israel, but the jews rejected god himself in the body of jesus christ. in their disobedience, the jews have thereby excluded themselves from the community of the elect, which is now identified with the church. the other, illustrated by the work of rosemary ruether, would appear to offer the modern “remedy” to barth’s classic supersessionism (p. 24). boesel argues that, for ruether, christianity is ethically obligated to nullify its supersessionism, whose source she traces to the doctrine of christ itself. she concludes that, if god’s being is fully realized in the person of jesus christ, then christian witness to christ would require christian commitment to superseding not only god’s covenant with israel but also all covenants or intimacies with all other non-christian religious groups. since she judges this consequence to be ethically intolerable, ruether argues that christianity must renounce its faith in the finality of god’s incarnation in christ, or what she terms christianity’s “realized eschatology” (p. 127). in boesel’s reading, ruether’s ethics grant christianity the right to claim only a proleptic witnessing of god’s future embodiment on earth. the striking argument of boesel’s book is that, despite these initial appearances, barth’s version of christian supersessionism may, with modest refinement, be used for a more favorable treatment of the jews. by contrast, ruether’s remedy for christian supersessionism, despite her claims, generates a more irremediable form of supersessionism. boesel argues that ruether’s position endorses an ethical universalism in the post-kantian tradition that disparages particularism (and therefore judaism), while barth’s position can, without too much difficulty, be refined into an ethically tolerable species of mild supersessionism. boesel’s most dramatic claim is that ethical universalism is irremediably supersessionist because it identifies this single criterion as the “ultimate criterion of religious truth and faith” (p. 154). this implies that all competing claims are not only less preferable, but also unworthy of the rationality that enables us to perceive the review studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ochs r1-3 boesel, risking proclamation, respecting difference ochs r 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr ethical. for the universalist, a position like barth’s seems the most intolerant, because it claims direct human access to knowledge of god, the absolute. boesel would say that the christian theologian’s claim appears “scandalous” only when it is re-read within the restrictive terms of the universalist’s logic (p. 244). boesel’s interpretive framework is particularly innovative. rather than allow us to judge a theological argument according to the either/or terms of dogmatic universalism or dogmatic christianity, boesel introduces a three-part measure of the ways theologians may argue about such matters (pp. 20-23). in brief, the three parts are:  “the sectarian particular”: efforts by any sect or group to adopt its particular or local practices of interpretation as if they applied universally, to all contexts of interpretation and then to judge all other claims according to these practices.  “the universal elsewhere”: certain contemporary attempts to remedy the interpretive imperialisms of traditional christian faith. according to this measure, these imperialisms give voice to “sectarian particulars,” which are cured by claims that are the logical opposite of the particular (thus “universal”) and of the sectarian (the “elsewhere” or “non-local”). boesel identifies this universalism as imperialist in itself, comparable to the sectarian particular, because universalism treats its assumptions as self-evident and, in that sense, limited to no particular; it then imposes its particular belief universally.  “the particular elsewhere”: the claim by some particular group (particular, even if very large) that its avowedly particular view is true. for boesel, this claim displays a type of interpretive imperialism, since it does not relativize its truth claims. unlike the previous two imperialisms, however, this one is ethically tolerable, since proponents can refine it by adding a few protective conditions. for boesel, barth typifies the “particular elsewhere” in the way he argues that the good news of christ implies the bad news of abraham’s faith. one of boesel’s central efforts is to refine barth’s argument. boesel focusses on barth’s doctrine of election, according to which jesus is not merely the conduit of divine goodness, but also the content of god’s elective decision: jesus is the electing word. as the electing word, jesus must therefore supersede the election of israel since he is the election. because god’s very self is determined by this election, there can be no route to god other than through jesus. in sum, barth argues that, in rejecting jesus, the jews rejected the conditions of their own election. boesel repairs barth’s imperialism by re-describing the good news as a doxological proclamation rather than as a belief claim. a belief claim is measured by the either/or terms of standard truth tables: when i say “that is a rock,” either it is or it is not. doxological proclamations are not measured by such terms, because they offer new conditions for making truth claims in the first place! in boesel’s terms, they offer the personal address of a neighbor who heralds an event known only by way of his or her words (pp. 225f.). such a proclamation provides conditions for making imperialistic claims but is not itself an imperialistic claim. the imperialism of a claim or its universality or particularity are all characteristics of discourses that humans construct in response to doxological proclamations, not the proclamations themselves. i find boesel’s argument wholly convincing. to extend it, i would say some additional things: for example, using the terms of the philosopher charles peirce, doxological proclamations would belong to the category of those “acritical inferences” or “indubitable beliefs” that logically precede any claims of truth or falsity. logical confusion results when thinkers misapply semantic measures like “true” or “false” and quantifiers like “universal” or “particular.” to misapply these measures is to be guilty of a serious category error. so far, i only know of one broad movement of theological argumentation that respects something like peirce’s logic. in a recently published book (another reformation: postliberal christianity and the jews, grand rapids, wi: brazos studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6 (2011): ochs r1-3 boesel, risking proclamation, respecting difference ochs r 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr [2011]), i label this the movement of “postliberal” christian theologians, of which there is both an american and british variety, and whose argumentations are analogous to what i consider “postliberal” jewish and muslim theologians. except for one or two passing footnotes, boesel does not draw on the work of participants in this postliberal movement. the movement should be significant for boesel, since its earliest christian proponents were all advocates of barth’s oeuvre and since they sought, purposefully, to remedy his supersessionism. also, their movement has for about twenty years been associated with a parallel movement of jewish postliberals who appreciate the work of their christian colleagues (see peter ochs, “christian theology and judaism,” in the modern theologians: an introduction to christian theology in the twentieth century, second edition, ed. david ford, malden, ma: blackwell [1997], pp. 607-25; and a different version of this essay in the modern theologians: an introduction to christian theology since 1918 [third edition], eds. david ford and rachel muers, malden, ma: blackwell [2005], pp. 645-62. in the earlier edition, i make claims about barth and ruether that complement and provide a jewish philosopher’s support for the types of arguments found in boesel’s work.) scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-3 pim valkenberg and anthony cirelli, eds. nostra aetate: celebrating 50 years of the catholic church’s dialogue with jews and muslims (washington, d.c.: the catholic university of america press, 2016), xxiii + 312 pp. fred morgan fred.morgan@tbi.org.au australian catholic university, fitzroy vic 3065, australia the 50 th anniversary of the publication of nostra aetate in 2015 prompted catholic institutions around the world to organize symposia considering contemporary roman catholic relations with other religious traditions. some of these proceedings were published, including a volume from my own institution, the australian catholic university. i mention this in order to illustrate widespread interest in assessing the impact of na. the current book under review, which is based on a symposium held at the catholic university of america (cua) in may 2015, focuses on the united states. as the editors note, these essays are to be seen as part of an ongoing conversation that began with na. the papers in this volume are not intended to be the last word on na and should be read in this light. the opening address by john garvey, president of the cua, highlights this point. in a brief space he explores both the limitations and the potential expansiveness of dialogue opened up by na. this theme runs through the essays included here. some have a more historical focus, looking at the emergence of na and the role it played in reorienting catholic relations with other religions. others are more interested in the future, and in providing guidelines for continuing engagement. but all the contributors, catholic and non-catholic alike, see their essays as contributions to a work in progress. the book is divided into five sections: “historical and theological context,” “asian religions,” “dialogue with muslims,” “dialogue with jews,” and “local reception in the united states and the academy.” the second, third, and fourth sections correspond to the topics addressed in those chapters in na. the book also includes a new translation of na by fr. thomas stransky, one of those present at the drafting of the original document. morgan: valkenberg and cirelli’s nostra aetate: celebrating 50 years 2 of the two essays in section one that locate na in its historical and theological setting, the second, by michael root, is particularly interesting. he argues that na moved catholicism from a position of absolute, “nonscalar” judgments about other religions, including protestant denominations of christianity, to the use of more nuanced “scalar” categories that in effect allow for an inclusivist approach (p. 30). nonetheless, he cautions against relying primarily on quantitative over qualitative comparisons with other faiths. for example, he writes, “the catholic church shares a greater range of common elements with presbyterians than with jews, but judaism and the jewish people have a kind of importance for the catholic church and catholic theology that presbyterian churches and reformed theology do not.” this is due to “the emphasis on god’s irrevocable commitment to his covenant promises” (p. 31). this theme of covenant, at the heart of the church’s recent document “the gifts and calling of god are irrevocable” (december 2015) and surely of interest to readers of this journal, is revisited in several of the essays. the two sections on catholic relations with hinduism and buddhism and with islam include essays by practitioners of these faiths as well as catholic scholars (james fredericks, francis clooney, and sidney griffith) and church authorities (jean-louis cardinal tauran, bishop denis madden, archbishop michael fitzgerald) who are widely recognised as leaders in this field. these essays raise a wide range of methodological, theological, and soteriological issues. the chapters by clooney and fredericks reflect their interest in comparative theology, which draws on the insights of other religious traditions as a way to deepen one’s connection to one’s own tradition. as the quotation from michael root suggests, there are real questions about whether and how this approach might work in relation to judaism (though pim valkenberg in his essay on “the academic reception of na” thinks that it might). it is this area of catholicjewish dialogue that will particularly interest readers of this journal. the fourth section dealing with catholic-jewish relations contains contributions from kurt cardinal koch, rabbi irving greenberg, timothy cardinal dolan, and rabbi noam e. marans. concerning the holocaust, cardinal koch acknowledges that “christian anti-judaism was, while not the cause, an attitudinal prerequisite for the expansion of neo-pagan anti-semitism and the lack of resistance of most christians” (pp. 166-67). he further argues that both catholicism and judaism can act as a “thorn in the flesh” of the other, filling in gaps in selfunderstanding (pp. 176-77, quoting paul in 2 cor 12:7). in a jewish response, greenberg carries this argument further, exploring the ways in which the two faiths share core teachings about creation, teleology, and covenant: “it follows that we should give priority to advance the common goal – tikkun olam, the repair and perfection of the world – more than we should be concerned to protect our institutions” (p.179). this is a bold claim that he proceeds to substantiate by uncovering the dialectical tensions at the heart of both faiths, tensions that find “rebalance” through dialogue. as an example of rebalancing, he offers na itself, which he describes as an “heroic repentance” on the part of the church (p. 189). 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) cardinal dolan takes a very different, homiletical approach to catholicjewish dialogue. he puts forward five areas of alliance between christians and jews: responding to secularism and irreligion (reminiscent of a. j. heschel’s argument in his influential 1965 essay, “no religion is an island”), pastoral issues, demographic challenges, religious extremism, and restoring a vocabulary of sin and redemption. significantly, the idea of forming interfaith alliances also occurs elsewhere in the book, notably in an essay on catholic-muslim dialogue by sayed hassan akhlaq hussaini (referring to the islamic concept of wilayat). marans, drawing on the jewish notion of “oral torah,” argues that na depended on the emergence of an “oral torah” of its own. he discusses the “dramatic gestures” of papal visits over the last few decades to synagogues and to israel and to catholic statements and pronouncements (also emphasized by cardinal koch). these had to occur before the jewish community could respond in an open manner (pp. 217-18). he also refers to two “stress points” in interfaith relations from the jewish perspective: the shoah and the state of israel (p. 220). disappointingly, though the first of these points is discussed in some of the essays, the latter—a consideration of the status of the land and state of israel in jewish and christian theology and its place within their respective covenantal schemes—is almost entirely absent. this suggests that the process set in motion by na still has a long way to go. these essays are a useful instrument in the dialogical tool-box, a summary of progress made thus far and a signpost pointing to a hopeful future. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-18 “a model of christ”: melito’s re-vision of jewish akedah exegeses paba nidhani de andrado pdeandrado@yahoo.com curry college, milton, ma 02186 the writings of melito, a second-century bishop of sardis, reveal simultaneously the tensions and connectedness of early jewish christian relations. as the first to virulently accuse israel of killing the lord (peri pascha 72, 74, 87), melito has been designated a poet of deicide. 1 paradoxically, his work also displays a prevalent influence of jewish tradition. the few details we know of his life verify this view. 2 eusebius cites a letter by melito in which he claimed to have visited the holy land to obtain “precise information about the old testament books.” 3 melito’s scriptural fluency emerges in his extant writings, particularly in his peri pascha (pp), his major complete work, as well as in his fragments. 4 melito’s likely knowledge of jewish exegeses on genesis 22 (the akedah, i.e., the 1 phyllis goldstein, a convenient hatred: the history of anti-semitism (brookline, ma: facing history and ourselves national foundation, 2012), 31, summarizes: …about 167ce melito gave a sermon entitled “homily on the passover” [where] he argued that by “crucifying jesus,” the jews had “murdered god” and therefore the jewish people as a whole were guilty of the crime. his homily is the first known use of the deicide charge (as the accusation was later known). his goal was not to incite violence against jews but to strengthen the christian identity of his parishioners…only in later centuries would melito’s words be used to justify discrimination, persecution and murder. also see jeremy cohen, christ killers: the jews and the passion from the bible to the big screen (oxford/new york: oxford up, 2007), 69, who understands that “[casting] the jew as killer of christ proves essential to melito's status and self-concept as a christian.” for an insightful study on the presentation of jews and judaism in melito, see judith lieu, image and reality: the jews in the world of the christians in the second-century (edinburgh: t&t clark, 1996). 2 eusebius, bishop of caesarea, is the main source of information on melito of sardis. see historia ecclesiastica (he) 5:24. patrologia graeca 20. for online access, refer: http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/pg_migne/eusebius%20caesariensis_pg%2019-24/ for an english translation, see the history of the church from christ to constantine, ed. andrew louth, trans. g. a. williamson (london: penguin books, 1989), 172. according to eusebius, melito was a quartodeciman, celebrating the paschal festival on the 14th of nissan, tied to the jewish passover, rather than the (roman) practice of celebrating the day of resurrection on a sunday. 3 he 4:26, history of the church, 135. also melito of sardis: on pascha and fragments, ed. stuart hall (oxford: clarendon, 1979). hall notes in his introduction, xxx, that this is the “first use of the term old covenant or old testament to refer to the bible.” 4 see eusebius’ list of melito’s works in he 4:26, history of the church, 133, although few are extant. also see hall, melito, xiii-xvii. in this essay all citations (greek and english) of melito’s work are from melito of sardis, ed. hall. additionally, see stuart hall, “melito peri pascha: corrections and revisions,” journal of theological studies 64 (2013): 105-110. mailto:pdeandrado@yahoo.com http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/pg_migne/eusebius%20caesariensis_pg%2019-24/ de andrado: “a model of christ” 2 binding of isaac in jewish tradition) was initially suggested by robert wilken, based on his study of fragments 9, 10 and 11. 5 wilken observed that these fragments are “highly significant, because melito is the first christian writer to give more than passing notice to the sacrifice of isaac.” 6 wilken posited that melito’s awareness of jewish exegeses on genesis 22, led him to develop “his own interpretation [in] an attempt to rescue isaac for the christians.” 7 following wilken, notable scholars have concurred that melito’s fragments seem cognizant of jewish exegeses and offer a “polemical” response to akedah tradition. 8 influenced by the archaeological work of a. thomas kraabel and his claim that “the present synagogue or its immediate predecessor, and the people who controlled it, made a profound and profoundly negative impression on [melito],” 9 several studies on melito have related his writings to the social context of ancient sardis. 10 more recent scholarship has questioned the validity of kraabel’s approach and his conclusions regarding melito’s second-century social world 11 and offered new perspectives. 12 nonetheless, melito’s attitude toward judaism and his knowledge of jewish tradition remains an intriguing topic. 13 some have observed 5 see robert l. wilken, “melito, the jewish community at sardis, and the sacrifice of isaac,” theological studies 37 (1976): 53-69. 6 wilken, “melito,” 58. the earliest christian references to abraham’s offering of isaac are in the new testament (jas 2:21 and heb 11:17-19) as well as in 1 clem 31.3 and ep. barn. 7.3. see davies, “martyrdom and redemption: on the development of isaac typology in the early church,” studia patristica 17, ed. elizabeth a. livingstone (oxford: pergamon, 1982), 654. 7 wilken, “melito,” 62. 8 p. r. davies, “martyrdom and redemption,” 656-657: “melito relegates isaac to the type of one redeemed by christ . . .[it] could plausibly be interpreted as a polemical response to the jewish assertion that isaac’s offering, although not completed through death, was, nonetheless, efficacious as an expiation for the sins of israel.” edward kessler, bound by the bible (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2004), 111, observes that melito’s interpretations indicate an encounter with jewish exegesis, and “in his view, the ‘battle’ had . . .to be fought on ‘jewish soil.’ he exhibits a two-fold approach to interpreting genesis 22. firstly, it overshadows the sacrifice of christ and secondly, it is incomplete.” see also wilken, “melito,” 65-66; lieu, image, 226; and robert hayward, “the sacrifice of isaac and jewish polemic against christianity,” catholic biblical quarterly 52 (1990): 304. 9 andrew seager and a.t. kraabel, “the synagogue and the jewish community,” in sardis from prehistoric times: results of the archaeological exploration of sardis 1958-1975, ed. george a. hanfmann (cambridge, ma: harvard up, 1983), 187. 10 andrew michael manis, “melito of sardis: hermeneutic and context,” greek orthodox theological review 32 (1987): 399. see also wilken, “melito,” 53-56; and religious rivalries and the struggle for success in sardis and smyrna, ed. richard s. ascough (canada: wilfred laurier university press, 2005). 11 see david satran, “anti-jewish polemic in the peri pascha of melito of sardis: the problem of social context,” in contra iudaeos: ancient and medieval polemics between christians and jews, ed. ora limor and guy stroumsa (tuebingen: j.c.b. mohr, 1996), 49-58. 12 see m. p. bonz, “the jewish community of ancient sardis: a reassessment of its rise to prominence,” harvard studies in classical philology 93 (1990): 352, 356; and jodi magness, “the date of the sardis synagogue in light of the numismatic evidence,” american journal of archaeology 109 (2005): 443-475. 13 alistair stewart sykes, “melito’s anti-judaism,” journal of early christian studies 5 (1997): 279, suggests that melito may have been jewish, and that his vituperation towards judaism resembles a family argument. lieu, image, 232, remarks that as a quartodeciman, vulnerable to the charge of judaizing, melito’s polemic might be a distancing strategy, “implicitly making void any accusation of 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) resonances between pp with the passover prescriptions in mishna pesaḥim 10:5 as well as with the passover haggadah. 14 furthermore, melito’s list of old testament books “largely conforms with what is widely agreed to be the ‘jewish canon’ by this period, with the notable exception of esther.” 15 melito may have learned of jewish tradition through contacts in sardis, 16 or during his travels to the holy land as the “first recorded pilgrim,” 17 or through jewish christians who may have comprised part of his congregation. reidar aasgaard notes, “melito’s broad knowledge of the scriptures and jewish tradition also suggests a close familiarity with the jews and judaism in his own social context.” 18 this study too accepts melito’s awareness of the akedah tradition, but differs with those who claim that the fragments express an antagonistic stance towards jewish interpretations. it will probe the deeper significance of akedah exegeses for melito, suggesting that he turned to these jewish traditions not primarily to express a defensive or contentious response, but instead as a means of developing his religious thought and articulating his soteriological ideas. this article posits that melito’s extensive use and re-vision of akedah tradition in fragments 9, 10 and 11 bears implications for his theology and his attitude towards judaism. the first part of this essay involves a brief review of the akedah tradition, distinguishing some predominant features of ancient jewish exegeses on genesis 22 as pertinent for melito’s writings, and determining whether these exegetical strands existed in the second century c.e. the next section will include an analysis of the three fragments, individually and in relation to one another, with regard to the presence of akedah tradition. lastly, it will consider the ramifications of these findings. this article aims to demonstrate the extent of melito’s reliance on jewish exegeses, as he draws on and revises their motifs, images and innovative interpretations of genesis 22. methodologically, this essay will draw on insights derived from two approaches that elucidate jewish christian interactions in late antiquity. daniel boyarin presents a model of convergence and continuum to explain the dynamic between ancient judaism and christianity. 19 in his study of martyrdom textual traditions, boyarin refers to “border crossings” where “religious ideas and innovations can cross the borders in both directions,” revealing “blurred boundaries between judaism and christianity. . .” 20 edward kessler’s exegetical approach re judaizing.” see also reidar aasgaard, “among gentiles, jews and christians: formation of christian identity in melito of sardis” in religious rivalries and the struggle for success in sardis and smyrna, ed. richard s. ascough (canada: wilfred laurier university press, 2005), 156-174. 14 stuart hall, “melito in the light of the passover haggadah,” journal of theological studies 22 (1971): 29-46; also alistair stewart-sykes, the lamb’s high feast: melito, peri pascha and the quartodeciman paschal liturgy at sardis (leiden: brill, 1998), 61-66. 15 lieu, image, 207. he 4:26, history of the church, 135. 16 for example, lieu, image, 232, suggests that quartodecimans like melito may have depended on jewish neighbors to determine the date for pascha celebrations according to the jewish passover. 17 lieu, image, 207. 18 aasgaard, “among gentiles,” 159. 19 daniel boyarin, dying for god: martyrdom and the making of christianity and judaism (stanford: stanford university press, 1999), 8-21. 20 boyarin, dying for god, 15, 19. de andrado: “a model of christ” 4 sembles boyarin’s in assuming that jews and christians shared textual interactions. kessler argues that an exegetical relationship existed between jewish and christian commentators (on genesis 22) reflecting mutual awareness, influence and encounter. 21 an “exegetical encounter” is “a jewish interpretation [which] either influenced, or was influenced by, a christian interpretation and vice versa.” it does not imply that jewish and christian exegetes met and engaged in debates, but rather, it indicates awareness of the exegetical tradition of the other, revealed in the interpretations. 22 both boyarin’s and kessler’s notions prove useful for exploring melito’s awareness of akedah tradition, which will be considered next. a. the jewish akedah tradition the word “akedah” derives from the hebrew root עקד (‘kd) for “binding,” a hapax legomenon which occurs in the hebrew (masoretic text) of genesis 22:9. 23 the septuagint (lxx) employs the term συμποδίζω for the word “binding.” modern scholars use the term “akedah” in various ways. 24 this article employs “genesis 22” to refer to the biblical account, while using akedah to refer to the context/event of abraham’s offering of isaac. the terms “akedah tradition” “notion” or “exegeses” will be applied to hermeneutical developments of the biblical story. a brief outline of the jewish akedah tradition which melito may have encountered is pertinent at this juncture. this study will focus on jewish akedah tradition since christian (patristic) readings on genesis 22 (emphasizing christological ideas), though extensive, developed mostly after melito’s time. 25 genesis 22’s account of abraham’s offering his son in obedience to a divine command was already transformed by ancient jewish exegetes, beginning in the second century b.c.e. “from a story about a young passive isaac being sacrificed by abraham to one in which isaac becomes a willing, adult participant in his own slaughter.” 26 variations of the genesis 22 story appear in numerous texts including jubilees, 4q225, philo’s de abrahamo (abr.), josephus’ jewish antiquities 21 kessler, bound, 6-7, 182. 22 kessler, bound, 7-8. kessler, 24-29, develops a set of criteria to indicate an exegetical encounter: an explicit reference to a source (i.e. an opposing view); use of the same scriptural quotation; use of the same literary form; reaching the same or opposite conclusions; use of a well-known controversial theme for jews and christians. it is also relevant to observe that while origen refers to debates with jewish counterparts (see n. r. m. de lange, origen and the jews: studies in jewish-christian relations in third century palestine [cambridge: cambridge up, 1976], 21-26) melito does not mention such debates. 23 the same verb is also used in the mishna to refer to the binding of the tamid (the daily lamb offering in the temple) with a foreleg bound to a hind leg (m. tam. 4.1). 24 joseph fitzmyer, “the sacrifice of isaac in qumran literature,” biblica 83 (2002): 211. 25 for sources, see kessler, bound; and unbinding the binding of isaac, eds. mishael m. caspi and john t. greene (maryland: university press of america, 2007). wilken, “melito,” 64, notes that the sacrifice of isaac “played a minor role in early christianity during the first 100-150 years...melito is the most extensive early christian commentator on the akedah.” 26 paul flesher and bruce chilton, the targums: a critical introduction (brill: leiden, 2011), 404, 405. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) (ja), 4 maccabees (4 macc), pseudo-philo (liber antiquitatum biblicarum, l.a.b) and the pentateuchal targums. 27 these texts contain innovative elements diverging from the original narrative in genesis 22, including depicting: abraham as a priest (philo); isaac’s martyr-like behavior (4 macc); the presence of multiple angels (pentateuchal targums); a satan-like figure named mastema instigating abraham’s trial (jubilees and 4q225); the temple as the locus of sacrifice (josephus); extended speeches by the protagonists (targums and l.a.b); as well as references to isaac’s blood (l.a.b). 28 while many motifs appear in the jewish akedah tradition, i will focus here only on five features of their enhanced portrayal of isaac, 29 which also bear relevance for melito’s fragments. 30 these five features undergo significant shifts between early and later jewish exegesis. early akedah traditions are defined here only as those texts unanimously accepted by scholars to be pre-70 c.e. in origin, such as jubilees, 4q225 and philo (abr. 32-36). 31 current critical consensus assigns others, like josephus’ akedah (ja i. 222-236), l.a.b., 4 maccabees, and the pentateuchal targums, to post-70 c.e. 32 27 the editions used are as follows: the book of jubilees, ed. j. vanderkam (louvain: peeters, 1989); qumran cave 4, viii: parabiblical texts, part i, discoveries in the judaean desert xiii, eds. j.t. milik and j. vanderkam (oxford: clarendon, 1994); philo, eds. f. colson and g. whitaker, loeb classical library (london: heinemann, 1929-1943); josephus, trans. h. st. j. thackeray et al., loeb classical library (london: heinemann, 1925-1965); 4 maccabees, bgt bibleworks on cd-rom, version 6.0 (virginia: bibleworks llc, 2003); pseudo-philo, the biblical antiquities of philo, ed. m. r. james (new york: ktav publishing company, 1971); the targum translations are my own (see paba nidhani de andrado, akedah servant complex: the soteriological linkage of genesis 22 and isaiah 53 in ancient jewish and early christian writings [leuven: peeters, 2013], appendix iii). 28 for studies of these traditions, see james swetnam, jesus and isaac: a study of the epistle to the hebrews in the light of aqedah (rome: biblical institute press, 1981); flesher and chilton, targums, ch. 20, “genesis 22 in the targumim and in early jewish and christian interpretation”; ed noort and eibert tigchelaar, eds, the sacrifice of isaac: the aqedah (genesis 22) and its interpretations (leiden: brill, 2002); leroy andrew huizenga, the new isaac: tradition and intertextuality in the gospel of matthew (leiden: brill, 2009). 29 i adopt this approach from de andrado, akedah servant complex, 187-231. 30 note that fragment 11 does not mention isaac, although its context is obviously akedah. 31 jubilees is dated between 160-150 b.c.e. see vanderkam, book of jubilees (sheffield: sheffield academic, 2001), 21. 4q225 has been palaeographically dated between 30 b.c.e.-20 c.e; see milik and vanderkam, qumran cave 4, 141-155. philo’s de abrahamo’s date is unknown, but would fit within his life span (ca. 15 b.c.e. to 45 c.e.); see daniel schwartz, “philo, his family, and his times,” in the cambridge companion to philo, ed. adam kamesar (new york: cambridge university press, 2009), 9-31. 32 louis feldman, “josephus as a biblical interpreter: ‘the aqedah’,” jewish quarterly review 75 (1985): 252, states that “josephus spent at least a dozen years (79/81-93/94 ce) writing the antiquities”; fitzmyer, “sacrifice,” 224, suggests 70-100 c.e. for l.a.b.; van henten, the maccabean martyrs as saviours of the jewish people (leiden: brill, 1997), 82, assigns ca.100 ce for 4 macc. precise dating of the pentateuchal targums is difficult, but current scholarship concurs with “a chronological range for all the targums of approximately four centuries, with the initial composition of targum onqelos coming at the beginning of that period, by the middle of the second century, and targum pseudojonathan coming toward the end...the origins of the palestinian targums [including targum neofiti, and fragment targums] lie somewhere in the centuries in between” (flesher and chilton, targums, 166). de andrado: “a model of christ” 6 the first feature: in genesis 22 and early texts like jubilees (17:15-18:19), isaac remains unaware of his impending sacrifice, while in later texts (josephus and l.a.b.) isaac is informed of it explicitly. in l.a.b.’s “hymn of deborah” (32:2), abraham states outright, “my son, i am offering you as a burnt offering.” likewise in josephus, abraham briefs isaac that “it was by god’s will that i became thy [father], and now again as pleases him i am resigning thee.” he advises his son to “quit thou now this life not by the common road, but sped by thine own father, on the way to god, the father of all, through the rites of sacrifice” (ja i. 228-230). second, isaac consents to becoming a sacrificial offering only in later akedah writings, but not in genesis 22 or philo’s abr. (32-36) where he is passive and voiceless. 33 in josephus, after isaac’s father informed him of his coming sacrifice, he “received these words with joy” and “he rushed to the altar” (ja i. 232). similarly, 4 macc, possibly influenced by martyrdom concepts, states, “isaac for the sake of religion yielded himself to be slaughtered” (13:12). 34 third, isaac gains status. in genesis 22, isaac’s role is minimal compared with abraham’s. however, in later akedah traditions, isaac gives an eloquent speech (l.a.b 32:3), or is granted a heavenly vision while on the altar (v.10 in tg. neof., frg. tg.). calling the event akedat yiẓḥak (v.14 in tg. neof., frg. tg.) emphasizes isaac’s centrality. fourth: the temple mount is the explicit locus of isaac’s akedah. the hebrew of genesis 22:2 identifies the place as moriah which the lxx translates τὴν γῆν τὴν ὑψηλὴν (the high land). later akedah traditions are more explicit, as jubilees 18:13 refers to mt. zion; josephus calls it “the place where king david built the temple,” (ja i. 227), while the targums mention the “sanctuary of the lord” (v .14 in tg. neof.). fifth: isaac is linked to an expiatory or redemptive role, associated with suffering or the shedding of blood. these details have no foundation in the biblical account, in which the ram is substituted for isaac. however, l.a.b.’s “balaam” refers to isaac’s blood, in spite of the fact that he was not slain, saying, “... on account of his blood i chose [the people of israel]” (18:5). its “hymn of deborah” stresses isaac’s sense of his expiatory role: “have i not been born into the world to be offered as a sacrifice to him who made me...and through me peoples will understand that the lord has made the soul of a man worthy to be a sacrifice” (32:3). this notion is most developed in the pentateuchal targums where abraham prays for his descendants, asking that “when the sons of isaac enter into their hour of groaning, remember the binding of isaac their father and release and forgive their guilt” (frg. tg. 14). while the martyrdom text of 4 macc does not 33 however, 4q225, an early qumran fragment, contains a few features (like a willing isaac) found in later targums. see g. vermes, “new light on the sacrifice of isaac from 4q pseudo-jubilees” journal of jewish studies 47 (1996): 140-146, and fitzmyer, “sacrifice of isaac,” 218, 222. 34 see kessler, bound, 105. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) depict isaac in an expiatory role, nevertheless, it associates the akedah with suffering, since isaac serves as “the supreme example of the martyr.” 35 the crucial question is: which akedah texts can be securely dated prior to melito? melito’s major work pp is dated between 160-170 c.e. 36 melito’s fragments 9, 10, and 11, which resemble pp in style, 37 are best dated between 155 b.c.e. to 175 c.e. while scholars like wilken, davies, hayward, kessler and lieu agree about melito’s plausible awareness of jewish akedah exegeses (see n. 8), they disagree on which strands existed during melito’s time, pointing to the challenge of dating the various jewish sources. wilken suggests that the targums best capture “the jewish view of the akedah” during melito’s time.” 38 however, as mentioned (see n. 32) recent scholars propose a later composition period for the pentateuchal targums. 39 notwithstanding that they may contain some earlier traditions, the targumic texts themselves post-date melito’s writings. omitting the targums as evidence for second-century akedah traditions seems safest. more credible witnesses are early akedah traditions in jubilees, 4q225 and philo (see n. 31). later akedah interpretations in josephus, l.a.b. and 4 macc are also reliably assigned to the first or early second century c.e (see n. 32). this leaves l.a.b. bearing witness to an expiatory role for isaac in this group, with suggested dates ranging from 70-150 c.e. 40 given this context, we may confidently state that the selected five features pertaining to isaac in (early and late) jewish exegeses were part of second-century akedah traditions. granted that these jewish exegetical motifs existed during melito’s time, can we presume their availability to him? as an erudite greek speaker, melito’s access to greek compositions preceding 150 c.e. (like philo, josephus and 4 macc) may reasonably be allowed. 41 additionally, jewish exegeses composed in other languages could have been accessible to a greek reader. textual evidence indicates that works like jubilees and l.a.b, originally composed in hebrew, were translated early into different languages, including greek. 42 such akedah notions may have been in circulation and available, if not directly, then through intermediary texts. recent scholarship has stressed the significance of inter-textual dialogue within the akedah tradition; later texts interacted with the motifs of earlier texts, regardless of provenance or language. 43 for example, a hellenistic 35 see robert hayward, “the present state of research into the targumic account of the sacrifice of isaac,” journal of jewish studies 32 (1981): 130. 36 hall, melito, xxii. 37 hall, melito, xxxii. 38 wilken, “melito,” 59. 39 phillip alexander, “targum, targumim.” the anchor yale bible dictionary, ed. d. n. freedman (new york: doubleday, 1992), vi: 302; kessler, bound, 35. 40 kessler, bound, 23; fitzmyer, “sacrifice,” 224. 41 melito’s writings display his classical education. see frankie j. melton jr, “preaching and melito's use of greco-roman rhetoric,” bibliotheca sacra 167 (2010): 460-80. 42 daniel j. harrington, “the original language of pseudo-philo's ‘liber antiquitatum biblicarum,’” harvard theological review 63 (1970): 503-514. on jubilees, see j. vanderkam, the book of jubilees (louvain: peeters, 1989), v-xxxiv. 43 see de andrado, akedah servant complex. de andrado: “a model of christ” 8 jewish writer with bilingual facility like josephus (who descended from priestly lineage and was educated in jerusalem) included notions derived from jewish tradition in his work. 44 in theory then, melito had access to these five features in jewish exegeses about isaac, whether of greek, hebrew or aramaic origin, either directly through greek texts or translations, or through intermediary texts. b. melito’s fragments and the akedah tradition scholarship on melito’s biblical usage has mostly focused on pp, but his fragments too reveal his use of biblical texts and traditions, including the jewish exegesis about isaac. 45 melito’s fragments 9, 10, and 11 are preserved in a number of manuscripts of a catena on genesis. 46 they are generally considered authentic, 47 but their original context is unknown. 48 all three fragments refer to genesis 22 and “[draw] parallels between the story of isaac in genesis 22 and the death of jesus, under the influence…of [isaiah] 53.” 49 shared biblical references and the mutual theme of sacrifice link the three fragments, but each offers a particular perspective. fragment 9 compares and contrasts the offering of isaac and the sacrifice of christ. fragment 10 concerns the ram’s ransoming of isaac which parallels christ’s redemption of humanity, and fragment 11 interprets the akedah scene of the ram caught in a sabek tree in relation to christ’s crucifixion. in what follows, i assess melito’s use of the akedah tradition in these fragments, paying attention to his deviations from the original biblical narrative, analyzing how these align, positively or negatively, with known jewish exegeses (cf. kessler’s criteria, n. 22). such textual loci may be considered sites of exegetical encounters and will provide insights into melito’s non-polemical knowledge of jewish traditions. melito’s fragment 9, the longest of the three, consists of twenty-five lines, and draws correspondences between the offering of isaac and christ’s sacrifice. each figure carries wood: “and he carried the wood on his shoulders” / καὶ ἐβάστασε τὸ ξύλον ἐπὶ τοῖς ὤμοις αὐτοῦ (7). each is led up to be slain by his father (8, 14). however, the characters also differ, in that christ suffers whereas isaac does not suffer (9). fragment 9 further describes isaac as silent, that he was not “frightened by the sword, nor alarmed at the fire, nor sorrowful at the suffer 44 louis feldman, “josephus,” the anchor yale bible dictionary, ed. d. n. freedman (new york: doubleday, 1992), iii: 986. 45 on melito’s biblical background see h. knapp’s useful study, “melito’s use of scripture in peri pascha: second-century typology” vigiliae christianae 54 (2000): 343-374. melito’s wide-ranging biblical references in pp include primarily the exodus passover narrative, as well as genesis, deuteronomy, isaiah, jeremiah, the psalms and the new testament. regarding his scriptural sources, hall, melito, xl, states that melito’s quotations usually agree with the lxx or one of its principal manuscripts. however, lynn cohick, the peri pascha attributed to melito of sardis: setting, purpose, and sources (providence: brown university, 2000), 147, suggests that melito used derivative biblical sources. 46 hall, melito, xxxiii. 47 ibid., xxxii. 48 wilken, “melito,” 58. 49 lieu, image, 77. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) ing, and he carried with fortitude the model of the lord”/ τὸ γὰρ ξίφος οὐ φοβηθεὶς, οὐδὲ τὸ πῦρ πτοηθεὶς, οὐδὲ τὸ παθεῖν λυπηθεὶς, ἐβάστασεν καρτερῶν τὸν τύπον τοῦ κυρίου (19-22). thrice melito uses the word τύπος (10, 11, 22) to clarify the relationship between the two: isaac is the model in contrast to christ who is the fulfilment. here, one striking departure from the biblical text is melito’s emphatic statement, “isaac did not suffer” / ἰσαὰκ δὲ οὐκ ἔπαθεν·(9). kessler observes, “...the biblical text provides no indication that isaac suffered or shed blood. consequently, there was no reason why [patristic writers] should consider whether isaac suffered or not, unless they were aware of contemporary jewish exegesis.” 50 melito could have been responding to akedah interpretations which suggest that isaac’s blood was shed and that he played an expiatory role (l.a.b. 18, 32) or to exegesis that associates isaac with suffering martyrs (4 macc). melito not only refutes these notions about isaac, but he insists that “christ suffered, whereas isaac did not suffer” / ἀλλὰ χριστὸς ἔπαθεν, ἰσαὰκ δὲ οὐκ ἔπαθεν (9). he accentuates the greater role played by christ in contrast to isaac, who as a model, did not experience the actual trauma. since isaac did not suffer, we can infer that his sacrifice did not take place, whereas christ endured the pain of being offered, and his sacrifice was accomplished. it could be argued that melito is unaware of jewish interpretations here and instead invents a typological contrast (i.e. isaac does not accomplish what the fulfilment, christ, does by suffering). however, as hayward notes, “the tradition that isaac suffered is strongly represented in 4 maccabees which presents him as the model of a martyr for the jewish faith...it would not seem unlikely, then, that melito is flatly contradicting [it].” 51 melito’s statement that “isaac did not suffer” appears to be a specific response to a wellknown jewish interpretation. melito also claims that isaac was not “sorrowful at the suffering” / οὐδὲ τὸ παθεῖν λυπηθεὶς (21). this alludes to isaac’s foreknowledge of his impending sacrifice and suffering, but suggests that he remained willing. wilken too comments that “melito makes quite clear that isaac knew what was to happen.” 52 the notion of isaac’s prior knowledge and implied consent does not arise from genesis 22. instead, melito presumably derives this idea from the akedah tradition (as found in josephus) where isaac is informed that he is to be sacrificed and he consents. although fragment 9 does not state that isaac is explicitly told, it suggests isaac’s awareness and readiness to be sacrificed, pointing to christ’s preparedness as well, since isaac’s fortitude is a model for the lord (22). additionally, fragment 9 depicts a martyr-like, unflinching isaac who is “not frightened by the sword, nor alarmed at the fire” / τὸ γὰρ ξίφος οὐ φοβηθεὶς, οὐδὲ τὸ πῦρ πτοηθεὶς (19-20). since the biblical account does not refer to isaac’s emotions, melito’s stoical portrayal seems indebted to the akedah tradition (as in josephus and 4 macc). for example, 4 macc 16:20 states, “when isaac saw his 50 kessler, bound, 130-131. 51 hayward, “sacrifice of isaac,” 304. 52 wilken, “melito,” 64. de andrado: “a model of christ” 10 father's hand wielding a sword and descending upon him, he did not cower” and also refers to “the father by whose hand isaac would have submitted to being slain” (13:12). the latter image also resonates with melito’s reference to “abraham [who] stood by and held the sword unsheathed, not ashamed to put to death his son” / καὶ ἀβραὰμ παρεστὼς καὶ κρατῶν γυμνὸν τὸ ξίφος, οὐκ αἰδούμενος φονεῦσαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ (24-25). by highlighting the fearlessness of isaac in the face of his father’s action, melito intimates christ’s own courage in being offered by god, since isaac both parallels and points to christ. melito’s insistence that isaac was silent, “not opening his mouth nor uttering a sound” /οὐκ ἀνοίγων τὸ στόμα, οὐδὲ φθεγγόμενος φωνῇ (18), seems to respond to isaac’s eloquence in the akedah tradition. 53 melito could be counteracting the later jewish portrayal of a dominant isaac who voices his views (as in josephus) by choosing instead isaac’s biblical subordinate, passive position, perhaps because this silence is appropriate to the image of the martyr who complies without resistance, thus foreshadowing christ’s own martyr-like, unprotesting yielding to his suffering. lending credibility to melito’s awareness of jewish exegeses is fragment 9’s employment of the verb συμποδίσας (15) which is the lxx translation of the hebrew hapax legomenon, ‘kd in gen 22:9. melito uses the verb just once, only in reference to the act of abraham’s binding isaac. although melito mentions the idea of being “bound” elsewhere in relation to christ, the ram, and isaac, 54 in these discussions he does not employ συμποδίζω but other verbs like δέω. as cohick notes, “frag[ment] 10 [employs] desmōn/detheis twice in speaking about jesus as the ram that saved isaac.” 55 kessler notes that “this usage [συμποδίζω] is extremely rare in the writings of the church fathers.” such a specific use of the term suggests that melito knows “the akedah by its rabbinic title, the binding of isaac.” 56 it is unlikely that melito is merely following lxx terminology here, because his text freely deviates from genesis 22. 57 melito’s choice of the rare συμποδίζω in fragment 9 appears deliberate, reflecting awareness of the term’s resonance within jewish tradition. in fragment 9, then, melito seems to manifest familiarity with jewish exegeses on genesis 22, and the many ideas which melito probably derived from it shaped his christian exegeses. he responds to these jewish ideas either by denial (that isaac suffered or voiced his views) or by affirmation (of isaac’s fortitude, his prior knowledge, or his compliance and readiness to be sacrificed). additionally, melito presents isaac and his sacrifice as a model for christ’s sacrifice. like isaac, christ was offered by his father, and he was aware of and prepared for the 53 hayward, “sacrifice of isaac,” 304. 54 as in fragment 9 (2, 17, 23) and fragment 10 (3, 6). 55 cohick, peri pascha attributed to melito, 45. 56 kessler, bound, 131. 57 melito omits many details of genesis 22 (lxx / mt) such as god’s initial command and testing of abraham, his preparations, taking along two servants, and angelic intervention. melito also does not use distinctive lxx phrases such as the reference to “your beloved son” / τὸν υἱόν σου ἀγαπητόν (gen 22:2) and “the high land”/ τὴν γῆν τὴν ὑψηλὴν (gen 22:2). 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) sacrifice. however, he possessed in fullness the martyr’s qualities that isaac only modeled (courage, willingness, compliant silence, fortitude), he suffered, and his sacrifice was complete. it is reasonable to infer that melito’s reliance on and response to jewish exegetical notions led him to develop this theme of christ’s sacrificial character. melito’s fragment 10, consisting of only seven lines, pertains to the akedah tradition as well. melito mentions isaac thrice (2, 3, 4) but clearly emphasizes the ram (genesis 22:13). he highlights its redemptive role, describing that “on behalf of isaac the righteous one, a ram appeared for slaughter, so that isaac might be released from bonds” / ὑπὲρ ἰσαὰκ τοῦ δικαίου ἐφάνη κριὸς εἰς σφαγήν, ἵνα δεσμῶν ἰσαὰκ λυθῇ, (2-3). moreover, melito sets up a parallel between the ram which is slaughtered to ransom isaac, and the lord who dies to ransom humanity: “that ram, slain, ransomed isaac, so also the lord, slain, saved us” / ἐκεῖνος σφαγεὶς ἐλυτρώσατο τὸν ἰσαάκ, οὕτως καὶ ὁ κύριος σφαγεὶς ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς, (4-5). both the ram and the lord are sacrificed, and both their sacrifices have salvific effect. moreover, the emphatic words “so also the lord” / οὕτως καὶ ὁ κύριος (5) convey that melito is not simply making a comparison, but articulating that the ram serves as a model of christ. intriguingly, melito’s stress on the ransoming death of the ram is not consonant with the biblical account. there, isaac’s salvation occurs when the angel of the lord intervenes and halts his sacrifice (22:12), not with the subsequent sacrifice of the ram. this contrasts with philo’s solution to this problem. he dispenses with the ram entirely and has the lord directly save isaac (de abrahamo 176). why then does melito give the ram prominence, comparing it to christ, and accentuating that it ransomed isaac? melito could be responding to jewish exegeses that assign isaac an elevated status, associating him with redemptive effects. for example, in l.a.b. 32:3, isaac makes a sacrificial declaration: “my blessedness will be above that of all men.” pointing to the presence of the theme in later church fathers, kessler suggests, melito may have been contradicting this soteriological role by demonstrating that isaac himself needed saving. 58 athanasius of alexandria, writing two centuries after melito, makes this point explicitly: abraham saw the messiah in the ram, which was offered up instead as a sacrifice to god...[abraham] was restrained from laying his hand on the lad [isaac] lest the jews, taking occasion from the sacrifice of isaac, should reject the prophetic declarations concerning our saviour...and should refer all such things as these to the son of abraham. (epist. 6: patrologia graeca 26, 1387 8). did melito also feel that the akedah tradition’s elevation of isaac would detract from the recognition due to christ? 58 kessler, bound, 141-142, notes that comparisons between the ram and christ were common among later church fathers like origen, cyril of alexandria, and gregory of nyssa. de andrado: “a model of christ” 12 fragment 10 does intimate melito’s cognizance of jewish exegeses that give emphasis to the ram. 59 in some akedah accounts, the ram’s importance depends on its association with isaac, with the ram representing rather than redeeming isaac. 60 for instance, genesis rabbah 56:9 depicts abraham as requesting god to “regard the blood of this ram as though it were the blood of isaac, my son.” 61 admittedly, genesis rabbah is a later work, but its midrashic exegeses includes earlier materials. 62 if melito was aware of such jewish perspectives identifying the ram with isaac, fragment 10 may be an attempt to disassociate them and to accentuate instead the ram’s correspondence to christ. overall, fragment 10 indicates melito’s awareness of the akedah tradition. his distinctive depiction of the ram reinterprets the biblical account and gives the animal greater prominence, presumably in response to jewish exegeses. by describing the ram’s function as ransoming isaac, melito tacitly negates any soteriological role for isaac, and also disrupts the identification between isaac and the ram. since the latter performs a redemptive act, melito draws parallels between the ram and christ, suggesting that the ram was merely a model of christ. such correspondences enable melito to highlight the soteriological effect of christ’s sacrifice: “the lord, slain, saved us, and bound, released us, and sacrificed, ransomed us” / ὁ κύριος σφαγεὶς ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς, καὶ δεθεὶς ἔλυσε, καὶ τυθεὶς ἐλυτρώσατο (5-7). the verbs “save,” “release,” “ransom” and “sacrifice” accentuate the redemptive action of christ. moreover, melito stresses the scope of christ’s salvific work. while isaac cannot save anyone, not even himself, and requires ransoming by the ram, the ram too is able to save only one person, isaac. christ, in contrast, has saving ramifications for “us” / ἡμᾶς, meaning all humanity. in fragment 10, melito’s apparent response to jewish exegeses enables him to advance his perspectives on the scope and salvific efficacy of christ’s sacrifice. melito’s fragment 11, consisting of six lines, is the briefest of the three fragments. it lacks explicit mention of isaac, but it shares the akedah context. this fragment includes a reference to the ram: “for the lord was a lamb like the ram”/ ἦν γὰρ ὁ κύριος ὁ ἀμνὸς ὡς ὁ κριός (2). the text also refers to the scene in gen 22:13 (lxx) where the ram is caught in a sabek tree. melito interprets that the ram/lamb points to christ: “but the tree displayed the cross, and that place, jerusalem, and the lamb, the lord fettered for slaughter”/ ἀλλὰ τὸ φυτὸν ἀπέφαινε τὸν σταυρόν, καὶ ὁ τόπος ἐκεῖνος τὴν ἰερουσαλήμ, καὶ ὁ ἀμνὸς τὸν κύριον ἐμπεποδισμένον εἰς σφαγήν (4-6). the word sabek (σαβέκ) in the lxx (while likely a transliteration of the hebrew סבך) could also be a word play on the aramaic ׁשבק connoting the idea of forgiveness. 63 the images cohere since mt. 59 see kessler, bound, ch. 6, “the sacrifice of the ram.” 60 kessler, bound, 144. 61 genesis rabbah is dated to 5th c. ce, but kessler, bound, 144, notes that this interpretation (gen. rab. 56:9) is based upon the (early) mishnaic concept (m. tem. 5.5) of exchange known as תחת (“instead of”) which validated the substitution of one item for another. 62 moshe david herr and stephen g. wald, “genesis rabbah,” in encyclopaedia judaica, 2 nd edition, ed. michael berenbaum and fred skolnik, (detroit: macmillan reference, 2007), 7:448-49. 63 this connection is made explicit in fragment 12 which, however, is not an authentic melito text (see hall melito, xxxiii). see also wilken, “melito,” 67. 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) moriah is the original setting of abraham’s sacrifice of isaac (gen 22:2, masoretic text version) which site has been identified with the jerusalem temple in chronicles (2 chronicles 3:1), as well as in jubilees and josephus. the locus of isaac’s sacrifice is important in the akedah tradition, perhaps to “prove the sole legitimacy of jerusalem and its temple as the place of sacrifice.” 64 melito seems aware of this notion in fragment 11 which identifies jerusalem (and intrinsically the temple) as the setting of the sacrifice. however, as wilken points out, melito redefines jerusalem as important because it is the locus where the crucifixion occurred (in “that place, jerusalem”). 65 by juxtaposing these two events and stating that “the tree displayed the cross”/ τὸ φυτὸν ἀπέφαινε τὸν σταυρόν (4), fragment 11 presents the akedah as a prefiguration of the crucifixion. fragment 11 also draws a comparison between cultic animals (i.e. the ram and/or lamb) and the lord “fettered for the slaughter” (6). this correspondence conveys the idea that the temple cult (as evoked by sacrificial animals) is fulfilled by christ’s sacrifice, a point which melito overtly declares in pp (44): “the blood of the sheep was precious but it is worthless now because of the spirit of the lord, a speechless lamb was precious, but it worthless now because of the spotless son, the temple below was precious but it is worthless now because of the christ above.” c. summary of findings as kessler demonstrates in his comprehensive study on akedah exegetical encounters in the first six centuries, “a close exegetical relationship [exists] between jewish and christian biblical interpretations” and “neither jewish nor christian interpretations can be understood properly without reference to the other...it is no longer acceptable to study these subjects in a vacuum.” 66 this analysis of fragments 9, 10 and 11 reveals cogent evidence that melito was aware of jewish exegeses of genesis 22, including key motifs concerning the figures of isaac and the ram, and the location of the akedah. the counter-argument that melito independently presented his own interpretation of genesis 22, discovering contrasts and types based on his own biblical reading does not bear weight. as kessler observes, fragment 9 is one of the earliest and most significant patristic interpretations of the akedah, “indicating an awareness of the increasing emphasis on isaac in the earlier post-biblical and rabbinic interpretations.” 67 other scholars, like wilken and hayward, similarly confirm the likelihood of melito’s knowledge of akedah tradition. this analysis demonstrates that melito not only received the akedah tradition but he also responded to it by adapting, affirming, interpreting, or redefining its concepts. in fragment 9, melito’s depiction seems to counter jewish exegeses 64 hayward, “present state,” 133. 65 wilken, “melito,” 67. 66 kessler, bound, 182. 67 ibid., 110 de andrado: “a model of christ” 14 that isaac suffered, played a redemptive role, or made eloquent speeches, but affirm the akedah tradition’s notions about isaac’s martyr-like courage, willingness, and prior knowledge of the sacrifice. melito redefines isaac’s status by depicting him as a “model,” highlighting correspondences between isaac and christ. in doing so, melito presents a sacrificial portrait of christ as one who suffered and whose sacrifice was complete, unlike that of isaac. fragment 10 too reveals engagement with the akedah tradition, but with a focus on the ram. in elevating the ram, melito appears to address jewish exegeses that assign isaac an expiatory role or depict the ram as representing isaac. melito reinterprets the ram’s function: it ransoms isaac by being slaughtered in his place. through comparisons between the ram and the lord, melito intimates that in this, the ram is a model of christ who dies to redeem all humanity. this magnifies the greater scope of christ’s saving work. in addition, fragment 11 suggests melito’s awareness of jewish exegeses that accentuate the setting of akedah as the jerusalem temple. while melito does not negate this tradition, nevertheless he redefines the importance of jerusalem as the site of christ’s crucifixion and conveys that the akedah event is a pre-figuration of christ’s sacrifice. melito also refers to cultic animals, implying that christ’s death on the cross fulfills the role of jewish temple sacrifice. clearly, in each of the three fragments, melito offers distinctive interpretations of a (hebrew bible) figure or scene. in doing so, he deviates from genesis’ account, apparently drawing on jewish exegeses from which he derives and reshapes notions. in this, melito employs a typological hermeneutic, explicitly or implicitly depicting the figure or scene as a model or pre-figuration [τύπος] which finds fulfillment in christ. 68 melito’s primary emphasis is neither on diminishing these figures (though it is a partial effect) nor in advocating a radical supersessionism. rather, by generating correspondences or contrasts between the “models” and christ, melito strives to develop a sacrificial portrait of christ. d. theological implications although they do not coherently define his views, melito’s writings bear theological implications. even in pp, his major work, melito’s preaching communicates his theology in an apparently “haggadic way,” rather than in a systematic, orderly manner. 69 in spite of this, soteriology does emerge both in pp 70 and the fragments as a major concern. through their integration of the akedah tradition, each of the selected fragments in varied but related ways expresses the theme of christ’s atoning sacrifice. fragment 9 stresses that christ’s suffering signals the completeness of his sacrifice in contrast to isaac’s. fragment 10 high 68 manis, “melito of sardis,” 397, indicates that “the exegetical principles underlying melito's typological hermeneutic are most clearly set forth in two sections of the paschal homily: ph 35-45 and 57-58.” 69 thomas f. torrance, “dramatic proclamation of the gospel: homily on the passion by melito of sardis,” greek orthodox theological review 37 (1992): 153. 70 see torrance, “dramatic proclamation,” 155-159. 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) lights the scope of christ’s sacrifice, with its redemptive efficacy extending to all humanity, like and unlike that of the ram who just saves isaac. fragment 11 emphasizes that christ’s crucifixion was in jerusalem, prefigured by the akedah, as the fulfilment of temple sacrifice. in these fragments, melito predicates his soteriology on the biblical cult, especially its sacrificial complex. although melito does not explicitly mention the sacrificial system, he evokes it through akedah images and motifs, drawing on the jewish tradition that links mt. moriah and the jerusalem temple mount. his references to the act of binding (fragment 9), the sword readied for slaughter (fragment 9), sacrificial animals like the ram and the lamb (fragment 10), and his emphasis on jerusalem (fragment 11), all resonate with the ancient cult, where ritual slaughter and blood manipulation of sacrificial offerings resulted in the atonement of sins, among other functions. melito also presents the akedah image of “a son led by his father to a mountain for slaughter” (fragment 9) as congruent with the expiatory notion of god offering the son as atonement for all (cf. john 3:16). his references to the lord carrying wood on his shoulders like isaac (fragment 9) and his image of the lord fettered for slaughter like a lamb (fragment 11) reinforce the notion of christ’s crucifixion as an expiatory sacrifice. clearly, akedah associations enable melito to effectively convey the soteriological and sacrificial role of christ. while scholars have examined the akedah imagery in the fragments, few have commented on the significance of melito’s use of isaiah 53 in these texts, especially isa 53:7. 71 intriguingly, words from genesis 22 and isaiah 53 blend at a semantic and lexical level. melito invokes this in the opening sentence of fragment 9: “for as a ram he was bound...and as a lamb he was shorn, and as a sheep he was led to slaughter, and as a lamb he was crucified”/ ὡς γὰρ κριὸς ἐδέθη, . . .καὶ ὡς ἀμνὸς ἐκάρη, καὶ ὡς πρόβατον εἰς σφαγὴν ἤχθη, καὶ ὡς ἀμνὸς’ ἐσταυρώθη (2-6). the phrase, “for as a ram he was bound”/ ὡς γὰρ κριὸς ἐδέθη clearly alludes to gen 22:13; “as a lamb he was shorn, and as a sheep he was led to slaughter, and as a lamb crucified”/ ὡς ἀμνὸς ἐκάρη, καὶ ὡς πρόβατον εἰς σφαγὴν ἤχθη, καὶ ὡς ἀμνὸς’ ἐσταυρώθη (4-6) refers to isa 53:7. both the akedah’s “bound ram” and the isaianic “lamb led to slaughter” describe cultic animals readied for sacrifice, thus heightening the sacrificial dimension of christ who was “crucified like a lamb” / ὡς ἀμνὸς’ ἐσταυρώθη (6). fragment 10 again fuses the two texts in the phrase that “a ram appeared for slaughter”/ εφάνη κριὸς εἰς σφαγήν (2) on behalf of isaac. although the ram reference is from gen 22, the phrase for slaughter / εἰς σφαγήν is likely an allusion to isa 53:7 (albeit a variant of the lxx form ἐπι σφαγὴν). 72 melito’s merging of genesis 22 and isaiah 53 connotes the idea of vicarious sacrifice, for the ram is slain on behalf (‘υπὲρ) of isaac, as christ dies on behalf of others. fragment 11 displays another association of the isaianic lamb and the akedah ram by stating: “for the lord was a lamb 71 de andrado, akedah servant complex, 220, 222. 72 lieu, image, 225, notes of fragment 9 that the ram “which actually was slaughtered provides a potent symbol, allowing a certain elision with the sheep of isa 53:7, led to the slaughter. http://www.tlg.uci.edu.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/help/betamanual/online/q3.html http://www.tlg.uci.edu.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/help/betamanual/online/q3.html http://www.tlg.uci.edu.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/help/betamanual/online/q3.html de andrado: “a model of christ” 16 like a ram / ἦν γὰρ ὁ κύριος ὁ ἀμνὸς ὡς ὁ ‘κριός, (2). further, it too links the lord to the lamb in the phrase “and the lamb, the lord fettered for slaughter”/ καὶ ὁ ἀμνὸς τὸν κύριον ἐμπεποδισμένον εἰς σφαγήν (6) with “fettered for slaughter” / εἰς σφαγήν again signaling melito’s allusion to the lamb in isa 53:7. these images of cultic animals in the locus of jerusalem emphasize the sacrificial elements of christ’s death. in summary, melito employs a range of cultic motifs and sacrificial notions drawn from genesis 22, the akedah tradition, and isaiah 53; these enable him to express his soteriology in fragments 9, 10 and 11. associations with the figure of isaac, animal offerings like the ram/lamb, and the temple locus, all heighten his argument for christ’s death on the cross as an atoning sacrifice. while each fragment emphasizes a different facet of christ’s sacrifice, they all share a common basis in interpretations of the biblical cult, providing the context and meaning for melito’s soteriology. e. conclusion building upon previous scholarship, this article has examined melito’s engagement with the akedah tradition in his fragments 9, 10, and 11. after identifying five relevant features in the ancient jewish exegesis of genesis 22 and its portrayal of isaac, the article’s analysis reveals melito’s extensive use of akedah tradition in these three fragments. this study thus demonstrates that melito not only received jewish exegeses, but that he engaged in “re-vision” as he adapted, redefined, affirmed or re-interpreted the akedah notions about isaac, the ram and the akedah site. each fragment offers a distinctive interpretation of a biblical figure or scene, employing a typological hermeneutic and drawing correspondences between the “model” and its fulfilment (christ). melito’s theological purpose expressed in these texts is to depict the sacrifice of christ as complete, as universally redemptive, and as fulfilling the purpose of (animal) sacrifice. melito’s soteriology is thus predicated on the biblical cult, evoked through sacrificial motifs and imagery drawn from genesis 22, isaiah 53, and the later akedah tradition. a final important consideration is whether and how these findings contribute to our understanding of "the jewish-melito question.” 73 our understanding of melito’s attitude to judaism has largely been defined by his vituperative antijewish rhetoric in pp (72-99) that accuses “israel” of ingratitude and deicide. numerous studies have striven to determine the reasons for this bitter tirade. 74 explanations include kraabel and others’ socio-historical arguments concerning the marginalized position of christians in sardis, 75 or satran’s suggestion that “an intimate knowledge of jewish custom and tradition might have motivated the christians of sardis to want to strongly, even violently, dissociate themselves 73 knapp, “melito,” 370. 74 for an overview of different scholarly positions see stewart-sykes, “melito’s anti-judaism,” 271279. 75 kraabel, “the synagogue and the jewish community,” (see n. 9). http://www.tlg.uci.edu.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/help/betamanual/online/q3.html 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) from judaism.” 76 cohick and lieu among others, have discussed the references to “israel” in pp, whether they refer to contemporary jews, to biblical jews, or to a hypothetical israel. 77 more plausibly, knapp and manis have remarked on melito’s own ambivalence towards judaism. 78 regardless of what lay behind it, melito’s rhetoric of deicide in pp had long-term, devastating consequences (see n. 1). melito’s fragments provide useful additional insights into his stance on jewish tradition. his extensive reliance on and response to jewish exegeses and his use of multiple akedah notions suggest their significance for him. jewish exegeses gave substance to melito’s writing, supplying motifs, images, and innovative readings of biblical characters and scenes, while being an impetus for his theology. melito’s engagement with akedah notions (even when they contradict the genesis 22 narrative) convey the value he placed on jewish interpretations and their potential enrichment of his own ideas. admittedly, melito’s use of the akedah tradition in his fragments has been viewed as polemical by some scholars (see n. 8) who consider his main thrust to be to deny jewish claims that the isaac of the akedah has intrinsic meaning and to find isaac’s meaning instead through jesus. wilken (with reference to fragment 10) observes that “the fragment pits church against synagogue, the new israel against the old israel.” 79 however, this study reveals that melito’s response to jewish exegeses in his fragments is not primarily contentious or defensive. while melito does employ typology, his emphasis is not a radically supersessionist denigration of the model. although they present christ as the fulfilment, the fragments also intimate the abiding significance and inherent meaning of akedah figures. when he declares that “isaac caused astonishment and fear among men,” (fragment 9) and refers to isaac as the “righteous one,” (fragment 10), could melito be reflecting his own awed impressions of akedah tradition? furthermore, the fragments’ use of jewish exegeses may be described as constructive (rather than polemical). by generating correspondences and contrasts between the cultic “model” and its “fulfillment,” melito constructs a sacrificial depiction of christ and his atoning death. it seems reasonable then to assert that by providing melito a platform on which to develop his soteriological ideas and to envision new perspectives, the jewish exegeses enabled melito’s soteriology. the fragments present a writer who esteems, engages with, and employs the biblical and exegetical traditions of the jewish people. from this standpoint, the fragments serve to confirm boyarin’s assertion that early jewish christian interactions involved “much more than confrontation.” 80 melito’s contributions to jewish-christian exegetical interactions deserve a more thorough investigation. many of the themes found in melito became com 76 satran, “anti-jewish polemic,” 58 77 see lynn cohick, “melito of sardis's peri pascha and its ‘israel’,” harvard theological review 91(1998): 3-372; lieu, image, 215-220. 78 knapp, “melito,” 370. see also manis, “melito of sardis,” 398. 79 wilken, “melito,” 67. 80 boyarin, dying for god, 20. de andrado: “a model of christ” 18 monplace in later patristic literature. 81 for instance, clement of alexandria states that “isaac only bore the wood of the sacrifice, as the lord the wood of the cross” (paedagogus: patrologia graeca 8, 277 5), and “isaac did everything but suffer, as was right, yielding the precedence in suffering to the word.” (paed.: pg 8, 277 4). could melito’s akedah interpretations have influenced clement? 82 additionally, wilken remarks on athanasius of alexandria’s references to the sacrifice of isaac, “that what is made explicit in athanasius is implicit already in melito.” 83 research on the pioneering nature of melito’s use of jewish exegeses in the context of patristic literature, and his possible impact on subsequent church fathers would be a noteworthy contribution both to patristic studies and to jewishchristian relations. pertinent too are studies from jewish perspectives, examining melito’s writings for evidence of early christian influence on jewish tradition. 84 what is our conclusion about the “jewish-melito question?” a straightforward answer eludes us. as satran comments, “we know far too little about melito, his career, or the nature of jewish-christian relations in second-century asia minor to draw firm conclusions...” 85 nevertheless, for a fuller, nuanced consideration of his attitude to judaism, future investigations on melito would benefit from giving due attention not only to the harsh rhetoric in peri pascha but also to his fragments. as this essay has established, melito’s use and re-vision of akedah tradition in fragments 9, 10 and 11 bear important ramifications. the fragments provide a glimpse of melito’s world, with its complex dynamic of early christian-jewish relations characterized by contact, tension, and creativity. 86 81 see the concluding chapter in kessler, bound, 175-183, for a summary of akedah themes shared between patristic and rabbinic exegetes. 82 we can only speculate, keeping in view eusebius’ comment that clement is said to have mentioned melito in his own book on the pascha which “was composed, [clement] says, in consequence of melito’s” (he 4.26), history of the church, 133. 83 wilken, “melito,” 66, declares that in athanasius’ fourth century text, “the conflict between christians and jews over the sacrifice of isaac is stated explicitly and polemically.” 84 on the possible influence of melito’s peri pascha on the dayennu prayer in the passover haggadah, see israel yuval, “easter and passover as early jewish-christian dialogue” in passover and easter: origin and history to modern times (two liturgical traditions), eds. paul f. bradshaw and lawrence a. hoffmann (indiana: university of notre dame press, 1999), 98-124. see also his two nations in your womb (california: university of california press, 2006). 85 satran, “anti-jewish polemic,” 58. 86 i would like to thank prof jonathan klawans, the anonymous reviewers, and the journal’s editor for their feedback, as well as my colleagues at curry college for their academic support. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): phan res1-7 phan, judaism and christianity phan res 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr judaism and christianity: reading cardinal koch’s address between the lines and against the grain peter c. phan , georgetown university a response to cardinal kurt koch’s october 30, 2011 keynote address at seton hall university during the 10 th annual meeting of the council of centers on christian-jewish relations in his address, kurt cardinal koch delivers what he promises, namely, outlining the theological issues involved in the jewish-christian dialogue and attempting answers to them on the basis of biblical and magisterial teachings (with—as to be expected—abundant and approving citations from joseph ratzinger/benedict xvi). koch’s treatment of these issues is strictly theological, examining them apart from their cultural and socio-political contexts, which are often the colossal elephant in the room, and from the dialogue with islam, another gigantic elephant. it is of course legitimate to ask whether another approach would offer a more fruitful understanding of these theological issues, for instance, one that takes into account the two elephants just mentioned. however koch’s essay should not be assessed for what it does not intend to do but only for how well it does what it sets out to do, that is, to present the theological issues in the jewish-christian dialogue and provide answers to them from the roman catholic perspective. in this respect, koch’s paper is an informative and authoritative guide. my intention here is neither to provide alternative answers to cardinal koch’s nor to propose another set of theological issues for the jewish-christian dialogue. rather, i take koch’s text at its face value and attempt to read between the lines, saying what is left unsaid, and against the grain, deconstructing what is being said to unearth the layers of the cardinal’s arguments. my brief essay is a critical gloss on rather than a run-of-the-mill full response to cardinal koch’s presentation. the shoah and christian responsibility? cardinal koch begins his lecture with reflections on “the complex history between christians and jews” and comments on the role of christians in the holocaust: the shoah cannot and should not however be attributed to christianity as such: it was in fact led by a godless, anti-christian and neo-pagan ideology. koch goes on to say: even though the primitive racist antisemitism of the nazi ideology, which had of course developed already in the 19 th century, has nothing in common with christianity, we christians nevertheless have every cause to remember our complicity in the horrific developments, and above all to confess that christian resistance to the boundless response studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): phan res1-7 phan, judaism and christianity phan res 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr inhuman brutality of ideologically-based national socialist racism did not display that vigour and clarity which one should by rights have expected. toward the end of his speech he says: because the cross of jesus christ has again and again in the course of christian history been misused as an anti-sign of hostility and hatred towards the jews by condemning them as deicides, christians today have every reason and a strict obligation to proclaim and testify also to the jews the cross of jesus as a sacrament of reconciliation. placed side by side, these three statements strike a loud discordant note, and it is only by means of a houdini-like verbal prestidigitation that they can escape the web of their mutual contradictions. of course, the shoah cannot and should not be “attributed” to christianity, as the cardinal contends, if by this is meant that christianity has taught that the jews must be exterminated from the face of the earth. to the best of my knowledge, however, no reputable historians, not even the most rabid anti-christian and anti-pius xii ranters and ravers, have claimed that the christian churches were actively collaborating with hitler in formulating the nazi ideology and in gassing six million jews. to argue that christianity has nothing in common with nazi ideology because the church never was in cahoots with it would be setting up a strawman easy to knock down. but the point is not that the church was a nazi collaborator. rather it is that the centurieslong history of “hostility and hatred towards jews” committed by christians, the existence of which koch acknowledges, has contributed to the rise of that “godless, anti-christian and neopagan ideology.” christians can of course do “godless, anti-christian and neo-pagan” things, if the circumstances are right, and christian antisemitism and anti-judaism provided the right mix for nazi racism. even if, for the sake of argument, it is conceded that “the primitive racist anti-semitism of the nazi ideology...has nothing in common with christianity,” can one confidently assert that christianity has nothing to do with the antisemitism of the nazi ideology? is it not this history of “violence and hatred towards the jews” that allowed most christians, including prominent church leaders in germany and elsewhere, catholic and protestant alike, to agree with, condone, keep silence, turn a blind eye, or make ineffective protests and condemnations against nazi racism? this is not to deny that there were “righteous gentiles,” including, even according to some jews, pius xii. but that is not the point. the point is that virulent antisemitism and anti-judaism runs deep in christian veins, poisoning the very blood that is to give life to the christian body. to make a distinction between “christianity as such” (emphasis added) and guilty christians, presumably small in number, in order to save the reputation of christianity is at best a theological subterfuge, at worst living in denial, no less execrable than the excommunicated-now-reconciled catholic bishop richard williamson’s denial of the holocaust. perhaps cardinal koch puts a lot of stock on the phrase as such when he denies that the shoah can and should be “attributed” to christianity. this is the prototypical theological ploy to exculpate the church out of the concern to preserve its “holiness.” it is the same ploy employed by some muslims after 9/11 to say that those murderous acts should not be attributed to islam. but the distinction is vacuous. there is no christianity as such, to use the cardinal’s words, apart from flesh-and-blood christians, just as there is no islam as such without flesh-and-blood muslims. furthermore, the history of virulent antisemitism and anti-judaism is an inerasable part of the church as an institution, and not simply an errant behavior of a few rotten christians and even christian leaders. it was deeply and widely embedded in our biblical exegesis, preaching, catechesis, theology, liturgy, and law. not to recognize this fact and perpetuating a distinction that is unconvincing, especially to non-christians, has the unintended effect of missing an studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): phan res1-7 phan, judaism and christianity phan res 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr opportunity to seriously examine the longstanding antisemitic and anti-judaic heritage of christianity and undermining that which the cardinal wants every christian to do, namely, “to proclaim and testify also to the jews the cross of jesus as a sacrament of reconciliation.” it should not scandalize any christian to say that the church is “holy” (holiness as a gift of god) and at the same time “unholy” (holiness as a yet unfulfilled task), or to use the play of words in german, the church’s holiness is both gabe and aufgabe. the church, as every christian, is simul justus et peccator. it is high time that we acknowledge the responsibility of christianity/the church as such for the holocaust and its sins of commission as well as of omission. this confession is no masochistic breast-beating. on the contrary, it is only in this acknowledgment that we, who were not present at the holocaust, can honestly and sincerely own it as our own deed and repent and convert and amend. furthermore, it is rather odd that koch urges christians “to proclaim and testify also to the jews the cross of jesus as a sacrament of reconciliation” (emphasis added). why should the jews be the target of this proclamation and witness of the cross as sacrament of reconciliation, especially after the holocaust? are not rather the christians and christianity as such that which must be reminded—not least by the jews—of their shameful failure to live out the dynamic of the cross of christ, that is, one of self-emptying and service, and not domination and ghettoization? who needs to be reconciled and with whom? certainly, not jews with christians, but rather christians with jews, from whom they must humbly beg forgiveness! not “substitution” but “fulfillment”? cardinal koch vigorously insists that the new testament does not “replace,” “substitute,” or “supersede” the so-called old testament. rather the former, he says, “fulfills” the latter. this thesis is repeated with regard to the related themes of covenant and people of god. in proposing this idea the cardinal does not of course claim to introduce a theological novelty. the nonsupersessionist motif has been a commonplace in the post-vatican ii era. nevertheless, it is reassuring that it is now adopted not only by a large number of theologians but also by the current head of the pontifical council for christian unity (and of course his predecessor cardinal walter kasper). but is “fulfillment” reassuring to those whose covenant we claim to fulfill? what is meant by “fulfillment” that is so different from “replacement” that can prevent genocide and pogroms? here again let us read between the lines and against the grain. the cardinal cites with admiration pope benedict xvi’s argument that just as after the destruction of the second temple in the year 70 the pharisees developed an alternative interpretation of the old testament to that of the sadducees, one without a temple, so there can now be two interpretations of the old testament, the christological exegesis of the christians and the rabbinical exegesis of judaism: since both modes each involved a new interpretation of the old testament, the crucial question must be precisely how these two modes are related to one another. koch then cites, again with admiration, a statement, which he claims benedict endorses, from the pontifical biblical commission “the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible”: the jewish reading of the bible is a possible one, in continuity with the jewish scriptures of the second temple period, analogous to the christian reading which developed in studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): phan res1-7 phan, judaism and christianity phan res 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr parallel fashion....both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. consequently, both are irreducible. a few lines later, koch goes on to say: for the christian faith it is axiomatic that there can only be a single covenant history of god and humanity. this is already evident in the fact that the history of god with humanity has been realized in a series of covenants, beginning with the covenant with noah, then with abraham, with moses, joshua, and ezra, with the prophet jeremiah even promising a new covenant. each of these covenants incorporates the previous covenant and interprets it in a new way. that is also true for the new covenant which for us christians is the final covenant and therefore the definitive interpretation of what was promised by the prophets of the old covenant. the cardinal corroborates his thought on this point by citing, with approval, his predecessor walter kasper: the new covenant for christians is not the replacement, but the fulfillment of the old covenant. both stand with each other in a relationship of promise or anticipation and fulfillment. koch then drops his theological bombshell—bombshell, that is, for those who are familiar with the 2006 declaration of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith dominus iesus, which was issued under the authority of the then-cardinal ratzinger: if the christian church is the fulfillment of god’s plan in and with israel, if it consists of jews and gentiles and if it would be “defective” without jews, then any idea of replacement must be excluded. once again, we are faced with theological conundrums. first, it is disingenuous to say that there is an analogy or parallel between the way the pharisees dealt with the sadducees’ interpretation of the tanak on the one hand and the way christians dealt with the rabbinical exegesis of the tanak and the tanak itself. whatever disagreements there were between the sadducees and the pharisees, the latter never claimed to “fulfill” the former, much less the entire tanak. christians, on the contrary, do claim that their “new covenant” “fulfills” the “old covenant” (and, for a long while, have also claimed outright replacement and supersession of the latter by the former). secondly, if it is said that “the jewish reading of the bible is a possible one,” and that both the jewish and christian readings of the tanak are “irreducible,” what theological meaning can be assigned to “fulfillment”? is the christian view that the old testament has been “fulfilled” in the new true only for christians, and not for others? the cardinal’s qualifying phrase “for us christians” in his statement that “the new covenant which is for us christians the final covenant and therefore the definitive interpretation of what is promised by the prophets of the old covenant” (emphasis added) seems to hint at this possibility. i however seriously doubt that koch would subscribe to this hermeneutical “dictatorship of relativism.” but then what should we do with the cardinal’s throw-away line that christianity is “deficient” without the jews? this alleged “deficiency” of christianity arises from the fact that since the christian church is the fulfillment of god’s plan in and with israel, it consists of jews and gentiles and therefore would be “defective” without jews. while koch’s intention to reject supersessionism is laudable, his argument is curious. for him, the church “consists of jews and studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): phan res1-7 phan, judaism and christianity phan res 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr gentiles,” which is patently false. the church only consists of converted and baptized jews and gentiles, and not of jews and gentiles in general. consequently, either the church is and will remain “deficient” until the end of time since it has had only a handful of converted jews and there is next to no likelihood that the jews will convert en masse to christianity, or it is the “final covenant and therefore the definitive interpretation of what was promised by the prophets of the old covenant,” but it cannot be both, by the cardinal’s own logic. but is the idea of “fulfillment” really and truly respectful of the religious other? logically, it implies that what one has is the achievement of something lacking, desired and expected by the others, which they are unable to achieve on their own. it implies by necessity theological if not moral superiority of the christians (or, more piously, god’s work in and for us) over the religious others (and god’s work in and for them). no anti-supersessionist and anti-replacement rhetoric, however eloquent, can sweeten this arrogance. furthermore, it presupposes, dubiously, that what our religion offers is exactly what the others desire (or should desire) to have. it may however turn out that our answers, which we proclaim to be absolute, unique and universal truths, do not correspond to their questions, that our religious goal are not theirs, that our medicine is their poison. every time i see a t-shirt or a bumper-sticker proclaiming peremptorily “jesus is the answer!” i am itching to ask: “which questions? whose questions?” in a sense, the logic of fulfillment is easy for christianity to adopt with regard to judaism, since chronologically it came after judaism, whereas it makes little sense for judaism to claim that it is the fulfillment of christianity. at best, it may say that it does not need christianity to be and become what it is, or that some of its current teachings and practices may enhance those of christianity (but not “replace” or “fulfill” them). by the same token, christianity has been given the same, perhaps more benign, treatment by islam, its chronological successor. islam at least does not claim to “replace” or “fulfill” christianity, but only to correct what it perceives as “corruptions” by christianity. but how would christians feel and react if they are told, especially in regions where they are a minority and have been subjected to harassments and persecutions, that their religion has been “fulfilled” by islam? perhaps until we christians have walked in the shoes of the “fulfilled” and undergone the same violence and hatred like the jews at the hands of others, we should not talk of ourselves as “fulfillers.” for these and other reasons, it is high time that in the future jewish-christian dialogue, not only the language of “replacement,” “substitution,” and “supersession” but also that of “fulfillment,” widely used at one time in the past, should be shelved away as outdated goods, not simply to be politically correct, but for theological reasons. christianity can be and must try to become what jesus wants it to be, without claiming to be the fulfillment of anyone and anything. the proof of the pudding is in the eating. mission to the jews or mission from the jews? in 2008, pope benedict introduced a change in the good friday prayer for the jews in the 1962 latin roman missal. the prayer reads: “that the lord enlightens their hearts so that they may acknowledge jesus as the savior of all mankind” and that “as the fullness of mankind enters into the church, all israel may be saved.” cardinal koch argues that this prayer has been misunderstood as “a call to explicit mission to the jews.” citing the missionary practice of paul and the theology of walter kasper, koch says: if one takes both sides of this delicate question [mission to the jews] seriously, the christian church is obligated to perceive its evangelization task in respect of the jews, who believe in the one god, in a different manner from that to the nations. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): phan res1-7 phan, judaism and christianity phan res 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr in what does this “different manner” consists? the cardinal says that the catholic church “neither has nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards jews.” however this does not mean that there should be no “mission” to the jews: the rejection of institutional mission to the jews does not on the other hand exclude christians from bearing witness to their faith in jesus christ, but should do so in a humble and unassuming manner, particularly in view of the great tragedy of the shoah. again, reading between the lines and against the grain unearths some deeply problematic positions. first, praying, and officially, in the context of liturgy, especially on holy friday, for the “enlightenment” by god of the “hearts” of the jews can hardly be touted as an act of charity. (every christian knows why the church offers this prayer for the jews precisely on the day commemorating the killing of jesus.) the prayer presupposes that the hearts of the jews in general are darkened—otherwise, why should they be enlightened? the prayer is offered for the jews not because they are morally sinful, and hence need conversion, but because they are jews, their religion being not separated from their ethnicity and race: their hearts are darkened, and therefore need enlightenment, because they refuse “to acknowledge jesus as the savior of all mankind.” would the jews be blamed for saying to the christians who offer that prayer: “thanks, but no thanks. and may god not listen to your prayer!” furthermore, would christians who live in countries in which muslims hold the power of life and death over them, say the same prayer, publicly, in an act of liturgical worship, substituting “jews” with “muslims,” perhaps on a day commemorating the crusades? second, is it much of a consolation to the jews that the vatican does not have some “specific institutional mission”—perhaps directed by a pontifical council—dedicated to the conversion of them, which, according to koch, makes the catholic mission to the jews different from that to the nations? can the jews ignore what the ecumenical council of florence declares in the decree for the jacobites in 1442: “the holy roman church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that ‘no one remaining outside the catholic church, not only pagans,’ but also jews, heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the ‘eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’ (matthew 25:41), unless before the end of their life they are received into it.” in light of this solemn (infallible?) teaching on the inevitability of the jews going to hell without entering the church, the holy friday prayer that “as the fullness of mankind enters into the church, all israel may be saved” may be understood (emphasis added). third, a larger question may be asked: if the catholic church “neither has nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards jews,” does it mean that it has or must have institutional mission targeted for, let’s say, muslims, hindus, and buddhists? even though the cardinal does not intend to do so, his privileging the special relationship between christianity and judaism has the unfortunate effect of making judaism as it were the “model minority” and undervaluing the presence of god in other religions. dominus iesus denies that there is faith, revelation, and inspired scripture in non-christian religions and declares them “deficient.” after the publication of the declaration, in the face of protests from some jewish leaders, roman officials assured them that the statement is not aimed at judaism. but can the jewish-christian dialogue be hermetically sealed from the dialogue with other religions, as they are now carried out by two different curial dicasteries, without severe damages to both? perhaps for administrative purposes, the current division of labor is to be tolerated, but theologically and pragmatically, a christian-jewish dialogue must not be undertaken apart from the dialogue with other religions, especially with islam. otherwise we would be seen as living on another planet. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): phan res1-7 phan, judaism and christianity phan res 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr as mentioned at the beginning, my essay is not a standard “response” to cardinal koch’s lecture. had it been so, i would have lauded its many positive contributions. perhaps the highest compliment that can be paid to it is that the cardinal has gone as far as it is currently possible for an official of the roman curia. but it would be a serious mistake to regard what koch has said as the outer limit for the theological conversation between christians and jews, much less as a canon of orthodoxy. by reading between the lines and against the grain i hope to have shown which pitfalls should be avoided in the jewish-christian dialogue and how its margins can be pushed wider. above all, i hope to have shown that we need another theological language and a different context for the jewish-christian dialogue, for the sake of the vitality of christianity, judaism, and other religions, together. scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-3 robert e. meditz the dialectic of the holy: paul tillich’s idea of judaism within the history of religion (berlin and boston: de gruyter, 2016), hardcover, pp. xiv + 208 george pattison george.pattison@glasgow.ac.uk university of glasgow, glasgow g12 8qq, united kingdom a decisive moment in paul tillich’s life and in the history of his relation to judaism was hitler’s accession to power in 1933. as meditz notes, tillich was one of over 1600 academics suspended in april 1933 “for being jews and / or critics of the regime” (p. 1). at the time, tillich held a professorial post in the philosophy faculty of the university of frankfurt and was thus close to the epicentre of radical leftist thinking (“the frankfurt school”) and associated with several leading jewish philosophers (such as theodor adorno). tillich’s most recent book, the socialist decision (1933), was for long believed to have been not only banned but ritually burned in the frankfurt book-burnings of may 1933, though meditz seems to favor the revisionist view that this was not in fact the case (p. 75). but though he was regarded with suspicion by the new regime, tillich was later that year offered the chair of theology in berlin if he was willing to retract the socialist decision. according to hannah tillich, his response was to ask two questions, one of which was “what about the jews?” clearly the government’s response did not satisfy him, and shortly afterwards he left germany to go into what proved to be permanent exile in the united states of america. this new study, based on the author’s ph.d. thesis, sets these dramatic events in the context of tillich’s lifelong engagement with “the jewish question,” from his postgraduate work on schelling through his final public lecture on the relationship between the history of religion and systematic theology. he was deeply rooted in the thought-world of german idealism and therefore, according to some commentators, took his initial orientation from a philosophy that was inherently anti-judaic. however, meditz shows that tillich reached a position that was no longer simplistically supersessionist. on the contrary, by 1933 he had reached the view “that judaism was vitally important for christian theology” (p. 3) and, as he argued in a 1938 speech in new york’s madison square garden, “the struggle for the eradication of judaism is ... a struggle to eradicate christianity” (p. 4). pattison: robert e. meditz’s the dialectic of the holy 2 in his early schelling dissertations (1910 and 1912) tillich seems to have endorsed german idealism’s view of christianity as resolving the contradictions of judaism and paganism. the main impetus to a new approach seems, in the first instance, to have been his existential experience of the first world war and his consequent embrace of religious socialism (pp. 64-66). this also included his involvement with a discussion group known as the “kairos circle,” which included both christian and jewish members. from here it was a relatively short step to his association with the frankfurt school and the events of 1933. his early, conventional picture of judaism as being defined by external legalism shifted to a view emphasizing the primacy of prophetism in judaism. but prophetism, as tillich understands it, is also integrally related to christianity (not least to the “protestant principle”). a continuing relation to judaism becomes necessary for christianity to remain true to its own identity (although tillich does, briefly, suggest that some elements in judaism also have an affinity with capitalism [p. 71]). but judaism too needs to remember its own prophetism, if zionism is not to lead to a new kind of nationalistic religious conformism (see pp. 73 and 92-93). as meditz shows, the socialist decision sees jewish prophetism as a resource against the “blood and soil” ideology of nazism but also, more positively, as posing an unremitting demand for eschatological justice, summed up in the phrase “justice is the true power of being” (p. 77). the stage is thus set for a conflict between, on the one hand, the kind of political romanticism that seeks value and grounding in the powers of origin and, on the other, the kind of prophetic religion that seeks a justice to come. this is also a struggle between the cyclical time of nature religions and the kind of time that “moves towards something that did not exist but will exist and, once it is attained, will not be lost again” (p. 90). it now becomes clear why the socialist decision was irreconcilable with nazism. as such it also indicates at an early stage what will become tillich’s mature view of judaism. this is further deepened in an invited series of lectures on the judenfrage (“the jewish question”) given in 1952 at the deutsche hochschule für politik, which explores many historical and contemporary aspects of the question over and above the importance of jewish prophetism, including the question of war guilt. overall, the lectures emphasize continuity and convergence between judaism and christianity to a degree that is very unusual in christian theology, even post-1945. the idea that judaism provides an “indispensable basis” for christianity continues to be emphasized in tillich’s systematic theology, although this is clearly in tension with tillich’s defining view of the coming of jesus as the christ as the “center of history.” tillich clearly emerges very creditably from this study, although meditz notes the objection that his whole view of judaism is “utterly useless” (p. 177) because he forces judaism into a typology of his own contriving and does not let it speak for itself. however, in my view one might make a similar criticism of just about any aspect of tillich’s thought, which is always based on ideal types rather than empirical examples. of course, it may be that such idealism is altogether “utterly useless,” but at least the evidence of tillich’s life shows that it can inspire 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) positions that are honorable and maintained with significant courage in the face of opposition. there is little else out there on the theme of tillich and judaism. meditz’s work, while bearing traces of its origins in a ph.d. thesis, does the job it sets out to do and, as such, is a welcome addition to tillich commentary. 1 scjr 13, no. 1 (2018): 1-21 structures of violence and the denigration of law in christian thought 1 barbara u. meyer barmeyer@post.tau.ac.il tel aviv university, tel aviv 6997801, israel i. introduction this essay examines structures of violence in traditions of christian theological thought. while it presupposes the historical fact of real violence resulting from christianity, it focuses on patterns of aggressive thinking in christian theory that need neither immediately nor necessarily be translated into physical violence. i begin my inquiry with a thought pattern that has been recognized as the core christian mechanism of delegitimizing judaism, supersessionism. i then move on to analyze two other key thought patterns of christian violence, “realized eschatology” and “inclusivism,” both of which have received less attention from christian and jewish scholars. in my discussion of the central place that judaism holds in the history of christian aggression, i will further ask whether and how this aggression also affects islam. throughout, i pay special attention to the christian approach to law that i suggest holds the key to both disrespect and potential respect for judaism and islam. my assessment of violent patterns in interreligious thought avoids identifying whole religions with violence, an approach that has become popular in certain political assessments of islam and, remarkably, also in some of the recent academic literature on christianity. finding patterns also means, methodologically, that i am not looking for unique instances or single-solution paradigms; rather, i discuss specific mechanisms of violent thought that can be subject to modification. i ask how each of these negative motifs has been confronted and challenged in contemporary christian thought. finally, i will ask how these motifs affect the broader interreligious discourse, including islam, and how certain post-shoah approaches to confronting interreligious delegitimization can be relevant to jewishchristian-muslim relations today. how can “violence in thought” be described and analyzed? in historical christianity, structures of violence display complexity; the various structures appear together and separately and in various combinations with other social and 1 the research for this article was supported by the israel science foundation. meyer: structures of violence and the denigration of law 2 political factors. the limitations of recent attempts to explain christian aggression with single-source mechanisms underline the importance of further research on an issue that currently divides scholars who present violent thinking as inherent to christian identity from those who view aggression towards others mainly as a historical reality of christianity, dependent on specific time, place and context. my inquiry into structures of thought suggests methodologically that interreligious violence is a highly complex phenomenon that can actually be reduced or increased. ii. violence in theory and praxis while there is no clear-cut correlation between violent thought and violent action, nevertheless the apologetic concept of “harmless” thought has invariably been proven wrong in the history of christian anti-jewish traditions. according to friedrich-wilhelm marquardt, the most important christian post-shoah theologian, there has never been a solely spiritual judgment about jews that did not eventually cause a chain of completely unspiritual, purely political events. 2 christian as well as jewish scholars agree today that anti-judaism is not at the margins of christian aggression, but at its center. among christians, this conclusion has arisen mainly among systematic theologians rather than historians, among them rosemary radford ruether, alice eckardt and roy eckardt, friedrich wilhelm marquardt and john t. pawlikowski. 3 what remains unclear is the question of how aggression against jews and judaism relates to other modes of violence in christian thought. so far, not much attention has been paid to this question, perhaps because of a lack of communication between those researching antisemitism and those studying christian thought. among the patterns of traditional christian thought that have been identified as aggressive by systematic theologians, the most obvious are the phenomena of supersessionism and historicized eschatology (to be discussed below). a third, that i describe as “inclusivism,” has only recently been detected as underlying missionary thought. i am going to explain the theological reasoning for each of these forms of christian aggression before also translating them into secular language. the choice of these three patterns does not suggest a comprehensive account of christian aggression. but it strongly underlines the complexity of christian aggression and thus challenges recent descriptions of single-source or single mechanism explanations for christian violence, whether presented as a historical overview (nirenberg), metaphoric, associative critique (anidjar) or byproduct of a (very interesting) jewish diaspora-theory (boyarin). 2 cf. friedrich-wilhelm marquardt, von elend und heimsuchung der theologie. prolegomena zur dogmatik, 2nd edition (münchen: kaiser, 1992), 105. 3 rosemary radford ruether’s analysis has been fundamental in this matter. see her faith and fratricide: the theological roots of anti-semitism (eugene, or: wipf & stock, 1997 [first published new york: seabury, 1974]). 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) a. supersessionism 1. christian supersessionist reasoning christian theologians of all denominations traditionally connected a presumed replacement of judaism with the notion of the church as “true israel.” this has recently been described as an act of trying to take someone else’s blessing away and apply it solely to oneself. 4 in contemporary academic language, the idea of christianity replacing judaism is usually called “supersessionism,” a term developed by western self-critical christian theologians. 5 this approach has been marked as a theological wrong, that is, both morally wrong and a theological mistake. until the mid-twentieth century, the idea of the new covenant superseding the old one was prevalent in all of christianity, although it was arguably never explicit pauline thought nor part of the christian creed. the formation of the christian canon also neither suggests nor implies this, as one might think, in the very naming of an “old” versus a “new” testament: all christian denominations hold the “old testament” holy as the first part of the christian holy scriptures. the idea that a new covenant has replaced an old and thereby obsolete covenant was in fact never the dogma of the early church or scripture. it has been at most a tradition, albeit one that has had a powerful impact in all major christian denominations and churches. the fact that supersessionism is not inherent to christianity has enabled theologians as well as church representatives and synods to renounce it. this happened in the last third of the twentieth century in all major mainstream western churches. (orthodox churches have had a different history with the concept and thus require a different contemporary discussion 6 ). christian self-critical assessments often treat supersessionism and antijudaism as synonyms. while both delegitimize judaism, the two terms comprise very different categories of aggressive thought-patterns. supersessionism describes a specific and fixed interreligious construction of history. christian antijudaism, on the other hand, encompasses a wide range of readings of scripture and traditions through the prejudiced lens of jewish spiritual inferiority. the difference between the two forms of aggression is only partly manifest in the intensity of aggression. christian supersessionism implies that judaism is obsolete and no longer necessary while christian anti-judaism engages in negative characterizations of jews and judaism. both patterns can declare judaism unworthy as a whole and both can be expressed in common terms of religious superiority. when “exported” and applied beyond the jewish-christian relation 4 cf. mary boys, has god only one blessing? judaism as a source of christian self-understanding (mahwah, nj: paulist press, 2000). the rhetorical question in the title suggests sharing god’s blessing is an appropriate option for christianity. 5 kendall soulen, the god of israel and christian theology (minneapolis: augsburg fortress, 1996), 2-5. 6 cf. harold smith, “supersession and continuance: the orthodox church’s perspective on supersessionism,” in journal of ecumenical studies 49 no. 2 (spring 2014): 247-273. meyer: structures of violence and the denigration of law 4 ship, the key difference between replacing and degrading another religious community becomes more critical, as we will see. modern academic literature on christian anti-judaism has generated a variety of genres. james parkes’ analyses at the beginning of the twentieth century confronted a christianity in which all mainstream churches held anti-jewish hermeneutics as a given truth. 7 starting in the late 1940s, the american theologian roy eckardt began systematically to disrupt this identification of christian truth with anti-jewish traditions. 8 in 1948, in the immediate aftermath of world war ii and the shoah, the world council of churches declared antisemitism a “sin.” antisemitism, in this period, was understood as statements explicitly degrading jews, while the more complex forms of christian anti-judaism were not yet studied, let alone understood. historians researching jewish-christian relations then began to catch the attention of a number of church leaders, leading to profound changes in church history, for example, the famous 1960 meeting between the jewish historian jules isaac and pope john xxiii that eventually led to nostra aetate, the document that facilitated a renewal of the catholic approach to jews and judaism. the text of nostra aetate §4 alludes to both supersessionism and anti-judaism when it affirms the ongoing significance of judaism for christianity and rejects jewish culpability for jesus’ death. in the seventies and early eighties, several christian theologians adopted critical analyses of anti-judaism as substantial components of their new approach. in the united states, roy eckardt continued to be a pioneering voice within systematic theology, while in the german-speaking context, friedrich-wilhelm marquardt dedicated most of the path-breaking first volume of his dogmatics to the theological analysis of academic anti-jewish theology. remarkably, catholics and protestants have been very close to each other in their respective readings of anti-judaism. awareness of christian anti-jewish hermeneutics developed mainly in the exegetical disciplines, in old and new testament studies—and, remarkably, among theologically well informed lay church initiatives and synod forums. thus even some regional and local church documents display impressive analytical insights, such as, for example, the rhineland synod statement with its critique of common christian understandings of “new” and “old”: throughout centuries the word “new” has been used in biblical exegesis against the jewish people: the new covenant was understood in contrast to the old covenant, the new people of god as replacement of the old people of god. this disrespect to the permanent election of the jewish people and its condemnation to non-existence marked christian theology, the preaching and work of the church again and again, right to the present day. thereby we 7 james parkes, the conflict of the church and the synagogue: a study in the origins of antisemitism (london: soncino press, 1934). 8 a. roy eckardt, christianity and the children of israel (new york: king’s crown press, 1948). 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) have made ourselves guilty also of the physical elimination of the jewish people. therefore, we want to perceive the unbreakable connection of the new testament with the old testament in a new way, and learn to understand the relationship of the “old” and “new” from the standpoint of the promise: in the framework of the given promise, the fulfilled promise and the confirmed promise. “new” means therefore no replacement of the “old.” hence we deny that the people israel has been rejected by god or that it has been superseded by the church. 9 the same document also contains a confession about christian responsibility for advancing antisemitism. the connection between christian anti-judaism and the shoah was frequently conceded, while the discussion about definitions and mechanisms of anti-jewish hermeneutics continued. remarkably, among the critics of anti-judaism it was often the case that the committed christian academics proved more radical than their secular colleagues. 10 at the same time, interreligious dynamics changed in academia: christian theologians published general accounts of the christian anti-jewish tradition, often learned from their jewish colleagues, as part of their theological or exegetical work (e.g., e.p. sanders). jewish historians began to engage in comparative studies of the second temple period while profoundly transforming new testament studies (in particular, the scholars david flusser and geza vermes). this began a process known as the “third quest” that led to a complete reversal in research on the historical jesus; the minority approach emphasizing the jewish context of jesus now became mainstream . 11 that christian scholarly inquiries into anti-judaism have often been part of constructive theological publications also might explain their limited reception in historical disciplines. for instance, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, christian academic works on anti-judaism merged with post-shoah theology. the best example is roy and alice eckardt’s long night’s journey into day. 12 in a highly original twist, the eckardts answered the often-repeated question about the shoah’s uniqueness by instead labeling the multi-layered phenomenon of antisemitism as itself unique. with this view they refrained from comparing the suffering of individuals or collectives, but at the same time expressed christian 9 zur erneuerung des verhältnisses von christen und juden. handreichung der evangelischen kirche im rheinland (düsseldorf: evangelische kirche im rheinland, 1980). an english translation by franklin littell (revised by r. rendtorff) is available online. see “towards renovation of the relationship of christians and jews,” http://www.jcrelations.net/towards_renovation_of_the_relationship_of_christians_and_jews.2388. 0.html?id=720&l=3&searchtext=erneuerung&searchfilter=%2a. 10 see, for example, the new testament scholar lloyd gaston, especially his article “legicide,” http://www.jcrelations.net/legicide.2192.0.html?id=720&l=3&searchtext=gaston&searchfilter=% 2a. 11 among the abundant recent literature on the so-called “third quest” in historical jesus research that focuses on jesus’ jewish context, see wolfgang stegemann, jesus und seine zeit (stuttgart: kohlhammer, 2009), especially 113-123. 12 alice and a. roy eckardt, long night’s journey into day: a revised retrospective on the holocaust (detroit: wayne state university press, 1988). http://www.jcrelations.net/towards_renovation_of_the_relationship_of_christians_and_jews.2388.0.html?id=720&l=3&searchtext=erneuerung&searchfilter=%2a http://www.jcrelations.net/towards_renovation_of_the_relationship_of_christians_and_jews.2388.0.html?id=720&l=3&searchtext=erneuerung&searchfilter=%2a http://www.jcrelations.net/legicide.2192.0.html?id=720&l=3&searchtext=gaston&searchfilter=%2a http://www.jcrelations.net/legicide.2192.0.html?id=720&l=3&searchtext=gaston&searchfilter=%2a meyer: structures of violence and the denigration of law 6 responsibility for the various aggressive dynamics of antisemitism. the book as a whole presents the critique of christianity with regard to judaism as the main content of christian post-shoah theology. yet theologians like eckardt and marquardt were far from re-legitimizing christianity by criticizing its anti-judaism. their works eventually left open the question of whether christian theology could ever recover from its failures. all of these works differentiated carefully between dogma, doctrine and tradition. no matter how sharp their criticisms of christianity, the churches and christian theology—and eckardt and marquardt were not inclined to hold back—they refused to essentialize christianity as anti-jewish. essentialism, a term they did not use, was to them a variation of cheap apology which would only serve to exonerate modern theologians while indicting the church fathers. thus, in their view, to refrain from essentializing was “lectio difficilior,” the more difficult but more truthful task, and the appropriate way to take responsibility as academic theologians for an academic theological thought tradition. it is important to understand this background in order to appreciate the gap between these works and more recent accounts of christianity which characterize it as essentially anti-jewish (nirenberg), as striving for the eradication of difference (boyarin), and as “bloody” (anidjar). nirenberg observes that the early christian conceptualization of “judaizing,” projected as an undesirable closeness to judaism, constructed real as well as imagined jewishness as christianity’s enemy. 13 neither eckardt’s and marquardt’s historical examples nor their analyses differ much from nirenberg’s observations – but the meta-text is entirely opposite, as they see christian theological reflection as obliged to discontinue this mechanism as well as capable of that task. the difference in perspective is even more blatant in the case of boyarin. as the hermeneutical key for his reading of paul, he points to the famous verse of galatians 3:28, “there is neither jew nor greek; there is neither slave nor freeman; there is no male and female. for you are all one in christ jesus.” 14 boyarin sees this as the cause of christianity’s missionary ambition and practice. the christian urge for comprehensive integration left no place for difference. this is very similar to marquardt’s formulations of auschwitz’s standing for the eradication of otherness. 15 however, for marquardt this is the worst of all configurations of christianity, while for boyarin, it is its essence. gil anidjar offers an entirely different kind of presentation of christianity and violence in his volume entitled blood. 16 it is to his credit that he introduces a discourse about “the christian question” so as to disturb the status quo of christianity as “asking” about others rather than being questioned itself. 17 but instead 13 david nirenberg, anti-judaism: the western tradition (new york: w.w. norton, 2013). 14 daniel boyarin, a radical jew: paul and the politics of identity (berkeley and los angeles: university of california press, 1997), 23. 15 friedrich-wilhelm marquardt, was dürfen wir hoffen, wenn wir hoffen dürften? eine eschatologie, vol. i (gütersloh: kaiser, 1993), 183. 16 gil anidjar, blood: a critique of christianity (new york: columbia university press, 2014). 17 anidjar, vii. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) of displaying a substantive analysis of christianity’s metaphoric as well as historical affiliation with “blood,” anidjar employs the term in multiple indeterminate ways. while he impressively proliferates the vocabulary of seemingly neutral terms connected to blood (e.g., “hematological” or “hematopoietic”), ultimately, in his account, he closely connects blood to violence and “hemophilia,” also a term indicating violence. anidjar explicitly rejects ascribing an essence of christianity, 18 but in fact he presents “blood” not as a general component of life but as a christian-specific sign implying in-built violence. since, in this depiction of christianity, blood is central, violence becomes constitutive as well as irreducible. the result is a christianity essentialized as violence. anidjar’s rhetorical and academic style is unlike that of either boyarin or niremberg. still, a focus on violence as the dna of christianity is common to all three approaches. my investigation differs from these accounts methodologically. rather than starting with an analysis of anti-jewish violence, i begin with structures and mechanisms of aggressive thinking and then ask about the specific role accorded to jews and judaism in any of these various patterns. i also examine the role of law in these patterns of violent thought: law has played a central role in recent critical re-reading of new testament texts, and its conceptual analysis still holds undiscovered potential for the re-formulation of jewish-christian-muslim relations. 2. is supersessionism genocidal? since the 1990s, a broader consensus criticizing christian supersessionism has grown among a wide array of christian as well as jewish scholars. despite, or maybe because of this, little effort has been made to provide a deeper analysis of the matter in the contexts of interreligious as well as post-shoah thought, both of which rely upon but also transcend the christian-jewish relationship. the renunciation of supersessionism and the commitment to formulating non-supersessionist christologies originated from the shocking post-shoah realization that replacement-theology had promoted the concrete christian displacement of jews. after the shoah and the nazis’ declared aim to eradicate the jewish people, the theological idea of one covenant replacing the other was no longer bearable, let alone tolerable; a christian theology of replacing israel could no longer be perceived as merely a harmless abstraction. as a theory, supersessionism represented not just displacement but eliminatory thought, the most aggressive and destructive type of thought possible. still, causality had not been proved: it would be a eurocentric (occidentalist) mistake to conclude that supersessionist thought necessarily promotes genocidal tendencies. historically this happened in western europe, but a complex interplay of factors led to the genocide and it remains complicated to assess their individual impacts. most scholars would agree that “nazism was not a christian phenomenon,” but at the same time historians and theologians view patterns of anti 18 anidjar, 258. meyer: structures of violence and the denigration of law 8 judaism as clearly promoting antisemitism as well as physical violence against real jews. 19 in short, i want to ask: is supersessionism necessarily, or only potentially genocidal thought? the christian idea of covenantal supersession has not directly led to genocide wherever it is preached, and is not to be expected to. a more precise formulation would be: the christian idea of replacing the people israel does express a notion of displacement that bears the character of eliminatory thought. in the intra-christian ecumenical discussion, the critical assessment of supersessionism has led to tensions between so-called “western” and non-western theologies. is post-supersessionism a western concept referring to a western problem? this is an important question for a discourse indicting christianity for either essentially or mistakenly displacing jews. both nirenberg and anidjar describe the christian tradition they talk about as “western.” clearly, the history of christian anti-jewish violence is primarily a history of the west. but this historical observation just increases the difficulty of describing the connection between potentially violent thought traditions and actual atrocities. if non-western christianity shared the basics of the christian thought traditions (such as the idea of supersessionism) but produced considerably less violence, we would certainly need more complex models of historical analysis. clearly, the most profound change in christian self-understanding vis-à-vis judaism in the 20 th century is the reversal of the christian idea that it replaces israel. the disavowal of another religious community’s legitimacy might seem to be rather trivial to address. but the christian example shows how the correction of such a tradition exposes and unravels a complex entanglement of truth and distortion, difficult to differentiate. even the academic world often holds the distortions as the more “authentic” version. christian identity that is not substitutionary seems infeasible. maybe it is not surprising that even historians often trivialize major church statements rejecting supersessionism as expressions of a transient, guilt-ridden “political correctness.” while this kind of skepticism seems to be in itself ahistorical, it can serve as a helpful reminder that change in christian self-understanding is anything but simple: when the church renounces the idea of replacing the people israel, it affects/touches many other layers and dimensions of christian core traditions. most recently, the fiftieth anniversary of nostra aetate inspired scholars to assess the achievements of the catholic as well as the ecumenical reformulations of christian theological approaches to judaism. one way to evaluate that unprecedented renewal is to ask what of its aspects and methods can be useful to inform contemporary abrahamic relations. 20 edward kessler’s introduction to jewish 19 “a jewish statement on christians and christianity,” in: christianity in jewish terms, ed. by tikva frymer-kensky, david novak, peter ochs, david fox sandmel and michael a. signer (boulder, colorado: westview press, 2000), xix. 20 i use the term “abrahamic” to refer to the interrelationships between judaism, christianity and islam, without making any presupposition regarding their degree of closeness. for a most interesting interpretation of the term, see mark silk, “the abrahamic religions as a modern concept,” in the 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) christian relations seems almost organically to lead to such a question, as is implied in the title of its final chapter. “the wider interfaith encounter” discusses islam’s joining the long established jewish-christian dialogue. 21 kessler sees overcoming supersessionism as one of the core achievements of jewish-christian dialogue and encourages muslims to learn from this. however, before moving to kessler’s conclusion, one needs to ask carefully whether trilateral relations actually face problems similar to those that shaped early jewish-christian dialogue. 22 tariq ramadan’s most recent account of abrahamic relations, published in one of the few comprehensive volumes on the topic, the oxford handbook of abrahamic relations, does not present supersessionism as a trait of islam and consequently as something in need of overcoming: from the islamic perspective it is entirely understandable that the earliestformed monotheistic religion, judaism, would not acknowledge the two subsequent monotheistic religions (christianity and islam) as the truth because the receipt of god’s revelations through the three different historical periods is a sequential process. similarly the final monotheistic religion can acknowledge the previous two monotheistic religions as they are recognized as being early parts in the sequence of god’s entire revelation, which becomes complete with islam, according to muslims. 23 as tariq ramadan describes it, instead of being based on supersessionist thought, islam is deeply rooted in an interreligious logic of revelatory succession that holds the previous religion as god-willed: the teachings of islam, as the last established monotheistic religion, make clear that the religious traditions that preceded it will continue to exist, and that the original unity of humankind, in its essence, is expressed even in the diversity of religions, civilizations, cultures, languages and nations. diversity is the will of god, and it is incumbent upon humankind to transform it into a positive factor in its progression towards the good. 24 therefore, contra kessler, the lesson of christian-jewish relations cannot simply be extended to include islam. oxford handbook of the abrahamic religions, ed. adam j. silverstein and guy stroumsa (oxford: oxford university press, 2015), 71-87. 21 kessler’s introduction to jewish-christian relations (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2010) is one of the first comprehensive assessments looking both at historical and theological dimensions of jewish-christian relations with a contemporary perspective. 22 this question has been picked up by john roth and leonard grob in their edited collection of articles entitled encountering the stranger: a jewish-christian-muslim trialogue, jewish-christianmuslim trialogue, (seattle, wa: university of washington press, 2012). 23 tariq ramadan, “islamic perspectives,” in the oxford handbook of the abrahamic religions, 597. 24 tariq ramadan, islam: the essentials (london: penguin random house, 2017), 66. meyer: structures of violence and the denigration of law 10 kessler’s proposal requires a theory of interreligious delegitimization, an understanding that might be called an “essentialism of successive religions,” i.e., the unavoidable devaluation by the younger religion of the previous revelation. what does it mean for such a theory to understand that islam is not rooted in a logic of supersession as has been frequently presupposed by scholars of jewish-christian relations? it means that supersessionism needs to be seen as a specific set of dynamics enacted by christianity towards judaism. the non-supersessionist stance of islam clearly shows that revelatory succession does not inherently require devaluation. this insight, then, supports investigating christianity’s tendency to engage in delegitimization rather than presuming that this supersessionism is a necessary consequence of being a child of an established revelation. this can be pursued in a number of different ways. 3. critiquing the historical basis for supersessionism historical perspectives strongly support the theological and moral repudiation of supersessionism. remarkably, something that proved morally wrong in theology eventually proved wrong in history too. the critique of supersessionism has led, for instance, to a revision of historical research on the beginnings of christianity and judaism, a field often described as “parting of the ways.” it is fascinating to see the manifold entanglements of contemporary identity discourse and academic research in the study of how judaism and christianity came into being. daniel boyarin’s research pointed to a centuries-long entanglement of practices and convictions, especially when looking at individuals who for centuries could still perceive themselves as following jesus while also observing judaism. 25 the current research trend is strongly influenced by boyarin’s work and envisions the emergence of two distinguishable communities as a long and complex process. research about the emergence of judaism and christianity is still blossoming, now often referred to as “the partings of the ways or the ways that never parted.” 26 the academic discussion on the parting of the ways exemplifies the interrelationship between historical research and theological critique. christianity has never replaced judaism, either in dogma or in history. but every re-reading of history bears its own potential for anachronism. the emergence of judaism and christianity was probably neither a “good divorce” nor a clear-cut division of properties. this understanding of ongoing entanglement further complicates the map for any reflection on violence in christian thought. while the previous description of the field, “the parting of the ways,” implicitly suggests a separation on account of negative interactions, the view la 25 daniel boyarin, border-lines: the partition of judaeo-christianity (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2004). 26 the ways that never parted. jews and christians in late antiquity and the early middle ages, ed. adam h. becker and annette yoshiko reed (minneapolis, mn: fortress press, 2007). see also james d.g. dunn, the partings of the ways: between christianity and judaism and their significance for the character of christianity (london: scm press, 1991). 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) belled as “the ways that never parted” subtly points to positive interactions and a certain persistent mutuality in communication and influence. the critical analysis of aggressive patterns in christian thought itself needs to be refracted through a lens that detects historical conclusions according to results. historians themselves are not immune to anachronism. david nirenberg for example, has tried to trace patterns of aggressive christian anti-judaism back to the text of the gospels. the synoptic gospels were composed in the last third of the first century, although they include earlier material going back to jesus’ generation. 27 but according to boyarin, the gospels cannot be understood as “christian” texts; he sees them as jewish writings. recently, boyarin has even stated that not just the main characters, jesus and the disciples, but also the authors and redactors of the gospel compositions were jewish. 28 but even if only the core text were regarded as “jewish,” one could still criticize nirenberg through boyarin: how does one describe the essence of christian aggression towards jews with new testament texts that need to be historically described as “jewish” rather than “christian” texts? the methodological problem has not been solved yet. in order to trace patterns of christian violent thought towards others, namely jews, scholars try to go back to the earliest sources. but it is anachronistic to call these compositions “christian.” a preliminary conclusion might be that interreligious theory needs to be developed in correspondence with the historical research on the multi-layered and dynamic emergence, disentanglement as well as interconnectivity of thought traditions that we later came to call “christian” and “jewish.” 4. supersessionism, abrogation and denigration of the law while the critique of supersessionism has found broad support in western theologies and mainstream churches, versions of implicit delegitimizing are still present in contemporary christian thought. neither systematic theologies nor the exegetical disciplines still present the old covenant as superseded or inferior, and christian textbooks do not explicitly delegitimize judaism. nevertheless, devaluation and replacement as thought patterns still prove influential in christian discourse as soon as theologians talk about judaism indirectly, or when they assume that what they are saying does not concern judaism. for example, such thinking comes into play whenever christian theologians mention “the law”— nomos, commandments, legal texts—and especially when they do not translate the term back to “torah.” the critique of abrogating “the law” began well after the critique of supersessionism, but the two inner-christian self-critical discussions are connected. academic christian discourse challenging traditions about abrogating “the law,” appears in the recent research on the pauline epistles. contemporary critical pauline studies began with e.p. sanders and are today effectively presented by 27 the redaction of the gospel of john is usually dated as of the beginning of the second century. 28 daniel boyarin, the jewish gospels: the story of the jewish christ (new york: the new press, 2012), 22. meyer: structures of violence and the denigration of law 12 john gager under the label of the “new perspective.” 29 this revisionist understanding argues that paul was not simply dissatisfied with a life of torah and mitzvot and thus turned to christ. rather, according to gager and others, the conventional portrayal of paul as a convert is an anachronistic reading of the epistles. “new perspective” exegetes strongly oppose defining paul as antinomian, which they argue is an anti-jewish projection. how to describe paul’s approach to the law positively, however, still remains a challenge. sanders’ formulation expresses this search as paul’s search: “he knew that righteousness is only by faith in christ, but he still tried repeatedly to find a place for the law in god’s plan…” 30 theologically as well as historically oriented scholars have thus successfully critiqued both christian supersessionism as a broad phenomenon and the specific exegetical theme of abrogating torah. while its contexts have varied, the critique of supersessionism has become mainstream both in academic, para-academic and religious institutions. this is particularly manifest in new testament research with the profound change in the hermeneutics applied to the pauline epistles. here, the rejection of anti-jewish readings of paul’s use of nomos by pioneering exegetes in the eighties, has become mainstream in the 21 st century. new testament studies here have proven to be a fruitful setting for critical interreligious discourse. historical arguments became especially helpful in revising anachronistic readings of paul as a convert exchanging an “inferior” jewish observance for a “superior” christian belief. contemporary christian approaches to law formulated within other theological disciplines, such as homiletics or ethics, typically lack the corrective potential of these kinds of new testament historical studies that seek to connect “law” to torah and commandments. thus today, when “law” is not explicitly identified as connected to judaism, it is more likely to be depicted as at its end, overcome and spiritually obsolete. 31 b. historicized eschatology while the critique of supersessionism has had a substantial and far-reaching impact on several interreligious and historical discourses, only a small circle of christian scholars have participated in the analysis and remediation of historicized eschatology, the view that we are currently living in a world already reconciled with god. there are many reasons for this discrepancy, but the most obvious is that the notion of supersessionism is fundamentally an interreligious statement while the realm of eschatology belongs at first sight to the inner realm of christian doctrine. although several catholic and protestant, american and european theologians have convincingly demonstrated that historicized eschatology directly affects non-christians, it has not been widely recognized as an expression that impacts upon the interreligious realm. 29 john gager, reinventing paul (new york: oxford university press, 2002). 30 e.p. sanders, paul, the law and the jewish people (philadelphia: fortress, 1983), 199. 31 david s. cunningham, christian ethics: the end of the law, (new york: routledge, 2008). 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) in her path-breaking 1974 book faith and fratricide, rosemary radford ruether already precisely diagnosed this problematic aggression as manifest in christology. she described “realized eschatology” as an inappropriately accelerated spiritual future meaning that the eschatological is too-eagerly presented as history. 32 in a realized eschatology, the core of the christ-message, i.e., reconciliation with god and forgiving of sin, has already been completed. therefore, expectations for god’s future activity, such as reconciliation of all and salvation, have been transferred to the past. this has ethical implications. in ruether’s view, the contrast between the obviously not reconciled present and these expectations tends to lead to aggression toward those who personify the fact that salvation remains unrealized and even remote, i.e., towards jews and judaism. in order to limit this potential aggression, christology needs to shift its temporal mode: reconciliation with god and, even more so, any notion of salvation must belong to the distant future. ruether’s diagnosis is shared by a small circle of theologians engaged in a revision of christian theology vis-a-vis judaism. it has been outstandingly implemented by marquardt, who dedicated three volumes of his seven-volume dogmatics to eschatology and thus created a remarkable shift of theological thought from the past to the future. 33 still, only a few systematic theologians have applied this concept of a delayed salvation to the structure of their dogmatic concepts, perhaps because aggression in realized eschatology has not been as obvious as in supersessionism. 34 in contrast, an emphasis on the work of reconciliation yet to be done both with god and among humans does appear in numerous christian-jewish dialogue documents. 35 one of the immediate implications in the interreligious realm of allowing the eschaton back into future is giving up missionary activity towards jews. the latest official vatican interpretation of nostra aetate explains the theological connection. salvation is allowed back into god’s hands. thus, jews are considered “saved” in their immediate relationship with the one god, without conditioning salvation on a “christ connection.” 36 32 rosemary radford ruether, faith and fratricide: the theological roots of anti-semitism (new york: seabury press, 1974), 246. ruether did not coin the term “realized eschatology.” the locus classicus of the concept is c.h. dodd, the parables of the kingdom (london: nisbet and co., 1935). 33 friedrich-wilhelm marquardt, was dürfen wir hoffen, wenn wir hoffen dürften? eine eschatologie, (gütersloh: kaiser, vol i, 1993; vol ii, 1994; vol iii, 1996). 34 a striking example of a realized eschatology that does not show signs of the aggressive potential described here is paul tillich, systematic theology, vol. 2, existence and the christ (chicago: university of chicago press, 1957). 35 the joint jewish-christian document “a time for recommitment: the twelve points of berlin” calls for social justice and peace while combatting antisemitism and racism. the document is available on the website of the international council of jews and christians: http://www.iccj.org/berlindoc.3594.0.html. 36 see “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’: a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations on the occasion of the 50 th anniversary of ‘nostra aetate’ (no. 4),” commission for religious relations with the jews (10 december 2015), http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jewsdocs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html. http://www.iccj.org/berlin-doc.3594.0.html http://www.iccj.org/berlin-doc.3594.0.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html meyer: structures of violence and the denigration of law 14 how do a realized eschatology and a lack of interest in ethics correlate? when the substance of reconciliation is believed to be already achieved, there is less need to reflect upon matters and methods of building just relationships between individuals and communities. the swiss reformed theologian dietrich ritschl is one of the very few systematic theologians deeply involved in dogmatic as well as ethical discourse. he thematized what he calls the “unfulfilled talk of reconciliation” within a christology striving for interpersonal care and understanding. 37 according to ritschl, the explicit acknowledgement that god’s reconciliatory work is not complete effectively underlines the value of human reconciling efforts. along these lines, christian post-shoah thought generally postulates a certain delay of godly reconciliation and makes instead an explicit call for human efforts at reconciliation, such as the pursuit of social justice, peace and the taking of responsibility for the needs of others. a general re-evaluation of ethics would be a logical consequence of theological attempts to relegate eschatology’s last matters to the future. but unlike levinas and late twentieth-century moral philosophers, 38 only very few christian theologians have explicitly called for an “ethical turn.” friedrich-wilhelm marquardt is again a prime exemplar of an exception. he has tried to argue for a christian re-assessment of praxis. his deep appreciation of deeds, works and action is certainly to be understood as part of a radical, specifically lutheran postshoah self-critique. in a highly unusual, even unique move, marquardt turned to develop an idea of christian practice that he called “evangelical halakhah.” 39 the idea is not to re-establish christianity as a law-based religion, but to regain an understanding of human action as primary expression of the christian faith. interestingly, marquardt develops his idea of gospel-centered “law” within his eschatology, which supports my theory of a correlation between the critique of realized eschatology and a christian turn to praxis, ethics and law. a reinforced christian appreciation for commandments is a common feature of jewish-christian dialogue, while rethinking divine judgment within nonfundamentalist christianity is a rather particular component of post-shoah thought. the catholic theologian gregor taxacher comes closest to marquardt’s focus on eschatology as the framework for discussing ethics and divine judgment, although he defines his field mainly through the term “apocalypse.” 40 the systematic theologian catherine keller also frames ethical discourse under this 37 dietrich ritschl, the logic of theology (philadelphia: fortress press, 1987), 137f. 38 cf. adi ophir, the order of evils: toward an ontology of morals (new york: zone books, 2005), 20. 39 the use of this term has been criticized, as it dismisses the character of jewish halakhah as well as christianity’s inner grammar as not being a law-based religion. see, for instance, barbara u. meyer, “welches gesetz ist heilig, gerecht und gut, und für wen?,” in biblische radikalitäten. judentum, sozialismus und recht in der theologie friedrich-wilhelm marquardts, ed. andreas pangritz (würzburg: ergon, 2010), 129-140. 40 gregor taxacher, apokalypse ist jetzt. vom schweigen der theologie im angesicht der endzeit (gütersloh: gütersloher verlagshaus, 2012). 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) rubric. 41 both theologians aim at reintegrating apocalyptic thinking into nonfundamentalist theology and ethics. as kathryn tanner has shown in a comprehensive study, many ethically engaged theologians choose eschatology as their key theological discipline. 42 theologians involved in jewish-christian study and dialogue are usually critical towards any traditional christian disregard of law and commandment, which they typically depict as a form of anti-judaism. but this criticism does not automatically lead to formulations of constructive lawconnected theology, nor to an emphasis on ethics. thus, marquardt remains a singularly outstanding voice in responding extensively to ruether’s criticism of the impact of a prematurely realized eschatology and the violence it can cause. c. inclusivism the third pattern of violent thought to be discussed here is probably the least agreed upon within the christian academic community, while finding easy consensus among jewish scholars examining christianity. i label this pattern of thought “inclusivism.” to include everybody, i.e., in christian communal language, “to welcome everyone” or “to invite everyone in,” is usually not recognized as a form of aggression by christians. while many christians recognize missionary thought as connoting aggressive attitudes of superiority and disrespect, many fewer recognize that invitations to unity and expectations of integration can be received as eradicating difference. the talmud scholar, daniel boyarin, recognizes both sides of this issue. in his book a radical jew, he presents judaism and christianity as complementary. on the one hand, he admires christianity’s caring about all peoples of the world and criticizes (what he sees as) jewish indifference toward non-jews. on the other hand, he notes that “the genius of rabbinic judaism is its ability to leave other people alone.” 43 boyarin thus sees christianity’s missionary inclination as a direct expression of its caring overmuch about everybody not christian. christianity, in his understanding, is inherently missionary. he is not alone in this view: since the enlightenment, multiple liberal christian theologies have distanced themselves from missionary practice. in the twentieth century, missionary theory has also come under criticism. mainstream churches have officially renounced the practice and, even more relevant for the discussion of inclusivism, criticized proselytizing jews even at the theoretical level. 44 41 catherine keller, apocalypse now and then: a feminist guide to the end of the world (minneapolis: augsburg fortress publishers, 2 nd edition 2004). 42 kathryn tanner, “eschatology and ethics,” in the oxford handbook of theological ethics, ed. gilbert meilaender and william werpehowski (oxford: oxford university press 2005), 41-56. 43 boyarin, a radical jew, 232 ff. 44 see the theological argumentation against missionary approaches towards jews in the 2015 vatican’s interpretation of nostra aetate, &6: “the church is therefore obliged to view evangelization to jews, who believe in the one god, in a different manner from that to people of other religions and world views. in concrete terms this means that the catholic church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards jews.” commission for religious relations with the jews, “the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable” (rom 11:29): a reflection on theolog meyer: structures of violence and the denigration of law 16 boyarin closely connects and even identifies inclusivism with the missionary ideal. his critique of christianity is built on his reading of paul, especially the epistle to the galatians, and especially on one verse of this early and overly polemical letter. galatians 3:28 is a remarkable choice as a proof text for christian inclusivism, in so far as it has been for centuries the favorite verse of egalitarian and liberation movements within christianity. it reads: “there is neither jew nor gentile there is neither slave nor free, neither man nor woman for you are all one in christ.” in boyarin’s understanding, this verse sums up the christian eradication of all difference. to new testament scholar lloyd gaston the same verse states the equal value of jewish and gentile identity and “means that in christ there is both jew and greek, both male and female. just as women do not need to become men nor men women to attain their full humanity, so jews do not need to become gentiles nor do gentiles need to become jews.” 45 in his foreword to his book on paul, boyarin presents this verse as his personal hermeneutical key to all pauline epistles (which are rather diverse in style, choice of topics, as well as addressees). does the pauline emphasis on unity over division entail aggression? in jewish as well as christian post-shoah thought, this is often implicitly agreed upon, with the prevailing understanding of otherness being that it necessarily resists this striving for sameness. this kind of thinking is often influenced by levinas’ ethics of responsibility for the otherness of the other. friedrich-wilhelm marquardt has described the shoah as an attack on the otherness of all others, and in response he calls for the protection and even promotion of otherness. 46 early 21 st century interreligious thought presents difference as part of the solution, not the problem. jonathan sacks’ post 9/11 book the dignity of difference: how to avoid the clash of civilizations expresses this view in its very title. 47 failure to dignify difference is aggressive. sacks differs from boyarin in not equating one particular religion with the striving for unity or uniformity, but he shares boyarin’s positive attitude to difference as a key prerequisite of dignity. only most recently, the study of difference has developed a more critical side, especially when women philosophers examine the politics of difference and “othering.” a very recent example is rita dhamoon, who reads the politics of difference solely through the lens of power. 48 in her view, the notion of “difference” is generally used to serve the normative power constellations rather than to challenge them. dhamoon’s field is not religion but culture and her main object of criticism is multicultural theory. but her approach is important for the contemporary critical interreligious discourse that has developed an overwhelmingly ical questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations on the occasion of the 50 th anniversary of “nostra aetate,” 2015. 45 lloyd gaston, paul and the torah (eugene, or: wipf and stock, 2006), 33f. 46 marquardt, eschatology, vol. 1, 184. 47 jonathan sacks, the dignity of difference. how to avoid the clash of civilizations (london: bloomsbury academic, 2 nd edition 2003). 48 rita dhamoon, identity/difference politics: how difference is produced and why it matters (vancouver: ubc press, 2009). 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) positive stand on difference. 49 considering dhamoon’s prism of power relations helps mitigate the idealizing of difference as an automatically critical principle. but does this contradict boyarin’s indictment of the christian overriding of difference as a key form of aggression? does seeing inclusivism as aggression presuppose a certain idealization of difference and otherness? in that case, dhamoon’s notion of difference and power-relations would be closer to nirenberg’s historiography of “othering.” nirenberg tries to construct a meta-theory that would explain christian aggression towards jews and judaism over the centuries. in his view, the christian church repeatedly produces the jews as other. the theory obviously works for the combination of christianity and power, but then the question remains as to how much christian culture and how much power is needed to enact that mechanism of othering. interestingly, boyarin’s thesis about christianity posits the opposite. for him, the desire for unity equals an urge for sameness and is not just a source but rather the main source of aggression in christianity. nirenberg and boyarin agree upon violence rooted in christian attitudes to inclusivity. but while boyarin identifies the christian ideal of inclusion as core aggression in itself, nirenberg sees christianity as responsible for constructing difference in a process he describes as “othering”. according to boyarin, inclusivism is the root of christianity’s violence, while nirenberg describes christianity’s aggression as a pattern of repeated exclusion. both scholars try to formulate an essence of violence in christianity, with boyarin presenting the root of aggression as a general attitude going back to paul and nirenberg describing christian aggression as repeated behavior. neither refer to changes in christian thought or history. historically and textually, boyarin attributes the christian eradication of difference to paul. but, as we have noted, pauline studies have been revolutionized since his book appeared in 1994. boyarin’s galatian-based, difference-eradicating paul is precisely the old paul of traditional anti-jewish protestant exegesis. it is precisely the paul who was presented as having abolished the law, beginning with circumcision, the physical mark of difference. but “new perspective” scholars have come to the conclusion that paul’s approach to circumcision is complex and that he holds the jewish people’s specific signs as holy. 50 in other words, paul should not be read as erasing difference. does this reversal in pauline exegesis falsify boyarin’s thesis on christian aggressive inclusivism? it may change our understandings of paul, but it doesn’t change the historical reality of how christians lived according to the old understandings. christians have striven for sameness both within christianity as well as beyond. both the demands for intra-christian uniformity and for external missionary activity have been aggressive and violent. thus, if today’s ecumenical ideal of christian unity still seeks the eradication of difference, it contains within it the potential for violence. it is thus significant that the catholic church refrains from organized mission towards jews and that catholic scholars speak of jewish 49 cf. sacks, the dignity of difference. 50 see sanders, paul, the law and the jewish people, 143-162. meyer: structures of violence and the denigration of law 18 otherness as holy. 51 while aggression towards different denominations and religions is a strong historical component of christianity, the recent regard for otherness is now a historical fact. the new reading of the old pauline texts undergirds this discourse about an essential matter in christian hermeneutics of the other. it thus falsifies boyarin’s thesis only when applied to the present. iii. abrahamic implications of the patterns of violence a. romans 10:4 and christian attitudes to the law nirenberg’s research points to the phenomenon of using the term “jewish” and “judaism” as a chiffre for all kinds of negatively presented attitudes. this begins already in new testament writings with the negative use of the verb “to judaize.” as stated above, nirenberg rightly notes that there is no necessity for the presence of actual jews in order to enact anti-semitism (or philosemitism). he thus speaks on occasion of “the imaginary role of jews,” who amply serve a function even in their physical absence. 52 examining the role of law in interreligious relations shows that there is no necessity for any word of the word-family jew/jewish/judaism, nor even for the verb “to judaize” in order to evoke and perpetuate anti-judaism. this is best exemplified by the interpretation history of romans 10:4, “christos is the telos of the nomos” often translated as “christ is the end of the law.” in this traditional translation, the sentence expresses supersessionism par excellence, without any mention of jews or judaism. but the greek word telos also means fulfillment, aim, target, or destination. the notion that paul mostly has torah in mind when he writes nomos, once a pioneering reading, has become a widespread exegetical insight. 53 thus, some exegetes today prefer translations equivalent to “christ is the aim of torah.” 54 while the english word “end” also holds an echo of telos, the german equivalent “ende” does not, carrying only a sense of finality. when it comes to the theological topic of law (nomos), even liberal contemporary christian theologies still display the logic of replacement, especially within christology and the idea of christ as “end of the law.” however, today, the christian logic of abrogating the law has transcended the relationship to judaism. within jewish-christian relations, supersessionist thought has been corrected and, especially in catholicism, officially rejected. the christian reversal of abrogating torah could itself rely on pauline theology. but the logic of abrogating and denigrating the law has reached beyond judaism and thus is even more challeng 51 philip cunningham, “celebrating judaism as a ‘sacrament of every otherness’,” the theology of cardinal walter kasper: speaking truth in love, ed. kristen colberg and robert krieg (st. john’s mn: liturgical press, 2014), 223-240. 52 nirenberg, anti-judaism, 345 for example. see also, for instance, paul lendvai, antisemitism without jews: communist eastern europe (garden city, ny: doubleday, 1971). 53 lloyd gaston was a pathbreaking scholar in this regard. see his paul and the torah (vancouver, bc: university of british columbia press, 1987), which summarizes earlier research. 54 ekkehard w. stegemann, paulus und die welt. aufsätze, ed. christina tuor and peter wick (zürich: theologischer verlag zürich, 2005), 56. 19 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) ing to reverse. theological delegitimizing of religious law also affects thinking about islam. with regard to judaism, mainstream christianity underwent a process of self-criticism that was strongly supported by new exegetical insights, especially the “new perspective” in pauline scholarship. christian hostility toward islamic laws has no such immediate corrective. it remains to be seen whether an abrahamic version of the discourse on displacement thought can facilitate more complex readings of the dynamics between christian thought traditions, delegitimization and the denigration of law. b. translating the abrogation of the law into secular antinomian thought all three christian patterns of potential violence, supersessionism, realized eschatology and inclusivism translate into secular language. disconnected from their original religious contexts, their violent implications appear even more blatantly. again, causality of necessity is impossible to prove since not all christian contexts that hosted versions of these three aggressive impulses put aggression into action. likewise, physical violence cannot be indisputably predicted as a direct result of these thought patterns, including their secularized versions. supersessionism, the notion that one religious community supersedes and replaces another, bears the character of eliminatory thinking. in his moral philosophy the order of evils, adi ophir states that labeling a certain group as superfluous often precedes the application of genocidal rhetoric. 55 this would be a direct secular translation of the idea of supersessionism: since christianity has superseded judaism, the jewish people has become obsolete. the specific interreligious dynamics expressed in christian supersessionism find a counterpart in the western genocide of jews. for this reason, christian post-shoah thought is necessarily decisively post-supersessionist. contemporary christian theology is unlikely to maintain today the claim that judaism as such is obsolete or that the torah is “superfluous.” but the notion that the law is not constitutive for salvation does still represent mainstream christian thought. the lutheran emphasis on grace and faith declares the law as secondary, a theological hierarchy with ample implications. 56 hence despite the remarkable achievements of post-shoah reform, the potential for violence still remains embedded in this christian concept and its implications. the concept of realized eschatology directly connects to divestment from ethics. when the world is assumed to be already fundamentally redeemed, ethics, the reflection on deeds and good works themselves receive secondary importance. obviously, this is contrary to post-shoah thought; that typically starts from the awareness of destruction and the recognition of the urgent need for repair. 57 55 cf. ophir, the order of evils, 510 ff. 56 the critique of concepts of “law” in protestant theology is a recurring theme of marquardt’s dogmatics throughout, see especially friedrich-wilhelm marquardt, eschatologie i, 241ff. 57 cf. emil fackenheim, to mend the world: foundations of post-holocaust thought (new york: schocken, 1982). meyer: structures of violence and the denigration of law 20 moreover, realized eschatology also clearly reduces the significance of law. when the main part of salvation—whether framed in language of enabling justification, as a constitutive act of grace or as the principal triumph over sin—is claimed to have already occurred, anything that advances reconciliation, peace, or justice will be implicitly deemed secondary or redundant. law, in such a worldview, is not regarded as an expression of human efforts to implement and enhance justice but is reduced to a more regulative function. our third category, inclusivism, is complex and cannot simply be equated with disrespect for difference. whether in the interreligious world or in contexts of cultural integration, efforts to unify are not necessarily more or less belligerent than acts of exclusion. the personal experiences of the relevant scholars seem to have shaped their understandings. while boyarin, reflecting jewish experience, holds up particularity and difference almost as an ultimate value, rita dhamoon depicts the language of difference as a primary means used by the powerful to maintain unequal relations. thus, in the secular realm as in the world of religion, inclusion versus exclusion needs to be evaluated within their contexts. both can be perceived as aggression and need to be judged according to the more vulnerable of the respective groups involved. islam is clearly affected by all three patterns we have examined, including both their religious and secular dimensions. supersessionism, originally the particular dynamic between judaism and christianity, is perpetuated through the notion of the superiority of grace over law. realized eschatology, with its disinterest in ethics and disregard for mending a world believed to be already repaired, supports the respective status quo and trivializes human efforts for global justice. and finally, inclusivism cannot allow for muslim difference in western society. three structures of violence in christian thought have been analyzed here, three that have thus far received very different degrees of attention in critiques of christianity and theories of christian-jewish relations. while supersessionism in general has been acknowledged as a destructive christian attitude towards judaism and has already been broadly repudiated, substructures of supersessionism, such as the idea of an abrogation or denigration of the law, still impact interreligious as well as intercultural relations. similarly, the exegetically refuted idea of a devaluation of the torah has not yet been followed by a christian appreciation for religious law in general or muslim legal thought traditions in particular. the more subtle pattern of realized eschatology has been recognized as violent only by a small circle of theologians. this understanding that salvation has basically been completed leads to a disregard for ethics and reflection on good works. my analysis here shows an interesting convergence of a sub-form of supersessionism, the abrogation of the law, and realized eschatology, as both patterns exhibit disdain for ethical and legal discourse. finally, inclusivism, with its striving for unity, constitutes the most contested structure of christian aggression. but even if boyarin’s essentializing christianity as not allowing for difference remains unconvincing, the discussion of the potential aggressive implications of inclusivism contributes to a necessary reflection on christianity’s violent past. in order to prevent or reduce violence in the future of interreligious 21 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) relations, the discourse about various and combined patterns of aggression is helpful, while the equation of christianity with violence lacks historical differentiation as well as critical precision much needed for the implementation of change. scjr 13, no. 1 (2018): 1-3 gerald r. mcdermott israel matters: why christians must think differently about the people and the land (grand rapids, mi: brazos press, 2017), paperback, xvii + 158 pp. jay moses pastorjaym@sbcglobal.net hope presbyterian church, wheaton, il 60189 this is one of the latest contributions to the vibrant and wide-spread study of christian zionism. it could be said in our day that of the writing of books regarding christian zionism there is no end. this is of course a controversial topic. some modern christians’ religious support of jewish sovereignty within the ancient land of israel is dismissed from the left as dispensationalist fanaticism, while criticism of israel by those on the religious left has been labeled by those on the right as antisemitism redivivus. what gerald mcdermott seeks to do in his new book is to find a via media for what he describes as a “new christian zionism.” what makes this christian zionism “new” will be discussed below. (this monograph was published shortly after the new christian zionism: fresh perspectives on israel and the land [2016], a collection of essays mcdermott edited.) mcdermott seeks to ground his theological project in christian orthodoxy (jonathan edwards is a special place of ressourcement). he engages with modern religious trends, such as western religious pluralism, and draws on his experience in religious dialogue (he has written several books on dialogue with the mormons). in his earlier dialogical works, he sought to be a mediator between sharply divided sides. in the same way, israel matters reflects this desire to find fresh approaches to stale theological contestations between partners long estranged. although members of other religious traditions such as mainline protestants, roman catholics, and jews are welcome to listen in, his “new” form of christian zionism is addressed to those with a conservative / evangelical theological background, similar to his own. this is apparent at the start. in his introduction he quotes a “young christian leader”: “i was raised in a conservative church and naively supported whatever israel did. we were led to believe that god had given the land of israel to his people, the jews, and their fight for their land in 1948 was a religious act by a religious people looking to their god” (p. ix). however, she now questions this claim, on both theological and ethical grounds. mcdermott moses: gerald r. mcdermott’s israel matters 2 recognizes the cogency of various critiques of israel, and also recognizes a lack of evangelical support for israel on traditional dispensationalist grounds. because, as his title says, israel does matter, he wants to present a new evangelical perspective on these topics. as suggested by his questioner, he seeks to approach such a study without a faith-based naiveté, recognizing that israel, especially within its complex geopolitical context, begs for greater seriousness, ethical and otherwise. in short, one might say he wrestles with the question of whether god takes sides in the many geo-political conflicts in our world, and, more precisely, does god take a side in the israeli / palestinian conflict? is the israeli government’s occupation of the west bank religiously significant, he ponders, and if so, what ethical issues get raised? this note of concern for palestinians reflects somewhat of an evolution in evangelical ethics and thought, and mcdermott embodies it in his troubled conscience and musings. as in some other current works from evangelicals with concerns for jewishchristian relations, he rejects replacement theology. mcdermott does a good job of narrating the historical development of this theological claim in section headings with memorable titles (“irenaeus-unnecessary israel,” “origen-spiritualizing israel,” “luther / calvin-repudiating israel” [pp. 7-10]). he also narrates later manifestations of this idea, studying the views of english deists and friedrich schleiermacher. he does not, however, engage the views of palestinian christian theologians (such as naim ateek and mitri raheb) or contemporary non-zionist evangelicals (such as stephen sizer and gary burge), which could easily have been added. mcdermott’s review of traditional christian anti-jewish theology leads to a final historical destination: the shoah. mcdermott’s own views begin to emerge as he reviews earlier theological views with the potential to contribute to a new form of christian zionism, one built on an ethical foundation and supportive of a hopeful future between christians and jews. he rejects the dominant evangelical dispensational theologies of john nelson darby and its fundamentalist offspring. instead, he seeks to dig within the heritage of english puritan theologians (e.g., thomas draxe, thomas brightman, john cotton, and increase mather) whose eschatological views preserve a special role for israel. he also draws upon the works of karl barth (who is increasingly popular among evangelicals) and some lesser known twentiethcentury thinkers, such as russian orthodox theologian lev gillet and the catholic mother basilea schlink. (he might have considered other restorationist, nondispensationalist theologians such as joachim of fiore, jonathan edwards, and wilhelmus à brakel.) he eschews the dispensationalists’ predictive prophecy and separation of jews and gentiles on different eschatological tracks. the jews’ return to the land is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy found in both testaments, though the state of israel is not exempt from ethical requirements. much about israel remains a mystery, he admits, but mcdermott supports and advocates for its central role in scriptural and modern day history. although his theology of the jewish people is similar to other recent approaches, his recovery of the theological significance of the physical land leads him into interesting proposals 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) regarding the existence, evolution, and struggles of the state. unlike the view of israel in dispensational theologies, where it is seen solely in terms of christian salvation, mcdermott ponders a more mature reflection of god’s revelation and consequences for all involved. perhaps wisely, mcdermott largely refrains from applying too directly insights from theology to a convoluted and war-torn geo-political reality. however, his book feels somewhat disconnected from the contemporary context. surely, it is a daunting challenge to move from theological insights to concrete circumstances. as in all such attempts, dangers loom of presenting a complex situation oversimplistically, and of forcing a priori theological commitments onto a gritty reality. and yet, for faithful and also politically engaged communities whom mcdermott addresses, such a risk might be taken for the sake of religious growth, and to show the relevance of theologically informed worldviews. (this is especially relevant if god is seen not as absent from such places but rather may be discerned, even with trepidation and shrouded mystery.) also, it is significant to recognize that mcdermott, an evangelical christian, engages with leading thinkers in jewish / christian dialogue, an endeavor that has primarily involved mainline protestant and roman catholic christians (as well as jews). he engages the work of mark nanos, scott bayder-saye, daniel boyarin, john gager, krister stendahl, irving greenberg, and markus barth. we learn that mcdermott, and increasingly other evangelical christians, have not been aloof, but rather listening quite intently to these theological conversations. the emergence of such “conversations” between different branches of the christian world, whether literal or even in scholarly writing, meets great needs of our time, such as a broad and inclusive search for the humane, for a cross-fertilization of ideas about our ethical mandates. to paraphrase mcdermott, israel does matter, and such dialogue offers promise for a fuller ecumenicism. may this conversation continue. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-3 gerald r. mcdermott, editor the new christian zionism: fresh perspectives on israel and the land (downers grove, illinois: ivp academic, 2016), paperback, 349 pp. caitlin carenen carenenc@easternct.edu eastern connecticut state university, willimantic, ct 06226 the new christian zionism: fresh perspectives on israel and the land, a collection of essays edited by gerald r. mcdermott of beeson divinity school, seeks to challenge the longstanding association of christian zionism and premillennial dispensationalism. in his introduction, mcdermott offers a five part definition of this new christian zionism, which he uses to organize the remainder of the chapters. in the new christian zionism “the people and the land of israel are central to the story of the bible”; “the bible is incoherent and salvation impossible apart from israel”; the ongoing history of salvation gives israel continued theological significance; israel’s modern state is “part of the fulfillment of biblical prophecy”; and jews deserve their place among the nations of the earth (pp. 11-12; emphasis in original). the motivation for offering this new definition of christian zionism is openly political, mcdermott tells the reader, and was prompted by concerns that support for israel is “eroding all over the world” (p. 12). in particular, mcdermott and the other contributors have in mind fellow protestants holding more critical views of israel. he argues that a careful reexamination of the new testament reveals the centrality of the land of israel to jews and christians, which has long been ignored or dismissed because of supersessionism. the new christian zionism, then, reflects the understanding of the significance of the land to jews and christians, emphasizes god’s unending promise of the land to jews, and affirms the significance of israel in god’s unfolding plan for humankind. mcdermott demurs from emphasizing specific fulfillment of prophecy in modern events as a way of distancing the new christian zionism from premillennial dispensationalism, but prophecy and fulfillment are not absent from it. the book is divided into four sections. mcdermott is the only contributor to part one: theology and history. beyond defining this “new christian zionism” in the introduction, mcdermott seeks to dispel “modern myths” about israel that have prevented more widespread support for israel among protestants (p. 26). in dispelling these “myths,” however, mcdermott does not offer any new arguments in favor of christian zionism. rather, he echoes much of the apologetics of carenen: gerald r. mcdermott’s the new christian zionism 2 dispensational premillennial zionism. most problematically, mcdermott skirts very complicated history in favor of a superficial interpretation of the arab-israeli conflict. his purpose is mainly theological, but in making a theo-political argument, he must address history far more carefully. unfortunately, many of his references are outdated and do not reflect the most recent scholarship in a widely contested history. next, mcdermott dedicates himself to debunking supersessionism as a legitimate theology and to dispelling the idea that his new christian zionism in indistinguishable from premillennial dispensationalism. interestingly, mcdermott also argues that the new christian zionism is not new at all, and he spends considerable space tracing its history to show that “christian zionism is at least eighteen centuries older than dispensationalism” (p. 46). it is clear that the purpose, the “heart,” of the book, according to mcdermott, is the biblical exegesis in part two: theology and the bible. here, four scholars take a deep dive into biblical hermeneutics and exegesis, and perhaps offer this volume’s best attempt to contribute new ideas to the theology of christian zionism. this part of the book will appeal most to theologians and seminarians as it is clearly targeted to a more theologically-advanced reader. in chapter three, craig blaising argues that the “new testament is best read in continuity with the tanak in presenting a narrative of the divine plan that includes an ethnic, national, territorial israel” (p. 98). in chapter four, joel willitts argues that scholars ignore “the theological theme of the land in matthew” and sets out to correct this since, he argues, “the people of israel and the land of israel persist as abiding concerns in the gospel of matthew” (p. 111). in chapter five, mark s. kinzer argues that luke and acts reveal an emphasis on jerusalem as a specific geographic location and a specific future location for the restoration of israel. the narrative is structured “geographically, with jerusalem as its pivot” (p. 143). in the final chapter in this part, david rudolph argues that paul does not eliminate “particularity for israel and the land” in his explanation of salvation (p. 194). in general, the theological studies of christian zionism in part two constitutes the volume’s most original contribution. part three is more overtly political, and because of an eclectic mix of topics, feels somewhat erratic. mark tooley begins this section with a summary history of mainline protestantism’s growing criticisms of israel, but does not offer anything new to the existing scholarship. he fails to offer a way for evangelicals to avoid “the mainline protestant trajectory,” as he said he would. (p. 218). rather, his chapter mainly seeks to dissuade evangelicals who might become critical of israel. in chapter eight, robert benne summarizes the existing scholarship about reinhold niebuhr’s zionism. he says that niebuhr’s views stemmed mainly from a pragmatic need for a stable geopolitical ally in the middle east and from his humanitarian concern for the jews after the second world war. benne’s original contribution to existing scholarship comes from his speculation that niebuhr’s support for israel was religiously-based, too. robert nicholson in chapter nine addresses the question of the legality of israel’s existence and of israel’s behavior in the community of nations. carefully defining both biblical justice and international law, he ultimately concludes that even if israel’s actions may be 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) condemned (unfairly, he argues) by various international bodies, it has not violated either covenantal law or international law. chapter ten, written by shadi khalloul, a member of israel’s minority aramean population, offers one of the more compelling and interesting chapters. following an overly-long historical introduction, he argues that israel does not violate the biblical covenant in its treatment of minorities. while his argument is largely based on his own personal experiences and could not be judged objective, as a minority he does offer a unique perspective on life in modern israel. finally, part four: theology and the future serves as an epilogue. while mcdermott offers the final word, the other chapter by darrell bock would have served as an excellent concluding chapter, as he concisely summarizes the previous contributions and offers perhaps the most measured approach to dealing with christian zionism in the context of the arab-israeli conflict. in all, this volume is strongest when it focuses on theology. its superficial treatment of modern israeli history and the history of the arab-israeli conflict will not convince the skeptic. no doubt, however, the volume as a whole will empower the converted. official ecclesial documents to implement the second vatican council on relations with jews: study them, become immersed in them, and put them into practice studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college official ecclesial documents to implement vatican ii on relations with jews: study them, become immersed in them, and put them into practice p h i l i p a . c u n n i n g h a m saint joseph's university, philadelphia volume 4 (2009) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 1 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 i would like to remind my brothers and sisters of the catholic church, also those living in rome, of the fact that the guidelines for implementing the council in this precise field are already available to everyone in the two documents published respectively in 1974 and in 1985 by the holy see's commission for religious relations with the jews. it is only a question of studying them carefully, of immersing oneself in their teachings and of putting them into practice. pope john paul ii, address at the great synagogue of rome, april 13, 1986, §5.1 1. introduction in december 2005, pope benedict xvi gave an address to the vatican curia about the proper way of understanding the second vatican council.2 he described two different approaches to interpreting it. the first, which he named "a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture,” privileges new or creative aspects of the council over more traditional formulations. benedict argued that such an approach misconstrues the nature of an ecumenical council, wrongly suggesting that everything prior to the council needed correction. he preferred what he called a “hermeneutic of reform.” citing pope john xxiii, he saw such reform as "faithful and [in] perfect conformity to the authentic [received] doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought.”3 1 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/pope-john-paul-ii/305-jp2-86apr13.html 2 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/pope-benedict-xvi/359-b16-05dec22.html . 3 ibid., §2. [in an america magazine online blog, joseph komonchak noted that a “hermeneutic of continuity” is the more direct contrast with a “hermeneutic of observing that reform is a “process of innovation in continuity,” benedict asserted that, “it is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists.”4 however, when it came to nostra aetate, the council’s declaration on the relationship of the church to nonchristian relations, benedict observed that something discontinuous with the past was needed in regard to jews and judaism. “in particular,” he said, “[in the face of] the recent crimes of the nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the church and the faith of israel.”5 this “new way” to relate to the jewish people was nostra aetate’s repudiation of the long-lived notions that jews were an accursed people and judaism an obsolete religion replaced by the church. as cardinal walter kasper has put it: “[t]he old theory of substitution is gone since the second vatican council. for us christians today the covenant with the jewish people is a living heritage, a living reality."6 discontinuity.” presumably, a hermeneutic of continuity in interpreting the council would value conciliar statements only to the degree that they reiterated pre-conciliar materials. however, komonchak continued, benedict spoke of a hermeneutic of reform, “which he describes quite precisely as a combination of continuity and discontinuity on different levels.” available at: http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=462487183048-741e-6853244124667553 ] 4 ibid., §3. 5 for more on the impact of the shoah, see massimo giuliani, "the shoah as a shadow upon and a stimulus to jewish-christian dialogue," in philip a. cunningham, norbert j. hofmann, sdb, and joseph sievers, eds., the catholic church and the jewish people: recent reflections from rome (new york: fordham university press, 2007: 54-70. 6 “dominus iesus.” paper delivered at the 17th meeting of the international catholic-jewish liaison committee. (may 1, 2001), 3. available at: cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 2 http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/305-jp2-86apr13.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/305-jp2-86apr13.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-benedict-xvi/359-b16-05dec22.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-benedict-xvi/359-b16-05dec22.html http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=46248718-3048-741e-6853244124667553 http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=46248718-3048-741e-6853244124667553 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 even while acknowledging the break that nostra aetate made with the past, benedict took pains to avoid supporting a total disjuncture with pre-conciliar teachings: “indeed, a discontinuity had been revealed but in which, after the various distinctions between concrete historical situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of principles proved not to have been abandoned. it is easy to miss this fact at a first glance.”7 it is not clear to what the “continuity of principles” precisely refers regarding nostra aetate, but one suspects it is the declaration’s reliance on romans 9-11 to affirm that “jews remain beloved of god.” of course, in so doing nostra aetate reached back over centuries of anti-jewish teachings to the earliest new testament author to find texts, admittedly of surpassing scriptural authority, to ground its affirmative statements about jews. if the “hermeneutic of reform” involves both continuity and discontinuity, it seems undeniable that in terms of the history of christian deicide teaching, nostra aetate was far more discontinuous than continuous with the preponderance of the church's past. if pope benedict's “continuity of principles” is not a historical category but a theological one, the question then arises as to how transcendent principles could have been disregarded for so much of the church's existence.8 in http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-andstatements/analysis/497-kasper01may1.html . 7 benedict xvi, december 22, 2005, §3. 8 n.b. cardinal johannes willebrands' relevant words: "even though the jews have never acknowledged jesus as the holy anointed one and savior of all humanity, 'as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their ancestors, for the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable' (rom 11:28-29). this authentic primitive christian vision was restored by the council, which, based on the principles of our faith, called upon us to change our attitudes regarding the jews, moving toward a full reconciliation as children of the same heavenly father" [church and jewish people: new considerations (new york/mahwah: paulist press, 1992) 3. italics added]. any case, pope benedict xvi's approach to the council through a hermeneutic of reform suggests the principle that interpretations of nostra aetate that do not assert both continuity and discontinuity are erroneous. the question of the proper interpretation of the second vatican council, particularly with regard to nostra aetate and subsequent implementing documents, is evident in new tensions that have troubled catholic-jewish relations in the united states. in recent months, two statements issued by the united states conference of catholic bishops have called into question two fundamental axioms that have emerged in the past four decades of catholic-jewish interaction and research: (1) that interreligious dialogue by definition excludes intentions to try to persuade or to convert the other away from their own religious tradition; and (2) that the covenant between god and the jewish people codified in the words of the torah has never been revoked and continues to be a vehicle of god’s presence, of god's grace for jews. the american statements will be discussed in detail below, but one of their more notable features is their minimal citation of crucially relevant post-conciliar authoritative catholic documents. one of the texts, "a note on ambiguities contained in reflections on covenant and mission," fails to mention such pertinent materials at all. questions about this grave oversight have been partially answered by assertions that certain official catholic statements about jews and judaism are not “settled teaching.”9 9 thus, to explain the removal of a sentence in the u.s. adult catechism that "the covenant that god made with the jewish people through moses remains eternally valid for them," a "statement of principles for catholic-jewish cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 3 http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analysis/497-kasper01may1.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analysis/497-kasper01may1.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 in contrast, pope john paul ii clearly believed that a postconciliar tradition of teachings about jews had been authoritatively established. when he visited the great synagogue of rome in 1986 he reminded everyone that “the guidelines for implementing the council in this precise field [of catholic-jewish relations] are already available to everyone in the two documents published respectively in 1974 and in 1985 by the holy see's commission for religious relations with the jews. it is only a question of studying them carefully, of immersing oneself in their teachings and of putting them into practice.” 10 in past writings, i have referred to this developing postconciliar tradition as expressing a "theology of shalom."11 "shalom" does not simply mean "peace," but is also "a process of living in wholesome relationship with others, ideally where partners and participants trust each other, act with integrity and are dedicated to the common good rather than threatening each other."12 shalom thus seems an extremely appropriate term to apply to the catholic church's efforts beginning with the council to develop a theology of dialogue" by leading american bishops observes, "a catechism is a compendium of articles of faith, and therefore contains only settled teaching." http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/584-usccbdialogue09oct2.html. 10 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/pope-john-paul-ii/305-jp2-86apr13.html. 11 hence, these book titles: a story of shalom: the calling of christians and jews by a covenanting god (ny: paulist press, 2001); sharing shalom: a local interfaith dialogue process, ed. with rabbi arthur starr (ny: paulist press, 1998); proclaiming shalom: lectionary introductions to foster the catholic and jewish relationship (collegeville, mn: liturgical press, 1995); and education for shalom: religion textbooks and the enhancement of the catholic and jewish relationship (collegeville: liturgical press, 1995). 12william klassen, "peace" in edward kessler and neil wenborn, eds., a dictionary of jewish-christian relations (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2005), 338. "right relationship" with the jewish people and "wholeness" in terms of catholic self-understanding. but this emerging theology of shalom has recently been challenged by theologians who, motivated by a concern that the universal saving significance of christ has been compromised, have interpreted nostra aetate in a very restrictive fashion and minimized the authority of subsequent documents. this alternate approach to a theology of the church's relationship to the jewish people could be called a "neo-supersessionist" theology, as i will describe below. this essay will explore the mainstream "theology of shalom" and the neo-supersessionist response beginning with the second vatican council itself. 2. the second vatican council: the authoritative beginnings of a theology of shalom the documents promulgated by a solemn ecumenical council have enormous authority in the roman catholic tradition. the various types of conciliar documents have different weights, with a dogmatic constitution enjoying the greatest authority. thus, these words of lumen gentium, the dogmatic constitution on the church (1964) are particularly important: finally, those who have not yet received the gospel are related to the people of god in various ways. there is, first, that people to whom the covenants and promises were made, and from whom christ was born according to the flesh (cf. rom. 9:4-5): in view of the divine choice, they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts of god are without repentance (cf. rom. 11:28-29). ... those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of christ or his church, but who nevertheless seek god with a sincere heart, and, moved cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 4 http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/584-usccbdialogue09oct2.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/584-usccbdialogue09oct2.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/305-jp2-86apr13.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/305-jp2-86apr13.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may attain eternal salvation" [§16]. anticipating nostra aetate's stress on chapters 9-11 of paul's letter to the romans, lumen gentium taught that jews remain the chosen people, "to whom the covenants and promises were made." following paul's use of the plural in "covenants," it is therefore not consistent with lumen gentium to suggest that jews today are the living heirs to only some of the covenants narrated in the bible. to anticipate one later neo-supersessionist claim, if jews are truly "most dear to god," then their covenantal relationship to god―as articulated in the torah and variously interpreted in rabbinic post-temple judaism―must continue to be dynamic and vital, otherwise being "dear to god" makes little difference. moreover, if any human person can be moved by grace and "may attain eternal salvation," then, in the words of westminster archbishop john heenan to the council in 1964, "how much more luminous is the jewish religion which is, at the same time, the root of our faith?" 13 lumen gentium thus links salvation with god's ongoing grace of election of the jewish people, an interconnection articulated in an authoritative dogmatic constitution. nostra aetate, the declaration on the relationship of the church to non-christian religions is also a formal conciliar statement. although not as weighty as a dogmatic constitution, it possesses an authority that few other types of ecclesial documents can match. even though no document of greater authority has been issued to challenge its perspectives, recent neo-supersessionist interpreters have attempted to limit its meaning, as will be discussed below. 13 john m. oesterreicher, the new encounter between christians and jews (new york: philosophical library, 1986), 211. nostra aetate admonished that “jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy scripture.” this sentence repudiated the so-called "deicide" curse, which had been a constant christian presupposition for centuries.14 logically, if jews have not been rejected by god, then they must still enjoy the covenantal relationship with god that permeates the jewish scriptures. drawing on romans 11, nostra aetate, §4 observed that “the jews remain very dear to god, for the sake of the patriarchs, since god does not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice he made.” this was reinforced, as eugene j. fisher has pointed out,15 when nostra aetate rendered a greek verbless relative clause in romans 9:4-5 in the present tense: “theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the christ according to the flesh.” as will be seen below, this implicit but authoritative recognition that israel continues to abide in a perpetual covenantal relationship with god―without any qualification among the various biblical covenantal "moments" or expressions―was subsequently made fully explicit by pope john paul ii and later ecclesial documents. nostra aetate, §4 also called for catholics and jews to collaborate in “biblical and theological enquiry and … friendly discussions.” this reversal of pre-conciliar warnings to avoid contact with jews has been reiterated and expanded upon in 14 see the collection of "texts from the history of the relationship" on the website of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations at: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-therelationship.html. 15 eugene j. fisher, “official roman catholic teaching on jews and judaism: commentary and context,” in our time: the flowering of jewish-catholic dialogue, ed. eugene j. fisher and leon klenicki (new york/mahwah: paulist press, 1990), 6. cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 5 http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 subsequent ecclesial documents up to the present day. the flowering of such collaboration raises questions about whether christians can theologize about jews without regard for jewish self-understanding, and vice-versa. finally, there is a decisive but often overlooked sentence in nostra aetate, §4: “together with the prophets and that same apostle [paul], the church awaits the day, known to god alone, when all peoples will call on god with one voice and serve him shoulder to shoulder.” this wording had been carefully considered during the council’s deliberations,16 particularly after public controversy arose in the summer and fall of 1964 over whether a leaked draft paragraph would encourage catholics to seek to baptize jews. the prominent rabbi abraham joshua heschel repeatedly and dramatically declared that he was “ready to go to auschwitz any time, if faced with the alternative of conversion or death.”17 in council conclaves on september 28 and 29, 1964, several cardinals and bishops specifically addressed the topic of conversionary initiatives toward jews. they asserted that the question of a collective jewish turn to christianity was to be understood as an eschatological matter. it was not the task of catholics in historical time to mount campaigns to try to baptize jews.18 the final text of nostra aetate–that the church awaits a day known to god alone–was meant to convey, in the words of cardinal giacomo lercaro of 16 for "a quick presentation of the preconciliar work that led to the declaration nostra aetate," see alberto melloni, "nostra aetate and the discovery of the sacrament of otherness," in cunningham, et al, catholic church and jewish people: 129-151. 17 beatrice bruteau, ed., merton and judaism, holiness in words: recognition, repentance, and renewal (louisville, ky: fons vitae, 2003), pp. 223-224. 18 naturally, this argument did not exclude individual jews who might choose to exercise their freedom of religion and seek baptism. bologna, that “only an eschatological turn of events will bring [jews and christians] to the common messianic meal of the eternal pasch.”19 after the interventions of the council fathers who urged this futurist eschatology, the draft of the declaration was revised accordingly. the official council record explained: "the paragraph concerning the church's eschatological hope is changed. many fathers asked that in the expression of this hope, since it concerns the mystery [of israel], any appearance of proselytism be avoided. other fathers requested that it somehow be expressed that christian hope also embraces all peoples. by this present [revised] paragraph we wish to satisfy all these desires."20 when the council voted on nostra aetate on october 1415, 1965, there were 1937 votes in favor of the section that included the eschatological phrase about awaiting the day known to god alone, and only 153 votes against it.21 given the discussions that had occurred in the council, and also in the public media, it is reasonable to conclude that the council fathers were well aware that the new wording postponed any interest in collectively bringing jews to christ into the indefinite eschatological future. on october 4, 1965, the new york times described the new phraseology as “an expression of the long-term ‘eschatological’ hope of the church for the eventual unity of all mankind … but there is no call to active proselytization and no presentation of conversion as the price of brotherhood.” three days before the council vote, a self-designated “international association of bishops” distributed a letter 19 oesterreicher, new encounter, 204-205. 20 acta syn iii.8, 648. my thanks to thomas f. stransky, c.s.p., a member of the drafting team for nostra aetate, for this citation. 21 oesterreicher, new encounter, 275. cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 6 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 urging rejection of nostra aetate. signed by bishop luigi carli, archbishop maurice mathieu louis rigaud and the later excommunicated archbishop marcel lefèbvre, the letter among other things protested that it was “unworthy of the council” to have framed “the future conversion of israel” so as to preclude proselytizing.22 incidentally, this perception from opponents of nostra aetate agrees with the opinion of rabbi abraham joshua heschel that the declaration was “devoid of any expression of hope for conversion.”23 that this understanding of the expression “the church awaits the day” was shared by friends and foes of the declaration, by an informed jewish commentator, and was so explicated in the media–and that there were no alternative interpretations circulating–demonstrates that its meaning was crystal clear to the council fathers when they overwhelmingly voted their approval. as a conciliar declaration, then, nostra aetate, §4 authoritatively relegated thoughts for a communal jewish turn to christ into the indefinite eschatological future. in the words during the council of archbishop patrick o’boyle of washington, d.c., "the destiny of the jewish people depends totally on the ways of divine providence and the grace of god. if we express our hope in words [suggesting] we are guided by the definite and conscious intention of working for their conversion, we set up a new and high wall of division, which makes any fruitful dialogue impossible. … [we should instead] remain within the limits of our 22 see oesterreicher, new encounter, 272, 274. 23 reuven kimelman, “rabbis joseph b. soloveitchik and abraham joshua heschel on jewish-christian relations,” the edah journal 4/2 (2004), p. 6, citing, abraham j. heschel, “from mission to dialogue,” conservative judaism 21 (spring, 1967), p. 10. available at: http://www.edah.org/backend/journalarticle/ 4_2_kimelman.pdf knowledge and respect the hidden ways of divine providence.”24 the council's futurist eschatological approach was a principal contribution to what i have termed a "theology of shalom." "right relationship" with jews becomes possible when catholics affirm the mystery that jews dwell in covenant relationship with god until the end of days. nostra aetate's futurist eschatology helps explain why in the catholic church today "there is no organized catholic missionary activity towards jews as is for all other nonchristian religions."25 in fact, these futurist perspectives were vigorously reiterated in a recent essay by cardinal walter kasper published in the vatican newspaper, l'osservatore romano: "the church does not take it upon herself to orchestrate the realization of the unfathomable mystery. she cannot do so. instead, she lays the when and the how entirely in god's hands. god alone can bring about 24 oesterreicher, new encounter, 199-200. apparently, cardinal christoph schönborn disagrees with the council on this point. in a 2008 article published in a british catholic newspaper, he argued that, "the fact that the church has apologised for the diverse forms of compulsion which they have had to suffer throughout the christian era implies that christians have now irrevocably renounced all forms of [coercive] proselytism. this does not mean that christians for their part have abandoned the mandate to proclaim the gospel 'to the jews first' which the apostles received from christ and which they passed on to the church. on the other hand, it means that this mandate must be carried out in the most sensitive way, cleansed of all un-christian motives" ["judaism's way to salvation," the tablet (march 29, 2008): http:// www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/11223/]. 25 walter cardinal kasper, "the commission for religious relations with the jews: a crucial endeavour of the catholic church," address delivered at boston college, nov. 6, 2002, iii. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/ educational-and-liturgical-materials/classic-articles/496-kasper02nov6.html. cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 7 http://www.edah.org/backend/journalarticle/4_2_kimelman.pdf http://www.edah.org/backend/journalarticle/4_2_kimelman.pdf http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/11223/ http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/11223/ http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/educational-and-liturgical-materials/classic-articles/496-kasper02nov6.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/educational-and-liturgical-materials/classic-articles/496-kasper02nov6.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 the kingdom of god in which the whole of israel is saved and eschatological peace is bestowed on the world."26 3. avery dulles' minimalist reading of nostra aetate before proceeding with a survey of the implementation of the second vatican council in later ecclesial documents about jews and judaism, it is useful to observe at this point that the reception of nostra aetate,§4 into the life of the catholic community has not been without disputation. perhaps the most influential reservations appeared in two articles published in 2002 and 2005 by the late cardinal avery dulles.27 the sway of his arguments is evident in some recent texts, as will be seen below. alarmed by theological statements that appeared to him to compromise the christian conviction that christ is necessary for salvation, he felt that "jews are obliged to take cognizance of the new testament" and that "conversion to christ, baptism and adherence to the church are ... important for jews."28 hence, he thought interreligious dialogue had to be viewed as an occasion to invite others to faith in christ because christians "[b]elieving that the son of god has lived among us, ... will wish to make him known, loved, praised, confessed, and obeyed by as many people as possible."29 he also (correctly) emphasized that from a christian perspective jewish covenantal life cannot be seen as totally 26 "striving for mutual respect in modes of prayer," iv, pp. 8-9. available at: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/good-fridayprayer/446-kasper08apr16.html. 27 "covenant and mission," america (october 21, 2002): 8-11 [available at http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todaysdialogue/conversion/519-dulles02oct21.html]; and “the covenant with israel,” first things (november 2005): 16-21 [available at: http://www. firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-covenant-with-israel---42]. 28 dulles, "covenant and mission," 10,11. 29 dulles, "covenant with israel," 21. separate from life in christ or that there are "two independent covenants, one for jews and another for christians, running on parallel tracks to the end of history."30 unfortunately, his arguments were based on a binary way of thinking that effectively denied that nostra aetate had reformed very much. thus, he alleged that a catholic-jewish dialogue working paper entitled "reflections on covenant and mission" appeared "to say that christians can evangelize without pronouncing the name of jesus,"31 even though the document in question had explicitly declared that, "the catholic church must ... always witness to its faith in the presence of god's kingdom in jesus christ to jews and to all other people."32 dulles seemed to think that either catholic participants in interreligious dialogue must intend for their jewish interlocutors to be moved to seek baptism or they are not adequately witnessing to their faith in christ. however, this either/or logic becomes untenable in the light of nostra aetate's decision to see a jewish "turn to christ" as an eschatological matter left in the hands of god. postnostra aetate catholics can witness fully to their christian faith while dialoguing with jews without the hope or burden of expecting their interlocutors to abandon or totally reconfigure their jewish identities and seek baptism. rather, their mutual witness to each other reinforces their respective distinctive commitments to god's reign, which catholics 30 dulles, "covenant and mission," 11. 31 ibid., 9. 32 consultation of the national council of synagogues and the bishops' committee for ecumenical and interreligious affairs, united states conference of catholic bishops, "reflections on covenant and mission." available at: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements /interreligious/517-ncs-bceia02aug12.html. cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 8 http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/good-friday-prayer/446-kasper08apr16.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/good-friday-prayer/446-kasper08apr16.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/conversion/519-dulles02oct21.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/conversion/519-dulles02oct21.html http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-covenant-with-israel---42 http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-covenant-with-israel---42 http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/interreligious/517-ncs-bceia02aug12.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/interreligious/517-ncs-bceia02aug12.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 understand as both proleptically33 present and yet to be eschatologically realized. the liberation from such expectations enables catholics to be more open to learning from the ongoing jewish relationship with god, but dulles seemed to prefer a thoroughly self-referential way of thinking of interreligious dialogue. acknowledging that, "undoubtedly christians have much to learn from jews," he immediately qualified this by asserting, "and [they] will profit immensely from the jews' adherence to christ (rom 11:12). this gives us even greater motives for sharing with jews the good news that the son of god came to be their savior as well as ours. we force nothing on them, but invite them with patience and love to share our joy."34 apparently, catholics could not both witness to their christian faith and learn much from the jewish witness to their distinctive and dynamic faith-life with god today. dulles' impoverished view of dialogue relates to another binary conceptualization. either one ignores the rich flowering of jewish spirituality in post-new testament centuries (by speaking exclusively in terms of old testament "promises") or one is giving an unacceptable "independent validity to the old covenant [... depicting] the old and new covenants as two ‘separate but equal' parallel paths to salvation, the one intended for jews, the other for gentiles."35 such binary logic precludes catholics, working from within their faith-experience of christ, from conceiving of judaism's ongoing covenantal life today as deeply involving christ in the spirit, despite jewish rejection of 33 to experience something proleptically is to experience in the present a reality that will be fully realized in the future. 34 avery dulles, "letter to the editor," commonweal magazine, (february 28, 2003): 2. 35 dulles, "covenant with israel," 20. christian preaching of the gospel. by avoiding logical polarities, is it not possible for catholic theology to maintain both the distinctiveness (and worth) of the jewish covenantal experience and the universal salvific activity of christ? a "theology of shalom" is oriented to developing an affirmative theological explication of this, but a neo-supersessionist approach seeks to deny the legitimacy of the question. i suggested above that dulles' binary way of thinking effectively denied that nostra aetate changed anything. a few passages in his articles are especially pertinent in this regard: the second vatican council, while providing a solid and traditional framework for discussing jewish-christian relations, did not attempt to settle all questions. in particular, it left open the question whether the old covenant remains in force today. are there two covenants, one for jews and one for christians? if so, are the two related as phases of a single developing covenant, a single saving plan of god?36 the first sentence in this quotation relates to an earlier comment on nostra aetate: "the declaration on nonchristian religions, though excellent, is not exhaustive or sufficient. it needs to be understood in the broader context of the full teaching of the council."37 there is a methodological problem here. if one attempts to read nostra aetate in the light of conciliar documents that did not have the particular questions about the church's unique relationship to judaism in view, one risks subordinating the "hermeneutic of reform" to a "hermeneutic of continuity" with received traditions. in other words, and to recall benedict xvi's words cited above, nostra aetate's task "to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the church and the faith of israel" 36 ibid, 17. 37 ibid. cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 9 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 is undermined if subordinated to other texts that did not address that specific question. nostra aetate must be interpreted through a hermeneutic of reform. therefore, what did dulles mean by claiming that the second vatican council provided a traditional framework for discussing jewish-christian relations? apparently, he meant "that it left open the question of whether the old covenant remains in force today." the question about one or two covenants is a different question, but one that arises only if one has already concluded that israel's covenantal life remains "in force." thinking in a binary fashion, dulles was inclined to answer his question about what remains "in force" with as minimal an affirmation as possible. departing from nostra aetate, §4's grounding in romans 9-11, dulles drew instead upon the letter to the hebrews: the most formal statement on the status of the sinai covenant under christianity appears in the letter to the hebrews, which points out that in view of the new covenant promised by god through the prophet jeremiah, the first covenant is "obsolete" and "ready to vanish away" (heb. 8:13). the priesthood and the law have changed (heb. 7:12). christ, we are told, "abolishes the first [covenant] in order to establish the second" (heb. 10:9).38 dulles' characterization of hebrews is very debatable. as luke timothy johnson has stated, "[t]he new testament compositions were not written from a position of christian superiority to judaism. they were, rather, composed in the context of competition among sects within the framework of judaism. for dulles to speak of hebrews as 'the most formal 38 dulles, "covenant and mission," 10-11. statement on the status of the sinai covenant under christianity,' is, at the very least, anachronistic."39 moreover, as johnson observed elsewhere,40 dulles' use of the preposition in "the status of the sinai covenant under christianity" was disturbing, redolent of triumphalism. a number of recent exegetical commentaries have warned against uncritically reading hebrews as claiming that christianity has replaced judaism. among other things, the biblical understanding that god’s relationship with the people of israel is marked by a succession of covenantal renewals, which might be expressed in modern terms as evolving expressions of the overarching covenant with god, must be borne in mind. seen in this light, hebrews' conceives of the blood of christ's sacrifice as enacting a covenantal renewal ritual between god and the jewish people. the author of hebrews portrays christ as the high priest who provides access to the heavenly throne of god by virtue of being exalted to god's right hand. "indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. for christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere a copy of the true one, but he entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of god on our behalf" (heb. 9:22,24). this renewed covenant in christ's blood is seen by the anonymous writer of hebrews as the latest and ultimate reexpression of god's covenant with israel. as luke timothy johnson observes, "the author of hebrews does not stand 39 luke timothy johnson, " christians and jews: starting over—why the real dialogue has just begun," commonweal (jan. 31, 2003). available at: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/conversion/ 526-johnson03jan31.html. 40 reply to avery dulles, "letter to the editor," commonweal magazine, (february 28, 2003): 2. cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 10 http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/conversion/526-johnson03jan31.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/conversion/526-johnson03jan31.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 outside the original covenant that god established with the 'seed of abraham' and the promise that god secured by his unfailing oath (2:16; 6:13-18); rather the author stands within the commitments and story of this covenanted people. ... the author makes a claim for a new covenant precisely for this people. ... there is here no contrast between gentiles and jews. there is certainly yet no 'christianity' facing off against an equally defined 'judaism.' hebrews does not therefore speak as representative of a gentile christianity that claims to have superseded judaism."41 writing from the perspective that hebrews was written to reassure a church in rome after the fall of the temple, alan mitchell makes another important point about the genre of hebrews. it is a sermon, not a doctrinal exposition: [o]ne has to assume first that hebrews was a sermon written for and delivered to christians alone. as an inhouse document it could not have been intended to make a public and definitive statement on the status of judaism at the time it was composed. addressed to a roman house church, probably dominated by gentile christians, it seems intended rather to stress what christians have in christ and what is worthwhile holding on to, rather than what jews had lost in the failure of the first revolt.42 41 luke timothy johnson, hebrews : a commentary. the new testament library (louisville/london: westminster john knox press, 2006), 211. 42 alan c. mitchell, hebrews. sacra pagina series (collegeville, mn: liturgical press, 2007), 26. mitchell poses a series of useful questions that draw out the implications of a post-temple setting for hebrews: "were the author's arguments so constructed because he believed that the temple never had any legitimacy, or out of respect for the fact that it was no longer standing? were his arguments shaped to show the insufficiency of the old cultic system, or to address a question in the minds of his listeners about what kind of access to god was now possible in an age when familiar means of mediation were no longer available? when he speaks of a new covenant, which stresses the interior over the exterior, is it because he wishes to challenge the since it is a sermon, it is inappropriate to simplistically quote hebrews to make apodictic statements about sinai's obsolescence. "hebrews was written by a christian for christians, to help them appreciate the salvation that is theirs in christ. any attempt to use it against jews is inappropriate, unwarranted, and unfounded."43 it should also be stressed that hebrews understands history to be nearing its eschatological climax. by drawing upon jeremiah 31:31-34 in speaking of a "new covenant," (similar to the qumran community) it taps into yet another eschatological text. since the author of hebrews understands himself to be writing "in these last days" (1:2), it is natural for him to be attracted to jeremiah's vision of a new epoch when the law is written upon the covenanted people's hearts, who consequently know god directly and need not teach one another about god anymore. since christians living two thousand years later are still teaching one another about god, it is clear that jeremiah’s "new covenant" has yet to be fully realized. thus, dulles' appeal to hebrews to imply that jewish torah-centered life is obsolete today is exegetically shaky.44 hebrews is by no means a "formal statement on the status of the sinai covenant under christianity," let alone the new testament's "most formal statement." the author of hebrews had other concerns. "hebrews does not even take efficaciousness of the old covenant, or is it because the disappearance of the external means of the 'old' now make interiority a necessity? surely these are impossible questions to answer with certitude, but they may be able to place hebrews in a broader context of inclusiveness by trying to show where the 'new' is the logical completion of the 'old' when the usual institutions of the 'old' are no longer available to accomplish their intended goals" [p. 27]. 43 ibid., 28. 44 although it must be mentioned that hebrews exegete cardinal albert vanhoye holds a minority viewpoint among exegetes about this that perhaps informed dulles' views. more on this below. cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 11 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 up―indeed, it was not in a position to take up―the status of judaism (as a religion among other religions!) in light of the experience of jesus as exalted lord."45 the only new testament writer to consider at any length the question of jews outside of christ is, in fact, the apostle paul, precisely in chapters 9-11 of his letter to the romans that was so central to lumen gentium, §16's and nostra aetate, §4's teaching about jews today. in romans, paul is bothered by boastful attitudes and speech. he wants no boasting of strong over weak (rom. 14:1; 15:1), of weak over strong (14:3b-4), of jew over gentile (2:17ff), or of gentile over jew (1:18ff). boasting signifies for paul a lack of appreciation of god's mercy (3:9,27; 5:1-5). it is also shows a disregard for the unity of the body of christ (12:1-21). in his reflections on boasting, he focuses on the boasting of gentiles in the church over jews outside the church (11:13-14,25-26). this leads paul for the first time to write about the "status" of unbaptized jews and of the apostles' overall failure to successfully preach the gospel to them. the letter to the romans was therefore the most applicable new testament text for the council fathers to actualize. like paul, mutatis mutandis, they were concerned about negative christian attitudes toward jews. indeed, by recalling his admonitions the council indirectly highlighted the historical fact that the later church had virtually ignored paul on this point. instead of putting aside boastfulness, the prevailing christian approach (for various historical reasons) was to delegitimize judaism and eventually to discriminate against jews in christendom. 45 johnson, hebrews, 212. by invoking an exegetically dubious reading of hebrews and seeking to harmonize its perspectives with the very different circumstances and concerns of romans, dulles was led to write about today's judaism in ways that seem unaffected by the promulgation of nostra aetate: "with respect to the ceremonial law, therefore, we may say that the old covenant is in a sense abolished while being at the same time fulfilled. the law of christ gives a definitive interpretation to the torah of moses. yet the ancient rites retain their value as signs of what was to come. the priesthood, the temple, and the sacrifices are not extinct; they survive in a super-eminent way in christ and the church."46 although it is not clear if dulles meant for "ceremonial law" to include the observance of all the mitzvoth in the torah, his formulation failed to acknowledge that priesthood, temple, and sacrifices are also not extinct in contemporary judaism: they were transformed by the rabbis after new testament times into a living, torah-centered, homeand synagogue-based religious heritage. dulles did not grapple with the existential reality of judaism as lived today. he was able to do this by his narrow reading of nostra aetate, but also by ignoring the important postconciliar ecclesial documents to which we will shortly turn. first, though, it will be helpful to sketch the elements of what i have termed "neo-supersessionism," some (but not all) of which have been seen in the preceding discussion of cardinal dulles' approach to these matters. neosupersessionism is a related cluster of ideas that began to surface perhaps in the mid-1980s in response to the mainstream trajectory of a "theology of shalom" that had been developing since the second vatican council. it is not organized into a coherent system; commentators who express one tendency that could be called neosupersessionist may be unaware of its interconnections with 46 dulles, "covenant with israel," 19. cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 12 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 other related ideas. but this reaction against post-conciliar theological developments can properly be called a new form of supersessionism because some of its expressions could just as easily have been (and in some cases were) asserted prior to nostra aetate as afterwards.47 neo-supersessionist thought threatens to undermine the conviction of the council fathers that reform was needed, that the times demanded a communal "examination of conscience" over christian teachings about jews. it must be emphatically stressed that unlike classical christian supersessionism, which was often based on animosity toward jews driven by the deicide charge, present-day exponents of "neo-supersessionism" are not 47 space does not permit a detailed discussion of this, but what i am calling "neosupersessionism" should be distinguished from what david novak has called “soft supersessionism.” he reasons that for “hard supersessionism… the old covenant is dead.” for soft supersessionism, “those jews who do not accept jesus’ messiahhood are still part of the covenant in the sense of ‘what god has joined together let no one put asunder.’ nevertheless, they are out of step with the fulfillment of the covenant which jesus began already and which he shall return to totally complete.”novak says that he thinks “christianity must be generically supersessionist” in this “soft” sense, and has suspicions about christians who claim they are not supersessionist at all because "christians must believe that they are offering the world something better or else why not remain jews or become jews?" [“the covenant in rabbinic thought,” in eugene b. korn and john t. pawlikowski, eds., two faiths, one covenant? – jewish and christian identity in the presence of the other (lanham, md, new york: rowan and littlefield publishers, 2005), 66, 67.] prescinding from the question of whether jews can define what constitutes authentic christianity according to not fully apt theoretical questions, there are indeed some affinities between "soft-" and "neo-supersessionism." but there is a major difference. i am using "neo-supersessionism" to describe a set of catholic tendencies that effectively seeks to change nostra aetate and subsequent documents from texts of reform to texts of continuity. especially significant is the resistance to develop catholic theologies that seriously engage jewish self-understanding. "soft supersessionism" seems to be an outsider's way of categorizing various christian opinions about judaism that does not reckon with the particularities of catholic magisterial developments and indeed could impede a catholic chesbon hanefesh, a reckoning of the soul. motivated by hostility to jews and certainly not by antisemitism. they are moved by their dedication to certain understandings of soteriology. as dulles worried, "once we grant that there are some persons for whom it is not important to acknowledge christ, to be baptized and to receive the sacraments, we raise questions about our own religious life."48 the raising of core religious questions about our own religious life by taking seriously the post-conciliar encounter with jews is indeed inevitable. this is precisely because from a catholic point of view, as cardinal dulles correctly insisted, christian and jewish covenantal lives are intertwined and not disconnected. or as cardinal kasper has expressed it, "we catholics [have become] aware with greater clarity that the faith of israel is that of our elder brothers, and, most importantly, that judaism is as a sacrament of every otherness that as such the church must learn to discern, recognize and celebrate."49 therefore, any change in the catholic understanding of judaism―and it is inarguable that nostra aetate represents a major "discontinuity" with the long-standing, pervasive "teaching of contempt"― inescapably impacts catholic selfunderstanding as well. therefore, a "neo-supersessionist" perspective avoids rather than confronts unsettling questions about "our own religious life" by tending to do one or more of the following: a. construing nostra aetate minimally by subordinating it to other conciliar documents and/or inflating its continuity with received traditions; 48 dulles, "covenant and mission," 11. 49 walter kasper, "address on the thirty-seventh anniversary of nostra aetate," october 28, 2002. cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 13 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 b. disregarding post-nostra aetate official ecclesial documents; c. being unconcerned with the history of post-new testament judaism and/or of contemporary jewish self-understanding; d. invoking the letter to the hebrews to circumscribe the letter to the romans; e. preferring a realized eschatology over a futurist eschatology, especially when speaking of "fulfilment"; f. seeing an intention to convert the other as necessary in interreligious dialogue; and g. understanding "covenant" in terms of promises rather than as a continuing relationship; and so doubt the ongoing validity/vitality of the sinai covenant after christ. god's faithfulness is upheld with regard to promise(s), but not in terms of an ongoing walking through life with the jewish people. with this introduction to "neo-supersessionist" thought, we turn now to one of the most significant post-conciliar implementation documents that such perspectives prefer to ignore.50 50 a very recent instance of "neo-supersessionist" thought may be found in brian w. harrison, "the catholic liturgy and 'supersessionism,'" homiletic and pastoral review (june 2009): 20-27. the article argues on the basis of liturgical texts, many of which have not been reconsidered in the wake of nostra aetate, that the promises made to abraham ought to be distinguished from the "mosaic covenant" in catholic theology, and that the latter has been ended by the coming of christ. harrison seems unaware of the pertinent documents of the commission for religious relations with the jews, and so also does not deem jewish self-understanding to be relevant. 4. the 1974 guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate, 4 in the wake of the second vatican council, catholic leaders began to put into action its various decrees and declarations. as cardinal jorge maria mejía has explained, under the supervision of cardinal augustin bea it was necessary "to institutionalize within the holy see the absolutely new relationship with judaism. ... [in addition,] guidelines [were needed] so that the catholic church and its central governing bodies, as well as the national episcopal conferences, could establish these relations, which were equally new, or in fact, totally alien for the great majority of the world's episcopate."51 already in 1969, work had begun in the vatican to compose a document to put into practice the perspectives of nostra aetate. thus, soon after october 22, 1974, when pope paul vi established the "commission for religious relations with the jews" to nurture the embryonic unprecedented relationship with jews, the new commission finalized drafts that had been composed with the participation "of all the bishops who were members of the secretariat for christian unity."52 on december 1, 1974, it officially promulgated, "guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate, 4." as an official vatican document intended to "help to bring into actual existence in the life of the church the intentions expressed"53 by an ecumenical council, the 1974 guidelines is a highly authoritative text. its principles cannot be ignored. 51 "the creation and work of the commission for religious relations with the jews," in cunningham, et al, catholic church and jewish people, 153. 52 ibid., 154. 53 vatican "guidelines" (1974), preamble. see: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogikaresources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/277guidelines.html cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 14 http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/277-guidelines.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/277-guidelines.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/277-guidelines.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 for the purposes of this essay, the following should especially be noted: a. the "links and relationships ["binding the church to judaism"] render obligatory a better mutual understanding and renewed mutual esteem. on the practical level in particular, christians must therefore strive to acquire a better knowledge of the basic components of the religious tradition of judaism; they must strive to learn by what essential traits jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience."54 this is an exceedingly important statement. if, because of the spiritual connectedness between christianity and judaism, christians need an awareness of jewish selfunderstanding of their lived religious experience, then: (1) jews must presently enjoy an ongoing and authentic relationship with god; and (2) ignorance of jewish selfunderstanding will result in a distorted understanding of christianity. or to apply the last point in a particular way, because judaism and christianity are organically related, christian theologians are obliged to reckon with judaism on its own terms as lived today. pope john paul ii, recognizing the significance of this principle, reiterated and expanded upon it on several occasions.55 his address to jewish leaders in mainz, germany on nov. 17, 1980 has major import: 54 ibid. 55 thus, as early as march 12, 1979: "the guidelines ... whose value i wish to underline and reaffirm ...stress a point of particular importance: 'christians must therefore strive to acquire a better knowledge of the basic components of the religious tradition of judaism; they must strive to learn by what essential traits the jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience.'" see also, "necessary for any sincere dialogue is the intention of each partner to a second dimension of our dialogue—the true and central one—is the meeting between present-day christian churches and the present-day people of the covenant concluded with moses. it is important here "that christians— so continue the post-conciliar guidelines—strive to acquire a better knowledge of the basic components of the religious tradition of judaism; they must strive to learn by what essential traits jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience" as will be discussed in more depth below, here john paul ii connected the imperative for christians to understand judaism accurately and on its own terms with "the religious reality lived by ... the present-day people of the covenant concluded with moses." it is the combined recognition of ongoing jewish covenantal life and the integral relationship between christianity and judaism that requires catholic theology to engage the lived jewish experience and tradition. in terms of textual authority, it should also be mentioned that the authority already enjoyed by the 1974 guidelines by virtue of implementing the will of an ecumenical council has been intensified by being repeatedly affirmed and utilized by a pope. b. "when commenting on biblical tests, emphasis will be laid on the continuity of our faith with that of the earlier covenant, in the perspective of the promises, without minimizing those elements of christianity which are original. we believe that those promises allow others to define themselves 'in the light of their own religious experience' [1974 guidelines, introduction]" (miami, sept. 11, 1987). for an online collection of john paul's writings about catholic relations with jews, see on the website of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/pope-john-paul-ii.html. cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 15 http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 were fulfilled with the first coming of christ. but it is nonetheless true that we still await their perfect fulfillment in his glorious return at the end of time."56 this paragraph concerning liturgical preaching shows an important consequence of the council's affirmation in nostra aetate, 4 that "the church awaits the day, known to god alone, when all peoples will call on god with one voice and serve him shoulder to shoulder." when speaking of the church's continuity with the "old testament," the guidelines' use of "fulfillment" language explicitly presents a tension between what has "already" been fulfilled and what has "not yet" been fulfilled with the first coming of christ. the encounter with the living reality of the jewish people impacts the christian understanding of how christ "fulfills" earlier "promises." in terms of christian theology, fulfillment is proleptic: it is the present experience of a reality to be fully realized in the future. c. “the history of judaism did not end with the destruction of jerusalem, but rather went on to develop a religious tradition. and, although we believe that the importance and meaning of that tradition was deeply affected by the coming of christ, it is still nonetheless rich in religious values. with the prophets and the apostle paul, ‘the church awaits the day, known to god alone, on which all peoples will address the lord in a single voice and 'serve him with one accord' (zeph. 3:9)" (nostra aetate, 4).”57 "an effort will be made to acquire a better understanding of whatever in the old testament retains its own perpetual value (cf. dei verbum, 14-15), since that has not been canceled by the later interpretation of the new testament. 56 vatican, "guidelines" (1974), ii. 57 ibid., iii. rather, the new testament brings out the full meaning of the old, while both old and new illumine and explain each other (cf. ibid., 16)."58 these two statements may be considered together because they both refer to the history of judaism―both in biblical and post-biblical times―as having perpetual religious values that have not been nullified by the coming of christ or canceled by the new testament. it is noteworthy that the explicit recognition of judaism’s post-temple development into a tradition “rich in religious values” is immediately followed by nostra aetate’s futurist eschatological formulation. a realized christian eschatology tends to overlook post-new testament jewish existence, whereas a futurist eschatology fosters a respect for judaism’s ongoing religious history. d. “to tell the truth, such relations as there have been between jew and christian have scarcely ever risen above the level of monologue. from now on, real dialogue must be established. dialogue presupposes that each side wishes to know the other, and wishes to increase and deepen its knowledge of the other. it constitutes a particularly suitable means of favoring a better mutual knowledge and, especially in the case of dialogue between jews and christians, of probing the riches of one's own tradition. dialogue demands respect for the other as he is; above all, respect for his faith and his religious convictions.”59 continuing in its purpose “to implement … the express intentions of the council,”60 the 1974 “guidelines” described the nature of interreligious dialogue between catholics and 58 ibid., ii. 59 ibid., i. 60 ibid., conclusion. cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 16 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 jews that was to be established. the defining purpose of such dialogue was to “increase and deepen” knowledge of each other, with a secondary purpose “of probing the riches of one’s own tradition” as a result of the interaction with the other. these goals demanded respect for “the other as he is.” acknowledging that “‘[i]n virtue of her divine mission, and her very nature, the church must preach jesus christ to the world,’ (ad gentes, 2),” 61 the “guidelines” cautioned catholics to maintain “ the strictest respect for religious liberty in line with the teaching of the second vatican council (declaration dignitatis humanae),” and to “strive to understand the difficulties which arise for the jewish soulrightly imbued with an extremely high, pure notion of the divine transcendence-when faced with the mystery of the incarnate word.”62 since a painful past has caused many jews to suspect catholic motives for wanting to discuss religious matters, “it will be vital to guarantee, not only tact, but a great openness of spirit and diffidence with respect to one's own prejudices.”63 the “guidelines” for the implementation of nostra aetate, §4 thus established certain common sense principles for catholic-jewish dialogue that were widely adopted. the dialogue was for the purposes of mutual understanding and self-understanding, was to be characterized by respect for the other’s religious convictions, and while christians witnessed to their faith in christ, they had to be open, humble, and alert to their own biases. finally, the conclusion of the "guidelines" merits being quoted at some length: 61 ibid., i. 62 ibid. 63 ibid. the problem of jewish-christian relations concerns the church as such, since it is when "pondering her own mystery" that she encounters the mystery of israel. therefore, even in areas where no jewish communities exist, this remains an important problem. ... in this field, the bishops will know what best to do on the pastoral level, within the general disciplinary framework of the church and in line with the common teaching of her magisterium. for example, they will create some suitable commissions or secretariats on a national or regional level, or appoint some competent person to promote the implementation of the conciliar directives and the suggestions made above. on 22 october 1974, the holy father instituted for the universal church this commission for religious relations with the jews, joined to the secretariat for promoting christian unity. this special commission, created to encourage and foster religious relations between jews and catholics ... will be, within the limits of its competence, at the service of all interested organizations, providing information for them, and helping them to pursue their task in conformity with the instructions of the holy see. the commission wishes to develop this collaboration in order to implement, correctly and effectively, the express intentions of the council.64 what is noteworthy here is the commission's mandate to collaborate with bishops on the national and local levels in 64 ibid., conclusion. cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 17 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 order to implement correctly the "express intentions of the council."65 5. the 1985 notes on the correct way to present jews and judaism in preaching and teaching in the roman catholic church. about a decade after issuing the “guidelines,” the commission for religious relations with the jews promulgated a lengthier document. it was a detailed elaboration on many of the points first made by nostra aetate, §4 and the 1974 “guidelines.” the “notes on the correct way to present jews and judaism in preaching and teaching in the roman catholic church” sought not only to continue the implementation of the council, but in particular to remedy “a painful ignorance of the history and traditions of judaism, of which only negative aspects and often caricature seem to form part of the stock ideas of many christians.”66 65 in this regard, the u.s. bishops have over time made important contributions to this collaborative effort to implement the council. in addition to their 1967 and 1985 "guidelines for catholic-jewish relations and an important 1975 "statement on catholic-jewish relations," there are also 1988's god's mercy endures forever: guidelines on the presentation of jews and judaism in catholic preaching and criteria for the evaluation of dramatizations of the passion and 2001's catholic teaching on the shoah: implementing the holy see’s "we remember." [all are available at: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogikaresources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholicbishops.html.] the extent of the collaboration between the u.s. bishops and the vatican commission for religious relations with the jews can be seen in the citation in the 1985 vatican "notes" of an american document [vi, 25], which is somewhat unusual in a vatican text. given the differences with these earlier conference materials, one cannot help but speculate that the commission was not consulted in the preparation of the june 18, 2009 and august 12, 2009 statements issued by the usccb, as stipulated by the 1974 vatican "guidelines.” 66 vatican, “notes” (1985), §27. available at: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogikaresources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/234notes.html like a multi-stage rocket, the "notes" further extended the trajectory of the "theology of shalom" launched by nostra aetate and advanced by the "guidelines." two aspects of this trajectory are particularly relevant: how the "notes" understood (1) the vitality of jewish religious life today; and (2) eschatology and fulfillment. in addition to reiterating the insistence of the 1974 "guidelines" that catholics must become familiar with jewish self-understanding,67 the "notes" stressed that its "concern for judaism in catholic teaching has not merely a historical or archeological foundation. ... [it is a concern] for a still living reality closely related to the church.68 the "notes" described this "still living reality" by quoting from an important address delivered a few years earlier by pope john paul ii: as the holy father said in the speech already quoted, after he had again mentioned the "common patrimony" of the church and judaism as "considerable:" "to assess it carefully in itself and with due awareness of the faith and religious life of the jewish people as they are professed and practiced still today, can greatly help us to understand better certain aspects of the life pastoral of the church" (italics added). ... the holy father has stated this permanent reality of the jewish people in a remarkable theological formula, in his allocution to the jewish community of west germany at mainz, on november 17th, 1980: "the people of god of the old covenant, which has never been revoked."69 [i,3] 67 ibid., i, 4. 68 ibid., i, 3. 69 ibid. cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 18 http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/234-notes.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/234-notes.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/234-notes.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 the significance of john paul ii's contributions to "unpacking" the meaning of nostra aetate, §4 will be discussed in the following section. for now, his explicit description of jewish covenantal life as having "never been revoked" was clearly reflected in the "notes'" treatment of post-new testament judaism: the history of israel did not end in 70 a.d. (cf. guidelines, ii). it continued, especially in a numerous diaspora which allowed israel to carry to the whole world a witness―often heroic―of its fidelity to the one god and to "exalt him in the presence of all the living" (tobit 13:4), while preserving the memory of the land of their forefathers at the heart of their hope (passover seder). ... the permanence of israel (while so many ancient peoples have disappeared without trace) is a historic fact and a sign to be interpreted within god's design. we must in any case rid ourselves of the traditional idea of a people punished, preserved as a living argument for christian apologetic. it remains a chosen people, "the pure olive on which were grafted the branches of the wild olive which are the gentiles" (john paul ii, 6 march 1982, alluding to rm. 11:17-24). we must remember how much the balance of relations between jews and christians over two thousand years has been negative. we must remind ourselves how the permanence of israel is accompanied by a continuous spiritual fecundity, in the rabbinical period, in the middle ages and in modern times, taking its start from a patrimony which we long shared, so much so that "the faith and religious life of the jewish people as they are professed and practiced still today, can greatly help us to understand better certain aspects of the life of the church" (john paul ii, 6 march 1982). 70 70 ibid., vi, 25. the fact that the "notes" discussed post-new testament judaism in such positive terms is highly significant. if the jewish people have manifest "a continuous spiritual fecundity" throughout history, that cannot be unconnected to their covenantal life with god. their "often heroic" witness of "fidelity to the one god" demonstrates their continuing profound relationship with god, a relationship not delimited by the christian experience. the repeated invocation of john paul ii by the "notes" is also striking. besides continuing the implementation of a conciliar declaration, the commission’s “notes" are rendered additionally authoritative by consistently incorporating relevant papal teachings. the "notes" similarly expanded upon the futurist eschatology previously offered by nostra aetate's "the church awaits the day" phrase and by the 1974 "guidelines," iii. like the "guidelines," the "notes'" discussion of eschatology was linked to the interpretation of israel's scriptures, in this case regarding christian typological readings of the "old testament." the "notes" should be quoted at length: typological reading only manifests the unfathomable riches of the old testament, its inexhaustible content and the mystery of which it is full, and should not lead us to forget that it retains its own value as revelation that the new testament often does no more than resume (mk. 12:29-31). moreover, the new testament itself demands to be read in the light of the old. primitive christian catechesis constantly had recourse to this (e.g., 1 co. 5:6-8; 10:1-11). typology further signifies reaching towards the accomplishment of the divine plan, when "god will be all in all" (1 cor. 15:28). this holds true also for the church which, realized already in christ, yet awaits its definitive perfecting as the body of christ. the fact that the body of cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 19 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 christ is still tending towards its full stature (eph. 4:12-19) takes nothing from the value of being a christian. so also the calling of the patriarchs and exodus from egypt do not lose their importance and value in god's design from being at the same time intermediate stages (e.g., nostra aetate, no. 4). the exodus, for example, represents an experience of salvation and liberation that is not complete in itself, but has in it, over and above its own meaning, the capacity to be developed further. salvation and liberation are already accomplished in christ and gradually realized by the sacraments in the church. this makes way for the fulfillment of god's design, which awaits its final consummation with the return of jesus as messiah, for which we pray each day. the kingdom, for the coming of which we also pray each day, will be finally established. with salvation and liberation the elect and the whole of creation will be transformed in christ (rm. 8:19-23). furthermore, in underlining the eschatological dimension of christianity we shall reach a greater awareness that the people of god of the old and the new testament are tending towards a like end in the future: the coming or return of the messiah-even if they start from two different points of view. it is more clearly understood that the person of the messiah is not only a point of division for the people of god but also a point of convergence (sussidi per l'ecumenismo, diocese of rome, no. 140). thus it can be said that jews and christians meet in a comparable hope, grounded on the same promise made to abraham (gn. 12:1-3; heb. 6:1318).71 71 ibid., ii, 7-10. by its insistence on a futurist eschatology, the "notes" established a nuanced theological orientation toward "fulfillment" language. maintaining the "already/not yet" approach of nostra aetate and the "guidelines," the "notes" stated that while salvation has already been "accomplished in christ" and "gradually realized" by the church's sacraments, these achievements "make way" for the ultimate "fulfillment of god's design" in the future. a set of guidelines for preachers published three years later by the u.s. bishops' committee on the liturgy would complement this nuanced sense of fulfillment by defining "fulfilled" as "irreversibly inaugurated."72 an important consequence of this conception of fulfillment is immediately apparent in the "notes'" references to jews and christians being divided but also converging "towards a like end in the future." christians and jews, therefore, have a "responsibility to prepare the world for the coming of the messiah by working together for social justice, respect for the rights of persons and nations and for social and international reconciliation."73 however, if christians speak lopsidedly of "fulfillment" as something achieved already, then the ongoing witness of jews to their relationship with god is emptied of much significance.74 72 god's mercy endures forever: guidelines on the presentation of jews and judaism in catholic preaching (1988), §11. available at: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/478-bcl-1988.html. 73 vatican, "notes" (1985), ii, 11. 74 n.b. the related later caution of the pontifical biblical commission: "[e]xcessive insistence, characteristic of a certain apologetic, on the probative value attributable to the fulfillment of prophecy must be discarded. this insistence has contributed to harsh judgments by christians of jews and their reading of the old testament: the more reference to christ is found in old testament texts, the more the incredulity of the jews is considered inexcusable and obstinate" [the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 20 http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/478-bcl-1988.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/478-bcl-1988.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 finally, the "notes" also offered important insights into the spiritual relationship between judaism and the church. first, the "church and judaism cannot ... be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the church must witness to christ as the redeemer for all, 'while maintaining the strictest respect for religious liberty in line with the teaching of the second vatican council declaration, dignitatis humanae' (guidelines and suggestions, no. 1)."75 because of the close spiritual connections between jews and christians, catholic teaching rejects a total separation between the two traditions. this was, indeed, correctly insisted upon by cardinal avery dulles as discussed above. nonetheless, dulles maintained a unified covenantal approach by seeing the value of jewish covenantal life only in terms of christian categories: "undoubtedly christians have much to learn from jews, and will profit immensely from the jews' adherence to christ."76 the "notes," however, by recognizing judaism's "continuous spiritual fecundity,"77 could also perceive that judaism and christianity are "now irreducibly separated." their spiritual bond cannot lead to a "playing down or glossing over [of] this rupture,"78 which will last until the messianic age since "the people of god of the old and the new testament are tending towards a like end in the future."79 the constellation of interrelated teachings imparted by the "notes" is a crucial component of a "theology of shalom." bible (2001), ii,a,5 §21]. http://www.ccjr.us/ dialogika-resources/documentsand-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/282-pbc-2001.html. 75 vatican, "notes" (1985), 1, 7. 76 avery dulles, "letter to the editor," commonweal magazine, (february 28, 2003): 2. 77 vatican, "notes" (1985), vi, 25. 78 ibid., iv, 21, d. 79 ibid., 11, 10. implementing the conciliar work that pope benedict described as evaluating and defining "in a new way the relationship between the church and the faith of israel,”80 the "notes" established or reiterated certain parameters: (1) jewish covenantal life is permanent and vital; (2) this vitality is evidenced throughout jewish history; (3) judaism and christianity are closely related and are not disconnected "parallel" traditions; (4) judaism and christianity are on converging paths toward the eschatological age, when all god's plans and promises will achieve their complete fulfillment; and (5) in the present time, both jews and christians have the covenantal responsibility to "prepare the world for the coming of the messiah.” the ecclesial authority of the "notes" rests on several facts: its promulgation by the competent vatican dicastery (with the approbation of the congregation of the doctrine of the faith) charged to continue the implementation of a conciliar declaration; together with its quotations of previous authoritative documents (nostra aetate, the 1974 "guidelines) and the papal pronouncements of john paul ii. 6. the teachings of pope john paul ii as already suggested by the previous discussion of the 1985 vatican "notes," the long papacy of john paul ii was extremely significant for the unfolding post-conciliar new relationship between catholics and jews. as a boy growing up in poland, karol wojtyla had many jewish friends, only a few of whom would survive the shoah into adulthood, especially jerzy kluger.81 when he became pope john paul 80 "address to the roman curia," december 22, 2005. 81 see darcy o'brien, the hidden pope: the untold story of a lifelong friendship that is changing the relationship between catholics and jews: the personal journey of john paul ii and jerzy kluger (new york: rodale books, 1998). cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 21 http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/282-pbc-2001.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/282-pbc-2001.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 ii on october 16, 1978, he brought with him a very personal commitment to shalom with the jewish people. thus, already on march 12, 1979, he told an international delegation of jewish leaders that the second vatican council "understood that our two religious communities are connected and closely related at the very level of their respective religious identities. ... it is on [this] basis ... that we recognize with utmost clarity that the path along which we should proceed with the jewish religious community is one of fraternal dialogue and fruitful collaboration."82 if "fraternal dialogue" is understood as described in the 1974 "guidelines," which the pope indeed affirmed extensively in this address, then its principal purpose was to increase and deepen knowledge of the other with great respect for the other's faith and religious convictions. while quoting the "guidelines" that "the church must preach jesus christ to the world," the pope clearly saw interreligious dialogue as the venue for pursuing "that fuller mutual understanding which we are called to achieve."83 in fact, john paul's twenty-six year long papacy followed precisely this path. in over fifty addresses and apostolic letters that fill a book-length volume,84 he gradually constructed a network of theological teachings about the catholic church's relationship to the jewish people that flowed from his understanding of nostra aetate and his personal experiences with lived judaism. 82 "address to representatives of jewish organizations," march 12, 1979, http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/pope-john-paul-ii/231-jp2-79mar12.html 83 ibid. 84 see eugene j. fisher and leon klenicki, eds., john paul ii: a spiritual pilgrimage: texts on jews and judaism, 1979-1995 (new york: crossroad, 1995). of particular interest for this essay is john paul ii's thinking about jewish covenantal life as reflected in such phrases as "the people of the covenant" or the covenant "never revoked by god." he first broached this topic during the aforementioned major address delivered in mainz, germany on november 17, 1980.85 in encouraging the practice of catholic-jewish dialogue, he observed: the first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of god of the old covenant, never revoked by god [cf. rom. 11:29], and that of the new covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our church, that is to say, between the first and the second part of her bible. ... a second dimension of our dialogue—the true and central one—is the meeting between present-day christian churches and the present-day people of the covenant concluded with moses. it is important here it is important here "that christians—so continue the post-conciliar guidelines—strive to acquire a better knowledge of the basic components of the religious tradition of judaism; they must strive to learn by what essential traits jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience" [introduction]. the way for this mutual knowledge is dialogue. at mainz, john paul ii correlated "the people of god of the [unrevoked] old covenant" with the first part of the christian bible. "old covenant" thus incorporates the entire corpus of the christian old testament, containing all the distinct "covenants" it narrates, such as the covenants with abraham, at sinai, with david, etc. biblically, the torah covenant at sinai lies at the heart of jewish covenantal life, 85 see: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/pope-john-paul-ii/297-jp2-80nov17.html cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 22 http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/231-jp2-79mar12.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/231-jp2-79mar12.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/297-jp2-80nov17.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/297-jp2-80nov17.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 so it was quite appropriate for the pope to also describe the "people of god of the old covenant, never revoked by god" as "the present-day people of the covenant concluded with moses." in the entire collection of the writings and addresses of john paul ii on jews and judaism, there is no evidence that he discriminated among the various biblical covenantal articulations, preferring some over others or thinking that some might no longer be valid. in fact, the evidence in all his writings on the subject indicates that he thought of the "old covenant, never revoked by god," in an inclusive, collective sense―certainly including the torah of sinai. this is an important point to make because such scholars as cardinal albert vanhoye (elevated to the college of cardinals in 2006) have attempted to argue that john paul ii could not have meant that the sinai covenant was still in effect.86 in an article published in 1994, which likely informed cardinal dulles' views, he claimed that the covenant with abraham, especially in terms of divine promises, endured but that sinai is virtually inert after christ. in addition to drawing on a debatable reading of the letter to the hebrews to make this case, he also drew upon galatians 3:15-18, 29. in so doing he entirely overlooked the radically different context from hebrews of that pauline letter, which was concerned with whether gentiles in christ had to become halakhically observant, not with whether jews outside the church should cease torah observance. exegetical issues aside, how could john paul ii speak in mainz of "the present-day people of the covenant concluded 86 see joseph sievers, “a history of the interpretation of romans 11:29,” annali di storia dell’esegesi 14 (1997) 381-442. a shorter version may be found as “'god’s gifts and call are irrevocable': the reception of romans 11:29 through the centuries and christian-jewish relations,” in reading israel in romans: legitimacy and plausibility of divergent interpretations, ed. cristina grenholm and daniel patte (harrisburg, pa: trinity press international, 2000), 127-173. with moses," if he agreed with vanhoye that sinai is obsolete? moreover, as joseph sievers notes, "vanhoye also does not seem to pay sufficient attention to the context. the pope was speaking to jewish leaders. is it conceivable that he came to tell them that god's irrevocable covenant is no longer theirs? apparently no one understood him to mean that and the further use of this phrase in [the 1985 vatican "notes"] seems to preclude such an understanding."87 moreover, had the 1985 "notes" misrepresented john paul's views, he would surely have corrected the text before approving its promulgation. it is beyond imagining that john paul ii could think in neosupersessionist terms without leaving any hints to that effect in all his writings on the subject. in fact, in the years following mainz he went on to repeatedly say virtually the opposite. note the underlined phrases below in which he continues to speak of israel’s story in collective terms, often explicitly mentioning the centrality of sinai: where catholics are concerned, it will continue to be an explicit and very important part of my mission to repeat and emphasize that our attitude to the jewish religion should be one of the greatest respect, since the catholic faith is rooted in the eternal truths contained in the hebrew scriptures, and in the irrevocable covenant made with abraham. we, too, gratefully hold these same truths of our jewish heritage and look upon you as our brothers and sisters in the lord. for the jewish people themselves, catholics should have not only respect but also great fraternal love for it is the teaching of both the hebrew and christian scriptures that the jews are beloved of god, who has called them with an irrevocable 87 ibid., 439 (p. 157 in the shorter version). cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 23 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 calling [to the australian jewish community, november 26, 1986].88 it is fitting at the beginning of our meeting to emphasize our faith in the one god, who chose abraham, isaac, and jacob, and made with them a covenant of eternal love which was never revoked [cf. gen. 27:13; rom. 11:29]. it was rather confirmed by the gift of the torah to moses, opened by the prophets to the hope of eternal redemption and to the universal commitment for justice and peace [address to american jewish leaders, september 11, 1987].89 the relationship between jews and christians has essentially changed and improved since the second vatican council and its solemn declaration nostra aetate. since then there is an official dialogue whose proper and central dimension should be the "encounter between the present christian churches and today's people of the covenant made with moses," as i expressed on another occasion [address to the viennese jewish community, june 24, 1988].90 there is yet another nation [that is part of polish history], a particular people: the people of the patriarchs, of moses and the prophets, the heirs of the faith of abraham. ... the people who lived with us for many generations has remained with us after the terrible death of millions of its sons and daughters. together we await 88 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/pope-john-paul-ii/306-jp2-86nov26.html 89 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/pope-john-paul-ii/308-87sep11.html 90 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/pope-john-paul-ii/309-jp2-88june24.html the day of judgment and resurrection [jasna gora meditation, september 26, 1990].91 in this context we should also mention the tragedy of the jews. for christians the heavy burden of guilt for the murder of the jewish people must be an enduring call to repentance; thereby we can overcome every form of antisemitism and establish a new relationship with our kindred nation of the old covenant [address to the new ambassador of the federal republic of germany to the holy see. nov. 8, 1990].92 in meditating on the mystery of israel and its “irrevocable calling” (cf. insegnamenti ix/1 [1986], p. 1028), christians also explore the mystery of their own roots. in the biblical sources they share with their jewish brothers and sisters, they find the indispensable elements for living and deepening their own faith. ... today dialogue means that christians should be more aware of these elements which bring us closer together. just as we take note of the “covenant never revoked by god” (cf. insegnamenti, 1980, [iii/2], pp. 1272-1276), so we should consider the intrinsic value of the old testament (cf. dei verbum, n. 3), even if this only acquires its full meaning in the light of the new testament and contains promises that are fulfilled in jesus [general audience, april 28, 1999].93 91 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/pope-john-paul-ii/312-jp2-90sep26.html 92`http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/pope-john-paul-ii/311-jp2-90nov8.html 93 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/pope-john-paul-ii/326-jp2-99apr28.html. n.b. that the pope does not restrict the old testament's "intrinsic value" to the promises that are fulfilled in christ. cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 24 http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/306-jp2-86nov26.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/306-jp2-86nov26.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/308-87sep11.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/308-87sep11.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/309-jp2-88june24.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/309-jp2-88june24.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/312-jp2-90sep26.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/312-jp2-90sep26.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/311-jp2-90nov8.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/311-jp2-90nov8.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/326-jp2-99apr28.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/326-jp2-99apr28.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 the experience of the people of abraham unfolded over hundreds of years, touching many places in the near east. at the heart of this experience there are the events of the exodus, when the people of israel, after the hard trial of slavery, went forth under the leadership of moses towards the land of freedom. three moments mark that journey, each of them linked to mountainous places charged with mystery. there rises first of all, in the early stage, mount horeb, as sinai is sometimes called in the bible, where moses received the revelation of god's name, the sign of his mystery and of his powerful saving presence: “ i am who i am” (ex 3:14). no less than abraham, moses was asked to entrust himself to god's plan, and to put himself at the head of his people. thus began the dramatic event of the liberation, which israel would always remember as the founding experience of its faith. on the journey through the desert, it was again sinai which was the setting for the sealing of the covenant between yahweh and his people, thus linking the mountain to the gift of the ten commandments, the ten “words” which commit israel to a life fully obedient to the will of god [letter concerning pilgrimage to places linked to the history of salvation, june 29, 1999].94 here on mount sinai, the truth of "who god is" became the foundation and guarantee of the covenant. moses enters "the luminous darkness" (the life of moses, ii, 164), and there he is given the law "written with the finger of god" (ex. 31:18). but what is this law? it is the law of life and freedom! at the red sea the people had experienced a great liberation. they had seen the power and fidelity of god; they had discovered that he is the god who does indeed set his people free as he had promised. but now on the heights of sinai this same god 94 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/pope-john-paul-ii/343-jp2-99june29.html seals his love by making the covenant that he will never renounce. if the people obey his law, they will know freedom forever. the exodus and the covenant are not just events of the past; they are forever the destiny of all god's people! [homily at mount sinai, february 26, 2000].95 despite this overwhelming consistency in the late pope's writings, vanhoye apparently disagreed. he more recently reasserted his reading of hebrews at the twelfth ordinary general assembly of the synod of bishops on “the word of god in the life and mission of the church" in october 2008 while discussing the 2001 study from the pontifical biblical commission, the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible. he stated that the pbc study, "does not quote this text [hebrews], but takes it into account, because it refrains from asserting the permanent validity of the sinai covenant. it mentions the permanent validity of the 'covenant-promise of god,' which is not a bilateral pact such as the sinai covenant, often broken by the israelites. it is 'all merciful' and 'cannot be annulled' (no. 41). it 'is definitive and cannot be abolished.' in this sense, according to the new testament, 'israel continues to be in a covenant relationship with god'. (no. 42)."96 95`http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/pope-john-paul-ii/332-jp2-00feb26.html 96 "the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible" at http://www.zenit.org/article-23841?l=english. vanhoye's reading of the pbc study, that the bilateral sinai covenant does not have a permanent validity even though (somehow) israel "continues to be in a covenant relationship with god" is highly questionable. first, in §42 of the study the pbc is simply describing various ways in which the theme of "covenant" is treated in different new testament books. it does not indicate any preference among these diverse approaches, nor does it universally absolutize one approach as the immutable or defining perspective preferable above all others. second, while discussing pauline understandings in §85, the pbc observes that, "israel's election is made concrete and specific in the sinai covenant and by the institutions based on it, cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 25 http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/343-jp2-99june29.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/343-jp2-99june29.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/332-jp2-00feb26.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/332-jp2-00feb26.html http://www.zenit.org/article-23841?l=english studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 in the light of all of the john paul's statements noted above, it is unthinkable that the pope shared vanhoye's views about sinai's obsolescence. in his apostolic letter tertio millennio adveniente, he again made it clear that for him there was no question that the second vatican council had definitively charted a new course that included a comprehensive understanding of covenant: "no council had ever spoken so clearly about ... about the specific meaning of the old covenant and of israel ..."97 the question, then, is not what john paul ii meant, but rather what authoritative weight is carried by his body of work on relations with jews and judaism. 7. an analysis of recent usccb documents as observed in the introduction to this essay, two statements issued in recent months by the united states conference of catholic bishops have disturbed american catholic-jewish relations. the first was "a note on ambiguities contained in reflections on covenant and mission," issued on june 18, 2009.98 this note discussed a 2002 dialogue document, reflections on covenant and especially the law and the temple. the new testament is in continuity with this covenant and its institutions." if sinai was made obsolete by the coming of christ as vanhoye suggests, then israel's ongoing election would have no concrete specificity and the jewish people's self-understanding of post-temple rabbinic judaism as continuous with the sinai covenant would be denied. the latter would contradict the pbc's statement in §22 that rabbinic readings of the jewish scriptures are possible and valuable for christians. third, the pbc study takes pains to portray judaism as a vital and dynamic covenantal community. vanhoye's interpretation of the pbc study would produce a portrait of an illegitimate and groundless judaism, futilely attempting to live out a concrete expression of a covenant that no longer exists. this is hardly the tone of the pbc study. 97 iii, §19. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/ roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/314-jp2-94nov10.html. 98 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/ conversion/559-usccb-09june18.html. mission,99 in order to clarify "some statements [in it] that are insufficiently precise and potentially misleading."100 it is not easy to glean from the ten short paragraphs of the "note on ambiguities" exactly what ambiguities found in "reflections on covenant and mission" [rcm] needed its clarification. it is not until par. 5 of the "note on ambiguities" that a clarification about the contents of rcm is expressed. after admitting that rcm "correctly acknowledges that 'judaism is a religion that springs from divine revelation' and that 'it is only about israel's covenant that the church can speak with the certainty of the biblical witness,'" the "note on ambiguities" claims that "[n]evertheless, it is incomplete and potentially misleading in this context to refer to the enduring quality of the covenant without adding that for catholics jesus christ as the incarnate son of god fulfills both in history and at the end of time the special relationship that god established with israel." after quoting a vatican ii document (dei verbum) that was not addressing the same questions, the "note on ambiguities" goes on to say that the "long story of god's intervention in the history of israel comes to its unsurpassable culmination in jesus christ, who is god become man." it seems that the "note on ambiguities" faults rcm for not explaining to jewish dialogue partners that while the catholic church recognizes "the enduring quality of the covenant," it also holds that christ "fulfills" (without any explanation or qualification) judaism’s covenantal life. this would seem a strange point for rcm to make while setting forth why the church doesn't engage in conversionary campaigns toward jews. logically, such realized fulfillment language should lead to the opposite conclusion: jews need to be baptized. par. 6 of the 99 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/inter religious/517-ncs-bceia02aug12.html. 100 "note on ambiguities," §2. cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 26 http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/314-jp2-94nov10.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/314-jp2-94nov10.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/conversion/559-usccb-09june18.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/conversion/559-usccb-09june18.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/interreligious/517-ncs-bceia02aug12.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/interreligious/517-ncs-bceia02aug12.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 "note on ambiguities" similarly would have preferred rcm to state that "jesus christ in himself fulfills god's revelation." it is par. 7 of the "note on ambiguities" that has proven the most controversial. it critiques rcm's formulation that interreligious dialogue is a form of evangelization that is "a mutually enriching sharing of gifts devoid of any intention whatsoever to invite the dialogue partner to baptism." it would rather say that, "[t]hough christian participation in interreligious dialogue would not normally include an explicit invitation to baptism and entrance into the church, the christian dialogue partner is always giving witness to the following of christ, to which all are implicitly invited." within weeks of the issuance of the "note on ambiguities," interfaith leaders across the broad spectrum of the american jewish community wrote an unprecedented joint letter that particularly expressed shock over par. 7. of the "note on ambiguities": since reflections focused specifically on jews, the latest statement informs us that catholics engaging in dialogue with jews must have the intention of extending an implicit invitation to embrace christianity and that one can even imagine a situation in such a dialogue where this invitation would be made explicit. a declaration of this sort is antithetical to the very essence of jewishchristian dialogue as we have understood it in the postvatican ii era. we pose no objection to the position that christians must bear witness to the truth of their faith and expound on it forthrightly, candidly and passionately. however, once jewish-christian dialogue has been formally characterized as an invitation, whether explicit or implicit, to apostatize, then jewish participation becomes untenable.101 the jewish leaders also questioned the statement's evident disregard for the mosaic covenant: "[t]he new usccb 'note' states that 'the fulfillment of the covenants, indeed, of all of god’s promises to israel, is found only in jesus christ.' this appears to posit that the mosaic covenant is obsolete and judaism no longer has a reason to exist." the jewish letter’s citation of "the post-vatican era" was apt. readers of the "note on ambiguities" were, in fact, confronted by elements of the "neo-supersessionist" approach described earlier: a failure to take cognizance of vatican documents to implement nostra aetate, §4;102 a disregard for jewish self-understanding; a desire to propose christ to jews in the context of interreligious dialogue; and a preference for a realized over a futurist eschatology. the suggestion that interreligious dialogue might be used to promote jewish conversions to christ is naturally viewed as an inducement to apostasy by jews because a rejection of christian claims about him is part of jewish self-definition today. as the jewish interfaith leaders wrote, such a possibility makes the very prospect of dialogue "untenable." indeed, it is useful to recall that this same point was made by archbishop patrick o’boyle during the council: "if we express our [eschatological] hope in words [suggesting] we are guided by the definite and conscious intention of working for their conversion, we set up a new and high wall of division, which makes any fruitful dialogue impossible.”103 101"national jewish interfaith leadership letter on usccb 'note on ambiguities.'" available at: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/ themes-intodays-dialogue/conversion/574-njil09aug18.html. 102it is noteworthy that while rcm extensively quoted post-nostra aetate ecclesial documents, the “note on ambiguities” cites none. 103 oesterreicher, new encounter, 199-200. cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 27 http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/conversion/574-njil09aug18.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/conversion/574-njil09aug18.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 the "note on ambiguities" also calls into question the purposes of catholic-jewish dialogue as set forth in the 1974 vatican “guidelines”: to foster mutual understanding of each other and a better awareness of one's own tradition―a perspective that informs virtually the entire post-vatican ii corpus. although a mild eschatological allusion is present at one point, by using the present tense to say that christ "is the fulfillment of all covenants," the "note on ambiguities" expressed a realized eschatology without any of the nuance or caveats articulated in nostra aetate's "the church awaits the day known to god alone;" the 1974 vatican "guidelines'" qualification that "we still await their perfect fulfillment in his glorious return at the end of time;" and the 1985 vatican notes' proviso that "the fulfillment of god's design ... awaits its final consummation with the return of jesus as messiah, for which we pray each day." by assuming a timeless, transcendent voice and by failing to incorporate the perspectives of official vatican conciliar and implementing documents, the "note on ambiguities" winds up leaving judaism with little meaningful role in human history except in self-referential christian ways. when it comes to theological statements about the relationship of the catholic church to the jewish people and tradition, the ecclesial documents to implement nostra aetate, §4 unanimously insist on maintaining the eschatological tension between the already and the not yet. a second phase of the controversy was triggered by an august 27, 2009 press release and an accompanying "backgrounder" information sheet announcing vatican "recognitio" or approval of a change in the american adult catechism.104 the initial catechism text had stated that: 104 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/577-usccb09aug27.html "when god called abraham out of ur, he promised to make of him a 'great nation.' this began the history of god revealing his divine plan of salvation to a chosen people with whom he made enduring covenants. thus the covenant that god made with the jewish people through moses remains eternally valid for them." this was revised to: "when god called abraham out of ur, he promised to make of him a "great nation." to the jewish people, whom god first chose to hear his word, "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the christ." (rom 9: 4-5; cf. ccc, no. 839). the "backgrounder" explained the revision in this way: "by making the change in the uscca, there is not a change in the church’s teaching. catholics believe that all previous covenants that god made with the jewish people are fulfilled in jesus christ105 through the new covenant established through his sacrificial death on the cross. the prior version of the text might be understood to imply that one of the former covenants imparts salvation without the mediation of christ, whom christians believe to be the universal savior of all people."106 like the "note on ambiguities," the "backgrounder" also uses realized eschatological fulfillment language. however, 105 it should be noted that the formula “christ fulfills all previous covenants” is not a biblical one. paul put it this way: “for i tell you that christ became a servant of the circumcised on behalf of the truth of god in order that he might confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, and in order that the gentiles might glorify god for his mercy” [rom 15:8-9]; “for in [christ] every one of god’s promises is a ‘yes’” [2 cor. 1:20]. there is a significant difference for christian relations with jews to speak of christ as “fulfilling” rather than “confirming” promises (not covenants). 106 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/577-usccb09aug27.html cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 28 http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/577-usccb09aug27.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/577-usccb09aug27.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/577-usccb09aug27.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/577-usccb09aug27.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 by now using the passive voice: "all previous covenants that god made with the jewish people are fulfilled in jesus christ," the sense of a past completed action is intensified. the unfortunate use of the ambiguous adjective "former" exacerbates the problems. in addition, if the authors of the "backgrounder" were concerned that the original wording of the catechism could be read to exclude the necessary mediation of christ, then why not simply add to the sentence in question without removing the affirmation that the mosaic covenant "remains eternally valid" for jews? the formulation offered by cardinal walter kasper in his capacity as president of the commission for religious relations with the jews would have served quite well: "the document dominus iesus does not state that everybody needs to become a catholic in order to be saved by god. on the contrary, it declares that god's grace, which is the grace of jesus christ according to our faith, is available to all. therefore, the church believes that judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the jewish people to god's irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because god is faithful to his promises."107 one could therefore imagine that the adult catechism might have been revised to say, "thus the covenant that god made with the jewish people through moses remains eternally valid for them, although christians believe that the grace of jesus christ is always necessary and at work in human salvation." something along these lines would have asserted the universal mediation of christ and prevented the interpretation feared by the authors of the "backgrounder" without leaving readers to conclude that catholic church can no longer affirm the continuing vitality of the sinai covenant. this binary logic recalls the arguments offered by cardinal avery dulles in his critique of rcm, discussed above. it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the "note on ambiguities" and the "backgrounder" of the catechism recognitio were attempts to advance neo-supersessionist theologies of the church's relationship to jews and judaism. by disregarding the trajectory of the "theology of shalom" emerging in post-conciliar official documents, right relationship with the jewish people, painstakingly pursued for more than four decades, was seriously jeopardized. by not reckoning with jewish self-understanding of their experience of their relationship with god, these two recent texts violated an essential axiom of the 1974 "guidelines" to implement nostra aetate, causing the stirring up of old fears and caricatures. 107 "dominus iesus," §3. fortunately, five episcopal leaders of the u.s. conference of catholic bishops very recently issued a public response to the letter of concern from the jewish interfaith leaders, together with a six-point "statement of principles for catholic-jewish dialogue."108 in their letter, the bishops take the unusual and perhaps unprecedented step of retracting the problematic language in the "note on ambiguities” that "although christian participation in interreligious dialogue would not normally include an explicit invitation to baptism and entrance into the church, the christian dialogue partner is always giving witness to the following of christ, to which all are implicitly invited." the bishops wrote, "after further discussion, our committees have also decided to amend the note by excising the last two sentences of paragraph seven in order to address the concerns you and others have raised about the relationship between dialogue and witness."109 in 108 the bishops' letter may be found at: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogikaresources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-ofcatholic-bishops/585-usccb09oct2.html. the "statement of principles for catholic-jewish dialogue" is available at: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogikaresources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-ofcatholic-bishops/584-usccbdialogue09oct2.html. 109 us bishops' reply to jewish letter of concern, oct.. 2, 2009. cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 29 http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/585-usccb09oct2.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/585-usccb09oct2.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/585-usccb09oct2.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/584-usccbdialogue09oct2.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/584-usccbdialogue09oct2.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/us-conference-of-catholic-bishops/584-usccbdialogue09oct2.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 the "statement of principles," they explain that "jewishcatholic dialogue, one of the blessed fruits of the second vatican council, has never been and will never be used by the catholic church as a means of proselytism―nor is it intended as a disguised invitation to baptism."110 since "proselytism" can be technically understood only as coercion to convert, the concluding clause in this sentence is an important one. it would appear that the five bishops have removed desires for jewish conversion from the "lived context" of interreligious dialogue, thereby bringing the understanding of dialogue back to the primary purpose of mutual understanding as delineated by the 1974 vatican "guidelines." however the final wording of the truncated par. 7 of the revised "note on ambiguities" is yet to appear. one is struck by the helpful absence of binary thinking in the "statement" and the effort to maintain several "both/and" formulations. thus, the "statement of principles" observes in point three that "catholics [both] have a sacred responsibility to bear witness to christ at every moment of their lives, but [also that] lived context shapes the form of that witness to the lord we love." in addition, after quoting without citation pope john paul ii's words in miami to american jewish leaders (sept. 11, 1987) that "god chose abraham, isaac and jacob, and made with them a covenant of eternal love, which was never revoked," the "statement" goes on to say that "jewish covenantal life endures till the present day as a vital witness to god's saving will for his people israel and for all of humanity." then in point two it balances this affirmation with the apostolic conviction that "jesus christ is the unique savior or all humankind, who fulfills in himself all of god's promises and covenants with the people of israel." this juxtaposition is an improvement over the lopsided assertions of the earlier two texts that failed to simultaneously affirm judaism's covenantal life while proclaiming the saving significance of christ. 110 "statement of principles for catholic-jewish dialogue," §3. but these phrasings in the "statement of principles" are not without problems. one wonders, for example, why point one's quotation of john paul ii's address in miami did not go on to include the very next sentence: "... the covenant of eternal love, which was never revoked. it was rather confirmed by the gift of the torah to moses, opened by the prophets to the hope of eternal redemption and to the universal commitment for justice and peace." apparently, the late pope's comfort in acknowledging the vitality of torahbased covenantal life is not shared by the "statement of principles," possibly because this is allegedly "unsettled teaching" [see point five]. likewise, the wording of point two that "jesus christ ... fulfills in himself all of god's promises and covenants with the people of israel" evidences a neo-supersessionist preference for a realized eschatology (in contrast to nostra aetate, §4, the 1974 vatican "guidelines," and the 1985 vatican "notes") and a related tendency to collapse "covenant" into "promises." thus, it would appear that these welcome october texts from the five american bishops, while effectively addressing the injuries inflicted on catholic-jewish relations by the june and august statements, still show signs of the continuing tensions between neo-supersessionist perspectives and the mainstream "theology of shalom" emanating from the council.111 111other infelicitous phrasings suggestive of this continuing tension are found in the "statement of principles." thus, rather than acknowledging that par. 7 of the "note on ambiguities" had been unclearly worded (as suggested by the excision of two of its sentences), the prelude to the "statement on principles" cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 30 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 it may be that much hinges upon the claim in point five of the "statement of principles" that "a catechism is a compendium of the articles of faith, and therefore contains only settled teaching." the original wording of the adult catechism, that "the covenant that god made with the jewish people through moses remains eternally valid for them," is according to the "statement of principles" evidently not "settled teaching," despite the body of relevant official vatican documentation and papal allocutions discussed above. it seems incredible to claim that the inclusive understanding of "old covenant" as encompassing all biblical covenants including sinai that was repeatedly conveyed by john paul ii does not belong in a catechism. one gets the impression that people with neosupersessionist perspectives are raising arguments, some of them spurious, in an effort to alter the direction of the vatican's implementation of the council regarding the church's relationship with judaism and jews. this brings us, finally, to the question of the authority of post-conciliar teaching in these matters. 8. conclusion: settled and unsettling teaching what constitutes "settled teaching"? first, it must be observed that this is not a formal or legal term. its meaning is ambiguous. perhaps it means infallibly declared teachings rather defensively suggests that the original wording had "been misinterpreted by some catholics and some jews and has led to misunderstanding and feelings of hurt among members of the jewish community." in principle three, the bishops write that they "insist that only catholics committed to the teachings of the church encounter [jews] in our dialogues." this bears on the reference in point five to "settled teaching." which theologians are truly "committed to the teachings of the church"―those who regularly cite official ecclesial documents about jews and judaism or those who consistently disregard or minimalistically interpret them? in any case, the tone of the letter from the bishops to the jewish leaders has a more conciliatory tone than the "statement of principles." (i.e., an exercise of the extraordinary magisterium) or perhaps teachings that are binding on all catholics. however, the claim that catechisms are supposed to contain only "settled teachings" in these senses is demonstrably wrong. the universal catechism of the catholic church was, for instance, revised in its second edition on the subject of capital punishment precisely because of john paul's halfdozen statements on that topic.112 this revision was made even though, according to cardinal joseph ratzinger in 2004, the pope's views on capital punishment were not binding teaching.113 the nature of the teaching authority of the second vatican council must be considered. a paragraph appended to lumen gentium stated: in view of conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present council, this sacred synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the church only when the synod itself openly declares so. other matters which the sacred synod [the council] proposes as the doctrine of the supreme teaching authority of the church, each and every member of the faithful is obliged to accept and embrace according to the mind of the sacred synod itself, which becomes known either from the subject matter or from the language employed, according to the norms of theological interpretation. in other words, the conciliar documents lumen gentium and nostra aetate are expressions of the non-infallible 112"catechism takes a harder line on death penalty," national catholic reporter, september 19, 1997: 12. see the usccb website for a list of john paul's statements concerning capital punishment: http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/ national/deathpenalty/holyfather.shtml 113 "worthiness to receive communion: general principles," origins 34/9 (july 29, 2004): 133-134, §3. cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 31 http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/holyfather.shtml http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/holyfather.shtml studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 ordinary magisterium of the catholic church, which every catholic should accept as articulations of the "mind of the council." as will be seen below, the intent of the council is especially made clear by the official interpretations offered by post-conciliar ecclesiastical documents. francis a. sullivan has offered an important observation about the authority of vatican ii documents when they conflict with the teachings of previous popes. citing cardinal joseph ratinzger, he explains: the fact that the teaching of vatican ii, while it represents the almost unanimous consensus of the whole catholic episcopate, including its head the pope, still remains in the category of "ordinary magisterium" is a unique feature of this council. joseph ratzinger has raised one of the questions which this suggests: how does the conciliar exercise of ordinary magisterium compare with the one with which we are more familiar: namely, that of the popes in their encyclicals? ... [h]is reply is "the conciliar text by far surpasses the ordinary declarations of papal magisterium, including the encyclicals, regarding the nature of the theological obligations which it entails." ... [h]is judgment would seem applicable to a number of other texts in which vatican ii has taken a position that differs from what previous popes had taught in their encyclicals. there can be no doubt that the teaching of the council on such issues as ... the significance of non-christian religions prevails over what had been the official position of the catholic church put forth by the ordinary papal magisterium prior to vatican ii.114 114 francis a. sullivan, creative fidelity: weighing and interpreting documents of the magisterium (eugene, or: wipf and stock, 1996), 167-168. thus, nostra aetate's mandate that "jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy scripture," supersedes pope paul iv's assertion in 1555 that "jews, whose guilt―all of their own doing―has condemned them to eternal slavery," which served as the basis for the establishment of the roman ghetto.115 this also illustrates the nature of nostra aetate as a reforming document that is both in continuity (romans 9-11) and discontinuity (the tradition of jews as accursed) with the past. as noted previously, pope benedict xvi's approach to the second vatican council through a hermeneutic of reform suggests the principle that interpretations of nostra aetate that do not assert both continuity and discontinuity are erroneous. although not infallible, the documents of the second vatican council are an expression of "the doctrine of the supreme teaching authority of the church," which all catholics "ought to accept and embrace ... according to the mind of the council." while not binding, they certainly may not be ignored by any catholics who theologize about the matters they address. therefore, lumen gentium, §16 and nostra aetate, §4 must be taken very seriously. but what about their interpretation? phrases synonymous with "the mind of the council" have been encountered earlier in this essay. the 1974 “guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration, nostra aetate, 4,” as its title conveys, was written to “bring into actual existence in the life of the church the intentions expressed in the conciliar document.”116 the commission for religious relations with the jews which promulgated it has the stated mission “to implement, correctly and effectively, the express intentions of the 115 cum nibis absurdum, preface. 116 vatican, “guidelines” (1974), preamble. emphasis added. cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 32 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 council.”117 these “guidelines,” therefore, as officially implementing the “mind of the council,” and published with the approval of pope paul vi, authoritatively established the direction for the interpretation of nostra aetate, §4.118 since there exist no other ecclesial documents of comparable authority, this established trajectory of interpreting and implementing the conciliar declaration, what i have called the development of a “theology of shalom,” cannot be summarily dismissed by theologians committed to the official teachings of the catholic church. similarly, the commission’s 1985 “notes on the correct way to present jews and judaism in preaching and teaching in the roman catholic church” focused on the educational mandate enacted by nostra aetate, §4 and further delineated by the 1974 “guidelines.” the 1985 “notes” were promulgated “to serve this purpose”119 of the council: “all should take pains, then, lest in catechetical instruction and in the preaching of god's word they teach anything out of harmony with the truth of the gospel and the spirit of christ.”120 the 1974 “guidelines” specified that “information concerning these questions is important at all levels of christian instruction and education”121 and went on to list a number of particular steps to be taken. by complying with the principles set forth in the “notes,” the commission intended “that the council text and guidelines and suggestions would be more easily and faithfully put into practice.”122 in the absence of any other ecclesial documents of comparable authority, this formal statement 117 ibid., conclusion. emphasis added. 118this is true even though conciliar implementing documents were promulgated in the common form (in forma communi) without invoking full papal authority. 119 vatican, “notes” (1985), preliminary considerations. 120 nostra aetate, §4. 121 vatican, “guidelines” (1974), iii. 122 vatican, “notes” (1985), §27. with the ecclesiastical competence to interpret and implement “the mind of the council” on the matters it addresses cannot be facilely disregarded by theologians committed to the official teachings of the catholic church. turning to the corpus of pope john paul ii’s relevant writings, while he did not formally define his addresses and letter as binding matters of catholic faith, they nonetheless possess significant ecclesiastical authority for the following reasons: (1) they represent a large, consistent body of papal reflection; (2) john paul ii saw his work as part of the implementation or realization of the will of the second vatican council to build a new relationship with the jewish people as further oriented by the 1974 “guidelines;” and (3) in many instances, john paul ii quoted the documents of the council and affirmed and reiterated texts of the commission for religious relations with jews, and in the latter case was often quoted by the documents promulgated by the commission. thus, there was considerable synergy between the purpose of the late pope and of the commission to realize the council’s intentions. for all these reasons, john paul’s writings can neither be neglected, nor narrowed by citing them only selectively, nor relativized by appealing to other texts (either by himself or by others) that do not consciously address the specific subject of the catholic church's sui generis relationship with jews. in addition, some of john paul ii's actions (and the writings associated with them) have a compelling authoritative power that arises from the historical or dramatic contexts in which they occurred. these include his visits to sites connected to the shoah, to the great synagogue of rome, and to various holy places such as mount sinai while on pilgrimage during the great jubilee of 2000. cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 33 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 in this regard, perhaps the most significant events for relations with jews during john paul's pontificate were the unprecedented "mass of pardon" in st. peter's basilica on march 12, 2000 and the equally unprecedented prayer at the western wall in jerusalem on march 26, 2000. as part of the observances of the great jubilee of 2000, set forth in advance by john paul ii in his 1994 apostolic letter tertio millennio adveniente, the pope and vatican curia gathered on the first sunday of lent so that "in this year of mercy the church, strong in the holiness which she receives from her lord, should kneel before god and implore forgiveness for the past and present sins of her sons and daughters."123 among the seven categories of sins for which god's forgiveness was sought were those "against the people of israel." cardinal edward idris cassidy, then president of the commission for religious relations with the jews, introduced the papal prayer of confession by saying: "let us pray that, in recalling the sufferings endured by the people of israel throughout history, christians will acknowledge the sins committed by not a few of their number against the people of the covenant and the blessings, and in this way will purify their hearts."124 john paul ii then prayed in words that committed the catholic church to "genuine brotherhood with the people of the covenant." those same papal words were used two weeks later when john paul ii stood at the western wall in jerusalem. as the remnants of where the temple once stood, this is judaism's holiest site. not only did the pope visit it, but he prayed there according to the jewish custom of inserting a 123 homily at the mass of pardon, quoting the papal bull incarnationis mysterium, §11. 124 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/pope-john-paul-ii/333-jp2-00mar12.html written prayer, a kvitel, into the wall's crevices. this unprecedented action symbolically acknowledged both the holiness of the site and the legitimacy of the jewish form of addressing god there.125 as if to give his kvitel even more significance, the note, now preserved at yad vashem, was personally signed and sealed with the papal seal. it said: "god of our fathers, you chose abraham and his descendants to bring your name to the nations: we are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the covenant."126 how is one to measure the compelling ecclesiastical authority of such events that transcend standard canonical categories? a solemn intercession first offered during an historic millennial penitential mass by all the leaders of the vatican at st. peter's basilica is literally signed, sealed, and personally delivered to judaism's holiest site in jerusalem by the first pope to visit it since the days of peter. it is breathtaking in its scope. clearly, the recurring expression "people of the covenant" is meant in the comprehensive sense that john paul ii used when he correlated the "people of the [unrevoked] old covenant" with the christian "old testament" at mainz. it thus conveys a vigorous sense of jewish covenantal life from biblical times to the present. it would be inconsistent to the point of irrationality for john paul ii to pray at the western wall in the mode of today's torah-centered jewish tradition if he felt that jewish observance of the mitzvoth of the sinai covenant no longer 125 pope benedict xvi reaffirmed this act during his own visit to the western wall on may 12, 2009. 126 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/pope-john-paul-ii/338-jp2-00mar26.html cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 34 http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/333-jp2-00mar12.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/333-jp2-00mar12.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/338-jp2-00mar26.html http://www.ccjr.us/index.php/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-john-paul-ii/338-jp2-00mar26.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 had divine import. even worse, it would be deceptive and contemptuous in the extreme for him to penitentially commit the catholic church in that setting to “genuine brotherhood” with a people he believed were living an outmoded, already "fulfilled" covenant. therefore, the late pope’s momentous actions in the vatican and in jerusalem in 2000 are an undeniable and compelling commitment of the catholic community to supportive relations with a people who enjoy a profound and living covenantal life with god rooted in the torah and the rabbinic tradition. so where does this leave us with regard to the so-called “not settled teaching” about the church’s new selfunderstanding in relation to jews and judaism, and especially the affirmation of judaism's ongoing covenantal life? first, both the second vatican council’s dogmatic constitution, lumen gentium, and its declaration nostra aetate, expressions “of the church's supreme teaching authority [or magisterium],” drew on paul’s letter to the romans to proclaim that jews, those "to whom the covenants and promises were made … in view of the divine choice, ... are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts of god are without repentance.” neither conciliar document contained any hint that the continuing election of the jewish people involved only some of the covenants god made with their ancestors and not others. nostra aetate, in fact, by urging “friendly conversations” and in deliberately postponing the thought of a jewish turn to christ until the eschaton plainly conveyed an appreciation of the spiritual value of contemporary jewish religious life. in addition, the council's reliance on romans 9-11 is both exegetically sound and a determinative decision. catholic theologians may not simply subordinate romans 9-11 to other new testament texts of doubtful applicability to these questions, thereby impeding the clear intentions of the council. second, the 1974 "guidelines" and the 1985 "notes," promulgated with papal approval by the commission for religious relations with the jews, authoritatively set the direction for how the council was to be interpreted on these matters. there are no other documents of comparable authority that orient the work of implementation in any other direction. thus, to review earlier portions of this essay, these two documents require that the "mind of the council" be implemented by catholics theologizing about the church's relationship to jews and judaism in ways that include: (1) seriously engaging jewish self-understanding on its own terms; (2) constantly affirming both the realized and futurist aspects of christian eschatology; (3) realizing that old testament texts have an "inexhaustible content ... that the new testament often does no more than resume;"127 and (4) respecting that jews are, "the people of god of the old covenant, which has never been revoked," and that "the permanence of [the people of] israel is accompanied by a continuous spiritual fecundity, in the rabbinical period, in the middle ages and in modern times ... a sign to be interpreted within god's design."128 third, it has been demonstrated above that john paul ii repeatedly and consistently spoke of the unrevoked "old covenant" in a comprehensive, inclusive fashion, 127vatican, "notes" (1985), ii, 7. n.b. the relevant words of the pontifical biblical commission, "the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible" (2001): "christians can and ought to admit that the jewish reading of the bible is a possible one, in continuity with the jewish sacred scriptures from the second temple period, a reading analogous to the christian reading which developed in parallel fashion. each of these two readings is part of the vision of each respective faith of which it is a product and an expression. consequently, they cannot be reduced one into the other" [§22]. 128 vatican, "notes" (1985), i,3 (quoting john paul ii's address at mainz); vi, 25. cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 35 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): cunningham 1-36 encompassing in particular the central role of the torah for jewish spiritual life (as is consistent, incidentally, with jewish self-understanding). together, the 1985 "notes" and john paul ii further delineated the trajectory of interpreting and implementing the "mind of the council." catholic theologians may not ignore all these developments, expressions arising from authoritative interpretations “of the church's supreme magisterium” by ecclesiastically competent offices and by a pope himself. the burden of proof is therefore on those who suggest that the statement "the covenant that god made with the jewish people through moses remains eternally valid for them" is somehow questionable catholic teaching and therefore ought not to be included in a catechism. in their october 2009 letter to american jewish interfaith leaders, the five episcopal signatories insightfully observed that "vatican ii's decree nostra aetate raised a question that is central to our present discussion: 'how does god's covenant with the jewish people-as lived today-relate to that of jesus?'" this is indeed a crucial question. as cardinal walter kasper has noted, “we are only at the beginning and still far from a definitive understanding ... of the overall christian theology of judaism."129 however, catholics cannot avoid unsettling questions by the indefensible disregard of matters already set forth in official ecclesiastical documents. in grappling with this core question, the clear direction pointed out in vatican documents to implement the second vatican council must be followed. as john paul ii declared, "it is only a question 129 "the commission for religious relations with the jews," §3. of studying them carefully, of immersing oneself in their teachings and of putting them into practice."130 130 "address at the great synagogue of rome," april 13, 1986, §5 cunningham, official ecclesial documents cunningham http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 36 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-10 review essay amy-jill levine short stories by jesus: the enigmatic parables of a controversial rabbi (new york: harperone, 2014), hardcover, 313 pp. annette merz a.b.merz@pthu.nl protestant theological university, 9700 cb groningen, the netherlands this review was adapted from an invited panel presentation “a review of amyjill levine’s short stories by jesus: the enigmatic parables of a controversial rabbi,” sponsored by the jewish-christian dialogue and sacred texts group at the society of biblical literature annual meeting (atlanta, ga; november 2015). amy-jill levine’s book “short stories by jesus” is undoubtedly the most thought-provoking, stimulating, and entertaining book on parables i have read in a long time. it is also a book that evoked mixed reactions in me and thereby stimulated me to rethink my own presuppositions in approaching the parables. the reader thus should be aware that this is not a typical review but a slightly reworked version of my contribution to a panel discussion at the annual meeting of the society of biblical literature in atlanta in 2015. the intention was then, as it is still, to honor levine’s contribution by bringing up questions that deserve further investigation and exchange of opinions. let me begin by stating that i completely subscribe to levine’s basic aims and presuppositions. being a historical jesus scholar myself i especially like the ambition to try to “hear the parables through an imagined set of first-century jewish ears” (p. 17) and to do away with anti-jewish stereotypes that still lurk around every corner in homiletical and exegetical literature, as levine has shown convincingly and disturbingly in her book. i found it especially revealing how often scholars and preachers have used putative purity issues as a foil to distance jesus from judaism and to come up with extremely forced readings, for example, of the parables of the yeast and the mustard seed. levine’s book helps to sharpen the awareness of this enduring problem and of the responsibility of scholars who try to identify the position of jesus in early jewish disputes on the laws of purity and other issues. however, not everything identified as an anti-jewish reading in the book deserves to be labelled as such, as i will discuss below. merz: amy-jill levine’s short stories by jesus 2 i also share the conviction that many of the parables have been domesticated in their history of interpretation and that we should try to become aware of the diverse domesticating tendencies and the reasons that cause what levine aptly calls “auditory atrophy” (pp. 18-22). i became really inspired, and at times truly spiritually enriched by some of her “playful speculation(s)” on how we might hear the parables in our own life and time (p. 23). noteworthy examples are her reading of the pearl of great price and the good samaritan (chapters 2 and 4). on the other hand, i found myself quite often objecting to and unsatisfied with some important issues regarding both general methodology and individual readings alike. let me begin with a basic hermeneutical issue. what makes this book unique and is perhaps its greatest strength might also be its greatest weakness. throughout the book levine undertakes a double task, and i admire her audacity in doing so: “how do we hear the parables through an imagined set of first-century jewish ears, and then how do we translate them so that they can be heard still speaking?” (p. 17). if we reflect on this double task, the hermeneutical question of unavoidable circularity comes up: to what extent might “the imagined set of first-century jewish ears” be dependent on the desire to hear the parables “still speaking”? of course no interpreter can entirely avoid such tensions. what i miss in the book is reflection on that problem. the anti-jewish readings of christian authors are exposed astutely, but perhaps levine is not as critical with regard to the opinions underlying her own analysis of what would characterize first-century jewish ears and a first-century jewish storyteller. two of her basic expectations of the firstcentury jewish audience, which are repeated again and again in the book, come to mind: parables are always provocative and disturbing and they have nothing to do with allegories. both convictions are highly debatable in the light of current parable research and do not stand up to scrutiny, as i hope to demonstrate. levine obviously does not like platitudes, so she reconstructs a jesus who is not teaching what she regards to be “platitudes.” she calls the moves “that turn parables into platitudes” as “less toxic but equally distressing,” as the “disease of anti-judaism” that infects the body of jesus’ parables (p. 18). i miss some nuancing here. i understand and share her aversion against “cheap grace” but it is also evident to me that what counts as a platitude is highly dependent on context and subjective understanding. we might not know enough of the original context and the presupposed understanding of the listeners in some cases. in other cases, reflection on the function of a seemingly mundane message might get us further. in the parables of growth, the traditional interpretation that contrasts the small beginning with the expected great outcome, called “banal” by levine (e.g., pp. 155, 166), might not be banal at all when we consider its historical embedding and function. according to my own evaluation the main rhetorical purpose of all the parables of growth seems to be assurance to the former followers of john the baptist and the disciples of the “kingdom movement” that god’s eschatological intervention is already in action, albeit inconspicuously. this has a comforting function in situations of distress that likely occurred after the execution of john by antipas, and again after the crucifixion of jesus. it also has a direct political function because it proscribes violent action as a means to accelerate the eschato 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) logical process. 1 adherents of movements supporting resistance to rome that expected men to help implement god’s rule over israel (cf. josephus, antiquities 18:4ff.) would probably not have called jesus’ parables of growth “banal” but “unacceptably quietistic.” in the introduction, levine calls parables a “provocative genre” that “is designed to surprise, challenge, shake up, or indict” and “a form that opens to multiple interpretations” (pp. 3-4). rather than a scholarly substantiation and discussion of this basic conviction we get more assertions: “jews knew that parables were more than children’s stories or restatements of common knowledge. they knew that parables and the tellers of parables were there to promote them to see the world in a different way, to challenge, and at times to indict” (p. 4, emphasis mine). levine warns us, “if we stop with the easy lessons… we lose the way jesus’s first followers would have heard the parables, and we lose the genius of jesus’s teaching” (p. 4, emphasis mine). i agree that many parables fit into her description and i would not deny a certain geniality on the part of jesus as story teller. but it is not true that parables are always disturbing and provocative and meant to stimulate multiple meanings. this is not true for many rabbinic parables and even among the meshalim of jesus there are examples that are quite straightforward, such as the q parable, presented in a discussion of prayer, which asks: “what person among you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent?” (lk 11:11-12). the mashal, most probably the term jesus himself used when referring to his fictive stories and figurative sayings, often presents words of common wisdom. we find examples of common wisdom in the jesus tradition as well (e.g., about good fruits from good trees [lk 6:43-45 / mt 7:25-20; 12:33-35 / gthom 45]). if we start from the assumption that those parabolic sayings and parables cannot be from jesus because they do not bear witness to the “genius” of his teaching we dissociate jesus from the only context within which we legitimately can place him. although levine consciously and explicitly strives to place jesus into his jewish context, she comes dangerously close to using the so-called criterion of double dissimilarity with her insistence on the “geniality” of jesus’ teaching and her readiness to ascribe allegorizing tendencies that corrupt the original meaning to the evangelists. none of the criteria has been more rightly criticised in the current debate about the criteria of authenticity in jesus research than this criterion. 2 pace levine, i would argue that we should not take the provocative, non-ordinary character of the parables as a safe starting point but as something that must be argued for on 1 claims about the anti-zealotic thrust of the parables of growth (and especially of mk 4:26-29) have been popularized (not invented) by j. jeremias, in his famous book on parables (j. jeremias, die gleichnisse jesu [göttingen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 10 th ed., 1984], 151-153) and this position still has much to recommend it. for traces of a pre-70 ce inner-jewish usage of the imagery of the growth of the wheat plant in a rabbinic parable germane to mark 4:26-29 see e. ottenheijm, “waiting for the harvest: trajectories of rabbinic and ‘christian’ parables”, in: religious stories in transformation: conflict, revision and reception, ed. a. houtman et al. (leiden: brill 2016), 314-333. 2 see e.g., d. winter, “saving the quest for authenticity from the criterion of dissimilarity: history and plausibility”, in c. keith & a. le donne (ed.) jesus, criteria, and the demise of authenticity (london: t&t clark, 2012), 115-131. merz: amy-jill levine’s short stories by jesus 4 the basis of a given parable and its imagery and plot. 3 nor should one use the argument of false allegories as easily as levine does. 4 her ideas about the allegorical in parables are in my view underdeveloped and do not represent the state of the art in contemporary jewish and christian exegesis of the parables. several times she quotes jülicher’s rule that allegories need a key to be understood and parables do not. this reliance on jülicher is ironic because he based his one-point-approach to parable exegesis and the idea that parables can be summarized by a simple, nonfigurative moralizing saying on this very understanding of the non-allegorical nature of parables. such ideas of unambiguity of meaning and translatability into moral statements are with good reason vigorously debated by levine. already in jülicher’s time, claims for the nonallegorical character of the parables had been criticized, for example, by paul fiebig. 5 in more recent times, a certain rehabilitation of the presence of allegorical traits in parables has been advocated by several scholars, 6 while others, such as david stern, have argued that the parable-allegory dichotomy should be abandoned in toto. 7 without going into all the details, let us concentrate on the main point of this discussion. levine’s (jülicher’s) definition provides a good starting point: “a parable requires no external key to explain what its elements mean; an allegory does” (p. 7). this is true if we look for logical consistency in the story. it is not true if it refers to the parabolic meaning of the story and its main elements. lev 3 an additional argument comes from the insights in the process of learning. a good teacher would not only challenge his pupils but also make sure that they really understand the basics. thus jesus may at times also have told parables that were not meant to challenge but to prepare the ground for future challenges. 4 i can give two examples, though there are many others. on luke 18:1, she writes, “luke turns the parable into an allegory, and so platitude replaces provocation” (p. 16). about the parables of the lost, she writes “luke misleads by turning the parables into allegories” (by explicitly adding the focus of sinners repenting and god’s joy) (p. 27). what levine calls “allegory” here in most contemporary works on parables is (i think rightly) designated as “allegorization,” meaning that an element in the parable that contributes to its figurative meaning is emphasized or explained in order to secure a certain meaning (see also footnote 6 below). it is not a question of whether we allegorize when we interpret (we inevitably do) but whether our interpretations are meeting the range of possibilities presented by the parable to its first audience. 5 p. fiebig, die gleichnisreden jesu im lichte der rabbinischen gleichnisse des neutestamentlichen zeitalters. ein beitrag zum streit um die “christusmythe” und eine widerlegung der gleichnistheorie jülichers, tübingen 1912. 6 see esp. h.-j. klauck, allegorie und allegorese in synoptischen gleichnistexten (ntabh, 13, münster: aschendorff, 1978), who discriminates between allegory (a rhetorical strategy by which a text gains symbolical meaning that may be deciphered point by point; allegories may or may not have consistency on the narrative level), allegorization (an allegorical exegesis of a text), and allegorizing (the reading of a non-allegorical text as an allegory). see also d. flusser, “die wirkliche und die vermeintliche allegorese”, in d. flusser, die rabbinischen gleichnisse und der gleichniserzähler jesus (bern: peter lang, 1981), 119-139. for a more recent summarizing treatment see k. erlemann, “allegorie, allegorese, allegorisierung”, in r. zimmermann (ed.), hermeneutik der gleichnisse jesu. methodische neuansätze zum verstehen urchristlicher parabeltexte (tübingen: mohr, 2008), 482493. 7 d. stern, parables in midrash. narrative and exegesis in rabbinic literature (cambridge: harvard university press, 1991), esp. 11-12. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) ine regrettably does not discriminate between these two levels. to be properly understood, parables do require keys and always come with keys, such as introductory formulas, concluding interpretations (nimshal), fixed metaphors, and other implicit or explicit features and transfer signals that guide the process of meaning making. 8 the example of songs of songs rabba 1:1:8 cited by levine is a good illustration of that: “consider the king who has lost a gold coin or a precious pearl in his house. may he not find it by the light of a wick worth no more than an issar [penny]?” (p. 8). this parable is not self-explaining at all, or if it is, it only reveals the general truth that valuable things might be gained by using cheap tools! but this is a parable about the value of the parable as a rhetorical device which is revealed by the nimshal that provides the key for its understanding: “likewise, do not let the parable appear of little worth to you. by its light, a person may fathom words of torah.” an allegorical key is needed (and given) to understand it: the words of torah are the lost valuable item, and the parable provides the light to recover them. parables like this one provide the background to fiebig’s objection to jülicher’s strict differentiation between allegory and parable. in other cases, fixed metaphors provide the key to understanding. when jesus spoke about a vineyard, his listeners most certainly would have understood that he was talking about israel as god’s vineyard. fixed metaphors like the vineyard, the king, the shepherd, and the sheep are keys to a culturally embedded understanding of jesus’ parables, and i have doubts about the way levine sometimes criticizes traditional readings that are in my view fully justified by many contemporary jewish texts using the same standard metaphors and images. let me take the parable of the generous employer of matthew 20 as an example. 9 levine polemicizes against interpretations that claim that the parable “addresses the resentment felt by those who had spent long years in faithful observance to torah at the welcome and acceptance jesus gave to those who appeared to come so late to any sense of conversion.” she states, “once jewish law becomes equated with ‘bearing the burden of the day and the scorching heat,’ we are no longer listening to the jewish jesus talking to fellow jews. when jewish practice or jewish society becomes the negative foil to jesus or the church, we do well to reread the parable” (p. 211). i followed the advice and reread not only jesus’ parable but also several rabbinic parables on workers, employers, and questions of payment, analysed masterly by catherine hezser. 10 there are several parables—and levine herself cites one—where toiling in the study of torah and toiling all day as workers for a king are unambiguously compared. the best known is r. zeira’s eulogy for rabbi bun har hiyya, who is praised for having accomplished more in two hours than the complaining workers 8 see also r. zimmermann, puzzling the parables of jesus. methods and interpretation (minneapolis: fortress, 2015), 137-150 and p. ricoeur, “biblical hermeneutics” semeia 4 (1975), 97-100. 9 one of the often repeated insights of the book is the fact that the title we assign to a parable matters (e.g. p. 28). i have used some of levine’s suggestions for fresh titles throughout this contribution. 10 c. hezser, lohnmetaphorik und arbeitswelt in mt 20,1-16. das gleichnis von den arbeitern im weinberg im rahmen rabbinischer lohngleichnisse (ntoa 15, freiburg/schweiz: universitätsverlag; göttingen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 1990). merz: amy-jill levine’s short stories by jesus 6 in a whole day (yber. 2:7). this is clearly an allegorical encryption of his short life and can give us another nice example of how allegorical keys, guided by transfer signals from the framing of the parable, work in rabbinic literature. in another parable warning against weighing the rewards for observance of the torah, working under a certain tree in the garden is interpreted as fulfilling a certain commandment with a fixed payment that god deliberately kept hidden (see deut. rab 6:2; pesiqta rabbati 23/24; midr. pss. 9:3). there can be no doubt that working in the garden (of the king) or in the vineyard was a common, fixed metaphor for observance of the torah in the rabbinic corpus. this metaphor may have been used in the same sense by jesus. hezser has shown that in the light of the richly developed rabbinic imagery about working and payment, jesus’ parable takes an interesting middle position by using the metaphor of recompense, the denarius, with a double meaning. it encodes a “just” wage for those who worked all day and a wage that graciously provides what is needed for those last hired. one of the major problems in interpreting the parables is the irrecoverable loss of the original context, which can only be re-constructed hypothetically. imagine that the last workers who are hired stand for jesus and those who were baptised by john, while the other workers represent those of former generations, or those contemporaries who did not receive john’s baptism of forgiveness. thus it might be a parable told to defend john’s baptism and jesus’ own calling of sinners to repentance by following john’s example, and to remind the pious workers of his day of god’s sovereign grace. or maybe the first hired could be jesus’ disciples who left everything behind for the kingdom, and who are thus compared to those who positively responded to jesus’ call without bearing the full burden of itinerant discipleship. the matthean context would recommend this reading (see mt 19:27-29, preceding the parable) and it is supported by other traditions that provide evidence that questions of internal ranking among the followers of jesus existed quite early and that jesus answered them by endorsing a reversal of status. 11 in this case the parable would have defended the double strategy jesus employed in his proclamation of the kingdom, by calling some to itinerant preaching and demanding less from others without discounting their contribution. 12 this might be a parable where the original setting provided an essential key to its understanding and where the original meaning must therefore be considered irrecoverable. on the other hand, the story itself and its imagery also provide clues, and placing the parable in the context of discussions about “just recompense” is in full agreement with later jewish parables that stereotypically compares working (and payment) to the fulfilment of the torah (and recompense). an interpretation along these lines can be grounded in rabbinic parables. what about levine’s favored economic reading of the parable as an appeal to the rich to generously pay wages that provide a living for all? as the appeal to imitate god’s goodness is clearly part of jesus’ teaching elsewhere, and his vision 11 see mk 9:33-37 and par.; 10:35-45 and par.; and jn 13:4-5, 12-17. 12 another interesting tradition states that anyone who provided the preachers of the kingdom with no more than a cup of cold water “shall not lose his reward” (mt 10:42). 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) of the kingdom certainly includes a good and worthy life for all, i regard such a reading as plausible and perhaps an intended second layer of meaning. there might have been listeners who took the parable to mean just that, and perhaps today this really is the interpretation we should follow. but it is questionable that there were many really affluent people who could have identified with the generous employer to be found in jesus’ audiences. it is also doubtful that a change in economic practices was at the heart of his teaching given its imminent eschatological character. also, the story line does not suggest that this was a primary focus. the focus of the narrative is the discussion with the grumbling workers at the end, and that seems to indicate a context of inner-jewish (sectarian) discussions between competing groups all hoping for a renewed israel. imagining that jesus the jew was involved in such inner-jewish dialogues is both plausible and in no way an anti-jewish interpretation. the problem arises with christian applications that claim that christianity exclusively embodies jesus’ vision and at the same time forget that his is a genuine jewish vision. it is this anti-jewish reception history that should be addressed and overcome. it found its classical formulation in joachim jeremias’ comparison between matthew’s parable, which represents “the world of merit,” and the rabbinic funerary parable that honors the untimely death of rabbi bun bar hiyya, which represents “the world of grace.” 13 the whole body of jewish parables about recompense and grace shows that jesus and the rabbis do not differ regarding their views of god as a generous yet demanding boss. levine is correct to note that we find both early jewish and christian soteriological claims that at times envision equal pay for unequal work (pp. 216-217). to return to the issue of “allegorical” readings, i believe that we are always allegorizing when we interpret parables. when levine re-reads the parable of the great pearl as challenging us to ask about our and our neighbor’s ultimate concern in life (pp. 129; 150) and answer the question “what is your pearl of supreme value?” (p. 148), she is in my eyes doubtlessly allegorizing, but on a higher level. she offers an abstract category that includes all earlier allegorical readings. these include matthew’s (or even jesus’) call to leave everything behind and to proclaim the kingdom of god, or the gnostics’ search for knowledge, or an insistence on the necessity of sacrifice to meet the demands of one’s ultimate concern. all interpretations of parables necessarily include an act of transposition, understanding certain elements or the whole parable metaphorically or allegorically so as to view it in terms of a different topic, situation, or story. i suggest we might organize our study of allegorical features, allegorizations, and allegorical readings according to three different historical levels, which prompt three different groups of questions: 13 i have made a modest attempt to contribute to this issue in a classroom exercise set up around this reading; see gerd theissen & annette merz, the historical jesus. a comprehensive guide (minneapolis: fortress, 1998), 339-343, 346, 597f. i hope to give it a fuller treatment in the near future. merz: amy-jill levine’s short stories by jesus 8 1) which (allegorical) readings were possible or even required at the time when a certain parable was first spoken? for example, parables about the owner of the vineyard, the shepherd, and the widow all present characters that a first-century audience will have easily understood according to fixed metaphorical / allegorical readings. 2) to what extent have jesus’ parables already been further allegorised by the evangelist(s)? do we embrace those allegorizing readings or is there a legitimate reason not to do so? for example, i would argue that the violence in the parables in matthew (most notably in mt 22:7) deserves criticism. i also agree in principle with levine that some of the later anti-jewish reception history is already encouraged in the gospels and should be problematized. on the other hand, given the above mentioned rehabilitation of allegorical elements in parables, more often than levine assumes the evangelists may have brought out aspects of the parables that are in line with jesus’ intended meaning. 3) what sort of contemporary allegorizing can be called a legitimate rereading of the parable? what standards do we use to assess this? must it reflect the views of the historical (jewish) jesus, or christian doctrine, or our own concerns? (the latter might explain levine’s focus on economic issues.) it can be difficult to determine to which historical level levine’s interpretations should be assigned. at times she seems to criticize readings because they do not fit the context of jesus, yet there are cases in which i would argue that her own readings do not either. this does not necessarily mean they are incorrect. in the huge rabbinic corpus the same parable has often been used for quite different purposes. luke and matthew felt free to adapt the parables to various theological and redactional concerns (such as christology, ecclesiology, polemics, and other topics that arose after jesus). so why shouldn’t we? but as far as a historically adequate reading is concerned i would like to challenge levine to engage more systematically the basic methodological questions. in addition to the already discussed issue of allegory i would briefly like to raise two other methodological issues, intertextuality and characterization in parables. 14 some of levine’s readings are especially strong and convincing because she succeeds in re-evoking a scriptural “echo-chamber” around parables that clearly helps to recover the first century reader’s options for understanding. this is the case in the parable of the good samaritan, where the plot is reminiscent of 2 chr 28 (pp. 102-103), and in the parable of the prodigal son, for which one needs to be aware of biblical stories of older and younger brothers (pp. 46-47, 49). in other cases levine is very reluctant to follow scriptural interpretations that have been 14 other questions could be posed such as “what constitutes a parable?” for example, levine calls the passage about the separation of the sheep and the goats (mt 25:31-46) a parable (pp. 12; 282), which is questionable. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) proposed by others, for example when she declares that sometimes “a bird is just a bird” (p. 165) and that the tree in the parable of the mustard seed should not be read as echoing biblical prophet’s use of giant trees as metaphors for (fallen) empires (ez 31; dan 4) (pp. 154; 163-167). i would argue that such biblical echoes would be more likely to be recalled than the health benefits of mustard, which levine introduces as a key to the parable (p. 166). i was not convinced by levine that biblical images of shepherds and sheep were not essential to interpreting the parable of the lost sheep (mt 18:12-14; lk 15:3-7) (which she renamed the “parable of the initially oblivious owner” [p. 35]). she blames luke for turning the parable into an allegory because “[n]either sheep nor coins have the capability to repent” (p. 27). but she herself deliberately excludes from her interpretation the huge amount of scriptural and other jewish material that would have encouraged the listener to identify with the sheep and that show that humans are often likened to sheep that go astray and do not repent (ps 119:176; 2 sam 24:17; isa 53:6; 1 pt 2:25). they require shepherds that (metaphorically) care for them (ps 23:1; 74:1; 80:2; ez 34). 15 this illustrates the need for more systematic reflection on the role scripture plays for jesus and his hearers. why is a relatively unknown text such as 2 chr 28 taken into account whereas the well-known biblical metaphors of shepherd and sheep are left out? how do everyday knowledge and scriptural knowledge interact? connected to this question is the last topic i want to address, characterization in parables. how far could an author deviate from what his readers / listeners expected without losing his audience? normally, the characters in parables are stock characters; readers / listeners would easily identify the “good” and “bad” characters. jesus seems to have stretched that rule in some cases, using figures with bad reputations as heroes in his parables. 16 but there are limits to that authorial freedom. a parable with no positive figures at all (as in levine’s interpretation of the parable of the widow and the judge [lk 18:1-8]) violates fundamental narrative rules of the genre (see esp. p. 241). levine’s noble intention is to avoid stereotypes and anti-judaism: “i do want to question the stereotype. not all widows are poor, without agency, and completely dependent on the good will of others within an ‘ugly and oppressive’ jewish system” (p. 229). that certainly is an accurate description of social reality, but there is little doubt about how an ancient jewish audience would have viewed a literary widow. i have argued elsewhere that jesus seems to build on the biblical image of the helpless widow in the beginning of the parable and that he surprises the reader by replacing it with the more powerful 15 blending theory investigates the diverse ways how two “input-spaces” (here: “guidance as herding sheep” and “sinning as losing one’s way”) can interact in figurative speech, and provides useful tools to investigate the cognitive and linguistic operations that take place here. space limits how much can be said about this approach here. 16 see, for example, a study of the positive usage of the imagery of social banditry in mark 3:27 in a. merz, “jesus lernt vom räuberhauptmann (das wort vom starken) – mk 3:27”, r. zimmermann et al. (eds.), kompendium der gleichnisse jesu (gütersloh: gütersloher verlagshaus 2007), 287-298. more ambiguous heroes are discussed by t. schramm & k. löwenstein, unmoralische helden. anstößige gleichnisse jesu (göttingen: vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 1986). merz: amy-jill levine’s short stories by jesus 10 image reminiscent of the great widows in israel’s narrative tradition. 17 i can agree with levine that luke has domesticated this parable substantially, but the positive image of the widow seems to be a constant factor in jesus’ parable and its subsequent interpretation. i doubt that the widow’s wish for retaliation would have been criticized by jesus or by any of his listeners, as levine proposes. admittedly, there is subjectivity in all these judgments. all our efforts to hear these parables as first-century jews heard them reflect our own assumptions, and these are reasonably questioned by others. the parables will be puzzling us forever. 17 a. merz, “how a woman who fought back and demanded her rights became an importunate widow – the transformations of a parable of jesus”, t. holmén (ed.), jesus from judaism to christianity: continuum approaches to the historical jesus (esco /lnts, 352; london: t&t clark, 2007) 4986. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-39 the sources behind “the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable” (rom 11:29): a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of nostra aetate (no. 4) commission of the holy see for religious relations with the jews december 10, 2015 philip a. cunningham pcunning@sju.edu saint joseph’s university, philadelphia, pa 19131 note: this version of “gifts and calling” has been supplemented with footnotes to provide quotations or close quotations of often uncited allusions to earlier texts. the footnotes also provide selected references to topically relevant recent catholic texts from the vatican and the united states. 1 the annotations are not exhaustive but do illustrate key points. a list of abbreviations used in the notes appears at the end. this article was generated from the february 2016 saint joseph’s university “consultation on the newest statements about the christian-jewish relationship.” 1 [some texts from the united states conference of catholic bishops are cited herein because this journal is published in the united states, but also because the world's largest jewish diaspora population lives in close contact with large catholic communities there. this has allowed the catholicjewish dialogue in the united states occasionally to attain significant depth and duration. n.b.: “the vast majority of the (roughly) 14 million jews in the world live in the united states and in israel (approximately 11 million). in both countries, numerous dialogue initiatives are underway, even if the contexts are notably different: whereas in the united states, the jewish community represents a small minority of the population, living alongside a great variety of christian denominations, in israel the situation is reversed: the christian communities are a minority alongside the jewish majority. in that country [israel], however, the jewish-christian dialogue experiences the consequences of the political conflict, while in the united states—because of the religious freedom which has been asserted there since the beginning—this dialogue has become a real and true model” (hoffman, 2013).] cunningham: the sources behind “the gifts and the calling” 2 preface fifty years ago, the declaration “nostra aetate” of the second vatican council was promulgated. its fourth article presents the relationship between the catholic church and the jewish people in a new theological framework. the following reflections aim at looking back with gratitude on all that has been achieved over the last decades in the jewish–catholic relationship, providing at the same time a new stimulus for the future. stressing once again the unique status of this relationship within the wider ambit of interreligious dialogue, theological questions are further discussed, such as the relevance of revelation, the relationship between the old and the new covenant, the relationship between the universality of salvation in jesus christ and the affirmation that the covenant of god with israel has never been revoked, and the church’s mandate to evangelize in relation to judaism. this document presents catholic reflections on these questions, placing them in a theological context, in order that their significance may be deepened for members of both faith traditions. the text is not a magisterial document or doctrinal teaching of the catholic church, but is a reflection prepared by the commission for religious relations with the jews on current theological questions that have developed since the second vatican council. it is intended to be a starting point for further theological thought with a view to enriching and intensifying the theological dimension of jewish–catholic dialogue. 1. a brief history of the impact of “nostra aetate” (no.4) over the last 50 years 2 1. “nostra aetate” (no.4) is rightly counted among those documents of the second vatican council which have been able to effect, in a particularly striking manner, a new direction of the catholic church since then. 3 this shift in the rela 2 cardinal kurt koch has previously set forth this history in addresses on may 16, 2012 and oct 29, 2012, which significantly inform this section of “gifts and calling.” 3  “nostra aetate is not a political document but a strictly religious and theological one. it also deserves mention that this new perspective of the relationship between christianity and judaism is not simply a secondary question but one that touches on the essential identity of the church itself, which becomes apparent also in the fact that it was also accorded a place in important constitutions of the second vatican council. with regard to the reception history of conciliar documents, one can without doubt dare to assert that nostra aetate is to be reckoned among those conciliar texts which have in a convincing manner been able to effect a fundamental reorientation of the second vatican council” (koch, 2015).  “[t]the old theory of substitution is gone since ii vatican council. for us christians today the covenant with the jewish people is a living heritage, a living reality. there cannot be a mere coexistence between the two covenants” (kasper, 2001, §3).  “the teaching of the second vatican council has represented for catholics a clear landmark to which constant reference is made in our attitude and our relations with the jewish people, marking a new and significant stage. the council gave a strong impetus to our irrevocable commitment to pursue the path of dialogue, fraternity and friendship, a journey which has been deepened and developed in the last forty years, through important steps and significant gestures” (benedict xvi, 2010, §2). 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) tions of the church with the jewish people and judaism becomes apparent only when we recall that there were previously great reservations on both sides, in part because the history of christianity has been seen to be discriminatory against jews, even including attempts at forced conversion (cf. “evangelii gaudium”, 248). 4 the background of this complex connection consists inter alia in an asymmetrical relationship: as a minority the jews were often confronted by and dependent upon a christian majority. the dark and terrible shadow of the shoah over europe during the nazi period led the church to reflect anew on her bond with the jewish people. 5 2. the fundamental esteem for judaism expressed in “nostra aetate” (no.4), however, has enabled communities that once faced one another with skepticism to become – step by step over the years – reliable partners and even good friends, capable of weathering crises together and negotiating conflicts positively. therefore, the fourth article of “nostra aetate” is recognized as the solid foundation for improving the relationship between catholics and jews. 6 3. for the practical implementation of “nostra aetate” (no.4), blessed pope paul vi on 22 october 1974 established the commission for religious relations with the jews which, although organizationally attached to the pontifical council for promoting christian unity, is operationally independent and entrusted with the task of accompanying and fostering religious dialogue with judaism. from a theological perspective it also makes good sense to link this commission with the council for promoting christian unity, since the separation between synagogue and church may be viewed as the first and most far-reaching breach among the chosen people. 7  “deserving of special gratitude to god is the veritable transformation of christian-jewish relations in these 50 years. indifference and opposition have changed into cooperation and benevolence. from enemies and strangers, we have become friends and brothers. the council, with the declaration nostra aetate, has indicated the way: “yes” to rediscovering christianity’s jewish roots; “no” to every form of anti-semitism and blame for every wrong, discrimination and persecution deriving from it. knowledge, respect and esteem for one another are the way” (francis, 2015). 4 “dialogue and friendship with the children of israel are part of the life of jesus’ disciples. the friendship which has grown between us makes us bitterly and sincerely regret the terrible persecutions which they have endured, and continue to endure, especially those that have involved christians” (francis, 2014, §248). 5 “but it may be asked whether the nazi persecution of the jews was not made easier by the antijewish prejudices imbedded in some christian minds and hearts. did anti-jewish sentiment among christians make them less sensitive, or even indifferent, to the persecution launched against the jews by national socialism when it reached power?” (crrj, 1998, §iv). 6  “nostra aetate is considered the 'foundation document' and the 'magna carta' of the dialogue of the roman catholic church with judaism” (koch, oct 29, 2012), §1. see also koch, may 16, 2012, §1.  “[b]efore the recent crimes of the nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the church and the faith of israel” (benedict xvi, 2005). 7  “it also makes good sense from a theological point of view to combine this commission with the council for promoting christian unity, since the separation of church and synagogue can be consid cunningham: the sources behind “the gifts and the calling” 4 4. within a year of its foundation, the holy see’s commission published its first official document on 1 december 1974, with the title “guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate (no.4)”. the crucial and new concern of this document consists in becoming acquainted with judaism as it defines itself, giving expression to the high esteem in which christianity holds judaism and stressing the great significance for the catholic church of dialogue with the jews, as stated in the words of the document: “on the practical level in particular, christians must therefore strive to acquire a better knowledge of the basic components of the religious tradition of judaism: they must strive to learn by what essential traits the jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience” (preamble). on the basis of the church’s witness of faith in jesus christ, the document reflects upon the specific nature of the church’s dialogue with judaism. reference is made in the text to the roots of christian liturgy in its jewish matrix, new possibilities are outlined for rapprochement in the spheres of teaching, education and training, and finally suggestions are made for joint social action. 5. eleven years later on 24 june 1985, the holy see’s commission issued a second document entitled “notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church”. this document has a stronger theological-exegetical orientation insofar as it reflects on the relationship of the old and new testaments, delineates the jewish roots of the christian faith, explicates the manner in which ‘the jews’ are represented in the new testament, points out commonalities in liturgy, above all in the great festivals of the church year, and briefly focuses on the relationship of judaism and christianity in history. with regard to the “land of the forefathers” the document emphasizes: “christians are invited to understand this religious attachment which finds its roots in biblical tradition, without however making their own any particular religious interpretation of this relationship. … the existence of the state of israel and its political options should be envisaged not in a perspective which is in itself religious, but in their reference to the common principles of international law.” the permanence of israel is however to be perceived as an “historic fact and a sign to be interpreted within god’s design” (vi, 1). 8 ered the first schism in the history of the church, or as the catholic theologian erich przywara has called it, the 'primal rift'....” (koch may 16, 2012, §2).  “the problem is not only the relationship of the old and new covenants, but the different problem of the relationship of post-biblical rabbinic and talmudic judaism–which arose only after the destruction of the second temple in the year 70 c.e.–with the church....the schism between judaism and christianity that continues until today is already clearly discernible in the fourth gospel with, on the one hand, the exclusion of christians from the synagogue (john 9:22; 16:2), and on the other hand, the polemics of the christians against ‘the jews’ (john 5:16, 18; 7:1. etc.)” (kasper, “foreword,” xiv-xv). 8  “since the foundation of the state of israel in 1948, the catholic church sees itself confronted in the holy land with the reality that it has to develop its pastoral life within a state which decidedly understands itself as jewish. israel is the only land in the world with a majority jewish population, and for that reason alone the christians living there must necessarily engage in dialogue with them. in this regard the holy see has consistently pursued two goals, that is, enabling on the one hand unhin 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) 6. a third document of the commission for religious relations with the jews was presented to the public on 16 march 1998. it deals with the shoah under the title “we remember. a reflection on the shoah”. this text delivers the harsh but accurate judgment that the balance of the 2000–year relationship between jews and christians is regrettably negative. it recalls the attitude of christians towards the anti-semitism of the national socialists and focuses on the duty of christians to remember the human catastrophe of the shoah. in a letter at the beginning of this declaration saint pope john paul ii expresses his hope that this document will truly “help to heal the wounds of past misunderstandings and injustices. may it enable memory to play its necessary part in the process of shaping a future in which the unspeakable iniquity of the shoah will never again be possible.” 7. in the series of documents issued by the holy see, reference must be made to the text published by the pontifical biblical commission on 24 may 2001, which deals explicitly with jewish-catholic dialogue: “the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible”. this represents the most significant exegetical and theological document of the jewish-catholic dialogue and is a treasure-trove of common issues which have their basis in the scriptures of judaism and christianity. the sacred scriptures of the jewish people are considered a “fundamental component of the christian bible”, the fundamental themes of the dered pastoral activity of the catholic congregations in the holy land, and on the other, free access to the sacred sites of christians for christian pilgrims. that requires in the first instance political dialogue with the ruling executive of the state of israel, which from the jewish perspective must naturally always be embedded in a dialogue with the religious authorities of judaism. christians seem to be rather inclined to differentiate and delimit political and religious affairs from one another, while judaism strives to converge and integrate the two dimensions” (koch, may 16, 2012, §1).  “in dialogue with christians, jews have explained that they do not consider themselves as a church, a sect, or a denomination, as is the case among christian communities, but rather as a peoplehood that is not solely racial, ethnic or religious, but in a sense a composite of all these. it is for such reasons that an overwhelming majority of jews see themselves bound in one way or another to the land of israel. most jews see this tie to the land as essential to their jewishness. whatever difficulties christians may experience in sharing this view they should strive to understand this link between land and people which jews have expressed in their writings and worship throughout two millennia as a longing for the homeland, holy zion. appreciation of this link is not to give assent to any particular religious interpretation of this bond. nor is this affirmation meant to deny the legitimate rights of other parties in the region, or to adopt any political stance in the controversies over the middle east, which lie beyond the purview of this statement” (nccb, 1975).  [in response to an interviewer's question as to whether one must acknowledge that the founding of the state of israel is a fulfillment of biblical land promises:] “that is a very difficult question. the question of the relationship between the biblical promise of land and its fulfillment in the state of israel in 1948 has, on the one hand a theological significance and, on the other, a political one. it is true that the promise of land is an integral part of israel's identity. but a distinction must be drawn between the promise and its realization. palestinian christians would contradict you vehemently here. they have experienced the israeli seizure of land as the nakba, as a disaster, which has often resulted in loss of the old homeland through flight and expulsion. this is understandable. it is essential to distinguish between the promise and the way it has been realized politically. they have experienced the latter as an event which was an injustice to them and which involved violence. and so one can understand why palestinian christians are not able to embrace a theological interpretation of the founding of the state of israel. moreover, the palestinians also have a right to their own state” (koch, 2013). cunningham: the sources behind “the gifts and the calling” 6 holy scripture of the jewish people and their adoption into the faith in christ are discussed, and the manner in which jews are represented in the new testament is illustrated in detail. 8. texts and documents, as important as they are, cannot replace personal encounters and face–to–face dialogues. 9 while under blessed pope paul vi the first steps in jewish–catholic dialogue were undertaken, saint pope john paul ii succeeded in fostering and deepening this dialogue through compelling gestures towards the jewish people. he was the first pope to visit the former concentration camp of auschwitz-birkenau to pray for the victims of the shoah, and he visited the roman synagogue to express his solidarity with the jewish community. in the context of an historical pilgrimage to the holy land, he was also a guest of the state of israel where he participated in interreligious encounters, paid a visit to both chief rabbis and prayed at the western wall. again and again he met with jewish groups, whether in the vatican or during his numerous apostolic journeys. so too benedict xvi, even before his election to the papacy, engaged in jewishcatholic dialogue by offering in a series of lectures important theological reflections on the relationship between the old and the new covenant, and the synagogue and the church. following his election and in the footsteps of saint pope john paul ii he fostered this dialogue in his own way by reinforcing the same gestures and giving expression to his esteem for judaism through the power of his words. as archbishop of buenos aires, cardinal jorge mario bergoglio was greatly committed to fostering jewish-catholic dialogue and had many friends among the jews of argentina. now as pope he continues, at the international level, to intensify dialogue with judaism through many friendly encounters. one of his first such encounters was in may 2014 in israel, where he met with the two chief rabbis, visited the western wall, and prayed for the victims of the shoah in yad vashem. 9. even before the establishment of the holy see’s commission, there were contacts and links with various jewish organizations through the then secretariat for promoting christian unity. since judaism is multi-facetted and not constituted as an organizational unity, the catholic church was faced with the challenge of determining with whom to engage, because it was not possible to conduct individual and independent bilateral dialogues with all jewish groupings and organizations which had declared their readiness to dialogue. to resolve this problem the jewish organizations took up the suggestion of the catholic church to establish a single organization for this dialogue. the international jewish committee on interreligious consultations (ijcic) is the official jewish representative to the holy see’s commission for religious relations with the jews. 9 “texts and documents, as important as they are, cannot replace personal encounters and dialogues face to face” (koch, may 16, 2012, §3). 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) 10. the ijcic began its work in 1970, and a year later the first joint conference was organized in paris. the conferences which have been conducted regularly since are the responsibility of the entity known as the international catholicjewish liaison committee (ilc), and they shape the collaboration between the ijcic and the holy see’s commission. in february 2011, once more in paris, the ilc was able to look back with gratitude on 40 years of institutional dialogue. much has developed over the past 40 years; the former confrontation has turned into successful cooperation, the previous potential for conflict has become positive conflict management, and the past co–existence marked by tension has been replaced by resilient and fruitful mutuality. the bonds of friendship forged in the meantime have proved to be stable, so that it has become possible to address even controversial subjects together without the danger of permanent damage being done to the dialogue. this was all the more necessary because over the past decades the dialogue had not always been free of tensions. 10 in general, however, one can observe with appreciation that in jewish-catholic dialogue since the new millennium above all, intensive efforts have been made to deal openly and positively with any arising differences of opinion and conflicts, in such a way that mutual relations have become stronger. 11. beside the dialogue with the ijcic we should also mention the institutional conversation with the chief rabbinate of israel, which is clearly to be seen as a fruit of the encounter of saint pope john paul ii with both chief rabbis in jerusalem during his visit to israel in march 2000. the first meeting was organized in june 2002 in jerusalem, and since then such meetings have been conducted annually, taking place in rome and jerusalem alternately. the two delegations are relatively small so that a very personal and intensive discussion on various subjects is possible, such as on the sanctity of life, the status of the family, the significance of the sacred scriptures for life in society, religious freedom, the ethical foundations of human behavior, the ecological challenge, the relationship of secular and religious authority and the essential qualities of religious leadership in secular society. the fact that the catholic representatives taking part in the meetings are bishops and priests and the jewish representatives almost exclusively rabbis permits individual topics to be examined from a religious perspective as well. the dialogue with the chief rabbinate of israel has to that extent enabled more open relations between orthodox judaism and the catholic church at a global level. after each meeting a joint declaration is published which in each instance has testified to the richness of the common spiritual heritage of judaism and christianity and to what valuable treasures are still to be unearthed. in reviewing over more than ten years of dialogue we can gratefully affirm that a strong friendship has resulted which represents a firm foundation for the future. 10 “the bonds of friendship forged in the meantime have proved to be stable, so that it has become possible to tackle even controversial subjects together without the danger of permanent damage being done to the dialogue. this was all the more necessary because over the past decades the dialogue had not always been free of tensions” (koch, may 16, 2012, §3. cf. oct 29, 2012, §3). cunningham: the sources behind “the gifts and the calling” 8 12. the efforts of the holy see’s commission for religious relations with the jews cannot of course be restricted to these two institutional dialogues. the commission aims in fact at being open to all streams within judaism and at maintaining contact with all jewish groupings and organizations that wish to establish links with the holy see. the jewish side shows a particular interest in audiences with the pope, which are in every instance prepared by the commission. besides direct contacts with judaism the holy see’s commission also strives to provide opportunities within the catholic church for dialogue with judaism and to work together with individual bishops’ conferences to support them locally in promoting jewish-catholic dialogue. the introduction of the ‘day of judaism’ in some european countries is a good example of this. 13. over the past decades both the ‘dialogue ad extra’ and the ‘dialogue ad intra’ 11 have led with increasing clarity to the awareness that christians and jews are irrevocably inter-dependent, 12 and that the dialogue between the two is not a matter of choice but of duty as far as theology is concerned. jews and christians can enrich one another in mutual friendship. without her jewish roots the church would be in danger of losing its soteriological anchoring in salvation history and would slide into an ultimately unhistorical gnosis. 13 pope francis states that “while it is true that certain christian beliefs are unacceptable to judaism, and that the church cannot refrain from proclaiming jesus as lord and messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the hebrew scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of god’s 11 “the first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of god of the old covenant, never revoked by god [cf. rom. 11:29], and that of the new covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our church, that is to say, between the first and the second part of her bible” (john paul ii, 1980, §3. see also john paul ii, 1986, §4). 12 “the church is thus not simply a branch, a fruit or an offshoot of israel. on the other hand, the church must draw its vigor and strength from the rootstock of israel. if the engrafted branches are cut off from the root, they become withered, weak and eventually die. thus, cutting itself off from its jewish roots for centuries weakened the church, a weakness that became evident in the altogether too feeble resistance against the persecution of jews. but the reverse is also true. without the engrafted branches the root remains a barren stump. the engrafted branches give the root stock new vitality and fertility....israel without the church is in danger of becoming too particularistic and reclusive, while the church without israel, as the example of marcionism makes clear, is in danger of losing its historical grounding and becoming ahistorical and gnostic” (kasper, “foreword,” xvi). 13  “[t]he christian church without israel would be in danger of losing its locus in the history of salvation and degenerating into an ultimately unhistorical gnosis. by the same token, jews could with regard to the abrahamic covenant arrive at the insight that israel without the church would be in danger of remaining too particularist. in this fundamental sense israel and the church remain bound up with one another according to the covenant and interdependent on one another” (koch, 2011, §2b).  “naturally i do not have the right to judge what judaism may gain from this dialogue for its own purposes. i can only join cardinal walter kasper in expressing the wish that it recognize that 'separating judaism from christianity' would mean 'robbing it of its universality,' which was already promised to abraham. for the christian church however it is certainly true that without judaism it is in danger of losing its location with salvation history and in the end declining into an unhistorical gnosis” (koch, oct 29, 2012, §5. see also koch, may 16, 2012, §3 and koch, may 24, 2012). 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) word. we can also share many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples” (“evangelii gaudium”, 249). 2. the special theological status of jewish-catholic dialogue 14. the dialogue with judaism is for christians something quite special, since christianity possesses jewish roots which determine relations between the two in a unique way (cf. “evangelii gaudium”, 247). 14 in spite of the historical breach and the painful conflicts arising from it, the church remains conscious of its enduring continuity with israel. judaism is not to be considered simply as another religion; the jews are instead our “elder brothers” (saint pope john paul ii), 15 our “fathers in faith” (benedict xvi). 16 jesus was a jew, was at home in the jewish tradition of his time, and was decisively shaped by this religious milieu 17 (cf. “ecclesia in medio oriente”, 20). 18 his first disciples gathered around him had the same heritage and were defined by the same jewish tradition in their everyday life. in his unique relationship with his heavenly father, jesus was intent above all on proclaiming the coming of the kingdom of god. “the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of god is at hand, repent and believe in the gospel” (mk 1:15). within judaism there were many very different kinds of ideas regarding how the kingdom of god would be realized, and yet jesus’ central message on the kingdom of god is in accordance with some jewish thinking of his day. one cannot understand jesus’ teaching or that of his disciples without situating it within the 14 “we hold the jewish people in special regard because their covenant with god has never been revoked, for 'the gifts and the call of god are irrevocable' (rom 11:29). the church, which shares with jews an important part of the sacred scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own christian identity (cf. rom 11:16-18). as christians, we cannot consider judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true god (cf. 1 thes 1:9). with them, we believe in the one god who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word” (francis, 2014, §247). 15 “the jewish religion is not 'extrinsic' to us, but in a certain way is 'intrinsic' to our own religion. with judaism therefore we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. you are our dearly beloved brothers and, in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers” (john paul ii, 1986, §4). 16 “from the earliest days of christianity, our identity and every aspect of our life and worship have been intimately bound up with the ancient religion of our fathers in faith” (benedict xvi, feb 12, 2009). 17 “jesus' human identity is determined on the basis of his bond with the people of israel, with the dynasty of david and his descent from abraham. and this does not mean only a physical belonging. by taking part in the synagogue celebrations where the old testament texts were read and commented on, jesus also came humanly to know these texts; he nourished his mind and heart with them, using them in prayer and as an inspiration for his actions. thus he became an authentic son of israel, deeply rooted in his own people's long history” (john paul ii, 1997, §3). 18 “jesus, a son of the chosen people, was born, lived and died a jew (cf. rom 9:4-5). mary, his mother, likewise invites us to rediscover the jewish roots of christianity. these close bonds are a unique treasure of which christians are proud and for which they are indebted to the chosen people. the jewishness of the nazarene allows christians to taste joyfully the world of the promise and resolutely introduces them into the faith of the chosen people, making them a part of that people. yet the person and the deepest identity of jesus also divide them, for in him christians recognize the messiah, the son of god” (benedict xvi, 2012, §20). cunningham: the sources behind “the gifts and the calling” 10 jewish horizon in the context of the living tradition of israel; one would understand his teachings even less so if they were seen in opposition to this tradition. 19 in jesus not a few jews of his time saw the coming of a ‘new moses’, the promised christ (messiah). but his coming nevertheless provoked a drama with consequences still felt today. fully and completely human, a jew of his time, descendant of abraham, son of david, shaped by the whole tradition of israel, heir of the prophets, jesus stands in continuity with his people and its history. on the other hand he is, in the light of the christian faith, himself god – the son – and he transcends time, history, and every earthly reality. the community of those who believe in him confesses his divinity (cf. phil 2:6-11). in this sense he is perceived to be in discontinuity with the history that prepared his coming. from the perspective of the christian faith, he fulfills the mission and expectation of israel in a perfect way. at the same time, however, he overcomes and transcends them in an eschatological manner. 20 herein consists the fundamental difference between judaism and christianity, that is, how the figure of jesus is to be evaluated. jews are able to see jesus as belonging to their people, a jewish teacher who felt himself called in a particular way to preach the kingdom of god. that this kingdom of god has come with himself as god’s representative is beyond the horizon of jewish expectation. the conflict between jesus and the jewish authorities of his time is ultimately not a matter of an individual transgression of the law, but of jesus’ claim to be acting with divine authority. the figure of jesus thus is and remains for jews the ‘stumbling block’, the central and neuralgic point in jewishcatholic dialogue. from a theological perspective, christians need to refer to the judaism of jesus’ time and to a degree also the judaism that developed from it over the ages for their own self-understanding. given jesus’ jewish origins, coming to terms with judaism in one way or another is indispensable for christians. 19 “jesus was and always remained a jew...jesus is fully a man of his time, and of his environment– the jewish palestinian one of the first century, the anxieties and hopes of which he shared....jesus shares, with the majority of palestinian jews of that time, some pharisaic doctrines: the resurrection of the body; forms of piety, like aims-giving, prayer, fasting (mt. 6:1-18) and the liturgical practice of addressing god as father; the priority of the commandment to love god and our neighbor (mk. 12:28-34)” (ccjr, 1985, §§12, 17). 20  “furthermore, in underlining the eschatological dimension of christianity we shall reach a greater awareness that the people of god of the old and the new testament are tending towards a like end in the future: the coming or return of the messiah—even if they start from two different points of view. it is more clearly understood that the person of the messiah is not only a point of division for the people of god but also a point of convergence” (crrj, 1985, ii, 10).  “what has already been accomplished in christ must yet be accomplished in us and in the world. the definitive fulfillment will be at the end with the resurrection of the dead, a new heaven and a new earth. jewish messianic expectation is not in vain. it can become for us christians a powerful stimulant to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. like them, we too live in expectation. the difference is that for us the one who is to come will have the traits of the jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us” (pbc, 2001, §21).  “but whilst jews expect the coming of the messiah, who is still unknown, christians believe that he has already shown his face in jesus of nazareth whom we as christians therefore confess as the christ, he who at the end of time will be revealed as the messiah for jews and for all nations” (kasper, 2002, iii). 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) yet, the history of the relationship between judaism and christianity has also been mutually influenced over time. 15. dialogue between jews and christians then can only be termed ‘interreligious dialogue’ by analogy, that is, dialogue between two intrinsically separate and different religions. it is not the case that two fundamentally diverse religions confront one another after having developed independently of one another or without mutual influence. 21 the soil that nurtured both jews and christians is the judaism of jesus’ time, which not only brought forth christianity but also, after the destruction of the temple in the year 70, post-biblical rabbinical judaism which then had to do without the sacrificial cult and, in its further development, had to depend exclusively on prayer and the interpretation of both written and oral divine revelation. thus jews and christians have the same mother and can be seen, as it were, as two siblings who—as is the normal course of events for siblings—have developed in different directions 22 . the scriptures of ancient israel constitute an integral part of the scriptures of both judaism and christianity, understood by both as the word of god, revelation, and salvation history. the first christians were jews; as a matter of course they gathered as part of the community in the synagogue, they observed the dietary laws, the sabbath and the requirement of circumcision, while at the same time confessing jesus as the christ, the messiah sent by god for the salvation of israel and the entire human race. with paul the ‘jewish jesus movement’ definitively opens up other horizons and transcends its purely jewish origins. gradually his concept came to prevail, that is, that a non-jew did not have to become first a jew in order to confess christ. in the early years of the church, therefore, there were the so-called jewish christians and the gentile christians, the ecclesia ex circumcisione and the ecclesia ex gentibus, one church originating from judaism, the other from the 21  “one people of god, not two peoples of god: speaking literally rather than metaphorically, this means that israel and the church are related to and interdependent on one another, precisely because they exist in a state not only of unity but also difference. israel and the church thus remain bound up with one another to that extent, and indeed both unmixed yet undivided....speaking of the one people of god however proves to be difficult because this single people of god lives in separated communities. it may therefore be most appropriate in regard to israel and the church to speak of the one people of god’s covenant, which however lives in two parts in a state of division” (koch, 2011, §2c).  “[p]ost-biblical judaism and the church are not two covenant peoples: they are the one covenant people....between judaism and christianity, therefore, is a differentiation that is neither simply a parallel coexistence, nor an opposition....[t]he two are dialectically related to each other in their difference” (kasper, “foreword,” xv).  “[i]n underlining the eschatological dimension of christianity we shall reach a greater awareness that the people of god [note singular] of the old and the new testament are tending towards a like end in the future: the coming or return of the messiah--even if they start from two different points of view” (ccjr, “notes” (1985), §ii, 10).] 22 “the problem is not only the relationship of the old and new covenant, but the different problem of the relationship of post-biblical rabbinic and talmudic judaism―which arose only after the destruction of the second temple in the year a.d. 70―with the church. the canons and structures of both formed in parallel. therefore the new testament can give us no clear and above all no uniform answer to the question just posed. paul wrestled with it again and again, but in a sense, the situation was still open in his lifetime” (kasper, “foreword,” iv). cunningham: the sources behind “the gifts and the calling” 12 gentiles, who however together constituted the one and only church of jesus christ. 16. the separation of the church from the synagogue does not take place abruptly however and, according to some recent insights, may not have been complete until well into the third or fourth centuries. 23 this means that many jewish christians of the first period did not perceive any contradiction between living in accordance with some aspects of the jewish tradition and yet confessing jesus as the christ. only when the number of gentile christians represented the majority, and within the jewish community the polemics regarding the figure of jesus took on sharper contours, did a definitive separation appear to be no longer avoidable. over time the siblings christianity and judaism increasingly grew apart, becoming hostile and even defaming one another. for christians, jews were often represented as damned by god and blind since they were unable to recognize in jesus the messiah and bearer of salvation. for jews, christians were often seen as heretics who no longer followed the path originally laid down by god but who went their own way. it is not without reason that in the acts of the apostles christianity is called ‘the way’ (cf. acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 24:14,22) in contrast to the jewish halacha which determined the interpretation of the law for practical conduct. over time judaism and christianity became increasingly alienated from one another, even becoming involved in ruthless conflicts and accusing one another of abandoning the path prescribed by god. 17. on the part of many of the church fathers the so-called replacement theory or supersessionism steadily gained favor until in the middle ages it represented the standard theological foundation of the relationship with judaism: the promises and commitments of god would no longer apply to israel because it had not recognized jesus as the messiah and the son of god, but had been transferred to the 23  “even though contemporary research tends to accept that the process of estrangement and dissociation between judaism and christianity extended over a longer period than previously assumed and surely only gradually took shape during the second century after the destruction of the second temple in a.d. 70, there is nevertheless no question that this process was set in place at the very beginning of jewish-christian relations, and the relationship between jews and christians was marked by conflicts already at an early stage....[t]he relationship between jews and christians has deteriorated progressively as the awareness of belonging to the same family was gradually lost. it has therefore in the course of history been exposed to great strain and hostility, which have in many cases unfortunately led to anti-jewish attitudes involving outbreaks of violence and pogroms against the jews” (koch, 2015).  “as historical research has shown, the process of alienation took place less quickly than had long been assumed. but the process entailed ever more radical consequences. the idea that the church had superseded judaism came to prevail. saint paul's epistle to the romans, which very subtly considers the mystery of the interleaving of the new and old covenants, was also not able to prevent this. even today it is a major theological challenge to consider how the eternal validity of the old covenant can be reconciled with the newness of the new covenant in jesus christ” (koch, 2013).  “by the third century, however, a de-judaizing process had set in which tended to undervalue the jewish origins of the church, a tendency that has surfaced from time to time in devious ways throughout christian history” (nccb, 1975). 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) church of jesus christ which was now the true ‘new israel’, the new chosen people of god. 24 arising from the same soil, judaism and christianity in the centuries after their separation became involved in a theological antagonism which was only to be defused at the second vatican council. with its declaration “nostra aetate” (no.4) the church unequivocally professes, within a new theological framework, the jewish roots of christianity. while affirming salvation through an explicit or even implicit faith in christ, the church does not question the continued love of god for the chosen people of israel. a replacement or supersession theology which sets against one another two separate entities, a church of the gentiles and the rejected synagogue whose place it takes, is deprived of its foundations. from an originally close relationship between judaism and christianity a long-term state of tension had developed, which has been gradually transformed after the second vatican council into a constructive dialogue relationship. 18. there have often been attempts to identify this replacement theory in the epistle to the hebrews. this epistle, however, is not directed to the jews but rather to the christians of jewish background who have become weary and uncertain. 25 its purpose is to strengthen their faith and to encourage them to persevere, by pointing to christ jesus as the true and ultimate high priest, the mediator of the new covenant. this context is necessary to understand the epistle’s contrast between the first purely earthly covenant and a second better (cf. heb 8:7) and new covenant (cf. 9:15, 12:24). the first covenant is defined as outdated, in decline and doomed to obsolescence (cf. 8:13), while the second covenant is defined as everlasting (cf. 13:20). to establish the foundations of this contrast the epistle refers to the promise of a new covenant in the book of the prophet jeremiah 31:31-34 (cf. heb 8:8-12). this demonstrates that the epistle to the hebrews has no intention of proving the promises of the old covenant to be false, but on the contrary treats them as valid. the reference to the old testament promises is intended to help christians to be sure of their salvation in christ. at issue in the epistle to the hebrews is not the contrast of the old and new covenants as we understand them today, nor a contrast between the church and judaism. rather, the contrast is between the eternal heavenly priesthood of christ and the transitory earthly priesthood. 26 the fundamental issue in the epistle to the 24  “much of the alienation between christian and jew found its origins in a certain anti-judaic theology which over the centuries has led not only to social friction with jews but often to their oppression” (nccb, 1975).  “there can be no denial of the fact that from the time of the emperor constantine on, jews were isolated and discriminated against in the christian world. there were expulsions and forced conversions. literature propagated stereotypes, preaching accused the jews of every age of deicide; the ghetto which came into being in 1555 with a papal bull became in nazi germany the antechamber of the extermination” (cassidy, 1998). 25 “there have often been attempts to locate this substitution theory in the epistle to the hebrews. but the epistle to the hebrews is not directed outwards to the jews but within, to the christians who have become weary and uncertain” (kasper, 2004). 26 “although a long-standing reading of hebrews contends that it declares the old covenant to be obsolete and fading away (heb 8:13), it would be anachronistic to project the distinction between cunningham: the sources behind “the gifts and the calling” 14 hebrews in the new situation is a christological interpretation of the new covenant. for exactly this reason, “nostra aetate” (no.4) did not refer to the epistle to the hebrews, but rather to saint paul’s reflections in his letter to the romans 9– 11. 19. for an outside observer, the conciliar declaration “nostra aetate” could give the impression that the text deals with the relations of the catholic church with all world religions in a relationship based on parity, but the history of its development and the text itself point in a different direction. originally saint pope john xxiii proposed that the council should promulgate a tractatus de iudaeis, but in the end the decision was made to give consideration to all world religions in “nostra aetate”. however, the fourth article of this conciliar declaration, which deals with a new theological relationship with judaism, represents almost the heart of the document, in which a place is also made for the catholic church’s relationship with other religions. 27 the relationship with judaism can in that sense be seen as the catalyst for the determination of the relationship with the other world religions. 28 20. nevertheless, from the theological perspective the dialogue with judaism has a completely different character and is on a different level in comparison with the judaism and christianity back already into the first century. this letter is written to the hebrews and not possibly written against the hebrews. so the text does not seek to devaluate judaism as such, but questions the value of the levitical priesthood and its sacrificial rites” (kasper, “foreword,” xv). 27  “[t]he question of the relationship of the catholic church to judaism is considered [in nostra aetate] within the broader context of the presentation of the relationship of the church to the nonchristian religions in general. to a certain extent that involves a compromise, since judaism is for us christians not just one among the many non-christian religions, and the relationship between judaism and christianity must not be reduced to just another variant of interreligious dialogue so that its distinctive uniqueness is no longer brought to bear. for the church has a unique and distinctive relationship with judaism that it has with no other religion, and it cannot understand itself without reference to judaism...” (koch, 2015).  “the way ahead was to become a thorny one. after the document had made its passage through the council, cardinal bea told a friend: 'if i had known all the difficulties before, i do not know whether i would have had the courage to take this way.' there was vehement opposition both from outside and from within. from inside the old well-known patterns of traditional anti-judaism emerged, from outside there was a storm of protest especially from muslim countries with serious threats against the christians living there as small minorities. in order to save the furniture from the burning house it was decided to integrate the envisaged declaration as one chapter in the 'declaration about the non-christian religions.' to be known later as “nostra aetate”. yet this was a compromise, for judaism is not one religion among the non-christian religions, but as the chapter 4 of the declaration made very clear, christianity has a particular and a unique relation with judaism” (kasper, 2002, §i). 28 “since 1965 many things have occurred. ... [t]he many encounters that at every level have made possible a respectful and blessed exchange: through these, rediscovering fraternity, we catholics became aware with greater clarity that the faith of israel is that of our elder brothers, and, most importantly, that judaism is as a sacrament of every otherness that as such the church must learn to discern, recognize and celebrate” (kasper, 2002). 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) other world religions. 29 the faith of the jews testified to in the bible, found in the old testament, is not for christians another religion but the foundation of their own faith, although clearly the figure of jesus is the sole key for the christian interpretation of the scriptures of the old testament. the cornerstone of the christian faith is jesus (cf. acts 4:11; 1 pt 2:4–8). however, the dialogue with judaism occupies a unique position for christians; christianity is by its roots connected with judaism as with no other religion. therefore the jewish-christian dialogue can only with reservations be termed ‘interreligious dialogue’ in the true sense of the expression; 30 one could however speak of a kind of ‘intra-religious’ or ‘intra–familial’ dialogue sui generis. in his address in the roman synagogue on 13 april 1986 saint pope john paul ii expressed this situation in these words: “the jewish religion is not ‘extrinsic’ to us but in a certain way is ‘intrinsic’ to our own religion. with judaism therefore we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. you are our dearly beloved brothers and, in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers.” 3. revelation in history as ‘word of god’ in judaism and christianity 21. we find in the old testament god’s plan of salvation presented for his people (cf. “dei verbum”, 14). this plan of salvation is expressed in an enlightening way at the beginning of biblical history in the call to abraham (gen 12ff). in order to reveal himself and speak to humankind, redeeming it from sin and gathering it together as one people, god began by choosing the people of israel through abraham and setting them apart. to them god revealed himself gradually through his emissaries, his prophets, as the true god, the only god, the living god, the redeeming god. this divine election was constitutive of the people of israel. only after the first great intervention of the redeeming god, the liberation from slavery in egypt (cf. ex 13:17ff) and the establishment of the covenant at sinai (ex 19ff), did the twelve tribes truly become a nation and become conscious of being the people of god, the bearers of his message and his promises, witnesses of his merciful favor in the midst of the nations and also for the nations (cf. is 26:1-9; 54; 60; 62). in order to instruct his people on how to fulfill their mission and how to pass on the revelation entrusted to them, god gave israel the law which defines how they are to live (cf. ex 20; deut 5), and which distinguishes them from other peoples. 31 29 “it is evident that, as christians, our dialogue with the jews is situated on a different level than that in which we engage with other religions” (ratzinger, 2000). 30 “christians today have an open ear for the world of religions and accordingly display a greater readiness for inter-religious dialogue. [a danger] exists in the fact that the relationship between judaism and christianity and between synagogue and church today is located within inter-religious dialogue, reducing it to the level of merely another variant of inter-religious conversation, so that its irreducible uniqueness is no longer brought to bear (koch, 2011, §2). 31 “here on mount sinai, the truth of 'who god is' became the foundation and guarantee of the covenant. moses enters “the luminous darkness” (the life of moses, ii, 164), and there he is given the law 'written with the finger of god' (ex. 31:18). but what is this law? it is the law of life and freedom! at the red sea the people had experienced a great liberation. they had seen the power and fidelity of cunningham: the sources behind “the gifts and the calling” 16 22. like the church itself even in our own day, israel bears the treasure of its election in fragile vessels. the relationship of israel with its lord is the story of its faithfulness and its unfaithfulness. in order to fulfill his work of salvation despite the smallness and weakness of the instruments he chose, god manifested his mercy and the graciousness of his gifts, as well as his faithfulness to his promises which no human infidelity can nullify (cf. rom 3:3; 2 tim 2:13). at every step of his people along the way god set apart at least a ‘small number’ (cf. deut 4:27), a ‘remnant’ (cf. is 1:9; zeph 3:12; cf. also is 6:13; 17:5-6), a handful of the faithful who ‘have not bowed the knee to baal’ (cf. 1 kings 19:18). through this remnant, god realized his plan of salvation. constantly the object of his election and love remained the chosen people as through them – as the ultimate goal – the whole of humanity is gathered together and led to him. 32 23. the church is called the new people of god (cf. "nostra aetate", no.4) but not in the sense that the people of god of israel has ceased to exist. the church “was prepared in a remarkable way throughout the history of the people of israel and by means of the old covenant” (“lumen gentium”, 2). the church does not replace the people of god of israel, since as the community founded on christ it represents in him the fulfillment 33 of the promises made to israel. this does not god; they had discovered that he is the god who does indeed set his people free as he had promised. but now on the heights of sinai this same god seals his love by making the covenant that he will never renounce. if the people obey his law, they will know freedom forever. the exodus and the covenant are not just events of the past; they are forever the destiny of all god's people!” (john paul ii, 2000, §2). 32  “confessing the universal and therefore also exclusive mediation of salvation through jesus christ belongs to the core of christian faith, as does the confession of the one god, the god of israel, who through his revelation in jesus christ has become the god of all peoples, insofar as in him the promise has been fulfilled 'that the peoples will pray to the god of israel as the one god, that the mountain of the lord will be exalted above the other mountains' [quoting j. ratzinger, many religions, one covenant, 110]” (koch, 2011, 2d).  “thus the church has spread universally among the nations the monotheism of israel and the ten commandments as the core of the mosaic law, and has thereby contributed to the fact that the promise given to abraham that he would be a blessing to all nations (gen. 12:3; 18:18, etc.) has come true” (kasper, “foreword,” xvi). 33 [“'the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable' (rom 11:29)” does not explicitly define what it means by the terms “fulfill” and “fulfillment,” though in §28 (see previous note) it observes that the “ultimate goal” of the plan of salvation is for “the whole of humanity is gathered together and led to [god].” also, in §35 it states that “confessing the universal and therefore also exclusive mediation of salvation through jesus christ belongs to the core of christian faith. so too does the confession of the one god, the god of israel, who through his revelation in jesus christ has become totally manifest as the god of all peoples, insofar as in him the promise has been fulfilled that all peoples will pray to the god of israel as the one god (cf. is 56:1-8).” in other words, through the church, christ fulfills the promise to abraham that he would be a blessing to all nations. other post-nostra aetate ecclesial documents discuss fulfillment with a more explicit futurist eschatology, as in the quotations below:]  “when commenting on biblical tests, emphasis will be laid on the continuity of our faith with that of the earlier covenant, in the perspective of the promises, without minimizing those elements of christianity which are original. we believe that those promises were fulfilled with the first coming of christ. but it is none the less true that we still await their perfect fulfillment in his glorious return at the end of time” (crrj, 1974, ii). 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) mean that israel, not having achieved such a fulfillment, can no longer be considered to be the people of god. “although the church is the new people of god, the jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by god, as if this followed from the holy scriptures” (“nostra aetate”, no.4).  “the notion of fulfillment is an extremely complex one, one that could easily be distorted if there is a unilateral insistence either on continuity or discontinuity. christian faith recognizes the fulfillment, in christ, of the scriptures and the hopes of israel, but it does not understand this fulfillment as a literal one. such a conception would be reductionist. in reality, in the mystery of christ crucified and risen, fulfillment is brought about in a manner unforeseen. it includes transcendence. jesus is not confined to playing an already fixed role—that of messiah—but he confers, on the notions of messiah and salvation, a fullness which could not have been imagined in advance; he fills them with a new reality; one can even speak in this connection of a 'new creation'. it would be wrong to consider the prophecies of the old testament as some kind of photographic anticipations of future events. all the texts, including those which later were read as messianic prophecies, already had an immediate import and meaning for their contemporaries before attaining a fuller meaning for future hearers. the messiahship of jesus has a meaning that is new and original....insistence on discontinuity between both testaments and going beyond former perspectives should not, however, lead to a one-sided spiritualization. what has already been accomplished in christ must yet be accomplished in us and in the world. the definitive fulfillment will be at the end with the resurrection of the dead, a new heaven and a new earth. jewish messianic expectation is not in vain. it can become for us christians a powerful stimulus to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. like them, we too live in expectation. the difference is that for us the one who is to come will have the traits of the jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us” (pbc, 2001, §21).  “typology further signifies reaching towards the accomplishment of the divine plan, when ‘god will be all in all’ (1 cor. 15:28). this holds true also for the church which, realized already in christ, yet awaits its definitive perfecting as the body of christ. the fact that the body of christ is still tending towards its full stature (eph. 4:12-19) takes nothing from the value of being a christian. so also the calling of the patriarchs and exodus from egypt do not lose their importance and value in god's design from being at the same time intermediate stages (e.g., nostra aetate, no. 4)....salvation and liberation are already accomplished in christ and gradually realized by the sacraments in the church. this makes way for the fulfillment of god's design, which awaits its final consummation with the return of jesus as messiah, for which we pray each day. the kingdom, for the coming of which we also pray each day, will be finally established. with salvation and liberation the elect and the whole of creation will be transformed in christ (rm. 8:19-23). furthermore, in underlining the eschatological dimension of christianity we shall reach a greater awareness that the people of god of the old and the new testament are tending towards a like end in the future: the coming or return of the messiah-even if they start from two different points of view. it is more clearly understood that the person of the messiah is not only a point of division for the people of god but also a point of convergence. thus it can be said that jews and christians meet in a comparable hope, grounded on the same promise made to abraham (gn. 12:1-3; heb. 6:13-18)” (ccjr, 1985, §§8-10).  “the lectionary readings from the prophets are selected to bring out the ancient christian theme that jesus is the ‘fulfillment'’ of the biblical message of hope and promise, the inauguration of the 'days to come' .... this truth needs to be framed very carefully. christians believe that jesus is the promised messiah who has come (see lk 4:22), but also know that his messianic kingdom is not yet fully realized. the ancient messianic prophecies are not merely temporal predictions but profound expressions of eschatological hope. since this dimension can be misunderstood or even missed altogether, the homilist needs to raise clearly the hope found in the prophets and heightened in the proclamation of christ. this hope includes trust in what is promised but not yet seen. while the biblical prophecies of an age of universal shalom are 'fulfilled' (i.e., irreversibly inaugurated) in christ's coming, that fulfillment is not yet completely worked out in each person's life or perfected in the world at large....christians proclaim that the messiah has indeed come and that god's reign is ‘at hand.’ with the jewish people, we await the complete realization of the messianic age” (bcl, 1988, §§11-12). cunningham: the sources behind “the gifts and the calling” 18 24. god revealed himself in his word, so that it may be understood by humanity in actual historical situations. this word invites all people to respond. if their responses are in accord with the word of god they stand in right relationship with him. for jews this word can be learned through the torah and the traditions based on it. the torah is the instruction for a successful life in right relationship with god. whoever observes the torah has life in its fullness (cf. pirqe avot ii, 7). 34 by observing the torah the jew receives a share in communion with god. in this regard, pope francis has stated: “the christian confessions find their unity in christ; judaism finds its unity in the torah. christians believe that jesus christ is the word of god made flesh in the world; 35 for jews the word of god is present above all in the torah. both faith traditions find their foundation in the one god, the god of the covenant, who reveals himself through his word. in seeking a right attitude towards god, christians turn to christ as the fount of new life, and jews to the teaching of the torah.” (address to members of the international council of christians and jews, 30 june 2015). 25. judaism and the christian faith as seen in the new testament are two ways by which god’s people can make the sacred scriptures of israel their own. the scriptures which christians call the old testament is open therefore to both ways. 36 a response to god’s word of salvation that accords with one or the other tradition can thus open up access to god, even if it is left up to his counsel of salvation to determine in what way he may intend to save mankind in each instance. that his will for salvation is universally directed is testified by the scriptures (cf. e.g. gen 12:1-3; is 2:2-5; 1 tim 2:4). therefore there are not two paths to salvation according to the expression “jews hold to the torah, christians hold to christ”. christian faith proclaims that christ’s work of salvation is universal and 34 [the document never defines which of many possible definitions of “salvation” it prefers. this is also true of the catechism of the catholic church, which perhaps comes close to doing so in its discussion of adam and eve: “‘[w]ishing to open up the way to heavenly salvation, [god] manifested himself to our first parents from the very beginning’ [citing dei verbum, §3; cf. jn 1:13; rom 1:1920]. he invited them to intimate communion with himself and clothed them with resplendent grace and justice....‘after the fall [god] buoyed them up with the hope of salvation, by promising redemption;...for he wishes to give eternal life to all those who seek salvation by patience in well-doing’ [citing dei verbum, §3; cf. gen 3:15; rom 2:6-7] (ccc, §§54-55).” the document's use in reference to the torah of the phrases “right relationship [twice],” “life in its fullness' [cf. johannine “eternal life” language in e.g., jn 10:10], and “share in communion with god” all give the impression that because jews are in covenant with a saving god, that they are “saved” by that intimate relationship. see also note 40.] 35 “jesus understands himself as the torah—as the word of god in person. the tremendous prologue of john’s gospel—‘in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god’ (jn 1:1)—says nothing different from what the jesus of the sermon on the mount....the issue of jesus' claim to be temple and torah in person also has implications for the question of israel—the issue of the living community of the people in whom god's word is actualized” (benedict xvi, 2007, 110-111). 36 “after centuries of antagonism, we now see it as our task to bring these two ways of rereading the biblical texts—the christian way and the jewish way—into dialogue with one another, if we are to understand god's will and his word aright” (benedict xvi, 2011, 35). 19 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) involves all mankind. god’s word is one single and undivided reality which takes concrete form in each respective historical context. 26. in this sense, christians affirm that jesus christ can be considered as ‘the living torah of god’. torah and christ are the word of god, his revelation for us human beings as testimony of his boundless love. for christians, the preexistence of christ as the word and son of the father is a fundamental doctrine, and according to rabbinical tradition the torah and the name of the messiah exist already before creation (cf. genesis rabbah 1, 1). further, according to jewish understanding god himself interprets the torah in the eschaton, while in christian understanding everything is recapitulated in christ in the end (cf. eph 1:10; col 1:20). in the gospel of matthew christ is seen as it were as the ‘new moses’. matthew 5:17–19 presents jesus as the authoritative and authentic interpreter of the torah (cf. lk 24:27, 45–47). in the rabbinical literature, however, we find the identification of the torah with moses. against this background, christ as the ‘new moses’ can be connected with the torah. torah and christ are the locus of the presence of god in the world as this presence is experienced in the respective worship communities. the hebrew dabar means word and event at the same time – and thus one may reach the conclusion that the word of the torah may be open for the christ event. 4. the relationship between the old and new testament and the old and new covenant 27. the covenant that god has offered israel is irrevocable. “god is not man, that he should lie” (num 23:19; cf. 2 tim 2:13). the permanent elective fidelity of god expressed in earlier covenants is never repudiated (cf. rom 9:4; 11:1–2). the new covenant does not revoke the earlier covenants, but it brings them to fulfillment. through the christ event christians have understood that all that had gone before was to be interpreted anew. for christians the new covenant has acquired a quality of its own, even though the orientation for both consists in a unique relationship with god (cf. for example, the covenant formula in lev 26:12, “i will be your god and you will be my people”). for christians, the new covenant in christ is the culminating point of the promises of salvation of the old covenant, and is to that extent never independent of it. the new covenant is grounded in and based on the old, because it is ultimately the god of israel who concludes the old covenant with his people israel and enables the new covenant in jesus christ. jesus lives during the period of the old covenant, but in his work of salvation in the new covenant confirms and perfects the dimensions of the old. the term covenant, therefore, means a relationship with god that takes effect in different ways for jews and christians. the new covenant can never replace the old but presupposes it and gives it a new dimension of meaning, by reinforcing the personal nature of god as revealed in the old covenant and establishing it as openness for all who respond faithfully from all the nations (cf. zech 8:20-23; psalm 87). cunningham: the sources behind “the gifts and the calling” 20 28. unity and difference between judaism and christianity come to the fore in the first instance with the testimonies of divine revelation. with the existence of the old testament as an integral part of the one christian bible, there is a deeply rooted sense of intrinsic kinship between judaism and christianity. the roots of christianity lie in the old testament, and christianity constantly draws nourishment from these roots. however, christianity is grounded in the person of jesus of nazareth, who is recognised as the messiah promised to the jewish people, and as the only begotten son of god who has communicated himself through the holy spirit following his death on the cross and his resurrection. with the existence of the new testament, the question naturally arose quite soon of how the two testaments are related to one another, whether for example the new testament writings have not superseded the older writings and nullified them. this position was represented by marcion, who in the second century held that the new testament had made the old testament book of promises obsolete, destined to fade away in the glow of the new, just as one no longer needs the light of the moon as soon as the sun has risen. this stark antithesis between the hebrew and the christian bible never became an official doctrine of the christian church. by excluding marcion from the christian community in 144, the church rejected his concept of a purely “christian” bible purged of all old testament elements, bore witness to its faith in the one and only god who is the author of both testaments, and thus held fast to the unity of both testaments, the “concordia testamentorum”. 29. this is of course only one side of the relationship between the two testaments. the common patrimony of the old testament not only formed the fundamental basis of a spiritual kinship between jews and christians but also brought with it a basic tension in the relationship of the two faith communities. this is demonstrated by the fact that christians read the old testament in the light of the new, in the conviction expressed by augustine in the indelible formula: “in the old testament the new is concealed and in the new the old is revealed” (quaestiones in heptateuchum 2, 73). pope gregory the great also spoke in the same sense when he defined the old testament as “the prophecy of the new” and the latter as the “best exposition of the old” (homiliae in ezechielem i, vi, 15; cf. “dei verbum”, 16). 30. this christological exegesis can easily give rise to the impression that christians consider the new testament not only as the fulfillment of the old but at the same time as a replacement for it. that this impression cannot be correct is evident already from the fact that judaism too found itself compelled to adopt a new reading of scripture after the catastrophe of the destruction of the second temple in the year 70. since the sadducees who were bound to the temple did not survive this catastrophe, the rabbis, following in the footsteps of the pharisees, who had 21 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) already developed their particular mode of reading and interpreting scripture, now did so without the temple as the centre of jewish religious devotion. 37 31. as a consequence there were two responses to this situation, or more precisely, two new ways of reading scripture, namely the christological exegesis of the christians and the rabbinical exegesis of that form of judaism that developed historically. since each mode involved a new interpretation of scripture, the crucial new question must be precisely how these two modes are related to each other. but since the christian church and post-biblical rabbinical judaism developed in parallel, but also in opposition and mutual ignorance, this question cannot be answered from the new testament alone. after centuries of opposing positions it has been the duty of jewish-catholic dialogue to bring these two new ways of reading the biblical writings into dialogue with one another in order to perceive the “rich complementarity” where it exists and “to help one another to mine the riches of god’s word” (“evangelii gaudium”, 249). the document of the pontifical biblical commission “the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible” in 2001 therefore stated that christians can and must admit “that the jewish reading of the bible is a possible one, in continuity with the jewish scriptures from the second temple period, a reading analogous to the christian reading which developed in parallel fashion”. it then draws the conclusion: “both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. consequently, both are irreducible” (no.22). 32. since each of the two readings serves the purpose of rightly understanding god’s will and word, it becomes evident how important is the awareness that the christian faith is rooted in the faith of abraham. that raises the further question of how the old and the new covenant stand in relation to one another. for the christian faith it is axiomatic that there can only be one single covenant history of god with humanity. the covenant with abraham, with circumcision as its sign (cf. gen 17), and the covenant with moses restricted to israel regarding obedience to the law (cf. ex 19:5; 24:7-8) and in particular the observance of the sabbath (cf. ex 31:16-17) had been extended in the covenant with noah, with the rainbow as its sign (cf. “verbum domini”, 117), to the whole of creation (cf. gen 9:9 ff). through the prophets god in turn promises a new and eternal covenant (cf. is 55:3; 61:8; jer 31:31-34; ez 36:22-28). each of these covenants incorporates the 37 “one thing is clear: the bible—the old testament—had to be read anew. the judaism of the sadducees, which was entirely bound to the temple, did not survive this catastrophe; qumran—which despite its opposition to the herodian temple, lived in expectation of a renewed temple—also disappeared from history. there are two possible responses to this situation, two ways of reading the old testament anew after the year 70: the reading in the light of christ, based on the prophets, and the rabbinical reading....after centuries of antagonism, we now see it as our task to bring these two ways of rereading the biblical texts—the christian way and the jewish way—into dialogue with one another, if we are to understand god's will and his word aright” (benedict xvi, 2011, 34-35). cunningham: the sources behind “the gifts and the calling” 22 previous covenant and interprets it in a new way. 38 that is also true for the new covenant which for christians is the final eternal covenant and therefore the definitive interpretation of what was promised by the prophets of the old covenant, or as paul expresses it, the “yes” and “amen” to “all that god has promised” (2 cor 1:20). 39 the church as the renewed people of god has been elected by god without conditions. the church is the definitive and unsurpassable locus of the salvific action of god. this however does not mean that israel as the people of god has been repudiated or has lost its mission (cf. “nostra aetate”, no.4). the new covenant for christians is therefore neither the annulment nor the replacement, but the fulfilment of the promises of the old covenant. 33. for jewish-christian dialogue in the first instance god’s covenant with abraham proves to be constitutive, as he is not only the father of israel but also the father of the faith of christians. in this covenant community it should be evident for christians that the covenant that god concluded with israel has never been revoked but remains valid on the basis of god’s unfailing faithfulness to his people, and consequently the new covenant which christians believe in can only be understood as the affirmation and fulfillment of the old. christians are therefore also convinced that through the new covenant the abrahamic covenant has obtained that universality for all peoples which was originally intended in the call of abram (cf. gen 12:1-3). this recourse to the abrahamic covenant is so essentially constitutive of the christian faith that the church without israel would be in 38 “the covenant has its concrete historical reference point in the people of israel. this people exists in history and makes its way through history. correspondingly, we repeatedly find new covenants sealed throughout the old testament: the covenant with noah, guaranteeing the perpetual existence of the order of creation (cf. gen 9:8-17), the covenant with abraham containing the pledge of the promised land and numerous posterity (cf. gen 17), the covenant with the people of israel on mt sinai and their commitment to the ‘ten words’ (decalogue) (cf. ex 19 f; deut 5). further references include the renewal of this covenant after the entry into the promised land (cf. josh 24) and the covenant with david and the promise that his throne will be established forever (cf. 2sam 7:10-17). also important, lastly, is the renewal of the covenant after the babylonian exile and the promise of an everlasting covenant through the prophets (cf. ezek 16:60, 37:26). jer 31:31-34 is of particular significance because there the new covenant is expressly mentioned. it is of course a subject of debate whether this means a new covenant or a renewal of the sinai covenant. these covenants do not stand in isolation, without any connection to one another. each new covenant that is concluded refers back to the preceding one and restates it in current terms. thus tradition and interpretation are in each instance interconnected....each time the covenant is confirmed and renewed once more, god responds in his unconditional faithfulness to the constantly recurring unfaithfulness of his people. god perseveres in his commitment and renews it again and again in spite of the infidelity of his people. so again and again israel is called to repentance and conversion (teschuva) (cf. amos 4:6-12, is 9:12ff and elsewhere)” (kasper, 2004, §1). 39  “god has spoken through jesus christ his definitive yes and amen to all the promises of salvation (2 cor 1:20)” (kasper, “foreword,” xv).  “thus paul can say that in christ jesus all promises have become yea and amen (cf. 2cor 1:20). in christ the old covenant has not been abolished but has come into force in its definitive form, concentrating on its essence and accomplishing the universality implicit at its inception. so it has been upheld or elevated in a sense which is to be understood dialectically” (kasper, 2004). see also koch, 2011 and 2015. 23 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) danger of losing its locus in the history of salvation. by the same token, jews could with regard to the abrahamic covenant arrive at the insight that israel without the church would be in danger of remaining too particularist and of failing to grasp the universality of its experience of god. in this fundamental sense israel and the church remain bound to each other according to the covenant and are interdependent. 40 34. that there can only be one history of god’s covenant with mankind, and that consequently israel is god’s chosen and beloved people of the covenant which has never been repealed or revoked (cf. rom 9:4; 11:29), is the conviction behind the apostle paul’s passionate struggle with the dual fact that while the old covenant from god continues to be in force, israel has not adopted the new covenant. in order to do justice to both facts paul coined the expressive image of the root of israel into which the wild branches of the gentiles have been grafted (cf. rom 11:16-21). one could say that jesus christ bears in himself the living root of the “green olive tree”, and yet in a deeper meaning that the whole promise has its root in him (cf. jn 8:58). this image represents for paul the decisive key to thinking of the relationship between israel and the church in the light of faith. with this image paul gives expression to the duality of the unity and divergence of israel and the church. on the one hand the image is to be taken seriously in the sense that the grafted wild branches have not their origin as branches in the plant onto which they are grafted and their new situation represents a new reality and a new dimension of god’s work of salvation, so that the christian church cannot merely be understood as a branch or a fruit of israel (cf. mt 8:10-13). on the other hand, the image is also to be taken seriously in the sense that the church draws nourishment and strength from the root of israel, and that the grafted branches would wither or even die if they were cut off from the root of israel (cf. “ecclesia in medio oriente”, 21). 41 5. the universality of salvation in jesus christ and god’s unrevoked covenant with israel 35. since god has never revoked his covenant with his people israel, there cannot be different paths or approaches to god’s salvation. the theory that there may be two different paths to salvation, the jewish path without christ and the path with the christ, whom christians believe is jesus of nazareth, would in fact endanger the foundations of christian faith. confessing the universal and therefore also exclusive mediation of salvation through jesus christ belongs to the core of christian faith. so too does the confession of the one god, the god of israel, who through his revelation in jesus christ has become totally manifest as the god of all peoples, insofar as in him the promise has been fulfilled 42 that all peoples will 40 see notes 12-13. 41 ibid. 42 see note 32. cunningham: the sources behind “the gifts and the calling” 24 pray to the god of israel as the one god (cf. is 56:1-8). the document “notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church” published by the holy see’s commission for religious relations with the jews in 1985 therefore maintained that the church and judaism cannot be represented as “two parallel ways to salvation”, but that the church must “witness to christ as the redeemer for all” (no. i, 7). the christian faith confesses that god wants to lead all people to salvation, that jesus christ is the universal mediator of salvation, and that there is no “other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved” (acts 4:12). 36. from the christian confession that there can be only one path to salvation, however, it does not in any way follow that the jews are excluded from god’s salvation because they do not believe in jesus christ as the messiah of israel and the son of god. such a claim would find no support in the soteriological understanding of saint paul, who in the letter to the romans not only gives expression to his conviction that there can be no breach in the history of salvation, but that salvation comes from the jews (cf. also jn 4:22). 43 god entrusted israel with a unique mission, and he does not bring his mysterious plan of salvation for all peoples (cf. 1 tim 2:4) to fulfillment without drawing into it his “first-born son” (ex 4:22). from this it is self-evident that paul in the letter to the romans definitively negates the question he himself has posed, whether god has repudiated his own people. just as decisively he asserts: “for the gifts and the call of god are irrevocable” (rom 11:29). that the jews are participants in god’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery. 44 it is therefore 43 “according to the christian faith understanding there can be only one path to salvation. however, on the other hand, it does not necessarily follow from this fundamental confession that the jews are excluded from god’s salvation because they do not believe in jesus christ as the messiah of israel and the son of god. such a claim would find no support in the soteriological understanding of st paul, who in the letter to the romans definitively negates the question he himself has posed, whether god has repudiated his own people: 'for the gifts and the call of god are irrevocable' (rom 11:29)” (koch, oct 29, 2012, §6. see also koch, 2015 and 2011, 2d). 44  “that the jews are participants in god’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery” (koch, 2011. see also koch, may, 16, 2012; oct 29, 2012; 2015). “such petitions for the coming of the kingdom of god and for the realization of the mystery of salvation are not by nature a call to the church to undertake missionary action to the jews. rather, they respect the whole depth of the deus absconditus, of his election through grace, of the hardening and of his infinite mercy. so in this prayer the church does not take it upon herself to orchestrate the realization of the unfathomable mystery. she cannot do so. instead, she lays the when and the how entirely in god's hands. god alone can bring about the kingdom of god in which the whole of israel is saved and eschatological peace is bestowed on the world” (kasper, 2008).  “this does not mean that jews in order to be saved have to become christians; if they follow their own conscience and believe in god's promises as they understand them in their religious tradition they are in line with god's plan, which for us comes to its historical completion in jesus christ” (kasper, 2002, §iii).  “[t]he document dominus iesus does not state that everybody needs to become a catholic in order to be saved by god. on the contrary, it declares that god's grace, which is the grace of jesus 25 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) no accident that paul’s soteriological reflections in romans 9-11 on the irrevocable redemption of israel against the background of the christ-mystery culminate in a magnificent doxology: “oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of god! how inscrutable are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways” (rom 11:33). bernard of clairvaux (de cons. iii/i, 3) says that for the jews “a determined point in time has been fixed which cannot be anticipated”. 45 37. another focus for catholics must continue to be the highly complex theological question of how christian belief in the universal salvific significance of jesus christ can be combined in a coherent way with the equally clear statement of faith in the never-revoked covenant of god with israel. 46 it is the belief of the church that christ is the savior for all. there cannot be two ways of salvation, therefore, since christ is also the redeemer of the jews in addition to the gentiles. 47 here we confront the mystery of god’s work, which is not a matter of christ according to our faith, is available to all. therefore, the church believes that judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the jewish people to god's irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because god is faithful to his promises” (kasper, 2001).  “according to paul, ‘all israel will be saved’ (rom. 11:26ff.). this relates to the pontifical biblical commission's observation that ‘jewish messianic expectation is not in vain’ and therefore that at the end of time both jews and christians will recognize the ‘one who is to come,’ the eschatological messiah” (kasper, “foreword,” xvii). 45 “[p]etitions for the coming of the kingdom of god and for the realization of the mystery of salvation are not by nature a call to the church to undertake missionary action to the jews. rather, they respect the whole depth of the deus absconditus, of his election through grace, of the hardening and of his infinite mercy. so in this prayer the church does not take it upon herself to orchestrate the realization of the unfathomable mystery. she cannot do so. instead, she lays the when and the how entirely in god’s hands. god alone can bring about the kingdom of god in which the whole of israel is saved and eschatological peace is bestowed on the world. in order to support this interpretation one can refer to a text of bernard of clairvaux, which says that we do not have to concern ourselves with the jews, for god himself will take care of them. the correctness of this interpretation is demonstrated once more by the concluding doxology of the 11th chapter of the letter to the romans: ‘o the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of god! how unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!’ (11:33). this doxology demonstrates once more that the issue here is the glorification in adoration of god and of his unsearchable election through grace, and not a call to some kind of action, not even to mission” (kasper, 2008, §iv). 46  “a well thought-out determination of the relationship of israel and the church is fundamental to answering the question of christian mission among the jews. every christian reflection on this delicate subject must proceed from the universal salvific significance of jesus christ as well as from the universal mission of the church” (kasper, “foreword”).  “this involves especially such key issues as the christian confession of jesus as the christ (i.e., the messiah) and the son of god, which is directly related to the trinitarian understanding of biblical monotheism, the universal salvific significance of jesus and other similar questions” (kasper, 2010).  “[a]t the suggestion of the commission for religious relations with the jews, an informally convened international group of christian theologians began meeting in 2006; individual jewish specialists and friends were invited to participate as critical observers. their work studied the specific question of how to relate the universal saving significance of jesus christ to israel’s ongoing covenantal life with god” (kasper, 2010). 47  “if one takes the last statement seriously, then post-biblical judaism and the church are not two covenant peoples: they are the one covenant people. they do not represent, therefore, two parallel ways of salvation” (kasper, “foreword”). cunningham: the sources behind “the gifts and the calling” 26 missionary efforts to convert jews, 48 but rather the expectation that the lord will bring about the hour when we will all be united, “when all peoples will call on god with one voice and ‘serve him shoulder to shoulder’” (“nostra aetate”, no.4). 38. the declaration of the second vatican council on judaism, that is the fourth article of “nostra aetate”, is located within a decidedly theological framework regarding the universality of salvation in jesus christ and god’s unrevoked covenant with israel. that does not mean that all theological questions which arise in the relationship of christianity and judaism were resolved in the text. these questions were introduced in the declaration, but require further theological reflection. of course, there had been earlier magisterial texts which focused on judaism, but “nostra aetate” (no.4) provides the first theological overview of the relationship of the catholic church to the jews. 39. because it was such a theological breakthrough, the conciliar text is not infrequently over–interpreted, and things are read into it which it does not in fact contain. an important example of over–interpretation would be the following: that the covenant that god made with his people israel perdures and is never invalidated. although this statement is true, it cannot be explicitly read into “nostra aetate” (no. 4). 49 this statement was instead first made with full clarity by saint pope john paul ii when he said during a meeting with jewish representatives in mainz on 17 november 1980 that the old covenant had never been revoked by god: “the first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of god of the old covenant, never revoked by god … and that of the new covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our church, that is to say, between the first and the second part of her bible” (no.3). the same conviction is stated also in the catechism of the church in 1993: “the old covenant has never been revoked” (121).  “as distinct from the text of 1970 [of the good friday prayer for the jews], the reformulated 1962 text speaks of jesus as the christ, the savior of all mankind and therefore also of the jews” (kasper, 2008, §ii). 48 “such petitions for the coming of the kingdom of god and for the realisation of the mystery of salvation are not by nature a call to the church to undertake missionary action to the jews. rather, they respect the whole depth of the deus absconditus, of his election through grace, of the hardening and of his infinite mercy” (kasper, 2008, §iv). 49 [relevant nostra aetate, §4 sentences:] “the church keeps ever in mind the words of the apostle [paul] about his kinsmen: ‘theirs is [n.b. present tense] the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the christ according to the flesh’ (rom. 9:4-5) ...”; “god holds the jews most dear for the sake of their fathers; he does not repent of the gifts he makes or of the calls he issues—such is the witness of the apostle”; and “although the church is the new people of god, the jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by god, as if this followed from the holy scriptures.” 27 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) 6. the church’s mandate to evangelize 50 in relation to judaism 40. it is easy to understand that the so–called ‘mission to the jews’ is a very delicate and sensitive matter for jews because, in their eyes, it involves the very existence of the jewish people. this question also proves to be awkward for christians, because for them the universal salvific significance of jesus christ and consequently the universal mission of the church are of fundamental importance. the church is therefore obliged to view evangelization to jews, who believe in the one god, in a different manner from that to people of other religions and world views. 51 in concrete terms this means that the catholic church neither con 50  “evangelizing mission, or more simply evangelization, refers to the mission of the church in its totality....'to bring the good news into all areas of humanity, and through its impact, to transform that humanity from within, making it new'...the church accomplishes her evangelizing mission through a variety of activities....yet...proclamationkerygma, preaching or catechesisoccupies such an important place in evangelization that it has often become synonymous with it; and yet it is only one aspect of evangelization. in this document the term evangelizing mission is used for evangelization in its broad sense, while the more specific understanding is expressed by the term proclamation” (pcidcep, 1991, §8).  “this touches the problem of mission towards jews, a painful question with regard to forced conversion in the past. dominus iesus, as other official documents, raised this question again saying that dialogue is a part of evangelization. this stirred jewish suspicion. but this is a language problem, since the term evangelization, in official church documents, cannot be understood in the same way it is commonly interpreted in everyday's speech. in strict theological language, evangelization is a very complex and overall term, and reality. it implies presence and witness, prayer and liturgy, proclamation and catechesis, dialogue and social work. now, presence and witness, prayer and liturgy, dialogue and social work, which are all part of evangelization, do not have the goal of increasing the number of catholics. thus evangelization, if understood in its proper and theological meaning, does not imply any attempt of proselytism whatsoever” (kasper, 2001, §3).  “in the light of the economy of salvation, the church sees no conflict between proclaiming christ and engaging in interreligious dialogue. instead, she feels the need to link the two in the context of her mission ad gentes. these two elements must maintain both their intimate connection and their distinctiveness; therefore they should not be confused, manipulated or regarded as identical, as though they were interchangeable.…dialogue does not originate from tactical concerns or self-interest, but is an activity with its own guiding principles, requirements and dignity. it is demanded by deep respect for everything that has been brought about in human beings by the spirit who blows where he wills” (john paul ii, 1990, §§55, 56). 51  “it is easy to understand that the term so–called ‘mission to the jews’ is a very delicate and sensitive matter for the jews because in their eyes it involves the very existence of israel itself. on the other hand however, this question also proves to be awkward for us christians too, because for us the universal salvific significance of jesus christ and consequently the universal mission of the church are of fundamental significance, especially since paul on his missionary journeys always went first to the jews in the synagogue, and only turned to the non-jews after he had encountered resistance from the jews. if one takes both sides of this delicate question seriously, the christian church is obligated to perceive its evangelization task in respect of the jews, who believe in the one god, in a different manner from that to the nations. this means, as cardinal kasper states, 'that the mission command is just as valid for jews as for the nations, but it must be realized differently for the jews in respect to the nations'“ (koch, 2011).  “this is for jews a very delicate and sensitive question, because it implies for them the existence of israel itself” (kasper, 2010).  “[m]ission understood as call to conversion from idolatry to the living and true god (1 th 1:9) does not apply and cannot be applied to jews. they confess the living true god, who gave and gives them support, hope, confidence and strength in many difficult situations of their history. there cannot be cunningham: the sources behind “the gifts and the calling” 28 ducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards jews. 52 while there is a principled rejection of an institutional jewish mission, the same kind of behavior towards jews as there exists towards gentiles. this is not a merely abstract theological affirmation, but an affirmation that has concrete and tangible consequences such as the fact that there is no organized catholic missionary activity towards jews as is for all other nonchristian religions” (kasper, 2002). see also kasper, “foreword.” 52  “that the catholic church respects this fundamental difference [between jews and other nonchristians] is evident above all in the fact that–in contrast to several fundamentalist and evangelical movements–it neither has nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards jews. in his detailed examination of the question of the so-called mission to the jews cardinal karl lehmann rightly discerned that on closer investigation one finds 'as good as no institutional jewish mission in catholic mission history.' 'we have an abundant share in other forms of inappropriate attitudes towards the jews and therefore have no right to elevate ourselves above others. but in respect to a specific and exclusive mission to the jews there should be no false consternation or unjustified selfaccusation in this regard.' the rejection of an institutional mission to the jews does not on the other hand exclude christians from bearing witness to their faith in jesus christ also to jews, but should do so in a humble and unassuming manner, particularly in view of the great tragedy of the shoah” (koch, 2011).  “a well thought-out determination of the relationship of israel and the church is fundamental to answering the question of christian mission among the jews. every christian reflection on this delicate subject must proceed from the universal salvific significance of jesus christ as well as from the universal mission of the church. this was, of course, natural for paul, too; this is why on his missionary journeys he went first (rom 1:16) to the jews in the synagogue, and only after he met opposition did he then turn to the gentiles. it is nonetheless true that jews are not pagans, they do not repent of false and dead idols to turn to the true and living god (1 th 1:9). this means that command for mission is as valid for jews as for pagans but it must be put into effect differently among jews than pagans. this difference has not always been observed, and unfortunately there has been a history of forced conversions of jews. in principle, though, the church takes this difference into account. in contrast to some fundamentalist movements, the catholic church sponsors no specific institutional missionary work aimed at jews. this is more than a mere fact; it is an important ecclesial reality....according to paul, 'all israel will be saved' (rom 11:26 ff). this relates to the pontifical biblical commission’s observation that 'jewish messianic expectation is not in vain” and therefore that at the end of time both jews and christians will recognize the “one who is to come,' the eschatological messiah [pbc 2001, §21]. this does not mean that the church and the christians should behave passively in the meantime and simply sit on their hands. the exclusion of a targeted institutional mission does not prohibit, but rather implies that the christians and the church are generally required to give jews witness to their faith in jesus christ now. such christian witness will be, especially after the shoah, discreet and humble, must avoid any appearance of triumphalism, and show respect and esteem for the conviction of the jewish partner” (kasper, “foreword,” xvi-xvii). see also kasper, 2010, §iii and kasper, 2008, §iii.  “the roman catholic reflections describe the growing respect for the jewish tradition that has unfolded since the second vatican council. a deepening catholic appreciation of the eternal covenant between god and the jewish people, together with a recognition of a divinely-given mission to jews to witness to god's faithful love, lead to the conclusion that campaigns that target jews for conversion to christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the catholic church” (bceia-ncs, 2002).  “hildegard brem comments...as follows: ‘in the light of romans 11:25, the church must not concern herself with the conversion of the jews, since she must wait for the time fixed for this by god, until the full number of the gentiles come in (rom 11:25).... in the meantime, israel retains its own mission. israel is in the hands of god, who will save it ‘as a whole’ at the proper time, when the number of the gentiles is complete. the fact that the historical duration of this period cannot be calculated is self-evident and should not surprise us. ... from this perspective, it can be understood that this ‘time of the gentiles’ is not yet the full messianic age in terms of the great salvation promises; but it remains the time of present history and suffering; yet in a new way it is also a time of hope: ‘the night is far gone, the day is at hand’ (rom 13:12)” (benedict xvi, 2011). 29 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) christians are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in jesus christ also to jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive manner, acknowledging that jews are bearers of god’s word, and particularly in view of the great tragedy of the shoah. 53  “according to roman catholic teaching, both the church and the jewish people abide in covenant with god. we both therefore have missions before god to undertake in the world. the church believes that the mission of the jewish people is not restricted to their historical role as the people of whom jesus was born 'according to the flesh' (rom 9:5) and from whom the church's apostles came. nonetheless, the church does perceive that the jewish people's mission ad gentes (to the nations) continues. this is a mission that the church also pursues in her own way according to her understanding of covenant. the command of the resurrected jesus in matthew 28:19 to make disciples “of all nations” (greek = ethnē, the cognate of the hebrew = goyim; i.e., the nations other than israel) means that the church must bear witness in the world to the good news of christ so as to prepare the world for the fullness of the kingdom of god. however, this evangelizing task no longer includes the wish to absorb the jewish faith into christianity and so end the distinctive witness of jews to god in human history. thus, while the catholic church regards the saving act of christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that jews already dwell in a saving covenant with god. the catholic church must always evangelize and will always witness to its faith in the presence of god's kingdom in jesus christ to jews and to all other people. in so doing, the catholic church respects fully the principles of religious freedom and freedom of conscience, so that sincere individual converts from any tradition or people, including the jewish people, will be welcomed and accepted” (bceia-ncs, 2002). 53  “the exclusion of an intentional and institutional mission to the jews does not mean that christians should sit about with their hands in their laps. one must distinguish between intentional and organized mission on the one hand and christian witness on the other. naturally, wherever appropriate, christians must offer witness before their elder brothers and sisters in the faith of abraham (john paul ii) to their faith and the richness and beauty of their belief in jesus christ. that is what paul did. on his missionary journeys each time he went first to the synagogue and only when he found no faith there did he go to the gentiles (acts 13:5, 14ff., 42-52; 14:1-6ff.; principally rom 1:16). such witness is demanded of us today too. it should certainly be done tactfully and respectfully; but it would be dishonest if christians in their encounters with jewish friends remained silent about their faith or denied it. we expect the same of believing jews towards us. in the dialogues with which i am familiar this behavior is altogether normal. an honest dialogue between jews and christians is only possible on the basis, first, of our shared belief in one god, creator of heaven and earth, and in the promises given to abraham and the fathers; and on the other hand in awareness and respect for the fundamental distinction, which consists in our belief in jesus as the christ and the redeemer of all mankind” (kasper, 2008, §5).  “such christian witness will be, especially after the shoah, discreet and humble” (kasper, “foreword”). see also kasper, 2010, iii.  “as a means of removing any doubt as to our commitment to respect jewish self-identity in our dialogues, and to promote deeper bonds of friendship and mutual understanding between the members of our two communities, we bishops affirm the following:...catholics have a sacred responsibility to bear witness to christ at every moment of their lives, but lived context shapes the form of that witness to the lord we love. jewish-catholic dialogue, one of the blessed fruits of the second vatican council, has never been and will never be used by the catholic church as a means of proselytism—nor is it intended as a disguised invitation to baptism. in sitting at the table, we expect to encounter jews who are faithful to the mosaic covenant, just as we insist that only catholics committed to the teachings of the church encounter them in our dialogues” (george et al., 2009).  dialogue can be understood in different ways. firstly, at the purely human level, it means reciprocal communication, leading to a common goal or, at a deeper level, to interpersonal communion. secondly, dialogue can be taken as an attitude of respect and friendship, which permeates or should permeate all those activities constituting the evangelizing mission of the church. this can appropriately be called 'the spirit of dialogue.' thirdly, in the context of religious plurality, dialogue means 'all positive and constructive interreligious relations with individuals and communities of other faiths cunningham: the sources behind “the gifts and the calling” 30 41. the concept of mission must be presented correctly in dialogue between jews and christians. 54 christian mission has its origin in the sending of jesus by the father. he gives his disciples a share in this call in relation to god’s people of israel (cf. mt 10:6) and then as the risen lord with regard to all nations (cf. mt 28:19). 55 thus the people of god attains a new dimension through jesus, who calls his church from both jews and gentiles (cf. eph 2:11-22) 56 on the basis of which are directed at mutual understanding and enrichment' ['dialogue and mission,' §3], in obedience to truth and respect for freedom. it includes both witness and the exploration of respective relireligious convictions. it is in this third sense that the present document uses the term dialogue for one of the integral elements of the church's evangelizing mission” (pcid-cep, §9). 54  “on the other hand, the term mission, in its proper sense, is referred to conversion from false gods and idols to the true and one god, who revealed himself in the salvation history with his elected people. thus mission, in this strict sense, cannot be used with regard to jews, who believe in the true and one god. therefore—and this is characteristic—[there] does not exist any catholic missionary organization for jews. there is dialogue with jews; no mission in this proper sense of the word towards them. but what is dialogue? certainly—as we learned from jewish philosophers such as martin buber—it is more than small talk and mere exchange of opinions. it is also different from academic dispute, however important academic dispute may be within dialogue. dialogue implies personal commitments and witness of one's own conviction and faith. dialogue communicates one's faith and, at the same time, requires profound respect for the conviction and faith of the partner. it respects the difference of the other and brings mutual enrichment” (kasper, 2001, §3).  “[the second vatican council] understood that our two religious communities are connected and closely related at the very level of their respective religious identities. 'for the beginning of [the church's] faith and election are already found among the patriarchs, moses and the prophets,' and 'therefore she cannot forget that she received the revelation of the old testament through the people with whom god in his inexpressible mercy deigned to establish the ancient covenant' [ibid.]. it is on the basis of all this that we recognize with utmost clarity that the path along which we should proceed with the jewish religious community is one of fraternal dialogue and fruitful collaboration” (john paul ii, 1979).  “dialogue is born from a respectful attitude toward the other person, from a conviction that the other person has something good to say. it supposes that we can make room in our heart for their point of view, their opinion and their proposals. dialogue entails a warm reception and not a preemptive condemnation. to dialogue, one must know how to lower the defenses, to open the doors of one's home and to offer warmth” (bergoglio & skorka, 2013, xiv). 55 “for christians this includes giving testimony of jesus the christ to all and in all places; for christians this is the mandate of jesus christ himself (matt 28, 19)” (kasper, 2002). 56  “for paul the starting point is not the sinai covenant but the covenant with abraham. that is directed towards all peoples (cf. gen 12:3; 17:4 etc); this universality must not be delimited by a law which is restricted to israel.[16] on the cross christ as our representative has fulfilled the law for us once and for all (cf. rom 3:21-26; gal 3:13; 4:4 f); he is thus the goal and the end of the law (cf. rom 10:4; gal 3:24).[17] thus christ has rescinded the exclusion of the gentiles and given them access to the covenant; he has created peace and united and reconciled jews and gentiles in his person (cf. eph 2:11-22). thus paul can say that in christ jesus all promises have become yea and amen (cf. 2cor 1:20). in christ the old covenant has not been abolished but has come into force in its definitive form, concentrating on its essence and accomplishing the universality implicit at its inception. so it has been upheld or elevated in a sense which is to be understood dialectically” (kasper, 2004, §2).  “in the new testament christ jesus has taken the place of the torah. all creation has been directed toward him and in him everything finds its fulfilment (cf. jn 1:3-4.10; col 1:16 f). in the church consisting of jews and gentiles (cf. eph 2:11-22) the eschatological gathering of the peoples has already begun (cf. is 2:2-5; mic 4:1-5; mt 8:11; lk 13:29), but the promise made to abraham has not yet been fulfilled completely. the remaining balance of the promise will only be fulfilled when in the end israel too is saved (cf. rom 11:2.32) and ‘god may be all in all’ (1cor 15:28). jews and christians share a common root with one another and a common hope for one another. regardless of 31 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) faith in christ and by means of baptism, through which there is incorporation into his body which is the church (“lumen gentium”, 14). 57 42. christian mission and witness, in personal life and in proclamation, belong together. the principle that jesus gives his disciples when he sends them out is to suffer violence rather than to inflict violence. christians must put their trust in god, who will carry out his universal plan of salvation in ways that only he knows, for they are witnesses to christ, but they do not themselves have to im the christological difference they are, in the current eschatological interim, two concurrent parts of god's one people on the basis of guilt and even greater grace, co-existing as rivals in the positive as well as in the conflict-ridden sense of the word. they have to follow the path of history beside one another” (kasper, 2004, §6). 57  “this sacred council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the catholic faithful. basing itself upon sacred scripture and tradition, it teaches that the church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. christ, present to us in his body, which is the church, is the one mediator and the unique way of salvation. in explicit terms he himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the church, for through baptism as through a door people enter the church. whosoever, therefore, knowing that the catholic church was made necessary by christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.…all the church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of christ. if they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged” (lumen gentium, §14).  “[i]t must be firmly believed that ‘the church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the church. he himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. mk 16:16; jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the church which people enter through baptism as through a door’ [citing lumen gentium, 14; cf. decree ad gentes, 7; decree unitatis redintegratio, 3]. this doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of god (cf. 1 tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in christ for all mankind and the necessity of the church for this salvation’ [citing redemptoris missio, §9; cf. catechism of the catholic church, §§ 846-847].…the church is the ‘universal sacrament of salvation’ [citing lumen gentium, §48], since, united always in a mysterious way to the savior jesus christ, her head, and subordinated to him, she has, in god's plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being [citing cf. st. cyprian, de catholicae ecclesiae unitate, 6: ccsl 3, 253-254; st. irenaeus, adversus haereses, iii, 24, 1: sc 211, 472-474]. for those who are not formally and visibly members of the church, ‘salvation in christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the church, does not make them formally part of the church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. this grace comes from christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the holy spirit’ [citing john paul ii, redemptoris missio, §10]; it has a relationship with the church, which ‘according to the plan of the father, has her origin in the mission of the son and the holy spirit’ [citing ad gentes, §2 and incluuding this discursive comment: ‘the famous formula extra ecclesiam nullus omnino salvatur is to be interpreted in this sense (cf. fourth lateran council, cap. 1. de fide catholica: ds 802). cf. also the letter of the holy office to the archbishop of boston: ds 3866-3872]. with respect to the way in which the salvific grace of god—which is always given by means of christ in the spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the church—comes to individual non-christians, the second vatican council limited itself to the statement that god bestows it ‘in ways known to himself’ [citing ad gentes, §7]. theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better god's salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished” (dominus iesus, vi, §§ 20-21).  “thus christ has rescinded the exclusion of the gentiles and given them access to the covenant; he has created peace and united and reconciled jews and gentiles in his person (cf. eph 2:11-22)” (kasper, 2004, §2). see also kasper, 2002, §iii. cunningham: the sources behind “the gifts and the calling” 32 plement the salvation of humankind. zeal for the “house of the lord” and confident trust in the victorious deeds of god belong together. christian mission means that all christians, in community with the church, confess and proclaim the historical realization of god’s universal will for salvation in christ jesus (cf. “ad gentes”, 7). 58 they experience his sacramental presence in the liturgy and make it tangible in their service to others, especially those in need. 43. it is and remains a qualitative definition of the church of the new covenant that it consists of jews and gentiles, even if the quantitative proportions of jewish and gentile christians may initially give a different impression. 59 just as after the death and resurrection of jesus christ there were not two unrelated covenants, so too the people of the covenant of israel are not disconnected from ‘the people of god drawn from the gentiles’. rather, the enduring role of the covenant people of israel in god’s plan of salvation is to relate dynamically to the ‘people of god of jews and gentiles, united in christ’, he whom the church confesses as the universal mediator of creation and salvation. in the context of god’s universal will of salvation, all people who have not yet received the gospel are aligned with the people of god of the new covenant. “in the first place there is the people to whom the covenants and promises were given and from whom christ was born according to the flesh (cf. rom 9:4-5). on account of their fathers this people remains most dear to god, for he does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues (cf. rom 11:28-29)” (“lumen gentium”, 16). 7. the goals of dialogue with judaism 44. the first goal of the dialogue is to add depth to the reciprocal knowledge of jews and christians. one can only learn to love what one has gradually come to know, and one can only know truly and profoundly what one loves. this profound knowledge is accompanied by a mutual enrichment whereby the dialogue partners become the recipients of gifts. 60 the conciliar declaration “nostra aetate” (no.4) speaks of the rich spiritual patrimony that should be further discovered step by step through biblical and theological studies and through dialogue. to that extent, from the christian perspective, an important goal is the mining of the spiritual treasures concealed in judaism for christians. in this regard one must mention above all the interpretation of the sacred scriptures. in the foreword by cardinal joseph ratzinger to the 2001 document of the pontifical biblical commission “the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the 58 “therefore though god in ways known to himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please him (heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the church (1 cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the gospel” (ad gentes, §7). 59 “[in response to an interviewer's question, “may messianic jews, who recognize christ as a messiah and fulfiller of their judaism, be a bridge” between christianity and judaism?:] “they could be a bridge, and they are a reality which it is impossible to ignore. for very many jews, however, the messianic communities represent a major challenge. this question therefore has to be considered very sensitively so as not to jeopardize the official dialogues with judaism” (koch, 2013). 60 see notes 48-49. 33 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) christian bible”, the respect of christians for the jewish interpretation of the old testament is stressed. it highlights that “christians can learn a great deal from a jewish exegesis practiced for more than 2000 years; in return christians may hope that jews can profit from christian exegetical research.” 61 in the field of exegesis many jewish and christian scholars now work together and find their collaboration mutually fruitful precisely because they belong to different religious traditions. 45. this reciprocal acquiring of knowledge must not be limited to specialists alone. therefore it is important that catholic educational institutions, particularly in the training of priests, integrate into their curricula both “nostra aetate” and the subsequent documents of the holy see regarding the implementation of the conciliar declaration. the church is also grateful for the analogous efforts within the jewish community. the fundamental changes in relations between christians and jews which were initiated by “nostra aetate” (no. 4) must also be made known to the coming generations and be received and disseminated by them. 46. one important goal of jewish-christian dialogue certainly consists in joint engagement throughout the world for justice, peace, conservation of creation, and reconciliation. in the past, it may have been that the different religions – against the background of a narrowly understood claim to truth and a corresponding intolerance – contributed to the incitement of conflict and confrontation. but today religions should not be part of the problem, but part of the solution. only when religions engage in a successful dialogue with one another, and in that way contribute towards world peace, can this be realized also on the social and political levels. religious freedom guaranteed by civil authority is the prerequisite for such dialogue and peace. in this regard, the litmus-test is how religious minorities are treated, and which rights of theirs are guaranteed. in jewish-christian dialogue the situation of christian communities in the state of israel is of great relevance, since there—as nowhere else in the world—a christian minority faces a jewish majority. peace in the holy land – lacking and constantly prayed for – plays a major role in dialogue between jews and christians. 47. another important goal of jewish–catholic dialogue consists in jointly combating all manifestations of racial discrimination against jews and all forms of anti-semitism, which have certainly not yet been eradicated and re-emerge in dif 61  “god continues to work among the people of the old covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which flow from their encounter with his word. for this reason, the church also is enriched when she receives the values of judaism. while it is true that certain christian beliefs are unacceptable to judaism, and that the church cannot refrain from proclaiming jesus as lord and messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the hebrew scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of god’s word” (francis, 2014, §249).  “after centuries of antagonism, we now see it as our task to bring these two ways of rereading the biblical texts—the christian way and the jewish way—into dialogue with one another, if we are to understand god's will and his word aright” (benedict, 2011, 35). cunningham: the sources behind “the gifts and the calling” 34 ferent ways in various contexts. history teaches us where even the slightest perceptible forms of anti-semitism can lead: the human tragedy of the shoah in which two-thirds of european jewry were annihilated. both faith traditions are called to maintain together an unceasing vigilance and sensitivity in the social sphere as well. because of the strong bond of friendship between jews and catholics, the catholic church feels particularly obliged to do all that is possible with our jewish friends to repel anti-semitic tendencies. pope francis has repeatedly stressed that a christian can never be an anti-semite, especially because of the jewish roots of christianity. 48. justice and peace, however, should not simply be abstractions within dialogue, but should also be evidenced in tangible ways. the social-charitable sphere provides a rich field of activity, since both jewish and christian ethics include the imperative to support the poor, disadvantaged and sick. thus, for example, the holy see’s commission for religious relations with the jews and the international jewish committee on interreligious consultations (ijcic) worked together in 2004 in argentina during the financial crisis in that country to organize joint soup kitchens for the poor and homeless, and to enable impoverished children to attend school by providing meals for them. most christian churches have large charitable organizations, which likewise exist within judaism. these would be able to work together to alleviate human need. judaism teaches that the commandment “to walk in his ways” (deut 11:22) requires the imitation of the divine attributes (imitatio dei) through care for the vulnerable, the poor and the suffering (babylonian talmud, sotah 14a). this principle accords with jesus’ instruction to support those in need (cf. e.g. mt 25:35–46). jews and christians cannot simply accept poverty and human suffering; rather they must strive to overcome these problems. 49. when jews and christians make a joint contribution through concrete humanitarian aid for justice and peace in the world, they bear witness to the loving care of god. no longer in confrontational opposition but cooperating side by side, jews and christians should seek to strive for a better world. saint pope john paul ii called for such cooperation in his address to the central council of german jewry and to the conference of rabbis in mainz on 17 november 1980: “jews and christians, as children of abraham, are called to be a blessing for the world…, by committing themselves together for peace and justice among all men and peoples, with the fullness and depth that god himself intended us to have, and with the readiness for sacrifices that this goal may demand”. cardinal kurt koch president the most reverend brian farrell vice–president the reverend norbert hofmann, sdb secretary 35 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) ____________________________________ abbreviations used in the annotated text bceia-ncs, 2002 delegates of the bishops’ committee for ecumenical and interreligious affairs and the national council of synagogues [united states], “reflections on covenant and mission,” washington, d.c., august 12, 2002. bcl, 1988 bishops’ committee on the liturgy, united states conference of catholic bishops, god’s mercy endures forever: guidelines on the presentation of jews and judaism in catholic preaching, washington, d.c., september 18, 1988. benedict xvi, 2005 pope benedict xvi, address delivered to the roman curia on the interpretation of the second vatican council, vatican city, december 22, 2005. benedict xvi, 2007 pope benedict xvi, jesus of nazareth: from the baptism in the jordan to the transfiguration (new york: doubleday, 2007). benedict xvi, feb 12, 2009 pope benedict xvi, “address to delegates of the conference of presidents of major american jewish organizations,” vatican city, february 12, 2009. benedict xvi, 2010 pope benedict xvi, “address at the great synagogue of rome,” january 17, 2010. benedict xvi, 2011 pope benedict xvi, jesus of nazareth: holy week: from the entrance into jerusalem to the resurrection (new york: doubleday, 2011). benedict xvi, 2012 pope benedict xvi, “apostolic exhortation ecclesia in medio oriente,” vatican city, september 14, 2012. bergoglio & skorka, 2013 jorge mario bergoglio and abraham skorka, on heaven and earth: pope francis on faith, family, and the church in the twenty-first century (alejandro bermudez and howard goodman, trans.; new york: image books, 2013). first published in spanish in 1995. cunningham: the sources behind “the gifts and the calling” 36 cassidy, 1998 cardinal edward idris cassidy, “reflections regarding the vatican's statement on the shoah,” address at the annual conference of the american jewish committee, washington, d.c., may 28, 1998. ccc catechism of the catholic church (washington, d.c.: united states catholic conference, 1994). crrj, 1974 commission of the holy see for religious relations with the jews, “guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate, no. 4,” vatican city, december 1, 1974. crrj, 1985 commission of the holy see for religious relations with the jews, “notes on the correct way to present jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church,” vatican city, june 24, 1985. crrj, 1998 commission of the holy see for religious relations with the jews, “we remember: a reflection on the shoah,” vatican city, march 16, 1998. francis, 2014 pope francis, “apostolic exhortation evangelii gaudium,” vatican city, january 24, 2014, §§247-249. francis, 2015 pope francis, “general audience catechesis on 50th anniversary of nostra aetate,” vatican city, october 28, 2015. george et al., 2009 cardinal francis george, bishop wilton d. gregory, cardinal william h. keeler, bishop william e. lori, and bishop william murphy, “statement of principles for catholic-jewish dialogue,” washington, d.c., october 2, 2009. hoffman, 2013 norbert j. hoffman, s.d.b., “jews and christians, together as witnesses to the one god,” l’osservatore romano, january 17, 2013. john paul ii, 1979 saint pope john paul ii, “address to representatives of jewish organizations,” vatican city, march 12, 1979. 37 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) john paul ii, 1980 saint pope john paul ii, “address to representatives of the west german jewish community,” mainz, west germany, november 17, 1980. john paul ii, 1986 saint pope john paul ii, “address at the great synagogue of rome,” rome, april 13, 1986. john paul ii, 1990 saint pope john paul ii, redemptoris missio, december 7, 1990. john paul ii, 1997 saint pope john paul ii, “address to the pontifical biblical commission,” vatican city, april 11, 1997. john paul ii, 2000 saint pope john paul ii, “homily at mount sinai,” mount sinai, egypt, february 26, 2000. kasper, 2001 cardinal walter kasper, “dominus iesus,” address delivered at the 17th meeting of the international catholic-jewish liaison committee, new york, may 1, 2001. kasper, 2002 cardinal walter kasper, “the commission for religious relations with the jews: a crucial endeavour of the catholic church,” address delivered at boston college, nov. 6, 2002. kasper, 2004 cardinal walter kasper, “the relationship of the old and the new covenant as one of the central issues in jewish-christian dialogue,” address delivered at the centre for the study of jewish-christian relations, cambridge, u.k., december 6, 2004. kasper, 2008 cardinal walter kasper, “striving for mutual respect in modes of prayer,” l’osservatore romano (april 16, 2008): 8-9. kasper, 2010 cardinal walter kasper, “recent developments in jewish–christian relations,” address delivered at liverpool hope university, may 24, 2010. kasper, “foreword” cardinal walter kasper, “foreword,” in philip a. cunningham, joseph sievers, mary c. boys, hans hermann henrix, and jesper svartvik, eds., christ jesus cunningham: the sources behind “the gifts and the calling” 38 and the jewish people today. new explorations of theological interrelationships (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 2011), x-xviii. koch, 2011 cardinal kurt koch, “theological questions and perspectives in jewish-catholic dialogue,” address delivered to the council of centers on jewish-christian relations, seton hall university, south orange, october 30, 2011. koch, may 16, 2012 cardinal kurt koch, “building on nostra aetate – 50 years of christian-jewish dialogue,” address delivered at the angelicum university in rome under the auspices of the john paul ii center for interreligious dialogue, may 16, 2012. koch, may 24, 2012 cardinal kurt koch, “christians called to be faithful to abraham’s heritage,” address was delivered at the jerusalem studies institute in jerusalem, israel, may 24, 2012. koch, oct 29, 2012 cardinal kurt koch, “in the service of jewish-catholic understanding,” address to consultors and delegates of individual episcopal conferences for catholicjewish dialogue to the commission of the holy see for religious relations with the jews, rome, october 29, 2012. koch, 2013 cardinal kurt koch, “jewish-catholic dialogue and the dialogue between the holy see and judaism,” interview by oliver maksan of the catholic charity aid to the church in need before a meeting of the joint commission for the jewishcatholic dialogue in jerusalem, may 9, 2013. koch, 2015 cardinal kurt koch, “the international dialogue between the catholic church and the jews since nostra aetate,” address delivered at the catholic university of america, washington, d.c., may 20, 2015. see origins 45/6 (june 11, 2015): 8289. nccb, 1975 national conference of catholic bishops [united states], “statement on catholic-jewish relations,” washington, d.c., november 20, 1975. pbc, 2001 pontifical biblical commission, “the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible,” vatican city, may 24, 2001. 39 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) pcid-cep, 1991 pontifical council for interreligious dialogue in collaboration with the congregation for the evangelization of peoples, “dialogue and proclamation: reflection and orientations on interreligious dialogue and the proclamation of the gospel of jesus christ,” may 19, 1991. ratzinger, 2000 cardinal joseph ratzinger, “the heritage of abraham: the gift of christmas,” l’ osservatore romano, december 29, 2000. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-8 rethinking the notion of universality in judaism and its implications ruth sandberg rsandberg@gratz.edu gratz college, melrose park, pa 19027 this article was generated from the february 2016 saint joseph’s university “consultation on the newest statements about the christian-jewish relationship.” 1. introduction: christ the universal mediator in “gifts and calling” the document published in december 2015 by the vatican commission for religious relations with the jews, “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’: a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of nostra aetate (no. 4)” (hereafter, g&c), struggles to balance the notion of christian “universality” with god’s enduring covenant with the jews. for instance, in the preface, it is stated that the document will address “the relationship between the universality of salvation in jesus christ and the affirmation that the covenant of god with israel has never been revoked.” 1 in §25, it is stated: that his will for salvation is universally directed is testified by the scriptures (cf. e.g. gen 12:1-3; is 2:2-5; 1 tim 2:4). therefore there are not two paths to salvation according to the expression “jews hold to the torah, christians hold to christ”. christian faith proclaims that christ’s work of salvation is universal and involves all mankind. god’s word is one single and undivided reality which takes concrete form in each respective historical context. (cf. §33.) an entire section of the document, section 5, is titled “the universality of salvation in jesus christ and god’s unrevoked covenant with israel.” it explicitly repeats that christ’s saving work impacts all humanity and cannot be seen to exclude jews: 1 all quotations from “the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable: a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of nostra aetate (no. 4),” are taken from the text presented on the web site of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations, http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/romancatholic/vatican-curia/1357-crrj-2015dec10. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/1357-crrj-2015dec10 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/vatican-curia/1357-crrj-2015dec10 sandberg: rethinking the notion of universality in judaism 2 “[t]he church and judaism cannot be represented as ‘two parallel ways to salvation,’ but that the church must “witness to christ as the redeemer for all” (no. i, 7). the christian faith confesses that god wants to lead all people to salvation, that jesus christ is the universal mediator of salvation, and that there is no ‘other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved’ (acts 4:12). [§35]….there cannot be two ways of salvation, therefore, since christ is also the redeemer of the jews in addition to the gentiles [§37]. the theme of christian universality is also prominent in section 6, dealing with the church’s mandate to evangelize. see especially §§40, 42, and 43. it is clear from even a cursory reading of these passages that the notion of christian universality is difficult to harmonize with the belief that the divine covenant with israel exists independently outside of christianity and is eternal and unbroken. thus, “another focus for catholics must continue to be the highly complex theological question of how christian belief in the universal salvific significance of jesus christ can be combined in a coherent way with the equally clear statement of faith in the never-revoked covenant of god with israel” (§37). in these passages, christian universality is essentially defined as “universal” salvation exclusively through jesus christ and “involv[ing] all mankind.” furthermore, the new covenant made the abrahamic covenant “universal” for all peoples, and israel without the church would “remain too particularist” and might not be able “to grasp the universality of its experience of god” (§33). god’s revelation in christ “has become totally manifest as the god of all peoples,” since jesus christ is the “universal mediator of salvation” (§35). since there can be only one way to salvation and not two, “christ is also the redeemer of the jews in addition to the gentiles” (§37). although institutionalized missionizing to jews is rejected, christians should still confess and proclaim “the historical realization of god’s universal will for salvation in christ jesus; (§42)” and that jews and christians are seen as the “people of god of jews and gentiles, united in christ” (§43). while the jews remain in god’s favor through an eternal covenant, the implication of this understanding of universality is that it is ultimately about god leading “all people to salvation through jesus christ as the ‘universal mediator of salvation’” (§35). therefore, jews are part of the universality of the church, but they have not yet achieved the ultimate goal of this universality, which is to find salvation in christ. from a jewish perspective, this particular notion of universality may appear ungenerous, patronizing, and even offensive, and appears to have elements of triumphalism and supersessionism. however, if we trace the historical development of the idea of “universality,” we see that the christian triumphalist version of universality may actually have its roots in judaism. 2. monotheism and universality 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) some scholars believe that it is possible to interpret early israelite monotheism itself as containing the seeds of triumphalism and supersessionism. for instance, nowhere does the hebrew bible acknowledge that any other religious system is equally legitimate to israelite monotheism or shares in spreading the knowledge of the one true god. the practices of the other nations are viewed as idolatrous, polytheistic, immoral, and misguided, as seen in the following selection of verses: “when you enter the land which the lord your god is giving you, you shall not learn to imitate the abhorrent practices of those nations” (deut. 18:9); “they imitated the nations that were about them, which the lord had forbidden them to emulate. they rejected all the commandments of the lord their god; they made molten idols for themselves….” (2 kings 17:15-16); “all the gods of the peoples are mere idols” (psalm 96:5). furthermore, the covenant between god and israel can be seen as exclusive to israel and exclusionary of other nations. as hava tirosh-samuelson notes: “some voices in the bible view the covenant with god exclusively, emphasizing the particularistic dimension of covenantal relations….” 2 louis jacobs also acknowledges that “some jews have spoken as if god’s chief, if not total, interest, so to speak, is with ‘his’ people.” 3 jon levenson notes that the outsider “may be condemned as an offense to the universal lord whom he does not acknowledge…or he may be regarded as a person of diminished dignity whose true worth can be realized only by his electing to join the favored sub-group….the particular religious tradition will tend to identify itself with humanness itself, and to imply the subhumanity of outsiders….” 4 this statement concerning biblical israel and outsiders could be re-read as the attitude of the triumphalist church toward the jews. even those texts which may reflect pre-monotheistic monolatry (i.e., worshiping one god while acknowledging that other gods exist) does little more than accept these other gods’ existence; these divinities are never praised or attributed with the power and ethical standards associated with the god of israel. for instance, exodus 15:11 states: “who is like you, o lord, among the celestials,” and exodus 20:3 declares: “you shall have no other gods besides me.” similarly, in the declaration that became the sh’ma, deuteronomy 6:4 commands, “hear, o israel! the lord is our god, the lord alone.” jeffrey tigay notes that this “is not a declaration of monotheism….though other peoples worship various beings and things they consider divine, israel is to recognize yhvh alone.” 5 such verses may imply that other gods exist but no value is attached to them. another biblical scholar states that “the question was not whether there is only one elohim, but 2 hava tirosh-samuelson, “a jewish perspective on religious pluralism,” macalester international 8 (2000): 77. 3 louis jacobs, a concise companion to the jewish religion (new york: oxford university press, 1999), 570. 4 jon d. levenson, “the universal horizon of biblical particularism,” in ethnicity and the bible, dana de priest, ed., (leiden: brill academic publishers, 2002), 144. 5 jeffrey tigay, the jewish publication society commentary to deuteronomy (philadelphia: jewish publication society, 1996), 76. sandberg: rethinking the notion of universality in judaism 4 whether there is any elohim like yahweh.” 6 even in the case of israelite monolatry, the god of israel is still incomparable and supreme, which could also be interpreted as a triumphalist viewpoint. furthermore, israelite monotheism can be seen as triumphalist in defining that the ultimate destiny of the other nations will inevitably be to acknowledge the singularity of the god of israel. psalm 67:4 looks forward to the time when “all peoples will praise you.” similarly does psalm 86:9 proclaim: “all the nations you have made will come to bow down before you, o lord, and they will pay honor to your name.” while the other nations do not presently accept the one god of israel, in the glorious future they will come to realize the singular truth of israelite monotheism. thus, the concept of “universality” in the tanakh can be defined as the belief that human history will culminate with all the nations becoming followers of its particular monotheistic teaching. hebrew universality also implies that becoming a monotheist as defined by the tanakh is superior to remaining a polytheist (or a christian), since only israelite monotheism is viewed as a universal ideal. this may have been the foundation for the later notion of christian universality, in which the ideal is for salvation to be extended to all the nations through christ. jews who object to the christian notion of universality should keep in mind that israelite monotheism holds a similar belief that the entire world is destined to become followers of israel’s god. in essence, both jewish and christian monotheism can be seen as triumphalist and superseding all other non-monotheistic beliefs. nicholas de lange defines this triumphalist universality in the following manner: “there is only one god for all humanity, and even if they do not recognize him now they will at a future time.” 7 jacob neusner also notes that “the logic of monotheism...yields little basis for tolerating other religions.” 8 david horell insists that in the christian concept of triumphalist universality, “everyone can live peacefully and tolerantly together, as long as it is under the umbrella of the system of values and practices that we determine and impose.” 9 jon levenson suggests that “another understanding of ‘universalism’ may teach us that in some future consummation, human variety will disappear altogether or submit permanently to an all-inclusive structure.” 10 pope francis recently commented on both islam and christianity: “it is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of islam. however, it is also possible to interpret the objective in matthew’s gos 6 john mckenzie, “aspects of old testament thought,” in raymond e. brown, joseph a. fitzmyer, and roland e. murphy, eds., the new jerome biblical commentary (upper saddle river, nj: prentice hall, 1990), 1287. 7 nicholas de lange, an introduction to judaism (cambridge, uk: cambridge university press, 2010), 32. 8 jacob neusner and bruce chilton, eds., religious tolerance in world religions (west conshohocken: templeton press, 2008), 61. 9 david horell, “the west’s christian world view is a hindrance to peaceful co-existence,” at https://theconversation.com/the-wests-christian-world-view-is-a-hindrance-to-peaceful-co-existence58350. 10 levenson, op. cit., 145. https://theconversation.com/the-wests-christian-world-view-is-a-hindrance-to-peaceful-co-existence-58350 https://theconversation.com/the-wests-christian-world-view-is-a-hindrance-to-peaceful-co-existence-58350 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) pel, where jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.” 11 3. inclusive universality on the other hand, there is another perspective in israelite monotheism that exhibits aspects of what i would term an “inclusive universality.” inclusive universality is more open and accepting of the legitimacy of others who relate to the divine in ways that differ from israel. louis jacobs acknowledges that judaism maintains a delicate balance between universalism and particularism in the israelite covenant, but insists that “in the very affirmation of god’s choice of israel the universalistic idea is implied….a universal god, in the sense of one who has equal concern for all peoples on earth, does not choose a particular people to achieve part of his purpose in creating the nations of the world, unless it be held that he has a special purpose for each of the peoples of the world.” 12 nicolas de lange notes that the fact “that the bible begins with the creation of the world and humanity instead of the beginnings of the people can be used as an illustration of the centrality of universalism in judaism….the bible is full of reminders to the jews that their god is the god of all the nations.” 13 jon levenson also focuses on the universality of creation: the placement of the story of cosmic creation by god (elohim) at the beginning of the entire bible (gen. 1:1-2:3) establishes a universal horizon for the particular story of israel…men and women, created together, exist on undifferentiated dry land. no spot on earth can claim the prestigious status of primordiality….all people are created equally in the divine image. the creation stories serve as a powerful warrant for a jewish doctrine of human solidarity…. 14 in fact, levenson also insists that the creation story “presents humankind as primordially monotheistic,” 15 but their form of monotheism is non-israelite. what this means for israel is that they are not the first people to be monotheists, nor do they hold the only legitimate conception of monotheism, but they are the people chosen to bring humanity, all made in the image of god, back to the original preisraelite monotheism that existed before humanity began to backslide into idolatry. yet if a return to the original universal monotheism is the goal of all of humanity, this could nevertheless imply that all nations, including israel, must give up their uniqueness and separate identity and become indistinguishable. however, 11 “islam and christianity both have ‘idea of conquest,’ says pope francis,” http://www.sltrib.com/home/3900882-155/islam-and-christianity-both-have-an. 12 jacobs, op. cit. 13 de lange, op. cit., 34. 14 levenson, op. cit., 144-145. 15 ibid., 148 http://www.sltrib.com/home/3900882-155/islam-and-christianity-both-have-an sandberg: rethinking the notion of universality in judaism 6 some scholars insist that the tanakh sees each nation as retaining its uniqueness upon becoming monotheists once again at the end of time. levenson states that “israel does not disappear into an undifferentiated humanity. rather, it and the nations survive, only now centered upon the service of yhvh, the universal creator, king, and redeemer….” in fact, levenson sees the concept of an undifferentiated humanity at the end of time as destructive to the very nature and uniqueness of both judaism and christianity. 16 michael walzer, in analyzing the universality at the end of time in isaiah 2, focuses on verse 4: “thus he will judge among the nations and arbitrate for the many peoples.” this verse assumes that there will be differences and even disputes among the various cultures that will survive into the world to come. in fact, they will still have conflicts because of their dissimilarities and various ways of understanding god, but they will be resolved immediately by one divine judge. 17 4. rabbinic views when turning to classical rabbinic judaism, both triumphalist and inclusive universality can be found as well. alan segal points out that some jews “refused to allow the possibility that some gentiles could be saved as gentiles, who even would not accept any gentiles into the israelite faith.” 18 rabbi akiva is associated with a ban against gentiles studying the torah at all. 19 in bt sanhedrin 105a, rabbi eliezer insists that gentiles will not be permitted to enter the world to come, making the culmination of human history exclusively for jews. rabbinic judaism, and the roman society in which it developed, may have been “convinced that heaven had selected it to rule the world. neither could accept with equanimity any challenge to its claims.” 20 ironically, the rabbis may have absorbed the triumphalist universality of rome into their own thinking. a somewhat intermediate position between triumphalist and inclusive universality can be found in rabbinic sources which insist that the torah is available to all people. the fact that rabbinic judaism developed a formal process by which a non-jew could convert to judaism is one aspect of rabbinic universality. one does not have to be born within israel but can join israel through conversion, and this emphasizes that the torah was not meant exclusively for native-born jews alone. in fact, the mekilta de r. ishmael states that the torah was given “in the wilderness publicly and openly, in a place that is free for all; everyone wishing to accept it could come and accept it.” 21 marc hirshman notes that “torah is availa 16 ibid, 167-168. 17 michael walzer, “universalism and jewish values,” https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/archive/morgenthau/114.html. 18 alan segal, “universalism in judaism and christianity,” in paul in his hellenistic context,” troels engberg-pedersen, ed.(edinburgh: t & t clark, 1994), 4. 19 see marc hirshman, “rabbinic universalism in the second and third centuries,” harvard theological review 93:2 (2000):115. 20 ibid., 113. 21 jacob lauterbach, mekilta de rabbi ishmael bahodesh 1(philadelphia: the jewish publication society, 2004), 198. https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/archive/morgenthau/114.html 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) ble to all those who come into the world. it remains in place, available for anyone to take it. torah is the litmus test for all humanity, not just the jews.” 22 in fact, the gentile who observes torah without converting still receives merit for it and “will enter the gates of paradise.” 23 hirshman labels this welcoming attitude to gentiles as rabbinic universalism, but while it is admirable, it is far from inclusive universality. the ultimate “litmus test” for worthiness is still the torah, which, although intended for the world, has become the possession of israel. this notion that the whole world needs to “come to torah” to be meritorious in the eyes of god is not that different from the christian triumphalist view that all must “come to jesus” in order to have salvation. yet a more developed sense of inclusive universality also appears in rabbinic sources. the doctrine of the noahide commandments, the rabbinic teaching that god made a covenant with all of humanity consisting of seven commandments that preceded the revelation at sinai, has an element of inclusive universality within it. the significance of this doctrine lies in its insistence that all human beings can participate in a covenantal relationship with god without the necessity of being a member of israel and can attain the virtues of morality and righteousness without full torah observance. another way in which inclusive universality appears in rabbinic literature involves the resident sojourner. the rabbinic community welcomed gentile sojourners into its midst, with the proviso that they participate in observing some of the torah commandments beyond the noahide laws, such as circumcision and the purity and food laws. these gentiles living among jews were not required to convert to judaism, only to acculturate to certain communal observances. thus, whether through following the noahide laws or becoming resident sojourners, the rabbis recognized that “righteous gentiles existed and that they were part of god’s plan without conversion.” 24 three final examples demonstrate aspects of inclusive universality in rabbinic judaism. talmud yerushalmi avodah zarah 2:1 expresses the view that “the ultimate stage of humanity will comprise both judaism and noahism”; rather than requiring gentiles to move beyond the noahide laws to full torah observance and conversion, they are allowed to partake of humanity’s ultimate culmination in their current status. 25 in a rebuttal against rabbi eliezer barring gentiles from the world to come, rabbi joshua insists that gentiles “who have not forgotten god” and are thus righteous will be accepted into the world to come (bt sanhedrin 105a). as long as the gentiles have an awareness of the divine within the created world, they are to be welcomed into the world to come. lastly, avot de r. natan 35 ends with a statement by rabban shimon ben gamliel: “in the future jerusalem will be the gathering place of all the nations and all the kingdoms, as it is said, ‘all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the lord, to jerusalem’ (jer. 3:17).” if we apply inclusive universality to this text, it teaches that the 22 hirshman, op. cit., 107. 23 ibid., p. 108. 24 segal, op. cit., 29. 25 see yosef green, “universalism and/or particularism,” jewish bible quarterly 30:1 (2002):6. sandberg: rethinking the notion of universality in judaism 8 nations can exist side by side with israel in a renewed creation that allows for the distinctive variety of humanity united in their diverse ways of recognizing the divine. while admittedly the setting is jerusalem, the very symbol of judaism, the nations are welcome as they are. 5. conclusion such sentiments reveal that it is possible for judaism to accept the notion of a redeemed world in which all people are equally worthy just as they are and however they express their connection to the divine. let me also suggest that the term “universality” in “gifts and calling” might be redefined in the future as inclusive universality, which would allow jews and other non-christians to thrive in a world that is redeemed by each community finding its own unique connection to the divine. if judaism and christianity could encourage all people in their own way to come to an understanding of the transcendent, that might also be seen as a fulfillment of jesus’s command to “make disciples of all the nations” in matthew 28:19. if judaism rejects christian triumphalist universality, which insists that the only path to salvation for humanity is through christ, then judaism must also reject its own triumphalist universality in which the only path to salvation is through the torah and conversion to judaism. the goal is not for all humanity to be united in an undifferentiated homogenization without ethnic or religious differences. inclusive universality allows for an optimistic view of a future in which all are welcome to join in each other’s traditions, but which also sees each distinct people or community as inherently worthy in its unique conception of the divine. judaism and christianity still struggle with defining what their role will be in the culmination of human history, but perhaps by reinterpreting the meaning of universality, we will move closer to that end. scjr 13, no. 1 (2018): 1-2 norman c. tobias jewish conscience of the church: jules isaac and the second vatican council preface by gregory baum (cham, switzerland: palgrave macmillan, 2017), hardcover, xxix + 307 pp. massimo faggioli mfaggiol@villanova.edu villanova university, villanova, pa 19085 jules isaac, the french-jewish historian of anti-judaism, is one of the heroes in the historical development of catholic theology about the jews and judaism in the twentieth century. norman tobias’ book fills an important gap in scholarship, offering both a biography of isaac and a history of nostra aetate. after a brief, introductory first chapter, the second chapter is on isaac’s early life. born in rennes into a judeo-lorraine family in 1877, isaac was raised in a staunchly republican home as an agnostic french jew. he came of age in france between the dreyfus affaire and the rise of catholic nationalism of the action française, later condemned by pius xi in 1926. tobias also focuses on his important friendship with the catholic poet charles péguy, who died in the world war i. following service as an intelligence officer in world war i, isaac rose to national prominence as an historian and co-author of a very popular textbook for public schools (the course d’histoire malet-isaac). this book remained in use until the 1970s in subsequent editions. after writing other historiographical works (such as a study of the origins of world war i, published in 1933), between 1941 and 1942 isaac began to study the presentation of judaism in the gospels: “in the autumn of 1941, father marie-benoît later recalled, judaism seemed to isaac as something old, dépassé, so isaac began to delve into christianity” (p. 69). in june 1942 isaac wrote an article on jesus and the jews with the title “quelques constatations basées sur la lecture des evangiles.” in october 1943, during the deportations of jews enforced by the vichy regime, isaac lost his entire family to the extermination camps in germany except for his son jean-claude, who survived auschwitz and a death march in january 1945. isaac luckily escaped deportation. until the end of the war he was in flight; a plan to reach london did not materialize. during that time he completed most of his book jésus et israël. faggioli: norman c. tobias’s jewish conscience of the church 2 he also was in contact with members of the resistance and future leaders in interfaith dialogue such as andré choraqui, a rabbinical student at the time. immediately after the war, isaac entered a debate about christianity and antisemitism with major catholic figures in france (such as henri daniel-rops, henri marrou, and jean daniélou). in 1947, the international emergency conference on anti-semitism at seelisberg, switzerland issued its “ten points.” they had their origins in isaac’s “eighteen points” for the conference, which in turn were based on the twenty-one propositions in jésus et israël. (tobias provides lists of the “eighteen points” drafted by isaac and of the “ten points” of seelisberg in the appendix [pp. 257-262]). his book was published in 1948, a few weeks after the establishment of the amitié judéo-chrétienne. it focused on the jewishness of jesus and his jewish context, relations between jesus and other jews, and allegations of jewish responsibility for the crucifixion. isaac aimed to rectify christian teaching of the old testament, of jews, and of relations between jesus and other jews. isaac was publicly active in supporting his ideas in 1947-48. he also had an audience with pope pius xii on october 16, 1949. this was a key chapter in the history of post-shoah catholic theological reflection on judaism, and he may have had some influence on pius xii’s views. (see his address “christians separated from rome and jews,” given on christmas eve of 1949 [p. 167].) however, there is no question about the consequences of the meeting in 1960 between isaac and pope john xxiii, which helped put jews and judaism on the agenda of vatican ii and ultimately led to the declaration nostra aetate. at this point, the focus of the book shifts. the last sixty pages are no longer a biography of isaac but a contribution to the history of nostra aetate and an analysis of vatican ii views on the jews from the point of view of isaac’s work. the book represents an important contribution to the recent scholarship on nostra aetate and the development of catholic teaching on judaism. it joins other major works published in the last few years, especially john connelly’s book from enemy to brother (2012). the most remarkable fact about isaac, in light of his key contribution to the development of catholic teaching on the jews, is that isaac’s spirituality “is shrouded in mystery. jewish by birth, a bar mitzvah, married according to jewish law and buried according to jewish ritual, he was not a practicing jew nor was he a member of any jewish congregation” (p. 247). one of isaac’s sons, daniel, converted to christianity. jules isaac remained more a humanist than a jewish thinker. tobias’ book also gives an inside account of the pre-history and history of nostra aetate thanks to his interviews with gregory baum and thomas stransky. the preface to the book (pp. vii-xi) is one of the last texts written by baum, who died on october 18, 2017. in this sense tobias’ work honors not just the memory of jules isaac, but also of baum, one of the most important bridge-builders between the catholic church and judaism, in those key years between world war ii and vatican ii. the death of jesus bernauer, heroic collective action bernauer 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college heroic collective action: a people’s blessing? j am es b er nauer , s j b o s t o n c o l l e g e volume 6 (2011) http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): bernauer 1-12 bernauer, heroic collective action bernauer 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr is contemporary reflection on heroism out of balance, placing far too much emphasis on the activity of individuals rather than on that of groups or communities? and is that distorting perspective all too often imposed on the development of jewish-christian relations as well? in viewing the progress of the contemporary dialogue, do we automatically think of figures such as pope john xxiii and jules isaac rather than the widespread networks that have transformed the conversation between jews and christians? certainly such an approach is understandable, for the last century saw more than its fair share of powerful leaders who might have fostered an excessive emphasis on individuals. a quick review would call up such heroic figures as mahatma gandhi, franklin delano roosevelt, winston churchill, pope john paul ii, david ben-gurion, nelson mandela. and then, of course, there were the dictators: adolf hitler, vladimir lenin, joseph stalin. this essay proposes a shift of focus to a greater appreciation of heroic collective action without denying its relationship to leaders, many of whom, though, are anonymous. it is a philosophical exercise that certainly reflects my desire to do justice to the zeitgeist of 1989 and perhaps even to that of 2011 although, still in its midst, it is too early to comment on this year. the events of 1989 invite all of us to an augustinian curiosity, to imitate him in doing a history of the present. augustine asked, what does the fall of rome mean spiritually for us who are living through this dramatic event? how did it come about? let us in turn ask, “what does the fall of the berlin wall or of communism, or of ancient barriers between christians and jews mean for us spiritually? how should we account for their collapse and, most importantly, what should we learn about the processes that transformed them?” in trying to respond to these questions, i became aware of how much my own attitude to action and change has been shaped by revolutions, even before those of 1989: there was the 1956 hungarian revolution, the bloody photos from which frightened me as a youngster; the civil rights, women’s and anti-war movements of the fifties, sixties and seventies; the general cultural upheavals of the nineteen sixties; the roman catholic revolution carried forward by the vatican council; the iranian revolution which i followed during my student years in paris where michel foucault was an important commentator on that event; the philippine revolution of 1986; and, finally, the arab revolutions of 2011. living through such important events, even from afar, may generate a foolish confidence that one is able to grasp how such transformative episodes are produced. the two thinkers upon whom i most rely in reflecting about historical change perhaps do not ease this problem because hannah arendt was sharply criticized for her view of the hungarian revolution and michel foucault was mocked for his writings on the iranian revolution. 1 there are other developments that seem to me at least also to mandate careful scrutiny of the intellectual resources we have for understanding radical change. one is the spectacle afforded by the failure of the field of russian studies to discern, let alone explain, the rapid collapse of the soviet union. there is an even more compelling reason for us who are occupied by the humanities to reconsider how we approach heroism: what i will call the “great complicity,” the enthusiastic engagement of so many trained by our traditional philosophical and theological texts in the intellectual fantasies of fascism, marxism and national socialism. even as they promoted political practices that savaged people’s lives, fascist, marxist, and nazi thinkers laid claim to an innocence, to a search for truth that they said 1 on arendt as political commentator, see margaret canovan, hannah arendt: a reinterpretation of her political thought (new york: cambridge university press, 1992) especially 235-238, and walter laqueur, “the arendt cult,” journal of contemporary history 33, 4 (1998): 483-496. several of the essays attacking foucault on iran may be found in foucault and the iranian revolution, ed. janet afary and kevin anderson (chicago: university of chicago press, 2005). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): bernauer 1-12 bernauer, heroic collective action bernauer 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr acquitted them from the consequences for others of their personal searches. was it perhaps the desire for that justification that led philosophers to cast such a dark view on the crowd in history, the masses in society? 2 doesn’t that great complicity mandate that intellectual bias be a special object of philosophical examination in the 21 st century? some might retort, was it not the interest in action itself that subverted philosophy’s intellectual independence in the first place? i hope not but we should recognize that ours must be a certain type of personal interest, namely, that we become aware of the powers operating on us and how those powers shape our judgments. here i think of aleksandr solzhenitsyn and his prayer of praise to the prison because he recognized that, if he had not been arrested and imprisoned, he would never have appreciated the character of his society. 3 solzhenitsyn might seem, however, a contrast to my focus here which is on collective action because he was so obviously an heroic individual. it is important to recognize, however, that while he was certainly himself heroic, his selfunderstanding was as a witness to those millions with whom he shared the fate of the gulag archipelago. both foe and friend acknowledged this collective weight. one of the most remarkable set of documents to be read from the previous century may be the astonishing discussions about solzhenitsyn among his foes, the top leaders of the soviet union. it is difficult to capture the fear and anxiety this superpower’s leaders felt before this writer-witness. let me cite an excerpt from the minutes of the january 7, 1974 politburo meeting over which chairman brezhnev presided. the speaker is yuri andropov, later to succeed brezhnev as the leader of the soviet union itself: “his 2 one thinks for example of such works as josé ortega y gasset’s the revolt of the masses (new york: norton, 1932). 3 aleksandr solzhenitsyn, the gulag archipelago 1918-1956 (new york: harper & row, 1975), ii:615-617. gulag archipelago is not a work of fiction; it is a political document. this is dangerous...on the whole, there are hundreds and thousands of people among whom solzhenitsyn will find support.” 4 that solzhenitsyn’s threat was this collective presence was also the judgment of a friend, one of the principal ararchitects of the czechoslovakian “velvet revolution.” václav havel wrote that solzhenitsyn’s political influence “does not reside in some exclusive political power he possesses as an individual, but in the experience of those millions of gulag victims which he simply amplified and communicated to millions of other people of good will.” 5 the mere desire to understand does not guarantee, of course, access to reality. one need only recall the large scale eastern european uprisings of 1989. despite what was so visible on the television or film screens, commentators all too often led us to subordinate these popular movements to some individual leader. who was responsible for them and the fall of communism, they asked? was it gorbachev? ronald reagan? pope john paul ii? in an interview in november of 2009, lech walesa, one of the founders of solidarity and later president of poland, was sharply critical of that line of questioning. he said: that’s why when i see images of bush, kohl and gorbachev under the headline “three fathers of the fall of the wall,” it looks more like chance to me than anything. they merely implemented the desires expressed by the people...in truth, they were only accidental fathers of the fall of the wall—forced into action by the masses... there is a risk right now that we might lose the victory that we fought so hard for. the question is whether we 4 the solzhenitsyn files, ed. michael scammell (chicago: edition q, inc., 1995), document 99, 284. 5 václav havel, “the power of the powerless,” the power of the powerless: citizens against the state in central-eastern europe, ed. john keane (armonk, n.y.:m.e. sharpe, inc.), 60. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): bernauer 1-12 bernauer, heroic collective action bernauer 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr have learned from our experiences or whether we need another whack upside the head from history. the masses learned, but after the victory the masses handed power back to the politicians. and they forgot that it was we who won the victory. we might have to set the masses in motion once again. 6 are we, especially those of us trained in western intellectual traditions, prejudiced against the exploration and crediting of collective action? the general lure of the isolated hero may be one source of this bias. just recall the iconic image of the sole dissident standing in front of a column of tanks in tiananmen square in june, 1989. 7 but are there far more entrenched roots for our failure to acknowledge collective action than the appeal of courageous individuals? is it in part the legacy of our very vision of enlightenment descended from socrates and plato and the parable of the cave? plato has only one prisoner set free in the story and socrates tells us of that individual’s return to the others in the cave: “they would laugh at him and say that he had gone up only to come back with his sight ruined; it was worth no one’s while even to attempt the ascent. if they could lay hands on the man who was trying to set them free and lead them up, they would kill him.” 8 again here is walesa, who spoke of the popular reaction to the 1979 visit to poland of john-paul ii: “we found that there were millions of us. for the first time, the communists were not able to stage a demonstration that was larger than ours. as a result, 6 lech walesa, “‘it’s good that gorbachev was a weak politician,’ spiegel online interview with l. walesa,” (november 6, 2009), (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,659752,00.html), accessed december 14, 2011. 7 “tiananmen square protester,” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdkgtienuwi), accessed december 14, 2011. 8 the republic, book vii, 514 a-521 b. they felt weak, and this was an important element in their ultimate defeat.” 9 interestingly, a major commentator on the 1989 events, timothy garton ash, agrees with walesa. “if i was forced to name a single date,” he writes, “for the ‘beginning of the end’ in this inner history of eastern europe, it would be june 1979...i do believe that the pope’s first great pilgrimage to poland was that turning point. here, for the first time, we saw that massive, sustained, yet supremely peaceful and self-disciplined manifestation of social unity, the gentle crowd against the party-state, which was both the hallmark and the essential domestic catalyst of change in 1989...” 10 does expectation that there will be a single great leader, a possible intellectual inheritance for both christians and jews from the messianic dream of a savior, distort their vision of the good as well? and does that, in turn, impel us to confine the face of evil to the visages of a hitler, a stalin, a mao? f i have learned anything from historical investigations of hitler, it is that he cannot be understood apart from the elites who empowered him. wasn’t hitler’s greatest talent the ability to recognize others’ weaknesses of character and to persuade people to corrupt themselves? there are several examples of successful collective action that, cumulatively, should complement traditional regard for individual heroes. they are presented here as stimulants for how we might more adequately approach the history of jewishchristian relations. in addition to the place occupied in that history by official statements and particular leaders, these examples recommend a path of more intensive scrutiny for the social and cultural interactions of average jews and christians. 9 lech walesa, “gorbachev.” 10 timothy garton ash, we the people: the revolution of ’89 witnessed in warsaw, budapest, berlin & prague (cambridge: granta books, 1990), 133. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,659752,00.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdkgtienuwi studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): bernauer 1-12 bernauer, heroic collective action bernauer 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr that is a project for the future but, without it, one might argue the development of jewish-christian relations is misunderstood. the four examples are: 1) the yad vashem project of recognizing the “righteous among the nations”; 2) the hungarian revolution; 3) the development of religious toleration; and 4) the place the holocaust has taken on in contemporary reflection. 1) i am currently studying a very admirable group of people who risked or lost their lives attempting to save jewish life during the holocaust. the state of israel has named them the “righteous among the nations” and, since 1953, it has tried to identify and honor these righteous. in recent years i have held a regular experiment with students who take my holocaust-related courses. on the first class day i ask them to estimate how many righteous people israel has discovered. almost without exception my students give figures far, far lower than the actual number. last year, for example, only two students out of 30 guessed a higher number; the other students gave estimates of 25, 50, a few hundred or a thousand. as of 2010 the actual number is over 23,788 and yad vashem, the israeli institution charged with the responsibility for certifying these heroes, judges that that figure represents but a small percentage of those who should be honored. 11 how do we account for this discrepancy between the guessed and the actual numbers? are we inculcated with a view of collective human failure during that period? here is the judgment of the very heroic polish resister, jan karski: it “is not true that the jews were totally abandoned. over half a million jews survived the holocaust in europe. someone helped them: nuns and peasants, 11 see “the righteous among the nations: about the righteous, statistics,” http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/righteous/statistics.asp (accessed december 14, 2011). in conversations with staff at yad vashem i was given the figure that perhaps only 10% have been recognized of those who would qualify for the honor. yad vashem has erected a “memorial to the anonymous rescuer” on its campus to call attention to this population. workers and underground organizations.” the jews “were abandoned by governments, social structures, church hierarchies, but not by ordinary men and women. the organized structures fell short of expectation, but not ordinary people. and there were millions of such people.” 12 it is important to recall as well that often networks of people were required to save one individual life and, thus, even yad vashem’s recognition of individual heroes may obscure the communities that were indispensable for their heroic actions. far more extensive would be those, of course, who would need to be recognized for creating a moral climate in which rescue of the vulnerable was perceived as a duty. the best example of these broader networks is given by the nation of denmark where more than 90% of the jews were saved through the collective action of numberless danish citizens. yad vashem’s published encyclopedia of heroic action states, “in fact, the entire danish nation is worthy of receiving the title, righteous among nations. yad vashem expressed its recognition of the danish people’s rescue operation with a special plaque in the garden of the righteous among the nations...” 13 2) the hungarian revolution. few philosophers have sought a model of collective action that does justice to people’s freedom to act as a group. prominent among them is hannah arendt. while other commentators saw only the defeat of the 1956 hungarian revolution, it was she who argued for its significance as a spontaneous outburst of the human yearning for freedom and truth. she wrote, “the amazing thing about the hungarian revolution is that there was no civil war. for the hungarian army disintegrated in hours and the dictatorship was stripped of all power in a couple of days. no group, no class in 12 “the mission that failed, a polish courier who tried to help the jews: an interview with jan karski,” dissent (summer, 1987), 334. 13 encyclopedia of the righteous among the nations, europe (part i), ed. israel gutman (jerusalem: yad vashem, 2007), lii. http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/righteous/statistics.asp studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): bernauer 1-12 bernauer, heroic collective action bernauer 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the nation opposed the will of the people once it had become known and its voice had been heard in the market place.” she cites with approval an hungarian professor’s remark: “it was unique in history, that the hungarian revolution had no leaders. it was not organized; it was not centrally directed. the will for freedom was the moving force in every action.” it is astonishing at how prophetic her view turned out to be. although the communist system survived in 1956, she thought that year’s revolutionary events should not be forgotten: “if they promise anything at all, it is much rather a sudden and dramatic collapse of the whole regime than a gradual normalization.” 14 arendt’s most penetrating appreciation of collective action is her treatment of civil disobedience and its difference from conscientious objection. whereas the latter is individual and rooted in conscience, the former is collective in nature and political in its ambition. she follows tocqueville in paying tribute to the novelty of america’s emphasis on voluntary associations and the power they exhibit. of civil disobedience she writes: the greatest fallacy in the present debate seems to me the assumption that we are dealing with individuals, who pit themselves subjectively and conscientiously against the laws and customs of the community—an assumption that is shared by the defenders and detractors of civil disobedience. the fact is that we are dealing with organized minorities, who stand against assumed inarticulate, though hardly ‘silent’ majorities, and i think it is undeniable that these majorities have changed in mood and opinion to an astounding degree under the pressure of the minorities. 15 14 hannah arendt, the origins of totalitarianism (new york: world publishing, 1958), 496, 482, 510. 15 hannah arendt, “civil disobedience,” crises of the republic (new york: harcourt brace jovanovich, 1972), 98-99. 3) religious toleration. it is urgent that our world think about issues of religious toleration. perhaps the growth toward toleration of different religions is the premier example of an achievement of collective action. yet those traditional histories that emphasize the progressive triumph of ideas taught by figures such as locke, voltaire, and madison most often ignore this. a recently published alternative history by benjamin kaplan encourages a shift of focus. he argues that people developed practices that made it possible for different religious communities to live in peaceful existence without first creating the intellectual convictions that we tend to presume as essential conditions for that state. in fact there was a “nitty-gritty practice of toleration” that marked europe with “confessional coexistence” or “religious pluralism” well before the modern notion of toleration developed. according to kaplan, religious tolerance was a social practice, a “form of behavior: peaceful coexistence with others who adhered to a different religion.” it: required no “principle of mutual acceptance,” much less an embrace of diversity for its own sake, as our modern concept of tolerance presumes. despite the arguments of the philosophers, most europeans continued to the very end of the early modern era to use the word tolerate in its traditional meaning: to suffer, endure, or put up with something objectionable. it was a pragmatic move, a grudging acceptance of unpleasant realities, not a positive virtue. in its very enactment the people doing the tolerating made powerful, if implicit, claims about the truth of their own religion and the false, deviant character of others’. 16 the perspective of collective action seems invited by the complexity of our cultural development. as kaplan writes: 16 benjamin kaplan, divided by faith: religious conflict and the practice of toleration in early modern europe (cambridge, ma: belknap press of harvard university press, 2007), 8, 11, see 336. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): bernauer 1-12 bernauer, heroic collective action bernauer 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr early modern europe had both its butchers and its martyrs, whose actions stunned contemporaries and left indelible marks on their culture. but the vast majority were neither, nor did their conceptions of christian piety oblige them to be. even when europe’s churches preached intolerance most vehemently, they also taught countervailing values, like love for one’s neighbor and respect for the law. religious obligations and secular commitments were difficult to disentangle in early modern culture. honor, loyalty, friendship, affection, kinship, civic duty, devotion to the common weal: these bonds had themselves a sacred character that might reinforce or complicate a person’s religious allegiance. and even when most at odds, rival confessions continued to share a common christian heritage, derived from antiquity and the middle ages, just as christians, jews, and muslims shared a common scriptural one. 17 even one of those fierce seventeenth-century jesuits who was charged with rolling back the protestant reformation could say of the protestants: that “their heresy is bad, but they are good neighbors and brethren, to whom we are linked by bonds of love in the common fatherland.” 18 considering our current global situation, this history provides grounds for hope. alternative religious communities and the cultures that arise from them are able to live together in peace and mutual respect. strictly secular ideologies are neither necessary nor, arguably, as strong as religious faiths in grounding practices of toleration and reconciliation. 4) the holocaust. a final example of collective action is the place that the holocaust (shoah) has taken in contemporary historical consciousness and moral reflection. although 17 benjamin kaplan, divided by faith, 9. 18 benjamin kaplan, divided by faith, 76. karl jaspers had raised the question of german guilt for nazi crimes in the immediate aftermath of the war, his lectures stand out because they were so rare. just the desire to investigate the genocide was cause for suspicion. this was true even in the united states: raul hilberg, the first outstanding holocaust historian, tells us in his memoirs how he approached franz neumann in the 1950s at columbia university to direct his dissertation on the destruction of european jews. hilberg writes, “neumann said yes, but he knew that at this moment i was separating myself from the mainstream of academic research to tread in territory that had been avoided by the academic world and the public alike. what he said to me in three words was, ‘it’s your funeral.’” 19 when we turn to german society, we must recognize that there has been a remarkable growth in that nation’s understanding of and remorse for the holocaust. surveys of israeli popular opinion regularly demonstrate high regard for how germany has come to grips with its 20 th -century history, an astonishing tribute to the possibilities for reconciliation between nations. avi primor, the former israeli ambassador to germany, said in 2008, “where in the world has one ever seen a nation that erects memorials to immortalize its own shame? only the germans had the bravery and the humility.” 20 although most of us are probably more familiar with the frequently decried immediate postwar silence among germans, we should educate ourselves more about the networks of germans who were not silent and who spoke out of a deep personal affection for the german-jewish culture that had thrived in germany before the nazi era. “participation in or knowledge of nazi crimes led thousands of their compatriots to postwar silence. but the experience of shared persecution and witness to the persecution of others was a common denominator for the founders of both 19 raul hilberg, the politics of memory (chicago: ivan r. dee, 1996), 66. 20 cited in nicholas kulish, “75 years after hitler’s ascent, a germany that won’t forget,” the new york times (january 29, 2008), a 1 & 4. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): bernauer 1-12 bernauer, heroic collective action bernauer 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr germanys. after the war these shared experiences led them to express solidarity with nazism’s victims.” 21 this collective awareness evolved into the practical proposal of west germany’s massive reparation payments as well as the symbolic act of constructing a memorial to the murdered jews of europe in the very heart of the reunited berlin’s government quarter. perhaps it is in the development of a more critical perspective within both protestant and catholic churches on their histories with and attitudes toward jews that we find one of the greatest achievements of the shared activity of the group. let me focus on catholicism and the need to place its development within a broader collective perspective. initial papal statements at the end of the war provide reasons for why the catholic church delayed confronting its failures of conduct during the period of national socialism. pope pius xii’s address to the college of cardinals in june 1945 set the tone for the vatican’s approach to catholic activity during the holocaust for the following thirteen years. the speech included a strong defense of the concordat that he had negotiated with the nazi government in 1933. he presented the church as a victim, as a survivor of the “sorrowful passion” which nazi enmity forced upon it. at the same time he portrayed the church as a unified force of resistance to nazi attacks, declaring, “to resist such attacks millions of courageous catholics, men and women, closed their ranks around their bishops, whose valiant and severe pronouncements never failed to resound even in these last years of war.” 22 21 jeffrey herf, divided memory: the nazi past in the two germanys (cambridge, ma: harvard university press, 1997), 376. it would go beyond the scope of my essay to draw the sharp distinctions that would need to be made between the two postwar german states in their approaches to the holocaust. west germany was far more adequate in recognizing its responsibilities than was the communist german democratic republic. 22 pius xii, “nazism and peace” (june 2, 1945) in the catholic mind 43, 992 (august, 1945): 454, 451. i develop the catholic response to the shoah at greater length in j. bernauer, “the holocaust and the search for forthe only comment that suggested a less than heroic performance came when the pope spoke of the incompatibility of pagan nazism and catholicism and admitted that not all catholics had understood that at the time. he said, “some even among the faithful themselves were too blinded by their prejudices or allured by political advantage.” 23 this did not lead to any conviction about a new relationship with the jews as is shown in the fact that the one catholic group working in germany for improved catholic-jewish relations received a warnwarning from the vatican in 1950 that dialogue between the two faiths risked the danger of making it appear as if the two religions were equal. 24 an examination of the reasons for pope pius xii’s general attitude at this time is beyond the scope of this paper but the effect of his strategy was to encourage german church leaders to rejoice in the triumphant survival of the church and to stress their own sufferings under the nazis rather than to acknowledge their own failures during that period. 25 they claimed that they did not wish to further demoralize or divide their people over the issue of what should have been done during the nazi years. 26 the very real menace that the soviet union represented at that time both sustained the anxiety about communism which the national socialists had exploited so effectively and also encouraged people to focus on the future. 27 giveness: an invitation to the society of jesus?” studies in the spirituality of jesuits 36:2 (summer, 2004) 1-41. 23 pius xii, “nazism and peace,” 452. 24 see michael phayer, the catholic church and the holocaust, 1930-1965 (bloomington: indiana university press, 2000), 189-190, 207. 25 see damian van melis, “‘strengthened and purified through ordeal by fire’: ecclesiastical triumphalism in the ruins of europe,” life after death: approaches to a cultural and social history of europe during the 1940s and 1950s, ed. richard bessel and dirk schumann (new york: cambridge university press, 2003), 231-241. 26 heinz hürten, deutsche katholiken 1918-1945 (paderborn: ferdinand schöningh, 1992), 542-558. 27 horst heitzer, “deutscher katholizismus und ‘bolschewismusgefahr’ bis 1933,” historisches jahrbuch ii, 103 (1993): 355-387. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): bernauer 1-12 bernauer, heroic collective action bernauer 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr nevertheless, there were strong german catholic voices demanding a more self-critical examination. 28 although pope pius xii was beloved by the german bishops, a brief struggle may nevertheless be detected in the various drafts of the bishops’ first pastoral letter after the war which they issued at fulda on august 23, 1945. as a result of berlin’s bishop konrad von preysing’s insistence, a much stronger statement was included in the final version than had been anticipated. it reads, “we deeply deplore that many germans, even of our own ranks, allowed themselves to be misled by the false teachings of national socialism, remaining indifferent to the crimes against human freedom and human dignity; many abetted crimes by their attitude; many became criminals themselves.” 29 this tone was not to be preserved in later statements which embraced general denials of catholic responsibility and particular defenses of their episcopal conduct. it is striking that there is only one other collective statement of regret in these immediate postwar years. “the 1948 statement of the mainz katholikentag contritely admitted crimes against ‘the people of jewish stock’.” 30 28 for example, see vera bücker, die schulddiskussion im deutschen katholizismus nach 1945 (bochum: studienverlag dr. n. brockmeyer, 1989) and konrad repgen, “die erfahrung des dritten reiches und das selbstverständnis der deutschen katholiken nach 1945,” die zeit nach 1945 als thema kirchlicher zeitgeschichte, ed. victor conzemius, m. greschat and h. kocher (göttingen: vandhoeck and ruprecht, 1988), 127-179. more recently, two fine collections of essays appeared that examine christian failures in the nazi period: die katholische schuld? katholizismus im dritten reich zwischen arrangement und widerstand, ed. rainer bendel (münster:lit verlag, 2002) and kirche der sünder—sündige kirche: beispiele für den umgang mit schuld nach 1945, ed. rainer bendel (münster: lit verlag, 2000). 29 “pastoral” of the german bishops at fulda (aug. 23, 1945) in the catholic mind 43, 995 (november, 1945): 692. for a discussion of the drafts, see michael phayer, “the postwar german catholic debate over holocaust guilt,” kirchliche zeitgeschichte 8:2 (1995): 429-430. 30 michael phayer, “the german catholic church after the holocaust,” holocaust and genocide studies 10: 2 (fall, 1996): 154. the statement may be found in die kirchen und das judentum: dokumente von 1945 bis 1985, ed. however, outside the official statements, there was lively discussion among german catholics. konrad adenauer, who was to become the first chancellor of the federal republic, sent a letter to a bonn pastor on february 23, 1946, in which he wrote: the german people, also for the most part its bishops and priests, cooperated in the national socialist agitation. it permitted itself to be nazified without offering resistance—yes, even with enthusiasm. therein lies its guilt...i believe that if the bishops had altogether on a given day spoken out from their pulpits in opposition, much could have been avoided. that did not happen and there is no excuse for it. to the contrary, had the bishops been thrown into prison or concentration camps, that would not have been a misfortune. 31 even earlier a 1945 statement of a group of rhineland catholics admitted that they had not anticipated how nazi antisemitism could lead to gas chambers. there was also the very critical voice of an “open letter on the church” by the catholic spiritual writer ida friederike goerres which appeared in 1946 and which attacked the german catholic church on a variety of fronts as “career minded prelates, a power hungry institution, authoritarian clergy, and tendencies toward mediocrity, insensitivity and triumphalism.” a widely discussed article by the catholic anti-nazi writer eugen kogon, who had been imprisoned for almost six years at the buchenwald concentration rolf rendtorff and hans hermann henrix (paderborn: verlag bonifatiusdruckerei, 1989), 239-240. 31 frank buscher and michael phayer, “german catholic bishops and the holocaust, 1940-1952,” german studies review xi:3 (october, 1988): 485. goerres letter appeared in a new journal, the frankfurter hefte. the german text may be found in die kirchen im dritten reich, volume 2, ed. george denzler and volker fabricius (frankfurt am main: fischer, 1984), 255. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): bernauer 1-12 bernauer, heroic collective action bernauer 10 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr camp, questioned the postwar moral authority of the german bishops as a result of their conduct during the hitler regime. 32 an important window into the german bishops’ view of this criticism appears in a fascinating, unpublished document which reports on an august 23, 1947 conversation between an official of the american military government and several german bishops. they strongly reject the criticisms of their conduct under the nazis. 33 cardinal josef frings of cologne, who was the titular head of the german church at the time of the interview, asked his questioner, “who has the right to demand that the bishops should have chosen a form of fight that would have sent them to the gallows with infallible certainty, and which would have resulted in a campaign of extermination against the church?” bishop albert stohr of mainz denied that the survivors of concentration camps were more courageous than the bishops whom they were now criticizing. he claimed, “most of them were thrown in concentration camps against their will as a result of indirect utterances and secret actions. also, many of them became victims of their own imprudence and rashness which have nothing to do with courage.” archbishop lorenz jaeger of paderborn did voice the fear that, if the bishops had challenged the nazi regime more forcefully, there was real danger that “many members of our church, who had been blinded and misled by a deceitful propaganda would all the 32 phayer, “the postwar german catholic debate over holocaust guilt,” 430432. kogon was the author of the first major study of the concentration camp world, the theory and practice of hell (new york: farrar, straus and giroux, 1950). 33 a copy of the document, “the catholic church and dr. kogon” is in the john riedel papers, series 1, box 2, catholic church and nazism file in the archives of marquette university. riedel was chief of catholic affairs for the office of military government for germany from 1946 to 1948 and later a professor of philosophy at marquette. the official was richard akselrad. my attention was called to this by michael phayer’s article, “the postwar german catholic debate over holocaust guilt,” 435-436. i want to thank marquette for giving me access to these papers. more have been driven into the arms of national socialism by too sharp a language.” bishop johannes dietz of fulda argued that the conduct of the german bishops followed the highest model: “the basically pastoral attitude of the church is taken from the higher example set by jesus when he was brought before the high priests, before king herod, and pilate.” 34 this model of humility certainly reflected a catholic theology which praised the cultivation of passive virtues as particularly appropriate for the christian life; virtues such as obedience, patience, gentleness, mortification. 35 it did contrast, however, with the very aggressive approach the bishops took to the allied authorities whom they denounced for the denazification program, for the war crimes trials the allies were conducting and to whom they submitted pleas for leniency for some of the most notorious nazi criminals. 36 all too often the determination of the bishops to repudiate any notion of collective guilt encouraged catholics to excuse themselves of moral responsibility for the nazi phenomenon. 37 after 1959 there was an amazing transformation in the german episcopacy’s attitude toward the holocaust. various reasons account for the change. pope pius xii had passed 34 “the catholic church and dr. kogon,” 2-4. 35 see jakob nötges, nationalsozialismus und katholizismus (cologne: gide verlag, 1931), especially 193-195. 36 for this see phayer, “the postwar german catholic debate over holocaust guilt,” and frank buscher and michael phayer, “german catholic bishops and the holocaust, 1940-1952” german studies review xi, 3 (october, 1988): 463-485. making pleas for nazi war criminals was not just a catholic phenomenon as robert webster shows in his “opposing ‘victor’s justice’: german protestant churchmen and convicted war criminals in western europe after 1945,” holocaust and genocide studies 15:1 (spring, 2001): 47-69. 37 see karen riechert, “der umgang der katholischen kirche mit historischer und juristischer schuld anlässlich der nürnberger hauptkriegsverbrecherprozesse.” in siegerin in trümmern: die rolle der katholischen kirche in der deutschen nachkriegsgesellschaft, ed. joachim köhler and damian van melis (stuttgart: verlag w. kohlhammer, 1998), 18-41. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): bernauer 1-12 bernauer, heroic collective action bernauer 11 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr away the year before; almost all of the bishops who had lived during the third reich had either died or been replaced; most importantly, germans themselves were conducting trials of fellow germans who had committed atrocities during the war. 38 on the occasion of the eichmann trial in 1961, the german bishops requested atonement for the crimes against the jewish people and composed a prayer for those who had been murdered. this request for atonement was repeated a year later in a pastoral letter released on the eve of the vatican council’s opening. 39 this period after pius xii culminates at vatican council ii when the german jesuit cardinal augustin bea gives a speech calling for a new relationship with the jewish people and links his support for a conciliar declaration to the nazi genocide of the jews. 40 when the declaration was adopted, the german bishops at the council made a special statement welcoming it; they too pointed to the genocide as part of its context. 41 although this growth in understanding by church leaders is to be applauded, it is important to recognize yet again that this development and the fresh contours of the relationship between christians and jews are most adequately thought of as collective actions. they will not be appreciated if understood as primarily defined by an ecclesiastical teaching office imagined in the model of a pyramid or a hierarchy. “nostra aetate” is rooted in fundamental collective transformations within the catholic world that, to my mind, are yet to be satisfactorily charted and analyzed. but in the front ranks of those 38 “the german catholic church after the holocaust,” 161-162. 39 die kirchen und das judentum: dokumente von 1945 bis 1985, 241-243. 40 see stjepan schmidt, augustin bea, the cardinal of unity (new rochelle: new city press, 1992), 505-506. 41 die kirchen und das judentum: dokumente von 1945 bis 1985, 244. english translations of the major documents addressing jewish-christian relations may be found on the web site “dialogika” (http://www.ccjr.us/dialogikaresources). transformations are the legions of scholars who have unearthed the christian sources of practices that came to be murderous and who have made the holocaust a pivotal event in human history. perhaps pope john paul ii revealed most dramatically the source of the current emotional and intellectual refiguring of christian-jewish relations in his 1988 visit to and lamentation at austria’s mauthausen concentration camp. he pleaded with the dead: tell us, what direction should europe and humanity follow “after auschwitz”...and “after mauthausen”? is the direction we are following away from those past dreadful experiences the right one? tell us, how should today’s person be and how should this generation of humanity live in the wake of the great defeat of the human being? how must that person be? how much should be required of himself? tell us, how must nations and societies be? how must europe go on living? speak, you have the right to do so—you who have suffered and lost your lives. we have the duty to listen to your testimony. 42 we may hope that their testimony will guide ecclesiastical as well as secular understanding in the future. that understanding must be in dialogue with the events of 1989 that, as one commentator opined, was the twentieth century’s greatest year. it may be best described as the year that witnessed the heroic collective action of people who had drawn lessons from 20 th century totalitarianisms. these anonymous communities had overthrown that century’s worst burden, fear. and may that become a guiding blessing for our future in the upheavals in the arab world, the social protests in israel, the american “occupy” movements, and the political demonstrations in 42 “lamentation at mauthausen concentration camp, june 24, 1988” in spiritual pilgrimage: texts on jews and judaism 1979-1995, ed. eugene fisher and leon klenicki (new york: crossroad, 1995), 117-118. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): bernauer 1-12 bernauer, heroic collective action bernauer 12 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr russia. historical change has redirected our sight to the heroism of collective action. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-2 morris m. faierstein, trans. and ed. yudisher theriak: an early modern yiddish defense of judaism (detroit: wayne state university press, 2016), hardcover, x + 180 pp. joshua johnson joshua.a.johnson@wsu.edu washington state university, pullman, wa 99164 in the early modern period, as in previous periods, many christians composed anti-jewish tracts. samuel friedrich brenz’s jüdischer abgestreiffter schlangenbalg (“the jewish shed-off snakeskin”), published in nurenberg and ausgburg in 1614, is but one example of this genre, and not itself noteworthy. however, it prompted zalman zvi, a jew from aufhausen, to compose a detailed refutation, yudisher theriak (“jewish antidote”). this latter work is unique as the only book published in germany and written in a form of early modern yiddish that responded to an anti-jewish attack. this translation by morris m. faierstein is therefore to be welcomed. in his epilogue, zvi states he writes for christians, which may account for the germanized dialect. however, this statement seems to be at odds with his repeated references to another book he wrote that, he says, was intended for christians, implying that he intended the theriak to be a sort of handbook for jewish apologetics. zvi, perhaps because he personally knew brenz, who was a jewish convert to christianity, presents a vigorous, line-by-line rebuttal of brenz’s views. zvi considers brenz’s vitriol so caustic that he never even calls him by his name “samuel,” but rather repeatedly refers to him as “samael,” a midrashic name for the satan, and as “the apostate.” brenz makes a number of claims about jewish hostility to christians and christianity, to which zvi responds. brenz accuses jews of wanting to harm their christian neighbors, of seeking to overthrow christian government, and, on the tamer end, of not patronizing christian businesses. for his first assertion he cites the biblical command that the israelites kill the pagans in the land of israel. zvi responds that these claims are impossible. for example, jews depend on christians for food, as jews were not allowed to farm. also, jews need simple services from those such as barbers and physicians, who are mostly christians. jews do not seek to overthrow the government because to do so would be to disobey god. rather, they pray for kings, dukes, and other leaders. also, the pagan nations in the hebrew bible no longer exist. therefore, to apply these verses to modern-day goyyim is wrong and irresponsible. finally, zvi uses the johnson: morris m. faierstein’s yudisher theriak 2 rabbinic idea of shituf to argue that even though christians believe in the trinity, they still worship one god and are not pagans. such a belief does not undermine their claims to be monotheists, though this is not acceptable for jews. while brenz often draws upon jewish sources, he appears to know little about judaism or hebrew. zvi, on the other hand, scrupulously checks all of brenz’s allegations and finds that most have no basis in any source at all. zvi cites every source he uses, whether it is the talmud, rabbinic responsa, or the hebrew bible. zvi even cites the new testament to show that brenz barely knows this work. the picture of brenz that emerges in zvi’s book is of a fool, unable to understand, or even correctly quote, a source. zvi is lead to wonder how brenz, though raised a jew, could not even remember hebrew prayers. morris faierstein discusses zvi’s yiddish, which, he notes, is of a germanizing tendency. an example of this germanized yiddish can be seen in the title itself. a pure yiddish title would be yidisher theriak. however, yudisher theriak is patterned after german jüdischer. the differences are not significant, but it is interesting that zvi wrote in a more germanized dialect, and also that he could read german, which was unusual for a jew of his time and place. this book will not only interest scholars of early modern germany, but scholars of christian-jewish relations generally. faierstein’s translation of zvi’s work—the first time it has been published in english—gives this book great value. in addition to an introduction and the translation itself, the volume includes a list of brenz’s accusations, appendices on the publication history and of citations of the writings of josephus, a bibliography, an index of citations, and a general index. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): koch cp1-12 koch, theological questions and perspectives koch cp 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr theological questions and perspectives in jewish-catholic dialogue kurt cardinal koch october 30, 2011 keynote address at seton hall university during the 10 th annual meeting of the council of centers on christian-jewish relations 1. a complex history between christians and jews the history of relations between christians and jews represents a very complex history which alternates between proximity and distance, between fraternity and estrangement, between love and hate. this history can be designated as complex from its very beginnings. on the one hand, jesus cannot be understood without judaism; the early christian congregation quite naturally participated in the jewish liturgy in the temple, and paul too on his various mission journeys always went to the synagogues first before turning to the gentiles with his proclamation of the gospel. on the other hand, the schism between synagogue and church forms the first split in the history of the church, which the catholic theologian erich przywara defined as the “primal rift.” 1 even though contemporary research tends to accept that the process of estrangement and dissociation between judaism and christianity extended over a longer period than previously assumed and surely only gradually took shape during the second century after the destruction of the second temple in 70 ad, 2 there is nevertheless no question that this process was set in place at the very beginning of jewish-christian relations and the relationship between jews and christians was marked by conflict already at an early stage. cardinal joseph ratzinger outlined that conflict in these words: “the church was regarded by her mother as an unnatural daughter, while the christians regarded the mother as blind and obstinate.” 3 while this image reminds us that the conflicts between jews and christians were still like family quarrels, the relationship between jews and christians deteriorated progressively as the awareness of belonging to the same family was gradually lost. it has therefore in the course of history been exposed to great strain and hostility which has in many cases unfortunately led to anti-jewish attitudes involving outbreaks of violence and pogroms against the jews. hostility towards the jews reached its lowest nadir in the history of europe with the mass murder of european jews planned and executed with industrial perfection by the national socialists. the shoah cannot and should not however be attributed to christianity as such: it was in fact led 1 “the rift between the eastern and the western church, the rift between the roman church and the pluriversum of the reformation (the countless churches and sects) form part of the primal rift between judaism (the non-christian jews) and christianity (the ‘gentiles’ in the language of the pauline letters).” e. przywara, römische katholizität – allchristliche ökumenizität, in: j. b. metz et al. (ed.), gott in welt. festgabe für k. rahner (freiburg i. br. 1964) 524-528, cit. 526. „riss zwischen ostkirche und westkirche, riss zwischen römischer kirche und reformatorischem pluriversum (der unzähligen kirchen und sekten) gehören in den ur-riss zwischen judentum (der nicht-christlichen juden) und christentum (der <heiden> in der sprache der paulusbriefe).“ 2 j. t. pawlikowski, definiert sich katholisches selbstverständnis gegen die juden? papst benedikt xvi. und die frage der judenmission, in: dialog nr. 80 (juli 2010) 4-26, esp. 19-21. 3 j. cardinal ratzinger, the heritage of abraham, in: ratzinger, pilgrim fellowship of faith: the church as communion 270-274, cit. 272. keynote address studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): koch cp1-12 koch, theological questions and perspectives koch cp 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr by a godless, anti-christian and neo-pagan ideology. the goebbels diaries at the latest have brought to light the fact that hitler hated christianity just as much as judaism, and that he saw in catholicism above all the virtual trojan horse of judaism within christianity. 4 if the shoah must therefore be judged as the horrific nadir of a heathen world view which intended to annihilate not only judaism but also the jewish heritage in christianity, one can also understand that pope benedict xvi during his visit to the extermination camp auschwitz-birkenau wished to give expression to this fatal connection: “by destroying israel they ultimately wanted to tear up the taproot of the christian faith and to replace it with a faith of their own invention: faith in the rule of man, the rule of the powerful.” 5 in these words of the pope one should not see, as has so often been done, an evasion of the guilty complicity of christians, but rather recognize his conviction that christianity is most profoundly rooted in judaism, and that christianity could not exist without these vital jewish roots. 6 even though the primitive racist antisemitism of the nazi ideology, which had of course developed already in the 19 th century, has nothing in common with christianity, we christians nevertheless have every cause to remember our complicity in the horrific developments, and above all to confess that christian resistance to the boundless inhuman brutality of ideologicallybased national socialist racism did not display that vigour and clarity which one should by rights have expected. resistance by christians may well have also been so inadequate because a christian theological anti-judaism had been in effect for centuries, fostering a widespread antisemitic apathy against the jews. thus an ancient anti-jewish legacy was embedded in the furrows of the souls of not a few christians. 7 with shame we christians must also acknowledge that hitler, with his joint rejection of both judaism and christianity, had grasped the true essence of christianity and its intrinsic relationship with judaism better that not a few christians themselves. this shared national socialist hostility should have aroused among us christians much more empathetic compassion than in fact did come into effect. we christians must therefore honestly deplore the fact that only the unprecedented atrocity of the shoah was able to effect a real turning point in thinking. in this regard the fourth chapter of the second vatican council declaration nostra aetate, which the german cardinal augustin bea was commissioned to prepare and which was promulgated by pope paul vi in 1965 after controversial discussions, enabled a fundamental new beginning in the relationship between jews and christians. 8 with this declaration the second vatican council not only repudiated and condemned all outbreaks of hatred, persecutions, slanders and manifestations of force which have been directed against the jews on the part of so-called christians. in a positive sense the 4 “the führer is deeply religious but deeply anti-christian. he sees in christianity a symptom of decay, a branch of the jewish race, an absurdity which he intends to gradually undermine on all fronts. he hates christianity which transformed the light and airy temple of antiquity into a gloomy cathedral with a pain-wracked crucified christ.” „der führer ist tief religiös, aber ganz antichristlich. er sehe im christentum ein verfallssymptom, eine abzweigung der jüdischen rasse, eine absurdität, der er allmählich auf allen gebieten das wasser abgraben werde. er hasst das christentum, das den freien, hellen antiken tempel in einen düsteren dom, mit einem schmerzverzerrten, gekreuzigten christus verwandelt habe.“ cf. h. g. hockerts, die goebbels-tagebücher 1932-1941. cf. also v. conzemius, zwischen anpassung und widerstand. die christen und der nationalsozialismus, in: communio. internationale katholische zeitschrift 23 (1994) 483-502. 5 benedict xvi, “dovevo venire.” auschwitz-birkenau: la visita al campo di concentramento il 28 maggio 2006, in: insegnamenti di benedetto xvi ii, 1, 2006 (città del vaticano 2007) 724-729. 6 vgl. c. sedmak, europa und eine ethik des gedächtnisses: papst benedikt und der holocaust, in: ders. / st. o. horn (hrsg.), die seele europas. papst benedikt xvi. und die europäische identität (regensburg 2011) 155-183. 7 cf. judaisme, anti-judaisme et christianisme. colloque de l’université de fribourg (saint-maurice 2000). 8 cf. a. cardinal bea, die kirche und das jüdische volk (freiburg i. br. 1966), esp. 21-25: hinweise zur geschichte und entwicklung des konzilsdokuments. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): koch cp1-12 koch, theological questions and perspectives koch cp 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr council also affirmed the shared patrimony of jews and christians and pointed to the jewish roots of christianity. finally the council expressed the ardent desire that the reciprocal understanding and the resulting mutual respect of jews and christians be fostered. this instruction, given three times in nostra aetate, has been reaffirmed and reinforced on a number of occasions by the popes in the period since the council, not least through the visits to the great synagogue in rome by pope john paul ii on 13 april 1986 and by pope benedict xvi on 17 january 2010. the epoch-making new course set by the council regarding the relationship between jews and christians has naturally been put to the test repeatedly. on the one hand the scourge of antisemitism seems to be ineradicable in today’s world; and even in christian theology the age-old marcionism and anti-judaism re-emerge with a vengeance again and again, and in fact not only on the part of the traditionalists but also on the liberal side, for example when jesus’ conflict with the judaism of his day is seen as grounded in the torah, which is misinterpreted as slavish adherence to external observances from which jesus brought liberation. in view of such developments the church is obliged to denounce anti-judaism and marcionism as a betrayal of its own christian faith, and to call to mind that the spiritual kinship between jews and christians has its firm and eternal foundation in holy scripture. on the other hand, the demand by the second vatican council to foster mutual understanding and respect between jews and christians must continue to be accorded due attention. that is the indispensable prerequisite for guaranteeing not only that there will be no recurrence of the dangerous estrangement between christians and jews, but also that the regained understanding of the jewish roots of christianity does not lapse once more into oblivion. 2. unity and difference between judaism and christianity this task proves to be urgently needed in the present situation in the intellectual history of europe, as in the united states, where we live in an increasingly multi-religious society in which other religions no longer appear to christians as alien phenomena but as realities encountered in everyday life, since they have acquired a tangible personal face through daily contact with believers of other religions. these nascent multi-religious societies represent both an opportunity and a danger for jewish-christian encounters. they are an opportunity in so far as christians today have an open ear for the world of religions and accordingly display a greater readiness for inter-religious dialogue. the danger however exists in the fact that the relationship between judaism and christianity and between synagogue and church today is located within inter-religious dialogue, reducing it to the level of merely another variant of inter-religious conversation, so that its irreducible uniqueness is no longer brought to bear. but the fact that the jewish-christian encounter involves a distinctive individual relationship 9 was expressed by pope john paul ii in the vivid and impressive words: “the jewish religion is not something ‘extrinsic’ to us but in a certain way is ‘intrinsic’ to our own religion. with judaism we therefore have a relationship we do not have with any other religion. you are our dearly beloved brothers and in a certain way it could be said, our elder brothers.” 10 if we take this self-assessment at its word, it is indispensable to face the theological questions which arise in the forefront of jewish-christian dialogue and which must be approached in mutual esteem, especially since very different faith convictions must be addressed there which are in each instance constitutive for the respective faith community. 9 cf. k. koch, begegnung mit den juden und der jüdischen religion: ein auftrag der ökumenischen christen, in: koch., zeit-zeichen. kleine beiträge zur heutigen glaubenssituation (freiburg / schweiz 1998) 137-153. 10 john paul ii, ringraziamo il signore per la ritrovata fratellanza e per la profonda intesa tra la chiesa e l´ebraismo. allocuzione nella sinagoga durante l´incontro con la comunità ebraica della città di roma il 13 aprile 1986, in: insegnamenti di giovanni paolo ii ix, 1, 1986 (città del vaticano 1986) 1024-1031, cit. 1027. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): koch cp1-12 koch, theological questions and perspectives koch cp 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr a. the new testament as fulfillment, not substitution for the old unity and difference between judaism and christianity come to the fore in the first instance with the testimonies of divine revelation. with the existence of the old testament as an integral part of the one christian bible, there is a deeply rooted sense of identity and intrinsic kinship between judaism and christianity. the roots of christianity lie in the old testament, and christianity constantly draws nourishment from this old testament root. with the existence of the new testatestament, the question naturally arose quite soon of how the two testaments are related to one another, whether for example the new testament writings had not superseded the older writings and nullified them. this position was represented by marcion in the second century, namely that the new testament had made the old testament book of promises obsolete, destined to fade away in the glow of the new, just as one no longer needs the light of the moon as soon as the sun has risen. this stark antithesis between the hebrew and the christian bible fortunately never became an official doctrine of the christian church. by excluding marcion from the christian congregation in 144, the church rejected his concept of a purely “christian” bible purged of all old testament elements, bore witness to its faith in the one and only god who is the author of both testaments, and thus held fast to the unity of both testaments, the concordia testamentorum. this is of course only one side of the relationship between the two testaments. the common patrimony of the old testament however not only formed the fundamental basis of a spiritual kinship between jews and christians but also brought with it an elementary tension in the relationship of the two faith communities. this is demonstrated by the fact that christians read the old testament in the light of the new, in the conviction expressed by augustine in the indelible formula: “in the old testament the new is concealed and in the new the old is revealed.” 11 pope gregory the great also spoke in the same sense when he defined the old testament as “the prophecy of the new” and the latter as the “best commentary of the old.” 12 this christological exegesis can easily give rise to the impression that christians consider the new testament not only as the fulfillment of the old but at the same time as a substitution for it. that this impression can only be correct in a limited sense is evident already from the fact that judaism too found itself compelled to adopt a new reading of the old testament after the catastrophe of the destruction of the second temple in the year 70. since the sadducees who were bound to the temple did not survive this catastrophe, the pharisees developed their particular mode of reading and interpreting the old testament in the time without a temple. in his book on jesus, pope benedict xvi rightly concluded from this that there were as a consequence two responses to this situation, or more precisely, two new ways of reading the old testament after the year 70, 13 namely the christological exegesis of the christians and the rabbinical exegesis of that form of judaism which arose after the destruction of the temple. since both modes each involved a new interpretation of the old testament, the crucial new question must be precisely how these two modes are related to one another. but since the christian church and post-biblical rabbinical and talmudic judaism, which originated only after the destruction of the temple, developed in parallel, this question cannot be answered from the new testament alone, and is not to be followed up further here, although the conclusion pope benedict xvi drew from it needs to be mentioned. “after centuries of opposing positions we recognise it as our duty that these two ways–christian and jewish–of reading the biblical writings must enter into dialogue with one 11 augustine, quaestiones in heptateuchum 2, 73. 12 gregory the great, homiliae in ezechielem i, vi, 15. 13 j. ratzinger / benedict xvi. jesus of nazareth: holy week, from the entrance into jerusalem to the resurrection, part 2, san francisco, 2011. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): koch cp1-12 koch, theological questions and perspectives koch cp 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr another in order to rightly understand the will and the word of god.” 14 here pope benedict has taken up once more a finding that the pontifical biblical commission formulated in its 2001 document “the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible” that christians can and must admit “that the jewish reading of the bible is a possible one, in continuity with the jewish scriptures of the second temple period, analogous to the christian reading which developed in parallel fashion”; it then draws the conclusion: “both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. consequently, both are irreducible.” 15 b. the old and new covenants in the one history of god’s covenant the view of pope benedict that the two readings each serve the purpose of “rightly understanding god’s will and word” clearly shows the importance he attaches to the issue of the christian faith being rooted in judaism before and in the turn of the eras, with its potential for leading jewish-christian dialogue into the future. 16 on this foundation the insight can develop that from the perspective of the new elements in each of them, judaism and christianity respectively exist in a new relationship to one another since the beginning of the new era. that raises the further question of how the old and the new covenant stand in relation to one another. for the christian faith it is axiomatic that there can only be a single covenant history of god and humanity. this is already evident in the fact that the history of god with humanity has been realised in a series of covenants, beginning with the covenant with noah, then with abraham, with moses, joshua, and ezra, with the prophet jeremiah even promising a new covenant. each of these covenants incorporates the previous covenant and interprets it in a new way. that is also true for the new covenant which for us christians is the final covenant and therefore the definitive interpretation of what was promised by the prophets of the old covenant, or as paul expresses it, the “yes” and “amen” to “all that god has promised” (2 cor 1:20). the new covenant is therefore neither the annulment nor the replacement of the old covenant, as cardinal walter kasper has correctly stressed: “the new covenant for christians is not the replacement, but the fulfilment of the old covenant. both stand with each other in a relationship of promise or anticipation and fulfilment.” 17 if the christian church is the fulfillment of god’s plan in and with israel, if it consists of jews and gentiles and if it would be ‘defective’ without jews, then any idea of replacement must be excluded. 18 for jewish-christian dialogue in the first instance god’s covenant with abraham proves to be constitutive, as he is not only the father of israel but also the father of the faith of christians. in this covenant community it must be evident for christians that the covenant that god concluded with israel has never been revoked but remains valid on the basis of god’s unfailing faithfulness to his people, and consequently the new covenant which christians believe in can only be understood as the surpassing affirmation and fulfillment of the old. we christians are therefore also convinced that through the new covenant the abrahamic covenant has obtained that universality for all peoples which was of course originally intended. this recourse to the abrahamic covenant is so essentially constitutive of the christian faith that the christian church without israel would be in danger of losing its locus in the history of salvation and degenerating into an 14 ibid. 15 ii. a. 7.22. 16 cf. j. wohlmuth, die sicht auf das judentum im zweiten band des jesusbuches; in: h. häring (ed.), der jesus des papstes. passion, tod und auferstehung im disput (münster 2011) 179-193. 17 w. cardinal kasper, foreword, in: ph. a. cunningham et al. (ed.), christ jesus and the jewish people today. new explorations of theological interrelationships (michigan 2011) x-xviii, cit. xiv. 18 cf. j.-m. cardinal lustiger, die verheissung (augsburg 2003). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): koch cp1-12 koch, theological questions and perspectives koch cp 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr ultimately unhistorical gnosis. by the same token, jews could with regard to the abrahamic covenant arrive at the insight that israel without the church would be in danger of remaining too particularist. in this fundamental sense israel and the church remain bound up with one another according to the covenant and interdependent on one another. that there can only be one history of god’s covenant with his mankind, and that consequently israel is god’s chosen and beloved people of the covenant which has never been repealed or revoked, is a conviction that lies behind the apostle paul’s passionate struggle with the dual fact that on the one hand the old covenant from god continues to be in force, but that israel has not adopted the new covenant. in order to do justice to both facts paul coined the expressive image of the root of israel into which the wild branches of the gentiles have been grafted (cf. rom 11:16-20). 19 this image represents for paul the key to thinking of the relationship between israel and the church in the light of faith. “nothing but a single olive tree. god’s whole history with humanity is like an olive tree with sacred roots and branches cut out and grafted in and artificially ennobled in this way. all god’s dealings are like his way of dealing with this tree.” 20 with this image paul gives expression to a duality with regard to the unity and divergence of israel and the church. on the one hand the image is to be taken seriously in the sense that the grafted wild branches have not grown out of the root itself or sprung from it but represent a new reality and a new work of salvation by god, so that the christian church cannot merely be understood as a branch or a fruit of israel. on the other hand, the image is also to be taken seriously in the sense that the church is only able to survive when it draws nourishment and strength from the root of israel, and that the grafted branches would wither or even die if they were cut off from the root of israel. c. one people of god, not two peoples of god speaking literally rather than metaphorically, this means that israel and the church are related to and interdependent on one another, precisely because they exist in a state not only of unity but also difference. israel and the church thus remain bound up with one another to that extent, and indeed both unmixed yet undivided 21 . the relationship between the old testament and new testament people of god is also to be regarded in this light. this relationship requires careful attention because even today there is a strong tendency to apply the term “people of god” exclusively to israel alone or to the church alone. the second viewpoint has been represented above all by the protestant systematician paul althaus, for whom the historical people of israel served only for the preparation of the coming of christ and his church, and must since then be considered a soteriological anachronism: “israel as the historical people is no longer a theological, ‘soteriological’ entity because in christ its soteriological vocation has been fulfilled. israel has no special place in the church or for the church, nor any special salvific vocation.” 22 this replacement theory is scarcely represented today, but by contrast the reverse tendency can be observed in catholic theology of avoiding the term ‘people of god’ for the christian church and reserving it for israel alone. in this sense herbert vorgrimler for example states that “there is only one people chosen by god as his possession, 19 cf. f. mussner, die kraft der wurzel. judentum – jesus – kirche (freiburg i. br. 1987). 20 cf. k. berger, gottes einziger ölbaum. betrachtungen zum römerbrief (stuttgart 1990) 229. 21 cf. g. m. hoff, a realm of differences: the meaning of jewish monotheism for christology and trinitarian theology, in: p. a. cunningham et al. (ed.), christ jesus and the jewish people today. new explorations of theological interrelationships (grand rapids – cambridge, 2011) 218. 22 p. althaus, die letzten dinge (gütersloh 1957) 313. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): koch cp1-12 koch, theological questions and perspectives koch cp 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr that of the jews, and indeed not only of observant jews, and the application of the people of god to the church is in any case a metaphor requiring interpretation.” 23 as the inserted “not only observant jews” shows, this reveals a second tendency to comprehend the ‘people of god’ concept no longer in a strictly theological sense but ethnologically instead, deleting any exclusive connotation, replacing exclusivity with exemplarity and understanding the people of god not as a “monopoly” but rather as a “model”, as the catholic mission theologian walbert bühlmann has done in postulating that the biblical understanding on israel as the chosen people of god means that not only israel but every people is a chosen people of god. 24 a similar tendency can be observed on the jewish side, wherever the people of god is no longer understood as a theological but rather as an ethnological or even a political entity, and wherever the soteriological view of judaism is problematized and replaced by a purely secular view. the most radical advance in this direction has been undertaken by the american jewish philosopher richard l. rubenstein, who dispenses not only with the theology of the covenant but also with the jewish conviction in election because this has, in his view, proven to be the real cause for the boundless misery the jews have experienced in the course of history. for this reason the jewish people should totally abandon its soteriological view and not wish to be anything more than a people like all other peoples. jewish existence is not justified by a “special relationship with god” but solely through “israel’s natural historical existence as a people”, so that the founding of the state of israel must be understood as the historical ratification of the definitive abandonment of the soteriological view of israel. 25 this represents of course a radical position which can in a sense be understood as the jewish variant of the “god–is–dead” theology 26 so influential within christianity in the 60s, proclaiming the death of god to give expression to the experience of the absence of god in the modern world. this radical view is only mentioned here because it seeks to be understood as the consequence of the experience of the holocaust. the trends i have briefly outlined here no doubt have the advantage that they in principle avoid the dilemma caused by the fact that both israel and the church understand themselves to be the people of god and therefore feel obliged to account for the way they relate to one another. that it is impossible to speak of two peoples of god should have become clear in the preceding discussion, because that would mean giving up the element of unity in the tension between unity and difference in the relationship of judaism and christianity. speaking of the one people of god however proves to be difficult because this single people of god lives in separated communities. it may therefore be most appropriate in regard to israel and the church to speak of the one people of god’s covenant, which however lives in two parts in a state of division. 27 d. one way of salvation, not different channels to salvation if there cannot be two different peoples of the covenant but only one, since god has never revoked his covenant with his people israel, then neither can there be different paths or approaches to god’s salvation. this view has indeed gained increasing plausibility among a broader public in the past years. but it is to be judged as illogical and inconsistent. the assumption that there may be two different paths to salvation, the jewish path without christ and the 23 h. vorgrimler, article: volk gottes, in: neues theologisches wörterbuch, 665. 24 w. bühlmann, wenn gott zu allen menschen geht. für eine neue erfahrung der auserwählung (freiburg i. br. 1981). 25 r. l. rubenstein, after auschwitz. radical theology and contemporary judaism (1966) 84. 26 cf. th. j. j. altizer and w. hamilton, radical theology and the death of god (new york 1966). 27 cf. t. czopf, volk oder völker gottes? ist der volk-gottes-begriff geeignet für die verhältnisbestimmung von judentum und christentum. unveröffentlichtes manuskript. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): koch cp1-12 koch, theological questions and perspectives koch cp 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr path for all other people which leads through jesus christ would not only call into question the ground-breaking discovery of the second vatican council, that jews and christians do not belong to two different peoples of god but even in their difference form one people of god; it would in fact also endanger the foundations of christian faith. confessing the universal and therefore also exclusive mediation of salvation through jesus christ belongs to the core of christian faith, as does the confession of the one god, the god of israel, who through his revelation in jesus christ has become the god of all peoples, insofar as in him the promise has been fulfilled “that the peoples will pray to the god of israel as the one god, that ‘the mountain of the lord’ will be exalted above the other mountains.” 28 the “notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church” published by the vatican commission for religious relations with the jews in 1985 therefore maintained that the church and judaism cannot be represented as “two parallel ways to salvation”, but that the church must “witness to christ as the redeemer for all.” 29 the christian faith stands or falls by the confession that god wants to lead all people to salvation, that he follows this path in jesus christ as the universal mediator of salvation, and that there is no “other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved” (acts 4:12). from the christian confession that there can be only one path to salvation, however, it does not in any way follow that the jews are excluded from god’s salvation because they do not believe in jesus christ as the messiah of israel and the son of god. such a claim would find no support in the soteriological understanding of st paul, who in the letter to the romans not only gives expression to his conviction that there can be no caesura in the history of salvation, but that salvation comes from the jews, on the basis that in the “time of the gentiles” god entrusted israel with an individual mission which cardinal ratzinger, taking up the view of the church fathers, described in this way: “they (the jews) must remain as the first proprietors of holy scripture with respect to us, in order to establish a witness to the world.” 30 from this it is selfevident that paul in the letter to the romans definitively answers negatively the question he himself has posed, whether god has repudiated his own people. just as decisively he asserts: “for the grace and call that god grants are irrevocable” (rom 11:29). that the jews are participants in god’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery. it is therefore no accident that paul’s soteriological reflections in romans 9-11 on the irrevocable redemption of israel against the background of the christ-mystery culminate in a mysterious doxology: “oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of god! how inscrutable are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways” (rom 11:33). it is likewise no accident that pope benedict xvi in the second part of his book on jesus of nazareth allows bernard of clairvaux to say in reference to the problem confronting us, that for the jews “a determined point in time has been fixed which cannot be anticipated.” 31 the focus of jewish-christian conversations must therefore remain the highly complex theological question of how the christian belief in the universal salvific significance of jesus christ can coherently be conceptually combined with the equally clear statement of faith in the neverrevoked covenant of god with israel. this complexity is also attested by the re-formulation of the good friday prayer for the jews in the extraordinary form of the roman rite which was 28 j. cardinal ratzinger, the dialogue of the religions and the relationship between judaism and christianity in: ratzinger, many religions, one covenant, san francisco 1999, cit. 110. 29 notes i.1.7 30 j. cardinal ratzinger, the dialogue of the religions and the relationship between judaism and christianity in: ratzinger, many religions, one covenant, san francisco 1999. 31 j. ratzinger / benedict xvi, jesus of nazareth. part 2, 2011. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): koch cp1-12 koch, theological questions and perspectives koch cp 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr published in february 2008, and which pope benedict xvi had undertaken because the previous formulation “was really offensive to the jews and failed to positively express the overall intrinsic unity between the old and new testaments.” 32 the pope therefore altered the prayer on the one hand in such a way that “our belief is expressed that christ is the saviour for all, that there are not two channels to salvation, that christ is therefore the redeemer of the jews, not just of the gentiles.” on the other hand however the pope also altered the prayer in such a way that “it shifts the focus from a direct petition for the conversion of the jews in the missionary sense to a plea that the lord may bring about the hour in history when we all may be united.” 33 e. the sensitive issue of so-called mission to the jews although the new good friday prayer in the form of a plea to god confesses the universality of salvation in jesus christ within an eschatological horizon (“as the fullness of the peoples enters your church”), it has been vigorously criticised on the part of jews—and of course also of christians—and misunderstood as a call to explicit mission to the jews. 34 it is easy to understand that the term so–called ‘mission to the jews’ is a very delicate and sensitive matter for the jews because in their eyes it involves the very existence of israel itself. on the other hand however, this question also proves to be awkward for us christians too, because for us the universal salvific significance of jesus christ and consequently the universal mission of the church are of fundamental significance, especially since paul on his missionary journeys always went first to the jews in the synagogue, and only turned to the non-jews after he had encountered resistance from the jews. if one takes both sides of this delicate question seriously, the christian church is obligated to perceive its evangelisation task in respect of the jews, who believe in the one god, in a different manner from that to the nations. this means, as cardinal kasper states, “that the mission command is just as valid for jews as for the nations, but it must be realised differently for the jews in respect to the nations.” 35 that the catholic church respects this fundamental difference is evident above all in the fact that – in contrast to several fundamentalist and evangelical movements – it neither has nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards jews. in his detailed examination of the question of the so-called mission to the jews cardinal karl lehmann rightly discerned that on closer investigation one finds “as good as no institutional jewish mission in catholic mission history.” “we have an abundant share in other forms of inappropriate attitudes towards the jews and therefore have no right to elevate ourselves above others. but in respect to a specific and exclusive mission to the jews there should be no false consternation or unjustified selfaccusation in this regard.” 36 the rejection of an institutional mission to the jews does not on the other hand exclude christians from bearing witness to their faith in jesus christ also to jews, but should do so in a humble and unassuming manner, particularly in view of the great tragedy of the shoah. 32 cf. the differentiated study by t. söding, erwählung – verstockung – errettung. zur dialektik der paulinischen israeltheologie in röm 9-11, in: communio. internationale katholische zeitschrift 39 (2010) 382-417. 33 benedict xvi, light of the world. a conversation with peter seewald 2010. 34 cf. w. homolka / e. zenger (eds), „… damit sie jesus christus erkennen“. die neue karfreitagsfürbitte für die juden (freiburg i. br. 2008). 35 w. cardinal kasper, juden und christen – das eine volk gottes, in: communio. internationale katholische zeitschrift 39 (2010) 418-427, cit.425. 36 k. cardinal lehmann, „judenmission“. hermeneutische und theologische überlegungen zu einer problemanzeige im jüdisch-christlichen gespräch, in: h. frankemölle / j. wohlmuth (eds.), das heil der anderen. problemfeld „judenmission“ (freiburg i. br. 2010) 142-167, cit. 165. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): koch cp1-12 koch, theological questions and perspectives koch cp 10 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr 3. the monotheism of israel and christian belief in the trinity when one reviews the fundamental commonalities and the equally elementary differences between judaism and christianity, it becomes clear that both faith communities perceive jesus of nazareth as a figure thoroughly rooted in the judaism of his time, but that the christian confession that the one god of israel has definitively revealed himself and shown his true face in jesus of nazareth stands between them, as the detailed conversation of pope benedict xvi with rabbi jacob neusner in the first volume of his book on jesus vividly demonstrated. 37 they are indeed able to reach agreement on the fact that the earthly jesus claimed divine authority for himself, and in that they contradict prominent trends in historical-critical exegesis which explain the new testament confession of christ as a product of the post-easter community, and thus make jesus appear simply as a misunderstood jewish rabbi. if one follows such tendencies to their logilogical conclusion, the real stumbling block between christianity and judaism would be disposed of, and the motivation which makes jewish-christian dialogue necessary would also be eliminated. the dialogue between pope benedict xvi and rabbi neusner vividly draws attention to this predicament. moreover, the christological confession, according to its own logic, has led to the development of the christian doctrine of the trinity, so that the cited difference has ramifications extending to the respective understandings of god on both sides. 38 that is of course in no way intended as a claim that a completely new concept of god entered the world with the advent of christianity, as was still claimed at the beginning of last century by the church historian karl holl with his pointed statement that he was never in any doubt that jesus had brought a completely new idea of god in respect to the old testament. 39 in response one must call to mind the result of previous jewish-christian conversations that christianity cannot simply be understood as a new religion in relation to judaism, with its beginnings merely historically and therefore accidentally in the jewish people. on the contrary, jesus’ proclamation represents “the true meaning of the jewish faith in god itself” and christianity remains “bound to this point of departure.” 40 on the other hand, one cannot simply overlook the fact that the christian doctrine of the trinity signals without a doubt the most prominent difference between judaism and christianity and must therefore remain an essential topic of conversation in jewish-christian dialogue, 41 as clemens thoma rightly maintains: “the christological character of christian monotheism at the present moment confronts the israelogical character of jewish monotheism.” 42 for a productive understanding between jews and christians it is of crucial significance that on the one side the christian belief in the trinity must not be understood as a supplement to the jewish idea of the one god, much less as its betrayal, but as the critical modification of jewish monotheism. and on the other side, the christian belief in the trinity must be developed against the background of 37 j. ratzinger – benedict xvi, jesus of nazareth part 1. 2007 esp. 105-112. cf. a. buckenmaier / r. pesch / l. weimer, der jude von nazareth. zum gespräch zwischen jacob neusner und papst benedikt xvi. (paderborn 2008). 38 cf. k. koch, dunkle facetten im gottesbild des christentums – anmerkungen zum entzündeten nerv der jüdischchristlichen ökumene, in: koch, gelähmte ökumene. was jetzt zu tun ist (freiburg i. br. 1991)145-159; koch, die wirklichkeit gottes als herz des jüdisch-christlichen dialogs, in: s. käppeli (ed.), lesarten des jüdisch-christlichen dialogs. festschrift zum 70. geburtstag von clemens thoma (bern 2002) 127-145. 39 k. holl, urchristentum und religionsgeschichte, in: holl, gesammelte aufsätze zur kirchengeschichte. band ii: der osten (tübingen 1928) 1-32. 40 p. lapide / w. pannenberg, judentum und christentum. einheit und unterschied. ein gespräch (münchen 1981) 19. 41 cf. j. j. petuchowski and w. strolz, offenbarung im jüdischen und christlichen glaubensverständnis (freiburg i. br. 1981); m. striet (ed.), monotheismus israels und christlicher trinitätsglaube (freiburg i. br. 2004). 42 c. thoma, das messiasprojekt. theologie jüdisch-christlicher begegnung (augsburg 1994) 111. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): koch cp1-12 koch, theological questions and perspectives koch cp 11 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the biblical conviction, fundamental also for the jewish faith, of god’s devotion to the world, initiated already in the creation and continued through salvation history, so that god lives in a relational unity with his people, revealing himself as condescending and appearing as a “yourelated god,” as clemens thoma has once more rightly emphasised: “he not only possesses his you within himself but seeks it also in the earthly realm among the humble and the persecuted. his seeking signifies a process of redemption for the sought.” 43 if christian theology succeeds in credibly demonstrating that the incarnation of god in jesus of nazareth is to be understood as the culmination point and fulfillment of the self-revealing god of holy scripture who turns towards the world, condescends into history and engages in it, jews for their part could perceive god’s self-exposition in bestowing the torah and in sending the shechina to the people of israel as anticipations of what the christian faith was to develop in the doctrine of the trinity. in light of this, jews and christians could at least live in mutual respect for one another, or more precisely in respect for the fact that on the one hand jews, on the basis of their own faith convictions, cannot possibly read the old testament other than in the expectation of the unknown one who is to come; and that on the other hand christians, on the foundation of the common abrahamic faith, live and testify their faith conviction that the one whose coming is awaited by the jews will be identical with the christ whom they believe as the one who has already come. 4. the jewish-christian pilgrim fellowship in reconciliation and hope in this mutual respect jews and christians can each fulfil a reciprocal service toward the respective faith of the other. where it remains true to its divine calling, judaism is and remains a thorn in the flesh of christians, in that it calls christians to remember the experience of unredeemedness of the world, as franz rosenzweig has expressly emphasised: “this existence of the jew constantly subjects christianity to the idea that it is not attaining the goal, the truth, that it ever remains—on the way.” 44 on the other hand, where the christian church remains true to its divine mission, it is and remains a thorn in the flesh of judaism, in that it bears witness to the already bestowed reconciliation of god with mankind, without which there can be no well-founded hope for redemption. in this reciprocal service to the faith of the other judaism and christianity, synagogue and church remain inseparably bound to one another, as the reformed theologian jürgen moltmann expressed it in an abiding directive for jewish-christian conversation: “for the sake of the jew jesus there is no final separation of church and israel. for the sake of the gospel there is for the present also no fusion into the eschatological future. but there is the pilgrim fellowship of the hopeful.” 45 beyond division and fusion, jews and christians follow their own path through history. this path can only be a path of reconciliation, which since auschwitz has appeared before us in its full irrefutability. because the cross of jesus christ has again and again in the course of christian history been misused as an anti-sign of hostility and hatred towards the jews by condemning them as deicides, christians today have every reason and a strict obligation to proclaim and testify also to the jews the cross of jesus as a sacrament of reconciliation. joseph ratzinger did so when he confessed in a quite personal manner that it was for him already as a child incomprehensible that one could derive a condemnation of the jews from the death of jesus, but that the word ‘cross’ had penetrated into his soul as a profound consolation, because the cross of jesus 43 ibid. 110. 44 f. rosenzweig, the star of redemption iii, translation by william hallo, london 1985, 456. 45 p. lapide / j. moltmann, jüdischer monotheismus – christliche trinitätslehre. ein gespräch (münchen 1979) 82-83. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): koch cp1-12 koch, theological questions and perspectives koch cp 12 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr did not call for punishment but for reconciliation: “the blood of jesus does not raise any demand for vengeance but calls all to reconciliation; it has itself, as the letter to the hebrews shows, become god’s abiding day of reconciliation.” 46 when pope benedict xvi in the second part of his book on jesus denies the reproach of a collective guilt of the jews for the death of jesus, we may discern in that the consequence of his previous insights into relations between jews and christians. the cross of jesus must therefore not continue to stand between christians and jews. it is rather the christian invitation to reconciliation and a reminder of the common duty of jews and christians to accept one another in a profound internal reconciliation from the depths of faith itself, in order to become a sign and an instrument of reconciliation for the world. what pope benedict xvi expressed at his first official encounter with high-ranking representatives of jewish organisations in june 2005 may therefore stand as a pointer for future dialogue between jews and christians: “the history of relations between our two communities was complex and not infrequently painful, nevertheless i am convinced that the spiritual patrimony preserved by christians and jews is the source of wisdom and inspiration which can lead us into a future of hope corresponding to god’s plan (cf. jer 29:11).” 47 that even after a “complex and not infrequently painful” history reconciliation can be and indeed is possible, that is attested by the jewish-christian dialogue over the past decades, and this is a sign of hope for continuing the pilgrim fellowship of reconciliation in faith in the shechina of god in the torah and in the incarnation of god in jesus christ. 46 j. kardinal ratzinger, jesus von nazareth, israel und die christen. ihre beziehung und ihr auftrag nach dem katechismus der katholischen kirche von 1992, in: ders., evangelium – katechese – katechismus. streiflichter auf den katechismus der katholischen kirche (münchen 1995) 63-83, zit. 81. (j. cardinal ratzinger, jesus of nazareth, israel and christianity in: ratzinger, gospel, catechesis, catechism, san francisco 1997). 47 benedict xvi, to a delegation of the international jewish committee on interreligious consultations, june 2005. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-16 making sanctuary for the divine: exploring melissa raphael’s holocaust theology christopher pramuk cpramuk@regis.edu regis university, denver, co 80221 a good life is infinitely greater than its dying . . . . what was very good is eternally good and stands as a witness to god’s creation of a good world. ~ melissa raphael, the female face of god in auschwitz the first time i learned of melissa raphael’s book, the female face of god in auschwitz, 1 was six or seven years ago when a reviewer of my book on wisdom-sophia and the divine feminine in the writings of thomas merton drew some parallels between what i was attempting theologically in that book, from a christian perspective, and raphael’s work, from a jewish. 2 i read the book and was astonished by its depth, courage, and imaginative scope; it is easily one of the finest works of constructive theology i have read in the last decade. since then i have tried to integrate something of raphael’s work into my classes whenever i treat the theodicy question. the book itself is a dense and difficult read. as an advanced work in jewish feminist theology, the background raphael presumes of her reader is well beyond what most undergraduates and even introductory graduate theology students may be prepared to handle. but every once in a while, as i tell graduate students, a book comes along that is worth “reaching up to,” which is to say, worth the cost, both intellectually and emotionally, to go with an author where she wants to take her reader: in this case, into the terrible darkness of auschwitz. it is worth it because on the other side of our efforts we are very likely to be changed, and our ideas about god forever transformed. 1 melissa raphael, the female face of god in auschwitz: a jewish feminist theology of the holocaust (new york: routledge, 2003). 2 patrick cousins, review of sophia: the hidden christ of thomas merton (collegeville, mn: liturgical/michael glazier, 2009) by christopher pramuk, at http://www.catholicbooksreview.org/2010/pramuk.htm; cousins’ comparison to raphael’s work came in a personal email exchange following the publication of his review. http://www.catholicbooksreview.org/2010/pramuk.htm pramuk: making sanctuary for the divine 2 while the book is difficult for non-specialists, raphael’s basic method is not difficult to reproduce in the classroom. at every turn her theological reading of auschwitz—a sustained meditation, really—begins with the stories of women’s experiences in the camps. but she does not just recount the stories. as one of my students observed during a class discussion, the way raphael does theology is something like a musician interpreting a score on the page: she attends not only to the notes but to the silences “between the notes” of women’s memoirs from the camps, and she helps us, her readers, do the same. though it is not possible here to do justice to the book’s contributions, in what follows i will more or less reproduce the method i use in the classroom, introducing select passages organized around focused theological themes. by emphasizing the potential appeal of raphael’s work to undergraduates, i hope to persuade readers that the female face of god in auschwitz merits greater attention in christian and catholic theological circles. a final note by way of introduction: raphael tells us in the book’s preface that she wrote it for her daughter, realizing that by the time she “has grown up the holocaust will have receded . . . into a world of visual and literary texts but almost beyond her direct knowing. . . .i would like some of what she might read to be mediated in ways less flawed by androcentrism than those books that have been available to me.” she dedicates the book to her daughter “as a way of telling her how the holocaust might be, not redeemed, but qualified; that is, not entirely a fall from hope—as it once was for me.” 3 for this catholic reader, the book certainly resounds with hope, that is to say, with theological hope, a hopefulness centered in god and in human possibilities, though it is a hope that does not come cheaply. i can think of few greater aspirations as a father, theologian, and teacher than to pass on such a hope in some form or another to my own children and to my students. i. “a staying there against erasure”: women’s narratives from the camps from the first pages raphael makes it clear that she is responding to a range of influential jewish post-holocaust theologies, works written almost exclusively by men, which presume a patriarchal or androcentric framework. 4 like other feminist theologians, jewish and christian, she argues that patriarchal or exclusively male images, discourses, and practices in synagogue and church have sanctioned a great deal of injustice, misogyny, and violence in society, in no small part by 3 raphael, female face of god, x. 4 for example, richard rubenstein, eliezer berkovits, emil fackenheim, ignaz maybaum, arthur cohen, and david blumenthal, each of whom in distinct ways elevate divine omnipotence at the expense of god’s immanence—perhaps in part, if understandably, to avoid advocating an immanent god who tries to protect the innocent and fails. raphael is careful to avoid generalizing terms (e.g., see her note on “patriarchy,” p. 168, n. 14) and summary judgments of particular post-holocaust theologians without due examination. she repeatedly reminds the reader of the risks and fallibilities of her own project. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) obscuring the female face of god: god’s nurturing, indwelling presence known in the jewish biblical and rabbinic tradition as shekhinah. patriarchal forces have veiled the divine feminine “to the point of disappearance,” she argues, and nowhere more horrifically than in auschwitz. indeed it is not altogether surprising, she suggests, that traditional jewish theology could not conceive how the allpowerful god of moses and the prophets would have been so utterly powerless, so impotent, in the face of auschwitz. in effect, traditional post-holocaust approaches accuse god, argues raphael, for not being patriarchal enough. 5 raphael wants to challenge traditional or popular default assumptions about how god’s power and presence are (and are not) manifest in the world: “there has been too much asking ‘where was god in auschwitz?’ and not enough ‘who was god in auschwitz.’” 6 by and large holocaust theology, she asserts, “has not questioned its own basic model of god. it is my contention that it was a patriarchal model of god, not god-in-god’s self, that failed israel during the holocaust.” 7 in truth, raphael maintains, god was not wholly eclipsed in auschwitz but was truly present in the relational acts of women who turned in compassion and bodily care toward one other, defying the most inhumane and desperate circumstances. with unsparing detail, she unearths the largely ignored stories of women in the camps who maintained the practices of jewish prayer and ritual purification with whatever resources were available to them—not excluding their own bodily fluids where water was nowhere to be found. 8 within the barbed-wire enclosure of the camps, one woman’s body bent in compassionate presence over another woman’s body or the vulnerable body of a child formed an encircling space where the divine presence could dwell, where god could be bodily reconciled with humanity over against the patriarchal god of raw power, the false and idolatrous god of nation-states and national socialism. even, if not especially, in auschwitz, the most basic gestures of compassion constituted “a redemptive moment of human presence, a staying there against erasure” 9 —not only for women in the camps, but through them, for god. in one of the many extant memoirs raphael cites, auschwitz survivor olga lengyel describes a dormitory within the women’s camp that contained a basin and a scrub brush. “no spectacle was more comforting than that provided by the women when they undertook to cleanse themselves thoroughly in the evening. they passed the single scrubbing brush to one another…. that was our only way 5 raphael, female face of god, 35-37. 6 raphael, female face of god, 54. 7 raphael, female face of god, 5. while affirming a certain necessary agnosticism in theological discourse on the holocaust—we simply do not know why such horrific things happened—raphael insists the evidence does allow for the claim that patriarchal theological discourse fails to offer a persuasive response to the shoah, much less consolation, “because it is predicated upon a model of god whose will and character shares significant elements of the alienated patriarchal worldview of its predicators. it does not and cannot mount a significant moral critique of the world that produced and inherited auschwitz because it enjoys discursive and religious privileges within that world” (37). 8 raphael, female face of god, 68. 9 raphael, female face of god, 157. pramuk: making sanctuary for the divine 4 of waging war against the parasites… against every force that made us victims.” 10 in such rare moments of bodily cleansing, raphael suggests, women kept “the mark of personhood, both human and divine,” 11 from disappearing, at once reclaiming or making room, as it were, for the irruption of the holy. much as the sabbath and jewish purity rituals signified the creation of a kind of sanctuary in time for jews outside of the camps, to “take the time” to cleanse themselves and one another from filth within the camps was no less an act of sabbath-making. “to be washed could be to be resurrected.” 12 indeed the simplest gestures of compassion constituted acts of holy resistance, sacred in their fundamental structure of care for the divine-human person, irrespective of their practical utility, or perceived futility. raphael tells the story of a woman who, torn from her husband and children by ss guards immediately after arriving at the camp, falls weeping on the frozen ground “with the flaming crematoria before her,” when she suddenly feels two hands lay a garment around her shoulders. an old frenchwoman had stepped forward, wrapping her in her own cloak, whispering “it will be over and done soon, it will be over.” 13 she recalls another now-iconic story of an old woman who is remembered “for holding in her arms a motherless 1-year-old child as she stood at the edge of the communal pit, about to be shot with the rest of her village by nazi troops. the old woman sang to the child and tickled him under the chin until he laughed with joy. then they were shot.” 14 ii. “here i am, i am here”: the contours of divine-human presence the divine presence for raphael is always relational, ever transitive, moving toward another. like the old woman singing to the child, it says, “here i am, i am here.” to ask the question of god’s presence in the midst of utter deprivation is not only to ask, “how was god made present to us? but also, and inseparably from that, ‘how did we make ourselves present to god?’” 15 for raphael, the love reflected “between the lines” of women’s stories in the camps is the “love of a 10 raphael, female face of god, 69. raphael draws on a “core literature” of memoirs of five women—olga lengyel, sara nomberg-przytyk, isabella leitner, giuliana tedeschi, and bertha ferderber-salz—all of whom were deported to auschwitz between january and december 1944. carol p. christ highlights in her review a range of reasons for using these memoirs with caution, not least the risk of imposing god-language and a feminist hermeneutic onto the accounts of women who did not themselves use such language. see carol p. christ, “review: the female face of god in auschwitz: a jewish feminist theology of the holocaust,” in journal of the american academy of religion 73.2 (2005): 577-80. while acknowledging such risks herself, raphael judges the alternative risk to be greater, namely, the silence that closes over women’s accounts and thus distorts the project of post-holocaust theology. christ seems to concur (578). other reviewers, largely appreciative, include zev garber, review of biblical literature (n.d.): 592-95; m. grey, feminist theology 15.1 (2006): 124-26. 11 raphael, female face of god, 67. 12 raphael, female face of god, 69. 13 raphael, female face of god, 58. 14 raphael, female face of god, 58. 15 raphael, female face of god, 122-23. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) mother-god, known to the tradition as (the) shekhinah.” 16 from the hebrew “shakhan”—to be present or dwell as in a tabernacle, sanctuary or tent—the shekhinah emerges in rabbinic literature as “an image of the female aspect of god caring for her people in exile.” 17 israel’s god is “an accompanying god whose face or presence, as shekhinah, ‘she-who-dwells-among-us,’ goes with israel, in mourning, into her deepest exile, even if israel cannot see her in the terrible crush.” 18 by contrast, “the father-god—the monarchical man of war—was of little or no consolation or relevance” to the women whose memoirs form the narrative ground of raphael’s study. 19 like very few works that i have read, raphael forces her reader to think deeply about the divine image in whose image we profess that human beings are made: which “god” are we really talking about? to be clear, auschwitz itself for raphael “was not and never could be a city of sanctuary; there was no place on earth where a jew was more exposed and vulnerable to harm. . . [there the] victimized female body was under attack: [it was] a ruined sanctuary that could offer little refuge to shekhinah, and often none at all. the body/sanctuary was without immunity; it had been entered and defiled. shekhinah was both exposed to the profane gaze and obscured by the covering marks of its profanation.” and yet, conversely, she says, “the profane can be transformed into the holy by the blessings of sanctifying touch.” 20 women who, as it were, set their faces against auschwitz by becoming visible to one another could realize god’s presence in conditions wholly unfit for persons. and it is in the becoming visible to one another that we become holy, set apart, indeed, eternal. “to be created in the image of a (divine) other entails that creation is necessarily relational—a face-to-face event—god making us present to one another. it follows, then, that the retrieval or even momentary restoration of a face is the restoration of presence. in the one last glimpse of a face turning back to look at us, the victims of the holocaust did not and could not disappear.” 21 jewish philosopher emmanuel levinas famously locates the epiphany (or “trace”) of god in the face of the human other. 22 citing levinas and abraham 16 raphael, female face of god, 117. 17 raphael, female face of god, 82. 18 raphael, female face of god, 6. 19 raphael, female face of god, 116. raphael is careful here to note that this is “not to make a global historical claim about women’s faith during this period.” 20 raphael, female face of god, 83. 21 raphael, female face of god, 130. acknowledging hiddenness as a prevailing characteristic of god in the jewish tradition, raphael nevertheless maintains that “hiddenness implies (undetectable) presence.” and to be present is to be ever in “a positioning of one to the other” (88). here raphael’s mystical, theopoetical, and apophatic sensibilities, ever in fruitful tension with the cataphatic impulse in theology, come to the fore. 22 “the epiphany of the absolute other is a face by which the other challenges and commands me through his nakedness, through his destitution. he challenges me from his humility and from his height” (transcendence and height, 1962, cited in emmanuel levinas: basic philosophical writings, eds. peperzak, critchley, and bernasconi [bloomington: indiana university, 1996], 17). while levinas takes pains to avoid straightforward theological language, the divinity of the trace in the human other is nevertheless undeniable: “the trace is not just one more word: it is the proximity of god in the countenance of my fellowman” (levinas, entre nous: thinking-of-the-other), trans. michael b. smith and barbara harshav [new york: continuum, 2006, 50]). “the trace of the other is pramuk: making sanctuary for the divine 6 joshua heschel, raphael underscores the breakthrough of divine presence in the face-to-face encounter, even in auschwitz, where “god and israel were in equal need of redemption from the pit”: god could hardly find her way through the darkness—but the darkness was not her disappearance. however momentarily, the spark generated between the seeing and seen face was analogous to a sabbath candle inviting god’s presence—shekhinah—into auschwitz. even the most infinitesimal spark of light was enough to illuminate—if only momentarily—the grey face of the other and so refract god into the toppling world. 23 here, as in other arresting passages throughout the book, raphael describes her hermeneutical framework as “a theology of image, rather than a covenantal theology alone,” explaining that “a theology of image precedes and underpins the mutuality and reciprocity of covenant.” while the divine personality “is ontologically transcendent and other to human personality,” the divine other “achieves immanence by its reflection.” divinity is “tended in the tended person. . . . god, in auschwitz, was knowable in the moment of being seen in the face of the seen other.” 24 it is important to note that raphael’s affirmation of the “spark” of divine presence stands not in opposition but in direct proportion to the perceived “disappearance” of god; both hinge on the razor’s edge of human receptivity and freedom: “god cannot be known where there is no one who will turn her face to hers.” 25 in suggesting that god “cannot be known” without a corresponding “turning” in compassion toward the other, raphael clearly undermines if not rejects “the doctrines of omnipotent omnipresence that have given comfort to patriarchal theology.” 26 just as heschel insists that god’s immanence within the earthly “sanctuary” of time and space is dependent on human partnership, raphael insists that the flickering spark of hope and power of transformation in the world is not lit by a mighty interventionist, but is “contingent upon mutuality and responsibility and is therefore dependent upon the presence and absence of conditions on earth that invite or repel the divine; that look out for the divine and human other, or turn their backs on them.” 27 to “realize god,” wrote martin bu the heavy shadow of god, the god who commands, ‘thou shalt not kill’” (levinas, difficult freedom, trans. s. hand [baltimore: johns hopkins, 1990], p. 8f). 23 raphael, female face of god, 61. 24 raphael, female face of god, 88. 25 raphael, female face of god, 70. 26 raphael, female face of god, 70. 27 raphael, female face of god, 70. raphael is careful to maintain god’s transcendent “otherness” even while emphasizing god’s radical immanence “in,” and presence “to,” human persons. “as shekhinah, god’s presence in auschwitz was that of a god whose power was such that she could consent to be defiled by virtue of her immanence and still be god, then, now, and in the times to come.” (85) at the same time, hers is not, she insists, a “quasi-christian incarnational theology in which god’s redemptive presence is that of the marked bodies of the victims, as if they were her garment of suffering flesh.”(42) carol christ suggests that raphael’s attempt to articulate a vision of an 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) ber, “means to prepare the world for god, as a place for his reality—to help the world become god-real.” 28 her reality—shekhinah—was welcomed into auschwitz, and became knowable, in the washing of the face. 29 iii. “we left the camp singing”: etty hillesum nowhere is the reclaiming of the divine “in the restoration of a face” more striking for me than in raphael’s reading of etty hillesum’s story. a dutch jew who lived in amsterdam during the nazi occupation and was murdered in auschwitz at age 29, hillesum’s war-time diaries, like those of the far more wellknown anne frank, survived the war. but hillesum was significantly older than frank, and her journals reflect the experience and hard-bought wisdom of a woman who had seen and suffered more of life. two weeks before her arrest and deportation to the transit camp of westerbork, she wrote the following, lines that have haunted me since i first read them some twenty-five years ago, and a passage which has similarly captured the attention of my students: sunday morning prayer. “dear god, these are anxious times. tonight for the first time i lay in the dark with burning eyes as scene after scene of human suffering passed before me. i shall promise you one thing, god, just one very small thing: i shall never burden my today with cares about my tomorrow, although that takes some practice. each day is sufficient unto itself. i shall try to help you, god, to stop my strength ebbing away, though i cannot vouch for it in advance. but one thing is becoming increasingly clear to me: that you cannot help us, that we must help you to help ourselves. and that is all we can manage these days and also all that really matters: that we safeguard that little piece of you, god, in ourselves. and perhaps in others as well. . . . you cannot help us, but we must help you and defend your dwelling place inside us to the last.” 30 immanent, self-emptying god risks itself borrowing from patriarchal ideals of transcendence that she aims to move beyond (christ, 579-80). 28 martin buber, on judaism (1923), cited in raphael, female face of god, 61. 29 raphael is walking a fine line here. on the one hand, she suggests that the victimized female body was utterly (i.e., ontologically) profaned in auschwitz: it was a “ruined sanctuary” where the divine being/image could no longer dwell. here, it seems to me, her emphasis falls on a theology of covenant relationship, where holiness is predicated on human freedom’s sacred vocation to prepare the way for the divine indwelling. on the other hand, more in accord with her “theology of image”—and more akin to a christian incarnational anthropology—she suggests that “the ineradicable stamp of divine origin is how god sets apart persons, things, places and times as god’s own and god’s holiness is indestructible” (84). in this sense, the nazis degradation of women in auschwitz “could not, in fact, desecrate them for holiness” (83). because holiness (the divine image) “is a category of willed relation, rather than being a material property of objects, holiness cannot be taken away from those objects by physical force” (83). while maintaining that hers is not a “quasi-christian incarnational theology,” raphael’s theology of image, much as in heschel, seems to me so strong as to be functionally if not ontologically equivalent to a christian incarnational view of the human person, even while christian approaches differ widely, often dramatically, on the constitutive status of jesus (or the second person) in a theology of creation and incarnation as related to the “imago dei” in all persons. 30 etty hillesum, an interrupted life and letters from westerbork (new york: henry holt, pramuk: making sanctuary for the divine 8 for many of my students, christians who have never thought or been permitted to question traditional conceptions of the divine—a god who exists “out there,” “above all,” omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent—hillesum’s prayerful assertion that “you cannot help us,” and further that “we must help you,” can be quite unsettling. if hillesum’s sense of god is authentic, if her experience of god is trustworthy, then what becomes of traditional notions of the divine? in her exegesis of hillesum’s diaries, raphael observes that the god to whom hillesum prays “is a god who does not rescue the lives of the victims, but one who sustains the sufferers in their struggle to maintain, as long as possible, a life of dignity and self-respect.” 31 even more, as her catholic biographer and editor robert ellsberg suggests, hillesum seems to know intimately and place her trust in a god who calls on human beings to take suffering upon themselves “in solidarity with those who suffer.” 32 this was not, as ellsberg insists, a masochistic embrace of suffering for itself; rather it was a vocation “to redeem the suffering of humanity from within, by safeguarding ‘that little piece of you, god, in ourselves.’” 33 but most striking, and perhaps what most defies rational or traditional theological explanation, hillesum’s compassion extends not only to her fellow jews—and, at times, their german persecutors—but “even to the defenseless god whose survival depends on the work of human beings to defend the world from destruction.” 34 “there must be someone to live through it all,” hillesum writes in 1942, “and bear witness to the fact that god lived, even in these times. and why should i not be that witness?” 35 i am especially moved, and moved as a theologian, by raphael’s suggestion that the very act of writing for many women during the holocaust was a form of active resistance and relational presence, redeeming the divine, as it were, at the very moment of disintegration. such witness—the solitary accounting of a life, with no assurances that one’s written words will ever be received—reflects a spark of inner freedom that the nazis were unable to extinguish. etty hillesum’s 1996), 178. compare to trappist monk and spiritual writer thomas merton, who describes the heart of the religious calling as “to be human in this most inhuman of ages, to guard the image of man for it is the image of god.” thomas merton, raids on the unspeakable (new york: new directions, 1966), 6; emphasis original. 31 raphael, female face of god, 117, citing rachel feldhay brenner. 32 robert ellsberg, all saints: daily reflections on saints, prophets, and witnesses from our time (new york: crossroad, 1997), 522. 33 ellsberg, all saints, 522. 34 raphael, female face of god, 117. 35 etty: the letters and diaries of etty hillesum, 1941-1943, ed. klaas a. d. smelik, trans. arnold j. pomerans (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 1986), 506. commenting on this and other “harrowing” passages from hillesum’s 1942 diaries, rowan williams concludes that “what she believes she is doing is what can best be described as taking responsibility for god in the situation.” “perhaps the language jars,” williams admits, “though no more than bonhoeffer’s well-known poem on going to god in god’s need rather than running to god out of one’s own helplessness; or even teresa of avila’s account in her life of a conversion on encountering the image of christ at the scourging pillar, and recognising a call simply to be in some sense visibly where he is.” see rowan williams, “religious lives,” romanes lecture, 2004, accessed 5/11/2017 at http://rowanwilliams.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/2101/romanes-lecture-oxford-religiouslives. http://rowanwilliams.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/2101/romanes-lecture-oxford-religious-lives http://rowanwilliams.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/2101/romanes-lecture-oxford-religious-lives 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) last known writings were scribbled on a postcard thrown from the train that delivered her to auschwitz. “we left the camp singing,” 36 she wrote. but listen to what raphael does with these five words. hear what she hears theologically in this seemingly insignificant gesture, a postcard written and cast into the wind by a young jewish woman on the way to certain death: even more than her diary, this textual fragment that is delivered to us over on the “safe” other side of the holocaust is the means by which hillesum sends the ineradicable humanity of that “we” back to us. as the torah does for god, hillesum’s text—her inked words on paper—establish both her eternal presence and, as a surrogate for presence, her absence. essentially, if not materially, her presence, like her postcard, will forever flutter toward us like a butterfly on the fresh breeze of a dutch field in early autumn somewhere near westerbork. and it is when the theologian kneels in the grass to retrieve that card that history and theology begin to unite—a process already underway in hillesum’s own writing. 37 this passage offers a crucial window into raphael’s theological method, and a riveting test case for exploring what it means to “do theology” with students. for raphael, theology both encompasses and transcends history. in particular, the remembrance of the dead is more than a mere historical recounting. to borrow from the catholic tradition, it is a kind of anamnesis, an epiphanic calling forth, the invocation of a “real presence.” in remembering hillesum and many others like her, there is a very real sense—raphael calls it eschatological 38 —in which one may dare to say that the train that carried the victims to auschwitz never arrived. “there is something about the lives of the dead and surviving jews who have lived jewishly (that is, humanely) which means that although their faces have disappeared they cannot be finally erased. their gaze is steady; we simply need to know where to look.” 39 and on this point, quite beautifully and unexpectedly for this christian reader, raphael gestures to the story of jesus, another jew killed well before his time: visiting auschwitz or, indeed, the towns and cities of continental europe, the story of words once spoken in a garden outside jerusalem’s city walls comes to mind. a young man asked the women who sought to anoint the body of the dead rabbi jesus, why they were seeking the living among the dead: “he is not here . . . . he is going [on] before you.” (luke 24:5) . . . . to say that european jewry is not there, in auschwitz, but here, is to say what, in the uttering, is almost platitudinous: that despite appearances, good is not consumed by evil; a good life is infinitely greater than its dying; 36 hillesum, an interrupted life, 360; raphael, female face of god, 130. 37 raphael, female face of god, 130. 38 raphael, female face of god, 134, 139. 39 raphael, female face of god, 131. pramuk: making sanctuary for the divine 10 that what was very good is eternally good and stands as a witness to god’s creation of a good world. 40 for raphael, here is the meaning of a redemption that both contains history and transcends it: “when israel in auschwitz answers the human and divine summons in the present tense, with the great ‘here i am’ recorded of the biblical dialogue between god and humanity, it defies the genocidal attempt to deport jewish existence into the past tense.” 41 of course, the prophetic “here i am” carries forward into every moment for each of us as a question: am i here? am i listening? am i awake to god’s call toward love in the urgent moment that is now? iv. “a tree stripped of its leaves”: the divine presence in nature there is one other aspect of the divine presence that must be mentioned here, if briefly, and that is the call of god coming toward us from the earth and from non-human creation. raphael notes that when no person was capable of a kind word or compassionate touch amid the degradation of the camps, “inanimate natural objects could take on the functions of divine presence for women.” she recounts victor frankl’s story of a girl who told him as she lay dying that a bare chestnut tree “was the only friend she had in her loneliness and that she often talked to it.” when frankl asked the girl if the tree replied, she answered, “‘it said to me, ‘i am here—i am here—i am life, eternal life.’” raphael concludes: “if god has chosen israel as god’s vehicle of self-revelation then [such stories] must tell us something about the nature and posture of god’s presence among us. it may seem little more than a tree stripped of its leaves by an untempered wind.” 42 even the face of the moon, as one woman wrote from auschwitz, could embody the “unfailing presence” of the divine mother, whose “smooth, round face” is always turned towards us, “even if it is darkened by shadow and cloud.” 43 here was a power, says raphael, that “did not redeem by mighty intervention,” but by silent presence and care: the moment it appeared, peeping through the window into the sleeping block, i said a silent prayer to it. the cool, pale moonlight did not harm or 40 raphael, female face of god, 131. 41 raphael, female face of god, 131. 42 raphael, female face of god, 58, citing victor frankl, man’s search for meaning. the evocation of divine presence in a tree stripped bare may recall for christian readers patristic meditations linking the cross of jesus with the tree of life in genesis. again raphael is careful to distinguish between shekhinah as “the real presence of a suffering god” and a “quasi-christian incarnation of god crucified in auschwitz.” she cites jurgen moltmann’s theology (the crucified god) as a christian depiction “that is close but not identical” to her own, noting that in jewish understanding “the suffering is that of one who, being among us, suffers with us, but does not suffer vicariously for us” (5455). to be sure, great care must be taken not to conflate jewish and christian interpretations of a suffering god, particularly in the case of the shoah. much depends from the christian side on precisely how jesus’ crucifixion is understood to be redemptive, as well as keeping in full view the jewishness of jesus and the various judaisms that shaped the early church. 43 raphael, female face of god, 116; citing bertha ferderber-salz. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) taunt us; on the contrary, it soothed and comforted us. its light was as pale as we, who were considered dead during our lifetime. on nights when i could not sleep i would unburden my heart to it. “soon you will disappear from window, travelling over the city,” i whispered. “please look in the windows of my little girls, caress their head with your cool lit light, because i cannot stroke them with a mother’s loving hand. be kind to me, and when you return to my window tomorrow night tell me about my children. are they sleeping peacefully in the strange house in that hostile city?” 44 again, my students find such narratives riveting, especially when they are encouraged to probe their own memories of nature’s wonder and palpable “presence” in their lives. to linger with such experiences, and still more to make room for sharing them with their peers in a classroom setting, is to invoke together a sensibility and a kind of language that exceeds the quotidian, utilitarian, or functionally superficial. it is to invite students gently, if perhaps with some “fear and trembling,” into the realm of the mystical, the contemplative, the theopoetical. for students who respond to the invitation, such close readings of raphael alongside the “text” of their own lives can yield unexpected gifts, not least the affirmation that their own experiences of the ineffable, while eluding verification or facile expression, are real, and trustworthy. they might even begin to awaken to the possibility that the almighty god redeems not “by mighty intervention”— as many have been taught from childhood, and find more and more incredible as young adults—but by silent presence and relational care. perhaps the mightiest face of god, like the face of a faithful parent, friend, or lover, is revealed to us in our moments of greatest weakness, fragility, and need. 45 v. theological and pedagogical conclusions in the torah and in much of the jewish theological tradition, god’s face is revered, and often feared, as something too great and holy to behold. in his encounter with yhwh after the destruction of the tablets, moses is permitted only to gaze, as it were, on god’s back, for “my face must not be seen” (ex. 33:23). reconsidering the tradition through women’s death camp memoirs, raphael offers a striking counter-reading: to have “seen only god’s back” during the holocaust was not a function of divine power or omnipotence but was revelatory of a god whose “humiliation and sorrow was such that he could not face us; could not bear the sight of us.” 46 the covenantal god is the god who desires to 44 raphael, female face of god, 116. 45 in his enormously influential book, when bad things happen to good people (new york: schocken, 1981), rabbi harold kushner, writing after his own crisis of faith following the death of his son, concludes that there is no satisfactory answer to the theodicy problem, if by “answer” we mean “solution.” what matters above all is the human response to suffering—“what are you going to do about it?”—which shifts our attention and our freedom into the present, and orients our imaginations toward healing the future. 46 raphael, female face of god, 50. pramuk: making sanctuary for the divine 12 become immanent in the evident “weakness” and fragility of human relationships: shekhinah. for raphael, the myriad first-person accounts of embodied relationships formed in the camps, however brief or fragmentary, haunt the margins of the historical record in ways that cannot be ignored. women who, risking their own survival, cared for children not their own before and after the trains arrived; women helping other women in the frantic attempt to gather things necessary for survival; women who carried or pushed one another forward during the death marches: “keeping together is the holocaustal narrative.” 47 restoring the face of god in history was, and remains today, inseparable from restoring the face of the other. there is a beautiful and far-reaching ethical commitment in the jewish tradition called tikkun olam, a hebrew phrase meaning “the reparation,” the “making good,” “the rescuing to make good of what is left of this smashed world.” 48 melissa raphael gets it exactly right, i believe, when she concludes that the restoration or tikkun of the world “does not occupy a quantity of space and time; it is the theophanic possibility of a moment.” 49 the fearful mystery of grace hinges precisely on the moment—the accumulated constellation of moments—in which we, and people we will never meet, say yes or no to love, when we create “a sanctuary for the spark of the divine presence that [saves] it from being extinguished.” 50 describing her one-woman play adapted from etty hillesum’s writings, new york actress susan stein suggests that “etty’s words, insights and beliefs reach out from the holocaust and allow us to see the power of hope and individual thought in the most extreme circumstances. in her gentle yet forthright way, etty asks us not to leave her at auschwitz but to let her have a ‘bit of a say’ in what she hopes will be a new world.” 51 what “say” shall we give the dead in forging our courage to envision a new world? hillesum embodies a central jewish insight that christian theology has too often obscured: god asks, god invites, god needs our participation in the indwelling drama of love. the realization of god’s own dream for the world, what jesus calls the reign of god, hinges on our “i am here,” our receptiveness, our fiat, our participation. 52 47 raphael, female face of god, 96. 48 george steiner, “to speak of walter benjamin,” in benjamin studies: perception and experience in modernity (amsterdam: rodopi, 2002), 13-23, at 22. 49 raphael, female face of god, 80. 50 raphael, female face of god, 79. 51 for stein’s remarkable work and witness to hillesum’s legacy, see http://www.ettyplay.org/. regarding the risks of “over-interpreting” women’s holocaust memoirs (see n. 10 above)—in my case, for example, the risks of imposing a particularly christian interpretation—stein shared with me in an email exchange her worries “of imposing a judaism on to etty that wasn’t there.” in adapting hillesum’s writings for the stage, she sought the help of biblical scholars and others who helped guide her “to read etty’s diaries through a different lens.” 52 when catholics and orthodox christians celebrate mary’s fiat, her “yes” to the divine initiative— and celebrate her theologically, iconically, liturgically, as theotokos, mother of god, in the most elevated cataphatic imagery—it is crucial to remember that mary’s attunement to the divine presence had long been prepared in her by the people israel, whose stories resound everywhere with the call of covenantal co-responsibility in history. mary’s participation in the mystery of redemption is inseparable from that of her people; so it was for jesus, and so it is for all of us. as thomas merton puts it, http://www.ettyplay.org/ 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) clearly raphael’s case for the divine presence in auschwitz does not hinge on empirical or otherwise rational analyses, as if hints and gestures of the good could cancel out the overwhelming weight of evil. hers is not, as she writes, “a quantitative theology, contingent upon circumstance”; it is “a qualitative, ethical theology” 53 in which “the truly numinous spectacle was not the horror of the flaming chimneys but the mysterium of human love that is stronger than death, the tremendum of its judgment upon demonic hate, and the fascinans of its calling god back into a world which had cast her out.” 54 indeed, the sacramental or sophianic impulse—as i would call it in catholic terms—is an impulse that “attaches very large meanings to very small signs.” 55 “even the resistance of one person,” professes emil fackenheim, “suffices to deny evil its victory.” 56 theologically, from god’s side, as it were, raphael’s work reclaims a communal memory and experience of the divine that has too long been marginalized and hidden from “mainstream” western theological, pedagogical, and certainly liturgical discourses and practices. as one of my graduate students concluded of the book, it has to do with our discovery of a god who “desires and all but insists on relationship with creation,” and here he adds, with emphasis, “with the whole of creation. . . . raphael helped me to comprehend god not as androcentric but as a deity that requires both masculine and feminine aspects to be expressed harmoniously within the worshipping community, and so be known as god in god’s totality. this was already a notion i had explored, but raphael took it to another level, and gave me the courage to do so.” 57 if images comprise a life-world, and theological images implicitly and often explicitly sanction that life-world, then surely the violent unraveling of the world in our time is inseparable from our willful sundering of god. in the words of theologian rita gross, “when the masculine and the feminine aspect of god have been reunited and the female half here with reference to gandhi’s inseparability from hinduism and the people of india, “the spiritual life of one person is simply the life of all manifesting itself in him” (thomas merton, gandhi on nonviolence [new york: new directions, 1965], 11). it would be difficult to overstate how much the severing of the constitutive relationship between christianity and judaism in the imaginations of christians throughout history—theologically, iconically, liturgically—has made for disastrous consequences, for jews certainly, and in distinctively tragic ways for christians. 53 raphael, female face of god, 71. 54 raphael, female face of god, 74; with a nod to rudolph otto’s famous description (the idea of the holy) of religious experience as the mysterium tremendum et fascinans. 55 raphael, female face of god, 139. 56 cited in raphael, female face of god, 131. i know of few better resources for unpacking this beautiful but deeply paradoxical religious insight in the classroom than harold kushner’s video lecture, “when bad things happen to good people” (charlotte: oblate media, 2006), based on his bestselling book. flush with stories of ordinary people he has met in his pastoral work, for kushner the really “big miracles” are not dramatic manifestations like the parting of the red sea but “when timid people become brave” and reach out to comfort suffering others. “god comes to us through the incarnation of caring people,” he says, citing the hasidic saying, “human beings are god’s language.” kushner confesses that he can still believe in god because he is “constantly seeing ordinary people do extraordinary things,” things that would seem impossible in the face of crippling grief: choosing to love, forgive, and build a better world. 57 harold thomas, used with permission. pramuk: making sanctuary for the divine 14 of humanity has been returned from exile, we will begin to have our tikkun. the world will be repaired.” 58 in sum, the remembrance of the feminine divine opens up imaginings of god “that transcend the associations of power and masculinity that usually accompany western god-images.” 59 raphael joins a form of subversive imagery (god as shekinah) with subversive rhetoric (women’s death camp narratives and her own theopoetics) that renders the apokalypsis of god in a powerfully new key: the irruption of hope amid hopelessness, the un-prosing of alienating discourse about “god” and the reification of false gods in the world. what catholic theologian patrick cousins observes of the wisdom-sophia tradition in the christian tradition may also be said of shekhinah in the jewish: “the very hiddenness of this sophianic vision is its strength—it is too weak to be brought to the center of a system of control, even a theological system, so it remains on the edge where it belongs, pushed out of the world, uncompromised by abstractions that lose sight of the real people who are chewed up by the machinery of power.” 60 raphael never loses sight of the “real people” buried beneath the inexplicable horrors of the shoah. at every turn her thesis is rendered with intellectual humility and kneeling deference before the “gray faces” of the dead. to borrow again from an undergraduate theology major: “finishing this book was not about coming to a new understanding of the holocaust that was suddenly beautiful and full of light. it was about coming to a new understanding of theology, of the power of the feminine act, and of the restoration of the memory of persons and the recognition of the feminine presence of god.” 61 theodicy is not the only lens through which one might approach raphael’s work with students, but it seems to me the most powerful entrée into the deep question of god and other related questions: jewish and christian understandings of theological anthropology, covenantal theology, earth as a locus of divine presence, the spirituality of jesus, protest atheism, and so on. because the notion of the shekhinah and the divine feminine is quite new and often strange to many of my predominantly christian and catholic students, i typically introduce raphael’s work only after we’ve wrestled with the theodicy question as such, and they’ve begun to recognize the many contradictions inherent to a patriarchal or 58 rita gross, cited in raphael, female face of god, 150. a convert to judaism from lutheranism in the 1960s, who then became a buddhist in the 1970s, rita gross (d. 2015) was widely celebrated at her death as the leading buddhist feminist theologian in the united states, though she never renounced her jewish identity. 59 cousins, review of pramuk, sophia. 60 cousins, review of pramuk, sophia. for further exploration of raphael’s theology in dialogue with the christian wisdom-sophia tradition and other contemporary expressions of the feminine divine, see christopher pramuk, “theodicy and the feminine divine: thomas merton’s ‘hagia sophia’ in dialogue with western theology,” theological studies 77:1 (march 2016); and christopher pramuk, “presences,” in hope sings, so beautiful: graced encounters across the color line (collegeville, mn: liturgical, 2013). 61 i am grateful to katie geckle, formerly an undergraduate theology major at xavier university, whose final paper on raphael inspired me not a little in the conception and writing of this paper. 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) literally male understanding of god. 62 with undergraduates, i’ve found that it is enough to extract short excerpts of women’s narratives from the book and then to help students get inside raphael’s subsequent theological reading of those stories. i say “get inside” because so much of the book, as noted above, is theopoetical in nature. the intensity of the subject matter is such that i try not to introduce it early in the semester. to engage the female face of god in auschwitz in the christian or catholic theology classroom is to open up spaces for profoundly contemplative, sometimes harrowing, theopoetical discovery. on this point i’d like to give the penultimate word to a graduate student, from his final review essay on raphael’s book. he writes: auschwitz-birkenau is not a beautiful place. it was not a hopeful place. it was not a loving place. however, the women who suffered there but still showed some sort of care to others ensured that the tender nearness of god was present. in those camps, the women who shared just a caring touch shared a loving touch of god. the lens of theology magnifies this simple gesture. that simple touch, often taken for granted, becomes a touch of beauty to those in a despairing place. the hope that the nazis sought to vanquish was given spark by women being present to each other. love is found in community; hope is fostered by community; beauty is found in community. theology is the foundation in which a community of sufferers is humanized in the midst of degrading suffering. 63 the german catholic theologian johann baptist metz, haunted by his own childhood memories of the second world war, has asserted that christians can pray after auschwitz only because there were jews who prayed in auschwitz. 64 paraphrasing metz, i would put it this way: human beings can pray after auschwitz because there were human beings who remained humane in auschwitz. i agree with melissa raphael: “a good life is infinitely greater than its dying . . . 62 in addition to raphael and kushner, other resources i use to interrogate traditional theodicies in the classroom include elie wiesel’s night; fyodor dostoyevsky’s “rebellion,” from the brothers karamozov; natalie kertes weaver, the theology of suffering and death (routledge, 2012); christopher pramuk, “how long o lord? interfaith perspectives on suffering and grace,” new theology review 17:4 (nov 2004): 67-75; and select poems of paul celan. a course i teach in “black literature and faith” employs classic texts, poetry, and music from the african american tradition that immerse students in the theodicy problem hidden, as it were, right under their noses. select resources i have used to introduce the feminine divine include sandra schneiders, women and the word: the gender of god in the new testament and the spirituality of women (new york: paulist, 1986); leo lefebure, “the wisdom of god: sophia and christian theology,” christian century (sep 1994); joyce rupp, “desperately seeking sophia,” us catholic (july 2008); andrew greeley, “the mother love of god,” in the catholic imagination (berkeley: university of california, 2003); maya angelou, and still i rise (new york: random house, 1978); sue monk kidd, the secret life of bees (new york: penguin, 2003; feature film, dir. gina prince-bythewood [twentieth century fox, 2008)]). 63 harold thomas, used with permission. 64 johann baptist metz, a passion for god: the mystical-political dimension of christianity, trans. j. matthew ashley (mahwah, nj: paulist, 1998), 1-2; 63; 122-23. pramuk: making sanctuary for the divine 16 what was very good is eternally good and stands as a witness to god’s creation of a good world.” 65 65 raphael, female face of god, 131. mysticism, experience, and pedagogy in jewish-christian dialogue studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college mysticism, experience, and pedagogy in jewish-christian dialogue a n d r e w v o g e l e t t i n a n d u l r i k e w i e t h a u s wake forest university volume 4 (2009) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 ettin, wiethaus, mysticism, experience and pedagogy ettin, wiethaus 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): ettin, wiethaus 1-13 introduction in 1909, martin buber (1878-1965) published ecstatic confessions: the heart of mysticism, a collection of firstperson accounts of mystical experiences.1 the source materials, though heavily weighted toward christian mysticism, include islamic, jewish, hindu, and taoist texts authored between c. 400 bce and the early 19th century. ecstatic confessions is a profoundly ethical project. through a multivoiced, multi-centered assembly of female and male authors, buber asserted that human dignity and an individual’s power to self-define without injury are upheld through inner experiences (erlebnisse) of the divine. across world cultures and across time, so buber, mysticism’s ineffability stakes out an irreducible realm of individual freedom and authentic self-definition. in a poetic passage that seems to presage his philosophical model of i-it and i-thou relationships, buber describes mystically affirmed freedom as follows. i am the dark side of the moon; you know of my existence, but what you establish concerning the bright side is not valid for me. i am that remainder in the equation which does not come out even; you can put a sign on me, but you cannot dispel me. “you would pluck out the heart of my mystery?”2 the following essay presents a dialogic, co-authored reflection on the uses of jewish and christian mystical texts in 1 from within jewish tradition, we define mysticism as torat ha-sod, “the secret torah,” torah being understood not solely as law or teaching but the external revealing of god. from within christian usage, specifically as defined by thomas aquinas and bonaventure, we define mysticism as cognitio experimentalis de deo. 2 martin buber, ecstatic confessions. the heart of mysticism (san francisco: harper&row, 1985; originally published as ekstatische konfessionen, dusseldorf: eugen diederichs verlag 1909), xxxi. exploring post-shoah possibilities for jewish-christian encounter and dialogue, specifically in the context of the college classroom.3 transcripts of our conversations are interspersed with analytical and descriptive sections, at times written in the first person singular, to underscore the dynamic, open-ended nature of our project. together with our students, we explored buber’s thesis that the heart of each religion is to be found in its mystical layering across time and place─irreducibly so and able to resist creedal constructions that can “poison” and “dispel” the authentic self/selves. during several preliminary conversations, we recognized the lack of scholarly attention to mysticism and liturgical embodiment as a dialogic medium of communication and as a means to address and heal historic trauma.4 we also noted the richness and creativity in recent european, american, and 3 we wish to thank our students for their fearless participation in our project: kelly bernhardt, kate gigler, ellery hart, aveen kareem, kate massetta, stacy naggir, caroline vaughn, matt vinson, and ellen watlington. a very special thanks to our auditing participant rebecca valla, m.d. for her profound insights from the disciplines of psychiatry and psychotherapy. a copy of the syllabus as well as biblical passages can be obtained by emailing either author. 4 throughout his work, leonard swidler has insisted on the necessity to experience one’s dialogue partner’s religion or ideology “from within”. in his words, “a religion or ideology does not merely engage the head, but also the spirit, heart and ‘whole being.” interreligious and interideological dialogue operates in three areas: the practical, where we collaborate to help humanity; the depth or ‘spiritual’ dimension, where we attempt to experience the partner’s religion or ideology ‘from within’; and the cognitive, where we seek understanding and truth.” swidler, after the absolute. the dialogical future of religious reflection (minneapolis: augsburg fortress, 1990), 45-46. for two typical examples of a lack of emphasis on spirituality and mysticism in jewish-christian dialogue, see leon klenicki and geoffrey wigoder, a dictionary of the jewish-christian dialogue (new york: paulist press, mahwah, expanded edition, 1995) and tony bayfield and marcus braybrooke, editors, dialogue with a difference (london: scm press, 1992). ettin, wiethaus, mysticism, experience, and pedagogy ettin, wiethaus 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): ettin, wiethaus 1-13 israeli scholarly collaborations exploring confluences and interactions between jews and christians throughout history.5 our recent experimental college seminar at wake forest university, rel395: seminar in jewish-christian relations, constituted our effort to bring these two observations to bear on each other by developing a pedagogy, syllabus, and theory that could open new horizons of understanding and communication without diminishing the fluidity of mystical speech and cognition on one hand or interfaith academic work on the other. three months after the seminar ended, meeting to reflect on the process of developing and teaching it, we began our discussion with a question.6 wiethaus: why was it necessary for you to explore alternative pedagogies given the traditional pedagogies used in the humanities? ettin: well, it seems to me that there are limitations in those pedagogies, particularly when we are talking about something that is after all, experiential, that is part of people’s living. it’s the pattern of how they live every day. it’s the make-up not only of their concepts and their inner experience, but it also hinges on what they eat, where and how they sleep─it gets into their dreams, it becomes part of their visualizable experience of the world. mystical language, for example, as we saw and taught, often connected with the senses, even when they are discussing experiences that are not purely sensory, because other 5 for example, stanley e. porter and brook w.r. pearson, editors, christianjewish relations through the centuries (sheffield: sheffield academic press, 2000); marcel poorthuis, joshua schwartz, and joseph turner, editors, interaction between judaism and christianity in history, religion, art and literature. jewish and christian perspectives series volume 17 (leiden: brill, 2009). 6 we wish to thank edward lockhart for his careful transcription of our conversations. wise, they have no images to talk about what they’re experiencing. so we needed to engage with what heightened awareness means, in terms of visual, in terms of auditory, in terms of the gustatory. all of the levels of experience that people have. wiethaus: i felt a great urgency to develop new pedagogies, because the two-fold focus of our course, dialog and mysticism, demand a more nuanced and a more accurate exploration than traditional pedagogies derived from the socratic method or the analytic focus of critical studies. these pedagogies don’t allow for exploring the fullness and richness and complexity of both dialog and mysticism, so i saw a lack of available cognitive tools, if you wish, in traditional humanities pedagogies. theoretical considerations tracing the footsteps of buber’s universalist design of ecstatic confessions in our readings and class conversations, we undertook the course suggesting that mystics within religious traditions do not only “look inside themselves” but also peer across “fences” (those oftentimes being destructive and limiting denotations) built by dogma and history to exclude the “other.”7 as a working hypothesis for our work, we posited an affinity between mysticism and the arts, conjoined in the aesthetics of liturgical and meditative event and place, anchored “in the dark side of the moon” beyond the visible structures of denominational practices and beliefs, and thus capable to lead into the deep background of usually unnoticed truths. 7 ironically, the concept of a “judeo-christian” tradition seems to suggest─at least at first glance─a promising platform for dialogue, yet carries the hidden burden of anti-judaic discourse. see arthur a. cohen’s classic essays collected in cohen, the myth of the judeo-christian tradition and other dissenting essays ( new york: schocken books, 1971). ettin, wiethaus, mysticism, experience, and pedagogy ettin, wiethaus 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): ettin, wiethaus 1-13 in short, our teaching engaged physical rituals, sensory experiences and meditative practices in addition to introspective and imaginative readings of mystical texts. the learning included frequent reminders from mystical writers and from us that language may be an inadequate albeit often necessary medium for recording and transmitting mystical experience. the degree to which our approach was validated by students’ experiences is suggested by this remark from one brief reflective paper submitted about a month into the course by a student who was not a religion major: “any visual, musical, or kinetic experiences allow for the mind to venture away from the traditional routes of academic learning and create expansion into the spiritual and emotional spheres.” meister eckhart (d.1327), in on the noble man, offers an amusingly concrete explanation of this hermeneutical tension between mystical and non-mystical religious horizons of perception and cognition. but now there is one power, as i have said, through which we see and another through which we know and understand the fact that we see. it is true that here below, in this life, that power by which we know and understand that we see is nobler and better than that power by which we see, since nature begins her work at the weakest point while god begins his at the point of perfection. nature makes a man or a woman from a child and a chicken from an egg, while god makes the man or woman before the child and the chicken before the egg.8 precisely because of a mystic’s ecstatic impetus to “step out” (ek-stasis) and to “move beyond” language, mystical texts and practices more than other types of religious texts and practices demonstrate a capacity to engage the images and insights 8 meister eckhart, “on the noble man” in meister eckhart, selected writings (london: penguin books, 1994), 107. of seers, seekers and visionaries whose rituals and confessional definitions are quite different from each other’s.9 yet, knowing that many people think of mysticism as an antinomian flight away from conventional religious expression, we emphasized that for the jewish and christian authors we chose to study, the mystical was not “instead of” but “in addition to.” these authors, even when persecuted as in the case of meister eckhart, were self-identified members of religious communities, engaged in the same daily religious practices as would be appropriate for any of their co-religionists. jewish mystical tradition indeed rigorously circumscribed who might engage in mystical study, and it did so in a way that seems intended to stabilize and ground a practitioner in quotidian practical and social life as well as normal daily jewish religious practice.10 the charge of antinomian flight is one reason that mysticism’s potential for stimulating interreligious dialogue has been marginalized. buber, compiling and editing the texts of ecstatic confessions before world war i, reclaimed mystical experience as existential-cognitive matrix of human self-understanding. mystical experience, he posited, provides an irreducible and indestructible space in which individuals could re-invent them 9 michael a. sells has explored this ability of mysticism in his interreligious studies of apophasis, the process of “un-saying”; his conclusion holds very true for our experiment in dialogically accessing the mystical senses as well: ”[the process of unsaying] demands a willingness to let go, at a particular moment, of the grasping for guarantees and for knowledge as a possession. it demands a moment of vulnerability. yet for those who value it, this moment of unsaying and unknowing is what it is to be human.” michael a. sells, mystical languages of unsaying (chicago: university of chicago press, 1994), 217. 10 see for example gershom scholem, kabbalah (jerusalem: keter publishing house, 1974), 46 and origins of the kabbalah (philadelphia: jewish publication society, 1987), 393-95; also, moshe idel, kabbalah: new perspectives (new haven: yale university press, 1988), 20-22. ettin, wiethaus, mysticism, experience, and pedagogy ettin, wiethaus 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): ettin, wiethaus 1-13 selves, move beyond stereotypes to find their voice, allow for a powerful sense of self despite the weight of history. in his view, “no poison can touch it”.11 in regard to western christian mysticism, jesuit scholar and psychoanalyst michel de certeau on the other hand maps a story of loss and melancholy. he argues that an increasing absence of the mystical in european christianity, la mystique, between the thirteenth and the seventeenth century was caused by an increasing “technicalizing of society”.12 those who still embraced la mystique in the sixteenth and seventeenth century belonged to the disenfranchised, not the agents of historic change. similar to buber’s “dark side of the moon,” la mystique in de certeau’s view offers marginal “spaces of utopia” located “between ecstasy and revolt.”13 yet de certeau’s model also suggests a re-reading and perhaps expansion of buber’s ethics of mystical experience as a freedom of interiority beyond embodiment and beyond the senses. even in his magnum opus i and thou (first published in 1923), buber does not validate the interiority of mystical experience to totally eclipse “the commotion of our human life, which lets in everything, all the light and all the music, all the mad pranks of thought and all the variations of pain, the fullness of memory and the fullness of expectation.”14 de certeau notes the gradual transfer of mystical discourse to new genres that configure body, place, and space in the secular realm: discourses of eroticism, of psychoanalysis, of historiography, of aesthetics. in a reversal of such displacement of la mystique, we attempted to re-introduce the aesthetical and embodied into academic work, offering our students the opportunity to reconsider and un-do the formation of academic discourse as a process of repressing and displacing authentic self-representation. if students were to understand mysticism as the promise of “stepping out” of debilitating signification, we posited, they needed as much an entry to mysticism that did not distance it from them as a conventionally objectified subject of study, the butterfly pinned to the board. 11 buber, ecstatic confessions, 2. buber refines this assertion in i and thou, part three. 12 michel de certeau, the mystic fable. volume one. the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (chicago: university of chicago press, 1992), 4. 13decerteau, the mystic fable, 22 and 24 respectively. 14buber, ecstatic confessions, 1. 15 consequently, we did not dwell principally on the historiography─only briefly summarizing but not extensively chronicling transmission of mystical texts and concepts nor grieving the loss or marginalization of mystical discourse and practice─but intentionally included assignments intended to offer an experience of the mystics’ practices, including elements such as silent walking meditation. we reflected on that choice in our conversation. ettin: conventionally, people think of mysticism as dealing with the other-worldly, and it’s true that mysticism deals with a dimension of experience that is beyond, or inside of, or underneath the visible, the normatively experiential. but in addition to it being in that way other-worldly, and dealing with another dimension, the access to that mystical dimension is frequently through the physical, whether in terms of the imagery and language that people have accessible to them to describe what they are feeling, or whether there are rituals and disciplines that have to do with sensory ex 15 nonetheless, some of these butterflies aid in the study of patterns of historical and social change. see, inter alia, bernard mcginn’s magisterial four volume study, the presence of god: a history of western mysticism (new york: crossrroad, 1991-present); for an ecumenical entry into experiencecentered dialogue which also includes islam, see moshe idel and bernard mcginn, editors, mystical union and monotheistic faith: an ecumenical dialogue (new york: macmillan publishing company, 1989); on questions of aesthetics and religious experience, see umberto eco, art and beauty in the middle ages (new haven and london: yale university press, 1986), and andrew vogel ettin, the service of beauty. discovering art and ethics in jewish worship (www.booksurge.com, 2009). ettin, wiethaus, mysticism, experience, and pedagogy ettin, wiethaus 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 http://www.booksurge.com/ studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): ettin, wiethaus 1-13 perience or the willful denial of sensory experience, and that’s the point at which i think the mystic is dealing with the boundary experience between the physical and metaphysical—what it means to cross back and forth over that boundary. wiethaus: precisely, and one could make the same point about the process of dialoging. when communities come together into true dialog, the process itself cannot be contained in written words such as a press release, it cannot be contained in written words through critical study; furthermore, true dialog, true process between embodied communities is also connected to the history of the land where communities live. communities are connected to the memory of past generations, who also lived in a very concrete place and space. communities are connected to living traditions which they experience in ceremonies, in art, in ritual and prayer. so the emphasis here is on looking at those unnamed and perhaps ultimately unnamable areas of human experience, and finding a radically new way to integrate it into academic work. pedagogy and readings we were mindful of the succinct cautionary talmudic tale about mystical experiences, usually referred to as “four went into the garden.”16 this brief passage is most often interpreted as a parable in which the “garden” is mystical speculation. from the four seekers’ excursions, only rabbi akiva emerged with mind and faith intact. as our course was an upper level undergraduate elective, we could assume that the students were at least curious about mysticism; but we had no expectation that they deliberately sought mystical experience them 16 talmud bavli chagigah 14b; see also 11b for the prohibition against expounding esoteric teachings on arcane matters in the presence of more than one or two people, who must be knowledgeable sages . selves, as proved generally true. yet we were not training our class to be mystics, we were educating them in how mystics’ accounts of their spiritual insights could stimulate interreligious dialog, what role mysticism has had in particular jewish and christian religious communities, and how to read and inhabit a mystical text. further, we were doing so in a university context, in which our professional responsibility and that of the students is most transparently served through academic reasoning. we deemed it essential that we respect spiritual and personal boundaries in the class. all of our students in this small seminar were college juniors or seniors; some were majoring or minoring in religious studies but not all; most, as the college’s demographics would lead us to expect, were at least nominally christian while none (as it happened) had a good education in judaism. we needed to offer a common and reasonably safe dialogic space for learning, conversation and perhaps selfdiscovery among individuals at different places in their religious lives, with various mental and psychic attitudes and personal sensitivities toward spiritual development. we were also introducing students to the jewish practice of studying in hevruta, which traditionally has meant two students poring over a text that together they would read, question, interpret and argue, guided when necessary by an experienced, knowledgeable teacher available for consultation or ready to step in when the students came to an impasse or missed their direction. although we could not exactly replicate that process, we purposefully involved the students with collaborative learning, supported in our intention by elie holzer’s argument for hevruta as a propadeutic model.17 experiential process and readings were linked on multiple levels. 17 www.brandeis.edu/centers/mandel/mandel%20documents/beit_midrash_ paper_holzer.pdf ─ hevruta model. ettin, wiethaus, mysticism, experience, and pedagogy ettin, wiethaus 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 http://www.brandeis.edu/centers/mandel/mandel%20documents/beit_midrash_%20paper_holzer.pdf http://www.brandeis.edu/centers/mandel/mandel%20documents/beit_midrash_%20paper_holzer.pdf studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): ettin, wiethaus 1-13 wiethaus: in terms of the choice of the readings on jewish mysticism, would you like to say a few words? why those texts and not others? ettin: there were many more texts that i might have chosen. zohar is of course the foundational text of jewish mysticism. they also needed to look at the selected biblical passages we used at the beginning of the class in order to recognize that mysticism doesn’t pop out of nowhere. it is rooted in texts that they have perhaps encountered before in their reading of the bible without seeing them as necessarily mystical. i chose selections from the zohar and other mystical writings that daniel matt had put together and translated beautifully.18 but it’s a particular selection that i think speaks well outside of the specificities of jewish religious and historical experience. so too with ehyeh by arthur green, who again i think communicates well with a non-jewish audience even though he is writing from the centrality of jewish culture and jewish mysticism.19 i also felt it was important that the students encounter mysticism not only as a historical phenomenon─something that people used to write about and do─but that they also experience it as something people are still doing today. that is why i thought we needed to have something from a practicing mystic, in this case reb zalman schachter-shalomi who was and is one of my teachers in jewish mysticism.20 wiethaus: i chose the texts for our christian sections with the intent to test the truth of my thesis, my hypothesis, that 18 daniel c. matt, the essential kabbalah. the heart of jewish mysticism (san francisco: harper san francisco, 1995). 19 arthur green, ehiyeh. a kabbalah for tomorrow (woodstock, vt: jewish lights publishing, 2003). 20 rabbi zalman schachter-shalomi with rabbi daniel siegel, credo of a modern kabbalist (victoria, canada: trafford publishing, uk, 2005). interfaith dialog via mysticism is possible, despite 2000 years of tense and very destructive encounters. my hypothesis is that at its mystical core, christianity is able to dialog and creatively coexist with judaism in the moment one moves beyond dogma and the moment one moves beyond rigid definitions of reality. so within that realm of christian mysticism, i chose two somewhat marginalized voices: meister eckhart, who was condemned as a heretic and so was quite marginal within medieval christendom, although he was a very successful administrator within the dominican order; and thérèse of lisieux, who lived in a very masculinist and very antisemitic france. nonetheless, thérèse represents a form of christianity that is intensely open to the world of dialog. being a young catholic woman, she was tremendously marginalized within the world of french catholicism in her time. to me, thérèse and eckhart’s lives and writings demonstrate the risk-taking, freedom, and courage that lie embedded in mystical event and process. ettin: on the one hand thérèse of lisieux’s mystical commitment is highly emotional and even a romantically and erotically charged experience for her; on the other hand meister eckhart is so intellectual, yet a beautifully nuanced writer and thinker as well.21 interestingly he is one who reb zalman also cites from time to time, and someone who i think jewish mystics and philosophers can also engage with because he is dealing with such fundamentally profound ideas. in the zohar, though it’s not the only jewish mystical text about which we could say this. i think we 21 thérèse of lisieux’s intense sensuality and states of rapture deserve a nuanced discussion that is beyond the scope of this essay. for references to her sensual mystical experiences, see especially chapters five and six in her autobiography. thérèse of lisieux, the autobiography of saint thérèse of lisieux: the story of a soul, translated by john beevers (new york: doubleday, 1957). ettin, wiethaus, mysticism, experience, and pedagogy ettin, wiethaus 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): ettin, wiethaus 1-13 get both of those component parts coming together: there is a lot of eroticism in passages in the zohar. that level of engagement with the other, if we can think of the mystical as the other, is very much there. yet there is also this extremely complex and highly technological exposition of the inner world of the divine through the construction of the s’firot, which, looked at in one way, is very abstract. then you read these other passages and you realize that a deeply felt engagement is going on in that text. wiethaus: very sensual, very somatic, and very erotic as well, with both male and female elements integrated into it. i think this is also something we stress strongly in our course, to show there is a masculine and a feminine element to dialog─fluidly so─and they deserve being heard together. true dialog, as it is embodied, has to bring the masculine and the feminine together; it cannot just be one voice. as the students were about to venture into what we anticipated would be terra incognita for most or all of them, and perhaps terra non firma also, we wanted them to feel grounded in more familiar texts, texts that they might be expected to know from whatever religious education they had, though previously they might not have imagined the bible as a mystical work. so we deliberately began seminar discussions with mystical passages from the tanakh and christian scripture. the former consisted of several sustained narratives: jacob’s dream; moses’ encounter at the burning bush; the communal meal and heavenly vision followed by moses’ ascent of sinai to receive the first set of tablets; moses being hid in the cleft of the rock as god passes before him; the visions of isaiah and ezekiel. the latter was comprised of selected gospel verses, notably from john (such as 1:5, “the light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it”); pauline passages on prophecy and spirituality; and longer narratives including luke’s account of jesus’ conversation with moses and elijah, as well as the celestial vision in revelations 4. “scripture,” a student posited, “is a way of connecting the divine essence to the profane world; a way of seeing the divine in action and supporting supernatural existence.” following that, some engagement with the zohar was essential, as were subsequent developments in kabbalistic systematics. even in daniel matt’s lucid translations, the zohar and related works of early jewish mysticism are bewildering to the inexperienced, and kabbalah is susceptible to dangerous overliteralization. of course, our goal was not to develop adepts in either of these endeavors but to introduce students to these and other mystical languages and constructions of mystical experience. for that purpose, some tastes of the classic text along with an introduction to the shape of kabbalah seemed best. matt’s selections and accompanying notes sample the more universal aspects of the mystics’ texts, mostly leaving aside passages that more specifically address the jewish role in the divine processes of creation and redemption. the choice of arthur green’s ehyeh: a kabbalah for tomorrow to present the inner working of kabbalah was less obvious. our choice was influenced by a second intention: that we present mysticism as a living practice of someone clearly grounded in ordinary life, not as an antiquarian study or hermetic endeavor. green’s sane, self-aware voice, in which we find the balance of the scholar and the practitioner, offered a salubrious experience. one student reflected, “after green’s instructions to view the kabbalah as a map that can change the way you view things, it makes sense that many of his personal commandments are about viewing the world and making certain that every part of your day is viewed through the lens of the holy.” ettin, wiethaus, mysticism, experience, and pedagogy ettin, wiethaus 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): ettin, wiethaus 1-13 zalman schachter-shalomi, spiritual leader of the movement in which andrew ettin was ordained and known to both of us, inherits the rich hassidic mystical tradition, to which he adds contemporary insights in his credo of a modern kabbalist. these include attention to feminism and intentional interreligious awareness. while the imagery and language of kabbalah is often highly sexualized, the terms were predicated from the vantage point of male heterosexuality (again, based in what has been taken to be the norm); and while its metaphoric system is not exclusive to judaism, it was formulated in cultural conditions that naturally encouraged some parochial views of other peoples and religions. through his and green’s work, we see how an old tradition is both transmitted and transformed for modernity. breaking the fourth wall: embodiment and spiritual practice we met once a week, from 4:00 to 6:30 p.m., fortuitous scheduling, though the twilight is an apt time for working on mystical study. more by instinct than by reason i (andrew ettin) knew that i would begin our class, and most class meetings, by singing a capella. it was a way of indicating a difference between this class and standard academic discourse; it was an invitation to be receptive to levels of perception beyond the logical and to sensory experience as an entrée to knowledge. a student reacted in her writing: “as we journey further into our own thoughts on the music and on the experience of the music, we begin to understand the mystical experience. the integration of music allows us to understand not only what the mystics experienced, but how they experienced it.” as we introduced ourselves to the class at the beginning of the semester, ulrike wiethaus raised the question of whether i wanted to be addressed as professor ettin or as rabbi ettin. either was legitimate. but which was more relevant? my response came again from instinct rather than analysis: i felt that i was teaching the class as a rabbi more than as a professor. in other words, although i was in no sense proselytizing, i was bringing to the material my commitments and experiences as a spiritual leader and teacher of jewish texts as they are studied or have become influential within a community of beliefs and practices. true, as a teacher of literature i also closely analyze writings. but claiming the title of rabbi in the classroom allowed me to express convictions that professor ettin might have felt constrained to hold at analytic or even ironic distance. mystics sometimes show a sense of humor, but the ironic distance that they cultivate is between themselves and what is taken to be normal, not between themselves and the experience they profess. our seminar-sized class met in a conventional sterile classroom, an unyieldingly charmless physical space with windows but no real flexibility in its fluorescent lighting, no color, and choked with hard chairs, which though moveable nevertheless cluttered the square room. arranging the chairs in a semicircle so the students could see one another merely spread out the class without affording any intimacy for discussion. as it was ours only once a week for two and a half hours, we could do little to change the environment. before the second class meeting, as the two of us privately discussed our first impressions, i expressed my dislike of the space, which materialized the rigid, colorless, over-determined, “square” academicism that our course was working against. it was a feeling that we shared. playfully we imagined an exorcism, which metamorphosed into a different sort of ritual that would incorporate the students in something experiential. i based the spiritual transformation of our class space on the jewish ritual of havdalah, the separation between the sacred and ordinary at the end of the sabbath. this is accompanied by wine, sweet spices to smell and a braided candle to light─all with appropriate blessettin, wiethaus, mysticism, experience, and pedagogy ettin, wiethaus 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): ettin, wiethaus 1-13 ings. here we would attempt the inverse of the sabbath havdalah, using the ritual to set apart our special time from the ordinary routine that the room seemed to typify. stage performers speak of “breaking the fourth wall” when the performers interact directly with the audience; our course intentionally broke the customary fourth wall of the classroom but we could not anticipate whether the students would resist what was for most of them an alien rite, undertaken in response to our visceral responses that they did not share, since they simply accepted the classroom as unremarkably normal. i brought a havdalah set to the second class meeting and, to begin, explained why and what we were doing. we had wine and grape juice for the students, offering a kiddush (blessing of sanctification) so that we could honor our study in this place. the interlaced wax strands of the havdalah candle stood for intertwining teachings and viewpoints; the last of the customary benedictions, the one for distinguishing between sacred and profane, honored the fact that we would enter sacred places of experience and thought, rather than retaining a coolly critical observer’s distance from them. as the students sipped from their ecologically responsible recyclable plastic kiddush cups and passed the silver spice box to one another, each pausing to inhale the aroma of cloves and cinnamon, they seemed to accept not only the value of the ritual but the implied request that they be receptive to new experiences we would set forth. one of those new experiences was attending a concert by the jewish-american performance artist meredith monk, who was performing as part of a campus symposium on creativity. monk’s often wordless vocalizations using extended vocal techniques of especially high or low pitches, birdlike or animalistic sounds and rhythmically intense but verbally and melodically minimalist songs are at once sensual yet intuitively expressive. required to attend a scholar-performer’s preconcert talk and then the concert that they otherwise might have skipped or fled quickly after monk’s first convention-challenging solo, the students immersed themselves in a form of expression that seemed to leave normal language while pursuing a dimension of reality beyond the literal. another experience was a tu b’shevat seder, a ritually constructed vegetarian meal such as the 17th century kabbalists in tzefat (safed) devised for the late winter arborial holiday that marks creative energy on the day (usually in late january or early february) when, according to rabbinic lore, sap begins to flow in the fruit trees of the land of israel. having been introduced to the structure of the kabbalistic s’firot and the notion of four “worlds” or dimensions of existence from the most materialistic to the most spiritual, the class literally internalized the concepts through eating and drinking. we offered a staged succession of nuts and fruits, beginning with tree-grown produce having hard, inedible exteriors like pineapple and walnuts to represent the lowest level of material embodiment, eventually proceeding to those like figs that could be eaten entire (as close as we get to pure spirit), and a series of four cups of wine or grape juice, moving in stages from pure white to fully red, with the rabbi’s appropriate explanation and commentary. the concepts became experience, rather like (as one mystic wrote) word becoming flesh. ettin: that being the case, what did you sense going into the course regarding the risks of going beyond the safelybounded academic experience of lecturing, giving the usual sorts of assignments, having everything planned out each week so that you could know exactly what was going to happen, what each person was going to be responsible for and covering in a given week? wiethaus: the risk i saw was precisely the issue of incommunicability. some of the traditional definitions of mysticism include ineffability, and going into worlds that ettin, wiethaus, mysticism, experience, and pedagogy ettin, wiethaus 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): ettin, wiethaus 1-13 cannot be named and cannot be talked about. if you use aesthetic immersion pedagogy, if you use a more processoriented pedagogy, you could end up with nothing but a great silence. translating back and forth between apophatic and kataphatic dimensions to me was a great risk. to deal with this risk from a christian angle, we decided to view as a group a documentary about monastic meditation practices, philip groening’s stunning film into great silence (zeitgeist video, 2007). the other great risk that i saw was that the dialog might be breaking down between us. although we chose an area that allowed for profound encounters, when we move back into the world of aca-demic reasoning, as we have the responsibility to do, the dialog could break down because of noncommunicable, nontransferable bodies of knowledge, literally and metaphorically embodied: the uniqueness of judaism, the uniqueness of christianity. so somehow we managed through our choice of readings to avoid those problems because i think the readings worked exquisitely well in holding the balance between the semantic, the spiritual, and the aesthetically communicable. ettin: i think also we were both so committed to the conversation, that that made a big difference. for me, the place of anxiety in terms of risk-taking was the knowledge that we were not only having a conversation between us, but rather we were doing this in the presence of what the zohar likes to refer to as the companions─the companions in this case being the students. my concerns were on the one hand how communicable this might be to less experienced students, and on the other hand, how convincing we could be to the other students that this was still an academic course in which they would have academic responsibilities and that the normal expectations of academic performance would still be a component of the course, even with all the other things that we were asking them to do and to venture, even getting them beyond their safe understanding that there was a finite body of knowledge that they would be tested on; that there would be a finite amount of growth that we would expect of them. i think (i speak for myself) i didn’t know what to expect from them in terms of a growth curve, in terms of where their understanding would expand, and in what ways it would expand over the course of the semester, what they would be open to, how capacious they could be in their acceptance of texts that were strange or foreign to them, and what they would feel they had gathered in as a result of that journey. wiethaus: i feel that’s very well-put. your earlier description of shifting a humanities pedagogy to a case study approach, to hevruta, to understanding the classroom as a laboratory, and to allowing experiential process to happen, also implicitly meant that we had to renegotiate our roles as professors vis-a-vis our companions, and so in many ways our group became more egalitarian in the process. the students owned their voice and brought it to the process as much as possible. however, one limit always remained—we had to give grades. the challenge of grading raises questions about criteria for measuring creativity, about the translatability of experiential knowledge, and the potential reproducibility of our model. we decided to allocate 60% of the final grade to an array of traditional class participation assignments, including regular class discussion leadership, for which the students signed up in advance, weekly reflective and analytical papers, and overall verbal responsibility and engagement. often, insightful observations about the readings emerged in the weekly reflection papers. a student perceived on her own, for instance, some deep resonances between meister eckhardt and particular passages of kabbalah. ettin, wiethaus, mysticism, experience, and pedagogy ettin, wiethaus 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): ettin, wiethaus 1-13 the remaining 40% of the grade was assigned to a team research project on which the students worked throughout the semester in stable groups of three or four members. the research project was chosen by each team at the beginning of the semester. one, for example, focused on cinematic representations of joan of arc, beginning with carl dreyer’s great film, and analyzed especially closely the depictions of joan’s religious experiences. this group illustrated their class report with film clips. at regular intervals, students reported on their research progress. each group collated an annotated research bibliography and presented their findings in a student research symposium. the experimental elements of our syllabus thus could be absorbed under the familiar rubric of regular reflection papers as well as class discussions and become integrated reflectively in their research papers. we encountered one problem with the group projects, albeit not unique to this course. each of us knowing only one or two of the students previously, we were not prepared to assign them ourselves into working groups, yet we thought that they needed to form such groups as early as possible. students who already felt comfortable with one another quickly coalesced into effective teams, while a group comprised of those who had not known one another took longer to develop a project and produced one that was less well integrated than that of their classmates. perhaps we might have worked more closely outside of class with that group, or we might have formed the groups somewhat later in the semester when we and the students better perceived their individual strengths. that would have more closely approximated the ideal hevruta experience in which a teacher pairs students who will complement each other. could our model be reproduced in other contexts? our response is an emphatic “yes”, if a few basic elements and caveats will be considered in planning. these include the compatibility of instructors in terms of shared values, goals, and comfort level with creative and open-ended experiential processes. both instructors (if the course is team-taught) should have a working knowledge of liturgical and contemplative practices in their respective areas of expertise. it is important to allow reflection time in the class to process experiential units and to allow for depth in classroom discussions. it was also significant that in our own interactions with each other, we modeled to our students openness to dialogue, aesthetic experience, and creative and un-scripted exploration of each other’s mystical traditions. the dark side of the moon we should, finally, introduce ourselves. ulrike wiethaus is currently director of the religion and public engagement initiative of the department of religion at wake forest university. she teaches in the department of religion and american ethnic studies. growing up in bavaria, her childhood sense of home, history, and place were defined by two intensely charged experiences: a visit to dachau at the age of ten, and an excursion to a holy well embodying the healing presence of a local saint, st. mechthildis of andechs at the age of eight. these two sites still anchor her academic work in mysticism and commitment to interfaith dialogue existentially, geographically, and biographically. andrew ettin, a professor of english specializing in 16th and 17th century literature, is also (more recently) a rabbi ordained in the jewish renewal movement. for nearly twenty years he has served as the spiritual leader of small congregations and been actively engaged in interfaith work as well as in academic and political feminism. we have known one another for many years at wake forest university and have a sympathetic relationship. though we never worked together before, we each had team-taught different courses with other people. both of us are deeply committed to interfaith conversation and believe that mysticism has a significant role in that conversaettin, wiethaus, mysticism, experience, and pedagogy ettin, wiethaus 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4 (2009): ettin, wiethaus 1-13 tion. it is important to note that we felt high levels of respect, comfort and trust with one another. each of us is a full professor of long standing, with a record of published scholarship and therefore no career at risk in teaching a new course in a new way. each of us could comfortably teach and learn from the material, from one another and from the students. we had informally discussed teaching a course together in mysticism for about two years before our other academic commitments allowed that to occur, at which point we found a rubric for such a class in a religion department upper level seminar. believing that dialogue was a significant term in the exploration, we thought that dialogue should also be part of our methodology. dialogic components that we did not emphasize were nevertheless evident and implicit in the room: this was a collaborative conversation on the mutual search for “the secret torah” and the “experimental knowledge of god” between a german woman of christian background and a jewish man born in 1943, whose ancestors had emigrated from the region of the ukraine in which the jewish population was annihilated by einsatzgruppe d in 1942. early in the semester professor wiethaus placed in rabbi ettin’s hand a small pouch containing several drab stones. her single word, “mauthausen,” identified them as mementos of her visit to that concentration camp’s infamous rock quarry—moon rocks from a barren place whose visible face was darkness itself. our course became a journey together through the hidden yet intense luminescence of buber’s other side of the moon. ettin, wiethaus, mysticism, experience, and pedagogy ettin, wiethaus 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): suomala res1-9 suomala, response suomala res 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr response to kurt cardinal koch karla suomala, luther college a response to cardinal kurt koch’s october 30, 2011 keynote address at seton hall university during the 10 th annual meeting of the council of centers on christian-jewish relations introduction in his statement on jewish-catholic dialogue, kurt cardinal koch grounds his understanding of the relationship between jews and christians in both an historical perspective which emphasizes the role of ideological conflict and hostility between jews and christians from the very earliest stages of christianity as well as in a theological perspective by which jews and christians are bound together as the one people of god under one covenant. he characterizes the relationship between jews and christians as one both of mutual responsibility for a tragic history as well of mutual obligation to forge a new relationship out of a shared eschatological vision. in this response, i would like to focus my comments on the particular historical model that the cardinal uses to frame his argument and then to consider the challenges to maintaining the integrity and independence of each tradition posed by the theological framework koch employs. “parting of the ways” model in his opening paragraph, cardinal koch traces the long estrangement between jews and christians to the emergence of christianity, describing the separation between the two traditions as the first split and the “primal rift” in the church’s history. while he admits that current scholarship points to a longer process of separation than was previously supposed, his use of phrases such as “very beginning,” “early,” and “primal” along with his designation of discrete institutions such as “church” and “synagogue” from the first century suggests that the conflict between jews and christians was an inevitable, perhaps even necessary, part of their development. 1 citing cardinal ratzinger, he goes on to suggest that the relationship between the “blind and obstinate mother” and the “unnatural daughter” was doomed from the outset, eventually disintegrating to the point where even the memory of a family relationship was lost. 2 later in the document when cardinal koch states that …pope benedict xvi rightly concluded from [the destruction of the temple in 70 ce] that there were as a consequence two responses to this situation, or more precisely, two new ways of reading the old testament after the year 70, namely the christological exegesis of the christians and the rabbinical exegesis of that form of judaism which arose after the destruction of the temple… 1 kurt cardinal koch, “theological questions and perspectives in jewish-catholic dialogue,” 1. remarks with some minor changes made at seton hall university in south orange, nj as its eighteenth annual msgr. john m. oesterreicher memorial lecture and also as the keynote address for the tenth annual meeting of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations. 2 ibid. response studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): suomala res1-9 suomala, response suomala res 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr he reaffirms his sense of how quickly christianity and judaism emerged as two separate traditions, responding in two unrelated ways to the same sacred text. 3 in this reconstruction of the first century, often referred to as the “parting of the ways,” jews and christians separated early on, quickly becoming distinct religious traditions that “developed in relative isolation from one another” and whose interactions were “limited, almost wholly, to polemical conflict and mutual misperception.” 4 while first articulated in the late 19 th century, this “partings” model really only began to take hold in academic and ecclesiastical circles after the shoah as scholars and clergy began to question the consequences of supersessionism, the idea that christians had replaced jews as god’s chosen people. standing at the “centre of christianity’s understanding of its relationship to the jewish people from antiquity…” new life was breathed into the supersessionist framework by leading german protestant intellectuals such as kant, schleiermacher, and harnack who rearticulated it for a post-enlightenment world as the triumph of christian universalism and humanism over jewish particularism and tribalism. 5 the “partings model,” by contrast, was appealing, in that instead of the harsh displacement of one tradition by the other, it allows for both judaism and christianity to be approached as authentic religions in their own right, with equally strong links to the biblical and second temple jewish heritage that they share. as such, this model proves palatable to jews and christians alike; the former can affirm the jewish origins of christianity even as they deny any christian influence on the development of classical rabbinic judaism, while the latter can claim a profound continuity with pre-christian jewish history even as they affirm the essential originality of the (gentile) christian message. 6 for precisely these reasons, as well as the fact that it offers “a reassuringly ecumenical etiology of the religious differences between present-day christians and jews,” cardinal koch is not alone in in using this model to begin his discussion of jewish christian relations. 7 challenges to the “partings” model even though the “partings” metaphor served as a much-needed corrective to the supersessionist model by taking into account a wider range of theological, historical, and literary perspectives, it has in many ways become outdated. looking more closely at the origins of christianity and its relationship to judaism in recent decades, it has become clear to many scholars that the “literary and archaeological data…attest a far messier reality than this unilinear spatial metaphor allows.” 8 as a result, the “partings” model has been challenged on a number of different fronts and many newer models have been proposed. so, for example, in contrast to both the supersessionist and “partings” models, which generally assume a mother-daughter relationship between judaism and christianity, a number of scholars, including hayim perlmuter, alan segal, gabriele boccaccini, israel yuval, and mary boys, have replaced the mother-daughter metaphor for the relationship as one of siblings or even fraternal twins. this strand of scholarship lends itself to thinking about judaism and christianity as religious traditions that developed out of a common 3 ibid., part 2a. 4 adam h. becker and annette yoshiko reed, eds., “introduction: traditional models and new directions,” in the ways that never parted: jews and christians in late antiquity and the early middle ages (minneapolis: fortress press, 2007) kindle edition. 5 r. kendall soulen, “supercessionism,” in a dictionary of jewish-christian relations, ed. edward kessler et al. (cambridge, uk: cambridge university press, 2008) 413-414. 6 becker and reed. 7 ibid. 8 ibid. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): suomala res1-9 suomala, response suomala res 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr ancestor, protoor biblical judaism. within this sibling framework the early centuries of the common era are interpreted in such a way that christianity and judaism as we understand them today emerged closer in time to each other, out of the same “stuff,” and under similar circumstances. in addition to new metaphors for the familial bonds between jews and christians, scholars have also extended the timeline for a “parting of the ways” far beyond the first century, into the second and third, and even as far as the fifth. this is in part due to studies that problematize the uniformity of christianity and judaism in the early centuries of the common era, pointing out that it is probably more accurate to speak of christianities and judaisms rather than two stable monolithic traditions. in fact, it is still not clear when the distinct trajectory or constellation of identity markers that we read onto the judaism and christianity of today appeared and came to dominate the religious landscape of the traditions. all of this points to a more gradual development of discrete religious traditions in which the beliefs, practices, and interpretive methods, as well as the relationships between jews and christians, were likely more varied, and in which the identities of both the communities and their members were more nuanced than we have previously imagined. this “new” picture of jewish-christian relations leads annette yoshiko reed and adam becker, in the ways that never parted: jews and christians in late antiquity and the early middle ages, to pose even more far-reaching questions: did a full and complete parting of the ways ever happen? did judaism and christianity ever, in fact, become entirely distinct from and independent of each other? 9 perhaps they have had points of intersection or connection all along, shaping and influencing each other in ways that are often more localized and not necessarily as obvious. jews, christians, and power while the “partings” model has been significant in helping christians (in particular) see judaism as an authentic and living tradition apart from christianity, it can at the same time give the impression that the historical relationship between jews and christians was more symmetrical than it actually was. what is often left unstated is the dramatic shift in the fortunes of christianity visà-vis the jews under the emperor constantine, and the eventual designation of christianity as the official religion of the roman empire by the emperor theodosius i in 380 ce. the consequences of this shift in the balance of power as well as the growth in the numbers of christians which accompanied it can hardly be overstated: from that point on, jews in christian lands were at a disadvantage economically, politically, socially, and religiously. within 250 years of constantine’s accession to power, as jacob rader marcus points out, judaism could no longer legally “grow” through proselytization, and jews, among other things, could no longer hold particular public offices, testify against christians in court, enter into marriages with christians, or build new synagogues. 10 so when koch characterizes the historical relationship between jews and christians as one of “great strain and hostility which has in many cases unfortunately led to anti-jewish attitudes involving outbreaks of violence and pogroms against the jews,” he overlooks the deeply institutional quality of the hostility that emerged among christians toward jews. 11 the restriction of jewish rights, opportunities, and practices was much more systematic than koch’s description of “anti-jewish attitudes involving outbreaks of violence…” indicates. and even though koch 9 ibid. 10 jacob marcus, the jew in the medieval world: a sourcebook, 315-1791 (new york: jps, 1938) 3-7. 11 koch, part 1. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): suomala res1-9 suomala, response suomala res 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr maintains that the catholic church has never had an official mission to the jews, the coercive catholic christian initiatives in this arena are overlooked, especially the waves of forced conversions that occurred in the middle ages. while not perhaps formally endorsed by the church, these actions were conducted by members of the church. by the close of the medieval period, when policies and coercive action had failed to solve the jewish “problem,” england, spain, and portugal became the first european countries to issue decrees of expulsion, forcing their jewish populations to flee. “it should come as no surprise that the worst allegations of jewish antisocial tendencies were devised [during these tumultuous times], including the notorious blood libel and allegations that the jews poisoned the wells,” writes michael frassetto. 12 rather than exploring the consequences of such an imbalance in power for jewish-christian relations, koch jumps immediately to the 20 th century where he continues to use the “partings model” as a lens through which to interpret the shoah. indicating that “hostility towards the jews reached its lowest nadir in the history of europe with the mass murder of european jews,” he locates the shoah at the end of a trajectory that began in the first century, giving the impression that the shoah was the unfortunate product or result of a long, mutual hostility between christians and jews, one for which the jews must perhaps bear part of the blame. 13 this particular construction of the shoah is problematic for many other reasons, including the fact that it does not work within the framework that cardinal koch has chosen to use. on the one hand he has suggested that the mutual hostility between jews and christians was brought to a head in the shoah; on the other, he says that the “shoah cannot and should not however be attributed to christianity as such,” and that it was instead “led by a godless, anti-christian and neopagan ideology.” these seem to be mutually exclusive rationales for the shoah, unless koch sees the national socialists as an independent heir to and participant in the hostility of christians toward jews (which may be the case). at any rate, his statement that the “shoah cannot be…attributed to christianity” appears to be grounded in efforts to protect the church rather than to acknowledge its responsibility for the extermination of one-third of the world’s jews. 14 this is disheartening for both jews and christians, especially in the wake of nostra aetate—the 1965 declaration which marked a turning point in catholic-jewish relations, shaped subsequent catholic statements on the holocaust, and had a deep impact on protestant christian communities’ relationships to the jewish people. it was only after the publication of nostra aetate that many protestant churches in north america began to make their own statements about jewishchristian relations and in doing so acknowledged the responsibility of christians and christianity for the holocaust. in yet a further step, cardinal koch goes on to claim that christianity was, like judaism, a victim of the shoah, and even its ultimate target. citing the goebbels diaries, koch asserts that “hitler hated christianity just as much as judaism, and...saw in catholicism above all the virtual trojan horse of judaism within christianity” and that the shoah “intended to annihilate not only judaism but also the jewish heritage in christianity…” 15 this view fails to emphasize that the consequences of the holocaust for jews far outweighed those for christians; it overlooks the fact that while hitler may have hated christianity, he chose to kill jews. as john pawlikowski notes, “no reputable scholar on the holocaust would deny its neo-pagan roots nor its fundamental opposition to all religious perspectives. but equally reputable scholars, and i count myself in this 12 michael frassetto, “introduction,” in christian attitudes toward the jews in the middle ages : a casebook, ed. michael frassetto (new york & london: routledge, 2007) xiv-xv. 13 koch, part 1. 14 ibid. 15 ibid. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): suomala res1-9 suomala, response suomala res 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr category, would also insist on surfacing the holocaust's links with classical antisemitism. the holocaust succeeded in a culture that supposedly was deeply impacted by christian values for centuries.” 16 new questions one of the outcomes of the articulation of new historical frameworks for understanding jewishchristian relations, beginning with the “partings” model and including the others which developed later, was the need to develop new theological models to accompany them. as a result, scholars and clergy alike returned to notions of promise and covenant with an intensity not seen since the days of paul! if there was no supersession over or replacement of jews by christians, but rather a split or gradual emergence and more ambiguous separation of two authentic traditions which we call christianity and judaism today, then, as richard lux asks, should we “speak of multiple, but now related covenants, or is our relationship better characterized by considering there to be one covenant newly defined?” and if there is just one covenant, “how do christianity and judaism retain their individual distinctiveness and integrity?” 17 transitioning from the historical background of jewish-christian relations to the theological present, cardinal koch states that “we christians must therefore honestly deplore the fact that only the unprecedented atrocity of the shoah was able to effect a real turning point in thinking.” 18 in the same way that he depicted a “primal rift” between judaism and christianity as inevitable if not necessary, it almost seems as if the shoah was the only possible means of changing the course of nearly 2,000 years of separation. at any rate, for koch this “turning point” brought about a transformation in jewish-christian relations, revealing for the first time (or uncovering what had long been buried) the profound and unique theological connection between jews and christians. from this “groundbreaking discovery,” the church was able recognize the reciprocal relationship between judaism and christianity, in that each required the existence of the other in order to be complete or whole. 19 the importance of the bond for both jews and christians, then, necessitates continued dialogue for the sake of maintaining the relationship, developing a more profound mutual understanding, and obtaining a common eschatological vision. “one covenant, one people” model following in the footsteps of both john paul ii and benedict, koch aligns himself within lux’s second option, “one covenant newly defined,” to argue that “for the christian faith it is axiomatic that there can only be a single covenant history of god and humanity” in which jews and christians constitute the one people of god. 20 despite the fact that nostra aetate apparently permits two covenants, one for jews and one for christians, this idea has not been universally embraced by catholics. working from a strictly “one covenant, one people” model, koch goes on to consider the challenge of maintaining such a connection when jews and christians live “in two parts in a state of division.” 21 in spite of the obstacles, though, koch maintains that the bond between 16 john pawlikowski, o.s.m., “pope benedict xvi on jews and judaism: retreat or reaffirmation,” the glasmacher lecture, fall 2008, university of st. paul, ottawa, ontario, canada, accessed february 28, 2012, http://www.jcrelations.net/pope_benedict_xvi_on_jews_and_judaism__retreat_or_reaffirmation.2992.0.html. 17 richard lux, the jewish people, the holy land, and the state of israel: a catholic view (mahwah, nj: paulist press, 2010) 29. 18 koch, part 1. 19 ibid., part 2d. 20 ibid., part 2b. 21 ibid., part 2c. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): suomala res1-9 suomala, response suomala res 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr the two is unique, continuous, and enduring. since significant debate and scholarship have been focused on the development as well as critique of various covenantal models that best represent the theological dimension of the jewish-christian relationship; i want to focus instead on the problems that arise out of koch’s particular framing of the theological structure in which he places both judaism and christianity. on the surface, the cardinal repudiates supersessionism or replacement theology pointing out that they are both “scarcely represented today,” but on closer examination he speaks from the vantage point of a certain christian superiority vis-à-vis judaism. citing john paul ii, koch affirms that “the jewish religion is not something ‘extrinsic’ to us but in a certain way is ‘intrinsic’ to our own religion.” 22 while clearly an attempt to articulate the idea that judaism and christianity are connected at a fundamental level, the statement can also intimate that judaism does not really have an independent status with respect to christianity but rather functions as a structural element which upholds christianity. this later possibility is consistent with koch’s historical views on the shoah as a neo-pagan attack on christianity by means of judaism and the jewish people. judaism appears in this supporting rather than equal role in a number of other passages, including koch’s discussions of both the new testament and the new covenant and the functions of each with respect to their older (jewish) counterparts. under the subheading, “the new testament as fulfilment, not substitution for the old one,” koch takes up the relationship of the new testament to the old testament. 23 while fulfillment is more positive than substitution which is reflected in the marcionite position that koch decries, the old testament is nevertheless depicted as incomplete on its own terms, a position jews would certainly find problematic. koch himself recognizes the difficulties inherent in ‘fulfillment’ language, noting that “this christological exegesis can easily give rise to the impression that christians consider the new testament not only as the fulfillment of the old but at the same time as a substitution for it.” 24 he only partially corrects the potential for misunderstanding when he indicates that “this impression can only be correct in a limited sense…” 25 not explaining what the ‘limited sense’ might be at this point, he moves on to suggest that since the jewish people, too, were “compelled to adopt a new reading of the old testament after the catastrophe of the destruction of the second temple in the year 70,” the old testament was incomplete and needed fulfillment in their eyes as well. 26 the ancient rabbis, however, never viewed the mishnah and the talmudim (palestinian and babylonian) as reinterpretations or re-readings of the old testament. these texts instead constituted oral torah, a different kind of revelation altogether that, while standing alongside the written torah, could be read independently of it as well. it is perhaps in other portions of the document that we can begin to understand what koch meant when he suggested that the new testament could be understood as both fulfillment and substitution of the old in only a limited sense, when he assigns, in a variety of different ways, a superior role to the (christian) new testament over and against the supporting role played by the (jewish) old testament. in one instance, he cites cardinal ratzinger who said that the jewish people “must remain as the first proprietors of holy scripture with respect to us, in order to establish a witness to the world.” 27 in another, koch says that “jesus’ proclamation represents 22 ibid., part 2. 23 ibid., part 2a. 24 ibid. 25 ibid. 26 ibid. 27 ibid., part 2d. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): suomala res1-9 suomala, response suomala res 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr ‘the true meaning of the jewish faith in god itself’ and christianity remains ‘bound to this point of departure.’” 28 this same assertion of christianity’s superiority also runs through koch’s discussion of covenant when he indicates that “the new covenant is therefore neither the annulment nor the replacement of the old covenant,” but rather the “surpassing affirmation and fulfilment of the old.” 29 there is no sense in this formulation that the covenant made by god with abraham can stand alone or is sufficient in and of itself. in fact, says koch, “we christians are…convinced that through the new covenant the abrahamic covenant has obtained that universality for all peoples which was of course originally intended.” 30 interestingly, koch points to the abrahamic covenant rather than the more usual mosaic covenant in which form it received its fullest expression. the bottom line is that the old covenant was able to reach its full potential only in and through the new covenant which exceeded it in scope. judaism on its own terms as we have seen, some of the challenges inherent in the “one covenant, one people” model involve maintaining the distinctiveness and full integrity of both judaism and christianity. while some jewish scholars, such as michael signer, have contributed significantly to the covenantal discussion, much of the conversation has been driven by christian theologians like cardinal koch who are deeply troubled by the historical relationship between jews and christians, and passionately concerned about reconceptualizing the terms the relationship between them. while this is certainly important, the fairly one-sided impetus often results in formulations that tend to emphasize the needs and perspectives of christians as opposed to jews. what can emerge are statements that demonstrate a relative disinterest in (or lack of knowledge about) judaism as a lived and vital religious tradition apart from christianity and in the concerns and perspectives that the jewish people might bring to dialogue with christians. koch’s emphasis on the mutual need of christians and jews for each other may be overstated in that it is never entirely clear that judaism needs christianity in the same way that christianity purports to need judaism. in one problematic example, koch uses a “thorn in the flesh” image that evokes the crucifixion of jesus to say that: …jews and christians can each fulfill a reciprocal service toward the respective faith of the other. where it remains true to its divine calling, judaism is and remains a thorn in the flesh of christians, in that it calls christians to remember the experience of unredeemedness of the world…on the other hand, where the christian church remains true to its divine mission, it is and remains a thorn in the flesh of judaism, in that it bears witness to the already bestowed reconciliation of god with mankind, without which there can be no well-founded hope for redemption. 31 serving both as a reminder to christians of “unredeemedness” in the world while at the same time needing to be constantly reminded that only through christianity is there redemption, judaism and the jewish people are relegated to roles which are not necessarily grounded in true mutuality or a positive necessity. one almost gets the impression that the statement could be 28 ibid., part 3. 29 ibid., part 2b. 30 ibid. 31 ibid., part 4. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): suomala res1-9 suomala, response suomala res 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr fairly easily restated to say that ‘without evil, we could not recognize good.’ in another similar example, koch claims that: the christian church without israel would be in danger of losing its locus in the history of salvation and degenerating into an ultimately unhistorical gnosis. by the same token, jews could with regard to the abrahamic covenant arrive at the insight that israel without the church would be in danger of remaining too particularist. in this fundamental sense israel and the church remain bound up with one another according to the covenant and interdependent on one another. 32 moving full circle, it is interesting that the cardinal employs the critique of judaism that was levelled by german protestant intellectuals like hegel who argued that even islam had surpassed judaism in overcoming particularism. as koch moves to propose topics that are critical to the agenda of future jewish-christian dialogue, he highlights two items in particular. first, he states that” one cannot simply overlook the fact that the christian doctrine of the trinity signals without a doubt the most prominent difference between judaism and christianity and must therefore remain an essential topic of conversation in jewish-christian dialogue. 33 it is not clear from this statement why the trinity is essential, aside from the fact that it represents a significant difference between the two, and it begs the question of what the jewish people might gain from such a conversation. would dialogue that centered on the trinity be an attempt to persuade judaism of its truth or reality or necessity? in addition, is the trinity an issue that the jewish people see as an essential issue in dialogue? would it, for example, be considered more important than discussions of the role of the land of israel in jewish life, theology, and tradition, a topic which cardinal koch does not address? a second item, which koch describes as a “pointer for future dialogue between jews and christian” is the cross. 34 even though, states koch, the cross of jesus christ has again and again in the course of christian history been misused as an anti-sign of hostility and hatred towards the jews by condemning them as deicides, christians today have every reason and a strict obligation to proclaim and testify also to the jews the cross of jesus as a sacrament of reconciliation. 35 with such a long and fraught history, it is hard to imagine that the cross could ever become, at least in the foreseeable future, a sacrament of reconciliation for jews and christians. given this reality, it hardly seems just to both “proclaim and testify” to jews this sense of the cross. can reconciliation be truly achieved through the one-sided insistence on the symbol of that reconciliation? 32 ibid., part 2b. 33 ibid., part 3. 34 ibid., part 4. 35 ibid. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): suomala res1-9 suomala, response suomala res 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr conclusion recounting a history of mutual hostility and shared victimhood, koch tends to diminish christianity’s responsibility for the suffering of the jewish people. this allows him to frame the current relationship between christians and jews as one of mutual obligation toward as well as need for the other. but is this really the case? in the theological dimension he tends to privilege the position and role of christianity with respect to judaism. his case is much more convincing as to why christians need the jews in that he says that together they must together witness to the world that there is one covenant, that jews must remain the first proprietors of scripture, and that jews must continue to exist because the integrity of christianity is threatened without them. ultimately, this particular framing can give rise to the sense that christianity needs judaism to serve for them as a continuous and indefinite praeparatio evangelica, resulting in a kind of theological utilitarianism. the death of jesus resnick, dietary laws in medieval christian-jewish polemics resnick 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college dietary laws in medieval christian-jewish polemics: a survey 1 i rv en r es ni ck u n i v e r s i t y o f t e n n e s s e e a t c h a t t a n o o g a volume 6 (2011) http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr 1 this article was first presented at the 2011 boston college corcoran chair conference are jews and christians living in a post-polemical world? toward a comparison of medieval and modern christian-jewish encounters. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): resnick 1-15 resnick, dietary laws in medieval christian-jewish polemics resnick 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr as is well known, the biblical dietary laws (that is, kashrut) indicate the foods that jews may or may not eat, dividing those animals that are clean from unclean. in lv 11:3-7 and dt 14:6-8, among the land quadrupeds only those that both ruminate and have a split hoof are ―clean,‖ and the swine, camel, and hare are among those explicitly identified as forbidden foods. generally, early christians developed a consensus, however, that the dietary laws of the jews ceased to be binding once the old law had been fulfilled by jesus. in part, this conviction stems from the report in mark‘s gospel that jesus inquired of his disciples, ―‗do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?‘ (thus he declared all foods clean).‖ (mk 7: 18-19; cf. mt 15:11, 18); in part too it is based on the experience of peter, who was instructed by a heavenly voice to eat any manner of four-footed beast (acts 10:11-15), seemingly subverting the dietary regulations. if any dietary scruple remained at all in early christian communities, it concerned only food sacrificed to idols, animals that had been strangled, or blood (cf. acts 15:20). although these restrictions may have been observed in some christian communities until as late as the fifth century, gradually they too disappear. 2 for medieval christians, however, the fact that jews continued to observe the biblical dietary laws will symbolize their carnal understanding and help to define a sense of jewish otherness, as we shall demonstrate below. late antique or medieval traditions that asserted that in paradise adam ate no meat or that jesus refused to eat meat and ate only fish and vegetables did not alter the basic premise that christians are not bound by the jews‘ dietary laws. 3 but it 2 see peter j. tomson, ―jewish food laws in early christian community discourse,‖ semeia 86 (1999): 193-211, citing p. 201. 3 for the claim that jesus ate only fish and vegetables, see vincent of beauvais, speculum naturale 30.77, in speculum quadruplex, sive, speculum is one thing for foods to be forbidden by divine command, and quite another to elect to avoid certain foods. in pursuit of spiritual perfection, many christian monastic communities imposed a meatless diet, or at least a diet that excluded the flesh of quadrupedal animals. the monastic dietary regimen prescribed by the benedictine rule, moreover, was even stricter during penitential seasons in the church, 4 while outside monastic communities laypeople too were directed by ecclesiastical ordinance to avoid meat on fridays during lent and on other days of observance. 5 maius: naturale, doctrinale, morale, historiale, 4 vols. (graz, austria: duaci: akademische drucku. verlagsanstalt; ex officina typographica baltazaris belleri, 1964-1965), 2: 2274. the sole exception, vincent maintains, was the paschal lamb that jesus ate because of divine command. for the commonplace that before the fall adam ate no meat, see for example nemesius of emesa‘s late fourth–century treatise, of the nature of man, which was translated into latin in both the eleventh and twelfth centuries. see nemesii episcopii premnon physicon a n. alfano archiepiscopo salerni in latinum translatus, 1.1, ed. carolus burkhard (leipzig: b. teubner, 1917), 12, lns. 2327; and némésius d’émèse, de natura hominis, traduction de burgundio de pise, 1.1, ed. g. verbeke and j. r. moncho (corpus latinum commentariorum in aristotelem graecorum) suppl. 1 (leiden: e.j. brill, 1975), 11, lns. 6467; cf. ps. william of champeaux, dialogus inter christianum et judaeum de fide catholica (pl 163: 1066c); alexander neckam, de naturis rerum cap. 156, ed. thomas wright (london: longman, green, longman, roberts, and green, 1863), 251; and albert the great, super matthaeum. 5.18, ed. bernhard schmidt, ed. colon. 21/1 (münster i. west.: aschendorff, 1987), 126, lns. 11-15. for a very recent treatment of diet in christian tradition, see david grumett and rachel muers, theology on the menu: asceticism, meat and christian diet (new york: routledge, 2010). 4 see benedict of nursia, regula cap. 39 and 49, ed. and trans. adalbert de vogüé, source chrétiennes 182 (paris: editions du cerf, 1972). 5 more elaborate food rules, however, are evident in some early medieval penitential texts—for example, the carolingian penitential of ps. theodore— illustrating potential tensions between christian theological repudiation of the biblical dietary laws and practice in lay communities. for relevant selections from this text, see rob meens, ―a penitential diet,‖ in medieval christianity in practice, ed. miri rubin (princeton: princeton university press, 2009), 14450. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): resnick 1-15 resnick, dietary laws in medieval christian-jewish polemics resnick 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr monastic or ecclesiastical food ordinances were treated quite differently from the dietary prohibitions in the old testament, however, which typically were explicated allegorically by early medieval christian exegetes. although the biblical dietary laws explicitly named numerous animals that were to be excluded from the diet, it was the pig—and not the camel or rock badger, for example—that occupied a central position in jewish-christian polemical exchanges concerning the dietary restrictions. in particular, medieval christian theologians sought to explain as a moral instruction the biblical dietary condemnation of swine, arguing that it is meant to instruct the faithful only to avoid sinful, pig-like behavior, while allowing the christian to retain pork in his diet. 6 by contrast, the jewish disputant in gilbert crispin‘s late eleventh-century disputation of a jew and a christian concerning the christian faith insists that a figurative or allegorical meaning ascribed to the dietary restrictions does not supplant the literal: ―let us abstain from pork, because the law commands,‖ he says, ―and let us abstain from sin if that is what pork signifies.‖ 7 christians, however, received the moral instruction but repudiated the dietary restriction upon pork, often eliciting criticism from jewish polemicists. 8 6 evagrius, altercatio legis inter simoneum judaeum et theophilum christianum, 7, ed. r. demeulenaere, cc sl 64 (turnholt: brepols, 1985). the text is likely from the early fifth century. on allegorical interpretation of the dietary laws in patristic tradition, see also s. stein, ―the dietary laws in rabbinic and patristic literature,‖ studia patristica 2 (1957): 141-54. 7 ―abstineamus a porco, quia lex jubet, abstineamus et ab eo si quod est quod per porcum significatur, peccato.‖ disputatio judaei cum christiano de fide christiana (pl 159: 1011a). 8 see the jewish-christian debate in the high middle ages: a critical edition of the nizzahon vetus, intro. and trans. david berger (philadelphia: jewish publication society of america, 1979), 211, 270. on p. 211, par. 217, lns. 3536, the nizzahon vetus refers isa. 65:1-4 to christians ―because no nation in the world eats swine except for you.‖ (in a note on p. 270, berger adds that jacob ben reuben, in his milhamot ha shem, as well as the text of the nizzahon vetus, claims that only christians eat pork). other christian writers exploited the figurative sense of the dietary prohibitions. thus, in a common medieval trope, bruno of segni (d. 1123) suggests that christians are themselves the kosher, ruminant animals identified in the bible because they—and not the jews—twice ―digest‖ the text of scripture, locating in it the spiritual and not merely the literal sense. 9 this allowed christians to identify themselves with the clean animals, while at the same time compare jews generally to unclean animals, and especially to pigs, as obstacles to holiness. 10 9 bruno of segni, expositio in leviticum 11: ―ruminare quid est, nisi sanctam scripturam diligenter investigare et cordis sensu minutissime frangere, et ad spiritualem intelligentiam diutissime volvendo perducere? judaei ergo neque ungulam dividunt, neque ruminant, quoniam neque utrumque testamentum recipiunt, neque quod suscipiant ruminando spiritualiter intelligunt; litteram enim solam et integram deglutientes, nihil aliud quam litteram sapiunt.‖ (pl 164: 414c). see also his expositio in genesim 24 (pl 164: 201d-202a). this trope, which identified ―clean beasts‖ as christians that accept both the old and new testaments in order to digest the spiritual sense, was clearly well established. see the (8 th c.?) ps. bede, in pentateuchum commentarii— leviticus, cap. 11 (pl 91: 345b-d). the trope can be found even in aelfric‘s (d. ca. 1020) anglo-saxon vernacular exegesis of 1 and 2 maccabees. see andrew p. scheil, ―anti-judaism in aelfric‘s lives of the saints,‖ anglo saxon england 28 (1999): 65-86, citing pp. 74-75. 10 see albert the great, super matthaeum, cap. 7.6, ed. cologne 21/1, ed. bernhard schmidt (münster, 1987), 247, ln. 12. here albert identifies both jews and heretics with dogs and pigs. the pig he describes as a monstrous animal because it straddles classifications: it has a split hoof, but does not ruminate. this hybridity seems applicable to jews as well. medieval christian sources not only will compare jews to pigs, but also commonly to dogs (another unclean animal). for example, rudolf of schlettstatt remarks that ―jews...are unclean and stinking and viler than dogs...‖ see his historiae memorabiles zur dominkanerliteratur und kulturgeschichte des 13. jahrhunderts, 39, ed. erich kleinschmidt (cologne; vienna: böhlau verlag, 1974), 101. for a historical treatment, see especially kenneth stow, jewish dogs: an image and its interpreters (stanford, ca: stanford university press, 2006); for the common association of pigs and jews, see also alexandra cuffel, gendering disgust in medieval religious polemic (notre dame, in: university of notre dame press, 2007), passim. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): resnick 1-15 resnick, dietary laws in medieval christian-jewish polemics resnick 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr such animal images were useful instruments to illustrate the jews‘ intellectual and moral shortcomings. animal imagery was easily transferred to medieval art and iconography; 11 perhaps best known is the judensau (―jew‘s sow‖) motif, found most commonly in germanic lands in the later middle ages, in which jews are shown suckling the teats of a sow or eating her excrement. 12 fourteenth-century english manuscript illuminations of christ‘s passion depict jews with a snub-nosed pig snout, reinforcing the identification of jews as pigs and enemies of christ. 13 the received connection between jews and pigs seems even to have influenced municipal legislation: john carpenter‘s 1419 compilation of london town ordinances includes an entry ―of jews, lepers and swine that are to be removed from the city.‖ since there had been no jews in england for more than a century, carpenter‘s compilation likely served to reinforce existing notions that associated jews and swine (and lepers) as sources of filth or impurity. 14 finally, a late fifteenth-century engraving of the ritual murder of simon of trent depicts jews whose garments display the jews‘ badge or 11 see debra higgs strickland, ―the jews, leviticus, and the unclean in medieval english bestiaries,‖ in beyond the yellow badge: anti-judaism and antisemitism in medieval and early modern visual culture, ed. mitchell b. merback (leiden: brill, 2008), 203-32. 12 for the judensau and its appearances in medieval iconography, see isaiah shachar, the judensau: a medieval anti-jewish motif and its history (london: the warburg institute, 1974). see also claudine fabre-vassas‘s fascinating ethno-anthropological study, la bête singulière: les juifs, les chrétiens, le cochon (paris: editions gallimard, 1994), available in translation as the singular beast: jews, christians, and the pig, trans. carol volk (new york: columbia university press, 1997). the judensau seems to appear first in the early thirteenth century. 13 see wendelien a.w. van welie-vink, ―pig snouts as sign of evil in manuscripts of the low countries,‖ quaerendo 26/3 (1996): 213-228. 14 frank rexroth, deviance and power in late medieval london (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2007), 1-2. the ―swine‖ are evidently stray pigs that should be removed from the city, much as modern cities seek to round up and remove stray dogs. rota; 15 inside the badge is a picture of a pig, likely evoking a link between jews and the homicidal and infanticidal behavior attributed to pigs. 16 the question remained, however: for what purpose were the dietary laws given to the jews? in the twelfth century, peter abelard explained the jewish-christians‘ observance of some dietary regulations in the early church as an overabundant caution, stemming from a mistaken tendency to equate any form of abstinence with moral virtue and a failure to understand the true nature of christian liberty. 17 while it is an error for christians to observe these laws, in his a dialogue of a philosopher with a jew and a christian, abelard places in the mouth of the jew the explanation that both circumcision and the dietary laws have this same purpose for jews: circumcision prevents marriage between jews and non-jews, and the dietary laws prevent social interaction. 18 not coincidentally, this same purpose had long been promoted by ecclesiastical canons, and the church often sought to punish christians—both lay 15 for this illustration, see heinz schreckenberg, the jews in christian art: an illustrated history (new york: continuum, 1996), 280. 16 about the middle of the thirteenth century, albert the great provided evidence from his own experience in cologne that pigs will eat their own young. see his quaestiones super de animalibus 7, q. 8, ed. ephrem filthaut, ed. colon. 12 (monasterii westf.: aschendorff, 1955), 175, lns. 73-75. by the fourteenth century, too, there appear legal proceedings against sows accused of having killed (and sometimes eaten) human infants. also see jody enders, ―homicidal pigs and the antisemitic imagination,‖ exemplaria 14/1 (2002): 201-209; and ervin bonkalo, "criminal proceedings against animals in the middle ages," journal of unconventional history 3/2 (1992): 25-31. 17 see abelard‘s comments on rom. 14:1 in his commentaria in epistulam pauli ad romanos 4.14, ed. e.m. buytaert, cc cm 11 (turnholt: brepols, 1969). 18 peter abelard, a dialogue of a philosopher with a jew and a christian, trans. pierre j. payer (toronto: pontifical institute of medieval studies, 1979), 34, 47. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): resnick 1-15 resnick, dietary laws in medieval christian-jewish polemics resnick 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr and clerical—for eating or feasting with jews. 19 abelard‘s younger contemporary, petrus alfonsi, who had converted from judaism, also put the view in the mouth of his jewish interlocutor, moses, that god had given both the dietary laws and ritual circumcision to israel in order to separate them from their gentile neighbors, seemingly providing jewish support for the wisdom of the ecclesiastical canons. 20 but how did the dietary laws differentiate the jews? not only did they serve to reinforce a social separation between jews and christians, but they also contributed to christian notions of jewish psychological and physiological otherness. the early thirteenth-century jewish convert to christianity, william of bourges, treated the dietary laws as unnecessary for christians but necessary for the jews specifically because of the jews‘ obstinacy (duritia). 21 since it was widely accepted that the foods we eat affect the body, the passions, and the will, the special diet god commanded for the jews came to be seen as a way to address, if not fully correct, their stubbornness and natural inclination to vice. this is especially evident in medieval christian explanations for the prohibition concerning pork. 19 for examples, see the jews in the legal sources of the early middle ages, ed. amnon linder (detroit: wayne state university press, 1997), 445, 466-68, 544, 569, 576-81, 586, 597, 600, 631, 662, 672-73. 20 see petrus alfonsi, der dialog des petrus alfonsi: seine überlieferung im druck und in den handschriften textedition 12, ed. klaus-peter mieth (inaug. diss.: freien universität berlin, 1982), 138-39. petrus rejects the notion, of course, that the gentiles are unclean because they eat foods forbidden to the jews. hereafter this work is cited as dialogi contra iudaeos. 21 ―non precepit deus abstinere se a carnibus porcinis et immundis avibus et animalibus…sicut lex moysi ad tempus legitur precepisse propter iudeorum duriciam,…‖ guillaume de bourges, livre des guerres du seigneur et deux homélies, cap. 27, trans. and ed. gilbert dahan, source chrétiennes 288 (paris: éditions du cerf, 1981), 184, lns. 67-70. a connection between the pig and the vices was well established. isidore of seville (d. 636) explained that the latin porcus is derived from spurcus, that is, ―unclean,‖ and recorded that the philosopher epicurus had been known as ―the pig‖ because he asserted that carnal pleasure is the highest good. 22 the pleasure-loving pig, then, became a familiar image. the pig‘s pleasure-loving nature sometimes is tied to its well-known propensity for gluttony. in a sort of transference, the thirteenthcentury dominican vincent of beauvais insists that the unclean animals of scripture were designated unclean for the jews 23 in order to restrain their gluttony and wickedness. 24 likewise, petrus comestor (―peter the eater‖; d. 1178) remarked generally that ―in fact, in the text [of scripture] the lord restricted the foods that were permitted to them [the jews] owing to their gluttony.‖ 25 this term for gluttony—gastrimargia—explains albert the great, is illustrated by the insatiable hunger of pigs, grunting clamorously when they see acorns. 26 just as often, the pig was linked to sexual pleasure and to lust, which can be aroused by gluttony. peter damian 22 etymologiarum sive originum libri xx 8.6.15; 12.1.25, ed. w. m. lyndsay (oxford: clarendon press, 1911; repr. 1985), 179, 248. 23 the text of lev. 11: 8, addressed to the hebrews, makes clear as well that ―the flesh of these you shall not eat, nor shall you touch their carcasses, because they are unclean to you.‖ my italics. 24 vincent of beauvais, speculum historiale 2.33; 2.36, in speculum quadruplex, sive, speculum maius: naturale, doctrinale, morale, historiale, 4:5859. 25 petrus comestor, eine deutsche schulbibel des 15. jahrhunderts: historia scholastica des petrus comestor in deutschen auszug mit lateinischem paralleltext, cap. 17, ed. d. hans vollmer, 2 vols. in 1 (berlin: weidmannsche buchhandlung, 1925), 224. 26 commentarii in iob 330.5, ed. melchior weiss (freiburg: herder, 1904), p. 342. similarly thomas of chobham notes that castrimargia denotes gluttony and a slothful belly (ventris pigritia). see summa confessorum art. 3, dist. 1, q. 5a, fol. 3va, ed. f. broomfield, analecta mediaevalia namurcensia 25 (louvain: éditions nauwelaerts, 1968), 24. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): resnick 1-15 resnick, dietary laws in medieval christian-jewish polemics resnick 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr (d.1072) states clearly a connection between sexual desire and gluttony when he remarks that ―the stomach and the sexual organs are closely related, and when the former is intemperately satisfied, the latter is quickly aroused to shameful action.‖ 27 similarly, albert the great recognizes that ―gluttony [gula] and wantonness [luxuria] have a great deal in common.‖ 28 commonly, medieval texts treat the female sow as the most lustful animal because she allows herself to be covered by the male even when she is already pregnant. 29 albert the great contends that the sow (porca) is so lustful that, when she cannot be satisfied by a boar, she may even attempt intercourse with humans. 30 the sow‘s sexual attributes likewise form a link between the pig and the ―carnal‖ jew in the medieval imagination. rabanus maurus (d. 856) had closely identified the jew and the pig because of the pig‘s negative natural attributes: that is, its lust, wantonness, and gluttony. 31 these are the qualities that the jew and the pig share. as already indicated, it was widely accepted that the foods we eat affect the body, the passions, and the will. among 27 damian, epist. 96.17, in die briefe des petrus damiani, ed. kurt reindel, epp. kaiserzeit, 4 vols. (munich: mgh, 1983-93), 3:58; trans. in the letters of peter damian, 91-120, trans. owen j. blum, fathers of the church, mediaeval continuation 5 (washington dc: the catholic university of america press, 1998), 62. 28 ―gula et luxuria ut plurimum secum communicant;‖ quaestiones super de animalibus 5, q. 7, p. 157, lns. 29-30. for translation, see albert the great’s questions concerning aristotle’s ‗on animals‘, trans. irven m. resnick and kenneth f. kitchell jr., fathers of the church, medieval continuation 9 (washington dc: catholic university of america press, 2008), 194. 29 claudine fabre-vassas, the singular beast: jews, christians, and the pig, 105-106. 30 albert the great, de animalibus 6.3.1.103, ed. hermann stadler, beiträge zur geschichte der philosophie des mittelalters 15-16 (münster: aschendorff, 1916-20), 1:485, lns. 7-8. 31 rabanus maurus de universo (pl 111: 206d). thomas aquinas‘s several justifications for the dietary restrictions given the jews, he recognizes that some foods can affect the soul in an accidental fashion (per accidens), producing in it lust or sexual desire. for this very reason even some christians may avoid meat and wine. 32 in the same way, the language of humoral theory was employed to assert that the jews had been forbidden pork, lest the meat exacerbate in them the egregious qualities that they share with the pig. the fifteenth-century dominican antoninus of florence argues that certain meats were prohibited to the jews because they generate choleric and adust humors in the body, resulting in deleterious influences upon the soul as well. citing maimonides, st. antoninus explained that this is why the jews had been forbidden blood and fat, which produce gluttony in them. 33 while individual christians may elect to avoid these foods in order to restrain desire, the biblical food prohibitions were obligatory for all jews, and for that reason they appear to have been intended by god to counteract the jews‘ natural inclinations for gluttony, immorality, and illicit sexual activity. dietary laws and messianic theology what one is permitted to eat, then, allowed inferences about nature. dietary customs that deviated from those observed in medieval christian communities were not only identified as mistaken, but often they served to identify a heretical group and to associate it with the jews‘ error. some medieval inquisitors identified the cathar‘s avoidance of meat as a judaizing tendency, even though we might see this practice as having more in common with monastic dietary rules than 32 summa theologiae 1.2, q. 102, art. 6, resp. ad 1. 33 st antoninus of florence, summa theologica 1, tit.14, c. 5, §4, 4 vols. (verona: 1740; repr. graz: akademische drucku. verlagsanstalt, 1959), 1: 733a-b. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): resnick 1-15 resnick, dietary laws in medieval christian-jewish polemics resnick 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr biblical dietary laws. 34 similarly, especially after the first crusade, christians had become better aware that muslims also avoided pork and certain other foods, and sought to assign appropriate reasons for this. regardless of the origin of the islamic prohibition, christians understood the muslims‘ dietary restrictions to be a judaizing tendency and as foolish as the dietary laws of the jews. 35 this was so despite the fact that some christian biographies of mohammed indicate that jews murdered and dismembered him, and then fed his body parts to pigs, accounting thereby both for islam‘s abhorrence for pork, and for the animosity that exists between jews and muslims. 36 conversely, both jewish and muslim anti-christian polemics sometimes singled out christian consumption of pork as a sign of the uncleanness and foulness of christians. 37 the 34 see moneta of cremona, adversus catharos et waldenses lbri v, 2.5 (rome, 1743), and bernard gui, practica inquisitionis heretice pravitatis, 5.1.2, ed. c. douai (paris: alphonse picard, 1886), p. 241, cited in arnold of villanova, de esu carnium, ed. dianne m. bazell, in arnaldi de villanova opera medica omnia, 11 (barcelona: seminarium historiae scientiae cantabricense, 1999), 63. for a more general effort to identify christian heresies with the arguments of the jews, see david berger, "christian heresy and jewish polemic in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries," harvard theological review 68 (1975): 287-303. 35 alan de lille, contra haereticos, 4.10 (pl 210: 427a). this complaint may have elicited a response from muslims, as camille adang has shown that ibn ḥazm was sensitive to jewish influence upon muslim dietary practices in islamic spain. see ―ibn ḥazm's criticism of some ‗judaizing‘ tendencies among the mâlikites,‖ medieval and modern perspectives on muslim-jewish relations, ed. ronald l. nettler, studies in muslim-jewish relations 2 (luxembourg: harwood academic publishers, 1995), 1-15. 36 see john tolan, ―un cadavre mutilé: le déchirement polémique de mahomet,‖ le moyen âge 104 (1998): 53-72, citing pp. 57-58. 37 james lindsay, daily life in the medieval islamic world (westport, ct: greenwood press, 2005), 119, citing the ninth-century al-jahiz, author of a contra christianorum, in which the latter complains that ―at heart the christian is a foul and a dirty creature...because he is uncircumcised...and eats pig meat.‖ the judeo-arabic account of the disputation of the priest also objects franciscan alonso de espina (ca. 1412-ca. 1464) complains that jews regard christians as unclean (immundi) because they eat swine‘s flesh that is prohibited under the law of moses, but the author, in turn, cites the eleventh-century r. moses hadarshan of narbonne to demonstrate that jewish authorities themselves understood that in the time of the messiah this pork prohibition will be lifted. 38 therefore, alonso infers, because pork is permitted to christians it is a sign that the messiah has come, and equally a sign of their messianic faith. in the same way, petrus alfonsi insists that jewish sages themselves have ―said that the meat of the pig is called ‗hazir‘ that is, ‗changeable,‘ since after the advent of christ it had to be changed from inedible to edible.‖ 39 alfonsi reflects some awareness, then, of rabbinic traditions that in the messianic age the pig will become acceptable again. 40 for him, the fact that christians are permitted to eat pork now is a testimony to the fact that the messiah has already come. by contrast, the jews‘ continuing observance of the prohibition against pork is merely a reminder of that jesus ―ordered you [christians] to eat pork and to make sacrifice of bread and wine, which becomes smelly dung inside your bodies.‖ the polemic of nestor the priest, ed. and trans. daniel j. lasker and sarah stroumsa, 2 vols. (jerusalem: ben-zvi institute for the study of jewish communities in the east, 1996), 1:77. 38 al[ph]onso de espina, fortalitium fidei contra judeos: sarracenos: aliosq[ue] christiane fidei inimicos, 3.5.2 (lyons: 1512), fol.110v. for alonso de espina‘s life and career, see ana echevarria, the fortress of faith: the attitude toward muslims in fifteenth century spain (leiden: brill, 1999), 47-55. 39 dialogus contra judaeum, 12, pp. 139-40. for the translation, see petrus alfonsi’s dialogue against the jews, trans. irven m. resnick, fathers of the church, medieval continuation 8 (washington dc: catholic university of america press, 2006), 268. 40 see barry r. mark, ―kabbalistic tocinofobia: américo castro, limpieza de sangre and the inner meaning of jewish dietary laws,‖ fear and its representations in the middle ages and renaissance, eds. anne scott and cynthia kosso, arizona studies in the middle ages and renaissance 6 (tempe, az.: arizona center for middle ages and renaissance studies (acmrs) publications, 2002), 179-81. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): resnick 1-15 resnick, dietary laws in medieval christian-jewish polemics resnick 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr their obstinate rejection of christian truths. 41 this polemic is not new in the twelfth century. it is evident as early as the seventhcentury byzantine greek polemic, the trophies of damascus, which presents some unconverted jews somewhat implausibly as yearning for the foods christians enjoy and for remarking that, had they understood that jesus was in truth the messiah, ―how much ham we could have had!‖ 42 moreover, medieval christians were aware that talmudic sages acknowledged halachic exceptions to the biblical prohibition against pork according to the principle of piqquaḥ nefesh, that is, in order to save a life. jews acknowledged that medical treatment, then, might require relaxation of the laws of kashrut. medieval physicians might prescribe consumption of pork as a way to remedy the body‘s humoral imbalance, or the use of lard or pork fat as a way of treating certain skin ailments. elisheva baumgarten has assembled evidence that medieval jewish parents might feed their children non-kosher foods if their health required, and that jews might routinely keep non-kosher items in the household to be used as salves and balms. 43 there was still a good bit of room for disagreement, however, concerning the limits of medical necessity under which the dietary laws could be suspended: the late twelfth or thirteenth century sefer ḥasidim (―book of the pious‖) for example, prohibits jews from eating non-kosher foods (in particular, fish) for their aphrodisiac properties in order to treat sexual dysfunction, but recommends instead kosher alternatives. 44 this, of course, 41 see dialogus contra judaeum, 12, pp. 139-40. 42 les trophées de damas: controverse judéo-chrétienne du viie siècle, 3.7.1, ed. gustave bardy, in patrologiae orientalis 15/2 (1920), 173-275, citing p. 275. 43 elisheva baumgarten, in mothers and children: jewish family life in medieval europe (princeton: princeton university press, 2004), 137. 44 sefer chasidim: the book of the pious, 404 (390), trans. avraham yaakov finkel (northvale, nj: jason aronson, inc. 1997), p. 224. finkel used two hebrew editions of the sefer ḥasidim for his translation: the text edited by suggests that some jews were allowing themselves this leniency. christians were certainly aware of this weakening of what, in their minds, had been construed as an absolute commandment for the jews. this issue figures prominently in the jewishchristian disputation of mallorca (1286 c.e.), where the christian disputant, the lay merchant inghetto contardo, asks: can a sick jew be given pork to eat, if medical treatment demands? the jewish respondent replies that he can, which allows the christian to insist, then, that the commandments against forbidden foods can be put aside, just as the christians have done. 45 although this text from mallorca does not emerge from a northern european milieu, nonetheless it seems to reflect accurately a jewish conviction that, under medical necessity, dietary restrictions can be put aside. the christian disputant then treats the conditional as absolute: a law that can be put aside once, can always be put aside, thereby confirming christian critiques of the dietary laws. pork consumption, then, symbolized profound theological and messianic convictions; their continuing to follow the biblical command that forbids jews to eat pork reinforced christian assumptions about the jews‘ peculiar nature. reuben margaliot (jerusalem: mossad harav kook, 1957) and sefer ḥasidim (jerusalem: mechon rishonim). in the citation above, 404 represents the paragraph number in the english translation; 390 represents the corresponding paragraph in the margaliot edition. 45 see die disputationen zu ceuta (1179) und mallorca (1286). zwei antijüdische schriften aus dem mittelalterlichen genua, ed. ora limor, monumenta germaniae historica, quellen zur geistesgeschicte des mittelalters 15 (munich: monumenta germaniae historica, 1994), 172-73. in this disputation, contardo debates with two learned jews, a rabbi, and a jewish convert to christianity. for the difficulties jewish physicians faced when adopting medical cures that contravened the laws of kashrut, see also luis garcía ballester, "dietetic and pharmacological therapy: a dilemma among 14th c. jewish practitioners in the montpelier area," clio medica 22 (1991): 23-37. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): resnick 1-15 resnick, dietary laws in medieval christian-jewish polemics resnick 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr commensality and market regulations as noted already, peter abelard‘s jewish interlocutor insisted that the dietary laws were intended to prevent social interaction between jews and others. in theory, the dietary laws prevented jews from sharing a christian‘s meal, although it is difficult to know how often this barrier was ignored in practice. nonetheless, food had indeed become an obstacle to social interaction. but it was not only the jews‘ dietary restrictions that prevented interaction. canon law and christian prelates repeatedly instructed their brethren not to eat with jews. the carolingian bishop agobard of lyon remarks that just as the jews believe that they should not share a feast with gentiles, so christians are forbidden to share food or drink with jews for fear of being led into their error. 46 his successor amolo of lyon (841-851 c.e.) laments that by their contact with jews, christians have too often been led to violate ecclesiastical dietary restrictions imposed for the lenten season, which perhaps suggests that christians were influenced by jewish practice, or it is possible that they were eating meat with jews when they were not supposed to. 47 eleazar gutwirth reminds us that 46 agobard of lyon, de cavendo convictu et societate judaica, ed. l. van acker, in opera omnia, cc cm 52 (turnholt: brepols, 1981), ln. 50. this letter was written ca. 827. for agobard‘s compositions, see j. allen cabaniss, ―agobard of lyons,‖ speculum 26/1 (1951): 50-76, and pp. 62-63 for this letter. for his views on jews, see robert bonfil, "cultural and religious traditions in ninth-century french jewry," in jewish intellectual history in the middle ages, ed. joseph dan, binah 3 (westport, ct and london: praeger, 1994), 1-17. 47 amulon, epistola seu liber contra judaeos ad carolum regem 41 (pl 116: 170a). this text has sometimes been attributed to florus of lyon. for a useful discussion see alfred raddatz, "zur vorgeschichte der 'epistula seu liber contra judaeos' amulos von lyon," in ecclesia peregrinans. josef lenzenweger zum 70. geburtstag (vienna: verband der wissenschaftlichen gesellschaften österreichs, 1986), 53-57. for agobard‘s ―campaign‖ against jews and judaism, see jeremy cohen, living letters of the law: ideas of the jew in medieval christianity (berkeley, ca: university of california press, 1999), 123-45. ―christian legal efforts to isolate christians from jews by means of dietary legislation do not mean that such an isolation could be maintained.‖ 48 a cistercian statute from 1232 c.e. provides confirmation when it chastises an abbot for allowing jews to dine at his table. 49 such attempts to prevent contact over meals, however, were sometimes linked to efforts to prevent jews from luring christians away from their faith. thomas of chobham (d. ca. 1236) expresses surprise in his summa confessorum (composed ca. 1215) that canon law allows a christian to eat with pagans but not with jews, but concludes that this stems from the fact that jews represent the greater threat to christian faith. 50 vincent of beauvais, reflecting increasingly restrictive canon law traditions regarding commensality, 51 adds that christians should neither eat with jews because of the contempt the latter show for christian foods, nor should they eat with saracens, because saracens are ―judaizers.‖ 52 48 e. gutwirth, ―medieval alimentation: the hispano-jewish evidence (c. 1255-1310),‖ helmantica 46 (1995): 293-98, citing p. 294. 49 statuta capitulorum generalium ordinis cisterciensis ab anno 1116 ad annum 1786, ed. d. josephus-mia canivez, bibliothèque de la revue d'histoire ecclésiastique fasc. 9-14 (louvain, 1933-41), 10: 1232, ln. 51. 50 ―unde mirum videtur quare non possumus comedere cum iudeis sed cum paganis. quod tamen ideo factum est] quia iudei periti sunt in lege secundum literam, unde facilius possent corrumpere simplices christianos quam pagani.‖ thomas de chobham, summa confessorum, art. 6, dist. 1, fol. 51ra, ed. f. broomfield, analecta mediaevalia namurcensia 25 (louvain: editions nauwelaerts, 1968), 252. 51 see david m. freidenreich, ―sharing meals with non-christians in canon law commentaries, circa 1160-1260: a case study in legal development,‖ medieval encounters 14 (2008): 41-77. 52 vincent of beauvais, speculum doctrinale 9.40, in speculum quadruplex, sive, speculum maius: naturale, doctrinale, morale, historiale, 4 vols. (graz, austria: duaci: akademische drucku. verlagsanstalt; ex officina typographica baltazaris belleri, 1964-1965), 2:796. vincent‘s complaint that saracens are ―judaizers‖ implies that islamic food prohibitions were derived from the dietary laws of judaism. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): resnick 1-15 resnick, dietary laws in medieval christian-jewish polemics resnick 10 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr not only should christians not eat with jews but, as maurice kriegel has shown, medieval spanish municipal documents contain numerous laws regulating the behavior of jews in the marketplace, which forbid jews even to touch various foods on sale. should they touch them, either they must buy them or pay a fine. kriegel has argued that christians viewed such food items, once they had been touched by jews, as impure, polluted, or unclean. 53 it is also possible that, based on a perception that jews were not only impure but also ―sick‖, their presence in the marketplace had become a source of anxiety, just as lepers in fourteenth-century england were often forbidden to enter urban markets or to touch food for sale out of fear of contagion. 54 certainly there was christian religious resentment too that jews could sell to them meats that they could not eat themselves (see dt 14:21) because they had some characteristic that rendered them not kosher, while jews refused meats and wine produced by christians. 55 again, agobard of lyon 53 maurice kriegel, ―un trait de psychologie sociale dans les pays méditerranéens du bas moyen age: le juif comme intouchable,‖ annales 31 (1976): 325-30. cf. david nirenberg, communities of violence: persecution of minorities in the middle ages (princeton, nj: princeton university press, 1996), 167-70; kenneth stow, jewish dogs: an image and its interpreters (stanford, ca.: stanford university press, 2006), 20-22; louis stouff, ―les juifs et l‘alimentation en provence a la fin de la période medieval,‖ in armand lunel et les juifs du midi. actes du colloque international du centre regional d’histoire des mentalities 14-16 juin 1982 (monpellier: sup exam, 1986), 14153. 54 carole rawcliffe, leprosy in medieval england (rochester, ny: the boydell press, 2006), 280-81. 55 for an early example of the complaint that jews refuse christian wine, when more properly christians should refuse the wine that jews produce because it is a product of their sinful hands, see the fifth-century altercatio legis inter simoneum judaeum et theophilum christianum, 7. peter abelard‘s jewish interlocutor also notes that ―just as we abhor flesh slaughtered by gentiles, so they abhor flesh prepared by us, and we all likewise abstain from complained to emperor louis the pious that jews sold to the christians meats that jews themselves could not eat, and called these rejected animals by the insulting expression ―christian beasts‖ (christiana pecora). 56 similarly, in a letter to the count of nevers dated 1208, pope innocent iii complains that after jews have slaughtered an animal according to their rite, they leave the ―leftovers‖ for christians. 57 st. antoninus of florence also remarks that it is insulting for christians to eat foods from jews that the jews have rejected as unclean. 58 such resentment supported legislation that prohibited christians from purchasing meat from jewish butchers. 59 a london ordinance of 1274 threatened with excommunication any christian that purchased meat from jewish butchers; as a penalty, the meat would be seized and given either to lepers or to the wine prepared by strangers.‖ see dialogue of a philosopher with a jew and a christian, pp. 34 and 66. 56 ―est enim iudaeorum usus ut, quando quodlibet pecus ad esum mactant...si apertis intraneis iecur lesum apparuerit, si pulmo lateri adheserit vel eum insufflatio penetraverit, si fel inventum non fuerit, et alia huiusmodi, hec tanquam immunda a iudeis repudiata christianis vendantur, et insultario vocabulo christiana pecora appelentur.‖ agobard of lyons, de insolentia iudaeorum, in opera omnia, ed. l. van acker, cc cm 52 (turnholt: brepols, 1981), 193. 57 see grayzel, the church and the jews in the xiiith century (new york: hermon press, 1966), 127. 58 st. antoninus of florence, summa theologica 2, tit. 14, c. 2, §3, 2: 1149ab. 59 for market regulations, see norman roth, ―food use by jews, laws relating to,‖ in medieval jewish civilization: an encyclopedia, ed. norman roth (new york: routledge, 2003), 263-64. curiously, felix fabri notes without criticism that in the city of modon he saw turks selling to christians pigs that the turks had raised because turks, like jews, are forbidden to eat them. see evagatorum in terrae sanctae, arabiae et egyptii peregrinationem, ed.konrad dietrich hassler, 3 vols. (stuttgart: stuttgart literary society, 184349), fol. 189a, 3: 336. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): resnick 1-15 resnick, dietary laws in medieval christian-jewish polemics resnick 11 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr dogs! 60 ecclesiastical legislation also sought to prevent christian butchers from selling meats provided by jews, and market restrictions on jewish foodstuffs were especially common in southern france. 61 that such prohibitions had to be repeated during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries would suggest that economic reality often prevailed over fears of impurity engendered by social contact. 62 food, diet, and humoral theory furthermore, what one eats or refuses to eat does not only erect a social barrier: it also implies theological and physiological differences. we must bear in mind that humoral theory assumed that food digested and decocted in the body is transformed into nutriment for the organs and into bodily humors or fluids. since the humors affect an individual‘s complexion, the foods we eat represent the material causes of our habits, mental state, and behavior. this basic principle helps explain the 60 ―‗notorium est quod judei omnia animalia et volatilia, quorum carnibus vescuntur, propriis manibus interfeciunt....de carninbus illorum que sunt de lege commedunt, et non de aliorum carnibus. quid ergo faciunt judei de carnibus illorum que non sunt de lege sua? an liceat christianis illas emere et manducare?‘ad quod responsum per cives, quod si quis christianus aliquas tales carnes de judeo emerit, ipse statim erit excommunicatus; et si super hoc per vicecomites civitatis vel per aliquem alium convictus fuerit, amittet carnes illas et dabuntur leprosis vel carnibus manducandum;...‖ liber de antiquis legibus. cronica maiorum et vicecomitum londoniarum, ed. thomas stapleton (london: camden society publications, 1846), 171-72. noting that the meats were to be distributed to lepers (or dogs), rexroth (deviance and power in late medieval london, 6) speculates that this is because both jews and lepers were thought to live in sin, and to present bodily infirmities or illness that visibly signified this state of sin. 61 william c. jordan, ―problems of the meat market of béziers 1240-1247: a question of anti-semitism,‖ revue des études juives 135/1-3 (1976): 31-49. 62 see the jews of tortosa 1373-1492. regesta of documents from the archivo histórico de protocolos de tarragona, compiled by josefina cubells i llorens, ed. yom tov assis, sources for the history of the jews in spain 3 (jerusalem: henk schussheim memorial series, 1991), v. important role that physicians played in establishing a healthful dietary regimen for their clients, collected in guides that fall under the rubric of regimens for health (regimina sanitatis), or rules for hygiene and healthy living. 63 dietary guides were sometimes written for specific groups united by their specific humoral composition. the gerontocomia, composed in rome in 1489 by the veronese physician gabriele zerbi, outlines a diet especially appropriate for the elderly, whose complexion will typically be colder and drier than a young person‘s. 64 because the foods we eat represent the material causes of our habits and complexion, typically, for medieval medicine, you are what you eat; strangely, and in contrast, jews will be associated especially with the food they are forbidden. 65 as pork became a more important part of the european christian diet, its consumption served to proclaim christian physical, moral, and intellectual superiority: christians thought themselves different because they could eat what had been forbidden to the jew, and they thought themselves superior because they understood that they could prevail over the filth that the pig represented and over the inclination to gluttony and sexual desire that pork consumption could produce in both the body and the soul. 63 for a good example, see tacuinum sanitatis. the medieval health handbook, ed. luisa cogliati arano, trans. oscar ratti and adele westbrook (new york: george braziller, inc.: 1976). this richly illustrated volume contains five medieval handbooks on health and diet. for a general introduction to this medical genre, see melitta weiss adamson, ―regimen sanitatis,‖ in medieval science, technology, and medicine: an encyclopedia, eds. thomas f. glick, steven j. livesey, and faith wallis (new york: routledge, 2005), 438-39. 64 for this text, see gabriele zerbi, gerontocomia: on the care of the aged, and maximianus: elegies on old age and love, trans. l.r. lind (philadelphia, pa: american philosophical society, 1988), 17-308. 65 claudine fabre-vassas, the singular beast: jews, christians, and the pig, 94. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): resnick 1-15 resnick, dietary laws in medieval christian-jewish polemics resnick 12 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr by implication then, if the lord, like a good physician, ordained a special diet for the jews, it must be because they have a corrupt or defective nature. later, when a jew converted to christianity, the consumption of pork often became a sign of his transfer from one community to another, as well as a sign of a physical, intellectual, and moral transformation, while his continuing observance of the dietary laws indicated the defective nature of his conversion. the dietary laws served then as a clear marker of religious identity, helping to explain why, as early as seventh-century visigothic legislation in spain, jewish converts to christianity were required to take an oath to repudiate the jewish dietary laws. if, because of his former habit the convert could not eat pork itself, he promised at least to eat food cooked with pork without loathing. 66 similarly, visigothic christians who sought a business relationship with such a convert were advised to demand first that the convert eat the foods christians eat as a proof of religious identity. 67 conversely, continuing observance of the dietary laws could imply to jewish authorities the continuing faithfulness of those jews that had been forcibly converted. thus, the twelfth-century longer hebrew chronicle of the first crusade remarks approvingly that ―it is fitting to tell the praise of those forcibly converted….they slaughtered meat and removed from it the fat. they examined the meat according to the regulations of the sages. they did not drink wine of libation.‖ 68 dietary customs, then, and especially the consumption of pork, were a visible component in a litmus test of christian and jewish self-definition. 66 ―de suillis veris carnibus id observare promittimus, ut si eas pro consuetudine non minime percipere potuerimus, ea tamen, que cum ipsis decocta sunt, absque fastidio et orrore sumamus.‖ amnon linder, the jews in the legal sources of the early middle ages, 279. 67 linder, the jews in the legal sources of the early middle ages, 281. 68 robert chazan, european jewry and the first crusade (berkeley, ca: university of california press, 1996), 294; cf. kenneth stow, ―conversion, apostasy, and apprehensiveness: emicho of flonheim and the fear of the jews in the twelfth century,‖ speculum 76 (2001): 911-33, and esp. 924-25. pork served not only as a static marker separating jew from christian, but also as a dynamic marker, illustrating the transformation of conversion. under the eye of the late medieval inquisition, jewish converts ate pork to demonstrate their commitment to their new religion. records show that marranos (i.e., jews who had become new christians, but a term that some scholars argue carried the meaning ―swine‖ by the end of the fourteenth century), 69 were frequently denounced to the inquisition based on claims that they refused to eat pork and continued to observe religious dietary restrictions. 70 in a study of the significance of food as a marker among conversos in spain at the end of the fifteenth century, anna foa records the words that the converso poet antón de montoro addressed to queen isabella at her coronation, which express both the signs of his conversion and a despairing sense that he could not eliminate all traces of his earlier jewish identity: ―i said the credo and i knelt, ate lots of pork and lard, half-roasted bacon; heard masses and prayed hard...never able to discard this 69 for the origin of the term, see b. netanyahu, the marranos of spain: from the late 14 th to the early 16 th century, according to contemporary hebrew sources, 3 rd ed. (ithaca, ny: cornell university press, 1999), p. 59, n. 153. there the author conjectures that marrano is ―a haplogic contraction of the hebrew mumar-anus‖; these terms imply conversion under constraint. but cf. norman roth, conversos, inquisition, and the expulsion of the jews from spain (madison, wi: university of wisconsin press, 2002), pp. 3-4. there is no doubt that the term is derogatory, but its origin and meaning remain elusive. 70 haim beinart, trujillo: a jewish community in extremadura on the eve of the expulsion from spain, hispanica judaica 2 (jerusalem: magnes press, 1980), 288-89, cited in the jews in western europe 1400-1600, ed. and trans. john edwards (manchester: manchester university press, 1994), 41. for other examples of conversas that admitted to the inquisition they had followed the dietary laws and, in particular, had sought to avoid eating pork, see renée levine-melammed, ―the ultimate challenge: safeguarding the crypto-judaic heritage,‖ proceedings of the american academy for jewish research 53 (1986), esp. pp. 102-103, and 107. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): resnick 1-15 resnick, dietary laws in medieval christian-jewish polemics resnick 13 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr trace of being a confeso.‖ 71 eating meat during lent was another sign of ―otherness‖, and this accusation was often turned against recent converts, whether jews or muslims, in order to impugn the character of their christian faith. in the twelfth century, it was one of the charges directed against a muslim convert to christianity, philip of mahdīya (who served king roger ii of sicily), that led to his execution. 72 food prohibitions, then, have been an integral part of religious polemics. medieval religious polemics, moreover, also appealed to shared medical doctrines to stigmatize the food rules of the religious ―other.‖ in his kuzari, judah ha-levi (d. 1141) contends that jews are the heart of the world and, like the heart in the center of the body, they require the purest nourishment, establishing thereby a rationale for the dietary laws. at the same time, he notes, like the heart, jews remain more sensitive to the illness and afflictions of the other parts of the body, illnesses that are contracted especially through frequent contact with their gentile neighbors. 73 71 antón de montoro, cancionero, ed. f. cantera burgos y c. carrete parrondo (madrid: 1984), 133, cited in anna foa, ―the marrano‘s kitchen: external stimuli, internal response, and the formation of the marranic persona,‖ in the mediterranean and the jews: society, culture and economy in early modern times, ed. elliott horowitz and moises orfali (ramat gan: bar-ilan university press, 2002), 2:13. 72 see joshua c. birk, ―from borderlands to borderlines: narrating the past of twelfth-century sicily,‖ multicultural europe and cultural exchange in the middle ages and renaissance, ed. james p. helfers, arizona studies in the middle ages and renaissance 12 ([turnholt]: brepols, 2005), 11. the charge is confirmed in the 12 th century account of ibn al-athīr, the complete treatment of history, where philip was alleged to be a muslim because he did not fast at the appropriate times on the church calendar, for which he was burned at the stake. see medieval italy: texts in translation, eds. katherine l. jansen, joanna drell, and frances andrews (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2009), 123. 73 judah ha-levi, book of kuzari, trans. hartwig hirschfeld (new york: pardes, 1946), 2.36-44, pp. 95-97. food, then, had become an ethnographic marker that was at least as important to jews as to christians. the social segregation established by the dietary laws, and which abelard‘s jewish disputant suggests constitute their principal purpose, may have been understood by some jews not only as intended to protect the jews from the religious ideas of others, but also to guard them against illnesses that beset the body and, indirectly, the soul. 74 in contrast, the nutriment christians enjoy befits their bodies, but also attests to a spiritual or intellectual coarseness. this becomes especially apparent in the late thirteenth-century spanish kabbalistic work, the zohar, which contains a story of an encounter between a gentile and rabbi eliezer. the gentile complains: ―you assert that you abstain from forbidden kinds of food in order that you may be healthy, and that health may be given to your bodies. but in reality it is we, who eat whatever we please, that are healthy and strong, while you are weak and afflicted with illnesses and bodily infirmities more than all other nations.‖ r. eliezer became angry and stared at the gentile until he was reduced to a heap of bones. then r. eliezer wept, and recalled that he once posed the same question about forbidden foods to the prophet elijah, who told him, ―israelites, unlike the gentiles, abstain from all unclean food, just as the tender and delicate heart, on which the 74 it should be noted that peter abelard and judah ha-levi were contemporaries—indeed, they died only one year apart—and that the two works indicated (the kuzari and abelard‘s dialogue of a philosopher with a jew and a christian) share certain similarities. for discussion, see aryeh graboïs, ―un chapitre de tolérance intellectuelle dans la société occidentale au xiie siècle: le dialogus de pierre abélard et le kuzari d‘yehudah halevi,‖ in pierre abélard—pierre le vénérable. les courants philosophiques, littéraires et artistiques en occident au milieu du xiie siècle, abbaye de cluny 2 au 9 juillet 1972, colloques internationaux du centre national de la recherche scientifique, no. 546 (paris: éditions du centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1975), 641-54. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): resnick 1-15 resnick, dietary laws in medieval christian-jewish polemics resnick 14 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr welfare of the all the limbs depends, only absorbs the purest elements of food, leaving all coarser nutriment for the stronger limbs.‖ 75 this passage reveals the manner in which food came to determine the health not only of the individual, but also of an entire nation. the gentile repudiates the notion that the dietary laws safeguarded the jews‘ health, and instead he implies that anyone on a special diet must have a weakened constitution, and thus the dietary laws indicate jewish weakness or corruption. eliezer‘s stare, which reduces the gentile to a ―heap of bones‖, belies any sense of weakness. nonetheless, elijah confirms that the dietary laws do attest to a kind of weakness in jews—the weakness of a tender and delicate heart that can absorb only the purest food. as the heart is the source of heat and power for the rest of the body, so the jews seem to be the ―heart‖ of the world, as judah ha-levi remarked, while the gentiles, who represent its stronger limbs, can tolerate a coarser nutriment. while the zohar provides this more ―mystical‖ although still medicalized food assessment, earlier in the twelfth century maimonides (d. 1204), himself a physician, employed the language of humoral theory to help explain the jews‘ rejection of pork. in his guide of the perplexed he explains that among all the forbidden foods, pork may be imagined by physicians not to be harmful: but this is not so, for pork is more humid than is proper and contains much superfluous matter. the major reason why the law abhors it is its being very dirty and feeding on dirty things....now if swine were used for food, market-places and even houses would have been 75 zohar 3:220b-221b, quoted in barry r. mark, ―kabbalistic tocinofobia: américo castro, limpieza de sangre and the inner meaning of jewish dietary laws,‖ 174-75. dirtier than latrines, as may be seen at present in the country of the franks [i.e. of western europeans]. you know the dictum [of the sages], may their memory be blessed: the mouth of a swine is like walking excrement. the fat of the intestines, too, makes us too full, spoils the digestion, and produces cold and thick blood. 76 for maimonides, then, pork is prohibited to jews at least in part because it is a ―humid‖ food that contains superfluous material (presumably, fat), causes repletion, spoils digestion, and produces blood that is cold and thick. citing the sages, he adds that the pig‘s mouth ―is like walking excrement.‖ it is a dirty animal, which, in an attack on european christian habits, maimonides insists befouls the towns of the franks, undermining public hygiene. in fact, pigs do eat excrement. albert the great (d. 1280) explains that frisians often tie a pig to a cow‘s tail while the cow is feeding. the cow does not break down all the grain fed to it, but passes much of it in its excrement, which the pig, placed behind it, will then eat and digest. 77 according to alan dundes, ―[this] explains why schwein is such an offensive insult in german folk speech. the implication is that the object of the insult is a shit-eater.‖ 78 scatological medieval insults that identified jews as pigs, or showed 76 guide of the perplexed 3.48, trans. shlomo pines (chicago: university of chicago press, 1963), 598-99. for this text, see also jacob levinger, ―maimonides‘ guide of the perplexed on forbidden food in light of his own medical opinion,‖ in perspectives on maimonides: philosophical and historical studies, ed. joel l. kraemer (london: littman library of jewish civilization), 195. cf. hanna kasher, ―well-being of the body or welfare of the soul: the maimonidean explanation of the dietary laws,‖ in moses maimonides: physician, scientist, and philosopher, eds. fred rosner and samuel s. kottek (northvale, n.j.: aronson, 1993), 127-138, 257-258. 77 albert the great, de animalibus 7.1.5.53, 15: 518. 78 alan dundes, life is like a chicken coop: a portrait of german culture through folklore (new york: columbia university press, 1984), 121. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 6(2011): resnick 1-15 resnick, dietary laws in medieval christian-jewish polemics resnick 15 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr them nursing from a sow or eating its excrement, as in the image of the judensau, likely were intended to construct an image of the dirty jew, the ―excrement of the human race‖ (humani generis feces) as peter the venerable says. 79 like maimonides, latin tradition as well viewed the pig as phlegmatic; its meat, then, will be cold and moist or ―humid.‖ 80 but god did not impose upon the christians dietary laws that prohibit pork, and therefore they must be unnecessary for them, as christian theologians emphasized. this contention is quite explicit in another text, composed ca. 1520, solomon ibn verga‘s shevet judah (staff of judah), an imaginary dialogue between a jew named abravanel and a christian named tomás. according to abravanel, the jews form a category above the rest of humanity, and that is why they observe a special diet. tomás rebuffs this explanation, but treats the dietary laws as necessary for jews because of their natural imperfection, and unnecessary for christians because of their natural superiority. thus, he alleges, although typically pork increases sexual desire, ―christians because of their humours and perfection change everything to accord with their humours, just as honey changes the bitterness of the orange‘s peel into sweetness.‖ 81 therefore, christians are permitted pork in their diet because they can withstand its influence on carnal desire. jews, he adds, had to be restrained from such foods because their natural imperfection or inclination to vice makes it impossible for them to withstand a desire for sexual intercourse. even though the argument is presented with tongue in cheek, 79 adversus judeorum inveteratam duritiem, 3, ed. yvonne friedman, cc cm 58 (turnholt: brepols, 1985), p. 56, ln. 526. 80 cf. william of conches, de philosophia mundi 23 (pl 172: 56b); albert the great, quaestiones super de animalibus 7, q. 33-39. 81 shevet judah, p. 36 and p. 175, n. 8, quoted in e. gutwirth, ―gender, history, and the judeo-christian polemic,‖ in contra iudaeos. ancient and medieval polemics between christians and jews, ed. ora limor and guy g. stroumsa (tübingen: j.c.b. mohr, 1996), 272. nonetheless its appeal to humoral theory relies on generally shared and recognized principles. conclusion i have attempted to survey the extent to which dietary laws and food concerns entered into medieval christian-jewish polemics. not only did christians reject the biblical dietary laws, but they understood the jews‘ continuing observance of these laws to signify both a ―carnal‖ understanding of scripture and jews‘ lived carnality. paradoxically, the jews‘ rejection of pork identified them with the pig and its negative attributes, which include especially gluttony and unbridled lust or sexual desire. the lord‘s imposition of the dietary laws upon the jews and not christians, moreover, suggested the jews‘ defective corporeal nature or physiology, which the laws of kashrut might ameliorate in the way that certain medical remedies control chronic illness. aware of such christian interpretation, medieval jewish thinkers attempted to invert the metaphor, and to show that if jews were given a special diet it signified not chronic illness but the tenderness or weakness of the heart, the central but most fragile bodily organ. 1 scjr 11, no. 1 (2016): 1-36 journey to dialogue: sisters of our lady of sion and the writing of nostra aetate 1 celia deutsch cdeutsch@barnard.edu barnard college, new york, ny 10027 introduction accounts of the preparation and promulgation of nostra aetate paragraph 4 on oct. 28, 1965, focus entirely on men. in actual fact, the production of nostra aetate was the result of decades of encounter and collaboration among lay and clergy, men and women, protestants, catholics and jews, as well as some orthodox christians in a variety of formal and informal contexts, particularly in 1 this article is based on a talk first given for “women transforming religion and society,” a course led by professor mary boys (dean of academic affairs, union theological seminary, nyc) and professor shuly rubin schwartz (dean of undergraduate and graduate studies, jewish theological seminary, nyc), at union theological seminary, april 22, 2015; the material was then given in a paper (“the sisters of our lady of sion and the writing of nostra aetate”) for “the role of women in the development and implementation of nostra aetate,” a workshop of the annual conference of the international council of christians and jews, rome, june 29, 2015. i would like to thank céline hirsch poynard, the archivist of the congregation of our lady of sion for making available archival materials. thanks are also due sr. margaret shepherd, n.d.s. who made available material from the sion centre for dialogue and encounter in london, and emma green, managing editor of the atlantic.co, who generously shared documents with me. on the role of the sisters in the writing of nostra aetate, see emma green, “developing dialogue: the congregation of our lady of sion and nostra aetate, 1945-1969,” ecumenical trends 41(february, 2012), 8/24-15/31; “sisters of sion: the nuns who opened their doors for europe’s jews,” the atlantic.com, october 11, 2012, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/10/sisters-of-sion-the-nuns-who-opened-theirdoors-for-europes-jews/263525/ (accessed jan. 2, 2016); sr. marie-bénédicte salmon, n.d.s., “la congrégation notre-dame de sion en france; pendant le concile vatican ii,” sens 271(2002): 472487; sr. marie-dominique gros, “la congrégation notre-dame de sion avant et après le concile vatican ii,” sens 271(2002): 488-503. on the development of sisters’ understanding of the congregation’s vocation, see charlotte klein, “from conversion to dialogue – the sisters of sion and the jews: a paradigm of catholic-jewish relations?” journal of ecumenical studies 18(1981): 388-400; mary c. boys, “the sisters of sion: from a conversionist stance to a dialogical way of life,” journal of ecumenical studies 31(1994): 27-48; madeleine comte, “de la conversion à la rencontre; les religieuses de notre-dame de sion (1843-1986),” archives juives 35 (2002): 102-119; olivier rota, “une double fidélité. évolution générale de la congrégation des religieuses de notre-dame de sion dans sa relations aux juifs (1946-1969),” sens 274 (2005): 67-77; paule berger marx, les relations entre les juifs et les catholiques dans la france de l’après-guerre 1945-1965 (paris: éditions parole et silence, 2009), 47-77. deutsch: journey to dialogue 2 continental europe, great britain and the united states. 2 as thomas stransky, a member of the original secretariat for promoting christian unity, notes, the boundaries of these groups were permeable with participants sharing research and insights through their publications as well as in face-to-face encounters. 3 the sisters of our lady of sion contributed to these developing jewish-christian relations. founded by theodore ratisbonne in 1847, the sisters of our lady of sion, or simply, the sisters of sion, are a roman catholic religious institute. 4 its original commitment to the jewish people was usually expressed by praying for the jews’ “salvation,” “regeneration,” or “conversion.” 5 active ministry principally involved education, often in places with large jewish populations. schools directed by the sisters welcomed jews, muslims, orthodox and protestant christians. sisters also worked with poor jews from russia and eastern europe and, later, from north africa. though zealous in his desire for converts, theodore ratisbonne forbade the sisters in the strictest terms to proselytize, something exceptional in the nineteenth century when various missionary groups engaged in what françois delpech calls “unbridled proselytism” (un prosélytisme effréné). 6 2 see stransky’s remarks in nelson h. minnich, eugene j. fisher, thomas stransky, susannah heschel, alberto melloni, and john connelly, “forum essay,” catholic historical review 98 (2012): 758-759. on the central european circle, see john connelly, from enemy to brother; the revolution in catholic teaching on the jews, 1933-1965 (cambridge ma: harvard university press, 2012). on french circles see brenna moore, “philosemitism under a darkening sky: judaism in the french catholic revival,” catholic historical review 99 (2013): 262-297; “a current of catholic renewal: the roots of vatican ii and the context for thinking judaism anew”(paper presented at the columbia university seminar on catholicism, culture and modernity, new york, ny, dec. 2, 2014); and catherine poujol, aimé pallière (1868-1949); un chrétien dans le judaïsme (paris: desclée de brouwer, 2003), esp. 286-311. 3 minnich et al., “forum essay,” 758-65. 4 “religious institute” is an expression used in the 1983 revision of the code of canon law (#607709) to include those groups formally designated by the terms “order” and “congregation.” see http://www.vatican.va/archive/eng1104/__p1z.htm (accessed june 25, 2016). since the full title of the sisters of sion is “congregation of notre dame de sion” or “congregation of our lady of sion,” the term “congregation” will be used in this article. 5 françois delpech, “notre dame de sion et les juifs,” in sur les juifs: études d’histoire contemporaine (lyon: presses universitaires de lyon, 1983), 347. theodore speaks of his being “reborn” (régénéré) in baptism as early as 1835. theodore ratisbonne, “adéodat,” in la philosophie du christianisme: correspondance religieuse de l. bautain, vol. 2, ed. by abbé henri de bonnechose (paris: dérivaux, 1835), xlvii. in doing so, theodore uses a term that originates as early as the midfirst century (e.g., rom 6:1-4). he also uses the term as it is deployed among nineteenth century french jewish intellectuals to describe the process of transformation of jews into members of mainstream french society; cf.”adéodat,” liii. on the “le movement régénérateur” (movement of regeneration), see jay r. berkovitz, the shaping of jewish identity in nineteenth-century france (detroit mi: wayne state university press, 1989), 128-149. 6 delpech, “notre-dame de sion et les juifs,” 347-348. on the difference between conversionary efforts and proselytism, see a document issued jointly by the pontifical commission for interreligious dialogue, the world council of churches, and the world evangelical alliance, “christian witness in a multi-religious world; recommendations for conduct.” (june 28, 2011), available on each of their websites, for example http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_2011 1110_testimonianza-cristiana_en.html. http://www.vatican.va/archive/eng1104/__p1z.htm 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) instead, ratisbonne encouraged the sisters to focus on prayer for the conversion of the jews, all the while being careful to respect their and others’ consciences. 7 even before the shoah, the sisters began to move from their original supersessionist theology and desire for conversion of the jewish people to dialogue, reciprocity and friendship. the factors that shaped the sisters’ journey from conversion to dialogue and enabled their contributions to nostra aetate include philosemitism, ressourcement, resistance to the shoah and the affaire finaly (finaly affair). 8 this article, then, will focus on the congregation’s evolution during the decades preceding and during the council in the context of these four elements. it will pay attention particularly to the sisters’ work in france, where they had participated for decades in developing new ways of understanding, and will attend to the international context of the congregation’s development as reflected through various official documents. the years of the council (1959-1965) angelo giuseppe roncalli was elected pope on october 28, 1958 and two months later, on january 25, 1959, announced his plan to convene an ecumenical council. on june 13, 1960, jules isaac made his historic visit to pope john xxiii, asking for and receiving assurance that the pope would use the opportunity afforded by the council to raise his voice on the question of the “teaching of contempt.” pope john had already set something in motion before jules isaac’s visit. on june 5, a few days before that meeting, he had created the secretariat for promoting christian unity. on june 6, he appointed augustin cardinal bea as president and bishop johannes willebrands as secretary. the pope asked isaac to discuss his memorandum with bea. on sept. 18 pope and cardinal weighed isaac’s proposals and the decision was made to put this project under bea, with the pope mandating “that the secretariat for promoting christian unity should also facilitate reflection on ‘the jewish question’ during its preparation for the council.” 9 7 theodore ratisbonne, trois retraîtes à l’usage des religieuses (paris: librairie poussielgue frères, 1889), 85-91. 8 while scholarship has taken account of the work of the sisters of sion in the development of jewish-christian dialogue, with the exception of two articles by emma green, reference to this group is missing in the english-language literature on nostra aetate itself. see her “developing dialogue: the congregation of our lady of sion and nostra aetate, 1945-1969,” ecumenical trends 41 (february, 2012), 8-15 ; and “sisters of sion: the nuns who opened their doors for europe’s jews,” the atlantic.com, october 11, 2012, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/10/sisters-of-sionthe-nuns-who-opened-their-doors-for-europes-jews/263525/ (accessed jan. 2, 2016). 9 thomas stransky, “the genesis of nostra aetate,” america, october 24, 2005, http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/547/article/genesis-nostra-aetate (accessed on april 26, 2015). stransky continues, “the pope did not, as a myth was to say, directly mandate the drafting of a schema for the council itself.” there had already been a number of documents from protestant, catholic and ecumenical/interfaith groups, urging new relationships between christians and jews, beginning with “an address to the churches (the ten points of seelisberg)” in 1947; for documents, cf. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vaticancouncil/naprecursors (accessed september 23, 2015); john m. oesterreicher, “declaration on the rehttp://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/10/sisters-of-sion-the-nuns-who-opened-their-doors-for-europes-jews/263525/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/10/sisters-of-sion-the-nuns-who-opened-their-doors-for-europes-jews/263525/ http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/547/article/genesis-nostra-aetate deutsch: journey to dialogue 4 what role did the sisters of sion play in this unfolding narrative? circles of collaboration had formed in the decades before world war ii. others, such as the amitié judéo-chrétienne de france, developed after the war. these networks included some of the sisters of sion. 10 some of these women would participate in writing and editing material and in the extended conversation with scholars and council fathers that would result in the revolutionary document, nostra aetate. 11 as has been well documented, the process of the emergence of nostra aetate was slow, lasting until the final months of the council. despite the intentions of pope john xxiii and cardinal bea and his colleagues, the topic of the relationship of the church to the jewish people was removed from the agenda for the first session (1962) for theological and geopolitical reasons. 12 thanks to the immediate intervention of cardinal bea, the pope asked that the matter nevertheless be moved forward. 13 the sisters of sion’s direct involvement with the council text began the spring of 1963, before the beginning of the second session. the congregation’s general council 14 foresaw further difficulties and decided that sion’s vocation required the congregation’s action. as sr. bénédicte salmon recalls, the congregation’s general council believed it necessary that the second vatican council should articulate in a document “a definition of the jewish people which would situate the jews in their proper place in a ‘christian’ vision of salvation…” 15 to achieve this, sisters of sion would need to work with bishops in the lationship of the church to non-christian religions,” in commentary on the documents of vatican ii, vol. 3, ed. herbert vorgrimler (westminster: herder and herder, 1968), 8-17. 10 e.g., sr. marie pierre; see olivier rota, “lettres de jules isaac à soeur marie pierre de sion à propos d’ ‘israël et nous’,” sens 282(2005): 98-103; richard francis crane and brenna moore, “cracks in the theology of contempt; the french roots of nostra aetate,” studies in christianjewish relations, 8 (2013): 1-28, http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/view/5265/4739 (accessed sept. 29, 2015). 11 whether nostra aetate is “revolutionary” or “evolutionary” has been debated. john oesterreicher, “declaration…,” 1, notes : … a council, for the first time in history, acknowledges the search for the absolute by other men [sic] and by whole races and peoples, and honours for the first time the truth and holiness in other religions as the work of the one living god. it is the first time also that the church has publicly made her own the pauline view of the mystery of israel. on the nature of nostra aetate as representing rupture, see stephen schloesser, “against forgetting: memory, history, vatican ii,” theological studies 67 (2006): 289-294. for a view of nostra aetate in the context of a hermeneutics of continuity, see gavin d’costa, vatican ii; catholic doctrines on jews and muslims (oxford uk: oxford university press, 2014). 12 arab governments had been suspicious of vatican intentions, believing that a proposed conciliar text signified favoritism on the part of the vatican and collusion on the part of the state of israel. see, for example, john w. o’malley, what happened at vatican ii (cambridge ma: harvard university press, 2008), 220. 13 o’malley, what happened, 220. 14 a general council of a religious institute is a small group responsible for the central governance of the order. councilors, with a superior general, are usually elected by the institute’s general chapter. 15 s. marie-bénédicte salmon, untitled paper, given feb. 23, 1986, for the lay fraternity of notre dame de sion, paris; archives-sidic/paris. this document is unnumbered. in this article, numbers for archival material will be supplied when they are available. sr. marie-bénédicte does not indicate either here or in her article of 2002, precisely what she means by the “proper place in a ‘christian’ vision of salvation.” see “la congrégation notre-dame de sion en france, pendant le concile vatican 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) various countries where members of the congregation were present. the french sisters began immediately. on may 3, 1963, sr. bénédicte salmon, sometimes accompanied by sr. magda manipoud, began a series of visits with french bishops and theologians, most of whom were already known to the sisters of sion. these included archbishop jean-marie villot (lyon), bishop joseph-marie martin (rouen), cardinal pierre veuillot (paris), fr. yves congar, o.p. (strasbourg) and fr. henri de lubac. 16 on september 23, at cardinal veuillot’s suggestion, sr. bénédicte went to strasbourg to meet with fr. yves congar. congar listened carefully and then said: it will be necessary to reintroduce a paragraph into the schema ‘people of god’ including what you say about the roots of the church. then it will be necessary to find a bishop to present it; it would carry rather a lot of weight if that were cardinal veuillot. express the ideas that you have just presented in their logical sequence and then make a conclusion. congar gave sr. bénédicte names of other bishops, and then gave her his own address in rome so that they could stay in contact. 17 returning to paris, sr. bénédicte enlisted the aid of fr. kurt hruby, professor at the institut catholique in paris, a theologian and scholar of bible and jewish studies. hruby believed the team needed a protestant voice, and enlisted pastor georges richard-molard. hruby, richard-molard, and sr. bénédicte drafted four propositions: 1) israel, the jewish people, is situated within the unfolding of the history of the church, of its mystery. this excludes the idea that this people is situated on a purely ethnic level and that the jews are a people ‘like others.’ this removes the confusion between the state of israel – two million jews – whose existence poses difficult political problems, and the jews – 12 million people – about which the church answers before god on a unique basis. 2) israel, the jewish people, is the “root people” of the church (one had “forgotten” for centuries, saint paul’s sentence: ‘it is the root which bears you’), of the christian mystery, of our history, of our sacramental system, of our morality. this does away with the idea of the ‘substitution of the church for israel’ and evokes the idea of ‘fulfillment.’ 3) israel, the jewish people, is the people who bear historic witness to the biblical revelation of the living god, of the fleshly reality of the incarnation. it bears historic witness to the attitude of the human person confronted with the gift of god. this does away with the idea of a people preserved for the punishment of deicide. 4) israel, the jewish ii,” sens 271(2002): 475. our discussion will suggest that this implied a recognition of judaism according to jews’ self-understanding and the church’s essential rootedness in the jewish people. 16 s. marie-bénédicte salmon, untitled paper, 12. soeur magda, notre dame de sion (mariemadeleine manipoud) 1923-2005 (lyon: privately published, 2006), 39. 17 s. marie-bénédicte salmon, “la congrégation notre-dame de sion en france pendant le concile vatican ii,” sens 271 (2002): 477. deutsch: journey to dialogue 6 people, has yet today, by unique right, a part linked to the church in the unfolding of god’s design in eschatology, according to the dialectic described by paul in romans 9-11. this does away with the idea of the jewish people rejected by god.” 18 the team sent this text to the french bishops and theologians srs. bénédicte and magda had visited, as well as to bishops achille liénart (lille), françois marty (reims), émile guéry (cambrai) and gabriel-marie garrone (toulouse). they also sent the text to several theologians who were serving at the council as periti: yves congar, henri denis, henri cazelles, henri de lubac. 19 between september 30 and october 18 the team received favorable responses from rome, expressing commitment to working for passing the text. 20 pastor richard-molard had also contacted several protestant theologians attending the council (hébert roux, oscar culmann and lukas vischer), and they too gave the text a positive reception. 21 the work accomplished by the sisters and their colleagues during this critical period was collaborative. it was constructed on the foundation laid by conversations, conferences, and publishing in previous decades by theologians such as congar, hruby, de lubac, cazelles, the circles around paul démann, jules isaac and others, including sisters of sion. these long-established relationships allowed for effective collaboration during this and other critical moments of the council. 22 on november 8, 1963, in the second session of the council, cardinal bea brought a text to the floor, entitled “on the attitude to non-christians, especially toward the jews,” which was meant to form the fourth part of the schema on ecumenism. this somewhat resembles the text drafted by sr. bénédicte, fr. hruby and pastor richard-molard, specifically in its affirming the patriarchal and prophetic roots of christian faith, declaring that not all jews, then or now, are responsible for the death of jesus, and explicitly repudiating the deicide charge. 23 it is not clear whether there is a direct relation between the two texts. what is certain is that a free-standing document emerged from this session, in response to a call primarily from delegates from asia, africa, and latin america for the council to treat judaism alongside other non-christian religions 24 the next phase of the sisters’ work was about to begin. in january of 1964, shortly after the close of the second session of the council, the congregation moved its generalate from paris to rome, in order to facilitate collaboration with 18 salmon, “la congrégation…,” 477-478. for an analysis of the four points, see paule berger marx, les relations entre les juifs et les catholiques dans la france de l’après-guerre 1945-1965 (paris: éditions parole et silence, 2009), 459-460. 19 salmon, ”la congrégation,” 478; cf. also, salmon, untitled paper, 10. 20 salmon, untitled paper, 10. 21 salmon, untitled paper, 10. 22 marx, les relations, 456-462. 23 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vaticancouncil/na-drafts/1025-1963. 24 o’malley, what happened, 221. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) the vatican and the council. the general chapter, held near rome in ariccia, january 1-22, 1964, elected sr. laurice as superior general of the congregation of our lady of sion. she would continue the congregation’s engagement in these new developments, following the course established by her predecessor, sr. marie-félix. on january 15, a few weeks after he had presented to the council a first draft of a text on the jewish people, sr. marie-félix invited cardinal bea to address the chapter delegates in order to assure those who might doubt the new directions being taken by the congregation’s leaders, that their “tournant apostolique” (apostolic or ministerial revolution, their turn from conversion of the jews to dialogue) was indeed in line with new directions being taken by the broader church. 25 consequently, on march 21, 1964 sr. laurice wrote to the sisters in charge of the centers of study and to the archconfraternity of prayer for israel (api, see below), asking for the suppression of all their printed material. older publications, including prayer texts and material about the congregation’s work, were to be reviewed and either suppressed or rewritten. for those who had lived their lives praying for the jews while hoping for their ultimate conversion, the request was wrenching. 26 by mid-summer of 1964 the council text on the church and the jewish people was in trouble once again. serious theological differences between cardinal bea and pope paul vi over issues like deicide, as well as internal and external politics threatened to bury the document as “inopportune.” 27 sr. laurice feared that the document would be lost. consequently, on august 4, 1964, sr. mariedominique gros, general councilor, wrote in her name, to the sisters working in the congregation’s centers for jewish-christian relations, asking them to ascertain which council fathers would be most open to promoting approval of the document. 28 she advised the sisters to obtain letters of introduction. if necessary, they should act through priests in the bishops’ confidence to arrange a conversation. sr. marie-dominique underscored the need for discretion. the sisters would need to avoid polemic, including any reference to the secretariat for christian unity since the secretariat, including bea himself, was unpopular with many in 25 augustin cardinal bea, “aux religieuses de notre dame de sion,” unpublished conference, rome, italy, january 15, 1964; s. marie-dominique gros, “la congrégation notre-dame de sion avant et après le concile vatican ii,” sens 271 (2002): 494-495. cardinal bea would reiterate his message in two further addresses: “nouveau message de s. em. le cardinal béa aux religieuses de n.d. de sion,” 13 novembre 1965 rome, archives notre-dame de sion, paris; “h.e. cardinal bea’s talk to the religious of our lady of sion,” 3 november 1966 rome, archives notre-dame de sion, paris. the texts of cardinal bea’s conferences to the sisters of sion have not yet been numbered. 26 mary boys, “the sisters of sion: from a conversionist stance to a dialogical way of life,” journal of ecumenical studies 31 (1994): 38-40. 27 giovanni miccoli, “two sensitive issues: religious freedom and the jews,” in history of vatican ii; vol. 4, church as communion: third period and intersession, september 1964-september 1965, ed. giuseppe alberigo and joseph a. komonchak (maryknoll, ny: orbis, 2003), 156. 28 lettre de s. m. dominique aux provinciales et aux soeurs responsables du centres pour israël, 4 août 1964, série 3 g 6, “secrétariat, communication à la congregation 1868-1975,” archives notredame de sion, paris. by 1964, these centers could be found in paris, london, são paulo, montreal, kansas city, mo., and elsewhere. deutsch: journey to dialogue 8 rome, 29 and there were marked differences between paul vi and bea. there should be no mention of the word “deicide” since paul vi opposed use of the term. 30 rather, sisters should present a brief note, well based in scripture, not focused on anti-semitism, but on the question of the jews’ responsibility in the condemnation of jesus – which would allow the bishop to ask that the council produce a declaration with a clear statement on the non-responsibility of jews of today in the death of jesus. following this instruction, the sisters made contacts, both in person and through correspondence. 31 srs. magda and marie-dominique, both members of the general council, became close collaborators with fr. bruno hussar and others in writing draft material for what would become nostra aetate #4. 32 nostra aetate was finally approved on october 28, 1965 thanks to the collaboration of many such as the sisters of sion. the role played by the sisters of our lady of sion in the story of nostra aetate did not end with the approval of the document. a few days after the document’s promulgation in november 1965, a group of council fathers led by bishop léon-arthur elchinger of strasbourg and several theologians engaged in the production of nostra aetate met to consider ways to implement the new document. at the initiative of fr. bruno hussar, three sisters from sion’s general council (srs. edward, magda and marie-dominique) were invited to the gathering. the sisters of sion were asked to take charge of the project. sr. edward accepted the responsibility under the direction of fr. cornelius rijk, founding sidic (service internationale de documentation judéo-chrétienne/international service for jewish-christian documentation), first in the new generalate and then in 1970 in a large apartment on the piazza venezia. 33 how did a community of women who prayed daily for the conversion of the jews evolve into a group that included a highly trained cadre who contributed to the writing of nostra aetate? the transformation was complex, beginning long before the second vatican council and proceeding without a straight trajectory. in what follows, we will discuss that transformation through the lens of certain 29 see miccoli’s discussion of the conflict in the crisis of october, 1964; “two sensitive issues,” 166193. 30 o’malley, what happened, 222; oesterreicher, “declaration,” pp. 112-114. 31 see the correspondence between mother maura clune, provincial superior of the sisters of sion in the united kingdom and ireland and john carmel cardinal heenan, september 21 and september 23, 1964, archives of sion centre for dialogue and encounter, london. gregory baum, one the scholars who would join john oesterreicher in october of 1964 in the drafting of nostra aetate, was in contact with sisters louis gabriel (charlotte klein) and theodora (mary kelly) at the london centre. green, “the sisters of sion” 32 soeur magda, 42-43. 33 in 1969, the centre d’étude et d’information pour israël (center for study and information for israel) in paris was renamed “sidic-paris.” both sidic and sidic-paris were staffed by sisters of sion, and others, both cleric and lay. however, they operated independently of each other. on oct. 17, 2002, the library and documentation service of sidic were transferred to the gregorian university, where both remain, in conjunction with the university’s institute for the study of religion and culture and the cardinal bea center for jewish studies. sidic-paris was dissolved on january 30, 2016, and ceded place to the newly founded cirdic (centre chrétien d’initiatives pour les relations et le dialogue entre juifs et chrétiens. cirdic is under independent direction, although it maintains cordial relations with the sisters of sion. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) official documents and in the context of four significant contributing factors: philosemitism, ressourcement, resistance to the shoah, and the affaire finaly (finaly affair). philosemitism philosemitism (literally, “love of the jews”), was a spiritual, theological, and socio-political perspective that olivier rota argues originated towards the end of the nineteenth century in france, partly in response to the dreyfus affair. 34 the underlying theological question, for philosemitism as for its inverse antisemitism, was how to understand continued jewish existence in the face of the coming of christ and jewish “refusal” to recognize him as messiah. 35 from a socio-political perspective, its basis was a concern for the boundaries, whether ecclesiastical, or socio-political being threatened by modernity. many consequently turned to an “obsessive preoccupation with ordering,” into which jews, the “epitome of incongruity,” did not fit. 36 philosemitic responses, in contrast to the better-known anti-semitic ones, reflected an assumption that jews could be assimilated if they converted. jews thus should cease to be jews, preserving no jewish particularity or distinction. 37 in this, philosemitism shared supersessionist aspects of classic christian antijudaism, al-though it did not teach racial anti-semitism or discrimination, and some philosemites explicitly eschewed the charge of deicide. 38 rota’s locating the first emergence of philosemitism at the end of the nineteenth century, with its first premises emerging in the 1870’s, acknowledges its antecedents in the work of theodore ratisbonne, the founder of notre dame de sion, and his brother marie-alphonse whose conversion experience was profoundly influential in his brother’s life and ministry. 39 theodore ratisbonne’s relationship to judaism was complicated. 40 even prior to his conversion in 1827 at the age of twenty-five, his writing bore evidence of the theological antijudaism of his era. initially, his conversion brought him into conflict with his 34 essai, 149. while zucotti would place the origin of this shift in thinking after world war i, the founding of the api in 1905 and the life and work of aimé pallière suggest a much earlier point of origin; susan zuccotti, under his very windows: the vatican and the holocaust in italy (new haven: yale university press, 2000), 61; catherine poujol, aimé pallière (1868-1949); un chrétien dans le judaïsme (paris: desclée de brouwer, 2003). 35 rota, essai, 35-64. 36 zygmunt bauman, “allosemitism: premodern, modern, postmodern,” in modernity, culture and “the jew,” ed. bryan cheyette and laura marcus (stanford ca: stanford university press, 1998), 153. 37 bauman, 153. 38 e.g., the amici de israele; cf. jean levie, “decret de suppression de l’association des ‘amis d’israel’, ” nouvelle revue théologique 55(1928): 536; m.r. macina, “amis d’israël; une initiative premature mais instructive,” sens 228 (1998): 243. 39 rota, essai, 79-81. 40 julie kalman, rethinking antisemitism in nineteenth-century france (cambridge uk: cambridge university press, 2010), 58-60. for an early account of his life, including the events surrounding his conversion, see “adéodat,” xxxiii-lxii. deutsch: journey to dialogue 10 family; alphonse, his youngest brother, would remain estranged from theodore until his own conversion in 1842. yet despite his “apostasy,” theodore was not disowned by his family. indeed, as a seminarian nearing ordination, he was present at his father’s deathbed in 1830. 41 he maintained close ties with many family members; 42 the long estrangement from alphonse appears to have been an exception. 43 theodore and alphonse ratisbonne were but two examples of the french jewish elite who converted to roman catholicism during the early and midnineteenth century. 44 these “apostates” varied in their relationships with their birth families and communities, though all assumed, to one degree or another, traditional theological anti-judaism. they were caught in the complexities of an historical period in which both anti-judaism and philosemitism served as inverted elements of a discourse through which french people, catholic and secular, liberal and integrist, could think about and speak about what it meant to be french in the modern world. 45 in the period between world war i and world ii, participants in philsemitic circles made organized efforts to convert jews. our lady of sion had initiated a new project, the “association of prayer for israel” (api), conceived in 1903, ultimately founded in 1905, to seek jews’ conversion through gatherings for prayer, gatherings for lectures and conversation, and, where possible, a monthly dedicated mass, preferably in a group. with the sisters and fathers of sion, members 41 kalman, rethinking antisemitism, 60. see theodore’s account, mes souvenirs (rome: congrégation de notre-dame de sion, n.d.; originally published in 1884), 154-155. but see the much more complicated version in the account of 1835, “adéodat,” in philosophie du christianisme, vol. 1, pp. lx-lxi. 42 this is particularly evident in his correspondence, as illustrated in his letters with his brothers henri and adolphe, and his niece helena ratisbonne; memoirs; supplement; texts and documents (rome: privately published, n.d.), 7-18. 43 the complexity of relationships in the ratisbonne and similar families leads thomas kselman to note that “apostasy” and “conversion” are not neutral terms. he suggests that “interweaving” is a better word in these contexts; “turbulent souls in modern france: jewish conversion and the terquem affair,” historical reflections/réflexions historiques 32(2006): 104; cited in kalman, rethinking antisemitism, 60. 44 kalman, rethinking antisemitism, 46-70; thomas kselman, “the bautain circle and catholicjewish relations in modern france,” the catholic historical review, 92 (2006): 177-196; jonathan i. helfand, “passports and piety: apostasy in nineteenth-century france,” jewish history 3(1988): 5983; philippe-e. landau, “les conversions dans l’élite juive strasbourgeoise sous la restauration,” archives juives 40(2007): 131-139. these people included several strasbourgeois besides theodore and – eventually -alphonse, as landau notes. others included lévy gumpel (ignace xavier-morel), david drach, simon deutz, jacob liberman, joseph and augustin lémann. while some of these had extensive jewish educations, others were ill-equipped to face the questions of meaning in a jewish community and a broader french society undergoing social upheaval and redefinition; cf jay berkovitz, the shaping of jewish identity in nineteenth-century france (detroit: wayne state university press, 1989), 114-116. 45 rota, essai, 15-18 and passim. on anti-semitism and philosemitism as discourse, see altfelix, “the ‘post-holocaust jew’,” 41-56; bauman, “allosemitism,” 143-156; samuel moyn, “antisemitism, philosemitism and the rise of holocaust memory,” patterns of prejudice 43 (2009): 1-16. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) recited daily the prayer “god of all goodness.” 46 as in other works of the congregation, conversion of the jews was a subject of prayer, but proselytism was forbidden. its main centers were in jerusalem at the convent of the ecce homo and in paris at the motherhouse of the sisters of sion, but it quickly spread globally, beyond the boundaries of the congregation, with widespread ecclesiastical approval. 47 the sisters played a central role in the activities of the api; their convents became an international network of centers, often containing libraries and serving as meeting places. the api’s official publication was annales de la mission de n.-d. de sion en terre sainte, frequently abbreviated as annales de terre sainte. like much of the literature emerging from philosemitic circles, its articles frequently expressed substitution theology’s traditional claim that the church was the new israel. nonetheless, the discovery of the jewishness of jesus, mary, and the first christians, and continued reflection on romans 9-11 by groups such as the api suggested the possibility of another road, an alternative to antisemitism. this perspective was “anchored in a narrative of continuity between biblical judaism and christianity,” 48 where conversion from judaism to christianity was understood as a more benign continuation, a passage from an “incomplete” judaism to its completion in belief in jesus as the christ. for example, in 1907, fr. fages, the archdeacon of notre dame wrote in the journal: let us not forget that the jewish nation, which was in the past such a great and mighty race … is the one who, in order to sustain what it thought to be the truth, buried itself under the ruins of the temple. let us not forget that we are, we christians, the children of this race, for we have been parented into christianity by the jews. let us remember saint paul’s word: ‘it is the root that bears the branches.’ 49 in 1925, fr. théomir devaux was elected superior general of the fathers of notre dame de sion. he recounts that he had scarcely moved in to 68 rue notredame des champs when he received a group of visitors who challenged him on the subject of the “specific apostolate for israel.” the group included stanislas 46 the text of the prayer reads: “god of goodness, father of mercies, we beseech you through the immaculate heart of mary, and through the intercession of the patriarchs and holy apostles, to turn a look of compassion on the remnant of israel, so that they may come to the knowledge of our only savior jesus christ, and share in the precious graces of the redemption. ‘father, forgive them, for they know not what they do’;” directoire des religieuses de la congrégation de notre-dame de sion, 4 th ed. (paris: maison-mère, 1925), 46. 47 olivier rota, “l’association de prières pour israël (1903-1966); une association révélatrice des orientations orthodoxes de l’église face aux juifs,” bulletin de centre de recherche français à jérusalem 13 (2003): 6-21. 48 rota, essai, 122. 49 m. l’abbé fages, on the occasion of the installation of m. l’abbé cazais as pastor of the church of st. laurent, january 1906, cited in “assocation de prières en faveur d’israël,” annales de la mission de n.-d. de sion en terre sainte 115 (1907), p. 12. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5788908s/f15.image.r=fages; accessed june 26, 2016; cited by rota in “l’association de prières pour israël,” 10. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5788908s/f15.image.r=fages deutsch: journey to dialogue 12 fumet, rené schwob, oscar de férenzy, joseph bonsirven, francesca van leer and fr. anton van asseldonk and jacques maritain, who wanted to develop a christian response to the “jewish question” that would counter the kind of antisemitism present in many christian circles. maritain’s suggestions included special meetings and study circles. such activities were already under way, but needed coordination and development, and they were looking to sion for leadership. 50 the fathers of sion served in this manner most visibly through the 1920’s and ‘30’s. the rule of cloister limited the activities of the sisters outside institutional contexts. nonetheless, they were involved in the collaboration through meetings, writing and editorial work. in 1928, fr. devaux established the periodical la question d’israël which sought to forge links between christians and jews. the periodical’s offerings suggest two objectives. the first was directed to christians, and sought to combat anti-semitism through education regarding the jewish background of jesus and the new testament, as well as contemporary judaism. it also proposed “perspectives on judaism, speaking about relationships of judaism to catholicism, and explaining jewish bitterness as a consequence of centuries of persecution.” it combatted racism and anti-semitism as being “contrary to the christian spirit and destroying the hope of conversion.” 51 secondly, the periodical was directed to the jews, presenting various aspects of catholic teaching in the hopes of attracting them to convert. 52 this dual work continued to develop through the 1930’s in the face of escalating anti-semitism. for some, like the fathers of sion, the increasingly hostile context caused the struggle against anti-semitism to take precedence over desire for conversions. 53 joseph bonsirven, a jesuit scholar of new testament and rabbinic judaism, and the fathers of sion were major contributors to the pages of the periodical. it also advertised and reported on various relevant activities like the lecture of the catholic thinker aimé pallière, especially at the synagogue in the rue copernic 54 or gatherings at the rue froidevaux. these gatherings point to an important element in the development of philosemitism: the role of friendships. as early as the 1920’s jews and christians were coming together to discuss topics of interest, even when members of one group wished to convert members of the other. henri de lubac cited the words of jules monchanin, another participant, in describing his experience of people gathering 50 rota, essai, 108. 51 rota, essai, 116-117. 52 rota, essai, 117. 53 catherine poujol, les enfants caches; l’affaire des enfants finaly (1945-1953) (paris: berg international, 2006), 160-161. 54 madeleine comte, sauvetages et baptêmes; les religieuses de notre-dame de sion face a la persecution des juifs en france (1940-1944) (paris: l’harmattan, 2001), 48-49. pallière, a catholic, took as his guide and mentor, elias benamozegh, who encouraged him not to convert to judaism, but to remain a christian under the rubric of the noahide law. pallière was opposed to any attempt to convert jews. rather, his attention was focused on reform within liberal judaism, as well as exposing christians to the riches of jewish tradition. see marx, les relations, 115-117; catherine poujol, aimé pallière (1868-1949); un chrétien dans le judaïsme (paris: desclée de brouwer, 2003), 96-98, 289293. 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) in the home of elizabeth belensson on the rue froidevaux, calling it “a little oasis of peace in the midst of hatred.” 55 in these gatherings, jews (chouraqui, fleg) and christians (massignon, monchanin, devaux, pallière, maritain, fessard), and converts from judaism to christianity (belensson, glasberg, de menasce) all met regularly to read a psalm in hebrew and in french, and listen to a paper, often an exegesis led by a jew and a christian. 56 people gathered, as well, at the home of jacques and raïssa maritain at meudon, 57 at the fathers of sion, or elsewhere to hear presentations and engage in conversation. participation was fluid, with people becoming friends and attending meetings and conferences in the different venues. 58 la question d’israël was closed down after the occupation of paris in 1940. after the end of the second world war, cahiers sioniens, under the direction of the fathers of sion, took its place. the journal was placed under the charge of fr. paul démann in 1947, and he was joined in 1953 by another father of sion, geza vermes, and a lay doctoral candidate, renée bloch. the work published in cahiers sioniens would further help transform catholic perspectives on jews and judaism. 59 although christian thinkers engaged in philosemitic conversations differed one from another, they shared a widespread desire for the conversion of the jews. for all the intellectual and social courage in crossing religious, cultural and intellectual borders in order to meet one another, there remained a profound ambivalence in these circles, including the fathers and sisters of sion. others sometimes displayed tendencies both to essentialism and ahistoricism that could occlude the experience of jews as persons, despite their close friendships with jews. 60 for all of convert raïssa maritain’s self-understanding as a jew within the church, and despite jewish converts to catholicism struggling to articulate an identity that was both catholic and jewish, she and her colleagues seemed unaware that conversion of the jewish people ultimately would mean the erasure of “jewish distinctiveness.” 61 55 henri de lubac, résistance chrétienne à l’antisémitisme; souvenirs 1940-1944 (paris: fayard, 1988), 16-17; poujol, aimé pallière, 307-309; poujol, “oscar de férenzy ou les limites du philosémitisme dans l’entre-deux-guerres,” archives juives 40 (2007): 18-19. 56 françoise jacquin, “l’abbé monchanin, précurseur du dialogue judéo-chrétien 1935-1938,” revue d’histoire de l’église de france 80 (1994): 90-91; poujol, aimée pallière, 307. 57 brenna moore, “philosemitism under a darkening sky: judaism in the french catholic revival (1900-45),” catholic historical review 99 (2013): 277-281. 58 brenna moore develops the theme of friendship in intellectual circles during the period of the french catholic revival in “friendship and the cultivation of religious sensibilities,” journal of the american academy of religion 83 (2015): 437-463. 59 marx, les relations, 164-171. 60 moore, “philosemitism under a darkening sky,” 267-276; richard francis crane, “῾heart-rending ambivalence’; jacques maritain and the complexity of postwar catholic antisemitism,” studies in christian-jewish relations 6 (2011): 3-4, http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/view/1820 (accessed november 30, 2015). 61 adam sutcliffe and jonathan karp, “introduction: a brief history of philosemitism,” in philosemitism in history (cambridge uk: cambridge university press, 2011), 3. moore and crane discuss the thought of writers léon bloy and charles péguy, as well as philosopher jacques maritain. http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/view/1820 deutsch: journey to dialogue 14 the api would end in 1966. the congregation’s shift in institutional commitment would no longer allow even for a well-intended supersessionism joined to a certain “philosemitism.” but the api and similar groups had played an important role in the development of a context that would eventually produce nostra aetate. above all, friendships were formed through prayer and religious exploration, personal and theological. mixed with a theology of conversion and supersessionism, a passion grew for the study of the bible and jewish sources, colored by an undertone of continuity and respect that suggested the possibility of an alternative relationship to that of scorn, hatred and even violence. the continued re-reading of romans 9-11 would extend into the post-world war ii period. it would be foundational to the new ecclesiology developed by maritain, journet, démann, bonsirven, de lubac and the jesuits of lyon and to the sisters’ development as well. 62 the men and women of sion were part of the ferment of french philosemitism in all its ambivalence and possibility. 63 théomir devaux played a major role not only as the superior general of the fathers of sion from 1925 to 1937, but also through his later work at 68 rue notre dame des champs, the rescue work of the war years, and then post-war developments. the women, usually limited to activities within their own insitutions (convents, schools and other places of ministry), served as colleagues and partners in leading the a.p.i. , through meetings, writing and publication, and then the work of rescue. the intellectual work, the personal relationships and networks developed during these years would be foundational to their pre-conciliar growth and then to the creation of nostra aetate. ressourcement 64 in 1946, the first post-war general chapter of the sisters of sion convened in paris. despite what might be thought of as more practical needs, the report of the chapter’s proceedings called for the sisters to be educated in bible, the church fathers, the sources of the congregation’s own tradition, as well as in jewish studies – including contemporary issues – and theology. 65 this reflected not only the leadership’s desires for the sisters’ ongoing education, but also the broader intellectual and theological context in which the delegates had assembled, ressourcement. this second element shaping the evolution of the sisters of sion’s thinking was a new way of understanding christian, specifically roman catholic, 62 thérèse-martine andrevon, “le mystère d’israël dans l’oeuvre de jacques maritain,” recherches de science religieuse 101 (2013): 211-231; rota, “le second concile vatican,” 304. 63 comte, sauvetages et baptêmes, 27-50. 64 the term “ressourcement” was “coined by the poet and social critic charles péguy (1873-1914); gabriel flynn, “the twentieth-century renaissance in catholic theology,” in ressourcement: a movement for renewal in twentieth-century theology, eds. gabriel flynn and paul d. murray (oxford: university press scholarship online, 2012), 3. 65 compte-rendu du xive chapître, paris, 12-23 août 1946, section “israël – pensionnats,” série 1 g 14, general chapter of 1946, archives notre-dame de sion, paris. rota, “une double fidélité,” 70. “israël” designates “the jewish people,” and will continue to do so in theological writing through the second vatican council period. 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) tradition that had fully emerged in the 1920’s and 1930’s in response “to the challenges of the time, most notably the intensification of secularization.” 66 its exponents, as reflected in the sisters’ report, literally sought to return to the sources, 67 not to legitimate church structures, 68 but rather to mine the past to renew a vision of the church in relation to the contemporary world. it was a process on behalf of the whole church and included a large number of laity, women and men alike. it joined the ongoing turn to history and to jewish sources for understanding jesus that had already emerged in the pioneering work of christian scholars like the jesuit joseph bonsirven (1880-1958), and that had shaped the promotion of friendship between contemporary christians and jews discussed above. 69 the circles engaged in philosemitism and ressourcement were permeable in the period between the two world wars, with the same figures and salons pursuing both methodologies and ideologies. 70 while many of those associated with ressourcement were men, ordained members of religious orders, its nonhierarchical and non-clerical quality was one of its striking features. 71 these laity, the “théologiens en veston” (theologians in lounge suits or lay clothes, as distinct from clergy wearing soutane or collar), 72 included writers and teachers, historians and philosophers, even some scientists. the professional theologians of this movement taught and wrote in service to the broader community, in conversation with these broader groups and in response to lay needs. 73 some ressourcement thinkers also engaged in ecumenical, interfaith and interreligious dialogue. raïssa and jacques maritain’s guests in their meudon salon included not only fellow catholic philosophers, but russian jews including marc and bella chagall and other assimilated jewish émigrés. similarly diverse groups gathered at the rue froidevaux and rue notre-dame des champs, where de lubac 66 paul d. murray, “explanding catholicity through ecumenicity in the work of yves congar: ressourcement, receptive ecumenism and catholic reform,” international journal of systematic theology, 13(2011): 274 http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=7809bf124c12-43d8-949a-b34b09a783da%40sessionmgr4009&vid=3&hid=4104 (accessed oct. 20, 2016). 67 see katherine davies and toby garfitt, eds., god’s mirror; renewal and engagement in french catholic intellectual culture in the mid-twentieth century (new york: fordham university press, 2015); jürgen mettepenningen, nouvelle théologie –new theology: inheritor of modernism, precursor of vatican ii (london: t & t clark, 2010). the 1942 jesuit establishment of the series “sources chrétiennes” was part of the ressourcement project. 68 de lubac and others were clear that such a legitimation was the self-appropriated mission of “roman” theologians; fouilloux, “’nouvelle théologie’ et théologie nouvelle (1930-1960)” in l’histoire religieuse en france et en espagne: colloque international, casa de velázquez, 2-5 avril 2001: actes, ed. benoît pellistrandi (madrid: casa de valázquez, 2004): 413-417. 69 laurence deffayet, “le père joseph bonsirven: un parcours fait d’ombres et de lumières,” archives juives 40 (2007): 30-44. the controversial nature of the pioneers’ work was illustrated in the biblical commission’s forbidding the defense of bonsirven’s thesis in 1910, the height of the modernist crisis. 70 thomas stransky, “forum essay,” 759. 71 this was also true of the broader french catholic revival that evolved into what would come to be called – both positively and negatively – the “new theology” (“la nouvelle théologie” or “la théologie nouvelle”); cf. étienne fouilloux, “’nouvelle théologie,’” 413-415. 72 fouilloux, 419. 73 fouilloux, 419. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=7809bf12-4c12-43d8-949a-b34b09a783da%40sessionmgr4009&vid=3&hid=4104 http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=7809bf12-4c12-43d8-949a-b34b09a783da%40sessionmgr4009&vid=3&hid=4104 deutsch: journey to dialogue 16 often went for conversation, as we observed earlier. the method of procedure at rue froidevaux was inspired by the lyon priest, jules monchanin, who inaugurated, the practice of praying a psalm and then listening to a presentation. monchanin, a close friend of de lubac, was convinced of the universality of salvation. his friends included men and women from all communities and walks of life. he was most attracted to jews, however, whose numbers in france continued to increase through the 1930’s as anti-semitism in central europe continued to grow. horrified, he wrote, “we must not sleep during israel’s agony.” 74 monchanin’s experience showed him the possibility of close friendships between people of different religious traditions. moreover, he believed deeply in the ongoing significance of the existence of a post-biblical judaism, even and especially, in the face of the nazi threat. the lectures monchanin gave in 19351938 until he left for india were attended by massignon, pallière, jacques maritain, chouraqui and others. louis massignon also appears among the ressourcement thinkers. soldier, diplomat, scholar and teacher of islam, he too was a border transgressor, whose own spiritual life was nourished by the classics of islamic mysticism. while not unproblematic, his understanding of judaism, islam and christianity as “abrahamic religions” would be a significant influence on the development of nostra aetate. 75 the presence of people like massignon and monchanin in the circles in lyon and paris indicates just how broad was the vision of the church, inspired by the thinking generated by personal contact with people and texts of different traditions, as well as by the emerging ecclesiology of theologians like de lubac, chenu and congar. the latter would work with the sisters through the 1950’s and during the council years, including their intervention in the work on nostra aetate. these theologians’ thinking would eventually open the way, at the second vatican council, for a new understanding of the church’s relationship to the jewish people. the theological breadth of the conversations in groups such as these had a direct influence on the development of the thinking of the sisters of sion. women played roles in the ressourcement. elizabeth belensson opened her home on the rue froidevaux and convened a salon. some women collaborated as scholars. raïssa maritain is the best known, at the heart of the circle of friends and acquaintances gathered in her home at meudon. their presence in the project of ressourcement signified a broadening of gender roles in this period, when “roman” theology was the province of ordained men. 76 these “spaces” for women in the enterprise of ressourcement created added context for the work of the sisters of sion before, during and after world war ii. 77 74 jacquin, “l’abbé monchanin,” 86. 75 anthony o’mahony, “louis massignon: a catholic encounter with islam and the middle east,” in god’s mirror; renewal and engagement in french catholic intellectual culture in the midtwentieth century, eds. katherine davies and toby garfitt (new york, ny: fordham university press, 2015), 230-251. 76 brenna moore, “’into the catacombs of the past’” women and wartime trauma in the french catholic ressourcement project (1939-45),” in god’s mirror, 186-209. 77 the freiburg circle, established in 1948 by gertrud lückner and karl thieme, is a primary example of the presence of women in german-speaking theological contexts focused on developing a new 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) resistance to the shoah the experience of the shoah was a third element in the development of a new way of thinking among christians, including sisters of sion. the nazi invasion of france lent a new meaning to the significance of loving jewish people. the vichy government handed over the jews to the nazis, but many courageous french citizens – regardless of religious affiliation – formed networks engaged in resistance efforts. many of those participating in philosemitic circles and the emerging ressourcement also endangered their own lives for the sake of rescue and resistance. 78 henri de lubac, who had been engaged in pre-war philosemitic and ressourcement circles, was involved in rescue efforts based in lyon, where he worked with germaine ribière and some of the sisters of sion as part of a network of underground communities of jewish and christian solidarity called amitié chrétienne (christian friendship). de lubac supervised the editing of cahiers du témoignage chrétien (notebooks of christian witness).those involved in the production of témoignage chrétien sought to demonstrate the incompatibility of christianity and nazism, and to inform readers of the unfolding horror, reporting details as they emerged. 79 the sisters of sion took an active role in stockpiling and distributing the periodical. it is not surprising that people engaged in pre-war philosemitic and/or ressourcement circles should now commit themselves to rescue and resistance. philosemitic groups included jews or converts from judaism who were vulnerable to the forces of the nazi occupation. moreover, deep friendships had been established over the decades preceding the occupation. thus, rescue and resistance not only were political commitments, but also were driven by personal identity and relationships. ressourcement circles were committed to “essentially a practical theology engaged in an open, critical, and sometimes militant fashion with the most pressing issues affecting contemporary society.” some suffered imprisonment or execution for their courage. 80 sion participated in rescue efforts. depending on the particular location, this meant providing false documents (identity papers, ration cards, birth certificates, etc.), hiding places, and/or channels of communication for rescue and other re understanding of the relationship of judaism and christianity; the importance of the freiburger rundbrief as the premiere german-language journal on the topic perdures; michael phayer, from enemy to brother, 190-192; elias füllenbach, “shock, renewal, crisis: catholic reflections on the shoah,” in antisemitism, christian ambivalence and the holocaust, ed. kevin spicer (bloomington in: indiana university press, 2007), 202-234. 78 richard francis crane and brenna moore, “cracks in the theology of contempt: the french roots of nostra aetate,” studies in christian-jewish relations 8(2013): 20 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/view/5265 (accessed jan. 2, 2016). 79 henri de lubac, résistance chrétienne à l’antisémitisme (paris: fayard, 1988), 143-158; at the service of the church; henri de lubac reflects on the circumstances that occasioned his writings, trans. anne elizabeth englung (san francisco: ignatius press/communio books, 1993), 50-55; phayer, the catholic church and the holocaust, 128; 80 flynn, “twentieth-century renaissance,” 12, 14. http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/view/5265 deutsch: journey to dialogue 18 sistance workers. 81 after the nazis shut down his journal question d’israël, and confiscated the library of the fathers of sion in 1940, fr. devaux with a group of sisters of sion and others hid jews. their paris-based network was responsible for saving hundreds by procuring false papers and by hiding children, both in boarding schools like those directed by notre-dame de sion, and with sympathetic families in the countryside. the boarding school, under mother francia, hid girls among its student body. the convent of notre dame de sion in grandbourg, a peaceful place in a paris suburb, became a refuge for exhausted adults as well as a school. part of another network, the small convent of sion in lyon served as a residence for women university students. although it could not hide many people, these included several jewish women, and the sisters were part of a wider rescue network. the sisters’ community and school in grenoble, close to the swiss border, collaborated in rescue efforts as did the communities of marseille, biarritz, le mans, saint omer, and gérardmer. 82 post-war developments: general chapters and l’affaire finaly the documents of the general chapters of the years 1946-1964, as well as certain other official letters and reports, suggest that the congregation’s evolution from conversion to dialogue was slow, and that the ambivalence that was so much a part of philosemitism and often ressourcement would fade slowly. at the same time, both philosemitism and ressourcement had given the sisters of sion tools for their own transformation: a focus on romans 9-11, the experience of friendships with jews, the exposure to biblical, jewish and theological studies that were indeed the “return to the sources.” and behind all of this intellectual and spiritual richness loomed the experience of the shoah, and its bitter reality in the lives of many of the sisters. the relationships forged through the sisters’ work during the war served as a basis for post-war transformation as well. the journey from “loving the jews” to witnessing genocide and risking their lives to hide people brought many of the sisters to a new level of understanding their vocation. the impact of the shoah had been personal, part of the daily lives of many, if not most of the sisters living in france and nazi-occupied europe. the true “face” of anti-semitism was bru 81 compte, sauvetages et baptêmes, 111, 117-118. 82 communities in antwerp and rome were also involved in rescue work. the sisters in london received children from the kindertransport. the convent in rome also offered a hiding place to more than one hundred and eighty-seven jews beginning in october, 1943; susan zuccotti, “response to william doino jr. and the film lo vuole il papa,” contemporary church history quarterly 21 (2015), 4, https://contemporarychurchhistory.org/2015/09/response-to-william-doino-jr-and-the-filmlo-vuole-il-papa-2/ (accessed september 30, 2015); zucotti, under his very windows; the vatican and the holocaust in italy (new haven: yale university press, 2000), 189-193, 194; zuccotti recounts interviews with two sisters (virginia and emilia badetti), who stated that provisions were delivered regularly from the vatican; also michael phayer, the catholic church and the holocaust, 1930-1965 (bloomington, in: indiana university press, 2000), 124, 126-131. fr. devaux and seven of the sisters have been named “righteous gentiles,” though many more men and women of sion were involved in the work; http://www.notredamedesion.org/en/page.php?id=82&t=9 (accessed oct. 1, 2015). https://contemporarychurchhistory.org/2015/09/response-to-william-doino-jr-and-the-film-lo-vuole-il-papa-2/ https://contemporarychurchhistory.org/2015/09/response-to-william-doino-jr-and-the-film-lo-vuole-il-papa-2/ http://www.notredamedesion.org/en/page.php?id=82&t=9 19 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) tally apparent; beyond the work of rescuing and hiding jews, several sisters, friends and students were deported. one sister, sr. gila, was executed. 83 in the words of sr. marie-dominique, “we would discover that, while we were asking god to forgive the jews their infidelity, they were dying in the extermination camps, victims precisely of their fidelity.” 84 directly after the cataclysm of the shoah, mother marie-amédée, the superior general, called the general chapter of 1946. 85 the introduction to the chapter report references the “terrible upheavals of these past years (terrible secousses de ces dernières années).” 86 twenty-eight of the eighty-eight delegates were unable to attend, either because of problems with visas or the expense of the journey. yet, in spite of these less than ideal circumstances, those gathered sought a chapter of reform. the chapter report reflects a systematic analysis of the life and work of the congregation, and recommends adaptation for the future. the report states forthrightly that all houses of notre-dame de sion are to collaborate in the “fundamental work” of the congregation, which is the work concerning the jewish people. it recommends that the young sisters be provided theological training according to individual capabilities and responsibilities. 87 in addition, young sisters may dedicate part of their vacation time to study circles on scripture, the texts on the origins of sion, contemporary judaism or other topics that will help them to “deepen their sense of their special vocation (se pénétrer de leur vocation spéciale).” 88 the influence of ressourcement appears especially in this reference to the study of scripture, a practice that was not usually considered essential for pre-vatican ii roman catholics. 89 this focus on scripture would contribute to the transformation of the congregation’s self-understanding in the coming decades. this chapter confirms the place of the ancelles and their mandate to work especially in poor jewish milieux. the ancelles, originally the “ancelles of our lady, queen of palestine,” were a small group of sisters of sion who dressed in lay clothes when outside their homes. they had been an independent community 83 catherine poujol, l’eglise de france et les enfants juifs; des missions vaticanes à l’affaire finaly (1944-1953) (paris: presses universitaires de france, 2013), 296. 84 s. marie-dominique gros, “la congrégation notre-dame de sion avant et après le concile vatican ii,” 489. 85 a general chapter is a meeting of elected and ex officio delegates from the entire congregation. it is held regularly, and its function is to review the life and ministry of the congregation, with particular attention to the fulfillment of the previous chapter’s mandate. it then sets new directions for the congregation. a full study would also include documents like journal entries or personal letters. however, general chapter documents suggest trends emerging from the congregation and point to new directions. on the chapter of 1946 and the chapters held successively and their significance, see olivier rota, “une double fidélite,” 67-77. 86 compte-rendu du xive chapître de la congrégation 12 août-23 août 1946, série 1 g 14, general chapter of 1946, archives de notre-dame de sion, paris. 87 compte-rendu du xive chapître general de la congrégation 12 août-23 août 1946, section “scolasticat.” 88 compte-rendu du xive chapître general, section “oeuvres, israël-pensionnats,” p. 5, 20. 89 only in 1949 were novices authorized to have a complete bible; previously they had only the psalms and chosen texts. cf. comte, “de la conversion à la rencontre,” 110. deutsch: journey to dialogue 20 in british mandate palestine that joined the larger congregation of our lady of sion in 1936. 90 as sisters of sion they continued their ministry of “direct apostolate” to the jewish communities where they lived, first in pre-war palestine, and then in europe. the ancelles lived either alone or in small groups in jewish neighborhoods such as the marais in paris, especially among the poor. like the teaching sisters, the contemplatives, and the fathers of sion, the ancelles were never to proselytize coercively. 91 the general chapter of 1946 urged the ancelles to enter into contact with jewish intellectual circles, organizing study circles and conferences in order to transmit “christian ideas” (les idées chrétiennes).” 92 the chapter also confirmed the ancelles’ special responsibility for the archconfraternity of prayer for israel. they were to train members, especially among priests. the most committed of the these members could become associated with the api’s ministry and serve as “agrégées de sion,” in keeping with the desire of theodore ratisbonne who had founded this lay group in 1855. 93 the chapter made decisions regarding work with jewish converts, cautioning the sisters not to set goals for certain numbers of baptisms. rather, they were to develop religious sensibilities among jews, make known christian ideas and thus prepare the way for conversion. catechumens were to undergo instruction for a year and, in so far as possible, be given a godmother who would continue to support them after baptism. in every house there was to be a sister who would be in touch with the center of the work assigned to the ancelles. finally, in so far as possible, teaching sisters were to interest their students in “the work.” 94 a missionary perspective clearly informs these decisions. the chapter, however, maintained the same concern for respect of conscience found in earlier documents. jewish and protestant students in sion schools, in general, were not required to attend either prayer or religious education classes. the chapter document envisioned special books for jewish children in sion’s schools, teaching “sacred history” and including prayers drawn from the psalms and other biblical texts. the report’s section on sion’s work for israel ends with a request that the sisters be careful when speaking, even among themselves about jews. they are to exercise caution lest they offend someone by an insensitive word. the recommendation suggests that the leadership of the congregation realized that, for all 90 lettre de mère marie amédée à la congregation, 10 juillet 1936, série g3, circulars from the superior general 1931-1975, archives notre-dame de sion, paris. the ancelles’ mandate of “direct apostolate” was confirmed by the general chapter of 1946; cf. compte-rendu du xive chapître général de la congrégation 12 août – 23 août 1946, section “oeuvres, israël – pensionnats,” p. 20-21. 91 marx, les relations, 65-71; comte, sauvetages et baptêmes, 22-23. during the shoah, the ancelles were disproportionately present among the rescuers. 92 compte-rendu du xive chapître general, section “observance des constitutions,” #50, p. 5. 93 compte-rendu du xive chapître general, section “oeuvres. israël – pensionnats,” p. 21. 94 compte-rendu du xive chapître general, section “oeuvres. israël – pensionnats,” p. 21. in prevatican ii sion documents “the work” refers to the congregation’s presence to the jewish people, whether indirectly through prayer or more directly through, lectures, courses, or instruction of converts. 21 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) sion’s institutional dedication to the jewish people, some of the sisters lacked sensitivity and were even anti-semitic. in other words, even with the limitations embedded within these new standards, their universal application would have significant challenges. the sisters and fathers of sion were working in a broader context in which ecumenical and interfaith understanding were developing in significant ways. the newly founded international council of christians and jews held its first conference at seelisburg the next year, 1947. its document 95 would help to lay the groundwork for nostra aetate. paul démann, a father of sion attended, and there he met jules isaac, a history teacher from aix-en-provence who had lost his wife and daughter to the concentration camps. 96 isaac had spent the war in hiding, writing all the while. that meeting launched a close personal and professional friendship. with edmond fleg, jules isaac would found, on february 26, 1948, the amitié judéo chrétienne. 97 in 1960 isaac’s visit would prompt john xxiii to promise to “do something” to place the “jewish question” on the agenda of vatican ii, soon to begin. relationships between the sisters, jules isaac and edmond fleg developed and helped to shape the sisters’ emerging perspectives. 98 the fathers of sion remained important figures in the development of a changing discourse about the relations between christians and jews. paul démann took over the direction of cahiers sioniens in 1948 and until its closing in 1955, it was one of the premier journals in its field, publishing the works of the leaders of mid-twentieth century french theological scholarship, jews and christians, lay people as well as members of men’s religious orders and even some hierarchs. 99 beginning in october of 1951 and continuing until october of 1962, the fathers of sion, also published the échos de notre-dame de sion, bulletin de l’a.p.i. under the leadership of fr. devaux. this periodical, aimed at a broader audience than the scholarly cahiers sioniens, published reports of sermons, lectures and summaries of articles on a wide range of topics: history, sociology, liturgy, theology and scripture. 100 while cahiers sioniens and échos de notre dame de sion were under the direction of the fathers of sion, sisters were involved. moreover, the sisters were engaged in other editorial venues. the ancelles published the bulletin des ancelles in 1947 and 1948 as a means of linking members living individually or in small groups in poor jewish neighborhoods such as the marais (paris). they shared their knowledge of the social structures of a jewish community with sisters engaged in other milieux. reports of their activities suggest a clear understanding of their work as grounded in the links between jews and christians 95 “an address to the churches (the ten points of seelisburg,” http://www.ccjr.us/dialogikaresources/documents-and-statements/ecumenical-christian/567-seelisberg. 96 m.-r. macina, “le role de paul démann à seelisberg,” sens no. 5(1999): 434-439. 97 marx, les relations, 135. 98 olivier rota, “lettres de jules isaac à soeur marie pierre de sion à propos d’israël et nous,” sens (2005): 98-103; marx, les relations entre les juifs et les catholiques, 70. 99 s. marie-dominique gros, n.d.s., “la congregation notre-dame de sion avant et après le concile vatican ii,” 490. 100 marx, les relations, 52-53. deutsch: journey to dialogue 22 found in the bible. 101 their approach would influence the sisters engaged in education. in collaboration with others, including the fathers of sion, the sisters began an in-house publication, israël et nous (november, 1950-october, 1965), as a means of linking their far-flung communities. contents included reports on various apostolic involvements (teaching, religious education, etc.), and articles meant to provide an ongoing education for the sisters. themes included “advent and israel,” the great figures of the hebrew bible in the liturgy, and jewish feasts. israël et nous sometimes reprinted articles from cahiers sioniens, making scholarly articles directly accessible to the sisters. israël et nous was, of course, subject to the limitations of the mid-century theology of substitution. nonetheless, it placed at the sisters’ disposal a resource of current thinking and thus would move forward the development of their thinking in the years before vatican ii. 102 the general chapter of 1951 formalized some of the decisions and recommendations made in 1946, developing several important themes. at the same time, ambivalence remained in the sisters’ thinking about the relationship between christians and jews. the report bespoke a keen awareness of the world “outside.” the introduction of part 1, “esprit de la congrégation et observance des constitutions” (spirit of the congregation and observance of the constitutions) acknowledged the newness of the post-war situation, with its “breathtaking…transformation of social structures.” 103 part 2 names the threat of communism. 104 echoing a call from pope pius xii the chapter report urgently calls for response, stating that the congregation’s continued existence in this changing world depends on its adapting. 105 the 1951 document echoes the renewal characterizing ressourcement: “people today speak a lot about a return to the biblical sources and it is there that we find what integrates our spirituality, both evangelical and biblical.” 106 it urges su 101 marx, les relations, 65-69; comte, sauvetages et baptêmes, 22-23. 102 paule berger marx, “’israël et nous’. la revue des soeurs de notre-dame de sion de paris, de 1950 à 1965,” sens no. 2 (2005): 78-97. see jules isaac’s letters to sr. marie-pierre about the journal in rota, “lettres de jules isaac,” 96-103. 103 compte-rendu chapître général xve, 31 juillet-10 août 1951, première partie, “esprit de la congrégation et observance des constitutions,” série 1 g 16, general chapter of 1951, archives de notre-dame de sion, paris. 104 this had a particularly vivid significance for the sisters of notre-dame de sion, who had sisters in romania, hungary and bulgaria. latin and greek rite catholics were subjected to fierce persecution in romania, and sisters were given the choice to disband their communities or to move into internment camps with members of other religious congregations. see the documentary interrupted lives; catholic sisters under european communism, written and produced by sr. judith ann zielinski, osf with sr. margaret nacke, csj and sr. mary savoie, csj as executive producers. http://interruptedlives.org/. 105 première partie, “esprit de la congrégation et observance des constitutions;” annus sacer to the first congress of the states of perfection, dec. 8, 1950; aas 40 (1951), 26-36. http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/aas-43-1951-ocr.pdf (accessed dec. 11, 2015). 106 “on parle beaucoup aujourd’hui de retour aux sources bibliques et c’est là partie intégrante de notre spiritualité, éminement évangélique et biblique.” compte-rendu chapître général xve, 31 juilhttp://interruptedlives.org/ http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/aas-43-1951-ocr.pdf 23 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) periors to arrange biblical or theological lectures for the sisters, and asks sisters to deepen their knowledge of the texts, with a focus on the gospels, epistles and acts of the apostles, 107 directing them to study bible more intensively during vacation times if that is not possible during the school year. the section dedicated to “israel” notes that for sisters effectively to introduce people to the “magnificence of the bible,” they must themselves know the sacred texts. they should focus on the literal text, in keeping with pope pius xii’s september 30, 1943 encyclical divino afflante spirito. 108 the chapter reiterates that the principal mission of the congregation is the sanctification of its members and “israel.” this “mission” has three “aspects.” the first eloquently echoes prior philosemitic understandings, speaking of: …the grandeur of israel, the people of the bible and of the messiah, whose place in the plan of redemption is absolutely unique, that the church prolongs like the stalk prolongs the root and which, mysteriously separated from her in the present, will one day be reintegrated, according to st. paul’s prophetic word. 109 the second aspect is reparation: making amends for jewish refusal to accept jesus as messiah and the perceived jewish responsibility for the death of jesus. the report links reparation to the “providential gift of the lithostrotos,” the firstcentury paving stones beneath the congregation’s convent of the ecce homo in jerusalem. in 1951, many people, including some scholars, believed that this was the place where jesus was held prisoner and scourged by the romans, and then taken before pontius pilate. 110 citing rom 11:28, the 1951 delegates clarify that the expression “accursed people” (peuple maudit) is “inexact” for god has not cursed his people. furthermore, the word “deicide” needs to be properly understood. 2 pet 3:17 demonstrates that the charge of deicide is not materially true since those responsible did not know what they were doing. in addition, the 1566 let-10 août 1951, première partie “congrégation et observance des constitutions,” série 1 g 16, general chapter of 1951, archives de notre-dame de sion, paris. 107 the document does not mention study of the hebrew bible. 108 at http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divinoafflante-spiritu.html (accessed december 13, 2015). the chapter document mistakenly cites the encyclical as “spiritu afflante.” 109 compte-rendu chapître général xve, deuxième partie, “israël.” 110 rev. mother marie godeleine, superior of the ecce homo convent, worked closely with fr. hugues vincent of the école biblique in jerusalem, overseeing the excavations of 1931-1933 and 19341937. traditional belief identified the praetorium as being in the fortress antonia. the french dominican p. hugues vincent laid out the case for this position in his article “le lithostrotos évangélique,” revue biblique 49 (1952): 513-530. in the same issue, p. pierre benoît challenged vincent’s position, placing the pretorium in herod’s palace, rather than the fortress antonia. in 1955, sr. marie aline battut defended her doctoral dissertation at the sorbonne, supporting vincent’s position; cf. la forteresse antonia à jerusalem et la question du prétoire (jérusalem: franciscalium, 1956). following the 1966 excavations, father pierre benoît again challenged a first-century date for the lithostrotos, and placed it in the hadrianic era. see benoît’s summary of earlier debates in “l’antonia d’hérode le grand et le forum oriental d’aelia capitolina,” harvard theogical review, 64 (1971): 135-167. http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html deutsch: journey to dialogue 24 catechism of the council of trent teaches the responsibility of every person for the death of jesus. 111 thus, delegates emphasize, reparation is primarily in relation to ourselves, christians making amends for all sin, including our own, as having a role in the death of jesus. however, the text continues, underlining what the writers consider to be the gravity of israel’s “betrayal.” the report states that since the death of jesus, jews have wandered through the world as a separated people. thus, the “mystery of israel” is double: “on the one hand, grandeur and sanctity; on the other, lowliness and sin.” the reflection on reparation ends saying that “god has given to sion [the gift of the lithostrotos], as an incessant call to reparation for israel’s refusal in the rejection of its messiah.” this echoes certain tendencies in pre-war and then-current philosemitic thinking. the motif of reparation took on a particularly compelling note in view of the “gift” of the lithostrotos and is stated in a way that could all too easily reinscribe traditional anti-judaism. the third aspect of sion’s mission is “the apostolate of israel.” “we are all, as religious of sion, missionaries sent by the church not exclusively, but first of all, to israel.” while external ministries vary, all are to offer their lives for the salvation of israel, whether as contemplatives, educators or ancelles. the ancelles “go directly to israel.” they are not, however, to limit themselves solely to service in the jewish community, but rather to bring christ’s message to the various “paganized” environments in which they find themselves. 112 they are to attempt to form christian communities where jews, whether converts or not, can feel welcome. the educators, who comprised the majority of sisters engaged in external ministry, had no less a mandate to work for the jewish people. their first task is to combat anti-semitism among the children and all those with whom they have contact. consistent with philosemitic goals, the report presents this as a way of preparing for the “return of israel.” and provides clear procedures through bible study and prayer. 113 teaching sisters will also be assigned to instruct catechumens and are to let local bishops know that they are available to work with jewish adults. while only a few will undertake this task, all are called to the apostolate of welcome and hospitality to all, jews and non-jews alike, extending material assistance when necessary. 114 chapter delegates recognized the particular difficulty facing the educators, especially in the context of their personal spirituality, of integrating the demands of teaching with the concern for the jewish people. delegates suggested two possible solutions. the first was offering one’s day “for israel” and the other was continual immersion in scripture. mother marie edward was charged by the chapter to undertake supervision of further study of these questions. 115 111 see http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/275trent. 112 compte-rendu chapître général xve, deuxième partie, “israël.” 113 compte-rendu chapître général xve, deuxième partie, “israël.” 114 compte-rendu chapître général xve, deuxième partie, “israël.” 115 compte-rendu chapître général xve, deuxième partie, “israël.” http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/275-trent http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/275-trent 25 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) the report contains two cautionary paragraphs regarding combatting antisemitism. the first responds to the charge on the part of some that the sisters of sion focused too exclusively on their work with and for the jewish people. chapter delegates reminded the sisters that they are mandated from the beginning of the congregation’s history, to have a particular care for “israel” and to extend themselves to all. 116 the jewish people thus have a privileged place not only for the congregation, but in relation to christ the redeemer and to the church. the second caution warns sisters to be careful about the way they speak about jews. they should never cause people to say, “the sisters of sion were founded for the jews and they are themselves anti-semites.” 117 this echoes the 1946 general chapter report’s cautionary note. its repetition suggests a complicated environment even within the sisters’ communities, indicating that, for all the labor of rescue, the presence of jewish students, parents and others, the issue of anti-semitism among the sisters is still sufficiently marked to warrant note at the general chapter. the chapter of august 1951 elected mother marie-félix as superior general. on november 2, 1951, she wrote her first circular letter to all the superiors of the congregation. it is a wide-ranging summary of her perspective on the life of the congregation. she references the august chapter, with its cautionary note against exclusivity. sisters are to present the congregation’s vocation as universal, directed first to the jewish people, but to “all countries, races, religions, and conditions.” mother marie-félix encourages the superiors, “let us show to those outside [the congregation] that we work rather for a rapprochement between jews and christians than for premature conversions. a reputation for ‘proselytism’ would damage our ministry more than serve it.” 118 her wording is noteworthy. mother marie-félix urges a path of relationship, possibly reflecting the influence of paul démann whose language and ideas she echoes. 119 however, she is still ambivalent, clearly discouraging proselytism or “premature” baptisms, but not criticizing the tradition of praying for the conversion of the jews; nor does she question the sisters' working with jews seeking baptism. she says nothing about the “prayers for israel,” recited by all the sisters and absolutely nothing about the desire for the eventual conversion of the jewish people. finally, while the 1946 and 1951 chapter documents only suggested anti-semitism among some of the sisters, mother marie-félix’s first circular includes a specific reference to a “lack of charity” in some communities towards sisters of jewish origin. 120 consistent with the ambivalence of the general chapter that elected her, mother marie-félix 116 this finds inspiration in theodore ratisbonne’s posthumously published trois retraites, 88-89. 117 chapître général xve, deuxième partie, “israël.” 118 lettre circulaire de mère marie-félix addresséee aux révérendes mères supérieures, 2 novembre 1951, p. 11, 3 g 3, “secréteriat, communication à la congrégation 1868-1975,” archives de notredame de sion, paris. 119 olivier rota, “dépasser les cadres du philosémitisme. la vision oecuménique de paul démann,” archives juives 40 (2007): 124; rota, essai, 239-240 120 lettre de mère marie-félix, 2 novembre 1951, p. 12. deutsch: journey to dialogue 26 continues the pre-war current of philosemitism found among the fathers and sisters of sion as well as in the broader circles in which they participated. l’affaire finaly the energetic development emanating especially from the sisters and fathers of sion in paris and lyon, as well as dozens of colleagues, lay, clerical and religious, underwent what one person called an “electro-shock” in 1953 with the bursting open of l’affaire finaly (the finaly affair). 121 this provided a fourth and definitive element in transforming sion’s understanding of jews and judaism. at the center of the scandal were two little boys, robert and gérald finaly, born in 1941 and 1942 in grenoble to hungarian jewish refugees from the nazis. fritz and annie finaly had the boys circumcised at birth; they clearly intended them to be raised as jews. they gave them to the sisters of sion in grenoble for safeguarding in 1944; the boys were placed with mlle. antoinette brun, directress of the city’s day-care center. fritz and annie finaly died in auschwitz, but in february 1945, relatives appeared to retrieve the children. mlle brun refused to surrender the boys and had them baptized in 1948. a court case ensued and eventually, on january 8, 1953, the grenoble court of appeals ordered brun to hand over the children. brun refused again. this time she asked the sisters of sion superior in grenoble, mother marie-antonine, to help her hide the children. with mother marie-antonine’s assistance, the boys were taken on january 30, 1953 by her sister denise jannot bleuze to the catholic college saint louis-de gonzague in bayonne on the french side of the spanish border. 122 on february 2, robert and gérald finaly were then taken over the pyrenees into the basque country of spain. they remained there until the end of june when germaine ribière found them and returned them to france to be reunited with their family. 123 on february 3, mother marie-antonine informed mother marie-félix, the superior general of the congregation, what was transpiring. 124 the following day, mother marie-antonine was arrested and jailed. mother marie-dominique, superior of the sion convent in marseille, who was also involved, was charged on march 3 by the prosecutor of grenoble and was also imprisoned until march 10. 125 brun had not told the sisters of sion that family members had appeared in 1945. moreover, her baptizing the children without permission of at least one 121 madeleine comte, “de la conversion à la rencontre,” 110. 122 poujol, l’église de france et les enfants juifs, 341. 123 jacob kaplan, l’affaire finaly (paris: éditions de cerf, 1993), 16-20; germaine ribière, l’affaire finaly; ce que j’ai vécu (paris: centre de documentation juive contemporaine, 1998). 124 poujol, les enfants caches, 179. 125 poujol, les enfants cachés,175; poujol, l’église de france et les enfants juifs, 252-253. poujol notes that ten members of men’s religious orders were arrested in february and march of 1953 in connection with the kidnapping of robert and gerald finaly; l’église de france, 340. prior to the simplification of practices mandated in the general chapters of 1964 and 1969-70, “mother” was title given to sisters of our lady of sion who had made final vows. “reverend mother” or – more simply – “mother” were titles given to superiors. 27 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) parent or – in their absence – a guardian, was against traditional church policy. 126 however, church policy also required that those baptized be raised catholic. it is important to note that mother marieantonine acted without any communication with the superior general, mother mariefélix; rather, she acted in accord with cardinal gerlier of lyon, whom she had consulted, and in obedience to the holy office in rome. 127 mother marie-félix made every effort as soon as she was informed of the kidnapping to find the children. 128 however, she and her council did not distance themselves from mother antonine and mother marie-dominique. rather, the sion administration stood behind them, not defending their actions but not condemning them either. the sense of betrayal on the part of the jewish community was compounded not only by the recent trauma of the shoah, but also by the history of christians baptizing and kidnapping jewish children. 129 but, mother marie-dominique later acknowledged that the affaire and subsequent public disgrace, the sanction it gave to anti-semitism and anticlericalism, and the mistrust and feeling of betrayal among jews it caused led many in the congregation, including its leaders, to reflect, learn, and undergo their own “conversion.” mother lucie, then a general councilor, said, “with the finaly affair, it seemed to us more and more clear that our task is not conversion, but rapprochement between jews and christians in mutual respect.” “we do not know the jews,” said mother marie-félix in the wake of the affair. many years later, mother mariedominique interpreted her words: indeed, in our reactions to the course of the affaire, many of us had not taken into serious consideration the feelings of the family of the two finaly children; we had not been sensitive enough to the strength of the family ties, especially in a family which had lost several of its members in the shoah. 130 for a century, notre-dame de sion had been deeply connected to the jewish community, through study circles and lectures, publications, relationships with jewish children and parents in the schools, instruction of converts, and social 126 gros, “la congrégation,” 490-491; marx, les relations, 238-245. 127 gros, 490; compte, “de la conversion à la rencontre,” 111. 128 poujol, les enfants cachés, 180. 129 perhaps the most well-known example is the case of edgardo mortara. see david i. kertzer, the kidnapping of edgardo mortara (new york, n.y.: alfred a. knopf, 1997); marx, les relations, 234. 130 gros, “la congrégation,” 491. the impact of the finaly affair continues to reverberate. see alberto melloni, “pio xii al nunzio roncalli: non restitute i bimbi ebrei,” corriere della sera (dec. 28, 2004), cited by catherine poujol, recounting the history of a document found in the centre national des archives de l’eglise de france at issy-les-moulineaux in a dossier entitled “nonciature — enfants cachés.” containing communication from the nuncio, angelo roncalli, to cardinal pierre-marie gerlier (lyon) dated april 30, 1947 which instructs the cardinal not to return children who had been baptized while in hiding. the document was published without poujol’s permission, and the ensuing controversy led her to undertake further research. in that effort, she says that notre-dame de sion and the french church opened their archives in order to cast light on the situation. see l’église de france et les enfants juifs, 1-2. deutsch: journey to dialogue 28 work among the poor. jews were part of sion’s life. yet, in 1953, the superior general, considering the ramifications of the finaly affair, had to admit that “we do not know the jews.” there is immense sadness in these words, for the full impact, not only of anti-semitism, but the profound ambivalence of philosemitism had been made manifest in a series of events that swept up, not only the sisters of sion, but a whole cast of people – including antoinette brun and mother marieantonine – who had risked their lives to save jews only a few years previously. after l’affaire finaly the leaders of the sisters of sion, however, were not paralyzed either by the scandal of l’affaire finaly or by their own remorse and shame. a gradual transformation that the french sisters came to call “le tournant apostolique” (the apostolic revolution) followed. the congregation’s general administration organized a conference for july 10-16, 1955, inviting delegates from all geographical regions of the congregation, with the theme “an information session on various aspects of the mystery of israel” (session d’information sur divers aspects du mystère d’israël). the program was filled with names of scholars who had been engaged in the topic for many years, including two sisters of sion. 131 theological change is seldom straightforward or consistent. mother mariefélix’s concluding directives were mixed in their tone. she included a long discussion of how the sisters’ call to welcome christ functions as a kind of reparation for jewish resistance to welcoming him, but she accompanied these remarks with profound comments on the search for god and openness to the other. 132 in the same address, mother marie-félix announced the establishment of a permanent committee at the level of the general administration that would continue the session’s discussions, outlining a research agenda to be undertaken in all the houses. 133 this committee would also prepare the next conference and help the superior general reorient the whole congregation. in spite of this, mother marie-félix concluded, asking whether it would be possible to create near the sion houses community groups who would welcome people into christian life. former students might help to form such groupings. 134 the 1955 conference marked a breakthrough, but the philosemitic interest in the conversion of the jews remained. this closing statement is interesting for what it says and for what it does not say. the first half of the document expresses a profoundly contemplative spirituality and continues the theme of reparation that characterized earlier elements in the congregation’s spirituality, as well as some philosemitic thinking. 135 mother 131 marx, les relations, 309-310. 132 mère marie-félix, session sur israël—séance de clôture – 17 juillet 1955 – directives de notre mère générale, p. 3, 3 g 3, circular letters from the superior general 1931-1975, archives de notredame de sion, paris. 133 mère marie-félix, session sur israël 1955, p. 4. 134 mère marie-félix, session sur israël 1955, p. 5. 135 session sur israël, 2. 29 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) marie-félix still referred to work with converts. at the same time, she made clear that the conference had set something in process that would engage the whole congregation. in october 1955, the motherhouse opened a study center for research and encounter (centre d’étude et d’information pour israël) in paris under the direction of the general council and mother colette, succeeded by mother marieedward. 136 similar centers opened across the globe (e.g., london, montreal, san jose, são paulo, brussels). 137 in 1957, a house was established in paris for young sisters from around the congregation to study hebrew and jewish studies. sisters trained there were to disseminate new ideas and ways of thinking to the whole congregation. 138 documents from the general chapter of 1957 show a marked shift from earlier theologies. there is a serious attempt to rethink the theme of reparation. this motif was still very important in the thinking as well as the spirituality of many in the congregation, leadership and members alike. in its discussion of the theological foundations of its mission to israel, the report reflects on theodore ratisbonne’s teaching that, modelling themselves on mary at the foot of the cross, christians are called to imitate christ and participate in acts of reparation. the sisters are to imitate her, to unite themselves to her: “mary’s fidelity is, from the incarnation, the perfect model of our vocation of reparation.” 139 this section of the report clearly states that sion’s mission has a dual orientation: to the christian people and to the jewish people. delegates found biblical grounding in paul’s letter to the romans, noting that israel is the olive tree and christians the grafted branches. continuing the use of romans 9-11 from pre-war philosemitic thinking this document cites theodore ratisbonne’s complaint about the lack of welcome often demonstrated to jewish converts. accordingly, the sisters of sion are to create an atmosphere of unreserved welcome. 140 the document recommends various strategies for this. in religious education, sisters should provide biblical instruction highlighting the election of the jewish people, their religious ideals and the greatness of their saints, both biblical and contemporary. attention should be paid to presenting correctly the role of the jews in the passion and death of jesus. with the tridentine catechism, the chapter document identifies the sins of all as causing the death of jesus. it notes that “if certain jews and certain pagans were historically our representatives, the re 136 in 1969, the centre took the name sidic-paris, with “sidic” standing as an acronym for service internationale de documentation judéo-chrétienne. 137 gros, “la congrégation,” 491. 138 marx, les relations, 310. 139 xvi chapître général, 1957, feuille no. 7, “israël i. fondement théologique de la mission pour israël d’après notre père,” série 1 g 17, “chapitre general, 1957,” archives notre-dame de sion, paris. 140 xvi chapître général, 1957, feuille no. 8, “israël ii. notre apostolat en faveur d’israël,” p. 1, 1 g 17, general chapter of 1957, archives de notre-dame de sion, paris. deutsch: journey to dialogue 30 sponsibility that god alone knows and judges, cannot in any way be attributed to jews of all times.” 141 the document recommends how to deal with christian antisemitism, observing that it is necessary to eliminate one by one the factors that can give rise to it: religious themes like deicide and the divine curse; historical themes such as ritual murder and the protocols of the elders of zion; economic and social themes like freemasonry. 142 it also excerpts from the writings of several scholars to help the sisters prepare to confront these issues. elsewhere, the document develops some of those ideas and strategies, urging sisters to come to know israel, to stand in solidarity with the jewish people, and to become cognizant of the commonalities between christian and jewish traditions. yet one still finds references to conversion, like, “…before all else, our duty is a duty of prayer. it is the only activity adequate to its object. conversion is not, in effect, a human work but a divine work.” 143 the sisters’ thinking continued to develop all through the 1950s. israël et nous became a vehicle where sisters and others published articles on judaism, both their own work as well as summaries and reprints of other scholars’ material. paul démann and géza vermès, as well as kurt hruby, also developed their understandings of the covenant in contemporary judaism, the place of prayer in judaism, hasidism and jewish mysticism. 144 like the scholarly cahiers sioniens, israël et nous also addressed questions around the newly established state of israel. 145 during this period, however, overwhelming absorption in the task of education that was the primary ministry of most of the sisters meant that questions concerning the relationship of judaism and christianity remained a matter for a rather small group of sisters, in spite of the chapter’s call and despite the fact that israël et nous was available in all the communities of the congregation. 146 to animate the work of the various centers and facilitate the formation of the whole congregation in bible and jewish studies, mother marie-félix organized training for sisters she deemed suitable. some sisters would follow the programs of the paris center without getting further degrees, while others would pursue doctoral programs in areas related to theology, like bible and jewish history. 147 in 1955, sr. aline defended her doctoral thesis at the sorbonne, on the fortress antonia. in 1957 mother marie-félix sent sr. marie-bénédicte salmon to lyon for a licentiate in religious education. in 1958, sr. georgine became the first sister of sion to study at hebrew university. 141 xvi chapître général, 1957, feuille no. 8, p. 2, citing paul démann, “les juifs dans la catéchèse chrétienne,” cahiers sioniens (1952). the page reference is missing. for the text cited from the catechism of the council of trent (1566), article 4, paragraphs 597-598, see http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a4p2.htm (accessed oct. 22, 2016). 142 xvi chapitre général 1957, feuille no. 8, pp. 5-6. 143 e.g., xvi chapitre général 1957, feuille no. 9, “israël: notre apostolate en faveur d’israël, (suite),” p. 3, g 17, general chapter of 1957, archives de notre-dame de sion, paris . 144 marx, les relations, 314. 145 marx, les relations, 315. 146 delpech, “notre dame de sion et les juifs,” 371; marx, les relations, 311. 147 marx, les relations, 312-313. theological degrees, per se, were not available for women yet. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a4p2.htm 31 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) the very practical decisions and projects initiated by mother marie-félix and her colleagues, especially in the wake of l’affaire finaly were showing results. things were not, however, moving quickly enough as would become clear in two letters mother marie-félix wrote on july 2, 1961 and august 15, 1962. in june of 1961she had gone to rome to discuss the canonical status of the ancelles with archbishop, later cardinal, paul philippe, secretary for the sacred congregation of religious. in the first letter, addressed to the provincials and vice-provincials of the congregation, 148 she reports that philippe turned the subject to the ministry of the entire congregation, focusing not on the ancelles, but on those sisters engaged primarily in education. mother félix reported that the cardinal challenged the congregation, as the only religious order in the church dedicated to the jewish people, to focus more clearly on its specific vocation. she summarized his thinking, saying that he had noted that, while sisters prayed a great deal for israel, they did not go often enough to encounter jewish people. he felt that for the ancelles to be the specialists in this “direct apostolate” was to deprive the whole congregation of its raison d’être. he believed that, without neglecting the ministry of education, more sisters should be trained for the kind of “direct ministry” so often assigned to the ancelles. moreover, the cardinal emphasized that the usual conditions of cloister, religious habit, daily schedule should all be adapted in the measure necessary to accommodate such encounter. sisters should think about professional commitments that would both facilitate and make such contacts more effective. 149 the following year, on august 15, 1962, mother félix wrote to the superiors of the houses in france. she set her remarks in the social and political contexts of the countries in which the congregation’s communities were located, including israel. war, social and political upheaval, oppression and totalitarianism – these were sion’s realities, just as they were the realities of the world at large. mother marie-félix notes the approaching opening of the second vatican council, and cites john xxiii’s exhortation calling members of religious orders fully to participate in the church’s renewal. 150 the opening pages of mother marie-félix’s nine-page letter consequently call for this response: the world is changing. it needs us to speak a language that it can understand. it must see the face of christ through us. what can we do together for this, in this year of the ecumenical council? before a world that is changing, the 148 lettre de mère marie-félix aux reverendes mères provinciales et vice-provinciales de la congrégation, 2 juillet 1961, 3 g 3, circulars from the general superior 1931-1975, archives notre-dame de sion, paris. provincials and vice-provincials were superiors of geographical regions, whether one country or several. the difference in terminology designates the relative size of the region for which they were responsible. 149 mother marie-félix, lettre aux rev. mères provinciales et vice-provinciales de la congrégation, 2 juillet 1961. 150 mother marie-félix, lettre aux mères supérieures de la france, 15 août 1962, p. 3, 3 g 3, circulars from the superior general 1931-1975, archives notre-dame de sion, paris. cf. john xxiii, “il tiempo massimo,” july 2, 1962, acta apostolicis sedis 54(1962): 508-517. deutsch: journey to dialogue 32 congregation cannot remain with apostolic solutions made for a social situation and mentality that is in the process of disappearing. 151 she indicates that in its upcoming general chapter, sion will need to examine new ways of approaching the task with which the congregation has been charged, its mission of love for israel (“mission d’amour envers israël”). it will need to answer cardinal philippe’s challenge to realize its mission “not only by prayer and the offering of our religious life, but still more by a precise knowledge of israel (une connaissance d’israël exacte) leading to concrete action.” 152 until this point, the development of the congregation’s thinking had been significant but slow. august 15, the date of this letter, was the customary day for publishing changes to sisters’ place of residence and ministerial assignments and mother félix announced concrete, even dramatic, changes that affected the whole congregation: efforts to educate increasing numbers of sisters in scripture, theology and jewish studies and to reinforce personnel in study centers and in israel. these represented real changes in the congregation’s institutional commitments. mother félix announced the closure of three communities with large and flourishing schools, two in france (biarritz and le mans) and one in brazil (belo horizonte), to allow the congregation to reinforce its study center in paris and its house in ein karem. this impacted hundreds of lives – not only of the transferred sisters, but also of children, parents and colleagues. the house of study in paris would welcome sisters from other provinces. a study center for jewish-christian relations would develop in london, and the canadian province would send sisters for graduate studies in theology. the house in belo horizonte (brazil), would be closed in order to establish a house of study in são paulo. neither letter alludes to the conversion of the jews. cardinal philippe speaks of “encounter,” and mother félix uses language that seems to continue the tone of “rapprochement” signaled in her letter of 1951. this is the context in which the sisters became directly involved in the writing of nostra aetate. it also explains why some sisters still needed to internalize the changes. on may 6, 1963, three days after sr. marie-bénédicte began her series of visits to french bishops and theologians about the writing of nostra aetate, mother marie-félix wrote to the whole congregation to announce the convocation of its seventeenth general chapter, eventually delayed a month until january of 1964. the general council sent to all the delegates, under mother marie-félix’s name, a report of its governance and its assessment of the congregation’s situation. that report states that there remains a great deal of work to be done in the integration of the congregation’s vocation in relation to the jewish people. it still refers to “the sanctification of israel,” but makes no mention of conversion. it voices a concern that sion’s traditional prayers reflect 19 th century “anti-judaism” which the report calls “anti-semitism.” these require revision because the men 151 lettre, 15 août 1962, p. 3 152 lettre, 15 août, p. 4. 33 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) tality they express actually blocks the sisters’ knowledge of the jewish people and witness of love toward them. 153 the report calls for a more biblical spirituality, one coherent with the current biblical and liturgical renewal and grounded in an understanding of the implications of all forms of prejudice, including those enabling the nazi persecution. this text also acknowledges the importance of the state of israel for the jewish people: “the state of israel has been born and allows liberated jews to find themselves once again in their own land and gives spiritual liberation to jews living in other countries.” 154 the context for this new thinking is explicitly the ecumenism that is at the heart of the second vatican council, and which calls for “understanding, dialogue, [and] friendship with those who do not share our religious faith.” 155 cardinal bea addressed the chapter delegates during their deliberations on january 15, 1964. it was but a few weeks since he had presented the first draft of a document on the jewish people to the council. 156 he would speak again on nov. 3, 1965, a few days after the promulgation of nostra aetate, telling sisters, gathered for another meeting, that nostra aetate is “a real program for your work” (“un vrai programme pour votre travail”). he encouraged them: …do not be afraid if the road to follow is not always clear. in such a new field of action it cannot be expected that all should be clear. i can tell you that in our secretariat we have had, and still have, the same difficulty; as a matter of fact, our work was so new that we could not even plan ahead. 157 the 1964 chapter document reflects a new sensibility. delegates call for an ecumenical attitude vis-à-vis jewish people (cette attitude oecuménique vis-à-vis des juifs). this means an acceptance of jews as they are, an openness to perceive their religious values. two paragraphs are worth quoting in full: this ecumenical attitude in relation to the jews consists in acknowledging them and accepting them as different from ourselves, in perceiving the real though incomplete religious values that they possess, to see them engaged with us in the mystery of salvation that unfolds through time. this mystery 153 compte-rendu du gouvernement general aux capitulaires pour le xviième chapître general de la congrégation de notre-dame de sion, rome, janvier 1964, pp 13-14, 1 g 18, “general chapter of 1964, preparation,” archives notre-dame de sion, paris. 154 compte-rendu … pour le xviième chapître, p. 14; “l’état d’israël est né et permet aux juifs libérés de se retrouver eux-mêmes sur leur terre et libère spirituellement les juifs vivant sur les autres contrées du globe.” it is unclear whether “juifs libérés” refers to jews freed from nazi and british camps, or whether it is a metaphorical reference to the reality of the restoration of the jewish homeland. 155 compte-rendu … pour le xviième chapître, p. 14. 156 “aux religieuses de n.d. de sion,” january 15, 1964, no number, archives notre-dame de sion, paris. 157 “nouveau message de s.em. le cardinal béa aux religieuses de n.d. de sion,” november 13, 1965, rome; no number, archives notre-dame de sion, paris. see also his similar 1966 talk, “h.e. cardinal bea’s talk to the religious of our lady of sion,” november 3, 1966, rome; no number, archives notre-dame de sion, paris. deutsch: journey to dialogue 34 is in the hands of god whose call and gifts are “without repentance.” 158 as for us, we must do everything that depends on us to “break down the wall of separation” 159 without seeking to “make converts.” the true ecumenical attitude continues to desire the reunion of jews and christians, but when and how god wants. it wishes, certainly, that we witness by our life to salvation in christ, and that we be ready to respond about our faith to any who ask us to give an account. but the ecumenical attitude dismisses resolutely all proselytism as contrary to the spirit of the church and also to the deep inspiration of our father [the traditional title given to sion’s founder, theodore ratisbonne]. proselytism, indeed, seeks to convert without respecting the mysterious action of god who alone knows what is best for each soul. 160 the text is not without problems, such as the phrase “real though incomplete religious values.” but it represents a move forward in christian thinking in speaking of an ultimate reunion of jews and christians in ways unknown to us, with no allusion to conversion except in eschewing all forms of proselytism. that eschatological note will find further expression in later church documents as catholics continue to struggle over the seeming contradictions present in the desire to turn aside from the quest for conversions that had proven so destructive for centuries, and the need to articulate new modes of reflection on questions of the church’s relationship to the jewish people, as well as the internal questions of christology and ecclesiology that would allow theological “space” for judaism as a continuing reality. 161 the 1964 general chapter document continued to recognize the need for the sisters of sion to know the jewish people. reference to the shoah as well as to 158 here cardinal bea references rom 11:29. 159 bea alludes here to eph 2:14. 160 comte-rendu de xviième chapître general 1-22 janvier 1964, cinquième dossier: “israël: notre mission d’église,” p. 34, 1 g 18, general chapter of 1964, archives notre-dame de sion, paris . “cette attitude oecuménique vis-à-vis des juifs consiste à les reconnaître et à les accepter differents de nous, à percevoir les valeurs religieuses incomplètes, mais réelles qu’ils possèdent, à les voir engagés avec nous dans le mystère du salut qui se déploie dans le temps. ce mystère est entre les mains de dieu, dont l’appel et les dons [sic] sont ‘sans répentance’. nous, nous devons faire tout ce qui dépend de nous pour ‘saper le mur de séparation’, sans chercher à ‘faire des conversions’. le véritable attitude oecuménique continue à desirer la réunion des juifs et des chrétiens, mais quand et comme dieu la voudra. elle veut, certes, que nous témoignions par notre vie du salut dans le christ, et que nous soyons prêtes à répondre de notre foi à tous ceux qui nous en demandent compte. mais elle écarte résolument tout prosélytisme, comme contraire à l’esprit de léglise et aussi à l’inspiration profonde de notre père. le prosélytisme, en effet, cherche à convertir sans respecter la conduit mystérieuse de dieu: celui-ci seul sait ce qui est le meilleur pour chaque âme.” 161 see the most recent document of the commission for religious relations with the jews, “’the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’ (rm 11.29): a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations on the occasion of the 50 th anniversary of ‘nostra aetate’(no. 4),” especially paragraphs 36-40; http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jewsdocs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html 35 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2016) the actuality of the state of israel lent a sense of contemporary realities, and gave a concrete framework to what it might mean to “know the jewish people.” furthermore, there was a new sense of mutuality; the text not only expresses the desire to know the religious ideals of judaism, but to learn from them. perhaps most important, there was a desire to be in friendship with jews “as far as god allows, … through personal relationships. (nous voulons, autant que dieu le permet, être en amitié avec eux par des relations personnelles…)” 162 concrete decisions included accepting the recommendations of the previous general council to revise the congregation’s public prayers to bring them into line with this ecumenical understanding of sion’s vocation. 163 however, no new works were undertaken immediately. rather, there was a deepened understanding of the task, a new sense of vigor lent by the authorization of the council’s work, and the encouragement of church authorities. conclusions how did this group of french women religious transform their mission to the jews from conversion to dialogue? what was happening in their congregation and in the broader religious and intellectual circles of french theological development that fostered such a project? the efforts of the sisters of sion during the second vatican council had a long pre-history. they inherited philosemitism, with its possibilities for new ways of thinking about jewish-christian relations, grounded in decades of friendships between those engaged in the conversation. the work of sion was nurtured by ressourcement, whose emphasis on “return to the sources” in rearticulating faith in relation to the contemporary world enhanced the congregation’s own tradition of biblical study and attention to jewish and christian sources. the aftermath of the shoah also challenged christian understandings of judaism, and of the relationship of the church to the jewish people. furthermore, the development that allowed the sisters of sion to make their particular contribution was a direct result of l’affaire finaly, and the ensuing scandal that laid bare the fault lines of previous ways of thinking. this was a decadeslong journey, carried out against the backdrop of war, social and political upheaval, the tragedy of the shoah and the rebirth of the state of israel. it was also a journey of friendship of sisters with one another and with the fathers of sion, with collaborators and friends, jews, catholics, protestants and orthodox, lay and clergy. it is a never-ending journey, and in subsequent decades, the sisters have continued to attend to the challenge of a vocation that calls them to “stand beside both the israeli and palestinian peoples in their suffering.” in a world filled with hatred, their vocation calls them to be “women of dialogue in the jewishchristian relationship,” while reading nostra aetate “in its entirety” and entering 162 compte rendu du xviiième chapître général, cinquième dossier “israel: notre mission d’église,” p. 35. 163 compte rendu du xviiième chapître général, cinquième dossier “israel: notre mission d’église,” p. 35. deutsch: journey to dialogue 36 more intentionally into relationship with people of other faiths, especially muslims, in the quest for justice and in care for the earth. 164 164 report of the 25 th general chapter of the congregation, july 2010, “charism,” series 1 g 51, general chapter of 2010, archives de notre-dame de sion, paris. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-15 freud’s vienna circle, psychoanalysis, and antisemitism 1 pamela cooper-white pcooperwhite@uts.columbia.edu union theological seminar, new york, ny 10027 the year is 1902. five men sit in a close circle on a red velvet upholstered couch and matching square-backed chairs, around a victorian turn-legged table bearing papers and journals, black coffee and cake. the air is thick with tobacco smoke. there is an urn that contains ballots with all the members’ names, so that speakers can—and must—speak, in random order. 2 a meticulously dressed, bearded man sits in a chair a few inches apart from the rest of the group, drawing on his cigar, appraising them all with gimlet eyes. he is biding his time to speak until all the others have weighed in. a floor-to-ceiling ceramic coal heater chuffs somewhat ineffectually in the corner; it is the discussion that is generating the heat. the topic is religion. the bearded man is freud, of course, and this is his waiting room. here and in the next room—his consulting room proper, with its carpet-draped couch—the walls are covered with pictures, and every surface is filled up with ancient archaeological figurines. with affectionate irony, he calls them “my old and dirty gods”— “meine . . . alten und dreckigen götter.” 3 these figures represent both an 1 this lecture was a summary preview of the main arguments in my book old and dirty gods: religion, antisemitism, and the origins of psychoanalysis (london & new york: routledge, 2017), and adapted from an article based on a plenary presentation to the society for pastoral theology (cooperwhite, “‘old and dirty gods’: religion and freud’s wednesday night psychological society from habsburg vienna to the holocaust,” journal of pastoral theology, 27/1 (2017), online: doi 10.1080/10649867.2017.1361700.) 2 freud instituted the urn as an old rabbinic tradition to prevent the teacher from monopolizing the discussion, but the obligation to speak was soon resented by the members, feeling exposed to scrutiny whether they were prepared to address a topic or not. see charles b. strozier and daniel offer, “freud and his followers,” in strozier, offer, and o. abdyli, eds., the leader: psychological essays (new york: springer verlag. 2011), p. 15. the urn was abolished by vote of the members in 1908. (herman nunberg & ernst federn, eds., minutes of the vienna psychoanalytic society, trans. m. nunberg, new york: international universities press, 1962-1975, vol. ii, p. 352). 3 letter of freud to wilhelm fliess, august 1, 1889, in jeffrey moussaief masson, the complete letters of sigmund freud to wilhelm fliess, 1887-1904 (cambridge, ma: belknap/harvard university press, 1985), p. 363, as translated by j. titherige in lisa marinelli, “my ‘old and dirty gods’: an exhibition on freud’s archaeological collection,” american imago, 66/2 (2009): 149-159 (notes online at http://www.freudmuseum.at/online/e/inhalt/museumausstellungengoetter.htm) for an overview of the collection, see lynn gamwell and richard wells, sigmund freud and art: his personal collection of antiquities (binghamton, ny: suny press and london: freud museum, 1989). in his introduction to this volume, peter gay cautions, “we have not yet penetrated the full meaning of freud’s antiquities for him, although this assembly of objects helps us to make significant strides toward such an understanding…these small objects meant much to him…. although sometimes, as we http://www.freudmuseum.at/online/e/inhalt/museumausstellungengoetter.htm cooper-white: freud’s vienna circle, psychoanalysis, and antisemitism 2 intellectual interest in classical and egyptian antiquity common among educated men and women of letters 4 but, as well, are a metaphor for psychoanalysis itself—digging for long-buried evidence of powerful but often unacknowledged truths. freud recognizes the compulsive nature of his collecting of these objects as an addiction second only to his cigars. 5 that they are gods presents an even deeper mystery, never plumbed directly by freud himself, but suggesting the simultaneous fascination and aversion characteristic of a neurotic symptom. freud’s insistent atheism— and his somewhat contradictory, obsessional return to the topic of religion throughout his cultural writings— are both well documented. in a letter dated oct. 9, 1918 to the swiss pastor-analyst oskar pfister, he described himself as “a completely godless jew.” 6 this phrase was not merely a double negation (as both godless and jew) of the dominant roman catholic religion of fin-de-siècle vienna, but also served as a more complex signifier: in childhood an identity formed in a humanistic judaism, and a growing identification with its intellectual and racial heritage against the backdrop of increasing antisemitism. 7 freud’s cultural writings on religious themes are well known: first, the essay “obsessive actions and religious practices” in 1907, 8 and then more famously, totem and taboo in 1913, 9 the future of an illusion in 1927, 10 and moses and monotheism in 1939, 11 as well as a host of lesser known dissect freud, using his antiquities as so many surgical knives to probe his mysteries, we might remember the sheer pleasure he took in those pieces. sometimes a statue is just a statue.” (ibid., 19) cf., peter gay: “his antiquities seemed reminders of a lost world to which he and his people, the jews, could trace their remote roots” (in freud: a life for our time, new york: w.w. norton, 2006, p. 172). freud reportedly told the wolf man that they also represented to him the whole process of psychoanalysis as an archaeological excavation of each patient’s psychic depths. (ibid., 171) 4 paul roazen, freud and his followers (new york: alfred a. knopf , 1975), p. 177. 5 max schur, freud, living and dying (new york: international universities press, 1972), p. 247; gay, freud: a life for our time, pp. 170-171. 6 heinrich meng and ernst l. freud, ernst l., eds., psychoanalysis and faith: the letters of sigmund freud and oskar pfister, e. mosbacher, trans. (new york: basic books, 1963), p. 63. 7 following mortimer ostow, myth and madness: the psychodynamics of antisemitism (new brunswick, nj: transaction publishers, 1996), i use the spelling “antisemitism,” rather than the more conventional “anti-semitism.” as ostow has argued, “other terms that have been proposed, such as jew-hatred or anti-judaism, have not replaced it. [here] i shall spell the term without capitals and without a hyphen, thus indicating my rejection of the racial implications of the term.” (p. 14) ostow acknowledges, “it is a poor compromise, adopted only in order to comply with general usage.” ostow defines antisemitism most basically as “prejudice against jews,” (p. 13) but notes the complexity of antiand philosemitism often co-existing as two “vectors” of the same prejudice, and the reality that many people’s attitudes (citing martin luther and wilhelm marr) change over time. (p. 15) the problematics of defining judaism and jewishness – which can encompass religion, culture, and heritage – make a precise definition of antisemitism equally problematic. this issue of antisemitism in relation to psychoanalysis is further discussed in my book, cooper-white, old and dirty gods, pp. 217-246. 8 sigmund freud, “obsessive actions and religious practices,” in the standard edition of the complete works of sigmund freud, ed. j. strachey (london: hogarth, 1959; orig. publ. 1907), vol. 9:115127. 9 freud, totem and taboo, in the standard edition of the complete works of sigmund freud, ed. j. strachey (london: hogarth, 1955; orig. publ. 1913), vol. 13:1-162. 10 freud, the future of an illusion, in the standard edition of the complete works of sigmund freud, ed. j. strachey (london: hogarth, 1961; orig. publ. 1927), vol. 21:5-56. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2017) essays, speeches, and correspondence mentioning both religion in general, and his own jewish heritage in particular. 12 less well known, however, are the attitudes toward religion among the men—and eventually women—who joined him once a week to reflect on a wide range of implications of the new psychological science: psychoanalysis. there has been no in-depth exploration of the treatment of religion by this “wednesday night psychological society”— freud’s immediate circle of psychoanalysts in vienna— with the exception of otto rank and theodor reik whose work is still familiar to some specialists. 13 in general, there has been much less scholarly interest in freud’s viennese circle as a whole than in freud himself, 14 and statements about the group have tended toward generalizations. 15 peter gay in his comprehensive critical biography of freud concluded that “freud’s view of religion as the enemy was wholly shared by the first generation of psychoanalysts. the attempts of some later psychoanalysts to reconcile psychoanalysis with religion would never have found the slightest sympathy in freud and his colleagues.” 16 in my new book, old and dirty gods: religion, antisemitism, and the origins of psychoanalysis, 17 i investigate gay’s premise based on my research as a senior fulbright scholar at the sigmund freud museum in vienna in 2013-14, beginning with the research question: what religious themes appear in discussions and writings of freud’s wednesday night psychological society? i begin with the minutes of this group recorded by otto rank from 1906 until rank’s departure from vienna in 1915 for military duty during wwi. 18 in addition, rich sources include the journal imago—the groups’ journal for cultural or “applied” psychoanalytic writings—followed by an examination of other published works, correspondence, and memoirs from members of freud’s viennese circle prior to world war ii. freud and his circle often engaged in wide-ranging, interdisciplinary discussions during their wednesday meetings, which then were expanded into published writings—including forays into history, biography, anthropology, archaeology, philosophy, the paranormal, and—especially of interest for this project—the study of religion across time and culture. a number of early analysts 11 freud, moses and monotheism, in the standard edition of the complete works of sigmund freud, ed. j. strachey (london: hogarth, 1964; orig. publ. 1939), vol. 23:3-138. 12 e.g., freud, “address to the society of b’nai b’rrith,” in the standard edition of the complete works of sigmund freud, ed. j. strachey (london: hogarth, 1959; orig. publ. 1926), vol. 20:271274. for a detailed overview re: freud and religion, see marsha aileen hewitt, freud on religion (new york: routledge, 2014). 13 e.g., dan merkur, relating to god: clinical psychoanalysis, spirituality, and theism (lanham, md: jason aronson, 2013). 14 elke mühlleitner, and johannes reichmayr, “following freud in vienna,” international forum of psychoanalysis, 6 (1997):73-102, p. 74. 15 ibid., 73. 16 gay, freud: a life for our time, p. 533, emphasis added. 17 pamela cooper-white, old and dirty gods. 18 herman nunberg and ernst federn, eds., minutes of the vienna psychoanalytic society, vols. i-iv, trans. m. nunberg, (new york: international universities press, 1962-1975), vol. i, p. xvii. cooper-white: freud’s vienna circle, psychoanalysis, and antisemitism 4 who were either members of freud’s vienna circle, or had a close relationship to it, published monographs and volumes of collected essays on religion. the works of ernest jones, oskar pfister, theodor reik, otto rank, geza roheim, sabina spielrein, and of course c.g. jung (before and especially after his famous split with freud), are prime examples of this literary productivity in the realm of psychology and religion. two theses: the expected result and the return of the repressed the first thesis: complexity in the viennese analysts’ views on religion so, i entered the project with one research question in mind: what religious themes appear in the discussions and writings of freud’s wednesday night psychological society? my hypothesis was that their views might be more complex and less strictly conforming to freud’s views than was assumed by previous scholars. the primary sources did, in fact, confirm a rich and often more complex view of the attitudes toward religion among freud’s early followers than has generally been recognized. i have detailed many examples of this in the book, but to summarize as briefly as possible, the members not only followed freud’s psychoanalytic-anthropological method of applying oedipal interpretations to ancient civilizations’ ritual practices (as in freud’s totem and taboo), and critiquing the repressive moralistic teachings of the hegemonic viennese catholic church, but at times expressed quite original ideas about a positive role of religion in advancing the sublimations and compromise formations necessary for civilization (a modification from freud’s civilization and its discontents, and quite different from his future of an illusion by which time freud had posited religion as an enemy). they believed that there was the inverse proportion of neuroses in devout believers vs. freethinking secularists, and even—in the case of the pastor oskar pfister—making an argument for psychoanalysis as compatible with a liberal and non-repressive version of protestant christianity, freed from the constraints of moralizing dogma. capturing well the mix of orthodoxy and creativity that characterized psychoanalysis from its beginnings with the wednesday night psychological society, paul federn—one of the earliest and most longstanding members of the vienna society—shared the following recollection in tribute to freud at the new york psychoanalytic institute in 1948: freud…foresaw that many shades and deviations and derivations necessarily would develop…only in this respect, are we “orthodox”; but we are open to every change which is progress without abandoning the established truth and the principles confirmed by our scientific method. 19 19 paul federn, “notes,” psychoanalytic quarterly, 16 (1948), 595-597. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2017) a second thesis: antisemitism and the return of the repressed these first findings would have been more than enough to say “mission accomplished” based on my initial research aims. a second, unanticipated thesis emerged, however, that i believe in the long run may prove even more significant as a result of this study: that the surrounding atmosphere of antisemitism, even before the rising horror of the nazi movement, stands at the fons et origo of psychoanalysis. antisemitism shaped the first analysts’ ethical sense, and was formative in their theory as a desire to analyze (from the underside) what lay beneath every surface of the human psyche. obviously there is no one impetus behind the development of psychoanalysis, and to claim antisemitism as a singular root cause would be reductionistic. yet, with its curling tentacles, it is one of the most pervasive—as well as sometimes denied—social forces in 20 th -century vienna, and could not have failed to suffuse the thinking of freud’s circle in some ways, both consciously and unconsciously. antisemitism constituted an ancient ocean of hatred in which the first psychoanalysts (almost all of whom were jewish 20 ) had to swim, throughout their entire lives. it took constant vigilance to survive, much less succeed, in its dangerous waters. above and beyond all the other themes discovered in the wednesday night society’s discussions of religion, then, antisemitism stands as a “total context,” 21 an ineradicable, overarching reality that could not have failed to influence these firsts’ analysts’ discoveries and explorations—and without which their ideas, especially concerning religion itself, cannot be fully understood. i came to this realization in a visceral way while walking from my apartment in leopoldstadt to the freud museum in the more affluent neighborhood of alsergrund. i became aware that symbolically i was tracing freud’s footsteps across the danube canal, from the eastern european jewish ghetto to the upwardly mobile ninth district. these two neighborhoods had contained two of the largest proportions of jewish inhabitants in vienna since the waves of immigration from eastern europe in the 19 th century and before, but they were very different jewish populations with differing cultural and spiritual lives. of course the holocaust itself was the culminating event—or, more accurately process—by which longstanding religious and cultural hatred and envy toward the jews as “other” became systematized as a “science” of racial inferiority and ultimately extermination. concentrated in the historically jewish neighborhoods, one can find today—especially when looking for them—small brass plaques commemorating individuals and families who lived at a specific locale and then were deported to their deaths in the holocaust. these plaques called “stolpersteine” (“stumbling blocks”) were first created by german artist gunter demnig in 2009 as calls to remembrance. demnig quotes from the talmud: “a person is only forgotten when his or her name is forgotten.” the engravings gen 20 mühlleitner & reichmayr, “following freud in vienna,” pp. 85-88. 21 term from sociolinguistics and anthropology, as the encompassing surround of a culture, its practices and language(s), which may appear only partially in the subjective consciousness of individuals. cooper-white: freud’s vienna circle, psychoanalysis, and antisemitism 6 erally begin with the words “hier wohnte…” (“here lived…”) and end with “gemordet” (“murdered”), the place if known (usually a concentration camp) and year. 22 the idea of stumbling stones is also a reminder of an old slur that if a person stumbled on the street, a jew must be buried there. this slur has been reappropriated to signify the importance of being stopped in our tracks, to notice, and to remember. all over vienna there are memorials to the victims of the holocaust. their sheer ubiquity is a statement of the horrific extent to which entire viennese neighborhoods were impacted not only by the final genocidal months and years, but also by the centuries-old pervasiveness of the antisemitism that allowed the nazis to flourish and the evil to spread like a wildfire through both vienna and the austrian countryside. perhaps to walk the city as a foreigner myself allowed me to search out these many monuments with less ambivalence because my eyes were not covered by blinders of familiarity—or (as much?) denial. or perhaps because of the endemic racism in my own north american context, combined with personal observations of antisemitism in my childhood and young adulthood, i was primed as a christian of partial german descent to see these visible memorials, and to seek them out, either as an act of righteous remembrance, an act of penance, or both. in any case, the palpable sense of viennese antisemitism as a climate, an atmosphere, was something that i no longer just knew from reading about it books, but came to know (both anew and again, like freud’s “return of the repressed” 23 ) at a visceral level. i had seen its not-so-subtle signs with my own eyes, and i felt its miasma on my own skin. nor is antisemitism unique to austria; it is likely worse today in some other central and eastern european countries. 24 but in keeping with my research focus on vienna, it became clear to me (both through reading history but also reading the newspaper, the culture, and the comments of acquaintances), that the holocaust is a memory which throughout austria is still fraught with social denial, amid public calls for remembrance. until as recently as 1991, when in a speech to parliament austrian chancellor franz vranitzky publicly called the austrian people to responsibility for the atrocities of the holocaust, the official and popular view tended to coincide in a concerted effort to deflect all blame onto germany. 25 images of austria as occupied state, and austrians as victims themselves of nazi aggression, were repeated, mantra-like, in an effort to absolve austria from its own violence toward the jews and other groups slated for expatriation—and then, extermination. 22 gunter demnig, stolpersteine [n.d.], online at http://www.stolpersteine.eu/en/ 23 e.g., sigmund freud, “the uncanny,” in the standard edition of the complete works of sigmund freud , ed. j. strachey (london: hogarth, 1955; orig. publ. 1919), vol. 17, p. 349. 24 personal travel 2013-14, 2015; cf., jakob mikanowski, the frightening politics of hungary’s house of terror, 2012, online at https://theawl.com/the-frightening-politics-of-hungarys-house-ofterror-a421981fa2e3#.efech22x0. 25 demokratiezentrum wien/vienna democracy center (2015). der “opfermythos in österreich: entstehung und entwicklung,” online at http://www.demokratiezentrum.org/wissen/timelines/deropfermythos-in-oesterreich-entstehung-und-entwicklung.html. http://www.stolpersteine.eu/en/ https://theawl.com/the-frightening-politics-of-hungarys-house-of-terror-a421981fa2e3#.efech22x0 https://theawl.com/the-frightening-politics-of-hungarys-house-of-terror-a421981fa2e3#.efech22x0 http://www.demokratiezentrum.org/wissen/timelines/der-opfermythos-in-oesterreich-entstehung-und-entwicklung.html http://www.demokratiezentrum.org/wissen/timelines/der-opfermythos-in-oesterreich-entstehung-und-entwicklung.html 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2017) today there are laws against a former nazi party member serving in the government, and holocaust denial speech, neo-nazis, and hate crimes are officially banned. there have been official efforts at restitution and remembrance. however, a “soft” denial, coupled with ongoing antisemitism, persists in the general culture at large. i have met a number of older austrians whose families were in vienna during the war, and the usual response to any query about the nazis or the holocaust is an acknowledgement that yes, the austrians were complicit, but: “not everyone approved. my family certainly did not!” if so many families “did not,” then who were all those people in the cheering throngs on the heldenplatz giving hitler a triumphal entry into vienna? one sardonic (typically viennese) joke that circulates about this rewriting of history is the saying, “oh no, they weren’t cheering. on that day on the heldenplatz, they were just all waving their hands and shouting at hitler ‘go away!’” a friend who moved to vienna from germany over 30 years ago commented that in those earlier days she sat next to an older woman on a park bench, and after exchanging polite greetings, the woman grumbled that there were too many “ausländer” (“foreigners”). my friend replied, “i’m actually an ausländer—i’m from germany.” the woman stated flatly, “oh, i don’t mean you. i mean the jews.” while such comments may be made less readily to strangers these days, people i know and trust acknowledge that antisemitism and racism (mostly referred to as xenophobia) persist. there is a strong anti-immigration and antiislamic mood (as well as fairly small counter-protests which i saw around the university). since the october election in 2013, the far-right political party the “freedom party of austria” (fpö) 26 led by a charismatic speech-maker who stays just this side of illegal hate speech, heinz-christian strache, gained even further ground, rising to first place among austrians from 23% to 25% in a gallup poll with a strong anti-immigration campaign. 27 in 2016, the fpö candidate norbert hofer led with 36% in the first general election. in the delayed runoff election in december, 28 the independent candidate alexander van der bellen won by a margin of 350,000 votes (53% to 47%)—but the far-right still captures close to 50% of austrians’ popular support. a slogan of this right-wing, anti-immigration movement, “pummerin statt muezzin” (“the cathedral bell, not the islamic call to prayer”), echoes the sentiments expressed in the nationalist movement at the turn of the 20 th century: keep austria white, german-speaking, and catholic. memento mori my morning and evening walks took me past two contrasting monuments. one, planted in a narrow park along the east side of the canal, was a sootdarkened and apparently untended but very ornate miniature chapel dedicated to 26 literally, freiheitliche partei österreichs. 27 cf., martin ehl, “populists in the fast lane,” vienna review, november 18, 2013, online at http://www.viennareview.net/news/europe/populists-in-the-fast-lane. 28 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38202669. http://www.viennareview.net/news/europe/populists-in-the-fast-lane http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38202669 cooper-white: freud’s vienna circle, psychoanalysis, and antisemitism 8 the memory of johann nepomok hummel. a plaque indicates that it was placed there by the then bürgermeister (mayor), karl lueger. lueger was elected in 1895 by the first explicitly antisemitic political party, the christian socialists, and installed in 1897; hitler regarded him as a model leader. he is considered a symbol of the rising antisemitism at the turn of the century in vienna, and his name was (mostly) removed in 2012 from the portion of vienna’s most public street, the ringstrasse. once called the “karl lueger ring,” it is now the universitätsring. yet at least one subway entrance to the busy schottentor station near the university still bore his name in january 2014, while i was living in vienna), and the university letterhead on my teaching contract retained the older street name. his statue still stands in the dr. karl-lueger platz on the other end of the ring. 29 in his desire to create a modern german city, lueger planted over a dozen structures throughout vienna, with his name prominently displayed. the largest monument is an enormous baroque-style church, the dr.-karl-luegergedächtsniskirche (“commemoration church”) dedicated to st. karl borromäus, and still serving as an active roman catholic place of worship. it is planted squarely in the center of the zentralfriedhof, or central cemetery, where numerous luminary viennese musical, literary, and historic figures are buried. so lueger casts a large shadow over vienna to this day. his name and presence are still widely tolerated, without critical reflection on the antisemitism he represents. the little chapel i passed daily embodies the darkness and obscurity of this shadow. with its dingy stucco walls covered with graffiti, its interior locked behind heavy wrought iron gates and strewn with dirt and litter, it looks less like a monument to a saint or a statesman, than a haunted house: a memento mori. across the canal from leopoldstadt, in the 9 th district at the top of berggasse, stands a very different monument in the small courtyard of a well-kept catholic church, the servitenkirche. this monument commemorates all the victims of the holocaust who lived on the adjoining street, servitengasse. the memorial consists of a collection of skeleton keys, each with a name tag for one of the servitengasse victims. the keys represent both the mundane business of daily life, and its violent disruption—as well as serving as symbols of homes inhabited and wrenched away. walking daily between lueger’s uncanny chapel and the servitengasse memorial, as well as all the other holocaust memorials throughout vienna, it became utterly clear to me that even if the first analysts had never written a word about antisemitism, their work, their sense of identity, and their very lives, were marinated in this bitter reality, and it could not have failed to have an impact on their creative thinking. although there is, in fact, very little actual discussion of antisemitism recorded in the minutes of their meetings, their writings and memoirs as a whole—taken together with historical accounts of austrian political and cultural history—tell a more complete story. 29 a pressure group from university for applied arts and the jewish museum, vienna, has organized to transform the dr. karl-lueger platz into a monument against antisemitism and racism in austria: http://en.luegerplatz.com/impressum.php. http://en.luegerplatz.com/impressum.php 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2017) my research at the freud museum and on the vienna psychoanalytic society’s early thoughts on religion, has certainly raised antisemitism and the holocaust to the forefront of my own consciousness in new ways. although i was raised in episcopal and methodist churches, and currently serve as an ordained episcopal priest, my hometown on the north shore of boston has a large jewish community. i had friends whose grandparents still bore tattooed numbers on their arms. for me, therefore, the holocaust has never been abstract. i have perpetually been drawn to study freud and his circle because the history of psychoanalysis is a perspective from which one can try to make sense of the irrational—both personally and in social and political movements. it is also a perspective haunted by religion as a much-contested subject. the rise of overt antisemitism and the fusion of church and state at the turn of the twentieth century in austria, together with freud’s adamant embrace of his jewish heritage while utterly rejecting religious belief, make for fascinating research. and it is research that troubles the waters. psychoanalysis, antisemitism, and the holocaust the holocaust was a shattering of history, and has been investigated in every generation since with ever-deepening insights about the multi-generational impact of trauma. 30 only recently have psychoanalysts begun to unpack the effects of the holocaust on the analysts who escaped, on the institutes that received them, and even on the shaping (or mis-shaping) of postwar psychoanalytic theory. 31 my project is slightly different, though related. the impact of the holocaust should never be underestimated, but it is my contention that because it was, in bettelheim’s words, such an “extreme situation,” 32 the long prior history of antisemitism in itself may become subsumed in its glare. i want to argue that in addition to the holocaust itself, the decades—as well as centuries—of antisemitism that led up to it, are not incidental but are central to the development of psychoanalysis. freud’s jewishness has already been well examined as a dynamic factor in the development of psychoanalysis. yet jewishness in itself is, of course, not identical with antisemitism. the very long shadow of antisemitism itself must also be located as a catalyst at the very origins of psychoanalytic theory and practice—both in terms of what the first analysts saw (that no one else was seeing), and what they failed to see. this is not to say, of course, that antisemitism 30 e.g., françoise davoine and jan-max gaueillière, history beyond trauma, trans. s. fairfield (new york: other press, 2004); in the psychoanalytic literature see also emily kuriloff, psychoanalysis and the third reich: history, memory, tradition (new york: routldge, 2014), and dori laub, “the testimonial process as a reversal of the traumatic shutdown of narrative and symbolization,” in answering a question with a question: contemporary psychoanalysis and jewish thought, vol. ii, ed. lewis aron and libby henik (boston: academic studies press, 2015), pp. 301-21. 31 especially, see emily kuriloff, psychoanalysis and the third reich; see also david james fisher, “towards a psychoanalytic understanding of fascism and anti-semitism: perceptions from the 1940’s, online at www.hagalil.com/2009/12/fisher; robert prince, “psychoanalysis traumatized: the legacy of the holocaust,” american journal of psychoanalysis, 69/3 (2009), 179-194. 32 bruno bettelheim, freud’s vienna and other essays (new york: vintage, 1991). http://www.hagalil.com/2009/12/fisher cooper-white: freud’s vienna circle, psychoanalysis, and antisemitism 10 was the only factor in the development of psychoanalysis. the emergence of a science and a hermeneutic of the unconscious was overdetermined like everything else. psychoanalysis incorporates a rich, complicated tapestry of sources and influences. yet the core realization of psychoanalytic thought—that there is always more beneath the surface appearances of reality, and that this “more” is among other things affective, memory-laden and psychological—cannot fail to have had something to do with the experiences of the first jewish analysts in their position of marginality and oppression. the influence of antisemitism antisemitism, as a belief system saturating the dominant culture of western europe, perforce delineated the jew as “other.” jews in different contexts at various times embraced this outsider position as a safe enclave, or sought to escape it through assimilation. but their view was always one from the margins, a view that gentiles did not share or even perceive. as postcolonial theory has taught us, 33 the view from the margins is often more acute and penetrating than from the mountaintop of privilege. 34 comparing freud to other “great revolutionaries” of thought, isaac deutscher declared to the world jewish congress in 1968, as jews they dwelt on the borderlines of various civilizations, religions, and national cultures. their mind matured where the most diverse cultural influences crossed and fertilized each other. they lived on the margins or in the nooks and crannies of their respective nations. each of them was in society and yet not in it, of it and yet not of it. it was this that enabled them to rise in thought above their societies, above their nations, above their times and generations, and to strike out mentally into wide new horizons and far into the future. 35 33 the postcolonial literature is vast, and still expanding. a classic text is homi bhabha, the location of culture (london: routledge, 1994). other foundational texts include frantz fanon, the wretched of the earth, trans. r. philcox (new york: grove, 2004; orig. publ. 1961) and fanon, black skin, white masks, trans. r. philcox (new york: grove, 2008; orig. publ. 1952); edward said, orientalism (new york: pantheon/random house, 1979); gayatri chakravorty spivak, “can the subaltern speak?” in marxism and the interpretation of culture, ed. c. nelson and l. grossberg (urbana, il: university of illinois press, 1998). for overviews see also robert j.c. young, postcolonialism: a very short introduction (oxford, uk: oxford university press, 2003); jaydeep chakrabarty, postcolonialism: a critical introduction (booktango/amazon kindle, 2015). said reads freud’s moses and monotheism through a postcolonial lens in relation to the israeli-palestinian conflict in freud and the non-european (london: verso/freud museum, 2003). 34 contra peter gay, a godless jew: freud, atheism and the making of psychoanalysis (new haven: yale university press, 1987), pp.146-147. contemporary historians of psychoanalysis have used the term “optimal marginality” to describe the acuity and creative genius from a marginal status, which has arisen within psychoanalysis from freud to the present (summarized in lewis aron and karen starr, a psychotherapy for the people: toward a progressive psychoanalysis, new york: routledge, 2013, pp. 8-9, 29 et passim). 35 isaac deutscher, “the non-jewish jew,” in the non-jewish jew and other essays, ed. t. deutscher (new york: hill & wang, 1968), pp. 26-27. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2017) as dutch psychoanalyst hans reijzer has observed, “when people live between two cultures, they think dialectically and see society dynamically.” 36 the jews of austria could speak and understand the language and culture of both oppressed and oppressor, and they also could not but view and judge themselves through the lens of the dominant culture. in his culture shock during his first visit to the wednesday night society, the famous swiss psychiatrist c.g. jung viewed the viennese analysts as “cynical,” 37 but in their own context that was simply what came of being awake to the societal dynamics into which they were born. it was part and parcel of surviving in a hostile climate. yearning for acceptance and assimilation was one psychic force, which sometimes engendered both denial and hope. realism and the knowledge of danger was a countervailing force. the former—the assimilationist story that psychoanalysis is a western science—is the narrative told most often. the latter— the subversive knowledge of oppression—is the uncanny truth of trauma, which returns again and again in disguised form, but can never remain entirely repressed. 38 the total context of antisemitism, and the first analysts’ efforts to resist its penetrating logic of denigration, could not have failed to inform and shape their ethical sensibilities and their vision of social justice. moreover, this experience infused them with a psychic need to analyze what dark secrets lay beneath the human psyche—of which sex and aggression were perhaps the most powerful in nineteenthand twentieth-century vienna. thus, antisemitism had an indelible impact, not only on their personal and professional lives and aspirations, but on the very formation of psychoanalytic theory. implications for the field of pastoral theology, care & counseling some of my theologian colleagues might be wondering, “what’s a nice pastoral theologian like you doing in the sigmund freud museum, presumed hotbed of atheism!?” for some time now, i have been seeking further depth and complexity for a statement i made in an article in 2011 on psychoanalysis and its implications for the pastoral disciplines, 39 in which i argued that pastoral psychology and pastoral theology should reclaim our freudian and classic psychoanalytic heritage—including the drives, the oedipal struggle, and an appreciation for the tragic: borrowing an inelegant phrase from today’s youth culture, we should not “throw freud under the bus.” any temptation to do so may well be a neurotic 36 hans reijzer, a dangerous legacy: judaism and the psychoanalytic movement, trans. j. ringold (london: karnac, 2011), p. 25, also citing deutscher, op. cit., pp. [25-41]. 37 deirdre bair, jung: a biography (boston: little, brown, 2003), p. 119. 38 freud, “the uncanny.” 39 pamela cooper-white, “a critical tradition: psychoanalysis,” in pastoralpsychologie und religionspsychologie im dialog: impulse für die seelsorge/pastoral psychology and psychology of religion in dialogue: implications, ed. i. noth, c. morgenthaler, and k. j. greider (stuttgart: kohlhammer verlag, 2011), p. 68. cooper-white: freud’s vienna circle, psychoanalysis, and antisemitism 12 defense against our embodied selves with our sexual and aggressive impulses, just as he warned us. by the same token, we may rightly subject freud’s defensive motives for rejecting all forms of organized religion to the same scrupulous analysis as he advocated for all other domains of life. following [melanie] klein, can we tolerate the ambiguity of holding together both the good and bad of psychoanalysis, and the good and bad of religion? following the contemporary relational[-psychoanalytic] theorists, we might consider a radical complexity of the human mind that can encompass sex and death, attachment and the fear of loss, and faith and dread. it continues to be my hope that by examining the treatment of religious themes in the writings of the vienna circle and psychoanalytic society, more complexity might be brought to light—not by rejecting or circumventing freud’s atheism, but by holding in creative tension the many contested but common concerns of psychoanalysis and religion. by the same token, psychoanalysis cannot be considered apart from its zeitgeist following the emergence of a historical self-consciousness in the 19 th century along with archaeological exploration and “orientalism,” and the beginnings of postmodernism in philosophy (e.g., schopenhauer and nietzsche), marxism, expressionism in art and music (especially in vienna with such figures as klimt, kandinsky, and schiele; karl kraus; and arnold schönberg), or from its cultural context including rigid gender roles, pseudo-scientific racist taxonomies (including virulent antisemitism), and the brutality of war in 20 th -century europe with its consequent poverty and disease. my research at the freud museum in vienna, including both documentary and contextual resources, has convinced me all the more of the need in the field of pastoral theology in particular to “complicate the categories” in our perceptions of the historical treatment of religious themes in psychoanalysis, based on the evidence of much “creative tension” even in the earliest days of psychoanalysis. although freud’s atheism did tend to rule the day and set certain rigid limits (both conscious and unconscious) around what aspects of the field of religion could be explored and how, freud’s conscious views on religion during the first half of the 20 th century do not constitute the sum total of all that can be understood about psychoanalysis and religion, either then or now. all forms of western care and counseling continue to be influenced—however subliminally—by both the vision and the blind spots of the founder of psychoanalysis—and also his early circle of colleagues. for this reason, the “creative tensions” within their circle—as well as the analysis and critiques we can bring from the vantage point of different eras and different and evolving cultures (including vienna itself), deserve continued, sustained scholarly examination. even from within the broad field of psychoanalysis itself, the methods of psychoanalysis can be used for further exploration, 40 while the early limits re: what is a “proper” attitude or 40 e.g., as shown by diane jonte-pace, speaking the unspeakable: religion, misogyny, and the uncanny mother in freud’s cultural texts (berkeley, ca: university of california press, 2001); 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2017) approach toward religion can be greatly expanded in dialogue with both historic and contemporary global developments. this work has already been done by a number of psychologists of religion in the last two decades, and increasingly by psychoanalysts, but almost not at all by pastoral theologians (who are predominantly protestant) in recent times. a further question also arises within the discipline of pastoral theology, which is as much vocational as academic: how does this research translate to theological education and the formation of pastoral caregivers and counselors? in the words of irving greenberg, “the holocaust confronts us with unanswerable questions. but let us agree to one principle: no statement, theological or otherwise, should be made that would not be credible in the presence of the burning children.” 41 there are lessons we should derive from a closer examination within pastoral and practical theology of anti-semitism, the holocaust, and the continuing legacy of late 19 th and 20 th century european history on our own north american context as pastoral theologians. even as our field of pastoral theology in the u.s. and north america has been seriously and increasingly attentive to questions of difference, power, privilege and “the other” in the past two-plus decades, we have largely focused this attention on the pastoral ramifications of gender and racial oppression in u.s. society, and the wisdom to be gained from postcolonial theologians from the global south. because of the (ongoing) near-absolute dominance of protestantism among the members of the society for pastoral theology, there is a dearth of writing about the (ongoing) antisemitism and the impact of the holocaust on psychoanalysis, and by extension, pastoral theology and the practice of seelsorge, care and counseling, as well as the field of psychology and religion. 42 what would be the implications of such a study for the ana-maría rizzuto, why did freud reject god? a psychodynamic interpretation (new haven: yale university press, 1998); and madelon sprengnether the spectral mother: freud, feminism, and psychoanalysis (ithaca, ny: cornell university press, 1992). 41 irving greenberg, “the shoah and the legacy of antisemitism: judaism, christianity, and partnership after the twentieth century,” in christianity in jewish terms, ed. t. frymer-kensky, d. novak, p. ochs, d.f. samuel, and m.a. singer (boulder, co: westview/perseus, 2000), p. 27. 42 a literature review of the american theological library association’s atlas database, using key words “anti-semitism,” “judaism” and “jewish” + “pastoral theology,” “pastoral care,” and “pastoral counseling,” yields only five brief articles on jewish pastoral care by jewish practitioners, one article on pastoral imagination using the holocaust museum in washington, dc as an exemplar for theological education (douglas purnell, “educating the whole body: addressing and equipping the imagination in theological education,” pastoral psychology, 49/3, 2001, pp. 205-225), two entries with substantive material on pastoral theology and the holocaust (katherine a. snyder, “a postholocaust theology of suffering and spiritual grieving: staying attached to god in loss,” journal of pastoral counseling, 43, 2008, pp. 67-78; and larry kent graham, “narratives of families, faith, and nation: insights from research,” journal of pastoral theology 21/2, 2011, online), and eight briefer articles on pastoral care or counseling with holocaust survivors as case examples (in chronological order: paul d. steinke, “black milk: literary resources for learning pastoral care,” journal of pastoral care & counseling, 60/4, 2006, pp. 335-342; rabbi levi meier, “the traveling torah and healing,” journal of pastoral care & counseling, 61/1-2, 2008, pp. 37-42); bennett gurian, “selected quotes from three years of interviews with an older man,” journal of pastoral care and counseling, 63/12, 2009 (online); james newton poling, “creativity, generativity, and the next cooper-white: freud’s vienna circle, psychoanalysis, and antisemitism 14 formation of pastoral caregivers and counselors, and for theological education more generally? what might it mean subliminally that we have rejected or feel we have “superseded” the theories of the jewish freud, while the psychoanalyst we still most embrace and quote is the methodist winnicott (when we embrace psychoanalytic theory at all?) social implications for psychoanalysis taking into consideration years of mounting fear, the eventual terror of forced migration, and an aftermath of often intense survivor guilt, psychoanalysis was riddled at its origins with an often repressed but uncanny return of an innumerable crowd of unlaid ghosts. beginning with freud’s viennese circle, and continuing on from the first generation of analysts in europe across the globe, psychoanalysis bears a multi-generational wound—antisemitism and the holocaust are its deepest scar and stain, a persistent, still largely unmetabolized trauma at the heart of the discipline. one consequence of all this unmetabolized trauma may be that of all the psychotherapeutic disciplines, psychoanalysis has been among the slowest to recognize the impact of context on the psyche—both at the level of individual patients’ sufferings, and at the level of society. this has finally been accomplished largely by relational psychoanalysts through the insistence on intersubjectivity and mutual psychic influence, via the recuperation of formerly exiled thinkers such as sándor férenczi. contemporary relational analysts (e.g., lew aron and karen starr, 43 stephen mitchell, 44 neil altman, 45 jessica benjamin, 46 gilbert cole, 47 philip cushman, 48 adrienne harris, 49 dorothy evans holmes, 50 kimber generation,“ journal of pastoral theology, 19/23, 2009, pp. 94-103; david j. zucker, “flourishing in the later years: jewish perspectives on long-term pastoral care,” chaplaincy today, 25/2, 2009 (online); e. byron anderson, “memory, tradition, and the re-membering of suffering,” religious education, 105/2, 2010, pp. 124-139; pamela cooper-white, “denial, victims, and survivors: posttraumatic identity formation and monuments in heaven,” journal of pastoral theology, 22/1, 2012 (online); and timothy a. thorstenson, “the emergence of the chaplaincy: re-defining pastoral care for the postmodern age,” journal of pastoral care & counseling, 66(2), 2012 (online); plus a poem (e.c. holmstrom, “a small stone,” journal of pastoral care & counseling, 61/3, 2007, p. 276). there are 680 entries on “holocaust + theology,” and over 28,000 hits on various combinations of “jewish” and “judaism” and “pastoral care” or “counseling,” but these search categories were obviously much too broad, and the resulting entries focused not on pastoral theology, care and counseling, but on interfaith dialogue, ethics, christian systematic theology, and jewish theology. note that even the most generally relevant entries in atlas were all written in 2001 or later. 43 aron and starr, a psychotherapy for the people. 44 e.g., stephen mitchell, relational concepts in psychoanalysis (cambridge, ma: harvard university press, 1988) and mitchell, relationality: from attachment to intersubjectivity (new york: routledge, 2004). 45 e.g., neil altman, the analyst in the inner city: race, class, and culture through a psychoanalytic lens, 2 nd ed. (new york: routledge, 2009). 46 numerous writings, e.g., jessica benjamin, the bonds of love: psychoanalysis, feminism, and the problem of domination (new york: pantheon, 1988) and benjamin, beyond doer and done to: recognition theory, intersubjectivity, and the third (new york: routledge, 2017). 47 e.g., gilbert cole, “categories as symptoms: concepts of love in the psychoanalytic relationship,” psychoanalytic quarterly, 4/4 (2005), pp. 977-987. 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 11, no. 1 (2017) lyn leary, 51 melanie suchet, 52 cleonie white, 53 among others) have begun to bring to the attention of psychoanalysis as a field to issues of race, class, gender, sexuality, and politics. increasing attention paid to race, gender, and power by the “tavistock” school of unconscious group relations based originally in london on the work of wilfred bion. 54 this (re-)turn toward context begs the question how context really did matter to the first historic generation of psychoanalysts, and should recall that historic, immersive reality of antisemitism into our present awareness. conclusion holocaust survivor elie wiesel, who died just a little over a year ago, was known for his passionate exhortation that we must never forget the horrors of the holocaust, lest we repeat them. wiesel’s words were powerful, but only a little over seventy-five years after kristallnacht, few americans, especially those outside the jewish community, know or remember what that was, much less how it might still be relevant today. we appear to be immersed in a period of history in both the united states and europe that feels eerily similar to the emergence of hate speech, violence, and demagoguery that preceded the holocaust in europe. (how) can psychoanalysis with its deep appreciation for the impact of history— especially buried history—help facilitate wiesel’s project of staying awake in the face of rising terror? 48 e.g., philip cushman, constructing the self, constructing america: a cultural history of psychotherapy (boston: beacon, 1996) and cushman, “a burning world, an absent god: midrash, hermeneutics, and relational psychoanalysis, contemporary psychoanalysis, 43/1 (2015), pp. 47-88. 49 e.g., adrienne harris, “the socio-political recruitment of identities,” psychoanalytic dialogues, 19 (2009), pp. 138-147. 50 e.g., dorothy evans holmes, “come hither, american psychoanalysis: our complex multicultural america needs what we have to offer,” journal of the american psychoanalytic association, 63/3 (2016), pp. 569-586, and holmes, “culturally imposed trauma: the sleeping dog has awakened. will psychoanalysis take heed?” psychoanalytic dialogues, 26/6 (2017), pp. 664-672. 51 e.g., kimberlyn leary, “racial enactments in dynamic treatment,” psychoanalytic dialogues, 10 (2000), pp. 639-653. 52 e.g., melanie suchet, “unraveling whiteness,” psychoanalytic dialogues, 17/6 (2007), pp. 867886, and suchet, “facing our racialized selves,” presentation to the new york university postdoctoral program in psychoanalysis and psychotherapy diversity conference, new york, january, 2016. 53 e.g., cleonie white, “surviving hate and being hated: some personal thoughts about racism from a psychoanalytic perspective,” contemporary psychoanalysis, 39 (2002), pp. 401-422, and white, “what dare we (not) do? psychoanalysis: a voice in politics?” psychoanalytic perspectives, 2/1 (2004), 49-55. 54 wilfred r. bion, experiences in groups and other papers (london: hogarth, 1961). jesus-believing jews in australia: celebrate messiah as a case study studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations a peer-reviewed e-journal of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations published by the center for christian-jewish learning at boston college jesus-believing jews in australia: c e l e b r a t e m e s s i a h a s a c a s e s t u d y d v i r a b r a m o v i c h   the university of melbourne volume 4, (2009) http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 introduction messianic judaism is an acutely controversial and confounding subject for the jewish and christian communities. yet the academic world has hardly probed the question of who and what messianic judaism is, even though its bewildering hybrid of judaism and christianity is worthy of scholarly examination from both a sociological and theological perspective, with particular attention to questions of identity construction. such a study is also relevant to christian-jewish relations, especially because of the financial support the movement receives from christian groups who are keen to utilize its resources and unique position for evangelizing the jews. the apparently growing ministries of messianic jews generate immense controversy. the messianics’ brand of evangelism receives harsh criticism from much of the jewish community and from many christians interested in improving jewishchristian relations. a clear majority of jews take issue and offence at being targeted for evangelization and ask: are messianic jews in fact christians portraying themselves as jews? is messianic judaism a deceptive missionary movement, organized and substantively funded by evangelical christian bodies with the exclusive aim of converting jews to christianity? are they simply couching fundamentalist christianity in jewish symbols? the answers are not simple. while messianic jews contend that they are not closet christians, most jews find the messianic message deeply offensive, and categorically discount the jewishness of jews who have embraced christianity. though jewish scholars are steadily exploring the jewish roots of jesus’ teaching, they find no jewish basis for the christian belief in his divinity. the various movements of judaism all reject the messianic message that one can retain one’s judaism while taking jesus as one’s savior and agree that one cannot be at once a jew and a christian. the consensus is that messianic believers who are born jewish according to halakha retain their identity and status but are unfit to participate in the duties and benefits of jewish life. accordingly, messianic believers cannot count towards a prayer quorum or be buried in a jewish cemetery. most christians also do not count messianic judaism as a form of judaism. in general, the movement is distinct from regular christianity and more closely aligned with biblical and historical judaism. yet, what is one to make of messianic jews/believers,1 those men and women who have accepted the central tenet of christianity, namely, a belief in jesus, but who continue to identify as jews and describe their adopted religious beliefs as natural extensions of judaism? is this self-conception a fiction? messianic jews practice their faith in a way that they consider to be genuinely torah-based and culturally jewish, but they provocatively blur the otherwise clear demarcation between christianity and judaism. their hybrid identity, while counterintuitive to others, constitutes an intriguing current pulsating through the modern religious tapestry. in various ways, messianic judaism is located within a variety of intellectual, historical, cultural and anthropological planes, embodying the ambiguous and shifting nature of a post-modern landscape. inevitably, the presence of messianic jews opens up the sensitive and troubling issues of proselytism, mission and conversion. the presence of this group in australia, as 1 i concur with carol harris shapiro’s position regarding the usage of the label messianic jews/believers. she correctly notes that by using the term jews, one is buttressing the messianic assertion that it is practicing and believing in judaism. i agree with her statement that one uses the term “for clarity’s sake; [she] refer[s] to the group with the same nomenclature it refers to itself…this does not imply recognition of messianic judaism as ‘real judaism’.” carol harris shapiro, messianic judaism: a rabbi’s journey through religious change in america (boston: beacon press, 1999), 190. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 3 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 elsewhere, is seen by some as endangering jewish-christian reconciliation.2 the fundamental purpose of this essay, in nuce, is to provide a preliminary overview, prior to a more comprehensive study of the as yet unstudied phenomenon of a specific messianic jewish community in australia, as represented by the organization celebrate messiah and its beit hamashiach messianic congregation (the first of its kind in australia) situated in south caulfield, melbourne. based on an examination of celebrate messiah’s published materials, this essay will describe and interpret this hitherto unstudied group. my conclusions are cautious and tentative, subject to future access to the principals of this study. in order to understand this group’s context, the article will begin with a brief overview of the histor-ical development of messianic judaism. the definition of messianic judaism today, the union of messianic jewish congregations (umjc), an international organization based in the usa, provides the most authoritative articulation of what messianic judaism stands for. it defines messianic judaism as a …movement of jewish congregations committed to yeshua the messiah that embrace the covenantal responsibility of 2 as stated by the council of christians and jews in victoria, “a group of christians and jews who are drawn together because of their common heritage, a desire for understanding and dialogue and to explore their turbulent history of relating to each other.” the council is “not a religion, it has no theology and its members do not seek to make converts to judaism or christian-ity.” in this connection, it rejects celebrate messiah as an evangelizing group with a mission to convert jews to christianity. it sees celebrate messiah as misguided and cautions that it may obstruct further attempts at co-operation and may harm the good relations already established between the two faiths. see: “walking together towards understanding and mutual respect,” the council of christians and jews – victoria. http://ccjaustralia.org/ en/?area=victoria, accessed december 2008. jewish life and identity rooted in torah, expressed in tradition, and renewed and applied in the context of the new covenant. messianic jewish groups may also include those from non-jewish backgrounds who have a confirmed call to participate fully in the life and destiny of the jewish people. we are committed to embodying this definition in our constituent congregations and in our shared institutions.3 two other aspects of this belief system deserve notice. first, messianic jews have interlocking relationships with both the jewish and the christian worlds. the umjc writes: for a messianic jewish group 1) to fulfill the covenantal responsibility incumbent upon all jews, 2) to bear witness to yeshua within the people of israel, and 3) to serve as an authentic and effective representative of the jewish people within the body of messiah, it must place a priority on integration with the wider jewish world, while sustaining a vital corporate relationship with the christian church.4 second, they speak to the nexus between the organization’s credo and the collective canon of jewish religious law: in the messianic jewish way of life, we seek to fulfill israel's covenantal responsibility embodied in the torah within a new covenant context. messianic jewish halakhah is rooted in scripture (tanakh and the new covenant writings), which is of unique sanctity and authority. it also draws upon jewish tradition, especially those practices and concepts that have won near-universal acceptance by 3 “defining messianic judaism,” umjc welcoming messiah home, http://www.umjc.net/home-mainmenu-1/global-vision-mainmenu-42/13vision/225-defining-messianic-judaism, accessed september 2009. 4 http://www.umjc.net/home-mainmenu-1/global-vision-mainmenu-42/13vision/225-defining-messianic-judaism. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 4 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 devout jews through the centuries. furthermore, as is common within judaism, messianic judaism recognizes that halakhah is and must be dynamic, involving the application of the torah to a wide variety of changing situations and circumstances. messianic judaism embraces the fullness of new covenant realities available through yeshua, and seeks to express them in forms drawn from jewish experience and accessible to jewish people.5 a significant number of messianic jews see themselves as “completed” or “fulfilled” jews, stressing that their faith in jesus does not invalidate their jewish identity, but is the path every jew should traverse.6 if some jews accept buddhist or hindu tenets while claiming to remain jewish, why, messianic jews ask, can't they believe in jesus and remain jewish? messianic jews posit that they are endeavoring to erect a positive and living bridge between judaism and christianity, invoking the early jesus movement of the first century as the model for their community. the growth and development now of global communities of messianic jews means that these ruminations, at once puzzling and unnerving, are gradually seeping into the fabric of theological and sociological discourse. as a matter of fact, the jerusalem report in 2005 noted that in recent years “messianic judaism in israel has experienced extraordinary growth” with 5 http://www.umjc.net/home-mainmenu-1/global-vision-mainmenu-42/13vision/225-defining-messianic-judaism. for a history of the movement and its evolution see: david a. rausch, messianic judaism: its history, theology and polity, texts and studies in religion 14 (new york and toronto: the edwin mellen press, 1982); daniel juster, jewish roots: a foundation of biblical theology for messianic judaism, (rockville, md: davar press, 1986); david h. stern, messianic judaism: a modern movement with an ancient past, (clarksville, md: messianic jewish resources international, 2007). 6 john murawski, “messianic jews prepare to share message,” palm beach post (fl) (december 14, 2003): 1c. estimates of more than 10,000 people who consider themselves messianic jews. 7 recent controversies in israel concerning messianic judaism before centering our analysis on celebrate messiah, it is instructive to pause and consider the state of messianic judaism in israel, which in recent years has become the focal battleground between messianic jews and anti-missionary activists. indeed, by any measure, in 2008 and 2009, messianic judaism in israel thunderously seized the headlines and channeled attention to its cause and ethos in unprecedented ways, though not always in ways it had wished. the rapid flow of engrossing news items concerning the movement limned terrain unknown to most jews and christians, concretizing and fuelling interest in a faith community that until recently had drawn little attention, roiling emotions and stirring debate. the burning of hundreds of new testaments by students from michtav m’eliyahu yeshiva in the israeli town of or yehuda, tel aviv on may 15, 2008 set off a storm of concern by messianic jewish groups over the ever increasing violent nature of anti-missionary activity. according to israeli newspapers, the new testaments were retrieved from ethiopian jews who were given the bibles along with messianic pamphlets. this incident demonstrated the level of anxiety and fear messianic judaism (and its potential appeal) generates and fosters in the minds of israelis, especially the ultra-orthodox. for many israelis, messianic judaism undermines the jewish faith upon which the state of israel was founded. nonetheless, in a country where religious identity is of paramount value, proselytizing is only illegal if minors are targeted, or if money or 7 ksenia svetlova, “just like chabad,” in jerusalem report (april 29, 2005): 9. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 5 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 other gifts are offered.8 while apologizing to christians worldwide and denying ordering the burning, the city’s deputy mayor uzi ahron called the burning a ‘commandment’, adding that israel could not permit messianic jews to “come into our homes and incite against our religion and turn our children away from judaism.”9 the burning of new testaments was denounced by jewish organizations and in israeli newspaper editorials who pointed to an alarming trend. haaretz, israel’s pre-eminent daily, issued a vigorous rebuke of the burning, stating that it was “…especially worrisome in light of the continued harassment of messianic jews in the country.”10 the editorial then defended the right of messianic jews to operate without restraint, likening the violent reaction to religious intimidation: …as long as they do not stalk children or try to convince them to change their religious beliefs, their standing in this country should be equal to that of other religious and ethnic groups who enjoy freedom of practice and worship…the concern is that the persecution of messianic jews is rationalized by a twisted interpretation of jewish sovereignty, as if we were dealing with something resembling an iran-like enterprise whose raison d'etre was taking revenge on the gentiles.11 indeed, this episode was the latest in a series of incidents attesting to the volcanic escalation of tension between 8 rebecca l. torstrick, culture and customs of israel (westport ct: greenwood press, 2004), 50. 9 michelle a. vu, “jewish deputy mayor apologizes for new testament burning,” the christian post, (may 22, 2008), http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080522/jewish-deputy-mayorapologizes -for-new-testament-burning /index.html. 10 “shas’ book bonfire,” haaretz. (may 26, 2008), editorial. 11 “shas’ book bonfire.” segments of the modern and ultra-orthodox sectors and the messianic jewish community. in october 2007, a jerusalem church used by messianic jews was torched and suffered extensive damage, reinforcing the building up of hostility. in the spring of 2008, ami ortiz, the fifteen-year-old son of the leader of a messianic congregation in the west bank settlement of ariel was seriously wounded when a gift basket left at the front door of the family home exploded in his face as he opened the parcel that was purportedly sent for the jewish religious feast of purim which began at sunset that day.12 on a less fiery note, but still significant was the case of bat-el levi. the young woman from the southern israeli city of beer-sheva drew the ire of israel’s chief rabbis when it was discovered that the seventeen-year-old, who entered the finals of the international bible quiz competition (after winning the national championship) was a messianic jew. the two rabbis, along with a group of zionist rabbis asked israel’s education minister, yuli tamir, to either disqualify levi or cancel the contest because of levi’s inclusion. in their letter to tamir, the rabbis wrote, “it is unacceptable that a member of a cult that has removed itself from the jewish faith will take part in a quiz dedicated to a book that has been holy to the jews since their inception as a people." the jerusalem post quoted rabbi shlomo aviner, head of yeshivat ateret yerushalayim in jerusalem, who said he did not regard messianics as jews and advocated they be “marginalized and distanced from jewish communities in israel.” one of the rabbis calling for the boycott once again foregrounded the theme of messianic jews as missionaries, saying they enlist sophisticated methods to proselytize and must not be given legitimacy. however, the legal department in the education ministry ruled that the girl, whose mother is jewish and whose identity papers say she is 12 laurie copans (associated press), “israel's messianic jews: police indifferent to threats against us,” ha’aretz (june 20, 2008), http://www.haaretz .com/hasen/spages/994682.html studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 6 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 too, met the strict definition of who is a jew and thus could participate.13 calev myers, founder and chief advocate of the jerusalem institute of justice, an organization that represents members of the messianic community, claimed that that the rabbis' appeal to ban the quiz was a sign of weakness. his statement reasserts and reiterates the oft-heard reasoning advanced by the messianic movement, "it is about time that they stop having a monopoly over determining who is a jew. the beauty of the jewish world is the diversity. if you can still be considered a jew even if you believe that the lubavitch rebbe [menachem mendel schneerson] is the messiah, the same thing should hold true if you believe jesus is."14 emboldened by their new found confidence in sharing their beliefs and raising the publicity stakes, a group of messianic jews from the us waged a demonstration in jerusalem in 2008 against what they termed israel’s discriminatory immigration policy against their members. in the same week, the union of messianic jewish congregations (umjc) convened a three day conference in israel. the top issue to be discussed was the backlash against messianic activists.15 such a drive for acceptance and visibility recalled similar emotions voiced in 2005 during the 75th anniversary of the messianic jewish alliance of america. during the convention, characterized as a “coming out party,” joel chernoff, vice president of the mjaa limpidly delineated the organization’s (and more expansively the movement’s) singular objective: “the time has arrived for us to say to the jewish and christian world, and to the secular world, ‘we are here’…we 13 matthew wagner, “chief rabbis call to cancel bible quiz on account of messianic jewish contestant,” the jerusalem post (may 7, 2008): 1. 14 wagner, “chief rabbis…,” 1 15 matthew wagner, “messianic jews to protest 'discriminatory' immigration policies, “jerusalem post (june 26, 2008): 1. have definite beliefs and a definite direction, and we are ready to make ourselves known as articulate players in the world’s affairs.”16 jewish responses to the emergence of messianic judaism this creation of a defined messianic jewish identity also invited response from the jewish community itself. most persistent has been the question of whether messianic jews are jews. in 1989, the israeli supreme court rejected the application of two messianic jews who demanded to be recognized as jews so as to automatically receive israeli citizenship according to the law of return. in his judgment, supreme court justice menachem elon cited the couple’s belief in jesus as the unbridgeable chasm: "in the last two thousand years of history...the jewish people have decided that messianic jews do not belong to the jewish nation...and have no right to force themselves on it."17 he closed by saying that "those who believe in jesus, are, in fact christians."18 in effect, the high court ruled that messianic jews had converted and therefore were no longer jewish. after this 1989 ruling, israel’s interior ministry persistently refused to grant all requests for citizenship according to the law of return by messianic jews. however, this changed in april 2008. a group of twelve messianic jews whose application for citizenship was rejected argued before the supreme court that they were entitled to be classified as new immigrants and therefore were eligible for citizenship according 16 ken sidey, “messianic jews seek visibility, respect,” christianity today 49, no. 7 (july 2005): 72. 17 daphna berman, "aliyah with a cat, a dog and jesus," haaretz, (june 10, 2006), posted at: http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=21820&sec=59& con=35. 18 berman, "aliyah with a cat, a dog and jesus." studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 7 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 to the definition of "who is a jew" in the law of return because they were the offspring of fathers who were jewish, not because they themselves were jewish. according to amendment 4a (a) to the law of return passed in 1970, “the rights of a jew under this law... are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a jew, the spouse of a jew, the spouse of a child of a jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a jew, except for a person who has been a jew and has voluntarily changed his religion.” the court ruled that the petitioners were entitled to automatic new immigrant status and citizenship precisely not because they were jews as defined by the law of return but rather because they were the offspring of jewish fathers.19 thus, while the court ruled that belonging to a messianic congregation does not preclude one from becoming an israeli citizen, the supreme court upheld the 1989 precedent that messianic jews (whose mothers are jewish) are not to be considered jewish according to jewish law. in other words, the court ruled that jews who embraced a faith other than judaism were not disqualified from emigrating to israel and could not be denied citizenship. as jonathan rosenblum observed in the jerusalem post, “the court not only overturned its own precedent in the brother daniel case but the knesset's codification of that decision in section 4a(a) of the law of return that one who chooses another religion is not a jew for purposes of the law of return.” he described the decision as further proof that israel’s supreme court was enforcing its own values rather than the values of the israeli and jewish people.20 19jerusalem institute for justice, enewsletter (april 2008), http://jerusaleminstituteofjustice.createsend.com/t/viewemail/r/b9daacc135 900e24/76932fbc5132052e2540ef23f30feded. accessed may 2009. see also, matthew wagner. “us report: rise in violence against messianic jews and christians” jerusalem post (september 24, 2009): 6. 20 jonathan rosenblum, “terrified of judicial reform,” jerusalem post (may 2, 2008): 8. rosenblum’s mention of the brother daniel case references a 1962 israeli supreme court case in which the judges ruled that brother daniel , who was born a jew but converted to catholicism was not entitled to israeli citizenship under the country’s law of return. more generally, and even before the landmark supreme court ruling, a spectrum of jewish organizations have voiced their concern about the gains messianic jews have made in their endeavors to obtain legitimate status. for instance, mark s. alfassa, founder of the judaic alert news service which tracks the progress and activities of groups posing as authentic jews, contends that: the “messianics” have the specific intent of being accepted as jews in israel. so much so that they have developed a political action group that lobbies the government, even using holocaust survivors that have converted to christianity as spokespersons. these people have a highly strategic plan, are well financed by mainstream christian groups and have a single goal, to remove jews from following the faith of their ancestors. calling it a “significant breakthrough,” messianic judaism has been officially recognized by the registrar of non-profit societies, which is a department within israel's ministry of interior. there you will find this christian group with an official sounding name vaad peuala lma'an yahadut meshichit (action committee for messianic judaism). 21 likewise, in his study of israeli society’s belief system and the quest of salvation, benjamin beit-hallahmi classifies messianic judaism as a new religion or a cult.22 considering that for centuries the jewish nation fought to preserve its religion within antagonistic gentile societies and in the face of the church’s assailing missionary attempts, one can readily comprehend why many perceive messianic jews to be 21 mark s. alfassa, “when the high court welcomes messianic jews,” israeli fax, may 17, 2002: n.p. 22 benjamin beit-hallahmi, despair and deliverance: private salvation in contemporary israel (albany: state university of new york press, 1992), 34. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 8 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 part of a clandestine effort to undermine the jewish faith. this is indeed the one item on which there is complete consensus. with few exceptions, jewish groups and leaders respond that messianic theology is an absurdity, and view it as a deceptive christian attempt to usurp the traditional jewish view of the messiah and decimate a persecuted tribe already under threat from assimilation and intermarriage. some examples from a range of sources: rabbi arthur ruberg, in 1994 president of the hampton roads board of rabbis and rabbi of the conservative affiliated congregation beth el in norfolk, virginia was stunned by a guest column by joshua ben yehoshafat who asserted that jesus was the jewish messiah. though admitting that the board he heads take into account a wide spectrum of jewish beliefs and practices, rabbi ruberg, maintained that all members and synagogues are united on one fundamental point: …those who believe that jesus is the messiah are by definition christians, and the religion they practice is not messianic judaism, or any kind of judaism, but christianity. it is no accident that the religion that asserts jesus' divinity was called christianity, it was well understood that the belief in jesus was the line where one religion stopped and another began. we members of the jewish community value christianity and we respect all those who practice it. we ask only that discerning people not trivialize the real points over which our religions diverge. we request only that christianity not be passed off as judaism.23 rabbi carol harris-shapiro, who wrote a book-length study of a messianic congregation in the united states, depicts messianic jews as ones who accept 23 rabbi arthur ruberg, “christians, not jews defined by belief in jesus,” daily press (august 13, 1994): e6. christ as their saviour without fully converting to christianity…they want to continue in their jewish customs and festivals while accepting theological doctrine that all other branches of judaism find blasphemous. messianic jews then reinterpret judaism in light of jesus as the messiah and try to teach that reinterpretation to other jews. harris shapiro is irritated by messianic jews: “it’s almost like a case of identity theft. it’s like when someone takes your credit card and tries to use it to their own advantage.” 24 similarly, the central conference of american rabbis, the association of reform rabbis, considers messianic jews to be apostates who have adopted another religion without coercion.25 in an important and wide-ranging essay, “when jews are christians,” david novak sees messianic jews/believers as a “new type of jewish convert to christianity.” for novak, these are people who contend that they remain jewish while simultaneously accepting jesus as the messiah. novak additionally asserts that messianic jews should be compared to the “heretical syncretists of the second and third century” rather than the first jewish christians. novak explains: these jewish converts to christianity not only claim still to be jews, they also claim still to be practicing judaism. some of them insist that they are indeed practicing the true judaism, implying that all other jews are practicing a false judaism. others merely insist that they are 24 from an interview with her by christina littlefield. ‘seder with a twist: messianic groups plan passover amid controversy,” las vegas sun, april 22, 2005: 10b. see also her book, messianic judaism: a rabbi's journey through religious change in america (boston: beacon, 2000). 25 see, for instance, the 1985 resolution of the central conference of american rabbis, “deceptive proselytization of jews,” available at http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/resodisp.pl?file=prost&year=1985, accessed september 2009. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 9 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 practicing a true judaism, thus implying if not actually demanding that their practice be accepted as a legitimate form of judaism…in relation to the christians, the new jewish christians claim a special role for themselves within the church, offering themselves as a kind of personal link between the now gentile church and its jewish origins. this claim often includes a demand for recognition of their right, or even obligation, to perform the ritual commandments of the torah, from which all other christians have been exempted by christ (see matthew 12:8). some of them go so far as to refuse the name "christian" altogether, preferring to call themselves "messianic jews.” 26 a minority view from the jewish landscape is brandished by dan cohn-sherbok, a reform rabbi and professor of jewish theology at the university of wales, lampeter. he suggests that messianic jews should be considered part of pluriform judaism. he substantiates his primarily unique judgment (without referencing the proponents of this paradigm) by employing the pluralist model, which he deems a more tolerant one. cohn-sherbok contends that since modern jewry is no longer united by belief and practice, "pluralists maintain that the exclusion of messianic judaism from the circle of legitimate expressions of the jewish heritage is totally inconsistent."27 he further opines that adherents of messianic judaism are more theistically inclined and observe a larger portion of commandments when compared with their counterparts in the conservative and reform movements. employing the image of the seven branched menorah, he states that "messianic judaism should be seen merely as one among many expressions of the jewish faith, (alongside) hasidism, orthodox 26 first things (november 1991), http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/ 12/005-when-jews-are-christians-40. 27 dan cohn-sherbok, messianic judaism (new york: cassell, 2000), 212. judaism, conservative judaism, reform judaism, reconstructionist judaism, and humanistic judaism."28 some mainline christian theologians agree. ellen charry, who now serves as an associate professor of historical and systematic theology at princeton theological seminary, is emphatic that messianic jews represent no religious coherence or integrity. she observes that …the religion attributed to jesus by the gospels overturns nearly every jewish belief and practice…christians do not worship a jewish messiah–they worship the second person of the trinity, the son of god incarnate… messianic jews are a duplicitous terbium quid that has neither jewish nor christian theological integrity, no matter how sincere its adherents are.29 lauren winner furnishes a similar assessment, arguing that any attempt to braid judaism and christianity is an inconsiderate and discourteous approach. winner, who converted to christianity, explains that anglican observances reflect jewish historical practices without claiming to be jewish. she avoids attending synagogues out of an understanding that in the eyes of the jewish people, who infused her with love for judaism, she is now an apostate.30 in sum, a vast majority of jewish scholars argue that the messianic belief runs counter to a key maxim of judaism that 28 cohn-sherbok, messianic judaism, 212. 29 ellen t. charry, "christian jews and the law," in "symposium on 'jewishchristians and the torah'," modern theology 11, no. 2 (april 1995): 187-193. 30 jason byassee, “can a jew be a christian?” christian century 122; no. 9 (may 3, 2005): 26, citing lauren winner, girl meets god (chapel hill, n.c.: algonquin books of chapel hill, 2002). studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 10 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 the messiah has yet to arrive.31 the vast majority of jews worldwide say that messianic judaism represents an assault on their very system of faith and consider embracing jesus a fatal contradiction to the faith, as oxymoronic as kosher pork.32 they brand messianics as stealth christians with an agenda to convert jews via deception. most jewish groups strongly condemn messianic judaism, offended by what they feel is the movement’s misappropriation of jewish identity to facilitate their missionary outreach to jews. yad l'achim, israel’s largest anti-missionary group (founded in 1950) has been in what they characterize as a holy war with gentile missionaries, which they contend includes messianic jews. they maintain that messianic judaism is an effort to ‘hoodwink’ jews into being christians.33 the australian case study: celebrate messiah a nonprofit organization, celebrate messiah, is financed by individual christians and churches who share the ministry’s desire to spread the gospel among the jews, described as “god’s ancient people.” it was established in 1995 by lawrence and louise hirsch. celebrate messiah, and its transplanted congregation beit hamashiach (house of messiah), have been part of chosen people ministries worldwide since 1999.34 chosen people ministries was founded in 1894 as brownsville mission to the jews by rabbi leopold cohn, an orthodox rabbi 31 aryeh kaplan, the real messiah: a jewish response to missionaries (toronto: jews for judaism, 1985), passim. available from jews for judaism http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid =35&limit=5&limitstart=0&order=date&dir=desc&itemid=47, accessed may 2009. see also david klinghoffer, why the jews rejected jesus: the turning point in western history, (new york: doubleday, 2005). 32 tom mclennon, “a mission from god,” daytona news-journal, (july 27, 1996): 1d. 33 larry derfner, “a matter of faith,” jerusalem post (april 29, 2005): 8. 34 “ministry profile,” celebrate messiah . http://celebratemessiah.com.au/ ?id=41, accessed march 2007. who believed, after studying the scriptures, that jesus is the messiah awaited by the jews. the parent organization of chosen people ministries was the american board of missions to the jews (abmj).35 in 1929, the organization started publication of a magazine called the chosen people. their purpose was to reach the jewish people with the gospel of christ and to convert them to christianity. many organizations have grown from the abmj, including jews for jesus. what makes chosen people different from other organizations that evangelize jews is that instead of going from town to town, they transplant congregations in different countries. today, it has staff in twelve countries whose main concern is setting up messianic centers and congregations. their key message is that jesus, yeshua, is the messiah of israel and jews who accept jesus as their messiah is still jewish. accordingly, employees of chosen people ministries encourage jews who choose to believe in jesus to maintain their identification as jews, to observe jewish holidays and support israel.36 don meecha, toronto branch director of chosen people ministries, explains the messianic paradigm in an acutely revelatory way. he notes that the challenge before messianic jews is how to be "a viable option" to the jewish community, which he deems as "unsaved," "dying," and "perishing," and which "promotes expulsion" should any of its members embrace jesus. meecha asks, “why would jews want to leave the comfort and security of their community, for one that offers only eternal life but nothing for them in this life?" he argues that the solution is to plant a messianic synagogue that speaks hebrew, and to allow jews on the path to jesus to preserve their traditional symbols and customs "as long as they do not violate the new covenant's [new testament's] values." he laments that messianics have missed the mark with the jewish 35 http://www.chosen-people.com/docs/gb/resources/publications/ nov98nl /index.html. 36 http://www.chosenpeople.com/main/page/doctrinal_statement.html . studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 11 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 community: “we have not reached full potential to make them jealous enough to leave their dying community behind for one that offers eternal life." the end goal for meecha is to "no longer go into the jewish community, but to be part of it" because if that does not occur, a "spiritual holocaust will continue." 37 the purpose and aims of celebrate messiah on its website, celebrate messiah identifies itself as “an interdenominational, evangelistic society dedicated to raising the banner of messiah amongst god's ancient people in australia and abroad through our partnership with chosen people global ministries.” in addition, the organization endeavours: “to successfully communicate the gospel in a culturally relevant way to jewish people in australia by raising the truth that one can be jewish and believe in yeshua.”38 celebrate messiah does this in melbourne primarily through their congregational presence, beit hamashiach (house of the messiah). in a one page brochure aimed for those joining the sabbath services, damien and annemarie ball, the current pastors of beit hamashiach, present the theological underpinnings and raison d'etre of the congregation, saying, “beit hamashiach is a unique congregation made up of jewish and gentile people who believe that yeshua (jesus) is the promised messiah of israel. as a messianic congregation, we are committed to celebrating our faith in yeshua in a way that reflects our scriptural jewish heritage.” the pastors disclose that beit hamashiach congregation is affiliated with the 37 “missionaries plan to step up conversion efforts: conference hears strategies on making jesus more attractive to jews,” canadian jewish news 34, no. 19 (may 6, 2004): 3. 38 “ministry profile,” celebrate messiah .http://celebratemessiah.com.au //?id=41, accessed march 2007. conference of churches of christ. 39 they are both “fully endorsed churches of christ ministers.”40 in their “about us” leaflet, pastors damien and annemarie ball add that the congregation’s goals include “to remind the contemporary church that it needs to reconnect with its jewish heritage in order to reinvigorate its theology and mission.”41 in a one page leaflet, entitled “our mission and values” beit hamashiach declares writ large that evangelism, sharing the message of messiah with the jewish people is a core ambition.42 beyond their belief in jesus as the messiah, the congregation accepts such christian theological concepts antithetical to the jewish code of belief as original sin, the trinity and vicarious blood atonement creeds. members of beit hamashiach claim to observe a variety of the rituals and practices of judaism. there is no cross at beit hamashiach, even though the hall betrays its christian antecedents as a former church. on the elevated stage stands a torah scroll housed inside a wooden ark. its members do not celebrate christian holy days such as christmas and easter, which they do not deem to be part of biblical tradition. there is a children’s ministry, yeladim for yeshua (children for yeshua), a women’s ministry and a pastoral care team. additionally, beit hamashiach has established an array of chavurot, defined as a “gathering of friends” which meet for fellowship, prayer and bible study.43 there are also weekly israeli dancing classes for those whose hearts “long to worship 39 damien and annemarie ball. “welcome to beit hamashiach” beit hamashiach messianic congregation leaflet, 1. 40 damien and annemarie ball “about us” beit hamashiach messianic congregation leaflet, 1. 41 p. 1. 42 “our mission and values” beit hamashiach messianic congregation leaflet, 1. 43 “chavurot” beit hamashiach messianic congregation bulletin (november 2008): 5. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 12 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 our maker and saviour” and beginners hebrew lessons run by an israeli woman.44 other avenues of messianic study include the dwight pryor course and english/russian books and videos housed in the beit hamashiach library. sabbath services are held on the first friday of every month and on saturday morning. the sabbath evening service on november 1, 2008 began with a blessing over the shabbat candles by one of the female attendees, with a power point flashing the prayer in hebrew and english so as to allow the rest of the congregation to join along. afterwards, there followed a collective singing of several hebrew songs such as our father our lord, we are all one, bracketed by a group of women engaged in israeli dancing. later, there were recitations of “the declaration of the unity of the god” and a “prayer for the peace of jerusalem.” barry buirski who is one of the key personnel of the celebrate messiah organization recited the blessing over the sabbath wine (he explained that this is not communion) and the blessing over the bread. he then asked that the children who are present step forward and receive the bread and blessing of ephraim and menashe. it is noteworthy that in buirsky’s short speech, he used the term jesus rather than yeshua, a usage which messianic jews tend to eschew since it underscores the christological rather than the judaic linkages they wish to stress. after several announcements regarding activities, pastor damien ball invited members of beit hamashiach or visitors to step forward and share their experiences of the recent jewish high holidays.45 pastor damien ball authors a regular column in the beit hamashiach bulletin entitled “pastor’s pen.” in the november 2008 edition, he reflected on the jewish high holidays festivities at the congregation, writing: 44 beit hamashiach messianic congregation bulletin: 7. 45 visit of the author to beit hamashiach messianic congregation. we are deeply blessed as messianic believers to be able to connect with traditions that for thousands of years have been enacted each year by the jewish people. we are blessed also because the feasts are enriched for us by what we know of yeshua our messiah…when the shofar sounded at rosh hashanah we had a taste of the second coming foretold by paul…and at yom kippur there was a sense of relief that yeshua had entered into the heavenly holy of holies on our behalf to give his own blood for us as an eternal sacrifice.46 beit hamashiach conducts jewish life cycle events, such as baby dedications, messianic bar/bat mitzvahs, wedding celebrations and funerals, albeit through its own unique spectrum. messianic bar mitzvahs are celebrated for boys who have reached thirteen. the boys read a portion of the torah, as well as recite liturgical passages of the service in hebrew. they often deliver a drasha (sermon) related to the text they read, donning a jewish prayer shawl and wearing a yarmulke.47 beit hamashiach offers preparatory classes and pre-marriage counseling. some of these celebrations are new additions to the congregation’s activities. in 2004 phil plotnek officiated at his first wedding between a jewish man and his girlfriend. plotnek, who is a marriage celebrant for the church of the christ, observes that when the man announced his new faith to his family, his father unanticipatedly became more committed to judaism, beseeching his son to do likewise.48 in addition, beit hamashiach administers “immersions,” a substitute term for baptism. it should be noted that when relating the story of the four young people who were immersed in 2006, their newsletter 46 damien ball. “pastor’s pen” beit hamashiach messianic congregation bulletin. november 2008: 2. 47 celebrate messiah newsletter 8, no. 3 (september 2002): 2. 48 celebrate messiah newsletter 11, no. 1 (march 2005): 3. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 13 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 employed the term “baptised” in parentheses, in a rare break from their usual avoidance of such christian vocabulary.49 likewise, lawrence hirsch has applied the term in an annual report (for the australian chapter of the lausanne consultation on jewish evangelism) on celebrate messiah’s activity, “…twenty-five jewish believers have been baptised in obedience to the lord this year.”50 executive director of celebrate messiah: lawrence hirsch as well as serving as executive director of celebrate messiah and up until recently congregational leader of beit hamashiach, lawrence hirsch is also the former australia/new zealand area-coordinator for the lausanne consultation on jewish evangelism and the president of the messiah alliance of australia. the biographical profile on their website records that he was brought up in a traditional jewish home, that he attended an orthodox synagogue and celebrated his barmitzvah. he became a jewish believer in jesus after arriving in melbourne from south africa in 1984. there “lawrence came to faith through the witness of his brother alan, who had come to faith in jesus a few months earlier. amazingly, at the very same time, lawrence's childhood sweetheart living in south africa at the time, also came to faith in jesus.” 51 after leaving melbourne in 1989, hirsch and his wife were educated as missionaries in south africa and worked as missionaries there for five years.52 writing to the australian jewish news in 2007, hirsch succinctly encapsulated his 49 “news briefs,” celebrate messiah newsletter 12, no. 3 (august 2006): 3. 50 bob mendelsohn, “annual report 2006 for lcje australia,” http://www.lcje.net/bulletins/2007/87/87_05.html, accessed june 2009. 51 “profile: lawrence hirsch,” lausanne consultation on jewish evangelization, http://www.lcje.net/profiles/hirsch.html, accessed march 2007. 52 “ministry profile,” celebrate messiah, http://celebratemessiah.com.au/ ?id=49, accessed march 2007. doctrinal moorings: “as a messianic jew…(i.e. a jewish person who believes in yeshua/jesus as the messiah), i firmly and passionately uphold my jewish identity, actively participate in jewish causes and embrace biblical jewish faith.”53 in an earlier 2005 letter to the australian jewish news, hirsch underlined his link to the judaism and the community “…we remain committed to our identity as jews, passionate about our faith in the messiah and supportive of the jewish community and the state of israel.”54 the missionary goal of celebrate messiah a cardinal dimension in the messianic matrix is the missionary mandate. in their zeal to spread the gospel about their newly discovered faith in jesus, messianic jews fervently preach that one can both be jewish and believe that jesus was the messiah foretold in jewish scripture. this led to the decision to locate the celebrate messiah offices and beit hamashiach congregation in the heart of melbourne’s jewish community in south caulfield. hirsch alerted his readers in 2005 that since celebrate messiah has the full use of the church building they are able to arrange their outreach to the jewish community in a “more effective and culturally sensitive way.”55 hirsch later explained in the celebrate messiah newsletter: our office is now meters away from where we hold messianic services every shabbat. as we are conducting our services, jewish people are walking right past our place of worship on their way to their shabbat services. 53 lawrence hirsch, “not a cult,” australian jewish news, letters section (september 14, 2007): 15. 54 lawrence hirsch. “beit hamashiach vandalised by jewish ‘zealots’,” letter to the australian jewish news (23 march, 2005). sent to the author july 28, 2009. 55 celebrate messiah newsletter 11, no. 1 (march 2005): 8. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 14 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 within the area of caulfield there are 30 synagogues. we have an amazing mission field right where we are and jewish people are talking about us.56 on a related matter, in 2002, the organization announced plans, as part of their blueprint for reaching the jewish community in australia, for a project titled “messiah college.” the aim was to design a “platform for the gospel by providing relevant education in a coaching environment for people of all ages” so as to “serve and interact with the jewish community while creating a platform for the preaching of the gospel.”57 to be sure, messiah college was conceived as another creative missionizing tool, as lawrence hirsch explained, “through this ministry we hope to engage jewish people through offering various subjects that are needed in the community for young and old alike like maths, english, russian, personal development and of course, bible classes.”58 in a 2006 talk to the northbridge vineyard christian fellowship in new south wales, australia, about the passover festival, lawrence hirsch told his audience that celebrate messiah is “a mission organization. we do missionary work, visitation, evangelism in australia, in particularly in melbourne, which is our main focus…”59 when the pastor of the northridge vineyard christian fellowship commented that it seems that more and more jewish people were becoming christians or accepting jesus as their messiah, hirsch replied: we actually live in very exciting times. we’ve seen jewish people come to faith in jesus today at a rate that we 56 “news briefs,” celebrate messiah newsletter, 12, no. 2 (june 2006): 10. 57 celebrate messiah newsletter, 8, no. 3 (september 2002): 7. 58 lawrence hirsch, “annual lcje report for australia and new zealand 2002,” http://www.lcje.net/bulletins/2003/71/71_10.html. 59northridge vineyard christian fellowship, http://northridgevcf.org.au/ viewdoc.php?id=268, accessed april 2007 but no longer available. haven’t seen since the times of the book of acts. so it is significant. we’re living in very significant times. in melbourne we’ve seen a lot of russian speaking jews come to faith in jesus, around 250, almost 300. we’ve seen also australian speaking, english speaking jews come to the lord. god’s hand seems to be very much on russian speaking jews, all around the world, israel, that’s true also in israel.60 immediately afterwards, the northridge vineyard christian fellowship host asked that his members join him in praying for lawrence and his organization. the short prayer discloses the mindset of some christian groups towards judaism and jews, as well as how these churches envisage the role of messianic jews within the missionary scheme. they prayed: lord thank you for what you are doing in the jewish nation, in the jewish people all around the world. lord we thank you that they were your first your love, that you love that nation, and that you came first for them. when jesus came, he said i come for the lost sheep of israel. and lord we thank you for what you are doing through organisations like celebrate messiah in reaching these folk and showing them the reason for their faith in god, and that jesus is that one they have been waiting for, so bless their work.61 (author’s italics). endorsement for celebrate messiah by figures in the australian church again and again, leading personalities in the church laud celebrate messiah for its missionary activities to the jews. 60 northridge vineyard christian fellowship, http://northridgevcf.org.au/ viewdoc.php?id=268, accessed april 2007. 61 northridge vineyard christian fellowship, http://northridgevcf.org.au/ viewdoc.php?id=268, accessed april 2007, but no longer available. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 15 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 pastor mark conner, senior pastor, city life church (melbourne) praises the organization for being the “most effective evangelistic ministry to jewish people”62 that he knows of. pastor rob buckingham, senior pastor, bayside church (melbourne) recommends celebrate messiah as being on the “cutting edge of ministry and evangelism to the jewish community.” he then adds, “their proven strategies are working powerfully with many precious people coming to know jesus as messiah and lord. i highly recommend this ministry.” rev. dr. david price, principal of bible college of victoria, applauds celebrate messiah and advocates financially supporting it since he believes it is “having a significant evangelical witness to jewish people.” pastor gary rucci executive pastor, southside christian church (adelaide) acclaims the organization for its passion and compassion in ministering to the jewish com-munity and for “reaping a harvest in a field most others have overlooked."63 while celebrate messiah pronounces that its judaic heritage is indispensable to its identity, there are also strong indications that it is a deeply christian organization. its entire board of reference (which acts as an advisory board providing guidance and counsel) consists of prominent figures within the australian christian world.64 moreover, an array of endorsements issued by members of the board and other pastors and posted on celebrate messiah’s own website confirms that figures from the christian sphere judge and construe celebrate messiah not as a jewish organization, but as a christian entity – and that this is part of the identity that celebrate messiah seeks to promote. for instance, rev. prof. 62“ministry profile: what pastors say about celebrate messiah,” celebrate messiah, http://celebratemessiah.com.au/?id=114, accessed february 2008. 63 all cited at northridge vineyard christian fellowship, http://northridgevcf. org.au/viewdoc.php?id=268, accessed april 2007, but no longer available 64 as listed at “ministry profile,” celebrate messiah, http://celebratemessiah. com.au//?id=113, accessed july 2008. allan m. harman, retired principal, presbyterian theological college, melbourne remarks, “there is an urgent need for evangelical christians in australia to recognize their responsibility to reach out with the gospel to the jewish people …celebrate messiah is doing just that…this is the type of jewish evangelism that we need to support.”65 it is noteworthy that the christian community considers celebrate messiah an indispensable and intimate piece in its religious quilt. thus, “which christian” in its on-line guide lists the organization as an “interdenominational mission agency,”66 and “associated christian ministries,” a network of associated christian churches, ministries and pastors, based in melbourne that is officially recognized by the government, also files celebrate messiah under its church/ministry demarcation.67 it is of note that even mark leach, chairman of celebrate messiah’s australian board of directors, places celebrate messiah within the christian rubric. on his personal website as vicar of christ church of hawthorn, melbourne, he references celebrate messiah as a christian ministry, along with leadership network australia.68 mission work by celebrate messiah celebrate messiah actively seeks to cultivate relationships and partnerships with local churches in order to “share our burden to bring the gospel to the jewish people.”69 65 “ministry profile: endorsements for celebrate messiah australia,” celebrate messiah, .http://celebratemessiah.com.au/?id=114, accessed july 2008. 66 http://www.whichchristian.com.au/mission.html, accessed november 2007. 67 http://www.acm.org.au/churches-ministries/victoria, accessed july 2008. 68 “mark leach,” christ church hawthorn, .http://www.christchurchhawthorn. org/app/w_page.php?id=16&type=section, accessed september 1, 2009. 69 “ministry profile: jewish evangelism, celebrate messiah and your local congregation ,”celebrate messiah, http://www.celebratemessiah.com.au/ ?id=131, accessed september 2009. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 16 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 the organization proposes several creative ways for churches to collaborate in its mission to the jewish people. to that end, it produced a video documentary, available from its head office, titled “bringing the message to the original messengers.”70 aside from explicating group’s role and objectives, the video also teaches non-jews how to missionize to australian jews. the introduction to the video states that, “the jewish people living in australia represent a large unreached people that need to hear the message they once were asked to bear. for these people to hear and accept the message of gospel it needs to be communicated within their cultural boundaries.” in that vein, later in the video documentary, lawrence hirsch imparts practical advice and strategies to his audience on how to witness to their jewish friends. at the outset, hirsch underlines the rationale for his address: i want to lay down some important principles on witnessing to jewish people. and if you grab hold of these principles then you’ll be on to the right track to witnessing in a sensitive and effective manner to your jewish friends. if you get those principles then you’ll say the right things at the right time and the holy spirit will then be able to use you as an effective witness for jesus. hirsch implores his listeners be careful in the terms they employ when speaking with jews: watch your language─certain words may have totally different meaning to your jewish friends and sometime may even be offensive. words like christ and cross bring up collective memories of persecution by so called christians. so be sensitive in your choice─try and use words like messiah, instead of christ, try using congregation instead of 70 no publication data available. quotations from the video are the author’s transcription. church. don’t tell your jewish friend that they have to become a christian, tell them that they have to become a believer in jesus.” earlier in his talk, hirsch explains that jews have an “inbuilt defence mechanism towards the gospel” adding that having endured two millennia of christian evangelistic attempts, jews know “how to reject the claims of christianity” and have been taught to exclude fundamental christian teachings “such as the trinity, the deity of messiah and also the second coming of the jesus.” hirsch counsels the audience to eschew any discussion about religion with their jewish friends, instructing them to instead center the conversation on the person of jesus. other evangelistic paths include befriending jews: “be a friend─far most effective way of witness to a jewish person is to develop a true and honest relationship with him or her;”71 he also recommends affirming jewish identity. “because we (the jews) are brought up believing that we cannot be jewish and believe in jesus, it’s important that you reaffirm your jewish friend’s identity and remind them that they do not give up being jewish when they come to faith in jesus.” non-jews should encourage potential jewish followers to attend a church or a messianic congregation and should subsequently introduce them to other messianic jews. hirsch even outlines a suite of questions that non-jews can ask potential jewish candidates. he explains that these statements will simultaneously afford them with the opening to share the gospel as well as show their jewish interlocutor that they are interested in their lives. to cite a few examples, “ask a jewish person how do you practice your religion? how often do you read the bible? what role does the bible play in your life? what do you believe about the messiah? or what jewish 71 celebrate messiah . “bringing the message” studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 17 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 holiday is coming up and what does it mean to you? and you can ask them “i believe passover is coming up what does that mean to you”? hand in hand with its video presentation to churches, celebrate messiah sponsored “experience jewish melbourne week” which affords non-jews …an opportunity to come and experience jewish melbourne and learn how to share the gospel with jewish people. this four-day mission experience is designed to give [them] a ‘taste’ of jewish culture, history and tradition and introduce [them] to the world of jewish evangelism and the work of celebrate messiah australia.72 barry buirski, an associate missionary with celebrate messiah who has worked with the christian open doors ministry, recounts that, during “experience jewish melbourne week 2005,” over a thousand brochures were given out.73 buirski recalls being introduced to a holocaust survivor with whom he shared the message of “god’s unfailing love in yeshua.”74 on one of its street evangelizing missions, barry buirski and his nine colleagues were accompanied by tim, a lebanese christian, who, the newsletter recounts, had a “…very powerful testimony as an arab believer who loves israel and the jewish people. you can imagine the effectiveness of his testimony while speaking to jewish people on the streets of melbourne.”75 buirski also ran “experience jewish sydney week,” affording 72 “ministry profile: jewish evangelism, celebrate messiah and your local congregation ,”celebrate messiah, http://www.celebratemessiah.com.au/ ?id=131, accessed september 2009. 73 celebrate messiah newsletter 11, no. 2, (october 2005): 3. 74 celebrate messiah, http://celebratemessiah.com.au/?id=100, accessed april 2008, page no longer available. 75 “news briefs,” celebrate messiah newsletter 12, no. 3 (august 2006): 3. participants the chance to take part in street evangelism and be trained in the craft.76 in this connection, celebrate messiah has also operated “jewish missions week,” a three day campaign which includes witnessing to israelis on st. kilda beach in melbourne.77 the first was held in 2003 and culminated on the st. kilda beachfront. the group of missionaries consisted of university students who attended the australian fellowship of evangelical students’ national training event where lawrence hirsch taught a class on “bringing the messages to the original messengers.” as part of their activities, students and members of celebrate messiah, wearing t-shirts with yeshua emblazoned across the front, distributed pamphlets and spoke to those frequenting the cafes on acland street which is often frequented by israeli backpackers and jewish teenagers. in 2006, lawrence hirsch, as part of his annual “lausanne consultation on jewish evangelism” reported that, “we have seen about thirt-five “lost sheep of the house of israel” come to faith in yeshua as their messiah and many others discipled in their ongoing walk with the lord.”78 similarly, celebrate messiah sponsors “outreach israel,” (formerly called experience israel) described as “a two-week mission/tour to israel designed for eighteento thirty-five-yearolds.”79 celebrate messiah approaches churches, offering “to customise a short-term program that meets [their] needs. and who knows, perhaps this ’taste‘ of jewish missions will lead 76 “news briefs,” celebrate messiah newsletter 12, no. 3 (august 2006): 3. 77 celebrate messiah newsletter, 11, no. 1 (march 2005): 3. 78 lawrence hirsch, “annual report 2006 for lcje australia,” http://www.lcje.net/bulletins/2007/87/87_05.html, accessed june 2009. 79 “short term ministries: outreach israel,” celebrate messiah, http://www.celebratemessiah.com.au/?id=106, accessed september 2009. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 18 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 someone to pursue a life-long calling to bring the gospel to the jewish people.”80 finally, celebrate messiah, together with ariel ministries nz holds an annual conference in new zealand called “simcha.” for instance, the 2009 convention is characterized as: …a gathering of messianic believers from across new zealand coming together to seek the lord's favour and blessing. the vision for simcha is to gather messianic believers together in unity in the messiah, to look to god to grow and mature the messianic movement, to encourage one another and to work together for messianic revival amongst jewish people in new zealand and abroad.81 in archived photos from one “simcha” gathering (no longer available on the internet) a man wearing a yarmulke and draped by a tallit (traditional jewish prayer shawl) stands on a stage, behind him the ten commandments. elsewhere a person is seen blowing the shofar; a man holds up the torah scroll parading it around; a man recites a blessing over a challah; a woman says a prayer over what appear to be sabbath candles; children are given what seem to be kiddush cups, while another holds two round challot: a group is dancing with a curtain imprinted with a star of david situated behind a musical group: men, women and children are baptized in a wooden tub. a considerable number of images show men and 80 celebrate messiah .http://celebratemessiah.com.au/?id=77, accessed march 2007, no longer available. 81 http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ldya5zk3cmj:www.celebratemessiah.com.au/events/+the+vision+for+simcha+is+to+g athr+messianic+believers+together+in+unity+in+the+messiah,&cd=1&hl=en& ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox-a. women with t-shirts emblazoned with the word yeshua in hebrew. in the 2004 meeting, as reported in the celebrate messiah newsletter, three jewish people embraced jesus for the first time. it highlights one striking vignette: one of the new believers was a sixteen year jewish boy whose parents brought him along to the conference. at the end of the conference he confessed that he didn’t want to attend simcha but that during the weekend’s events he felt that god was calling him. one of the simcha youth workers prayed with him and felt that the barrier between him and god was taken away.82 according to the celebrate messiah march 2009 newsletter, the 2008 annual gathering in philip island (in victoria, australia) attracted a record number of participants, more than 280 jewish and gentile believers.83 guest speakers included vladimir pikman from germany, evan thomas from israel and dr. ashley crane from perth, australia. vladimir pikman “delivered a strong statement…about the jewish people being set apart as god’s chosen people.” he also addressed the issue of the holocaust, claiming that post wwii the german people had endeavored to “repair relations with the jewish people and israel” and in order to move forward, the jewish people “forgave.” as reported in the newsletter, a jewish holocaust survivor and a german gentile were both “blessed by this message.”84 also on the program were a wide spectrum 82 "ministry to australian jews,” reaching god’s chosen people in australia and abroad in 2004 (december 2004): 1 http://www.celebratemessiah. com.au/pdf/apdec04.pdf 83 celebrate messiah newsletter 15, no. 1 (march 2009): 4, http://www.celebratemessiah.com.au/files/cmvol15iss1(low).pdf. 84 “simcha 2008─the best simcha ever,” celebrate messiah newsletter 15: no. 1 (march 2009)::4. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 19 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 of sessions: a workshop for russian attendees; discussions about the unique role australia, new zealand and england played in the “restoration of jews from exile”; and messianic dancing and music. another significant focus of celebrate messiah’s missionary work is the russian jewish community. this evangelism to the russian jews was aided immeasurably by chosen people ministries whose president visited in 1998 to explore a partnership. this resulted in a two-week visit by their staff person, klaudia zhelezny, of ukrainian origin herself. chosen people ministries reported, “by the end of klaudia’s visit, 40 russian jewish people had received jesus as messiah.”85 supposedly, celebrate messiah has had particular success in making inroads into the russian immigrant community in australia. originally it spread its christ-centered judaism to the russian community through a russianspeaking congregation named dom missi'ee (house of messiah) that operated in st. kilda in melbourne.86 as part of its matrix of missionizing strategies, dom missi'ee made available weekly bible studies classes and english classes to more than 100 russian speaking jews. 87 doubtless, the location of dom missi’ee was aimed at affording celebrate messiah optimal access to the russian community. as of 2009, dom missi'ee no longer operates independently. it has merged with beit hamashiach and no longer conducts its meetings in st kilda. 85 chosen people ministries, http://www.chosenpeople.com/docs/ gb/resources/publications/02-02nl/evinaus.html, accessed april 2007, no longer available. 86 “ministries,” celebrate messiah, http://celebratemessiah.com.au/?id=121, accessed march 2007. the current text has been updated. 87 lawrence hirsch, “ annual lcje report for australia/new zealand 2003,” http://www.lcje.net/bulletins/2004/75/75_07.html, accessed november 2008. the person principally charged with reaching out to the russian community is rita ivenskis, whose duties include teaching bible studies for russian jewish people in melbourne. celebrate messiah quotes rita ivenskis as saying: “i feel that russian jewish people are becoming more open and ready to receive the gospel and they are hungry for the word of god.”88 a graduate of a training course with chosen people ministry in new york, she has also studied at tabor college australia, a “multidenominational charismatic christian education centre…[that] seeks to equip people for christian life and ministry by providing teaching which is christ-centred, biblically based, ministry-oriented, academically sound, positively expressed and spiritually empowered.”89 as of 2009, celebrate messiah claims that since 2003 over 300 russian jewish people have accepted a belief in jesus.90 in the organization’s newsletter, several staff testify to their successes. rita ivenskis speaks of her achievements with russian jews in melbourne: today i went to see a jewish family who i’ve known for 25 years. they asked me to visit with them because they were experiencing health problems as well as problems with their son. i shared with them my personal testimony of what yeshua has done in my life and they accepted yeshua with open hearts. michael, the father, has been reading the bible and had come to believe that yeshua is a son of god. they now want to meet regularly each week for a bible study. 88 “ministry profile,” celebrate messiah, http://celebratemessiah.com.au// ?id=53, accessed march 2007. 89 tabor college australia. http://www.tabor.edu.au/, accessed march 2007. 90 “ministry profile,” celebrate messiah, http://celebratemessiah.com.au// ?id=53, accessed march 2007. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 20 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 in another account, rita ivenskis mentions that she visits russians jews with terminal illnesses and assists them with their shopping. rita ivenskis conducts bible studies for elderly russians in the commission flats.91 phil plotnek, a melbourne born former pastor of creative ministries in melbourne’s bayside region, now with celebrate messiah, works alongside rita. he reports, “i am enjoying a new challenge of working with the russian jews…during a recent meeting, 5 russian jews made a commitment to follow jesus. we have also been visiting with people in their homes and this week another 2 jewish people came to the lord.”92 in 2006, celebrate messiah conducted what the organization termed “special outreach to the russian community” in prahran, an area where a considerable segment of that population lives. it reports, under the heading of “five salvations” that five russian jewish people accepted yeshua as messiah, describing the occasion as a “significant day in the work amongst jewish people in melbourne.”93 according to celebrate messiah their messianic idea also touches young israelis visiting the antipodes. the organization reports that during “jewish missions week 2003,” which involved visiting the holocaust museum and attending a synagogue and a sabbath dinner, one of the ten melbourne university students (known as “the messiah team”) met irit, an israeli tourist at another venue, the jewish museum of australia. irit, apparently, was receptive to the message about jesus and turned up at beit hamashiach. there she met two israeli believers who regularly attend services.94 this outreach 91 “news briefs,” celebrate messiah newsletter 12, no. 2 (june 2006): 8. commission flats are low rent accommodation subsidized by the government. 92 “ministry profile,” celebrate messiah, http://celebratemessiah.com.au// ?id=53, accessed march 2007, page has since been updated. 93 “news briefs,” celebrate messiah newsletter 12, no. 3 (august 2006): 3. 94 celebrate messiah, http://celebratemessiah.com.au/?id=77, accessed march 2007, page content no longer available. enterprise was evidence, according to lawrence hirsch, that “jewish people are becoming more open to the gospel, once you begin to scratch below the surface.”95 the june 2006 newsletter narrates the story of an israeli couple backpacking through australia and new zealand who were witnessed to by christians. after arriving in melbourne, they visited beit hamashiach, and were astonished to encounter a considerable number of israelis believing in jesus. armed with messianic literature, they returned to israel, apparently transformed into believers.96 the next issue tells of igal, an iranian-born israeli who served as a soldier in the israel defence forces and who regularly attends beit hamashiach, who joined tim, a lebanese christian, along with lawrence hirsch arm in arm and prayed together in the name of jesus for reconciliation in the middle east.97 the jewish community is aware of this activity. rabbi e. gorelik, executive director of friends of refugees of eastern europe in melbourne, whose jewish cultural centre and synagogue cater to many jews from the former soviet union, has confirmed that celebrate messiah has been operating within the russian jewish community. rabbi gorelik is concerned that russian-speaking jews are being intentionally targeted for proselytizing because of their relatively weak ties to judaism and poor socioeconomic status.98 finally, celebrate messiah boasts its own punk rock band, joyful noise, consisting of asher reich and jordan plotnek, sons of the ministry’s main leaders. set up in 2001 it performs at various events, including concerts, conferences and benefits. on its myspace site, the band introduces itself 95 lawrence hirsch, “annual lcje report for australia/new zealand 2003,” http://www.lcje.net/bulletins/2004/75/75_07.html, accessed july 2008. 96 “news briefs,” celebrate messiah newsletter 12, no. 2 (june 2006): 3. 97 “news briefs, “celebrate messiah newsletter 12, no. 3 (august 2006): 3. 98 interview with author, august 27, 2007. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 21 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 with the following: “ever listened to hava nagila and other jewish songs and thought, hey this will sound great with fast drums, thumping bass and blazing guitar, well we did! is a messianic jewish punk rock band.” it then announces the members of the band, …nath, the most yidish goy ever, shouting till he needs his inhaler, the girls jordan and nadege providing some harmony and energy, ash rocking and making the 'noise' on guitar, sam banging on drums and other things and jord, um, playing bass, joyful noise play a unique style of punk/rock/klezma/jazz/funk/metal and traditional jewish music that will get stuck in your head all day.99 the band, apart from embodying the youthful expression of the messianic ardor, is another element in the matrix of tools wielded by the organization to draw younger members. opposition to celebrate messiah by figures in the jewish australian community dr. paul gardner, a melbourne-based jewish community leader who has been active in interfaith work for several years strongly rejects groups such as celebrate messiah. dr. gardner was chairman of the b'nai b'rith anti-defamation commission (adc) from 2002 to 2006 and a 2004 founding member of the jewish-christian-muslim association of australia (jcma). he currently represents the adc on the jcma board. he was also a founding member of the victoria police multifaith council and served on the advisory committee of the premier’s multifaith forum in 2005. dr. gardner anchors his denunciation of messianic movements on several grounds. he opines that such 99 “joyful noise” on myspace. http://www.myspace.com/joyfulnoiseaustralia, accessed january 2008. movements are intellectually dishonest. “christians are of course free to have faith in jesus as their messiah,” he says, “but jesus cannot possibly be the jewish messiah…one cannot therefore be a faithful jew and simultaneously believe in jesus as the messiah. the argument by messianic movements that one can be both a jew and a christian is a case of intellectual fraud.”100 moreover, dr gardner treats such movements as clandestine attempts to convert those jews who are on the fringes of the jewish community to christianity. “viewed over the period of two millennia, christian-jewish relations have generally been unhappy, to say the least.” dr gardner notes: they have been dominated by a supersessionist view that regards christianity as a superior replacement for judaism, that judaism is an obsolete religion, and that jews who retain their adherence to jewish tradition are blind at best and deliberately stubborn at worst. this is classic theological antisemitism, contempt for judaism and for those who hold to it. during the past half-century, mainstream christian groups have sought to reject this view. in the catholic church, the second vatican council and the nostra aetate document laid the foundations for a paradigm shift. god’s covenant with the jewish people remains in force. attempts at conversion are no longer theologically acceptable.101 one must bear in mind, dr. gardner adds, that the emergence and flowering of organizations such as the council for christians and jews and more recently the jewish-christianmuslim association, reinforce the notion that jews and members of other faiths can meet together in an atmosphere of 100 email from paul gardner, september 3, 2007. 101 email from paul gardner, september 3, 2007. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 22 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 warmth and mutual respect to learn about their similarities and differences. “however,” says dr gardner, there is no attempt to blur the differences or pretend that we are all the same, and there is an absolute rejection of attempts to convert people. this position demonstrates a respectful recognition that the long history of interfaith relations has often had tragic consequences for the jewish people. christian groups that seek to convert jews do not demonstrate this respect.102 temple beth israel senior rabbi fred morgan has expressed a deep concern about celebrate messiah: "we're not at all happy with it, like all other jews i imagine.” rabbi morgan observed: “we would distinguish between christianity and judaism as two distinct religions and an attempt by one group to portray itself as jewish when in fact they accept the tenets of christianity is undermining to jewish identity." rabbi morgan was of the view that the activity undertaken by beit hamashiach was “insulting as it did not treat jews with dignity or respect as a separate religious group.”103 in response, lawrence hirsch compared the work of beit hamashiach to the activities of other jewish groups: well, don't the lubavitchers do that? they go out actively on the street in the chabad mobile or mitzvah mobiles actively seeking people to convert to their form of judaism. they try and convert jewish people from other different sections of the jewish community to their form of judaism which they believe is the only right form of judaism.104 102 email from paul gardner, september 3, 2007. 103 mark briskin, “missionaries branded heretics,” australian jewish news, february 11, 2000. n.p 104 briskin, “missionaries…” the rabbinical council of victoria has issued an unequivocally condemnatory statement concerning celebrate messiah: the advent of the messianic jews phenomenon is very unfortunate. it amounts to reincarnation, a kind of “wolf in sheep's clothing” of the old missionising of jews into a slick new deceptive form but with an unchanged goal of sparing no effort to convert jews to christianity. historically, jews have suffered greatly at the hands of christians who would resort to any means, fair or foul, friendly or violent, to draw jews away from their ancient, timeless beliefs and sacred way of life and to force them to accept christianity. whilst the messianic phenomenon resorts to subtler means, the unlimited financial resources it invests in this process are evidence of its determination to win over jews. the messianists and their missionary aims are at a variance with many mainstream christians today, who, through the experience of the role of christianity in setting the background for the nazi holocaust, have cast aside their desire for winning over jews to their saviour in favour of mutual understanding and respect.”105 several years ago, it was reported that st. mary’s anglican church in melbourne used jews for jesus in its recruitment campaign to draft members of the jewish community into its church. thousands of leaflets were distributed in neighborhoods where many jews reside and billboards featuring a holocaust survivor saying “you should hear my story” were erected.106 those who signed up received letters inviting them to join christian courses. according to lawrence hirsch, in the backlash that followed windows were 105 sent to the author on 16 september 2007. 106 liam houlihan and kate rose, “christian front recruiting jews, “ herald sun, april 27, 2005. n.p . studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 23 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 smashed and graffiti painted on the beit hamashiach building and silicone inserted into the locks.107 hirsch claimed that the spate of vandalism was carried out “by misguided and overzealous orthodox jews” and that this “demonstrates the religious intolerance that exists in the jewish community to other jews who believe differently to the mainstream.”108 amy-jill levine and the jewish care controversy in july 2008, the australian jewish news (ajn), the country’s only jewish weekly publication, featured several items about celebrate messiah, including, unusually, a front page headline. the focus on this small group and the attendant firestorm of debate began when jewish scholar amy-jill levine of vanderbilt university visited melbourne and told the ajn reporter that the local community may need to come to grips with jews who believe in jesus. describing the issue of messianic jews as “exceptionally complicated,” she noted that these messianic jews have “palpable and real views” and that this subject carries not only intellectual, but also personal implications.109 professor levine then presented her own theological assessment: a number of messianic jews are halachically observant, so the question of messianic judaism as a branch of judaism will have to be considered. it’s often easier when someone says they’re no longer a jew but a lutheran, but a presbyterian, but what happens when they want to hang on that jewish identity, and what do we do with that individual’s family? one could look at them simply as a christian, one could look at them from a traditional jewish 107 houlihan and kate rose, “christian front recruiting jews”. 108 lawrence hirsch. “not a cult,” australian jewish news (letters section), september 14, 2007:15. 109 peter kohn, “scholar predicts softer line on messianic jews,“ the australian jewish news (14 july, 2008): 3, 16. perspective as a ”bad” jew or an apostate jew, or a very confused jew. on the other hand, if the argument is that they have a different way to the divine, a different pathway to god, then i can say the atheist jew doesn’t care about god at all. why would i accept one and not the other?110 a week later, the ajn carried a front page item titled, “messianic jews at jewish care victoria.”111 the paper reported that outraged family members lodged a complaint with jewish care nursing smorgon home over the presence of messianic jews who were working as volunteers at the institution. the complaint followed an incident in which one of the visitors, suzanne terkel (whose mother is a patient at the nursing home) confronted the wife of the leader of celebrate messiah, louise hirsch, when she noticed that louise was painting the nails of an elderly relative. terkel told the ajn that she was appalled that this was allowed to happen, querying why messianic jews were allowed into the nursing unit as volunteers.112 terkel opined that it was naïve to assume that personnel from celebrate messiah were at the unit for any other reason than proselytizing. moreover, terkel was distressed at the lack of “safeguard” that restricted messianic jews from contact with high-care patients.113 similarly, raphael aron, the director of cult counseling australia, told the ajn that he was seriously concerned that people associated with celebrate messiah were involved with jewish care and warned that celebrate messiah employed a variety of “sophisticated techniques to spread its message” 110 kohn, “scholar predicts softer line on messianic jews,” 3. 111 ashley browne, “messianic jews at jewish care,” the australian jewish news (21 july, 2008): 1. 112 browne, “messianic jews at jewish care,” 1. 113 peter kohn, “jewish care volunteer did not discuss religion,” the australian jewish news (25 july, 2008): 3. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 24 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 which he described as “false and misleading.”114 additionally, aron claimed that celebrate messiah had attempted to infiltrate another community organization, and stated that, “it would be naive and dangerous to assume that the fact they have chosen to volunteer their time to a jewish organization is merely a coincidence. i believe there is a clear agenda.”115 in a later interview, aron stated that while he advocated diversity among the employees of jewish care, he could not welcome celebrate messiah staff since their official agenda is “…an anathema to the core values of jewish traditions and life.”116 in its initial response, jewish care, through its president robyn schwartz, remarked that it unequivocally and unambiguously embraced the diversity and richness of its paid and unpaid staff.117 louise hirsch, who along with two other members of celebrate messiah had been working as a volunteer at the unit for several months, rejected the assertion of missionizing, saying that they revealed their beliefs and affiliation to jewish care when they applied for the post and assured management that they had no intention of proselytizing.118 hirsch argued that no one could be forced to become a messianic jew, especially since the patients she attended to either had dementia, were deaf or did not speak english, and that “proselytize is a strong word to use.”119 hirsch added that they had friends and family in the jewish community, who disagreed with their beliefs, but were “mature and secure enough in their own faith not to be 114 kohn, “jewish care volunteer did not discuss religion,” 3. 115 kohn, “jewish care volunteer did not discuss religion,” 3. 116 ashley browne. “jewish care intensifies staffing policy review,” the australian jewish news (1 august, 2008): 7. 117 peter kohn, “jewish care volunteer did not discuss religion,” 3. 118 kohn, “jewish care volunteer did not discuss religion,” 3. 119 kohn, “jewish care volunteer did not discuss religion,” 3. threatened by ours.”120 in a letter to the australian jewish news, lawrence hirsch marshalled his most combative and accusatory language yet to repudiate his detractors. “it seems to me that there are still some people in the jewish community, ms terkel et al, that are still living in the dark ages. if this religious vilification and witch hunt for messianic jews in the community is allowed to continue, aided and abetted by religious leaders like raphael aron, then i say it is the spanish inquisition in reverse.”121 the jewish care saga spotlighted the strong reaction by the australian jewish community to any suspected missionary presence among its folk. a study of the ajn’s editorial, letters section and website reveals a wide spectrum of reactions by its readers and offers a useful and representative insight of the jewish community’s perception and understanding of messianic jews. what is strikingly clear is that the general consensus is that messianic jews are not considered to be part of the jewish community or seen as jewish. the same week that it carried the jewish care story, an ajn editorial strenuously disagreed with professor levine’s viewpoint that it had reported the previous week. while the editorial’s headline, “extending a hand to ‘messianic’ jews,” appeared sympathetic, at heart the paper’s column echoed sentiments expressed by most readers, and by extension, the mainstream collective. it is noteworthy that the editor chose to 120 kohn, “jewish care volunteer did not discuss religion,” 3. in an unpublished letter to the australian jewish news, parts of which were used a quotes in the july 25, 2008 article, louise hirsch denied that her motives were “sinister” and labels suzanne terkel’s actions as “unacceptable” and adds, “and ms terkel, as a jewish person, should know better than to persecute others simply because she disagrees with their beliefs and questions their motives.” received by the author on july 28, 2009. 121 lawrence hirsch. “response to ajn front page article, “messianic jews at jewish care,” friday, july 18, 2008.” unpublished portion. received by the author on july 28, 2009. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 25 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 frame the term “messianic” in quotation marks, signaling that the paper deemed the usage ironic, unusual, or simply distancing themselves from the terminology so as to indicate disassociation or disapproval. the editorial urged jewish care to move swiftly and decisively. although it accepted that there was no evidence of missionizing, it averred that in light of “the entire movement’s commitment to raising the banner of messiah”─such action cannot be discounted in the near future.”122 the ajn’s editorial core stance is worth quoting at length: prof levine anguishes about jews who embrace jesus but who want to retain their jewish identity and observances. are they christians, are they apostate jews, or are they, as she ponders, “confused” jews? shouldn’t they be given some leeway for wanting to hang on to their jewishness, and aren’t they still more jewish than jews who announce their conversion to christianity or become atheists? she sees messianic jewishness as “an exceptionally complicated issue,” but it is, in fact, a simple issue. there is a line beyond which one cannot be a jew in any meaningful sense of the word. if messianic jews feel comfortable sitting at seders or eating gefilte fish, that is their prerogative. but in the eyes of the community, they have ceased, to all intents and purposes, to be jewish. our compassion as a community should be channeled into efforts to shield vulnerable jews on the fringe of the community from the lure of proselytizers. to those who already call themselves messianic jews, we should offer a pathway, not just back to the community, but back to judaism. above all, we need to ask ourselves as a community what it is we are lacking and how we may 122 editorial, “extending a hand to ‘messianic’ jews,” the australian jewish news (18 july, 2008): 18. have failed those who choose to explore their spirituality elsewhere.123 the ajn’s view mirrored the position of the jerusalem post editorial following the shocking ortiz attack. the jerusalem post editorial stated, “messianics insist that one can remain a loyal jew while professing faith in jesus as the son of god and the messiah. in fact, this theology is abhorrent to jews and judaism.124 most letters responding to these articles agreed with the ajn’s editorial stance. local resident david travers opined in that, “the term ‘messianic jews’ is a euphemism for the previous title of the group, jews for jesus. the name change…diverts attention from the obvious contradiction in the name.” after elucidating why jesus is not the jewish messiah, travers called on messianic jews to get their belief system right, and to stop confusing themselves: “…if you still insist on continuing to delude yourself, don’t try to delude others, it is simply wrong and deceitful. no wonder you have received such bad press within the jewish community. it’s not who you are but what you profess to be peddling.”125 morry sztainbok argued that messianic jews “…want to eat meat while still being considered “vegetarian”, to be accepted into mutually exclusive worlds without making a commitment to either.”126 jon, who described himself as an ex-christian, labeled messianic jews as missionaries who are “determined to steal jewish souls in any way they can. the hate they show towards judaism is their driving force.”127 rabbi eli cohen, the 123 peter kohn, “scholar predicts softer line on messianic jews,” 3, 16. 124 editorial, “judaism's golden mean,” jerusalem post (31 march, 2008): 13. 125 david travers, “leave beliefs at home,” the australian jewish news (1 august 2008): 18. 126 morry sztainbok, “mutually exclusive worlds,” the australian jewish news (1 august 2008): 18. 127 “letters─and briefly,” the australian jewish news (1 august 2008): 19. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 26 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 australian director of jews for judaism, a global anti-missionary organization, avoided a swift damnation of messianic jews, writing, “notwithstanding the fact that they have estranged themselves from judaism, we should still view them as our jewish brethren. they need to be lovingly encouraged back into the jewish community, instead of us writing them off to christianity forever. jewish people embracing christian doctrine is unfortunately a very real phenomenon.”128 nevertheless, cohen’s classification of messianic jews points to a common and recurrent thread that appears in most jewish literature on the topic─these jews, while born jewish, have now joined a new religion, notably, christianity. however, another reader, michael korman was angry that the ajn was suggesting that volunteers at jewish care from celebrate messiah “have a hidden agenda of converting elderly people away from judaism.”129 korman argued that the article was neither factual nor balanced, and castigated the paper for not contacting the subjects of the story and integrating their side of the story. claiming to know louise hirsch, korman wrote that the purpose of the visits was not to proselytize but simply to provide the elderly with love and good will. in an evident sign of assuredness, jennifer morris, who identified herself as a messianic jew, bluntly reproached the paper, accusing it of incitement: as a messianic jew i am appalled by the fear mentality expressed by the ajn on the subject of messianic jews visiting the elderly at the smorgon nursing home (18/07). the headline was inflammatory and inferred that messianic jews are undesirables. there are many aged jewish 128 rabbi eli cohen, “jews for judaism,” the australian jewish news (1 august 2008): 18. 129 michael korman, “don’t do unto others,” the australian jewish news (1 august 2008): 19. people in retirement homes in melbourne. will the community now proceed on a “witch-hunt” to purge messianic jews from visiting their own relatives in these homes and bar them from the natural act of talking with other jewish residents? will the next step be to purge our presence from every community organisation? your fear of us is unfounded and any pursuing “witch-hunt” could be viewed by history as shameful.130 following the memorable spotlight given to his organization in the jewish news in light of the jewish care saga, lawrence hirsh, executive director of celebrate messiah, again set forth his manifesto of beliefs. in a letter titled, “we are jews too” hirsh underscored his ties to the jewish community and insisted that messianic judaism will not be ignored: what is so surprising that there are messianic jews serving in the community? some of our parents and grandparents have been and are residents in jewish care. we see ourselves as part of the jewish people worldwide. we are committed to jewish causes, are public supporters of israel, continue to uphold our jewish identity and actively work against assimilation. our faith is in the god of israel and in the messiah he promised in the tanach. some may disagree with our beliefs, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that we are still jews in god’s eyes…i too believe that it is time for the jewish community to come to terms with the fact that there are jews who believe in yeshua (jesus) as the messiah. we are not going away, we are here to stay. we are a growing movement worldwide and we will continue to identify ourselves as jews whether our brethren like it or not. in today’s world, can the jewish community really afford to isolate and 130 jennifer morris, “witch hunt,” the australian jewish news (25 july 2008): 18. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 27 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 excommunicate other jews simply on the basis of their beliefs?131 opposition to celebrate messiah by figures in the non-jewish australian community resistance to celebrate messiah is not confined to the jewish community. the former executive chairman of the council of christians and jews, reverend anne amos labeled beit hamashiach in 2000 as heretical and fundamentalist.132 in a letter to crosslight magazine, the uniting church's victoriatasmania synod journal, the reverend dr. john bodycomb, a retired uniting church of australia minister writing on behalf of the synod working group on christian-jewish relations in australia broached the issue of celebrate messiah and the evangelizing to the jews. although happy to share ideas and views about issues of faith and about jesus with those curious about the subject, bodycomb completely rejects any attempt at evangelization. “[sharing] is very different from trying to convince them that i am right while they are wrong, and trying to induce them to become christian. i see that as an assault on the dignity of jews and judaism.” accepting that conversions, or as he puts it “switching” from judaism to christianity and vice versa have always occurred, reverend bodycomb nevertheless reiterates his ardent opposition to missionizing, extending his censure to those who financially sustain messianic congregations targeting jews for conversion: “i cannot support, and i am unhappy about support being given to, evangelistic bodies that target jews for conversion to their particular kind of christianity. 133 131 lawrence hirsch, “we are jews too” in australian jewish news, july 25, 2008:17. 132 briskin, “missionaries…” 133 john bodycomb, “how ‘jews for jesus’ is an assault on jews and judaism,” crosslight (6 november 2007): n.p. singling out celebrate messiah, which he incorrectly claims is the jews for jesus organization operating in australia, bodycomb writes that jews for jesus “targets jews who are dislocated from home and culture, students, elderly and parties to interfaith marriages. it uses deceptive tactics to confuse prospective converts into thinking one can be a follower of both judaism and christianity at the same time.”134 he ends his letter calling on members of the uniting church of australia to join him in disendorsing celebrate messiah in the 2008 edition of gesher, the official journal of the council of christians and jews, the united church of australia assembly re-released a statement it issued two years earlier to all its state synods and constituents responding to the activities of celebrate messiah. in their release, the national assembly expressed its reservations about the “evangelistic efforts being carried out by christian groups in victoria, under the banner celebrate messiah.” the statement asserts that a series of uniting church congregations were approached and invited to partake in the celebrate messiah program of evangelism, which “specifically seeks to convert members of the jewish faith to christianity.” while acknowledging the legitimacy of reaching out in witness to spread the gospel, assembly president reverend gregor henderson termed the “deliberate evangelistic targeting of people of other faiths” as disrespectful and lacking in integrity, and likely to produce tensions between those groups and christians.”135 it is of note that the uniting church of australia does not refer to celebrate messiah by the organization’s preferred moniker of messianic jews. rather, it brands it as a christian group which is engaged in conversion of jews. 134 bodycomb, “how ‘jews for jesus’…” 135 “uca responds to celebrate messiah,” gesher 3, no. 5 (5 september 2008): 88. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 4(2009): abramovich 1-28 abramovich, jesus-believing jews in australia abramovich 28 http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol4 in response, reverend mark leach, vicar of christ church in hawthorn, melbourne, who also served as chairman of celebrate messiah’s australian board of directors, issued the following statement: it has become common for some leaders within liberal segments of the mainline churches (uniting, anglican) to criticise the efforts of some to evangelise people of other faiths, especially those of a jewish background…to say, in the name of tolerance, that followers of jesus cannot, or should not, seek to convince others (of all faiths, or no faiths) of the truth claims of jesus, is itself an profoundly intolerant and oppressive position...if the truth claims of jesus are true, as we believe them to be, then it would be a failure of love, indeed a rascist and anti-semitic act, to not give jewish people the opportunity to consider these claims, and perhaps accept them as true.136 in countering the uniting church of australia’s criticism, leach also reiterated messianic judaism’s assertion that adherence to the belief that jesus is the jewish messiah and the son of god does not nullify one’s judaism, but is rather a genuine way of expressing one’s jewishness: we believe that to become a follower of jesus does not mean that a jewish person has to cease being jewish and become a “christian.” rather we believe that following jesus as messiah is an authentic way of being jewish and we encourage jewish followers of jesus to continue to think of themselves as jewish and as much part of the jewish community as they wish to be. so, for example, where anti-semitic persecution is present, we would fully expect messianic jewish believers to be seen 136 mark leach. “a response to criticisms about jewish evangelism” e-mail correspondence with the author, 30 september, 2009. by the persecuting group as part of the jewish population and to be persecuted with them as jews.137 conclusion although few in number, statistically speaking, messianic jews are growing and becoming harder to ignore. an increasingly organized faith community, messianic jews have formed transplanted congregations in numerous countries and are forging ahead with national and international networks that are emphatic about their creeds and core beliefs. specifically, the existence of this community defies established verities and illustrates the new direction that religious beliefs have taken in a post-modern environment. moreover, messianic jews signal that in the study of religion a variety of religious forms often confound our expectations by transcending conventional boundaries. a linear analytical strategy may not capture the complex, often contradictory nature of this type of religious practice. clearly, the group which resides in this essay forces scholars to reassess old theories and re-think the sharply defined divides of conventional religious forms. messianic judaism is not simply a taxonomic exercise, but reflects a real struggle over identity within contemporary religious consciousness, within the jewish world and its confrontation with missionaries and within the thorny tableaux of jewishchristian dialogue. to be sure, messianic judaism is increasingly a subject-matter of tremendous tension and conflict within israel and in diaspora jewish communities, and is sure to continue and evoke resentment and nervousness from its various stakeholders. 137 mark leach. “a response..”. 1 scjr 13, no. 1 (2018): 1-14 ernest bloch, richard wagner, and the myth of racial essentialism aaron klaus aarondklaus@gmail.com towson university, towson, md 21252 introduction swiss-born jewish composer ernest bloch’s musical language is characterized by rhetorical gestures that represent a connection to his jewish roots. although these characteristic gestures helped him form a connection to his jewish identity, they also connoted a sense of jewish exoticness for the european mainstream, leading to a critical perception of his “otherness.” the roots of this contradiction lie in the writings of the notoriously antisemitic german composer richard wagner. wagner articulated his antisemitic views most clearly in the infamous 1850 essay, das judentum in der musik (judaism in music). the essay, which wagner initially published under a pseudonym, initially had minimal impact because “wagner’s ideas … formed part of previous anti-jewish discourse dating back at least fifty years in german culture.” 1 millington agrees that wagner’s ideas were not novel, as “the preoccupations and prejudices of ‘das judentum’ … place it in an anti-jewish tradition, often of otherwise impeccably liberal and humanitarian credentials, going back via luther to the middle ages.” 2 however, when republished in 1869 at the height of wagner’s popularity as a composer (under his real name), das judentum quickly became a public favorite. in fact, this essay would strongly influence nazi ideology several decades later. ironically, bloch fell under the sway of mainstream europe’s obsession with racial purity early in his life. his musical encodings of jewishness must therefore always be understood through his conception of judaism as a race. nevertheless, neither wagner nor bloch understood the complexity of defining jewish identity, and bloch certainly did not foresee that racial purity could be used to justify subjugating people. an examination of the evolution of bloch’s jewish identity will thus demonstrate the moral imperative to not define others based on race. 1 james loeffler, “richard wagner’s ‘jewish music’: antisemitism and aesthetics in modern jewish culture,” jewish social studies 15, no. 2 (winter 2009): 5. 2 barry millington, “wagner: (1) richard wagner,” grove music online, accessed mar. 2, 2016, oxford music online. klaus: ernest bloch, richard wagner, and the myth of racial essentialism 2 social background of das judentum in der musik prior to das judentum, wagner did not exhibit anti-jewish sentiment in any of his statements, writings, or public behavior; furthermore, the period between initial publication and republication was, in fact, marked by a relative lack of antijewish sentiment in germany. thus, the circumstances of the essay illuminate the social factors surrounding the rise of antisemitism in the years immediately prior to bloch’s birth in 1880. wagner most likely wrote das judentum because of his growing resentment towards the success of jewish composers felix mendelssohn and giacomo meyerbeer. desperate to distinguish himself artistically from mendelssohn (who was one of the most prominent german composers of the time) and meyerbeer (whose operas enjoyed consistent critical success during his lifetime), wagner turned to their jewish background, writing to franz liszt that “he nourished ‘a longsuppressed anger against this jew-business, and this anger is as necessary to my nature as bile is to the blood.’” 3 wagner’s decision to republish the essay was driven by “the jewish problem [which] possessed him increasingly and ever more obsessively until his death, giving him no rest, tenaciously invading his conversations, letters, and articles, prejudice ripening into unreasoning hatred and finally settling into a diseased leitmotif.” 4 by the time of the republication, wagner found an environment open to anti-jewish sentiments, fueled by the economic downturn that began in 1873. popular german media spread “accusations that jews had planned the crash to serve their conspiratorial ends, [and] that even the government of prince bismark had sold out to jewish interests”—charges that “dovetailed neatly with older indictments of the jews.” 5 feeding off these sentiments, wagner argued in his 1878 essay “modern” that jews were undermining german cultural and moral standards. on his perception that jews were attempting to alienate germans from their own culture, wagner wrote: “liberal jewry” still has “colossal” efforts to make in this direction before all the original talents of their german fellow citizens have become completely ruined. they have a long way to go before the feathers grown out of our own hides can only play word games with incomprehensible slogans, badly translated and absurd phrases, etc., or before all our musicians have assimilated the remarkable art of composing without imagination. 6 3 jacob katz, the darker side of genius: richard wagner’s anti-semitism (hanover: up of new england, 1986), 49. 4 robert w. gutman, richard wagner: the man, his mind, and his music (san diego: harncourt brace jovanovich, 1990), 301. 5 richard s. levy, ed., antisemitism in the modern world: an anthology of texts (lexington: dc heath, 1991), 121. 6 qtd. in levy, antisemitism in the modern world, 54. “modern” originally appeared in bayreuth blätter, march 1878, 59-63. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) wagner’s fear of jewish influence in german culture coupled with his popularity in 1878 fueled growing antisemitic sentiments among his followers. although the concepts of jew hatred and judeophobia trace their roots back thousands of years, the phenomenon of antisemitism in modern europe was new. as richard s. levy notes, antisemitism—a word and its abstraction that first appeared in germany in 1879—“is not merely emotional, it is activist. antisemites advocate long-term activity against jews, the enemy.” 7 indeed, “the years 1875-79 were an incubation period for the anti-semitic movement, which was marked by the interaction of a literary agitation against the jews and a positive reaction on the part of the public.” 8 although wagner did not take part in this movement, his ideas inspired its followers. wagner was thus both part of a growing movement towards an obsession with racial essentialism—the idea that each racial group possesses an underlying essence stemming from inherent traits and abilities—and a driving force behind it. as jews became more secularized throughout his lifetime, religiously-based anti-jewish sentiments became more difficult to justify, which meant that wagner’s contemporaries turned to racial essentialist antisemitism. this mindset explains why people who converted from judaism to christianity tended to be viewed with suspicion. wagner began to adopt this mentality in the late 1870s as well—no doubt, preceded by his earlier conception of the jews as stamm (tribe) in das judentum—but now, race could be used to refer to the jews in particular. the paradox of assimilation and implications for jewish composers in das judentum, wagner articulated his belief that identity is revealed through a shared national language. furthermore, he believed that strengthening his identity would allow him to express an eternal human reality in his art. by reaching the deepest strata of his inherent language, wagner asserted, he would discover a human condition in which all people shared common ground. thus, his art would be “universal”—reaching all of humanity. however, wagner did not believe that jews had the ability to reach the universally human through the tribally specific, rehashing the antisemitic trope that the jewish people “constitute a transnational category of cultural parasites, merely imitating the various cultures in which they reside.” 9 in das judentum, he writes: the jew speaks the language of the nation in which he lives from generation to generation, but he always speaks as a foreigner. … the fact that that the jew only speaks modern european languages as learned, not as innate, excludes him from the ability to express himself idiomatically, independently, and comfortable to his nature. a language, its expression and formation, is not the work of individuals, but of a historical common ground: only those 7 levy, antisemitism in the modern world, 4. 8 katz, the darker side of genius, 106. 9 loeffler, “richard wagner’s ‘jewish music,’” 2. klaus: ernest bloch, richard wagner, and the myth of racial essentialism 4 who have grown up unconsciously in this commonality also take part in its creations. the jew has stood outside such commonness, lonely with his jehovah in a fragmented, unbounded tribe, in which all development had to fail, as even the peculiar (hebrew) language of this tribe was preserved to him only as a dead one. to truly poetize in a foreign language is impossible even for the greatest geniuses. our whole european civilization and art have remained a foreign language for the jew, for he did not participate in its development, and at most has viewed it with coldness, even hostility. the jew can indulge in this art and imitate it, but cannot truly write his own poetry or create his own works of art. 10 wagner’s argument that artists could only achieve universality by descending to “tribal” roots was inherently problematic for jewish composers because he believed that they lacked a coherent ethnic identity. this problem reflected the larger paradox of western european jewish emancipation in the nineteenth century: while emancipation’s emphasis on liberty, tolerance, and brotherhood led to equal citizenship rights for jews, the many preceding centuries of jewish isolation had cemented cultural barriers to integrating them into modern society. 11 this paradox (which contrasts with emancipation’s ultimatly less-thanaltruistic goal of assimilating jews in the hope that their religious identity would disappear into the mainstream) forced nineteenth-century jewish composers to demarcate their jewish identity in their art, and as david m. schiller notes, they accomplished this mandate “by working from both within and outside jewish liturgical traditions.” 12 composers “within,” including salomon sulzer (1804– 1890), samuel naumbourg (1817–1880), and louis lewandowski (1821–1894), wrote liturgical music in an assimilated, european idiom, which barred them from becoming part of the pantheon of great european composers. concurrently, composers “outside,” including mendelssohn (1809–1847), meyerbeer (1791–1864), and jacques offenbach (1819-1880) wrote european music for european audiences, thereby rejecting jewish liturgical traditions in their art. miles hoffman 10 richard wagner, “das judenthum in der musik (1869),” wikisource, mar. 22, 2016, accessed jan. 26, 2018, https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/das_judenthum_in_der_musik_%281869%29. translation by the author. 11 jacob katz treats the subject of jewish emancipation in great depth. prior to emancipation, western european jews lived in ghettos with cultural, political, and social autonomy, but in the nineteenth century, reformers aimed to integrate jews into modern society, forcing the issue of assimilation. however, social norms protracted the process by which integration played out. katz notes: “assimilation, it is true, makes progress insofar as some jews are coming into more intimate contact with nonjews and all jews more and more adopt the cultural patterns of their surroundings. but, at the time, jews also create the instruments that continue to hold them together and help them maintain a separate social identity. the conception of jews as a congregation existing merely by virtue of a common confession of faith functioned only on the theoretical level. in reality they retained the characteristics of a subgroup in society, recognizable by its ethnic origin, its economic concentration, its comparative social isolation, and by its nonconformist minority religion.” (jacob katz, out of the ghetto: the social background of jewish emancipation, 1770-1870 [cambridge: harvard up, 1973], 213.) 12 david m. schiller, bloch, schoenberg, and bernstein: assimilating jewish music (new york: oxford up, 2003), 3. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) suggests that jewish composers of this era grappled with a “longing, on one hand, for distinction, separateness and ‘chosenness,’ and on the other hand for acceptance and belonging.” he continues: these forces are always in conflict, but in the field of music, when jewish composers were finally free from prohibitions and persecution and began to develop their talents within the cultural mainstream, their longing for acceptance triumphed. in a way, they were still able to remain separate, or “chosen,” if only by becoming musicians, members of a rarified profession. but in the thrill of their new freedom they sought the broadest possible citizenship, choosing to write for their countries, or for the whole world, rather than the much narrower world of their co-religionists, and to define themselves by their secular accomplishments. 13 indeed, meyerbeer and offenbach came to be closely associated with french opera, and mendelssohn joined the pantheon of mainstream european romantic composers. the trend of jewish composers choosing to eschew jewish identity in their music continued into the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries— marked notably gustav mahler, who became a giant of the symphonic idiom (and who would go as far in eschewing his jewish identity as to convert to catholicism in 1897), and arnold schoenberg, who came to be defined as the pioneer of atonal music. 14 racial essentialism became increasingly prominent in european discourse throughout the nineteenth century, and by the early 1900s, “the new biological category of race had started to be used interchangeably with the historical sociopolitical concept of nation.” 15 this idea profoundly impacted bloch (1880–1959), who was “perhaps the first and certainly the most successful composer to define his art as racially jewish.” 16 unlike the aforementioned composers, he wrote nonliturgical art music rooted in judaism. however, bloch’s notion of judaism is 13 miles hoffman, “the music you won’t hear on rosh hashana,” new york times, sept. 9, 2010, a27. 14 the most famous historical precedent for the paradox of jewish musical assimilation prior to the nineteenth century was salamone rossi (ca. 1570—1630), who served as a court musician in mantua. he composed many secular works, but his most famous piece is hashirim asher li’shlomo (the songs of solomon), a collection of biblical psalms and hymns set in the italian baroque style (in their original hebrew). his well-regarded status in the court allowed him to assimilate more easily than most mantuan jews—indeed, the court exempted him from having to wear the yellow badge compulsory for jews in mantua at the time. nevertheless, the prohibition against jews working for the church severely limited his potential for fame as a composer. his reasons for composing hashirim asher li’shlomo are unknown, but they certainly reflect his difficult situation: as a jew, he could never fully assimilate, yet his co-religionists probably considered him an outsider due to his privileged status. 15 klára móricz, “sensuous pagans and righteous jews: changing concepts of jewish identity in ernest bloch’s jézabel and schelomo,” journal of the american musicological society 54, no. 3 (fall 2001), 439. 16 klára móricz, jewish identities: nationalism, racism, and utopianism in twentieth-century music (berkeley: u california p, 2008), 96. klaus: ernest bloch, richard wagner, and the myth of racial essentialism 6 deeply entrenched in wagnerism; loeffler notes that in wagnerian thought, jews’ “very otherness and ‘semitic’ difference represented a potential form of cultural originality that could conceivably be turned around and reinterpreted positively.” 17 by asserting jews’ absence of identity, wagner paradoxically and unwittingly bestowed upon them an identity of otherness. furthermore, “if the jews could reclaim their ‘ceremonial music’ in its original pure form, they could theoretically then create an authentic musical art.” 18 thus, bloch felt justified in reinterpreting wagner’s theory on tribalism and universality: in a europe where racial identity was crucial, the discovery and musical application of jewish racial authenticity became bloch’s artistic mission. like wagner, bloch hoped that his racially-driven art would reach all of humanity. nevertheless, bloch never grasped the futility of the endeavor to define his music by its jewishness. this challenge lies in the very nature of diasporic existence, as seroussi notes: the long path of exile … imposed on the jews the need to accommodate to the hosting non-jewish societies. therefore, each community engaged in a musical dialogue with its non-jewish surroundings, and through time many different jewish “musics” emerged. moreover, frequent displacements and discontinuities affecting individual jewish communities exercised a major influence on the musical culture of each group. all in all, the active participation of jews in the musical traditions of the surrounding societies poses a challenging scholarly question: where exactly are the limits between the music “made by jews, for jews, as jews” (to quote the legendary definition of jewish music proposed by curt sachs in his address to the first world congress of jewish music in paris, 1957) and the music “made by jews, as musicians, for all listeners.” 19 the music of sulzer, naumbourg, and lewandowski easily passes sachs’s aphoristic litmus test. however, sachs’s criteria disregard the european musical context and traditions that shaped their compositions. the music of mendelssohn, meyerbeer, and offenbach was certainly “made by jews, as musicians, for all listeners,” but the extent of the influence of their jewish birth on their music is impossible to delineate. 20 bloch is unique because he outwardly defined his music as jewish, yet became increasingly estranged from the jewish community throughout his life. while composing his sacred service, for instance, he wrote to ada clement and lillian hodgehead, co-directors of the san francisco conserva 17 loeffler, “richard wagner’s ‘jewish music,’” 7. 18 loeffler, “richard wagner’s ‘jewish music,’” 9. 19 edwin seroussi, “jewish music, §i: introduction,” grove music online, accessed feb. 18, 2016, oxford music online. 20 jeffrey sposato cites numerous examples of critics painting mendelssohn’s elijah as a jewish work. however, he argues that the libretto drafts reveal that the work is actually a new testamentinspired piece. for further reading, see: sposato, jeffrey s. the price of assimilation: felix mendelssohn and the nineteenth-century anti-semitic tradition (new york: oxford up, 2006). 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) tory of music at the time: “i do not wish it for the jews—who will probably fight it … not for the critics, not for the ‘tradition’! it has become a private affair between god and me.” 21 ultimately, the artistic output of each of the aforementioned jewish composers comes from a tangled web of identities and life-experiences, and a search for unifying “jewish” qualities in their music is futile. bloch in europe: the influence of edmond fleg and robert godet bloch grew up in geneva with little sense of national belonging—he studied in geneva, brussels, and munich, leaving him burdened with being lost between french and german aesthetics. he rarely visited the local synagogue growing up—certainly not enough to gain any familiarity with the dynamics of the jewish community—and therefore, he could not help but develop a conception of judaism borne out of the wagnerian antisemitic ideology prevalent in european society at the time. bloch’s symphony in c-sharp minor premiered in 1903, receiving mixed reviews. critics faulted the work for its lack of identifiable national character, arguing that bloch unsuccessfully tried to combine elements of french and german aesthetics. in late 1903, bloch went to paris to secure a performance of the piece. he was unsuccessful in this endeavor; however, his stay in paris led him to reconnect with his friend, french jewish poet and historian edmond fleg, whom he had met in geneva in 1901. fleg served as the librettist of bloch’s only published opera, macbeth, which he wrote between 1904 and 1909. macbeth combines french-inspired whole-tone tonalities with a german-inspired plot of murder, guilt, and revenge. as was the case with his c-sharp minor symphony, bloch could not escape criticism that his music represented an amalgamation of national influences. he was, as critics romain rolland and henry prunières described, “the great wandering jew of music.” 22 during this same period, bloch developed a close friendship with french critic robert godet, who “won bloch’s sympathy in 1903 by writing the only positive critique of his c#-minor symphony to appear in the press.” 23 godet is predominately known today as a friend of claude debussy and an early enthusiast of modest mussorgsky’s music. bloch began teaching him composition in 1904; soon thereafter, godet became bloch’s spiritual guide. godet—who, like bloch, was trapped in the racial discourse of the time—had a vested interest in helping bloch create specifically jewish art (an interest that trumped his deeply-held antisemitic views, which were unbeknownst to bloch at this point). in 1906, godet began providing bloch with readings about the prophets to aid in this artistic mission. these readings evidently resulted in an epiphany for bloch, awakening his 21 qtd. in suzanne bloch and irene heskes, eds., ernest bloch: creative spirit (new york: national jewish welfare board, 1976), 74. 22 qtd. in móricz, jewish identities, 100. 23 móricz, “sensuous pagans,” 447. klaus: ernest bloch, richard wagner, and the myth of racial essentialism 8 jewish consciousness and stimulating interest in his racial identity. he wrote to fleg that same year: my dear friend … i have read the bible—i have read fragments about moses. and an immense sense of pride has surged within me! my entire being reverberated. it is a revelation … i couldn’t continue reading, for i was afraid … of discovering too much of myself, of feeling everything that had gradually accumulated, glued to me, fall away in one sudden blow; of myself naked … within the entire past which lives inside me; of standing erect as a jew, proudly jewish. 24 through his reading of the bible, “bloch envisioned a scenario in which he himself would undergo the isolation, sufferings, and final triumph of a prophet.” 25 bloch believed that the “jewish race” had lost its voice among the nations of the world, and that by isolating himself from the jewish community, he would be able to find that voice in his art. in 1911, godet referred bloch to deuteronomy 13:7-11, a passage that states that worshipping idols is punishable by death. seen through his wagnerian paradigm, godet took this passage to mean that “assimilation is likened to idolatry, and racial purity is its repentance.” 26 bloch did not possess the critical skills necessary to recognize the danger of such an interpretation, given his limited jewish knowledge. furthermore, he readily accepted godet’s antisemitic views because “he was convinced that they applied to only the ‘bad’ contemporary jews” 27 that he observed as a child at the synagogue in geneva. godet would inevitably arrive at this antisemitic interpretation of deuteronomy given his deep interest in the work of political philosopher houston stewart chamberlain (1855-1927). during his time with bloch, godet was engaged in the massive endeavor of translating chamberlain’s die grundlagen des neunzehnten jahrhunderts (foundations of the nineteenth century) into french. chamberlain envisioned human history as the history of the “teutonic race,” culminating with wagner, whom he believed represented the true realization of the racial mission of the teutons. 28 in foundations (a work that strongly influenced nazi ideology), chamberlain outlined his vision of european history as the struggle of racial forces, in which the pure teutons and the jews were the most antagonistic, and argued for the superiority of the aryan race over the jewish race. however, godet kept the true antisemitic nature of the work hidden from bloch for many years, only telling him that he was working on an immense collaborative project. 24 qtd. in alexander knapp, “the music and life of ernest bloch,” jewish quarterly 28, nos. 2-3 (1980): 27. 25 móricz, jewish identities, 107. 26 assaf shelleg, jewish contiguities and the soundtrack of israeli history (new york: oxford up, 2014), 37. 27 móricz, jewish identities, 109. 28 the teutons were an ancient germanic tribe. today, “teuton” can refer to a member of a people speaking a language of the germanic branch of the indo-european language family, especially german. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) that same year, following the failure of macbeth (which only lasted for 13 performances), bloch went to munich to immerse himself in wagner’s music. following a performance of die meistersinger, he wrote, “i was more profoundly moved than ever.” 29 as móricz argues, this experience fostered bloch’s affinity to german music, leading him to believe that “jews … just like the germans, were vessels of pure humanitarian ideals.” 30 bloch “agreed with wagner that jews were deceiving themselves when they believed that they could assimilate to the people among whom they resided.” 31 however, he disagreed with wagner’s belief that jews lack a coherent racial identity; rather, be believed that jews should embrace their racial identity to become rein menschlich (purely human). to bloch, jewish music had the capacity to reach the deepest strata of the human experience, much as german music did, but jews had to find their own voice. for him, this mission could not be achieved through the institutions of judaism; rather, he tried to construct his ideal judaism in art as a means for uniting humanity. in 1913, godet presented his completed translation of foundations to bloch. upon reading a portion of the work, bloch told godet that he found chamberlain’s antisemitic ideas offensive, to which godet responded, “what offends you today was written 15 years ago, and during this period nobody has died of it.” 32 believing that bloch overreacted, and in the heat of an unrelated personal quarrel, godet cut off communication when bloch left europe in 1916. however, bloch could not give up their friendship, and indeed dedicated his c-sharp minor symphony to godet when the work was published in 1925. in fact, bloch would read the entirety of foundations in 1934 and ended up agreeing with the book’s antisemitic theories about jews, arguing that “it was not the ideas but their practical application by ‘smaller minds’ that could turn chamberlain’s ideology into a ‘terrible weapon.’” 33 ultimately, bloch’s opinion of jews did not differ much from that of godet. the more bloch saw himself as a creator of rein menschlich art of the “jewish race,” the more he distanced himself from jewish audiences and critics of his music, thereby justifying his absorption of chamberlain’s and godet’s antisemitism. he would even go as far as to say in a letter to his friend lillian hodgehead in 1934: “the attitude of certain jews … towards me—and towards everything— seems to justify in a good degree the actual mentality and revolt of the leaders of germany.” 34 clearly, he maintained antisemitic views throughout his life. bloch’s “jewish cycle” bloch’s work with fleg and godet in the 1910s led to his “jewish cycle,” a furious burst of writing inspired by jewish themes, and his first foray into jewish 29 qtd. in móricz, “sensuous pagans,” 443. 30 móricz, “sensuous pagans,” 444. 31 móricz, jewish identities, 102. 32 qtd. in móricz, jewish identities, 110. 33 letter to lillian hodgehead and ada clement (july 6, 1934) in móricz, jewish identities, 112. 34 qtd. in móricz, jewish identities, 113. klaus: ernest bloch, richard wagner, and the myth of racial essentialism 10 music. the cycle includes the works trois poèmes juifs (composed in 1913), prélude et deux psaumes (1912-1914), psaume 22 (1914), israel symphony (1912-16), schelomo: rhapsodie hébraïque (1916), and string quartet no. 1 (“hebrew”) (1916). regarding his jewish works, bloch would later state, “i have hearkened to an inner voice … which seemed to come from far beyond, beyond myself and my parents, a voice which surged up in me on reading certain passages in the bible.” 35 indeed, he held the wagnerian ideal of reaching all humanity in the deepest layers of race throughout his entire life. ironically, however, bloch became critically confined to the “jewish composer” label throughout his life, ultimately barring him from the universal status he sought. first united states period, return to europe, return to america in 1916, bloch moved from europe to the united states to assume the position of conductor with maud allen’s dance company on their tour. the tour disbanded prematurely due to dwindling audiences, and bloch settled in new york, where he experienced continual disappointment at the fact that jews were largely uninterested in his music; indeed, his main proponents were non-jewish critics. even as he began to eschew jewish themes in his music (as in the orchestral works america (1926), dedicated to his new home, and helvetia (1929), dedicated to his birth home), the “jewish composer” image stuck with him. still, he maintained the goal of achieving universality. this goal brought him back to switzerland in 1930, where he composed what is perhaps his most famous piece, avodath hakodesh (sacred service), a setting of the jewish sabbath morning service for orchestra, chorus, and baritone. 36 his move was made possible by wealthy patrons rosa and jacob stern, who established a fund at the university of california, berkeley to support bloch for ten years while he devoted himself entirely to composition. the terms of the fund stipulated that after those ten years, bloch was to return to berkeley as a professor. avodath hakodesh is unsuitable for liturgical use because the text of the piece differs in form and emphasis from what would be used in a congregational prayer service and omits important sections, such as the reading of the torah and the kaddish. 37 instead, bloch envisioned avodath hakodesh as a universal 35 avraham soltes, “ernest bloch has said,” in the music of ernest bloch: a program manual, ed. national jewish music council, 13. 36 the text for avodath hakodesh is found in the union prayer-book for jewish worship (cincinnati: central conference of american rabbis, 1922), 64-129. 37 typically, congregations read a section from the torah (the five books of moses) weekly on sabbath mornings. despite the centrality of the torah reading in the morning service, bloch excluded this section from avodath hakodesh because the reading changes from week to week, so including this part would have necessitated that he choose one particular reading to set to music. the kaddish is a prayer of praise and affirmation, which jews recite near the end of the service to commemorate a recent death of a loved one and on the anniversaries of their loved ones’ deaths. bloch excluded this prayer because a musical setting would interfere with the important religious obligation for mourners to recite it. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) “mass,” meant for all humanity; indeed, the piece espouses the wagnerian ideal of the oratorio as total art-work. in 1934, bloch said of avodath hakodesh: “i believe … my sacred service may be an answer to the accusations of chamberlain … for its judaism is not that of the ghetto but that of the prophets—messianic and universal.” 38 despite bloch’s universalistic aspirations with avodath hakodesh, the piece engendered continued race-inspired criticism. as móricz notes: “considered by both jews and non-jews as deeply flawed for what was seen as diluted racial expression, the sacred service demonstrated that however scientifically untenable, race remained a strong enough cultural factor to hinder bloch’s universal claims.” 39 much to bloch’s disappointment, he could not achieve universality through his assumed racial background that he expressed in avodath hakodesh. with war in europe imminent, bloch moved back to the united states in december 1938. in accordance with the terms of the stern fund, he became a professor at berkeley. in 1941, while bloch was driving from berkeley to portland, flooded roads forced him to stop, and he decided to spend the night in the remote and picturesque coastal resort village of agate beach, oregon. he fell in love with the town so much that he bought a house there. bloch became somewhat of a recluse in his final years, able to take inspiration from the picturesque environment around him. figure 1 ernest bloch’s agate beach house source: david stabler, “50 years after composer ernest bloch's death, oregon celebrates his life and works,” oregon live, july 13, 2009, http://www.oregonlive.com/performance/index.ssf/2009/07/50_years_after_composer_ernest.html. he would continue to teach at berkeley until 1952—after which, freed from his teaching responsibilities and in an environment where he could work with little interaction with the outside world, bloch’s compositional output was prolific. his 38 qtd. in olin downes, “bloch, composer, here to conduct,” new york times, mar. 27, 1934. 39 móricz, jewish identities, 154. klaus: ernest bloch, richard wagner, and the myth of racial essentialism 12 jewish works from this period include symphony for trombone and orchestra and proclamation. was bloch a “self-hating jew”? bloch’s encounters with antisemitism via wagner, chamberlain, and godet engender the question of how much he assimilated those antisemitic beliefs. further underscoring the issue, he stated the following in 1934, suggesting that he internalized many of the negative perceptions of his non-jewish contemporaries, as many other assimilated european jews of his era did: i greatly respect hitler’s sincerity. he believes wholly and disinterestedly in what he is doing. he is a fanatic, if you will, on fire with his cause, but certainly not an opportunist making political capital. i do not think he is right. but to label him and his movement merely as anti-jewish is inaccurate. 40 this troubling quote suggests that bloch had indeed absorbed chamberlain’s antisemitic convictions, and that he was therefore a “self-hating jew.” theodor lessing was likely the first to coin the term “jewish self-hatred,” in his 1930 book by that title (der jüdische selbsthaß). kurt lewin argued in his 1941 essay, “self-hatred among jews,” that self-hatred exists when a minority group contains members that “are kept inside [the group] not by their own needs, but by forces which are imposed upon them.” 41 however, bloch’s prophetic vision of himself shows that he in fact thought quite highly of his jewish roots. furthermore, he tended to direct his criticisms of jews towards what he perceived to be their lack of understanding of his artistic mission, not towards their jewish selfidentification. judaism was central to this mission—which elucidates why, unlike mahler, bloch remained jewish throughout his lifetime. although bloch espoused antisemitic views, móricz argues that these views were “fueled by his anxiety about jewish reception of his works,” and not by “acceptance of gentile society’s negative opinion of him as a jew.” 42 ultimately, bloch’s relationship with judaism was too complex for the term “self-hatred” to be meaningful. his grandiose ideas regarding what judaism should be created a barrier between him and the rest of the jewish world—an outlook that resulted in feelings of anxiety and insecurity manifesting themselves as antisemitism. furthermore, this outlook evolved independently of which continent he lived on and independently of the holocaust. 40 downes, “bloch, composer, here to conduct,” 1934. 41 kurt lewin, “self-hatred among jews,” in resolving social conflicts: selected papers on group dynamics, ed. gertrud w. lewin (ann arbor: harper & brothers, 1948), 192. 42 klára móricz, “sealed documents and open lives: ernest bloch's private correspondence,” notes 62, no 1 (2005), 78. 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) conclusion: the seductiveness of racial thought as móricz notes, “racial theory often helped nations rise from the degrading feeling of political and economic inferiority to a sense of racial superiority. … bloch was only one of many artists and critics who had been trapped in the seductive discourse of race.” 43 indeed, he searched for jewish characteristics in music because throughout much of his adult life because he was seduced by the human instinct for kinship and the longing for jewish self-affirmation and pride. however, this search has the potential to be malignant in the wrong hands, as was the case for jewish author and composer max brod (1884-1968). in 1916, writing about the music of mahler, brod argued: from a german point of view, [his music] seems incoherent, lacking in style, informal, even bizarre, cutting, cynical, too soft, and too harsh … yet, taking into account mahler’s jewish soul, immediately the picture changes, form and content are correct, nothing is overbearing, and nothing is exaggerated. by the same token, if we take heine not as a german lyric poet, mendelssohn not as a classic of german music, meyerbeer not as an italian opera composer, and offenbach not as a parisian urchin, but all four as great sons of the jewish people … they become clearer, more straightforward, and simpler. ” 44 however, in the 1940 edition of the nazi encyclopedia lexikon der juden in der musik, the authors argue that brod’s claims show that mahler “could not free himself of his racial determination” 45 no matter how hard he tried to do so. brod attempted to support his view in 1951 in his book “israel’s music” by pinpointing jewish characteristics in mahler’s compositions, but the characteristics he finds— march-rhythms, melodic lines fluctuating between major and minor, and melodies that start low and suddenly jump high 46 —are too general to be truly indicative of judaism. móricz explains: “by emphasizing the unconscious, brod created not only the perfect shelter for gathering composers of jewish origin under one roof, but also the perfect prison from which there was no escape.” 47 for bloch and his contemporary coreligionists, the “jewish composer” label was uplifting and satisfying yet confining and ultimately damning. bloch fell to the seductiveness of this label because he falsely equated racial essentialism with identity. those who study bloch’s music, and jewish music in general, must remember to show “concern for jewish experiences rather than for 43 móricz, jewish identities, 99. 44 max brod, “jüdische volksmelodien,” der jude 1, no. 5 (1916), 345. translation by the author. 45 qtd. in klára móricz, jewish nationalism in twentieth-century art music, ph.d. dissertation, u california, berkeley, 1999 (ann arbor: umi, 1999), 14. 46 max brod, israel’s music, translated by toni volcani (tel aviv: sefer, 1951), 35-37. 47 móricz, jewish nationalism, 15. klaus: ernest bloch, richard wagner, and the myth of racial essentialism 14 ultimately unrewarding searches for specific jewish characteristics in art.” 48 ultimately, celebrating the unique life experiences of jewish composers—rather than attempting to artificially impose unifying characteristics to their music— dispels the fallaciousness of wagnerian racial essentialist ideology by recognizing the relative indispensability of people’s unique life experiences in identity formation. as alex ross eloquently states: too many people in the past have been terrifyingly certain about what jewish music is or should be. the nazi campaign of destruction against the jewish community of europe was predicated in large measure on a description of jewish culture. nazi musical views drew on the writings of richard wagner, particularly the infamous essay “judaism in music,” a pivotal document of modern anti-semitism. this cataclysmic string of definitions warns us not to define. 49 the imperative not to define or categorize people or art based on the arbitrariness and inimicality of racial essentialism should be bloch’s legacy. his life shows that imposing definitions on others’ identity limits the ability to truly understand people—a lesson as important today as in bloch’s lifetime. 48 matthew baigell and milly heyd, eds., complex identities: jewish consciousness and modern art (new brunswick: rutgers up, 2001), xiv. 49 alex ross, “does chaos mix with jewish music?” new york times, mar. 11, 1995, 11. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-18 christ, torah, and the faithfulness of god: the concept of supersessionism in “the gifts and the calling”1 matthew tapie matthew.tapie@saintleo.edu saint leo university, saint leo, fl 33574 this article was generated from the february 2016 saint joseph’s university “consultation on the newest statements about the christian-jewish relationship.” introduction the current scholarly discourse regarding the church’s relationship to the jewish people is dominated by one word: supersessionism. with the december 2015 publication of “the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable” 2 (g&c), the pontifical commission for religious relations with the jews (crrj) joined a chorus of jewish and christian scholars that have long called for the repudiation of supersessionism. 3 though catholic teaching about jews and judaism after nostra aetate has developed according to what g&c refers to as a “new theological framework” that emphasizes the positive and ongoing theological significance of god’s covenant with the jewish people, the crrj had not previously explicitly rejected supersessionism. 4 as i show below, g&c makes this rejection explicit. 1 portions of this article were originally written for a paper entitled, “has the church replaced the jewish people in god’s divine plan?: reflections for dialogue and trust between the two communities,” delivered at the 28 th annual catholic-jewish colloquium, with response by rabbi peter hass, april 7, 2016, at the center for pastoral leadership of the catholic diocese of cleveland, wickliffe, ohio. additionally, sections two and three are modified versions of material published in part of chapter one of matthew tapie, aquinas on israel and the church: the question of supersessionism in the theology of thomas aquinas (eugene, or: pickwick, 2014). 2 “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’ (rom 11:29)--a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations (10 december 2015),” accessed march 29, 2016, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jewsdocs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html. here after, g&c. 3 the most influential example of this call to repudiate has come from r. kendall soulen’s the god of israel and christian theology (minneapolis: fortress press, 1996). see also david novak, talking with christians: musings of a jewish theologian (grand rapids, mi: william b. eerdmans publishing co., 2005), 8. 4 g&c, preface. tapie: christ, torah, and the faithfulness of god 2 while the refutation of supersessionism is a positive development, the adoption of the term also presents a difficulty. there is confusion about what problematic teaching, exactly, should be avoided. although the repudiation of “supersessionism” is now widespread among christians, careful use of the term is not. some contend that the term should be jettisoned because it is too ambiguous and often seems to function as a term of abuse. 5 some scholars argue that a “mild” supersessionism—defined as the idea that christ “goes beyond judaism”—is acceptable, and is in fact unavoidable for christians. 6 for others, supersessionism is merely one manifestation of doctrinal disagreements among members of different religious traditions (namely, christianity and judaism). 7 each of these views suggests that the rejection of supersessionism for which g&c calls is impossible, unnecessary, or both. since g&c also calls for deepening the theological dimension of catholic-jewish dialogue, it seems appropriate to address the confusion surrounding the term. is the word “supersessionism” simply an epithet? is it a term for an expected but intractable disagreement between christians and jews? or does the word specify a serious theological problem that can be identified in christian teaching, and therefore help the catholic-jewish dialogue? the aim of this essay is to analyze g&c’s usage of the word “supersessionism,” identifying both how the document’s treatment of the term is helpful as well as where further precision is needed. i argue that while g&c provides important guidance for theological reflection, the document does not identify and discuss supersessionism with necessary precision. i proceed in four steps. first, i set the document in the context of recent catholic reflection on jews and judaism and identify what problem the crrj seems to refer to in its usage of supersessionism. i also show how g&c’s usage is both helpful and unhelpful. in the second and third parts, i draw upon the thought of the french-jewish historian jules isaac, who encouraged saint pope john xxiii to call for a statement on the jews, and the methodist theologian r. ken 5 stephen e. fowl, engaging scripture: a model for theological interpretation (eugene, or: wipf & stock, 2008), 129. “in general, the vast variety of ways this term can be used renders it less than helpful as a description of any particular pattern of reading. instead, both within the academy and most contemporary churches, to call an interpretative proposal ‘supersessionist’ is to invoke a term of abuse.” 6 david novak, talking with christians, 164. according to novak, mild supersessionism is the idea that christianity “goes beyond” judaism. for novak, edith stein’s rationale for conversion to christianity is an example of mild supersessionist logic, a logic that novak thinks is similar to alasdair macintyre’s claim that one may find the solution to their own tradition’s intellectual problems in another tradition: “. . . a judgment that by the standards of one’s own tradition the standpoint of the other tradition offers superior resources for understanding the problems and issues which confront one’s own tradition.” alasdair macintyre, whose justice, which rationality (notre dame, in: university of notre dame press, 1988), 370. mild supersessionism is the view that another tradition is “less rich than another.” novak concludes that this mild form is acceptable since it need not denigrate judaism: “christian supersessionism need not denigrate judaism . . . christian supersessionism can still affirm that god has not annulled his everlasting covenant with the jewish people.” 7 david berger, “on dominus iesus and the jews,” in persecution and polemic: essays in jewishchristian relations (boston, ma: academic studies press, 2010), 381–82. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) dall soulen, whose writings have significantly contributed to the field of jewishchristian relations. i will demonstrate how their critical remarks about a particular christian teaching regarding christ’s fulfillment of jewish law greatly clarifies the language of supersessionism for contemporary catholic-jewish relations. fourth, i highlight insights of the late jewish theologian michael wyschogrod to illustrate how the teaching that christ’s fulfillment of the law renders the jews’ continued observance of it obsolete presents serious theological problems. can we do what g&c asks us to do? can we repudiate supersessionism? i argue that only after we see the problem clearly can we begin to search for a solution. 1. god’s irrevocable covenant with the jewish people and the repudiation of supersessionism in “the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable” i want to begin my analysis of supersessionism in g&c with attention to how the document relates to catholic theological reflection in general, and catholic teaching on god’s ongoing covenant with the jewish people in particular. here, i survey some examples of supersessionism in catholic theological discourse and then examine how g&c wrestles with questions that were raised by the teaching of saint pope john paul ii. finally, i analyze each reference to supersessionism and related words (“supersede” and “replace”) in g&c, with the aim of discovering what theological problem these words are meant to identify. the concept of supersessionism is not new to catholic theological discourse. in the last two decades of the twentieth century, it became pervasive in theological and biblical scholarship, in catholic as well as protestant circles. the term “supersessionism” is now used in contemporary theology to designate problematic christian claims about judaism. “with respect to judaism,” writes richard john neuhaus, “christians today are exhorted to reject every form of supersessionism, and so we should. to supersede means to nullify, to void, to make obsolete, to displace.” 8 reflecting on the impact of john paul ii’s positive contributions to jewish-christian relations, george weigel commented that the pope’s teaching “challenged catholics who had never rid themselves of the last vestiges of the belief that god’s redemptive action in christ had superseded, indeed abrogated, the covenant with abraham.” 9 scholars now stress that christ and the church do not supersede israel. in a way similar to the line of thought in g&c, scholars seek to affirm the ongoing role of the jewish people in salvation history: “christ and his church do not supersede judaism, but they do continue and fulfill the story of which we are both part,” writes neuhaus. 10 however, mary c. boys has suggested that supersessionism is “alive and well” whenever we hear claims such as the following: the god of the old testament is a god of wrath; the god of the new testament is a god of love; the jews rejected jesus as their messiah; 8 richard john neuhaus, american babylon (new york, ny: basic books, 2009), 174-5. 9 george weigel, witness to hope (new york, ny: harper perennial, 2005), 515. 10 neuhaus, 175. tapie: christ, torah, and the faithfulness of god 4 and self-righteous and hypocritical pharisees show how legalistic judaism had become in jesus’ day. 11 g&c reiterates the theme that affirmation of god’s ongoing covenant with the jews entails the rejection of supersessionism. significantly, g&c affirms an important theological leitmotif in catholic teaching on jews and judaism, namely, the teaching that god’s covenant with the jewish people is irrevocable. nostra aetate, no. 4 strongly implies this teaching. 12 but as gavin d’costa points out, the teaching is only clearly established in saint pope john paul ii’s thought, especially his 1980 mainz speech, in which he paraphrases st. paul’s words in romans 11:29, saying, “the old covenant [is] never revoked by god.” 13 the teaching that god’s covenant with the jews is irrevocable was also confirmed in the 1993 catechism of the catholic church (121): “the old covenant has never been revoked.” 14 bruce marshall has highlighted the theological significance of this theme in an important essay entitled, “elder brothers: john paul ii’s teaching on the jewish people as a question to the church.” 15 as the subtitle of marshall’s essay indicates, saint pope john paul ii’s emphasis on the ongoing theological significance of the first covenant poses a challenge: “how should christians understand and embrace john paul ii’s teaching that the jews are permanently god’s people?” 16 g&c insists that one traditional christian position on the status of god’s covenant with the jews—that this covenant is now fulfilled and cancelled for jews who do not believe in christ—must be repudiated. g&c seems to have this sort of traditional position in mind when it repeatedly rejects supersessionism or replacement theology. d’costa sums up the major implication of saint pope john paul ii’s affirmation of god’s ongoing covenant with the jews, which g&c seems to highlight: “catholic theologies that run counter to this pauline teaching of ‘irrevocability,’ such as the theologies of supersessionism, replacement and annulment, are now themselves superseded, replaced and 11 mary c. boys, has god only one blessing? (new york, ny: paulist press, 2000), 8. 12 philip a. cunningham, “the road behind and the road ahead: catholicism and judaism,” in catholicism and interreligious dialogue, ed. james heft (oxford university press, usa, 2011), 31. nostra aetate reinforced the idea that the jewish people remain dear to god (romans 11) by citing romans 9:4-5 in the present tense: “they are israelites . . . to them belong the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law . . ..” a premodern antecedent to this important present tense emphasis of romans 9:4 can be found in st. thomas aquinas’s commentary on romans. aquinas even diverges from the standard biblical commentary of his day, the glossa ordinaria, which is careful to state that the covenant mentioned in romans 9:4 refers to “the new testament” covenant, not the old. tapie, aquinas on israel and the church, 103. 13 pope john paul ii, “address to representatives of the west german jewish community,” mainz, 1980,http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/pope-johnpaul-ii/297-jp2-80nov17. the text from romans reads, “for the gifts and the call of god are irrevocable” (romans 11:29, nabre). 14 catechism of the catholic church, 2nd revised & enlarged edition (vatican city/washington, dc: libreria editrice vaticana, 2000). 15 bruce marshall, “elder brothers: john paul ii’s teaching on the jewish people as a question to the church,” in john paul ii and the jewish people: a christian-jewish dialogue, ed. dalin david and matthew levering (lanham, md: rowman & littlefield publishers, inc., 2007), 113–29. 16 marshall, 120. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) annulled.” 17 it seems that g&c views the affirmation of god’s irrevocable covenant with the jewish people by saint pope john paul ii and the catechism of the catholic church effectively repudiated supersessionism. but what exactly, according to g&c, was repudiated? in g&c, the concern to repudiate supersessionism, also referred to as replacement theology, is especially prominent in parts two and four of the document, two of its largest. part two focuses on the special theological status of the jewish-catholic dialogue. part four treats the relationship between the old and new testaments and the old and new covenants. in these sections, “replacement theology” is often used interchangeably with “supersessionism” (e.g., §17-18). 18 the terms “superseded” (§28), “obsolete” (§28), and “annulment” (§32) appear in part 4, “the relationship between the old and new testament and the old and new covenant.” the term “supersessionism” itself occurs only once (§17) in g&c, in a paragraph that contains perhaps the most illuminating statement for analyzing whether the term is helpful for catholic-jewish dialogue: on the part of many of the church fathers the so-called replacement theory or supersessionism steadily gained favor until in the middle ages it represented the standard theological foundation of the relationship with judaism: the promises and commitments of god would no longer apply to israel because it had not recognized jesus as the messiah and the son of god, but had been transferred to the church of jesus christ which was now the true ‘new israel,’ the new chosen people of god. this is the closest g&c comes to giving a definition of supersessionism: “the promises and commitments of god would no longer apply to israel because it had not recognized jesus as the messiah and the son of god.” 19 it is especially noteworthy that g&c identifies this “supersessionism” as a problematic teaching of “many of the church fathers” that became standard in the middle ages. this is not the first time the crrj has advocated that a patristic teaching about the jews must be left behind. in the 1985 document “notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism,” the crrj developed the teaching in nostra aetate no. 4 that the jews “remain dear to god,” by stating that the jewish people represent a faithful “witness” to god: “the history of israel did not end 17 d’costa’s remarks are from a forthcoming article in european judaism on “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable,’” which he was kind enough to share with me. 18 the two terms are frequently used interchangeably in theological discourse concerning jewishchristian relations. r. kendall soulen points out that supersessionism is substantially equivalent to the term replacement theology since “both [terms] designate a theological perspective that interprets christian faith generally and the status of the church in particular so as to claim or imply the abrogation or obsolescence of god’s covenant with the jewish people” (r. kendall soulen, “replacement theology,” in edward kessler and neil wenborn, eds., a dictionary of jewish-christian relations [cambridge, uk: cambridge university press, 2008], 375). 19 g&c, §17. tapie: christ, torah, and the faithfulness of god 6 in 70 a.d. it continued…in numerous diaspora [communities] which allowed israel to carry to the…world a witness—often heroic—of its fidelity to the one god.” 20 this in essence inverts the traditional claim, developed especially by st. augustine, that jews were scattered throughout the diaspora as a punishment by god and in order to preserve the sacred texts he believed testified to christ. 21 though st. augustine’s claim is not cited explicitly, the crrj states that the church must set this concept of the jews as christian witnesses aside: “we must…rid ourselves of the traditional idea of a people punished, preserved as a living argument for christian apologetic.” 22 though st. augustine is unnamed, his influential teaching is clearly in view. g&c’s use of the term supersessionism in §17 can be seen to extend this teaching of the crrj from 1985 notes 6.1. the idea that god’s covenant with the jewish people has been punitively revoked because of the sin of unbelief in christ is a premise in the augustinian argument that the jewish people are now dispersed throughout the world in order to testify to the truth that the old testament prophecies about christ are not contrived. the inversion of this augustinian witness doctrine in 1985 notes, along with the rejection of the deicide charge in nostra aetate no. 4, represents the repudiation of one of the most influential forms of replacement theology. it is a significant step forward for the crrj to identify this teaching as supersessionist. however, this definition of supersessionism does have a shortcoming. the crrj seems to reduce the term only to the punitive form of supersessionism, which implies the revoking of god’s covenant with the jews as punishment for the sin of unbelief. this reduction is a common problem in christian theological discourse about supersessionism. 23 limiting supersessionism to encompass only the belief that god punitively revoked the covenant with the jews due to their unbelief in christ misses a more pernicious but subtle replacement theology, which r. kendall soulen has identified as “economic supersessionism.” 24 economic supersessionism is the christian claim that christ fulfills the ceremonial law 20 “notes on the correct way to present the jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church,” sec. 6.1. commission for religious relations with the jews, june 24 th , 1985, accessed march 29, 2016, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relationsjews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_jews-judaism_en.html. hereafter, “notes.” 21 “we see and know that it is in order to bear this witness—which they involuntarily supply on our behalf by possessing and preserving these same books—that they themselves are scattered among all peoples, in whatever direction the church of christ expands” (augustine, de civitate dei, 18.46, ed. george e. mccracken et al.; 7 vols., loeb classical library [cambridge, ma: harvard university press, 1957-60], 6:50-51). see also paula fredriksen’s explanation of the testamentary doctrine: “scattered throughout the empire the jews guard ‘the books for the sake of the church, bearing the law and the prophets, and testifying to the doctrine of the church, so that we honor in the sacrament what they disclose in the letter’” [paula fredriksen, augustine and the jews: a christian defense of jews and judaism (new york, ny: doubleday religion, 2008), 276-7]. 22 “notes,” sec. 6.1. 23 see chapter one of matthew levering, christ’s fulfillment of torah and temple: salvation according to thomas aquinas (notre dame, in: university of notre dame press, 2002). supersessionism is solely identified with a revoking of the covenant. 24 soulen, the god of israel and christian theology, 29-30. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_jews-judaism_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_jews-judaism_en.html 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) (circumcision, sabbath, and dietary laws) in such a way that jewish observance of the ceremonial law is obsolete after the passion, with the result that god replaces israel with the church. 25 for example, economic supersessionism is clearly at work in the commonplace medieval concept of the cessatio legalium (cessation of the law) after christ. 26 the teaching on the cessatio legalium was “almost universally affirmed by medieval christian authors.” 27 it might be helpful to briefly highlight the similarities and differences in these two types of supersessionism. economic supersessionism and punitive supersessionism share the conclusion that the church replaces the jews as god’s elect community. punitive and economic supersessionism, however, differ on the “how” of the replacement. economic supersessionism assumes the jews are no longer god’s elect because the jewish law is fulfilled and obsolete. punitive supersessionism assumes the jews are no longer god’s elect because god is punishing them for rejecting christ. it is this latter concept that is clearly assumed in g&c §17. both forms of supersessionism result in the replacement of the people of israel but arrive at this destination via different routes. 28 the teaching that catholics must reject the idea that the covenant with the jews is revoked is welcome, but omits the economically supersessionist christian claim that christ’s fulfillment of jewish law renders it obsolete for jews. nonetheless, the crrj has directed the catholic-jewish dialogue to the subject of supersessionism as it relates to the middle ages, and this is an important step. after the first reference to supersessionism in §17 of g&c, a second shortcoming emerges as the language of supersession and replacement becomes more abstract. in each case, the idea of christianity superseding judaism is rejected, yet the terms employed are so varied (old and new covenants, church and synagogue, church and israel, christological exegesis, and old and new testament writings) that the concept of superseding is blurred. this is evident in the following occurrences: “a replacement or supersession theology which sets against one another two separate entities, a church of the gentiles and the rejected synagogue whose place it takes, is deprived of its foundation” (§17); “the church does not replace the people of the god of israel, since as the community founded 25 tapie, aquinas on israel and the church, 9. 26 i discuss this medieval teaching at length in aquinas and israel and the church. 27 richard schenk, “views of the two covenants in medieval theology,” nova et vetera 4, no. 4 (2006): 895. 28 a third form of supersessionism identified by soulen is “structural.” structural supersessionism is an approach to the biblical narrative that renders the old testament largely indecisive for shaping conclusions about how god’s redemptive purposes in christ engage creation in universal and enduring ways. israel’s history is nothing more than a particular prefigurative moment sandwiched between more important, universal, and spiritual aims of god’s creation and redemption of humankind. however, structural supersessionism is more a consequence of supersessionism than supersessionism itself. that israel’s narrative no longer shapes god’s purposes in engaging creation in a decisive way seems to be a conclusion that follows from the economically supersessionist premise that god’s only purpose for israel was to foreshadow universal redemption in christ. after the passion the literal meaning of the narrative of the old testament no longer shapes god’s redemption of the world in a decisive way (soulen, the god of israel and christian theology, 31–2). tapie: christ, torah, and the faithfulness of god 8 on christ it represents in him the fulfillment of the promises made to israel. this does not mean that israel, not having achieved such a fulfillment, can no longer be considered to be the people of god” (§23); “the new covenant can never replace the old but presupposes it and gives it a new dimension of meaning . . . ” (§27). in each of these examples, the concept of replacement recurs (and is rejected) but the subject replaced by the church varies from “synagogue” to “israel” to “the people of god.” additionally, traditional christian logic behind the common medieval teaching on the cessation of the law (that clearly specifies causes and effects of replacement) is not mentioned. in paragraphs 28, 30, and 32 of g&c, the subject of replacement expands to include writings, testaments, and covenant. all of these paragraphs draw directly from a portion of cardinal kurt koch’s address for the tenth annual meeting of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations entitled “theological questions and perspectives in jewish-catholic dialogue.” g&c cites the address word for word: “. . . the new testament writings have not superseded the older writings and nullified them”; and “. . . christological exegesis can easily give rise to the impression that christians consider the new testament not only as the fulfillment of the old but at the same time as a replacement for it”; “the new covenant for christians is therefore neither the annulment nor the replacement, but the fulfillment of the promises of the old covenant.” the language of replacement in g&c therefore draws heavily from cardinal koch’s work, as well as that of cardinal kasper, whom koch cites in his “theological questions” address. 29 that the concept is so prominent in g&c seems to be an indication of how the theological insights of these two crrj presidents strongly influence the document. 30 despite these shortcomings in g&c, the crrj takes two important steps. first, g&c provides a definition of what we might refer to as punitive supersessionism, which has not previously been defined by the crrj. although abstract language plagues most usages of “supersede” and related words in the document, the authors helpfully point to the problem of punitive supersessionism when they define supersessionism as “the promises and commitments of god would no longer apply to israel because it had not recognized jesus as the messiah and the son of god….” second, the crrj has provided a clear statement that this super 29 kurt cardinal koch, “the international dialogue between the catholic church and the jews since nostra aetate,” may 20, 2015, accessed march 29, 2016 and available from the council of centers on jewish-christian relations resource website, http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-andstatements/roman-catholic/kurt-cardinal-koch/1374-koch-2015may20. koch cites cardinal kasper’s foreword to christ jesus and the jewish people today: new explorations of theological interrelationships, ed. philip a cunningham, joseph sievers, et al., (grand rapids, mi.: william b. eerdmans pub., 2011), xiv. the idea that god’s covenant with the jews has been replaced, abrogated, or is obsolete is especially prominent in walter cardinal kasper’s 2004 address, “the relationship of the old and the new covenant as one of the central issues in jewish-christian dialogue.” accessed march 29, 2016 and also available from the council of centers on jewish-christian relations resource site, http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kasper/652kasper04dec6-1. 30 see the annotated version of g&c in this volume of scjr. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kurt-cardinal-koch/1374-koch-2015may20 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kurt-cardinal-koch/1374-koch-2015may20 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) sessionist concept exists in the medieval tradition. such a reference to the medieval tradition makes it more difficult for some to dismiss supersessionism as a term of abuse or as anachronistic. one last feature i want to mention about the usage of the term “supersessionism” in g&c is that the crrj clearly wants to affirm the traditional catholic teaching that christ is the fulfillment of god’s promises to israel. however, crrj also wants to reject the traditional view of the implications of this fulfillment for jews: punitive supersessionism. this is made clear in §27: “the new covenant does not revoke the earlier covenants, but it brings them to fulfillment.” in other words, it seems that there is a desire to affirm that christ fulfills the old covenant without also canceling it. g&c seems to me to be an attempt to repudiate what we might call models of “fulfillment and cancellation.” in such models, christ’s fulfillment of god’s promises to israel entails that god no longer intends for jews to follow torah. these supersessionist views of christ’s fulfillment of the old covenant are rather commonplace in the tradition. g&c’s attempt to retain the theological concept of fulfillment while jettisoning the notion of a revocation or annulment of the covenant seems to me to align with aspects of two important thinkers for jewish-christian relations: jules isaac and r. kendall soulen. in the next sections, i connect isaac’s critique of certain christian teachings on judaism and soulen’s clarification of the concept of supersessionism with this important move in g&c. 2. jules isaac’s criticism of the christian teaching that the law is “fulfilled and expired” prior to the second world war the claim that christ supersedes judaism was universally regarded as self-evident and unproblematic. since the second world war, however, the use of term “supersedes” has undergone a dramatic change. increasingly, “supersede,” as well as supersessionism, have come to be used as labels that identify a theologically inadequate or problematic christian understanding of jews and judaism. g&c provides yet another example of a post-war critique of the terms “supersede.” among other influences, this change was encouraged by the work of the french-jewish historian and holocaust survivor jules isaac (1877-1963). i do not have the space to trace the history of the language of supersessionism, but i want to focus on the relevance of isaac’s critique of the traditional conception of how christ fulfills the mosaic law. in the decades after the shoah, the dominant categories for the postholocaust examination of christian teaching were anti-judaism and antisemitism. 31 the term supersessionism was not yet widely used. it appears that the first 31 gregory baum, is the new testament anti-semitic?:a re-examination of the new testament (mahwah, nj: paulist press, 1965); rosemary r. ruether’s faith and fratricide: the theological roots of anti-semitism (minneapolis: seabury, 1974); samuel sandmel, anti-semitism in the new testament? (minneapolis: fortress press, 1978); john g. gager, the origins of anti-semitism: attitudes toward judaism in pagan and christian antiquity (new york: oxford university press, 1985); george m. smiga, pain and polemic: anti-judaism in the gospels (mahwah, nj: paulist press, tapie: christ, torah, and the faithfulness of god 10 use of “supersede” as a term to describe a christian teaching about judaism occurred in english translations of the groundbreaking work of isaac. 32 while on the run from the nazis, hiding in farms and at the homes of priests or ministers, isaac wrote his groundbreaking 600-page study of antisemitism in the christian tradition, jésus et israël. 33 by means of meticulous historical research, the study unearthed the intellectual underpinnings supporting negative christian views of jews and judaism, such as the deicide charge and the idea that judaism was a degenerate religion. 34 throughout jésus et israël, isaac is determined to identify and challenge a “special kind of exegesis” 35 that had not only portrayed judaism as a degenerate faith but had distorted christianity as well. isaac was adamant that this tradition of exegesis was to be distinguished from true christian faith: “it must be clearly understood, that to oppose the teaching of contempt is not to oppose a doctrine essential to the christian faith.” 36 for isaac, it was this “teaching of contempt” that required reexamination, not normative christian faith: “the object of our attack is a tradition, time-honored and therefore all the more powerful, influential, and destructive, but in no way normative . . . .” 37 in his 1962 book l’enseignement du mépris (translated into english in 1964 as the teaching of contempt: christian roots of anti-semitism), isaac is concerned to challenge the traditional christian claim that the coming of christ entails the abrogation of jewish law. it is here, for the first time in english, that 1992); william r. farmer, anti-judaism and the gospels, 1st ed. (harrisburg, pa: trinity press international, 1999); reimund bieringer, didier pollefeyt, and frederique vandecasteele-vanneuville, anti-judaism and the fourth gospel, 1st ed. (louisville, ky: westminster john knox press, 2001). 32 isaac had been a high-ranking french government official, world war i veteran, and professor of history. after the nazi occupation of france, he was removed from his post as inspector general of education by the vichy government. he then began writing a book investigating the roots of antisemitism. in 1943, while away from home, his daughter, son-in-law, and several family members were seized and killed by the nazis. stephen plant, “jules isaac,” a dictionary of jewish-christian relations, edward kessler and neil wenborn, eds. (new york: cambridge university press, 2008), 214. see the biographical notes written by claire huchet bishop in jules isaac, has anti-semitism roots in christianity? translated by dorothy parkes and james parkes. 1st printing (new york: national conference of christians and jews, 1962), 27-34. bishop's notes on isaac are also in the english translations of isaac's most influential work, the teaching of contempt: christian roots of antisemitism. translated by weaver helen. 1st ed. (new york: holt, rinehart and winston, 1964), 3-15; and his jesus and israel 1st ed. (new york: holt, rinehart and winston, 1971), xi-xvii. 33 jules isaac, jésus et israël (nouv. éd. paris: fasquelle, 1959). 34 huchet, preface to jesus and israel, xiv; “a biographical introduction,” 9. isaac’s historic rebuttal of antisemitic christian ideas about jews would become the basis for the 1947 statement now considered the “first fruit” of the new era of jewish-christian relations, “ten points of seelisberg.” see john connelly, from enemy to brother: the revolution in catholic teaching on the jews, 1933-1965 (cambridge, ma: harvard university press, 2012), 176. 35 the teaching of contempt, 34. 36 the teaching of contempt, 34. 37 isaac, the teaching of contempt, 35. isaac argued the “teaching of contempt” was manifested in three main themes in the christian tradition: 1) the dispersion of the jews; 2) the degenerate state of judaism; and 3) the crime of deicide. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) an author employs the term “supersede” to indicate a problematic conception of how christ fulfills the mosaic law. for isaac, christian views of judaism as degenerate are deeply rooted in a tradition of apologetics that claimed the law was obsolete after christ and that the jews were attached to the law because they were “carnal beings”: this contention has its source in the earliest judeo-christian controversies over the torah—the law of moses—and its observances. the christian apologists maintained that with the coming of christ, the law had been fulfilled and superseded [accomplie et dépassée]. they taught that the jews were attached to the letter and not the spirit of the law because they were “carnal” beings, blinded by satan, incapable of understanding the real meaning of their own scriptures. 38 three times in jésus et israël, isaac challenges the claim that christ’s fulfillment of the law also entails its obsolescence. 39 however, instead of accomplie et dépassée (“fulfilled and obsolete”), the terms used in l’enseignement du mépris, in jésus et israël he uses accomplie et périmé (“fulfilled and expired”). each time, the term périmé is rendered “superseded” by the english translator, though “supersede” is not a literal translation of isaac’s term périmé. 40 rather, “supersede” is used by the translator to convey what isaac says is the double sens or double meaning of the traditional christian concept of christ’s fulfillment of the jewish law. isaac uses these formulas to describe this double meaning: “fulfilled and obsolete (dépassée)” or “fulfilled and expired (périmé).” the first occurrence of “supersede” in jésus et israël appears in a chapter entitled “proposition 9: jesus was born and lived ‘under the law.’ did he intend or announce its abrogation [l’abrogation]? many writers hold that he did, but their statements exaggerate, distort, or contradict the most important passages in the gospels.” in this chapter, isaac critically examines the modern french interpretation of christ’s fulfillment of the law. in particular, isaac takes issue with the traditional claim that fulfillment of the law also means that it is périmé or expired: 41 fulfill—what a magnificent vista this verb opens to the theological imagination! . . . “the law will be ‘fulfilled’ [accomplie] in the double meaning of raised to perfection and superseded [double sens d’élevée à la perfection et de périmé],” in the words of f. ménégoz. somewhat more cautiously (in style, that is), father bonsirven says, “the new covenant and its economy 38 for the citations of these important terms referring to fulfilment of the law i provide the french text and the english translation. isaac, teaching of contempt, 75. [emphasis mine]; l’enseignement de mépris, 67. 39 isaac, jésus et israël, 428. 40 l’enseignement du mépris was translated into english by claire huchet bishop. 41 isaac, jesus and israel, 49; jésus et israël, 96. tapie: christ, torah, and the faithfulness of god 12 do not suppress those that came before but ‘fulfill’ them, as does the fruit into which the flower is transformed.” 42 a second discussion of supersession comes at the end of this chapter, where isaac refers once again to the double sens of fulfillment: if jesus had really been the revolutionary against the law that he had been called; if he had presented himself as a ‘destroyer of judaism’ . . . if he had let it be understood—in any way—that the whole of the law was ‘fulfilled’ [accomplie] in his person and was thenceforth ‘superseded’ [périmé] in ménégoz’s phrase . . . how is it that jesus’ most intimate disciples . . . and hundreds of thousands of converted jews made not one allusion to it, seemed to know absolutely nothing about it? 43 in the third and last occurrence of the concept of supersession in jésus et israël of which i am aware, isaac cites the christian teaching that jewish law had expired as a principal cause of the widening gulf between synagogue and church in the first century: it is again an indisputable fact . . . of capital importance for religion and for history that in this same period when the gospel tradition was put down in writing, a gulf was opening between the synagogue and its emancipated daughter, the church. jews rigorously faithful to the ancient law and christians who were breaking away from it, who declared it superseded [périmé], became adversaries, sometimes (the theologians, especially the doctors) mortal enemies. 44 the english term “supersede” is used to translate isaac’s criticism of what he viewed as the double sens of christ’s fulfillment of the law: “fulfilled and obsolete (dépassée)” or “fulfilled and expired (périmé).” therefore, when “supersede” is first used to designate a problematic christian view of judaism in english theology it is used to name a very specific theological concept: after the passion of christ, jewish law is fulfilled according to its inward spiritual intention and therefore expired according to its outer ceremonial form. it is, in short, fulfilled and therefore obsolete. isaac offered clarity on this term that others do not. in the years following the translation of l’enseignement du mépris and jésus et israël into english, one finds instances of “supersede,” as well as “supersession,” beyond the works of jules isaac. the term is increasingly used in contemporary theology to designate problematic christian claims about juda 42 isaac, jesus and israel, 64; jésus et israël, 118. 43 isaac, jesus and israel, 71 [emphasis mine]; isaac, jésus et israël, 125. 44 isaac, jesus and israel, 294. [emphasis mine] 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) ism. 45 scholars now stress that christ and the church do not supersede israel. however, as i mentioned above, confusion and ambiguity now plague this term. this is in part because the term is no longer associated with the “double sense” of fulfillment it was given in isaac’s works. the lack of careful attention to the meaning of the term tends to create a vacuum that attracts scholars’ perceptions of “negative christian views of judaism.” how can the term “supersede” be kept from blurring into abstraction, making it vulnerable to dismissal as another “ism”? one way is to remain attentive to the fact that the word emerged in the context of isaac’s criticism of the “double sense” of christ’s fulfillment of the law (fulfilled and thenceforth expired). indeed, the scholar who has undertaken the most careful systematic theological treatment of the concept of supersessionism in the christian tradition argues that a concept not unlike isaac’s “double sense” of fulfillment is the “heart of supersessionism.” 3. kendall soulen’s economic supersessionism and its similarity to isaac’s critique r. kendall soulen is one of the first to attempt a careful definition and analysis of supersessionism. 46 significantly, soulen’s analysis coincides with isaac’s use of the term. like isaac, soulen conceives of supersessionism as entailing a double sense of fulfillment and obsolescence. in fact, this is what he calls the “heart of supersessionism.” 47 according to soulen, the traditional christian theology of the jewish people needs to be seen in the context of a larger understanding of the narrative unity of the christian canon as a whole. according to this larger narrative, “god chose the jewish people after the fall of adam in order to prepare the world for the coming of jesus christ, the savior. after christ came, however, the special role of the jewish people came to an end and its place was taken by the church, the new israel.” 48 as mentioned above, soulen thinks supersessionism is most clearly manifested in this narrative framework in two forms, which he calls punitive and economic supersessionism. 49 of these, it is the second that will concern us most directly. punitive supersessionism is an approach to the biblical narrative that holds that god has abrogated god’s covenant with israel on account of israel’s rejection of christ and the gospel. 50 because the jews rejected christ, god in turn 45 peter ochs, another reformation: postliberal christianity and the jews (grand rapids, mi: baker academic, 2011). 46 soulen, the god of israel and christian theology. 47 soulen, “israel and the church,” in christianity in jewish terms, edited by tikva frymer-kensky, et al. (boulder, co: basic books, 2002), 47. 48 soulen, the god of israel and christian theology, 2. 49 soulen, the god of israel and christian theology, 1. 50 soulen, the god of israel and christian theology, 30. tapie: christ, torah, and the faithfulness of god 14 rejected them and revoked their covenant. “these christians taught that god’s covenant with the jews was over, and that henceforth the church alone stood in its place.” 51 soulen points out that supersessionism in this form speaks of god “revoking” the covenant as a punishment for sin. it is this form of supersessionism that we see rejected in g&c. like punitive supersessionism, economic supersessionism also teaches that god has replaced israel with the church. but economic supersessionism does not occur because of jewish disobedience or sin. 52 rather, the church replaces israel because christ’s fulfillment of jewish ceremonial law renders its continued observance obsolete. the mosaic law prepared humanity for redemption primarily by pointing forward to christ in “a carnal and prophetic way,” and the new testament testifies to redemption in christ in a “definitive and spiritual way.” 53 “circumcision, promises, law, temple, israel’s history, and so forth all point in various ways toward christ and the church.” 54 with the advent of christ, the prefiguring function of the carnal ceremonies or sacraments (such as circumcision) are superseded by new sacraments (such as baptism): “the prophecies, types, and figures of the old testament are fulfilled and superseded by their new testament equivalents.” 55 soulen’s analysis of economic supersessionism is especially notable because it shares key features of isaac’s description of the traditional fulfillment concept, namely the idea of jewish law as “fulfilled and obsolete.” soulen’s concept of economic supersessionism overlaps significantly with at least two of isaac’s insights: 1) fulfillment carries a “double sense” in much christian tradition (fulfilled and thenceforth superseded); 2) fulfillment understood according to this “double sense” inevitably undermines the theological rationale of jewish existence. first, recall that isaac identified the double-sense concept—that the jewish law had been “fulfilled and thenceforth expired”—as the root of the christian view that judaism is a degenerate religion. soulen identifies this same concept as “the heart” of economic supersessionism when he describes a “double movement” of “fulfillment and cancellation” 56 or “fulfillment and outer obsolescence.” soulen appeals to a variety of metaphors to illustrate the point: the heart of economic supersessionism . . . simply affirms a double movement of inward fulfillment and outer obsolescence, like a butterfly that casts off its chrysalis. the chrysalis is not ‘revoked’ or repudiated, nor is there any 51 soulen, “israel and church,” 171. this essay is perhaps the best introduction to soulen’s view of the church and its relationship to traditional supersessionist interpretations of israel. 52 the term “economy” (from oikonomia) refers to the traditional understanding of god’s overarching redemptive work, or management, of two dispensations of the household of creation, old and new. 53 soulen, the god of israel and christian theology, 27. 54 ibid. 55 soulen, the god of israel and christian theology, 28. [emphasis mine] 56 soulen, “israel and church,” 47. 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) violation of the true organic continuity between caterpillar and butterfly. however, the chrysalis is rendered obsolete, and its retention would obviously be a serious mistake. the thought process is different from punitive supersessionism, but the destination is the same, insofar as both evacuate israel’s observance of the cultic law of positive theological significance. 57 the double movement of fulfillment and cancellation can also be understood via the metaphor of a sculptor who sketches a figure on paper before sculpting the actual figure. although the sculptor intends that the sketch of the figure play a crucial role in bringing about the ultimate aim of the project, the primary purpose of the sketch becomes obsolete with the appearance of the completed sculpture of the figure. 58 for both isaac and soulen, the traditional concept of christ’s fulfillment of judaism and jewish law carries a double meaning. soulen refers to this double meaning with the phrase “fulfilled and cancelled”; isaac with the phrase “fulfilled and thenceforth expired.” second, both scholars draw attention to the fact that the traditional double sense of fulfillment inevitably undermines jewish existence, which can only maintain itself over time through the practice of judaism. the christian teaching that law is obsolete ultimately implies that the jewish people itself is obsolete, that god no longer desires its continuation as a distinct people among the nations. 59 however, the idea that the obsolescence of israel’s existence is a theological problem may not be immediately apparent. one might object that jews could continue as a mere ethnic group and still be jews. but this would be a complete misunderstanding of that which is essential about judaism. 60 judaism is the religion of the jewish people, which represents a kind of ethnicity—a family descended from abraham, isaac, and jacob that reproduces itself from generation to generation through the practice of ceremonial law and matrilineal descent. however, judaism does not comprise an ethnicity as this term is understood in contemporary english discourse, where it functions as a polite synonym of race and is understood to be largely a function of hereditary. the jewish people is essentially religious since it is first and foremost a covenanted people bound to god in part through god’s gift of torah. the observance of torah grows out of israel’s election. according to jacob neusner, those who observe the torah maintain the covenant. to practice judaism means “to act out in behavior and belief the key stories that are told in the torah . . . the instruction set forth by god to israel at mount sinai.” 61 significantly, the religious practices of judaism maintain the jewish people: “what holds 57 personal correspondence. march 2011. [emphasis mine] 58 paraphrase of soulen’s metaphor in “israel and church,” 171. the image itself is used by several ancient christian writers, including melito of sardis. 59 soulen, the god of israel and christian theology, 4. 60 jacob neusner, judaism: the basics (london/new york: routledge, 2006). 61 ibid., 11. tapie: christ, torah, and the faithfulness of god 16 some descendants of abraham and sarah together as a people is the religion of torah-observance, and this is true also of the many who do not themselves pay much attention to the mitzvoth.” 62 the idea that jewish law is obsolete because it has “done its job” by pointing to christ’s passion throws into question god’s desire that jews exist at all. since god’s election of the jewish people is expressed through torah-observance (including circumcision, dietary laws, and sabbath), the traditional claim that christ has discontinued these practices is equivalent to saying god no longer desires the practice of judaism. if god no longer desires torah-observance, god no longer desires for there to be jews in the world. this insight explains why isaac and soulen understand the economic form of supersessionism (fulfilled and expired; fulfilled and cancelled) to undermine the “very existence of jewish flesh or carnal jewish existence.” 63 4. conclusion: why economic supersessionism is a theological problem in this last section i want to explain why the belief that the ceremonial law is obsolete for jews after the passion of christ is a problem for both jews and christians. on this point, the theological work of the late michael wyschogrod is especially helpful. reflection upon the nature of this problem can help us see more clearly what it might mean to answer g&c’s call to reject supersessionism. for wyschogrod, the central tenet of biblical faith is that god loves and elected the people of israel “unto the end of time.” 64 circumcision is “a searing of the covenant into the flesh of israel and not only, or perhaps not even primarily, into its spirit.” 65 this covenant is maintained through circumcision and observance of torah. since the covenant is maintained through circumcision, the teaching that this custom is no longer a theologically significant act entails that god has repudiated god’s promise to the jewish people. 66 and this is why economic supersessionism is a deep theological problem for christians, not to mention deeply troubling for judaism: such a claim raises questions about god’s trustworthiness and the trustworthiness of god’s promises. if god desires that circumcision become obsolete for jews, this implies that god desires that jews 62 robert jenson, “toward a christian theology of judaism,” in jews and christians: people of god, ed. carl braaten et al. (grand rapids, mi: william b. eerdmans pub. co, 2003), 9. 63 soulen, the god of israel and christian theology, 31. 64 michael wyschogrod, abraham’s promise (grand rapids, mi.: william b. eerdmans, 2004), 6. 65 michael wyschogrod, the body of faith: god and the people israel (lanham, md: rowman & littlefield publishers, inc., 2000), 66. 66 for wyschogrod, such a problematic view of the election of the jewish people is expressed not only in the church’s attitude toward jewish observance of torah. wyschogrod also thinks it is manifested in how christians perceive the jewish identity of baptized jews. for wyschogrod, if the church truly believes in “the permanence and centrality of israel’s election as central to its own identity, it will expect baptized jews to continue to affirm their jewish identity and continue to observe torah.” however, “if the church truly believes that it has fundamentally superseded god’s covenant with israel, it will prohibit baptized jews from obeying torah and maintaining a distinct identity within the church” (wyschogrod, abraham’s promise, 17). 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) disappear from the world (or is at least indifferent to this result). wyschogrod argues that such a low view of the jewish people goes hand-in-hand with the idea that the disappearance of jews from the world is “no theological loss”: were all jews to recognize the truth [of christianity], they would cease their stubborn insistence on continuing to exist as an identifiable people and become an integral part of the new israel—the church—which is god’s new covenant partner in the world. the disappearance of the jews from the world would be no theological loss because their place would have been taken by the new people of god. 67 for wyschogrod, the christian belief in the fulfillment and obsolescence of the ceremonial law is a problem because it means god, contrary to his promise, no longer desires for jews to exist in the world as jews, and that, consequently, god’s promises cannot be trusted. 68 wyschogrod’s understanding of the election of israel makes clear why the christian teaching that jewish observance of the law is obsolete after christ calls into question the faithfulness of god. 69 wyschogrod helps us see that economic supersessionism must be overcome, because to hold to this teaching means ultimately that god cannot be trusted. as philip cunningham has pointed out, “it was not until nostra aetate rejected the notion of collective jewish guilt for the crucifixion of jesus . . . that the foundations of supersessionism were overturned.” 70 the crrj’s 1985 teaching that we “rid ourselves of the traditional idea of [the jewish] people punished,” combined with the rejection of replacement theology in g&c make the overturning of supersessionism explicit. 67 ibid. 68 david novak explains the consequences of this point from the christian perspective rather succinctly: “for christians, the answer, paraphrasing karl barth, goes something like this: the promises god made through jesus presuppose that god has already been keeping his promises to israel. indeed, for christians, jesus was sent to fulfill god’s ultimate promise to israel of redemption and then to extend it to the world. nevertheless, god’s initial promise to israel is that she will not die but live, and live with duration as a covenanted people. the promises made through jesus, which the church accepts as normative, cannot be believed, therefore, if the jewish people, who have a perpetual claim to be called israel, are no longer present in the world” (novak, talking with christians, 11). 69 for a christian description of this concern, see the work of robert jenson: “. . . identifiable jewishness does not long survive within the gentile dominated church. to be sure, identifiable continuing descent from abraham and sarah is perhaps more likely within the church than among those assimilated into the secular world. but even so, if god is to have a people identified by descent from abraham and sarah, the church as it is will not provide it. i propose to my fellow christians that god wills the judaism of torah-obedience as that which alone can and does hold the lineage of abraham and sarah together during the time of detour…by this time, the world is surely full of biological descendants of abraham and sarah who are not jointly part of any recognizable people. what holds some descendants of abraham and sarah together as a people is the religion of torah-observance, and this is true also of the many who do not themselves pay much attention to the mitzvoth” (jenson, “toward a christian theology of judaism,” 9). 70 cunningham, 29. tapie: christ, torah, and the faithfulness of god 18 however, it is important for the catholic-jewish dialogue to recognize that the crrj has only rejected the punitive form of supersessionism. the crrj has yet to address economic supersessionism, which is clearly manifested in the commonplace medieval doctrine of the cessation of the law. this form of supersessionism is also present in modern catholic teaching. one of the most concise examples occurs in pope benedict xvi’s many religions, one covenant: “[t]he sinai covenant is indeed superseded. but once what was provisional in it has been swept away, we see what is truly definitive in it.” 71 as david berger has rightly pointed out, this view is a restatement of pre-modern christian doctrine. 72 michael wyschogrod thought this form of supersessionism was more pernicious than punitive supersessionism because of how it subtly calls into question the religious core of judaism. isaac and soulen can serve as resources for clarifying the meaning of supersessionism in the catholic-jewish dialogue. in the light of their insightful commentary, we can see that supersessionism is not simply a term of abuse, or a manifestation of intractable disagreement among jews and christians. indeed, the traditional way of speaking about christ’s fulfillment of the law actually calls into question the faithfulness of god for jews as well as christians. 71 joseph ratzinger, many religions, one covenant: israel, the church, and the world (san francisco, ca: ignatius press, 1999), 70-71. 72 berger, 380. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-18 gifts and calling: coming to terms with jews as covenantal partners philip a. cunningham pcunning@sju.edu saint joseph’s university, philadelphia, pa 19131 this article was generated from the february 2016 saint joseph’s university “consultation on the newest statements about the christian-jewish relationship.” introduction: a thoroughly catholic text expressed in a catholic manner the document issued on december 10, 2015 by the commission of the holy see for religious relations with the jews (crrj) is in many ways a remarkable text. “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’ (rom 11:29): a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of nostra aetate (no. 4),” (hereafter g&c) is arguably the most substantive and multilayered church statement on jewishchristian relations composed by any ecclesiastical body since the second world war. it is that sophistication that is at once both the document’s great strength and chief weakness. written so that “the theological dialogue between jews and catholics should receive new impetus,” it is also specifically “a catholic text, formulated from a catholic perspective, since it is normal that as believing christians we clearly affirm our identity as a faith in dialogue with judaism.” 1 that seems reasonable enough. however, a statement that expresses itself in thoroughly catholic ways could easily be misconstrued when read by interested jews who have their own, often different, understandings of key, multivalent theological terms. this risk is compounded since g&c was primarily intended for the specialized audience of those active in the catholic-jewish dialogue, particularly “catholic theologians engaged for a long time in [it].” 2 moreover, some formulations in g&c were originally composed during specific theological and ecclesiastical exchanges that occurred in the catholic 1 norbert j. hofmann, press conference remarks introducing “gifts and calling,” december 10, 2015. see http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analysis/crrj-2015dec10/1364hofmann-2015dec10 2 ibid. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analysis/crrj-2015dec10/1364-hoffman-2015dec10 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analysis/crrj-2015dec10/1364-hoffman-2015dec10 cunningham: gifts and calling 2 community between 2000 and 2015. 3 the document regularly draws upon phrases, often without citation, written by the crrj’s last two presidents, cardinals walter kasper and kurt koch. without familiarity with this context, readers can easily miss the nuances of phraseologies that were originally developed in particular situations but are now included in “gifts and calling.” in addition to the inherent complexity of theological terms that are linked in an intricate web of meanings, another possible source of misinterpretation is the distinctive vatican “culture of discourse.” in catholic ecclesiastical parlance there is sometimes a preference for indirection rather than direct confrontation, a tendency that is intensified when discussing fresh theological questions that could have unforeseen effects. john allen had this tendency in mind when he reported that two recent synods of bishops considered whether a process might be created to make sacraments accessible for divorced and remarried catholics: “[pope] francis in that case deftly managed to thread the needle—certainly not delivering a firm ‘no,’ but making his apparent ‘maybe’ sufficiently nuanced and qualified that everyone can read it in their own way.” 4 while this could be said about any skillful leader who is trying to accommodate competing constituencies and positions, the desire to thread the rhetorical needle has a particular character in catholic circles. until recently, for example, there has been a certain ecclesiastical etiquette that precludes one from directly contradicting the views of a fellow prelate if it can be avoided. thus, pope benedict xvi did not publicly reprove a melkite archbishop who in 2010 had said that for christians there is no “chosen people” any longer because after christ everyone is chosen. benedict simply repeated that jews are “the chosen people” several times in a subsequent summative document. 5 an even more pertinent example of this ecclesiastical etiquette is provided by an article published in 1994. jesuit exegete albert vanhoye, secretary of the pontifical biblical commission from 1992-2002 and elevated by pope benedict xvi to the college of cardinals in 2006, reacted to saint john paul ii’s description of “the people of god of the old covenant, never revoked by god.” 6 he argued that it was only the covenant with abraham that endured, especially in terms of divine promises, but that sinai was effectively terminated after christ. he concluded that john paul did not mean that the sinai covenant was still in effect. 7 later on, pope benedict again did not feel it necessary to publicly reject a church official’s opin 3 for a streamlined overview “chart of selected events in catholic-jewish dialogue, 2000-2015,” see http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analysis/1388-gifts-callingbackdrop. for more details, see the complementary “the sources behind ‘gifts and calling’” in this issue of scjr. 4 john l. allen, jr., “pondering the parallels between paul vi and francis,” crux (august 6, 2016), https://cruxnow.com/analysis/2016/08/06/pondering-parallels-paul-vi-francis 5 see philip a. cunningham, seeking shalom: the journey to right relationship between catholics and jews (grand rapids, mi / cambridge, u.k.: william eerdmans publishing, 2015), 226-228. 6 “address to representatives of the west german jewish community,” november 17, 1980. 7 see joseph sievers, “a history of the interpretation of romans 11:29,” annali di storia dell’esegesi 14 (1997) 381-442:439. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analysis/1388-gifts-calling-backdrop http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analysis/1388-gifts-calling-backdrop https://cruxnow.com/analysis/2016/08/06/pondering-parallels-paul-vi-francis 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) ion. in january 2010 at the great synagogue of rome he simply repeatedly mentioned moses in reference to the nazi “extermination of the people of the covenant of moses”; the “shining light” of the decalogue, “which comes from the torah of moses”; and cited a rabbinic text as offering guidance for jews and christians on how to interpret a teaching of moses that was confirmed by jesus. 8 sensitivity to this catholic culture of discourse is needed to grasp the sometimes elliptical language of ecclesiastical documents. this challenge is to some degree unavoidable, but even so it would be advisable for future catholic documents to strive to use more accessible language in texts that will have diverse readerships. with all this in mind, this essay will analyze the connotations of some of the more crucial terms and clusters of terms in g&c. hopefully, it will clarify certain ambiguities, spotlight unresolved questions, and offer ideas for future development, often drawing on earlier catholic texts. i believe g&c’s snapshot of current vatican perspectives is a genuine effort to “come to terms” with the church’s newfound appreciation of jewish covenantal life—a challenge that requires it to redefine familiar terms or to invest them with new meanings and nuances. 1. salvation the word “salvation” appears forty-two times in g&c, including within phrases such as “plan of salvation” (six times), “history of salvation” or “salvation history” (four times), “work of salvation” (four times), and “universality of salvation” (four times). the document does not explicitly state which of several possible meanings of “salvation” is being used. among the word’s possible connotations are salvation as redemption: being bought back or rescued or liberated from sin, slavery, condemnation, or meaninglessness; salvation as reconciliation with god or neighbor; salvation as sanctification or being made holy; and salvation as everlasting life because of god’s steadfast love. 9 in some strands of christianity the word “salvation” has become almost equivalent to christian identity itself, as in the proverbial question: “are you saved?” even so, despite the lack of a precise definition, readers can discern some major features of g&c’s understanding of salvation. drawing together different paragraphs in the document, it seems that “the universality of salvation in jesus christ” (preface; §38)—a “universality for all peoples” (§33)—is seen as the divine “plan of salvation for all peoples” (§36, see also §42). in that plan “the covenant people of israel” have an “enduring role” (§43). the “plan of salvation,” says g&c, begins with god’s calling of abraham (genesis 12:1-3) in order “to reveal [godself] and speak to humankind, redeeming it from sin and gathering it 8 pope benedict xvi, “address at the great synagogue of rome,” january 17, 2010, §§ 3, 6, 7, respectively. 9 see clark williamson, “what does it mean to be saved?” in philip a. cunningham, ed., pondering the passion: what’s at stake for christians and jews? (lanham, md.: rowan and littlefield, 2004), 119-128. cunningham: gifts and calling 4 together as one people” (§21). the “ultimate goal [is that] the whole of humanity is gathered together and led to [god]” (§22). but how does g&c relate jewish covenantal life today to salvation? the document does not answer this question unequivocally, but it offers important indications. in its references to salvation, g&c often refers to the continuing covenantal life of the jewish people, as when it notes that “like the church itself even in our own day, israel bears the treasure of its election in fragile vessels” (ibid.). because the document’s premise (as reflected in its title) is that “the gifts and calling of god are irrevocable,” g&c does not conceive of “salvation history” in the stridently supersessionist way that had prevailed among christians for so long. 10 in discussing the “two ways by which god’s [jewish and christian] people can make the sacred scriptures of israel their own,” g&c affirms that a “response to god’s word of salvation that accords with one or the other tradition can thus open up access to god, even if it is left up to his counsel of salvation to determine in what way he may intend to save mankind in each instance” (g&c, §25, italics added). in this carefully constructed sentence, the crrj admits that it doesn’t know how the jewish “instance” of encountering god’s scriptural “word of salvation” will “save” israel. it is content to say that a cryptic divine “counsel of salvation” will make it so. the same vagueness regarding judaism and soteriology is evident in g&c §36. on one hand, the crrj reiterates the previously noted christian claim that “salvation” (however precisely defined) is made universally available by christ: all people are gathered together and led to god by christ. thus, it concludes, “there can be only one path to salvation.” on the other hand, g&c rejects the assertion that “jews are excluded from god’s salvation because they do not believe in jesus christ as the messiah of israel and the son of god.” herein lies a tension. either “jews are participants in god’s salvation” without christ (thus undermining the central christian claim that christ is the universal mediator of “salvation”) or “jews are participants in god’s salvation” because of a grace god bestows in ways god alone knows but still somehow involves christ. 11 the commission obviously chooses the latter alternative by invoking the category of mystery 12 to declare: “that the jews are participants in god’s salvation [note the careful phrasing] is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery” (§36). perhaps it would be better not to speak of “paths to salvation” and 10 see mary c. boys, biblical interpretation in religious education (birmingham, al: religious education press, 1980). 11 the latter recalls dominus iesus, §21, which cited second vatican council, ad gentes, §7 in saying: “with respect to the way in which the salvific grace of god—which is always given by means of christ in the spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the church—comes to individual nonchristians, the second vatican council limited itself to the statement that god bestows it ‘in ways known to himself.’” 12 “mystery” in the theological sense refers to a reality that cannot ultimately be compassed by mortal minds, not to something that cannot be grasped at all. 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) instead ask how people are introduced to god, a dynamic that the church understands as always an activity of christ (see section 4 below). such circumlocutions as “jews participating in god’s salvation” or as having “access to [a saving] god” are characteristic of catholic ecclesiastical discourse when trying to “thread the needle” on questions that are being reexamined and rearticulated. the same holds true with the assertion that this jewish “participation” is “unfathomable.” it is noteworthy that g&c did not adduce cardinal walter kasper’s earlier and more direct formulation that “god’s grace, which is the grace of jesus christ according to our faith, is available to all. therefore, the church believes that judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the jewish people to god’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because god is faithful to his promises.” 13 however, it seems plain that g&c wishes to affirm that jews are “saved” (however defined) by virtue of their covenanting with a saving god through a grace that christ mediates even if jews do not conceive of their invitation to relationship with god in christ-shaped ways. this conclusion is quite apparent in §24, even if it, too, speaks somewhat indirectly: god revealed himself in his word, so that it may be understood by humanity in actual historical situations. this word invites all people to respond. if their responses are in accord with the word of god they stand in right relationship with him. for jews this word can be learned through the torah and the traditions based on it. the torah is the instruction for a successful life in right relationship with god. whoever observes the torah has life in its fullness (cf. pirqe avot ii, 7). by observing the torah the jew receives a share in communion with god. there is an underlying respect for the jewish tradition in evidence here, not only in the citation of a rabbinic text as having some religious authority even for christian readers, but also in g&c’s restraint in not defining what “observing the torah” means concretely. presumably, that is a matter for how “jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience.” 14 most significantly, this paragraph has unmistakable soteriological cadences. jews are able to stand in “right relationship” or share “in communion with god” or to have “life in its fullness” (evoking john 10:10) because of the positive assertion (quoting pope francis) that “for jews the word of god is present above all in the torah.” in whatever fashion “being saved” is conceived, it is unthinkable that jews do not experience it given their torah-mediated communion with a saving god that provides life in its fullness. i interpret g&c’s elliptical language about jews and salvation as evidence of the commission’s theologically “coming to terms” with the church’s renewed 13 kasper, “dominus iesus,” paper delivered at the 17 th meeting of the international catholic-jewish liaison committee, may 1, 2001. 14 commission of the holy see for religious relations with the jews, “guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate, 4” (dec 1, 1974), preamble. cunningham: gifts and calling 6 appreciation that “the gifts and calling of god are irrevocable.” to summarize its discussion of this particular term, it might be proposed that the crrj views the people israel as already proleptically 15 participating in the “ultimate goal” of god’s salvific plan as g&c described it earlier: they have been gathered together and led to god (§22). like christians, jews live in expectation that their covenanting with a faithful god who will bring them into olam haba, the messianic age. 2. evangelization, mission, witness, and dialogue this cluster of terms can be understood in nearly contradictory ways. to sketch the alternatives in binary fashion: does “evangelize” mean that christians should: (a) encourage jews to be baptized or (b) work with jews in service to the reign of god? does “mission” to jews after nostra aetate mean: (a) to seek to bring them to faith in christ or (b) to engage in mutually enriching religious dialogue with them? does “witness” mean that christians explain their faith to jews: (a) to bring them to faith in christ or (b) to share reciprocally the experience of covenantal relationship with god? do catholics “dialogue” with jews (a) in the hope that they will turn to christ or (b) to deepen a relationship of mutuality? framing the questions in this way demonstrates that however they are conceived the four terms are so closely intertwined that the definition of any one of them inevitably impacts how the other three are understood. suspicion about what catholics might really mean by these expressions imperils both positive relations between catholics and jews and the attainment of trusting dialogue. 16 this is because, as g&c recognizes, how the church speaks of its faith in christ to jews “involves the very existence of the jewish people” (§40). particularly after the shoah, when jewish survival has been considered by 15 in christian theology, a prolepsis is an anticipatory experience in the present of a reality to be fully realized in the future. it is a manifestation of the life of the age to come prematurely in human history today. 16 this reality was illustrated in the united states in the summer and fall of 2009. a statement prepared by staff at the u.s. conference of catholic bishops remarked that: “though christian participation in interreligious dialogue would not normally include an explicit invitation to baptism and entrance into the church, the christian dialogue partner is always giving witness to the following of christ, to which all are implicitly invited.” in response, american jewish leaders unanimously declared that “once jewish-christian dialogue has been formally characterized as an invitation, whether explicit or implicit, to apostatize, then jewish participation becomes untenable.” leaders of the bishops’ conference replied that “jewish-catholic dialogue, one of the blessed fruits of the second vatican council, has never been and will never be used by the catholic church as a means of proselytism—nor is it intended as a disguised invitation to baptism.” they also took the unusual step of excising mention of implicit and explicit invitations to baptism from the online version of the original clarification. for all the relevant texts, see http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todaysdialogue/conversion. for a fuller narrative see: philip a. cunningham, “‘god holds the jews most dear’: learning to respect jewish self-understanding,” in gilbert rosenthal, ed., a jubilee for all time: the copernican revolution in jewish-christian relations (eugene, or: wipf and stock, 2014), 55-56. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/conversion http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/conversion 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) some jews to be tantamount to a divine commandment, 17 the thought that the church might in any way continue the long history of trying to convert them to christianity is unspeakably odious to the vast majority of jews. it is little wonder, then, that the public media paid great attention to g&c’s sentence that “the catholic church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed at jews” (§40). 18 however, some questioned whether such headlines as “vatican says catholics should not try to convert jews” were accurate. as one commentator stated: “what the document says is that the catholic church rejects ‘specific institutional mission work’...aimed at jews. individual christians, on the other hand, are still encouraged—’called,’ as the document puts it—to reach out and preach or ‘bear witness to their faith in jesus christ also to jews.’” 19 conflicting readings of the document on this crucial point are made possible by g&c’s lack of clarity about the meanings of “mission” and “witness” and suspicions about the adjective “institutional.” regrettably, prior ecclesiastical documents did not employ these and related terms with any consistency. 20 g&c would have benefited from utilizing the understandings put forth in the 1991 vatican statement, “dialogue and proclamation” (d&p). that text distinguished between “evangelizing mission, or 17 most famously, emil fackenheim, to mend the world: foundations of future jewish thought (new york: schocken books, 1994), 213. 18 e.g.: gia pianigianidec, “vatican says catholics should not try to convert jews,” the new york times (dec. 10, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/world/europe/vatican-says-catholicsshould-not-try-to-convert-jews.html?_r=0; philip pullella, “vatican says catholics should not try to convert jews, should fight anti-semitism,” reuters (dec. 10, 2015), http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-jews-iduskbn0tt1bk20151210; bill chappell, “catholics should not try to convert jews, vatican commission says,” national public radio (dec. 10, 2015), http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/10/459223058/catholics-should-not-try-toconvert-jews-vatican-commission-says; and “catholics should not try to convert jews, vatican says,” bbc (dec. 10, 2015), http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35061357. 19 j. j. goldberg, “what new vatican memo really means for jews for jesus–and us,” forward (dec 18, 2015), http://forward.com/opinion/327449/what-everyones-getting-wrong-about-thatvatican-memo-on-converting-jews/. 20 this is true even when key terms are in the titles of pertinent texts. thus, the pontifical council for interreligious dialogue and the congregation for the evangelization of peoples, “dialogue and proclamation: reflection and orientations on interreligious dialogue and the proclamation of the gospel of jesus christ” (d&p), of may 19, 1991, reworked the vocabulary found in one of its main source texts: the pcid’s own 1984, “the attitude of the church toward the followers of other religions: reflections and orientations on dialogue and mission” (d&m). d&m spoke of the church’s “mission” similarly to the later d&p’s “evangelizing mission” as “the commitment to mankind, to social justice, to liberty and the rights of man, and the reform of unjust social structures” as essential to the mission of the church” (§12). however, d&m used “evangelization” synonymously with d&p’s “proclamation” when it stated (quoting the second vatican council’s ad gentes, §6): “the special end of this missionary activity is the evangelization and the foundation of the church among peoples or groups in which it has not yet taken root.” but then the 1984 document immediately added: “other passages of the same council have stressed that the [evangelical?] mission of the church is also to work for the extension of the kingdom and its values among all men and women” (§11). these few examples show clearly that the catholic church’s understanding of these matters since the second vatican council is in a state of flux, and this without even considering the sui generis status of judaism in catholic thought (see below). http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/world/europe/vatican-says-catholics-should-not-try-to-convert-jews.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/world/europe/vatican-says-catholics-should-not-try-to-convert-jews.html?_r=0 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-jews-iduskbn0tt1bk20151210 http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/10/459223058/catholics-should-not-try-to-convert-jews-vatican-commission-says http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/10/459223058/catholics-should-not-try-to-convert-jews-vatican-commission-says http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35061357 http://forward.com/opinion/327449/what-everyones-getting-wrong-about-that-vatican-memo-on-converting-jews/ http://forward.com/opinion/327449/what-everyones-getting-wrong-about-that-vatican-memo-on-converting-jews/ cunningham: gifts and calling 8 more simply evangelization,” 21 in the broad sense of living according to the gospel in all aspects of life and the more specific and colloquial understanding of “evangelization” as “the clear and unambiguous proclamation of the lord jesus,” 22 which is “an invitation to a commitment of faith in jesus christ and to entry through baptism into the...church.” 23 d&p notes that proclamation “occupies such an important place in evangelization that it has often become synonymous with it; and yet it is only one aspect of evangelization.” 24 for the authors of d&p, “dialogue” is a subset of the church’s “evangelical mission,” one of the many activities that are part of the christian life. dialogue “includes both witness and the exploration of respective religious convictions. it is in this...sense that [d&p] uses the term dialogue for one of the integral elements of the church’s evangelizing mission.” 25 this leads to the question: when g&c speaks of “evangelization” does it intend “dialogue and proclamation’s” broad sense of “evangelizing mission,” of which dialogue with jews is a part, or the colloquial use of “evangelization” as an invitation to enter the church? unhappily, g&c confusingly uses some of the terms under discussion in different senses than d&p, especially proclamation/proclaim. nevertheless, g&c describes the “christian mission” (d&p’s “evangelizing mission”) as “proclaiming” (d&p’s “witnessing”) to their faith in their “personal lives,” nourished in the liturgy, by making christ present through “service to others, especially those in need” (§42). in other words, g&c understands “evangelization” in the broad sense. thus, it cautions that in living out the gospel, “christians must put their trust in god, who will carry out his universal plan of salvation in ways that only he knows, for they are witnesses to christ, but they do not themselves have to implement the salvation of humankind” (ibid.). 26 g&c advises christians to live out their christian faith (or their evangelical mission) without any thought that they are bringing “salvation” themselves. that is god’s work. 27 also, consistent with a broad understanding of evangelizing mission is g&c’s list of the “goals of dialogue with judaism.” these include “mutual enrichment whereby the dialogue partners become recipients of gifts” (§44), fostering the experience of catholic-jewish dialogue among clergy, teachers, and future generations (§45), “joint engagement throughout the world for justice, peace, conservation of creation, and reconciliation” (§46), opposition to antisemi 21 d&p, §8. italics in original. however, it should be noted that this text intentionally did not address the special relationship between “christians and jews [which] has its own special requirements. these are not dealt with in this document” (note 8). 22 ibid. italics added. 23 ibid., §9. 24 ibid., §8. 25 ibid., §9. in its discussion d&p draws upon blessed paul vi’s apostolic exhortation evangelii nuntiandi (1975), especially §18 and §22, which demonstrate both broader and narrower uses of the term. 26 the added italics are an allusion to the discussion in dominus iesus §21 and ad gentes §7 that god bestows salvific grace “in ways known [only] to himself.” 27 see also note 35 below. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) tism (§47), and “support [of] the poor, disadvantaged, and sick” (§48). absent from this list is any hint to use dialogue “as a disguised invitation to baptism.” 28 without using its terminology, then, g&c reflects d&p’s categorical distinction between “dialogue” and “proclamation,” both of which are discrete activities within the church’s “evangelical mission.” into this discussion of the meanings of “evangelization” must now be brought g&c’s stress on the special religious status of jewish-catholic dialogue (§§14-15, 20). “judaism is not to be considered simply as another religion; the jews are instead our ‘elder brothers’...” (§14). therefore the jewish-christian dialogue can only with reservations be termed “inter-religious dialogue” in the true sense of the expression; one could however speak of a kind of “intra-religious” or “intra-familial” dialogue sui generis. in his address in the roman synagogue on 13 april 1986 saint pope john paul ii expressed this situation in these words: “the jewish religion is not ‘extrinsic’ to us but in a certain way is ‘intrinsic’ to our own religion. with judaism therefore we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion” (§20). if g&c understands the relationship between judaism and christianity to be so close as to be called “intra-religious,” and that therefore “the dialogue with judaism has a completely different character and is on a different level in comparison with the other world religions” (§20), then evangelization with respect to jews must inevitably also have a sui generis character. the singular standing of jews in catholic thought brings us back to the statement that the catholic church conducts no conversionary outreach to jews: “the church is therefore obliged to view evangelization to jews, who believe in the one god, in a different manner from that to people of other religions and world views. in concrete terms this means that the catholic church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards jews” (§40). according to the crrj, then, the “evangelizing mission” of the church regarding jews is to engage in what g&c calls “intra-religious” dialogue with them. still remaining is the question mentioned above 29 about the same paragraph §40: while there is a principled rejection of an institutional jewish mission, christians are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in jesus christ also to jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive manner, acknowledging that jews are bearers of god’s word, and particularly in view of the great tragedy of the shoah. 28 cardinal francis george, et al., “statement of principles for catholic-jewish dialogue” (october 2, 2009), http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/conversion/583usccbdialogue09oct2. 29 see note 19. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/conversion/583-usccbdialogue09oct2 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/conversion/583-usccbdialogue09oct2 cunningham: gifts and calling 10 could readers infer the crrj feels that catholics should dialogue with jews to “bear witness to their faith in jesus christ” in hopes that their jewish partners will be moved to embrace christian faith? is the adjective “institutional” merely disavowing organized missionizing campaigns, but tacitly blessing personal, individual efforts? are christians to proceed with special humility and sensitivity because after the shoah jews will vehemently resist such overtures? 30 given the history of perennial, sometimes violent, christian conversionary efforts, doubts and suspicions about ambiguities in ecclesiastical texts are warranted. such doubts are little assuaged by the circuitous roads along which core theological questions customarily unwind in catholic documents. sadly, “gifts and calling” does not unequivocally declare that christians’ “witness to their faith in jesus christ” in dialogue with jews is by definition never “a means of proselytism” or “intended as a disguised invitation to baptism.” 31 still, i believe the crrj takes this view of christian witness for granted since it is scattered in the writings of important curial figures over the preceding years. a few examples:  cardinal francis arinze, president of the pcid, 1985-2002: “dialogue does not aim at conversion in the sense of a change of religious allegiance, but conversion understood as greater readiness to do god’s will should be one of the aims and fruits of sincere interreligious dialogue.” 32  cardinal walter kasper: “the aim of dialogue is not for jews to become christians... giving up some of the essential elements of their individual traditions. dialogue sets partners before one another, each with their own identity. this is the only way they can speak to each other and mutually enrich one another. dialogue has nothing to do with proselytism.” 33  cardinal kurt koch: “genuine brotherhood can however only develop and flourish where conciliation is dared in trust, so that the former hostility can be transformed into friendship....[t]he two sides encounter one another with the mutual intention of reaching greater understanding, of engaging more intensively with one another, and collaborating together more effectively to bear witness to the world of today that even after a tragic history of conflict, reconciliation can take place and trust can become possible.” 34  pope francis: “this is what gospel proclamation is: it is saying with my words, with my witness: ‘i have a father. we are not orphans. we have a father,’ 30 adam gregerman raised these questions at a february 2015 consultation on g&c at saint joseph’s university. 31 george, et al., “statement of principles for catholic-jewish dialogue.” 32 the church in dialogue: walking with other believers (san francisco, ca: ignatius press, 1990), 331-332. 33 “the theology of the covenant as central issue in the jewish-christian dialogue,” dec 4, 2001, §i. see also his “commission,” §iii: “this is the very essence of dialogue—neither confusion or absorption, nor relativism or syncretism, but [the] encounter of different perspectives and horizons, and—as i have learned from jewish thinkers like martin buber and emmanuel levinas—recognition of the other in his/her otherness.” 34 “trust as the basic attitude in a culture of humanity,” february 26, 2013, §3. 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) and means sharing this sonship with the father and with everyone else. [some might say:] ‘father, now i understand: it is a question of convincing others, of proselytizing!’ no: it is nothing of the kind. the gospel is like seed: you scatter it, you scatter it with your words and with your witness. and then it is not you who calculate the statistics of the results; it is god who does. it is he who makes this seed germinate but we must sow it with the certainty that he will water it, that he gives the growth. and we do not gather in the harvest.” 35 importantly, in the last example pope francis was not even speaking about catholic-jewish dialogue, but about christian witness to the gospel at all times. surely, “convincing others” is even further removed from the commitment to a dialogue in which jews and catholics, each with their own identity (kasper), dare to trust each other (koch) in trying to do god’s will (arinze). indeed, francis has been so edified by jewish devotion to their faith in god over the centuries, which historically includes resisting persistent christian proselytizing efforts, that he feels “the church and the whole human family can never be sufficiently grateful to them.” 36 this developing understanding of christian witness provides the space within which g&c operates and should be interpreted. to summarize this discussion of a complex constellation of concepts, let me return to the list of binary questions that opened this section. future catholic documents should make explicit what g&c expresses imprecisely. a post-nostra aetate theological trajectory understands “evangelization” as the living out of christian faith in service to the reign of god, “mission” to jews as engaging in mutually enriching religious study with them, “witness” as explaining christian faith to jews in order to reciprocally experience covenantal relationship with god, and “dialogue” with jews as seeking to deepen a relationship of mutuality in service to the world. 3. promise and fulfillment the interconnected words “promise” and “fulfillment” respectively appear in one form or another eighteen and twelve times in g&c, and almost a dozen times promise is related to fulfillment or synonymous expressions (“realized,” “culminating point,” “final”). we might begin by asking what exactly are “the promises and commitments of god” (§17) of which g&c speaks, “promises which no human infidelity can nullify” (§21)? citing the new testament, the document makes it plain that the promises in question were made by god to israel as part of their covenantal rela 35 “address to participants in the ecclesial convention of the diocese of rome” (june 17, 2013), http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/june/documents/papafrancesco_20130617_convegno-diocesano-roma.html. n.b. g&c, §42: “christians must put their trust in god, who will carry out his universal plan of salvation in ways that only he knows, for they are witnesses to christ, but they do not themselves have to implement the salvation of humankind” (italics added). 36 “a letter to a non-believer,” september 11, 2013, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2013/documents/papafrancesco_20130911_eugenio-scalfari.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/june/documents/papa-francesco_20130617_convegno-diocesano-roma.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/june/documents/papa-francesco_20130617_convegno-diocesano-roma.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130911_eugenio-scalfari.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130911_eugenio-scalfari.html cunningham: gifts and calling 12 tionship: “in the first place there is the people to whom the covenants and promises were given...” (§43). israel became “the people of god” and the bearers of god’s “messages and promises” after their “liberation from slavery in egypt (cf. ex 13:17ff) and the establishment of the covenant at sinai.” they became the “witnesses of his merciful favor in the midst of the nations and also for the nations” (§21). although at various points, g&c alludes to the divine promises to israel in terms of “salvation” (§27), “the messiah promised to the jewish people” (§28 ), and a future “new and eternal covenant” (§32, cf. §18), it places at “the core of christian faith” the church’s confession that in christ “the promise has been fulfilled that all peoples will pray to the god of israel as the one god (cf. is 56:1-8)” (§35, cf. §25). g&c explicitly defines the promised “new covenant” this way: “christians are therefore also convinced that through the new covenant the abrahamic covenant has obtained that universality for all peoples which was originally intended in the call of abram (cf. gen 12:1-3). this recourse to the abrahamic promises is so essentially constitutive of the christian faith that the church without israel would be in danger of losing its locus in the history of salvation” (§33). the centrality of genesis 12:1-3 for g&c is also evident in §21: god’s “plan of salvation is expressed in an enlightening way at the beginning of biblical history in the call to abraham (gen 12ff).” such phrases as “the beginning of biblical history,” the “locus of the history of salvation,” “the core of christian faith,” and “essentially constitutive of the christian faith” underscore the importance to g&c’s authors that christ and the church fulfill the promise god declares to abram in genesis 12:3: “all the families of the earth will find blessing in you.” the document accords this biblical promise a special pride of place. significantly, g&c takes pains to stress that the “church does not replace the people of god of israel” (§23). “the new covenant for christians is...neither the annulment nor the replacement, but the fulfillment of the promises of the old covenant” (§32). this emphasis obviously flows from the commission’s acknowledgement of the irrevocability of judaism’s covenantal life with god but also brings us to the text’s understanding of fulfillment. 37 it is worth noting that g&c tends to speak of fulfillment in a “realized” manner without much explanation or qualification. it can therefore be read as conceiving of biblical promises only as having already been realized. thus, the “church...represents in [christ] the fulfillment of the promises made to israel, 37 g&c counters perennial christian thought in its insistence that the fulfillment of god’s promise to abraham that all the nations would find blessing in him does not mean the replacement of israel. as jeffrey s. siker observes: “christian controversy with judaism from about 50 to 150 c.e. began with gentile inclusion and ended with jewish exclusion. in this shift we see a nearly complete transition of christianity from its origins as a subgroup within judaism to its development into a full-blown gentile religious movement outside judaism. at the same time, we see a development of christian controversy with judaism to the point that christianity completely rejects judaism. this rejection marks a final stage in the controversy in that it is merely refined and restated in different ways by subsequent generations of christians, even to the present time.” [disinheriting the jews: abraham in early christian controversy (louisville, ky; westminster/john knox, 1991), 194.] 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) which [has] not achieved such a fulfillment...” (§23). “[t]he new covenant in christ is the culminating point of the promises of salvation of the old covenant.... jesus lives during the period of the old covenant, but in his work of salvation in the new covenant confirms and perfects the dimensions of the old” (§27). “in [christ] the promise has been fulfilled that all peoples will pray to the god of israel as the one god” (§35). to be sure, the use of the present tense in many of these passages can be construed as referring to an ongoing, incomplete process (as in “the new covenant is in the process of confirming and perfecting the old”), and at one point g&c avers christ’s transcending of israel’s mission and expectation “in an eschatological manner” (§14). however, most other vatican documents on relations with jews are notable for framing the discussion of “fulfillment” explicitly in the terms of a futurist or unrealized eschatology. there is an “already,” but also a “not yet.” the crrj’s 1974 “guidelines” states that christians “believe that those [biblical] promises were fulfilled with the first coming of christ. but it is none the less true that we still await their perfect fulfillment in his glorious return at the end of time.” 38 likewise, crrj’s 1985 vatican “notes” distinguishes between what is “already accomplished” and its future “fulfillment”: “salvation and liberation are already accomplished in christ and gradually realized by the sacraments in the church. this makes way for the fulfillment of god’s design, which awaits its final consummation with the return of jesus as messiah...” 39 the 2001 pbc study, the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible, offers these very apposite remarks: the notion of fulfillment is an extremely complex one....christian faith recognizes the fulfillment, in christ, of the scriptures and the hopes of israel, but it does not understand this fulfillment as a literal one. such a conception would be reductionist....what has already been accomplished in christ must yet be accomplished in us and in the world. the definitive fulfillment will be at the end with the resurrection of the dead, a new heaven and a new earth. jewish messianic expectation is not in vain. it can become for us christians a powerful stimulus to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. like them, we too live in expectation. 40 this “non-literal” understanding of fulfillment as a work in progress, or as a reality that christ has “irreversibly inaugurated,” 41 is, oddly, scarcely evident in g&c despite the ample precedents in earlier vatican texts. the document’s use of the language of fulfillment raised concerns for one of the document’s jewish consultants: “[p]lease allow me to express a warning: fulfillment easily slides into 38 ii, liturgy. 39 §9, cf. §11. 40 §21. 41 bishops’ committee on the liturgy, national conference of catholic bishops, god’s mercy endures forever: guidelines on the presentation of jews and judaism in catholic preaching (washington, d.c.: uscc, 1988), §11. cunningham: gifts and calling 14 replacement [theology]. as a jewish partner in the dialogue, i welcome further reflection on what fulfillment means in terms of relations with judaism....” 42 a futurist eschatology would have greatly assisted the commission in its twin goals of asserting the continuity of the church with biblical promises to israel while at the same time repeatedly and correctly denying that israel was replaced or rendered obsolete by the coming of christianity. 43 it would also have given added theological heft to the social justice goals described in g&c in §§4649 with the inspiring idea that jews and christians both have the “responsibility to prepare the world for the coming of the messiah.” 44 4. christ it may seem odd to conclude this analysis of key terms in g&c with such a fundamental word as “christ,” but how the figure of the messiah is conceived in an eschatological context is directly pertinent to the prior section. christians usually equate “christ” or “jesus christ” with “messiah” as if the terms were simply identical. the catechism of the catholic church, for instance, merely relates “christ” to the hebrew word mashiaḥ and states that “jesus fulfilled the messianic hopes of israel.” 45 g&c does likewise by referring “to the promised christ (messiah)” (§14), to “jesus as the christ, the messiah sent by god” (§15), and to “jesus christ as the messiah and the son of god” (§36). in the last case, though, it is difficult to tell if “christ” is meant to be synonymous with both “messiah” and “son of god”; and therein lies the problem. while “messiah” and “christ” are related etymologically, they have quite different meanings for jews and christians. in a study of biblical, late second temple, and rabbinic texts, joseph fitzmyer offers a succinct description of the differences in jewish and christian messianic conceptions as they emerged over time up to the present: [o]ne must stress that the expectation of a jewish messiah was not of one form.... the dominant expectation, however, was one that awaited a human kingly figure who was (and is) to bring deliverance, at once political, economic, and spiritual, to the jewish people and through them peace, 42 edward kessler, “reflections from a european jewish theologian” (december 10, 2015), http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analysis/crrj-2015dec10/1366kessler-2015dec10 43 at the same time, it should be cautioned that an unsophisticated appeal to a futurist eschatology by either christians or jews could simply extend into the end of days the long-lived, binary “winner/loser” model of their interrelations. some christians are content to speak of a “jewish turn to christ,” while some jews predict that christians will ultimately come to recognize their errors. it seems to me that post-nostra aetate theologians should strive to do better than that. for a “non-zerosum” futurist approach that envisions both traditions coming to appreciate eschatologically the rightness of their respective messianic understandings, see cunningham, seeking shalom, 199-201. 44 crrj, “notes” (1985), §11. 45 catechism of the catholic church (vatican city: libreria editrice vaticana, 1994), §436. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analysis/crrj-2015dec10/1366-kessler-2015dec10 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analysis/crrj-2015dec10/1366-kessler-2015dec10 15 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) prosperity, and righteousness to all humanity....in all of this jewish belief the expectation was (and is) still focused on the future: a messiah still to come. how different that jewish messiah is from the christian messiah, who has already come...[and has] been identified with jesus of nazareth, who was crucified as a criminal and rebel....his mission differed too, because it was no longer deliverance in a political or economic sense, but solely in a spiritual sense; and because it was aimed at all human beings, it no longer was considered as coming through a chosen people....in these respects, the christian messiah differs radically from the awaited jewish messiah.... 46 this difference is recognized in some ecclesiastical texts on relations with jews, which speak about jesus’ messiahship as both in continuity and discontinuity with israel’s expectations. the pontifical biblical commission provides the fullest discussion: in reality, in the mystery of christ crucified and risen, fulfillment is brought about in a manner unforeseen. it includes transcendence. jesus is not confined to playing an already fixed role—that of messiah—but he confers, on the notions of messiah and salvation, a fullness which could not have been imagined in advance; he fills them with a new reality; one can even speak in this connection of a “new creation.”...the messiahship of jesus has a meaning that is new and original. 47 an echo of this point is evident in g&c §14: “from the perspective of the christian faith, [jesus] fulfills the mission and expectation of israel in a perfect way. at the same time, however, he overcomes and transcends them in an eschatological manner.” i suggest that greater clarity could be brought to all the terms discussed in this essay if “messiah” was used only with regard to jewish expectations about this figure, and “christ” was used only for the reconfiguration of late second temple jewish messianic thought by a church convinced that the crucified one had been raised. jewish messianic ideas, which the pbc recognizes are “not in vain,” have been born out of israel’s experience of walking with god and will ultimately be fully realized “at the end with...a new heaven and a new earth.” 48 the church’s “christ,” like the jewish “messiah,” also has strong eschatological resonances, but with an explicitly proleptic cadence: “turn to god so that...he may send the christos already appointed for you, jesus, whom heaven must receive until the times of universal restoration” (acts 3:19-21), i.e. at the eschaton. the eschatological “one who is to come” (luke 7:20), whom christians believe “has already 46 joseph a. fitzmyer, the one who is to come (grand rapids, mi/cambridge, u.k.: eerdmans publishing co., 2007), 182-183. 47 pbc, “jewish people and their sacred scriptures,” §21. 48 ibid. cunningham: gifts and calling 16 shown his face in jesus of nazareth,” 49 brings the life of peace and justice of the age to come into the world today in a nascent manner, but “the fulfillment of god's design...awaits its final consummation.” 50 “christ” thus articulates the church’s defining and continuing experience of god’s logos (word) incarnated in the life, death, and exalted continuing life of jesus. this proposed differentiation between “messiah” and “christ” both respects jewish self-understanding and also better illuminates the distinctive christian experience. “christ,” much more than “messiah,” also conveys the chalcedonian neo-platonic formulation of the “hypostatic union”—everything attributable to the logos happens today in union with the glorified jesus, the one “who has been introduced into the ‘world to come.’” 51 importantly, as g&c notes (§24), the word’s activities are not thereby confined to the church’s experience of the logos incarnate in christ: “for jews the word of god is present above all in the torah....both faith traditions find their foundation in the one god, the god of the covenant, who reveals himself through his word.” 52 5. conclusion: some considerations for the future beyond the various terminological and theological suggestions made in the course of this essay, i would like to conclude by recalling the crrj’s axiom from 1974 that christians need to learn how “jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience.” 53 phrased negatively, this exhortation could be expressed as a commandment to catholic theologians: “when speaking of judaism, thou shalt not theologize without respect for jewish self-understanding.” 54 how does “gifts and calling” fare in this regard? the fact that the crrj shared drafts of the document with jewish specialists is praiseworthy and perhaps historic. but could input at an earlier stage of composition have made the document even richer, even if only by revealing some blind spots? for instance, g&c stresses that “through the new covenant the abrahamic covenant has obtained that universality for all peoples which was originally in 49 cardinal walter kasper, “the commission for religious relations with the jews: a crucial endeavour of the catholic church,” address delivered at boston college (november 6, 2002), iii. note also the mirroring phrasing in pbc, “jewish people and their sacred scriptures,” §21 that the eschatological coming one “will have the traits of the jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us.” italics added. see also crrj, “notes” ii, 10: “in underlining the eschatological dimension of christianity we shall reach a greater awareness that the people of god of the old and the new testament are tending towards a like end in the future: the coming or return of the messiah— even if they start from two different points of view. it is more clearly understood that the person of the messiah is not only a point of division for the people of god but also a point of convergence.” 50 crrj, “notes” (1985), ii, 9. 51 pontifical biblical commission, "instruction on the bible and christology," (january 6, 1984), §1.2.6.2. 52 see also cunningham, seeking shalom, 181-219. 53 crrj, “guidelines” (1974), preamble. 54 cunningham, “god holds the jews most dear,” 52. 17 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) tended in the call of abram (cf. gen 12:1-3).” it goes on to say that “jews could with regard to the abrahamic covenant arrive at the insight that israel without the church would be in danger of remaining too particularist and of failing to grasp the universality of its experience of god” (§33). this raises a host of questions: does such an assertion reflect jewish selfunderstanding? if the church is the realization of god’s promise that all the nations would worship the god of israel, does that suggest that the enduring covenantal mission of jews today has no ongoing universalistic significance as far as christians are concerned? should catholics understand that judaism today is guilty of “remaining too particularist and of failing to grasp the universality of its experience of god” (§33) if jews do not accept the church as achieving israel’s universal mission? must jews view being a light to the nations as having the highest priority the way christians do? moreover, in its consideration of biblical promises to the people israel, g&c focuses on one promise, the “blessing to the nations,” neglecting the fact that genesis 12:1-3 also includes the promise to abram of a land—a promise covenantally sealed in genesis 15:7, 18 and 17:7-8. 55 although g&c is aware of jewish religious attachment to the land of israel and even quotes an earlier crrj study in urging catholics to try to understand this connection (§5), it devotes no attention to the biblical land promise itself. this indicates a difficult but necessary task for the future: the development of a catholic theology of the land of israel that relates biblical land promises to the world of the twenty-first century (a challenge, incidentally, for jews as well). 56 the point is that by theologizing about judaism without the active contribution of jews, g&c runs the risk of presenting only unexamined christian understandings of jewish covenantal experiences that may subtly impart supersessionist ideas. even if the “document is a catholic text, formulated from a catholic perspective,” its authors also wanted to take “into account the positions of our [jewish] dialogue partners.” 57 this did not happen with regard to two key elements of jewish covenantal self-understanding: israel’s mission and the land of israel. which leads to the final question: must not the “personal encounters and face–to–face dialogues” (§8) between catholics and jews influence the theologies expressed in ecclesiastical documents? a statement from the pcid’s 1984 “dialogue and mission” (§21) is pertinent here: [i]n interpersonal dialogue one experiences one’s own limitations as well as the possibility of overcoming them. a person discovers that he does not possess the truth in a perfect and total way but can walk together with others towards that goal. mutual affirmation, reciprocal correction, and fraternal exchange lead the partners in dialogue to an ever greater maturity which in turn 55 my thanks to adam gregerman for this insight. 56 see cunningham, seeking shalom, 220-233. 57 norbert j. hofmann, press conference remarks. cunningham: gifts and calling 18 generates interpersonal communion. religious experiences and outlooks can themselves be purified and enriched in this process of encounter. if, therefore, “gifts and calling” is successful in “enriching and intensifying the theological dimension of jewish–catholic dialogue” (preface), perhaps in the not-too-distant future we will see joint catholic-jewish theological studies published with ecclesiastical approbation, as already occurs ecumenically, e.g., the lutheran world federation’s and the pontifical council for promoting christian unity’s 1994 “joint declaration on the doctrine of justification.” that would concretely manifest that the dialogue has indeed led to greater interpersonal communion and a deepening purification and enrichment of the respective theologies of its participants. in other words, we will have appreciably “come to terms” with each other as partners in covenant. 58 58 my thanks to members of the christian scholars group on christian-jewish relations, who offered helpful observations on the penultimate draft of this essay at their october 9, 2016 meeting in philadelphia. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): cunningham res1-9 cunningham, discerning the “stumbling block” cunningham res 1 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr discerning the "stumbling block" philip a. cunningham, institute for jewish-catholic relations of saint joseph’s university, philadelphia a response to cardinal kurt koch’s october 30, 2011 keynote address at seton hall university during the 10 th annual meeting of the council of centers on christian-jewish relations introduction cardinal kurt koch’s combined keynote address at the 10th annual meeting of the council of centers on jewish-christian relations (ccjr) and the 18th annual msgr. john m. oesterreicher memorial lecture, delivered at seton hall university on october 30, 2011, is quite important for a number of reasons. in addition to being the first major english address by the new president of the pontifical commission for religious relations with the jews, it can also be seen as providing a panoramic snapshot of the “state-of-the-question” from the vatican’s perspective regarding several important topics in catholic-jewish relations. furthermore, cardinal koch’s remarks, “theological questions and perspectives in jewish-catholic dialogue,” vividly demonstrate how far relations between the two communities have come in the nearly fifty years since nostra aetate. we are grappling with subjects that a half-century ago could scarcely have been imagined as even possible to discuss. i am indeed grateful for the cardinal’s very thoughtful presentation and his welcome of this symposium in studies in christian-jewish relations as an opportunity to share ideas about complex, sensitive, and in many ways unprecedented questions. as his predecessor cardinal walter kasper stated on more than one occasion, “nostra aetate was of course only the beginning of a new beginning. we are only at the start of a new start of a ‘christian theology of judaism’… many decisive questions still remain open.” 1 therefore, cardinal koch’s address offers a major stimulus for deepening the interreligious conversation as we christians and jews consider what he calls “the theological questions…in the forefront of jewish-christian dialogue.” i am also glad that the cardinal's remarks occasionally correct some unfortunate efforts in the past decade to weaken the impact of nostra aetate. i would like first to mention some ideas the cardinal expresses that strike me as particularly insightful and noteworthy. this will be followed by a few observations for future conversation. in the context of this symposium, i do so as a fellow catholic might chat with an academic colleague down the hall about matters that deeply concern us both. some significant statements in the first part of cardinal koch’s address about the “complex history between christians and jews,” he speaks movingly about the shoah. after distinguishing between “godless, 1 "the relationship of the old and the new covenant as one of the central issues in jewish-christian dialogue," centre for the study of jewish-christian relations, cambridge, u.k., december 06, 2004. response studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): cunningham res1-9 cunningham, discerning the “stumbling block” cunningham res 2 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr anti-christian and neo-pagan” nazism, he goes on to declare that “we christians nevertheless have every cause to remember our complicity in the horrific developments, and above all to confess that christian resistance to the boundless inhuman brutality of ideologically-based national socialist racism did not display that vigour and clarity which one should by rights have expected.” he acknowledges that “a christian theological anti-judaism had [fostered] a widespread anti-semitic apathy against the jews [and] was embedded in the furrows of the souls of not a few christians.” in what to me was an interesting new insight, he further comments that “[w]ith shame we christians must also acknowledge that hitler, with his joint rejection of both judaism and christianity, had grasped the true essence of christianity and its intrinsic relationship with judaism better than not a few christians themselves.” likewise very telling is his statement that “we christians must therefore honestly deplore the fact that only the unprecedented atrocity of the shoah was able to effect a real turning point in thinking,” which at the second vatican council “enabled a fundamental new beginning in the relationship between jews and christians” [emphasis added]. in the past decade some prominent catholics have engaged in what appeared to me to be a minimization of nostra aetate. 2 cardinal koch's forthright recognition that an “epoch-making new course [was] set by the council” seems to me to be utterly crucial if there is to be no future “recurrence of the dangerous estrangement between christians and jews” or if “the regained understanding of the jewish roots of christianity [is not to] lapse once more into oblivion.” i also very much appreciate the cardinal’s warning against the dangers of marcionism and antijudaism among “traditionalists” to the right and also “on the liberal side” to the left. the reform in catholic teaching regarding jews and judaism is a great centrist movement in the church, and is not primarily the domain of either the left or the right, both of which can and have gone to one extreme or the other. in the second and largest section of his address on the “unity and difference between judaism and christianity,” cardinal koch makes another very welcome caution about the danger of reducing the relationship between judaism and christianity "to the level of merely another variant of inter-religious conversation, so that its irreducible uniqueness is no longer brought to bear.” recalling pope john paul ii’s words about judaism being “intrinsic” to christianity, the cardinal clearly wants to stress the uniqueness of christian-jewish relations among all the other bilateral interreligious relationships in the world. in this perspective, it is therefore quite appropriate that the commission for religious relations with the jews that cardinal koch directs falls under the aegis of the pontifical council for promoting christian unity and not under the pontifical council for interreligious dialogue. this vatican organizational structure does not mean to suggest that judaism is a subset of christianity, but that the church sees its organic rapport with the jewish tradition and people as in a different category from its connections with all other religious heritages in the world. this distinctiveness is also evident in cardinal koch’s formulation that the new testament is not a substitute for the old testament. he notes, citing pope benedict xvi, that there were “two new ways of reading the old testament after the year 70, namely the christological exegesis of the christians and the rabbinical exegesis of that form of judaism which arose after the destruction of the temple.” setting aside the fact that the christian old testament and the jewish tanakh are not identical in content and arrangement, the cardinal very significantly observes that, “since 2 see my “official ecclesial documents to implement the second vatican council on relations with jews: ‘study them, become immersed in them, and put them into practice,’” studies in christian-jewish relations 4/1 (2009) at: http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/view/1521/1374 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/view/1521/1374 studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): cunningham res1-9 cunningham, discerning the “stumbling block” cunningham res 3 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr both modes each involved a new interpretation of the old testament, the crucial new question must be precisely how these two modes are related to one another. but since the christian church and post-biblical rabbinical and talmudic judaism, which originated only after the destruction of the temple, developed in parallel, this question cannot be answered from the new testament alone.” how the “two modes are related to one another” is not a question the new testament authors could address inasmuch as neither a christianity-distinct-from-judaism nor a normative rabbinic judaism yet existed. if christians today “want to rightly understand the will and word of god,” as cardinal koch quotes pope benedict, “after centuries of opposing positions we recognise it as our duty that these two ways—christian and jewish—of reading the biblical writings must enter into dialogue with one another…” implicitly, though quite clearly, this impetus to discern together god’s will presupposes that both christians and jews see something of value in each other’s traditions. from a christian perspective, this involves our contemporary recognition that god’s covenantal bond with the jewish people did not end with the destruction of the jerusalem temple, but continued through the rise of rabbinic and post-rabbinic judaism down to the present day. in my experience, some catholics do not take seriously the 1974 injunction of the commission that cardinal koch now heads to “strive to learn by what essential traits jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience,” 3 an axiom echoed repeatedly by pope john paul ii. 4 the need affirmed by cardinal koch for dialogue between christian and jewish traditions of biblical interpretation certainly honors the principle of learning from jewish self-understanding. the cardinal’s nuanced discussion of the “so-called mission to the jews” is also significant. he observes that: (1) the “universal salvific significance of jesus christ and consequently the universal mission of the church are of fundamental significance; (2) the church’s evangelical task vis-à-vis jews occurs “in a different manner from that to the nations;” (3) the catholic church “neither has nor supports any specific institutional [conversionary] mission work directed towards jews;" and (4) “the rejection of an institutional mission to the jews does not…exclude christians from bearing witness to their faith in jesus christ also to jews, but [they] should do so in a humble and unassuming manner” [emphasis added]. the phrase “bearing witness” in catholic parlance refers to the explanation of christian faith in the interest of fostering mutual understanding in service of the age to come, but without intending to convert the other. since cardinal koch had earlier spoken of the necessity for intense dialogue between christians and jews, his points here could perhaps be summarized as: the mission of the church toward jews is one of dialogue and witness. this recalls john paul ii’s statement very early in his papacy―almost charting its future course―that “we recognize with utmost clarity that the path along which we should proceed with the jewish religious community is one of fraternal dialogue and fruitful collaboration.” 5 the cardinal’s remarks here are directly relevant to a controversy that occurred in the united states in the summer of 2009. a statement issued by two offices of the united states conference of catholic bishops said: “though christian participation in interreligious dialogue would not normally include an explicit invitation to baptism and entrance into the church, the christian dialogue partner is always giving witness to the following of christ, to which all are implicitly 3 pontifical commission for religious relations with the jews, “guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate, no. 4” (1974), preamble. 4 “address to representatives of jewish organizations at the vatican,” march 12, 1979; “address to the german jewish community at mainz,” nov. 17, 1980; “address to the american jewish community in miami,” sept. 11, 1987. 5 “address to representatives of jewish organizations,” march 12, 1979. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): cunningham res1-9 cunningham, discerning the “stumbling block” cunningham res 4 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr invited.” 6 this blurring of the crucial distinction between the “proclamation” of the gospel in order to encourage baptism and the “witness” to christian faith in the context of interreligious dialogue, both of which are evangelical activities, alarmed catholics and jews alike. it not only appeared that catholics engaged in dialogue with jews should always hope for their conversion (thereby compromising their ability to learn from judaism), but perhaps they occasionally would explicitly invite their interlocutors to seek baptism. in response to a unanimous letter from all the jewish movements and major civic agencies in the united states that jews could not continue to converse with catholics with such an understanding, usccb leaders ordered the deletion of the murky sentence. cardinal koch’s comments on both dialogue and conversionary missions in relation to jews helpfully set the record straight about catholic teaching on these matters. following the second vatican council the church has continuously institutionally encouraged interreligious dialogue with jews and, indeed sponsors a number of formal, institutional dialogues with jewish leaders through the commission for religious relations with the jews. the church also does not have any "institutional mission work directed towards jews" to convert them. logically, these two facts are congruent because in the activity of interreligious dialogue, catholics are "bearing witness," not missionizing. some questions for future discussion turning now to reflections stimulated by the cardinal’s address, i would like to begin with his discussion that jews and christians are “one people of god, not two peoples of god.” when i first read this phrasing, i thought of a similar expression in the 1985 commission “notes,” which in reference to the eschaton spoke in the singular of “the people of god of the old and the new testament…tending towards a like end in the future: the coming or return of the messiah—even if they start from two different points of view.” 7 it may well be that most jews would be quite unhappy―for historical, demographic, and theological reasons―with the idea of a common peoplehood with christians. but from a catholic perspective, with its organic understanding of an intrinsic relationship with judaism, the use of “one people of god” language makes sense. for christians to see jews as totally a separate peoplehood would risk slipping into the marcionism that the church rejected long ago. jews and catholics can certainly agree to disagree about this phrasing, but still, as cardinal koch puts it, “live in mutual respect for one another.” i also wonder about the relationship among the concepts of: (1) jews and christians as one people, (2) who are in “one history of god’s covenant” and (3) their different “modes” of actualizing the tanakh/old testament as mentioned above. cardinal koch writes, “speaking of the one people of god however proves to be difficult because this single people of god lives in separated communities. it may therefore be most appropriate in regard to israel and the church to speak of the one people of god’s covenant, which however lives in two parts in a state of division.” my question is: if we can speak of two "modes" of interpreting the scriptures from ancient israel, why can we not also speak of one people who both are covenanting with god but in different "modes"? or alternatively, of one people of god in one history of god’s covenant, whose covenanting with god occurs in two "modes"? 6 committees on doctrine and ecumenical and interreligious affairs, usccb, “a note on ambiguities contained in ‘reflections on covenant and mission,’” june 18, 2009, §7. 7 pontifical commission for religious relations with the jews, “notes on the correct way to present jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church” (1985), ii, 10. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): cunningham res1-9 cunningham, discerning the “stumbling block” cunningham res 5 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr another question concerns the language of “fulfillment.” cardinal koch quite rightly stresses that the new testament has not superseded the old testament, insists that the new covenant is “neither the annulment nor the replacement of the old covenant,” and rejects the notion that “israel as the historical people is no longer a theological, ‘soteriological’ entity.” in each case he contrasts the unacceptable ideas of replacement, substitution, annulment, or obsolescence with “fulfillment.” thus, the old covenant and the new covenant “stand with each other in a relationship of promise or anticipation and fulfillment,” or as he writes elsewhere, “the incarnation of god in jesus of nazareth is to be understood as the culmination point and fulfillment of the selfrevealing god of holy scripture who turns towards the world…” my question about this relates fulfillment with eschatology. most, if not all, post-nostra aetate catholic documents concerning jews and judaism feature a futurist eschatology. they stress christianity’s unfinished aspect, as when christians daily pray in the lord’s prayer “thy kingdom come.” perhaps this is because a realized christian eschatology, stressing what has already been accomplished in christ, tends to overlook post-new testament jewish existence. 8 a futurist eschatology, on the other hand, fosters a respect for judaism’s ongoing religious history. thus, the commission’s 1985 “notes” observes that the church, “realized already in christ, yet awaits its definitive perfecting as the body of christ.” 9 it seems to me that “fulfillment” is virtually always conceived in terms of linear time. therefore, it unavoidably carries the connotation of something anticipated in the past now having been accomplished. or to put it another way, if most christians are used to thinking of "fulfillment" only in reference to a distant past (the old testament) that was fulfilled in the more recent past (the new testament), how will they be able to conceive of the unfulfilled present (of jews and christians) pointing to god's promises in the future? if the catholic church understands itself with jews as in a “pilgrim fellowship of the hopeful” into the eschatological future, then there is a danger that fulfillment language can mask the “unfinished” dimension of christianity while simultaneously implying that judaism is “finished.” does fulfillment language compromise the essential tension between the “already” and the “not yet” that is characteristic of christianity and of judaism, too, albeit in different ratios? the futurist perspective is certainly evident in such new testament texts as rom 8:21 (“creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of god”) and acts 3:21 (“[jesus] must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration that god announced long ago through his holy prophets”). therefore, how does the church “as it makes its pilgrim way in hope” 10 affirm its future expectations even while asserting what has already occurred? if “fulfillment” is problematic, 11 perhaps it is better to use the language of “confirmation.” this is in line with paul’s description of christ as the “yes” and “amen” of all god’s promises (2 cor 1:20), 8 this point relates to memorable sentences in the pontifical biblical commission's the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible (2001): "accordingly, excessive insistence, characteristic of a certain apologetic, on the probative value attributable to the fulfillment of prophecy must be discarded. this insistence has contributed to harsh judgments by christians of jews and their reading of the old testament: the more reference to christ is found in old testament texts, the more the incredulity of the jews is considered inexcusable and obstinate" [ii,a,5 §21]. 9 pcrrj, "notes" (1985), ii, 8. 10 second vatican council, unitatis redintegratio, 2. 11 i note parenthetically that even matthew’s explicit fulfillment language is not simple prediction/ accomplishment. for instance, his actualization of hosea 11:1 (“out of egypt i have called my son”—an exodus reference) does not understand the prophet as predicting the future but as remembering a past that is now being reprised. thus the studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): cunningham res1-9 cunningham, discerning the “stumbling block” cunningham res 6 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr as cardinal koch noted. thus, the new testament confirms the old testament, the new covenant confirms the old covenant, and the covenanting christian people confirm the covenanting jewish people. i will leave this discussion of fulfillment with the hopefully thought-provoking suggestion that understanding fulfillment as confirmation also has implications for how we christians view the eschatological future. if as pontifical biblical commission declared, “jewish messianic expectation is not in vain” 12 then it seems reasonable to expect that both jewish and christian messianic hopes will be confirmed on that day beyond days―not in some supersessionist zero sum calculus, but in the realization of all the aspirations of both co-covenanting communities. finally, i'd like to offer several thoughts about the paragraph in cardinal koch’s address that i found most stimulating. it concerns "the real stumbling block between christianity and judaism." when one reviews the fundamental commonalities and the equally elementary differences between judaism and christianity, it becomes clear that both faith communities perceive jesus of nazareth as a figure thoroughly rooted in the judaism of his time, but that the christian confession that the one god of israel has definitively revealed himself and shown his true face in jesus of nazareth stands between them, as the detailed conversation between pope benedict xvi and rabbi jacob neusner in the first volume of his book on jesus vividly demonstrated. they are indeed able to reach agreement on the fact that the earthly jesus claimed divine authority for himself, and in that they contradict prominent trends in historical-critical exegesis which explain the new testament confession of christ as a product of the post-easter community, and thus make jesus appear simply as a misunderstood jewish rabbi. if one follows such tendencies to their logical conclusion, the real stumbling block between christianity and judaism would be disposed of, and the motivation which makes jewish-christian dialogue necessary would also be eliminated. the dialogue between pope benedict xvi and rabbi neusner vividly draws attention to this predicament. for myself, i discern the "stumbling block" differently and so do not see the "predicament" to which the cardinal alludes in the same way. thus, i wonder about the repercussions of the phrase “the earthly jesus claimed divine authority for himself,” especially when contrasted with the contemporary exegetical consensus about this. i realize that i am broaching a vast topic with many corollary issues that neither these brief reflections nor cardinal koch’s wide-ranging address could adequately engage. let me also stress that i am not at all implying that the cardinal endorses any of the problematic implications that i discuss below. in fact, i am quite sure that the opposite is true. but i am concerned that indistinct suggestions about seeing "post-easter confessions of christ" as also at work pre-resurrectionally could be highly problematic. to begin, i need to describe how the majority of exegetes would comprehend the phrase “claimed divine authority for himself” because cardinal koch seems to prefer something different. it could be understood to mean that during his ministry jesus acted and spoke as certain matthean jesus recalls or affirms god’s recurring covenantal life with israel, something that reechoes down to the present day and beyond. 12 pontifical biblical commission, “the jewish people and their sacred scriptures in the christian bible” (2001), ii,a,5 §21. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): cunningham res1-9 cunningham, discerning the “stumbling block” cunningham res 7 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr that he was acting and speaking on behalf of god. he had the authority of a spokesperson for the divine. as david p. efroymson has put it: he claimed to know what god was doing―what he was up to―in the history of israel: god has now, jesus said, initiated his reign and his claim upon israel. he claimed to know the will of god: that god now demanded more of israel; that god wanted healing done, even on the sabbath; that god wanted following jesus to take precedence even over the obligation to bury a parent. he claimed to know whom god wanted in the kingdom, and under what conditions, at least now in a situation which jesus construed as an emergency. he thus claimed to speak for god, and, at least in his summons to israel and his initiative toward sinners, to act for god. this was a massive claim. 13 as someone thinking he could speak for god, jesus was functioning as a prophet. but jesus seems to have gone beyond this: there is a widespread consensus among exegetes that jesus acted, and presumably saw himself as, the climactic eschatological prophet, one who would herald and trigger the in-breaking of the age to come. after exhaustively examining jesus' halakhic teaching, john p. meier partially summarizes the picture in a way that many, if not most, exegetes would support: jesus was, if nothing else, a charismatic religious leader, specifically a charismatic prophet. ...[i]t is the very nature of a charismatic religious leader to claim to derive his or her authority not from traditional channels (e.g., law, custom, ordination, election, hereditary succession, seniority, lengthy study and experience) but rather directly from god. the religious charismatic intuitively knows god's will both in general and in particular, and that is sufficient reason for the charismatic's pronouncements and commands. the striking—indeed at his time unparalleled—formula that jesus used to introduce various pronouncements, "amen i say to you," sums up this claim of the charismatic leader and (more specifically in jesus' case) the eschatological prophet. obviously, such a claim would not endear the charismatic to the acknowledged religious authorities, whether priestly or scribal. it may be, then, that the only explanation for jesus' varied statement on the law is the very general one of the charismatic authority that he attributed to himself as the prophet sent to israel in the end-time. perhaps we might push this a step further: jesus' selfpresentation to israel as the elijah-like prophet of the end-time may help elucidate why he dares to appropriate to himself the authority to make startling decisions about the law, with no priestly status or formal scribal training on which to base his authority. 14 however, cardinal koch's comments about the exchange between pope benedict and rabbi jacob neusner suggest dissatisfaction with portraits such as efroymson's or meier's. apparently, there is a desire to see the “new testament confession of christ" as a pre-easter reality. because of the church’s later conflation of many christological titles and confessions, it is not clear what is meant by “christ” here. does it mean that before his crucifixion and resurrection jewish 13 david p. efroymson, “jesus: opposition and opponents” in david p. efroymson, eugene j. fisher, and leon klenicki, eds., within context: essays on jews and judaism in the new testament (philadelphia: american interfaith institute, 1993), 96. emphases in the original; scriptural citations in the original are omitted above for convenience. 14 john p. meier, the marginal jew: rethinking the historical jesus. vol. 4. law and love (new haven and london: yale university press, 2009), 655-656. emphasis in the original. i say "partial summary" above because i eagerly await volume v of meier's magisterial work. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): cunningham res1-9 cunningham, discerning the “stumbling block” cunningham res 8 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr followers and/or jesus himself were proclaiming him as “the anointed messiah,” or “the eschatological agent of god ushering in god’s kingdom,” or “one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven” [dn 7:13], or “the incarnate word,” or “the pre-existent son of god,” etc., etc.? since the cardinal goes on to say that seeing the “confession of christ” as a post-easter development would result in a jesus who is only a “misunderstood jewish rabbi” (an allusion to the book by amy-jill levine?) and thus remove “the real stumbling block between judaism and christianity,” it seems that “christ” and “divine authority” are being used in “high” christological senses, apparently meaning jesus claiming divinity in his own being or having personal divinity attributed to his own ontological being. this would mean that contemporaneous opposition to jesus would be based less on dismissing his claims to authoritatively act on behalf of god to condemning claims that he actually was god. is that the "real stumbling block between jews and christians" the cardinal mentions? it certainly reflects post-resurrectional debates between churches and mainstream jews (as in john 5:18), but whether it can be sustained as a real point of contention during jesus' earthly lifetime is the crucial question. if my inferences here are correct, several implications arise: a. every word in the new testament was written in the light of faith in the one who was crucified and raised (e.g., 1 cor 15:14,17, lk 1:1-4; jn 21:31). 15 when discussing the historical questions of how jesus presented himself to or was understood by jewish contemporaries, what methodologies are employed to avoid anachronistically retrojecting back onto his ministry insights that arose with resurrection faith? 16 b. the new testament does not offer conclusive evidence that jesus before his death claimed personal divinity or ontological divine filiation. as raymond e. brown wrote many years ago: “…the way in which jesus speaks of god as father certainly indicates that he claimed a special relationship to god. but it remains difficult to find in the synoptic account of the public ministry an incontrovertible proof that he claimed a unique sonship that other men could not share.” 17 indeed, the fact that there is so much new testament diversity in terms of even how the title “messiah” is employed, “would, a priori, make one think that jesus himself did not make lucidly affirmative messianic claims during his ministry.” 18 how then can someone today easily assert that such claims were a critical “stumbling block” during jesus’ earthly lifetime? 15 also relevant here is the formulation of the “three stages of gospel tradition,” discussed by or informing the second vatican council, dei verbum (1965), 19; and the following studies of the pontifical biblical commission: “instruction on the historical truth of the gospels” (1964), 7-10; “instruction on the bible and christology” (1984), 1.2.1, 2.2.2; and “the interpretation of the bible in the church” (1993), i. 16 this is a very pertinent question concerning jacob neusner, a rabbi talks with jesus: an intermillennial, interfaith exchange (new york: image books, 1994), the volume that pope benedict engaged in his own book as cited by cardinal koch. neusner anachronistically “dialogues” as a talmudic rabbi, taking for granted that rabbinic teachings written only in later centuries were current in the time of jesus, and he converses with the matthean jesus, without reckoning at all with matthew’s post-resurrectional creative reworking of earlier sources. see my review in new theology review, 9/1 (feb, 1996): 101-103. 17 raymond e. brown, jesus god and man (new york: macmillan, 1967), 91. brown's comment comes while exploring the question, "how much did jesus know?" as the latest gospel, the gospel of john tends to "suppress any suggestion that jesus had to gain ordinary knowledge" (46). in fact, "the johannine jesus has not undergone a kenosis, i.e., taken the form of a servant. in the incarnate jesus the glory of god's own son constantly shines forth for all who have eyes to see" (47). that is why brown's study focuses on the synoptic tradition in examining claims made by and about jesus before the crucifixion. 18 ibid., 82. studies in christian-jewish relations volume 7 (2012): cunningham res1-9 cunningham, discerning the “stumbling block” cunningham res 9 http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr c. given the perennial deicide charge leveled by christians down the centuries against jews, the need to try to discern how their resurrection faith shaped the evangelists' portrayals of opposition from jews to jesus is of heightened importance. it is absolutely vital when considering such passages as the blasphemy accusation in mt. 26:63-66. did caiaphas act against jesus because he “blasphemously” claimed to be divine son or because caiaphas feared that jesus’ “blasphemous” presumptuous arrogance imperiled the survival of the temple (cf. jn 11: 48)? 19 d. it seems to me that imagining jesus claimed ontological divinity during his ministry risks detaching him from his jewish identity, thereby making his humanity unspecific and generic, and so unreal. how can god’s word be appreciated as fully incarnate if jesus is not envisioned as one who gradually "came humanly to know" the traditions of judaism and thus “became an authentic son of israel, deeply rooted in his own people's long history? 20 indeed, to switch momentarily into greek metaphysical categories, one wonders how the chalcedonian distinction between the human and divine natures in christ is to be maintained if jesus is visualized as living on earth with a self-awareness of his divine sonship that could be propositionally expressed and thus create a “stumbling block”? 21 e. finally, it is not clear to me why perceiving the divine word as incarnate in jesus to be postresurrectional disposes of “the real stumbling block between christianity and judaism.” rather, the “stumbling block” becomes the experience of the resurrection itself. the mystery becomes why “god chose to reveal his son” (gal 1:15-16) to some jews and not to others. or why did god allow some people to experience that jesus had “been introduced to the ‘world to come’” 22 and others not to share in (or be inspired to be open to) that revelatory experience? ultimately, this leads to the mysteries of israel and the church as two interrelated but distinct co-covenanting traditions. surely, locating the “stumbling block” in the resurrection does not eliminate the need for catholics and jews to dialogue! to me, it entices both of us because of our spirit-inspired fascination with the holy one with whom we covenant. we want to learn from each other about our experiences of god and about the divine will for our relationship with god. for instance, why has god willed to relate to our two communities in different "modes"? is it some mistake or intended all along? as should be clear from these ruminations, cardinal koch’s address is a very rich survey of major topics in the catholic-jewish encounter and dialogue. the numerous reflections that it has triggered both for me and my colleagues in this symposium testify to its importance and insightfulness. i thank him again for his stimulating thoughts and look forward to pursuing the conversation in the future. 19 see the detailed discussion of the preand post-resurrectional connotations of blasphemy in raymond e. brown, the death of the messiah: from gethsemane to the grave (new york: doubleday, 1994), i: 520-547. 20 john paul ii, "address to the pontifical biblical commission," april 11, 1997, §3. 21 to repeat, cardinal koch has not claimed this, but it seems to me that speaking of a pre-easter “confession of christ” without further elaboration risks being poised on the edge of a slippery slope in this direction. no doubt there is present here a healthy tension between exegetical and dogmatic approaches to these questions, as discussed in karl rahner’s classic essay from fifty years ago, “dogmatic reflections on the knowledge and self-consciousness of christ.” rahner argues that jesus’ human awareness of being directly present to god can be seen as pre-thematic or intuitive in nature, an inner-subjective mystery that possibly cannot be conceptualized in human linguistic thought constructs. [see karl-h. kurger, trans., theological investigations. volume 5. later writings (baltimore: helicon press, 1966), 193-215.] rahner’s point is intensified when one considers, as he really did not, that jesus’ human consciousness was a jewish one and thus “rightly imbued with an extremely high, pure notion of the divine transcendence” [pcrrj, “guidelines” (1974), i]. 22 pontifical biblical commission, “instruction on the bible and christology” (1984), 1.2.6. scjr 13, no. 1 (2018): 1-3 azar ajaj, duane alexander miller, and philip sumpter arab evangelicals in israel (eugene, oregon: pickwick publications, 2016), xi + 142 pp. daniel g. hummel dhummel@wisc.edu university of wisconsin-madison, madison, wi 53706 as the authors of this concise introduction remind the reader more than once, arab evangelicals are a minority of a minority of a minority in israel. about twenty percent of israelis are arab, and only ten percent of those arabs are christian (less than two percent of israel’s population). arab evangelical christians, who are viewed and view themselves as separate from the rest of the arab christian community, number no more than 5,000. arab evangelicals in israel, written by arab evangelical scholar azar ajaj and two non-arab researchers, duane alexander miller and philip sumpter, offers historical, institutional, and demographic information about this community. it also supplies insights into key fissures in current israeli and palestinian societies, such as those between arab israelis (arab citizens of israel) and palestinians in the west bank, between arab evangelicals and the established orthodox churches, and between arab evangelicals and messianic jews (jewish converts to christianity) in israel. the book is divided into seven chapters. two are co-authored and five are written by a single author. each of the first six chapters covers an aspect of arab evangelical history, institutions, or identity. the final chapter contains an extensive bibliography of arabophone christianity in israel-palestine. the bibliography will be valuable to anyone interested in arab evangelicalism and extends from 1948 to 2013. while the book suffers from intermittent typographical errors and a lack of an index, it is otherwise well-produced. arab evangelicals in israel pays special attention to two contemporary institutions in particular: the convention of evangelical churches in israel and the nazareth evangelical theological seminary. the former, formed in 2005, is the arab evangelicals’ attempt to become recognized by the israeli government as an official religion of the state, a privilege extended so far only to those churches which existed in the land before 1948. such official recognition would allow church authorities to administer marriages, burials, wills, and other legal processes. virtually all arab evangelical churches in israel (some thirty-five or so) hummel: ajaj, miller, and sumpter’s arab evangelicals 2 belong to the ceci, apart from five churches of the closed brethren. the ceci has yet to achieve official status in israel. the second institution, the nazareth evangelical theological seminary, was founded in 2007, though baptist education in israel extends back decades. ajaj, a lecturer and administrator at nets, casts the school as an evangelical alternative to the more liberation-oriented bethlehem bible college (in the west bank). the latter, ajaj writes, teaches “palestinian contextual theology” (p. 28). this theology is highly critical of israel and probably best known to western scholars through the writings of naim ateek and the biennial christ at the checkpoint event. (on this topic ajaj draws on the work of uwe gabe.) operating in the context of israeli society at the cross-section of arab, israeli, and evangelical identities, nets is less strident in its criticism of israel and less sanguine about the possibility of muslim-christian coexistence in the future. these two institutions and the challenges they face are a microcosm of the broader concerns of arab evangelicals in israel. ajaj observes that while arab evangelicals are less alienated in israeli society than are arab israelis generally, they worry about “the radicalization of many of its jewish citizens” and their “inability to identify with the jewish state” because of discrimination and a national ideology that celebrates jewish migration to zion (pp. 10, 32). at the same time, ajaj reports that among arab evangelical pastors, attitudes toward islam are skeptical. “our respondents do not appear to agree,” writes ajaj, “with the western conviction that islam (correctly practiced) is peaceful and tolerant” (p. 58). the book offers a number of explanations for perceptions that arab evangelicals are outsiders. evangelical christianity is largely foreign to arabic culture; there are historical tensions between christians and muslims, and recently there has been a decline in arab nationalism, which had subsumed religious differences between muslims and christians under a shared ethnic identity. the prospect of a future palestinian state governed by sharia law (which currently undergirds the palestinian authority’s legal system) troubles arab evangelicals as well. the arab evangelical experience differs on these counts from the more established arab orthodox churches, most of which remain opposed to evangelicals and see the smaller community as a disruptive force. they discourage religious conversion, in contrast to arab evangelicals, who actively seek converts. this has led to confrontations not only with muslim and jewish authorities, but with orthodox leaders. miller, writing about christians from a muslim background, reports that those muslim converts to evangelical christianity whose conversion becomes public are often severely ostracized. moreover, such converts are almost uniformly refused membership in arab orthodox churches. this phenomenon is rare, but the different stances toward conversion indicate the wide chasm between arab evangelical and arab orthodox christians. arab evangelical relations with messianic jews are another area beset by deep problems. ajaj laments a lack of interest in such relations by the arab evangelical pastors he interviewed, likely out of resignation that political, social, and theological differences are too wide to justify expending energy on attempts at rapprochement. in particular, virtually all messianic jews believe that the state of 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 13, no. 1 (2018) israel is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy and that jews have a distinct role to play in history apart from gentile (including arab) christians. these beliefs have “become so central in the theology of many messianic jews,” writes ajaj, that any divergent view is deemed by these jews as wrongheaded or even antisemitic (p. 78). yet, as ajaj points out, the social position of arab evangelicals and messianic jews is in many ways similar. both are religious minorities at the margins of israeli society. despite differences in eschatology and some other theological topics, both are essentially evangelical christians, and both have a vested interest in making israeli culture more pluralistic. ajaj concludes by calling for a “healthy dialogue” that transcends the arab-jewish divide in israel (p. 90). the authors also consider the relationship of arab evangelicalism to western (american and european) churches. historically, the connections are quite close. the first arab baptist missionary in palestine was baptized at first baptist church of dallas in 1909. baptist missionaries to palestine were instrumental in building the arab evangelical community, founding churches and orphanages in arab communities in and around nazareth. the arab-israeli war in 1948-49 decimated the arab christian population within israel. afterward, western missionaries moved to “indigenize” local churches by promoting arab leadership, which later was called “contextualization.” this included less dependency, both financial and theological, on western evangelicals (p. 62). the close association between western evangelicals and christian zionism has also prompted arab evangelicals to try to distance themselves, even as they collaborate with (and depend financially on) american and european seminaries and missionaries. undoubtedly, one accomplishment of arab evangelicals in israel is bringing to the fore a community that most americans and europeans—including many scholars—are unacquainted with. their small numbers and marginal social position notwithstanding, arab evangelicals sit at the intersection of numerous fault lines in middle eastern and israeli-palestinian history. arab evangelicals in israel offers a sympathetic introduction to this community that awaits more sustained and thorough treatment. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-13 origen in the likeness of philo: eusebius of caesarea’s portrait of the model scholar justin m. rogers jrogers@fhu.edu freed-hardeman university, henderson, tn 38340 the name of philo of alexandria occurs more in the writings of eusebius of caesarea than in those of any other ancient author. philo’s name can be located over 20 times in the surviving literary corpus of eusebius, 1 and there is strong evidence that eusebius’ caesarean library is the very reason philo’s works exist today. 2 in all probability, the core of this library can be traced to the personal collection of origen when he settled in caesarea in 232 ce. 3 eusebius’ own teacher pamphilus expanded the library, and took great pains to copy and preserve origen’s own works. what we have, then, is a literary union between philo and origen, alexandrians within the same exegetical tradition. but we can go further. ilaria ramelli has argued that eusebius’ accounts of philo and origen in the ecclesiastical history are strikingly similar, picking up robert grant’s stress on the similarity between origen and the philonic therapeutae. 4 here, i further ramelli’s work by noting additional similarities in the eusebian biographical presentations. i also point to the tension eusebius felt between philo christianus and philo judaeus, a tension detectible in his presentation of the therapeutae, a group about whom philo reported and whom eusebius considered to be the first egyptian christians. 5 the result is that eusebius recognized philo to be exegetically closer to christianity, and religiously closer to judaism. this realization 1 for the references to philo in eusebius see the list in david t. runia, “philo in the patristic tradition,” in reading philo: a handbook to philo of alexandria, ed. torrey seland (grand rapids: eerdmans, 2014), 268–86, 278–79. 2 see david t. runia, “caesarea maritima and the survival of hellenistic-jewish literature,” in caesarea maritima: a retrospective after two millennia, ed. a. raban and k.g. holum (leiden: brill, 1996), 476–95. the conclusions of runia are accepted in the most recent treatment of the subject: andrew carriker, the library of eusebius of caesarea (leiden: brill, 2003). 3 i follow the chronology of pierre nautin, origène: sa vie et son oeuvre (paris: beauchesne, 1977). 4 ilaria l.e. ramelli, “the birth of the rome-alexandria connection: the early sources on mark and philo, and the petrine tradition,” studia philonica annual 23 (2011): 69–95. robert m. grant, eusebius as church historian (oxford: clarendon, 1980), 73–74. 5 philo’s “conversion” to christianity is a later development, but the seeds are already in eusebius. for a survey of the christian reception of philo see david t. runia, philo in early christian literature: a survey (assen/minneapolis: van gorcum/fortress, 1993). on the byzantine period specifically, see now runia, “philo in byzantium: an exploration,” vigiliae christianae 70 (2016): 259–281. rogers: origen in the likeness of philo 2 created an ambiguity in the ecclesiastical history in which eusebius explicitly presented philo not as a jew, but as a “hebrew.” eusebius’ portraits of philo about philo’s life, we learn very little from eusebius that we could not extract from a combination of philo’s own scattered comments and from the brief notice in josephus. 6 the one noteworthy piece of information, which eusebius introduced with λόγος ἔχει (“as the story goes”), 7 is that philo “encountered peter” in rome. 8 eusebius obviously anticipated objections to the report because he went on to say, “and this would not be unlikely,” and cited as evidence philo’s account of the therapeutae, whom eusebius considered to be christians. 9 so eusebius wished his readers to think that philo’s meeting with peter was authentic because philo praised the first christians in egypt; here too eusebius felt obligated to defend his identification. 10 philo in eusebius’ ecclesiastical history 2.4.2–3 we turn now to discuss eusebius’ presentation of philo as a renowned scholar of his day, who knew and recognized the significance of the first christians of egypt. eusebius began by stressing philo’s reputation for learning: in his reign [gaius caligula’s] philo became generally known as a man of the greatest distinction, not only among our own people but also among those of heathen education. he was a hebrew by racial descent but inferior to none of the magnates in authority in alexandria. the extent and quality of the labour he bestowed on the theological learning of his race is in fact patent to all, and it is not necessary to say anything of his position in philosophy and the liber 6 the only information josephus offers is found in ant. 18.259: “philo, the leader of the jewish embassy [to gaius caligula], a man esteemed in all things, brother of alexander the alabarch, and not inexperienced in philosophy” (φίλων ὁ προεστὼς τῶν ἰουδαίων τῆς πρεσβείας ἀνὴρ τὰ πάντα ἔνδοξος ἀλεξάνδρου τε τοῦ ἀλαβάρχου ἀδελφὸς ὢν καὶ φιλοσοφίας οὐκ ἄπειρος). 7 this citation formula has been analyzed by carriker, the library, 63–68, who observes that the phrase normally, although not always, introduces a written source in eusebius. b. gustafsson, “eusebius’ principles in handling his sources, as found in his church history, books i–vii,” studia patristica 24 (1961): 436, states that eusebius generally uses oral sources only for material closer to his own time (i.e., from book 6 onward). as david runia, philo in early christian literature, 7, seems to suggest, eusebius’ source here may have been clement of alexandria, since he is quoted immediately before this point in the narrative. 8 hist. eccl. 2.17.1. the greek text reads, ὃν καὶ λόγος ἔχει κατὰ κλαύδιον ἐπὶ τῆς ῥώμης εἰς ὁμιλίαν ἐλθεῖν πέτρῳ, τοῖς ἐκεῖσε τότε κηρύττοντι. 9 hist. eccl. 2.17.1. the greek reads, καὶ οὐκ ἀπεικὸς ἂν εἴη τοῦτό γε, ἐπεὶ καὶ ὅ φαμεν αὐτὸ σύγγραμμα, εἰς ὕστερον καὶ μετὰ χρόνους αὐτῷ πεπονημένον, σαφῶς τοὺς εἰς ἔτι νῦν καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς πεφυλαγμένους τῆς ἐκκλησίας περιέχει κανόνας. 10 the account is a piece of carefully constructed rhetoric aiming at persuasion, and clearly anticipating objection. see sabrina inowlocki, “eusebius of caesarea’s ‘interpretatio christiana’ of philo’s de vita contemplativa,” harvard theological review 97 (2004): 305–328. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) al studies of the heathen world since he is related to have surpassed all his contemporaries, especially in his zeal for the study of plato and pythagoras. 11 our concern here is not to determine whether eusebius was historically correct about the therapeutae, 12 but to examine how he presented philo as a scholar. 13 indeed, a little later eusebius says of philo, “moreover, from his very accurate description of the life of our ascetics it will be plain that he not only knew but welcomed, reverenced, and recognized the divine mission of the apostolic men of his day, who were, it appears, of hebrew origin, and thus still preserved most of the ancient customs in a strictly jewish manner.” 14 later eusebius says, “philo was rich in language and broad in thought, sublime and elevated in his views of the divine writings, and had made various and diverse his exposition of the sacred words.” 15 eusebius carefully crafted his vocabulary to make philo neither a christian nor an opponent, but respected by both. 16 he was “a man most noted” [ἐπισημότατος], says eusebius, “not only among our people, but also among those eager for education outside.” 17 having introduced his reputation both among christians and pagans, eusebius then referred to philo’s hebraic descent. it is true that philo here and elsewhere, along with josephus, received the more honorary eusebian designation of “hebrew” as opposed to the more hostile “jew.” but the term “hebrew” was not always clearly positive, and the term 11 hist. eccl. 2.4.2–3, trans. kirsopp lake, loeb classical library (cambridge, ma: harvard university press 1926-1932). the greek text reads as follows: κατὰ δὴ τοῦτον φίλων ἐγνωρίζετο πλείστοις, ἀνὴρ οὐ μόνον τῶν ἡμετέρων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἔξωθεν ὁρμωμένων παιδείας ἐπισημότατος. τὸ μὲν οὖν γένος ἀνέκαθεν ἑβραῖος ἦν, τῶν δ’ ἐπ’ ἀλεξανδρείας ἐν τέλει διαφανῶν οὐδενὸς χείρων, περὶ δὲ τὰ θεῖα καὶ πάτρια μαθήματα ὅσον τε καὶ ὁπηλίκον εἰσενήνεκται πόνον, ἔργῳ πᾶσι δῆλος, καὶ περὶ τὰ φιλόσοφα δὲ καὶ ἐλευθέρια τῆς ἔξωθεν παιδείας οἷός τις ἦν, οὐδὲν δεῖ λέγειν, ὅτε μάλιστα τὴν κατὰ πλάτωνα καὶ πυθαγόραν ἐζηλωκὼς ἀγωγήν, διενεγκεῖν ἅπαντας τοὺς καθ’ ἑαυτὸν ἱστορεῖται. 12 according to the acts of the apostles 2:10, certain “alexandrians” were in attendance at pentecost, although we cannot know that these alexandrian jews were converted, as robert grant assumes in his eusebius as church historian, 51. 13 on eusebius’ presentation of people see grant, eusebius as church historian, 76–83. 14 hist. eccl. 2.17.2 (trans. lake, lcl). the greek text reads as follows: ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν βίον τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν ἀσκητῶν ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα ἀκριβέστατα ἱστορῶν, γένοιτ’ ἂν ἔκδηλος οὐκ εἰδὼς μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀποδεχόμενος ἐκθειάζων τε καὶ σεμνύνων τοὺς κατ’ αὐτὸν ἀποστολικοὺς ἄνδρας, ἐξ ἑβραίων, ὡς ἔοικε, γεγονότας ταύτῃ τε ἰουδαϊκώτερον τῶν παλαιῶν ἔτι τὰ πλεῖστα διατηροῦντας ἐθῶν. 15 hist. eccl. 2.18.1 (trans. lake, lcl). the greek text reads as follows: πολύς γε μὴν τῷ λόγῳ καὶ πλατὺς ταῖς διανοίαις, ὑψηλός τε ὢν καὶ μετέωρος ἐν ταῖς εἰς τὰς θείας γραφὰς θεωρίαις γεγενημένος, ποικίλην καὶ πολύτροπον τῶν ἱερῶν λόγων πεποίηται τὴν ὑφήγησιν. 16 eusebius’ portrait serves to identify philo as both “other” and familiar (for a similar strategy of treating heresy, see eduard iricinschi and holger m. zellentin, heresy and identity in late antiquity 1–21). a similar attempt to sketch oneself through the eyes of the familiar other is observable in the christian ethnographic tradition as well. see todd s. berzon, classifying christians: ethnography, heresiology, and the limits of knowledge in late antiquity (berkeley: university of california press, 2016), esp. chs. 2–4. 17 hist. eccl. 2.4.2. the greek reads, κατὰ δὴ τοῦτον φίλων ἐγνωρίζετο πλείστοις, ἀνὴρ οὐ μόνον τῶν ἡμετέρων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἔξωθεν ὁρμωμένων παιδείας ἐπισημότατος. josephus, by comparison, is called “most noted [ἐπισημότατος] of the historians among the hebrews” (1.5.3). rogers: origen in the likeness of philo 4 “jew” was associated with philo and josephus elsewhere in eusebius. 18 in fact, sabrina inowlocki’s research leads her to the conclusion that, at least in his apologetic writings, eusebius applied the term “hebrew” to jewish authors only when he “intend[ed] to connect them to christianity.” 19 this general observation holds true for the philo materials in the ecclesiastical history as well. connecting “hebrews” with christianity was indeed an overt aim of eusebius. after responding to the sensitive point that the term “christian” was new to human vocabulary, eusebius wrote: but even if we are clearly new, and this really fresh name of christians is recently known among all nations, nevertheless our life and method of conduct [τῆς ἀγωγῆς ὁ τρόπος], in accordance with the precepts of religion, has not been recently invented by us, but from the first creation of man, so to speak, has been upheld by the natural concepts of the men of old who were friends of god, as we will here demonstrate. the race of the hebrews is not new but is honoured among all men for its antiquity and is itself well known to all. 20 eusebius then goes on to state emphatically that all the righteous characters from adam to abraham might well be called “christians in fact, if not in name.” 21 so the original “christians” were actually “hebrews.” 22 it aligned with eusebius’ introductory agenda, then, to locate the first egyptian christians among the hebrew community of alexandria. a hebrew might be a “jew,” of course, but could also be a christian, depending on the chronology of the individual in question. eusebius called the hellenistic jewish author aristobulus and eleazar, the high priest in the letter of aristeas, “hebrews by race but [who] flourished chronologically at the time of the ptolemies.” 23 philo was likewise a “hebrew” by race, although the chronology of philo’s life must have created a problem in the mind of eusebius. he was a contemporary of the apostles, and even met peter. this ought to suggest his christian conversion. 18 on these terms in eusebius as they relate to philo and josephus see sabrina inowlocki, eusebius and the jewish authors: his citation technique in an apologetic context (leiden: brill, 2006), 105– 38. 19 inowlocki, eusebius and the jewish authors, 121. 20 hist. eccl. 1.4.4–5 (trans. lake, lcl). the greek text reads as follows: ἀλλ’ εἰ καὶ νέοι σαφῶς ἡμεῖς καὶ τοῦτο καινὸν ὄντως ὄνομα τὸ χριστιανῶν ἀρτίως παρὰ πᾶσιν ἔθνεσιν γνωρίζεται, ὁ βίος δ’ οὖν ὅμως καὶ τῆς ἀγωγῆς ὁ τρόπος αὐτοῖς εὐσεβείας δόγμασιν ὅτι μὴ ἔναγχος ὑφ’ ἡμῶν ἐπιπέπλασται, ἐκ πρώτης δ’ ὡς εἰπεῖν ἀνθρωπογονίας φυσικαῖς ἐννοίαις τῶν πάλαι θεοφιλῶν ἀνδρῶν κατωρθοῦτο, ὧδέ πως ἐπιδείξομεν. οὐ νέον, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρὰ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἀρχαιότητι τετιμημένον ἔθνος, τοῖς πᾶσι καὶ αὐτὸ γνώριμον, τὸ ἑβραίων τυγχάνει. 21 hist. eccl. 1.4.6. on this question see aryeh kofsky, eusebius of caesarea against paganism (leiden: brill, 2000), 100–36. 22 using the name “hebrew” would have distanced the christians from contemporary jews with whom they were still in debate, which served an apologetic interest when engaging pagan intellectual culture. on porphyry’s respect for the theology and religious devotion of the jews, see aaron p. johnson, religion and identity in porphyry of tyre: the limits of hellenism in late antiquity (cambridge: cambridge university press, 2013), 273–82. 23 ἀνδρῶν τὸ μὲν γένος ἑβραίων ἀνέκαθεν, τὸν δὲ χρόνον κατὰ τοὺς πτολεμαίων χρόνους διαπρεψάντων (praep. ev. 8.8.56). 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) however, philo’s own writings, well-known to eusebius’ readers, gave no hint that he accepted christian faith. thus he was dropped at the doorstep of christian conversion. 24 the term “hebrew” alone is not enough for eusebius’ readers to know for sure the religious identity of someone living at the beginning of the christian era. but eusebius complicated matters further. after acknowledging the therapeutae were indeed “from the hebrews” [ἐξ ἑβραίων], he stated they “were still rather jewish [ἰουδαϊκώτερον] in their preservation of most of the ancient customs.” 25 according to inowlocki, the comparative adjective “rather jewish” in the ecclesiastical history elsewhere describes “christian groups willing to keep jewish law, such as the ebionites, 26 or those willing to interpret the scriptures as the jews do, like the schismatic nepos.” 27 eusebius, then, identified the therapeutae, as jewish christians, while allowing his source of information about them, philo, to remain only a hebrew. 28 this left philo’s own status ambiguous. eusebius’ identifying both philo and the therapeutae as “hebrews” drew on his discussion in ecclesiastical history 1.4.4–5 about hebrews being the original “christians,” 29 and thus served to create a comparative ambiguity between the identities of philo and the therapeutae. 30 eusebius hinted at philo’s connection with the “original” hebrews with the adverb ἀνέκαθεν (“originally, formerly,” or “by birth”). this term may not mean that philo was a hebrew “by birth,” for this much is implied by the term τὸ γένος (“race”). it could either be that philo is connected with the “original” hebrews by race (i.e., those pre-christian “christians”), 31 or that he was “formerly” a hebrew by race. 32 this interpretation squares with what inowlocki says the term “hebrew” means in eusebius. it is chronological insofar as it refers to virtuous people prior to the mosaic law, and it is religious/ethical insofar as it refers to righteous jews after the law independent of their keeping it. 33 so again, we are confronted with an ambiguity. 24 j.e. bruns, “philo christianus: the debris of a legend,” harvard theological review 66 (1973): 142, assumes that eusebius accepted philo’s conversion to christianity. i do not think eusebius provides enough information for us to draw that conclusion definitively. 25 ἰουδαϊκώτερον τῶν παλαιῶν ἔτι τὰ πλεῖστα διατηροῦντας ἐθῶν (hist. eccl. 2.17.2). 26 hist. eccl. 6.17.1. 27 hist. eccl. 7.24.1; “eusebius of caesarea’s ‘interpretatio christiana,’” 312. 28 by way of comparison it should be noted that the entire jerusalem church before the time of hadrian “consisted of hebrews” (hist. eccl. 4.5.2). eusebius thus may have an apologetic motive in linking the “original” jerusalem church with the alexandrian therapeutae to lend credibility to the latter’s christian identity. 29 eusebius is clear that the therapeutae are christians even if the name is never assigned to them (hist. eccl. 2.17.4–6). 30 timothy barnes, constantine and eusebius (cambridge: harvard university press, 1981), 185, observes, “judaism comes into eusebius’ scheme as a purely transitional stage, to prepare the way for the new covenant of jesus which diffused the religion of the patriarchs to all mankind.” 31 this seems to be the meaning intended in hist. eccl. 1.22.2. 32 the term does refer to ethnic jews who were converted, for all the bishops of jerusalem, eusebius says, were hebrews ἀνέκαθεν (hist. eccl. 4.5.2). 33 inowlocki, eusebius and the jewish authors, 112. rogers: origen in the likeness of philo 6 ironically, eusebius’ philo was more christian than the actual “christian” therapeutae whose activity he reports, for philo was never described as being “rather jewish” (ἰουδαϊκώτερος), and in fact was never even termed “jew” (ἰουδαῖος) in the ecclesiastical history. surely this is intentional. but neither did eusebius explicitly convert him. philo was almost a christian just as the therapeutae were almost jews. philo in ecclesiastical history 2.17 the second section of biographical information on philo comes immediately before eusebius discusses the therapeutae. a careful analysis of eusebius’ language here reveals just how much he presented philo as admiring christianity. 34 it is indeed difficult to imagine someone so smitten with christianity (as eusebius presents the evidence) who did not himself convert. immediately before citing philo’s account of the therapeutae, eusebius wrote that philo “not only knew [οἴδα], but welcomed [ἀποδέχομαι], reverenced [ἐκθειάζω] and recognized the divine mission [σεμνύνω] of the apostolic men of his day.” 35 especially the last two terms, ἐκθειάζω and σεμνύνω, carry specialized senses deserving analysis. the former term, ἐκθειάζω, means “to deify,” and is often used negatively of idols, ideas and creatures worshipped among the pagans. 36 the term can be used, however, of reverence or admiration, especially of non-christians toward the christian life. for instance, clement, after citing a number of texts to demonstrate that “christian” virtue is valued among the greeks, concluded, “you see how even the greeks deify [ἐκθειάζω] the gnostic life, although not knowing how it must be understood.” 37 the author of the exhortation to the greeks, in giving his account of the translation of the septuagint, portrayed ptolemy ii philadelphius marveling at the work, and calling the translators “godloving men” (θεοφιλεῖς ἄνδρες), and “deifying [ἐκθειάζω] the books.” 38 certainly neither of these authors wished to express deification literally, as did the neo-platonists, for whom the term became equivalent to the ethical ideal of ὁμοίωσις θεῷ, or “likeness to 34 inowlocki’s discussion of eusebius’ language, “eusebius of caesarea’s ‘interpretatio christiana,’” 320–21, is confused and unnecessarily critical of lake’s translation. to begin, she discusses what she perceives to be the mistranslation of three participles when in fact there are four in question (which she confuses with one another). she also accidentally substitutes the verb ἀποδέχομαι (which is in the text) for ὑποδέχομαι (which is not in the text, but which she unintelligibly explains). she then misunderstands the english verb “knew” to be lake’s translation of the participle ἀποδεχόμενος (a term she had just interpreted as ὑποδεχόμενος) when in fact it is a (good) translation of the contextual εἰδώς. finally, she understands lake’s translation of σεμνύνω to be only “to recognize” when in fact it is “to recognize the divine mission,” a startling close equivalent to inowlocki’s proposed rendering, “to recognize as divine.” 35 hist. eccl. 2.17.2 (trans. lake, lcl). 36 see lampe, a patristic greek lexicon (oxford: oxford university press, 1961), s.v. “ἐκθειάζω,” 427, and the word study in norman russell, the doctrine of deification in the greek patristic tradition (oxford: oxford university press, 2005), 341–42, although the latter does not mention eusebius’ usage. 37 strom. 5.11.69. 38 cohort. 14.b. 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) god.” 39 but for eusebius and his colleagues the strong metaphor elevated those occasional non-christians who recognized distinctively “christian” (anachronistically applied) truths. this word thus speaks in favor of philo’s remaining an outside admirer of christianity. the second term, σεμνύνω, again reminds us of divination, for the term often means “to honor as divine.” 40 in eusebius, though, the term most often indicates “irreverent boasting.” this context is one of the few occasions in which the term is positive in eusebius. kirsopp lake translates the term in such a way as to stress that philo “recognized the divine mission” of the first egyptian christians. like josephus, who recognized the greatness of john the baptizer and jesus, 41 philo met peter in rome, and subsequently “became a hearer” (ἐπακροασαμένος) of the therapeutae, a participle that might hint at the philosophical technical term ἀκροατής. 42 thus, this description of philo suggests that eusebius was asking, “how could philo have described christianity in such glowing terms, and possibly have been a student of peter himself, and yet not have been converted?” such a combination of honorable terms is rare in eusebius’ biographical presentations, and indeed sets philo apart. it would not be inconceivable for a reader of eusebius to jump to the conclusion that philo described the therapeutae when he was still an outsider to christianity, but later in his life, after “hearing” the apostle peter, converted to become a christian himself. eusebius’ portraits of philo and origen compared in contrast to his brief discussions of philo, eusebius spent a significant portion of book six of his ecclesiastical history detailing the life of origen, from his childhood to his martyrdom. eusebius in fact gave far more attention to origen than to any other figure. in his portrait, eusebius described origen’s prodigious learning, his religious fervor, his philosophical life, his ecclesiastical conflicts and finally his worldwide renown from caesarea. lorenzo perrone suggests eusebius’ purpose, writing, “this biographical sketch, even if we take into account its apologetic tendency, offers a very clear idea of the principles and values that should inspire the conduct of a christian writer.” 43 beyond this, though, patricia cox miller, in her thorough analysis of the account, isolates two major apologetic purposes. 44 eusebius wished first to defend origen against those who questioned his christian orthodoxy, and second, to defend him against those who 39 see plato’s theaet. 176b, and its interpretation in porphyry (marc. 17) and proclus (e.g., el. theol. 129, 135, 153). 40 lampe, a patristic greek lexicon, s.v. σεμνύνω. 41 josephus, ant. 18.63 (jesus); 18.116–117 (john). on eusebius’ discussions see hist. eccl. 1.11.3–9. 42 hist. eccl. 2.17.12: “this seems to have been said by a man who had listened to their expositions of the sacred scriptures” (ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἔοικεν εἰρῆσθαι τῷ ἀνδρὶ τὰς ἱερὰς ἐξηγουμένων αὐτῶν ἐπακροασαμένῳ γραφάς). 43 “eusebius of caesarea as a christian writer” in caesarea maritima…,516. 44 biography in late antiquity: a quest for the holy man (berkeley: university of california press, 1983), 69–101. rogers: origen in the likeness of philo 8 questioned his philosophical integrity. 45 these purposes were exemplified in a most extreme way. eusebius could cite porphyry as a witness to origen’s pagan philosophical acumen, and could also himself boast of origen’s ascetic act of self-castration! porphyry’s testimony represents a ringing endorsement from one of the finest philosophical minds of late antiquity, and origen’s ascetic deed suggests the strictest spiritual discipline. eusebius’ presentation of philo’s biography was missing this overt apologetic, but he portrayed philo in terms similar to origen, both as a renowned philosophical mind and as a noted scriptural exegete. the following chart expands slightly on ramelli’s categories of the correspondences between philo and origen in eusebius’ ecclesiastical history: 46 category philo origen famous for learning 2.4.2 6.2.15; 6.18.2; 6.19.5 (a quotation of porphyry); 6.21.3 a reputation even among pagans 2.4.2 6.3.1, 13; 6.30.1 noted for scriptural learning 2.4.2; 2.18.1 6.2.7–9; 6.3.9; 16.1.1; 6.21.3 extraordinary labor (πόνος) 2.4.2 6.2.7, 9; 6.3.7, 13 large literary oeuvre 2.4.2; 2.18.1–8 6.23.1–6.25.13; 6.32.1–3 philosophical competence and recognition 2.4.2 6.18.2–6.19.14 acquaintance with platonism and pythagoreanism 2.4.2 6.19.7–8 45 cox miller, biography, 70. 46 i borrow the similarities from ramelli, “the birth,” 79–80, but trace most of the explicit references myself. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) some might think these similarities are sufficiently broad to be applied to virtually any thinker eusebius admired. but this is not the case. for example, elizabeth penland asserts that eusebius’ portrait of his teacher pamphilus was patterned after origen’s biography in the ecclesiastical history, 47 yet his comments on the life of pamphilus conformed only to two of the above-mentioned categories, namely his extraordinary labor and his renown for scriptural learning. 48 eusebius emphasized these same two qualities in his accounts of clement of alexandria as well, 49 although it is remarkable that he credited clement, who cited plato by name over 150 times in his own works, only with general knowledge of “the opinions of the philosophers.” 50 in fact, although eusebius named plato over 450 times in his preparation for the gospel, he mentioned him only three times in the ecclesiastical history, once in connection with philo, once in connection with origen, and once in a direct quotation from justin martyr. 51 other church leaders partially match philo’s biography, but none as closely or specifically as origen. 52 it seems, then, that eusebius can be regarded as having followed a characteristic outline when presenting his heroes in the ecclesiastical history, for many of them share common elements. but no author received as full a treatment as origen, and origen’s biography is closer to philo’s than to any other figure about whom eusebius reported. eusebius, it seems, expanded his model in his portraits of philo and origen, intentionally presenting the two as equals. this leads us to the conclusion that eusebius regarded philo as a representative scholar just like clement, origen, and even his personal teacher, pamphilus. 53 the difference, of course, is that he identified these other figures explicitly as christians. philo was not. his meeting with peter ought to suggest that philo converted, but neither eusebius nor jerome made this claim explicitly. 54 through their biographical similarities, philo and origen stood as pillars of learning and scriptural exegesis. philo may have represented the finest “christian” scholarship, but he was not himself clearly christian. 47 it should be noted that eusebius emphasized the “philosophic life,” and thus formed a connection between origen and pamphilus that was not present in his account of philo (see penland, “the history of the caesarean present: eusebius and narratives of origen,” in eusebius of caesarea: tradition and innovations, ed. aaron johnson and jeremy schott (washington, d.c.: center for hellenic studies, 2013), http://chs.harvard.edu/chs/article/display/5870. 48 his “industry” (σπουδή) is in reference to his assembling the works of origen (see hist. eccl. 6.32.3). his fame is further emphasized in mart. pal. 11.2. 49 hist. eccl. 5.11.1–5; 6.6; 6.13.1–9. 50 hist. eccl. 6.13.5. 51 hist. eccl. 2.4.3 (philo), 4.8.5 (justin) and 6.19.8 (origen). 52 both josephus (hist. eccl. 3.9) and justin (hist. eccl. 4.11.8–11; 4.18.1–3) match in particulars, but not in all of the categories here outlined. 53 jerome followed eusebius in portraying philo as the model scholar (see vir. ill. 8, 11, which is mostly a paraphrase of eusebius’ ecclesiastical history), but resisted drawing explicit comparison between philo and origen. for jerome’s latin readers, varro was placed in this honored position (epist. 33.4, referenced in vir. ill. 54.8). did jerome read eusebius the way i suggest we should we read him, but substituted varro (a non-christian latin literary giant) for philo (a non-christian greek literary giant)? i am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this intriguing possibility. 54 photius reports that philo did convert, but later apostatized (bib. cod. 105). http://chs.harvard.edu/chs/article/display/5870 rogers: origen in the likeness of philo 10 eusebius’ motives assuming we are correct about our proposals above, why did eusebius wish to establish such a close connection between philo and origen? there are at least two answers to this question. first, we must believe eusebius was simply following the lead of origen himself. even though origen only mentioned philo by name three times in his extant works, 55 he referred to him anonymously as a “predecessor” no less than twenty three additional times. 56 ilaria ramelli expresses the importance of these references as follows: origen tends expressly to refer to philo as a predecessor precisely in points that are crucial to his scriptural allegorical method. this strongly suggests that philo was his main inspirer for the very technique of philosophical allegoresis of scripture, and that origen both was well aware of this and acknowledged his debt. 57 eusebius may have been one of the few early christians in a position to read philo’s works thoroughly enough to recognize the actual source of origen’s anonymous references to predecessors. the very language origen used (“one before us,” τις τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν) placed philo squarely in the tradition of which origen considered himself an heir. add to this the use of philo eusebius most certainly observed in clement of alexandria. 58 eusebius, therefore, must have recognized the importance of philo in the tradition of alexandrian scriptural exegesis as it had come down to him, 59 but wished not to identify philo, the originator of this tradition, explicitly as a jew. 60 philo still remained dangerously jewish, not in terms of his scriptural interpreta 55 cels. 4.51; 6.21; comm. matt. 15.3. 56 research into philo’s influence on origen is summarized in my forthcoming, “origen’s use of philo judaeus,” in the oxford handbook of origen (oxford: oxford university press). the excellent survey and catalogue of annewies van den hoek is a starting point for all subsequent research. see her “philo and origen: a descriptive catalogue of their relationship, studia philonica annual 12 (2000): 44–121; and “assessing philo’s influence in christian alexandria: the case of origen,” in shem in the tents of japheth: essays on the encounter of judaism and hellenism (leiden: brill, 2002), 223–39. 57 “philo as origen’s declared model: allegorical and historical exegesis of scripture,” studies in christian-jewish relations 7 (2012): 6 (http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr). 58 on clement’s use of philo see annewies van den hoek, clement of alexandria and his use of philo in the stromateis: an early christian reshaping of a jewish model (leiden: brill, 1988). 59 on the alexandrian “tradition” as it is transmitted in clement, see van den hoek, “how alexandrian was clement of alexandria? reflections on clement and his alexandrian background,” heythrop journal 31 (1990): 179–94. 60 such a move is found for the first time in theodore of mopsuestia’s treatise against the allegorists. see frederick g. mcleod, theodore of mopsuestia (new york: routledge, 2010), 75–79 in english. for the syriac text with french translation see lucas von rompay, théodore de mopsueste: fragments syriaques du commentaire des psaumes (psaume 118 et psaumes 138–148) (louvain: peeters, 1982). http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) tion (he was quite “christian” here), but in terms of his religion. 61 yet philo as christian was not an explicit step eusebius wished to take. perhaps anti-judaic apologetics led eusebius to “convert,” as it were, the therapeutae, who provided eusebius with “evidence” of first generation egyptian christianity. 62 since philo was his only source for the therapeutae, philo played the useful role of an outsider who recognized the merits of the earliest christians. in this way, he received similar treatment to josephus. however, the exegetical connections between origen and philo were too obvious to be dismissed. philo was not just a historian providing facts; his exegesis was woven into the fabric of origen’s own work. philo was then to be regarded as part of the christian tradition without necessarily becoming a christian himself. 63 secondly, one of eusebius’ greatest desires was to establish continuity between contemporary and original christian communities. 64 this goal was complicated in the case of alexandria by two factors. first, eusebius dated the presence of the church and the renowned catechetical school there to the most ancient times in christian history. the only information eusebius appears to have had about the alexandrian church is that mark first preached the gospel in egypt. 65 everything else he claims for egyptian christianity must come from philo. second, the only firm information we have about alexandrian christianity prior to the time of pantaenus (flourit ca. 180 ce) would lead us to associate it with the gnostic activities of basilides (flourit ca. 125 ce) and the formative years of valentinus (flourit ca. 135). 66 eusebius needed to ignore this “heterodox” period to establish his thesis of orthodox purity from the beginning (i.e., from philo’s time) to origen. 67 this served to confirm origen’s own orthodoxy. so philo served not only to offer eusebius an eyewitness account of the first alexandrian “christians,” but also, i would argue, to link the latter day catecheti 61 n.r.m. de lange, origen and the jews: studies in jewish-christian relations in third century palestine (cambridge: cambridge university press, 1976), 105, says of origen that he “never speaks of the jewish interpretation as literal except to condemn it.” as we have discussed, eusebius would follow such a distinction between hostile jew and honorable hebrew. 62 the jews are eusebius’ most often-mentioned opponents (see barnes, constantine and eusebius, 164–88). 63 barnes calls philo for eusebius “a quasi-christian” (constantine and eusebius, 130). 64 this is one of the five primary themes of the ecclesiastical history proposed by grant, eusebius, 45–59. 65 hist. eccl. 2.16.1. it appears that this information comes via papias or clement of alexandria, or possibly both (see hist. eccl. 2.15.2). 66 attila jakab, ecclesia alexandrina: evolution sociale et institutionnelle di christianisme alexandrine (ii e et iii e siecles) (wien: lang, 2001), 50, refers to basilides as “le premier personage «chrétien» réellement connu à alexandrie.” on the difficultly of reconstructing this period, see c. wilfred griggs, early egyptian christianity: from its origins to 451 c.e. (leiden: brill, 2000), 45– 56, and jakab, 49–89. 67 the heretical beginnings of alexandrian christianity is a major cornerstone of walter bauer’s famous thesis that heterodoxy preceded orthodoxy. see his orthodoxy and heresy in earliest christianity, ed. robert kraft and gerhard krodel (philadelphia: fortress, 1971); see also the reception history of the bauer thesis in thomas a. robinson, the bauer thesis examined: the geography of heresy in the early christian church (lewiston/queenston: mellen, 1988). rogers: origen in the likeness of philo 12 cal school with the ancient one. 68 although eusebius did not trace the history of the school directly to philo, he did say “from ancient custom a school of sacred learning existed among them.” 69 since eusebius labored to identify a succession of individuals at the head of the catechetical school, at least from the time of pantaenus, and a specific succession of bishops at the head of the church, we are inclined to assume that his “from ancient custom” is not a generic reference to the therapeutae, but alluded instead to a certain anonymous individual, which alert and educated readers could readily assume to be philo himself. indeed, mark was the only other individual he mentioned in connection with early alexandrian christianity, and eusebius never tied mark specifically with the therapeutae or the scholasticism among them. if we can know anything about early christian scholasticism in alexandria, it is most likely jewish, if not philonic, in origin. 70 if not institutionally, at least intellectually, philo exerted his influence on the alexandrian christian community, beginning with clement, and possibly with pantaenus. this great cradle of christian philosophy drew its inspiration from alexandrian judaism. their bible was an alexandrian production, at least in their minds. their tradition was littered with jewish influences, with aristobulus, the wisdom of solomon and philo. their understandings of philosophical and theological categories were, in many cases, articulated first by philo himself. eusebius could not have missed all of these influences. but things were more complicated with philo, who lived at the time of the apostles. his stamp was clearly visible in alexandrian christianity, as eusebius knew, and he was a primary witness—the only surviving witness—to the earliest egyptian christianity as eusebius wished to present it. so, when it suited his purposes, philo was at once an honored hebrew, a virtual convert to christianity, and now an outsider providing “objective” eye-witness testimony to the community of the therapeutae. conclusion the great historian of early christianity, henry chadwick, opened an essay on philo with the ironic observation, “the history of christian philosophy begins 68 the literature on the alexandrian christian διδασκαλεῖον is immense. modern discussion must begin with the essays of gustave bardy, “aux origenes de l’école d’alexandrie,” revue des sciences religieuses 27 (1937): 65–90; and “pour l’histoire de l’école d’alexandrie,” vivre et penser 2 (1942): 80–109. for philo’s potential role, see annewies van den hoek, “the catechetical school of early christian alexandria and its philonic heritage,” harvard theological review 90 (1997): 59–87, and gregory sterling, “the school of sacred laws: the social setting of philo’s treatises,” vigiliae christianae 53 (1999): 148–64. for a convenient survey of the history of research on the school prior to pantaenus, see jakab, ecclesia alexandrina, 91–106. 69 hist. eccl. 5.10.1. 70 see van den hoek, “the catechetical school.” if sterling is correct about philo operating a school, then it is possible that christians who borrowed philo’s exegetical method would also have borrowed the institutional model (“the school of sacred laws”). sterling returns to the question in a forthcoming publication, “philo’s school: the social setting of philo’s commentaries,” in sophisten in hellenismus und kaiserzeit: orte, methoden und personen der bildungsvermittlung, ed. beatrice wyss (tübingen: mohr siebeck), in which he argues that philo’s commentaries are best viewed from an institutional scholastic setting. i would like to thank prof. sterling for sharing this essay with me. 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) not with a christian but with a jew, philo of alexandria.” 71 eusebius would likely have agreed, mutatis mutandis. it is remarkable that his biographies of origen and philo were so closely aligned. philo in fact shared more in common with origen than with any other figure presented in the ecclesiastical history. but the religious status of philo remained usefully ambiguous, at least in the ecclesiastical history. he was not yet philo christianus, nor was he entirely still philo judaeus. for eusebius, he was philo hebraicus, a designation that could be construed as it suited eusebius’ contextual needs. philo was the sole witness to the earliest alexandrian christians, the therapeutae, and he was a personal acquaintance of the apostle peter. so even though eusebius did not quite “convert” philo, he did respect philo’s role in the tradition of alexandrian christian exegesis. to do so was simply to follow his hero origen, who repeatedly acknowledged philo, usually anonymously, as a predecessor. for this reason, i think, eusebius ironically portrayed philo in terms similar to origen as the model scholar, regardless of his ethnic or religious affiliation. 71 “philo and the beginnings of christian thought,” in the cambridge history of later greek and early medieval philosophy, ed. a.a. armstrong (cambridge: cambridge university press, 1967), 137. 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-10 “gifts and calling”: the fruits of coming to know living jews ruth langer ruth.langer@bc.edu boston college, chestnut hill, ma 02467 this article was generated from the february 2016 saint joseph’s university “consultation on the newest statements about the christian-jewish relationship.” as the gentile church became dominant during the first few centuries of the common era, it generated a growing literature against jews, but the jews described were generally christian constructions that had little to no connection to any jewish reality. 1 until modernity, we find few records of actual encounters between christians and jews where christians were genuinely interested in learning about jews’ self-understanding–except where they were seeking tools for more effective missionizing. 2 little changed even in the modern period, as the sad history of the churches and the shoah demonstrates. in the process of implementing nostra aetate’s teachings about jews and judaism, the catholic church came to realize that its leaders and laity needed to come to know jews. this process has deeply transformed catholic-jewish relations, a transformation that permeates the vatican’s commission for religious relations with the jews newest document, issued in december 2015, “‘the gifts and calling of god are irrevocable’ (rom 11:29): a reflection on theological questions pertaining to catholic-jewish relations on the occasion of the 50 th anniversary of nostra aetate (no. 4).” 3 this essay will first trace the emergence of this living engagement and then turn to an analysis of how it has shaped this new document. background: nostra aetate and its implementation– from constructed to living jews on june 13, 1960, holocaust survivor jules isaac challenged pope john xxiii to include a new teaching about jews and judaism in the work of the sec 1 see jeremy cohen, living letters of the law: ideas of the jew in medieval christianity (berkeley, ca: university of california press, 1999), “introduction.” 2 so, for example, the medieval dominican studies of judaism, most famously raymond martini’s massive missionary manual, the pugio fidei. so too most early modern christian hebraist studies of judaism. see yaacov deutsch, judaism in christian eyes: ethnographic descriptions of jews and judaism in early modern europe, trans. avi aronsky (oxford/new york: oxford university press, 2012). 3 henceforth g&c with paragraph numbers indicated in the text. langer: “gifts and calling”: the fruits of coming to know living jews 2 ond vatican council. however, it was much easier for him to convince the pope of the need for this new teaching than for the church to formulate it. cardinal augustin bea, whom pope john xxiii tasked with drafting a document on the jews, consulted extensively, both with jews and with christians, many of them converts from judaism. 4 the resultant text of what became nostra aetate, 4 (and lumen gentium, 16) had to pass muster, though, with the international community of bishops who with a few exceptions lacked this personal encounter with jews. many were also deeply steeped in the inherited anti-jewish reflexes that isaac had named to the pope. one critical result was that, while the conciliar documents themselves carefully reinserted christianity back into its jewish roots and condemned many aspects of christian anti-judaism, they did not engage with judaism itself with any specificity, even from an inner-catholic perspective. consequently, one possible reading of the council’s positive teachings about jews and judaism is that they pertain only to pre-christian times and say nothing about judaism’s subsequent theological status. 5 if so, catholics might still teach that all post-biblical forms of judaism are not according to god’s will. this is not a neutral stance, but is instead potentially quite dangerous. this christian assessment of contemporary forms of judaism fueled some of the most virulent excesses of institutionalized medieval christian anti-judaism, some of the predecessors of the shoah. augustine (d. 430 ce) had taught that as “living letters of the law,” jews had a positive purpose in god’s plan; as such, they should be tolerated in christian society as witnesses to the suffering reserved for those who reject christ. in the medieval period, when christians discovered that jews lived according to rabbinic interpretation of the bible, even this toleration broke down, and the era of expulsions, forced conversions, ghettoization, and other persecutions began. 6 thus, if nostra aetate, 4 accepts the validity of god’s biblical covenant with israel but does not speak about contemporary judaism, it fails to fulfill pope john xxiii’s mandate. while conciliar documents are of utmost authority for the catholic church, what ultimately matters most is how they are interpreted and implemented. otherwise, they remain just words on paper. inevitably, various bodies in the church, from the vatican’s commission for religious relations with the jews (crrj), to 4 john connelly, from enemy to brother: the revolution in catholic teaching on the jews, 1933– 1965 (cambridge, ma: harvard university press, 2012), 5, makes the point that “it was christians whose family members were jews who keenly felt the contempt contained in traditional catholic teaching,” making them, especially converts to christianity, the first and the most persistent to call for changes. for details of the direct role of these advisors to cardinal bea, see ch. 8, “the second vatican council.” 5 gavin d’costa, vatican ii: catholic doctrines on jews and muslims (oxford: oxford university press, 2014), makes this point multiple times in his ch. 3, “the council and the jews: a ‘dramatic change’ in doctrine?” see for instance pp. 122, 133– 134 (discussing the debates over the third draft in september 1964), and 140 (discussing the final draft’s deliberate vagueness on the question). 6 this is the argument of jeremy cohen, living letters of the law…, especially “part four: the friars reconsidered,” which revisits his the friars and the jews: the evolution of medieval anti-judaism (ithaca, ny: cornell university press, 1982). christian attention to what jews actually do and believe begins in the thirteenth century. see my cursing the christians?: a history of the birkat haminim (new york: oxford university press, 2012), ch. 3, for liturgical data that verifies his insights. 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) national councils of bishops, to local dioceses and parishes, have lifted up some elements of nostra aetate, 4 more than others. one of the factors shaping such choices has been the spread of face-to-face deep engagement with contemporary jews wherever possible. this engagement with living jews and judaism began for a few catholic leaders in the actual process of drafting what became nostra aetate, and they embedded in it a recommendation that catholics achieve “that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.” 7 it could be debated whether this actual encounter of “fraternal dialogue” is here a secondary, less esteemed category than the bookoriented “biblical and theological studies” that do not necessarily require a jewish presence. the us catholic bishops’ committee on ecumenical and interreligious affairs soon provided the broadest possible reading of this recommendation in their march 1967 “guidelines for catholic-jewish relations.” 8 the american bishops had strongly supported the process that led to nostra aetate. 9 after the council, they were conscious of their responsibility, as catholics living in proximity to the largest jewish community of the time, to continue this leadership. their document calls not only for dialogue and study by those theologically equipped to do so, but also for effective fostering of catholic-jewish understanding “at the popular level by means of so-called ‘open houses’ in places of worship, mutual visits to schools, joint social events, and ‘living room dialogues’.” these are to be “pressed forward without delay.” 10 naturally, this remained only a call for dialogue, one that could not yet show its fruits. however, by emphasizing dialogue and face-to-face encounters, these bishops obviously intended to engage with the jews and judaism of their own day. the most important language mandating direct engagement with jews appears in the crrj’s first international implementation document for the new way of approaching jews and judaism, its december 1974 “guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate, no. 4.” reiterating language coined first by the french bishops in an april 1973 statement, the “guidelines” introduction ends with the directive, “christians must … strive to acquire a better knowledge of the basic components of the religious tradition of judaism; they must strive to learn by what essential traits jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience.” while “basic components of the religious tradition of judaism” could refer to judaism in some historical form, learning the “essential traits” by which “jews define themselves 7 all catholic documents are cited from the versions posted on “dialogika: the english language supersite for resources and research in christian-jewish relations,” at http://www.ccjr.us/dialogikaresources. i have not included specific urls here. 8 this document was updated and reissued in 1985. 9 as documented by james rudin, cushing, spellman, o’connor: the surprising story of how three american cardinals transformed catholic-jewish relations (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 2012). 10 recommended programs 6 and 9. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources langer: “gifts and calling”: the fruits of coming to know living jews 4 in light of their own religious experience” requires an engagement with contemporary jews. indeed, part i of the document, on “dialogue” continues: from now on, real dialogue must be established. dialogue presupposes that each side wishes to know the other, and wishes to increase and deepen its knowledge of the other. it constitutes a particularly suitable means of favoring a better mutual knowledge and, especially in the case of dialogue between jews and christians, of probing the riches of one's own tradition. dialogue demands respect for the other as he is; above all, respect for his faith and his religious convictions. this first section concludes with a tentative call for common prayer, especially in the context of joint social action. 11 this call for understanding contemporary jews is perhaps one of the most widely cited elements of this document. the american bishops heard this directive and elaborated on it in their 1975 “statement on catholic-jewish relations,” issued both to mark the tenth anniversary of nostra aetate and to implement the 1974 vatican “guidelines” in the american context. their statement reflects on the fact that in the previous decade, “an age of dialogue was begun. conversations between catholics and jews proliferated rapidly in many forms. productive meetings took place on every level....” towards the end of this text, a fruit of these dialogues becomes evident. the bishops state, “to revere only the ancient jewish patriarchs and prophets is not enough…the [vatican] guidelines … urge us to see post-biblical judaism as rich in religious values and worthy of our sincere respect and esteem.” after citing the key sentences from the “guidelines” about striving to comprehend jewish self-understanding, the bishops continue: in dialogue with christians, jews have explained that they do not consider themselves as a church, a sect, or a denomination, as is the case among christian communities, but rather as a peoplehood that is not solely racial, ethnic or religious, but in a sense a composite of all these. it is for such reasons that an overwhelming majority of jews see themselves bound in one way or another to the land of israel. most jews see this tie to the land as essential to their jewishness. whatever difficulties christians may experience in sharing this view they should strive to understand this link between land and people which jews have expressed in their writings and worship throughout two millennia as a longing for the homeland, holy zion. this is the sole element of jewish self-understanding that the bishops include in such detail. it is likely that they had learned through experience just how im 11 “in whatever circumstances as shall prove possible and mutually acceptable, one might encourage a common meeting in the presence of god, in prayer and silent meditation, a highly efficacious way of finding that humility, that openness of heart and mind, which are necessary prerequisites for a deep knowledge of oneself and of others. in particular, that will be done in connection with great causes such as the struggle for peace and justice.” 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) portant this was to the jewish community, and that this responds to the jewish criticism, voiced not much earlier, that the 1974 “guidelines” omitted precisely this point. 12 indeed, this remains a delicate issue. rabbi david rosen criticized this same omission in g&c in his statement at the press conference at which the document was made public. 13 of course, answering the “guidelines’” mandate to come to know jews personally requires the presence and participation of jews. this may explain why the german bishops conference could not make it an explicit element of their otherwise wide-ranging and important 1980 statement “the church and the jews.” 14 however, the vatican continued to voice this call. addressing a gathering of episcopal conference delegates and consultors of the crrj on march 6, 1982, pope john paul ii explicitly commended those gathered for their engagement in serious, substantive dialogue with jews; he commented that it benefits the church to assess jews’ and christians’ common spiritual patrimony “carefully in itself and with due awareness of the faith and religious life of the jewish people as they are professed and practiced still today” [emphasis mine]. the crrj attended to contemporary jews’ self-understanding in its next official publication, its 1985 statement “notes on the correct way to present jews and judaism in preaching and catechesis in the roman catholic church,” before reiterating the language of the “guidelines.” 15 (this document also includes a first, carefully guarded statement from the vatican about jews’ religious attachment to israel, one that echoes elements of the american 1975 statement.) while there have been a few additional documents from various vatican offices since 1985 that contribute to catholic-jewish relations, they do not add to the “guidelines’” mandate to understand jewish self-experience. it has, though, been regularly invoked by popes, especially john paul ii 16 and later by benedict xvi 17 and francis, 18 and cardinals, especially the presidents of the crrj. 19 12 “jewish leaders welcome, with some reservations, new vatican guidelines, meeting set in rome,” jewish telegraphic agency [jta] (january 6, 1975), http://www.jta.org/1975/01/06/archive/jewish-leaders-welcome-with-some-reservations-new-vaticanguidelines-meeting-set-in-rome. compare the even more critical response of israeli religious leaders, “raphael, goren rap vatican guidelines on jewish-christian relations,” jta (january 8, 1975), http://www.jta.org/1975/01/08/archive/rafael-goren-rap-vatican-guidelines-on-jewish-christianrelations (both accessed february 18, 2015). see also the articles run in 1975 in the new york jewish week, manhattan edition. 13 “reflections from israel,” (december 10, 2015), on dialogika. see below for a critique of g&c’s discussion of covenant, which is where israel should have appeared. 14 in english translation on dialogika. 15 in paragraphs 3 and 4 respectively. 16 in the vatican on mar 12, 1979; in mainz, germany on nov 17, 1980; in miami on sept 11, 1987. 17 at the great synagogue of rome, jan 17, 2010. 18 evangelii gaudium,§249. 19 cardinal walter kasper: iccj meeting in montevideo, uruguay, july 12, 2001; israel museum, jerusalem, nov 21, 2001; cardinal kurt koch: angelicum university, rome, may 16, 2012. see also crrj, “notes” (1985), i, 4. http://www.jta.org/1975/01/06/archive/jewish-leaders-welcome-with-some-reservations-new-vatican-guidelines-meeting-set-in-rome http://www.jta.org/1975/01/06/archive/jewish-leaders-welcome-with-some-reservations-new-vatican-guidelines-meeting-set-in-rome http://www.jta.org/1975/01/08/archive/rafael-goren-rap-vatican-guidelines-on-jewish-christian-relations http://www.jta.org/1975/01/08/archive/rafael-goren-rap-vatican-guidelines-on-jewish-christian-relations langer: “gifts and calling”: the fruits of coming to know living jews 6 the impact of understanding jews on “gifts and calling” the fruits of dialogue, including a growing comprehension of jewish selfunderstanding, permeate “gifts and calling.” these create the conditions that allow it to address its central and more challenging topics, the ones for which it presents contemporary theological conundrums and calls for further reflection. the document consistently acknowledges and engages with jewish selfunderstanding, even when turning to topics on which catholics and jews differ. this gives its discussions integrity and creates grounds for further dialogue. g&c opens with a historical survey of the past half-century in which it lifts up precisely our theme. it relates that “[t]he fundamental esteem for judaism expressed in ‘nostra aetate’ (no. 4)…has enabled communities that once faced one another with scepticism 20 to become–step by step over the years–reliable partners and even good friends, capable of weathering crises together and negotiating conflicts positively” (§2). this sentence rephrases nostra aetate’s “esteem for judaism” as “reliable partners and even good friends,” i.e., relationships with living people rather than an attitude to a religion. when g&c’s historical survey then says that “becoming acquainted with judaism as it defines itself” is the “crucial and new concern” of the 1974 “guidelines,” it must mean the contemporary religion. the rest of the “guidelines” receives little comment (§4). the summary of the 1985 “notes” focuses on the element that arose from that search for understanding, i.e. the role of the land and state of israel (§5). after attention to the work of the pontifical biblical commission in engaging with jewish texts, g&c turns to the occasions for direct personal interaction that have been developed (§§8-12) and affirms that all these forms of dialogue have created “the awareness that christians and jews are irrevocably interdependent, and that the dialogue between the two is not a matter of choice but of duty as far as theology is concerned” (§13). this it explains through the words of pope francis: the “rich complementarity” between jewish and christian communities allows them to read their shared texts together and together to serve the world (evangelii gaudium, 249). this complementarity, though, is grounded in an understanding of living judaism. the citation from the pope’s encyclical begins with an important acknowledgement: “it is true that certain christian beliefs are unacceptable to judaism.” christians are coming to understand jewish theological limits and to find ways to work together in spite of them. the fruits of this interface with real jews and judaism instead of a christian construct play themselves out in a variety of dimensions as the document proceeds. it is obviously still central to part 2’s discussion of the special theological status of dialogue with jews for christians. nostra aetate had retrieved the historical jewish setting of the new testament, but g&c adds an adjective, insisting 20 this word grossly underplays the historical reality of christian-jewish relations through the centuries! 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) that one must understand jesus and his disciples’ teaching “in the context of the living tradition of israel” (§14). this necessarily still requires an understanding of first-century judaism, but one explicitly characterized positively. g&c employs factual, informational tones throughout to describe the differences between contemporary jewish and christian understandings. for instance, in §14, g&c says that for christians, simply understanding the historical jesus is necessary but insufficient. however, the christological teachings are “beyond the horizon of jewish expectation….the figure of jesus thus is and remains for jews the ‘stumbling block’, the central and neuralgic point in jewish-catholic dialogue.” this leads to another level of understanding. christian self-understanding must “refer to the judaism of jesus’ time and to a degree also the judaism that developed from it over the ages…[since] coming to terms with judaism in one way or another is indispensable for christians.” the “living” tradition of israel is thus not confined to the first century. g&c definitely requires “coming to terms” with first-century judaism and also encourages catholics to engage later jewish self-understandings “to a degree.” this is realistic, especially given the virtual impossibility of fully understanding the diversity of judaism. paragraph 15 characterizes the relationship between christianity and this living judaism, presenting rabbinic judaism as, like christianity, a child of the judaism of the early first century, their common mother. as is the “normal course of events for siblings…they have developed in different directions.” this is simultaneously language of difference and parity, and hence of legitimacy. paragraphs 16-17 illuminate the consequences of this new understanding by placing it in deliberate contrast with its polemical predecessors. section 2 concludes by citing pope john paul ii’s 1986 speech in the great synagogue of rome, identifying jews as the church’s “dearly beloved brothers” and even its “elder brothers” (§20). 21 positive and deep engagement with living jews has challenged significant aspects of received catholic theology. the resultant tensions begin to be evident in section 3, and grow even deeper as the document progresses to its central topics. in their discussion of revelation, the authors ask how the positive understanding of post-biblical judaism that emerges from dialogue and joint study coheres with the church’s self-definition as the “new people of god” (lumen gentium 9 and 13)? nostra aetate, 4, offers an answer, stating: “although the church is the new people of god, the jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by god, as if this followed from the holy scriptures.” no catholic post-conciliar documents on jewish-christian relations prior to g&c (§23) cite this entire sentence and none explains its contrast between jews and the church. 22 fifty years later, after dialogue with living jews, and in a document that funda 21 i welcome that g&c employs the non-gendered “siblings” and moves to the historically more accurate metaphor of a common parent. 22 that jews are not to be “presented as rejected or accursed by god” has been reasonably widely cited in church documents, mostly in summaries of nostra aetate’s key teachings or in protest against some action deemed to violate it. see dialogika, which does not include the numerous relevant writings of theologians. langer: “gifts and calling”: the fruits of coming to know living jews 8 mentally calls for further reflection rather than offering authoritative answers, g&c tackles this conundrum. its two axes revolve around nostra aetate’s affirmation that the church is “the new people of god” and the newer, explicit claim that “[t]he church does not replace the people of god of israel.” 23 there is no hint here (or anywhere else in g&c) of the pre-conciliar replacement theology that understood the church itself to be not only the new people of god but the new israel. consistent with jewish self-understanding, the people israel now are always jews, and jews too are people of god. what remains unclear in christian theological terms is the implications of this for jews’ salvation. paragraphs 24-26 suggest an answer, based on an understanding that has become a commonplace as a result of study with jews and of locating the new testament in its jewish context. the prologue to the gospel of john, jewish aramaic translations of the bible, and later midrash (cf. genesis rabba 1:10) all use “word” as a metaphor, analogy, or name for god. in jewish tradition, this word is also god’s wisdom, i.e., torah, and in christian tradition, it is christ. 24 g&c not only acknowledges this analogy and cites pope francis’ affirmation of it, but states: for jews, this word can be learned through the torah and the traditions based on it. the torah is the instruction for a successful life in right relationship with god. whosoever observes the torah has life in its fullness (cf. pirqe avot ii, 7). by observing the torah the jew receives a share in communion with god (§24). most significant here is that the commission refers to a specific rabbinic text, demonstrating the benefit of turning to jewish tradition to understand judaism. the text, pirqe avot, is the most widely studied and hence the most influential tractate of the mishnah among jews. it thus shapes jewish understandings in a particularly fundamental way. 25 the affirmation that the christian old testament is genuinely open to both jewish and christian ways of interpretation opens the challenge of understanding how jews are participants in god’s salvation (as §36 puts it). paragraphs 25-26 reach for a resolution, asserting first that both traditions of scriptural interpreta 23 note that this phrase, while still not phrased in the positive, now describes what the church does not do rather than what israel is not. the answer that follows includes a discussion of the meaning of fulfillment that is important but ancillary to this essay. see the essays by cunningham and madges in this symposium. 24 see, for example, adele reinhartz’s commentary on john 1:1-3 in the jewish annotated new testament, ed. amy-jill levine and marc z. brettler (oxford/new york: oxford university press, 2011), 157. for a more detailed treatment, see daniel boyarin, “the gospel of the memra: jewish binitarianism and the prologue to john,” harvard theological review 94:3 (2001): 243-84 or the similar chapter in his border lines: the partition of judaeo-christianity (philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2004). 25 while the use of this text is symbolically significant, deeper study of it would have led the commission to present it with somewhat different language. see the forthcoming christian commentary on this text by daniel joslyn-siemiatkoski. 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) tion are legitimate responses to god’s word, salvific within their own contexts. following from this, §26 seeks to demonstrate how torah and its jewish interpretations may serve christian theology, alluding to multiple jewish (read: rabbinic) teachings. one has the sense that the document’s drafters are lifting up somewhat superficial parallels from jewish teachings in their seeking to engage with judaism–but this may be more a relic of the need to keep g&c relatively brief. 26 they conclude, “the hebrew dabar means word and event at the same time–and thus one may reach the conclusion that the word of the torah may be open for the christ event.” standing alone, this sentence might suggest an evangelizing intent, but in the context of this section and of the larger document, it seems more likely that this refers to the relevance of torah’s word for christians themselves, g&c’s primary audience. the reiteration of “may” here echoes the uncertainty in §14’s point that “coming to terms with judaism in one way or another is indispensable for christians.” the following sections turn to the inner-christian theological challenges that result from coming to know jews and judaism, particularly how the old and new covenants can be understood as unified, once they integrate living judaism (part 4), how jews can be saved if all salvation is through christ (part 5), and christians’ obligation to evangelize jews (part 6). isolated points in these discussions directly suggest actual lessons learned about jewish self-understanding, the most important being the opening sentence of part 6: “it is easy to understand that the so-called ‘mission to the jews’ is a very delicate and sensitive matter for jews because, in their eyes, it involves the very existence of the jewish people” (§40). it is also in these sections at the heart of g&c that one finds comments that most seriously point to the need for still deeper understanding of jews and judaism, especially the jewish concept of covenant. the most important of these appears in in §§32-33. 27 its overarching statement, “each of these covenants incorporates the previous covenant and interprets it in a new way,” does recognize that only christians recognize the new covenant as the “final eternal covenant and therefore the definitive interpretation of what was promised by the prophets of the old covenant.” however, its listing of old testament covenants moves from abraham, to sinai, to noah, and seems to say that the last extended israel’s particular covenants “with the rainbow as its sign (cf. “verbum domini,” 117), to the whole of creation (cf. gen 9:9ff)” ( §32). however, pope benedict xvi in his apostolic exhortation verbum domini simply acknowledged a “judeo-christian tradition” of reading the noahide covenant as referring to a universal relationship 26 david berger, at the february consultation that led to this symposium, invoked nachmanides at the 1263 barcelona disputation, suggesting that this paragraph uses midrashic texts according to the methods of medieval christian disputants, cherry-picking relevant sentences without attention to their larger contexts or to the non-authoritative nature of midrash. 27 the assertion at the beginning of part 5 that “there cannot be different paths or approaches to god’s salvation” also would benefit from discussion. however, it is a doctrinal mandate (see, for example, “notes,” i, 7, and the sources it cites). g&c is indeed struggling to make the new understandings of jews and judaism coherent with this. langer: “gifts and calling”: the fruits of coming to know living jews 10 with god, 28 a fundamentally accurate observation. he said nothing about its being an extension of the sinai covenant. this is a point of significant difference in jewish and christian understandings of covenant. for jews, the noahide covenant is a pre-abrahamic covenant of continuing universal validity. god expands its contents but narrows its human participants first to abraham’s family and then again to israel alone at sinai. ultimately, in jewish understanding, israel’s covenant with god is particular and god has other relationships with the rest of humanity; g&c tries to subsume jewish understanding into the christian doctrine that the new and eternal, single covenant is a universal one. g&c’s discussion of covenant does not engage with jewish understanding sufficiently at several other key points where our traditions’ understandings differ significantly. most importantly, it barely mentions the sinai covenant and its constitutive role for judaism, in spite of all its earlier discussions of torah. similarly, these paragraphs conclude with an assertion that the essence of the shared abrahamic covenant is its universality, something that israel is in danger of forgetting without the church (§33). in jewish understanding, the key elements of the abrahamic covenant are the promises of offspring, i.e., peoplehood, and homeland, and the human response of male circumcision. without the particularism of peoplehood reinforced by homeland, 29 israel would cease to exist and would lose any potential to be a blessing to others. a yet deeper understanding of judaism would engage with jewish interpretations of shared texts like the prophetic predictions of a new and eternal covenant and show sensitivity to the relative authority of pentateuchal over prophetic texts in rabbinic judaism. g&c’s final section points to work yet to be done by jews and christians together at all levels. the impact of dialogue and engagement with jews in the wake of nostra aetate has been substantial, and its effects are deeply evident in the ways that the framers of this reflection approached their undertaking and in the final result. there has been significant progress, expanding knowledge, and growing sensitivity towards the task identified, in the wake of nostra aetate, of “striv[ing] to learn by what essential traits jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience.” as, proverbially, two jews will hold three opinions on just about anything, and as jews often think in categories other than “religious experience,” this has not been an easy process, especially for catholic theologians accustomed to authoritatively decreed definitions of doctrine. thus, there remains much to do to build on the foundation of the last fifty years and to bring new generations into the discussion. but there is no question that the fruits of deep encounters with living jews have shaped this reflection in substantive and extremely positive and important ways. these engagements have led to its need to reflect publicly on challenging questions that will, hopefully, enliven the work of dialogue for years to come. 28 http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_benxvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html. 29 homeland exists as a jewish theological category even in absence from it. http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html 1 scjr 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-13 covenant, universal mission, and fulfillment william madges wmadges@sju.edu saint joseph’s university, philadelphia, pa 19131 this article was generated from the february 2016 saint joseph’s university “consultation on the newest statements about the christian-jewish relationship.” “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’” (g&c), a document issued by the pontifical commission for religious relations with the jews (crrj) in 2015, describes the impact of nostra aetate (no. 4) fifty years after its promulgation at the second vatican council. as the preface acknowledges, g&c not only looks back at what has been accomplished over the past several decades, but also provides a stimulus for the future by offering a “starting point for further theological thought with a view to enriching and intensifying the theological dimension of jewish–catholic dialogue.” 1 in the decades since the council, the dialogue between catholics and jews has developed considerably and bonds of friendship have formed between those engaged in such dialogue. this most recent vatican document affirms the positive conclusions that have resulted from it. however, there is considerable unresolved tension in g&c’s description of the theological relationship between judaism and christianity, between the old covenant and the new, between the old testament and the new. on one hand, the document confirms nostra aetate’s affirmation of the common spiritual patrimony of jews and christians (§29, §44) and its rejection of all forms of anti-semitism (§47). drawing upon the developments of subsequent years, g&c also declares the irrevocability (§27, §36) and continuing vitality of god’s covenant with the jewish people, which had been first clearly and explicitly affirmed by saint pope john paul ii. 2 it also rejects supersessionism or christian replacement theology (§17, §30, §32), which holds that god’s covenant with the jewish people has been superseded by god’s “new” covenant with christians, who have replaced jews as the recipients of god’s 1 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jewsdocs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html. numerical references in parentheses throughout this essay are references to specific articles of this commission document. 2 pope john paul ii, “address to the jewish community in mainz, germany,” november 17, 1980, in pope john paul ii on jews and judaism, 1979-1986, with introduction and commentary by eugene j. fisher and leon klenicki, eds. (washington, dc.: us catholic conference, 1987), 35. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html madges: covenant, universal mission, and fulfillment 2 promises. on the other hand, g&c states that the new covenant brings earlier covenants to fulfillment (§27), that the church represents the fulfillment of the promises made to israel (§23), and that the only path to salvation is through christ (§35). these competing statements raise serious questions: is it possible to affirm a theology of fulfillment that is not also supersessionist to some degree? if god’s covenant with the jews has not been revoked, but continues today, what is judaism’s contemporary mission? to what extent does the crrj document articulate an understanding of judaism’s mission that is consonant with jewish selfunderstanding? 3 in this essay i wish to argue several points: 1) g&c gives preference to a single-covenant understanding of the jewish-christian relationship and a concomitant theology of fulfillment, both of which strongly reflect traditional catholic teaching as it has been most recently articulated by pope benedict xvi, who authorized the preparation of g&c, but which was written after pope francis was elected; 2) a theology of fulfillment tends in the direction of supersessionism; and 3) g&c nevertheless contains resources for avoiding supersessionism and creating a more positive estimation of post-biblical judaism. one covenant and the mission of universality fulfilled in jesus the christ “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’” identifies the ultimate goal of god’s election of the jews as god’s chosen people to be the gathering together of all of humanity and leading them to god (§22). this goal is an intrinsic part of god’s plan of salvation. 4 according to g&c, there are not two paths to salvation; rather, a single path begins with the people israel and reaches its culmination with and in jesus (§34; also see §25). pope benedict articulated this understanding of a single covenant and a single path to salvation in his writings both prior to and after his election as pope. as a university professor in the 1950s and 1960s, joseph ratzinger had lectured on the philosophy and the history of religion. in that context, he declared that the history of religions reveals a dynamic development from primitive religion to mythical religion, which was then transcended in one of two ways—either in the form of mysticism or in what he called the monotheistic revolution, which at 3 “on the practical level in particular, christians must therefore strive to acquire a better knowledge of the basic components of the religious tradition of judaism; they must strive to learn by what essential traits the jews define themselves in light of their own religious experience.” commission for religious relations with the jews, guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration “nostra aetate” (n. 4), preamble. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jewsdocs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19741201_nostra-aetate_en.html 4 “god entrusted israel with a unique mission, and he does not bring his mysterious plan of salvation for all peoples (cf. 1 tim 2:4) to fulfilment without drawing into it his ‘first-born son’ (ex 4:22). from this it is self-evident that paul in the letter to the romans definitively negates the question he himself has posed, whether god has repudiated his own people. just as decisively he asserts: ‘for the gifts and the call of god are irrevocable.’ (rom 11:29)” (“the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable,” §36). http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19741201_nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19741201_nostra-aetate_en.html 3 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) tained classic form in ancient israel. 5 writing forty years later as cardinal, he refined his characterization of the two most recent stages of human religious development. instead of contrasting mysticism and monotheism, he now preferred to speak of “a mysticism of identity” in contrast to “a personal understanding of god.” 6 the path to a personal and true understanding of god, he declared, begins with abraham. it develops in the subsequent history of israel, and is further refined in the experience of the exile, the formulation of wisdom literature, and the transition of judaism into the greek world. according to ratzinger, the creation of the septuagint allowed the old testament to move beyond israel, “reaching out to all the peoples of the earth. that was indeed the effect this book had, and its translation did indeed in many respects further accentuate the universalistic trait in israel’s religion—not least, in its picture of god, since the name of god, jhwh, no longer appeared as such but was replaced by the word kyrios, ‘lord’.” 7 the faith of israel, translated into greek thought forms, was successful in attracting many of the enlightened minds of the ancient world. the question for ratzinger, however, was whether israel could succeed in bringing authentic knowledge of god to the entire world. and this is where christianity comes into the picture. according to ratzinger, the network of godfearers who were attracted to israel’s faith became “the precondition for the christian mission: christianity was that form of judaism, with a universal dimension, in which what the old testament had hitherto been yet unable to give was now fully granted.” 8 christianity made full universalism possible by making blood relationship with the patriarch, the particularist legal and moral structures of judaism, and the jewish cult no longer requisite for membership in god’s people. ratzinger concluded: thus the spiritual development that could be perceived in israel’s path had attained its goal, the uninterrupted universality that was now a practical possibility. reason and mystery had met together, the very fact that the whole had been brought together in one person [i.e., jesus] had opened the door for everyone: through the one god, all could become brothers and sisters. 9 ratzinger elaborated on this idea in a more focused way in many religions— one covenant. there he stated that the “faith of israel was directed to universality. since it is devoted to the one god of all men, it also bore within itself the 5 joseph cardinal ratzinger, truth and tolerance: christian belief and world religions (san francisco, ca: ignatius, 2004), 28-29. this portion of the book was originally written in 1963 for inclusion in a festschrift on the occasion of karl rahner’s sixtieth birthday. 6 ratzinger, truth and tolerance, 45. see also his many religions—one covenant: israel, the church, and the world, trans. graham harrison (san francisco, ca: ignatius, 1999), 95-100. 7 ratzinger, truth and tolerance, 153. 8 ibid., 154. 9 ibid., 156. see 155 for ratzinger’s description of how christianity brought about the breakthrough to full universalism. the chapter in which these comments are found was written in 1998. madges: covenant, universal mission, and fulfillment 4 promise to become the faith of all nations.” 10 that promise, however, was brought to fulfillment with and in jesus, whose mission was “to unite jews and pagans into a single people of god in which the universalist promises of the scriptures are fulfilled that speak again and again of the nations worshiping the god of israel.” 11 cardinal ratzinger continued this line of thought as pope: israel was given a universal mission by god; jesus and the church bring that mission to fulfilment. 12 in his jesus book, pope benedict states that the release of gentile converts from observance of the torah’s prescriptions concerning food, purity, and circumcision makes possible “the universalization of the people of god, as a result of which israel can now embrace all the peoples of the world; the god of israel has truly been brought to the nations, in accordance with the promises, and has now shown that he is the god of them all, the one god.” 13 if israel has a universal mission beyond serving as the “precondition” of christianity’s universalization of the 10 ratzinger, many religions, 38. similarly: “first of all we must remember that the fundamentally ‘new’ covenant—the covenant with abraham—has a universality orientation and looks toward the many sons who will be given to abraham” (68). see also his essay in l’osservatore romano (december 29, 2000), “the heritage of abraham: the gift of christmas”: “the task of the chosen people is, therefore, to make a gift of their god—the one true god—to every other people; in reality, as christians we are the inheritors of their faith in the one god.” (https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/ratzinger. htm). 11 ratzinger, many religions—one covenant, 26. see also 18-19, 28. again: “for, through the encounter with jesus of nazareth, the god of israel has become the god of the nations of the world. through him the promise has indeed been fulfilled that the nations shall pray to the god of israel as the one god, that the ‘mountain of the lord’ will be lifted up above the other mountains” (103-04). 12 concerning the universality of israel’s mission: “now, when we read the torah together with the entire old testament canon, the prophets, the psalms, and the wisdom literature, we realize very clearly a point that is already substantially present in the torah itself. that is, israel does not exist simply for itself in order to live according to the ‘eternal’ dispositions of the law—it exists to be a light to the nations. in the psalms and the prophetic books we hear more and more clearly the promise that god’s salvation will come to all the nations. we hear more and more clearly that the god of israel—being, as he is, the only god, the true god, the creator of heaven and earth, the god of all people and all men, who holds their fate in his hands—does not wish to abandon the nations to themselves” (pope benedict xvi, jesus of nazareth: from the baptism in the jordan to the transfiguration, trans. adrian j. walker [new york: image, 2007], 116). 13 ibid., 100 and 101. see also 117. without endorsing benedict’s theology of fulfillment, some jewish scholars have acknowledged christianity’s role in bringing people into relationship with god. dabru emet: a jewish statement on christians and christianity, for example, concludes that “through christianity hundreds of millions of people have entered into relationship with the god of israel.” see michael signer, “the covenant in recent theological statements,” in two faiths, one covenant? jewish and christian identity in the presence of the other, eds. eugene b. korn and john t. pawlikowski (new york: sheed & ward, 2005), 118. in the same volume, eugene korn affirms that jews and christians have “the same goal of making the god of abraham known in the world, ‘to be a blessing for all the nations of the earth’” (153). see also the orthodox document, to do the will of our father in heaven: toward a partnership between jews and christians, #3: “as did maimonides and yehudah halevi, we acknowledge that christianity is neither an accident nor an error, but the willed divine outcome and gift to the nations.” http://cjcuc.com/site/2015/12/03/orthodox-rabbinicstatement-on-christianity/ https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/ratzinger.htm) https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/ratzinger.htm) http://cjcuc.com/site/2015/12/03/orthodox-rabbinic-statement-on-christianity/ http://cjcuc.com/site/2015/12/03/orthodox-rabbinic-statement-on-christianity/ 5 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) people of god, benedict does not indicate here what it is or what jews believe it to be. this understanding of the respective roles of judaism and christianity in fulfilling the universal mission of bringing knowledge of god and the possibility of salvation to all people finds echoes throughout g&c. for example, the document asserts that jesus “fulfils the mission and expectation of israel in a perfect way” (§14). the jewish jesus movement “opens up other horizons and transcends its purely jewish origins” (§15). while insisting that god’s covenant with the people israel has not been abrogated, g&c does insist that the “old” covenant has been fulfilled in the new, which reinforces the personal nature of god as revealed in the old covenant and establishes it as “openness for all who respond faithfully from all the nations” (§27). 14 in this covenant community it should be evident for christians that the covenant that god concluded with israel has never been revoked but remains valid on the basis of god’s unfailing faithfulness to his people, and consequently the new covenant which christians believe in can only be understood as the affirmation and fulfilment of the old. christians are therefore also convinced that through the new covenant the abrahamic covenant has obtained that universality for all peoples which was originally intended in the call of abram (cf. gen 12:1-3). this recourse to the abrahamic covenant is so essentially constitutive of the christian faith that the church without israel would be in danger of losing its locus in the history of salvation. by the same token, jews could with regard to the abrahamic covenant arrive at the insight that israel without the church would be in danger of remaining too particularist and of failing to grasp the universality of its experience of god (§33). 15 14 see also §30 and §32 of “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’.” a similar description of the relationship between the old and new covenants can be found in the pontifical biblical commission’s 2001 document, the jewish people and their sacred scriptures, ii.a.5 (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_200202 12_popoloebraico_en.html#5.%20the%20unity%20of%20god's%20plan%20and%20the%20idea%20of%20fulfil ment). 15 rabbi david rosen, one of two jewish scholars who participated in the official presentation of the document to the public, commented as follows on g&c’s assertion that the church and israel mutually need each other: “permit me to note that there is hardly a symmetry in these regards. the former expresses an understanding of the intrinsic character of the church, while the latter warns against a possible misunderstanding and maybe even abuse of the jewish concept of election and loss of a sense of universal responsibility. not only is there a profound asymmetry between the two in as much as the church’s need for israel is a matter of christianity’s foundational self-understanding; but the real danger of ethnic insularity is hardly something of which judaism was unaware before the emergence of christianity and for which judaism is specifically in ‘need’ of the church.” he added: “however the very fact that we can talk about complementarity is itself a powerful demonstration of how far we have come along this remarkable journey of transformation and reconciliation between catholics and jews over the last half century” (http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documentsand-statements/analysis/crrj-2015dec10/1365-rosen-2015dec10). http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html#5.%20the%20unity%20of%20god's%20plan%20and%20the%20idea%20of%20fulfilment http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html#5.%20the%20unity%20of%20god's%20plan%20and%20the%20idea%20of%20fulfilment http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html#5.%20the%20unity%20of%20god's%20plan%20and%20the%20idea%20of%20fulfilment http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html#5.%20the%20unity%20of%20god's%20plan%20and%20the%20idea%20of%20fulfilment http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html#5.%20the%20unity%20of%20god's%20plan%20and%20the%20idea%20of%20fulfilment http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analysis/crrj-2015dec10/1365-rosen-2015dec10 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analysis/crrj-2015dec10/1365-rosen-2015dec10 madges: covenant, universal mission, and fulfillment 6 what is clear neither in g&c nor in the statements of cardinal ratzinger/pope benedict xvi that precede it, is the nature of israel’s mission after christ. if the divine mission was to bring the possibility of relationship with the one true god to all peoples, and if that mission came to fulfillment in jesus and with the church, what is left for israel to do with regard to the rest of humanity? fulfillment without replacement? it is clear that “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’” wishes to affirm, in keeping with traditional catholic teaching, that christ and the church represent the fulfillment of the promises made to the people israel, while also rejecting the notion that israel has been replaced as god’s chosen. this dual affirmation, however, creates a significant tension that g&c struggles to resolve. dr. edward kessler, one of two jewish scholars who participated in the official presentation of the document to the public, highlighted the problematic aspect of fulfillment theology in his comments as the document was made public. 16 other scholars have pointed to the same problematic: fulfillment thinking is characterized by an ongoing tension translated into thinking patterns such as promise-fulfillment, unfinished-finished, imperfectperfect, etc. admittedly, in these schemes the focus is not on the substitution of israel by the church, but on the fulfillment of the first covenant by the second, even though this fulfillment is usually considered in an eschatological way. . . . because fulfillment thinking does not sufficiently recognize the intrinsic—and as such lasting—value and significance of judaism, the catholic church has difficulty in definitively detaching herself from substitution thinking. according to us, fulfillment thinking remains kindred to replacement thinking. 17 in many religions—one covenant, cardinal ratzinger attempted to avoid the conclusion that the theory of christian fulfillment entails the abrogation of is 16 “discussion of covenantal theology is witnessing a resurgence in contemporary conversations between christian and jewish scholars and i welcome the new document’s assertion that ‘the new covenant for christians is therefore neither the annulment nor the replacement, but the fulfillment of the promises of the old covenant.’ however, please allow me to express a warning: fulfillment easily slides into replacement and substitution theory is alive and well in the pews” (http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analysis/crrj-2015dec10/1366kessler-2015dec10). 17 see marianne moyaert and didier pollefeyt, “israel and the church: fulfillment beyond supersessionism?” in never revoked: nostra aetate as ongoing challenge for jewish-christian dialogue, eds. moyaert and pollefeyt (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 2010), 165. in the same volume, see also john t. pawlikowski, “reflections on covenant and mission forty years after nostra aetate,” 65. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analysis/crrj-2015dec10/1366-kessler-2015dec10) http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/analysis/crrj-2015dec10/1366-kessler-2015dec10) 7 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) rael’s special mission. 18 there he stated that israel has a particular mission and that jews must remain alongside christians as “a witness to the world.” in response to the question, what does this witness say?, ratzinger identified two things that are essential to the faith of israel: first, “the torah, the commitment to god’s will and the establishment of his rule, his kingdom in this world;” and second, “the hope, the expectation of the messiah; the expectation, even the certainty, that god himself will step into this history and create justice—for the forms of justice we ourselves set up are very imperfect.” 19 however, insofar as christianity is presented as having assumed and having fulfilled the universal mission of advocating commitment to the one god and insofar as christianity proclaims that the messiah has already come, post-biblical judaism appears to be stripped of a unique and distinctive mission. ratzinger’s heavy emphasis on the continuity between israel and the church, understood in terms of promisefulfillment, robs israel/judaism of its independent identity. 20 although ratzinger states that the sinai covenant has not been abrogated, he does claim that it has been superseded and renewed. 21 as pope, benedict gave voice to similar statements. 22 in the end, his understanding of the relationship between judaism and christianity appears to succumb to a form of supersessionism. 23 g&c attempts to avoid supersessionism while continuing to uphold the christian conviction that the new covenant in and through christ represents the fulfillment of the old. the document repeatedly affirms that the old covenant has 18 “the mission of jesus consists in bringing together the histories of the nations in the community of the history of abraham, the history of israel. . . . the history of israel should become the history of all. abraham’s sonship is to be extended to the ‘many.’ this course of events has two aspects to it: the nations can enter into the community of the promises of israel in entering into the community of the one god, who now becomes and must become the way of all because there is only one god and because his will is therefore truth for all. conversely, this means that all nations, without the abolishment of the special mission of israel, become brothers and receivers of the promises of the chosen people; they become people of god with israel through adherence to the will of god and through acceptance of the davidic kingdom” [emphasis added] (ratzinger, many religions—one covenant, 2728). 19 ibid., 104-05. 20 see hermann häring, “’wer jesus christus begegnet, begegnet dem judentum’: das verhältnis benedikts xvi. zu israel,” zeitschrift für religionsund geistesgeschichte 59 (2007): 43 and 46. see also steven d. aguzzi, “one step forward, two steps back: supersessionism and pope benedict xvi’s eschatological ecclesiology concerning israel and the jewish people,” journal of ecumenical studies 49 (2014): 612. 21 “thus the sinai covenant is indeed superseded. but once what was provisional in it has been swept away, we see what is truly definitive in it. so the expectation of the new covenant, which becomes clearer and clearer as the history of israel unfolds, does not conflict with the sinai covenant; rather, it fulfills the dynamic expectation found in that very covenant” (ratzinger, many religions—one covenant, 70-71). 22 pope benedict xvi, jesus of nazareth: from the baptism in the jordan to the transfiguration, 100-02, 119, and 126. 23 “however sophisticated and nuanced cardinal ratzinger’s reading of the covenants is, in the end it seems thoroughly supersessionist” (mary c. boys, “the covenant in contemporary ecclesial documents,” in two faiths, one covenant? jewish and christian identity in the presence of the other, eds. eugene b. korn and john t. pawlikowski [new york: sheed & ward, 2005], 105). madges: covenant, universal mission, and fulfillment 8 not been revoked. but, as mary boys has observed: “to assert that the ‘old covenant’ has not been revoked carries little import if there is no theological reason for the existence of judaism after the coming of jesus christ. the major question is thus: beyond recognizing judaism’s ‘permanent spiritual fecundity,’ can catholics say anything significant about judaism’s mission in relationship to christianity?” 24 resources beyond supersessionism “‘the gifts and the calling of god are irrevocable’” contains resources for constructing an understanding of the jewish-christian relationship that steers clear of supersessionism, whether explicit or implicit. we find those resources especially in sections of the document that describe that relationship in familial terms and that emphasize the uniqueness of each tradition. in vatican documents and papal statements from nostra aetate to the present, familial language has been used to describe the relationship between judaism and christianity. how the “family relationship” is described has important theological implications. for christians to speak of jews as their “elder brothers,” as saint pope john paul ii did on many occasions, 25 suggests that christianity and judaism share a common origin, but have developed in different ways, without one supplanting the other. for christians to speak of jews as their “fathers in faith,” as pope benedict was wont to do, on the other hand, seems to assign judaism the exclusive role of providing the originating foundation of christianity. such language suggests, at least implicitly, that christians have the primary, if not exclusive task of carrying on the legacy of the “fathers.” both familial ways of speaking about the jewish-christian relationship are mentioned in g&c (§14). sibling language, however, receives more explicit and developed treatment (see §15 and 16). sibling language enables g&c to affirm both the intrinsic connection and the unique difference between jews and christians. in article 15 we read: the soil that nurtured both jews and christians is the judaism of jesus’ time, which not only brought forth christianity but also, after the destruction of the 24 ibid., 82. 25 john paul ii most famously used this language during his historic visit to the synagogue of rome on april 13, 1986. see “to representatives of the jewish community of rome at the great synagogue,” april 13, 1986, in john paul ii and interreligious dialogue, eds. byron l. sherwin and harold kasimow (maryknoll, ny: orbis, 1999), 74. “brother language” can also be found in the statements of pope benedict xvi. see, for example, post-synodal apostolic exhortation, verbum domini, §43 (http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_benxvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html); address to the french jewish community (september 12, 2008), http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2008/september/documents/hf_benxvi_spe_20080912_parigi-juive.html; address to dr. riccardo di segni, chief rabbi of rome (january 16, 2006), http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/january/documents/hf_benxvi_spe_20060116_rabbino-roma.html. http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2008/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080912_parigi-juive.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2008/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080912_parigi-juive.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060116_rabbino-roma.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060116_rabbino-roma.html 9 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) temple in the year 70, post-biblical rabbinical judaism which then had to do without the sacrificial cult and, in its further development, had to depend exclusively on prayer and the interpretation of both written and oral divine revrevelation. thus jews and christians have the same mother and can be seen, as it were, as two siblings who–as is the normal course of events for siblings– have developed in different directions. 26 the idea of a close sibling relationship—a kind of unity in diversity—is further elaborated when g&c describes the dialogue between judaism and christianity as “intrafamilial” rather than “interreligious” (§20). another resource for developing an understanding of the jewish-christian relationship that appreciates the integrity, distinctiveness, and ongoing validity of judaism is g&c’s treatment of revelation. in §24 we read that god revealed godself in the word, which invites all people to respond. that word can be learned through the torah and it can be learned in and through jesus the christ. quoting pope francis’ address to members of the international council of christians and jews (june 30, 2015), g&c continues: christians believe that jesus christ is the word of god made flesh in the world; for jews the word of god is present above all in the torah. both faith traditions find their foundation in the one god, the god of the covenant, who reveals himself through his word. in seeking a right attitude towards god, christians turn to christ as the fount of new life, and jews to the teaching of the torah. this theme continues in §25, where g&c states that judaism and the christian faith as seen in the new testament are “two ways by which god’s people can make the sacred scriptures of israel their own.” subsequent articles highlight judaism’s and christianity’s differences, without sundering their close connection. g&c states that the covenant, which means a relationship with god, “takes effect in different ways for jews and christians” (§27). reflecting on paul’s image of the root of israel as the olive tree onto which the wild branches of the gentiles have been grafted (rom 11:16-21), the document states: with this image paul gives expression to the duality of the unity and divergence of israel and the church. on the one hand the image is to be taken seriously in the sense that the grafted wild branches have not their origin as branches in the plant onto which they are grafted and their new situation represents a new reality and a new dimension of god’s work of salvation, so that the christian church cannot merely be understood as a branch or a fruit of israel (cf. mt 8:10-13). on the other hand, the image is also to be taken seriously in the sense that the church draws nourishment and strength from the root of israel, and that the grafted branches would wither or even die if 26 sibling language is also found in article 16. madges: covenant, universal mission, and fulfillment 10 they were cut off from the root of israel (cf. “ecclesia in medio oriente”, 21). (§34) this emphasis upon the distinctiveness of each tradition is consonant with a theory of “double covenant,” which sees jews and christians “bonded despite their somewhat distinctive appropriation of the original covenant tradition.” this theory highlights “the distinctiveness of the two communities and their traditions particularly in terms of their experiences after the final separation of the church and synagogue.” 27 intimations of the unity in diversity of judaism and christianity, rooted in their distinctive responses to revelation, can also be found in some of pope benedict’s statements. 28 the elements in g&c that block a relapse into supersessionism, however, stand in tension with its articulation of the idea of a single covenant that reached fulfillment in christ. in order to show how it is possible to acknowledge the present and continuing vitality of god’s covenant with the jews, while simultaneously affirming the “fulfilling” work of christ, g&c needs to clearly articulate what it means by “fulfillment.” a detailed description of “fulfillment,” however, is absent in g&c. instead, it asserts that the fulfillment of the promises made to israel is found in christ and the church, while rejecting the idea that jews after the time of christ are no longer god’s people. 27 john t. pawlikowski, “reflections on covenant and mission forty years after nostra aetate,” in never revoked, 76. although he favors the double-covenant approach, pawlikowski admits that “neither the single nor double covenantal perspective adequately addresses all the important issues, at least from the christian side” (79). see also walter cardinal kasper, “the relationship of the old and the new covenant as one of the central issues in jewish-christian dialogue,” a paper delivered at the centre for the study of jewish-christian relations, cambridge, england (december 6, 2004), available at http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kasper/652kasper04dec6-1 28 “for example, see his address to the delegation of the chief rabbinate of israel and the holy see’s commission for religious relations with the jews (march 12, 2009), http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2009/march/documents/hf_benxvi_spe_20090312_rabbinate-israel.html. in his address to the chief rabbi of rome (january 16, 2006), he stated: “in christ we participate in the same heritage of the fathers as you, to serve almighty god ‘with one accord’ (zep 3: 9), grafted onto the one holy trunk (cf. is 6: 13; rom 11: 16) of the people of god.” (http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/january/documents/hf_benxvi_spe_20060116_rabbino-roma.html). during his visit to the synagogue of rome on january 17, 2010, he acknowledged the differences between jews and christians, who nonetheless are united in responding to god’s call. see his address during his visit to the synagogue of rome, §8 and 9 (http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2010/january/documents/hf_benxvi_spe_20100117_sinagoga.html). see also the apostolic exhortation, verbum domini, §40: “moreover, the new testament itself claims to be consistent with the old and proclaims that in the mystery of the life, death and resurrection of christ the sacred scriptures of the jewish people have found their perfect fulfilment. it must be observed, however, that the concept of the fulfilment of the scriptures is a complex one, since it has three dimensions: a basic aspect of continuity with the old testament revelation, an aspect of discontinuity and an aspect of fulfilment and transcendence.” see also §43. http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kasper/652-kasper04dec6-1 http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/kasper/652-kasper04dec6-1 http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2009/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20090312_rabbinate-israel.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2009/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20090312_rabbinate-israel.html file:///c:/users/fitzpace/downloads/(http:/w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060116_rabbino-roma.html file:///c:/users/fitzpace/downloads/(http:/w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060116_rabbino-roma.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2010/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20100117_sinagoga.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2010/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20100117_sinagoga.html 11 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) the church is called the new people of god (cf. "nostra aetate", no.4) but not in the sense that the people of god of israel has ceased to exist. . . . the church does not replace the people of god of israel, since as the community founded on christ it represents in him the fulfilment of the promises made to israel. this does not mean that israel, not having achieved such a fulfilment, can no longer be considered to be the people of god. (§23) drawing upon the theological reflection and intrafamilial dialogue of the last several decades, g&c also affirms the salvific character of jews’ relationship with god while also declaring that christ is the one savior of all. because of god’s universal salvific will, there are “not two paths to salvation according to the expression ‘jews hold to the torah, christians hold to christ’. christian faith proclaims that christ’s work of salvation is universal and involves all mankind. god’s word is one single and undivided reality which takes concrete form in each respective historical context” (§25). 29 from the assertion that there is only one path to salvation, “it does not in any way follow that the jews are excluded from god’s salvation because they do not believe in jesus christ as the messiah of israel and the son of god” (§36). however, g&c is forced to admit that how it is possible that jews participate in god’s salvation without confessing christ explicitly “is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery.” philip cunningham points to a “trinitarian logos christology” as providing a way to untangle this mystery. to be in covenant with god means to be in a permanent relationship with god; to be in relationship with god means being a part of god’s plan of salvation for the world. because god’s covenant with the jews has not been abrogated, jews continue to share in god’s plan of salvation, which is brought to its culmination in the eschaton, the age to come. cunningham argues that, from a christian perspective, jewish covenantal life with god necessarily involves an implicit connection with christ as the divine logos because god is a tri-unity of father, son, and spirit. without wanting to turn jews into “anonymous christians,” he argues that a trinitarian logos christology affirms “jewish covenantal life without it having to be predicated on experiencing ‘christ,’ i.e., as experiencing the logos incarnated. nonetheless, again from a christian perspective, the incarnated logos cannot be absent from israel's ongoing walking in god's way.” 30 this point is reiterated and developed in a subsequent essay that cunningham authored together with didier pollefeyt. 31 in response to the query why jews do not enter into covenant with god explicitly 29 similarly, §35: “the theory that there may be two different paths to salvation, the jewish path without christ and the path with the christ, whom christians believe is jesus of nazareth, would in fact endanger the foundations of christian faith. confessing the universal and therefore also exclusive mediation of salvation through jesus christ belongs to the core of christian faith.” 30 philip a. cunningham, “’no religion is an island’: catholic and jewish theologies of each other,” modern judaism 29 (2009): 31. 31 philip a. cunningham and didier pollefeyt, “the triune one, the incarnate logos, and israel’s covenantal life,” in christ jesus and the jewish people today, eds. phillip a. cunningham et al. (grand rapids, mi: eerdmans, 2011), 183-201. madges: covenant, universal mission, and fulfillment 12 through the logos incarnated in jesus christ for the salvation of all, they reply that it must be part of the divine plan for the jewish and christian communities to live in covenant with god according to “two organically connected modalities,” whose relationship will ultimately reach fulfillment at the eschaton. 32 in a different context, some earlier theologians had attempted to explain how it might be possible for those without explicit faith in christ to be saved. domingo de soto (1494-1560), reflecting upon the discovery of the “new world” whose indigenous inhabitants had never heard the gospel, argued that faith in christ was implied by faith in god. juan de lugo (1583-1660) went further by applying this line of reasoning not only to those who had never heard the gospel preached, but also to people who knew about christ, but either did not believe in him or had a faith that was not orthodox. in his treatise on the virtue of divine faith, he wrote that pagans, muslims, and others are obliged by the first preaching of the christian gospel to inquire further into its truth. but he conceded that such personal inquiry might not uncover sufficient reasons for them to conclude that they ought to embrace the christian faith. in short, “de lugo dared to suggest that some who sincerely sought the truth might not recognize it in the christian religion, and might still be saved by the faith in god which they found in their own religion.” 33 de lugo’s ideas can be applied to judaism: the jewish “no” to jesus does not mean that god’s covenant with the jews has been abrogated or that jews have been excluded from salvation. of course, speaking of jewish covenantal life as an expression of an implicit relationship with the logos (and the spirit) is a christian way of understanding the relationship jews have with god; it is not how jews themselves understand jewish covenantal life. 34 although an earlier document of the crrj said that catholics “must strive to learn by what essential traits the jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience,” 35 that requirement does not demand that catholics abandon their own self-understanding or their perspective on god’s activity in the world. as rabbi abraham heschel could say from a jewish perspective, “all those who worship their gods do not know it, but they are really worshipping [the god of israel].” 36 conclusion g&c reiterates the positive statements of nostra aetate concerning jewishcatholic relations and provides an impetus for deepened theological reflection 32 ibid., 200. 33 francis a. sullivan, salvation outside the church? (new york: paulist, 1992), 97 and 98. 34 adam gregerman, “a jewish response to elizabeth groppe, philip a. cunningham and didier pollefeyt and gregor maria hoff,” in christ jesus and the jewish people today, 224-25. 35 pontifical commission for religious relations with the jews, “guidelines and suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration nostra aetate no. 4,” preamble. available at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jewsdocs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19741201_nostra-aetate_en.html. 36 harold kasimow and byron sherwin, eds., no religion is an island: abraham joshua heschel and interreligious dialogue (maryknoll, ny: orbis, 1991), 14. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19741201_nostra-aetate_en.html http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19741201_nostra-aetate_en.html 13 studies in christian-jewish relations 12, no. 1 (2017) upon that relationship. its clear rejection of supersessionism and its equally clear affirmation of the ongoing validity of god’s covenant with the jews, however, stand in tension with its affirmation of covenantal fulfillment in christ. because g&c describes biblical judaism’s mission as bringing knowledge of the one true god to the nations, a mission said to be fulfilled with the coming of christ, the document leaves the contemporary mission of post-biblical judaism an open question. nonetheless, the document contains elements that can prevent sliding back into a weakened form of supersessionism and identifies issues upon which further theological reflection is needed if the legacy of nostra aetate is to be fruitfully advanced. one such issue is whether the theory of a single covenant lived in two modalities or the theory of a double covenant, in which jews and christians are closely bonded to one another, or some alternative model for understanding the relationship of judaism and christianity is best able to lay firmer ground for the conviction that jewish covenantal life continues to have a distinct purpose in the plan of salvation. similarly, deeper exploration of trinitarian logos christology may help to explain how it is possible that jews participate in god’s salvation without confessing christ explicitly.